TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 71

TÜNDE HORVÁTH Universität Wien Historisch-Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät Institut für Urgeschichte und Historische Archäologie Franz-Klein-Gasse 1 A ‒ 1190 Wien e-mail: [email protected]

­The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery of Budakalász (M0/12 site)

UDK / UDC: 903.01(439.153 Budakalász)’’6373’’ Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scientific paper

In this article I investigate the stone finds of published Hungarian and European Bell the Bell Beaker cemetery of Budakalász from Beaker sites. archaeological and petrographic points of Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Bell Beaker view. For the first time in Hungary I describe Culture, Budapest-Csepel group, stone imple- the finds in the terms of international typol- ments, biritual cemetery. ogy, and compare the inventory with other

1. Introduction In this article1 I investigate the stone imple- ments of the Bell Beaker site of Budakalász.2 of the cemetery from archaeological and The site consists of two parts: a cemetery macroscopicI describe and petrographic evaluate thepoints stone of view. finds with 1070 graves (biritual inhumations, Because of the large distribution area of urngraves and scattered urngraves, empty the Bell Beaker Culture, I have made my gravepits / symbolic burials or cenotaphs), analyses at the levels of the site, the region and the settlement part.3 (Budapest-Csepel group / Budapest dis- trict) and the country (Hungary) and also 1 The article was supported by the Lise Meitner fellowship considered the whole distribution area (project M 2003-G25 / AM 0200321) of FWF (Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung). (northern Africa and Europe) of the Bell 2 Site no. 12 of the M0 motorway excavation, excavation Beaker and compared the results with each campaign: 2005; excavator: Katalin Ottományi; excavated other (analysed the results at micro- and territory: 40000 m2. The topographical name of the site is 4 Budakalász–Csajerszke. macroscopic levels). 3 Czene 2008; Horváth 2013. I would like to thank András 4 Czene, who assessed the site and allowed me to work on See a similar comparison for the Late Copper Age: Horváth this assemblage and provided me with useful information 2012. on the site. 72 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

The structure of the article follows the ty- tion area from typological and chronologi- cal points of view, researchers have intro- duced several subdivisions: Marc van der 1. Grinding equipment; 2. Pebbles (polish- pological groups of the finds: ing pebbles, choppers / hard hammers, groups;9 Marie Besse distinguished east- hand stones, anvils, whetstones made of ern,Linden southern, created northern five so-called and western polythetic Bell pebbles with minimal or no shaping); 3. Beaker domains.10 Axes and celts; 4. Polishers/Moulds; 5. Wrist-guards; 6. Chipped stones; 7. Amber. The Bell Beaker Culture is considered to be a Late Neolithic culture – or, in another in- After their description I summarize and ternational terminology, a Late Copper Age evaluate them, compare them with other culture – that survived in the transitional phase of the Early Bronze Age.11 Studies of- - ten emphasize the role of several local/na- cationspublished and finds methodologies from the in region Europe. and the finds of Hungary, and also with finds, publi tive elements, the continuity of former and distinct Eneolithic traditions, which affect- 12 2. Short description ed the formation of the Bell Beaker. The of the Bell Beaker Culture - ence on the emerging Bell Beaker, the pos- The Bell Beaker Culture spread on the siblevarious continuity local former of indigenous traditions, cultures their influ and coastal parts of northern Africa, in maritime their interactions with Bell Beaker com- Europe (its Atlantic and Mediterranean munities and other neighbouring cultures parts) and along larger rivers in Europe resulted in differences among the regional (Danube, Elbe, Oder, Vistula, Morava) – in groups of the Bell Beaker.13 On the Atlantic general on lowlands, but in certain cases and Mediterranean seacoasts Megalithic in mountainous regions as well (northern traditions survived; on the eastern and the Italy, Switzerland, Sardinia) (see Fig. 1 after Mediterranean borderline Bell Beakers Care 2004). adopted some steppean traditions.14 Looking at this map we can see that, as in Looking at the spread of the Bell Beaker the cases of the Boleráz and Baden Cultures Culture in Hungary, its occupation along of the Late Copper Age, this distribution is two riverlines is certain: Danube and Rába not even: smaller and larger occupational (Fig. 2). Thanks to older and more recent re- areas were separated, and are situated far search along the Rába River we have knowl- away from each other.5 The easternmost, edge of more and more sites belonging to larger occupation area is situated along the the Bell Beaker.15 River Vistula, in the Polish Lowlands,6 but sporadic occupations appear towards the Following the flow of the upper part of the Dnieper and the catch- Danube we can find some very sporadic ment basin of the Dvina.7 Most researchers sites between Almásfüzitő and Pilismarót, 9 Van der Linden 2004, Fig. 6. agree that the Bell Beaker Culture emerged unfortunately as stray finds, connecting the 10 Besse 2004, Fig. 8. in the Iberian Peninsula and spread from 11 On the basis of its metallurgy: Bertemes, Heyd 2002: this area.8 Investigating the whole distribu- copper tools from Fahlerz, Reinecke A0 horizon, see also

5 Horváth 2009. It is possible that, if we are able to separate 12 Besse 2004; Strahm 2008. the early and the late sites from each other in the whole Reményi et al. 2006 for the Hungarian finds. 13 E.g. with Corded Ware Culture, Wien–Essling: distribution area of the Bell Beaker, we could observe Zimmermann 2003; Egeln–Bleckendorf: Müller 1999. further differences and could understand the Bell Beaker 14 better. This was the case with the Baden Culture, formerly Especially in the burial rites: e.g. tumulus/kurgan, frog position of the body, stele erection: see Turek 2006, Turek 6 Czebreszuk, Szmyt 2003. assumed to be unified. 2008; Robb 2009. 7 Czebreszuk 2003, 175. 152006a, In the Harrison, vicinity Heyd of Szombathely: 2007; Dimitriadis Károlyi 2008; 1972, Włodarczak 172-185; 8 Care 2004. Patay 1960. Ilon 2004, 42; Reményi, Dobozi 2012; in the vicinity of Győr: TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 73

Fig. 1. The distribution of the Bell Beaker Culture (after Care 2004, source: https://www.google.at/search?q=Bell+Beaker +culture+map&safe=active&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQjIjw27PWAhXlJ8AKHaLqC6QQsAQI Qw&biw=1024&bih=473#imgrc=PViyA5K3VExIoM).

Rába region to the Csepel region with short- The Hungarian material grouped into two lived occupational areas.16 The second- parts: NW-Hungary along the River Rába largest settled area is the Budapest–Csepel region.17 According to new research, even Beaker, while the central part of Hungary though based on scattered urn-grave Bell alongwas mainly the Danube influenced (Budapest– by the westernCsepel) wasBell byBeaker-like Katalin Almássy import or and imitation Eszter vesselIstvánovits finds earlymainly Nagyrév influenced Cultures, by southernsince these cultures over- infrom 2003), Panyola–Vásármező-domb a possible distribution (excavatedor contact lapped(esp. Makó,each other Somogyvár–Vinkovci in space and time). and In along the River Tisza can also be assumed.18 a European perspective, the Hungarian Bell Beaker shows tighter bonds with 16 Patay 1960. 17 The southern part of Szentendre Island, Gázgyár and Lower-Austrian and Moravian Bell Beaker groups.19 The Hungarian Bell Beaker is an

2003.Hajógyár Islands, the northern part of Csepel Island: Kalicz, 19 Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 1999, Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 18Schreiber 1997; Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 2001; Endrődi 1998–2000, 45, 47; Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 2001.

Dani, Tóth 2014. 74 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Fig. 2. The local distribution of the Bell Beaker Culture in Hungary with the main sites. 1. Environment of Szombathely

5. Budakalász, and 6. Panyola along the river Tisza. along the River Rába, 2. Győr in the confluence of three rivers: the Danube, Rába and Rábca, 3. Almásfüzitő, 4. Pilismarót,

Early Bronze Age culture in the Hungarian BC (Budakalász–Csajerszke, M0 / Site 12), terminology.20 The Austrian Bell Beaker 23 In the sites were listed in three chronologi- cal phases without sharp boundaries.21 chronologicalSzigetszentmiklós gap between 2500–2200 the BC.Bell Beaker Synchronized with the Hungarian termi- andcemetery the Early of Szigetszentmiklós Nagyrév graves: Nagyrév there is is a nology: the Austrian I phase is the classic - Bell Beaker; second phase: Common Ware/ dence on the chronological situation of the Accompaniment pottery (EBA IIa phase in Bella little Beaker later. andThis Earlyis the Nagyrév first scientific at a com evi- Hungary); third phase: so-called Oggau– mon site without overlapping! Another date from this region is a radiocarbon date in the Reinecke Bronze Age A1, which was contemporaryWipfing–Ragelsdorf–Oberbierbaum with the Hungarian EBA group IIb Nagyrév grave.24 The Proto-Nagyrév hori- phase.22 The elements of the classic Beaker ofzon Dunakeszi–Székes-dűlő should be contemporary from with athe proto- Bell Beaker Culture according to relative chro- had disappeared, and the Common Ware nology; however, this date is much later in becamePackage dissolvedand Beaker in Setthe bylocal this Early final Bronze phase absolute chronology. cultures. Another older radiocarbon date is available The recently discovered large cemeteries in from Budapest–Farkas-rét (B-4709: 3470 BP the Budapest region are dated 2500–1900

20 23± 80, recalibrated: 1890–1690 calBC, 1 σ), EBA IIa: Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 1999, 86 and Fig. 20; EBA IIa,EBA IIb: Reményi phase II: 2009. Bóna 1994; Harangedény–Csepel group, footnoteBudakalász–M0 42. / Site 12: Czene 2008; Szigetszentmiklós– 24Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő: Patay 2008; Patay 2009, 224 and 21 Neugebauer, Neugebauer-Maresch 2001; Heyd 2000, 358-388. 16. 2010–1910 calBC, 1 σ, Grave 391: Endrődi, Pásztor 2006, 22 Reményi, Dobozi 2012, 123. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 75

Fig. 3. Budakalász: the site in several map-types: 1. The Danube on the GoogleEarth map with greater perspective. Dis- tribution of Bell Beaker along the Rába and Danube rivers in Hungary is red colored. 2. On a GoogleEarth map with the two sites from the Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age. 3. Budakalász on the First Military Map, 1763-1787, signed the both (LCA and EBA) sites. which was formerly connected with Bell New dates are later, suggesting an earlier Beaker hornstone mining at the site: it is appearance of the Bell Beaker in the central also later; therefore it cannot be associated region of the country than has previously with Bell Beaker mining.25 been assumed. The earliest date, 2500

25

T. Biró 2002, 131. 76 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) calBC, represents the transitional period tiple tools for grain grinding and pounding, of the EBA I/II phases in Hungary. The ap- chopping, Fig. 4: 3–4). One was secondarily used and remade from an original axe or 1 Culture in this central region is doubtful weight. The geological source of the pebbles bothpearance typologically of the earliest and chronologically. or so-called Makó We was potentially the Danube and its tribu- taries, while the sandstone came from the BC from Hungary.26 - Hárshegy Sandstone Formation in the cen- doble notto consider know Makó a transitional dates earlier phase than between 2600 tral-southern part of the Buda Mountains. the Copper and Bronze Therefore, Ages between it is justifia 2800 Both are local or regional quarries. and 2600 BC, and start the Bronze Age at 3.2. Pebbles: choppers, polishing pebbles, 2600 BC.27 The former date for the 1st phase handstones, anvils on natural pebble forms of the Early Bronze Age28 would imply that the Baden Culture survived in this region,29 The four unworked natural pebbles without shaping show use-wear (Features 135, 683 1 Culture cannot be placed in this period in and 1219: 2 pcs). They could have served thistherefore region. the However, beginning the of assumed the Early contem Makó- as ad-hoc sharpeners, grinders, polishers poraneity of the surviving Baden Culture of ceramic vessels, stone and metal tools. after the Late Copper Age and the appear- They could also serve as anvils, choppers/ ance of the Bell Beaker is not supported hammers and as multiple ad-hoc tools (Fig. by new radiocarbon dates. There is a gap 4: 1, 5–6). of more than a hundred years between the end of the surviving Baden in the Budapest 3.3. Axes and celts region30 and the earliest date of the Bell Beaker.31 The two cemeteries are 500 m There were three axes/celts in the invento- apart from each other (Fig. 3).32 ry. Two were celts from one feature (Grave 1118), with similar function but different in size (Fig. 4: 11–12). The function of the third 3. Description could not be determined; perhaps it was a and evaluation of the site fragment from a shaft-hole axe (Fig. 4: 14). Two other fragments were possibly also 3.1. Grinding equipment axes/celts. In Grave 1118 there may have been three celts originally. (In the diary of There are very few stone implements con- János Kalmár there were three.) Grave 1118 nected with grain grinding that could pos- is a child’s urngrave with chipped stones, a sibly be explained by the site’s character polisher and a wrist-guard near the celts. (as it is a cemetery). One fragment from a Features 249 and 1118 are graves; other grinding slab was in Pit 151, and two hand- stones came to light from urn graves (mul- raw materials of the celts suggest far-dis- finds came to light from round ditches. The 26 Horváth 2012. tance exchange (greenschist or blueschist 27 Dani, Horváth 2012. and serpentinite from the Carpathians), 28 After Reményi 2009: 2800/2700–2500 BC. 29 Budakalász–Luppa-csárda, Baden cemetery, located now we should use more complex investigation alongsidebut their exact microscopic source is analyses yet to be to clarified: clarify 2012, 2013. this. 30at The Budakalász–Dunai-Kis latest date from the cemetery földek: Siklósi of Budakalász–Luppa- 2009; Horváth csárda Baden cemetery is VERA-3544: Grave 158, 2820– In Bell Beaker cemeteries the axes/celts are

31 Budakalász M0 / Site 12 located now at Budakalász– very rare grave goods. Jerzy Kopacz and his 2740Csajerszke. calBC, The 1 σ, earliest2890–2620 dates calBC, are: Deb-13930,2 σ: Siklósi 2009,Feature 462. 303, colleagues investigated Central European

33 On the basis of their research 32human For thebone, complex 3945 BP relation ±50, 2551–2350 between thecalBC, Late 1 σ; C opperand VERA- Age 4724, human bone, 3940 BP ±35, 2500–2300 calBC, 1 σ. finds, and from 31 cases they found only one Baden and the Early Bronze Age Bell Beaker cemetery see 33 also Horváth 2013, Figs 1-2. such find. Kopacz, Přichystal, Šebela 2009, 105. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 77

Fig. 4. Stone tools from the site: polishers, handstones, anvils and celts. 78 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Fig. 5. Stone cold moulds and their possible products from copper at the site. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 79 the most frequent raw material type of this - central European region is amphibole and ing + cold working + annealing + cold amphibole-type rocks (e.g. metabasites, di- working:finds were a madelong bychaîne the long opératoire process).34 (cast The so-called polishers were used as moulds in sites have wholly polished bodies; they are cold working/hammering processes, and ovalorite, in porphyry). cross-section The and finds have at chisel-edges. Bell Beaker perhaps in the following, tempering/heat- The authors suggested that they could have ing process. ‘Cold’ moulds with the ham- been prestige or symbolic objects rather mered metal products were put into the than real tools.

Featurefire/furnace 276 tosuggests facilitate a easiersimilar forming. procedure. The 3.4. Polishers (Moulds?) (Thisblack coatingtechnical on process, the surface among of the others, find from was The uniform tool type (5 pcs), appearing also used in the Middle Bronze Age.35) in similar sizes and form, and with similar use-wear, and also with incisions of metal or grey sandstone. Their possible source is theThe Budaraw material Mountains, of the their stone central-south finds is red- used for purposes other than polishing ern part (Hárshegy Sandstone Formation). (Fig.finds, 5: could 1–3, 5–6). be a Perhaps multiple it tool was type suitable and to shape wrist-guards (see the half-made that they were used as hand tools, and on product from Feature 1192, Fig. 8: 11), or Their bases are flat and worn, suggesting moulding/smithing in cold or hot fashion, 1–2 hardness on the Mohs scale. There were shaping, sharpening and resharpening twoa flat pieces surface in Graveas well. 276: The they sandstones were placed have in metal products. The needle-head incision the southern part of the gravepit with pots, in the one from Feature 702 is similar to near a bowl. Grave 276 was an inhumation that of the copper needle from Grave 467 of a 23–40-year-old man. Grave 1118 was a (2005.14.467.13) (Fig. 5: 10); the incision scattered urngrave of a 1–7-year-old child. in the tool from Feature 1118 is similar to One piece was excavated in a round ditch. the shape of the copper needle from Feature 1034 (2005.14.1034.3) (Fig. 5: 9). The size of the copper needle from Grave 1034 is 3.5. Wrist-guards identical to the size of the incision in the The description of the wrist-guards (1 part- tool from Grave 1118. The latter, however, could be misleading, because metal prod- fragmented ones, Figs. 6–9) is based on the ucts changed their original size during hot papersfinished, of Fig. Woodward, 8: 11, and 34Kuijpers finished and pieces Turek. or or cold shaping, hammering and use. Thus, I also used the petrographic determina- for example, the size of the mould from tion of geologist János Kalmár, from 2006, Grave 467 is smaller than the metal prod- although his study contained only very few uct from Grave 1082 (2005.14.1082.4) (Fig. 36 5: 8), but on the use surface of the mould, 34 Reményi 2006. only the head of the needle was observable. Bell Beakeret al. finds. The incision in a tool from Feature 105 was 35 See Horváth 2004, Figs. 3: 3, 4: 2, Figs 7-12, Fig. 14: 2, Figs 15-16; Horváth 2012a, Figs. 6, 7: 2, 8: 1, 9: 1, Figs 14-15. not from a needle: rather it forms a dagger; 36 András Czene did not support the further destructive its size is quite similar to the copper dagger from Grave 847 (Fig. 5: 4). initial description made by J. Kalmár (which was part of the regulatedpetrographic preliminary investigations excavation of the report lithic of finds the site). after After their The metal products (copper and bronze) of all, in the case of world-wide stone raw materials (like clay, aleurolite/siltstone, sandstone, schist, quartzite etc., not the Bell Beaker Culture found in Hungary were made similarly to the Spanish Bell - ly.quarry- In generally or mine-specific their potential raw geological materials) sources occurring are close on this to thesite, archaeological these methods site. can not apply successfully and efficient Beaker metal finds, but Hungarian metal 80 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Fig. 6. Wrist-guards. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 81

Fig. 7. Wrist-guards. 82 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Fig. 8. Wrist-guards. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 83

Fig. 9. Wrist-guards. 84 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

- cording to the following aspects: I have grouped and classified the finds ac 3.5.1. Form: – Trapezoid: Features 14, 106, 107, 157, 185, 196, 285, 347, 467, 530, 551, 847, 884, 901, 936, 979, 990, 1024, 1082, 1118, 1118/10; – Rectangular: Features 278, 1265/2; – Square: Features 614, 1259, 1274, 1288?; – Narrow: Features 467, 1265/2, 1265/3; – Uncertain fragment: Features 171, 203, 484, 616, 925, 945, 1265/3.

3.5.2. Cross-section:

203, 467, 616, 936, 1265/2; – Bi-convex Rectilinear (‘bc’): (flat-flat/‘pp’): Feature 936; Features 157, – Flat-convex (‘pc’): Features 157, 285, 467, 901, 1118/10, 1274; – Concavo-convex (‘cc’): Features 14, 106, 107, 171, 185, 196, 278, 347, 484, 530, 551, 614, 616, 847, 884, 925, 945, 979, 990, 1024, 1082, 1118, 1259, 1265/2, 1265/3, Fig. 10. Raw-material types of the wrist-guards: 35 pieces. 1288.

3.5.3. Size: – Small (less than 60 mm): Features 614, 1082, 1118, 1118/10, 1259, 1265/2, 945, 1259.4, 1288; 1265/3, 1288? – Small-medium (60–70 mm): Feature 884; – Five: Feature 106; – Medium (70–80 mm): Features 106, 171, – Six: Features 530, 884. 196, 278, 347, 530, 936, 1118/29, 1118, 1265; 3.5.5. Raw material: – Medium-large (80–100 mm): Features 14, – Fired clay/ceramic, hardness 1–4 on the 107, 157, 185, 285, 467, 551, 616, 847, 925, Mohs scale: 2 pieces: Features 185, 990; 990, 1082; – Fired clay/ceramic or natural clayey stone – Large (100–120 mm): Features 901, 1024. (cremated?): 8 pieces: Features 107, 347, 551, 925, 936, 1024, 1082, 1118.29; mm, grave of an adult man, Fig. 6: 1); the – Soft stones, hardness 1–2 on the Mohs smallestThe largest was find in Feature was in 614Feature (54 mm, 1024 adult’s (119 scale (e.g. sandstone, aleurolite): 15 pieces: urn grave, Fig. 9: 6). There is no visible re- Features 285, 847, 945: schist; 196, 203, lationship between the size of the wrist- 278, 484, 530, 616, 979, 1259, 1265, 1274, guard and the deceased’s age or gender or 1288: aleurolite; 901: not amber; the height of its former owner. – Stones, hardness 2–3 on the Mohs scale: 4 pieces: Features 14, 106, 614, 1118.10; – Stones, hardness 3–4 or 4 on the Mohs – Two, in the middle on the upper and the scale: 5 pieces: Features 171, 157, 467, 884, lower3.5.4. Numberpart: Features of fixing 203, holes: 1274, 1288? 1265. – Four: Features 14, 107, 157, 171?, 185, – Quartzite (hardness 6–7 on the Mohs 196, 278, 285, 347, 467, 484, 551, 614, scale): 1 piece: Feature 1192. 616?, 847, 901, 936, 945?, 979, 990, 1024, TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 85

901005-3: greyish-white layer on the body. Fig. 11. Wrist-guard of Grave 901. ATR FTIR spectra. 901005-1: outer decoration; 901005-2: raw material of the find;

Owing to the fact that holes needed to be es; therefore petrographic observations are drilled in the wrist-guards, their makers - clay) up to hardness 3–4 on the Mohs scale. often difficult to make. In many cases, it was Ingenerally this site used these soft are materials local raw (stones, materials, fired distinguisheven difficult stones to distinguish from ceramics natural or and clayey ar materials.tificial materials (I have from tried eachto use other, a simple that hard is to- 1192 (Fig. 8: 11). This long, narrow quartz- ness scale to do this). Furthermore, we have exceptite pebble the waspart-finished sawn along piece its longfrom axis, Feature but to say that, in the case of pebbles, we were it broke. Quartzite is harder (6–7), and per- not able to distinguish between local and non-local materials either, because both material, hole drilling is very labour-inten- types are present in the sediments of the sive.haps it was too hard to be finished: in this Danube and its tributaries. According to the available literature, the - majority of wrist-guards were made from tion was whether it was lightly cremated non-local raw materials.37 In the case of amberIn the case(Fig. of6: find2).38 2005.14.901.5 the ques Budakalász such a statement cannot be show that it was made of non-organic mate- made without special provenance studies of rials (calcite and carbonated FTIR spectra silicate); of the thus, find raw materials. Macroscopic analysis is not the amber hypothesis was excluded (Fig. enough to distinguish between local and 11).39 We sampled the burnt inlay, suppos- non-local raw materials, because the shap- edly amber, from the outer layer of the out- ing (grinding, polishing of the surface, sec- er face and compared it with the calcined ondary burning during the cremation, etc.) 38 - see:Similar Czebreszuk to finds 2003, from Fig. 10; 2900–2700 Furholt 2008. BC in the Globular 37 caused Kuijpers, radical Fokkens, changes Achterkamp to 2008, the 124;finds’ Woodward surfac et 39Amphorae, Special thanks Corded to Ware, Judith Funnel Mihály Beaker for the and analysis. Złota Cultures; al. 2006. 86 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) inner face. The latter was bone, and the Features 203 (Fig. 9: 10), 1274 (Fig. 9: 9). amber-like material of the outer face was – Fixing, wearing traces: on the inner face: probably a heavily transformed (during Feature 196, with reconstruction of the cremation) substance of the original stone. straps (Fig. 8: 3); Features 106, 847, 884, 1082.2; on the outer face: Features 467, 1118.10, 1259.4. 3.5.6. Fire traces:

3.5.8. Point decorations: scatteredIt was interesting urn graves: that Feature fire traces 616, foroccurred exam- – Feature 979 (Fig. 8: 5). not only on the finds from urn graves or – In a line, on the upper part of the outer calcined bone layers are clearly visible on face: in the middle: Feature 936 (Fig. 8: 9), ple, was an inhumation, and fire traces and- in composition: Feature 157 (Fig. 7: 5), frag- mented: Feature 1265/3 (Fig. 9: 8). bythe thefinds. cremation Of course, process. most finds This were secondary in cre – In a curved line, on the upper and lower transformationmated graves, and in the fire raw traces materials’ were caused struc- parts of the outer face: Features 185 (Fig. ture in many cases hindered the determina- 7: 2), 979 (Fig. 8: 5), in the middle: Feature tion of the raw materials: it could not be de- 278 (Fig. 8: 2). – Green patina/copper trace on the surface: Feature 157 (Fig. 7: 5); on the outer face: theytermined were whether some kind they of werenatural originally clayey stone fired Feature 936 (Fig. 8: 9); neither grave con- thatclays was (ceramics) exposed which to high were temperature fired again, dur or- ing the cremation. tained metal finds! 3.5.7. Repairing, use-wear: The most vulnerable parts of the wrist- –3.5.9. With Wrist-guard dagger: Features with metal 14, 107, finds 278?, or other 285, 616,associated 847, 1108?, finds in1288?; the grave: holes are situated. When the corners were – With metal sheet (from a dagger or from damagedguards are or their broken corners, [it happened where thefrequent fixing- ly because this part is often in contact with – With needle: Features 467, 1082; other things (dressing, skin, weapon etc.)], –other With finds): points Features or arrowheads278, 1108, 1288; (lithic): they tried to drill a new hole near the dam- Features 285, 467, 616, 945, 1082. aged one (e.g. Feature 925, Fig. 9: 7) if there was a place for a new hole. If not, the hole 3.5.10. In-situ observation of wrist-guards was drilled in the middle (e.g. Feature 106, in inhumations: Fig. 8: 4; Feature 278, Fig. 8: 2; Feature 530, – Feature 616: on the left radius with dag- Fig. 7: 10; Feature 936, Fig. 8: 9), or the ger; wrist-guard was reshaped into a smaller – Feature 847: on the outer side of the arm one and new holes were drilled in its cor- approximately at its middle, above the ners (Features 945, Fig. 8: 7; 1259/4, Fig. wrist; under it there were chipped stones 9: 4; 1288/5, Fig. 9: 5) or in the middle and a dagger; (Feature 1274, Fig. 9: 9). – Feature 1082: on the left arm turned from – Secondary shaping: Features 106, 614, its original position by 90°, not in in-situ - position. es: Features 925, 1265/2. Without holes: Feature925, 945, 1265/2 1259, 1274.(Fig. 8: Part-finished 8). Secondarily- piec 3.5.11. Two pieces in one grave: drilled/repaired: Feature 925 (Fig. 9: 7). – Features 1024, 1118, 1265. The anthropo- Holes in the corners and in the middle: logical description indicates the remains of Features 106 (Fig. 8: 4), 530 (Fig. 7: 10), only one person in the features. 884 (Fig. 8: 10). Holes only in the middle: TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 87

3.5.12. With chipped stone: – Features 284/285: urn graves; Feature 467: empty grave/cenotaph: artisan’s Wrist-guards in Hungary, grave(?); Feature 616: inhumation, adult especially in the Budapest region 42 43 woman; Feature 847: inhumation, adult – Tököl; Békásmegyer; Published finds: 44 man; Features 884, 945: urn grave of an adult man; Feature 1082: inhumation, Szigetszentmiklós. adult; Feature 1118: scattered urn grave of - a child; Features 1274, 1288: empty graves. We know many more finds, but they are unpublished. The published finds were dis In 25 cases, wrist-guards were found in cre- cussed only as culture-specific finds, not as mations (scattered or simple urn graves), in descriptions and documentation. The pub- individual finds or graves with individual 3 cases they occurred in inhumations, and lications focused on the ceramics and fu- in 2 cases in other feature types. In 6 cas- - es the anthropologist determined women lication where I try to group the Hungarian nerary rites. This is the first Hungarian pub (Features 14, 196, 484, 530, 616, 990), in 1 - case a child (Feature 1118), in 9 cases men, al methodology, and describe their primary finds typologically by applying internation in 4 cases the graves were empty (or sym- geological and archaeological data. bolic/cenotaph), and in 12 cases the sex of the deceased could not be determined. On the basis of some in-situ inhumations at in the global distribution area the site, the wrist-guards could have been Wrist-guards functional and/or decorative parts of cloth- - ing.40 Unfortunately, from the Bell Beaker menclature is called wrist-guard, similar to occupational area we do not know unam- theThis English, special findGerman, type inFrench, the Hungarian Spanish andno Italian Bell Beaker terminologies (wrist- were worn. The only representation appears guard/wrist-protector/wristlet/bracer). In onbiguous the steles finds of referring Sion:41 to the way costumes the international terminology wrist-guards decorations made of points are observed on are also called arm-guards/armlets, wrist- people’s wrist, which can on fourbe interpreted or five steles, as bands, bracelets/gauntlets, archer’s guard wrist-guards or tattoos. In the in-situ cas- / bow guards).45 observations), in most cases we found cop- - es of the site of Budakalász (five and three per daggers near the wrist-guards. Perhaps ingThe holes. classification The combinations of the finds of isthese based three on the wrist-guards were also used to sharpen parameterstheir form, cross-section are used in international and number coding of fix the daggers (the copper’s hardness is 2.5–3 46 - on the Mohs scale: since wrist-guards are cation of their form distinguishes three ma- harder, they could have been used for this andjor categories: classification ‘W’ of (waisted), the finds. ‘S’ The (straight), classifi ‘T’ (tapered). I have supplemented these the wrist-guards were excavated with categories with a narrow and a secondarily purpose). There were only five cases where chipped stones, esp. arrowheads or points, reshaped rectangular/square form. indicating that wrist-guards may have been part of the archer’s equipment. Since wrist- 42 Tompa 1942, Pl. 3: 2; Schreiber 1975, Fig. 14: 9: Grave 70 guards are more commonly associated with 43 daggers than with arrowheads/points, it is Kalicz-Schreiber 1981, Abb. 13: 1: Grave 128 and Abb. 18:and Grave Fig. 15: 128; 4: strayKalicz-Schreiber, find. Kalicz 2001, Fig. 5: 4: Grave suggested that their function is related to 471; Fig. 6: 2: Grave 471; Fig. 10: 3: Grave 128; Fig. 11: 2: that of daggers: they could have been parts Grave 471. 44 of warrior sets. Kalicz-Schreiber 1981, Abb. 16: 2. 45 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008,, 110. 40 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 2008. 46 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008,, 112. 41 Harrison, Heyd 2007, 152-159. 88 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Their cross-section is described by four cat- functional or decorative; the latter seems more possible. There were only 31 cases where their position could be determined, egories: biconvex (‘bc’), plano-plano or flat- doesflat (‘pp’), not depend plano-convex exclusively (‘pc’) on and the concavo- function 51 ofconvex the wrist-guard. (‘cc’). The numberThere were of fixing specimens holes and only the British and Scottish finds were- with two or four holes even within one site, classifiedondary, since on thetheir basis position of their may positions. have been near each other, but the two-hole version changedThe position after of thethe burial.finds could Many also research be sec- is more common in the Mediterranean- ers exclude this possibility. They argue Atlantic Region. that Bell Beaker graves are narrow and The broad ones more often occur in the cen- closed places where this could not happen. tral European Region (Bohemia, Moravia, However, this type of funeral rite (cist grave Hungary); the narrow ones mainly appear or wood-frame construction) is not pre- in other European regions.47 In considering sent in Hungary. In most cases wrist-guards their cross-sections, the three frequent ba- sic versions are the ‘pp’, ‘pc’ and ‘cc’, which outer side.52 may be related to the way they were worn wristwere fixedmost onprobably the lower with left leather arms, or on sinew their and to craftsmen’s traditions: the ‘cc’ ver- straps.53 Most finds were fixed to the sion is easier to wear but harder to make. In - is very interesting Most finds that have in Moraviatwo holes: there we aredo ing holes they have, the higher their manu- wrist-guardsnot know how without they were holes. fixed54 The properly. most pos It- facturingBritain there standard is a correlation: is.48 The straight the more forms fix sible reconstruction for these is that they with two holes occur only in central Europe, 55 and the ones with four holes are also most In our site, in the cases of the three inhu- common in this region. In England and were fixed on a larger leather bracelet. Scotland ‘Wcc’ types are the most common, lower arms (they were left-handed archers while in Ireland the Atlantic types with two ormation they used graves, their the left finds hand were to stabilize on the leftthe holes. bow that they held in their right hand). In - known: in most cases we have to rely on in- other case the middle of the arm, and in one appropriateThe exact position documentation of the findsand memories is rarely caseone case it unfortunately the find touched moved the after radius, the burial. in an - pretations. The excavators of Amesbury in appeared with a copper dagger; in Grave of excavators, which influence new inter- 847,In the with first andarrowheads second cases and thea copper wrist-guard dag- sidered their own detailed documentation ger. It is also important that, in three cases their first publication, for example, recon (Features 1024, 1118, 1265), there were of these objects.49 On the basis of authentic two wrist-guards in one feature. It must be soobservations as to fit in acceptedwe can say trends that aboutwrist-guards the use noted that it was only Feature 1265 where were not only on the inner side of the arm, clearly there were two urn graves inside the but most frequently appear on the outer feature; thus, the two wrist-guards could side of the arm;50 the most frequent is the have belonged to two people. In the other B3-position (in 11 graves on the outer side two features, each person could have worn of the arm but under the bone). two wrist-guards. In these cases it is very unfortunate that these are cremations, so The position of the wrist-guards could be

51 47 Woodward et al 2006; Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 2008, 110; Turek 2008, 115. 2015. 52 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008,116. 48 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 2008, 112. 53 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 118. 49 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 114. 54 Kuijpers et al. 2009, 105. 50 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 112. Reconstruction: 55 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 118. Kuijpers et al. 2008, 113 and Fig. 2. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 89 we have no information on the in-situ po- the objects.59 Whatever social status these sitions of the wrist-guards, and anthropo- objects may signify, it seems to be a stand- logical data are also poorer than in the case ardised status. Such similarity in position- from gold, copper and bronze, considered a prestige-good perspective alone. It would toof be inhumation wrist-guards, graves. are now Former viewed finds as madeother implying these that items elites isdressed difficult more to explain or less simifrom- object types, and not wrist-guards.56 larly all over Europe. It is beyond the scope Ethnographic literature also mentions of the present article to elaborate on this many examples of wrist-guards, but not for point, but we suggest that the grave goods archers.57 Therefore, modern archaeologi- that accompany Beaker people, both men cal articles suggest that Bell Beaker wrist- and women, may have been used to con- guards could have had symbolic meaning, struct representations of an ideal person or and they may not have been connected with people, or indeed ancestors.60 archery at all. The ancestors of the wrist-guards can prob- The question is who wore wrist-guards: ably be found in a pre-Beaker Eneolithic hunters, warriors, or both? Anthropological culture in Portugal: especially in the Lisbon data indicate that wrist-guards also oc- region, in the Alentejo culture, stone sheets curred in the graves of women and children. appeared in several shapes and with deco- Bow, arrow and archery in the Neolithic, rations, which could have inspired later Bell Copper and Bronze Ages were part of a mas- Beaker wrist-guards.61 The so-called classic culine character and ideology, in contrast to group of these hanging objects is similar to hoes and plough marks, which were female characteristics. Kuijpers and his colleagues consider that wrist-guards were functional, the Bell Beaker finds. The function of the but at the same time they had cosmological recentfinds is publications also questionable; about thethere Bell are Beaker many and ideological connotations, and may have wrist-guards.interpretations62 similar to what we find in marked higher rank in the society, similar to Wrist-guards, with their undetermined swords in the Late Bronze Age. They had a functional role on the inner side of the arm, types of the Bell Beaker Culture and part of but on the outer side it was decoration and thefunction, BB-set. are63 Although the most it characteristicis a characteristic find had a masculine aspect perhaps connected - to archery, and in this regard it protected ples that it occurred in other Early Bronze the arm. But as grave goods they could have Ageculture-specific cultures as well. find,64 there are rare exam held further meanings: offering or gift for indicative of interactions between overlap- the ancestors, token, elite or chieftain sym- ping/neighbouring cultures These orfinds Bell could Beaker be bol, symbol of archery and its associated values, exchange of object between people 59 Cf. Anthony 2007, 137-38, 378-379; in the Late Copper and the supernatural, etc.58 Age: Dani, Horváth 2012, 96 and footnote 139. 60 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 125. Who were the people with wrist-guards? 61 Care 2004, 26-28. Were they hunters or warriors, chiefs or 62 Thomas 2011, 47-52. ancestors? There is standardisation in the 63 Heyd 2007. funerary rites and grave goods of the Bell 64 Novotná, Novotný 1984, Pl. LXXXI: 11: Chl’opice– Beaker culture: the wrist-guards are on the Veselé Culture; P. Fischl, Kulcsár 2011, 64 and footnote wrist with a dagger, or on the chest showing 16: Kiskundorozsma–Hosszúhát-halom, Grave 66, early a standard position and status/prestige of Maros Culture; Soltvadkert–Felső-csobor, Tiszainoka Grave Balla-domb,I, Tószeg–Lapos-halom: and from the Nagyrév Middle Culture; Bronze and Age, finally Vatya- a Koszidermodified Phase:piece, aHorváth secondarily 2004, reshaped footnote find75; Horváthfrom Kakucs– 2012, 56 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 117-118. Fig. 10: 7. 57 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 119-123. 58 Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008, 123-124. 90 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) immigrants, people who moved into a for- ined have also been introduced: short (S), eign culture/society, or craftsmen’s tradi- 20–23 mm; and very short (VS), under 20 tion that survived in the subsequent cul- mm. Three are very short, 10 are short, 14 tures. are medium-long, 10 are long and 2 are very long. The description of the arrow- 3.6. Chipped stones heads and points is based on the work of Robin Furestier (2004, 2008) and Maxence Bailly (2014). theChipped-stone following features: finds (52 tools, 34 debitage –flakes: Feature sum 177: 86 finds,adult’s Fig. urn 12) grave; occurred Feature in Arrowheads: 213: adult’s urn grave; Feature 271: adult’s urn grave; Feature 233: adult’s urn grave; – Tanged and barbed, triangular-shaped: Features 284–285: adult’s urn grave + 467.42 (Fig. 12: 38) and 467.36 (Fig. 12: wrist-guard + another BB-set; Feature 467: empty gravepit (cenotaph?) + wrist- – Triangular with concave or very concave guard + another BB-set; Feature 525: adult base:35) – part-finishedin general, the pieces(?). ventral surface of the man’s urn grave; Feature 532: adult man’s urn grave; Feature 616: adult’s (female?) dorsal surface is concave with accurate re- inhumation grave + wrist-guard + anoth- touching.find is flat In or most not accurately cases the retouched;right barbs the of er BB-set; Feature 655: adult’s urn grave; the arrowheads are damaged or broken Feature 668: urn grave; Feature 801: adult (except 285/9 (Fig. 12: 7) and 467/52-53 man’s urn grave; Feature 847: adult’s in- (Fig. 12: 28–29): these are damaged on humation grave + wrist-guard + another their left barb – perhaps left-handed people BB-set; Feature 945: adult’s urn grave + wrist-guard; Feature 1076: adult female’s one feature, their size and type differ, and urn grave; Feature 1082: adult’s urn grave inused many them). cases When their we raw find materials more pieces are also in + wrist-guard; Feature 1118: child’s urn different (Features 285, 945, 1076, 1082, grave + 2 wrist-guards + polisher; Feature 616, 467). There was one piece in Features 1274: empty gravepit (cenotaph?) + wrist- guard; Feature 1318: adult man’s urn grave. Feature177, 217, 1082, 532, seven 655, two in Feature finds in 616 Features and eight285 and in Feature 945, four 467. in Tanged Feature types 1076, occurred five in 3.6.1. Raw materials - nates, but in several colours, indicating 27).only in a part-finished state on the site. severalAmong types the finds, and sources/quarries Buda hornstone in domi the – Triangular with flat base: 467.48 (Fig. 12: Buda Mountains. Further raw materials Points: were possibly acquired from the pebble wash of the Danube: lydite (1), radiolarite – Triangular, slim with oblique base: 467.46 (1), limnoquartzite (4 pieces). Only further (Fig. 12: 33), 467.47 (Fig. 12: 34). – Triangular, slim with hollow base: 467.45 provenance. (Fig. 12: 32). scientific studies would shed light on their – Flat, geometric with transversal shear: 467.39 (Fig. 12: 37), 467.51 (Fig. 12: 31),

(Fig. 12: 36). Jerzy3.6.2. SizeKopacz and classificationand his colleagues (2009): 467.49 (Fig. 12: 40); part-finished: 467.38 medium-longThe size classification (ML), 23–27.5 follows mm; the longwork (L), of 27.5–32 mm; very long (VL), over 32 mm. Further new categories for the site exam- TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 91

Fig. 12. Chipped stones from the site. 92 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

TYPE TRIANGULAR TRIANGULAR TRIANGULAR FLAT TRIANGULAR TRIANGULAR ATYPICAL SAW ARROWHEAD ARROWHEAD ARROWHEAD, GEOMETRIC ARROWHEAD ARROWHEAD, BORER WITH WITH FLAT TANGED POINT WITH WITH SLIM CONCAVE BASE TRANSVERSAL TRANSVERSAL BASE SHEAR BASE

PIECES SUM: 30 1 2 4 2 1 2 3 86

% SUM: 34.8 1.16 2.32 4.64 2.32 1.16 2.32 3.48 100

Table 1. Chipped stone tool types on the site

3.6.3. Type list (Table 1) grave from the Late Copper Age Baden cem- There were 29 triangular arrowheads and etery at Budakalász–Luppa-csárda (Grave 91).65 On the basis of a recent assessment in - 2009, the authors described it to be a bone- points with concave base (1 part-finished);- worker’s grave rather than that of a knap- ished),four were two slim, flat, and geometric one slim with with transver a hollow per. The tool-kit included ad-hoc and part- base.sal shear Borers: (two two among pcs (467.43,them were Fig. part-fin 12: 42; and 1318/4). Saws/cutting edges: two pcs was the reason why Éva Cs. Balogh initially (467.34, Fig. 12: 43; 1118, Fig. 12: 48) and consideredfinished tools that as the well person as finished was a tools. knapping This master, but the quality and number of stone Fragment from a blade: one piece (Feature tools in the grave forced her to reconsider 1082).a part-finished Flakes: sevenpiece pieces(467.40, (Features Fig. 12: 213,45). this and regard the grave to be that of a 467, 616, 847, 1082, 1118). Segment: one bonemaster. Among the bone tools, no. 1 - and no. 23 were retouchers (soft hammer/ percussion for knapping); the others were piece. Thirty-four debitage flakes, atypi antler tusks used as jewellery (9–25), and cal flakes, chips (39.44%). Sum: 86 pieces not bone tools. (100%). the urn; in inhumation graves they were The technology and the raw materials of situatedIn general, around the finds the werehand in or the the urns pelvis, or near and stone tools were very similar in the Late in empty graves in the southern part of the Copper and Early Bronze Ages in the district of Budapest.66 The local, but very low-qual- exception. ity, Buda hornstone was used in both peri- gravepit with other finds. Grave 467 is an ods, and pebble raw materials were shaped – Grave 467: ‘artisan’s grave’. It was an emp- by splinter technology. This method often ty pit (without human bones) described by resulted in ad-hoc or atypical basic forms the excavator as a symbolic grave or ceno- made on regular nodules and cores instead taph. Near the chipped stones there was a 67 In this regard Bell Beaker, two needles and a wrist-guard. Among the chipped stones we found some ofartisans. regular68 flakes and blades. both graves could belong to flint-knapping - 65 Korek 1986; Cs. Balogh 2009, 399-400. Description of the part-finished pieces. This is the only grave grave: Bondár 2009, 68-70 and Pl. XLI. cally available, and this is also the earliest 66 where we identified raw materials not lo Horváth 2004a; Horváth 2009; Zandler, Horváth 2010; grave in the cemetery (phase IIa, on the ba- Horváth 2012b; Zandler, Horváth, 2014. sis of the types of the chipped stones). The 67 closest analogy to the grave is the artisan’s 68 Horváth 2013. Kopacz, Přichystal, Šebela 2008. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 93

Chipped stones in the whole distribution area of the 69 Bell Beaker finds in Hungary Bell Beaker Culture – Settlement: sum 65 pieces: raw materi- Szigetszentmiklós–Felsőals: Szentgál, Hárskút and Ürgehegyi-dűlő Gerecse radio- On the bases of some larger, regional sum- larite types, Buda hornstone, lydite, limno- quartzite (Szurdokpüspöki/Püspökhatvan type), obsidian (Carpathian 1 type). Among somemaries, way we (as can opposed say that to the other lithic opinions), finds of - the Bell Beaker Culture can be classified in touched blade, one end-scraper, one trun- considerable regional, spatial and temporal the finds there were only six tools: one re differences.but these finds73 are not unified: there are Analyses in the territory of Southern France –cated Cemetery: flake, sum 27 354 unretouched pieces, among flakes, them four 50 have shown that the main types are: hol- toolsblades (34 and arrowheads, debitage flakes. 10 bifacial retouched low-based arrowhead, tanged arrowhead, saws and blades with saw-like edge with - touched and one truncated – scrapers and tool,triangular-shaped geometric tool, flat geometricand former point types with end-scrapers).sickle shine, 251 Similar flakes, tenraw blades materials – one ocre- whichtransversal were shear,used bifacialin the Eneolithic flat retouched (e.g. curred in the cemetery and settlement, but Grand Pressigny). in the cemetery new types also appeared: that the main type is the segment, but, as withThe summary pottery types, of the there Moravian is also finds syncretism shows werenorthern placed flint under and the Carpathian skull, near 2 the obsidian skull, 74 Artisans used local near(Tolcsva the type).arms, legs The and lithic spine finds in in the general inhu- raw materials without standardised techni- mation graves. In the urn graves they were calamong and thetypological lithic finds. forms mainly based on near the urn, and in scattered urn graves Eneolithic traditions, generally focusing on they were in vessels or among the bones. In the practical usability of the tools. Among symbolic graves they were by the vessels or several knapping technological methods, near the wrist-guard. the Moravian, Bohemian, Slovakian, Polish 70 sum 66 and Hungarian Bell Beakers used splinter- - ing technology and block-reduction tech- – Szigetszentmiklós–Üdülő-sor: nology.75 In the region of Budapest, its spe- materialspieces, 37.9% andesite, are Buda obsidian hornstone; (Carpathian unre cial local raw material, the Buda hornstone, touched flakes and a point. Among the raw- was used, and it broke into slices. The most rowhead from the Gerecse Mountains or general types were the arrowheads, seg- C1),arpathian a Cracowian radiolarite Jura flintalso occurred. saw and an ar ments, end-scrapers, scrapers, knife-like tools, retouched blades, truncated blades, borers, saws and burins. Regarding the bas- Other Bell Beaker lithic finds in Hungary: es of the arrowheads and points, they can depot finds in pots, from settlement pits at Albertfalva: 81% were Buda hornstone, trapezoid, tanged, double tang, oblique/ jug.with71 heating treatment on some finds, convex).be classified The intomost several important types and (concave, most Feature 1014: 22 flakes and 72 blades in a frequently used raw materials were local, Other depot finds: Csepel–Hollandi út, easily quarried stones, which were some- 69 Csepel–Rákóczi Zandler 2012. út, Feature 12. times very unsuitable for knapping (gen- 70 Cs. Balogh 1992. 71 eral sources: Moravian Gate, Little Poland,

72 Cs. Balogh 1993. 73 Furestier 2004; Bailly 2014. T. Biró 2002. 74 75 Kopacz, Přichystal, Šebela 2008. Kopacz, Přichystal, Šebela 2009. 94 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Moravian-Slovakian border, Transdanubian Feature 1025: adult’s urn grave; the bead radiolarites). Far-distance imported stones was at the bottom of the urn. The amber occur rarely. - Possible far-distance imported stones oc- stored. Burnt(?). curred among the arrowheads and points; Infraredfind is reddish-brown, spectra have fragmented,been recorded, not apre- these are characteristic of the early phase of the Bell Beaker. More recently, in the later technique (Fig. 13). A Varian Scimitar 2000 phases, mainly local stones were used. The Fourier-transformplying attenuated infrared total reflection spectrometer (ATR) assumed imports were not really imported equipped with an MCT (Mercury-Cadmium- in the early phase – these were non-local materials at a new place where a Bell Beaker ‘Golden Gate’ ATR accessory (with diamond community had settled. In these new plac- ATRTelluride) element) detector was used. and aThe single ATR reflection method es, far from their former settlement, many allows fast investigation of very small sam- raw materials seem to be imports, but were ples (500–1000 micrograms) without any originally local. Grave 467 then belongs to further sample preparation. Perfect contact the IIa early phase, and could have been a between the sample and the ATR optical element was assured by a sapphire anvil with a constant 60cNm torque. The inves- flint-knapper’s grave. tigated wavenumber region was 4000–550 3.7. Amber cm-1. Due to the absorption of the diamond – 1025. (Fig. 12: 46). ATR element, the region between 2300 and Flat, slightly asymmetric disc with a hole in 1900 cm-1 is very noisy; this spectral re- its middle; its surface is eroded; d=9 mm, d of the hole 3 mm. bands, so the evaluation of the IR spectra gion, however, does not contain significant

(Budakalász M0/S-12, Grave 1025, bead); C-46194868 (Füzesabony–Öreg-domb, settlement layer, bead); D-3195232 Fig. 13. Amber finds from the Hungarian Bronze Age: ATR FTIR spectra. A-653211 (Kötegyán, depot find, bead); B-1025

(Hernádkak, gravegood, bead); E-11952188 (Megyaszó, Grave 121, bead); F-11952152 (Megyaszó, Grave 95, bead). TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 95

Fig. 14. ATR FTIR spectra of amber finds found in Hungary with the so-called Baltic shoulder around the 1200 cm-1 region (‘fingerprint region’). A-653211 (Kötegyán); B-1025 (Budakalász M0/S-12, Grave 1025); C-46194868 (Füzesabony–Öreg- domb); D-3195232 (Hernádkak); E-11952188 (Megyaszó, Grave 121); F-11952152 (Megyaszó, Grave 95). is not affected. In all cases, the spectra are The IR spectra of the samples analysed ATR-corrected, so comparison with refer- show the characteristic bands of amber. ence transmission spectra is also possible The amber sample from Kötegyán (File (Figs 13–14).76 While the group frequency region (4000– Gyulavarsánd/Otomani Culture, bead) 1300 cm-1) is very similar for all amber sam- 653211,shows a slightly sample different from the spectrum. depot The find ad of- ditional spectral bands may originate from spectra between 1300 and 700 cm-1 shows conservation and/or degradation products ples,some the differences. so-called Several‘fingerprint studies region’ have of used the from the sample surface. However, a differ- FTIR spectroscopy to analyse ambers found ence in its chemical composition due to its in archaeological sites, in particular to dis- possible Transylvanian origin may also be tinguish Baltic ambers from ambers with reasonable. (This sample has the eastern- other origins. Curt W. Beck and co-workers most provenance.) (1964) showed that Baltic amber has a char- acteristic “Baltic shoulder” in the IR spec- trum: a horizontal shoulder between 1250 (cemeteriesThe magnified of fingerprintFüzesabony spectral Culture, regions grave and 1110 cm-1 goods,of samples beads) from unambiguously Megyaszó and Hernádkakshow the band at 1159 cm-1. This band at 1159 cm-1 so-called ‘Baltic shoulder’ between 1250 can be related is to followed C-O stretching by a well bands defined of and 1110 cm-1. In the spectra of samples ester groups (likely succinic acid diesters). from Füzesabony–Öreg-domb (settlement Bands at 1032 and 972 cm-1 also belong to of Füzesabony Culture, bead in the settle- different C-O stretching vibrations. ment layer) and Kötegyán, the ‘Baltic shoul- der’ is not obvious: the plateau between 76 See Horváth et al. 2015. 96 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

1250 and 1110 cm-1 is not horizontal, but a – Children’s graves: Features 42, 367, 1118: new, moderately intense band around 1252 three cases; cm-1 appears, likely assigned to aromatic – Men’s graves: Features 171, 233, 276, ether groups. The shoulders at 1652 and 347, 525, 532, 551, 801, 884, 901, 925, 936, 1583 cm-1 in the Kötegyán, Budakalász and 1024, 1025, 1080, 1318: 16 cases; Füzesabony–Öreg-domb amber spectra can – Women’s graves: Features 14, 196, 484, be related to C=C stretching. 530, 616, 683, 990, 1076: eight cases; In summary, we can state that, by compar- – Other feature types: Features 151, 203, ing the ATR-FTIR spectra of amber sam- ples from different sites and cultures of the - Hungarian Early Bronze Age, the samples 402, 1039, 1192: five cases. - In the site’s assemblage we find charac biguously Baltic ambers. Samples from wereteristic chipped Bell Beaker stones finds, (mainly which arrowheads are very fromKötegyán, Megyaszó Füzesabony–Öreg-domb and Hernádkak are unam and andtypical points) grave and goods: wrist-guards. most of the Axes stone or adzes finds Budakalász show slightly different spectral were very rare, just as grinding stones, nat- features (additional C=C and aromatic C-O ural hammers and special stones for metal- vibrational bands). Precise resolution of work (cold moulds?). Comparing our data this difference (differences in conservation with data available from the whole distri- methods, in natural decomposition prod- bution area of the Bell Beaker Culture, the ucts and/or geographic provenance, in this number of stone types and the number of case perhaps from Transylvania) needs fur- tools from our site is quite similar to other ther investigation. regions. Unfortunately, the comparison of our site with other Hungarian sites is the poorest, because the majority of Hungarian sites are unpublished. 4. Evaluation and summary from the site, classifying them on the bases to use special provenance studies and pet- ofEvaluating feature types, and summarising archaeological all and lithic anthro finds- rographicWithout financial analyses supportto characterise I was notthe ableraw pological descriptions of the graves, they materials more precisely. My assessment is occurred in the following features: based on macroscopic descriptions supple- – Scattered urn-graves: Features 157, 185, mented by the assessment given by geolo- 213, 233, 278, 484, 655, 683, 789, 979, gist János Kalmár. Distinguishing between 1118, 1216, 1259: 13 cases; – Urn-graves: Features 14, 107, 171, 177, 196, 217, 249, 284-285, 347, 367, 525, 530, stones,natural e.g. and aleurolite) artificial was raw very materials problemat (e.g.- 532, 551, 614, 668, 789, 801, 884, 901, 925, artificial clay/ceramic and natural clayey 936, 945, 990, 1024, 1025, 1076, 1108, 1263-1264, 1318: 30 cases; pyreic, because and went most through of the stone drastic finds heat occurred treat- ment.in urn-graves, and these finds were in the – Uncertain graves: Features 105, 203: two cases; The general view suggests that on Bell Beaker sites there are many imported raw – Empty gravepits / symbolic graves or cen- - otaphs: Features 106, 467, 608, 1219, 1274, cult to decide which raw materials may have 1288: six cases; materials, but in the case of our site it is diffi – Inhumation graves: Feature 42, child; could be far-distance imports, but it is also Feature 276, adult man; Feature 616, adult abeen possibility imported. that There these are are a alluvial few finds deposits which woman(?); Feature 847, adult man; Feature of the Danube that came from distant lands 1080, adult man; Feature 1082, adult: six (lydite, schists, quartzites) and were de- cases; TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 97 posited by the river in the Budapest region. we should also bear in mind the accounts Because we lack thin-section petrographic of amazons.77 It is a fact that wrist-guards or geochemical data it is also possible that associated not only with men and adults. the assumed imports were local or regional Neither does their size show any kind of raw materials (e.g. Gerecse or Carpathian correlation with the size of their wearer: radiolarite). The third possibility is that far- distance raw materials became local when graves. These new observations strength- their users settled in the region under ex- enthe the largest symbolic finds door notdecorative only appear functions in adult of wrist-guards. Among the points and arrowheads there theamination. Bronze TheAge first(Reinecke and earliest Bz, A0 Hungarian horizon), were some new, western-European vari- fromamber this finds cemetery, (after theare Palaeolithic)not typical Baltic from ants/types, which did not occur in the ambers, according to FTIR analyses. Hungarian prehistoric material prior to Bell It is not evident whether the wrist-guards Beakers (e.g. the tanged and barbed ones were part of the archers’ equipment or shear).78 In general, Central European types frequently with copper daggers, chipped anddominate the flat,in the geometric assemblage: with the transversal typical pointsnot. The or finds arrowheads, from our implyingsite occurred that mostthey raw materials are local, low quality stones were part of something else (e.g. polisher of were used, tools were made by splinter- ing and with bifacial retouch, and there it has been proved that wrist-guards were are common main types in the Moravian, copper dagger?). This is the first site where Polish, Slovakian and Hungarian materials. offer different explanations: clay wrist- I registered a certain kind of continuity be- guardsalso made are from imitations fired clay. of stone These objects, new types and tween the Late Copper Age Baden and Early the former substitutes the latter in the and Middle Bronze Age cultures (Nagyrév, graves. It is also possible that clay objects Vatya) and the Bell Beaker in the Budapest were used in everyday life instead of stone region in terms of technology, types and raw ones. Investigating the hardness of the materials. It is very interesting that symbol- which are harder than those made from - softfinds, stones. I found Therefore, many ceramic we can wrist-guardsassume that tisan’sic Grave grave, 467 containedbut no human many remains part-finished were ceramic wrist-guards were able to serve the foundfinds; thereforein the grave. it is considered to be an ar - It is also a new observation that sandstone terials were perhaps easier to remake, re- polishers/moulds are connected with spe- usesame or function repair than as stonestones. ones. The problemArtificial withma cial metalworking practices of the Bell Beaker. they suffered a secondary heat treatment interpreting these ceramic finds lies in that 77 Turek 2015, 38. which probably changed their hardness. 78 Bailly 2014: “This division, however, actually hides an during the cremation (secondarily fired), ever-increasing number of paradoxes and contradictions. By Therefore, their original quality cannot be investigating the geographical spread of arrowhead types in assessed. In many cases, wrist-guards also Bell Beaker contexts, several observations emerge, namely: appeared in females’ and children’s graves. 1) there is not a single Beaker arrowhead type (or a pair of types), but instead several types across Europe; 2) one of these This fact shades further our assumptions is probably the Palmela point, made of copper; 3) these ar- that wrist-guards were part of the hunter/ rowhead types belong to several long-standing traditions of arrowhead manufacture in Neolithic Europe; 4) the origins of warrior archer’s set. Nevertheless, there the barbed-and-tanged and the triangular hollow-based tra- could also have been children and women ditions are not to be found neither in the Mediterranean, nor hunters and/or warriors who used these in the putative area of origin for the Bell Beaker phenomenon as a whole – an area that has been sought, over several dec- objects, mainly if we consider that in pre- ades, in various parts of Europe (i.e. the Iberian Peninsula, the history children became ‘adults’ sooner, and Netherlands, and the Corded Ware area).” 98 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

depended less on plants and more on ani- grinding and food preparation, but this mal husbandry. perhapsVery few findsshould can not be connectedcome as a with surprise, grain since we were assessing cemetery mate- within the cemetery shows some kind of - pattern,The spatial but at distribution present this ofpattern lithic cannot finds tlements. Nevertheless, the small number be interpreted. rial: such finds are more frequent on set of such finds may imply that the economy

Fig. 15. Stone-tool types of the site. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 99

Table 2. Described stone implements correlated with the features

FEATURE DESCRIPTION CHIPPED GRINDER POLISHER PEBBLE WRIST- AXE/ OTHER NUMBER GUARD ADZE BB-SET

14 Urn grave, ♀, 23-x yr × Dagger

Stone 42 Inhumation, child, fragment

105 Urn grave? ×

Empty gravepit with 106 × pots: cenotaph? Beaker 107 Urn grave, 23-x yr × Dagger

151 Pit/Posthole? ×

157 Scattered urn grave ×

171 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ×

177 Urn grave, 23-x yr ×

185 Scattered urn grave × ×

196 Urn grave, ♀, 23-x yr ×

Grave? Pots in round 203 × ditch No. 183 Scattered urn grave, 213 × 23-x yr

217 Urn grave, 23-x yr ×

Scattered urn grave, 233 × ♂, 23-x yr

249 Urn grave ×?

276 Skeleton, ♂, 23-40 yr ××

Bronze 278 Scattered urn grave × fragments

284–285 Urn grave ×× × 4 Beakers

Urn grave, ♂, 30- 347 × 50 yr

367 Urn grave, child? ×

402–380 Round ditch 402: ×

2 Beakers, Empty gravepit: 467 31× × 2 bronze cenotaph? needles Scattered urn grave, 484 × ♀, 23-59 yr

525 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ×

Urn grave, ♀?, 23- 530 × 39 yr

532 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ×

551 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ×

608 Empty gravepit? ×

614 Urn grave, 23-x yr ×

Inhumation, ♀?, 616 10× × Dagger 23-59 yr 100 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

FEATURE DESCRIPTION CHIPPED GRINDER POLISHER PEBBLE WRIST- AXE/ OTHER NUMBER GUARD ADZE BB-SET

Scattered urn grave, 655/4 × 23-x yr

668 Urn grave ××

Scattered urn grave, 683 × Beaker ♀, 23-x yr 712: round ditch, 702–712 stone packing on its 702: × end: 702 Scattered urn grave and urn grave 788/1– 788–792: round 789–791– ditches 788: × 792 789: double grave, 791: animal bones, skull Urn grave, ♂, 801 × ×? 23-39 yr Inhumation, ♂, 847 ××× × Dagger 23-x yr

884 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr × ×

901 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ×

925 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ×

936 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ×

945 Urn grave, 23-x yr ×× ×

979 Scattered urn grave × 2 Beakers

990 Urn grave, ♀, 23-x yr ×

Urn grave, ♂, 1024 × 23-59 yr Urn grave, ♂, 1025 Amber 23-30 yr

1039 Pit ×

1076 Urn grave, ♀, 23-x yr ××××

Inhumation, ♂, 1080 ×? 23-x yr 2 Bronze 1082 Inhumation, adult 9× × needles

1108 Urn grave ×? Dagger

Scattered urn grave, 1118 7× × ×× ××× 1-7 yr 1192– × half- Round ditch × (1080) ready

1216 Scattered urn grave? ×

Empty gravepit: 1219 ×× cenotaph? Scattered urn grave, 1259 × 23-x yr 1265: Pit, 1263–1264 1265? ×× Urn graves Empty gravepit: 1274 6× × cenotaph? Empty gravepit: Beaker, 1288 × × cenotaph? bronze sheet

1318 Urn grave, ♂, 23-x yr ××× TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 101

Fig. 16. Map of the site.

Appendix 1. Grinding equipment Lower grinding slabs Upper grinding stones: handstones - Inv. No. 2005.14.151.1. Middle fragment of - 2005.14.367.4. Discoidal handstone with a grinding slab with use surface. cornered sides (Fig. 4: 3). Raw material: grey sandstone-pebble con- Quartzite pebble with patina on its side. glomerate with medium grainsize, on its base with larger pebbles, red iron-oxide its side, the use surface is smooth. 76×65×55Broken, 1/3 mm piece is missing, fire traces on Description: The base and the sides of the Feature 367: urngrave of a 1–7-year-old grains are identified in the fabric. child with stone packing above the urn. a saddle-shaped grinding slab or a slanting - Feature 608: discoidal handstone with cor- standingfragment grindingare flaking; slab the with tool rectangular was originally use nered sides, secondary product (Fig. 4: 4). surface. Its use surface is smooth, slightly Quartzite pebble. oval in plan. Broken, the upper part shows vertical cracks Size: use surface: 65×111, tool: 112×73×54 and pointed damage. The upper side is oval mm in plan and hollowed from the long use life Feature 151: pit or post-hole. (size: 62×55, 40×30 mm). Along the rup- 102 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) ture a drilling hole is clearly visible, which - 2005.14.1216.4. (Fig. 4: 10). the opposite side. The initial product was a 151×172×24 mm shaft-holeis unfinished: axe itor was a weight; not drilled after throughit had bro to- FeatureWhite, flat 1216: limestone. scattered urngrave. ken it was used secondarily as a handstone. - 2005.14.1219.2. Sharpener (Fig. 4: 1). 61×57×47 mm Soft (2 on Mohs scale), black lydite pebble, Feature 608: fragment from a polisher. on its side. Worn, smooth use surface. Onhandfit one withof its worn short traces sides created there byare fingers thin, 130×42×50Grey, fine-grained mm sandstone. dense scratches: sharpening channels. Feature 608: empty grave with urn, without 73×47×15 mm bones. - Feature 1219/1: polishing pebble. Rough pebble with white cortex on its low- 2. Pebbles: choppers, polishing pebbles, er side. handstones, anvils on natural pebble forms Upper side is smooth, its surface worn, Feature 42: inhumation grave. Micaceous, yellow sandstone nodule with- ceramic polisher(?). out shaping. 75×35×29handfit with mm worn traces created by fingers: 50×37×12 mm Feature 1219: urngrave without bones, with - 2005.14.185.3. Multiple tool: chopper- two pebble tools, which have natural forms; hammer and polisher-sharpener anvil (Fig. they were probably ad-hoc stone tools. 4: 5). Quartzite pebble with black, burnt and 3. Axes and celts smoky surface. - 2005.14.249.4. Fragment with a polished side from an axe/celt(?). there is a black worn patch with thin stripes Greenschist(?). forHeavy, sharpening. handfit, broken on its end, on its side 54×34×18 mm 145×103×51 mm Feature 249: scattered urngrave. Feature 185: Scattered urngrave in a rec- - 2005.14.402.25. Fragment from an axe(?). tangular grave. Grey, amorphous, unworked. - 2005.14.638.14. Anvil(?) (Fig. 4: 6). Limestone(?). Limestone pebble, worn, soft; on the Mohs On its breaking line there seems to be the scale its hardness is 2. line of a possible shaft-hole, but its surface is rough, thus its function is uncertain. smoother side with use-wear. 37×44×23 mm 168×90×33Larger, natural mm form, handfit with one Feature 402 = round ditch No. 380. Feature 683: scattered urngrave in a rectan- - 788.4. Shaft-hole fragment from an axe gular gravepit with a 23–x-year-old woman with its side (Fig. 4: 14). with pots; the stone was among the cal- Greenschist(?). cined bones. Fragment from its butt, the side is nicely - 2005.14.1080.4. Two stone tools (Fig. 4: polished. 9). 49×40×20 mm - 1. Flat stone, not a tool, 95×76×11 mm. Feature 788: round ditch. - 2. Perhaps a polisher with one smooth - 2005. 14.1118/5. Trapezoid celt (Fig. 4: side and short, sharp scratches. 12). 111×67×28 mm Blueschist(?). According to János Kalmár it Feature 1080: situated in round ditch No. is basalt. 1192; the stones were at its end, Grave Medium-sized, robust celt; its backpage is 1080: inhumation grave of a 23–x-year-old man(?). edge, more worn than its back; set use-wear flat; the front is concave; its bit is a chisel- TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 103 is visible on its front and back: in the mid- The size of the stone: 105×55×30 mm; the dle of both sides traces of glue are visible; size of the incision: 12–14 mm wide and 2–3 the front with the side is well polished from mm deep. use; the butt is also worn. Feature 276: inhumation grave of a 23- to 60×40×23 mm 40-year-old man; in the south corner of the - 2005.14.1118/5. Trapezoid celt (Fig. 4: gravepit there were ceramic vessels; the 11). polisher was on a bowl. Dark grey with light-green patches: dior- - 2005.14.702.1. Polisher/mould (Fig. 5: 3). ite(?). According to János Kalmár it is ser- Reddish-grey, medium-grained sandstone pentinite. with a white patina on its surface. There is a little cortex-patch on its front, Its base is damaged; its left side is worn from long use. On the use surface/front there is backpage and butt are damaged; it is a sec- an incised form of two needle heads oppo- ondarytowards product the chisel-edge made from bit. a larger Small, celt flat, that its site each other. had broken previously; therefore it is thin The size of the stone is 83×45×35 mm; the in cross-section; its front is concave, the incisions are 22 mm wide and 2–3 mm deep. Feature 702: the stone was in round ditch the body of the celt is nicely polished. No. 712. 56×36×10back flat, the mm chisel-edge intact and sharp; - 2005.14.1118.28. Polisher/mould (Fig. 5: Feature 1118: scattered urngrave of a 1). 1–7-year-old child. Its base is worn, with fan-shaped striae on 4. Polishers (Moulds?) itsGrey, sides; fine-grained the upper sandstone. left side is broken. The - 2005.14.105.4. Polisher/mould (Fig. 5: 2). front/use surface shows the incised form of Reddish-grey, medium-grained sandstone a needle: head and leg. with white cortex on its surface. The size of the stone: 83×46×29 mm, the Its surfaces are polished; its base is worn size of the incision: 10–12 mm wide and 3–4 as a result of long use life. The use surface mm deep. shows an incised negative of a small dagger. Feature 1118: see the description of the fea- Its width is 11–18 mm; its depth is 4 mm. ture above. Feature 105: empty, rectangular gravepit. - 2005.14.276.2. Polisher/mould (Fig. 5: 6). 5. Wrist-guards79 with white and black coating on its surface. - Feature 1192. (Fig. 8: 11). Red, fine-grained, micaceous sandstone Long,Half-finished narrow piecequartzite pebble, half-broken use surface shows sharpening grooves in its in its cross-section; it was sawn along its Small, semicircular tool; its front is flat; its long axis. It is a base form of a wrist-guard. coat on its use surface is perhaps a kind of Sawing was also initiated on the outer face, organicmiddle; its(fatty) sides materialand base areused flat. during The black the but the saw broke and stuck in the sawn melting process. line. The size of the stone: 95×56×34 mm, the 32×67×9 mm size of the grooving: 8 mm wide and 2–3 Feature 1192: round ditch with Grave 1080. mm deep. Finished pieces - 2005.14.276.4. Polisher/mould (Fig. 5: 5). Greyish-red micaceous sandstone. - 2005.14.14.5. (Fig. 6: 5). There is a black coating (organic material?) Wrist-guard, one of its corners broken. on the use surface and the right side; on its 4Wcc/rectangular. front the use surface is cracked (as a result 79 Their descriptions are provided by increasing inventory - numbers using the terms of Ann Woodward and her col- leagues, Maikel Kuijpers and his colleagues, and Jan Turek sion of a needle with its head and leg. (Woodward et al. 2006; Kuijper et al. 2008; Turek 2015). of fire?). On the use surface there is an inci The illustrations are in increasing size. 104 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Raw material: undetermined stone(?). Medium-large-sized, rectangular with Reddish brown, it has hardness 2–3 on the waisted sides, plano-plano in cross-section; Mohs scale, secondarily burnt during the there are incised decorations on its outer cremation. face among the holes: 3 points in groups Medium-large-sized, rectangular, concavo- opposite each other. There is green copper convex in cross-section. Remains of cal- patina on the outer face; the left holes were cined bones appear on its inner face; the drilled from both sides. upper corner on the outer face is worn; the 93×32×5 mm holes were drilled from both sides. Feature: 157: urngrave; the wrist-guard 97×38×4 mm was outside the urn on its east side, near Feature 14: urn grave of an adult woman (?) Feature 158. In the grave there were no with a small mug at the bottom of the urn and with a wrist-guard and a copper dagger - 2005.14.171.6. (Fig. 8: 12). with two nails. Wrist-guard,metal finds. broken in its lower part. - 2005.14.106.1. (Fig. 8: 4). Originally it was 4Wcc(?). Wrist-guard, the upper right and lower left Raw material: grey stone, hardness 4 on the corners broken. 4Scc/rectangular. Mohs scale; there is rough, white cortex on Raw material: reddish-brown, micaceous its outer face. stone. Medium-sized, strongly concavo-convex in Medium-sized, rectangular with straight cross-section; on the inner face it is cracked sides; the cross-section is concavo-convex; on its upper side there is a hole just as in from the inner face. The outer face shows its middle; the holes were drilled from both marks(fire trace?); of post-excavation the upper holes cleaning. were drilled sides; on the backpage it is burnt; there are 66×33×6 mm visible traces of use-wear (impression of Feature 171: urn grave of an adult man; the wrist-guard was near mug no. 3. 76×32×7 mm - 2005.14.185.2. (Fig. 7: 2). Featurefitting belts). 106: scattered urn grave in a Wrist-guard in two pieces (broken during gravepit; the wrist-guard was among the cremation); a small part of it is missing. burnt bones. 4Scc/trapezoid. - 2005.14.107.4. (Fig. 8: 1). - Wrist-guard, one of its corners damaged. ness 2 on the Mohs scale. 4Wcc/trapezoid. Medium-large-sized,Raw material: reddish-grey trapezoid fired clay, hardwith Raw material: greenish-grey, micaceous, straight sides, strongly concavo-convex in hardness 1 on the Mohs scale; it could not cross-section; it shows pointed decoration be determined whether it is stone or ce- on its outer face among the holes on both ramic. sides; the holes were drilled from both Medium-sized, trapezoid with waisted sides, but mainly from the inner face. sides, concavo-convex in cross-section; the 93 × 42–40 × 3 mm inner face is rough; the holes were drilled Feature 185: scattered urn grave in a rec- from both faces; the outer face is oval; the inner face is worn along its long axis from were in the southern part of the pit. long use life. -tangular 2005.14.196.3. gravepit; (Fig. ceramic 8: 3). and stone finds 84 × 36–31 × 3 mm Wrist-guard, intact; there are wear traces Feature 107: urngrave of an adult with cop- on its inner face. 4Wcc/rectangular. Raw material: greenish-brown, hardness - 2005.14.157.3. (Fig. 7: 5). 2 on the Mohs scale; it could not be deter- Wrist-guard,per dagger; the intact. finds 4Wpc/rectangular. were in the urn(?). mined whether it is stone or ceramic. Raw material: stone, hardness 4 on the Medium-sized, rectangular with waisted Mohs scale. sides, concavo-convex in cross-section; TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 105 the holes were drilled from both sides, but 98 × 37–35 × 4 mm mainly from the inner face. From the wear Feature 285: Feature No. 284 was an empty traces it could be reconstructed how it was gravepit, with pit No. 285: these two were probably one archaeological feature. The 81×35×3 mm wrist-guard was in pit No. 284 while two Featurefitted by 196: belts. urn grave of an adult woman; arrowheads were in feature No. 285. the wrist-guard was outside the urn, at its - 2005.14.347.4. (Fig. 7: 9). western side. Wrist-guard, one of its corners damaged, - 2005.14.203.2. (Fig. 9: 10). restored. 4Wcc/rectangular. Raw material: yellowish-pink, it could not Raw material: it could not be determined be determined whether it is stone or ce- whether it is stone or ceramic. It is greyish ramic. with red patches; on the inner face there is Broken, original form was 2pc/(?). a strongly burnt thick bone layer. It is an upper part of a wrist-guard. It is Medium-sized, rectangular with waisted uncertain whether it was a wrist-guard or sides, its cross-section is concavo-convex; it was reshaped secondarily from a larger the holes were drilled from both sides. wrist-guard into a smaller one: the hole is 79×38×6 mm in the middle, drilled from the outer face. Feature 347: urn grave of a 23- to 50-year- 34×31×3 mm old man; the wrist-guard was inside the urn Feature 203: there were some pots togeth- among the bones and was cremated togeth- er; it is not a real feature or grave. er with the dead. - 2005.14.278.1. (Fig. 8: 2.) - 2005.14.467.11. (Fig. 6: 3–4). Wrist-guard, intact, its upper left corner Wrist-guard, intact, 4Spc/trapezoid, nar- damaged, 4Wcc/rectangular. row. Medium-sized, rectangular with waisted Raw material: stone(?). Brown; it has hard- sides, strongly concavo-convex in cross- ness 3–4 on the Mohs scale. section, decorated among the holes with Medium-large-sized, slightly trapezoid, 1–1 hole-like points on the upper and low- long and narrow form with straight sides; er parts; the holes were drilled from both its cross-section is plano-convex; the holes sides, but mainly from the inner face. were drilled from both sides; the inner face 81×35×4 mm Feature 278: scattered urn grave in a side of the outer face is worn from long use gravepit without bones; the grave was in life.is flat with a calcined bone layer; the lower superposition with another feature. Metal 98 × 27–25 × 5 mm plates and the wrist-guard were on top of Feature 467: empty gravepit with 31 pieces pots. of chipped stones and a wrist-guard: ‘arti- - 285/10. (Fig. 6: 6). san’s grave’. Wrist-guard, broken at its three corners. - 484.5. (Fig. 9: 3). 4Wpc/trapezoid. Upper fragment of a wrist-guard in three Raw material: grey, it could not be deter- separate pieces. Broken, its original form mined whether it is stone or ceramic. It has was 4Wcc/trapezoid(?). hardness 1 on the Mohs scale. Raw material: yellowish-pink, very light, Medium-large-sized, slightly trapezoid with waisted sides, plano-convex in cross-sec- Mohs scale. Thestone(?), two remainingfired(?). It holes has hardness on the upper 2 on side the material; the outer face is shiny and worn. were drilled from the inner face. Ontion; both the innerpages face there is flatare withthin, black vertical organic and, 33×33×5, 42×28×4, 33×18×3 mm on the outer face, slanting use-wear lines Feature 484: scattered urn grave of a 23- from long use life. The holes were drilled to 59-year-old woman with some pots; the from the inner face. wrist-guard was among the bones. 106 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

- 2005.14.530.56. (Fig. 7: 10). - 612/2: 2005.14.616.14. (Fig. 9: 1.) Wrist-guard, broken at its three corners, Wrist-guard upper fragment, half-broken. 6Wcc/trapezoid. Its original form was 4Spp/rectangular(?). Raw material: brownish-grey, stone(?). It Raw material: yellowish-brown, stone(?). It has hardness 4 on the Mohs scale. has hardness 1 on the Mohs scale. Medium-sized, slightly trapezoid with Large-sized, rectangular with straight sides; waisted sides, concavo-convex in cross- the outer face is concave, the inner face is corners and in the middle part of the up- calcined bone layer on its edge. persection; and lower there sides; are holes they were for fixing drilled in from the 67×39×5flat; plano-plano mm in cross-section, there is a the inner face. The holes in the middle were Feature 616: inhumation grave of a 23- to drilled secondarily after the ones in the cor- 59-year-old woman (?) in contracted posi- ners were damaged. The inner face is burnt tion; there was a copper dagger on her left from the cremation. hand; the wrist-guard was on her left arm; 78 × 34–32 × 3 mm 7 chipped arrowheads and 3 blades were Feature 530: urn grave of a 23- to 39-year- near the pots. The wrist-guard was in situ old woman; the wrist-guard was in the urn. on the radius. - 2005.14.551.56. (Fig. 7: 6). - 847/3: 2005.847.7. (Fig. 7: 1). Wrist-guard, damaged at its three corners, Wrist-guard, intact, 4Scc/rectangular. broken in half, restored; the upper, smaller Raw material: grey, micaceous stone. It has part is more damaged and burnt. 4Wcc/ hardness 1 on the Mohs scale. According to trapezoid. János Kalmár it is a Danube pebble, sericite- Raw material: reddish-grey natural or pro- chlorite schist. cessed clay, secondarily burnt during the It is rectangular with straight sides, strong- cremation. The white, probably calcareous, ly concavo-convex in cross-section; on the inclusions and micaceous sand in its fabric outer face there are slanting striae from use could be naturally present or added as tem- wear, while on the inner face the striae are pering materials. horizontal and thin; the holes were drilled Medium-large-sized, slightly trapezoid with from both sides. waisted sides, strongly concavo-convex in 94×34×3 mm cross-section; the holes were drilled from Feature 847: inhumation grave of a 23–x- both pages. year-old man in contracted position; there 90×38×4 mm were pots on his legs; the wrist-guard was Feature 551: urn grave of an adult man; the on his left side on a copper dagger; the dag- wrist-guard was at the bottom of the urn, ger was under his left arm; under them underneath the burnt bones. there were stones. The wrist-guard was in - 2005.14.614.21. (Fig. 9: 6). situ on the outer side of his arm, in the mid- Wrist-guard, broken at its upper left cor- dle, a bit higher than his wrist. ner. Secondarily shaped 4Wcc/trapezoid/ - 2005.14.884.77. (Fig. 8: 10). square. Wrist-guard, intact, broken at its lower left Raw material: micaceous greyish-brown corner, 6Scc/trapezoid. stone, hardness 1–2 on the Mohs scale. Raw material: greenish-grey stone. Small-sized, slightly trapezoid / almost Small-medium-sized, slightly trapezoid square with waisted sides, strongly con- with straight sides, slightly concavo-convex cavo-convex in cross-section, secondarily shaped from a broken, larger wrist-guard. four corners and in the middle on the up- On the inner face there are thin, horizontal perin cross-section; and lower parts; the thefixing holes holes were are drilled in its use-wear striae; the holes were drilled from from both sides; there is a red spot and use- both sides. 54×38×4 mm 65 × 26–23 × 4 mm Feature 614: adult’s urn grave. wear signs of fixing belts on the inner face. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 107

Feature 884: urn grave of an adult man; an the middle of the outer face there is a green- arrowhead and the wrist-guard were at the ish patch; horizontal thin striae also appear bottom of the urn. on the outer face; the inner face is worn - 2005.14.901.5. (Fig. 6: 2). from long use-life. Wrist-guard, damaged at its upper-left and 68×29×6 mm lower-right corners, 4Spc/trapezoid. Feature 936: urn grave of an adult man. Raw material: corroded/decomposed or - 2005.14.945.36. (Fig. 8: 7). burnt material: stone(?). Its raw material Wrist-guard, half-broken into two pieces, but there are missing parts. Secondarily show that it is not amber (Fig. 11). shaped, the original form was 4Wcc/trap- Large-sized,could not be slightly specified, trapezoid but FTIR-spectrawith straight sides, plano-convex in cross-section; the trapezoid or 4/square. holes were drilled from both sides; the up- Rawezoid, material: now it is yellowish-grey a half-finished sandstone(?). product: 2/ per ones were mainly drilled from the inner It is trapezoid in shape(?), concavo-convex face; on the inner face there is a calcined in cross-section, the original surface re- bone layer. maining only at the upper left corner; the 100 × 37–39 × 6 mm other parts are damaged. The upper holes Feature 901: urn grave of an adult man; the were drilled from both sides, but mainly wrist-guard was in the urn. from the inner face; it was originally a - 2005.14.925.18. (Fig. 9: 7). large-medium-sized wrist-guard; the intact Wrist-guard, half-broken, lower fragment. lower fragment was reshaped into a smaller It was 4Wcc(?) originally. wrist-guard, and its maker started to drill a - hole in its upper corners, but the drill broke ness 2 on the Mohs scale; it shows schist- in the hole. likeRaw layeredmaterial: texture reddish-grey caused fired by the clay, crema hard- 56×40×5, lower: 51×39×3 mm tion; the inner face shows wood-texture Feature 945: urn grave of an adult; there resulting from the long-lasting high tem- was an arrowhead outside the urn; the perature. wrist-guard pieces were at the bottom of It was originally medium-large-sized, con- the urn, placed opposite each other. cavo-convex in cross-section, repaired: the - 2005.14.979.6. (Fig. 8: 5). lower, left hole was drilled again secondar- Wrist-guard, intact, 4Wcc/trapezoid. ily; it was drilled from both sides, but the Raw material: brown, stone(?). It has hard- repairing hole was drilled from the outer ness 1 on the Mohs scale. face. Medium-sized, slightly trapezoid with Feature 925: urn grave of an adult man. waisted sides, strongly concavo-convex in - 2005.14.936.56. (Fig. 8: 9). cross-section; the outer face is shiny, worn; Wrist-guard, damaged in its lower part, on the inner face there are thin, horizontal burnt: on its inner face there is a grey, burnt striae (use-wear); the outer face is decorat- layer; 4Wbc/trapezoid. drilled from both faces. and worn texture (3 layers are visible in 75×36×3ed with points mm in line; the fitting holes were cross-section,Raw material: possiblyfired clay(?). as a result White, of layeredcrema- Feature 979: scattered urn grave in a pit tion); it has hardness 1 on the Mohs scale. with some pots; the wrist-guard was among Medium-sized, slightly trapezoid with the bones. waisted sides, bi-convex in cross-section, - 2005.14.990.3. (Fig. 7: 7). decorated on its outer face(?). Among the Wrist-guard, broken at its upper-right and lower-left corners, half-broken, restored, which seems to be a decoration; the holes 4Wcc/trapezoid. werefitted drilledholes there from isboth another sides; point-like the outer hole, face the Mohs scale. Raw material: grey, fired clay, hardness 1 on is slightly concave, the inner face is flat; in 108 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Large-medium-sized, slightly trapezoid - 2005.14.1118/10. (Fig. 8: 6). with waisted sides, strongly concavo-con- Wrist-guard; it is a whole piece, but dam- vex in cross-section; the holes were drilled aged at its upper right corner, 4Wpc/trap- from both sides, but mainly from the inner ezoid. face. The left side of the tool is more dam- Raw material: yellowish-grey stone(?). Its aged/worn; perhaps it often slipped to this hardness is between 1 and 3 on the Mohs side when it was used. scale; according to János Kalmár it is ce- 90 × 34–36 × 4 mm ramic. On its outer face outer face there is Feature 990: urn grave of an adult woman; a burnt bone layer, which cemented to the the wrist-guard was among the bones at the wrist-guard during the cremation. bottom of the urn. Small-medium-sized, trapezoid with waist- - 2005.14.1024.36. (Fig. 6: 1). ed sides, plano-convex in cross-section; Wrist-guard, fragmented, restored from several pieces, but some pieces are still from both pages. missing; it was burnt during the cremation; 73the × inner 33–30 face × 5 is mm flat; the holes were drilled 4Scc/rectangular. - 2005.14.1118/29. (Fig. 7: 8). Medium-sized, slightly trapezoid with burnt(?). Its cross-section is red, the sur- waisted sides, concavo-convex in cross-sec- faceRaw greyish-brown; material: fired no tempering clay, secondarily could be tion; the outer face is worn, the inner face is shiny from long use; it shows sharp hori- scale. Large-sized,identified. It hasrectangular hardness 2with on thestraight Mohs mainly from the inner face. sides, strongly concavo-convex in cross-sec- 80zontal × 38–34 striae; × 3the mm fixing holes were drilled tion. The four holes were drilled from both Feature 1118: scattered urn grave of a child; pages; both ends are shiny from long use. the two wrist-guards were south of the On the outer face outer face there is use- pots, among stones such as chipped stones, wear of sharp horizontal striae. Its edge polishers and celts: all stone implements is chipped as a result of high temperature were in one group. during the cremation. - 1259/3: 2005.14.1259.4. (Fig. 9: 4). 119×42×6 mm Wrist-guard, half-broken, secondarily re- Feature 1024: urn grave of a 23–59-year- shaped into a smaller one, 4Scc/trapezoid; old man. the original was 4Wcc(?). - 2005.14.1082.5. (Fig. 7: 3–4). Raw material: micaceous stone, hardness Wrist-guard, broken at its upper-left and 1–2 on the Mohs scale. lower-right corners, 4Scc/trapezoid. original was much larger, concavo-convex the Mohs scale. inSmall-sized, cross-section; secondarily the holes reshaped were drilled find; from the Medium-large-sized,Raw material: red, fired slightly clay, trapezoidhardness with1 on both pages; the upper left corner is broken, straight sides, strongly concavo-convex in the lower left corner is damaged; both pag- cross-section; the holes were drilled from es are worn; the lower side is slanting; the the inner face; both pages are horizontal; both sides show sharp striae (use-wear). 46×37×4 mm 91×39×3 mm Featurewrist-guard 1259: is unfinished. scattered urn grave of an Feature 1082: inhumation, adult in con- adult in a gravepit with several pots; the tracted position in round ditch No. 1019; the wrist-guard was among the pots. wrist-guard was near the left arm, across - 1265/3. (Fig. 9: 8). the bone, not in in-situ position. There were arrowheads, copper needles and chipped 4Scc/narrow, trapezoid(?). stones just by the right pelvis. In the south RawWrist-guard, material: broken; grey sandstone the original or aleurolite, find was corner of the gravepit there was a posthole hardness 2 on the Mohs scale, burnt(?). with stones. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 109

Medium-sized, narrow, slightly trapezoid strongly concavo-convex in cross-section; with straight sides; its outer face is frag- mented, the inner face is concave; slightly pages; on the inner face there is a calcined concavo-convex in cross-section; the holes bonethe two layer. fixing holes were drilled from both were drilled from both pages; on the upper 57×47×5 mm side of the outer face there are point deco- Feature 1288: empty gravepit without stones; there were two pots in the middle of 51×24×3 mm the pit, under them an arrowhead, a metal -rations 1265/2. between (Fig. 8: the 8). fixing holes. plate and a wrist-guard. The excavation di- Wrist-guard, its upper left corner damaged, ary also mentions another arrowhead, but 4Wcc/rectangular, and narrow. it is not in the inventory. Raw material: greenish-grey stone: serpen- tinite or greenschist(?). 6. Chipped stones Medium-small-sized, long, narrow, rectan- Points and arrowheads gular with waisted sides, slightly concavo- convex in cross-section, it has cortex on One piece in one feature - 2005.14.177.4. (Fig.12: 1). Buda hornstone with cortex. wereits outer drilled face; from one both of the pages. fixing holes is not Arrowhead: S/triangular. Broken at its dis- 73×23–20×3completely drilled: mm half-finished; the others Feature 1265: gravepit with two graves but tal end, the ventral surface is flat; the dorsal without bones; the two wrist-guards were its edge with bifacial retouches. Its base is surface is convex with fine retouches, on in the eastern side, in the top layer. strongly concave with use-wear shine. Size: - 1274/7: 2005.14.1274.21. (Fig. 9: 9). 18×20×4 mm. Wrist-guard, half-broken, secondarily re- shaped, S?pc/trapezoid-square, originally were in the urn. Feature 177: adult’s urn grave; the finds Wcc/trapezoid(?). - 2005.14.217.4. (Fig. 12: 2). Raw material: grey, micaceous stone, hard- Buda hornstone, burnt. ness 1 on the Mohs scale. Small arrowhead: S/triangular. Its back- After the original piece had broken, it was base strongly concave. Size: 18×18×4 mm. ground is flat, its dorsal surface convex, its holes are not in the corners, but in the mid- Feature 217: adult’s urn grave. dlereshaped of the upper into aand smaller lower sides; one; thethey fixingwere - 2005.14.525.10. drilled from both pages. The places of the Buda hornstone. Arrowhead: M-L/triangular. Both surfaces polished. The wrist-guard is plano-convex are concave; its form is slim, long, with con- inoriginal cross-section, fixing holes small-medium-sized; – where it broke – were the cave base. At the base, at its right end, it is outer face is damaged. broken. Size: 24×14×5 mm. 39×24×3 mm Feature 1274: rectangular gravepit without were outside the urn. Feature 525: adult’s urn grave; the finds bones; the wrist-guard was at the side of - 2005.14.532.1. (Fig. 12: 3). the pit where the arm would be if there was Buda hornstone. a skeleton in the grave. Arrowhead: S/triangular. Both surfaces are - 1288/5. (Fig. 9: 5). concave, small-sized; its base is rectangular, Wrist-guard, upper fragment, secondarily slightly concave. The right end of its base is reshaped, now 2Scc/square. broken. Size: 20×16×3 mm. Raw material: brownish-grey, hardness 2 Feature 532: adult’s urn grave. on the Mohs scale. - 2005.14.655.11. (Fig. 12: 4). After the original piece had broken, it was Buda hornstone, white version (porcelan- reshaped into a smaller one: the lower side ite). is half-finished, not completely polished, 110 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Arrowhead: L/triangular. Long, slim form Size: 27×20×3 mm. with strongly concave base; its dorsal sur- - 2005.14.1076.26. (Fig. 12: 11). Buda hornstone, dark version. right end of its base is broken; slight use- Arrowhead: S/triangular, hollow-based. Its wearface is shine concave, is visible its ventral on its surface right edgeflat; theon dorsal surface is concave; its ventral surface the dorsal surface and at its distal end. Size: 28×16×4 mm. base. Size: 21×19×4 mm. Feature 655: adult’s scattered urn grave; -is 2005.14.1076.27. flat, smaller sized (Fig. with 12: slightly 12). concave Buda hornstone. Arrowhead: M-L/triangular, hollow-based. Twothe finds pieces were in one among feature the stones. Its base is concave, asymmetric, broken at - 285/8. (Fig. 12: 6). its right corner; its dorsal surface is con- Buda hornstone. mm. but its ventral surface is quite convex; its -cave, 2005.14.1076.28. its ventral surface (Fig. 12:flat. 13). Size: 25×17×3 baseArrowhead: is concave, M-L/triangular. asymmetric; Very its rightslim, flat,end Buda hornstone. is broken; there are use-wear traces on Arrowhead: L/triangular, hollow-based. the right edge of its ventral surface. Size: Large, its base is slightly concave; its dorsal 25×21×2 mm. - 285/9. (Fig. 12: 7). Size: 28×20×5 mm. Buda hornstone. Featuresurface is1076: concave, adult itsfemale’s ventral urngrave; surface flat.the Arrowhead: S/triangular. Small, its base is strongly concave, broken at its left barb (left-handed?); its dorsal surface is concave, Fivefinds pieces were amongin one featurethe bones. - 2005.14.1082.5. (Fig. 12: 14). Feature 285: empty gravepit, together with Buda hornstone, white version. Featureits ventral 284. surface flat. Size: 22×17×5 mm. Arrowhead: M-L/triangular, concave-based. - 2005.14.945.36. (Fig. 12: 8). Its dorsal surface is concave; its ventral sur- Buda hornstone, greyish-white version. Arrowhead: S/triangular. Small, its ventral - 2005.14.1082.6. (Fig. 12: 15). Budaface is hornstone. flat. Size: 24×17×6 mm. use-wear shine on the right edge of its dor- Arrowhead: M-L/triangular. Slim, long form salsurface surface; flat; its its base distal is endvery is concave, blunt. There slightly is - asymmetric. Size: 17×18×3 mm. metric and very strongly concave. Size: - 2005.14.945.37. (Fig. 12: 9). 23×15×2with narrow, mm. flat surfaces; its base is asym Buda hornstone. - 2005.14.1082.7. (Fig. 12: 16). Arrowhead: M-L/triangular. Longer, slim Buda hornstone. form with less-articulated concave base. Arrowhead: L/triangular. Slim, longer form, large and narrow; its base is asymmetric shiny; use-wear is stronger on its right edge;Its ventral the base surface is broken is flat, itsat itsdorsal right surface barb; 29×17×2 mm. its distal end is slightly blunt, broken. Size: -and 2005.14.1082.8. concave; both (Fig. surfaces 12: 17). are flat. Size: 27×17×4 mm. Buda hornstone. Arrowhead: M-L/triangular. Slim, longer Four pieces in one feature form, its base is concave, asymmetric; its - 2005.14.1076.25. (Fig. 12: 10). dorsal surface is concave, its ventral surface Buda hornstone, light version. Arrowhead: M-L/triangular, hollow-based. - 2005.14.1082.9. (Fig. 12: 18). Its base is concave, asymmetric; its dorsal Budaflat. Size: hornstone 25×16×3 with mm. cortex on its dorsal surface. surface is concave, its ventral surface flat. TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 111

Arrowhead: S. Its base is slightly concave, Arrowhead: M-L/triangular. The base is asymmetric; the dorsal surface is concave, strongly concave; the dorsal surface is con-

A further 4 chips (Fig. 12: 19): mm. -the Buda ventral hornstone, surface flat.proximal Size: 21×16×3fragment mm. of a -cave, 2005.14.616.20. the ventral surface (Fig. 12: flat. 25). Size: 25×16×3 blade; its distal end was truncated in line; Szentgál radiolarite. there is one ridge on its dorsal surface, no Arrowhead: M-L/triangular. Slim, longer bulb; the platform is diedre with cortex; a soft hammer was used for hitting; 28×16×4 strongly concave. Size: 23×14×3 mm. mm. -form, 2005.14.616.21. its ventral surface(Fig. 12: is 26). flat; its base is Black lydite pebble. there is one ridge on its dorsal surface; Arrowhead: S/triangular. The base is 31×17×9- Buda hornstone, mm. blade-like atypical flake; strongly concave; the dorsal surface is con- - form is diedre; the bulb is large; 22×30×3 mm. -mm. Buda hornstone, flake, unworked; the plat Furthercave, the debitage, ventral surface Buda hornstone flat. Size: 21×15×3 (Fig. 12: 5): mm. Feature- Buda hornstone,1082: adult’s atypical inhumation flake, grave. 30×29×7 - dre;- Two the atypical bulb is flakes: small, 34×22×9 27×23×6 and mm. 23×15×6 Seven pieces in one feature Featuremm; one 616:typical 23–59-year-old flake, the platform female’s(?) is die - 2005.14.616.15. (Fig. 12: 20). grave, inhumation, contracted; the arrow- Buda hornstone. heads were near the pots; the wrist-guard Arrowhead: L/triangular. Its dorsal surface was on the left arm. Grave 467: The ‘artisan’s grave’: 31 chipped is concave and asymmetric. Size: 29×17×3 stones (Fig. 12: 5). mm.is concave, its ventral surface flat; the base Longer, slim bifacial points made from - 2005.14.616.16. (Fig. 12: 21). orange-white transparent pebble limno- Buda hornstone, white version. quartzite: Arrowhead: M-L/triangular. Its dorsal sur- - 2005.14.467.45. (Fig. 12: 32). Intact point on blade: L/slim, triangular, base slightly concave, asymmetric. Size: hollow-based. On the dorsal surface there 25×18×6face is concave, mm its ventral surface flat, its is one ridge; the edge was bifacially re- - 2005.14.616.17. (Fig. 12: 22). touched; on the right edge there is bifacial Buda hornstone. use-wear shine. Size: 34×17×5 mm. Arrowhead: VS/triangular. Small with a - 2005.14.467.46. (Fig. 12: 33). strongly concave base, its dorsal surface Point: broken or truncated at its base: L/ slim, triangular. Size: 31×14×6 mm. 17×16×3 mm. - 2005.14.467.47. (Fig. 12: 34). -is 2005.14.616.18. concave; its ventral (Fig. 12: surface 23). is flat. Size: Point, broken at its distal and proximal Buda hornstone, purple version (burnt?) ends: M-L/slim, triangular. Asymmetric Arrowhead: M-L/triangular, slightly con- with rough retouches, on its edge the re- cave-based. Small, robust, its ventral sur- Chip from the same raw material with a hole intouch its ismiddle a little (Fig. finer. 12: Size: 44). 26×18×5 Size: 28×29×7 mm. edgesface is are flat; retouched. its dorsal Size: surface 23×16×6 is perhaps mm. mm. -half-finished 2005.14.616.19. without (Fig. retouches;12: 24). only the Dull, red radiolarite with stripes: Carpathian, Bifacial, triangular arrowheads with con- or from the Gerecse Mountains(?). Very cave base of Buda hornstone: light: burnt(?). - 2005.14.467.36. (Fig. 12: 35).

Arrowhead pre-form, slim, atypical flake 112 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) with cortex on its dorsal surface: L/triangu- strongly concave base. Left-handed(?). Size: lar, concave-based. Size: 28×23×3 mm. 23×16×4 mm. - 2005.14.467.38. (Fig. 12: 36). - 2005.14.467.54. (Fig. 12: 30). Arrowhead pre-form: VL/triangular. Flat, Arrowhead: VS/triangular. Its ventral sur- and original pebble platform. Size: 42×35×6 Size: 20×15×3 mm. mm.triangular, atypical flake with concave base face is flat; the base is concave, symmetric. - 2005.14.467.39. (Fig. 12: 37). Chips, debitage of Buda hornstone: Arrowhead pre-form: L/triangular. Flat, ge- ometric with transversal shear. Blade-like, the core with cortex on its dorsal surface, 41×28×11- 2005.14.467.24. mm. Atypical initial flake from mm. - 2005.14.467.25. Atypical blade-like seg- -slim, 2005.14.467.41. atypical flake (Fig. segment. 12: 39). Size: 28×14×4 ment, 34×26×11 mm. Arrowhead pre-form, triangular with recti- mm. mm. - 2005.14.467.26. Atypical flake, 33×45×7 -linear 2005.14.467.42. base, atypical (Fig. flake. 12: 38).Size: 48×36×14 mm. Arrowhead pre-form: VL/triangular. - 2005.14.467.27. Atypical flake, 41×29×6 Robust, tanged arrowhead, pre-form on mm. - 2005.14.467.28.2005.14.467.29. Atypical Pebble flake, fragment, 35×21×7 at its proximal end. Size: 40×28×8 mm. 46×27×12 mm. -atypical 2005.14.467.48. flake with (Fig. original 12: 27).pebble platform the core with cortex on its dorsal surface, 33×34×10- 2005.14.467.30. mm. Atypical flake, initial from concaveArrowhead: base. M-L/triangular, Size: 25×19×6 mm. flat-based. It - 2005.14.467.31. Flake; its platform is -has 2005.14.467.49. a flat ventral (Fig. surface, 12: 40). does not have a smooth; the bulb is small; 26×22×4 mm. - - 2005.14.467.32. Blade-like atypical seg- ment with cortex on its dorsal surface, /Half-finished denticulated arrowhead edge(?). orC saw:rescent-shaped S/triangu 35×23×8 mm. lar, flat, geometric with transversal shear - 2005.14.467.33. Atypical segment with side on its dorsal surface. Size: 23×16×6 cortex on its dorsal surface, 27×18×7 mm. mm.atypical flake with edge retouch on its left - 2005.14.467.50. (Fig. 12: 41). with retouches on its right-lower edge: saw, 24×17×6- 2005.14.467.34. mm. Blade-like atypical flake fragment. Size: 16×14×2 mm. - 2005.14.467.35. Atypical segment with -Arrowhead 2005.14.467.51. pre-form(?). (Fig. 12: 31). Blade-like flake pebble cortex on its dorsal surface, 32×30×7 mm. with transversal shear. Triangular-shaped, Arrowhead: L/triangular, flat, geometric is in the middle; the platform is diedre; surface, and original pebble platform on its 22×21×4- 2005.14.467.40. mm. Blade-like flake; the bulb base.atypical Size: flake 30×20×7 with one mm. ridge on its dorsal - 2005.14.467.43. (Fig. 12: 42). Atypical - 2005.14.467.52. (Fig. 12: 28). mm. left barb is shorter; its base is asymmet- borer on long, blade-like flake, 42×16×10 ricArrowhead: and very concave. VS/triangular. Left-handed(?). Very flat, Size: the were in the south end of the pit with pots, a 20×16×3 mm. bronzeFeature needle 467: and empty a wrist-guard. gravepit; the finds - 2005.14.467.53. (Fig. 12: 29). Arrowhead: S/triangular. Its dorsal surface - metric; the left barb is shorter; it has a is concave, its ventral surface flat, asym TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 113 type hornstone of Buda hornstone: 30×28×8, 31×18×8, Atypical finds, chips and debitage of Buda-- 30×17×7,- 1118. (Fig. 32×17×7 12: 48). mm; Four 1 of atypical limnoquartz flakes- dre; the bulb is small, 44×32×6 mm. ite: 39×18×13 mm. -Feature 213/3. 213: Typical scattered flake; urnthe graveplatform of an is adult die - stone; broken at its ends, it has bifacial re- touchesOne saw on on its an edge; atypical 33×18×6 flake, mm. Buda horn mm.woman; the find was among the bones. Flake from a pebble; the bulb is large; the Feature- 2005.14.233.2. 233: scattered Atypical urn grave flake, of 32×25×8 an adult platform is smooth; 30×39×10 mm. man. Feature 1118: There were two wrist-guards, a polisher and two axes in the grave. - 1274. (Fig. 12: 50). - 668.2. 1. Atypical flake, 25×28×5 mm. 2. nearAtypical the flake,pot. 35×18×4 mm. 30×20×12, 28×19×7, 28×18×8, 28×17×8, -Feature 801.5. 668:(Fig. urn12: grave(?);47). Atypical, the finds D-shaped were 24×20×7Six atypical mm. flakes, burnt: 31×24×7, segment with cortex on its dorsal surface, Feature 1274: empty gravepit with a wrist- 46×31×13 mm. guard. Feature 801: urngrave of a 23–39-year-old 36×40×13 mm. Atypical borer: 40×21×9 - 847/5. Flake; the platform is diedre; the mm.- 1318/4. Two atypical flakes: 37×42×6 and bulbman; is the large, finds 29×30×7 were in themm. urn. Feature 1318: urn grave of an adult man; - tex, 36×24×10 mm. - 847/7. Blade-like atypical flake with cor the finds were under the urn. Feature 847: inhumation grave of a 23–x- year-old- 847/6. Atypicalman with flake, a wrist-guard. 38×26×9 mm. 114 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Beakers in Europa, 2004, 127–148. Anthony 2007 – D. W. Anthony, bibliography Horse, the Poznań, Sidestone Press,- wheel and language. How bronze-age riders lisation of Buda hornstone in the Early Bronze from the Eurasian steppes shaped the Modern Age”,T. Biró Budapest2002 – K. Régiségei,T. Biró, “New Budapest, data on theXXXVI, uti ,Princeton–Oxford, Princeton University World 2002, 131–145. Press, 2007. Bondár 2009 – M. Bondár, “The cemetery”, in Bailly 2014 – M. Bailly, “Discordance des temps, Bondár, M., Raczky, P. (eds.), The Copper Age concordance des espaces? Remarques sur les ar- cemetery of Budakalász, Budapest, Pytheas, 2009, 11–303. De l’arc jurassien à l’arc jurassien à l’isthme eu- matures de flèches en contexte campaniforme. A. (eds.), Entre archéologie et écologie, une Le Bóna 1994 – I. Bóna, “Les cultures des tells de Préhistoireropéen”, in deArbogast, tous les R.-M., milieux. A. Greffier-Richard,Mélanges offerts bel Âge du Bronze en Hongrie, Budapest–Mont l’Âge du Bronze en Hongrie”, in Bóna, I. (ed.), à Pierre Pétrequin, Besançon, Presses univer- Beauvrey, Pytheas, 1994, 9–39. sitaires de Franche-Comté 2014, 526, Annales Care 2004 – H. Care, “Beakers and the Beaker Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté, Culture”, in Czebreszuk, J. (ed.), Similar but dif- 928; série Environnement, sociétés et archéolo- ferent. Bell Beakers in Europa, gie 18, 335–384. Press, 2004, 11–34. Poznań, Sidestone Cs. Balogh 1992 – É. Cs. Balogh, Czebreszuk 2003 – J. Czebreszuk, “Amber on the - Threshold of a World Career”, in Beck, C. W (ed.), - Institute of the History of Latvia, University of vestigation“Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor of the Bronze Age settlement korabronzko in Latvia, Amber Committee of the International ri telepének kőeszközvizsgálata (Lithic in Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Selmeczi, L. (eds.), Régészeti kutatások az M0 Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies autópályaSzigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor)“, nyomvonalán, Budapesti in Havasy, Történeti P., (eds.), Amber in Archaeology, Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Amber in Cs. Balogh 1993 – É. Cs. Balogh, Rézkori, bronz- Archaeology, Talsi 2001, Riga 2003, 164–179. koriMúzeum pattintott Műhely kőeszközök 5, Budapest Pest 1992, megyében 201–211. és a Czebreszuk, Szmyt 2003 – J. Czebreszuk, M. Dunától keletre eső területeken. Tipológiai és Szmyt, “The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers”, statisztikai feldolgozás (Copper and Bronze Age in - Czebreszuk, J., Szmyt, M. (eds.), The Northeast chipped stone tools from county Pest and east Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the sym- from the Danube), PhD Dissertation, Manuscript, posium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, May 26–29 2002, British Archaeological Cs. Balogh 2009 – É. Cs. Balogh, The lithic Report International Series 1155, Oxford 2003, Budapest, University of Eötvös Lóránd, 1993. 265–276. P.(eds.), The Copper Age cemetery of Budakalász, Czene 2008 – A. Czene, “Harangedények Budapest,finds from Pytheas, Budakalász, 2009, in 379–409. Bondár, M., - Raczky, Budakalászon (Beakers at Budakalász)”, in Beck, Wilbur, Meret 1964 – C. W. Beck, E. Wilbur, Gyöngyössy, M. (ed.), Képek a múltból. Az elmúlt S. Meret, “Infrared spectra and the origin of am- évek ásatásaiból Pest megyében, Szentendre, ber”, Nature, United Kingdom, 201, 1964, 256. 32–33. Bertemes, Heyd 2002 – F. Bertemes, V. Heyd, Pest Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 2008, “Der Übergang Kupferzeit/Frühbronzezeit Dani, Horváth 2012 – J. Dani, T. Horváth, Őskori am Nordwestland des Karpatenbeckens – kurgánok a magyar Alföldön. A Gödörsíros Kulturgeschichtlichte und paläometallurgische (Jamnaja) entitás magyarországi kutatása az el- Betrachtungen”, in Bartelheim, M., - Pernicka, E., múlt 30 év során. Áttekintés és revízió (Prehistoric - Krause, R. (eds.), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in kurgans on the Great Hungarian Plain. The inves- der Alten Welt, Forschungen zur Archäometrie tigation of the Yamnaja (Pit-Grave) entity dur- und Altertumswissenschaft 1, Halle 2002, 185–- ing the last 30 years. An overview), Budapest, 228. Archaeolingua, 2012. Besse 2004 – M. Besse, “Bell Beaker Common Ware during the third Millenium BC in Europe”, on the Early Bronze Age contact systems on the Dani, Tóth 2014 – J. Dani, K. Tóth, “Reflection in Czebreszuk, J. (ed.), Similar but different. Bell Great Hungarian Plain in connection with the TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 115

Panyola burial”, Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicăry, Britain”, in Czebreszuk, J. (ed.), Similar but dif- Satu Mare, XXX/1, 2014, 39–67. ferent. Bell Beakers in Europa, Dimitriadis 2008 – G. Dimitriadis, “Looking Press, 2004, 173–192. for Metals: Megalithic Monuments be- Harrison, Heyd 2007 – R. Harrison, Poznań, Sidestone V. Heyd, tween Reality and Mithology”, in R. Kostov, I. “The Transformation of Europe in the Third Gaydarska, M. Gurova (eds.), Geoarchaeology Millenium BC: the example of ’Le Petit-Chassuer and Archeomineralogy, Proceedings of the I+III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland)”, Praehistorische International Conference, 29–30 October 2008 Zeitschrift, Berlin, 82, 2007, 129–214. Sofia, Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”, Heyd 2000 – V. Heyd, Die Spätkupferzeit in 2008, 205–210. Süddeutschland.,Bonn, Dr Rudolf Habelt Gmbh, Sofia 2000. the Bell Beaker Csepel Group in Hungary”, in Heyd 2007 – V. Heyd, “When the West meets the J.Endrődi Czebreszuk, 2003 –M. A. SzmytEndrődi, (eds.), “The The Late Northeast Phase of East: The eastern periphery of the Bell Beaker Frontier of Bell Beakers, Proceedings of the sym- phenomenon and its relation with the Aegean posium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Early Bronze Age”, in Galanaki, I., Galanakis, Poznań, May 26–29 2002. British Archaeological Between the Report International Series 1155, Oxford 2003, Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehistory across bor- 265–276. ders.I., Tomas, Proceedings H.,Laffineur, of the International R. (eds.), Conference ‘Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections “Symbolism and Traditions in the Society of the and Contemporary Developments between the BellEndrődi, Beaker Pásztor Csepel 2006 group – A. (AEndrődi, szimbolizmus E. Pásztor, és Aegean and the Region of the Balkan Peninsula, - Central and Northern Europe’, University of port társadalmában)“, Archaeológiai Értesítő, Zagreb/Croatia, 10–14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27, Budapest,a tradíció 131, szerepe 2006, a Harangedény–Csepel7–25. cso P. Fischl, Kulcsár 2011 – K. P. Fischl, G. Kulcsár, Horváth 2004 – T. Horváth, “Néhány megjegyzés Tiszán innen Dunán túl. A kora bronzkor kér- Liège 2007, 91–107. -

(Diesseits der Theiß, jenseits der Donau. Metallkunsta vatyai kultúra der fémművességéhezVatya-Kultur. Technologische – technoló Fragendései a der kiskundorozsmai Frühbronzezeit temetőhinsichtlich kapcsán des Beobachtungengiai megfigyelések an a kultúraihrer kőeszközeinSteingeräten)”, (Die Gräberfeldes von Kiskundorozsma), Móra Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve–Studia Archaeologica, Budapest, 2004, 11–64. Szeged, 12, 2011, 59–91. Horváth 2004a – T. Horváth, A Vatya kultúra Furestier 2004 – R. Furestier, “Bell Beaker lithic industry: a rediscovered paradise?”, in Czebreszuk, J. (ed.), Similar but different. Bell oftelepüléseinek the Vatya cultures’s kőanyaga. settlements.Komplex régészeti Complex és Beakers in Europa, archaeologicalpetrográfiai feldolgozás and petrographical (The lithic implementsinvestigati- 2004, 77–98. on). Ph.D. dissertation, Manuscript, Budapest, Furestier 2008 – R. Furestier, Poznań, “Bell Sidestone Beaker Press, lith- https://www. ic industries in the French Midi”, in Baioni, M., academia.edu/2161016/Thesis_english) (Last Leonini, V., Lo Vetro, D., Martini, F., Poggiani accessEötvös 29.06.2016)Lóránd University, 2004. ( Keller, R., Sarti, L. (eds.), Bell Beaker in Everyday Horváth 2009 – T. Horváth, “Pattintással készült Life, Museo Fiorentino di Preistoria Paolo Graziosi, - Proceedings of the 10th Meeting „Archéologie et Goblets”, Florence–Siena–Villanuova sul Clisi, ofeszközök Chipped kronológiai Stone Implements szerepe ain kora- the Earlyés közép and May 12–15, 2006., Millenni Studi di Archeologia Middleső bronzkor Bronze folyamán Age)”, (TheTisicum, Chronological Szolnok, RoleXLX, Preistorica 6, 2008, Florence 2008, 291–300. 2009, 413–440.­ - Kleinpolen. Ein Beispiel für die Transformation - einesFurholt Zeichensystems?”, 2008 – M. Furholt, Germania, “Die Złota-Gruppe Berlin, 86/1, in Horváth 2011 – T. Horváth, A késő rézkor idő 2008, 1–47. rézkoriszaka más Boleráz/Baden szemszögből: település tipo-kronológiai leletanyagán, meg Gibson 2004 – A. Gibson, “Burials and Beakers: Gesta,figyelések Miskolc, a Balatonőszöd-Temetői X, 2011, 3–135. (tortenelemszak. dűlői késő seeing beneath the veneer in Late Neolithic uni-miskolc.hu/gesta/gesta2011/2011_3.pdf) (Last access 29.06.2016) 116 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017)

Horváth 2012 – T. Horváth, Networks and Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 1999 – R. Kalicz- Netwars: New perspectives on the Late Copper Schreiber, N. Kalicz, “A Somogyvár–Vinkovci kul- Age and Early Bronze Age. Typo-chronological túra és a Harangedény–Csepel-csoport Budapest relationships of the Boleráz/Baden/Kostolac kora bronzkorában (Die Somogyvár–Vinkovci finds at the site of Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő, und die Glockenbecher in der Frühbronzezeit Hungary, British Archaeological Reports von Budapest)”, Savaria, Szombathely, 24/3, International Series 2427, Oxford 2012. 1999, 83–114. Horváth 2012a – T. Horváth, “Metallurgy of Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 2001 – R. Kalicz- the Vatya culture – technological observations Schreiber, N. Kalicz, “Were the Bell Beakers on the stone tools of the culture”, Studien zur as social indicators of the Early Bronze Age of Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa–Studia nad Budapest?”, in Nicolis, F., (ed.), Bell Beakers Pradziejami Europy Środkowej, Bonn, 9, 2012, today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in 53–117. Prehistoric Europa, Riva del Garda 11–16 May Horváth 2012b – T. Horváth, “The Chronological 1998, Trento 2001, 439–458. Role of Chipped Stone Implements in the Kalmár 2006 – J. Kalmár, Jelentés a Budakalász Early and Middle Bronze Ages”, Studien zur ásatási terület kőanyagának földtani mód- Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa–Studia nad szerekkel végzett vizsgálatáról (Report on the Pradziejami Europy Środkowej, Bonn, 9, 2012, Budakalász archaeological site, geological rese- 117–167. arch), Manuscript, Szentendre 2006. Horváth 2013 – T. Horváth, “Recensio: M. Károlyi 1972 – M. Károlyi, “Adatok a Ny- Bondár, P. Raczky (eds.), The Copper Age - cemetery of Budakalász”, Acta Archaeologica történetéhez (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Früh- Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest, undDunántúl Mittelbronzezeit kora- és középső von bronzkoriWesttransdanubia)”, település 64, 2013, 331–336. Savaria, Szombathely, 5/6,1972, 167–194. Horváth et al. 2015 – T. Horváth, A. Farkas- implements of the Middle Bronze Age tell set- industryKopacz, Přichystal,in Moravia Šebela (Czech 2008 Republic)”, – J. Kopacz, in tlementPető, I. Farkas, of Füzesabony–Öreg-domb”, J. Mihály, B. Péterdi, “The Slovenská stone Baioni,A. Přichystal, M., Leonini, L. Šebela, V., Lo Vetro, “Bell BeakerD., Martini, Lithic F., Archeologia, Nitra, LXIII/1, 2015, 31–62. Poggiani Keller, R., Sarti, L. (eds.), Bell Beaker Ilon 2004 – G. Ilon, Szombathely őskori tele- in Everyday Life. Museo Fiorentino di Preistoria th püléstörténetének vázlata. Avagy a római kor Paolo Graziosi, Firenze, Proceedings of the 10 előtt is volt élet (Outline of the prehistoric set- Meeting „Archéologie et Goblets”, Florence– tlement of Szombathely, or life before the Roman Siena–Villanuova sul Clisi, May 12–15, 2006, Age). Millenni Studi di Archeologia Preistorica 6, 2008, Florence 2008, 257–270. Kalicz-Schreiber Őskorunk 1981 1, Szombathely, – R. Kalicz-Schreiber, Vas Megyei “Die ProblemeMúzeumok der Igazgatósága, Glockenbecher 2004. Kultur in Ungarn”, Lithic chipped industry of in Lanting, J. N. (ed.), Glockenbechersymposion theKopacz, Bell BeakerPřichystal, Culture Šebela in Moravia2009 – J.and Kopacz, its east- A. Oberreid, Oberreid 1974, 184–214. centralPřichystal, european L. Šebela, context, Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2009. Kalicz-Schreiber 1997 – R. Kalicz-Schreiber, Kraków–Brno, Polish “Kora bronzkori temetkezések a Csepel-sziget Kuijpers, Fokkens, Achterkamp 2008 – M. keleti partján (Early Bronze Age burials on the eastern bank of the Csepel Island)”, Budapest or bracelets? About the functionality and mean- Régiségei, Budapest, XXXI, 1997, 177–195. Kuijpers,ing of Bell H. Beaker Fokkens, wrist-guards”, Y. Achterkamp, Proceedings “Bracers of the Prehistoric Society, Cambridge, 74, 2008, Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz, 1998-2000 – R. Kalicz- 109–140. Schreiber, N. Kalicz, “A Harangedények szerepe a Budapest környéki kora bronzkor társadalmi Korek 1986 – J. Korek, “The grave of an artisan viszonyainak megjelenítésében (The Role of in the Copper Age cemetery at Budakalász”, .), Papers for the International Early Bronze Age of Budapest)”, Archaeológiai conference on prehistoric flint mining and lithic Értesítő,Bell Beaker Budapest, in reflecting 125, 1998-2000, Social Relations 45–78. in the rawin Biró, material K. T. (ed identification in the Carpathian TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) 117

Basin,Budapest–Sümeg, Magyar Nemzeti Mú- 2009 Yearbook and Review of Archaeological zeum, 1986, 317–323. Investigation, Budapest, 2012, 129–135. Müller 1999 – J. Müller, “Zur Radiokarbonda- tierung des Jung-bis Endneolithikums und der E. Baradács, Z. Á. Kiss, I. Uzonyi, I. Montero, S. Frühbronzezeit im Mittelelbe - Saale - Gebiet Rovira,Reményi “Possible et al. 2006 link – between L. Reményi, Hungarin A. Endrődi, and (4100 –1500 v. Chr.)”, Bericht der Römische- Spanish Beaker Metallurgy”, in Denker, A. (ed.), Germanischen Komission, Frankfurt, 80, 1999, Cost Action G8: Non-destructive testing analysis 31–90. of museum objects. Belgium, Fraunhofer IRB Neugebauer, Neugebauer-Maresch 2001 – J. Verlag 2006, 17–25. W. Neugebauer, C. Neugebauer-Maresch, “Bell- Robb 2009 – J. Robb, “People of stone: stelae, Beaker Culture in Austria”, in Nicolis, F. (ed.), personhood, and society in prehistoric Europe”, Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, sym- Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, bols in prehistoric Europa. Proceedings of the Springer, 16, 2009, 162–183. International Colloqium Riva del Garda (Trento, Schreiber 1975 – R. Schreiber, “A tököli ko- Italy) 11–16 May, 1998, Trento 2001, 429–437. Novotná, Novotný 1984 – M. Novotná, B. Novotný, Gräberfelder von Tököl)”, Archaeológiai Értesítő, Kulturen Budapest,rabronzkori 102, temetők1975, 187–203. (Frühbronzezeitliche der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und - Nordbalkans,“Chl’opice-Gruppe”, Balcano-Pannonica, in Tasić, N. (ed.), Belgrad, nal chronology of the Late Copper Age cem- 1984, 283–288. eterySiklósi at 2009 Budakalász”, – Zs. Siklósi, in Bondár, “Absolute M., - andRaczky, inter P. Patay 1938 – P. Patay, Korai bronzkori kul- (eds.), The Copper Age cemetery of Budakalász. túrák Magyarországon (Frühbronzezeitliche Budapest, Pytheas, 2009, 457–475. Kulturen in Ungarn), Dissertationes Pannonniae, Strahm 2008 – C. Strahm, “The complementary Budapest, Ser. II/13, Budapest 1938. ware in Bell Beaker everyday life: the Italian Patay 1960 – P. Patay, “A Harangedény kultúra model – a theory”, in - Baioni, M., Leonini, V., Lo Vetro, D., Martini, F., Poggiani Keller, R., - Sarti, Archaeológiai Értesítő, L. (eds.), Bell Beaker in Everyday Life. Museo Budapest,lelete Almásfüzitőn 87, 1960, 194–198. (A Find of the Bell-Beaker Fiorentino di Preistoria Paolo Graziosi, Firenze, Culture at Almásfüzitő)”, Proceedings of the 10th Meeting „Archéologie et Goblets”, Florence–Siena–Villanuova sul Clisi, Patay 2008 – R. Patay, “A szigetszentmiklósi May 12–15, 2006, Millenni Studi di Archeologia M.kora (ed.), bronzkori Képek a temető múltból. (The Az elmúlt Early Bronzeévek ásatá Age- Preistorica 6, 2008, Florence 2008, 209–219. saibólcemetery Pest at megyében, Szigetszentmiklós)”, Szentendre, in PestGyöngyössy, Megyei Thomas 2011 – J. T. Thomas, “Fashioning identi- ties, forging inequalities: Late Neolithic/Copper Patay 2009 – R. Patay, “A Nagyrév-kultúra ko- Age personal ornaments of the Portugese Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 2008, 34–35. Estremadura”, European Journal of Archaeology, (Burials of the Early Nagyrév culture from Cambridge, 14/1-2, 2011, 29–60. rai időszakának sírjaiTisicum, Szigetszentmiklósról Szolnok, XIX, Tompa 1942 – F. Tompa, “Budapest története 2009, 209-229. I”, in Szendy, K. (ed.), Budapest az Ókorban, Szigetszentmiklós)”,Reményi 2009 – L. Reményi, “A nagyrévi kultúra Turek 2006 – J. Turek, “Beaker barrows and chronological questions of Nagyrév culture)”, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1942, 40–47. Tisicum,kulturális Szolnok, és kronológiai XIX, 2009, kérdései 229–255. (Cultural and Thrane, H. (eds.), Archaeology of Burial Mounds, Reményi, Dobozi 2012 – L. Reményi, Á. Dobozi, Publicationthe houses of of the dead”, Department in Šmejda, of Archaeology, L., Turek, J., Harangedényes településrészlet Vát (Vas me- Faculty of Philosophy & Arts, University of West gye) határában (Vát–Rátka patak keleti oldala, - Republic 2006, 170–179. hely (Bell Beaker culture settlement section in TurekBohemia, 2006a Univerzitní – J. Turek, 8, “Období 306 14 zvoncovitých Plzeň, Czech the86-os vicinity sz. főút, of Vát–SzombathelyVát (Vas county) (Easternelkerülő 1.side lelő of Archeologie ve středních če- Vát–Rátka Stream, Site No. 1. at Main Road No. chách, Praha, 10, 2006, 275–368. 86, Vát–Szombathely bypass). K.Ö.SZ. Évkönyv Turekpohárů 2015, v Evropě”, J. Turek, “Bell Beaker stone wrist- 2009, Évkönyv és jelentés a K.Ö.SZ. 2009. évi fel- - tárásairól – Field Service for Cultural Heritage guards as symbolic male ornament. The signifi 118 TUNDE HORVATH: The stone implements and wrist-guards of the Bell Beaker cemetery ­­­..., VAMZ, 3. s., L (2017) cance of ceremonial warfare in 3rd millennium Zandler 2012 – K. Zandler, Szigetszentmiklós– BC central Europe”, in Prieto, Martínez, M. P., Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő lelőhely kőeszközei (Lithic Salanova, L. (eds.), The Bell Beaker Transition in implements of the site Szigetszentmiklós–Felső Europe. Mobility and local evolution during the Ürge-hegyi dűlő), Manuscript, Budapest 2012. 3rd Millennium BC, Oxford–Philadelphia, Oxbow Zandler, Horváth 2010 – K. Zandler, T. Horváth, Books, 2015, 28–41. - Van der Linden 2004 – M. Van der Linden, - “Polythetic networks, coherent people: A new lata,Balatonőszöd–Temetői Archeometriai Műhely dűlő, Budapest,őskori, több 2010/4, perió historical hypothesis for the Bell Beaker phe- 259–296.dusú település (http://www.ace.hu/am pattintott kőeszközeinek) (Last vizsgá access nomenon”, in Czebreszuk, J. (ed.), Similar but dif- 29.06.2016) ferent. Bell Beakers in Europa, Zandler, Horváth 2014 – K. Zandler, T. Horváth, Press, 2004, 35–62. “Chipped stone implements”, in Horváth, T. (ed.), Poznań, Sidestone The prehistoric settlement at Balatonőszöd– Burial of the Bell Beaker Culture from the Temetői-dűlő, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica WłodarczakCemetery in 2008Samborzec – P. Włodarczak,(Southern Poland)”, “Unique XXIX, 2014, 352–379. in Baioni, M., V. Leonini, V., D. Lo Vetro, D., F. Zimmermann 2003 – T. Zimmermann, “Zwischen Martini, F., R. Poggiani Keller, R., L. Sarti, L. (eds.), Karpaten und Kaukasus – Anmerkungen zu ei- Bell Beaker in Everyday Life. Museo Fiorentino di ner ungewöhnlichen Kupferklinge aus Wien– Preistoria Paolo Graziosi, Firenze, Proceedings Essling”, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, of the 10th Meeting „Archéologie et Goblets” Mainz, 33, 2003, 469–477. Florence–Siena–Villanuova sul Clisi, May 12–15, 2006., Millenni Studi di Archeologia Preistorica 6, 2008, Florence 2008, 393–396. Woodward et al. 2006 – A. Woodward, J. Hunter, R. Ixer, F. Roe, P. J. Potts, P. Webb, J. S. Watson, M. C. Jones, “Beaker age bracers in England: sources, function and use”, Antiquity, Durham, 80, 2006, 530–543.