Fig 1.
Map indication of the findspot of the complete statue and the fragments from at least 3 other sandstone statues in a ditch around burial mound 1 from the Glauberg (graphic: A. G. Posluschny, Keltenwelt am Glauberg).
Fig 2.
Sandstone statue (statue 1) from the Glauberg (photo: P. Odvody, hessenARCHÄOLOGIE).
Fig 3.
Fragment (leg) of a sandstone statue (statue 2) from the Glauberg (photo: F. R. Václavík; drawing: Pilar Rispa).
Fig 4.
Fragment (head) of a sandstone statue (statue 3) from the Glauberg (photo: P. Odvody, hessenARCHÄOLOGIE; drawing: Pilar Rispa).
Fig 5.
Experimental working up the surface of the sandstone block by the tool made of copper.
Microsplinter of the copper from the tool in the structure of the worked surface (photo: M. Cihla).
Fig 6.
Experimental XRF measurement of the unworked (1) and worked (2) surface by the tool made of copper.
The picture (2) shows a significant increase of the presence of the copper on the surface-red line (author: M. Cihla).
Fig 7.
XRF measurement of the sample of the historic surface from the 4th century BC (interior of one of the tombs in the necropolis of Morre, Tarquinia).
1 non worked surface (red line), 2 worked up surface by the axe (grey line). The worked up surface shows a significant increase of the amounts of the copper and lead (photo and graph: M. Cihla).
Table 1.
Images used for the photogrammetric modelling of statue 1 from the Glauberg and some of its fragment.
Fig 8.
Fragment of the head from (statue 3) from Glauberg.
1–2 the area of the eye with clearly visible trace (in red square, other visible scratches are modern); 3–4 the longitudinal and transverse sections of the trace and derivation of the shape of the blade of the tool (black line); 5 the hypothetic shape of the tool as reconstructed from the longitudinal and transverse sections (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 9.
Fragment of the head (statue 3) from Glauberg.
1 the digital model shows individual traces; 2–3 the reconstructed tool and the mallet; 4 reconstruction of the finishing of the surface in parallel rows (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 10.
Points of the X-ray fluorescence measurements (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Table 2.
Results of the X-ray fluorescence measurements in individual points.
Table 3.
Results of the X-ray fluorescence measurements of two samples of sandstone from Bleichenbach and samples of the soil immediately surroundning the statue 1.
Fig 11.
Fragment of a leg of the Statue 2 from Glauberg.
1 the fragment; 2 individual planes with the same direction of the hits of the tool; 3–4 hypotetical ways of the use of the relevant tool (adze) (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 12.
Fragment of a leg of the Statue 2 from Glauberg.
1–2 transverse and longitudinal sections of the identified trace (a); 3–4 transverse and longitudinal sections of the identified trace (b); 5 reconstruction of the identified blade of the tool as derived from individual traces; 6 hypothetical reconstruction of relavant tool (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 13.
Fragment of a leg of the Statue 2 from Glauberg.
1 longitudinal section of the identified trace; 2 transverse section of the identified trace; 3 longitudinal section of the identified trace; 4 reconstruction of the identified blade of the tool as derived from individual traces; 5 hypothetical reconstruction of relevant tool (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 14.
Fragment of a leg of the Statue 2 from Glauberg.
1 longitudinal section of the identified trace on the calf; 2 transverse section of the same trace; 3 reconstruction of the identified blade of the tool as derived from the trace (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 15.
1 the traces of the pick (in red circles) on the sculpture´s back; 2 the scheme of the intitial phase of the working up the surface with a pick; 3 the position of the sculptor and the stele during the working with a pick (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 16.
1 the sculpture´s back with the traces of the pick (in red circles); 2 isoline model of one of the traces; 2a longitudinal section of the trace; 2b transverse section of the trace; 3 isoline model of one of the traces; 3a longitudinal section of the trace; 3b transverse section of the trace; 4 reconstructed point of the pick as derived from the sections of the traces (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 17.
1 the traces identified in the head of the sculpture; 2 transverse sections of the selected traces on the head; 3 the reconstructed tool as derived from the identified traces; 4 the changing form of the blade of the tool indicating its sharpening (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 18.
1 area of the eye; 2 digital model of the same area with indications of the arc-shaped traces; 3 reconstruction of the sculptor´s work with the relevant tool; 4 area of the mouth with the identified trace; 5 transverse section of the identified trace; 6 reconstruction of the sculptor´s work with the relevant tool; 7 reconstruction of the shape of the blade of the tool (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 19.
1 the traces identified above the left hand; 2 digital model of the same area with identified traces; 3 transverse sections of the identified traces; 4 reconstruction of the sculptor´s work with the relevant tool; 5 hypothetical reconstruction of the tool; 6 reconstruction of the blade of the tool as derived from individual traces (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 20.
1 the traces of the broad chisel (1–3) identified in the meander line; 2 longitudinal sections of the traces 1–3; 3 hypothetical reconstruction of the sculptor´s work; 4 reconstruction of the shape of the blade of the tool (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 21.
1 area of the thig with identified hair-thin parallel lines; 2 drawing of the documented situation; 3 the section of the area with the identified hair-thin parallel lines (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 22.
Points of the X-ray fluorescence measurements (author: M. Cihla and F. R. Václavík).
Fig 23.
Finds of the corresponding tools from Germany and France: 1 Manching (after [100], Nr. 82); 2 Bibracte (after [99], Nr. 43); 3 Glauberg (after [105], Abb. 72); 4 Bibracte (after [99], Nr. 93); 5 Dünsberg (after [106], Nr. 18); 6 Manching (after [100], Nr. 103); 7 Bibracte (after [99], Nr. 64); 8 Manching (after [100], Nr. 238); 9 Bibracte (after [99], Nr. 54); 10 Nidderau (photo A. Ulbrich); 11–17 Heuneburg (after [102], Nr. 1840–1841, 1849–1851, 1856–1857 (drawing: A. Musilová).
Fig 24.
Finds of the corresponding tools from Bohemia: 1–2 Libčice nad Vltavou-Chýnov (after [121], 243); 3–6 Kolín (after [117], Abb. 13:1, 17:1–2, 18: 2); 7–8 České Lhotice (after [119], obr. 72:3, 6); 9 Stradonice (after [120], obr. 204:1–3); 10 Řehnice (after [121], 437); 11 Bezdědovice (after [121], 150–151) (drawing: A. Musilová).
Fig 25.
Finds of the corresponding tools from Italy: 1–2 San Vito al Tagliamento; 3, 8 Veio; 4, 7, 15 Tursi; 5 Cerveteri; 6, 9 Vetulonia; 10 Vulci; 11–12, 16 Pontecagnano; 13 Roggiano Gravina; 14 Pitecusa; 17 Tolentino S. Egidio; 18 Castione Marchesi; 19 Monte Titano; 20 Seconda Torre; 21–26 Bologna; 27 Monte Cavanero (after [123], Figs 3 and 4; [125], Figs 13 and 14) (drawing: A. Musilová).
Fig 26.
A comparative table of the reconstructed shapes of tools used during the sculpting of Glauberg fragments and the examples of tools from Germany and France (individual finds are not depicted in the same scale) (author: M. Trefný and A. Musilová).
Fig 27.
A comparative table of the reconstructed shapes of tools used during the sculpting of Glauberg fragments and the examples of tools from Bohemia (individual finds are not depicted in the same scale) (author: M. Trefný and A. Musilová).
Fig 28.
A comparative table of the reconstructed shapes of tools used during the sculpting of Glauberg fragments and the examples of tools from Italy (individual finds are not depicted in the same scale) (author: M. Trefný and A. Musilová).
Fig 29.
Sites with the comparable finds of tools mentioned in text.
1 Glauberg, 2 Bibracte, 3 Manching, 4 Kelheim, 5 Dünsberg, 6 Heidetränk, 7 Steinsburg, 8 Langenfeld, 9 Heidelberg, 10 Schlossberg, 11 Nidderau, 12 Au am Leithagebirge, 13 Mayen, 14 Libčice nad Vltavou, 15 Kolín, 16 České Lhotice, 17 Stradonice, 18 Lžovice, 19 Třísov, 20 Tetín, 21 Řehnice, 22 Bezdědovice, 23 Vetulonia, 24 Vulci, 25 Pontecagnano, 26 Roggiano Gravina, 27 Pitecusa, 28 San Vito al Tagliamento, 29 Veio, 30 Tursi, 31 Cerveteri, 32 Monte Cavanero, 33 Castione Marchesi, 34 Monte Titano, 35 Bologna-S. Francesco, 36 Tolentino-S. Egidio (author: M. Trefný).