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
80 János Gábor Tarbay Since the finder did not recognize the historical importance of the finds, he cared less about their careful excavation. For instance, he thought that the fibula (Cat. no. 43) which he first pulled out from the ground was a modern bed spring. Knowing this finding circumstance, the main goal of my first macro- and microscopic examination was the documentation of recent damages and to discover any surface traces which can be associated with organic residues or the original positioning of the finds. From methodological point of view, the Márki Hill hoard proved to have been significant because it was one of the few assemblages analysed by microscope in unrestored state. It is an important method, as the morphology of recent damages is very similar to the prehistoric ones. In most cases, where the objects have already been restored, it is almost impossible to distinguish them from each other. Recent damages were identified on almost every object. These damage types (cracks, breakage, impact marks) can be distinguished from the prehistoric ones by the complete lack of abrasion, patina or corrosion. Recent breakages have sharp surfaces, and fragments with such character can often be easily reassembled.14 Different reasons can be mentioned that causes recent damages. Most impact marks, breakages and minor edge damages are the results of the finders’ improvised “excavation” with modern steel tools. For the latter, numerous examples can be mentioned from the Márki Hill hoard (fig. 19, 1-3). The bending and rasping of bronze objects are also common phenomena. Finders often make these damages just out of curiosity or determining the composition of the metal artefacts.15 Extreme recent damages can be related to the objects’ secondary usage.16 Besides recent damages related to the finder, taphonomic processes can also be blamed for the current condition of the objects. However, the latter was hard to analyse due to the lack of documented excavation. Only some fragments (Cat. nos 32, 41) from the middle of the track can be mentioned which’s secondary position was most likely the result of erosion. The identification of recent damages allowed me to assemble several artefacts. At the end of the examination, it was possible to conclude that the hoard had originally consisted of 52 objects instead of 69. Unfortunately no traces of wooden or textile residue17 were present on the surfaces of the finds. The most emblematic recent damage was identified on the Cat. no. 2 spearhead. As a results of a massive impact, the tip of this weapon was bent and also smaller cracks were formed in the vicinity of this damage (fig. 19, 1). Minor edge damages were observed on the Cat. no. 1 sword blade, on the Cat. no. 3 spearhead and on the flange-hilted knives (Cat. no. 4). Among the latter, the Cat. no. 4.3 flange-hilted knife should be emphasized because its hilt was bent by a powerful recent blow. Two of the flanged sickles (Cat. nos. 6-7) were assembled from several fragments (fig. 19, 2-3). In the case of the Cat. no. 7 sickle, the fragmentation was caused by recent impact damages. The bending and breaking of some tores (Cat. nos. 16-18, 23) and armrings (Cat. nos. 25, 31-32, 37, 41) were also recent. The A1 type passamenterie fibula (Cat. no. 43) is notable which was first noticed by the finder who tore it out from the ground. Similar recent damages were visible on the Blattbügelfibel (Cat. nos. 44, 47) and on a spiral fragment (Cat. no. 49). The breakage of one phalera (Cat. no. 51) was also recent. In sum, based on the results of the macro- and microscopic examination, these objects from the Márki Hill hoard has undergone several recent abuse and the original hoard could be considerably less fragmented. 4. Mud and Context Arranging objects in “micro-space” is one of the most interesting part of the archaeologically tangible traces of deposition.18 In the case of new finds from Hungary, we can observe some order in the objects’ placement and sometimes repetitive patterns in their positioning.19 Nevertheless, the overall ratio of the well-excavated hoards is still below the number of undocumented assemblages. The context of the Márki Hill hoard was no exception, only a few information supported the idea that the deposited objects have had regular positioning. According to the finder, the objects had been “tightly packed together” and the A1 type passamenterie fibula (Cat. no. 38) laid on top of the heap. Completely unknown, what was the exact 14 See TARBAY 2015, Fig. 2, 7, Fig. 11,2. 15 e.g. CSÓMA 1885, 10.; BRUNNER 1935, 42. 16 e.g. ZOLTAI 1927, 33.; MÉSZÁROS 1971-1972, XVI. tábla; KEMENCZEI 1991, Taf. 35, 145b. 17 MATTHEWS 2008. 18SOROCEANU 1995, 43-45., Abb. 11. 19 e.g. MÜLLER 2006; V. SZABÓ 2011; LAUERMANN - RAMMER 2013; SZATHMÁRI 2015, Abb. 2-3; V. SZABÓ 2016; TARBAY - HAVASI 2017 in press.
