Abstract
Some differences between the Ing. G. Innerebner's description of Joben-buhel site and the results of a late survey of the author are described here.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In 1937 G. Innerebner published on the magazine “der schlern” the results of his survey on the walled hill-settlement of the bronze age ( Jesi 1978 pp. 59-7o ) of colle Joben , near Monticolo lakes (BZ) and thereafter be reported them again in an only Italian article in 1959: two alignements to the equinoces and winter solstices dawn and one to the setting of the late.
In 1993, partially following an itinerary on the tracks of the south-tirolean engineer, I visited the site recording some significant differences between what is to be seen till now and what published. For a better comprehension of what follows it is correct to precise that:
A) Until now I could only consult of the two original works of Innerebner the one dated 1959. I had therefore to avail myself primarily of what reported from others (Bernardini 1977, p. 114; Jesi 1979; Romano 1992, pp. 12-15; Cossard 1993 p. 135);
B) I became aware of the differences that I noticed only after departure from the site, comparing my notes with the description in bibliography. thus I could not come back for a better research nor then nor recently, in spite of a precise program.

1.2 THE SITE
Nowadays the hill is included in a naturalistic tour that passes trough it separating with a depression the eastern top from the western one. the megalithic complex is on the late and it has an incline of about 5°. The oriented corridor has a shape much more complex of the one reproduced by Innerebner. The observed principal differences are as follows:
1) there are three more little side corridors with magnetic azimuth swinging from 15° and 18°; the intermediate one makes a true “cul de sac”;
2) a narrow continuation long about 2 m. aligned with the first half of the principal corridor - and therefore theoretically on the axe of the equinoctial sunset - begins at the end of the one on top of the hill;
3) the access to the principal corridor is T shaped;
4) the altar-stone on the most steep point of the principal corridor is disappeared; his minor axe pointed to the winter solstice sunset; at the same place there is an earth bank with no stratigraphic sequence, on which is probably leaned;
5) the western hill top on which is the complex has a wall enclosure, as on the contrary
normally happens in the Iron Age hill wall-settlements because of their fortified oppida function (Bernardini 1982; Peroni 1994). On the contrary on the little top esplanade we notice two stone circles, one of which, the northeast, with a cross made with stones and two hollows in the western hill perimeter, both covered with dry stones (walls remains?) more generally we can nowhere notice signs of actual earthworks, nor the hill is in some point naturally inaccessible. The eastern top presents no signs of settlement. Therefore, to the sight, the site seems to be interpreted more as a hill-settlement (AA.VV. 1990), may be with cult cuntions, than as a defensive stronghold (Devoto 1977).
6) the principal corridor "sights" seem to be two instead of one, at about 1 m. distance one from the other. They are anyway too low to perform the hypoteside function to the down, unless the observer didn't lay on the ground, but with the result to see only the ground of the hollow below, owing to the inclination of 5,5°. Only in the sunset direction they can absolve their supposed function, always with the condition that the observer lays on the ground. It seems therefore more pertinent for them another use;
7) at last, for an observer on the steepest part of the principal corridor and aiming along its   two sections - then to the bottom for 5,5° - the points of the sun down are clearly hyded by the eastern top. This is particularly true for the equinoctial down, while the winter soltitial one could be partially visible on the hill side it is necessary to raise the head to see it upon the profil of the eastern hill, but in this case the “guide” of the corridor becomes useless;
8) on the contrary, for an observer from the less steep point of the principal corridor and along its two sections, the setting sun points at equinoxes and summer solstice are well visible on the mountain ridge making the boundary with the Trento province. Particularly the second could happen behind M. Penegal (1737 m. a.s.1.) or M. Lagardan (1742 m. a.s.1.) or, at the most, slitghtly northward to the crevice of Forcolana Valley, at about 300° (magnetic azimuth of the upper section).

CONCLUSIONS
Although my inspection was too quick and rough to allow the acquisition of data sufficient for even temporary conclusions, it is anyway clear the difficulty to perceive the sun down along the line showed by the two sections of the principal corridor and, on the contrary, the easiness to identify with a great precision the points of the two corresponding sunsets. The site is thus in my opinion worthy of a supplementary instrumental carefully examination (according to vegetation conditions) to resolve the arised doubts and verify the eventual existence of others astronomical alignments (lunar or sideral) of the three minor corridors.