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 81 position of the other objects within the hoard. However some features of the context can be reconstructed from the mud prints on the artefacts (fig. 18). One of the phalerae has the imprint of a flange sickle on the front side (fig. 18, 8) and a fibula spiral (fig. 18, 6-7) on its reverse. In the case of almost every flange sickles (Cat. nos. 6, 8-9, 11-12), mud imprint of sickles were observed (fig. 18.1-5). It can be assumed that at least one of the phalerae was deposited in the middle layer of the hoard, under the sickles, which had been packed onto each other similarly to the hoards from Sluzin20 and Bullenheimer Berg F.21 5. Identification of manufacturing traces Individual elements of metal hoards can be characterized by their manufacturing techniques which help us to understand better their selection for deposition. The technological character of deposited objects can be various. In the Carpathian Basin, semifinished products, metalworking debris, unfinished and finished products and even defected objects are frequent elements of the hoards. These elements often appear together in hoards with mixed composition, but assemblages with technologically homogenous pattern are also known from this territory (e.g. scrap hoards22). It should be noted that some of these technological patterns are not necessarily related to the deposition practice,23 they rather reflect on regional and chronological trends. For identifying these technological traits a second macro- and microscopic examination was performed on the restored artefacts by a dnt Digi-Micro Mobile microscope camera. The main goal of this examination was the identification of manufacturing and usage traces on the cleaned surface of the objects. Technological and archaeometallurgical characterization of Late Bronze Age objects has a long history in Hungary.24 For technological observations many examples can be mentioned from the works of Amália Mozso- lics25 and Géza Szabó.26 However, this kind of examination is still very limited in the Carpathian Basin due to the lack of systematic experimental research. In our research area, only a very schematic technological characterization can be outlined. From the technological point of view, the weapons (sword, spearheads, dagger), the tools (socketed axes, winged axe, knives, flanged sickles), the phalerae and the different type of rings can be classified into the group of cast objects based on their characteristic surface traits. The post-casting treatment of these weapons and tools was very fine. All of them showed evenly polished surfaces and the casting seams of the objects were almost completely removed27 (fig. 20, 1). In addition, no traces of casting defects were observed on their surface. The only exception is the spearhead with pentagon-shaped blade, where along the narrow side of its socket, a slight mismatch defect28 was visible, but this was almost completely polished (fig. 19, 8). The most characteristic manufacturing traces can be observed on the flanged dagger (Cat. no. 3). Its rhomboid-sectioned blade was intensively hammeredto gain maximum hardness, (fig. 20, 6) hammer imprints were also found on its shoulders and hilt. Moreover, it was possible to document fine sharpening traces along its edges by microscope camera (fig. 20, 7). Similar hammer imprints were observed on the surface of the winged axe and the spearhead with pentagon-shaped blade29 (Cat. no. 3) (fig. 19, 7). Further sharpening traces were identified on the sword blade30(//g. 19, 5), spearheads (Cat. nos. 2-3, 4.2) (fig. 19, 6) and winged axe (fig. 21, 1). The Cat. no. 4 “combination of objects” also revealed interesting technological traits. Despite its minor casting defects such as misrun31 (fig. 20, 2), core shift (fig. 5, 4), amorphous rim (fig. 20, 3), clear traces of post-casting treatment was visible on the surface of the socketed axe. It can be assumed that the object was manufactured as a finished product before it was broken into two halves. The knives and the broken spearhead were not suitable for detailed technological examination. On their visible surfaces 20 SALAS-SMÍD 1999, Obr 6, 1-2. 21 HAGL2008, Taf. 2-3. 22 RUSU 1981; MOZSOLICS 1984; MOZSOUCS 1990, 9. 23FONTIJN 2012. 24 See MOZSOLICS 1984; CZAJLIK 2012; SZABÓ 2013, 12-25. 25 MOZSOLICS 1984. 26 SZABÓ 1993; SZABÓ 2013. 27 See QU1LLIEC 2007, Fig. 11. 28 MOZSOLICS 1984, 27., Taf. 14, 3; RAJKOLHE - KHAN 2014, 378-379. 29 See ANDERSON 2011, 601-602. 30 See MÖDLINGER 2011, Abb. 9; TARBAY 2015, Fig. 2. 31 MOZSOLICS 1984, 27.; BINGGELI 2011, 17., Fig. 10; SZABÓ 2013, 51.; RAJKOLHE - KHAN 2014, 378., Fig. 5.
