In his classification, H.J. Eggers distinguished three types of Roman bronze situlas, which differ in the shape of the attachments fixed to the neck of the vessel. Type E 18, the most prevalent type, is distinguished by the presence of attachments with representations of two dolphins spouting water. These artefacts are predominantly found in the northern regions of central and eastern Europe, with particularly high concentrations observed in the basins of the Elbe, Oder and Vistula Rivers, as well as in Alpine areas. The majority of these findings were made during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, typically through accidental discoveries or as a result of amateur excavation. The chronology of these vessels in Barbaricum ranges from LT phase D1 to stage B2a of the Roman Iron Age. According to J. Kunow, their production was in the 1st century BC, while J. Werner specifies that they were produced during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. In regions inhabited by La Tène Culture peoples, E 18 situlae (most of them damaged or being only partially preserved) have hitherto been predominantly discovered in oppidae or upland settlements, while in other areas they typically functioned as grave furnishing. In the case of well-documented graves, the situlae most often acted as a cinerary urns.

Situlae E 18 were found in graves with very different furnishings. These include burials containing solely situla, as well as those accompanied by additional artefacts, though these were not considered particularly noteworthy. However, it is noteworthy that some graves have been found to be richly furnished with armour, ornaments, and other metal vessels, including silver, and these differences may be due to the circumstances in which the individual graves were discovered. Two such richly furnished artefacts—from Grudziądz-Rządz (Cat. 51) and from Holubice (Cat. 24)—were discovered in the late 19th century during agricultural work. Two other assemblages, designated as graves II and V from Dobřichov-Pičhora (Cat. 14), was indeed excavated by workers during the course of construction works. However, it should be noted that these works were not carried out in accordance with the standards that are applied today. The assemblages have no detailed descriptions, only inventories of the artefacts from them are known. Consequently, it is plausible that these ‘rich’ graves are the consequence of erroneous reconstructions of their furnishings, and that they are not, in fact, compact assemblages.