Troia VI Früh und Mitte. Keramik, Stratigraphie, Chronologie (Studia Troica Monographien 3)

Im Vordergrund dieser Arbeit steht die Keramik der Subperioden Troia VI Früh und Mitte, die bei den Grabungen1988 bis 2002 zu Tage kam. Der Arbeit liegt jedoch auch eine Analyse der Stratigraphie zugrunde, sowohl aus den neuen Grabungen (in Anlehnung auf Vorarbeiten von Ralf Becks und Peter Jablonka) wie auch derjenigen von Blegen, und soweit es ging, auch derjenigen von Schliemann und Dörpfeld. Eine Herausarbeitung von vier Keramikphasen innerhalb Troia VI hat zudem ermöglicht, viele Aspekte in wesentlich differenzierterer Weise zu betrachten und auszuwerten. In dem Kontext konnte man auch die schon bestehenden 14CDaten neu auswerten und deuten. Es war vor allem die zeitliche Differenzierung, die es zuließ, Troia wesentlich spezifischer, als es bis jetzt möglich war, in die Geschehnisse des 2. Jahrtausends von Anatolien, der Ägäis und zum Teil auch auf dem Balkan einzubinden. Troia VI kann als eine klar zu dem westanatolischem Kulturkreis gehörende Siedlung bezeichnen werden, die jedoch z. T. enge Verbindungen zur Ägäis pflegte. Die früheren Deutungen Troias bewegten sich oft von betont ägäisch bis zu ausdrücklich anatolisch. Troia verbindet in der Tat diese beiden Aspekte, was vor allem aus seiner Küstenlage resultiert. Es war jedoch erst die höhere zeitliche Auflösung, die in dieser Arbeit dargelegt wurde, welche zeigen konnte, daß die ägäischen und anatolischen Einflüsse von Phase zu Phase unterschiedliche Intensität aufwiesen. Ägäisch beeinflußt war vor allem der Anfang und das Ende von Troia VI (Keramikphase 1 und 4). Es ist zudem klar geworden, daß Troia für sich selbst ausgewertet und gedeutet werden muß, ohne daß man versucht, es strikt einer der besser bekannten umliegenden Kultursphären zuzuordnen. Troia steht vor allem für Nordwest-Anatolien, eine Kulturlandschaft, die bis auf einige wenige Geländebegehungen nach wie vor weitgehend unbekannt bleibt. Das ist jedoch eine Region von beträchtlicher Größe, mit vielen Siedlungskammern, und somit kann Troia VI mit seiner Kultur als typischer Vertreter nur für die Troas gelten.This study has concentrated on the pottery of the early and middle subperiods of Troy VI that came to light during the excavations between 1988 and 2002. It is based on stratigraphic analysis of the recent excavations (borrowing from work in progress by Ralf Becks and Peter Jablonka) and also on reassessment of work conducted by Blegen. I have also considered where possible the excavations of Schliemann and Dörpfeld. Distinguishing four ceramic phases within Troy VI has made it possible to view and evaluate many aspects of Troy VI culture in a much more detailed and specific manner. In this context, existing 14C dates have been stratigraphically reevaluated and re-calibrated. Most importantly, chronological differentiation has made it possible to relate Troy more closely than was previously possible to events that took place in the 2nd millennium in Anatolia, the Aegean and in part also in the Balkans. Troy VI can be designated a settlement that clearly belongs to western Anatolian civilisation but also a settlement that maintained close links with the Aegean. Earlier interpretations of Troy often ranged from markedly Aegean to expressly Anatolian. Troy does in fact combine aspects of both, which is mainly due to its coastal situation. However, it has been the greater chronological differentiation presented in this study that has revealed how the intensity of Aegean and Anatolian influences varied from phase to phase. Aegean influence shows up primarily at the beginning and the close of Troy VI (Phase 1 and Phase 4). Moreover, it has become obvious that Troy must be evaluated and interpreted in its own right without attempts at consigning it stringently to one of the better known surrounding cultural spheres. Troy stands above all for north-western Anatolia, a cultural landscape that has remained largely unexplored except for a few surface surveys. Nonetheless, it is a region of considerable size, with many settlements; hence Troy VI can with its culture only be regarded as typically representative of the Troad

Editorial

5

Jan Bouzek – a man of many parts

51

doc. PhDr. Slavomil Vencl, DrSc. 18th October 1936 – 23rd June 2019

7

Pohrebisko staršej únětickej kultúry z Prahy‑Ruzyně. Príspevok k počiatkom doby bronzovej v Čechách

The eleven graves from Praha‑Ruzyně presented in this paper were excavated 1999 in course of a brief res‑ cue excavation. The site history, topography, graves and their offerings, burial rites, as well as preliminary anthropological observations are all being discussed. Typological analysis indicated a date within the earlier, but not the earliest stages of the Únětice culture. This relatively limited assemblage, with only six offering bearing graves, still gave rise to a number of interesting questions. Special attention is given to the question of synchronisation with the Danubian Early Bronze Age and the applicability of Ruckdeschel’s periodization to Central Bohemia

A Preliminary Report on the Results of the Lovas Archaeological Project (LAP) in Eastern Croatia. Seasons 2011, 2017, and 2018

11714

Between the Vinča and Linearbandkeramik worlds: the diversity of practices and identities in the 54th–53rd centuries cal BC in south-west Hungary and beyond

Szederkény-Kukorica-dűlő is a large settlement in south-east Transdanubia, Hungary, excavated in advance of road construction, which is notable for its combination of pottery styles, variously including Vinča A, Ražište and LBK, and longhouses of a kind otherwise familiar from the LBK world. Formal modelling of its date establishes that the site probably began in the later 54th century cal BC, lasting until the first decades of the 52nd century cal BC. Occupation, featuring longhouses, pits and graves, probably began at the same time on the east and west parts of the settlement, the central part starting a decade or two later; the western part was probably abandoned last. Vinča pottery is predominantly associated with the east and central parts of the site, and Ražište pottery with the west. Formal modelling of the early history and diaspora of longhouses in the LBK world suggests their emergence in the Formative LBK of Transdanubia c. 5500 cal BC and then rapid diaspora in the middle of the 54th century cal BC, associated with the ‘earliest’ (älteste) LBK. The adoption of longhouses at Szederkény thus appears to come a few generations after the start of the diaspora. Rather than explaining the mixture of things, practices and perhaps people at Szederkény by reference to problematic notions such as hybridity, we propose instead a more fluid and varied vocabulary including combination and amalgamation, relationships and performance in the flow of social life, and networks; this makes greater allowance for diversity and interleaving in a context of rapid change

Editorial - Studia Hercynia 2017 (1)

5