The Beginning of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia
Abstract
54
Full text
STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2, 54–72 The Beginning of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia Daniel Hlásek– Ondřej Chvojka ABSTRACT The paper discusses the development of settlements in the Early Bronze Age and at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in South Bohemia. Based on the typo ‑chronological analysis of the finds and radiocar‑ bon dating, we have identified four phases of development within this period.The innovation signalling the transition into the Bronze Age was taken on from the Danubian region, which is shown by the spatial development of the settlement. Nevertheless, the overall cultural nature of the artefacts is mixed, which is related to the strategic location of the region, undoubtedly with an important trade route leading through the region, connecting the metallurgical centres in the eastern Alps with the dynamically developing northern parts of the European continent. KEY WORDS South Bohemia; Early Bronze Age; beginning of Middle Bronze Age; chronology; radiocarbon dating. INTRODUCTION The settlement of South Bohemia at the beginning of the Bronze Age is also the beginning of acontinuous settlement of this region, essentially continuing until today. With previous, rather sporadic, evidence of aNeolithic and Aeneolithic population (cf., e.g., Beneš– Chvojka 2007), it can be assumed that the impulse for the colonisation of this territory came probably not just from environmental reasons, but especially social ones. It is assumed that due to its strategic location between important copper mines in the Alps and dynamically developing northern areas, South Bohemia played asignificant role in providing atransregional dis‑ tribution network. The basic theoretical concept of the South Bohemian group of the Early Bronze Age was established in the mid‑20th century (Hájek 1954), and since that time, despite the research at essential sites, it has been modified to aminimum extent (cf. Chvojka 2007). With the constantly growing evidence and new results of various analyses (including radio‑ carbon dating), it is desirable to summarise our knowledge of the beginning of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia. Respecting the conventional sorting of archaeological material and its similarity, it is necessary to pay attention here also to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. In this paper, we attempt to draft the artefactual, chronological, and spatial aspects of the initial phases of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia, which are essential for our understanding of the local historical processes. ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK The South Bohemian prehistoric ecumene was always clearly distinguished from the non‑ ‑settled territory, corresponding to the geomorphological characteristics of the region (Fig.1). The Šumava (Bohemian Forest) formed anatural border in the southwest, the Novohradské
55DANIEL HLÁSEK– ONDŘEJ CHVOJKA Hory (Nové Hrady Mountains) in the southeast and the Českomoravská Vrchovina (Bohemian‑ ‑Moravian Highlands) in the east. The northern boundary is determined by the rising Stře‑ dočeská Pahorkatina (Central Bohemian Hills). There are two distinctive geomorphological features – the České Budějovice Basin and the Třeboň Basin, the former having played an important role in the configuration of the Early Bronze Age settlement, which was concen‑ trated around its periphery. This area is also the most climatically favourable part of South Bohemia (the highest number of summer days, the highest average temperature, the lowest precipitation; Cháberaetal. 1985). The Vltava River is an important water ‑course, attracting settlements while also forming anatural north ‑south ‑oriented communication corridor. Oth‑ er water ‑courses of lower orders connected with the settlement network include the Malše, Lužnice, Otava, and Blanice Rivers (Pl. 3/1). Fig. 1: Location of South Bohemia. South Bohemia is also located in the centre of the moldanubic zone of the Bohemian Massif. Acid mineral types are dominant in the entire region. Local geest from graphitic paragneiss outcrops was used for adapting the surface of ceramic vessels already in the Early Bronze Age. There were also rich gold deposits, both primary and secondary. There are numerous finds of gold objects from the Early Bronze Age, however, there is still no direct evidence of gold exploitation. The soil quality is not on apar with that of the traditional settlement area in the northern part of Bohemia, soils of the black type (chernozem) characteristic of warmer areas are absent, while brown earth occurs only rarely. Strong soil acidity also hindered the preservation of osteological material and is likely to have had an impact on the preservation of pottery. The condition of the archaeological sources is also significantly affected by the subsequent use of the land. It was subject to quite intensive agricultural activity, though rel‑ atively large areas are still covered with forests (Cháberaetal. 1985). It is in the forest areas where sites from the Early Bronze Age with authentic relics are preserved in the terrain relief (hillfort fortifications, tumuli).
56 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 HISTORY OF RESEARCH The first finds from the beginning of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia were collected as early as in the second half of the 19th century. The eponymous hoard of Křtěnov axe hammers is an example of finds from this period (Richlý 1894). Already the first synthetic works re‑ lated the, still not numerous, finds from the Bronze Age to the trade connection of Central Bohemia with the Danubian region (Eisner 1922–1923, 13–26; Schránil 1921), not assuming permanent settlement. This opinion was contested based on the research of tumulus burial grounds (Dubský 1946). In the middle of the 20thcentury, Ladislav Hájek established aSouth Bohemian group of the Únětice culture, based on the inventory of all, the then known, finds. The group was defined primarily by burying under tumuli. The main economic activity of the population was believed to have consisted in trading with copper ore, with mutual contacts between the Únětice culture, the Straubing culture in Bavaria, and the Unterwölbling type in Austria. Hájek also expected gold washing to be asource for the richness of the Bohemian Únětice culture (Hájek 1954). The second half of the 20thcentury was marked by several major excavations. In the 1960s and 1970s, Josef Poláček studied the hilltop settlement of Mříč ‑Dívčí Kámen (preliminary monograph, Poláček 1966). Antonín Beneš excavated, for example, in Vrcovice ‑Dolní Lipice (Hláseketal. 2015a), in alowland stratified settlement in Písek ‑Řeřichova Cihelna, and in Hosty, the presumed location of atrading post with contacts with the Carpathian Basin and the northern areas (Beneš 1988; 1989; Břicháček 1991). The Danubian nature of the South Bohemian group led M. Bartelheim to exclude it from his complex treatment of the Bohemian Únětice culture (Bartelheim 1998). The relationship between South Bohemia and the cen‑ tral Danubian region was the topic of J. Havlice’sthesis (2000). His updated list of sites has become the basis for this paper. An important step was the comprehensive treatment of the metal hoards of the Únětice culture by Václav Moucha, which includes also numerous finds from South Bohemia (Moucha 2005). In recent years, the research of the Bronze Age has focused on studying new metal finds (most recently, Chvojka– Jiráň– Metlička 2017; Chvojkaetal. 2017). There is an increased interest also in hilltop settlements and hillforts (e.g., Parkman 2003; Havlice 2004; Chvojka– John 2006; 2009; Chvojka– John– Šálková 2008; Chvojkaetal. 2010; 2013; Hláseketal. 2015a; 2015b). Due to the absence of publications of larger studies, but also the present con‑ dition of the source base, the current state of knowledge concerning pottery is insufficient. Processing alarger pottery collection from the hillfort near Vrcovice, dated to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Hláseketal. 2015a), suggests the possibility of amore detailed periodisation of the beginning of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia. The outline is provided in this paper. THE SOURCES The sites from the beginning of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia can be divided into several components that may reflect the original purpose of the activity areas (i.e. traditional archae‑ ological elements, such as hillforts, settlements, burial sites, hoards) as well as those that can only be aconsequence of archaeological transformation while their original purpose is unclear (finds of pottery and isolated bronze or stone artefacts). To understand the development of theoretical research, it is useful to be aware of the development of the source base (Fig. 2).
57DANIEL HLÁSEK– ONDŘEJ CHVOJKA Fig. 2: The development of the source base. The histograms show the number of newly discovered components per decade. The phenomenon of hilltop settlements, some of them demonstrably fortified, is typical espe‑ cially for the later phases of the period. Their purpose is not entirely clear; usually, they were probably the seats of elites or central points that controlled the trade network. Yet, it is not securely supported by the inductive method. Their different purpose or internal hierarchies cannot be ruled out. Where the fortifications have been preserved, the enclosed area is small and does not exceed 1 ha. The fortifications were examples of asophisticated monumental architecture in the form of walls and ditches. These elements could be multiplied (Vrcovice, Opalice /?/, Hluboká nad Vltavou /?/). While in the middle of the 20 th century, only one hilltop settlement/hillfort was known (Vrcovice), the last published listing included as many as 30 (Hlásek 2015a, tab.37). However, this list should be critically reviewed, because some sites
58 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 were probably wrongly dated (Čichtice: Parkman 2004; Orlík nad Vltavou: Fröhlich– Eigner 2010), whereas others were newly discovered (Písecká Smoleč, Oslov) in the meantime. Settlements include sites with recorded settlement features, layers or surface collections, which offer alarge number of artefacts, apparently of aresidential nature. The best studied settlement is that of Hosty, in which even the ground plans of above ‑ground buildings were documented (Břicháček 1991), however, it is still waiting for an overall evaluation. Other studied settlements are usually composed of solitary features, not allowing specific interpre‑ tation, or sole layers saturated with finds (Chvojka 2010). Burials under tumuli are typical for burying of the Early Bronze Age in South Bohemia. There are many tumulus burial grounds with recorded activities from the Early Bronze Age, however, these sites were also used for burying in later phases. Furthermore, no tumulus burial ground has been studied in its entirety, thus, we cannot claim anything about the internal structure of the burial grounds (Militký 1998; Havlice 2001). The majority of the Early Bronze Age tumuli were studied before the middle of the 20th century, which corresponds to the insufficient information about the discovery circumstances; an exception can be found in Vodňany, studied at the end of the 20th century (Michálek 1996, obr.4). Recently, proof has started to appear that tumulus burials also existed in the northern half of Bohemia (Havlice 2001, 60–62; Danielisováetal. 2013, 78–82), thus, it is possible that the exclusivity of South Bohemia tumulus burials consists only in the more favourable conditions for the preservation of tumulus mounds in aforest landscape. There is no secure evidence of other than tumulus burials in South Bohemia. Aspecific type of Early Bronze Age components are features or layers under the later tumulus mounds, or dispersed finds, mostly of aresidential nature, directly in the tumulus body. These situations can perhaps be considered to be the original settlement components, overlaid by later funeral activities, still, there are anumber of examples of such sites (e.g., Dobešice, Křtěnov, Plav, Radošovice, Týn nad Vltavou; Beneš 1997; Krištuf– Rytíř 2009; Chvojka– Michálek– Zavřel 2011; Chvojka– Zavřel in print), thus, such situations cannot be coincidental, rather, they are aresult of systematic behaviour with an unclear purpose. Some sites include only pottery finds. These can also be whole vessels without known detailed discovery circumstances, but primarily there are fragments of pottery from surface collections. Such finds, given the susceptibility of the ceramic material to decomposition in adynamic environment, can be treated as the remnants of some of the already mentioned components, rather than isolated solitary losses. Hoards of metal objects are an important component, occurring throughout the entire studied period. They consist of both finished bronze objects and copper raw material. Since the onset of the wide use of metal detectors at the turn of the millennium, the source base has multiplied. The situation in the publications of hoards is currently satisfactory (Moucha 2005; Chvojka– Jiráň– Metlička 2017). The most numerous are isolated finds of metal objects, recently increasing due to the use of metal detectors. In some cases, these may be solitary lost objects, but at the same time, they can also be the remains of one of the already mentioned components. New finds recorded by archaeologists are continuously being published (Fröhlichetal. 2005; Fröhlich– Chvoj‑ ka– Jiřík 2010; Chvojka– Červenka 2008; Chvojka– Fröhlich 2013; Chvojkaetal. 2017). Asimilar provenance is likely in the case of isolated stone artefacts, only afew of which can be confidently assigned to the Early Bronze Age (e.g. saddle shaped hammer ‑axes; Fröhlich 1985). The solitary finds of stone arrowheads, often dated to awide time ‑span of the Aeneolithic to Early Bronze Age, allegedly belong to the beginning of the Bronze Age in South Bohemia.1 1 We would like to thank Dr.Alexander Binsteiner for consulting with us.
59DANIEL HLÁSEK– ONDŘEJ CHVOJKA CHRONOLOGY The first periodisations of the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe were made in the 1920s, dis‑ tinguishing two successive phases (Schránil 1921; Reinecke 1924). Subdivisions of the Czech Únětice culture were proposed based on the burial site at Polepy by Václav Moucha, identifying as many as six phases. He considered South Bohemia to be practically unpopulated during the earliest phases, with settlement beginning in what he defined as the ‘Classic phase’ of the culture (Moucha 1963, 50). Walter Ruckdeschel, in turn, breaks down Reinecke’schronology based on the graves of southern Bavaria (Ruckdeschel 1978). During that time, the issue of adetailed chronology of the South Bohemian Early Bronze Age was finally tackled. Antonín Beneš proposed adivision into two periods based partly on his own excavations. The earlier period is to be synchronised with the Classic phase of the Únětice culture of Central Bohemia, and with the Unterwölbling type and the Straubing culture in the Danubian area in Austria and Bavaria. The latest stage also based on his un‑ published research, is allegedly contemporary with the Maďarovce ‑Věteřov ‑Böheimkirchen groups (Beneš 1978, 348–350). Since the end of the 1980s, radiocarbon dates became available in the west, offering awhole new perspective on the absolute chronology of the entire period (Becker– Krause– Kromer 1989). Wolfgang David (2002) brought aslight modification to Ruckdeschel’sdivision. Stephan Möslein identified the phases of the Straubing culture; the pottery groups established on the grounds of settlement assemblages are especially valuable for the South Bohemian issue (Möslein 1998). Although at the turn of the millennium very detailed chronologies were al‑ ready available, Václav Moucha used Reinecke’soriginal 1924 scheme when working with the metal hoards from Bohemia (including South Bohemia) (Moucha 2005). Moucha’sscepticism towards adetailed chronology was partly validated by alarge new set of radiocarbon dates ob‑ tained from the graves in southern Germany (Stockhammeretal. 2015), on the one hand dis‑ proving to some extent the expected sequence of typological phases, while on the other hand revealing their partial concurrence (Br A1a, A1b, A2a). The authors of the research rejected the evolutionist view of the development of the Early Bronze Age and do not regard the A1 and A2 phases as chronological, but rather as regional phenomena. Another important finding for our region was the moving of the end of the Early Bronze Age further back to ca. 1700 BC (Stockhammeretal. 2015), which also corresponds to our finds. The aforementioned study calls into question the validity of the existing periodisations, which are used as the basis also for the South Bohemian material. However, we do not believe that it fully denies it, owing to the fact that only one type of artefact was used to determine the phases, namely pins, which could have aspecific purpose in its original live culture (cf. Schwarz 2016). Our chronological classification of the South Bohemian material culture, offered hereby, is based on the traditional typology and chronological systems of the neighbouring regions, validated by our radiocarbon dates. While the metal artefacts traditionally received signifi‑ cant attention, thus offering identification without major difficulties, the pottery represents amore difficult issue. Modest decoration and the low ‑profile variability of the upper parts of ceramic vessels especially hamper the analysis of the fragments of settlement pottery, which have the same characteristics throughout the entire Early Bronze Age up until the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. Four phases are identified with an expected chronological sequence. However, the life‑ ‑span of the individual artefacts could exceed the phase limits; therefore, the boundaries of the individual phases are not sharp and could blend together. The proposed absolute dating of each phase is only indicative. It is based on radiocarbon dates which are, however, distributed
60 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 unevenly. The majority of them come from the final B1 phase, with the presented absolute time frame of 1650–1500 BC.Its validity has also been tested using the Bayesian model (Fig. 3; on the method see Bronk Ramsey 2009), with the results being the most probable ones among the presented phases. In view of the presumed continuity of development and typological changes to artefacts, we expect the frames for each phase to be roughly equally long (ca. 150 years). This assumption has not yet been disproved by radiocarbon dates. Fig. 3: Bayesian modelling of the Br A2/B1–B1 overlap on the basis of all available radiocarbon dates.
61DANIEL HLÁSEK– ONDŘEJ CHVOJKA THE SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT PREVIOUS AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENT Based on the limited number of finds and the very nature of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic sites, the occupation of Southern Bohemia is not assumed to have been very intense in these periods. Even so, this view can be largely affected by the combination of asignificant archaeological transformation and of the state of the research. The image of the Neolithic population is mainly comprised of isolated finds of ground stone tools; there are several known settlements belong‑ ing to the Linear Pottery culture (Michálek et al. 2000; Zápotocká 2011; Vondrovskýetal. 2018). Despite the discovery of new settlements in recent times, the settlement pattern still cannot be quantitatively compared to the northern part of Bohemia. The situation is similar in the Aeneolithic period, with known hilltop sites from the Middle Aeneolithic, along with the polished stone industry (Michálek 1989; 1992; Fröhlich– Eigner 2010; Johnetal. 2012). The latest Aeneolithic radiocarbon date from these sites comes from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC (2580–2450 BC; Johnetal. 2012).2 Clear evidence of asettlement from the following Late Aeneolithic (Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures) and the oldest phases of the Early Bronze Age from South Bohemia is still lacking. BR A1/A2 (?–1950 BC) The first documented phase of colonisation, after the now apparent hiatus lasting roughly 500 years, is represented, above all, by the metal artefacts. The characteristic artefact of this period is apin with adisc ‑shaped head (Ruderkopfnadel), known from tumulus 1 in Hluboká nad Vltavou (Hájek 1954) and from hoards (Hrbov, Srnín: new, as yet unpublished finds). An exceptional site is Opalice– apromontory above the Vltava River which provided as many as four hoards along with isolated finds dated to this phase, including one example of the afore‑ mentioned pin type (Chvojka– Jiráň– Metlička 2017, 41–43). The earliest radiocarbon date of the South Bohemian Bronze Age comes from hoard No. 2 from Opalice, in which fibre was preserved inside abracelet: 2460–1970 BC (Chvojka– John– Šálková in prep.). The prom‑ ontory is divided by afortification of two ramparts and aditch of unknown dating (Chvoj‑ ka– John 2009), though comparison with other similar hillforts suggests its probable later date. Prominent artefacts of this phase include also decorated phalerae (Zierscheiben), known from the hoards (Kosov: Moucha 2005, tab.210; Hrbov), and as isolated finds (Hluboká nad Vltavou: Chvojka– Fröhlich 2013, fig. 3:1). This phase will certainly include also numerous isolated finds as well as hoards of ring ingots, that should survive also into the following phase. We include– with caution– only one settlement into this earliest phase (České Budějovice‑ ‑Čalounova Zahrada; Zavřel 1993, fig. 6B:9) based on pottery that bears an analogy to the earliest settlement assemblages of the Straubing culture (Möslein 1998, fig. 15). The recently published finds of pottery from the early phases of the Únětice culture from the tumulus near Maršov (Šálová– Chvojka– Menšík 2016) have rather unclear find circumstances, and, therefore, we have excluded them from our study. The few more certainly dated sites are strikingly concentrated in the southern part of the České Budějovice Basin, with aclose connection to the upper reaches of the Vltava River (Fig. 4: 1). 2 The calibration of radiocarbon dates for the entire paper was performed with the OxCal v.4.3 program, using the IntCal 13 calibration curve (Reimeretal. 2013). Calibrated ranges with the probability of 2sigma, i.e., 95.4%, are presented.
62 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Fig. 4: The development of the southern settled ecumene in the phases Br A1/A2 (1) and Br A2 (2). Only closely localised sites are displayed. Larger dots show exact dating within agiven phase, smaller dots represent lower certainty.
69DANIEL HLÁSEK– ONDŘEJ CHVOJKA Chvojka, O.– Michálek, J.– Zavřel, P.2011: Výzkum mohyl zdoby bronzové ahalštatské uRadošovic, okres České Budějovice [Die Erforschung des Hügelgräberfeldes der Bronze– und Hallstattzeit bei Radošovice, Kr. České Budějovice]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 24, 41–77. Chvojka, O.– Zavřel, P.2011: Sídliště ze starší doby bronzové vBýšově (k.ú. Knín, okr. České Budějovice) [Die Siedlung aus der älteren Bronzezeit in Býšov, Katastralgebiet Knín, Bez. České Budějovice]. Arche‑ ologie ve středních Čechách 15/1, 233–253. Chvojka, O.– Zavřel, P.in print: Alt bekannt, neu untersucht. Ergebnisse der modernen archäologischen Forschung von drei vorgeschichtlichen Grabhügeln bei Plav, Kr. České Budějovice. Fines transire 29, in print. Chvojkaetal. 2010 = Chvojka, O.– John, J.– Menšík, P.– Frána, J.– Křivánek, R.: Hradec uNuzic (okr. České Budějovice). Hradiště na soutoku Lužnice aŽidovy strouhy [Hradec bei Nuzice (Kr. České Budějovice). Der Burgwall an der Mündung des Baches Židova strouha in die Lužnice]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 23, 53–71. Chvojkaetal. 2013 = Chvojka, O.– John, J.– Janovský, M.– Michálek, J.: Pravěké osídlení hradiště uSkočic (okr. Strakonice) [Die vorgeschichtliche Besiedlung der Burgwalls bei Skočice (Kr. Strakonice)]. Arche‑ ologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 26, 25–76. Chvojkaetal. 2014 = Chvojka, O.– Fröhlich, J.– John, J.– Michálek, J.: Frühbronzezeitliche Kugelkopfnadeln mit durchlochtem Kopf aus Südböhmen. In: M. Bartelheim– J. Peška– J. Turek (eds.): From Copper to Bronze. Cultural and Social Transformations at the Turn of the 3rd/2nd Millennia B.C. in Central Europe. Beiträge zur Ur‑ und Frühgeschichtliche Mitteleuropas 74. Langenweissbach, 171–183. Chvojkaetal. 2017 = Chvojka, O.– Fröhlich, J.– John, J.– Jiřík, J.– Král, V.– Menšík, P.– Michálek, J.– Pták, M.: Ojedinělé nálezy kovových předmětů zdoby bronzové, dokumentované vjižních Čechách vletech 2013–2016 [In den Jahren 2013–2016 in Südböhmen dokumentierte Einzelfunde bronzezeitlicher Metall‑ artefakte]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 30, 97–157. Chvojkaetal. 2018 = Chvojka, O.– Menšík, P.– Houfková, P.– Šálková, T.: Kdepotům měděných žeber ze starší doby bronzové vsídlištním kontextu. Depot zKučeře (okr. Písek) pohledem archeologie aarcheo‑ botaniky [Ein Beitrag zur Problematik der Spangenbarrenhortfunde vom Ende der frühen Bronzezeit im Siedlungskontext]. Archeologické rozhledy 70, 195–238. Danielisováetal. 2013 = Danielisová, A.– Langová, M.– Kočár, P.– Kyselý, R.– Stránská, P.– Sůvová, Z.– Světlík, I. 2013: Mohyla únětické kultury zBrandýsa nad Labem jako doklad ojedinělých pohřebních praktik starší doby bronzové [The Únětice culture barrow in Brandýs nad Labem (Central Bohemia) as evidence of unique Early Bronze Age burial practices]. Archeologické rozhledy 65, 56–88. David, W. 1998: Bayern und Böhmen zwischen Ost und West während früher und mittlerer Bronzezeit. In: M. Chytráček– J. Michálek– K. Schmotz (eds.): Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West‑ und Südböhmen. 11. Treffen, 20. bis 23. Juni 2001 in Obernzell. Rahden, 62–93. David, W. 2008: Älterbronzezeitliche Depotfunde Ostbayerns im Lichte ihrer überregionalen Bedeutung. In: Vorträge des 26. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages. Rahden, 197–237. Dubský, B. 1946: Únětická kultura vjižních Čechách. Památky archeologické 42, 29–33. Eisner, J. 1922–1923: Jihočeské mohyly. Památky archeologické 33, 1–37, 193–231. Ernée, M. 2014: Eine vergessene Bernsteinstrasse? Bernstein und die klassische Aunjetitzer Kultur in Böh‑ men. In: P.L. Cellarosi– R. Chellini– F. Martini– A.C. Montanaro– L. Sarti (eds.): The Amber Roads. The ancient cultural and commercial communication between the peoples. Roma, 85–105. Fröhlich, J. 1985: Sedlovité sekeromlaty vjižních Čechách [Steinrillenäxte der älteren Bronzezeit in Süd‑ böhmen]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 2, 117–119. Fröhlich, J.– Chvojka, O.– Jiřík, J. 2010: Nové ojedinělé nálezy zdoby bronzové vjižních Čechách [Neue Einzelfunde der bronzezeitlichen Metallgegenstände in Südböhmen]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 23, 73–90.
70 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Fröhlich, J.– Eigner, J. 2010: Nově objevená eneolitická výšinná sídliště voblasti orlické přehrady. Příspěvek keneolitickému osídlení podél středního toku Vltavy [Newly discovered aeneolithic hilltop settlements in the area of the Orlík reservoir. Acontribution to the Aeneolithic settlement along the middle flow of the Vltava River]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 14, 29–49. Fröhlichetal. 2005 = Fröhlich, J.– Chvojka, O.– Jiřík, J.– Michálek, J.– Parkman, M.: Nové nálezy bronzových předmětů zdoby bronzové vjižních Čechách. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 18, 5–20. Fröhlichetal. 2016 = Fröhlich, J.– Chvojka, O.– John, J.– Šálková, T.: Kovové depoty zdoby bronzové vzázemí hradiště uChřešťovic na Písecku [Bronzezeitliche Metallhortfunde von der Umgebung des Burgwalls von Chřešťovice bei Písek]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 29, 117–141. Hájek, L. 1954: Jižní Čechy ve starší době bronzové. Památky archeologické 45, 115–192. Havlice, J. 2000: Kontakty jižních Čech astředního Podunají ve starší době bronzové. Unpublished master thesis. Charles University. Praha. Havlice, J. 2001: Pohřební ritus starší doby bronzové vjižních Čechách [Bestattungsritus der Frühbronzezeit in Südböhmen]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 14, 57–64. Havlice, J. 2004: Příspěvek kdatování hradiště Holý vrch uAlbrechtic nad Vltavou na Vltavotýnsku [Ein Beitrag zur Datierung des Burgwalls Holý vrch bei Albrechtice nad Vltavou im Gebiet von Týn nad Vlta‑ vou]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 17, 53–63. Hláseketal. 2014 = Hlásek, D.– Houfková, P.– Kovačiková, L.– Majer, A.– Novák, J. – Pavelka, J.– Bešta, T.– Šálková, T.: The Use of the Environmental Methods for Studying the Fortification, Economic System and Natural Environment of aHillfort from the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age at Vrcovice, Czech Republic. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica– Natural Sciences in Archaeology 5, 31–47. Hláseketal. 2015a = Hlásek, D.– Chvojka, O.– Šálková, T. – Fröhlich, J.– Houfková, P.– Kovačiková, L.– Majer, A.– Menšík, P.– Michálek, J.– Netolický, P.– Novák, J.– Pavelka, J.– Petřík, J.– Sosna, D.: Vrcovice. Hradiště zpočátku střední doby bronzové [Vrcovice. The Hillfort from the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách Supp. 10. České Budějovice– Plzeň. Hláseketal. 2015b = Hlásek, D.– Houfková, P.– John, J.– Novák, J.– Šálková, T.: Všemyslice– Kozí vrch. Nové poznatky ohradišti zpočátku střední doby bronzové, výsledky multidisciplinárního výzkumu [Všemyslice– Kozí vrch. Neue Erkenntnisse über den Burgwall aus dem Beginn der mittleren Bronzezeit, Ergebnisse einer multidisziplinären Untersuchung]. Archeologie západních Čech 9, 96–121. Hláseketal. 2017 = Hlásek, D.– Hiltscher, T.– Šálková, T.– Pták, M.: Záchranný archeologický výzkum polykulturní lokality Písek ‑AISIN II (okr. Písek) zroku 2014 [Archäologische Rettungsgrabung an der mehrperiodigen Fundstelle Písek ‑AISIN II (Kr. Písek) im Jahr 2014]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 30, 159–197. Johnetal. 2012 = John, J.– Eigner, J.– Fröhlich, J.– Šálková, T.: Výšinné sídliště uVelké adalší nové poznatky oeneolitických výšinných lokalitách na střední Vltavě [Ahilltop site by Velká and other new data from Aeneolithic hilltop sites in Middle ‑Vltava river area]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 25, 63–81. Krištuf, P.– Rytíř, L. 2009: Radiokarbonová data zmohylového pohřebiště „Na hrůbatech“, k.ú. Dobešice (okr. Písek) [The radiocarbon data from the barrow cemetery at the site Dobešice– „Na hrůbatech“ (Dis‑ trict of Písek)]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 22, 49–60. Michálek, J. 1989: Nové mladoeneolitické nálezy zjižních Čech [Neue jungäneolithische Funde aus Süd‑ böhmen]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 6, 43–58. Michálek, J. 1992: Neue jungäneolithische (endneolithische) Funde aus Südböhmen. In: Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West‑ und Südböhmen, 1. Treffen 23. bis 25. April 1991 in Bernriedbei Deg‑ gendorf. Deggendorf, 51–54. Michálek, J. 1996: Karcheologickému výzkumu Vodňan aVodňanska. Vodňany aVodňansko 5, 3–13. Michálek, J. 2013: Výzkum sídliště ze starší doby bronzové vnivě řeky Blanice 2010–2012. Vodňany aVodňan‑ sko 9, 7–30.
71DANIEL HLÁSEK– ONDŘEJ CHVOJKA Michálek, J.– Pavlů, I.– Vencl, S.– Zápotocká, S. 2000: Nová neolitická sídliště (LnK aStK) ažárový hrob (StK) vRadčicích, okres Strakonice, vjižních Čechách [Neue neolithische Siedlung (LnK und StK) und ein Brandgrab (StK) in Radčice, Bez. Strakonice, in Südbömen]. Památky archeologické Supp. 13. Praha, 266–306. Militký, J. 1998: Frühbronzezeitliche Gräber in Südböhmen. Zum Stand der Forschung. Archäologische Arbeits‑ gemeinschaft Ostbayern/West‑ und Südböhmen, 7. Treffen in Landau an der Isar. Rahden, 88–101. Moucha, V. 1963: Die Periodisierung der Úněticer Kultur in Böhmen. Sborník Československé společnosti archeologické 3, 9–60. Moucha, V. 2005: Hortfunde der frühen Bronzezeit in Böhmen. Praha. Möslein, S. 1998: Die Straubinger Gruppe der donauländischen Frühbronzezeit, frühbronzezeitliche Kera‑ mik aus Südostbayern und ihre Bedeutung für die chronologische und regionale Gliederung der frühen Bronzezeit in Südbayern. Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 38, 37–106. Parkman, M. 2003: Nové poznatky ohradišti Velký hrádeček uTřebanic na Prachaticku [Neue Erkenntnisse über den Burgwall Velký hrádeček bei Třebanice im Prachatitzer Gebiet]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 16, 25–37. Parkman, M. 2004: Doba bronzová na Prachaticku [Die Bronzezeit im Gebiet von Prachatice]. In: Popelni‑ cová pole adoba halštatská. Příspěvky zVIII. konference, České Budějovice 22.–24.9.2004. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách Supp. 1. České Budějovice, 413–428. Poláček, J. 1966: Dívčí Kamen. Hradiště zdoby bronzové. České Budějovice. Reimeretal. 2013 = Reimer, P.J.– Bard, E.– Bayliss, A.– Warren Beck, J.– Blackwell, P.G.– Bronk Ramsey, C.– Buck, C.E.– Cheng, H.– Lawrence Edwards, R.– Friedrich, M.– Grootes, P.M.– Guilderson, T.P.– Haflidason, H.– Hajdas, I.– Hatté, C.– Heaton, T.J.– Hoffmann, D.L.– Hogg, A.G.– Hughen, K.A.– Kaiser, K.F.– Kromer, B.– Manning, S.W.– Niu, M.– Reimer, R.W.– Richards, D.A.– Marian Scott, E.– Southon, J.R.– Staff, R.A.– Turney, C.S.M.– Van der Plicht, J.: IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55/4, 1869–1887. Reinecke, P.1924: Zur chronologischen Gliederung der süddeutschen Bronzezeit. Germania 8, 43–44. Richlý, H. 1894: Bronzezeit in Böhmen. Wien. Ruckdeschel, W. 1978: Die frühbronzezeitlichen Gräber Süddbayerns I ‑II. Bonn. Schránil, J. 1921: Studie ovzniku kultury bronzové vČechách. Praha. Schwarz, R. 2016: Rezension zu P.W. Stockhammeretal.: Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age chronology: evidence from large ‑scale radiocarbon dating, PLoS ONE, October 21, 2015, 1–32. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 95, 473–488. Stockhammeretal. 2015 = Stockhammer, P.W.– Massy, K.– Knipper, C.– Friedrich, R.– Kromer, B.– Lindau‑ er, S.– Radosavljević, J.– Wittenborn, F.– Krause, J.: Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age Chronology: Evidence from Large ‑Scale Radiocarbon Dating. PLoS ONE, October 21, 1–32. Stöllner, T. 2015: Die Besiedlungsgeschichte der Ostalpen in der Früh‑ bis Mittelbronzezeit. Kolonisation und wirtschaftlicher Neuanfang 1. Bergauf Bergab 10.000 Jahre Bergbau in den Ostalpen. Bochum, 117–124. Šálová, M.– Chvojka, O.– Menšík, P.2016: Pravěká mohyla uMaršova (okr. Tábor). Příspěvek ke starší době bronzové na Táborsku [Ein vorgeschichtlicher Grabhügel bei Maršov (Kr. Tábor). Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im Gebiet von Tábor]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 29, 87–97. Thrane, H. 2013: Scandinavia. In: H. Fokkens– A. Harding (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford, 746–766. Vondrovskýetal. 2018 = Vondrovský, V.– Bumerl, J.– Šída, P.– Ptáková, M.– Pták, M. – Chvojka, O.: Nové poznatky oneolitickém osídlení jižních Čech [New information on the Neolithic occupation of south Bohemia]. Archeologické rozhledy 70, 147–194. Zápotocká, M. 2011: Neolithische Siedlungsregionen in Böhmen: Südböhmen. Fines transire 20, 113–128. Zavřel, P.1993: Současný stav znalostí opravěku území města České Budějovice. Jihočeský sborník historický 62, 3–29.
72 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Ondřej Chvojka Institute of Archaeology, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Branišovská 31a CZ‑370 05, České Budějovice och[email protected].cz Museum of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Dukelská 1 CZ‑370 51, České Budějovice [email protected] Daniel Hlásek Institute of Archaeology, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Branišovská 31a CZ‑370 05 České Budějovice [email protected]
223PLATES Pl. 4/1: Die Detailaufnahmen der Gefäßoberfläche. A, B– Abgewetzte Oberfläche der ursprünglich stark polierten Gefäße, jetzt die grobe „Grundtonmasse“ mit Steinchen sichtbar; C– Gut erhal‑ tene stark polierte Streifen an dem Hals des Gefäßes mit dem Übergang zu dem fein gerauten Körper; D– gut erhaltene Polierung mit den sichtbaren ziemlich groben horizontalen Spuren nach dem Polieren, die Typisch für das Material aus Brandýs nad Labem sind (FotoM. Langová).