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 Hoardfrom Oltáré Márki Hill

79

2.3. Stray finds from Nemeshetés (Zala County)

1. Spearhead (Hungarian National Museum, 89.1880.2) (Dating: Br D-Ha Bl): Spearhead with slightly flamed, ribbed blade and long socket. Two rivet holes visible along its socket. Length: 16.8 cm; Width across the blade: 2.5 mm; Diameter of the socket: 2.1 cm, Weight: 98 g (fig. 3A, I).

2. Winged axe (Hungarian National Museum,

89.1880.1) (Dating: Ha Al): A long, complete winged- axe with flat butt end. There are two wings which curve towards each other, but their ends do not abut. The interface of the axe is emphasized. The blade is slightly widens at the edge. Hammering traces were identified between the wings. Small notches can be observed on its edge. Length: 18.9 cm; Width across the wings: 4.2 cm; Width across the blade: 4.5 cm; Weight: 680 g (fig. 3A, 2).

2.4. Stray finds from Söjtör (Zala County)

1. Armring (Hungarian National Museum,

25.1941.1) (Dating: Ha A): A small twisted armring with rolled ends. Broken into two fragments. 4.5 cm x 4.6 cm; Inner diameter: 3.8 cm; Thickness: 0.4x0.4 cm; Weight: 9 g (fig 3B, 1).

2. Armring (Hungarian National Museum,

25.1941.1) (Dating: Ha A): An oval-sectioned, undecorated armring with tapering terminals. One of its terminal is broken. Total diameter: 5.5x4.4 cm; Inner diameter: 4.8x3.6 cm; Thickness: 0.3x0.4 cm; Weight: 12 g (fig3B,2).

3. Tores (Hungarian, National Museum, 25.1941.1) (Dating: Ha A): Fragment of a tores with twisted decoration. 8.7x2.3 cm; Thickness: 0.5x0.5 cm; Weight: 11 g (fig 3B, 3).

4. Bronze fragment (Hungarian National Museum,

25.1941.2) : Molten, amorphous bronze fragment. 2.3x2.1 cm; Thickness: 0.6x0.8 cm, 0.4x0.5 cm; Weight: 3 g (fig 3B, 4).

5. Bronze rod (Hungarian National Museum, 25.1941): Fragment of a broken, circular-sectioned bronze rod. Length: 2 cm; Thickness: 0.7x0.8 cm; Weight: 4 g (fig 3B, 5).

2.5. Stray finds from Zalaszentmihály (Zala County)

1. Pin (Hungarian National Museum, 56.24.2) (Dating: Br D-Ha Al): Decorated, blunt-headed pin. Length: 13.1 cm; Thickness: 0.4x0.4 cm, 0.2x0.2 cm; Weight: 5 g (fig. 3C, 1).

2. Axe (Hungarian National Museum, 56.24.1) (Dating: Uncertain): Fragment of an axe. Length: 6.4 cm; Width: 4.6 cm; Thickness: 1.1 cm; Weight: 176 g

(fig. 3C, 2).

3. Non-ritual Destruction: Identification of Recent Damages

The analysis of different breakage types plays a key role not just in the interpretation of a single hoard but also in the regional characterization of hoarding patterns, metal recycling, economic strategies, social practices and ritual activities. No wonder that research has paid special attention to the evaluation of this phenomenon.9 According to one of the four existing theoretical concepts,10 fragmentation is the result of deliberate prehistoric violence and manipulations11 which is quite a tempting explanation in relation to the hoarding practices. However, the remains of violent acts on deposited objects are not always the result of “ecstatic" sacrifices,12 some of them are very profane. These are the recent damages which’s identification was a less popular topic despite the fact that their presence strongly influence the results of hoard analysis, no matter which theoretical concept we prefer to follow. The Márki Hill hoard is a perfect case study for demonstrating this problem. It was found by a local resident, similarly to the majority of hoards from the territory of Hungary.13 At first glance, it seemed that the degree of fragmentation is significant in the assemblage. Therefore, in December 2014, a systematic surface analysis was performed by a Conrad type microscope camera (USB 9 9.0MP 200x) and high resolution photographs were taken on 69 unrestored artefacts to characterize their breakage types. As it later turned out, the fact that the analysis was carried out on unrestored artefacts was highly important to reconstruct their original condition.

9 See: SOMMERFELD 1994, 37-61.; NEBELSICK 1997; NEBELSICK 2000; BRADLEY 2005, 161-163.; JÄRLEA 2008, 84-89.; REZI 2011, 303-307.; MÖRTZ 2013, 55-59.; HANSEN 2016.

10 REZI 2011,303.

11 NEBELSICK 1997; NEBELSICK 2000.

12 NEBELSICK 2000, 170.

13 V. SZABÓ 2013,794-795.