Szilasi, A. B. (2012): Wohlsdorf the Bronze Age Settlement and the Wells. In.: E. Trinkl (Hrsg):...

Akten des 14. Österreichischen Archäologentagesam Institut für Archäologie der Universität Graz

vom 19. bis 21. April 2012

Herausgegeben von

Elisabeth Trinkl

Sonderdruck

Wien 2014

Wohlsdorf: The Bronze Age Settlement and the Wells

Preliminary Report

Attila Botond Szilasi

Introduction

The excavated settlement is located in the Laßnitz-valley close to the southern part of Wohlsdorf,in the southern slope of a small knoll situating along with the Northern bank of the river. Excava-tion of an area of almost 2.5 acres was carried out by Dr. Gerald Fuchs (ARGIS GmbH) in2008, as part of the Koralmbahn Project1 (Fig. 1). The system of the settlement structure andthe household clusters, from the late Tumulus Culture and the older and younger phase of theUrn-Grave Culture (Bz C2 to Bz D2/Ha A1 – from the Maisbirbaum-Zohor phase until theBaierdorf-Velatice phase) show a very rational and clear picture. In the Eastern side of the territo-ry a small part of a village with houses and pits showed up, while in the center of the hilltop awest-east segment of a settlement from different phases was revealed (Fig. 2).

Structure of the Settlement – Houses and the household clusters

In the center of the excavated area mostly longhouses showed up with different orientation – themost common building orientation is the NW-SE but also prevalent is the NE-SW. In the nor-thern part of the village a bigger group of houses were situated: a standard sized house with twosmaller outbuildings in its the Western part. The main house had two separated areas with mainridge-pools and ridge-roof leaning of two lengthwise poles. The walls were made of adobe. Thistype of building was found in Németbánya,2 in Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge3 and inDunakeszi-Szélesdűlő.4 The smaller hovels had conventional long-forms (Fig. 3). Toward theSouthern part from this alignment we can find different separated lonely blocks with singularhousehold clusters. The most elemental part is object 84. The belonging borrow pits (obj. 31and 60), the rubbish pits in the nearby (obj. 32–33, 36–37 and 77–78) and the working pit inthe SW (obj. 79) show a closed household cluster with the house (Fig. 4). From these data thedevisable area for a household is around 900 m2 while the core area in the settlement is approx.between 40 and 80 m2. We can get a similar picture if we check the vicinity of the bigger housewith the separated area. The complex of the pits (obj. 595, 597–598, 607–608 and 612) in theSE part which had probably different type of roofs in different periods, the borrow pit (obj. 638)in the NE part and the bigger pit (obj. 630) in the SW part show a clearly closed household clus-ter with the big house. This could have a slack tie with the farmyard of the two small outbuil-dings and with their household clusters.

This picture shows even more a slack familiar connection between the units than a contactbetween the populous sections of the residential area. It’s very typical in the horizontal settle-

1 I would like to thank Dr. Gerald Fuchs for thepossibility to work on the finds and on the settlement, tothe members of the ARGIS Company for the correct field-work and to the restorers R. Fürhacker and A. Klatz for the

precise restoration job.2 Ilon 2005, 139–140.3 Melzer 1982, 248.4 Horváth u. a. 2004, 210–212.

401

ments from this period in the region5 while the densely populated areas are more common in thehillforts in the later period.6

The houses in the eastern part of the area were traditional beam-foundation or post-structu-re houses with saddle-back and mostly were aligned NW-SE (Fig. 5). The biggest house had a se-parated inner area with pitched roof and hip-roof (Tiefengraber-type E)7. The postholes wereextremely deep and big which can be interpreted with the large size of the house. The base ofthe house was approx. 12.0068.00 m. In several cases the post and the fill of the posthole couldbe separated easily – the harder clay was rammed around the post. The other buildings show thetraditional long-forms with two lengthwise poles and ridge-pools on standard adobe walls (Tiefen-graber-type D)8. By the right of the wattle and daubs every wall was made from cob plasteredinto the wattled sticks. The only superposition in this part of the settlement is located where anormal longhouse – probably an outbuilding – was cut by the house with three lengthwise polesand with more divided territory (Tiefengraber-type E)9. These types of houses with two- orthree-bayed structure are the exclusive representative pieces of this period. Widely spread in who-le Europe from the end of the Middle Bronze Age period.10 In the same time the domination ofthe standard traditional longhouses were pushed back into the background mostly in the area ofSouth Germany, Bohemia and Austria.11

The Work Area

In the northeastern part of the site a small area yielded a few archaeological features which can berelated to working activity (Fig. 7): a bigger workshop with inner and outer postholes (obj. 817),a smaller working pit with an oven and with the postholes for the roof (obj. 840) and a small lo-nely baking-oven (obj. 834). Probably in the northern comb of the village a bigger workshop ac-tivity zone was recovered. From the in situ finds we can assume that they used the workhousezone for baking and for various textile works already in the Early Iron Age (Ha C/D).

The Tan-Pits

In the eastern side of the settlement generally 3 m long and half a m wide pits showed up withmostly V and U shaped cross-sections (obj. 926, 928, 942, 944–945, 1002, 1006–1007 and1019). The German literature call them – mostly because of their shape – “Schlitzgrube” (Fig. 8).This type of feature is well known from different periods and regions. The most acceptable expla-nation for these objects is that they were tan-pits. We can find several ethnographical parallelsfrom the Carpathian Basin12 for such objects. In the procedure of the tanning the leather wasdipped into different intensity of tan-liquor so different soak-pits at close quarters were needed.This kind of procedure needs a lot of water so we usually find these types of pits close to somewater places – rivers, streams or creeks, etc – mostly in the side of the settlements.13

The Wells

Water was always a very important part of the living in the life of the humanity so thus in this pe-riod of the Bronze Age. Although every settlement was situated close to some waterside they nee-ded a solid place to get clear and fresh water in every time so they assured themselves with

5 Hebert 1995, 301; Strmčnik-Gulič 2001, 125 Abb.11; Heymans 2007, 146, Abb. 4; Fuchs 2009, 298 Abb. 7.

6 Dular u. a. 2002, 34–35.7 Tiefengraber 2007, 93 Abb. 13.8 Tiefengraber 2007, 93 Abb. 13.9 Tiefengraber 2007, 93 Abb. 13.

10 Först 1997, 40–50; Roymanns – Fokkens 1995,97–101; Dular u. a. 2002, 41–46.

1 1 Szabó 2004, 138.12 Flórián – Tóth 1992, 8–10.13 Rajna 2009, 330.

402


drilled wells – only a dry period, an insecure runoff or a slack water full with organic materialwas enough to run out of drinkable water.

In the excavated settlement, beside of a traditional dug well, two bigger well with timber-construction were recovered.

Object 728 is a simple well without built structure, a basin periodically filled up with water(Fig. 6). This type is very common and general in this period. It is round, cylindrical and narrowin a corniculate way without any filter system. The diameter was 1.20 and the depth was1.00 m.

Object 764 is the most characteristic piece of this period. The diameter of the corniculateand amorphous shaped top was nearly 2.00 m, and the depth of it was close to 1.50 m. The co-nical upper part was followed by the rectangular pit with round-cornered edges (Fig. 9). The tim-ber construction was made from nearly 1 m long radius oak planks. Each piece had marks ofwork and interlocking in the sides and in the end. During the excavation three different rows ofwooden, dowel-pined planks were discovered. Different types of fitting were used: notching withT-shaped mortised cog, dovetail joint, edge-bond and in some cases trapeze-shaped cogs with up-per lap-joint. Probably in the variance of the wooden structure we can see a presumptive repara-tion work from the later phase (Fig. 10). However the well silted up very quickly – the thickgrayish silty layer proves this also – and afterwards the structure became useless and thus was fil-led up artificially. The postholes in the pebbly surface could mark of a pile-dwelling above thewell but from the structure of the well house we have no further information. These types ofwells are very common in the Middle/Late Bronze Age from this region.14 Naturally the roundedshaped traditional braided wells are quite common in the Late Tumulus/Early Urn Grave Cultu-ral range.15

Object 961 is a rounded well with timber construction. The diameter was 2.10 m and thedepth was 1.40 m. During its construction, first the cornucilate top was dug then the woodenplanks were put into the rectangular pit (Fig. 11). Presumably the structure was 161 m.

Dating

If we check the potteries from the settlement we can find types of two strictly different periods:Late Tumulus Culture and the early phase of the Urn Grave Culture.

In force of the potteries from the Tumulus Culture we can find the different impressed de-coration in triangle forms, thumb-impressed decorations, the simple rippled decorations and theknobs with fluting in different variations. The most characteristic pottery forms in the TumulusCulture are the globular vessels with pedestal and the bigger rounded urns. Beside these formsthe most common types are the deep bowls with outcurving rim – in several cases with small loo-ped handles on the neck – and the small beakers with ear. There is a similar assemblage composi-tion from the sites Oloris,16 Balatonmogyoród–Hídvégpuszta and Gelsesziget,17 Lamperstättenand Hasreith,18 and from the pottery depot of Maisbirbaum.19

The channeled decoration appears in the type of the potteries from the Urn Grave Culture.It can be in the neck or in the belly of the pots. But in the same time the tradition of the decora-tion from the Tumulus Culture still exists and is still alive. The leader type in the ceramic formsare the bowls with channeled decoration on the belly and with high swinging looped handle bentto the rim, and the different biconical pots. Beside of these in several cases we have different

14 Blesl 2006, 92; Grynaeus 1998–99, 74–75; Hor-váth u. a. 2001, 122–124; Somogyi 2002, 37; Dular u. a.2002, 26 Abb. 11.

1 5 Szabó 2005, 147 Abb. 2.

16 Dular u. a. 2002.17 Horváth 1994, 219–235.18 Heymans 2007, 143–162.19 Doneus 1991, 107–128.

403


bowls and plates with inverted rims (Fig. 13/4). We have good parallels from the site, Sárvár–Felsőmező20, Unterpullendorf 21 and Nagyréve–Baráka-dűlő.22

Parallel the quantity of the facetted inner rims is getting higher. The big urn from the ob-ject 764 with the outcurved rim and with the small knobs on the neck (Fig. 13/1, variant of theVII. type in the Patek-typology23) is also a typical form in the Bz D/Ha A1 period. We have a si-milar picture if we check the few small finds and the metal finds. The one and only bronze nee-dle with the divided head – which is from a layer – is a piece from the Bz C2/D (Fig. 12/14). Inthe case of the firedogs we have two different periods. The first one is an early theriomorphic pie-ce (HaA/HaB – Fig. 12/13) which is a transition between the early bench-shaped forms and thehorned types.24 The other one is an early concave-backed piece from the Bz D/HaA period (Fig.12/15 – classical Type A25).

The bowls and the pots from the object 817 show a very big variability of the same form(Fig. 12). We can say, it is a classical evidence of a whole pot set. These forms are very commonin the Ha C2/D1 period – we can see the same types in the Early Iron Age settlement at Lete-nye.26

Because of these we can say that the early horizon of the settlement is somewhere in theBzC2 (in the Maisbirbaum-Zohor phase) while the big well with the wooden construction andthe two-bayed houses is in the BzD2/HaA1 (in the Baierdorf-Velatice phase). The horizon of thesmall workshop area is already dated to the Early Iron Age – to the Ha C2/D1 period.

AbbildungsnachweisFig. 1. 5–7. 9. 11: graphic/photo ARGIS 2008Fig. 2–4. 8: graphic ARGIS 2008 and A. B. Szilasi 2012Fig. 10: photo Fürhacker and Klatz 2009Fig. 12: drawing A. B. SzilasiFig. 13: photo P. Vizi

BibliographyBenkovsky-Pivovarová 1980 Z. Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Frühurnenzeitliche Siedlungsfunde von Unterpul-

lendorf, p.B. Oberpullendorf, Burgenland, Burgenländische Heimatblätter 42/1,1980, 22–31

Blesl 2006 C. Blesl, Die Brunnen der urnenfelderzeitlichen Siedlung von Pixendorf in Nie-derösterreich, NAU 13, 2006, 92–93

Doneus 1991 M. Doneus, Zum mittelbronzezeitliche Keramikdepot von Maisbirbaum, MGErnstbrunn, PB Korneuburg, Niederösterreich, Archaeologica Austriaca 75,1991, 107–135

Dular u. a. 2002 J. Dular – I. Šavel – S. T. Hvala, Bronastodobno naselje Oloris pri Dolnjem La-košu, Bronzezeitliche Siedlung Oloris bei Dolnji Lakoš, Opera Instituti Archaeo-logici Sloveniae 5, Ljubjana, 2002

Flórián – Tóth 1992 M. Flórián – B. Tóth, Tímárok (Szentendre 1992)Först 1997 E. Först, Die spätbronzezeitlichen Siedlungsbefunde von Hamburg-Marmstorf,

Forschungen zur bronzezeitlichen Besiedlung in Nord- und Mitteleuropa, Inter-national Archäologie 38, 1997, 40–50

Fuchs 2009 G. Fuchs, Neues aus dem Laßnitztal, Weststeiermark. Archäologie im AbschnittWeitendorf-Wettmannstätten der Koralmbahn, Fundberichte aus Österreich 48,2009, 290–302

Fullár 2008 Z. Fullár, Az urnamezős kultúra települése Nagyrécse–Baráka-dűlőben, The sett-lement of the Urnfield culture at Nagyrécse–Baráka-dűlő, Zalai Múzeum 17,2008, 79–92

20 Nagy 2011.2 1 Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1980.22 Fullár 2008.23 Patek 1968, 94.

24 Polgár 2008, 167.25 Nagy 1979, 57 Taf. XVIII.26 Horváth 2012, 141–155.

404


Grynaeus 1998–99 A. Grynaeus, A Mosonmagyaróvár-Német dűlőben feltárt bronzkori kút dendro-kronológiai vizsgálata, Dendrochronologische Untersuchung des am FundortMosonmagyaróvár-Német dűlő freigelegten bronzezeitlichen Brunnens, Savaria24/3 Pars Archaeologica, 1998–99, 73–81

Hebert 1995 B. Hebert, Baubefunde in der mittelbronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Hörbing beiDeutschlandsberg, Steiermark, Fundberichte aus Österreich 34, 1995, 301–304

Heymans 2007 H. Heymans, Die Mittel- und Spätbronzezeit im Gleinztal, Universitätforschun-gen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 148, 2007, 143–162

Horváth 1994 L. Horváth, Adatok Délnyugat-Dunántúl későbronzkorának történetéhez, Anga-ben zur Geschichte der Spätbronzezeit in SW-Transdanubien, Zalai Múzeum 5,1994, 219–235

Horváth 2012 L. Horváth, Kora vaskori település Letenyén. An Early Iron Age settlement atLetenye, Zalai Múzeum 20, 2012, 111–158

Horváth u. a. 2001 L. A. Horváth – G. Szilas – A. Endrődi – A. M. Horváth, Őskori telepek és sí-rok feltárása Dunakeszi határában, Excavation of prehistoric settlements and gra-ves in Dunakeszi, Aquincumi Füzetek 7, 2001, 115–127

Horváth u. a. 2004 L. A. Horváth – G. Szilas – A. Endrődi, Megelőző feltárás Dunakeszi-Székesdű-lőn, Preliminary excavation at Dunakeszi-Székesdűlő, MΩMOΣ II, 2004, 209–218

Ilon 2005 G. Ilon, Houses of the Late Tumulus/Early Urnfield culture – Based on the exca-vation at Németbánya, Ősrégészeti Levelek 7, 2005, 135–145

Ilon 2011 G. Ilon, Szombathely – Zanat késő urnamezős korú temetője és a lelőhely másős- és középkori emlékei,The Late Urnfield period cemetery from Szombathely –Zanat supplemented by an assessment of prehistoric and Medieval settlementfeatures, in: J. Kvassay (Ed.) VIA 2 – Monographia Minor in Cultural Heritage(Budapest 2011)

Melzer 1982 G. Melzer, Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, Fundberichte aus Österreich 21,1982, 248

Nagy 2011 M. Nagy, A korai urnamezős időszak kronológiai vázlata a Kárpát-medence nyu-gati felében, Urnamezős kori temető- és településrészlet Sárvár-Felsőmezőn, Diechronologische Skizze der frühen Urnenfelderzeit in dem westlichen Teil desKarpatenbeckens – Friedhof- und Siedlungsteil aus der frühen Urnenfelderzeitin Sárvár-Felsőmező. Savaria a Vas Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője 34/1, 2011,67–94

Nagy 1979 L. Nagy, A tűzikutya és holdidol kérdése magyarországi leletek alapján, ZurFeuerbock- und Mondidolfrage aufgrund der ungarländischen Funde, A Veszp-rém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 14, 1979, 19–73

Patek 1968 E. Patek, Die Urnenfelderkultur in Transdanubien, Archaeologia Hungarica Se-ries Nova 44 (Budapest 1968)

Polgár 2008 P. Polgár, Újabb adatok a tűzikutyák magyarországi elterjedéséhez a késő bronz-korban, Neue Angaben zur Verbreitung der Feuerböcke in Ungarn in der Spät-bronzezeit, Somogyi Múzeumok Közleménye 18, 2008, 167–169

Rajna 2009 A. Rajna, Bőrmegmunkálás egy törökbálinti rézkori telepen, Leather-working ata Copper Age settlement of Törökbálint, MΩMOΣ VI, 2009, 327–334

Roymanns – Fokkens 1995 N. Roymann – H. Fokkens, Bronzezeitlichen und früheisenzeitliche Siedlun-gen in den Niederlanden, Eine Übersicht, Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlichund südlich der Alpen, RGZM Monographien 35, 1995, 91–108

Somogyi 2002 K. Somogyi, Előzetes jelentés a Kaposvár 61-es főút elkerülő szakaszának 9–10.és 36. sz. lelőhelyén 2000–2001-ben végzett megelőző régészeti feltárásról, Preli-minary report of the preceding excavation of 2000–2001 (sites No. 9–10 and36) on the encircling section of road No. 61 around Kaposvár. Somogyi Múzeu-mok Közleménye 15, 2002, 37–40

Strmčnik-Gulič 2001 M. Strmčnik-Gulič, Bronastodobni naselitveni kompleks v Rabeljčji Vasi na Ptu-ju – Der bronzezeitliche Siedlungskomplex in Rabelčja Vas auf Ptuj, Archeolo-ški Vestnik 39–40, 1988–1989, 147–170

405


Tiefengraber 2007 G. Tiefengraber, Zum Stand der Erforschung der Mittel- und Spätbronzezeit inder Steiermark, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 148,2007, 67–113

Szabó 2004 G. V. Szabó, Ház, település és településszerkezet a késő bronzkori (BD, HA,HB periódus) Tisza-vidéken, Houses, Settlements, and Settlement Structures inthe Tisza Region of the Late Bronze Age (Periods BD, HA, HB), MΩMOΣ II,2004, 137–170

Szabó 2005 G. V. Szabó, Polgár határában előkerült késő bronzkori kút feltárása és rekonst-rukciója, Freilegung und Rekonstruktion eines Brunnes in der Gemarkung vonPolgár, Ősrégészeti Levelek 7, 2005, 146–165

406


Fig. 1: Excavated area – Gem. Wettmannstätten, KG Wohlsdorf, DL – Koralmbahn Project

Fig. 2: Main part of the settlement with the houses (B2 C) and with the work activity area (Ha C/D)

407


Fig. 3: Household clusters – activity area in the western part – a main house with two smaller outbuildings

Fig. 4: Household cluster in the southern part – object 84

408


Fig. 5: Houses in the eastern part (B2 D/Ha A) Fig. 6: Periodically filled up basin – object 728

Fig. 7: The work area – object 817, 834 and 840 (Ha C/D)

409


Fig. 8: Tan-pits in the eastern part of the excavation area

Fig. 9: The big well with the timber construction –object 764 under excavation

Fig. 10: Variance of the wooden structure in the ob-ject 764 – presumptive sign of reparation work

Fig. 11: Object 961 – well with the remains of thewooden construction

410


Fig. 12: Selected finds from the settlement – object 817, No. 1–12 (Ha C2/D1)


Fig. 13: Selected finds from the object 764 (B2 D/Ha A1)

412


VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DES INSTITUTS FÜR ARCHÄOLOGIEDER KARL-FRANZENS-UNIVERSITÄT GRAZ

BAND 11

Phoibos Verlag,Wien 2014

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung durch:Land Steiermark. Abteilung Wissenschaft und Gesundheit

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen BibliothekDie Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche BibliothekDie Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

Einband: Gipsmuseum des Instituts für Archäologie, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz; © Institutfür Archäologie, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Photo: J. KraschitzerRedaktion: Hanne Maier

Copyright # 2014, Phoibos Verlag,Wien. All rights reservedwww.phoibos.at; [email protected] in the EUISBN 978-3-85161-114- 4

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Cristina-Georgeta Alexandrescu – Gerald Grabherr – Christian Gugl –

Barbara KainrathVom mittelkaiserzeitlichen Legionslager zur byzantinischen Grenzfestung: Die rumänisch-österreichischen Forschungen 2011 in Troesmis (Dobrudscha, RO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

TomÆš Aluš�k – Anežka B. SosnovÆMöglichkeiten einer 3D-Rekonstruktion der Architektur und der Fundorte imminoischen Kreta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Martin AuerDas „Atriumhaus“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Maria Aurenhammer – Georg A. PlattnerDer Eroten-/Satyrfries vom Theater in Ephesos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Claudia-Maria BehlingDer sog. Rundmühle auf der Spur – Zug um Zug zur Neudeutung römischer Radmuster . . . . 63

Fritz BlakolmerDas orientalische Bildmotiv der Gottheit auf dem Tier in der Ikonographie desminoischen Kreta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Andrea CsaplÆros – Tina Neuhauser – Ott� SosztaritsDie Rolle des Isis-Heiligtums in Savaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Nina Dornig

Eine archäologische Landschaft zur Römerzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Josef EitlerEine weitere Kirche des 6. Jahrhunderts am Gipfel des Hemmabergs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Claudia Ertl – Daniel Modl

Die Habsburger zwischen Antikenschwärmerei und Archäologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Nicole Fuchshuber – Franz Humer – Andreas Konecny – Mikulaš FenikEin Nekropolenbefund an der südlichen Peripherie von Carnuntum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Robert F�rhacker – Anne-Kathrin KlatzDie Anwendung moderner Methoden der Konservierung und Restaurierung am Beispielarchäologischer Funde aus dem Laßnitztal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Monika Hinterhçller-KleinPerspektivische Darstellungsmodi in der Landschaftsmalerei des Vierten Stils und dieRekonstruktion des Freskenprogramms im Isistempel von Pompeji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Denise Katzj�gerSpätantikes Wohnen auf Elephantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Doris KnausederÜberlegungen zu den kräftig profilierten Fibeln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Johanna KçckRömische Zwischengoldgläser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Andreas KonecnyDie Wasserversorgung der Zivilstadt Carnuntum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

5

Julia KopfIm Westen viel Neues … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Gabrielle KremerZur Wiederverwendung von Steindenkmälern in Carnuntum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Susanne LammZwischenland – Zur Grenze zwischen Noricum und Pannonien abseits des Wienerwaldes . . . 209

Felix Lang – Raimund Kastler – Thomas Wilfing – Wolfgang Wohlmayr

Die römischen Ziegelbrennöfen von Neumarkt-Pfongau I, Salzburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Claudia Lang-AuingerRömische Tempelanlagen in griechischen Städten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Hannes LeharDem Ignis Languidus auf der Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Johann LeidenfrostDas Holzfass vom Magdalensberg und seine Rekonstruktion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Stephan LeitnerDie Römer im Oberen Vinschgau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Patrick Marko

Κἀπὶ Κυρβάντεσι χορεύσατε. Ein soziologischer Versuch zu veränderten Bewusstseins-zuständen in der Antike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Daniel Modl

Zum Stand der Experimentellen Archäologie in der Steiermark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Tina Neuhauser – Marina UgakovićEpetion (Stobreč, HR) – City wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Karl Oberhofer – FØlix TeichnerIm Schatten der Colonia Emerita Augusta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Toshihiro Osada

Ist der Parthenonfries sinnbildlicher Ausdruck des athenischen Imperialismus ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Lisa PeloschekFunktionell oder rituell ? Technologische Charakterisierung spätklassisch-hellenistischerKeramik aus der Nekropole von Aphendrika (Zypern) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

RenØ PloyerUntersuchungen zur Besiedlung des südlichen Hausruckviertels (Oberösterreich) währendder römischen Kaiserzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Sven SchipporeitTriumphal- und Siegesdenkmäler außerhalb von Rom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

G�nther SchçrnerHäuser und Hauskulte im römischen Nordafrika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Yvonne SeidelEx oriente ? – Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung von Beleuchtungsgeräteständern . . . . . . . . . . 353

Stephanie SitzFirmalampen des EVCARPVS. Produktion und Verbreitung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

Eva Steigberger – Barbara ToberDie Fallstudie des Heiligtums des Iuppiter Heliopolitanus in Carnuntum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

Karl StrobelNoreia – Atlantis der Berge ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

6

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Magdalena St�tzDen Gürtel um die Hüfte geschlungen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

Attila Botond SzilasiWohlsdorf: The Bronze Age Settlement and the Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

Ingrid Tamerl„Baccus fecit“ – Überlegungen zum Fassbinderhandwerk in der römischen Antike . . . . . . . . . 413

Susanne TiefengraberSt. Jakob am Mitterberg – Romanische Kirchenruine und frühe mittelalterliche Burgstelle . . 423

Barbara ToberDie Wandmalereien von Immurium-Moosham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Jçrg Weilhartner

Zur Darstellung von Mensch und Tier auf Linear B-Tafeln und Siegelbildern derägäischen Bronzezeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445

Gudrun Wlach

Arnold Schober – Leben und Werk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457

Programm des Archäologentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

7

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Szilasi, A. B. (2012): Wohlsdorf the Bronze Age Settlement and the Wells. In.: E. Trinkl (Hrsg):...

Documents

Transcript of Szilasi, A. B. (2012): Wohlsdorf the Bronze Age Settlement and the Wells. In.: E. Trinkl (Hrsg):...