From Celts to Romans in Noricum. Ugly and less ugly pottery
Abstract
This short picture book intends to set the focus on a few essential features marking the evolution of coarse‑grained common wares in Noricum over more or less three centuries, roughly between 100 BC to 200 AD.
Full text
STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1, 234–258 From Celts to Romans in Noricum. Ugly and less ugly pottery Eleni Schindler Kaudelka– Martin Auer– Valentina Mantovani ABSTRACT This short picture book intends to set the focus on afew essential features marking the evolution of coarse‑ ‑grained common wares in Noricum over more or less three centuries, roughly between 100 BC to 200 AD. KEYWORDS Noricum; Magdalensberg; coarse wares; cooking and storage vessels; table wares evolution; standardization; LT D2; Roman. INTRODUCTION Coarse ‑grained common wares, with surface colours between gray, brownish gray, and almost black, are along ‑neglected category in the study of Roman pottery. As locally and regionally made pottery finds, they were long considered to be an ever ‑present nuisance filling the storerooms. Only recently, the interest in research and classification came into fashion and seems to reach apeak since scholars realized that they can provide as much information as long distance traded ceramics, albeit in another knowledge direction. Obviously, acomprehensive study cannot be achieved in 20 pages, and therefore we prefer to offer afew important insights as an appetizer. SOME DEFINITIONS Already the names and the definitions, and following this, the ways and the approach depend on the homes and the scientific traditions of who deals with the subject. ‘Coarse wares’ seems the most common, but simple ‘common wares’ is popular too. Some scholars refer more generically to ‘gray wares’ after one of the main properties, al‑ though agreat many use ‑related discolorations occur. The vessels show awide range of surface colouring from almost black to dark gray and shades of brown to pink. Some descriptions deal only with the purpose and call them ‘cooking’ and ‘storage wares’, without taking into consideration that the sizes varying from asmall drinking cup to adolium for the storage of winter supplies often indicate multi ‑purpose implements. Others prefer to create asub ‑group of use as transport containers for meat and cheese conserves processed from alpine pasture management. In this picture book, we keep to the cover of generic and traditional names to minimize confusions and only add specifics where necessary or even possible. The starting point for our considerations has to be the settlement on the Magdalensberg.1 1 Schindler Kaudelka– Dolenz– Gostencnik 2019.
235ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI THE MAGDALENSBERG Founded in the middle of the first century BC in Norican territory as atrading post on aspot high up in the mountains assigned to merchants by local authorities, it swiftly transformed into amarket town in which Roman merchants sent mainly from the big companies in Aqui‑ leia set up an offshore production centre. Their main interest consisted in the manufacturing of objects made of iron processed in the rich nearby ore deposits. Ferrum Noricum is abrand name for steel ‑like iron weapons, kitchen knives, and tools made from aprimary material with ahigh manganese content, specially prized for its hard surface. Fig. 1: We are Romans, we Noricans. From left to right. Unfinished portrait of ayoung Norican lady with traditional headdress in local marble, Portrait of alady with headdress and veil in regio‑ nal marble, Tombstone of Tiberius Iulius Adsedi filius Taulus, Miles cohortis montanorum primae, stipendiorum XXXVI, Hic situs est, Heres fecit CIL III, 4847, Lupa 1136.
236 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 From the beginning, the town’spopulation was composed of Romans and natives. Used to all Roman commodities, the merchants brought everything they needed for their well‑ being. They called for trained craftspeople, builders and decorators and imported the main food, spices, and drink as well as cooking implements and tableware. They also took care of everything else they thought necessary to survive, up to prefabricated tombstones in case of their unexpected demise in foreign territories.2 Soon Romans and native Celts, the latter present because of their special skills in met‑ alwork, formed amixed population. The local Celtic inhabitants swiftly adopted the Roman way of life, but always maintaining some of their traditions. These blends show in fashion and jewels, in tools and equipment, in kitchen devices and eating habits, as far as it appears through crockery and tableware. Grave statues and portraits represent traditionally clad peregrines as well as Roman citizens (Fig. 1). They also bear testimony to immigrated Roman craftspeople sculpting local and regional marble originating from nearby quarries. The names on the gravestones belong to natives and Romans. They show families uniting merchants and soldiers and their offspring, full citizens, freedmen, slaves, and free Noricans.3 In slight variation of René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo, the local Asterix would live and die according to the motto ‘We are Romans, we Noricans!’ The life of the market town spanned between 50 BC and 50 AD. The chronological frame of 100 years of life emerges from 200 excavated units, temple, thermae, residences, offices, and workshops and extends to terrace and leveling surfaces. Over time building techniques changed, from the first log houses to framework buildings and in the last stage stone con‑ 2 Piccottini 2008a. 3 Piccottini– Vetters 1999, 133–149. Fig. 2: The life of the market town on the Magdalensberg.
237ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI structions. Seventy ‑five chronologically safe key contexts form asequence of seven phases or ten horizons.4 Trade and production cover all the phases while after the annexation, the political admin‑ istration and the connected buildings gain importance. Ferrum Noricum workshops manufacturing for exportation seem to function alone between 50/45 BC and 25 BC.Workshops treating non ‑iron metals, mostly bronze and brass, appear to open up alittle bit later. Their ateliers operate from 20 BC to at least 25 AD, possibly even before and after this date. At the latest around 30 AD, there is evidence of the melting of gold ingots on behalf of the Emperor. Two marble moulds carrying the inscriptions C(ai) CAES(aris) AUG(usti) GERMANICI IMP(eratoris) EX NORICIS (metallis) document that the gold was sent to the treasury of Emperor Caligula5 (Fig. 2). With regard to pottery study, in particular research on the topic of coarse or common wares, this is the panorama to dwell on.6 The last La Tène D1 shapes come along with the full version of LT D2 while all contexts, both early and late, contain at least 50% imported goods. This of course is of great value for the chronology. In late Augustan times, genuine LT D2 thins out to change into Roman style, both in grey fine wares and coarse wares. In the later layers, they just appear as residuals. Among the more than 20,000 individual pieces made in coarse wares, it is quite easy to distinguish between the native ceramics manufactured in– as for now unknown– regional workshops and the extremely few strangers, the imported coarse wares made in northern Italy. 7 Distinctive even to the untrained eye in shape, decoration, texture, technique, and colors, it is easy to detect these specimens during archaeological pottery processing without any form of further scientific analysis. These are mainly small pots and beakers originating from the workshops in the later regio decima italica that reached not only Noricum, mostly the Magdalensberg, but every now and then even the territories beyond situated along the major roads, albeit in small numbers (Fig. 3). The majority of them are restricted to horizon minus 1 dating between 60/50 BC– 50/45 AD. The term horizon minus 1 refers to features unconnected with clearly defined structures or buildings. Only some poorly legible construction remains, generally timber frame fragments that occur mixed up in the debris. Among the late Augustan ceramics, some of them mainly showing slightly different shapes with dotted or other applied decorations make their appearance. Some of the later strangers and foreigners pertain to imports from Celeia (Fig. 4), while others remain of undisclosed proveniences.8 Nevertheless, all these finds give aclear sign of the fact that even coarse wares travelled for various reasons. In contrast to the uniform, almost standardized foreigners, which could rather count as drinking mugs and cups, the regional early kitchen and pantry pottery in Celtic tradition consists of non ‑standardized shapes and sizes. Since the mainly coiled vessels are all freehand crafted, some even possibly homemade, it is impossible to classify them following the usual procedure. Pots, mugs, and beakers seem clustered in sequences of grouped individuals rather than being part of aclearly defined typological grid system. The best examples of these multifunctional containers come from an in situ context de‑ stroyed by fire 30/25 BC.Sealed under a15 cm terrazzo floor, the ensemble has been viewed 4 Schindler Kaudelka– Mantovani 2024 . 5 Piccottini 1994. 6 Schindler Kaudelka 2012. 7 Schindler Kaudelka– Biondani 2018. 8 Schindler Kaudelka– Biondani 2018, 249, fig. 2:22–23.
238 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Fig. 3: Imports of coarse wares from northern Italy. Picture taken from Schindler Kaudelka– Biondani 2018. Fig. 4. Imports of coarse ware from Celeia.
239ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI as special since the excavations in 1960 and 1961.9 The most important content of the wooden storage cellar consisted of abox with militaria and souvenirs that point to the owner as being aformer military man. Two esquiline lamps served for illumination while anumber of im‑ ported lagynoi probably contained wine. No stoppers have been recorded. Acouple of linen bags and clay storage pots containing lentils and beans as well as wheat and other staples kept the owner and his family from starving. The ceramic storage containers in the cellar are typical for late La Tène with their familiar shapes and decorations but with absolutely no recognizable standardization, neither in size, nor in content volume (Fig. 5). None of the vessels in this ensemble bore any discoloration from cooking, and therefore they were not multipurpose pots. This seems logical, because their capacity ranges between 2 and almost 5 liters. The only small beaker ‑like specimen (Fig. 5:3) could possibly have served as ascoop for grain, peas, and field beans rather than as astorage container. Furthermore, arich panorama of two groups of tableware awaited use for the time when guests came to dinner. One dozen each of Roman shapes in terra sigillata and their locally made counterparts of bowls, plates and platters, assorted with adrinking service of cups, beakers and pitchers, both local and imported, were stored in the cellar. As aboon for the archaeologist, the sets offer aperfect dating background.10 Ashort glimpse on the regional Celtic tradition– LT D2 tableware present in various contexts from 60/50 BC onwards with diminishing numbers in late Augustan around 15 AD shows the same tendency of non ‑standardized shapes and sizes. The fine gray bowls, pots, and serving dishes are always wheel ‑thrown and workshop ‑made. Wide ranges of stamped, rouletted, and incised decorations bear evidence of the potters’ skill (Fig. 6). Here again, classification is easier to understand when the sets and potential services (?) are approached as generously conceived grouped individuals instead of rigid typological units. Around 30/25 BC, the same potters expand the supply with the introduction of plates, platters, and bowls adopting the Italian repertoire.11 9 Schindler Kaudelka 2002a. 10 Schindler Kaudelka 2002a. 11 Schindler Kaudelka– Baur– Zabehlicky ‑Scheffenegger 2018. Fig. 5: Storage pots from OR/20c SchichteC.
240 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 TRADITION– INFLUENCES– INNOVATION The large number of the many individuals brought to light in 75 years of excavations form asecure background to conduct sensible research in this line.12 All the steps leading to the transformation of the traditional Celtic forms into the Roman shapes provide the necessary indication. Celts and Romans used different dimensions. Moreover, the application of measurement units into the reasoning can provide insight that the change is more than amere modification of the shapes. The transformation can be considered as aslow adoption of certain Roman ele‑ ments along with the addition of complete Roman shapes into the traditional native pattern. This clearly does not figure as aone ‑way, since it is possible to watch the insertion of Celtic elements into the Roman typological canon as well.13 The large Celtic friendship Gurtenbecher probably reflecting banquet ‑like drinking habits with the cup circulating among the drinking companions, gradually lost the holding capac‑ ity of some half to two thirds of alitre, two volumes not assignable to the Roman sextarius, in favour of asmaller amount of liquid. However, it maintained the conical shape and the characteristic structure created by the Gurten (ribs). The end of this evolution is marked by the Roman ‑sized Neo Celtic cup for individual use with acapacity of ahemina (= 0.27 litre) (Fig.7), in other cases even half of it. When setting aside the quality and the provenance with afocus on the purpose only, the evolution suddenly becomes logical. The transformation encompasses not only the shapes and the sizes. People had access to alarge number of imported goods and commodities while the potters seemed to enjoy experiments to favour their customers. The newly invented beakers for individual use come in coarse wares, both handmade and wheel ‑thrown, therefore in different techniques, but also in different raw materials. The handmade ones are made of clay tempered with marble chips acquired in the local stonemason’sworkshop, while the potters who preferred wheel technique used the ready clay with endemic quartz.14 The poor presence and the small numbers of Figs. 8:7 to 8:12 suggest that the new shapes were not really abig hit, well received by customers. Whether this is due to market reasons and the easy availability of imported products and therefore just the growing popularity of the stylish Roman way of life or to more practical motives such as the difference in the taste of the drinks, abit like drinking coffee in amug or in athin porcelain cup, remains to be discussed. The same thread of tradition– influences– innovation is visible in coarse ‑grained robust heavy ‑duty ceramics. Pots and containers, too, undergo more than merely aformal transforma‑ tion. The evolution from non ‑standardized LT D2 multifunctional individuals to standard ‑sized Roman pots, usually present in three, sometimes even four sizes, follows the same pattern and the capacity goes along with the division of the function into at least stockholding and cooking. Possibly decorations also adjusted to match sizes and contents, as is known up to now in traditional water jugs all over the Mediterranean. Therefore, the different sizes develop into different purposes. The Magdalensberg finds brought to light enough complete or archaeologically complete vessels to serialize volume studies. First comparisons lead to the fact, that Auerberg pots in particular, but also their siblings with atriangular or rounded rim can be inserted into various geometric frames, from cube ‑shaped to box or case ‑shaped. The frames change over time and the pots tend to get anew 12 Schindler Kaudelkaetal. 2021. 13 Schindler Kaudelka 2002b. 14 Schindler Kaudelka 2015.
241ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI Fig. 6: Magdalensberg LT D2 soup and porridge dishes, perhaps individual servings. Fig. 7: Magdalensberg Celtic Gurtenbecher, partly with stamped decoration in three sizes. appearance. Late La Tène pots in the tradition of Graphittonware are chubby, no matter their capacity, while pots of the Tiberian and Claudian times are slenderly built. Another change consists in the transformation from the almost unprofiled pot to the vessel with distinct body parts, astepped neck, distinct shoulder, body, and base. The next step consisted of volume calculations, done in today’smetric system. The figures revealed three main considerations.
242 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 > Early pots, regardless of typology, present awide variety of capacities, without many common points. No standardization whatsoever can be traced. From Augustan times onwards sizes generally tend to scale down. > Most of the forms and their evolution from LT D2 shapes to Roman can roughly be grouped into three or four sizes, with adeviation of 1 millilitre (=less than 1 tablespoon). By the end of the Augustan times, gray coarse ware pots appear completely standardized with regard to the content capacity. Does the standardization depend on new modes of production, on specific consumers’ demands, or amore rigid distinction between pots with different functions? > Pots with discolorations due to cooking are generally smaller in Roman times, which could be asign of smaller households. Furthermore, fuel had to be used as sparingly as pos‑ sible, with respect toof the storage capacity for wood in the kitchen. Slowly, Roman cooking and storage pots take over (Fig. 10). It is obvious that the variety of shapes is not restricted to Auerberg pots and their cousins or to their ancestors and an‑ tecedents, the Graphittontopf and its non ‑graphite grandchildren.15 However, the extremely frequent pots with an almond ‑shaped lip best display the tendency towards standardization. Regarding the number of clay lids in comparison to the pots and other containers, it has to be assumed that fitting lids were not really needed. Wooden lids as well as fabric/leather covers with ribbon closures were probably available, but they are mostly missing in the ar‑ chaeological record. 15 Schindler Kaudelka– Zabehlicky ‑Scheffenegger 2007. Fig. 8: Magdalensberg, from Celtic to Roman drinking vessels.
249ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI The deeper Mediterranean kettle, the caccabus, will hold alarger amount of stew and there‑ fore be even more efficient while using less fuel for the same result, but it needs ahook on the kettle chain. On the Magdalensberg throughout the evolution, asignificant blend between Celtic slow ‑cooking and Roman braising traditions takes place. With the addition of three feet on the base of aRoman style kettle, the two forms merge into acaccabus in disguise (Fig. 15). At the end of this development stands the tripod with acarinated body very common in Noricum from the end of the 1st to the early 3rd century.32 NORICUM IS MORE THAN JUST THE MAGDALENSBERG Evolution and regional differences of coarse wares can be traced through the distribution maps. Beginning from the early 1st century AD, the further development of the pottery is observ‑ able in the whole Roman province. Among the earliest vessels to be found all around Noricum are the previously mentioned tripods. Asmall number of early handmade specimens, mainly known from the south ‑eastern part of the province33 are followed by mostly wheel ‑made tri‑ pods with arounded body. These braising kettles are manufactured in various workshops in avery similar manner34 (Fig. 16– in this and following illustrations Type and Variant numbers refer to Auer 2019). Some of the workshops experimented with these forms and used special decorations or adistinctive morphology (Fig. 17). The mostly narrow distribution of these experimental vessels points to limited distribution ranges for the single workshops, which may operate on ahousehold‑ rather than aspecialized workshop level. During the 2 nd century AD apredominance of tripods with acarinated body can be observed. These usually undecorated vessels are common all around the province.35 However, some of the potters experimented with decorations. They developed aspecific popular style mostly appreciated in alocally defined market only (Fig. 18). This leads to the possibility to identify travelling or export samples without the need for analysis. The Celtic pottery tradition also lives on in storage and cooking pots. Two mostly handmade types of pots with awheel ‑finishing touch can be traced in the southern part of the province (Fig 19–20). In all cases asmall number of samples underwent analyses to detect traces of the used manufacturing techniques. It is mostly easy to identify when the vessel is completely pre‑ served, it may be achallenge to see the different techniques from coiling to wheel ‑throwing on poorly preserved fragments. Many factors contribute to the success of the successor of the Graphittontopf. The Auerbergtopf, aslender pot with an almond ‑shaped rim, reaches awide area, not only inside Noricum, although the main reason for the wide distribution might be its use as atransport container for processed food.36 When used for cooking37 or storage, the pots usually come larger, chub‑ bier, and plumper. Once again, paying special attention to the volume and the dimensions is helpful to define the purpose. 32 Auer 2019. 33 Artner 1998. 34 Auer 2019, 27–32. 35 Borgersetal. 2023. 36 Flügel– Donat– Petrucci 2006; Donat– Maggi 2007. 37 Schindler ‑Kaudelka– Zabehlicky ‑Scheffenegger 2007, 229–230.
250 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Pots with an almond ‑shaped rim produced in Noricum are customarily calcite ‑tempered, often with marble from the local stonecutters’ workshop and show aglossy surface. However there are also specimens of the same morphology made out of clay with original quartz content as well as sand ‑tempered pieces.38 Auerberg ‑pots, acommodity produced all over Noricum tend to be handmade and wheel‑ ‑finished when including calcite temper and are wheel ‑turned or even wheel ‑thrown when made from quartz ‑containing clay. Auerberg ‑pots are part of the repertoire even outside No‑ ricum, from the eponymous place, the Auerberg39 to the mountainous part of the regio decima italica40 to the western fringe of Pannonia along the Amber route. With regard to the differenc‑ es and the wide distribution, mapping all Auerberg ‑pots would not yield asignificant result. Some specific features are noticeable, comb ‑decorations for example occur very often in combination with calcite or marble temper while remaining rare in quartz and sand tem‑ pered specimens. These pots show aconcentration in the southwestern part of Noricum and northern Italy. Moreover, the preference for plain undecorated Auerberg pots increases with the time (Fig. 21). The evolution of most of the other shapes for pots manufactured in the workshops in Noricum, both on alocal and regional scale, demonstrates asimilar developmental trajectory that can be traced back to the commonly distributed pots with an almond shaped rim. During the 2nd century AD asignificant increase in undecorated wheel ‑thrown vessels can be observed. This seems to correlate with the workshop structures. Pottery production changed and akind of mass production, executed in much larger units than before, developed especially around the larger settlements. Towards the end of the 2nd century, this came to an end, at least in western Noricum. The return of the ugly ware and the resizing of the workshops into smaller units takes place in the late 2nd and early 3rd century. Three typical shapes from this time might illustrate the statement. Bowls with awide range of decorations and produced on the slow wheel41 38 Auer 2019, 49–59. 39 Flügel 1999. 40 Donat– Maggi 2007. 41 Borgersetal. 2022. Fig. 20: Out‑ (left) and inside (right) of aType XV pot rim fragment. Primary free hand forming is clearly visible on the inside of the sherd.
251ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI again point to an increase of downsized workshops and to potters experimenting with more personal styles with alocal rather than aregional importance (Fig. 22). This is ageneral phenomenon valid for pots also, where awide variety of decorations reap‑ pears (Fig. 23). Here again, the production techniques point to handmade and wheel ‑finished products (Fig. 24). Together with the surge of the old coiling and forming techniques in use during the 1st century AD, the taste for decorations returns and is largely appreciated by the customers. Fig. 24: Out‑ (left) and inside (right) of aType XVII pot rim fragment. The marks on the inside point to the use of hand forming techniques and the slow wheel. Obviously, the pottery tradition of the Celtic times survived the Roman influence, somehow undercover, and makes acomeback in the late 2nd century. Particularly true for the (south) western part of Noricum, these multiple developments are less visible in other regions of the province, like along the Danube Limes where the military consumers and their kin prevailed. The survival of forming techniques not requiring the fast wheel in all probability remains, seemingly always connected to small workshops operating over the 2nd century AD, when the large production units dominated the market. With the incorporation of the Norican region into the Roman Empire, new influences brought and transmitted by migrating craftspeople take over in the ceramic production of Noricum, and become prevalent even in workshops run by natives. However, traditional craftsmanship survives in those small workshops, where its techniques are passed down. From the Norican point of view, ugly ware is not limited to late La Tène but persists through the Roman era, albeit with varying intensity and diffusion. CONCLUSIONS– THE VIEW FROM NORICUM In conclusion, it can be observed that research on coarse ware in Noricum has been ongoing for the past 25 years, with aparticular focus on an array of coarse grained pottery. The major‑ ity of this pottery can be considered regionally and locally produced, with rare imports from neighbouring and more distant regions. With regard to terminology and cultural definitions, we believe that the most generic and least ethnic label is the optimal choice for long ‑term use. From the perspective of Noricum,
252 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 the designation ‘La Tène pottery’ is proposed, with the addition of achronological or topo‑ graphical specification, if appropriate. The emergence, evolution, and phase ‑out of domestic ceramics, both coarse grained kitchen and storage pottery and table wares in fine smooth clay are usually influenced by the contexts in which they are discovered and the regional differences that exist. From our perspective, we are dealing with several independent trajectories of manufacturing. Cultural areas typically adhere to regional traditions. It is possible for any skilled craftsman to achieve the same results with their traditional techniques. In Noricum, local traditions, in conjunction with selected imports, appear to be the pre‑ vailing factors influencing the construction of local community identities. The archaeological evidence from the Romanisation process in Noricum offers sound indications that integra‑ tion was acontinuous process, with the emergence of hybridised forms. Furthermore, the translation of ideas and the material agency of individuals are also evident, with examples including the mobility of travelling craftsmen as well as merchantmen, brides migrating to new homes, and Roman soldiers moving to their new duties. Instances where local traditions persist despite the influence of external factors can be observed all over the province. These factors, but also the introduction of new ideas and ad‑ aptations, can result in the modelling of anew identity created out of all traditions present, which may occur in amanner that is both simultaneous and sequential. Fig. 16: Distribution of tripods with arounded body and ribbed surface in Noricum and adjacent areas.
253ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI Fig. 17: Variants of tripods with arounded body and their distribution in Noricum and adjacent areas. Fig. 18: Variants of tripod with acarinated body and their distribution in Noricum and adjacent areas.
254 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Fig. 21: Comb decorated Auerberg ‑pot and its distribution in Noricum and adjacent areas. Fig. 19: Types of mostly handmade pots and their distribution in Noricum.
255ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI Fig. 22: Decoration variants of bowls and their distribution in Noricum and adjacent areas.
256 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Fig. 23: Types and variants of pots and their distribution in Noricum and adjacent areas.
257ELENI SCHINDLER KAUDELKA– MARTIN AUER– VALENTINA MANTOVANI BIBLIOGRAPHY Artner, W. 1998: Der Frauenberg bei Leibnitz, Steiermark in der Spätlatènezeit und in der vorclaudischen Kaiserzeit. Ausgrabungen des Landesmuseums Joanneum 1979–1985. Archaeologia Austriaca 82 (1998/1999), 221–341. Auer, M. 2019: Keramikregionen als Interaktionsräume. Eine westnorische Perspektive, Ager Aguntinus. Historisch‑ ‑archäologische Forschungen 2. Wiesbaden. Borgersetal. 2022 = Borgers, B.– Ionesu, C.– Gal, A. – Neubauer, F.– von Hagke, Ch. – Auer, M.– Szilagyi, V.– Kasztovsky, Z.– Gméling, K.– Harsányi, I.– Barbu ‑Tudoran, L.: Production technology and knowledge transfer of calcite ‑tempered grey ware bowls from 2 nd to 5 th century CE Noricum (Austria). Archaeometry 65/3, 1–18. DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12823 Borgersetal. 2023 = Borgers, B.– Auer, M.– Wagner, S.– Tropper, P.: Production and Distribution of Grey‑ ware Tripod Bowls in 1st and 2nd centuries AD Noricum (Austria). Open Access Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 2023, https://irispublishers.com/oajaa/pdf/OAJAA.MS.ID.000588.pdf Czurda ‑Ruth, B. 1998: Die römischen Gläser vom Magdalensberg 2. In: Piccottini ed. 1998, 459–507. Dolenz, H. 1998: Das Händlerfuhrwerk aus SH/5 und ausgewählte eiserne Wagenbestandteile. In: Piccot‑ tini ed. 1998, 529–567. Donat, P.– Maggi, P.2007: Produzione, funzione e commercializzazione die Vasi Auerberg nei territori di Aquileia, Tergeste, Forum Iulii, Iulium Carnicum e Iulia Concordia. In: G. Cuscito– C. Zaccaria (eds.): Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione del ducato longobardo. Territorio, Economia, SocietàI. Antichità Altoadriatiche 65. Trieste, 149–223. Flügel, Ch. 1999: Der AuerbergIII. Die römische Keramik. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor‑ u. Frühgeschichte 47. München. Flügel, Ch.– Donat, P.– Petrucci, G. 2006: Fleischkonserven als Produkte römischer Almwirtschaft. Schwarze Auerbergkeramik vom Monte Sorantri bei Raveo (Friaul ‑Julisch ‑Venetien, Nordostitalien). Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 71, 209–232. Krmnicek, S. 2010: Münze und Geld im frührömischen Ostalpenraum. Studien zum Münzumlauf und zur Funktion von Münzgeld anhand der Funde und Befunde vom Magdalensberg. Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 17. Kärntner Museumsschriften 80. Klagenfurt. Piccottini, G. 1973: Zwei Bronzebecken vom Magdalensberg. In: H. Vetters– G. Piccottini (eds.): Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 1969 bis 1972. Magdalensberg Grabungsbericht 13. Klagenfurt, 355–360. Piccottini, G. 1994: Gold und Kristall am Magdalensberg. Germania 72, 467–477. Piccottini, G. ed. 1998: Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 1980 bis 1986. Magdalensberg Grabungs‑ bericht 16. Klagenfurt. Piccottini, G. 2008: Munusculum Epigraphicum Carinthiacum. In: Ch. Franek– S. Lamm– T. Neuhauser– B. Porod– K. Zöhrer (eds.): Thiasos. Festschrift für E. Pochmarski. Wien, 755–766. Piccottini, G.– Vetters, H. 1999: Führer durch die Ausgrabungen auf dem Magdalensberg. Klagenfurt5. Schindler ‑Kaudelka, E. 2002a: La datation des premiers contextes du Magdalensberg. In: S.F.E.C.A.G. Actes du congrès de Bayeux. Marseille, 263–274. Schindler Kaudelka, E. 2002b: Importe aus Italien von norischen Töpfern verwandelt. In: K. Kuzmová– K. Pieta– J. Rajtár (eds.): Zwischen Rom und dem Barbaricum, Festschrift für Titus Kolnik. Nitra, 193–200. Schindler Kaudelka, E. 1997–1998: Elementi ed influssi italici nella ceramica grezza del Magdalensberg. In: S. Santoro Bianchi– B. Fabbri (eds.): Il contributo delle analisi archeometriche allo studio delle ceramiche grezze comuni. Bologna, 81–86. Schindler Kaudelka, E. 2008: Ein Kochtopf macht noch keine Küche. In: H. Vanhaverbeke (ed.): Thinking about Space. The potential of surface survey and contextual analysis in the analysis of space in Roman times. Leuven, 225–231.
258 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Schindler Kaudelka, E. 2012: Céramiques communes du Magdalensberg. Un cas exceptionnel dans le Nori‑ que. In: C. Batigne Vallet (ed.): Les céramiques communes dans leur contexte régional. Faciès de consommation et mode d’approvisionnement. Lyon, 185–218. Schindler Kaudelka, E. 2015: Gobelet celtique, forme romaine. Adaptation ou création d’un nouveau réper‑ toire par les potiers du Norique? In: S. Lemaître (ed.): Abécédaire pour un archéologue lyonnais– Mélanges offerts à Armand Desbat. Autun, 325–328. Schindler Kaudelka, E. 2020: Überlegungen zum schnellen Wechsel im Repertoire der Koch‑ und Vorrats‑ töpfe in den 100 Jahren der Stadt auf dem Magdalensberg. In: E. Steigberger (ed.): Von den Alpen bis ans Meer, Festschrift für Bernhard Hebert zum 60. Geburtstag. Forschungen zur Geschichte und Landeskunde der Steiermark 86. Wien, 169–172. Schindler Kaudelka, E.– Dolenz, H.– Gostenčnik, K. 2019: La ville sur le Magdalensberg– de la mar‑ kettown précoce à la capitale du Norique annéxé. In: G. Indino (ed.): L’artefact dans ses multiples facettes de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Pau, 77–138. Schindler Kaudelka, E.– Baur, Ch.– Zabehlicky ‑Scheffenegger, S. 2018: La céramique grise fine es‑ tampée du Magdalensberg. Phénomène local inséré dans une mode répandue? In: S.F.E.C.A.G., Actes du Congrès de Reims. Marseille, 475–492. Schindler Kaudelka, E.– Biondani, F. 2018: Stranieri nella ceramica grezza del Magdalensberg. Tracce di commercializzazione precoce oppure beni personali dei migranti? In: M. Cavalieri– C. Boschetti (eds.): Multa per Aequora. Il polisemico significato della moderna ricerca archeologica. Omaggio aSara Santoro. Fervet Opus 4. Louvain ‑La ‑Neuve, 244–261. Schindler Kaudelkaetal. 2021 = Schindler Kaudelka, E.– Janezic, M.– Krajsek, J.– Lelekovic, T.– Man‑ tovani, V.: Héritage– Influence– Innovation. Le regard de l’Europe centrale sur les ateliers de céramique fine. In: S.F.E.C.A.G. Actes du congrès d’Auch. Marseille, 107–118. Schindler Kaudelka, E.– Mantovani, V. 2024: Die römischen Lampen auf dem Magdalensberg. BeitragV. Zabukovec Exkurs. Schindler Kaudelka, E.– Zabehlicky ‑Scheffenegger, S. 2007: Auerbergkeramik vom Magdalensberg. In: Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione del ducato longobardo : Territorio, economia, società. Antichità Altoadriatiche 65. Trieste, 225–247. Sedlmayer, H. 1999: Die römischen Bronzegefäße in Noricum. Monographies Instrumentum 10. Montagnac. Sedlmayer, H. 2009: Die Fibeln vom Magdalensberg. Funde der Grabungsjahre 1948–2002 und Altfunde des 19. Jahrhunderts. Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 16. Kärntner Museumsschriften 79. Klagenfurt. Zabehlicky ‑Scheffenegger, S. 1997: Dreifußschüsseln mit Töpfermarken vom Magdalensberg. RCRF Acta 35, 127–132. Zabehlicky ‑Scheffenegger, S. 1998: NG/34– SH/4– SH/5. Terra sigillata aus verbrannten Händlerdepots vom Magdalensberg. In: H. Vetters– G. Piccottini (eds.): Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 1969 bis 1972. Magdalensberg Grabungsbericht 13. Klagenfurt, 265–287. Eleni Schindler Kaudelka Mariatroster Strasse 113 AT‑8043 Graz [email protected] Martin Auer Institut für Archäologien Universität Innsbruck Innrain 52A A 6020 Innsbruck Valentina Mantovani Via Guizze 1D 36040 Torri di Quartesolo (VI) [email protected]