Fitz Jenő (szerk.): The Celts in Central Europe - István Király Múzeum közelményei. A. sorozat 20. A Pannon konferenciák aktái 2. (Székesfehérvár, 1975)

J. Bren: La Téne circular structures in Central Europe

such important regions such as the Danube regions!1).

The octagonal structure on the northern acropolis at the Tfisov oppidum, built within a limited area (ditch), was interpreted by the present author as a sanctuary.

On the Czechoslovak territory there are, roughly speaking, two types of Celtic religious structures. The first type is represented by religious, or sacred, areas, usually limited by a ditch and a rampart, while the second type are structures in the very sense of the word, that is sanctuaries. At the close of the second century B. C. the general lay-out of the Celtic sacred areas in Central Europe was stabilized in the shape of an almost regular oblong, which very often approaches a square. The finds of these so called „Viereckschanzen” from Czechoslovakia have been published only recently(1 2). The beat known such find from Bohemia is in Msecké Zehrovice, district Kladno (central Bohemia), where there was also found a sculpture of a Celtic deity, made apparently by an artist of foreign origin from a piece of local stone(3). The investigation of the „ Viereckschanzen” is only in the beginnings in Czechoslovakia and it is not possible to draw any more detailed conclusions as yet(4). It is very probable, however, that their final form is the result of preceding development, as suggested for example by investigations at Holzhausen near Munich. The earlier phase of the sacred Celtic areas was found in Czechoslovakia at Libenice near Kolin(5 6 *). A structure of similar character as the cult pit at Libenice, but somewhat earlier in date, was also found at Libkovice near Duchcov(u).

Architecture of circular or octagonal groundplan, such as the structure found at Tfisov, is not usual in the Celtic milieu and particularly not in Central Europe (with the exception of the circular shape of barrow graves). It is more frequent, however, in central and northern Gallia and also in England, but in the Roman period and in the form of an accomplished sanctuary. These are the so called temples of the Gallic type, with an inner cella and usually an

(1) J. Bren, A Celtic oppidum Tfisov. Prague, 19(16; In., Oppidum celtique Tfisov. Prague, 1966.

(2) P. Drda — J. Waidhauser - M. ŐiZmáíí, Oppida und Viereckschanzen. ARoz, XXIII, 1971, 288 — 299.

(3) I,. Jansová, MSeckc Zehrovice und die Frage dev Viereckschanzen in Böhmen. ARoz, XX, 1968, 470-488.

(4) J. Filip, Keltische Kultplätze und Heiligtümer in Böhmen, in: H. Jahnkithn, Vorgeschichtliche Heiligtümer und Opferplätze in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. Bericht über ein Symposium in Reinhausen bei Göttingen vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 1968. Göttingen, I 970, 55 — 77.

(5) A. Rybová — B. SouDSKi, Libenice, keltskd sva- tyné ve stfednich Cechách (Libenice, a Celtic sanctuary in Central Bohemia). Prague, 1962.

(6) M. ZÁPOTOCKY, HalStatslco-laténsky zahloubenÿ Objekt kultovniho charalderu z Libkovic u Duchcova. (A Hallstatt-La T éne structure of religious character

at Libkovice near Duchcov). ARoz, XIV, 1962, 22 —

47.

ambit('). The groundplan of these more advanced structures is not limited to octagon (apparently an earlier type) and the circle (later phase), but includes also a rectangle, mainly the square. Some scholars deny any Roman influence upon the appearance of these sanctuaries in Gallia and point to the fact that in a region that got under Roman administration many decades before the central Gallic region, that is southern France —Gallia Xarbonensis, these octagonal or circular structures have not been found, and are rather concentrated in a typically Gallic region whose Romanization started with the occupation by Caesar. This problem is by no means simple and it is not the task of this study to solve it. However, it seems striking to the present author that temples of the so called Gallic type appear frequently in the Roman period, when the whole Celtic society was subject to strong Roman influence, which apparently affected also the architecture and is evident, for example, in the prevalence of stone structures. It is not possible, however, to exclude the theory that the type of the sanctuary (that means not the formal execution which was influenced by Roman architecture, particularly in Gallia), it means the „liturgical” lay-out sorts of this sacred place, had its development and origins deep in the La Tène time. Evidence of this development may be found not only in Czechoslovakia, but also in Gallia, in the shape of the sacred areas, but also in structures of the individual sanctuaries, for instance at the springs of rivers. It may be expected that the temple of the Gallic type, whose form fully developed in Gallia in the Roman period (in Central Europe the political situation was fundamentally changed) perhaps under strong influence of the Roman culture, had its preceding development stages in the territory of the La Tène culture in the Late La Tène period. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the structure at the Tfisov oppidum represents a sanctuary of such „preclassical” phase, which perhaps was not a gathering place for a whole tribe, but may have served as a local sanctuary to the population of a single oppidum. In Central Europe we have from the La Tène period only very scanty evidence of structures of circular groundplan. The area bounded by a circular ditch at Cakovice near Prague apparently dates still from the Hallstatt period!8). In the La Tène culture proper such polygonal structures of a shape resembling tent represent a rare exception; one of them is at Sobësuky near Zatec(9).

(7) II. Koethe, Die keltischen Bund- und Vierecktempel

der Kaiserzeit. BRGK, XXIII, 1933, 10-108;

F. Oelmann, Zum Problem des gallischen Tempels. Germania, XVII, 1933“

169 ff.; J. de Vries, La religion des Geltes. Paris, 1963, 200 — 206; A. Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain. London-New York, 1968.

(8) B. Soudskÿ, Habitat de la civilisation de Knoviz à Cakovice près de Prague (Bohême). Investigation archéologiques en Tchécoslovaquie, Prague, 1966, 159.

(9) C. Streit, Saazer Latènefunde. Prague, 1938, 12—13. fig. 5 on p. 11.

140