Bronz-kór

WP_Query Object ( [query] => Array ( [paged] => 6 ) [query_vars] => Array ( [paged] => 6 [error] => [m] => [p] => 0 [post_parent] => [subpost] => [subpost_id] => [attachment] => [attachment_id] => 0 [name] => [pagename] => [page_id] => 0 [second] => [minute] => [hour] => [day] => 0 [monthnum] => 0 [year] => 0 [w] => 0 [category_name] => [tag] => [cat] => [tag_id] => [author] => [author_name] => [feed] => [tb] => [meta_key] => [meta_value] => [preview] => [s] => [sentence] => [title] => [fields] => [menu_order] => [embed] => [category__in] => Array ( ) [category__not_in] => Array ( ) [category__and] => Array ( ) [post__in] => Array ( ) [post__not_in] => Array ( ) [post_name__in] => Array ( ) [tag__in] => Array ( ) [tag__not_in] => Array ( ) [tag__and] => Array ( ) [tag_slug__in] => Array ( ) [tag_slug__and] => Array ( ) [post_parent__in] => Array ( ) [post_parent__not_in] => Array ( ) [author__in] => Array ( ) [author__not_in] => Array ( ) [suppress_filters] => [ignore_sticky_posts] => [cache_results] => 1 [update_post_term_cache] => 1 [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1 [update_post_meta_cache] => 1 [post_type] => [posts_per_page] => 15 [nopaging] => [comments_per_page] => 50 [no_found_rows] => [order] => DESC ) [tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( ) [relation] => AND [table_aliases:protected] => Array ( ) [queried_terms] => Array ( ) [primary_table] => wp_posts [primary_id_column] => ID ) [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( ) [relation] => [meta_table] => [meta_id_column] => [primary_table] => [primary_id_column] => [table_aliases:protected] => Array ( ) [clauses:protected] => Array ( ) [has_or_relation:protected] => ) [date_query] => [queried_object] => [queried_object_id] => [request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS wp_posts.ID FROM wp_posts WHERE 1=1 AND wp_posts.post_type = 'post' AND (wp_posts.post_status = 'publish') ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC LIMIT 75, 15 [posts] => Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1418 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-12-20 17:43:06 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-12-20 17:43:06 [post_content] => A few sites in the Košice Basin have not been mentioned yet that I would like to briefly summarize now. I shall not discuss the sites Nižná Myšľa/Alsómislye, Várhegy, Konopiska, Alamenev and Pod zdanskym brehom, since we plan to conduct multiple surveys there during spring which I will report in due time. The first site, heading north from south, is Seňa/Abaújszina-Vyšný Ián. There was a rescue excavation at a multi-period site during the digging of a gas line at the terrace edge of the river Hornád’s right tributary, the Sokoliansky potok. Neolithic, early and middle Bronze Age finds and Roman Era remains came to light. Some of the six late Füzesabony culture graves came to light in superposition with Piliny culture pits (Horváthová 2011, finds see on the main picture). The location of the settlement where these burials belong to is so far unknown. We have two pieces of data from the area of Veľká Ida/Nagyida. During a 1951 field survey north of the village at Primkynec, Otomani, Iron Age and Middle-Ages assemblages were collected in a gravel pit (Hajek 1953, 321). Literature reports the site’s complete destruction in 1977 (Lamiová-Schmiedlová-Miroššayová 1991, 174). Gašaj-Olexa 1992, Karte 1 and accordingly, Jaeger-Olexa 2014, 163 mark the site as an open settlement. Šteiner considers the site located 6 kilometres from Barca as one of its satellite settlements. The assemblage found there is classified by Šteiner as part of the post-classical phase, but he does not exclude the possibility that the settlement might have even existed during the same time as layer 2 from Barca. Dominika Oravkinova brought my attention to a piece of unpublished data according to which Otomani finds also came to light north of the village, in the area between the castle and the Ida stream. It is questionable whether this area has any relations to Primkynec. One interesting fact is that a Hatvan, Piliny and Roman settlement was discovered at Veľká Ida/Nagyida- Zámocké tably. During the evaluation of the animal bone material from pit 1, Z. Miklíková refers to the piece of data 1750 BC C14. This C14 data in the given territory corresponds more to the Otomani period, as it fits with the RA2 period. We know Hatvan culture sites from the RA2 period, but only from areas west of the OFK where Hatvan culture survived up until the Tumulus period. Therefore based on literature alone, we can only consider the completely destroyed Primkynec site as part of the OFK period with certainty for now. However if it is 6 kilometres away from Barca, then based on observations at the Southern Borsod Plain, it is not a satellite but rather an individual settlement. Two additional sites are known from the edge of the settlement Sebastovce/Zsebes. Administratively, Sebastovce falls under Košice, so these sites should have already been presented along with the ones from Košice. During the excavation of an Avar-Slavic cemetery at Lapise, two OFK settlement features came to light (Budinský-Krička 1976, 68–69; Lamiová-Schmiedlová-Miroššayová 1991, 53 and additional literature). Even more OFK settlement features were found in the area of Kenderkert. (Lamiová-Schmiedlová-Miroššayová 1991, 52-53 and additional literature).   Bibliography:   Budinský-Krička 1976 - V. Budinský-Krička: Výskum slovansko-avarského pohrebiska a sídliska z mladšej doby bronzovej v Šebastovciach. AVANS v roku 1975, 1976, 67-69. Gašaj/Olexa 1992 - D. Gašaj / L. Olexa: Nižná Myšľa - ein bronzezeitliches Hanselszentrum in der Ostslowakei. Wuppertal 1992. Hájek 1953 - L. Hájek: Vzácny nález z doby bronzové v Barci u Košic. Archeologické Rozhledy 5, 1953, 319-322. Horváthová 2011 - E. Horváthová: Pohrebisko otomanskej kultúry v Seni. Študijné zvesti AÚ SAV 49, 2011, 115-141. Hreha/Olexa 2009 - R. Hreha/L. Olexa: Sídlisko z doby bronzovej a doby rímskej vo Veľkej Ide. AVANS 2007, 2009, 80, 81. Jaeger/Olexa 2014  - M. Jaeger/ L. Olexa: The metallurgists from Nižná Myšľa (okr. Košice-okolie/SK) A contribution to the discussion on the metallurgy in defensive settlements of the Otomani -Füzesabony culture. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 44, 2014, 163–176 Lamiová-Schmiedlová/Mirrošayová 1991 - M. Lamiová-Schmiedlová / E. Mirrošayová: Archeologická topografia - Košice. Košice 1991. Miklíkova 2011 - Z. Miklíková: Zvyšky zvierat z doby bronzovej a rímskej zo sídliska vo Veľkej Ide. AVANS 2008/2011, 186-189. Šteiner 2009 - P. Šteiner: Keramický inventár otomansko-füzesabonyského kultúrneho komplexu vo svetle nálezov z Barce I. Nitra 2009.   [post_title] => Archaeological sites of the Košice Basin 4: Sites that have been left out so far [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => a-kassai-medence-lelohelyi-4-ami-eddig-kimaradt [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-02-07 17:53:35 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-02-07 17:53:35 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1418 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_title_ml] => [:hu]A kassai medence lelőhelyi 4: ami eddig kimaradt[:en]Archaeological sites of the Košice Basin 4: Sites that have been left out so far[:] [post_title_langs] => Array ( [hu] => 1 [en] => 1 ) ) [1] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1408 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-12-12 15:40:48 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-12-12 15:40:48 [post_content] => Apart from the fortified settlements of Košice-Barca/Kassa-Bárca, Nad Begányijo mlynom and Nižná Myšľa/Alsómislye, Várhegy there is another lesser-known settlement in the Košice Basin with a similar structure: Rozhanovce/Rozgony, poloha Plebanské II. The settlement lies on a terrace at the meeting of the Torysa/Tarca and Olšianský streams. The site was excavated between 1978 and 1983. Based on published data I found that the area of the Bronze Age settlement has not been fully excavated yet, therefore making it ideal for non-destructive research and comparison with the previously excavated area. However I was left sorely disappointed. Today, a plant nursery is situated over the location of the Bronze Age settlement, which meant that it was fully transformed, with no sign of the ditch or any other observable microtopographic features hinting at the former surface. The central part of the Bronze Age settlement has been completely destroyed. So far there have been two publications discussing the settlement’s inner structure (Gašaj 1983; 2002). Based on those we know that the Bronze Age settlement was protected from two sides by a ditch and rampart. The ditch was 15-16 metres wide and 4 metres deep. The rampart was 8 metres wide at the base; its outer and inner sides were reinforced by palisade walls. The diameter of the thusly made protected area was 40 metres. Two main settlement horizons were observed here, similar to Košice-Barca I and Nižá Mišľa. We only know of a few houses from the earlier horizon, the rampart was not present at that time. After the houses of this period were destroyed by fire, the ramparts were partially built atop them and the houses of the younger period were constructed, of which 11 were excavated. In this period the houses were organized into streets, following the line of the fortification. The houses of both settlement periods were single-room (with 4x4.5 metres of floor space), daub-walled, plastered floored buildings with a fireplace. The Rozhanovce settlement can be dated into the classical phase of OFK, the younger layer being as old as layer I/3, while the older layer partially matching layer II of the Barca settlement.          The settlement was first described by Budinský-Krička (Budinský-Krička 1976; 1977) and it was also mentioned later by Jurecko (Jurecko 1980), however both refer to it as Rozhanovce-Hôrka. This means that the two place names refer to the same settlement. In these early reports Bükk culture, Neolithic painted pottery, Copper/Bronze Age transitional and Post-Bronze Age uses are all mentioned when describing the area; OFK dating was not obvious at that time. However the descriptions also mention Bronze Age finds located on both banks of the Olšianský stream. This area is called Pod silaše, situated at the edge of Košické Oľšany/Kassaolcsvár. In 1995, Novotná stated that it was the Olšianský stream that likely separated the fortified part of settlement from its unfortified portion. Another settlement is mentioned in the nearby swampy area. We also know from Novotná that approximately a quarter of the fortified area had been excavated. During our fall survey the area at Košické Oľšany was covered in waist high weeds. After a clean-up the area may be suitable for geophysical survey. Barca and Rozhanovce are 8 kilometres apart each other; the distance between Barca and Nižná Myšľa is 10 kilometres, and 12 kilometres in the case of Rozhanovce and Nižná Myšľa. Counting with an average 4 km/h walking speed, if Bronze Age people set out in the morning, they could visit their neighbours by lunchtime. Not to mention the possibility of sailing down the Torysa/Tarca. Signs of craftsmanship are known from all three settlements, and based on their fortifications we can evaluate them as central settlements. Their inner structures, the size of their houses and their assemblages are identical and they existed in the same horizon chronologically, meaning they were likely settlements of equal rank within the Košice Basin microregion. We can observe the duality at the Rozhanovce—Košické Oľšany settlement group that I highlighted as a key point at the beginning of the research: is there a so-called outer settlement of these “fortified” settlements, and if so, what is the relation between them? So far we did not find a site from which any new observations could be added to the answers for this question. But let’s not get impatient! Literature: Budinský-Krička 1976b - V. Budinský-Krička: Sídlisko z prelomu eneolitu a doby bronzovej v Rozhanovciach a Košických Olšanoch. AVANS v roku 1975, 1976, 64-65. Budinský-Krička 1977 - V. Budinský-Krička: Nálezy z prieskumu na východnom Slovensku. AVANS v roku 1976, 1977, 65-81. Gašaj 1983 - D. Gašaj: Výsledky záchranného výskumu opevnenej osady otomanskej kultúry v Rozhanovciach. Archeologické Rozhledy 35, 1983, 130-137. Gašaj 2002a - D. Gašaj: Fortified settlement at Rozhanovce. In: Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem - Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno-Warszawa 2002, 35-37. Novotná 1995 – M. Novotná: Befestigte Siedlungen der Otomani-Kultur in der Slowakei. In: Settlement patterns between the Alps and the Black see 5th to 2th milennium B.C. Verona-Lazice 1992, Sezione Scienze dell uomo No. 4, 1995, 141-145.   [post_title] => Archaeological sites of the Košice Basin 3: Rozhanovce, Plebanské Flur II (Hôrka) [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => english-kassai-medence-lelohelyei-3-rozhanovce-plebanske-flur-ii-horka [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-02-06 15:43:42 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-02-06 15:43:42 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1408 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_title_ml] => [:hu]Kassai medence lelőhelyei 3: Rozhanovce, Plebanské Flur II (Hôrka)[:en]Archaeological sites of the Košice Basin 3: Rozhanovce, Plebanské Flur II (Hôrka)[:] [post_title_langs] => Array ( [hu] => 1 [en] => 1 ) ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1366 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-12-10 19:06:46 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-12-10 19:06:46 [post_content] => The compilation of archaeological sites in Košice is one of the lower priority tasks, given that a topographic volume has already been made for the Košice–okolie District (Lamiová-Schmiedlová/Mirrošayová 1991), however it can still be full of surprises. One of the most well-known sites in Bronze Age literature is the fortified settlement of Košice-Barca/Kassa-Bárca. Barca used to be a separate village, but by now it became a part of Košice. The name of the archaeological site: Begányi (Begahner)-Mühle/malom, or Nad Begányijo mlynom in Slovak. The entire area of the Bronze Age settlement is now completely built in with family houses. The former settlement is unrecognisable on the surface both in terms of spatial form and microreliefs. I mention this because there is a major recess in line of the former Bronze Age ditch at Szihalom, which is well noticeable even on the paved road network. The Barca site can be found on the southern bank of the Myslavký stream. The surface of its plateau, rising 12 metres above the stream, was fortified on the western and southern sides with a ditch and walls. The northern and eastern sides were bordered by the line of the natural embankment. In 1936, J. Teplý, former owner of the area conducted excavations here. Ferenc Tompa also excavated the site in 1941, but a systematic excavation on the entirety of the area only occurred between 1951 and 1954, under the lead of F. Prošek, L. Hájek and J. Kabát (Kabát 1955; Hájek 1953; 1954; 1957; 1959; 1961).  The documentation of Tompa’s excavation was destroyed but László Varga, having seen the document in 1942, wrote a short summary of its results and also created a house reconstruction (Vargha 1955). J Pástor also performed excavations here in 1949.       The area was inhabited not only in the Bronze Age. The order of the layers is the following: Middle Ages La Tène Period Layers I-II.: Bronze Age Layer III.: Certain publications describe it as a levelled clay layer that serves as the foundation for the Bronze Age settlement (Bader 1998, 67), others describe it as a grey clay layer and evaluate it as part of the Otomani settlement based on its spiralled knob and textile decorated ceramics. In a recent monograph from P. Šteiner (2009) it was valued as a levelling layer. Layer IV/1: Baden Culture Layer IV/2?: Mixed Bükk and Tiszapolgár type materials IV/1 Bükk-Culture Mesolithic Palaeolithic features sunk in subsoil Layer II. has to be divided to two sub-phases based on statigraphic observations. This is the first fortified phase of the settlement. The fortification is wood-dirt construction, followed by a ditch on the outside. The exterior of the fortification was covered by walls daubed with clay. The fortification was 4 metres thick at the base and 2.85 metre tall. In an earlier phase there was a pathway paved with rocks, located on the inner side of the fortification, with houses adjusting to its route. Houses in the southern and northern areas had two rooms, with single room houses between them. This rock-paved route was not in use in the more recent layer. Three room houses were built at the southern wall, in lieu of the two-room houses and four new buildings facing east-west were also constructed. After a burned house horizon the settlement was rebuilt, this is what we refer to as Layer I. The previous ditch outside of the wall was buried and wider 4.50 metre high wall was built, further heightened by a palisade. The newer, 10 metre wide ditch was dug 7 metres outwards of it. The new wall was built not only on the old ditch, but also on the foundation of the old houses and it also lacked an inner wooden construction. Layer I. was 90 cm thick and divided into 3 sublayers; it had no trace of any regularly made road network. Traces of buildings are indicated by stone construction and postholes, without any noticeable clay floor. According to Točik, two-story houses could have been present in the settlement this period. The uppermost layer was dated by its Bodrogszerdahely type ceramics, based on that it can be placed in the latest, Koszider phase of the Füzesabony culture. Outside of the fortified area a so-called “Vorburg” or outer settlement part existed, defined by it pits. The size of the fortified area was 50x50 m. The only ground plan in literature for a long time was the one published by J. Kabát (Kabát 1955, obr. 259). In his 1994 article, Točik separates the houses found on the Kabát ground plan by phases, creating the two sub-phases of Layer II., the description above matches this.         Based on that, the ground plan (Fig.3) published in the catalogue Między a Mykenami a Baltykiem (Gancarski 2002) also pictures things erroneously by mixing the elements of certain phases.           The 2009 work of P. Šteiner shows a detailed picture on ground plan development: — Located 700 metres south of the Bronze Age Barca settlement, we know about additional Füzesabony culture graves within the settlement of Barca from the areas Košice-Barca – Kastiel. Topographic Vol. no.: 1/7. — Kosice-Barca, Čkalovova ul.1. Two Bronze Age ceramic sherds came to light here while laying down the electric line. Based on oral information from D. Gašaj, this area is also a burial site. Topographic Vol. no.: 1/3. — Remains hinting at the presence of a settlement were found at the site Kosice-Barca, Mezdi Svetlou a cestou na letisko. Vol. no.: 1/9. The real surprise for me was the 2001 newscast of L. Kaminská reporting on a new Füzesabony culture settlement located on the plateau of the northern bank of the Myslavský stream, in the Táborisko parcel. During the emergency excavation before the construction of a Cassovia shopping centre, 41 Otomani settlement features came to light, one of which, according to the digger, being the work pit used for creating handcrafted items. The assemblage of the excavation is currently getting prepared for publication. Based on L. Kaminská’s gracious recount, the area made available for them had its humus layer removed. However at the edge of the surface, where less of the soil was cleared, L. Kaminská documented large, burnt spots of daub via photographs, which can be evaluated as remains of surface houses. This means that not only pits were present on the Táborisko plateau, but it was also a settlement with houses similar to those found at Barca in terms of age. Today the entirety of the plateau is built in with shops and parking areas. Füzesabony culture finds came to light here during the excavation of other areas as well. No signs of a ditch or other fortifications were found throughout the excavation. However based on the typology of the finds, there had to be a period where both settlements were standing. The Táborisko plateau is higher than the one in Barca, the two sites are clearly visible from each other. According to L. Kaminská, there is a spring at the Táborisko plateau that still flows today and it is led to the valley underground. Therefore this plateau was just as ideal of a place to settle as the one facing it, and perhaps even offering more comfort due to its southern exposure. This image of double settlements is brand new in relation to what we had known previously, I cannot recall other examples from elsewhere yet. Since both areas are completely covered, we do not have the opportunity to conduct further research and answer any questions that may arise. Therefore we cannot clearly evaluate the two settlements as cluster types (Duffy 2014, 203-206). We do not know whether the groups living in them were a single community or defined themselves as separate groups. If the latter was the case, was there any kind of dominant or subordinate relation between them? We marked the locations of the Cassovia shopping centre and the fortified settlement of Barca on the print below. Their altitude relations are clearly visible. A recess can be seen in front of the shopping centre on a relief, at the edge of the embankment. It seems obvious to consider this as a Bronze Age ditch, the other side of which the excavation led by L. Kaminská was performed, meaning that the pit area and the inner, ditch-surrounded area were both destroyed by then. This however, is only an educated guess without any evidence to support it, and it is unlikely that it will ever receive any.        We know of two additional Füzesabony culture sites in the vicinity of the two settlements’ area. — In the cemetery of Kosice, Nizné Kapustníky, J. Pástor uncovered 163 burials from the Košťany group and 17 Otomani culture burials (Pástor 1969a; 1969b, 1970). — In 1976 at Kosice, Napájadlo, finds from the Koszider phase of the Füzesabony culture came to light from the layer of a profile (Čaplovič-Gašaj-Olexa 1978, 63-64). All known sites from the inner city of Košice have been built in by now, which regrettably makes the clarification of their relations to each other impossible. Their topographic relations however define a small circle which was intensively inhabited during the Bronze Age. Due to this, in the case of sites from the same age – something that I currently cannot precisely evaluate – we can assign a relatively tight living space for the Bronze Age with one or perhaps more independent communities. Given the small area, I prefer to view their data as multifunctional living spaces for the same cohesive community, but this is an admittedly subjective take on my part. Irodalom: Bader 1998 - T. Bader: Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken Otomani/Füzesabony-Komplex. Überblick und Fragestellung. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 80, 1998, 43-108. Čaplovič/Gašaj/Olexa 1978 - D. Čaplovič / D. Gašaj / L. Olexa: Archeologické prieskumy na stavbách socializmu na východnom Slovensku. AVANS v roku 1977, 1978, 62-70. Duffy 2014 - Paul R. Duffy Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe: Assessing Cultural Developments in Eastern Hungary. Archaeolingua Alapítvány, Budapest, 2014  Gancarski 2002 – J. Gancarski (ed.): Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem - Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno-Warszawa 2002, Hájek 1953 - L. Hájek: Vzácny nález z doby bronzové v Barci u Košic. Archeologické Rozhledy 5, 1953, 319-322. Hájek 1954 - L. Hájek: Zlatý poklad v Barci u Košic. Archeologické Rozhledy 6, 1954, 584-587. Hájek 1957 - L. Hájek: Hlinĕné lidské plastiky z doby bronzové V Barci u Košic. Tonplastiken  menschlicher Figuren aus der Bronzezeit in Barca und Košice. Slovenská Arcaeológia 5, 1957, 323-338. Hájek 1959 - L. Hájek: Kostĕná industrie otomanské kultury z Barce. Knochenindustrie der Otomani-Kultur in Barca. Slovenská Arcaeológia 7, 1959, 285-300. Hájek 1961 - Hájek, L.: Zur relativen Chronologie des Äneolithikums und der Bronzezeit in der Ostslowakei. In: Komission für das Äneolithikum und die ältere Bronzezeit. Nitra 1958. Bratislava 1961, 59-76. Kabát 1955 - J. Kabát: Opevnění otomanské osady v Barci. Archeologické Rozhledy 7, 1955, 594-617, 742-746. Kaminská 2001 - Ľ. Kaminská: Záchranné výskumy v Košiciach. AVANS v roku 2000, 2001, 96-97. Lamiová-Schmiedlová/Mirrošayová 1991 - M. Lamiová-Schmiedlová / E. Mirrošayová: Archeologická topografia - Košice. Košice 1991. Šteiner 2009 - P. Šteiner: Keramický inventár otomansko-füzesabonyského kultúrneho komplexu vo svetle nálezov z Barce I. Nitra 2009. Pástor 1969a - J. Pástor: Košické pohrebisko. Košice 1969. Pástor 1969b - J. Pástor: Príspevok k pohrebnému rítu na pohrebisku v Košiciach. Historica Carpatica 1, 1969, 167-200. Pástor 1970 - J. Pástor: Výskum Východoslovenského múzea v rokoch 1965-66. Nové Obzory 12, 1970, 211-259. Točik 1994 - A Točik: Poznámky k problematike opevneného sídliska Otomanskej kultúry v Barci pri Košiciach. – Bemerkungen zur Problematik der befestigten Siedlung der Otomai-kultur in Barca bei Košice. Studijné Zvesti AUSAV 30 (1994) 59-65. Vargha 1955 – Vargha L.: A barcai bronzkori lakóház. Bronzezeitliches Wohnhaus von Barca Archaeológiai Értesítő 82 (1955) 48-56.   [post_title] => Sites in the Košice Basin 2: Košice-Barca, Košice-Táborisko and all around it [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => kassai-medence-lelohelyei-2-kosice-barca-es-kosice-taborisko-es-ami-korulottuk-van [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-01-28 15:38:07 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-01-28 15:38:07 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1366 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_title_ml] => [:hu]Kassai medence lelőhelyei 2: Košice-Bárca és Košice-Táborisko és ami körülöttük van[:en]Sites in the Košice Basin 2: Košice-Barca, Košice-Táborisko and all around it[:] [post_title_langs] => Array ( [hu] => 1 [en] => 1 ) ) [3] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1340 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-12-05 19:13:40 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-12-05 19:13:40 [post_content] => If there is something that can get confused, it is the order of Bronze Age sites found at the settlement Valaliky/Kassamindszent, southeast of Košice, and at the (now integrated) settlements Geča/Hernádgecse and Čaňa/Hernádcsány further down south of it (current, Slovak name first, followed by Hungarian after the slash). The material culture (or archaeological culture, in the classic sense) known in Hungarian literature as Füzesabony culture is referred to as Otomani culture in Slovak literature. In the post I shall be using dual terminology. There are multiple reasons behind this confusion: – The Hungarian Kassamindszent was called Všechsvätych in Slovak until 1961. However in 1961 they united four former settlements: Bernatovce/Bernátfalva; Buzice/Búzafalva, Všechsvätých/Kassamindszent and Košťany/Csontosfalva, which were henceforth named Valaliky/Kassamindszent. – This complex settlement also integrated Geča/Hernádgecse to the south of it, as well as another southern settlement, Čaňa/Hernádcsány. Although there are signs to differentiate them, it is an entirely contiguous populated area. – Site researcher Jan Pástor published the same site at different places, often multiple in the same essay, which makes things more difficult but still manageable overall. – Pástor marks the sites located at Buzice/Búzafalva (northern part of Valaliky/Kassamindszent today) and at the edges of Valaliky-Geča/Kassamindszent-Hernádgecse, however those were only published by Darius Gašaj in 1986, rendering the search for complete data in Pástor's essays with map annexes futile. – The larger cemetery located at the borders of Valaliky/Kassamindszent and Geča/Hernádgecse, mentioned as point 4 in the table below, has a total of 5 different citations in literature, and only by comparing the Slovak texts can one find out that they are all referring to the same site.

	settlement	parcel name/exact location	cemetery/settlement	literature	topi no.	period
1,	Valaliky-Buzice	Záhrada J. Sviatku, dom. c. 13	5 graves	Gašaj 1986	79/9	Otomani/ Füzesabony
2,	Valaliky-Vsechsvätych,	Farské zeme	54 graves	Pástor 1962b, Pástor 1978	79/14	Košťany
3,	Valaliky-Kostany	„u Krizá”	18 graves	Pástor 1962a; 1962b	79/10	Košťany
4a,	a, Valaliky-Košťany	1957	2 graves	Gašaj 1986		Otomani/ Füzesabony
4b	Valaliky-Vsechsvätych	Zahrada S. Drotára, dom c. III/102 — 1963-68	4 graves	unpublished, mentioned by Gašaj 1986, 192	79/15
4c	Valaliky-Košťany	—1979	1 grave	Gašaj 1986		Otomani/ Füzesabony
4d	Valaliky-Geča	dom čislo 1 –1977	1 grave – 1 jug from V. Varga	Budinský-Krička 1978	28/1	Otomani/ Füzesabony
4e	Valaliky-Košťany? – Geča	IV-74, at the house of J. Sajka		Mentioned by Gašaj 1986, 192
5,	Valaliky-Vsechsvätych	na dvore miestnej školy/ az iskola udvarán	settlement	Béreš-Lamiová-Schmiedlová-Olexa 1995, 34		Otomani/ Füzesabony
6,	Čana	Hegyecske	162 graves	Pástor 1976, Pástor 1978	22/2	Košťany

1, 5 graves came to light during the construction of J. Sviatka’s house (number 13), which were rescued by J. Pástor in 1957.    2, J. Pástor excavated 54 graves between 1961-62. 3, J. Pástor’s excavation, 1960. 4, Based on Gašaj’s 1986 description, the graves published in the essay (4a and 4c) can be found on the lots of two family houses at the edge of Valaliky/Kassamindszent and Geča/Hernádgecse, near the Kassa-Hernádcsány road. The graves excavated here are part of a larger cemetery. The first graves were rescued by J. Pástor in 1957 (4a). It was also J. Pástor who excavated additional graves on the parcel of S. Drotára between 1963 and 1968 (4b), however we lack further information on them. The 1979 grave (4c) was found in the garden of a house, its assemblage was handed over by B. Kudrnáčová to the East Slovak Museum. In 1977, Budinský-Krička sourced a beaker from another grave in the area of Geča/Hernádgecse (4d). Gašaj J. mentions the house of J. Sajka (number IV-74) where finds came to light during its construction (4e). The topography volume of Košice only cites the Budinský-Krička site, despite the fact that it was published 5 years after Gašaj’s publication. By comparing the data it is undecided whether areas 4d and 4e are identical or in fact represent two separate lots. Perhaps it is irrelevant, given the possibility that a far greater cemetery is getting disturbed constantly with these construction works. The identification of the lots could be important when it comes to estimating the size of the cemetery. Gašaj also mentioned this when he wrote that, based on the data, the cemetery may stretch even to the middle of Geča/Hernádgecse. The material of the two graves publicated by Gašaj:                                                                            Mug from the publication of Budinský-Krička:  5, A ceramic hinting at a Füzesabony/Otomani culture settlement came to light on the local schoolyard. After a brief report, the site is in the same parcel as one of the Valaliky/Kassamindszenti cemeteries (either 2 or 3), but it is from a much later period. 6, J. Pástor’s excavation, 1974. Therefore J. Pástor published early Bronze Age burials, whereas the Otomani graves were summarized by D. Gašaj. The schoolyard, published as the settlement pit, is situated roughly halfway between the two Otomani/Füzesabony burials. The next step should be site identification, and the collection of hopefully more precise settlement data. Was that all clear?   Bibliography: Béreš/Lamiová-Schmiedlová/Olexa 1995 - J. Béreš / M. Lamiová-Schmiedlová / L. Olexa: Prieskumy v okresoch Košice-mesto a Košice-vidiek. AVANS v roku 1993, 1995, 33-35. Budinský-Krička 1978 - V. Budinský-Krička: Archeologické prieskumy na východnom Slovensku. AVANS v roku 1977, 1978, 39-56. Gašaj 1986 - D. Gašaj: Hrobové nálezy otomanskej kultúry vo Valalikoch. Historica Carpatica 17, 1986, 191-202 Pástor 1962a - J. Pástor: Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej v Košťanoch. Študijné zvesti AÚ SAV 9, 1962, 63-80. Pástor 1962a -J. Pástor: Pohrebiská u počiatkov doby bronzovej na východnom Slovensku. Nové Obzory 4, 1962b, 37–51. Pástor 1976 - J. Pástor: Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej v Čani. Historica Carpatica 7, 1976, 225-266. Pástor 1978 - J. Pástor: Čaňa a Valaliky - pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzovej. Košice 1978. [post_title] => Sites in the Košice Basin 1: Valaliky-Vsechsvätych/Kassamindszent [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => kassai-medence-lelohelyei-1-valaliky-vsechsvatych-kassamindszent-es-minden-amit-ki-lehet-deriteni-rola [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-01-28 15:23:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-01-28 15:23:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1340 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_title_ml] => [:hu]Kassai medence lelőhelyei 1: Valaliky-Vsechsvätych/Kassamindszent és minden amit ki lehet deríteni róla[:en]Sites in the Košice Basin 1: Valaliky-Vsechsvätych/Kassamindszent [:] [post_title_langs] => Array ( [hu] => 1 [en] => 1 ) ) [4] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1176 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-11-15 18:30:43 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-11-15 18:30:43 [post_content] => A Miskolci Egyetem főépületének aulájában nyílt kiállítás a Régészeti tanszék tanásatásának leleteiből. A kiállítás egyrészt be kívánta mutatni a bölcsészkar épületébe ritkán betévedőknek az ottani munka egy szeletét, másrészt az egyetemi nyílt nap egyik standjaként is funkcionált, harmadrészt a végzős BA-s régészhallgatók régészeti múzeológia vizsgafeladata is volt. A restautálatlan és többnyire még mostalan anyagból jobbára kisméretű tárgyakat és töredékeket tudtunk a vitrinekbe tenni, így a figyelemfelkeltés eszköze egy lerobbant hűtőszekrény volt, melynek oldalára mint a bevásárlólisták, emlékeztetők és néhány emlékfénykép voltak kitéve a fontosabb információk. A kiállításról az egyetemi újság is közölt cikket, ezt láthatjuk alább. (kattints a következő mondatra) Régészeti kiállítás - MEgazin novemberi szám A készítés képei a galériában vannak. [ngg_images source="galleries" container_ids="11" display_type="photocrati-nextgen_basic_thumbnails" override_thumbnail_settings="0" thumbnail_width="120" thumbnail_height="90" thumbnail_crop="1" images_per_page="20" number_of_columns="0" ajax_pagination="0" show_all_in_lightbox="0" use_imagebrowser_effect="0" show_slideshow_link="0" slideshow_link_text="[Show slideshow]" order_by="sortorder" order_direction="ASC" returns="included" maximum_entity_count="500"] [post_title] => Kiállítás a Miskolci Egyetemen a borsodivánkai ásatás anyagából [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => kiallitas-a-miskolci-egyetemen-a-borsodivankai-asatas-anyagabol [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-01-07 18:53:49 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-01-07 18:53:49 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1176 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [5] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1332 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-10-20 18:28:48 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-10-20 18:28:48 [post_content] => Folynak az M30-as autópálya Miskolc-Kassa közötti szakaszához kapcsolódó próbafeltárások a Hernád völgyében. A tervezett pálya átmegy a Kalicz Nándortól ismert Méra-Földvár (Kalicz 1968, 117) lelőhelyen. Kalicz Nándor a helyszínen a hatvani leletanyag mellett füzesabonyit is gyűjtött. De nemcsak a bronzkoriaknak tetszik a lelőhely, a pályamérnökség pihenőt tervez ide, vagyis a bronzkori település teljes területe feltárásra kerül az elkövetkező időszakban. Nem csoda, ha megnézzük a napfelkeltét erről a helyről! A próbafeltárás során több korszak leletanyag előkerült e területről. A megelőző műszeres kutatás pedig egy körárokkal övezett területet mutatott ki, ami nem meglepő a korszak ismeretében. A körárok vonala meglepő módon nem a terepadottságokhoz igazodik, ennek okát talán a teljes felületű feltárás majd megmondja. Ez alkalommal egy a napokban itt előkerült érdekes leletről szeretnék röviden beszámolni. Október 18-án az S28-as gödörből egy érdekes mintájú és formájú bögre alsó töredéke került elő. A forma és a minta jól illik a nagyrévi kultúra körébe, mely a hatvani kultúra déli szomszédja volt a korai bronzkor utolsó szakaszában. Így nem meglepő az edény itteni felbukkanása. Az edény oldalán körbefutó bekarcolt mintakincs szintén nem idegen a nagyrévi kultúrától. A bekarcolt minták nagy része jelentéssel bíró képi elem, megfejtésükre, értelmezésükre már számos kísérlet történt (Schreiber 1984, Keszi 2015, Vicze 2009). Sok edényen csak különálló motívumokat találunk, a fenti publikációk egy része pedig a teljes eseménysorokat elmesélő jel-csoportokra koncentrál. Az itt bemutatott edényen két motívum fut körbe. A teljesen lapos alj felett egy ún. futókutya vagy meanderminta fut körbe. Felette pedig bekarcolt svasztikamotívumok láthatók egy speciális visszafelé hajló + karral. A svasztika általános motívum, legtöbbször napszimbólumként értelmezik. Tudományos megalapozottság nélkül első ránézésre az edény alján a víz, felette pedig az égbolt a nappal látható. Ha lenézünk Méra-Orkhegyről a Hernád völgytalpába ezt a két elemet látták a bronzkorban és fogjuk látni az autópálya pihenőjéből is. Tudom, hogy a magyarázat erőltetett, hiszen az importedényekről azt feltételezzük, hogy saját területükön készültek és legtöbbször csomagolóanyagként érkeztek a megtalálás helyére. De ennek az edénynek az alapos elemzése valószínűleg beírja magát egyszer a bronzkori szakirodalomba. És, hogy hogyan jönnek ide az orkok? Hiszen ők kimondottan tartózkodtak a napfénytől! Szóval van itt még megfejtenivaló!         Irodalom: Kalicz Nándor: Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordostungarns. Bp. 1968 Keszi Tamás: Pont, pont, vesszőcske – Hova lett a fejecske? Magyar Régészet 2015 tél Schreiber Rózsa : Szimbólikus ábrázolások korabronzkori edényeken. — Symbolische Darstellungen an frühbronzezeitlichen Gefässen. Arch. Ért. 111, (1984) 3-28. Vicze, Magdolna: Nagyrév symbolism revisited: Three decorated vessels from Százhalombatta and Dunaújváros. Tisicum. A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve XIX (2009), 309–318, Fig. 3 [post_title] => Méra-Orkhegy. Gondoltad volna, hogy nálunk is léteztek? [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => mera-orkhegy-gondoltad-volna-hogy-nalunk-is-leteztek [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-01-17 19:12:24 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-01-17 19:12:24 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1332 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [6] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1329 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-09-07 20:26:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-09-07 20:26:28 [post_content] => I am proudly to say and share with my followers that we stepped on a next level in the research of the Füzesabony culture. From September 2017 I received a scholarship from the Slovak Republic as a member of The Institute of Archaeology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. The main goal of this project is the localisation of Füzesabony/OFK settlements in Slovakia, as well as their topographic and non-invasive researches, furthermore the establishment of a whole new database system. The gathering of information already begun in 2015 in the framework of a Humboldt scholarship, however back than in most cases the exact geographical location of the arcaeological sites couldn’t be determined due to the lack of consistent publication data without further fieldwork. The projects is a great example of an international community program on a cross-border archaeological culture where cooperation and fluent data sharing where key to the success. As a scientist – like everyone else –I have preconception, an opening thesis on the researched archaeological sites. I hope – and some of the literature seems to support my concept – that the dense settlement system in South-Borsod Plain and the Hernád valley region in Hungary will be also detected in Slovakia, and also that I might find some further information about the composite settelment system, which I observed by my own researches from the last couple of years. Here it shall stay the text of my competition: Title of the research Project: Bronze Age Settlement System of the Otomani-Füzesabony Ceramic Style across borders. A comparative study of Bronze Age societies in the Hernád Valley and beyond Keywords: Bronze Age, Otomani-Füzesabony Ceramic Style, Settlement system, social history, distance connections Research proposal Motivation and previous works Since the early 2000s my research interest is the Bronze Age of the Hernád Valley, Upper Tisa Region, Borsod Plain and the foothill zone of the Bükk Mountains, the distribution area of the so-called Otomani-Füzesabony Culture or Ceramic Style (OFK henceforth). This Bronze Age ceramic style and the communities using it inhabited a vast area from Little Poland to the Körös Valley in Hungary. Polish, Slovakian, Hungarian and Romanian colleges are involved in the research of this material culture. Researchers of these four nations are reliant upon each other when it comes to this matter. Hungarian and Romanian tell sites were examined first, but a lot of them is still unpublished. Most of the large Slovakian settlements were investigated in the middle third of the 20^th century, and they are well known in the literature. Recently, Polish sites are now in the focus of the interest, but we don’t have a comprehensive/interstate work about this period. This will be a common project for researchers from Central and East-Europe. I started my work with publishing the material of an OFK site in Ároktő-Dongóhalom, a tell settlement near the Tisa River (P. Fischl 2006) and collecting data about the Hungarian sites from this period in a GIS database  (P. Fischl 2008). In 2008–2009 I have been awarded a Humboldt research fellowship in Heidelberg with the title: „Die Beziehung der Siedlungsstruktur und der gesellschaftlichen Einordnung in der Früh- und Mittelbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens (RBA0–A2)”. From 2012, I’m one of the leader researchers of the BORBAS (Borsod Plain Bronze Age Settlements) Project, carried out in cooperation with the University in Miskolc, the Ottó Herman Museum of Miskolc and the University of Köln (Fischl-Kienlin 2013; Fischl et al 2014; Fischl–Kienlin–Tugya 2015; Fischl-Kielin 2015). The aim of this project is to explore the inner structure of these Bronze Age sites. In micro-level, to establish the location and the structure of households, to establish if there are settlement parts with specialised function, and to compare the architecture and activity patterns of the various parts of these sites. On the macro-level, an attempt is made to define the factors that determined the choice of site location and to understand the spatial organisation of settlement in environmental, economic and social terms. Between 2013 and 2014 I examined the same topic (Settlement structure, use of space and society in the Bronze Age (Northeast Hungary)) with Szentágothai János Scholarship of ‘National Excellence Program’ at Hungary (www.bronzkor.hu). Once again in 2015, I was awarded with a 3 months fellowship provided by Humboldt Foundation. Within the framework of this, I have been working on a database of the Bronze Age settlements of Otomani/Füzesabony Ceramic Style outside Hungary, creating a new model for the better understanding of the connection between the ceramic style and the society that used it, and the articulated settlement system of this period with long distance connections. I would like continue this research process through my application for the National Scholarship Programme of the Slovak Republic. After my master’s degree in archaeology (1994), in 2002 I obtained degrees in geoinformatics, and in 2008 in geoarchaeology too. These qualifications ensure that I have the professional background necessary to reach the goals set out by the tender. Aim and questions of current research My planned research is the continuation of the work I carried out so far – namely investigating the same questions about the Bronze Age communities, its connection, inner structure, daily routine, subsistence strategies. This is the micro-level of planned research. In my research period in Slovakia I would like to localize the sites mentioned in the international and Slovakian literature, and to integrate them into a database on the basis of common criteria. I would also like to examine the location of the sites in the surrounding landscape and the connections between them and other settlements as part of the mid-range level of the research plan. The best known excavated Slovakian settlements from this Period (Košice-Barca, Spišský Štvrtok, Rozhanovce, Nižná Myšľa) give us good starting point to find answers, make new models and create better connection between Bronze Age sites within the OFK territory. Then I would like take the dates into a wider geographic scene, into the OFK settlement network. This will be the macro-level of my research. The start of the research involves processing the already published data of Slovakian Bronze Age settlements. In addition to the aforementioned known and significant excavations, dense settlement networks can also be found within the valley of the river Hernád, reaching into the Spišský region (Szepesség) as well as alongside the river valleys of the Eastern Slovak Lowland; however we have very little information about the rest of it. Based on the comparative database created following topographic identification, surveying and non-invasive research of the sites, we seek answers for the following questions: Is there a settlement system consisted of sites with two or more layers within the examined period and area? Are there settlements/communities with higher status and other ones with lower? What size is the catchment area of each settlement? Do all of them have regular inner structure or just the defensive ones? Can we really use a concept of “proto urban states” or not? How can we value the long trade connections of these settlement/communities? And what is the role of the ceramic style within this system? Data will be compared to the Hungarian and Polish analogies and of course with the really good Bronze Age research results from the western part of Slovakia. In this research period I would like to make mostly field work and come to know the archaeological material of the sites in local museums. I planned a non-invasive research package which was used at Hungarian sites also with good results (Fischl-Kienlin-Tugya 2015). Although the currently planned research is based on field and museum research work, my goal is to examine the fundamental archaeological meaning of OFK with the use of the database created. What else ties this broad geographic region beyond their shared ceramic forms and motifs? Is there an element in their settlement structure, the forming of their foundations or in their rites that we can pursue in the cognitive base structure of these former communities? Can a network be recorded between distant communities using the same material culture? Are the signs hinting at their society’s inner structure identical within the entirety of their area of spreading, or can we define smaller regions through geographical position, resource areas and distant trade relations which had different social and societal backgrounds? If so, what is the force behind the appearance of a shared material culture in areas otherwise distant from each other? In addition to recording conventional archaeological data, map visualisation and the related GIS processing are one of the fundamental elements of this research.   Along with the analyses available through the aid of GIS (Thissen polygons, XTENT analysis, least cost path network analysis), the goal is to have a fundamentally postprocessual, cognitive archaeological approach and modelling, where the material culture and more specifically the structural analysis of settlements represent the starting point. Therefore the two main aspects of the work are the creation of a database that is available in published form by the end of the project, and theoretical modelling method which, aside from outlining the already possible paths, is an experiment to create a new type of interpretation helping to understand Bronze Age communities. These two subtasks have to be comprehensible both separately and as a whole. However it is the most important to have plenty of discussion and make a lot of scientific connections, in order to get familiar with the way of thinking of Slovakian and other international researchers. I would like organize an international round table conference to create a common scientific language and mindset about OFK. We also have to include current Bronze Age researches from other regions into this process. I believe that the knowledge of Slovakian at an elementary level is essential to the success of this project. Therefore it is my aim to learn the language not only to better understand archaeological literature, but also to make communication easier during both fieldwork and with colleagues Future: In addition to the publication of the database for professional audiences, the goal is to create an international exhibition scenario encompassing the entire region to present the results of the research. The planned exhibition should be presentable within the entirety of the OFK region. Presenting Bronze Age networks, beyond the traditional informative outset of exhibitions, would also facilitate the creation of a modern research network. Building on the results of research funded by scholarship, the plan is to produce a scenario that has the quality to win further tenders as well as an international outlook. The first and most important step of the research planned is the recording of fundamental data, using the same protocol. Based on the thusly made database, future European projects researches sharing the same thought that forms during research. Methods Visiting the Bronze Age settlement sites known from literature (based on my earlier database) and database of museums. Studying immediate surroundings of the fortified sites to locate new sites or outer settlement parts. Use of non-invasive research elements: Registering the exact position, measurement, extension, description of the inner structure Studying the ceramic material and if possible making a relative chronological classification Making aerial photography – in compliance of Slovakian law – for a better understanding of the inner structure GIS analysis of the mapped dates   [post_title] => National Scholarship Programme of the Slovak Republic [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => national-scholarship-programme-of-the-slovak-republic [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-01-28 15:54:19 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-01-28 15:54:19 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1329 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [7] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1171 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-07-10 20:44:57 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-10 20:44:57 [post_content] => [post_title] => Chronology of Bronze Age - couldn't be more complicated [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => bronzkori-kronologia-ennel-bonyolultabb-mar-nem-is-lehetne [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-02-05 16:46:54 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-02-05 16:46:54 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1171 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_title_ml] => [:hu]Bronzkori kronológia – ennél bonyolultabb már nem is lehetne[:en]Chronology of Bronze Age - couldn't be more complicated[:] [post_title_langs] => Array ( [hu] => 1 [en] => 1 ) ) [8] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1142 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-04-25 08:11:21 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-04-25 08:11:21 [post_content] => A vattai Testhalom geofizikai felmérése még sehol nem közölt, azonban a Civertán bt. kunhalmos fotósorozatában igen jó talajjeles fényképet találhatunk a lelőhelyről, melyen látszik a  megszokott szerkezet, a központi mag körül azonban a kerek árok vonalával némiképp egyezést mutatva egy négyszögletes struktúra is látható.         Ennek megfejtését egészen tegnapig nem találtuk, bár feltételezhető volt egy újkori jelenség, de adattal nem rendelkeztünk róla. A Mapire oldalán a katonai felmérések mellett egy 19. századi kataszteri térképeket egyesítő oldal egy 1869–1887-es dátumú térképállomány is lehívható. E két térképen a vattai bronzkori halom helyén egy szögletes struktúra van ábrázolva, az 1889-es térképen a vonalak felett árok felirattal. Az itt közölt kivágatok persze — hogy a négyszög látható legyen — nem bizonyítják a halommal való pontos egybeesést, de mindenki rákereshet neten, ha nekem nem hisz. A Mapire ugyanis bármikor alákapcsolja a térképei alá a Googleearth felvételeket és a térképek átlátszóvá tehetők, így a pontos hely azonnal látható.         Vagyis megoldódott a rejtély. Nem használtak a bronzkorban szögletes árkot, de a 19. században a kerek árok feltöltődött, de még a felszínen látszó mélyedésébe egy szögletes árkot ástak. A funkció még nem ismert, mivel a szomszédos hasonlóan négyzetes vonallal kerített tanyaudvarokhoz képest a mi négyzetünkben nincsenek épületek jelölve. Hála égnek!   [post_title] => Kör-kör-négyzet — mi van veled Vatta? [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => kor-kor-negyzet-mi-van-veled-vatta [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-04-25 08:13:34 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-04-25 08:13:34 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1142 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [9] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1132 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-03-29 12:54:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-03-29 12:54:28 [post_content] => Sosem titkoltuk, hogy a BORBAS projekt kiindulópontja Kalicz Nándor 1968-ben napvilágot látott monográfiája (Kalicz 1968). Az ott felsorolt lelőhelyek szisztematikus felkutatása, és vizsgálata eredményezte azt az adatbázist, amellyel ma a projekt rendelkezik. Négy lelőhelyünk van, mely nem ismert Kalicztól, ebből kettőre Hellebrandt Magdolna  Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Megye legkisebb szegleltét is bejáró, áldozatos tevékenysége hívta fel figyelmünket. Az egyik Emőd-Karola szőlők (Hellebrandt 1979; 2004), a másik Borsodivánka-Marhajárás (ez utóbbiról több korábbi bejegyzés is szól). Ide sorolhatjuk Gelej-Pincedombot is, mely a régi katalógusok (Szendrey 1883, 133) és a mi kutatásaink szerint is bronzkori települési halom, a ma benne található pincék azonban sokáig felismerhetetlenné tették ezt a jellegét. A végső bizonyíték beszerzése – egy földfalú pince belső oldalának kutatása — azonban ez esetben még hátravan. Továbbá Sajószöged-Aranyos halom tekinthető még új lelőhelynek a 68-as listához képest. Vannak olyan lelőhelyek ahol megváltozott a közigazgatási határ vagy eltérő a dűlőnév, így a mi projektünkben eltérő névvel szerepel a Kalicz lelőhely. Így Bőcs-Nagyhalom (Kalicz 1968, 116, Nr. 9) a hivatalos nevezéktan szerint ma már Hernádnémeti-Németi halom. Mezőcsát-Harangdomb lelőhelyének felkutatása több évünkbe került, Seres Nándor természetvédelmi őr nélkül nem is sikerült volna megtalálnunk. Azonban még így is van az 1968-as listában 4 lelőhely melynek helyét a mai napig nem sikerült azonosítani, legnagyobb igyekezetünk ellenére sem. Az egyik a Borsodharsányi (Kalicz 1968, 118–119, 38. számú lelőhely). Borsodharsány valójában Borsodgeszt és Harsány összevonása, így bármelyik mai település déli határában rejtőzhet a keresett bronzkori település. A Borsodgesztről ismert 2 aunjetitzi típusú csuklóvédő „madzsetta” (Koós 1971) azonban arra enged következtetni, hogy talán ebbe az irányba kellene tovább keresnünk. A másik 4 kérdéses település egy csokorban található a Sajó nyugati partja mentén. Kalicznál 23a: Szakáld-Temetőhalom, 24: Nagycsécs-Testhalom, 25: Muhi-Lapis (Bába)-halom és 26: Hejőbába-Magastető néven szerepelnek (lásd a kiemelt képet). Feltűnő mindazonáltal, hogy a szakáldi Testhalom, mely méretei miatt biztosan ismert volt a 60-as években is, nem szerepel a katalógusban. Elindult tehát a nyomozás, mely végső stádiumba 2017 márciusának utolsó előtti vasárnapján és a rá következő hétfőn jutott. Muhiról azt még elő kell vezetni, hogy a mai Muhi település 1928-ban kapta a nevét, addig Pogának hívták. Így a történeti leírások Muhija, a középkori Muhi mezőváros (Muhi puszta) határterületére vonatkozik, mely jelentősen nagyobb volt mint a mai Muhi település közigazgatási határa. Így a Muhi-Lapis-Bába halom nem egyértelműen Muhi település közelében keresendő. Kalicznál a 23-as lelőhely Szakáld-Nagylaposdűlő, ahonnan egy kis füles bögre került elő. Egyértelműen nem tell, már a nevéből adódóan sem. A 23a-ként hozzá fűzött Temetőhalom viszont ezek szerint már Kalicz gondolatmenetében is összetartozott vele. A lelőhelyek irodalmi adatainál Kalicz Thalloczy Lajosnak a Századok 1878-ban és Szendrei Jánosnak és az Archaeológiai Értesítő 1883-ban megjelent írásaira hivatkozik. A két forrás egymásnak és a térképi adatoknak ellentmondó adatai azonban eléggé megnehezítették a dolgunkat. Dr. Thalloczy Lajos a Századokban arról ad hírt, hogy a Muhi csata kutatásába fogott Magyar Történeti Társulat Hadtörténeti Bizottsága 1878 nyarán több szóba jöhető dombot is megásatott a Muhi csata terét és halottait keresvén. Ennek során Kandra Kabos a Lapisdombon ásott, mely ásatást később báró Nyári Jenő folytatta, és megállapították, hogy itt egy réteges őstelep található. Ez idő alatt báró Nyári Albert a Puszta-szakáldi határhoz közelebb fekvő temetődombon ásott. Az itt előkerült leletek a szihalmi és a felsődobszai leletekhez hasonlítanak. A leírás beszámol egy másik ásatásról is a Nagycsécs közelében levő Testhalomnak nevezett magasan fekvő fennsíkon, melyet a Sajó áradása mindjobban ki-ki mosott és ahol szintén őstelepet találtak. Az Archaeológiai Értesítő 1883-as számában Szendrei János a Kandra féle ásatás helyéül a Lapis vagy Bala halmot jelöli meg. Innen csak egy ugrás a Béla halom elnevezés, melyből található is egy Sajóörs és Sajószöged határainak déli találkozásánál. A térkép rögtön két dombot is Béla halomként jelöl, de terepi szemlénk során egyiken sem találtunk régészeti leletanyagot. Az 1883-as ArchÉrt viszont utal az 1881-es Archért lapjaira, továbbá a Miskolcz című újság 1878. évi 69. és az 1879 évi 63. számára. Az 1881-es Archaeológiai értesítő a Bala vagy Lapis halom földrajzi helyzetét a Csüllő dombhoz viszonyítja (sz.n. 1880, IV-V). A Csüllő domb jól azonosítható, a középkori Szakáld településsel, melyet késő Puszta-Szakáldként is említenek helye ismert a térképen is. A Lapis vagy Béla halom 1000 ölnyire fekszik az adat szerint északra a Csüllő dombtól. Ez alapján a Lapis vagy Bába-Bala halom a mai Testhalom lehet. Egy 1771-es Muhi és Csüllő praediumok határát jelző térképen (jelzet: S_11_-_No._55, cím: Mappa regio coronalium praediorum Mohi et Csöllő inclyto regio coronali dominio Dios-győr ..., szerző: Milecz, Emericus) a Kerengő ér mellett látható mai Testhalom neve Laposhalom. Ez az elnevezés imétlődik meg egy Szakáld határát mutató 1805-ös keletkezésű (jelzet: TK1927, cím: Mappa partem coronalis praedii Muhi, regio coronali dominio Diós Györ comitatuique Borsod ingremiati a Josepho Novák exarendatam, repraesentans, szerző:szerző: Stephanus Domby) térképen is. Mindezek alapján a Muhi-Lapis-Bába vagy Bala halmot a mai Szakáld-Testhalommal azonosíthatjuk. Vagyis Kalicz 1968-as elterjedési térképe (Kalicz 1968, 115, Abb. 4) 25-ös lelőhelypontja teljesen rossz helyen van. Ebben megerősít minket Wagner János (későbbi nevén Szendrey János) az ásatáshoz legközelebbi dátumú híradása a Miskolcz című újság (1878. év 69. szám) lapjain: E szerint Kandra Kabos 1878 augusztus 19-én a bizottság megérkezése előtt nekilátott a Lapishalom ásatásának, mely a Szakáld melletti Muhi pusztán a Kerengő nevű nádas tó partján fekszik, nevei pedig „Lapis” „Béla” vagy „Testhalom”. Ezt az ásatást 21-én báró Nyáry Jenő vezetése mellett folytatták. Ugyanebben az időben báró Nyáry Albert a Csüllő dombon őskori urnatemető tárt fel, melyet a közlemény szintén őstelepnek titulál. Ez esetben tehát az őstelep megnevezés az őskori lelőhely szinonímája, nem a településé. Mindezek után még Muhi középkori mezőváros ásatásáról ad hírt az újságcikk. A mai EOV térképlapon dűlőnévként megvan a Nagylaposdűlő a Testhalomtól, alias Lapos/Lapis halomtól délre. Mivel a 23 és 23a lelőhelyek térképileg összetartoznak és helyük a dűlő alapján a Testhalom környékével azonosítható, az a véleméynünk, hogy a Kalicz Nándornál 23a-ként szereplő Szakáld-Temetőhalom és a 25-ösként szereplő Muhi-Lapis-(Bába) halom egy azon lelőhelyre vonatkoznak és ez a mai nevén a szakáldi Testhalom.   Noha az első feltételezésünk az, volt, hogy a szakáldi Testhalom a 24-es Nagycsécs Testhalommal lesz azonos, a névegyezés miatt, illetve hogy a lelőhely a két település közigazgatási határán fekszik, ez a logika nem igazolódott be. A Kalicznál levő leírás alapján ezt a lelőhelyet keletebbre a Sajó árterének magaspartján kell keresnünk. Helye máig ismeretlen. Nagyobb szerencsénk volt a 26-os Hejőbába-Magastető lelőhellyel a vasárnapi bejárás során. A Szakáld és Hejőbába határán fekvő halom tényleg nagyon markáns, weithin sichtbar, mint Kalicznál is olvasható. Alakja alapján tipikus kurgán. Felszínén lucernásban nagy mennyiségű díszítetlen kerámia volt gyűjthető, őskornál pontosabb besorolásunk egyelőre nem lehetséges. Vagy megtelepedtek a kurgánon a temetkezés után, vagy a kurgán halmát egy korábbi település kultúrrétegéből hordták fel. Ami biztos, hogy nem bronzkori lelőhely. Vagyis kiesik a keresendő bronzkori települések listájából. A Magastető neve egyébként a különféle térképi jelzetek alapján Csehhalom vagy Hegyeshalom is lehet. Így aztán már csak 2 bronzkori telep bújócskázik velünk.   Irodalom: Kalicz Nándor: Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 1968. Koós Judit: Ritka bronzkori kardísz a Herman Ottó Múzeumban. — Ein seltenes bronzezeitliches Armband im Museum Herman Ottó in Miskolc. HOMÉ X, (1971)  431–437. Hellebrandt Magdolna: Emőd-Istvánmajor. In RACZKY Pál–KOVÁCS Tibor–ANDERS Alexandra (szerk.): Utak a múltba — Paths into the Past. Budapest. 1979, 62–65. Hellebrandt Magdolna: Halomsíros temető csontvázas sírjai Emőd-Istvánmajorból. Előzetes értékelés. — Körpergräber aus dem Hügelgräber – Friedhof von Emőd-Istvánmajor. MΩMΩΣ III. Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciaköte- te. Halottkultusz és temetkezés. Szombathely– Bozsok, 2002. október 7–9. Szombathely. 2004,185–205. Szendrey János: Borosdmegye őstelepei Archaeológia Értesítő. III (1883) 109–137. Thallóczy Lajos A Magyar történelmi társulat hadtörténelmi Bizottságának jelentése. Századok 1878, 85–89. sz.n. Jelentés az Országos Régészeti és Embertani Társulat üléseiről. Archaeológiai értesítő. I. (1881) (III–XV) Wagner János: Az m. történelmi társulat bizttsága megyénkben. Miskolcz 1878 augusztus 29, 69. szám [post_title] => Bújócskázó bronzkori lelőhelyek [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => bujocskazo-bronzkori-lelohelyek [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-03-29 13:01:22 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-03-29 13:01:22 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1132 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [10] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1127 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-02-05 18:03:08 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-02-05 18:03:08 [post_content] => 2016 szeptemberében indítottuk útnak – elsősorban beiskolázási céllal – azt a kirándulássorozatot, melynek keretében megyei régészeti lelőhelyeket keresünk fel. A túrák során a résztvevők megismerkedhetnek a lelőhely kutatástörténetével, a korszakkal melyben keletkezett és a régészet mesterfogásaival. Bízunk benne, hogy a kirándulások során a jelenlevők érdeklődését felkelthetjük a helytörténeti értékek, a régészet és a történelem iránt. Az őszi félévben több korszakba sorolható megyei lelőhely felkeresése mellett a résztvevők tanulhattak kőpattintást, segítettek egy középkori vár geodéziai felmérésében, jártunk közösen a múzeum raktárában és kiállításain. A téli időszakban szünetel a szombati "szakkör" de a tavaszi újraindítást követően a kirándulások időpontjai elérhetőek lesznek a Miskolci Egyetem, Történettudományi Intézetének honlapján és facebookoldalán, na meg a Bronzkóron is!   A kirándulásokról Kovács Olivér riportja az alábbi linken hallható:  http://muemlekem.hu/kozkincs-kereso/Aranykiallitas-Aranymonostor-epitenek-es-emlekeznek-Aquincumban-Miskolc:-lelohelysetak-217   [post_title] => Szombati régészeti barangolások Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Megyében. [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => szombati-regeszeti-barangolasok-borsod-abauj-zemplen-megyeben [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-02-05 18:03:08 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-02-05 18:03:08 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1127 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [11] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1011 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2016-12-15 15:07:39 [post_date_gmt] => 2016-12-15 15:07:39 [post_content] =>

2017 szeptemberétől az új felsőoktatási törvénynek megfelelően új alapszak indul a hazai felsőoktatásban: ez az ÖNÁLLÓ RÉGÉSZET alapszak. A szakot a Miskolci Egyetem is indítja nappali és levelező munkarendű képzésben. A Miskolci Egyetemen 3 szakterület választható az alapszak képzési rendjében: ősrégészet, archeometria és roncsolásmentes régészet. A két utóbbit párként lehet választani az ősrégészet mellé, mely a Miskoci Egyetem képzési rendjében kötelező jellegű. Az egyetem adottságainak megfelelően egy erős természettudományos képzést indítunk, melyben az egyetem 4 kara vesz részt oktatókkal, laborokkal, gyakorlati helyekkel. Újból megnyílik a lehetőség, hogy aki ezen a területen dolgozik, de nincs papírja róla, vagy csak érdeklődő, levelező képzésben szerezzen diplomát. A Herman Ottó Múzeummal és a Kölni Egyetemmel kialakított szoros együttműködés és közös projektek, a kiemelkedően magas gyakorlati képzést is biztosítják. Miskolcon végzett hallgatóink 8 hazai múzeumban és külföldön is dolgoznak.

Az egytemen folyó aktuális munkákról és a jövőre induló képzésről bővebben: http://miskolci-bolcsesz.blog.hu/2016/12/09/mozgasban_az_ostorteneti_es_regeszeti_tanszek https://www.facebook.com/MEBTKTTI/ [post_title] => Régészet BA képzés 2017 szeptembertől a Miskolci Egyetemen [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => regeszet-ba-kepzes-2017-szeptembertol-a-miskolci-egyetemen [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2016-12-29 15:34:51 [post_modified_gmt] => 2016-12-29 15:34:51 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1011 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [12] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1020 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2016-12-10 16:09:13 [post_date_gmt] => 2016-12-10 16:09:13 [post_content] => A tiszapalkonyai ásatást felkereste Kovács Olivér a Gazdasági Rádió riportere, a Közkincs-kereső és a műemlékem. hu szerkesztője. Már a nyáron szeretett volna riportot készíteni a bronzkori kutatásokról, most pedig ezt összekapcsoltuk az ásatások bemutatásával. A hideg szélben és a meleg autóban rögzített beszélgetéseket a következő oldalon lehet meghallgatni: http://www.muemlekem.hu/kozkincs-kereso/Palosok-emleke-Balatonszemesen-szkitak-es-hunok-a-Tisza-mellett-miert-fontos-a-bronzkor-MNM:-regeszeti-adatbazis-209     [post_title] => Kovács Olivér riportja Tiszapalkonyáról és a bronzkori kutatásokról [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => kovacs-oliver-riportja-tiszapalkonyarol-es-a-bronzkori-kutatasokrol [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-01-02 08:22:58 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-01-02 08:22:58 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1020 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [13] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1033 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2016-12-07 23:31:09 [post_date_gmt] => 2016-12-07 23:31:09 [post_content] => A nap sztárja a 95-ös sír! Borítótállal, egy fél fazékkal, kis edénnyel, 2 orsógombbal, sok-sok bronzzal, köztük egy csónakfibulával. A képek magukért beszélnek!                   [post_title] => És kibontottuk az összes behozott tiszapalkonyai sírt [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => es-kibontottuk-az-osszes-behozott-tiszapalkonyai-sirt [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2016-12-29 17:40:59 [post_modified_gmt] => 2016-12-29 17:40:59 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1033 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [14] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1030 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2016-12-06 20:19:26 [post_date_gmt] => 2016-12-06 20:19:26 [post_content] => A mai nap befejeztük a 83-as sír bontásást. Az urna aljában a hamvak között összerozsdásodott vastűket és kést találtunk. A 88-as sír bontásáról szintén videót készítettünk. Ebben az urnában bronzkarperecek mellett üvegpasztagyöngyöket és egy húrfibulát találtunk (lásd a kiemelt képet). A bontásban szinte mindenki részt vett, annak függvényében, hogy kinek nem volt éppen órája. Jó csapat vagyunk! [embed width=600]https://youtu.be/PT8ykbLAE3U[/embed] [post_title] => Tiszapalkonya 2. bontási nap [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => tiszapalkonya-2-bontasi-nap [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2016-12-29 17:29:08 [post_modified_gmt] => 2016-12-29 17:29:08 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1030 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) ) [post_count] => 15 [current_post] => -1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1418 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2017-12-20 17:43:06 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-12-20 17:43:06 [post_content] => A few sites in the Košice Basin have not been mentioned yet that I would like to briefly summarize now. I shall not discuss the sites Nižná Myšľa/Alsómislye, Várhegy, Konopiska, Alamenev and Pod zdanskym brehom, since we plan to conduct multiple surveys there during spring which I will report in due time. The first site, heading north from south, is Seňa/Abaújszina-Vyšný Ián. There was a rescue excavation at a multi-period site during the digging of a gas line at the terrace edge of the river Hornád’s right tributary, the Sokoliansky potok. Neolithic, early and middle Bronze Age finds and Roman Era remains came to light. Some of the six late Füzesabony culture graves came to light in superposition with Piliny culture pits (Horváthová 2011, finds see on the main picture). The location of the settlement where these burials belong to is so far unknown. We have two pieces of data from the area of Veľká Ida/Nagyida. During a 1951 field survey north of the village at Primkynec, Otomani, Iron Age and Middle-Ages assemblages were collected in a gravel pit (Hajek 1953, 321). Literature reports the site’s complete destruction in 1977 (Lamiová-Schmiedlová-Miroššayová 1991, 174). Gašaj-Olexa 1992, Karte 1 and accordingly, Jaeger-Olexa 2014, 163 mark the site as an open settlement. Šteiner considers the site located 6 kilometres from Barca as one of its satellite settlements. The assemblage found there is classified by Šteiner as part of the post-classical phase, but he does not exclude the possibility that the settlement might have even existed during the same time as layer 2 from Barca. Dominika Oravkinova brought my attention to a piece of unpublished data according to which Otomani finds also came to light north of the village, in the area between the castle and the Ida stream. It is questionable whether this area has any relations to Primkynec. One interesting fact is that a Hatvan, Piliny and Roman settlement was discovered at Veľká Ida/Nagyida- Zámocké tably. During the evaluation of the animal bone material from pit 1, Z. Miklíková refers to the piece of data 1750 BC C14. This C14 data in the given territory corresponds more to the Otomani period, as it fits with the RA2 period. We know Hatvan culture sites from the RA2 period, but only from areas west of the OFK where Hatvan culture survived up until the Tumulus period. Therefore based on literature alone, we can only consider the completely destroyed Primkynec site as part of the OFK period with certainty for now. However if it is 6 kilometres away from Barca, then based on observations at the Southern Borsod Plain, it is not a satellite but rather an individual settlement. Two additional sites are known from the edge of the settlement Sebastovce/Zsebes. Administratively, Sebastovce falls under Košice, so these sites should have already been presented along with the ones from Košice. During the excavation of an Avar-Slavic cemetery at Lapise, two OFK settlement features came to light (Budinský-Krička 1976, 68–69; Lamiová-Schmiedlová-Miroššayová 1991, 53 and additional literature). Even more OFK settlement features were found in the area of Kenderkert. (Lamiová-Schmiedlová-Miroššayová 1991, 52-53 and additional literature).   Bibliography:   Budinský-Krička 1976 - V. Budinský-Krička: Výskum slovansko-avarského pohrebiska a sídliska z mladšej doby bronzovej v Šebastovciach. AVANS v roku 1975, 1976, 67-69. Gašaj/Olexa 1992 - D. Gašaj / L. Olexa: Nižná Myšľa - ein bronzezeitliches Hanselszentrum in der Ostslowakei. Wuppertal 1992. Hájek 1953 - L. Hájek: Vzácny nález z doby bronzové v Barci u Košic. Archeologické Rozhledy 5, 1953, 319-322. Horváthová 2011 - E. Horváthová: Pohrebisko otomanskej kultúry v Seni. Študijné zvesti AÚ SAV 49, 2011, 115-141. Hreha/Olexa 2009 - R. Hreha/L. Olexa: Sídlisko z doby bronzovej a doby rímskej vo Veľkej Ide. AVANS 2007, 2009, 80, 81. Jaeger/Olexa 2014  - M. Jaeger/ L. Olexa: The metallurgists from Nižná Myšľa (okr. Košice-okolie/SK) A contribution to the discussion on the metallurgy in defensive settlements of the Otomani -Füzesabony culture. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 44, 2014, 163–176 Lamiová-Schmiedlová/Mirrošayová 1991 - M. Lamiová-Schmiedlová / E. Mirrošayová: Archeologická topografia - Košice. Košice 1991. Miklíkova 2011 - Z. Miklíková: Zvyšky zvierat z doby bronzovej a rímskej zo sídliska vo Veľkej Ide. AVANS 2008/2011, 186-189. Šteiner 2009 - P. Šteiner: Keramický inventár otomansko-füzesabonyského kultúrneho komplexu vo svetle nálezov z Barce I. Nitra 2009.   [post_title] => Archaeological sites of the Košice Basin 4: Sites that have been left out so far [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => a-kassai-medence-lelohelyi-4-ami-eddig-kimaradt [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-02-07 17:53:35 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-02-07 17:53:35 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://bronzkor.hu/?p=1418 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [post_title_ml] => [:hu]A kassai medence lelőhelyi 4: ami eddig kimaradt[:en]Archaeological sites of the Košice Basin 4: Sites that have been left out so far[:] [post_title_langs] => Array ( [hu] => 1 [en] => 1 ) ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 145 [max_num_pages] => 10 [max_num_comment_pages] => 0 [is_single] => [is_preview] => [is_page] => [is_archive] => [is_date] => [is_year] => [is_month] => [is_day] => [is_time] => [is_author] => [is_category] => [is_tag] => [is_tax] => [is_search] => [is_feed] => [is_comment_feed] => [is_trackback] => [is_home] => 1 [is_404] => [is_embed] => [is_paged] => 1 [is_admin] => [is_attachment] => [is_singular] => [is_robots] => [is_posts_page] => [is_post_type_archive] => [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => 9a9323085b66c9e34dab109c4af5ba0d [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => 1 [thumbnails_cached] => [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => query_vars_hash [1] => query_vars_changed ) [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => init_query_flags [1] => parse_tax_query ) [allow_query_attachment_by_filename:protected] => )