The Minice Hillfort and its Hinterland. Putting the Archaeological Data Together

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2, 9–38 The Minice Hillfort and its Hinterland. Putting the Archaeological Data Together Viktoria Čisťakova– Petra Tušlová– Miloslav Slabina ABSTRACT The present study aims to put together the archaeological data known up to date about the Minice hillfort and its immediate hinterland. Archaeological sites, pottery scatters and single objects found within afour- -kilometre perimeter of the hillfort were collected and their approximate location marked on the GIS based map together with refined excavation plans from the 1970s and 1980s. The current knowledge of the site was further extended by asmall -scale field survey and metal detector prospection on and around the hillfort, with the preliminary result of season 2015 and 2016 included in the text. KEYWORDS Late Hallstatt period; Bohemia; Hillfort; XRF; field survey; metal detector prospection. INTRODUCTION The Minice hillfort is located about 18 km north -west of Prague, about 2.5 km west of the Vltava River (Fig. 1). The site was excavated during 1970–1989 under the National Museum of Prague and published only in the form of short preliminary reports (Slabina 1975; 1977; 1979; 1981; 1982; 1987). Aselection of finds from the excavations, as well as abasic interpretation of the unearthed architectural structures, had been awaiting publication until quite recently (Trefný– Slabina 2015). Asmall -scale metal detector prospection undertaken on the site in 2013 and 2014 brought to light acollection of metal finds, including the first bronze fibula (Fusszierfibel) so far uncovered on the hillfort’sacropolis. Some of the other finds recovered from the ground could be interpreted as bronze casting waste which might suggest possible production activity undertaken at the hillfort in prehistory (Bursák– Daněček– Smíšek 2016). The presented study builds on the previous research, starting by putting together archaeological data known up to the present about the Minice hillfort and its immediate hinterland. The area of our interest is bordered by Holubický Stream on the south -west, Zákolanský Stream on the north -west and by Turský Stream on the north -east; all within the delimitation of the cadastral units of the villages Holubice and Minice in the District of Kralupy nad Vltavou (Pl. 1/1). The archaeological data were collected either from the excavation reports or from field observations carried out by the personnel of local museums and entered into the GIS database, which facilitates their visualisation in the maps, marking known settlements, settlement components as well as single and chance finds. We aimed to survey some of the areas where surface scatters were previously noted and verify them in the field– to mark their exact location, measure the extent of the scatter, and to determine the chronological range of the collected material. The repetitive intensive field survey and total pickups were tested together with extensive metal detector prospection. So far, only the Minice hillfort and its closest vicinity were surveyed, with the potential for afurther extension of the area. 10 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 Regarding the hillfort itself, the excavation plans were digitalized and put into the context of the landscape, especially of the rocky promontory it stands on (Pl. 1/2). The intensive field survey was then focused on the hillfort’ssurroundings with the main aim to detect Hallstatt (or other) period pottery scatters, which would help to understand better the settlement dynamics of the site and its connection with its immediate hinterland (Pls. 1/3–5). Fig. 1: Map of the Minice hillfort location within the map of Central Bohemia. THE MINICE HILLFORT NEAR KRALUPY NAD VLTAVOU HISTORY OF RESEARCH The earliest mention of the Minice hillfort can be found in the works of Krolmus (1854), although he mentioned solely the local name ‘Minice hillfort’ without any archaeological context (Sklenář 1992, 142). The hillfort was added to the list of prehistoric archaeological sites about 90 years later by Prokop Masner, who described the hillfort in detail as asignificant archaeological site and accompanied the description with its first sketch, made by alocal artist Josef Holub (Fig. 2). As an amateur archaeologist, Prokop Masner collected the main written and archaeological sources about the Minice hillfort and its hinterland; he also described in detail the topography of the site. Further, he identified the hillfort as aLate Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement which was repopulated during the Early Middle Ages (Masner 1934, 53–55).1 The first, and so far, the last, systematic archaeological excavations of the site took place in 1970–1989, examining about 10% of the presumed area of the hillfort. The main focus of the excavations was the hillfort’sso -called acropolis (Slabina 1975; 1977; 1979; 1981; 1982; 1987). Aselection of the finds and the first interpretation of architectural structures uncovered during these excavations was however published quite recently (Chytráčeketal. 2010; Tref1 Inaccurate interpretation applicable in the context of the beginning of the 20th century. 11VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA Fig. 2: Plan of Minice hillfort by P.F. Masner and J. Holub (Masner 1934, 59). 12 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 ný– Slabina 2015). Since the time of the excavation, only small -scale investigations including metal detector and random collections of surface finds have been made (Bursák– Daněček– Smíšek 2016). From the immediate hinterland of the Minice hillfort are known several chance finds dating back to the 19th century, such as two armbands dated to the Únětice culture period (Sklenář 1982, 265; Píč 1905, 328–331; Moucha 2005, 130) or ahoard of 16 bronze objects dated to the Tumuli culture which was found in 1893 by agroup of workers (Schmidt 1893, 139) (Tab.1:31, 36, 37; Pl. 1/1:31, 36, 37). From the beginning of the 20th century onwards, many pottery finds are known from the hillfort’shinterland, featuring fragments mostly dated to the Knovíz and Bylany cultures. Prokop Masner mentioned the existence of cremation and inhumation graves with numerous grave goods: fragments of cremation urns, bronze armbands, asword, etc. (Masner 1934, 54). Later on, several archaeological excavations revealed rich settlements and graves surrounding the area of the hillfort with achronology stretching through prehistory (Horáková -Jansová 1931a, 45–50; Horáková -Jansová 1931b, 54; Fencl 1971, 45–54) (Tab.1:32–34; Pl. 1/1:32–34). SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY The Minice hillfort (Tab.1:37; Pl. 1/1:37) is situated on anarrow promontory stretching from west to east over the Zákolanský and Holubický streams (Pl. 1/1). The location provides perfect natural protection, as the promontory is barely approachable from the southern and western sides where the slope is extremely steep with arelative elevation of 72 m over the valley.2 The northern part is partly protected by arocky range creating anatural wall. 3 The already favourable natural location of the hillfort was reinforced by asophisticated fortification system. The area of the hillfort stretches over ca. 330 × 100 m (covering approximately 1.5 ha),4 with the elevation ranging from ca. 270 to 275 m.a.s.l. On amoderate hillock on the western part of the promontory, the so -called acropolis is situated, stretching over ca. 100 × 85 m (covering ca. 0.3 ha). This is the finding place of the unique stone platform (the green square in Pl. 1/2) which attests to the exceptional role of the Minice hillfort during the Late Hallstatt period. The elaborate system of stone walls, ditches and ramparts surrounding the acropolis also belongs to one of the most exceptional examples of afortification system in the territory of prehistoric Bohemia. The traces of the fortification walls were located by the excavators on the northern part of the acropolis and on the southern edge of the promontory. The acropolis was separated from the rest of the hillfort by adeep ditch (5–6 m wide and 3 m deep); another ditch together with astone wall used to enclose the area of the hillfort from the eastern side (Čtveráketal. 2003, 203; Trefný– Slabina 2015, 46–48). The existence of one more ditch, located within the Eastern outer annexe, is probable. The original surface of the promontory was disturbed during the 19th and first half of the 20th century by four quarries. The biggest one is located on the western edge of the acropolis. During its active years, 1937–1939, the quarry extracted about 50 × 50 m of the rocky surface of 2 The elevation is taken from: http://ags.cuzk.cz/dmr/#, measured from DMR 5G. 3 The rocky range was partly disturbed by stone quarrying (Čtveráketal. 2003, 201). 4 The georeferenced excavation plans helped us to better estimate the size of the settlement. The north -south dimension is measured from the Northern to Southern fortification wall, the east -west dimensions from the western border of the acropolis to the eastern ditch separating the promontory from the Eastern outer annexe. 13VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA the promontory together with the so called altar, identified and described by the local painter Josef Holub (Masner 1934, 56) (Fig. 2:A). Two flat areas are attached to the hillfort itself: one on the north, delimited by aca. 2 m steep partition and covering approximately 1.6 ha, the other on the east, delimited on the north by aline of rocks, on the south by the steep slope of the Holubický Stream basin (locally known as Rusavky), and on the east by alow partition. It covers an area of ca. 7.5 ha. These areas were interpreted as the settlement’souter annexes– Northern and Eastern (Slabina 1987). The area of the Northern outer annexe was identified by Masner as anecropolis, where numerous graves are said to have been found. Unfortunately, Masner mentioned only ashort list of possible grave goods without any documentation or detailed descriptions (Masner 1934, 56). The same area was partially excavated from 1970 to 1989 revealing several settlement features and pit -houses dated to the late Hallstatt period. The Eastern outer annexe was briefly excavated in the 1980s, when one test pit (12 × 3 m) was placed there, uncovering the so -called eastern ‘ditch’ (Pl. 1/1:39, 1/2). Up to the present, only alow pottery scatter might be identified there (c.f. SC01). HINTERLAND OF THE MINICE HILLFORT Based on the chance finds, rescue excavations, and field surveys, almost 50 archaeological components have been found within a4 km radius of the Minice hillfort within the last 180 years.5 Most of them are presumed settlements, although burial grounds, black -smith workshops, furnaces or single finds have also been identified (Pl. 1/1; Tab.16). The finds attest to the habitation of the area spanning from the Neolithic up to the present day. The majority of the finding places are located in the immediate vicinity of water courses– such as of the Holubický and Turský streams –, as well as in the area of the Holubice village itself, nowadays very active in construction works bringing new discoveries to light every year, pointing to its rich history and settlement continuity. Consequently, the list of finding places in this area of the Holubice village is simplified, marking only the rather unusual or important findings uncovered within its territory. THE DIGITALIZATION OF THE EXCAVATION PLANS To create an understandable digital picture of the archaeological site and its hinterland, the excavation plans from the 1970s and 1980s created at ascale 1:1250 (Archives of NM) and placed into the JTSK coordinate system in 2009 (Kuna 2009), were georeferenced and digitalized using GIS. Based on the main grid, additional areas, such as the trench marking the presumed ditch of the Eastern outer annexe, were added from the original excavation plans and redrawn into the final map (Pl. 1/2). 7 The correct placement of the additional structures within the 5 The survey area is delimited by the Turský Stream on the north and east, Holubický Stream on the south -west and south, and by the Zákolanský Stream on the west. The list of the sites does not include the town of Kralupy nad Vltavou, where numerous prehistoric sites have been detected. The area of Kralupy nad Vltavou could be identified as aprehistoric ford, which seems to have, in fact, significantly influenced the settlement development in the region (Sklenář 1994, 39). 6 Many of the 19th century chance finds have unclear finding locations. 7 Up to one -meter measurement error might be expected due to the trenches’ deterioration and the deviation of the modern measuring technologies. 14 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 Nr. Local name and district Feature Main finds Chronology Bibliography Methods of investigation Hallstatt Plot no. 1Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozinec, Holubí Háj Settlement; blacksmith workshop Metal finds; pottery; gold–plated hair ring Early La Tène (LT A) period Stolzová – Šulová 2011, 349–365; Šulová 2007a, 99 Rescue excavation 2006   2Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozákova zahrada Settlement Pottery Knovíz culture (LBA); Late Hallstatt (HaD) period; Early Roman Iron Age Schmidt 1893 and 1893– 1895; Sakař 1981, 41; Sakař 1987, 50; Sakař 1989, 47; Sakař 1998, 51; Motyková 1981, 194 Archaeological excavation 1981 Yes old nr. 89 (Na ovčárně 98) 3Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozákova zahrada  Pottery Eneolithic; La Tène; Roman Iron Age  Field survey (D. Daněček, Muzeum of Roztoky) 2006–2014   4Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; burial ground; fortification; furnaces Pottery; grave goods Funnel Beaker (EEn), Baden (MEn), Únětice (EBA) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures; Early Roman Iron Age (A) Hložek – Menšík 2013, 13–18 Rescue excavation 2008   5Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlemet Pottery; grinding stone; flints; stone mace Stroked Pottery (Ne); Funnel Beaker (EEn); Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures; Early Roman Iron Age Daněček – Smíšek 2010, 103–104; Šulová – Turek – Kubálek 2008, 161–174 Rescue excavation 2009  64/56 6Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; furnace? Pottery; grinding stone; flints; iron slag; animal bones; bronze mirror Eneolithic; Late Bronze Age; Roman Iron Age Daněček – Smíšek 2009b, 111–112; Daněček – Smíšek 2010, 100–101 Rescue excavation 2009  64/175, 64/146 7Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery; daub Funnel Beaker (EEn), Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures; Roman Iron Age Daněček 2006, 137; Daněček 2007, 102–103; Daněček – Nový 2007, 102–103 Rescue excavation 2005– 2007  64/120, 64/91 8Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; furnace Pottery; slag Eneolithic; Roman Iron Age Daněček – Smíšek 2009a, 104 Rescue excavation 2008  77/3, 77/4 9 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; furnaces Pottery; slag; stone axe; animal bones; grinding stone; flints Funnel Beaker (EEn), Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures; Late Bronze Age; Roman Iron Age Daněček 2006, 137; Daněček – Smíšek 2007, 101; Daněček – Smíšek 2008, 102; Daněček – Smíšek 2009a, 101, 103 Rescue excavation 2006– 2008 64/87, 64/92, 93, 99, 103 10 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery; animal bones; slag; daub Early Roman Iron Age (A) Daněček – Smíšek 2009a, 103   77/9 11 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlements; furnace? Pottery; bones; slag; stone axe; daub Funnel Beaker (EEn) and Řivnáč (MEn) cultures Daněček – Smíšek – Šulová 2007, 106 Rescue excavation 2006  64/109 12 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Middle Bronze Age tumulus; pottery scatter grave goods (pottery, bronze finds); pottery Funnel Beaker (EEn), The Tumulus (MBA), Knovíz (LBA) and Štítary (FBA) cultures; Hallstatt period Schmidt 1893, 137–142, tab. XI, 374–378; Píč 1899, 192; Spurný 1947, 16 Field survey 1975–2002 (V. Fencl) Yes 212 13 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Nad průhonem Cremation burial grave goods (bronze vessels, other bronze finds) Early Roman Iron Age Motyková– Šneidrová 1963, 19; Sklenář 1992, 61 Accidental find 1879   14 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Neolithic ? Bronze Age? Late La Tène (LT D) period; Middle Ages Daněček 2005, 100 Rescue excavation 2004  W part of 64/40 15VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA Nr. Local name and district Feature Main finds Chronology Bibliography Methods of investigation Hallstatt Plot no. 1Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozinec, Holubí Háj Settlement; blacksmith workshop Metal finds; pottery; gold–plated hair ring Early La Tène (LT A) period Stolzová – Šulová 2011, 349–365; Šulová 2007a, 99 Rescue excavation 2006   2Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozákova zahrada Settlement Pottery Knovíz culture (LBA); Late Hallstatt (HaD) period; Early Roman Iron Age Schmidt 1893 and 1893– 1895; Sakař 1981, 41; Sakař 1987, 50; Sakař 1989, 47; Sakař 1998, 51; Motyková 1981, 194 Archaeological excavation 1981 Yes old nr. 89 (Na ovčárně 98) 3Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozákova zahrada  Pottery Eneolithic; La Tène; Roman Iron Age  Field survey (D. Daněček, Muzeum of Roztoky) 2006–2014   4Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; burial ground; fortification; furnaces Pottery; grave goods Funnel Beaker (EEn), Baden (MEn), Únětice (EBA) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures; Early Roman Iron Age (A) Hložek – Menšík 2013, 13–18 Rescue excavation 2008   5Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlemet Pottery; grinding stone; flints; stone mace Stroked Pottery (Ne); Funnel Beaker (EEn); Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures; Early Roman Iron Age Daněček – Smíšek 2010, 103–104; Šulová – Turek – Kubálek 2008, 161–174 Rescue excavation 2009  64/56 6Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; furnace? Pottery; grinding stone; flints; iron slag; animal bones; bronze mirror Eneolithic; Late Bronze Age; Roman Iron Age Daněček – Smíšek 2009b, 111–112; Daněček – Smíšek 2010, 100–101 Rescue excavation 2009  64/175, 64/146 7Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery; daub Funnel Beaker (EEn), Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures; Roman Iron Age Daněček 2006, 137; Daněček 2007, 102–103; Daněček – Nový 2007, 102–103 Rescue excavation 2005– 2007  64/120, 64/91 8Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; furnace Pottery; slag Eneolithic; Roman Iron Age Daněček – Smíšek 2009a, 104 Rescue excavation 2008  77/3, 77/4 9 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement; furnaces Pottery; slag; stone axe; animal bones; grinding stone; flints Funnel Beaker (EEn), Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures; Late Bronze Age; Roman Iron Age Daněček 2006, 137; Daněček – Smíšek 2007, 101; Daněček – Smíšek 2008, 102; Daněček – Smíšek 2009a, 101, 103 Rescue excavation 2006– 2008 64/87, 64/92, 93, 99, 103 10 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery; animal bones; slag; daub Early Roman Iron Age (A) Daněček – Smíšek 2009a, 103   77/9 11 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlements; furnace? Pottery; bones; slag; stone axe; daub Funnel Beaker (EEn) and Řivnáč (MEn) cultures Daněček – Smíšek – Šulová 2007, 106 Rescue excavation 2006  64/109 12 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Middle Bronze Age tumulus; pottery scatter grave goods (pottery, bronze finds); pottery Funnel Beaker (EEn), The Tumulus (MBA), Knovíz (LBA) and Štítary (FBA) cultures; Hallstatt period Schmidt 1893, 137–142, tab. XI, 374–378; Píč 1899, 192; Spurný 1947, 16 Field survey 1975–2002 (V. Fencl) Yes 212 13 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Nad průhonem Cremation burial grave goods (bronze vessels, other bronze finds) Early Roman Iron Age Motyková– Šneidrová 1963, 19; Sklenář 1992, 61 Accidental find 1879   14 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Neolithic ? Bronze Age? Late La Tène (LT D) period; Middle Ages Daněček 2005, 100 Rescue excavation 2004  W part of 64/40 16 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 Nr. Local name and district Feature Main finds Chronology Bibliography Methods of investigation Hallstatt Plot no. 15 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Settlement Pottery Linear Pottery (Ne), Stroked Pottery (Ne) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures; Hallstatt period Justová 1969, 33; Nový – Fencl 2007, 100 Archaeological excavation 1968; Rescue excavation 2005–2006 Yes  16 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Rusavky Semi–pit house Pottery; metal finds Late La Tène (LT D) period Motyková 1981, 193–199 Archaeological research 1968   17 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Rusavky Pottery scatter Pottery Neolithic; Late La Tène (LT D) period Field survey (D. Daněček) 2006–2014   18 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Semi–pit houses Pottery Late Bronze Age; Late Hallstatt (Ha D) period; Early La Tène (LT A) period Fencl 2008, 64; Daněček et al. 2015, 127–128 Rescue excavation 2014– 2015; Field survey 1975–2002 (V. Fencl) Yes 244; 256 19 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Pottery scatter Pottery Knovíz (LBA) culture  Field survey (D. Daněček), 2006 – 2014   20 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Near Kozákova zahrada – Boží muka 93 Burial ground; settlement; pottery scatter Pottery; slag; grave goods (bronze finds; pottery; amber) Unětice (EBA) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures; Hallstatt (Ha D) period Schmidt 1893, 113–138; Motyková 1963, 18–19 Archaeological excavation 1983  old nr. 93 21 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Únětice (EBA) culture; Late Hallstatt (Ha D) period; La Tène (LT B–D) period Daněček – Smíšek 2013a, 127 Rescue excavation 2006 Yes  22 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Štítary (FBA) culture Šulová 2007b, 104 Rescue excavation 2006   23 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozákov, Holubí háj Pottery scatter Pottery Hallstatt period  Field survey (D. Daněček), 2006–2014 Yes / ?  24 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Semi–pit houses (part of nr. 18) Pottery Late Hallstatt (Ha D2/D3) period Daněček et al. 2015, 127–128 Rescue excavation 2009– 2016 Yes  25 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Inhumation burial Bronze items La Tène period Vencl 1975,26; Motyková 1981, 194    26 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Inhumation burials; settlemet Pottery Linear Pottery (Ne) culture; Early Middle Ages AÚ AV ČR Praha č.j 3569/1956 Rescue excavation   27 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Linear Pottery (Ne) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures AÚ AV ČR Praha č.j 3569/1956    ×Holubice, Prague–west distr. Without lokation Cremation burials ? Roman Iron Age? Sklenář 1992, 61 Accidental find, 1839, no location   × Holubice, Prague–west distr. Between Holubice and Trnový Újezd, Na Ratavi. Without location ? Pottery; bones; sword? ? Sklenář 1992, 61 Accidental find, 1845–1846, no location   28 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Inhumation burials Bronze arms bands; fibulas La Tène period AÚ AV ČR Praha č.2850/1950 Accidental find, 1950   29 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery; flints; stone pendant Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures Daněček – Smíšek 2010b, 92–93 Rescue excavation 2009  64/144 30 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Burials; settlement Pottery Únětice (EBA) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures Vencl 1975, 26    17VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA Nr. Local name and district Feature Main finds Chronology Bibliography Methods of investigation Hallstatt Plot no. 15 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Settlement Pottery Linear Pottery (Ne), Stroked Pottery (Ne) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures; Hallstatt period Justová 1969, 33; Nový – Fencl 2007, 100 Archaeological excavation 1968; Rescue excavation 2005–2006 Yes  16 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Rusavky Semi–pit house Pottery; metal finds Late La Tène (LT D) period Motyková 1981, 193–199 Archaeological research 1968   17 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Rusavky Pottery scatter Pottery Neolithic; Late La Tène (LT D) period Field survey (D. Daněček) 2006–2014   18 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Semi–pit houses Pottery Late Bronze Age; Late Hallstatt (Ha D) period; Early La Tène (LT A) period Fencl 2008, 64; Daněček et al. 2015, 127–128 Rescue excavation 2014– 2015; Field survey 1975–2002 (V. Fencl) Yes 244; 256 19 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Pottery scatter Pottery Knovíz (LBA) culture  Field survey (D. Daněček), 2006 – 2014   20 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Near Kozákova zahrada – Boží muka 93 Burial ground; settlement; pottery scatter Pottery; slag; grave goods (bronze finds; pottery; amber) Unětice (EBA) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures; Hallstatt (Ha D) period Schmidt 1893, 113–138; Motyková 1963, 18–19 Archaeological excavation 1983  old nr. 93 21 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Únětice (EBA) culture; Late Hallstatt (Ha D) period; La Tène (LT B–D) period Daněček – Smíšek 2013a, 127 Rescue excavation 2006 Yes  22 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Štítary (FBA) culture Šulová 2007b, 104 Rescue excavation 2006   23 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Kozákov, Holubí háj Pottery scatter Pottery Hallstatt period  Field survey (D. Daněček), 2006–2014 Yes / ?  24 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Za humny Semi–pit houses (part of nr. 18) Pottery Late Hallstatt (Ha D2/D3) period Daněček et al. 2015, 127–128 Rescue excavation 2009– 2016 Yes  25 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Inhumation burial Bronze items La Tène period Vencl 1975,26; Motyková 1981, 194    26 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Inhumation burials; settlemet Pottery Linear Pottery (Ne) culture; Early Middle Ages AÚ AV ČR Praha č.j 3569/1956 Rescue excavation   27 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery Linear Pottery (Ne) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures AÚ AV ČR Praha č.j 3569/1956    ×Holubice, Prague–west distr. Without lokation Cremation burials ? Roman Iron Age? Sklenář 1992, 61 Accidental find, 1839, no location   × Holubice, Prague–west distr. Between Holubice and Trnový Újezd, Na Ratavi. Without location ? Pottery; bones; sword? ? Sklenář 1992, 61 Accidental find, 1845–1846, no location   28 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Inhumation burials Bronze arms bands; fibulas La Tène period AÚ AV ČR Praha č.2850/1950 Accidental find, 1950   29 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Settlement Pottery; flints; stone pendant Řivnáč (MEn) and Únětice (EBA) cultures Daněček – Smíšek 2010b, 92–93 Rescue excavation 2009  64/144 30 Holubice, Prague–west distr. Burials; settlement Pottery Únětice (EBA) and Knovíz (LBA) cultures Vencl 1975, 26    24 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 were found within the four total pickups. Despite the still small number of diagnostic sherds both from the pickups and the scatters, at least an approximate chronological classification of the material could be established (see Pottery below). THE METAL DETECTOR SURVEY The metal detector survey conducted first in 2013 and 2014 brought to light important finds such as abronze brooch of the Fusszierfibel type, and several bronze pieces identified as possible metal production waste (Bursák– Daněček– Smíšek 2016). Consequently, the metal detector survey was repeated in 2015 to enrich the collection of finds. 12 The prospection focused on the areas with alower amount of surface vegetation directly on the hillfort, and on the fields with no or little surface cover on the Northern and Eastern annexes, where about 1/3 of the field area was walked.13 The main aim of the metal detection was to find more traces of the assumed metal production in the area of the hillfort and to map the distribution of the metal finds in the context of the hillfort and its surrounding. The fields under discussion are heavily polluted by modern metal waste; in spite of that, 22 metal fragments were collected for further study and evaluation (Pl. 1/6). THE FINDS In 37 hectares which were fully walked and partly investigated by metal detection, 1632 ceramic fragments, 22 metal objects, 10 pieces of daub, and three worked stones were found. The ceramic fragments were divided into pottery and architectural ceramics, while the other finds kept their own material category: worked stone and lithic, daub, slag, and metal. POTTERY Regarding the repetitive field survey and the total pickups, 1022 pottery pieces were collected altogether, out of these, 734 prehistoric fragments were identified, including 33 rims, 4 bases and 3 handles.14 The pottery sherds were further evaluated by degree of fragmentation, morphology (rim, base, handle, body frag., etc.), ware (coarse, common, fine), surface treatment (roughening, polishing, decoration or untreated surface), and, if possible, assigned to atime -period. Based on ametric analysis, the pottery collection was divided into four main groups reflecting the fragment preservation/dimensions. The groups are as follows: G.1: up to 2 cm (109 frags.); G.2: up to 3 cm (224 frags.); G.3: up to 5.5 cm (392 frags.); G.4: up to 10 cm (9 frags.). The higher degree of fragmentation indicates intensive agricultural activities progressively destroying archaeological material on the fields. The poor state of preservation also reflects the low possibility of chronological classification of the material with the biggest potential for dating represented by the sherds with decoration, specific surface treatment or by characteristic types of ware. However, the majority of the found fragments have no surface treatment, only 58 frags. have aroughened surface, 45 frags. are polished and 4 frags. have added graphite. 12 The metal detector prospection was made in cooperation with the group Archeus DW. 13 The area was prospected in several phases with groups of five to ten people. 14 The clearly modern fragments were sorted out directly on the field, the rest was further processed. 25VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA DIAGNOSTIC FRAGMENTS The high fragmentation of the pottery makes the identification and reconstruction of the individual shapes of vessels difficult. However, based on the morpho -typological features, the identification of several fragments might be proposed. The only fragment which can clearly be attributed to acertain chronological period is aT -shaped rim with acombed decoration– azigzag motif (SC01; Fig. 3:1). The shape and the specific decoration of the rim are related to the Bell Beaker culture tradition (Hájek 1968, 17–18). The T -shaped wider rim from Minice might be described as apart of ashallow bowl, aform that appeared both at the settlements and as apart of grave goods of the Bell Beaker culture.15 Settlement pottery of the Bell Beaker culture mainly includes large storage vessels (jars, large coarse ware pots, amphorae) which could be decorated with straw impressions, relief slashed cordons and various bands with imprints. The percentage of fine ceramic with comb -impressed decoration at Bohemian settlements of the Bell Beaker culture is low (Turek 1996, 57; Turek 1998, 108–109; Turek– Peška 2001, 421–422). Another fragment (SC01; Fig. 3:2), is apart of aceramic vessel that is traditionally identified as aceramic strainer, cover, or ‘fumigator’ (Sklenář 1988; Kos 2016, 735). The sporadic distribution of this shape with apartly perforated surface had started during the Neolithic period; finally, the globular strainers with perforations densely covering the body were widely used in the settlement context during the Únětice culture (Kos 2016, 735; Jiráň 2008, 45). Similar thick wall strainers with wider holes appeared among the Hallstatt period settlement material (Soudská 1966, 583; Michálek– Lutovský 2000, 149; Sklenář 2018, 240–241) and were in use until the later protohistoric periods. One fragment (SC01; Fig. 3:4) represents an everted slightly thickened rim. Based on the close parallels with ceramic material from La Tène culture settlements such as Praha- -Běchovice 9 or Praha -Hostavice 2, it is possible to date the fragment into the time -span of LT C1–D1 (Venclová 2008a, 37–65, 97–129). Two fragments of abowl with an inturned rim (both SC01; Fig. 3:12–13) might be included among the ceramic material of the Late and Final Bronze Age. They had been continuously in use during the Hallstatt and La Tène periods (Smejtek 2011, 131). One thick -walled coarse ware fragment (SC01; Fig. 3:2) is decorated with arelief band with impressions, the type of decoration which had started to appear on ceramic vessels during the Eneolithic period. The relief band continued to be in use during the later periods, with ahigher occurrence in the Lateand Final Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Chvojka 2001, 53–57; Ernée 2008, 121–125; Neustupný 2008, 74). Three fragments have traces of imprint decoration (all SC01) and one fragment (SC01, Fig. 3:15) is decorated with arow of nail imprints. The site also yielded three fragments with knobs (SC01 and SC03; Fig. 3:5, 7, 14)– the decoration elements that appeared across prehistory. The fragment 1025/1, arim with asmall flap (SC01; Fig. 3:14), has close parallels in the Middle and partly Late Bronze Age pottery (Chvojka 2001, 43). Four body fragments of graphite ware were also found (all on the Eastern outer annexe). The ceramic with graphite inclusions started to be used during the Late Hallstatt period (Ha D2), amore common occurrence of graphite ware is dated to LT A(Golec 2003, 119–120; Venclová ed. 2008, 114). However, the graphite ceramic was frequently used during the La Tène period (LT B–D) (Venclová ed. 2008c, 81–82). 15 Disturbed graves of the Bell Beaker culture were found in Kralupy nad Vltavou; more sites connected with this culture are also known from the Mělník District (Sklenář 1994, 34–35). 26 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 Fig. 3: Minice, Central Bohemia. Selected pottery finds collected in the years 2015–2016. STONE FINDS Three worked stones were found during the field survey, including two chipped stones and one grinder (Pl. 1/5). The first lithic tool, found at SC02, is aflake of erratic silicite (length 36 mm) with visible traces of facets and damaged on the ventral side (Fig. 3:16; SFM16_001). 27VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA The second one, found on the Eastern outer annexe, is aflake with alateral cortex (33 mm in length), with several less visible facets on the worked area (Fig. 3:17; SFM16_002). However, the material is quite unusual for chipped stone tools. It is impossible to propose acloser chronological identification of these fragments (post -Mesolithic production), than stating atime span ranging from the beginning and end of the Neolithic–Eneolithic periods.16 The last item found at SC01 is agrinder (SFM16_003), oval in shape and partly damaged, however the working surface is still clear on both ends. Grinding stones appear across prehistory without any special typology. METAL FINDS The majority of objects found within the metal detection were either recent waste or iron slag. Besides that, 21 bronze objects (including abronze pin, simple rings, and several lumps/ casting spills) and one piece of tin were collected and taken for further study (Tab.2). The bronze pin (Fig. 4:1; Tab.2:9) might be identified and closely classified, while for some of the other finds we can at least find some parallels. The bronze ‘Cypriot pin’/Zyprische Schleifennadel (Fig. 4:1; Tab.2:9), which was found on the acropolis just to the west of the ditch with the wall, belongs to the bronze dress decoration common in the Únětice culture territory. The knot -head of the Cypriot pins is normally formed by abronze wire, which is twisted into multiple loops turned around the pin body (Sklenář 1989, 12). However, the pin from the Minice hillfort is badly damaged and the head of the pin is partly missing. Cypriot pins are best known from hoards or grave goods17 (Hájek 1954, 152; Moucha 1996, 27, Abb. 1). In Bohemia, the pins of this type date to the Early Bronze Age; the place of their origin is the area along the Danube River up to the Pannonian Basin. Similar pins were also common in the Near East, Cyprus, and Egypt (Flourentzos 1978, 408–409; Bartelheim 1998, 67). Regarding the other metal finds, the small bronze rings (Fig. 4:2–4; Tab.2:12, 16, 19) belong to the typical objects which appear in settlements and grave contexts. Similar bronze rings with adiameter of 20–26 mm appeared during the Únětice culture and were used as segments of decorative chains (Moucha 2005, 150). These small bronze rings (with alens- -shaped section), are characteristic of hoards dated to Ha A2/B1 and Ha B2–3, and were popular during the Lateto Final Bronze Age periods, with apossible use as acostume or horse harness decoration (Smejtek 2011, 224). Finally, similar bronze rings of different sizes were continuously used during the Hallstatt period, usually as apart of horse harness or personal decorations– pendants or belts (Franz 1906, 225; Venclová ed. 2008b, 57, 74). The closest find of abronze ring to Minice hillfort is from the site of Rusavky (Tab.1:16; Pl. 1/1:16), where the La Tène period sunken house was found (Motyková 1981, 196). X ‑RAY FLUORESCENCE (XRF) ANALYSES In order to exclude the possible modern objects and to study the potential traces of the metal production activities, six of the bronze items were tested with an XRF analysis (Tab.3). The measurements were taken in 2016 by Ing.M. Fikrle,Ph.D.18 For the analyses, X -ray fluorescence was used, aradioactive source of 241Am (Eγ = 59.54 keV; T1/2= 432.2 with power 3.7·1010 Bq) 16 Consultation with Mgr.Jan Eigner (National Museum, Prague). 17 Únětice culture cemetery in Malé Číčovice. 18 The Nuclear Physics Institute of The Czech Academy of Science. 28 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 was used for the excitation of characteristic X -ray radiation.19 The results of spectral analyses were evaluated with the Program RAFAN.20 The XRF analysis is asurface analytic method 19 X -ray is detecting on an Si(Li) monitor with a3 mm detecting layer and resolution of 170 eV with apower of 5.9 keV. The advantage of this setting is the ability to eliminate the influence of surface irregularities on the intensity of signal of individual elements in the sample. The collimator (made of lead and alloy) limited the analysed segment of the sample to aring with adiameter of approximately 3.5 mm. The usual measuring time varies between five and thirty minutes, the range depends on the sample composition. The described system enables one to determine the presence of elements with Zhigher that 24 (chromium). The setting was consulted with Ing.M. Fikrle,Ph.D. 20 For calibration, MBH Analytical LTD (UK) and ČKD (Prague) were used. Fig. 4: Minice, Central Bohemia. Selected metal finds collected in 2015–2016. 29VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA with apotential margin of error caused by the inner heterogeneity of the artefact itself and in most of the cases and most seriously by the surface corrosion. In the case of the bronze finds from Minice hillfort the corrosion layer was carefully removed in order to prevent the possible distortion of the final results.21 In several cases the samples for analyses were taken from different parts of one item. The bronze samples showed aconsiderable spread of content values of the analysed elements, afact that complicates the general analytic evaluation. The chemical structure of the sample could have been defined by the technology applied in the course of manufacturing the given object. One fragment (Tab.2:14; Tab.3:M 006/2015; Pl. 1/3:14; Fig. 4:5), found at the eastern part of the acropolis, was originally identified as apart of aBronze Age knife. However, it features ahigh content of zinc (Zn 9%) and as such the alloy could be rather identified as brass.22 The percentage of zinc corresponds with Group 4 (brass with amedium amount of Zn 5–10%) after J. Reider (Droberjar– Frána 2004, 444–445).23 However, the majority of the Late Bronze Age knifes that have been analysed in the past have atypical composition of an alloy with avariable content of tin, no brass knife has been detected (Jiráň 2002, 10–11). The items with an admixture of zinc dated to the Bronze and Early Iron Age did occur in small quantities (Fránaetal. 1995, 197; Fránaetal. 1997, 32, 83, 182; Hammer 2001, 613), but the relatively high zinc content in the studied object points to its intentional addition during the working process– atechnology that had started during the end of the 1st century BC.24 The question of the appearance of brass alloys across prehistory is acase for aseparate study, regarding the knife fragment from Minice, it is possible to assume its modern date. Another analysed item, the bronze edged ring (Tab.2:12; Tab.3:M_004/2015; Fig. 4:2), was found at the western part of the acropolis. The chemical composition of the bronze ring featuring ahigh content of arsenic (As 1.6%), silver (Ag 1.1%), and antimony (Sb 1.7%), is very close to the composition of the miniature ring bar from the Únětice culture (Br A2) from Dřínov cemetery and to abronze pin from an Early Bronze Age cemetery in Brodce nad Jizerou. The fairly high content of arsenic, silver, and antimony seems to be characteristic for the Únětice culture as are also the very low (or not detected) lead contents (Fránaetal. 1995, 177). The higher content of arsenic and antimony appears as well in the Lateand Final Bronze Age items, where, in most cases, also the presence of lead is attested (Fránaetal. 1997, 74).25 Another bronze ring (Tab.2:19; Tab.3: M_011/2015; Fig. 4:4) has ahigher content of lead (Pb 16.4%), tin (Sn 6.1%), and antimony (Sb 1.4%). The use of lead bronzes started to appear in Western and Southern Europe during the Late Bronze Age and lasted into the Hallstatt period (Tylecote 1987; Johannsen 2016, 153–154), however, these bronze finds had alower percentage of lead.26 The technology of the local production of alloys with ahigher lead content continued to be 21 However, the results should be presented as preliminary, as the surface corrosion could also reach into the lower layers and cause apotential error to the final analyses (Frána– Fikrle– Chvojka 2007, 35). 22 In modern terminology the term ‘tombak’ is used for brass with alower percentage of zinc. 23 The wider appearance of brass items in Central Europe is usually connected with the Early Roman Iron Age– B1a (Droberjar– Frána 2004, 444–445). 24 Consultation with Ing.Jiří Kmošek (University of Pardubice, Faculty of Restoration). 25 On the other hand, several finds dated to the Late Bronze Age could exceptionally contain similar admixtures, such as abronze armband from Chvojenec, Lusatian culture (Ha A2–B1), abronze armband from Hradišťko, Silesia -Platěnice culture (Ha B3), etc. (Fránaetal. 1995, 177, 200, 201). 26 In the context of the Czech lands, there was still aprevalence of bronze items with ahigher amount of tin. Several extremes of ahigh lead concentration also appeared, such as in the case of aring from the vicinity of Žatec (Fránaetal. 1997, 83, 183). 30 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 Nr. Object Description Chronology Source Cross reference number Fig. 1Bronze fibula Fusszierfibel, variant F2. Missing pin and winding Ha D2/D3 MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 001  2 Copper lump/raw material Rectagular shape  MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 002  3Bronze cast waste In a shape of irregular drop  MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 003  4Lump/raw material Rectangular shape; ferriccopper  MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 004  5Tiny rod Irregular shape  MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 005  6Bronze knife (?) Very corroded  MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 006  7Bronze cast waste (?) Irregular shape: flat, tortuous slightly concave  MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 007  8Band/finger ring (?) Unclosed and deformeted band  MDP 2013 and 2014; Bursák – Daněček – Smíšek 2016 GPS: MIN 009  9Bronze pin Fragment of a bronze pin; badly damaged; rest of bronze wire twisted around the upper part; length max. 70.2 mm; thicknesses max. 2.4 mm Únětice (EBA) culture, type Zyprische Schleifennadel MDP 2015 M_001/2015 Fig. 4:1 10 Bronze cast waste Cast waste in a shape of irregular drop; cut/ broken lump from a cast form; length max: 28.1 mm; width max: 22.8 mm; thicknesses max: 6 mm  MDP 2015 M_002/2015 Fig. 4:9 11 Bronze coin Coin – small, badly preserved. Size: diameter max. 13.1 mm; thickness max: 0.2 mm  MDP 2015 M_003/2015  31VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA Nr. Object Description Chronology Source Cross reference number Fig. 12 Bronze ring Small ring with an irregular shape diamand section; diameter max: 20.6 mm; thickness max: 2.2 mm  MDP 2015 M_004/2015 Fig. 4:2 13 Bronze cast waste Cast waste, amorphous shape; length max: 37.5 mm; width max: 31.1 mm; thickness max: 27 mm  MDP 2015 M_005/2015 Fig. 4:6 14 Bronze knife blade (?) Brass knife with triangle section, probably cut as semiproduct; length max: 23.8 mm; width max: 17.3 mm; thickness 2.5 mm  MDP 2015 M_006/2015 Fig. 4:5 15 Bronze band Band of rectangular section; partly deformed; length max: 48.9 mm; width max: 5.4 mm; thickness max: 2 mm  MDP 2015 M_007/2015 Fig. 4:10 16 Bronze ring Small bronze ring with round section; diameter max: 20.1 mm; thickness max: 2 mm  MDP 2015 M_008/2015 Fig. 4:3 17 Bronze cast waste Cast waste slightly concave irregular shape; length max: 39.4 mm; width max: 29.2 mm; thickness max: 15.5 mm  MDP 2015 M_009/2015 Fig. 4:8 18 Bronze cast waste Cast waste amorphous shape; length max: 25.6 mm; width max: 18.3 mm; thickness max: 9.2 mm  MDP 2015 M_010/2015 Fig. 4:7 19 Bronze ring Deformed bronze ring with a lozenge section; lenght max. 28.1 mm; width max: 14.6 mm; thickness max: 1.9 mm  MDP 2015 M_011/2015 Fig. 4:4 20 Bronze coin Coin – almost entirely damaged surface; diameter max. 23 mm; thickness max. 0.8 mm  MDP 2015 M_012/2015  21 Bronze coin Coins – small size; diameter max. 13.9 mm; thickness max: 0.2 mm 17th century MDP 2015 M_013/2015  Tab.2: Metal artefacts collected in 2013–2014 (Bursák– Daněček– Smíšek 2016) and in 2015–2016. For spatial distribution of metal finds cf. Pl. 1/6. 32 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 in use later during the La Tène period, when the new technology was completely adopted in the territory of the modern Czech Republic (Fránaetal. 1997, 91). Two bronze casting spills/lumps were found north -east of the Northern annexe of the Minice hillfort, two more in the area of the Western annexe (Tab.2:10, 15, 17–18; Fig. 4: 6–8, 10). The group has shown ahigh variability of the detected elements. The sample M.005 (Tab.2:13; Tab.3: M_005/2015) from the Western annexe, shows ahigh percentage of tin (Sn 81.7%) and alow percentage of lead (Pb 16.4%). The occurrence of raw tin during prehistory is very rare; furthermore, the published prehistoric finds of tin are usually in the form of the oxide mineral cassiterite SnO₂ (Fránaetal. 1997, 180). Consequently, our well -preserved fragment could rather belong to recent material. Another casting spill/lump M.010 (Tab.2:18; Tab.3:M_010/2015), from the north -western area, features an apparent heterogeneity of detected elements. Therefore, the analyses were taken from three different places. The samples from two places have shown ahigh percentage of tin (Sn > 60%) and asignificant percentage of lead (Sb 21–29%), the percentage of copper is very low, the ratio of the metals in the alloy is untypical, as is the precipitated copper on the surface. For these reasons we tend to classify this fragment as recent material. The fragment M.009 (Tab.2:17; Tab.3:M_009/2015), from the north -western area, has also shown aheterogeneous structure, mainly on the surface. It was identified as abronze alloy with asignificant percentage of tin (Sn 16.3%) and lead (Pb 8.9%), as well as traces of iron (Fe 10.2%). The lumps of molten bronze from the Lateand Final Bronze Age display the presence of iron amounting to several percent (Fránaetal. 1995, 196), the higher percentage of Fe in the corrosion layer/subcorrosion layer is acommon phenomenon caused by the presence of iron in the soil where the object is deposited. In the context of the area of the Czech Republic, lead bronzes started to be widely used from the La Tène period (LT B2), however from the Late Identification – Description nr. of measuring Fe [%] Cu [%] Zn [%] As [%] Ag [%] Sn [%] Sb [%] Pb [%] Bi [%] Minice 2015/16 – M_004/2015 bronze ring, cleaned part 22532 n/d 76.2 n/d 1.6 1.1 19.4 1.7 n/d n/d Minice 2015/16 – M_005/2015 cast waste, cleaned part 22533 n/d 1.9 n/d n/d n/d 81.7 n/d 16.4 n/d Minice 2015/16 – M_006/2015 knife fragment, partly abrading 22537 n/d 89.2 9.9 n/d n/d 0.4 <0.05 0.5 n/d Minice 2015/16 – M_009/2015 cast waste, ‘grey’ corrosion on the surface 22538 4.3 68.1 n/d n/d 0.2 16.8 n/d 10.1 0.4 Minice 2015/16 – M_009/2015 cast waste ‘red’ corrosion on the surface 22539 10.2 51.5 n/d n/d n/d 9.3 n/d 28.8 0.1 Minice 2015/16 – M_009/2015 cast waste, abrasion 22540 n/d 74.7 n/d n/d n/d 16.3 n/d 8.9 <0.05 Minice 2015/16 – M_010/2015 cast waste upper side, cleaned part 22534 n/d 1.8 n/d n/d n/d 68.5 n/d 29.7 n/d Minice 2015/16 – M_010/2015 cast waste lower side, cleaned part 22535 n/d 56.6 n/d n/d n/d 34.2 n/d 9.2 n/d Minice 2015/16 – M_010/2015 lower side, partly abrading 22536 n/d 17.6 n/d n/d n/d 60.5 n/d 21.9 n/d Minice 2015/16 – M_011/2015 bronze ring, cleaned part 22531 n/d 75.6 n/d n/d 0.4 6.1 1.4 16.4 n/d Tab.3: Result of spectrometric analyses of selected metal artefacts from Minice hillfort. 33VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA– PETRA TUŠLOVÁ– MILOSLAV SLABINA Hallstatt and LT Aperiods several finds are known with ahigh lead content (Waldahauser 1993, 189–193; Fránaetal. 1997, 83; Bursák– Daněček– Smíšek 2016, 122).27 DISCUSSION Regarding the pottery material collected on the fields, it is in such apoor state of preservation that we cannot base any precise chronological classification of the scatters on it. Generally, we may date the SC02 and SC03 to protohistory. The most numerous diagnostic fragments were found in the area of the so -called Eastern outer annexe where we may identify sherds resembling Eneolithic, Late Hallstatt (Ha D), and La Tène periods (LT C), pointing to acultural heterogeneity of the area. These results could lead to the interpretation that the area of the Eastern outer annexe was settled only sporadically during the Late Hallstatt period and might not have been used as asettled hinterland of the hillfort itself, as had previously been suggested (Čtveráketal. 2004). The vast area could have offered refuge to smaller hillforts and their population located nearby in case of imminent threat; it could have been used for keeping cattle or for temporary settlements as well. Moreover, small -size hillforts built on elevated positions have agood strategic and defensive potential (Hrubý 1998, 15), which could support their important function in the landscape for controlling transit corridors or smaller territories. The metal detector prospection was meant to complement the data from the field survey and prove or disprove apossible metal production place in the hillfort and/or in its Eastern outer annexe. Unfortunately, most of the material could not be morphologically or chronologically classified. Moreover, to sort out recent amorphic material from the metal detector prospection is even harder than recognizing modern pottery among the field survey. The XRF analyses provide additional information needed for achronological evaluation of the bronze finds: three analysed finds (M_005/2015, M_006/2015, and M_010/2015) could be considered intrusions from later backfill, while the rest (M_004/2015; M_009/2015; M_011/2015) could be, for now, classified to protohistory. The heterogeneous composition of the bronze casting waste, furthermore, does not prove the proposed function of the hillfort as aproduction centre (Bursák– Daněček– Smíšek 2016). The metal collection shows ahigh proportion of recent finds, which is typical for the exploited areas and tourist sites (as is the hillfort). An exceptional find is, however, the bronze pin found directly in the hillfort, which might be securely dated to the period of the Únětice culture. Asimilar pin was also found during the excavation of the hillfort.28 The Minice hillfort has so far been presented in several publications (Chytráčeketal. 2010; Trefný– Slabina 2015), where the main attention focused on two specific topics– the imported artefacts found in the acropolis, and, the stone structures. The interpretation of the site’simmediately surrounding landscape was partly omitted and thus, it became one of the main topics of this study. The field survey, which was chosen as one of the methods, did not, on the one hand, detect intensive settlement activities in the Eastern outer annexe, on the other hand, it also did not exclude the use of this area during the Late Hallstatt period. The proper function of the Northern and Eastern outer annexes needs to be specified with further examination methods such as geophysics or systematic archaeological excavations. 27 For other analyses of metal finds from Minice hillfort see Stránský– Rek– Slabina 1990 and Bursák– Daněček– Smíšek 2016. 28 The pin was found on the northern part of the hillfort, where the Late Eneolithic pottery fragments were detected as well (Čtveráketal. 2003, 203). 168 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/2 Pl. 1/3. Survey of January and February 2015+2016 with marked areas of higher pottery concentrations (red colour). Pl. 1/4. Area of the Eastern outer annexe resurveyed in March 2016 with marked polygons of higher pottery concentration (red colour). 169PLATES Pl. 1/5. Merged polygons of the survey and resurvey of 2015+2016 with the final amount of pottery finds. Three clearly delimited scatters were identified; the area of higher pottery concentrations is marked by the black perimeter line as well as the position of each total pickups within the individual scatters and the small finds (all stones). Pl. 1/6. Map showing the joint results of the metal detector prospection conducted first in 2013– 2014 (no. 1–8) and repeated in 2015 (no. 9–21). For individual information regarding each find spot see Tab.2 in the text.