Where are the handmade Pots? Thoughts on the Composition of the Ceramic Material from the Iron Age Central Settlement at Neubau in the Context of Neighbouring Regions

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1, 206–233 Whe e a e he handmade Po s? Though s on he Composi ion o he Ce amic Ma e ial om he I on Age Cen al Se lemen a Neubau in he Con ex o Neighbou ing Regions Robin Be nha d F anke ABSTRACT The LT C2– LT D cen al se lemen nea Neubau, in he icini y o Linz, Uppe Aus ia, wi h i s oluminous po e y ensemble, o e s oppo uni ies o he s udy o La Tène po e y. Impo an cha ac e is ics o he ind complex a e he high p opo ion o g aphi e po e y and he a e occu ence o hand ‑ o med essels. Despi e an insu icien s a e o esea ch on he subjec o coa se po e y, in e es ing endencies could be de ec ed in he compa ison o nume ous se lemen s in sou he n Ge many, no h ‑eas e n Aus ia, and he Czech Republic. The high p opo ion o g aphi e po e y aligns Neubau wi h a ious se lemen s in sou h‑ e n Ba a ia, sou he n Bohemia, Lowe Aus ia, and Mo a ia, and aises he ques ion o he supply o he aw ma e ial. The low p opo ion o hand ‑buil essels inds i s bes compa isons in Lowe Aus ia and o ace ain ex en in Mo a ia. In con as , hand ‑buil po e y played asigni ican ole in he ma e ial cul u e o sou he n Ge many and mos pa s o Bohemia. Whe he his di e ence can be explained by he way he po e y p oduc ion was o ganised o by aspeci ic symbolic con en o essel o ms is unclea . The obse a‑ ions show, howe e , ha coa se domes ic po e y can con ibu e o he unde s anding o he La e I on Age. KEYWORDS La Tène; se lemen ; coa se wa e; po e y p oduc ion; Halls a ; g aphi e; Neubau; Aus ia. INTRODUCTION F agmen s o po e y a e he mos common ca ego y o inds om p ehis o ic si es and a e he e o e o pa icula impo ance o hei ch onological classi ica ion and in e p e a ion. This is also ue o he Eu opean I on Age, ape iod cha ac e ised by he in oduc ion o ace ain inno a ion in he p oduc ion o po e y– he use o he po e ’swheel. A e he appea ance o he i s wheel ‑ h own po e y in he La e Halls a pe iod, he new echnology sp ead o e la ge pa s o Eu ope du ing he La e La Tène pe iod, wi h he ini ial ocus being on he p oduc ion o ine ablewa e. These echnological de elopmen s du ing he La e I on Age no h o he Alps ha e been well analysed in se e al s udies, whe eas ine po e y was in he ocus o esea ch. Howe e , while many aspec s o hese ine essels a e now well known, o he ce amic p oduc s ha e ecei ed less a en ion such as coa se, domes ic po e y classes om di e en con ex s o he La e I on Age. These ce amic essels we e commonly used as cooking and s o age u ensils in he daily li es o p ehis o ic people. Acco dingly, i can also be assumed ha , in addi ion o he ac i i ies associa ed wi h hem, hei appea ance, hei main enance and he acquisi ion o p oduc ion o he essels p obably had ape manen place in he eal‑ i y o p ehis o ic people. I is he e o e likely ha , apa om he necessi y o hei use, he essels migh also ha e had ace ain symbolic cha ac e and can be seen as apa o acul u al 207ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE and social iden i y. Thus, he s udy o coa se u ili y po e y also has he po en ial o p o ide in o ma ion on social con ex s in p ehis o ic socie ies (Knop 2003). Based on hese assump ions, his a icle will a emp o analyse aspec s o he egional cha ac e is ics o coa se po e y essels in Cen al Eu ope du ing he La e I on Age. Fo his pu pose, aspec s o he po e y spec um om he La e La Tène cen al se lemen a Neubau, sou h o Linz in Uppe Aus ia, a e compa ed wi h he su ounding egions. Since a ypological compa ison o essel o ms and deco a ions would ha e in ol ed eno mous e o due o he la ge numbe o di e en desc ip ion sys ems, he ocus o he p esen s udy p ima ily concen a es on aspec s o he po e y p oduc ion. The e o e, aces o he o ming echniques and he composi ion o he clay ma e ial o m he basis o he ollowing analysis. THE SETTLEMENT OF NEUBAU AND ITS POTTERY The se lemen in he so ‑called ‘Fundzone Neubau’ is compa able in size and building s uc‑ u e o o he cen al se lemen s in Cen al Eu ope such as Manching, Roseldo , o Němčice. Consequen ly, i likely played acen al ole in he se lemen pa e n o Uppe Aus ia du ing i s main occupa ion phase be ween LT C2 and LT D1 (F anke 2024). Jus as a mos o he a ‑ chaeological si es, po e y makes up he la ges ca ego y o inds a Neubau by a . Wi h a o al numbe o mo e han 40,000 s a i ied she ds and a o al weigh o a ound 1,000 kg, his is a ai ly ep esen a i e sample ha can be used o compa ison wi h o he se lemen si es. As has al eady been wo ked ou o se e al o he egions in Cen al Eu ope, i can be assumed ha po e y p oduc ion in Neubau was o ganised locally and he majo i y o he essels do no ep esen impo s (Schussmann 2019, 314; T ebsche 2020, 241; Venclo á 2013, 61–62). E idence o his was also gi en by Pe e T ebsche in compa ison wi h he neighbou ing si es (T ebsche 2003, 36–43). All im, bo om, and wall she ds om La Tène pe iod ea u es in he se lemen we e used in he analysis o he ce amics. In addi ion o a ypological desc ip ion, ce ain manu ac u ing cha ac e is ics we e used o ca ego ise he agmen s in o g oups. As mo e de ailed app oaches would ha e been oo ime ‑consuming and cos ly conside ing he amoun o ma e ial a ailable om Neubau, only mac oscopic me hods o analysis could be applied. Rega ding he o ming echnique, adis inc ion was made be ween pu ely hand ‑ o med ce amics and hose in which o a ional kine ic ene gy was used, as ecen ly p oposed by Mangel and Thé (Thé – Man‑ gel 2024, 9–13). Ho izon al ma ks on he inside and ou side, and a egula and symme ical wall shape we e conside ed as indica o s o he la e echnique. Hand ‑made po e y, on he o he hand, was de ined by he absence o such cha ac e is ics and by an une en and i eg‑ ula su ace and wall shape. The clay ma e ial was also analysed using pu ely mac oscopic me hods. I was possible o dis inguish be ween ine po e y, in which no o only a ew small pa icles we e isible, and coa se po e y, in which o ganic and ino ganic empe was isible. As de e mining he clay composi ion by using mac oscopic me hods p o ides un eliable e‑ sul s, a u he subdi ision could only be achie ed wi h limi a ions. Solely g aphi e ‑ empe ed ce amics and hose wi h ano iceable mica con en could be clea ly iden i ied. This app oach made i possible o de ine some o he cha ac e is ics o he Neubau po ‑ e y spec um, which can u he be compa ed o o he con empo a y se lemen s in Cen‑ al Eu ope (Fig. 1). The 18% sha e o exclusi ely wheel ‑made ine po e y con as s wi h a o al o 82% coa se wa e. I is in e es ing o no e ha only 5% o he coa se po e y, o 4% 208 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 o he o al sample, was buil up by hand, while he es shows aces o o a y mo emen du ing p oduc ion. Se e al aspec s o he clay ma e ial a e also no ewo hy in e ms o hei composi ion. Whe eas o ganic empe ing plays almos no ole in he Neubau ce amic assemblage, and only occu s in a ew hand ‑made essels, he addi ion o g aphi e seems o be e y dominan . G aphi e po e y accoun s o abou 43% o he o al ma e ial and 52% o he coa se po e y. She ds hea ily mixed wi h mica a e only wo h men ioning in 8% o he o al ma e ial. Fig. 1: Sha e o di e en ypes o she ds in he po e y collec ion o Neubau. F om a ypological poin o iew, he ange o shapes o he coa se po e y a he si e is qui e limi ed. The g aphi e ‑po e y in Neubau consis s mainly o he ypical comb ‑o namen ed po s wi h hickened im and a ew o ms o bo les. In addi ion, he e a e some bowls o di e en shapes as well as cauld on imi a ions. This co esponds o he si ua ion in he neighbou ing egions o Ge many, Bohemia, Mo a ia, and Lowe Aus ia, which Kappel di ided in o di e en egional g oups (Kappel 1969, 65–80). Only he cauld on imi a ions a e unusual and can be ega ded as cha ac e is ic o Uppe Aus ia, since hey occu only a ely in sou he n Ge many (F anke 2022). The wheel ‑made coa se po e y wi hou he addi ion o g aphi e also appea s o ha e simila shapes. Only he cauld ons ha e been made exclusi ely om g aphi e clay. The ew hand ‑made ce amics, on he o he hand, consis almos exclusi ely o simple bowl shapes. Only ag oup o globula po s wi h ben ‑ou ims and aqui e uni o m shoulde deco a ion appea as a u he g oup (Fig. 2) accompanied by a ew special o ms. Since he high p opo ion o g aphi e clay po e y and he low pe cen age o hand ‑ o med essels can be ega ded as pa icula ly dis inc i e ea u es o he Neubau po e y spec um, hese aspec s we e selec ed o ac oss ‑ egional compa ison. Based on he assump ion ha p oduc ion s a egies o u ili y po e y we e egionally speci ic, an a emp was made o si ua e he se lemen o Neubau wi hin he La e La Tène se lemen landscape o Cen al Eu ope. 209ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH Fo he ollowing compa isons, se lemen s om p esen ‑day sou he n Ba a ia and Wü ‑ embe g, no he n Aus ia, and he Czech Republic we e used. The selec ion o hese egions was based on he geog aphical loca ion o Uppe Aus ia. The co ido o he Danube alley, o which Neubau is connec ed ia he T aun, is bo de ed by he Bohemian Massi and he Alps and na ows bo leneck ‑like in he eas o Uppe Aus ia. The anspo ou e be ween mode n sou he n Ba a ia and Lowe Aus ia was he e o e clea ly de ined and p obably also passed h ough Neubau. In addi ion, he Haselg aben, one o he ew usable ou es ac oss he low moun ain ange o he Vl a a Valley in Sou h Bohemia, begins jus a ew kilome es no h o Neubau, and he na igable T aun connec s he se lemen wi h he Alpine egion o he Salzkamme gu (F anke 2024). O hese egions, publica ions om se lemen s o le els LT C2 and D1 we e selec ed, in which aspec s o empe and he p oduc ion echnology o la ge po e y ensembles we e dis‑ cussed. The se lemen s we e selec ed in o de o ob ain he mos signi ican insigh possible in o he ange o po e y used. As di e en aphonomic and selec i e p ocesses du ing exca‑ a ions and scien i ic analysis s ongly in luence he composi ion o he ma e ial, he alues can only ep esen abiased iew on p ehis o ic eali y. These inaccu acies a e also s ongly in luenced by he selec ed exca a ion a ea, he exca a ion echnique and he me hodology o e alua ion, so ha da a aken om he li e a u e a e only compa able o ace ain deg ee (Salač– Kubálek 2015, 205–210). Ne e heless, he bes app oxima ion seems o be he use o ma e ial om s a i ied La Tène pe iod con ex s, which was b ough in o he g ound du ing he pe iod o u ilisa ion o he se lemen s and does no ep esen an ob ious in en ional deposi ion. I was he e o e gene ally a oided e e ing o collec ed inds om ield su eys o edeposi ed ma e ial. Whe e mixing wi h ma e ial om o he pe iods was o be expec ed, only ea u es om he ele an pe iod we e selec ed, i his was possible. In pa icula , po ‑ e y kilns we e excluded om he analysis because o he isk o p o iding an insigh in o Fig. 2: Examples o special o ms o handmade essels in he se lemen nea Neubau (1–2) and compa isons om he Dammwiese nea Halls a (3) (1–2– R. F anke, 3– R. F anke a e Hell 1952, ig. 5:1). 210 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 aspeci ic momen in ce amic p oduc ion a he han in o ma ion abou he po e y ac ually used (Mangel 2016, 231–242). Since he aim was o de e mine he p opo ion o ce ain ypes o po e y in he o al ma e ial, publica ions ha only deal wi h speci ic wa e ypes we e no aken in o accoun as well, unless hey p o ided ape cen age sha e o he ac o s discussed. Since an insu icien amoun o ma e ial would also make acompa ison di icul , only si es om which mo e han 100 she ds ha e been published we e selec ed. To gain some addi ional in o ma ion, anumbe o se lemen s ha did no mee hese c i e ia we e s ill included in he analysis and discussed in he ex . Acco ding o hese c i e ia 128 si es we e selec ed and desc ibed acco dingly in Tab.1. Fo each si e, he p opo ion o g aphi e po e y and wheel ‑made po e y was gi en as ape ‑ cen age. Fo his pu pose, ei he di ec in o ma ion om he au ho s was ci ed o he objec s lis ed in he ca alogues we e coun ed. All she ds o which ap opo ion o g aphi e in he clay ma e ial was desc ibed we e unde s ood as g aphi e po e y in his con ex . The e m wheel ‑made wa e was used o summa ise wheel ‑ h own and wheel ‑ inished po e y, whe e aco esponding di e en ia ion was made, o enable acompa ison. Because o he widely di e ing eco ding sys ems in he s udy a ea, in some cases i was no possible o de e mine he p oduc ion echnique exclusi ely o po e y wi h coa se admix u es. In o de o ob ain acompa able alue, i was he e o e necessa y o de e mine he p opo ion o wheel ‑made ce amics in ela ion o he o al ma e ial. Fo his eason, he alues gi en e e no only o coa se ce amics, bu also o ine ablewa e. Finally, i is impo an o no e ha he da a p o ided a ies depending on he au ho . In mos cases, he alues we e calcula ed based on he absolu e numbe o she ds. In some o he s publica ions, only econs uc able essels we e coun ed and in a ew examples he pe cen age o he o al weigh was gi en. Ob iously, he alues de e mined in hese ways only ep esen da a ha can be elied upon o alimi ed ex en . Howe e , due o he widely di e ing me hodological app oaches o he analysis o ce amic ind complexes in he li e a u e a ailable o he s udy a ea, i seemed ha dly possible o gene a e mo e s anda dised da a. The e o e, he ollowing obse a ions can and should only be unde s ood as endencies and impulses o amo e di e en ia ed iew on coa se e e yday po e y. COMPARISON REGARDING THE TEMPER COMPONENTS When analysing he clay ma e ial, he dominan ole o g aphi e clay po e y in he Neubau se lemen can be seen as aspecial cha ac e is ic. As he dis ibu ion o his wa e ype has al eady been he subjec o se e al s udies, e e ence can be made o a ious publica ions. In addi ion o he pionee ing wo k by Kappel ocussing on he oppidum o Manching (Kappel 1969), he con ibu ions by Waldhause and Hla a shed ligh on he dis ibu ion o g aphi e clay in he Czech Republic (Hla a 2008; Waldhause 1992). As g aphi e po e y has long been ecognised as acha ac e is ic elemen o he La Tène pe iod ma e ial cul u e no h o he Alps, he quan i y o such inds is usually speci ied p ecisely o many addi ional si es. As shown in Fig. 3 ag ea e signi icance o g aphi e po e y can be demons a ed o se e al se lemen s in he Ba a ian Danube egion, sou he n Bohemia, Mo a ia, and Uppe and Lowe Aus ia. In hese egions, he pe cen age is o en abo e 25%, in indi idual cases e en a ound 50% o highe , simila o Neubau. In addi ion, se e al si es can be named o he Inn ‑Salzach egion whe e ahigh p opo ion o g aphi e clay po e y has been desc ibed, bu no absolu e igu es a e a ailable (Tab.1: 23, 26, 35, 41). In he neighbou ing egions o Baden‑ ‑Wü embe g, in he no he n pa s o Bohemia and in he Alpine egion, g aphi e po e y 211ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE only occu s in a smalle quan i ies. The bes compa isons o he a he high p opo ion o g aphi e clay po e y in Neubau can hus be ound in he di ec ly neighbou ing egions o Aus ia, sou he n Ba a ia, and sou he n Bohemia, while signi ican ly lowe alues occu in no he n, wes e n and eas e n Bohemia, Mo a ia, and sou he n Ge many wes o he i e Lech. When discussing he dis ibu ion o g aphi e ‑ empe ed po e y, he deposi s ha can be localised in jus a ew egions in Cen al Eu ope mus o cou se also be inco po a ed. I hose se lemen s wi h ahighe g aphi e con en a e placed in ela ion o he dis ibu ion o he deposi s, he spa ial o e lap in sou he n Bohemia, Mo a ia, and he Aus ian Danube egion is ema kable. Ea lie esea ch, which assumed acen alised p oduc ion o po e y in a ew wo kshops, explained his obse a ion by limi a ions in he anspo o g aphi e po e y. Acco dingly, he p opo ion o such she ds should dec ease wi h inc easing dis ance (Kappel 1969; Waldhause 1992). Howe e , hese explana ions seem o be con adic ed by he ac ha , in Mo a ia, he e a e no iceably ewe g aphi e ‑ empe ed essels in he immedia e icini y o he deposi s han in he Ba a ian Danube egion o he Inn ‑Salzach egion. Luckily he s a e o knowledge ega ding he p oduc ion chain o g aphi e po e y has expanded conside ably in he las ew decades. In ecen yea s, scien i ic analyses o po ‑ e y could p o e, ha in mos cases local clay ma e ial was used. Addi ionally, chunks o g aphi e ha e been ound, illus a ing he ade wi h he aw mine al which was ex ac ed in open cas mines. P esumably, he p oduc ion was ca ied ou in smalle seasonal po e y wo kshops in almos e e y se lemen and no only in a ew p oduc ion cen es. I could be shown, especially o Mo a ia, ha he p oximi y o g aphi e deposi s was no necessa ily essen ial o mo e in ensi e p oduc ion. Ra he , he supply o g aphi e was p obably en‑ su ed by an ex ensi e exchange ne wo k, which also enabled he p oduc ion o g aphi e po e y in egions such as he Ba a ian Danube a ea and he Salzach egion. (Hla a 2008; T ebsche 2011). Addi ionally, he s anda dised design and p oduc ion echnique o he g aphi e po e y sugges s ha he knowledge o p oduc ion echniques and possibly also aspeci ic symbolic con en o he essels was sha ed c oss ‑ egionally (Gebha d– Wagne 2002, 252; T ebsche 2011, 465). How his exchange was o ganised mus o cou se emain an open ques ion, bu he dis ibu ion o g aphi e clay po e y in he s udy a ea clea ly shows which egions we e in ol ed. The in eg a ion o he Neubau se lemen in o he pos ula ed exchange ne wo k, which enabled he p oduc ion o g aphi e ce amics, is clea ly e iden . Since Neubau was connec ed o he deposi s nea Passau o Tříso (Tab.1: 32, 100) by na u ally gi en a ic ou es, hose a eas seem likely o be possible o igins o he aw ma e ial, bu anspo om Lowe Aus‑ ia migh be jus as plausible. Only sys ema ic na u al scien i ic analyses can p o ide aclea answe o his ques ion. COMPARISON REGARDING THE FORMING TECHNIQUE I we look a he o ming me hods o he Coa se ‑wa e in Neubau, he high p opo ion o wheel‑ ‑made essels is ema kable. Almos all o he po e y was p oduced using o a ing de ices, while hand ‑made po e y does no play asigni ican ole. Unlike g aphi e clay ce amics, howe e , obse a ions o his kind ha e a ely been he ocus o esea ch so a . The only wo k ha deal speci ically wi h hand ‑ o med po e y was S öckli’spublica ion on he oppidum o Manching. In awide ‑ anging li e a u e esea ch, he compa ed he p opo ion o hand ‑ o med essels wi h ha o wheel ‑ h own o wheel ‑ inished 212 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 essels. Based on his in es iga ions, he de eloped adi ision o Cen al Eu ope in o h ee zones. The sou he nmos zone, including sou he n Ge many, Aus ia, sou he n and cen al Bohemia, and Mo a ia, is acco dingly cha ac e ised by ap opo ion o a leas 50% wheel ‑ u ned essels in he ma e ial. Amiddle zone o he no h, on he o he hand, ha encompasses se lemen s wi h asha e o a ound 20% ollowed by ano he n zone in which wheel ‑ h own essels only occu ed in g a es (S öckli 1979, 106–107). Howe e , S öckli’s esul s we e de i ed om a e y small da a base, which is why he was unable o d aw clea conclusions abou la ge pa s o Cen al Eu ope, including Aus ia and Bohemia. Fu he mo e, his s a emen s we e ques ioned by nume ous subsequen in es iga‑ ions, as he quan i ies in nume ous se lemen s di e ed om he zones he had sugges ed (e.g. Beneš– Venclo á 1980, 633; F öhlich 1985, 206; Wieland 1996, 166–170). Ne e heless, he was able o show ha in he La e La Tène Pe iod, hand ‑buil coa se wa e was also widesp ead alongside wheel ‑made po e y, making he low p opo ion o hand ‑ o med essels in Neubau appea unusual. Un o una ely, his app oach has no been u he pu sued in esea ch. The wo ks on po e y om he La e La Tène pe iod ha ollowed S öckli’s ema ks gene ally deal wi h hand ‑made coa se po e y p ima ily om alocal, si e ‑speci ic pe spec i e. In he ew egional s udies discussing he p oduc ion echnique, he ocus was mainly on ine wa e (e.g. Thé – Mangel 2024; Thé e al. 2017; Thé – Mangel 2021). The ela ionship be ween hand‑ ‑buil and wheel ‑ h own po e y did no play asigni ican ole in mos s udies. An o e iew o he s udy a ea, shown in Fig. 4 will he e o e be discussed below. Fig. 3: P opo ion o essels wi h and wi hou g aphi e admix u e in se lemen s in no h ‑eas e n Aus ia, he Czech Republic and pa s o sou he n Ge many, du ing he s ages LT C2 o D1. The e e ences a e lis ed in Table 1. Map by R. B. F anke, Geoda a: Eu opean Union. Con ains modi‑ ied Cope nicus Sen inel Da a (2024). 213ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE Fig. 4: P opo ion o handmade and wheel ‑ h own/wheel ‑ inished essels in se lemen s in pa s o sou he n Ge many, no h ‑eas e n Aus ia and he Czech Republic du ing he s ages LT C2 o D1. The e e ences a e lis ed in Table 1. Map by R. B. F anke, Geoda a: Eu opean Union. Con‑ ains modi ied Cope nicus Sen inel Da a (2024). NORTH -EASTERN AUSTRIA Uppe Aus ia In he immedia e icini y o Neubau, he e a e only wo si es om which la ge quan i ies o po e y ha e been published. The i s one is he Dammwiese in he Halls a sal ‑mining a ea (Tab.1: 1), which is hough o ha e had an economic in e wea ing wi h Neubau con‑ ce ning he dis ibu ion o sal (F anke 2024). Simila o Neubau, he ma e ial published by Ma in Hell con ains only 3% hand ‑buil wa e, al hough due o he ea ly da e o he exca a ion he possibili y o as ong selec ion bias o he ind ma e ial mus be aken in o conside a ion. Se e al essels om Hell’spublica ion appea ema kable, as hey show g ea simila i ies o he ew hand ‑ o med po s om Neubau, bo h ega ding ypological aspec s and p oduc ion me hods. So a , hey a e he only published objec s allowing adi ec compa ison (Fig. 2). The second si e is he F einbe g, in he p esen ‑day ci y o Linz (Tab.1: 2), whe e mo e ecen exca a ions we e ca ied ou in he la e 1980s and 1990s. As no p oduc ion echnique has been men ioned o mos o he she ds, his si e is also no sui able o compa ison. Ne ‑ e heless, he ac ha only one single she d has been de e mined o be hand ‑ o med, is wo h men ioning. 214 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Lowe Aus ia Following he Danube downs eam, Lowe Aus ia is ano he egion wi h po en ial com‑ pa isons o he ce amic composi ion. While in he Alpine egion only a ew si es a e known a all, he e ain opens up owa ds he no h ‑eas and o e s awide landscape a ou able o se lemen s, domina ed by he Danube and i s ibu a ies. Up un il he 1990s, only asmall numbe o se lemen complexes we e in es iga ed in he egion, and he e o e he po e y was no sys ema ically s udied (in mo e de ail: Ka l– P ochaska 2005, 11–13). Those ea lie se lemen exca a ions yielded only e y ague da a (Tab.1: 5, 7, 14, 16). In some cases, in‑ o ma ion on he p oduc ion echnique was only gi en o pa s o he ma e ial o o speci ic indi idual essels and was no discussed u he . The obse a ion ha he p opo ion o hand‑ ‑buil essels is e y low in all se lemen s emains no ewo hy none heless. Some o he mo e ecen publica ions a e also only pa ially sui able o an assessmen . A Leopoldsbe g and B aunsbe g only 3% and 1% o he essels in he ca alogues could be iden i ied as handmade essels (Tab.1: 4, 8). Bu since bo h si es a e mul i ‑phase, amix u e wi h o he pe iods can be assumed. The si ua ion is simila a he Ea ly o Middle La Tène Pe iod hill op se lemen o Thunau am Kamp (Tab.1: 15). He e he La Tène Pe iod po e y was seconda ily deposi ed in la e ea u es and only da ed on he basis o i s clay quali y and ypological cha ac e is ics (Ka wowski 2006, 17–18). Ka wowski de e mined a e y low p o‑ po ion o 1.1% hand ‑ o med essels. In all h ee cases i canno be excluded ha less speci ic handmade she ds we e assigned o o he pe iods. Fo o he publica ions di e en me hodological p oblems can be men ioned. Fo he se lemen o Gö lesb unn (Tab.1: 6), Ka l s a ed ap opo ion o 94.5% wheel ‑made and 5.5% hand ‑ o med wa e o he escue exca a ions om 1989 (Ka l– P ochaska 2005, ig. 22). P ochaska, on he o he hand, con as ed ap opo ion o 85% genuine wheel ‑ h own po e y summa ized o he exca a ions be ween 1992 and 1994 wi h hand ‑made and o en wheel ‑ inished she ds, which she g ouped oge he (Ka l– P ochaska 2005, 128). As he ca alogue lacked in o ma ion on he p oduc ion echnique, i was no possible o de e mine he exac p opo ion o po e y made wi hou he use o o a ional ene gy, bu adominan ole o wheel ‑made essels is ob ious. Howe e , h ee u he analyses o he inds yielded mo e eliable da a. Fo he Viennese dis ic s XXI and XXII an amoun o 10% handmade essels could be de e mined (Tab.1: 17), while ap opo ion o 99.91% wheel ‑made was published o he se lemen a Micheln‑ do (Tab.1: 9). O pa icula in e es ega ding he p oduc ion echnique o po e y a e Ka wowski’s ema ks on P ellenki chen (Tab.1: 13). In he lowland se lemen ap opo ion o only 1.9% o hand ‑ o med po e y was disco e ed and o he i s ime he e e ed o he a i y o hand ‑made essels in no h ‑eas e n Aus ia and he di icul sou ce si ua ion. Among he ew hand ‑made pieces, some showed ypological simila i ies o ‘Dacian’ o ms o he Ca pa hian Basin. Ka wowski was also able o ci e compa able o ms o Gö lesb unn, Vienna, Müllendo , and he Obe leise be g (Ka wowski 2008, 492–493). Some u he , bu no ye ully published, si es ha e also p o ided app oxima e da a, sugges ing asmall numbe o handmade essels as well. (Tab.1: 11, 12). And inally, o he unpublished se lemen o Mi e e zbach (Tab.1: 10) asha e o 13% o hand ‑made essels can be named.1 Aconclusi e s a emen on he p opo ion o hand ‑buil po e y in Lowe Aus ia seems ha dly possible due o a ious ac o s. Howe e , i is s iking ha he e idence o hand ‑buil po e y is a e, and in he ew cases whe e i does occu , i is ep esen ed by simple bowls 1 Pe sonal in o ma ion by p o .D .Pe e T ebsche o whom Iwould like o exp ess my g a i ude. 221ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE wheel ‑ h own po e y clea ly ook aseconda y ole, al hough due o he small amoun o da a, i is di icul o na ow down a eason. As o Lowe Aus ia, howe e , i does no seem possible o p o e he exis ence o hand ‑buil essel ypes ypical o Mo a ia. DISCUSSION The aim o he p e ious obse a ions was o compa e wo cha ac e is ic ea u es o he Neubau po e y spec um– he high p opo ion o g aphi e po e y and he low p opo ion o hand‑ ‑ o med essels– wi h he su ounding egions. Aselec ed numbe o published exca a ion esul s in sou he n Ge many, he Czech Republic, and Aus ia se ed as sou ces. In his way, egional cha ac e is ics should be iden i ied ha could lead o abe e unde s anding o he c oss ‑ egional connec ion o Neubau. This goal has been me wi h a ying deg ees o success. The a emp could only be ealised wi h es ic ions due o he lack o p ope ly compa able da a. One p oblem wi hin he da a collec ion was he egionally di e ing s a e o esea ch. In mos sou he n pa s o Ge many and Aus ia, he small numbe o comp ehensi ely analysed po e y ensembles allowed only a ough assessmen , which is why i was necessa y o e e o some ex en o old exca a ions and mul i ‑pe iodic si es. In he Czech Republic and he Danube e‑ gion in sou he n Ge many, howe e , ala ge numbe o sui able publica ions could be consul ed. The e, di e en e alua ion s a egies made a eliable compa ison mo e di icul . Especially he ca ego isa ion o she ds in o p ede ined wa e ypes lead o he loss o in o ma ion abou he ela ionship be ween o ming echniques, clay composi ion o i ing echniques in se e al cases. Tha is why some si es could only be included pa ially, especially in sou he n Bohemia and Mo a ia. Pa icula ly p oblema ic a e unclea de ini ions and he con adic o y use o e ms o hese ce amic g oups. Wi hou aclea de ini ion by he au ho , i is ha dly possible o decide whe he coa se po e y is unde s ood as hand ‑ o med wa e o i he e m is used o desc ibe essels wi h coa se componen s in he clay mass, ega dless o he cons uc ion echnique. In a ew cases, i is also no possible o de e mine i he e m wheel ‑ h own po e y also e e s o wheel ‑ inished po e y o whe he he la e is unde s ood as handmade o ms wi hou ap io discussion o he e minology. Bu abo e all, he selec i e and mos ly subo dina e ocus on coa se u ili y wa e is alimi ing ac o . Only a ew aspec s o coa se po e y essels ha e been he subjec o sup a ‑ egional s udies so a , as shown by he example o g aphi e empe ing. Mos ques ions, as well as hose conce ning he p oduc ion me hod, ha e mainly been add essed om alocal o egional pe spec i e. Fo his eason, me ely an imp ecise da a se could be collec ed, which can only be in‑ e p e ed o alimi ed ex en . Typological and ch onological ques ions could also solely be add essed pe iphe ally. Ne e heless, some egional endencies in ela ion o coa se domes ic po e y can be obse ed om he examples p esen ed. Only in p esen ‑day Ba a ia, sou h‑ e n Bohemia, no h ‑eas Aus ia, and Mo a ia g aphi e empe was documen ed o la ge p opo ions o 20% o 70% o he ce amic ensembles (Fig. 3). This dis ibu ion only pa ially co esponds o he na u al deposi s o g aphi e. As se e al mode n s udies sugges ha he essels in ques ion we e p oduced in local wo kshops using impo ed g aphi e, he domi‑ nance o g aphi e po e y in he a ea desc ibed could indica e acon ac ne wo k p o iding access o he empe ing ma e ial. In addi ion o he aw mine als, an exchange o echnical knowledge and ypological expec a ions could also ha e aken place, as indica ed by he highly s anda dised essel o ms. Asymbolic alue o he uni o m shape o g aphi e ce amics may also be hough o . 222 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Amo e di e en ia ed imp ession could be ob ained by compa ing hand‑ and wheel ‑made ce amics (Fig. 4). Wi hin he Aus ian Danube egion, hand ‑buil po e y was only ound in a e cases. In sou he n Bohemia, Mo a ia, and he Salzach egion, oo, he use o o a ing de ices p obably domina ed in po e y p oduc ion. Local essel ‑ o ms ha we e exclusi e‑ ly made by hand could jus be de ec ed in ew cases such as in uppe Aus ia (Fig. 2). This con as s wi h he sou he n Ge man Danube egion and he no he n pa s o Bohemia. In sou he n Ge many, all coa se ce amics we e usually buil by hand, wi h he only excep ion being g aphi e po e y, which was egula ly wheel ‑made. In he Ba a ian egions wi h ahigh‑ e p opo ion o g aphi e ‑clay ce amics, ahighe p opo ion o wheel ‑made p oduc s can be obse ed as aconsequence. To he wes o his a ea only ine able wa e was wheel ‑made. Asomehow simila si ua ion applies o no h ‑wes e n Bohemia whe e e en ine essels could be made by hand. In bo h egions handmade essels showed di e en shapes and o namen s compa ed o wheel ‑made ones. In cen al and eas e n Bohemia, on he o he hand, g aphi e‑ ‑ ee coa se ce amics also appea o ha e been wheel ‑made in some cases, wi hou ypological di e ences o handmade essels. Howe e , only in he cen al Bohemian oppida, wheel ‑made coa se wa e seems o domina e he p oduc ion. This dis ibu ion sugges s di e en p oduc ion s a egies o coa se ce amics. In his e‑ spec , i is impo an o poin ou he di e en equi emen s o he wo echniques. Al hough no o he same ex en as genuine wheel ‑ h own wa es, he p oduc ion o wheel ‑ inished po e y equi es amo e complex in as uc u e and a ained c a sman, who may ha e had an economic ad an age due o hei specialisa ion. Howe e , asigni ican inc ease in p oduc ion would only be expec ed o genuine wheel ‑ h own wa es (Thé e al. 2017, 1259, 1282). The e‑ qui emen s o handmade p oduc s, on he o he hand, a e signi ican ly lowe . E hnog aphic s udies show ha his o m o p oduc ion was mainly ca ied ou in subsis ence ‑o ien ed communi ies by people who we e no economically dependen on he excess p oduc ion o po e y (Knop 2003, 189–190). In acco dance wi h hese equi emen s, bo h echniques a e also associa ed wi h di e ences in he ans e o echnical knowledge. O cou se, he eco ded da a only allows an in e p e a ion o alimi ed ex en . An exam‑ ina ion o he egional di e ences in he ew a ailable examples o wo kshops would ha e o be included in o de o es ima e he deg ee o specialisa ion o he po e y indus y and o be able o g asp di e en o ms o o ganisa ion (Zeile 2009; Mangel 2017). In addi ion, only he mo e p ecise examina ion o p oduc ion aces, such as hose ca ied ou o some o he Czech si es (Thé – Mangel 2024; Thé e al. 2017; Thé – Mangel 2021), could esul in adis inc ion be ween genuine wheel ‑ h own and o he ab ics, which would be impo an o an assessmen o he p oduc ion p ocesses (Thé e al. 2015, 190–196). As se e al s udies o Bohemia ha e shown in de ail, he adap a ion o wheel u ning echnology depends on a a ie y o di e en social and economic ac o s (Thé – Mangel 2024; Thé e al. 2017). Due o he size o he s udy a ea, hese canno be discussed in his con ex o cou se. Howe e , one explana ion o he dis ibu ion pa e n can be su mised in he di e en o ms o economic o ganisa ion and social s uc u es ha migh ha e allowed he new inno a i e echnology o be es ablish o a ying deg ees. On he o he hand, he p o‑ duc ion o ce ain handmade o ms could also be linked o an in en ional ejec ion o he use o wheel ‑ h own domes ic essels. The hand ‑shaped essels hemsel es o ce ain ac ions in connec ion wi h hei p oduc ion migh ha e had asymbolic alue ha is incomp ehensible o us oday and which wheel ‑ h own ones could no o e . In any case, by using his me hod i was possible o highligh egional di e ences o ce ain ypes o po e y p oduc s. Rega ding g aphi e po e y and he use o he po e ’swheel, he La Tène se lemen o Neubau shows he g ea es simila i ies o Lowe Aus ia, bu also o he 223ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE oppidum o Tříso in sou h Bohemia. Al hough he e a e ce ain esemblances o he Ba a ian a ea ega ding g aphi e po e y, he emaining coa se wa e displays clea di e ences, bo h in e ms o ypology and p oduc ion. Howe e , he e a e also a ew handmade essel o ms in Uppe Aus ia wi h an appa en ly local dis ibu ion, whose exis ence could pe haps be explained by ideas ha go beyond hei pu e use as con aine s. CONCLUSION The p eceding discussion has shown ha he wo in es iga ed aspec s o La e La Tène se le‑ men po e y clea ly e eal egional di e ences in he s udied a ea. The c oss ‑ egional and de ailed examina ion o a ious aspec s o coa se se lemen po e y he e o e seems o ha e he po en ial o lead o abe e unde s anding o he La e I on Age se lemen pa e n and i s o ganisa ion. Un o una ely, such p ojec s a e exposed o ce ain limi a ions. Asu icien numbe o po e y ensembles ha ha e been exca a ed using mode n me hods and ha ha e been ully p esen ed so a is only exis en in a ew egions. Addi ionally, a a ie y o eco ding sys ems complica es he possibili y o compa e he esul s. Due o limi ed empo al, pe sonnel, and inancial esou ces, in mos cases asimpli ied ca ego isa ion in o ypes o wa e mus be used, which na u ally esul s in he loss o speci ic in o ma ion. Only asepa a e desc ip ion o he manu ac u ing cha ac e is ics and ma e ial quali ies o each indi idual she d, as has been unde aken by some au ho s in ecen decades, would gua an ee op imum compa abili y. In acco dance wi h hese es ic ions, his a icle is also o be iewed wi h ese a ions. Ne e heless, i was possible o iden i y some in e es ing endencies ega ding he cha ac‑ e is ics o he Neubau ce amic spec um desc ibed ini ially. Coa se po e y wi h g aphi e empe plays an impo an ole abo e all in he Ba a ian Danube egion, sou he n Bohemia and no h ‑eas Aus ia. I can be assumed ha co esponding con ac sys ems o he exchange o aw ma e ials and expe ise exis ed in his a ea– asys em in which he Neubau se lemen was de ini i ely in ol ed. On he o he hand, he negligible p opo ion o hand ‑ o med and no wheel ‑ inished coa se po e y seems o sepa a e he Aus ian Danube egion and Mo a ia om Bohemia and sou he n Ge many. On op o ha , he discussion o he indi idual egions e ealed si e‑ o egion ‑speci ic cha ac e is ics wi h espec o he p oduc ion o coa se po e y. The esul s o he compa ison u he mo e indica e an a ilia ion o Neubau o se lemen s in lowe Aus ia and display acon as o sou he n Ge many. This shows, how asup a ‑ egional s udy o coa se wa e can deli e new insigh s in o social s uc u es and communica ion ne wo ks o he La e I on Age, e en when acing asmall and imp ecise da ase . Fu he , and mo e de ailed esea ch may b ing up e en be e esul s. 224 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 1 Dammwiese 123 3 97 0 66 Bibl.: Hell 1952. 2 F einbe g 232 0 32 68 38 Bibl.: U ban 1994, 103–160. Coun ed om he ca alogue. Only he exca a ions om 1989 on a e aken in o accoun . Only a single handmade she d. 3 Neubau 41000 4 96 0 43 Bibl.: in a. 4 B aunsbe g 1110 1 97 2 21 Bibl.: U ban 1995, 82–480. Coun ed om he ca alogue. Only he 1986–1990 exca a ions a e aken in o accoun . 5Eggendo am Wag am 273 0 73 27 27 Bibl.: Lucius 1963, 51–58. Coun ed om he ca alogue. Vessels wi h‑ ou desc ip ion o he echnique we e coun ed as handmade. 6 Gö lesb unn 3216 5 95 0 27 Bibl.: Ka l – P ochaska 2005, 128, ig. 21, 22, 36 (es ima ed). To al numbe coun ed om he ca alogue. Values o p oduc ion ech‑ nique only e e o 212 she ds om he 1989 exca a ions. The alue o g aphi e o he o al sample. 7 He zogenbu g 105 1 99 0 72 Bibl.: Windl 1972, 64–69. Coun ed om he ca alogue. 8 Leopoldsbe g 474 3 97 0 34 Bibl.: U ban 1999, 29–179. Coun ed om he ca alogue. 9 Michelndo ‑ 1 99 0 77 Bibl.: Kalse 2008, 23. The o al amoun was no coun ed. 10 Mi e e z‑ bach 997 13 87 0 57 Bibl.: P o . D . P. T ebsche, pe sonal in o ma ion . 11 Mold ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: May ho e 2013, 38, 46. No absolu e da a published. Only a small amoun o she ds is handmade. 12 Obe leise ‑ be g ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Ke n 1996, 387. No absolu e da a published. Mos po e y is wheel‑made. 13 P ellenki ‑ chen 2454 2 98 0 18 Bibl.: Ka wowski 2010, 335; Ka wowski 2008, ig. 6. 14 Roggendo 90 8 92 0 29 Bibl.: S i ‑Go lieb 1932, 269–272. Coun ed om he ca alogue. 15 Thunau am Kamp 1774 1 99 0 19 Bibl.: Ka wowski 2006, Tab. 4; Ka wowski 2008, ig. 6. 16 Umlau be g ‑ 0 0 0 0 Bibl.: Nische ‑Falkenho 1931, 110–113. No absolu e da a. Only ew bowls a e no desc ibed as wheelmade. 17 Wien Leopold‑ au/Aspe n 540 10 90 0 29 Bibl.: Holze 2022, 139–183. Coun ed om he ca alogue. numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 18 F auenbe g bei Leibi z 748 10 90 0 8 Bibl.: A ne 1999, ig. 12. 19 Le hkogel bei S ainz 157 23 77 0 5 Bibl.: Bau 2009, Ka alog, Ta . 1–26, Anhang I–III. 20 Wiesen‑ Halbjoch 1097 18 31 51 43 Bibl.: Piniel 2022, 50, ig. 31. 21 Aschheim‑ Do nach ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: I linge – Wingha 1999; Göde z, 2020, 233. Small and mul ipe iodic samples o unpublished da a. No alues only o LT C–D. 22 Be ching‑ Pollan en 38991 39 61 0 16 Bibl.: Lasch 1999, ig. 7, 8. 23 Dü nbe g bei Hallein ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: B and 1995; I linge 1995. No absolu e da a a ailable. Mos ly wheel h own, o e 50% g aphi e. 24 Eggl ing 191 23 77 0 42 Bibl.: S öckli 2018, ig. 22. Da a om su ace collec ions. 25 Fen bach‑ schanze ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: I linge 2007, 264. No enough she ds published. 26 Hellb unne Be g ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Hell 1957, 64; Mooslei ne 1992. No absolu e da a. Mos ly wheel h own, and g aphi e empe ed. 27 Holzhausen 2 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: Schwa z – Wieland 2005, 76. No absolu e da a. G aphi e po e y domina es hand‑made essels. 28 Kelheim 300 20 80 0 35 Bibl.: Leich 2000, 98. Only a sample o 300 she ds was aken in o accoun . 29 Leonbe g bei Ma k l ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: I linge 2007, 269. No enough she ds published. 30 Manching Zen al läche 31608 22 78 0 29 Bibl.: S öckli 1979, Tab. 1. 31 Pap e ding ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: K ause 2008, ig. 49. Sample om su ace collec ions. 32 Passau 537 10 90 0 66 Bibl.: Michálek 1993, Tab. II. 33 Pla ling‑ Panko en 2472 68 32 0 7 Bibl.: Meixne 2023, ig. 98. Tab. 1: O e iew o si es. 225ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 34 Pocking‑Ha ‑ ki chen 1480 34 66 0 39 Bibl.: Meixne 2023, ig. 98. 35 Puch U s ein ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: Mooslei ne 1992. Sample oo small. No handmade o ms men ioned. High amoun o g aphi e po e y. 36 Sallach 1055 24 76 0 33 Bibl.: Mülle 2008, 107. 37 Sallmanns‑ be g ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Koch 1997, 114. No absolu e da a a ailable. 70% o g aphi e wa e and he exis ence o handmade essels a e men ioned. 38 S einebach am Wö hsee ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Kaindl 2010, 140. No absolu e da a a ailable. Handmade essels a e a e. 39 S ö ling ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: I linge 2007, 267. The ea u es in he se lemen a e des oyed. 40 S aubing Bajuwa en‑ s aße 183 74 26 0 10 Bibl.: Tappe 2006, 408–411, 418–421. Values o he LT C2–D1 ea u es we e coun ed om he ca alogue. Values o he LT D2 se lemen a e no shown. 41 U enho en S einbühel ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Höglinge 2006, 210. No absolu e da a. Wheel u ned g aph‑ i e wa e seems o domina e. 42 Beu en 203 62 38 0 2 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 43 Bop ingen‑ Flochbe g 639 71 29 0 8 Bibl.: F iede ich 2017, 128. 44 Ehningen 122 75 25 0 2 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 45 Fellbach‑ Schmiden 233 75 25 0 1 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 46 Heideng aben 340 80 20 0 1 Bibl.: S öckli 2018, ig. 32. 47 He oldingen‑ Kalbläcke 2928 82 18 0 3 Bibl.: Bick 2007, 63, 106. 48 Hüssigen 91 47 53 0 21 Bibl.: Schussmann 2008, ig. 57. 49 Nö dlingen Be ggässle 768 84 16 0 1 Bibl.: Bick 2007, 63, 106. 50 Riedlingen 288 72 28 0 1 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 51 Su e sheim 67 87 13 0 9 Bibl.: Schussmann 2008, ig. 57. numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 52 Tome dingen 350 69 31 0 1 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 53 Weißenbu g ‑ B ei ung 235 79 21 0 6 Bibl.: Schussmann 2008, ig. 57. 54 Holubice 1204 8 19 73 1 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 55 P aha‑Hos a‑ ice 959 85 11 4 1 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 56 Hos i ice 564 84 12 4 2 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 57 H azany 29678 0 0 0 4 Bibl.: Janso á 1986, 76; D da – Rybo á 1997, Tab. 3. Only ew hand‑ made essels. 58 P aha‑ Křeslice 468 8 0 92 0 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 59 Kři enice ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 1 Bibl.: Waldhause 1992, 385. No da a o absolu e numbe o p oduc ion echnique. 60 Loděnice Region, La e ho izon ‑ 60 40 0 1 Bibl.: Venclo á 2001, ab. 5. The alues e e o se e al si es in he egion, including Mšecké Žeh o ice, which is lis ed sepe a ely as well. 61 Mšecké Žeh o ice 899 60 40 0 2 Bibl.: Venclo á 1998, Tab. 15. 62 P aha‑Pi ko‑ ice 1104 4 20 76 0 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 63 P aha‑ Běcho ice 833 86 12 2 0 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 64 Říčany Region 4792 87 13 0 1 Bibl.: Venclo á 2008. The a e age alues o he egion we e calcula ed on basis o Tabs. 1, 6, and 8 o he numbe o she ds and he alues in Tab. 20. 65 S adonice 4921 40 60 0 8 Bibl.: Venclo á – Valen o á 2012, ab. 5 and 7. Di e en alues in he escue exca a ions in he 1980s. 66 Zá is 30510 1 99 0 1 Bibl.: Čižmář 1989, 86‑87; Mo yko á e . al 1990, ab. 6. A combined alue o bo h exca a ions was calcula ed. 67 Břešťany 4695 90 10 0 2 Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52; Waldhause 1992, 385. 68 Libocho any 263 92 8 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 226 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 69 Lo osice 2151 76 24 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 70 Lužice 1 949 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 71 Lužice 2 5511 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, Fig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 72 Poče ady ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 1 Bibl.: Waldhause 1992, 386. No da a o absolu e numbe o p oduc ion echnique. 73 Pohlody 2973 94 3 3 0 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 74 P acko ice 240 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 75 Rado esice 2 1634 93 7 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 76 Soběsuky 2871 80 14 6 0 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 77 S řeko 263 85 15 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52 . No alues o g aphi e empe . 78 Vicle ice 1 3438 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 79 Vicle ice 2 614 97 3 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, ig. 52. No alues o g aphi e empe . 80 České Lho ice 19083 72 28 0 3 Bibl.: Danieliso á 2010, ig. 51, 53. 81 Ch udim Píšťo y 223 65 35 0 ‑ Bibl.: Thé – Mangel e al. 2017, ab. 1. No alues o g aphi e empe . 82 Ch udim Region 431 36 59 5 10 Bibl.: Pleska 2015, ig. 11A, 12A. 83 Chudonice ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 10 Bibl.: Waldhause 1992, 385. No da a o absolu e numbe o p oduc ion echnique. 84 Doudleby nad O licí 157 94 6 0 16 Bibl.: Mangel – V ána – Beko á 2018, 58 85 Ka lo ice 101 70 30 0 2 Bibl.: Ko ýnek 2018, ig. 27, 28. 86 Ma k a ice 2404 35 27 38 4 Bibl.: Joško á 2016, ig. 17. 87 Slepo ice 2048 65 35 0 0 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel e al. 2017, ab. 1. 88 Týnec nad Labem 1755 82 17 1 2 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 89 Žehuň 287 86 14 0 3 Bibl.: Danieliso á e al. 2018, 153. 90 Kozolupy ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 7 Bibl.: Waldhause 1992, 385. No da a o absolu e numbe o p oduc ion echnique. 91 Nýřany 1692 82 18 0 1 Bibl.: Me lička – Me ličko á 2022, ig. 11. 92 Oplo y 1930 81 11 8 3 Bibl.: Thé – Mangel 2024, Supplemen a y ile 2 93 Lažiš ě 1093 0 40 60 19 Bibl.: F öhlich – Michálek 1988, 69. 94 Ne ězice 202 0 40 60 25 Bibl.: D da 1987, 546‑547. Small sample om su ace collec ions. 95 P ášily ‑ Sklářské údolí 244 74 26 0 21 Bibl.: Čuláko á e al. 2012, ab. 1. 96 Pu im 800 0 65 35 57 Bibl.: Beneš – Venclo á 1980, 633; Waldhause 1992, 386. G aph‑ i e po e y was conside ed wheel‑made. 97 Skály 114 18 82 0 31 Bibl.: F öhlich 1985, 206. 98 Skály u P o‑ i ína 305 0 59 41 52 Bibl.: Michálek e al. 2017, ab. 1. 99 S akonice 894 0 45 55 28 Bibl.: Michálek 1990, 12; Waldhause 1992, 386. 100 Tříso 2702 10 90 0 55 Bibl.: Hla a 2008, ab. 1. 101 Blansko ‑ „ Dílech“ 1003 ‑ ‑ ‑ 12 Bibl.: Wilczek 2013, ab. 2. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. 102 Blažo ice 2341 26 74 0 21 Bibl.: Popelka 2013, ab. 12. Values o p oduc ion echnique coun ‑ ed om he ca alogue. 103 Boři o ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 15 Bibl.: Čižmář 2003; Hla a 2008, 201. No da a o p oduc ion ech‑ nique. A e age alue om objec s wi h o e 100 she ds. 104 B níčko 421 1 54 45 51 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 31‑34; Hla a 2008, 201. 105 B no ‑ K álo o Pole 130 52 48 0 8 Bibl.: Hla a 2008, 201;. Čižmář – Holub 2003, 257. 106 B no – Sla ina 3444 ‑ ‑ ‑ 12 Bibl.: Čižmářo á 2008, 58, ab. 21. No da a o p oduc ion ech‑ nique. 107 Dě ko ic 337 ‑ ‑ ‑ 10 Bibl.: Čižmář 2012, ab. 1. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. 227ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 108 Dolní Suko‑ lom 113 ‑ ‑ ‑ 59 Bibl.: Hla a 2004; Hla a 2008, 201. No da a o p oduc ion ech‑ nique. 109 Rych ářo 390 ‑ ‑ ‑ 13 Bibl.: Čižmář – Čižmář – Režný 2016, ab. 1. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. 110 Jičina ‑ 89 11 0 8 Bibl.: Čižmář 1991, 523; Hla a 2008, 201. No absolu e numbe s. 111 Kle nice 67 7 78 15 22 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 123–125. Coun ed om he ca alogue. Ve y small da ase . 112 S a é H a‑ disko 790 5 95 0 26 Bibl.: S öckli 1979, 79; Hla a 2008, 202. 113 Medlo ice 4895 12 88 0 19 Bibl.: Lečbych 2010, 67, ab. 3. g a i e po e y was aken as wheel‑ made, e en i he au ho didn speci y his assum ion. 114 Milo ice 260 1 89 10 10 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 175‑180. Coun ed om he ca alogue. 115 Mi osla ské Knínice 60 1 72 27 13 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 180–181. Coun ed om he ca alogue. Ve y small da ase . 116 Mo a ské Knínice 140 18 26 56 5 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 198–200; Hla a 2008, 202. Values o hand‑ made essels coun ed om he ca alogue. 117 Oh ozim 716 ‑ ‑ ‑ 18 Bibl.: Hla a 2008, 202. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. 118 Oppidum Hos yn 908 ‑ ‑ ‑ 33 Bibl.: Hla a 2008, 201. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. 119 Os ožská No á Ves 245 ‑ ‑ ‑ 25 Bibl.: Galuška 1988, 52–54; Hla a 2008, 202. No absolu e da a o p oduc ion echnique. Galuska men ions handmade and wheel‑ made coa se wa e. 120 P a čice – Zadní Újezdy 309 6 64 30 34 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 247–250; Hla a 2008, 202. Values o hand‑ made essels coun ed om he ca alogue. 121 P ení – se ‑ e ně od a i Rybníky 754 ‑ ‑ ‑ 6 Bibl.: Hla a 2008, 202. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. 122 S acho ín – š ě ko na 292 ‑ ‑ ‑ 9 Bibl.: Hla a 2008, 202. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. 123 S řelice 277 11 89 0 17 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 281‑284; Ludiko ský 1983 15–31. Coun ed om he ca alogue (Meduna 97 she ds, Ludikowsky 180 she ds). 124 Sy o ice 367 ‑ ‑ ‑ 17 Bibl.: Pa ma 2009, 179. No da a o p oduc ion echnique. numbe si e she ds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no o ming aces (%) g aphi e empe (%) 125 T a ožná – ať Pod kopci 236 ‑ ‑ ‑ 21 Bibl.: Hla a 2002; Hla a 2008, 202. No da a o p oduc ion ech‑ nique. 126 Višňo é 2424 11 89 0 23 Bibl.: Wilczek 2010, 154–155, ab. T73 127 Vyško – ať Manské 175 6 94 0 18 Bibl.: Ho álko á 1993, 476‑477; Hla a 2008, 202. 128 Vyško ě 226 9 87 4 55 Bibl.: Ho álko á 1993, 25‑28. 228 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ambs, R.2011: Die kel ische Vie eckschanze bei Beu en. Ma k gemeinde P a enho en an de Ro h Landk eis Neu -Ulm, Baye n. Be ich e zu A chäologie im Landk eis Neu ‑Ulm und in den ang enzenden Gebie en 4. Neu ‑Ulm. A ne , W. 1999: De F auenbe g bei Leibni z, S eie ma k, in de Spä la ènezei und in de o claudischen Kaise zei . Ausg abungen des Landesmuseums Joanneum 1979–1985. A chaeologia Aus iaca 82‑83, 221–341. Baue , C. 2009: Die la ènezei lichen Funde om Le hkogel bei S ainz, S eie ma k. Magis e hesis, Leopold‑ ‑F anzens ‑Uni e si ä Innsb uck. A ailable online: h ps://www.hlk.s eie ma k.a /cms/dokumen ‑ e/12687896_147004688/4c709753/AA_Bau _DiplA_Le hkogel.pd ( isi ed 01/11/2023). Beneš, A.– Venclo á, N. 1980: La énské sídliš ě Pu imi [Die la ènezei liche Siedlung in Pu im, Bezi k Písek]. A cheologické ozhledy 32, 627–635. Bick, A. 2007: Die La ènezei im Nö dlinge Ries. Ma e ialhe e zu baye ischen Vo geschich e– A91. Kall ‑ münz, Op . B and, C. 1995: Zu eisenzei lichen Besiedlung des Dü nbe ges bei Hallein. In e na ionale A chäologie 19. Espekamp. Čižmář, M. 1989: Pozdnĕ la énské osídlení předh adí Zá is i [Die spä la énezei liche Besiedlung de Vo bu g on Zá is ]. Pamá ky a cheologické 80/1, 59–122. Čižmář, M. 1991: Neue E kenn nisse übe die Púcho ‑Kul u in Mäh en (ČSFR). A chäologisches Ko espon- denzbla 21, 523–526. Čižmář, M. 2003: La énské sídliš ě Boři o ě [La ènezei liche Siedlung in Boři o ]. P a ěk, Supplemen um 10. B no. Čižmář, M.– Holub, P.2003: La énská cha a zB na– K álo a Pole. P a ěk, n.ř. 13, 295–302. Čižmář, I. 2012: Pozdně la énská cha a zDě ko ic (ok . P os ějo ) [Spä la énezei liche einge ie e Hü e aus Dě ko ice (Mi elmäh en)]. Ac a Musei Mo a iae, Scienciae sociales 48/1, 85–100. Čižmáře al. 2016 = Čižmář,I.– Čižmář,M.– Režný,M.: A cheologický ýzkum lokali y Hajšupa uRych á‑ řo a, ok . Vyško [A cheological su ey a he si e locally known as “Hajšupa” nea he illage o Rych ářo , Vyško Coun y]. P a ěk, n.ř. 23, 149–171. Čižmářo á, H. 2008: La énské sídliš ě B ně– Sla ině, poloha „Š édské aly“. Diploma hesis, Masa yko a Uni e zi a B no. A ailable online: h ps:// heses.cz/id/ owwps/ ( isi ed 01.04.2024) Čuláko áe al. 2012 = Čuláko á, K.– Eigne , J.– F öhlich, J.– Me lička, M.– Řezáč, M.: Ho ské la énské sídliš ě na Šuma ě. P ášily– Sklářské Údolí, ok . Kla o y [Eine la ènezei liche Be gsiedlung im Böhme wald. P ášily– Sklářské Údolí, K . Kla o y]. A cheologické Výzkumy Jižních Čechách 25, 97–117. Danieliso á, A. 2010: Oppidum České Lho ice ajeho sídelní zázemí [The Oppidum České Lho ice and i s Hin e land]. A cheologické s udijní ma e iály 17. P aha. Danieliso áe al. 2018 = Danieliso á, A.– Kysela, J.– Mangel, T.– Kyselý, R.– Mili ký, J.: I on Age si e in Žehuň, Cen al Bohemia. An open se lemen wi h cen al unc ions. Pamá ky a cheologické 109, 127–178. D da, P.1987: Kel ské oppidum H ad uNe ězic [L’oppidum cel ique p ès de Ne ĕzice (Bohême du Sud)]. A cheologické ozhledy 39, 517–557. D da, P.– Rybo á, A. 1997: Kel ská oppida cen u Boiohaema [Die kel ischen Oppida im Zen um Boio‑ haemums]. Pamá ky a cheologické 88/1, 65–123. F anke, R.B. 2022: Die Kessel aus Neubau. Sonius 31, 12–14. F anke, R.B. 2024, Die Fundzone Neubau. Ausgewähl e Aspek e eine jünge la ènezei lichen G oßsiedlung in Obe ös e eich. In: A. Weidinge – J. Lesko a (eds.): In e p e ie e Eisenzei en. Falls udien, Me hoden, Theo ie. Tagungsbei äge de 10. Linze Gesp äche zu in e p e a i en Eisenzei a chäologie. S udien zu Kul u geschich e on Obe ös e eich 55. Linz, 91–105. F iede ich, J. 2017: Die kel ische Vie eckschanze on Bop ingen -Flochbe g am Nö dlinge Ries. Ip ‑Fo schungen 2. Bonn. 229ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE F öhlich, J. 1985: La énská polozemnice uSkal, ok . Písek [La Tène ‑pe iod pi house a Skály, dis ic o Písek]. A cheologické ozhledy 37, 204–209. F öhlich, J.– Michálek, J. 1988: Podzně la énské sídliš ě uLaziš ě, Ok . Písek [Die spä la ènezei liche Siedlung bei Laziš ě, Bezi k Písek]. A cheologické Vyzkumy Jižních Čechách 5, 67–76. Galuška, L. 1988: Sídliš ě zdoby la énské ařímské uOs ožné No é Vsi ok es Uhe ské H adiš ě [Eine Seid‑ lung aus de La ‑Tène ‑Zei und Römischen Kaise zei bei Os ožná No á es, Bezi k Uhe ské H adiš ě]. Ac a Musei Mo a ie. Časopis Mo a ského Muzea 73, 45–70. Gebha d, R.– Wagne , U. 2002: Das wi scha liche Um eld on Manching. Möglichkei en on Ke amikun‑ e suchungen. In: C. Dobia – S. Sie e s– T. S öllne (eds.): Dü nbe g und Manching. Wi scha sa chäologie im os kel ischen Raum. Ak en des in e na ionalen Kolloquiums in Hallein/Bad Dü nbe g om 7. bis 11. Ok obe 1998. Kolloquien zu Vo ‑ und F ühgeschich e 7. Bonn, 243–252. Göde z, C. 2020: Die la ènezei liche Siedlung on Aschheim ‑Do nach, Ke nweg. Be ich e de Baye ischen Bodendenkmalp lege 61, 225–329. Hell, M. 1952: Die Klein unde on de Dammwiese in Halls a aus den Jah en 1936–1937. A chaeologia Aus- iaca 11, 71–88. Hell, M. 1957: Kel ische Siedlungs unde aus Hellb unn bei Salzbu g. A chaeologia Aus iaca 21, 58–74. Hla a, M. 2002: La énské sídliš ě uT a ožné (ok . B no ‑ enko ). Pokus o ekons ukci ýzkumu z oku 1943 [La ènezei liche Siedlung bei T a ožná (Bez. B no ‑ enko ). Ve such de Rekons uk ion de G abung aus dem Jah e 1943]. P a ěk, n.ř. 11, 301–354. Hla a, M. 2004: La énská sídliš ě Dolní Sukolomi (ok . Olomouc). Poznámky k ýzkumům ahis o ii „německého“ muzea Uničo ě [La ènezei liche Siedlungen in Dolní Sukolom (Bez. Olomouc)]. P a ěk, n.ř. 14, 373–416. Hla a, M. 2008a: G a i době la énské na Mo a ě [G a i in de La ènezei in Mäh en]. Pamá ky a cheo- logické 99, 373–416. Hla a, M. 2008b: Zách anný ýzkum předpolí oppida Tříso (ok . Český K umlo ) oku 1958 [Die Re ungs ‑ g abung des Jah es 1958 im Vo eld des Oppidums Tříso (K . Český K umlo )]. A cheologické Vyzkumy Jižních Čechách 21, 141–218. Höglinge , P.2006: Die be es ig e Höhensiedlung U endo ‑S einbühel (Salzbu g). Ein Siedlungszen um on übe egionale Bedeu ung? In: A. K enn ‑Leeb (ed.): Wi scha , Mach und S a egie, Höhensiedlungen und ih e Funk ionen in de U - und F ühgeschich e. = Economics, powe and s a egy, hill op se lemen s and hei unc ions in he p e- and ea ly his o y. Wien, 201–222. Holze , V. 2022: Die la ènezei lichen G äbe eld- und Siedlungs unde aus Wien XXI und XXII (Leopoldau und Aspe n). P ähis o ische Fo schungen Online 12. Accessible online: h ps://www.nhm ‑wien.ac.a / e lag/ online_publika ionen/p on ( isi ed 01/05/2004). Ho álko á, P.1993a: La énské sídliš ě e Vyško ě (ok . Vyško ) [La ènezei liche Siedlung in Vyško (Bez. Vyško )]. Přehled Výzkumů 1991, 17–32. Ho álko á, P.1993b: Pozdněla énské sídliš ě e Vyško ě snálezy ge mánské ke amiky [Die Spä la ènezei li‑ che Siedlung in Vyško mi Funden ge manische Ke amik] A cheologické ozhledy 45, 474–491. I linge , W.E. 1995: De Dü nbe g bei HalleinIV. Die Siedlung au dem Ramsaukop . Münchne Bei äge zu Vo ‑ und F ühgeschich e 48. München. I linge , W.E. 2007: Die Mi el‑ und Spä la ènezei liche Besiedlung in Südbaye n. Ein Übe blick anhand de Oppida und G oßsiedlungen. In: J. P amme – R. Sandne – C. Tappe (eds.): Siedlungsdynamik und Gesellscha . Bei äge des in e na ionalen Kolloquiums zu kel ischen Besiedlungsgeschich e im baye ‑ ischen Donau aum, Ös e eich und de Tschechischen Republik, 2.–4. Mä z 2006 im Gäubodenmuseum S aubing. Jah esbe ich des His o ischen Ve eins ü S aubing und Umgebung 3. S aubing, 261–282. I linge , W.E. 2018: Das endla ènezei liche Siedlungsbild in Südbaye n. Quellen, Ve b ei ung und Kon ak e. In: O. Ch ojka– M. Chy áček– H. G ube – L. Hus y– J. Michálek– K. Schmo z– R. Sandne – S. T axle 230 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 (eds.): A chäologische A bei sgemeinscha Os baye n /Wes - und Südböhmen/Obe ös e eich. 27. T e en, 21.–24. Juni 2017 in Schlögen. Fines T ansi e 27. Rahden, 69–80. I linge , W.E.– Wingha , S. 1999: Eine S a ue e de A hene aus dem südbaye ischen Alpen o land sowie Siedlungs‑ und G ab unde de mi le en bis spä en La ènezei on Do nach, gemeinde Aschheim, Landk eis München. Ge mania 77/1, 71–162. Janso á, L. 1986: H azany. Das kel ische Oppidum in BöhmenI. Die Be es igung und die anliegende Siedlungsbe- bauung. P aha. Joško á, T. 2016: Valo ý objek uMa k a ic (ok . Jičín) e s ě le analýz aa cheologických pozna ků. Mas e hesis, Uni e zi a H adec K álo é. A ailable online: h ps:// heses.cz/id/spqj 2/?lang=sk ( isi ed 01/05/2024) Kaindl, M. 2010: Die jünge la ènezei liche G oßsiedlung on S einebach am Wö hsee im Landk eis S a n‑ be g. Be ich e de Baye ischen Bodendenkmalp lege 51, 127–195. Kalse , K. 2008: Die Mi el -La -Tène -zei liche Siedlung on Michelndo , Niede ös e eich. Fundbe ich e aus Ös e eich A18. Wien. Kappel, I. 1969: Die G aphi onke amik on Manching. Die Ausg abungen in Manching 2. Wiesbaden. Ka l, R.– P ochaska, S. 2005: Die la énezei liche Siedlung on Gö lesb unn p.B. B uck an de Lei ha, Niede ös- e eich. Die No be gung 1989, die G abungen 1992–1994, zwei la énezei liche Töp e ö en. His o ica– Aus ia 6. Wien. Ka wowski, M. 2006: Thunau am Kamp– eine be es ig e Höhensiedlung (G abung 1965–1990). Die la ènezei lichen Siedlungs unde. Mi eilungen de P ähis o ischen Kommission 61. Wien. Ka wowski, M. 2008: Ręcznie lepiona ce amika zosady kul u y la eńskiej w P ellenki chen w Dolnej Aus ii [Die Handge e ig e Ke amik aus de Siedlung de La ènekul u in P ellenki chen Niede ös e eich]. In: E. D obe ja – Vachů o á, D. (eds.): Ba ba ská sídliš ě. Ch onologické, ekonomické ahis o ické aspek y jejich ý oje s ě le no ých a cheologických ýzkumů. Spisy A cheologického Ús a u AV ČR B no 37. B no, 481–494. Ka wowski, M. 2010: P ellenki chen. Cel ic se lemen in he Fo eland o he Ca pa ian basin. In: S. Be ecki (ed.): I on age communi ies in he Ca pa hian basin. P oceedings o he in e na ional colloquium om Tâ gu Mu es. Cluj ‑Napoca, 333–347. Ke n, A. 1996: Spä la ènezei liche Funde om Obe leise be g, MG E ns b unn, NÖ. In: E. Je em– A. K enn‑ ‑Leeb– J.‑W. Neugebaue – O.H. U ban (eds.): Die Kel en in den Alpen und an de Donau. Ak en des in e ‑ na ionalen Symposions S . Pöl en, 14.–18. Ok obe 1992. A chaeolingua S udien zu Eisenzei im Os al‑ pen aum 1. Budapes – Wien, 385–393. Knop , T. 2003: Die Bo scha en de Ke amik. E hnoa chäologische S udien zu He s ellung und Ve ände ung on Tonwa e. In: U. Vei : Spu en und Bo scha en. In e p e a ionen ma e ielle Kul u . Tübinge a chäolo‑ gische Taschenbüche 4. Müns e , 187–204. Koch, H. 1997: Eine spä kel ische Siedlung mi Töp e o en on Landshu ‑Sallmannsbe g (Be gg ub). Ve - handlungen des his o ischen Ve eins ü Niede baye n 122‑124, 105–138. Ko ýnek, M. 2018: La énské nálezy zh adiš ě Ka lo ice– Če o a uka [La Tène indings om hill o Ka lo ice– Če o a uka]. Diploma hesis, Uni e zi a Ka lo a, Filozo ická akul a. A ailable online: h ps://dspace. cuni.cz/handle/20.500.11956/102684 ( isi ed 01/05/2024). Koucká, A. 2012: La énské sídliš ě apohřebiš ě Hulíně “UIsido ka”. La Tène se lemen and bu ial g ound in Hulín “UIsido ka”. Diploma hesis, Masa yko a uni e zi a, B no. A ailable online: h ps://is.muni.cz/ h/sx9 / bakala ska_p ace.pd ( isi ed 01/05/2024). K ause, H. 2008: Die spä kel ische Vie eckschanze on Pap e ding, Lk . E ding. Dokumen ie e Denkmal e lus im Spiegel langjäh ige a chäologische Su eys und geoa chäologische Me hodik. Regensbu ge Bei äge zu p ähis o ischen A chäologie 17. Regensbu g. Lasch, H. 1999: Be ching -Pollan enI. Die Ke amik de spä kel ischen Siedlung Be ching -Pollan en, Lk . Neuma k i.d. Obe p alz. In e na ionale A chäologie 60. Rahden.