On the Ubiquity of Dimples. Finger‑Tip Decorated Coarse Ware in Bohemia and Moravia in the Early Iron Age and the Roman Iron age

On the Ubiquity of Dimples. Finger ‑Tip Decorated Coarse Ware in Bohemia and Moravia in the Early Iron Age and the Roman Iron age Tomáš Mangel– Richard Thér– Daniel Bursák– Jan Kysela ABSTRACT The various coarse decorated pottery wares of Ha D2–3 and LT Ain Bohemia and Moravia also include aprominent pottery group characterised with surface decorated with finger ‑tip impressions. In France and Italy, some authors have conceived pottery with similar decoration as evidence of long ‑distance contacts or even migrations of Celts in the early 4th century BC.However, the use of finger ‑tip decoration is attested in the Czech Republic in various cultural and chronological contexts with its peak in the Roman Iron Age sug‑ gesting that this ware is not sufficiently distinct to be connected with aspecific cultural milieu. The results of technological analyses of this ware point in asimilar direction. At the present state of research in the Czech Republic, finger ‑tip decoration thus needs to be understood as auniversal technique of decoration or surface treatment rather than as ahint at apopulation with adistinct identity. KEY WORDS Finger ‑tip decorated pottery; Hallstatt period; La Tène period; Roman Iron Age; technological analysis; forming techniques. INTRODUCTION In this paper we will approach the topic of this volume from aCentral European perspective, specifically based on material from Bohemia and Moravia. Out of the numerous ugly wares discussed at the Cremona meeting and in its present proceedings we will focus on finger‑ ‑tip decorated coarse ware which fits particularly well into the considerations on possible interregional contacts. Numerous other (more or less ugly) decorated coarse wares exist in Central Europe parallel to it, though their exhaustive study would obviously not be possible in the available format. Frankly speaking, it would not make much sense either. The choice of finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware is motivated first and foremost by its visual similarity to the Italian counterparts (cf. Zamboni 2021, fig. 3, decorazione III). As other papers in this volume may have made clear, the interest in this particular vessel surface treatment in northern Italy comes from its assumed role in long ‑distance contacts. Foreign to all cultural traditions of the region, its earliest finds are associated there with La Tène culture (or ‘Celtic period’) contexts of the 4 th –3 rd century and the only parallels which local scholars found for it come from (roughly contemporary) Transalpine regions, namely northeast‑ ern France (e.g. Ortalli 1995, 224; Ferrari– Mengoli 2005, 43, 46; Buoite– Zamboni 2008, 89–90; Buoite– Zamboni 2013, 133; Morpurgo 2016, 152–153). That is as far as the argument usually goes. Even though the idea of foreign ware or rather aware made in aforeign tradition of anew migrant population is implicitly clearly present, the authors basically never pronounce STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1, 65–88 66 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 it.1 The only explicit statements on the idea of this ware as an indicator of long ‑distance contacts are the reservations towards it pronounced by some (Lejars 2006, 83–85; Kruta 2008, 227, cf. below; Vitali 2014, 300–301). Central Europe is never discussed in any of these contributions. Asimilar overview of previous research cannot be done in Bohemia and Moravia. Finger‑ ‑tip decorated coarse ware has never been singled out there from the other coarse wares (decorated or not) as acategory on its own let alone taken into consideration as an indicator of acultural identity within long ‑distance contacts. It was certainly not so in publications. We remember Jan Bouzek talking in the early 2010s in aquite straightforward way about this pottery as brought to Italy by Czech Boii, there is however not asingle trace or hint at this idea in any of his publications on the topic from this period (e.g. Bouzek 2011a; 2011s b). Venceslas Kruta (who can be taken as arepresentative of both Czech and French or Italian archaeology) has for along time been the principal proponent of the idea of acontact between Iron Age Transalpine Europe and northern Italy. He was mostly framing these contacts into anarrative of migration of various Celtic peoples from Transalpine Europe to northern Italy both from the west (Marne) and from the east (Bohemia). The principal actors in this latter migration were the ‘Boii’, a(n imaginary) tribe (reputedly) documented by the presence of this ethnonym in both Bohemia and Italy. For many decades Kruta drew upon anumber of archaeo‑ logical and written sources to present aslew of arguments, hints, hypotheses, and often simply statements to prove his migration story to be true (e.g. Kruta 1980; 2008; Krutaetal. 2006). And yet, even though he may well have been familiar with the finger ‑tip decorated pottery from Bohemia, not asingle time do we find in Kruta’swork areference to finger ‑tip decorated pottery from Bohemia indicating the migration of Boii to northern Italy. In his most explicit statement on the matter he even demonstrated considerable scepticism regarding the idea of ‘laténian’ coarse ware in Italy as such: ‘la ceramica grossolana asuperficie pizzicata arilievo trova, è vero, qualche elemeneto di comparazione nelle regioni transalpine, ma sembra tarda, della fine del IV odell’inizio del secolo seguente[…]. Forse non esiste una ceramica cispadana di tradizione celtica’ 2 (Kruta 2008, 227). The only reference he made as to these ‘elementi di comparazione’ is again to pottery from France even though numerous arguments for other assumed Bohemian ‑Italian connections are listed elsewhere in the same text (Kruta 2008, 226). Our aim here is not to verify or disprove the (never really formulated and published) hy‑ pothesis about amutual genetic link between the Bohemian and Italian finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware but rather to present the category and its archaeological context in aCentral European setting in general. For this reason, we do not focus only on periods relevant for comparison with Italy but will try to set the phenomenon of finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware into as broad acontext as possible. Stress will thus be put not only on the Early Iron Age but also on the period of its greatest vogue in the Roman Iron Age. We will certainly not fail to express our opinion on its possible role as amarker of interregional contacts though the ar‑ chaeological picture will not allow us to be extremely authoritative in this regard. Apart from aclassic morphological study of whose limits we are perfectly aware we include in our paper ahint at what other direction further investigation of the issue could follow– atechnological study of forming techniques. 1 Not even Jacopo Ortalli in his lengthy and well ‑grounded discussion about the La Tène character of the structures identified at Casalecchio di Reno with parallels in north ‑east France in the same area whence he quotes the parallels to the coarse ware did not give an explicit migratory interpretation to this phenomenon. 2 ‘The coarse pottery with pinched relief surface does in fact find some elements in common in transalpine areas but they are apparently too late, dating from the end of the 4th and the beginning of the following century […]. There may be no Cispadane pottery of Celtic tradition’. 67TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA FINGER ‑TIP DECORATED COARSE WARE AS AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCE FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO THE EARLY IRON AGE Within the so ‑called coarse wares of Ha D2–3 to LT A(Ha D2–3: 540/530–480/460 BC; LT A: 480/460–390/375 BC; see Venclová ed. 2008, tab.1) pottery with asurface decoration occupies aprominent position. This decoration can be done in several different techniques, either all over the vessel body or in broad bands covering alarge part of the vessel surface. This includes pottery decorated with barbotine, which is, however, represented in Bohemia in only three cases (Fig. 1:1; Lhota ‑Závist: Drda– Rybová 2008, 47, 101, obr.48:4; Minice: Trefný– Slabina 2015, 61, obr.12:8; Záhořice ‑Vladař: Chytráčeketal. 2012, 314, 329, obr.13:4) and is therefore considered aforeign element. The second, slightly more frequent, group is represented by vessels decorated with imprints of stamps and tools all over the body, which is characteristic of assemblages dated to LT A(Fig. 1:2–3; e.g. Horáková ‑Jansová 1955, 136, 144, obr.2:15, 8a:1, 9; Jansová 1957, 448–450, 454, obr.23:B10, 10a; Šaldová 1984, 315, obr.2:12, 11:1, 5; Bouzeketal. 2017, Abb. 15:9; Goláňová 2018, 113–115, fig. 57). This decoration, which is associated with tall shapes made mostly of graphite ‑tempered clay or is graphite coated, represents arather di‑ verse phenomenon using avariety of decorative elements (imprints, notches, complete and incomplete rings, arches, etc.). However, in the settlement assemblages where it does occur at all, this decoration type is usually represented by only single pieces. Occasionally, this pottery may also be part of grave furnishings (Šaldová 1971, 50, 82, obr.48:1; Soudská 1994, 132, 152, 161, Abb. B8:26, B14:25, B15:36). The coarse pottery with astamping all over the surface is aphenomenon on its own that should be given more attention in the future. The third and the most frequent category of decorated coarse wares is the pottery that we call finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware (Fig. 2:4). Fig. 1: Various types of pottery with decoration over the entire surface from the Ha D2–3 and LT Aperiod in Bohemia. 1– Lhota ‑Závist (Drda– Rybová 2008, obr.48:4); 2– Stíčany (Horáková‑ ‑Jansová 1955, obr.8a:1); 3– Libčice ‑Chýnov (Vojtěchovská 1995, obr.9:1); 4– Sedlčany (Janso‑ vá 1975, tab.36:5). 68 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Fig. 2: Examples of various vessel shapes and decoration arrangements of finger ‑tip decorated Coarse Ware from the Ha D2–3 and LT Aperiods in Bohemia and Moravia. 1, 4– Hostomice (Bu‑ dinský 1971, tab.VI:5; Budinský 1997, tab.XLVIII:10); 2– Neředín (Goláňová 2018, pl. 15:9); 3– Bolešiny (Šaldová 1984, obr.9:9); 5– Mikulovice (Jošková– Langová– Jílek eds. 2020, tab.29). Ceramics that are decorated with finger imprints appeared in Bohemia and Moravia for the first time and relatively rarely in the Neolithic, in the Linear Pottery culture (e.g. Podbor‑ ský 1993, 78, obr.35, 36:6, 8, 15–17, 22, 37:8, 27; Pavlů ed. 2008, obr.10:9). Subsequently, this phenomenon is sporadically encountered in the settlements of the Funnel Beaker culture (Pleslová ‑Štiková 1985, pl. III:5; Juřinová– Smejtek– Vojtěchovská 2011, 123, obr.20:6, 23:9) and afterwards only rarely in the context of Middle and Late Bronze Age settlements and burial mounds in southern and western Bohemia (Čtrnáct 1954, 342, obr.5:6, 5:12, 6:12, 6:15; Čtrnáct 1975, tab.43:12, 43:15; Bouzek 1962, obr.68:13/11; Michálek 1979, 33–34, Taf. 25:12; 69TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA Chvojkaetal. 2011, 89, 97, 105, 113, 262–263, tab.7:6, 9:20, 22:7, 28). From the Final Bronze Age in western Bohemia we know similarly decorated pottery only from Náklov (Šaldová 1983, 322–325, obr.7:3, 8:26, 9:40, 9:41, 12:33). In the Late and Final Bronze Age, fingerprint decora‑ tion of the vessel surface also appeared marginally in the Knovíz culture in Central Bohemia (Smejtek 2011, 200–201, obr.153, 154) or in the settlement of the North ‑West Bohemian Lusa‑ tian culture in Neštěmice (Cvrková– Waldhauser 1975, tab.28:16, 28:36, 29:34, 30:33). It can also be found on some vessels and flat disc ‑shaped lids and platters from the East Bohemian Silesian culture (e.g. Motyková 1973, 246, obr.5:43, 6:17, 6:20, 6:23, 7:32, 11:19, 11:33, 12:28, 12:30, 13:6, 15:8, 15:21, 16:1, 16:5 etc.; Vokolek 1999, 13, tab.17:3). Platters with this décor can also singly appear in Ha C–D1 in the Bylany culture of Central Bohemia (Volnáetal. 2018, 168–169, 171, tab.29:4, 62:5). Amore widespread use of the discussed pottery can be observed in Bohemia and Moravia only during the period of Ha D2–3 to LT A. Its distribution in this region coincides with the entire Late Hallstatt and Early La Tène culture occupation (cf. Venclová ed. 2008, obr.55; Goláňová 2018, fig. 6). It is represented in most of the pottery assemblages from the better explored settlements.3 Exceptionally, it may have made up part of grave furnishings.4 Some selected assemblages, in which this phenomenon can be better quantified, make it possible to estimate the occurrence of finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware at about 1% of the total number of all ceramic fragments within the assemblages, or at about 3.5% of the number of sherds with decoration (Hostomice: Budinský 1999; Libčice ‑Chýnov: Vojtěchovská 1995; Radovesice: Waldhauseretal. 1993; Modrá and Neředín: Goláňová 2018).5 Finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware was in most cases made of clay tempered with graphite or sand; fine clay without inclusions was used only rarely for the production of this kind of pottery (e.g. Praha ‑Zbraslav: Chytráček– Bernat 2000, 293, obr.13:4). Finger ‑tip decoration was commonly applied on tall shapes, especially various variants of pots and situlas (Fig. 2:1–4, 3:6, 7), and it only rarely appears on low forms (Fig. 2:5). It is typically accompanied on vessels by various forms of relief ribs (Figs. 1:4, 2:1, 2, 4, 3:1–3, 6) or rows of finger impressions on the neck/body transition (Figs. 2:3, 3:7). One fragment of agraphite vessel from Kanín is an exception in that it features three rows of kidney ‑shaped impressions in combination with astamped decoration (Fig. 3:4). In this case, however, it is not entirely clear whether we are dealing with areal finger ‑tip decoration or whether the impressions were made with aspecific tool leaving marks similar to afingertip. 3 Examples for the individual regions: southern Bohemia– Strakonice: Michálek 2013, 139, obr.16:17; western Bohemia– Mašovice: Břicháček– Metlička 2011, 371, obr.6:20; northwestern Bohemia– Hostomice: Budinský 1999, tab.XXXIX:6, XLVIII:10, XLIX:7; central Bohemia– Prague ‑Křeslice: Polišenský– Trefný 2011, 829, tab.10:17, 16:10; Krásná Hora: Jansová 1975, 263–264, obr.34:7, 10; eastern Bohemia– Mikulovice: Jošková– Langová– Jílek eds. 2020, tab.29; northern Moravia: Neplachovice: Motěšický– Krasnokutská– Kyselý 2023, obr.18:4, 24:12–14; central and south‑ eastern Moravia– Neředín and Modrá: Goláňová 2018, 113, pl. 10:4, 15:9, 10; southern Moravia– Bulhary: Ludikovský 1973, 35, tab.22:1; Těšetice: Golec 2003, 69, tab.1641:16. 4 Manětín ‑Hrádek, gr. 65: Soudská 1994, 141, Abb. B11:71, E9:18; Těšínov, mound 8: Michálek 1981, 20, obr.12:3. 5 The quantifications were calculated either on the basis of the publications cited or on the basis of our own studies. We would like to thank P.Goláňová for providing the find database from the sites of Modrá and Neředín. 70 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Fig. 3: Examples of various vessel shapes and decoration arrangement of finger ‑tip decorated Coarse Ware from the Ha D2–3 and LT Aperiods in Bohemia and Moravia. 1, 2– Krásná Hora (Jansová 1975, tab.34:7, 10); 3, 6– Libčice ‑Chýnov (Vojtěchovská 1995, obr.14:20, 16:1); 4– Kanín (unpublished; stored in ARÚ Praha); 5– Praha ‑Zbraslav (Chytráček– Bernat 2000, obr.13:4); 7– Modrá (Goláňová 2018, pl. 1:19) 8– Neředín (Goláňová 2018, pl. 15:10). The fragmentary state of most of the finds does not make it possible to establish atypology and chronology of the decoration in amore precise way. However, at least two groups can be distinguished according to the arrangement of the impressions: A) single fingerprints (Figs. 1:4, 2:1, 3–5, 3:1–4, 6); B) rows of double fingerprints in the shape of an ear of rye (Fig. 3:5, 7). Another factor, which is, however, difficult to assess for many finds, is the extent of the decoration: 1) all over the surface (figs. 1:4, 2:1, 3–5, 3:3); 2) in bands (figs. 2:2, 3:7, 8). Anumber of the finds cannot be dated more precisely than to the range of Ha D2–3 to LT A. Nevertheless, at least in some cases the dating can be refined. The advent of the pottery dis‑ cussed here, decorated with individual impressions, either all over the surface or in bands, must be assumed already during Ha D2–3 (e.g. Soudská 1966, obr.7:9, 9:9, 12; Waldhauser 1977, 152–153, obr.7:5; Michálek 1981, 20, obr.12:3; Motyková– Drda– Rybová 1984, 400–409, obr.45; Waldhauseretal. 1993, fig. 62:181; Drda– Rybová 2008, 22, 103, obr.18:6) though it only became common during LT A(Rybová 1969, 372, 383–384, obr.1:10, 19, 23; Jansová 1983, 70, 78, obr.28:2; Chytráček– Bernat 2000, 296). The impressions arranged into the shape of ears of rye appear to be later, though it must be kept in mind that they are also attested in much lower quantities. Its occurrence is characteristic of LT A(e.g. Lešany: Meduna 1980, 139, Tab.45:5; Modrá: Goláňová 2018, 113, pl. 1:19; Praha ‑Zbraslav: Chytráček– Bernat 2000, 296, fig. 13:4), but it can also appear in assemblages from the Ha D3 and LT Atransition (Wald‑ hauser– Mangel 2011, 411, fig. 7:12). Within the Pre ‑Roman Iron Age, the latest occurrence of finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware is documented at the end of LT A(e.g. Hostomice, features 48/70 and 69/75– phase LIII: Budinský 1999, tab.XXXIX:6, XLVIII:10, XLIX:7; Radovesice, fea‑ ture 43– phase IIb: Waldhauseretal. 1993, 94, fig. 61:183; Modrá, feature 4/2005 and Neředín, features 331 and 861– horizon ELH II: Goláňová 2018, 196, pl. 10:4, 15:9–10, 17:31). Its use is not attested in the following stages of the La Tène period. 71TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA We can cursorily mention some instances of the use of finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware during Ha D to LT Ain the areas adjacent to Bohemia and Moravia. This phenomenon is known mainly from the western areas of Central Europe; on the contrary, it is not documented in the more easterly situated areas. In Saxony and some other areas of central Germany, in addition to the ‘standard’ finger ‑tip decoration of the entire vessel surface, there are vessels whose surface is decorated with finger ‑impressed relief bands, arranged in geometrical patterns. They are sometimes referred to as ‘Kalenderbergkeramik’ given their similarity with one of pottery types of the East Hallstatt Klenderberg culture (e.g. Neuffer 1938; Kersten 1948, 46–49, Abb. 12, 13; Peschel 1963). 6 Isolated examples of finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware also come from Austria (Ramsl 1998, 175, Taf. 34:96; Schumann 2013, 60, 83, Taf. 33:434). In Bavaria, we encounter the widespread use of finger ‑tip decoration in the form we know from Bohemia only in the final stages of the La Tène period (Stöckli 1979, 35; Lasch 1999, 266, Taf. 145:9; Tappert 2006, 99–100, 263, 283, 285, Abb. 141:7, 10). At the site of Straubing ‑Bajuwarenstrasse, for example, these wares are only documented in LT D1b/D2 and their occurrence there is associated with cultural changes around the middle of the 1st century BC already accompanying the transition to the early Roman Iron Age. ROMAN IRON AGE AND THE MIGRATION PERIOD In Bohemia and Moravia, finger ‑tip decorated coarse ware only reappeared at the beginning of the Roman Iron Age (RIA; ca. second half of the 1 st century BC to the end of the 4 th cen‑ tury AD). During this period, it represents one of the most common techniques of ceramic decoration not only in the Czech Republic but also in the neighbouring territories (Fig. 4). It occurs especially in the areas of the so ‑called Elbe ‑Germanic cultural circle. The decoration predominates mainly in the settlement material (Motyková ‑Šneidrová 1963; 1967; Salač 2008). Unfortunately, the representation of this type of decoration is usually not quantified within the ceramic assemblages under study. Therefore, in this paper we refer mainly to individual reference cases. Despite the general lack of quantified data, some statistics can be given. In the assemblage from Plaňany dated to the Early and the beginning of the Late RIA, finger ‑tip decoration occurs in 22% of the decorated sherds (Volf 2020, fig. 22), and it is also prominent in the case of the finds from Řeporyje ‑Ořech (Bursák 2008, graph 6, tab.10:8–12). The Plaňany assemblage also provided other relatively valuable data. The finger ‑tip decoration clearly predominates among the coarse pottery and occurs on the bodies of vessels of coarser surface finish. In only 8% of cases is this decoration present on fine pottery (Volf 2020, 45). This explains well why this pottery is so rarely encountered in burials, where fine pottery dominates (Droberjar 1999; Kytlicová 1970; Motyková 1981; Rybová 1979; 1980). Finger ‑tips also appear on the rims where it decorates their edges (Volf 2020, tab.14:5). 6 The term ‘Kalenderbergkeramik’ or also ‘Kalenderbergware’ is used as aterminus technicus describing one of the characteristic and unifying features of the Kalenderberg culture typical of the Middle Danube area (Griebl 2004, 172–173; Rebay 2006, 90–97; Tarpini 2018, 103). This decoration is associated there mostly with culturally specific pottery shapes and its use is limited to Ha C–D1. Nonetheless, similar decoration can also be observed– on various vessel shapes– in other and very far ‑flung areas (western France, Belgium, the Neatherlands, Middle Rhine area, northern and central Germany, east Prussia) from the late Bronze Age to the Roman Iron Age (Dobiat 1980). In these cases, the use of the term ‘Kalenderbergkeramik’ obviously insinuates ungrounded ideas of an association with the Kalendenberg culture milieu. For this reason, M. Claus (1952, 33) proposed in the past to label these ‘non ‑Kalendenberg’ cases with the neutral term of ‘reliefverzierte Keramik’. 72 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 In the earliest phases of the RIA, finger ‑tip decoration is very rare, e.g. in the relatively large Early RIA settlement in Slepotice this decoration is absent (Jíleketal. 2015). The decoration is also believed to have had acertain dynamic. In the literature, we can encounter the opinion that in the early phase of the Early RIA (ca. second half of the 1st century BC– first half of the 1st century AD), finger ‑tip decoration covered the vessel surfaces in adisorderly, chaotic manner, often over the entire surface of the vessel (Motyková ‑Šneidrová 1963; Salač 2008, 72, 76, figs. 39:7–8, 40:7–8). Examples can be found, for example, in Plaňany (Volf 2020, 48, tab.1:15, 7:11, 10:11). During the second half of the 1st century and then especially in the 2nd century AD, the decoration became more organized, arranging the finger impressions into various bands or other ornaments (Dobroměřice uLoun: Beneš 2010, 96, fig. 22:6; Motyková ‑Šneidrová 1967, Fig. 4: Roman Iron Age pottery decorated with finger ‑tip decoration from Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia. 1, 3, 5, 14– Plaňany (Volf 2020); 2– Dobroměřice uLoun (Beneš 2010); 4, 12, 13– Kře‑ pice (Droberjar 1997); 6, 7– Ořech (Motyková– Pleiner 1987); 8–11– Holubice (Zahnašová 2018); 15– Branč (Kolník– Varsik– Vladár 2007); 16–18– Dúbravka (Elscheketal. 2017). 73TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA 9, Beil. 1:17, 1:32; Holubice: Zahnašová 2018, 70; Mořice: Fojtík 2011, 155, fig. 8:1–9; Mikulovice: Sedláček– Kašpárek– Jílek 2010, 384; Ořech: Motyková– Pleiner 1987, 438, Abb. 28:19, 29:7; Beroun ‑Závodí: Břicháček– Košnar 1998, 67–68, 73, figs. 4:8, 12:2; for general discussion see Beneš 2010; Volf 2020, 48). The use of this decoration carried on to the Late RIA in asomewhat indistinct manner (Obříství: Beneš 2014, tab.V:7, XIII:26–27, XIV:9 and 11, XV:17; Přerubenice: Zeman– Ven‑ clová– Bubeník 1998, 108, fig. 5:6, 9:6; Tuchlovice: Pleiner 1959, fig. 8). Already in the 3rd century A.D., however, its representation diminished significantly, as suggested by evidence in Moravia. There, too, finger ‑tip decoration occurred from the 1st century AD in the form of disordered decoration, horizontal rows, and vertical bands– the evolution of the decoration patterns seems to follow the same rules as in Bohemia (Droberjar 1997, 67, Abb. 16). At the same time, the decoration covered aconsiderable amount of the surface of the vessels, which may statistically overestimate it in fragmentary assemblages. In the Migration Period (from the end of the 4 th to the 6 th century AD), finger ‑tip decorated pottery becomes much rarer compared to the RIA and its occurrence becomes rather haphazard. At the same time, however, this decoration technique seems to have acquired alarger variability in this period (Svoboda 1965, tab.VI:5, VII:8, VIII:1, LXXXII:8). Examples from the beginning of the Migration period can be cited from Zlechov (Zeman 2006, obr.5:11) and Bratislava ‑Dúbravka (Varsik 2011, obr.106–107). We can also add aquick look of afew selected sites from the wider Elbe ‑Germanic area, namely from Slovakia. Finger ‑tip decoration occurred throughout the RIA (Varsik 2011, 86–87, 169, fig. 38; Branč: Kolník– Varsik– Vladár 2007, e.g. tab.4:1, 6:10, 71:13). As in the case of Bohemia and Moravia, this decoration is hardly ever encountered in burials (Kolník 1980). Only avery brief and random overview can be given of the immediate surroundings of the Elbe ‑Germanic areas: from Brandenburg we can mention specimens from the Late RIA from Plänitz (Hegewisch 2007, 128, Taf. 99:4), in Hesse the pottery in question occurred at the large settlement in Mardorf (Meyer 2008, Taf. 32:20, 51:16), in Mecklenburg we can mention e.g. the site of Ahrensboek (Saalow– Wehner 2009, Abb. 15:2). The occurrence of ceramics decorated with finger ‑tip impressions in settlements of the Polish Przeworsk culture has recently been discussed in the study of the Wrocław ‑Widawa settlement (Bohr 2014, 172, ryc 19:7, 21:2, 22:5). ANALYSIS OF FORMING TECHNIQUES OF FINGER ‑TIP DECORATED COARSE WARE VESSELS FROM HA D2–3 AND LT A AIMS OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS The presented technological analysis arose from the question of whether finger ‑tip decorated pottery represents aspecific cultural phenomenon with aparticular tradition of production or network of users. Technological analysis is an appropriate means of addressing this ques‑ tion, as it can reconstruct production traditions reflecting social relations in the network of ceramic producers. The aim was to compare the forming methods used to produce finger ‑tip decorated pottery with those used to make other coarse pottery. It can be assumed that if the specific decorative technique in question was adistinct cultural phenomenon reflecting relations in society, the technological chain used might differ from that of other pottery. Consequently, detecting dif‑ ferences in the technological chain would indicate the way of communication of this cultural trait in society. 80 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 RESULTS During the interpretation of the results, the method’sconstraints must be reflected. We recon‑ struct complex technological behaviour only based on its observable consequences– product properties, which are limited and may be polysemantic. It implies that the absence of differ‑ ences in microstructural phenomena does not necessarily mean the same production style or tradition. The presence of structural differences has more substantial interpretive potential. Two basic forming techniques were identified in the dataset. One of them is the slab‑ ‑building technique. It is characterised by the omnidirectional orientation of inclusions and voids on the tangential section and parallel orientation on the radial section (Fig. 6:A). Evi‑ dence of overlapping joints between segments– which are irregular slabs– is mostly absent (Fig. 6:B). The second basic technique is coiling. It is manifested by horizontal joints between seg‑ ments (coils) and predominantly ahorizontal orientation of inclusions and voids (Fig. 6:C). Moreover, asubvariant of the coiling technique has been identified. In this variant, the thicker coils are significantly reshaped during vessel construction, causing alternating horizontally oriented areas at the joint positions and omnidirectionally to vertically oriented areas at the parts of the transformed coil body (Fig. 6:D). Two forming methods can be identified at the Libčice ‑Chýnov site (Fig. 7:A) in the selected coarse pottery. Most of the finger ‑tip decorated pottery (LIB66, LIB106, and LIB107) and one representative of plain coarse pottery (LIB52) show ahorizontal orientation on atangential section typical of the coiling without asignificant reworking of the coils during vessel con‑ struction. This orientation is often accompanied by remnants of horizontal joints between the coils, which on the radial section are manifested by typical arc ‑shaped pores oriented transversely to the vessel walls (LIB52, LIB66, LIB107). Other samples of both decorated (LIB110, LIB112) and undecorated pottery (LIB50, LIB101) show an omnidirectional or fluid structure with atendency towards avertical orientation on the tangential sections, mostly without evidence of joints between segments. This orientation corresponds to the slab building. Rep‑ resentatives of both basic categories (finger ‑tip decorated and plain pottery) exhibit both identified forming methods. Also, the two forming methods can be identified at the site of Plzeň ‑Roudná (Fig. 7:B). All the representatives of the finger ‑tip decorated pottery (ROUZ3, ROUZ5, and ROUZ6) show unambiguous features of the classical coiling technique (strong horizontal orientation on the tangential section, omnidirectional on the radial section, and evidence of horizontal joints going transversely to the vessel wall on the radial section). One group of plain coarse ware (mainly ROU86, ROU80, and ROU31) show the same forming method, but in their case, the joints are more undulating, and the coils often set obliquely from the inside of the vessel (e.g. ROU31, ROU80, ROU102). Other samples of undecorated ceramics show arandom or fluid structure with atendency to have avertical orientation on the tangential section. Such ori‑ entation corresponds to the slab building technique or atechnique transforming segments in the form of thicker coils during vessel construction. Samples (ROU38 and ROU134) show that both variations may have been involved. In the case of sample ROU38, the randomly oriented structure on the tangential section is interrupted by aclear horizontal wavy joint typical of joints between coils. ROU134, on the other hand, shows an arc ‑shaped vertically oriented joint typical for sequential slab building. Representatives of finger ‑tip pottery from Závist (Fig. 7:C) show two forming traditions: coiling and slab building. Sample ZAV90 clearly demonstrates the coiling technique with astrong horizontal orientation on the tangential section and evidence of horizontal joints. 81TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA Two samples of plain coarse ware (ZAV79 and ZAV80) show the same technique. The slab building was identified in two samples (ZAV85 and 86) with afluid texture, especially sample ZAV85, with evidence of an arc ‑shaped joint. The Kanín site (Fig. 7:D) yields typical evidence of the coiling technique (horizontal joints and orientation) in samples of plain ware (KAN18, KAN20, and KAN24). The two representa‑ tives of finger ‑tip decorated pottery (KAN21 and KAN22) show aless aligned horizontal and relatively homogeneous structure, which does not bear diagnostic features, allowing amore detailed interpretation of the forming methods. However, it seems that they represent ameth‑ od using thick transformed coils. One sample of finger ‑tip decorated pottery (KAN60) shows arandom orientation on the tangential sections and, therefore, adifferent technique from the samples of plain coarse ware. In Praha ‑Pitkovice (Fig. 7:D) finger ‑tip decorated pottery (one sample) was compared mainly with wheel ‑made pottery due to the lack of plain hand ‑build samples. Wheel ‑made pottery was formed using combined forming methods starting with the construction of the vessel with hand ‑build technique. The initial forming technique can be reconstructed based on the structural analysis. Wheel ‑made samples show the application of the standard coiling technique while the sample of hand ‑build plain and finger ‑tip decorated pottery transformed coils. It seems that potters using arotational device for forming were based on adifferent potting tradition than the potters producing pottery without the application of rotational movement. SUMMARY Three basic pottery ‑forming methods were identified in the analysed assemblages: (a) the classic coiling technique, in which the vessel is assembled from coils which are then incorporated into the wall without being significantly transformed, (b) atechnique using thicker coils that are significantly transformed during the forming of the vessel. Often, these coils are asymmetrically attached to the inner edge of the end of the constructed vessel wall, (c) atechnique of irregularly shaped slabs from which the vessel is assembled. All these techniques are associated both with plain coarse ware and with finger ‑tip decorated pottery. The small number of analysed individuals and the non ‑systematic sampling does not allow for more robust conclusions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Finger ‑tip decorated pottery is astriking phenomenon in Bohemia and Moravia of the Late Hallstatt and Early Late La Tène periods. What makes it particular is the finger ‑tip decoration itself; in terms of morphology, this pottery does not deviate from the typological spectrum of local pottery production. Although its frequency in individual assemblages does not exceed single digits of percentages, it occurs regularly in the settlements of the period. However, its occurrence is much higher in the RIA assemblages with apeak during the 2nd century AD. And not only that, asummary overview of this decoration technique has shown that finger‑ ‑tip decoration re ‑emerged, even though probably with alow intensity, in different periods and cultures almost from the very beginning of the production of ceramic vessels in Central Europe. As aresult, finger ‑tip decoration as such, without alink to other formal and techno‑ logical features, cannot constitute adistinctive feature for aparticular cultural area. 82 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 The results of the technological analysis of these wares guide us in asimilar direction. We have observed diverse forming methods within the coarse ware on the selected Ha D2–3 and LT Asettlements. None of these forming methods is specific to finger ‑tip decorated pottery; thus, we cannot technologically distinguish it from other contemporary coarse pottery. It suggests that finger ‑tip decoration in the studied region is adecorative technique used inde‑ pendently of the other parts of the technological chain. This can be stated even though the sampling was not systematic, and the dataset is relatively small. The analysis, therefore, did not establish that the decorative technique in question reflected the presence of aspecific group of manufacturers as representatives of apopulation subgroup with adistinct identity. To conclude, we should comment on the question hinted at in the introduction. Can finger‑ ‑tip decorated pottery from Bohemia be considered as amarker of cultural contacts or even migration, i.e. in the same vein as some scholars posited possible links between similarly decorated wares from northern Italy and northeastern France? Our answer cannot be ‘yes’. Although from apurely chronological point of view such aconnection would not be unrealistic (cf. Saureletal. 2024; Zamboni 2024), considerations along these lines cannot be supported by the results of our analysis. On the contrary, given the current state of knowledge of this issue in the Czech Republic, it seems that finger ‑tip decoration should be understood as auniver‑ sal technique of decoration or surface treatment facilitating the handling of ceramic vessels, which can occur independently in different regions, cultures and periods. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was supported by the Cooperatio Program provided by Charles University, research area archaeology, implemented at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University and by the European Regional Development Fund Project ‘Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World’ (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000734). BIBLIOGRAPHY Balfet, H. 1953: Note sur le façonnage des poteries préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France 50, 211–217. Bašta, J.– Baštová, D.– Bouzek, J. 1989: Die Nachahmung einer attisch rotfigurigen Kylix aus Pilsen ‑Roudná. Germania 67, 463–476. Beneš, Z. 2010: Dobroměřice uLoun aBřezno uChomutova. Dvě sídliště doby římské vseverozápadních Čechách. In: J. Beljak– G. Březinová– V. Varsik (eds.): Archeológia barbarov 2009. Hospodárstvo Germánov: sídliskové aekonomické štruktúry od neskorej doby laténskej po včasný stredovek. Archaeologica Slovaca Mon‑ ographiae, Communicationes 10. Nitra, 67–112. Beneš, Z. 2014: Germánské osídlení vdobě římské [The germanic settlement in the Roman Age]. In: M. Popelka– R. Šmidtová (eds.): Výsledky archeologického výzkumu polykulturní lokality Obříství 1. Praehistorica 32/1. Praha, 75–152. Berg, I. 2008: Looking through pots. Recent advances in ceramics X ‑radiography. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1177–1188. Bohr, M. 2014: Zabytki ruchome kultury przeworskiej [Przeworsk Culture movable artefacts]. In: M. Masojć (ed.): Obozowiska, Osady, Wsie. Wrocław ‑Widawa 17. Wrocław, 159–233. 83TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA Bordet, P.– Courtois, L. 1967: Étude géologique des céramiques anciennes. Les techniques de fabrication. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Paris 265 D, 1665–1667. Bouzek, J. 1962: Kmilavečské keramice na Plzeňsku [Zur milavečer Keramik in der Gegend von Pilsen]. Archeologické rozhledy 14, 175–205, 209–218. Bouzek, J. 2011a: Prehistory of Europe as seen from its centre. Czech lands from Paleolithic to the end of the La Tène period in European context. Studia Hercynia 15/1. Praha. Bouzek, J. 2011b: Několik poznámek ke vzniku oppid akimportům na nich [Comments to the origin of oppida and imports found there]. Archeologické rozhledy 63/3, 523–524. Bouzeketal. 2017 = Bouzek, J.– Pecinovská, M.– Řidký, J.– Sankot, P.: Bemerkungen zur keltischen Kunst und zu mediterranen Importen in Frühlatènezeit in Böhmen. Studia Hercynia 21/1, 45–75. Břicháček, P.– Košnar, L. 1998: Sídliště doby římské vBerouně ‑Závodí. Praehistorica 23, 61–93. Břicháček, P.– Metlička, M. 2011: Záchranný výzkum časně laténských obytných objektů uMašovic, okr. Domažlice [Die Notgrabung von frühlatènezeitlichen Wohnobjekten bei Mašovice, Bez. Domažlice]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 15, 367–384. Budinský, P.1971: Výskum severozápadnej části hostomickej tehelni vr.1967–1968 [Die Ausgrabung im nordwestlichen Teile der Hostomicer Ziegelei in den 1967–1968]. Archeologické rozhledy 23, 27–57. Budinský, P.1997: Výzkum prakeltské osady uHostomic (okres Teplice) vletech 1970–1977. 1 – Archeologické prameny. Archeologický výzkum vseverních Čechách 28. Teplice. Budinský, P.1999: Výzkum prakeltské osady uHostomic (okres Teplice) vletech 1970–1977. 2 – Vyhodnocení archeologických pramenů azávěr. Archeologický výzkum vseverních Čechách 29. Teplice. Buoite, C.– Zamboni, L. 2008: Ceramica d’impasto di tradizione non locale. In: L. Malnati– D. Neri (eds.): Gli scavi di Castelfranco Emilia presso il Forte Urbano. Un abitato etrusco alla vigilia delle invasioni celtiche. Quaderni di Archeologia dell’Emilia Romagna 21. Firenze, 89–92. Buoite, C.– Zamboni, L. 2013: Ceramica d’impasto di tradizione La Tène. In: C. Cornelio Cassai– S. Giannini– L. Malnati (eds.): Spina. Scavi nell’abitato della città etrusca 2007–2009. Firenze, 133–135. Bursák, D. 2008: Záchranný archeologický výzkum při stavbě plynovodu na k.ú. Ořech, Praha ‑Západ. Příspěvek kpoznání osídlení zčasné doby laténské astarší doby římské [Rescue excavation on the con‑ struction of the gas pipeline at Ořech, District Prague ‑west. Contribution towards the settlement of the early La ‑Tène and early Roman Period]. Archeologica Pragensia 19, 161–200. Carr, C. 1990: Advances in ceramic radiography and analysis: applications and potentials. Journal of Archaeological Science 17, 13–34. Claus, M. 1952: Die Lappenschalen der jüngeren Bronzezeit in Niedersachsen. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 21, 3–54. Courty,M.A.– Roux, V. 1995: Identification of wheel throwing based on ceramic surface features and mi‑ crofabrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 17–50. Cvrková, M.– Waldhauser, J. 1975: Sídliště lužické kultury lidu popelnicových polí uNěštěmic (okr. Ústí nad Labem). Výzkumy vČechách 1971, 227–260. Čtrnáct, V. 1954: Mohylová chata asídelní mohylové objekty vPlzeňsku. Památky archeologické 45/2, 335–355. Čtrnáct, V. 1975: Mohylové pohřebiště nad Novou Hutí uDýšiny (okr. Plzeň ‑sever) ajeho vztahy ke Středo‑ dunají akmohylovému území Bavorska. Výzkumy vČechách 1971, 178–201. Dobiat, C. 1980: Reliefverzierte Keramik in eisenzeitlichen Gruben bei Frohnhausen, Gem. Battenberg, Kr. Waldeck ‑Frankenberg. Fundberichte aus Hessen 17/18, 109–130. Drda, P.– Rybová, A. 2008: Akropole na hradišti Závist v6.–4. stol. př. Kr. Památky archeologické, Supple‑ mentum 19. Praha. Droberjar, E. 1997: Studien zu den germanischen Siedlungen der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Mähren. Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 21. Praha. Droberjar, E. 1999: Dobřichov -Pičhora. Ein Brandgräberfelder der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen. Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 23. Praha. 84 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Elschek, K.etal. 2017: Bratislava -Dúbravka im 1. bis 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Germanischer Fürstensitz mit römischen Bauten und die germanische Besiedlung. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae 29. Nitra. Elšíková, V. 2009: Sídliště Kanín aproblematika laténských dvorců. Rukopis bakalářské práce uložený na FF Univerzity Karlovy vPraze. Felts, W.M. 1942: Apetrographic examination of potsherds from ancient Troy. American Journal of Archaeology 46, 237–244. Ferrari, S.– Mengoli, D. 2005: Imateriali di età celtica dalla struttura 2 di Casalecchio di Reno (BO), zona “A”. In: D. Vitali (ed.): Studi sulla media e tarda età del Ferro nell’Italia settentrionale. Studi e Scavi 12. Bologna, 15–148. Fisher, N.I. 1993: Statistical analysis of circular data. Cambridge– New York. Fojtík, P.2011: Die germanische Hütte aus Mořice, Bez. Prostějov. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity M, Řada archeologická 60, 153–170. Gifford, E.W. 1928: Pottery -making in the Southwest. Berkeley. Griebl, M. 2004: Die Siedlung der Hallstattkultur von Göttlesbrunn, p.B. Bruck an der Leitha, Niederösterreich. Rettungsgrabungen im Zuge des Ostautobahnbaus (A4) im Jahre 1989. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 54. Wien. Goláňová, P.2018: The Early La Tène Period in Moravia. Studien zur Archäologie Europas 32. Bonn. Golec, M. 2003: Těšetice -Kyjovice 6. Horákovská kultura vtěšetickém mikroregionu. Opera Universitatis Masary‑ kianae Brunensis, Facultas philosophica 342. Brno. Gosselain, O.P.2000: Materializing identities. An African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 187–217. Hegewisch, M. 2007: Plänitz. Ein kaiserund völkerwanderungszeitliches Gräberfeld im Kreis Ostprignitz -Ruppin. Beiträge zur Vor‑ und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 7. Bonn. Horáková ‑Jansová, L. 1955: Laténská tuhová keramika vČechách ana Moravě [Die latènezeitliche Graphit‑ keramik in Böhmen und Mähren]. Památky archeologické 46/1, 134–184. Chvojka, O.etal. 2011: Osídlení zdoby bronzové vpovodí říčky Smutné vjižních Čechách [Bronzezeitliche Besiedlung im Flussgebiet von Smutná in Südböhmen]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách, Supplementum 8. České Budějovice. Chytráček, M.– Bernat, J. 2000: Pozdně halštatské ačasně laténské sídliště vPraze– Zbraslavi [Late Hall‑ statt and Early La Tène Settlement at Prague ‑Zbraslav]. Památky archeologické 91/2, 255–313. Chytráčeketal. 2012 = Chytráček, M.– Danielisová, A.– Pokorný, P.– Kočár, P.– Kyselý, R.– Kyncl, T.– Sádlo, J.– Šmejda, L.– Zavřel, J.: Vzestupy apády regionálního mocenského centra. Přehled současného stavu poznání pravěkého opevněného areálu na Vladaři vzápadních Čechách [Rises and Falls of aRegional Power Center. An Overview of the Current State of Knowledge of the Prehistoric Fortified Area at Vladař in Western Bohemia]. Památky archeologické 103/2, 273–338. Jansová, L. 1957: Příspěvek kchronologii jihočeského pozdního halštatu [Beitrag zur Chronologie der Späten Hallstattzeit in Südböhmen]. Památky archeologické 48/2, 425–462. Jansová, L. 1975: Několik pozdně halštatských ačasně laténských nálezů ze Sedlčanska. Výzkumy vČechách 1971, 262–275. Jansová, L. 1983: Opočátcích laténské fortifikace vČechách. Studie AÚ ČSAV vBrně 11/1. Praha. Jíleketal. 2015 = Jílek, J.– Vokolek, V.– Beková, M.– Bek, T.– Urbanová, K.– Horník, P.: Sídliště zčasné doby římské ve Slepoticích [Asettlement from the Early Roman period at Slepotice (Czech Republic)]. Archeologie východních Čech 6 (2013), 21–334. Jošková, T.– Langová, M.– Jílek, J. eds. 2020: Mikulovice. Život na hraně. Pardubice. Juřinová, Š.– Smejtek, L.– Vojtěchovská, I. 2011: Sídliště kultury nálevkovitých pohárů ve Velkých Přílepech, okr.Praha ‑západ [Die Siedlung der Trichterbecherkultur in Velké Přílepy, Bez. Prag ‑Wes.]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 15, 101–138. Kersten, W. 1948: Die niederrheinische Grabhügelkultur. Bonner Jahrbücher 148, 5–80. 85TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA Kolník, T. 1980. Römerzeitliche Gräberfelder in der Slowakei. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes 14. Bratislava. Kolník, T.– Varsik, V.– Vladár, J. 2007: Branč. Germánska osada z2. až 4. storočia [Eine germanische Siedlung vom 2. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert]. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Catalogi 10. Nitra. Kruta, V. 1980: Les Boïens de Cispadane. Essai de paléoethnographie celtique. Études celtiques 17, 7–32. Kruta, V. 2008: Epilogo. L’abitato del Forte Urbano e la questione della presenza Celtica in Cispadana. In: L. Malnati– D. Neri (eds.): Gli scavi di Castelfranco Emilia presso il Forte Urbano. Un abitato etrusco alla vigilia delle invasioni celtiche. Quaderni di Archeologia dell’Emilia Romagna 21. Firenze, 225–227. Kruta, V.etal. 2006: Celtes. Belges, Boïens, Rèmes, Volques… Mariemont. Kytlicová, O. 1970: Pohřebiště zdoby římské vLužci nad Vltavou (o. Mělník) [Die römerzeitliche Gräberfeld in Lužec nad Vltavou, Kr. Mělník]. Památky archeologické 61/2, 291–377. Lasch, H. 1999: Berching -PollantenI. Die Keramik der spätkeltischen Siedlung Berching -Pollanten, Lkr. Neumarkt i. d. Oberpfalz. Internationale Archäologie 60. Rahden. Lejars, T. 2006: Les Celtes d’Italie. In: M. Szabó (ed.): Les civilisés et les Barbares (du Ve au IIe siècle avant J.-C.). Celtes et Gaulois. L’archéologie face à l’histoire 3. Actes du colloque, Budapest 2005. Glux ‑en ‑Glenne, 77–96. Linné, S. 1925: The technique of South American ceramics. Göteborg. Livingstone Smith, A. 2007: Chaîne opératoire de la poterie. Références ethnographiques, analyses et reconstitution. Tervuren. Ludikovský, K. 1973: Halštatský sídelní objekt vpískovně vBulharech. Přehled výzkumů 1972, 34–35. Mardia, K.V.– Jupp, P.E. 2000: Directional statistics. Chichester– New York. Meduna, J. 1980: Die latènezeitlichen Siedlungen und Gräberfelder in Mähren (Katalog). Fontes Archaeologiae Moravicae 11. Praha. Meyer, M., 2008: Mardorf 23, Lkr. Marburg -Biedenkopf. Archäologische Studien zur Besiedlung des deutschen Mittelgebirgsraumes in den Jahrhunderten um Christi Geburt. Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 5. Berlin. Middleton, A. 2005: Ceramics. In: J. Lang– A. Middleton (eds.): Radiography of cultural material. Oxford– Burlington, 76–95. Michálek, J. 1979: Süd und Wesböhmische Funde in Wien. Výzkumy vČechách– supplementum. Praha. Michálek, J. 1981: Mohylová pohřebiště vtěšínovském polesí uProtivína. Výzkumy vČechách 1975. Supplementum, 11–25. Michálek, J. 2013: Sídliště (usedlost?– dvorec?) zpozdní doby halštatské (HA D2–3/LT A) se středomořským importem skla uStrakonic [Eine Ansiedlung (Siedlung?– Gehöft?) der späten Hallstattzeit (Ha D2–3/LT A) mit Glasimport (Aryballos) aus dem Mittelmeerraum bei Strakonice. Grabungen und Sammelfunde der Jahre 1990/1992 bis 2004]. Archeologické výzkumy vjižních Čechách 26, 137–170. Morpurgo, G. 2016: La fase tarda di Marzabotto. In: E. Govi (ed.): Il mondo etrusco e il mondo italico di ambito settentrionale prima dell’impatto con Roma (IV–II secolo a.C.). Atti del Convegno, Bologna 2013. Roma, 127–169. Motěšický, J.– Tichá Krasnokutská, T.– Kyselý, R.2023: Pozdně halštatské až časně laténské sídliště zNeplachovic, okr. Opava. Studia archaeologica Brunensia 28/2, 45–134. Motyková, K. 1973: Sídliště lidu popelnicových polí uSobčic [Die Siedlung der Urnenfelderkultur von Sobčice]. Památky archeologické 64, 235–271. Motyková, K. 1981: Das Brandgräberfeld der römischen Kaiserzeit von Stehelčeves. Památky archeologické 72/2, 340–415. Motyková ‑Šneidrová, K. 1963: Die Anfänge der römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen. Fontes Archaeologici Pra‑ genses 6. Praha. Motyková ‑Šneidrová, K. 1967: Weiterentwicklung und Ausklang der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen. Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 11. Praha. Motyková, K.– Pleiner, R.1987: Die römerzeitliche Siedlung mit Eisenhütten in Ořech bei Prag. Památky archeologické 78/2, 371–448. Motyková, K.– Drda, P.– Rybová, A. 1977: The position of Závist in the Early La Tène period in Bohemia. Památky archeologické 68/2, 255–316. 86 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Motyková, K.– Drda, P.– Rybová, A. 1984: Opevnění pozdně halštatského ačasně laténského hradiště Závist [Fortification of the Late Hallstatt and Early La Tène Stronghold of Závist]. Památky archeologické 75/2, 331–444. Neuffer, E. 1938: Siedlungskeramik der Hunsrück ‑Eifel ‑Kultur. Bonner Jahrbücher 143‑144, 1–46. Ortalli, J. 1995: La necropoli celtica della Zona ‘A’ di Casalecchio di Reno (Bologna). Note preliminari sullo scavo del complesso sepolcrale e dell’area di culto. In: J.‑J. Charpy (ed.): L’Europe Celtique du Ve au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Contacts, échanges et mouvements de populations. Actes du Symposium international d’Hautvillers, 8–10 octobre 1992. Paris, 189–238. Pavlů, I. ed. 2008: Neolit. Archeologie pravěkých Čech 3. Praha. Peschel, K. 1963: Früheisenzeitliche Keramik mit Reliefverzierung aus Sachsen. Alt -Thüringen 6, 325–338. Pierret, A. 1995: Analyse technologique des céramiques archéologiques: développements méthodologiques pour l’identification des techniques de façonnage. Un exemple d’application: le matériel du village des Arènes à Levroux (Indre). Unpublished PhD thesis, Université Paris 1– Panthéon Sorbonne. Paris. Pleiner, R.1959: Osada sželezárnami zmladší doby římské vTuchlovicích [Die Siedlung mit Eisenschmelzen aus der jüngeren Kaiserzeit in Tuchlovice (Böhmen)]. Památky archeologické 50/1, 158–196. Pleslová ‑Štiková, E. 1985: Makotřasy: ATRB Site in Bohemia. Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 17/1. Praha. Podborský, V. 1993: Nástup zemědělské civilizace. In: V. Podborský et al.: Pravěké dějiny Moravy. Brno, 71–152. Polišenský, T.– Trefný, M. 2011: Pozdně halštatské až časně laténské sídliště vPraze ‑Křeslicích [Die späthallstattzeitliche und frühlatènezeitliche siedlung in Prag ‑Křeslice]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 15, 819–858. Ramsl, P.C. 1998: Inzersdorf -Walpersdorf. Studien zur späthallstatt -latènezeitlichen Besiedlung im Traisental, Niederösterreich. Fundberichte aus Österreich. Materialhefte A6. Wien. Rebay, K. 2006: Das hallstattzeitliche Gräberfeld von Statzendorf in Niederösterreich. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Interpretation von Sozialindexberechnungen 1‑2. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäolo‑ gie 135. Bonn. Roduit, N. 2014: JmicroVision, Image analysis toolbox for measuring and quantifying components of high -definition images, version 1.2.7. http://www.jmicrovision.com/ (visited in February 2014). Rybová, A. 1969: Keramika na rovinných osadách východních Čech vdobě laténské [Die Keramik der latèn‑ zeitlichen Niedersiedlungen Ostböhmens]. Památky archeologické 60/2, 367–442. Rybová, A. 1979: Plotiště nad Labem. Eine Nekropole aus dem 2.–5. Jahrhundert u.Z.– 1. Památky archeologické 70/2, 353–489. Rybová, A. 1980: Plotiště nad Labem. Eine Nekropole aus dem 2.–5. Jahrhundert u.Z.– 2. Památky archeologické 71/1, 93–224. Rye, O.S. 1981: Pottery technology. Principles and reconstruction. Washington. Saalow, L.– Wehner, D. 2009: Häuser, Öfen, Buntmetall– Ein Siedlungs‑ und Werkplatz der älteren römisch‑ en Kaiserzeit in der Gemarkung Ahrensboek, Lkr. Parchim. Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenbg.-Vorpommern 2008 (2009), 23–68. Salač, V. 2008: Starší doba římská. In: V. Salač (ed.): Doba římská astěhování národů. Archeologie pravěkých Čech 8. Praha, 17–126. Saureletal. 2024 = Saurel, M.– Bardel, D.– Di Napoli, F.– Séguier, J.‑M.: Aux sources d’un style céramique original. Des pots à décor couvrant imprimé ou modelé, une spécificité sénone aux 5 e et 4 e siècles av. notre ère? Studia Hercynia 28/1, 17–44. Sedláček, R.– Kašpárek, F.– Jílek, J. 2010: Sídlištní nálezy zdoby římské zMikulovic, okr. Pardubice (stav kroku 2008) [The finds from settlement Mikulovice, distr. Pardubice from Roman Period (until 2008)]. In: J. Beljak – G. Březinová– V. Varsik (eds.): Archeológia barbarov 2009. Hospodárstvo Germánov: sídliskové aekonomické štruktúry od neskorej doby laténskej po včasný stredovek. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae. Communicationes 10. Nitra, 371–409. Shepard, A.O. 1956: Ceramics for the archaeologist. Washington. 87TOMÁŠ MANGEL– RICHARD THÉR– DANIEL BURSÁK– JAN KYSELA Schumann, R.2013: Traunkirchen während der Hallstattzeit. Nach Grabungen des Bundesdenkmalamtes und Begehungen im Bereich des ehemaligen Klosters von Traunkirchen, PB Gmunden, Oberösterreich. Universitäts‑ forschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 225. Bonn. Smejtek, L. 2011: Osídlení zdoby bronzové vKněževsi uPrahy [Bronze Age Settlement at Kněževes near Prague]. Praha. Soudská, E. 1966: Obydlí na pozdně halštatských sídlištích [Wohnstätten in späthallstattzeitliche Siedlun‑ gen]. Památky archeologické 57/2, 535–595. Soudská, E. 1994: Die Anfänge der keltischen Zivilisation in Böhmen. Das Gräberfeld Manětín -Hrádek. Praha. Stöckli, W.E. 1979: Die Grobund Importkeramik von Manching. Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 8. Wiesbaden. Svoboda, B. 1965: Čechy vdobě stěhování národů [Böhmen in der Völkerwanderungszeit]. Praha. Šaldová, V. 1971: Pozdně halštatské ploché hroby vzápadních Čechách ajejich vztah ksoučasným mohylám. Pohřebiště Nynice aŽákava ‑Sváreč [Die westböhmischen späthallstattzeitlichen Flachgräberfelder und ihre Beziehung zu den zeitgleichen westböhmischen Hügelgräbern (Das Gräberfeld von Nynice und Žákava ‑Svářeč)]. Památky archeologické 62/1, 1–134. Šaldová, V. 1983: Sídlištní formy zpozdní doby bronzové vzápadních Čechách [Siedlungsformen der späten Bronzezeit in Westböhmen]. Památky archeologické 74/2, 316–349. Šaldová, V. 1984: Časně laténské sídliště vBolešinách, okr. Klatovy [Eine frühlatènezeitliche Siedlung in Bolešiny (Bez. Klatovy)]. Památky archeologické 75/2, 304–330. Tappert, C. 2006: Die Gefässkeramik der latènezeitlichen Siedlung Straubing -Bajuwarenstrasse. Materialhefte zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte A89. Kallmünz/Opf. Tarpini, R.2018: Hallstattzeitliche Zierstile und Identitäten am nordostalpenrand. In: S. Wefersetal. (eds.): KunstHandWerk. Beiträge der 26. Tagung der AG Eisenzeit gemeinsam mit der Keltenwelt am Glauberg und der hessenARCHÄOLOGIE im Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen in Bad Salzhausen, 3.–6. Oktober 2013. Langenweissbach, 103–114. Thér, R.2016: Identification of pottery ‑forming techniques using quantitative analysis of the orientation of inclusions and voids in thin sections. Archaeometry 58, 222–238. Thér, R.2020: Ceramic technology. How to reconstruct and describe pottery ‑forming practices. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12, 172. Thér, R.– Květina, P.– Neumannová, K. 2019: Coiling or slab building. Potential of orientation analysis for identification of forming techniques used by Early Neolithic potters. Journal of Archaeological Science– Reports 26, 1–14. Thér, R.– Mangel, T.– Gregor, M. 2015: Život hrnčíře začíná vLT A. Výroba keramiky vdobě laténské na Chrudimsku. Hradec Králové. Thér, R.– Toms, P.2016: Quantification of the orientation and alignment of aplastic components of ace‑ ramic body as amethod for distinguishing among various means of using arotational device in pottery forming. Journal of Archaeological Science– Reports 9, 33–43. Thér, R.– Toms, P.2021: Orientation patterns characteristic for the structure of the ceramic body of wheel‑ ‑thrown pottery. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 22, 143–154. Trefný, M.– Polišenský, T. 2014: Sídliště ze starší doby železné vPraze ‑Pitkovicích [An early Iron age settlement at Prague ‑Pitkovice]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 18, 691–744. Trefný, M.– Slabina, M. 2015: Knejdůležitějším aspektům architektury, hmotné kultury akvýznamu halštatského hradiště vMinicích (Kralupy nad Vltavou, okr. Mělník) [The key aspects of the architecture, material culture and significance of the Hallstatt period hillfort in Minice (Kralupy nad Vltavou, central Bohemia)]. Archeologické rozhledy 67, 45–78. Varsik, V. 2011: Germánske osídlenie na Východnom predpolí Bratislavy. Sídliská zdoby rímskej vBratislave -Trnávke avokolí [Germanische Besiedlung am östlichen Vorfeld von Bratislava. Kaiserzeitliche Siedlungen von Bratislava- -Trnávka und Umgebung]. Nitra. Venclová, N. ed. 2008: Doba halštatská. Archeologie pravěkých Čech 6. Praha. 88 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Vitali, D. 2014: La vaisselle céramique ‘celtique’ des Boïens cisalpins (IVe–IIIe s. av. J.‑C.). Quelques considéra‑ tions générales. In: Hommage à Jeannot Metzler. Archaeologia Mosellana 9, 295–314. Vojtěchovská, I. 1995: Keltská osada pod mohylníkem vLibčicích nad Vltavou– Chýnově zobdobí pozdně halštatského až časně laténského. Libčice nad Vltavou. Vokolek, V. 1999: Východočeská halštatská pohřebiště. Pardubice. Volf, J. 2020: Sídliště zpolohy Usilnice (Plaňany, okres Kolín) vkontextu okolního osídlení zdoby římské. Unpub‑ lished MA thesis, Ústav pro archeologii, FF UK. Praha. Volnáetal. 2018 = Volná, P.– Unger, J.– Kovačiková, L.– Novák, J.: Sídlištní objekty bylanské kultury (Ha C2– Ha D1) zTuřan, okr. Kladno [Settlement features of the Bylany culture (Ha C2– Ha D1) from Tuřany, Kladno District]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 22, 161–236. Vyalov, S.S. 1986: Rheological fundamentals of soil mechanics. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 36. Amsterdam– New York. Waldhauser, J. 1977: Keltské sídliště uRadovesic vseverozápadních Čechách. Přehled výzkumů astav hodnocení [Die keltische Siedlung bei Radovesice, Bez. Teplice in Nordwestböhmen. Übersicht der Aus‑ grabungen und Stadt der Auswertung]. Archeologické rozhledy 29, 144–177, 238–239. Waldhauser, J.– Mangel, T. 2011: Časně laténská schránka mořského plže zTuněchod, okr. Chrudim [Die frühlatenezeitliche Schale der Meeresmolluske aus Tuněchody]. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 15, 395–418. Waldhauser, J.etal. 1993: Die hallstattund latènezeitliche Siedlung mit Gräberfeld bei Radovesice in Böhmen. Archeologický výzkum vseverních Čechách 21. Teplice. Whitbread, I.K. 1996: Detection and interpretation of preferred orientation in ceramic thin sections. In: T. Higgins– P.Main– J. Lang (eds.): Imaging the past. Electronic imaging and computer graphics in museums and archaeology. British Museum, Occasional Paper 114. London, 173–181. Zahnašová, M. 2018: Sídliště zdoby římské vHolubicích. Unpublished MA Thesis, Ústav pro archeologii, FF UK. Praha. Zamboni, L. 2021: Ceramiche d’impasto decorate in Cisalpina tra seconda età del Ferro e romanizzazione. In: Studi di amici e colleghi per Maria Teresa Grassi. Lanx 29, 118–148. doi 10.54103/2035‑4797/17090 Zamboni, L. 2024: Tumultuous materials. Decorated coarse ware in Late Iron Age Emilia. Studia Hecynia 28/1, 89–106. Zeman, J.– Venclová, N.– Bubeník, J. 1998: Železářská osada z3.– poč. 5. stol. vPřerubenicích [Ein Siedlungs‑ und Eisenverhüttungsareal aus dem 3. Jh.– Anfang 5. Jh. in Přerubenice, Kreis Rakovník]. Praehistorica 23, 95–132. Zeman, T. 2006: Sídliště zpozdní doby římské ve Zlechově. Stav zpracování, východiska acíle projektu [Eine Siedlung aus der späten römischen Kaiserzeit in Zlechov. Zum Stand der Bearbeitung, Ausgangspunkte und Ziele eines Projektes]. In: E. Droberjar– M. Lutovský (eds.): Archeologie barbarů 2005. Kounice, 451–469. Tomáš Mangel Richard Thér Department of Archaeology Philosophical Faculty, University of Hradec Králové Rokitanského 62, CZ‑50003 Hradec Králové [email protected] [email protected] Jan Kysela Institue of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, CZ‑116 42, Prague 1 [email protected] Daniel Bursák Institute of Archaeology of the CAS Prague,v.v.i. Letenská 4, CZ‑118 01, Prague 1 [email protected]