A small piece of a jigsaw-puzzle. On Early La Tène figural brooches from Bohemia

53STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/2, 53–65 Asmall piece of ajigsaw ‑puzzle. On Early La Tène figural brooches from Bohemia Tereza Jošková– Michaela Bartoš -Dvořáková ABSTRACT The paper presents arelatively recently discovered bronze brooch from Církvice (Kutná Hora district), which is clearly related to the Early La Tène art style. Its discovery is all the more interesting because no other finds from the beginning of the La Tène period were detected either during the rescue excavation that yielded it, or in the site’simmediate vicinity. The newly discovered unique piece of personal ornament augments the existing collection of Early La Tène brooches. Moreover, it fits well into the distribution pattern of figural brooches in which the northeast quarter of Bohemia stands out with aseries of characteristics of its own. KEY WORDS Mask brooch; Early La Tène period; LT A; metal finds; Celtic art; Církvice. INTRODUCTION Afragment of aunique small bronze brooch was brought to light during alarge -scale rescue excavation related to the construction of aroad bypass at Církvice, Kutná Hora district. The decoration of the object is clearly related to Early La Tène figural brooches. Equally interesting is the context of the find. The artefact was found on the surface of afeature (apyrotechnological structure, no 87/2021) demonstrably dated to the Recent and Late La Tène period. No other evidence indicating either settlement or burial component of the LT Aphase was recorded within the whole area of the excavation, or in its immediate vicinity. Alittle more than two dozen distinctly shaped mask or zoomorphic Early La Tène brooches are currently known from Bohemia. Until recently they were concentrated mainly in western and southern Bohemia and in the adjacent parts of Central Bohemia while in the northeastern quadrant of Bohemia1 these finds were documented only sporadically. However, the picture is slowly changing thanks to new large -scale excavations and to metal detector surveying. The Církvice find is asignificant new entry into this small collection and contributes to the knowledge of these unique ornaments. FIND CIRCUMSTANCES LOCATION AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The rare small brooch was found during arescue excavation in the location of the newly constructed bypass of the I/38 road (Fig. 1A). The excavation took place in the territory of Církvice in Central Bohemia, about 5 km east of the centre of Kutná Hora. 1 This term, as used by the authors, corresponds to the area east and northeast of Prague (the districts of Nymburk, Poděbrady, Kutná Hora, Mladá Boleslav in Central Bohemia, and East Bohemia). 54 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/2 Fig. 1: A– Location of the findspot of the figural brooch in Církvice, Kutná Hora distr. B– The feature 87/2020– plan, and section. The arrow indicates the area in which it is disturbed by alater feature; hatched – strongly burnt layer. Photos by M. Bartoš -Dvořáková, adapted by T. Jošková. 55TEREZA JOŠKOVÁ– MICHAELA BARTOŠ ‑DVOŘÁKOVÁ The excavated site is located in the fertile agricultural area of the Central Bohemian Basin (sub -unit Církvice and Vinaře basin), at the altitude of 218–220 m.a.s.l. 2 The Křenovka stream and Klejnárka River (with its tributary the Olšanský stream), which is aleft side tributary of the Elbe, flow nearby. Loess and loess loam, with overlying chernozem and Cambysian soils, provide ideal conditions for agriculture; fluvial loamy sands and gravel sands or micas occur in the Křenovka catchment area.3 The favourable natural conditions are also confirmed by the relatively rich and dynamic evidence of anthropic activities here, from the beginning of the agricultural prehistory. From earlier excavations we know burials of the Únětice culture of the Early Bronze Age, funerary and settlement evidence from the Hallstatt Period (Velímský 2003; 2012), as well as settlement activities from the La Tène Period and Roman Iron Age in the location of Netřeba (Šumberová 2021; Velímský 2011). ALa Tène period cemetery may be inferred from the find of abronze annular ornament (Filip 1956, 67, 337, 367). THE SITE AND FEATURE NO. 87/2021 Altogether, 123 positive archaeological features– including 116 settlement features, 4 pyro - technological structures, and 3 graves– were recorded during the exploration of section 4 of the I/38 road (Fig. 1). It should be stressed that the vast majority of features can be dated to the stages LT C2–D1.4 With asingle exception– the brooch, which is the subject of this paper (Fig. 2)– no Early La Tène feature or artefact was recorded. The brooch was found by ametal detector during the removal of the topsoil by amechanical excavator in the topsoil on the surface of feature number 87/20215 (Fig. 1B). Feature 87/2021 was rectangular with oval corners, its sloping walls transitioned into aflat, slightly uneven bottom, its long axis was oriented in the NW–SE direction. Its dimensions were 120 × 106 cm and it was preserved to amaximum depth of 16 cm. Its SW edge was damaged by another feature. Already during the excavation, its fill featured adistinctive dark (burnt) colour mixed with charcoal and fragments of pottery. The fill consisted of four layers (Fig. 1B below). The upper one (in which the brooch fragment was found) was asolid dark grey -brown sandy clay with pellets of ochre loess and occasional crumbs of daub with adiameter of up to 1.5 cm. Between this deposit and the pit wall there was abrownish -red clay 4 cm thick, which was interpreted as the mortar of the structure. A2 cm thick light grey layer was intercepted above the bottom. It was probably aburnt base of the structure. The deepest stratigraphic component was abrownish -red layer corresponding to the burnt bedrock. The fill contained pottery datable only to LT C–D1, as well as small animal bones and daub crumbs. THE CÍRKVICE BROOCH– DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS Only apart of the original (two -piece) bronze figural brooch is preserved: abow terminating in an eyelet for the spring axis on the one end and asmall catch -piece on the opposite side (Fig. 2). The foot, the pin, and the spring are broken off. The brooch is preserved to alength 2 Based on: ags.cuzk.cz/geoprohlizec 3 Based on: https://mapy.geology.cz/geocr25/?extent=-750239.9299%2C-1081772.5024%2C-650707. 2908%2C-1017188.3012%2C102067 4 Ahandful of features can be attributed to the Middle Neolithic Stroke -ornamented ware culture; chamber graves of the Bylany culture of the Early Hallstatt period were present in the adjacent excavation sector (Dvořáková 2022). 5 WGS 84 coordinates of the centre of the feature (±1 m) are 49.9371139N, 15.3355136E. 56 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/2 of 44 mm, the diameter of the oval body varies between 2 and 5 mm, the height of the bow 15 mm. The spring was originally held on an axis, the rest of which is still preserved in the eyelet (wire diameter 1.5 mm). Distinct lens -shaped eyes are sculpturally represented on the top part of the bow, consisting of the upper and lower eyelids and eyebrows, which are bordered by aworn V -shaped engraving. The face looks backwards– towards the spring– where there are two more oval -shaped bulges (asecond pair of eyes? amoustache?). The very small catch- -piece (6×3 mm) is hooked inwards and decorated on the outside with fine non -intersecting vertical and horizontal incised lines. The brooch continued with afoot that is not preserved; the breakage suggests that it may have been cut off. This part is visibly flattened. The weight of the preserved part of the brooch (after conservation) is 3.35 g. The object is covered with an inhomogeneous patina and its surface is partially damaged and worn away. The absence of afoot does not allow one to unambiguously conclude whether there was another mask on it. Still, the representation of aface on the bow looking towards the spring is almost always accompanied by amask on the foot in Early La Tène brooches (cf. Binding 1993; Čižmář 2012, Abb. 1; Megaw 2012). The brooch is of atwo -part (cross -bow) construction with aslightly thickened bow body. It is similar, e.g., to the recent find from Hradištko, distr. Nymburk (Waldhauser 2014, figs. 2–3), and very close to the find from Rottenburg, Ldkr. Tübingen (Binding 993, Taf. 5:7). In terms of U. Binding’stypology, it is closest to the group 5– mask -shaped brooches with anthropoand zoomorphic head on the foot and bow (Binding 1993, 143). Fig. 2: The Early La Tène brooch from Církvice. Drawing and photo by T. Jošková. 57TEREZA JOŠKOVÁ– MICHAELA BARTOŠ ‑DVOŘÁKOVÁ As far as decoration is concerned, the brooch shows an affinity to the find from Horné Orešany (Pieta 2007, Abb. 7:10), the anthropomorphic brooch from Mikulovice (Sedláček– Sankot 2013, pl. 1, 2:1), or the brooch foot from Weissenbrunn (Binding 1993, Taf. 7:1). The absence of anose, and on the contrary the elongated pointed shape of the head (beak?) transitioning into an eye for the spring axis imply azoomorphic rather than anthropomorphic mask, perhaps that of asnake or abird of prey (cf. Kruta 1975, 11–13; Pare 2012, 154–165, fig. 6; Bagley 2020, 375). However, given the strong stylization, the interpretation is not unequivocal. As to its chronology, the figural brooch can be fairly clearly attributed to the Early La Tène period, the LT Astage, and dated to around the middle of the 5th century BC (cf. Jacobsthal 1969; Megaw 2012; 2014). Although the presence of the crossbow design is associated by some scholars (Waldhauser 2014, 169) to the earlier stage of LT A, they likely persisted throughout that period, with rare continuity to the beginning of LT B1 (Binding 1993, 69). THE BROOCH IN ITS CONTEXT The distinctively shaped figural brooches represented aunique category of personal object with agreat symbolic value (Bagley 2020, 395–396, 400; Pare 2012, 169). They were not widespread and the overall picture of distribution of this specific piece of jewellery 6 (Fig. 4), based on the current state of knowledge, seems to show Bohemia divided into several zones. Traditionally, the occurrence of zoomorphic or anthropomorphic brooches has been associated with burials under mounds in southwestern Bohemia (Tab.1; cf. Soudská 1994; Sankotetal. 2019). Other finds from barrows come from the adjacent Louny region (Panenský Týnec: Kučera 1894; Cítoliby: Wiehl 1909). In the surroundings of Prague, we observe amixed picture with finds coming both from cremation graves (e.g. the barrow at Libčice Chýnov: Felcman 1903) and from settlements (Praha -Dejvice: Hlava 2013, 677). In contrast, east of Prague7 and in eastern Bohemia these brooches were absent until recently. In the last two decades, however, their number has been increasing, thanks to metal detector surveys and new large -scale excavations (Fig. 3B: 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 20–21; Tab.1:14–25). In this part of Bohemia, however, figural brooches occur in completely different contexts, as they usually appear neither in burials under mounds, nor in richly furnished flat graves, both of which are basically absent here. The region of eastern Bohemia and its ‘border zone’– i.e. the area in which the Bylany and Platěnice cultures bordered each other and intermingled in the previous Hallstatt period8– 6 Some bird -headed brooches are also sometimes counted among them in Bohemia (groups 16 and 19 after Binding 1993, 27–37; cf. Kruta 1975, 11–28, fig. 3), but those are all characterised by clear and unambiguous animal forms, the presence of aface, and low degree of schematization. They always represent an individual and unique piece of jewellery to which there are no direct analogies. This speaks of their importance to the owner (symbol, amulet) and they can be seen as an elite a prestige object (Bagley 2020, 395–396, 400). There is thus no reason to exclude them from the group of ‘mask -like -figural’– i.e. zoomorphic and anthropomorphic– brooches (cf. Pare 2012, 154–166; Jacobsthal 1969, 25–27, 30, pl. 154–156). They differ markedly from the very schematic bird -headed brooches, of which dozens can be found and almost seem to have been ‘mass -produced’ pieces (cf. Binding 1993, Taf. 22–42). They would ultimately develop into the classic type of Duchcov brooch. 7 An exception is the burial mound with the urn grave in Bylany, distr. Kolín: Píč 1898; apin with an already schematized bird head from arich grave with achisel from Přerov nad Labem, distr. Nymburk (Sankot 2014) is not included in the collection under study. 8 Along the line of Nymburk– Kolín– Kutná Hora. 58 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/2 Fig. 3a: Figural brooches from Bohemia. 1– Kyšice; 2– Radětice; 3, 5– Hradiště uKasejovic; 4– Zahrádka uMírkovic; 6– Libčice -Chýnov; 7– Tajanov -Husín; 8– Háj uNové Huti/Dýšina; 9– Panenský Týnec; 10– Manětín Hrádek. Sources: 1, 5, 6, 8–10– Binding 1993; 2, 4– Sankotetal. 2019; 3– Soudská 1994; 7– Kruta 1975; adapted by T. Jošková. 59TEREZA JOŠKOVÁ– MICHAELA BARTOŠ ‑DVOŘÁKOVÁ Fig. 3b: Figural brooches from Bohemia. 11, 15– Žehuň; 12– Hlušičky; 13– Kšice; 14– Mikulovice; 16– surroundings of Dobruška; 17– Cítoliby; 18– Bylany, Kolín distr.; 19– Kralovice; 20– Hradiště, Nymburk distr.; 21– Prague -Dejvice. Sources: 11, 15– Danielisováetal. 2018; 13, 19– Binding 1993; 14– Sedláček– Sankot 2013; 17–18– Kruta 1975; 20– Waldhauser 2014; 21– Hlava 2013; 12 and 16 drawing by T. Jošková; adapted by T. Jošková. 60 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/2 Ser. num. Site Kontext Construction Rite Var. Detail Fig. Publ. WEST REGION 1Kralovice, dis. Plzeň Sever GRAVE Barrow Cremation ZOO bird 3b:19 Franc 1896 2Kšice, dis. Tachov GRAVE Barrow Cremation ANTRO man 3b:13 Filip 1956, 82 3Manětín Hrádek, dis. Plzeň Sever GRAVE Barrow ? Cremation ANTRO man 3a:10 Soudská 1968 4Tajanov-Husín, dis. Klatovy GRAVE Barrow / ? unspec. ZOO bird 3a:7 Schránil 1928, 215 5Kyšice, dis. Plzeň Město GRAVE Barrow Cremation ANTRO myth man 3a:1 Křivka 1883, 296–300, 354, 370–371, tab.XVI:51 6Hradiště u Kasejovic, dis. Plzeň Jih GRAVE Flat Cremation ANTRO shoe 3a:5 Siblík 1907, 346–348 7Hradiště u Kasejovic, dis. Plzeň Jih GRAVE Flat ? Cremation ZOO bird 3a:3 Soudská 1994, Abb. C3/10 8Háj u Nové Huti -Dýšina, dis. Plzeň Město GRAVE Barrow ? Cremation ? ZOO + ANTRO gryphon 3a:8 Filip 1956, 83, tab. IV:1 SOUTH REGION 9Závišín (Bělčice), dis. Strakonice GRAVE unspec. unspec. ZOO dog X unpubl.; stored in the Prácheň Museum 10 Radětice u Běchyně, dis. Tábor GRAVE Barrow unspec. ZOO gryphon + birds 3a:2 Michálek 2017, 341, tab. 405 11 Zahrádka u Mírkovic, dis. Český Krumlov GRAVE Barrow unspec. ZOO + ANTRO gryphon 3a:4 Sankot et al. 2019 NORTHWEST REGON 12 Cítoliby, dis. Louny GRAVE Flat ? Crematon ZOO gryphon 3b:17 Wiehl 1909, 74, tab XXV:12 13 Panenský Týnec, dis. Louny GRAVE Barrow Inhumation ZOO ovicapra + bird 3a:9 Kučera 1894 CENTRAL REGION - W 14 Libčice-Chýnov, dis. Praha Západ GRAVE Barrow Cremation ZOO + ANTRO cat? + myth man 3a:6 Felcman 1902/3, 42, obr. 2 15 Praha-Dejvice, dis. Praha SETTL. X X ANTRO man / face 3b:21 Hlava 2013 CENTRAL REGION - E 16 Benátky n. Jizerou, dis. Mladá Boleslav DET X X ZOO myth. man X infra 17 Bylany, dis. Kolín GRAVE Flat Cremation ZOO bird 3b:19 Píč 1898, 224, tab. XXIII:8 18 Hradišťko, dis. Nymburk DET X X ZOO + ANTRO ovicapra 3b:20 Waldhauser 2014 19 Církvice, dis. Kutná Hora DET feature X ZOO beast / face 2 infra 20 Vyšehořovice, dis. Praha Východ DET X X ANTRO man face X unpublished.; stored in the Institute of Archaeological Heritage Care of Central Bohemia Prague Tab.1: Selected figural brooches in Bohemia. By T. Jošková. 61TEREZA JOŠKOVÁ– MICHAELA BARTOŠ ‑DVOŘÁKOVÁ Ser. num. Site Kontext Construction Rite Var. Detail Fig. Publ. 21 Žehuň, dis. Kolín DET X X ZOO + ANTRO bird + face 3b:11 Danielisová et al. 2018 22 Žehuň, dis. Kolín DET X X ZOO beast 3b:15 Danielisová et al. 2018 EAST REGION 23 Mikulvice, dis. Pardubice SETTL. feature X ANTRO man / face 3b:14 Sedláček – Sankot 2013 24 Hlušičky, dis. Hradec Králové DET X X ZOO gryphon 3b:12 infa 25 Dobruška surr., dis. Rychnov nad Kněžnou DET X X ZOO beast 3b:16 unpublished was considered to be largely peripherical and the original Hallstatt population was believed to have survived here for along time (Filip 1936–1937, 145; Vokolek 1962, 22–24; Vokolek 1999, 17), far from the regions to the southwest in which anew Early La Tène style was taking shape among the local elites in the 5th century BC (Mangel– Danielisová– Jílek 2013, 29; Venclová ed. 2008, 84). However, as some scholars9 have pointed out, recent excavations and ‘isolated’ finds may change this picture. It seems that the situation in this area is greatly influenced by its cultural specificity, in particular the absence of the conspicuous funerary monuments, the barrows. Already Věra Šaldová (1971) stressed that even in the area of the densest distribution of figural fibulae in western Bohemia (cf. Tab.1 and Fig. 4), these prestigious ornaments are 9 Recently discussed in Mangel– Danielisová– Jílek 2013, 30; Sedláček– Sankot 2013, 577–579. Fig. 4: Distribution of figural brooches in Bohemia. By T. Jošková.