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
90 János Gábor Tarbay manipulations).180 Of course, practical explanations should not be exclude, these are the longer period of use and production of more traditional objects or the less precise relative chronological dating. The macro-and microscopic observations provided a very interesting results about the deposition patterns of the Márki Hill hoard. It worth considering that the fragmentation profile of the hoard was completely different from the general pattern of its region after the identification of recent damages.181 The results of the analysis suggest that only a few objects were broken (Cat. nos. 1, 4, 14-15) and from these some were parts of combined objects, which are also the remains of complex deposition manipulations.182 It should be noted that these breakages are not originating from regular use,183 their morphology suggests that they were broken deliberately in the Bronze Age.184 The latter can be seen in the case of the broken sword blade and in the case of the Cat. no. 4 socketed axe fragment. The interesting fact about the Márki Hill hoard, that except from the above examples, the majority of the objects were deposited in intact, reusable state without any trace of prehistoric destruction. By this hoard the serious damages cannot be associated with prehistoric violence185 but rather with the unprofessional excavation of the finder. Based on the results of this analysis, the possibility should not be excluded that the previously found hoards were also suffered the same recent damages and their current state are not reflecting their original depositional character. This possibility should be investigated in the future by further analyses. Besides the fragmentation of the hoard, the manufacturing traces provide a lot of information about the selected objects. Except from one specimen (Cat. no. 52), all of the deposited tools, weapons, jewellery were well-manufactured, finished products, most of them were still suitable for use. Their surfaces were smooth, the post-cast decorations were carried out very carefully, and the number of casting defects on the cast objects were low. In addition, clear traces of use (abrasion traces, notches, narrowing blades) were also observed. These are all supporting the idea that the objects in the hoard were not just finished products but they were actually used - sometimes intensively - before their final deposition. The least analysable deposition phenomenon was the positioning of the hoard which’s regular nature can only be supported by the objects’ mud imprints and by the statement of the finder. In sum, a very interesting picture can be drawn about the Márki Hill hoard. The objects from the assemblage represent different phases between the Ha A1 and Ha B1 periods. Almost all of them were finished products with different function (weapons, tools, jewellery). Regarding the results of the microscopic observations some of them were used before their deposition. Finally the majority of them were deposited in intact still usable state, only a few objects were manipulated or fragmentary. The final act of the deposition was the positioning of the artefacts which was most likely carried out in a regular way. Based on the above described information, the Márki Hill hoard shows highly structured regular deposition pattern which could refer to ritual activities. Our results made it necessary to carry out future comparative analysis on similar finds to characterize the deposition pattern of this micro region. Acknowledgements: Special thanks are due to Péter Straub, Gábor Ilon and Gábor V. Szabó for providing the opportunity of studying and evaluating the artefacts. The publication was supported by the OTKA K Research Fund grant No. 112427 and the National Cultural Fund of Hungary. I am grateful for Lilla Eva Horváth for the photography of the objects, and for Edit Ambrus for the drawings. 180 NEEDHAM 2001, 287-292., Fig. 8; GEIBLINGER 2002, 131., 134-136.; NEUMANN 2010, 238.; HANSEN 2016, 196-197. 181 HANSEN 1994,357. 182 HANSEN 1998, 8-19. 183 METZNER-NEBELS1CK 2012, 162. 184 GABILLOT- LAGARDE 2008, 59-60. 185 NEBELS1CK 1997; GORI 2012, 275-276.
