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
84 János Gábor Tarbay state was the result of recent damages. However, the breakage surface of some object, such as the sword blade (Cat. no. 1) cannot be interpreted as recent ones. In this case, a perfectly manufactured sword blade52 with no sign of inhomogeneity53 on its breakage surface, was broken into parts by bending, and only its tip was deposited in the hoard.54 Similar treatment of sword blades55 is not an isolated phenomenon in the Late Bronze Age,56 many examples can be mentioned also from the territory of Hungary.57 The morphology of the breakage surfaces of two sickles (Cat. nos. 14-15) can also be interpreted as prehistoric ones. However, the bending of the sickles’ blades (Cat. nos. 7, 13) are less evident, for instance the bending and breaking of the Cat. no. 7 specimen was recent. The most complex phenomenon is the combination of objects58 (Cat. nos. 4-5) which is the product of a complex chain of acts. In the case of the Cat. no. 4, the first step was the breakage of the socketed axe which’s broken body was later filled with three knives and a spearhead. (Two of these objects have already been fragments.) As a final act, the lower body part of the socketed axe fragment was hammered together to keep the objects tight together. The second object combination (Cat. no. 5) has also some interesting technological traits. In this case, a well-manufactured winged axe and a dagger were put together. Similarly to the Cat. no. 4 object combination, hammering was also part of this manipulation when the wings of the axe were hammered around the dagger’s blade. The most interesting aspect of these manipulations is that both consists of well-manufactured, in some cases, still useable tools and weapons. This type of manipulation is not unique, rather than part of a pan- European deposition phenomenon which can be traced back at least to the Copper Age.59 In sum, most objects were deposited in intact state. Only object combinations and traces of deliberate breakage could imply the possibility that extra manipulations were involved in the deposition process. 3.6. Time of deposition Determining the chronological position of a hoard by its individual elements is a crucial part of the analysis. In the case of the Márki Hill assemblage, it is fortunate that the number of atypical and unclassifiable objects (Cat. nos. 1, 4.3-5, 14-15) is low. Moreover, most of the objects are well-researched types which makes their typo-chronological analysis easier. The main objective of this analysis is to describe the chronological sequence of each object, and determine the relative chronological position of the hoard’s deposition. 3.6.1. Offensive weapons Among the offensive weapons the spearhead with pentagon-shaped blade (Cat. no. 3) has special typological and chronological characteristics. Its parallel finds are completely missing from the Carpathian Basin. Spearheads with roughly similar blade are known from territory of Austria (Rabenwand)60 and Greece (Psara),61 however the best parallels of this object can be found in the hoard from Podtcze62 and from Stobnica, a cemetery of the Lausitz culture.63 From chronological point of view, only the Podlqze hoard can provide further information on the dating of the spearhead type in question. According to Marek Gedl, the above mentioned hoard can be dated to the IV. Period which roughly correlates with the Central European Ha A2-Ha B1 periods.64 The latter is particularly interesting because this means that the Cat. no. 3 spearhead is one of the youngest artefact in the hoard. A well-researched type is the spearhead with 52 QUILLIEC 2007,406-407., Fig. 3. 53 QUILLIEC - PERNOT 2002, 99-100., Fig. 17; MOLLOY 2011, 69., 72-73. For porosity see: BORN - HANSEN 1991, Abb. 3; BESL et al. 2009, 54-55.; Abb. 13; MÖDLINGER 2011, 33., Abbildung 3. 54 QUILLIEC 2008, 70.; MOLLOY 2011, 69., 72-73. 55 NOVÁK - VÁCZI 2012, Fig. 4, Fig. 7. 56 BRADLEY 2005, 153-155. 57 KEMENCZEI 1988, Taf. 50. 452^153, 456M66; KEMENCZEI 1991, Taf. 64-72. 58 HANSEN, 1998,8-19. 59 HANSEN, 1998, 8-19., Abb. 5-11, Abb. 13; HANSEN 2012, 129.; DIETRICH 2014,475^178, Fig. 3; TARBAY 2014,208.; HANSEN 2016, 186. The most stunning Copper Age example can be found in the Szeged-Szillér hoard, see: PULSZKY 1881, I. tábla 1; PATAY 1984, 21., Taf. 68, 4. 60 WINDHOLZ-KONRAD 2012, Abb. 14. 61 LESHTAKOV 2015, Ta6. 21, 6. 62 GEDL 2008, 57., Taf. 17, 213. 63 GEDL 2008, 57, Taf. 17, 214. 64 GEDL 2008, 57.
