Venclová, N. – Valentová, J. et al. 2012: Oppidum Stradonice. Výzkum Albína Stockého r. 1929....

Nat

alie

Ven

clo

vá –

Jar

mila

Val

ento

vá

Op

pid

um S

trad

oni

ce. V

ýzku

m A

lbín

a St

ock

ého r.

192

9

38

Natalie Venclová – Jarmila Valentová

Oppidum StradoniceVýzkum Albína Stockého r. 1929

The Stradonice oppidum Investigations of Albín Stocký in 1929

FONTES A RCH A EOLOGICI PR AGENSESCur at editionem M arik a Tisuck áVolumen 38 Pr agae 2012Musaeum Nationale

EdiceFONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSESObsahuje monografické publikace ucelených nálezových souborů s jejich vědeckým hodnocením. Vydává ji v 1–2 svazcích ročně Národní muzeum, Václavské náměstí 68, Praha 1.

Collectio FONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSESEditiones monographicas inventariorum completorum brevi commentario instructas comprehendes. Divulgatur in 1 vel 2 fasculis consilio et auctoritate Musei Nationalis, Václavské náměstí 68, Pragae 1.

The editionFONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSESContains monographic publications of closed groups of finds (material and its fundamental evaluation). It is published in 1 or 2 volumes yearly by the National Musem, Václavské náměstí 68, Prague 1.

L’édition FONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSESComprend des publications monographiques concernant des groupes des trouvailles fermées (matériaux et leur évaluation fondamentale). Elle est publiée par les soins du Musée National, Václavské náměstí 68, Prague 1, dans 1 ou 2 volumes par an.

Die ReiheFONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSESUmfasst Monographien über geschlossene Fundkomplexe (Materialien und ihre wissenschaftliche Auswertung). Herausgegeben vom Nationalmuseum, Václavské náměstí 68, Prag 1; erscheint 1–2mal jährlich.

ЭдицияFONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSESСодержит монографические публикации целъных комплексов находок с их основной оценкой. Издает её в 1–2 томах ежегодно Националъный музей, Václavské náměstí 68, Прагa 1.

1. Rudolf Turek, Slavische Hügelgräber in Südböhmen – Slovanské mohyly v jižních Čechách – Cлaвянские курганы в южной Чехии. Pragae 1958.

2. Ivan Hásek, The Early Únětician Cemetery at Dolní PočerniceNear Prague – Staroúnětické pohřebiště v Dolních Počernicíchu Prahy – Раннеунетицкий могильннк в ДолныхПочерницах около Праги. Pragae 1959.

3. Alena Houšťová, Die Trichterbecherkultur in Mähren – Kultura nálevkovitých pohárů na Moravě – Культураворонковидных кубков в Моравии. Pragae 1960.

4. Václav Moucha, Funde der Úněticer Kultur in der Gegend von Lovosice – Nálezy únětické kultury na Lovosicku. Pragae 1961.

5. Jitka Hralová, Das Lausitzer Gräberfeld in Malá Bělá –Lužické pohřebiště v Malé Bělé – Лужицкий могильникоколо с. Мала Бела. Pragae 1962.

6. Karla Motyková-Šneidrová, Die Anfänge der römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen – Počátky doby římské v Čechách – Начало римского периода в Чехии. Pragae 1963.

7. Anton Točík, Die Gräberfеlder der karpatenländischen Hügelgräberkultur – Pohrebiská karpatskej mohylovej kultúry – Могильники карпатской курганной культуры. Pragae 1964.

8. Jiří Říhovský, Das Urnengräberfeld von Klentnice – Popelni-cové pole v Klentnici – Могильник полей погребений околос. Клентнице. Pragae 1965.

9. Vladimír Podborský, Die Hallstattsiedlung in Těšetice –Halštatské sídliště v Těšeticích – Гальштатское поселение в Тешетицах. Pragae 1965.

10. Jan Bouzek – Drahomír Koutecký – Evžen Neustupný, The Knovíz Settlement of North-West Bohemia – Knovízskéosídlení severozápadních Čech – Кновизское поселение северозападной Чехии. Pragae 1966.

11. Karla Motyková-Šneidrová, Weiterentwicklung und Ausklangder älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen. Pragae 1967.

12. Jiří Říhovský, Das Urnengräberfeld in Oblekovice. Pragae1968.

13. Karel Tihelka, Velatice Culture Burials at Blučina. Pragae 1969.

14. Vladimír Sakař, Roman Imports in Bohemia. Pragae 1970.

15. Jiří Hartl, Eponyme Fundstelle Knovíz. Pragae 1971–1972.

16. Jan Fridrich – Karel Sklenář, Die paläolithische und mesolithi-sche Höhlenbesiedlung des Böhmischen Karstes. Pragae 1976.

17. Emilie Pleslová-Štiková, Makotřasy: A TRB Site in Bohemia.Pragae 1985.

18. Jan Fridrich, Přezletice: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Central Bohemia (Excavations 1969 to 1985). With a contribution by Karel Sklenář. Pragae 1989.

19. Jitka Hralová, Das Hügelgräberfeld in Újezd u Radnic. Pragae 1993.

20. Karel Sklenář – Václav Matoušek, Die Höhlenbesiedlung desBöhmischen Karstes vom Neolithikum bis zum Mittelalter.Pragae 1994.

21. Eduard Droberjar, Studien zu den germanischen Siedlungender älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Mähren. Pragae 1997.

22. Zuzana Karasová, Die römischen Bronzegefäβe in Böhmen.Pragae 1998.

23. Eduard Droberjar, Dobřichov – Pičhora. Ein Brandgräberfeldder älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen (Ein Beitrag zurKenntnis des Marbod-Reichs). Pragae 1999.

Supplementum I: Gordana Divac – Zbyněk Sedláček, Hortfundder altbronzezeitlichen Dolche von Praha 6-Suchdol – Hromadný nález starobronzových dýk z Prahy 6-Suchdola.Pragae 1999.

24. Karel Sklenář, Hořín III. Mesolithische und hallstattzeitlicheSiedlung. Pragae 2000.

25. Ondřej Chvojka, Mittleres und unteres Flussgebiet der Otava.Jung- und Spätbronzezeit in Südböhmen. Pragae 2001.

26. Vít Vokolek, Gräberfeld der Urnenfelderkultur von Skalice /Ostböhmen. Pragae 2002.

27. Vít Vokolek, Gräberfelder der Lausitzer Kultur in OstböhmenI, II – Pohřebiště lužické kultury ve východních Čechách I, II.Pragae 2003.

28. Pavel Sankot, Les épées du début de La Tène en Bohême. Pragae 2003.

29. Drahomír Koutecký, Bylany u Českého Brodu – Bylany bei Český Brod. Pragae 2003.

30. Vít Vokolek, Katalog staré sbírky Oddělení prehistorie a proto-historie Národního muzea – Katalog der alten Sammlung derAbteilung für Urgeschichte und Frühgeschichte des National-museums in Prag. Pragae 2004.

31. Milan Lička – Michal Lutovský, Vepřek und Nová Ves (BezirkMělník, Mittelböhmen). Ergebnisse der archäologischen Ausgrabungen zur urgeschichtlichen Besiedlung in den Jahren1992–1995. Pragae 2006.

32. Vít Vokolek, Katalog staré sbírky Oddělení prehistorie a proto-historie Národního muzea II, nálezy do roku 1913 (neolit aeneolit) – Katalog der Sammlung der Abteilung für Ur- undFrühgeschichte des Nationalmuseums in Prag II, Funde bis1913 (Neolithikum und Äneolithikum). Pragae 2007.

33. Vít Vokolek, Katalog staré sbírky Oddělení prehistorie a proto-historie Národního muzea III, nálezy do roku 1913 – Katalogder Sammlung der Abteilung für Ur- und Frühgeschichte desNationalmuseums in Prag III, Funde bis 1913. Pragae 2007.

34. Vít Vokolek, Katalog staré sbírky Oddělení prehistorie a proto-historie Národního muzea IV, drobné přírůstky z let 1919 až1939 – Katalog der Sammlung der Abteilung für Ur- undFrühgeschichte des Nationalmuseums in Prag IV, Kleinzu-gänge in den Jahren 1919–1939. Pragae 2009.

35. Ondřej Chvojka – Jan Michálek, Výzkumy Josefa LadislavaPíče na mohylových pohřebištích doby bronzové a halštatskév jižních Čechách – Ausgrabungen von Josef Ladislav Píč aufden Hügelgräberfeldern aus der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit inSüdböhmen. Pragae 2011.

36. Karel Sklenář, Pravěké a raně středověké nálezy v Čechách doroku 1870. Pramenná základna romantického období českéarcheologie – Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Funde in Böhmenbis 1870. Quellenbasis der romantischen Phase der böhmi-schen Archäologie. Pragae 2011.

37. Milan Lička, Osídlení kultury s lineární keramikou v Kosoři,okr. Praha-západ – Linear Pottery Culture settlement at Kosoř,Prague-West District. Pragae 2012.

F o n t e s A r c h a e o l o g i c i P r a g e n s e s

F o n t e s A r c h a e o l o g i c i P r a g e n s e s

v o l u m e n 3 8

strana 001-006:Sestava 1 5.12.2012 9:47 Stránka 1

Natalie Venclová – Jarmila Valentová

Oppidum StradoniceVýzkum Albína Stockého r. 1929

s příspěvkyMiloše Čižmáře, Jaroslava Frány, Romana Křivánka, Jana Kysely,

Reného Kyselého, Lenky Lisé, Jana Nováka a Víta Vokolka

The Stradonice oppidumInvestigations of Albín Stocký in 1929

Fontes Archaeologici PragensesCurat editionem Marika Tisuckávolumen 38 Pragae 2012Musaeum Nationale


Práce vznikla v rámci projektu European Research Network – GDRE: Les Celtes en Europe,s podporou na dlouhodobý koncepční rozvoj výzkumné organizace 67985912 – Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v. v. i.a za <nanční podpory Ministerstva kultury ČR v rámci institucionálního <nancovánídlouhodobého koncepčního rozvoje výzkumné organizace Národní muzeum (DKRVO, IČ 00023272).

Recenzenti: Prof. PhDr. Jan Bouzek, DrSc., PhDr. Karol Pieta, DrSc.

Vědecký redaktor: Marika Tisucká

© Národní muzeum, Praha 2012Ilustrace: © Vít Vokolek, Zdeněk Mazač, 2012FotograQe na obálce: © Martin Gojda, 2012Návrh obálky a graQcká úprava: © Lukáš Hyťha, 2012

ISSN 0015-6183ISBN 978-80-7036-367-6


OBSAH

ÚVOD ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Poděkování ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

VÝZKUM 1929 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9

1 Prameny a dokumentace .................................................................................................................................................... 9

2 Terénní situace ................................................................................................................................................................... 162.1 Strategie a metoda výzkumu .................................................................................................................................... 162.2 Popis zkoumané plochy, sond a objektů ................................................................................................................. 182.3 FortiQkace předhradí v prostoru výzkumu ............................................................................................................ 492.4 Geofyzikální výzkum r. 2011–2012 (Roman Křivánek) ....................................................................................... 49

3 Nálezový fond .................................................................................................................................................................... 513.1. Keramika .................................................................................................................................................................... 51

3.1.1 Charakteristika laténského souboru keramiky .............................................................................................. 433.1.2 Kulturní, funkční a chronologický kontext laténské keramiky .................................................................... 593.1.3 Nelaténská keramika (Vít Vokolek) ................................................................................................................. 71

3.2 Kovové předměty (Miloš Čižmář) ........................................................................................................................... 723.2.1 RentgenRuorescenční analýza (XRF) bronzového zrcadla (Jaroslav Frána) .............................................. 73

3.3 Vybrané keramické a bronzové importy (Jan Kysela) ........................................................................................... 743.4 Skleněné předměty ................................................................................................................................................... 753.5 Švartna ........................................................................................................................................................................ 753.6 Kostěné a parohové předměty (Miloš Čižmář) ..................................................................................................... 763.7 Hliněné předměty ...................................................................................................................................................... 763.8 Kámen (Miloš Čižmář) ............................................................................................................................................. 763.9 Surovina a struska ...................................................................................................................................................... 773.10 Antropologický nález .............................................................................................................................................. 773.11 Zvířecí kosti (René Kyselý) ..................................................................................................................................... 773.12 Koprolit ..................................................................................................................................................................... 83

3.12.1 Mikromorfologická charakteristika pelety (Lenka Lisá) ............................................................................ 833.13 Dřevo ......................................................................................................................................................................... 84

3.13.1 Antrakologická analýza (Jan Novák) ............................................................................................................. 84

4 Činnosti provozované na předhradí ............................................................................................................................... 854.1 Získávání potravy ...................................................................................................................................................... 854.2 Stavební činnost ......................................................................................................................................................... 854.3 Domácké činnosti ...................................................................................................................................................... 864.4 Specializovaná výroba ............................................................................................................................................... 864.5 Vojenství ..................................................................................................................................................................... 874.6 Směna a obchod ......................................................................................................................................................... 87

5FONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSES – VOLUMEN 38 – PRAGAE 2012

OBSAH


5. Katalog keramiky ............................................................................................................................................................. 88Příloha: Systém popisu keramiky ................................................................................................................................ 114

6. Katalog nekeramických nálezů .................................................................................................................................... 122

ZÁVĚR ................................................................................................................................................................................. 127

Literatura ............................................................................................................................................................................. 129Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 134

OBRAZOVÁ PříLOHA ................................................................................................................................................... 144

Autoři kApitol:

Miloš Čižmář †Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno, v. v. i., Kaloudova 30, 614 00 Brno

Jaroslav FránaÚstav jaderné fyziky AV ČR, v. v. i., 250 68 řež u [email protected]

Roman KřivánekArcheologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v. v. i., Letenská 4, 118 01 Praha [email protected]

Jan KyselaÚstav pro klasickou archeologii, FilozoQcká fakulta, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Celetná 20, 116 42 Praha [email protected]

René KyselýArcheologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v. v. i., Letenská 4, 118 01 Praha [email protected]

Lenka LisáGeologický ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., Rozvojová 269, 165 00 Praha [email protected]

Jan NovákKatedra botaniky, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Jihočeská univerzita, Branišovská 31, 370 05 České Budě[email protected]

Jarmila ValentováNárodní muzeum, Václavské náměstí 68, 115 79 Praha [email protected]

Natalie VenclováArcheologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v. v. i., Letenská 4, 118 01 Praha [email protected]

Vít VokolekJindřišská 1757, 530 02 Pardubice

6 FONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSES – VOLUMEN 38 – PRAGAE 2012

OBSAH


1. PRAmeny A dokumentAce

V roce 1929 provedl A. Stocký, tehdy zaměstnaný v Ná-rodním muzeu, za podpory Státního archeologického ústavuv Praze (dále StAÚ) archeologický výzkum na vrchu Hradištiu Stradonic na Berounsku. Účast StAÚ vyplývala z předpisůNárodního fondu Masarykova, podle nichž hnanční podporumohla dostat pouze státní instituce, a tou tehdy Národní mu-zeum nebylo. Výzkum v r. 1929 byl prvním moderním, tj. plá-novaným a dokumentovaným archeologickým výzkumem nalokalitě. Zkoumaná plocha se nacházela na severovýchodnímpředhradí laténského oppida v poloze „Na boku“, na původ-ních parcelách č. kat. 458/1 a 457. Na plánu P. Drdy a A. Ry-bové (Drda – Rybová 1997, obr. 5) je tato poloha označovánajako „podhradí“ (obr. 2). Výzkum byl koncipován jako více-letý, uskutečnila se však jen jedna sezóna, snad kvůli odchoduStockého na podzim roku 1929 na Karlovu univerzitu. Prav-


PRAMENY A DOKUMENTACE

děpodobně z tohoto důvodu a také pro úmrtí Stockéhov r. 1934 k publikaci výsledků této terénní akce nedošlo. Vět-šina dokumentace k výzkumu se ztratila snad během II. svě-tové války (Rybová – Drda 1994, 9), nicméně ještě v 70. letechse J. Břeň (Břeň 1975, 113) odvolával na zápisky A. Stockého,které jsou však v současnosti nezvěstné. V archivu Archeolo-gického ústavu AV ČR, Praha, v. v. i. (ARÚP), v archivu Kan-celáře prezidenta republiky (KPR) na Pražském hradě a veVojenském ústředním archivu v Praze (VÚA) se zachovalo jenněkolik zpráv, úředních přípisů, plánků a terénních fotograhí,které blíže popisujeme a případně přetiskujeme níže.

Zprávy v archivu ARÚP, kPR a vÚAV archivu ARÚP je uložen koncept a kopie zprávy (StAÚ

čj. 46/29 z 11. 1. 1929), kterou k telefonickému dotazu Kan-celáře presidenta republiky podával Státní archeologickýústav, s poznámkou „osobně odevzdá v Kanceláři (rozumí se

Obr. 2: Plán oppida Stradonice se zakreslenou plochou zkoumanou v r. 1929 (šedě). Podle Drda – Rybová 1997, obr. 5.Fig. 2: Plan of the Stradonice oppidum, with the area of the 1929 investigations plotted (grey). Aer Drda – Rybová 1997, Xg. 5.

VÝZKUM 1929

strana 007-087:FAP 1 SLOUPEC 5.12.2012 9:51 Stránka 9


TERÉNNÍ SITUACE

Obr. 10: Plán výzkumu A. Stockého v r. 1929. Archiv ARÚP, č. PY000106002.Fig. 10: Plan of the area investigated by A. Stocký in 1929. ARÚP Archive, no. PY000106002.


22 FONTES ARCHAEOLOGICI PRAGENSES – VOLUMEN 38 – PRAGAE 2012

TERÉNNÍ SITUACE

Objekt, kontext Laténská Nelaténská Železo Bronz Jiné Sklo Švartna Hlína Kámen Osteo- Antro- Měděná Struska Maza- Dřevo Ostatníkeramika keramika kovy logický pologic- surovina kovářská nice

mat. ký mat.Chata II 6 20 9 1 1 8 6 37 x hornina

10Chata IV 249 1 17 Fe/ 1 1 2 7 x

bronz 1Fe/Pb 1

Pb 1Chata V 4 1Chata VI 6 42 xChata VII 9 21 4 1Chata VIII 14 28 3 6 32Chata IX 2 3 3 hornina

2Chata X 49 1 4 2 1 5Chata XI 1 1 9 xChata XII 5 18 bubl.

hmota 6Chata XIII 96 1 2 1 60Chaty II,VI,IX 44Chaty XI,XII 1 1 15 20Studna, jáma 92 116 2 81 3 9 36Jáma III.2.1 36 3 1 4 1Jáma 03 Fe/

bronz 1Údolnice, jáma 1 1 4Sonda I a II 59 4 7Sonda II 24(Sonda?) II.2.2 2(Sonda?) 101 1Sonda 103 1(Sonda?) 117 1F 40 1Soubor I 46Soubor II 82 3Soubor III 17Soubor IV 25Soubor V 11Soubor VI 95 1Soubor VII 14Soubor VIII 59 2Soubor IX 611 5Soubor X 246 5Soubor XI 723 15Soubor XII 637 7Soubor XIII 285 4Bedna 1246 30 4Bedna 1762 176 72 5Bedna 1765 255 1 2 6 sklov.

hmota 1Bedna 1766 43Bedna 1824 136 1Bedna 1833 134 1 1 4 14Bedna 1835 5Bedna 1851 106 6 7Bedna 1957 118 8 25 koprolit

1Bedna 2079 123Bez údajů 311 44 21 1 44 1Neoznačeno 1 1Při zahazování 1 20 1Bez kontextu 1 1Celkem 4921 146 147 49 4 3 1 84 14 208 1 8 36 284 x 8

Tab. 1: Přehled nálezů získaných výzkumem v r. 1929.Tab. 1: Overview of Xnds obtained by the 1929 investigations.



TERÉNNÍ SITUACE

Obr. 12: 1089: pohled na hradiště od Berounky (text na původní kartě), od SV; 1088: pohled na hradiště od Berounky (text na původní kartě), od SV.Původní fotograhe z r. 1929 na obr. 12–35 jsou označeny čísly negativů v archivu Archeologického ústavu AV ČR v Praze.Fig. 12: 1089: view of the hillfort from the Berounka River (text on the original card), from NE; 1088: view of the hillfort from the Berounka River (text on theoriginal card), from NE. e original photos from 1929 on Fig. 12–35 are labeled with numbers of the negatives in the ARÚP Archive.

1089

1088


134 FONTES ARCHEOLOGICI PRAGENSES – VOLUMEN 38 – PRAGAE 2012

SUMMARY

Summary

THE STRADONICE OPPIDUM: INVESTIGATIONS OF ALBÍN STOCKÝ IN 1929

Introduction

e site of Hradiště (Hillfort) by Stradonice in the Beroundistrict (Central Bohemia) has been documented archaeolo-gically since 1877, when the famous hoard of Celtic gold coinscame to light. is turned the attention of archaeologists to thesite, and already in 1881 the ]rst plan of the hillfort was cre-ated by L. Šnajdr (]g. 1). Following the discovery of the “trea-sure”, the hillfort unfortunately attracted attention of the gen-eral public and it was extensively dug through by treasurehunters. Various antiquities collectors bought a number of]nds from the site. J. L. Píč excavated at Stradonice on behalfof the National Museum in Prague in 1894 and 1902. He de-tected the course of the hillfort forti]cation and most proba-bly also excavated a number of settlement features and perhapssome cremation graves, he however either failed to record hisresearch or the documents have not been preserved. e as-semblage of ]nds from Stradonice from this period is dis-persed in many museums – in the collections of Berger, Píč,Stocký and other collections of the National Museum inPrague, in the Naturhistorisches Museum in Wien, smaller as-semblages were deposited in tens of other museum and uni-versity collections in the Czech Republic and the neighbour-ing countries.

e site, later known as the Stradonice oppidum, yielded alarge collection of ]nds amounting to tens of thousands ob-jects. Volume II.2 of Starožitosti země České (Antiquities of Bo-hemia) called “Hillfort by Stradonice as the historicalMarobudum” by J. L. Píč from the year 1903 (Píč 1903) is stillthe most extensive publication of archaeological ]nds from thesite. French scholar J. Déchelette came to realize the resem-blance of ]nds from Stradonice with the collection from theCeltic oppidum Bibracte in France and he translated the bookinto French (Píč 1906). anks to that was Stradonice broughtto European archaeological notice as one of the most impor-tant sites of the La Tène period.

Albín Stocký, Píč’s follower in the National Museum, ledthe subsequent research at Hradiště by Stradonice in 1929,very modern and well-prepared for its time, in collaborationwith the State Institute of Archaeology. Its results, however,have for different reasons never been published. Perhaps thiswas why the archaeological community believed that Stradoni-ce has been excavated (in the days of Píč) to the degree that itwould not be worth to launch a systematic investigation there.e next proper archaeological campaign at Stradonice wasthe rescue excavation of gas pipeline trench in 1981; it was alsothe only ]nd assemblage from Stradonice to be completelypublished (Rybová – Drda 1994). Other minor projects werecarried out in the 1980s. A hoard of iron objects was unpro-fessionally excavated there in the 1990s (Waldhauser 1995).Unfortunately, the Stradonice oppidum has become the aim ofcountless illegal metal detectorists’ raids since then. Speci]ctopics have been studied and descriptions of smaller assem-

blages of Stradonice ]nds have been published (a.o. Břeň 1959;1964; 1973; Michálek 1976; 1977; 1999; Holodňák – Wald-hauser 1977; Svobodová 1983; 1985; Karasová 2002; Karasová– Schönfelder 2004; Militký 2004; 2009; Vokolek 2007; 2009;Hlava 2011; Čižmář 2011; Venclová 2011; Valentová 2011; Va-lentová – Šumberová 2012). e large collection of La Tèneglass from Stradonice has been assessed and its catalogue pub-lished (Venclová 1990). e forti]cation, chronology and spe-cialized production activities at Stradonice were evaluatedwithin a study of the Czech oppida (Drda – Rybová 1997).

e subject of this volume is the archaeological investiga-tion project carried out by Albín Stocký in 1929. Its aim is tosynoptically present and analyse all preserved documents and]nds. All materials, however, are preserved only incompletely– plans and feature descriptions are missing and allocation ofa large part of the collection to the ]nd contexts is impossibleor is equivocal. Field photodocumentation in the archive of theInstitute of Archaeology in Prague was damaged during the^oods in 2002 and could be reconstructed only in part. Despiteof that it was considered necessary to make all preserved dataavailable to the professional community so that they can be-come one of the bases for further scholarly work. Without theknowledge of the older ]nds, it is impossible to proceed toother archaeological projects at this important and Europe-wide renowned La Tène oppidum, which would without doubtdeserve a new modern research.

Excavations 19291. SourceS and documentS

A. Stocký with the backup of the State Institute of Archae-ology in Prague (hereinaer StAÚ) led archaeological investi-gation at the Hradiště hill by Stradonice in 1929. e investi-gation, supported by the National Fund of T. G. Masaryk, thePresident of the then Czechoslovakia, was the ]rst modern, i.e.planned and documented archaeological excavation at the site.e surveyed area was located at the NE bailey of the La Tèneoppidum in the „Na boku“ tract. e location is marked as„podhradí“ (]g. 2) on the plan by P. Drda and A. Rybová(1997, ]g. 5). e investigations were designed to last severalyears, only one ]eld season however materialised, perhaps be-cause Stocký le National Museum to work at the CharlesUniversity in the autumn 1929. Probably for this reason anddue to the death of Stocký in 1934 the results of this ]eldworkhave never been published. Most of the ]eld documentationwas lost perhaps during the World War II (Rybová – Drda1994, 9); however, in the 1970s J. Břeň (Břeň 1975, 113) still re-ferred to the notes of A. Stocký, unaccounted at present. Onlyseveral reports, plans and ]eld photos, described and repro-duced below, have been preserved in the Archive of the Insti-tute of Archaeology in Prague (ARÚP), the Archive of the Of-]ce of the President of the Republic (KPR) at the PragueCastle, and in the Military Central Archive in Prague (VÚA).


135FONTES ARCHEOLOGICI PRAGENSES – VOLUMEN 38 – PRAGAE 2012

SUMMARY

reports in the archives of arÚP, KPr and VÚa. Reportsfrom 1929 record allocation of a 25 000 CZK subsidy from theMasaryk Fund (]g. 3), reports by J. Böhm about archaeologi-cal observations during preparatory works for the excavation(]g. 4), and permission of the Ministry of National Defence tomake aerial photo of the hillfort (]g. 5). Reports by the re-search leader Albín Stocký are few and the archaeological in-formation conveyed there is brief (]g. 6, 7, 8). e note abouta massive forti]cation and the discovery of a residential areawith houses, a well, pottery etc. (]g. 9) is the most archaeo-logically relevant one.

evidence in the national museum in Prague. Part of the]nds from the 1929 excavation was entered in the NationalMuseum inventory by J. Břeň sometime aer 1963. e num-ber of registered assemblages corresponds to the number ofexcavated features – “houses”, but the features’ numbers, withone exception, are missing in the inventory. Apart from that,other objects acquired in 1929 were identi]ed in the NationalMuseum.

documentation in the Institute of archaeology inPrague. No ]nd report on the investigation exists in the ARÚParchive. Geodetic documentation is limited to the general planof the excavated area which includes the numbered trenchesand features (]g. 10) and cross-section of the forti]cation (]g.11). Fiy-four ]eld photos from 1929 (]g. 12-35) were pre-served, but their identi]cation is difficult since almost all ]lecards with the corresponding description were destroyed by^ood in 2002.

Publication. A. Stocký (Stocký 1933) in his book „Čechyv době železné“ (Bohemia in the Iron Age) interpreted the Stra-donice oppidum as a production and trade town, with build-ings distributed in quarters and streets, and he described for-ti]cation consisting of „earthen bank, supported and reinfor-ced by a quarry stone wall“. J. Břeň brie^y mentioned potteryfrom the excavation (Břeň 1966, 9) and described three exca-vated features based on the notes of Stocký (Břeň 1975, 131).

2 FIeldworK and ItS reSultS

2.1 Strategy and method oF excaVatIonAs can be deduced from the preserved general plan (]g. 10;

37), a relatively dense system of 175 trenches was set at the op-pidum bailey (for topography of the oppidum cf. Rybová –Drda 1994, 13). Trenches 1 to 8 and A, B, C, E, F probed theforti]cation, the long trench E, i.e. the cross-section throughthe forti]cation (]g. 11) being the most important. In view ofthe missing documentation, it is difficult to comment themethod of investigation. e attempt of aerial photo docu-mentation of the hillfort was undoubtedly a very modern ap-proach; we however do not know whether the Air Force Reg-iment no. 1 really accomplished the air photography, as nosuch photo has been found. Presence of relatively large num-bers of less attractive objects in the collection of ]nds attestsfor a progressive research method.

2.2 deScrIPtIon oF the InVeStIgated area, trencheSand FeatureS

e area of excavations at the bailey is situated at the alti-tude of 270–340 m. e terrain slopes down to NE rathersteadily to the forti]cation line and then slopes steeply to theBerounka River alluvial plain. e elevation difference pro]leof the site is very similar to that drawn to NW from here (Ry-bová – Drda 1994, section a, ]g. 3, Appendix 1). Judging from

the preserved documentation (notes directly on the ]nds andon their wrappings), 13 features – “houses” I to XIII and onewell (pit no. 92) were investigated. Further material derivedfrom trenches or has no context stated. Gas pipeline trench ex-amined in 1981 that cut the S edge of the 1929 excavation area(]g. 36:2) con]rms the relatively precise localization oftrenches in the general plan.

a) Trenches. e plan (see the general plan cut-out on ]g.37) displays trenches 1 to 170 and A to F, but not all trenches(or their numbers) are depicted on the plan or converselysome trenches lack numbers.

b) Houses. Ten rectangular blackened features are numbered(I to X). e plan however shows three more rectangular fea-tures with no numbers, perhaps the houses XI, XII and XIII.

c) Other features. e well (pit no. 92) and pit no. 03 can-not be identi]ed on the plan. Pit III.2.1 was ascribed to the ex-cavation by Stocký, but label “Údolnice” has been newly de-tected at some ]nds from this pit, which would favour theirorigin in the investigations of Píč. Similar incertitude appliesto other ]nds from the Stradonice collection in general, in-cluding also some objects that are here considered to belong tothe 1929 ]nd assemblage.

description of features based on available evidenceHouse I. Based on notes of A. Stocký, J. Břeň (Břeň 1975,

131) described the feature as measuring 330×540 cm, with 7posts in the central row and further posts on the sides; it isprobably a wooden house built on the surface.

House II. Based on notes of A. Stocký, J. Břeň (Břeň 1975,131) described a ground plan with 11 posts in three rows,which implies a wooden house built on the surface. Recon-structed dimensions 703×296 cm. Daub with round wood andsplit wood impressions is preserved as well as charred woodpieces (labeled “from posts”).

House III. Reconstructed dimensions 436×281 cm.House IV. Based on notes of A. Stocký, J. Břeň (Břeň 1975,

131) described the feature as having earthen ^oor on slaterock and a thick daub layer mainly on the W side, with a ]re-place in the center and a 40 cm wide and 2 m long strip ofcharred wood which he interpreted as a wooden beam. Re-constructed dimensions 936×500 cm. Daub with round woodimpressions is preserved as well as charred wood (labeled“from beams at the W edge of the house”). (See ]g. 34:1101 forthis or similar feature.)

House V. Reconstructed dimensions 641×344 cm.House VI. Reconstructed dimensions 953×391 cm.

Charred wood is preserved.House VII. Reconstructed dimensions 797×328 cm.House VIII. Reconstructed dimensions 609×312 cm.House IX. Almost square in shape. Reconstructed dimen-

sions 328×297 cm. Daub pieces, one with round wood im-pressions, are preserved.

House X. Shape and orientation are not evident from theplan. Reconstructed max. dimensions 578×469 cm. Daub withround wood and split wood impressions is preserved.

House XI. e number is not assigned to any feature on theplan. Perhaps identical with the largest feature with recon-structed dimensions 32,8×13,8 m. Ground plan in trench no.140 consists in small rectangular house (blackened as all theother houses) with reconstructed dimensions 625×436 cm,placed in the E half of a larger rectangular area delimited by“stone substructure” and indistinctly marked gully (perhaps]g. 24, 28:1121, 29:1111). Daub pieces with round wood im-pressions are preserved as well as charred wood (labeled “frombeams”).



SUMMARY

House XII. e number is not assigned to any feature on theplan. According to the high quantity of pottery (637 sherds),a larger feature could be expected. Large oblong ground planis to be found in the SW vicinity of House IV. It is an oblongfeature of reconstructed dimensions 1000×656 cm. Daub withround wood impressions is preserved.

House XIII. One hatched rectangular ground plan labeledwith a question mark, to the W from house VII, and of the av-erage size for a house at the site, is le for a hypothetic local-ization of the house. ere are no data or indications, however,to identify it with house XIII. e largest amount of daub – 60pieces, some with round wood impressions – pertains to houseXIII.

Well (pit no. 92). Localization of the feature is unknown.Daub with round wood and split wood impressions is pre-served. Perhaps it is the pit shown on ]eld photos (]g. 30;31:1116?) which according to the inserted ranging pole meas-ured at least 200 cm in depth (surely over 300 cm including theupper part of the pit) and had diameter of approx. 190 cm.

Pit III.2.1. In view of the “Údolnice” localization, it is pos-sible that the pit was not part of the 1929 research (see above).Photos however show some pit or pits dug in 1929 (]g.31:1117; 32; 33).

Other features. “Stone substructure” hatching is used inmany cases on the plan. In the case of the hatched strip at thehillside edge at the N margin of the investigated area the for-ti]cation and its destruction is concerned; the same hatch ishowever used also inside the forti]ed area. e stone layer intrench 140 was hypothetically assigned to house XI. Strips of“stone substructure” of reconstructed width 1,6 to 2,3 m(house back]ll? supporting wall? path paving?) are drawn intrenches 141 (]g. 26:1131?) and 143. Both strips run in theNWW-SEE direction and could delineate a path.

Tab. 1 provides overview of the ]nds from features, wheregroups of ]nds without house numbers recorded by Břeň arelabeled as „soubory“ (assemblages).

2.3 FortIFIcatIon oF the baIley In the InVeStIgatedarea

FortiMcation line. e northern forti]cation of the baileywas detected in trenches 1, 3 to 8 and C, E, F, of which trenchE together with the adjacent trench no. 43 apparently belongsto the cross-section of the forti]cation, the plan of which waspreserved (]g. 11; cf. Rybová – Drda 1994, 30-31, ]g. 10a).Field photos (]g. 19:1122; 22; 23) depict stone destruction ofthe forti]cation in some of these trenches.

cross-section of the northern fortiMcation of the bailey.Fig. 11 shows the 28,5 m long cross-section (W section oftrenches E and 43). Dry-stone wall was 1,5 m wide and pre-served to the height of 1,7 m (]g. 20; 21). Earthen bank, prob-ably disturbed by the wall, adjoins the wall from the inside; ittherefore belongs to the earlier phase of the forti]cation. ereis another sandy soil bank covering the earlier bank and thetwo together constituted a new platform on the inside of thewall. Rybová and Drda (1994, 30, ]g. 10a) estimated the orig-inal height of the stone forti]cation to over 3 m. Outside theforti]cation the terrain slopes down towards the 2,7 m wideberm, ânked by an insigni]cant 3,75 m wide furrow in thesloping terrain. Ditch was not detected. No vertical or hori-zontal wooden elements were recorded in the forti]cation’sface or earthen bank and the forti]cation type therefore can-not be identi]ed. Rybová and Drda (Rybová – Drda 1994, 30)however envisaged horizontal beams binding the wall with thebank in the earlier phase of the forti]cation. ere is a de-

pression along the inner side of the forti]cation which Rybováand Drda (Rybová – Drda 1994, 30, 51) interpret as a path.

other possible fortiMcation line. Unnumbered trench Wfrom trenches 61 and 63 detected a stone layer plotted on theplan in the N-S direction in the length of cca 12 m perpendi-cular to the N forti]cation line. is may be interpreted as abent forti]cation line, or else as a gate ânk. It correspondswith the conviction of L. Jansová who indeed considered it assuch, perhaps as a part of a gate with in-turned ânks; Rybováand Drda (Rybová – Drda 1994, 18, note 7) however reject this.Unfortunately the extent of this stone layer which in]lled thewhole trench is unknown; path paving could also be possible.

2.4 magnetometrIc ProSPectIon 2011–2012(roman Křivánek)

e ]rst geophysical survey at the Stradonice oppidum wascarried out in 1982 (Majer 1982), and more intensively since2003 (e.g. Křivánek 2004; 2005; 2008a; 2008b; 2011). Part of theNE bailey of the Stradonice oppidum, including the areas ex-cavated by A. Stocký in 1929, was surveyed in 2011–2012.Five-channel magnetometer on a wheel chassis (Magneto-arch,Sensys, Germany) was used in the survey. e approx. 1,7-hectare area that was surveyed in detail however representsonly part of the ploughed land at the NE bailey of the op-pidum. Many different types of magnetic anomalies (]g. 38)were detected and compared with the plan of archaeologicaltrenches from 1929 (]g. 107). It is evident that only some of thepreviously excavated trenches or features showed, and otherfeatures including several linear ones can be identi]ed on mostof the studied area. Shorter linear magnetic anomalies con-centrate in the steeper N part of the area and they mostly cor-respond with spots interpreted as houses (Ch on ]g. 38; 108:1)in the general plan of the 1929 research. e nature of magneticanomalies in the less inclined S part of the area indicatessunken oblong huts, pits and most probably also above-groundpost structures (D? and K on ]g. 38; 108:2). Trapezoid enclo-sure (O? on ]g. 3; 108:3) was probably detected in the SW part.e strongest magnetic linear anomaly running across to the Ecorner of the bailey represents the gas pipeline interference (Pon ]g. 38). Magnetic line parallel with the outer forti]cationline (L1 and entrance P1? on ]g. 38) perhaps represents a ditchrunning roughly along the contour line. Other lines along con-tour lines in the center of the area may represent platforms forterraced houses. Other line runs crosswise in the S part of thebailey (L2; P2 on ]g. 38). Results of the magnetometric surveyprove that also in this marginal part of the hillfort there was anintensive settlement consisting of a wide range of featuresprobably including linear features and roads.

3. FIndSArchaeological ]nds from the 1929 excavation are de-

posited in the Archaeological collection of the National Mu-seum. e number of objects preserved to this day equals4921 fragments of La Tène ceramic vessels, 649 metal, clay,stone and other artefacts and ecofacts, 208 fragments of animalbones including 8 bone artefacts, and 1 fragment of a humanbone (tab. 1). Apart from this, the assemblage contained also146 non-La Tène vessel fragments (see Chapter 3.1.3). Tab. 2provides an overview of pottery (vessel fragments) with the]nd context and with the corresponding inventory numbers.Pottery is shown on ]g. 39–97, other objects on ]g. 98–106, se-lection of ]nds and other appendices are rendered in colour on]g. 107–122.



SUMMARY

3.1 Pottery

3.1.1 characteristics of the potteryPotery in Mnd contexts. e critique of the ]nd assem-

blages from features and assemblages was attempted. It con-cerns the assessment whether “soubory” (assemblages) I toXIII (included in the inventory without feature numbers) arelikely to come from houses of the same numbers. Comparisonof contents of features from Stradonice 1929 was accomplishedwith features from other regions and sites in terms of quantityof ceramic sherds and the percentage of their particular at-tributes.

number of sherds in features. Number of sherds fromsunken houses in Central and NW Bohemia lower than 100pcs is usually considered atypical (Salač 1998; Venclová 2001).Tab. 2 shows that within the Stradonice 1929 collection, houseIV and assemblages IX, X, XI, XII and XIII meet the given con-dition; house XIII and assemblage VI are just below the min-imum threshold of 100 sherds. e content of sherds in as-semblages labeled as “houses” is so low that, with the exceptionof house IV, they must be considered some sort of selection. Ifthe contents of the “houses” and “assemblages” were com-bined, the situation would basically not change. However,some of the features represented probably houses terraced inthe slope or surface constructions that can yield lower numberof sherds.

Vessel parts represented. Absolute and relative represen-tation of vessel rims, shoulders, walls and bases in the partic-ular features and assemblages from Stradonice are shown intab. 3 and 4. Large assemblages (with more than 600 sherds)IX, XI and XII seem to be rather convincing, judging from theproportion of rims and bases. Other houses and assemblagesshow signi]cantly higher percentage of rims and bases thanusual in Bohemia. ese numbers do not change substantiallyeven aer potential joining of contents of houses and assem-blages of the same numbers, e.g. IV, X and XIII. e higherpercentage of rims and bases in the collection from Stradon-ice, or rather in most contexts, could attest for discard ofsherds from vessel walls or for their marginalization during the]eldwork.

Pottery assemblage characteristics. Pottery attributes aregiven according to the La Tène Pottery Description System(Appendix in Chapter 5) which was used previously for pro-cessing large pottery assemblages from Mšecké Žehrovice andthe Loděnice and Říčany regions (Venclová 1998; 2001; Ven-clová a kol. 2008). Production technique representation isshown in tab. 5 and 6. Percentage representation of the indi-vidual techniques in the particular assemblages from Stradon-ice varies signi]cantly. Tab. 7 provides an overview of thetypes of pottery fabric represented. A signi]cant share of sandyfabric in category 4 with 43,1 % is conspicuous; this is the mostcommon material used mainly for shouldered pots and bowlswith rounded pro]le. Fabric 8+9, i.e. graphite pottery andpottery with graphite admixture, comprises 10,1 %, an un-usually high value. Pots, followed by bowls and storage jars(tab. 8) are the most represented morphologically discerniblevessel forms. Among the particular forms (tab. 9), form 232,i.e. bipartite pot with strongly curved neck, prevails with13,7 %; in bowls predominate above all neckless shapes, in par-ticular shape 715 with strongly rounded pro]le (10 %). Plain^at base 1 prevails with 80,9 % of the 551 preserved vesselbases (tab. 10). Base ring - base 8 (8,3 %) is relatively well rep-resented, and the chronologically diagnostic omphalos onbase ring – base 7 (2 %) is not missing either. e most com-mon surface treatment (tab. 11) consists in smooth surface,

characteristic for some ]ne wheel-turned pottery and mostcoarse pottery. Grated surface is strongly represented – its1218 pottery fragments make up for 24,8 % of the whole col-lection, and all large pottery assemblages (IX, XI, XII) featuredmore than 30 % of grated surface. e number of sherds withdecoration equals 989 pcs., i.e. 20,1 % of all pottery (tab. 12).Coarse combing prevails with 509 samples (10,3 % of all dec-orated and undecorated pottery), 205 sherds (4,2 %) has blackcoating, 66 pieces (1,3 %) are painted, 59 fragments (1,2 %)show ]ne combing.

regional context of the pottery assemblage. Assemblagesfrom the Rakovník and Říčany regions, belonging to thechronological horizon LT C2-D1/D2 and processed and clas-si]ed using the same method (cf. Venclová 1998; 2001; Ven-clová a kol. 2008), are available for comparison of signi]cantattributes of pottery vessels. Selective comparison of somepottery attributes is possible in the case of some other assem-blages (e.g. Lovosice: Salač 1990; North-Western Bohemia:Rulf – Salač 1995; Závist and Hrazany: Motyková – Drda – Ry-bová 1990; Drda – Rybová 1997; České Lhotice: Danielisová2010). Comparison with a standard collection from NW Bo-hemia (Salač 1998) is possible to a certain extent only, as thisassemblage includes pottery from the long period of LT A toLT D2. Other assemblages could not be used since the pub-lished data are not based on the same pottery classi]cation cat-egories or are not available at all. Tab. 13 comprehends the dataused for comparison. Summarizing, the Stradonice 1929 as-semblage can best be matched with the comparative collectionfrom the Říčany region in their general chronological and/orregionally signi]cant attributes. Major differences appear incomparison with the Rakovník region assemblage with its el-ements originating in NW Bohemia. A substantial differenceas opposed to other regions is a strong presence of graphitepottery (even in comparison with the Stradonice 1981 assem-blage). is remains unexplained; the question is whether itmay be a consequence of the conspicuous appearance of thispottery type, which could have been (inadvertently?) preferredduring the excavation at that time. Of the chronologically im-portant attributes, the presence of bowls with rounded bipar-tite pro]le and shouldered pots with strongly curved neck, to-gether with sandy fabric, grated surface and black coating, istypical for the Stradonice assemblage. Grainy fabric is repre-sented rather weekly, a fact that is surprising especially incomparison with the Stradonice 1981 assemblage (however,this hard-]red, thin-walled and wheel-turned or wheel-]n-ished pottery, resembling high medieval to postmedieval ware,could have been ignored during the 1929 excavation). A higherpercentage of painted and ]ne wheel-turned pottery at the op-pidum is not surprising in view of its supposed higher statuscompared to common pottery. In general, the assemblage of LaTène pottery from the Stradonice 1929 research can be de-scribed as typical for Central Bohemia and the Bohemian op-pida in general, although possessing its own speci]c attributes.

3.1.2 cultural and chronological context of pottery

Fine potteryPottery made out of ]ne (878 sherds) or ]ne-grained (634

sherds) fabric makes up for almost one-third of the assem-blage. Painted pottery and pottery decorated by ]ne combingor with burnished or graphite coating, discussed later, belongsamong ]ne pottery. In total only 15,9 % of ]ne pottery wasdecorated. High-quality vessels that were not made locally butimported from the Classical Europe or more distant parts of LaTène Europe also count as ]ne pottery. J. Kysela (Chapter 3.3)



SUMMARY

discussed selected imported vessels. is pottery category in-cludes also one vessel (]g. 55:125658; 109) with traces of blackengobe on the outside and decorated with rows of obliqueimpressions or stamps.

Painted potterye Stradonice 1929 collection includes 66 sherds belong-

ing to 31or 32 different vessels; this is only a small part of thetotal number of cca 1300 fragments of painted pottery foundat the oppidum already earlier. e documented forms mostlyinclude the semiglobular bowls “bol Roanne”, ^asks and gob-lets. e “bol Roanne” is in four cases decorated with incisedwavy-line at the rim (]g. 54:587293) and this is sometimesconsidered typical for Stradonice or Central Bohemian origin(Cumberpatch 1993a, 69, 83; Břeň 1973, 111). e most fre-quent decoration motif was a common combination of hori-zontal bands. Apart from that, secondary black or the so-called “sepia” painting was detected. e geometric motifswere as follows: 1. net/grid (]g. 91:587258, 587255), 2. diago-nal thin lines (]g. 91:587254; 109), 3. checkerboard elementsin single row composition (]g. 91:587247), 4. bands placedagainst each other in metope ]elds (]g. 54:587290; 109), 5.paint combined with incised lines (]g. 92:587294), 6. stronglyburnished to polished surface. White, red (light red – vermil-ion, sour cherry, red-brown shades) and brown (]g.109:125619, 587085) colours were used. Different shades of redand brown were mostly the result of varying intensity of paintlayer in combination with variably coloured smoothed surface,or in combination with ground paint, mostly white. Differentsources of dyes as shown by natural scienti]c analyses could beanother reason (Píč 1903, 94; Guichard – Guineau 1991, 315).e so-called sepia colour may simply be diluted black colour.Inner black (]g. 91:587260; 91:587258) or white paint (]g.91:587261) were detected in several cases. Two discs were cutout from painted vessel sherds. Local production of paintedpottery at Stradonice is assumed as evidenced by a waster ves-sel decorated by dots, deposited in old collections in the Na-tional Museum.

Pottery with burnished decorationExternal, internal or both types of burnishing were identi-

]ed in only twenty sherds (from max. 19 vessels), which com-prises 8,3 % of the total of ]ne decorated pottery. Burnisheddecoration applies at the external and internal vessel surface(]g. 83:126402; 84:126332; 90:587224; 91:587262). Arched el-ements (]g. 67:125925; 83:126401; 109) form a more complexmotif. Internal decoration is rather simple (]g. 39:125364;55:125622, 125623, 125627; 91:598039).

Pottery with Mne combingIt is represented by 58 fragments. e 1929 assemblage

contains the following variants: a. vertical line in open space,unsegmented (]g. 45:587007; 70:126034; 74:126185;83:126403-4; 94:597516), b. bundles of vertical unsegmentedlines (]g. 45:587016), c. bundles of vertical lines divided byhorizontal lines in one or two rows (]g. 52:587086; 70:126035;90:587229, 587216), d. oblique lines in space interrupted byvertical lines in pairs (]g. 54:125662), e. bundles of obliquelines interrupted by horizontal lines in pairs (]g. 52:587086;110; 83:126403-1), f. bundles of oblique crossed lines (]g.70:126033; 83:126403-3; 91:598044; 94:587312; 110:125659,587109), g. bundles of oblique lines with hatched areas. Use ofdifferent comb types is evidenced by bundles consisting of 6,8, 9, 12 and 14 lines. Fine combing is probably chronologicallylimited to LT D.

Pottery with graphite coatingGraphite coating occurred in 26 cases. Most of them bear

the graphite coating on the external surface only, in one caseit appeared in the interior surface and three times both the ex-terior and interior of the vessel were coated. Graphite coatingusually concerned wheel-turned vessels made of ]ne fabric;only in two cases was the fabric sandy. Combination withcombing (]g. 83:126314; 91:598044; 110) is frequent. Graphitecoating is typical for the latest La Tène period.

graphite potteryGraphite pottery (Graphittonkeramik) is represented by 501

fragments and comprises 10,2 % of the pottery total; this pro-portion is unusually high e.g. in comparison with its 2,4 %share in the 1981 collection (Rybová – Drda 1994, 101). So faronly less than two hundred fragments of graphite vessels and16 re]tted vessels have been known from Stradonice. eshape spectrum consists mainly of vertically combed pots (]g.44:125465, 125467; 55: 125669, 125670; 84:126265); some ofthe storage jars indicate relationship with Moravia (]g.44:125463; 45: 40815; 53:125605, 125611; 56:125665), parallelsto others may be found at Třísov (]g. 44:125468; 55:125 663,125670; 93:597568, 597575, 587305); bowls appear (]g.53:125614) and a small disc made out of a sherd was alsofound (]g. 90:587185). Apart from the mentioned storage jars,other vessel forms or fabric refer to Moravia (]g. 54:125664;70:125961), others to the Danube region (]g. 70:125959), orthe Třísov oppidum (]g. 44:125471) and Bavaria (]g.41:125450). e surface of graphite potsherds is mostly con-tinually combed, only exceptionally are the lines isolated or inbundles, oen in combination with horizontal rib (]g.41:125449; 44: 125471; 46:587053; 53:125617; 55:125663;56:125675; 64:125868; 70:126015; 84: 126329, 126330; 126375,125376; 91:598016; 93:587305; 94:587311). in-walled pot-tery occurred seldom, sporadically with ]ne combing (]g.57:125829-4; 75:126204-1). Graphite pottery is hand made, inapprox. half of the cases wheel-]nished, rarely wheel-turned.Local production at Stradonice is not presumed.

Signs incised at the base of the vessels before ]ring are typ-ical for graphite pottery (Kappel 1969, 104–122, 188–191;Čižmář 1995, 119, tab. 1; Hlava 2008). Several signs were pub-lished from older Stradonice collections (Zeidler 2003,81;Horáková-Jansová 1955, ]g. 20:5, 5a, 6, 6a; 21:1–4) and thereare other signs from the 1929 assemblage: “cock-tread” of Kap-pel 1a type (]g. 75:126176; 112), a circle with rays perhaps ofthe Kappel 1a-1 variant (]g. 75:126191; 112), and parallel in-cisions perhaps of Kappel 10 type or Zeidler B7 type (]g.62:125818). Eight whole vessels with the Kappel 1a type signand one sign of the Kappel 1c/Zeidler C3 type are included inthe older Stradonice collections. e origin of the Stradonicevessels with the “cock-tread” sign can be expected most prob-ably in the Třísov production sphere, but this cannot be safelydetermined.

coarse potteryCoarse pottery was almost exclusively made of fabric 4 –

sandy, 5 – coarse, 7 – very coarse. e fabric seldom con-tained high content of silvery mica which is known from theKutná Hora region (Šumberová – Valentová 2011). Other fab-ric types occurred marginally, e.g. fabric 6 – coarse micaceous,typical of NW Bohemia and the Rakovník region, or fabric 10– with organic admixture, related to Manching. Vessels madeof coarse and very coarse fabric were usually hand made, whilevessels made of sandy fabric are oen wheel-]nished in theupper part. Shapes typical for coarse pottery include storage



SUMMARY

jars, pots and neckless bowls. Storage jars, sometimes blackpainted, are usually pot-shaped with out-turned rim (]g.41:125416; 46:587284; 47:587285, 587286; 49:125555;57:125735; 90:587204), the shape with horizontal out^aringrim with grooves and wide wavy line on the shoulders (]g.85:126248), known from Moravia, is rare. Shape 232 withstrongly curved neck (e.g. ]g. 42:125408) is the most repre-sented in pots; it is typically a Central and East Bohemianshape connected with sandy fabric, grating and black paint.Grating is oen applied on the whole surface, exceptionally invertical bands, interrupted or grooved (]g. 40:125363;41:125462; 64:587120). Occasionally grainy surface of category8 appeared. In cases when these pots are decorated at all, thenit is by combing. Apart from vertical combing, oblique andcurved lines or short comb impressions occur (]g. 46:587004;57:125823; 58:125737; 65:125862; 66:125926; 76:126125;87:126302), as well as combed horizontal wavy lines (]g.63:587117; 75:126155; 77:126197; 83:587157; 90:587222;94:597528). Píč (1903, tab. LIV:25, LV:3) and Stöckli (1979,Abb. 10-11) depicted similar variants from the older collec-tions from Stradonice. e variability observed at Stradonice]ts well within the range of combed coarse pottery found atManching (Stöckli 1979, Taf. 50-62). Typical Late La-Tènerounded forms 715 (e.g. ]g. 61:125702), and 716 (e.g. ]g.73:125947) are the most represented bowls, less chronologi-cally diagnostic bowl 714 (e.g. ]g. 61:125704) and S-pro]ledbowl 722 (e.g. ]g. 60:125723) are however also present. efabric used for bowls is mostly sandy, surface is smooth, incounted cases grainy, and oen grated and black painted.

Special shapeslids. ere are two lid fragments in the assemblage. Lids

with cylindrical bottom (]g. 84:126317) correspond to variant1.12 in the classi]cation of lids from Stradonice (Valentová2011, ]g. 3:2) and they are the most common type there. Sim-ply curved lid shapes, represented by another fragment (]g.48:125477a), are perhaps an earlier type. In view of the usuallyvery low representation of lids in pottery assemblages, theirfrequent presence in the older Stradonice collection (Píč 1903,90, tab. LII: 19; LIII: 7, 8, 18, 23; LIV: 2, 10, 11; LV: 13; LVI: 18-20, 22-23), containing 120 pieces, is remarkable. Four lidswere retrieved in the 1981 excavation.

Strainers. ere was a single thin-walled bowl-shapedstrainer with regular ]ne perforations (]g. 62:125706). Píč(1903, tab. LIV:22) published one strainer fragment fromStradonice and they are found also in other collections. Con-nection between this “]ne” strainer variant and the alcoholicbeverages production process cannot be excluded.

technical potterydiscs cut from sherds. Discs cut from sherds, perforated or

not, represent a typical La Tène secondary pottery product in-tended for a speci]c purpose. ey are therefore classi]ed astechnical pottery; their function could however have beenother than purely technical. 33 discs come from the 1929 ex-cavations (tab. 14; ]g. 44:125473-5; 45:587007; 47:587005-6;84:126397-8, 126400; 87:126399; 90:587184-6). ey were cutout from vessels of varied fabric and surface treatment. Eightdiscs come from decorated vessels – painted, ]ne or coarsecombed or black painted. Only six discs, except for a perfo-rated example, had their edges smoothed, the others weresmoothed only partially or not at all. e discs’ diameterranges from 23 to 52 mm for the perforated and smoothed (i.e.]nished) ones, and 30 to 91 mm, but mainly 42-62 mm forthose with unwrought edges (i.e. perhaps un]nished ones).

ese dimensions are very similar to the average size of itemsfrom known larger collections of La Tène discs (Venclová 2011,670). e purpose of the discs is still discussed, they are how-ever commonly – at least the perforated ones – consideredspindle whorls (Venclová 2011, 671 with refs). Other use ishowever possible (Varadzin – Venclová 2006).

covers – censers. is term usually applies to simple ves-sel-shaped objects formed almost without base or with a largeopening in the base, and with coarse rectangular holes in thewalls. ere are 7 fragments most likely from one object (]g.46:587067; 48:587078) in the 1929 assemblage. E. Cosack(1994, 319, 321, Abb. 1, 2) explained the purpose of this kindof pottery and named it covers (“Feuerstülpen”). ey are tech-nical vessels intended for contact with hot material such ascovers for ember, warmers or censers, or an aid for ^ame reg-ulation. ey are known from other Czech oppida.

objects with funnel-shaped openings. Fragments of oneor more similar objects (]g. 95:587266-3a; 115) were found inthe well; they are made of poorly ]red fabric with massive ribsin the inside, separated by grooves with traces of wood im-pressions, or else negative of a reinforcement. e rims belongto 4 different funnels. No traces of heat or other use have beenpreserved. e object was reconstructed in drawing with twoopenings at one side and two on the other side; however, twosimilar objects with two openings each, or 4 different objectseach with one opening could be concerned as well. e inter-pretation as forge bellows’ endpiece lacks substantiation, sinceno similar endpieces are known, and the same applies to theexplanation as casting moulds.

crucibles. e assemblage contains two hand-made smallvessels and perhaps other fragments corresponding to theusual characteristic of crucibles. e better-preserved example(]g. 92:598037) is open bowl-shaped with round base, whichis in La Tène context connected with bronze metallurgy.

3.1.3 non-la tène pottery (Vít Vokolek)e 1929 research yielded 146 fragments of non-La Tène

pottery (tab. 15; ]g. 96-97), present in the La Tène contexts asintrusion, of which most belong to the Knovíz culture. eHradiště hill by Stradonice is not exceptional in the use of thelater La Tène oppidum area in prehistory and particularly inLate Bronze Age. e Knovíz culture hillfort existed in the areaof the La Tène oppidum Závist (Motyková – Drda – Rybová1978, 163-169; Motyková – Drda – Rybová 1984, 415), andsherds of Knovíz culture pottery were found also at theHrazany (Jansová 1965, 35) and Nevězice (Drda 1987) oppida.Late Bronze Age Lausitz culture settlement was detected in thearea of the České Lhotice oppidum (Danielisová 2010, 141).

3.2 metal objectS (mIloš ČIžmář)e assemblage includes 15 bronze and iron brooches or

their fragments. ey belong to the brooch variants D/E (]g.105:597436; 98:587350, 587351), group 19 (]g. 98:587352)and 4 aer Gebhard (1991) (]g. 98:587341, 587342;100:587107-3). e latest type is a bronze brooch of Almgren65 type (]g. 98:587340) that can be dated to the later phaseof the LT D1 stage. Personal ornaments include rings or hairornaments from bronze wire (]g. 105:587400, 597423;106:597441, 597442) and an open wire bracelet (]g.105:597422). A fragment of bronze mirror (]g. 104:587268;114) belongs to luxury items (cf. Kysela, Chapter 3.3). Bronzetweezers (]g. 104:597439, 105:587392; 597424) rank amongcommon toiletries, needles (]g. 105:587391) served forsewing. Fine bronze strainer (]g. 98:587343), perhaps part ofdrinking set, and a cast base of a vessel (]g. 105:587394)



SUMMARY

represent metal vessels. Bronze sheet ]tting with rivets (]g.105:587393) probably formed part of a wooden vessel. Bronzesheet fragments, with occasional small openings or rolled upinto a small tube (]g. 100:587108; 102:597458; 104:587397,597427; 105:597425) may relate to vessels or other objects.One S-shaped rod ending with a stud (]g. 105: 587386) comesfrom an iron handle of a wooden bucket.

Iron chisel (]g. 102:597454) and other smaller chisels (]g.101:597452), alternatively socketed (]g. 102:597687), rankamong woodworking tools. An iron object with a widened end(]g. 102:597688) and a gag-shaped object (]g. 103:587147-2)belong to chisel-like tools. A spoon-shaped borer (]g.101:597419) served for woodworking, a pointed object with asocket (]g. 104:587372) ful]lled an inde]nite purpose. Frag-ments of ten iron knives (or even scissors blades) of differentsize (e.g. ]g. 98:587354; 100:587107-9, 587373; 106:597465)belong among domestic tools. An iron fork with three prongs(]g. 105:597429) has several parallels among the older ]ndsfrom Stradonice (Píč 1903, tab. XXXV: 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16), andforks are a common item in inventories from other oppida aswell. A short iron lance (]g. 99:597461), occurring commonlyat oppida (e.g. Píč 1903, tab. XXIX: 1, 8, 18, 20, 23, 24; Sievers2010, 26), and a socketed iron arrowhead (]g. 99:597 409) arethe only ]nds unambiguously classi]able as weapons. A dis-torted iron object (]g. 98:587353) could be a sword chape. Flatthin iron fragments may also come from a chape. An iron stripwith with a hole (]g. 101:597453) could be part of a shieldloop. Weapons were weakly represented also among the 1981]nds (Rybová – Drda 1994, 108-110), a wide range of them ishowever known from older ]nds (Píč 1903; Sievers 2010, 122).An iron chain bridle link (]g. 99:597410) and a bronze ringwith pro]led neck and iron shank (]g. 99:587076; 114), andperhaps a rectangular object with bronze three-dimensionallydecorated head (]g. 100:587107-1) formed part of horse har-ness and wagon. A bronze sheet object with a round centre(]g. 100:587106) could be a horse harness phalera. A bronzebutton with nippled centre designated for enamel application(]g. 104:513684) appears most abundantly at the Stradoniceoppidum, which quali]es the conviction of its local production(Čižmář 2002b). An iron pin (]g. 102:597455) is most likely apart of wagon, but it could be used also as a key. Rings anddiscs could have had different purpose (]g. 98:587363;100:587107-7). Construction ironwork, pins and nails (e.g.]g. 98: 587355, 587356, 587357, 587358, 587360-362;99:587369; 101:597420; 105:597430), one of them with lead (?)hemispheric head (]g. 99:597404), is amply represented. Arectangular sheet ironwork (]g. 100:587111-1) and iron hook-shaped key (]g. 100:587107-8) relate to lock.

3.2.1 x-ray Nuorescence analysis (xrF) of a bronze mirror(jaroslav Frána)

A bronze mirror fragment (]g. 114:5872680; tab. 16) wasanalyzed. A higher content of tin and an increased content ofantimony correspond to lead bronze, common e.g. in La Tèneornaments (Frána – Jiráň – Moucha – Sankot 1997, 165–173).

3.3 Selected Pottery and bronze ImPortS(jan Kysela)

e 1929 assemblage contained a limited number of potteryand metal imports, several of which allow identi]cation or in-dication of their origin. A vessel tempered with volcanic sandbelongs to Roman utility pottery from the Lazio or Campaniaregion. A black lustered vessel (]g. 64:125833; 110) is the mostsigni]cant class of ]ne table ware, the so-called Campaniapottery in the whole Hellenistic/Republican Mediterranean,

and it comes probably from North Etruria. A vessel with a basering and vertical ribs (]g. 55:125653; 109) can be an importfrom Gaul and a ^ask-shaped vessel (]g. 54:125634; 110) orig-inates perhaps in the Danube region. Bronze mirror (]g.104:587268; 114) is a common ]nd at oppida (Kysela 2011)and their import from Republican Italy is presumed, althoughlocal production cannot be excluded. Old collections fromStradonice include at least 25 mirrors.

3.4 glaSS objectSere were only two glass objects in the 1929 assemblage:

an atypical bead of opaque light blue glass (]g. 99:597406), anda raw glass lump of greyish colour, both probably recent prod-ucts. Absence of the so-called „Celtic“ Late La Tène glass isstriking, as older assemblages from Stradonice include a largeglass collection (Píč 1903; Venclová 1990). Absence of glass inthe 1929 assemblage may be most likely due to unexperienceddiggers.

3.5 SaProPelItee only sapropelite artefact (]g. 98:587335) is one-third of

a ring which typologically, visually and by its manufacturingtechnique fully corresponds to products made from theKounov sapropelite (petrographic analysis has not been ac-complished) and produced in LT B2-C1 in the Rakovník re-gion workshops. Other sapropelite objects are supposed to bepart of older collections from Stradonice: another (sapro-pelite?) ring (Píč 1903, tab. VIII:27) and four perforated discs(Venclová 2011). Finds of sapropelite artefacts in LT C2-Dcontext are absolutely rare (Venclová 2001) and therefore it isnot known whether their ]nds point to activities carried out atthe site in LT B2-C1, or whether they were imported from else-where (and kept as rarity).

3.6 bone and antler objectS (mIloš ČIžmář)e assemblage includes eight artefacts (cf. Kyselý, Chapter

3.11). Two worked bones and an unworked one (]g.98:587336, 587337, 587339; 116) could have been used as awls.A perforated bone disc (]g. 101:597418; 117) ful]lled an un-clear purpose. Four antlers with cut marks represent semi-]n-ished products in different stages of production (]g.101:587113; 104: 587270-2; 587 377; 587383; 117; 118; 119).One ]nished antler object was decorated by concentric circles(]g. 105:587384; 119).

3.7 clay arteFactSClay artefacts comprise only 2–3 loom weights with a hor-

izontal opening (]g. 103:587146; cf. ]eld photo – ]g. 35:1093).Large collections of loom-weights are known from the La Tèneperiod (Venclová et al. 2008, 179). Píč (Píč 1903, tab. LVIII:7,28) depicts samples from Stradonice and Rybová and Drda(Rybová – Drda 1994, 112) mention them as well from the site.

3.8 Stone (mIloš ČIžmář)Stone artefacts include 15 whetstones (]g. 98:587301;

101:587112; 102:597681 to 597685; 103:125936, 126204-2 to126204-5; 104:597511; 106:598248). Group I aer Leichmann(1994), i.e. prismatic whetstones, markedly narrowed in thecenter by wear, is the most represented one in the 1929 as-semblage. ere are also whetstones with little use wear ofgroup 3, whetstones of rectangular cross-section of group 5,samples similar to group 7 and specimens of irregular shape ofgroup 8. Petrographic analysis indicates that most of the whet-stones were made from quartzitic sandstone, some from sand-stone with pyrope admixture (this may be important in as-



SUMMARY

sessing their origin) and from claystone extracted withoutdoubt from sources in the oppidum vicinity.

3.9 raw materIalS and SlagA fragment of lead disc (]g. 99:597405) could be consid-

ered raw material for lead work, which is documented in theLa Tène period. Eight pieces of greenish slag lumps were ob-tained, probably raw copper material connected with bronzemetallurgy. Iron smithing slag is represented by 36 pieces, ofwhich three are of the typical planoconvex shape. Small lumpsof slagged bubbly material correspond to burned rock or earth.Glassy slaggy material of greyish-black colour is probably a re-cent product.

3.10 anthroPologIcal FIndHuman bone (inv. no. 597696) is the only ]nd of its kind in

the 1929 assemblage. It is a fragment of radius without marksof intentional modi]cation (assessment of P. Stránská).Human bones were retrieved from ]ve settlement featuresduring the 1981 investigations at Stradonice (Rybová – Drda1994, 119). Interpretation of human bones ]nds in settlementcontexts is varied and stretches from building and other sac-ri]ce and other ritual activities through trophies and non-standard burials to reêction of military and conîct events ingeneral.

3.11. anImal boneS (rené Kyselý)Tab. 17 summarizes all available animal bone ]nds. Se-

lected bone ]nds are photographically documented in ]g.116–119. Synoptic quanti]cation (tab. 18) shows the absolutepredominance of domestic species (94 %) over wild species (6%). Red deer, roe deer and hare are the only wild species doc-umented. All expected domestic mammal species are present,i.e. cattle (48 %), horse (25 %), pig, sheep/goat and dog. emarkedly well represented horse falls into the small/middlesize category. Cattle is smaller, the horns match with the short-horn breed (brachyceros). e age of some individuals corre-sponds with the slaughter age convenient for meat production,and the same applies to sheep/goat and pigs. No marks ofbutchering were observed on dog bones. e assemblage in-cludes 8 artefacts (]g. 116–119; tab. 17; cf. Čižmář, Chapter3.6.). In comparison with the 1981–1984 assemblage (Peške1984b), a notably higher proportion of horse was observed; theshare of wild species and predominance and percentage ofcattle is comparable in both assemblages. e low share ofhunt species is in accordance with multiple ]ndings of the LaTène period in Bohemia and Central Europe.

3.12 coProlIteA coprolite (]g. 114:597773) belongs to ]nds without con-

text. A herbivore’s excrement is concerned according to iden-ti]cation of L. Lisá (see below). It is the ]rst ]nd of its kindrecorded at Stradonice.

3.12.1 micromorphologic characterization of the pellet(lenka lisá)

Micromorphology of the pellet was described aer Bullock– Murphy 1983; Stoops 2003; Kemp 2007. From the data ob-tained, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. e studiedsample is homogeneous and is almost completely composed ofcellulose straps. 2. Biogenic opals (phytolites) expected in suchmaterial are hidden under the cellulose which is minimally de-graded. 3. Calcareous component of the excrement was re-moved by ôwing solutions in the ]rst phase of deposition, butcellulose which constitutes the excrement was not damaged.

Humus matter in organic material is oxidized which attests forspeci]c conditions of deposition, i.e. for long-term dry andairy conditions preventing microbial decomposition of thestudied matter. e sample may be interpreted as herbivore’sexcrement, although it does not contain spherulites composedof calcium oxalates (Brochier 1996; Canti 1998; 1999), the ab-sence of which probably relates to the post-depositionalchanges. Comparison with the reference collection of excre-ments (author’s depository, partially published at http://www.gli.cas.cz/kvarter) shows that the rate of disintegration, thesize of fragments and the way of digestion corresponds mostlikely to a donkey, or else a horse, sheep or goat (]g. 122:1-4).It can be excluded, to the contrary, that the sample is excre-ment residue of e.g. human, cattle, pig or a carnivore or a birdpellet (]g. 122:5-7).

3.13 woodFragments of carbonized wood were preserved in only four

features. Finds from house II were labeled as “wood fromposts”, from house IV as “from beams at the western side of thehouse”, from house XI as “from beams”. Wood from house VIlacked description.

3.13.1 antracological analysis (jan novák)e map of potential natural vegetation (Neuhäuslová 2001)

shows Melampyro nemorosi-Carpinetum forest in the area; ]g.120:1). Altogether four wood species (]g. 19) were detected.Oak (Quercus sp.) predominates in the assemblage and inthree samples it was the only wood detected. It it possible topresume that it was used as construction wood. Differentspecies were identi]ed in the sample from house IV where]rewood was most likely concerned. Apart from increasedpercentage of oak, European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus),maple (Acer sp.) and European hazel (Corylus avellana) wereabundant. ese species are the trees typical of oak and horn-beam forest. ey are well adapted to frequent cutting andhave an excellent ability of coppicing. eir signi]cant pres-ence in the sample indicates a relatively intensive manage-ment of forest vegetation in the vicinity of the Stradonice op-pidum. Such vegetation can be reconstructed as a mozaic ofopenness, shrubs, growth and coppice forest. It is very proba-ble that the forest in the surroundings of the oppidum wasapart from wood and leaf fodder procurement affected also bywood pasture.

4 actIVItIeS carrIed out at the baIley

4.1 SubSIStenceNo tools, agricultural or other, related to subsistence, were

with certainty identi]ed in the assemblage. Since at the time ofthe excavation, sieving was not in use, no macro-residues ofutility plants or weeds are available. e collection of animalbones (cf. Kyselý, Chapter 3.11) offers data on animal hus-bandry and hunting. e composition of the ]nds indicatespredominance of domestic animals common at La Tène set-tlements. Wild game is represented by red deer, roe deer andhare that together comprised only 6 % of the assemblage. An-thracological analysis by J. Novák (Chapter 3.13.1) detected inthe wood samples from the 1929 excavations oak and horn-beam wood which is interpreted as an indication of intensiveforest management in the surrounding landscape, includingleaf fodder procurement and wood pasture.



SUMMARY

4.2 conStructIon actIVItIeSe major construction performance was the building of

the forti]cation. According to the 1929 documentation (]g.11) and the interpretation by A. Rybová and P. Drda (Rybová– Drda 1994, 30), the northern forti]cation of the bailey wascomposed of stone wall probably interlocked with woodenconstruction and an earthen bank, without a ditch on the out-side. e forti]cation had two construction phases. Geophys-ical survey by R. Křivánek (Chapter 2.4, ]g. 107) suggestedthat in the area of the bailey there was another – inner – lineof enclosure parallel to the forti]cation and consisting in aditch. It remains unclear whether this was one of the forti]ca-tion phases of the area, or whether enclosure of anotherprecinct, e.g. large farmstead, is concerned. A far smaller en-closure appears in the SW part of the magnetometrically sur-veyed area of the bailey (]g. 108:3). Routes are not expresslyindicated in the general plan or in the other documentation,but their existence can be implied by strips of “stone sub-structures” of 1,6 to 2,3 m of reconstructed width, drawn onthe general plan (]g. 10; 37), e.g. in trenches 141 and 143. Lin-ear anomaly in the S part of the area magnetometrically sur-veyed by R. Křivánek (]g. 107) could indicate the existence ofyet another road in the W-E direction, the age of which is how-ever not known.

Other construction activities were carried out in the settle-ment area. e research has only implied the density of build-ings at the bailey, since many small trenches were undoubtedlynegative only seemingly. e 1981 research has provided abetter image as it detected in the gas pipeline trench in the Sand E part of the bailey abundant buildings in several groupsover the course of at least two time horizons (Rybová – Drda1994, 74-76, ]g. 18, 19). e magnetometric survey veri]edthe development at the bailey. In the N part of the bailey, itshows an agglomeration of houses probably terraced and em-bedded in the slope that roughly correspond to “houses” I, IV,VI, VII and another unnumbered house detected by the 1929excavation (cf. Křivánek, Chapter 2.4, ]g. 108:1). Not far fromthe houses there is a large building evidenced by two rows ofposts (]g. 108:2), perhaps a granary. Sunken houses or otherbuildings (]g. 108:3) were located to the south from the build-ing. Since ]eld documentation, i.e. plans and description of theparticular features, has not been preserved, the reconstructionof the different building types can be based solely on the gen-eral plan (]g. 37), verbal description of several features and in-complete ]eld photodocumentation. At least some houses (I,II and perhaps IV) were built on the terrain surface with thehelp of vertical wooden elements (posts). Construction ofhouses I and II rested upon three rows of posts. ey wereprobably terraced, embedded in the slope, as is evident fromtheir location on a relatively steep slope and also from themagnetometric survey. Stocký speculated about frame or logconstruction on a stone foundation. If we are to rely on repre-sentation of the houses’ ground plans to the scale on the gen-eral plan, then three groups according to house size can be dis-tinguished, i.e. small – cca 10–20 m2, medium – over 20–30m2,and big – over 30 m2. is by far exceeds the building sizes de-tected at Stradonice in 1981 which hardly reached 20 m2, withonly one exception (Rybová – Drda 1994, 40-50, Pl. 1a-4b, ]g.15). e 10 m long wall of house XII occured in exactly thesame length as that of house II excavated in 1981. ere is anote relating to house XI that mentions detection of “somepaved gallery or outer yard around a rather well preservedhouse”; if its hypothetical correspondence with the groundplan in trench 140 is correct, then it would be an exceptionally

large feature measuring 32,8 m×13,8 m, with a “stone sub-structure” 2–3 m wide on the longer side. Such a ground plancould in theory correspond to terraced houses with stonefoundations that are known e.g. from Hrazany (Jansová 1992,195–196), with the proviso that houses in Hrazany were muchsmaller (max. 20 m×6 m) and the stone foundation wall wasmuch narrower. Houses of large dimensions are howeverknown at present (e.g. Opatovice nad Labem, a wooden build-ing 28 m in length and 14,5 m wide: Venclová et al. 2008, 50,]g. 25, aer V. Vokolek). e question remains whether in thecase of house XI a true house is concerned or whether it wasa house in an enclosure, and whether the “stone substructure”is not a road in reality. e ground plan included yet anothersmaller (sunken?) feature. In this case an above ground housewith a cellar could be considered, based on the interpretationof buildings e.g. in Opatovice nad Labem or Slepotice (infor-mation V. Vokolek). Likewise the features found in 1981, somefeatures from the 1929 excavations were without doubtsunken, be it huts or other buildings, but they cannot be iden-ti]ed on the general plan. Daub ]nds provide evidence on theuse of round and split wood and plastering of the walls. An-other feature type was a pit approx. 2 m in diameter and 2–3m deep, described as a well; if it is depicted on ]g. 30 or31:1116, then it could have been ]tted with stone in its upperpart. e 1981 investigations at Stradonice also detected cis-terns and wells (Rybová – Drda 1994, 38). Iron construction el-ements such as carpenter’s cramps, nails, pins, lock ]ttings,keys etc. indirectly attest to carpentry and other constructionwork. Woodworking tools used in construction work include,among others, chisels and drills.

4.3 domeStIc actIVItIeSe preserved artefacts (knives, forks, chains, drills, chisels,

whetstones etc.) evidence many activities carried out in house-holds, although some of them could be also connected withspecialized production. Some of the perforated discs cut outfrom vessel sherds, used as spindle whorls, prove textile pro-duction; clay loom-weights attest to weaving. Bronze needlesand bone awls were used for sewing. Bronze tweezers and amirror belong among toiletries. Pottery evidences food prepa-ration (pots, bowls, strainers), dining (]ne or painted pot-tery), and food storage (storage jars). Iron handles and somebronze ]ttings probably formed part of wooden vessels. Im-ported ceramic vessels, bronze vessels and their parts, andalso a ]ne bronze strainer connected with wine consumption,represent above-standard dining accessories used at specialevents or feasting. Clay covers used as warmers or censers be-longed among the house equipment.

4.4 SPecIalISed ProductIonSmithery is evidenced by iron slag (cf. Chapter 3.9) includ-

ing several typical planoconvex pieces. Iron bits (]g.104:597487; 106:597467) and a fragment of a massive semi-open iron socket (]g. 102:597687) that could be interpreted aswaste, are connected with manufacturing of iron objects.Bronze metallurgy is evidenced by copper raw material frag-ments, and by crucibles that, though, can also relate to pro-cessing of other metals. Bronze buttons decorated with enamel(]g. 104:513684; cf. Čižmář, Chapter 3.2) were perhaps also lo-cally produced. Lead could have been processed at the site.Bone and antler working probably also represent local spe-cialized production, as shown by semi-]nished artefacts (]g.117; 118:10 etc.). Abundant examples of high level antler craare included in the old ]nd collections from Stradonice de-posited in the National Museum (Venclová et al. 2008, Pl. 4).



SUMMARY

Based on some speci]c vessel types, such as the variant of the“bol Roanne” bowl with incised wavy-line, local production ofpainted pottery, certainly specialized to some degree, cannotbe excluded. A waster or semi-]nished pottery with dots, iden-ti]ed in the old Stradonice collection, attests for production ofanother type of painted vessels at Stradonice (cf. Chapter3.1.2). Absence of products or semi-]nished products of localhighly specialized production branches such as coinage orglass production, con]rmed at Stradonice by earlier sources, isnot surprising in the 1929 assemblage since tiny objects of thiskind must have been missed by the unexperienced diggers orlost due to poor ]eldwork techniques.

4.5 warFareere were only few weapons or their parts in the 1929 as-

semblage. An iron lance and an arrowhead are the best pre-served items, other fragments most likely formed part of oneor several sword scabbards or shield ]ttings. An iron chain bri-dle link, a bronze ring with pro]led neck and iron shank, andseveral buttons and ornaments represent horse harness. Sim-ilarly weakly represented as in the 1929 assemblage wasweaponry and equipment also in the 1981 ]nd collection fromStradonice (Rybová – Drda 1994, 108–110). S. Sievers (Sievers2010, 98–125) however considers the existence of armourer’sworkshop there on the basis of the old ]nd collections fromStradonice.

4.6 exchange and tradeInterregional contacts of the Stradonice oppidum may be

only hypothetically indicated based on the 1929 assemblage.Certain graphite pottery forms, graphite fabric properties, orsigns on bases of graphite vessels are sometimes considered ev-idence of contacts with south Bohemia (Třísov – “cock tread”sign) or else Bavaria, Moravia or the Danube region. Wheel-turned ^ask-shaped vessel of unusually good quality (cf. Ky-sela, Chapter 3.3) may also be connected with the Danube re-gion. Some storage jars have their counterparts at Moraviansettlements. Many types of utility vessels are distinguished bytheir distribution across Bohemia and the adjacent regions.Relationship with the Mediterranean was con]rmed as evi-denced also by multiple older ]nds from the oppidum. Objectsretrieved by the 1981 investigations at Stradonice, e.g. a ]ngerring with a gem or a bronze vessel handle (Rybová – Drda1994, 106, 112) fall into this category. Exogenous products(cf. Kysela, Chapter 3.3) acquired through long-distance ex-change or trade are represented in the 1929 assemblage by sev-eral ceramic vessels, bronze vessels and other objects of mostlikely Italian origin (a vessel with fabric tempered with vol-canic sand, black lustered vessel, black painted vessel withoval impressions or stamps, bronze mirror). Further bronzevessels preserved only in small fragments or a bronze strainerconnected with wine consumption could be imported fromthe same region. Other objects perhaps originated in more dis-tant parts of La Tène Europe, e.g. Gaul (vessel with verticalribs). For some of them (mirror, strainer), however, the alter-native of local imitation must be taken into account. In any

case, the objects acquired through supra-regional long-dis-tance contacts formed part of above-standard equipment ofthe local elite.

ConclusionPublication of the ]nd assemblage and documentation of

the 1929 archaeological investigations by Albín Stocký ]lls upone of the missing segments in the mosaic of the huge collec-tion of ]nds from the La Tène oppidum of Stradonice that hasnot yet been published and evaluated in its entirety. Althoughthe data preserved are largely incomplete, they however con-tribute many pieces or information necessary for complex as-sessment of the site’s signi]cance. e aim of the authors wasto publish the whole set of archive materials, the original ]elddocumentation and all archaeological material. Analysis of allsources included in this volume supplements the earlier ob-tained information regarding the use of the oppidum area, ty-pology of artefacts, chronology and activities carried out there,and places it in European context. e results of the investiga-tions by A. Stocký, doubtless affected by the small size of thesearch trenches that were oen unable to unambiguously de-tect features, were partially validated by magnetometric surveyby R. Křivánek. Its results provided a better notion of devel-opment at the bailey, very unclear and incomplete when basedexclusively on data from the 1929 excavation, and provided abasis for potential future archaeological investigation that theStradonice oppidum without doubt deserves.

e question of quality of the ]eldwork and documentation(with missing plans and description of features) by Stocký re-mains open. Two preserved plans are however of good qualityand the trenches were geodetically localized as is evident notonly from both plans but also from ]eld photos. e photo-graphic documentation was originally of quite a good quality,but during its storage in the Institute of Archaeology in Pragueit was affected by the ^ood in 2002. e retrieved ]nds wereprobably not discarded in large extent during or aer the ex-cavation, and the absence of particularly small fragments of ce-ramic vessel walls and animal bones, or else glass and coins,may perhaps be put down to little experience of the ]eld work-ers or to little care paid in excavating the layers and in]lls. eobtained ]nd assemblage may seem poorer in comparisonwith the collection published by J. L. Píč (Píč 1903), but basi-cally it is comparable to the material excavated at Stradonice in1981 (Rybová – Drda 1994).

It can be concluded that despite the limitations of the ]ndassemblage and its incomplete documentation, the investiga-tion of A. Stocký from 1929 did yield an important ]nd col-lection and comparative data for the study of forti]ed sites ofthe late La Tène period in Bohemia and elsewhere. e publi-cation ]lls in one of the gaps in the knowledge of the Stradon-ice oppidum that belongs among the most signi]cant La Tènesites in Europe.

English by Sylvie Květinová


Venclová, N. – Valentová, J. et al. 2012: Oppidum Stradonice. Výzkum Albína Stockého r. 1929....

Documents

Transcript of Venclová, N. – Valentová, J. et al. 2012: Oppidum Stradonice. Výzkum Albína Stockého r. 1929....