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

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1, 206–233 Where are the handmade Pots? Thoughts on the Composition of the Ceramic Material from the Iron Age Central Settlement at Neubau in the Context of Neighbouring Regions Robin Bernhard Franke ABSTRACT The LT C2– LT D central settlement near Neubau, in the vicinity of Linz, Upper Austria, with its voluminous pottery ensemble, offers opportunities for the study of La Tène pottery. Important characteristics of the find complex are the high proportion of graphite pottery and the rare occurrence of hand ‑formed vessels. Despite an insufficient state of research on the subject of coarse pottery, interesting tendencies could be detected in the comparison of numerous settlements in southern Germany, north ‑eastern Austria, and the Czech Republic. The high proportion of graphite pottery aligns Neubau with various settlements in south‑ ern Bavaria, southern Bohemia, Lower Austria, and Moravia, and raises the question of the supply of the raw material. The low proportion of hand ‑built vessels finds its best comparisons in Lower Austria and to acertain extent in Moravia. In contrast, hand ‑built pottery played asignificant role in the material culture of southern Germany and most parts of Bohemia. Whether this difference can be explained by the way the pottery production was organised or by aspecific symbolic content of vessel forms is unclear. The observa‑ tions show, however, that coarse domestic pottery can contribute to the understanding of the Late Iron Age. KEYWORDS La Tène; settlement; coarse ware; pottery production; Hallstatt; graphite; Neubau; Austria. INTRODUCTION Fragments of pottery are the most common category of finds from prehistoric sites and are therefore of particular importance for their chronological classification and interpretation. This is also true for the European Iron Age, aperiod characterised by the introduction of acertain innovation in the production of pottery– the use of the potter’swheel. After the appearance of the first wheel ‑thrown pottery in the Late Hallstatt period, the new technology spread over large parts of Europe during the Late La Tène period, with the initial focus being on the production of fine tableware. These technological developments during the Late Iron Age north of the Alps have been well analysed in several studies, whereas fine pottery was in the focus of research. However, while many aspects of these fine vessels are now well known, other ceramic products have received less attention such as coarse, domestic pottery classes from different contexts of the Late Iron Age. These ceramic vessels were commonly used as cooking and storage utensils in the daily lives of prehistoric people. Accordingly, it can also be assumed that, in addition to the activities associated with them, their appearance, their maintenance and the acquisition or production of the vessels probably had apermanent place in the real‑ ity of prehistoric people. It is therefore likely that, apart from the necessity of their use, the vessels might also have had acertain symbolic character and can be seen as apart of acultural 207ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE and social identity. Thus, the study of coarse utility pottery also has the potential to provide information on social contexts in prehistoric societies (Knopf 2003). Based on these assumptions, this article will attempt to analyse aspects of the regional characteristics of coarse pottery vessels in Central Europe during the Late Iron Age. For this purpose, aspects of the pottery spectrum from the Late La Tène central settlement at Neubau, south of Linz in Upper Austria, are compared with the surrounding regions. Since atypological comparison of vessel forms and decorations would have involved enormous effort due to the large number of different description systems, the focus of the present study primarily concentrates on aspects of the pottery production. Therefore, traces of the forming techniques and the composition of the clay material form the basis of the following analysis. THE SETTLEMENT OF NEUBAU AND ITS POTTERY The settlement in the so ‑called ‘Fundzone Neubau’ is comparable in size and building struc‑ ture to other central settlements in Central Europe such as Manching, Roseldorf, or Němčice. Consequently, it likely played acentral role in the settlement pattern of Upper Austria during its main occupation phase between LT C2 and LT D1 (Franke 2024). Just as at most other ar‑ chaeological sites, pottery makes up the largest category of finds at Neubau by far. With atotal number of more than 40,000 stratified sherds and atotal weight of around 1,000 kg, this is afairly representative sample that can be used for comparison with other settlement sites. As has already been worked out for several other regions in Central Europe, it can be assumed that pottery production in Neubau was organised locally and the majority of the vessels do not represent imports (Schussmann 2019, 314; Trebsche 2020, 241; Venclová 2013, 61–62). Evidence for this was also given by Peter Trebsche in comparison with the neighbouring sites (Trebsche 2003, 36–43). All rim, bottom, and wall sherds from La Tène period features in the settlement were used in the analysis of the ceramics. In addition to atypological description, certain manufacturing characteristics were used to categorise the fragments into groups. As more detailed approaches would have been too time ‑consuming and costly considering the amount of material available from Neubau, only macroscopic methods of analysis could be applied. Regarding the forming technique, adistinction was made between purely hand ‑formed ceramics and those in which rotational kinetic energy was used, as recently proposed by Mangel and Thér (Thér– Man‑ gel 2024, 9–13). Horizontal marks on the inside and outside, and aregular and symmetrical wall shape were considered as indicators of the latter technique. Hand ‑made pottery, on the other hand, was defined by the absence of such characteristics and by an uneven and irreg‑ ular surface and wall shape. The clay material was also analysed using purely macroscopic methods. It was possible to distinguish between fine pottery, in which no or only afew small particles were visible, and coarse pottery, in which organic and inorganic temper was visible. As determining the clay composition by using macroscopic methods provides unreliable re‑ sults, afurther subdivision could only be achieved with limitations. Solely graphite ‑tempered ceramics and those with anoticeable mica content could be clearly identified. This approach made it possible to define some of the characteristics of the Neubau pot‑ tery spectrum, which can further be compared to other contemporary settlements in Cen‑ tral Europe (Fig. 1). The 18% share of exclusively wheel ‑made fine pottery contrasts with atotal of 82% coarse ware. It is interesting to note that only 5% of the coarse pottery, or 4% 208 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 of the total sample, was built up by hand, while the rest shows traces of rotary movement during production. Several aspects of the clay material are also noteworthy in terms of their composition. Whereas organic tempering plays almost no role in the Neubau ceramic assemblage, and only occurs in afew hand ‑made vessels, the addition of graphite seems to be very dominant. Graphite pottery accounts for about 43% of the total material and 52% of the coarse pottery. Sherds heavily mixed with mica are only worth mentioning in 8% of the total material. Fig. 1: Share of different types of sherds in the pottery collection of Neubau. From atypological point of view, the range of shapes of the coarse pottery at the site is quite limited. The graphite ‑pottery in Neubau consists mainly of the typical comb ‑ornamented pots with thickened rim and afew forms of bottles. In addition, there are some bowls of different shapes as well as cauldron imitations. This corresponds to the situation in the neighbouring regions of Germany, Bohemia, Moravia, and Lower Austria, which Kappel divided into different regional groups (Kappel 1969, 65–80). Only the cauldron imitations are unusual and can be regarded as characteristic of Upper Austria, since they occur only rarely in southern Germany (Franke 2022). The wheel ‑made coarse pottery without the addition of graphite also appears to have similar shapes. Only the cauldrons have been made exclusively from graphite clay. The few hand ‑made ceramics, on the other hand, consist almost exclusively of simple bowl shapes. Only agroup of globular pots with bent ‑out rims and aquite uniform shoulder decoration appear as afurther group (Fig. 2) accompanied by afew special forms. Since the high proportion of graphite clay pottery and the low percentage of hand ‑formed vessels can be regarded as particularly distinctive features of the Neubau pottery spectrum, these aspects were selected for across ‑regional comparison. Based on the assumption that production strategies for utility pottery were regionally specific, an attempt was made to situate the settlement of Neubau within the Late La Tène settlement landscape of Central Europe. 209ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH For the following comparisons, settlements from present ‑day southern Bavaria and Würt‑ temberg, northern Austria, and the Czech Republic were used. The selection of these regions was based on the geographical location of Upper Austria. The corridor of the Danube valley, to which Neubau is connected via the Traun, is bordered by the Bohemian Massif and the Alps and narrows bottleneck ‑like in the east of Upper Austria. The transport route between modern southern Bavaria and Lower Austria was therefore clearly defined and probably also passed through Neubau. In addition, the Haselgraben, one of the few usable routes across the low mountain range to the Vltava Valley in South Bohemia, begins just afew kilometres north of Neubau, and the navigable Traun connects the settlement with the Alpine region of the Salzkammergut (Franke 2024). Of these regions, publications from settlements of levels LT C2 and D1 were selected, in which aspects of temper and the production technology of larger pottery ensembles were dis‑ cussed. The settlements were selected in order to obtain the most significant insight possible into the range of pottery used. As different taphonomic and selective processes during exca‑ vations and scientific analysis strongly influence the composition of the material, the values can only represent abiased view on prehistoric reality. These inaccuracies are also strongly influenced by the selected excavation area, the excavation technique and the methodology of evaluation, so that data taken from the literature are only comparable to acertain degree (Salač– Kubálek 2015, 205–210). Nevertheless, the best approximation seems to be the use of material from stratified La Tène period contexts, which was brought into the ground during the period of utilisation of the settlements and does not represent an obvious intentional deposition. It was therefore generally avoided referring to collected finds from field surveys or redeposited material. Where mixing with material from other periods was to be expected, only features from the relevant period were selected, if this was possible. In particular, pot‑ tery kilns were excluded from the analysis because of the risk of providing an insight into Fig. 2: Examples of special forms of handmade vessels in the settlement near Neubau (1–2) and comparisons from the Dammwiese near Hallstatt (3) (1–2– R. Franke, 3– R. Franke after Hell 1952, fig. 5:1). 210 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 aspecific moment in ceramic production rather than information about the pottery actually used (Mangel 2016, 231–242). Since the aim was to determine the proportion of certain types of pottery in the total material, publications that only dealt with specific ware types were not taken into account as well, unless they provided apercentage share of the factors discussed. Since an insufficient amount of material would also make acomparison difficult, only sites from which more than 100 sherds have been published were selected. To gain some additional information, anumber of settlements that did not meet these criteria were still included in the analysis and discussed in the text. According to these criteria 128 sites were selected and described accordingly in Tab.1. For each site, the proportion of graphite pottery and wheel ‑made pottery was given as aper‑ centage. For this purpose, either direct information from the authors was cited or the objects listed in the catalogues were counted. All sherds for which aproportion of graphite in the clay material was described were understood as graphite pottery in this context. The term wheel ‑made ware was used to summarise wheel ‑thrown and wheel ‑finished pottery, where acorresponding differentiation was made, to enable acomparison. Because of the widely differing recording systems in the study area, in some cases it was not possible to determine the production technique exclusively for pottery with coarse admixtures. In order to obtain acomparable value, it was therefore necessary to determine the proportion of wheel ‑made ceramics in relation to the total material. For this reason, the values given refer not only to coarse ceramics, but also to fine tableware. Finally, it is important to note that the data provided varies depending on the author. In most cases, the values were calculated based on the absolute number of sherds. In some others publications, only reconstructable vessels were counted and in afew examples the percentage of the total weight was given. Obviously, the values determined in these ways only represent data that can be relied upon to alimited extent. However, due to the widely differing methodological approaches to the analysis of ceramic find complexes in the literature available for the study area, it seemed hardly possible to generate more standardised data. Therefore, the following observations can and should only be understood as tendencies and impulses for amore differentiated view on coarse everyday pottery. COMPARISON REGARDING THE TEMPER COMPONENTS When analysing the clay material, the dominant role of graphite clay pottery in the Neubau settlement can be seen as aspecial characteristic. As the distribution of this ware type has already been the subject of several studies, reference can be made to various publications. In addition to the pioneering work by Kappel focussing on the oppidum of Manching (Kappel 1969), the contributions by Waldhauser and Hlava shed light on the distribution of graphite clay in the Czech Republic (Hlava 2008; Waldhauser 1992). As graphite pottery has long been recognised as acharacteristic element of the La Tène period material culture north of the Alps, the quantity of such finds is usually specified precisely for many additional sites. As shown in Fig. 3 agreater significance of graphite pottery can be demonstrated for several settlements in the Bavarian Danube region, southern Bohemia, Moravia, and Upper and Lower Austria. In these regions, the percentage is often above 25%, in individual cases even around 50% or higher, similar to Neubau. In addition, several sites can be named for the Inn ‑Salzach region where ahigh proportion of graphite clay pottery has been described, but no absolute figures are available (Tab.1: 23, 26, 35, 41). In the neighbouring regions of Baden‑ ‑Württemberg, in the northern parts of Bohemia and in the Alpine region, graphite pottery 211ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE only occurs in far smaller quantities. The best comparisons for the rather high proportion of graphite clay pottery in Neubau can thus be found in the directly neighbouring regions of Austria, southern Bavaria, and southern Bohemia, while significantly lower values occur in northern, western and eastern Bohemia, Moravia, and southern Germany west of the river Lech. When discussing the distribution of graphite ‑tempered pottery, the deposits that can be localised in just afew regions in Central Europe must of course also be incorporated. If those settlements with ahigher graphite content are placed in relation to the distribution of the deposits, the spatial overlap in southern Bohemia, Moravia, and the Austrian Danube region is remarkable. Earlier research, which assumed acentralised production of pottery in afew workshops, explained this observation by limitations in the transport of graphite pottery. Accordingly, the proportion of such sherds should decrease with increasing distance (Kappel 1969; Waldhauser 1992). However, these explanations seem to be contradicted by the fact that, in Moravia, there are noticeably fewer graphite ‑tempered vessels in the immediate vicinity of the deposits than in the Bavarian Danube region or the Inn ‑Salzach region. Luckily the state of knowledge regarding the production chain of graphite pottery has expanded considerably in the last few decades. In recent years, scientific analyses of pot‑ tery could prove, that in most cases local clay material was used. Additionally, chunks of graphite have been found, illustrating the trade with the raw mineral which was extracted in open cast mines. Presumably, the production was carried out in smaller seasonal pottery workshops in almost every settlement and not only in afew production centres. It could be shown, especially for Moravia, that the proximity to graphite deposits was not necessarily essential for more intensive production. Rather, the supply of graphite was probably en‑ sured by an extensive exchange network, which also enabled the production of graphite pottery in regions such as the Bavarian Danube area and the Salzach region. (Hlava 2008; Trebsche 2011). Additionally, the standardised design and production technique of the graphite pottery suggests that the knowledge of production techniques and possibly also aspecific symbolic content of the vessels was shared cross ‑regionally (Gebhard– Wagner 2002, 252; Trebsche 2011, 465). How this exchange was organised must of course remain an open question, but the distribution of graphite clay pottery in the study area clearly shows which regions were involved. The integration of the Neubau settlement into the postulated exchange network, which enabled the production of graphite ceramics, is clearly evident. Since Neubau was connected to the deposits near Passau or Třísov (Tab.1: 32, 100) by naturally given traffic routes, those areas seem likely to be possible origins of the raw material, but transport from Lower Aus‑ tria might be just as plausible. Only systematic natural scientific analyses can provide aclear answer to this question. COMPARISON REGARDING THE FORMING TECHNIQUE If we look at the forming methods of the Coarse ‑ware in Neubau, the high proportion of wheel‑ ‑made vessels is remarkable. Almost all of the pottery was produced using rotating devices, while hand ‑made pottery does not play asignificant role. Unlike graphite clay ceramics, however, observations of this kind have rarely been the focus of research so far. The only work that dealt specifically with hand ‑formed pottery was Stöckli’spublication on the oppidum of Manching. In awide ‑ranging literature research, he compared the proportion of hand ‑formed vessels with that of wheel ‑thrown or wheel ‑finished 212 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 vessels. Based on his investigations, he developed adivision of Central Europe into three zones. The southernmost zone, including southern Germany, Austria, southern and central Bohemia, and Moravia, is accordingly characterised by aproportion of at least 50% wheel ‑turned vessels in the material. Amiddle zone to the north, on the other hand, that encompasses settlements with ashare of around 20% followed by anorthern zone in which wheel ‑thrown vessels only occurred in graves (Stöckli 1979, 106–107). However, Stöckli’sresults were derived from avery small data base, which is why he was unable to draw clear conclusions about large parts of Central Europe, including Austria and Bohemia. Furthermore, his statements were questioned by numerous subsequent investiga‑ tions, as the quantities in numerous settlements differed from the zones he had suggested (e.g. Beneš– Venclová 1980, 633; Fröhlich 1985, 206; Wieland 1996, 166–170). Nevertheless, he was able to show that in the Later La Tène Period, hand ‑built coarse ware was also widespread alongside wheel ‑made pottery, making the low proportion of hand ‑formed vessels in Neubau appear unusual. Unfortunately, his approach has not been further pursued in research. The works on pottery from the Later La Tène period that followed Stöckli’sremarks generally dealt with hand ‑made coarse pottery primarily from alocal, site ‑specific perspective. In the few regional studies discussing the production technique, the focus was mainly on fine ware (e.g. Thér– Mangel 2024; Théretal. 2017; Thér– Mangel 2021). The relationship between hand‑ ‑built and wheel ‑thrown pottery did not play asignificant role in most studies. An overview of the study area, shown in Fig. 4 will therefore be discussed below. Fig. 3: Proportion of vessels with and without graphite admixture in settlements in north ‑eastern Austria, the Czech Republic and parts of southern Germany, during the stages LT C2 to D1. The references are listed in Table 1. Map by R. B. Franke, Geodata: European Union. Contains modi‑ fied Copernicus Sentinel Data (2024). 213ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE Fig. 4: Proportion of handmade and wheel ‑thrown/wheel ‑finished vessels in settlements in parts of southern Germany, north ‑eastern Austria and the Czech Republic during the stages LT C2 to D1. The references are listed in Table 1. Map by R. B. Franke, Geodata: European Union. Con‑ tains modified Copernicus Sentinel Data (2024). NORTH -EASTERN AUSTRIA Upper Austria In the immediate vicinity of Neubau, there are only two sites from which larger quantities of pottery have been published. The first one is the Dammwiese in the Hallstatt salt ‑mining area (Tab.1: 1), which is thought to have had an economic interweaving with Neubau con‑ cerning the distribution of salt (Franke 2024). Similar to Neubau, the material published by Martin Hell contains only 3% hand ‑built ware, although due to the early date of the excavation the possibility of astrong selection bias of the find material must be taken into consideration. Several vessels from Hell’spublication appear remarkable, as they show great similarities to the few hand ‑formed pots from Neubau, both regarding typological aspects and production methods. So far, they are the only published objects allowing adirect comparison (Fig. 2). The second site is the Freinberg, in the present ‑day city of Linz (Tab.1: 2), where more recent excavations were carried out in the late 1980s and 1990s. As no production technique has been mentioned for most of the sherds, this site is also not suitable for comparison. Nev‑ ertheless, the fact that only one single sherd has been determined to be hand ‑formed, is worth mentioning. 214 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Lower Austria Following the Danube downstream, Lower Austria is another region with potential com‑ parisons for the ceramic composition. While in the Alpine region only afew sites are known at all, the terrain opens up towards the north ‑east and offers awide landscape favourable for settlements, dominated by the Danube and its tributaries. Up until the 1990s, only asmall number of settlement complexes were investigated in the region, and therefore the pottery was not systematically studied (in more detail: Karl– Prochaska 2005, 11–13). Those earlier settlement excavations yielded only very vague data (Tab.1: 5, 7, 14, 16). In some cases, in‑ formation on the production technique was only given for parts of the material or for specific individual vessels and was not discussed further. The observation that the proportion of hand‑ ‑built vessels is very low in all settlements remains noteworthy nonetheless. Some of the more recent publications are also only partially suitable for an assessment. At Leopoldsberg and Braunsberg only 3% and 1% of the vessels in the catalogues could be identified as handmade vessels (Tab.1: 4, 8). But since both sites are multi ‑phase, amixture with other periods can be assumed. The situation is similar at the Early to Middle La Tène Period hilltop settlement of Thunau am Kamp (Tab.1: 15). Here the La Tène Period pottery was secondarily deposited in later features and only dated on the basis of its clay quality and typological characteristics (Karwowski 2006, 17–18). Karwowski determined avery low pro‑ portion of 1.1% hand ‑formed vessels. In all three cases it cannot be excluded that less specific handmade sherds were assigned to other periods. For other publications different methodological problems can be mentioned. For the settlement of Göttlesbrunn (Tab.1: 6), Karl stated aproportion of 94.5% wheel ‑made and 5.5% hand ‑formed ware for the rescue excavations from 1989 (Karl– Prochaska 2005, fig. 22). Prochaska, on the other hand, contrasted aproportion of 85% genuine wheel ‑thrown pottery summarized for the excavations between 1992 and 1994 with hand ‑made and often wheel ‑finished sherds, which she grouped together (Karl– Prochaska 2005, 128). As the catalogue lacked information on the production technique, it was not possible to determine the exact proportion of pottery made without the use of rotational energy, but adominant role of wheel ‑made vessels is obvious. However, three further analyses of the finds yielded more reliable data. For the Viennese districts XXI and XXII an amount of 10% handmade vessels could be determined (Tab.1: 17), while aproportion of 99.91% wheel ‑made was published for the settlement at Micheln‑ dorf (Tab.1: 9). Of particular interest regarding the production technique of pottery are Karwowski’sremarks on Prellenkirchen (Tab.1: 13). In the lowland settlement aproportion of only 1.9% of hand ‑formed pottery was discovered and for the first time he referred to the rarity of hand ‑made vessels in north ‑eastern Austria and the difficult source situation. Among the few hand ‑made pieces, some showed typological similarities to ‘Dacian’ forms of the Carpathian Basin. Karwowski was also able to cite comparable forms for Göttlesbrunn, Vienna, Müllendorf, and the Oberleiserberg (Karwowski 2008, 492–493). Some further, but not yet fully published, sites have also provided approximate data, suggesting asmall number of handmade vessels as well. (Tab.1: 11, 12). And finally, for the unpublished settlement of Mitteretzbach (Tab.1: 10) ashare of 13% of hand ‑made vessels can be named.1 Aconclusive statement on the proportion of hand ‑built pottery in Lower Austria seems hardly possible due to various factors. However, it is striking that the evidence of hand ‑built pottery is rare, and in the few cases where it does occur, it is represented by simple bowls 1 Personal information by prof.Dr.Peter Trebsche to whom Iwould like to express my gratitude. 221ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE wheel ‑thrown pottery clearly took asecondary role, although due to the small amount of data, it is difficult to narrow down areason. As for Lower Austria, however, it does not seem possible to prove the existence of hand ‑built vessel types typical for Moravia. DISCUSSION The aim of the previous observations was to compare two characteristic features of the Neubau pottery spectrum– the high proportion of graphite pottery and the low proportion of hand‑ ‑formed vessels– with the surrounding regions. Aselected number of published excavation results in southern Germany, the Czech Republic, and Austria served as sources. In this way, regional characteristics should be identified that could lead to abetter understanding of the cross ‑regional connection of Neubau. This goal has been met with varying degrees of success. The attempt could only be realised with restrictions due to the lack of properly comparable data. One problem within the data collection was the regionally differing state of research. In most southern parts of Germany and Austria, the small number of comprehensively analysed pottery ensembles allowed only arough assessment, which is why it was necessary to refer to some extent to old excavations and multi ‑periodic sites. In the Czech Republic and the Danube re‑ gion in southern Germany, however, alarger number of suitable publications could be consulted. There, different evaluation strategies made areliable comparison more difficult. Especially the categorisation of sherds into predefined ware types lead to the loss of information about the relationship between forming techniques, clay composition or firing techniques in several cases. That is why some sites could only be included partially, especially in southern Bohemia and Moravia. Particularly problematic are unclear definitions and the contradictory use of terms for these ceramic groups. Without aclear definition by the author, it is hardly possible to decide whether coarse pottery is understood as hand ‑formed ware or if the term is used to describe vessels with coarse components in the clay mass, regardless of the construction technique. In afew cases, it is also not possible to determine if the term wheel ‑thrown pottery also refers to wheel ‑finished pottery or whether the latter is understood as handmade forms without aprior discussion of the terminology. But above all, the selective and mostly subordinate focus on coarse utility ware is alimiting factor. Only afew aspects of coarse pottery vessels have been the subject of supra ‑regional studies so far, as shown by the example of graphite tempering. Most questions, as well as those concerning the production method, have mainly been addressed from alocal or regional perspective. For this reason, merely an imprecise data set could be collected, which can only be in‑ terpreted to alimited extent. Typological and chronological questions could also solely be addressed peripherally. Nevertheless, some regional tendencies in relation to coarse domestic pottery can be observed from the examples presented. Only in present ‑day Bavaria, south‑ ern Bohemia, north ‑east Austria, and Moravia graphite temper was documented for larger proportions of 20% to 70% of the ceramic ensembles (Fig. 3). This distribution only partially corresponds to the natural deposits of graphite. As several modern studies suggest that the vessels in question were produced in local workshops using imported graphite, the domi‑ nance of graphite pottery in the area described could indicate acontact network providing access to the tempering material. In addition to the raw minerals, an exchange of technical knowledge and typological expectations could also have taken place, as indicated by the highly standardised vessel forms. Asymbolic value of the uniform shape of graphite ceramics may also be thought of. 222 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 Amore differentiated impression could be obtained by comparing hand‑ and wheel ‑made ceramics (Fig. 4). Within the Austrian Danube region, hand ‑built pottery was only found in rare cases. In southern Bohemia, Moravia, and the Salzach region, too, the use of rotating devices probably dominated in pottery production. Local vessel ‑forms that were exclusive‑ ly made by hand could just be detected in few cases such as in upper Austria (Fig. 2). This contrasts with the southern German Danube region and the northern parts of Bohemia. In southern Germany, all coarse ceramics were usually built by hand, with the only exception being graphite pottery, which was regularly wheel ‑made. In the Bavarian regions with ahigh‑ er proportion of graphite ‑clay ceramics, ahigher proportion of wheel ‑made products can be observed as aconsequence. To the west of this area only fine table ware was wheel ‑made. Asomehow similar situation applies to north ‑western Bohemia where even fine vessels could be made by hand. In both regions handmade vessels showed different shapes and ornaments compared to wheel ‑made ones. In central and eastern Bohemia, on the other hand, graphite‑ ‑free coarse ceramics also appear to have been wheel ‑made in some cases, without typological differences to handmade vessels. However, only in the central Bohemian oppida, wheel ‑made coarse ware seems to dominate the production. This distribution suggests different production strategies for coarse ceramics. In this re‑ spect, it is important to point out the different requirements for the two techniques. Although not to the same extent as genuine wheel ‑thrown wares, the production of wheel ‑finished pottery requires amore complex infrastructure and atrained craftsman, who may have had an economic advantage due to their specialisation. However, asignificant increase in production would only be expected for genuine wheel ‑thrown wares (Théretal. 2017, 1259, 1282). The re‑ quirements for handmade products, on the other hand, are significantly lower. Ethnographic studies show that this form of production was mainly carried out in subsistence ‑oriented communities by people who were not economically dependent on the excess production of pottery (Knopf 2003, 189–190). In accordance with these requirements, both techniques are also associated with differences in the transfer of technical knowledge. Of course, the recorded data only allows an interpretation to alimited extent. An exam‑ ination of the regional differences in the few available examples of workshops would have to be included in order to estimate the degree of specialisation of the pottery industry and to be able to grasp different forms of organisation (Zeiler 2009; Mangel 2017). In addition, only the more precise examination of production traces, such as those carried out for some of the Czech sites (Thér– Mangel 2024; Théretal. 2017; Thér– Mangel 2021), could result in adistinction between genuine wheel ‑thrown and other fabrics, which would be important for an assessment of the production processes (Théretal. 2015, 190–196). As several studies for Bohemia have shown in detail, the adaptation of wheel turning technology depends on avariety of different social and economic factors (Thér– Mangel 2024; Théretal. 2017). Due to the size of the study area, these cannot be discussed in this context of course. However, one explanation for the distribution pattern can be surmised in the different forms of economic organisation and social structures that might have allowed the new innovative technology to be establish to varying degrees. On the other hand, the pro‑ duction of certain handmade forms could also be linked to an intentional rejection of the use of wheel ‑thrown domestic vessels. The hand ‑shaped vessels themselves or certain actions in connection with their production might have had asymbolic value that is incomprehensible to us today and which wheel ‑thrown ones could not offer. In any case, by using this method it was possible to highlight regional differences of certain types of pottery products. Regarding graphite pottery and the use of the potter’swheel, the La Tène settlement of Neubau shows the greatest similarities to Lower Austria, but also to the 223ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE oppidum of Třísov in south Bohemia. Although there are certain resemblances to the Bavarian area regarding graphite pottery, the remaining coarse ware displays clear differences, both in terms of typology and production. However, there are also afew handmade vessel forms in Upper Austria with an apparently local distribution, whose existence could perhaps be explained by ideas that go beyond their pure use as containers. CONCLUSION The preceding discussion has shown that the two investigated aspects of Late La Tène settle‑ ment pottery clearly reveal regional differences in the studied area. The cross ‑regional and detailed examination of various aspects of coarse settlement pottery therefore seems to have the potential to lead to abetter understanding of the Late Iron Age settlement pattern and its organisation. Unfortunately, such projects are exposed to certain limitations. Asufficient number of pottery ensembles that have been excavated using modern methods and that have been fully presented so far is only existent in afew regions. Additionally, avariety of recording systems complicates the possibility to compare the results. Due to limited temporal, personnel, and financial resources, in most cases asimplified categorisation into types of ware must be used, which naturally results in the loss of specific information. Only aseparate description of the manufacturing characteristics and material qualities of each individual sherd, as has been undertaken by some authors in recent decades, would guarantee optimum comparability. In accordance with these restrictions, this article is also to be viewed with reservations. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify some interesting tendencies regarding the charac‑ teristics of the Neubau ceramic spectrum described initially. Coarse pottery with graphite temper plays an important role above all in the Bavarian Danube region, southern Bohemia and north ‑east Austria. It can be assumed that corresponding contact systems for the exchange of raw materials and expertise existed in this area– asystem in which the Neubau settlement was definitively involved. On the other hand, the negligible proportion of hand ‑formed and not wheel ‑finished coarse pottery seems to separate the Austrian Danube region and Moravia from Bohemia and southern Germany. On top of that, the discussion of the individual regions revealed site‑ or region ‑specific characteristics with respect to the production of coarse pottery. The results of the comparison furthermore indicate an affiliation of Neubau to settlements in lower Austria and display acontrast to southern Germany. This shows, how asupra ‑regional study of coarse ware can deliver new insights into social structures and communication networks of the Late Iron Age, even when facing asmall and imprecise dataset. Further, and more detailed research may bring up even better results. 224 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 1 Dammwiese 123 3 97 0 66 Bibl.: Hell 1952. 2 Freinberg 232 0 32 68 38 Bibl.: Urban 1994, 103–160. Counted from the catalogue. Only the excavations from 1989 on are taken into account. Only a single handmade sherd. 3 Neubau 41000 4 96 0 43 Bibl.: infra. 4 Braunsberg 1110 1 97 2 21 Bibl.: Urban 1995, 82–480. Counted from the catalogue. Only the 1986–1990 excavations are taken into account. 5Eggendorf am Wagram 273 0 73 27 27 Bibl.: Lucius 1963, 51–58. Counted from the catalogue. Vessels with‑ out description of the technique were counted as handmade. 6 Göttlesbrunn 3216 5 95 0 27 Bibl.: Karl – Prochaska 2005, 128, fig. 21, 22, 36 (estimated). Total number counted from the catalogue. Values for production tech‑ nique only refer to 212 sherds from the 1989 excavations. The value for graphite to the total sample. 7 Herzogenburg 105 1 99 0 72 Bibl.: Windl 1972, 64–69. Counted from the catalogue. 8 Leopoldsberg 474 3 97 0 34 Bibl.: Urban 1999, 29–179. Counted from the catalogue. 9 Michelndorf ‑ 1 99 0 77 Bibl.: Kalser 2008, 23. The total amount was not counted. 10 Mitterretz‑ bach 997 13 87 0 57 Bibl.: Prof. Dr. P. Trebsche, personal information . 11 Mold ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: Mayrhofer 2013, 38, 46. No absolute data published. Only a small amount of sherds is handmade. 12 Oberleiser‑ berg ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Kern 1996, 387. No absolute data published. Most pottery is wheel‑made. 13 Prellenkir‑ chen 2454 2 98 0 18 Bibl.: Karwowski 2010, 335; Karwowski 2008, fig. 6. 14 Roggendorf 90 8 92 0 29 Bibl.: Stift‑Gottlieb 1932, 269–272. Counted from the catalogue. 15 Thunau am Kamp 1774 1 99 0 19 Bibl.: Karwowski 2006, Tab. 4; Karwowski 2008, fig. 6. 16 Umlaufberg ‑ 0 0 0 0 Bibl.: Nischer‑Falkenhof 1931, 110–113. No absolute data. Only few bowls are not described as wheelmade. 17 Wien Leopold‑ au/Aspern 540 10 90 0 29 Bibl.: Holzer 2022, 139–183. Counted from the catalogue. number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 18 Frauenberg bei Leibitz 748 10 90 0 8 Bibl.: Artner 1999, fig. 12. 19 Lethkogel bei Stainz 157 23 77 0 5 Bibl.: Baur 2009, Katalog, Taf. 1–26, Anhang I–III. 20 Wiesen‑ Halbjoch 1097 18 31 51 43 Bibl.: Piniel 2022, 50, fig. 31. 21 Aschheim‑ Dornach ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Irlinger – Winghart 1999; Göderz, 2020, 233. Small and multiperiodic samples or unpublished data. No values only for LT C–D. 22 Berching‑ Pollanten 38991 39 61 0 16 Bibl.: Lasch 1999, fig. 7, 8. 23 Dürrnberg bei Hallein ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Brand 1995; Irlinger 1995. No absolute data available. Mostly wheelthrown, over 50% graphite. 24 Egglfing 191 23 77 0 42 Bibl.: Stöckli 2018, fig. 22. Data from surface collections. 25 Fentbach‑ schanze ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Irlinger 2007, 264. Not enough sherds published. 26 Hellbrunner Berg ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Hell 1957, 64; Moosleitner 1992. No absolute data. Mostly wheelthrown, and graphite tempered. 27 Holzhausen 2 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: Schwarz – Wieland 2005, 76. No absolute data. Graphite pottery dominates hand‑made vessels. 28 Kelheim 300 20 80 0 35 Bibl.: Leicht 2000, 98. Only a sample of 300 sherds was taken into account. 29 Leonberg bei Marktl ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Irlinger 2007, 269. Not enough sherds published. 30 Manching Zentralfläche 31608 22 78 0 29 Bibl.: Stöckli 1979, Tab. 1. 31 Papferding ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: Krause 2008, fig. 49. Sample from surface collections. 32 Passau 537 10 90 0 66 Bibl.: Michálek 1993, Tab. II. 33 Plattling‑ Pankofen 2472 68 32 0 7 Bibl.: Meixner 2023, fig. 98. Tab. 1: Overview of sites. 225ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 34 Pocking‑Hart‑ kirchen 1480 34 66 0 39 Bibl.: Meixner 2023, fig. 98. 35 Puch Urstein ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: Moosleitner 1992. Sample too small. No handmade forms mentioned. High amount of graphite pottery. 36 Sallach 1055 24 76 0 33 Bibl.: Müller 2008, 107. 37 Sallmanns‑ berg ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Koch 1997, 114. No absolute data available. 70% of graphite ware and the existence of handmade vessels are mentioned. 38 Steinebach am Wörthsee ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Kaindl 2010, 140. No absolute data available. Handmade vessels are rare. 39 Stöffling ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Bibl.: Irlinger 2007, 267. The features in the settlement are destroyed. 40 Straubing Bajuwaren‑ straße 183 74 26 0 10 Bibl.: Tappert 2006, 408–411, 418–421. Values for the LT C2–D1 features were counted from the catalogue. Values for the LT D2 settlement are not shown. 41 Uttenhofen Steinbühel ‑‑‑‑‑ Bibl.: Höglinger 2006, 210. No absolute data. Wheelturned graph‑ ite ware seems to dominate. 42 Beuren 203 62 38 0 2 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 43 Bopfingen‑ Flochberg 639 71 29 0 8 Bibl.: Friederich 2017, 128. 44 Ehningen 122 75 25 0 2 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 45 Fellbach‑ Schmiden 233 75 25 0 1 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 46 Heidengraben 340 80 20 0 1 Bibl.: Stöckli 2018, fig. 32. 47 Heroldingen‑ Kalbläcker 2928 82 18 0 3 Bibl.: Bick 2007, 63, 106. 48 Hüssigen 91 47 53 0 21 Bibl.: Schussmann 2008, fig. 57. 49 Nördlingen Berggässle 768 84 16 0 1 Bibl.: Bick 2007, 63, 106. 50 Riedlingen 288 72 28 0 1 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 51 Suffersheim 67 87 13 0 9 Bibl.: Schussmann 2008, fig. 57. number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 52 Tomerdingen 350 69 31 0 1 Bibl.: Ambs 2011, Tab. 1. 53 Weißenburg ‑ Breitung 235 79 21 0 6 Bibl.: Schussmann 2008, fig. 57. 54 Holubice 1204 8 19 73 1 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 55 Praha‑Hosta‑ vice 959 85 11 4 1 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 56 Hostivice 564 84 12 4 2 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 57 Hrazany 29678 0 0 0 4 Bibl.: Jansová 1986, 76; Drda – Rybová 1997, Tab. 3. Only few hand‑ made vessels. 58 Praha‑ Křeslice 468 8 0 92 0 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 59 Křivenice ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 1 Bibl.: Waldhauser 1992, 385. No data for absolute number or production technique. 60 Loděnice Region, Late horizon ‑ 60 40 0 1 Bibl.: Venclová 2001, tab. 5. The values refer to several sites in the region, including Mšecké Žehrovice, which is listed seperately as well. 61 Mšecké Žehrovice 899 60 40 0 2 Bibl.: Venclová 1998, Tab. 15. 62 Praha‑Pitko‑ vice 1104 4 20 76 0 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 63 Praha‑ Běchovice 833 86 12 2 0 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 64 Říčany Region 4792 87 13 0 1 Bibl.: Venclová 2008. The average values for the region were calculated on basis of Tabs. 1, 6, and 8 for the number of sherds and the values in Tab. 20. 65 Stradonice 4921 40 60 0 8 Bibl.: Venclová – Valentová 2012, tab. 5 and 7. Different values in the rescue excavations in the 1980s. 66 Závist 30510 1 99 0 1 Bibl.: Čižmář 1989, 86‑87; Motyková et. al 1990, tab. 6. A combined value for both excavations was calculated. 67 Břešťany 4695 90 10 0 2 Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52; Waldhauser 1992, 385. 68 Libochovany 263 92 8 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 226 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 69 Lovosice 2151 76 24 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 70 Lužice 1 949 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 71 Lužice 2 5511 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, Fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 72 Počerady ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 1 Bibl.: Waldhauser 1992, 386. No data for absolute number or production technique. 73 Pohlody 2973 94 3 3 0 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 74 Prackovice 240 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 75 Radovesice 2 1634 93 7 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 76 Soběsuky 2871 80 14 6 0 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 77 Střekov 263 85 15 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52 . No values for graphite temper. 78 Vicletice 1 3438 95 5 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 79 Vicletice 2 614 97 3 0 ‑ Bibl.: Salač – Kubálek 2015, fig. 52. No values for graphite temper. 80 České Lhotice 19083 72 28 0 3 Bibl.: Danielisová 2010, fig. 51, 53. 81 Chrudim Píšťovy 223 65 35 0 ‑ Bibl.: Thér – Mangel et al. 2017, tab. 1. No values for graphite temper. 82 Chrudim Region 431 36 59 5 10 Bibl.: Pleska 2015, fig. 11A, 12A. 83 Chudonice ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 10 Bibl.: Waldhauser 1992, 385. No data for absolute number or production technique. 84 Doudleby nad Orlicí 157 94 6 0 16 Bibl.: Mangel – Vrána – Beková 2018, 58 85 Karlovice 101 70 30 0 2 Bibl.: Kotýnek 2018, fig. 27, 28. 86 Markvartice 2404 35 27 38 4 Bibl.: Jošková 2016, fig. 17. 87 Slepotice 2048 65 35 0 0 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel et al. 2017, tab. 1. 88 Týnec nad Labem 1755 82 17 1 2 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 89 Žehuň 287 86 14 0 3 Bibl.: Danielisová et al. 2018, 153. 90 Kozolupy ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 7 Bibl.: Waldhauser 1992, 385. No data for absolute number or production technique. 91 Nýřany 1692 82 18 0 1 Bibl.: Metlička – Metličková 2022, fig. 11. 92 Oploty 1930 81 11 8 3 Bibl.: Thér – Mangel 2024, Supplementary file 2 93 Lažiště 1093 0 40 60 19 Bibl.: Fröhlich – Michálek 1988, 69. 94 Nevězice 202 0 40 60 25 Bibl.: Drda 1987, 546‑547. Small sample from surface collections. 95 Prášily ‑ Sklářské údolí 244 74 26 0 21 Bibl.: Čuláková et al. 2012, tab. 1. 96 Putim 800 0 65 35 57 Bibl.: Beneš – Venclová 1980, 633; Waldhauser 1992, 386. Graph‑ ite pottery was considered wheel‑made. 97 Skály 114 18 82 0 31 Bibl.: Fröhlich 1985, 206. 98 Skály u Pro‑ tivína 305 0 59 41 52 Bibl.: Michálek et al. 2017, tab. 1. 99 Strakonice 894 0 45 55 28 Bibl.: Michálek 1990, 12; Waldhauser 1992, 386. 100 Třísov 2702 10 90 0 55 Bibl.: Hlava 2008, tab. 1. 101 Blansko ‑ „v Dílech“ 1003 ‑ ‑ ‑ 12 Bibl.: Wilczek 2013, tab. 2. No data for production technique. 102 Blažovice 2341 26 74 0 21 Bibl.: Popelka 2013, tab. 12. Values for production technique count‑ ed from the catalogue. 103 Bořitov ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 15 Bibl.: Čižmář 2003; Hlava 2008, 201. No data for production tech‑ nique. Average value from objects with over 100 sherds. 104 Brníčko 421 1 54 45 51 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 31‑34; Hlava 2008, 201. 105 Brno ‑ Královo Pole 130 52 48 0 8 Bibl.: Hlava 2008, 201;. Čižmář – Holub 2003, 257. 106 Brno – Slatina 3444 ‑ ‑ ‑ 12 Bibl.: Čižmářová 2008, 58, tab. 21. No data for production tech‑ nique. 107 Dětkovic 337 ‑ ‑ ‑ 10 Bibl.: Čižmář 2012, tab. 1. No data for production technique. 227ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 108 Dolní Suko‑ lom 113 ‑ ‑ ‑ 59 Bibl.: Hlava 2004; Hlava 2008, 201. No data for production tech‑ nique. 109 Rychtářov 390 ‑ ‑ ‑ 13 Bibl.: Čižmář – Čižmář – Režný 2016, tab. 1. No data for production technique. 110 Jičina ‑ 89 11 0 8 Bibl.: Čižmář 1991, 523; Hlava 2008, 201. No absolute numbers. 111 Kletnice 67 7 78 15 22 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 123–125. Counted from the catalogue. Very small dataset. 112 Staré Hra‑ disko 790 5 95 0 26 Bibl.: Stöckli 1979, 79; Hlava 2008, 202. 113 Medlovice 4895 12 88 0 19 Bibl.: Lečbych 2010, 67, tab. 3. grafite pottery was taken as wheel‑ made, even if the author didnt specify this assumtion. 114 Milovice 260 1 89 10 10 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 175‑180. Counted from the catalogue. 115 Miroslavské Knínice 60 1 72 27 13 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 180–181. Counted from the catalogue. Very small dataset. 116 Moravské Knínice 140 18 26 56 5 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 198–200; Hlava 2008, 202. Values for hand‑ made vessels counted from the catalogue. 117 Ohrozim 716 ‑ ‑ ‑ 18 Bibl.: Hlava 2008, 202. No data for production technique. 118 Oppidum Hostyn 908 ‑ ‑ ‑ 33 Bibl.: Hlava 2008, 201. No data for production technique. 119 Ostrožská Nová Ves 245 ‑ ‑ ‑ 25 Bibl.: Galuška 1988, 52–54; Hlava 2008, 202. No absolute data for production technique. Galuska mentions handmade and wheel‑ made coarse ware. 120 Pravčice – Zadní Újezdy 309 6 64 30 34 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 247–250; Hlava 2008, 202. Values for hand‑ made vessels counted from the catalogue. 121 Ptení – sev‑ erně od trati Rybníky 754 ‑ ‑ ‑ 6 Bibl.: Hlava 2008, 202. No data for production technique. 122 Strachotín – štěrkovna 292 ‑ ‑ ‑ 9 Bibl.: Hlava 2008, 202. No data for production technique. 123 Střelice 277 11 89 0 17 Bibl.: Meduna 1980b, 281‑284; Ludikovský 1983 15–31. Counted from the catalogue (Meduna 97 sherds, Ludikowsky 180 sherds). 124 Syrovice 367 ‑ ‑ ‑ 17 Bibl.: Parma 2009, 179. No data for production technique. number site sherds (n) handmade (%) wheelmade (%) no forming traces (%) graphite temper (%) 125 Tvarožná – trať Pod kopci 236 ‑ ‑ ‑ 21 Bibl.: Hlava 2002; Hlava 2008, 202. No data for production tech‑ nique. 126 Višňové 2424 11 89 0 23 Bibl.: Wilczek 2010, 154–155, tab. T73 127 Vyškov – trať Manské 175 6 94 0 18 Bibl.: Horálková 1993, 476‑477; Hlava 2008, 202. 128 Vyškově 226 9 87 4 55 Bibl.: Horálková 1993, 25‑28. 228 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ambs, R.2011: Die keltische Viereckschanze bei Beuren. Marktgemeinde Pfaffenhofen an der Roth Landkreis Neu -Ulm, Bayern. Berichte zur Archäologie im Landkreis Neu ‑Ulm und in den angrenzenden Gebieten 4. Neu ‑Ulm. Artner, W. 1999: Der Frauenberg bei Leibnitz, Steiermark, in der Spätlatènezeit und in der vorclaudischen Kaiserzeit. Ausgrabungen des Landesmuseums Joanneum 1979–1985. Archaeologia Austriaca 82‑83, 221–341. Bauer, C. 2009: Die latènezeitlichen Funde vom Lethkogel bei Stainz, Steiermark. Magister thesis, Leopold‑ ‑Franzens ‑Universität Innsbruck. Available online: https://www.hlk.steiermark.at/cms/dokument‑ e/12687896_147004688/4c709753/AA_Baur_DiplA_Lethkogel.pdf (visited 01/11/2023). Beneš, A.– Venclová, N. 1980: Laténské sídliště vPutimi [Die latènezeitliche Siedlung in Putim, Bezirk Písek]. Archeologické rozhledy 32, 627–635. Bick, A. 2007: Die Latènezeit im Nördlinger Ries. Materialhefte zur bayerischen Vorgeschichte– A91. Kall ‑ münz, Opf. Brand, C. 1995: Zur eisenzeitlichen Besiedlung des Dürrnberges bei Hallein. Internationale Archäologie 19. Espekamp. Čižmář, M. 1989: Pozdnĕ laténské osídlení předhradí Závisti [Die spätlaténezeitliche Besiedlung der Vorburg von Závist]. Památky archeologické 80/1, 59–122. Čižmář, M. 1991: Neue Erkenntnisse über die Púchov ‑Kultur in Mähren (ČSFR). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 21, 523–526. Čižmář, M. 2003: Laténské sídliště vBořitově [Latènezeitliche Siedlung in Bořitov]. Pravěk, Supplementum 10. Brno. Čižmář, M.– Holub, P.2003: Laténská chata zBrna– Králova Pole. Pravěk, n.ř. 13, 295–302. Čižmář, I. 2012: Pozdně laténská chata zDětkovic (okr. Prostějov) [Spätlaténezeitliche eingetiefte Hütte aus Dětkovice (Mittelmähren)]. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scienciae sociales 48/1, 85–100. Čižmářetal. 2016 = Čižmář,I.– Čižmář,M.– Režný,M.: Archeologický výzkum lokality Hajšupa uRychtá‑ řova, okr. Vyškov [Archeological survey at the site locally known as “Hajšupa” near the village of Rychtářov, Vyškov County]. Pravěk, n.ř. 23, 149–171. Čižmářová, H. 2008: Laténské sídliště vBrně– Slatině, poloha „Švédské valy“. Diploma thesis, Masarykova Univerzita Brno. Available online: https://theses.cz/id/vowwps/ (visited 01.04.2024) Čulákováetal. 2012 = Čuláková, K.– Eigner, J.– Fröhlich, J.– Metlička, M.– Řezáč, M.: Horské laténské sídliště na Šumavě. Prášily– Sklářské Údolí, okr. Klatovy [Eine latènezeitliche Bergsiedlung im Böhmerwald. Prášily– Sklářské Údolí, Kr. Klatovy]. Archeologické Výzkumy vJižních Čechách 25, 97–117. Danielisová, A. 2010: Oppidum České Lhotice ajeho sídelní zázemí [The Oppidum České Lhotice and its Hinterland]. Archeologické studijní materiály 17. Praha. Danielisováetal. 2018 = Danielisová, A.– Kysela, J.– Mangel, T.– Kyselý, R.– Militký, J.: Iron Age site in Žehuň, Central Bohemia. An open settlement with central functions. Památky archeologické 109, 127–178. Drda, P.1987: Keltské oppidum Hrad uNevězic [L’oppidum celtique près de Nevĕzice (Bohême du Sud)]. Archeologické rozhledy 39, 517–557. Drda, P.– Rybová, A. 1997: Keltská oppida vcentru Boiohaema [Die keltischen Oppida im Zentrum Boio‑ haemums]. Památky archeologické 88/1, 65–123. Franke, R.B. 2022: Die Kessel aus Neubau. Sonius 31, 12–14. Franke, R.B. 2024, Die Fundzone Neubau. Ausgewählte Aspekte einer jüngerlatènezeitlichen Großsiedlung in Oberösterreich. In: A. Weidinger– J. Leskovar (eds.): Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbeiträge der 10. Linzer Gespräche zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 55. Linz, 91–105. Friederich, J. 2017: Die keltische Viereckschanze von Bopfingen -Flochberg am Nördlinger Ries. Ipf ‑Forschungen 2. Bonn. 229ROBIN BERNHARD FRANKE Fröhlich, J. 1985: Laténská polozemnice uSkal, okr. Písek [La Tène ‑period pithouse at Skály, district of Písek]. Archeologické rozhledy 37, 204–209. Fröhlich, J.– Michálek, J. 1988: Podzně laténské sídliště uLaziště, Okr. Písek [Die spätlatènezeitliche Siedlung bei Laziště, Bezirk Písek]. Archeologické Vyzkumy vJižních Čechách 5, 67–76. Galuška, L. 1988: Sídliště zdoby laténské ařímské uOstrožné Nové Vsi okres Uherské Hradiště [Eine Seid‑ lung aus der La ‑Tène ‑Zeit und Römischen Kaiserzeit bei Ostrožná Nová ves, Bezirk Uherské Hradiště]. Acta Musei Moravie. Časopis Moravského Muzea 73, 45–70. Gebhard, R.– Wagner, U. 2002: Das wirtschaftliche Umfeld von Manching. Möglichkeiten von Keramikun‑ tersuchungen. In: C. Dobiat– S. Sievers– T. Stöllner (eds.): Dürrnberg und Manching. Wirtschaftsarchäologie im ostkeltischen Raum. Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums in Hallein/Bad Dürrnberg vom 7. bis 11. Oktober 1998. Kolloquien zur Vor‑ und Frühgeschichte 7. Bonn, 243–252. Göderz, C. 2020: Die latènezeitliche Siedlung von Aschheim ‑Dornach, Kernweg. Berichte der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 61, 225–329. Hell, M. 1952: Die Kleinfunde von der Dammwiese in Hallstatt aus den Jahren 1936–1937. Archaeologia Austriaca 11, 71–88. Hell, M. 1957: Keltische Siedlungsfunde aus Hellbrunn bei Salzburg. Archaeologia Austriaca 21, 58–74. Hlava, M. 2002: Laténské sídliště uTvarožné (okr. Brno ‑venkov). Pokus orekonstrukci výzkumu zroku 1943 [Latènezeitliche Siedlung bei Tvarožná (Bez. Brno ‑venkov). Versuch der Rekonstruktion der Grabung aus dem Jahre 1943]. Pravěk, n.ř. 11, 301–354. Hlava, M. 2004: Laténská sídliště vDolní Sukolomi (okr. Olomouc). Poznámky kvýzkumům ahistorii „německého“ muzea vUničově [Latènezeitliche Siedlungen in Dolní Sukolom (Bez. Olomouc)]. Pravěk, n.ř. 14, 373–416. Hlava, M. 2008a: Grafit vdobě laténské na Moravě [Grafit in der Latènezeit in Mähren]. Památky archeologické 99, 373–416. Hlava, M. 2008b: Záchranný výzkum vpředpolí oppida Třísov (okr. Český Krumlov) roku 1958 [Die Rettungs ‑ grabung des Jahres 1958 im Vorfeld des Oppidums Třísov (Kr. Český Krumlov)]. Archeologické Vyzkumy vJižních Čechách 21, 141–218. Höglinger, P.2006: Die befestigte Höhensiedlung Uttendorf ‑Steinbühel (Salzburg). Ein Siedlungszentrum von überregionaler Bedeutung? In: A. Krenn ‑Leeb (ed.): Wirtschaft, Macht und Strategie, Höhensiedlungen und ihre Funktionen in der Urund Frühgeschichte. = Economics, power and strategy, hilltop settlements and their functions in the preand early history. Wien, 201–222. Holzer, V. 2022: Die latènezeitlichen Gräberfeldund Siedlungsfunde aus Wien XXI und XXII (Leopoldau und Aspern). Prähistorische Forschungen Online 12. Accessible online: https://www.nhm ‑wien.ac.at/verlag/ online_publikationen/pfon (visited 01/05/2004). Horálková, P.1993a: Laténské sídliště ve Vyškově (okr. Vyškov) [Latènezeitliche Siedlung in Vyškov (Bez. Vyškov)]. Přehled Výzkumů 1991, 17–32. Horálková, P.1993b: Pozdnělaténské sídliště ve Vyškově snálezy germánské keramiky [Die Spätlatènezeitli‑ che Siedlung in Vyškov mit Funden germanischer Keramik] Archeologické rozhledy 45, 474–491. Irlinger, W.E. 1995: Der Dürrnberg bei HalleinIV. Die Siedlung auf dem Ramsaukopf. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor‑ und Frühgeschichte 48. München. Irlinger, W.E. 2007: Die Mittel‑ und Spätlatènezeitliche Besiedlung in Südbayern. Ein Überblick anhand der Oppida und Großsiedlungen. In: J. Prammer– R. Sandner– C. Tappert (eds.): Siedlungsdynamik und Gesellschaft. Beiträge des internationalen Kolloquiums zur keltischen Besiedlungsgeschichte im bayer‑ ischen Donauraum, Österrreich und der Tschechischen Republik, 2.–4. März 2006 im Gäubodenmuseum Straubing. Jahresbericht des Historischen Vereins für Straubing und Umgebung 3. Straubing, 261–282. Irlinger, W.E. 2018: Das endlatènezeitliche Siedlungsbild in Südbayern. Quellen, Verbreitung und Kontakte. In: O. Chvojka– M. Chytráček– H. Gruber– L. Husty– J. Michálek– K. Schmotz– R. Sandner– S. Traxler 230 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 (eds.): Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern /Westund Südböhmen/Oberösterreich. 27. Treffen, 21.–24. Juni 2017 in Schlögen. Fines Transire 27. Rahden, 69–80. Irlinger, W.E.– Winghart, S. 1999: Eine Statuette der Athene aus dem südbayerischen Alpenvorland sowie Siedlungs‑ und Grabfunde der mittleren bis späten Latènezeit von Dornach, gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München. Germania 77/1, 71–162. Jansová, L. 1986: Hrazany. Das keltische Oppidum in BöhmenI. Die Befestigung und die anliegende Siedlungsbebauung. Praha. Jošková, T. 2016: Valový objekt uMarkvartic (okr. Jičín) ve světle analýz aarcheologických poznatků. Master thesis, Univerzita Hradec Králové. Available online: https://theses.cz/id/spqjf2/?lang=sk (visited 01/05/2024) Kaindl, M. 2010: Die jüngerlatènezeitliche Großsiedlung von Steinebach am Wörthsee im Landkreis Starn‑ berg. Berichte der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 51, 127–195. Kalser, K. 2008: Die Mittel -La -Tène -zeitliche Siedlung von Michelndorf, Niederösterreich. Fundberichte aus Österreich A18. Wien. Kappel, I. 1969: Die Graphittonkeramik von Manching. Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 2. Wiesbaden. Karl, R.– Prochaska, S. 2005: Die laténezeitliche Siedlung von Göttlesbrunn p.B. Bruck an der Leitha, Niederösterreich. Die Notbergung 1989, die Grabungen 1992–1994, zwei laténezeitliche Töpferöfen. Historica– Austria 6. Wien. Karwowski, M. 2006: Thunau am Kamp– eine befestigte Höhensiedlung (Grabung 1965–1990). Die latènezeitlichen Siedlungsfunde. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 61. Wien. Karwowski, M. 2008: Ręcznie lepiona ceramika zosady kultury lateńskiej w Prellenkirchen w Dolnej Austrii [Die Handgefertigte Keramik aus der Siedlung der Latènekultur in Prellenkirchen Niederösterreich]. In: E. Droberjar – Vachůtová, D. (eds.): Barbarská sídliště. Chronologické, ekonomické ahistorické aspekty jejich vývoje světle nových archeologických výzkumů. Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno 37. Brno, 481–494. Karwowski, M. 2010: Prellenkirchen. Celtic settlement in the Foreland of the Carpatian basin. In: S. Berecki (ed.): Iron age communities in the Carpathian basin. Proceedings of the international colloquium from Târgu Mures. Cluj ‑Napoca, 333–347. Kern, A. 1996: Spätlatènezeitliche Funde vom Oberleiserberg, MG Ernstbrunn, NÖ. In: E. Jerem– A. Krenn‑ ‑Leeb– J.‑W. Neugebauer– O.H. Urban (eds.): Die Kelten in den Alpen und an der Donau. Akten des inter‑ nationalen Symposions St. Pölten, 14.–18. Oktober 1992. Archaeolingua Studien zur Eisenzeit im Ostal‑ penraum 1. Budapest– Wien, 385–393. Knopf, T. 2003: Die Botschaften der Keramik. Ethnoarchäologische Studien zu Herstellung und Veränderung von Tonware. In: U. Veit: Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur. Tübinger archäolo‑ gische Taschenbücher 4. Münster, 187–204. Koch, H. 1997: Eine spätkeltische Siedlung mit Töpferofen von Landshut ‑Sallmannsberg (Berggrub). Verhandlungen des historischen Vereins für Niederbayern 122‑124, 105–138. Kotýnek, M. 2018: Laténské nálezy zhradiště Karlovice– Čertova ruka [La Tène findings from hillfort Karlovice– Čertova ruka]. Diploma thesis, Univerzita Karlova, Filozofická fakulta. Available online: https://dspace. cuni.cz/handle/20.500.11956/102684 (visited 01/05/2024). Koucká, A. 2012: Laténské sídliště apohřebiště vHulíně “UIsidorka”. La Tène settlement and burial ground in Hulín “UIsidorka”. Diploma thesis, Masarykova univerzita, Brno. Available online: https://is.muni.cz/th/sx9tr/ bakalarska_prace.pdf (visited 01/05/2024). Krause, H. 2008: Die spätkeltische Viereckschanze von Papferding, Lkr. Erding. Dokumentierter Denkmalverlust im Spiegel langjähriger archäologischer Surveys und geoarchäologischer Methodik. Regensburger Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie 17. Regensburg. Lasch, H. 1999: Berching -PollantenI. Die Keramik der spätkeltischen Siedlung Berching -Pollanten, Lkr. Neumarkt i.d. Oberpfalz. Internationale Archäologie 60. Rahden.