POLISHED STONE TOOLS OF THE MIHÁLDY-COLLECTION, LACZKÓ DEZSŐ MUSEUM, VESZPRÉM (ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION)

Horváth Tünde

Budapest

My poster represents the archaeological investigation (mainly typological) of the polished stone tools of the Miháldy-collection that is kept in the Laczkó Dezső Museum, Veszprém. István Miháldy (1833-1901) the vicar of Bakonyszentlászló, excavated and collected the material in the Bakony mountain area (more precisely in the so-called Old-Bakony) from about 1867-1884. The appreciation of his activity came on in the archaeological literature of his time also (e.g. A.É. 1870., 1871.). After his death - by overcoming many difficulties - his collection laid the foundation of the Museum Association of Veszprém, the later so called Laczkó Dezső Museum (RÉCSEY 1903). I. Miháldy particularly preferred the finds which were made of stone to any other kinds of material. There were two of the five cabinets that contained only chipped and polished stone implements and it was Miháldy himself who systematised that artefacts. The objects of the collection are considered stray finds today, because their exact location is unknown and their age (we can just say that they belong to the Prehistoric Age) is determinable. Miháldy in his own inventory drew the artefacts in 1:1 scale, recorded the place of discovery (only with the place-name) and their geological (macroscopically) classification. Unfortunately the biggest part of his inventory was not transferred completely into the new register-books of the Museum, when the finds was re- inventoried in 1955. For this reason - with the exception of some characteristic examples - we have even less information now, than we had at the end of the 1800's. The re-identification of the artefacts would be impossible in most of the cases today.

I started my work with the Miháldy-collection for the wish of Judit Regenye, archaeologist of the Laczkó Dezső Museum, Veszprém in 1998 and with some other polished stone implements from the same area from the Laczkó Dezső Museum, collected at the end of the 19th century. The main aim of my research was to establish, - for the first time in Hungary - a descriptive- and determinative-system that can be summed up in forms of summary lists (tables, diagrams, functions) and can be applied to such a similar materials. The Miháldy-collection is the first researched collection with quantitative and qualitative characteristics, suitable for such an investigation. It is composed of as many objects as it is necessary for percentage calculation, it contains several typological forms, and is collected from one, contiguous territory. The finds are from more than 80 localities, 4 are not existing any more. From 51 of the more than 100 sites we have no any kind of archaeological information. 54 sites are known from the MRT (Hungarian Archaeological Topography) 2, 3, 4 volumes and we can get some further information from the Museum's own research. Among the excavated and known sites there are 18 Neolithic ones (10 Lengyeli Culture and 6 Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture), 12 from the Copper Age (9 Baden and 1 Balaton-Lasinja Culture), 3 from the Early Bronze Age (Kisapostag Culture), 10 from the Middle Bronze Age (Transdanubian Incrusted Pottery Culture), and 34 from the Late Bronze Age (Urnfield Culture) - Early Hallstatt Period. The sites investigated by field surveys or excavations, represent very different ages and cultures, as we can see.

The functional typological approach consisted of three different but coherent labour phases: 1: The raw material, 2: The form, and 3: The technological establishment simultaneous application. These are those view points, that are useful to describe and define the function of the stone 'axes'.

1: From geological points of view the determination of the raw material and location of its geological source is important, because with different research methods it is possible to locate the material's original source (quarries, opencast mines, surface collections), that can explain special exchange routes, goods. The geological source of the raw material is not obligatory connected to the archaeological site: it is possible that the inhabitants of a settlement collected the rocks themselves but it is also possible that "merchants" supported them. The material could be present in different elaboration phases: it could be in raw blocks, in half finished forms or their final forms. The best raw material is a rock, hard 4-5-6 on the Mohs-scale (like e.g. serpentinite, greenschist, phonolite, andesite, basalt). This kind of raw material was really used for making everyday working tools because it was easy to be shaped, not too hard and brittle, nevertheless hard-wearing, - in a relative sense - because these tools during these continues use, re-edging, re-forming step by step became smaller and smaller. (For example, the 7 hardness quartzite was not a good raw material.) Apart from the mentioned medium type hardness rocks, some very soft raw materials (calcareous, burned clay) or very nice looking specially patterned, coloured rocks (jade, nephrite) were utilised also. Objects made from these materials were never used as working tools but just for special purposes (rituals, exchange goods or values, ransom for fiancée, etc.). In the territory of our country we have the knowledge about some stone quarries, used for stone 'axe' productions: e.g. the greenschist-quarry at Felsőcsatár and the serpentinite-quarry at Bernstein (Alpine Foreland), the phonolite-quarry at Szamárhegy (Mecsek), the gabbro-quarry at Szarvaskő (Bükk), etc. Unfortunately neither of those places were excavated, so we have no information about the mining methods, and the exact dating of the quarries.

2: The stone-tools showing different characteristics in their form were used for different purposes in the real life. Investigating the different forms of the 'axes' we have to take into consideration their volume, weight, the angles of the blade-body, the form of the polished working edge, the way of the handle, the angles of the lateral faces. Considering these variables we can define tools as axes, adzes, cleaving axes, felling axes, hatchets, cleavers, broad axes, boat-gouge axes, little hatchets, plaines, chisels, left and right-handed tools, etc. These types can be seen in the poster.

3: The technological establishment of the blades are the rough forming, finer forming-retouching, hammering, perforating, polishing. While the surface was polished the working edge of the tool was executed also. After the blade was finished the manufact was handled. One master could carry out all the working phases of one artefact, but it was possible also, that different people in different places executed one or more labour-phases. The rough forming was established by sawing or picking. In the Hungarian Prehistory sawing rarely was used (it can be seen in 3 examples of the Miháldy-collection). Sawing could be applied for saving up some raw materials. There were two different methods for drilling a hole. It could be done by massive or hollow drive-tubes, that we can recognise from the shape of the handle-hole or from the shape of the drill-core. Polishing the body of the 'axe' determined the way of handling. In Hungary polishing the whole surface as long as the structure of the stone itself enabled it was general. In a few cases and in certain territories (e.g. in Transylvania, Switzerland) the lateral-edges were not polished to keep the items suitable for the setting. The handling completed the forming of an 'axe' and gave its final function. The stone implement could take the shape of an axe, that means that the blade was parallel to the handle, or an adze, that is the blade was perpendicular to the handle. Unfortunately in our country 'axe' handles have not been found yet, but the situation is not hopeless, because in a well, bog or cave it could be still well preserved. The picture of the finds connected to the handling is not better neither. We have more possibility to find some organic materials or abutting joints made off bone or antler for the fixing of the stone implements to the handle (e.g. the decorated antler setting from the Neolithic settlement Tiszavasvári-Keresztfal (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977, Kat. Nr. 457.)). We can identify the different types of handling with the help of the different forms and directions of the blade's microwears. Secondary utility: the totally used up examples could be re-utilised as reamers, hammer-handles, anvils, whetstones. The working edges of the tools could be re-formed, re-fined several times, till the dimensions of the manufacts rendered it possible.

According to all these view points, the 366 polished stone 'axes' of the Miháldy-collection showed tendencies as 94,2% of the total examples were stone 'axes'. The stone 'axes' could be grouped into perforated and not perforated groups. The majority of them, 88%, were not perforated ones, probably, because this type was more suitable than the other one for practical purposes. It was possible also that the perforated 'axes' were items not used as everyday tools, but they were used just for special occasions, but anyhow, these types were not long life objects, because more than the half of them were broken into two at the handle-holes. Both groups (perforated and not perforated ones) could be divided into two other subgroups on the base of their function: there were a sharp or nibbed and a blunt, hammer-edge form and object. At both groups the dominating ones were the sharp working-edge pieces (perhaps these were more useful). Looking at the manufacts dimensions, most of them were medium or small size (used, or absolutely used up) ones. Between the groups and the subgroups we can identify more than eight different morphological varieties. These results can be seen in diagrams in the poster. The geological investigation of the objects has not been terminated yet, so we can not present the collection from this point of view, in this moment. We can not utilise our typology for chronological determination neither. Just in a few lucky case we can use these typological forms and just as terminus ante quem. (E.g. the copper pick-form stone 'axes' appear in the Bodrogkeresztúr-Hunyadi halom - Balaton-Lasinja - Furchenstich ceramic - Ludanice Copper Age Culture horizons in Hungary, but it does not mean that the stone types could not be used even later.) Those forms of 'axes' that were very practical ones, could be in use over thousands of years, even through all the Prehistory. The biggest part of these stone 'axes', on the base of the localities topographical data, belong to the BD-HA period, that means that the stone 'axes'supposed lifetime of the stone 'axes' was much longer than we had previously presumed.

References:

J. Antoni (1990): Neolitikus eszközkészítés és használat. Kand. Dissz. 1990.

K. Bíró - J. Regenye (1991): Prehistoric workshop and exploitation site at Szentgál-Tűzköveshegy. Acta Arch. Ac. Scient. Hung. (43) 1991., 337-375.

B. Bulla (1962): Magyarország természetföldrajza. Budapest, 1962.

T. Horváth - J. Antoni (1999): Őskori kőbaltáink tipológizálási lehetőségei. 1. rész: A forma. A Geoarchaeológiai ankéton elhangzott poszter-előadás, in press.

N. Kalicz - J. Makkay (1977): Die Linienbandkeramik in der Grossen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Stud. Arch. (VII) 1977., 171., Tiszavasvári-Keresztfal, Kat.-Nr. 457., Taf. 64/21.

I. Miháldy (1870, 1871): Jelentések. Archeológiai Értesítő 1870: 184-186., 1871.: 163-164.

I. Miháldy : Bakonyszentlászlói plébános kőeszköz-gyűjteményének leltárkönyvei. In.: D. Laczkó Museum

S. Mithay (1978): Miháldy István régészeti gyűjtőtevékenysége (1833-1901). Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve (XIII) 1978., 7-15.

MRT 2 (1969): Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája. A veszprémi járás.

MRT 3 (1970): Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája. A devecseri és a sümegi járás.

MRT 4. (1972): Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája. A pápai és a zirci járás.

P. Patay (1985): Kupferzeitliche Meissel, Beile und Axte in Ungarn. PBF. (IX. 15.) München, 1985.

V. Récsey (1903): Egy értékes régiséggyűjteményről a Bakonyban. Arch. Ért. (XXIII) 1903., 64-66.

F. Rómer (1876): Congrés International D'Anthroplogie et D'Archéologie Préhistoriques. Huitéme session a Budapest. 171-177.

F. Rómer (1971): A Bakony. Természetföldrajzi és régészeti vázlat.