Melted Swords and Broken Metal Vessels A

DISSERTATIONES ARCHAEOLOGICAE
ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae
DISSERTATIONES ARCHAEOLOGICAE
Diss
Arch
3.7 Ser. 3. No. 7. | 2019
2019
Dissertationes Archaeologicae
ex Instituto Archaeologico
Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae
Ser. 3. No. 7.
Budapest 2019
Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico
Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae
Ser. 3. No. 7.
Editor-in-chief:
Dávid Bartus
Editorial board:
László BartosieWicz
László Borhy
Zoltán CzaJlik
István Feld
Gábor Kalla
Pál Raczky
Miklós Szabó
Tivadar Vida
Technical editor:
Gábor Váczi
Proofreading:
Szilvia Bartus-SzÖllŐsi
ZsóFia Kondé
Aviable online at http://dissarch.elte.hu

Contact: dissarch@btk.elte.hu
© ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences

Layout and cover design: Gábor Váczi
Budapest 2019
Contents
Articles
János Gábor Tarbay 5
The Casting Mould and the Wetland Find – New Data on the Late Bronze Age
Peschiera Daggers
Máté Mervel 21
Late Bronze Age stamp-seals with negative impressions of seeds from Eastern Hungary

Melted Swords and Broken Metal Vessels – A Late Bronze Age Assemblage
from Tatabánya-Bánhida and the Selection of Melted Bronzes
Ágnes Schneider 101

Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Archaeological Contexts: the case study
of the Early La Tène Cemetery of Szentlőrinc, Hungary
Csilla Sáró – Gábor Lassányi 151

Bow-tie shaped fibulae from the cemetery of Budapest/Aquincum-Graphisoft Park
Dávid Bartus 177

Roman bronze gladiators – A new figurine of a murmillo from Brigetio
Kata Dévai 187

Re-Used Glass Fragments from Intercisa
Bence Simon 205

Rural Society, Agriculture and Settlement Territory in the Roman, Medieval
and Modern Period Pilis Landscape
Rita Rakonczay 231

„Habaner“ Ofenkacheln auf der Burg Čabraď
Field Report
Bence Simon – Anita Benes – Szilvia Joháczi – Ferenc Barna 273
New excavation of the Roman Age settlement at Budapest dist. XVII, Péceli út (15127) site
Thesis Abstracts
Kata Szilágyi 281

Die Silexproduktion im Kontext der Südosttransdanubischen Gruppe
der spätneolithischen Lengyel-Kultur
Norbert Faragó 301

Complex, household-based analysis of the stone tools of Polgár-Csőszhalom

Type Gyermely Hoards and Their Dating – A Supplemented Thesis Abstract
Zoltán Havas 345

The brick architecture of the governor’s palace in Aquincum
Szabina Merva 353

‘…circa Danubium…’ from the Late Avar Age until the Early Árpádian Age –
8th–11th-Century Settlements in the Region of the Central Part of the Hungarian
Little Plain and the Danube Bend
Szabolcs Balázs Nagy 375

Noble Residences in the 15th century Hungarian Kingdom – The Castles of Várpalota,
Újlak and Kisnána in the Light of Architectural Prestige Representation
Ágnes Kolláth 397

Tipology and Chronology of the early modern pottery in Buda
Melted Swords and Broken Metal Vessels
A Late Bronze Age Assemblage from Tatabánya-Bánhida
and the Selection of Melted Bronzes
János Gábor Tarbay

Hungarian National Museum
Department of Archaeology, Prehistoric Collection
tarbay.gabor@mnm.hu
Abstract
This study discusses finds acquired by the Hungarian National Museum in 1880 from Tatabánya-Bánhida.
We presume that they have belonged to two assemblages. Assemblage ‘A’ consists of fragments of a burnt
flange-hilted sword, an armspiral, fragments of a Type B1 cauldron and two metal sheets of uncertain func-
tion that might have belonged to a Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel and a miniature greave. Assemblage
‘B’ contains only two fragments of a melted sword. Macroscopic characterization of the finds revealed that
all objects were finished products which were intentionally manipulated before their deposition. The sword
fragments were partially melted and hacked into pieces, the valuable sheet metal products were broken and
only small parts of them were buried. Assemblage ‘A’ is unique from a typological point of view as well as
object selection. It can be dated to the Ha B1 based on the metal vessels. It has a unique combination lacking
parallels among Ha B1 burials, however known among hoards from this territory and especially from the
Northeast Carpathian Basin. These finds from Tatabánya-Bánhida were previously interpreted as burials
because of the presence of melted objects. Within this study, several examples are also introduced for the
selection of melted bronzes and human remains to hoards. The combination of finds in the Tatabánya-Bán-
hida assemblage and the above examples suggest that Assemblage ‘A’ could have been a rare type of hoard
(funeral hoard), which is known from the only excavated context from Pázmándfalu.
1. Introduction
The starting point of this essay is the area of Tatabánya-Bánhida (Komárom-Esztergom
County), a present-day town situated in northern Transdanubia. To our best knowledge, the
first Late Bronze Age metal find from this region was a Type Gmuden winged axe (Br C, do-
nated to the Hungarian National Museum (HNM) by János Marossy in 1879 (Fig. 1).1 During
the Late Bronze Age, the surroundings of Tatabánya was inhabited by the Tumulus culture,2
followed later by the settlements of the Urnfield culture.3 On the sites such as Dózsakert, a
mould and some metal finds were found, suggesting that a local metallurgy existed on the site
around the Br D–Ha A1.4 In addition to a complex settlement pattern, about which data still
needs to be expanded, a handful of metal stray finds,5 four metal hoards6 and some smaller
1 Gyulai 1887, 2; Inventory Book of the HNM 1879, 175; Mayer 1977, 128, 130, Pl. 32.465, Pl. 32.469; Kib-
bert 1984, 43, Pl. 4.50; Kőszegi 1988, 189, No. 1183.
2 Juhász 2007, 295; László 2008, 289–290.
3 Vékony 1970, 18; Kemenczei 1983, 61; Vékony 1988a, 75; Vékony 1988b, 283–284; Kőszegi 1988, 189, No.
1182; Kisné Cseh 1999, 16–17; László 2001, 167; László 2002, 253; László 2004, 281; Mészáros 2010.
4 Mészáros 2010.
5 Hampel 1901, 382; Mozsolics 1985, 94; Kőszegi 1988, 189, No. 1183.
6 Hampel 1880, 140–141; Hampel 1886a, 63, Pl. 125; Hampel 1886b, Pl. 125; Hampel 1892, 8; Kemenczei 1983,
61; Mozsolics 1985, 94, 201–202, 207; Jungbert 1986, 17, 24; Kőszegi 1988, 189, No. 1183; Kisné Cseh 1999,
Fig. 9–10.
DissArch Ser. 3. No. 7. (2019) 29–99. DOI: 10.17204/dissarch.2019.29

bronze assemblages were found7 which indicate the importance of this area in the Late Bronze
Age ritual activities.
The study focuses on bronze finds from this rich prehistoric landscape, acquired by the HNM
from Tatabánya-Bánhida in 1880 (Figs 19–21). Some of the objects were donated by János
Marossy and were inventoried on 4th October 1880. According to a note in the inventory
book, the bronze artefacts (eight sword fragments, three ‘ring’ fragments and six ‘sheet metal’
fragments, one with rivet) were acquired along with five potsherds from the Szelim-lyuk cave
(Figs 19–20, Fig. 21.3–5). The circumstances of discovery were described as follows: ‘Lh. Bánhi-
da verem ásás alkalmával egy csomóban, úgy látták, tüzben voltak.’ [Bánhida Site. It was found
during pit digging, lying in a heep, seemengly, damaged by fire.].8 On 29th December 1880, two
additional sword fragments were added from the same provenance. They were also donated
by János Marossy (Fig. 21.6).9 In the 1880 issue of the Archaeologiai Értesítő, József Hampel
mentioned the finds in his annual reports, emphasizing the fire damages on the objects and
also referred to the possibility that the Tatabánya-Bánhida Hoard 1 (Fig. 10) might belong to
this find.10 Despite its early discovery, only a few works discussed these objects. Rudolf Gyulai
also commented on the finds in his work entitled as ‘Megyénk a bronzkorban’ [Our County
in the Bronze Age].11 Among the first researchers after Hampel, Amália Mozsolics provided
a new classification for the objects (a sword, an uncertain cauldron, a metal vessel fragment,
two spearheads, two wire fragments and an armspiral fragment) and identified them as grave
goods from a burial dated to the Kurd Horizon (Ha A1).12 In Tibor Kemenczei’s 1988 mono-
graph, except one piece (No. 6.1), all sword fragments were re-published and reconstructed
as part of two weapons. However, Kemenczei catalogued them as stray finds.13 It should be
noted that the finds are missing completely from the 1990 Prähistorische Bronzefunde volume
on metal vessels from the territory of Hungary.14
After more than a hundred years, the finds from Tatabánya-Bánhida were restored in 2019,
which finally allowed their complete analysis. Their examination suggested that they could
belong to either one or two assemblages. The presumed composition of these are much sim-
ilar to Amália Mozsolics’s reconstruction from 1985.15 Among the inventoried objects (14th
October 1880; Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’) we can find a melted flange-hilted sword (Figs 19–20),
melted pieces of a Type B1 cauldron (Fig. 21.3) and a Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel (Fig.
21.5), as well as one armspiral (Fig. 21.2) and a metal sheet fragment that probably belonged to
a miniature greave (Fig. 21.4). Originally, three metal sheet fragments were also inventoried,
but these finds have been lost since. The ‘two objects’ acquired in 29th December 1880 were in
fact parts of another melted sword (Figs 21.6), which was broken into pieces by the finders.16
7 Hampel 1902, 85; Patek 1968, 154, Pl. 43.2, 5; Mozsolics 1985, 94, 201, Pl. 122.10–12; Kőszegi 1988, 189, No.
1181.
8 Inventory Book of the HNM 1880, 92. The sheet metal fragment with rivet can no longer be found.
9 Inventory Book of the HNM 1880, 140–141.
10 Inventory Book of the HNM 1880, 140–141; Hampel 1880, 341; Hampel 1881, 164.
11 Gyulai 1887, 2.
12 Mozsolics 1984, 25, 69, No. 87; Mozsolics 1985, 94.
13 Kemenczei 1991, Nos. 446–447.
14 See Patay 1990.
15 Mozsolics 1985, 94.
16 Inventory Book of the HNM 1880, 140–141. It should be noted that these were the two finds that Amália
Mozsolics misidentified as spearheads (See fn. 12). This incorrect data also appeared in Svend Hansen’s
catalogue. See Hansen 1994, 533, No. 70.
30
A Late Bronze Age Assemblage from Tatabánya-Bánhida and the Selection of Melted Bronzes
For most researchers, these finds can be identified as grave goods from a Ha B1 burial or bur-
ials, which shows a sort of continuity with the ‘warrior burial’ phenomenon of the Bakony
Hills and its adjacent areas. However, the interpretation of these finds may not be so evident,
as the selection of typologically and technologically similar objects in Transdanubia reflects
on a more complex picture. In addition to the analysis of the artefacts, this essay aims to dis-
cuss different interpretation scenarios (burial with sword versus funeral hoards) that can be
associated with the finds from Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’.
5 cm
Fig. 1. A winged axe of Type Gmuden (Br C) from Tatabánya-Bánhida (L. 169.5 mm, W. 32.25 mm,
Wt. 356.3 g, HNM, Inv. No. 1879.116, Photo: J. G. Tarbay)
31
2. The Selection of Objects

The finds were studied before and after restoration, which allowed the identification of all
post-deposition damages17 that were probably caused by the finders (highlighted with red on
Fig. 19.1.1,1.4,1.6, Fig. 20.1.7,18, Fig. 21.3.2,5,6, Fig. 27.4,6). Some fragments fitted well together
along the modern breakage surfaces (Fig. 20.1.7–1.8, Fig. 21.6.1–6.2), while others had some
missing parts (Fig. 19.1.4, Fig. 21.2,5) implying that not all parts of the objects may have been
collected from the site.
2.1. Flange-hilted swords
Six fragments belonged to a flange-hilted sword with rhomboid-cross section and straight
blade (Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’). Based on their matching breakage surfaces, identical cross-sec-
tions and the correlating dimensions of their cast ribs curved out below the weapon’s shoul-
ders (Appx. 1.1.1; Figs 19–20).18 The lower part of the blade was decorated with a bundle of six
lines. Although the broken hilt part did not allow a precise typological classification of this
sword, there are some weapons which may be related to it typologically (blade rib, bundle of
lines pattern, straight blade). Three swords can be mentioned here as examples without com-
pleteness. One was found in a burial from Unterhaching, Bavaria (Germany). It was classified
to the Type Hemigkofen (Ha A1).19 Another fragmented specimen was in the Bruch a.d. Mur
hoard from Styria (Austria) (Br D). This piece was associated with Type Reutlingen.20 It should
be noted that a small number of similar swords are also known from later periods. A fine ex-
ample is a Type F sword from the Hajdúböszörmény-Csege halom hoard (Hungary) (Ha B1).21
The second sword (Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘B’) is a triangle-sectioned tip fragment, decorated
with six cast bundle of lines (Appx. 1.6.1–6.2; Fig. 21.6). It is heavily melted and amorphous,
thus unsuitable for precise typo-chronological evaluation.
The morphological elements and certain dimensions (weight, balance point) are essential in
order to discuss these weapons’ functionality.22 In case of the Bánhida swords, the informa-
tion on these elements is insufficient, only the blade construction of the No. 1 flange-hilted
sword (Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’) can be reconstructed. It was narrow with a somewhat empha-
sized midrib and an edge with parallel faces. Such swords are more fit for thrusting actions,
but they were probably also suitable for cutting movements, as the shape of the blade did not
restrict a weapons’ fighting style entirely.23 In the territory of Transdanubia, this weapon de-
sign is known since the Br C period, but it became characteristic between the Br D and Ha A1
periods.24 The combination of the Tatabánya-Bánhida sword with younger Ha B1 finds (Type
B1 cauldron) could mean that it is either an ‘old’ weapon or it represents older workshop and
combat traditions.25
17 Tarbay 2017a, 79–80; Bell 2019, Tab. 10.2.

18 Kemenczei 1991, Pl. 70.446.
19 Schauer 1971, 158, Pl. 68.466.
20 Schauer 1971, 143, Pl. 62.427.
21 Kemenczei 1988, Pl. 42.376.
22 Kristiansen 2002, 320; Molloy 2007, 105, 109; Matthews 2011, 102; Molloy 2011, 69, 74; Kristiansen
2013, 201; Gener 2018, 140–147.
23 Molloy 2007, 100–101; Molloy 2008, 124, 126; Crellin et al. 2018, 286; Gener 2018, 141–142.
24 See Kemenczei 1988; Kemenczei 1991.
25 The combination of ‘old swords’ with younger ones is not unique at all. The best examples can be found in
32
From a technological point of view, swords found in hoards and burials could fall into dif-
ferent categories.26 Most fragments of sword No. 1 show intense damages caused by fire.
Thus, the identification of all steps related to the weapon’s chaîne opératoire (forming, usage,
damages and deposition)27 cannot be observed. Such are for instance, the traces left by cold
hammering and annealing along the cutting edges, or fine striations, which can be associated
with surface treatment or edge sharpening.28
Among the studied fragments only No. 1.7 was suitable for the identification of traces related
to manufacture and usage. On this fragment fine grinding marks are visible (Fig. 26.1).29 At
one part, it is also possible to observe the sharpened cutting edge by touching (Fig. 25.1). Use-
wear traces, that is small worn blade impacts were only detected on the preserved parts (for
example Fig. 25.2, 5). Some of the traces are similar to V-notches (Fig. 25.2).30 Shallow dents in
clusters were also present on some parts (Fig. 25.3–4), which might be the result of rippling,
based on the experimental study of Valerio Gentile and Annelou van Gijn.31 All traces were
most likely results of blade-on-blade impacts32 caused by another weapon. On the basis of the
observations described, sword No. 1 can be sorted to the category of finished products with
traces of use.
The overall macroscopic character of sword No. 6 (Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘B’) supports that it
may also have been a finished product. On the surface of fragment No. 6.2 it was also possible
to observe shallow and worn notches and dents (Fig. 28.3–4).
Tobias Mörtz suggested that the treatment of swords in burials and hoards seems to be indi-
vidual.33 According to the study of Mariann Novák and Gábor Váczi, regularities and groups
can be observed in the treatment of these weapons between the Br D–Ha A1 in the eastern
Urnfield territory. On sword No 1. of Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’, all deliberate destruction traces
mentioned (edge damages, impact marks, hacking, bending, heat damage) could be observed
simultaneously.34
• The first category includes several different marks caused by at least two bladed tools,
possibly a chisel with narrow cutting edge and a larger axe. A deep and wide U-shaped
notch was documented on fragment No. 1.5, which is a characteristic pre-deposition-
pure sword hoards from the Northeast Carpathians. Such ‘old’ weapons could have a complex and long use-
life before they were selected to burials, hoards or wetland areas. Pearce 2013, 56; Tarbay 2018b, 315–319.
26 1. as-casts, 2a. unfinished products, 2b. unused finished products, 3. finished products with some traces of
use, 4. finished product, which use-wear traces were removed (re-sharpened before deposition), 5. finished
products with intense traces of use (repairs, hilt and blade abrasion etc.). Kristiansen 1984, 198, Fig. 6–7;
Fontijn 2005, 151; Molloy 2011, 72–73.
27 Quilliec 2007, 408–411, Fig. 3, Fig. 17; Quilliec 2008, 68.
28 Ó Faoláin – Northover 1998, 74–76, 84–85, Pl. 6–9; Trnka et al. 2009, 221–223; Mödlinger – Ntaflos
– Salaberger 2010, 51–52, Fig. 7; Molloy 2011, 70–71,75; Mödlinger 2011, 163; Siedlaczek 2011, 116;
Horn 2014, 33–34, Fig. 5d; Tarbay 2015a, Fig. 2.1; Tarbay 2015b, Pl. 9.3; Sapiro – Webler 2016, 3181–3183;
Tarbay 2016a, Fig. 5.2–4, Fig. 6.8; Tarbay 2017a, Fig. 19.5; Cao 2018, 232–236; Molloy 2018b, 213–214.
29 Horn 2014, 33.
30 Bridgford 2000, 105–107; Bunnefeld – Schwenzer 2011, Tab. 3; Molloy 2011, 75, fn. 21; Bell 2019, 153,
Fig. 10.1.a.
31 Bell 2019, 153, Fig. 10.1.c; Gentile – van Gijn 2019, 137, Fig. 5D.
32 Molloy 2018b, 216; Bell 2019, 153; Gentile – van Gijn 2019.
33 Mörtz 2018, 180.
34 Novák – Váczi 2012, 101–105, Fig. 4.
33
al trace (edge notching) (Fig. 22.4).35 On fragment No. 1.6 two deep V-shaped inden-
tations with material displacement can be observed that were the results of impacts
from oblique direction.36 Based on their depth they can similarly be interpreted (Fig.
23.2).37 Two pieces showed long blade impact marks (Fig. 22.3, Fig. 24.2).
• There is a connection between some of the blade impact marks and the hacking of the
sword. On some fragments, impacts appear in clusters,38 usually near to the breakage
surface (Fig. 22.2, Fig. 23.1) or where the fragment was bent (Fig. 22.1, Fig. 23.3, Fig.
24.3–4). There are even slant cut-like marks in connection with the blade hacking
(Fig. 23.4).
• Macroscopic observations suggest that the intensity of heat damage varied between
the fragments, and there was also a correlation between the heat treatment and frag-
mentation. On some fragments the breakage surfaces are sharp (Fig. 27.2) and the
impacts are shallow (Fig. 23.3), while other pieces show amorphous (Fig. 27.1) or even
completely melted surfaces (Fig. 27.3) combined with deep impacts (for example Fig.
22.2, Fig. 23.1). These macroscopic traits suggest that these fragments were exposed to
different temperature during manipulation.39
• Bending, accompanied by cracks in certain parts were also present on some frag-
ments.40 Experimental studies indicate that bending can occur during combat. Since
bronze swords were made of a ‘soft material’ they could easily be bent back by their
user.41 Kristian Kristiansen also suggested that warriors themselves could have slight-
ly bent the swords similarly to modern practice.42 The different bending marks on
the Tatabánya-Bánhida swords are extreme, some parts were even bent to 90 degrees
(Fig. 20.1.7–1.8). Consequently, they do clearly not belong to the category above. The
manipulation of swords by bending is a ritual practice without boundaries that was
observed in several European territories.43 Experiments of Claudio Giardino, Georges
Verley and recently Matthew Giuseppe Knight pointed out that even U-shaped bend-
ing can be done by hand, without heat treatment, if the tip’s end and the hilt is si-
multaneously pressed. The other method is plastic deformation.44 The bending marks
of the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ sword correlated with blade impacts and fire damages
supporting the idea that these served to help the hacking of the weapon.45 Intentional
bending without breakage was only detected on one fragment (No. 1.7–1.8). In sum,
the damage traces on the Tatabánya-Bánhida sword No. 1 suggest that the weapon
35 Rau 2016, 176, Fig. 2; Mörtz 2018, 170, Fig. 11.3; Bell 2019, 153, 155, Fig. 10.1.b.
36 Horn 2014, 22.
37 Comparable traces on a sword without melted damages were interpreted as use-wear marks by Kristiansen.
Kristiansen 2002, Fig. 4a–b.
38 Bell 2019, 155.
39 This hypothesis should be verified by future metallographic sampling or Time-of-flight Neutron Diffraction
analysis.
40 Novák – Váczi 2012, 99.
41 Molloy 2011, 75; Knight 2018, 118, 120–121, Fig. 4.45, Fig. 4.48–4.49; Gentile – van Gijn 2019, 137, Fig.
6E.
42 Kristiansen 2002, 320.
43 Bietti Sestieri et al. 2013, 167; Lloyd 2015, 18.
44 Bietti Sestieri et al. 2013, 167–169; Knight 2018, 128–134.
45 Colquhoun 2011, 57.
34
was bent and broken to pieces in a pre-heated, even half-melted state by bladed tools
(chisel and axe). Its treatment was violent and clearly reflects on a deliberate destruc-
tion that mutilated this sword to an almost unrecognizable state (Fig. 2.1–2).46
1 2 3 4
Fig. 2. Manipulation and use marks of the swords from Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’. 1–2 – Tatabánya-
Bánhida ‘A’, 3–4 – Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘B’ (yellow – use-wear traces, dark orange – intensely melted
parts, red – tool impacts, M – melted breakage surface, R – recent breakage surface, S – breakage
surface) (Graphics: J. G. Tarbay)
46 Nebelsick 2000.
35
The treatment of the second sword (Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘B’, No. 6) is identical to the first. It
is a longer tip fragment, which was originally intact during deposition and was broken into
two as a result of post-depositional damage. The fragment is slightly bent and its upper part is
completely melted (Fig. 28.1). Several damages can be observed on the sword, which was car-
ried out in melted state. A deep blade impact (Fig. 27.8) or other damages on the cutting edge
(Fig. 28.2) are visible. On fragment No. 6.1 an axe blade like imprint can be seen (Fig. 28.1). This
damage could have occurred when the tool touched the sword blade in a half-melted state.
Both swords from Tatabánya-Bánhida were destroyed completely by methods which served
no mundane purpose (for example partitioning for recycling etc.).47 This type of weapon ma-
nipulation, especially when it was done on a used object, reflects a very symbolic act that can
be interpreted in various ways. Either such weapons may have been ‘dangerous’ or ‘tainted’
objects which were used to harm or kill other human beings or they symbolize their users
who represent continuous threat to the society, let it be a fallen enemy or a warrior, who has
the power to overcome social rules.48 The ‘transformation’ or ‘purification’ of these objects by
various methods, like intentional alteration (bending) or physical destruction (fragmentation,
fire damages) or their ritual ‘containment’ to a special topographical context like wetland ar-
eas (lakes, bogs, rivers) is essential.49 Perhaps the most favoured hypothesis is the ceremonial
destruction of the enemy’s weapons as ‘insult’ and also as a sacrifice towards deities, an act
that was usually carried out by bending, breakage or even by fire. Analogues of such a treat-
ment has many parallels in the antique and modern world alike.50 For the sword No. 1 from
Tatabánya-Bánhida this interpretation is less plausible, as its typological design reflects local
traditions. Swords are especially complex weapons and for their treatment several different
ritual traditions have already emerged in the Bronze Age.51 As among others, Mark Pearce
emphasized that some could have own identities, even names, especially the ones with ex-
tended use-life52, as it can be assumed in case of the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ sword on the basis
of typology and usage.
2.2. Armspiral
By the typological classification of fragment No. 2 (Appx. 1.1, Fig. 21.2) Amália Mozsolics was
correct.53 This object has a triangle cross-section, which is more characteristic to armspirals
than rings which, during the Late Bronze Age, tend to have circular or slightly rectangle
cross-sections. As fragment No. 2 is quite small, a precise classification of the object is impos-
sible. Armspirals are more characteristic in the Northeast Carpathian Basin. In Transdanubia
they are less common and are usually selected to large scrap hoards as fragments.54 Triangle
cross-sectioned armspirals were distributed in a wider geographical area and as Peter König
has pointed out, their chronological position is rather ‘timeless’.55 Armspirals with triangle
47 Colquhoun 2011, 57–58.

48 Fontijn 2005, 149–151; Quilliec 2008, 75; Tagliamonte 2016, 167; Mörtz 2018, 180.
49 Fontijn 2005, 150, 152; Tagliamonte 2016, 166.
50 Aldhouse-Green 2006, 290–300; De Martino – Devecchi 2016, 12–13; Tagliamonte 2016, 165–166.
51 See Soroceanu 2011a; Soroceanu 2011b.
52 Kristiansen 2002, 329–330; Pearce 2013, 64.
53 Mozsolics 1985, 94.
54 E.g. Bonyhád, Keszőhidegkút, Pamuk, Pölöske, Velem. Mozsolics 1985, 29, Pl. 39.16, Pl. 105.12, Pl. 128.21,
Pl. 231B.
55 König 2004, 112–113.
36
cross-section and rolled terminals are known from the Drenov dô hoard, dated to Stufe 4 (Ha
B1).56 Similar artefacts were found in the East Carpathian Basin between the Br D and Ha B1
(for example Uzhhorod 4 – Ha A1, Malaja Dobron’ 1 – Br D, Podmonastyr’ 2 – Br D).57
2.3. Type B1 Cauldron
The typological identification of Amália Mozsolics58 can be verified based on small details such
as the thickness and the rim decoration of fragments (Appx. 1.1; Fig. 21.3). This pattern con-
sists of a bundle of five lines and a line of chased arcs. This pattern combination is only known
on two vessel types: the Type Egyek cups59 and Type B1 cauldrons.60 However, completely
identical parallels to the Tatabánya-Bánhida finds are exclusively known among cauldrons
and fragments that may have belonged to these vessels (Cornești,61 Hajdúsámson 2,62 Krásna
nad Hornádom,63 Nyírtelek,64 Tărpiu-Valea Lungă).65 Several parallels decorated with a similar
pattern can be mentioned from Transdanubia (Budapest-Nagytétény),66 the Northern Balkans
(Bokavić)67 and the East Carpathian Basin (Kántorjánosi,68 Mezőkövesd,69 Moigrad 1,70 Rohod
3,71 Tiszakarád-Szárnyaszög tanya 2,72 Visuia)73, which also belong to cauldrons. Except for a
handful of cases, the deposition of these vessels was predominant during the Ha B1 period.74
Type B1 cauldrons are primarily characteristic in the Hungarian Nyírség, where research has
hypothesized a possible workshop. The main distribution area of these vessels correlates with
the ‘territory’ of the Gáva pottery style, which covers the regions of the Northeast Carpath-
ian Basin, West Ukraine and Transylvania. Only a few specimens can be mentioned outside
this region, from the Northern Balkans, Czech Republic, Germany, Scandinavia and Eastern
France (Appx. 2.1; Fig. 3.A).75
In addition to the Budapest-Nagytétény cauldron, the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ find is the only
known piece west of the Danube. It is worth noting in this context that the object combi-
nation of the latter find is primary known in the East Carpathian Basin, where cauldrons
were selected along with swords, metal vessels and even armspirals (Fig. 3.C–B). They are
also frequently combined with swords (C4–C6, C8) and situlae (C3, C6–C9) (Fig. 3.C). These
56 König 2004, 112–113, 196–197, Pl. 56.13–15.

57 Kobal’ 2000, Pl. 37A.43, Pl. 39.12, Pl. 40.24, Pl. 70.22.
58 Mozsolics 1984, 69; Mozsolics 1985, 94.
59 E.g. Ganard – Piningre 2015, 164–168, Figs 151–152.
60 von Merhart 1952, 4–5.
61 Soroceanu 2008, 149, Pl. 31.112.
62 Zoltai 1926, 130–131, Fig. 2; Patay 1990, 22, Pl. 6.9.
63 Javorský 1980, 109, Fig. 60.3; Novotná 1991, 48, P. 9.49.
64 Patay 1990, Pl. 15.21.
65 Soroceanu 2008, 150–151, Pl. 32.118.
66 Jelentés 1912, 37; Patay 1990, 25, Pl. 23.30.
67 König 2004, 184–191, Pl. 48.257.
68 Jósa 1895a; Jósa 1895b, 355; Patay 1990, Pl. 10.14.
69 Patay 1969a, 173, Fig. 6–7, Pl. 44.6–7; Patay 1990, Pl. 13.20.
70 Nestor 1935, 26–28, Fig. 1.1–1a, Fig. 2.11; Soroceanu 2008, 128–130, Pl. 20.93.
71 Jósa 1910, 116–117, Pl. 7; Patay 1990, 24, Pl. 16.23; Mozsolics 2000, 68–69.
72 Mozsolics 1969, 43, Fig. 2.2; Patay 1990, Pl. 21.28.
73 Dănilă 1976, 69–70, Fig. 1.1–2, Fig. 3.6, Fig. 7; Soroceanu 2008, 130–132, Pl. 22.96.
74 von Merhart 1952, 5–6; Novotná 1991, 54; Thevenot 1991, 74, Fig. 72; Кобаль 2006, 97; Soroceanu
2008, 132; Martin 2009, 93; Schmidt – Segschneider 2014, 473; Novotná – Kvietok 2018, 12.
75 von Merhart 1952, 5–6, Map 1; Patay 1990, 27–29, Pl. 78; Thevenot 1991, 72–74, Fig. 73; Koós 2004, Fig. 8;
Soroceanu 2008, 132; Schmidt – Segschneider 2014, 473; Novotná – Kvietok 2018, 11–12.
37
object combinations also call attention to the fact that the concept of selection in the Tata-
bánya-Bánhida ‘A’ find or at least some of its elements (sword–cauldron–armspiral–‘situla’)
reflect to the selection of Ha B1 hoards from the Northeast Carpathian Basin. Most of these
closely related assemblages fall into the group of elite hoards that might have belonged to the
local elite groups of that area (Appx. 2.1). It should be noted that similar object selections can
be found even west of the Danube River, if uncertain fragments are also taken into account.
An important example is the Bokavić hoard from Bosnia and Herzegovina, which contains
fragments of a situla, cauldron and broken swords.76
Fig. 3. Distribution of typologically well identifiable Type B1 cauldrons in Europe. A. Number of

specimens, B. Object combination groups (1 – only cauldrons or one cauldron, 2 – cauldron–arm-
spiral, 3 – cauldron–situla, 4 – cauldron–sword, 5 – cauldron–armspiral–sword, 6 – cauldron–situla–
sword, 7 – cauldron–strainer–situla, 8 – cauldron–situla–helmet–sword, 9 – cauldron–situla–hel-
met–armspiral), C. Frequency of combination groups (Appx. 2.1) (Graphics: J. G. Tarbay)
The cauldron fragments’ preservation condition did not allow their precise characterisation
from the point of manufacturing and use. The body fragments consist of two heavily melted
parts, broken by bending. They are also fused with other metal sheet objects (Fig. 21.3–4). The
handle shows no visual traces of heat damage and it was broken into more than three parts.
Cauldrons are mainly known from metal hoards, some were recovered from wetland areas.
76 König 2004, 184–191, Pl. 37.1–4, Pl. 48.253, 256–258, 260, 264.
38
It is difficult to gain an accurate picture on their breakage and manipulations, since the de-
scription of these vessels in the literature is primarily typological. Rarely are there any ac-
curate descriptions of damages or notes on different post-deposition phenomena.77 Relying
on the currently available data (See Appx. 2.1), an attempt was made at outlining the variety
of Type B1 cauldron fragmentation with a remark that future re-examination of the finds is
essential to refine our results.
Based on the fine reconstructions in the Prähistorische Bronzefunde volumes, it can be as-
sumed that intact deposition was typical for Type B1 cauldrons. In fact, fragmented spec-
imens significantly outnumbered the intact ones. As multi-part objects, cauldrons can be
manipulated in various ways on their body, handle attachments or handles. The damages on
the body are typically dents or breakages along the wall or on the bottom. Some were in sev-
eral pieces due to intentional fragmentation or taphonomic damage. Many have a damaged
bottom part. Handle attachments can be broken or dismantled. Handles can also be missing,
or they were deposited as fragments. Based on the presence of manipulations,78 breakage
or missing parts we can sort the well-identifiable Type B1 cauldron fragments to seven
combination groups by cluster analysis, applying Euclidean distance (Fig. 4). In addition to
intact vessels (A1B1C1), heavily fragmented specimens (A2B2C2), cauldrons with missing or
broken handles (A1B1C2) or bodies (A2B1C1) or bodies and handle attachments (A2B2C1)
are the most characteristic. Our preliminary results suggest that breakage, manipulation and
dismantling of cauldrons were the typical ways of treatment before the objects were selected
to hoards, burials or hidden to wetlands.79
The Tatabánya-Bánhida find fits well to this system. It can be sorted into the most damaged
combination group (A2B2C2). However, for its evaluation we also need to consider the atyp-
ical fragments. As the cluster analysis showed, manipulations with handles are present in
four (A2B1C2, A1B1C2, A1B2C2, A2B2C2) of the seven combination groups, suggesting that
dismantling and/or breaking of deposited handles was frequent. The selection of broken caul-
dron handles is known from the territory of Transdanubia, East Hungary and Transylvania
between the Ha A1 and Ha B1.80 In this respect, we can mention two handle fragments, one
from Gyermely-Szomor and another from Sárbográd-Sárszentmiklós, since both were depos-
ited in the same Ha B1 period as the Tatabánya-Bánhida find.81 The selection of rim fragments
also seems frequent, examples can be cited from East Hungary (Borsodbóta),82 Slovakia,83
Transylvania84 and Bosnia and Herzegovina.85
77 Like damages on the Mezőkövesd cauldrons. See Patay 1969a, 171–173; Patay 1990, 23.
78 The identification of finer damages (for example dents, impacts) was not possible in most cases from the
data obtained from literature.
79 It is very important to note that damages on cauldrons may not be in all cases results of intentional manip-
ulation. Repair marks are visible on many specimens, suggesting that the breakage of the vessel’s handle
attachments and body may have been caused by their use. Patay 1990, 10–11; Gedl 2001, Pl. 73.B4. It also
refers to the fact that cauldrons were also valuable objects used for an extended period as it is assumed in
case of swords.
80 Patay 1990, 31–34; Soroceanu 2008, 149–130.
81 Kemenczei 1996, Fig. 9.15; Tarbay 2015b, Pl. 6.77.
82 In light of the hoard’s circumstances of discovery as well as personal study of the object, we believe that
this find can be interpreted as a recently broken fragment. von Kenner 1860, 367; Patay 1990, 32, Pl. 25.35.
83 Novotná 1991, Pl. 10.50.
84 Soroceanu 2008, Pl. 30.107–109, Pl. 31, Pl. 30.110–112, Pl. 32.118–119.
85 König 2004, Pl. 48.257–258.
39
Fig. 4. Cluster analysis of Type B1 cauldron fragmentation, applying Euclidean distance (Appx. 2.1)
(Graphics: Past 2.17, J. G. Tarbay)
Not much is known about the frequency of fire damages on Type B1 cauldrons. The fragments
from the Škocjan Mušja jama site can be highlighted, which have been bent and some showed
traces of fire damage.86 In addition to the burial from Vester Skjerninge, which in a way relates
to the Bánhida find by the treatment and selection of objects,87 the finds from Škocjan Mušja
jama are the closest and best parallels for the treatment of the Bánhida cauldron.
2.4. Metal sheet with rolled rim (‘miniature greave’)
Three thin metal sheet fragments were corroded on the No. 3.1 cauldron piece (Appx. 1.1, Fig.
21.3–4). One of them has a rolled rim according to microscope-camera image (Fig. 6.2, Fig. 21.4,
Fig. 27.5). During the Late Bronze Age, rolled rims appear on different metal products like bronze
vessels (situlae), armours and defensive weapons. The role of this technological solution was to
86 Borgna et al. 2016, 586, Pl. 29.1–5, Pl. 30.3; Jereb 2016, 104–105, Pl. 122–123.
87 Thrane 1965, 175–179, Pl. 10a.1–12.
40
make the edges of sheet metal products more resilient against damages caused by daily use or
combat. In case of large objects, rolled rims are often reinforced with a wire. Regarding the typo-
logical properties of the local metal sheet products, fragment No. 4 could have been the edge of
a miniature greave. As comparative data, an unidentified greave (Fig. 5.2),88 a miniature greave
fragment (Fig. 5.4.1–4.2) from the ‘Bonyhád vidéke’ hoard and another greave fragment from
the Bodrogkeresztúr 1 hoard (Fig. 5.1) will be re-published here.89 The thickness of the Tatabán-
ya-Bánhida fragment (rim: 3.11 mm, sheet: 0.80 mm) correlates more with the miniature greave
from Bonyhád (rim 1.46 mm, sheet: 0.62 mm). The difference of 1.65 mm may be due to the
corroded condition of the object (See Appx. 1.1, 1.3). It is also important to note that the rim of
object No. 4 was not folded on a wire, similarly to the miniature greave from ‘Bonyhád vidéke’.
4.1
4.2
Fig. 5. Late Bronze Age greave and miniature greave fragments: 1 – Greave fragment from the
Bodrogkeresztúr 1 hoard, 2 – Greave fragment from the ‘Bonyhád vidéke’ hoard, 3 – Probable minia-
ture greave fragment from Tatabánya-Bánhida A, 4.1 – Miniature greave fragment from the ‘Bonyhád
vidéke’ hoard, 4.2 – Reconstruction of the miniature greave from the ‘Bonyád vidéke’ hoard (HNM,
Photos and drawing: J. G. Tarbay) (Appx. 1.3).
88 Related finds, See Fogolari 1943, Fig. 1; Kemenczei 2003, Pl. 7.19; Windholz-Konrad 2008, Fig. 53; Tarbay
2015a, Fig. 16–17; Mödlinger 2017, 222–227.
89 Kemenczei 2003, 26, Pl. 7.19.
41
The research of miniature greaves in Eastern Europe started with the study of Mirko Bulat,
who was the first to recognise this type and to point out the similarities between the metal
sheet object from the 2nd Poljanci hoard and the Rinyaszentkirály greave.90 Miniature greaves
have been discussed in details by Amália Mozsolics and Katalin Jankovits and recently by
Marianne Mödlinger.91 Parallel Italian finds were also published from burial context (for ex-
ample Pratica di Mare – Tomba XXI).92 In addition to the miniature greave from Bonyhád, an
identical specimen can be mentioned from Esztergom-Szentgyörgymező,93 and other related
finds from the Gyöngyössolymos-Kishegy 4,94 Debrecen-Fancsika 195 and Poljanci 296 hoards.
From a typo-chronological point of view Hungarian specimens were classified to the Kurd
Horizon (Ha A1), while the Poljanci 2 find was associated with Phase II (Br D–Ha A1).
In case of the Carpathian Basin and the Northern Balkans, miniature greaves were only found
in hoards. Due to their small number, it is not possible to draw representative conclusions
on their treatment. The specimens from Esztergom-Szentgyörgymező and Gyöngyössoly-
mos-Kishegy 4 were deposited as complete objects, and breakage was only visible on the
former.97 The miniature greaves from Debrecen-Fancsika are fragments (half and ca. quarter
fragment), just like the specimen from ‘Bonyhád vidéke’.98 It is important to highlight the
miniature greave from Poljanci 2, which was broken and folded just like some of the real-sized
greaves (for example Lengyeltóti 5).99
2
1 cm
Fig. 6. Sheet metal fragments from the Tatabánya-Bánhida A find: 1. – Hajdúböszörmény-style metal
vessel, 2 – ‘Miniature greave’ (Photos: J. G. Tarbay) (Appx. 1.1).
90 Bulat 1975, 16, Pl. 15.9.

91 Mozsolics 1985, 74; Jankovits 1997, 9, Fig. 6. 1–5; Mödlinger 2017, 237–240.
92 Sommella 1976, 294–295, Pl. 75A; Bietti Sestieri 2011, 410, Fig. 5; Mödlinger 2017, Tab. 4.5.
93 Horváth et al. 1979, 212, Pl. 20.13; Mödlinger 2017, Fig. 4.8.
94 Kemenczei 1980, 138, Fig. 2, Pl. 5.1.
95 Patay 1966, 76, Pl. 1.23–24, Pl. 2.8; Mozsolics 1985, 110, Pl. 216. 22–23.
96 Bulat 1975, 16, Pl. 15.9.
97 Horváth et al. 1979, Pl. 20.13; Kemenczei 1980, Fig. 2, Pl. 5.1; Mödlinger 2017, Fig. 4.8.
98 Patay 1966, Pl. 1.23–24, Pl. 2.8; Mozsolics 1985, Pl. 40.9, Pl. 216.22–23.
99 Bulat 1975, 16, Pl. 15.9; Honti – Jankovits 2016, Fig. 2.
42
2.5. Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel

The most puzzling fragment from Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ is a thin metal sheet decorated with
a row of embossed dots framed by lines of repoussé patterns and a fishbone-like decoration
made by the same technique (Appx. 1.1, Fig. 6.1, Fig. 7.3, Fig. 21.5). Amália Mozsolics has al-
ready determined this find as part of a metal vessel,100 but at the time of her publication, the
objects’ complete pattern was not possible to observe due to the intense corrosion on its sur-
face (Fig. 7.3, Fig. 21.5).
2
3
Fig. 7. 1 – Patters of the Tiszanagyfalu situla viewed from inside (HNM, Budapest, Photo: J. G. Tarbay),
2 – Sketch of the Tiszanagyfalu situla’s pattern, 3 – Sketch of the No. 5. Tatabánya-Bánhida A metal
sheet object’s pattern.
Identical or similar pattern combinations are known from armours and metal vessels. First,
a certain group of the Hajdúböszörmény type situlae can be mentioned which have been
discussed by Pál Patay.101 Three of these situlae (Tiszanagyfalu 1,102 Nedilys’ka,103 Unprove-
nanced104) have similar patterns on their shoulder lines. It should be noted that the size of the
Bánhida fragment is smaller than the Tiszanagyfalu (Fig. 7) and Nedilys’ka situlae. This does
not exclude the possibility that it belonged to a Hajdúböszörmény type situla since this vessel
type has no standard size. The combination of fishbone-like patterns with embossed dots is
also visible on an unprovenanced conical-shaped strainer,105 on the sheet metal arm guards
from Hajdúsámson-Kistelek 3106 and on a small fragment from the Bokavić hoard.107 Among the
100 Mozsolics 1985, 94.

101 Patay 1969b; Patay 1970.
102 Patay 1969b, 11–14, Fig. 1–2; Patay 1990, 42, Pl. 34.64.
103 Sulimirski 1937, 254, 277, Pl. 3.7; Patay 1969b, 14, Fig. 3; Patay 1970; Gedl 2001, 63–64, Pl. 77.C6.
104 See Tarbay 2018a, 332, Fig. 11.
105 Veliačik 2015, 160–161, Fig. 4–5.
106 Jankovits 1999, 129–130, Fig. 1–4; Mozsolics 2000, 48, Pl. 37.1 2.
107 König 2004, 184–191, Pl. 48.256.
43
loosely related parallels, two additional Hajdúböszörmény type metal vessels from Biernacice108
and Lúčky109 can be mentioned, both of which are decorated with a line of embossed dots and
a bundle of slant repoussé lines instead of a fishbone pattern. It is worth noting that this style
is also present on the cuirasses from Fillinges and on an unprovenanced specimen.110 By the
above listed parallels, it can be presumed that fragment No. 5 from Tatabánya-Bánhida could
have been part of a Hajdúböszörmény type situla or a smaller metal vessel, which followed the
style of these enigmatic objects. One could argume against this typological determination, but
it is beyond doubt that the chronological position of the object was the Ha B1 period.
The studied fragment is amorphous and slightly melt in the middle part due to fire. If we ac-
cept that it was part of a Hajdúböszörmény type situla, then it belongs to the group of heavily
fragmented specimens within the deposition pattern of this vessel type.111 In this respect,
the fragments from the scrap hoards of Bokavić and Keszőhidegkút should be emphasized.
Specimens from the former are similar regarding their size, and one even shares typological
relations. It is also worth noting that in this hoard too the combination of situla fragments
with small cauldron pieces can be detected.112 The fragment from the Keszőhidegkút hoard
shows no traces of fire damage.113
2.6. Pattern of Selection
Six objects were identified in the Tatabánya-Bánhida find material, of which five (A) could
have belonged together: a sword, an armspiral, a cauldron, a ‘situla/Hajdúböszörmény-style
metal vessel’, and a ‘miniature greave’. Two fragments of a sword were probably part of a
separate find (B). The relative chronological position of the objects cannot be precisely deter-
mined in all cases. The parallels of the cauldron and the Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel
fragment supports the idea that ‘Tatabánya-Bánhida A’ may have been buried around the
Ha B1 period. In terms of manufacturing, all objects were finished products. Use-wear traces
were only observable on the two swords. Even if the possibility of post-depositional damage
is taken into account, it is clear that the Tatabánya-Bánhida finds show a pars pro toto selec-
tion, as only small fragments of the original objects were selected. On all objects different pre-
historic manipulations can be observed. Valuable sheet metal products were broken, folded
(cauldron) and also damaged by fire. The handle of the cauldron was broken into pieces. The
most complex manipulation was observed on the swords, which were burnt, bent and broken
with the aid of certain bladed tools (chisel and axe) to an almost unrecognisable state (Fig. 2,
Fig. 8). Only a single piece remained from the presumed miniature greave. The breakage trac-
es on the armspiral were recent. In connection with this observation, it should be added that
some of the finds showed recent breakage surfaces, which suggests that probably not all pieces
of the objects were delivered to the museum.
As it has been mentioned above, the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ assemblage consists of functional
objects: a used sword, an East Carpathian metal symposium set (cauldron, ‘situla’) and orna-
ments, such as the armspiral or the miniature version of a prestigious greave. All these ele-
108 Gedl 2001, 17, 33, Pl. 11.37.

109 Novotná 1991, Pl. 11.54.
110 Schauer 1982, 92–112, Fig. 2, Pl. 16–47; Mödlinger 2017, 214, Pl. 30–31.
111 See with literature Tarbay 2018b, 334–337, Lists 1.1–1.2.
112 König 2004, Pl. 48.253–254, 256–258.
113 Patay 1990, 84, Pl. 70.166.
44
ments have a strong symbolic meaning, reflecting on the identity and perhaps even the status
of their owner, which is mainly associated with ‘warriorhood’ and the concept of the so called
‘warrior elite’.114 This type of selection during the Ha B1 in Transdanubia is less known from
burial contexts. Graves with bronze cups were only excavated in the Budapest-Békásmegyer
cemetery (Grave Nos 26, 48),115 but none of them contained weapons. All the known burials
with swords from Transdanubia are older (Br C–Ha A1) than the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ find
(see below Cap. 5.1).
Fig. 8. Selection model of the Tatabánya-Bánhida A–B finds (Graphics: J. G. Tarbay).
114 Treherne 1995, 109; Kristiansen 1999, 180–182; Whitley 2002, 219–223, 227; Jockenhövel 2006, 120–
123; Vandkilde 2006, 485; Whittaker 2008, 83; Colquhoun 2011, 56–57; Tarbay 2015a, 47; Gentile et al.
2018, 78; Georganas 2018, 190–195.
115 Kalicz-Schreiber et al. 2010, 33–34, 45–46, 274–275, Pl. 18.10, Pl. 27.19.
45
If the Transdanubian stray finds and hoards from the Ha B1 period are taken into account, it
is observable that swords, some armspirals and metal vessels are present here (Appx. 2.3–6,
Fig. 9). These swords are either stray finds or individual hoards. In larger hoards, these weap-
ons are usually selected in fragmented state (Appx. 2.3, 5). Apart from the burials of Békásm-
egyer and two stray finds (Appx. 2.6), metal vessels (cups, ‘situla’, cauldron and strainer) are
mainly known from hoards. They were either selected to pure vessel hoards like Várvölgy or
Sümeg 2 or to large hoards containing several objects. These are usually selected in a broken
and manipulated form, similarly to swords (for example Gyermely-Szomor, Keszőhidegkút,
Sárbogárd, Tatabánya-Ótelep 3, Várvölgy 4) (Appx. 2.3). Armspirals are rare and they are usu-
ally broken. In hoards which were deposited in the Ha B1, interesting combinations can be de-
tected, like the co-appearance of broken swords and cauldron handles (Sárbogárd and Gyer-
mely-Szomor hoards) (Appx. 2.3, Fig. 9).116 The combination of a sword, metal vessels (situla,
cups) and an amspiral can also be found in the Keszőhidegkút hoard. It should be mentioned
that this find material contains fragments of real-size defensive weapons and armours (hel-
mets, shields) (Appx. 2.3, Fig. 9), too.117 In sum, it seems that the selection of the ‘Tatabánya-
Bánhida ‘A’ find’ is more similar to the hoards deposited in the same period.
Moreover, the analysis of the Type B1 cauldrons’ combination groups revealed that this find
has not only typological relations towards the Northeast Carpathian Basin, but it is very
similar to several hoards from that region regarding their object selection (Fig. 3B–C). Ac-
cording to the model of Gábor Váczi, the connection networks re-established in Northeast
Transdanubia were deteriorating after the Ha A1 period. This area was under the cultural
influence of the Gáva ceramic style and it can be considered as a secondary participant of
interaction at the time of the ‘Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ find’ deposition (Ha B1).118 In this con-
text, the appearance of a Type B1 cauldron, a ‘situla’ and an armspiral represent a unique
scenario. As it was already mentioned, these finds are strongly related to warrior identity.
According to some researchers, such individuals may have played a key role in the distribu-
tion of prestige goods, exotic artefacts, technological developments and even ideas.119 The
concept of ‘mercenaries’ is one of the most tempting among these possibilities. Such objects
could have either belonged to an individual who arrived from another region or they were
brought back by someone who has returned with his prestigious ‘foreign’ artefacts.120
4. On the 1st Hoard from Tatabánya-Bánhida

It is inevitable to briefly discuss the 1st hoard of Tatabánya-Bánhida (Appx. 1.2, Fig. 10) which
József Hampel and Rudolf Gyulai believed to belong together with the finds from 1880.121 This
hoard consists of two spearheads, a knife and a flesh hook. According to the Inventory Book
of the HNM, they were found together with a few small potsherds during the construction
of the stable by house No. 41 in Bánhida.122 The topographic location of the findspot is more
accurate in this case. The inventory book does not refer to this place as being completely iden-
116 Patay 1990, Pl. 26.38; Kemenczei 1996, Fig. 8.11, Fig. 9.15; Tarbay 2015b, Pl. 1.1–5, Pl. 6.77.
117 Mozsolics 1985, Pl. 32.1–10, Pl. 35.30, 32–43. The armspiral is unpublished.
118 Váczi 2013b, 216, 219–220.
119 Molloy 2018a, 86.
120 Kristiansen 2018, 24–27, 41.
121 Inventory Book of the HNM 1880, 140–141; Hampel 1880, 341; Hampel 1881, 164; Gyulai 1887, 2.
46
Fig. 9. Distribution of swords, metal vessels and armspirals in Transdanubia during the Ha B1
(Appx. 2.3–6).
tical with the location of the finds acquired in 14th October and 29th December 1880. It is only
noted that they are also originally from Bánhida.
The two spearheads had the same style with correlating dimensions, referring to the possi-
bility that they were made in the same mould or after the same model (Fig. 10.1–2). Both are
finished products, showing clear traces of manufacturing. Unfortunately, their fragmented
edges are not suitable to draw a conclusion about their use. The knife is a finished product,
too (Fig. 10.4). In this case, the preservation of the object’s edge allowed the identification
of wear traces (notches). The hook is a cast and hammered object, which also falls into the
category of finished products (Fig. 10.3). Unlike the finds discussed earlier , these four ob-
jects showed no visual traces of heat damage, nor intense fragmentation. Except the knife,
the tip of which was broken by bending, the selected finds were all intact.
47
1 2
3
4
Fig. 10. The 1st Hoard from Tatabánya-Bánhida. 1–2 – Spearheads, 3 – Hook, 4 – Flanged knife
(HNM, Photos: J. G. Tarbay) (Appx. 1.2)
Amália Mozsolics dated this hoard to the Kurd Horizon (Ha A1).123 According to the present
typological knowledge, the hoard can be re-dated. The profiles of the two spearheads are
somewhat unique, but on the whole, these finds belong to Tiberius Bader’s Variant C/d. These
spearheads were the most characteristic between the Br D–Ha A1 periods, although some
specimens deposited later are also known (Ha B2). In addition to Transdanubia, similar spear-
heads appeared in the Northeast Carpathian Basin, as well as in the territories of the Czech
Republic and Slovenia. It is notable that their casting mould was found east of the Danube,
in the Pre-Gáva pottery style site of Muhi-3.124 The Pustiměř type knife is somewhat young-
er. Beside some Ha A1 specimens, it is more characteristic to the Ha A2 and Ha B1 periods,
mainly in the Carpathian Basin and Moravia.125 The last find can be identified as a flesh hook
123 Mozsolics 1985, 94.

124 Tárnoki 1987, Pl. 7.9; Bader 2015, 385–386, Tab. 51; Koós 2015, 143, Pl. 20; Tarbay 2015b, 314–315, List 2,
Fig. 4.
125 Říhovskỳ 1972, 32–33; Gedl 1984, 31–32; Kobal’ 2000, 48–49; Veliačik 2012, 297–299, 339; Kacsó 2015, 31;
Tarbay 2015a, 43.
48
that was fixed onto an organic shaft126 and, based

on Middle Eastern analogues and object combi-
nations from the Atlantic Bronze Age,127 used to-
gether with large metal vessels during feasts. The
distribution of these finds covered an enormous
area between the British Isles to the Caspian See,
and they were manufactured for a long time dur-
ing the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.128
The above-mentioned hook is most similar to the 1
finds from the Szombathely hoard (Hungary, Ha
B1) and the Szent Vid hillfort in Velem (Hungary).
From the Carpathian Basin and its vicinity, the
hooks from Škocjan (Slovenia) and Lazy (Ukraine,
Ha A1) should be mentioned.129 Naturally, an ob-
ject with supra-regional distribution also has
corresponding artefacts present in distant terri-
tories. These finds were classified as Class 1 by
Stuart Needham and Sheridan Bowman.130 From
West to East, specimens can be cited from Ireland
(Ballinderry; Bishopsland: 1300–1150 cal. BC),
France (Langoëlan, Bronze Final III, Le Bourget),
Spain (Barrios de Luna) and Germany (Egerdorf-
er Wald, Fridolfing, Ha B3).131 The relative chron-
ological position of the finds is rather complex.
The spearheads follow a Br D–Ha A1 style. The
knife is more characteristic between the Ha A2–
Ha B1, while the feasting equipment appeared at 2
the Ha B1 in the territory of Transdanubia. It is
likely that these finds were deposited around the 3
Ha A2–Ha B1, later than what A. Mozsolics has
suggested (Ha A1). Fig. 11. The Hoard from Paß Luftenstein
(Austria): 1 – Hook, 2 – Knife, 3 – Spear-
Even if the objects were roughly deposited around
head (Drawings by J. G. Tarbay after Hell
the same time as the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ 1939, Fig. 1.1a, 2b, 3a).
finds, it is unlikely that they are originating from
the same context. The 1st Tatabánya-Bánhida find is clearly an independent hoard, a four-
pieced personal set with a symbolic message related to feasting. Spearheads can reflect on the
special abilities for hunting, which provided the high prestigious venison. The long knife and
the flesh hook are practical and also symbolic elements of feasts, which can be associated with
126 Needham – Bowman 2005, 94, 96–98, Fig. 1.

127 Jockenhövel 1974, 333, Fig. 3; Needham – Bowman 2005, 93–94; Neumann 2015, 80.
128 Needham – Bowman 2005; Schefzik 2009; Jahn 2013, 241–242; Neumann 2015, Fig. 59.
129 Wosinsky 1896, 304, Pl. 72.4; Miske 1907, Pl. 15.37–38; Szombathy 1937, Fig. 131–132; Kobal’ 2000, 84–85,
Pl. 47.28; Ilon 2002, Fig. 7.2.
130 Needham – Bowman 2005, 94, 96–98.
131 Chantre 1875, Pl. 63.14; Jockenhövel 1974, 329, Fig. 1.1, Fig. 2–3; Koschik 1981, 42, Fig. 4.2; Delibes de
Castro et al. 1999, 106, 108–109, Fig. 45.7; Ilon 2002, 158; Needham – Bowman 2005, 97; Jahn 2013, Fig.
6.11.1.
49
the portioning and distribution of the meat. In this regard, it is particularly interesting that this
combination (spears–hook–knives) has also appeared in assemblages related to this hoard, for
example at Szombathely132 and Lazy.133 The Paß Luftenstein hoard (Austria) is also important
(Fig. 11), containing only a long spearhead, a flange-hilted knife and a flesh hook, an almost
identical combination to the 1st Tatabánya-Bánhida find.134 The typological selection of these
hoards may refer to certain individuals who own the ability to hunt and the right to distribute
the valuable food during ceremonial feasts.
5. Burials and Hoards

There are still some questions about the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds found in 1880, which
were left unanswered: What type of an assemblage are we dealing with? Is it a burial, as Amália
Mozsolics suggested based on the melted artefacts, or a hoard according to the typological selec-
tion of the finds? 135 According to the Inventory Book of the HNM, neither human remains,
nor potsherds were found together with the metal artefacts, which would suggest a possible
burial origin. The Inventory describes that the objects were found together in a heap, which
can be characteristic to hoards and burials alike. The facts may hint towards a burial interpre-
tation, as melted objects are generally selected to burials. With respect to Western Hungary,
however, this selection pattern is not so evident, at least by considering the new finds, and by
revising the older ones. Below, the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ find will be discussed within the
context of the so called ‘burials with swords’ and ‘funeral hoards’.
5.1. Burials with Swords from Transdanubia
In Transdanubia and the adjacent areas, burials with weapons can be dated between the Br C
and Ha A1 periods. According to local research, the Bakony region is considered to be a
prominent area of ‘warrior burials’, where grave assemblages were furnished with differ-
ent combinations of combat weapons (swords, spears, winged axes, daggers) and specialized
tools (chisel) and in rare cases even armour.136 This is a selection pattern that reflects well on
the general trend of weapon repertoire of contemporary Central Europe.137 The presence of
ceramic banquet sets is rather characteristic to these burials. Metal vessels rarely appear and
only within the most lavish examples, further from this area.138 As for the topic, it is worth
mentioning that the selection of partly melted, broken bronze weapons was present in these
burial assemblages.139
This is only a general picture that can be gained from the results of specialized studies, but
our knowledge is limited on this phenomenon and it is also questionable whether we are
dealing with burials of professional warriors or a certain elite group that was represented by
weaponry or perhaps the combination of both? Most burials with weapons were found dur-
ing old excavations. Anthropological data on the gender and combat injuries of the deceased
132 Ilon 2004, Pl. 30.1–2, Pl. 31.1, Pl. 332.2.

133 Kobal’ 2000, Pl. 47.28, Pl. 48.49–55, Pl. 49.87–92.
134 Hell 1939, 149–152, Fig. 1; Schauer 1979, 70, No. 7, Fig. 2.
135 Mozsolics 1984, 69; Mozsolics 1985, 94.
136 Jankovits 2008, 83–91.
137 See Jockenhövel 2006, 108–109, Fig. 1.
138 Jankovits 2008, 83–91.
139 Jankovits 2008, 83.
50
are limited due to cremation, while use-wear analyses on weapons originating from burials
do not exist. From an osteological point of view, the situation is even more complex. Weap-
ons could be buried with a person who never took arms (buried as a warrior). They could be
placed beside an individual who had well-trained body and healed combat injuries (profes-
sional warrior). Lastly, there are those who died from combat injuries but no weapons were
put in their grave.140 The critical overview of this topic would require a separate study and the
re-documentation of all finds. At the present stage of research, the descriptive term of ‘burials
with weapons’ should be used, since the presence of weapons in graves do not necessarily
mean that we are dealing with a full-time specialist.141 Here, the discussion will be limited
on those Transdanubian burials which contained swords or metal vessels and showed some
connection with the Tatabánya-Bánhida find from the 1800s.
Fig. 12. Distribution of Late Bronze Age burials with swords in Transdanubia (Appx. 2.2)
140 Kristiansen 2002, 232; Whitley 2002, 219–223, 227; Heyd 2007, 352–357; Vandkilde 2008, 11–14; Geor-
ganas 2018, 190–195; Gentile et al. 2018, 67–68, 75–78.
141 Whitley 2002, 219–220; Georganas 2018, 189–196. The inaccuracy of this term was discussed by Matthew
Lloyd. See Lloyd 2015, 14–16.
51
In view of the fact that the terriory of Transdanubia exceeds 36.000 km2, the number of known
burials with swords are surprisingly low during the Late Bronze Age. Between the Br C and
Ha A1, a total of 16 burials with swords or stray swords are known from cemeteries. The phe-
nomenon of burials with swords in Transdanubia was absent during the Ha A2–Ha B1 and
Ha B1. As it was already mentioned, most of these burials are originally from old excavations
with poor documentation (Fig. 12; Appx. 2.2). Out of the 17 burials, only a few have a sufficient
documentation or a better described context (Bakonyjákó-Somhát, Balatonfűzfő, Csabren-
dek, Csabrendek-Hegyelő, Galambok-Hársas erdő, Jánosháza, Keszthely-Legelő-dűlő, Keszt-
hely-Sömögyei-dűlő). Geographical and chronological differences make it difficult to draw
general conclusions on the burials with swords from Transdanubia. Except for the graves
from Csabrendek and Keszthely, the cremation rite is more common for these burials. Unlike
the Western European LBA burials with weapons,142 none of them contains metal vessels as
grave goods, but examples with ceramic sets are known in many cases (Appx. 2.2.4–5, 10–11).
Throughout the Ha B1, only two burials are known with Type Jenišovice-Kirkendrup cups
from Budapest-Békásmegyer (Grave No. 26 and No. 48). Weapons were not at all present in
these assemblages.143 It is important to note that jewellery and different clothing accessories
(for example torques, pins, metal sheet belt, beads, pendants, spiral tubes) are common ele-
ments in the Br C–Ha A1 burials with swords (Appx. 2.2.4, 6–7, 11, 13, 15). All of them were
identified as male-related graves, although concrete anthropological data on these burials is
generally missing. Modern analysis is known for burial No. 6 from Balatonfűzfő. According to
Gábor Tóth’s analysis, the human remains belonged to a 25–30 year old man.144
1 2 3
Fig. 13. The three burials with swords from Csabrendek (Veszprém County). 1 – ‘Grave 12’ (Dorner
1884, 231–232, Pl. E.5; Darnay 1899, Pl. 12.12–14), 2 – Grave acquired by the HNM (Darnay 1899,
Pl. 11.3, 5–9), 3 – The burial found at the edge of the cemetery (reconstruction after Darnay 1899, 28,
Pl. 12.7–8) (Appx. 2.2.6–8).
142 Clausing 2005, 80–83.

143 Kalicz-Schreiber et al. 2010, 33–34, 45–46, 274–275, Pl. 18.10, Pl. 27.19.
144 Ilon 2015, 42.
52
It would require new research to accurately compare the swords in these burials to the
Tatabánya-Bánhida finds. The results of previous studies suggest that swords were usually
placed broken into the Transdanubian burials. Surprisingly, fire damage was only noted in
a handful of cases (Appx. 2.2.1, 4–5, 9–11, 14). Based on published illustrations and descrip-
tions, some of these weapons could have been manipulated similarly to the Tatabánya-Bán-
hida swords. Examples can be the swords from Jánosháza or Mosonszolnok.145 There are also
swords from the territory of Slovakia (e.g. Čaka, Chrastavice),146 Moravia (Spytihněv, Velati-
ce),147 Austria (e.g. Gleinstätten Mound 17, Ratishof am Weilhartforst Mound VII),148 Croatia
(Dalj, Velika Gorica),149 Germany (e.g. Granzin Mound 2, Leupolt-Herfatz, Grünwald No. 58,
Unterhaching No. 30,),150 which were all broken into small pieces and in most cases showed
traces of fire damage. From the point of manipulation, these specimens could be analogous
to the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds. It is worth to emphasize the northernmost specimen
from Vester Skejninge (DE), an elite burial, which resembles Tatabánya-Bánhida by its bro-
ken Type B1 cauldron and two swords. If the Bánhida assemblage was a burial, then the
Danish parallel raises another question, that is, are we dealing with a multiple burial with
two swords? The latter phenomenon is well known in the Western Urnfield territories. A fine
example is the Zuchering-Ost No. 348 burial, where four adults and two children were buried
along with two swords treated in a similar manner.151 Another interpretation was suggested
by Katherine Harrel on the examples of shaft graves,152 where the presence of multiple swords
were explained by a certain ritual practice when swordsmen gave back their swords to their
deceased leader. This phenomenon is less plausible for the Carpathian burials, but it could be
a possibility behind the formation of pure sword hoards and lavish assemblages with multiple
swords like the one from Hajdúböszörmény-Csege-halom.153
In summary, it cannot be excluded that the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds were part of a
multiple burial with weapons. This is most likely while discussing the assemblages in a larger
geographical context. Although there are several facts, which suggest that by following this
interpretation it is possible that we are dealing with a quite unique assemblage in the context
of Transdanubia.
• 1) The Inventory Book did not mention the presence of human bones, nor pottery
finds, which are otherwise characteristic to Transdanubian Urnfield burials.
• 2) The number of burials with swords are extremely low, especially by comparing this
number to the swords from hoards or wetland areas.154
• 3) There is a chronological gap between the dating of the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ find
(Ha B1) and the burials with weapons from Transdanubia (Br C–Ha A1).
145 Sőtér 1892, Pl. 2.3; Fekete 2004, Fig. 4.

146 Novák 1975, 20–21, Pl. 12.77–77A, Pl. 13.84–85.
147 Říhovský 2000, 127–128, 132, Pl. 2.6b, Pl. 2.5b.
148 Schauer 1971, 121, 191, Pl. 54.371, Pl. 90.591A.
149 Harding 1995, 62–63, Pl. 26.206–207.
150 Wüstemann 2004, 238, Pl. 99.602; Clausing 2005, 163–164, 168, Pl. 35B.1, Pl. 39C.1, Pl. 53B.1.
151 Krapf – Wittwer-Backofen 2011, 89–90, 98–99, Fig. 5.
152 Harrel 2014, 10–15.
153 Mozsolics 1985, 11–17; Vachta 2008, 48–64, Fig. 30.
154 See Kemenczei 1988; Kemenczei 1991.
53
• 4) The combination of metal vessels with swords in burials are not known in the ter-
ritory of Transdanubia. Such groupings can only be mentioned to the North or West
from the Carpathian Basin.
• 5) Although, there are some swords which could have been manipulated similarly to
the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds, the selection of melted weapons is not exclusive
in these Transdanubian burials.
The above mentioned issues made it necessary to discuss alternative interpretations as well,
in which the selection of melted objects may play a more important role than we first might
expect.
5.2. Melted Bronzes and Human Remains in Transdanubian Hoards
5.2.1. Selection of Melted Bronzes to Hoards
József Hampel has already called attention to the fire damages on the Tatabánya-Bánhida
‘A–B’ finds.155 The macroscopic observation of the objects supported his idea. Melted and
amorphous surfaces caused by high temperature were detected on the swords (Fig. 19–20, Fig.
21.6) and on some metal vessels (Fig. 21.3, 5). It is notable that even a small charcoal piece was
fused on one of the sword fragments (Fig. 27.7).
In her study from 1984, Amália Mozsolics differentiated two scenarios for the selection of
such melted objects. She identified the assemblages like Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ and Aszód
as grave goods, which were selected to the burials from the pyre. She also distinguished an-
other group in which she saw evidence for metal recycling. Her examples included broken
objects hammered together or partly melted finds from hoards, which were processed for
re-casting. An iconic example for this interpretation is the 2nd Bodrogkeresztúr ingot hoard
(Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County).156 Although recycling of metals could have played an impor-
tant role in the economy of Late Bronze Age societies, the archaeologically identifiable traces
of this process are extremely rare. It might be surprising at first, but this phenomenon can be
well-explained from a technological point of view. First, during crucible melting, after reach-
ing the melting point, the partitioned objects and ingots become liquid, and the objects that
are later added to melt are immediately dissolved in it. Second, finds like the Bodrogkeresztúr
2 ingots are special cases. These ingots could have been made as the following. Small, parti-
tioned objects were collected in a mould or in a hole on the workshop’s floor (see for example
the Lovasberény-Mihályvár MBA workshop).157 Afther that hot, melted metal was cast on it,
which has melted the bronze fragments together. In modern foundry practice, the hot, melt-
ed metal is usually the metal surplus after casting. A fine example is the ingot from the iconic
2nd Bodrogkeresztúr hoard re-published here (Appx. 1.4, Fig. 14). On its regular plano side (Fig.
14.1c, 1d blue), opposite to the direction of casting, a large and ‘branching’ metallic projection
can be seen (Fig. 14.1c, 1d red). In this case, the hot metal broke its way between the partitioned
objects, solidified and took the shape of the gaps and cavities in the workshop’s ground.
155 Inventory Book of the HNM 1880, 140–141; Hampel 1880, 341; Hampel 1881, 164; Mozsolics 1984, 69;
Mozsolics 1985, 94.
156 Mozsolics 1984, 24–27.
157 F. Petres – Bándi 1969, 174, Fig. 6. These ‘improvised molds’ were usually prepared in advance and dry
loess sand was the most suitablet from safety’s point of view, because the burning metal splashed from the
wet ground and caused burn.
54
1a 1b
1d
1c
2 3
Fig. 14. 1 – A plano-convex ingot with metallic projection from the Bodrogkeresztúr 2 hoard,
2 – Re-melted sickle, 3 – Re-melted objects, probably socketed axe rims (HNM, Photos: J. G. Tarbay)
(Appx. 1.4).
The preservation of the objects in these ingots are rare. The larger quantity of liquid metal
and the higher the temperature, the more the objects would melt. A fine example is the bro-
ken half ingot from the Kesztölc hoard. It weighs 3077 g and only a small imprint of a spiral
wire ring was preserved on its convex side.158 Either crucible melting or melting together the
partitioned objects, the survival of the original artefacts is evidently rare. This explains why
such a low amount of these finds are known from the Late Bronze Age material of the Car-
pathian Basin. However, the single half-melted finds are hard to explain from a metallurgical
point of view, especially if extra manipulations are present on the object. Consequently, it is
very likely, as Mozsolics Amália suggested, that melted objects could have been made in dif-
ferent ways as a result of recycling or manipulation in the Carpathian Basin. Howerer there
is no consensus on A. Mozsolics’s statement that half-melted and manipulated finds can only
be selected to burials as grave goods.
The selection of partly-melted bronze objects or metal artefacts with traces of fire treatment
to wetland hoarding areas and dryland hoards is known in several Western European Late
Bronze Age sites. For example, such finds were reported from the territories of the United
Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, France, Slovenia and Italy. The object types that suffered fire
158 Tarbay 2014, 247, No. 80, Fig. 68.
55
treatment can be various from jewellery to weapons, but surprisingly the latter can be consid-
ered frequent.159 One of the geographically closest examples of deposition of melted objects
is known from the Mušja jama Cave (Slovenia), where weapons were destroyed nearly to an
unrecognisable state and also damaged by fire or partly melted.160 A ‘systematic’ destruction
method – analogous to the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds – was analysed in case of the Pila
del Brancòn (Italy) hoard. Here, organic materials (hilt plates, shafts) of spears and swords
were burnt, while the metal parts of the weapons were damaged by different techniques and
also exposed to fire until they became semi-melted.161 Many researchers were dealing with the
interpretation of these unique sites and assemblages. It seems that the deposition of metal ob-
jects, which suffered intentional fire treatment cannot directly be related to the metallurgical
process. This phenomenon can be best explained by the funeral hoard theory (Totenschätze),
which hypothesizes a close ritual connection between the burial and hoarding practice, most-
ly based on Western European wetland hoarding sites. Following the main concept of this
theory, the possibility can be considered that grave goods – in some cases the deceased or
parts of his body – were buried to special wetland areas or in same cases to dryland hoards at
a certain stage of the burial ritual or after that as a result of post manipulations.162 The selec-
tion of objects with fire treatment or human body parts to hoards is also known from the Late
Bronze Age Carpathian Basin. However, our present view on this phenomenon is incomplete
due to the lack of modern documentation on metal objects or fine excavation contexts. Below,
some unique examples will be presented from the territory of Hungary with special regard to
the region of Transdanubia without the need for completeness.
Our first example is a Typ C flange-hilted sword found during the regulation of the Rába River
in Northwestern Transdanubia (Győr-Moson-Sopron or Vas County) (Appx. 1.5, Fig. 15.1).163
This find was sent to the HNM’s collection by Kálmán Radó comes (Hung. főispán), along with
two pins (Fig. 15.2), one spearhead and several other objects dated to the Medieval Period.164
The sword resembles in many ways the swords of Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’. First, it is also a
finished product, showing clear traces of hammering and sharpening along its edges. On one
side, between its hilt shoulders, even the imprint of the organic hilt plate can be observed. The
object can be interpreted as a used one, based on the several microscopic damages along its
cutting edge and its worn rivet holes (Fig. 15.3). It was deposited in a manipulated state. The
weapon’s hilt and lower blade part were broken by bending. Creasing traces related to bend-
ing are also visible in the middle of the preserved fragment. There is also a small melted piece
of bronze fused on the object, right below the hilt’s shoulders. It should also be noted that the
surface around the melted bronze piece seems to be slightly blistered, which is a characteristic
sign of fire treatment. From the other objects, only a blunt headed pin (Keulenkopfnadel) with a
bundle of lines pattern was preserved. Its state of deposition showed similarities with the sword.
159 Coles 1960, 29, 38, 117; Mohen 1977, 118–119, Fig. 361/PARIS 75–42, Fig. 372/ESSONNE 91–187; Müller
1993, 81, Fig. 7; Fontijn 2005, 151; Sperber 2006, 201, Fig. 4.4–5, Fig. 5.7, 15–19, Fig. 6.7, 9–11, Fig. 9; Fischer
2011, 1303; Huth 2011, 52–53; Huth 2012, 95–96; Huth 2016, 34–36; Teržan 2016, 463; Mörtz 2018, 170,
175, 180.
160 Teržan 2016, 440–441, 448–449, 463.
161 Bietti Sestieri et al. 2013, 160–162, Figs 3–4, Fig. 6.B.C, Fig. 8.
162 Bradley 1990, 102–107; Warmenbol 1996; Fontijn 2002, 229–230; Fontijn 2005, 151; Sperber 2006, 208–
212; Huth 2016, 36; V. Szabó 2019, 66–71.
163 Kemenczei 1988, 54, Pl. 28.263.
56
Fig. 15. Melted sword and a bunt-headed pin from the Rába River: 1 – Sword, 2 – Blunt-headed pin,
3 – Burnt traces and fused melted droplet on the sword (HNM, Photos: J. G. Tarbay (Appx. 1.5).
The pin was bent at two points and its surface showed traces related to fire damage. From a
relative chronological point of view, the two objects can roughly be dated around the same
period: Br D–Ha A1.165 Because the other pin and the spearhead is lost, it is unclear whether
they were part of the same set. The undocumented context makes the interpretation of these
finds hard. However, if these melted objects were indeed originating from the prehistoric
bed of the Rába River, they can similarly be defined as the Western European funeral hoards
165 Kemenczei 1988, 54–56; Tarbay 2015b, 324, Fig. 13.
57
from wetland context.166 In addition to the sword from the Rába River, there is another hoard
which may also originate from a wetland context. This is the Fövenyes (Veszprém County)
assemblage that was allegedly found along the shore of the Lake Balaton. It consists of three
socketed axes, a flanged sickle, a plano-convex ingot and a set of jewellery (knobs, rings, an-
nular rings, metal sheet band, funnel-shaped pendants). Except for the knobs and two rings,
all objects were deposited in a fragmented state. Three finds are particularly interesting: a
knob (Fig. 16.6) and two rings (Appx. 1.5, Fig. 16.7–8), the surfaces of which are blistered and
amorphous, hinting to the possibility that they may have underwent fire treatment as well.167
In addition to the above mentioned examples, there are some large scrap hoards, the content
of which fits very well to the Transdanubian deposition trends. However, they contain a few
melted objects which differ from the rest of the selected finds. Apart from one hoard, all orig-
inate from Western Transdanubia.
The first example is the Csabdi-Bükkös erdő/Bükköstető hoard (Fejér County). This assemblage
contains objects which can be stylistically related to metalworks characteristic between the
Br D–Ha A1 and Ha A2–Ha B1. More precisely, its time of deposition can be dated to the Ha
A2–Ha B1 from a relative chronological point of view. The Csabdi assemblage is a typical
Transdanubian scrap hoard, dominated by ingots, metallurgical by-products and some bro-
ken, finished and unfinished tools and weapons.168 Technologically, three finds completely
differ from the rest of the broken objects. One of them is a knife tip, which is amorphous due
to fire damage and blisters can be detected on its surface (Appx. 1.5, Fig. 16.2). There are also
two ring fragments characterised by the same morphological traits (Appx. 1.5, Fig. 16.3–4).
The second example is the Badacsonytomaj-Korkován hegy [‘Köbölkút’] (Veszprém County)
hoard. This hoard consists of various types of objects which can be dated between the Br D–
Ha A1 and Ha B1 periods. Its time of deposition was in the Ha B1, based on late Debrecen
type socketed axes. This large assemblage originally weighed 8 kg and was found in a greyish
black ‘urn’ of 8 liters in size. The remaining 88 artefacts (3433 g) mostly consist of sickles and
axes, along with some knives, weapons, jewellery and two casting jets.169 Amália Mozsolics
has already called attention to one melted object, a Type Morzg razor, which can be charac-
terized by a typical amorphous shape and blistered surface as a result of fire treatment (Appx.
1.5, Fig. 16.1).170 Like the Csabdi find, no other object with similar treatment was found among
the rest of the objects in this hoard.
The Gyermely-Szomor hoard (Komárom-Esztergom County), probably found in an Urnfield
settlement, is also important to mention. The composition of the assemblage can be charac-
terized by jewellery, tools, weapons and some raw material. Most of them were deposited in
a broken state, some showed traces of use or repair. Similarly to the previous examples, the
Gyermely-Szomor hoard also has a long relative chronological pattern. Its time of deposition
was identical to the Badacsonytomaj assemblage (Ha B1) (Appx. 2.3–4). Again, a single object,
a bent and partly melted wire is completely different from the rest of the fragmented objects.
It has amorphous blistered surface (Appx. 1.5, Fig. 16.5).171
166 Bradley 1990, 109–110; Warmenbol 1996; Huth 2011, 52–53.

167 Tarbay 2015c, 84, Fig. 13.35, 46, 50.
168 Mozsolics 1985, 107; Váczi 2013a, 265–267; Tarbay 2018a, 494, Pl. 37.3, Pl. 40.34–35.
169 Mozsolics 1949, 26–29; Darnay-Dornay 1950; Mozsolics 1985, 87–88; Tarbay 2018a, 468–474, Pl. 1–6.
170 Mozsolics 1949, 27, Pl. 22.9; Weber 1996, 230, Pl. 49.532; Tarbay 2018a, Pl. 5.62.
171 Tarbay 2018a, Pl. 92.87.
58
4
1
3
5 6 7 8
9a 10a
10b
11 9b
12a 12b
Fig. 16. Melted objects from the Late Bronze Age Transdanubian hoards: 1 - Badacsonytomaj (Balatoni
Museum, Photo: Tarbay 2018, Pl. 5.62), 2 – Csabdi-Bükkös erdő/Bükköstető (Szent István
Király Museum, Photo: Tarbay 2018, Pl. 37.3, Pl. 40.34–35), 3 – Gyermely-Szomor (HNM, Photo:
J. G. Tarbay), 6–8 – Balatonudvari-Fövenyes (HNM, Photo: Károly Kozma), 9–10 – Keszőhidegkút
(HNM, Photo: J. G. Tarbay), 11–12 – Pölöske (HNM, Photo: J. G. Tarbay) (Appx. 1.5).
59
From the hoards found earlier, the last example for objects that underwent fire treatment can
be found in the Keszőhidegkút scrap hoard from Southern Transdanubia. This hoard is a large,
327-piece assemblage from which the chronologically oldest finds can be dated to the Br B2/C
and Br D period (for example Type Chramostek dagger, palstave),172 among the youngest
(Ha B1) a broken Hajdúböszörmény-stlye metal vessel and a late type flanged sickle can be
found.173 The rest of the finds are correlating with Amália Mozsolics’s dating to the Ha A1.
This is a typical scarp hoard, which consist of broken and manipulated objects. Most of them
are sickles and axes, while some fragmented weapons, jewellery, metal vessels, raw materials,
a cheek piece and sheet metal objects represent other categories (Appx. 2.3). Two unique ob-
jects can also be found in it. One of them is a torques fragment, the torsion pattern of which
became melted due to heat damage (Fig. 16.9a–b). The other is a half fragment of a ring, the
breakage surface is also amorphous and blistered (Fig. 16.10a–b, Appx. 1.5).
The latest example of this phenomenon was excavated in Pázmándfalu (Győr-Moson-Sopron
County). At this site, three hoards were found. Gábor V. Szabó interpreted them as personal
sets of a ‘military leader’ (Hoards 1–2) and a ‘warrior’ (Hoard 3), which were taken out from
the pyre and buried as funeral hoards in the framework of a ‘hero cult’ related ritual.174 Regard-
ing the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds, the Pázmándfalu hoards can be considered important.
• 1) One of them show the same weapon-jewellery-metal vessel combination (Hoard 1).
• 2) The hoards were found in ‘heaps’.
• 3) No human remains were excavated in their vicinity.
• 4) Intentional manipulations and damages were observed on the metal objects.
• 5) Even melted objects were selected to some hoards (Hoard 1 and 3).175
The treatment, selection and combination of objects in these excavated assemblages sup-
port the idea that melted objects were selected to hoards in parallel with the burials with
weapons from the Bakony region. The unprovenanced ‘warrior equipment’ from the MoD
IMMH’s collection176, which consists of intentionally destroyed melted objects: a sword, a
helmet, knifes, greaves, a bronze cup and an unidentified object, a possible similar interpre-
tation can be considered.177 In any case, the secure contexts of the Pázmándfalu hoards are
strong arguments against interpreting of the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ as a burial assem-
blage in the classic sense.
5.2.2. The Selection of Human Remains to Hoards
Around the same time when melted objects were selected to these hoards, cremation ritual
was predominant in the territory of Transdanubia. As many researchers pointed out, an im-
portant aspect of this ritual is the pars pro toto selection of human remains, a practice which
172 Amália Mozsolics dated the hoard to the Ha A1. Mozsolics 1985, 135–137. I suggested a Ha A–Ha B1 rela-
tive chronological pattern for the find, which should be reconsidered based on the presence of an old dagger
and a palstave. Novotná 1970, 43; Mozsolics 1985, Pl. 31.1, 18; Kemenczei 1988, 20, Pl. 6.60; Novák 2011,
83–86, Pl. 26.347; Tarbay 2018b, 336, List. 1.2. No. 4.
173 Mozsolics 1985, Pl. 33.11, Pl. 35.30; Patay 1990, 84, Pl. 70.166; Tarbay 2018a, 72, Appx. List 54, Map 88.
174 V. Szabó 2019, 61–71, Fig. 47–48.
175 V. Szabó 2019, 61–71.
176 Ministry of Defence’s Institute and Museum of Military History
177 Tarbay 2015a, 46–47.
60
is analogous to the fragmentation of objects in hoards.178 Joanna Brück and Richard Bradley
suggested that parts of the deceased ancestors may have been circulated among the living or
went through different types of manipulations.179 From the Late Bronze Age, some examples
indicate that the body parts of the deceased may have been manipulated beside the archaeo-
logically visible normative mortuary rite.180 Body fragments, especially skulls were found in
the liminal spaces of settlements or at special topographical sites like wetland areas or caves.
In the archaeological record there are even some cases in which metal hoards are accompa-
nied by human bones.181 According to Joanna Brück such hoards cannot be simply interpreted
as ‘secondary burials’ but an independent hoard type, where the human remain is a meaning-
ful object that adds a special symbolic aspect to the rest of the selected finds.182
An important recent example is the pit (Bef. 29035) found in Oberwünsch (Germany, Sax-
ony-Anhalt State). At the bottom of the pit a Period V hoard was found, consisting of about
150 pieces of jewellery. Approximately 25 cm above the metal hoard a human skull with
attached cervical vertebrae and an almost complete left hand was excavated. Anthropological
analysis suggested that the skull belonged to a man, aged 45–60 who had a violent death as
a head fracture and a defense injury on his hand suggest. According to Klaus Powroznik and
Torsten Schunke, if the human remains were not accidentally put above the metal hoard, then
they may have a connection. After separation, the skull and the left hand were intentionally
placed there later as apotropaic defense.183 Similar deposition of human remains is known
from the literature in East Hungary. In 1930 a hoard was found between Mérk and Tibor-
szállás (Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County). The hoard was found in a pot approximately 60
cm deep in the peat moss [Csicsor láp].184 The circumstance of discovery is quite interesting,
according to Sőregi: ‘A földmunkások a kb. 3½ literes agyagfazekat szétverték és belőle kiömlő
tárgyakat szétkapkodták. A kerek öblöshasú edény falához kívül vashoz hasonló rögök voltak
tapadva és az edény mellett emberi kéz-és lábszárcsontok feküdtek, koponya nékül.’ [The work-
ers crushed the approximately 3½ litres clay pot and brought away the objects spilled from
the vessel. Iron-like lumps stuck to the wall of the round bellied pot and human hand and leg
bones without the skull lay next to the vessel.] (Fig. 17).185 Except for one or two bronze finds,
almost all the objects were collected from the site. From a typo-chronological point of view,
the Mérk-Tiborszállás hoard is not special. It is a common Ha B1 hoard, consisting of tools
and some jewellery. Without the description of the discovery it would never be suspected that
it is different in any way than the rest of the hoards from this area. In case of the Mérk-Ti-
borszállás hoard, it can be assumed that it might be analogous to the Oberwünsch hoard, as
certain parts of the deceased were selected and placed right beside the hoard. It is unfortunate
that the human remains were not collected as they might have had same anthropological
marks, similar to the ones found in Oberwünsch.186 In both cases the hand appeared which
were most likely a meaningful part187 and a ‘universal symbol’ that could represent the special
178 Hansen 2016, 200; Bradley 2017, 132.

179 Bradley 2017, 132–133.
180 Brück 2006, 302.
181 Brück 1995, 250; Brück 2006, 302; Bradley 1990, 108–109, 113.
182 Brück 1995, 250, 261; Brück 2006.
183 Powroznik – Schunke 2017, 162–163, 166–167, Fig. 4, Fig. 8–10.
184 Sőregi 1931, 72–75.
185 Sőregi 1931, 74.
186 Sőregi 1931, 72–76, Fig. 5; Mozsolics 2000, 55; Tarbay 2018a, 201, 585–587, Pl. 194–198.
187 Brück 1995, 250, 261; Brück 2006.
61
skills of the whole body, and act in ritual performances on what the deceased have done in
life.188 It is very likely that hands had special symbolic meanings in the Carpathian Basin. Gá-
bor Ilon has recently examined the Late Bronze Age clay hands from Transdanubia. Based on
analogues, he suggested that they are primary votive objects related to healing and the female
sphere.189 A larger clay imitation in damaged state is known in ritual context from Vlaha-Pad,
Transylvania (Romania).190
Fig. 17. 1 – The marshland landscape where the hoard was found between Mérk and Tiborszállás on
the 2nd Military Survey of the Habsburg Empire, 2 – Schematic reconstruction of the hoard’s context
(after Sőregi 1931, 74).
188 Savu – Gogâltan 2015, 177–178.

189 Ilon 2016.
190 Savu – Gogâltan 2015, 177–180.
62
In this respect, two Transdanubian hoards should be mentioned, in which the deposition of
human remains can also be observed. A fine example is the hoard from Orci [Orczi] (Somogy
County) that consists of eight flanged sickles, a socketed axe, a spiral tube, a blunt head-
ed-pin with fishbone pattern and the fragment of another piece, two sheet metal armrings,
a decorated ring with tapering terminals and a Passamenterie fibula. Among the weapons a
broken sword can be mentioned, as well as a worn spearhead and two daggers. It also con-
tained two partitioned plano-convex ingots. All bronzes were deposited in a ceramic pot.191
The composition of the Orci hoard is average within the deposition pattern of the Br D–Ha
A1 Transdanubian material, what is less common is its original context. The studies on this
hoard from the 1800s suggest the presence of human remains. According to Ingvald Undset:
‘A bronztárgyakat egy agyagedényben lelték, állítólag égetett csontokkal együtt’ [The bronze
objects were found in a ceramic vessel, allegedly together with burnt bones.].192 In 1886,
Gyula Melhárd also noted similar phenomena: ‘A nagy, két fülü fazekat, melybe a régiségek
rejtve voltak, a beleütközött ekevas összezúzta ; az edény fenekén különben összetörött csontok-
ra akadtak. A találók az edény-darabokat és csont-maradvány tartalmát, mint szerintök érték-
teleneket szétszórták…’ [The large pot with handles, in which the antiquities were hidden,
was crushed by the coulter; however broken bones were found at the bottom of the pot. The
finders discarded the potsherds and bone fragments worthless to them,…].193 József Hampel
referred to cremation rite: ‘…a bronzok alatt apró elhamvasztott csontrészletek voltak.’ [small
cremated bone parts were below the bronzes].194 All reports on the context suggest that some
bone parts were selected to the hoard.
Perhaps the most important example in this regard is the Pölöske hoard (Zala County). The
context of the find was described by Count Béla Széchenyi and Vilmos Lipp. They were also
the ones who collected the objects from the workers and sent it to the HNM. As stated by
Count Széchenyi, the hoard was found during the channel deepening of the Szévíz River. In
a depth of approximately 2 meters a large ceramic pot was found (75 cm), which was broken
by the finders. The map drawn by the Count to his letter, was dated 1st February 1887 (HNM
Archive Document No. 1887.26a). According to him, the hoard was found approximately 0.5
km north from Pölöske. It is possible that this wetland area can be identified as the south-
eastern part of the Hamuházi dűlő based on the Cadastral Maps of the Habsburg Empire (19th
century).195 On the plates which depicted the finds selectively, a typical hoard belonging to
the Kurd Horizon (Ha A1) can be seen.196 It consists of 38 pieces of intact and broken sickles,
most of them showing intense traces of use. The second largest object group are axes, three
winged-axes, four socketed axes, which also shows traces of wear. A broken and worn cast
ring and a sheet metal bracelet, a conical-headed pin and a metal sheet tube was also found.
Among the weapons three winged axes, a hilt fragment of a Type D sword197, a decorated
metal hilt plate and a large Group B Variant B2 spearhead can be noted.198 A metal vessel
191 Undset 1884, 200–208, Pl. 1–2; Hampel 1886b, Pl. 117.1–3, 5–12, 18–30; Melhárd 1891, 96; Hampel 1892,
108; Mozsolics 1985, 165–166, Pl. 120; Kemenczei 1988, 30, 49, Pl. 10.123, Pl. 23.226.
192 Undset 1884, 200.
193 Melhárd 1886, 231.
194 Hampel 1886b, Pl. 117.
195 gróf Széchenyi 1887, 57–58; Lipp 1887a, 56–57; Hampel 1892; Mozsolics 1985, 171–178; Patay 1990, 83–84.
196 gróf Széchenyi 1887, Pl. 2; Lipp 1887a, Pl. 1; Hampel 1892, Pl. 154–155; Mozsolics 1985, Pl. 124–128.
197 Kemenczei 1988, 65, Pl. 38.349.
198 Bader 2015, 383–384.
63
fragment, most likely a folded bottom of a situla was also placed in this hoard.199 It is also
notable that objects related to metallurgy in the guise of 8 plano-convex ingots and two drop-
lets were included.200 By studying the entire content of the hoard, not only the typologically
important pieces, some objects can be observed, which are quite different compared to the
rest of the finds. These finds are a partly melted ring (Appx. 1.5, Fig. 16.11) and other melted
objects which seem to be an amorphous ‘lump’ of burnt ‘bones’ (Appx. 1.5, Fig. 16.12a–b). This
observation should be verified in the future, but if it indeed contains human bones, it would
mean that the Pölöske hoard is the first case from Transdanubia where cremated remains
from hoards were preserved.
5.2.3. Selection of Melted Objects and Human Remains
The examples listed above support the concept that objects manipulated by fire and even
human body parts could have been selected to some Transdanubian hoards. The reason why
only a few of these cases are known is most likely the result of the scarcely described find
circumstances and the lack of modern documentation on the assemblages found later. Various
scenarios were introduced where the crucial elements of a prehistoric identity (weapon, jew-
ellery, body parts) were selected. In addition to the burials (Fig. 18.1), half-melted objects are
also present in hoards, which are no more special than others (for example Badacsonytomaj,
Csabdi etc.) (Fig. 18.5). Usually, only a few pieces (one to three) were selected to these assem-
blages. Such finds may also have been deposited to wetland sites (for example the Rába River,
Fövenyes) similarly to their Western European counterparts (Fig. 18.6). We can observe their
presence in unique hoards that show set-like combinations, like the Pázmándfalu assemblag-
es, which were interpreted as ‘funeral hoards’ (Fig. 18.7). Beside the multiple burial interpre-
tation, this hypothesis is best suited for the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds. There are several
possibilities how human remains could have been selected to metal hoards (Fig. 18.2, 3, 4). In
the territory of Transdanubia in the Late Bronze Age, we are aware of two examples that may
represent the selection of cremated human remains. These remains from the Orci hoard were
lost before the acquisition of the assemblage and in case of the Pölöske hoard, further analysis
of the melted lump is required to support this hypothesis. Metal recycling was not discussed,
but this process must have been a natural part of object selection in prehistory, and beside the
obvious ritual and symbolic reasons it may have stood behind the pars pro toto selection of
artefacts, which is present in all other scenarios (Fig. 18.1–7).
The selection scenarios described above suggest that there is a close connection between the
different archaeologically tangible phenomena (hoarding, burial rite, wetland hoard etc.). A
fine example is the link between the burial practices and metal hoards, which can be further
supported by the ‘asymmetric’ nature of selection. To illustrate this connection, swords can
be highlighted, which only appeared in a handful of Transdanubian burials (Appx. 2.2), while
hundreds of these weapons were selected to large scrap hoards or to wetland areas like the
Danube and Rába Rivers or Lake Balaton.201 Such an ‘asymmetry’ is not unique from a Euro-
pean perspective, since it has been observed in the Late Bronze Age territories of Italy and
the Netherlands, too.202
199 Mozsolics 1985, Pl. 127.9; Patay 1990, 83–84, Pl. 70.160.
200 gróf Széchenyi 1887, 57–58.
201 Mozsolics 1975b; Szathmári 2005.
202 Roymans – Kortlang 1999, 53–56; Fontijn 2005, 51; Fischer 2011, 1303; Bietti Sestieri et al. 2013, 157.
64
Fig. 18. ‘Fragmentation’ of Warrior Identity: 1 – Burial with melted objects and human remains,
2 – Deposition of human remains to wetland context, 3 – Selection of human parts and cremated
remains to metal hoards, 4 – Selection of melted objects and human remains to metal hoards,
5 – Selection of melted objects to metal hoards, 6 – Deposition of weapons to wetland areas,
7 – Warrior equipment hoards, sometimes with melted objects, 8 – Recycling (Graphics: J. G. Tarbay).
65
There are two important questions related to the selection of melted objects, which need to be
clarified by the finds with better context and experimental archaeological methods: formula-
tion (1) and time (1).
• 1) Were the bronze objects placed on a funeral pyre and burnt along with the rest of
the grave goods, or were they separately manipulated, perhaps by the contribution
of a specialist, and then selected to the burial or hoards?203 Were there any special
ritual places similar to the burnt offering sites (Brandopferplatzen) that served only
for this type of manipulation?204 When the fire damages visible on the objects are
random, their destruction on a funeral pyre seems more plausible, while the objects
the destruction of which shows a deliberate concept (for example the warrior equip-
ment from the MoD IMMH)205 may have been done by a specialist under controlled
conditions.
• 2) Time is the second essential question. Were these finds deposited within a rela-
tively short time interval as a result of one ritual act or were they manipulated and
deposited for a long period of time as a result of different motivations? The latter
scenario may be true for those hoards which contain objects from several periods
(for example Keszőhidegkút). Such assemblages can be interpreted as votive offerings
towards a prominent member of the community. Another possibility is that the body
parts and the possessions (melted objects) of the deceased represent that the person
is still part of the community and they have a continuous and important place in the
communal rituals.
Conclusions
In this study the bronze finds from Tatabánya-Bánhida were discussed, which were inven-
toried to the collection of the HNM on 4th October and 29th December 1880. Some contradic-
tions have been clarified from the literature about the composition of these finds. Tatabá-
nya-Bánhida ‘A’ (acquisition: 4th October) can be interpreted as an assemblage consisting of
a flange-hilted sword, a ‘miniature greave’, a Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel (probably
situla), a Type B1 cauldron and an armspiral. Although it consists of some older fragments
(‘miniature greave’, sword), its time of deposition was in the Ha B1 period based on the rel-
ative chronological position of the metal vessels. It is more plausible that these assemblages
were two separate units, but other possibilities cannot be excluded (multiple burial or a fu-
neral hoard). The idea that the 1st Tatabánya-Bánhida hoard – two spears, a hook and a knife
– belonged together with these finds must be excluded. These finds’ time of deposition was
the Ha A2–Ha B1 and they are more intact, showing no such extreme manipulation traces
as the ‘A–B’ finds.
Special attention was given to the manipulations and selection of the Tatabánya-Bánhida
‘A–B’ finds. The applied macroscopic analysis allowed to draw a more accurate picture on the
original deposition condition of the objects. It can be concluded that finished products in ma-
nipulated state were selected to these finds. The Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ assemblage consisted
203 Lloyd 2015, 18.

204 Della Casa – Ballmer 2016, 134–136.
205 See Tarbay 2015a.
66
of a sword with worn blade-on-blade damages. This used weapon was intentionally destroyed
nearly to an unrecognisable state by different methods. On the surface edge notching, impact
marks of hacking tools (chisel, axe), bending and melting were observed at once. The alterna-
tion of shallow and quite deep marks on the object’s amorphous surface suggested that the
fragments were at different temperature during manipulation. The treatment of sword No. 2
is identical to the first. This used sword was also melted and showed traces of hacking tools.
In these cases, it can be observed that the complete physical destruction of weapons were car-
ried out by methods which are unnecessary from a metallurgical point of view (for example
partitioning, recycling etc.). Since both of them were used, they may have been ‘dangerous’
or ‘tainted’ objects that were used in combat to harm or kill other human beings, thus their
physical and symbolic manipulation was essential. The armspiral showed modern breakage
surfaces, thus its selection as a fragment is less certain. The valuable sheet metal products like
the cauldron and the Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel were broken, folded and damaged
by fire. Based on literature data, the fragmentation of Type B1 cauldrons are more common.
The above mentioned piece belongs to the A2B2C2 combination group, which includes small
fragments. Its treatment has fine parallels among the Transdanubian Ha B1 hoards like Sár-
bogárd and Gyermely-Szomor. The Bokavić hoard from Bosnia and Herzegovina can also be
highlighted. If the vessels from this Bosnian hoard belong to a situla, then it should be men-
tioned as a close parallel, just as the fragment from Keszőhidegkút. The broken ‘miniature
greave’ was identified based on its fine dimensions and comparison to analogues, which also
has a characteristic way of treatment among some of the Carpathian specimens of this type. If
the modern breakages are taken into account, it is evident that the selection of the Tatabánya
A-B finds represent a pars pro toto concept.
The Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ find shows strong Northeast Carpathian features: 1. The Type
B1 cauldron and the Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel has several close parallels from
this area. 2. The typological selection of the finds, the combination of weaponry with metal
feasting set and armspiral, strongly reflects on the Ha B1 Hajdúböszörmény hoards from the
Upper Tisza region. Both phenomena fit well into the interaction model of Northeast Trans-
danubia,206 in which the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ was the result of an individual occurrence (for
example mobility of a prominent person or mercenary with his or her belongings) or rather
possibilities, the explanation of which would require better documented contexts.
The second question was the type of the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ assemblage. There was no
notice if any human remains or ceramic pots were found along this find. The only informa-
tion available was that they were found in one heap. There was a hypothesis based on the
selection of melted objects that this assemblage was a burial or a multiple burial, if A and B
originally belonged together. However, in Transdanubia so far all known burials with swords
are chronologically older (Br C–Ha A1) than the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’. Moreover, the metal
grave goods in these burials are nowhere near to this assemblage. In the Ha B1 period, except
for two burials from Békásmegyer, bronze cups were not selected to these finds. In contrast,
swords, metal vessels and even armspirals are present as stray finds or in different hoard types
during the Ha B1 Transdanubia. Merely on a typological basis, the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’
find is more related to local hoards than burials from the same period. There are some ar-
guments that suggest that the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ may have been a special hoard type.
206 Váczi 2013a.
67
For this interpretation, several examples were introduced from Transdanubia and from Eu-
rope about the selection of melted bronzes and human remains in hoards. These support the
idea that beside the archaeologically perceptible burial context, the melted objects and human
parts can be symbolic elements in hoards. Within the several different options, the Tata-
bánya-Bánhida ‘A’ find is more similar to the funeral hoard from Pázmándfalu, which also
showed a set-like combination of personal equipment. It is hard to authentically reconstruct
a person who could have owned the metal finds from Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’. It is a fact that
it contained the elements of a prestigous feasting set, which followed a new Northeast Car-
pathian design. These appeared in prominent assemblages related to the elite across Europe.
This find also reflects on a warrior identity, by a used sword and a symbolic miniature greave.
Acknowledgement
I am most grateful to Eszter Tóth for the restoration of the Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ finds.
It was made possible to analyse the objects in depth with a microscope-camera. I would also
like to thank Péter Prohászka for providing me the 8/15th issue of the Komáromi Lapok and
to Béla Debreczeni-Droppán and László Szende for helping my research in the archives of the
Hungarian National Museum. The writing of this study was supported by the NKFI PD_20
Research Fund grant No. 134910 (The Technology, Use and Manipulation of Weapons from
the Late Bronze Age Transdanubia).
Appendix 1207
1. Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A–B’ (1880)
Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘A’ (objects inventoried in 14 October 1880; Inv. Nos. HNM 1880.145.1–3)208
1.1. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.d): Melted fragment of a flange-hilted sword, decorated with two parallel
lines, which curved before the hilt. The object is bent, broken, and impacts of bladed tools are visible
on its surface. Modern breakage was also observed along its blade. 76.51×42.21 mm, Th. 10.96 mm, Wt.
107.3 g (Fig. 19.1.1, Fig. 22.1, Fig. 26.2–3).
1.2. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.e): Bent and broken blade fragment of a sword, decorated with two par-
allel lines. The object’s surface is amorphous and blistered due to heat damage. A vertical impact is
visible on the fragment’s body. Cracks are visible on its surface. One of the breakage surfaces is sharp,
the other is rounded. It belongs to No. 1.3 fragment. 54.41×33.87 mm, Th. 9.13 mm, Wt. 62.4 g (Fig.
19.1.2, Fig. 22.1.2, Fig. 27.2).
1.3. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.f): Bent and broken blade fragment of a sword, decorated with two par-
allel lines. Cracks are visible on its surface. The sword’s breakage surface is rounded. A small droplet
is fused on the blade. It belongs to No. 1.2 fragment. 41.41×31.68 mm, Th. 9.01–9.45 mm, Wt. 50.9 g
(Fig. 19.1.3).
1.4. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.g): Blade fragment of a sword, decorated with two parallel lines. Modern
breakage is visible on the object. A charcoal piece was corroded to the object’s surface. 29.82×30.88
mm, Th. 10.22 mm, Wt. 28.7 g (Fig. 19.1.4, Fig. 27.3, 6–7).
1.5. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.h): Bent and broken blade fragment of a sword, decorated with two par-
allel lines. Tool impacts are visible on the object. The sword piece is partly melted. 41.21×36.81 mm,
Th. 9.21 mm, Wt. 45.3 g (Fig. 19.1.5, Fig. 22.3 – 4, Fig. 23.1).
207 Abbreviations: L. length, Th. thickness, Th. (b) thickness of the blade, W. width, W (r.) width of the rim, W.
(b/mr) width of the blade and midrib, H. height, Wt. weight.
208 3 metal sheet fragments were lost in the collection of the HNM (Inv. No. 145.1880.3).
68
1.6. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.c): Bent and broken, melted blade fragment of a sword, decorated with
two parallel lines. Modern breakages are visible along its cutting edge. A small fragment belongs to
this object, which was recently broken. Impacts are visible along its cutting edge. 37.22×26.49 mm, Th.
9.26 mm, Wt. 26.9 g (Fig. 19.1.6, Fig. 23.2, 4).
1.7. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.b): Bent sword blade fragment, decorated with two cast parallel ribs. Its
breakage is recent and originally it belonged together with No. 1.8. Small impacts are visible on one
end of the fragment, while its surface is blistered due to fire one the other end. Micro-sized notches
are observable along its cutting edge. 103.26×39.04 mm, Th. 9.82 mm, Wt. 160 g (Fig. 20.1.7, Fig. 24.1,
Fig. 25, Fig. 26.1).
1.8. Sword (HNM, 145.1880.1.a): Melted and bent tip fragment of a sword. It is decorated with two par-
allel cast ribs, and a bundle of six lines near to the tip. The breakage of the object is recent and it was
originally joint with sword No. 1.7. Large and small impacts of bladed tools are visible on its surface.
79.31×37.96 mm, Th. 10 mm, Wt. 88 g (Fig. 20.1.8, Fig. 24.2–4, Fig. 27.4).
2. Armspiral (HNM, 145.1880.2): Bent armspiral fragment with triangle cross-section. Its breakage is
recent. L. 76.65 cm, Th. 6.32×3.73 mm, Wt. 9.1 g (Fig. 21.2).
3.1. Cauldron (HNM, 145.1880.3): Rim fragment of a cauldron. It is decorated with a bundle of five lines
and a row of semi-circle dots. Inner part of the fragment is amorphous due to heat damage and another
metal sheet object is fused to its surface (No. 4). 40.99×30.73 mm, Th. 2.47 mm, Wt. 13.8 g (Fig. 21.3.1).
3.2. Cauldron (HNM, 145.1880.3): Folded rim fragment of a cauldron. It belonged to object No. 3.1. The
fragment is bent and melted. A bundle of five lines can be observed below its rim. 33.89×48.05 mm, Th.
1.74 mm, Wt. 23 g (Fig. 21.3.2).
3.3. Cauldron (HNM, 145.1880.2): Large handle fragment with cracks. It belongs together with No. 3.4.
85.53×24.74 mm, Th. 7.69×7.51 mm, Wt. 32.7 g (Fig. 21.3.3).
3.4. Cauldron (HNM, 145.1880.2): Handle fragment, it belongs to No. 3.3. 41.87×8.26 mm, Th. 7.01×6.99
mm, Wt. 11.1 g (Fig. 21.3.4).
3.5. Cauldron (HNM, 145.1880.2): Terminal of a cauldron handle, it probably belonged to objects No.
3.3 and 3.4. 23.47×28.50 mm, Th. 5.45×5.42 mm, Wt. 11.5 g (Fig. 21.3.5).
4. ‘Miniature greave’ (HNM, 145.1880.3): Small amorphous metal sheet fragments. One of them has
a folded rim. Modern fragmentation is visible on the object. 21.35×15.23 mm, Th. 1.68–8.47 mm, Th.
(metal sheet with rim) 3.11mm, 0.80 mm, Wt. 3.5 g (Fig. 6.2, Fig. 21.4, Fig. 27.5).
5. ‘Situla’ (HNM, 145.1880.3): Folded metal sheet fragment, decorated with a line of embossed dots that
is framed by repoussé lines. Triangle-shaped repoussé pattern is visible below the previously men-
tioned pattern. The object is partly melted. Another metal sheet fragment of the same object is fused
to its reverse. On this metal sheet parallel bundles of repoussé lines can be seen. 35.43×34.65 mm, Th.
0.92 mm, Wt. 6.0 g (Fig. 6.1, Fig. 21.5).
Tatabánya-Bánhida ‘B’ (objects inventoried on 29th December 1880; Inv. No HNM 1880.180.1–2)
6.1. Sword (HNM, 1880.201.2): Blade fragment of a sword, decorated with a bundle of six lines. The
object is the upper part of the object No. 6.2. Its breakage is recent. The object is melted and impacts
of bladed tools can be observed in its surface. 69.82×34.51 mm, Th. 8.32 mm, Wt. 48.6 g (Fig. 21.6.1, Fig.
27.8, Fig. 28.1).
6.2. Sword (HNM, 1880.201.1): Tip fragment of a sword. It belonged together with No. 6.1. The object
is amorphous, bent and melted. Its breakage is recent. Worn notches and dents are visible along its
surface. Impacts are noticeable near the cutting edge. L. 134.47×31.84 mm, Th. 8.93 mm, Wt. 91 g (Fig.
21.6.2, Fig. 28.2–4).
2. Tatabánya-Bánhida-House No. 41, Hoard 1

Spearhead (HNM, 147.1880.2): Spearhead with leaf-shaped blade, two peg holes and conical socket.
A cast vertical rib is visible on its profiled midrib. The profilation terminates in the line of the peg hole.
69
The blade of the object is hammered and sharpened. L. 152 mm, W. (r) 25×22 mm, W. (b/mr) 42×13 mm,
Th. (b) 1 cm, Wt. 114 g (Fig. 10.1).
Spearhead (HNM, 147.1880.1): Spearhead with leaf-shaped blade, two peg holes and a conical socket.
A cast vertical rib is visible on its profiled midrib. A misrun defect is visible on its midrib. The object’s
surface is grinded, its cutting edge is sharpened. L. 150 mm, W. (r) 24×22 mm, W. (b/mr) 39×12 mm,
Th. (b) 1 cm, Wt. 109 g (Fig. 10.2).
Hook (HNM, 147.1880.4): Bronze hook with rhomboid cross-section and tapering terminals. It is ham-
mered near to its terminals. 62×35 mm, Th. 5×5 cm, Wt. 16 g (Fig. 10.3).
Knife (HNM, 147.1880.3): Flanged knife with broken tip. Its flange base is V-shaped and has three rivet
holes. The blade is curved and shows micro-sized nicks. L. 202 mm, W. 27–18 mm, Th. 7–1 mm, Wt.
73 g (Fig. 10.4).
3. Greaves and miniature greave fragments

Bodrogkeresztúr 1 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County)
Greave (HNM, 38.1881.18): Bent edge fragment of a greave, its rim is folded on a wire. The ob-
ject is decorated with quadrant repoussé patterns. One of its breakage surfaces is probably recent.
85.32×69.93 mm, Th. (rim) 5.13 mm, Th. (sheet) 0.77 mm, Wt. 46.9 g (Fig. 5.1).
‘Bonyhád vidéke’ (Tolna County)
Greave (HNM, 95.1889.173): Bent edge fragment of a greave with rolled-over rim, which comprises a
wire. It is decorated with quadrant repoussé patterns. 79.97×53.45 mm, Th. (rim) 5.93 mm, Th. (sheet)
0.55 mm, Wt. 18.5 g (Fig. 5.2).
Miniature greave (HNM, 95.1889.178): Fragment of a miniature greave with a rolled over rim. The
object is decorated with repoussé patterns along the rim and on the broken parts. 44.19×27.04 mm,
Th. (rim) 1.46 mm, Th. (sheet) 0.62 mm, Wt. 3.1 g (Fig. 4.1–4.2).
4. Plano-convex ingot from Bodrogkeresztúr 2 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County)

Plano-convex ingot (HNM, 8.1924.41): Small amorphous plano-convex ingot with metallic projection
on the convex side. Melted fragments of different objects (for example sickle blades) are visible on its
convex side. 103.89×94.46 mm, H. 35.03 mm and 50.45 mm (total), Wt. 610.2 g (Fig. 14).
5. Partly melted objects from different sites

Melted sword and a pin from the Rába River (Győr-Moson-Sopron County)209
Sword (HNM, 15.1894.1): Flange-hilted sword with five rivet holes, straight blade. Its hilt is broken,
the lower blade part is broken and bent. The cutting edge is hammered and shows notches. A melted
bronze piece can be seen on the upper part of the blade. Heat damage is visible around this section. L.
297 mm, W. (hilt) 50.61 mm, W. (b) 41.54 mm, Th. 8.35 mm, Wt. 419 g (Fig. 15.1, 3).
Pin (HNM, 15.1894.3): Thick blunt-headed pin with bundle-of-lines pattern. The object shows no traces
of heat damage. L. 138.16 mm, Th. 6.39×5.87 mm, Wt. 18.2 g (Fig. 15.2).
Badacsonytomaj-Korkován hegy (Veszprém County) hoard
Razor (Balatoni Museum, 43.50.65): Double-edged razor with a hole in the middle. The breakage of its
handle is recent. 56×55 mm, Th. (blade) 1 mm, Th. (handle) 8.2 mm, Wt. 21 g (Fig. 16.1).
209 The Rába sword was acquired along with 2 pins and one spearhead and several Medieval objects. These
finds were found during the regulation of the Rába River. Only the sword and one pin are still preserved.
Inventory Book of the HNM 1894, 48–49.
70
Csabdi-Bükkös erdő/Bükköstető (Fejér County) hoard

Knife (Szent István Király Museum, 11236): Melted knife tip. L. 41 mm, Th. 3 mm, Wt. 7 g (Fig. 16.2).
Ring (Szent István Király Museum, 11236): Partly melted ring terminal. 24×6 mm, Th. 5×5 mm, Wt. 1 g
(Fig. 16.3).
Ring (Szent István Király Museum, 11236): Partly melted ring terminal. 22×7 mm, Th. 4×4 mm, Wt. 3 g
(Fig. 16.4).
Gyermely-Szomor (Komárom-Esztergom County) hoard
Wire (HNM, Budapest, –): Amorphous melted wire broken into two recent fragments. 31.24×22.88 mm,
Th. 6.08×2.74 mm, 2.13×1.87 mm, Wt. 4.4 g (Fig. 16.5).
Balatonudvari-Fövenyes (Veszprém County) hoard
Knob (Private Collection of Zoltán Repkényi): A round and convex knob with one loop on the reverse.
It is amorphous due to heat damage. 19×20 mm, Th. 2 mm, H. 5 mm, Wt. 4 g (Fig. 16.6).
Ring (Private Collection of Zoltán Repkényi): Bent fragment of a quadrangular-sectioned ring, its end
is slightly melted. 47×7 mm, Th. 5 mm, Wt. 6 g (Fig. 16.7).
Ring (Private Collection of Zoltán Repkényi): Deformed fragment of a round-sectioned ring, its end is
amorphous due to fire damage. 30×20 mm, Th. 5 mm, Wt. 5 g (Fig. 16.8).
Keszőhidegkút (Tolna County) hoard
Torques (HNM, 66.1926.62): Bent, partly melted torques fragment decorated with torsion. The melted
part is amorphous and slightly blistered. L. 73.50 mm, Th. 7.20×7.31 mm, Wt. 17.1 g (Fig. 16.9a–b).
Ring (HNM, 66.1926.61): Half fragment of an armring with cast rib patterns. It is twisted near to its
breakage surface. This part is also blistered and amorphous. L. 55.28 mm, Th. 7.63×6.92 mm, Wt. 5.6 g
(Fig. 16.10a–b).
Pölöske (Zala County), hoard
Annular ring (HNM, 2.1887.8): Small melted annular ring with melted bronze. The object is amorphous
due to heat damage. 32.28×25.04 mm, Th. 2.84×3.72 mm – 3.13×2.35 mm, Wt. 5.8 g (Fig. 16.11).
Melted lump (HNM, 2.1887.14): Melted lump of unknown material. Two ‘bone-like’ pieces are fused
to the object. It is in two fragments due to a recent breakage. 95.52 mm, 39.83×24.58 mm, Wt. 122.4 g.
‘Bone’ 1: 21.24×18.74 mm, ‘Bone’ 2: 13.12×11.35 mm (Fig. 16.12a–b).
Appendix 2210
List 1: Type B1 cauldrons (von Merhart 1952, 5–6; Patay 1969a, 175, Tab. 1; Patay 1990,
21–29; Novotná 1991, 47–48; Thevenot 1991, 107–108; Koós 2004, 95, Fig. 8; Кобаль 2006;
Schmidt – Segschneider 2014, 473, fn. 11–12)211
1. Alba Iulia (RO) s., 1 pc (C1): Pârvan 1982, 179–180, Fig. 198; Soroceanu 2008, 126–127, Pl. 16.90.
2. Blanot (FR) h., 1 pc (Ha A–Ha B1, Ha B1) (C2): Thevenot 1991, 39–41, Fig. 29.2.
3. Budapest-Nagytétény (HU) s., 1 pc (C1): Jelentés 1912, 37; Patay 1990, 25, Pl. 23.30.
4. Brăduţ (RO) u. h., 2 pcs (Ha B1) (C4): Soroceanu 2008, 127–128, Pl. 17.91, Pl. 18.92.
210 Abbreviations: AT Austria, CZ Czech Republic, DE Germany, DK Denmark, FR France, HU Hungary, SK

Slovakia, SI Slovenia, RO Romania, RS Serbia, UA Ukraine, h. hoard, u. h. uncertain hoard, s. stray find, m.
marshland find, gr. grave, se. settlement, C. combination group, ’C’ uncertain combination group, X. uncer-
tain dating.
211 The list includes only the typologically well-identifiable Type B1 cauldrons.
71
5. Dubravica (RS) r. (Morava), 1 pc (C1): Косорић 1966, 191–192, Fig. 1–2; Jacanović 1995, 101, Fig. 2.
6. Évans (FR) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C7): Ganard – Piningre 2015, 175–176, Fig. 162; Piningre – Ganard
2015, 59–62, Fig. 49–52.
7. Egyek-Kendertag (HU) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C2): Sőtér 1936, 57–58, Fig. 18.1; Patay 1990, 21, Pl. 3.6;
Mozsolics 2000, 43.
8. East Hungary s., 1. pc (C1): Koós 2004, 83, Fig. 1.
9. Hajdúböszörmény-Csege halom (HU) h., 2 pcs (C8): Patay 1969a, Pl. 46.2; Patay 1990, 21–22, Pl.
4.7, Pl. 5.8.
10. Hajdúsámson 2 (HU) h., 3 pcs (C1): Patay 1990, 22, Pl. 6.9, Pl. 7.10, Pl. 8.11; Mozsolics 2000, 47.
11. Hajdúszovát (HU) h., 1 pc (C1): Sőregi 1942, 52, Fig. 14; Patay 1990, 22, Pl. 9.12; Mozsolics 2000, 49.
12. Hejőszalonta (HU) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C4): Patay 1990, 22–23, Pl. 9.13; Mozsolics 2000, 49–50.
13. Hennickendorf (DE) se., 1 pc (C1): Martin 2009, 91, Pl. 32.126.
14. Hvedholm (DK) m., s. or h., 1 pc (C1): Thrane 1965, 180–181, Fig. 14.
15. ‘Obišovce’ (SK) u. h., 1 pc (‘C3’): Bartík 2007, 15–17, 19–21, Fig. 3.
16. Ozeriany [Jezierzany] (UA) h., 3 pcs (Ha B1) (C1): Gedl 2001, 62, Pl. 66.A1, Pl. 67.A2–A3,
17. Karcag (HU) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C5): Patay 1990, 23, Pl. 10.15; Mozsolics 2000, 51–52.
18. Kántorjánosi (HU) u. h., 1 pc (undatable/Ha B1) (C4): Jósa 1895a, 249; Jósa 1895b, 355; Patay 1990,
23, Pl. 10.14.
19. Kisvarsány (HU) s., 1 pc (C1): Mozsolics 1967, U19; Patay 1990, 23, Pl. 11.16.
20. Kopřivnice (CZ) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C1): Nekvasil – Podborský 1991, 12–13, Pl. 4.29; Salaš 2005,
431–433.
21. Krásna nad Hornádom (SK) h., 1 pc (C1): Novotná 1991, 48, Pl. 9.49.
22. Kuchava (UA) h., 2 pcs (C1): Kobal’ 2000, 83–84, Pl. 84D.2.
23. Kunysivtsi [Kunisowce] (UA) h., 4 pcs (Ha B1–Ha B2 or Periode V) (C1): Gedl 2001, 62–63, Pl.
70–74.
24. ‘Lúčky’ (SK) u. h., 1 pc (C1): Novotná 1991, 47, Pl. 9.48.
25. Máriapócs (HU) h., 2 pcs (C1): Patay 1990, 23, Pl. 12.17, Pl. 13.18.
26. Mezőkövesd (HU) h., 2 pcs (C9): Patay 1969a, 171–173; Patay 1990, 23, Pl. 13.20, Taf. 14.19.
27. Moigrad 1 (RO) h., 2 pcs (Ha B1) (C4): Soroceanu 2008, 128–130, Pl. 20.93–94.
28. Nyírtelek (HU) s., 1 pc (C1): Patay 1990, 24, Pl. 15.21.
29. Nedilys’ka [Niedzieliska] (UA) h. 1 pc (Period III–Period IV/V) (C3): Gedl 2001, 63–64, Pl. 75.
30. Pácin 3 (HU) u. h., 1 pc (X/Ha B1) (C4): Patay 1990, 24, Pl. 15.22; Mozsolics 2000, 64.
31. Podkonice (SK) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C1): Novotná – Kvietok 2018, 4, 9–14, Abb. 5–6, Pl. I.2.
32. Rohod 3 (HU) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C4): Patay 1990, 24, Pl. 16.23; Mozsolics 2000, 68–69.
33. Sâncrăieni 1 (RO) h., 1 pc (Ha B1) (C1): Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 144; Soroceanu 2008, 130, Pl.
21.95.
34. Skočjan (SI) cave, at least 3 pcs (‘C1’): Jereb 2016, 104, Pl. 122.261–263.
35. Szentes-Nagyhegy 3 (HU) h., 3 pcs (Ha B1) (C6): Patay 1990, 24–25, Pl. 17.24, Pl. 18.25, Pl. 19.26;
Mozsolics 2000, 77–78.
36. ‘Tetétlen’ (HU) u. h., 1 pc (C1): Patay 1990, 2; Soroceanu 2008, 259–261, Pl. 19.
37. Tiszakarád-Szárnyasszög tanya 2 (HU) h., 2 pcs (Ha B1) (C1): Mozsolics 1969, 62; Patay 1990, 25,
Pl. 20.27, Pl. 21.28.
38. ‘Tolcsva-Várhegy’ (HU) h., 2 pcs (X/Ha B1) (C9): V. Szabó 2013, 798–801, Fig. 4.5–6, Fig. 5.3, 8.
39. Zepernick (DE) s./u. h., 1 pc (C1): Martin 2009, 91, Pl. 33.125.
40. Vaslovivtsi (UA) s., 1 pc (C1): Клочко – Козыменко 2017, 234, Fig. 12.
41. Vester Skjerninge (DK) gr., 1 pc (Period IV/Ha A2–Ha B1) (C4): Thrane 1965, 175–179, Pl. 10a.1–12.
42. Visuia (RO) h., 2 pcs (Ha B1) (C1): Dănilă 1976, 69–70, Fig. 1.1–2, Fig. 3.6, Fig. 7; Soroceanu 2008,
130–132, Pl. 21.97, Pl. 22.96.
43. Voloka (UA) h. from the edge of a Gáva-Holihrady settlement, 1 pc (Ha B1) (C1): Войнаровский
– Смирнова 1993, 183–184, Fig. 1.1; Кобаль 2006, 92, 94, Fig. 1.1.
44. Unterglauheim (DE) gr., 2 pcs (Ha B1) (C3): Jacob 1995, 83, Pl. 31.222, Pl. 32.223.
45. Unprovenanced (HU) s., 1. pc: Patay 1990, 25, Pl. 22.29.
46. Unprovenanced (AT) s., 1 pc: Prüssing 1991, 72, 74, Pl. 66.254.
72
List 2: Burials with swords from Transdanubia (after Kemenczei 1988; Kemenczei 1990;
Kemenczei 1991; Novák – Váczi 2012, 106, Appendix 1, Fig. 5)212
1. Bakonyszűcs-Százhalom, Mound 8, ‘grave goods’,213 dating (Br D–Ha A1), MS: Inventory Book
of the HNM 1875, 190; Inventory Book of the HNM 1876, 465; Dax et al. 1972, 58; Kemenczei
1991, 77, Pl. 64.291; Jankovits 1992a, 6–10, Fig. 3.1.
2. Bakonyszűcs-Százhalom, Mound 10, grave goods (spearhead, sword fragments, bronze fragments),
dating (Br D–Ha A1): Inventory Book of the HNM 1875, 190; Jankovits 1992a, 10, Fig. 4.3.
3. Bakonytamási-Hathalom, Mound 7, stray find sword from burial: Inventory Book of the HNM
1875.175.5; Kemenczei 1988, 226, Pl. 26.246; Kőszegi 1988, 121, No. 93; Kemenczei 1990, 222, Fig. 4.3.
4. Bakonyjákó-Somhát, Mound 6, Grave 2, rite (cremation), grave goods (ceramic vessel set, 1 sword,
1 spearhead, 1 pin), dating (Br D), MS: Dax et al. 1972, 29; Kemenczei 1988, 47, Pl. 20.205; Kőszegi
1988, 120; Kemenczei 1990, 222, Fig. 3.A8; Jankovits 1992b, 318–319, Fig. 62.4.
5. Balatonfűzfő, Grave 6, rite (cremation, scattered), grave goods (ceramic vessel set, 1 sword, 1
winged-axe, 1 knife, 9 arrowheads, 1 pin, bronze rivets), gender (male, aged 25–35 years), dating
(Br D–Ha A1), MS: Ilon 2012; Ilon 2015, 34–38, 42, Fig. 8.3.
6. Csabrendek, Grave, rite (inhumation),214 grave goods (1 pot, 1 torques, 1 sword), dating (Ha A1):
Darnay 1899, 28, 30, 37, Pl. 12.7–8; Patek 1968, Pl. 59.13; Kemenczei 1988, 75, Pl. 46.402 (Fig. 13.3).
7. Csabrendek-Hegyelő, Grave ‘B’, rite (inhumation), grave goods (1 belt, 1 spearhead, 1 sword),
dating (Br D): Hampel 1886a, 4; Hampel 1887, 174–175, Pl. 1.8–9; Hampel 1892, 20, Pl. 132.8–9;
Darnay 1899, 29, Pl. 11.8–9; Patek 1968, 28–29, Pl. 58; Bakay et al. 1970, 45, Fig. 8.3; Kemenczei
1988, 59, Pl. 33.304; Kemenczei 1990, Fig. 2.6 (Fig. 13.2).
8. Csabrendek, Grave 12, rite (inhumation), grave goods (1 dagger, 2 spearheads, 2 swords), dating
(Br D–Ha A1): Dorner 1884, 231–232, Pl. E.1–2; Darnay 1899, 30, Pl. 12.12, 14; Bakay et al. 1970,
46; Kemenczei 1991, 79, Pl. 65.313–314 (Fig. 13.1).
9. Csögle-Kispáskom, Mound 15, stray finds from burials (3 swords), MS: Patek 1968, 30, 124, Pl.
62.14–15; Bakay et al. 1970, 64, Pl. 4.1, 5–6; Kemenczei 1988, 46–47, Pl. 19.196, Pl. 20.206; Ke-
menczei 1990, 226, Fig. 9.6, 12.
10. Galambok-Hársas-erdő, Object 412, Grave, rite (cremation, urn), grave goods (ceramic vessel set,
1 sword), dating (Ha A1), MS: Száraz 2008, 69–70, Fig. 8.1a–c, 3.
11. Jánosháza, Mound, Grave 1983/2, grave goods (ceramic vessel set, 1 sword, 1 pin, 1 funnel-shaped
pendants, knobs, rings, spiral tubes, ‘stone’/glass/amber beads), dating (Br C/D), MS: Fekete 2004,
161–163, Fig. 4.
12. Keszthely-Legelő-dűlő 1. parcella, Mound 1, feature I, tomb, rite (inhumation), grave goods (1 sword,
212 MS = melted sword. Flóris Rómer also notes that sword fragments were found in burials from the Bakony-
bél-Vall cemetery. Rómer 1878, 121–122, Fig. 47; Jankovits 1992a, 5.
213 The content of the 8th and 10th mounds is hard to reconstruct due to the contradict data in literature, the lack
of context and the loss of finds. See Inventory Book of the HNM 1875, 191; Hampel 1886a, 40; Hampel
1892, 6–7; Holste 1951, 13, Pl. 23.12–18; Dax et al. 1972, 58; Mozsolics 1985, 90; Jankovits 1992a, 6–10,
Fig. 3. According to Katalin Jankovits, the 8th tumulus contained 1 chisel, 1 ‘palstave’ [winged-axe], 2 spear-
heads, 3 sword fragments, 1 dagger, 1 pin, 1 melted bronze lump, 1 ribbed armring, ‘horseshoe-shaped’
bronze lump [casting jet] (Jankovits 1992a, 6–10, Fig. 3). These are finds from two acquisitions (1875, 1876).
The inventory book also noted that teeth, bone fragments, a bronze fragment, ‘clay’ fragments, bone and
metal fragment mixed with dirt were part of the second acquisition. See Inventory Book of the HNM
1876, 465 (1876.326.1–7). It is worth to note that Vall and Gáthegy-Tuskós was also suggested as possible
find-spot for the dagger of the 8th tumulus. See Dax et al. 1972, 21–22, No. 2/7, 23–24, No. 2/16, 58. We
assume that one spearhead might belong to the Bakonybél site based on the description of the Inventory
Book. Inventory Book of the HNM 1875, 190 (1875.175.3); Jankovits 1992a, 6, Fig. 3.3.
214 This sword was described as a stray find by Tibor Kemenczei. See Kemenczei 1988, 75. We believe that it
may have been identical with a burial discussed by Kálmán Darnay. According to his description, this inhu-
mation grave was found ca. 50–60 steps from the cemetery during pit digging, ca. 80 cm depth. On the right
side of the 160 cm long skeleton a ceramic pot was placed. The broken sword was laid beside the left arm
of the deceased. Also, a circular sectioned torques with rolled terminals was on its neck. See Darnay 1899,
28, 30, 37, Pl. 12.7–8 (Fig. 13.3). K. Darnay also noted a 3rd grave that contained 2 sword blade fragments
(a narrow and a wide) and a spearhead (Darnay 1899, 28).
73
1 pin, 1 urn-shaped pot215), gender (‘male’), combat injury (half of the occiput was cut off), dating
(mittlere Hügelgräberzeit, Br C1; Br B2-C1/2): Lipp 1885, 370–373; Lipp 1887a, 53–54; Lipp 1887b,
11–14; Hampel 1892, 63–64, Pl. 134; Kuzsinszky 1920, 87–88; Bakay et al. 1966, 95, Pl. 10.15;
Kemenczei 1988, 38, Pl. 13.156, Pl. 59A; Neumann 2009, 104–105; Godiš – Styk 2019, 215–216,
221–227, Pl. I, Pl. IIA.
13. Keszthely-Sömögyei-dűlő, Grave 7, feature IX, tomb, rite (inhumation), grave goods (1 sword in
wooden sheath, 1 pin), gender (‘male’), dating (mittlere-jüngere Hügelgräberzeit, Br C): Lipp 1886,
352–353; Lipp 1887a, 53–54; Lipp 1887b, 11–14; Kuzsinszky 1920, 88; Bakay et al. 1966, 95; Ke-
menczei 1988, 37, Pl. 59B; Godiš – Styk 2019, 216–227, Pl. II.B, Pl. II.1–2.216
14. Mosonszolnok-Jessehofi puszta [Mosony-Szolnok], stray finds from a cemetery (2 swords), MS:
Sőtér 1892, 209–210, Pl. 2.1,3; Hampel 1896, Pl. 187.1,3; Patek 1968, 132, Pl. 46.6–11; Kemenczei
1988, 54, 59, Pl. 27.258, Pl. 34.307.
15. Nagykanizsa-Alsóerdő, Grave/stray finds from cemetery (1 sword, 3 cone-headed pins), dating
(jüngere-späten Hügelgräberzeit, Br C2/Br D): Patek 1968, 60, 132, Pl. 93.1; Kemenczei 1988, 44–45,
Pl. 17.188.
16. Pénzesgyőr-Gyulaberki tábla, stray finds from mounds (sword, spearhead, pots, bones), dating (‘Br
D–Ha A1’): Dax et al. 1972, 216, No. 66/4; Kőszegi 1988, 172, No. 910.
17. Zalakomár-Alsó-Csalit, Grave, rite (cremation), grave goods (1 sword, 1 spearhead, 1 bronze object,
1 dagger fragment): Kreiter 2007, 324, No. 441.
List 3: Transdanubian hoards deposited in the Ha B1, containing swords, metal vessels or
armspirals (after Kemenczei 1996; Váczi 2013a, 348–350, Fig. 46)217
1. Balatonfenyves, incomplete hoard, Ha B1: Mozsolics 1975a, 9, Pl. 8; Kemenczei 1996, 53, Fig. 1;
Mozsolics 2000, 34, Pl. 3; Váczi 2013a, Fig. 46.
2. Gyermely-Szomor, hoard, Br D/Ha A1–Ha B1: Vásárhelyi 1899; Hampel 1892, 48, Pl. 159; Mozso-
lics 1985, 121–122, Pl. 240–242; Kemenczei 1988, 75, Pl. 46.404; Patay 1990, 32, Pl. 26.38; Tarbay
2015b; Tarbay 2018a, 522–527, Pl. 86–92.
3. Nagydém 1a–1b, mixed hoards, Br D/Ha A1–Ha B1: Archaeologiai Értesítő 1892, 383–384;
Hampel 1892, 383–384; Hampel 1896, Pl. 195; Mozsolics 1985, 152; Kemenczei 1991, 37, 40, 49, Pl.
28.119–120, Pl. 29.119–120, Pl. 33.139, Pl. 34.139, Pl. 43.192; Tarbay 2018a, 590–594, Pl. 201–223.
4. Jobaháza, hoard, Ha B1: Kugler 1903, 14–15; Holste 1962, 21, Taf. 26.1; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975,
96–97, Pl. 32.391; Kemenczei 1996, 55, Fig. 4–5; Mozsolics 2000, 50, Pl. 41; Váczi 2013a, 349.
5. Keszőhidegkút, hoard, Br B2/C–Ha B1: Tompa 1937, 108; Patay 1968, 242–243, Fig. 1.2–3; Mozsolics
1985, 135–137, Pl. 31–35; Kemenczei 1988, 20, 48, 60, 71, Pl. 6.60, Pl. 21.210, Pl. 35.318, Pl. 46.405, Pl. 72–
74; Patay 1990, 36–37, 39, 69, 84, Pl. 27.48, Pl. 45.113–114, Pl. 70.166; Uckelmann 2012, 16–17, Pl. 1.2.
6. Sümeg-Újhegy 2, metal vessel hoard, Ha B1: Szentmártoni Darnay 1889, 258–263; Darnay 1899,
20–23, Pl. 8–9; Gerloff 1986, 103, Fig. 11; Patay 1990, 80, Pl. 64.144, Pl.65.145; Mozsolics 2000, 75,
Pl. 90.2–3; Gerloff 2010, 390.
7. Sárbogárd-Sárszentmiklós, hoard, Ha B1: Kemenczei 1996, 55, 84, Fig. 7–9; Váczi 2013a, 289–290,
350, Pl. 54.
8. Szentgyörgyvár-Felsőmánd B, hoard, Ha A–Ha B1: Tarbay – Havasi 2019.
9. Szombathely-Jáki út, hoard, Br D/Ha A1–Ha B1: Ilon 2002; Ilon 2004, 52–57, Pl. 28–50; Tarbay
2018a, 652–665, Pl. 320–348.
215 According to the Intentory Book of the HNM, 14 potsherds were acquired. Based on a sketch, one of them
was decorated with cross-hatched triangles. Inventory Book of the HNM 1885, 156.
216 According to Jakub Godiš and Matej Styk, the lost sword (Boiu Ia, variant 1b, Br B2–C1) published by T. Ke-
menczei after J. D. Cowen and F. Holste may not be identical with the one described by V. Lipp. The original
sword was undecorated and it had six peg holes. Lipp 1886, 352–353; Cowen 1966, 303, No. 1, Pl. 18.7, Fig. 1;
Kemenczei 1988, 37, Pl.12.149, Pl. 59B.1; Neumann 2009, 104–105; Godiš – Styk 2019, 225.
217 According to the authors, the time of deposition is highlighted in italic. Hoards in case ofwhich relative
time of deposition cannot be described more precisely than Ha A2–Ha B1 or its assigment to Ha B1 is
insecure were not included in the List. See Tarbay 2018a, Fig. 127. For other relative dating, suggested by
different researchers, see Appx. 2.4.
74
10. Tatabánya-Bánhida 2, hoard, Br D/Ha A1–Ha B1: Kemenczei 1983; Mozsolics 1985, 201–202;
Kemenczei 1991, 83–85, Pl. 68.404; Tarbay 2018a, 670–676, Pl. 354–367.
11. Tatabánya-Ótelep 3, hoard, Br D/Ha A1–Ha B1: Mozsolics 1985, 202; Jungbert 1986; Patay 1990,
59, Pl. 40.88A; Tarbay 2018a, 677–678, Pls 368–370.
12. Nagydobsza, hoard, Ha A1–Ha B1: Tarbay 2016b; Tarbay 2017b; Tarbay 2018a, 595.
13. Várvölgy, metal vessel hoard, Ha B1: László 1982, 27, No. 61; Gerloff 1986, 103; Patay 1990, 33,
36, 47, 80, No. 42A, No. 46A–B, No. 69, No. 145A, Pl. 27.46A–B, Pl. 36.69A, Pl. 66.145A; Mozsolics
2000, 88–89, Pl. 113; Gerloff 2010, 390.
14. Várvölgy-Nagyláz hegy 4, hoard, Ha B1: Müller 2006, 234–235, Fig. 3; Müller 2007, 15, Pl. 8.
15. Velem 1a–1b, mixed hoards, Br D–Ha A1–Ha B1: Hampel 1896, Pl. 225–240; Kárpáti 1896, 295–
304; Miske 1896; Kárpáti 1897; Mozsolics 1985, 211–213, Pl. 228–231; Tarbay 2018a, 696–714.
Table 4: Different dating of hoards from List 3
Hoard Time of deposition References

Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975; Hansen 1996; Kemenczei 1996;
Ha B1
Balatonfenyves Váczi 2013a
Ha B2 Mozsolics 2000
Gyermely- Ha A2 Mozsolics 1985; Kemenczei 1996; Váczi 2013a
Szomor Ha B1 Hansen 1996; Tarbay 2015b; Tarbay 2018
Nagydém Ha A2 Mozsolics 1985; Kemenczei 1996
1a–1b Ha B1 Hansen 1996; Tarbay 2018
Ha B1 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975; Hansen 1996; Váczi 2013a
Jobaháza
Ha A1 Mozsolics 1985; Kemenczei 1988; Váczi 2013a
Keszőhidegkút Ha A1–Ha A2 Uckelmann 2012
Ha A1–Ha B1 Patay 1990
Ha B1 Gerloff 1986
Sümeg 2
Szentgyörgy-
Ha B1 Tarbay – Havasi 2019
vár
Ha A2 Váczi 2013a
Szombathely Ha B1/2 Ilon 2002
Ha B1 Tarbay 2018
Tatabánya 2
Ha B1 Hansen 1996; Tarbay 2018
Ha A2 Mozsolics 1985; Kemenczei 1996
Tatabánya 3 Ha A2–Ha B1 Jungbert 1986
Ha B1 Jungbert 1986; Hansen 1996; Váczi 2013a; Tarbay 2018
Nagydobsza Ha B1 Tarbay 2016b; Tarbay 2018a
Ha B1 Gerloff 1986
Várvölgy
Ha B1–Ha B2/3 Patay 1990
(vessel hoard)
Várvölgy 4 Ha A2–Ha B1 Müller 2007
Velem 1a–1b
Ha B1 Hansen 1996 (Ib); Tarbay 2018
75
5. List: Stray find swords from Transdanubia (around the Ha B1)218

1. Beled-Téglagyár, s.: Kemenczei 1988, 70–71, Pl. 42.373.
2. Budapest-Óbuda, s.: Kemenczei 1991, 50, Pl. 44.199, Pl. 45.199.
3. Budapest-Danube River, w.: Tompa 1942, 108, Pl. 20.12; Mozsolics 1975b, 19–21, Fig. 9.2;
Kemenczei 1991, 60, Pl. 59.250.
4. Csönge-Magaspart, i.: Ilon 1992, 19, Fig. 2.
5. Dunaújváros, s.: Kemenczei 1988, 70–71, Pl. 42.375.
6. Dunaújváros-Danube River, w.: Váczi 2013a, 269, Pl. 53.1.
7. Fejér County-Danube River, w.: Kemenczei 1991, 60, Pl. 59.252.
8. Keszthely, s.: Hampel 1886b, Pl. 25.2; Kemenczei 1991, 50, Pl. 44.201, Pl. 45.201.
9. Szombathely, s.: Kemenczei 1991, 55.
10. Velem, s.: Miske 1907, Pl. 30.5; Kemenczei 1991, 60, Pl. 59.254.
6. List: Transdanubian Ha B1 metal vessels (stray finds and burials)

1. Budapest-Békásmegyer (HU) Grave Nos. 26, 48, Ha B1, Type Jenišovice cups: Patay 1990, 60, Pl. 40.89;
Kalicz-Schreiber et al. 2010, 33–34, 45–46, 274–275, Pl. 18.10, Pl. 27.19.
2. Budapest-Nagytétény Quarter XXII (HU) stray find, Type B1 cauldron (‘Ha B1’): Patay 1990, 25,
Pl. 23.30.
3. Between Budakalász and Pomáz (HU) stray find, ‘Ha B1’, Type Seddin amphora-shaped vessel:
Patay 1990, 46, Pl. 35.68.
References
Aldhouse-Green, M. 2006: Semiologies of Subjugation: The Ritualisation of War-Prisoners in Later
European Antiquity. In: Ton, O. – Thrane, H. – Vandkilde, H. (eds): Warfare and Society.
Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives. Aarhus, 281–304.
Archaeologiai Értesítő 1892: Nagy-Démi bronzlelet. Archaeologiai Értesítő 12, 383–384.
Bader, T. 2015: Zur Chronologie der Lanzenspitzen im Karpaten-Donau Raum. In: Németh, R. E. –
Rezi, B. (eds): Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International
Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 2–4. October 2014. Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis Seria Archae-
ologica 8. Târgu Mureş, 373–391.
Bakay, K. – Kalicz, N. – Sági, K. 1966: Veszprém megye régészeti topográfiája. A keszthelyi és tapolcai
járás. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 1. Budapest.
Bakay, K. – Kalicz, N. – Sági, K. 1970: Veszprém megye régészeti topográfiája. A devecseri és sümegi
járás. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 3. Budapest.
Bartík, J. 2007: Predmety z doby bronzovej zo súkromnej zbierky (Bronzezeitliche Gegenstände aus
einer Privatsammlung). Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea 101– Archeológia 17, 15–34.
Bell, R. D. 2019: A shifting chronology of combat damage: Reassessing the evidence for use and re-
use on Irish Bronze Age swords. In: Knight, M. G. – Boughton, D. – Wilkinson, R. E. (eds):
Objects of the Past in the Past. Investigating the significance of earlier artefacts in later contexts.
Oxford, 152–180.
Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 2011: Archeologia della morte fra età del bronzo ed età del ferro in Italia. Impli-
cazioni delle scelte relative alla sepoltura in momenti di crisi o di transformazione politico-or-
ganizzativa. In: Nizzo, V. (ed.): Dalla nascita alla Morte: Antropologia e Archeologia a Confronto.
Atti dell’Incontro Internazionale di studi in onore di Claude Lévi-Strauss. Roma, Museo Nazionale
Preistorico Etnografico ‘Luigi Pigorini’. Roma, 397–417.
218 Abbreviations: s. stray find, w. wetland, i. individual find.
76
Bietti Sestieri, A. M. – Salzani, L. – Giardino, C. – Verly, G. 2013: Ritual treatment of weapons as
a correlate of structural change in the Italian LBA communities: the bronze hoard of Pila del
Brancon (Nogara, Verona). Rivista di Scienze Preistorice 63, 155–169.
Borgna, E. – Teržan, B. – Turk, P. – Girelli, D. – Maggi, P. 2016: Katalog najdb – Catalogo degli
ogetti. In: Teržan, B. – Borgna, E. – Turk, P. (eds): Depo iz mušje jame pri Škocjanu na Kra-
su. Depojske najdbe bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem III – Il ripostiglio dalla grotta delle
mosche presso San Canziano del Carso. Ripostiglio delle età del bronzo e del ferro in Slovenia III.
Katalogi in Monografije/Catalogi et Monographae 42. Ljubljana, 527–673.
Bradley, R. 1990: The Passage of Arms. An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive de-
posits. Chambridge/New York/Melbourne.
Bradley, R. 2017: A Geography of Offerings. Deposits of Valuables in the Landscapes of Ancient Europe.
Oxbow Insights in Archaeology. Oxford.
Bridgford, S. D. 2000: Weapons, Warfare and Society in Britain 1250–750 BC 1–2. University of Shef-
field. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory. PhD Thesis. Sheffield.
Brück, J. 1995: A place for the dead: the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age Britain. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 61, 245–277.
Brück, J. 2006: Fragmentation, Personhood and the Social Construction of Technology in Middle and
Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16/3, 297–315.
Bulat, M. 1975: Kasnobrončanodobni depo iz Poljancana na Savi (Spätbronzezeitliches Depot aus
Poljanci an der Save). Osječki Zbornik 14–15, 3–56.
Bunnefeld, J.-H. – Schwenzer, S. 2011: Traditionen, Innovationen und Technologietransfer – zur
Herstellungstechnik und Funktion älterbronzezeitlicher Schwerter in Niedersachsen. Praehis-
torische Zeitschrift 86/2, 207–253.
Cao, Q. 2018: Ritual or Lethal? Bronze Weapons in Late Shang China. In: Dolfini, A. – Crellin, R. J. –
Horn, Ch. – Ukcelmann, M. (eds): Prehistoric Warfare and Violence. Quantitative and Quali-
tative Approaches. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Cham, 225–245.
Chantre, E. 1875: Âge du Bronze. Recherches sur l’origine de la métallurgie en France. Album. Lyon.
Clausing, Ch. 2005: Untersuchungen zu den urnenfelderzeitlichen Gräbern mit Waffenbeigaben vom
Alpenkamm bis zur Südzone des Nordischen Kreises. Eine Analyse ihrer Grabinventare und Grab-
formen. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1375. Oxford.
Coles, J. M. 1960: Scottish Late Bronze Age Metalwork: Typology, Distribution and Chronology. Pro-
ceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 93, 16–134.
Colquhoun, I. 2011: Use and Abuse. In: Uckelmann, M. – Mödlinger, M. (eds): Bronze Age Warfare:
Manufacture and Use of Weaponry. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2255.
Oxford, 51–60.
Cowen, J. D. 1966: The Origins of the Flange-hilted Swords of Bronze in Continental Europe. Proceed-
ings of the Prehistoric Society 32/10, 262–311.
Crellin, R. J. – Dolfini, A. – Ukcelmann, M. – Hermann, R. 2018: An Experimental Approach to Pre-
historic Violence and Warfare? In: Dolfini, A. – Crellin, R. J. – Horn, Ch. – Ukcelmann, M.
(eds): Prehistoric Warfare and Violence. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Quantitative
Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Cham, 279–305.
Darnay, K. 1899: Sümegh és vidékének őskora. Archaeologiai Közlemények 22, 5–85.
Darnay-Dornyay, B. 1950: Badacsony-Köbölkútihegy bronzkincsének leletkörülményei. Archaeolo-
giai Értesítő 77, 135–136.
Dax, M. – Éri, I. – Mithay, S. – Palágyi, Sz. – Torma, I. 1972: Veszprém Megye Régészeti Topográfiája.
A pápai és zirci járás. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 4. Budapest.
Dănilă, Ş. 1976: Depozitul de bronzuri de la Visuia (com Ariceştii de Cîmpie, jud. Bistriţa-Năsăud) –
Le dépôt de bronzes découvert à Visuia. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice 27/1, 61–75.
77
Delibes de Castro, G. – Fernández Manzano, J. – Fontaneda Pérez, E. – Rovira Llorens, S. 1999:
Metalurgia de la Edad del Bronce en el Piedemonte Meridional de la Cordillera Cantábrica. La
Collección Fontaneda. Arquelogía en Castilla y León 3. Junta de Castilla y León.
Della Casa, Ph. – Ballmer, A. 2016: Medien zur Anderswelt. Waffen im Kontext von Bronze- und
Eisenzeitlichen Gräbern, Depots und Brandopferplätzen (Media to the Otherworld. Weapons
in the Context of Bronze and Iron Age Burials, Depositions and Brandopferplätze). In: Egg, M. –
Naso, A. – Rollinger, R. (eds): Waffen für die Götter. Waffenweihungen in Archäologie und
Geschichte. Akten der internationalen Tagung am Institute für Archäologien der Leopold-Fran-
zens-Universität, Innsbruck, 6.-8. März 2013. RGZM Tagungen 82. Mainz, 129–141.
De Martino, S. – Devecchi, E. 2016: Gods and Weapons in the Hittite World. In: Egg, M. – Naso, A. –
Rollinger, R. (eds): Waffen für die Götter. Waffenweihungen in Archäologie und Geschichte. Akten
der internationalen Tagung am Institute für Archäologien der Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Inns-
bruck, 6.-8. März 2013. RGZM Tagungen 82. Mainz, 9–15.
Dorner, K. 1884: Csab-Rendeki ásatás. Archaeologiai Értesítő 4, 227–232.
Fekete, M. 2004: A jánosházi halomsír. Megjegyzések és előzetes jelentés az 1983. évi leletmentés
megfigyelései alapján (Das Hügelgrab von Jánosháza. Bemerkungen und Vorbericht auf Grund
der Beobachtungen während der Fundrettung im Jahre 1983). In: Ilon, G. (szerk.): MΩMOΣ III.
Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Halottkultusz és temetkezés. Szombat-
hely – Bozsok, 2002. október 7–9. Szombathely, 157–181.
Fischer, V. 2011: The deposition of bronzes at Swiss lakeshore settlements: new investigations. Anti-
quity 85, 1298–1311.
Fogolari, G. 1943: Beinschienen der Hallstattzeit von Pergine (Valsugana). Wiener Prähistorische Zeit-
schrift 30, 73–81.
Fontijn, D. 2002: Sacrificial Landscapes: cultural biographies of persons, objects, and ‘natural’ places in
the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands, 2300-600 BC. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34.
Leiden.
Fontijn, D. 2005: Giving up weapons. In: Parker Pearson, M. – Thorpe, L. J. N. (eds): Warfare, Vio-
lence and Slavery in Prehistory. Proceedings of a Prehistoric Society conference at Sheffield Univer-
sity. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1374. Oxford, 145–154.
Ganard, V. – Piningre, J.-F. 2015: Catalogue des Vaisselles d’Évans. In: Piningre, J.-F. – Pernot, M. –
Ganard, V.: Le dépôt d’Évans (Jura) et les dépôts de vaisselles de bronze en France au Bronze
Final. Revue Archéologique de l’Est 37e supplément. Dijon, 147–177.
Gedl, M. 1984: Die Messer in Polen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VII/4. München.
Gedl, M. 2001: Die Bronzegefäße in Polen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/15. Stuttgart.
Gener, M. 2018: Carp’s-tongue swords and their use: Functional, Technological and Morphological
Aspects. In: Horn, C. – Kristiansen, K. (eds): Warfare in Bronze Age Societies. Cambridge,
136–152.
Gentile, V. – Sparacello, V. S. – D’Ercole, V. – Coppa, A. 2018: Martial Practices and Warrior Buri-
als: Humeral Asymmetry and Grave Goods in Iron Age Male Inhumations from Central Italy.
In: Dolfini, A. – Crellin, R. J. – Horn, Ch. – Ukcelmann, M. (eds): Prehistoric Warfare and
Violence. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities
and Social Sciences. Cham, 61–83.
Gentile, V. – van Gijn, A. 2019: Anatomy of a notch. An in-depth experimental investigation and
interpretation of combat traces on Bronze Age swords. Journal of Archaeological Science 105,
130–143.
Georganas, I. 2018: ‘Warrior Graves’ vs. Warrior Graves in the Bronze Age Aegean. In: Horn, C. –
Kristiansen, K. (eds): Warfare in Bronze Age Societies. Cambridge, 189–197.
Gerloff, S. 1986: Bronze Age Class A Cauldrons: Typology, Origins and Chronology. The Journal of
the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 116, 84–115.
78
Gerloff, S. 2010: Atlantic Cauldrons and Buckets of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Western Eu-
rope with a Review of Comparable Vessels from Central Europe and Italy. Prähistorische Bronze-
funde II/18. Stuttgart.
Godiš, J. – Styk, M. 2019: “Higher Ones” of Keszthely: A stroy behind. In: Novotná, M. – Jobst, W. –
Kuzmová, K. – Varsik, V. – Hrnčiarik, E. (eds): Proceedings of the International Conference.
Ancient Communities and Their Elites from the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity (Central Europe –
Mediterranean – Black Sea) Part I. Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 13, 215–235.
Gyulai, R. 1887: Megyénk a bronzkorban. Komáromi Lapok 8/15 (9.04.1887) 1–3.
Hampel, J. 1880: A n. múzeum érem- és régiségosztályának gyarapodása a f. évi Julius-novemberi
hónapokban. Archaeologiai Értesítő 14, 340–358.
Hampel, J. 1881: A nemz. muzeum érem- és régiség osztályának gyarapodása 1880. deczember havá-
ban. Archaeologiai Értesítő 15, 164–178.
Hampel, J. 1886a: Trouvailles de l’Âge de Bronze en Hongrie. Budapest.
Hampel, J. 1886b: A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban. I. rész: Képes Atlasz. Budapest.
Hampel, J. 1887: Szerkesztői megjegyzés a csáb-rendeki leletek dolgában. Archaeologiai Értesítő 7,
174–175.
Hampel, J. 1892: A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban. II. Rész: A leletek statisztikája. Budapest.
Hampel, J, 1896: A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban. III. Rész: Áttekintő Ismertetés. Budapest.
Hampel, J. 1901: A M. N. Múzeumi Régiségtár gyarapodása az 1901-ik év első felében. Archaeologiai
Értesítő 21, 380–383.
Hampel, J. 1902: A Magyar Nemzeti Muzeumi Régiségtár gyarapodása. Archaeologiai Értesítő 22, 85–87.
Hansen, S. 1994: Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen
Rhônetal und Karpatenbecken 1–2. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie
21. Bonn.
Hansen, S. 1996: Bemerkungen zur zeitlichen Stellung der Hortfunde des Typus Gyermely. Archäolo-
gisches Korrespondenzblatt 26, 433–441.
Hansen, S. 2016: A Short History of Fragments in Hoards of the Bronze Age. In: Baitinger, H. (ed.):
Materielle Kultur und Identität im Spannungsfeld zwischen Mediterraner Welt und Mitteleuropa.
Akten der Internationalen Tagung am Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz, 22.-24. Ok-
tober 2014, Mainz, 185–208.
Harding, A. 1995: Die Schwerter im ehemaligen Jugoslawien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV/14.
Stuttgart.
Harrel, K. 2014: The Fallen and Their Swords: A New Explanation for the Rise of the Shaft Graves.
American Journal of Archaeology 118/1, 3–17.
Hell, M. 1939: Ein Passfund der Urnenfelderkultur aus dem Gau Salzburg. Wiener Prähistorische
Zeitschrift 26, 148–156.
Heyd, V. 2007: Families, Prestige Goods, Warriors & Complex Societies: Beaker Groups of the 3rd Mil-
lennium cal BC Along the Upper & Middle Danube. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73,
327–379.
Holste, F. 1951: Hortfunde Südosteuropas. Marburg/Lahn.
Holste, F. 1962: Zur Chronologie der südosteuropäischen Depotfunde der Urnenfelderzeit. Marburg/Lahn.
Honti, Sz. – Jankovits, K. 2016: A new greave from the Late Bronze Age Hoard found at Lengyeltóti
in Southern Transdanubia (Újabb lábszárvédőlemez a Dél-Dunántúlról a lengyeltóti V. késő-
bronzkori depóleletből). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 71–86.
Horn, Ch. 2014: Weapons, fighters and combat: spears and swords in Early Bronze Age Scandinavia.
Danish Journal of Archaeology 2/1, 20–44.
Horváth, I. – H. Kelemen, M. – Torma, I. 1979: Komárom megye régészeti topográfiája. Esztergom és
a dorogi járás. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 5. Budapest.
79
Huth, Ch. 2011: Wasser zwischen den Welten – Überlegungen zum archäologischen Quellenwert
einer bronzezeitlichen Flusslandschaft. In: Bittmann, F. – Ey, J. – Karle, M. – Jöns, H. –
Strahl, E. – Wolters, S. (eds): Siedlungs- und Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 34.
Rahden/West. 2011, 47–57.
Huth, Ch. 2012: Waffenweihungen in der Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. In: Söldner, W. – Höck, A. (eds):
Waffen für die Götter. Krieger, Trophäen, Heiligtümer. Innsbruck, 91–99.
Huth, Ch. 2016: Bronzezeitlichen Waffendeponierungen – Überlegungen zu Ordnung und Bestim-
mung einer Denkmälergruppe (Bronze Age Weapon Depositions – Thoughts on Categorizati-
on and Interpretation of a Find Group). In: Egg, M. – Naso, A. – Rollinger, R. (Hrsg.): Waffen
für die Götter. Waffenweihungen in Archäologie und Geschichte. Akten der internationalen Ta-
gung am Institute für Archäologien der Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck, 6.-8. März 2013.
RGZM Tagungen 82. Mainz, 27–45.
Ilon, G. 1992: Csészésmarkolatú kard Csöngéről (Vas megye) (Ein Schalenknaufschwert aus Csönge
(Komitat Vas)). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 19–22.
Ilon, G. 2002: Ein spätbronzezeitlicher Hortfund aus Szombathely (Steinamanger), Kom. Vas (Ungarn).
Das Altertum 47, 149–169.
Ilon, G. 2004: Szombathely őskori településtörténetének vázlata. Avagy a római kor előtt is volt élet.
Őskorunk 2. Szombathely.
Ilon, G. 2012: Eine weitere Bestattung der frühurnenfelderzeitlichen Elite – Das Grab Nr. 6 aus Bala-
tonfűzfő (Ungarn, Komitat Veszprém). In: Kujovskỳ, R. – Mitáš, V. (eds): Václav Furmánek a
doba bronzová. Zborník k sedemdesiatym narodeninám. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae
13, Nitrae, 137–150.
Ilon, G. 2015: Cemetery of the late Tumulus – early Urnfield period at Balatonfűzfő, Hungary. Disser-
tationes Archaeologicae 3/3, 27–57.
Ilon, G. 2016: A kézfej szimbolikájához… Egy velemi urnamezős kori agyatárgy ürügyén (Zum Sym-
bolgut der menschlichen Hand. Ein urnenfelderzeitlicher Tongegenstand aus Velem). TISICUM –
A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 25, 169–174.
Jacanović, D. 1995: Metallgefäße aus der späten Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit in Serbien. Starinar
45/46, 101–112.
Jacob, Ch. 1995: Metallgefäße der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit in Nordwest-, West- und Süddeutschland.
Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/9. Stuttgart.
Jahn, Ch. 2013: Symbolgut Sichel. Studien zur Funktion spätbronzezeitlicher Griffzungensicheln in De-
potfunden 1–2. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 236. Bonn.
Jankovits, K. 1992a: Spätbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber in der Bakony-Gegend. Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44, 3–81.
Jankovits, K. 1992b: Spätbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber von Bakonyjákó. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 44, 261–343.
Jankovits, K. 1997: La ricostruzione di due nuovi schinieri del tipo a lacci dall’Ungheria. Acta Archae-
ologica Scientiarum Hungaricae 49, 1–21.
Jankovits, K. 1999: A Hajdúsámson-Kistelekről származó későbronzkori depotlelet (Der spätbronze-
zeitliche Depotfund von Hajdúsámson-Kistelek). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 73,
129–142.
Jankovits, K. 2008: Die Gräber mit den Waffenbeigaben: Die sogenannten Kriegergräber in der Späthü-
gel- Frühurnenfelderkultur (Bz D – Ha A1) in Transdanubien. In: Czajlik, Z. – Mordant, C.
(eds): Nouvelles approches en anthropologie et en archéologie funéraire. Budapest, 83–91.
Javorský, F. 1980: Vỳskumy a prieskumy Vỳskumnej expedície Spiš Archeologického ústavu SAV –
Grabungen und Begehungen der Grabungsexpedition Spiš des Archäologischen Instituts der
Saw. Archeologické vỳskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku, 108–126.
80
Jelentés 1912: Jelentés a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum 1911. évi állapotáról (ed. A Magy. Nemz. Múzeum
Igazgatósága). Budapest.
Jereb, M. 2016: Die Bronzegefäße in Slowenien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/19. Stuttgart.
Jockenhövel, A. 1974: Fleischhaken von den Britischen Inseln. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 4,
329–338.
Jockenhövel, A. 2006: Zur Archäologie der Gewalt: Bemerkungen zu Aggression und Krieg in der
Bronzezeit Alteuropas. Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 4–5, 101–132.
Jósa, A. 1895a: A kántorjánosi-i (Szatmár m.) bronzleletről. Archaeologiai Értesítő 14, 249–250.
Jósa, A. 1895b: A kántor-jánosi leletnek második részlete. Archaeologiai Értesítő 14, 355.
Jósa, A. 1910: Hallstatti vagy “nyíri” kultura. Múzeumi és Könyvtári Értesítő 4, 109–117.
Juhász, M. 2007: 377. Tatabánya, Szelim-barlang. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon/Archaeological
Investigations in Hungary, 295.
Jungbert, B. 1986: Spätbronzezeitlicher Depotfund von Tatabánya-Ótelep. Communicationes Archaeo-
logicae Hungariae, 17–25.
Kacsó, C. 2015: Descoperiri din epoca bronzului de la Felnac (jud. Arad) (Bronzezeitliche Funde aus
Felnac (Kr. Arad)). Revista Bistriţei 29, 23–41.
Kalicz-Schreiber, R. – Kalicz, N. – Váczi, G. 2010: Ein Gräberfeld der Spätbronzezeit von Buda-
pest-Békásmegyer. Budapest.
Kárpáti, K. 1896: A velemi bronzlelet. Archaeologiai Értesítő 16, 295–304.
Kárpáti, K. 1897: A velemi bronzlelet. A vasmegyei Régészeti Egylet Évkönyve 23–24, 19–36.
Kemenczei, T. 1980: A Gyöngyössolymos-kishegyi negyedik bronzlelet (Der vierte Bronzefund von
Gyöngyössolymos-Kishegy). Agria – Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve 16–17, 137–155.
Kemenczei, T. 1983: A Tatabánya-Bánhidai bronzlelet (Der Bronzefund von Tatabánya-Bánhida).
Archaeologiai Értesítő 110, 61–68.
Kemenczei, T. 1988: Die Schwerter in Ungarn I (Griffplatten-, Griffangel- und Griffzungenschwerter).
Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV/6. München.
Kemenczei, T. 1990: Der ungarische Donauraum und seine Beziehungen am Ende der Hügelgräber-
bronzezeit. In: Furmánek, V. – Horst, F. (eds): Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kultur der mittel-
europäischen Bronzezeit. Berlin/Nitra, 207–228.
Kemenczei, T. 1991: Die Schwerter in Ungarn II (Vollgriffschwerter). Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV/9.
Stuttgart.
Kemenczei, T. 1996: Angaben zur Frage der endbronzezeitlichen Hortfundstufen im Donau-Theiß-
gebiet. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 53–92.
Kemenczei, T. 2003: Der erste Bronzefund von Bodrogkeresztúr. Archaeologiai Értesítő 128, 17–49.
Von Kenner, F. 1860: Beiträge zu einer Chronik der archäologischen Funde in der österreichischen
Monarchie (1856–1858). Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen 24, 225–423.
Kibbert, K. 1984: Die Äxte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutschland II. Prähistorische Bronzefunde
IX/13. München.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1975: Gürtelhaken, Gürtelbleche und Blechgürtel der Bronzezeit in Mitteleuropa.
(Ostfrankreich, Schweiz, Süddeutschland, Österreich, Tschechoslowakei, Ungarn, Nordwest-Jugo-
slawie). Prähistorische Bronzefunde XII/2. München.
Kisné Cseh, J. 1999: From the Palaeolithic Age to the Roman period. In: Fűrészné Molnár, A. – Kisné
Cseh, J. – Kiss, V. – László, J. (eds): Museum of Tatabánya. Guide to the Historical Exhibition.
Tatabánya, 8–21.
Клочко, В. И. – Козыменко, А. B. 2017: Древний металл Украины. Киев.
Knight, M. G. 2018: The Intentional Destruction and Deposition of Bronze Age Metalwork in South West
England. 1/3. University of Exeter. PhD Thesis.
81
Kobal’, J. V. 2000: Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde aus Transkarpatien (Ukraine). Prähistorische Bronzefunde
XX/4. Stuttgart.
Кобаль, Й. 2006: Бронзові казани у верхів‘ї дністра. Матеріали і дослідження з археології Прикар-
паття і Волині 10, 92–99.
Koós, J. 2004: Újabb késő bronzkori bogrács Kelet-Magyarországról (Neueres Bronzebecken von Ost-
ungarn). A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 43, 83–102.
Koós, J. 2015: A fémművesség emlékei egy késő bronzkori településen: Muhi-3. kavicsbánya (Traces
of Metalworking in a Late Bronze Age settlement: Muhi-3. kavicsbánya). A Hermann Ottó
Múzeum Évkönyve 54, 131–175.
Koschik, H. 1981: Ein Hortfund der späteren Urnenfelderzeit von Fridolfing, Ldkr. Traustein, Ober-
bayern. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 46, 37–56.
Косорић, М. Д. 1966: Праисторијски бронзани котао из околине Пожаревца (Le chaudron préhis-
torique de bronze des environs de Požaverac). Starinar 15–16, 191–192.
König, P. 2004: Spätbronzezeitliche Hortfunde aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina. Prähistorische Bronze-
funde XX/11. Stuttgart.
Kőszegi, F. 1988: A Dunántúl története a késő-bronzkorban (The History of Transdanubia during the Late
Bronze Age). Budapest.
Krapf, M. – Wittwer-Backofen, W. 2011: Schwertgrab = Mehrfachbestattung? Zur archäo-anthro-
pologischen Auswertung der Schwertgräber von Zuchering-Ost (Stadt Ingolstadt). Praehistori-
sche Zeitschrift 86, 85–99.
Kreiter, A. 2007: 441. Zalakomár, Alsó-Csalit. In: Kisfaludy, J. (szerk.): Régészeti Kutatások Magya-
rországon 2006 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2006. Budapest, 324.
Kristiansen, K. 1984: Krieger und Häuptlinge in der Bronzezeit Dänemarks. Ein Beitrag zur Ge-
schichte des bronzezeitlichen Schwertes. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums
31, 187–208.
Kristiansen, K. 1999: The Emergence of Warrior Aristocracies in Later European Prehistory and Their
Long-Term History. In: Carman, J. – Harding, A. (eds): Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Per-
spectives. Gloucestershire, 175–189.
Kristiansen, K. 2002: The Tale of the Sword – Swords and Swordfighters in Bronze Age Europe.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21/4, 319–332.
Kristiansen, K. 2013: Kriegsführung in der Bronzezeit. In: Museum der Bildenden Künste (eds): Bronze-
zeit Europa ohne Grenzen. 4.–1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Berlin, 194–205.
Kristiansen, K. 2018: Warfare and the Political Economy: Europe 1500–1100 BC. In: Horn, Ch. –
Kristiansen, K. (eds): Warfare in Bronze Age Society. Cambridge, 23–46.
Kugler, A. 1903: Vezető Sopronvármegye és Sopron sz. kir. város egyesített muzeumában. Sopron.
Kuzsinszky, B. 1920: A Balaton környékének archaeologiája. Budapest.
László, P. 1982: 61. Várvölgy. Régészeti Füzetek 1/35, 27.
László, J. 2001: 170. Tatabánya, 52. sz. lh. In: Kisfaludy, J. (szerk.): Régészeti kutatások Magyarorszá-
gon 1998 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1998. Budapest, 167.
László, J. 2002: 295. Tatabánya, 52. lelőhely. In: Kisfaludy, J. (szerk.): Régészeti kutatások Magyaror-
szágon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999. Budapest, 253.
László, J. 2004: 299. Tatabánya, 52. számú lelőhely. In: Kisfaludy, J. (szerk.): Régészeti kutatások
Magyarországon 2002 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2002. Budapest, 281.
László, J. 2008: 347. Tatabánya, Felső-Rét-föld. In: Kisfaludy, J. (szerk.): Régészeti kutatások Magyar-
országon 2007 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2007. Budapest, 289–290.
Lipp, V. 1885: Őskori kőkamra-sír Keszthelyen. Archaeologiai Értesítő 5, 369–373.
Lipp, V. 1886: Lipp Vilmos levele ujabb kutatásairól. Archaeologiai Értesítő 6, 350–354.
82
Lipp, V. 1887a: Lipp Vilmos keszthelyi levele. Archaeologiai Értesítő 7, 52–57.
Lipp, V. 1887b: Őskori emlékek. A Vasmegyei Régészeti Egylet Évkönyve 1886, 5–14.
Lloyd, M. 2015: Death of a Swordsman, Death of a Sword: The Killing of Swords in the Early Iron
Age Aegean ca. 1050-ca. 690 B.C.E. In: Lee, G. – Whittaker, H. Wrightson, G. (eds): Ancient
Warfare: Introducing Current Research. Cambridge, 14–31.
Martin, J. 2009: Die Bronzegefäße in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Berlin, Sachsen-Anhalt,
Thüringen und Sachsen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/16. Stuttgart.
Matthews, S. 2011: Chelsea and Ballintober Swords: Typology, Chronology and Use. In: Uckel-
mann, M. – Mödlinger, M. (eds): Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry.
British Archaeological Reports – International Series 2255, Oxford, 85–105.
Mayer, F. E. 1977: Die Äxte und Beile in Österreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/9. München.
Melhárd, Gy. 1886: Somogymegyei ősleletekről. Archaeologiai Értesítő 6, 231–233.
Melhárd, Gy. 1891: Orczi lelet, nem «Oroszi» lelet. Archaeologiai Értesítő 11, 96.
von Merhart, G. 1952: Studien über einige Gattungen von Bronzegefäßen. In: H. Klumbach (ed.):
Festschrift des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz zu Feier seines hundertjährigen
Bestehens 2. Mainz, 1–71.
Mészáros, K. 2010: Későbronzkori fémleletek a tatabánya-dózsakerti feltárás anyagából (Metal Arti-
facts from the Late Bronze Age in the excavated material of Tatabánya-Dózsakert). Tatabányai
Múzeum Évkönyve 1, 123–128.
Miske, K. 1896: Velemi (vasm.) régiségekről. Archaeologiai Értesítő 16, 250–252.
Miske, K. 1907: A Velem Szt. Vidi őstelep (Die prähistorische Ansiedlung Velem St. Vid). Wien.
Mohen, J.-P. 1977: L’Age du Bronze dans la region de Paris. Catalogue synthétique des collections
conserves au Musée des Antiquités Nationales. Paris.
Molloy, B. 2007: What’s the Bloody Point?: Bronze Age swordsmanship in Ireland and Britain. In:
Molloy, B. (ed.): The Cutting Edges Studies in Ancient and Medieval Combat. Gloucestershire,
90–100.
Molloy, B. 2008: Martial arts and materiality: a combat archaeology perspective on Aegean swords of
the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC. World Archaeology 40/1, 116–134.
Molloy, B. 2011: Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords. In: Uckelmann, M. –
Mödlinger, M. (eds): Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry. British Archaeo-
logical Research International Series 2255. Oxford, 67–84.
Molloy, B. 2018a: Bronze weaponry and cultural mobility in Late Bronze Age Southeast Europe. In:
Horn, C. – Kristiansen, K. (eds): Warfare in Bronze Age Societies. Cambridge, 81–100.
Molloy, B. 2018b: Conflict at Europe’s Crossroads: Analysing the Social Life of Metal Weaponry in the
Bronze Age Balkans. In: Dolfini, A. – Crellin, R. J. – Horn, Ch. – Ukcelmann, M. (eds): Pre-
historic Warfare and Violence. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Quantitative Methods in
the Humanities and Social Sciences. Cham, 199–234.
Mozsolics, A. 1949: Két dunántúli bronzlelet a Hallstattkorból (Deux trouvailles de bronze Hallstatt-
iennes, retrouvées en Transdanubie). Archaeologiai Értesítő 76, 24–29.
Mozsolics, A. 1967: Spätbronzezeitliche Depotfunde aus Ungarn. Inventaria Archaeologica Ungarn.
Heft 2 U9-U18. Bonn.
Mozsolics, A. 1969: Tiszakarádi bronzleletek (Bronzefunde von Tiszakarád (Kom. Borsod-Abaúj-
Zemplén)). Archaeologiai Értesítő 96, 62–66.
Mozsolics, A. 1975a: Somogy megyei bronzleletek I. (Bronzefunde aus dem Kom. Somogy I.) Somogyi
Múzeumok Közleményei 2, 5–21.
Mozsolics, A. 1975b: Bronzkori kardok folyókból (Bronzezeitliche Schwertfunde aus Flüssen). Archae-
ologiai Értesítő 102, 3–24.
83
Mozsolics, A. 1984: Ein Beitrag zum Metallhandwerk der ungarischen Bronzezeit. Bericht der Rö-
misch-Germanischen Kommission 65, 19–72.
Mozsolics, A. 1985: Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely.
Budapest.
Mozsolics, A. 2000: Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte Hajdúböszörmény, Románd und
Bükkszentlászló. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 17. Kiel.
Mödlinger, M. 2011: Ritual Object or Powerful Weapon – the usage of Central Europe Bronze Age
swords. In: Uckelmann, M. – Mödlinger, M. (eds): Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use
of Weaponry. British Archaeological Reports – International Series 2255, 153–166.
Mödlinger, M. 2017: Protecting the Body in War and Combat. Metal Body Armour in Bronze Age Eu-
rope. Vienna.
Mödlinger, M. – Ntaflos, Th. – Salaberger, D. 2010: Untersuchungen an dem Schwert aus Grab
Vrf. 833 – Analysis of the manufacture and use of a Bronze Age sword of Schalenknauf-type
from Unterradlberg, Lower Austria. Fundberichte aus Österreich 48, 50–55.
Mörtz, T. 2018: Violence and Ritual in Late Bronze Age Britain: Weapon depositions and their inter-
pretation. In: Horn, C. – Kristiansen, K. (eds): Warfare in Bronze Age Societies. Cambridge,
168–188.
Müller, F. 1993: Argumente zu einer Deutung von “Pfahlbaubronzen”. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen
Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 76, 71–92.
Müller, R. 2006: A Várvölgy-Nagy-Lázhegy késő bronzkori földvár kutatása (Die Erforschung des
spätbronzezeitlichen Burgwalles von Várvölgy-Nagy-Lázhegy). In: Kovács, Gy. – Miklós, Zs.
(szerk.): Tanulmányok a 80 éves Nováki Gyula tiszteletére. “Gondolják, látják az várnak nagy
voltát…”. Budapest, 227–236.
Müller, R. 2007: Késő bronzkori magaslati település kutatása Várvölgy, Nagyláz-hegyen (2003–2006)
(Investigation of a hill settlement from the Late Bronze Age at Várvölgy, Nagyláz-hegy (2003–
2006)). In: Kisfaludy, J. (szerk.): Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2006 – Archaeological
Investigations in Hungary 2006. Budapest, 5–26.
Nebelsick 2000: Rent asunder: ritual violence in Late Bronze Age hoards. In: Pare, C. F. E. (ed.): Metals
Make the World go round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Pro-
ceedings of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997. Oxford, 160–174.
Needham, S. – Bowman, S. 2005: Flesh-Hooks, Technological Complexity and the Atlantic Bronze
Age Feasting Complex. European Journal of Archaeology 8/2, 91–136.
Nekvasil, J. – Podborský, V. 1991: Die Bronzegefäße in Mähren. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/13.
Stuttgart.
Nestor, I. 1935: Ein Bronze-Depot aus Moigrad, Rumänien. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 26, 24–57.
Neumann, D. 2009: Bemerkungen zu den Schwertern der Typenfamilie Sauerbrunn-Boiu-Keszthely.
In: Bagley, J. M. – Eggl, Ch. – Neumann, D. – Schefzik, M. (eds): Alpen, Kult und Eisenzeit.
Festschrift für Amei Lang zum 65. Geburtstag. Rahden/Westf., 97–114.
Neumann, D. 2015: Landschaften der Ritualisierung. Die Fundplätze kupfer- und bronzezeitlicher Metall-
deponierungen zwischen Donau und Po. Berliner Studien der Alten Welt 26. Berlin.
Novák, P. 1975: Die Schwerter in der Tschechoslowakei I. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV/4. München.
Novák, P. 2011: Die Dolche in Tschechien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI/13. Stuttgart.
Novák, M. – Váczi, G. 2012: Késő bronzkori fegyverlelet a Bakonyból – Megjegyzések az urnamezős mű-
velődés fegyverdeponálási szokásaihoz (A Late Bronze Age weapon find from the Bakony region,
Hungary – Notes on theweapon deposition practices of the Urnfield culture). Ősrégészeti Levelek/
Prehistoric Newsletters 12, 94–114.
Novotná, M. 1970: Die Äxte und Beile in der Slowakei. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/3. München.
Novotná, M. 1991: Die Bronzegefäße in der Slowakei. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/11. Stuttgart.
84
Novotná, M. – Kvietok, M. 2018: Ein Bronzedepot aus Podkonice, Bez. Banská Bystrica. Slovenská
Archeológia 66/1, 1–26.
Ó Faoláin, S. – Northover, J. P. 1998: The Technology of Late Bronze Age Sword Production in Ire-
land. The Journal of Irish Archaeology 9, 69–88.
Pârvan, V. 1982: Getica o Protoistorie a Daciei. Bucureşti.
Patay, P. 1966: Der Bronzefund von Fancsika. Acta Universitatis de Attila József nominatae: Acta Anti-
qua et Archaeologica 10, 75–85.
Patay, P. 1968: Urnenfelderzeitliche Bronzeschilde im Karpatenbecken. Germania 46, 241–248.
Patay, P. 1969a: Der Bronzefund von Mezőkövesd. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hun-
garicae 21, 107–216.
Patay, P. 1969b: Bronz szitula a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum gyűjteményében (Bronzesitula aus der Sam-
mlung des Ungarischen Nationalmuseums). Folia Archaeologica 20, 11–24.
Patay, P. 1970: Über ein Bronzegefäss des Fundes von Niedzieliska. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica
11/2, 171–185.
Patay, P. 1990: Die Bronzegefäße in Ungarn. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/10. München.
Patek, E. 1968: Die Urnenfelderkultur in Transdanubia. Archaeologia Hungarica 44. Budapest.
Pearce, M. 2013: The Spirit of the Sword and Spear. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23/1, 55–67.
F. Petres, É. – Bándi, G. 1969: Ásatás Lovasberény-Mihályváron (Excavations at Lovasberény-
Mihályvár). Archaeologiai Értesítő 96, 170–177.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M. 1978: Die Sicheln in Rumänien mit Corpus der jung- und spätbronzezeitlichen
Horte Rumäniens. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVIII/1. München.
Piningre, J.-F. – Ganard, V. 2015: 2. Analyse typologique. In: Piningre, J.-F. – Pernot, M. – Ganard, V.
(eds): Le dépôt d’Évans (Jura) et les dépôts de vaisselles de bronze en France au Bronze Final. Revue
Archéologique de l’Est, 37e supplement, Dijon, 23–64.
Powroznik, K. – Schunke, T. 2017: Durch Kopf und Hand geschützt – und durch sie entdeckt. Ein gro-
ßer Hortfund der späten Bronzezeit aus Oberwünsch, Saalekreis. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt
26, 160–169.
Prüssing, G. 1991: Die Bronzegefäße in Österreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/5. Stuttgart.
Quilliec, B. 2007: Technologie des épées à l’Age du Bronze final en Europe atlantique: reconstitution
des chaînes opératoires. In: Évin, J. (ed.): Actes du Congrès du Centenaire de la Société Préhisto-
rique Française, Avignon. Vol 3, Septembre 2004, Avignon, 401–411.
Quilliec, B. 2008: Use, Wear and Damage: Treatment of Bronze Swords before Deposition. In:
Hamon, C. – Quilliec, B. (eds): Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages in Europe. Tech-
nical and codified practices. Session of the XIth Annual Meeting of the European Association of
Archaeologists. British Archaeological Series 1758, Oxford, 67–78.
Rau, A. 2016: Raserei vs. Rituelle Norm – Beobachtungen und Erklärungsansätze zu den Spuren ri-
tueller Handlungen in den Opferungen von militärischen Ausrüstungen in Südskandinavien.
In: Egg, M. – Naso, A. – Rollinger, R. (eds): Waffen für die Götter. Waffenweihungen in Ar-
chäologie und Geschichte. Akten der internationalen Tagung am Institute für Archäologien der
Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck, 6.-8. März 2013. RGZM Tagungen 28. Mainz, 173–189.
Říhovskỳ, J. 1972: Die Messer in Mähren und dem Ostalpengebiet. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VII/1.
München.
Říhovský, J. 2000: Die bronzezeitlichen Vollgriffschwerter in Mähren. Pravěk Supplementum 7. Brno.
Roymans, N. – Kortland, F. 1999: Urnfield symbolism, ancestors and the land in the Lower Rhine re-
gion. In: Theuws, F. – Roymans, N. (eds): Land and Ancestors. Cultural dynamics in the Urnfield
period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 4.
Amsterdam, 33–61.
Rómer, F. 1878: Résultats généraux du mouvement archéologique en Hongrie. Compte-Rendu 11/2. 1878.
85
Salaš, M. 2005: Bronzové depoty střední až pozdní doby bronzové na Moravě a ve Slezsku. Brno.
Sapiro, D. – Webler, B. 2016: Fabrication of a Bronze Age Sword using Ancient Techniques. The Min-
erals, Metals & Materials Society, 3180–3185.
Savu, M. – Gogâltan, F. 2015: Exploring the Field of Ritual and Symbolism. A Late Bronze Age
Discovery from Vlaha, Cluj County. In: Rişcuţa, N. C. – Ferencz, I. V. – Bărbat, O. T. (eds):
Representations, Signs and Symbols. Proceedings of the Symposium on Religion and Magic. Cluj-
Napoca, 171–186.
Schauer, P. 1971: Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I. (Griffplatten-, Griffan-
gel- und Griffzungenschwerter). Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV/2. München.
Schauer, P. 1979: Eine urnenfelderzeitliche Kampfweise. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 9, 69–80.
Schauer, P. 1982: Die urnenfelderzeitlichen Bronzepanzer von Fillinges, Dép. Haute-Savoie, Frank-
reich. Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 25, 92–130.
Schefzik, M. 2009: Ein urnenfelderzeitlicher Fleischhaken von Heimstetten bei München – Verlust
oder Opfer? In: Bagley, J. M. – Eggl, Ch. – Neumann, D. – Schefzik, M. (eds): Festschrift für
Amei Lang zum 65. Geburtstag. Rahden/Westf., 157–165.
Schmidt, J.-P. – Segschneider, M. 2014: Der jungbronzezeitliche Beckenhort von Norderstapel (Kr.
Schleswig-Flensburg). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 44, 463–482.
Siedlaczek, M. 2011: Der experimentelle Nachguss von bronzezeitlichen Schwertern. Experimentelle
Archäologie in Europe Bilanz 10, 109–119.
Sommella, P. 1976: Pratica di Mare (Lavinium). In: Civilta’ del Lazio Primitivo. Palazzo delle Esposizio-
ni. Roma, 291–311.
Soroceanu, T. 2008: Die vorskythenzeitlichen Metallgefäße im Gebiet des heutigen Rumänien – Vasele
de metal prescitice de pe actualul teritoriu al României. Bronzefunde aus Rumänien – Descoper-
iri de Bronzuri din România 3. Biblioteca Muzeului Bistriţa Seria Historica 16. Cluj-Napoca.
Soroceanu, T. 2011a: „GLADIUS BARBARICO RITU HUMI FIGITUR NUDUS”. Schriftliches, Bildli-
ches und Ethnologisches zur Bedeutung der Schwerter und der Schwertdeponierungen außer-
halb des militärischen Verwendungsbereiches. Tyragetia Arheologie Istorie Antică. Serie Nouă
5 (20)/1, 39–116.
Soroceanu, T. 2011b: T. Soroceanu, Le guerrier des Carpates à l’âge du Bronze. Particularités région-
ales et traits communs continentaux. In: Baray, L. – Honegger, M. – Dias-Meirinho, M.-H.
(eds): L’armement et l’image du guerrier dans les sociétés ancienns: de l’objet à la tombe. Actes du
Table ronde internationale et interdisciplinaire Sens, CEREP, 4-5 juin 2009, Dijon, 225–370.
Sőregi, J. 1931: Régészeti kutatások és ásatások 1930-ban (Archäologische Forschungen aus Aus-
grabungen im Jahre 1930). In: Ecsedi, I. – Sőregi, J. (eds): Jelentés Debrecen Szabad Királyi
Város Déri-Múzeumának 1930. évi működéséről és állapotáról. A Múzeum berendezésének és me-
gnyitásának története Debrecen Sz. Kir. Város Déri-Múzeumának Kiadványai 20, 67 –85.
Sőregi, J. 1936: Jelentés Debrecen Sz. Kir. Város Déri Múzeuma 1935. évi működéséről és állapotáról.
A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 31, 5–99.
Sőregi, J. 1942: Jelentés a Déri Múzeum 1941. évi működéséről és állapotáról. A Debreceni Déri Múzeum
Évkönyve 38, 5–75.
Sőtér, Á. 1892: Mosony-Szolnok és Mosony-Jessehofi bronz kori leletek. Archaeologiai Értesítő 12,
207–212.
Sperber, L. 2006: Bronzezeitliche Flussdeponierungen aus dem Altrhein bei Roxheim, Gde. Bobenheim-
Roxheim, lkr. Ludwigshafen – Ein Vorbericht. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36, 195–214.
Sulimirski, T. 1937: Brązowy skarb z Niedzielisk, pow. Przemyślany (Ein Bronzedepotfund aus Nie-
dzieliska, Kr. Przemyślany, Südpolen). Światowit 17, 255–282.
Szathmári, I. 2005: Folyókból előkerült bronzkori kardleletek a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Gyűjtemé-
nyében (Bronzezeitliche Schwertfunde aus Flüssen in der Sammlung des Ungarischen Natio-
nalmuseums). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 143–166.
86
V. Szabó, G. 2013: Late Bronze Age Stolen. New Data on the Illegal Acquisition and Trade of Bronze
Age Artefacts in the Carpathian Basin. In: Anders, A. – Kalla, G. – Kiss, V. – Kulcsár, G. –
V. Szabó, G. (eds): Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday. Ős-
régészeti Tanulmányok/Prehistoric Studies 1. Budapest, 793–815.
V. Szabó, G. 2019: Bronzkori kincsek Magyarországon. Földbe rejtett fegyverek, eszközök, ékszerek nyo-
mában. Hereditas Archaeologica Hungariae 3. Budapest.
Száraz, Cs. 2008: Késő bronzkori urnasírok Galambok-Hársas-erdő lelőhelyen (Late Bronze Age urn
graves at Galambok-Hársas-erdő). Zalai Múzeum 17, 65–78.
gróf Széchenyi, B. 1887: A pölöskei bronzleletről. Archaeologiai Értesítő 7, 57–58.
Szentmártoni Darnay, K. 1889: A sümeghi etruszk bronz edényekről. Archaeologiai Értesítő 9, 258–263.
Szombathy, J. 1937: Altertumsfunde aus Höhlen bei St. Kanzian im österreichischen Küstenlande. Mit-
teilungen der prähistorischen Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften 2, 17–198.
Tagliamonte, G. 2016: Spolia Hostium Cremavit. On the Roman Practice of Burning the Enemy’s Weap-
ons. In: Egg, M. – Naso, A. – Rollinger, R. (eds): Waffen für die Götter. Waffenweihungen in
Archäologie und Geschichte. Akten der internationalen Tagung am Institute für Archäologien der
Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck, 6.-8. März 2013. RGZM Tagungen 28. Mainz, 163–172.
Tarbay, J. G. 2014: Late Bronze Age depot from the foothills of the Pilis Mountains. Dissertationes
Archeologicae 3/2, 179–297.
Tarbay, J. G. 2015a: A New Late Bronze Age Warrior Equipment from East Central Europe (Új késő
bronzkori, kelet-közép európai harcosfelszerelés). Archaeologiai Értesítő 140, 29–70.
Tarbay, J. G. 2015b: The Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the Ha A2
Period in the Territory of Hungary. In: Rezi, B. – Németh. E. R. (eds): Bronze Age Chronologies
in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 2–4 Oc-
tober 2014. Târgu Mureş, 311–371.
Tarbay, J. G. 2015c: A Late Bronze Age hoard and sickle-shaped pins from Fövenyes (Hungary, Veszp-
rém County) – Késő bronzkori depó és sarló alakú tűk Fövenyesről (Magyarország, Veszprém
m.). Ősrégészeti Levelek/Prehistoric Newsletters 13, 84–118.
Tarbay, J. G. 2016a: Kopott markolatú kardok… A gyopárosfürdői késő bronzkori kardlelet a legújabb
kutatások tükrében. Mozaikok Orosháza és vidéke múltjából, 3–25.
Tarbay, J. G. 2016b: The Late Bronze Age “Scrap Hoard” from Nagydobsza (Késő bronzkori “fémhul-
ladék depó” Nagydobszáról). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 87–146.
Tarbay, J. G. 2017a: The Late Bronze Age Hoard from Oltárc Márki Hill. Analysis of prehistoric manip-
ulations, selective fragmentation and non-ritual violence (Késő bronzkori depó Oltárc-Márki
hegyről. Őskori manipulációk, szelektív és recens törések vizsgálata). Zalai Múzeum 23, 73–138.
Tarbay, J. G. 2017b: ERRATA. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 261–282.
Tarbay, J. G. 2018a: A gyermelyi típusú kincsek és koruk. Eötvös Loránd University – Institute of
Archaeological Sciences. PhD Dissertation. Budapest.
Tarbay, J. G. 2018b: “Looted Warriors” from Eastern Europe. Dissertationes Archaeologicae 3/6, 313–
359.
Tarbay, J. G. – Havasi, B. 2019: Wheels, vessels and Late Bronze fibulae – An ‘elite hoard’ from
Szentgyörgyvár-Felsőmánd, Site B (Hungary, County Zala). In: Bánffy, E. – P. Barna, J. (eds):
“Trans Lacum Pelsonem”. Prähistorische Forschungen in Südwestungarn (5500–500 v. Chr.) – Pre-
historic Research in South-Western Hungary (5500–500 BC). Rahden/Westf., 385–417.
Tárnoki, J. 1987: A csitári későbronzkori bronzlelet (Der Csitarer Bronzefund aus der Spätbronzezeit).
A Nógrád Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 12, 11–38.
Teržan, B. 2016: Škocjan – At the Meeting Point of Worlds. Summary and Conclusion. In: Teržan, B. –
Borgna, E. – Turk, P. (eds): Depo iz Mušje jame pri Škocjanu na Krasu. Depojske najdbe bronaste
in železne dobe na Slovenskem III – Il ripostiglio dall grotto delle mosche presso San Canziano del
Carso. Ripostigli delle età del bronzo e del ferro in Slovenia III. Ljubljana, 431–472.
87
Thevenot, J.-P. 1991: L’Âge du bronze en Bourgogne. Le Dépôt de Blanot (Côte-d’or). Dijon.
Thrane, H. 1965: Dänische Funde fremder Bronzegefässe der Jüngeren Bronzezeit (Periode IV). Acta
Archaeologica København 36, 157–207.
Tompa, F. 1937: 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 1912–1936. Bericht der Römisch-Germaini-
schen Komission 24/25, 27–127.
Tompa, F. 1942: Őskor. In: Szendy, K. (ed.): Budapest Története. I. Budapest az Ókorban. Budapest, 1–133.
Treherne, P. 1995: The Warrior’s Beauty: The masculine Body and Self-identity in Bronze-Age Eu-
rope. Journal of European Archaeology 3/1, 105–144.
Trnka, G. – Mödlinger, M. – Ntaflos, Th. 2009: Ein Riegseeschwert aus Gallneukirchen in Ober-
österreich. In: Dobiat, C. – Ettel, P. – Fless, F. (eds): Zwischen Münchshöfen und Windberg.
Gedenkschrift für Karl Böhm. Internationale Archäologie. Studia honoraria 29. Rahden/Westf.,
217–226.
Uckelmann, M. 2012: Die Schilde der Bronzezeit in Nord-, West- und Zentraleuropa. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde III/4. Stuttgart.
Undset, I. 1884: Az oroszi lelet és a magyarországi bronzleletek. Archaeologiai Értesítő 4, 200–208.
Vachta, E. T. 2008: Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Hortfunden des oberen Theissgebietes. Universitäts-
forschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 159. Bonn.
Vandkilde, H. 2006: Warfare, Weaponry and Material Culture: An Introduction. In: Ton, O. –
Thrane, H. – Vandkilde, H. (eds): Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropo-
logical Perspectives. Aarhus, 483–490.
Vandkilde, H. 2008: Violent Beauty in the Bronze Age. In: Hansen, S. – Krause, R. (eds): Bronze Age
Hillforts between the Taunus and Carpathian Mountains: Proceedings of the First Internation-
al LOEWE Conference, 7–9 December 2016 in Frankfurt. Universitätsforschungen zur prähis-
torischen Archäologie 319, 83–101.
Váczi, G. 2013a: A Kelet-Dunántúl kapcsolatrendszerei és kulturális interakciói az urnamezős időszak-
ban. Eötvös Loránd University Institute of Archaeologial Sciences, PhD Dissertation. Budapest.
Váczi, G. 2013b: Cultural connections and interactions of Eastern Transdanubia during the Urnfield
period. Disstertationes Archaeologicae 3/1, 205–230.
Vásárhelyi, I. 1889: A gyermelyi bronzleletről. Archaeologiai Értesítő 9, 62–66.
Veliačik, L. 2012: Nože z doby bronzovej na Slovensku (Bronzezeitliche Messer aus der Slowakei).
Slovenská Archeológia 60/2, 285–342.
Veliačik, L. 2015: Dve pozoruhodné tepané bronzové nádoby (Zwei Bemerkenswerte Getriebene
Bronzegefässe). Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea. Zborník na Pamiatku Jozefa Paulíka
Štúdie – Gedenkschrift für Jozef Paulík Studien. Supplementum 9, 155–165.
Vékony, G. 1970: Tatabánya-Királyhegy, X. akna. Régészeti Füzetek I/23, 18.
Vékony, G. 1988a: Őskori népek Komárom megyében a Jégkorszak után. In: Gömbkötő, G. – Bíró, E. –
Szatmári, S. (szerk.): Komárom megye története 1. Komárom, 65–77.
Vékony, G. 1988b: Későnépvándorláskori és Árpád-kori települések Tatabánya-Dózsakertben. In:
Gömbkötő, G. – Bíró, E. – Szatmári, S. (szerk.): Komárom megye története 1. Komárom, 283–316.
Войнаровский, В. Н. – Смирнова, Г. Й. 1993: Новые находки древних бронз в окрестностях с. Во-
лока на Буковине. (New Finds of Ancient Bronze Artefacts in the Neighbourhood of Village
Volok in Bukovina). Рoccийckaя Apxeoлoгия 4/4, 183–190.
Warmenbol, E. 1996: L’or, la mort et les Hyperboréens. La bouche des Enfers ou le Trou de Han à
Han-sur-Lesse. In: Archäologische Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in der jüngeren Bronzezeit
und frühen Eisenzeit Alteuropas. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regensburg 4. – 7. Oktober 1993,
Bonn, 203–235.
Weber, C. 1996: Die Rasiermesser in Südosteuropa. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VIII/5. Stuttgart.
88
Windholz-Konrad, M. 2008: Der prähistorische Depotfund vom Brandgraben im Kainischtal, Stei-
ermark. In: Hofer, N. (ed.): Schätze, Gräber, Opferplätze. Traunkirchen 08. Archäologie im Salz-
kammergut. Katalog zur Ausstellung im ehemaligen Kloster Traunkirchen 29. April bis 2. Novem-
ber 2008. Fundberichte aus Österreich. Materialhefte A/6. Wien, 48–53.
Whitley, J. 2002: Objects with Attitude: Biographical Facts and Fallacies in the Study of Late Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age Warrior Graves. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12/2, 217–232.
Whittaker, H. 2008: Warfare and Religion in the Bronze Age. The Aegean in the European Context.
In: Whittaker, H. (ed.): The Aegean Bronze Age in relation to the Wider European Context. Pa-
pers from session at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists,
Cork, 5-11 September 2005. British Archaeological Research – International Series 1745, 73–93.
Wosinsky, M. 1896: Tolnavármegye az őskortól a honfoglalásig. Budapest.
Wüstemann, H. 2004: Die Schwerter in Ostdeutschland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV/15. Stuttgart.
Zoltai, L. 1926: Two Bronze Hoards from Hajdusámson, near Debreczen. Man 84, 129–131.
89
Fig. 19. The sword from Tatabánya-Bánhida A (recent damages highlighted in red) (HNM, Photos:
J. G. Tarbay) (No. 1, Appx. 1.1).
90
Fig. 20. The sword from Tatabánya-Bánhida A (recent damages highlighted in red) (HNM, Photos:
J. G. Tarbay) (No. 1, Appx. 1.1).
91
Fig. 21. 1–5 – Armspiral, cauldron, Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel, ‘miniature greave’ from
Tatabánya-Bánhida A, 6 – Tip fragment of the Tatabány-Bánhida ‘B’ sword (recent damages high-
lighted in red) (HNM, Photos: J. G. Tarbay) (Appx. 1.1).
92
Fig. 22. Macroscopic observations on the sword from Tatabánya-Bánhida A. 1–3 – Blade impacts on
melted surface, 4 – Blade impact on cutting edge (Photos: J. G. Tarbay).
93
Fig. 23. Macroscopic observations. 1 – Blade impacts in cluster, 2 – Edge notching, 3 – Shallow blade
impacts, 4 – Cut-like marks (Photos: J. G. Tarbay).
94
Fig. 24. Macroscopic observations. 1 – Cracks caused by bending, 2 – long blade impact (axe) 3–4 –
Blade impacts in cluster (Photos: J. G. Tarbay).
95
Fig. 25. Macroscopic observations. 1 – Cutting edge, 2 – Worn V-shaped notch, 3–4 – Dents in clus-
ters, 5 – Worn notch (Photos: J. G. Tarbay).
96
Fig. 26. Macroscopic observations. 1 – Fine grinding marks and an incomplete cast rib, 2–3 – Details
of the No. 1 sword’s hilt part (Photos: J. G. Tarbay).
97
Fig. 27. 1 – Amorphous melted breakage surface, 2 – Sharp breakage surface, 3 – Completely melted
breakage surface, 4 – Modern breakage surface, 5 – Folded rim of the ‘miniature greave’, 6 – Sword
blade fragment with recent breakage surface and a coal piece, 7 – Micrograph of the coal piece, 8 –
Deep blade impact on a sword blade (Photos: J. G. Tarbay).
98
Fig. 28. 1 – Axe blade-like imprint. 2 – Deep impacts. 3–4 – Shallow worn notches and dents (Photos:
J. G. Tarbay).
99

Melted Swords and Broken Metal Vessels A

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationMelted_Swords_and_Broken_Metal_Vessels_A

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melted Swords and Broken Metal Vessels A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melted Swords and Broken Metal Vessels A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISSERTATIONES ARCHAEOLOGICAE

ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae

Aviable online at http://dissarch.elte.hu

© ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences

János Gábor Tarbay 29

Ágnes Schneider 101

Csilla Sáró – Gábor Lassányi 151

Dávid Bartus 177

Kata Dévai 187

Bence Simon 205

Rita Rakonczay 231

Kata Szilágyi 281

Norbert Faragó 301

János Gábor Tarbay 331

Zoltán Havas 345

Szabina Merva 353

Szabolcs Balázs Nagy 375

Ágnes Kolláth 397

János Gábor Tarbay

DissArch Ser. 3. No. 7. (2019) 29–99. DOI: 10.17204/dissarch.2019.29

2. The Selection of Objects

17 Tarbay 2017a, 79–80; Bell 2019, Tab. 10.2.

47 Colquhoun 2011, 57–58.

56 König 2004, 112–113, 196–197, Pl. 56.13–15.

Fig. 3. Distribution of typologically well identifiable Type B1 cauldrons in Europe. A. Number of

90 Bulat 1975, 16, Pl. 15.9.

2.5. Hajdúböszörmény-style metal vessel

100 Mozsolics 1985, 94.

108 Gedl 2001, 17, 33, Pl. 11.37.

Fig. 8. Selection model of the Tatabánya-Bánhida A–B finds (Graphics: J. G. Tarbay).

4. On the 1st Hoard from Tatabánya-Bánhida

123 Mozsolics 1985, 94.

that was fixed onto an organic shaft126 and, based

126 Needham – Bowman 2005, 94, 96–98, Fig. 1.

5. Burials and Hoards

132 Ilon 2004, Pl. 30.1–2, Pl. 31.1, Pl. 332.2.

142 Clausing 2005, 80–83.

145 Sőtér 1892, Pl. 2.3; Fekete 2004, Fig. 4.

158 Tarbay 2014, 247, No. 80, Fig. 68.

165 Kemenczei 1988, 54–56; Tarbay 2015b, 324, Fig. 13.

166 Bradley 1990, 109–110; Warmenbol 1996; Huth 2011, 52–53.

178 Hansen 2016, 200; Bradley 2017, 132.

188 Savu – Gogâltan 2015, 177–178.

203 Lloyd 2015, 18.

206 Váczi 2013a.

2. Tatabánya-Bánhida-House No. 41, Hoard 1

3. Greaves and miniature greave fragments

4. Plano-convex ingot from Bodrogkeresztúr 2 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County)

5. Partly melted objects from different sites

Csabdi-Bükkös erdő/Bükköstető (Fejér County) hoard

210 Abbreviations: AT Austria, CZ Czech Republic, DE Germany, DK Denmark, FR France, HU Hungary, SK

Table 4: Different dating of hoards from List 3

Hoard Time of deposition References

5. List: Stray find swords from Transdanubia (around the Ha B1)218

6. List: Transdanubian Ha B1 metal vessels (stray finds and burials)

218 Abbreviations: s. stray find, w. wetland, i. individual find.

You might also like

János Gábor Tarbay 29

Ágnes Schneider 101

Csilla Sáró – Gábor Lassányi 151

Dávid Bartus 177

Kata Dévai 187

Bence Simon 205

Rita Rakonczay 231

Kata Szilágyi 281

Norbert Faragó 301

János Gábor Tarbay 331

Zoltán Havas 345

Szabina Merva 353

Szabolcs Balázs Nagy 375

Ágnes Kolláth 397