Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Volume/Issue:
Volume 72: Issue 1
A bronze hoard from Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó puszta) and a grave assemblage from Ráksi (County Somogy) in the Piarist Museum in Budapest
Author:
Katalin JankovitsPázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Humanities, Mikszáth Kálmán tér 1, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Katalin Jankovits in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3223-9038
View More View Less
Pages:
1–20
Online Publication Date:
03 Aug 2021
Publication Date:
03 Aug 2021
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1556/072.2021.00001
Keywords:
Middle Bronze Age; Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture; hoard; grave assemblage; Koszider horizon
Open access

Abstract

In 1917, the Piarist gymnasium in Budapest (currently the Piarist Museum) acquired two important Middle Bronze Age assemblages: a hoard of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture from Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta) (RB A2b-c) and what was probably a grave assemblage of the Koszider period from Ráksi (RB B1). Neither of these two finds has yet been fully published; J. Hampel only presented a typological selection of the finds. Archaeological scholarship lost sight of these two important assemblages after World War 2, which finally resurfaced in the exhibition organised by the Budapest History Museum in 2017. The typochronological assessment and archaeometallurgica examination of the two assemblages shed fresh light on the differences between the metalwork of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture and that of the later Koszider period.

Abstract

In 1917, the Piarist gymnasium in Budapest (currently the Piarist Museum) acquired two important Middle Bronze Age assemblages: a hoard of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture from Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta) (RB A2b-c) and what was probably a grave assemblage of the Koszider period from Ráksi (RB B1). Neither of these two finds has yet been fully published; J. Hampel only presented a typological selection of the finds. Archaeological scholarship lost sight of these two important assemblages after World War 2, which finally resurfaced in the exhibition organised by the Budapest History Museum in 2017. The typochronological assessment and archaeometallurgica examination of the two assemblages shed fresh light on the differences between the metalwork of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture and that of the later Koszider period.

Introduction

A Middle Bronze Age hoard (19th–18th centuries BC) made up of various bronze artefacts, mainly jewellery, of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture came to light in 1893 in an area known as Melegárok at Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta, County Somogy) (Fig. 1). The hoard was first published by Gyula Melhárd in 1895,1 and later described by József Hampel in 1896, although without a description of all the hoard's articles.2 The assemblage first became part of the collection of Alajos Bertalan, a former Piarist student, who later worked as an estate steward in Mernye, and thence made its way into the Historical Collection of the Piarist Museum.3 Although believed to have been lost for a long time, the hoard was nevertheless regularly cited in Hungarian and international archaeological literature.4 The Piarist Collection was kept intact and saved during World War 2 and the ensuing communist period, and after the political transition in 1989, the collection was re-organised. In 2017, the two Bronze Age assemblages were displayed in the Budapest History Museum as part of the exhibition showcasing the collection of the Piarist Museum.5

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

1. Ráksi; 2. Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta), County Somogy

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

The bronze hoard from Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta)

The hoard contains 126 artefacts, and the weight of the hoard is ca. 987 g. The hoard is made up of intact and fragmented swallowtail pendants (originally 33 pieces), ten disc pendants, two cast heart-shaped pendants, a comb-shaped pendant, 72 spirally wound wire tube beads, four tube beads rolled from sheet metal, a neckring, a disc-headed pin, a spiral bracelet and a triangular dagger (Fig. 2). The artefacts are covered with green patina: they did not undergo any conservation treatment.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta): selection of the hoard's finds

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

Description of the finds

Pendants

Cast swallowtail pendants (Schwalbenschwanzförmige or Ankerförmige Anhänger)

The pendants have a rounded upper part and two arms with recurved terminals; they were suspended by means of a round, oval or irregular perforation through the upper part. Different moulds were used for their casting; after casting, the edges were filed smooth and the pendant was polished. The hoard contains both intact and fragmented pieces. There were originally 33 pendants, of which 31 survive (PM inv. no. 2013.11.15).

  1. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 10.1 cm, H.: 6.5 cm, Wt.: 17.6 g (Fig. 3.1).

  2. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 9.9 cm, H.: 5.1 cm, Wt.: 16.40 g (Fig. 3.2).

  3. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 4.5 cm, H.: 3.4 cm, Wt.: 2.90 g (Fig. 3.3).

  4. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 5.8 cm, H.: 3.2 cm, Wt.: 6.45 g (Fig. 3.4).

  5. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 9.9 cm, H.: 5.1 cm, Wt.: 16.40 g (Fig. 3.5).

  6. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 8.0 cm, H.: 5.0 cm, Wt.:13.40 g (Fig. 3.6).

  7. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 7.0 cm, H.: 3.7 cm, Wt.: 7.45 g (Fig. 3.7).

  8. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 8.4 cm, H.: 4.9 cm, Wt.: 15.05 g (Fig. 3.8).

  9. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.:10.2 cm, H.: 5.4 cm, Wt.: 17.50 g (Fig. 3.9).

  10. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 5.9 cm, H.: 3.2 cm, Wt.: 6.50 g (Fig. 3.10).

  11. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 7.9 cm, H.: 5.5 cm, Wt.: 15.50 g (Fig. 3.11).

  12. Swallowtail pendant, cast L.: 8.3 cm, H.: 3.8 cm, Wt.: 8.90 g (Fig. 3.12).

  13. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 6.4 cm, H.: 3.7 cm, Wt.: 6.40 g (Fig. 3.13).

  14. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 8.1 cm, H.: 4.2 cm, Wt.: 7.05 g (Fig. 3.14).

  15. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 6.4 cm, H.: 4.8 cm, Wt.: 12.45 g (Fig. 3.15).

  16. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 8.1 cm, H.: 3.5 cm, Wt.: 12.90 g (Fig. 3.16).

  17. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 8.0 cm, H.: 3.5 cm, Wt.: 5.95 g (Fig. 3.17).

  18. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 8.0 cm, H.: 4.1 cm, Wt.: 10.95 g (Fig. 3.18).

  19. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 8.2 cm, H.: 5.4 cm, Wt.: 11.5 g (Fig. 3.19).

  20. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 5.6 cm, H.: 4.3 cm, Wt.: 7.35 g (Fig. 3.20).

  21. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 5.8 cm, H.: 2.7 cm, Wt.: 6.80 g (Fig. 4.4).

  22. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 5.8 cm, H.: 3.2 cm, Wt.: 6.55 g (Fig. 4.5).

  23. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 4.6 cm, H.: 3.1 cm, Wt.: 5.95 g (Fig. 4.6).

  24. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 6.7 cm, H.: 3.5 cm, Wt.: 8.10 g (Fig. 4.7).

  25. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 6.5 cm, H.: 3.1 cm, Wt.: 7.40 g (Fig. 4.8).

  26. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 7.9 cm, H.: 3.7 cm, Wt.: 10.50 g (Fig. 4.11).

  27. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 6.2 cm. H.: 3.0 cm, Wt.: 7.25 g (Fig. 4.12).

  28. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 6.1 cm, H.: 3.0 cm, Wt.: 6.80 g (Fig. 4.13).

  29. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 6.4 cm, H.: 3.2 cm, Wt.: 7.10 g (Fig. 4.14).

  30. Swallowtail pendant, cast. L.: 6.2 cm, H.: 3.1 cm, Wt.: 7.40 g (Fig. 4.15).

  31. Swallowtail pendant, cast, fragmented. L.: 5.4 cm, H.: 3.7 cm, W.: 5.80 g (Fig. 4.16).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta): pendants

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta): pendants and beads

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

Cast disc pendants (Scheibenförmige Anhänger)

A. Cast disc pendant with a central boss and two raised crossing ribs, a raised rib around the edge and a perforation for suspension. Some have casting flaws. Five larger and two smaller exemplars, cast using different moulds (PM inv. no. 2013.11.9., 10.).

  1. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, two crossing ribs and a raised rib around the edge. There is a round perforation for suspension and an irregular casting flaw in the disc's middle part. Diam.: 5.8 cm, Wt.: 36.70 g (Fig. 5.8).

  2. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, two crossing ribs and a raised rib around the edge. There is a round perforation for suspension and an irregular casting flaw in the disc's middle part. Diam.: 5.2 cm, Wt.: 39.00 g (Fig. 5.9).

  3. Cast, strongly fragmented disc pendant with a central boss, two crossing ribs and a raised rib around the edge. There is an irregular perforation for suspension and an irregular casting flaw on one side. Diam.: 5.6 cm, Wt.: 26.00 g (Fig. 5.10).

  4. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, two crossing ribs and a raised rib around the edge. There is an irregular perforation for suspension, alongside various casting flaws. Diam.: 5.8 cm, Wt.: 30.60 g (Fig. 5.11).

  5. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, two crossing ribs and a raised rib around the edge. There is a round perforation for suspension and an irregular casting flaw in the disc's middle part. Diam.: 5.5 cm, Wt.: 31.20 g (Fig. 5.12).

  6. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, two crossing ribs and a raised rib around the edge. There is a round perforation for suspension and an irregular casting flaw along the disc's edge. Diam.: 3.2 cm, Wt.: 7.70 g (Fig. 5.4).

  7. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, two crossing ribs and a raised rib around the edge. There is an irregular perforation for suspension. The disc's edge is irregular, probably owing to miscasting. Diam.: 3.2 cm, Wt.: 8.50 g (Fig. 5.5).

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta): penants and beads

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

B. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, a raised rib around the edge and a perforation for suspension. Three pieces (one larger and two smaller), cast using different moulds (PM. no. 2013.11.11, 12).

  1. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, a raised rib around the edge and a perforation for suspension. Diam.: 5.0 cm, Wt.: 19.80 g (Fig. 5.1).

  2. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, a raised rib around the damaged edge and a perforation for suspension. Diam.: 2.6 cm, Wt.: 4.60 g (Fig. 5.2).

  3. Cast disc pendant with a central boss, a raised rib around the damaged edge and a perforation for suspension. Diam.: 2.7 cm, Wt.: 4.30 g (Fig. 5.3).

Cast inverted heart-shaped pendant

(herzförmige Blechanhänger) with the upper end rolled back to form a suspension loop. Two pieces (PM inv. no. 2013.11. 6–7).

  1. Cast inverted heart-shaped pendant with the upper end rolled back to form a suspension loop. H.: 5.7 cm, W.: 5.2 cm Wt.: 12.30 g (Fig. 4.10).

  2. Cast inverted heart-shaped pendant with the upper end rolled back to form a suspension loop. H.: 4.6 cm, Wt.: 3.5 cm Wt.: 7.00 g (Fig. 4.9).

Comb-shaped pendant (Kammanhänger)

Cast pendant in the form of a five-toothed comb with an oval suspension loop flanked by an incurving arm on each side, decorated with five bosses in a row. The back is flat. H.: 4.9 cm, Wt.: 3.5 cm, Wt.: 11.40 g (PM inv. no. 2013.11.14.) (Fig. 4.2).

A. Spirally wound wire tube beads (Spiralröhrenperle), currently strung on a cord (PM inv. no. 2013. 11.1–4.).

  1. Spirally wound tube bead. Original L.: ca. 56 cm, Wt.: 71.75 g (Fig. 5.6).

  2. Spirally wound tube bead. Original L.: ca. 58 cm, Wt.: 41.80 g (Fig. 4.3).

  3. Spirally wound tube bead. Original L.: ca. 72 cm, Wt.: 34.90 g (Fig. 5.7).

  4. Spirally wound tube bead. Original L.: ca. 110 cm, Wt.: 45.10 g (Fig. 6.3).

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta): dagger, pin, beads, bracelet and neckring

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

B. Cylindrical beads of rolled sheet metal (Blechröhrenperle), four pieces, currently strung on a cord (PM inv. no. 2013.11.5.).

1–4. Cylindrical beads of rolled sheet metal. L. 5.1 cm, 4.9 cm, 4.8 cm, 5.5 cm (Fig. 4.1).

Neckring

Cast neckring with one terminal rolled, the other drawn out and broken (Ösenhalsring). Oval cross-section. Diam.: 16.1 cm, Wt.: 216.20 g (PM inv. no. 2013.11.13.) (Fig. 6.5).

Disc-headed pin (Griffösennadel mit Blechscheibenkopf)

Cast disc-headed pin lacking its shank. The undecorated head is fragmented. Diam.: 4.1 cm, Wt.: 5.60 g (PM inv. no. 2013.11.8.) (Fig. 6.2).

Spiral bracelet

Spiral bracelet with oval cross-section, two fragments. Diam.: 8.0 cm, Wt.: 23.70 g; Diam.: 6.6 cm, Wt.: 3.60 g (PM inv. no. 2013.11.17–18.) (Fig. 6.4).

Triangular dagger

Triangular dagger with rounded hilt plate lacking the original four rivets, a central midrib and the sides tapering to a point. Lozenge-shaped cross-section, fragmented. H. 12.0 cm, W. 3.3 cm, Wt.: 30.70 g (PM inv. no. 2013.11.16) (Fig. 6.1).

Assessment of the hoard's artefacts

Pendants

Swallowtail pendants (Figs 3.1–20 and 4.4–8, 11–16)

Swallowtail pendants (Schwalbenschwanzförmige or Ankenförmige Anhänger) are distinctive types of the metalwork of the Encrusted Pottery culture in Transdanubia, which also appear among the finds of the neighbouring Vatya, Hatvan and Gáta-Wieselburg cultures.6 They are designated variously in the archaeological literature,7 as has been recently reviewed by E. Ruttkay.8 Swallowtail pendants are generally derived from similar pieces carved from bone.9 A. Mozsolics distinguished two main types in terms of typology and chronology: earlier pieces are generally larger and made of thicker sheets, while later ones were most often made by casting and their stems are rolled back more tightly.10 B. Hänsel proposed a similar chronological distinction.11 The swallowtail pendants from Pusztasárkánytó can be assigned to Mozsolics's earlier group,12 to Type 1a as defined by Sz. Honti and V. Kiss,13 and to the Ankerförmige Anhänger aus Bronze, Variante A as defined by the present author.14 This pendant type is principally attested in the assemblages dating from the early and middle phase of the Encrusted Pottery culture. I. Bóna regarded the type as one of the hallmarks of Tolnanémedi-type hoards:15 it also occurs in the Zalaszabar hoard (RB A2b-c, Middle Bronze Age 2–3).16 Swallowtail pendants were worn not only as jewellery, but probably also as amulets:17 they were made in different sizes as shown by the pieces deposited in hoards and burials,18 with the larger ones (Type B: 11–15 cm) probably functioning as currency, as a measure of value, rather than as dress ornaments, while the smaller and medium-sized pieces were costume adornments. Given that most of these pendants have been recovered from cremation burials and hoards,19 it remains unknown how exactly they had been worn. Although one pendant was found in an inhumation burial at Galgamácsa,20 it lay in a secondary position; nevertheless, it seems likely that it had been strung into a necklace with dentalium beads and spirally wound beads. The associated finds from the urn burials would suggest that these pendants had adorned the neck, the chest or the back of the head,21 as confirmed also by the depictions on the vessels of the Encrusted Pottery culture22 and the clay figurines from the Lower Danube region.23

Cast disc pendant with a central boss and two crossing ribs (Fig. 5.4–5, 8–12)

Disc pendants with two crossing ribs represent a distinctive type in the metalwork of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture.24 They occur in two sizes in the hoard. The disc pendants can be assigned to I. Bóna's Type b,25 V. Furmánek's Type I/2a,26 Sz. Honti and V. Kiss's Type 3/a,27 and my Variant C1.28 Disc pendants with raised crossing ribs occur most often in the Encrusted Pottery distribution, but they are also known from the Vatya and Aunjetitz-Mađarovce territory.29 These pendants were used over a longer period of time, as shown by their presence in Tolnanémedi-type hoards,30 including the one from Zalaszabar.31 A similar pendant from the Ócsa hoard, which can be assigned to Koszider-type hoards, represents a variant with a separate suspension loop.32

Disc pendants with a central boss are another hallmark of the metalwork of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture (Fig. 5.1–3). They occur in two sizes in the hoard (a larger and two smaller exemplars), and represent I. Bóna's Type a,33 V. Furmánek's Type I/1a,34 Sz. Honti and V. Kiss's Type 1a,35 and my Variant A 1.36 Three pieces are known from the Tata-Nagy S. utca hoard,37 one was deposited in the Tolnanémedi hoard.38 One pendant of this type was found in the Budaörs hoard in the Vatya distribution area.39 The hoards from Bölcske40 and Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás I,41 both representing the Koszider hoard horizon, yielded a variant made from sheet bronze. Disc pendants were also infused with a symbolic meaning. These pendants are generally recovered from hoards and Vatya cremation burials,42 and thus there is little evidence on how they were worn. One piece was found on the chest in a child's inhumation burial at Abraham in Slovakia, in which there was a neckring (Halsring) around the neck,43 suggesting that the pendant was either worn around the neck or sewn onto the dress. Four disc pendants and two pins came to light from a disturbed inhumation burial uncovered at Zbehy-Oderov dvor (Üzbég, Slovakia);44 regrettably, their original position in the grave could not be observed. G. Schumacher-Matthäus suggested that they had adorned the back of the head,45 while J. Cseh believed that they were belt ornaments.46

The metallographic studies on the cast disc pendants with a central boss, and two crossing ribs of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture revealed that they had a similar composition: Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta): Cu 86%, Ag 1.02%, Sn 10.3%, Sb 1.2 %, As 1.1%; Tata-Nagy Sándor utca: Cu 82.9%, 77.7%; Ag 3.3%, 3.0%; Sn 4.1, 14.2%; Sb 1.1%, 1.6%; As 6.1%, 3.6%.47

Inverted heart-shaped pendants (unverzierte herzförmige Blechanhänger) (Fig. 4.9–10)

Inverted heart-shaped pendants are designated variously in the archaeological literature: Mozsolics called them umgekehrt herzförmige Anhänger,48 I. Bóna described them as herzförmige Blechanhänger,49 while V. Furmánek50 and the present author51 classified them as unverzierte herzförmige Blechanhänger. The pendant type was widely worn from the Early Bronze Age (RB A1–A2) onward: the early pieces were made of sheet metal and decorated, while their later variants also included cast specimens. Heart-shaped pendants appear in the archaeological record of the Kisapostag, the Vatya and the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery cultures,52 and they were apparently in use for a long period of time, as shown by their presence in the Pákozd-Várhegy hoard dated to the Koszider horizon53 and the hoard from Barca (Slovakia).54 The two pendants of the Pusztasárkánytó hoard were cast and are both undecorated.55 The pendant's cast variety is known from the Tolnanémedi56 and Zalaszabar57 hoards, suggesting that they were the products of local metallurgy, in which cast varieties were also made alongside the sheet metal version. Heart-shaped pendants were worn as parts of elaborate necklaces on the testimony of Grave 105 of the Battonya cemetery and Grave 162 of the Szőreg C burial ground.58 The spirally wound tube beads and the sheet metal tube beads in the Pusztasárkánytó hoard also underscore this. The metallographic studies on the heart-shaped pendants of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture revealed that they had a similar composition: Pusztasárkánytó: Cu 92%, Ag 1.00%, Sn 4.5%, Sb 1.7%, As 0.6%; Tata-Nagy Sándor utca: Cu 77.8, 77.6%; Ag 1.4, 1.1%; Sn 15.8, 21.3%; Sb 2.5, 0.0%; As 2.5, 0.0%.59

Comb-shaped pendant (Kammanhänger) (Fig. 4.2)

I. Bóna distinguished three main types60 and a similar classification was proposed by V. Kiss and Sz. Honti,61 as well as by the present author, who assigned the pendant to Variant B.62 These pendants are typical products of the metallurgy of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture. A mould for pendants of this type was brought to light on the culture's settlement at Lengyel,63 and cast pendants are known from various hoards such as Kölesd-Nagyhangos B,64 Pusztasárkánytó,65 Tolnanémedi66 and Zalaszabar.67 I. Bóna argued that these pendants were symbolic anthropomorphic or zoomorphic depictions and that they had functioned as amulets.68 The depictions on the culture's pottery in Transdanubia69 and the clay figurines from the Lower Danube region70 reveal how these pendants were worn: they either adorned the neck or the chest region, or were suspended from hair braids and belts. The pendant's metal composition is as follows: Cu 92.93%; Sn 5.4, 5.2%; Sb 1.0, 0.5%; As 0.25, 0.32%; Ag 0.76, 0.81%.

Cylindrical bead of rolled sheet metal (Fig. 4.1)

In terms of their function, these beads were either decorative headdress or cap elements or served for threading one or more pendants worn around the neck. It was a popular jewellery type, attested from the close of the Early Bronze Age to the close of the Middle Bronze Age, until the Koszider period.71 In Transdanubia, beads of this type have been recovered from Kisapostag and Vatya burials (RB A1b),72 as well as from the graves of the later Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture (RB A2b–c), for example at Királyszentistván and Mosonszentmiklós,73 and they can also be found in the Zalaszabar hoard.74

Spirally wound wire tube beads (Figs 4.3, 5.6–7 and 6.3)

Their function was identical to the beads of rolled sheet metal: they either adorned headdresses or caps (e.g. Kápolnásnyék, Grave 43, found in situ), or were used for threading various pendants onto necklaces.75 The hoard contained a remarkably high number of these spirally wound tube beads (72 pieces in all), used for suspending various pendant types. Spirally wound tube beads were used over a long period of time: they are continuously attested from the Early Bronze Age (RB A1b), through the Middle Bronze Age (RB A2b-c) and the Koszider period (RB B) to the Tumulus period (RB C–D).76

Disc-headed pin (Fig. 6.2)

J. Hampel described the pin as a spoon-shaped artefact,77 while I. Bóna suggested that it perhaps represented a locally made cast version of the disc-headed pins made of sheet metal (Griffösennadel mit Blechscheibenkopf),78 a supposition that was later confirmed by the pin's personal examination. The cast, broken pin (Fig. 6.2) represents the variety with plain head, the local version of the type in the metalwork of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture. The use of disc-headed pins began with the Kisapostag culture in Transdanubia;79 they have been recovered from burials of the Kisapostag-Vatya culture and the Encrusted Pottery culture (RB A2 b-c; Gyirmót-Kölesdomb, Szekszárd-Vígh telek) as well as from hoards (Esztergom-Ispitahegy, Ipoly valley, Simontornya, Zalaszabar).80 Most scholars agree that the type evolved in the westerly regions of Central Europe (in southern Germany and Switzerland). I. Bóna believed that the pin from the Ipoly valley was an import, while the other pieces were locally made imitations.81

Neckring with rolled terminal (Fig. 6.5)

Archaeological scholarship regards these neckrings as ring ingots.82 According to I. Bóna, the Transdanubian neckrings can be derived from the neckrings of the Alpine region and the adjacent territories.83 On the testimony of metallographic studies, the neckrings in various hoards of the Aunjetitz and the Unterwölbling culture84 were made from copper originating from the Alpine region.85 In Transdanubia, neckrings of this type are attested in the burials of the Tokod group (RB A2 a), in the burials of the earlier and later Encrusted Pottery culture as well as in Tolnanémedi-type hoards (RB A2 b-c).86 The metallographic studies on the neckrings of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture revealed that they had a similar composition: Pusztasárkánytó: Cu 88%, Ag 0.094%, Sn 11.4%; Gyirmót: Cu 92%, Sn 8%;87 Tata-Nagy Sándor utca: Cu 84.3%, Ag 1.9%, Sn 13.7%.88

Spiral bracelet of multiple coils (Fig. 6.4)

Spiral bracelets (Armspiralen) appeared in the Carpathian Basin during the Early Bronze Age 2–3 and became widespread by the onset of the Middle Bronze Age. They are attested in the Gáta-Wieselburg, Vatya and Maros/Perjámos cultures.89 In Transdanubia, bracelets of this type are often encountered in the burials of the Kisapostag (RB A1b), the late Kisapostag-early Encrusted Pottery (RB A2a) and the Tokod group (RB A2a) as well as in the burials of the Encrusted Pottery culture (Gyirmót-Kölesdomb, Szekszárd-Vígh telek, Tata area, Rábacsécsény, Veszprém-Papvásártér, Siklós-Téglagyár) and the culture's hoards, as shown by the assemblages from Kórós, Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta) and Zalaszabar (RB A2b-c).90

Dagger (Fig. 6.1)

The dagger represents the triangular type with four rivets on the hilt plate (now missing). Their use spanned a fairly long period, from the close of the Early Bronze Age to the onset of the Middle Bronze Age, before the Koszider period. Daggers of this type are known from hoards and burials, and also as stray finds.91 Two daggers were deposited as part of the hoard (RB A2b-c) of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture found at Szomód,92 one with four rivets, the other with three rivets on the hilt plate. The number of rivets varies on these daggers, as shown by the exemplars from the burials uncovered at Nyergesújfalu (Tokod group), Patince, Grave 4 (Slovakia), Balatonakali and Veszprém-Bajcsy-Zsilinszky St., and the specimens representing stray finds (Győr-Likócspuszta, Bonyhád, Csopak-Lőczedomb, Győrszemere).93

Interpretation and date of the hoard

The hoard can be assigned to the Tolnanémedi-type hoards of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture and resembles the hoards from Tata-Nagy Sándor utca94 and Zalaszabar95 in terms of its composition. It can be dated to the RB A2b-c period, before the Koszider horizon. The hoard is made up of the typical products of the local metalwork of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture such as swallowtail, disc-shaped, comb-shaped and heart-shaped pendants. One interesting feature of the hoard is that it contains the cast variant of jewellery generally made of sheet metal such as swallowtail pendants (Figs 3.1–20 and 4.4–8, 11–16), heart-shaped pendants (Fig. 4.9–10) and disc-headed pins (Fig. 6.2). Earlier scholarship assumed that Tolnanémedi-type hoards had been concealed in times of war and turmoil;96 the general consensus now is that they had been deposited as part of a ritual.97

The bronze assemblage from Ráksi (County Somogy)

The finds came to light in the garden of József Vinczeller, a resident of Ráksi, while digging a pit. The finds were first published by Gyula Melhárd in 1895, although he did not present all the finds. Judging from his description, the finds represent a grave assemblage.98 The finds were later also published by József Hampel.99 The assemblage first became part of Alajos Bertalan's collection, whence they made their way to the Piarist Museum.100 It was believed for a long time that the assemblage had been lost. It is often cited in the international archaeological literature, too: in fact, one particular pendant was named the Ráksi type on the basis of its presence in this assemblage.101 The find contains 22 artefacts and the weight of the assemblage is ca. 211.6 g. The artefacts are covered with green patina: they did not undergo any conservation treatment (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Ráksi, County Somogy: finds of the grave assemblage

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

Description of the finds

Pendants

Ten cast disc pendants of the Ráksi type, decorated with a central knob enclosed within two concentric ribs. The back is flat. The stem of the pendant is rolled back, enabling suspension from the necklace strung of spirally wound tube beads (PM inv. no. 2013.10.1.).

  1. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.8 cm, Wt.: 5.25 g (Figs 7 and 8.3).

  2. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.8 cm, Wt.: 5.10 g (Figs 7 and 8.4).

  3. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.8 cm, Wt.: 5.10 g (Figs 7 and 8.5).

  4. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.8 cm, Wt.: 5.80 g (Figs 7 and 8.6).

  5. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.6 cm, Wt.: 4.35 g (Figs 7 and 8.7).

  6. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.8 cm, Wt.: 4.00 g (Figs 7 and 8.8).

  7. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.7 cm, Wt.: 5.90 g (Figs 7 and 8.9).

  8. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.8 cm, Wt.: 3.45 g (Figs 7 and 8.10).

  9. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.8 cm, Wt.: 5.05 g (Figs 7 and 8.11).

  10. Disc pendant, Ráksi type. Diam.: 2.6 cm, Wt.: 4.35 g (Figs 7 and 8.12).

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Ráksi, County Somogy: finds of the grave assemblage

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

Spirally wound wire tube beads

Eight spirally wound tube beads of rectangular-sectioned wire (Spiralröhrenperle). L.: 0.8–2.8 cm (PM inv. no. 2013.10.2.; Figs 7 and 8.1).

Pins

Two sickle pins with conical head decorated with incised bundles of lines and punctates, and a curved, twisted shank. The rectangular-sectioned shank of both pins is perforated under the head; both shanks are broken; one pin lacks the shank's terminal section, the shank of the other pin is broken in two. L.: 18.3 cm, Wt.: 21.80 g; L.: 13.2 cm, Wt.: 10.15 g, L. of broken shank: 14.4 cm, Wt.: 7.55 g (PM inv. no. 2013.10.6–7.; Figs 7 and 8.2, 13).

Ribbon arm-bands

Two cylindrical arm-bands with four coils of sheet bronze, each with a central rib running in the centre of the ribbon; the terminals are drawn out into spirals, one of which broke off on both arm-bands. L.: 12.4 cm, Diam.: 6.0 cm, Wt.: 106.45 g; L.: 12.4 cm, Diam.: 6.2 cm, Wt.: 107.40 g (PM inv. no. 2013.10.4–5.; (Figs 7 and 8.14, 16).

Dagger

Dagger with rounded hilt plate retaining four rivets, a central midrib and a lozenge-sectioned blade whose sides taper to a point. L.: 16.1 cm, Diam. of hilt plate: 4.0 cm, Diam. in the centre of the blade: 2.5 cm, Wt.: 58.55 g (PM inv. no. 2013.10.3.; (Figs 7 and 8.15).

Assessment of the finds

Ráksi-type disc pendant (Figs 7 and 8.3–12)

This pendant type is called variously in the archaeological literature; it is most often designated as Stachelscheibenanhänger.102 A. Mozsolics distinguished two varieties: the first has a central boss and two or more concentric ribs, the other has a larger and more pointed central boss enclosed within two or more concentric ribs.103 Other scholars proposed a more or less similar classification.104 The two variants were used simultaneously, without any major chronological differences. These pendants are typical adornments of the Koszider period (RB B1): A. Mozsolics assigned them to Horizon B IIIb,105 B. Hänsel to Horizon MD I–II.106 I introduced a third variant in the classification of these pendants, which I labelled Variant C, characterised by closely-set concentric ribs enclosing a long, pointed central boss, which is a later type that is solely attested in the material record of the Tumulus period (RB B2–C) (Hajdúbagos, Oszlár, Tápé, Esztergom area).107 B. Hänsel suggested that Ráksi-type pendants evolved from the disc pendants with crossing ribs of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture;108 however, there is nothing to support this contention. Ráksi-type pendants are believed to have evolved in the eastern Carpathian Basin,109 although it is also possible that they had first appeared farther to the west, in the distribution territory of the Gáta-Wieselburg110 or Aunjetitz culture.111 The pendants from the Wien-Sulzengasse hoard (RB B1),112 as well as pendants from the Pitten cemetery (Graves 2, 57, 98)113 and the Dolný Peter burial ground (Graves 20, 24, 35)114 certainly point in this direction. Ráksi-type pendants have been reported from burials and hoards, and they have also been discovered as stray finds.115 The inhumation burials of the Tumulus culture uncovered at Győr-Ménfőcsanak (Graves 855, 919, 1060) dating from the RB B1 period provide information on how they had been worn.116 In Grave 855, the burial of a 12–20-year-old juvenile, the disc pendant was found suspended from a spirally wound tube bead; Grave 919, the burial of a 12–14-year-old child, yielded three pendants, two bracelets and two sickle pins, while Grave 1060, a richly furnished burial, had been provided with a necklace strung of twelve pendants and spirally wound tube beads (Fig. 9.1–3). Two sickle pins lay on the shoulders. The inhumation burial excavated at Tápióbicske had eight pendants on the chest and two sickle pins on the shoulders.117 The pendant lay behind the head in Grave 19 and in the abdominal region in Grave 452 of the Tápé cemetery.118 In her study on pendants, U. Wels-Weyrauch noted that pendants were found in similar positions in the inhumation burials of southern Germany.119 In Grave 57 of the Pitten cemetery,120 the pendants and spirally wound tube beads lay on the chest,121 similarly as in Grave 24 of the Dolný Peter cemetery in Slovakia.122 An idea of how these pendants were worn can be gleaned from the clay figurines of the Lower Danube region, on which they are shown around the neck, on the chest and the back, or suspended from a belt.123 According to the physical anthropological assessment of the graves, Grave 1060 of the Győr-Ménfőcsanak cemetery124 and Grave 19 of the Tápé cemetery were female burials,125 as was Grave 24 of the Dolný Peter cemetery126 and the grave uncovered at Niederlauterbach in southern Germany.127 In the light of the above, these pendants were mainly worn by women.

Spirally wound tube beads (Figs 7 and 8.1)

Beads of this type were popular during a longer period of time, from the Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age, and they are also attested in the burials (Győr-Ménfőcsanak)128 and hoards (Budapest-Rákospalota, Alsónémedi)129 of the Koszider period. They are generally found together with Ráksi-type disc pendants, strung into a necklace.

Sickle pins (Figs 7 and 8.2, 13)

The sickle pins (Sichelnadeln) can be assigned to the variant with decorated head and twisted shank (Regelsbrunn type).130 Their use began in the Middle Bronze Age Tumulus culture (RB B1) and they were often deposited in the burials and hoards of the Koszider period.131 The heads of the pins from the Simontornya hoard,132 from Grave 854b of the Dunaújváros cemetery133 and Grave 1060 of the Győr-Ménfőcsanak burial ground134 bear a similar ornamentation as the pieces from Ráksi. Sickle pins are generally found in pairs in burials and they are considered to be jewellery pieces that were worn by women and children,135 which is also borne out by the physical anthropological assessment of the burials (Győr-Ménfőcsanak).136 In meticulously excavated inhumation burials, the pins were found to have the tip of their shank pointing towards the feet.137 Given their size, it seems unlikely that they were part of ordinary costume; it seems more likely that they were either adornments worn during ceremonies or part of the funerary costume.138 Their points were fitted with point protectors of organic material. It is also possible that these large pins had been used for fastening the funerary shroud.

Ribbon arm-bands (Figs 7 and 8.14, 16)

Sheet metal ribbon arm-bands of several coils with a central rib down their length were distinctive products of Koszider-type metalwork that principally occur in hoards.139 Together with the Ráksi-type disc pendants and sickle pins, they were part of the costume worn by high-status females.

Dagger with rounded hilt plate (Figs 7 and 8.15)

Daggers with rounded or trapezoidal hilt plate can be dated to the Koszider period.140 Daggers similar to those of the Koszider period are also attested in southern Transdanubia.141 In the neighbouring regions, they first appeared in the early Tumulus period (RB B1), which corresponds to the Dolný Peter/Lochham period in Slovakia,142 the earlier Tumulus period in Bohemia143 and the pre-Lausitz period in Poland.144

Interpretation and chronology of the assemblage

The finds suggest that the assemblage originated from a lavishly furnished female burial dating from the Koszider period (RB B1, ca. 17th–16th century BC), whose high status is indicated by the jewellery set. Comparable jewellery is known from the hoards of the Koszider period found at Szentendre145 and Zimány/Rácegres,146 from the Tápióbicske burial147 and from the Várpalota burials (Fig. 9.4)148 as well as the professionally excavated burials of the Győr-Ménfőcsanak cemetery (Fig. 9.1–3).149

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

Reconstruction of the costume. 1–3: Győr-Ménfőcsanak (County Győr-Moson-Sopron): Graves 919, 1060, 855; 4: Várpalota (County Veszprém): Grave 4

Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72, 1; 10.1556/072.2021.00001

One important issue in Bronze Age studies is the relationship between Tolnanémedi-type hoards and the Koszider horizon. A. Mozsolics did not draw a chronological distinction between the Tolnanémedi and Koszider horizons.150 While I. Bóna regarded them as two separate horizons,151 as did T. Kovács, who in his earlier studies highlighted the differences between the two,152 although he later noted that several elements of the Tolnanémedi-type hoards can be traced to the Koszider horizon.153 S. Hansen pointed out that disc and swallowtail pendants occur in both hoard types and that certain types of the Koszider period make their first appearance in Tolnanémedi-type hoards.154 Sz. Honti and V. Kiss have convincingly demonstrated that the two hoard types had been deposited in two different periods,155 confirmed also by the different composition of the hoard types and the metallographic analysis of their finds. Tolnanémedi-type hoards are dominated by high impurity copper (so-called Ösenring), while Koszider-type hoards by high arsenic and nickel content (so-called eastern Alpine copper or Einheitskupfer).156

The suggestion that the two assemblages came from the same hoard was based on the finds from Kölesd-Nagyhangos, whose items are housed in two museums. Both contain Tolnanémedi- and Koszider-type artefacts: A. Mozsolics published the pieces in the Hungarian National Museum,157 while I. Bóna the artefacts in the Szekszárd Museum,158 the latter later sometimes described as unprovenanced finds.159 It is quite possible that the finds housed in the two museums had been part of the same hoard that had been accumulated over a longer period of time, although it is equally possible that the finds had somehow become mixed up.160 Another hoard whose artefacts can be found in two museums (the Hungarian National Museum and the Szekszárd Museum) is the Late Bronze Age hoard from Kurd.161

In sum, the Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta) assemblage can be assigned to the Tolnanémedi-type hoards of the later Encrusted Pottery period, whose artefacts fall into the RB A2 b-c phase (ca. 19th–18th centuries BC), while the finds from Ráksi represent the ensuing period, the RB B1 phase (ca. 17th–16th centuries BC), and probably originate from an inhumation burial of the early Tumulus culture (Dolný Peter type) that was sparsely distributed in Transdanubia (e.g. Várpalota, Ménfőcsanak).

Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to museologist Péter Borbás of the Piarist Museum for his kind permission to study and photograph the finds. to Dr. Viktória Kiss, leader of the Lendület/Momentum Mobility Research Group of the Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, for including the archaeometallurgical analysis of the finds in this research project, to Dr. Boglárka Maróti and Dr. György Káli of the Centre for Energy Research, and to Szilvia Jeney for the drawings, to Ágnes Bakos and Bence Tihanyi for the photos. I am grateful to Dr. Szilvia Honti and Dr. Viktória Kiss for their valuable comments on the draft version of this study and to Magdalena Seleanu for the translation of the text.

References

  • Barteilheim, M. 1998: Studien zur böhmischen Aunjetitzer Kultur. Chronologische und chorologische Untersuchungen. UPA 46. Bonn.

  • Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Z. 2006: Zur Věteřov Kultur in Niederösterreich. ArchA 90, 179–190.

  • Bóna, I. 1958: Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider-Typus. ActaArchHung 9, 211–243.

  • Bóna, I. 1960: Bronzezeitliche Schmuckgießerei in Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom. AUBSH 2, 261–270.

  • Bóna, I. 1975: Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. ArchHung 49. Budapest.

  • Bóna, I. 1992a: Bronzezeitlche Tell-Kulturen. In: Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Hrsg.: W. Meier Arendt. Frankfurt am Main, 9–39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bóna, I. 1992b: Bronzeguss und Metallbearbeitung bis zum Ende der mittleren Bronzezeit. In: Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Hrsg.: W. Meier Arendt. Frankfurt am Main, 48–65.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Butler, J. J. 2002: Ingots and insights: reflections on rings and ribs. In: Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt. Hrsg.: M. Bartelheim–E. Pernicka–R. Krause. Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft 1. Rahden/Westf., 229–243.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cseh, J. Kissné 1997: Bronzkori ékszerlelet Tatáról (Bronzezeitliche Schmuckfunde aus Tata). KEMK 5, 93–128.

  • David, W. 1998: Zu Variantengliederung, Verbreitung und Datierung der kosziderzeitlichen Sichelnadeln. In: The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Eds: H. Ciugudean–F. Gogâltan. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 8. Alba Iulia, 281–370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • David, W. 2002: Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsámson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. I–II. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 18. Alba Iulia.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • David-Elbiali, M.–David, W. 2009: À la suite de Jacques-Pierre Millotte. Lˈactualité des recherches en typologie sur lˈâge du Bronze. La Bronze ancient et le début du Bronze moyen. Carde chronologique et lienes culturels entre lˈEurope nord-alpine occidentale, le monde danubien et lˈItalie du nord. In: Lˈisthme européen Rhin–Saône–Rhône dans la Protohistoire. Approches nouvelles en hommage à Jacques-Pierre Millotte. Actes du colloque de Besançon, 16–18 octobre 2006. Éd.: A. Richard–P. Barral–A. Baubigney–G. Kaenel–C. Mordant–J.-F. Piningre. Annales littéraires de lˈUniversité de Franche-Comté 860. Sér. environnement, société et archéologie 13. Besançon, 311–340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dinnyés, I. 1973: Blaskovich Múzeum régészeti gyűjteménye [The Archaeological Collection of the Blaskovich Museum]. StComit 2, 37–70.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dušek, M. 1969: Bronzezeitliche Gräberfelder in der Südwestslowakei. ASC 4. Bratislava.

  • Egry, M. I. 2004: Halomsíros temető Győr-Ménfőcsanak-Bevásárlóközpont területén – Cemetery of Tumulus culture in the territory of the Shopping center of Győr-Ménfőcsanak. In: MΩMOΣ III. Halottkultusz és temetkezés. Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Szombathely–Bozsok, 2002. október 7–9. Ed.: G. Ilon. Szombathely, 121–138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Farkas, GY.–Lipták, P. 1975: Anthropologische Auswertung der bronzezeitlichen Gräberfelds bei Tápé. In: Trogmayer, O.: Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld bei Tápé. FontesArchHung. Budapest, 229–235.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fischl, P. K. 2000: Szőreg C (Szőreg – Szív utca) bronzkori temetője I. (Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld Szőreg C (Szőreg Szív Strasse) I.). MFMÉ–StudArch 6, 77–138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fischl, P. K.–Kiss, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. 2013: Transformations in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 B. C. In: 1600 – Cultural Change in the Shadow of the Thera-Eruption ? 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs? Eds.: H. Meller–F. Bertemes–H.-R. Bork–R. Risch. Tagungen des Landesmuseums Vorgeschichte 9. Halle, 355–371.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Foltiny, I. 1941: A szőregi bronzkori temető (Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld in Szőreg). Dolg 17, 1–89.

  • Foltiny, St. 1955: Zur Chronologie der Bronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens. Antiquitas, Reihe 2/1. Bonn.

  • Furmánek, V. 1980: Bronzezeitliche Anhänger in der Slowakei. PBF XI/3. München.

  • Furmánek, V. 1997: Bronzeanhänger als Belege für Kontakte des Karpatenbeckens mit dem östlichem Mittelmeerraum. In: Xpóvoς. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord-und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel. Hrsg.: C. Becker–M.-L. Dunkelmann–C. Metzner-Nebelsick. IntArch Studia honoraria 1. Espelkamp, 313–324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gedl, M. 1980: Die Dolche und Stabdolche in Polen. PBF VI/4. München.

  • Hampel, J. 1896, 1892: A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban. I–III. [Antiquities of Bronze Age in Hungary]. Budapest 1886, 1892.

  • Hampl, F.–Kerchler, H.–Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Z. 1978–1981: Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Pitten in Niederösterreich. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums in den Jahren 1967 bis 1973 mit Beiträgen über Funde aus anderen urzeitlichen Perioden. 1.: Fundberichte und Tafeln. MPK 19/20. Wien.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hampl, F.–Kerchler, H.–Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Z. 1985: Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Pitten in Niederösterreich. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums in den Jahren 1967 bis 1973 mit Beiträgen über Funde aus anderen urzeitlichen Perioden. 2.: Auswertungen. MPK 21/22. Wien.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hansen, S. 2005: Über bronzezeitliche Horte in Ungarn – Horte als soziale Praxis. In: Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Hrsg.: B. Horejs–R. Jung–E. Kaiser–B. Teržan. UPA 121. Bonn, 211–230.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hänsel, B. 1968: Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. I–II. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 7–8. Bonn.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hitre, tudásra 2017 Koltai, A. 2017 (ed.): Hitre, tudásra. A piaristák és a magyar művelődés. I. Jubileumi kiállítási katalógus [For Religion and Knowledge. The Order of Piarists and the Cultural Life in Hungary. A jubilee exhibition], Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, Vármúzeum, 2017. nov. 15 – 2018. febr. 8. Budapest.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Honti, Sz.–Kiss, V. 1996: Középső bronzkori leletek Somogy megyéből (Funde aus der Mittelbronzezeit im Komitat Somogy). SMK 12, 17–37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Honti, Sz.–Kiss, V. 2000: Neuere Angaben zur Bewertung der Hortfunde vom Typ Tolnanémedi. ActaArchHung 51, (1999–2000) 71–96.

  • Honti, Sz.–Kiss, V. 2013: Bronze hoard from Zalaszabar. New data on the study of the Tolnanémedi horizon. 2. In: Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday. Eds: A. Anders–G. Kulcsár. Ősrégészeti tanulmányok/Prehistoric studies 1. Budapest, 739–755.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Innerhofer, F. 2000: Die mittelbronzezeitlichen Nadeln zwischen Vigesen und Karpaten. Studien zur Typologie und regionalen Gliederung der Hügelgräberkultur. 1–2. UPA 71. Bonn.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jankovits, K. 1992: Spätbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber von Bakonyjákó. ActaArchHung 44, 261–243.

  • Jankovits, K. 2003: Neue Angaben zu den scheibenförmigen Anhängern mit kreuzförmigen Rippen und Buckeln. ActaArchHung 53, 273–278.

  • Jankovits, K. 2010–2013: Neue Angaben zu dem Körpergrab der Hügelgräberkultur von Szentes-Ecser Déló tanya (Kom. Csongrád). ComArchHung 2010–2013, 21–26.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jankovits, K. 2017a: Die bronzezeitlichen Anhänger in Ungarn. Studia ad archaeologiam Pazmaniensia 9. Budapest.

  • Jankovits, K. 2017b: Pusztasárkánytói depólelet. In: Hitre, tudásra 2017, 315–317.

  • Jankovits, K. 2017c: Ráksi lelet. In: Hitre, tudásra 2017, 317–319.

  • Junghans, S.–Sangmeister, E.–Schröder, M. 1974: Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 4. Berlin.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Junk, M.–Krause, R.–Pernicka, E. 2001: Ösenringbarren and the classical Ösenring copper. In: PATINA. Essays presented to Jay Jordan Buttler on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Eds.: W. H. Metz–B. L. van Beek–H. Steegstra. Groningen–Amstredam, 353–366.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kalicz, N. 1968: Frühbronzezeit in Nordostungarn. ArchHung 45. Budapest.

  • Kemenczei, T. 1988: Die Schwerter in Ungarn. I.: Griffplatten-, Griffangel–, und Griffzungenschwerter. PBF IV/6. München.

  • Kiss, V. 1999: Neuere Funde zu der mittelbronzzezeitlichen Metallkunst in Transdanubien (Újabb leletek a Dunántúl középső bronzkori fémművességéhez). Savaria–Pars archaeologica 24/3, (1998–1999) 153–164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kiss, V. 2009: The life cycle of Middle Bronze Age bronze artefacts from western part of the Carpathian Basin. In: Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Eds: T. L. Kienlin–B. Roberts. UPA 169. Bonn, 328–335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kiss, V. 2012: Middle Bronze Age Encrusted Pottery in Western Hungary. VAH 27. Budapest.

  • Kovács, T. 1968: A kötegyáni ékszerlelet (The jewel find from Kötegyán). ArchÉrt 95, 205–210.

  • Kovács, T. 1972: Bronzkori harangszoknyás szobrok a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum gyűjteményében (Bronze-Age bell-skirted statuettes in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum). ArchÉrt 99, 47–51.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1977: Funde der Metallkunst der Koszider-Periode aus Siedlungen und Gräberfeldern. FolArch 28, 39–65.

  • Kovács, T. 1984: Die Koszider-Metallkunst und einige kulturelle und chronologische Frage der Koszider-Periode. In: Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. [Neueste Resultate der Balkanologie. Kongress Belgrad 1984]. Hrsg.: N. Tasić. Posebna izdanja 22, ser. Balcano-Pannonica. Beograd, 377–388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1986a: Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung der bronzezeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen Südtransdanubien und der unteren Donaugegend. FolArch 37, 99–115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1986b: Zsadány-Orosi puszta: Ein alter Hortfund (Grabfund) nach Restaurierung. ComArchHung 1986, 27–48.

  • Kovács, T. 1994a: Újabb adatok a mészbetétes kerámia kultúrájának fémművességéhez (Neuere Beiträge zur Metallkunst der Kultur der inkrustierten Keramik). VMMK 28, 119–132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1994b: Chronologische Fragen des Überganges von der mittleren zur Spätbronzezeit in Transdanubien. ZalaiMúz 5, 159–172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1997: Das Grab von Ménfőcsanak. Ein Beitrag zu transdanubischen Denkmälern der Vorhügelgräberzeit. In: Xpóvoƍ. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel. Hrsg.: C. Becker–M.-L. Dunkelmann–C. Metzner-Nebelsick. IntArch Studia honoraria 1. Espelkamp, 297–301.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kőszegi, F. 1981: Middle Bronze Age hoard from Budaörs (Pest County). In: Die Frühbronzezeit im Karpatenbecken und in der Nachbargebieten. Internationales Symposium 1977, Budapest–Velem. Hrsg.: N. Kalicz–R. Kalicz-Schreiber. MittArchInst Bh 2. Budapest, 87–89, 269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Krause, R. 2003: Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 24. Rahden/Westf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lenerz-de Wilde, M. 1995: Prämonetäre Zahlungsmittel in der Kupfer- und Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. FBBW 20, 229–327.

  • Letica, Z. 1973: Antropomorfne figurine bronzanog doba u Jugoslaviji (The Bronze Age Anthropomorphic Figurines in Yugoslavia). DissMonSADJ 16. Beograd.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lichardus, J.–Vladár, J. 1996: Karpatenbecken – Sintašta – Mykene. Ein Beitrag zur Definition der Bronzezeit als historischer Epoche. SlA 44, 25–93.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Marosi, A. 1930: A pákozdvári őstelep (Die urzeitliche Siedlung zu Pákozdvár). ArchÉrt 44, 53–73, 280–281.

  • Melhárd, Gy. 1895: Bronzkori leletekről Somogy megyében [About Bronze Age finds in County Somogy]. ArchÉrt 15, 247–248.

  • Mozsolics, A. 1942: A kisapostagi korabronzkori urnatemető (Der frühbronzezeitliche Urnenfriedhof von Kisapostag). ArchHung 26. Budapest.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mozsolics, A. 1957: Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der großen Wanderung. ActaArchHung 9, 119–156.

  • Mozsolics, A. 1967: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Budapest.

  • Mozsolics, A. 1985: Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely. Budapest.

  • Neugerbauer, J.-W.–Blesl, C.–Lochner, M.–Neugerbauer -Maresch, Ch. 1999: Zu Metall- und Keramikdepots der Bronzezeit aus dem Zentralraum Niederösterreichs. In: Depotfunde der Bronzezeit im mittleren Donauraum. Hrsg.: A. Krenn-Leeb–J.-W. Neugebauer. Archäologie Österreichs Sonderausgabe 9–10 (1998–1999). Wien, 5–45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Németh, G. T. 2008: Rapport préliminaire sur une nécropole de la Culture des Tumulus à Lébény. In: Nouvelles approches en anthropologie et en archéologie funéraire. Éd.: Z. Czajlik–C. Mordant. Budapest, 73–81.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Novák, P. 2011: Die Dolche in Tschechien. PBF VI/13. Stuttgart.

  • Novotná, M. 1980: Die Nadeln in der Slowakei. PBF XIII/6. München.

  • Novotná, M. 1984: Halsringe und Diademe in der Slowakei. PBF XI/4. München.

  • Novotná, M. 1998: Zur Chronologie der Bronzehortfunde im Karpatenbecken. In: Fritsch, B., Maute, M., Matuschik, I., Müller, J., Wolf, C. (Eds): Tradition und Innovation. Prähistorische Archäologie als historische Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Christian Strahm. IntArch Studia honoria 3. Rahden, 349–370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Petres, É. F. 1992: Rézkor, korabronzkor. Temetkezés, viselet, edények, ékszerek. Töredékek Fejér megye múltjából [Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age. Burial, attire, pottery, jewelry. Records of the past of County Fejér]. In: Évezredek kincsei. Régészeti kiállítások. Ed.: V. Cserményi. SzIKMK D.ser. 244. Székesfehérvár, 244.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Radivojević, M.–Roberts, B. W.–Pernicka, E.–Stos-Gale, M.–Martinón-Torres, M.–Rehren, T.–Bray, P.–Brandherm, D.–Ling, J.–Mei, J.–Vandkilde, H.–Kristiansen, K.–Shennan, S. J.–Broodbank, C. 2019: The provenance, use, and circulation of metals in the European Bronze Age: The state of debate. JAS 27, 131–185.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rageth, J. 1974: Der Lago di Ledro in Trentino und seine Beziehungen zu den alpinen und mitteleuropäischen Kulturen. BRGK 55, 73–259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Říhovský, J. 1979: Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet. PBF XIII/5. München.

  • Říhovský, J. 1983: Die Nadeln in Westungarn. PBF XIII/10. München.

  • Ruttkay, E. 1983: Zur Deutung der Depotfunde vom Typus Tolnanémedi im Zusammenhang mit dem Idol von Babska. ANhM Wien 85/A, 1–17.

  • Schubert, F.–Schubert, E. 1967: Spektralanalytische Untersuchungen von Hort-und Einzelfunden der Periode B III. In: Mozsolics, A.: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Budapest, 185–189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schumacher-Matthäus, G. 1985: Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im Karpatenbecken. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6. Mainz am Rhein.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sørensen, L. M. S.–Rebay, K. C. 2005: Interpreting the body. Burial practices at the Middle Bronze Age cemetery at Pitten, Austria. ArchA 89, 153–175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Szabó, J. J. 1999: Früh- und mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Battonya. IPH 8. Budapest.

  • Szathmári, I. 1983: Kisapostager Gräber im bronzezeitlichen Gräberfeld von Dunaújváros. Alba Regia 20, 7–36.

  • Szathmári, I. 1996: Bronze wire and sheet ornaments of the Vatya culture. In: Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Region. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag. Hrsg.: T. Kovács. Budapest, 75–81.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Szathmári, I. 2000: Bronze Age bone pendants in the Carpathian Basin. ActaArchHung 51 (1999–2000), 35–42.

  • Topál, J. 1973: Bronzkori ékszerlelet Ócsáról (A Bronze Age jewel find at Ócsa). ArchÉrt 100, 3–18.

  • Trogmayer, O. 1968: Der Schatzfund von Baks-Levelény. MFMÉ 1966–67, 15–29.

  • Trogmayer, O. 1975: Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld bei Tápé. FontesArchHung. Budapest.

  • Uzsoki, A. 1963: Bronzkori temető Mosonszentmiklós-Jánosházapusztán (Bronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Mosonszentmiklós-Jánosházapuszta). Arrabona 5, 5–89.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Vicze, M. 2011: Bronze Age Cemetery at Dunaújváros-Duna-dűlő. DissPan Ser. IV/1. Budapest.

  • Vladár, J. 1974: Die Dolche in der Slowakei. PBF VI/3. München.

  • V Szabó, G. 1997: A Perjámos-kultúra leletei Hódmezővásárhely környékén (Adatok a kora és középső bronzkori női viselethez) [Finds of the Perjámos culture in the environs of Hódmezővásárhely. Data to female costumes of the Early and Middle Bronze Age]. In: Látták Trója kapuit. Ed.: P. Havassy. Gyulai katalógusok 3. Gyula, 59–84.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 1978: Die Anhänger und Halsringe in Südwestdeutschland und Nordbayern. PBF XI/1. München.

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 1991: Die Anhänger in Südbayern. PBF XI/5. Stuttgart.

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 2008: Stachelscheiben: Nur zur Zierde? In: Durch die Zeiten… Festschrift für Albrecht Jockenhövel zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg.: F. Verse–B. Knoche–J. Graefe–M. Hohlbein–K. Schierhold–C. Siemann–M. Uckelmann–G. Woltermann. IntArch Studia honoraria 28. Rahden/Westf., 275–289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 2011: Colliers: Nur zur Zierde ? In: Bronzen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Nutzung und symbolischer Bedeutung. Beiträge zum internationalen Kolloquium am 9. und 10. Oktober 2008 in Münster. Hrsg.: U. E. Dietz–A. Jockenhövel. PBF XX/13. Stuttgart, 259–278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wosinsky, M. 1896: Tolnavármegye az őskortól a honfoglalásig. I–II. (Das Komitat Tolna von der Urzeit bis zur Landnahmezeit. I–II). Budapest.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wosinsky, M. 1904: Az őskor mészbetétes díszítésű agyagművessége [The Encrusted Pottery Culture in Prehistory]. Budapest.

1

Melhárd 1895, 247–248, 442–444.

2

Hampel 1896, Taf. CCXXII.

3

Accessions register of the Piarist Museum, 58–60 (PM inv. no. B.IV.28–47).

4

Mozsolics 1967, 155; Hänsel 1968, Taf. 2; Bóna 1975, 215, 219; Kiss 2012, 91, 289/214; Jankovits 2017a, 49, Nr. 439–450, 847–849, 879–881, 981, 1055, 1056.

5

Jankovits 2017b, 315–317.

6

Bóna 1958, 215; Bóna 1975, 215–216; Mozsolics 1967, 90; Hänsel 1968, 121, Beilage 4; Ruttkay 1983, 1–2; Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 68–74, Anm. 224; Kovács 1994a, 160; Honti–Kiss 2000, 82–84; Kiss 2012, 101; Honti–Kiss 2013, 743–745.

7

Hampel 1896, Taf. CCXXII, 14–26; Foltiny 1955, 16; Mozsolics 1967, 90; Bóna 1975, 216; Kovács 1968, 205–210; Furmánek 1980, 11.

15

Bóna 1958, 222–225, Abb. 6; Bóna 1975, 215.

16

Kiss 2012, 91. 312/397; Honti–Kiss 2013, 739.

17

Bóna 1975, 215; Ruttkay 1983, 1; Honti–Kiss 2000, 82–83; ead. 2013, 743–745; Jankovits 2017a, 52.

18

Honti–Kiss 2000, 82–84; Kiss 2012, 101–103; Honti–Kiss 2013, 743–745; Jankovits 2017a, 52–53.

19

Honti–Kiss 2000, 82–84; Kiss 2012, 101–103; Jankovits 2017a, 52–53.

20

Kalicz 1968, 124, 163, Taf. 119.3; Jankovits 2017a, 46, Nr. 358.

22

Wosinsky 1904, Taf. 74, 3; Bóna 1975, Taf. 205, 6; Honti–Kiss 2000, 86, Abb. 5, 1. 3. 5; Jankovits 2017a, 52.

24

Bóna 1958, 222; id. 1975, 56, 215; Mozsolics 1967, 91; Furmánek 1980, 12; Honti–Kiss 2000, 79; Kiss 2012, 97–101; Jankovits 2017a, 62, 69–71.

26

Furmánek 1997, 316–317.

27

Honti–Kiss 2000, 78–82; Kiss 2012, 97–101.

29

Kőszegi 1981, 87–89, Taf. 1.1–2; Honti–Kiss 2000, 78–82; Jankovits 2017a, 62, Nr. 870–871: Budaörs; Bóna 1975, 56, 219; Jankovits 2003, 274, Abb. 2.5; Vicze 2011, 221, Taf. 144.2: Dunaújváros, Grave 1028.

30

Bóna 1958, 211; Bóna 1975, 215, Taf. 267.6–13; Mozsolics 1967, 91, 170–171, Taf. 24.4–16; Hänsel 1968, 226, Liste 131, Taf. 1.7–10; Honti–Kiss 2000, 78–81, Abb. 4; Kiss 2012, 97–101; Jankovits 2017a, 70–71.

31

Honti–Kiss 2013, 740–741, Fig. 2.4–7; Kiss 2012, 97–101, Pl. 60.4–7; Jankovits 2017a, 63. 70, Nr. 915–918.

32

Topál 1973, 3, Abb. 7.2, 3; Bóna 1992a, 32–33, Abb. 16; Jankovits 2017a, 64, Nr. 919–920.

34

Furmánek 1997, 316–317.

35

Honti–Kiss 2000, 78–82; Kiss 2012, 97–101.

37

Cseh 1997, 93–128, Taf. 2.4–6; Honti–Kiss 2000, 78–82, Abb. 4; Kiss 2012, 97–101; Jankovits 2017a, 60, Nr. 850–852.

38

Mozsolics 1967, 91, 170–171, Taf. 24.3; Hänsel 1968, 226, Liste 131, Taf. 1.6; Bóna 1975, 215, Taf. 267.6; Honti–Kiss 2000, 78–82, Abb. 4; Kiss 2012, 97–101; Jankovits 2017a, 60, Nr. 853.

39

Kőszegi 1981, 87–89, Taf. 1.4; Honti–Kiss 2000, 78–82, Abb. 4; Jankovits 2017a, 59, Nr. 845.

40

Wosinsky 1896, 395–396; Mozsolics 1967, 131, Taf. 34.3; Jankovits 2017a, 59, Nr. 844.

41

Mozsolics 1957, 122–123, Taf. 19.10; Hänsel 1968, Taf. 16.9; Bóna 1992b, 58, Abb. 27; Jankovits 2017a, 60, Nr. 846.

42

Bóna 1975, 56. 215.

44

Furmánek 1980, 12, Nr. 85–88.

47

Cseh 1997, 111, Chart 1.

49

Bóna 1975, 49, 54, 216.

52

Mozsolics 1967, 86; Hänsel 1968, 120–121; Bóna 1975, 284; Furmánek 1980, 23; Novotná 1998, 350–351; Honti–Kiss 2000, 88–89; Vicze 2011, 80, 108, 118, 124; Honti–Kiss 2013, 749; Kiss 2012, 108–109; Jankovits 2017a, 95–96.

53

Marosi 1930, 65, Abb. 65; Mozsolics 1967, 86; Hänsel 1968, 120–121; Bóna 1975, 215, 219, 284; Jankovits 2017a, 90, Nr. 1085–1089.

54

Furmánek 1980, 15–16, Taf. 37.A; Kovács 1994b, 160; Kiss 2012, 108.

55

Honti–Kiss 2000, 88: It is erroneously asserted that both the cast and the sheet metal variants of the pendant occur in the Pusztasárkánytó (Mosdós-Sárkánytó-puszta) hoard.

56

Bóna 1975, Taf. 267.3–5; Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 24.17–19; Jankovits 2017a, 91, Nr. 1123–1125.

57

Honti–Kiss 2013, 745–747, 749, Fig. 4.3–14.

58

Szabó 1999, 47, Abb. 38.6, 9; Foltiny 1941, 59, Taf. 21.64; Fischl 2000, 109, Abb. 7, Abb. 12; Jankovits 2017a, 92, 95, Nr. 1150–1151, 1152.

59

Cseh 1997, 111, Chart 1.

60

Bóna 1975, 215–216.

61

Honti–Kiss 2000, 84–87; Kiss 2012, 103–106.

62

Jankovits 2017a, 75–76, Nr. 981.

63

Wosinsky 1896, Taf. 72.13; Bóna 1975, 215; Kovács 1986a, 102, Abb. 2; Honti–Kiss 2000, 84; Kiss 2012, 103–106; Jankovits 2017a, 76, Nr. 980.

64

Bóna 1975, 215, Taf. 270.2; Kovács 1986a, 100, Abb. 1.5; Honti–Kiss 2000, 84; Jankovits 2017a, Nr. 979.

65

Melhárd 1895, 442–443, Abb. 1.12; Hampel 1896, Taf. CCXXII.12; Kovács 1986a, 101, Abb. 1.4; Jankovits 2017a, 76, Nr. 981.

66

Mozsolics 1967, 91, 170–171, Taf. 24.2; Hänsel 1968, 226, Taf. 1.2; Bóna 1975, 215, Taf. 267.2; Kovács 1986a, 101, Abb. 1.4; Jankovits 2017a, 76, Nr. 982.

67

Honti–Kiss 2013, 745, Abb. 4.1; Kiss 2012, 103, Taf. 62.1.

68

Bóna 1975, 215–216.

69

Honti–Kiss 2000, 85, Abb. 5.1–5.

71

Bóna 1960, Pl. VII.14, 20; Bóna 1975, 49, 54, 217, Anm. 110, Abb. 22.43; Szathmári 1983, 21; Szathmári 1996, 75, Fig. 5.52–63.

72

Mozsolics 1942, Taf. I.22–32, 31–41; Honti–Kiss 1996, 24; Vicze 2011, Pl. 19.4.

73

Uzsoki 1963, T. 4.11, 17–19; Bóna 1975, Taf. 264.4-5, 11–12, 14.

74

Honti–Kiss 2013, 749, Fig. 5.1–11.

75

F. Petres 1992, 244; Jankovits 2017a, 452, Taf. 116.

76

Vicze 2011, Pl. 16,5; Pl. 17,5 Dunaújváros (Kisapostag burials); Pl. 39.10, Pl. 55.1: Vatya burials; Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 29.19–23: Zmajevac hoard (Encrusted Pottery culture); Honti–Kiss 2013, 749, Fig. 5.12–14: Zalaszabar hoard (Encrusted Pottery culture); Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 59.21–25: Rákospalota hoard (Koszider); Jankovits 1992, 272, Abb. 11.9: Bakonyjákó (Tumulus culture, Bz D).

77

Hampel 1896, Taf. CCXX.11.

79

Mozsolics 1942, Taf. V.15.

80

Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 28.32; Bóna 1975, 218–219, 288–289, Abb. 22.27–28; Taf. 265.1, 15, Taf. 269.5; Novotná 1980, 20–24; Szathmári 1983, Abb. 56; Szathmári 1988, 74–75; Honti–Kiss 2013, 748–749, Fig. 5.17–19; Kiss 2012, 123.

81

Bóna 1975, 218–219.

84

Mozsolics 1967, 70–71; Bóna 1975, 218, 282–283, Abb. 22.31; Lenerz-de Wilde 1995; Neugerbauer et al. 1999, 5–45.

86

Mozsolics 1967, 69–72; Bóna 1975, 218, 283,242–243–244, Taf. 271.4, Verbreitungskarte Taf. VII; Cseh 1997, Taf. 1; Honti–Kiss 2000, 93; Honti-Kiss 2013, 749–750; Kiss 2012, 119–120.

88

Cseh 1997, Chart 1; Krause 2003, Cl. 34/2.

89

Bóna 1975, 55, 243–244; V. Szabó 1997, 64–65; Honti–Kiss 2013, 750.

90

Bóna 1975, 217, Abb. 22, 37; Honti–Kiss 2013, 750; Kiss 2012, 121–122.

91

Bóna 1975, 217–218; Bóna 1992b, 52; Kemenczei 1988, 9–14; Kiss 2012, 127.

92

Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 34.2, 3; Bóna 1975, 217.

94

Cseh 1997, 93–128.

97

Kovács 1994a, 121; Hansen 2005, 211–230; Kiss 2009, 328–335.

98

Melhárd 1895, 247–248, 442 with Fig.

99

Hampel 1896, Taf. CCXXI.

100

PM accessions register, inv. no. 58, B.IV.21–27.; Jankovits 2017c, 317–319.

101

Mozsolics 1967, 157–158; Hänsel 1968, 225, Taf. 18,5; Wels-Weyrauch 1978, 34–59; Wels-Weyrauch 1991, 15–32; Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 100–105; Kovács 1986b, 38; David 2002, 466/H, 45, Taf. 181, 3–6.

102

Bóna 1958, 216; Mozsolics 1967, 92–93; Hänsel 1968, 225–226; Trogmayer 1968, 15; Wels-Weyrauch 1978, 34–59; Wels-Weyrauch 1991, 15–32; Wels-Weyrauch 2008, 287–288; Furmánek 1980, 31–32; Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 100–101; Kovács 1984, 384–385; id. 1986b, 38; Bóna 1992a, 62; Lichardus–Vladár 1996, 29. 31; Jankovits 2017a, 167–177.

104

Hänsel 1968, 225–226; Wels-Weyrauch 1978, 34–59; Wels-Weyrauch 1991, 15–32; Furmánek 1980, 31–32.

106

Hänsel 1968, 234, Taf. 1.6–10, Taf. 2.11–22.

107

Jankovits 2017a, 173–174, 176.

108

Hänsel 1968, 234, Taf. 1.6–10; Taf. 2.17–22.

109

Bóna 1992b, 58–64; Mozsolics 1967, 92–93; Hänsel 1968, 161, Fig. 4; Wels-Weyrauch 1978, 34–59; Wels-Weyrauch 1991, 15–32; Furmánek 1980, 31–32; Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 100–105.

113

Hampl et al. 1978–1981, 17–18, Taf. 197.1–10, 46–47, 60–61, 125, Taf. 209.12, Taf. 213.16–22; Sørensen–Rebay 2005, Tab. 6; Wels-Weyrauch 2011, 261.

114

Dušek 1969, 61–63, 65, 71, Abb. 10.1, Abb. 11.5–6, Abb. 12.1–10, Abb. 14.6.

115

Jankovits 2017a, 167–177.

116

Egry 2004, 124, Abb. 2.4; Abb. 3.5–7; 130, Abb. 6.2; Jankovits 2017a, 174–175, Taf. 132.C–D, Taf. 133.A.

117

Bóna 1958, 214, Anm. 15, 232; Trogmayer 1968, 26–27, Anm. 61, Abb. 6.1–2; Jankovits 2017a, 170, Nr. 2359–2366.

118

Trogmayer 1975, 13, Taf. 2.19/1; 100, Taf. 40.452/2; Jankovits 2017a, 174.

120

Hampl et al. 1978–81, Taf. 209/Gr. 57.

121

Hampl et al. 1978–81, Taf. 125; Taf. 209/Gr. 57.

122

Dušek 1969, 65, Abb. 11; Abb. 12.1–10; Furmánek 1980, Taf. 36.B.

123

Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, Taf. 4.1a–c: Klenovnik; Taf. 4.2a–b: Vršac; Taf. 5.3b: Kličevac; Taf. 6.1a–1b: Dupljaja; Taf. 14.1a: Korbovo Glamija; Taf. 15.1a–b: Odžaci.

128

Egry 2004, 125, Abb. 2.4 (Grave 855); 130, Taf. 6.2 (Grave 1060).

129

Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 59.21–25, 33–35; Taf. 60.21–24, 25–28.

130

Říhovský 1979, 18–20, Taf. 1–10; Říhovský 1983, 3–5; Novotná 1980, 60–67.

131

Bóna 1958, 211; Mozsolics 1967, 83–84; Hänsel 1968, 77–78, Taf. 18.3–4, Taf. 26.2; Kovács 1977, 44; Kovács 1997, 297–298, Fig. 1–2; David 1998, 288–289, 336, Fig. 3–4; David 2002, 444–445, Fig. 5; Egry 2004, 130, Taf. 6; T. Németh 2008, 73–81, Fig. 6.8–9, Fig. 7.7, Fig. 8, 4–5; Vicze 2011, Pl. 171.4, 10; Pl. 216.3; Fischl et al. 2013, 355–371, Fig. 5.1, 6.

132

Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 53.2b.

133

Vicze 2011, Pl. 216.3.

134

Egry 2004, Taf. 6.

136

Egry 2004, 125–130.

137

Dušek 1969, 65, Abb. 11.3–4: Dolný Peter, Grave 24; Hampl et al. 1978–81, 31, Taf. 201. Grave 24, 14–15: Pitten; Egry 2004, 125–130: Győr-Ménfőcsanak, Grave 919, 1060; T. Németh 2008, 79 Fig. 5: Lébény.

139

Bóna 1958, Taf. 1; Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 51.1–2; Bóna 1992a, Abb. 107; Fischl et al. 2013, Fig. 5.8: Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás, Hoard III; Bóna 1958, 218, Taf. VI: Zalaszentiván-Kisfaludi-hegy; Hampel 1886, Taf. LXXXI.4; Hänsel 1968, Taf. 14.24: Lovas; Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 62.2, 4-5: Pusztaszentkirály-Áporka; Hänsel 1968, Taf. 22.35–36: Szigliget; Hänsel 1968, Taf. 26.28–29: Rácegres.

140

Mozsolics 1967, 56, Taf. 50.4–5: Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás, Hoard II; Kemenczei 1988, 18, Anm. 7.

141

Kiss 1999, Taf. 2.1–5; Kiss 2012, 128, Pl. 68.1–6.

142

Vladár 1974, 43, Nr. 108.

143

Novák 2011, 85–86, Nr. 343–345.

144

Gedl 1980, 56–57.

145

Hampel 1892, 142; Bóna 1958, 218; Mozsolics 1967, 166, Taf. 44.7–8.

146

Hampel 1892, Taf. CLXI.1–6; Bóna 1958, 229, Taf. 3; Mozsolics 1967, 156–157; Hänsel 1968, 226, Taf. 26. 22–29.

147

Bóna 1958, 214; Trogmayer 1968, 26–27, Abb. 6.2; Dinnyés 1973, 40, Taf. 4.3–10; David 2002, 473/H, 152, Taf. 309. 4–11.

148

Kovács 1977, 44, Abb. 1.2–5: grave 4; 45, Abb. 1.7–11: grave 7.

149

Egry 2004, 121–137.

151

Bóna 1958, 224; Bóna 1975, 228–229; Bóna 1992a, 41–42.

152

Kovács 1968, 208–209; Kovács 1984, 377.

154

Hansen 2005, 218–219, Abb. 3–4.

155

Honti–Kiss 2013, 739–756; Kiss 2012, 148–150.

157

Mozsolics 1967, 151–152, Taf. 31–33.

158

Bóna 1975, 219, Taf. 276.1–19.

160

Jankovits 2017a, 47–48: Kölesd-Nagyhangos A: Hungarian National Museum, Kölesd-Nagyhangos B: Szekszárd museum. The accessions register of the Szekszárd museum specifies Kölesd-Nagyhangos as the findspot (inv. no. 59.664.1.).

  • Barteilheim, M. 1998: Studien zur böhmischen Aunjetitzer Kultur. Chronologische und chorologische Untersuchungen. UPA 46. Bonn.

  • Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Z. 2006: Zur Věteřov Kultur in Niederösterreich. ArchA 90, 179–190.

  • Bóna, I. 1958: Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider-Typus. ActaArchHung 9, 211–243.

  • Bóna, I. 1960: Bronzezeitliche Schmuckgießerei in Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom. AUBSH 2, 261–270.

  • Bóna, I. 1975: Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. ArchHung 49. Budapest.

  • Bóna, I. 1992a: Bronzezeitlche Tell-Kulturen. In: Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Hrsg.: W. Meier Arendt. Frankfurt am Main, 9–39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bóna, I. 1992b: Bronzeguss und Metallbearbeitung bis zum Ende der mittleren Bronzezeit. In: Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Hrsg.: W. Meier Arendt. Frankfurt am Main, 48–65.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Butler, J. J. 2002: Ingots and insights: reflections on rings and ribs. In: Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt. Hrsg.: M. Bartelheim–E. Pernicka–R. Krause. Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft 1. Rahden/Westf., 229–243.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cseh, J. Kissné 1997: Bronzkori ékszerlelet Tatáról (Bronzezeitliche Schmuckfunde aus Tata). KEMK 5, 93–128.

  • David, W. 1998: Zu Variantengliederung, Verbreitung und Datierung der kosziderzeitlichen Sichelnadeln. In: The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Eds: H. Ciugudean–F. Gogâltan. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 8. Alba Iulia, 281–370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • David, W. 2002: Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsámson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. I–II. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 18. Alba Iulia.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • David-Elbiali, M.–David, W. 2009: À la suite de Jacques-Pierre Millotte. Lˈactualité des recherches en typologie sur lˈâge du Bronze. La Bronze ancient et le début du Bronze moyen. Carde chronologique et lienes culturels entre lˈEurope nord-alpine occidentale, le monde danubien et lˈItalie du nord. In: Lˈisthme européen Rhin–Saône–Rhône dans la Protohistoire. Approches nouvelles en hommage à Jacques-Pierre Millotte. Actes du colloque de Besançon, 16–18 octobre 2006. Éd.: A. Richard–P. Barral–A. Baubigney–G. Kaenel–C. Mordant–J.-F. Piningre. Annales littéraires de lˈUniversité de Franche-Comté 860. Sér. environnement, société et archéologie 13. Besançon, 311–340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dinnyés, I. 1973: Blaskovich Múzeum régészeti gyűjteménye [The Archaeological Collection of the Blaskovich Museum]. StComit 2, 37–70.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dušek, M. 1969: Bronzezeitliche Gräberfelder in der Südwestslowakei. ASC 4. Bratislava.

  • Egry, M. I. 2004: Halomsíros temető Győr-Ménfőcsanak-Bevásárlóközpont területén – Cemetery of Tumulus culture in the territory of the Shopping center of Győr-Ménfőcsanak. In: MΩMOΣ III. Halottkultusz és temetkezés. Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Szombathely–Bozsok, 2002. október 7–9. Ed.: G. Ilon. Szombathely, 121–138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Farkas, GY.–Lipták, P. 1975: Anthropologische Auswertung der bronzezeitlichen Gräberfelds bei Tápé. In: Trogmayer, O.: Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld bei Tápé. FontesArchHung. Budapest, 229–235.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fischl, P. K. 2000: Szőreg C (Szőreg – Szív utca) bronzkori temetője I. (Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld Szőreg C (Szőreg Szív Strasse) I.). MFMÉ–StudArch 6, 77–138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fischl, P. K.–Kiss, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. 2013: Transformations in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 B. C. In: 1600 – Cultural Change in the Shadow of the Thera-Eruption ? 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs? Eds.: H. Meller–F. Bertemes–H.-R. Bork–R. Risch. Tagungen des Landesmuseums Vorgeschichte 9. Halle, 355–371.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Foltiny, I. 1941: A szőregi bronzkori temető (Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld in Szőreg). Dolg 17, 1–89.

  • Foltiny, St. 1955: Zur Chronologie der Bronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens. Antiquitas, Reihe 2/1. Bonn.

  • Furmánek, V. 1980: Bronzezeitliche Anhänger in der Slowakei. PBF XI/3. München.

  • Furmánek, V. 1997: Bronzeanhänger als Belege für Kontakte des Karpatenbeckens mit dem östlichem Mittelmeerraum. In: Xpóvoς. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord-und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel. Hrsg.: C. Becker–M.-L. Dunkelmann–C. Metzner-Nebelsick. IntArch Studia honoraria 1. Espelkamp, 313–324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gedl, M. 1980: Die Dolche und Stabdolche in Polen. PBF VI/4. München.

  • Hampel, J. 1896, 1892: A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban. I–III. [Antiquities of Bronze Age in Hungary]. Budapest 1886, 1892.

  • Hampl, F.–Kerchler, H.–Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Z. 1978–1981: Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Pitten in Niederösterreich. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums in den Jahren 1967 bis 1973 mit Beiträgen über Funde aus anderen urzeitlichen Perioden. 1.: Fundberichte und Tafeln. MPK 19/20. Wien.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hampl, F.–Kerchler, H.–Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Z. 1985: Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Pitten in Niederösterreich. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums in den Jahren 1967 bis 1973 mit Beiträgen über Funde aus anderen urzeitlichen Perioden. 2.: Auswertungen. MPK 21/22. Wien.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hansen, S. 2005: Über bronzezeitliche Horte in Ungarn – Horte als soziale Praxis. In: Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Hrsg.: B. Horejs–R. Jung–E. Kaiser–B. Teržan. UPA 121. Bonn, 211–230.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hänsel, B. 1968: Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. I–II. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 7–8. Bonn.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hitre, tudásra 2017 Koltai, A. 2017 (ed.): Hitre, tudásra. A piaristák és a magyar művelődés. I. Jubileumi kiállítási katalógus [For Religion and Knowledge. The Order of Piarists and the Cultural Life in Hungary. A jubilee exhibition], Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, Vármúzeum, 2017. nov. 15 – 2018. febr. 8. Budapest.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Honti, Sz.–Kiss, V. 1996: Középső bronzkori leletek Somogy megyéből (Funde aus der Mittelbronzezeit im Komitat Somogy). SMK 12, 17–37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Honti, Sz.–Kiss, V. 2000: Neuere Angaben zur Bewertung der Hortfunde vom Typ Tolnanémedi. ActaArchHung 51, (1999–2000) 71–96.

  • Honti, Sz.–Kiss, V. 2013: Bronze hoard from Zalaszabar. New data on the study of the Tolnanémedi horizon. 2. In: Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday. Eds: A. Anders–G. Kulcsár. Ősrégészeti tanulmányok/Prehistoric studies 1. Budapest, 739–755.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Innerhofer, F. 2000: Die mittelbronzezeitlichen Nadeln zwischen Vigesen und Karpaten. Studien zur Typologie und regionalen Gliederung der Hügelgräberkultur. 1–2. UPA 71. Bonn.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jankovits, K. 1992: Spätbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber von Bakonyjákó. ActaArchHung 44, 261–243.

  • Jankovits, K. 2003: Neue Angaben zu den scheibenförmigen Anhängern mit kreuzförmigen Rippen und Buckeln. ActaArchHung 53, 273–278.

  • Jankovits, K. 2010–2013: Neue Angaben zu dem Körpergrab der Hügelgräberkultur von Szentes-Ecser Déló tanya (Kom. Csongrád). ComArchHung 2010–2013, 21–26.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jankovits, K. 2017a: Die bronzezeitlichen Anhänger in Ungarn. Studia ad archaeologiam Pazmaniensia 9. Budapest.

  • Jankovits, K. 2017b: Pusztasárkánytói depólelet. In: Hitre, tudásra 2017, 315–317.

  • Jankovits, K. 2017c: Ráksi lelet. In: Hitre, tudásra 2017, 317–319.

  • Junghans, S.–Sangmeister, E.–Schröder, M. 1974: Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 4. Berlin.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Junk, M.–Krause, R.–Pernicka, E. 2001: Ösenringbarren and the classical Ösenring copper. In: PATINA. Essays presented to Jay Jordan Buttler on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Eds.: W. H. Metz–B. L. van Beek–H. Steegstra. Groningen–Amstredam, 353–366.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kalicz, N. 1968: Frühbronzezeit in Nordostungarn. ArchHung 45. Budapest.

  • Kemenczei, T. 1988: Die Schwerter in Ungarn. I.: Griffplatten-, Griffangel–, und Griffzungenschwerter. PBF IV/6. München.

  • Kiss, V. 1999: Neuere Funde zu der mittelbronzzezeitlichen Metallkunst in Transdanubien (Újabb leletek a Dunántúl középső bronzkori fémművességéhez). Savaria–Pars archaeologica 24/3, (1998–1999) 153–164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kiss, V. 2009: The life cycle of Middle Bronze Age bronze artefacts from western part of the Carpathian Basin. In: Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Eds: T. L. Kienlin–B. Roberts. UPA 169. Bonn, 328–335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kiss, V. 2012: Middle Bronze Age Encrusted Pottery in Western Hungary. VAH 27. Budapest.

  • Kovács, T. 1968: A kötegyáni ékszerlelet (The jewel find from Kötegyán). ArchÉrt 95, 205–210.

  • Kovács, T. 1972: Bronzkori harangszoknyás szobrok a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum gyűjteményében (Bronze-Age bell-skirted statuettes in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum). ArchÉrt 99, 47–51.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1977: Funde der Metallkunst der Koszider-Periode aus Siedlungen und Gräberfeldern. FolArch 28, 39–65.

  • Kovács, T. 1984: Die Koszider-Metallkunst und einige kulturelle und chronologische Frage der Koszider-Periode. In: Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. [Neueste Resultate der Balkanologie. Kongress Belgrad 1984]. Hrsg.: N. Tasić. Posebna izdanja 22, ser. Balcano-Pannonica. Beograd, 377–388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1986a: Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung der bronzezeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen Südtransdanubien und der unteren Donaugegend. FolArch 37, 99–115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1986b: Zsadány-Orosi puszta: Ein alter Hortfund (Grabfund) nach Restaurierung. ComArchHung 1986, 27–48.

  • Kovács, T. 1994a: Újabb adatok a mészbetétes kerámia kultúrájának fémművességéhez (Neuere Beiträge zur Metallkunst der Kultur der inkrustierten Keramik). VMMK 28, 119–132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1994b: Chronologische Fragen des Überganges von der mittleren zur Spätbronzezeit in Transdanubien. ZalaiMúz 5, 159–172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kovács, T. 1997: Das Grab von Ménfőcsanak. Ein Beitrag zu transdanubischen Denkmälern der Vorhügelgräberzeit. In: Xpóvoƍ. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel. Hrsg.: C. Becker–M.-L. Dunkelmann–C. Metzner-Nebelsick. IntArch Studia honoraria 1. Espelkamp, 297–301.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kőszegi, F. 1981: Middle Bronze Age hoard from Budaörs (Pest County). In: Die Frühbronzezeit im Karpatenbecken und in der Nachbargebieten. Internationales Symposium 1977, Budapest–Velem. Hrsg.: N. Kalicz–R. Kalicz-Schreiber. MittArchInst Bh 2. Budapest, 87–89, 269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Krause, R. 2003: Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 24. Rahden/Westf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lenerz-de Wilde, M. 1995: Prämonetäre Zahlungsmittel in der Kupfer- und Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. FBBW 20, 229–327.

  • Letica, Z. 1973: Antropomorfne figurine bronzanog doba u Jugoslaviji (The Bronze Age Anthropomorphic Figurines in Yugoslavia). DissMonSADJ 16. Beograd.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lichardus, J.–Vladár, J. 1996: Karpatenbecken – Sintašta – Mykene. Ein Beitrag zur Definition der Bronzezeit als historischer Epoche. SlA 44, 25–93.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Marosi, A. 1930: A pákozdvári őstelep (Die urzeitliche Siedlung zu Pákozdvár). ArchÉrt 44, 53–73, 280–281.

  • Melhárd, Gy. 1895: Bronzkori leletekről Somogy megyében [About Bronze Age finds in County Somogy]. ArchÉrt 15, 247–248.

  • Mozsolics, A. 1942: A kisapostagi korabronzkori urnatemető (Der frühbronzezeitliche Urnenfriedhof von Kisapostag). ArchHung 26. Budapest.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mozsolics, A. 1957: Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der großen Wanderung. ActaArchHung 9, 119–156.

  • Mozsolics, A. 1967: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Budapest.

  • Mozsolics, A. 1985: Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely. Budapest.

  • Neugerbauer, J.-W.–Blesl, C.–Lochner, M.–Neugerbauer -Maresch, Ch. 1999: Zu Metall- und Keramikdepots der Bronzezeit aus dem Zentralraum Niederösterreichs. In: Depotfunde der Bronzezeit im mittleren Donauraum. Hrsg.: A. Krenn-Leeb–J.-W. Neugebauer. Archäologie Österreichs Sonderausgabe 9–10 (1998–1999). Wien, 5–45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Németh, G. T. 2008: Rapport préliminaire sur une nécropole de la Culture des Tumulus à Lébény. In: Nouvelles approches en anthropologie et en archéologie funéraire. Éd.: Z. Czajlik–C. Mordant. Budapest, 73–81.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Novák, P. 2011: Die Dolche in Tschechien. PBF VI/13. Stuttgart.

  • Novotná, M. 1980: Die Nadeln in der Slowakei. PBF XIII/6. München.

  • Novotná, M. 1984: Halsringe und Diademe in der Slowakei. PBF XI/4. München.

  • Novotná, M. 1998: Zur Chronologie der Bronzehortfunde im Karpatenbecken. In: Fritsch, B., Maute, M., Matuschik, I., Müller, J., Wolf, C. (Eds): Tradition und Innovation. Prähistorische Archäologie als historische Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Christian Strahm. IntArch Studia honoria 3. Rahden, 349–370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Petres, É. F. 1992: Rézkor, korabronzkor. Temetkezés, viselet, edények, ékszerek. Töredékek Fejér megye múltjából [Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age. Burial, attire, pottery, jewelry. Records of the past of County Fejér]. In: Évezredek kincsei. Régészeti kiállítások. Ed.: V. Cserményi. SzIKMK D.ser. 244. Székesfehérvár, 244.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Radivojević, M.–Roberts, B. W.–Pernicka, E.–Stos-Gale, M.–Martinón-Torres, M.–Rehren, T.–Bray, P.–Brandherm, D.–Ling, J.–Mei, J.–Vandkilde, H.–Kristiansen, K.–Shennan, S. J.–Broodbank, C. 2019: The provenance, use, and circulation of metals in the European Bronze Age: The state of debate. JAS 27, 131–185.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rageth, J. 1974: Der Lago di Ledro in Trentino und seine Beziehungen zu den alpinen und mitteleuropäischen Kulturen. BRGK 55, 73–259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Říhovský, J. 1979: Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet. PBF XIII/5. München.

  • Říhovský, J. 1983: Die Nadeln in Westungarn. PBF XIII/10. München.

  • Ruttkay, E. 1983: Zur Deutung der Depotfunde vom Typus Tolnanémedi im Zusammenhang mit dem Idol von Babska. ANhM Wien 85/A, 1–17.

  • Schubert, F.–Schubert, E. 1967: Spektralanalytische Untersuchungen von Hort-und Einzelfunden der Periode B III. In: Mozsolics, A.: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Budapest, 185–189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schumacher-Matthäus, G. 1985: Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im Karpatenbecken. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6. Mainz am Rhein.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sørensen, L. M. S.–Rebay, K. C. 2005: Interpreting the body. Burial practices at the Middle Bronze Age cemetery at Pitten, Austria. ArchA 89, 153–175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Szabó, J. J. 1999: Früh- und mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Battonya. IPH 8. Budapest.

  • Szathmári, I. 1983: Kisapostager Gräber im bronzezeitlichen Gräberfeld von Dunaújváros. Alba Regia 20, 7–36.

  • Szathmári, I. 1996: Bronze wire and sheet ornaments of the Vatya culture. In: Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Region. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag. Hrsg.: T. Kovács. Budapest, 75–81.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Szathmári, I. 2000: Bronze Age bone pendants in the Carpathian Basin. ActaArchHung 51 (1999–2000), 35–42.

  • Topál, J. 1973: Bronzkori ékszerlelet Ócsáról (A Bronze Age jewel find at Ócsa). ArchÉrt 100, 3–18.

  • Trogmayer, O. 1968: Der Schatzfund von Baks-Levelény. MFMÉ 1966–67, 15–29.

  • Trogmayer, O. 1975: Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld bei Tápé. FontesArchHung. Budapest.

  • Uzsoki, A. 1963: Bronzkori temető Mosonszentmiklós-Jánosházapusztán (Bronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Mosonszentmiklós-Jánosházapuszta). Arrabona 5, 5–89.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Vicze, M. 2011: Bronze Age Cemetery at Dunaújváros-Duna-dűlő. DissPan Ser. IV/1. Budapest.

  • Vladár, J. 1974: Die Dolche in der Slowakei. PBF VI/3. München.

  • V Szabó, G. 1997: A Perjámos-kultúra leletei Hódmezővásárhely környékén (Adatok a kora és középső bronzkori női viselethez) [Finds of the Perjámos culture in the environs of Hódmezővásárhely. Data to female costumes of the Early and Middle Bronze Age]. In: Látták Trója kapuit. Ed.: P. Havassy. Gyulai katalógusok 3. Gyula, 59–84.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 1978: Die Anhänger und Halsringe in Südwestdeutschland und Nordbayern. PBF XI/1. München.

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 1991: Die Anhänger in Südbayern. PBF XI/5. Stuttgart.

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 2008: Stachelscheiben: Nur zur Zierde? In: Durch die Zeiten… Festschrift für Albrecht Jockenhövel zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg.: F. Verse–B. Knoche–J. Graefe–M. Hohlbein–K. Schierhold–C. Siemann–M. Uckelmann–G. Woltermann. IntArch Studia honoraria 28. Rahden/Westf., 275–289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wels-Weyrauch, U. 2011: Colliers: Nur zur Zierde ? In: Bronzen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Nutzung und symbolischer Bedeutung. Beiträge zum internationalen Kolloquium am 9. und 10. Oktober 2008 in Münster. Hrsg.: U. E. Dietz–A. Jockenhövel. PBF XX/13. Stuttgart, 259–278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wosinsky, M. 1896: Tolnavármegye az őskortól a honfoglalásig. I–II. (Das Komitat Tolna von der Urzeit bis zur Landnahmezeit. I–II). Budapest.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wosinsky, M. 1904: Az őskor mészbetétes díszítésű agyagművessége [The Encrusted Pottery Culture in Prehistory]. Budapest.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Print ISSN:
0001-5210
Online ISSN:
1588-2551

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: 
Elek BENKŐ
Dénes GABLER

Editorial Board

  • Csanád BÁLINT (Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Régészeti Intézet)
  • Ádám BOLLÓK (Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Régészeti Intézet)
  • Miklós SZABÓ (Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Régészettudományi Intézet)
  • Gabriella KULCSÁR (Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Régészeti Intézet)
  • Gilbert KAENEL (Musée cantonal d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de Lausanne)
  • Janusz K. KOZŁOWSKI (Uniwersytet Jagiellonska, Krakow)
  • Falko DAIM (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz)
  • Judit SOLTI (Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Régészeti Intézet)

 

ACTA ARCHAEOLOGICA
Tóth Kálmán u. 4.
H-1097 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (36 1) 375 9011
Fax: (36 1) 224 6719
gabler.denes@abtk.hu

 

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Scopus

 

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS		 not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites		 not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor		 not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index		 8
Scimago
Journal Rank		 0,143
Scimago Quartile Score Archeology (Q3)
Archeology (arts and humanities) (Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score		 0,3
Scopus
CIte Score Rank		 Archeology (Arts & Humanities) 208/335 (Q3)
Archeology (Social Sciences) 194/289 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP		 0,665

2020  
Scimago
H-index		 7
Scimago
Journal Rank		 0,138
Scimago
Quartile Score		 Archeology Q3
Archeology (arts and humanities) Q3
Scopus
Cite Score		 13/63=0,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank		 Archeology 198/273 (Q3)
Archeology (arts and humanities) 205/295 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP		 0,176
Scopus
Cites		 40
Scopus
Documents		 20

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index		 6
Scimago
Journal Rank		 0,174
Scimago
Quartile Score		 Archeology Q2
Archeology (arts and humanities) Q2
Scopus
Cite Score		 20/59=0,3
Scopus
Cite Score Rank		 Archeology 150/263 (Q3)
Archeology (arts and humanities) 152/278 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP		 0,238
Scopus
Cites		 31
Scopus
Documents		 15

 

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 560 EUR / 680 USD
Print + online subscription: 646 EUR / 784 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation		 1951
Volumes
per Year		 1
Issues
per Year		 2
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  
Founder's
Address		 H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0001-5210 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2551 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Dec 2022 0 13 12
Jan 2023 0 19 16
Feb 2023 0 15 13
Mar 2023 0 14 14
Apr 2023 0 26 11
May 2023 0 10 14
Jun 2023 0 2 4