MARCO TEORICO
2.5.3 LA PREVENCION EN LA DELINCUENCIA JUVENIL
The trunion axes represent important material evidence for the contacts of the Bohemian basin with the east or southeast (Trefný forthcoming). They have been in use for a long time. The bronze examples belong to the 2nd millenium BC, the
iron ones are later. Their origin is sought in the Carpathian basin and Greece. Later they occur in the east Hallstatt zone and in Silesia (Filip 1936/37, 98, 126; Foltiny 1961; Hoernes 1917; Horedt 1964; Hošek et al. 2007, 336; Kromer 1959; Mayer 1977; Parzinger et al. 1995, 66, 267, Abb. 23:1; Rieth 1942, 18-20; Wesse 1990, map 1). Generally, the later iron examples are known in Moravia, Silesia, central Poland, the Carpathian basin, the Balkan penisula, Ukraine, the Upper Danube area, northern Italy or Slovenia (cf. Wesse 1990, map 15) (Fig. 6,1).
The Bohemian finds of iron axes (13 pieces) are mostly represented by isolated finds or finds derived from metal detector seekers (Michálek et al. 2015, 125-127 fig. 10). The only piece (Fig. 6,2) from a chronologically fixed context, which is the grave of the Bylany culture in Plaňany in central Bohemia, is dated to Ha C2 (Dvořák 1933, 36 tab. III,26; Filip 1936/37, 126 fig. 76; Hošek et al. 2007, 336; Pleiner/Rybová 1978, 475 fig. 143,22). This date correpsonds with the typological classification of A. Wesse, according to which it should be close to the subgroup III3C1, dated to Ha C2 – D2. The occurence of this axe in a site near to the borderline between central and eastern Bohemia need not be accidental. Although the Plaňany region still belongs to the Bylany culture area strongly affiliated with the Hallstatt culture in southwest Germany, it is located already very close to the territory of the east Bohemian Silesia Platěnice culture-part of the East Hallstatt zone. Here we register one notable artefact of southeast provenance – a semilunar fibula from grave no. 34 in Předměřice, which may be dated to
1 2
Fig. 5. Left (1): Spits of the east Alpine region. 1: Hlásnica u Horákova. – 2: Bmo-Holásky. – 3: Bratčice. – 4: Hallstatt. – 5: Schandorf. – 6: Strettweg. – 7: Nagyberki-Szálacka. – 8: Rosseg-Frög. – 9: Magdalenska gora. – 10: Stična. – 11: Dolenjske Toplice. Right (2): Finds of the grates with an eyelet in the east Alpine region. 1: Bratčice. – 2: Hlásnica u Horákova. – 3-4: Bmo-Holásky. – 5: Strettweg. – 6: Nagyberki-Szálacka. – 7, 9: Hallstatt, grave 12/1889.- 8: Schandorf. – 10: Dolenjske Toplice. – 11: Stična, tumulus 6, grave 18. – 12: Magdalenska gora, tumulus 1, grave 38. Right (2): Distribution of the grates with an eyelet in the east Alpine region. (after Golec 2003/04, 106 fig. 2).
Ha C2 (Filip 1936/37, 126 fig. 74; Vokolek 1999, 16; 119 pl. 94,9; Venclová et al. 2008, 91 fig. 50,21). Such fibulae are very significantly concentrated in the southeast Alpine region (De Marinis/Guštin 1975, 245 fig. 8). They occur there already since the period of Santa Lucia Ia (Ha B3) and then spread to Italy and other regions (Trefný forthcoming). The axe from the Plaňany grave as well as the fibula from Předměřice indicate that, although significant eastern influence in the Bohemian territoitory is typical for Ha D, the beginnings of eastern or southeastern contact may be sought already in beginnings of the Early Iron Age.
Two important finds, absolutely unique in the Bohemian territory, have been a part of the inventory of one of the graves in Hradenín, east Bohemia (Fig. 6,3-4). These bronze pendants are very similar in form to an extensive category of bronze pendants, known as Graeco-Macedonian bronzes or bird cage bronzes
(cf. Bouzek 1971; 1974), named according to their shape, where substantial
part is characteristic as a globular or conical openwork, complemented by other elements. The nearest site with similar finds is the famous Býčí skála cave in southern Moravia. However local finds may be compared with Hradenín ones only very formally (Parzinger et al. 1995, pl. 20; Trefný 2002, 371 fig. 10,12). This type is found in Switzerland, France and Italy. A suitable analogy may be represented by one piece from Bex in Switzerland (Bouzek 1997, fig. 235,17). But it must be stressed that the rectangular eyelet of the Hradenín exemples still differs from the oval eyelet of the mentioned piece from Bex. Regardless of their origin in the Alpine region or in the Balkans, both pendants represent important and unique evidence for transfer of material culture between the Bohemian basin and mentioned areas.
Significant evidence for the interregional contacts in the Bohemian elite graves of Ha C – D1 can be witnessed also in some types of fibulae. Early Iron Age spectacle fibulae of a distinct form (Doppelbrillenfibeln mit Achterschleife) are represented in the Bohemian area by three pieces dated to Ha C – D1 (Fig. 6,5- 7). One comes from a Bylany culture grave in the necropolis of Prague-Střešovice (Fridrichová et al. 1999, 333 fig. 4,9), a second one from the upland settlement of Meclov-Mašovice in western Bohemia (Chytráček/Metlička 2004, 192, fig. 65,1; Venclová et al. 2008, 75 fig. 36,3) and the third one from the rich grave of the west Bohemian tumulus culture from Dýšina (Šaldová 1974, 459 fig. 5,9). All three pieces may be classified as exemples of Schrotzenhofen type. Although the origin of the spectacle fibulae may be generally seen in the Carpathian basin (cf.
for example Sundwall 1943; Alexander 1965; Betzler 1974; Bader 1983; Pabst 2012; Romano/Trefný 2015), it need not be so in case of individual variants. Such assumptions may also be applied to the Schrotzenhofen type fibulae, which are concentrated especially in southwestern Germany and Bohemia. Thus their occurence in the Bohemian basin indicatesrather an evidence of the contacts to the southwestern Germany, which corresponds with the evolutionary affinities of most of the Bohemian territory during the Hallstatt period.
The five four-spiral fibulae (Vierpassfibeln) are in Bohemia represented by finds from Protivín, Dobronice, Litoradice, Týn and Vltavou and Bezdědovice in south Bohemia (Michálek 1981, 150 fig. 1; 152 fig. 2)5. All these finds (Fig. 7,1-6)
5 According to the oral information of J. Michálek, new pieces of four spiral fibulae, still unpublished, have been discovered within some last decades. These unknown finds will be included in a complex compendium of southern Bohemian Early Iron Age prepared by him. I am very obliged to J. Michálek for this information.
Fig. 6. 1: Distribution of the bronze and iron trunnion axes in Europe (after Wesse 1990, map 1). – 2: iron trunnion axe from the grave of the Bylany culture in Plaňany (after Pleiner/Rybová 1978, 475 fig. 143,22). – 3-4: ‘bird cage’ bronze pendants from Hradenín (after Venclová et al. 2008, 57 fig. 20,29-30). – 5: spectacle fibula from Mašovice-Meclov. – 6: spectacle fibula from Dýšina. – 7: spectacle fibula from Prague-Střešovice (after Venclová et al. 2008, 58 fig. 21,17).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
belong to two variants and were originally parts of inventory of rich tumuli graves, dated to Ha D1 (Michálek 1981, 151). But some exemplars may be slightly later (cf. Říhovský 1993, 74). Three of them, pieces from Protivín, Dobronice and Litoradice, represent intact exemples. The Protivín fibula was first classified as a Maiersch type (Venclová et al. 2008, 74), then re-classified as a type very close to the find from the grave no. 74 in Hallstatt (Trefný 2016, 143-145), which is a little different from the pieces of Maiersch type (cf. Berg 1962; Michálek 1981, 153 fig. 3,4; Betzler 1974, pl. 66,972; Kromer 1959; Michálek 1981, 153 fig. 3,5; Betzler 1974, pl. 66,973). The fibula from Dobronice has a very suitable counterpiece in the example found in fabulous Moravian Bull´s rock cave (Říhovský 1993, pl. 13,117). But it seems that except for the Moravian example, this fibula has no precise analogy. In this respect one fibula from Longane in Sicilia may be mentioned (Lo Schiavo 2010, 858 pl. 654,7854B). It has a characteristic rhomboid plate in its middle, but is constructed in a different way than the fibulae from Dobronice and Bull´s rock cave. The fibula from Litoradice is a one-piece fibula made in metal sheet. The analogies to that piece occur more frequently in Moravia, for example in Budkovice (Ondráček 1971, 17; Říhovský 1993, pl. 13,119). Similar fibulae have been found also in grave no. 1001 in Hallstatt (Betzler 1974, pl. 72,993-994). These fibulae are classified as Oberkrumbach type, which is close to the finds from the Upper Palatinate or Slovenia (Betzler 1974, 147).
The typology of the Bohemian four-spiral fibulae clearly indicates the relationships with the area of Moravia, Upper Austria or alternatively with southwestern Germany. Also the fibulae thus represent an important indicator of mutual relationships of the Bohemian area, represented by the contemporary social elite burried in rich graves, to the mentioned regions.
Conclusion
Regarding the origin of various sorts of mentioned imports, it appears that individual Bohemian regions show evolutionary affinity especially to the geographically adjacent areas. Firstly, there is a clear relation between central and northwestern Bohemia with its population of Bylany culture, south and western Bohemia with its Hallstatt tumulus culture and the Hallstatt civilization of southwestern Germany. On the other hand the East Bohemian Silesia-Platěnice culture evinces notable affinity with the cultures of the East Hallstatt area.
It may be argued that some imports represent the products of more distant areas, for example from the Etruscan or southeast Alpine regions. But also in these cases it is highly probable, that these items reached their final destination through the above mentioned adjacent areas, where they are also well represented. This situation thus reflects again the significance of the proximity of these important evolutionary centres, such as southwest Germany or the east Alpine area.
Regarding the character of proper contacts, we are today already far away from the idea of the interpretation of individual importations in the terms of direct encounter of the various individuals, although it cannot be in some cases completely excluded. From this point of view it would be perhaps more suitable to talk about the diffusion of exogenous material culture, than about ‘interregional contacts’ which evokes rather the encounter of different ethnicities. More likely the existence of the luxurious imported goods in the Bohemian elite graves features an adoption of a certain behavioral pattern in the environs of the Central
Fig. 7. Four-spiral fibula. 1: Protivín. – 2: Dobronice. – 3: Týn nad Vltavou. – 4: Bezdědovice. – 5: Litoradice (after Michálek 1981, 152 fig. 2). – 6: scheme of the grave from Protivín with one four spiral fibula (after Venclová et al. 2008, 81 fig. 42).
European early Hallstatt social elite, which reflects an economical potential as well as political power.
Bibliography
Alexander 1965: J. Alexander, The spectacle fibulae of Southern Europe. American Journal of Archaeology 69,1, 1965, 7-23.
Bader 1983: T. Bader, Die Fibeln in Rumänien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV,6 (München 1983).
Berg 1962: F. Berg, Das Flachgräberfeld der Hallstattkultur von Maiersch, Mitteilungen der österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 4 (Wien 1962). Betzler 1974: P. Betzler, Die Fibeln in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I
(Urnenfelderzeitliche Typen). Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV,3 (München 1974). Bouzek 1971: J. Bouzek, Openwork „bird-cage“ bronzes. In: J. Boardman/M. A. Brown/T.
G. E. Powell (eds.), The European community in later prehistory. Studies in honour of C.F.C. Hawkes (London 1971) 77-104.
Bouzek 1974: J: Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian bronzes (Prague 1974).
Bouzek 1997: J. Bouzek, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural interrelations during the Early Iron Age (Jonsered 1997).
Chytráček/Metlička 2004: M. Chytráček/M. Metlička, Die Höhensiedlungen der Hallstatt- und Latenezeit in Westböhmen. Památky Archeologické, Supplementum 16 (Praha 2004).
Chytráček et al. 2015: M. Chytráček/O. Chvojka/M. Egg/J. John/R.Kyselý/J. Michálek, S. Ritter/P. Stránská, Zu einem Fürstengrab aus der Späthallstattzeit mit zweirädrigem Wagen und Bronzegefäßen bei Rovná in Südböhmen – ein Vorbericht. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 45, 2015, 71-89.
De Marinis/Guštin 1975: R. de Marinis/M. Guštin, Qualche considerazione sulla cronologia e diffusione delle fibule semilunate. Preistoria Alpina 11, 1975, 237-253. Dvořák 1933: F: Dvořák, Kostrový hrob bylanského typu z Plaňan. Památky Archeologické
39, 1933, 35-38.
Dvořák 1936: F Dvořák, Pravěk Kolínska a Kouřimska (Kolín 1936).
Dvořák 1938: F: Dvořák, Knížecí pohřby na vozech ze starší doby železné. Praehistorica I (Praha 1938).
Egg 1996: M. Egg, Das hallstattzeitliche Fürstengrab von Strettweg bei Judenburg in der Obersteiermark. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 37 (Mainz 1996).
Foltiny 1961: S. Foltiny, Athens and the East Hallstatt Region: Cultural Interrelations at the Dawn of the Iron Age. American Journal of Archaeology 65, 1961, 283-297. Filip 1936/37: J. Filip, J. Popelnicová pole a počátky železné doby v Čechách (Praha
1936/37).
Frey 1980: O. Frey, Der Westhallstattkreis im 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. In: Die Hallstattkultur, Frühform europaischer Einheit (Linz 1980) 80-116.
Fridrichová 1988: M. Fridrichová, Praha 9 Vinoř-Bohdanečská. Nálezová zpráva. Muzeum Hlavního Města Prahy (Praha 1998).
Friedrichová et al. 1999: M. Fridrichová/D. Koutecký/M. Slabina, Die Gräberfeld der Bylaner Kultur in Praha – III. Teil. Památky Archeologické 90, 1999, 319-397. Frolíková 2015: D. Frolíková, Dva hroby „knížat“ z doby halštatské v Praze-Letňanech.
Akademický Bulletin AV ČR 6, 2015, 18-20.
Golec 2003/04: M. Golec, Rožně, řecko-etruské vlivy ve střední Evropě. Sborník Prací Filosofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity 8/9, 2003/04, 101-110.
Hoernes 1917: M. Hoernes, Eine höchst seltene Form von Bronzebeilen. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 4, 38-44.
Horedt 1964: K. Horedt, Die Verwendung des Eisens in Rumänien bis in das 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.. Dacia 8, 1964, 119-139.
Hošek et al. 2007: J- Hošek/Z. Smrž/A. Šilhová, Sekera s raménky z vrchu Ostrý (k. ú. Březno, okr. Litoměřice) v Českém středohoří, Alena. Archeologické Rozhledy 59, 2007, 336-352.
John 2016: J. John, Analýza prvkového složení halštatské situly z veselí nad lužnicí. Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách 29, 2016, 29-32.
Kastelic 1964: J. Kastelic, Situlenkunst (Wien, München 1964).
Kos 1999: P. Kos, Bratčice (Bmo-venkov), Přehled Výzkumů 39, 1995/1996 (1999) 337-338.
Kimmig 1962: Kimmig, Bronzesitulen aus dem Rheinischen Gebirge, Hunsrück-Eifel- Westerwald. Bericht der Römisch Germanischen Komission 43/44, 1962, 31-106. Koutecký 2003: D. Koutecký, Příspěvky k době halštatské v severozápadních Čechách.
Příspěvky k Pravěku a Rané Době Dějinné Severozápadních Čech 13 (Most 2003). Kromer 1959: K. Kromer, Das Gräberfeld von Hallstatt (Firenze 1959).
Kozáková et al. forthcoming: R. Kozáková/R. Kyselý/M. Trefný/K. Drábková/P. Kočár/D. Frolíková/R. Kočárova/R. Moravcová, Food offerings, flowers, a bronze bucket and a wagon: A multidisciplinary approach of the Hallstatt princely grave from Prague- Letnany, Czech Rep. (forthcoming).
Lo Schiavo 2010: F. Lo Schiavo, Le fibule dell’Italia meridionale e della Sicilia: dall’eta del bronzo recente al VI secolo a. C. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV,14 (Stuttgart 2010). Mayer 1977: E. Mayer, Die Äxte und Beile in Österreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde
IX/9 (München 1977).
Von Merhart 1952: G. von Merhart, Studien über einige Gattungen von Bronzegefässen. In: Festschrift des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in Mainz (Mainz 1952) 1-71.
Michálek 1981: J. Michálek, Čtyřspirálové spony halštatské mohylové kultury v jižních Čechách. Praehistorica 2, 149-155.
Michálek et al. 2015: J. Michálek/J. Fröhlich/O. Chvojka, Halštatský depot z Třebanic u Netolic (okr. Prachatice). Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách 28, 119-138. Ondráček 1971: J. Ondráček, Horákovský hrob z Budkovic (okr. Brno-venkov). Přehled
Výzkumů 1969 (1971) 17.
Pabst 2012: S. Pabst, Die Brillenfibeln. Untersuchungen zu spätbronze- und ältereisenzeitlichen Frauentrachten zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 25 (Rahden/Westf. 2012).
Parzinger et al. 1995: H. Parzinger/J. Nekvasil/F. Barth, Die Býčí skála-Höhle. Römisch- Germanische Forschungen 54 (Mainz 1995).
Píč 1900: J. Píč, Starožitnosti země České I,2 (Praha 1900).
Pincelli/Morigi Govi 1975: R. Pincelli/Morigi Govi, La necropoli villanoviana di San Vitale (Bologna 1975).
Pleiner/Rybová 1978: R. Pleiner/A. Rybová (eds.), Pravěké dějiny Čech (Praha 1978). Pleinerová 1973: I. Pleinerová, Bronzové nádoby v bylanské kultuře. Památky
Archeologické 64, 1973, 272-300.
Prüssing 1991: G. Prüssing, Bronzegefässe in Österreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 2,5 (Stuttgart 1991).
Říhovský 1993: J. Říhovský, Die Fibeln in Mähren. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV,9 (München 1993).
Rieth 1942: A. Rieth, Die Eisentechnik der Hallstattzeit. Mannus Bibliothek 70 (Leipzig 1942).
Romano/Trefný 2015: S. Romano/M. Trefný, Notes upon the distribution of spectacle fibula between Central Europe and Balkan Peninsula in the Late Bronze and beginnings of the Early Iron Age. Aristonothos 9, 2015, 197-225.
Šaldová 1968: V. Šaldová, Halštatská mohylová kultura v západních Čechách – Pohřebiště Nynice. Památky Archeologické 59, 1968, 297-399.
Šaldová 1974: V. Šaldová, Östliche Elemente in der westböhmischen hallstattzeitlichen Hügelgräberkultur. In: Symposium zu Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (Bratislava 1974) 447-468.
Sauter et al. 2000: F. Sauter/U. Jordis/A. Graf/W. Werther/K. Varmuza, Studies in Organic Archaeometry I. Identification of the Glue Used by the “Tyrolean Iceman“ to Fix his Weapons. Archive for Organic Chemistry 1,5, 2000, 735-747.
Siegfried-Weiss 1991: A. Siegfried-Weiss, Bronzegefässe in Böhmen. In: O. Kytlicová, Die Bronzegefäßein Böhmen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II,12 (Stuttgart 1991) 106-118. Sievers 1982: S. Sievers, Die mitteleuropäischen Hallstattdolche, Prähistorische
Bronzefunde VI,6 (München 1982).
Stary 1979: P. Stary, Feuerböcke und Bratspiesse aus eisenzeitlichen Grabem der Apennin – Halbinsel. Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlicher Seminar Marburg 5 (Marburg 1979) 40-61.
Sundwall 1943: J. Sundwall, Die älteren italienischen Fibeln (Berlin 1943).
Trefný 2002: M.Trefný, Bronzefunde aus der Býčí skála-Höhle und ihre Beziehungen zum Südostalpenraum und Italien. In: A. Lang/V. Salač (eds.), Fernkontakte in der Eisenzeit (Liblice 2002) 360-378.
Trefný 2012: M. Trefný, Čechy a střední Evropa v pozdní době halštatské až časné době laténské a jejich vztah k oblasti antického Středomoří. In: J. Valentová/M. Tisucká/P. Belaňová (eds.), Ve stínu Olympu (Praha 2012) 21-43.
Trefný et al. 2012: M. Trefný/R. Korený/J. Frána, K problematice halštatských mís s perlovitě vybíjeným okrajem v Čechách. Archeologické Rozhledy 64, 2012, 320-332. Trefný forthcoming: M. Trefný, Notes on eastern elements of the Hallstatt culture at
Trefný 2016: M. Trefný, Notes on some Hallstatt fibulae finds in Bohemia. In: J. Juchelka (ed.), Doba popelnicových polí a doba halštatská ve střední Evropě II (Opava-Brno 2016) 143-158.
Venclová et al. 2008: N. Venclová/P. Drda/M. Chytráček/D. Koutecký/J. Michálek/V. Vokolek/P. Sankot, Doba halštatská. Archeologie pravěkých Čech 6 (Praha 2008). Vokolek 1999: V. Vokolek, Východočeská halštatská pohřebiště (Pardubice 1999). Wesse 1990: A. Wesse, Die Ärmchenbeile der Alten Welt: ein Beitrag zum Beginn der
Eisenzeit im östlichen Mitteleuropa. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 3 (Bonn 1990).
Author
Martin Trefný
Charles University Prague Thákurova 3
166 00 Prague 6 Czech Republic