Kaján Imre (szerk.): Zalai Múzeum 23. (Zalaegerszeg, 2017)
Tarbay János Gábor: Késő bronzkori depó Oltárc–Márki hegyről (Zala m.) Őskori manipulációk, szelektív és recens törések vizsgálata
The Late Bronze Age Hoard from Oltáré Márki Hill 89 mainly focused on the chronological position of the objects, and nowadays on the detailed topographical analyses of the assemblages.167 The analysis of type combinations and the general state of the deposited objects (morphology of fragmentation) is also a popular topic.168 In the present study, besides the typo- chronological evaluation, the deposited objects were analysed by a visual method which allowed us to give a general characterization of their manufacturing techniques, usage traces and manipulations.169 My main goal was to show the potentials and limitations of the applied analytical method in the case of a metal hoard analysis. The Márki Hill assemblage, is a multi-type, dry land hoard which was not deposited in a ‘natural place’170 but in a shallow pit of a hillfort settlement of the Urnfield period. In the vicinity of the find, several atypical ceramic fragments were found. In this case, possible future topographical surveys should focus on the hoard’s relation to the settlement. Was the assemblage deposited in special part of the settlement,171 or was it surrounded by houses or other domestic structures?172 It is an interesting fact that most of the hoards from Zala County can be associated with hillforts (List. 1), which is not a unique phenomenon. Similar situation can be witnessed in Transdanubia and its surroundings,173 in the territory of south and North-Eastern Hungary174 and also in other parts of Central Europe.175 Considering the typological composition of the Márki Hill hoard, it can be described as a hoard with “mixed composition” 176, consisting of weapons, tools, jewellery and a metal sheet raw material. Although, the character of its composition is similar to the general composition pattern of its region,177 some main components are missing (e.g. plano-convex ingots, metalworking debris, metalworking tools, defensive weapons, metal vessels, pendants, pins, razors etc.). Some supra-regional deposition pattern can also be seen in the Márki Hill hoard, these are the multiple deposition of phalerae, fibulae, rings, toques and sickles. Despite these general similarities, hoards with completely similar composition are unknown from the Carpathian Basin. Most objects from the analysed assemblage are supra-regional types which distribute over the entire territory of the Carpathian Basin during the Late Bronze Age. However, the majority of the parallels show a clear concentration on the territory of South Transdanubia and the southwestern Carpathian Basin, in which region close relation was emphasized in recent studies.178 The only exception is the spearhead with pentagon-shaped blade which can be associated with a statistically few specimens outside from the Carpathian Basin. Based on the chronological position of the parallels, most objects from the Márki Hill hoard can be dated to the Ha A1 period. It should be highlighted that the deposition of some objects can be seen in the Ha B1 period (e.g. phalerae). The chronological position of the spearhead with pentagon-shaped blade and some objects with longer period of deposition (annular ring with rhomboid-cross section, ring with tapering terminals) can argue for the younger deposition of the assemblage (Ha Bl). Based on the above described information, at first sight the idea is tempting, that the assemblage from the Márki Hill was a hoard containing objects from different periods which were collected for a long period of time or it was not a closed one and functioned as some sort of catching.179 Currently our knowledge about the temporality of the Carpathian deposition practice is limited. According to the widely accepted concept, the content of Late Bronze Age hoards were “hidden” together at one point in time. Especially in the case of hoards from settlements, where the place of hiding is obviously well known to everyone, can be an interesting scenario of a possible reversible hoard. I believe that the possibility should be taken into consideration that at least some part of the Late Bronze Age hoards could have been the result of several consecutive events and different activities and manipulations (recycling, replacing, post-depositional 167 NEUMANN 2010, 240-243. 168 HANSEN 2013, 373.; HANSEN 2012, 128-129.; BECKER 236-243.; REZI 2011; GORI 2014, 273. 169 FONTIJN 2002, 29., Table 3.2; JÄRLEA 2008, 67. 170 SCHAUER 1996; JÄRLEA 2008, 90-94., 103-108.; SOROCEANU 2012. 171 METZNER-NEBELSICK 2012, 157-158. 172 e.g. V. SZABÓ 2011a, 340-341. 173 e.g. KÁRPÁTI 1896; BÁND1 - FEKETE 1977-1978; MOZSOLICS 1985, 75.; MÜLLER 2006; TURK 2012. 174 e.g. MOZSOLICS 1963, 252.; MOZSOLICS 1985, 75.; V. SZABÓ 2011 a; V. SZABÓ 2011b; V. SZABÓ 2016. 175 SCHAUER 1996, 400-403.; JÄRLEA 2008, 98-99.; NEUMANN 2010, 242.; SALAS 2012. 176 JÄRLEA 2008, 78. 177 MOZSOLICS 1985, Taf. 276-277.; HANSEN 1996, 433., Abb. 1; VÁCZI 2014, 266-268., 1. kép. 178 TURK 1996, 99.; VÁCZI 2014. 179 BRADLEY 2005, 151.
