Big Men or Chiefs?: Rondel Builders of Neolithic Europe 1789250269, 9781789250268

Citation preview

BIG MEN OR CHIEFS?

BIG MEN OR CHIEFS? RONDEL BUILDERS OF NEOLITHIC EUROPE

JAROSLAV ŘÍDKÝ, PETR KVĚTINA, PETR LIMBURSKÝ, MARKÉTA KONČELOVÁ, PAVEL BURGERT AND RADKA ŠUMBEROVÁ

Published in the United Kingdom in 2019 by OXBOW BOOKS The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JE and in the United States by OXBOW BOOKS 1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083 © Oxbow Books and the individual authors 2019 Hardback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-026-8 Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-027-5 (epub) Mobi ISBN 978-1-78925-028-2

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958401

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing.

For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact: UNITED KINGDOM Oxbow Books Telephone (01865) 241249 Email: [email protected] www.oxbowbooks.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Oxbow Books Telephone (800) 791-9354, Fax (610) 853-9146 Email: [email protected] www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group Front cover: Interpretative variants of the original appearance of rondel Bylany 4/1 (CZ). Author P. Vavrečka.

Contents

Acknowledgements Preface, Michael Ilett 1. Introduction Jaroslav Řídký 2. Traditional and archaic societies – problems linked to the search for social and power attributes in the archaeological record Petr Květina and Jaroslav Řídký 3. A maelstrom of hypotheses – origin, spread, function Jaroslav Řídký 4. Rondel research methodologies, the state of research and our data base Jaroslav Řídký 5. Rondel settlement case studies Jaroslav Řídký, Markéta Končelová, Radka Šumberová and Pavel Burgert 6. Rondels – structural elements, original appearance and construction Jaroslav Řídký 7. Radiocarbon dating in action Petr Limburský, Jaroslav Řídký, Radka Šumberová and Markéta Končelová 8. What is in the neighbourhood? A summary of rondel regions, microregions, settlement patterns and site layouts Jaroslav Řídký, Pavel Burgert and Markéta Končelová 9. A closer look – settlement patterns and site layouts of the STK in Bohemia Jaroslav Řídký, Markéta Končelová, Pavel Burgert and Radka Šumberová

10. Big Men or Chiefs? The limits of archaeological sources Jaroslav Řídký and Petr Květina Bibliography

Acknowledgements

It is fortuitous that over the past five decades numerous archaeological excavations have revealed circular structures dating to the Neolithic period. Most were rescue excavations; this means that the location and extent of the research was not planned in advance. It is, therefore, thanks to these “lucky” finds that we now have ample raw material to tackle our chosen theme. Moreover, some of the crucial excavations were led by our colleagues from the Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague. We, therefore, have no hesitation in dedicating our book to the two colleagues who laid the foundations for Czech Neolithic research – Ivan Pavlů and Marie Zápotocká. They were both core members of the Bylany team, founded by Bohumil Soudský, which, from the 1950s onwards, investigated the now world-famous Neolithic site of Bylany near Kutná Hora that the reader will regularly encounter in this book. We wish to express our gratitude first of all to our families, without whose patience, understanding and support it would have been impossible to work on our theme. We thank Kateřina Kleinová, who tirelessly adapted the figures and added quotations from the literature and Jana Poupová for final checking of references. For providing illustrative material and discussions on the topic (during conferences, friendly meetings, and/or e-mail discussions), we would like to thank (in alphabetical order of their surnames) Judith Barna, Martin Gojda, Michal Kostka, Lenka Kovačiková, Roman Křivánek, Petr Lissek, Drahomíra Malyková, Juraj Pavúk, Marek Půlpán, Harald Stäuble, and Gerhard Trnka. The book has been translated into English by Milan Rydvan and the English text proofread by Rhoda Cronin-Allanic. Both have our sincerest thanks. We would like to express our special thanks to Michael Ilett (Université Paris 1 – Panthéon-Sorbonne) for his willingness to write a Preface to the book and to Daniela Hofmann (Universität Hamburg, Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie) who carried out a peer review and helped us greatly through her comments on the text. Above all, this book exists thanks to the support of the project “The Socio-Ritual Centre during the Late Neolithic (4900–4500 BC)” which was financed by the Neuron Foundation Fund for the support of science (Nadační fond Neuron na podporu vědy). The topic was supported by the Neuron Impulse for Young Scientists in 2015–2017. Chapters 5, 7, 8 and especially Chapter 9, would have never reached their final form without support from the project “Building Structures, Activity Areas and Site Layouts of the Late Neolithic Settlement Areas (5000/4900– 4500/4400 BC),” No. 15–16963S, financed by the Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR).

Preface

The circular ditched enclosures variously known as Kreisgrabenanlagen or rondels are a distinctive feature of the Lengyel, Stroked Pottery and related cultural groups that emerge over large areas of Central Europe in the early fifth millennium BC, following on from the breakdown of the Linear Pottery culture (Linearbandkeramik; LBK). Although generally occurring within or next to settlements, rondels clearly fall into the category of ceremonial or ritual structures and they actually provide the earliest, most widespread body of evidence for this kind of activity in the European Neolithic. With their deep, V-shaped ditches, timber palisades and carefully orientated entrances, these are truly intriguing monuments and a real challenge for archaeological research, both in terms of fieldwork and interpretation. The challenge for fieldwork is that rondels are not only massive features to excavate, but usually also form part of more extensive complexes that include longhouse settlements and burials. Developer-funded rescue fieldwork can be of considerable help here, but is not the only answer, as in this situation archaeologists are rarely able to choose the zones they would most like to investigate. In terms of interpretation, a broad range of interesting issues can be addressed. Leaving aside the problem of function – what was actually going on inside the monuments – the widespread occurrence of rondels in different though neighbouring cultural contexts raises the question of how these early farming communities re-organised themselves in the few centuries after the end of the Linear Pottery culture. Were there shifts in the scale of social integration and the degree of social differentiation? And where did rondels first appear? Like all innovations, they could not have emerged out of the blue and it should be stressed that at least some of the ditched enclosures associated with later LBK settlements provide evidence for ceremonial activity. The best examples are Herxheim in the middle Rhineland and Menneville in the Aisne valley. The first site is now well known for the large numbers of disarticulated human remains from the enclosure ditches. Ongoing research excavations at Menneville are producing exciting new evidence from the enclosure ditch for burials associated with a variety of faunal remains, including bucrania and some complete animals. However, both of these sites lie far to the west of the main distribution area of rondels, in regions where post-LBK developments follow quite a different trajectory, with the Hinkelstein-Großgartach-Rössen sequence in the Rhineland and Blicquy – Villeneuve-SaintGermain followed by Cerny in the Paris basin. Here, no rondels can be seen, and the elongated Passy-type burial monuments that appear in the Cerny culture from around 4700 BC onwards probably reflect quite a different social phenomenon. This divergent pattern of developments in the Paris basin can be partly explained at least by the relatively late date of LBK occupation here and by the fact that pioneer colonisation was still in progress westwards in the early fifth millennium, during the Blicquy – Villeneuve-Saint-Germain.

However, the situation in the Rhine basin, in terms of settlement history and population density, must have been more similar to Central Europe and the absence of rondels in the post-LBK here is all the more surprising. Perhaps, as suggested elsewhere, the occurrence of rondels in the Stroked Pottery and Lengyel reflects closer connections at this time between these cultures and the northern part of the Balkan peninsula, where the practice of surrounding tell settlements with multiple concentric ditches is now well attested. Having made these preliminary remarks, it is both an honour and a pleasure for me to preface this book by Jaroslav Řídký and his colleagues, the “third generation” Bylany team. Drawing on evidence mostly from the territory of the Czech Republic, this is the first major monographic study of Central European rondels. As the book title implies, the study is driven by an anthropological approach, aspiring to determine the forms of social organisation underlying the rondel phenomenon and to discuss its wider implications for the early development of farming societies in Central Europe. Yet at the same time the work is based on a solid database and detailed, systematic analysis of features and finds. All this is in the best tradition of the research initiated by Bohumil Soudský, together with Ivan Pavlů and Marie Zápotocká, over sixty years ago at the Bylany excavations. As such, the book is a fine testimony to the inspirational leadership of Soudský and the long-standing influence of his team on European Neolithic studies. Michael Ilett Paris, May 2018

1 Introduction Jaroslav Řídký

Egalitarianism in the archaeological record is demonstrated by negative evidence — the absence of evidence for inequality. Inequality has to be proven; egalitarianism does not. (Ames 2010, 26) This book discusses the question of socio-political strategies of Neolithic societies and challenges ways of reading the archaeological record through the medium of distinctive circular structures, resembling henges, that date to a specific period within the Neolithic – the first half of the fifth millennium BC. In the literature these structures are referred to as ditched enclosures, circular enclosures or Kreisgrabenanlagen in Central Europe, but the term used most often is roundel or rondel (e.g. Petrasch 1990; 2015; Trnka 1991; 2005; Podborský ed. 1999, 283–291; Parkinson and Duffy 2007, 102; Stäuble 2012; Schier 2015). Only sub-surface features and traces of the original circular or slightly oval structures, measuring between 30 and 240 m in diameter, survive today – most often they are composed of one to four ditches, typically with V-shaped profiles, and they usually feature one to three inner circular foundation trenches or circular settings of postholes (Fig. 1.1). Both the outer ditches and the inner trenches are usually interrupted at two, three, four and sometimes more points by entrance passages which can vary in shape. According to some researchers, the declination of certain celestial bodies (most often the Sun or the Moon) could be observed through the entrance passages at particular times of the year, e.g. during the summer or winter solstice or during equinoxes (e.g. Bertemes and Northe 2007; Schlosser 2007; criticised by e.g. Stäuble 2012, 138; Pásztor et al. 2008; 2014; Pavúk and Karlovský 2008; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010; Petrasch 2012). Surprisingly, very similar rondel ground plans – with similar entrance numbers, positions and shapes – are often recorded from widely separated parts of Central Europe (e.g. Bartels et al. 2003; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 15–18; Řídký 2011, 62). At present, recorded rondels are distributed over an extensive area of approximately 800,000 square kilometres, stretching from present-day Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic to Slovakia, Hungary and Austria (Fig. 1.2) – an area where previous generations of researchers have defined several archaeological cultures or cultural groups dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC (e.g. Trnka 2005, 14; Buchvaldek et al. 2007). However, in smaller Neolithic

regions that have been investigated more thoroughly, rondels are only attested at certain particular sites, a fact which makes these circular structures and their immediate environs extremely interesting for researchers trying to identify social and power strategies of archaic societies (e.g. Petrasch 1990, 498–516; 2003 similarly in other parts of the world and Europe e.g. Renfrew 1973; 1976; Sherratt 1990; 1997; Jeunesse 2010; Whittle et al. 2011; Hayden 2014). According to many researchers, rondels, with their significant dimensions and more or less standardised layout, represent one of the earliest expressions of so-called public or monumental architecture in Europe (for a summary of research, see e.g. Podborský ed. 1999, 16–21). Similar monumental structures began to appear in various parts of the world when the subsistence strategies of societies shifted toward the exploitation of domesticated resources (e.g. Whittle 1996; Bradley 1998; Barker 2006, 99; Simmons 2010, 117). It is common knowledge that the archaeological record from the period before the first written records only offers us hints about the events and transformations that humankind underwent during the millions of years of its hunter-gatherer stage or during the periods immediately following the domestication of certain animal and plant species. The social-, gender- and socio-political organisation of most ancient societies, remains hidden behind the unevenly preserved remnants of material culture – various pits, artefacts, and biofacts (e.g. Chapman 2003). Since we have to rely solely on material culture and find contexts, and since we are also undoubtedly bound up within our own culture and thought, it is only with great difficulty that we can attempt to understand the complicated world of archaic societies (e.g. Trigger 2006, 529–531). Moreover, the characteristic find contexts of Central Europe – which tend to be fragmentary, chronologically complex, and distorted by anthropogenic and/or natural influences (local site-formation processes) – are very difficult to decipher today (e.g. Binford 1981; Schiffer 1987;). The same find contexts can thus often lead to different interpretations (for rondels see e.g. Pavlů 2001), as we will see in later chapters of this book (see also Fig. 1.3).

Fig. 1.1 Examples of typical layout variants for Central European rondels. Various scales. Redrawn by K. Kleinová after Literski and Nebelsick (2012) and Řídký (2011).

Fig. 1.2 The distribution of rondels (red circles) superimposed on a map of several archaeological cultures and groups of cultures indicated within the boundaries of present-day states. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 1.3 Interpretative variants of the original appearance of rondels: A) classic variant with inner palisade enclosures; B) variant with a bank on the outer side of the ditch; C) variant with posts embedded in ramparts. Created after a survey of Těšetice-Kyjovice (CZ). Author P. Vavrečka.

While the range of usable archaeological records differs significantly for the individual periods of European prehistory, there are certain periods that stand out in terms of the variety of the preserved finds and thus offer us a valuable opportunity to study the more problematic aspects of archaic societies (e.g. Renfrew 1973; Sherratt 1997; Bánffy and Bongár-Kutzián 2007; Hayden 2014). In our opinion, the first half of the fifth millennium BC, within the Neolithic in Central Europe, is one such archaeologically “rich” period. It provides us with a rich source of data regarding settlement patterns, the layout of individual dwellings, storage features and offers insights into mining practices, the distribution of certain raw materials or products (sometimes even very distant imports that we will call “exotic” items) and the production of stone tools and other items for daily use. We also have access to information

regarding the burial customs and grave goods of individuals from various age categories or even of whole social and gender groups (e.g. Bertemes and Meller eds. 2012; Gleser and Becker eds. 2012; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013). Unfortunately, the Central European climate and geochemical soil environment have not favoured the preservation of structures and artefacts made of organic materials. This is particularly regrettable in the case of rondels as the most visible and perhaps most important structural elements of these monuments were constructed of organic materials, as were associated structures and objects; the latter might have included various wooden tools used for building work or items associated with particular rituals or other activities. We also lack written or iconographic sources that might provide direct testimonies about the rondel builders and the protagonists in the events and particular activities that took place inside these circular structures. Various opinions about the original form and function of rondels have, therefore, been expressed in the past, making use of temporally heterogeneous and speculative analogies from various parts of the world (Kovárník 1997; Makkay 2001; Kovárník et al. 2006; Podborský 2006; Stäuble 2012). From about the 1990s onwards, rondels have been interpreted in the archaeological literature as ritual sites, sanctuaries, prehistoric observatories or even prototype temples (solar temples), intended for use by the populations of wider areas (e.g. Podborský ed. 1999; Oliva 2004; Pásztor et al. 2008; Milisauskas ed. 2011, 189–190; Schier 2015). However, Central European researchers do not always think through what the presence of a central ceremonial building (temple-like), intended for the assembly and control of a large number of people, might signify (e.g. Flannery and Marcus 2012, 210). According to the opinion that remains predominant among scholars, Neolithic societies in Central Europe were still basically egalitarian (achievement based; transegalitarian) in the first half of the fifth millennium BC, without hereditary positions, elite families or segmented social groups (Whittle 1996; Milisauskas and Kruk 2011, 269–273; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013; Hayden 2014; for a different opinion refer to e.g. Gronenborn 2016). In this book, we have gathered together information relating to 154 individual rondels located in Central Europe; these sites have been investigated using various field methodologies, ranging in extent from small-scale test trenching to the excavation of large areas that encompass rondels and adjacent settlements. The circumstances and methodologies of the research of the individual sites often differ, as does the quality of the resulting publications. Nonetheless, we believe that this corpus constitutes a solid data base for the study and testing of several questions concerning rondels. We have arranged this book as follows. In the next chapter, we outline the anthropological theory and certain material manifestations (indicators or attributes) that we will seek to identify; we will use the findings of cultural (social) anthropology to reveal the social and power organisation of archaic societies as reflected in Neolithic find contexts and assemblages, or at least to acquire some basic knowledge in this regard. Like, for example, K. Flannery and J. Marcus (Flannery and Marcus 2012) before us, we work under the assumption that it is possible to reveal specific social and power strategies, recorded for

traditional (pre-literary) societies from various parts of the world, in the remnants of material culture in the archaeological record. After summing up prevailing hypotheses regarding the origin, spread and function of rondels, we will examine the field methodologies used in their investigation and we will describe our data base. The following chapter presents several important landmark excavations, and we will draw on these to demonstrate how the defined indicators of social and power strategies manifest themselves in settlements that feature rondels. At the same time, this section will also aim to highlight the enormous complexity of the contexts encountered by the researchers who study Central European Neolithic settlements and the variability of the interpretative conclusions to which the investigation of rondels has led in the past, and indeed often still leads today. In the following chapters, we will attempt to identify which types of rondels occur where in Central Europe and to sum up existing theories concerning their original appearance and the method and duration of their construction, with the aim of reaching conclusions concerning the purpose of rondels and the populations they served. The following chapter looks at the important issue of dating and focuses on problems relating to the use of radiocarbon dating of samples from the ditch fills. We will also look at the areas around rondels to see what types of structures are found adjacent to them and in the wider environs, within the areas occupied by different culture groups. Above all, the work provides a closer focus on the area settled by the Stroked Pottery culture (STK; 5000–4500/4400 cal BC). Most of the new case studies in the following chapters come from the territory of the Czech Republic (particularly Bohemia), where numerous surveys have taken place and where several grant-aided projects and doctorate theses have focused on rondels. We will use the results of various analyses of formal, quantitative and spatial properties of different categories of artefacts, we will collate old and new radiocarbon dates and utilise modern computer programmes to check various hypotheses concerning the appearance of rondels. The main objective of this work is not only to confront established notions of Neolithic societies in Central Europe, but also to use present-day knowledge and available data to once again test the capability of archaeological sources to answer certain fundamental questions concerning our past: who were the founders and builders of rondels in the first half of the fifth millennium BC? In anthropological terms, were they skilful and exceptional entrepreneurs with an ad hoc (i.e. non-inherited) status (such as Big Men; e.g. Sahlins 1963) who lived in achievement-based (egalitarian or transegalitarian) segmented communities? Or is it more likely that they were powerful Chiefs, living in rank-based, unequal and hereditary chiefdoms?

2 Traditional and archaic societies – problems linked to the search for social and power attributes in the archaeological record Petr Květina and Jaroslav Řídký

We have a wealth of archaeological information regarding Central Europe in the first half of the fifth millennium BC, to the extent that we can direct our research not only towards the typical archaeological questions of typological and chronological development (of pottery styles or house structures, for example) but also to the more problematic issues of broader cultural development. The basic issues include the question of the development of a social hierarchy, i.e. where on the scale between egalitarianism and ranked differentiation did societies lie over the course of the Neolithic (e.g. Gronenborn 2016)? In order to better understand the results of various analyses of shape, stylistic, spatial or functional properties of features and artefacts in the context of this issue, and even to be able to ask the right questions, we need models and theoretical frameworks that can be tested using evidence from the archaeological record. Despite the often-justified criticism directed at simple analogies and models of archaic societies that are based on ethnographic accounts of so-called traditional societies from Africa, America, Asia or Oceania, only cultural (social) anthropology can offer us such theoretical models (e.g. Orme 1981; Otterbein 1985; Flannery and Marcus 2012; Roscoe 2012; Hayden 2014; Feinman 2016). The aim of this book is to seek out and identify the social and power strategies of archaic societies living during the Neolithic. Within the geographic area we are interested in, and within the narrow chronological window of the first half of the fifth millennium BC, we proceed on the assumption that these were agricultural societies primarily exploiting domesticated resources (e.g. Bogaard 2004, 159), whose natural level of integration consisted of a relatively small group of people. This was the basis of their everyday life, of their subsistence and of their relations with the world (Carneiro 2002). We can describe such a unit as an autonomous village – historically the most widespread settlement type in the world. Of course, the independence of these units does not mean that the settlements would have existed as the only form of social grouping. These units not only surpass groups based on real (blood-related) or declared kinship but also structure them internally. Naturally, autonomous villages could be parts of much broader structures. Some societies knew only temporary unions under extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Birch 2012; Kowalewski 2013, 202), whereas others might have created more complex systems serving economic or political-

administrative needs (e.g. Brumfiel and Earle eds. 1987; Haas 1998). We are faced with a fundamental question that will accompany us throughout this book: how to categorise the societies of the first half of the fifth millennium BC whose traces have been preserved in the Central European archaeological record? In the following part of this chapter, we are going to sum up current typologies of traditional societies defined on the basis of kinship systems, social inequality and hierarchy. In the course of the chapter, we will mention some possible indicators (attributes) of different categories of social and power strategies that are evident in material culture and show how archaeology has dealt with these remains in the past. Typology of archaic societies based on kinship systems It is widely acknowledged that the foundations of research into kinship systems were laid by the American L. H. Morgan. In his 1871 work, he emphasised the importance of family relationships for social cohesion (Morgan 1997). Based on multicultural comparisons, he defined several basic terminological systems of kinship, naming them after societies where they typically prevailed. While Morgan worked under the assumption that the rules of kinship systems are clear, directive and to a significant extent universal, later research has shown that the kinship systems of world cultures are, in fact, a complex tangle of restrictions and exceptions to restrictions. British anthropologist A. R. Radcliffe-Brown chose a different approach to the search for universal structures in the kinship systems of archaic societies (Radcliffe-Brown 1930– 1931; Radcliffe-Brown and Forde 1950). He focused on a complex study of kinship, including the level of non-blood relationships, which had been omitted by previous works. He revealed that these links created a basic and, to a significant extent, also a universal level of integration in traditional societies. Apart from the elementary level, i.e. the family in one of its numerous cultural forms, Radcliffe-Brown recognised lineages as a higher form of blood relationships. An interesting type of boundary integration between biological and mythological kinship was represented by moieties. In this system, a person was assigned membership either to their father’s or their mother’s group and was forbidden to enter into marriage or to have sexual intercourse with any member of the same moiety. Other higher levels of integration were created based on kinship bonds that were specified purely culturally and, therefore, artificially. Such levels included clans, whose members derived their origin from the same mythical ancestor. Tribes represent the highest form of recognised integration. Even though this is an often used and long established term, the definition of what a tribe actually represents can be extraordinarily vague. If we return to the works of Radcliffe-Brown, his great search to find universal social laws is evident and was typical of the discipline at that time. He himself became a vociferous supporter of a classification of archaic societies based on their kinship organisation. What is interesting or even surprising from today’s point of view is his lack of interest in how the described rules of kinship were reflected in the real lives of people in traditional communities. In contrast, this was an important element in the works of French structural

anthropologist C. Lévi-Strauss, one of the scholars who followed in Radcliffe-Brown’s footsteps after the 1940s (Lévi-Strauss 1969). However, Lévi-Strauss’ works were no longer aimed at defining a typological classification of societies but rather had become an independent specialisation within ethnology and anthropology. Over the course of time, it has emerged that while the variety of kinship systems documented by the wide range of archaic cultures in the world is enormous and difficult to grasp, certain trends can nonetheless be traced within them. For instance, G. P. Murdock’s ethnographic atlas (1981) contains data from more than a thousand traditional societies. Focusing on kinship rules, we find that in three-quarters of these societies, the wife moved to her husband’s house or to the dwelling of his paternal relatives after the wedding. In contrast, in a mere one-tenth of these societies, the bridegroom moved to the house of his bride or of her maternal relatives. The same data set reveals that children are considered members of the father’s clan or lineage five times more often than in the case of the maternal kinship line. This means that patrilinearity is much more frequent than matrilinearity. Moreover, in onethird of the societies children are educated by their mother throughout childhood following matrilinear rules; in the rest of the cases, the child sooner or later receives an upbringing from the mother’s brother (so-called avunculocality). This brings the male element into play even in cases where the female line is predominant. As a rule, matrilocality was more frequent in agricultural societies. In the Native American Hopi tribe, for example, the man married into the bride’s house, and agricultural land was also owned by the woman. Significant dominance of the male principle also manifests itself in an intercultural comparison of the institution of marriage. Polygyny (one husband, several wives) occurs a hundred times more often than polyandry (one wife, several husbands). Of course, marriage is not merely the creation of a non-blood family relationship but is also an important property transaction. Payment for the bride, so-called bride-price, is very common in traditional societies where it is seen as compensation paid to the bride’s family for the economic loss it has suffered by giving up a young and industrious woman. Dowry payment usually occurs in patrilinear societies, serving as an initial help to the newly founded family and, at the same time, strengthening positive micropolitical relationships between the bridegroom and his new male relatives on the bride’s side (Harris 1977, 66–68). Questions of kinship are very difficult to grasp using the Neolithic archaeological record, because, as we will see in Chapter 8, in most regions, we lack information about burials that might shed most light on the issues of family relationships at that time. A number of studies of stable isotopes and DNA from human bones (e.g. Bentley et al. 2012; Juras et al. 2017) give a degree of hope that it will one day be possible to go beyond the current theoretical framework and to extract information directly from Neolithic skeletal remains. Naturally, the precondition is to have a sufficient number of well-preserved grave finds. Later in this book, we will attempt to bring together information regarding the methods of burial in particular regions occupied by several archaeological cultures; we will pay particular attention to the representation of gender and age groups in Neolithic cemeteries of the first half of the fifth millennium BC.

Typology of archaic societies based on the level of social inequality and hierarchy In this book, our primary concern is whether or not it is possible to recognise levels of social inequality and power strategies, and if so, how are they recognised. The first anthropological typologies of the level of social complexity were created using a synthesis of many ethnographic examples (Morgan 1877; Tylor 1958). The details discovered through intercultural studies initially resulted in an evolutionary trajectory from savagery to barbarism and culminating in civilisation. This simple typology worked with the main variables – the level of social hierarchy and distribution of power. This division has set the trend for extrapolating both the development of social integration in archaic societies and the rules governing such integration. The positive evolutionary drive encapsulated within this typology was also reflected in other works of that period, both anthropological (Lowie 1920) and archaeological (Childe 1936). The notion of a cultural development from barbarism to civilisation persisted in anthropology and related disciplines for a long time, even though ever more specific features of the organisation and integration of traditional societies gradually emerged (Oberg 1955; Sahlins 1958). Such societies were distinguished by a hierarchical structure headed by a leader who was assigned, or who inherited, the position. The topic of cultural evolution reappeared on the scene in the 1940s and 1950s in the works of the ethnographers L. White and J. Steward. They focused their interest on the study of the substance and the causes of cultural development. Steward outlined a conception of multilinear evolution based on recognised levels of sociocultural integration: “In the growth continuum of any culture, there is a succession of organizational types which are not only increasingly complex but which represent new emergent forms” (Steward 1951, 379). White, a contemporary of Steward, focused on understanding the evolution of general human culture, which he perceived as a superordinate category to specific real cultures: “The culture of mankind in actuality is a one, a single system; all the so-called cultures are merely distinguishable portions of a single fabric” (White 1959, 17). In accordance with this, White states that social and political complexity develops along with, and is dependent on, progress in technology and economy, the cultural tools used to seize energy, which represents the “fuel” of evolutionary development (White 1943). The students of these two scholars, E. Service, M. Fried and M. Sahlins, continued to develop neo-evolutionary hypotheses based on the doctrine of multilinear specific evolution based on energy (Sahlins and Service 1960). From the perspective of the understanding of the development of archaic societies, however, they all significantly surpassed the work of their teachers in certain respects. In the early 1960s, American anthropologist E. Service (1962) set various social forms within the well-known four-level scheme of band – tribe – chiefdom – state: − − − −

Bands are typically hunter-gatherer groupings that are mostly socially egalitarian. Tribes show signs of limited differences in the social positions of individuals. Chiefdoms distinguish between nobles and other people in society. States and civilisations are forms with a complex social hierarchy and an institutionalised

government. This typology, clearly reflecting evolutionary principles, quickly took root at the time, not only in anthropology but also in archaeology. The basic classification into bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states still remains popular today, but critical voices have been pointing out for some time that there are certain problems associated with attempts to apply a typology based on observation of recent pre-industrial populations to societies known from historical or archaeological sources (e.g. Parkinson 2002; Yoffee 2005). M. Fried developed a different, alternative categorisation, in which he accentuated the organisational principles of political arrangement (Fried 1967; 1960). He thus offered another well-known typological sequence egalitarian – ranked – stratified – state society, derived from the intercultural comparison of social status and access to resources and power. Fried asked the fundamental question of how evolutionary theory harmonises with the fact that cultures develop from an egalitarian stage, in which there is equal access to the basic resources and social status, to a ranked stage, in which equal access to resources persists, but the possibilities of achieving social status are differentiated, and subsequently to the stratified stage, where access to both the resources and social status is socially differentiated. Fried’s categorisations did not escape criticism either. This criticism was directed, above all, at the excessive generalisation of the scheme and (like other evolutionary theories) at the fact that development was predestined to evolve towards more complex social forms. The model categories created by Service and Fried often served, and still serve, as templates for interpreting archaeological cultures, which had generally been defined earlier. The reason for the popularity of this approach lay in the fact that the anthropological models helped to add internal relations and invisible details to archaeological data (Haas 2001; Renfrew 1973; 1972; Haas 1998, 15–16). Gradually, however, growing numbers of researchers started to realise that vanished cultures need not necessarily have shared the complete typology known from ethnographic sources (and, moreover, simplified for the purposes of the classification). Furthermore, the presumptions concerning the conditional evolutionary trajectory were not always supported by the archaeological finds (e.g. Earle 1987). Tribes, Big Men, Chiefdoms, Chiefs? In the past, groups of sedentary farmers or pastoral people migrating in the landscape were typically classified within the category of tribes (Service 1962). Service believed that the tribe was a transitional form between the band, with its unorganised and egalitarian structure, and the Chiefled society, with its centralised and hierarchical structure. However, the author of the typology already understood that it is difficult to grasp the social organisation of a tribe. The structure of the tribe was multi-communitarian, which means that it consisted of a number of individual communities (such as families, villages) mutually connected by bonds of kinship. These bonds might have been real, blood-related ties but could also have been declared, mythological ties. Although the author of the typology did not rule it out altogether,

tribes usually lacked official representatives and a “capital,” because there was no economic base necessary for the formation of power structures. The individual communities were equal, with no single settlement playing a dominant role. Current anthropology defines tribes as types of societies that exist in a non-industrialised world, even though they are not completely isolated and external stimuli have an influence on their economic, political and religious systems (Parkinson 2002). A segmentary structure is considered a determinative sign that is directly specific to tribal societies. This means that the tribe only forms a shell or an envelope for the relatively small individual communities that are economically and politically quite autonomous. Typically, they can take the form of family clans that inhabit individual villages or clusters of villages. These communities are usually exogamous, which means that their members must seek partners outside their community. The size of primary tribes varies greatly, but rarely exceeds several hundred people (Johnson 1982, 404). At the same time, intercultural analyses of temporally synchronous societies have confirmed that units of up to 400–500 people usually lack formal leadership, whereas somewhat larger units tend to have a leader but lack hierarchy and stability (Brown and Podolefsky 1976; Feinman 2013, 39). A hierarchical power organisation always exists in social units of more than 2,000 people. This means that in our attempt to understand power strategies we must take into account theoretical estimates for the numbers of inhabitants within microregions along smaller watercourses and also within wider territories. As the tribe consists of small segmentary units, neither the segments nor the tribe as a whole have official power structures. Leadership and the organisation of activities are always determined in an ad hoc manner according to the actual abilities of the individuals involved. Social inequality within the framework of a tribe and its segments is not very distinct. However, this does not apply in the case of certain individuals who may have a different status which is independent of normal social categories, such as age and gender, and which is determined by other parameters foreign to our culture. These parameters include personal prestige, mainly achieved through the ability to generously distribute gifts, which is a highly competitive act (e.g. Earle 1987, 287). This happens during celebrations and feasts intended for this purpose and the form of the gift is restricted to a narrow group of valuable commodities; in New Guinea, for instance, such gifts included pigs, kina seashells and stone axes (Dietler 2001). The donation confirms the extraordinary social status of the donor, his power, authority and prestige in the eyes of the recipients of the gifts as well as of the onlookers. Terms such as Big Man, Man of Importance, Man of Renown, Generous Rich Man or Centre Man (e.g. Sahlins 1963) have become established in anthropology to designate for these important persons within a tribe. The prowess required to become a Big Man (the most popular term used to refer to these individuals) includes magic power, agricultural or pastoral experience and skills (the ability to produce a surplus), rhetorical abilities, or bravery in wrestling and in war (Sahlins 1963, 291); on top of that, we must not forget an aptitude for trading and the ability to organise various exchange activities. The redistribution of resources to other members of the

community is an important role for Big Men. The individual may carry out the redistribution himself, or someone else may do so in his name. It may take the form of a delayed exchange among kinship groups or of a loan for the purpose of bride-price, the provision of support for the construction of ritual houses (e.g. men’s houses), or the sponsoring of initiation rituals or of religious rituals of various kinds. In an addition to Sahlins’s definitions, P. Roscoe points out that the Big Man in Melanesia was not only an economic entrepreneur but was primarily the initiator and organiser of communal activities (social entrepreneur) such as singing, dancing or – most importantly for us – the construction of monumental structures (Roscoe 2012, 41–42). Based on his findings from New Guinea, Roscoe says that in order for the Big Man to be successful and visible, the minimum number of people per square kilometre should exceed thirty. Based on a comparative study of societies from various parts of the world, K. Flannery and J. Marcus (2012, 121) have attempted to examine the question as to how societies based on achieved renown might manifest themselves archaeologically. These authors based their work on the principle of intercultural research. This means that if it is possible to identify similar cultural elements (e.g. burial customs, occurrence of imports, specific types of buildings) for societies from different parts of the world, and if these societies share similar subsistence and economic strategies, then it is also possible to reveal the existence of societies with a similar social arrangement in the distant past thanks to archaeological finds (Flannery and Marcus 2012, 547). Such arrangements, based on achieved renown, may be signalled for instance by multi-generational (clan) cemeteries; so-called men’s houses or charnel houses and other ritual buildings; trophies – skulls and other parts of deceased ancestors and rivals that are kept in particular places, e.g. inside men’s houses; circulation of valuables (for example, imported items); feasting places connected with the redistribution of gifts or with the death of an important person (e.g. Godelier and Strathern 1991, 173; Hayden 2014); evidence of raids – the occurrence of defensive structures; injuries on skeletal remains and other evidence of attacks (such as burnt houses). Other manifestations of the position of a Big Man include the presence of larger houses (for more wives), sheds for extra animals and large-capacity storage buildings (e.g. Orme 1981, 141). An important point for archaeologists to take on board is that the burials of Big Men are usually difficult to identify archaeologically. The reason for this is that multi-stage treatment of the bodies of the dead was very frequent due to the cult of the ancestors, especially for individuals of a high renown. Their bodies might have been exposed to allow the decomposition of organic parts, then exhumed, or simply cleaned. It was important to preserve the bones of the ancestors, which were either carried around or exhibited in ritual houses or at other locations. Therefore, if we wish to look for individuals of renown in a particular archaeological record, we should perhaps turn our attention to burials and finds of human bones, particularly those of older men, in the vicinity of exceptional structures (Strathern 1971, 39). Although a full consensus on the definition of a somewhat more complex social form described by Service, so-called chiefdoms, has not been reached yet, we can imagine that the social organisation of such units comprised several branches of clans interrelated by kinship;

chiefdoms were characterised by a pyramidal structure based on the different social positions of its members. People were differentiated in these societies on the basis on their relation to a real or mythological ancestor – the founder (e.g. Service 1962; Carneiro 1981). Furthermore, the relations between the clans were also hierarchical. Their hierarchy was usually determined by the alleged order in which they arrived in the given area. The principle of “we were here first,” for example, might have been a determinative criterion for the acknowledgement of such privileges (Flannery and Marcus 2012, 74). Chiefdom units are still ranked among forms of kinship societies in anthropological typology, but with an advanced level of individual and group hierarchy. The Chief as the leader and political representative of the unit inherited his position within the framework of a specified circle of relatives. This group of persons closely related to the Chief was endogamous, and can be described as an aristocratic class. It must be emphasised that chiefdom units were always internally differentiated and functioned on the principle of inequality – a difference between people in terms of social status. The prestige and position of an individual in society was derived from his or her relation to the Chief. Further division into classes depended on the particular setting of the given society; it changed cyclically, even within the framework of a single culture. When we speak about oscillations of the class structure, we mean only those that concerned free people – a slave class was regularly present in chiefdom units (e.g. Hrnčíř and Květina 2016). Social inequality in chiefdom societies was also reflected in funeral rites – in an ideal case the burials of noble individuals may have been accompanied by very rich grave goods. Another archaeological indicator might be the conspicuous occurrence of bones of consumed animals, for instance wild game in the case of the Neolithic, in delimited parts of settlements; such remains can be regarded as evidence for out-of-the-ordinary feasting activity. The occurrence of storage features used to accumulate surpluses, exceeding the amount needed by an ordinary household, may be another attribute. Of course, another alternative was the sharing of power by a wider group of individuals (nobles). This created a specific type of corporate leadership in a chiefdom society, as has recently been pointed out by a number of researchers (e.g. Blanton and Fargher 2008; Gronenborn 2016). As we have mentioned, the individual clans might have also been graded according to their position in relation to the prestigious supreme clan, which was under the patronage of the Chief. Theoretically, such an arrangement might be reflected in the occurrence of larger cemeteries, without distinctions between gender and age, which would be located only around certain settlements within the defined regions. A hierarchy of settlements is often manifested by the presence of conspicuous structures of an unusual type at certain settlements, and their absence at other sites. This need not necessarily be evidence of power centralisation, but rather may indicate the existence of a diversification of the rights to carry out certain ritual practices. Higher-ranking clans that prided themselves on a longer ancestral line may have had access to a wider or even the complete register of ritual equipment, whereas younger or subsidiary clans (derived and physically separated from the parent community and its settlement) were not ritually independent. A classic example is the

Hopi society with its ritual kiva structures, which only existed in or near pueblos inhabited by higher-ranking clans (Flannery and Marcus 2012, 153–166). Naturally, chiefdom groupings could also include certain regional centres, often with a temple, the residence of the Chief and his vassals and a concentration of craft production. However, the centralisation of power tends to manifest itself in a manner somewhat different from what we might perhaps expect, particularly within the spiritual sphere of ceremonies and rituals. The theocratic character of the Chief’s central authority often overlapped to a significant extent with his priestly function. One of the additional characteristic features of such societies was, therefore, the existence of a permanent sacral centre, which functioned as a central point for the entire social group. However, it was typically not an urban centre with a bureaucracy and a market, as is characteristic of state units. Instead, we should envisage that in chiefdom groupings certain places that were simply regarded as exclusive within the settlement area. It is believed that chiefdom societies featured a low degree of economic differentiation, or none at all, and that certain equalising mechanisms prevented the accumulation of property. These mechanisms functioned as a special economic safeguard that can be understood on the principle of a gift and a reciprocal gift (Mauss 1966) but in a manner somewhat different from the previous case of the tribes. People considered it an honour to present gifts to the Chief, who stockpiled the donated items and redistributed them in return to others, thus perpetuating a cycle of pledges and obligations. While some researchers have regarded this system of redistribution as a basic economic phenomenon linked to the existence of a specialised craftsman class and surplus production (Service 1975), others have disagreed (Earle 1977). Using the example of the Hawaiian chiefdom, T. Earle observed that redistribution was not the key economic element in the system, but rather served to strengthen social relations. Commodities handed over to the Chief served to organise feasts and as gifts through which obligations were created between neighbouring communities. From a positivist perspective, this might also offer an explanation for the existence of “exclusive” items made of exotic materials (so-called imports) mentioned earlier in this text (Hayden 2014). Differences in opinion necessarily arise when we attempt to characterise chiefdom units in more detail. In the context of the growing number of examples, however, it is clear that not all chiefdoms were the same. A simple chiefdom consisted of a small community and classic conically structured clans, whereas a complex chiefdom covered a larger society and was characterised by the existence of a supreme Chief who controlled subordinate Chiefs of a lower status. Historically, such a unit apparently came into existence when one chiefdom unit acquired hegemony over another (e.g. Earle 1989). In the ideal case, such a unit might manifest itself archaeologically by a sudden change in regional settlement patterns and a sudden transformation of material culture (new types of architecture, changes in pottery decoration, etc.), or by a noticeable unification of the burial rite within a larger territory (e.g. Sherratt 1990). We can also include evidence of violent clashes aimed at gaining control of a larger area: such evidence might take the form of mass finds of skeletal remains of killed

individuals of various ages and genders. Yet another classification of chiefdom systems is based on the conception of the position of the Chief himself (Earle 1991). In a group-oriented chiefdom, the Chief was a voluntarily recognised central personage of the community. He used the gifts he received from his fellow tribesmen to redistribute property either among other members of the community or to the members of other groups, thus confirming his own position and that of the whole community. A typical example was the potlatch ritual on the northwest coast of North America (e.g. Drucker 1955; Donald 1997). The so-called individualised chiefdom, which emphasised the principal distinction of the Chief and the aristocratic nobility circle, might have been a later type (possibly influenced by post-contact development of archaic societies). It was reflected not only socially but also in material culture by the existence of items (jewellery, decoration) and structures reserved for the highest class. The Chief mobilised property in order to emphasise his position, the equalising mechanisms ceased to work and the society embarked on a trajectory towards statehood. In view of the brief summary presented above, it is evident that the non-critical application of simple categories taken from cultural (social) anthropology to the archaeological record is fraught with difficulties; in reality, certain finds may signal both basic forms of arrangement as defined by Service (e.g. the circulation of so-called imports or the existence of larger houses), a fact which inevitably leads to disagreement among researchers. Problems involved in applying socio-political typology to archaic societies Today, we know that while ethnologically based typologies of social strategies and social organisation provide excellent leads for explaining past social phenomena, they also entail numerous problems (e.g. Siklósi 2013, 24). Rather than completely rejecting the evolutionary paradigm as such, some researchers have, therefore, attempted to look beyond existing typologies. This means that we must not merely search for archaeological evidence for the presumed stage of social development but we must also examine correlations between several available sources and also admit the possibility that there may be other alternative possibilities for the development of social organisation (Crumley 1995; Earle 1991). Unlike ethnography, archaeology has the potential to reveal long-term conditioned schemes of social transformation. This makes it possible, among other things, to study cultural reactions as a function of environmental and social variables. One of the archaeologists who regard environmental and, in particular, climatic changes as a crucial element is D. Gronenborn (Gronenborn 2016; 2009; 2006). Cultural variables that can be explored using archaeological sources include, for instance, the economy, external relations and religious behaviour. The interconnection between the first two levels, economic and social integration, can be examined using an approach that focuses on the level of influence of the political economy versus the basic subsistence economy. The cultural mechanisms that control the two types of economic relations, and keep them in motion, are also involved in the scheme (Johnson and Earle 1987). There are three main levels of socio-economic integration:

A. Societies associated at family level, so-called family-level societies (individual houses, homesteads). B. Societies grouped on a local residential basis (larger settlements, clusters of settlements), so-called local groups. These local groups may be held together by everyday common interests, such as shared subsistence or protection against enemies, but a shared ritual basis is usually much firmer and more important from the perspective of integration. It creates an often-invisible bond between otherwise economically or politically independent communities. C. Societies integrated within the framework of whole regions, so-called regional polities. Of course, this is once again a simplified scheme within which the typology can be further elaborated. The emphasis on the interconnection between the economic and integration aspects is crucial – the more centralised and hierarchical a society is, the greater the part of its economy that is subject to a central control, whereas an economy managed only at a household level is found in less hierarchised groupings. At the same time, the model devised by Johnson and Earle highlights the fact that the difference between ranked society and non-ranked society need not always be evident to archaeologists. Let us now consider religious behaviour. It is known that communities of more than 150 persons must cope with the fact that it is almost impossible to maintain the complex web of social relations on the basis of personal contact, because the need for a long-term sustainable organisation directly rules it out (Feinman 2016, 9). Internal cohesion is crucial for these communities; it is usually built on the basis of myths of a common origin (creation myth) (Leeming and Leeming 1994). In contrast to smaller, typical, hunter-gatherer communities, the social logic of large societies has the added dimension of a community hierarchy in mythology (Flannery and Marcus 2012, 56). The role of religion as a tool for social solidarity has recently been highlighted by N. Wade (2009). Deities and supernatural beings discourage or deter people from socially pathological behaviour and, on the contrary, call for the maintenance of order in the form of an adaptable and unselfish attitude. However, all of this is only true within the framework of one’s own community; outside the community, religious differences can often incite hatred and aggression. Common faith binds people together on a level that far exceeds the basic level of families, clans and settlement groups. Such a high level of integration is possible, above all, thanks to the shared values and prescribed manners of behaviour dictated by the religion and its gods (God). Wade goes even further and asserts that we have become social beings precisely because of the great contribution of religion.

Table 2.1 Ideal attributes of socio-political strategies in the archaeological record. X denotes presence (authors: J. Řídký and P. Květina)

Rituals therefore represent a general cultural constant and in power-hierarchised societies, they can create a pillar on which rests the legitimation of the social power of the noble and the privileged. I. Goldman describes these types of prominent representatives as aristocratic leaders (Goldman 1970, xvii). Above all they usurp the right to a leading role in the organisation and performance of rituals, based on their ascribed and acknowledged close kinship to a mythological ancestor. In other words, this means that only this limited circle of persons may legitimately carry out rituals. As many of these rituals are of vital importance for the existence of society and order, it is obvious the privileged position of the ritual actors is strengthened to a considerable degree. In this book, we primarily perceive rituals on the level of a universal mechanism of human cohesion and collective identity. After all, a ritual is described as a social aspect of religion (Eriksen 2001, 215). In some cases, rituals and religions can be considered as an indicator of belonging to supra-ethnic entities, which can be referred to as civilisations (e.g. Huntington 1996: Christian, Islamic, Buddhist etc., civilisations). While we have no ambitions to create the notion of a similar classification in the context of archaic societies purely based on ritual similarities, it is not advisable to ignore this aspect of cultural specification either.

Defining attributes in the archaeological record It follows from what has been presented above that it will be rather difficult to use the archaeological record to confirm or fully discount any of the socio-political strategies commonly defined in anthropological literature. Basic material attributes of the two sociopolitical strategies discussed, achievement based and chiefly societies, are presented in Table 2.1. Of course, the table presents a rather simplified and ideal summary of archaeologically identifiable attributes that we would like to identify and describe in the archaeological record from the fifth millennium BC. We are fully aware that some of these attributes, e.g. evidence of large-scale architecture or a uniform burial rite, may well point to both strategies, i.e. achievement-based as well as chiefly societies. The monuments known as rondels are distributed across such a large area that certain customs may have been influenced by local traditions. We must also take into account the fact that the absence of evidence of a specific attribute does not necessarily prove its non-existence. However, we believe that a combination of the results presented in the following chapters of this book will eventually lead to a reasonable synthesis and will provide answers to our questions.

3 A maelstrom of hypotheses – origin, spread, function Jaroslav Řídký

This chapter is divided into two basic parts. The first will discuss the distribution of rondels within the territories of various cultures and cultural complexes. We will provide a critical overview of existing hypotheses concerning the origin and spread of these circular structures. The second part of the chapter will outline past explanations of the function of rondels and the arguments on which these theories were based. We will critically review certain find contexts and finds frequently cited in the archaeological literature. The distribution of rondels and hypotheses concerning their origin We will begin our search for the builders of rondels with an overview of the areas where these circular structures occur in Europe and we will outline the various expert theories regarding the place of origin and spread of these structures. As we mentioned in Chapter 1, the territory of present-day geopolitical units situated predominantly in the loess belt of temperate Europe was occupied by several cultures in the first half of the fifth millennium BC, which have been defined by different researchers over the past sixty years (e.g. Preuß ed. 1998; Buchvaldek et al. 2007). Based on certain characteristic features, all of these cultures can be assigned to two cultural spheres, or broad cultural complexes (e.g. Řídký et al. 2015). These two complexes, designated by the working names western and eastern, can be perhaps best characterised by the decoration of pottery vessels (Fig. 3.1) and the layout of longhouses (see Chapter 8 for more information). While ceramic decoration executed using a tool with two or more points is found most often in the western complex, both impressed and polychrome decoration are typical of the eastern complex. Longhouses with trapezoidal or “boat-like” ground plans appeared in the western complex after the turn of the sixth and fifth millennia, whereas regular rectangular ground plans with various internal features occur in the eastern complex, although it must be stressed that they are rare (e.g. Pavúk and Karlovský 2004; Čižmář ed. 2008; Friederich 2011; Pavúk 2012; Riedhammer 2015). The western complex covers an area stretching roughly from modern day France and Belgium through North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria, Saxony-Anhalt, and Saxony in Germany, and parts of Poland to the Czech Republic (all of Bohemia and a part of Moravia). In this part of Europe, rondels are recorded in the territory of the Stroked Pottery culture in SaxonyAnhalt, Saxony (both in Germany), the Czech Republic, and in the territory of the

Southeastern Bavarian Middle Neolithic, later denoted as the Oberlauterbach group in Bavaria, Germany (Fig. 3.2). Rondels also occur, though more sporadically, in other federal states of Germany (the Großgartach group and the early Rössen culture) and isolated examples are also known in Poland. To date, no rondels have been found beyond the western border of the western complex (e.g. Trnka 2005; Petrasch 2012). The eastern complex includes the Moravian-Austrian Painted Ware group in Moravia and present-day Lower Austria, as well as the Lengyel culture in western Hungary (Transdanubia) and southwest Slovakia. The River Danube in Hungary forms an important border: east of it, in the Tisza-Herpály-Czöszhalom cultures (Fig. 3.2), we have no unequivocal evidence for classic Neolithic rondels. Instead, we find tell-like structures and monuments that seem to combine features typical of southeastern European Neolithic tells with systems of ditches that are more characteristic of rondel structures; an example is the site of Polgár-Csöszhalom (e.g. Litersky and Nebelsick 2012; Raczky and Anders 2017).

Fig. 3.1 Examples of characteristic vessels belonging to the Stroked Pottery culture (1–10) and Moravian-Austrian Painted Ware group (11–16). Different scales. 1–10: Original artefacts from Miskovice cemetery (CZ); 11–16: Replicas of vessels from an exhibition in Landschaftspark Schmidatal (Lower Austria). Photo by J. Rendek and J. Řídký.

To a significant extent, both cultural complexes share a core of the basic spectrum of material remains that have survived in the archaeological record. However, the specific material remains from the two complexes differ in several rather significant details (e.g. Stäuble 2010; Pavúk 2012; Siklósi 2013; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013; Riedhammer 2015). Apart from the above mentioned pottery decoration and house layouts (see also Chapter 8),

other differences include the number of graves and the associated burial rites (for instance, cremation burials are more typical of the western complex), the occurrence and number of burial grounds (for instance, larger cemeteries are completely absent in some regions of the eastern complex such as Lower Austria or Moravia) and the occurrence of certain specific items (such as clay figurines or clay spoons, which only appear sporadically and in a fragmentary state in the western complex).

Fig. 3.2 Distribution of rondels (red circles) within the framework of the various cultures and culture groups. The PolgárCsöszhalom “mixed” site is highlighted (green circle). Symbols with numbers show the wide distribution of the most significant raw material sources in the period between 4900 and 4500 BC: 1 – Bavarian cherts; 2 – Carpathian obsidian; 3 – Krumlovský les cherts; 4 – Metabasite of Jizerské hory type; 5 – Cracow Jurassic silicite; 6 – Chocolate silicite. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

Some scholars place the origins of rondel construction in the area of present-day western Hungary (Transdanubia) and Lower Austria, within the territory of the eastern complex (e.g. Podborský ed. 1999, 18; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 16; Barna et al. 2016, 313). It is thought that the practice of rondel construction then spread westwards along the Danube River, northwards along its northern tributaries, and northwestwards along the Rivers Morava and Labe/Elbe. This hypothesis is supported by two main bodies of evidence. The first of these concerns the shapes of vessels in the earliest chronological phase of the

eastern complex (Proto-Lengyel), which appeared in the area of the cultures of the western complex somewhat later, around 4900 cal. BC – i.e. approximately at the beginnings of the construction of rondels in the western complex (e.g. Zápotocká 2007, 208; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013, 46–49). The high number of rondels recorded in the territory of Lower Austria is considered a second argument (e.g. Trnka 2005, 14–15; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 16). At present, both arguments can be regarded as purely hypothetical models that are in need of revision. The assumption that one cultural feature, in our case pottery shapes, is necessarily accompanied by other cultural elements, such as rondels, from the same place of origin and at the same time, is not substantiated by existing evidence (indeed there are doubts that such confirmation is even possible using archaeological sources). Some other important cultural manifestations of the two complexes, such as continuity of occupation (from the period of the Linear Pottery culture onwards, uninterrupted continuity of the settlements is more characteristic of the western complex) and burial rite (more graves and cremation burials are known from the western complex), exhibit significant differences (e.g. Pavúk 2004; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013). Moreover, some artefacts and stone raw materials used for tool production demonstrably travelled in both directions, from the eastern complex to the west (e.g. Carpathian obsidian, painted vessels) but also from the western complex to the east (e.g. metabasites for the production of axes and adzes, Bavarian cherts) (see, for instance, Petrasch 1990, 426–427; Mateiciucová and Trnka 2005; Mateiciucová et al. 2006; Trnka 2012; Burgert 2015b; 2016; Burgert et al. 2017). As we will see in Chapter 7, radiocarbon dates for samples taken from rondel ditch fills do not allow us to confirm where rondels were first built, i.e. where the earliest examples are located. As we will see later, the problem lies in the diverse origins of the fill layers, and generally in the processes of fill creation, in the rondel ditches (moreover, at multicultural sites, previous and subsequent occupation may result in intrusions). Furthermore, the interval ranges of the resulting radiocarbon dates tend to be too broad. In view of the ever-increasing number of new finds, the second argument, based on numbers of rondels, can be regarded as a product of the state of research in the late twentieth century (see, for instance, Stäuble 2012; Řídký et al. 2012a). At that time, remote sensing and geophysical prospection methods were in their infancy in post-communist countries. The number of rondels known in the Czech Republic alone has increased from around fifteen at the turn of the millennium to about forty at present, and more are identified every year due to the availability of aerial photos on the Internet and the growing number of rescue excavations carried out in advance of construction works. It is thus evident that the quantitative perspective cannot be regarded as a sufficiently grounded argument. Hypotheses concerning the function of rondels Several different methodological approaches and various levels of subjective invention have been employed to explain the function of rondels in the past (e.g. Kovárník et al. 2006; Podborský 2006; Petrasch 2012; Stäuble 2012; Řídký et al. 2014a). Researchers often based

their hypotheses on the circular shapes of the ground plans as well as on the location and direction of the entrance passages (e.g. Zotti 2005; Schlosser 2007; Pásztor et al. 2008; Pavúk and Karlovský 2008; Schier and Schmidt-Kaler 2008). Some experts used the conspicuous size of the rondels, the time and energy needed for their construction and their sporadic occurrences in certain settlements in the regions to support their reasoning (e.g. Petrasch 1990; Lobisser 2006; criticised by e.g. Stäuble 2012). Various scholars have based their hypotheses on finds discovered either directly in the ditch fills or in their immediate vicinity (e.g. Kovárník 1997; Podborský ed. 1999; Podborský 2006). Analogies for the circular structures were particularly sought in the henge monuments of the British Isles, but sometimes also in the less distant parts of the continent (e.g. Podborský 1991; Kovárník 1997; Podborský ed. 1999, 289; Makkay 2001; Květina et al. 2009). All earlier hypotheses concerning the prospective function, or combined functions, of rondels have been thoroughly summed up, for example, by J. Makkay, J. Kovárník or more specifically by V. Podborský (Podborský ed. 1999, 288–291; Podborský 2006; Kovárník 1997; Makkay 2001). These hypotheses were subsequently very critically analysed by M. Oliva (Oliva 2004) and more recently by H. Stäuble (2012). We will often refer to works by these experts in the following sections of this chapter. Today we are aware that profane and sacral aspects are often mingled in so-called traditional societies and that a sharp divide, if one exists at all, is difficult to define (e.g. Eliade 1957). In what follows, we will nonetheless attempt to classify all existing hypotheses concerning the function of rondels in archaic societies into these two working categories. Let us briefly summarise the bases of these interpretative hypotheses. Places for the protection of herds or places of refuge? A practical function for rondels as enclosures for the protection of domestic animals was one of the first interpretations to appear in the literature (e.g. Podborský ed. 1999, 287). Skeletal remains of domestic animals occur in the fills of rondel ditches and in their near vicinity at many sites (e.g. Benecke 1994; Pucher 2005, 132–137). Livestock – a possible symbol of affluence, an exchange commodity and an important source of meat, hide, bones and possibly horns for the production of tools – had to be protected against predators or enemy societies. Such a practical explanation of the function of these circular structures is therefore justifiable to a certain extent. Arguments against the use of rondels for corralling livestock are largely based on the site of Svodín in Slovakia (see Chapter 5) where the entrance passages are considered to be too narrow and unstable to allow cattle to pass (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995). Another counterargument, admittedly influenced to a significant extent by modern rationale, is based on the time required for the construction of rondels, which might have extended to several months or even years (Petrasch 1990, 498–516). The construction of several entrance passages from various directions would also be illogical if rondels were intended as cattle corrals. Moreover, so-called traditional societies in many parts of the world, with few exceptions (e.g. Lemonnier 2012), use simple, quickly erected enclosures made of branches for this purpose;

to the frustration of archaeologists, such structures leave virtually no traces in the archaeological record. Moreover, to date, we do not know of any broad-based archaeozoological study that confirms the presence of a significantly higher ratio of bones of domesticated animals, or of an unusual assemblage composition (e.g., a prevalence of certain species), exclusively within the areas of rondels (Pucher 2005; Oliva 2004). Therefore, in our opinion, the construction of massive circular structures of rondel type for the protection of cattle seems to be rather improbable. According to another model, the inner trenches would have held rows of posts which in turn retained an earthen rampart surrounded by a ditch (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995; 1997). If this was the case, then rondels could have functioned as refuges for local inhabitants in times of unrest. The Slovakian sites investigated by V. Němejcová-Pavúková are most often cited in connection with this functional explanation. The author based her arguments on the depth of the foundation trenches in Svodín and on the unique finds of human skeletal remains at Ružindol-Borová. She also used this hypothesis to explain what happened to the earth removed during the digging of the ditches. The haphazardly deposited remains of about 18 people – adult men, women and children, including new-borns – were found in the ditch near the north entrance to the RužindolBorová rondel (Němejcová-Pavúková 1997, 116); it has been estimated that a total of more than 130 individuals were originally deposited here. The state of preservation of the bones suggests that the bodies (possibly from several chronological periods of prehistory – this issue has not been satisfactorily resolved yet) were thrown into the open ditch and were not covered over immediately afterwards. This is the only example that could be interpreted as evidence for an attack against a local community (e.g. Pavúk and Karlovský 2004). In the context of recorded rondels, whose number is slowly approaching two hundred, the Ružindol-Borová site represents an isolated and unique find that cannot be used as the basis for broader generalisation. Other arguments against a defensive function for rondels include the surfeit of entrance passages, which tend to be the weakest points in a defensive structure, the high incidence of interior ditches (which are illogical from a defensive point of view) and the width of the ditches, which rarely exceeds 3 m (e.g. Petrasch 1990). Moreover, the greater majority of rondels were not built in strategic positions but rather on level plains or on slight slopes, which is also rather contrary to a defensive function (Oliva 2004, 507–508). Despite the above-mentioned arguments, some scholars still do not rule out a defensive function for rondels (e.g. Heath 2017, 33–35). Somewhat similar structures in New Zealand (so-called pa fortifications) were used for defence (Knight 2009). Settlements with rondels as centres of exchange and interaction? Of course, the function of rondels cannot be studied in isolation from other remnants of material culture found in their vicinity. This leads to questions concerning the function of settlements in the regional settlement systems in which rondels have been documented and the possible existence of further finds, such as grave goods or exceptional artefacts, which

might provide relevant information about the builders themselves. To date, few researchers have dealt with these issues which we return to in following chapters (e.g. Pavlů et al. 1995; Doneus 2001; Řídký 2011). Most researchers believe that settlements with a rondel were predominantly gathering places for several communities and that they served to enhance the status of an individual who was familiar with this type of structure and who initiated its construction in order to demonstrate his/her power and control over neighbouring groups. Rondels themselves might, therefore, have acted as symbols of power (Podborský ed. 1999, 287–288). According to a theory forwarded by M. Oliva (2004), rondels did not serve as foci of social interaction throughout their existence, but only during the period of their construction. According to this scenario, various groups would have come together occasionally to carrying out the construction, while possibly also performing various ceremonies and celebrations on the site. According to Oliva, the construction of the rondel, and possible ceremonies associated with it, were managed by an individual whose status was non-hereditary and closely linked to the mentioned activities. Using the example of the Künzing-Unternberg site, J. Petrasch attempted to demonstrate that settlements with rondels might also have fulfilled the role of economic redistribution centres (Petrasch 1990, 498–516). This interpretation is based on the significant amount of lithic material and waste stone (Bavarian chert) found at Künzing-Unternberg. A fact that has been repeatedly pointed out in the past is that most settlements with rondels are situated in landscapes with a long-standing settlement tradition and, moreover, often on routes leading to the sources of important stone materials (e.g. Mateiciucová and Trnka 2004). However, finds of a similar nature, reflecting the gathering and redistribution of goods at a particular site, have not been clearly revealed elsewhere apart from this Bavarian site. In relation to this economic model, we must also mention the well-known discovery of seven storage structures in close vicinity to the rondel in Těšetice-Kyjovice, which V. Podborský regarded as “central granaries serving the whole settlement” (Podborský ed. 1993, 128). Let us conclude this section with a summary of several important criteria (see Petrasch 2003) for the identification of a “central settlement” and which settlements with rondels fulfil to a significant extent: − Densely populated surroundings, which is documented in the territories of both eastern and western cultural complexes; − Long-term continuity of occupation, which is more typical of the western complex; − Above-average occupation area, which has been revealed in the territories of both complexes; − A large number of finds such as clay figurines (characteristic of the eastern complex), imported stone materials (both complexes), etc. − The existence of a nearby cemetery – larger burial sites near rondels or similar circular structures from the same period have been recorded in four known cases (Bylany 4; Plotiště nad Labem; Horoměřice-Chotol; Svodín); they are, therefore, recorded in the territories of both complexes (Pavlů et al. 1995; Vokolek and Zápotocká 1997; Řídký

2011; Demján 2015). Rondels as ritual areas for ceremonies, cult rituals, astronomic observations and games? The often-quoted sacral model is based on the circular ground plan of rondels, the high inputs required for their construction, and their considerable size, sometimes exceeding 200 m in diameter. Speedy completion of a demanding construction required the mobilisation of a large number of workers whom someone had to persuade, or coerce, into cooperating. Structures with a circular layout are clearly distinct from “ordinary” features (pits or house layouts; e.g. Stäuble 2012) uncovered at Neolithic sites. A simple idea that presents itself is that these structures, which required huge inputs in terms of time and effort, and whose exceptional shape and size mark them out from ordinary settlement features, must have served some sacred or ceremonial purpose (e.g. Kovárník 1997; Podborský ed. 1999, 288– 291). The astronomic or informative model is closely linked to the sacral model. According to analogies with British “henges” and archaeoastronomical evaluations of Central European rondels and other circular structures, the entrance passages leading to the centres of the rondels were not located randomly: the declinations of certain celestial bodies were observable through them at particular times of the year (Podborský ed. 1999, 260; Zotti 2005, 79; Schlosser 2007; Pásztor et al. 2008; Pavúk and Karlovský 2008; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 136–167). The celestial bodies mentioned most often in this context include the Sun, the Moon, the Pleiades or the Antares, Deneb, Rigel and other stars. The circular structures thus might have fulfilled the function of informational calendaria connected with, for example, the agricultural year (solstices, equinoxes). This model, which a priori presumes that we have sufficient knowledge of the original appearance of the rondels, has been treated with scepticism in the past by H. Stäuble (2012, 136) and M. Oliva (Oliva 2004, 510). The latter particularly emphasised the contradictory nature of the astronomic conclusions published so far. In reality, we cannot be absolutely certain of the original appearance of these circular monuments, particularly of the wooden structural elements; for instance, the inner palisade enclosures may have been interrupted in more places than we are aware of, and some researchers suggest that the entire wooden structure was roofed (see Chapter 6). The sacral model also encompasses attempts to interpret rondels as areas for ceremonial games, such as ritual wrestling (Květina et al. 2009). This theory was based on the assumption, widely held in the past, that the area within the rondel was an empty space whose dimensions tended to follow a standard pattern; it was also based on the human appetite for wrestling and competition which are a cultural constant recognised by cultural (social) anthropology (e.g. Renfrew 2018). These activities might have acted as a focus for social interaction among local inhabitants, or may have been used by certain groups as a way of maintaining and demonstrating their power. Clearly, we arrive at a point at which we must ask ourselves whether there any contexts

or artefacts that provide evidence for a ritual use of rondels? As the sacral model is the one most often mentioned in the literature, let us pause for a while to discuss the most “compelling” supporting finds – artefacts and certain biofacts (human and animal skeletal remains). Fragments of ceramic vessels are most often found in the ditch fills. In Central European archaeology, they are primarily used for chronological categorisation of rondels (e.g. Doneus 2001), and to a lesser extent for interpreting their function. Confidence in the information value of pottery finds varies significantly in the literature. On the one hand I. Pavlů (1990) is clearly sceptical of the suggestion that the pottery assemblages from the ditches were contemporary with the period during which the rondels functioned. On the other hand, the authors of an article about the site of Goseck in Germany have no doubts about the origin of pottery fragments from the middle and lower levels of the ditch fills and believe that they were used during certain rituals (Bertemes and Northe 2007). They base their thesis on the greater than usual size and well-preserved state (low degree of abrasion) of the fragments. Put simply: vessels used during rituals could not be subsequently deposited just anywhere, e.g. close to dwellings, but had to be placed within a delimited sacred area. Clay figurines are also frequently encountered on settlements from the first half of the fifth millennium BC, but their quantity, state of preservation and appearance vary between the various archaeological cultures, and the same is true of the settlements with rondels (Podborský 1985; 2006; Pavúk and Karlovský 2004; Barna 2007; Engelhardt 2010). The figurines, which vary in size, can be either quite realistic or schematised representations. In the case of human representations, the figure may be standing or sitting with the hands placed in various positions. Female figurines predominate but male or animal figurines also occur. Some researchers see these clay figurines as having a ritual function, especially as they are found in greater numbers at sites with rondels. Since this interpretation initially arose from studies of Moravian sites in the Czech Republic (e.g. Podborský ed. 1993; 1999, 29; Podborský 2006, 152; Čižmář ed. 2008), it is useful to take a closer look at what is probably the best-known and most often quoted find context. According to spatial analysis of the settlement area in Těšetice-Kyjovice (see Chapter 5 for more details), finds of figurines were predominantly concentrated within the rondel and its immediate vicinity. When comparing the frequency of finds in the ditch fill of this rondel, we notice a conspicuous occurrence of figurine fragments at several different depth levels (Statistical overview No. 1 in Podborský 1985, 32–33). Almost complete figurines have been retrieved from a depth of 100 cm or more, with some also occurring in the upper layers. In his account of this rondel, Podborský states that some figurine fragments from the ditch fill can be matched to other fragments which were found between the palisade enclosure surrounding the rondel and the rondel itself (i.e. outside the boundary delimited by the ditch); a small number matching fragments were even found outside this outer palisade enclosure (Podborský 1985, 25–26). The author of the publication interprets this distribution pattern as evidence of intentional, apparently ritual, breaking of the figurines within the area of the rondel and a subsequent transfer of the fragments by natural agents.

However, a simple alternative interpretation can be offered, based on the finds of figurines at different depths within the ditch: the palisades of the rondel, as well as the outer palisade enclosure delimiting the rondel proper, may have no longer been extant at the time when the fragments were dispersed (e.g. Řídký 2011). According to Podborský, certain structures within the area enclosed by the ditch survived longer than the ditch, and settlement or other activities evidently continued in this part of the settlement. The proposed ritual breaking of the figurines in the area of the rondel might just as easily have taken place sometime after the demise of the rondel, and the individual fragments may have entered the ditch, which might have still been partially open, along with ordinary settlement waste – daub remains, animal bones, etc. (Podborský 1988, 148). The figurines, therefore, may not have been associated with the original function of the rondel. In neighbouring Austria, where these artefacts also occur in significant numbers, no striking differences have been observed between the quantity and quality of figurines from settlements with rondels and those from settlements without rondels (Trnka 2005, 17). The figurines also occur rather sporadically and almost exclusively in fragmentary form in areas to the northwest and east of Moravia (e.g. Pavúk and Karlovský 2004, 260; Remišová-Věšínová 2009; Engelhardt 2010). The remains of human skulls and other human bones are sometimes uncovered in the ditch fills of rondels. The Těšetice-Kyjovice and Kamegg sites are quoted most often in this regard (Podborský 1988; Trnka 2012); other similar finds come, for example, from Schletz and Rosenburg (Bertemes and Northe 2006, 274). However, this is by no means a common feature of the assemblages from settlements with rondels. Without a more thorough study of the site-formation processes at the particular sites, we can currently propose three hypotheses for the presence of such finds (see Petrasch 2000, 363): − either they are burials associated with earlier settlements, were re-deposited by taphonomical processes, and which, therefore, have nothing to do with the functioning of the rondel; − or they are so-called secondary burials, particularly in cases where there is some doubt regarding their contemporaneity with the period when the rondel was in use; − or they were indeed sacrifices connected with the period of cult activity, possibly directly linked to the ritual function of the rondel. In this case, however, there are too few examples of rondels with human remains in the ditches to provide incontrovertible proof that this was a common practice e.g. ritual sacrifice. Complete crouched inhumation burials were sometimes deposited in rondel ditches, and discarded bodies in non-pious positions are also occasionally found (e.g. Podborský 1988, 148; Šumberová et al. 2012, 36). These burials evidently respect the shape of the ditch, but they are never deposited on its base, but rather at various depths within the fills. The highest number of skeletal remains (in a non-pious position) is recorded for the site of RužindolBorová (Němejcová-Pavúková 1997), but as we have stated above, this is a unique find that may have been linked to an attack against the Neolithic settlement.

A specific category of these special objects and finds is represented by isolated human burials that are not in superposition with any structural elements of the rondel. In Chapter 5, where we present a number of case study excavations, we will discuss the skeleton of a 10– 12-year old girl which was deposited in a crouched position within a round pit located between the ditches of the rondel in Kamegg (Trnka 2012). The girl’s skull showed signs of hydrocephaly. Another well-known and often quoted find comes from the western extremity of the rondel distribution area, the site of Ippesheim in Middle Franconia, Germany (Schier 2012a). This rondel, which has one ditch interrupted by six irregularly placed entrances, is dated to the Großgartach culture. According to the author of the article, the burial of a woman with her head pointing downwards was deposited roughly in the centre of the structure during the final phase of its use. The finding of several graves in the central area of the rondel in Friebritz, Austria, remains an open question at present as the radiocarbon dates do not enable us to draw unambiguous conclusions (the graves may be contemporary with the rondel or may be earlier; Neugebauer-Maresch 2005, 225–226). At present, we can sum up that a sacral function for rondels simply cannot be confirmed, even in cases where human skeletal remains have been discovered. The authors of the report on the rondel in Goseck, Germany, as well as Podborský and Kovárník, regard the occurrence of other distinctive finds – namely fragments of animal skulls, horns, antlers or whole animal skulls – close to the entrances of rondels as evidence of ceremonial feasts; they suggest that the remains might even have been hung in the entrance passages leading to the centre of the rondels in order to emphasise the ritual area (Kovárník 1997; Bertemes and Northe 2006, 274; Podborský 2006; Čižmář et al. 2008, 127). While we cannot rule out this explanation at present, more complex analyses of animal skeletal remains in the ditches of some rondels in the territory of the Czech Republic reveal that fragments of cattle skulls, including horns, were also part of the ditch fills here, but they always occurred at the same levels as other skeletal finds that were clearly refuse waste (Řídký et al. 2012b; 2013). These assemblages did not differ significantly from skeletal remains found in ordinary settlement pits. Similarly unique are the finds of dog skeletons (Petrasch 2004) that have been uncovered at four sites: Künzing-Unternberg (Germany), Bučany (Slovakia), Vedrovice and Bulhary (Moravia). At Künzing-Unternberg, the burial was placed in the inner foundation trench, specifically in the area of the northwest entrance passage. At the Vedrovice II rondel, a dog was buried in a large stake pit that terminated the innermost foundation trench in the area of the east entrance passage (Humpolová and Ondruš 1999, 208). At Bučany, on the other hand, the dog burial was isolated, situated in the northwest entrance passage, closed by the protruding outer ditch (Bujna and Romsauer 1986). At Bulhary, part of a dog skeleton was deposited in a storage pit uncovered in the central area of the rondel (Kundera and Měřínský 1999, 55). Petrasch (2004) speculates that the dogs might have been considered as guardians of the ritual area. Although these finds are without any doubt interesting, and are known from sites over a wide area, they too cannot be regarded as direct proof of a ritual function for rondels.

Complete grinding tools or fragments thereof represent another category of distinctive artefacts that are often found in the ditch fills and their immediate vicinity. Some scholars interpret such finds as evidence for the preparation of communal meals on the occasion of various ceremonies (Makkay 2001; Graefe et al. 2009, 91). The finds of grinding tools in rondel ditch fills have been discussed most thoroughly by Pavlů (2012), who analysed fragments of used grinding tools found in the ditches of the Bylany 4/1 rondel (Czech Republic). This author is also inclined towards the opinion that these bulky heavy tools, which would have been difficult to transport over longer distances, are somehow directly linked to ritual activities that took place close to the rondels. Finds of several grinding tool fragments, bearing traces of red pigment on their surfaces, are also reported from TěšeticeKyjovice (Podborský 1988) where they were found within the ditch near the entrance. Other grinding tool finds come from the base of the ditch of the rondel in Běhařovice, Moravia (Kovárník 1999, 36). Perhaps the best-known are the finds of grinding tools mixed with stone and other finds (once again, fragments of pottery, daub, animal bones) in the ditch of the Vedrovice II rondel in Moravia (Humpolová and Ondruš 1999, 177– 178). The material constituted a “stone dump,” measuring 170 × 300 cm, within the surface layer of the ditch fill near the south entrance; two levels of densely accumulated fragments as well as complete grinding tools have been identified. Other individual tools were uncovered somewhat deeper, at a depth of 1.4 m below the soil stripping level. It is important to add that the maximum depth of the rondel ditch was as much as 4.2 m, which means that the ditch had been filled to a significant extent by the time the grinding tools were deposited. The author regards the find context as a ritual deposit in a sacred area, but even she is rather sceptical about a direct link to a sacral function for the rondel. Comparative analyses of grinding tools not only from rondel ditches but also from the surrounding settlement features will be necessary before we can confirm the theory that an accumulation of these tools reflects ritual activities within the rondels (similarly to Petrasch 1998 in the case of the Künzing-Unternberg rondel, or Řídký et al. in press b). Isolated pits, other structures found within rondels, have also been used to support the idea of a sacral function for these sites. In Těšetice-Kyjovice, three pits were found to contain destroyed ovens and other pits contained “unique polychrome pottery”; close to the north entrance passage, there were two so-called sunken-floored buildings whose fills contained noteworthy finds (e.g. bones of hunted animals) (Podborský ed. 1993, 128). Pits containing exceptional quantities of pottery and other finds, dated to the original period during which the rondels were in use, have also been uncovered in the central areas of the rondels at Goseck, Kamegg, Bylany 4/1 and in Praha-Ruzyně. “Find-rich” pits are also known from Friebritz and from the Horoměřice–Chotol site in Bohemia (Řídký 2011). As in the previous cases, these sites are very distant from each other and it is not possible to prove that the pits and rondels are contemporary with each other using current archaeological methods.

Summary and further avenues for research This chapter, dealing with existing hypotheses concerning the origin and functions of rondels, provides us with several important pieces of information that will need to be taken into account in our further search for the social and power strategies of archaic societies in the material remains from the first half of the fifth millennium BC. Our review indicates that, to date, no individual find context or artefact provides incontrovertible proof of a ritual function for rondels. It may be that the evidence of rituals no longer exists in the archaeological record, particularly if items associated with them were made of organic materials. We nonetheless believe that suitably applied analyses of formal properties and/or quantitative and spatial analyses can be utilised to process the available archaeological sources, particularly artefacts. Various analyses of the degrees of preservation of pottery vessels, grinding tools, etc. may provide further insights, for example. In Chapter 5 we will identify suitable data sets within the case studies. We are still not certain what rondels looked like when they were originally built, nor when they had reached the end of their functional life. Likewise, we do not have a clear understanding of how or why they were modified and reconstructed over the course of their existence. In order to gain more information about the builders of these structures, we need to reveal whether any general rules of construction prevail throughout the wider rondel distribution area or within more limited areas, i.e. within archaeological cultures or smaller regions. We lack a sufficient number of radiocarbon dates and clear localisation and critical evaluation of the samples on which conclusions regarding the origin of rondels might be based. We need to fill the gaps in some settlement areas and, at least in selected examples, we need to consider the site-formation processes, the issue of the rate at which the fills accumulated, and the contemporaneity of the individual parts of rondels. Only then will it be possible to discuss the duration of the original function of rondels and the speed of their eventual spread. We lack a regional study of settlement patterns and site layouts as well as a comparative study of house structures and burial customs. To date, the adoption of analogies has led to very contradictory conclusions. For some experts, rondels are linked to the spread of a solar ideology, and the “planetisation of Neolithic civilisation,” which would have led to the creation of central astronomically oriented temples that can be linked to ranked societies (e.g. Kovárník 1997; Podborský ed. 1999, 287–291; Schier 2015). For other scholars, rondels are tied up with the original “egalitarian” notion of simple societies (e.g. Oliva 2004; more or less also Whittle 1996, 192).

4 Rondel research methodologies, the state of research and our data base Jaroslav Řídký

This chapter will outline the various field methodologies used for the discovery and investigation of rondels and will briefly summarise the history of rondel research in Central Europe. Subsequently, we will describe the present state of rondel research in the individual countries, listing the numbers and locations of the sites discovered so far and the methods used in their investigation. The final part of the chapter will present the rondel data set that we have compiled from various international publications and which will form the focus of the current study. Research methodology Today the surviving remains of the monuments known as rondels are characterised by two basic structural elements – a ditch and a narrower and much shallower foundation trench. Certain experts believe that banks originally stood on the outer edge of the ditches: in theory, these banks would have been constructed using up cast soil from the ditches (e.g. Bertemes and Northe 2007; Stäuble 2007; 2012; Kovárník and Mangel 2013). As we will see in Chapter 6, however, the presence of banks is difficult to prove archaeologically, and not all researchers accept that they once existed (Podborský 1988; Trnka 1991; Loishandl-Weisz and Peticzka 2011). The characteristic features of rondels can sometimes be perceived in aerial photographs thanks to vegetation (Fig. 4.1) or soil indicators, but they are usually much more easily identified in the multi-coloured imagery produced by geophysical surveys (Fig. 4.2). Ideally, test excavation offers the most effective means of identification (e.g. Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 19–29). During excavations, the presence and shape of circular ditches and trenches are usually perceptible as characteristic darker coloured soil (Fig. 4.3). For decades, information about rondels has been gathered using various methods including so-called non-destructive techniques (remote sensing, geophysics, field walking prospection) and archaeological excavations, which are principally carried out in rescue situations. As all of these methods have specific advantages and disadvantages; ideally a combination of them should be used in order to gain a better understanding of the rondels themselves and adjacent settlement sites.

Fig. 4.1 Examples of rondels in Benátky nad Jizerou (A) and Skupice (B) in the Czech Republic, detected using aerial landscape prospection. Author M. Gojda.

Fig. 4.2 Examples of rondels in Třebovětice (A), Plotiště nad Labem (B), and Bylany 4/1, 4/2 (C) in the Czech Republic detected by geophysical prospection using a cesium magnetometer in 2009, 2010 and 2014. Author R. Křivánek, after Křivánek 2011; 2015.

An advantage of remote sensing (aerial and satellite photography, 3D landscape scanning) is that it offers archaeologists the opportunity to locate rondels, and other associated features, over an extensive area; the use of landscape scanning (LIDAR) imagery

allows forested areas to be investigated (e.g. Gojda ed. 2004; Gojda 2017). These methods have been successfully used in Bavaria (Germany), Slovakia, Lower Austria and in the Czech Republic (e.g. Trnka 1991; Gojda 1997; Kovárník 2008; Kuzma and Tirpák 2012). In suitable conditions, most often when corn and other agricultural crops are ripening, it is possible to ascertain the overall shapes and dimensions of rondels. However, remote sensing imagery sometimes fails to reveal all structural elements of rondels, and in addition there are frequent problems with trying to use such imagery to determine the date of structures. Circular ditched enclosures were also built in more recent periods of prehistory (e.g. Podborský ed. 1999; Spatzier 2017), and dating based on field walking prospection alone is often problematic at multi-period sites.

Fig. 4.3 Darker shapes of ditches and inner foundation trenches (highlighted in B–C) visible during test excavation in sandy (C) and loessial (A–B, D) environments in Kolín I (A–B), Vchynice (D) in the Czech Republic, and Goseck (C) in Germany. Authors M. Gojda (A–B), D. Daněček (C), M. Půlpán (D).

Magnetometer surveys detect magnetic perturbations in soil or in the natural geology and

can be used to detect the fills of sub-surface features; they can thus provide significant information regarding the overall layouts and dimensions of rondels (e.g. Eder-Hinterleitner et al. 2005; Křivánek 2011; 2015). Geophysical prospection can also provide valuable information about the buildings surrounding the rondels; for instance, they can throw light on the position of dwellings and they can reveal the locations of large clay extraction pits (Lobisser 2006). This method depends greatly on suitable geological conditions, however, and cannot be used if there are electric wires or other engineering networks close to the archaeological features (e.g. Řídký et al. 2012a, 236). As in the case of remote sensing, there are often problems associated with the dating of the structures. Geophysical prospection has been consistently used in an intensive study of rondels in Lower Austria and it has also yielded important information in other countries (e.g. Kuna et al. 2004; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010; Kuzma and Tirpák 2012). Test excavation is the only investigation method that provides precise information regarding the dimensions of the ditches and trenches, the profiles and depths of the ditches, or about episodes of repair or (see also Fig. 6.16 in Chapter 6) reconstruction (e.g. Němejcová-Pavúková 1995; Stäuble 2012; Schier 2012b, 141–145). Over the past two decades or so, only a handful of systematic research investigations have been undertaken at rondel sites; in these cases it was possible to plan the extent of the test excavation and to define the research objectives in advance (e.g. Pavlů et al. 1995; Schier 2012b; Kovárník 2016a). In the majority of cases, rondels have been investigated in the course of rescue excavations conducted ahead of industrial mining (e.g. Cladders et al. 2012) or the construction of residential buildings, communications or engineering networks (e.g. Barna 2007; 2015; Šumberová et al. 2010). The fact that most excavations to date have been carried out under rescue conditions has significantly influenced not only the extent of the examined areas but also the time available for research and post-excavation analyses. An evident advantage of test excavation is the opportunity it offers to obtain material for dating the structures, thereby allowing us to resolve issues relating to the formation of ditch fills. Excavation of the structural elements of a rondel may involve several approaches. Foundation trenches are usually examined by sections of various lengths opened up during the excavation (Fig. 4.4). The aims of excavation are to discover the dimensions of the trenches, the shapes of the entrances and whether or not there are postholes within the trenches (see Fig. 4.4: D–E). Sometimes, the shapes of the postholes allow us to draw conclusions regarding the preparation of the posts – e.g. unhewn posts, split posts, etc. – and we may also be able to measure the spacing between the posts (e.g. Podborský 1988). An important task during the excavation of trenches is to identify the superpositions and to determine the chronological relationships between features. Ditches are also usually divided into regular sections, known as sectors, during the excavation (Fig. 4.4). The individual sectors may be further longitudinally divided into halves to enable the recording of both transverse and longitudinal profiles through photography or drawing (Fig. 4.4: A–C). The ditch fills may be removed by natural layers, which differ in composition, colour and orientation (Fig. 4.5). However, removal of fill by

so-called artificial layers has proven to be a much more suitable methodology for later spatial analyses of the finds within the ditches. The individual finds may be 3D surveyed during the excavation, but this procedure is rather time-consuming and therefore difficult to apply during rescue excavations (e.g. Řídký et al. 2012b; 2014a). Ditch fills may be sampled for micromorphological or geochemical analyses of the soil (Fig. 4.6). To date this has allowed researchers (e.g. Loishandl-Weisz and Peticzka 2011; Kinne et al. 2012; Lisá et al. 2013; 2014): 1) to detect anthropogenic or natural agents that contributed to the creation of the ditch fills in the past; 2) to verify the original presence of a bank or banks on the edges of the ditches (redeposition of material from the ditch). For the past thirty years, researchers have been trying to piece together the missing elements of these structures in an attempt to reconstruct their original appearance and to reveal how individual rondels may have evolved or been altered over time. New interpretations have appeared with virtually every major research project in the past, and many of these are still the focus of discussions to this day (e.g. Petrasch 1990, 475–476; Němejcová-Pavúková 1995; Stäuble 2012). Several significant excavation case studies, which have been important sources of information for the topics studied in this book, are summed up in the following chapter (Chapter 5). At this stage, we are going to look at the current state of research and we will present our primary data set. State of research and data set The earliest rondels to be identified include the structure in Krpy in Bohemia, the Czech Republic (Woldřich 1886; Pavlů 1982), where excavation began in the second half of the nineteenth century, and the much better known rondel located near Kothingeichendorf in Lower Bavaria, Germany (e.g. Petrasch 1990, 414; Podborský ed. 1999, 16–21), which was discovered about half a century later. In both cases, the investigators were dealing with a site type with which they were unfamiliar. In 1965, I. Pavlů and his team were still encountering problems, not only with interpretation but also with dating, during the much later test excavations of the ditches in Bylany near Kutná Hora (central Bohemia) and in Vochov (west Bohemia). At that time, there was still a lack of wider awareness of the surprising size of the rondels, of their precise cultural classification, and of their unexpectedly broad geographic distribution (e.g. Pavlů and Metlička 2013, 7–8; and Pavlů pers. com. 2015). The 1970s and 80s were a crucial period during which our knowledge of the basic types of rondel layout and their spread greatly improved. In addition to an extensive excavation in Těšetice-Kyjovice (the rondel had been identified initially in 1968; Podborský 1988) in Moravia, the Czech Republic, many other field surveys took place at that time, during which rondels were uncovered in Bavaria, Germany (Künzing-Unternberg), southwest Slovakia (Svodín, Bučany), Lower Austria (Friebritz, Kamegg) and western Hungary. However, the 1990s saw the greatest increase in new evidence for rondels; this surge in information was linked to the development of aerial photography and geophysical prospection methods in the countries of the former Eastern Bloc; these methodological advances coincided with a boom

in construction and related rescue excavations (e.g. Becker 1996; Braasch 1997; Kovárník 2008; Kuzma and Tirpák 2012; Stäuble 2012; Gojda 2017).

Fig. 4.4 Methods used for the excavation of rondel ditches (A–C) and inner foundation trenches (D–E) through the documentation of cross sections and longitudinal (C–E) profiles of the rondels in Praha-Ruzyně (A), Kolín 2 (B, D), Vchynice (C) in the Czech Republic; and Eythra (E) in Germany. Authors M. Kostka (A), M. Gojda (B), M. Půlpán (C), R. Šumberová (D), A. Kinne, © Landesamt für Archäologie Sachsen (E).

The history of rondel research in individual countries has been the subject of several dedicated conferences and workshops and is amply described in publications by Podborský, J. Petrasch and G. Trnka (Podborský ed. 1999, 16–21; Trnka 1991, 12–14;). As regards individual countries we refer the reader to works by the following researchers: for Austria, P. Melichar, W. Neubauer and colleagues (Petrasch 1990, 414–416; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 31–32); for Slovakia, I. Kuzma with J. Tirpák (Kuzma and Tirpák 2012, 240–241); for Hungary, E. Pásztor and colleagues (Pásztor et al. 2014); and for Bohemia, J. Řídký and colleagues (Řídký et al. 2012a, 224–225). We, therefore, do not propose to discuss the history of local research any further here. Instead we will consider the present state of research, i.e. the number of rondels identified to date, the distribution of these rondels, and the methods used in their discovery.

Fig. 4.5 Excavation by so-called natural layers used for the examination of a number of sectors of the Kolín 1 (A; ditch No. 3) and Kolín 2 (B) rondels (CZ). Author R. Šumberová.

At present, a total of 43 rondels are known from 36 sites in Austria, but only a little over a half (23) have been examined by at least small-scale trial trenching (Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 16–17, 58–59). The most recent list compiled for western Hungary includes a dozen rondels from nine sites, only eight of which have been test excavated (Litersky and Nebelsick 2012; Barna et al. 2016). A total of 26 rondels from 25 sites have been detected in the southwestern part of Slovakia, but only seven of these have undergone

some form of excavation, testing or otherwise (Kuzma 2005; 1998; Kuzma and Tirpák 2012). At present, we know of 40 rondels from 34 sites in the Czech Republic; 29 of these have been investigated by test excavations of various extents (Řídký 2011; Kovárník 2012; Šumberová et al. 2012; Milo et al. 2015a, b). Another 30 rondels from 22 sites (18 of which have been examined in detail) are known from several German federal states (Litersky and Nebelsick 2012; Meyer 2012; Stäuble 2012;). Three rondels, perhaps the first of many, have recently been reported from Poland; one of these was uncovered during rescue excavations (Kobyliński et al. 2012; Litersky and Nebelsick 2012). This corpus of sites will form the focus of the following chapters where they will be used to address the issue of the likely original appearance of rondels and of the existence of certain patterns in their subsequent maintenance.

Fig. 4.6 Preparations for the taking of samples for micromorphological analyses from the fill of ditch No. 2 of the rondel Kolín 1 (CZ). Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 4.7 The ratios of rondels within the individual archaeological cultures documented by test excavation, by geophysical prospection and based on remote sensing. The graph has been created using data presented in Table 4.1. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 4.8 The distribution and numeral designation of the rondels used in this work. The numbers correspond to the numbers attributed to the rondels in Table 4.1. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

In total, we have collected data from 154 rondels from all countries with evidence for these circular structures (Fig. 4.7; Tab. 4.1). In the following chapters, we will consider these structures and their immediate and wider environs through various analyses of their form, dimensions and spatial properties (Fig. 4.8). Regrettably, as is evident from the following summary of excavations, only ten rondels out of this rather high total number have been extensively excavated, either in their entirety (Těšetice-Kyjovice, Kamegg, Bučany, Goseck, Praha-Ruzyně, Dresden-Nickern 1, Eythra) or to such an extent that we can address the issues of their original appearance, the types of buildings found within and adjacent to the rondels (Kolín 1 and Kolín 2; possibly Kolín 3; e.g. Šumberová et al. 2010), and the relationship between artefacts or other portable finds and the preserved structural elements of the rondel. It is clear that the present state of knowledge of rondels is also influenced by the level of protection given to the archaeological resource and the thematic focus of archaeological research in the individual countries. Data based solely on aerial photography and geophysical survey may be distorted. We must, therefore, proceed with great caution and a critical attitude when, for example, trying to explain the spread of rondels of various shapes and sizes. Let us now continue our efforts to identify socio-political strategies by looking at a

number of important excavation case studies for settlements that include rondels. Table 4.1 The list of rondels referred to in this book. On both pages, follow the Number on map. The names of sites are printed in capital letters. X designates the type of intervention carried out or indicates that samples were collected. The types of entrance passages in the trenches are based on Fig. 6.8, the types of entrance passages in the ditches are based on Fig. 6.24. Dimensions in metres (author: J. Řídký)

5 Rondel settlement case studies Jaroslav Řídký, Markéta Končelová, Radka Šumberová and Pavel Burgert

In this chapter, we are going to take a closer look at a number of investigations that have greatly influenced various aspects of rondel research. We will consider recent rondel excavations which, in our opinion, provide vital information for our own study. We have conducted a search of monographs and articles for potential attributes of the two basic social arrangements defined in Chapter 2, i.e. achievement-based societies and chiefly societies. This part of our study will, therefore, focus exclusively on settlements with rondels. The summaries of the individual excavations are extensive, but we believe that it is important to highlight the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of the information and data with which archaeologists have had to work in the past and the pitfalls inherent in any attempts at generalisation or wider comparison. The selected excavations presented in here will frequently be referred to in the following chapters dealing with the construction of rondels and radiocarbon dating. Těšetice-Kyjovice: “Rondel zero” The investigation of the rondel in Těšetice-Kyjovice, Moravia, began in the late 1960s and continued over the following decade, primarily under the directorship of V. Podborský, on whose publications we have based much of what follows (Podborský 1985; 1988; Podborský ed. 1999; 2005). The Těšetice-Kyjovice site deserves particular attention as it was the very first structure of this type to be fully excavated. Following mechanised topsoil stripping, the excavation area was geodetically measured to create a grid; the uncovered ditch and two foundation trenches were divided into a number of sectors that acted as the framework for the excavation. A portion of the ditch fill in the northern part of the rondel was left untouched for future research; we will return to this fill in Chapter 6. The fill in other sectors of the ditch was removed using a system of so-called artificial layers. In plan, the rondel is oval-shaped, with a maximum diameter of 64 m. It consists of an outer ditch and two inner foundation trenches (Fig. 5.1). The maximum width of the ditch is 7 m and its average depth is almost 4 m; the sides of the ditch converge to form a pointed base. The outermost of the two trenches was 0.8 to 3.6 m from the ditch and had a maximum

diameter of nearly 50 m and a depth of 0.3–0.9 m. The line of the trench was closest to the edge of the ditch in the areas of the entrance passages. The innermost trench was situated at a distance of 3.5–6 m from the outer one and had a maximum diameter of 38 m. The depth of the inner trench did not exceed 0.2 m. Like the ditch, both foundation trenches were interrupted by four opposing entrances. The discovery of occasional postholes – some with a pointed base and others with a rounded base – was an important discovery in terms of the reconstruction of the original appearance of the structure. Most of the postholes uncovered at the edges of the entrance passages were larger and deeper; in a number of cases, the posts erected at these points were secured with packing stones. The four ditch entrances took the form of simple interruptions in the line of the ditch; all were oriented approximately to the cardinal points, with minor deviations. The width of the south entrance passage was almost 2.9 m where it passed through the ditch, 2.6 m in the area of the outer trench and only 1.4 m where it passed through the inner trench (Fig. 5.1). The total length of the south entrance passage, from the outer edge of the ditch to the innermost foundation trench, was, therefore, approximately 12 m. Several postholes were uncovered in the area of this entrance passage delimited by the ditch and the trenches; Podborský postulated the existence of a complex entrance structure that possibly allowed the central area of the rondel to be closed off. Postholes in the area of the west entrance passage (with a width of 2.9 m) have been interpreted in a similar way. The north entrance passage reached a width of 3.6 m where it passed through the ditch, 5.6 m where it passed through the outer trench and 3.2 m at the inner trench. The width of the east entrance passage did not exceed 2.4 m at the ditch, reaching 6.2 m at the outer trench and nearly 11 m at the inner trench.

Fig. 5.1 Ground plan of the Těšetice-Kyjovice rondel, Moravia (CZ). The plan depicts the part of the settlement delimited by the palisade trench, with the rondel proper at its centre. The rondel itself and the outer palisade enclosure are indicated in black, storage pits in green, pits with exceptional finds described as sacrificial deposits in red, pits with remnants of ovens in yellow, sunken-floored buildings in blue, and other pits belonging to the Moravian-Austrian Painted Ware group period in grey. White features are diachronic with the rondel or undated. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Podborský 1988 and Kuča et al. 2010.

Five oval features, each less than one metre long and up to 1.6 m deep, were uncovered in the area between the outer trench and the ditch; they were regarded as an integral part of the original structure (see Fig. 5.1). Four features were revealed in the central area of the rondel, i.e. in the area enclosed by the inner trench; on the basis of pottery finds the authors formed the opinion that these features were not contemporary with the ditch but were probably earlier. According to

Podborský, a further 28 small and medium-sized pits might have been directly associated with the rondel; “unique polychrome pottery” and a human skull were recovered from some of the fills. Three destroyed clay ovens were uncovered near the east entrance and they appear to broadly respect the entrance passage through the trenches; however, it has not been possible to assign them with certainty to the same chronological period as the rondel. Most pits inside the rondel revealed a single phase of infilling; according to Podborský, it is probable that these features were filled intentionally. In what was a novel approach at the time, the 1985 and 1988 publications on TěšeticeKyjovice use inputs from geologists when discussing issues concerning the infilling of the ditches and the fills of the palisade trenches and of other features in the vicinity of the rondels. Cross-sections of the ditch recorded layers that originated from natural outwash, as well as layers that attested to the cleaning out of the ditch and the levelling of the ground surface. According to Podborský, the occurrence of certain artefacts and biofacts can be linked to the processes that gave rise to the fill within the ditch. The orientations of the outwash layers have also been examined and it appears that they entered the ditch from both sides and from the edges. Podborský estimates that the total volume of material removed during the digging of the ditch would have amounted to 1,530 cubic metres. Theoretically this material could have been piled up to create a 3.5 m wide bank with a height of up to 3.2 m (see also Fig. 1.3: B in Chapter 1), but the researcher believed that such a bank never existed: his argument was based on the varying orientations of the layers of the ditch fill and the occurrence of a number of features, which he regarded as being contemporary with the rondel, in close proximity to the ditch. According to Podborský, the divergence of both trenches in the vicinity of the entrances argues against material being placed in the area between the trenches, within the area enclosed by the ditch. Moreover, the inner palisade may never have been completed, as is suggested by an eleven-metre wide gap in its eastern side. Furthermore, a bank would not have fitted in the space between the ditch and the outer palisade trench; indeed the ditch and trench almost touch in the northern part of the structure. In addition, the five elongated features situated in this area appear to be directly related to the rondel as they respect its overall ground plan. In the 1980s, pottery and figurine fragments were used to date the rondel and to interpret its “life cycle.” We can sum up the evolution of the monument as follows. After the initial construction of the rondel, its ditch was filled with settlement refuse over a short period of time; then it was recut (cleaned) and the two inner palisade enclosures were reinforced at the same time. The fact that the ditch appears to have been already infilled during the Neolithic is evidenced by the existence of a Neolithic cultural formation in its upper part. Knowledge gained from the excavation contexts and from the items found in the ditch fill – vessel sherds, beads, figurines, weights and other pottery items as well as animal bones, human bones, shells, daub and stone tools – enabled Podborský to propose a reconstruction of the original appearance of the structure and to suggest what its function might have been. The following description of the rondel is based on the evidence found.

Posts, some of which were split longitudinally, were set at close intervals within the foundation trenches. While most posts had blunt ends and were, therefore, probably set into previously dug holes, pointed posts have been also identified and these were probably driven directly into the ground. It is worth pointing out that since the posts were inserted to a depth of about half a metre, they may have extended to a height of up to 2 metres above the ground surface. Podborský envisaged the original circular structure as consisting of an outer ditch, without any associated banks, surrounding two simple concentric timber palisades (see also Fig. 1.3: A, in Chapter 1). The entrance passages, which may have been equipped with gates to restrict access to the central area, were also built of timber. On certain sites, the gaps between the posts may have been filled with wattle and daub, but here the absence of daub fragments in the fills of the palisade trenches makes it more likely that the posts were free standing, with spaces between them, as has been postulated for the later “henge” structures of the British Isles. When describing the Těšetice-Kyjovice rondel, we must briefly mention an important feature that might cast more light on the position of these circular structures within the wider spatial organisation of the settlements. The feature in question is an oval trench, in which posts were also originally set, and which encircled the rondel proper at a distance of twenty to forty metres (Fig. 5.1). The maximum diameter of this outer palisade enclosure, which probably had four entrances corresponding to the entrances to the rondel, was almost 130 m. Dozens of features were examined in the area between this enclosure and the rondel itself (Kuča et al. 2010). They include four large clay pits, six storage pits situated near the northwestern edge of the rondel ditch, and many other pits scattered throughout the delimited area (Fig. 5.1, and also Fig. 1.3 in Chapter 1). It has not been possible, however, to accurately date these features as their fills produced very few finds. It should be noted, however, that in the eastern part of the enclosure in particular, the features appear to avoid the access routes to the rondel. In addition, two rectangular sunken-floored buildings, with postholes in their floors, were uncovered close to the north entrance in the area between the outer palisade enclosure and the rondel itself. The fills of both features included significant quantities of decorated pottery, animal bones, including the remains of a bear and European lynx, a human phalange, yellow and red pigment, stone artefacts (including imported obsidian) and, above all, a large quantity of daub remains; the latter attests to the existence of a structure made of a combination of vertical split posts, wickerwork and plaster. According to the authors of the publication, the composition and character of these finds differ markedly from those found in other features in the vicinity of the rondel. Excavation has provided us with some invaluable information regarding the area that separated the rondel proper from other parts of the settlement. For example, the raw materials used to produce the stone tools found here mostly came from within a 25 km radius of the site. Exotic materials from further afield include metabasites of a type found in the Jizera Mountains (sources c. 200 km to the northwest), cherts from glacigenic sediments (source c. 200 km to the northeast), cherts from the Cracow-Częstochowa Upland (sources c. 310 km to

the northeast) and Carpathian obsidian (sources more than 300 km to the east). These imported materials occur rather sporadically, and cores fashioned from these materials are virtually absent. Indeed, cores in general are rare, even in the case of local materials. It is, therefore, likely that the materials were transported to the settlement in the form of finished or semi-finished products. The overall composition of the corpus of tools produced by polishing or chipping does not differ significantly in quality, technology or structure from other settlements from the same period which lack rondels (Oliva 2004). The results of archaeozoological analysis have also been published for the TěšeticeKyjovice site (Dreslerová 2006). The predominant domesticated species was cattle, followed in order of importance by sheep and goat, and domesticated pig. Analyses of the skeletal remains indicate that, in the period in question, livestock was primarily reared for the production of quality meat from young animals. Forelimb bones predominate in the skeletal remains; the occurrence of hind limbs, which produce the highest-quality meat, was somewhat below the average (compared to the Linear Pottery culture period). The rather high occurrence of wild game animals was particularly surprising; beaver, deer (bones and antlers), wild boar, aurochs, bear, lynx and horse comprised more than a half of all the animal bones found. Earlier test excavations, as well as later geophysical surveys, carried out in the vicinity of the rondel revealed that the whole rondel complex developed directly on top of an extensive earlier LBK settlement, and evidence of Stroked Pottery culture occupation and burials have also been recorded (Podborský ed. 2005; Vostrovská and Prokeš 2013, 95). The site was also occupied during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Svodín: Two rondels in the same place The remains of the two circular structures uncovered by V. Němejcová-Pavúková in 1971– 1983 at “Busahegy” in Svodín, Slovakia, have greatly added to our knowledge of this site type with many new and unexpected finds (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995). A number of novel interpretations of the former appearance of the ditched circular structures have also been presented along with an analysis of the recorded find contexts (see Chapter 3). The area was investigated using a system of test pits of various extents. The author identified two noncontemporaneous rondel structures, Svodín 1 and Svodín 2, which were built on the same spot (Fig. 5.2). Svodín 1 consisted of an outer ditch and two inner foundation trenches in which postholes were recorded: these postholes were positioned much more closely together than at Těšetice. The ditch, which was V-shaped in profile, was 3.5 m wide, up to 3–4 m deep and had a maximum diameter of almost 68 m; there was no evidence of repair work having been carried out to the ditch. The outer foundation trench, which was almost 0.7 m in depth, had a diameter of nearly 55 m and was situated a mere 0.5 m from the inner edge of the ditch. The inner foundation trench, which was 0.4 m in depth, had a diameter of 53 m and was positioned c. 2 m inside the first trench.

Four slightly asymmetrically positioned entrance passages led into the centre of the structure: these passages were roughly oriented towards the four cardinal points. The author calculated that the width of the south entrance passage originally ranged from almost 3 m at the ditch to 1.7 m at the outer trench and 1.4 m at the inner trench. Separate postholes were identified in the area of the trench terminals, and further postholes located to the inside of the inner trench were apparently related to the original structure of the entrance passage. The overall length of the entrance passage, spanning the ditch and the two foundation trenches, was close to six metres. The excavator felt that the three entrance passages identified in the course of the excavation must have been oriented on significant landmarks. More than ten shallow postholes, which could not be connected to form a meaningful ground plan, were uncovered in the space between the ditch and the internal trenches. The author mentions the possibility that they might belong to the same period as the Svodín 1 rondel (Fig. 5.2). The remains of a later structure with four entrance passages, denoted as Svodín 2, have been identified approximately 10 m from the north edge and three metres from the south edge of the ditch of the previous structure. This structure, which is much larger and apparently more complex than Svodín 1, consisted of two ditches and three foundation trenches. Both out-turned ditch terminals were extended up to 18 m outside the complex in the area of the entrances. The location and orientation of the entrances into the structure were almost identical to those of Svodín 1.

Fig. 5.2 The ground plans of the Svodín 1 (grey) and Svodín 2 (black) rondels, Slovakia, are depicted in the upper left corner of the figure. Postholes that can be interconnected to form longhouse plans are marked in red. As the longhouses spatially respect the entrances to both rondels, it is possible that they were contemporary with one or other of them. It is often postulated that the longhouses are contemporary with the smaller rondel, Svodín 1 (e.g. Pavúk 2012). However, a second possibility, that the longhouses stood within the larger rondel, Svodín 2, cannot be ruled out. This latter theory would mean, however, that the wooden structures inside the rondel would have had to have been reconstructed or modified over time. In any case, the innermost foundation trench of Svodín 2 cannot be contemporary with the longhouses. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Němejcová-Pavúková 1995.

The outer ditch had a maximum diameter of about 142 m; if we include the out-turned terminals of the ditch, the size of the original structure approached 160 m. The width of this outer ditch slightly exceeded 4 m, with a maximum depth of almost 4.9 m. During the excavation of the outer ditch, the author detected surprising differences of up to half a metre in the depth of its base; these changes in depth occurred at intervals of about 3 m. The inner ditch, up to 12 m from the inner edge of the outer ditch, had a maximum diameter of 110 m, a maximum width of almost 7 m and a depth of over 5 m. Except for a few details, the ditch fills were rather similar to those described at TěšeticeKyjovice, especially in the lower parts, where layers of various thicknesses alternated, attesting to rapid in-fill of the bottom of the ditch. Renovation (cleaning) has been detected at various depths in both ditches. It is interesting that 5 or 6 such episodes were detected for some parts of the ditches, and only one or even none for others. Two examples of recuts that disturbed the original shape have been detected for both ditches, with the pointed bottoms displaced relative to the vertical axes of the original ditches. The outer trench was situated up to 2 m from the edge of the inner ditch. The author of the report mentions the possibility that the palisade enclosures might have been built before the digging of the two ditches; the subsequent digging and construction of the ditch entrances would thus have been determined by the previous combination of wooden structures (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995, 73). The middle trench was much deeper than the others, and the author expressed the opinion that it may have formed the load-bearing element of a more complex structure, namely a rampart. It is interesting to note that while the middle and outer trenches were virtually concentric, with a constant distance of c. 3 m between them, the innermost trench was somewhat offcentre with the distance between it and the middle trench varying between 3 m and almost 8 m (Fig. 5.2). In each entrance passage, the ends of the outermost trench were marked by a posthole, thus differing from the other two trenches, which were turned inwards towards the centre of the structure in the entrance areas. The outer trench had a diameter of nearly 100 m, the maximum diameter of the middle trench was 95 m and the inner trench encircling the centre of the structure had a diameter of about 80 m. Discontinuous lines of postholes were uncovered parallel to the outer and the middle trenches. They were particularly visible in the area of the west entrance. Of the four entrances, the west entrance passage has been examined most thoroughly (Fig. 5.2). The shape of this passage is interesting: the out-turned terminals of the smaller ditch within the entrance passage were not perpendicular to the line of the ditch but were S-

shaped. The out-turned terminals of both ditches did not run parallel to each other in the same direction; this configuration was even more visible at the north entrance, where the ditch terminals splayed outwards. Němejcová-Pavúková suggests that the two ditches might not have been dug at the same time (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995, 67). The west entrance passage has an irregular width of between 3.5 and 6.5 m in the area between the ditches, of 0.8 m at the outer and middle trenches, and up to 1 m at the inner trench. The length of this entrance passage approaches 30 m between the two ditches; the total length of the west entrance passage, including all three trenches, reaches almost 40 m.

Fig. 5.3 Distribution of graves on the Svodín site (left) and network diagram showing grave inventory for exceptional burials of different age, gender and spatial groups (right). After Demján 2015, fig. 2 and fig. 6.

Němejcová-Pavúková envisaged the original appearance of the circular structures in Svodín as follows. The earlier, smaller structure (Svodín 1) was a relatively simple wood and earth construction. It was based around two continuous rings of vertical posts, with the material gathered during the digging of the ditches placed between them. In this way, Němejcová-Pavúková resolved the issue of a potential bank. After this structure had perished, a much larger wood-and-earth structure was built (Svodín 2), with a much more substantial rampart measuring about 10 m in width. The structure was once again based on vertical posts which comprised continuous walls, with the earth dug during the digging of the ditches piled up between them. This structure was also surrounded by ditches on the outside. Like the previous Moravian site, Svodín has also yielded sporadic finds of Carpathian obsidian artefacts (sources more than 150 km to the east) as well as other clearly imported materials (e.g. Oliva 2004, 513). In his 2016 thesis, P. Demján has been the latest to discuss the Svodín settlement complex (Demján 2016). He states that a total of 679 features contained finds of Lengyel pottery in their fills, but certain features have also been dated to the Eneolithic (in the Slovak

chronology), the Late Bronze Age, the Early Iron Age and the Middle Ages. Apart from the two rondels, 35–40 post-built structures (houses) and 113 graves from the Lengyel culture period were also uncovered in Svodín during the excavations carried out by NěmejcováPavúková. Important findings, particularly concerning the social structure of the people buried in seven groups of graves distributed around the post structures, have been published previously (Demján 2015). Based on the grave goods, it was possible to classify the graves into four chronological phases, which were divided into earlier (phases I and II) and the later (phases III and IV) horizons. Demján states that both gender and age could be determined for more than half of the buried individuals. Female burials (36 cases) were more common than male burials (24 cases) among the determined skeletal remains. Children comprised 48 cases: half of these belonged to the infans II group (0.5–6 years). The adultus II (30–39 years) group was also frequently represented (15 cases), with both genders, while the infans I (0–0.5 years) and infans III (7–13 years), juvenis (14–19 years), adultus I (20–29 years) as well as maturus I (40–49 years) and maturus II (50–59 years) groups occurred in smaller proportions. The author of the article has found no significant differences between spatially or chronologically distinct groups of graves. However, the outcomes of various analyses point to notable differences between the grave goods of men and women, as well as the existence of vertical social stratification which is particularly evident among middle-aged men (Demján 2015, 371). Differences in grave goods that could be interpreted as reflecting both horizontal and vertical social stratification have also been found among the individual groups of graves (Fig. 5.3). According to P. Demján, it is possible that the burials were clustered in individual groups based on family relationships. Increased social complexity could be detected above all for later graves. In particular, the author identifies a “hereditary aspect of the social status” for the fourth group, because it includes similarly exceptional grave goods for men (adultus and maturus), women and children. While the exceptional grave goods differ between men and women, they respect the gender structure for young boys and girls. Rare “prestige” grave goods include spondylus ornaments (only found in richly endowed graves), boar tusk pendants (prevalent in the graves of middle-aged men) and stone mace-heads. Likewise, the skeletal remains of a dog found in the grave of an adult male (adultus II) can also be seen as a special type of grave good. It appears that anthropomorphic ceramic vessels were genderdetermined grave goods in Svodín, as they only occur in the graves of adult women and girls (Pavúk 2005, 215). Based on analyses of the pottery and of the stratigraphic relationships within the site, Demján has divided the occupation of Svodín into seven phases; three of these phases predate the construction of the rondels, two cover the period when the rondels were in use, and two post-date the rondels (Demján 2016). The Svodín site stands as an example of the enormously intricate and complex work required to evaluate multi-period sites. Bučany: What is hidden inside?

During the rescue excavation of a multi-period site at Bučany, J. Bujna and P. Romsauer and their team excavated about ninety percent of the overall area of a rondel composed of two ditches and one inner foundation trench (Bujna and Romsauer 1986). Apart from the rondel itself, a further 33 features belonging to the Lengyel culture were found in an area of about 5 ha (Pažinová 2012; 2007). Along with the evidence from Těšetice-Kyjovice, this site provides excellent data to allow us to evaluate the structure of the rondel, including its central area. Suitable preservation conditions made it possible to uncover the entire circuit of the foundation trench, including the out-turned terminals which passed through the entrance gaps in the inner ditch (Fig. 5.4). The remains of a timber building were revealed within the central area defined by the inner foundation trench. The authors of the excavation report identify this structure as part of the original layout of the rondel and suggest that it played a role in the function of the monument. Ordinary settlement features from the same period have been identified at a distance of 30–40 m from the rondel, especially to the northeast and north. Three Lengyel period inhumation burials have been identified at a distance of about 120 m southwest of the rondel, and further single grave occurs 120 m to the north. The outer ditch, which was interrupted in four places by identically shaped out-turned entrances (10 m long), like those at Svodín 2, reached a maximum diameter of almost 70 m, had a width of around 3 m and a depth of up to 2.6 m. The innermost ditch was separated by about 6.5 m from the outer one. Its maximum diameter was 50 m, while its width and depth were similar to those of the outer ditch. The entrance passages allowing access to the centre of the structure took the form of simple interruptions in the line of the inner ditch. The foundation trench was located at a distance of approximately 1.5 m from the inner edge of the inner ditch. Its maximum diameter was 42 m, with a depth of up to 0.3 m. The line of the palisade trench was interrupted at regular intervals and the ends of each section of trench were marked by a posthole up to 0.6 m in depth.

Fig. 5.4 Ground plan of the Bučany (SK) rondel with a posthole structure inside the area delimited by the foundation trench. The grey colour marks pits dated to the Lengyel period, the cross symbol marks the positions of graves. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Pažinová 2012.

In the northeastern quadrant of the central area of the monument, the excavators were surprised to discover the remains of a rectangular timber structure (Pažinová 2012, 124–125). The post-built building was oriented north-south and measured 15 m by 7.5 m with a probable entrance in the south wall (Fig. 5.4). This is the best-known example in Central Europe of a rondel with a contemporary structure within the central palisade-enclosed area: the authors interpret the structure as being an original feature of the rondel and directly linked to its function. Kamegg: Gradual changes in shape and size The 1981 investigation of the circular complex at Kamegg, along with excavations at Friebritz, marked the start of research into rondels in Austria, particularly in Lower Austria. The site at Kamegg is composed of two concentric ditches, each associated with a palisade trench positioned not far from its inner edge. Since the initial excavation, the various finds and find contexts have been the subject of multidisciplinary studies (e.g. Trnka 2012). G. Trnka’s summary of the construction, modification and original appearance of the rondel is particularly useful in the context of the present study. The outer ditch had a maximum diameter of 150 m, a width of up to 6 m and a depth of almost 3 m; an unfinished foundation trench, with a maximum diameter of 130 m, was identified at a distance of 4–5 m from the inner edge of this ditch. The inner ditch, with a diameter of 85 m, was up to 8 m wide and up to 3.5 m deep. The profiles of the inner ditch showed traces of having been cleaned out, as in Těšetice-Kyjovice. A second trench, with an overall diameter of 53 m, was located at a distance not exceeding 5 m from the inside edge of the inner ditch. Four entrance passages, approximately oriented towards the four cardinal points, led to the centre of the inner circular structure. The width of each passage, formed by a simple interruption in the line of the ditch, was between 2.5 m and 7 m. Important information concerning the construction of the rondel has been yielded in particular by the excavation of the southern and southeastern parts of the structure (Fig. 5.5). Unfinished and non-interconnected sections of the outer ditch were identified here. In the southwestern area, sections of the unfinished foundation trench were also recorded. The construction of the larger ditch evidently started in the area around the north entrance, where it appears to have followed the location of the north entrance to the smaller ditch, which had been built beforehand. On the other hand, analysis of the ground plan makes it evident that the smaller ditch could not have been completely full of outwash, or intentionally deposited fill, at the time when the larger ditch was being dug. The ground plan is therefore very similar to that of Svodín, but the interpretation proposed is radically different. Five main building phases were identified for the site based on an analysis of horizontal stratigraphic relations, pottery finds and numerous radiocarbon dates. The image that

emerges of the overall appearance of the monument, and the coexistence of both ditches and trenches, differs from the situation in Svodín described above. Pits uncovered at the site provide evidence for settlement on the site prior to the construction of the rondels. The inner ditch with one inner trench was built in the second phase, along with a number of buildings outside the complex and a number of features (pits) located close to the central area of the palisade trench. The remains of a human leg were found in the upper part of the fill of one of the pits, and two pits from the same phase were particularly rich in finds (see also Doneus 2005, 58). The construction of the larger circular structure, including the second inner trench, started in the third phase, while the smaller inner structure was still standing. It is interesting to note that the larger and the smaller structures are not concentric – their centres are 6–8 metres apart. Sunken features of the same date were also detected in this phase, not only in the area outside both structures but also in the area between them and in the central area enclosed by the innermost palisade trench. In addition, four sunken-floored houses were found not far from the rondel. The construction of the outermost ditch, with the exception of the southernmost portion, was thought to have been largely completed in the fourth phase. According to the analysis, however, both ditches were filled relatively quickly and during the same time period. Neither of the structures was extant in the fifth phase, but their sites were occupied by a settlement as evidenced by a number of later sunken features which disturbed their remains. The researchers attempted to link all of the chronological phases, and sub-phases, of the culture to changes in the shapes and decoration of the pottery retrieved from the fills of the sunken features (e.g. Stadler et al. 2005/2006).

Fig. 5.5 Ground plan of the Kamegg rondel (AT), where the inner ditch with an inner foundation trench was built first (grey) and the larger ditch with another trench along its inner edge (black) was added later. G. Trnka believes that the two structures were contemporary; this is in contrast to the interpretation proposed for the similar layout in Svodín (SK). Larger pits datable to the Moravian-Austrian Painted Ware group are marked in red. The blue colour marks sunken-floored buildings. No. 13 denotes the position of the child’s grave. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Trnka 2012.

According to Trnka, the entire complex consisted of two independent ditches, and two palisade enclosures – composed of simple posts – which were parallel with each ditch; there were no banks present. However, the southern part of the complex was never completed.

According to the author, the material removed during the digging of the ditches was simply spread out in the vicinity of the rondel. It should be noted that throughout its existence, the rondel stood on the edge of a settlement which was situated to the northeast. Pits of various shapes and sizes and other features, which appear to have contained ovens, occurred in this neighbouring settlement. Local raw materials as well as distant imports from the present-day Czech Republic occur among the fragments of polished stone artefacts found at the settlement (Trnka 2012, 205– 213). The sources for the exotic material are located near Brno (c. 90 km to the north) and in northern Bohemia (metabasites from c. 300 km to the northwest). The most distant imported material comes from the Western Alps (c. 780 km). A few chipped cores, semi-finished and finished products were also made from local materials as well as materials from southern Moravia (Krumlovský les chert), two pieces of Carpathian obsidian (c. 450 km to the northeast), radiolarite of Szentgál type from Hungary (c. 220 km to the southeast) and Bavarian chert from Lower Bavaria (c. 300 km to the west). A comparison of animal skeletal remains from the ditches of the rondel and from the surrounding settlement pits was conducted for the Kamegg site. According to the analysis, domesticated animals (predominantly cattle, followed by sheep, goat and pig) prevail in the rondel ditches, whereas hunted animals predominate over domesticated species (pig, followed by cattle, sheep and goat) in the neighbouring settlement. Aurochs, elk, red deer, roe deer, horse, hare, beaver, quail, duck, swan, blackbird and grosbeak have been identified among the wild animals. Deer was hunted most often; it was found in the rondel ditches as well as in the settlement pits. A child’s skeleton, most probably of a young girl, was found in a circular pit situated between the ditches in the north part of the rondel; no grave goods were found with the remains. The child, who died at the age of 10–12 years, was laid in a crouched position; postmortem interventions are visible on the skeleton. The fact that the child’s skull shows signs of hydrocephaly makes this find particularly noteworthy. Friebritz: Ten burials – a coincidence, or a connection with the rondel? This large structure, located in Lower Austria, was investigated in 1979 and 1981–1988 (Neugebauer 1986); it is composed of two ditches and two foundation trenches. The rondel denoted as No. 1 (another simple ditched rondel discovered nearby was denoted Friebritz 2) was later subjected to geophysical survey (Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 175–180). The three entrances to the rondel differ in plan from the examples described above and the structure is also unusual in that evidence for cleaning and recutting have only been detected for the internal ditch. However, this site is best-known for the finds of ten burials located in the central area of the circular structure (Fig. 5.6). The outer ditch, with a maximum diameter of 143 m, was up to 4 m wide and less than 3 m deep. The eastern entrance passage was formed by an inward-turning of the ditch terminals which do not connect with the inner ditch. In contrast, the in-turned terminals of the outer ditch in the areas of the north and south entrances probably did connect with the inner ditch.

The inner ditch, up to 8 m from the outer one, had a diameter of 110 m, a respectable width of 10 m and a depth of up to 5 m. This inner ditch was simply interrupted in the area of the entrances; as many as six episodes of cleaning have been identified in its cross-sections. The outer timber enclosure, with a diameter of approximately 95 m, consisted of pairs of postholes and was situated at a distance of 7.5 m from the inner edge of the inner ditch. A second foundation trench, with an overall diameter of 90 m and containing densely arranged postholes, was situated at approximately the same distance from the inner edge of the outer trench. W. Neugebauer postulated that the earth removed during the digging of the ditches was heaped up to form a bank between the ditches. He states that items found in the ditch fills originated from the nearby settlement. They included fragments of pottery, animal bones and stone and bone tools. According to Neugebauer, the principal features that indicate a ritual function for the circular structure include the location and orientation of the entrances – which are approximately oriented towards the north, east and south – as well as the peculiar burials in the central area of the rondel. The finding of a group of ten graves, containing five inhumed adults and five children, is exceptional within the territory of the Moravian-Austrian Painted Ware group. Burial grounds, such as those known from southwest Slovakia or western Hungary, have not been found in this part of the eastern complex. According to Ch. Neugebauer-Maresch, at least some of the individuals died violently and, moreover, the graves were disturbed not long after the burials took place (Neugebauer-Maresch 2005, 225–226). Careful examination has revealed that three of the adult males suffered fatal blows to the skull while arrow marks occur on the children’s skulls. Pig and dog bones were deposited in one of the adult graves, while another contained a boar tusk ornament. Yet another contained stone scrapers and cutting tools – according to the author, this may be evidence of shamanistic practices. The most interesting find, however, was the double burial of an adult male and an adult female who had been inhumed in a prone position. The man had his arms crossed, probably bound, and, as well as a jaw injury, stone arrowheads were found in the area of his abdomen. According to radiocarbon dating, these burials took place at the beginning of the construction of the rondel. To date, this is the only site to have produced such evidence.

Fig. 5.6 Ground plan of the Friebritz 1 rondel (AT) with the locations of inhumation graves (red) and pits dated to the Moravian-Austrian Painted Ware group (yellow). Adapted by K. Kleinová after Neubauer and Neugebauer-Maresch 2005, 22, fig. 1.29.

Künzing Unternberg: Too many inner palisade trenches In 1985, a combination of aerial photography, geophysical prospection and rescue excavation led to the identification of an important rondel at Künzing Unternberg in Lower Bavaria (e.g.

Petrasch 1998; 1990). The excavation, directed by J. Petrasch, uncovered about one-third of the total surface area of a large rondel. The structure was composed of two ditches, which were interconnected in the areas of the four entrance passages leading to the centre, in a manner similar to the two entrances in the Friebritz rondel (Fig. 5.7). The outer ditch, with a maximum diameter of 106 m, was 2.2 m wide and 1.7 m deep. The inner ditch, with a maximum diameter of 80 m, was more substantial, with a width of 6 m and a depth of almost 4 m. The rondel included two trenches within the area enclosed by the ditches. The outermost, located about 5 m from the inner edge of the inner ditch, had a diameter of less than 70 m. The inner trench, with a diameter of around 60 m, was situated 5 m from the outer trench. In addition, the entire structure was enclosed by three outer oval ditches which had maximum diameters of approximately 250 m, 320 m and 340 m respectively. In terms of its size and layout, the site is unparalleled in the neighbouring Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lower Austria. Instead, the monument is more typical of Lower Bavaria. The investigations of this structure and of its immediate vicinity have yielded a number of important findings.

Fig. 5.7 Ground plan of Künzing-Unternberg (DE). The rondel ditches and two inner foundation trenches, as well as the three outer ditches encompassing the entire area of the rondel, are marked in black. Three concentric trenches, marked in grey, were found inside the rondel; according to J. Petrasch, they were probably later than the rondel. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Petrasch 1998.

Apart from the two interconnected and, therefore, according to the author, evidently contemporaneous rondel ditches, which are accompanied by two inner trenches, three further oval trenches, with diameters of approximately 50 m, 40 m and 30 m, were found in the centre of the rondel; these trenches have the same number of entrances, in similar locations, as the rest of the rondel. As many as four significant recuts have been detected in the crosssection of the innermost ditch; each recut began at the surface of the original ditch but their vertical axes extend outside it, similar to the recuts described at Svodín. Postholes were found on the base of the narrower sections of ditch that interconnected the two ditches in the area of the entrance passages; these may have been part of the original wooden structure of the entrance passage (Fig. 5.8).

Fig. 5.8 Reconstruction of the west entrance to the Künzing-Unternberg rondel featuring a roofed passage. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Petrasch 1998.

A complete dog skeleton was found in the space between the two inner trenches, and the author was of the opinion that the deposit was an integral part of the rondel and that it was placed in the structure during its initial period of use. Another important discovery was made in the fills of two storage pits located near the rondel. The fills included pottery vessels that clearly did not belong to the local cultural spectrum of the Middle Neolithic in Lower Bavaria; instead they can be attributed to the eastern complex, to the area that is now known as Lower Austria and Moravia. Petrasch presented the following theory concerning the contemporaneity of the rondel and the triple palisade enclosure in the centre of the monument (Petrasch 1998, 24). He believes that the inner triple palisade enclosure was built later than the rondel, at a time when the original ditched circular structure no longer existed. This research thus highlighted the existence of other types of circular structures, namely palisade enclosures, which are constructed in a different manner to rondels (e.g. Burgert et al. 2016). Overall, Petrasch envisaged the original structure as having two continuous palisade enclosures, resembling fences, standing inside the area enclosed by the two ditches; these ditches were not flanked by banks (Petrasch 1990, 475–476). According to the author, these enclosing elements may have been up to 4.5 m in height. The entrance passage leading to the centre of the complex was built of vertical posts and was probably roofed (Fig. 5.8).

A combination of remote sensing, geophysical prospection and test excavation has revealed that the total area of the settlement complex was about 7 ha, and that the rondel itself was enclosed by several other oval ditches. The entrance on the west side of the external enclosures corresponded to the location of the west entrance leading to the centre of the rondel. Several important observations have been published concerning the finds from the rondel ditches and from the surrounding settlement features. We have already mentioned finds of imported pottery. Fragments of polished stone tools were generally found in the rondel ditches; the same was also true for querns (Petrasch 1998, 32). A significant amount of raw material for the production of chipped stone artefacts is also recorded at the Künzing-Unternberg site. The material is primarily made up of local Bavarian chert of the Knollenhornstein type, whose source lies on the east bank of the Danube, directly opposite the site. According to Petrasch, the local settlement might have functioned as a redistribution centre at the time when the rondel existed. A large amount of refuse, unworked round stones and semi-finished products appears in the chipped artefact assemblage (Petrasch 1990, 511). The ratio of the occurrence of skeletal remains of domesticated and wild animals is interesting as deer predominates over domesticated cattle. The other domesticated species present are pig, sheep and goat. Hunted animals include bear, wild cat, fox, beaver, marten and, sporadically, crane and black grouse. Bylany 4: Two circular structures and a nearby cemetery A structure of rondel type had begun to be revealed at the well-known Neolithic site in Bylany near Kutná Hora (Bohemia) as early as the 1960s. However, it was not until the early 1990s that the structure was the object of more extensive test excavations and a geophysical survey. The existence of two rondels, Bylany 4/1 and Bylany 4/2, located about 50 m apart, was demonstrated at that time. As in the case of Těšetice-Kyjovice, also in the Czech Republic, an outer enclosure was uncovered (No. 1830) around the first circular structure, denoted Bylany 4/1, but in this case it took the form of a ditch rather than a palisade (Fig. 5.9). This chapter briefly summarises information published relatively soon after the completion of the field element of the research (Pavlů et al. 1995). Excavations carried out in 1991 and 1992 uncovered about one-sixth of the original area of the circular structure known as 4/1: this structure is made up of two ditches and three foundation trenches, into which lead four entrance passages which are roughly orientated towards the cardinal points. The features uncovered during the test excavation have been investigated within a framework of sectors, mostly by artificial layers with a thickness of 10 cm.

Fig. 5.9 Rondels at Bylany 4 (CZ; in black). The ditch delimiting rondel 4/1 is marked in grey. The overall plan has been created by K. Kleinová after Pavlů et al. 1995, based on new geophysical results by R. Křivánek.

The outer ditch of the Bylany 4/1 structure, with a maximum diameter of 110 m, was 3 m wide and 2 m deep. Step-like indentations have been detected in cross-sections at several points on the outer ditch, particularly in lower levels. The upper levels of the fill consisted of layers mixed with charcoal and daub remains. The lower part of the fill consisted of a large number of small layers whose orientation indicated the infilling of the lower part of the ditch from both sides. The out-turned arms of the ditch at the entrances were filled with horizontally deposited layers. The inner ditch, which had a maximum diameter of 90 m, a width of up to 3.8 m and a depth of less than 3 m deep, was simply interrupted rather than having distinctively shaped entrances. Step-like indentations were also detected in the cross-sections of this ditch. The layers of the fill visible in the cross-sections were saucer-shaped. The first trench was a mere 1 m away from the inner edge of the inner ditch, and it even touched the ditch in some sections. Its width did not exceed 0.3 m and it was only 0.3 m deep. The middle trench, with a width of up to 0.25 m, was located no more than 1.3 m metres away from the previous one. The dimensions of the innermost trench, up to 3.5 m away from the middle one, were similar to those of the other trenches; its depth was up to 0.2 m. The original maximum diameters of the trenches can be estimated at 86 m for the outer trench, 82 m for the middle one, and 70 m for the inner one. While the outer and middle trenches were simply interrupted in the area of the entrances, the terminals of the innermost trench were turned inwards towards the centre of the structure, i.e. in the opposite direction to the terminals of the outermost ditch. This inner trench had been rebuilt once (Fig. 5.10). The southern entrance passage uncovered during the excavation was laid out as follows. The terminals of the outer ditch were extended outwards for a distance of almost 9 m, similar to the arrangement at Svodín 2. The width of the entrance passage was up to 3.5 m in this area. The inner ditch was interrupted by a simple gap, and the entrance passage was almost 7 m wide at this location. The width of the entrance passage ranged from 1 m to 3.5 m in the area of the trenches. The overall length of the south entrance passage of the circular structure, including the out-turned terminals of the outer ditch and the in-turned terminals of the innermost foundation trench, was up to 32 m. Several hundred postholes have been detected in the innermost central area of rondel 4/1. Some of these could be connected to form the ground plans of longhouses dating to the preceding Linear Pottery culture period. Other postholes could neither be more precisely culturally classified nor connected into more meaningful layouts. In certain areas, the postholes created long lines. Apart from trench No. 1792 (Fig. 5.10, in yellow), a number of settlement features have also been uncovered inside the rondel – pits of various sizes, a storage pit situated directly in an entrance passage and another feature containing many animal bones in its fill. This latter feature was described by the authors as a possible sacrificial pit (Fig. 5.10).

An irregular sub-circular ditched enclosure, referred to as feature No. 1830 (Fig. 5.9 in grey), surrounds rondel 4/1. It has a maximum diameter of up to 250 m (maximum width and depth of up to 1 m) and it is clear that it was not contemporary with another circular structure, denoted as Bylany 4/2, situated to the south. This second structure, identified only by geophysical prospection, was somewhat larger than the previous rondel. It reached a maximum diameter of 130 m, and appears to have been composed of three concentric ditches. According to I. Pavlů, who led the research, rondel No. 4/1 would originally have been composed of three continuous and mutually non-interconnected palisade enclosures which were set within the three inner trenches. There was no evidence that earth removed during the digging of the ditches was piled up between the palisades, as proposed by NěmejcováPavúková in the case of Svodín. However, it is possible that this material was piled up to form a bank in the area between the two ditches and perhaps a further bank on the outer side of the structure (see also Fig. 6.33 in Chapter 6), along the outer edge of the outer ditch. The inner bank, which could have been 5 m wide and up to 2.5 m high, constructed between the two ditches, would have continued the profile of the ditches, thereby optically increasing their depth, while also resolving the issue of the transportation of the significant amount of material removed during digging works. Most material from the outer ditch may have been piled up to form an outer bank, 5 m wide and up to 2 m high, which would have surrounded the entire structure (Pavlů et al. 1995, 88).

Fig. 5.10 Excavated southern part of the Bylany 4/1 rondel with ditches and trenches indicated (in black). Larger pits dated to the later phase of the Stroked Pottery culture (grey), storage pits (green), a possible sacrificial pit (red) and trench No. 1792, possibly a remnant of a larger structure (yellow), are also indicated. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Pavlů et al. 1995.

While many features were detected within the central area of the structure, the authors, perhaps surprisingly, concur in the conclusion that it was probably originally an open space; in particular, no features associated with domestic activity were identified. Ditch No. 1830 was apparently dug around structure 4/1 at a somewhat later date; according to the authors, it was accompanied by a bank, like the ditches of the rondel. Based on a geophysical survey, this outer ditch was dug in segments of up to 12 m in length; the line of the ditch was interrupted by a single entrance on the east side. The structure was apparently built over a long period of time, as suggested by the pottery from its fill, and it may never have been completed. Only in the area between this outer enclosure No. 1830 and the circular structure 4/1 do the authors identify residential buildings and settlement features which were chronologically contemporary with rondel 4/1. Based on geophysical surveys conducted in the early 1990s, the authors assume that rondel 4/2, which has not been excavated, was earlier than the above-mentioned structure 4/1. This would explain the presence of settlement features inside the area of rondel 4/1 – they may, in fact, have been contemporaneous with the earlier structure. According to observations made at that time, the very legible line of the ditch surrounding structure 4/1 clearly disturbs rondel 4/2. However, the fact that the same spot was occupied during the LBK, and that we have insufficient knowledge regarding rondel 4/2, means that the situation is rather difficult to decipher. New geophysical surveys conducted by R. Křivánek over the past five years have allowed the dimensions and the overall shape of rondel 4/2 to be determined (Křivánek 2015). An important discovery has been that the ditched enclosure surrounding rondel 4/1 is likely to be earlier than rondel 4/2 (see also Fig. 4.2: C). As well as pottery fragments, which have been studied primarily for the purposes of dating, used grinding tools have also been analysed (Pavlů 2012); 24 examples were retrieved from the fills of the two ditches of rondel 4/1. According to Pavlů, such tools are difficult to transport over long distances due to their weight; they might, therefore, have been directly connected with the function of the ritual area, particularly the preparation of ritual food.

Fig. 5.11 The distribution of cremations and inhumations at the cemetery in Miskovice near Kutná Hora (CZ). The numbers denote anthropologically determined skeletal remains. Gaps in the distribution of the graves do not indicate a spatial delimitation of groups of graves but rather the locations of longhouses from the preceding period. The locations of the graves from the rondel period, therefore, either respect the ruins of these structures, or any graves situated on the surface of these ruins have somehow been erased from the archaeological record; higher terrain is often more susceptible to erosion over time or to truncation by agricultural machinery. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Zápotocká 1998, fig. 16.

Well-known remnants of occupation from the period of the Linear Pottery culture (phases I–IV) have been detected at the site of Bylany near Kutná Hora, along with features belonging to a later chronological unit, the Stroked Pottery culture, which is contemporary with the rondel; a similarly dated bi-ritual cemetery (e.g. Zápotocká 2005; 1998) has been

examined 700 m to the northwest of the rondels (Fig. 5.11). Excavations of the cemetery carried out during the second half of the 1970s uncovered 69 graves, but as many as 100 individuals may originally have been buried there. Inhumation burials (N=18) were situated in the southeastern part of the site, whereas cremations predominate in the northwestern part (N=47). The skeletons are not well preserved, and the orientations of the burials could be determined in only six cases; the remains were generally deposited in a crouched position, lying on their left side, with the head orientated to the east (in one case to the west). M. Zápotocká linked the inhumation graves at the cemetery to the period when construction of rondel 4/1 began, and the cremations to the period when the rondel was in use. Interestingly, one grave contained the inhumation of a small child (infans II) and the cremation of a woman (maturus-senilis), along with a large quantity of chipped lithic artefacts. Moreover, both burials were originally deposited in a wooden coffin overlaid with animal ribs (Bos sp.). The question of whether the graves at the cemetery are really chronologically noncontemporaneous or whether they attest to the concurrent burials of several social groups remains open. There are no incidences of graves cutting each other and it is interesting that the two burial rites are associated with similar types and quantities of grave goods. Only 20 individuals could be anthropologically analysed; these include adults of both genders and 7 children. They include the age groups infans I–II (N=1), infans II (N=2), infans II–III (N=3), juvenis (N=1), adultus (N=7), adultusmaturus (N=1), maturus (N=3) and maturus-senilis (N=1). Six male burials and sixteen female burials, both including children, could be distinguished on the basis of grave goods typical of different gender groups. The representation of the age and gender groups does not differ between inhumations and cremations within the examined sample. One particular grave contained exceptional grave goods including an axe, an abrader, 145 chipped stone artefacts (including several of imported chert from glacigenic sediments and of Bavarian chert, the sources of which lie 250 km to the southwest), two grinding tools and 12 ceramic vessels. Regrettably, no human remains survived. Pottery was absent in another grave situated nearby, but the grave goods here included two shaft-hole axes, a chipped stone core and a blade. According to S. Vencl, who analysed the lithic material, the blades from these two graves were struck from the same core and the graves may, therefore, have been contemporary (Zápotocká 1998). As for the graves with cremation burials, it is notable that stone tools and parts of animal carcasses were burnt along with the bodies of the deceased. Only a portion of the cremation, including both human and animal bones, was buried in the grave pit and the burnt bone was crushed before deposition. Goseck: A contribution to the issue of the existence and location of banks The circular structure located close to Goseck in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, was detected using aerial photography in the 1970s. Subsequently, the rondel was geophysically surveyed during the 1990s. These non-destructive surveys were followed by an extensive excavation in

2002–2004 (e.g. Bertemes et al. 2004; Bertemes and Northe 2006; 2012). Excavated more recently than the examples described above, this site has provided important information concerning the original appearance of Neolithic rondels and has provoked renewed interest in the question of archaeoastronomy.

Fig. 5.12 Ground plan of the excavated rondel in Goseck (DE). The structural parts of the rondel are marked in black. Pits dated to the Stroked Pottery culture are marked in grey. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Bertemes and Northe 2012.

The original circular structure survives as a single ditch with two inner foundation trenches, all of which are interrupted in three places by entrances. The maximum diameter of the ditch is 71 m, with a maximum width of 2.5 m and a maximum depth of almost 2 m. As in Svodín, the maximum depth of the base differed in various sections of the ditch. Like Svodín 2 and the outer ditch of Bylany 4/1, the ditch was extended to form out-turned terminals in the areas of the entrances: the entrances themselves were oriented to the north, southeast and south-west. At the southwest entrance, however, one of the protruding terminals was not connected to the main ditch (Fig. 5.12).

The outer foundation trench was up to 8 m from the inner edge of the ditch. Its maximum diameter was 56 m, with a width of up to 0.4 m and a depth of up to 0.2 m. Two of the entrances in this enclosure were turned inwards towards the centre of the structure. The inner trench, with a diameter of 49 m, was about 5 m away from the outer one. In the southeastern area, both enclosures were visible only in the form of individual postholes situated at intervals of 0.6–0.8 m. Originally the palisades did not form continuous enclosures but were interrupted in several places. A pit interrupts the line of the outer palisade trench at a point close to the southeast entrance. There is evidence that high temperature burning took place in this pit and it is interesting that fragments of adult human bone were found in the upper parts of its fill. A second pit, with similar traces of fire, but lacking skeletal remains, was uncovered nearby. Altogether ten pits, dating to the same period as the circular structure, have been found in the central area of the rondel. Eight more pits have been uncovered outside the rondel close to the entrances. According to the authors of the publication, these external pits had some connection with the entrances and the function of the whole structure. Traces of fire have been detected in some of the pits, and one produced the bones of the right hand of an adult. The authors of the 2004 report focused on the history of the infilling of the rondel’s ditch, distinguishing three different levels: lower, middle and upper. Their interest was particularly drawn to the middle level of the fill, which consisted of compact layers containing large pebbles. According to the report, the material entered the ditch from the outer side and was interpreted as the remains of a collapsed outer bank. Apart from fragments of pottery, the ditch fill contained portions of cattle skulls; these are possibly the remains of ritual feasts or they may have been hung on posts in the entrance areas. The circular structure in Goseck was envisaged as having a central open area encircled by two palisade enclosures, which were interrupted in several places, not just in the entrance areas which corresponded with those in the ditch. Unlike the examples already described, the palisades at Goseck were not continuous. These wooden structures were in turn encircled by a ditch that was accompanied by an outer bank which may have been 3 to 5 m wide and 1.5 to 2.5 m high. The posts in the entrance area might originally have been hung with the cattle skulls (bucrania). A trench was uncovered north of the northern entrance; the authors regarded it as being contemporary with the rondel, forming a kind of “procession route” into the circular structure, but in fact it is apparently somewhat later than the rondel. The authors claim that the spatial distribution of the finds in the ditch fill reflects activity areas located near the entrances to the centre of the rondel. The evidence mostly takes the form of large fragments of vessels retrieved from lower and middle levels of the ditch fill. F. Bertemes and A. Northe considered them as remnants of ritual activity (Bertemes and Northe 2012, 20–21). Apart from pottery, finds from the same levels included bone and antler tools as well as chipped artefacts (including a hoard of five blades), and also bones of various animal species. Fragments of human bones, perhaps secondarily transferred, have also been found in the upper part of the ditch fill.

The area surrounding the rondel has been investigated using geophysical prospection. It appears that a settlement contemporary with the rondel was most probably situated to the east where many pits have been examined, including remnants of post structures with finds from both the earlier and the later phases of the Stroked Pottery culture; the rondel is believed to belong to the same period Vochov I: Through a maze of circles and interpretations The rondel in Vochov was one of the first rondels to be investigated in Bohemia (Pavlů 1982), but a complex analysis of the site was only published much later (Pavlů and Metlička 2013). An interesting feature of Vochov I concerns the number of entrances identified in the outer ditch which does not correspond to the number of entrances in the inner ditch (Fig. 5.13). Furthermore, the positions of the entrances in the foundation trenches and ditches differ. As we will see, several interesting ideas have been proposed regarding the original appearance of this rondel. About two-thirds of the overall area of the rondel were excavated between 1977 and 1980. The site was found to consist of a circular structure composed of two ditches and three trenches. The outer ditch, with a maximum diameter of 49 m, was 1.5 m wide and 0.7 m deep. According to the author, it is characterised by a certain degree of irregularity caused by extensive erosion of the original ground surface in this part of the site. The ditch becomes particularly shallow in the southeastern part of the circuit and its maximum depth varies significantly. Two sections of the southwestern part of the ditch exhibit distinctive profiles which indicate that the ditch was dug in sections by teams working independently of each other. This outer ditch was interrupted by entrances at the northwest and southwest. It is very likely that further entrances were situated at the southeast and northeast but these areas have not been investigated. The inner ditch was situated 5 m from the inner edge of the outer ditch. This inner ditch did not exceed 35 m in diameter, 1.3 m in width and 0.9 m in depth. The only entrance uncovered during the excavation was situated to the northwest, corresponding to an entrance in the outer ditch. We can assume that an opposite entrance existed in the southeastern area but this area was not investigated. This ditch, therefore, originally had only two entrances. The profiles of both ditches vary from a typical V-shape to a U-shape.

Fig. 5.13 Multi-period site with the rondel known as Vochov I (CZ; in black). Features with finds of Stroked Pottery culture pottery are marked in grey. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Pavlů and Metlička 2013, fig. 115.

The outermost trench was about 1 m from the inner edge of the inner ditch, the middle trench was approximately 1.5 m from the outermost trench, and the innermost trench was 2 m from the middle one. The outer foundation trench had a maximum diameter of 29 m, the middle trench of 24 m, and the inner trench of 17 m. The maximum width of the trenches was 0.5 m. The depth was up to 0.4 m for the middle trench and no more than 0.2 m for the other two. As in Svodín 2, concentric rows of postholes were detected between the trenches. Similar lines of postholes were also discovered between the outermost trench and the ditch. It is surprising that only the northwest entrance of the outermost trench was aligned with the entrances through both ditches; the other two trenches were interrupted elsewhere and in several places. The author suggests that this lack of symmetry may be due to soil erosion. The circumference of the outermost foundation trench was not parallel to the other two. Another entrance was located in the southwestern part of the outermost trench; this corresponded to the southwest entrance in the external ditch. However, no entrance occurred at this location in the innermost ditch. The research in Vochov has thus introduced many uncertainties and questions concerning the overall appearance of the rondel; in fact, the ground plan of this rondel resembles a maze. Pavlů proposes the following interpretations of the original appearance of the circular structure (Pavlů 2001). One possibility is that posts might have been set at widely spaced intervals within the foundation trenches. Based on this theory, one could have entered the structure at points other than the entrance areas, as we have seen at Goseck. The unevenly distributed formal entrances would thus have created a maze-like arrangement in the wooden structure. The second alternative is that the trenches held a system of stout wooden walls that might have, as in the Svodín rondels, acted as load-bearing elements for retaining earth removed during the digging of the ditches. As at the Svodín 2 rondel, the middle trench at Vochov was deeper than the other two. This timber and earth structure may have had a defensive purpose, as suggested by Němejcová-Pavúková or, may have acted as a viewing stand from which spectators could observe the activities taking place in the centre of the rondel, as proposed by Pavlů. The third alternative is that the timber structure represents a free-standing, roofed building that might have served as a place of exchange or trade. The wooden structure was surrounded by the two ditches and Pavlů considers it likely that a bank, formed of up-cast material, was situated between them, similar to the arrangement proposed for the Bylany 4/1 rondel. The Vochov I rondel was built on the site of an earlier Neolithic settlement belonging to the Linear Pottery culture, and is located approximately 200 m from a second rondel, known as Vochov II. This latter rondel is larger than the first and has a differently shaped entrance passage. The area was also extensively occupied in the Early Iron Age. Perhaps the greatest surprise is the unusually low amount of pottery belonging to the Stroked Pottery culture, a period when the rondel is believed to have been built and to have fulfilled its primary function. Virtually none of the pits found in the rondel complex, or in its immediate vicinity, can be dated to the period of the existence of the rondel. Pavlů divided the ditch fill into three levels, and earlier pottery of the Linear Pottery culture completely dominates the lower two

levels. A large amount of Bavarian chert (sources 150 km to the south), a material used for the production of chipped artefacts, was retrieved from the excavated area. Imported pottery from the Southeast Bavarian Middle Neolithic milieu was also uncovered. Praha-Ruzyně: A rondel with two entrances Most of the previous case studies form the backbone of rondel studies, and inform discussions concerning their appearance and function. By 2004, only five rondels, and their immediate surroundings, had been extensively excavated: Těšetice-Kyjovice, Kamegg, Bučany, Dresden-Nickern 1 and Goseck. To these we can now add another: the rondel at Praha-Ruzyně (Bohemia), which was investigated by M. Kostka and later by M. Kuchařík in the course of rescue excavations (Kostka et al. 2011; Blažková 2015). The structure at Praha-Ruzyně consisted of two ditches encircling three trenches (Fig. 5.14). Unlike the previously described cases, only two entrance passages led into the central area. The maximum diameter of the larger ditch reached 50 m, its width was almost 3 m, and its depth slightly exceeded 1.5 m. The maximum diameter of the inner ditch, situated at a distance of up to 1.5 m from the inner edge of the outer one, did not exceed 46 m; its width and depth were both in the region of 2 m. In the area of the entrance passages, the ditches were angled to create out-turned arms which were up to 6 m in length. This time, according to information provided by the investigators, these arms were created by a prolongation of the inner ditch, which intersected and interconnected with the ends of the outer ditch. The outer ditch also features a small gap in its northwestern arc, but this was not a typical entrance. To the northeast, an elongated feature was uncovered close to the edge of the outer ditch; theoretically, this might represent the initial stage of the digging of a further ditch. The maximum diameters of the foundation trenches did not exceed 33 m, 30 m and 23 m respectively. The distance between the outermost palisade trench and the inner edge of the inner ditch was at least 2 m, while the distance between the outer and the middle trenches was around 1 m, and that between the middle and the inner trenches was more than 2.5 m. In this instance, therefore, we cannot speak of a regular layout. The trenches were up to 0.5 m wide and up to 0.3 m deep. Unfortunately, we do not know the shapes of the entrances in the foundation trenches because the rondel was disturbed by later structures in this area. As at Těšetice-Kyjovice, about eight elongated features were uncovered in the area between the outer trench and the inner ditch (Fig. 5.14). The entrance passages, oriented to the southwest and to the northeast, would have been up to 16 m in length, including the out-turned arms of the ditches and of the innermost trench.

Fig. 5.14 Ground plan of the Praha-Ruzyně rondel in Bohemia (CZ). The structural parts of the rondel – the ditches, three foundation trenches – are outlined in black and pits that contained pottery of the same date are outlined in grey. Regrettably, the trench entrances have been damaged by modern construction. Adapted by K. Kleinová after Kostka et al. 2011.

A large, irregularly shaped pit was uncovered near the southern edge of the central area enclosed by the innermost trench: it contained pottery belonging to the same period as the pottery from the fill of the rondel ditches. A Neolithic layer, which overlay the northwestern part of the rondel, testifies to the continued use of this area for settlement. Regrettably, the area around the rondel has not yet been sufficiently investigated, but it is known that the area had not been settled before the Stroked Pottery culture period. The ground plan of a post-built longhouse has been identified near the rondel; along with other finds, the disarticulated skeletal remains of several individuals were discovered in one of the

storage pits. For now we do not have a more detailed description of the immediate surroundings of the rondel but we know that Bronze Age and Roman Period activity has been recorded there. Vchynice: A way of controlling an important resource? A rondel along with part of an adjacent settlement, situated in an area of c. 1 ha on the boundary of two different geomorphological units, the Labe Lowlands and the Central Bohemian Uplands, were investigated by M. Půlpán and M. Volf in 2008–2009. About onethird of the rondel ditch and part of the settlement were uncovered during the rescue excavation (Fig. 5.15). The remaining two-thirds of the ditch have been geophysically surveyed by Křivánek (Řídký et al. 2012b; 2014a). Thanks to systematic field walking carried out in the vicinity of the excavated area, we now know that the Stroked Pottery culture settlement originally covered an area of c. 2 ha. The site has been systematically investigated since 2011 with a focus on evaluating different types of features and various categories of finds. The maximum diameter of the rondel, of which only the ditch has been preserved, amounted to 58 m. The ditch had a maximum depth of 2.15 m and a maximum width of 1.8 m. The remains of two entrances, at the west and the south, were uncovered during the excavations; the other two opposing entrances have been located using geophysics. While the latter two entrance passages were formed by the out-turned terminals of the ditch, the entrances within the excavated area take the form of simple gaps in the line of the ditch. Following a study of surface erosion at the site, and in view of deep soil stripping that took place over the excavation area, it is very likely that the west and south entrance passages also originally extended beyond the circumference of the ditch but that the shallow ditch terminals have been destroyed in these areas The ditch fill has been intensively studied through analysis of the qualitative, quantitative and spatial properties of the artefacts and biofacts found therein. According to the results of the analyses, the lower level of the ditch, its V-shaped base, was filled to a depth of c. 40 cm by outwash from the sides and from the ground surface very soon after construction. A small number of finds were found at this level and they were clearly transported from the surrounding ground surface by natural agents. After natural stabilisation of the sides of the ditch, the middle level of the fill developed slowly and was largely the result of human activity. A typical example of a temporally delimited human activity is a distinct layer containing the remains of daub, which occurred at a depth of 50–80 cm throughout the excavated one-third of the ditch (see also Fig. 4.4: C and Fig. 6.12 in Chapter 6). This layer represents an upper boundary, a time when the rondel evidently no longer fulfilled its original function. The finds include large and well-preserved fragments of pottery vessels, which appear to have been intentionally thrown into the ditch along with various burnt animal bones (including cattle skull parts) and stone tools (grinding tools, fragments of axes and shaft-hole axes, chipped artefacts, pebble hammer stones, etc.); the latter are evidence that tools were being produced in the area and that grinding implements were intentionally destroyed (Řídký

et al. in press b). The upper level of the fill, up to the lower boundary with the daub layer, has a homogeneous character and contains a large quantity of pottery finds of various sizes and states of preservation. It is the result of long-term refuse management as well as of natural post-deposition processes.

Fig. 5.15 Ground plan of the Vchynice rondel in Bohemia (CZ). The highlighted features include the rondel ditch (black) and the pits dated to the Stroked Pottery culture period (black). The longhouse layout, marked in black, falls within the same period. Only storage pits are given numbers. Larger uncoloured pits are earlier or later than the rondel. Author J. Řídký.

Perhaps the most interesting discovery is the occurrence in the above-mentioned daub fragment layer of imprints of wood (sometimes chiselled) and wicker constructions, and the discovery of well-preserved pottery fragments from an earlier occupation of the site. We will discuss this context in more detail in Chapter 6. The rondel and most of the settlement pits

have been dated to the late phase of the Stroked Pottery culture (phase IV). Earlier fragments and other finds can be attributed to the Linear Pottery culture (phases II–III) and to the earlier phases of the Stroked Pottery culture (phases II–III). They are predominantly found in the middle and upper parts of the fill; this raises the issue of the existence of a bank created during the digging of the ditch, which might have disturbed earlier contexts (we will return to these finds in Chapter 6). The remains of at least two longhouses and 23 settlement pits from the same chronological period have been detected in the area around the rondel (Řídký et al. 2013; 2014a; Stolz et al. 2015). We currently know that this zone had been settled previously in the Early Neolithic, but most of the features uncovered belong to the same period as the rondel. Stone tools were manufactured using a combination of locally sourced raw materials such as Skršín type quartzite and quartz porphyry, procured within 20 km of the site, and more exotic materials, such as cherts from glacigenic sediments (sources located 50 km to the north) or Bavarian chert from Germany (sources located 240 km to the southwest). Quartz porphyry, the principal material used for the production of grinding tools, can be found a mere 4 km north of the settlement, but has been identified in the lithic assemblages from settlements situated 26 km to the west and as far as 60 km to the northeast (Lička 1990; Beneš et al. 2009; Davidová 2015). According to an interpretation model based on analyses of the Vchynice assemblage, and on the experimental production of grinding tool replicas, it is likely that the local inhabitants focused on the production of grinding tools and probably also controlled the local raw material sources (Řídký et al. 2014b). A noticeable change in the settlement patterns which occurred in the earlier Neolithic phase of the Linear Pottery culture and the latter phase of the Stroked Pottery culture is interesting in this context. The number of settlements increased considerably in the region at that time, creating an extensive settlement agglomeration near the sources of the stone raw material. A significant number of intentionally broken grinding tools, which were made of quality material and which show signs of intensive use, have been found on the settlement associated with the rondel (Řídký et al. in press b). Apart from the finishing of grinding tools, the site has also produced evidence for the production and decoration of pottery. A bone tool used for the application of so-called double stroke decoration was uncovered in one of the larger features. Archaeozoological analyses have revealed the presence of wild animals – red deer, roe deer, wild boar, hare and grouse – but the majority of the skeletal remains from the site are those of domesticated animals, particularly cattle, which are followed in importance by sheep, goat and then pig (Řídký et al. 2013). From an anatomical point of view, teeth, facial parts of skulls and distal limb bones were the most frequent finds in the rondel ditch and settlement pits. Direct evidence for the cutting up of meat is generally absent; this can be explained by the very fragmented state of the material as well as the occurrence of bones of an almost exclusively refuse character; in fact, the bones were commonly burnt at various temperatures. Apart from greater fragmentation and destruction of bones from the rondel ditch, no significant difference has been found between the area of the rondel and the neighbouring settlement, which sets the Vchynice assemblage apart from previous

excavations such as those at Těšetice-Kyjovice or Kamegg. Another important discovery needs to be mentioned in connection with the finds of animal skeletal remains. Only one-third of the finds in the faunal assemblage could be determined. The bones of hunted animals as well as smaller domesticated animals appear to have succumbed more easily to the influence of the surrounding environment. The authors point out the absolute predominance of adult cattle remains in the rondel ditch. It would be very easy to deduce from this, for example, that ritual slaughtering of cattle took place in the area of the rondel. However, according to their interpretation model, the authors calculate that as many as 99 % of bones and teeth from the ditch have been damaged by chemical and physical factors, which is why only the bones of large animals have “survived” within the mere one-third of the assemblage that could be determined with precision. It would, therefore, be rather misleading to use these finds as evidence that ritual slaughter of cattle took place in the rondel. Kolín I: A small rondel, then a large rondel, or both at once? The remains of two rondels, situated about 50 m apart, were discovered within an area of 5.4 ha during rescue excavations directed by R. Šumberová in 2008–2009 (Šumberová et al. 2010). Like Bylany 4 and Svodín (and others listed in the previous chapter), this is one of about twenty sites where more than one rondel has been discovered. It must be stated at the outset that the contemporaneity of the structures can neither be proved nor disproved at this time as almost identical dating material (primarily pottery) was found in the ditches of both rondels (Šumberová et al. 2012; Končelová 2013; Končelová and Květina 2015). We will return to the results of radiocarbon dating in Chapter 7. The two layouts in Kolín exhibit differences in the number and size of structural elements as well as in the location of the four entrance passages (Fig. 5.16). The first rondel, one of the largest found so far, was denoted Kolín 1. Only the remnants of four ditches bear witness to its original ground plan; digging of the outermost ditch was abandoned before it was completed. Had it been completed, the entire structure would have reached a maximum diameter of about 213 m. The central part of the structure, and apparently also the east entrance passage, have been damaged by the construction of a road, and we regrettably have no information about them. About one-third of the whole structure has been investigated by test excavation while geophysical prospection by Křivánek provides partial information regarding the unexcavated areas. The inner ditch (Ditch 1, closest to the centre) was by far the largest; its diameter was almost 150 m, with a maximum width of 14 m and a depth of 4.5 m (see also Fig. 6.14: B in Chapter 6). At least two recuts have been detected in its profiles (see also Fig. 6.16: C, in Chapter 6). The second ditch was 178 m in diameter and had a width and depth of 3 m. A recut has also been detected in the profile of this ditch. The outermost ditch, with a diameter of 200 m, was 3 m wide and 3.5 m deep. The width of the fourth, unfinished ditch approached 2 m, with a depth of barely 0.5 m. The width of the whole ditch system, from the inner edge of the innermost ditch to the outer edge of the outermost ditch, was about 60 m.

Fig. 5.16 Ground plan of the Kolín I site in Bohemia (CZ). The structural parts of the Kolín 1 and Kolín 2 rondels are indicated, pits dated to the Stroked Pottery culture period are shown in grey. Cross symbols with numbers mark the positions of graves. Author M. Končelová.

The four documented entrance passages were oriented towards the cardinal points, with a deviation at the east. As we know from the test excavation of the north and west entrance

passages, and from the geophysical survey, all of the completed ditches were angled outwards in the areas of the entrance passages. One of the out-turned terminals of the innermost ditch (Ditch 1, closest to the centre) abutted the middle ditch (Ditch 2). The north entrance passage of this “mega-structure,” delimited by the out-turned terminals of the ditch, was only one metre wide (see also Fig. 6.20: A, in Chapter 6). About two-thirds of the smaller rondel known as Kolín 2 have been revealed by test excavation, while the western part has once again been recorded by geophysical survey (Fig. 5.16; see also Fig. 4.3: B and Fig. 4.4: B, in Chapter 4). The ground plan of this rondel, which is not strictly circular, consisted of a single ditch with a maximum diameter of 82 m, a width of 4 m and a depth of 3 m, and one inner foundation trench. The entrance passages through the ditch are oriented towards the cardinal points (with deviations towards the west) and take two forms. The course of the ditch was interrupted to form the north, east and west passages, and shorter ditch segments were dug leading out of the complex over distances of 1.5 m to 3.5 m. The south entrance, in contrast, took the form of a simple gap in the ditch. The foundation trench, with a maximum diameter of 60 m, was situated at an irregular distance of 2 to 5 m from the inner edge of the ditch. According to the author of the report, the trench was not interrupted by an entrance. Numerous storage pits and several postholes were uncovered in the central area of the rondel enclosed by the trench. In addition, the ground plan of what appears to be a house overlies the trench. Spatially separated decorated ceramic fragments that could be re-fitted into single vessels have been identified in the pottery assemblages from both rondels. Like in Vchynice, these re-fits were mainly identified in the middle and upper levels of the fills. The fragments of one vessel found in the ditch fill of Kolín 2, for instance, were scattered over a distance of up to 60 m. Almost 200 features from the period of the Stroked Pottery culture (as well as features from the Early Neolithic, Eneolithic and the Bronze Age), longhouses and several graves were found in the vicinity of the rondels (Šumberová et al. 2012, 35–36). For example, the inhumation of a young woman (aged about 20–25; No. 165 in Fig. 5.16), laid out in an extended position (which is atypical of this particular culture and geographical area), was uncovered in a grave parallel to ditch 3; the woman was buried with rich grave goods including a necklace of river and sea shells. She evidently died violently as the result of a slash wound to her skull; moreover, palaeopathological analyses of the skull indicated that she had suffered from a prolonged illness (Brzobohatá et al. 2017). Another burial, this time of a child (10–12 years old), without associated grave goods, was deposited in one of the partially filled terminals of the west entrance passage of Kolín 1 (No. 418 in Fig. 5.16). The remains of several individuals – two adults and two children (infans II, infans III) – who were deposited without any particular care, were also found in the partially filled ditch of the north entrance passage of the same rondel (Nos. 452, 469, 3004 in Fig. 5.16). This last context probably dates to the very end of the Bohemian Neolithic or to the beginning of the Eneolithic (according to Czech chronology); this was long after the rondel had ceased to function, but its ditches were evidently still visible in the landscape.

Another inhumation of a young girl, buried in a crouched position with two pottery vessels placed by her head, was located in the partially filled ditch of the smaller rondel, Kolín 2 (Šumberová et al. 2012; No. 265 in Fig. 5.16; see also Fig. 4.5: B in Chapter 4). Two inhumation burials dated to the Stroked Pottery culture were deposited in an earlier pit attributed to the Linear Pottery culture; once again one of the individuals was a very young girl who was buried in a crouched position (Nos. 5096 and 5160 in Fig. 5.16). Individual human bones have also been discovered in other pits within the settlement. It is interesting to note that the young females were all slightly built (on average 148.6 cm in height) indicating, perhaps, that their diet was relatively poor (Brzobohatá and Likovský 2012, 62–63). Several categories of stone tools from the Kolín I site have also been analysed. At present, it appears that some of the raw materials (quartzite and conglomerates) came from the immediate vicinity, while other materials were from very distant sources. The latter included quartz porphyry for the production of grinding tools, which was mined 100 km away (either in northern Bohemia or in the neighbourhood of the Vchynice rondel), raw materials for the production of polished tools (metabasite, 100 km to the northwest) or for the production of chipped tools, such as cherts from glacigenic sediments (100 km to the north), Bavarian cherts (300 km to the west), Cracow cherts (330 km to the east), Moravian cherts (Krumlovský les chert; 130 km to the southeast), quartzite from northwest Bohemia (110 km to the northwest) and, above all, Carpathian obsidian, whose sources in present-day northeast Hungary (500 km to the east; Burgert et al. 2017; see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3) have been confirmed by geochemical analysis. Evidence for local working of stone has only been confirmed for cherts from glacigenic sediments. Only a few artefacts were found in the rondel ditches. Grinding tools, which were produced from local as well distantly sourced materials, have been analysed in more detail (Řídký et al. in press b). While fragments of used tools were evenly scattered over the area of the settlement, complete tools (both querns and grinders) and evidence for their production (flakes) were found in settlement pits. Evidence for the deliberate breaking of tools, similar to the practice observed on the Vchynice site, has also been recorded. Animal skeletal remains occur more frequently in the pits in the settlement area than in the rondel ditches (Kovačiková 2012). Wild animals are represented by finds of hare, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, aurochs, beaver, elk, wolf, fox, woodcock, tortoise and fish bones. However, domesticated animals predominate – cattle are the species most frequently found, followed in order of importance by sheep and goat, and then by pig and dog. In the rondel ditches, the bones of large animals, particularly cattle, are predominant while dog bones are absent. As in Vchynice, this may be the result of the ditches remaining open for a long period and the subsequent influence of erosion factors. Another possibility is that we are looking at different modes of behaviour (different refuse management strategies) in the settlements and in the rondels. A brief summary

This chapter has presented several sites with rondels which, in the past, have been the basis for defining the basic structural aspects of rondels – their shapes, sizes and original form. These well-known excavations have been complemented by other sites in order to illustrate further ground plan variations and to highlight the contribution of recent extensive excavations. These twelve case studies allow us to present some of the attributes described in the conclusion to Chapter 2 (Tab. 2.1) and which our study aims to identify. In the vicinity of the rondel at Těšetice-Kyjovice, for example, two sunken buildings have been found, the fills of which contained the remains of hunted animals (including bear and lynx), a human phalange, stone artefacts made of “exotic” materials and many sherds of decorated pottery. Six storage pits were found a short distance from the rondel. The whole area was enclosed by a palisade, which visually separated it from the rest of the settlement. On the settlement site, however, there was no evidence that manufacturing activities (working of stone tools, for example) surpassed local production, and none of the uncovered graves can be dated directly to the period when the rondel was built and in use. Similar sunken buildings are known from the vicinity of the rondel at Kamegg, where sporadic pieces of “exotic” stone raw materials have also been found. There is a remarkably large amount of hunted animal bone present. However, hunted animal bones are particularly prevalent in the neighbouring settlement, as opposed to the rondel area where the remains of domesticated animals predominate. In the settlement area, there were sporadic finds of human bones, as well as the burial of a girl whose skull shows signs of hydrocephalus. Ten inhumation burials, of both adults and children, were found in the centre of the Friebritz 1 rondel. This cemetery is exceptional, not only because some of the buried individuals were violently killed, but also because of the associated grave goods (evidence of shamanistic practices) and the fact that this is the only recorded cemetery from this period in Austria. Several post-built houses have been recorded at Svodín. They were situated in an area that was either within the Svodín 2 rondel or outside the older Svodín 1 rondel and they are aligned with its entrance passage. In this settlement, sporadic stone artefacts made of “exotic” materials were also found. In addition, more than a hundred graves of men, women and children were found in the vicinity of the rondel. They were arranged into several separate groups. Grave goods from these graves are related, to a certain extent, to the gender and age of the buried individuals, and there was evidence of richly endowed children’s graves. Evidence of a post-built house was recorded inside the rondel at Bučany, and several graves were found in the vicinity of the rondel. If we move to the western complex, we find evidence of houses near rondels at the sites of Goseck, Ruzyně, and Kolín 1. Most of the finds of “exotic” items also come from the western sites. Specifically, these include stone raw materials (Vochov I, Praha-Ruzyně, Vchynice, Kolín I) and pottery vessels (Künzing-Unternberg). Some settlements have yielded finds of human bones (Goseck, Praha-Ruzyně), discarded bodies (rondel Kolín 1), or graves (rondels Kolín 1 and Kolín 2). A bi-ritual cemetery (featuring both inhumations and cremations), containing the graves of more than a hundred men, women and children, was

found at the Miskovice site, which is in the vicinity of the rondel at the Bylany 4 site. Several graves at this burial site, including child graves, were furnished with rich grave goods including “exotic” items. Settlements at Kolín I, Bylany 4, Svodín and Těšetice-Kyjovice have been investigated more extensively, and it can be assumed, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that they were divided into various functional areas – a residential area with houses and storage pits and a ritual area where a rondel or several rondels were situated. A separate cemetery was also recorded at the site of Miskovice near Bylany 4. The results of the analysis of animal bones from the Kolín I site could also indicate that different activities were performed in the rondel area and the settlement area, as there is a remarkably high amount of bones of large animals, above all cattle, in the finds from the areas of Kolín 1 and Kolín 2. If we compare our brief summary with the table in Chapter 2 (Tab. 2.1), it is evident that the settlements with rondels contain a mixture of attributes typical for both achievementbased societies and chiefly societies. However, our case studies come from several archaeological cultures and cultural groups. In Chapters 8 and 9, we will analyse to what extent the information from the settlements with rondels reflects local customs and traditions in various parts of Central Europe. Before we proceed to this analysis, however, we are going to examine the information yielded by formal and metric analyses of rondel construction characteristics in the following two chapters.

6 Rondels – structural elements, original appearance and construction Jaroslav Řídký

This chapter will focus on the original appearance of rondels and their dimensions and will also consider structural elements that have long since disappeared. In addition, it will look at how the structures were built. The aim of this chapter is to determine whether or not we can identify repeated patterns in the preserved remains of rondels – both in the initial structures and subsequent reconstructions – within a large territory and within smaller regions. We will consider what this information can tell us about the builders of rondels. If we succeed in confirming that a certain rondel prototype, or prototypes, occurs repeatedly throughout a large area, we could, theoretically, consider these as a shared manifestation of (religious?) activities that transcend the defined borders of archaeological cultures and cultural groups. Evaluation procedure We will start by studying the whole set of rondels from our data base (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4) before dividing it into two groups: rondels from the archaeological cultures that we will summarily denote as the western complex, and those from the territory of the cultures summarily denoted as the eastern complex. Of course, it would be ideal to compare rondels from the individual cultures, but the limited number of structures in some regions would make it impossible to statistically evaluate certain properties. For these reasons, we will focus on particular regions in which it will be possible to more easily observe, verify and interpret the partial results acquired (see Fig. 6.1). They include the region of present-day Lower Austria and Moravia (the Czech Republic) north of the Danube, which will be denoted in this work as the MOG region; southwest Slovakia north of the Danube, denoted as the LGK region; the lower reaches of the River Isar in Lower Bavaria, denoted as the SOB region; and the region of the upper reaches of the River Elbe/Labe and the mouth of the River Vltava in Bohemia (the Czech Republic), denoted as the STK region. All of these are well explored archaeological regions, and we will often refer to them. At the same time, we will be able to examine potential differences in rondel structures in territories where some researchers believe the earliest

structures of the rondel type occur, and in the territories into which they later spread (see Chapter 3). Apart from the finds of individual rondels, we currently know of twenty important sites where more than one rondel has been identified (Fig. 6.2). These sites are located in various parts of Central Europe, in the territory of both cultural complexes. Two rondels have been uncovered at fifteen of these sites (e.g. Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010; Řídký 2011; Šumberová et al. 2012; Pavlů and Metlička 2013), but sites with three (e.g. Literski and Nebelsick 2012), four or even perhaps five rondels (e.g. Bartels et al. 2003; Stäuble 2002; 2012) have also been recorded. In order to distinguish the designation of these important sites from the designation of the individual rondels (e.g. Kolín 1, Kolín 2; Svodín 1, Svodín 2; Dresden 1, Dresden 2, Dresden 3, Dresden 4; etc.), we will use capital letters (Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4) when referring to them in this study (e.g. KOLÍN I; SVODÍN; DRESDEN; etc.). The procedure described above will make it possible to bring together both general and specific data regarding the individual rondel types and their distributions.

Fig. 6.1 The delimitation of the studied groups of rondels (western and eastern cultural complexes) and the specified betterexamined areas of rondel regions. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.2 The figure indicates sites with more than one rondel (green circles). See also Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.3 The most frequent conception of the form of the wooden structures embedded in the trenches. Photo A is a scale model of the rondel investigated by M. Kostka and M. Kuchařík at Praha-Ruzyně (CZ). Photo B illustrates the spacing of posts set in the outer trench of the Schletz rondel, Lower Austria (reconstruction built at Heldenberg). Photo C shows the distance between the two palisades of the Goseck rondel, Germany (reconstruction built on the site). Authors J. Řídký (A), R. Schlosserová (B) and P. Kalábková (C).

Inner foundation trenches – simple walls, or more complex structures? Initial summary It is very likely that apart from the much-discussed banks, which will be the subject of a later chapter, the wooden structures set within the trenches were the most visually dominant feature of the settlement and the surrounding landscape. Frequently depicted as continuous walls of posts anchored in the trenches (Fig. 6.3), these timber elements created a visual divide that would have screened off the activities taking place in the centre of the structure.

Alternatively, they may have facilitated the observation of surrounding geomorphological features or of movements of celestial bodies at particular times of the year from the centre of the monument. The authors of an article on the Goseck rondel draw attention to the particular acoustics observed within the area delimited by the posts in a replica of this structure (Bertemes and Northe 2007). These are all important arguments often used to support the hypotheses that rondels were places of ritual activity. However, do we really know what these timber structures looked like? From the outset it is important to note that, based on the present archaeological record, several variations can be postulated (Pavlů 2001). The present state of knowledge can be summarised as follows. To date we know of rondels with one, two or three trenches within a single structure. At most sites, trenches tend to be located at a distance of 2–5 m from the inner edge of the ditch (Petrasch 1990, 446). However, there are exceptions. For example, there are cases where the outermost trench almost touches the ditch (e.g. Těšetice-Kyjovice, Svodín 1, Svodín 2, Bylany 4/1), and others where the trenches are 4–5 m (e.g. Kamegg, Künzing-Unternberg) or even as much as 8 m (Goseck) from the edge of the ditch. In some cases it also appears that the circular wooden enclosures underwent repairs (see Bylany 4/1 in Chapter 5). It is also worth noting that the ground plans of some rondels show that some of the inner trenches were not parallel with other elements of the rondel (e.g. Svodín 1, Svodín 2 and Bylany 4/1). It is therefore still a matter of debate whether all of the inner structural elements visible in the archaeological record were built concurrently, or whether they represent separate constructions carried out on different occasions (e.g. Oliva 2004). The original height of the wooden posts embedded in the trenches has been hypothetically reconstructed based on estimates of the original depth of the trenches (at least 0.5 m). According to V. Podborský, the posts might, therefore, have reached a height of up to 2 m above ground level (Těšetice-Kyjovice); J. Petrasch suggested a height of 4.5 m for Künzing-Unternberg (Podborský 1988, 252; Petrasch 1990, 474). In almost all of the case sites presented in Chapter 5 the foundation trenches were an integral part of the rondel. It is true that remnants of trenches have been securely identified in only 80 cases out of our sample of 154 rondels; of the remaining 74 rondels, 44 have been investigated using non-destructive prospection methods - aerial photography and geophysical survey – which are dependent on suitable climatic and geochemical soil conditions and which may fail to register shallower features. Moreover, the boundaries of rescue excavations are limited by the extent of the planned construction, which means that the central parts of rondels often remain unexcavated. In cases where foundation trenches are absent, it is possible that they were destroyed by past erosion of the ground. Various publications state that 0.5 to 1 m (sometimes even more) of soil cover may have been removed due to wind or other erosion at certain sites, which roughly corresponds to the estimated depth of a trench needed to anchor posts (e.g. Pavlů et al. 1995; Němejcová-Pavúková 1995; Neubauer 2005, 56; Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 63; Řídký et al. 2012b). In the following paragraphs we will take a closer look at the formal characteristics and dimensions of some of the structural elements in order to establish whether rondel

constructions share a common prototype, a common origin, or, whether each is a completely different, unique structure. To start with, we will investigate whether rondels with one, two and three trenches occur repeatedly in certain territories or regions. Trenches: Distribution Comparison of the overall number of inner trenches is only possible for 77 structures (Fig. 6.4); three rondels for which trenches have been detected, but where their overall number is uncertain, have not been included in the comparison.

Fig. 6.4 Bar graph showing the number of rondels with one to three inner trenches. 77 cases in total. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.5 Bar graph showing the number of rondels with one to three trenches, divided into the western (33 rondels) and eastern (44 rondels) cultural complexes. Author J. Řídký.

Based on our sample, we can state that rondels with two trenches (45 %) prevail throughout the studied territory, followed by rondels with a single trench (36 %) and then by structures with three trenches (19 %). It is also evident that two or more trenches have been recorded for more than half (64 %) of the structures in the comparison sample. The ratio of rondels with one, two and three trenches is similar in the territories of both cultural complexes (Fig. 6.5). The spatial distribution shows that rondels with one, two and three trenches occur virtually throughout the entire territory where rondels are known, from the west bank of the River Danube to the River Saale in Germany (Fig. 6.6). A comparison of better explored regions, however, reveals features such as a noticeable absence of variants with three trenches in the SOB region and a concentration of rondels with one or two trenches in the MOG region or around present-day Leipzig. We can, therefore, suggest that similar internal features were included in rondels built within smaller regions where it can be presumed that certain bonds – kinship, exchange, trade or other – existed among the local communities.

Fig. 6.6 Distribution of rondels with one to three inner trenches. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.7 Alternative reconstructions of the wooden structures inside the area enclosed by the ditch. A: free-standing palisade enclosures; B: a “rampart” using the soil accumulated when digging the ditch; C: a roofed post construction on three loadbearing rows of sunken posts; D: a different variant of the roofing of a post construction; E: a hypothetical post construction with one sunken load-bearing wall and another wall resting on the ground; F: an alternative based on a central sunken load-bearing row of posts, with side walls resting on the ground. Adjusted and added to after Pavlů 2001. Author J. Řídký.

Specific sites, where two or more rondels have been recorded, included structures with the same number of trenches (e.g., KLEEDORF-PUCH) as well as – much more frequently – structures with different numbers of trenches (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4). The latter is the case for instance in PRAGUE-KRČ, DRESDEN, or FRIEBRITZ. On sites where two or more rondels are known, we often find that the structures have the same numbers of trenches but it is more common to find that rondels at the same site have different numbers of trenches. In view of the long-term destructive effect of erosion, we need to take into account the possibility that rondels with only one or two archaeologically documented trenches might originally have had more of these structural elements and that only the deepest trenches have

survived in the archaeological record (see Fig. 6.7: E–F). Another question that arises is whether the overall number of trenches corresponds to a certain number of ditches. No significant regularity could be revealed in this regard (Tab. 6.1). A single trench occurs for rondels with one, two or even three ditches, whereas three trenches are known for rondels with three, two and even a single ditch. Table 6.1 Comparison of the occurrence of one, two and three foundation trenches for rondels with different numbers of outer ditches (author: J. Řídký)

In the previous summary in Chapter 5, we have seen that the number and locations of trench entrances generally correspond to the number and locations of ditch entrances, but it is not an absolute rule (e.g. Goseck, Vochov I). Unfortunately, since we do not know the complete number of entrances for many trenches, any simplified explanation would be misleading. However, we can focus in more detail on the design of the trenches and the shapes of the entrances within these structural elements. Trench shapes and the issue of originally more complex structures We have seen in Chapter 5, the walls set within the inner trenches were most probably not built in the same manner for all rondels. In some sites the trenches held more or less continuous lines of posts, at others we observe widely-spaced individual postholes (possibly arranged in pairs like in Friebritz 1) or combinations of trenches and freestanding postholes within a single circuit (Bučany). Several construction types may exist within a single structure, such as at Friebritz 1. Another similar example is the Schletz site in Lower Austria, where a continuous circular trench has been detected, along with a somewhat larger circular structure comprising individual postholes (e.g. Lobisser and Neubauer 2005a, 6). The entrances in the inner trenches are usually created either by a simple interruption in the line of the trench, sometimes emphasised by a deeper posthole (e.g. Těšetice-Kyjovice), or, in other cases, by turning the ends of the trenches inwards towards the centre of the structure (e.g. Svodín, Bylany 4/1, Goseck) or outwards (e.g. Bučany). The interconnection of two neighbouring palisade trenches in the area of the entrances has also been identified in geophysical surveys, however we cannot rule out the possibility that this is a random interconnection of two diachronic features or that there is an error in the survey results (Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 171, 206). It is notable that in several published cases the trench entrances did not correspond to the ditch entrances (e.g. Vochov I or Kolín 2;

Šumberová et al. 2012). In our assemblage, a closer comparison of the shapes of the entrances has only been possible for 36 cases. A total of 10 different types could be distinguished (Fig. 6.8), with simple interruptions of the course of the trenches, types 11 and 21, prevailing, and the other types being encountered more occasionally (Fig. 6.9). While definite conclusions cannot be drawn at present because the results are rather distorted by the available data base, we can nonetheless highlight the repeated occurrence of certain entrance shapes in regions such as the MOG region. This confirms our previous discovery, based on the number of trenches, that similar structures were built in smaller regions (Fig. 6.10). In order to be able to get a clearer picture of the original form of the wooden structures we shall now look at some of the metric properties of the trenches. The literature indicates that where several foundation trenches are present, they are most often separated by a distance of 2–3 m (Petrasch 1990, 446). However, there are exceptions and distances of as much as 5 m or more (Goseck) have been recorded as have distances as small as a metre (e.g. Praha-Ruzyně). The distances between the trenches within a single structure can also vary. Table 6.2 compares the distances between the trenches for rondels with two and three trenches (in the latter case, between the innermost and outermost trenches). For rondels with two trenches, the recorded values range between 1 m and 11 m, mostly falling between 2 m and 4.5 m. The distance between the innermost and the outermost trenches for rondels with three trenches is even greater, most often between 4.5 m and 7 m (see Fig. 6.3: C). We thus cannot completely rule out the above-mentioned interpretative variant that all palisades anchored in the trenches were more or less contemporary and that they originally constituted the load-bearing elements of more complex structures. For rondels with three trenches there was clearly a large space between the innermost and the outermost trenches (Tab. 6.3). Perhaps we are looking at another building type within settlements, as has been suggested by I. Pavlů (2001) for the Vochov I rondel. Let us now discuss the maximum sizes of the trenches closest to the inner edge of a ditch, i.e. outermost trenches. In our assemblage of 53 rondels for which more precise data has been collected, the maximum diameter of these trenches ranges from 27 m to 110 m. The overall comparison makes it clear that the lowest and the highest values differ significantly for the largest trenches, by as much as 83 m in some cases (Tab. 6.4). A conspicuous fact, however, is that 29 recorded cases (slightly more than half) range between 41 m and 60 m (the lower and upper quartiles QI and QIII), and that cases from both cultural complexes and from various regions appear in this group (Fig. 6.11). At the same time, it is evident that the maximum values for trench dimensions are somewhat greater in the eastern complex.

Fig. 6.8 Shapes of the inner trench entrances divided into lines according to the overall number of trenches. Only structures where the number of trenches is known with certainty have been included. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.9 Bar graph showing numbers for the individual types of entrance shapes for the inner trenches (see Fig. 6.8). The total number of cases is 36, 10 from the western cultural complex and 26 from the eastern complex. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.10 Distribution of rondels according to the shape of the entrances (see Fig. 6.8) in the inner trenches. Only structures where the trenches are clearly delineated have been included. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký. Table 6.2 Comparison table of the distances (in metres) between the inner and the outer trenches for all rondels, for rondels within complexes and for rondels with different numbers of trenches (author: J. Řídký)

Table 6.3 Comparison table of the distances (in metres) between the individual trenches for all known rondels with a total of three trenches (author: J. Řídký)

Table 6.4 Comparison table of the maximum dimensions (in metres) of the largest trenches for all rondels, for rondels from various complexes and for rondels according to the overall number of trenches (author: J. Řídký)

Most foundation trenches that occur in rondels situated not far from each other and in nearby regions tend to fall within similar size groups. This fact, which is most obvious in the well explored MOG region, means that palisade enclosures of similar sizes (and, as we know from the previous observation, also with a similar number of trenches and similar shapes of trench entrances) were built in smaller regions. On the other hand, it is evident that some inner circular wooden structures in particular size groups were known and built in most territories where rondels occur. It is also interesting that in the case of DRESDEN, where we have several rondels at a single site, the trench values for two rondels were almost identical and the value recorded for the third rondel only differed by 8 m (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4). At the same time, the layouts of these rondels were quite different, featuring one, two and four outer ditches and different numbers of entrances. If we ignore the issue of cultural affiliation and compare groups of sites categorised according to the total number of trenches, we reach the rather interesting conclusion that the difference between the average values for each group never exceeds 7 m; if we consider the median values, this difference is 6 m (Tab. 6.4). This means that the maximum dimension of the inner features was important and predetermined.

Fig. 6.11 Distribution of rondels according to size groups based on the dimensions of the outermost trench (in metres). The figure depicts only the rondels with known values. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

On the basis of the observations made so far, two basic explanations can be proposed for the presence of these foundation trenches and associated wooden structures. In the first explanation, the rondel structure included only one palisade enclosure at any one time. In this scenario, a somewhat smaller trench with a palisade might have been constructed (for various, perhaps also ritual reasons) during feasting or after the destruction of the original palisade (e.g. Oliva 2004). Of course, it is also possible that all of the free-standing post walls were contemporary (see Fig. 6.7: A). According to some researchers, the palisade enclosures might have been built in the initial stages of the construction of rondels, before the digging of the outer structural elements, namely the ditches (e.g. Svodín 2 in Chapter 5). Theoretically, the rondel may have fulfilled its primary function during its construction, before the completion of the complex (Oliva 2004, 518). Palisade enclosures lacking surrounding ditches are known from some sites and the possibility arises, in light of what we have just stated above, that these might actually represent the initial phase of rondel construction i.e. before the addition of a ditch. They are known from the territories of both cultural complexes and we can only state that their dimensions, positions and shapes of entrances and methods of design (separate postholes or

continuous trenches, entrance shapes) correspond to the palisade trenches discovered within rondels (e.g. Burgert et al. 2016). Some researchers regard these palisade enclosures as being later than “classic” rondels, as in the case of Künzing-Unternberg, which is described in Chapter 5 (e.g. Petrasch 1998; Pavúk and Karlovský 2004). Unfortunately, at present we cannot verify which of the two “chronological” possibilities are valid and whether we are dealing with diachronic or chronologically contemporary structures. There is yet another theory, however, which sees the trenches as the foundations of more complex structures with load-bearing timber walls (Fig. 6.7: C–D). It is possible that only the traces of the structural or external walls of such structures have survived in the form of the foundation trenches, which as we have seen had predetermined dimensions (see Fig. 6.7: E– F). Certain trench dimensions were important, for various reasons, for the societies of the time and were respected within small regions. According to this variant, the trenches represent the remains of a complex wooden structure which would once have stood inside the area delimited by the ditch; this structure would have been similar to a longhouse, but with a circular ground plan, and may have had a pitched or flat roof (Fig. 6.7: C–F). It is interesting to note in this regard that the distances between the documented trenches often correspond to the width of Neolithic longhouses typical of the Danubian culture (i.e. 5– 10 m). Furthermore, in cases where only one or two trenches are recorded today, it is possible that the traces of other shallower trenches may have disappeared due to long-term erosion or soil stripping; alternatively, additional walls may simply have stood directly on the ground surface. Based on surveys carried out at Těšetice-Kyjovice, Künzing-Unternberg and Quedlinburg 2, Germany (Schier 2012b), for example, we know that other wooden structures, which may originally have been roofed, existed in the areas of the entrance passages delimited by the ditches – these structures might have formed part of the large wooden structure located in the centre of the rondel. The theory that a roofed structure might have stood inside the area delimited by the ditch is based on the fact that fragments of burnt mud plaster, or daub, are sometimes found in ditch fills (e.g. Řídký et al. in press a; Vencl 1991; Lüning 1988; Zürn 1965). In our opinion, daub remains, which often bear imprints of wooden structural elements (such as round logs, hewn elements or sticks), represent an under-exploited source of information in Central European archaeology. Along with isolated finds of timbering from Neolithic wells, and survival of post imprints within postholes, daub fragments are one of the few sources of evidence for wood and stake construction techniques in Central Europe. The fragments may have originated from light structures (e.g. ovens), wall plaster, longhouse floors, or from other structures which have left no other traces in the archaeological record. In his report on the first comprehensively investigated rondel in Těšetice-Kyjovice, Moravia (Podborský 1988, 148), the project director records that daub fragments were found in the ditch fill, along with pottery sherds, lithics, animal bone remains and bone tools. Podborský suggested that the individual posts embedded in the trenches might have been interconnected using wicker work with clay plastering (Podborský 1988, 253). Daub remains have also been recorded within the ditch fills of other rondels in the Moravian part of the

Czech Republic (Podborský ed. 1999). In the Bohemian part of the Czech Republic, daub remains have been detected in the ditch of the rondel in Lochenice (Buchvaldek and Zeman eds. 1990); fragments also occurred frequently in the inner ditch (in the medium and lower levels of the fill) of the Bylany 4/1 rondel (Pavlů et al. 1995, 31–33) as well as in both ditches (and all three inner trenches) of the Vochov I rondel (Pavlů and Metlička 2013). In Slovakia, daub remains have been recorded in the lower levels of the ditch fills of both rondels in Svodín (Svodín 1 and 2); in the case of Svodín 1, the daub was often mixed with charcoal within the same layers (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995, 39–40 and 97–114). In Lower Austria, daub remains were found in all three ditches (including the lower levels of the fills) of the Gauderndorf 2 rondel and in several levels of the fill (including the lower one) in the single ditch of the Glaubendorf 1 rondel, in the three-ditched Hornsburg 3 rondel and in virtually all other excavated rondels (Trnka 1991). It is therefore a rather frequently occurring constituent of rondel ditch fills, regardless of the cultural milieu and rondel type. To date, the most thorough study of daub fragments has been carried out for the find assemblage from the ditch of the Vchynice rondel (Czech Republic; Řídký et al. In press a; 2012b). Daub remains in the ditch (Fig. 6.12) were primarily concentrated in the middle level of the fill, where – according to a previously published interpretation – they represented activity at the very end of the rondel’s functional life. For the needs of the analysis, daub remains were weighed and counted within the individual sectors into which the ditch had been divided for the purposes of field research; then, based on macroscopic examination, the individual fragments were divided into units with evidence of modification (outer treatment of walls of buildings, surfaces with white-grey paint) and with imprints of structural elements (round logs, hewn elements, imprints of sticks, and combinations of these). Further division was based on macroscopic observation of the levels of burning (different colours) and the composition (occurrence of stones, organic admixtures). It should be noted that, in terms of mass, the highest amount of daub in the entire excavated area in Vchynice came from the rondel ditch (Fig. 6.12). After the recalculation of the density per cubic metre, parts of the examined ditch showed much higher values than other features. Significant unity was observed macroscopically in the material composition of the daub and in the repeated imprints of wooden structural elements. In all probability, a plastered structure, built of round posts, hewn timbers and wickerwork, originally stood within the area delimited by the ditch. In the long term the mud plaster on the walls of the structures would not have been very resistant to changing humidity and temperature. A solution might have been to roof the whole structure (Fig. 6.13). It remains questionable whether the evidence at Vchynice truly indicates that the palisade structure was originally plastered; perhaps, instead, we are looking at the remains of some other burnt structure which originally stood inside the area delimited by the ditch. As we have seen in some of the excavations presented in Chapter 5 (e.g. Svodín, Bučany, Bylany 4/1), this latter possibility cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, we do not have enough data from other field investigations to come to a more solid conclusion.

Fig. 6.12 Vchynice (CZ). The figure shows the results of a comparison of the daub weight per cubic metre in pits dated to the Stroked Pottery culture period. As we can see in the upper left image, which depicts the ditch section near the south entrance, daub fragments were concentrated in particular levels of the ditch fill. Adapted after Řídký et al. 2012b.

As for the appearance of the wooden structures inside the area enclosed by the ditch, we currently cannot rule out any of the three possibilities outlined above i.e. freestanding palisade walls, a larger, more complex structure, or a lighter roofed structure. The finding of a conspicuous quantity of daub remains at the Bohemian site of Vchynice is a consequence (a happy one for archaeologists but possibly catastrophic for the original inhabitants) of the fact that a wooden structure burnt down on this site. In any case, we can conclude this section with a fundamental question: in their attempts to reconstruct the rondels, have researchers been overly influenced by the reconstructions of British and Irish henge monuments which were constructed a millennium later than the

rondels? In reality, Central European structures from the first half of the fifth millennium BC might have looked quite different to these later henges. We must also admit that if these timber structures were originally roofed, they would have been less suited to the observation of celestial bodies.

Fig. 6.13 One interpretation of the original appearance of rondels, according to which the walls of a circular roofed structure might have been embedded in the foundation trenches. Created after the surveys of the Bylany 4/1 rondel (CZ). Author P. Vavrečka.

Ditches Initial summary Today, the ditch is the most distinct part of a rondel; indeed, it is often the only part still visible in the landscape. It is, therefore, sometimes perceived as the most important component of a rondel and tends to be the focus of attention in scholarly publications (e.g. Podborský 1988; Petrasch 1990; Trnka 1991; Kovárník 2004). In plans compiled following archaeological investigations (aerial photography, geophysical survey or test excavation) the ditch is often presented as the outer boundary or edge of the rondel. However, as we have seen in the context of certain case studies presented in Chapter 5, this might not have been the case originally; in fact, it is possible that rondels were surrounded by an external bank constructed using up-cast material from the ditches (Stäuble 2012). We will return to this issue presently. In Chapter 5 we encountered rondels with almost regular circular ground plans (e.g. Bučany, Kolín 1) as well as examples with slightly flattened or oval ground plans (e.g.

Těšetice-Kyjovice, Kolín 2). However, we also know of certain rondels whose layout is not absolutely symmetrical (e.g. Holohlavy and Vedrovice III in the Czech Republic; Kalferst and Vávra 1998; Humpolová 2001). Indeed, in some multiple-ditched rondels (e.g. Eythra, Quedlinburg 1 and 2 in Germany; Stäuble 2002; Northe 2012) the outer ditches are found to be extremely irregular in plan. For both rondels at the QUEDLINBURG site, this outer enclosing element, whether it takes the form of a ditch or palisade, may have served to delimit the area of the rondel proper (as at Bylany 4/1 and Těšetice-Kyjovice) but it may not have been an integral part of the original design. All ditches recorded to date have a maximum width of between 1.5 m and 14 m and a maximum depth of between 0.5 m and 6.5 m. In multiple-ditched structures, all of the ditches either have similar dimensions, or the innermost one is the widest and usually also the deepest (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4). For these reasons, some researchers describe the innermost ditch as the main ditch (Neugebauer 1986, 189; Podborský 1988, 242; Pavlů and Metlička 2013, 134). However, any metric comparisons of the overall dimensions of the ditches are rendered problematic by the fact that the intensively farmed landscapes of Central Europe have been subject to surface erosion since the Neolithic (and especially since the Middle Ages, Fig. 6.14) and many of the sites were also occupied in later periods. Several researchers (e.g. Němejcová-Pavúková 1995) draw attention to the problem of a distortion of information about the original dimensions of the ditches due to erosion (they may be narrower than they were originally) or due to repeated repairs to the ditches. In fact, after repeated recuts, the ditch may be much wider in plan than was originally the case (Fig. 6.15). We consider it important to point out this fact before we begin to compare ditch dimensions in the following section.

Fig. 6.14 Photographs of rondel ditches in Vchynice (A) and Kolín 1 (B) show differences in the dimensions of ditches partially caused by erosion in the case of Vchynice. Authors M. Půlpán (A) and R. Šumberová (B).

Fig. 6.15 Examples of various methods of cleaning (A) and recutting (B) of ditches detected in the profiles. Erosion of the original surface or repeated repairs might have significantly changed the original dimensions of the ditches. The examples have been loosely inspired by research on the Svodín 2 (A) and Künzing-Unternberg (B) rondels. Author K. Kleinová.

Most ditch fills (Fig. 6.16) can be divided into several levels, with alternating layers of various colours and compositions, especially in the lowermost parts at the pointed base of the ditch (Pavlů 2012; 1990). These are followed by thicker layers, which usually contain the greatest numbers of finds, in the middle parts of the fill. The upper fills are made up of darker homogeneous layers, which are sometimes also rich in finds. However, the original layer formations of the ditch, including those near the base, where artefacts connected with the period of the primary function of the rondels should theoretically occur, are sometimes totally mixed up by subsequent cleaning out and recutting of the ditch (e.g. Řídký et al. 2014a). However, as we have seen in Chapter 5, it is not always the case that rondel ditches were cleaned out or re-dug from ground surface level (see e.g. Goseck, Praha-Ruzyně). Even within a single ditch, the numbers of recorded episodes of cleaning or re-cutting are not identical for all sectors investigated (Svodín 2). Frequently, only the innermost ditch bears traces of cleaning and recuts, which supports the hypothesis that had a particularly important function within the structure (Trnka 2005, 13). At present, the highest numbers of later interventions in a single ditch are recorded for the rondels at Svodín 2 (5–6 cleanings and recuts) and Friebritz 1 (6 cleanings). We can add that within our assemblage of 154 rondels (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4), the cleaning and repair of ditches have been detected in 19 cases. Of this number, 9 cases were from sites where several rondels have been found. Another interesting discovery is that only 6 of the 19 cases concerned single-ditched rondels; the other 13 structures had multiple ditches. We can thus introduce our working hypothesis by stating that the original inner (main) ditch, one of the principal elements of the circular structure, might have been cleaned (renewed) during the later construction of additional outer ditches.

Fig. 6.16 Examples of typical ditch fills from Praha-Ruzyně (A), Ústí nad Labem (B) and Kolín 1 (C; including two recuts indicated by a white line) in the Czech Republic. Authors J. Řídký (A), V. Hyke (B; ©ÚAPPSZČ, v. v. i) and R. Šumberová (C).

The distance between the individual ditches of multiple-ditched rondels most often lies within the range of 7–10 m (Petrasch 1990, 446). As we have seen, however, it was a mere 1.5 m at Praha-Ruzyně and as much as 12 m in the case of Svodín 2; the values are therefore highly variable. When we consider the ground plans of rondels with three or four ditches, it seems that the distance between the individual ditches was more or less regular, with a difference of no more than 2–3 m (e.g. Bartels et al. 2003, 120, Fig. 17; Stäuble 2012, 143,

Fig. 8; Řídký et al. 2014a, 582, Fig. 2).

Fig. 6.17 Bar graph showing the number of rondels with one to four ditches. Total number is 151 cases. Author J. Řídký.

At present, the maximum verified number of ditches per rondel stands at four. As many as six concentric ditches have been identified through geophysical survey at the site of Žitavce, Slovakia (e.g. Kuzma and Tirpák 2004), but these may represent several diachronic structures built in the same place, similar to the situation observed at Svodín. Based on existing comparisons of rondels according to the number of V-shaped ditches, it is evident that no more than four ditches were dug within a single structure anywhere in Central Europe (e.g. Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010; Litersky and Nebelsick 2012; Barna et al. 2016). Let us discuss our corpus of rondels according to the number of ditches and their percentages for the two broad complexes, smaller regions, and for individual sites with several rondels. Ditches: Distribution Within our data set, it has been possible to compare the overall number of ditches for 151 structures (Fig. 6.17). Their comparison shows that rondels with two V-shaped ditches (47 %) and rondels with just one ditch (36 %) have been found most often. Rondels with three ditches are less frequent (14 %) and cases with four ditches are rare (3 %). In any case, more

than 60 % of rondel-type circular structures have been found to have two or more ditches. The territories of the two cultural complexes under study (i.e., western and eastern) show surprisingly similar ratios of rondels with various numbers of ditches (Fig. 6.18). Rondels with two ditches always predominate while the number of rondels with a single ditch is slightly lower. Triple-ditched rondels are less frequent than the previous two groups but are nonetheless well-known from the territories of both complexes, especially from betterexplored regions, as are rare examples with four ditches. There is a considerable concentration of single-ditched rondels in the STK region, the Moravian part of the MOG region and possibly also the LGK region (Fig. 6.19). Similarly, rondels with two ditches are more numerous in the Austrian part of the MOG region and in the SOB region. A significant proportion of three-ditched rondels is concentrated in the MOG region, on the upper reaches of the Labe in the STK region and at the northwestern edge of the main rondel distribution in present-day Germany (near Leipzig and the River Saale). However, individual cases of rondels with three ditches are scattered virtually throughout the territory where rondels occur, including the site of Wenecja, the northernmost documented rondel located in present-day Poland. An interesting and important discovery is that more than one quarter of rondels with three ditches (8 out of 21 three-ditched rondels) and 3 out of the total of 4 four-ditched rondels occur at sites where several rondels have been discovered. Let us have a closer look at these sites (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4).

Fig. 6.18 Bar graph showing the number of rondels with one to four ditches, divided into the west and east cultural complexes. There are 61 cases from the western complex and 90 from the eastern complex. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.19 Distribution of rondels with one to four ditches in Central Europe. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.20 Examples of entrance passages enclosed by ditches of rondels at Kolín 1 (A; view from the centre of the rondel – the width of the passage between the ditches is almost 1 m) in the Czech Republic and Goseck (B; view towards the centre) in Germany. Author J. Řídký.

Of the twenty sites where several rondels have been detected, and where the overall

number of ditches in these rondels is known, structures with an identical number of ditches occurred in only five cases. At other sites, the numbers of ditches differed. In the western complex, we register a rondel with two ditches, two three-ditched rondels and one fourditched rondel at the KYHNA site in Germany. A little further to the east, at the DRESDEN site, we know of rondels with one, two and four ditches. A four-ditched rondel has also been uncovered at the Bohemian site of KOLÍN I, a mere 40 metres away from another rondel with a single ditch. In the eastern complex, we can cite the sites SCHMIEDORF with a single-ditched and a triple-ditched rondel and FRIEBRITZ with a single-ditched and a double-ditched rondel. Other triple-ditched rondels have been found close to both singleditched rondels, as at GLAUBENDORF, and two-ditched rondels, as at HORNSBURG and PERCHTOLDSDORF. We reiterate the working hypothesis that the original intention of the builders of rondels may have been to build a structure with a single ditch. Additional ditches might have been added for reasons that are difficult to identify using the archaeological record. It is possible that societies living in small regions followed local building traditions, bound by regional (cultural and social/political) customs, when building rondels. This interpretation has been expressed in the previous chapter when comparing various formal and metric properties of the foundation trenches. It is also likely that the occurrence of rondels with a particular number of ditches merely reflects the spread of the knowledge of building rondels along certain river passages. In any case, we can envisage a shared awareness of rondels, with certain numbers of concentrically dug ditches, throughout the territory where they occur on the one hand, and intense mutual interaction between societies on the other. We will now turn our attention to the entrance passages through the ditches. Entrances: Numbers and positions As we have seen previously, rondel ditches may be interrupted by two, three, four, five or six entrances; the latter are rather exceptional cases but examples have been revealed at Vedrovice III in Moravia (Humpolová 2001), Glaubendorf 2, in Lower Austria (Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 198–203) and at Golianovo, Slovakia (Kuzma 2001). The excavations presented in Chapter 5 included the case of Vochov I, where it is likely that the inner ditch had only two entrances, while the outer ditch originally had four. A similar configuration has been identified at the Schmiedorf 1 rondel in Lower Austria (Trnka 1991), where the outermost ditch with four entrances enclosed two inner two-entrance ditches. In all other known cases of multiple-ditched rondels, however, the numbers and positions of entrances were identical for all ditches. In rondels with four entrances, the entrances are generally roughly oriented towards the four cardinal points, a fact that was already observed in research carried out in the 1970s and 1980s. In the course of later investigations, however, researchers gradually also uncovered circular structures with two entrances orientated roughly to the east and west, for instance in Praha-Ruzyně. Other variations include rondels with three entrances, orientated either to the northwest, northeast and south, as at the sites of Horoměřice-Chotol in Bohemia (Řídký

2011) and Dresden-Nickern 1 in Saxony, Germany (Bartels et al. 2003), or their mirror image, with entrances to the north, southwest and southeast as at Goseck and Praha-Vinoř in Bohemia (Křivánek and Kuna 1993). It is evident from previously investigated sites that the widths of the entrance passages running through the ditches vary considerably (Fig. 6.20), ranging from 2.5 m to 7 m with a width of about 3 m being most common. However, cases of passages measuring only one metre in width are known from other excavations (e.g. Kolín 1 in Bohemia; e.g. Řídký 2011, 31). As we have seen in Chapter 5, the entrance passages delimited by the ditches were sometimes very long. If all structural elements of the Svodín 2 rondel were contemporaneous, for example, the complete entrance passage would have been as much as 40 m long.

Fig. 6.21 Bar graph showing the number of rondels with two to six ditch entrances. Total number is 102 cases. Author J. Řídký.

The overall number of ditch entrances could be compared for 102 rondels (in the case of multi-ditched enclosures we are only considering the ditch with the largest diameter for the moment). Rondels with four entrances make up an absolute majority (61 %) of the rondel corpus, followed by rondels with two-entrances (25 %), three-entrances (11 %) and sporadic

examples with five and six-entrances (Fig. 6.21). If we divide rondels into two groups according to the cultural complexes, we can state that structures with four, three, two and exceptionally also with six entrances were known and built within both territories in Central Europe (Fig. 6.22). The figure of four entrances is clearly predominant in the territories of both cultural complexes. However, the ratios of rondels with two, three and five entrances differ slightly between the complexes. The rather frequent occurrence of two-entrance rondels is characteristic of the eastern complex, whereas rondels with three entrances are slightly more prevalent in the western complex. As of 2015, there were no known definite examples of rondels with five entrances in the outer ditch in the western complex. It is possible that the outer ditch of the rondel at Eythra, Saxony, was interrupted by five entrances, but unfortunately information is lacking regarding certain sections of this ditch (Stäuble 2002). In any case, rondels with five or more entrances occur only sporadically throughout Central Europe. Significant concentrations of rondels with two entrances are recorded north of the Danube in the MOG, LGK and STK regions and also at the confluence of the Rivers Isar and Danube in the SOB region (Fig. 6.23). Three-entrance rondels also sporadically appear in the eastern complex north of the Danube (MOG region), but their occurrence and widespread distribution in the western complex is much more prominent. One six-entrance rondel is known from the territory of each cultural complex, but the sites are separated by a distance of several hundred kilometres. At eleven sites we have an opportunity to look more closely at situations where several rondels exist (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4). In less than half of the cases, we observe structures with an identical number of entrances – two rondels with two entrances in HORNSBURG, and two rondels with four entrances in KOLÍN I, LOCHENICE, QUEDLINBURG and SVODÍN. The number of entrances of the individual rondels differed at six sites: two and four entrances (PRAGUE-KRČ, PRANHARTSBERG), three and four entrances (BYLANY, FRIEBRITZ), two and five entrances (GLAUBENDORF) and four and five entrances (VEDROVICE).

Fig. 6.22 Bar graph showing the number of rondels according to the number of entrances, divided into the western and eastern cultural complexes, with 36 cases registered in the western complex and 66 cases in the eastern complex. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.23 Distribution of rondels with two to six entrances in the outer ditch. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký. Table 6.5 Rondel comparison table based on the number of entrances passing through the outer ditches and the total number of ditches (author: J. Řídký)

Perhaps the most important fact to note at this point is that wherever these circular structures occur in Central Europe, we register rondels with two, three and, above all, four entrances. Table 6.5 compares rondels with a particular number of entrances in the largest ditch along with the information about the numbers of ditches; we can see that three ditches were rarely built for rondels with two or three entrances, and we have no examples of structures having three entrances and four ditches. Four ditches are only recorded for fourentrance rondels. Entrance shapes: Is there a system? Let us now turn our attention to what we have learnt about the shapes of the entrance passages formed by the ditches. Several decades ago, three basic rondel layout types were identified on the basis of the entrance shapes: the Kothingeichendorf – Těšetice type characterised by a simple interruption of the course of the ditch, the Bučany – Svodín type with typical outward-protruding ditches, and the Lochenice – Unternberg type with two interconnected ditches in the area of the entrance (e.g. Podborský ed. 1999, Fig. 4: 1). Over time, however, it has emerged that there is greater variability in entrance shapes. In essence, the entrances can be formed by various combinations of individual ditches that can be either simply interrupted or that have outward-turned or inward-turned arms (e.g. Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 92; Řídký 2011, 61). In the majority of cases, all of the entrances in a single rondel have the same shape, but there are a few exceptions. We have seen the example of Goseck, where there was a break between the ditch and one of the out-turned arms at one entrance. Rondel No. 2 in Kolín (Kolín 2), the Czech Republic, has three identical entrance passages, delimited by short straight sections of ditch which were not interconnected with the main ditch while the fourth entrance took the form of a simple interruption in the line of the ditch (Šumberová et al. 2012). An excavation of the Vchynice rondel, in the Czech Republic, revealed two entrances formed by simple interruptions in the course of the ditch, whereas two further entrances, identified by geophysics, were formed by an out-turning of the arms of the ditch, like in Praha-Ruzyně (see Chapter 5). In view of the predominance of rondels with identical entrance shapes, we believe that the three above-mentioned cases represent unfinished construction projects where the original intention was to build a symmetrical rondel with identically shaped entrances. On the basis of our data set, we are able to add further information concerning entrance passage shapes. Our sample contains 125 rondels that provide sufficient information for this part of the comparative analysis; their entrance passages formed by the ditches have been documented in the past using several research methodologies, including test excavation, geophysical prospection and aerial photography. We have seen in Chapter 4 that each research methodology carries a certain limited informational potential; therefore, it may turn out in the future that some of the entrance shape types we have identified are, in fact, identical to others or that they represent unfinished constructions. In this part of the chapter, we will still work under the assumption that all uncovered

ditches of a rondel were an integral and visible part of the rondel, at least until the definitive demise of the structure’s function. The list of rondels assembled by the end of 2015 includes as many as 20 types of entrances that differ in terms of their shape and the numbers of ditches present (Fig. 6.24). We can see in the figure above that the entrances of all rondels with more than one ditch are basically composed of combinations of the simple types 11 and 13. Otherwise, we can see different variations in the aggregate of the assembled entrance passage shape types: simple gaps formed by interruptions in the ditches (types 11, 21, 31, 41), interrupted and outward protruding ditches (types 13, 22, 23, 24, 26, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43), inward protruding ditches (types 32, 34, 37) or an interconnection of two adjacent ditches (types 25, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44). We also know of cases where the line of the ditch was interrupted in the area of the entrance and two parallel shorter ditches, respecting the entrance passages of the rondel, were dug outside the complex (type 12). Rondels with simple entrances of type 11 (28 %) and type 21 (27.2 %) were by far the most numerous (Fig. 6.25). Ten or more cases have also been recorded for type 25 (11.2 %) and type 13 (8 %), four to six cases are known for types 31 (4.8 %), 22 (3.2 %) and 26 (3.2 %). Other types of entrances are confined to one or two cases and are, therefore, very rare. If we divide all of the assembled cases into two groups according to the cultural complexes, it is evident that entrance types 11 and 21 prevail in both territories; type 25 also appears repeatedly in various places (Fig. 6.26). Types 13, 22, 26 and 31 have also been registered in the territories of both the western and eastern complexes.

Fig. 6.24 Types of entrance passages formed by ditches, arranged into lines according to the number of ditches. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.25 Bar graph showing the number of rondels according to the shapes of the entrance passages formed by the ditches. The individual types of entrances marked on the X axis are depicted in Fig. 6.24. 125 cases in total. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.26 Bar graph showing the number of rondels according to the shapes of the entrance passages, divided into the west and east cultural complexes, with 52 cases registered in the western complex and 73 cases in the eastern complex. The individual entrance types marked on the X axis are depicted in Fig. 6.24. Author J. Řídký.

On the other hand, there are numerous types of entrances that only occur in one of the two complexes. This applies to types 12, 34, 36, 41, 43 and 44 in the western complex and types 23, 32, 35, 37 and 42 in the eastern complex. A discovery that we regard as important at this point is that almost all of the more complex entrance passages, formed by three or more ditches (types 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44), occur in one or two cases at the most. Once again, it confirms our thesis that the digging of additional ditches was probably driven by local events, rules and customs rather than by a predetermined decision regarding the final number of ditches a rondel was to have. The spatial distribution of rondels according to entrance shapes shows a regular distribution of one, two and less frequently three-ditched rondels with entrances formed by a simple interruption of the course of the ditch (types 11, 21, 31) throughout the territory where rondels occur (Fig. 6.27). Entrance type 25, which is formed by the interconnection of two ditches, is also rather frequent over an extensive area. Interestingly, the only area where this type has not been detected yet is the LGK region, situated in the territories of present-day Slovakia and Hungary.

In contrast, there is a conspicuous concentration of types 11, 21, 31 along certain watercourses within smaller regions, for instance in the basin of the River Isar in the SOB region and along the tributaries of the River Danube in the LGK region. A similar distribution along watercourses can also be observed for type 13 entrances, but only in the western complex, particularly along the River Labe/Elbe and in the area of the confluence of the Vltava and Labe in the STK region. Let us now look once more at the 16 sites with several rondels where the shapes of the entrances have been determined (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4). Multiple rondels with identical entrance types only occurred at the sites of LOCHENICE, VEDROVICE and SORMÁS. Entrances defined by a simple interruption in the course of the ditch (but with different numbers of ditches) have also been detected at the GLAUBENDORF site. At all of the other 13 sites where the shapes of the entrance passages are known, the neighbouring rondels within a single site differ markedly. They include sites situated in both the western complex (e.g. BYLANY, PRAGUE-KRČ, DRESDEN, etc.) and the eastern complex (e.g. FRIEBRITZ, HORNSBURG, etc.).

Fig. 6.27 Distribution of rondels according to the shapes of the entrance passages formed by the ditches. The individual types of entrances are depicted in Fig. 6.24. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

For twelve sites (out of the total of 16 sites) with several rondels, it has also been possible to observe whether certain entrance types appear in tandem with an identical number of entrance passages within a single site (see Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4). The comparison of these two variables reveals that two rondels with an identical layout (i.e., having the same shapes and numbers of entrances) only occur at the LOCHENICE site; different numbers of entrances of the same shape have been registered at the VEDROVICE site. In four cases (QUEDLINBURG, SVODÍN, HORNSBURG, KOLÍN I), the neighbouring rondels had entrances of various shapes and the same overall number (but not location). Rondels with different shapes and numbers of entrances have been uncovered at six sites (BYLANY, PRAGUE-KRČ, DRESDEN, FRIEBRITZ, GLAUBENDORF, PRANHARTSBERG). We can conclude this section by stating that very different circular structures, in terms of their shape, were much more often built within a single site. However, we still do not know whether the multiplicity of structures on certain sites represents replacement of earlier structures, in accordance with M. Oliva’s interpretation (Oliva 2004), or whether we are looking at contemporary but functionally distinct structures (for instance, intended for use by different social or gender groups). Thus far our observations that have focused on the ditches suggest that in the period under study, i.e. the first half of the fifth millennium BC, there was a broad awareness of what a rondel should look like across the entire territory where rondels occur. It can be perceived in the wide spatial distribution of rondels with certain numbers of ditches, in the numbers of entrances and in the spread of rondels with certain entrance passage shapes formed by the ditches. On the other hand, we can trace certain spatially limited trends that occurred at the level of the cultural complexes as well as within much smaller regions along certain river courses. Above all, we note the occurrence of rondels with three entrances predominantly (but not exclusively) in the western complex and the predominance (once again, not exclusive) of two-entrance rondels in the eastern complex. Another remarkable fact is that if multiple rondels occur at a single site, in an absolute majority of cases they differ markedly from each other. Differences are particularly apparent in the number of ditches, the number of entrances formed by the ditches and the shapes of these entrances.

Table 6.6 Dimensions of the ditch with the largest diameter: comparison of the maximum size (in metres) of all rondels, of rondels within the two cultural complexes, of rondels according to the overall number of ditches and of rondels according to the number of entrances (author: J. Řídký)

In the next section, we will examine some metric characteristics of rondels in the hope that we can identify more common rules. Rondel sizes: Is there a system? A comparison of the maximum size of rondels, calculated as the maximum diameter of the outer edges of the outermost ditch, has been possible for 143 structures in our data set (Tab. 6.6). Apart from several cases where this variable is unknown, sporadic rondels with extremely high values (the rondels Sormás 2 and Vokány in present-day Hungary) have also been excluded from the corpus at this stage. We can see, like in the previous comparison of the sizes of the foundation trenches, that rondels in the eastern complex were more often larger than their counterparts in the western complex. The table also makes it clear that the overall sizes of rondels increase with the number of ditches (see also Fig. 6.28). The comparison of the total number of entrances (in the outermost ditch) and the maximum size of the rondels shows a marked relationship between these two variables (e.g. the mean and the median in Tab. 6.6). Two-entrance rondels tend to be the smallest, four-entrance rondels the largest. We have suggested several times in the previous text that the addition of further ditches might have been a consequence of regular or special events (e.g. ceremonies, feasts), which were locally conditioned and which are difficult to prove archaeologically. We must also reiterate that most experts regard the ditch with the smallest diameter as the most important ditch (it is usually the widest, deepest and most often repaired). Therefore, if we wish to discover the original, so-called “Ur-rondels” and trace their spatial spread, we must focus on

the dimensions and the number and shape of the entrances specifically in the ditch with the smallest diameter – i.e. the main ditch.

Fig. 6.28 Boxplot showing maximum dimensions of the ditches with the largest diameter (Y-axis; in metres) in rondels having 1–4 ditches. Author J. Řídký.

Table 6.7 Dimensions of the ditch with the smallest diameter: comparison of the maximum size (in metres) of all rondels, of rondels within the two cultural complexes, of rondels according to the overall number of ditches and of rondels according to the number of entrances. This time, we have focused on the number of entrances in the ditch with the smallest diameter (author: J. Řídký)

The values for the ditch with the smallest diameter could be compared for 138 cases (Tab. 6.7). Apart from structures where this value was unknown, rondels with extremely high values (Chlum and Vedrovice III in the Czech Republic and Vokány in present-day Hungary) have once again been excluded. The table now clearly shows the similar lowest and highest values as well as the minimal differences in the mean and in the quartiles (QI and QIII) between the two cultural complexes. The median values are even identical for both complexes. The closeness of the values for one-, two- and three-ditched rondels is also interesting. In contrast, the results for the circular structures with four V-shaped ditches are markedly different (Fig. 6.29). The overall number of entrances seems to be an important limiting factor for the size of the main ditch (see Tab. 6.7). The distribution of rondels according to the number of entrances in the ditch with the smallest diameter is slightly different to that observed for the ditches with the largest diameter. An increase is visible, for example, in the two-entrance group (Fig. 6.30). If we look at the size values for rondels with two, three and four entrances, we can see that rondels with two entrances are amongst the smallest examples (most often, they do not even reach 60 m; see Fig. 6.31). Rondels with three or four entrances tend to be somewhat larger. It is interesting that similar size groups with the same numbers of entrances appear in the geographical areas of different rondel regions of archaeological cultures. Everywhere, rondels with two entrances are usually the smallest, three-entrance rondels are somewhat larger, and rondels with four entrances are highly variable.

There is a system… Let us sum up the discoveries we have made concerning rondel ditches. The results of formal and metric analyses lead us to believe that a generally shared system – a widely respected rule governing the planning, construction and reconstruction of rondels – existed throughout the territory where rondels occur in the first half of the fifth millennium BC. We believe that a single V-shaped ditch with a predetermined number of entrances and given dimensions, which we denote as the main ditch (Fig. 6.31), was initially built around a wooden structure, either a free-standing post enclosure or a more complicated roofed structure. More and more ditches could be added later depending on various events and local rules (feasts, ceremonies, etc.).

Fig. 6.29 Boxplot showing maximum dimensions of the smallest ditches (Y-axis; in metres) in rondels having 1–4 ditches. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.30 Distribution of rondels according to the overall number of entrances in the smallest detected ditch. Only rondels with two, three or four entrances have been plotted. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 6.31 Distribution of rondels according to size groups based on the dimensions of the ditch with the smallest diameter (in metres). The groups were divided based on Tab. 6.7 and the chart in the upper right corner of the figure. The figure depicts only the rondels with known values. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Author J. Řídký.

If a two-entrance rondel was built, for example, the entrances were always directed towards the east and the west, with various deviations, and the entrance passages were formed by a simple interruption of the ditch or by extensions of the ditch towards the exterior of the complex. The diameter of the ditch was sometimes only 30–40 m, most often 45–60 m (18 cases, or 64 % of rondels with two entrances from the STK, SOB, MOG and LGK regions). In their final form, these rondels had one or two ditches (after reconstructions – 23 cases), or more rarely three ditches (4 cases). Another remarkable discovery is that a full onequarter of these smallest rondels have been found close to another rondel at the same site. They may represent earlier structures, which were later replaced by a larger and more complex structure constructed on an adjacent site; alternatively, they may have functioned for a particular purpose or for a particular group (social/political, age, gender based) of community members. When a ditch with three entrances was built, the entrances were directed, with various deviations, to the northwest, northeast and south (6 cases), or to the mirror image of this situation (4 cases). The entrances were most often (8 cases, or 73 % of rondels from the STK, SOB and MOG regions) formed by an outward extension of the ditches. The diameter of the

main ditches of these rondels is most often 50–70 m (7 cases; 64 % from the STK, SOB and MOG regions). Three ditches have been registered in a single case of a three-entrance rondel; single-ditched (5 cases) and two-ditched (5 cases) variants prevail. Three of these rondels come from sites where several rondels have been found. Three rondels, almost identical in terms of their layout, size and entrance directions, have been uncovered in the STK region (Horoměřice-Chotol, Bodzów, Dresden-Nickern 1). Two more almost identical rondels, slightly larger than the previous ones, occur in the STK and SOB regions (Goseck, Ramsdorf). As the distance between these rondels is in the order of hundreds of kilometres, this may not be a coincidence. The entrances of a four-entrance ditch are always directed towards the cardinal points, with some deviations. They were formed either by a simple interruption in the line of the ditch, or by an outward extension of the ditch ends. These rondels can be divided into several size categories recorded in all or almost all culture areas. The smallest variants reach a maximum size of only 30–40 m (absent in SOB region). Most rondels belong to the 40–60 m size category in all culture areas. Finds of rondels with dimensions of 70–90 m are also relatively frequent and widespread. Much fewer rondels have been found within the size range of 110–130 m, and in exceptional cases the dimensions can reach 150 m. This is the only type of rondel where multiple-ditched examples prevail over single-ditched ones, in the ratio of 2:1. It is also the only type of rondel for which finished or unfinished fourth ditches have been detected (these are known in the STK region – Kolín 1 and Kyhna 3 – and in the LGK region – Cífer). Regrettably, we do not know the overall number of entrances of another four-ditched rondel known as Dresden-Nickern 4. Apart from the Cífer example, all fourditched rondels come from sites with multiple rondels. As in the case of two-entrance rondels, this multiplicity may be the result of the replacement of original structures, or may reflect the existence of contemporaneous rondels with different functions. The results of all of the comparisons that we have made so far lead to an important conclusion. Most researchers in the past have attempted to compare variables such as the number of ditches and the maximum size of rondels (for a summary, see e.g. Řídký 2011). However, these variables may be the final outcome of local building traditions and customs, possibly affected also by the factor of time. While unified structures with a particular number of entrances and a certain size (with only one ditch) might have been built initially over an extensive territory, subsequent reconstructions and additions governed by archaeologically undetectable (and possibly regionally conditioned) rules gave rise to non-comparable, original structures. Missing elements – the question of banks One of the important questions that has dogged the study of rondels since the beginning is what happened to the material that was removed during the digging of the ditches? Was it spread out in an even layer around the circular structure, or piled up at its centre (in the manner of a medieval motte)? Or was the up-cast soil used to create a bank or banks? And where might such a bank have been situated (Fig. 6.32)? Was it on the outer side of the ditch,

as we see for instance in southwest England (e.g. at the famous Avebury site), or was it erected along the inner edge of the ditch, which would be more logical if the rondels were used for defensive purposes? Is it even possible that banks occurred between all of the ditches of multi-ditched rondels (e.g. Stäuble 2012), creating an undoubtedly imposing structure, perhaps the most conspicuous human creation in the settlements and in the Central European landscape of the first half of the fifth millennium BC? The answers to these questions are difficult to find in the intensively cultivated landscapes of Central Europe, and opinions differ among scholars. After more than three decades of intensive fieldwork (e.g. Petrasch 1990; Podborský 1991; Trnka 1991; Fera et al. 2005, 66) the most prevalent theory in the literature is still that the up-cast material from the ditches was spread out over the surrounding areas. Several other theories have been mentioned in the case studies, however. We must once again cite the Svodín variant (an interconnection of inner wooden structures with up-cast earth piled up in the form of a rampart), which is rejected by most scholars. Although Podborský was also inclined towards the material having been spread out over a large area, based on the outcomes of an analysis of horizontal stratigraphy in Těšetice-Kyjovice, he also mentions in the summary of his account of this rondel that, in theory, a single bank, over three metres high and 3 m wide, could have existed (Podborský 1988). Some researchers have also theorised regarding the existence and specific location of a bank in the case of the Bylany 4/1 rondel: in this case, such a bank, with a height of up to 2.5 m and a width of 5 m, might have been situated between the two ditches, while another somewhat smaller bank possibly ran alongside the outer edge of the outer ditch of the same rondel (Fig. 6.33). Similar ideas concerning the location of possible banks have been expressed in the cases of Vochov I and Friebritz 1 (see Chapter 5).

Fig. 6.32 One of the hypotheses for the location of up-cast material based on research carried out at the Kolín 1 rondel (CZ). Author P. Vavrečka.

Using a more sophisticated approach based on the orientation and composition of the layers in the ditch fill, the authors of a report of the Goseck rondel, Germany, believe that a bank, with a height of 2.5 m and a width of up to 3 m, (one of the two published variants) encircled the single ditch of this rondel. H. Stäuble is of a similar opinion in the case of the four-ditched rondel in Dresden-Nickern (Bartels et al. 2003, 124; Stäuble 2007). We will return to this important site later when discussing the construction of rondels. At this stage, we wish to point out that there was enough space between all of the ditches of this rondel to accommodate banks. Stäuble believes that, as in Goseck, the layers in the ditch fills of the structure provide evidence for the existence and gradual demise (washing away) of banks. This suggestion is based on elaborate sedimentological and micromorphological analyses of the ditch fills. One of the first such analyses of ditch fills, which supported the possible existence of a bank, concerned the Gnadendorf rondel in present-day Lower Austria. G. Trnka (Trnka 1991, 308–310) states that the existence of the bank might have been confirmed based on the study of the transported material, but its precise position (along the outer or the inner edge of the ditch) could not be determined at the time. In contrast, another equally thorough sedimentological analysis of the inner ditch of the rondel in Steinabrunn, Lower Austria, unambiguously ruled out the existence of a bank (Loishandl-Weisz and Peticzka 2011, 159). In the past five years, micromorphological analyses have been conducted on the fill of one of the ditches (the third ditch from the centre) of the Kolín 1 rondel at the KOLÍN I site in Bohemia and on a block of fill left untouched during the 1970s excavation of the ditch at Těšetice-Kyjovice (Lisá et al. 2014; 2013, 145). In both cases, the results of the analysis indicate that material from the bottom of the ditches was removed and deposited somewhere

in the immediate vicinity. It is likely that it was piled up in the form of a bank and gradually either re-entered the ditch area though natural processes or was intentionally deposited there. Unfortunately, the original location of the bank cannot be determined more precisely for either of these examples. The variant involving the positioning of a bank on the inner side of the rondel ditch seems more likely at Těšetice-Kyjovice; this calls into question Podborský’s belief that the rondel and the nearby pits were contemporary (e.g. the group of storage pits in close vicinity to the ditch; see Fig. 1. B in Chapter 1).

Fig. 6.33 Another suggestion for the location of banks based on research carried out at the Bylany 4/1 rondel (CZ). Author P. Vavrečka.

Fig. 6.34 The ratios of variously dated sherds in the sectors of the ditch of the Horoměřice-Chotol rondel (CZ). Adapted after Řídký 2011. Author J. Řídký.

In the past, the possible existence of banks has also been suggested, indirectly, through analysis of the finds from the ditch fills. As an example we can take the site of HoroměřiceChotol Bohemia, where about half of the overall area of the rondel was investigated in 2003 (Řídký 2011). The rondel, with a maximum diameter of 52 m, originally had three entrances (type 13, see Fig. 6.24) oriented to the NW, NE and S. Evidence for two palisade trenches, with maximum diameters of 43 m and 35 m respectively, was found inside the area enclosed by the ditch. The maximum width of the ditch was only 0.8–1.7 m and its depth varied between only 0.2 and 0.9 m. It is, therefore, evident that the original ground surface was rather significantly eroded leaving only the lower parts of the ditch which were uncovered during the rescue excavation. Analysis of pottery fragments from the fill has been particularly revealing. The 687 pottery fragments could be categorised into three different chronological groups: sherds generally classifiable as Neolithic, sherds attributed to the Linear Pottery culture (this means that the site had been used for settlement before the construction of the rondel), and finally sherds from the later phase of the Stroked Pottery culture (the period when the rondel is believed to have been in use). A total of 481 sherds (70 % of all sherds) could be

unambiguously dated to the Linear Pottery culture; these included sherds whose length exceeded 6 cm (also originating from the lower levels of the fill) which means that they were too large to have been redeposited by natural agents. It was also revealed that wherever pottery was found in the ditch fill, sherds from the earlier Neolithic period predominated (Fig. 6.34). We must, therefore, consider the possibility that the rondel ditch was intentionally filled with material from its immediate vicinity after it had fallen into disuse. It is likely that this material came from a bank, which had been accumulated during the digging of the ditch on the site of an earlier settlement, hence the presence of Linear Pottery artefacts mixed within it. Thanks to the thorough research carried out in Vchynice (see case studies in Chapter 5) it has been possible to compare various characteristics of the finds that became part of the ditch fill (Řídký et al. 2014a). In this section, we are primarily interested in an approximately 13 m long section of the ditch close to the south entrance, which was undisturbed by later interventions. The ditch was 2.15 m wide and 1.8 m deep at this point. As in HoroměřiceChotol, it seems that at least half a metre of the original Neolithic surface soil had been lost. Pottery analysis has revealed, in various levels, sherds from the later chronological phase of the STK (phase IV), the period when the rondel is presumed to have been built, as well as sherds from an earlier phase of the same culture (phase III), and one sherd from the earliest settlement at the site dated to the Linear Pottery culture. Surprisingly, these earlier sherds were mainly found in the middle and upper levels of the ditch fill. A detailed analysis of the size and preservation of the sherds did not reveal any significant differences between material from phases III and IV – small sherds of up to 2 cm and large ones exceeding 5 cm were found in both groups. Radiocarbon dating of animal skeletal remains taken from various levels of the ditch fill (larger bones of large mammals, especially cattle) yielded five significantly different dates (Řídký 2016). A comparison with seven more results from shortlived settlement features located nearby showed that some animal bones (from middle and upper levels of the fill) might, like the above-mentioned sherds, also originate from the earlier occupation of the site. Taken together, this information can be interpreted as follows. Larger animal bones and sherds from the earlier period may not have been transported to the rondel ditch by natural agents but, rather, may have been deposited there during deliberate in-filling of the ditch. Moreover, it does not appear that the earlier bones and sherds had lain exposed to the weather on the ground surface; in fact, this early material was relatively fresh (exhibiting polished surfaces and sharp edges) compared to later material retrieved from the same ditch (Řídký et al. 2013). It is possible that the early finds were removed, along with the soil in which they lay, when the ditch was dug and that they then ended up in the body of an adjacent bank created using the up-cast material from the ditch. When the rondel became obsolete, the ditch, which had been gradually filling with settlement refuse from the later period, might have been intentionally in-filled with the material from the bank. This would explain the reverse stratigraphy evident within the ditch fill. Another example comes from the multiple-ditched rondel, Kolín 1; we have already discussed it briefly in Chapter 5 where we mentioned the results of micromorphological

analyses. In this case, the analyses of sherds from the ditch did not confirm the mixing up of items from the various chronological periods when the site was in use. It must be reiterated, however, that the radiocarbon dates were, on average, later as one advanced from the main ditch (i.e. the innermost ditch) to the third ditch. Surprisingly, within the individual ditches, later dates were obtained for material in lower parts of the fill while earlier dates were obtained for material in upper layers; this pattern was particularly evident in ditch No. 3 (Řídký et al. 2014a).

Fig. 6.35 Schematic representation of the interpretation of the results of the radiocarbon analysis of the Kolín 1 rondel (CZ) concerning the origin of so-called reverse stratigraphy, when the resulting data from the upper levels of the fill are earlier than the data from the lower levels. Author J. Řídký.

This situation can be explained, once again, by the assumption that the ditches were initially filled with material containing items that were more or less contemporary with the demise of the rondel in a certain phase of its existence. After the digging of ditch No. 2, the material originating from an earlier period became part of its fill (Fig. 6.35). This material might have originally been part of the body of the bank that had been created during the digging of the previous, earlier ditch No. 1. A similar situation repeated itself when ditch No. 3 and the unfinished ditch No. 4 were dug. In our opinion, therefore, the results of radiocarbon dating tend to confirm the original existence of banks between the ditches. Finally, let us focus our attention on an exceptional site situated in a forest near the municipality of Třebovětice in east Bohemia (Kovárník and Mangel 2013). The site, which was visible as a circular bank with entrances, was investigated recently using geophysical prospection and was identified as a probable two-ditched Neolithic enclosure. The preserved bank was found to be situated in the area between the two ditches. The ground plan still needs to be verified by test excavation, but the geophysical results (see Chapter 4; Fig. 4.2: A) show quite clearly that this is, in fact, a rondel with two ditches interconnected in the area

of the entrances, similar to those that we have seen in Künzing-Unternberg or Praha-Ruzyně (type 26; see Fig. 6.24). We believe that banks were a plausible means of dealing with material accumulated during the digging of the ditches. The banks may have been situated along the outer edges of the ditches, and there may have been several of them in the case of multiple-ditched rondels (Fig. 6.36). It is possible, however, that the construction procedures employed by Late Neolithic communities were governed by regional customs, experience, and local traditions, which means that some rondels were accompanied by a bank (or more banks) while others were not.

Fig. 6.36 An alternative interpretation of the Kolín 1 (CZ) ground plan, which includes the existence of banks between the ditches. Author P. Vavrečka.

How to build a rondel One of the main arguments supporting the existence of organised collective labour in the period under study is the time and energy resources required for the construction of rondels. As early as the 1990s, for example, Petrasch calculated that as many as 4,700 posts would have been needed for the construction of all three inner circular palisades of the Svodín 2

rondel (for details, see the excavation account in Chapter 5; Petrasch 1990, 498–499). This represents a considerable number of felled trees. Moreover, if we take into account the fact that the overall length of the posts is thought to have been between two and five metres, the selection and felling of suitable trees, and their subsequent transport to the rondel site would undoubtedly have required a great deal of time and the efforts of a considerable number of labourers. Furthermore, it is estimated that up to 11,000 cubic metres of soil were removed to create both ditches. Petrasch calculated that if the Svodín settlement had 800 inhabitants, and if one out of every ten was engaged in the construction, then the building of the circular structure would have taken up to four years if only the inhabitants of the Svodín settlement were involved. Petrasch based his theoretical estimates on the assumption that the whole structure, which survives as two outer ditches and three inner foundation trenches, had been planned in this form from the outset. If it were to be completed as soon as possible, say within a single year, other neighbouring communities from an area of more than 100 square kilometres would have had to cooperate in the effort. In the following paragraphs, we will summarise the information published so far regarding the methods used to lay out and construct rondels. Using the information presented earlier, we will focus on the question of whether rondels represent ritual structures that were used only during seasonal activities organised by individuals with an ad-hoc status (so-called Big Men; e.g. Oliva 2004), or whether they were unifying structures in the sense of regional “temples,” initiated by privileged individuals or groups of privileged individuals with a hereditary status, most often denoted as Chiefs in cultural (social) anthropology. Our current information about how rondels might have been built primarily comes from two sources: evidence revealed by excavations, e.g. clearly unfinished constructions, tool marks on the sides of ditches etc.; and information gleaned from experimental archaeology, e.g. experimental digging of V-shaped ditches and the construction of full-scale replica rondels, examples of which include Goseck in Germany and Heldenberg in Austria (e.g. Pavlů et al. 1995; Trnka 1997; Lobisser and Neubauer 2005a; 2005b; Lobisser 2006; Broes and Bosquet 2007). In the past, Austrian researchers have suggested how the ground plan of the Glaubendorf 2 rondel might have been marked out; this is an example of a complex type of rondel, with one inner foundation trench surrounded by three ditches and having a maximum diameter of up to 110 m (Hasenhündl et al. 2005; Neubauer 2005, 54–56). Before the construction itself, it would have been necessary to prepare an area of up to 1 ha by stripping it of any vegetation including tree roots. The ground plan of the future construction was measured out simply using an anchored rope and subsequently marked using stakes, stones or possibly a powdery material such as sand. Measuring out the symmetrically situated entrance passages did not pose a serious problem. After the localisation of the first entrance, for instance using distinctive geomorphological points in the landscape, it was easy to locate the positions of the other required entrances. The Austrian researchers are convinced that a rondel, especially if it had a larger and more complex layout, had to be planned in advance as a single unit, and

that it would not have been possible to construct the entire complex around a pre-existing timber structure. As we have pointed out in the previous text, however, wooden structures set within the foundation trenches might theoretically have been built somewhat in advance of the first ditch, because, in several cases, the layouts of the trenches and the ditches are not symmetrical (e.g. Svodín 2 and Těšetice-Kyjovice). Moreover, geophysical survey of the rondel at Kleedorf, Austria, for example, has indicated a completed inner foundation trench while the outer ditch takes the form of several non-interconnected segments suggesting that it may be unfinished (Trnka 1997). Let us now discuss the available information concerning the possible progression of the construction of the inner wooden structures. Posts were inserted at various intervals, most often densely spaced, into the trenches that delimited the central area of the rondel (Fig. 6.3). It was probably for this reason that the trenches originally had a depth of more than 0.5 m. Certain excavations have revealed that some posts might have been worked – longitudinally split or shaped into a point, for instance (e.g. Těšetice-Kyjovice). Regrettably, the original form of the circular wooden structures situated in the area delimited by the ditches is difficult to ascertain today. We have repeatedly suggested in the previous chapters that they were simple palisade fences, but we cannot rule out much more complex structures, such as roofed atria, possibly even with plastered wicker walls. As we will see below, the reconstruction models created so far have tended to favour the former alternative. At the Austrian site of Steinabrunn, researchers estimated that as many as 400 to 550 posts were needed for the construction of a simple palisade wall with an overall diameter of about 41 m (Fera et al. 2005, 66). No less than 1,675 posts had to be procured for a replica of the Goseck rondel that included two circular wooden palisades, with maximum diameters of 49 m and 56 m respectively, interrupted by three entrance passages (www.sonnenobservatorium-goseck.info; 23 January 2018). For a much smaller replica of the Schletz rondel to be constructed in the open air museum in Heldenberg, Austria, experimenters expected to need up to 416 oak trunks, each about 4 m long and with a diameter of up to 30 cm, to create two circular palisades interrupted by two entrance passages (Lobisser and Neubauer 2005a; 2005b). As many as 1,896 posts, each with a diameter of 30 cm, had to be added to the inner trenches during the creation of a computer reconstruction of the rondel known as Bylany 4/1; this rondel features three inner palisades, with maximum diameters of 70 m, 82 m and 86 m respectively and features four entrance passages, (see Fig. 6.33). Of course, it is an open question whether the trunks of trees actually growing on the construction site were used for building, or whether there were special requirements concerning the size, origin, shape or even the species of tree to be used (possible ritual requirements). In any case, a considerable number of trees from a very extensive area were needed, even for the smaller rondels. If the wooden structure was roofed then even more trees would have had to be felled. Let us look at some further findings arising from the construction of the rondel replica in Heldenberg (based on research conducted at Schletz), where the Austrian researchers

responsible for the project have attempted to estimate the time required for the felling of the trees, for their transport and for their erection on site (Lobisser and Neubauer 2005a). As yet, no other comparable study has examined the use of tree-felling tools and the issues surrounding the transport of posts for the construction. It has been calculated that 152 manhours (approximately 19 days) were required just to dig the inner trench, which has a maximum diameter of 24 m. The felling and transport of the trunks themselves would have taken approximately 1,744 man-hours (218 days). Ideally, three or four labourers would have been needed to raise and fix each post in position; it has been found that in order to increase stability, it would have been necessary to fasten 6 to7 adjacent posts together with a rope and to back-fill and carefully compact the soil around the buried portions of the posts. The construction of the smallest inner palisade wall would have necessitated approximately 576 man-hours (72 days). The second, larger enclosure, with a maximum diameter of 40 m, consisted of free-standing posts which were spaced rather far apart. Based on the experiment, their shaping alone (the preserved postholes in Schletz were rectangular in section) would have taken 720 man-hours (90 days) and their subsequent erection another 384 man-hours (48 days). Altogether, the whole construction of the inner wooden structures (palisade walls) would have required approximately 3,576 hours of work (about 447 days) for a single person. It is evident that even the construction of such a relatively small structure required the cooperation of a large and well-organised group of labourers. We will return to the issue of the time required for the construction of a complete rondel later. Let us now turn our attention to the construction of outer ditches. In the excavation summaries in Chapter 5, we mentioned that at some rondels (e.g. Svodín or Vochov I) certain sections of the ditches are deeper or shallower than others. Furthermore, Trnka, has identified examples of apparently unfinished ditches at Kleedorf in Lower Austria and at Bochum-Harpen in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany (Trnka 1997). This evidence indicates that ditches were dug in segments of various lengths, apparently by several groups of labourers. At Bylany 4/1 stepped offsets in the sides of the ditches were evident in the crosssections. It, therefore, seems likely that the ditches were dug in stages over the course of the construction of the rondel. Traces of digging, in the form of the imprints of digging tools, have been detected on the bottoms of ditches on at least three sites (e.g. Eder-Hinterleitner et al. 2005, 88, Fig. 4.7). These tools probably included antler picks and wooden spades, examples of which are known from Neolithic wells and stone extraction sites (e.g. Weiner 1998). Wicker baskets and leather sacks might have been used to carry the up-cast material away from the ditch. Belgian researchers have studied how these tools were used and how they performed during an experiment involving the digging of a section of V-shaped ditch; the ditch in question was 5 m long, 3 m wide and 2.1 m deep (Broes and Bosquet 2007). The experiment confirmed that the Neolithic tools were roughly comparable to modern hand tools in terms of efficiency. Further interesting information has been published based on the ditch digging experiment. First of all, it emerged that it was difficult for labourers to move about in a ditch

with inclined sides (archaeologists who have been involved in the excavation of V-shaped ditches will be well aware of this constraint; see Fig. 6.14); the stepped offsets observed in the ditch sides at Bylany 4/1 were probably created to facilitate the digging process as they would have considerably simplified the removal of excavated soil. Of the tools used, wooden spades, with a 30 cm working edge, approximately the length of a human foot, proved to be most effective during the Belgian experiment. Important information also emerged regarding the organisation of the work. Over the course of time, for example, fewer people were needed for actual digging and more were required for carrying the accumulated soil away. In the experimental digging it was found that the ideal working team consisted of three people: one person digging, a second gathering the waste material and a third carrying it away. The gathering and removal of soil played a crucial role in determining the speed of digging; if more people were available, they were most effectively used for these activities. A 3 m wide and 1.4 m high bank was gradually piled up adjacent to the ditch. The steps were only removed and the sides of the ditched smoothed out at the very end of the digging process. The outcome of the experiment was surprising: the average amount of soil removed was two cubic metres per person per day, which means that ten digging teams would be sufficient to dig a 290 m long ditch with a volume of 870 cubic metres (corresponding to the Darion site). In such a configuration, the ditch would have been completed in a mere twelve days (Broes and Bosquet 2007, 142). A somewhat lower average performance of one cubic metre per person per day was published by Petrasch and Stäuble (Petrasch 1990, 498–500; Stäuble 2004). The Austrian team responsible for constructing the Heldenberg replica rondel (based on the Schletz rondel) achieved a higher performance – the removal of 1.8 cubic metres per day (Lobisser and Neubauer 2005a). In the conclusion to their report, Lobisser and Neubauer (2005a) point out that the digging of the ditch and the transportation of the gathered material were the most timeconsuming task in the construction of the rondel (60 % of the time; the authors of the work envisage a situation where the up-cast soil was transported away from the rondel complex); somewhat less time would have been required for the construction of the wooden structures (24 %) and for ongoing repair and production of the tools (16 % of the time). The construction of a complete rondel, with a maximum diameter of up to 50 m and with two inner palisades, based on that uncovered in Schletz, would have taken a single person approximately 12,448 working hours (1,556 days) to complete. The number of people who could realistically participate in the construction of a rondel remains hypothetical, however. About thirty people working eight hours a day could have managed to construct the Schletz rondel in 52–80 days. The question is, of course, to what extent they might have focused solely on this work. If they dedicated their entire working day to the project, then others would have had to take care of daily subsistence activities. Moreover, the Neolithic builders undoubtedly had to accommodate changing weather conditions over the course of the year. Lobisser and Neubauer also state that since each phase of the construction was undoubtedly accompanied by numerous ceremonies and rituals, its completion might easily have taken

years. In another article, W. Lobisser (2006) points out that while the winter period was ideal for the felling and transport of trees, June and July would have been more suitable for the digging of ditches and the construction of palisades. If about 100–200 people lived at the Schletz site at the time of the construction of the rondel, they would have been able to complete this small rondel within about two years. Oliva has looked at the construction of a rondel from a different perspective (Oliva 2004, 510–518). In his opinion, the construction of a rondel was in fact an ongoing process: it could continue at any time, for example during various feasts connected with rituals and trade. Oliva suggests that it was only during its construction that the rondel served its main purpose – the bringing together of people. Social interaction was thus already achieved (and virtually exclusively) during the construction of the rondel. He was led to this opinion by the imperfect ground plans of some rondels which depart from regular circular layouts, which feature sections of ditches with different depths or irregular cross-sections and, last but not least, which exhibit evidence for separate episodes of recutting within a single ditch (e.g. Svodín 2). The layout of the rondel might have been initially marked out by shallow trenches outlining the circuits of the ditch and inner trenches. Various sections of the ditch would have been dug gradually, and subsequently maintained, by independent groups of diggers who did not take into consideration the course of digging in other sections managed by other groups. More outer ditches and inner palisades might have been added over time (see for instance Künzing-Unternberg), but the whole construction could also be abandoned for various reasons and the construction of a new rondel might start nearby. In our opinion, which differs from that expressed by Oliva (2004), the findings made so far concerning the existence of various standardised types of rondel ground plans, with repeating dimensions and numbers of entrances, distributed over an extensive area and crossing the territorial boundaries of archaeological cultures, serve to confirm the existence of individuals (or groups of individuals) who had a clear understanding of how the finished structure was supposed to look. We believe that the central aim from the beginning was to build a circular wooden structure delimited by a single V-shaped ditch and possibly also a bank. The individuals controlling the construction knew in advance what the dimensions and the intended use of certain types of rondels were and they were also capable of harnessing the potential of a large workforce. By whatever means, it seems that they were probably able to motivate the inhabitants of several settlements to participate in the construction. This means, however, that the power and influence of these individuals or groups must have far exceeded the competences of ad hoc specialists, the so-called Big Men. If the intention of the rondel builders was to build these circular structures in the shortest possible time, say within a year, it would have been possible, in principle, in view of the information outlined above; this would have been conditioned on the involvement of a considerable number of labourers and of the wider population to ensure every-day subsistence activities. The Maori, for example, managed to build the well-known pa

fortifications – consisting of wooden structures, ditches and banks – by mobilising 200–300 labourers over a period of a mere 48 hours (Knight 2009, 41; for a summary of further literature, see Broes and Bosquet 2007, 133–134). If we stick to the average performance of 2 cubic metres per person per day, as stated by Broes and Bosquet, and if we expect every digger to need an area of about 2.5 metres to manoeuvre when digging the ditch, even a massive ditch such as the one documented for the Kolín 1 rondel (with a circumference of 447.7 m in the central part of the ditch, a width of 14 m and a depth of 4.5 m) might have been completed within 40 days with the participation of 180 labourers. Assuming the lowest stated performance of 1 cubic metre per person per day, the digging would have taken twice that time. Of course, as we have seen above, a larger group of labourers must also have been mobilised for the construction of the wooden structures (particularly if we accept the hypothesis that these structures were roofed and plastered). The length of the “functional life” of the rondel (i.e. the function for which the rondel was built) is usually estimated based on the period over which the ditches became filled. This is ordinarily calculated using a comparison of absolutely dated samples (obtained using radiocarbon dating) from lower and upper parts of the fill (e.g. Petrasch 1990, 457; Stadler et al. 2005/2006, 66), but as we have seen in Chapters 4 and 5, many processes may have been involved in the formation of the ditch fills (ditch recuts, erosion, etc.). We must therefore treat the presented results with caution (see Chapter 7). Podborský estimated the period of functioning of a rondel at 25–30 years (Podborský 1988, 108–109); in the case of the larger structure in Kamegg, a period of about 80 years passed between the beginning of the construction of the rondel and the infilling of both ditches. Other radiocarbon dates from Künzing-Unternberg indicate a time interval of 50–100 years. We believe that some rondels were in use for a longer period, as indicated by data from multiple-ditched structures (see Chapter 7). At the end of the Belgian ditch-digging experiment mentioned above, the team left the five-metre section of V-shaped ditch open and monitored the influence of taphonomic processes on its infilling for a period of seven months (Broes and Bosquet 2007, 146). After six weeks, the adjacent bank had become overgrown with young plants and the sides of the ditch were covered by vegetation up to two-thirds. After nine weeks, the bank was covered with thick vegetation, and plants had also appeared on the base of the ditch. Erosional slides from the ditch sides took place repeatedly. In this manner, the 3 metre wide and 2.1 metre deep V-shaped ditch was filled to a depth of approximately 50 cm, i.e. to about one-quarter of its depth, over the period of seven months. Continuous vegetation cover, however, would have significantly slowed the process of infilling by natural agents; this has been confirmed by observations made in various places in Europe (e.g. Bell et al. 1996). For these reasons, it is interesting that, with few exceptions, the fills of the examined rondel ditches mostly contained finds from the Neolithic period, which supports the suggestion that they were intentionally filled with ordinary settlement refuse for ritual or practical reasons (the necessity of levelling the terrain). However, there is also evidence that some larger ditches of

Neolithic rondels continued to be used into the Bronze Age (e.g. Melichar and Neubauer eds. 2010, 19). That some rondels had apparently ceased to serve their original purpose in the first half of the fifth millennium BC is, in our opinion, evidenced by the digging of Neolithic grave pits in their fills (for instance, the inhumation burial of young women in the Kolín 2 ditch; see Fig. 4.5: B in Chapter 4). The question of why more ditches (up to a total number of four) were gradually added to some rondels cannot be easily answered based on the archaeological record. It is possible that some, more important complexes were gradually extended. Moreover, different regional building or cultural traditions might have played a role in the course of the construction. Radiocarbon dates from the ditch fills (see Chapter 7) testify to the co-existence of singleditched and multiple-ditched rondels rather than to an “evolutionary development” towards a more complex type; this is true also of situations where more than one rondel occur in a single settlement. When discussing the size of the labour force required for their construction, we are bound to remain within the realm of hypotheses. As we have seen, it is possible that the final construction of rondels was not a one-off event: in support of this we draw the reader’s attention to evidence for the recutting of ditches, which is also recorded for single-ditched rondels, and evidence of repairs to the inner wooden structures (e.g. Bylany 4/1). Summary With respect to the focus of our study, this chapter has presented several important findings that can be summarised as follows. − Based on the results of morphometric analysis, we can confirm that over the whole region under study, there were several basic types of rondels that appeared in groups of similar size and with the same numbers of entrances in their ditches. − Some of these types, e.g. the smallest rondels with two entrances, repeatedly appear together with other rondels within single settlements. − A wooden structure, which might have been roofed and plastered, stood within an area enclosed by a ditch. Unfortunately, at present, we are not in a position to make a definitive statement regarding the appearance of this wooden structure. − We know that the construction of the inner wooden structure, the digging of the ditch, and possibly also the creation of the bank, continued over a long period of time (the whole construction may have taken several months or even years to complete). We also know that the labour force was collective and well-organised. − These initial structures may have been gradually extended by adding a further ditch. − Some complex rondel ground plans recorded during excavations are probably the results of additional completion and adjustment activities that are difficult to explain and that may bear specific regional features. − The spatial distribution of rondels shows that one-, twoand three-ditched rondels form spatial clusters in certain regions, whereas structures with four ditches represent isolated

cases separated from each other by distances of 200 km or more (Fig. 6.19). In the next chapter, we will look at whether it is possible to locate the earliest rondels and whether we can determine a chronological sequence for rondel types.

7 Radiocarbon dating in action Petr Limburský, Jaroslav Řídký, Radka Šumberová and Markéta Končelová

In this chapter, we will focus on radiocarbon dating of samples taken from rondel ditch fills. We believe that a description of the methodology of radiocarbon dating and a critical evaluation of the resulting data for samples taken from rondel ditch fills deserve an independent chapter. This is because radiocarbon-dated samples are often used, as we have seen in the previous chapters, for quite fundamental purposes – to determine the age of rondels and thus also to localise their earliest occurrence, to determine the speed of the infilling of ditches, to understand the very mechanisms of the origin of the ditch fills and, last but not least, to estimate the duration of the original use of rondels (e.g. Petrasch 1990; Stadler et al. 2005/2006; Bertemes and Northe 2012; Řídký et al. 2014a). We have mentioned several times in previous chapters that the formation of the ditch fills was certainly influenced by natural agents (taphonomic processes) and very often and rather fundamentally, by human agents (recutting of ditches). In this chapter, we take into account particular local site-formation processes and the fact that, frustratingly for archaeologists, samples suitable for radiocarbon dating are not available from all levels of ditch fills. The resulting interpretative models are, therefore, undoubtedly influenced by the small number of usable samples. We will discuss to what extent the dating of plant remains (charcoal, seeds) and animal remains (bones, horns) is useful for: − determining the dating of rondels and confirming their earliest occurrence in certain regions of Central Europe; − confirming the contemporaneity of individual ditches within multiple-ditched rondels; − reconstructing the mechanisms of ditch infill from several geographic regions; − understanding the primary function of rondels. At present, we have assembled a corpus of 130 dated samples from a total of 21 ditches (15 rondels) originating from the territories of several archaeological cultures: the samples have been either culled from the literature or obtained through various grant-aided projects (Fig. 7.1; Tab. 7.1). Radiocarbon dating method

Radiocarbon dating, an established method for determining the age of organic substances, represents a methodologically self-contained and independent source of information about the time of origin of a sample. The dating method, which was first described in the 1940s, has been developed, elaborated upon and made more precise over the intervening decades. At present, its wide availability and reasonably high reliability have made this dating method a natural part of most competently managed archaeological analyses. The imprecision of the conventional measurement method, which exceeded 120 years for samples from the Neolithic, was one of its most fundamental limitations as recently as three decades ago. The emergence of methods of measurement using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) has greatly increased the accuracy of the determination of the content of radioactive carbon in the sources; current results take into consideration a combination of various influences that have affected the sample, not only at the time of its origin, but also during its retrieval and analysis. Age determination using radiocarbon dating has thus become a complex method which evaluates a number of aspects ranging from the conditions of the origin and preservation of the sample to the archaeological evidence of the find contexts. The radiocarbon method determines age using the radioactive carbon isotope 14C, which is naturally present in the normal carbon isotope mixture. Radioactive carbon is present in the carbon isotope mixture due to the effect of cosmic radiation on the atmosphere. The created radioactive carbon quickly oxidises, producing carbon dioxide, which mixes homogenously with carbon dioxide contained in the atmosphere. Through photosynthesis, carbon dioxide including radioactive carbon becomes part of the organic matter of living organisms; it is absorbed directly by plants and indirectly by animals who ingest it as food. Mutual exchange by means of food intake and breathing thus keeps the relative ratio of all carbon isotopes in all living organisms almost unchanged, corresponding to the ratio of these isotopes in the atmosphere. This mutual exchange of the carbon isotope mixture between living organisms and their surroundings continues throughout their life. The relative ratio of carbon isotopes in the sample ceases to be invariable when the organism dies. Due to the decay of radioactive carbon 14C, the ratio of the individual isotopes gradually changes in favour of stable carbon isotopes. When we know the rate of radioactive decay of the isotope and the ratios of the composition of the carbon isotope mixture in a sample, we can determine the time that has lapsed since the death of the sample material. This principle is subsequently used to determine the age of materials originating from archaeological contexts.

Fig. 7.1 The distribution of rondels with radiocarbon dates used in this publication. Source of base map: Earth Satellite Corporation© ESRI©. Authors J. Řídký and P. Limburský.

This fundamental relationship between the carbon isotope record in samples and the age of the samples has seen numerous corrections and improvements since first described. In summary, these corrections concern the production of the isotopic mixture in nature, the properties of the samples and the circumstances of their origin as well as the abovementioned principle that allows the determination of the radioactive carbon content. In addition, the substance and interpretation of archaeological evidence appears to be another significant factor influencing the overall chronological interpretation (e.g. Damon et al. 1973; Bruns et al. 1980; (summary in e.g. Whittle et al. 2011, 17–59); Olsson 1993; 1999; 2009; Walker 2005, 17–37; Bárta and Štolc 2007; Hedges et al. 2007). One of the characteristics of age measurement using the ratios of the carbon isotope mixture is the difference in the nature of the result compared to the more common approach of expressing events on a chronological scale. Because of the principle behind the method, the output of 14C determination is expressed as one or more intervals of admissible results along with their respective probabilities of realisation. The probabilities of realisation result not only from the measurement itself but also from all of the corrections that have been taken into account and their imprecisions, together with the imprecision of the calibration of the results using a dendrochronological calibration curve. This expression often complicates the

practical application and interpretation of the results obtained, mainly because no possible results, not even those with a low probability of realisation, can be ruled out in principle. Several procedures have, therefore, been developed for interpreting measurement results and their relation to archaeological evidence; in recent years, relational models, using individual data, have been developed and are now frequently used. Table 7.1 Dated finds from the fills of individual rondel ditches. Besides the dating results, there is a brief description of the find context and the type of material dated (authors: P. Limburský, R. Šumberová, M. Končelová, and J. Řídký)

Fig. 7.2 The main factors influencing the resulting information about the chronology. Author P. Limburský.

The fact that results are expressed as probabilities does not mean that the information regarding the age of the sample is more precise; it only indicates the admissible age range, with various probabilities, for the measured material. Adjustments based on mutual chronological relations between several dated samples, however, can help to rule out certain possible age intervals or to increase the weight of others. A necessary condition is that these chronological relations between samples can be established independently of radiocarbon dating. The theoretical framework for such assessment of groups of radiocarbon dates was established and first described in archaeological literature by C. Buck and her collaborators

(e.g. Buck et al. 1994; 1991). Today, this method of treating radiocarbon dates is usually referred to as Bayesian chronological modelling. The creation and development of computer programmes that enable routine analysis (OxCal; BCal; DateLab) represent an indispensable contribution to the practical use of Bayesian modelling (e.g. Bronk-Ramsey 1995; 1998; 2001; 2009; Whittle et al. 2011, 19–34). One of the requirements for data used in the creation of Bayesian models is knowledge of the chronological relationships between the radiocarbon dated items. If used during the analysis of the chronology of archaeological sites, these relationships can be derived from the relative chronology of archaeological contexts observed and discovered using standard archaeological methods. The precision of radiocarbon dating results can be improved using a number of means: stratigraphical observation, relative-chronology, etc. All of these sources of information can be used to create model situations. Thus, the identification of chronological horizons with radiocarbon-dated finds provides the data input set for Bayesian modelling. The results obtained using this procedure are no longer independent of archaeological evidence, and the evidence considerably participates in the correction of the overall conclusions. The main factors influencing the resulting information about the chronology are shown in Fig. 7.2. The failure of a sample to fulfil any of the preconditions may cause a deviation of the results obtained. While the preconditions concerning laboratory analysis and the natural environment can be assessed correctly with a rather high probability based on general laws and principles, the archaeological evidence represents a substantial source of uncertainty, imprecision or errors due to the unique character of archaeological sites and the difficulty of assessing the site-formation processes; we will return to this issue below. Where are the earliest rondels located? Radiocarbon dating of rondels When determining the age of archaeological contexts associated with rondels, as with other archaeological sites, we operate within the limits set by the taphonomic processes on the one hand and the mutual relationships between the finds and the fills of dug archaeological features on the other. It is the identification of the end of the primary function of the rondel, and the subsequent emergence of the destruction fills, that represents a considerable methodological problem for the dating of rondels in view of the fact that most of them are located at sites with evidence for previous and/or subsequent occupation (see Chapters 4, 5 and 8). Since there is, as yet, a lack of evidence to support the theory that ditch fills originated from intentional filling (for ritual or practical reasons), their long-term formation seems more likely. However, in this case, radiocarbon-dated items contained in the fills may not have a direct relationship to the origin of these fills but may instead relate to other horizons of activity at the given location. All of these depositional, and possibly post-depositional, processes tend to be locally specific. At the same time, they represent a certain set of random phenomena that affect the results obtained by radiocarbon dating (see the text above). For this reason, extreme values

can be expected in the dating results obtained. We can also expect properties of the set of results that converge towards the time of the end of the functioning of rondels and the time of the gradual emergence of the fill layers. For this reason, the number of dated finds acquired from a context and the corresponding knowledge or description of the find location play an essential role in the assessment of the chronology. A list of the dated finds from rondel fills in Central Europe is provided in the table (Tab. 7.1) and distribution map (Fig. 7.1) below. The list of radiocarbon dated samples in the table represents a set of data gathered by various authors. Neither the selection nor the collection of the dated items followed a unified methodology. The aims behind the taking of samples also differed (cf. the works quoted in Tab. 7.1). This corresponds to the different levels of the description of the find contexts from which the items were taken. The classification of the suitability of the samples for dating in relation to the relevant find context or functional determination is therefore impossible (cf. Whittle et al. 2011, 38–40). In addition to the dating results, the table also contains a brief description of the find context and the type of material dated, distinguishing between materials of plant origin (P) – seeds, carbonised plant remains and charcoal – and of animal origin (B) – animal and possibly human bones. The carbonised organic material of an unspecified origin from Plotiště nad Labem (Poz-58580) has been included as a special category (material type A). The outcomes of age determination for the dated items are shown in Figs. 7.3–7.6. Even though a detailed analysis of the quality of the samples in relation to the find contexts would naturally be desirable, the varied quality of the accompanying information enables only a basic discussion of the statistical behaviour of the measured values in relation to the relevant material. Of the radiocarbon-dated finds from rondels, 34 were of plant origin (P) and 96 of animal origin (B). The dependence of the outcomes of the dating of items contained in ditch fills on the type of the material measured is shown in Fig. 7.7. Despite the fact that all dated finds come from similar find contexts, namely ditch fills, there is an evident difference between the variance of the middle values of the results for data from the material of plant and animal origin (material A cannot be assessed due to low frequency). At the same time, however, both groups of data exhibit roughly the same median, which may suggest that the two groups of materials show a tendency towards the same result. Moreover, the data of plant origin exhibits a visible asymmetry of the distribution due to greater age. On the other hand, however, the comparison of the results of the dating of items of plant and animal origin deriving from the same archaeological context shows different properties of the achieved results. These facts are therefore apparently linked not only to the dating of the items itself, as shown by the nearness of the medians. The high variance of the age of the samples of plant origin shows that the differences in age within this group of samples cannot always be explained as a consequence of the “old wood” effect, i.e. that the charcoal comes from long-lived types of wood (cf. Whittle et al. 2011, 40–42, 58). We need to take into account that the differences in dating acquired from the ditch fills are connected with the taphonomic processes and with the ways the layers formed in rondel ditch fills.

The samples of dated items of animal origin come most often from the bones of vertebrates. The mobility of these items within the framework of both the site and the layers is considerably limited by their size, which exceeds several centimetres. In contrast, items of plant origin from which samples are taken are usually much smaller in size; pieces of charcoal and seeds often less than 1 cm in size. A much greater mobility within the site (transfer of waste or spontaneous washes) or within the layers (due to bioturbation or along with seepage of water) can therefore be presumed for them. This explanation would also be in accord with the asymmetry of the distribution of the measured data, which indicates occasional intrusions of earlier and sometimes even very old samples of plant origin into ditch fills. The overall comparison shows a much higher reliability of samples of type B compared to type P for the dating of the layers (levels) of ditch fills. Dated samples from Neolithic ditches in the United Kingdom and Ireland also showed similar properties (Whittle et al. 2011, 57–58, Table 2.6). The description of the find context of a dated item makes it possible to determine the mutual chronological relation of several dated items within the framework of a model situation. The vertical location of an item usually contains rough information about the relative chronological location in the fills of smaller features, but, in the case of larger features such as ditch fills, we cannot presume that all parts of the ditch were in-filled in a unified and concurrent manner (see Chapter 6). This is why the depth location of items in the fill alone – without the spatial relations and the determination of the place in rondel fills – does not provide sufficient information for a precise specification of the model situation. The find context listed for each of the dated finds in Tab. 7.1 illustrates the qualitatively different level of information. The only common denominator of all listed data is that the dated items from each rondel ditch represent a selective set of data from the time of the creation of its fill. After the exclusion of the finds exhibiting extreme values due to apparently unrecognised taphonomic processes (Bln-3563; Poz-67037; Poz-67058; Poz67059; Poz-67060; Poz-67062; Poz-58376; Poz-58474; Poz-58580; UGa 9612; UGa 9616; UGa 9618; UGa 9691; UGa 9695 in Tab. 7.1), we can, under the preconditions mentioned above, model the ditch infill period for some rondel ditches (Figs. 7.8–7.9). Uniform probability of the occurrence of an item during the ditch infilling period was considered due to the small amount of data from the individual ditches.

Fig. 7.3 The outcomes of age determination of dated samples from the individual ditches after calibration. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.4 The outcomes of age determination of dated samples from the individual ditches after calibration. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.5 The outcomes of age determination of dated samples from the individual ditches after calibration. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.6 The outcomes of age determination of dated samples from the individual ditches after calibration. Author P. Limburský.

Models of the ditch infilling period have a different information value due to unsystematic data collection. In the case of a model of the beginning of the formation of the fill of ditch 1 at the Kamegg site (Fig. 7.9), for example, we cannot rule out deviations due to an intrusion of earlier finds of plant origin that have no direct relationship to the rondel ditch (Bln-3560; Bln-3562; Bln-3563). It is particularly the end of the infilling of the ditches that illustrates the point, however, because, in most cases, no samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from the surface layers (moreover, the upper part of the ditch may have been eroded). For this reason, it is not possible to determine the ditch infilling period from usable samples, either. The chronology of the infilling of several different ditches within a single rondel may be significant for our interpretation of the evolution of the monument. However, dating of the ditches of rondels at Kolín 1 and Künzing-Unternberg (Fig. 7.8), for example, does not appear to indicate that the outer ditches were filled much later than ditch 1 (the main ditch). This may also be true of the rondel at Plotiště nad Labem (Fig. 7.8). There, the beginning of the infilling of the inner ditch is strongly influenced by a single date, Poz-67057; in view of the other dates, however, we cannot rule out the possibility that the charcoal, from which the date was acquired, has no direct relation to the context of the rondel fills for the reasons stated above. Moreover, the time difference between the digging of the individual ditches within a single rondel may not be long enough to be revealed by radiocarbon dates.

Fig. 7.7 The dependence of the outcomes of the dating of items contained in ditch fills on the type of the material measured. P – material of plant origin (seeds and charcoal); B – material of animal origin (bones); A – other kinds of material. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.8 Models of infilling of the individual rondel ditches. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.9 Models of infilling of the individual rondel ditches. Author P. Limburský.

Visible tendencies are best observable in the comparison of the beginnings of the infilling of ditches. For instance, the results acquired from rondels from the area of present-day Germany and the Bohemian part of the Czech Republic indicate that, with 68 % probability, at least one of the ditches started to be filled before 4800 BC. Contrary to this, dated rondel

ditch fills from the eastern complex, i.e. in present-day Lower Austria and Hungary, probably did not start to be filled prior to this date. These tendencies, although with slight overlaps, are visible also for dating intervals with 98 % probability. In any case, our critically assessed data is in no case able to comment on a lower age of rondels in the eastern complex compared to the western complex. Basically, these findings can be explained in two ways. Either, the dated rondels in the eastern complex are somewhat later or possibly their tradition was maintained for a longer time, or their ditches were kept clean for slightly longer than in the western complex. Unfortunately, no dates are available at the moment from the Moravian part of the Czech Republic and present-day Slovakia, which means that our conclusions may be subject to revision in the future. Radiocarbon dates from rondel ditches in the Czech Republic In several selected situations, the methodology of taking samples from ditch fills enables a more detailed specification of the mutual stratigraphic relationships between the fills. The relating of these stratigraphies to radiocarbon dated items makes it possible to discuss the chronology of the origin of the ditch fill layers. Radiocarbon dates taken from stratified contexts have been obtained for the Kolín 1, Kolín 2, Vchynice and Plotiště nad Labem rondels. A summary description of the data taken with a closer specification of the find context in Kolín and Vchynice is listed in Tab. 7.2, the find context at Plotiště nad Labem is listed by J. Kovárník (Kovárník 2016a; Kovárník 2016b). The stratigraphic relations between the dated samples can be schematically described using Harris matrices. The stratigraphic relations between the dated samples of the mentioned rondels are depicted in this manner in the left part of Figs. 7.10–15. The Arabic numerals denote the succession of the stratigraphic units/layers, numbered from the bottom up. Dated samples of plant origin are framed by dots, samples of animal origin are framed by a solid line. Samples that were excluded from the modelling for some of the above-mentioned reasons, or because their affiliation with the listed context is disputable, are hatched. An arrow indicates the model succession of the layers and dated samples. The resulting probability densities derived from this model are depicted in the right part of the figures. We can use agreement indices – Amodel calculated in the course of the analysis using the OxCal 4.3 programme as a criterion of agreement between the model created on basis of the stratigraphies and the results of radiocarbon dating of items. Values of this index around 60 % have been chosen as a criterion of agreement between stratigraphic observations and the outcomes of radiocarbon dating (cf. Bronk Ramsey 2009, 356–357). We need to emphasise that this procedure does not test the correctness of the model or of the dating; it is only capable of identifying a discrepancy between the model and the measured data. The procedure does not provide information about the reasons for a given discrepancy, i.e. whether it is the stratigraphic observations or the outcomes of the dating that do not fit. At the same time, if this procedure is used for interpretation, other variants of the results and of the evaluation of the find situation as a whole cannot be ruled out. Table 7.2 and the quoted work show limitations stemming from the available contexts in

the stratigraphy along with the content of radiocarbon-dated finds. This situation is partly the consequence of the small number of radiocarbondatable finds from the rondel ditch fills, and partly due to the research methodology employed during which due attention was not paid to the systematic taking of samples for the purpose of presenting models using radiocarbon dating. The stratigraphic situations for ditch 1, ditch 2 and ditch 3 of the Kolín 1 rondel are schematically shown on the left in Figs. 7.10–7.12 along with an indication of the origin of the samples. Samples showing extreme age values, probably due to unidentified taphonomic shifts across layers, are marked by hatching. These samples were excluded from the evaluation for the above-mentioned reasons. The results of possible sequences of dated items from ditch layers are shown by calibration graphs in the right-hand part of the figures. The chronological succession of the layers and of the individual radiocarbon-dated items was sought in a linear sequence of stratigraphies observable in the field in order to achieve agreement between the stratigraphic relations and the results of dating measured by the radiocarbon method assessed by the Amodel index. The proposed sequence of layering is indicated by arrows between the graphs. In the case of ditch 1 (main ditch) of the Kolín 1 rondel, the sequence of the processed radiocarbon dates corresponds rather well to the model based on the stratigraphies observable in the field (Amodel=105 %) (Fig. 7.10; layer sequence 1–2–3–4). A gradual deposition of the layers in the ditch can therefore be presumed for ditch 1. It is important to add, however, that at least two recuts have been documented for this ditch (see Fig. 6.16: C in Chapter 6), which means that the samples used may come from the fill of the final repair of the ditch. However, in this case we cannot rule out the possibility that the overall result may be influenced by the small amount of processed data. Ditch 2 of Kolín 1 shows a low agreement (Amodel=24 %) for a model ordering the radiocarbon-dated finds corresponding to the sequence of layers from the lowermost, earliest to the uppermost, latest (Fig. 7.11; layer sequence 1–2–3–4). Of the possible variants of mutual linear ordering of the layers, only the depicted layer sequence 3–2–1–4 shows a good agreement between the measured values of dated finds and the model (Amodel=109 %). In this case, the observed reverse stratigraphy might correspond to a situation where the ditch was in-filled by material containing earlier samples, probably from the body of a bank (see Chapter 6). Ditch 3 of Kolín 1 once again shows low agreement (Amodel=18 %) for a model ordering the radiocarbon-dated finds corresponding to the sequence of layers from the lowermost, earliest to the uppermost, latest (Fig. 7.12; layer sequence 1–2–3–4). The proposed model layer sequence 2–1–3–4 then shows a good agreement between the measured data and the model (Amodel=85 %). At least one ditch recut has also been detected for this ditch. Table 7.2 A summary description of the samples taken at the Kolín I and Vchynice sites with details of the find context (authors: J. Řídký, P. Limburský, R. Šumberová and M. Končelová)

Fig. 7.10 The stratigraphic situation (left) and the calibration graph of a possible sequence of datable samples (right) from ditch 1 (main ditch) of Kolín 1. Samples showing extreme age values, which were excluded for calibration reasons, are indicated by hatching. Dotted frame – dated finds of plant origin. The arrows indicate the proposed layering sequence. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.11 The stratigraphic situation (left) and the calibration graph of a possible sequence of datable samples (right) from ditch 2 of Kolín 1. Full frame – dated finds of animal origin. The arrows indicate the proposed layering sequence. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.12 The stratigraphic situation (left) and the calibration graph of a possible sequence of datable samples (right) from ditch 3 of Kolín 1. Dotted frame – dated finds of plant origin. The arrows indicate the proposed layering sequence. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 7.13 The stratigraphic situation (left) and the calibration graph of a possible sequence of datable samples (right) from the ditch of Kolín 2. Full frame – dated finds of animal origin. The arrows indicate the proposed layering sequence. Author P. Limburský.

The stratigraphy documented in sector 174/68 of the single ditch of the rondel known as Kolín 2 (situated a mere 50 m south of the Kolín 1 rondel, see Chapter 5), shows a threshold agreement Amodel=58 % for the 1–2–3 model sequence of dated finds (Fig. 7.13). A very low agreement with the model situation is visible for the dated find Poz-90852 (A=40 %). A model corresponding to reversed stratigraphy shows an agreement index Amodel=113 % – i.e. very good agreement between the measured data and the model. All radiocarbon dates for this rondel come from animal bones. If we create a model based on the location of the finds throughout the ditch of the Kolín 2 rondel according to their depth in the ditch, no simple linear layering can be modelled such that the measured data corresponds to the model. In view of the rather large size of the dated bone finds it seems unlikely that this is the consequence of taphonomic processes. Instead the finding can be regarded as a consequence of different origins for the fill layers in different parts of the rondel ditch.

The next figure (Fig. 7.14: A) shows the stratigraphy revealed for the only ditch of the Vchynice rondel. The creation of a model based on the documented stratigraphy and its comparison with the dating results yields a boundary value of the agreement index (Amodel=51 %). The comparison of the agreement is not satisfactory for reversed stratigraphy, either (Amodel=54 %). We can therefore only note a disagreement between the recorded stratigraphy and the results of the dating of items from the layers. The possible causes of the disagreement may generally include incorrectly described deposition and post-deposition processes or the dating of the items themselves, which might have been influenced for example by a failure to fulfil some of the preconditions for the application of the radiocarbon dating method. One explanation, mentioned earlier, is that the dated items might have been mixed up due to an intentional filling of the ditch (e.g. Řídký 2016; see Chapter 8). As in the case of the Vchynice ditch, the model of successive infilling cannot be confirmed for ditch 1 (the main ditch) in Plotiště nad Labem (Fig. 7.14: B): Amodel=22 % for a model corresponding to the described stratigraphy, and Amodel=27 % for reversed stratigraphy. Interpretation of the collected data is difficult in view of the high number of dated finds of plant origin.

Fig. 7.14 The recorded stratigraphy for the samples from the ditch of the Vchynice rondel (A) and ditch 1 of Plotiště nad Labem rondel (B). Samples showing extreme age values, which were excluded for calibration reasons, are indicated by hatching. Dotted frame – dated finds of plant origin; full frame – dated finds of animal origin. Author P. Limburský.

Radiocarbon dating of the finds from ditch 2 of the rondel in Plotiště nad Labem (Fig. 7.15) compared to a model created on the basis of the observed stratigraphy of their deposition in the layers of the fill shows a very low level of agreement (Amodel=7 %). A model corresponding to reverse stratigraphy shows an agreement index Amodel=99 %. However, the high ratio of finds excluded due to extreme dating results (finds of plant origin) represents an uncertainty in the evaluation.

Fig. 7.15 The stratigraphic situation (left) and the calibration graph of a possible sequence of datable samples (right) from ditch 2 of Plotiště nad Labem. Samples showing extreme age values, which were excluded for calibration reasons, are indicated by hatching. Dotted frame – dated finds of plant origin; full frame – dated finds of animal origin. The arrows indicate the proposed layering sequence. Author P. Limburský.

Summary of the results Radiocarbon dating represents a method for independently determining the age of archaeological samples. When the preconditions for its use are fulfilled, the radiocarbon method can provide information about the age of the material which makes up the dated sample. The recording and description of archaeological contexts are carried out based on an analysis of archaeological layers and fills. Bayesian modelling can be used advantageously in view of the properties of the outcomes of radiocarbon dating and the links between archaeological evidence and the results of the dating. Our set of results for radiocarbon dated finds from rondel ditches contains 130 pieces of data. Bone and horn remains have turned out to be much more suitable for the dating of samples from ditch fills, as they are larger and less likely to be affected by taphonomic processes. Lower reliability has been demonstrated for radiocarbon dates measured on items of plant origin taken from ditch fills: this is the result of mobility due to unidentified taphonomic processes. Based on data from the individual rondel ditches, a spatial difference has been revealed in the onset of the infilling of dated ditches. The results show that at least one of the ditches of rondels from the area of present-day Germany and Bohemia (the STK and SOB regions) started to be filled before 4800 BC. In contrast, dated rondel ditch fills from the territories of present-day Austria and Hungary (the MOG and LGK regions) show that ditches there

probably did not start to be filled prior to this date. If we set aside the realistic possibility that the ditches in rondel regions in the eastern complex (the MOG and LGK regions) might have been used (and their infilling prevented) for a longer period, which is why the dates from their fills after the end of the primary function are somewhat later, a second possible explanation is that rondels in the western complex (the STK and SOB regions) are somewhat earlier. The advent of the function of these circular structures in Central Europe is difficult to determine using current dating methods. On the other hand, the end of the primary function of rondels – if we regard the infilling of the ditches as the beginning of the end – took place more or less around 4800–4700 BC based on our data. It is therefore possible that rondels fulfilled their socio-political role for only a few decades, in other words, their functional existence represents just a brief episode. For multi-ditched rondels it seems that the infilling of outer ditches did not take place significantly later than the infilling of the inner, main ditch: however, it must be remembered that this conclusion is based on what is, for now, a small set of observations and it needs to be backed up by further research. Moreover, the period between the digging of the ditches and their infilling may have been quite short rendering it difficult to recognise using current dating methods. In most cases, the method used to collect the finds for radiocarbon dating and the sampling methodology employed do not allow more detailed analysis of the layering of ditch fills. The analysis of ditch fills from selected rondels based on cross referencing with radiocarbon dated finds has revealed differences in the mechanisms at the origin of these fills. In addition to the natural demise of ditches by gradual layering of the fill, the occurrence of so-called reversed stratigraphies has been shown to be quite common. It has also been revealed that different parts of the fill of the same ditch could have formed as a result of different mechanisms and at different intensities. In the cases of the Kolín 1, Kolín 2 and Plotiště nad Labem rondels, we can admit the possibility that at least some ditches reveal reversed stratigraphy of the samples. This means that the dated samples are deposited in the opposite order to that which we might expect. Several possible explanations exist, one of which we presented in the previous chapter (see Fig. 6.35 in Chapter 6). According to this model, which is to a certain extent confirmed also by micromorphological analyses of the fills (e.g. Lisá et al. 2014), banks with asynchronous material were situated close to the ditches. These banks were gradually washed out, and earlier items were deposited in layers situated stratigraphically above later finds. In the following chapters, we are going to temporarily shift our focus from the rondels themselves to their surroundings, both immediate and distant, staying within the boundaries of the individual rondel regions first and then focusing on the narrower region of the Stroked Pottery culture in the Bohemian part of the Czech Republic.

8 What is in the neighbourhood? A summary of rondel regions, microregions, settlement patterns and site layouts Jaroslav Řídký, Pavel Burgert and Markéta Končelová

In this chapter we will consider the data and results presented in Chapters 5–7 from the point of view of the social and power strategy attributes defined in Chapter 2. At this stage, there are several possible anthropological models into which rondels and rondel settlements could fit; as a result we will consider more archaeological data in the hope that the picture might become clearer. The aim of this chapter is to collate information from the archaeological record for the first half of the fifth millennium BC in several rondel regions (European regions with rondels delimited by the extents of archaeological cultures and cultural groups) and in a number of microregions, particularly examples identified in certain river basins. We are interested in the extent of the settlement ecumenes of the rondel regions, the presence of various types of enclosures, the reconstruction and location of domestic structures (houses), the presence, variability and distribution of settlement pits, the presence and location of various activity areas such as storage structures and burial places, and the documented presence of “exotic” items or raw materials from distant sources. The observations, which will be primarily focused on settlements at this point, will be subsequently supplemented with information about burial customs. We will carefully assemble the mosaic of our knowledge from sometimes very distant pieces of information which can often vary greatly in quality. The data available at present is undoubtedly influenced by differences in the intensity of field investigation carried out in the individual countries of Central Europe and is also influenced by the availability of published data sets. Even so, as we will see, the academic literature contains a wealth of useful information that will help us draw a surprisingly complex picture of societies in the given period of the Neolithic. Eastern complex Aggregated sites, supersites, and Polgár-Csöszhalom in the Great Hungarian Plain The Great Hungarian Plain, a region that falls within the realm of the Tisza-HerpályCsöszhalom cultures, occupies an area of approximately 100,000 square kilometres on the southeasternmost edge of our study area, in eastern Hungary beyond the River Danube (see

Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3). Although this is not one of the “classic” rondel regions that we are the most interested in, an important source of raw material for the production of chipped artefacts is situated in its northern part. This raw material is Carpathian obsidian (Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3), whose widespread distribution includes rondel sites located hundreds of kilometres away in the territories of present-day southwestern Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Lower Austria and Germany (e.g. Přichystal 2013; Burgert et al. 2017). It also includes the important Polgár-Csöszhalom site with its settlement mound, or tell, enclosed by a system of circular Vshaped ditches and foundation trenches interrupted by entrances: the site therefore combines characteristic features of Southeastern European tells and those of Central European rondels (e.g. Raczky and Anders 2012; 2017; Raczky and Sebök 2014 with more literature). Although this circular structure, with a maximum diameter of 180–190 m, was not included in our comparative sample of 154 rondels, principally because it lies outside our chosen study area and because its appearance is somewhat atypical, we will nonetheless present some interesting discoveries from the ongoing investigations of the site. An important synoptic work on the local context of the Tisza culture was published by A. Sherratt (1997, 252–269), who summed up the archaeological record as it was at the time and attempted to apply knowledge from cultural (social) anthropology to our main area of interest, i.e. economic and, in particular, social strategies and their transformations within a larger area. In the early fifth millennium BC, a marked change took place not only in the settlement patterns but also in the material expressions of the Tisza culture. While the basic subsistent strategies were rather similar to those of the previous Neolithic occupation, cattle bones began to dominate animal bone assemblages in a significant way. While people still settled in similar sites to those favoured during the Neolithic occupation, the frequency of the settlements decreased markedly. Moreover, they started to group together spatially and became aggregated. The settlements tend, therefore, to be much more extensive in many cases, consisting of parallel lines of household clusters. Some settlements are situated in naturally protected places and the occupation penetrated more deeply into higher altitudes than in previous periods. Moreover, we see the emergence of a new phenomenon – true settlement mounds, known as tells, some of which were protected by ditches. This occurred at roughly the same time that rondels began to appear across the Danube to the west. The distinctive pottery of the period can be divided into several local styles. A significant portion of pottery production throughout the region comprises elaborately decorated wares bearing stamped and incised ornament; finds of clay figurines and anthropomorphic vessels are also known. A greater variety and a greater quantity of exotic raw materials, such as obsidian and tabular chert, appear in the archaeological record of time; the same is true of stone axes. Sherratt believes that so-called supersites, and smaller settlements that occur alongside them, indicate a certain stability in Tisza culture. This stability is believed to be further reflected in trade activity, which is represented by the above-mentioned imports. According to Sherratt, however, the spatially extensive settlements, known as supersites, do not reflect a gradually developing social hierarchy, as might be expected; instead, he believes

that they are the consequence of cooperation between the occupants in animal rearing activities. An intensification of lowland production and regional systems of exchange evidently took place within the Tisza culture. Sherratt maintains that the striking diversity in pottery at the local level may well reflect a certain effort by the societies to penetrate regional exchange systems. However, such intensification of economic activity is commonly accompanied by growing competition among various societies and related attempts to acquire an ever-greater influence. Sherratt sees a new and fundamental problem in maintaining control within these societies, and suggests that such control could be best achieved through certain forms of rituals and through ideological means (Sherratt 1997, 264–269). In view of the absence of larger communal cemeteries and the frequent occurrence of exclusive items, known primarily from adult male graves, Sherratt does not believe that complex, ranked societies existed at that time. On the contrary, he regards the centrally placed sites as characteristic of egalitarian societies, where ritual played a prominent part in social control. Based on the present archaeological record, four types of settlements can be distinguished in the milieu of the Tisza-Herpály-Csöszhalom cultures (e.g. Salisbury 2016, 51–60; Siklósi 2013; Kalicz and Raczky 1990): tells with an area of 1.3–3.8 ha; tell-like settlements with an area of 1.5–11 ha, within which the centre of settlement shifted; flat settlements with a variable area of 1–12 ha; and finally small settlements with an area of 1–3 ha. There is a correlation between the particular type of settlement and its internal arrangement. In extensive flat settlements, for instance, large scale excavations reveal groups of different types of structures – i.e. houses, wells, pits. It is possible that tells, tell-like settlements and large flat settlements played a central part in local settlement systems at that time, forming economic and ritual units together with the neighbouring smaller settlements. Tells, which have yielded many important finds from remote locations, are believed to have been places for communal ceremonies. Evidence of hoards often occurs on tell sites, for instance. As we will see in the example of the Polgár-Csöszhalom site, structures were repeatedly built in the same place within tell settlements, representing long-term continuity within the given chronological period. Houses built in this part of Europe during the Late Neolithic had a rectangular ground plan with the longer axis oriented NW–SE or NE–SW (Siklósi 2013 along with other literature from the region; Salisbury 2016). They were generally timber-framed, wattle and daub buildings or wattle and daub buildings with a plastered floor. They include both singlespace and multiple-space houses, 6–20 m long and 3–13 m wide. Walls consisting of double rows of postholes, where one row of posts carried the roof and the other the ceiling or the upper storey, are well known. We see a gradual development from single- or double-space houses towards multiple-space structures. Foundation offerings, including cattle skulls, horns, stone tools as well as child burials, are commonly found. An important piece of information is provided by Z. Siklósi: based on an extensive comparison of the find contexts in the given region, she comes to the conclusion that, for the most part, the sizes and construction types of houses cannot be used to unambiguously interpret the social status of

their inhabitants or their particular function. She points out, however, that while some settlements are composed of houses of similar size, others include very substantial houses with several rooms that are up to twice the size of ordinary dwellings (Siklósi 2013, 236– 237). Analyses of burial customs at a number sites of the Great Hungarian Plain indicate that the age and gender of the deceased were decisive factors determining the composition of grave goods and the orientation of the body (Siklósi 2013; Salisbury 2016, 59–60). Inhumation, in an extended or flexed position, is by far the most common burial rite. As we have already stated, burials are only known from settlements; to date, separate cemeteries have not been detected. Focusing on the Polgár-Czöszhalom site, there is a clear disproportion between the tell and the adjacent flat settlement – It seems that only certain gender and age groups, or certain individuals, enjoyed the privilege of being buried within the tell complex (Siklósi 2013, 256; Raczky and Anders 2017). However, it is precisely these graves that have minimal grave goods or none at all. According to Siklósi, the special location of child burials may be indicative of ranked societies. Higher concentrations of chipped stone and bone tools in graves situated near particular houses in the flat settlements might reflect specialisation among some individuals or even whole households. According to Siklósi’s findings, neither the position of the skeleton itself – on the right or left side – nor its orientation attest to social inequality in this part of Europe. However, she points out considerable gaps in the analysis of the sites. Finally, let us return briefly to the comprehensively investigated and oft analysed PolgárCsöszhalom site in the north of the Great Hungarian Plain. Certain methodological procedures applied during the analysis of this site may help us assess the internal structure of rondel settlements and the activities carried on within different areas. The Polgár-Csöszhalom site is one of the most interesting archaeological discoveries for this period. From the archaeological record, we can trace the long-term development of a settlement mound, with a height of 280–400 cm, and of the associated circular ditches (e.g. Raczky and Sebök 2014; Raczky and Anders 2017). In the centre of the enclosed space 15– 20 large houses were discovered which, having been constructed gradually, eventually burnt down. Some of the houses were certainly multi-storeyed and were surrounded by a ring of 34–38 smaller and larger houses. The Hungarian researchers described the entire structure delimited by ditches as a central place of symbolic importance. Moreover, a 38-hectare flat settlement –which yielded 79–80 ground plans of unburned houses and 124 associated burials – has been investigated nearby. The researchers have calculated that as many as 200 houses, with around 1,000 inhabitants, might have originally been located here. During the continual assessment of various categories of finds, different activities were identified in the two zones of the settlement area, the enclosed tell (hitherto referred to as ET) and the flat settlement (hitherto referred to as FS). Significant findings include evidence for the burning of houses and the occurrence of the skeletal remains of wild game animals in the ET, which are not documented in the FS (where domestic animals predominated). Numerous small objects were found in the ET zone, including fragments of several figurines. The

construction details of houses found in the ET zone are somewhat different from those in the surrounding area. Apart from being multi-storeyed structures, they were of wattle and daub construction, constructed within bedding trenches, and they bore decoration on the external wall surfaces (Raczky and Sebök 2014, 68). Differences between the two zones have also been observed in the shapes and decoration of pottery vessels (Raczky and Sebök 2014, 82–83). For instance, sherds from the area of the earliest large house (No. 11) showed only sporadic traces of burning indicating that they were deposited there after the house had burnt down. The house was apparently empty, without furniture, when it went on fire. Some foreign elements in the form of vessels, probably imported from the LGK region, and ceramics belonging to the Samborzec traditions of southeastern Poland, have also been recorded at the site. Other differences between the ET and FS zones have been observed in the character of the burials (Siklósi 2013; Raczky and Anders 2017). While burials of various age and gender categories have been recorded in the FS, burials of adult men and children prevailed in the ET zone. As we have stated above, the localisation of these age and gender groups at the tell site is typical of the wider Great Hungarian Plain, whereas the composition of some prestige grave goods corresponds instead to the Transdanubian LGK of western Hungary. Clearly elements of Central and Southeastern European cultures were mixing in this area. In the following sections we are going to focus on several territories, within which rondels occur, to the west and north of the River Danube. Mega-sites, enclosures, rondels, and settlements with burials in the LGK region For the purposes of this publication, the LGK (we are focusing on the LGK I period) territory, covering an area of approximately 150,000 square kilometres, can be divided into two regions separated by the River Danube: Transdanubia in the western part of present-day Hungary and southwestern Slovakia (see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3). While both parts are well researched archaeologically, they differ in the state of the analysis of the finds and, as we will see, in the occurrence of certain types of settlements. In this chapter, we are going to sum up existing ideas regarding the origins of the LGK and we will present the basic components of the material culture of phase I of the LGK, the period in which it is presumed that rondels were constructed. In Chapter 5, we described a number of settlements with rondels from Slovakia. At the end of this section, we will sum up the information regarding the SormásTörek-Földek site in southwestern Hungary. This site has yielded important evidence that is regarded by some researchers as an argument for this region being the cradle of rondel construction (e.g. Barna et al. 2016, 313).

Fig. 8.1 Region of Trnava Hills in Slovakia and distribution of proto-LGK and LGK I settlements. Numbers show the locations of rondels in accordance with Tab. 4.1 in Chapter 4. Redrawn by K. Kleinová after Pažinová 2012.

We will not discuss relative LGK chronology in this book; instead, we refer the reader to earlier specialised studies (e.g. Pavúk 2009). In the context of our study, however, it is important to note that so-called proto-Lengyel groups are believed to have appeared in both subdivisions of the LGK territory, i.e. in Transdanubia and in south-western Slovakia, as early as the beginning of the first half of the fifth millennium BC (e.g. Pavúk 2007). Discontinuity in occupation is a conspicuous feature of all of the sites dated to the later phase denoted as LGK I (Pavúk 2004; Tóth et al. 2011; Demján 2015). This means that, apart from a few exceptions, brand new sites were being settled at the time of the construction of rondels. Some authors state that LGK I occupation is much denser (Fig. 8.1) and that the types of settlements are more varied in some regions, such as the Trnava Hills (Pažinová 2012, 122–124). It has even been suggested that inhabitants from the area of the Carpathian Basin migrated into the region at that time (e.g. Demján 2016, 15). As in the neighbouring Tisza-Herpály-Csöszhalom cultures, it has been observed that settlements penetrate higher altitudes more frequently than in the previous periods (e.g. Pažinová 2012; Barna et al. 2016). According to present knowledge, LGK I occupation avoided larger river courses and water bodies, such as the River Danube and Lake Balaton; instead, settlements occur rather more frequently along smaller rivers and streams. The authors of the latest synthetic study for Hungarian Transdanubia offer a classification of LGK settlements “according to their social rank” (Barna et al. 2016, 311–312), including densely populated and spatially more extensive settlements as well as the above-mentioned smaller settlements, with specialised settlements forming a third distinct group; the latter are identified as so-called redistribution centres as they yield larger quantities of finds or are situated in proximity to certain sources of stone raw materials. The area occupied by LGK settlements varies from 1 ha to 30 ha, and, in exceptional cases, can be even more. For example, the site of Alsónyék-Bátaszék, with approximately 2,500 burials, is estimated to be up to 100 ha in extent (e.g. Raczky and Sebök 2014, 55). The settlements in Transdanubia can also be divided into several categories based on the presence or absence of enclosures or on the occurrence of a particular type of enclosure: settlements where no forms of ditched enclosures have been identified; large but open settlements where rondels occur; and, finally, settlements that are completely or partially protected by ditched enclosures of irregular layout. Spatially extensive settlements similar to those from Hungarian Transdanubia have not been reported from Slovakia, but palisaded settlements with an additional inner trench (palisade) enclosure do occur (for example Žlkovce; e.g. Pavúk and Karlovský 2004). Smaller settlements without enclosures and open settlements with rondels are also known. The concentration of settlements with rondels in southwestern Slovakia is visibly greater than in the more southerly region of Hungarian Transdanubia. Significant concentrations of rondels have been reported, for instance, in the Trnava Hills and in the Hron and Nitra river

basins (Kuzma and Tirpák 2012). Some Slovak colleagues are even of the opinion that neighbouring rondels might have been built at particular sites to allow them to be intervisible (Kuzma and Lieskovský 2008, 12). Information about house plans and the spatial arrangement of the settlements in the LGK region has been summed up most recently by J. Pavúk (Pavúk 2012). LGK houses can be summarily described as rectangular, most often double-space, buildings of post construction with an internal transverse wall. Pavúk lists three basic types of double-space houses that can be further divided into several shape and size variants for the LGK I period when rondels are believed to have been constructed. While some examples slightly exceed 20 m in length and 8–10 m in width, there are cases where longhouses exceed 30 m in length and 10 m in width. We know from preserved daub fragments bearing the imprints of structural elements that the structures were built using untreated posts, cut posts and the wattle and daub technique (Ďuriš 2015). It is interesting that the best information regarding houses and their spatial arrangement comes from settlements with rondels (for instance Svodín) or with other types of enclosures (such as Žlkovce). Regrettably, at present we have no relevant information regarding residential buildings in open settlements. Longhouse ground plans, discovered during extensive surveys of enclosed settlements, were not oriented in a single direction, but always revealed a spatial relationship to the particular enclosure. In the case of the Svodín site described in Chapter 5, we have already highlighted longhouses orientated parallel to the axis of the NW entrance to the Svodín 1 rondel. However, it is also theoretically possible that these longhouses might have been an integral part of the inner area of the larger rondel – Svodín 2. Longhouses repeatedly built in the same place within the enclosure, and with their longer axis always orientated towards a particular entrance to the enclosure, have been detected at the Žlkovce site. In contrast, houses recorded to the exterior of the same enclosure were built with their longer axis parallel to its circumference (Pavúk 2012, 253). Pavúk is of the opinion that up to 50 longhouses might have existed at the Žlkovce settlement at any one time. Pavúk makes another particularly relevant statement: he believes that a house’s layout, shape and size are not, in themselves, indicative of the number of inhabitants, let alone of their social position within the community. The only indicator of the social status may perhaps be the specific location of the house, for instance in relation to the abovementioned enclosures (Pavúk 2012, 277–278). As regards the internal spatial arrangement of LGK settlements in the area of the Trnava Hills, Slovakia, pits of various shapes and sizes are frequently recorded; more extensive clay pits occur often (Pažinová 2012, 124). According to Pavúk, storage pits (silos, granaries) are absent from earlier LGK settlements. Local societies, therefore, resolved the issue of the storage of provisions in a different manner to that that known in the neighbouring western complex (see below); provisions may have been stored, for example, in the upper storeys of houses or in pithouses (Pavúk 2012, 263). Like their counterparts from the territories of the Tisza-Herpály-Czöszhalom cultures,

LGK I pottery vessels are elaborately decorated and of diverse shapes, much more varied than during the previous periods. Sherds with decoration typical of the western complex (STK), as well as pottery of the Tisza culture from the Great Hungarian Plain, have also been documented in the LGK rondel region. Independent communal cemeteries, separated from the settlements, have not been recorded anywhere within the LGK region in Hungarian Transdanubia or in southwestern Slovakia (Pažinová 2012; Siklósi 2013). Burial finds are not common in Slovakia but are much more frequent in Hungary. Burials are most often found within the actual settlements, either as isolated graves or arranged in various sized groups, as seen in the example of the burial finds from Bučany and Svodín in Chapter 5. Sometimes they were situated in close proximity to houses (e.g. Demján 2015; 2016, 16;). There is also evidence of burials in separate grave pits and also in settlement pits. Inhumation is the exclusive burial rite in Slovakia (Pavúk 2009), whereas evidence for cremations, particularly of children, occurs sporadically in Hungary (Siklósi 2013). The location of the grave might have played an important role in terms of group identity in the LGK region. In this regard, it is interesting to note that groups of graves show similar demographic compositions, with female burials prevailing over male, and child burials comprising about 30 % of the total number of burials. Siklósi believes that all, or at least most, members of the local community might have been buried there (Siklósi 2013, 195– 196). At the same time, the deposition of the skeletal remains of men and women varies among the individual sites of the LGK region, which means that it probably followed particular local traditions. Certain status symbols can be identified in the burials of a number of adult men, e.g. wild boar mandibles and tusks, pendants, shaft hole axes, shoe last axes, and mace-heads (Siklósi 2013, 196–197; Demján 2015, 371). Specific items, such as spondylus ornaments and bracelets, occur in the burials of women and children (apparently girls); the finds of red deer canines are also very frequent, sometimes imitated in bone and antler. Grinding stones, dog bones, wild boar mandibles and clay figurines can also be counted among prestige grave goods. Interestingly, these finds never appear together in a single grave. Pottery vessels and animal bones represent the most frequent types of grave goods. Demján and Siklósi are of the opinion that some richly equipped child graves may indicate the existence of a certain hereditary status in the LGK region (Siklósi 2013, 197–198; Demján 2015). Let us now briefly focus on the above-mentioned Sormás-Törek-Földek site in southwestern Hungary, a unique example of its kind in terms of both the area examined and the finds it produced (e.g. Barna 2007; Barna et al. 2016). An excavated area of 5.25 ha was continually occupied from the Starčevo culture to the Linear Pottery culture and the Sopot culture, and particularly during the period of the so-called formative phase of the LGK. Two circular double-ditched enclosures with their centres situated on a north-south axis, have been revealed on the site: they date to the two last mentioned periods. The larger enclosure, denoted as No. II, is believed to enclose settlement features belonging to the Sopot culture, whereas the smaller enclosure, No. I, is thought to be a “classic rondel” of the form described

in previous chapters of this book. This rondel is chronologically positioned in the formative phase of the LGK; according to the Hungarian researchers, it is thought to be one of the earliest rondels in Europe, together with the rondel at Sé (Barna 2007; Barna and Pásztor 2011; Barna et al. 2016, 313–314). It is also interesting that the two circular enclosures might have existed simultaneously for a certain period. According to Hungarian scholars, the site uniquely illustrates a gradual change in the use of circular enclosures over time and space. Apart from the differences in size, the change is visible in a transformation of the shape of the ground plan from a rather irregular footprint in the earlier period to a strictly symmetrical layout in the later one. According to the literature, it is possible that the enclosures initially had a profane function, while the enclosed space of the later structure, the rondel, was dedicated exclusively to ritual activity. In the following section, we will shift our attention northwestwards to the MOG rondel region. Where did the graves disappear to in the MOG region? A somewhat different image to that of the previous two regions is provided by the archaeological record from the territory of the technocomplex denoted as the MOG I (see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3). This complex covers an area of about 65,000 square kilometres in present-day Lower Austria and in the Moravian part of the Czech Republic (e.g. Lenneis et al. 1995; Podborský ed. 1993). Although much information has been published about the typo-chronology of pottery vessels, rondels and rondel settlements, there are nonetheless huge gaps in the literature regarding other types of settlements, the appearance of residential buildings, and burial rites (e.g. Podborský ed. 1999; Lenneis and Neugebauer-Maresch 2017). As the situation in Moravia corresponds to the situation in Austria, we can rule out the possibility that these gaps in the literature are due to the present state of field research. Intensive archaeological research has been under way in both countries for a long time, and the resulting data is published continuously (e.g. Lobisser and Neubauer 2005c, 103; Čižmář ed. 2008). MOG sites appear in a cultural milieu where earlier STK occupation, particularly belonging to phase III (prior to the construction of rondels), has also been detected. While researchers in present-day Lower Austria state that MOG settlements were much more frequently built on virgin sites, STK III finds are often identified in MOG settlement features in Moravia, in the northern part of this culture’s territory. Thus, we once again encounter a discontinuity in the settlement strategies in the eastern complex, and as in the territory of the LGK region, settlements in higher altitudes are recorded more frequently for the first time in this period. Scholars from both countries suggest that this pattern reflects immigration of new inhabitants from geographical regions to the southeast, which are archaeologically attributed to the LGK I (Podborský ed. 1993, 124; Lobisser and Neubauer 2005c, 103; Pavúk 2009). Small open settlements prevail in the MOG region, but settlements with an area of up to 10–20 ha are also known, and rondel settlements and settlements with other types of enclosures (such as Wetzleinsdorf) are also known from across the MOG I territory. Some settlements are protected by ditches (for example Falkenstein-Schanzboden, Hluboké

Mašůvky); there are also examples where a rondel is found adjacent to a ditched enclosure of a different type (Lenneis et al. 1995, 80; Čižmář et al. 2008). As of today, we know of more than 50 rondels and less than 10 enclosures of other types. For example, the extensive enclosure in Falkenstein-Schanzboden consists of three concentric ditches accompanied by banks on the outer side; the maximum diameter is as much as 400 m (Lenneis et al. 1995, 88–90). The large enclosure is interrupted by a somewhat later enclosure with a maximum diameter of 120 m. This later enclosure consists of a single ditch that is also accompanied by an outer bank. Another enclosure of a similar type, with an oval layout, has been found at the site of Wetzleinsdorf; its only ditch had a maximum diameter of up to 300 m. A settlement with an area of 5.7 ha has been documented to the south of it, but it was dated to the MOG II (post-rondel period). An extensive oval enclosure consisting of a ditch and two inner foundation trenches has also been uncovered at Hluboké Mašůvky in Moravia (Čižmář 2008, 112–125; Válek et al. 2014). The enclosure, which has a maximum diameter of almost 330 m, was interrupted by nine entrances. Rectangular features, apparently the remains of complex gate structures, were identified in the areas of entrances I, II and III which were more thoroughly investigated. The closest pits dated to the MOG in the inner area of the enclosure were found at a distance of about 20–30 m from each other. Apart from the pits, the inner area also included a circular trench, with a diameter of 80–90 m, and another structure, with a maximum diameter of 55 m, that might have been a rondel (more detailed information regarding the possible rondel has not been published). Thanks to a detailed survey of rondels in Lower Austria, primarily conducted using nondestructive prospection techniques (aerial photography and geophysical measurements), we know that rondels occur at almost regular intervals of 7–10 km within this region (e.g. Neubauer and Melichar 2005, 241). Because of the regularity of this distribution pattern, new finds have even been successfully predicted in advance during the systematic survey. The interior layout of open settlements is not well documented in the MOG region. The vast bulk of information comes from settlements with rondels. We know at present that the settlement features included large clay pits, up to several tens of metres long, and storage pits with a typical circular or oval layout and a pear-like cross section. However, the most frequent features found on settlements are pits of irregular shapes and sizes. The pit fills have provided evidence for the destruction of domed ovens (Podborský ed. 1993, 128; Lenneis et al. 1995, 91–92). The dimensions of houses and the methods used in their construction vary and are unique in this part of Central Europe. In the Austrian part of the MOG region, well documented house ground plans are known from the inner area of the enclosure in Wetzleinsdorf and from the neighbourhood of the Schletz rondel (Lenneis et al. 1995, 91–92; Lobisser and Neubauer 2005c, 103–107). In the first case, the house is rectangular in plan with a double-space layout and has a maximum length of 27 m and a width of 8 m. The side walls of the structure are parallel with the longer axis. In plan, the walls are defined by trenches in which no postholes have been documented. Another enclosure, with a rectangular ground plan, has been

recorded near the southeastern part of the ground plan, adjacent to the wall of a house in which two perhaps contemporary pits have been identified. Four more ground plans have been geophysically surveyed to the southeast of the rondel in Schletz; only one of them has been examined by excavation. This was a sunken, single-space, rectangular structure measuring less than 13 m in length and almost 8 m in width. A single large posthole was revealed in the centre of the building but no lateral rows of postholes were recorded leading Austrian researchers to suggest that this structure was built using a log-cabin type technique (Lobisser 2006). Three storage pits and the remains of a dome-like oven were found inside the building. The large number of pits situated within the building, and the large quantity of pottery sherds present, suggest that the building may have served as a large communal kitchen rather than as a dwelling (Lobisser 2006, 14). The other three buildings were constructed of posts and wattle and daub; the largest of the three was 20 m long and less than 9 m wide. Another building type comprised a single-spaced structures up to 5 m long and 5 m wide (Lenneis and Rammer 2017). Various house ground plans and construction techniques have been documented from the Moravian part of the MOG region, but once again only in isolated cases. They were mostly single-spaced buildings of post construction, up to 6 m long and 4 m wide, either built on the surface or with a sunken floor (Podborský ed. 1993, 128; Čižmář et al. 2008, 76–87). Finds of clay sculptures depicting single-space rectangular or almost square buildings provide us with further information regarding the morphology and construction details of houses. Most sites dated to MOG I yield a considerable number of pottery finds, representing various vessel shapes and bearing polychrome decoration; conspicuous features include symmetrical motifs and the alternation of red and yellow pigments. The MOG pottery reached the highest ratio of decoration at the time of the construction of rondels (Podborský et al. 1977; Rulf 1998). Apart from vessels and spoons, the most frequent finds include clay figurines with human or animal characteristics (of various sizes and styles). It is interesting to note that clay figurines from settlements with rondels do not differ in either quantity or quality from examples found on open settlements without recorded rondels (Trnka 2005, 17; Podborský and Čižmář 2008). Numerous imports are recorded from sites in the MOG region. As we saw in Chapter 5, these exotic finds include pottery from the LGK and STK milieux (including whole vessels; e.g. Kazdová 2008, 70; 2008b, 95) as well as various materials for the production of chipped stone tools (e.g. Carpathian obsidian from the Tisza-Herpály-Csöszhalom cultural milieus) and grinding and polished tools (e.g. metabasites from the STK region in northern Bohemia). Independent cemeteries, separate from settlements, are not known from the MOG region. Inhumation is almost the only burial rite identified (Lenneis et al. 1995). Small fragments of human bones are quite often detected in the fills of pits and ditches. Apart from the exceptional case of a group of graves found inside the area of the Friebritz 1 rondel, Austria (see Chapter 5), we lack information about the burial methods employed for the bulk of the population within the rondel region at that time. As for the burials in Friebritz, we can add that several skeletons were orientated with the heads towards the south, but orientations

towards the west and the east also occur. Most of the individuals were buried in a crouched position, but two adult individuals were laid out in an extended prone position with their hands crossed on their chests. A similar find was revealed by earlier investigations at Eggenburg (Lenneis and Neugebauer-Maresch 2017). Inhumations are often found in various settlement pits, with the bodies sometimes deposited in a ritual position and sometimes disposed of more carelessly (Podborský ed. 1993, 114). At present, about fifty burials in settlement pits are known from the Moravian part of the Czech Republic, but as yet we have no grave pits dated to the MOG I period (Dočkalová and Čižmář 2008, 236–247). Adult individuals, as well as children, were deposited in settlement pits. A comparison of carbon and nitrogen isotopes in Moravia has shown significant differences between the diets of children and adults. The consumption of fish was characteristic of the child group, whereas adults consumed food that was rich in other proteins (Dočkalová and Čižmář 2008, 238). In the following section, we will endeavour to map the situation in the milieu of the western complex. Western complex Variability in building structures at the crossroads of cultures in the SOB region The distribution of rondels and other types of enclosures in Bavaria, southeastern Germany, has been described and mapped by J. Petrasch (Petrasch 1990); the post-Linear Pottery culture situation has been most recently summed up by K. Riedhammer (Riedhammer 2015). In general in this part of Central Europe, we see a mixing of influences from both cultural complexes in the first half of the fifth millennium BC; the area produces numerous so-called contact finds. Unique sources of raw materials for the production of chipped artefacts, generally referred to as Bavarian chert (see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3), have been identified in the SOB region, specifically in an area of about 40,000 square kilometres in Lower Bavaria. This material has been found in the form of unworked blocks, blanks and finished tools on sites, including rondel settlements, located several hundred kilometres away in the present-day Czech Republic, Saxony (Germany) and Lower Austria (e.g. Burgert 2016 with more literature; Rind 2012). The so-called tabular variant of Bavarian chert (Abensberg-Arnhofen type), which is immediately identifiable by its black and white banding and by its initial form of slabs or flat concretions that simplify working, is particularly important from the perspective of long-distance distribution during the period under consideration (e.g. Biró 1998, 60–61 and 262; Mateiciucová 2008, 139). Settlements in the period tend to be situated along smaller watercourses (especially streams). Once again, open flat settlements and rondel settlements are known from the SOB region. About ten examples of ditched enclosures are known from the earlier period of Linear Pottery culture occupation in Lower Bavaria; according to some researchers, their presence might indicate the existence of more complex socio-political entities (e.g. Pechtl 2016). The construction of other types of enclosures, which sometimes delimit the boundaries of whole

settlements or major parts of settlements, also coincides with the period when rondels are thought to have been constructed (e.g. Riedhammer 2015, 395). Like rondel ditches, these ditches also have V-shaped cross sections, but their ground plans and dimensions are different. Settlements with rondels that are, for the most part, also protected by other ditches and trenches are known in Lower Bavaria (e.g. Petrasch 1990). As we have seen in Chapter 5, apart from “classic” rondels, there is also evidence for simple palisade enclosures (for instance inside the Künzing-Unternberg rondel). In the basin of the River Isar it has been observed that rondels, with numerous flat settlements in their vicinity, occur at almost regular intervals of 5–10 km (Petrasch 1990, 506–512). As regards houses, unique finds of sunken rectangular buildings (which may be part of larger posthole structures) have been recorded, as well as much larger longhouses of posthole and wattle and daub construction (e.g. Riedhammer 2015, 393–395). The maximum length of the longhouses is around 20 m, sometimes even exceeding 30 m, with a width of c. 8–12 m. The house structures vary, possibly indicating a certain typo-chronological development. The size of the longhouses is believed to have gradually decreased and long lateral pits, typical of the previous Linear Pottery culture period, are absent. This means that the raw material for plastering was not acquired in the immediate vicinity of the houses but, rather, was extracted from larger (apparently communal) clay pits. The number of internal postholes, which are generally arranged in three rows, also decreases but houses of this type have also been registered during the supposed rondel construction period, which means that a single unified house type was evidently not in use everywhere. Trapezoidal or boat-like ground plans (e.g. Riedhammer 2015, Fig. 3) are typical of this period, in contrast to the rectangular layouts of the Linear Pottery culture tradition. Other smaller structures of posthole construction are also known from the immediate vicinity of these buildings. Like in the previous regions, we once again find elaborately decorated pottery, this time bearing stroked decoration, at the time of the construction of rondels. Sherds of painted vessels, apparently originating in the eastern complex, are also often found at rondel settlements. U. Poensgen puts forward an interesting hypothesis: she says that the proportion of painted vessels at the Künzing-Unternberg site is so high that it cannot be interpreted as evidence of importation or of some special form of a distribution system, but rather should be considered as evidence of a direct presence of foreign individuals (Poensgen 2009). Although communal cemeteries dated to the previous Linear Pottery culture occupation are known from Lower Bavaria, none have been detected in the rondel construction period that we are studying (e.g. Pechtl 2016). Only isolated graves and groups of graves are known (Riedmeier-Fischer 1989; Schmotz 2002; Riedhammer 2015, 389). Inhumation prevails, but many cremations have also been recorded. The orientation of the skeletons usually varies. At the Haimbuch site, for instance, female and child burials have been found to predominate in all three groups of graves at the settlement, while male burials are rare (Riedmeier-Fischer 1989). It is interesting that both inhumations and cremations have been recognised in the first group of graves, whereas the other two groups consisted exclusively of inhumations. Pottery

vessels and chipped stone artefacts are the characteristic grave goods of the SOB region. There is also evidence of exceptional grave goods such as a piglet skeleton found under the thigh of one individual, a spondylus-shaped ornament, deer teeth and dozens of limestone beads found in a female grave in Haimbuch. In contrast to the previous rondel regions, clay figurines are only found occasionally, and mostly in a fragmentary state (Engelhardt 2010; Riedhammer 2015, 389). In the following section, we will use information gleaned from the literature, along with the results of research projects and the conclusions of a number of doctorate theses, to further our discussion. Transformations of settlements and the occurrence of communal cemeteries in the STK region The summary of the rondel region crucial for our work is structured in such a way that we can compare the basic findings of the existing archaeological record with the previous rondel regions, for which we have primarily used academic publications. The territory stretching approximately from present-day Saxony-Anhalt and Saxony, Germany (the western boundary is characterised by a permeation of artefacts from several cultural groups; e.g. Suhrbier 2012) to parts of the Czech Republic with an overall area of c. 300,000 square kilometres, which we identify as the territory of the Stroked Pottery culture (STK; see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3), is archaeologically very well researched. Although in the past the issue of typo-chronological development has been primarily discussed in the framework of pottery finds (e.g. Kaufmann 1976; Gleser 2012; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013), there are now several works available that focus on longhouse types, the internal structure of settlements (e.g. Stäuble 2010; Řídký 2011; Link 2014; Stäuble and Veit eds. 2016) and on burial customs (e.g. Zápotocká 1998; de Vries 2010). As has been observed in the previous rondel regions, small open flat settlements and more extensive settlements with an area exceeding 10 ha are both also known from the STK region. To a significant extent, the settlement ecumene mirrors the previous distribution of settlement sites in lower altitudes along large rivers and smaller watercourses, i.e. landscapes with fertile land on loessial substrates, but we also observe the establishment of first-time settlements in less fertile areas at higher altitudes (e.g. Stäuble 2010, 26). Rock shelters have frequently produced finds from this culture (e.g. Peša 2015). Elevated, naturally protected positions were also used in geomorphologically more varied landscapes. It follows from archaeobotanical and archaeozoological studies that dense continuous forests prevailed in some areas and more or less open landscape in others (e.g. Benecke 1994; Stäuble 2010, 41; Kovačiková et al. 2012; Řídký et al. 2013). Based on data that has been collected over several decades by M. Zápotocká for the STK region, we can divide the territory of the Bohemian part of the Czech Republic into almost twenty geographically defined settlement clusters, so-called settlement regions; during the late phase of the STK, i.e. at the time of the construction of rondels, these settlement regions differed in their use of the basic techniques of stroked ornament (Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979; Zápotocká 2009; 2011; Burgert 2017). Likewise, H. Stäuble distinguishes three

geographically more or less enclosed settlement regions – two of which had been continuously settled since the Linear Pottery period - which differ in terms of their landscape geomorphology and soil quality (Stäuble 2010, 27–28). The closest settlements within microregions, which are most often situated around minor watercourses, are commonly recorded at a distance of 2–3 km from each other (e.g. Řídký et al. 2012c; Šumberová et al. 2012). In localities that have been more thoroughly documented, especially for the late phase of the STK, we sometimes encounter very dense occupation with the individual settlement complexes located almost immediately adjacent to one another, but without clear evidence of occupation on the opposite side of the local watercourse. This is, for instance, the case for the microregions on the right bank of the Labe/Elbe in eastern Bohemia and on the left bank of the same river in central Bohemia (Končelová 2013; Burgert 2017). In contrast to the previously described region in Lower Bavaria, Germany, no entirely enclosed or partially enclosed settlements have been found here. It is interesting, however, that these ditched structures had been built in the STK region during the previous Linear Pottery culture occupation. Ditched enclosures, with irregular oval ground plans and diameters of up to 240 m, are known, as are circular or oval palisade enclosures (sometimes multiple-palisaded) interrupted by entrances at several places, similar to the foundation trenches of rondels (e.g. Dufek 2014; Burgert et al. 2016 with more literature). We also encounter settlements including single rondels, situated at a distance of 7–10 km from each other, as well as settlements including two or more rondels (e.g. Řídký 2011; Stäuble 2012). The distance between two rondels on the same settlement site rarely exceeds 40–50 m (see Kolín I or Bylany rondels in Chapter 5). Aerial photographs of Kyhna, Saxony, indicate that there might have been as many as four or five rondels within an area of 500 x 700 m (Stäuble 2010, 36). As we have seen in the example of the Bylany site, some rondels were enclosed by another ditch. Apart from the mentioned outer ditch enclosing the Bylany 4/1 rondel, which was overlain by the Bylany 4/2 rondel, we do not know of any other instances of rondels being built on the exact same site as previous rondels (cf. Svodín or Kamegg in eastern complex, Chapter 5). Settlement complexes with evidence of rondels, settlement pits and large communal cemeteries are a specific feature of Bohemia and have not been recorded in any of the previously discussed rondel regions from the first half of the fifth millennium BC (Pavlů et al. 1995; Zápotocká 1998; Řídký 2011). Based on published surveys, we can identify certain settlements as being specialised in the handling of lithic raw materials for the preparation of blanks and the subsequent production of axes, adzes, shaft-hole axes, and marble bracelets; such sites are situated close to the sources of the materials or along the presumed distribution routes (e.g. Zápotocká 1984; Vencl 1986; Popelka 1997; Šída 2007). Stone tools made of metabasite of Jizera Mountain type, which was mined at several sources in northern Bohemia (see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3), have been documented at sites, including rondel settlements, located several hundreds of kilometres away, for example in the MOG region. Marble bracelets, the raw material for which was mined at the Bílý kámen site near the town of

Sázava, and evidence of their production (semi-finished products and production waste) are recorded at settlements in central Bohemia, about 50 km away from the source, and have also been found in graves in present-day Germany (early Rössen culture) and in the SOB region in Lower Bavaria (Zápotocká 1984). Recorded house ground plans consist of postholes and sometimes also feature a trench which delimits the northern part of the house; in some cases, the longitudinal walls are preserved in the form of a narrow trench (Stäuble 2010, 31–34; Link 2014; Stäuble and Veit eds. 2016). All longhouses known to date are oriented with their long axis oriented in a north-south direction with various deviations. Ground plan shapes vary from rectangular to trapezoidal and boat-like. Their lengths vary from 10 to 50 m, with a variable width corresponding to the type of ground plan, but generally up to a maximum of 10 m. The longer walls of the buildings from the early phase of the STK often consist of two lines of small postholes. Like in the previous rondel region, deep internal postholes arranged in regular lines and long lateral pits, typical of the Linear Pottery culture, disappear during the late phase of the STK, while what appear to be communal clay pits appear in the record. Fences in the form of trenches connecting two neighbouring longhouses have been documented at some sites (Končelová 2013; Burgert 2015). According to the latest list presented in the work by P. Burgert, who has listed a total of 95 cases, the ground plans of STK longhouses in Bohemia can be divided into four basic construction types – rectangular or trapezoidal ground plans consisting of postholes where the north end is defined by a trench (Linear Pottery culture tradition; type A after Burgert 2017, 57); trapezoidal houses consisting only of postholes or of trenches (type B); rectangular houses consisting only of postholes (type C; the longitudinal walls are sometimes made up of two rows of posts); and “boat-like” ground plans consisting of postholes or trenches (type D). In view of the frequent finds of daub fragments bearing structural imprints, we can state with some certainty that the buildings were built of posts and hewn wooden elements, and that their walls were covered by a combination of wattle and daub. It is also likely that the walls were decorated with coloured pigment (Lička 2012). As yet no one has considered the existence of multi-storey buildings such as those identified in the eastern complex, nor do we know of buildings with sunken floors like those identified in the SOB region. Burgert has discovered that the maximum length of longhouse ground plans in Bohemia is 10–40 m (in 75 % of cases the maximum length is 22 m); the width varies between 5 and 13 m (in 72 % of cases, the width is between 6 and 9 m). A length limit of about 22 m is respected in the case of rectangular ground plans consisting of postholes, whereas the dimensions of the other construction types are more variable. Burgert’s types A and B are believed to be the dominant types in the archaeological record for the territory of present-day Bohemia, where they occur over a wide area. In contrast, we do not encounter type D in eastern Bohemia, despite the high number of documented houses. It is, therefore, possible that the construction of some buildings was locally (perhaps culturally) limited to certain microregions. It is important to add that several types and sizes of longhouses, which might have existed concurrently, have often been

documented within a single settlement (Pleinerová 1984; Lička 1989; 1990; Burgert 2015; Končelová and Květina 2015; Lička et al. 2016). A common feature of longhouses throughout the STK region is a certain irregularity in the arrangement of the internal postholes. As well as a great number of pits of various shapes and dimensions, the settlements also include distinctive circular and oval storage pits (up to 2.5 m long) with pear-like or concave cross sections; elongated oval pits, with a length of up to 2 m and a V-shaped cross-section, are also encountered (Šumberová 1996; Řídký 2011). Other features with a clear primary function include the remains of ovens which feature stone-paved bases (sometimes containing grinding tool fragments) and fragments of clay domes (e.g. Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013). More than ten wells, with preserved timbering, have been discovered near present-day Leipzig, Germany. Interestingly, they were apparently all built and used only during the earlier Linear Pottery period (e.g. Stäuble 2010). Wells dated to the Linear Pottery culture have also been found in the Czech Republic. In no area can their presence be confirmed for the STK period. Like the previously described rondel regions, the STK region has yielded large quantities of ceramic artefacts, mostly in a fragmentary state. Once again, we encounter a high proportion of vessels bearing complex decoration (up to 70 %) and a wide variety of vessel shapes (Rulf 1998). Several settlements – including rondel settlements and small flat settlements – have produced bone tools that were used to decorate vessels before firing (e.g. Zápotocká 1978). Although we do not envisage “mass production” of pottery vessels in the first half of the fifth millennium BC, there is interesting evidence for the production of almost identical shapes with identical decoration (motifs and composition of the decoration, stroked ornament techniques) from very distant sites. The outcomes of micro-petrographic analyses of pottery material from the Moravian part of the Czech Republic have confirmed that the clay for the production of vessels could come from a different locality (a distance of up to 5 km away) to that where the sherds of the analysed vessels were found; this means that pottery vessels were probably also part of localised trade systems (Hložek and Gregerová 2007). A whole range of foreign pottery elements has also been recorded in this rondel region. There is evidence of entire vessels typical of the eastern complex as well as of distant regions of the western complex – the SOB region, the Samborzec-Opatów-Malice groups in present-day Poland or the Großgartach culture in Hesse (e.g. Kazdová et al. 1999; Pavlů and Metlička 2013; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013; Burgert 2017). As in the rondel region belonging to the western complex, clay figurines or fragments thereof are not among the artefacts commonly found on excavations in the STK region (e.g. Remišová-Věšínová 2009). Hoards of axes, adzes, shaft-hole axes, and blanks from various sites in Bohemia, particularly along the presumed route of the distribution of the raw material (metabasite of Jizera Mountain type), are an interesting phenomenon of the STK period (Vencl 1975; Přichystal 2013). Although finds of large communal cemeteries are few and far between for the earlier

Linear Pottery culture period, several sites are known for the STK in the area stretching from Moravia to Saxony, Germany; these have produced evidence of inhumation and cremation burials (Podborský ed. 2002; de Vries 2010; Šmíd 2013). Small groups of between 2 and 10 graves are recorded within settlements throughout the STK region, during the rondel construction period. Around 800 STK settlements are recorded in the Czech Republic (both Bohemia and Moravia) at present, but only around 70 sites include burials (Kazdová 2008; Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013) and only 9 feature communal cemeteries (most recently Kos 2016), which means that the burials of a considerable part of the population of that period are apparently not preserved in the known archaeological record. Both inhumation and cremation burials have been recorded, with a predominance of the latter (Zápotocká 1998; de Vries 2010, 45–46). Pottery vessels and stone tools produced by chipping or polishing prevail among the grave goods, with sporadic finds of decorative elements made of bone, teeth, antlers, gastropod and mollusc shells, stone and ceramic, some of which are gender specific. Gender can be distinguished with a high probability also in the case of child burials. Cremations were enclosed in ceramic vessels or deposited close to them. As we have seen in Chapter 5, it is certain that the complete remains of the deceased person were not deposited, and grave goods – lithic artefacts produced by chipping and polishing – were burnt together with the body (Řídký et al. 2012c). Apart from the bi-ritual communal cemetery in Miskovice near Kutná Hora (close to the rondels at the Bylany 4 site, see Chapter 5), a single burial rite, most often cremation, prevails at a majority of the cemeteries. It needs to be pointed out, however, that most of the excavated cemetery sites are incomplete and represent only a fraction of the original areas (Zápotocká 1998; Snítilý 2007; Kos 2016). The number of surveyed graves (mostly identified during rescue excavations) does not exceed 15–30. On the other hand, it has been confirmed that these burial areas were situated outside the residential complexes represented by longhouse layouts or pits. The two cemeteries with the highest number of graves, Miskovice (the original number is estimated at up to 100 graves) and Horoměřice-Chotol, were uncovered not far from rondels (Zápotocká 1998; Řídký 2011). One of the most interesting discoveries is that of two adjacent child graves (a boy and a girl) at the Plotiště nad Labem site (Vokolek and Zápotocká 1997; Burgert 2017). They are situated apart from other groups of graves. The grave goods included several ceramic vessels and deer eye-teeth (as many as 75 in both graves) from more than thirty animals. Apart from these artefacts, the graves yielded stone artefacts made of Chocolate cherts, the sources of which lie in the territory of present-day Poland (c. 300 km to the northeast, see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3), and items made of silicities from glacigenic sediments (cores and blades). Three miniature shaft-hole axes and 84 freshwater gastropod shells with drilled holes were also included. Such grave goods have not been documented for any of the other 13 STK burials (cremations and inhumations) at this site. Similarly exceptional is the burial of a child in Těšetice-Kyjovice (STK features before the construction of the MOG rondel) with nine grinding tools deposited around the body (Kazdová 2008, 93). Another important find is the

inhumation burial of a small boy from the Praha-Dejvice site, which included a painted cup; an analysis of the shape, decoration and material shows that the cup came from the territory of present-day Slovakia, i.e. from the LGK region (Zápotocká 1998). The Miskovice cemetery has also yielded evidence of a burial, apparently of two adults (the skeletal remains have not survived), with grave goods typical of both men and women – a stone axe, an abrader, two grinding tools, 12 pottery vessels and 145 artefacts made by chipping, mostly from the material described as Bavarian chert (Zápotocká 1998, 44–79). Burials of adults of both genders and children in separate grave pits have been found at STK settlements as well as burials in ordinary settlement pits (including multiple burials of men, women and children) and rondel ditches, as we have seen in the case of the Kolín I site in Chapter 5 (Zápotocká 1998; Šumberová et al. 2012). Piously deposited multiple burials of individuals, of various gender and age categories, have been recorded in several cases. We also have examples for the secondary burial of the remains of larger numbers of people in storage pits (Kazdová 2008, 93; Kubálek 2010; Lička et al. 2016, 142–143;). Most people inhumed in settlement pits were laid out in a crouched position, but there is also evidence of bodies being discarded in non-pious positions. Zápotocká states that the ratio between documented inhumations and cremations is balanced throughout the STK period; interestingly, both rites were performed for men, women and children alike, without significant differences in the representation of the grave goods (Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013). As we have stated in Chapter 5, the cremation burial of a child (infans II) was found together with the inhumation of an adult individual covered with cattle ribs in a grave pit in Miskovice near Kutná Hora (Zápotocká 1998, 202). Brief summary Several important observations, which apply to all of the mentioned regions, can be highlighted from the previously presented information: − Either “classic” rondels, or rondels combined with tells as in the Tisza-HerpályCsöszhalom cultures, are known from the all of the presented regions. They appear shortly before 4800 BC. − Rondel settlements, located at intervals of 7–10 km from each other, are recorded in “classic” rondel regions (LGK, MOG, SOB, STK) where intensive field research is being carried out. − Rondel settlements with two or even more rondels are known from these rondel regions. − Settlements of various sizes, ranging from small open settlements (up to 1 ha) to large settlements (10 ha or even more), have been detected in all these regions. − Settlements with other types of enclosures (palisade enclosures, ditched enclosures, etc.) also exist in all the regions. − Settlements have been detected at higher altitudes than before in all of the regions. − The number of settlements increases in all the regions. − High quantities of pottery fragments and distinctive, elaborately decorated pottery vessels

are registered in all the regions. − Items made of “exotic” raw materials are known from all of the regions, but they are not exclusive to particular types of settlements. These items are mostly sporadic finds of up to several dozen pieces. − Researchers from various countries concur that some attribute reflecting “centrality” can be perceived in all of the mentioned regions – e.g. exceptionally large settlements, continuity of occupation, presence of enclosures, locating of a settlement near a source of stone raw materials, presence of a communal cemetery (only in the STK region). − Alternative burial rites, differing in the burial customs or the method of the deposition of the body, have been registered in all rondel regions despite the predominance of a certain rite; another common feature in all rondel regions is the absence in the archaeological record of the burial customs of the bulk of the population. On the other hand, if we stick strictly to the archaeological record alone, we get a colourful picture of different worlds within the rondel regions, including immediately neighbouring regions, where certain forms of contacts or even direct influence can be envisaged, whether in the form of enculturation or migration of new societies. The following differences are most apparent (based also on Chapter 6): − There are differences in the incidence of the maximum size categories of rondels and in the construction of new rondels – these were repeatedly built on the same spot in LGK and MOG regions, a phenomenon which is unknown from SOB and STK regions. − Each rondel region has its specificities in terms of house construction and house sizes. For some of regions (e.g. the MOG region), we have virtually no detailed information regarding houses. Concerning the LGK region, we mostly have information from settlements with rondels or other types of enclosure. However, we are lacking information about house structures from “ordinary” settlements. − Rondel regions differ in the occurrence of structures used for storage; they are absent in the LGK region but common in the STK region. − Rondel regions differ in the density of settlement pits (much higher in the SOB and STK regions). − Rondel regions differ in the continuity of the settlements (virgin sites in the LGK and MOG regions vs continual use in the SOB and STK regions). − Rondel regions differ in terms of burial customs – individual burials in settlement pits are only known in some regions (the MOG region), burials in proper grave pits in others (the SOB region) and groups of graves located within the settlements in yet others (the SOB and LGK regions); finally, communal cemeteries are known from a single area, the STK region. In all regions, communal work, documented in the form of rondels, and obvious changes in the settlement patterns appear to be the most important changes compared to the previous periods. We believe it is important to examine these changes at the level of archaeologically

well surveyed microregions and at the level of the internal structuring of particular settlements. The next chapter will take up this task.

9 A closer look – settlement patterns and site layouts of the STK in Bohemia Jaroslav Řídký, Markéta Končelová, Pavel Burgert and Radka Šumberová

The aim of this chapter is to supplement the information presented in the previous chapter with current knowledge of the settlement patterns in smaller areas (microregions) of a particular rondel region and to discuss the internal structure of two types of the Neolithic settlements – so-called rondel settlements and settlements where no traces of a rondel have been found. At the same time, we want to find out whether, and to what extent, the settlement patterns, internal structures of settlements and types of features agree or differ in microregions situated at greater distances from each other in various areas within the realm of the Stroked Pottery culture. Let us begin by stating that we do not base our work on a detailed relative chronology of local archaeological cultures in the sense of so-called sub-phases (see Fig. 9.1), created for the given period on the basis of changes in the shape and decorative style of pottery vessels (e.g. after Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013). We believe that the variability observable in the shapes and styles of decoration of the vessels may reflect other factors (socio-political, ritual, etc.) and not solely “chronological development.” The division into the two basic phases – early STK and late STK, when rondels were built – is fully sufficient for the purposes of this study. The differences between the assemblages of artefacts from both basic phases are easily perceptible not only in the shape and decoration of pottery vessels but also in longhouse ground plans (Fig. 9.1). Furthermore, and most importantly, the successive character of the two groups of artefacts can be independently confirmed by radiocarbon dating (Tab. 9.1; Fig. 9.2 and Fig. 9.3). Back to the Bylany example At the beginning of this chapter, let us present interpretative models for the transformation of the settlement patterns in the microregion of the basins of two smaller rivers, the Vrchlice and Klejnárka (central Bohemia, an area 10 km long and about 5 km wide; Fig. 9.3), based on archaeological dating of fourteen Neolithic settlements published by I. Pavlů (Pavlů 2002). Pavlů outlined three basic possibilities for the transformation of the settlement patterns during the Linear Pottery culture (LBK), the early STK and the late STK. He basically ruled out the first, the existence of independent units where an individual

development of the settlements would have taken place in both time and space. He considered a model of gradual colonisation of the microregion from one primary settlement, and its transfer from the LBK to the late STK, less likely also. As the most probable, he describes a third theoretical model, in which he points out the strikingly different dynamics of settlement development during the LBK and the STK. Following the LBK, where we can clearly observe a gradual spread of LBK settlements over a wide area, we see an opposite trend in the late STK. At that time, all STK sites were clustering around a single settlement within the microregion, the much cited Bylany 4, where two rondels (rondel with four entrances of type 22, and rondel with three entrances of type 34; see Chapter 6) and a nearby communal bi-ritual cemetery (Miskovice site; see Chapter 5) were identified in the second half of the twentieth century (Pavlů et al. 1995; Zápotocká 1998; Pavlů 2002, 256). Since this model corresponds closely to the conclusions reached in the previous chapter summing up the settlement patterns in various rondel regions as well as to our notion of the clustering of the settlements around one centre to form larger agglomerations, we decided to verify it for other microregions in various parts of Bohemia (Fig. 9.3). In some cases, moreover, we can compare the internal spatial structure of the two types of settlements in the same microregion. Before we begin summarising the available information, however, it is important to present several limitations and problems that regrettably have, as we are well aware, a fundamental impact on our understanding of the individual settlements.

Fig. 9.1 The differences between early STK (I–III) and late STK (IVa, IVb, V) vessel shapes and between the structures of houses from these phases. Adapted by J. Řídký after Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013. Table 9.1 Radiocarbon dates and their calibration based on samples from better dated features, using OxCal v4.2.3 (Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013) (authors: J. Řídký, P. Burgert, R. Šumberová and M. Končelová)

Fig. 9.2 Calibration of radiocarbon dates using Tab. 9.1. Author P. Limburský.

Fig. 9.3 The distribution of STK sites in Bohemia (CZ), the locations of the sites with radiocarbon dates, and the locations of the four microregions under comparison. A: Bylany microregion; B: Left bank of the River Labe in northwest Bohemia; C: Left bank of the River Vltava in central Bohemia; D: Left bank of the River Labe in central Bohemia. Adapted by J. Řídký after Pavlů and Zápotocká 2013.

We will consider large-scale excavations; these are, however, usually rescue excavations which means that when carrying out field research, it was not possible to select the best areas for solving particular problems. Consequently, we do not know which particular part of the original STK settlement we are evaluating – was it the central area, a specialised area, or the edge of the settlement? Most Neolithic sites are not exclusively Neolithic – they are multicultural, with diachronic superpositions and intrusions. The archaeological record is, therefore, somewhat blurred. Each individual site is a result of specific site-formation processes caused by both natural and human agents. And, regrettably, for certain sites and for various reasons, we are still lacking important information, such as anthropological evaluation of the human bones or petrological determination of lithic raw materials.

Furthermore, when using the results of animal bone analysis, it is important to bear in mind that it has only been possible to determine about one-third of the assemblages from all STK settlements (where it was possible at all). Left bank of the River Labe in northwest Bohemia The microregion in the basin of the small River Modla, a left-bank tributary of the River Labe in northwest Bohemia (Fig. 9.3), is about 20 km long and about 10 km wide. Its northeastern boundary is formed by the River Labe and the northern boundary is delimited by the foothills of the Central Bohemian Uplands; the western and southern borders of the microregion are geomorphologically indistinct (a lowland area bordering the River Labe) and no Neolithic sites have been documented there (Zápotocká 2009; Řídký et al. 2014b). A total of 21 Neolithic sites have been identified to the southwest of the Labe (Fig. 9.4). Their widest recorded distribution occurred during the LBK (phases II–IV; 5300–5000 cal. BC), the early STK and, particularly, the late STK. Later, the distribution of the sites becomes more concentrated in the northeastern half of the microregion, towards the River Labe. At that time, the distance between neighbouring sites was only 1–2 km, sometimes even less, so we can theoretically speak about an extensive agglomeration or possibly about a single extensive settlement. A rondel (a simple rondel with four entrances of type 13; see Chapter 6) was built at the Vchynice site at the western boundary of this agglomeration.

Fig. 9.4 The left bank of the River Labe in northwest Bohemia. LBK settlements are marked with crosses, early STK settlements with empty circles, late STK settlements with full circles. The names are only provided for settlements and quartz porphyry sources referred to in the text. The numbers correspond to the numbers attributed to the rondels in Tab. 4.1. Author J. Řídký.

Extensive sources of quartz porphyry lie about 4 km north of Vchynice. This high quality and visually distinctive material (bright white in colour with characteristic red spots after working) was used for the production of grinding tools (Řídký et al. 2014b). The material was mined near the surface in the form of slabs and shaped on the spot into blanks, which were subsequently shaped into the required final form at the target settlements. Grinding tools (including blanks) made of the material are common in the local archaeological record, but occasional examples have also been documented on late STK sites located quite far from the source, for example in micro-region C (50 km way in a direct line; Fig. 9.3) and probably even in microregion D (100 km away in a direct line; Řídký et al. in press b). The opposite is also true: stone artefacts made of “exotic” materials from distant sources have been documented in this microregion. However, we are not dealing with a large corpus of imported material; the finds include occasional tools made of Bavarian chert from the SOB region (250 km away in a direct line; Stolz et al. 2015) and fragments of marble bracelets from the sources in Sázava–Bílý kámen (100 km to the east in a direct line). According to a list compiled by M. Zápotocká (Zápotocká 2009), artefacts made of Bavarian

chert have not been documented at any other site in the microregion apart from Vchynice. In contrast, fragments of marble bracelets are known from four sites located near the Vchynice site. Human bones have been found in several settlement pits at two sites, in one case not far from a rondel. Table 9.2 Pottery fragmentation (the number of fragments divided by the number of re-fits) on STK settlements, together with data on the frequency of re-fits for coarse ware and decorated ware. The vessels from the cemetery are not included in the figures for Horoměřice-Chotol. The settlements Kolín III and Kolín VII have been added after Vašinová (2015); Stolz and Malyková (2017) (authors: J. Řídký and M. Končelová)

Table 9.3 Representation of stroked ornament techniques on STK settlements. The vessels from the cemetery are not included in the data for Horoměřice-Chotol. The settlements Kolín III and Kolín VII have been added after Vašinová (2015); Stolz and Malyková (2017) (authors: J. Řídký and M. Končelová)

A brief summary of the Vchynice site has been provided in Chapter 5 (see Fig. 5.15 in Chapter 5). In this part of the book, we are going to add more detailed information about the site layout and evidence for activities; this information has already been published elsewhere in the past but will help us here to build a clearer idea of the internal structure of the rondel settlement (e.g. Řídký et al. in press a). Part of the rondel ditch, at least one complete STK longhouse ground plan (situated about 30 m southwest of the rondel ditch) and 23 pits, all dated to the STK period, have been found within the excavated area of 1 ha. The area also included the remains at least two LBK longhouses and three pits from the same period. Pits from the Eneolithic, the Bronze Age and the Late Iron Age have been confirmed in the northeastern part of the excavated area. All STK pits were situated in an area measuring 100 m long and 90 m wide (Řídký et al. 2014a;

2013; 2012b). Only five larger pits can be dated to the early STK; one of these might originally have been used for storage. Ten more storage pits have been recognised among other STK pits, and it is likely that one further storage pit was in a superposition with an extensive clay pit close to a longhouse. Altogether, nine storage pits, with a maximum length of up to 2 m and a depth of up to 1 m, probably belong to the late STK, i.e. roughly at the time of the construction of the rondel (see Fig. 5.15 in Chapter 5). The mutual distance between the storage pits in the southwestern part of the examined area ranges from 9 to 25 m. At the Vchynice site more than one-quarter of coarse ware sherds were part of re-fits (two and more sherds from the same vessel); about two fragments on average have been preserved from the original vessels (Tab. 9.2). The share of decorated refits only slightly exceeds 40 %. Of the most frequent stroke ornament techniques, wide double-stroke prevails over triplestroke, while other techniques represent under 10 % (Tab. 9.3). The final production of grinding tools, chipped tools and polished tools has been confirmed at the Vchynice site in the form of pieces of raw material, cores, blanks and production waste. However, it was not a large-scale production and would not have exceeded local consumption. Even though the final production of other lithics evidently took place within the settlement, these activities were not concentrated in particular areas. A bone tool, used for decorating pottery vessels (wide double-stroke technique) has also been identified but this is not an exceptional find as more than twenty such tools have been found in other “ordinary” flat settlements in the Czech Republic (Zápotocká 1978). A detailed comparative archaeozoological analysis of animal bones from the fills of pits dating to the LBK, the early STK and the late STK has been conducted by archaeozoologist L. Kovačiková (Řídký et al. in press a; 2013). According to her conclusions, the assemblages of animal bones from the LBK and STK periods differ, for example, in the proportions of certain domestic animals. While cattle bones clearly predominate in LBK pit fills compared to an approximately 25 % overall share of sheep/ goat and pig, a steep increase in the ratio of these latter species towards 50 % has been registered in both phases of the STK. Nevertheless, cattle bones still represent the most frequent finds during the STK. On this particular site, no striking differences have been observed in taphonomic or anatomic indicators between bones from the early STK and the late STK. Bones occurred in the fills of various features but there were no significant accumulations that, together the anatomic determination or the evidence of intentional interventions (notches and cuts), might indicate particular butchering areas. The keeping of older cattle (up to 9 years) and sheep (up to 4 years), whether for milk, hide or other reasons (for work or for rituals?) has been documented at the Vchynice site for the late STK period. In Chapter 6, in the section dealing with the original form of the wooden structures embedded in the foundation trenches of rondels, we mentioned frequent finds of daub fragments that originated from the burning of the plaster render on various structures (Řídký et al. in press a). This burning may have been carried intentionally during the construction of production structures such as ovens, or during rituals (ritual burning), or it may have been

accidental. The quoted work pointed out the abnormal occurrence of daub fragments in the fills of most pits at the settlement and the occurrence of charcoal-rich layers in some pits. Clearly discernible daub layers have also been detected at particular depth levels of the rondel ditch (see Fig. 6.12 in Chapter 6). In addition, burnt animal bones and various lithics with traces of burning have been identified in the same contexts. A detailed analysis of the contexts, and of the different categories of finds in the rondel ditch and its vicinity, lead us to the conclusion that there was a fire at the settlement during the late STK, when the rondel was in use. The fire might have been accidental, but we cannot rule out the possibility that it was started intentionally, perhaps for ritual reasons when the settlement was abandoned or as a consequence of an attack by an enemy group. It is evident from the results of quantitative and qualitative analyses of various artefacts and biofacts that the rondel ditch fill formed in various ways over a long period of time (e.g. Řídký et al. 2014a). In view of the fact that similar categories of finds, basically everyday items, are represented in the ditch fill (under the daub layer and within the daub layer that possibly closes the original function period of the rondel) and in the fills of the settlement pits in the vicinity of the rondel, the question arises whether the rondel was used only occasionally (for ceremonies or feasts) or continuously. The cited results tend to indicate continual use during common everyday activities. For the purposes of this work, the Vchynice site can be divided into the rondel zone (rondel ditch + pits inside the rondel and up to 5 m outside the ditch) and the settlement zone (see Fig. 5.15 in Chapter 5). The purpose of such a division is to capture the activities that took place in the presumed ritual area (rondel zone) and in its neighbourhood (settlement zone). In this context, mention must be made of research that has revealed the intentional destruction of grinding tools, and other objects, at the Vchynice site (Řídký et al. in press b). However, intentionally destroyed grinders and querns made of high-quality quartz porphyry were not concentrated only in the rondel zone, as we would expect for a ritual structure – they were also found elsewhere in the area of the excavated late STK settlement. While these activities are clear evidence of ritual behaviour among Neolithic people, they are not restricted to the presumed ritual area. Moreover, the destruction of grinding tools has also been detected at “ordinary” flat settlements from other parts of Bohemia. Let us now turn our attention to other biofacts and artefacts. Cattle bones clearly prevailed in the animal bone assemblage from the rondel zone, while the bones of wild animals were absent. However, an analysis of the level of the alteration of bones by chemical and physical factors has confirmed that all bones in the ditch fill were damaged in this manner, in contrast to the settlement pits. A considerable proportion of the bones of smaller animals (including wild game) is probably missing for these reasons or could not be more closely determined, and therefore the result is not significant. The ditch was evidently exposed to erosion factors for a longer time than other pits. Let us now turn our attention to the pottery finds. The vessel shape determination ratio is generally low for fragmentary pottery

assemblages from STK settlements, usually ranging from 10 to 20 % (e.g. Řídký 2011). No differences have been determined between vessel shapes in the rondel zone and those in the settlement zone at the Vchynice site (determination ratio 20 %). There are no significant differences between the rondel and the settlement zones in the shares of coarse ware and of decorated re-fits, either (Tab. 9.4). The most conspicuous difference between the two zones concerns the level of the fragmentation of vessels, calculated as the number of fragments divided by the number of re-fits (higher in the settlement zone; Tab. 9.4), and the much higher proportion of wide double-stroke decoration in the rondel zone (Tab. 9.5). Table 9.4 Pottery fragmentation (the number of fragments divided by the number of re-fits) on various zones on rondel settlements, together with data on the frequency of re-fits for coarse ware and decorated ware. The Kolín VII settlement has been added after Vašinová (2015) (authors: J. Řídký and M. Končelová)

Table 9.5 Representation of stroke ornament techniques on various zones on rondel settlements. The Kolín VII settlement has been added after Vašinová (2015) (authors: J. Řídký and M. Končelová)

The context of the rondel settlement at Vchynice would suggest that the rondel area was not used only for occasional ritual activities but, instead, that it was an integral part of the settlement. On the other hand, the concentration of differently decorated vessels and their

lower fragmentation testify to different activities in this zone. Regrettably, we cannot make a comparison with other late STK settlements in the neighbourhood due to the limited extent of the archaeological investigations carried out in the vicinity of the Vchynice site. Luckily, we will have an opportunity to do so in the following microregion. Left bank of the River Vltava in central Bohemia The next microregion is situated in the basin of the Únětický Stream and the Podmoráňský Stream, left-bank tributaries of the River Vltava in central Bohemia (northwestern outskirts of Prague; Řídký 2011; 2003). It lies about 50 km from the previous territory (Fig. 9.3). The microregion, about 15 km long and 5 km wide, is delimited by the Vltava in the east and the last traces of Neolithic settlements at the source of the Únětický Stream in the west, where the relief starts to rise above 300 m. The northern and southern boundaries are also defined by areas without any evidence of Neolithic finds. Up to about 15 Neolithic settlement sites have been documented in this region as a result of rescue excavations and surface prospection (Fig. 9.5). Early STK occupation has only been detected at four out of the total of twelve settlements dated to the STK; these sites were situated approximately 4–5 km from each other. The number of sites increases during the late STK, but only in the eastern part of the microregion, in the direction of the River Vltava. An interesting discovery is the absence of LBK sites (LBK II–IV; 5300–5000 cal. BC) in the northern part of the microregion and the subsequent predominant settlement of the left banks of the streams during the late STK period. The streams might, therefore, have represented a boundary which was respected by the settlements in the given period. It is important to add that the location of the settlements on the left banks of the streams was probably not determined by the existence of particularly suitable conditions for crop growing and animal rearing, since arable soils and the geomorphology of the landscape are similar throughout the microregion.

Fig. 9.5 The left bank of the River Vltava in central Bohemia. LBK settlements are marked with crosses, early STK settlements with empty circles, late STK settlements with full circles. Names are only given for settlements referred to in the text. The numbers correspond to the numbers attributed to the rondels in Tab. 4.1. in Chapter 4. Author J. Řídký.

As in the previous example, evidence of a rondel comes from a single late STK settlement (Horoměřice-Chotol; a simple rondel with three entrances, type 13; see Chapter 6), this time, however, it occurs together with a communal cemetery (Fig. 9.6). Although we know of human bone finds from settlement pit fills at three other settlements in the microregion, a cemetery (with 30 cremations in grave pits) has been detected at only one, Horoměřice-Chotol, located about 100 m north of the rondel. As the separate grave pits were dug almost in the present surface layers, it is likely that most graves were destroyed during past agricultural activities and house construction works in the modern era. The cemetery was examined in the context of a rescue excavation that concerned separate areas of different sizes, but it is estimated that the cemetery originally occupied an area up to 100 m long and 80 m wide. This means that only an estimated one-quarter of the graves were investigated. No pits filled with STK settlement refuse have been discovered in the area of the cemetery, which means that it was situated outside the residential zone. Because the studies conducted to date have only focused on pottery finds and a portion of the stone tool finds from the cemetery, we lack important anthropological information regarding the age and gender

groups of the individuals buried there. We know at present that the grave goods in the individual graves differed in terms of the numbers of vessels, and that stone tools were only deposited in some graves. We can, therefore, presume that both men and women were buried at the cemetery (cf. Chapter 8).

Fig. 9.6 The rondel settlement of Horoměřice-Chotol (CZ) with STK pits marked in black and a cemetery zone marked in grey. The storage pits are denoted with numbers. Author J. Řídký.

The results of analyses carried out so far suggest two possible interpretations. According to a previously published typo-chronological analysis of the shapes and decoration of pottery, the graves at the cemetery might be somewhat later than the rondel located about 100 m

away (Řídký et al. 2012c). However, this interpretation is based on the theoretical assumption that the same vessel shapes and decoration were used at the settlements and as grave goods during the STK, and that the differences in the shape and decoration of the vessels can simply be explained by chronological asynchrony. However, at present this cannot be corroborated by any strong arguments such as absolute dating of samples of the pit fills and of the human bones. We cannot, therefore, discount a second theory that the burials (or at least some of them) might have been deposited while the rondel was extant. In theory then, this single confirmed cemetery in the microregion might have included burials of selected individuals from several settlements in the same microregion, but might equally have been exclusively for the inhabitants of this particular settlement, which is exceptional due to the presence of the rondel. Without data regarding the age and gender groups, unfortunately, we cannot advance our deliberation further. As we have seen, pits of different shapes and dimensions are a common feature of Neolithic sites all over Central Europe (see Chapter 8). In this particular microregion, however, the archaeological records from the LBK and STK periods are strikingly different (Řídký et al. 2012c). While numerous longhouse layouts are known from the LBK, these structures are almost absent from the subsequent STK. However, the opposite is true of oval storage pits with pear-like or concave cross-sections, which are known in large numbers in the STK period (both early and late STK) but only as several isolated cases in the LBK period. Let us have closer a look at four better explored settlements within the microregion. As we have stated, Horoměřice-Chotol is a rondel settlement which includes a communal cemetery, whereas Kněžívka, Černý Vůl and Roztoky are ordinary open flat settlements located 2–5 km away. Pits of various shapes and dimensions are documented at all four settlements, including pear shaped or conical storage pits with a similar maximum length of 1–2.5 m and preserved depths of 0.5–1 m (Fig. 9.7 and Fig. 9.8). At present, we are interested in whether the three ordinary open flat settlements differ in fundamental ways from Horoměřice-Chotol, apart from the fact that they lack rondels and the cemeteries. From the outset we can rule out differences in the continuity of occupation from the “prerondel” phase of the early STK to the “rondel” phase of the late STK, because, except for Černý Vůl, such continuity has been confirmed for both types of settlements under study. The two types of settlements do not differ in the occurrence of the remains of residential buildings, either: apart from one more complex longhouse ground plan at the Roztoky site (Fig. 9.8) and traces of a north wall at the Kněžívka site (Fig. 9.7), no clearer evidence of house structures or locations has been documented for the late STK anywhere within the microregion. It is likely, therefore, that late STK houses were light structures that have not survived in the archaeological record. The microregion has been very well examined in the past thanks to systematic heritage protection measures and field prospection, which have revealed that some sites in the eastern half of the region are situated only 1–2 km from each other. In view of such a high density of late STK sites, we cannot, as in the case of the previous microregion, rule out the possibility that there were only a few larger agglomerations, each incorporating several sites and

exceeding 10 ha in area. However, Horoměřice-Chotol does not fundamentally differ from the other three agglomerations in spatial extent, either. Likewise, the rondel settlement is not distinguished by its location within the microregion, as it lies at approximately the same altitude as the ordinary flat settlements. Apart from the rondel and the cemetery, the same types of pits, including storage pits, occur at Horoměřice-Chotol and at all ordinary flat settlements. Unfortunately, it is impossible to carry out a better comparison of the distribution of the storage pits or of pits of various dimensions, because past investigation of the rondel settlement has been restricted to several unconnected areas, and photographic and graphic records are often lacking (Fig. 9.6). Let us now have a look at the occurrence of certain artefacts and biofacts that will provide us with a more focused image of this microregion. We are interested in the occurrence of the shapes and decoration of pottery vessels, the occurrence of “exotic” tool materials and the composition of animal bone assemblages. As we have stated above, the determination ratio of STK pottery shapes in fragmentary settlement material is low, ranging from 10 to 20 %. This is true also of this microregion. Nonetheless, we can state that the basic pottery vessel shapes typical of the late STK have been documented at both types of settlements (Řídký et al. 2012c). The rondel settlement does not differ in the proportion of coarse ware present, and the ratio of decorated to undecorated re-fits is not conspicuous either (Tab. 9.2). The fragmentation of vessels counted by dividing the number of pottery fragments by the number of re-fits (individual vessels) is also similar. Statistical comparison of the settlements is not significant because the individual assemblages differ greatly in the number of re-fits found. The most noticeable difference between the settlements is the occurrence of different proportions of the main techniques of stroke ornament (Tab. 9.3) – wide double-stroke prevails at Horoměřice-Chotol and Černý Vůl, triple-stroke at Roztoky and so-called multistroke at Kněžívka. The fact that we have limited knowledge of the exchange/ trade systems of the period makes it difficult to interpret this discovery; several possible explanations can be offered. Apart from simple chronological explanations, there is the possibility that the dominance of certain techniques of decoration at particular settlements may reflect a form of group identity.

Fig. 9.7 The Kněžívka settlement (CZ) during the early and late STK. Pits dated to the given phase are marked in black, less accurately dated STK pits in grey. The storage pits are denoted with numbers. Author J. Řídký.

Fig. 9.8 The Roztoky settlement (CZ) during the early and late STK. The pits dated to the given phase are marked in black. The storage pits are denoted with numbers. Adapted by J. Řídký after Rulf 1991.

The final production of stone tools using chipping and polishing techniques has been documented at both types of settlements (Horoměřice-Chotol, Černý Vůl, Roztoky). Like in the previous microregion, however, it does not seem to exceed local consumption. We also draw attention to the occurrence of “exotic” artefacts made of materials from distant sources. For this microregion, Bavarian chert from the SOB region (300 km to the southwest in a direct line) and quartz porphyry from northwest Bohemia (50 km in a direct line) are regarded as imported materials. Larger amounts of Bavarian chert have only been recorded at the flat settlements in Roztoky and Černý Vůl. Sporadic finds of material for the production of grinding tools mined in northwest Bohemia also come from Černý Vůl and Roztoky (Řídký et al. 2014b). Surprisingly, no tools made of these two materials have been documented from the rondel settlement of Horoměřice-Chotol, or from the associated cemetery (Řídký et al. 2012c and D. Stolz pers. comm. 2012). Archaeozoological analyses provide us with further detail regarding this microregion. Researchers have been unable to identify dedicated butchering areas at any of the settlements within the microregion, including the rondel settlement. Furthermore, wild animal bones are found to make up a relatively small proportion (up to 10 %) of the bone assemblages (Řídký et al. 2012c). Another common feature is the frequent occurrence of anatomical parts that would typically be regarded as refuse. At the same time, however, we can point out some differences in the species representation and age of domesticated animals. At Horoměřice-Chotol, for instance, cattle prevail over sheep/goat and pig, comprising almost 80 % of the total. At Kněžívka, cattle remains once more predominate (making up almost 80 % of the assemblage), followed by pig bones and, less frequently, sheep/goat bones. At Kněžívka it is interesting that neither the representation of the individual species nor their age (cattle 1–10 years, pig 0.5–2 years, sheep/goat up to 3 years) changed significantly in the period from the LBK up to the late STK. Cattle bones prevail (almost 70 %) at Roztoky, like at Kněžívka and Horoměřice-Chotol, but the share of sheep/goat and pig bones is roughly balanced during the late STK. However, the age of the cattle did not exceed 2 years at Roztoky (Peške 1991). However, the situation is completely different at Černý Vůl. While cattle and pig bones predominate over sheep/goat bones in LBK pits at this settlement, the bones of goats and particularly sheep (almost 60 % together) prevail over cattle and pig bones in late STK pit fills. The most frequent slaughter age is up to 4 years for cattle, 2 months to more than 6 years for sheep/goats and 5 months to 2 years for pigs. Before we move on to the next microregion, let us have a closer look at the rondel settlement of Horoměřice-Chotol (Tab. 9.4 and Tab. 9.5). Like the Vchynice site before it, we have divided it into several zones (Fig. 9.6) for the purposes of this study: the rondel zone (ditch + all pits inside the rondel and up to 5 m on the outer side of the ditch); the settlement zone (all other settlement pits); and the cemetery zone (grave goods at the burial site). The settlement zone and the rondel zone have similar proportions of coarse ware, but the share of decorated re-fits is much higher in the rondel zone. In contrast, the rate of fragmentation of vessels is somewhat lower in the rondel zone. We know from earlier

publications that there is a higher representation of determinable shapes (almost 20 %) in the rondel zone and that certain vessels in this zone are at least 50 % complete; this pattern does not occur in the settlement zone (Řídký 2011). Of particular note, however, is the similarity between the shares of the decorative techniques in the cemetery zone and the rondel zone. We believe that the occurrence of similar vessel shapes and types of decoration in the rondel and settlement zones can be explained by their having a similar purpose in the two areas – i.e. use in ritual activities. Unfortunately, we cannot compare other artefacts and biofacts between the zones, because, as we have stated elsewhere in Chapter 6, the fills of the largest pits (including the rondel ditch) contained a considerable amount of Linear Pottery culture pottery. It was, therefore, not possible to identify the precise periods of the Neolithic to which the stone tools belonged; animal bones were not analysed for these reasons, and no samples were taken for radiocarbon dating. Let us now move 60 km further to the east of central Bohemia, where it has been possible to carry out much more detailed analyses than those undertaken in the microregions discussed above. Left bank of the River Labe in central Bohemia This microregion is delimited by the River Labe in the north; the number of Neolithic finds gradually decreases towards the west, east and south. Both the length and the width of the microregion can be estimated at about 10 km. Within this area about thirty Neolithic sites have been recognised to date (Fig. 9.9). Although a detailed verification of the dating of the Neolithic sites has not been carried out here, at least the transformation of the settlement patterns from the LBK to the STK can be compared rather well (e.g. Končelová 2013). In contrast to the previous microregions, the construction of a bypass around the presentday town of Kolín has offered researchers a unique opportunity to examine an 8 km strip (constituting an area of almost 40 ha) through the landscape (Šumberová et al. 2010; 2012). Seven Neolithic sites, four of them datable to the STK period, have been uncovered during rescue excavation within this “sounding of the landscape” (see also Fig. 4.3: A in Chapter 4).

Fig. 9.9 The left bank of the River Labe in central Bohemia. LBK settlements are marked with crosses, STK settlements with full circles. A thick line marks the locations of the excavations within the corridor of the bypass of the present-day town of Kolín. Names are only given for settlements referred to in the text. The numbers correspond to the numbers attributed to the rondels in Tab. 4.1.in Chapter 4. Author M. Končelová.

This provides us with an excellent opportunity to compare, for instance, two STK sites with evidence of rondels situated a mere 5 km apart (Kolín I, Kolín VII sites), a site with evidence of a large oval ditched enclosure (Kolín VIII site) and an “ordinary” open flat settlement without any evidence of enclosures (Kolín III site) located 1 km from a rondel site (Kolín I site). Although the extensive excavations carried out in 2008–2009 have not been comprehensively analysed yet, we can at least compare the basic figures for the occurrence of certain features and artefacts (Dufek 2014; Vašinová 2015; Dufek et al. 2016; Stolz and Malyková 2017; Stolz et al. 2018). In the case of the Kolín I site, which we have briefly described in Chapter 5, we will now be able to provide much more detailed information. Although a somewhat greater spread of LBK sites has also been observed in this region, we nonetheless get the impression of rather unchanging continual occupation until the late STK. As in the previous examples, some STK sites are situated less than 1 km from each other, which means that it is probable that we are again dealing with extensive STK agglomerations in this microregion. Two such agglomerations, including rondels, have been detected about 5 km apart within

the above-mentioned “sounding of the landscape” (Fig. 9.9). The first of these is the complex composed by the Kolín VIII site and the Kolín VII site, and includes the rondel known as Kolín 3 (a simple rondel with four entrances of type 12; see Chapter 6). Due to the short distance separating them, we will group the two sites together and refer to them as rondel settlement No. 1. The immediately adjacent Kolín III and Kolín I sites are situated further to the northwest, along with the rondels known as Kolín 2 (a simple rondel with four entrances of type 12; see Chapter 6) and Kolín 1 (a four-ditched “megarondel” with four entrances of type 43; see Chapter 6). We will refer to the agglomeration composed of these two sites as rondel settlement No. 2.

Fig. 9.10 The Kolín VIII site (CZ) with a ditched enclosure (Kolín 4) with pits dated to the early STK marked in grey. The pits dated to the late STK are marked in black. Adapted by M. Končelová after Dufek 2014 and Dufek et al. 2016.

Rondel settlement No. 1 has been excavated over a total area of 8.3 ha; altogether 151 pits datable to the STK have been found, as well as pits from the LBK, Eneolithic, Bronze

Age, Iron Age and Roman periods. Moreover, a larger oval enclosure (denoted Kolín 4 in the literature; e.g. Šumberová et al. 2010) has been identified in the eastern part of the excavation, and a classic rondel (Kolín 3) 700 m further to the west. According to J. Dufek (Dufek et al. 2016; Dufek 2014), the new early STK settlement that was established on the site of the original LBK settlement was initially protected by a Vshaped ditch (Kolín 4; Fig. 9.10). Based on field observations, this ditched oval enclosure, with a maximum diameter of up to 250 m, a maximum width of around 2 m and a depth of up to 1.5 m and having at least two entrances, was dug in sections of various lengths. At least ten early STK pits (four of them storage pits) have been uncovered within the area delimited by the ditch. The fills of six pits included finds of sherds that can be attributed to the so-called proto-LGK phase (a total of 23 fragments) typical of the territory denoted as the LGK region, whereas other sherds bear decoration characteristic of the SOB region or the Großgartach culture (Dufek et al. 2016, 943–944). Apart from cherts from glacigenic sediments, which predominated as the material used for chipped artefacts, several “exotic” raw materials have also been documented: Bavarian chert from the territory of the SOB region (c. 300 km to the west); surprisingly, Krumlovský les chert from the territory of the MOG region (150 km to the east); Cracow cherts from as far away as the territory of the Samborzez-Opatow-Malice group (400 km to the northeast); and radiolarite from the LGK region (250 km to the east). Dufek is of the opinion that the ditched enclosure was never completed and that the occupation later shifted 700 m to the west, where a rondel was built. Occasional early STK pits and more numerous late STK pits have once again been identified in the vicinity of this rondel (Kolín 3; Fig. 9.11; 65 in total; Vašinová 2015). They included large clay pits, small pits of irregular shape and at least six storage pits. An important detail is that, in at least two instances, STK pits disturbed the rondel ditch, which means that it must already have been infilled by this point in the STK. It is also worth mentioning that a number of pits have also been detected inside the area delimited by the ditch and the trench. M. Vašinová analysed ceramic finds from 32 pits from the immediate vicinity of the rondel (up to c. 5 m from the edge of the ditch) and from inside the rondel itself in her final thesis; she states that triple-stroke, wide double-stroke and the so-called multi-stroke motifs comprise the greatest part of the decoration. Another interesting finding by the author is that the share of re-fits decorated with some form of stroked ornament technique does not exceed 30 %. This is much less than in the previous cases of rondels (and the particular rondel zones) at Vchynice and Horoměřice-Chotol (Tab. 9.2 and Tab. 9.3). Three pottery artefacts (sherds and spoon) typical of the MOG region have also been documented in this area. As regards stone artefacts from within the rondel, sporadic occurrences of cores as well as of semi-finished products, finished tools and production waste, have been recorded; however, once again, we cannot speak in terms of mass production of stone tools. Common polished stone artefacts, including drilled artefacts, have also been found, as well as waste material associated with their final production. Yet again there was no evidence for mass production that might indicate that this rondel settlement had a special status within the region.

Cherts from glacigenic sediments make up about half of the artefacts found, but “exotic” Bavarian chert (Abensberg-Arnhofen type) also occurs frequently near the rondel, and Cracow chert and Carpathian obsidian, which was mined as far away as the Theiss-HerpályCsöszhalom cultures (700 km to the east), have also been identified. We must add that no remains of residential features, either from the early STK or from the late STK, have been documented in the area of rondel settlement No. 1. Let us now move 5 km to the northwest to rondel settlement No. 2. Here LBK, early STK and late STK occupation have been documented within an excavated area of 5.6 ha (Fig. 9.12). Neolithic pits have been disturbed by features from the Eneolithic period, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. At least nine pits have been identified from the early STK phase, including no less than three storage pits. In contrast to the previous rondel settlement, two longhouse plans have been documented at a distance of 30 m from each other. All three storage pits were revealed in an area 20 m from the longhouses, therefore, not in their immediate vicinity. As for other finds from the early STK, no “exotic” lithic materials or sherds with “exotic” decoration have been recorded on the site. The final stage of lithic production is attested only in the case of chipped tools, the evidence consisting once again of sporadic finds. The composition of the animal bone assemblage, as determined by Kovačiková, basically follows the usual pattern – a very small proportion of wild game and a predominance of cattle bones, followed by sheep/goat and pig. Occupation continued in the same area in the late STK, but to a much greater spatial, quantitative and qualitative extent (Fig. 9.12): we note the construction of two rondels (Kolín 1 and Kolín 2), situated 50 m apart, and also the presence of other structures listed below. Eight longhouses from the late STK have been documented in the area; five of them appear to be arranged in three rows, about 35 m apart (and about 50 m from the Kolín 1 rondel; Končelová 2013). Two longhouses are quite certainly non-contemporaneous with the rondels, which means that the late STK occupation was present both before the construction of the rondels and after their demise. The repeated construction of one of the longhouses on the same spot from the early STK to the late STK is unique in the Central European context (Fig. 9.12). The ground plans are not exceptional, either in terms of the structure or size. No residential features have been detected in the area of Kolín III in the same rondel settlement (Fig. 9.13), even though the imprints of structural elements of larger structures have been preserved in daub fragments (Stolz and Malyková 2017). In total, at least a hundred pits have been documented for the whole rondel settlement No. 2 in the late STK period. The pits were scattered between the longhouses and sometimes also between the rondels. Distinctive clusters of larger pits can be observed at the edges of both rondels. Larger clay pits tend to be concentrated towards the western boundary of the studied area. An interesting distribution pattern is exhibited by storage pits with a maximum length of 2–3.5 m and depth of 1.5 m (Fig. 9.12). While some late STK storage pits are restricted to the

internal area of the longhouses or to the area near their outer walls (usually 1–3 cases), a concentration of storage pits has been documented in the inner area of the rondel known as Kolín 2. This mirrors the archaeological record for the Kolín 3 rondel, situated within the territory of rondel settlement No. 1, where several storage pits have also been recorded inside the rondel. At least one identical storage pit has also been identified on the very edge of rondel settlement No. 2, in the part denoted as the Kolín III site (Stolz and Malyková 2017; Stolz et al. 2018). We will now turn our attention to certain artefacts. A rather high proportion of coarse ware and a lower number of decorated re-fits compared to the previous rondel settlements in Vchynice and Horoměřice-Chotol are characteristic of rondel settlement No. 2 (Tab. 9.2). The proportions of various stroked ornament techniques do not differ significantly between rondel settlements Nos. 1 and 2 (Tab. 9.3).

Fig. 9.11 The Kolín VII site (CZ) with the rondel (Kolín 3) and the late STK pits marked in black. The pits dated to the STK are marked in grey. The analysed storage pits are denoted with numbers. Adapted by M. Končelová after Vašinová 2015.

Fig. 9.12 The Kolín I site (CZ) with rondels Kolín 1 and Kolín 2 during the early STK and the late STK. The storage pits are denoted with numbers. Author M. Končelová.

Fig. 9.13 Kolín III site (CZ) during the late STK. Pits dated to the STK are marked in black, early STK features are not present. The storage pits are denoted with numbers. Adapted by M. Končelová after Stolz and Malyková 2017.

The range of polished stone artefacts is the same as that recorded in the previous settlements; it includes isolated finds attesting to the final shaping of polished stone tools. Re-utilisation of tools was often observed. The chipped stone artefacts and assemblages of

grinding tools also indicate only sporadic production of tools. “Exotic” materials found in rondel settlement No. 2 include isolated finds of Bavarian chert from the SOB region and Carpathian obsidian, mined as far away as the territory of the Theiss-Herpály-Csöszhalom cultures. The quartz porphyry material used for the production of grinding tools belongs to the same group. It comes either from the vicinity of the Vchynice rondel settlement situated in the first microregion (100 km away), or from the north of Bohemia (also 100 km away). According to Stolz (Stolz et al. 2018), the copious quantities of Krumlovský les chert (from the MOG region, 150 km to the east; see Fig. 3.2 in Chapter 3) found at the Kolín III site is surprising; its presence has not been confirmed among the raw materials in the area of Kolín I. Bone tools for the decoration of pottery vessels have also been found. According to the as yet unpublished results of archaeozoological analyses conducted by Kovačiková (pers. comm. 2016), it has been possible to analyse less than one-third of the preserved animal bones from this late STK settlement; these biofacts prevailed in pits of various sizes and various primary functions. A specific butchering area has not been identified. The bones of wild animals comprise only about 4 % of the assemblage. The bones of domesticated animals are dominated by the bones of cattle of various ages (from three months to three years), followed by sheep, goat and lastly pig. A preference for sheep evident in this assemblage might, according to Kovačiková, indicate that the local conditions were suitable for grazing animals. It is worth noting that the conclusions of the archaeozoological analysis are identical for the early STK and the late STK. Let us now look at the pottery artefacts from the individual zones of rondel settlement No. 2. As we can see in the tables, it is difficult to compare the proportions of coarse ware or decorated re-fits, because the zones differ as regards the representation of re-fits (Tab. 9.4 and Tab. 9.5). Pottery evidence, stratigraphic relations and even radiocarbon dating have not allowed us to state with certainty whether the storage pits inside the Kolín 2 rondel are contemporary with the rondel or not. Unfortunately, neither do we know whether any structures were situated inside the Kolín 1 rondel because its central area was destroyed during earlier construction works. Let us presume that the dozen storage pits inside Kolín 2 are contemporary with the rondel (Fig. 9.12). In that case, we can conclude that the two rondel zones exhibit striking differences in the shares of coarse ware and of decorated re-fits. There are certain differences also in the representation of the main techniques of stroked ornament. The situation in the rondel 1 zone is more similar to the settlement zone. We can make some general observations regarding the incidence of stone artefacts. An accumulation of polished artefacts and chipped stone artefacts in the fills of certain storage pits is noticeable in the rondel 2 zone, for example. It is interesting that the part of rondel settlement No. 2 with the longhouses is the source of few chipped stone artefacts compared to the previous rondel settlement, and the opposite is true for animal bones – many more come precisely from the settlement zone. It has further been discovered that the rondel zones contain no grinding tool production waste (flakes), nor have any complete tools been found, only fragments. Intentional destruction of grinding tools can be documented in at least five

cases based on traces of impacts. However, these finds come from both the settlement zone and the rondel zones alike. We can also add a higher incidence of cattle bones in the rondel zones, similar to the situation described above for Vchynice. As bone preservation is much better in this case, however, we can rule out the influence of natural agents and we can thus envisage different activities in the area of the rondels. Brief summary and additional information In conclusion, we are in a position to add some new information to that presented in the previous chapter dealing with rondel regions: − For all selected microregions in the Bohemian part of the Czech Republic, we can observe a similar tendency for sites to cluster into larger agglomerations during the late STK. − Archaeozoological analyses highlight differences in the proportions of domesticated animal bones between the LBK and the STK, whereas the make up of the bone assemblage in the fills of early STK and late STK pits is identical, with no indication of radical change – we can thus speak of uninterrupted continuity in this case. − The internal organisation of microregions separated by significant distances are very similar. In most cases, only one site with a simple ditched rondel occurs during the late STK. In the microregion denoted as rondel settlement No. 2, near present-day Kolín (microregion D in Fig. 9.3), a second exceptionally large rondel, with more ditches and differently oriented entrances, was built. Two rondels were also built near Bylany in microregion A; these had approximately the same maximum diameter but had a different number of entrances. − In two cases (Bylany 4-Miskovice sites and Horoměřice-Chotol site) an extensive communal cemetery has been identified outside the residential area. These cemeteries may have served a larger agglomeration or may have been for the exclusive use of people from the neighbourhood of the rondel. − In general, rondel settlements do not differ from “ordinary” flat settlements in terms of continual occupation, location within the landscape or size (even if we count several sites within a 5 km range as a single agglomeration). − Apart from rondels and cemeteries, the same kinds of pits – above all storage pits and clay pits – occur at all types of settlements. Rondel settlements do not differ in any aspects. − The same applies to the distribution of “exotic” items – they occur everywhere, in various parts of the settlements and are made from materials whose sources lay in various rondel regions. Widely distributed but in low numbers, these “exotic” items create the impression of an equal distribution regardless of the type of settlement. − It has not been possible to identify specialised activity areas, e.g. for butchering animals, final lithic production or decoration of vessels. All we can confirm is that we have evidence for their presence. They occur at both major types of settlements – either with or

without a rondel. − Differences emerge between the microregions in terms of the incidences of some basic techniques of decoration, but, on the basis of present knowledge, the basic shapes of vessels and their relative frequencies are more or less similar at both types of settlements. − It has not been possible to locate any settlements with concentrations of distinct or exclusive types of storage facilities. Both types of settlements reveal the same types and sizes of storage pits. − An oval ditched enclosure, with a V-shaped cross section, which has been dated to the early STK, occurs in microregion D, while later, during the late STK, only rondels are documented in this microregion. To make the situation more complicated, it seems likely that the internal spatial organisation of settlements was slightly different in other parts of Bohemia. For example, several lines of longhouses have been documented at the Jaroměř and Příšovice sites in northern and eastern Bohemia (e.g. Brestovanský 2011; Burgert 2015; 2017). Moreover, large oval or square pits, which are unknown in the central or other parts of Bohemia and which may have acted as workshops or storage places, have been identified near some houses. Rather smaller groups of houses, arranged haphazardly, are documented elsewhere (Pleinerová 1984; Lička 1989; Beneš et al. 2016). Since the methodologies used for large-scale rescue excavations are similar throughout Bohemia, the absence of longhouses does not seem to be the consequence of excessive top soil stripping or an oversight on the part of the excavators. Instead, we must consider the possibility that some buildings or residential structures may not have left visible traces in the archaeological record. At the same time, however, it might indicate the existence of groups of people who organised their living space in different ways. The archaeological culture package may thus conceal a number of socio-political or religious relationships that, to the archaeologist, merge into a single image of the material culture. Let us now discuss all of the results with a view to what light they can throw on the issue of social complexity.

10 Big Men or Chiefs? The limits of archaeological sources Jaroslav Řídký and Petr Květina

Architecture of power? Whenever archaeologists focus on the social and power strategies of so-called archaic, preliterate or pre-state societies, they almost invariably come to the conclusion that while “longue durée” processes (classic work: Braudel 1972), i.e. long-term trends in a larger area, can be revealed to a considerable extent, the interpretation of a chronologically narrower archaeological record within smaller geographical regions is very difficult and fraught with contradictions (e.g. Gronenborn 2016; Kristiansen and Earle 2015; Siklósi 2013). As we have stated in earlier chapters, these problems are caused both by the Central European climatic and environmental conditions, which are not conducive to the preservation of organic artefacts and biofacts, and by the still patchy nature of the archaeological record, which is often distorted by site-formation processes. In this work we have attempted to gain a detailed understanding of a single, relatively short time period, a “mere” 150 years, in Central Europe. In this last chapter, we are going to present our interpretation models. Several times in this work, we have mentioned the question of whether the Neolithic society that built rondels was still egalitarian, or whether it already bore signs of a more clearly defined vertical social hierarchy. In the former case, the principal actors in the communities of that time, and probably also the initiators of the construction of rondels, would have been what are termed Big Men. In the latter case, the society would have been headed by Chiefs endowed with both secular and sacral power that entitled them to organise the construction of monumental circular structures. We have also repeatedly seen that both types of leaders (the Chiefs much more so, however) are manifested archaeologically – in a model manner – by typical attributes of the material culture (see Tab. 2.1 in Chapter 2). Let us sum up the most important findings from the archaeological record. What did rondels look like and what kind of structures were they? In view of the abovementioned climatic and environmental conditions, the archaeological record provides rather fragmentary information regarding the circular wooden structures that were originally such an important element of rondels; the timbers making up these structures were set within foundation trenches or postholes which, except for occasional exceptions, were situated inside the area delimited by the main V-shaped (inner) ditch. Researchers concur that the height of the wooden posts above the ground surface would have exceeded the height of a

man. These wooden structures therefore acted as visual and – as verified by recently constructed rondel replicas – also as acoustic barriers. Their construction (felling of trees, transport, and erection of posts) required advance planning and a well-organised collective labour force. Of course, the precise appearance of the wooden structures remains a matter of conjecture, and probably always will. In our opinion, however, in a departure from the prevailing image of simple palisade walls (apparently under the influence of famous British henges), they might have taken the form of more complex structures, which may have been roofed and plastered and whose construction would have involved a variety of carpentry techniques. The digging of the ditch was also the result of well-organised collective labour; experimental ditch digging has, however, revealed that this activity might not have required as much time as was originally thought, especially for the most common ditches with maximum diameters of up to 70 m (and a width and depth of up to 3 m). The time required to dig them clearly depended on the number of labourers, their organisation and, of course, motivation. Our comparison sample of rondels shows that the original dimensions of the entire rondel complex, consisting of the inner wooden structure and probably a single ditch, were related to the number of the generally symmetrically positioned entrances in the ditch, which – apart from a number of exceptions – respected the entrances into the centre of the inner wooden structure. It is also likely that a bank was built along one of the edges of the ditch (most probably the outer edge) using material accumulated during the digging of the ditch. Even though radiocarbon dating of samples has not shown (or cannot show) different dates for the individual ditches within a single structure, it is likely that the second ditch and, where applicable, the third and the fourth ditches, were added later. Evidence from a number of unfinished structures seems to corroborate this sequence of events. Our comparison sample indicates (see e.g. Fig. 6.31 in Chapter 6) that rondels with two entrances are usually the smallest (up to 30–60 m), three-entranced rondels are somewhat larger (up to 60–70 m), and four-entranced examples are usually the largest (up to 150 m). The smallest two-entranced rondels very often accompany other rondels which tend to be much larger and more complex. At the same time, we need to point out that as rondels with four entrances are the most variable in size, they can be found in all size groups. The same size groups of four-entranced rondels have been found in all rondel regions in the territories of several archaeological cultures. Other rules, widely respected throughout the territory where rondels occur, concern the cleaning out or even deepening of ditches, particularly the inner (main) ditch, and also a gradual extension of the original circular structure by digging more V-shaped ditches at intervals of several metres. The maximum number of recorded ditches never exceeds four for a single rondel. According to the current state of evidence from a wide area stretching from present-day Germany to Slovakia, four ditches only occur in the case of rondels where the original diameter of the inner main ditch was not less than c. 70 m. Given our discovery that radiocarbon dating of samples from ditch fills cannot reliably

determine which rondel is earlier and which later, not even within a single settlement, we can work with the theoretical assumption that rondels of various shapes and sizes were built and used concurrently. We can, therefore, state that they might have been used concurrently by various individuals or groups for different activities or purposes. The radiocarbon dates gathered so far do not a priori confirm that the earliest rondels are those found in Transdanubia in present-day west Hungary and Lower Austria (middle Danubia), as is mostly presumed. The radiocarbon date sample we have gathered implies that the ditches of rondels in the western complex mostly started to be filled before 4800 BC, while in the eastern complex it was more likely somewhat later. Presuming that the rondels were regularly maintained – by preventing the infilling of their ditches by ordinary settlement refuse – during the period of their primary function, we can state that this original function came to an end earlier in the western complex. This does not necessarily mean that structures in the eastern complex are later than those in the western complex. The question of the origin of rondels thus remains open. What can be confirmed by radiocarbon dates, however, is that the construction of these unified circular structures took place in a relatively narrow time horizon, c. 4850–4700 cal BC, within a territory of approximately 800,000 square kilometres stretching from presentday Germany to western Hungary. Furthermore, we can infer from radiocarbon dates that various types of rondels – with different numbers of entrances, of different sizes and with different numbers of ditches – are not the result of a simple typo-morphological development from simpler shapes to more complex ones, but that two (or more) rondels, which were quite different in both shape and size, could have existed at a distance of only a few tens of metres from each other. As rondel settlements occur a mere 5–10 km apart in better explored rondel regions (see Fig. 6.1 for instance) and since similar types of rondels repeat themselves in culturally delimited areas (rondel regions), we can suggest that these settlements were of particular importance and that rondels were intended for some generally understood purpose, which was known in advance and perfectly clear to the inhabitants of the surrounding settlements. Even so, the above-mentioned recurrent rules of construction indicate that the new cultural element was artificially imported to most rondel regions from the outside; we deem this scenario more likely than the theory that rondels were developed independently by various European societies over a very extensive territory. After almost five decades of intensive research and dozens of archaeological excavations, it turns out, unfortunately, that the function of rondels cannot be simply interpreted using the archaeological finds preserved either in the area of the rondel proper (in the ditch fills) or in its immediate vicinity. While some finds from some sites may suggest that “special” activities took place in the area of rondels (Těšetice-Kyjovice, Kolín 1, Kolín 2, Vchynice), activities that differed from those exercised in the surrounding settlement and microregion, at other sites the archaeological record is so blurred by the site-formation processes that no clear conclusions can be reached. We believe, however, that the characteristics listed in our previous summary, including the recurring use of particular sites, the regularity of the

entrances, the length of time required for their construction and the need to organize large numbers of workers, can be regarded as evidence that rondels were circular shrines or temples serving religious purposes; faith and religion are most often the “driving forces” behind the construction of monumental structures. From a first glance at the local archaeological records, all of the rondel regions under study could be described (with a slight exaggeration) as completely different worlds. They differ in terms of the types of residential buildings constructed, in their burial customs and in the evidence they yield regarding storage activities. On the other hand, aspects they have in common, apart from rondels, include the following: the circulation of “exotic” items – from all possible directions and from (and into) all rondel regions; the grouping of settlements into larger agglomerations; the occurrence of large quantities of elaborately decorated pottery vessels in a recurring wide range of shapes during this period; and, finally, the lack of information regarding how most of the population were buried in the first half of the fifth millennium BC. An interesting fact is that we often detect some burial activities from the area or the immediate vicinity of rondels, regardless of the archaeological culture. In the case of the STK region, moreover, we are fortunate to have evidence of larger communal cemeteries; in certain better examined cases these are found to be situated close to rondel settlements. Leaving rondels aside for a moment, certain other signs of ranking can be perceived for all rondel regions and for the neighbouring Great Hungarian Plain from which Carpathian obsidian was imported. They include the specific siting of certain buildings in the settlement layouts, sometimes built repeatedly in the same place, burials of children of both genders accompanied by exceptional grave goods, the location and generally the occurrence of burials (they are almost lacking in the MOG region) or the evidence of several different burial rites (e.g., cremation and inhumation in the STK region). In the following section we will outline our own interpretation “narrative” for rondels. Towards the end of the sixth millennium BC, we can distinguish various groups within the Linear Pottery culture of Central Europe: these can be differentiated, for example, on the basis of preferred decoration of ceramic vessels and the sources of lithic raw materials exploited (e.g. Rulf 1997; Bickle and Whittle 2013). The significance of these groups is an open question, but we cannot rule out the possibility that they already reflected the sociopolitical (or ethnic?) activities within a certain territory (e.g. Gronenborn 2016). It appears that defensive ditched enclosures surrounding settlements, or some portion thereof, occur throughout the territory of the Linear Pottery culture (Keeley 1996; Meyer and RaetzelFabian 2006). These enclosures do not have a standard layout but they often feature ditches with V-shaped cross sections accompanied by inner trenches. They are known from an area stretching from present-day France and Belgium as far as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia. Differences related above all to gender and age can be detected in the burial rite. No other social or power stratification is perceptible in the burial evidence, nor is the presence of individual elites (conspicuous rich burials) attested by other types of archaeological sources. Similar groups of artefacts and the evidence for defensive enclosures are still recorded in

the early STK (Kolín 4 enclosure at the Kolín VIII site), early MOG (Vedrovice site in the Czech Republic) or proto-LGK (Sormás in Hungary for instance). Similar items circulate, made of raw materials already known from the previous period. On the other hand, regional differences in pottery decoration, house construction and in the burial rite become more pronounced. Sometime around 4900–4800 BC, however, a new impulse appears – at the moment we do not know where it originated – spreading across various geographically dispersed archaeological cultures and groups. In the archaeological record its most distinctive expression is the large-scale construction of several types of rondels intended for various (social, political) groups. True central rondel settlements can perhaps be identified in cases where rondels have more than two ditches. In particular, rondels with four ditches, often of gigantic dimensions, literally stand out from the corpus of “ordinary rondels.” Let us now focus more on the theoretical connotations stemming from cultural (social) anthropology. Anthropological inspirations Let us briefly repeat several initial interpretative preconditions connected with the Central European Neolithic and, more generally, with a society based on agriculture for its subsistence. Agricultural societies consisted of communities who resided in settlements comprising longhouses. The internal arrangement of the settlements becomes more complex as the Early Neolithic progresses towards the Late Neolithic. This can be interpreted as an integration shift from longhouse communities towards village communities (e.g. Končelová and Květina 2015; Květina and Řídký 2016, 142). This element of change, clearly visible in the archaeological sources, is, together with other signs, interpreted as evidence of an increase in the internal organisation of communities, which was accompanied by changes in social hierarchy and integration. In practice, this means the transition from segmentary groups, with an identity and integration limited by the area of the longhouse (or several longhouses), to larger communities (Fig. 10.1). In order to answer questions concerning the new bonds of solidarity, we must leave the field of pure archaeology and turn to anthropological models. Such models regard kinship bonds, which exceed the level of biological relationships and include the sphere of mythologically defined kinship, as most likely to have existed at the time. This is primarily connected with the existence of clans. Clans did not exist alone, however, but were part of a wider whole described as pan-tribal sodalities or segmentary tribal societies. Apart from clans, the bonds within a tribal system included age-grade associations, secret societies and other specific associations for a special-purpose such as warfare, ceremonial activities or healing activities (Service 1966). From this perspective, these wider intersocietal networks constituted the sociocultural foundations of “tribes”; they were real social relationships and perhaps as socially significant as the lineages, villages, camps, ritual societies, and other groups that composed the basic corporate structure of tribal societies.

Fig. 10.1 Conspicuous innovations in material culture in the first half of the fifth millennium BC depicted together with notional changes in socio-political complexity and climate changes. Created by P. Květina after Gronenborn 2009; Končelová and Květina 2015.

The relationships existing among the clans within the framework of one united segmentary tribe, and similarly the relations between the chains of clans of several tribes, are difficult to explain. Firstly, they form neither a political nor a strictly economic whole; secondly, this system is typical only of archaic societies and, therefore, may lack analogies today. The individual clans and, at a higher level of integration, the various tribes shared joint cultural features that stimulated mutual interaction at the social, economic and religious levels. I. Wallerstein denoted such archaic systems consisting of clans and tribes as minisystems and considered them as precursors of later imperial and global systems (Wallerstein 1974, 390; el-Ojeili 2014). These segmentary mini-systems are defined as relatively small systems sharing the unified features of a cultural order; in the case of more advanced historical forms of organisation, we would probably not hesitate to describe them as civilisations. The notion of a civilisation, however, implies the existence of a state, which moreover creates monumental forms of both material and social culture that are spread across a large geographical area (Toynbee and Somervell 1947). Such characteristics are generally absent in mini-systems; there is no state, no ruler, no administration no mandatory tributes. The subsistence economy is fragmented according to the individual settlements and clans,

and no market system as such is formed. Likewise, wars do not take place on the principle of a competition between the mini-systems. Clashes regularly occur between the internal units of one mini-system, and the enmity is based on conflicts among the clans (Otterbein 2009). For us, it is important to look at what the individual social elements of a mini-system have in common. There are three completely mutually interlinked cultural factors: a kinship system, reciprocal exchange and the world of sacred rituals. The kinship system principally defines the segmentary social units such as families and clans: their members share a common ancestor along matrilinear, patrilinear or cognatic (both male and female) lines. It also determines the composition of the settlements, as the inhabitants of a settlement are usually relatives and kinship bonds are also shared within the framework of larger settlement regions. Although there is a great diversity among archaic societies in terms of the particular forms of kinship, the basic rules of descent are universal (Carmack 2015, 47). Religion forms the basis of social integration and, concurrently, diversification to this day (Huntington 1996). According to M. Weber (1976), religion created the historically deepest and most fundamental values within extensive geographic areas. Apart from its own sacral aspect, religion inevitably also affects secular institutions connected with the economy, politics and the general order. The common context of faith and rituals also formed a principal bond in mini-systems. The situation described above is typical of politically fragmented, segmentary tribal societies whose basic unit is the clan. In such societies “administration” of the supernatural world has a distinctly communal character. This is clearly different to the situation in chiefdom-based societies, where these rights pass to privileged individuals. The Chiefs and their relatives are considered to be imbued with a sacred essence, which distinguishes them from the mass of ordinary people. T. Earle (1997, 143–144) states that the Chiefs are aware of the fact that ideology is a fundamental basis of their power. This ideology must have a particular form such as symbols, ceremonies and building monuments. The leaders, therefore, become the organisers, hosts and donors of sacred activities, because it adds to the legitimation of their status and increases the level of sacred power ascribed to them. While less formalised leaders, frequently denoted as Big Men, usually focus on organising shortterm ritual activities (typically feasts, ceremonies, rituals), the Chiefs initiate the construction of longer lasting monumental structures connected with the sacred. It is not surprising that such structures were tangibly interconnected with the individual leaders and, as such, acted as a reminder of their prestige and power. Let us conclude this section by pointing out that the complementary interconnection of ancestral origin, access to power and religious authority is one of the universal manifestations of tribal societies. Let us finally return to the question posed in the book’s title – were the rondel builders Big Men or Chiefs? We have to admit that archaeological evidence from the period of the first half of the fifth millennium BC sends out ambiguous signals in all rondel regions. On the one hand, there are those crucial monumental structures which tend to support the existence of chiefdom-like societies; on the other hand, other aspects of the material culture do not clearly indicate a developed vertical social hierarchy. Finds attesting to the existence

of an exchange system also tend to suggest that other specific attributes of power were nonexistent. Last but not least, there is the scant evidence in the burial rite to allow us to identify the burials of individual Chiefs. Dual-Processual Theory (Blanton et al. 1996), which was later known as the Collective Action Theory (Blanton and Fargher 2008), offers an alternative interpretation. It stands in opposition to traditional interpretations of political anthropology (e.g. Hayden 1995, 18; Flannery 1999) by not assuming that complex social structures come into existence as purposeful projects of a small group of self-asserting aggrandisers. The rulers, and more generally, actors participating in the emergence of more extensive power-controlled groupings, should naturally be sufficiently assertive, but while aggressiveness is a suitable means of seizing power, it is not the key to maintaining it. This objective is usually achieved by reaching a consensual “agreement” between the rulers and the ruled. The existence of group-oriented political social units was pointed out by some earlier authors (Strathern 1969; Renfrew 1974) above all in connection with the so-called network strategy (or exclusionary strategy) and corporate strategy. The former is based on the development of a network of long-distance social contacts along with the exchange of exotic commodities, all based on exclusive access by a limited group of persons. The latter, corporate strategy, does not rule out the existence of individuals enjoying extraordinary privileges and power, but their activities are directed, so to speak, inwards towards their home community. This dual pattern was well described by C. Renfrew (1974, 79–82), who compared “group-oriented chiefdoms” and “individualizing chiefdoms.” A group-oriented chiefdom is characterised by the existence of imposing public constructions, including large structures for the performance of common rituals. However, in terms of personal property, the society is basically egalitarian, and individuals are therefore anonymous in the archaeological record. This is in direct contradiction to the archaeology of individualised chiefdom systems, where intense competition among individuals prevails, along with frequent warfare and an emphasis is put on personal wealth, which manifests itself in the finds of perfectly rendered prestige items in very rich graves. The opinion that current social typology is insufficient has been voiced more loudly in the past two decades precisely in the context of situations (both ethnohistorical and archaeological) that do not correspond to the model scenarios of evolutionary social development. Typically, they concern an aggregation of settlement that clearly shows features of increasing social complexity (organised housebuilding, public construction, fortifications) but lacks other evidence of a presumed ruling class (Birch 2013). These societies are evidently typologically situated somewhere between classic prehistoric villages, which were self-regulated, and the subsequent chiefdom-based systems. It seems that a large and relatively quick settlement aggregation does not favour the emergence of a centralised, hierarchised political organisation, but is instead a good precondition for the establishment and subsequent development of collective decision-making mechanisms (Kowalewski 2006, 117). Rather than resembling a classic vertically graded hierarchy of power, these mechanisms are horizontal from the viewpoint of social diversification (council of elders,

clan gatherings etc.). In terms of existing anthropological models, Neolithic communities would correspond best to exogamous clans. We cannot say with certainty that each settlement was inhabited by a single clan, but we can suggest, with some justification, that there existed certain spatial groupings conditioned by blood and, at the same time, mythological kinship. The relationship between the individual clans was determined by the position of a given clan in both the mythological scheme of the society and its settlement history: put simply, the clan that inhabited the area earlier was higher-ranking (Flannery and Marcus 2012, 74). However independent the clans were in terms of subsistence and politics, their unequal status was reflected in the sacral sphere. Lower-ranking clans depended on powerful ones, which alone had the right to carry out rituals essential for the maintenance of the world order. Unfortunately, the archaeological record does not provide us with any details concerning the activities that took place inside rondels. Using a quotation from Renfrew: “such ceremonies may fall into the rather ill-defined classificatory area lying somewhere between play and ritual” (Renfrew 2018, 10). Hypothetically, these rites may only have been performed by communities entitled to do so, and the same communities might also have had the right to build rondels, or rather to initiate their construction within their own settlement areas. The surrounding “dependent” subsidiary clans may have come together during the construction of the rondel; they almost certainly did so in order to partake in cyclical rituals: “These collective acts may themselves have led to the formation of social units which may not previously have existed, as has been argued for the megalithic burial monuments of Neolithic Britain” (Renfrew 2018, 16). In this model, the rondels and, more generally, the spiritual world they represent, might find equivalents in the Pueblo civilisation of the southwest United States (c. the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, with a peak between AD 1300 and 1540). There, also, the importance of the individual settlements was derived from the ritual powers of their inhabitants, specific ritual structures called kiva were built, and we lack archaeological (and ethnohistorical) evidence for the existence of powerful individuals (Chabal et al. 2004, 32; Flannery and Marcus 2012, 153–166). Instead, in Pueblo society, groups interlinked by clan bonds asserted themselves in the power struggle along with narrower inner circles of members of so-called secret societies (Creamer 2001). The source of power was directly linked to the right to perform certain rituals connected with a specific katchina (kachina, katsina) cult, which was also the agent that cemented together communities from different settlements. The control of ritual knowledge through membership of secret societies was an additional step towards a hierarchy among the individual groups (Creamer 2001, 48). The Pueblo created a cultural circle within which mutual interactions between the individual communities took place. Moreover, this mini-system was culturally linked to Mesoamerican civilisations to the south. Apart from a calendar system, a hieroglyphic script and other signs, P. Kirchhoff used the presence of ball game courts (a significant tangible link with Mesoamerican cultures) as one of the defining characteristics of this extensive cultural area (Coe and Koontz 2003, 11). This hypothesis has particular relevance in the context of the world of Neolithic rondels.

We suggest that geographical distribution of rondels (see Fig. 1.2 in Chapter 1 for instance) reflects the existence of an original cultural, social and economic mini-system. This mini-system was characterised by the mutually compatible worlds of spirituality and mythology that manifested themselves outwardly in links between the regional communities and the rondel settlements. We can also presume that contacts between the supposed exogamous clans were maintained through the exchange of spouses and further developed during a strongly ritualised exchange of commodities (Lévi-Strauss 1969). This mini-system enabled the dynamic development of a clan hierarchy, as the above-mentioned ritual rights could also be exchanged (donated). Thus, originally dependent subsidiary clans could, over time, separate themselves completely, from a ritual point of view, from the parent settlement and clan; once independent they may have been in a position to build a rondel of their own. During the Late Neolithic in Europe (the Eneolithic period in Czech and Slovak chronology), the hypothetical corporate strategy of control was replaced by a hierarchy of individual power (e.g. Gronenborn 2016), which no longer put an emphasis on group prestige and inter-community sharing of rituals. Although the framework of mythology and faith may have remained unchanged, rondel structures would now no longer have been needed. Large-scale strontium and carbon isotope analyses, along with DNA analyses of human skeletal remains, are absolutely crucial for the confirmation or refutation of our “narrative” which, as we are well aware, veers towards positivism. We would need to provide evidence of kin relations between the communities that lived in rondel settlements and, for instance, determine the quality and composition of their food (which can show their unity or diversity in terms of subsistence) and compare it with other communities living outside rondel settlements. Future research into rondels should, therefore, be much more focused on the study of the human remains and modern bioanthropology because, as we fear and as we have tried to continually suggest in this book, archaeology alone and its traditional methods will not be able to shed much more light on this important period of our prehistory. To conclude on a less pessimistic note for archaeology, the chronological phase following the collapse of rondel culture societies, i.e. the period of 4600–4300 BC, before the construction of other enclosures in the Münchshöfen and Michelsberg cultures began around 4300 BC (e.g. Petrasch 2015), is still a great unknown. This is, in our opinion, a period where the archaeological record still has much to reveal.

Bibliography Ames, K. M. 2010. On the Evolution of the Human Capacity for Inequality and/or Egalitarianism. In T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman (eds.) Pathways to Power. New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Inequality, 15–44. New York, Springer. Balandier, G. 1970. Political Anthropology. New York, Pantheon Books. Bánffy, E. and Bongár-Kutzián, I. 2007. The Late Neolithic Tell Settlement at Polgár-Csőszhalom, Hungary: the 1957 Excavation. Oxford, Archaeopress. Barker, G. 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why did Foragers become Farmers? Oxford, Oxford University Press. Barna, J. P. 2007. A New Site of the Lengyel Culture in Sormás-Török-Földek (County Zala, South-Western Transdanubia). Preliminary report. In J. K. Kozlowski and P. Raczky (eds.) The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 365–380. Kraków, Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences. Barna, J. P. 2015. Socio-Historical Background of Cultural Changes in South-Western Hungary as Reflected by Archaeological Data during Post-LBK Times. Anthropologie 53 (3), 399–412. Barna, J. P. and Pásztor, E. 2011. Different Ways of Using Space: Traces of Domestic and Ritual Activities in a Late Neolithic Settlement in a Site at Sormás-Török-Földe. Documenta Praehistorica 38, 185–206. Barna, J. P., Pásztor, E., Tokai, M., Biró, K., István, E., Busznyák, J. and Csilla, S. 2016. Late Neolithic Circular Ditch Systems in Western-Hungary. In J. Kovárník (ed.) Centenary of Jaroslav Palliardi’s Neolithic and Aeneolithic Relative Chronology (1914– 2014), 309–336. Hradec Králové – Ústí nad Orlicí, FF UHK. Bárta, P. and Štolc, S. 2007. HBCO Correction: Its Impact on Archaeological Absolute Dating. Radiocarbon 49 (2), 465– 472. Bartels, R., Brestrich, W., de Vries, P. and Stäuble, H. 2003. Ein neolithisches Siedlungsareal mit Kreisgrabenanlagen bei Dresden-Nickern. Eine Übersicht. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 45, 97–133. Becker, H. 1996. Archäologische Prospektion: Luftbildarchäologie und Geophysik. München, Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. Bell, M., Fowler, P. J. and Hillson, S. W. 1996. The Experimental Earthwork Project. CBA Research report. York, Council for British Archaeology. Benecke, N. 1994. Archäozoologische Studien zur Entwicklung der Haustierhaltung in Mitteleuropa und Südskandinavien von den Anfängen bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter. Berlin, Akademie Verlag. Beneš, J., Divišová, M. and Vondrovský, V. 2016. The Neolithic Longhouse Phenomenon at the Hrdlovka Site, Czech Republic: Meanings, Inhabitants, and Successors. In L. Amkreutz, F. Haack, D. Hofmann and I. van Wijk (eds.) Something Out of the Ordinary? Interpreting Diversity in the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik and Beyond, 65–88. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Beneš, J., Vondrovský, V., Šída, P., Divišová, M., Kovačiková, L., Kovárník, J. and Vavrečka, P. 2015. The Rare Deposition of Neolithic (SBK) Grinding Tools and Longhouse 8 from Hrdlovka (Czech Republic): Analysis and 3D Virtual Reconstruction. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology 6 (2), 161–179. Bentley, R. A., Bickle, P., Fibiger, L., Nowell, G. M., Dale, C. W., Hedges, R. E. M., Hamilton, J., Wahl, J., Francken, M., Grupe, G., Lenneis, E., Teschler-Nicola, M., Arbogast, R.-M., Hofmann, D. and Whittle, A. 2012. Community Differentiation and Kinship among Europe’s First Farmers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (24), 9326–9330. Bertemes, F. and Meller, H. (eds.) 2012. Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt). Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Bertemes, F. and Northe, A. 2006. Goseck – archäologische und astronomische Forschungen. Neolithisches Heiligtum in prähistorischer Kulturlandschaft – die Abschlussuntersuchungen in der Kreisgrabenanlage von Goseck und weitere Grabungen in deren Umgebung. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 4 (2), 269–281. Bertemes, F. and Northe, A. 2007. Der Kreisgraben von Goseck, ein Beitrag zum Verständnis früher monumentaler Kultbauten Mitteleuropas. In K. Schmotz (ed.) Vorträge des 25. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages, 137–168. Deggendorg, Verlag Marie Leidorf. Bertemes, F. and Northe, A. 2012. Die “erste” Kreisgrabenanlage in Sachsen Anhalt. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.)

Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 11–40. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Bertemes, F., Biehl, P. F., Northe, A. and Schröder, O. 2004. Die neolithische Kreisgrabenanlage von Goseck, Ldkr. Weißenfels. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 2, 137–144. Bickle, P. and Whittle, A. (eds.) 2013. The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Binford, L. R. 1981. Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’. Journal of Anthropological Research 37 (3), 195– 208. Birch, J. 2012. Coalescent Communities: Settlement Aggregation and Social Integration in Iroquoian Ontario. American Antiquity 77 (4), 646–670. Birch, J. (ed.) 2013. From Prehistoric Villages to Cities. Settlement Aggregation and Community Transformation (Routledge Studies in Archaeology). New York and London, Routledge. Biró, K. T. 1998. Lithic Implements and the Circulation of Raw Materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Budapest, Hungarian National Museum. Blanton, R. E. and Fargher, L. 2008. Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-modern States. New York, Springer. Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. M., Kowalewski, S. A. and Peregrine, P. N. 1996. A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37, 1–14. Blažková, T. 2015. Testimony of Archaeological Finds from the Neolithic Rondel in Praha-Ruzyně, Czech Republic. Anthropologie 53 (3), 485–500. Bogaard, A. 2004. Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. An Archaeobotanical Study of Crop Husbandry Practices. London, Routledge. Braasch, O. 1997. Bemerkungen zur archäologischen Flugprospektion in West und Ost. In J. Oexle (ed.) Aus der Luft – Bilder unserer Geschichte. Luftbildarchäologie in Zentraleuropa, 28–37. Dresden, Landesamt für Archäologie Sachsen. Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London and New York, Routledge. Braudel, F. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. New York, Harper & Row (1966). La Méditerranée et le monde méditeranéen à l’époque de Philippe II. Paris, A. Colin. Brestovanský, P. 2011. Sídliště kultury s vypíchanou keramikou v Příšovicích, se zvláštním zřetelem na broušenou industrii. In M. Popelka and R. Šmidtová (eds.) Praehistorica XXIX. Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Sborník referátů z 28. zasedání badatelů pro výzkum neolitu a eneolitu (nejen) Čech, Moravy a Slovenska, Mělník 28. 9. – 1. 10. 2009, 27–35. Praha, Univerzita Karlova. Broes, F. and Bosquet, D. 2007. Fabrication d´outils de terrassier et creusement des fossés rubanés: de la théorie á la pratique. Notae Praehistoricae 27, 131–149. Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37, 425– 430. Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and Dating. Radiocarbon 40, 461–474. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the Radiocarbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 43, 355–363. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51, 337–361. Bronk Ramsey, C. and Lee, S. 2013. Recent and Planned Developments of the Programe OxCal. Radiocarbon 55 (2–3), 720–730. Brown, P. and Podolefsky, A. 1976. Population Density, Agricultural Intensity, Land Tenure, and Group Size in the New Guinea Highlands. Ethnology 15, 211–238. Brumfiel, E. M. and Earle, T. K. (eds.) 1987. Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bruns, M., Levin, I., Münnich, K. O., Hubberten, H. W. and Filipakis, S. 1980. Regional Sources of Volkanic Carbon Dioxide and their Influence on 14C Content of Present-day Plant Material. Radiocarbon 30, 532–536. Brzobohatá, H. and Likovský, J. 2012. O lidech. In R. Šumberová (ed.) Cesta napříč časem a krajinou. Katalog k výstavě nálezů ze záchranného archeologického výzkumu v trase obchvatu Kolína 2008–2010, 59–66. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Brzobohatá, H., Šumberová, R., Votrubová-Dubská, J. and Vaněk, D. 2017. A Case of Sharp Force Trauma to the Skull of Female Buried within a Neolithic Rondel, Kolín (Czech Republic). Collegium Anthropologicum 41, 297–303. Buchvaldek, M. and Zeman, J. (eds.) 1990. Lochenice. Z archeologických výzkumů na katastru obce. Praha, Univerzita

Karlova. Buchvaldek, M., Košnar, L. and Lippert, A. 2007. Archeologický atlas pravěké Evropy. Archaeological Atlas of Prehistoric Europe. Praha, Karolinum. Buck, C. E., Litton, C. D. and Scott, E. M. 1994. Making the Most of Radiocarbon Dating: Some Statistical Considerations. Antiquity 68, 252–263. Buck, C. E., Kenworthy, J. B., Litton, C. D. and Smith, A. F. M. 1991. Combining Archaeological and Radiocarbon Information: A Bayesian Approach to Calibration. Antiquity 65, 808–821. Bujna, J. and Romsauer, P. 1986. Siedlung und Kreisanlage der Lengyel-Kultur in Bučany. In B. Chropovský and H. Friesinger (eds.) II. Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur. Nitra – Nové Vozokany 1984, 27–35. NitraWien, Archäeologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Burgert, P. 2015. “Stabilitas Loci” of Inhabitants of the Stroked Pottery Site in Jaroměř (Eastern Bohemia, Czech Republic). Anthropologie 53 (3), 473–483. Burgert, P. 2016. Bavorské jurské rohovce Franské Alby v neolitu a eneolitu Čech. Archeologické rozhledy 68 (1), 91–108. Burgert, P. 2017. Struktura a chronologie sídlišť kultury s vypíchanou keramikou ve východních Čechách. Ms. of PhD. final thesis. Praha, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Burgert, P., Vokolek, V. and Řídký, J. 2016. Prostorová analýza a datace dvou ohrazení v sídelním areálu z mladšího neolitu v Plotištích nad Labem, okr. Hradec Králové. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 20 (2), 925–933. Burgert, P., Přichystal, A., Prokeš, L., Petřík, J. and Hušková, S. 2017. The Origin and Distribution of Obsidian in Prehistoric Bohemia. Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 7, 1–15. Carmack, R. M. 2015. Anthropology and Global History. From Tribes to the Modern World-System. New York and London, Rowman and Littlefield. Carneiro, R. 1981. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. In G. Jones and R. Kautz (eds.) The Transition Statehood in the New World Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Carneiro, R. 2002. The Tribal Village and Its Culture: an Evolutionary Stage in the History of Human Society. In W. A. Parkinson (ed.) The Archaeology of Tribal Societies. International Monographs in Prehistory, 34–52. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Chabal, P., Feinman, G. and Skalník, P. 2004. Beyond States and Empires: Chiefdoms and Informal Politics. Social Evolution & History 3, 22–40. Chapman, R. 2003. Archaeologies of Complexity. New York, Routledge. Childe, V. G. 1936. Man Makes Himself. London, Watts and Co. Čižmář, Z. 2008. Hluboké Mašůvky – “Nivky” (Znojmo Distr.). In Z. Čižmář (ed.) Život a smrt v mladší době kamenné. Leben und Tod in der Jungsteinzeit. Life and Death in the New Stone Age, 112–118. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče. Čižmář, Z. (ed.) 2008. Život a smrt v době kamenné. Leben und Tod in der Jungsteinzeit. Life and Death in the New Stone Age. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče. Čižmář, Z., Kazdová, E., Kovárník, J. and Procházková, P. 2008. Lid s moravskou malovanou keramikou lengyelské kultury. Das Volk mit mährischer bemalter Keramik der Lengyelkultur – The People with Moravian Painted Pottery of the Lengyel Culture. In Z. Čižmář (ed.) Život a smrt v mladší době kamenné. Leben und Tod in der Jungsteinzeit. Life and Death in the New Stone Age, 76–87. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče. Cladders, M., Stäuble, H., Tischendorf, T. and Wolfram, S. 2012. Die Linien- und Stichbandkeramische Siedlung von Eythra, Lkr. Leipzig. In R. Gleser and V. Becker (eds.) Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend von Christus, 133–140. Berlin, LIT Verlag dr. W. Hopf. Coe, M. D. and Koontz, R. 2003. Mexico from the Olmecs to the Aztects. London, Thames and Hudson. Creamer, W. 2001. The Origins of Centralization Changing Features of Local and Regional Control during the Rio Grande Classic Period, AD 1325–1540. In J. Haas (ed.) From Leaders to Rulers, 37–58. New York and London, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Crumley, C. L. 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7 (1), 1–5. Daim, F. and Neubauer, W. (eds.) 2005. “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Damon, P. E., Long, A. and Wallick, E. I. 1973. Dendrochronologic Calibration of the Carbon-14 Time Scale. In T. A. Rafter and T. Grant-Taylor (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Radiocarbon Dating Conference. Lower Hutt, New

Zealand, 18–25 October 1972, 44–59. Wellington, Royal Society of New Zealand. Davidová, T. 2009. Sídliště kultury s vypíchanou keramikou v Horkách nad Jizerou, okr. Mladá Boleslav. Praehistorica XXVIII, 15–88. de Vries, P. 2010. Gräber der linienband- und stichbandkeramischen Kulturen. In R. Heynowski and R. Reiss (eds.) Atlas zur Geschichte und Landeskunde von Sachsen, 42–73. Leipzig und Dresden, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig und Staatsbetrieb Geobasisinformation und Vermessung Sachsen. Demján, P. 2015. Evidence of Social Structure of a Neolithic Community in Svodín, Southwest of Slovakia. Anthropologie 53 (3), 363–373. Demján, P. 2016. Štruktúra a chronológia sídliska Lengyelskej kultúry. Ms. of PhD. final thesis. Bratislava, Constantine the Philosopher University. Dietler, M. 2001. Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Contexts. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds.) Feasts. Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, 65– 114. Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press. Dočkalová, M. and Čižmář, Z. 2008. Neolithic Settlement Burials of Adult and Juvenile Individuals in Moravia, Czech Republic. Anthropologie 46 (1), 37–76. Donald, L. 1997. Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press. Doneus, M. 2001. Die Keramik der mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage von Kamegg, Niederösterreich. Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie der Stufe MOG I der Lengyel-Kultur. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften. Doneus, M. 2005. Die Siedlunsgeschichte von Kamegg. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 10–18, 58–60. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Dreslerová, G. 2006. Vyhodnocení zvířecích kostí z neolitického sídliště Těšetice-Kyjovice (okr. Znojmo, Česká republika). Archeologické rozhledy 58 (1), 3–32. Drucker, P. 1955. Indians of the Northwest Coast. New York, The Natural History Press. Dufek, J. 2014. Kolín-Šťáralka, poloha U císařské silnice a opevněná sídliště předrondelového horizontu na počátku 5. tisíciletí př. Kr. In M. Popelka and R. Šmidtová (eds.) Neolitizace aneb Setkání generací, 59–105. Praha, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Dufek, J., Malyková, D., Popelka, M. and Přichystal, A. 2016. Stopy dálkových kontaktů na neolitickém sídlišti v Kolín슝áralce. Evidence for Long-distance Contacts at the Neolithic Settlement of Kolín-Šťáralka. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 20 (2), 935–957. Ďuriš, J. 2015. Architektúra domu mladšej a neskorej doby kamennej na juhozápadnom Slovensku na základe analýzy mazanice. Nitra, Archeologický ústav SAV. Earle, T.K. 1977. A Reappraisal of Redistribution: Complex Hawaiian Chiefdoms. In T.K. Earle and J. Ericson (eds.) Exchange Systems in Prehistory, 213–229. New York, Academic Press. Earle, T.K. 1987. Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 16, 279– 308. Earle, T.K. 1989. The Evolution of Chiefdoms. Current Anthropology 30 (1), 84–88. Earle, T. K. 1991. Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press. Earle, T. K. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: the Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Eder-Hinterleitner, A., Melichar, P. and Neubauer, W. 2005. Bilder der Erdmagnetfields. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 46– 51. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Eibl, F., Leopold, M., Schmotz, K. and Völkel, J. 2010. Die Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlage von Stephansposching, Ldkr. Deggendorf. Zum Kenntnisstand nach den Archäologischen und Naturwissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen der Jahre 2008 und 2009. In K. Schmotz (ed.) Vorträge des 28. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages, 165–202. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf. Eliade, M. 1957. Das Heilige und das Profane. Vom Wesen des Religiösen. Reinbek, Rowohlt Verlag. el-Ojeili, C. 2014. Reflections on Wallerstein: The Modern World-System, Four Decades on. Critical Sociology 41, 679– 700. Engelhardt, B. 2010. Anthropomorphe und Zoomorphe Darstellungen des 5. Jahrthausends v. Chr. aus dem Südöstlichen Bayern. In K. Schmotz (ed.) Vorträge des 28. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages, 47–84. Rahden/Westf., Verlag

Marie Leidorf. Eriksen, T. H. 2001. Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. London, Pluto Press. Feinman, G. M. 2000. Dual-Processual Theory and Social Formations in the Southwest. In B. Mills (ed.) Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, 207–224. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Feinman, G. M. 2013. The Emergence of Social Complexity: Why More than Population Size Matters. In D. M. Carballo (ed.) Cooperation and collective action: archaeological perspectives, 35–56. Boulder (Colorado), University Press of Colorado. Feinman, G. M. 2016. Variation and Change in Archaic States. Ritual as a Mechanism of Sociopolitical Integration. In J. M. A. Murphy (ed.) Ritual and Archaic States, 1–11. Gainesville, University Press of Florida. Fera, M., Neubauer, W. and Rachbauer, O. 2005. Gut erhalten – neu erforscht. Die Kreisgrabenanlage von Steinabrunn. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 61–69. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Flannery, K. 1999. Process and Agency in Early State Formation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9 (1), 3–21. Flannery, K. and Marcus, J. 2012. The Creation of Inequality – How our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery and Empire. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Fried, M. H. 1960. On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State. In S. Diamond (ed.) Culture in History, 713–731. New York, Columbia University Press. Fried, M. H. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society: an Essay in Political Anthropology. New York, Random House. Friederich, S. 2011. Bad Friedrichshall-Kochendorf und Heilbronn-Neckargartach. Studie zum mittelneolithischen Siedlungswesen im Mittleren Neckarland. Stuttgart, K. Theiss. Gleser, R. 2012. Zeitskalen, stilistische Tendenzen und Regionalität des 5. Jahrtausends in den Altsiedellandschaften zwischen Mosel und Morava. In R. Gleser and V. Becker (eds.) Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz in Münster 2010, 6.-8. Oktober 2010, 35–103. Berlin, LIT Verlag. Gleser, R. and Becker, V. (eds.) 2012. Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus: Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz in Münster 2010, 6.-8. Oktober 2010. Berlin, LIT Verlag. Godelier, M. and Strathern, M. 1991. Big Men and Great Men: Personifications of Power in Melanesia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gojda, M. 1997. Letecká archeologie v Čechách. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Gojda, M. (ed.) 2004. Ancient Landscape, Settlement Dynamics and Non-destructive Archaeology: Czech Research Project 1997–2002. Praha, Academia. Gojda, M. 2017. Archeologie a dálkový průzkum: historie, metody, prameny. Praha, Academia. Goldman, A. I. 1970. A Theory of Human Action. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall. Graefe, J., Hamon, C., Lidström-Holmberg, C., Tsoraki, C. and Watts, S. 2009. Subsistence, Social and Ritual Practices: Quern Deposits in the Neolithic Societies of Europe. In S. Bonnardin, C. Hamon, M. Lauwers and B. Quilliec (eds.) Du matériel au spirituel. Réalités archéologiques et historiques des « dépôts » de la Préhistoire à nos jours. XXIXe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 87–96. Antibes, Éditions APDCA. Gronenborn, D. 2006. Climate Change and Socio-Political Crises: Some Cases from Neolithic Central Europe. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 2 (1), 13–32. Gronenborn, D. 2009. Climate Fluctuations and Trajectories to Complexity in the Neolithic: Towards a Theory. Documenta Praehistorica 36, 97–110. Gronenborn, D. 2016. Some Thoughts on Political Differentiation in Early to Young Neolithic Societies in Western Central Europe. In H. Meller, H. P. Hahn, R. Jung and R. Risch (eds.) Arm und Reich – zur Ressourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Gesselschaften. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 14, 61–75. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Haas, J. 1998. A Brief Consideration of Cultural Evolution: Stages, Agents, and Tinkering. Complexity 3 (3), 3–64. Haas, J. 2001. From Leaders to Rulers. New York and London, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Harris, M. 1977. Cannibals and Kings: the Origins of Cultures. New York, Random House. Hasenhündl, G., Neubauer, W. and Trnka, G. 2005. Kreisgräben – eine runde Sache. Sechs Wege zu ausgewählten Kreisgrabenanlagen im Weinviertel. Eine Annährung an die ältesten Monumentalbauten Europas. Horn-Wien, Verlag Berger. Hayden, B. 1995. Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman (eds.) Foundations of Social Inequality, 15–86. New York, Plenum Press.

Hayden, B. 2014. The Power of Feasts. From Prehistory to the Present. New York, Cambridge University Press. Heath, J. M. 2017. Warfare in Neolithic Europe. An Archaeological and Anthropological Analysis. Barnsley, Penn & Sword Archaeology. Hedges, R. E. M., Clement, J. G., Thomas, C. D. L. and O’Connell, T. C. 2007. Collagen Turnover in the Adult Femoral Mid-Schaft: Modeled from Anthropogenic Radiocarbon Tracer Measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133, 808–816. Hložek, M. and Gregerová, M. 2007. Mikropetrografické rozbory neolitické keramiky z Těšetic-Kyjovic. In E. Kazdová and V. Podborský (eds.) Studium sociálních a duchovních struktur pravěku, 81–90. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Hrnčíř, V. and Květina, P. 2016. Archeologické poznání otroctví. Archeologické rozhledy 58, 431–476. Humpolová, A. 2001. Rondeloid číslo III lidu s Moravskou malovanou keramikou ve Vedrovicích. In V. Podborský (ed.) 50 let archeologických výzkumů Masarykovy univerzity na Znojemsku, 157–166. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Humpolová, A. and Ondruš, V. 1999. Vedrovice, okr. Znojmo. In V. Podborský (ed.) Pravěká sociokultovní architektura na Moravě, 167–219. Brno, Ústav archeologie a muzeologie, Filozofická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity. Huntington, S. P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, Simone and Schuster. Jeunesse, C. 2010. Die Michelsberger Kultur. In C. Lichter (ed.) Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die “Michelsberger Kultur” und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren, 46–55. Karlsruhe, Verlag Primus. Johnson, A. W. and Earle, T. K. 1987. The Evolution of Human Societies: from Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Johnson, G. A. 1982. Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands and B. A. Segraves (eds.) Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, 389–421. New York, London, Academic Press. Juras, A., Chylenski, M., Krenz-Niedbala, M., Malmström, H., Ehler, E., Pospieszny, L., Lukasik, S., Bednarczyk, J., Piontek, J., Jokobsson, M. and Dabert, M. 2017. Investigating Kinship of Neolithic Post-LBK Human Remains from Krusza Zamkowa, Poland Using Ancient DNA. Forensic Science International 26, 30–39. Kalferst, J. and Vávra, M. 1998. Neolitický kruhový příkop v Holohlavech, okr. Hradec Králové. Neolithic Ring Ditch in Holohlavy, the District of Hradec Králové. In V. Jakouběová and Z. Zahradník (eds.) Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Sborník referátů z 16. pracovního zasedání badatelů pro výzkum neolitu a eneolitu Čech, Moravy a Slovenska. Lázně Sedmihorky 23.-25. září 1997, 75–83. Turnov – Hradec Králové, Okresní muzeum Českého ráje. Kalicz, N. and Raczky, P. 1990. Das Spätneolithikum im Theissgebiet: Eine Übersicht zum heutigen Forschungsstand aufgrund der neuesten Ausgrabungen. In W. Meier-Arendt (ed.) Alltag und Religion. Jungsteinzeit in Ost-Ungarn, 11– 30. Frankfurt am Main, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Archäologisches Museum. Kaufmann, D. 1976. Die Stichbandkeramik in Saalgebiet. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity 24–25, 63– 71. Kazdová, E. 2008. Těšetice-Kyjovice (Znojmo Dist.). In Z. Čižmář (ed.) Život a smrt v mladší době kamenné. Leben und Tod in der Jungsteinzeit. Life and Death in the New Stone Age, 88–101. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče. Kazdová, E., Peška, J. and Mateiciucová, I. 1999. Olomouc – Slavonín (I). Sídliště kultury s vypíchanou keramikou. Olomouc, Vlastivědné muzeum a Archeologické centrum. Keeley, L. H. 1996. War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. New York, Oxford University Press. Kinne, A., Schneider, B., Stäuble, H. and Tinapp, C. 2012. Ein zweiter Schnitt durch Kyhna. Untersuchungen an der vierfachen Kreisgrabenanlage. In R. Smolnik (ed.) Ausgrabungen in Sachsen 3, 18–24. Dresden, Landesamt für Archäologie. Knight, I. 2009. Maori Fortifications. Oxford, Osprey Publishing. Kobyliński, Z., Nebelsick, L. D. and Wach, D. 2012. Aerial Photography, a Complex Non Destructive Survey and Test Excavation of the First Neolithic Rondel Type Enclosure in Poland. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004- in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 311–326. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Končelová, M. 2013. Neolitická sídelní aglomerace v prostoru dnešního Kolína. Ms. of PhD. final thesis. Praha, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Končelová, M. and Květina, P. 2015. Neolithic Longhouse as a Witness of Cultural Change in the Post-LBK. Anthropologie 53 (3), 431–446. Kos, L. 2016. Pohřebiště kultury s vypíchanou keramikou v Kostomlatech nad Labem, okr. Nymburk, předběžná zpráva. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 20 (2), 967–975. Kostka, M., Kuchařík, M., Řídký, J. and Švácha, H. 2011. Kruhy a zase kruhy. Neolitický rondel v Praze-Ruzyni. Circles

and again Circles – A Neolithic Rondel in Praha-Ruzyně. In M. Popelka and R. Šmidtová (eds.) Praehistorica 29. Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Sborník referátů z 28. zasedání badatelů pro výzkum neolitu a eneolitu (nejen) Čech, Moravy a Slovenska, Mělník 28. 9. – 1. 10. 2009, 139–152. Praha, Univerzita Karlova. Kovačiková, L., Bréhard, S., Šumberová, R., Balasse, M. and Tresset, A. 2012. The New Insights into the Subsistence and Early Farming from Neolithic Settlements in Central Europe: the Archaeozoological Evidence from the Czech Republic. Archaeofauna 21, 71–97. Kovárník, J. 1997. K významu pravěkých kruhových příkopů. Úvahy k hospodářství, náboženství a organizovanosti starých zemědělských civilizací. The Importance of Prehistoric Circular Ditches. Considerations on Farming, Religion and Organization of Early Agricultural Civilizations. Brno, Moravskoslezský archeologický klub. Kovárník, J. 1999. Běhařovice, Znojmo District. In V. Podborský (ed.) Pravěká sociokultovní architektura na Moravě. Primeval Socio-Ritual Architecture in Moravia. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Kovárník, J. 2004. Nově zjištěná pravěká příkopová ohrazení na Moravě: rondely, rondeloidy a jiné příkopy – stručné shrnutí problematiky. In V. Hašek, R. Nekuda and M. Ruttkay (eds.) Ve službách archeologie. Sborník k sedmdesátinám RNDr. Emanuela Opravila, CsC., 11–38. Brno, Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost. Kovárník, J. 2008. Letecká a rondelová archeologie. Luftprospection und Kreisanlagen Archäeologie. Aerial and Rondel Archaeology. In Z. Čižmář (ed.) Život a smrt v době kamenné. Leben und Tod in der Jungsteinzeit. Life and Death in the New Stone Age, 24–29. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče. Kovárník, J. 2012. Měly mladoneolitické rondely také valy? Aneb je rondel s valy u Třebovětic, okr. Jičín, klíčem k řešení? Did Late Neolithic Rondels Have Ramparts? Is the Rondel with Ramparts near Třebovětice, Jičín Dist., a Key to the Solution? Živá archeologie. (Re) konstrukce a experiment v archeologii 14, 9–15. Kovárník, J. 2014. Die Entdeckung einer doppelten Kreisgrabenanlage der Mährischen Bemalten Keramik in Milovice, Bez. Břeclav. In E. Lauermann and P. Trebsche (eds.) Beiträge zum Tag der Niederösterreichischen Landesarchäologie 2014, 13–18. Asparn/Zaya, Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseum. Kovárník, J. 2016a. Das dreifache Rondell der Stichbandkeramischen Kultur (SBK) in Plotiště nad Labem II bei Hradec Králové und analoge Funde. In J. Kovárník (ed.) Centenary of Jaroslav Palliardi’s Neolithic and Aeneolithic Relative Chronology (1914–2014), 337–376. Hradec Králové, University of Hradec Králové. Kovárník, J. 2016b. Mladoneolitičtí zemědělci a kruhové monumenty. Trojitý rondel kultury s vypíchanou keramikou v Plotištích n/L II. Anthropologia Integra 7 (1), 31–44. Kovárník, J. and Mangel, T. 2013. Rondel s valy u Třebovětic. Poznámka ke konstrukčním znakům mladoneolitických rondelů. In I. Cheben and M. Soják (eds.) Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín – 2010, 133–152. Nitra, Archeologický ústav SAV. Kovárník, J., Květ, R. and Podborský, V. 2006. Europe’s Oldest Civilisation and its Rondels, the Real Story. Antiquity 80 (310), www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/kvet310/[12.01.2018] Kowalewski, S. A. 2006. Coalescent Societies. In T. J. Pluckhahn and R. Ethridge (eds.) Light on the Path: The Anthropology and History of the Southeastern Indians, 94–122. Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press. Kowalewski, S. A. 2013. The Work of Making Community. In J. Birch (ed.) From Prehistoric Villages to Cities: Settlement Aggregation and Community Transformation, 201–218. New York, Routledge. Kristiansen, K. and Earle, T. 2015. Neolithic versus Bronze Age Social Formations: A Political Economy Approach. In K. Kristiansen, L. Šmejda and J. Turek (eds.) Paradigm found. Archaeological theory. Present, Past and Future, 234–247. Oxford and Philadelphia, Oxbow Books. Křivánek, R. 2011. Contribution of Geophysical Surveys to Changes of Archaeological Interpretation on Examples of Various Enclosed Sites in Bohemia. In M. G. Drahor and M. A. Berge (eds.) Archaeological prospection: 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, September 19–24, 2011, 136–139. Izmir, Archaeology and Art Publications. Křivánek, R. 2015. The Potential and Limitations of Geophysical Measurements on Archaeological Sites Partly Investigated in the Past: Case Studies from the Czech Republic. In T. Herbich and Y. Zych (eds.) Archaeologia Polona 53. Special theme: Archaeological Prospection – 11th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Warsaw 15.-19. 9. 2015, 212–217. Warsaw, Institut of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences. Křivánek, R. and Kuna, M. 1993. Geophysics within the ALRNB – Landscape and Settlement Programme: a Neolithic Circular Enclosure at Vinoř. Památky archeologické 84 (2), 133–137. Kubálek, P. 2010. Základní antropologické zpracování kostí v objektu v Praze-Ruzyni, ulici na Hůrce: předběžná zpráva. In R. Tichý and O. Štulc (eds.) Hroby, pohřby a lidské pozůstatky na pravěkých a středověkých sídlištích, 237–244. Hradec

Králové, Katedra archeologie Filozofické fakulty Univerzity Hradec Králové. Kuča, M., Vokáč, M., Milo, P. and Škrdla, P. 2011. Rondel na neolitickém sídlišti u Mohelna na JZ Moravě. In M. Popelka and R. Šmidtová (eds.) Praehistorica 29. Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Sborník referátů z 28. zasedání badatelů pro výzkum neolitu a eneolitu (nejen) Čech, Moravy a Slovenska, Mělník 28. 9. – 1. 10. 2009, 213–227. Praha, Univerzita Karlova. Kuča, M., Kazdová, E., Hladilová, Š., Nývltová Fišáková, M. and Prokeš, L. 2010. Těšetice-Kyjovice 7. Osídlení kultury s moravskou malovanou keramikou mezi příkopem a vnější palisádou. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Kuna, M., Beneš, J., Dreslerová, D., Gojda, M., Hrubý, P., Křivánek, R., Majer, A., Prach, K. and Tomášek, M. 2004. Nedestruktivní archeologie: teorie, metody a cíle. Praha, Academia. Kundera, L. and Měřínský, Z. 1999. Bulhary, Břeclav District. In V. Podborský (ed.) Pravěká sociokultovní architektura na Moravě. Primeval Socio-Ritual Architecture in Moravia, 52–60. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Kuzma, I. 1998. Kruhové priekopové útvary na Slovensku (súčasný stav). Ring Ditch Objects in Slovakia. Current Condition. In V. Jakouběová and Z. Zahradník (eds.) Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Sborník referátů z 16. pracovního zasedání badatelů pro výzkum neolitu a eneolitu Čech, Moravy a Slovenska. Lázně Sedmihorky 23.-25. září 1997, 94–102. Turnov – Hradec Králové, Okresní muzeum Českého ráje. Kuzma, I. 2001. Rondel v Golianove, okr. Nitra (predbežná správa). In M. Metlička (ed.) Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí 2000, 46–55. Plzeň, Západočeské muzeum. Kuzma, I. 2005. Letecká archeológia na Slovensku. In V. Hašek, R. Nekuda and M. Ruttkay (eds.) Ve službách archeologie. VI. Sborník věnovaný 70. narozeninám PhDr. Dariny Bialekovej, CSc., 60. narozeninám prof. PhDr. Josefa Ungera, CSc., 49–64. Brno, Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost. Kuzma, I. and Lieskovský, T. 2008. Analýza viditelnosti rondelov v prostředí GIS. Ve službách archeologie 2 (8), 7–13. Kuzma, I. and Tirpák, J. 2004. Šesťnásobný rondel v Žitavciach, okr. Nitra. Acta archaeologica Opaviensia 1, 21. pracovní setkání Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí, 109–116. Kuzma, I. and Tirpák, J. 2012. Kreisgrabenanlagen in der Slowakei. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 239–270. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Květina, P. and Řídký, J. 2016. Neolithic Settlement Space: Waste, Deposition and Identity. In D. Sosna and L. Brunclíková (eds.) Archaeologies of Waste, Encounters with the Unwanted, 127–144. Oxford and Philadelphia, Oxbow. Květina, P., Květinová, S. and Řídký, J. 2009. Význam her v archaických společnostech. Archeologické možnosti studia. Archeologické rozhledy 61 (1), 3–30. Leeming, D. A. and Leeming, M. A. 1994. Encyclopedia of Creation Myths. Santa Barbara, ABC-CLIO. Lemonnier, P. 2012. Mundane Objects: Materiality and Non-verbal Communication. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. Lenneis, E. and Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 2017. Bestattungswesen. In E. Lenneis (ed.) Erste Bauerndörfer – älteste Kultbauten. Die frühe und mittlere Jungsteinzeit in Niederösterreich, 314–319. Wien, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Lenneis, E. and Rammer, E. 2017. Häuser. In E. Lenneis (ed.) Erste Bauerndörfer – älteste Kultbauten. Die frühe und mittlere Jungsteinzeit in Niederösterreich, 270–275. Wien, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Lenneis, E., Neugebauer-Maresch, C. and Ruttkay, E. 1995. Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. Wien, Verlag Neiderösterreichisches Pressehaus. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963. Totemism. Boston, Beacon. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston, Beacon Press. Lička, M. 1989. Grundrisse von Doppelhäusern (?) aus der Stichbandkeramik. In J. Rulf (ed.) Bylany Seminar 1987, 227– 231. Praha, Archeologický ústav ČSAV. Lička, M. 1990. Osídlení kultury s vypíchanou keramikou ve Mšeně u Mělníka. Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, řada A 44 (1), 1–84. Lička, M. 2012. K otázce interpretace zahloubených objektů uvnitř pozdnělengyelského domu z Postoloprt, okr. Louny. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 16, 623–648. Lička, M., Beneš, J., Čulíková, V., Dobisíková, M., Hanáková, H., Jarošová, I., Kyselý, R., Nerudová, Z., Opravil, E., Šída, P., Šrein, V. and Šreinová, B. 2016. Osídlení ze starší etapy vývoje kultury s vypíchanou keramikou ve Mšeně. Praha, Národní muzeum. Link, T. 2014. Die linien- und stichbandkeramische Siedlung von Dresden-Prohlis. Eine Fallstudie zum Kulturwandel in der Region der oberen Elbe um 5000 v. Chr. Dresden, Landesamt für Archäologie.

Lisá, L., Bajer, A., Válek, D., Květina, P. and Šumberová, R. 2013. Micromorphological Evidence of Neolithic Rondel like Ditches Infillings; Case Studies from Těšetice-Kyjovice and Kolín, Central Europe. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology 4 (2), 135–146. Lisá, L., Komoróczy, B., Vlach, M., Válek, D., Bajer, A., Kovárník, J., Rajtár, J., Hüssen, C. M. and Šumberová, R. 2014. How were the ditches filled? Sedimentological and Micromorphological Classification of Formation Processes within Graben-like Archaeological Objects. Quaternary International 370, 66–76. Literski, N. and Nebelsick, L. D. 2012. Katalog der Kreisgrabenanlagen und verwandten Tells der ersten Hälfte des 5. Jt. v. Chr. in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 433–532. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Lobisser, W. F. A. 2006. Construction of a Circular Ditch System and Houses of the Middle Neolithic. EuroREA 3, 11–15. Lobisser, W. F. A. and Neubauer, W. 2005a. Im Kreisgrabenfieber: Experimentalarchäologische Studien zur Bautechnik der mittleren Jungsteinzeit. Archäologie Österreichs 16 (1), 4–17. Lobisser, W. F. A. and Neubauer, W. 2005b. Wiederaufbau einer Kreisgrabenanlage. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 95– 101. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Lobisser, W. F. A. and Neubauer, W. 2005c. Bautechnik der Steinzeit-eine Rekonstruktion. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 102–107. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Loishandl-Weisz, H. and Peticzka, R. 2011. Die Verfüllungsmechanismen des Spitzgrabens der mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage Steinabrunn, Niederösterreich. Archaeologia Austriaca 91, 141–162. Lowie, R. H. 1920. Primitive Society. New York, Boni and Liveright. Lüning, J. 1988. Rotlehm. In U. Boelicke, D. von Brandt, J. Lüning, P. Stehli and A. Zimmermann (eds.) Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8, Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kreis Düren, Beiträge zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte 3, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 28 ed, 794–803. Köln, Rheinland. Makkay, J. 2001. Die Grabenanlagen im indogermanischen Raum. Budapest, published by the author. Mateiciucová, I. 2008. Talking Stones: The Chipped Stone Industry in Lower Austria and Moravia and the Beginnings of the Neolithic in Central Europe (LBK), 5700–4900 BC. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Mateiciucová, I. and Trnka, G. 2004. Die Silexartefakte aus der Siedlung mit Kreisgrabenanlage von Kamegg, Niederösterreich. Štípaná industrie ze sídliště s kruhovým areálem v Kameggu, Dolní Rakousko. In E. Kazdová, Z. Měřínský and K. Šabatová (eds.) K poctě Vladimíru Podborskému, 89–99. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Mateiciucová, I. and Trnka, G. 2005. Steine aus nah und fern. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Niederösterreichische Landesausstellung 2005, 164–166. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Mateiciucová, I., Trnka, G. and Götzinger, M. A. 2006. Zur Rohstoffverteilung und verfügbarkeit in der westlichen LengyelKultur. Archäologie Österreichs 17 (2), 82–89. Mauss, M. 1966. The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London, Cohen & West. Melichar, P. and Neubauer, W. (eds.) 2010. Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Niederösterreich. Geophysikalischarchäologische Prospektion – ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsprojekt. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Meyer, M. 2012. Die Nordperipherie – mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Brandenburg. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (SachsenAnhalt), 163–180. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Meyer, M. and Raetzel-Fabian, D. 2006. Neolithische Erdwerke im Überblick. www.jungsteinsite.de, posted 15th of December 2006. Milisauskas, S. (ed.) 2011. European Prehistory. A Survey. New York, Springer. Milisauskas, S. and Kruk, J. 2011. Middle Neolithic/Early Copper Age, Continuity, Diversity and Greater Complexity, 5500/5000– 3500 BC. In S. Milisauskas (ed.) European Prehistory: A Survey, 223–291. New York, Springer. Milo, P., Kuča, M. and Zeman, J. 2015a. Průzkum mladoneolitického rondelu v Nových Bránicích, okr. Brno-venkov. Studia archaeologica Brunensia 20 (2), 65–76. Milo, P., Zeman, J. and Kuča, M. 2015b. Geofyzikální průzkum lengyelského rondelu v Milovicích, okr. Břeclav. Studia archaeologica Brunensia 20 (1), 55–67. Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to

Civilization. London, MacMillan & Company. Morgan, L. H. 1997. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press (Reprint of 1871 edition). Murdock, G. P. 1981. Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, The University of Pittsburgh Press. Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1995. Svodín: Zwei Kreisgrabenanlagen der Lengyel Kultur. Bratislava, Univerzita Komenského. Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1997. Kreisgrabenanlage der Lengyel Kultur in Ružindol-Borová. Bratislava, Univerzita Komenského. Neubauer, W. 2005. Am Fusse des Heldenbergs. Die dreifache Kreisgrabenanlage Glaubendorf 2. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 52–57. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Neubauer, W. and Melichar, P. 2005. Die Kreisgrabenanlagen in Niederösterreich. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 241– 245. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Neubauer, W. and Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 2005. Schwarze Kreise – Rote Erde Kreisgrabenforschung in Österreich. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 19–28. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Neugebauer, J.-W. 1986. Erdgrossenbauten der älteren Stufe der Lengyel-Kultur. In B. Chropovský and H. Friesinger (eds.) Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur, Nové Vozokany 5.-9. November 1984, 185–194. Nitra, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien. Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 2005. Tod im Kreisgraben. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesausstellung 2005, 225–227. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Northe, A. 2012. Zwei Kreisgrabenanlagen im Nordharzvorland. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 89–104. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Oberg, K. 1955. Types of Social Structure among the Lowland Tribes and Central America. American Anthropologist 57, 472–487. Oliva, M. 2004. Flint Mining, Rondels, Hillforts… Symbolic Works or Too Much Free Time? Archeologické rozhledy 56 (3), 499–531. Olsson, I. U. 1993. The Importance of Knowing the Origin of Samples in 14C Dating. PACT 38, 211–222. Olsson, I. U. 1999. 14C dating and reservoir effect. In J. Plicht (ed.) Proceedings International Workshop on IsotopeGeochemical Research in the Baltic Region, Lohusalu, Estonia, March 14–16 1996, 5–23. Groningen, Centre for Isotope Research. Olsson, I. U. 2009. Radiocarbon Dating History: Early Days, Questions, and Problems Met. Radiocarbon 51, 1–43. Orme, B. 1981. Anthropology for Archaeologists. London, Gerald Duckworth. Otterbein, K. F. 1985. The Evolution of War. A Cross-Cultural Study. New Haven, HRAF Press. Otterbein, K. F. 2009. The Anthropology of War. Long Grove, Waveland Press. Parkinson, W. A. (ed.) 2002. The Archaeology of Tribal Societies. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Parkinson, W. A. and Duffy, P. R. 2007. Fortifications and Enclosures in European Prehistory: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 15 (2), 97–141. Pásztor, E., Barna, J. P. and Roslund, C. 2008. The Orientation of Rondels of the Neolithic Lengyel Culture in Central Europe. Antiquity 82, 910–924. Pásztor, E., Barna, J. P. and Zotti, G. 2014. Neolithic Circular Ditch Systems (“Rondels”) in Central Europe. In C. L. N. Ruggles (ed.) Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, 1317–1326. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. Pavlů, I. 1982. Die neolithischen Kreisgrabenanlagen in Böhmen. Archeologické rozhledy 34 (2), 176–189. Pavlů, I. 1990. Die charakteristischen Einfüllungen von Grabenanlagen. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 171–178. Pavlů, I. 2001. Alternative Interpretation der neolithischer Kreisgrabenanlagen am Beispiel von Vochov, Bez. Pilsen-Nord. In F. Daim and T. Kütreiber (eds.) Sein & Sinn. Burg & Mensch, 185–187. St. Pölten, Niederösterreichische Landesmuseum. Pavlů, I. 2002. Vývoj neolitického osídlení v mikroregionu Bylan. In I. Cheben and I. Kuzma (eds.) Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín 2001. Zborník referátov z 20. pracovného stretnutia bádateľov pre výskum neolitu a eneolitu

Čiech, Moravy a Slovenska, Liptovská Sielnica 9.-12. 10. 2001, 251–258. Nitra, Archeologický ústav SAV. Pavlů, I. 2012. Artefakte und die Funktion von Kreisgrabenanlagen. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 67–72. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Pavlů, I. and Metlička, M. 2013. Neolitický sídelní areál ve Vochově. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. 1979. Současný stav a úkoly studia neolitu v Čechách. Památky archeologické 70, 281–318. Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. 2013. The Prehistory of Bohemia 2. The Neolithic. Praha, Institute of Archaeology CAS. Pavlů, I., Rulf, J. and Zápotocká, M. 1995. Bylany Rondel. Model of the Neolithic Site. Památky archeologické. Supplementum 3, 7–123. Pavúk, J. 2004. Kommentar zu einem Rückblick nach vierzig Jahren auf die Gliederung der Lengyel-Kultur. Slovenská archeológia 52 (1), 139–160. Pavúk, J. 2005. Die Kreisgrabenanlagen und die anthropomorphen Gefässe aus Svodín. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 10– 18, 214–216. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Pavúk, J. 2007. Zur Frage der Enthstehung und Verbreitung der Lengyel-Kultur. In J. K. Kozlowski and P. Raczky (eds.) The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle/ Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 11–28. Kraków, The Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and Eötvös Loránd University. Pavúk, J. 2009. Die Entwicklung der Želiezovce-Gruppe und die Enstehung der Lengyel-Kultur. In A. Zeeb-Lanz (ed.) Krisen – Kulturwandel- Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Herxheim bei Landau (Pfalz) vom 14.-17.06.2007, 249–266. Rahden/ Westf., Marie Leidorf. Pavúk, J. 2012. Kolové stavby lengyelskej kultúry. Pôdorysy, interiér a ich funkcia. Slovenská archeológia 60 (2), 251–284. Pavúk, J. and Karlovský, V. 2004. Orientácia rondelov Lengyelskej kultúry na smery vysokého a nízkeho Mesiaca. Slovenská archeológia 52 (2), 211–280. Pavúk, J. and Karlovský, V. 2008. Astronomische Orientierung der spätneolithischen Kreisanlagen in Mitteleuropa. Germania 86, 465–502. Pažinová, N. 2007. The Lengyel Culture Settlement in Bučany. Preliminary Report on Pottery Processing. Documenta Praehistorica 34 (14), 299–310. Pažinová, N. 2012. Bučany-Kopanice v kontexte lengyelského osídlenia Trnavskej pahorkatiny. In J. Peška and F. Trampota (eds.) Otázky neolitu a eneolitu 2011, 117–129. Mikulov – Olomouc: Archeologické centrum Olomouc, Regionální muzeum v Mikulově. Pechtl, J. 2016. From Distribution Maps to “Ethnic” Diversity within the Southern Bavarian LBK. In L. Amkreutz, F. Haack, D. Hofmann and I. van Wijk (eds.) Something out of the Ordinary? Interpreting Diversity in the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik and Beyond, 283–311. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Peša, V. 2015. Life in the Border Landscape: Neolithic and Early Aeneolithic Rockshelters and Settlement Patterns in Northern Bohemia/Saxony. Anthropologie 53 (3), 413–429. Peške, L. 1991. Archeologický výzkum neolitického sídliště v Roztokách. Osteologické nálezy. Muzeum a současnost 10 (2), 271–291. Petrasch, J. 1990. Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Mitteleuropa. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 407–564. Petrasch, J. 1998. Die jungsteinzeitliche Kreisgrabenanlage von Künzing-Unternberg. Deggendorf, Landratsamt, Deggendorf. Petrasch, J. 2000. Menschenknochen in neolithischen Siedlungen: Spuren sepulkraler Riten oder Abfall? Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 30 (3), 353–368. Petrasch, J. 2003. Zentrale Orte in der Bandkeramik? In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A. Zimmermann (eds.) Archäologische Perspektiven: Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag, Internationale Archäologie, 505–513. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf. Petrasch, J. 2004. Von Menschen und Hunden: Befunde aus Kreisgrabenanlagen der Oberlauterbacher Gruppe und der Lengyel-Kultur und deren Interpretationen. In E. Studeníková and B. Hänsel (eds.) Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis: Neolithikum und Ältere Bronzezeit, 295–308. Rahden, Marie Leidorf. Petrasch, J. 2012. Die mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlagen in Zentraleuropa: Forschungsstand und Interpretationstheorien zu Funktion und Bedeutung. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 41–66. Halle

(Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Petrasch, J. 2015. Central European Enclosures. In C. Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, 763–778. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pleinerová, I. 1984. Häuser des spätlengyeler Horizontes in Březno bei Louny. Památky archeologické 75, 7–49. Podborský, V. 1985. Těšetice-Kyjovice 2. Figurální plastika lidu s moravskou malovanou keramikou. Brno, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně. Podborský, V. 1988. Těšetice-Kyjovice 4. Rondel osady s moravskou malovanou keramikou. Brno, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně. Podborský, V. 1991. Poznámky ke kruhovým architekturám pravěké a raně historické Evropy. Pravěk – Nová řada 1, 90– 148. Podborský, V. (ed.) 1993. Pravěké dějiny Moravy. Brno, Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost. Podborský, V. (ed.) 1999. Pravěká sociokultovní architektura na Moravě. Primeval Socio-Ritual Architecture in Moravia. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Podborský, V. (ed.) 2002. Dvě pohřebiště neolitického lidu s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Podborský, V. (ed.) 2005. Pravěk mikroregionu potoka Těšetičky/Únanovky. K problematice pravěkých sociálních struktur. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Podborský, V. 2006. Náboženství pravěkých Evropanů. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Podborský, V. and Čižmář, Z. 2008. Pokladnice moravského neolitu aneb krása pravěké plastiky. Schatzkammer des mährischen Neolithikums oder die Schönheit der urzeitlichen Plastik. The Treasures of the Moravian Neolithic, or the Beauty of Prehistoric Sculpture. In Z. Čižmář (ed.) Život a smrt v mladší době kamenné. Leben und Tod in der Jungsteinzeit. Life and Death in the New Stone Age, 154–235. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno. Podborský, V., Kazdová, E., Koštuřík, P. and Weber, Z. 1977. Numerický kód moravské malované keramiky: problémy deskripce v archeologii. Brno, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně. Poensgen, U. 2009. Bemalte und andere Lengyel-Keramik von Künzing-Unternberg. “Gastarbeiter” am Unternberg? In L. Husty, M. M. Rind and K. Schmotz (eds.) Zwischen Münchshöfen und Windberg. Gedenkschrift für Karl Böhm, 139– 144. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Leidorf. Popelka, M. 1997. K problematice štípané industrie v neolitu Čech. Problems of the Chipped Industry in the Neolithic Period in Bohemia. Praehistorica 24, 7–122. Preuβ, J. (ed.) 1998. Das Neolithikum in Mitteleuropa. Kulturen – Wirtschaft – Umwelt vom 6. bis 3. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. Weissbach, Beier & Beran. Přichystal, A. 2013. Lithic Raw Materials in Prehistoric Times of Eastern Central Europe. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Pucher, E. 2005. Tiere und Kreisgrabenanlagen. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 132–137. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Raczky, P. and Anders, A. 2012. Neolithic Enclosures in Eastern Hungary and their Survival into the Copper Age. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.–9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 271–310. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie SachsenAnhalt. Raczky, P. and Anders, A. 2017. The Chosen Ones: Unconventional Burials at Polgár-Csöszhalom (North-East Hungary) from the Fifth Millennium cal BC. The Neolithic of Europe. Papers in Honour of Alasdair Whittle, 63–81. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Raczky, P. and Sebök, K. 2014. The Outset of Polgár-Csöszhalom Tell and the Archaeological Context of a Special Central Building. In S. Forţiu and A. Cîntar (eds.) Arheovest II1 – in honorem Gheorghe Lazarovici. Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie. Timişoara, 6 decembrie 2014, 51–100. Szeged, Jatepress. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1930–1931. The Social Organization of Australian Tribes. Oceania 1, 34–63, 322–341, 426–456. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. and Forde, D. 1950. African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. London, New York, Toronto, Oxford University Press. Remišová-Věšínová, K. 2009. K problematice interpretace antropomorfní plastiky neolitu. Contribution to the Interpretation of Neolithic Anthropomorphic Figurines. Praehistorica 28, 145–175. Renfrew, A. C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: the Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millenium BC. London, Methuen. Renfrew, A. C. 1973. Monuments, Mobilization and Social Organization in Prehistoric Wessex. In C. Renfrew (ed.) The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, 539–558. London, Duckworth.

Renfrew, A. C. 1974. Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Organization in Prehistoric Europe. In C. B. Moore (ed.) Reconstructing Complex Societies: An Archaeological Colloquium, 69–88. Cambridge, American School of Oriental Research. Renfrew, C. 1976. Megaliths, Territories and Populations. In S. J. De Laet (ed.) Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe Mainly during the Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age: Papers Presented at the IV Atlantic Colloquium, Ghent, 1975, 198–220. Brugge, De Tempel. Renfrew, A. C. 2018. Introduction: Play as the Precursor of Ritual in Early Human Societies. In A. C. Renfrew, I. Morley and M. Boyd (eds.) Ritual, Play and Belief, in Evolution and Early Human Societies, 9–20. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Řídký, J. 2003. Povodí Únetického a Podmoráňského potoka v neolitu a na počátku eneolitu. Neolitické osídlení v Černém Vole. Ms. of Mgr. final thesis. Praha, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Řídký, J. 2011. Rondely a struktura sídelních areálů v mladoneolitickém období. Praha a Brno, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Řídký, J. 2016. Radiokarbonová data z výplní mladoneolitických objektů z Vchynic (okr. Litoměřice). Praehistorica 33 (1– 2), 351–358. Řídký, J., Daněček, D., Sedláček, Z., Smejtek, L., Kostka, M. and Křivánek, R. 2012a. New Neolithic Rondels in Bohemia. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 223–238. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie SachsenAnhalt. Řídký, J., Květina, P., Půlpán, M., Kovačiková, L., Stolz, D., Brejcha, R., Šreinová, B. and Šrein, V. 2012b. Analýza a interpretace nálezů z příkopu neolitického rondelu ve Vchynicích (okr. Litoměřice). Archeologické rozhledy 64 (4), 628–694. Řídký, J., Stolz, D. and Kovačiková, L. 2012c. Böhmen im Verlauf der ersten Hälfte des fünften Jahrtausend v. Chr. aufgrund der Typochronologie, der Steinindustrie und Archäozoologie. In R. Gleser and V. Becker (eds.) Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz in Münster 2010, 6.-8. Oktober 2010, 183–206. Berlin, LIT Verlag. Řídký, J., Kovačiková, L. and Půlpán, M. 2013. Chronologie mladoneolitických objektů a soubor kosterních zvířecích pozůstatků ze sídlištního areálu s rondelem ve Vchynicích (okr. Litoměřice). Archeologické rozhledy 65 (2), 227–284. Řídký, J., Končelová, M., Šumberová, R., Limburský, P. and Květina, P. 2014a. How Were Neolithic Ditches Filled in? Deposition Study of Two Enclosures from Bohemia. European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4), 579–601. Řídký, J., Půlpán, M., Šreinová, B., Šrein, V., Drnovský, V. and Květina, P. 2014b. „Životní cyklus“ mlecích nástrojů z mladoneolitického sídelního areálu s rondelem ve Vchynicích, okr. Litoměřice. Archeologické rozhledy 66 (2), 271– 309. Řídký, J., Květina, P., Stäuble, H. and Pavlů, I. 2015. What Is Changing and When, Post Linear Pottery Culture Life in Central Europe. Anthropologie 53 (3), 333–339. Řídký, J., Netolický, P., Kovačiková, L., Půlpán, M. and Květina, P. in press a. What Happened at the Settlement? The Testimony of Sherds, Animal Remains, Grinding Tools and Daub. In D. Hofmann (ed.) Magical, Mundane or Marginal? Structured Deposition in the Neolithic. Řídký, J., Končelová, M., Burgert, P., Šumberová, R. and Hadacz, R. in press b. Grinding Tools and Circular Enclosures: Activities on Late Neolithic Settlements. In M. P. B. Jensen and P. Bye-Jensen (eds.) The Life Biography of Artefacts and Ritual Practice. Riedhammer, K. 2015. 450 Post LBK Years in Southern Bavaria. Anthropologie 53 (3), 387–398. Riedmeier-Fischer, E. 1989. Mittelneolithische Grabfunde aus Haimbuch, Gde. Mötzing, Lkr. Regensburg. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 54, 1–67. Rind, M. M. 2012. Zum Stand der Ausgrabungsergebnisse im Neolithischen Hornsteinbergwerk von Abensberg-Amhofen. In R. Gleser and V. Becker (eds.) Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz 2010, 6.-8. Oktober 2010, 421–429. Berlin, LIT Verlag. Roscoe, P. 2012. Before Elites: The Political Capacities of Big Men. In T. L. Kienlin and A. Zimmermann (eds.) Before Elites: Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations, 41–54. Bonn, Universitätforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Rulf, J. 1991. Archeologický výzkum neolitického sídliště v Roztokách. Keramika. Muzeum a současnost 10 (1), 88–176. Rulf, J. 1997. Die Elbe-Provinz der Linearbandkeramik. Památky archeologické – Supplementum 9. Praha, Archeologický

ústav AV ČR Rulf, J. 1998. K výzdobě české neolitické keramiky. Archeologické rozhledy 50 (1), 16–19. Sahlins, M. D. 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle, University of Washington Press. Sahlins, M. D. 1963. Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5 (3), 285–303. Sahlins, M. D. and Service, E. R. 1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Salisbury, R. B. 2016. Soilscapes and Social Organization in the Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. Budapest, Archaeolingua. Schier, W. 2005. Kalenderbau und Ritualkomplex. Archäologie in Deutschland 6, 32–35. Schier, W. 2012a. Die Kreisgrabenanlage von Ippesheim, Lkr. Neustadt/Aisch Bad Windsheim, Mittelfranken. Ergebnisse der Grabungen 1998–2004. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 181–196. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Schier, W. 2012b. Die mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlage Quedlinburg II. Ein Vorbericht. In R. Smolnik (ed.) Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung “Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!,” Leipzig 23. bis 24. September 2010, 141–145. Dresden, Landesamt für Archäologie. Schier, W. 2015. Central and Eastern Europe. In C. Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe 99–120. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Schier, W. and Schmidt-Kaler, T. 2008. Zur astronomischen Orientierung der mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage von Ippesheim, Mittelfranken. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 40, 45–55. Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. Schlosser, W. 2007. Alles nur Zufall? Ein statistischer Test zur Überprüfung der Sonnenorientierung vorgeschichtlicher Denkmäler. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 4 (2), 285–288. Schmotz, K. 2002. Bestattungsformen des 6. und 5. Jahrtausends im Landkreis Deggendorf (Niederbayern) – Erkenntnisse aus 20 Jahren kommunaler archäologischer Denkmalpflege. Pohřby 6. a 5. tisíciletí př. Kr. v okrese Deggendorf (dolní Bavorsko). Výsledky dvaceti let archeologické památkové péče. Archeologické rozhledy 54, 264–278. Service, E. R. 1962. Primitive Social Organization: an Evolutionary Perspective. New York, Random House. Service, E. R. 1966. The Hunters. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall. Service, E. R. 1975. Origins of the State and Civilization: the Process of Cultural Evolution. New York, Norton. Sherratt, A. 1990. The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-West Europe. World Archaeology 22 (2), 147–167. Sherratt, A. 1997. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Šída, P. 2007. Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné. Dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří. Praha – Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Siklósi, Z. 2013. Traces of Social Inequality during the Late Neolithic in the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Budapest, Eötvös Loránd University. Simmons, A. H. 2010. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Šmíd, M. 2013. Kralice na Hané. Birituální pohřebiště kultury s lineární keramikou. Olomouc, Archeologické centrum Oloumouc. Snítilý, P. 2007. Fragment neolitické zoomorfní nádoby z Květnice. Archeologické rozhledy 59 (4), 762–764. Spatz, H. 2003. Hinkelstein: Eine Sekte als Initiator des Mittelneolithikums? In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A. Zimmermann (eds.) Archäologische Perspektiven: Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag, 575–587. Rahden/Westf., Leidorf. Spatzier, A. 2017. Das endneolithisch-frühbronzezeitliche Rondell von Pömmelte-Zackmünde, Salzlandkreis, und das Rondell-Phänomen des 4.-1. Jt. v. Chr. in Mitteleuropa. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Stadler, P., Ruttkay, E., Doneus, M., Friesinger, H., Lauermann, E., Kutschera, W., Mateiciucová, I., Neugebauer, W., Maresch, C., Trnka, G., Weninger, F. and Wild, E. M. 2005/2006. Absolutchronologie der Mährisch-Österreichischen Gruppe (MOG) der bemalten Keramik aufgrund von neuen 14C-Datierungen. Archäologie Österreichs 16/17, 53–67.

Stäuble, H. 2002. From the Air and on the Ground: Two Aspects of the Same Archaeology? Round and Linear Ditch Systems in North-Western Saxony. Archeologické rozhledy 54 (1), 301–313. Stäuble, H. 2004. Wir graben unser Logo aus. Archaeo 1, 31–33. Stäuble, H. 2007. Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen im Wandel der Zeit – Die säschischen Beispiele. In K. Schmotz (ed.) Vorträge des 25. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages, 169–184. Deggendorf, Verlag Marie Leidorf. Stäuble, H. 2010. Linienband- und Stichbandkeramische Kulturen. In R. Heynowski and R. Reiss (eds.) Atlas zur Geschichte und Landeskunde von Sachsen, 24–41. Leipzig und Dresden, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig und Staatsbetrieb Geobasisinformation und Vermessung Sachsen. Stäuble, H. 2012. Stichbandkeramische Kreisgrabenanlagen aus Sachsen – Neues zu einem alten Thema? In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 135–158. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Stäuble, H. and Veit, U. (eds.) 2016. Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Eythra in Sachsen. Studien zur Chronologie und Siedlungsentwicklung. Leipzig, Professur für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Steward, J. 1951. Levels of Sociocultural Integration: an Operational Concept. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7, 374–390. Stolz, D. and Malyková, D. 2017. Sídliště kultury s vypíchanou keramikou na silničním obchvatu v Kolíně-Štítarech. Analýza objektů a keramiky. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 21 (1), 141–194. Stolz, D., Řídký, J., Půlpán, M. and Burgert, P. 2015. Štípaná industrie z mladoneolitického sídelního areálu s rondelem ve Vchynicích, okr. Litoměřice. Archeologické rozhledy 67 (2), 267–286. Stolz, D., Malyková, D., Kovačiková, L., Přichystal, A., Řídký, J. and Zítka, P. 2018. Sídliště kultury s vypíchanou keramikou na silničním obchvatu v Kolíně-Štítarech. Analýza kamenné industrie a zvířecích kostí, radiokarbonové datování a celkové zhodnocení. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 22, 31–69. Strathern, A. 1969. Finance and Production: Two Strategies in New Guinea Highlands Exchange System. Oceania 40 (1), 42–67. Strathern, A. 1971. The Rope of Moka: Big-Men and Ceremonial Exchange in Mount Hagen, New Guinea. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Stuiver, M. and Reimer, P. J. 1986. A Computer Program for Radiocarbon Age Calibration. Radiocarbon 28, 1022–1030. Suhrbier 2012. Multikulti in Mainfranken – Der Beginn des Mittelneolithikums. In R. Gleser and V. Becker (eds.) Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus: Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz in Münster 2010, 68. Oktober 2010, 141–150. Berlin, LIT Verlag. Šumberová, R. 1996. Neolithic Underground Storage Features. Památky archeologické 87, 61–103. Šumberová, R., Malyková, D., Vepřeková, J. and Pecinovská, M. 2010. Sídelní aglomerace v prostoru dnešního Kolína. Záchranný výzkum v trase obchvatu města. Archeologické rozhledy 62 (4), 661–679. Šumberová, R., Brzobohatá, H., Likovský, J., Kočár, P., Kočárová, R., Končelová, M., Kovačiková, L. and Valentová, J. 2012. Cesta napříč časem a krajinou. Katalog k výstavě nálezů ze záchranného archeologického výzkumu v trase obchvatu Kolína 2008–2010. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Tóth, P., Demján, P. and Griačová, K. 2011. Adaptation of Settlement Strategies to Environmental Conditions in Southern Slovakia in the Neolithic and Eneolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 38, 307–322. Toynbee, A. J. and Somervell, D. C. 1947. A Study of History. Abridgement of Volumes I-VI by D. C. Somervell. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Trigger, B. G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Trnka, G. 1991. Studien zu mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlagen. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Trnka, G. 1997. Zur Bauweise Mittelneolithischer Kreisgrabenanlagen. Sborník prací filozofické fakulty Brněnské univerzity M2, 41–48. Trnka, G. 2005. Kreise und Kulturen – Kreisgrabenanlagen in Mitteleuropa. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005, 10–18. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Trnka, G. 2012. Die Erforschung der mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage von Kamegg im Waldviertel, Niederösterreich. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.-9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt), 197–221. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie SachsenAnhalt.

Tylor, E. B. 1958. Primitive Culture. New York, Harper. Válek, D., Dreslerová, D., Gregerová, M., Hložek, M., Nerudová, Z., Šmerda, J. and Vokáč, M. 2014. Sídliště s moravskou malovanou keramikou v Hlubokých Mašůvkách (výzkumy z let 1947–1950). Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Vašinová, M. 2015. Sídliště kultury s vypíchanou keramikou v Kolíně-Hlubokém Dole. Ms. of Mgr. final thesis. Praha, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Vencl, S. 1975. Hromadné nálezy neolitické broušené industrie z Čech. Památky archeologické 66 (1), 12–73. Vencl, S. 1986. Neolitická štípaná industrie ze Žichova, obec Měrunice, okres Teplice. Archeologické rozhledy 38 (5), 483– 500. Vencl, S. 1991. Fragments of Clay Daub as Source of Information on Prehistoric Architecture. Památky archeologické 82, 406– 411. Vokolek, V. and Zápotocká, M. 1997. Neolithische Gräber und Gräberfelder in Plotiště n. L. und Předměřice n. L., Bezirk Hradec Králové. Památky archeologické 88 (1), 5–55. Vostrovská, I. and Prokeš, L. 2013. Model chronologického vývoje sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou v TěšeticíchKyjovicích “Sutnách.” Studia archaeologica Brunensia 18 (1), 93–135. Wade, N. 2009. Religion and Spirituality in Psychotherapy: a Practice-friendly review of research. Journal of Clinical Psychology 65 (2), 131–146. Walker, M. 2005. Quaternary dating methods. Chichester, Wiley. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, 387–415. Weber, M. 1976. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. London, Humanities Press. Weiner, J. 1998. Neolithische Brunnen. In H. Koschik (ed.) Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Internationales Symposium Erkelenz 27. bis 29. Oktober 1997, 193–213. Köln/Bonn, Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. White, L. 1943. Energy and the Evolution of Culture. American Anthropologist 45 (3), 335–356. White, L. 1959. The Evolution of Culture. New York, McGraw-Hill. Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A. (eds.) 2011. Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books. Woldřich, J. N. 1886. Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Böhmens (III. Teil). Reste der neolithischen Ansiedlung bei Řepín. Mitteilungen der Antropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 16, 72–96. Yoffee, N. 2005. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press. Zápotocká, M. 1978. Ornamentace neolitické vypíchané keramiky: technika, terminologie a způsob dokumentace. Archeologické rozhledy 30 (5), 504–534. Zápotocká, M. 1984. Armringe aus Marmor und anderen Rohstoffen im jüngeren Neolithikum Böhmens und Mitteleuropas. Památky archeologické 75, 50–132. Zápotocká, M. 1998. Bestattungsritus des böhmischen Neolithikums (5000–4200 B. C.). Gräber und Gräberfelder der Kultur mit Linear-, Stichband- und Lengyel-Keramik. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Zápotocká, M. 2005. Průzkum a výzkum v mikroareálu Bylany 5. A Surface Survey and Excavations of the Bylany 5 Microarea. In I. Pavlů (ed.) Bylany Varia 3, 39–54. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Zápotocká, M. 2007. Die Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Kultur mit Stichbandkeramik. In J. K. Kozlowski and P. Raczky (eds.) The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 199–216. Kraków, The Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and Eötvös Loránd University. Zápotocká, M. 2009. Neolitické sídelní regiony v Čechách (ca 5300–4400 př. Kr.). Region Litoměřicko. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Zápotocká, M. 2011. Neolithische Siedlungsregionen in Böhmen: Südböhmen. Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/ West- und Südböhmen/Oberösterreich. 20. Treffen, 113–128. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf. Zotti, G. 2005. Kalendarbauten? – Zur astronomischen Ausrichtung der Kreisgrabenanlagen in Niederösterreich. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer (eds.) “Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben.” Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesausstellung 2005, 75–79. Horn – Wien, Verlag Berger. Zürn, H. 1965. Das jungsteinzeitliche Dorf Ehrenstein (Kreis Ulm). Ausgrabungen 1960. Teil I. Die Baugeschichte. Stuttgart, Silberburg in Komm.

Website Sonnenobservatorium Goseck [online], © 2008 Gosecker Sonnenobservatorium e. V., [accessed 28 January 2018], http://www.sonnenobservatorium-goseck.info.