Theoretical and Methodological Considerations in Central European Neolithic Archaeology: Proceedings of the 'Theory and Method in Archaeology of the Neolithic (7th - 3rd millennium BC)' conference held in Mikulov, Czech Republic, 26th – 28th of October 2010 9781407309088, 9781407338897

Citation preview

BAR S2325 2012 KOLÁŘ & TRAMPOTA (Eds) CENTRAL EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY

B A R

Theoretical and Methodological Considerations in Central European Neolithic Archaeology Proceedings of the ‘Theory and Method in Archaeology of the Neolithic (7th - 3rd millennium BC)’ conference held in Mikulov, Czech Republic, 26th – 28th of October 2010

Edited by

Jan Kolář František Trampota

BAR International Series 2325 2012

Theoretical and Methodological Considerations in Central European Neolithic Archaeology Proceedings of the ‘Theory and Method in Archaeology of the Neolithic (7th - 3rd millennium BC)’ conference held in Mikulov, Czech Republic, 26th – 28th of October 2010

Edited by

Jan Kolář František Trampota

BAR International Series 2325 2012

‐ ‐

ISBN 9781407309088 paperback ISBN 9781407338897 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309088 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Content Preface iii Jan Kolář and František Trampota Explaining Cultural Elaboration in the Middle and Late Linear Pottery Culture: Application of the Waste Hypothesis 1 Mateusz Krupski New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship and Social Structure Based on Bioarchaeological Analysis of Neolithic Multiple and Collective Graves 11 Christian Meyer, Robert Ganslmeier, Veit Dresely, Kurt W. Alt Secondary Mortuary Practices During the Late Eneolithic in Moravia, Czech Republic: State of Knowledge, History Of Research, Terminology and Interpretations 25 Jan Kolář Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture Graves from Hodonice and Těšetice-Kyjovice, Moravia, Czech Republic 45 Jan Petřík, Lubomír Prokeš, David Humpola, Zuzana Fajkošová, Martin Kuča, Klára Šabatová, Eliška Kazdová Flints Versus Lists: Lithic Industries of Early Farming Communities in Central Europe and Classification Tools 65 Maciej Ehlert Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement: Formalized Methods in Archaeological Data Processing 77 Peter Demján Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement at Těšetice-Kyjovice, Moravia, Czech Republic: Processing and Statistical Analyses 95 Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš Early Neolithic Settlement in the Area of Melk, Lower Austria: the Survey of an LBK ‘Siedlungskammer’ 111 Joris Coolen

i

Preface Jan Kolář and František Trampota

Given the current state of research and disciplinary interaction in Neolithic studies in central and eastern Europe it had become obvious to us that there was a critical need to ask new questions, reflective of recent developments in modern world archeology, and to foster a new approach to academic exchange. In the spring of 2010 we had arrived at the conclusion that there are particular and unique impediments shared within the sphere of Czech and Slovak archeology of the Neolithic that also needed to be addressed. Though Neolithic conferences are held quite often, we sought an alternative approach that would consider how to redefine and progress the Neolithic and Eneolithic research being conducted across central and eastern Europe. With this in mind we decided to host a conference with a completely new approach – or at least an approach new to this region – focused largely on the theory and methods used in Neolithic research. We began by setting out some key questions and expectations. ‘How can we stimulate a broad and fruitful discussion of the Neolithic in this region?’ ‘How could we attract as many quality researchers and thinkers as possible?’ ‘How could we overcome the national and linguistic divides from which, we believe, stem the primary problems of the vast majority of central and east European conferences and academic exchange?’ Language diversity is a critical regional challenge, leading to the clear segregation of Slavic researchers from their Germanic and Hungarian colleagues, even for those dealing with the same periods and places. National borders are a self-imposed limiting factor within the discipline for which it is difficult to find any justification (cf. Beneš Brukner - Mlejnek - Peška 2010). Another weakness with central and eastern European archeology is the low level of disciplinary engagement in the wider continental discussion. This typically manifests in the absence, or error prone use, of English – the current global disciplinary lingua-franca – as a linguistic bridge in conferences and publication, and the relatively few western archaeologists attending the majority of regional conferences. In short, it appears that the old cold war borders are still largely with us. The approach to theory is another regional challenge. Theoretical discourse at national or regional levels is close to non-existent. Generally speaking, the value of theory is underestimated and archeology reduced, at best, to a mere positivist discipline, focused largely on excavation, classification and science-like technical approaches to objects and contexts. That is not to say that there isn’t any theoretical consideration, often focused on methodology and processualist-like approaches, and even on rare occasions work of significant theoretical import (eg. Neustupný 1993; Neustupný and John 2005; Vašíček 2006; Kuna 1993, Květina 2010). Evžen Neustupný, Ivan Pavlů and their students and colleagues have contributed to the development of theories and methods in the region, and for the Neolithic. Currently, we are also at a point where developments in science and technology have opened up entirely new possibilities for research methods, analysis and the evaluation of archaeological material. Developments in fields such as palynology, micromorphology and palaeogenetics provide new and little understood approaches to our material. With an intentional focus on bridging the traditional national and linguistic divides, a significant engagement with theory, and a far sighted look at the possibilities inherent in new technologies we gathered together regional and period experts from seven central and east European countries, including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Ukraine. Between the 26th and 28th of October, 2010, we met together at the ‘Theory and Method in Archaeology of the Neolithic (7th - 3rd millennium BC)’ conference held at the Regional Museum in Mikulov, Czech Republic. The conference was divided into four sessions: new interpretations and critical views of the Neolithic of central Europe, analysis and approaches to material culture, geoarchaeology and anthropology. 19 papers were presented. Eight of these were submitted for peer-review and gathered into these proceedings. The articles of the first half of the proceedings are oriented to theoretical and methodological considerations. The authors introduce innovative and alternative approaches to solving and interpreting various research questions of the central European Neolithic and Eneolithic. Mateusz Krupski takes an evolutionary approach to archaeological data (mainly LBK in Germany) and evaluates the utility of Dunnel’s waste hypothesis. He concludes that while it is not iii

possible to use the waste hypothesis to explain the end of LBK in central Europe, it is an important consideration when evaluating phenomena related to cultural elaboration. Christian Meyer and his co-authors focus on the reconstruction of kinship and social structures in multiple and collective graves (Benzingerode, Eulau). They promote a complex biocultural or bioarchaeological approach, that they perceive allows a more detailed reconstruction of social structures of Neolithic societies. Jan Kolář discusses a recent paradigmatic change amongst Moravian archaeologists studying secondary mortuary practices of the Late Eneolithic. He considers classification, categorisation and interpretation in light of developments in archaeothanatology and cultural anthropology. The same phenomenon is discussed in relation to mortuary practices by Jan Petřík, et al. who emphasis a stronger methodological approach to burial excavation. Four Bell Beaker graves from Moravia are introduced by the authors as case studies of the utility of geochemical research. Maciej Ehlert follows with a thought provoking look at the history of Polish research of the chipped stone industry in central Europe, and the almost ubiquitous use of ‘classification lists’. The value of their continued use is questioned and Ehlert considers other tried and true approaches to lithic analysis, including a sequence approach that considers the chipped stone industry as part of complex social system. Two papers present alternative methods for the study of relative chronology. Peter Demján asserts the value of a formalized approach when dealing with larger sets of data to eliminate bias arising from defining types a priori and searching for structures which we already expect to exist. He presents an application of a formalized typological and chronological method, influenced by Evžen Neustupný, applied to graves and their inventories from a Lengyel Culture settlement in Svodín (southwest Slovakia) using multivariate statistical analysis. Ivana Vostrovská and Lubomír Prokeš demonstrate the use of multivariate analysis to verify the chronology of the ‘Sutny’ LBK settlement at Těšetice-Kyjovice in the Czech Republic. They propose a new method for processing and describing ceramics using the ‘R’ software package to prepare highly innovative visual representations of statistical data. Joris Coolen presents the results of a microregional study of Early Neolithic LBK settlement in Austria, conducted with a predictive model designed for the area which, when tested by the Austrian Archaeological Institute, led to the discover of several new sites. The primary intent of the conference was to gather together regional experts from different countries with different theoretical backgrounds to discuss theory and methodology in Neolithic and the Eneolithic research. In this regard the conference was an enormous success. The next phase of our initiative, to publish the innovative efforts of regional archaeologists as represented by those at our conference to come to terms with modern theory, is contained in this monograph. While these proceedings have very heterogeneous character we perceive a need to publish the available material quickly, in order to provide visibility to innovative and important research taking place in central and east European Neolithic archaeology. We hope that these proceeding will also provoke a renewed and broad discussion of fundamentally important theoretical questions that face the archaeology of the region. We would like to express our thanks to the many individuals whose efforts allowed us to hold our conference and bring forward these proceedings. We are especially grateful to Prof. Zdeněk Měřínský, Head of the Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Brno, and to Petr Kubín of the Regional Museum in Mikulov, for providing us with the substantial resources necessary to plan and hold the seminar. Our thanks go out to Klára Šabatová, Daniel Sosna, Miriam Nývltová Fišáková, Ivan Pavlů, Peter Tkáč, Ivana Vostrovská, Josef Maňák, Alžběta Čerevková, and Vojtěch Nosek for lending us their expertise, advice and support before and during the conference. We are grateful for the personal time and considered input offered by our many peer-reviews, and to Robert Brukner we express our thanks for copy editing, proof reading and language correction. Our biggest thanks we reserve for all the conference participants and authors who have given this initiative its substance, and provided us with insight into the inestimable value of grappling with modern methods and theory, and the fundamental ways in which these can successfully and meaningfully contribute to the development of our research and interpretations. References Beneš, J., Brukner, R., Mlejnek, O. and Peška, J. 2010. A Window of Opportunity. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology 1-2, 3-5. Kuna, M. 1993. Post-processual archaeology from a post-Marxist perspective. Archeologické rozhledy 45, 390-395. Květina, P. 2010. Archeologie smyšlené identity. The Archaeology of fabricated identity. Archeologické rozhledy 62, 629-660. Neustupný, E. 1993. Archaeological Method. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Neustupný, E. and John, J. (eds.) 2005. Příspěvky k archeologii 2. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. Vašíček, Z. 2006. Archeologie, historie, minulost. Praha, Karolinum. iv

Explaining Cultural Elaboration in the Middle and Late Linear Pottery Culture: Application of the Waste Hypothesis Mateusz Krupski Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław Szewska 48, 50-139, Wrocław Poland [email protected]

Abstract: The waste hypothesis first proposed by R. Dunnell (1989, see also 1999) and further elaborated by M. Madsen et al., (1999), is an empirically testable concept which is capable of explaining the appearance and termination of certain phenomena in the archaeological record. Operating from an evolutionary theory based perspective it suggests that the rise of cultural elaboration in human societies may be the result of natural selection operating under uncertain, fluctuating environmental conditions. Testing the hypothesis’ empirical expectations in each specific cultural case is of crucial importance. This paper offers a preliminary discussion of the waste hypothesis in the light of Linear Pottery Culture (LBK after Linearbandkeramik) data from western central Europe and its initial testing on the LBK dataset. Keywords: Neolithic, LBK, west Germany, waste hypothesis, cultural elaboration

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine the applicability of an evolutionary hypothesis – called the waste hypothesis by R. Dunnell (1989; 1999) – in explaining certain aspects of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK after Linearbandkeramik) archaeological record, which may be termed cultural elaboration. Because of the fact that the evidence discussed below comes from western central Europe, mainly from western Germany, the most suitable chronological timeframe is the one suggested by D. Price et al,. (2001) (Figure 1). The period with which I am concerned, covers approximately the last 300 years of the developmental sequence of this cultural entity; spanning the Middle and Late LBK phases according to the above mentioned chronology.

Figure 1. LBK chronology in the Rhine Valley. Based on: Price et al., 2001

aspects may cautiously be called cultural elaboration. Along with subsistence practices, various production activities, trade, and the construction of defensive earthworks, there is evidence of peculiar mortuary rites and the building of a specific kind of enclosure which appear to have had no obvious purposes. The waste hypothesis may (or may not) provide a satisfying explanation of the two latter phenomena.

First of all I intend to review the available evidence of possible cultural elaboration in LBK then move on to a brief description of the basic assumptions of the waste hypothesis, followed by a preliminary testing of the hypothesis in light of empirical environmental and archaeological data.

The construction of earthworks

Cultural elaboration in the Middle and Late LBK in western central Europe?

LBK enclosures are a well-known phenomenon (see Petrasch 1990). Most of the earthworks may be classified as structures erected for defensive purposes and therefore called fortifications. Enclosed sites are concentrated on the margins of areas settled by the LBK population during each cultural phase. Their location in the landscape does not differ from the location of unenclosed settlements, and in many cases the earthworks seem to have been used only for a limited period of time (e.g. Höckmann 1990; Kaufmann

Despite the apparent homogenous appearance, material remains classified as LBK are characterized by both spatial and temporal diversity. The Middle and Late phases of LBK in the western area of its distribution (mainly in Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine Westphalia, in Germany), witness activities which in certain

1

Explaining Cultural Elaboration

Figure 2. Distribution of LBK enclosures with defensive features: locations of sites based on L. Keeley, LBKenclosures.xls at: http:// www.uic.edu/depts/anth/faculty/keeley.html. 1. Darion-Colia, 2. Waremme-Longchamps, 3. Menneville, 4. Eilsleben II, 5. Bracht, 6. Köln-Lindenthal II (ditch A), 7.Köln-Lindenthal III (ditches B1 and B2), 8. Erkelenz-Kuckhoven II, 9. Langweiler 8, 10. Plaidt, 11. Erkelenz-Kuckhoven I, 12. Fexhe le Haut Clocher Voroux-Goreux, 13. Remicourt En Bia Flo II, 14. Schletz-Asparn II, 15. Vaihingen, 16. Oleye la Zepe, 17. Weisweiler 17, 18. Bad Sassendorf, 19. Heilbronn-Neckargartach, 20. Köln-Lindenthal IV (ditches C/D1 and D2), 21. Straubing-Lerchenhaid I, 22. Uničov, 23. Bernkastel-Kues, 24. Elsloo, 25. Gerlingen, 26. Hienheim, 27. Meindling, 28. Sittard, 29. Stephansposching, 30. Barleben, 31. Langweiler 3 I (ditch B), 32. Langweiler 3 III (ditch C), 33. Esbeck, 34. JüchenHochneukirch, 35. Becseheley, 36. Bicske-Galagonyas, 37. Broichweiden-Eschweiler, 38. Herrenberg-Affstadt, 39. Langweiler 3 II (ditch A), 40. Ober-Hörgern, 41. Straubing-Lerchenhaid III, 42. Usingen, 43. Vaux et Borset-Gibour, 44. Vedrovice, 45. Weisweiler 36, 46. Hattenheim, 47. Köln-Mungersdorf, 48. Griessen

described as places of communal meetings and feasting (Boelicke 1988; Kaufmann 1990; 1997) (Figure 4).

1990; 1997; Krupski 2009; Lüning 1988; Petrasch 1990). Moreover, they display a certain set of characteristics which seem to be specific to fortified sites, regardless of when these were constructed; as noted by L. Keeley et al., (2007) these universal features include V-shaped ditches, gate constructions and bastions. All (bastions only in 1 case) are widely represented on LBK sites either on their own, or in combination, during the Flomborn phase (Figure 2). Of course the presence of fortifications does not automatically imply that the sites didn’t have any other function. It may be that they were countermeasures to prevent threat. The best term for these settlements is ‘fortified villages’ (after Vencl 1999, 69).

The proposed interpretations of the possible functions of Langweiler type enclosures are based on a few factors: the small site area, absence of settlement activity, an inventory of specific finds recovered during excavations (such as grinding stones supposedly used to prepare meals, and pottery fragments), and perhaps a general feeling of the uniqueness of these sites in comparison with other LBK earthworks. However, they don’t explain the appearance of these monuments in the archaeological record or their specific spatial and temporal distribution. The concept of ‘wasteful behaviour’ may be of use in this respect.

Along with fortified villages there is another category of site characterized by the presence of earthworks. Called Langweiler by D. Kaufmann (1997) (Figure 3), these sites bear no traces of settlement activity within their limits. Their total area is usually less than 1ha (Langweiler 3 – max. 1.8ha; Langweiler 8 – 0.59ha; Langweiler 9 – 0.64 to 0.82ha; Heilbronn-Neckargartach – 0.39 to 0.72ha; Weisweiler 17 – 0.3 to 0.35ha). They are enclosed by one or more concentric V- and U-shaped ditches, with no signs of palisades, but sometimes with gated entrances. It can be seen that they possess defensive qualities (hence their presence in Figure 2). In the available literature they are

Mortuary practices P. Bogucki and R. Grygiel (1993) have fairly observed that it’s difficult to define a ‘typical’ LBK grave lot, both in respect to mortuaria as well as the burial rite itself (see also Gronenborn 1999; Jeunesse 1997; Milisauskas 2002, 181–184; Podborský 2002, 293–299). There is a general predominance of inhumation, with the body laid down in a flexed position, facing the south. However, cremations are also known (e.g. Jeunesse 1997, 57–60) and it has been suggested that above-ground burial was practiced

2

Mateusz Krupski

Figure 3. Distribution of Langweiler type enclosures. 1. Langweiler 8, 2. Langweiler 3, 3. Langweiler 9, 4. Weisweiler 17, 5. Heilbronn-Neckargartach

(van de Velde 1997). Graves are found scattered amongst long houses within the settlement limits, and/or grouped together in cemeteries. Goods deposited with the dead include pottery, stone and flint implements, and ‘prestige’ items (Spondylus shells, quartz beads), and sometimes also red ochre. Nevertheless, there are also graves which do not contain any grave goods. There are also a certain number of burials, dated almost exclusively to Middle and Late LBK, which are atypical or peculiar and may indicate a further diversification in the sphere of mortuary practices (Figure 5). Two main trends can be identified in the archaeological record. Bodies and/or human remains are deposited in ditches enclosing the settlements, as found at Eilsleben (Kaufmann 1990), Vaihingen (Krause 1997; 2000), Schwaigern (Jeunesse 1997, 150 further references there; Krause 1997), Menneville (Jeunesse 1997, 47 further references there), Heilbronn-Neckargartach (Krause 1997), and Plaidt (Boelicke 1988). Dismembered human remains are also scattered on the surface and/or in pits, sometimes additionally mixed with waste deposits, as found at Vaihingen (Krause 1997; 2000), Herxheim (Boulestin et al., 2009; Orschiedt and Haidle 2006; Zeeb-Lanz and Haack 2006), Jungfernhöhle (Jeunesse 1997, 47–48 further references there), Zauschwitz (Jeunesse 1997, 48–49; Veit 1996, 269–270 further references there) and Fronhofen (Guilaine and Zammit 2005, 94).

Figure 4. Langweiler 8 – plan of the enclosure. After: Boelicke et al., 1988

have been found at Herxheim (Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany). The excavation led to the uncovering of an LBK settlement dated to 5300–4900 BC (Boulestin et al., 2009; Orschiedt and Haidle 2006; Zeeb-Lanz and Haack 2006). Its residential area was surrounded by a series of intercutting single pits (Boulestin et al., 2009, figure 1; Schmidt 2004) which contained human skeletal remains. These belonged to about 500 individuals of all age groups and both sexes and had been deposited during a c. 50 year period in the Late LBK. About 90% were fragmented and scattered amongst

Perhaps the best examples of LBK peculiar funerary rites

3

Explaining Cultural Elaboration

Figure 5. Distribution of untypical LBK burials: rhombus – untypical burial site, dot – cemetery mentioned in the text. 1. Menneville, 2. Plaidt, 3. Flomborn, 4. Schwetzingen, 5. Herxheim, 6. Schwaigern, 7. Heilbronn-Neckargartach, 8. Vaihingen, 9. Hanseles Hohle (Fronhofen), 10. Jungfernhöhle, 11. Zauschwitz, 12. Eilsleben.

different pits, with only 9 burials found in anatomical order. The majority of skulls (c. 400) bear intriguing signs of manipulation: they seem to have been deliberately smashed with the intention of separating the calottes (Orschiedt and Haidle 2006, figure 2). Afterwards, several of these were deposited in a pit along with other skeletal fragments and broken pottery (Boulestin et al,. 2009, figure 2). The nature of the rituals performed at Herxheim during the Late LBK remains enigmatic. Sacrificial cannibalism on a large scale has been suggested (Boulestin et al., 2009). Another interpretation identifies Herxheim as a cemetery and centre of specific funerary rites (Orschiedt and Haidle 2006; Zeeb-Lanz and Haack 2006). Rituals of excarnation may leave traces on the skeletal remains identical to those which result from cannibalistic behaviour. However, the importance of Herxheim as an LBK ceremonial centre seems to be beyond doubt: fragments of high quality pottery found in association with the skeletal remains show stylistic connections with places as much as 400-500km distant (Boulestin et al., 2009).

also Guilaine and Zammit 2005, 94–95), the existence of separate burial rites for different social groups within LBK society (Krause 1997; 2000 about Vaihingen), or cannibalism often connected with sacrifice (Boulestin et al., 2009 about Herxheim, Jeunesse 1997, 48–49 and Whittle 1996, 167 about Zauschwitz). To this list I would add another possibility: the appearance of a new burial rite which gained popularity in Middle and Late LBK. It would have involved dismembering the human body, manipulation of the remains (e.g. breaking of bones) and scattering them over a surface or in a pit, often mixed with waste material such as animal bones and pottery shards. The horizon of such practices would be represented by sites such as Jungfernhöhle, Zauschwitz, Hanseles Hohle (Fronhofen), Menneville (perhaps), Vaihingen (two pits containing human remains and waste deposits) and Herxheim. The available evidence seems to point towards a growing complexity and elaboration in the sphere of mortuary practices in Middle and Late LBK. Rituals such as those evidenced by the archaeological record in Herxheim must have been time consuming and given the suggested regional and supra regional importance of this centre, involved a significant number of individuals. Another distinct feature of Middle and Late LBK funerary customs is the growing wealth of deposited grave goods (Jeunesse 1997, 91–95).

Various interpretations of the above mentioned sites have been presented in the literature and there exist several hypotheses designed to explain the presence of skeletal remains in enclosure ditches or scattered in pits (for a good summary see Guilaine and Zammit 2005, 91–95 and Jeunesse 1997, 45–53). Suggestions have been made of inter communal conflict resulting in massacres (Vencl 1999 about Jungfernhöhle), sacrificial ceremonies with bloody human offerings (Kaufmann 1990 about Eilsleben,

The waste hypothesis The waste hypothesis is the result of R. Dunnell’s search

4

Mateusz Krupski

for an empirically testable explanation of the origins and collapse of the Ohio Hopewell cultural climax in North America (Dunnell 1989; 1999; Dunnell and Greenlee 1999). Taking a direct evolutionary approach to the archaeological data led him to propose that the appearance of cultural elaboration could be a consequence of the process of natural selection acting in an unpredictably variable environment. Under fluctuating resource conditions selection is likely to favour those individuals (and groups of individuals) who engage in activities not directly linked with reproduction. The diversion of a certain part of their energy budget towards these activities leads, in effect, to lower reproduction rates and at the same time enables better provision for themselves. This trait may become fixed by selection among a population because such individuals (and groups) improve their general fitness in the long run at the expense of an immediate reproductive success (see Madsen et al., 1999 for testing of this mechanism). In biology this effect has been termed the bet-hedging effect and described on numerous occasions (e.g. Wilbur and Rudolf 2006, see also Madsen et al., 1999 and Madsen 2001 for further references and examples).

research of the Ohio Hopewell case, the waste hypothesis when compared with other ideas about the reasons of the collapse of this particular cultural entity, displayed greater explanatory power and could better account for existing evidence (1989; 1999; also Dunnell and Greenlee 1999). Empirical expectations of the waste hypothesis The waste hypothesis has several empirical expectations. These can be identified both through deduction (Dunnell 1999; Dunnell and Greenlee 1999) and agent based modelling (Madsen et al., 1999; Madsen 2001). The following can be directly derived from the hypothesis: 1) under fluctuating environmental conditions, populations with a fixed high level of waste behaviour will have a selective advantage over populations with low levels of non-reproductive behaviour. Therefore, it is essential for the occurrence of waste behaviour, that the environmental conditions show marked unpredictability, which results in a decreased carrying capacity of the environment and 2) an improvement of environmental conditions which causes a decrease of unpredictability will result in a selective pressure for non-wasteful phenotypes which, in turn, will result in the reduction of waste behaviour and an increase in population.

R. Dunnell called these non-reproductive uses of energy ‘waste behaviour’. It can manifest itself in various forms in the archaeological record – the forms it can take are not universal, but historically contingent (Dunnell and Greenlee 1999; Madsen et al., 1999; Madsen 2001). In the original Ohio Hopewell example analysed by R. Dunnell (1989; 1999; Dunnell and Greenlee 1999) waste behaviour was responsible for the construction of monumental architecture (mounds etc.) and elaborate mortuary practices. The fixation of a certain form of waste behaviour in a particular cultural context depends on the unique properties of that context – it may serve a utilitarian function (e.g. place of gatherings and feasting) and it will remain complementary with other elements of the cultural system.

M. Madsen et al., (1999) agent based simulation has revealed further implications of the hypothesis: that 3) a negative correlation between the mobility of populations of individuals and the generation of waste behaviour has been identified. The larger the role of migration in a given population the lower the levels of waste behaviour are likely to ‘evolve’ within it. However, a sedentary lifestyle is not a necessary factor for the selection for waste behaviour – it only increases the strength of the selection, and that 4) the occurrence of selection for non-reproductive behaviour also has an impact on the age distribution within a population. The ratio of juveniles and adults tends to be equal in groups with higher levels of ‘waste’; this applies both to living populations and mortuary assemblages. In non-wasteful populations the juvenile mortality rate, and the overall ratio of juveniles to adults would both be higher.

The waste hypothesis has been further elaborated on the theoretical level by M. Madsen et al., (1999). They reevaluated the original concept showing its firm grounding in evolutionary biology (e.g. the bet-hedging effect). Through the use of agent based computer modelling they confirmed its coherence and identified additional empirical implications of the hypothesis.

Testing of the waste hypothesis: the LBK dataset In order to determine whether the waste hypothesis can provide an adequate and sufficient explanation of features of the LBK archaeological record, such as atypical burials and the construction of Langweiler type earthworks, the empirical expectations of the hypothesis have to be tested against the LBK dataset.

It is critical to note that, because of its origin in evolutionary theory, the waste hypothesis does not offer a universal explanation of the rise of cultural elaboration. What it does offer is a testable hypothesis. There may be other ways in which selection can act under uncertain and fluctuating environmental conditions and there may be other ways in which cultural elaboration in the archaeological record can be explained, including other evolutionary theory based explanations (e.g. costly signalling, see Bird and O’Connell 2006; Boone and Smith 1998; Gintis et al., 2001). These approaches are by no means mutually exclusive, that is why it is so important to consider each case separately and in the light of available empirical data. In R. Dunnell’s

Climate in the 6th millennium BC Detailed research in recent years has greatly expanded our knowledge of climate conditions during the LBK period (e.g. Dubouloz 2008; Gronenborn 2007; 2009; Schmidt et al. 2004). The period 5700-4900 BC belongs to the Atlantic climatic optimum, however it seems that various

5

Explaining Cultural Elaboration

A 5500

B 5300

C

Years B.C. cal.

D 5100

LBK. This period is likely to have been cooler and more humid in comparison with the preceding and following periods (Dubouloz 2008). However, the data obtained using different methods vary slightly on the exact patterning of the variation phases (compare Dubouloz 2008 and Schmidt et al., 2004). What remains clearly visible in all data sources is a cooling episode during the 51st century BC (the 5.1-event), followed by a temperature increase and the onset of drier phase. This change in environmental conditions accompanies the beginning of the process of disappearance of LBK material from the archaeological record – a broad tendency witnessed throughout the settlement regions.

E 4900

Figure 6. Climatic variations in Central Europe during the 6th millennium BC: the occurrence of dry and humid phases. A, E – dry phases, B, C, D – humid phases separated by short, more dry episodes. Based on: Schmidt et al., 2004, figure 1

fluctuations can be identified during that time. The evidence for these variations in climate comes from several sources.

Demographic data

J. Dubouloz (2008) describes the measurements of residual atmospheric 14C and the 18O/16O ratio, which reveal that the period 5600-5100 BC was a time of climatic deterioration, generally characterized by cold, wet summers and long winters, with the temperature and humidity going through changes. He points out 5 major climatic phases:

If the above mentioned termination of the LBK sequence were explainable in terms of the waste hypothesis it would need to be accompanied by a marked reduction of waste behaviour (manifested by forms of cultural elaboration) and an increase in population. The available demographic data seem to contradict this expectation. According to S. Shennan and K. Edinborough (2007, figure 3), the LBK period in Germany was initially characterized by rapid population growth which started c. 5550 BC and lasted until c. 5300 BC (with a small decrease c. 5350 BC), then reached a plateau marked by a few fluctuations, to finally rise slightly once more c. 5050 BC, only to start falling dramatically c. 4950 BC (see also Dubouloz 2008; Shennan 2009). For the next c. 1400 years the population level varied, but remained relatively low when compared with the LBK period (Figure 7). The initial demographic growth was probably the result of the introduction of a farming based economy. But the dramatic decline of the population level c. 4950 BC which corresponds with the disappearance of LBK from the archaeological record in west Germany, remains to be explained. Clearly it does not fall within the empirical expectations of the waste hypothesis. It is however important to emphasize that S. Shennan’s and K. Edinborough’s (2007) data relate to the whole territory of Germany, so regional tendencies may not be visible.

‘(1) first cold and humid around 5600 BC, (2) the climate improves rather clearly until just after 5500 BC; (3) it becomes more humid but remains mild until just after 5400 BC; (4) then it turns humid and cold until c. 5150 BC, before (5) becoming clearly warmer and less humid or dry from 5100 BC until shortly after 4500 BC.’ (Dubouloz 2008, 229). B. Schmidt et al. (2004) using dendrochronological analysis (homogeneity analysis) come to slightly different conclusions for LBK in the Rhineland region in western Germany. They recognize two dry phases and three more humid phases in the period between 5600 and 4900 BC, with the climate showing marked variations (Schmidt et al., 2004) (Figure 6). However the chronological position of their humid and dry periods doesn’t exactly match with the data presented by J. Dubouloz (2008, see figure 9), except for the identification of a dry period starting in the course of the 51st century BC.

Migration in the LBK

D. Gronenborn (2007; 2009) on the other hand, brings attention to a growing body of literature on climatic fluctuations during the Holocene and an explanation which links those happening in the North Atlantic region with IRD-events (Ice Rafted Debris-events) (see Gronenborn 2009 for further references). During these episodes large amounts of fresh water were released into the ocean, from icebergs and shrinking ice shield, and they are supposed to be responsible for the periodic cooling of the climate and/or its variations. A correlation of the timing of IRDevents with solar activity is discussed in the literature (see Gronenborn 2009 for references). The LBK falls almost entirely within IRD 5b which starts c. 5700 BC and ends c. 5100 BC with a severe cooling episode (the so called 5.1-event).

The issue of migration is one of the most often discussed in LBK studies. The question of whether the spread of LBK culture throughout Europe reflects the migration of groups of farmers or perhaps cultural diffusion of ideas still sparks lively debate. A most interesting model of expansion, which to some extent combines both the ‘migrationist’ and ‘adaptionist’ approaches, was proposed by D. Gronenborn (1999). It assumes that the origin of LBK in western Hungary is the effect of an adoption of new ideas by local hunter gatherer communities. The newly made farmers commenced their expansion northwards and westwards, a process which involved interactions with the indigenous populations. Traces of these contacts are visible in the LBK archaeological record (e.g. microlithic tools in the flint inventory, La Hoguette pottery on LBK sites). This large scale model is elegantly supplemented by S. Shennan’s

The sources briefly reviewed above seem to indicate that fluctuations were a major feature of the climate during the

6

Mateusz Krupski

P [rel]

Germany N=294 6500

6000

5500

5000

4500 Years B.C. cal.

4000

3500

3000

2500

Figure 7. Population fluctuations in Neolithic Germany: reconstruction based on the summed probability distribution of radiocarbon dates (N=294). After: Shennan and Edinborough 2007, figure 3

(2007, see also 2009) evolutionary based concept, which describes LBK expansion on a finer, more regional scale.

soils in many instances allow very poor preservation of human skeletal material. Moreover, the diversity of coexisting LBK funerary rites, such as inhumation, cremation and as has been suggested another archaeologically invisible ritual (e.g. exposure), leads to a situation in which statistical analyses of mortuary data aimed at determining the age distribution are likely to fail. For example, only one cemetery at Niedermerz with 112 burials was found on the thoroughly researched Aldenhovener Platte (North Rhine Westphalia) a region of dense LBK occupation where 48 settlements have been identified (Lüning 1982).

Even though it may seem safe to assume that migration was one of the elements of LBK life, at present the only available hard evidence of human mobility comes from analyses of strontium isotope signatures in osteological samples (e.g. Bentley et al., 2003; Bentley et al., 2008; Price et al., 2001; see also Bickle and Hofmann 2007 for polemical arguments). These surveys confirm population movement on a regional scale. Particularly informative in this matter were data obtained during research on two LBK cemeteries: Middle LBK Flomborn (Rhineland-Palatinate) and Late LBK Schwetzingen (Baden-Württemberg; for both see Price et al., 2001), however it has to be noted that the samples chosen for analyses were relatively small (11 out of 85 burials from Flomborn, 31 out of 202 burials from Schwetzingen). In the Flomborn sample the majority (64%) of individuals can be called migrants, whereas in the Schwetzingen dataset this proportion is lower (33%) and it’s mainly women that seem to have migrated (4 of 7 females, 2 of 9 males). Also the results of the analysis performed on the skeletal material from Vaihingen (Baden-Württemberg) indicated that almost 1/3 (30%) of the population were of non-local origin (Bentley et al., 2003).

This issue influences the possibilities of interpreting those cemeteries, that offer good preservation of the skeletal remains, as it is likely that the buried population may represent only a limited segment of the local society. Viewed in this light the osteological data on age distribution from the two west German necropoli: Flomborn (adults: 69% of burials, Price et al., 2001) and Schwetzingen (sub adults: 36% of burials, Price et al., 2001) cannot be used in the process of confirming or falsifying the waste hypothesis as they may not be fully representative. Discussion: Middle and Late LBK and the waste hypothesis

These results strongly suggest that human mobility on at least a local scale can be confirmed in Middle and Late LBK society in western central Europe. It may be called farmer migration (interpretation of the Flomborn sample result), hunter gatherer migration (hunter gatherer women marrying LBK farmers, hunter gatherers living within LBK settlements – the interpretations of the Schwetzingen and Vaihingen samples) or a mobile (pastoral?) lifestyle (another interpretation of the Vaihingen sample). This conclusion may be applicable only to the regions of western Germany, as for example the strontium isotope signature analysis conducted on an osteological sample from Asparn/ Schletz (Lower Austria) indicated that all the investigated individuals had been of indigenous provenance (Latkoczy et al., 1998), however there is a deficit of young and mature women in the Asparn/Schletz osteological sample (Teschler-Nicola et al., 1996).

It can be cautiously suggested that there is evidence that certain aspects of what may be called cultural elaboration, such as the construction of Langweiler type earthworks and sophisticated mortuary practices, become visible in the archaeological record during the Middle and Late LBK (Figures 3 and 5). It has been pointed out (Dunnell 1989; 1999; Dunnell and Greenlee 1999; Madsen et al., 1999) that the waste hypothesis may in some cases provide an explanation for the appearance of such traits; it can also account for their later disappearance. A preliminary testing of the waste hypothesis was performed using empirical data from the broadly defined west central European (mainly west German) LBK. The following conclusions can be drawn: 1. the variability of environmental conditions can be recognized in the 6th millennium BC. IRD 5b (c. 5700-5100 BC) spans almost the whole LBK period (Gronenborn 2007; 2009), and the changes were also confirmed by two other methods (Dubouloz 2008; Schmidt et al., 2004). These fluctuations would probably result in a lower carrying capacity of the environment.

Age distribution in LBK populations: mortuary data Determining the age distribution in LBK groups entails one primary problem: the availability of data. This seriously affects the extent to which data are representative. Loess

7

Explaining Cultural Elaboration

What is also clearly visible is a cooling episode c. 5100 BC, followed by a drier and warmer phase. Thus, it can be said that the basic requirement of the waste hypothesis is fulfilled (Figure 6). 2. the demographic data for Early Neolithic Germany seem to point out, that the LBK period was characterized initially by a rapid population increase, followed by a slightly fluctuating plateau when the carrying capacity was reached and then a dramatic decline (Shennan and Edinborough 2007) (Figure 7). The demographic decrease at the end of the LBK, which coincides with a change of environmental conditions and the disappearance of evidence for ‘wasteful’ behaviour, would contradict one of the expectations of the waste hypothesis. If the data presented by S. Shennan and K. Edinborough (2007) were also applicable specifically to the regions discussed here, it would mean that the waste hypothesis cannot be taken into consideration when attempting to explain the disappearance of the west central European LBK sequence from the archaeological record. 3. a relatively high level of human mobility can be observed in west German LBK communities through strontium isotope signature analyses of human skeletal remains. Although P. Bickle and D. Hofmann (2007) urge caution when interpreting the results of such analyses (e.g. in determining social identity) it seems that when only the occurrence of migration is considered these analyses provide solid data. According to the empirical expectations of the waste hypothesis, the higher the levels of human mobility, the weaker the selection for waste behaviour in uncertain environments. 4. it is difficult to rely on LBK osteological data when trying to determine the age distribution in LBK groups. This kind of evidence has to be put aside in the testing of the waste hypothesis as they may not necessarily be representative.

expense of the allegedly ‘wasteful’ Middle and Late LBK individuals. There is a discontinuity in settlement patterns between the west central European Late LBK and the succeeding Hinkelstein and Grossgartach groups, including the abandonment of settlement sites (e.g. the abandonment of the Aldenhovener Platte, see Shennan 2007). Also, the evidence of ‘wasteful’ activities such as the construction of Langweiler type earthworks or elaborate burial rituals seems to disappear for some time (until the Rössen culture). However, these events are not accompanied by a population increase, which is a basic requirement of the waste hypothesis, and which would result from the selection for non-wasteful phenotypes (the selection would only occur if there was an actual improvement in climatic conditions and it is not clear that the onset of a drier and warmer period c. 5100 BC can be viewed as an improvement – see previous paragraph). Nevertheless, an analysis of the demographic dynamics in the Middle and Late LBK on a finer, more regional scale would be most welcome to definitely confirm this. Concerning the link between the appearance of cultural elaboration in the Middle and Late LBK in west central Europe and selective pressures, it can neither be decisively confirmed nor ruled out, in light of current evidence. The fundamental premise of the waste hypothesis, that fluctuating environmental conditions are crucial for the occurrence of selection for non-reproductive behaviour, is fulfilled. On the other hand, a high level of human mobility which most probably characterized the local LBK communities would – as the model predicts – decrease the selective pressure and have an impact on the ‘amount’ of generated ‘waste’. Migration gives a chance of moving to a new area, perhaps of better productivity (Madsen et al. 1999) – it remains an open question whether it is possible to explain in this way the reasons for some of the stages of LBK expansion, especially during the Late phase. It is not unlikely that the modest amount of archaeological evidence of waste behaviour in the Middle and Late LBK is due to a high level of mobility in these groups. Unfortunately, the osteological data doesn’t allow for any informed conclusions.

It seems that on the basis of available evidence the waste hypothesis cannot offer an explanation for the termination of the specific west German LBK sequence in the archaeological record. The change of environmental conditions during the LBK period probably resulted is less unpredictability (end of IRD 5b). However, it is actually a matter of discussion whether the onset of a drier and warmer period during the 51st century BC can be considered an improvement of conditions for Neolithic subsistence practices, or is the opposite true. For example J. Dubouloz (2008) seems to view this climate change as an improvement and suggested that the LBK economy was specifically designed to cope with the harsh conditions of the period between 5600 and 5100 BC. On the other hand, according to D. Kaufmann (1997) the warmer and drier climate caused problems with water supply – so serious, that in his opinion they became the reason for erecting defensive structures around a number of settlements in an effort to protect the precious water sources. Only an improvement of environmental conditions would result in selection favouring non-wasteful phenotypes at the

The waste hypothesis is not a universal explanation of the emergence of the phenomena of cultural elaboration. It cannot be automatically assumed that every time environmental uncertainty is identified and a cultural climax is visible in the archaeological record, that it is a consequence of natural selection working in favour of ‘wasteful’ phenotypes. It is quite the opposite: the confirmation of the hypothesis can be only achieved through a testing of its empirical predictions in each separate situation. It is possible that the appearance of cultural elaboration may as well be explained through other models (Dunnell 1999).

8

Mateusz Krupski

Conclusions

von Brandt, J. Lüning, P. Stehli and A. Zimmerman (eds.), Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8 Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kreis Düren, 395–427. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 28, Köln, Rheinland–Verlag. Bogucki, P. and Grygiel, R. 1993. The First Farmers of Central Europe: A Survey Article. Journal of Field Archaeology 20 (4), 399–426. Boone, J. L. and Smith, E. A. 1998. Is It Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Anthropology 39, Supplement, 141–173. Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M. and Denaire, A. 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83, 968–982. Dubouloz, J. 2008. Impacts of the Neolithic Demographic Transition on Linear Pottery Culture Settlement. In J.-P. Bocquet-Appel and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences, 207– 235. Springer. Dunnell, R. C. 1989. Aspects of the application of evolutionary theory in archaeology. In C. C. LambergKarlovsky (ed.), Archaeological thought in America, 35–49. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dunnell, R. C. 1999. The Concept of Waste in an Evolutionary Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18, 243–250. Dunnell, R. C. and Greenlee D. M. 1999. Late Woodland Period “Waste” Reduction in the Ohio River Valley. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18, 376–395. Gintis, H., Smith, E. A. and Bowles, S. 2001. Costly Signaling and Cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 213 (1), 103–119. Gronenborn, D. 1999. A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13 (2), 123–210. Gronenborn, D. 2007. Beyond the models: ‘Neolithisation’ in Central Europe. Proceedings of the British Academy 144, 73–98. Gronenborn, D. 2009. Climate fluctuations and trajectories to complexity in the Neolithic: towards a theory. Documenta Praehistorica 36, 97–110. Guilaine, J. and Zammit, J. 2005. The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. Höckmann, O. 1990. Frühneolitische Einhegungen in Europa. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 57–86. Jeunesse, C. 1997. Pratiques Funéraires au Néolithique Ancien. Sépultures et nécropoles danubiennes 5500-4900 av. J.-C. Paris, Editions Errance. Kaufmann, D. 1990. Ausgrabungen im Bereich linienbandkeramischer Erdwerke bei Eilsleben, Kr. Wanzleben. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 15–28. Kaufmann, D. 1997. Zur Funktion linearbandkeramischer Erdwerke. In K. Schmotz (ed.), Vorträge des 15. Niederbayerischer Archäologentag, 41–87. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf. Keeley, L., Fontana, M. and Quick, R. 2007. Baffles and Bastions: The Universal Features of Fortifications.

My intention in this paper was to briefly present R. Dunnell’s hypothesis (further developed by Madsen et al., 1999) and conduct a preliminary testing of its applicability to Middle and Late LBK data, mostly from west Germany. The confrontation of the requirements and empirical predictions of the waste hypothesis with environmental and archaeological data, revealed that R. Dunnell’s concept is likely unable to account for the termination of the LBK sequence in the archaeological record. However, it may potentially explain the occurrence of certain characteristics of the LBK, which fall under the term ‘cultural elaboration’. A comparison with other models (e.g. costly signalling) is needed in order to determine which possess greater explanatory power in this particular case. It should be emphasized that because of their solid scientific background, evolutionary theory based hypotheses can offer that kind of approach to the archaeological dataset, which allows for actual explanations not merely interpretations. A growing body of evidence on various aspects of prehistoric environments and human activities, gradually enables advanced testing and verification of the empirical predictions of these concepts. This paper attempts to be an example of how the evolutionary perspective may be applied in archaeological research. Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank Jan Kolář and František Trampota, who organized the conference ‘Theory and Method in Archaeology of the Neolithic (7th-3rd Millennium BC)’ where this paper was first presented and who made this publication possible. I’m also grateful to Jan M. Burdukiewicz, Mirosław Furmanek, George Luke and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and support during my work on this article. I would also like to thank Miłosz Krupski for his invaluable help with preparing the figures. The map figures were created using maps from Marble Desktop Globe. Bibliography Bentley, A., Krause, R., Price, D. and Kaufmann B. 2003. Human mobility at the early neolithic settlement of Vaihingen, Germany: evidence from strontium isotope analysis. Archaeometry 45 (3), 471–486. Bentley, A., Wahl, J., Price, D. and Atkinson, T. 2008. Isotopic signatures and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neolithic community in Germany. Antiquity 82, 290–304. Bickle, P. and Hofmann, D. 2007. Moving on: the contribution of isotope studies to the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Antiquity 81, 1029–1041. Bird, D. W. and O’Connell, J. F. 2006. Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14 (2), 143–188. Boelicke, U. 1988. Das Erdwerk. In U. Boelicke, D.

9

Explaining Cultural Elaboration

Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 55–95. Krause, R. 1997. Bandkeramische Grabenwerke im Neckarland: Überraschende neue Erkenntnisse durch Ausgrabungen bei Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg. In K. Schmotz (ed.), Vorträge des 15. Niederbayerischer Archäologentag, 89–118. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf. Krause, R. 2000. Die bandkeramische Siedlung bei Vaihingen. In R. Krause (ed.), Die bandkeramischen Siedlungsgrabungen bei Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg (Baden-Württemberg). Ein Vorbericht zu den Ausgrabungen von 1994–1997, 5–32. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 79, 1998, Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Krupski, M. 2009. Międzygrupowe konflikty zbrojne we wczesnym neolicie Środkowej Europy. Inter group armed conflicts in Early Neolithic Central Europe. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Wrocław. Latkoczy, C., Prohaska, T., Stingeder, G. and TeschlerNicola M. 1998. Strontium isotope ratio measurements in prehistoric human bone samples by means of high-resolution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HR-ICP-MS). Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 13, 561–566. Lüning, J. 1982. Research into the Bandkeramik settlement of the Aldenhovener Platte in the Rhineland. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia XV, 1–29. Lüning, J. 1988. Zur Verbreitung und Datierung bandkeramischer Erdwerke. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 18, 155–158. Madsen, M. 2001. Evolutionary Bet-Hedging and the Hopewell Cultural Climax. In T. L. Hunt, C. P. Lipo and S. L. Sterling (eds.), Posing Questions for a Scientific Archaeology, 279–304. Westport, Bergin & Garvey. Madsen, M., Lipo, C. and Cannon, M. 1999. Fitness and Reproductive Trade-Offs in Uncertain Environments: Explaining the Evolution of Cultural Elaboration. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18, 251–281. Milisauskas, S. 2002. Early Neolithic, The First Farmers in Europe, 7000-5500/5000 BC. In S. Milisauskas (ed.), European Prehistory: A Survey, 143­–192. New York, Springer. Orschiedt, J. and Haidle, M. 2006. The LBK Enclosure at Herxheim: Theatre of War or Ritual Centre? References from Osteoarchaeological Investigations. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 2 (1), 153–167. Petrasch, J. 1990. Überlegungen zur Funktion neolitischer Erdwerke anhand mittelneolitischer Grabenanlagen aus Südostbayern. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 369–387. Podborský, V. 2002. Vedrovická pohřebiště ve starším moravském a středoevropském neolitu. In V. Podborský

(ed.), Dvě pohřebiště neolitického lidu s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě, 293–321. Brno, Ústav archeologie a muzeologie, Filozofická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity. Price, D., Bentley, A., Lüning, J., Gronenborn, D. and Wahl, J. 2001. Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe. Antiquity 75, 593–603. Schmidt, B., Gruhle, W. and Rück O. 2004. Klimaextreme in Bandkeramischer Zeit (5300 bis 5000 v. Chr.): Interpretation Dendrochronologischer und Archäologischer Befunde. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34, 303–307. Schmidt, K. 2004. Das Bandkeramische Erdwerk von Herxheim bei Landau, Kreis Sudliche Weinstrasse. Germania 82, 333–349. Shennan, S. 2007. The spread of farming into Central Europe and it’s consequences: evolutionary models. In T. Kohler and S. E. van der Leeuw (eds.), The ModelBased Archaeology of Socionatural Systems, 141–156. Santa Fe, School for Advanced Research Press. Shennan, S. 2009. Evolutionary Demography and the Population History of the European Early Neolithic. Human Biology 81 (2-3), 339–355. Shennan, S. and Edinborough K. 2007. Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1339–1345. Teschler-Nicola, M., Gerold, F., Kanz, F., Lindenbauer, K. and Spannagl, M. 1996. Anthropologische Spurensicherung: Die traumatischen und postmortalem Veränderungen an den linearbandkeramischen Skelettresten von Asparn/Schletz. Archäologie Österreichs 7, 4–12. Wilbur, H. M. and Rudolf, V. H. W. 2006. Life-History Evolution in Uncertain Environments: Bet Hedging in Time. The American Naturalist 168 (3), 398–411. Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Van de Velde, P. 1997. Much ado about nothing: Bandkeramik funerary ritual. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29, 83–90. Veit, U. 1996. Studien zum Problem der Siedlungsbestattung im europäischen Neolithikum. Münster, New York, Waxmann Verlag. Vencl S. 1999. Stone Age Warfare. In J. Carman and A. Harding (eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives, 57–72. Stroud, Sutton Publishing Limited. Zeeb-Lanz, A. and Haack, F. 2006. Zerhackt und begraben: Herxheims rätselhafte Tote. Archäologie in Deutschland 5/2006, 8–13.

10

New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship and Social Structure Based on Bioarchaeological Analysis of Neolithic Multiple and Collective Graves Christian Meyer, Robert Ganslmeier, Veit Dresely, Kurt W. Alt Institut für Anthropologie, Universität Mainz Colonel-Kleinmann-Weg 2 (SB II) 55099 Mainz Germany [email protected]

Abstract: Kinship and social structure have long been a major focus of anthropological research, mainly in the subfield of cultural anthropology. But recent small-scale societies are not the only ones organised along kinship relations, their counterparts in the past apparently followed the same patterns. When dealing with archaeological cultures two different approaches can be identified: the interpretation of material culture in terms of social kinship and the reconstruction of biological kinship by analysing the human skeletal remains from funerary contexts. Various methods have been used for the latter on a population and individual level. This article will discuss the recent application of current methods for two Neolithic sites; a collective grave of the Bernburg culture from Benzingerode and four Corded Ware culture multiple burials from Eulau, both located in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. From these examples it becomes evident that in these ancient societies social kinship, expressed in the funeral ritual by the spatial arrangement of the individuals within the grave, was also based on genetic kinship. Combined approaches, which consider social and biological relations and utilize insights from cultural anthropology, can reach the most detailed level of kinship reconstruction currently possible. Keywords: Kinship, Bioarchaeology, Physical Anthropology, Neolithic, Corded Ware culture, Bernburg culture

Introduction

exclusive domain of cultural anthropology and has mainly been investigated in (sub)recent small-scale societies, human social organization has, of course, a much longer history. The reconstruction of social organization of past populations, inclusive of kinship networks, falls within the scope of archaeology and physical anthropology, or an integration of both, known as bioarchaeology (Ortner 2006). The two disciplines often work on information from the same cemeteries, the major source of individual information about prehistoric societies and their members. But while archaeology is mainly concerned with the grave goods or the grave architecture, physical anthropology examines the skeletal remains of the deceased, which, in fact, have to be seen as the main and most important component of each grave. It is only because of the death of a person that a grave is usually constructed and fitted with particular furnishings in the first place, and in most cases the arrangement of the burial with all its content is thought to somehow reflect the status of the deceased during life (cf. Sosna et al., 2010). All aspects of the grave therefore are related to characteristics of the individual buried within, and a full understanding of the tomb and its significance can only be achieved by including the human remains in the interpretation, which is sometimes neglected in purely archaeological approaches. The resulting wider interpretations of burials and burial places, of the relations between the persons interred within

‘[K]inship everywhere is based on attributing social significance to the natural facts of procreation’ (Holy 1996, 1). One of the main areas of anthropological research has been the description and analysis of kinship and the overall social structure of small-scale societies based on it. Whereas the understanding of kinship has long been regarded as dependent on the biological and observable facts of procreation, more recent approaches recognize that the social classifications of kinship relations within various societies are not necessarily a direct product of this (e.g. Carsten 2004; Holy 1996; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). Although most societies actually base their family structure upon biological principles of relatedness, these are transformed and translated into idiosyncratic cultural variants to differing degrees (Kohl 1993). In modern western society social and biological kin are usually congruent, but ethnography shows us various examples of other forms of organization, where, for example, the biological father (genitor) does not also fulfill the role in social terms (pater). While the field of theoretical kinship studies has been the

11

New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship

them and of the wider social networks of which they have been a part, are necessarily based on ethnographic results and insights. Unfortunately, in many cases the three anthropological subfields -archaeology, cultural and physical anthropology-, each of which is concerned with the analysis of kinship in various ways, do not interrelate to the degree necessary for the best possible understanding of the remains and their meaning. Often, only two of the disciplines cooperate, at best (cf. Alt 1997; Sosna et al., 2010).

incorporated into human societies on a regular basis (cf. Jones 2010). The most obvious example is marriage, where two usually unrelated individuals form a new household and a new family. If both are found buried in the same grave, or with similarly distinct grave goods in the same cemetery, they might be recognised today as social kin, even if they were not regarded as such by their contemporary community, if they retained membership in their original patri- or matrilineage. In biological terms they would most likely appear unrelated, as they would be in most societies (cf. Alt and Vach 1995).

That cultural anthropologists rarely work with ancient cultures is mainly due to the fact that these cannot be observed anymore in the field, but must be reconstructed from incomplete and often unrelated artifactual fragments. There are also no living informants who could explain rituals, behaviour or other expressions of culture to the researcher. Archaeologists who study and try to understand ancient cultures and civilizations, therefore have to interpret every find they make, every feature visible in the soil, and every other part still available of the extinct ancient societies under study. In the absence of written records, every statement about kinship in archaeological populations is therefore based on inferences drawn from the archaeological evidence and is interpreted in analogy with ethnographic examples. So far, these two anthropological subfields are mainly concerned with the reconstruction of social kinship in living or extinct populations, not with their biological genealogies (cf. Holy 1996, 15). In contrast, physical anthropology is mainly concerned with the reconstruction of the biological kinship (Figure 1), which is used here in its broadest sense and which cannot be altered by cultural transformation. Therefore, it is not subject to the same amount of interpretation necessary for social kinship studies, but can be more or less ‘read’ from the surviving skeleton, if preservation allows, by various methods, as the relevant information is integrated into the human body of which bones and teeth are the most durable components.

Turning now to the methods which are actually available to deduce biological kin relationships from human skeletal remains, we have to differentiate two general levels which it is possible to analyse. The first is the population level, where whole groups of people or skeletal populations are compared to others. This is also called biodistance analysis. The second is the individual level, on which specific persons can be analysed in regard to their direct relations to others (cf. Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). Depending on the methods used and the preservation of the biological information, which depends very much on the physical condition of the bones and teeth, both levels can be reconstructed with different resolutions. All early attempts to assess the evolutionary or biological proximity of prehistoric populations to each other were necessarily based upon purely phenotypic expressions. The outward appearance of skulls, their form and size was regarded as a direct means to classify individuals and groups for a long time (e.g. Grimm 1957). But with increasing sample sizes and refined scientific theories and insights, the earlier, largely subjective craniotypology was replaced by more objective approaches, namely osteometric methods. Still, the fixation on skulls remained, and the overall goal of finding congruencies between cultural attributions and biological characteristics did not change (Armelagos and Van Gerven 2003; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). In fact, until the last quarter of the 20th century, the assessment, classification and reconstruction of kinship and phenotypic similarity between populations has been the main focus of continental physical anthropology (e.g. Schröter 1986), often resulting in the neglect of other areas of research.

When analysing an archaeological cemetery, it is therefore possible to proceed along different avenues of research and examine both social and biological kinship in prehistoric societies (cf. Härke 2000). Finding congruence or difference between these two categories can illuminate the social structure of ancient societies, if the results are incorporated into an integrative interpretative scheme (cf. Alt 1997).

Craniometry and postcranial osteometry are still applied today to gain information about differences between cemetery populations from different sites, or about differences between the members of distinct archaeological cultures who may be buried in the same cemetery (Kunter 2001; Meyer and Alt 2005; Meyer and Alt 2010). Still, the results of these studies have to be carefully interpreted, as the phenotype, which is measured by osteometry, is shaped by various factors, including diet, activity levels, climate and many more. Osteometric similarity between several populations does not necessarily mean that they are biologically closely related to one another - similarities can be due to external factors, many of which might not be known to the modern researcher (Stojanowski and Schillaci

Bioarchaeological methods of kinship reconstructions ‘The fact that genealogical relations are involuntary and beyond a person’s control means that they are also unalterable and permanent. Once established, they cannot be undone, they are forever until death’ (Holy 1996, 156). Whereas biological kinship is static, and cannot be changed once a child is conceived, social kinship is fluid and biologically unrelated individuals can be and are

12

Christian Meyer et al.

Term

Definition (after Lincoln et al. 1998)

Kinship

Possession of a recent common ancestor / The condition of being related. The sum total of observable structural and functional properties of an organism / The product of the interaction between the genotype and the environment. The hereditary or genetic constitution of an individual.

Phenotype Genotype

Figure 1: Biological definitions of terms used in this contribution.

2006; Ullrich 1969). In fact, it is useful not to compare only two populations, but a number of groups over a wider geographical area. This way one can assess the extent of dissimilarity to be expected and what is to be regarded as normal. Only rarely can cemeteries be assumed to have been exactly contemporaneous, and their chronological depth and distance to each other as well as pure chance should manifest itself in low-level osteometric differences between neighbouring or successive populations, even if they are closely related biologically. Therefore, it is not the expected small differences that are the most interesting aspects in these cases, but rather their non-existence (Meyer and Alt 2010). One such example shall be provided here: the Middle Neolithic cemetery of Trebur, Germany (Spatz 1999). At this site, two distinct archaeological cultures buried their dead alongside each other without disturbing the other group’s graves. The burial rite is clearly different between the two groups (e.g. orientation of the bodies, inclusion of certain artefacts and very differing amounts of animal remains), as is the associated pottery which can be ascribed to either the Hinkelstein or Großgartach culture, both of which follow the Linienbandkeramik (LBK) in this region. Although buried in the same cemetery the social and cultural aspects of these two groups are differently expressed. This is also evidenced by their current recognition as distinct archaeological entities. Looking at the human skeletal remains found in the graves, these cannot be differentiated without recourse to artefacts. In several different studies targeted at possible archaeometrical/ biological differences between the two ‘populations’, no such differences could actually be detected (Dürrwächter et al., 2006; Jacobshagen and Kunter 1999; Meyer and Alt 2010). The most extensive study examined and compared measurements of the Trebur long bones, and also of several other Early and Middle Neolithic cemetery sites from the Upper Rhine Valley (Figure 2). While low-level differences were found between most populations, including all LBK sites, the Hinkelstein and Großgartach skeletons from Trebur revealed no significant differences (Meyer and Alt 2010). The conclusion from this and other studies is that despite their obvious cultural differences in burial rites, both groups represent a biological continuum; therefore they are most probably closely related to each other in population terms. In this case, the phenotypic similarity most probably indicates a genetic similarity as well, especially in relation to the encountered differences between the skeletons from the other sites, which belonged partly to the same archaeological cultures.

Figure 2: Bivariate scatterplot of two right femur measurements of the Trebur female skeletons. There is complete overlap, the members of the two cultures Hinkelstein (TH) and Großgartach (TG) cannot be differentiated this way.

the environmentally malleable phenotype (see Figure 1) are theoretically more precise. The most direct and undoubtedly most precise method, but also the most expensive, is the genetic approach working with preserved aDNA (ancient DNA) of the skeletons. As this is not always possible, as the necessary equipment is unavailable, financial resources are limited, or molecular preservation is insufficient, other methods which allow reconstruction of biological kinship networks are also available. But compared to aDNA analysis these methods are, unfortunately, much less precise. One is based on the morphognostic assessment of various odontological traits, which are inherited via genetic pathways (e.g. Alt 1997). Multiple applications of this method have proven its value in prehistoric cemeteries (e.g. Alt et al., 1997), one major advantage being that teeth are the most durable element of the human body. They can still be examined when the rest of the bones are already largely disintegrated. Selecting those dental traits which have a high proven heritability, a low frequency in the general population, an unambiguous and easy to record expression, and a low variation according to demographic parameters like age and sex, kinship networks can be reconstructed

Methods which are based directly on the genotype, not on

13

New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship

within larger cemetery collections. The probability of biological kinship can also be assessed even for smaller samples, within collective or multiple graves for example (Alt 1997). As these anatomical variants of the dentition are better understood, in genetic terms, they are more useful than other cranial or postcranial discontinuous traits, which are also known in high numbers (e.g. Hauser and De Stefano 1989). Although various studies tried to utilize these for kinship reconstruction in human skeletal remains (e.g. Ullrich 1969), it is not entirely clear if all of these traits are truly inherited or if some are not just acquired, which would render them quite useless for the questions addressed here. As the method of odontological kinship analysis and its application to archaeological skeletons is described in detail in various publications (e.g. Alt 1997; Alt and Vach 1995), it shall not be presented here in its entirety again. For the objective of this paper it is sufficient to say that it can be used on samples that have teeth preserved in sufficient numbers.

Figure 3: Simple, three-generation kinship chart. Ovals symbolize women, squares symbolize men. Black symbols indicate inheritance of identical mtDNA haplotypes. These are only passed down the female line.

of kinship information is available with the successful analysis of ncDNA. With nuclear DNA, the male line of descent can also be targeted via the Y-chromosome, which is only passed down in the male line, and only to male members of that line. Paternal grandfathers, fathers and sons can therefore be identified, with the same restriction regarding the direction of inheritance as explained already for mtDNA. Also, ncDNA theoretically enables us to ‘fingerprint’ individuals genetically, as with modern paternity tests (e.g. Haak et al., 2008).

The genetic method of kinship reconstruction, using ancient DNA extracted from the skeleton, shall also be only described in its necessary parts here, as it has now become a standard procedure within bioarchaeology (e.g. Brandt et al., 2010). Besides the population and individual level already mentioned, two different approaches can also be differentiated here, the analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) on the one hand and nuclear DNA (ncDNA) on the other hand. Looking at mtDNA, one can reconstruct the female genealogy of the members of a group, if they are, in fact, descended from each other. Individuals who share an identical version of mtDNA can be identified from a larger group, and are then believed to be closely related. In contrast, those who have different mtDNA haplotypes can be securely regarded as non-related (in biological terms) in the female line. Whereas it would therefore be possible to reconstruct a kinship network of maternal grandmother, mother, daughter, sisters and brothers, it would be impossible to find any ancestors from the male line, as mtDNA is only passed down the generations from a woman to her biological offspring. Sons share the same variant as their mothers and sisters, but they do not pass it on to their children, as these will have the signature of their own mother (Figure 3). It is also impossible to decide on genetic information alone in which direction this kinship network is unfolding. As all individuals share exactly the same mtDNA code, other factors like grave stratigraphy and the anthropologically determined sex and age have to be taken into consideration, to possibly identify mother and daughter for example, but a cousin in the maternal line would also be identical. These facts have to be kept in mind when working with mtDNA alone. It is a powerful tool to identify and reconstruct family relations in prehistoric societies, as long as the skeletons are well enough preserved, and it is much easier to obtain than nuclear DNA. Of this, only a single copy is found in each cell, while the mtDNA is found in much higher copy numbers in the same cell. Although, in terms of the currently expected success rate, it is more promising to analyse mtDNA, a much higher resolution

Having briefly reviewed the methods generally available and used for bioarchaeological kinship studies, we now turn to two illustrative burial sites, where the biological relationships reconstructed from the skeletal sample have provided an exciting new insight into the archaeological cultures in question. The collective grave of Benzingerode – a house for the dead ‘The study of kinship, from its very inception, has been based on the assumption that kinship creates divisions in society by conceptually separating those who are genealogically related to each other from those who are not so related’ (Holy 1996, 143). Near the Harz mountains in Saxony-Anhalt, central Germany, a collective grave of the Bernburg culture was completely excavated (Berthold 2008) which yielded a number of human skeletal remains (Meyer et al., 2008). Chamber tombs like these are characterised mainly by the possibility to constantly access them during the time of their use, while their shape and construction type can differ. In Benzingerode the grave was most probably constructed with wooden walls and covered by layers of soil and stone, simulating a megalithic chamber. While at first glance the jumble of bones inside the barrow gives a chaotic impression, a second glance reveals preserved anatomical connections and even almost complete individual skeletons. Many bones were scattered though, resulting in fragmentary individuals, of which at least 46 could be identified. The demographic composition of the sample, with 21 subadults below the age of 20 years and 22

14

Christian Meyer et al.

Figure 4: Layout of the collective grave of Benzingerode. Bones are shown in light grey, individual skeletons with shared mtDNA haplotypes are shown in colour. Demographic information is given for the three pairs in close physical contact (see Meyer et al., 2008 for further details).

adults is rather unremarkable, but more males than females were placed in this grave. With one exception, a possibly lethal but ambiguous cranial injury, causes of death could not be identified (Meyer et al., 2008). Thus, it appears likely that this chamber tomb acted as the standard burial place of one or more sedentary farming communities located nearby, although this assessment remains speculative. The location of the settlement, its size and the duration of use of the grave are unknown. But it was possible to reconstruct some aspects of the kinship structure of this population, which has a profound significance for the interpretation of this and other similar sites.

However, it is enough to show that in this population of the Bernburg culture social kinship was apparently based on, or at least closely related to, biological kinship and that these relations played a significant role in the funeral rite. Kinship probably dictated where one’s body had to be deposited within the chamber and the remains of the dead were arranged to express these kinship relations to the observer. While the standard burial posture was flexed, other variants occurred and the exact orientation and arrangement of the body were probably not as important as the absolute location within the grave. As it is a collective grave, and the deceased were interred over some period of time with repeated funerals, some disturbance of the bones is expected and can be seen. It is therefore probable that not all skeletal elements remain in their original position, and that the original burial pattern is not entirely preserved (Meyer et al., 2008). Never the less the remaining and largely undisturbed portion of the grave reveals without doubt that the community members carrying out the burials had detailed knowledge of where each previously buried person was located within the chamber. A set of rules was probably followed which ascribed to each person a fixed burial place related to the position of the previously interred bodies. Looking at the age and sex of skeletons related in the maternal line (Figure 4), evidenced by their common mtDNA signature, the first pair (Ind. 6 & Ind. 19) consists of two females of differing ages. But as these were probably not simultaneously buried we do not know how much time passed between their individual deaths. They could therefore represent a number of maternally related females, including mother and daughter, sisters,

A number of rather well-preserved skeletons was selected from the overall sample and subjected to mtDNA analysis. This was carried out without reference to the spatial distribution of the skeletons within the chamber; therefore it can be considered a blind study in this regard. It was possible to obtain a valid result concerning the mtDNA haplotype for 17 individuals. 13 different variants were found, while four pairs of skeletons shared the same genetic signature. When these results are plotted onto the layout of the grave, it becomes obvious that three of the four pairs of individuals with the same mtDNA signature were placed in close physical proximity to each other (Figure 4). It is apparent that the spatial organization of burials within the chamber is not random, but follows a pattern based on biological kinship (Meyer et al., 2008). As only the mtDNA of a subsample could be analysed we do not have sufficient information to fully reconstruct the burial pattern.

15

New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship

maternal cousins and other relations. The next pair (Ind. 14 & Ind. 20) includes an older woman and a teenage child of undetermined sex. Again it is possible that we have a mother-child relationship, either son or daughter. Ind. 20 could also be a grandchild in the female line of the mature female. Apparently the older person was placed on top of the younger one. But, we are unable to determine how much time had passed between their burials. Theoretically this allows for these two individuals to be siblings. The last pair found in close contact consists of two men (Ind. 3 & Ind. 27). As they share their mtDNA haplotype, the combination of father and son can probably be ruled out, but they could well be brothers or cousins in the female line, sharing a common maternal grandmother. Other kinds of relation are of course possible. The pair consisting of Ind. 17 and Ind. 36, both teenage subadults, were not found in close proximity. There is a variety of reasons for this, including, but not limited to post-depositional disturbance or more important kinship relations not identified by the current study. It is also possible that these two shared a common female ancestor at some point in the past, but were not considered close kin by their contemporaries.

societies or the more general reconstruction of postmarital residence patterns (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006), it actually is sometimes possible to find sound evidence for this. One example are the Corded Ware multiple graves from Eulau (Haak et al., 2008; Haak et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2009). At this site evidence from strontium isotopes revealed that within the group of 13 individuals all the men and children were native to the area where their graves were located, as their teeth showed a strontium signature identical to the local geological signal. In contrast, the three women in the group had different dental strontium signals, indicating that they originally came from another place. They apparently married into the community and raised offspring there (Haak et al., 2008). Although three women are too small a sample to extrapolate this result to the whole of the Corded Ware or other Neolithic cultures, it nevertheless shows that the patterns ethnographically observed for contemporary cultures (here: exogamy and patrilocality/virilocality) can also be found in the distant past, which of course affects the interpretations of sites such as Eulau (see below), and the demographic pattern encountered there (cf. Bickle and Hofmann 2007).

Summarizing the situation and trying to find some overall patterns, we can state that biological kinship relations were known and apparently dictated where each person had to be placed in the grave chamber (Meyer et al., 2008). As the placement of burials is not random, it probably reflects the relations of the deceased in life, thereby also reflecting their social kinship ties, which in turn are congruent with their biological kinship. For this community of the Neolithic Bernburg culture we assume that their social structure, understood here as the reality of social kinship associations and spatial living arrangements, was at least partly based on their genetic relations as in most contemporaneous or (sub) recent societies known from ethnographic fieldwork (Holy 1996). The high number of different mtDNA lineages found in this grave also suggests exogamy - women marrying into the community from afar. If true this would influence the interpretation of kinship ties among the related individuals, but as we currently do not have enough evidence for this it has to remain speculation for now. We also cannot say anything about matri- or patrilinearity based on the available sample but further research may be able to clarify this matter.

‘One of the most important rules governing marriage is the rule of exogamy which prohibits marriage within a specific group or category, usually defined in terms of kinship, descent or locality. Expressed in positive rather than negative terms, it is a rule compelling people to choose their marital partners from some other group or category than their own’ (Holy 1996, 125).

At Eulau, in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, a cemetery of the Corded Ware culture was excavated as part of a multi-period burial area in a modern gravel mine. It yielded graves from various prehistoric cultures. Four larger graves containing the above mentioned 13 individuals in groups of two to four were immediately recognized to be of high significance. They were lifted as blocks from the field for further analysis and subsequent display in the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle (Saale). A detailed osteological investigation was carried out, as well as genetic and isotopic studies, the latter having already been briefly discussed above. The skeletons were arranged in an obviously careful manner (Figures 5-8), and showed various lethal injuries, including an embedded arrowhead in a lumbar vertebra of a woman and several penetrating blunt force injuries to the cranium of other victims. Additionally, both men had suffered perimortem fractures of the forearms and hands, which can be interpreted as defence injuries (Meyer et al., 2009). The pattern of physical trauma found here very much indicates a violent death for all of the individuals in the four multiple graves. Not all skeletons show lethal injuries or other perimortem fractures but many acts of violence also do not leave permanent marks on the bones (cf. Wahl and König 1987). In fact, at least one injured person can be found in each grave, strengthening the overall interpretation of a violent raid on a settlement, which may have been unprotected at the time of attack, as no healthy young males or women, who would presumably be unburdened by children, are among the dead of this event. Both men, although having been of a very robust physique, suffered from previous injuries, again of the forearms and hands, and were partly handicapped by them, either by bony ankylosis of finger bones or pronounced osteoarthrosis of the wrist (Meyer et al., 2009).

Following up on the matter of exogamy in prehistoric

The evidence of massive violence found in the skeletons

The multiple graves of Eulau – the fatal fate of a family

16

Christian Meyer et al.

Figure 5: Grave 99 of the Eulau cemetery, containing four individuals. Mature male (top right), mature female (bottom right), two male children (top and bottom left). Circles indicate female sex, squares indicate male sex. Like colours denote genetic similarity. The four individuals genetically represent a nuclear family.

of men, women and children explains why these multiple graves were constructed: to receive the ones killed during the attack on their village. But looking at the graves, each one appears different, and for some reason individual graves were not chosen for each victim. Instead there are multiple graves for groups of them. Remembering the evidence of careful arrangement of the dead according to kinship relations in the collective grave of Benzingerode (see above), one might suspect that kinship ties have also

played a role at Eulau and that individuals placed in the same grave are therefore biologically related. Evidence for this is unfortunately unavailable for graves 93 (Figure 7) and 90 (Figure 8) as these were not preserved well enough. It cannot be proven if the adult individuals are in some way genetically related to the subadults from these graves, although the arrangement of the dead indicates a social relation of some sort. Matters are different for the remaining two multiple graves 98 (Figure 6) and 99

17

New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship

Figure 6: Grave 98 of the Eulau cemetery, containing four individuals. Adult female (centre), a female child (top left), a male child (bottom left), an undetermined child (right). The children on the left are most probably siblings, but biologically unrelated to the adult woman. Grey indicates no genetic analysis was carried out.

(Figure 5). In grave 98 only one adult woman is found, surrounded by three children. The youngest of these was also not well enough preserved and no genetic information is available from this skeleton. The two older children, a boy and a girl, both share an identical haplotype, evidence of their relatedness in the female line (Haak et al., 2008). Taking into account their age and their simultaneous death and burial they are most probably siblings. In the

literature dealing with multiple graves an adult female accompanying children in the same grave is most often termed their ‘mother’, a common sense interpretation, which in this example does not fit. Both children carry a different mtDNA signature from the adult woman, who therefore cannot be their biological mother. Despite their placement in the same grave, there is no evidence of genetic kinship (in the maternal line) between them. This does

18

Christian Meyer et al.

Figure 7: Grave 93 of the Eulau cemetery, containing three individuals. Adult male (centre), two undetermined children (left and right).

not rule out a relationship on the paternal line, though, as the woman could theoretically be their paternal aunt. But remembering the evidence of exogamy and patrilocality from the strontium isotopes, we would not expect the presence of an adult sister of the men in this settlement, as she would probably have married into another community. More likely there is a purely social kinship tie between the woman and the two older children (e.g. stepmother), which cannot be proven by genetic analysis.

The most complex of the four graves also revealed the clearest case regarding the kinship structure of this Corded Ware culture population sample: a nuclear family (Haak et al., 2008). The adult male and female are unrelated to each other, the latter being isotopically non-local. The two children have the same mtDNA as the woman and, being boys, the same Y-chromosome signature as the man. The logical conclusion is that the two subadults are the biological offspring of the adults, sharing a genetical mix

19

New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship

Figure 8: Grave 90 of the Eulau cemetery, containing two individuals. Adult female (left), undetermined child (right).

of their parents. We cannot know if more children of this couple existed, but the settlement structure and the layout of Corded Ware culture houses in general suggests smaller family units, in contrast to the Early Neolithic longhouses for example (Hecht 2007; Meyer et al., 2009; Müller and Seregély 2008). The careful arrangement of this biological family in death can be seen to mirror their social kinship ties in life. Although a violent raid resulted in the death of at least 13 members of this population it was not completely

destroyed. Some people who knew the kinship relations between all the dead apparently survived to bury their friends, relatives and neighbours. As in the collective grave of Benzingerode, we again have clear evidence that biological kinship was the basis for social relationships, at least as far as they could be reconstructed (Haak et al., 2008). The simultaneous death and burial of a significant part of this Neolithic community

20

Christian Meyer et al.

provides us with a glimpse into their social structure, which in a regular cemetery would not have been possible, as it usually spans several generations which cannot be chronologically unravelled to the necessary detail.

by cultural expression. This can tentatively be ascribed to regular burial places like collective or multiple graves, where people buried their own kin. Disordered mass graves due to catastrophic events are another matter, and it is suspected that these evidence culturally disruptive processes and were created by others, usually ignorant of possible kinship ties (e.g. Meyer et al., 2004; Wahl and König 1987). Interpretations must be made very carefully when evidence of ritualistic behaviour is evident, as the primary concept of burial as such is overridden by other sociocultural considerations, and the deceased take on other roles than those which have been their own during life.

Conclusions ‘But why should this personal system of relations, typical of many simple societies which anthropologists traditionally studied, be built out of kinship relations? Why exactly should kinship, of all relations, be so tremendously important?’ (Holy 1996, 13).

The combined search for social and biological kinship can also result in an overall higher resolution of social structure, when, for example, no genetic kinship is found between two skeletons which are nevertheless believed to be related archaeologically (cf. Alt and Vach 1995). We then have possible positive evidence of social kinship by negative evidence of biological kinship. Previous outsiders or people with foreign origins can thereby be differentiated from those which biologically (and culturally) belong more obviously to the population under study.

As the examples of Benzingerode and Eulau have shown, secure individual kinship ties have been found in several Neolithic societies (Haak et al., 2008; Meyer et al., 2008). Kinship theories developed by cultural anthropology through observing recent and sub-recent groups worldwide appear to be also applicable to the distant past. The ethnography of living cultures therefore finds a counterpart in an ‘archaeography’ of extinct ones. In regard to kinship, what remains of them can either be interpreted by looking at their artefacts and their cultural expressions of various kinds, or be reconstructed by examining and analysing the skeletal remains of their members. The first approach targets social kinship, while the second is aimed at biological kinship, both of which are overlapping in most human societies, but to differing degrees of congruence (Holy 1996). In its standard application archaeology is primarily concerned with the cultural evidence of material remains, and physical anthropology with the biological evidence of the people living in a specific cultural environment. Both areas of research have to be combined to make the most of what evidence still remains of the social structure of ancient societies. The results from both must then be interpreted in a framework derived from cultural anthropology, in analogy to human ways of life which could be observed in the near past when modern western cultural impact was still limited. If one of the three subfields is missing from attempts to understand the human past, the resulting picture cannot be considered complete. Looking only at the biology of ancient populations disregards their rich cultural heritage, which can override purely biological constraints. Focussing solely on social phenomena does not take into account human nature and evolution, which unconsciously govern a large part of human behaviour, including the construction of kinship in society.

The success of a modern bioarchaeological approach, such as detailed here, is dependent on the close cooperation of archaeological and anthropological disciplines not only during the analysis of features and finds, but already during the planning and excavation phases. Although complex burial situations cannot always be anticipated, it is nevertheless important to be aware of the needs and requirements of the various bioarchaeometrical methods like isotope studies or the analysis of ancient DNA. Sample contamination has generally to be avoided and samples have to be stored under suitable conditions (as detailed in Brandt et al., 2010 for example). If these measures are applied right from the start, the loss of information is minimised and complex burial sites will reveal the complexity of their preserved kinship ties and social structures in future studies. Acknowledgements We thank all persons involved in the research concerning the Benzingerode and Eulau sites, especially G. Brandt, W. Haak, H. N. de Jong, A. W. G. Pike, B. Bramanti, B. Berthold and other national and international colleagues, as well as N. Nicklisch for discussions about the topic of this paper and L. Fibiger for proofreading the manuscript. Figure copyright information:

The best approach to understanding as much as possible of a matter as complex as the treatment of the dead in past societies is a multifaceted one, currently called biocultural or bioarchaeological. The combination of various avenues of research is central, crossing the artificial disciplinary boundaries of current academia (e.g. Haak et al., 2008; Haak et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2008; Meyer et al., 2009; Sosna et al., 2010). Doing so reveals that some graves, if not many, which include more than one person within, might be seen as evidence of biological kinship ties fixed

Fig.1-3: Christian Meyer Fig. 4: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt Fig. 5-8: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt / Juraj Lipták / Wolfgang Haak / Guido Brandt

21

New Approaches to the Reconstruction of Kinship

References

of the United States of America (PNAS) 105, 1822618231. Härke, H. 2000. Social Analysis of Mortuary Evidence in German Protohistoric Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 369-384. Hauser, G. and De Stefano, G. F. 1989. Epigenetic Variants of the Human Skull. Stuttgart, Schweizerbart. Hecht, D. 2007. Das schnurkeramische Siedlungswesen im südlichen Mitteleuropa. Eine Studie zu einer vernachlässigten Fundgattung im Übergang vom Neolithikum zur Bronzezeit. PhD thesis, University of Heidelberg [online], [Accessed 09 May 2011], Available from: . Holy, L. 1996. Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship. London, Pluto Press. Jacobshagen, B. and Kunter, M. 1999. Die mittelneolithische Skelettpopulation aus Trebur, Kreis Groß-Gerau. Ergebnisse der anthropologischen Bearbeitung. In H. Spatz, Das mittelneolithische Gräberfeld von Trebur, Kreis Groß-Gerau. Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen 19, 281-332. Wiesbaden, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. Jones, D. 2010. Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 367-416. Kohl, K.-H. 1993. Ethnologie - die Wissenschaft vom kulturell Fremden. München, Beck. Kunter, M. 2001. Beobachtungen zur Frage der Bevölkerungskontinuität an dem mittelneolithischen Gräberfeld von Trebur, Südhessen, in A. Lippert, M. Schultz, S. Shennan and M. Teschler-Nicola (eds.), Mensch und Umwelt während des Neolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit in Mitteleuropa. Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit zwischen Archäologie, Klimatologie, Biologie und Medizin. Internationale Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 2, 203-206. Rahden, Marie Leidorf. Lincoln, R., Boxshall, G. and Clark, P. 1998. A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Meyer, C. and Alt, K. W. 2005. Kultur- und Bevölkerungswandel am Oberrhein? Ein osteometrischer Vergleich früh- und mittelneolithischer Populationen. In D. Gronenborn (ed.), Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas 6700-2200 v. Chr. RGZM-Tagungen 1, 171-178. Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum. Meyer, C. and Alt, K. W. 2010. An Anthropological Perspective of the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Upper Rhine Valley: Results of an Osteometric Study of Postcranial Skeletal Elements, in D. Gronenborn and J. Petrasch (eds.), The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe. RGZM-Tagungen 4, 487-496. Mainz, RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum. Meyer, C., Kürbis, O. and Alt, K. W. 2004. Das Massengrab von Wiederstedt, Ldkr. Mansfelder Land. Auswertung und Gedanken zur Interpretation im Kontext der

Alt, K. W. 1997. Odontologische Verwandtschaftsanalyse. Individuelle Charakteristika der Zähne in ihrer Bedeutung für Anthropologie, Archäologie und Rechtsmedizin. Stuttgart, Fischer. Alt, K. W. and Vach, W. 1995. Odontologic kinship analysis in skeletal remains: concepts, methods, and results. Forensic Science International 74, 99-113. Alt, K. W., Pichler, S., Vach, W., Klíma, B., Vlček, E. and Sedlmeier, J. 1997. Twenty-Five Thousand-YearOld Triple Burial From Dolní Věstonice: An Ice-Age Family? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102, 123-131. Armelagos G. J. and Van Gerven, D. P. 2003. A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology: Contrasts, Contradictions, and Conflicts. American Anthropologist 105, 53-64. Berthold, B. 2008. Die Totenhütte der Bernburger Kultur von Benzingerode, Ldkr. Harz. Archäologie in SachsenAnhalt Sonderband 7, 17-105. Bickle, P. and Hofmann, D. 2007. Moving on: the contribution of isotope studies to the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Antiquity 81, 1029-1041. Brandt, G., Knipper, C., Roth, C., Siebert, A. and Alt, K. W. 2010. Beprobungsstrategien für aDNA und Isotopenanalysen an historischem und prähistorischem Skelettmaterial, in H. Meller and K. W. Alt (eds.), Anthropologie, Isotopie und DNA – biografische Annäherung an namenlose vorgeschichtliche Skelette? Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 3, 17-32. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie. Carsten, J. 2004. After Kinship. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dürrwächter, C., Craig, O. E., Collins, M. J., Burger, J. and Alt, K. W. 2006. Beyond the grave: Variability in Neolithic diets in Southern Germany? Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 39-48. Grimm, H. 1957. Die Schnurkeramiker von Schafstädt. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 41, 299314. Haak, W., Brandt, G., Meyer, C., de Jong, H. N., Ganslmeier, R., Pike, A. W. G., Meller, H. and Alt, K. W. 2010. Die schnurkeramischen Familiengräber von Eulau - ein außergewöhnlicher Fund und seine interdisziplinäre Bewertung, in H. Meller and K. W. Alt (eds.), Anthropologie, Isotopie und DNA - biografische Annäherung an namenlose vorgeschichtliche Skelette? Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 3, 53-62. Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie. Haak, W., Brandt, G., de Jong, H. N., Meyer, C., Ganslmeier, R., Heyd, V., Hawkesworth, C., Pike, A. W. G., Meller, H. and Alt K. W. 2008. Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

22

Christian Meyer et al.

Linienbandkeramik. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 88, 31-66. Meyer, C., Brandt, G., Haak, W., Ganslmeier, R. A., Meller, H. and Alt, K. W. 2009. The Eulau Eulogy: Bioarchaeological Interpretation of Lethal Violence in Corded Ware Multiple Burials from Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 412-423. Meyer, C., Kranzbühler, J., Drings, S., Bramanti, B., Nehlich, O., Richards, M. P. and Alt, K. W. 2008. Die menschlichen Skelettfunde aus der neolithischen Totenhütte von Benzingerode. Anthropologische Untersuchungen an den Bestattungen eines Kollektivgrabs der Bernburger Kultur. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt Sonderband 7, 107-151. Müller, J. and Seregély, T. 2008. Die schnurkeramische Siedlungsweise in Mitteleuropa, in J. Müller and T. Seregély (eds.), Wattendorf-Motzenstein: eine schnurkeramische Siedlung auf der Nördlichen Frankenalb. Naturwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse und Rekonstruktion des schnurkeramischen Siedlungswesens in Mitteleuropa. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 155, 175-188. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Ortner, D. J. 2006. Foreword. In J. E. Buikstra and L. A. Beck (eds.), Bioarchaeology. The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains, xiii-xv. Amsterdam, Academic Press.

Schröter, P. 1986. Die menschlichen Skelettfunde des Begräbnisplatzes der spätrömischen Anlage auf der Burg Sponeck. In R. M. Swoboda, Die spätrömische Befestigung Sponeck am Kaiserstuhl. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 36, 151-190. München, Beck. Sosna, D., Sládek, V. and Galeta, P. 2010. Investigating Mortuary Sites: The Search for Synergy. Anthropologie 48, 33-40. Spatz, H. 1999. Das mittelneolithische Gräberfeld von Trebur, Kreis Groß-Gerau. Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen 19. Wiesbaden, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. Stojanowski, C. M. and Schillaci, M. A. 2006. Phenotypic Approaches for Understanding Patterns of Intracemetery Biological Variation. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 49, 49-88. Ullrich, H. 1969. Interpretation morphologisch-metrischer Ähnlichkeiten an ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Skeletten in verwandtschaftlicher Hinsicht. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 3, 48-88. Wahl, J. and König, H. G. 1987. Anthropologisch– Traumatologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem bandkeramischen Massengrab bei Talheim, Kreis Heilbronn. Fundberichte aus BadenWürttemberg 12, 65-186.

23

Secondary Mortuary Practices During the Late Eneolithic in Moravia, Czech Republic: State of Knowledge, History Of Research, Terminology and Interpretations Jan Kolář Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts Arne Nováka 1 Brno 60200 Czech Republic [email protected] Abstract: This study is focused on secondary mortuary practices of the Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Proto-Únětice cultures in Moravia, central Europe, during the Late Eneolithic. The main aim is to classify and categorize this phenomenon considering formative archaeological and anthropological processes crucial for further research into burial rites within central European archaeology. On the basis of these categories, and noting the transformations of social significance, symbolic meaning and other social or economic factors in the context of these practices, several models of interpretation are presented and evaluated. This paper emphasizes the use of unbiased terminology when working with grave contexts, and stresses possible burial activities which are often not considered as they have left no material remains. Keywords: Secondary mortuary practices, secondary burial, Corded Ware Culture, Bell Beaker Culture, Proto-Únětice Culture, formative processes, Moravia, Late Eneolithic

Introduction

past and the ancestors. These practices are intended to secure the transformation of the dead to an ancestor, with survivors obliged to perform certain relevant rituals (Hertz 1960; Chesson 1999, 142-143).

Burial rites are an extraordinary combination of the common elements of daily life, with cosmological and religious elements of human society. Primary and secondary mortuary practices reflected the action of living people coping with death and the related disturbances to family ties within the community and threats to social coherence. These activities aimed to confirm or remake the individual or group identity until such time as the previous societal condition, disturbed by death, had been restored (Chesson 1999; Hertz 1960; Schroeder 2001; Sosna 2007).

Evidence of secondary burial activities are known in prehistory and modern ethnographic research, and include several modern Christian denominations, such as the orthodox communities of northern Greece, Anglican and Catholic groups of central and eastern Madagascar, Roman Catholics in Naples (Parker Pearson 2000, 50; Pardo 1989), and the Serbs leaving Sarajevo in the 1990s (Chénier 2009, 33; Verdery 1999, 109). In the recent past secondary burials occurred with significant personalities in medieval Europe (Unger 2002, 106-107; Weiss-Krejci 2001) and European medieval municipal communities had cemeteries with ossuaries and charnel houses (see Unger 2002, 71-73 for details), some of which persist into modern times. Secondary mortuary practices have attracted the attention of archaeologists and anthropologists for a long time. In 1907 R. Hertz was one of the first, studying burial rites of the Ibans (Dayaks) in Southeast Asia, from which Hertz formulated a theory on the relationship between death and society, the role and symbolical meaning of the body and soul of the dead, and their relationship to living society. Death, according to Hertz, is a dangerous social event, whose consequences for society are mitigated by secondary mortuary practices (Hertz 1960). Further development of this theory has been presented by other

Cultural anthropology divides burial rituals into primary and secondary activities. Primary burial rituals encompass all activity and behaviour immediately following the death of a community member, such as preparing the body for burial, organising a funeral feast or other social event, and placing the body into the primary grave. These activities take place within days or weeks of the death and end with the placement of the remains into the primary grave. Secondary mortuary practices take place months or years after the death and require a well-considered plan for the whole ritual, in which a large number of community members or visitors are involved. These activities usually comprise transport, certain modification of the remains, and on occasion the creation of a place where the remains will be deposited. Secondary mortuary practices are usually carried out in societies whose cosmology accentuates the

25

Secondary Mortuary Practices

authors (Sosna 2007, 170-171; Chénier 2009) and it is not surprising to find several definitions of such activities. M. Parker Pearson defined secondary mortuary practices as ‘rites…involving a long intermediary period after which the remains of a dead body are recovered from their original place of deposition and moved to a new location’ (Parker Pearson 2000, 50). Parker Pearson is conscious that this definition also comprises cremations (when the remains do not remain at the place where incinerated) therefore he specifies it in more detail and relates that the definition may be applied to practices which include transformation of the dead body into clean skeletal remains involved in the secondary rite (Parker Pearson 2000, 50; cf. Duday 2009, 90). Peter Metcalf provided a similar definition of the secondary treatment of the dead, or secondary burials: ‘Two minimal features define secondary burial. First the death rites fall into two parts: the initial and by the nature of things unscheduled funeral; and later, sometimes years later, a prearranged and frequently sumptuous secondary rite. Second, during the latter the bones of the deceased are moved from a place of temporary storage to a final resting place, with or without other processing, such as cleaning or putting in a new container’ (Metcalf 1981, 564).

Brno and Vyškov. More graves were discovered within the past twenty years as a result of extensive suburban building activity and the construction of the D1 motorway between Vyškov and Kroměříž (Figure 1 and 2). In the Bell Beaker culture we observe a very similar trend though graves with evidence of secondary manipulation are much less frequent. Since the 1980s these graves have been well documented (Figure 3). The Moravian Proto-Únětice culture is the least represented component of the Late Eneolithic, which is why we know of secondarily manipulations at only three sites. These are well documented but some have yet to be published (Figure 4). Another often seen problem is the terminology normally used in papers. The very first graves (Figure 5) where secondary mortuary practices were observed are reported as disturbed (Chleborád 1934; Poulík 1995). In the 1950s the then interpretational term ‘sitting burial’ (Hájek 1951) appeared and at the same time another interpretational term ‘looting’ (and other variants thereof) began to be used (Poulík 1952). The latter term is still in use in Moravian archaeological literature (e.g. Peška 2001; Výška 2005; Matějíčková 2004), reflecting the ethnocentric view of individual researchers. In the 1960s the term ‘dislocation’ appeared as a neutral description of the state and position of remains or finds, but does not express a rationale (Ondráček 1961). Since the 1970s we have seen the onset of new terminology which better expresses the secondary character of these activities within the general timeframe of the burial rite, including the terms secondary opening, disorder and intervention (Trňáčková 1971; Šmíd 1998; Matějíčková 1999). However, it is interesting that in their studies the authors later used several parallel terms, and are seemingly conscious of their inexactness. In the past decade the comprehensive term ‘secondary mortuary practices’ has come into use, to refer not only to the reopening of a grave but also to other related and subsequent activities.

In Moravia specialised studies of this phenomenon in burial rite emerged as late as the 1980s. However, they were focused mainly on secondary grave manipulations in the Early Bronze Age (Únětice culture) where these activities occurred far more often. V. Podborský (1988, 78-80) spoke of secondary interventions which he divided into the ritual and ‘heretic’ ones. In ritual interventions he considers the partial recovery of skeletons from graves, but how these remains were treated afterwards is not considered important. The main motive in secular or ‘heretical’ interventions for Podborský revolve around the acquisition of bronze artefacts, which he calls looting. Podborský also suggests that such actions were considered amoral and asocial during the periods in question. Various analogies were analysed by S. Stuchlík (1990). Secondary manipulations in the Early Bronze Age were recently examined by D. Sosna (2009), who divided them into three analytical categories: 1. Graves disturbed during archaeological excavation, 2. Graves disturbed by later burials, 3. Graves disturbed by shafts. The first category will be not examined here, the second regards coincidental disturbances through the superposition of graveyards from different periods. I will focus on the reasons for the secondary opening of a grave by shafts – the burial of some other individual, looting aimed at valuable artefacts, intentional pollution of the burial and secondary mortuary treatment of the bodies (Sosna 2009, 53-54).

As yet, there are no specialised studies dealing with this type of mortuary practice in the Moravian Late Eneolithic, though some authors have paid attention to this phenomenon in their work (Čižmář 1985; Šmíd 1998; Kolář – Kala in print). Still, the research on this topic in central Europe has been more or less descriptive without considerations of the theoretical and methodological issues at play, such as formative processes, precise classification and categorization, social and economic factors and symbolic meaning influencing these activities in past societies. Apart from this I have focused on presenting explanatory models of how secondary mortuary practices may be recorded in the material culture of past communities and in the material remains archaeologically accessible today.

The record of discoveries is quite long and the first Late Eneolithic secondary manipulation is known for the Corded Ware culture as early as the 1930s. But in the field secondary manipulation was not always correctly recognised, interpreted or documented as at Žuráň (near Slavkov u Brna) in the late 1940’s. Since the 1960s the number of discoveries has grown, due largely in the 1970s and 1980s to the construction of the D1 motorway between

One of the goals of this study is to introduce an anthropological view on the problem of burial rites in central European archaeology, which has been attempted only very sporadically to date. A secondary goal is the classification of the phenomenon of secondary mortuary practices through the analysis of a given collection and

26

Jan Kolář

Figure 1. A – Location of Moravia and Silesia within the Czech Republic, B – map of sites mentioned in the text: 1 – Slavkov u Brna-Žuráň, 2 – Ivanovice na Hané, 3 – Mostkovice, 4 – Kostelec na Hané, 5 – Služín, 6 – Hoštice, 7 – Holubice, 8 – Tvarožná, 9 – Komořany, 10 – Velešovice, 11 – Vyškov, 12 – Modřice, 13 – Bystročice, 14 – Brankovice, 15 – Senice na Hané, 16 – Pavlov, 17 – Stříbrnice, 18 – Hluboké Mašůvky, 19 – Hodonice, 20 – Moravská Nová Ves-Hrušky.

consideration of taphonomy. However, the most important motive was to ignite a renewed discussion and research into explanatory models in central Europe.

Primary manipulation (primary mortuary practices or pre-burial treatment, Figure 6) include pre-depositional transformations, which are not assigned to exit transformations because they represent processes running within living cultures (Neustupný 2007, 51)1. These are immediately followed by depositional processes, which are called exit transformations by some authors, and are characterised as a ‘deficiency or fade-out of other purpose and therefore a lack of human interest’ (Neustupný 2007, 51). However, ritualised behaviour, which the burial rite undoubtedly was (and still is), involves a highly active approach (in which the burying society is interested) leading to the transition of an artefact into dead culture. The deceased community member does not disappear from the living culture; his/her remains can turn into artefacts, which are then treated as symbols (Chénier 2009, 30) or

Formative processes of death and burial in the archaeological record In archaeology we must always be aware that our sources are structured not only by the patterns in burial rites of past societies, but also by how these actions became archaeological records – i.e. formative processes and taphonomy must be considered. For a proper understanding of the evidence of mortuary practices there is an inevitable need to identify these processes correctly and to understand the various stages of decomposition which can strongly impact our perception of the original context and behaviours (O’Shea 1984, 23-24; Duday 2009, 7-13). This knowledge would enable us (at least partly) to reconstruct human activity within the burial rite.

1 The Czech-written work by E. Neustupný from 2007 is based on his publication on the archaeological method from 1993 (Neustupný 1993).

27

Secondary Mortuary Practices

CORDED WARE CULTURE 1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

Marefy

References Chleborád 1934

Letonice

Chleborád 1934 Žuráň

Poulík 1952; 1995 Lutín

Komořany

Trňáčková 1971 Čižmář 1985; Čižmář Geisler 1998 Čižmář 1985; Čižmář Geisler 1998 Čižmář - Geisler 1998

Velešovice

Čižmář - Geisler 1998

Vyškov

Čižmář - Geisler 1998

Tvarožná Holubice

Vyškov Nosálovice Modřice

Mikulková 1997 Matějíčková 1999

Bystročice Kostelec na Hané I Lapačky Mostkovice

Peška 2001

Senice na Hané Služín I Zábrusky Určice Dvorské

Šmíd 1998

Šmíd 1998 Šmíd 1998 Šmíd 1998 Šmíd 1998 Hoštice 4 Ivanovice na Hané 3/2 Ivanovice na Hané 4 Ivanovice na Hané 7 Brankovice

Kolář 2008; 2011 (in print) Kolář 2006; 2011 (in print) Kolář 2006, 2011 (in print) Kolář 2008; 2011 (in print) Kolář - Kala in print

Figure 2. History of excavation of secondary manipulated Corded Ware graves (grey fields indicate field documentation of sufficient quality).

he can be part of the living culture as one of the ancestors, being symbolically remembered (for more see Kuijt 2008).

emergence of these deposits, even if they resulted directly in such contexts. An example is the burial of a dead individual in his/her ordinary daily clothing. Where this includes buttons and beads, if preserved, these are labelled as grave inclusions. Although they carry important information, their significance is quite different from objects which were placed into the grave intentionally due to their strong symbolical meaning. Sometimes it is of course very hard to decide what happened consciously and what by chance. This division, however, should be definitely considered.

Depositional processes comprise all sorts of manipulations that result in the deposit of a material record, though it remains largely the final part of primary mortuary practices. Such processes (together with deposits and grave goods) can still be divided into intentional, coincidental and accidental activity. Intentional depositional processes are characterised by knowledge and purposefulness and in the field of burial rite they include e.g. the construction of burial facilities or digging the grave, preparing the dead body for funeral, and placing objects and the body into the grave.

Accidental grave inclusions (deposits, finds) have neither emerged purposefully during mortuary practices, and are usually also in no way associated with them. Good examples include arrowheads stuck in the body or insect larvae. These finds offer an important source of information

As inferred by its name, coincidental depositional processes are not conscious. Mortuary practices were not aimed at the

28

Jan Kolář

2000s

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

1950s

1940s

1930s

1920s

1910s

1900s

BELL BEAKER CULTURE References Excavation report N. 984/50 Kalousek 1956 Excavation report N. 873/50 Kalousek 1956

Slavkov Letonice Kobylnice Černčín Lhánice Vyškov Markova cihelna

Hájek 1951 Ondráček 1961 Pavlov IHorní Pole

Dvořák et al. 1996 Moravská Nová Ves - Hrušky

Stuchlík Stuchlíková 1996 Hluboké Mašůvky Ivanovice na Hané 6 - Borůvka Stříbrnice Hoštice 1 Hodonice

Matějíčková 2004 Tkáč 2006 Peška - Tajer 2006 information kindly provided by A. Matějíčková Information kindly provided by D. Humpola

Figure 3. History of excavating of secondary manipulated Bell Beaker graves (grey fields indicate grey fields indicate field documentation of sufficient quality).

very close to each other and subsequent burials accidentally disturb older graves (e.g. medieval layered graves and Neolithic collective megalithic tombs in western Europe).

on the reason or season of death, body exposure timelines, midden management etc. (O’Shea 1984, 24). We must also consider a wide range of post-depositional processes which can be divided according to their origin into natural and cultural ones (O’Shea 1984, 25). Among the natural processes are the decomposition of organic materials and tissues, and erosion, which is capable of burying archaeological contexts deep under alluvial sediments. This type of natural post-depositional process covers up all or part of a preserved feature. The other type of natural post-depositional processes is however quite problematic because it directly results in the structured deposition of features of non-anthropogenic origin. These processes include cryo- and bioturbation or water transport (cf. Duday 2009).

Intentional secondary manipulations is part of the burial rite in societies with multi-phase burial practices, however it is not necessarilly part of a burial rite; and may result from tomb looting etc. – as discussed below. Such actions in particular cases can either camouflage the primary manipulation or render it completely undetectable. The above-mentioned examples relate to those secondary manipulations carried out by the same societies who initially buried the dead. However, secondary manipulation was also performed by communities far removed in time from the society responsible for the original burial. This may have occurred for example when re‑using a funeral area. This intentional behaviour is known from Egypt (Ceram 1971, 129) or from Sarmatian groups searching for gold in Bronze Age barrows at the site of Mokrin in the

Among cultural post-depositional processes are accidental or intentional secondary manipulations. Accidental secondary manipulations occur when graves are situated

29

Secondary Mortuary Practices

PROTO-ÚNĚTICE CULTURE 1980s

1990s

2000s

References

Pavlov I - Horní Pole

Peška 2009 Moravská Nová Ves - Hrušky

Stuchlík - Stuchlíková 1996 Ivanovice na Hané 7

Výška 2005

Figure 4. History of excavating of secondary manipulated Proto-Únětice graves (grey fields indicate grey fields indicate field documentation of sufficient quality).

DISTURBANCE

2000s

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

1950s

1940s

1930s

TERMINOLOGY

  SITTING BURIAL   LOOTING  DISLOCATION  

SECONDARY DISORDER/ OPENING/INTERVENTION

  SECONDARY MORTUARY PRACTICES

Figure 5. Development of terminology used in Moravian archaeology in association with Late Eneolithic secondary (mortuary) practices (grey fields indicate decades in which these terms had been in use), data were acquired from the following publications: Chleborád 1934; Čižmář 1985; Čižmář – Geisler 1998; Hájek 1951; Humpola 2010; Kolář 2006; Kolář 2008; Matějíčková 1999; Matějíčková 2004; Mikulková 1997; Ondráček 1961; Peška 2001; Peška 2009; Peška – Tajer 2006; Poulík 1952; Poulík 1995; Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996; Šebela 1986; Šmíd 1998; Tkáč 2006; Trňáčková 1971; Výška 2005.

division, archaeological transformation sensu stricto) aspects (Neustupný 2007, 54-64). Secondary manipulations in the terminology of J. O’Shea thus count among postdepositional processes, whose proper identification and interpretation are absolutely inevitable and must precede every archaeological study of burial rite.

Autonomous Province of Voivodina in present-day Serbia. This category also includes archaeologists (O’Shea 1984, 25-26). The division of post-depositional processes into natural and cultural ones has been criticised (Binford 1987; Neustupný 2007, 54). The anthropogenic effect, according to the above authors, is an activity performed within a living culture, and in the terminology of E. Neustupný is a pre-depositional transformation. Human activity can be considered postdepositional transformation only in those cases in which man acts ‘as a force of nature’ (Neustupný 2007, 54). Here he is probably referring to accidental transformations. But in my opinion it is also very hard to determine the degree of intentionality in manipulation with grave units. A sort of grey zone emerges where it is not fully clear when a particular activity represents an accidental cultural postdepositional process and when it turns into an intentional (pre-)depositional process (but on a feature which is already partly altered by post-depositional transformation).

We must also be aware that archaeologists do not see within the material record the complete mortuary ritual, but only those aspects which are reflected in material form and were able to survive depositional and post-depositional processes. In essence these are a sort of filter that allows the transmission of only fragmentary information (O’Shea 1984, 27-31). Materials and methods The geographic area of my interest is Moravia and the adjacent territory of Czech Silesia situated north east of Moravia (Figure 1).

All transformations (i.e. also secondary manipulations) include qualitative (spatial and formal transformations) and quantitative (fragmentation, reduction, accumulation,

Mass and individual secondary grave disturbance is relatively common during the Early Bronze Age in central Europe (e.g. Bátora 2000; Sprenger 1999; Stuchlík 1990;

30

Jan Kolář

Podborský 1988). This practice has its beginnings in the preceding Late Eneolithic, when a total of four relatively clearly definable cultural units existed in this area. A relatively complicated problem in this area is the KosihyČaka/Makó culture which has been little investigated to date. However, according to some authors, there are many graves of this culture located in Moravia, when the large number of graves now currently assigned to the Corded Ware culture are included (Bertemes – Heyd 2002, 195196). Research on this question is just beginning and deserves separate discussion which is beyond the scope of this paper. I will continue to use the traditional cultural classification for these graves.

high-quality documentation so that I was able to use all publications and excavation reports (27 in total). Terminological system In this study I am using a terminological system which tries to avoid subjective and interpretative terms, which are misleading or at variance with the cultural relativistic approach found in anthropology. Below are several definitions of terms included in the scheme that I will be working with (Figure 6): Primary manipulation – part of the primary mortuary practice including all activities after death, including preburial treatments, through to the deposition of remains at the primary resting place (primary deposit)

Identified as early as c.2800 BC the Corded Ware culture represents the earliest of the abovementioned four cultural units. In our area this culture is known mainly from burial grounds and several authors have already dealt with the burial rite of these communities (e.g. Šebela – Dvořák – Langová 1990; Šmíd 1998).

Primary deposit/burial – the place where the remains (usually the body retaining anatomical integrity) are deposited at the conclusion of primary manipulation. This may include a grave, aboveground post construction, rock cavity, etc. This includes intentional, coincidental and accidental components.

The Bell Beaker culture dates to c. 2500–2200 BC and may coexist with Corded Ware (for more on the problem of chronology of this period in Moravia see Peška 2009). In the period under review several hundreds of graves are known and settlement finds somewhat more common than Corded Ware (e.g. Ondráček – Dvořák – Matějíčková 2005; Turek – Dvořák – Peška 2003; Dvořák 1992; Dvořák – Matějíčková – Peška – Rakovský 1996). The burial rite of this culture was comprehensively evaluated by L. Šebela, P. Dvořák and J. Langová (1990). Unfortunately no more recent work has been published.

Secondary manipulation –human activities resulting in removal of remains from primary to secondary deposit. Includes opening grave, full or partial exhumation, transfer, digging second grave or other modifications and deposition. Part of post-depositional processes and may be both coincidental or intentional. Purposeful secondary manipulation is considered a (pre-)depositional process. Secondary deposit/burial – a place where full or partial remains are deposited at the conclusion of secondary manipulation. Intentional forms include secondary graves, aboveground post construction and museum repositories. Accidental forms include remains in a shaft. It is a new context outside the framework of primary deposition.

The Proto-Únětice culture is the most recent cultural component, but some authors consider it contemporaneousness with Bell Beaker and Corded Ware (Peška 2009, 253-260), and it is also often groundlessly dated as late to Early Bronze Age. We know of it mainly from burials. Settlement sites are not common. The burial rite of this culture was summed up most recently by J. Peška (2009).

Secondary manipulation at primary deposit/burial – this is the location of primary deposition but where the structure and arrangement were altered by secondary manipulation. The location was not initially intended for secondary deposition.

The Chłopice-Veselé culture (part of the epi-Corded Ware cultural complex) falls into the Moravian Late Eneolithic. The graves are best known from sites in east Moravia, but are not numerous and none show any traces of secondary manipulation.

Formation processes of each deposit type are quite complicated. Figure 6 is a diagram clearly outlining the process involved. During primary manipulation the body was moved after death to the primary deposit, which may have been situated either below or above ground. If the primary deposit (grave) was not further impacted anthropogenically it would undergo natural postdepositional transformations and, according to its own character, become part of the archaeological record.

Altogether 52 graves from the Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Proto-Únětice cultures have good excavation documentation useful to our analysis. Details of these graves are contained in comprehensive table summaries which include; site name, excavation date, literature references; and our data quality evaluation (Figures 2, 3 and 4).

Conversely, if there was intentional secondary manipulation of the primary deposit two possibilities result: a primary deposit with secondary manipulation and a secondary deposit of the remains. Again, we must take into account

For analysis of secondary manipulations only graves with good documentation and verbal description were used. The synthesis of terminology and interpretations did not require

31

Secondary Mortuary Practices

Figure 6. Scheme illustrating how the secondary (mortuary) practices become part of archaeological record.

that these processes are variously captured in the archaeological record. In some cases there needn’t be any explicit secondary deposit, and the full or partial remains may have been transferred back into living culture, as relics or further modified into other symbolic artefacts. These would arrive in the archaeological record in later depositional processes possibly during a decline of the living culture.

recovered and intentionally transferred into a secondary deposit, again, underground. After the decline of the living culture and after entry into the archaeological record we might, in an ideal case, excavate three contexts with secondary position of remains: 1. Intentionally omitted non-preferred skeletal parts in the infill/at the bottom of the grave in accidental position – i.e. secondarily manipulated primary deposit 2. Intentionally omitted non-preferred skeletal parts in accidental position in a shaft – i.e. accidental secondary deposit 3. Intentionally deposited preferred skeletal parts in preferred position at some other place – i.e. intentional secondary deposit.

We must also consider the degree of intentionality behind the emergence of various types of deposits and related archaeological contexts. Here is a hypothetical example: during a secondary manipulation focused on particular body parts, the whole skeleton, deposited in an underground grave, was dislocated. Only the sough-after body part was

32

Jan Kolář

All of these are affected by subsequent post-depositional processes.

In cases when the manipulation is focused on the body (whole or a part), grave goods, which were not connected directly with the body or are not closely attached, remain intact.To the category ‘manipulated grave infill’ I would assign, perhaps untraditionally, ‘successive burials’. This involves the case where two individuals are buried one atop the other in the same grave pit. In order to bury the second individual the infill of the primary grave pit must be removed to a certain level above the primary burial, where the second burial is placed, and then the whole grave refilled2. An almost undistinguishable archaeological reflection can also be produced by a successive burial in which the second individual was buried into a partially infilled grave pit.

The whole problem with secondary manipulations is very complicated and from ethnographic research we know that these processes/rituals differ across individual societies. The locations of primary and secondary deposit may have no intrinsic connection, being variously buried above or below ground, and any variation or combination is possible (cf. Černý 2006, 128-134; Sosna 2007). It is clear that in the archaeological record only a small portion of this complicated process is captured and identifiable. In this paper I focus on clearly identifiable archaeological evidence of secondary mortuary practices in the Late Eneolithic, to which I assign the following features (all of them below ground):

Activity at the whole grave (Figure 7:4) is evidenced by scattered fragments of grave goods and human remains within the whole grave infill, with occasional concentrations. To this burial category we can also add empty grave pits from which all skeletal material was removed to another location (cf. Erneé – Majer 2009). Transitional forms are also found on the boundaries between particular burial categories.

1. Secondarily manipulated graves/burials – primary deposits with evident secondary manipulation; some or all of the grave goods or infill may also be subject to secondary manipulation. 2. Secondary burials – secondary deposit of whole or partial, individual or group remains in a specific arrangement; accompanied by grave goods which were impacted only by natural post-depositional processes.

Secondary deposits/burials can then be divided into two groups: 1. Secondary burials sensu stricto – mostly multiple individuals (Figure 8: 1) 2. Combination of secondary and primary burial in a single grave (Figure 8: 2).

Results and discussion From the diagram showing the transition of secondary manipulation into archaeological record (Figure 6) it is clear that not all stages of these practices are in the archaeological record. There are two major groups within the material remains of primary and secondary deposits: above ground and under ground practices, of which usually only the latter is preserved. With regard to post-depositional transformations only deep graves became part of the archaeological record. The emerging image of secondary mortuary practices is fragmentary and does not reflect the whole reality as found within the living culture.

Secondary burials/deposits sensu stricto are characterised by the dislocation of skeletal remains (mostly of multiple individuals) in non-anatomical position3 within an ordinary grave pit, and including grave goods of relevant form and placement (e.g. ceramic vessels as known from common primary burials). As far as the combination of a secondary and a primary burial is concerned, we can find within one grave context the remains of one or more individuals in secondary position (incomplete skeleton, non-anatomic position) in association with the primary burial. Grave goods belonging to secondarily manipulated remains can be quite fragmentary and incomplete, though grave inclusions of the primary burial are usually intact. There might also be a combination of primary burial and remains of individuals who were buried earlier into the same grave pit being displaced to one side.

From the Late Eneolithic in the Moravian-Silesian area we know of the following forms of secondary manipulations of primary deposit: 1. Partially manipulated grave a. Manipulated whole body (Figure 7: 1) b. Manipulated body part (Figure 7: 2) c. Manipulated grave infill (Figure 7: 3) 2. Completely manipulated grave (Figure 7: 4).

Corded Ware Culture

In the case of partial secondary grave manipulation the other parts of the grave remained intact (Figure 7:1 and 7:2). This is shown by the presence of grave goods in common locations and forms (e.g. ceramic vessels at the bottom of the grave pit) or skeletons in anatomic positions (but we must be cautious about cases when the primary burial was manipulated during decomposition but where ligaments remained to keep the bones aligned).

There are 31 graves with a sufficient level of documentation This procedure is commonly practiced with present-day inhumations in the Czech Republic. If a sufficiently deep pit was dug out for the first deceased, then it is possible to bury into the same pit even multiple other individuals above the first body, but these must be placed deep enough below the ground. 3 Anatomical links can partly outlast. 2

33

Secondary Mortuary Practices

Figure 7. Forms of archaeological evidence for secondarily manipulated primary deposits/burials: 1 – manipulated whole body (Ivanovice na Hané 7, Grave 801), 2 – manipulated body part (Ivanovice na Hané 3/2, Grave 813), 3 – partly manipulated grave infill (Ivanovice na Hané 4, Grave 807), 4 – completely manipulated grave (Pavlov I, Grave 569/84); 1 – after Kolář 2008, tab. 31, 2 – after Kolář 2006, tab. 44, 3 – after Kolář 2006, tab. 71, 4 – modified after Dvořák – Matějíčková – Peška – Rakovský 1996, taf. 47: A.

34

Jan Kolář

to allow for research of secondary manipulation. Evidence of secondary manipulation of primary deposits absolutely dominates the archaeological record. Completely manipulated grave deposits were detected in 14 cases4, and in 16 cases only a partial manipulation of the grave was identified – including eight cases of whole body manipulation5 and seven cases of partial body manipulation6. In one case there a double successive grave was detected with two primary burials one above the other, so that only a partial secondary manipulation of the grave infill7 was present (Figure 7:3). In the next category of secondary mortuary practices – secondary burials – we know of only one grave from Ivanovice na Hané 3/2, Grave 821 (Figure 9:1) where the secondary burial is combined with the primary (Kolář et al. 2011, tab. 40). Of course not all graves meet the proposed criteria and a degree of variability can be observed. We can find secondarily manipulated graves above or close to which there are other deposits of dead animals or artefacts (Mostkovice, Služín, Kostelec na Hané; Šmíd 1998, 126), or graves which are connected with other features probably associated with secondary manipulations (Ivanovice na Hané 7, Grave 805; Figure 9:4; Kolář et al. 2011, 77). Bell Beaker Culture Despite a considerable number of investigated graves, within this culture I recently found only ten graves bearing some traces of secondary manipulations. All of them were secondarily manipulated primary burials. Completely manipulated graves (four cases)8 were most common. In other four cases a body part was manipulated

Hoštice 4 – Graves 803 and 835 (Kolář 2008, 10, 11, tab.7 and 9; Kolář et al. 2011 in print); Ivanovice na Hané 3/2 – Graves 812 and 815 (Kolář 2006, 15, 17, tab. 19 and 24-28; Kolář et al. 2011 in print); Holubice VII 1981 – Grave H1 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 21); Komořany 1989 – Graves H12 and H14 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 29-30); Tvarožná III 1979 – Grave H3 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 47); Velešovice 1988, Grave H8 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 58); Vyškov 1989 – Grave H3 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 66); Vyškov I – Grave H2 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 70); Vyškov – Nosálovice, Grave 3 (Mikulková 1997); Modřice – Feature 7 (Matějíčková 1999); Bystročice – Grave H1 (Peška 2001). 5 Hoštice 4 – Grave 859 (Kolář 2008, 14; Kolář et al. 2011 in print); Ivanovice na Hané 7 – Graves 801 and 805 (Kolář 2008, 18, 19; Kolář et al. 2011 in print); Komořany 1988 – Grave H4 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 2627); Kostelec na Hané I – Lapačky (Šmíd 1998, 123); Mostkovice (Šmíd 1998, 124); Služín I – Zábrusky (Šmíd 1998, 125); Brankovice – Grave 825 (Kolář – Kala in print). 6 Hoštice 4 – Grave 834 (Kolář 2008, 10; Kolář et al. 2011 in print); Ivanovice na Hané 3/2 – Grave 813 (Kolář 2006, 15-16, tab. 20-22; Kolář et al. 2011 in print); Ivanovice na Hané 4 – Grave 0801 (Kolář 2006, 20, tab. 58; Kolář et al. 2011 in print); Komořany 1989 – Grave H15 (Čižmář – Geisler 1998, 30); Modřice – Grave 32 (Matějíčková 1999); Senice na Hané – Grave 2 (Šmíd 1998, 124). 7 Ivanovice na Hané 4 – Grave 807 (Kolář 2006, 20-21, tab. 61-63; Kolář et al. 2011 in print). 8 Pavlov – Horní pole, Grave 569/84 (Dvořák – Matějíčková – Peška – Rakovský 1996, 36, taf. 47: A); Ivanovice na Hané 6 – Graves 813 and 814 (Tkáč 2006, 20); Stříbrnice – Grave 19 (Peška – Tajer 2006). 4

Figure 8. Forms of archaeological evidence for secondary deposits/burials: 1 – secondary deposit/burial sensu stricto, 2 – combination of a secondary and a primary deposit/burial; modified after Peška 2009, tab. 4: 1, 22: 1.

35

Secondary Mortuary Practices

Figure 9. Other examples of secondarily manipulated burials. Corded Ware Culture: 1 – Ivanovice na Hané 3/2, Grave 821, 2 – Mostkovice, 3 – Služín: a – depth of 0.6m, b – depth of 0.9m (bottom), 4 – Ivanovice na Hané 7, Grave 805; 1 – after Kolář 2006, tab. 49, 2 and 3 – modified after Šmíd 1998, obr. 4, obr. 6, 4 – modified after Kolář 2008, tab. 33.

36

Jan Kolář

(usually the upper part)9, and in two cases a partial manipulation of the grave infill was detected10.

reasons (e.g. Chleborád 1934; Hájek 1951; Poulík 1952; Trňáčková 1971; Mikulková 1997; Peška 2001; Výška 2005). In research publications the term ‘looted grave’ is often associated with valuable copper artefacts as the reason for a secondary manipulation of the grave or burial. This interpretation arose in the Czech Republic in the 1980s, and archaeologists still assume its validity (e.g. Čižmář 1985; Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996; Kolář 2006; Matějíčková 2004).

In one case in a completely manipulated grave a bone of some other individual was found beside the main skeleton. However, considering the find context it cannot be determined whether or not it was a secondary deposit or secondarily manipulated double grave11. Proto-Únětice Culture

In the second half of the 1980s it was sometimes claimed that the reason for skeletons found in non-anatomic position and for scattered grave goods related to the decomposition of a wooden construction on which the remains were originally placed. This interpretation has not found broader acceptance and remains unnoticed apart from a single reference (Šebela 1986).

The situation has partially changed regarding the ProtoÚnětice culture. In the archaeological record evidence of secondary deposits/burials occurs much more often (with seven known cases), though secondarily manipulated primary deposits were investigated only in four. One is characterised as a manipulation of the whole body12, and this situation was combined with a successive primary Únětice culture burial (Figure 10). The other three cases are successive burials in the secondarily manipulated infill of an older grave13.

The explanation that graves were disturbed by mistake (i.e. unintentionally at a later date) appeared at the same time and with the same low level of acceptance. The hypothesis that secondary interventions were carried out by a contemporaneous but different culture, such as an encounter between the Corded Ware and the Kosihy-Čaka/ Makó cultures, appeared in the 1990s (Matějíčková 1999).

Secondary deposits/burials appear here in two forms – both in combination with primary deposits/burials and without them. Secondary deposits of remains buried together with primary deposits/burials were identified in two cases14. Proper secondary burials were excavated in four cases15. One of the graves has clear evidence of secondary deposit, but it cannot be assigned to any of the above groups16.

Since the 1990s scientific literature has tended to explain these phenomena as rituals, which are part of religious ideas or of burial rites associated with the belief in afterlife (e.g. Šmíd 1998; Tkáč 2006; Kolář 2008). Since then interpretations of secondary mortuary practices have been divided into material and symbolical ones.

Interpretations Interpretations of secondary mortuary practices have been developed, and they were and are influenced by the scientific and personal profile of each researcher. Considering the fact that traces of secondary mortuary practices are known mainly from the Early Bronze Age, inspiration for the interpretation of this phenomenon in the Late Eneolithic was sought in Early Bronze Age work. The most frequent approach was to not interpret this phenomenon at all, and unfortunately we find this in current scientific literature (Figure 11). However, it is often the case that an author applied a partially interpretative terminology to describe a field situation (‘robbed/looted grave’), but he/she neither searches for any explanation nor asks the

In the past decade the possibility of secondary burial or reintegration of remains into the living culture have been considered. However, it remains problematic that there is such a poor state of preservation within the areas occupied by the majority of Late Eneolithic cultures (especially Corded Ware culture). Not all interpretations can be assessed in the same manner and it is necessary to consider what the individual forms of secondary interventions may have meant for the past society. For the purpose of this study several hypothetical models occurring in the literature (e.g. Sosna 2009, 53) will be presented. This short listing of models is of course not comprehensive but I hope it will ignite new discussion which will modify and complete it.

Hluboké Mašůvky (Matějíčková 2004); Hoštice 1 (unpublished, pers. comm. by A. Matějíčková); Hodonice – two graves (unpublished, pers. comm. by D. Humpola). 10 Moravská Nová Ves – Hrušky, Grave 40 (Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996, 37, obr. 17 and 16: 3); Hodonice – one grave – primary/secondary cremation in a stratigraphically younger context disturbing the primary infill of the grave pit (unpublished, pers. comm. by D. Humpola). 11 Ivanovice na Hané 6 – Grave 813 (Tkáč 2006, 20). 12 Moravská Nová Ves – Hrušky, Grave 7 (Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996, 15-16, obr. 7). 13 Moravská Nová Ves – Hrušky, Grave 19 (Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996, 22-23, obr. 10); Pavlov – Graves H1/H4 and H24/H25 (Peška 2009, 13-15, 23-25, tab. 1, 2, 10, 11). 14 Pavlov – Graves 487 and 488 (Peška 2009, 33-35, tab. 21-23). 15 Pavlov – Graves H8 and H11 (Peška 2009, 17-19, tab. 4, 6); Moravská Nová Ves – Hrušky, Grave 23 (Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996, 26-27, obr. 12: 2, 12: 3); Ivanovice na Hané 7 – Grave 806 (Výška 2005, 27-28). 16 Pavlov – Grave 351 (Peška 2009, 31, tab. 13:3). 9

Model 1 – secondary manipulation of skeletal remains The reason for the secondary opening of a grave was to acquire whole or part of the body which had some symbolical significance requiring further manipulation. Several primary deposits fulfilled their function as a place of temporary storage and decomposition of soft tissues. After some time secondary mortuary practices were carried out. After they were finished these body parts were buried with appropriate ritual and respect (which is reflected in

37

Secondary Mortuary Practices

Figure 10. Secondarily manipulated primary burial of the Proto-Únětice culture with a primary burial of the Únětice culture in the same grave pit, Moravská Nová Ves – Hrušky, Grave 7. 1 – Únětice burial, 2 – grave pit at a depth of 0.25m, 3 – grave pit at a depth of 0.6-0.7m, 4 – the bottom of the grave pit with secondarily manipulated Proto-Únětice primary burial; modified after Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996, obr. 7.

38

Jan Kolář

 NO INTERPRETATION

2000s

1990s

1980s

1970s

1960s

1950s

1940s

1930s

INTERPRETATIONS

  VALUABLE ARTEFACTS DECOMPOSITION OF A   WOODEN CONSTRUCTION LATER DISTURBANCE   BY MISTAKE, UNINTENTIONAL RELIGIOUS REASONS, PART OF BURIAL RITE   CONNECTED WITH THE BELIEF IN AFTERLIFE INTERFERENCE BETWEEN   COMMUNITIES FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES POSSIBILITY OF SECONDARY BURIALS,   REINTRODUCTION TO LIVING CULTURE

Figure 11. Development of interpretations of Late Eneolithic secondary (mortuary) practices in Moravian archaeology (grey fields indicate decades in which these terms had been in use), data were acquired from following publications: Chleborád 1934; Čižmář 1985; Čižmář – Geisler 1998; Hájek 1951; Humpola 2010; Kolář 2006; Kolář 2008; Matějíčková 1999; Matějíčková 2004; Mikulková 1997; Ondráček 1961; Peška 2001; Peška 2009; Peška – Tajer 2006; Poulík 1952; Poulík 1995; Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996; Šebela 1986; Šmíd 1998; Tkáč 2006; Trňáčková 1971; Výška 2005.

the thorough collection of remains at the primary place of deposition, intentionally not destroying skeletal remains, the addition of grave goods, placing the remains into an organic container etc.) into the secondary deposit where they were subsequently altered by natural post-depositional processes. In this way multiple individuals could be secondarily buried at once into one and the same grave pit. Prior to this all remains could have also been placed together (or separately) at the place(s) of primary deposition, which might have had the form of a wooden construction, rock cavity etc. Collective secondary burial may have expressed biological kinship or group identity of the deceased or mourners. The temporary deposit and delayed secondary burial may relate to winter deaths, during a time when the earth was frozen (Jacobs 1995, 394-395). Skeletal remains may have also been used to make artefacts with strong symbolical meaning, which were used within the living culture.

people who have dishonoured their family, people without relatives, those who died far away from their home etc. (Sosna 2007, 178). Secondary manipulations may have also occurred due to voluntary or forced migration of communities carrying their ancestors to maintain the mutual relationship as with modern Serbs (Chénier 2009, 33). Possible reflection in archaeological record include secondarily manipulated primary deposits where the whole or part of the body was manipulated, and a part of the body is completely absent in the grave. This process should be characterised by very precise exhumation of remains. Important indicators are scant skeleton remnants and the detection of phosphate evidence of soft tissue decomposition (cf. Ernée – Majer 2009). This hypothetical model is also supported by the occurrence of secondary burials sensu stricto. Artefacts made from human bones, found in other areas of prehistoric communities would also corroborate this model.

Social status is the main determinant of secondary mortuary practices, and these are often intended only for significant individuals. Secondary mortuary manipulations of remains in various societies do not apply to children and young girls,

39

Secondary Mortuary Practices

The possibility to prove or disprove this model lies primarily in large-scale implementation of phosphate soil analyses in graves under examination, detailed field documentation of secondarily manipulated primary and secondary deposits, aDNA analyses, and analyses of epigenetic features on human osteological material. The question of selecting graves for secondary mortuary practices could be validated by statistical analysis of high quantities of graves, in which some recurrent feature will appear in those graves which had secondary manipulation.

different. Even if a grave is completely manipulated, its infill shows mostly the same properties (dark, black dusty soil). We can thus commonly find non-manipulated primary graves and secondarily manipulated primary graves with the same infill. Primary infill in secondarily manipulated graves, however, differs considerably from the primary infill of intact graves. What were then all these graves filled with? Was it an intentional action? Did the infill of particular quality represent the closing moment in burial rite in both primary and secondary form? Was the secondary manipulation in several graves planned according to a special criteria? What was the social significance and symbolical meaning of primary and secondary mortuary practices in the Corded Ware culture? Are these alternatives equally valued? Is the Berawan model applicable to other prehistoric communities?

Appendix to Model 1 Secondary mortuary practices may have also been influenced by the economic status of mourners, as demonstrated by P. Metcalf (1981) with the Berawans from Borneo. In this context he introduced the term ‘ritual economy’.

Model 2 – recovery of valuable copper artefacts

Amongst the Berawans secondary mortuary practices are performed only in a small partion of the society, most being buried with so-called abridged rituals. Both alternatives coexist and with the same symbolical meaning. The frequency of secondary mortuary practices, which are associated with spectacular feasts, is relatively low and held several years apart. Between these events the deceased are of course buried with abridged rituals. Even those are sometimes accompanied by sumptuous feasts but none had secondary manipulations (Metcalf 1981, 564-567). The form (in the sense of sumptuousness) of the burial rite is closely related to social status of the deceased and their survivors, who, after the death of a significant individual decide to hold a sumptuous primary burial or its variant, a simple primary burial and subsequent secondary mortuary practice associated with spectacular feasts. The latter variant is usually selected when the death comes at a bad time, e.g. during harvest when most are busy in the fields. In this case the deceased is primarily buried in a very simple manner, and at a more favourable time the survivors organise a feast connected with secondary mortuary manipulation. An individual who dies in a foreign village is another reason for this practice. The remains are primarily deposited in the foreign village and after the decomposition of soft tissues they are transported back. An important factor is also the availability of resources for organising the feast. Several bad harvests can postpone a feast and secondary mortuary rituals by decades (Metcalf 1981, 572-573). The form of a funeral is thus largely determined by the current economic situation of mourners.

The reason for a secondary opening of the grave may have been the recovery of valuable copper artefacts. It was not part of the mortuary practice, so the practical function of obtaining valuable objects would be dominant. Possible reflection in archaeological sources include secondarily manipulated primary deposits, which contain a provably lower number of copper artefacts than in the non-manipulated graves. These may be both partly and completely manipulated graves. The incidence of copper oxidation products (green colour) on human skeletal remains would be detected even if no copper object is present in the grave. The possibilities of proving or disproving this model rests above all in a statistical evaluation of entire burial grounds or complete grave groups (where sufficiently abundant), and a comparison between unmanipulated and manipulated graves. This hypothesis was tested for the Early Bronze Age but in several burial areas from the period under review it was not proven and it was found that the secondary opening was focused on the skull or mandible (Sosna 2009, 76, 78). This hypothesis is also partly disproven by finds of copper artefacts in manipulated graves. Model 3 – burial of other individuals This type is secondarily opened in order to lower another individual who might have been biologically or socially related to the preceding deceased at that location. This action would have reflected a collective group identity. The act of reopening the grave could have strong symbolic meaning (cf. Peška 2005, 102).

Similar motivations may apply in the central European Late Eneolithic. Above all, the graves of the Corded Ware culture, are characterised by distinct dark infill, which is considerably different from the other archaeological features from other ages. This dark infill can be found both in graves without secondary manipulation and the infill of shafts through which the graves were secondarily entered. In the event that a secondarily manipulated grave also contains a partly preserved primary infill, the latter is considerably

Possible reflections in the archaeological record include; a partly manipulated infill above the first burial who remained in primary position with the subsequent deceased was placed above; or secondary burials sensu stricto together

40

Jan Kolář

personal identity but also, or exclusively, their membership in a group, which could be palpably affected through this act.

with primary burials at the bottom of a grave pit, with a similar fragmentation of grave goods, and with the bones of the secondary burial slightly more fragmented than the primary burial due to previous manipulations or exposure; and finally the possibility is that during secondary manipulation the older burial in primary position is shifted aside at the bottom of the same grave pit wherein another burial with grave goods are placed. This latter form is associated with a higher degree of fragmentation of bones and inclusions and may reflect a lower degree of respect to the individual shifted aside. ‘Cumulative’ graves can be established with multiple individuals where the last is always placed in primary position. The others are either transferred to the grave from a primary deposit or always shifted aside.

This model is possibly reflected in the archaeological record as completely devastated graves containing highly fragmented human osteological material and grave goods. In cases where this action was focused only on the destruction of the remains it is possible to observe manipulation of the whole or part of the body. Evidentiary possibilities include examples of graves polluted for territorial reasons which might be found on the borders of rival communities. This competition and rivalry would also be reflected in other aspects of culture, such as an enhanced accent on symbols of communal belonging on both sides (see Hodder 1982, 18-36 for more detail) or in differential access to raw materials. Validation of the hypothesis that a grave or burial would be devastated due to danger from the deceased is more problematic. As far as the spatial arrangement within larger regions or areas is concerned, such graves should be evenly distributed between communities, even if these activities were more popular or in use in some regions.

This hypothesis has already been proven by finds of multiple skeletons within one grave showing evidence of successive burials, positioned one above the other or with the disarticulation (this may also testify to secondary position) of older skeletal remains. To validate the biological relationship between the deceased it is possible to use aDNA and epigenetic features on skeletal material, and large-scale implementation of phosphate soil analyses in the graves under review.

There are many possible explanations of which we have looked at only a selection. Their utility is yet to be proven by further research, and not only in the field of theoretical archaeology. An important role will be played by scientific methods and analyses. The whole burial rite phenomena requires further discussion, in the case of graves from the Late Eneolithic, communities around Lake Chad or modern Serbs or Greeks. We should mainly focus on the possibilities of developing a general method to evaluate not only the evidence of secondary manipulation but also that of human sacrifice, cannibalism and reburial (Weiss-Krejci 2001, 156).

Model 4 – intentional pollution of a burial/grave Intentional pollution may result from a fight between competitive groups within a community or between different communities. The pollution of the final resting place of ancestors attacks the sensibilities of living individuals in relationship with these ancestors (Sosna 2009, 53). It might also play an important role in territorial rivalry across the landscape. If these activities are performed in order to liquidate important sacred places then they would not be part of a mortuary practice.

Conclusion

Intentional pollution may have also occurred due to perception of danger from the dead. This might have been attributed to various groups or individuals such as people with handicaps or extraordinary skills, females who died at delivery, childless females, murder witnesses or people who died under unusual circumstances (Bartelheim – Heyd 2001, 267-268).

In this paper I have examined the Late Eneolithic in Moravia and the three known cultures (Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Proto-Únětice) of this time and place where secondary mortuary practices are in evidence. I have tried to bring attention to the fact that in studying such phenomenon it is also necessary to consider the formative processes that have created or modified the archaeological record. Secondary mortuary practices can be assigned to post-depositional transformations (if coincidental), but if they are carried out intentionally and their result is an intentional secondary deposit, then their character gradually changes into a predepositional transformation.

Such desecrated graves are sometimes combined with other (primary) deposits of artefacts or animals placed above (Figure 9:2 and 9:3). Who made these deposits? Was it the same people who desecrated the grave or the relatives of the buried person? Are they the same people? Were these deposits sacrifices intended for the restoration of a relationship with the ancestors after the preceding manipulation?

Within the archaeological record are various contexts related to secondary manipulation, including secondary deposits and secondarily manipulated primary deposits. These can differ considerably by the degree of intentionality. These deposits were not always of the same or similar character, and they do not always occur simultaneously in the

The selection of graves for intentional pollution, which may not have been part of the mortuary practice, may have been a manifestation of a negative relationship to an anonymous individual or group. The motivation is not necessarily only

41

Secondary Mortuary Practices

archaeological record of one period or culture. Based on the available and sufficiently documented evidence two large groups can be distinguished with secondarily manipulated primary deposits: partly secondarily manipulated graves (manipulation of part of or the whole body, or part of the infill), and completely secondarily manipulated graves. Secondary deposits are known in two forms: secondary deposits sensu stricto, and a combination of secondary and primary burial within one single grave.

by ethnocentric viewpoints, and so we can often read about copper artefacts retrieval being the only possible reason for secondary mortuary practices. In my opinion the explanation of these phenomena with the help of accident or natural processes is also in a way ethnocentric. The authors of such explanations seem to have searched for examples in our society where people or mourners have no reason to perform secondary mortuary practices, and proceed to assert that these ancient grave rituals must have occurred by chance or mistake. In several cases hypotheses have been developed which have searched for agents of these ‘undignified’ or ‘heretical’ practices within different ethnic groups or cultures, that accord with traditional paradigms. This approach propounds the notion that members of the same community or communities with identical material cultures did not perpetrate these practices.

The analysed data set is comprised of 52 graves, 31 of which belonging to the Corded Ware culture where the evidence of secondarily manipulated primary graves in various forms is absolutely predominant. Only in one case did we register a secondary deposit of human remains. In the Bell Beaker culture only ten graves are known, all of which are counted amongst secondarily manipulated primary graves. The structure of our data sources partly changes in the ProtoÚnětice culture where secondary burials occur much more often, with and without primary burials. In contrast to the other cultures, secondarily manipulated primary burials occur as successive burials lowered into manipulated fills of primary graves. In the archaeological record it is possible to observe a relatively distinctive qualitative and quantitative change. In the former two cultures we have little to no evidence of secondary burials. Does this mean that they had not yet emerged? In my opinion remains were not buried and aboveground features may have provided an internment function. Similar structures may also have been used by people of the Proto-Únětice culture, but by this time as the primary deposit for remains, which after some time were then placed into underground secondary graves.

Culturally relativistic interpretations appeared in the 1990s, with hypotheses that begin to search for rationales in the religious sphere of past societies. In general it remains the case that in the Czech Republic both materialistic and symbolic explanations of secondary mortuary practices exist within archaeological discourse side by side. Acknowledgements I am much obliged to Andrea Matějíčková and David Humpola, who willingly provided me with unpublished information on the graves of the Bell Beaker culture from sites at Hoštice 1 and Hodonice. I also wish to express my sincerest appreciation to Klára Šabatová, Jiří Macháček, Peter Tkáč and František Trampota who have spent a great deal of time reviewing drafts and providing critical feedback. The author is also thankful to the anonymous referee for his/her helpful comments on an early version of this paper. Any remaining errors are my own. For translation and proof-reading I am grateful, respectively, to Jana Kličová and Robert Brukner.

The variability of secondary manipulations of primary graves may reflect a wide range of motives, but also some coincidental or economic factors. The question of grave selection for secondary mortuary practices versus a simple secondary opening is not completely clear. We do not know for sure whether past societies had a positive or negative attitude to these behaviours, in these cases. It seems probable that these mortuary practices were intended only for significant or otherwise extraordinary individuals whose personal identity was thereby accentuated. But in the case of grave pollution (which was not necessarily a mortuary practices) we do consider it as manifestation of a negative relationship to a specific individual or an anonymous representative of a group (Chénier 2009, 28).

This article was funded by a grant from the Czech Science Foundation (#404/09/H020). References Bartelheim, M. and Heyd, V. 2001. Cult after Burial: Patterns of Post-funeral Treatment in the Bronze and Iron Ages of Central Europe, in F. Berthemes and P. Biehl and H. Meller (eds), The Archaeology of Cult and Religion, Archaeolingua 13, 219-234. Budapest, Archaeolingua Foundation. Bátora, J. 2000. Problematika sekundárneho otvárania hrobov v  kultúrach staršej doby bronzovej na juhozápadnom Slovensku. In S. Kadrow (ed.), A Turning of Ages. Im Wandel der Zeiten. Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Jan Machnik on His 70th Anniversary, 1-24. Kraków, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow Branch. Bertemes, M. and Heyd, V. 2002. Der Übergang Kupferzeit / Frühbronzezeit am Nordwestrand des Karpatenbeckens

The terminology used in this analysis is working towards alternative descriptions which are less value laden by an ethnocentric view point and that do not a priori intrude interpretation on other researchers. Among those terms which are most clearly ethnocentric views I include ‘violent grave opening’ or the more popular ‘looting’. Such terms tilt the reader towards a negative view of the behaviour as perceived from a western social perspective. In archaeology we should avoid this approach. Interpretations themselves are also considerably affected

42

Jan Kolář

Bučovsku (Morava). Časopis moravského musea XLI, 53-100. Kolář, J. 2006. Dvě pohřebiště lidu kultury se šňůrovou keramikou u Ivanovic na Hané, Příspěvek k poznání pohřebního ritu nositelů kultury se šňůrovou keramikou. Unpublished BA thesis, Masaryk University. Kolář, J. 2008. Osídlení středního toku Hané lidem kultury se šňůrovou keramikou a jeho postavení v rámci střední Moravy. Unpublished MA thesis, Masaryk University. Kolář, J. et al. 2011 (in print). Kultura se šňůrovou keramikou v  povodí říčky Hané na střední Moravě. Pohřební areály z prostoru dálnice D1 v úseku Vyškov – Mořice a dalších staveb. The Corded Ware culture in the Haná river basin in central Moravia (Czech republic). Burial grounds from the area of the motorway D1 between Vyškov and Mořice and from other construction places. Pravěk, Supplementum 23. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno. Kolář, J. and Kala, J. in print. Hrob kultury se šňůrovou keramikou z  Brankovic aneb poznámky k  postfunerálním aktivitám v pozdním eneolitu na Moravě. in E. Kazdová (ed.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Brno, Masaryk University. Kuijt, I. 2008. The Regeneration of Life. Neolithic Structures of Symbolic Remembering and Forgetting. Current Anthropology 49/2, 171-197. Matějíčková, A. 1999. Eneolitické hroby z Modřic. Pravěk Nová řada 9, 211-221. Matějíčková, A. 2004. Osídlení kultury zvoncovitých pohárů z Hlubokých Mašůvek, Pravěk Nová řada 14, 51-60. Metcalf, P. 1981. Meaning and Materialism: The Ritual Economy of Death. Man 16, 563-578. Mikulková, B. 1997. Hroby kultury se šňůrovou keramikou z Vyškova-Nosálovic. Pravěk Nová řada 7, 207-218. Neustupný, E. 1993. Archaeological Method. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Neustupný, E. 2007. Metoda archeologie. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. Ondráček, J. 1961. Příspěvky k  poznání kultury zvoncovitých pohárů na Moravě. Památky archeologické LII – 1, 149-157. Ondráček, J. and Dvořák, P. and Matějíčková, A. 2005. Siedlungen der Glockenbecherkultur in Mähren. Katalog der Funder. Pravěk, Supplementum 15. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno. O’Shea, J. M. 1984. Mortuary Variability. An Archaeological Investigation. Orlando, Academic Press. Pardo, I. 1989. Life, Death and Ambiguity in the Social Dynamics of inner Naples. Man 24, 103-123. Parker Pearson, M. 2000. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station, Texas A and M University Press. Peška, J. 2001. Hrob kultury se šňůrovou keramikou s vnitřní konstrukcí z Bystročic u Olomouce. Pravěk Nová řada 11, 131-161. Peška, J. 2005. Protoúnětické pohřebiště z Pavlova. Pravěk Nová řada 15, 83-118. Peška, J. 2009. Protoúnětické pohřebiště z  Pavlova. Olomouc, Archeologické centrum Olomouc.

– kulturgeschichtliche und paläometallurgische Betrachtungen, in M. Bartelheim and R. Krause and E. Pernicka (eds), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt, Euroseminar Freiberg/Sachsen, 18.-20. November 1999, 185-229. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf. Binford, L. R. 1987. Researching ambiguity: frames of reference and site structure. In: S, Kent (ed.), Method and theory for activity area research, 449-512. New York, Columbia University Press. Ceram, C. W. 1971. Oživená minulost. Dějiny archeologie v obrazech. Praha, Orbis. Černý, V. 2006. Lidé od Čadského jezera. Praha, Academia. Chénier, A. 2009. Bones, people and communities: Tensions between individual and corporate identities in secondary burial ritual. Nexus: The Canadian Student Journal of Anthropology 21, July 2009, 27-40. Chesson, M. S. 1999. Libraries of the Dead: Early Bronze Age Charnel Houses and Social Identity at Urban Bab edh-Dhra‘, Jordan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18, 137-164. Čižmář, M. 1985. Hroby kultury se šňůrovou keramikou z Holubic a Tvarožné. Archeologické rozhledy 37, 403412. Čižmář, M. and Geisler, M. 1998. Hroby kultury se šňůrovou keramikou z prostoru dálnice Brno-Vyškov. Pravěk, Supplementum 1. Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno. Chleborád, M. 1934. Pravěké hroby durinských skrčků na Bučovsku a v okolí, Zvláštní otisk z ročenky spořitelny města Bučovic za rok 1934, 3-27. Bučovice, J. Horák. Duday, H. 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead. Lectures in Archaeothanatology. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books. Dvořák, P. 1992. Die Gräberfelder der Glockenbecherkultur in Mähren I (Bez. Blansko, Brno-město, Brno-venkov), Katalog der Funde. Mährische archäologische Quellen. Brno, Petr Dvořák Verlag. Dvořák, P. and Matějíčková, A. and Peška, J. and Rakovský, I. 1996. Gräberfelder der Glockenbecherkultur in Mähren II. Mährische archäologische Quellen. Brno and Olomouc, Petr Dvořák Verlag. Erneé, M. and Majer, A. 2009. Uniformita, či rozmanitost pohřebního ritu? Interpretace výsledků fosfátové půdní analýzy na pohřebišti únětické kultury v  Praze 9 – Míškovicích. Archeologické rozhledy 61, 493-508. Hájek, L. 1951. Nové nálezy kultury zvoncovitých pohárů. Archeologické rozhledy 3, 27-30. Hertz, R. 1960. Death & the Right Hand. Glencoe, The Free Press. Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in action. New York, Cambridge University Press. Humpola, D. 2010. Hodonice (okr. Znojmo). [online], [cit. 2011-19-1], URL: . Jacobs, K. 1995. Returning to Oleni‘ ostrov: Social, Economic and Skeletal Dimensions of a Boreal Forest Mesolithic Cemetery. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14, 359-403. Kalousek, F. 1956. Lid se zvoncovitými poháry na

43

Secondary Mortuary Practices

Peška, J. and Tajer, A. 2006. Hrob KZP s  nadzemní konstrukcí a zlatem ze Stříbrnic, in M. Bém and J. Peška (eds.), Ročenka 2006, 67-87. Olomouc, Archeologické centrum Olomouc. Podborský, V. 1988. K  problémům pohřebního ritu a druhotného otvírání hrobů lidu únětické kultury. In M. Dočkalová (ed.), Antropofagie a pohřební ritus doby bronzové, 71-82. Brno, Československá společnost antropologická při Československé akademii věd and Moravské zemské muzeum – Ústav Anthropos Brno. Poulík, J. 1952. Průvodce po výzkumech na Žuráni u Brna. Praha, Státní archeologický ústav. Poulík, J. 1995. Žuráň in der Geschichte Mitteleuropas. Slovenská archeológia XLIII-1, 27-109. Schroeder, S. 2001. Secondary Disposal of the Dead: Cross Cultural Codes. World Cultures 12 (1), 77-93. Šebela, L. 1986. Postavení kultury se šňůrovou keramikou v moravském eneolitu a její vztah k vývoji v Karpatské kotlině. Unpublished CSc. thesis, Archaeological Institute of Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic in Brno. Šebela, L. and Dvořák, P. and Langová, J. 1990. Burial rite in the Late Eneolithic Moravia. Anthropologie XXVIII/2-3, 129-135. Šmíd, M. 1998. Příspěvek k poznání pohřebního ritu kultury se šňůrovou keramikou na Moravě. in Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí, 123-135, Turnov-Hradec Králové, Okresní muzeum Českého ráje Turnov and Muzeum Východních Čech Hradec Králové. Sosna, D. 2007. Sekundární pohřební aktivity: srovnávací studie, in T. Budil and T. Zíková (eds), Antropologické sympozium V., 169-182. Plzeň, Dryada. Sosna, D. 2009. Social Differentiation in the Late Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age in South Moravia (Czech Republic). British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1994. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Sprenger, S. 1999. Zur Bedeutung des Grabraubes für sozioarchäologische Gräberfeldanalysen. Ein Untersuchung am frühbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeld Franzhausen I, Niederösterreich. Fundberichte aus

Österreich, Materialheft A 7. Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger und Söhne. Stuchlík, S. 1990. Die sekundäre Eingriffe in den Gräbern der Úněticer Kultur. Anthropologie XXVIII/2-3, 159167. Stuchlík, S. and Stuchlíková, J. 1996. Pravěká pohřebiště v Moravské Nové Vsi – Hruškách. Studie Archeologického ústavu Akademie věd České republiky v Brně XVI/1. Brno, Archeologický ústav Akademie věd ČR v Brně. Tkáč, P. 2006. Pohrebisko kultúry zvoncovitých pohárov v Ivanoviciach na Hané, trať „Borůvka“. Unpublished BA thesis, Masaryk University. Turek, J. and Dvořák, P. and Peška, J. 2003. Archaeology of Beaker settlements in Bohemia and Moravia. An outline of the current state of knowledge, in J. Czebreszuk – M. Szmyt (eds), The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers, 183–208. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1155, Oxford, BAR Publishing. Trňáčková, Z. 1971. Nové eneolitické hroby na Olomoucku. Archeologické rozhledy 23, 129-139. Unger, J. 2002. Pohřební ritus a zacházení s těly zemřelých v českých zemích (s analogiemi i jinde v Evropě) v 1. – 16. století. Brno, Nadace Universitas Masarykiana v Brně and Masarykova univerzita v Brně and Nauma. Verdery, K, 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change. New York, Columbia University Press. Výška, K. 2005. Protoúnětická pohřebiště v Topolanech a Ivanovicich na Hané. Unpublished BA thesis, Silesian University in Opava. Weiss-Krejci, E. 2001. Restless corpses: ‘secondary burial’ in the Babenberg and Habsburg dynasties. Antiquity 75, 769-780. Excavation report n. 984/50 (site Slavkov u Brna) deposited in the Archive of Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Science of Czech republic, Brno. Excavation report n. 873/50 (site Kobylnice) deposited in the Archive of Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Science of Czech republic, Brno.

44

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture Graves from Hodonice and TěšeticeKyjovice, Moravia, Czech Republic Jan Petřík1

Department of Geological Sciences, Masaryk university, Kotlářská 2, Brno 60200, Czech Republic; corresponding author, [email protected]

Lubomír Prokeš2 Department of Chemistry, Masaryk university, Kamenice 5, Brno 62500, Czech Republic

David Humpola3 Institute for Archaeological Heritage Brno, Department Znojmo, Vídeňská 23, Znojmo 66902, Czech Republic

Zuzana Fajkošová4, Martin Kuča5, Klára Šabatová6, Eliška Kazdová7 Department of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Arna Nováka 1, Brno 60200, Czech Republic Abstract: Pedogeochemical analyses could provide additional information to address various archaeological questions. This can be effectively demonstrated by soil phosphate analysis which was used to explore the diversity in funerary rites of prehistoric societies. This investigation aims to illustrate potential options, limitations and perspectives of systematic pedogeochemical sampling of prehistoric graves with circular ditches from selected sites. It is possible to distinguish three categories of grave finds on the basis of macroscopic attributes: a grave pit without skeleton, a complete skeleton, and a disarticulated skeleton or incomplete skeleton. Specific interpretations may be correctly assigned to burial categories only after a synthesis of archaeological, anthropological, taphonomic and geochemical observations. That is why it is necessary to precisely document the archaeological situation: distinguish individual contexts, accurately note positions and degrees of preservation of skeleton remains, and conduct systematic soil sampling (Duday and Guillon 2006; Dupras et al., 2006; Hunter and Cox 2005; Holliday 2004, White and Folkens 2005). Samples from three graves from the Hodonice site represent one possible application of the method, even during rescue excavation. Keywords: Pedogeochemical analysis, Phosphate analysis, Bell Beaker culture, Funerary rite, Secondary disturbance

Introduction

A good illustration of this can be found in the application of phosphate soil analysis to investigations of graves and burials. Work in this field was pioneered in the 1950’s (e.g. Stoye 1950; in Czech Pelikán 1954). S. Piggot’s paper, with an important appendix by A. H. Johnson (Piggot 1956), described finding higher phosphate concentrations in the central part of barrows. In this case they identified the phenomenon of ‘ghosts’ or ‘silhouettes’ in areas with acidic soils. Another example was the identification of the position of remains (and possibly a cenotaph) of an Anglo-Saxon burial ground at Sutton Hoo (Barker et al., 1975).

Archaeological interpretation is limited by the precision of the excavation and the descriptive system selected. The majority of data is lost. It is impossible to capture all data from an archaeological context and archaeologists are forced to choose which information they will record (Neustupný 2007, 86). This choice is influenced by many factors including limitations in time and technology, our capabilities, and the subjective theoretical position of the practitioner. The investigation of neglected evidence may provide new knowledge, which may not correspond to common assumptions. It is likely that this kind of evidence may be derived from analyses of the chemical composition of the soil in the archaeological context.

Studies concerning the usage of phosphate soil analysis for grave identification or identification of special burial rites appear in numerous Czech publications. L. Págo (1963) identified gravimetrically higher phosphate concentration of a cremation of Lussatian culture in Moravičany. J. Pelikán (1954) successfully identified anthropogenic phosphates from Early Únětice culture graves with poor or unpreserved skeletons. Subsequently phosphate analysis was repeatedly used as supporting evidence of burial rite variability, particularly for the Early Únětice culture (Turek

Soil samples laboratory analyses, categorisation of skeletons in grave pits, GIS analyses 2 Categorisation of skeletons in grave pits, taphonomical observations, statistical analyses 3 Hodonice site excavation, terrain documentation and soil sampling 4 Soil samples laboratory analyses, bone preservation analysis 5 Těšetice-Kyjovice site excavation and documentation 6 Těšetice-Kyjovice site excavation and documentation 7 Těšetice-Kyjovice site excavation 1

45

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

and Majer 1999; Ernée 2000; Ernée and Majer 2009). The recent paper of M. Erné and A. Majer discusses the real possibilities of phosphate analyses and of the geochemistry and geoarchaeology of burial rites. They conclude that given the right geochemical conditions it is possible to say with high degree of probability whether or not soft tissue decomposition has taken place within a specific grave pit (Ernée and Majer 2009, 494).

divides post-depositional processes into cultural and noncultural, which include decomposition of organic material and leaching phosphates into soil. Knowledge of formative processes and the ability to differentiate between them is crucial for geochemical research of grave pit soil deposits. In so doing we are able to create general models which will enable us to understand the results of our analysis. Phosphates and depositional formative processes

In this paper we present a categorization of grave finds, including a summary of their interpretations, based on published studies of burial rites and thinking about the formative processes. Furthermore we will suggest a potential method to systematically sample for these categories and apply both during research into Bell Beaker grave sites in south Moravia.

In the case of grave pits, high levels of phosphate result from bioaccumulation, that is, the localised increase of soil phosphate due to the deposition of a human body. It has been shown that soft tissue decomposition can increase the phosphate concentration in soil (e.g. Prokeš 2007, 10). During the formative depositional process burial sites can be enriched by anthropogenic phosphates coming from other sources, such as settlement activities. High concentrations of anthropogenic phosphates can also be found in areas of housing, which can be transported into burial contexts in various ways. A rich source of anthropogenic phosphates can also be found in cultural layers disrupted by grave digging. Cultural formative process can include the deposition of different inclusion into grave pits ground. Some artefacts and ecofacts can be transformed by the influence of the other formative processes to the extent that they will not be recognized by any conventional archaeological method. In many instances, phosphate analysis can help detect concentrations that can be interpreted in a manner similar to the absent object itself, such as the detection of phosphate concentrations in a dish that can be interpreted as the remains of an organic addition (Duma 1972, 129).

Geochemical evidence of human remains in prehistoric graves Although it appears that the symbolic system of the Únětice culture is the result of continuous development from the Bell Beaker culture (Kruťová 2003), we do find significant differences in secondary mortuary practices. Bell Beaker in central Europe is presumed to have relatively orthodox mortuary practices, compared to the variable complex of practices within the Early Únětice culture (Kruťová 2003). However situations have appeared where interpretations using conventional excavation method have proven problematic. The utilisation of phosphate soil analyses could help resolve some situations, especially in cases where there are doubts about whether or not graves where skeletal remains are not preserved are the result of decomposition or intentional removal. This situation exists in sites such as grave 830 in Brankovice (Matějíčková 2008, 159) and the multioccupation site at Stříbrnice ‚Lopaty‘ near Přerov, where a large Late Neolithic burial site was excavated (Peška and Tajer 2007, 67).

Phosphates and postdepositional formative processes When soft tissues decompose they release a large number of substances. From the standpoint of archaeology the important matter is whether these substances will fix in soil deposit. Phosphates are distinguished by the fact that they can be bound to the ions of calcium in alkaline soils and of iron, aluminium and manganese (Crowther 2002, 405). The measure of their fixation is influenced by many factors especially the degree of pH and soil texture (Crowther 2002). For this reason it is important to take these soil characteristics into account during interpretation.

Formation processes M. Schiffer (1976) views the formation process as a transformation in which objects lose their function within the cultural system and become part of the archaeological context. Schiffer makes a distinction between cultural transformations (C-transforms) and natural causes (N-transforms). From the standpoint of time it is possible to differentiate primary depositional pathways and post-depositional processes (Clarke 1973). In the case of phosphates found in archaeological contexts the determination of formative process is rather problematic. Based on D. L. Clarke (1973, 16), J. M. O’Shea (1984) identifies primary depositional pathways and postdepositional processes. O’Shea subdivides primary depositional pathways of burials into intentional, coincidental and accidental, where it is possible for example, to find phosphate rich deposits from other contexts. O’Shea

Phosphate ions of soft tissues are absorbed by soils (H2PO4in acidic soil and HPO42- in alkaline soil), which are very non-stable and so easy available for plants (it is different for phosphates in crystalline form) or phosphates weakly fixed on other minerals. Changes in alkaline environment (pH > 7) leading to the formation of stable apatite and eventually fluorapatite (Herz and Garrison 1998) are the most stable phosphate minerals. It has been demonstrated that the mineral form of phosphates directly corresponds to the degree of preservation of bone material. If the bone weathers, apatite is changed to variscite (Weiner et al.,

46

Jan Petřík et al.

Due to the above mentioned limitations a tailored and selective approach to soil sampling is often necessary.

1993). Ions of iron and aluminium are dominant in acidic soils. The phosphates which they can make include strengite (FePO4.2 H2O), variscite (AlPO4.2 H2O) and barrandite (a combination of iron and aluminium).

Some concluded, that the definition and application of macroscopic grave categorisation without implicit interpretation (and its comparison with taphonomic and geochemical evidence) is a suitable way to study secondary disturbed graves. Published classifications are based on skeletal preservation (Gordon and Buikstra 1981; Bátora and Staššíková – Štukovská 1993) or on the level of skeleton dislocation in secondary opened graves (Bátora 2000, 454).

Skeleton position and positional transformation Skeletal positioning in grave pit is ordinarily perceived as a funerary rite. I. Pleinerová (1967) recorded multiple human body parts and skulls. Havel (1978) takes grave goods into account in the Bell Beaker funerary rite and I. Hásek (in Pleiner 1978, 367-372) discussed phenomenon of ‘grave looting’ in reaction to the funerary rite.

M. Ernée and A. Majer classified graves at Praha 9-Míškovice on the basis of their macroscopic appearance, into regular crouched burials, regular pits without bones and inclusions, pits with incomplete bone remains in quasi anatomical position and pits with relatively good preserved incomplete bone remains in non-anatomical position (Ernée and Majer 2009, 493-494). In addition to skeletal position it is necessary to identify anatomic position, possible deviations and disarticulations, and the state of preservation of single bones, for which established categories exist (Gordon and Buikstra 1981; Ubelaker and Jon 2003). The state of bones is an important indicator of the environment in which the body was situated and it can also indirectly predict the amount of phosphates released from bones into the soil (Duday et al., 1990; Duday and Guillon 2006; Roksandic 2002).

Taphonomic (in the sense of transformation) knowledge can identify position transformations, which are influenced by the type of funerary rite and the grave pit construction (e.g. Černý 1995, Duday 2009). Their inclusion into any of the other categories of formative processes is sometimes impossible without implicit interpretation. A good illustration of this can are the Únětice culture grave finds from Bohemia, where the so called subsequent burials (noted for their displacement of earlier burials), finds of isolated body parts, and the specific example of a buried male on whom were deposited the bones of three other individuals in non-anatomical position (Jiráň et al., 2008, 65). Many authors mentioned the importance of taphonomical observation in recognising a primary hollow space (e.g. Čech and Černý 1996; Roksandic 2002; Duday 2009).

Categorization of grave pits

In sum, spatial transformations relate to type of grave construction and so taphonomic processes identification could be valuable for the interpretation of the funerary rite (Černý 1995, 301).

Deductive approach was accentuated during classification development: the table of skeleton presence, phosphate detention conditions (soil texture + phosphate binding elements present), phosphate anomalies presentation, bone preservation and soil reaction combination was created. The first column in the table corresponds with main interpretation categories, which are subdivided after descriptors in the upper row (Figure 1).

Disarticulation sequence research can help us to identify primary and secondary burials or, for example, the presence of soft tissues (e.g. Černý 1995; Duday 2009). The existence of two different locations with different levels of skeletal disarticulation is one of the attributes of secondary burial activities ( D. Sosna, 2007, 179).

Building on macroscopic indicators we suggest the theoretical categorization of grave pits into the following groups:

Methodological consideration

1. Pit without skeleton

With regard to the variability of natural conditions, the diversity of grave finds, and different technical possibilities of excavation, it is not possible to determine the most suitable methodological approach for grave soil chemical analysis. In practice the requirements for optimal soil sampling can clash with other aspects of research. In such situations constructive dialogue is necessary. Most archaeological research is restricted in some fashion (mostly in terms of time or finances) and archaeologists are often left with the dilemma of how to apportion limited human and financial resources. An important part of archaeological soil analysis occurs during excavation and that’s why a degree of flexibility in methodology is necessary, modifying for different contexts and questions.

If the characteristics of the feature correspond to a grave pit but does contain identifiable human remains, these possibilities follow: 1.1. Empty grave pit into which no human remains were deposited (may be a ‘cenotaph’): no skeletal remains, no phosphate anomaly (e.g. Ernée and Majer 2009, 493, obr. 5: A). 1.2. Empty grave pit into which human remains were deposited and later removed: no skeletal remains, phosphate anomaly corresponds with regular burial, conditions at site

47

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Articulation level Pit without skeleton Pit with articulated skeleton Pit with disarticulated skeleton

X

Skeleton completeness level

Bone preservation

X

Phosphate retention conditions

Phosphate anomalies presention

Soil reaction

X

Figure 1. Table of skeleton presence, phosphate detection conditions, presence of phosphate anomalies, bone preservation and soil reaction versus skeleton presence and articulation.

articulated skeleton) – where decomposition of soft tissues did not occurred.

are suitable for preserving bones, high pH values (alkaline environment), other grave pits contains bones (e.g. Ernée and Majer 2009, 493, obr. 3).

3. Pits with disarticulated skeleton

1.3 Empty grave pit into which human remains were deposited and subsequently decomposed through postdepositional processes:

This group can be quite problematic, because disarticulation is not always recognisable (e.g. inverted position of femur can be difficult to identify). In this case identification of the degree of skeletal preservation degree is very important. Various examples includes isolated bones situations (e.g. isolated skulls buried with another complete skeleton in Blšany grave 9 – Pleinerová 1967, 22) as well as almost complete skeletons disarticulated by postdepositional processes. Interpretation count following theoretical possibilities:

Phosphate concentrations, indicative of the original presence of a skeleton, depend on the presence of phosphate-binding elements. The total decomposition of human bones without any phosphate retention can occur in some cases (Crowther 2002, 410). The second possibility is total decay as a result of biogenous microbial and fungal decomposition (e.g. Piepenbrink 1986, Staššíková – Štukovská et al., 1994).

3.1. Deposition of isolated skeletal remains without soft tissues: high degree of disarticulation, skeleton often incomplete, without phosphate anomaly (e.g. Ernée and Majer 2009, 493, obr. 3: hrob 8).

2. Pits with articulated skeleton These are regular burials of intact bodies characterized by complete or nearly complete preservation of skeletal remains in anatomical position (Ernée and Majer 2009, 502). Conditions at the site enable material preservation (at least at some spatially limited scale). If the conditions on site were suitable for phosphate fixation, and if there was no contamination from other sources, it can be presumed that a high amount of phosphate was released during decomposition at the site of the skeleton. In this case phosphate soil samples extracted in a regular grid would have bimodal characteristics, where samples taken below the skeleton contain higher phosphate concentrations then samples taken in the surrounding space where phosphates from other anthropogenic sources are situated. Sources of phosphate are not restricted to soft tissues but may also include skeletal material. For this reason it may be more useful to divide skeletal finds according to their state of preservation. We suggest differentiation of remains into six categories. It is unlikely but also possible that a skeleton in anatomic position was a secondary deposit. That‘s why two theoretical possibilities are taken into account:

3.2. Deposition of isolated skeletal remains with soft tissue and/or ligament: existing joint junctions, incomplete skeleton, phosphate anomaly (possible examples without geochemical evidence include graves XI and LII from Březno – Pleinerová 1967, 22; Borkovský 1961). 3.3. Skeletal remains split up before decomposition of soft tissues: phosphate anomaly only or also in space of dislocated skeletal material, taphonomical evidence of material cohesion during dislocation (disturbing body remains during decomposition of soft tissues – e.g. Lewis 2008). 3.4. Skeletal remains split up after decomposition of soft tissues: phosphate anomaly in space of primary deposition, without taphonomic evidence of material cohesion during dislocation (e.g. positional transformation of skeleton in primary or secondary hollow space after decomposition of soft tissues).

2.1. Skeleton is in primary position – where decomposition of soft tissues occurred

Determination of basal information and sampling method

2.2. Skeleton arranged to articulated position (seemingly

In the section about formative processes it was noted that

48

Jan Petřík et al.

Figure 2. Example of point sampling pattern.

the preservation of anthropogenic phosphates depends on many factors. Meaningful interpretation of geochemical soil analyses cannot be done without checking the basic chemical and physical characteristics of deposition, which should include following information:

far higher certainty. This method is also suitable if we want to record such features as organic grave additions, which are not related to the buried body.

a) depth of grave pit and deposited skeleton b) upper soil context (topsoil, cultural layer) c) kind of subsoil d) soil reaction (pH) e) phosphate-binding elements ratio f) organic matter ratio f) texture of infill and subsoil g) colour of infill and subsoil h) geomorphological situation, hydrological conditions

Sampling in one or more transects through the archaeological context is a compromise between the above two methods. This makes detection of places with higher phosphate concentration possible, not their delimitation.

3. Transect sampling

Laboratory phosphate determination Soil samples were prepared for phosphate analysis according to A. Majer (1984). Dried soil is carefully crushed in mortar and stones larger than 0.25mm removed with a sieve. Samples are then take into lockable plastic bags and ready for phosphate analysis. Phosphate extraction was done in HCl according to W.G. Cawanagh et al. (1988). Phosphate solution measurement was done photometrically using the method of Murphy and Riley (1962).

The sampling method is often determined by time and resources available in each specific excavation. Sampling strategies may be modified to fit the situation. 1. Point sampling

Case study: Grave H27, Těšetice – Kyjovice ‘Sutny’, Znojmo District

We choose this option if we expect high number of graves and little time for field sampling. If the graves are correctly and systematically sampled, it is possible to get high-quality data set after analysis. In the suggested scheme the sampling position is marked (Figure 2). The point sampling method is especially useful when grave pits contain skeletons without bigger/higher deviation from anatomic disposition. Comparison of the samples taken from below and above the skeleton provides a means to identify or exclude the existence of a phosphate anomaly.

The site is situated approximately 2km from the village of Těšetice, within the Kyjovice cadastral area, in the district of Znojmo (Figure 3). It is a multi-occupation site on a south-eastern slope at an elevation of 265-290m. A Bell Beaker grave pit at this site had a rectangular shape (3 x 2.5m). Where it intersects an LBK pit, the southern edge of the grave is unclear. The grave pit H27 was surrounded by a circular ditch. The pit contained an adult male skeleton with six Bell Beakers, six silex arrowheads, two golden ‘Lockenringe’, a copper dagger and two other stone tools (probably a hammer and cushion stone). The excavation of the grave pit wasn’t complete at the time this article was written. The burial category, basic chemical and physical

2. Net sampling Sampling through a regular net is the most time consuming method. Benefits include a high-quality data set enabling the creation of distribution maps and interpretations with 49

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Figure 3. Těšetice – Kyjovice and Hodonice sites position on the map of Czech Republic.

Burial category

Category 2: Skeleton in articulated position without apparent abnormality in anatomically correct position

Secondary disturbance in grave pit filling

None evident

Bone state Depth of grave pit Topsoil Subsoil Soil reaction Soil texture Geomorphology and hydrology

Level 4: Highly decomposed (after Gordon and Bukistra 1981), Erosion also affected the innercavums/antrums, larger and smaller exfoliates. Some bones cannot be identified (grades 4-5 according to Ubelaker and Jon 2003). While excavation remains incomplete, the pit is at least1.6m deep. Samples were taken at 110cm and 130cm below the surface. The 130cm layer was situated closely under the skeleton. Cultivated topsoil 30-40cm thick Loess, Loess soil Alkaline, pH 7-8 Silty loam Gentle slope, without groundwater

Grave H27: Burial category, basic chemical and physical characteristics of skeleton and soil deposit

Figure 4. Basic chemical and physical characteristics of grave H27 soil deposit.

50

Jan Petřík et al.

Figure 5. Těšetice - Kyjovice site, grave H27, boxplots of the phosphates values at different documentation levels.

characteristics of skeletons, and soil deposit are introduced in table (Figure 4).

makes their own modes and can influence results of the test, were deleted. At 130cm the tests on two modalities were positive. At 110cm one mode was indicated.

Sampling method

If we interpolate measured data in space using the natural neighbour method, the differences in phosphate distribution are clearly evident. There is a remarkable anomaly with respect to the area of the skeleton (displaced slightly to the right), a high concentration in the area of the legs in southeastern part of the grave and also discrete concentrations located to the western and eastern edge of the distribution map (Figure 8). Polymodality of the dataset and spatial phosphate distribution at 130cm is probably related to soft tissue decomposition of the body (subcategory 2.1?) or organic grave additions. The scatter of higher phosphate values is indicative of bone decomposition, because the alteration by acidic products of soft tissue decomposition is possible (e.g. Crowther 2002; Núněz 1975; Pelikán 1954).

Samples were taken during excavation for phosphate analysis (according Eidt 1977) from each documentation level within a regular grid (five samples per 1x1m quadrant). The sampling grid was intensified were higher phosphate concentrations were found, at 110cm below the surface (above skeleton). Under the skeleton, in documentation level 130cm, samples were taken within a 15x15cm grid. All samples were mapped by total station. Results8 Analysis of phosphate samples shows that the highest variability is present within the topsoil (widest range of the boxplot), at 20cm below the surface (Figure 5). This is not surprising when we consider that the phosphate distribution in topsoil (the ploughing layer) can be highly variable given plant nutrition, the spread of manure, and the scattering of archaeological features by ploughing. The median is slightly higher (between 40 and 110cm). The highest concentration is indicated at 130cm9, where the skeleton was located. Kernel density estimation (KDE) indicates that the 130cm level differs from 110cm in polymodal distribution of soil phosphate values (Figure 6, Figure 7)10. The values modality was tested after Silverman (Silverman 1981; Baxter and Cool 2010). According to the suggestion of Baxter and Cool (2010) the outliers, which

Case study: Hodonice, Znojmo District The site is also situated in the Znojmo District approximately 8 km south-south-east from ‘Sutny’ in the cadastral area of Hodonice (Figure 3). A rescue excavation recorded part of a broad multi-occupation site at which Neolithic to Bronze Age settlement activities were identified. Among them were three Bell Beaker grave pits (Hodonice 525, Hodonice 528, Hodonice 666). Basic chemical and physical characteristics of soil deposit are introduced in table (Figure 9). Sampling method (Hodonice 525, Hodonice 528, Hodonice 666)

Data evaluation was done using R 2.11.1, ESRI ArcGis 9.3 and Quantum Gis 1.6.0. 9 The results are preliminary as not all samples have been fully evaluated. 10 The bandwidth was calculated after Sheather and Jones (1991). 8

Samples were taken at the bottom of the feature in a regular grid of 20cm (and also at some points proximate to the

51

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Figure 6. Těšetice – Kyjovice site, grave H27, kernel density estimation of phosphate values at documentation level 110cm.

Figure 7. Těšetice – Kyjovice site, grave H27, kernel density estimation of phosphate values at documentation level 130cm.

52

Jan Petřík et al.

Figure 8. Těšetice – Kyjovice site, grave H27, natural neighbour interpolation of phosphate values.

53

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Topsoil Subsoil Soil reaction Soil texture Geomorphology and hydrology

Cultivated to 40cm Loess bank on fluvial sands Alkaline, pH 7-8 Silty and sandy soil Flat river terrace with localised occurrences of loess banks, ground water level wasn’t located

Figure 9. Basic chemical and physical characterisation of the Hodonice site.

Burial category

Category3: Disarticulated skeleton, apparent marks of secondary manipulation especially to head and chest.

Secondary disturbance in grave pit filling

Not apparent.

Bone preservation Grave pit depth

Levels 2-3 after Gordon and Buikstra (1981). Bone remains are characterised by rough and eroded areas with bone interiors visible. Differences in bone preservation between primary and secondary position wasn’t visible. 75cm from upper rim of loess subsoil Figure 10. Basic chemical and physical characteristics of grave 525.

a disturbance occurred after soft tissue decomposition (but articular joins still existed). The higher concentration of phosphates to the sides of the skeleton, and the low phosphate concentration near skull may relate to pedoturbation during secondary disturbance. The higher concentration of phosphate in the corners and near the edges is an interesting anomaly. One hypothesis offered is that those phosphate concentrations may relate to organic grave goods. In regard to categorization and methodical thought that in this case it is a matter of bone remains picked up after soft tissue decomposition (category 3.4).

skeleton), from the Bell Beaker, animal grave goods and a cremation. The third grave pit was sampled at level 1 and 2. Hodonice 525 This is a square grave pit with a possible timber wall, terraced bottom and corner post holes. This grave is analogous to grave 1/90 from Tvořihráz (Bálek et al., 1999). The skeleton originally lay on the right side, with bones of the right leg (articulated reciprocally) and left leg fibula (left tibia is slightly dislocated, left femur is missing) still in position. The position of the skeletal remains indicates secondary disturbance especially for the head and chest. The character of dislocation, especially of the skull, chest and upper limbs shows that disturbance occurred while a hollow space (coffin and/or chamber) and possibly some articular joins still existed (perhaps just a few years after death).

Hodonice 528 Decorated beaker and a copper dagger were found in this rectangular grave pit which contained a cremation and timber walls. The whitish colour of cremated bones occurs when there is a sufficient amount of oxygen. Burial category, bone condition and grave pit depth are introduced in table (Figure 13).

Burial characteristics are introduced in table (Figure 10) Results

Results

Kernel density estimation showed one peak (Figure 11), however a significant cluster above 190 μg per gram of soil11 was found. Silverman’s test (Silverman 1981; Baxter and Cool 2010) indicates the presence of one mode. But the picture of spatial distribution obtained by the ‘natural neighbour’ method shows highly significant spatially separation, which correlates to a barrier between two sections of the grave (Figure 12). It is interesting that the amount of phosphates is also rather low in the space with animal bones. In regard to the position of the skull and some bones found partly outside the space, accompanied by a relatively high phosphate concentration, it seems that

The most significant is distinct value polymodality in soil phosphate values (Figure 14). The Silverman’s test (Silverman 1981; Baxter and Cool 2010) indicated a polymodality of soil phosphate values (three to four modes). This can be caused, in part, by the presence of a cremation. But in this case it doesn‘t clarify the polymodality of the measured dataset sufficiently. In other samples taken from under a cremation such high values are not present. Another explanation may be the character of deposits, in which two secondary disturbances formed by different infilling are apparent. The second infill, which may be stratigraphically younger, is similar to the grave infill, though it contains marks of organic soil and the cremation at its base. The

μg or ug characters symbolising micrograms of P2O5 per one gram of soil.

11

54

Jan Petřík et al.

Figure 11. Hodonice site, grave 525, kernel density estimation of phosphate.

the coffin (Duday et al., 1990; Duday and Guillon 2006; Roksandic 2002). This phenomenon happens in a concave space. It’s possible to observe it on a female Bell Beaker burial at grave 523/83 from Pavlov-Horní Pole (Dvořák et al., 1996, 34, Taf. 43B; Peška and Rakovský 1990, 23, Fig. 5). A barrier, presumably part of coffin, isn’t apparent, but is presumed from the disposition of the left side of the chest, humeral girdle, left pelvis bone and the feet. It is similar to the case of the preserved coffin remains in grave 192 from the Únětice culture cemetery in Rebešovice (Ondráček 1962, 37, Obr. 22-2; Stuchlík 1990). In the case of grave 10/36 from the Bell Beaker cemetery at Vyškov-Markova cihelna (Dvořák and Peška 1993, 37, Tab. 1 a 2) a ceramic vessel was the barrier holding the right pelvis bone in an unstable position. Samples were taken away from the bottom of this feature in nearly regular grid of 20cm across two documentation levels.

homogeneity of both infills indicates a rather quick material accumulation. The phosphate anomaly doesn‘t correspond to either infill, as is evident from the interpolation of GIS values (Figure 15). The explanatory hypothesis suggested is not based on what is possible to see but rather what isn’t seen. If we will accept the cremation as stratigraphically younger then the primary grave pit filling, then the grave pit is without skeletal remains (category 1.). Amongst many possible interpretations is one that suggests that phosphates found in the middle of the grave pit are the remains of a decomposed organic inclusion or even human remains (whose bones were removed). From cultural anthropological studies we know that in some cultures whole skeleton removal does occur (Sosna 2007). The most probable interpretation is that a human body was not deposited in a burial rite (category 1.1.), or that the skeletal remains were removed after decomposition of soft tissues (category 1.2.).

Burial category, bone condition and grave pit depth are introduced in table (Figure 16)

Hodonice 666

Results

This is a grave pit with peripheral timber. Given the context, other built remains likely include a roof, and terraced wood flooring. It is a male inhumation. Grave inclusions comprise five decorated beakers, sheet-metal hair decoration and two chipped stone artefacts.

In first documentation level (120cm underneath the upper boundary of loess subsoil) the macroscopic remains of a destroyed barrow ceiling were recorded, precipitating soil sampling. An isolated skull (near the north-eastern wall) and a group of disarticulated bones in the south corner were also recorded. Kernel density estimation shows nonhomogeneous distribution (Figure 17). But Silverman’s test (Silverman 1981; Baxter and Cool 2010) didn‘t verify the presence of more modes. High phosphate values are

Lumbar vertebrae near the skull indicate the presence of a concave space and a secondary disturbance. The disposition of the right pelvis reflects the typical ‘effet de paroi’ related to a barrier, such as a coffin wall, which prevented the pelvis from settling to a stable position at the rim of

55

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Figure 12. Hodonice site, grave 525, natural neighbour interpolation of phosphate values.

56

Jan Petřík et al. Burial category

1. Grave pit without skeleton.

Secondary disturbations in grave pit filling Bone condition Grave pit depth

Two secondary disturbances were identified. Infill of the larger secondary disturbance is formed by highly organic soil. The second smaller deposit is stratigraphically younger and includes sandy soil with organic soil inclusions and cremation remains at the base. Both deposits are homogenous. A cremation was identified at the base of smaller disturbation. Apart from the cremation and a small fragment no bones remained. 90-95cm from upper rim of loess subsoil

Figure 13. Basic chemical and physical characteristics of grave 528.

Figure 14. Hodonice site, grave 528, kernel density estimation of phosphate values.

concentrated in the pelvic region (situated under this documentation level), and continue northward toward the skull (Figure 18) and may indicate secondary disturbance12. A funnel shape infill at presumed location of chest supports this interpretation. Stratification of context indicates seasonality and therefore a long deposition time within the space. Soil samples taken along the eastern wall were a deep yellow-brown colour, as a result of the biochemical changes of plant remains that occur in locations of human remains. This correlates with other features including timber ceiling remains.

increase of samples with higher values (400 μgP2O5 per gram of sample). Phosphate values in the space underneath the pelvis and in places where we expect skeletal remains are very low (Figure 20). This surprising finding can be caused by the deposit of remains onto a wooden base, which would preclude soft tissue decomposition and phosphate concentrations underneath the skeleton. Low values can also be caused by a generally low phosphate concentration in wood. Near the pelvis some object was interpreted as the remains of an organic base. Soil solution of some samples apparently contained human substances. An alternative explanation of low phosphate concentrations under the pelvis can be also pedoturbation caused by secondary disturbance. The only noticeable phosphate anomaly is situated in eastern part of the grave pit. This area was obvious as a dark infill (indicative of high organic content).

At the second documentation level (150cm under upper boundary of loess subsoil) a pelvis, together with leg bones, were recorded in sand. Kernel density estimation shows (Figure 19) remarkable concentration of approximately 300 to 340 μgP2O5 per gram of soil. Silverman’s test (Silverman 1981; Baxter and Cool 2010) did not indicate the presence of more modes. There is a slight frequency

The interpretation of such a complicated context is not possible on the basis of available data. Samples taken away documentation level 2 apparently do not contain evidence of soft tissue decomposition in the skeletal area. Additional

The deposit of this disturbance includes high amounts of organic matter. 12

57

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Figure 15. Hodonice site, grave 528, natural neighbour interpolation of phosphate values.

58

Jan Petřík et al.

Burial category Secondary disturbances in grave pit filling Bone condition Grave pit depth

Category 3: Skeleton is partly disarticulated and divided into two groups. The first consists of secondary dislocated remains, character of their distribution suggests the presence of a concave space (or open hole). Second group consists of lower extremities, pelvis and calvarium in original articulation, lying on the left side. Secondary disturbance is evident within infill. Infill formed from organic silty loam with evidence of more organic material in lower layers, a sad layer midway, and unequal stratification in the upper layers Conditions of preservation differ between groups. Secondary dislocated bones are preserved better (grades 1-2 according Gordon and Buikstra, 1981). Bone group in primary position is badly preserved and corresponds to levels 2-3 (after Gordona and Buikstra 1981) by state of preservation. Documentation level 1 recorded at 120cm from upper rim of loess subsoil. Documentation level 2 at 150cm. Intact subsoil recognised to 165cm.

Figure 16 . Basic chemical and physical characteristics of grave 666.

Figure 17. Hodonice site, grave 666, documentation level 1, kernel density estimation of phosphate values ().

only after a synthesis of archaeological, anthropological, taphonomical and geochemical observation. That is why it is necessary to accurately document the archaeological situation: distinguishing individual contexts, accurately noting positions and state of preservation of skeleton remains, and systematic soil sampling. In cases where the irreversible destruction of a site is inevitable, it is necessary to design everything in advance and to collect and describe everything possible. We offer a list of possible descriptors from an archaeological perspective in the chapter Categorization of grave pits. We tried to apply the suggested methodological framework (partly in retrospect) to four graves sites belonging to the Bell Beaker culture.

sampling of pH, carbonates, organic matter, iron and other soil characteristics could help isolate the origin of the dark organic infill found in the square feature on the eastern part of the grave pit. On the basis of taphonomical evidence it appears in this case, that the skeletal remains were disturbed after soft tissue decomposition (category 3.4.). Conclusion and discussion It is possible to distinguish three categories of grave finds on the basis of macroscopic attributes: a grave pit without skeleton, a complete skeleton, and a disarticulated skeleton or incomplete skeleton. The relevant subcategories and interpretations were discussed in section above. Specific interpretations may be correctly assigned to burial categories

The first case study concerns a Bell Beaker grave found at

59

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Figure 18. Hodonice site, grave 666, documentation level 1, natural neighbour interpolation of phosphate values.

60

Jan Petřík et al.

Figure 19. Hodonice site, grave 666, documentation level 2, kernel density estimation of phosphate values.

Phosphate values in samples taken away from the level under the cremation shows obvious polymodality in soil phosphate values. The phosphate anomaly in the middle of the grave pit does not coincide with secondary disturbances. One hypothesis is that the source of the phosphates in the central part of the grave pit maybe decomposed organic inclusions or even partial human remains.

the ‘Sutny’ site in the Kyjovice cadastral area of the district of Znojmo. In this grave a male inhumation was found (at documentation level 130cm) with poorly preserved bones, but without obvious marks of secondary intervention. At this level two phosphate tests showed positive, while at the documentation at 110cm (just above the skeleton) unimodality of soil phosphate values was affirmed. Using the natural neighbour method in GIS we mapped the spatial distribution. The high phosphate concentration under the skeleton (with a slight dislocation to the east) and some other anomalies, especially in eastern part of grave, are clearly evident.

The most complicated situation was found in grave 666. The grave pit was sampled in two documentation levels. On the first level finds correspond with the destruction of a ceiling (approximately 120cm under the loess surface) include an isolated skull, and an accumulation of bones at the south corner. High phosphate values above the putative burial site are probably related to a funnel shaped secondary disturbance. Humid acid substances were found in soil samples, which may be related to the remains of a timber crib and chamber ceiling. In documentation level 2 (approximately 150cm under the loess surface) a pelvis with both legs was recorded (possibly in their primary position). Phosphate values from the area under the pelvis and those places where the original deposition was thought to have taken place, are very low. This may be a result of the remains being placed on a wooden floor, which would preclude the deposition of the products of soft tissue decomposition in the space under the skeleton, or by the low phosphate content of the wood, or by pedoturbation from secondary intervention. Polymodality of phosphate values wasn’t proven in the first nor second documentation level.

The second case study concerns three Bell Beaker graves from the Hodonice cadastral area in the Znojmo district. Grave 525 was divided into two parts by a barrier. In one part a disturbed but likely complete skeleton was deposited, as indicated by a broad phosphate anomaly (except for the skull, which was probably moved after soft tissue deposition). Multimodality of phosphate values wasn’t fully verified. The skull and some bones are found partially displaced. There is a relatively high phosphate concentration suggesting that intervention/disturbance happened after soft tissue decomposition (but when joints were still functional). Higher amount of phosphates to the sides of the skeleton and low values in the skull area may be related to pedoturbation during secondary intervention. In another grave pit an intact skeleton was found. The infill was probably disturbed twice. The larger of them was probably stratigraphically younger then another smaller secondary disturbance in which a cremation was found.

61

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Figure 20. Hodonice site, grave 666, documentation level 2, natural neighbour interpolation of phosphate values.

62

Jan Petřík et al.

References

Duma, G. 1972. Phosphate Content of ancient Pots as indication of Use. Antiquity 13, 1, 126-129. Dupras, T. L., Schultz, J. J., Wheeler, S. M. and Williams, L. J. 2006. Forensic Recovery of Human Remains. Archaeological Approaches. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Dvořák, P., Matějíčková, A., Peška, J. and Rakovský I. 1996. Gräberfelder der Glockenbecherkultur in Mähren II (Bezirk Břeclav). Katalog der Funde. Brno – Olomouc, Petr Dvořák Verlag. Dvořák P. and Peška J. 1993. Příspěvek k poznání kultury se zvoncovitými poháry na Moravě. Časopis Moravského muzea, vědy společenské 78, 29-49. Eidt, R. C. 1977. Detection and examination of anthrosols by phosphate analysis, Science 197, 1327-1333. Ernée, M. 2000. Hroby únětické kultury z Prahy 9 – Miškovic – Gräber der Aunjetitzer Kultur aus Prag 9 – Miškovice, in P. Čech and M. Dobeš (eds.), Sborník Miroslavu Buchvaldkovi – Festschrift für Miroslav Buchvaldek, 71–76. Most, Ústav archeologické památkové péče severozápadních Čech. Ernée, M. and Majer, A. 2009. Uniformita, či rozmanitost pohřebního ritu? Interpretace výsledků fosfátové půdní analýzy na pohřebišti únětické kultury v Praze 9 – Miškovicích, Archeologické rozhledy 61, 493-508. Gordon, C. C. and Buikstra J. E. 1981. Soil pH, bone preservation and sampling bias at mortuary sites. American Antiquity 46, 566-571. Havel, J. 1978. Pohřební ritus kultury zvoncovitých pohárů v Čechách a na Moravě. Praehistorica 7, Varia Archaeologica 1, 91-117. Herz, N. and Garisson, E. G. 1998. Geological methods for archaeology. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press. Holliday, V. T. 2004. Soils in Archaeological Research. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hunter J. and Cox M. 2005. Forensic Archaeology. Advances in Theory and Practice. London – New York, Routledge. Jiráň, L. 2008 (ed.). Archeologie pravěkých Čech 5. Doba bronzová. Praha, Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky v Praze. Kruťová, M. 2003. Bell Beaker and Únětice Burial Rites. Continuity and Change in Funerary Practices at the Beginning of Bronze Age, in J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt (eds.): The Nordeast Frontier of Bell Beakers, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1155, 209-214. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Lewis, M. E. 2008. A traitor‘s death? The identity of a drawn, hanged and quartered man from Hulton Abbey, Staffordshire. Antiquity 82, 113-124. Majer, A. 1984. Relativní metoda fosfátové půdní analýzy. Archeologické rozhledy 36, 297–313. Matějíčková, A. 2008. Pohřebiště kultury zvoncovitých pohárů z Brankovic, okr. Vyškov. Pravěk Nová řada 18, 153-164. Murphy, J. and Riley, J. P. 1962. A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta 27, 31-36.

Bálek, M., Dvořák, P., Kovárník, J. and Matějíčková A. 1999. Pohřebiště kultury zvoncovitých pohárů v Tvořihrázi (okr. Znojmo). Pravěk Supplementum 4, Brno, Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno. Barker, H., Hughes, M. J., Oddy, W. A. and Werner, A. E. 1975. Report on phosphate analyses carried out in connection with the cenotaph problem. In R. C. S. Bruce-Mitford (ed.), The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial 1, 550572. London, British Museum. Bátora, J. 2000. Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce. Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken. Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce/Slowakei. Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Band 16, Teil 2, 309-617. Kiel, Verlag Oetker/Voges. Bátora, J. and Staššíková-Štukovská, D.1993. Einzellängsflöten aus der Frühbronzezeit in der Slowakei? In J. Pavúk (ed.), Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Bratislava, 1-7 septembre 1991, 370375. Bratislava, Institut archeologique de l’Academie slovaque des sciences. Baxter, M. J. and Cool, H. E. M. 2010. Detecting modes in low-dimensional archaeological data. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2379-2385. Borkovský I. 1961. Hrob čís. 12 z pohřebiště v Bartolomějské ulici v Praze I. Sborník Československé společnosti při ČSAV 1, 11-15. Brno, Krajské nakladatelství. Cavanagh, W. G., Hirst, S. and Litton, C. D. 1988. Soil phosphate, site boundaries and change point analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 15, 67-83. Clarke, D.L. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47, 6–18. Crowther, J. 2002. The experimental earthwork at Wareham, Dorset after 33 years: retention and leaching of phosphate released in the decomposition of buried bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 405 – 411. Čech, P. and Černý, V. 1996. Nové možnosti studia pohřebního ritu na příkladu únětických hrobů z Konobrží, okr. Most. Archeologické rozhledy 48, 35-45. Černý, V. 1995. Význam tafonomických procesů při studiu pohřebního ritu. Archeologické rozhledy 47, 301-320. Duday, H., Courtaud, P., Crubezy, E., Sellier, P. and Tillier, A. M. 1990. Ľ anthropologie „de terrain“: reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Societé ď Anthropologie de Paris 2, 29-50. Duday, H. and Guillon, M. 2006. Understanding the circumstances of decomposition when the body is skeletonised, in A. Schmitt, E. Cunha and J. Pinheiro (eds.), Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death, 117-157. Totowa, Humana Press.

Duday, H. 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead. Lectures in Archaeothanatology. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

63

Pedogeochemical Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture

Neustupný, E. 2007. Metoda archeologie. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. Núñez, M. 1975. Phosphorus determination of the graves of Kilteri in Vantaa, Southern Finland. Suomen Museo 82, 18-25. Ondráček J. 1962. Únětické pohřebiště u Rebešovic na Moravě. Sborník Československé společnosti archeologické 2, 5-100. O’Shea, J. M. 1984. Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation. New York, Academic Press. Págo, L. 1963. Chemický výzkum pohřebiště lužického lidu popelnicových polí v Moravičanech, okr. Šumperk, Přehled výzkumů 1962, 38-40. Pelikán, J. B. 1954. Chemický posudek k výzkumu v Brodcích n. J. v roce 1953, Památky archeologické 45, 324-328. Peška J. and Rakovský I. 1990. Břeclavsko v pozdní době kamenné. Mikulov, Regionální muzeum Mikulov. Peška, J. and Tajer, A. 2007. Hrob KZP s nadzemní konstrukcí a zlatem ze Stříbrnic, in M. Bém, and J. Peška, (eds.), Ročenka 2006, 67-87. Olomouc, Archeologické centrum Olomouc. Piepenbrink, H 1986. Two examples of biogenous dead bone decomposition and their consequences for taphonomic interpretation, Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 417-430. Piggott, S. 1956. Excavations in Passage-graves and RingCairns of the Clava Group, 1952–3. Proceedings of The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 88, 200-207. Pleiner, R. 1978 (ed.), Pravěké dějiny Čech. Praha, Academia. Prokeš, L. 2007. Posmrtné změny a jejich význam při interpretaci pohřebního ritu (ke vztahu mezi archeologií a forenzními vědami). Archaeologia Mediaevalia Moraviana et Silesiana, Suppl 1. Brno, ÚAM FF MU. Roksandic, M. 2002. Position of skeletal remains as a key to understanding mortuary behaviour, in W. D. Haglund and M. D. Sorg (eds.), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy. Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, 100117. Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Schiffer, M.B. 1976. Behavioral Archeology. New York, Academic Press. Sheather, S. J. and Jones, M. C. 1991. A reliable databased bandwidth selection method for kernel density estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 53, 683-690. Silverman, B. W. 1981. Using kernel density estimates to investigate multimodality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 43, 97-99. Staššíková–Štukovská, D., Fabiš, M., Thurzo, M., Korytárová, O. and Reinprecht, L. 1994. Absolútna dekompozícia na pohrebiskách. Prvé výsledky experimentov v Borovciach. Slovenská archeológia, 42/1, 187-205. Stoye, K. 1950. Die Anwendung der Phosphatmethode auf einem mittelalterlichen Friedhof. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 34, 180-184. Stuchlík, S. 1990. Die sekundäre Eingriffe in den Gräber der Únětice Kultur. Anthropologie 28, 159-167. Sosna, D. 2007. Sekundární pohřební aktivity: Srovnávací studie, in T. Budil and T. Zíková (eds.), Antropologické sympozium V, 169-182. Plzeň, Dryada. Turek, J. and Majer, A. 1999. Příklad aplikace fosfátové půdní analýzy na pohřebním areálu v Tišicích (okr. Mělník) – An Application of the Phosphate Analysis on the Prehistoric burial find from Tišice (Mělník District). Archeologie ve středních Čechách 3, 205-212. Ubelaker, D. H. and Jon, E. B. 2003. Biological and Cultural Analysis of Human Remains, in D. H. Ubelaker, E. B. Jon and D. B. Landers (eds.), Human Remains from Voegtly Cemetery, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Weiner, S., Goldberg, P. and Bar-Yosef, O. 1993. Bone preservation in Kebara Cave, Israel using on-site Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20, 613–627. White, T. D. and Folkens, P. A. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. New York, Elsevier.

64

Flints Versus Lists: Lithic Industries of Early Farming Communities in Central Europe and Classification Tools Maciej Ehlert Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław Szewska 48, 50-139, Wrocław Poland [email protected] Abstract: In central Europe, and Poland in particular, classification lists are the dominant research tool used for the study of Neolithic flint industries. The first part of this paper aims to explain how their long and extensive use has affected both the approach towards the material and researchers’ interpretations. It is assumed that further studies relying on the lists as the main key for interpreting the artefacts might result in accumulating repetitive data. In the second part several alternative methods and research aims are proposed which, although neither new nor absent from European lithic analyses, are regrettably missing from the field under consideration. Keywords: Neolithic, central Europe, classification, lithics, flint tools, technology, Polish archaeology.

Introduction: classifying as translating

Obviously it is the researchers who speak, not the lithic artefacts alone. But the ability to talk is not sufficient here. In order to communicate and understand each other researchers have to speak a common ‘language’ or, putting it another way, translate artefacts into scientific discourse using the same ‘interpreter’. This is where classification systems are essential. That seems to be the reason why so much emphasis has been placed not only on unification of lithics-related nomenclature but also on building systems of classification which are usually presented and published as lists of types or artefact classes, sub-classes and categories. Many such lists have been put forward. Some of them, such as F. Bordes’ (1961) Lower and Middle Palaeolithic typology, are extensively known and used. Many examples of lists or tool typologies can be easily found in handbooks, such as those by A. Debénath and H. Dibble (1994) or B. Ginter and J. K. Kozłowski (1990).

Classifying objects and phenomena, aside from being an everyday and sometimes mechanical practice of many if not all humans, is usually understood as a cognitive tool and an ordering practice typical to scientists (see Roth 2005). Archaeologists are no exception. Sorting and classifying is typically one of the first and the most important steps when transforming artefacts into data. The way the material is classified can deeply affect its interpretation and presentation. Therefore, flaws in the classification system, such as categories or classes lacking clarity, or inconsistency between individual researchers using the same system, have been a subject of concern for some archaeologists and have given rise to several critical and experimental studies (Fish 1978; Whittaker et al., 1998). The reflections presented above apply to the analysis of flaked lithics. In fact, the impact of classification system on the researcher’s view and understanding of examined artefacts is crucial. In most cases lithic tools were made and used in the distant past, in a cultural system completely different from that of the contemporary archaeologist. In modern Western cultures things such as flint tools are merely subjects of study, stripped from their original meaning and social context. In the pioneering days of lithic analysis everything about them had to be invented, including the names of individual forms or techniques, so that prehistorians could communicate and exchange information. Fascinating examples of the construction of flint-related vocabularies – with translations of foreign terms into Polish and resulting neologisms – can be found in the recently published early notes of S. Krukowski (Kozłowski 2007, 101–102).

Shifting the focus to a regional scale it can be seen that in the course of research on the lithic industries of the first farming societies in central Europe, especially Poland, several classification lists have been composed with the intention to fit those industries. In the first part of this paper the historical background will be provided. Then I will briefly characterize the most important lists along with the general impact they had on research. The next part is dedicated to yet another way of dealing with lithics – the sequential approach- which has been omitted in Polish studies of Neolithic flint industries. I will also attempt to present how the implementation of that approach could enhance and enrich current views of flaked lithic technologies of the central European Neolithic.

65

Flints Versus Lists

Looking back

The turning point that triggered an increase of interest in the study of Neolithic flaked stone industries was a conference held in Kraków-Nowa Huta and the proceedings published in 1971 (Balcer 1983, 20; Kozłowski 1971). Apart from presenting what was already known, the scope of further study was articulated.

A brief summary of the history of study of flaked lithic industries of the first farming communities in central Europe (mainly Poland and the Czech Republic) seems necessary, as it will provide background for further evaluation of the methods used to analyse them.

The following points were seen as the most important: lithic industries and Neolithic cultural diversification; the relationship of the first farmers and hunter-gatherer as reflected in lithics; the procurement, use and distribution of raw materials; the need to construct and refine typological lists and classication frameworks, with special emphasis on the relationship between tool form and function (Lech 1988, 276).

The research tradition in this field of Polish archaeology is more than a century long. Dividing it into smaller periods is reasonable and convenient especially as the development of these studies was not a linear process. It had its peak as well as periods of stagnation. Keeping in mind that this is just an outline and that the division is highly generalized and far from ultimate, three main periods can be discerned. The first started in the early 1900s and lasted until the beginning of the Second World War; the second from the end of the war until the late 1960s; and the last started in the early 1970s and continues up to the present.

The Nowa Huta conference was followed by a noticeable increase in the number of publications. This trend persisted for years. Various kinds of works were generated: from case studies of flint workshops (Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and Lech 1976), mines (Schild et al., 1985) and settlement sites (Lech 1981; 1997; 2008), through syntheses dedicated either to specific cultures or territories (e.g. MałeckaKukawka 1992; Zakościelna 1996) or raw material (Balcer 1975), to a general monograph of all Neolithic industries found in Poland (Balcer 1983). These are just examples chosen from the large body of literature. Similar processes could be observed in other parts of central Europe as reflected in F. D. Davis (1975) and D. Gronenborn (1997) in Germany, or R. Tringham, then J. K. Kozłowski, S. K. Kozłowski, M. Kaczanowska and finally I. Mateiciucová in Moravia and Lower Austria (for detailed reference see Mateiciucová 2008, 28).

The pre-war period should be seen as a period of pioneering research, not only of the Neolithic flaked stone industries, but of lithic analysis in Poland in general. E. Majewski is cited as the first Polish archaeologist dedicated to lithic studies, Neolithic flint tools being among his interests. The fact that he was the teacher and inspiration for the two most prominent figures in Polish pre-war Stone Age archaeology -L. Kozłowski and S. Krukowski (Mateiciucová 2008, 25)is even more important. Works by L. Kozłowski (1923) and S. Krukowski (1920; 1922; 1939) are crucial largely because they form the foundation for further research (Balcer 1983, 19). The latter stated that the most important directions of lithic industry research should be raw material studies, distinguishing local from imported artefacts in the inventories of specific archaeological cultures and tracing networks of exchange and distribution of tools and techniques (Krukowski 1920; Mateiciucová 2008, 26). These issues continue to be central points of interest.

The first concerns and criticisms were voiced after the publishing boom and optimistic spirit of development slowed down in the late 1980s. According to J. Lech the situation at that time started to resemble a crisis caused by the constant growth of controversy regarding methods and interpretations (Lech 1988, 275–277). This, combined with what appeared to be little or no respect for the rules of scientific reasoning, created an opening for a new era: revising approaches and eliminating faulty and ineffective ones (Lech 1988, 275).

In a wider central European context lithic industries were (and still are) viewed as an important source of information about the origins and development of Neolithic cultural complexes (e.g. Childe 1929, Kowalczyk 1962). Nevertheless, it is now clear that due to the lack of proper dating many of the lithic assemblages were not culturally homogenous, and therefore all the inferences based on them are flawed (Mateiciucová 2008, 25–26).

Today, 20 years after the calls for change it seems that nothing happened. The main research tools and directions remain the same in central Europe. Classification systems developed in the 1970s are still used in their original form. The aims of study still follow the tracks first laid by S. Krukowski, and reasserted at the Nowa Huta conference. This makes one wonder – is it because they were so adequate and robust that there was no need to change them or introduce new approaches? Or perhaps it was simply because no successful attempts to introduce serious alternatives were made? In order to answer these questions it is necessary to take a closer look at present methods.

The second period can be generally described as a period when materials coming from many major excavation projects were gradually accumulated. But until the late 1960s specialists in the subject, as well as proper methods of analysis, were missing. Then the situation began to change. Artefact-rich flint workshops from the Kraków area were investigated, as a result of which a number of archaeologists gained experience with Neolithic material and began to specialise (Balcer 1983, 19).

66

Maciej Ehlert

Lists

The J. Lech list

Classification lists have been the most emblematic feature of Polish lithic analyses since the 1970s. Theoretically, they are based on the views of processual archaeologists of the United States combined with tool typologies, and are meant to encompass the entire inventory of artefacts that researchers have to deal with. As such they are often called ‘dynamic classifications’ and are usually made to fit certain periods or kinds of assemblages.

The remains of a flint mining and processing site in Sąspów near Kraków in southern Poland, excavated in 1960 and 1970–1971, yielded very rich yet quite problematic assemblages. The task of analysing them was entrusted to J. Lech, who quickly found that if he applied the typological method, focusing only on final products (the tools), little if any information about the process leading to their production would be gained. This caused him to turn to new solutions, proposed and used by L. R. Binford (1963), according to which each artefact has an infinite range of attributes, several of which are chosen to address specific problems and construct a classification. Additionally, the dynamic technological classification just implemented by R. Schild is cited as an important inspiration (DzieduszyckaMachnikowa and Lech 1976, 17).

The following section of this paper shows the origin of dynamic classification lists in Polish archaeology, and presents in detail the methodological aspects of their construction and use, as well as their general impact on lithic studies in the region. Dynamic Technological Classification

A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and J. Lech divided the list into four groups and called them ‘inventory groups’: precores and cores, blades and their fragments, flakes, and tools. In each group different attributes were taken into account for defining the specific categories and subcategories. For example, the cores were described by thirteen attributes arranged in a hierarchical order: from number of platforms, blank type and flaking surface placement, through size and proportions to platform kinds or traces of technical procedures (DzieduszyckaMachnikowa and Lech 1976, 19). In the case of blades the attributes were: fragmentation, special or non-special blade class, ventral side characteristics, butt type and longitudinal section (Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and Lech 1976, 26–27). Flakes were divided according to the amount of cortex, orientation, overall shape and butt type (Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and Lech 1976, 33). Finally, a classic typological list was arranged for retouched tools (Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and Lech 1976, 37, 53).

During the 1950s and 1960s Polish Stone Age archaeology, especially of the Palaeolithic, was developing quickly. Adaptations of the typological method first put forward by F. Bordes (1961), especially in the variation proposed by A. Bohmers and A. Bruijn (1959), provided it with a tool for describing and comparing assemblages from new excavations across the country. However, by the end of the 1960s, just as the Neolithic research boom was about to start, some archaeologists began to notice that it might not be sufficiently effective for detailed analyses. R. Schild was the first to come out with a new solution. While dealing with late Palaeolithic assemblages he devised a new classification list. It encompassed all the artefacts he worked on, arranged in an order meant to reflect the entire process of lithic tools production –from core preparation to retouching (Schild 1969). The act of classifying thus turned the lithic inventory into a body of data, which was then processed using quantitative statistical analysis. This provided information and enabled the researcher to ‘perceive the details of raw material economy’ (Schild et al., 1975, 12). The artefacts were listed using continuous numeration and divided into groups related either with consecutive phases, such as ‘precore preparation’, or ‘early core reduction’ or form categories, like ‘waste’ or ‘domestic tools’ (Schild et al., 1985, 55–63).

Because of its distinctive, clear guidelines and considerable flexibility the list – after minor modifications – seemed suitable for use with diverse assemblages. This contributed to its widespread use. It became the most popular classification list and is still used today. For example, the list author has been using it to analyse flaked lithics from LBK settlements from south-west (Lech 1981; 1997) or south-east Poland (Lech 2008) for almost thirty years. The system was also used in several monographs of Neolithic industries in Poland (Małecka-Kukawka 1992; Zakościelna 1996) or Moravia and Lower Austria (Mateiciucová 2008). Furthermore, Early Iron Age assemblages have also been classified with it (Gackowski and Małecka-Kukawka 1997).

The new cognitive tool called the ‘dynamic technological classification’ became R. Schild’s trademark and was applied to many different contexts and assemblages -from the African Middle Stone Age (Wendorf and Schild 1974), through the Late Mesolithic in central Poland (Schild et al., 1975), to chocolate flint mines of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (e.g. Schild et al., 1985). Its importance to the research of Neolithic flaked lithics in central Europe stems not only from the fact that it was used to analyse several flint mines of that period, but that it also inspired other researchers to create and use similar lists.

The main difference between this list and the ones constructed by R. Schild is that it does not try to strictly follow the core reduction process. Instead, artefacts are divided morphologically. The negative forms (cores or precores) are separated from positive forms (blanks) and retouched pieces; blades and flakes are also grouped separately. An important question arises: does the difference

67

Flints Versus Lists

in list structure have any significant impact on the overall interpretation, or is it merely a stylistic matter? I will return to that issue in the final part of this section.

Apart from the differences described above, B. Balcer’s 1975 classification bears many similarities to the ones presented earlier. It includes categories for all flaked lithic artefacts found on Neolithic sites and allows the formation of a body of data for further statistical analysis and site comparison.

Others The summary of classification systems used for Neolithic flaked stone industries would not be complete without mentioning the work of B. Balcer, who was among the first experts dedicated exclusively to their study. His career began in mid---1960s and most of his publications appeared during the following two decades. He used his own classification system, different in several aspects from the ones described above.

Comparison Three cognitive tools for working with Neolithic artefacts were presented. They were created almost simultaneously at a time when studies of Neolithic flaked lithics in Poland were entering a phase of rapid development. In fact they were the main driving force of that boom. With lists allowing them to incorporate whole assemblages into their studies, researchers (many of whom were specialist dedicated almost exclusively to the subject) were able to extract a remarkably larger amount of data from lithics.

B. Balcer outlined his views on classification of lithic tools in a paper dedicated to this subject (Balcer 1971) – a collection of general statements about classifying and classifications and warnings against the traps and pitfalls of lithic analysis. It was the contact with the Neolithic material that made him consider the theoretical aspects of classifying (Balcer 1971, 147). Typological issues were his main focus, though he also considered the problem of form vs function being intensely discussed at that time (see Kozłowski 1971). He did not present a list there. His theoretical reflections were later applied directly to the material.

The classification list by A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and J. Lech, R. Schild’s dynamic technological classification and B. Balcer’s way of working with the material bear many similarities, but they also have points of difference. It is now time to return to the question asked above: how relevant are these differences? How did they affect the general shape of their authors’ work?

In his subsequent works – a monograph of Świeciechów flint use in the Funnel Beaker culture (Balcer 1975) and a general monograph of Neolithic industries from Poland (Balcer 1983) – there are no explicit lists either. In order to understand how he classified the material one has to look closer at the contents of these publications, especially the former, as the latter was written from a more general perspective.

First of all, it is important to note that the study of these tools was conducted in the same manner in all instances. After excavation, the artefacts were divided and described using classification lists (either created for them, or already existing in the literature). Once sorted, the material was ready for analyses that were mainly based on statistics and supposed to shed light on the technology and function of the assemblage, thus providing clues for interpretation (see Högberg 2009, 45).

The artefacts were divided into two main groups: blanks with production waste, and tools. The first group was further split into subgroups: core forms, flake forms and blades. In the tool group, besides classic typological forms such as endscrapers, burins or denticulates, there were some tools of a distinctly functional character: hammerstonesgrinders, anvils, pick-axes or smoothers (Balcer 1975, 23– 44). This puts him in opposition to what was emphasised by typologist at that time: that tool typologies have to be strictly morphological, and functional categories avoided as subjective and hard to define unambiguously (Kozłowski 1971, 145)

Another way to answer this question would be to compare the structure of the main publications, as it should reflect how much emphasis is put by particular authors on specific steps in material analysis. The study of the Sąspów flint mine and workshop by A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and J. Lech (1976), the book about Świeciechów flint in Funnel Beaker culture by B. Balcer (1975) and the monograph of Tomaszów Chocolate flint mine by R. Schild, H. Królik and M. Marczak (1985) were chosen for this purpose. All these publications were based on rich assemblages coming from flint mines or settlements where traces of extensive blank and tool production were found. Moreover, the classification systems used in the studies were introduced at approximately the same time.

While at first glance the main division seems to reflect roughly the two main steps of raw material use -its processing into tool blanks and their use- the details show that morphology is used as the main criterion. This explains why forms related to tool use, such as ‘flakes from axes repair and remodelling’, ‘flakes from axe, chisel or adze working edges’ or ‘flakes from hammerstones and grinders’ are put into the flake subgroup of the blank production group.

In two cases the structure is roughly similar. The parts where the materials are classified and statistically processed constitute the bulk of these studies. In A. DzieduszyckaMachnikowa and J. Lech (1976, 5–6) -once the introduction, the chapter about discovery and excavations, along with the summary and additional material, such as bibliography, illustration plates, etc. are omitted - the

68

Maciej Ehlert

proportions are as follows: chapters about classification methods and the description of particular categories with statistical analysis consist 72.5% of the book’s volume; the technological interpretation and placement of the site in a wider background form the remaining 27.5% (7.6 and 19.8 respectively). The part of R. Schild’s et al. (1985) book about Neolithic mines has similar proportions: approximately 70% is about the description of methods and artefacts, the rest is about the interpretation of how the mine functioned.

list, which is still being used in its original form; in fact any attempts to change it (even slightly), for example by changing the order of the groups i.e. flakes first, then blades, have been subjected to strong criticism (see Mateiciucová 2008, 172). This brings us to the question of whether there really is a need to introduce innovations? If a tool is extensively utilized without change by many users, all of whom find it reliable, convenient and suited to its purpose, then maybe it is perfect and irreplaceable. Perhaps there is no such thing as a deadlock in Neolithic flaked lithics studies?

B. Balcer’s 1975 work is slightly different – the section explaining the methods and characterising find categories takes almost as much space as the one dedicated to interpretation. Moreover, in the latter part there are chapters such as ‘social and economical interpretation’. Still, if we consider the fact that unlike the two previous books this one is not about a single site, but about the use and distribution of specific raw material in a particular culture, the size of the material part remains significant.

Looking at the issue from a different perspective, a problem that can seriously affect our view of lithic tool production in the Neolithic might be inherent in using the lists. It is related to what A. Högberg called ‘classifying according to what we know’ (2009, 42). The following quote summarizes the problem aptly: ‘The consequences of archaeological flint material being sorted and classified (...) based on predetermined typologies, are that it is sorted according to what we as archaeologists know, not according to what we want to know. We know that a specific form according to a predetermined nomenclature is defined as a particular tool, and that this tool should therefore be classified according the same definition and sorted in the same pile as all other artefacts in the assemblage that have this form. We thus find out how many of this typological form there are in the assemblage. But we do not find out anything else. To learn anything more we must assume that there is something implicit, underlying, and inherent in this form and that the artefacts in the pile we have created through the classification correspond to this implicit, underlying and inherent something. But we do not know this; it is something we just have to believe.’ (Högberg 2009, 143).

Interpretations seem to be an issue of a slightly different nature. They are of course shaped by the analytic tools, such as classification lists, but to a certain degree they remain a matter of personal, sometimes even implicit views on the subject, and the researcher’s attitude towards the aims and means to achieve them. Maybe the discrepancies and the growth of controversies noticed by J. Lech (1988, 275–277) did not arise simply because some research methods were flawed and inadequate. Instead the disagreement might have been caused by the way artefacts, assemblages and industries were perceived by particular individuals, who translated their observations into data which they used to explain changes in the archaeological record. To put it another way: the variation of interpretations might not have resulted from some crucial differences between classification systems developed in the 1970s, but from the ways the data provided was read and articulated. The three classification systems, by now used for more than 30 years, seem highly similar. Their common features may rule them out as methods by which obtaining a new quality of information from new materials is highly improbable. If we want to gain insight into the lithics-related aspects of life of the first farmers in Poland and central Europe, we probably should accept that only introducing a completely different approach can help us escape the looming deadlock. But in order to make such assumption we first have to find out what precisely went wrong, and why.

The classification lists present in the literature serve as readymade solutions to deal with the material. They provide the researcher with a key to read the artefacts, and translate them into data, according to a predetermined procedure. The danger here is that besides the tools and procedures, the package can also include standard questions, answers and interpretations, standard suggestions about what to look for and what to ignore in the material. In effect, the adopted classification may pattern and limit the researcher’s view – make them follow the long established groove and accumulate repetitive data instead of enriching the view of the past.

The way out The three methods I described in the previous section of this paper have shaped the studies of the lithic industries of the oldest farming communities in Poland and central Europe. They are definitely long-standing, especially considering dynamic changes in the field of lithic studies which took place during the 30 years of their use. The most prominent is definitely the A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and J. Lech

To avoid such situations archaeologists should classify material according to what they want to know, and define the purpose of their analyses before they get down to the material. The classification system should not be built in order to simply sort the material – it should be based on the questions asked and hypotheses formulated before the study

69

Flints Versus Lists

and designed to extract from the material the information needed to supply answers and check hypotheses during analysis (see Högberg 2009, 45; Odell 2003, 11–12, fig. 1.1).

insight into the lithic technology, then what does? We do not need to look for an answer very far away – it is well founded in European archaeology and lithic studies across the world.

The list by A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and J. Lech (1976, 18) was originally used precisely in this way. The list itself is not the real problem; it was its subsequent, repeated use. Along with the classification, the questions, hypotheses and interpretation patterns were copied to a multitude of contexts, many of which were completely different from Sąspów flint mine, and perhaps require the formulation of different research questions.

The chaîne opératiore and other sequential approaches Much has been written about the theory, history and use of the chaîne opératiore concept (e.g. see Apel 2008, 95–98; Bleed 2001; Högberg 2009, 37–42; Miller 2007, 29–30; Schlanger 2005 for details and further reading). Writing about it in detail is not my purpose here. Instead, I intend to present it along with other sequential approaches as an alternative to dynamic classifications in the studies of the Neolithic flint industries in central Europe.

Knowing this we get close to the core of the matter. From the present perspective we see that the lists served their purpose in their original contexts. They did so well in fact that it was perceived that they could be used over and over again in many different contexts and perform with similar success. But this is where the problems started. Can a classification list, created for a flint mine, be successfully used to analyse inventories from settlements located far away from quality raw material sources and thus heavily relying on imports? Should expedient tools produced locally as a part of everyday activity be analysed in the same way that an advanced blade core industries from specialised flint mining and processing sites are? Is one list really able to deal with varying circumstances?

The chaîne opératiore approach is meant to reconstruct past technologies by going back step by step from the final product to the raw material. The main emphasis is put on actions – different techniques, methods and tool uses employed to achieve the consecutive stages of the production process (Bleed 2001, 105–107; Högberg 2009, 37–­39). An important feature of the chaîne opératiore and other sequential approaches is the notion that each technological process consists of stages that are marked by changing techniques, tools, goals and challenges. Besides the chaîne opératiore, other sequential approaches, like the Japanese gihō or US sequence models exist. All these cognitive tools have been used in similar contexts and allowed the researchers to exceed the limits of typologies and morphological classifications (Bleed 2001, 114). The main difference between them lies in the theoretical approach varying from ‘teleological’ (emphasising the results and mental patterns behind each step), to ‘evolutional’ – focusing on the variety of situations that may occur at each step of the production process and on what was actually done, rather than the ideal templates of actions and objects. However, when practically implemented to specific case studies sequential models often bear the characteristics of both approaches (Bleed 2001, 121–122).

It seems very likely that it was the lack of variation of research methods and goals, combined with the failure to fine-tune analyses to address specific questions that caused Neolithic flaked lithics studies in Poland to slow down, and eventually lapse into its present stagnation. In order to push things forward it might be necessary to step away from morphometric classifications as the main tool with which to analyse technology. The alternative – thinking sequentially Lithic tool production is a technological activity and as such should be analysed in the context of the social background within which it primarily functioned. Artefact typologies and classifications, even the so-called ‘dynamic’ ones, divide tools into groups and classes according to rules that the researchers believe to be meaningful. What they tend to miss is the fact that technology does not consist of artefacts only. The final products of a given technology were shaped by many factors, including the cultural tradition they derive from (responsible for how particular objects are supposed to appear) or the limitations imposed both by the environment and personal abilities (Apel 2008, fig. 3). The chain of actions leading from a mental concept to a finished product was usually a compromise between the idealized template and random factors the producer had to deal with, e.g. raw material or knapping tool kit properties (see Högberg 2009, 42).

Another characteristic feature common to all sequential models is the use of experimental studies in order to facilitate the understanding of the technologies, define stages and test hypotheses. In the case of lithic technologies, flint knapping provides the researchers with clues about the artefact forms related to certain steps, procedures or techniques. The sequential models can, and have been, successfully used to analyse a wide spectrum of technical activities. H. M.-L. Miller (2007) gives examples of flow diagrams of production processes of fibres, wood objects, fired clay and metals. Chaîne opératiore was even applied to examine strategies of chimpanzee nut cracking (Carvalho et al., 2008, fig. 9 shows an operative scheme diagram). Among the classic uses in lithic studies is the examination of the

If typologies and classifications do not allow in-depth

70

Maciej Ehlert

Levalloise technique (see Mellars 1999, table 3.2) or Upper Palaeolithic blade industries.

European farmers, we have to do more than just sort artefacts and translate them into statistic data. We could start by focusing on human actions rather than just the artefacts themselves. When properly used, sequential models have allowed researchers to look deeper into the social meaning of technological choices and resolutions. Studies, such as the one conducted on large blade flint knives by A. Högberg (2009), have proven that it is possible and desirable to ask and answer many different questions. What was the place of lithic technology in the social structure? What affected the ways in which raw material was used? Did any techniques, objects or raw materials have a different status than others; were any techniques or forms restricted to a particular raw material or group of people? What was the cause of changes; why were artefacts and techniques introduced and then forgotten?

Interestingly enough, the dynamic technological classification by R. Schild (1985, 55–63) or tables used by I. Mateiciucová (2008, 107–110) to describe raw material use on particular sites also seem to be sequential – the artefacts were arranged from raw material to tools, and subsequent stages were distinguished. In fact this resemblance is only superficial. The dynamic classification relies on characterising the form and attributes of the artefacts, and as such it only describes the technology referring to arbitrary stages without raising the cognitive and social context (Högberg 2009, 41). In Mateiciucová’s tables, the categories of the A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and Lech list are still present, only rearranged into groups under different names. The actions are still seen through the prism of artefacts, not the other way around. If so, the order in which the categories are listed does not play a relevant role.

With these research questions as the priority, case studies of newly excavated sites (or even the re-examination of assemblages already dealt with and stored on museum shelves) could bring new quality information and a way to understand, not just describe, Neolithic flint working.

It is worth pointing out that sequential approaches were also employed to deal with the Neolithic flint technology in Europe, especially in Scandinavia. The research on Late Neolithic flint daggers (Apel 2008; Stafford 2003) or four-sided axe production (Hansen and Madsen 1983) could serve as example. In regard to younger industries the book by A. Högberg (2009) is another case of sequential modelling put to good use.

Paths to follow Having characterised the current methods and cognitive tools used in the studies of lithic industries of the oldest farming societies in Poland and central Europe and the problems caused by their excessive and often ill-considered use; and having argued for changing them in favour of those that allow us to address different aspects of raw material use, I will now turn to possible research routes for future analyses.

Despite having a longer history than dynamic classification, the concept of sequential modelling has not seen any use in Polish lithic studies until recently. The situation started to change a little and works implementing it have been released, with the book by M. Wąs (2005) being the most notable example. However, these exceptions do not apply to Neolithic archaeology and seem rather to confirm the fact that dynamic classification still predominates in Polish lithic studies.

Raw material and the organisation of technology The effects of the availability and quality of raw material on lithic technology are a popular subject of research, especially in US archaeology (Andrefsky 1994; Brantingham et al., 2000; Goodale et al., 2008). The Linear Pottery Culture (LBK), during the phase of its widest dispersal, occupied territories with different levels of availability and quality of raw materials (see Bogucki and Grygiel 1993, fig. 1; Mateiciucová 2008, maps 6–8). This was especially visible in southern Poland, where some local groups – near Kraków or in the Świętokrzyskie Mountains area – resided near sources of good quality flint, while others encountered areas where only poor quality, erratic material was available.

What is the sequential approach going to change? As I have already stated, the main problem in Polish and central European research of Neolithic flaked stone industries is the use of unsuitable cognitive tools. This narrows the range of questions asked and answered during analyses to those established by S. Krukowski in the 1920s, and reasserted in the 1970s (Krukowski 1920; Kozłowski 1971). Which tools and techniques are typical to certain industries and which are imports? How did the industries change with time and interact with one another? How widely distributed were specific products? What did the production process look like – which blank forms and techniques were the most popular? How did the most abundant cores look like; how many blanks could they provide? All these questions have been answered with the use of typologies and morphological classifications; still, there is an abundance of interesting aspects to explore.

In the latter case two complementary solutions existed. One was to import good flint as raw material, precores or tools; this is evidenced by an elaborate network of exchange spanning central Europe (Lech 2008, fig. 27). The other would be to fine tune technology to local conditions and make do with whatever was available locally. Although we know that LBK people were sometimes forced, or simply chose, to do this, little is yet known about exactly how such mechanism worked in this culture. A point of departure is the different factors affecting raw material exchange that

In order to understand what flint meant to the first central

71

Flints Versus Lists

have been discussed recently by I. Mateiciucová (2008, 111–117, 141–145).

These can be acquired only through years of practice and being a part of teaching framework (Apel 2008, 99).

Another factor increasing variability of core reduction schemes is the producer/consumer ratio. The obvious statement that the more individuals knap, the greater the diversity in core reduction patterns, could be a starting point to address issues of cultural conditions of raw material or technology access (Goodale et al., 2008, 324, 328–330).

Admitting that such duality existed does not explain it. It was not simply a matter of what the raw material allowed the toolmaker to achieve. Just as simple technologies existed in regions where excellent raw material was available, complex tools are known in areas where flint was scarce and usually of poor quality (see Balcer 1975). Therefore it seems that not only the environment, but also cultural factors are part of an information exchange and teaching network that determined whether given individuals had access to certain technologies. If we want to learn more about the role that working and using flint played in that period, the contexts in which simple and complex technologies appear in the Neolithic need to be studied more extensively.

Simple and complex technologies In order to raise the research questions highlighted above we have to learn more about core reduction sequences in the Neolithic. This should include not only specialised blade cores with elaborate preparation and reduction schemes, like the ones A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and J. Lech (1976) or B. Balcer (1975) have dealt with in their studies, or the ones replicated by W. Migal (Mateiciucová 2008, 65–70). Besides these advanced technologies a multitude of simpler patterns were utilised throughout the Neolithic.

Tool lives and blank uses Ever since H. Dibble published his study of Mousterian scraper morphology (1987) it has become widely accepted that retouched tool morphology is not just a reflection of the producer’s intentions; instead, it can result from the pattern in which the tool was used and repaired. Much attention has been paid to the problem of measuring tool reduction and intensity of use (e.g. Andrefsky 2009; Eren et al., 2005; Hiscock and Clarkson 2005; Kuhn 1990; Shott and Weedman 2007).

Technological duality (the coexistence of very complicated and elaborate techniques with those that are very simple) seems to be a characteristic feature of Neolithic and younger lithic industries. B. Balcer, describing the Funnel Beaker Culture materials from Kujawy region in central Poland, noticed that they are somehow ‘double-tracked’: the tools made of imported flint were treated differently than the local ones (1983, 129). Likewise, A. Högberg emphasised the contrast between special manufacturing sites for large blade knives and household production at the regular settlements in the Late Bronze Age (2009).

At times measuring the use intensity of retouched tools seems problematic, as there is no universal index or method that would not be questionable in some respect. This makes explaining why the tools were used more or less intensively even trickier. It has been suggested that the amount of reduction may depend on factors such as raw material availability (Bamforth 1986), or mobility and environment characteristics (see Blades 2002, 166–167). However, it has to be noted that these assumptions were made for hunter-gatherer societies.

Obviously the reduction sequence of bipolar (splinter) and rudimentary platform cores without or with a minimal amount of preparation will be considerably shorter than the sequence of a blade core reduction, even when it is greatly simplified (e.g. Figure 1). In the case of such cores, most of the activities related to preparing the raw material, repairing the core and using the blanks (e.g. tool repair), should be removed from the sequence and the spectrum of artefacts would be much narrower. Simple activities have short sequences that are easy to learn and copy. As Apel stated: an individual given all the essential information will be able to strike usable flakes from a flint nodule after practicing for a short while, because this process is based on knowledge; simple techniques of that kind are learned quickly and widespread (2008, 99).

Keeping in mind what was stated above about the LBK in southern Poland, it is tempting to inquire into tool use and reduction patterns in regions where raw material conditions were diametrically different. The other interesting path would be to compare use patterns of imported and locally made tools, or those with simple and complex production schemes. Unfortunately, although the problem was ‘sensed’ and mentioned (see B. Balcer,1983 129, 153), no detailed studies have been conducted in central Europe to date.

On the other hand, if the same person, now being able to produce flakes, was shown the reduction sequence in Figure 1 and provided with precise instructions about the tools and procedures required to complete each stage, they would not be able to obtain the desired blanks – the regular blades. In this case knowledge is not enough; the task is impossible to complete without sufficient know-how or body memory.

Obviously retouched tools are not the only artefacts that have been utilised. Besides use-wear studies that reveal the true proportions of what was actually used (e.g. MałeckaKukawka 1999), the very presence of simple, expedient cores imply the existence of expedient tools. In order to fulfil the conditions of the sequential approach all of the used pieces in a given assemblage would have to be

72

Figure 1. A hypothetical blade or flake core processing sequence, showing the relationships between actions and artefacts

Maciej Ehlert

73

Flints Versus Lists

pinpointed. In reality demands such as this are much easier to make than to meet.

This brought me to ask the following questions: why have these methods been used for over 30 years without change? How did such long use affect studies of Neolithic industries? I assumed that in the first question the simplest answer –namely the lack of serious alternatives – may be the best. The second issue is more complex. It seemed to me that the repetitive use of the lists in contexts different from the original was the main problem. When researchers copied the classification system, they also copied preconceptions about the flints along with the ready-made research procedures and interpretation templates. Because of that the studies just accumulated more and more similar data, instead of being context-specific.

Not every lithic analyst is trained as a use-wear expert, and the tools, the time and the funds needed for detailed use-wear analysis are not always available. A situation in which every assemblage is examined for microwear is difficult to imagine. On the other hand detailed use-wear analysis is not necessary, if the goal is simply to distinguish used and unused pieces. At that level it is merely a question of binary opposites (used versus not used), not functional interpretations. Such distinctions can be successfully made using an easy-to-learn technique using simple equipment and allowing for the processing of large samples in a short time (see Odell 2003, 148–149 for discussion). Restricting the protocol to simply identifying use wear would further reduce the amount of time and skill needed. This could allow the search for use traces to become a standard part of classification procedures, especially when handling smaller assemblages from user settlements where the question of blank use is especially important.

Revising the method at this point seems necessary, or at least very useful. Therefore, I argue for changing the attitude towards classification of lithics and returning to, as A. Högberg put it, ‘classifying not according to what we know, but according to what we want to know’. A change of perspectives on technology would also result in gaining information of a new quality. Instead of addressing technology solely through artefacts, we should focus on human actions and treat lithic industries as a part of a whole social system. The sequential approach is presented as a means to allow for such changes.

Conclusion My primary motivation for tackling the subject of classification in the lithic studies of Neolithic flint industries in Poland and central Europe arose from the task of writing a monograph of Linear Pottery Culture flint knapping in Lower Silesia. I wanted to know how similar studies were conducted and what results they delivered. I decided to look at the methods to see what they might be useful for. I wondered how the classification systems – the tools used to translate stone into data – affected the views and interpretations of their users. Finally, I was curious why the classification systems introduced in early 1970s are still in use, and whether there are alternatives that could help us better understand the most important question: what did flaked lithic tools mean in the Neolithic?

Finally, I tried to show several examples of areas of study worth following. Some of them have been tried recently, such as the issue of how raw material availability and quality affects the lithic industries (Mateiciucová 2008). But there is still much to accomplish. I am fully aware that the problems, approaches and methods I present in this paper are neither new nor revolutionary. Regrettably, with few exceptions, they have been omitted in the study of flaked lithics of the first farming societies of central Europe. I also realise that the best way to prove their value and change the situation would be to implement them in a specific case study. Still, in my opinion, the more attention we pay to the methods taken when dealing with lithics the better.

I started by looking back at the long history of research in that field. It can be roughly divided into three periods: the pioneering times before the Second World War, the postwar material accumulation stage, and the period of boom and development that began approximately in the early 1970s. This was followed by what appeared to be a crisis that started in late 1980s (Lech 1988, 275–277). However, a distinct unity independent of these temporal divisions can be seen in the aims of research.

A thorough understanding of how the cognitive tools we use actually work will help us to avoid situations where classifying artefacts is merely ‘an activity of segregating and physically moving the artefacts and literally congregating them in separate groups’ (Balcer 1971, 149), and where interpreting them consists mainly of generating graphs out of statistical data.

Then I used these historical observations as a backdrop for presenting the dominant dynamic classification list method in use since its introduction in the early 1970s. I looked at the three versions of this cognitive tool dominant in Polish and central European archaeology (Balcer 1975; Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and Lech 1976; Schild et al., 1975; 1985). Despite some differences in structure the lists seem to be quite similar. They are all built specifically for Neolithic assemblages and are focused on the morphological and metric attributes of artefacts.

References Andrefsky, W. 1994. Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59, 21–34. Andrefsky, W. 2009. The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65–103.

74

Maciej Ehlert

Apel J. 2008. Knowlegde, know-how and raw materials – the production of Late Neolithic flint daggers in Denmark. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15, 91–111. Balcer, B. 1971. W sprawie klasyfikacji materiałów krzemiennych, Wiadomości Archeologiczne 35, 147-163. Balcer, B. 1975. Krzemień świeciechowski w kulturze pucharów lejkowatych. Eksploatacja, obróbka i rozprzestrzenienie. Wrocław, Ossolineum and Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Balcer, B. 1983. Wytwórczość narzędzi krzemiennych w neolicie ziem polskich. Wrocław, Ossolineum and Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Bamforth, D. B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51, 38–50. Binford, L. R. 1963. A proposed attribute list for the description and classification of projectile points, in A. White, L. R. Binford and M. Papworth (eds.), Miscellaneous studies in typology and classification, 193–214. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. Blades, B. S. 2002. Aurignacian Lithic Economy: Ecological Perspectives from Southwestern France. New York–Moscow, Kluwer Academic Press. Bleed, P. 2001. Trees or Chains, Links or Branches: Conceptual Alternatives for Consideration of Stone Tool Production and Other Sequential Activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8, 101–127. Bogucki, P., Grygiel, R. 1993. The First Farmers of Central Europe: A Survey Article. Journal of Field Archaeology 20, 399–426. Bohmers, A. and Bruijn, A. 1959. Statistische und graphishe Methoden zur Untersuchung von Flintkomplexen. Palaeohistoria 6–7, 183–211. Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithiqe ancien et moyen. Bordeaux, Dehnas. Brantingham, J. P., Olsen, J. W., Rech, J. A. and Krivoshapkin, A. I. 2000. Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeast Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 255–271. Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C. and Matsuzawa, T. 2008. Chaînes opératoires and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 148–163. Childe, V. G. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Davis, F. D. 1975. Die Hornsteingeräte des älteren und mittleren Neolithikums im Donauraum zwischen Neuburg und Regensburg. Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte 10. Bonn, Rheinische Friedriechs-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Debénath, A. and Dibble H. 1994. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Volume one: Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia, University Museum and University of Pennsylvania. Dibble H. L. 1987. The interpretation of Midde Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52, 109–117. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa, A. and Lech, J. 1976. Neolityczne zespoły pracowaniane z kopalni krzemienia w Sąspowie. Wrocław, Ossolineum.

Eren, M. I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Kuhn, S. L., Adler, D. S., Le, I. and Bar-Yosef, O. 2005. Defining and measuring reduction in unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1190–1201. Fish, P. R. 1978. Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43, 86–89. Gackowski, J. and Małecka-Kukawka J. 1997. Flint in the early periods of the Iron Age – reflections based on flint material from the lake dwelling at Pieczarki, Suwałki voiv., site 1,. in J. Lech and D. Piotrowska (eds.), Studies of flint-mining and flint working in the Bronze and Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the flint symposium held in Warsaw, 20-22nd October 1994, 300–316. Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Ginter, B. and Kozłowski, J. K. 1990. Technika obróbki i typologia wyrobów kamiennych paleolitu, mezolitu i neolitu. Warszawa, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Goodale, N. B., Kuijt, I., Macfarlan, S. J., Osterhoudt, C. and Finlayson, B. 2009. Lithic Core Reduction Techniques: Modeling Expected Diversity.In W. Andrefsky (ed.), Lithic technology: measures of use, production and curation, 314–335. Cambridge, University press. Gronenborn, D. 1997. Silexartefakte der ältestbandkeramischen Kultur. Mit einem Beitrag von Jean-Paul Caspar. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archaologie 37. Bonn, Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Hansen, P. V. and Madsen, B. 1983. Flint Axe manufacture in the Neolithic. An Experimental Investigation of a Flint Axe Manufacture Site at Hastrup Vægnet, East Zealand. Journal of Danish Archaeology 2, 43–59. Hiscock, P. and Clarkson, C. 2005. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric index of reduction and the flatflake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1015–1022. Högberg, A. 2009. Lithics in the Scandinavian Late Bronze Age: Sociotechnical change and persistence. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1932. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Kowalczyk, J. 1962. Uwagi o problematyce i postulatach badawczych neolitu polskiego, Wiadomości Archeologiczne 27, 271–282. Kozłowski, J. K. 1971. Uwagi o znaczeniu i metodach badań nad neolitycznymi inwentarzami krzemiennymi, in J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Z badań nad krzemieniarstwem neolitycznym i enenolitycznym (referaty i kumunikaty przedstawione na sympozjum w Nowej Hucie, dn. 10, 11 Maja 1971), 139–146. Kraków, Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne & Muzeum Archeologiczne w Krakowie. Kozłowski, L. 1923. Epoka kamienia na wydmach wschodniej części Wyżyny Małopolskiej. Lwów– Warszawa, Książnica Polska Towarzystwa Nauczania Szkół Wyższych. Kozłowski, S. K. 2007. Stefan Krukowski: narodziny giganta. Studia nad gospodarką surowcami krzemiennymi w pradziejach, tom 6. Warszawa,

75

Flints Versus Lists

Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Miller, H. M-L. 2007. Archaeological Approaches to Technology. London, Academic Press. Odell, G. H. 2003. Lithic Analysis. New York, Springer. Roth, W-M. 2005. Making Classifications (at) Work: Ordering Practices in Science. Social Studies of Science 35, 581–621. Schild, R. 1969. Próba ustalenia listy form związanych z procesem przygotowania obłupni I rdzeniowaniem w cyklu mazowszańskim. In R. Jamka (ed.) III Sympozjum Paleolityczne, z. 2. Kraków, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 3–15. Schild, R., Królik, H. and Marczak, M. 1985. Kopalnia krzemienia czekoladowego w Tomaszowie, przy wspołudziale Willema G. Mooka (datowanie C-14). Wrocław, Ossolineum. Schild, R., Marczak, M., Królik, H. 1975. Późny mezolit. Próba wieloaspektowej analizy otwartych stanowisk piaskowych. Wrocław, Ossolineum. Schlanger, N. 2005. The Chaîne Opératoire,in C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: The Key Concepts, 18–23. London, Routledge. Shott, M .J. and Weedman, K. J. 2007. Measuring reduction in stone tools: an ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo hidescrapers from Etiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1016–1035. Stafford, M. 2003. The parallel-flaked flint daggers of late Neolithic Denmark: an experimental perspective. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1537–1550. Wąs, M. 2005. Technologia krzemieniarstwa kultury janisławickiej. Łódź, Wydawnictwo Inicjał3. Wendorf, F. and Schild, R. (eds) 1974. A Middle Stone Age Sequence from the Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Wrocław–Gdańsk, Ossolineum and Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Whittaker, J. C., Caulkins, D. and Kamp K. A. 1998. Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5, 129– 164. Zakościelna, A. 1996. Krzemieniarstwo kultury wołyńskolubelskiej ceramiki malowanej. Lublin, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.

Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne and Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich. Krukowski, S. 1920. Pierwociny krzemieniarskie górnictwa, transportu i handlu w holocenie Polski cz. I. Wiadomości Archeologiczne 5, 185–205. Krukowski, S. 1922. Pierwociny krzemieniarkie górnictwa, transportu i handlu w holocenie Polski cz. II. Wiadomości Archeologiczne 7, 34–77. Krukowski, S. 1939. Krzemionki Opatowskie. Warszawa, Muzeum Techniki i Przemysłu and Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne. Kuhn, S. L. 1990. A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17, 585–593. Lech, J. 1981. Materiały krzemienne z osad społeczności wstęgowych w Niemczy, woj. Wałbrzych. Badania z lat 1971–1972. Silesia Antiqua 23, 39–45. Lech J. 1988. O rewolucji neolitycznej i krzemieniarstwie. Część I. Wokół metody. Archeologia Polski 33, 273–345. Lech, J. 1997. Materiały krzemienne z osad społeczności wczesnorolnicznych w Strachowie. In A. KulczyckaLeciejewiczowa (ed.), Strachów. Osiedla neolitycznych rolników na Śląsku, 229–265. Wrocław, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Lech, J. 2008. Materiały krzemienne społeczności kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej z Samborca, pow. Sandomierz. In A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa (ed.), Samborzec: Studium przemian kultury ceramiki wstęgowej rytej, 151–204. Wrocław, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Małecka-Kukawka, J. 1992. Krzemieniarstwo społeczności wczesnorolniczych z ziemi chełmińskiej. Toruń, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Małecka-Kukawka, J. 1999. Sierpy, sierpaki, sierpce… – analiza funkcjonalna wczesnorolniczych wkładek narzędzi żniwnych z Ziemi Chełmińskiej. In Szkice prahistoryczne. Źrodła – metody – interpretacje, 139– 158. Toruń, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika. 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. Mellars, P. 1999. The Neanderthal Legacy. An

76

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement: Formalized Methods in Archaeological Data Processing Peter Demján Department of Archaeology, Comenius University Gondova 2 SK-81499 Bratislava Slovakia [email protected] Abstract: The application of typological methods is a well-known means to find regularities within an archaeological assemblage. A formalized approach is needed when dealing with larger sets of data to eliminate bias arising from defining types a priori and searching for structures which we already expect to exist. By creating a quantitative descriptive system and using multivariate statistic methods we are able to identify similarities and dissimilarities between single artefacts as well as between individual find complexes. These similarities (or factors) represent chronological and cultural relationships as well as post-deposition transformations. We can further sort find complexes using seriation (e.g. correspondence analysis) to elaborate a chronological sequence. This paper presents an application of a formalized typological and chronological method on graves and their inventories from the Lengyel Culture settlement in Svodín (Southwest Slovakia) using multivariate statistical analysis. Keywords: Pottery analysis, typology, relative chronology, multivariate analysis, Lengyel Culture, settlement burials.

Introduction

important of these sites - Svodín (Southwest Slovakia) provided the basis for this paper. Excavated between 1971 and 1983 under V. Němejcová-Pavúková, it yielded finds from 111 graves, two rondels and several hundred settlement features dating to stage I of the Lengyel culture. While the material from rondels has already been published (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995), the settlement features and graves await publication. In this paper the methods and techniques used for processing the rich burial finds within the settlement will be presented.

In the area of western Hungary and southwest Slovakia a new cultural phenomenon appears around 4800 BC -the late Neolithic Lengyel cultural complex. It is characterized by a distinct pottery, rich in shape repertoire, and with a broad palette of painted motifs. The relatively large and densely populated settlements consist of three-part longhouses, often with a central circular ditched earthwork - the so-called “rondel”. Inhabitation spreads to new natural environments, occupying higher elevation sites and the distance between individual settlements increases. Development within social structures is also reflected in changing burial practices. Settlement burials which appeared during the preceding middle Neolithic Želiezovce culture are now the only form of burial we find. Lengyel sites provide us with valuable evidence about the development in both ritual and everyday life of Late Neolithic society. Unfortunately, only a handful of settlements with burials from the first stage of this culture have been excavated and published to date (Dombay 1960; Kalicz 1985; Němejcová-Pavúková 1986a; NěmejcováPavúková 1995; Neugebauer-Maresch et al., 2002).We expect new additions when material from recent rescue excavations in Hungary is published.

Approaching burials within settlements When processing finds from settlement burials we have to keep in mind specific elements which differentiate these features from those graves found in a regular burial ground located outside of a settlement. The first question to pose is whether we are really dealing with burials inside the occupied area of the community, or rather graves or grave groups located in vicinity of the settlement, placed eventually on abandoned habitation. Considering that a settlement can grow or shrink over time, or it can be abandoned and later resettled, we must take into account the possibility that a nearby burial ground could be absorbed by its boundaries, or new burials can be situated in a previously inhabited area. If the archaeological evidence is lacking reliable stratigraphic relationships between the graves and settlement structures, the question of whether

The scarcity of information about early Lengyel settlements with burials makes it all the more pressing to process the hitherto unpublished excavations and make data available to the scientific community. The finds from one of the most

77

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

we are dealing with true settlement burials or with a burial ground situated nearby the settlement is not trivial.

extract information about the past living culture contained within this assemblage, we need to correctly identify the transformation processes which led to their present shape and location.

The second issue concerns the chronological assignment of graves and their inventories. We cannot assume a linear or radial trend in burying the dead as would be the case on a regular burial ground. Therefore graves from earlier and later phases of the settlement can be found literary side by side. In order to determine a chronological sequence we need to make use of dating methods which do not rely on stratigraphic or spatial observations.

Transformation processes Transformation processes can essentially be divided into three categories: pre-deposition, deposition and postdeposition (Neustupný 2007, 51-54). In the case of the Svodín burials we are dealing with fairly well preserved material from closed contexts (i.e. graves), which means post-deposition processes did not substantially influence the composition of the (non-organic) inventories. Therefore the deposition transformation is the one we must consider further in our analysis of the assemblage. It represents the process of transition of the artefact from the living to the dead culture. The reason for this transition is very important - for grave inventories it is an intentional exclusion from the world of living and deposition into the ground with ritual motivation. The selection of particular grave goods may therefore not necessarily be a representative sample of the material culture of the community which deposited them. A distinct predominance of certain pottery types in graves (pedestaled bowl, mushroom vessel) when compared to assemblage from settlement pits may mirror this selection process.

Application of typological method for determining a detailed chronology Assigning artefacts to distinct groups based on their visual or technological similarity - the typological method - is a well-established approach to evaluating archaeological finds. This technique can lead to the elaboration of a typological sequence reflecting the chronological order in which the types appeared. A traditional approach to typology is to first determine main categories (or classes) of finds by empirical observation of the material. We can then proceed to differentiate distinct types and variants within these categories by finding similarities and dissimilarities between the single artefacts. A different approach is to consider the limitations of the entirely empirical approach, which is to a great degree influenced by observer bias, and elaborate a typology based on a statistical correlation between different attributes, by which we can describe the finds (Hodder and Hutson 2003, 182). An attribute is a property of an artefact, which can be meaningfully enumerated (either by quantifying, measuring or indicating its presence or absence). We must keep in mind that this process still involves a certain degree of subjectivity, especially in the selection of the attributes to be measured and choice of measurement techniques (Neustupný 2007, 122-123).

The nature of post-deposition transformations of burial finds is quite different than that of the finds from features like pits or ditches. Material in features which have been continuously used over a longer period of time is subject to complex repositioning and mixing due to cultural and natural influences. In contrast to that grave goods often remain undisturbed after their deposition, subject only to natural decay processes and occasional secondary intrusions. In this aspect the process of excavation and documentation of the finds also has to be considered as the de facto final post-deposition transformation. In our effort to achieve a chronological ordering of the burials from Svodín we must therefore keep in mind the possibility that distinct types of grave goods as well as the burial rite itself were subject not only to temporal changes but also to other hitherto unknown factors. We also have to consider that the changes of different attributes of the grave inventory over time happened at different frequencies. It is possible that some aspects of the burial rite were approached more conservatively then other and their simultaneous presence in two closed contexts does not necessarily mean their contemporaneity (cf. Hodder and Hutson 2003, 177).

After elaborating the typological description of our material, we can proceed to identify chronological relationships between types. The techniques for this are based on the assumption that the common occurrence of artefacts in a closed find context (e.g. a grave or a hoard) also implies contemporaneity. Under ideal circumstances (i.e. if simultaneously deposited artefacts really represent a particular ‘style’ which was commonly deposited in graves only for a limited time span) the sequence resulting from a seriation of the assemblage will correspond with the chronological order of appearance of the types and the deposition of the artefacts.

Even after taking all aforementioned factors into consideration, the information about the past living culture that we are able to extract will refer more to the diachronic development of the burial rite than the actual chronological phases of the settlement. To elaborate a complete intrasite chronology, we would have to include also all other

Such ideal conditions rarely if ever occur in real find assemblages. The archaeological finds we are evaluating represent a dead culture - an assemblage of artefacts existing in the present, representing a living culture of the past but separated from the world in which they were created and used (Neustupný 2007, 47). To be able to

78

Peter Demján

settlement structures, such as pits and ditches, into our analysis.

Zalai-Gaál applied seriation to chronologically sort burial finds from several Lengyel Culture sites (Zalai-Gaál 2007). In the latter study a formalized method was also used to elaborate a typology based on quantitative attributes of ceramic finds.

Monothetic vs. polythetic structures The presence of non-chronological relationships in a find assemblage is a fact of which archaeologists are well aware. There are different ways to approach this multidimensionality of data but they all have in common an effort to reduce the number of dimensions (i.e. commonalities appearing across the find complexes) whilst trying to highlight the cultural and chronological aspect and suppress the aspects determined by the different transformation processes. An example for this is the elaboration of a typology of copper axes based on their shapes and dimensions while ignoring their colour which is a product of patination.

Chronological ordering using seriation depends largely on the selection of chronologically sensitive attributes of the artefacts. The selection process can be considered empirical and is often based on stratigraphic observations. This approach can reduce the seriation to a confirmatory technique used only to validate the chronological relations which we already identified empirically. If on the other hand we attempt to include all potentially chronologically sensitive attributes in our seriation (e.g. the decoration of pottery, the shapes of different parts of the vessels) we risk that other than temporal dimensions of the assemblage (like the influence of gender or other social factors on the grave inventory) will also affect the resulting order and will be misinterpreted as a chronological development.

The search for hidden structures in archaeological data is described by E. Neustupný (2007, 128-130) as a synthesis of structures, whereas he distinguishes between monothetic and polythetic structures citing among others the groundbreaking work of D. Clarke (1968). A monothetic structure is characterized by one particular attribute or group of attributes the presence of which is necessary for an artefact to be considered a member of this structure. An example of a monothetic structure is the linking of grave inventories containing boar tusks with the male gender.

The aforementioned pitfalls when searching for hidden structures can be avoided by using multivariate methods. One of them is factor analysis (FA) - a statistical technique used to find important commonalities (factors) in the assemblage similar to the more widely used principal component analysis but putting higher emphasis to commonalities (Shennan 1997, 303-305; Neustupný 2007, 137). The factors extracted by this method represent polythetic structures and using a regression method we can calculate scores representing the pertinence of each unit (find or find complex) to a particular structure. Structures (or dimensions) identified in the assemblage in this way can then be explored separately and chronological ordering achieved without the risk of mixing attributes representing different structures (e.g. attributes of grave inventory connected with social status and attributes which represent a change of decoration style over time).

The usage of a hierarchical monothetic approach can be considered an evolutionary step in defining archaeological structures. Based on a specific attribute (e.g. the presence of a pedestal on ceramic vessels) the finds are classified into categories, which are then further divided into subcategories based on other monothetic criteria (e.g. an s-shaped neck profile). A polythetic structure is defined by the probability of the presence of certain attributes. Its main difference from a monothetic structure is that an artefact does not necessarily need to have all the defining attributes present to be considered a member of a structure. The traditional empirical typological method approaches the polythetic model by allowing exceptions when defining types. By judging the relationships based on individual attributes the similarity and dissimilarity of artefacts can be assessed and polythetic structures defined.

Multivariate analysis as opposed to a simple application of seriation can be described as an explorative technique resulting in the synthesis of new structures which represent chronological or other relationships between the units of the assemblage. Based on the multidimensional approach where each dimension represents a particular attribute of an artefact, E. Neustupný proposed the name ‘vector synthesis’ for this family of methods to better reflect its means and goals (Neustupný 2007, 137). We could consider every unit of the explored assemblage represented by a row of the descriptive matrix to be a vector in a multidimensional space the coordinates of which are the metric or quantitative attributes of the artefact or find complex. Using multivariate techniques (e.g. factor analysis, multiple correspondence analysis or cluster analysis) we synthesize the information contained in the descriptive matrix and try to find new vectors which best represent the structures in a lowerdimensional space.

Formalized typological and chronological method One of the first formalized methods applied in archaeology was seriation. When used correctly the resulting ordering of rows and columns of the descriptive system will reflect a chronological ordering of the find complexes and their attributes (for a more comprehensive description, see e.g. Orton 1980). The work of E. Kazdová (1984) with material from Tešetice-Kyjovice (in southern Moravia) is an example of the application of this technique in processing an Early Lengyel find assemblage. From more recent studies, I.

An important example for application of multivariate

79

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

Figure 1. Archaeological Data Manager software used for data entry, find measurement and classification.

statistic techniques to elaborate a formalized typology and chronology is the work of J. Macháček (2001; 2010) on early medieval ceramic material from Pohansko (southern Moravia). The paper of J. John concerning the structure of the grave inventory of the Linear Pottery Culture (John 2005) as well as other papers inspired by the seminal work of E. Neustupný published in the book Příspěvky k archeologii 2 (Neustupný and John 2005) should be mentioned.

1. Search for hidden structures based on similarities and dissimilarities within the find assemblage and find complexes. 2. Elaboration of a typological classification of the finds and find complexes based on the identified structures. 3. Ordering of the individual types and find complexes in a chronological sequence.

Before selecting the optimal techniques for processing the material from Svodín, output requirements had to be considered. First, there is a need to catalogue finds because the assemblage from the burials in Svodín have not yet been published in their entirety. The descriptive system must contain all the necessary data to produce a catalogue with textual and pictorial information about the individual burials and their inventories. The next requirement is a classification of the finds using a formalized method, which is also the first step required to identify structures within the whole find assemblage representing the relicts of the past living culture. These two requirements imply also the next step: the elaboration of an internal chronology of the development of the burial rite on the settlement.

The first step in creating a descriptive system was the digitization of all available data. Drawings and photographs of the finds were digitized into raster images and text was transcribed into electronic form. Excavation plans were digitized and a geodatabase was created based on them using ArcGIS.

Descriptive system of the find assemblage

In consideration of the need to quantify data and create queries based on different input requirements of statistical software packages a relational database was chosen as the platform for creating the descriptive system. MS: Access allows easy data entry and manipulation, is compatible with ArcGIS, and it is possible to create queries using SQL which is often necessary for more complex quantification of nominal data.

The analysis of the find assemblage unfolds in three steps:

80

Peter Demján

Field Name

Description

ID

Unique identifier

feature_nr

Feature number

trench

Trench number

side

Body placement side (left or right)

orientation

Orientation (azimuth)

sex

Sex of the deceased

age

Age of the deceased (in coded form) X coordinate of the grave centre (WGS 1984 UTM 34N) Y coordinate of the grave centre (WGS 1984 UTM 34N)

coords_x coords_y

Nominal descriptors for non-ceramic finds are limited to a description of the find type in coded form. For ceramic finds, the shape of the plastic elements (knobs) and the distribution and motif of painted decoration on the vessel is described in a coded form. Metric descriptors represent the size of the finds and, if applicable, their quantity. For ceramic vessels, measurements of different parts of the body are taken and stored in these descriptors. These attributes are necessary for the elaboration of a typology using multivariate statistical techniques. The definition of which parts of the vessels should be measured was adapted from the Lengyel pottery typology Numerical code of Moravian painted ware (Podborský et al., 1977, 31-34) by modifying it so that it best reflects the perceived visual image of the vessel. This is of course a point where the author’s subjective choice is involved in the process of elaborating typology. The ceramic vessels were first divided into seven basic body types based on which metric attributes can be measured (Figure 4). The conical or convex shape was expressed as a measure of convexity (-1 meaning a concave, 0 a conical or cylindrical and +1 a convex shape). A degree of profile inclination was calculated where applicable using the formula (diameter1 - diameter2) x 5 / height suggested by V. F. Gening (1977, 97). In the descriptive system unified fields are used for the attributes of all vessel body types according to the field descriptions in Figure 3. The points of measurement for different vessel body types and formulas for calculating profile inclinations are defined as follows:

Figure 2. Selected descriptors from the table of graves.

Streamlining of the data entry, verification, processing and publishing process was a major issue in this work. It was necessary to process a relatively large amount of data in a short time span and only one person was available for all tasks. Since there was no specialized software for archaeological data management available at that time which would suit all the above requirements a simple Archaeological Data Manager (ADM) software was developed (Figure 1). It works as an interface to anMS Access database, enhancing its functionality by streamlining the typological classification and measuring of finds. It also offers the ability to graphically display the finds or find complexes in the database and localise individual finds within find complexes. Textual and pictorial data from the descriptive system can then be compiled into a catalogue in PDF format ready for publication. The possibility of displaying finds as a list sorted and filtered by any variable enables us to visually inspect the results of the ordination using different statistical methods. This serves as useful feedback and makes it easier to spot errors in data entry.

1. One-part vessel • Rim diameter • Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and the base. • Base diameter • Neck profile inclination: (rim diameter - base diameter) x 5 / neck height 2. Pedestaled one-part vessel • Rim diameter • Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and the base. • Base diameter: Diameter of the base of the upper part (not pedestal base). • Pedestal base diameter • Pedestal height: Vertical distance between the base of the vesel and the pedestal base. • Neck profile inclination: (rim diameter - base diameter) x 5 / neck height • Pedestal profile inclination: (pedestal base diameter - base diameter) x 5 / pedestal height 3. Two-part vessel • Rim diameter • Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck. • Carination diameter: Diameter on the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity

The finds database consists of two main tables: the table of graves (Figure 2) and the table of grave inventory (Figure 3). Relations between these tables and other ancillary tables used for the coding of variables are based on unique identifiers (ID). The description of grave inventory is accomplished using a single table containing both ceramic and non-ceramic finds. Some of the descriptors are relevant for both types of finds and some only for ceramic vessels. They can be divided into three basic categories: localization, metric and nominal descriptors. The table also has some ancillary fields necessary to form relations with different data tables and for cataloguing (feature number, find number etc.). Localization descriptors carry the information about the placement of the find inside the grave. Besides Cartesian coordinates there is also a nominal description of the placement in relation to the body of the deceased which is more useful when searching for structures in the placement of grave goods.

81

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

Field Name

Description

ID

Unique identifier

feature_nr

Feature number

find_nr

Find number

body_type

Body type of ceramic vessel (in coded form, see Figure 4)

Localization descriptors placement

Placement relative to body (in coded form)

placement_detail

Placement detail (in coded form)

placement_x

X coord. of the find in the grave (in cm)

placement_y

Y coord. of the find in the grave (in cm)

Metric descriptors height

Find height (according to orientation on drawing) (in mm)

width

Find width (according to orientation on drawing) (in mm)

amount

Number of unique pieces (e.g. beads of a necklace)

units

Number of units (e.g. blades)

Nominal descriptor find_type

Find type (in coded form)

Metric descriptors relevant for ceramic finds rim_diameter

Rim diameter (in mm)

neck_diameter

Neck diameter (in mm)

neck_height

Neck height (in mm)

belly_diameter

Belly diameter (for body types 4, 6, 7) or carination diameter (types 3, 5) (in mm)

upper_body_height

Upper body height (in mm)

lower_body_height

Lower body height (in mm)

base_diameter

Base diameter (for body types 1, 2, 3, 5, 6) or carination diameter (types 4, 7) (in mm)

pedestal_base_diameter

Petestal base diameter (for body types 2, 5) or base diameter (types 4, 7) (in mm)

pedestal_height

Pedestal height (for body types 2, 5) or base height (types 4, 7) (in mm)

neck_shape

Neck convexity (-1 to 1)

neck_carination

Carination below the neck (1 or 0)

upper_body_shape

Upper body convexity (-1 to 1)

upper_body_carination

Carination on the belly (1 or 0)

lower_body_shape

Lower body convexity (-1 to 1)

pedestal_shape

Convexity of the walls of the pedestal (for body types 2, 5) or the base (types 4, 7) (-1 to 1)

neck_profile

Neck profile inclination

upper_body_profile

Upper body profile inclination

lower_body_profile

Lower body profile inclination

pedestal_profile

Profile inclination of the walls of the pedestal (for body types 2, 5) or the base (types 4, 7)

Nominal descriptors relevant for ceramic finds painted_type

Distribution of the painted or incised decoration on the vessel (in coded form)

painted_upper_motif

Motif of the decoration on the upper body (in coded form)

painted_lower_motif

Motif of the decoration on the lower body (in coded form)

painted_inside_motif

Motif of the decoration on the inside (in coded form)

plastic_type

Type of plastic elements (in coded form)

Figure 3. Selected descriptors from the table of grave inventory.

82

Peter Demján

of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck. • Lower body height: Vertical distance between the belly or carination and the base. • Base diameter • Neck profile inclination: (rim diameter - belly diameter) x 5 / neck height • Lower body profile inclination: (belly diameter base diameter) x 5 / lower body height 4. Two-part mushroom vessel • Rim diameter • Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and the maximum body diameter. • Belly diameter: Maximum body diameter. • Lower body height: Vertical distance between the belly and the carination below the belly. • Carination diameter: Diameter on the carination below the belly. • Base height: Vertical distance between the carination below the belly and the base. • Base diameter • Neck profile inclination: (rim diameter - belly diameter) x 5 / neck height • Lower body profile inclination: (belly diameter carination diameter) x 5 / base height • Base profile inclination: (base diameter - carination diameter) x 5 / base height 5. Pedestaled two-part vessel • Rim diameter • Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck. • Carination diameter: Diameter on the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck. • Lower body height: Vertical distance between the carination and the base. • Base diameter: Diameter of the base of the upper part (not pedestal base). • Pedestal height: Vertical distance between the base of the vessel and the pedestal base. • Pedestal base diameter • Neck profile inclination: (rim diameter - carination diameter) x 5 / neck height • Lower body profile inclination: (carination diameter - base diameter) x 5 / lower body height • Pedestal profile inclination: (pedestal base diameter - base diameter) x 5 / pedestal height 6. Three-part vessel • Rim diameter • Neck diameter: Diameter of the narrowest part between the rim and the belly or the carination below the neck. • Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck.

• Belly diameter: Maximum body diameter. • Upper body height: Vertical distance between the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck and the belly. • Lower body height: Vertical distance between the belly and the base. • Base diameter • Neck profile inclination: (rim diameter - neck diameter) x 5 / neck height • Upper body profile inclination: (belly diameter neck diameter) x 5 / upper body height • Lower body profile inclination: (belly diameter base diameter) x 5 / lower body height 7. Three-part mushroom vessel • Rim diameter • Neck diameter: Diameter of the narrowest part between the rim and the belly or the carination below the neck. • Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck. • Belly diameter: Maximum body diameter. • Upper body height: Vertical distance between the point where the convexity of the body changes or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination below the neck and the belly. • Lower body height: Vertical distance between the belly and the carination below the belly. • Carination diameter: Diameter on the carination below the belly. • Base height: Vertical distance between the carination below the belly and the base. • Base diameter • Neck profile inclination: (rim diameter - neck diameter) x 5 / neck height • Upper body profile inclination: (belly diameter neck diameter) x 5 / upper body height • Lower body profile inclination: (belly diameter carination diameter) x 5 / base height • Base profile inclination: (base diameter - carination diameter) x 5 / base height Typological classification of pottery shapes The first step in typological classification of ceramic finds is to divide vessels into basic classes according to different metric attributes. This step is necessary so that the individual vessels are comparable by those attributes. In the case of the material from Svodín seven basic classes have been identified (Figure 4). For each basic class of vessels which contained a sufficient amount of specimens typological structures were identified using factor analysis. This was done using SPSS Statistics. The descriptors used were all metric attributes relevant for the particular basic vessel class. A detailed description of performing a factor analysis of archaeological assemblages

83

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

Figure 4. Classification of ceramic vessel body types according to measurable attributes.

84

Peter Demján

Descriptor belly_ diameter rim_diameter

Factor 1 0,9321 0,9080

neck_height lower_body_ height lower_body_ shape base_diameter lower_body_ profile neck_ carination

0,8506

neck_shape

0,0143

neck_profile

-0,5922

Descriptor lower_body_ profile neck_shape

0,8677 0,8172

neck_profile neck_ carination

0,2744

0,2375

neck_height

0,2134

0,1912

rim_diameter

-0,0174

0,1222

belly_diameter

-0,1407

0,0985

base_diameter

-0,2767

0,6765

lower_body_ shape lower_body_ height

technique attempts to sort the specimens into clusters based on their calculated distance in a Euclidean space where the selected descriptors are represented as coordinates. The process of clustering creates clusters of the closest (and thus most similar) specimens first, then groups those clusters into larger clusters and so on, until the whole assemblage can be sorted in a hierarchical tree structure (represented by a dendrogram). For more detailed information on this method see the work of C. Orton (1980, 47). Ward’s method is particularly well suited for clustering of continuous numerical data like the factor scores which were produced in the first step of our pottery analysis (Shennan 1997, 241-245). The settings used in SPSS Statistics were Ward’s method, and measuring of interval as squared Euclidean distance. Finally a dendrogram plot was produced. The descriptors used in this step were the factor scores extracted in the previous step except factor 1 which always represented a sorting of the vessels by size. Based on the dendrogram produced by clustering subtypes and variants were defined. For example for vessels of body type 3 two classes, four subclasses and eight variants were identified (Figure 7). The first digit of the type code represents the body type of the vessel, the second and third the class and subclass and the fourth the variant.

Factor 2

0,2653

-0,3963 -0,6487

Figure 5. Loadings on factors 1 and 2 extracted for vessels of body type 3 (two-part vessel).

is given in the works of E. Neustupný (1993; 2007) and S. Shennan (1997). The settings used were: calculation of a correlation matrix using coefficients, extraction of factors using principal components method based on eigenvalue greater than one, Varimax rotation and calculation of factor scores using regression. In the case where less than three factors were extracted based on the eigenvalue, the fixed number of factors to extract was set to three. Otherwise typological sorting would be difficult as the first factor always represents a sorting of the vessels by size and is therefore discarded from further steps when elaborating a typology. The other factors extracted in this step represent commonalities in the assemblage according to which the ceramic finds can be further divided into classes, subclasses and variants. As an example we can see two factors extracted from metric attributes of vessels of body type 3 (two-part vessels) (Figure 5). Factor 1 represents a similarity of the vessels based on carination diameter (here the variable belly diameter), rim diameter, neck height and lower body height. The negative loading for neck profile inclination reflects the fact that vessels with wider and higher upper parts tend to have a less inclined neck profile. Factor 2 shows a connection between the lower body profile inclination and the convexity of the neck. The negative loading for lower body height indicates a less probable occurrence of vessels with high, strongly inclined lower body and a convex or conical neck. It is a good practice to visually inspect the results of factor analysis by sorting the finds by their factor scores (Figure 6). This way any errors in data entry can be identified and we can also verify our interpretation of the factors.

By examining the factor scores of the vessels in different typological groups, typical factors and descriptors for those groups were identified and described (as is shown in Figure 8). We have to keep in mind however that such a description it is just a simplified interpretation of the structures and cannot be considered an explicit definition of a ceramic type as is common when using a monothetic approach to typology. The factors and the scores calculated for each vessel in the descriptive system represent only a measure of probability with which the specimen belongs to a particular structure. The clustering into distinct ceramic classes and their subsequent description was done largely to compare the presence of structures identified from metric attributes of the pottery, with other structures which will be identified in the descriptive system of the burial contexts based on their nominal attributes. It is also impossible to directly compare factors extracted for vessels of different body types, because they represent different descriptors depending on which parts of the body were measured. Lastly, a classification of the finds together with verbal description helps us to compare our material to that from other sites where a monothetic typological approach was used. Typological classification of burial contexts In a manner similar to identifying structures in pottery shapes using factor analysis and their subsequent typological classification we can search for hidden structures in complexes represented by graves and their inventories. The attributes of non-ceramic grave goods are difficult to describe by metric values. When dealing with plastic elements (knobs) and painted decoration an empirical approach to typology appears more appropriate

Further classification of the pottery into classes, subclasses and variants was conducted by applying hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) using Ward’s method. This multivariate

85

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

Figure 6. Vessels of body type 3 (two-part vessel), sorted by factor scores on factor 2. High positive values are typical for vessels with strong inclination of the lower body profile and a conical neck. Negative values are typical for shapes with higher lower body.

than trying to find a formalized method. The small number of specimens of each kind of non-ceramic inventory makes a more detailed classification unnecessary.

Ceramic variants which occurred less than three times were joined with other variants of the same subclass where possible. The quantification of nominal attributes describing the position of grave goods relative to the body required further generalization of some variables as distinct types of grave goods were only rarely positioned on the exact same position in different graves. The reduction in number of variables was achieved by two steps. First, by reducing the ceramic classes to six basic shapes (one-part bowl, two-part bowl, pedestaled bowl, mushroom vessel, pot and beaker), next by joining the 52 identified positions into 18 larger clusters. These generalizations were possible also due to a quite regular habit of the placement of the deceased in flexed position on the right side.

Quantification To be able to analyse graves from Svodín using multivariate methods we first need to quantify the nominal attributes of their inventories. The attributes in this case are classes of the ceramic vessels, painted decoration motifs, types of plastic elements and types of non-ceramic grave goods. All these nominal attributes can be expressed numerically by quantifying them, i.e. counting the number of specimens of each type in each grave. The rows of the resulting descriptive matrix will represent the individual graves and the columns will represent different types of decoration, ceramic classes etc. The applicability of this method on archaeological finds was demonstrated by L. Chroustovský (2008).

Classification Factor analysis was then applied on the descriptive matrix using SPSS Statistics with settings identical to those used for pottery analysis. It was performed separately for descriptors of ceramic classes, decoration motifs, plastic knob types, non-ceramic types and positions of grave goods. First only two factors were extracted and extreme outliers identified. These atypical find complexes were

The descriptive matrix was created in MS Access by creating a query for the table of grave inventory using SQL. Only attributes occurring three and more times in the assemblage were quantified to keep a statistical relevance.

86

Peter Demján

Figure 7. Typological classification of vessels of body type 3 (two-part vessel) according to factors 2 and 3 using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.

Class hierarchy

Code

Typical factors

class

3100

-2

subclass

3110

-2, -3

variant

3113

-3

high lower body no carination, high lower body no carination

variant

3114

-2

high lower body

subclass

3120

3

carination below the neck

variant

3121

-2, 3

carination below the neck, high lower body, wide base

variant

3122

-2

high lower body

variant

3123

3

carination below the neck

class

3200

2

convex neck, strong lower body profile inclination

subclass

3210

2

convex neck, strong lower body profile inclination

variant

3211

2

convex neck, strong lower body profile inclination

subclass

3220

-3

no carination

variant

3221

-3

no carination

then no longer used for the extraction of factors from the particular type of descriptor. The reason for the elimination of extreme outliers is that they constitute categories of their own and suppress the more subtle structures present in the whole assemblage. Luckily only one grave was an outlier in all five groups of descriptors and therefore could not be used for the overall analysis of the burials. However, the information contained in the shapes of its rich ceramic inventory contributed to the elaboration of pottery shape typology. After eliminating the outliers, factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted for each of the five descriptor groups and factor scores were calculated for each grave.

Factor description

Based on the factor scores a classification of the graves using hierarchical cluster analysis was performed (with settings the same as when classifying pottery) and using the dendrograms graves were assigned to clusters according to different types of descriptors (e.g. a grave could be in cluster 6 according to the painted decoration of its inventory and in cluster 3 according to types of plastic knobs). Figure 9 shows an example of clustering of graves according to plastic elements on the ceramic grave goods. These clusters can be described by their typical factors and descriptors similarly to the description of pottery classes and variants

Figure 8. Ceramic classes, variants and subvariants of vessels of body type 3 (two-part vessel).

87

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

Figure 9. Typological classification of graves according to factors 1-6 describing the occurrence of distinct types of plastic elements on the ceramic inventory using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.

88

Peter Demján

Cluster

Typical factors

represent the membership of a grave in a particular group. MCA was performed using the PAST software package created by Ø. Hammer, D. A. T. Harper and P. D. Ryan (2001). The result is a scatter plot where the first and second axes represent the first two dimensions of the reduced multidimensional space and the dots represent individual graves and grave types (Figure 11). By mapping the sex of the deceased on the scatter plot it becomes apparent that the second axis sorts the grave inventories by gender. We can therefore hypothesize that the first dimension represents the chronological order. While a definitive validation of this hypothesis would require the presence of stratigraphic relations between the graves (which is not the case in Svodín) we can attempt at least a partial validation of the chronological sequence by using external evidence. This is also important to determine the orientation of the time axis i.e. which end represents the earlier and which the later burials.

Factor description small - indistinct and anthropomorphic knobs

1

2

2

3, 2

vertically oblong and round knobs with horizontal opening

3

4

saddle-form knobs with vertical or horizontal ridge

4

1

atypical (less than 3 graves)

5

 

non-specific (no typical factors for this cluster)

6

6

horizontally oblong knobs

7

5

drawn-out knobs

Figure 10. Typological grave groups (clusters) defined according to the occurrence of distinct types of plastic elements on the ceramic inventory.

It is reasonable to think that burials did not take place in regular intervals one after another. We must therefore assume that there are fluctuations in our ordering based on highly fragmented information. To be able to assess the relative-chronological assignment of the individual graves and their types we must first identify gaps in the MCA ordering on the horizontal axis. The clusters of graves between these gaps represent typological-chronological phases, in which there is a higher probability that the member graves are roughly contemporaneous (Figure 12). We can now identify structures which are typical for these phases and compare them with finds from other early Lengyel sites.

with the same limitations concerning such a monothetic interpretation of polythetic structures (Figure 10). The presence or absence of an attribute typical for a group in a grave does not automatically assign it to that particular group. Determining the chronological sequence The method of relative chronology is based on the assumption that certain cultural phenomena are subject to diachronic change. We already identified relics of these structures in the assemblage from Svodín using explorative statistical techniques. If we order these find complexes in such a way that those belonging to the same structures (represented by typological grave groups) will be close to each other, the resulting sequence should represent their relative chronological ordering.

External evidence The Lengyel phase of the settlement in Svodín encompasses only one ceramic stage (Lengyel I), which limits our search to structures which appear only for a brief time span. By definition such structures will be present in relatively small numbers in the find assemblages which further complicates their identification. It must be noted that despite the small number of excavated settlements from the Lengyel I stage the state of processing and publication of the material is quite good. Detailed internal chronologies have been elaborated for the ceramic finds from Tešetice and Kamegg using formalized methods (Kazdová 1984; Doneus 2001). The ceramic grave inventories from Zengővárkony, Friebritz and several other sites were evaluated in a summarizing study, in which a formalized typology of the pottery was elaborated based on its metric attributes and a seriation of the find complexes was performed (Zalai-Gaál 2007). The search for chronological links to Svodín was based on these works. Also of great use were the extensive works of J. Pavúk on Lengyel pottery typology (for the latest see Pavúk 2007; 2009) and the typological analysis of the Svodín material by V. Němejcová-Pavúková (1986a; 1986b; 1995). The burial finds from inside the rondel in Friebritz (Neugebauer-Maresch et al., 2002) also provided

A multivariate statistic method well suited for this application is multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). Similarly to cluster analysis, it uses the Euclidean distance of data points in multidimensional space to highlight similarities and dissimilarities within a descriptive system. Its advantages lie in its ability to work with nominal variables (which in our case represent the membership in a typological group) and the plotting of the resulting ordering in the form of a two-dimensional scatter plot (Shennan 1997, 308). Various examples of the application of this method in archaeology can be seen in P. Pavúk (2010). A good example of the elaboration of a chronological sequence using MCA can be seen in the work of J. Macháček (2001; 2010). The rows of the descriptive matrix which we have to prepare to use this method represent the individual graves and columns represent typological groups (by non-ceramic find types, find placement, painted decoration, plastic elements and ceramic classes). The values 1 and 0 in the matrix

89

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

Figure 11. Sorting of the graves (black dots) according to their classification to distinct typological groups (grey dots; by nonceramic find types, find placement, painted decoration, plastic elements and ceramic classes) using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).

Figure 12. Identifying four typological-chronological phases of the settlement burials based on their chronological relations represented by the horizontal axis of the MCA scatter plot.

90

Peter Demján

important information about the absolute dating of this stage of the Lengyel Culture.

Feature nr

Some difficulty lies in the fact that the material analyses in the aforementioned work rely on a more or less monothetic typological approach. Chronological assignment is directly connected with the appearance of specific attributes on the pottery to which it is difficult to find parallels in the polythetic structures identified in Svodín. The focus of this article on methodical procedures does not provide space for elaborating the several different parallels and analogies which ultimately led to the orientation of the time axis and a validation of the chronological sequence. Analogies in ceramic vessel shapes and most importantly in chronologically very sensitive motifs of painted decoration put the typological-chronological phases I and II of the Svodín burials into the early phase (IA) of the Lengyel Culture. At least for phase I we can assume a contemporaneity with the Friebritz settlement (fixed by an analogous polythetic structure in painted decoration, found on both sites), which is dated into the phase Lengyel IA not only by relative-chronological observation but also by 14C dating (Stadler and Ruttkay 2007, Figure 5). Based on the analysis of the grave inventory it cannot be ruled out that the settlement lasted only during the phase IA of the Lengyel Culture, the duration of which according to radiocarbon measurements is c. 113 years (Stadler and Ruttkay 2007, Table 7). The resulting chronological sorting of the graves and typological groups can be seen on Figure 13. Examining the spatial distribution of graves from different chronological phases over the area of the settlement shows that there is no linear or radial trend in the burials and all observed grave clusters contain graves from all phases. This implies that we are dealing with burials which were an integral part of the living settlement. Further analysis of the material from other settlement features in Svodín and stratigraphica relationships of graves and pits, houses and rondel ditches, may shed more light on the relation between the living community and its dead. Conclusions Choosing a formalized approach to typological and chronological analysis of a large assemblage has proven to have some clear advantages over the traditional empirical approach. It is possible to eliminate observer bias in many steps of the analysis especially when it comes to pottery classification. The ability to work with true polythetic structures instead of just an advanced monothetic model enables us to identify even subtle structures within the assemblage and helps us distinguish between chronological and other cultural or technical aspects. Application of a combination of multivariate statistic methods allows us to compare attributes with very different frequencies of occurrence in the assemblage and where quantification is possible also to include both metric and nominal attributes in our analysis. A well designed

non_ cer

place

paint

plast

body

phase

MCA order

10580

3

8

2

5

2

1

1

2773

3

10

2

5

2

1

2

13480

2

5

6

6

2

1

3

17181

2

2

2

6

2

1

4

12280

3

8

6

3

2

1

5

13280

6

5

5

5

2

1

6

10680

2

5

5

5

2

1

7

4574

2

5

5

6

5

1

8

672

2

5

2

6

5

1

9

4876

2

2

2

5

2

1

10

7678

2

2

2

5

3

1

11

3774

2

2

2

2

2

1

12

171

2

5

2

2

5

1

13

2973

2

5

5

3

2

1

14

2474

2

2

2

7

5

1

15

12180

2

7

6

3

5

2

16

10380

2

5

2

3

2

2

17

14481

2

5

2

3

2

2

18

9479

3

3

3

3

2

2

19

12780

2

5

5

4

1

2

20

17882

8

2

2

3

1

2

21

17281

2

2

2

5

1

2

22

17682

9

5

5

7

1

2

23

4174

2

2

2

6

4

2

24

271

2

5

2

7

2

2

25

1673

2

5

3

2

2

2

26

972

2

5

3

7

2

2

27

2173

2

5

3

7

1

2

28

3974

2

6

3

5

5

3

29

9379

5

7

3

5

1

3

30

3073

2

7

3

5

4

3

31

15981

5

7

3

5

2

3

32

17782

2

5

3

5

4

3

33

7778

2

6

3

5

1

3

34

7078

5

1

3

5

2

3

35

3574

2

5

2

5

4

3

36

14081

7

5

1

5

4

3

37

11280

1

1

1

1

1

4

38

13981

7

6

4

3

2

4

39

2373

2

6

2

5

2

4

40

16081

2

6

2

5

2

4

41

13781

2

6

2

5

2

4

42

11380

5

6

4

1

4

4

43

16381

2

5

4

1

2

4

44

13080

4

4

4

4

3

4

45

n

Group typical for phase I

n

Group typical for phase II

n

Group typical for phase III

n

Group typical for phase IV

Figure 13. Chronological sorting of the graves and their membership of different typological groups.

91

Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement

formalized process of typology makes it possible to enter new data into the descriptive system even by non-experts and at a relatively fast pace. Here the use of metric attributes to describe vessel shapes presents a great advantage.

John, J. 2005. Příspěvek ke struktuře pohřební výbavy v kultuře s volutovou keramikou (A contribution to the structure of LBK Culture grave goods), in E. Neustupný and J. John (eds.), Příspěvky k archeologii 2, 11-19. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. Kalicz, N. 1985. Kőkori falu Aszódon. Múzeumi Füzetek 32. Aszód, Petőfi Múzeum. Kazdová, E. 1984. Těšetice-Kyjovice I. Starší stupeň kultury s moravskou malovanou keramikou. Brno, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně. Macháček, J. 2001. Studie k velkomoravské keramice. Metody, analýzy a syntézy, modely. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Macháček, J. 2010. Zur Methode der Bearbeitung der (frühmittelalterlichen) Keramik aus Siedlungsarealen, in B. Horejs, R. Jung and P. Pavúk (eds.), Analysing Pottery. Processing - Classification - Publication, 41-71. Bratislava, Universita Komenského v Bratislave. Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1986a. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der systematischen Grabung in Svodín in den Jahren 1971-1983. Slovenská archeológia 34 (1), 133-176. Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1986b. Charakter der NachLužianky-Entwicklung der Lengyel-Kultur. Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 13, 225-232. Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1995. Svodín. Zwei Kreisgrabenanlagen der Lengyel-Kultur. Studia Archeologica et Mediaevalia 2. Bratislava, Universita Komenského v Bratislave. Neugebauer-Maresch Ch., Neugebauer J.-W., Großschmidt K., Randl U. and Seemann R. 2002. Die Gräbergruppe vom Beginn der Bemaltkeramik im Zentrum der Kreisgrabenanlage Friebritz-Süd, Niederösterreich. Preistoria Alpina 37, 187–253. Neustupný, E. 1993. Archaeological method. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Neustupný, E. 2007. Metoda archeologie. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. Neustupný, E. and John, J. (eds.) 2005. Příspěvky k archeologii 2. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. Orton, C. 1980. Mathematics in Archaeology. London, Collins. Pavúk, J. 2007. Zur Frage der Entstehung und Verbreitung der Lengyel-Kultur, in J. K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 11-28. Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności Kraków and Institute of Archaeological Sciences Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Pavúk, J. 2009. Die Entwicklung der Želiezovce-Gruppe und die Entstehung der Lengyel-Kultur. In A. ZeebLanz (ed.), Krisen – Kulturwandel – Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung in Herxheim bei Landau (Pfalz) vom 14-17. 06. 2007. Internationale Archäologie, Band 10, 249-266. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Pavúk, P. 2010. Pottery Processing at Troy. Typology, Stratigraphy and Correspondence Analysis: How Do They Work Together, in B. Horejs, R. Jung and P. Pavúk

After elaborating a chronological ordering in this way it is possible to retrospectively identify attributes typical for particular chronological phases. This information can be then used to date finds where a polythetic structure cannot be found due to lack of data. The fact that we derive monothetic descriptors from hidden polythetic structures revealed by the analysis and not vice versa underlines the exploratory nature of this process. Of course it has to be mentioned that this study relied on data from fairly well preserved and documented closed contexts and ceramic vessels which could be completely restored. If we were dealing with highly fragmented material from settlement pits and ditches, which is also subject to many post-deposition transformations, the elaboration of a reliable formal system would be more difficult. References Chroustovský, L. 2008. Kontingenční tabulky a vektorová syntéza : příspěvek k možnostem transformace nominálních dat a jejich následné matematické syntézy (Contingency tables and vector synthesis. A contribution on the potentional of nominal data transformation and its subsequent mathematical analysis). In J. Macháček (ed.), Počítačová podpora v archeologii 2, 49-60. Brno-PrahaPlzeň, Masarykova Univerzita, Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky v Praze, Západočeská univerzita. Clarke, D. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London, Methuen. Dombay, J. 1960. Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in Zengővárkony. Beiträge zur Kultur des Aeneolithikums in Ungarn. Archaeologia Hungarica 37. Budapest, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Doneus, M. 2001. Die Keramik der mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage von Kamegg, Niederösterreich. Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie der Stufe MOG I der Lengyel Kultur. Mitteilungen der prähistorischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 46. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gening, V. F. 1977. Program statistického zpracování keramiky. In J. Malina, Nové metody popisu tvaru sbírkových předmětů. Morfometrika artefaktu, 91–97. České Budějovice, Jihočeské muzeum. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica [online] 4 (1), [Accessed 28 January 2011], 1-9. Available from: . Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

92

Peter Demján

(eds.), Analysing Pottery. Processing - Classification Publication, 73-98. Bratislava, Univerzita Komenského. Podborský, V., Kazdová, E., Koštuřík, P. and Weber, Z. 1977. Numerický kód moravské malované keramiky. Problémy deskripce v archeologii. Brno, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně. Shennan, S. J. 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Stadler, P. and Ruttkay, E. 2007. Absolute Chronology of the Moravian-Eastern-Austrian group (MOG) of the painted pottery (Lengyel-Culture) based on new radiocarbon dates from Austria, in J. K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and related Cultures

in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 117146. Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności Kraków and Institute of Archaeological Sciences Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Zalai-Gaál, I. 2007. Zengővárkony-Svodín-Friebritz: zu den chronologischen Beziehungen zwischen den territorialen Gruppen der Lengyel-Kultur aufgrund der Gräberfeldanalyse, in J. K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 147-184. Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności Kraków and Institute of Archaeological Sciences Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.

93

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement at Těšetice-Kyjovice, Moravia, Czech Republic: Processing and Statistical Analyses Ivana Vostrovská Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University Arna Nováka 1, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic [email protected]

Lubomír Prokeš Department of Chemistry, Masaryk University Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic [email protected]

Abstract: The aim of this article is to demonstrate the use of multivariate analysis of ceramics to verify the chronology of the ‘Sutny’ Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK) settlement at Těšetice-Kyjovice, in the Znojmo district of Moravia, Czech Republic. In this article we present the results obtained from the ceramics that have been processed to date. Based on this analysis we dated the settlement to approximately the Ib-IIa phase of the Moravian LBK. A new method for processing Moravian LBK ceramics is suggested, along with a proposed descriptive system, as a formalized description is very important to subsequent statistical evaluation. We introduce several statistical analyses suitable for the evaluation of ceramic assemblages and demonstrate the application of other methods of analysis and possible alternatives for archaeological data visualization. For this purpose we used the’R’ open statistical software package. We hope that this article will contribute to the development of a unified method of processing Moravian LBK ceramics, demonstrate new possibilities for evaluating archaeological data, and simplify its interpretation. Keywords: LBK, method, statistics, pottery, chronology, Těšetice-Kyjovice, R software

Introduction

hypothesis assuming the chronological significance of the technique of execution of the linear ornament as it is closely tied to social tradition and can be used as proof of its changes (Pavlů 1977, 37-41; 2000, 149-186). Archaeological finds from within houses reflect the activities of their inhabitants. One of the options is to provide the evidence of relations between the individual houses in time, based on a comparison of chronologically relevant characteristics. We tested this hypothesis on Moravian material and performed a preliminary chronological analysis, the results of which we would like to present here. We also prepared a proposal for a descriptive system for the LBK pottery processing based on the work of I. Pavlů, P. Květina, Z. Čižmář, E. Lenneis and J. Lüning. Its importance lies in the possibility of its use in the analytical processing and statistical analysis of LBK pottery.

The principle aim of this article is to demonstrate the use of multivariate analysis of ceramics to verify the chronology of the ’Sutny’ Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK) settlement at Těšetice-Kyjovice, in the Znojmo district of Moravia, Czech Republic, and to present possible alternative methods of statistical evaluation. The site is well-known largely for its Lengyel settlement and rondel architecture (Kazdová 1984; Podborský 1985; 1988; Kuča et al., 2010). However, as early as the beginning of the Neolithic, the site was occupied by people bringing the LBK culture, though the finds have not yet been completely evaluated. The material processed so far includes polished and other stone industry (Vokáč 2005), part of the osteological material (Dreslerová 2006) and the chipped industry (Mateiciucová 2008, 240244). Previous ceramic analysis was completed for the goods from five graves (Dočkalová and Koštuřík 1996; Koštuřík and Lorencová 1989-1990). The settlement pottery of the LBK culture has only been partially evaluated to date (Vostrovská 2010).

We would like to also introduce ‘R’, a free web-based statistical software platform, to the Czech archaeological community, and its potential usage in archaeological data processing. By means of multivariate analyses we will use it to verify the results of the preliminary chronological analysis. We also show examples of suitable statistical

The method of processing was adapted to the proposed

95

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

Figure 1. Site location.

In terms of methodology we should point out the presence of several chronological components on the site. The area of the settlement with LBK pottery partly intersects with StBK and both overlie an extensive Lengyel settlement, including a rondel. As a result of the long-term occupation of the site the older features were prone to destruction and their content to mixing as far back as the time of their prehistoric occupation. These formative processes were most damaging to features with LBK ceramics, the earliest phase of settlement on the site. Culturally homogenous features are rare. In processing LBK ceramics from the site we were therefore faced with the problem of the incompleteness of the assemblage. Although an agreement on the origin of the content of the settlement pits has not been reached, it is expected that given their proximity to the house outlines that they were related to the activities of their inhabitants. The ceramic chronology of Neolithic settlements is still based on this hypothesis (Soudský 1962). As has been shown, it is possible to work with the contents of features with intrusions, in a manner similar to less fraught assemblage (Kazdová 1998, 60-63). We are therefore inclined to the possibility of working with these assemblages, including intrusions, and to try to eliminate the consequences of the formative processes by suitable methods. One key method is by recording the degree of pottery fragmentation, the position of shards within the feature, and the quantitative ratio of the pottery sets in the individual chronological groups or, alternatively, the ratio of their masses (Květina 2002, 25 and 29).

analyses (e.g. seriation, cluster analysis, correspondence analysis) and data visualization alternatives, some of which have not yet been applied to archaeology (e.g. bar plot, ternary diagram, Chernoff faces diagram, mosaic plot, Bertin plot, heat map). The ‘Sutny’ Neolithic settlement in Těšetice-Kyjovice ‘Sutny’ is situated in south-west Moravia in the district of Znojmo (Figure 1). Systematic excavation of the site by Masaryk University has been under way since 1967 and has uncovered a Neolithic settlement with LBK, Stichbandkeramik culture (StBK), Lengyel culture and a rondel (Figure 2). In the post-Neolithic period the site was occupied by the Baden culture, with traces of Bell Beaker culture. Dated to the Bronze Age are several features from the Únětice culture, the Věteřov group and the Velatice phase of the Central Danubian Urnfield culture. The prehistoric occupation of the site came to an end with the Hallstatt Horákov culture (Podborský et al., 2005). The LBK settlement is concentrated in the north-east section of the excavated area where over 70 features were uncovered together with 17 badly preserved outlines of post-hole houses and 10 inhumation burials (Kazdová 2007, 39-42). Most of the burials originate from the LBK Ib (H18-H23). A cluster of eight graves along the western side of house D25 represents a smaller family burial site (Koštuřík and Dočkalová 1996; Vostrovská 2010). The settlement also yielded a depot of three vessels with linear decoration, one with anthropomorphic features (Kazdová 1999). A geophysical survey identified that the LBK settlement extends further towards the north-east. The density of features even increases there and more household complexes are identifiable. It is clear that the previous excavation identified only a small portion of the settlement (Milo and Kazdová 2008, 183-185).

Hypothesis and Method of Pottery Processing The processing of the LBK settlement was based on the household complexes hypothesis of B. Soudský (1962) and a study by I. Pavlů (1977). To arrive at the internal layout of the settlement they use vertical stratigraphy and the principles of horizontal stratigraphy, since it is

96

Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš

Figure 2. Neolithic settlement on the site (c. 5600-4500 BC).

the horizontal stratigraphic relations that prevail in LBK settlements. Within the settlement the household complex is considered the basic spatial-chronological and economicsocial unit. It is made up of a post-hole outline and adjacent features within 5m from the posited house wall. The area within 1m of the walls is excluded, so that features reaching as far as the wall are included only tentatively or excluded (Pavlů 1977, 19-21; Květina 2007, 16). The hypothesis also presumes that the material from longitudinal building pits (and possibly other features) is more or less contemporary (with about 80% probability). Based on the material from the nearest features it is possible to characterize and date the whole household complex.

and tools employed, to have substantial significance. This can be observed mainly on the width, cross-section, and number of lines, shape and position of the notes and the number of lines under the rim that are typical for Moravia. Each element of the linear decoration has a specific validity. On the other hand, for example, the curvature of the linear ornament connected with the gender-based division of society (van de Velde 1979, 112; Pavlů 2000, 112-113). Types of technical ornament are continuous throughout the whole LBK culture and serve more a functional purpose. The hypothesis proposed assumes that the technique has chronological significance and required adapting the method of pottery processing, using the formalized description as outlined by D. L. Clarke (1968) and E. Neustupný (1993; 2007). The formalized description method is tailored to work with information in the form of data contained in databases. Entities (pottery fragments) are assigned qualities, by which we describe the observed characteristics (pottery attributes). In this way it is possible to record all the important characteristics on the pottery in the most objective way and achieve a state when artefacts from a single culture within a given geographical region will be evaluated in the same manner. This will enable us to solve a number of problems more easily, such as the development and relations of individual LBK communities in Moravia,

We concentrated on pottery, which is chronologically the most change sensitive, and is firmly bound with social tradition that unifies the changes and slows them down in space and time. Conversely, links to social units have a powerful momentum that can separate it in time and space (e.g. Dietler and Herbich 1989; Masson 2001). The most important properties of LBK pottery in terms of chronology are the linear ornamentation technique, production technology and vessel shapes (Pavlů 1977, 39-44; 2000, 158-166; 2010, 15-18; Pavlů et al., 1986, 314-351). We consider the linear decoration, its execution

97

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

and relations between different regions within Europe. The benefit of systematically recording data is the possibility of its use in subsequent statistical analyses which can help reveal hidden structures and gain new knowledge. It is only through analytical processing of archaeological material (in this case LBK pottery) that we can draw conclusions based on statistical evidence in compliance with standard archaeological methods (Neustupný 1993; 2007).

emphasis is placed on the description of the technique of execution of the linear ornament, in particular the number of lines that constitute the linear ornament, the shape of the line cross-section imprinted by the tool employed, the shape of the notes and their position within the linear ornament, type of the tool employed, number of lines under the rim, curvature of the linear ornament, types of the principal and auxiliary decorative motif. We also tentatively introduced the line width and the diameter of the notes. In processing the settlement material, noting how the decoration is executed is very convenient as whole vessels or large fragments thereof survive only rarely. We are thus prevented from identifying the principle decorative motif and the complementary ornaments that can be indiscernible to us on the fragments. Our goal is to verify the results of the chronological analysis. Here we will concentrate on evaluating the description of the technique of execution of the linear ornament.

The style of decoration of the LBK culture was spread over a large section of Europe. Being such a vast territory it is only logical that there are regional differences in the material culture. Each geographical region has a typical linear decoration and only the basic elements are shared with the others. The formative description method for evaluating LBK pottery was first used by German archaeologists processing material fom the excavation at Aldenhovener Platte (Stehli 1973; 1977). P. Stehli in collaboration with H. Ch. Strien and the team from the Stiftung Archäologie im Rheinischen Braunkohlenrevier worked in the Bandkeramik online project 1, and developed a descriptive system for processing German decorated LBK pottery. This was followed by a similar project, the Nordmitteleuropäische Neolithische Keramik (Mischka in print)2 , by the team from the Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Kiel. Based on the works by B. Hulthén (1974), P. Stehli (1973; 1977) and J. Czebreszuka (et al., 2006) a system for processing Neolithic pottery from several cultures (Ertebølle, Funnel Beaker, Single Grave and Bell Beaker) north of central Europe was developed.

Results Firstly we have obtained parent population of 7385pcs of ceramic fragments and weight about 179,216g from 37 features. We defined statistical threshold for this assemblage as a five individuals with linear decoration per feature. For the following statistical analyses we have had standard population of 6811pcs and weight about 167,123g from 19 features. We started by comparing the chronologically significant variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament by means of one-dimensional statistics (in the form of categorized histograms). Subsequently, it was possible to divide the assemblages into two to three groups that represent stages (two groups) or phases (three groups) of the relative LBK chronology (Figure 3). In a similar way we compared assemblages based on variables related to pottery production technology and the vessel shape morphology.

The descriptive system for Bohemian LBK pottery was developed from material from the Neolithic settlement excavation in Bylany near Kutná Hora (Pavlů and Zápotocká 1978; Soudský et al., 1985; Květina and Pavlů 2007). A descriptive system for Lower Austrian LBK pottery was devised by E. Lenneis and J. Lüning processing the Neckenmarkt and Strögen sites (Lenneis and Lüning 2001). For the processing of LBK pottery from TěšeticeKyjovice ‘Sutny’ we designed our own descriptive system inspired particularly by the structure and the monitored characteristics of the systems valid for the regions bordering Moravia, i.e. Bohemia and Lower Austria. In completing the characteristics of Moravian LBK pottery we drew from the works by Z. Čižmář (1998; 2002). The descriptive system is divided into three main sections. The first section is dedicated to the description of the pottery production technology, especially the nature of the pottery material, tempers, surface treatment and records of vessel fragmentation. The second part deals with the metric data and vessel shape. The last section describes the linear, plastic and technical decoration. The greatest

The first group is typified by the prevalence of an orangeblack-orange pottery class of coarse ware and a dark-grey pottery class of fine ware. The share of ceramic vessels with an organic admixture is considerable. The linear decoration in most cases consists of an incised line 2mm wide with a U-shaped cross-section. A note appears rarely, if at all, and is mainly circular or oval and situated at the beginning of a line. A band filled up with stabs appears. The main decorative motif consists of an arch, festoon or a revolving system of spirals. Occasionally a single line appears under the rim. Linear decoration is often complemented by small circular and oval horizontal lugs. Globular shapes prevail only slightly over bowls. Conical bowls exhibit doublesided graphitic. This group is thought to be from the Ib phase of the Moravian LBK (see Figure 4).

For more information on the project go to Stiftung Archäologie im Rheinischen Braunkohlenrevier [online], [cit. 2011-01-06], URL: < http:// www.archaeologie-stiftung.de >. 2 For more information on the project go to Nordmitteleuropäische Neolithische Keramik [online], [cit. 2011-01-06], URL: < http://www. nonek.uni-kiel.de >. 1

In the second group, the orange-black-orange coarse ware and the dark-grey fine ware are represented equally, just as the share of ceramic vessels with an organic or

98

Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš

Figure 3. Expected development of the LBK settlement.

Figure 4. Pottery of the LBK culture from the individual specified phases.

99

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

Possibilities of statistical analysis for data evaluation

inorganic admixture. Linear decoration consists of an incised line 1mm wide with a U- or V-shaped cross-section accompanied by a less frequented line 2mm wide and a groove 4mm wide. The notes are circular and oval, less frequently semi-circular and situated at the ends, angles, and intersections of lines. The number of lines under the rim increases, with one to two occasionally three lines appearing. The notes under the rim are arranged one below the other, positioned on a line and aligned with the notes of the main decorative motif. A band with stabs is quite common. The main decorative motif is represented by geometrically arranged lines and less often by revolving motifs. Globular shapes are predominant over bowls. This group is identified as Moravian LBK IIa (see Figure 4).

Our aim is to verify the preliminary chronological analysis. Again, we will concentrate on variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament and the vessel morphology, in particular line width, number of lines, shape of the line cross-section, shape of the note, position of the note, and number of lines under the rim. The individual pottery assemblages will be compared based on the above characteristics using a number of statistical methods. To a large extent we deal with nominal variables. Their evaluation by means of statistical analyses is therefore only possible based on a matrix of absolute frequencies in the forms of contingency tables3. We will use standard visualization methods for closed data (bar plot, ternary diagram, mosaic plot, Chernoff faces diagram) and generally applied methods in seriation analyses – reorderable matrices (cluster analysis, heat map, Bertin plot) and correspondence analysis (Djindjan 1991, Shennan 1998, Banning 2002) because we try to find relations between characters and similarity in assemblages.

In the third group dark grey fine ware predominates over orange-black-orange coarse ware. The share of ceramic vessels with an organic or inorganic admixture is balanced. Linear decoration consists of an incised line 1mm wide with a U- or V-shaped cross-section, accompanied by a less frequently found 2mm wide line and 4mm wide groove. The occurrence of a semi-circular note, situated at the ends, angles and intersections of the line is striking. The so-called proto-Želiezovce elements (e.g. two lines leading to a single note and a double-line band made by a twopronged tool) appear infrequently. The main decorative motif created by geometrically arranged lines is usually connected to the band under the rim by a line without a note in the intersection. The band under the rim is made up of one to three lines. A band with stabs is common. Globular shapes are predominant over bowls. This group is identified as Moravian LBK IIb (see Figure 4).

For statistical data evaluation we chose the R web-based open source software (version 2.12.1). R is a language and environment for statistical computing and graphics. It is a GNU project which is similar to the S language and environment which was developed at Bell Laboratories by John Chambers and colleagues. R can be considered as a different implementation of S and was developed by R. Ihaka and R. Gentleman from the University of Auckland (Ihaka and Gentleman 1996). There are some important differences, but much code written for S runs unaltered under R. R provides a wide variety of statistical (linear and nonlinear modelling, classical statistical tests, time-series analysis, classification, clustering, etc.) and graphical techniques, and is highly extensible. The S language is often the vehicle of choice for research in statistical methodology, and R provides an Open Source route to participation in that activity. R can be extended (easily) via packages4. One of R’s strengths is the ease with which well-designed publication-quality plots can be produced, including mathematical symbols and formulae where needed. Great care has been taken over the defaults for the minor design choices in graphics, but the user retains full control. R is available as Free Software under the terms of the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License in source code form. It compiles and runs on a wide variety of UNIX platforms and similar systems (including FreeBSD and Linux), Windows and MacOS5.

Given the results of the quantitative analysis of the linear decoration technique and after comparing them with the settlement situation it was possible to propose a preliminary characterization of its development. Based on horizontal stratigraphy we also included the outlines of houses D15-D17, where no LBK features are situated in the immediate vicinity. The LBK settlement shifted in the earlier phases of its development in time towards the northeast. At least six other household complexes in this direction were confirmed by geophysical measurements (Milo and Kazdová 2008, 183-185). The houses form specific clusters in the settlement, evidence of redevelopment in subsequent phases. New houses were built along the eastern side of the original house. The household complexes D20 and D22 overlap. House D22 may be a little older, but this difference is not evident in the quantitative analysis of the ceramic material. Interestingly, part of the assemblage studied included intrusions from Lengyel features which could also be assigned to the household complexes. The intrusions of LBK pottery in these features may constitute relics of LBK building pits damaged by the subsequent Lengyel settlement. However, these results need to be verified using multivariate statistics.

Bar plot and ternary diagram (Friendly 2000; Wilkinson 2005) The bar plot is commonly used in archaeology. The bars From technical reasons it is not possible to insert frequency table of the analysed variables in the archaeological features, because we followed up nearly 40 characters. This data are freely available from the authors. 4 Freely available at Comprehensive R Archive Network [online], [cit. 2011-01-18], URL: < http://cran.r-project.org/ >. 5 Taken from The R Project for Statistical Computing [online], [cit. 2011-10-14], URL: < http://www.r-project.org/ >. 3

100

Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš

Figure 5. Bar plot – spectra of the represented note shapes in the studied features (circular note (TN1), oval note (TN2), lenticular note (TN3), notch (TN4), triangular note (TN6), semi-circular note (TN7), chevron note (TN8), miniaturized note (TN9).

Chernoff faces diagram (Chernoff 1978; Wilkinson 2005)

(columns) represent the individual pottery assemblages and the representation of note shapes is converted to relative values. To obtain a clearer overview the output can also be reordered. We can see a similar composition of the spectra of characteristics in features no. 308, 342 and 395(?); 381 and 453; 388 and 504, etc. (Figure 5). We can also notice some specifics, e.g. miniaturized notes appear only in assemblages from features no. 509 and 597AB and the assemblages in features no. 403 and 593 are represented by very rare spectra of note shapes. In general it can be seen that either circular or semi-circular notes predominate in all of the spectra.

In this approach different data dimensions were mapped to different facial features, for example face width, the level of the ears, the radius of the ears, the length or curvature of the mouth, the length of the nose, etc. Each parameter is represented by a number between 0 and 1. Facial features represent trends in the values of the data, not the specific values themselves. While this is clearly a limitation, the knowledge of data trends could help to determine which sections of the data were of particular interest. We used the ‘aplpack’ package in the R software. In this way each part of the face represents a quantity of note shapes (Figure 7). A striking similarity of the spectra can be seen in features no. 308, 339, 342, 395, 467 and 597CD; 218, 389 and 403; 458 and 504; 388, 453 and 505. The occurrence of note shapes in the assemblages from features no. 464 and 596 is profoundly different from the whole. At a general level we observe a diversity of the assemblages.

On the other hand, a ternary diagram can be a novelty for archaeologists. It visualizes compositional, 3-dimensional data in an equilateral triangle. Points’ coordinates are found by computing the gravity centre of mass points using the data entries as weights. It is used in petrology, mineralogy, metallurgy and other physical sciences to show the compositions of systems composed of three species. Also, in this case we can use a matrix reordered with seriation. In this way it is a specialized display for a 3-column contingency table or for three variables whose relative proportions are to be displayed. We can see the distribution of the individual assemblages based by category of reconstructed vessel shapes (Figure 6). Bowls clearly prevail in features 403, 467 and 597CD, globular vessels in features 218 and 464 and buckets in features 308. Generally, a high number of globular vessels can be observed in all features.

Mosaic plot (Hartigan and Kleiner 1984; Friendly 1994, 2000) A mosaic plot is an area proportional visualization of a (possibly higher-dimensional) table of expected frequencies. It is composed of tiles (corresponding to the cells) created by recursive vertical and horizontal splits of a square. The area of each tile is proportional to the corresponding cell entry, given the dimensions of previous splits. The widths of the bars show the relative frequencies of one variable and the heights of the sections in each bar show the relative

101

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

Figure 6. Ternary diagram – grouping of the individual assemblages based on the represented vessel shapes (bowls (KTN1), globular vessels (KTN2) and buckets (KTN3)).

Figure 7. Chernoff faces diagram – note shapes represented in the studied features (modified items: height of face (circular note), width of face (oval note), structure of face (lenticular note), height of mouth (notch), width of mouth (triangular note), smiling (semi-circular note), height of eyes (chevron note), width of eyes (miniaturized note), height of hair (circular note), width of hair (oval note), style of hair (lenticular note), height of nose (notch), width of nose (triangular note), width of ear (semi-circular note), height of ear (chevron note)).

102

Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš

Figure 8. Mosaic plot – represented combinations of the variables of line width and note diameter.

frequencies of the second variable. Negative residuals are drawn in shades of red and with broken outlines; positive ones are drawn in blue with solid outlines. Thus, mosaic plots are perfect for visualizing associations within a table and to detect cells which create dependencies6. We used the ‘aplpack’ package in the R software. Therefore, we compared line width and note diameter (Figure 8), and showed that notes with a greater diameter are usually combined with wider lines and vice versa. Notes 5-6mm in diameter are accompanied by lines 1-1.5mm wide while notes 7-10mm wide with lines 1.5-3mm wide. As an exception, with notes 4mm in diameter the prevalent line is 2mm wide.

of seriation we opted for Bertin plot. Bertin matrices are means to analyze structures in a matrix using twodimensional display techniques. Basic data structures for Bertin analysis are implemented as class based on matrix, using additional attributes7. It is an association plot for absolute values, which provides means for visualizing the residuals of an independence model for a contingency table. We used the ‛seriation’, ‛ade4’ and ‛labdsv’ packages in the R software. We arranged the matrix using the BEA-TSP method, which clearly ordered the most non/represented variables in the studied features (Figure 9). Based on the combinations of the characteristics non/typical for the individual assemblages we can observe their mutual similarity in these groups:

Seriation – Bertin plot (de Falguerolles et al., 1997; Siirtola and Mäkinen 2005)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

As far as seriation is concerned we will perform a complex analysis of the relations between the variable describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament, number of lines making up the linear ornament, shape of the line profile determined by the tool employed, shape of the notes and their position within the linear ornament, number of lines under the rim and, based on those, the relations between the individual pottery assemblages. In order to allow for nominal data to also be entered in the analysis, we created a matrix of absolute frequencies in the form of a contingency table. As one of the possible outputs

342, 381, 389, 395, 403, 597CD 383, 388, 395 453, 458, 494 464, 504 509, 597AB

Characters such as line width 1mm, U-shaped line, simple line, line width 2mm and their mutual combinations are the most significant. From seriation results primary division into two stages of the LBK culture is apparent. The first, and part of the second group, correspond to LBK Ib. Features in groups no. 3-5 represent the residues of the settlement from the LBK II. We think of individual groups as settlement

Taken from R Graph Gallery [online], [cit. 2011-01-14], URL: < http:// addictedtor.free.fr/graphiques/RGraphGallery.php?graph=94 >.

Taken from R Project [online], [cit. 2011-01-14], URL: < http:// bertin.r-forge.r-project.org/ >.

6

7

103

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

Figure 9. Seriation – Bertin plot (seriation of the studied features based on the variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament: miniaturized note (TN9), notch (TN4), three-line band (TL3), three lines under the rim (LP3), line width 1.5mm (SL1.5), irregular line cross-section (PL4), line width 3mm (SL3), notes in the middle of lines (UN5), oval note (TN2), notes at the ends of lines (UN2), semi-circular note (TN7), two-line band (TL2), line width 1mm (SL1), U-shaped line (PL1), simple line (TL1), line width 2mm (SL2), notes at the angles, intersections and ends of lines (UN4), circular note (TN1), one line under the rim (LP1), V-shaped line (PL3), band filled up with stabs (TL4), notes at meander tops and ends of lines (UN3), lenticular note (TN3), two lines under the rim (LP2), line width 0.5mm (SL0.5), triangular note (TN6), U-shaped groove (width > 3mm, PL2), independently placed notes (UN1), line width 2.5mm (SL2.5), line width 4mm (SL4), chevron note (TN8), line width 6mm (SL6)).

phases (for the grouping of the features in the area of the LBK settlement see Figure 10).

We can interpret these clusters as LBK phases (for their grouping in the area of the LBK settlement see Figure 12). The first cluster corresponds to the LBK Ib. The features in clusters no. 2-4 represent the residues of settlement in LBK II. We think of the second cluster is LBK IIa and of the clusters no. 3-4 are two settlement phases from LBK IIb.

Cluster analysis – heat map (Wilkinson 2005) A heat map is a colour image with a dendrogram added to the left side and to the top. Typically, reordering of the rows and columns according to some set of values within the restrictions imposed by the dendrogram is carried out. Larger values are represented by small dark-gray or black squares and smaller values by lighter squares.

Variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament are arranged in a similar manner (Figure 11). The first cluster of features is characterized by chevron notes, miniaturized note and notches, U-shaped line, line width 1mm, 2mm, 2.5mm and 6mm and simple line. The second cluster of features is characterized by lenticular and triangular notes, irregular line cross-section, line width 0.5mm, 1.5mm, 3mm and 4mm, three-line band and a band filled up with stabs, separately placed notes and notes on meander tops and line ends and one or three lines under the rim. The third cluster of features is characterized by a circular note, semi-circular note, two-line band, notes either only at the ends or at the angles, intersections, and line ends and one line under the rim. The last cluster is characterized by oval note, V-shaped line and notes in the middle of the line.

The idea for joining cluster trees to the rows and columns of the data matrix originated with R. Ling (1973). He used typographical overstrike of printer characters to represent different shades of gray, one character-width per pixel8. We used the ‛ade4’, ‛labdsv’ and ‛heatmap.plus’ packages from R. In this way we reordered the distance matrix from the contingency table according to some set of values. We chose the heat map as an output from seriation (by Canberra distances) (Figure 11). In the dendrogram we can see that the individual pottery assemblages are arranged into two basic groups and four subgroups: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Correspondence analysis – symmetric plots (Djindjian 1991; Greenacre 2007)

308, 342, 395, 467, 597CD 381, 403, 458, 504, 505, 593 218, 383, 388, 389, 453, 494, 509, 597AB 464, 596

Our last example is a correspondence analysis with its classical output – the symmetric plot. It is a type of mathematical diagram using Cartesian coordinates to

Taken from Wikipedia [online], [cit. 2011-01-14], URL: < http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_map >. 8

104

Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš

Figure 10. Grouping of the features in the area of the LBK settlement based on seriation.

Figure 11. Cluster analysis – heat map arrangement of the studied features based on the variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament and the variables themselves: oval note (TN2), notes in the middle of lines (UN5), V-shaped lines (PL3), two-line band (TL2), circular note (TN1), one line under the rim (LP1), semi-circular note (TN7), notes at the ends of lines (UN2), notes at the angles, intersections and ends of lines (UN4), notes at meander tops and ends of lines (UN3), lenticular note (TN3), line width 4mm (SL4), irregular line cross-shape (PL4), three lines under the rim (LP3), line width 1.5mm (SL1.5), line width 0.5mm (SL0.5), two lines under the rim (LP2), U-shaped groove (width > 3mm, PL2), independently placed notes (UN1), three-line band (TL3), triangular note (TN6), line width 3mm (SL3), band filled up with stabs (TL4), miniaturized note (TN9), line width 6mm (SL6), notch (TN4), chevron note (TN8), line width 2.5mm (SL2.5), line width 2mm (SL2), line width 1mm (SL1), simple line (TL1), U-shaped line (PL1)).

105

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

Figure 12. Grouping of the features in the area of the LBK settlement based on cluster analysis.

display values for two variables for a data set. The data are displayed as a collection of points, each having the value of one variable determining position on the horizontal axis and the value of the other variable determining position on the vertical axis. In R we used the ‛FactoMineR’ package and analysed features in two significant dimensions (Figure 13). We can see the main cluster in the centre of the symmetric plot and round about abnormalities and the disposition of extreme values (Figure 14). The main accumulation is created by features no. 381, 383, 388, 389, 395, 453, 458, 467, 494, 505, 509, 596, 597AB, the second by features no. 342, 403, 593, 597CD, and the third by features no. 464 and 504; whereas solitary features no. 218 and 308 are clearly outlying (their grouping in the area of the LBK settlement is shown in Figure 15). We think the main accumulation is LBK II and second accumulation corresponds to LBK Ib. Regarding the variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament, we can also observe two accumulations of characteristics. The main accumulation is created by notes at angles, intersections and ends of lines, line width 0.5mm, oval note, simple line, notes at the ends of lines, three-line band, one line under the rim, line width 2mm, two lines under the rim, miniaturized note, U-shaped line, semi-circular note and it corresponds LBK II. The second accumulation encompasses lenticular note and notches, line width 6mm and two-line band and it

corresponds with LBK Ib. The third accumulation includes circular and triangular note, line width 3mm, the notes are positioned independently and in the middle of the lines and it corresponds more or less also with LBK II. The characteristics such as line width 4mm, V-shaped line and notes situated on meander tops and ends of lines are clearly outlying. Conclusion The aim of this contribution was to verify the chronological analysis of the LBK settlement in Těšetice-Kyjovice ‘Sutny’. To this end we used formalized description and developed a descriptive system for the processing of Moravian LBK pottery. To evaluate the data acquired we employed the R statistical software and have presented data visualization options, the majority of which had not been used in archaeology before. Ternary diagrams, Chernoff faces diagrams and mosaic plots are suitable for depicting combinations of variables describing any property of pottery. The distribution of note shapes, vessel shapes, line width and note diameter correspond to the putative chronological model. Bertin plots, heat maps and symmetric plots enable us to evaluate the relations between pottery properties, and on that basis, the relations between individual features. In the latter case we found that cluster

106

Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš

Figure 13. Correspondence analysis – scree plot.

Figure 14. Correspondence analysis – symmetric plot (relations between the studied features and the variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament: circular note (TN1), independently placed notes (UN1), line width 3mm (SL3), notes in the middle of lines (UN5), triangular note (TN6), notes at the angles, intersections and ends of lines (UN4), line width 0.5mm (SL0.5), oval note (TN2), simple line (TL1), notes at the ends of lines (UN2), three-line band (TL3), one line under the rim (LP1), line width 4mm (SL4), V-shaped line (PL3), line width 2mm (SL2), two lines under the rim (LP2), miniaturized note (TN9), U-shaped line (PL1), line width 6mm (SL6), two-line band (TL2), lenticular note (TN3), notch (TN4), line width 1mm (SL1), semi-circular note (TN7), notes at the meander tops and ends of lines (UN3)).

107

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

Figure 15. Grouping of the features in the area of the LBK settlement based on correspondence analysis.

analysis with output in the form of a heat map to be the most useful, since the clusters created could be interpreted as stages or, alternatively, phases of LBK. Also, the grouping of the variables describing the technique of execution of the linear ornament correlates relatively to the characteristics of the phases of the Moravian LBK culture. In principal, we managed to confirm the proposed hypothesis which presumes the chronological significance of the technique of execution of the linear ornament, and partly verify the results of the chronological analysis performed.

analysis of all finds and their spatial properties in the area of the LBK settlement (see Květina 2005; Pavlů 2010). The contents of the features on the site are therefore not very suitable for addressing the problems related to the chronology of the LBK culture, as for analyses of this kind it is essential that only adequate and if possible homogenous assemblages are selected. Despite the limited results from the analysis of the site we can state that the application of the formalized description method and the descriptive system developed for LBK pottery contribute to solving the problems of the development and relationships between the different communities with the LBK culture in Moravia. In future it will be necessary to extend the standardized descriptive system to include the other non-ceramic material of the LBK culture (see Květina and Pavlů 2007). It is the only way for us to ensure that from some point artefacts of the LBK culture within a given geographical region will be evaluated using the same method.

An essential problem that arose was the presence of several chronological components on the site. Although it is possible to include intrusions of LBK pottery from Lengyel features in the evaluation of the standard assemblage (and thus provide evidence, for example, for the existence of the original building pits of the LBK culture), the differential and unclear results of multivariate statistics are probably influenced by formative processes. The results may have been biased by the presence of pottery from several chronological phases of the LBK culture in the form of intrusions, which, given the extensive postlinear occupation and its impact on features of earlier chronological components, need not be obvious at first glance. This complicated situation requires the complex

Acknowledgements For translation and proof-reading we are grateful, respectively, to Hana Vepříková and Robert Brukner.

108

Ivana Vostrovská, Lubomír Prokeš

References

Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8° minore 3. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Ihaka, R. and Gentleman, R. 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computional and Graphical Statistics 5, 299-314. Kazdová, E. 1984. Těšetice-Kyjovice 1. Starší stupeň kultury s moravskou malovanou keramikou (Ältere Stufe der Kultur mit mährischer bemalter Keramik (MBK)). Brno, Universita J. E. Purkyně v Brně. Kazdová, E. 1998. Poznámky k intruzím keramiky v neolitických sídlištních objektech (Pottery Intrusion in Neolithic Settlement Features), in: Prostředník, J. and Vokolek, V. (eds.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí, 60-65. Turnov-Hradec Králové, Okresní muzeum Českého ráje - Muzeum východních Čech. Kazdová, E. 1999. Depot lineární keramiky s antropomorfní nádobou z Těšetic-Kyjovic, okr. Znojmo. In: Kuzma, I. (ed.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín 1998, 125-132. Nitra, Archeologický ústav SAV. Kazdová, E. 2007. Ke 40. výročí zahájení výzkumů v  Těšeticích-Kyjovicích na Znojemsku. Některé výsledky výzkumu a studia neolitického osídlení (Zum 40. Jahrestag des Beginns der Grabungen in TěšeticeKyjovice in der Znaimer Gegend. Einige Ergebnisse aus Forschung und Studium der neolitischen Besiedlung), in E. Kazdová and V. Podborský (eds.), Studium sociálních a duchovních struktur pravěku. Studium der sozialen und geistlichen Strukturen der Urzeit, 39-54. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Koštuřík, P. and Lorencová, A. 1989-1990. Kostrový hrob H11 kultury s lineární keramikou z neolitického sídliště u Těšetic-Kyjovic, okr. Znojmo (Körpergrab H11 der Kultur mit Linearbandkeramik von der neolitischen Siedlung bei Těšetice-Kyjovice, Bez. Znojmo). Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity E34-35, 103-126. Kuča, M. et al., 2010. Těšetice-Kyjovice 7. Osídlení kultury s moravskou malovanou keramikou mezi příkopem a vnější palisádou. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Květina, P. 2002. Příspěvek k otázce formativních procesů archeologického materiálu. (Contribution to the problem of Formative Processes of Refuse from Neolithic sites). In: Pavlů, I. (ed.), Bylany Varia 2, 21-38. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Květina, P. 2005. Možnosti mikroprostorové analýzy artefaktů v archeologických objektech (The possibilities of micro-spatial analysis of artefacts in archaeological features.). In: Pavlů, I. (ed.), Bylany Varia 3, 9-16. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Květina, P. and Pavlů, I. 2007. Neolitické sídliště v Bylanech – základní databáze (Neolithic settlement at Bylany – Essentials database). Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Lenneis, E. and Lüning, J. 2001. Die altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Universitätforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 82. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Ling, R. F. 1973. A computer generated aid for cluster

Banning, E. B. 2002. The Archaeologist`s Laboratory. The Analysis of Archaeological Data. New YorkBoston-Dordrecht-London-Moscow, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bertin, J. 1977. La graphique et le traitement graphique de l’information. Paris, Flammarion. Clarke, D. L. 1968. : Analytical archaeology. London, Methuen. Czebreszuk, J., Kośko, A. and Szmyt, M. 2006. Zasady analizy źródeł ceramicznych z okresu późnego neolitu oraz interstadium epok neolitu i brązu na Kujawach, in: A. Kośko and M. Szmyt (eds.), Opatowice Wzgórze Prokopiaka1, 39-64. Poznań, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Chernoff, H. 1973. The Use of Faces to Represent Points in K-Dimensional Space Graphically. Journal of the American Statistical Association 68, 361–368. Čižmář, Z. 1998. Nástin relativní chronologie lineární keramiky na Moravě. Poznámky k vývoji výzdobného stylu ( Zur relativen Chronologie der Linearbandkeramik in Mähren. Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung des Zierstils). Acta Musei Moraviae 83, 105-139. Čižmář, Z. 2002. Keramika z pohřebiště v „Široké u lesa“. In: Podborský, V. (ed.): Dvě pohřebiště neolitického lidu s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě. Zwei Gräberfelder des neolitischen Volkes mit Linearbandkeramik in Vedrovice in Mähren, 151-190. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Dietler, M. and Herbich, I. 1989. Tich Matek: The Technology of Luo Pottery Production and the Definition of Ceramic Style. World Archaeology 21/1, 148-164. Djindjian, F. 1991. Méthodes pour ľ Archéologie. Paris, Armand Collin. Dreslerová, G. 2006. Vyhodnocení zvířecích kostí z neolitického sídliště Těšetice-Kyjovice (okr. Znojmo, Česká republika). Archeologické rozhledy 58, 3-32. Dočkalová, M. and Koštuřík, P. 1996. Seskupením hrobů nositelů kultury s lineární keramikou na neolitickém sídlišti v Těšeticích-Kyjovicích, okr. Znojmo (Eine Gräbergruppe der Träger der Linearbandkeramikkultur auf dem neolitischen Siedlungsplatz in TěšeticeKyjovice, Bez. Znojmo). Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity M1, 5-30. de Falguerolles, A. Friedrich, F. and Sawitzki, G. 1997. A Tribute to J. Bertin’s Graphical Data Analysis, in: Bandilla, W. and Faulbaum, F. (eds.): SoftStat ‘97. Advances in Statistical Software 6. Stuttgart, L u c i u s & Lucius. Friendly, M. 1994. Mosaic displays for multi-way contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 89, 190-200. Friendly, M. 2000. Visualizing Categorical Data. Cary, SAS Inc. Greenacre, M. 2007. Correspondence analysis in Practice. Boca Raton, Chapman & Hall/CRC. Hartigan, J. A. and Kleiner, B. 1984. A mosaic of television ratings. The American Statistician 38, 32-35. Hulthén, B. 1974. On documentation of pottery. Acta

109

Ceramics From the ‘Sutny’ LBK Settlement

analysis. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 16, 355–361. Masson, M. A. 2001. Changing patterns of ceramic stylistic diversity in the pre-Hispanic Maya lowlands. Acta Archaeologica 72/2, 159-188. 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. Milo, P. and Kazdová, E. 2008. Geofyzikálna prospekcia na lokalite Těšetice-Kyjovice „Sutny“, in: Cheben, I. and Kuzma, I. (eds.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín 2007, 177-189. Nitra, Archeologický ústav SAV. Mischka, D. in print. NoNeK - Ein Aufnahmesystem für steinzeitliche Keramik Nordmitteleuropas. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission. Neustupný, E. 1993. Archaeological Method. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Neustupný, E. 2007. Metoda archeologie. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. Pavlů, I. 1977. K metodice analýzy sídlišť s lineární keramikou (To the methods of Linear Pottery settlement analysis). Památky archeologické 68/1, 5-55. Pavlů, I. 2000. Life on the neolithic site. Bylany – Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Život na sídlišti kultury s lineární keramikou v Bylanech u Kutné Hory. Situační analýza artefaktů. Praha, Institute of Archaeology CAS. Pavlů, I. 2010. Činnosti na neolitickém sídlišti Bylany. Prostorová analýza keramiky. Activities on a Neolithic Site of Bylany. An Intrasite Spatial Analysis of pottery. Praha, Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. 1978. Analysis of the Czech Neolithic Pottery. Morphological and chronological Structure of Projections. Analýza české neolitické keramiky. Morfologická a chronologická struktura výčnělků. Unpublished manuscript for study purposes, Archeologický ústav ČSAV. Pavlů, I., Rulf, J. and Zápotocká, M. 1986. Theses on the neolithic site Bylany. Teze k analýze neolitického sídliště v Bylanech. Památky archeologické 77/2, 288-412. Podborský, V. 1985. Těšetice-Kyjovice 2. Figurální plastika lidu s moravskou malovanou keramikou (Die figurale Plastik des Volkes mit märischer bemalter Keramik). Brno, Universita J. E. Purkyně v Brně. Podborský, V. 1988. Těšetice-Kyjovice 4. Rondel osady lidu s moravskou malovanou keramikou (Das Rondell

der Niederlassung des Volkes mit märischer bemalter Keramik). Brno, Universita J. E. Purkyně v Brně. Podborský, V. et al. 2005. Pravěk mikroregionu potoka Těšetičky/Únanovky. K problematice pravěkých sociálních struktur (Die Urzeit der Mikroregion im Umfeld des Baches Těšetička/Únanovka. Zur Problematik der urzeitlichen sozialstrukturen). Brno, Masarykova univerzita. Shennan, S. 1988. Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Siirtola, H. and Mäkinen, E. 2005. Constructing and reconstructing the reorderable matrix. Information Visualization 4, 32-48. Soudský, B. 1962. The Neolithic site of Bylany. Antiquity 36, 190-200. Soudský, O., Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. 1985. Bylany. Katalog sekce A – díl 2. Praha, Archeologický ústav ČSAV. Stehli, P. 1973. Keramik, in: J. P. Farrugia, R. Kuper, J. Lüning and P. Stehli (eds.), Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 2, Gem. Aldenhoven, Kr. Düren. Beitr. zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte I. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 13, 57-105. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Stehli, P. 1977. Keramik, in: R. Kuper, H. Löhr, J. Lüning, P. Stehli and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 9. Beitr. zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte II. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 18, 107-130. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. van de Velde, P. 1979. On Bandkeramik Social Structure. An Analysis of Pot Decoration and Hut Distribution from the Central European Neolithic Communities of Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 12. Leiden, Leiden University Press. Vokáč, M. 2005. Předběžné výsledky studia broušené a ostatní kamenné industrie z  Těšetic-Kyjovic (okres Znojmo), in: Cheben, I. and Kuzma, I. (eds.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín 2004, 351-358. Nitra, Archeologický ústav SAV. Vostrovská, I. 2010. Keramika ze sídliště kultury lineární v Těšeticích-Kyjovicích “Sutnách” (Pottery from the LBK settlement of Těšetice-Kyjovice “Sutny”). Unpublished MA thesis, Masaryk University Brno. Wilkinson L. 2005. The Grammar of Graphics. 2nd ed. New York, Springer.

110

Early Neolithic Settlement in the Area of Melk, Lower Austria: the Survey of an LBK ‘Siedlungskammer’ Joris Coolen Department of Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology, University of Vienna Franz-Klein-Gasse 1, A-1190 Wien, Austria [email protected]

Abstract: This paper presents the results of a regional study of Early Neolithic1 Linearbandkeramik (LBK) settlement in the area of Melk in western Lower Austria. To date there has been little study of Early Neolithic settlement patterns in Austria and neighbouring areas at a microregional scale. This study is an effort to fill some of the knowledge gaps through traditional artefact analysis, systematic field survey and GIS analysis. Based on known Early Neolithic sites in the research area and existing literature on LBK settlement locations, a predictive model of Early Neolithic settlement sites was designed for the area. The model was tested by comparing the model’s predictions with the location of several new sites discovered during large-scale field survey carried out by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in 2007. The study found some clear differences in the location and size of the studied sites as well as in the composition of the artefact assemblages, indicating some degree of economic specialisation. Graphite extraction may have played an important role in the economy of at least one settlement. However, none of the sites can be readily interpreted as a central settlement. Keywords: LBK, settlement geography, predictive modelling, field survey, site catchment analysis, Lower Austria.

Introduction

settlement geography in present-day Austria. Additionally, the study aims to compare the material culture from this part of Lower Austria to the better-studied surrounding regions, but this will not be discussed in this paper.

Situated along the Danube, with a route of passage between the Alps and the Bohemian Massif, parts of what are now the states of Lower and Upper Austria played an important role in the spread of the Neolithic into western Europe. Early Neolithic research in Austria has focused mainly on the eastern and northern parts of Lower Austria. The zone connecting this region to southern Germany remains a gap in our knowledge. Moreover, research has mainly taken place either at the site-level or the macroregional scale (e.g. Lenneis 1982; 2003), while regional studies focusing on the internal structure of settlement areas remain rare (e.g. Pieler 2010).

Following the large scale rescue excavations at the Aldenhovener Platte in North Rhine-Westphalia and the general focus on landscape studies in prehistoric archaeology, there has been a growing interest in settlement patterns of the earliest farmers in central and western Europe. Based on the distribution of flint artefacts and raw materials Zimmermann (1995) introduced a hierarchical model, further developed by Kneipp (2000) and others (Claßen 2005). According to this model some of the earliest settlements developed into central places during the course of LBK, while new, secondary settlements were being established in the surrounding area. While LBK people were still entirely dependent on subsistence economies, the central village played a key role for the surrounding area in certain social, religious and economic aspects. This is reflected in the assemblage as well as communal structures such as enclosures and graveyards. The so-called central place2 was usually larger than secondary settlements, and existed for a longer time, often throughout the entire LBK period. Apart from the secondary settlements, which consisted of a few houses at a time, there were single

This paper presents the results of a regional study of Early Neolithic settlement in the area of Melk in the western part of Lower Austria (Coolen in prep.). Apart from shedding light on the LBK material culture in this connecting zone, the research area provided a good opportunity to study the settlement pattern and site locations in an Early Neolithic ‘Siedlungskammer’. Aims and objectives This study aims to contribute to our knowledge of LBK

The use of the term central place, which originally referred to urban centres in nineteenth-century Germany (Christaller 1933), for the Early Neolithic has been criticised. Therefore, Zimmermann et al. (2004, 61) now prefer the term Großsiedlung. 2

In accordance with the Austrian and German chronology, the LBK culture is considered Early Neolithic in this article. 1

111

Early Neolithic Settlement

farmsteads. Some of the smaller settlements or farmsteads had a semi-specialised function, providing raw materials to neighbours, or, via the central settlement, to distant regions which lacked the raw material.

in the area was representative of the original distribution a predictive model was designed. This was based on the topographical contexts of the known sites and the general location factors of LBK sites from other regions. This model was tested against an extensive field survey carried out by the Austrian Archaeological Institute as part of the project ‘Rural settlement in the hinterland of Mautern – Favianis’ in 2007 (Groh, Lindinger and Sedlmayer 2007). At the same time intensive field surveys were carried out on select sites to obtain detailed information on the location, size and structure of the find scatter. Finally, both the Early Neolithic sites which were known at the start of the study, as well as those discovered during the extensive survey, were subjected to a site catchment analysis in a geographic information system (GIS).

Even though this model provides a strong explanation for the excavated settlement area at the Aldenhovener Platte, the question remains of its applicability to all parts of the vast area dominated by LBK culture. Although the nature of this study and the limited size of the research area do not allow one to challenge the hierarchical settlement model described above, it is interesting to investigate how the situation in the studied area fits with the model. In order to accomplish this, as complete a picture as possible of the Early Neolithic settlements in the research area was needed. Several sites were known at the start of the study thanks to the activities of several dedicated amateur archaeologists. However, it was not known if this provided a representative view of the density and distribution of LBK sites in the research area.

Research area The research area covers 95.7km2 and has rather clear geographical boundaries (figure 1). It encompasses the lower courses of the Pielach and Melk rivers and their tributaries. Both rivers flow into the Danube near the town of Melk. The Danube delimits the area to the northwest. At this point the river enters the deeply cut valley of the Wachau, a protected World Heritage Cultural Landscape. Following a fault line known as Diendorfer Störung, the Wachau cuts through the sediments of the Bohemian Massif, dividing the Dunkelsteiner Wald on the right side of the river from the main uplands of the Waldviertel (‘forest district’). Both the Dunkelsteiner Wald and the Waldviertel are hilly regions, reaching up to 700m and 1000m respectively. They are characterised by rocky soils with a relatively moist and cold climate. Even today agriculture only takes place in some broader valleys. Early Neolithic farmers may have not been overly attracted to establish permanent agricultural settlements in these areas. Hence, the Dunkelsteiner Wald delimits the research area to the north. The southern limit is defined by the Hiesberg, another spur of the Bohemian Massif cut off from the main range by the Danube. Even further south the low hills of the Molasse basin soon merge into the Flysch zone and the Northern Limestone Alps, where as yet there is no evidence of Early Neolithic settlement.

It was also necessary to know something about the character, size, relative date, duration of occupation, and their use in the Early Neolithic. To answer these questions it was also important to analyse the geographical context of the sites; how they relate to the natural environment, and how they relate to other sites and settlements. Methodology As described above, the first step of the study was to assess all known LBK sites in the research area. This was done through a literature search (most importantly of the annual find reports published by the Austrian heritage board) and by contacting amateur archaeologists who are most active in the area. Apart from some small unpublished rescue excavations none of the LBK sites within the area has yet been excavated. Therefore the study is based entirely on surface finds. All finds (except from younger sites) collected by the contacted amateur archaeologists were examined and sorted into dating classes. Subsequently, all the finds that could be dated with some certainty to the Early Neolithic were individually recorded, using separate descriptive codes for pottery fragments (Lenneis and Lüning 2001, 80-92; Pavlů and Zápotocká 1978), and ground stone tools (Ramminger 2007; Zimmermann 1988). Unfortunately the chipped stone industry had to be largely left out of the study, as the vast amount of finds made an individual recording within the available timeframe impossible. Moreover, since most of the sites were multiperiod sites, the lithic artefacts could hardly be dated with any certainty. Hence, the time investment needed to record the chipped stone artefacts would have been out of proportion with the information gained from them.

The eastern boundary of the research area is less obvious. Here, the middle course of the Pielach valley forms a broad plain quite different from the narrower valley in its lower course. The broad basin was covered by marshes and alluvial forests along the braided river up to modern times. While the basin can also be considered a geographical boundary to the studied ‘Siedlungskammer’, the foothills of the Dunkelsteiner Wald bordering the basin to the north connect the Pielach valley with the larger Traisental in the east, which was also densely populated in the Early Neolithic. Apart from settlements in the foothills of the Dunkelsteiner Wald and the adjacent Traisental, as well as a poorly researched ‘Siedlungskammer’ to the southwest of the

In order to estimate if knowledge of Early Neolithic sites

112

Joris Coolen

Figure 1: Overview map of the research area (dotted line) with geographic features mentioned in the text. The hatched areas indicate modern settlement. Geodata © Land NÖ & BEV 2005.

research area, there may not have been any larger settlement units within a day’s march of the studied area.

of the research area might have been preferred by Early Neolithic settlers for their settlements and fields, and the chances of finding traces of these uses through surface survey. The geographical settings of LBK settlements, and the significance of different environmental factors on choice of location, have been much discussed, and are found to be relatively uniform in all parts of the LBK area (Modderman 1988, 79-89). Since the Early Neolithic economy was entirely based on subsistence farming the location of settlements was to a high degree determined by agricultural demands (Lüning 2000, 30-32; Ostritz 2000). Although numerous exceptions show that even seemingly marginal areas such as floodplains and highly elevated areas were used or even inhabited during the Early Neolithic, most LBK settlements are located in the tributary valleys or at the edge of the lower terraces of larger rivers. The availability of fresh water, usually provided by a brook, is one of the most constant factors in the settlement location, but also relatively easy to achieve in the dense stream network of central Europe. Crop cultivation demands fertile and light soils, but the location of many sites on the border of different biotopes indicates that Early Neolithic settlers valued a heterogeneous environment providing different resources.

Geologically, the research area is mainly covered by loess, loam and sandy molasse sediments. The valley bottoms are covered with alluvial sediments while the bedrock of the Bohemian Massif crops out at higher elevations. Apart from being well delimited geographically the area around Melk is an interesting area for this study for various other reasons. The area held a strategic position along a main transport route, the Danube, which played an important role in the transfer of commodities and ideas between east and west. Moreover, the foothills of the Dunkelsteiner Wald contain several raw materials which might have been valued in the Neolithic, including graphite, chalcedony/jasper (used for chipped stone tools), amphibolite and serpentinite (used for adzes and axes). Last but not least the region offered an opportunity to incorporate the activities of local amateur archaeologists as well as systematic survey data within the study. Predictive model The aim of the predictive model was to assess which parts

113

Early Neolithic Settlement

Although the author is aware of the risks of an environmental bias (Gaffney and van Leusen 1995), the arguments against this approach may apply less to the LBK than to later periods in European prehistory. First, the LBK society was characterised by a low degree of social stratification and specialisation (Zimmermann 1995, 69-71), so that social or strategic considerations may have been less important for the choice of settlement locations than practical and economic factors. Moreover, since the land was first cultivated during this period, traces of the activities of previous generations including the cultural meaning attributed to certain places and landscapes, were probably less determinant than in later periods. The predictive model was designed in ESRI ArcView 3.3 with the Leop’s Map Models 1.1 beta extension and based on a digital elevation model, hydrology map and geological map3. A slope map was derived from the digital elevation model. It should be noted that these data sets represent the modern landscape and cannot automatically be transferred to the Neolithic. However, since it is impossible to reconstruct the Neolithic geographical landscape of such a large area this is the next best alternative. As for the hydrological network, anthropogenic changes have mainly affected the larger rivers in the study area, and are hardly big enough to make a difference given the tolerance range of the model. Figure 2: Fuzzy membership functions used for the predictive model.

The following criteria were used for the model: • LBK settlements in Austria are never higher than 450m above sea level. The preferred area ranges from 225 to 300m (Lenneis 2003, 282 and 285). • Settlements can only be expected on moderate slopes, preferably between 0 and 4°, with an absolute limit of 10° (e.g. Heege 1989, 183). • The distance to the nearest watercourse hardly ever exceeds 500m. The preferred range lies between 100 and 300m (e.g. Kneipp 1998, 35-36; Linke 1976, 54). However, when assessing the accessibility of water courses, relief should also be taken into account. Therefore the distance to water was calculated on a cost surface model, in which the distance was multiplied by a factor according to different slopes. For slopes between 5 and 10°, the distance was multiplied by two, for 1020° by three, for 20-30° by four and for slopes over 30° by five. • LBK settlements are often located on the edge of loess deposits, usually bordering alluvial soils. To quantify this criterion, different sediments were classified according to their presumed quality as agricultural soil.

All sediments of the Bohemian Massif and the Flysch zone were considered poor quality soils and given a 0 value. Molasse basin sediments can yield both good and poor quality soils, and were given the value 11. Löss and loam soils were given the highest value of 22. Alluvial sediments, existing bodies of water, and wetland were reclassified as “No Value”. The original geological vector map was converted to a grid with 100 x 100m cells, where each cell got the value of the prevailing soil substrate. A new grid was calculated in ArcView’s Spatial Analyst representing the standard deviation of the soil classification within a radius of 500m. The highest values appear on the border between good quality soils and other classes. Since the quality of a location depended on numerous criteria (no doubt there were more than just the geographical factors mentioned above), the final location choice was always a compromise. Rather than giving a simplistic image of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ locations, the model was designed to accommodate the sliding scale of the different criteria. This was achieved using fuzzy set theory (Zadeh 1965). The Leop’s Map Models extension for ESRI ArcView 3 (Riedl and Kalasek n.d.) offers the option to rate criteria by a fuzzy membership function. The function is automatically calculated from a number of values set by the user. For the predictive model the functions were defined by the extreme and preferred values mentioned above (figure 2). The resulting grids were combined using a fuzzy overlay

The digital elevation model has a spatial resolution of 10 m, heights are given in cm. It was created in 1998 by the Federal Office for Metrology and Surveying (BEV) on the basis of aerial photographs. The vectorised hydrology map was created on the basis of a digital landscape model, also issued by the BEV in 2001, on a scale of 1:10,000. The digital geological map was issued by the Geological Survey of Austria (GBA) in 2001. It was created on a scale of 1:100,000, but the data are mostly derived from larger scale maps. All data were kindly provided by the Survey and Geoinformation Dept. of the provincial government of Lower Austria (NÖGIS). 3

114

Joris Coolen

Figure 3: Predictive model of LBK settlement sites in the research area with the area surveyed by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in April and May 2007 and the location of known and newly discovered LBK-sites and isolated LBK-finds. Sites mentioned in the text: 1 Lanzing; 2 Lerchfeld; 3 Pielach; 4 Sitzenthal; 12 Groß-Schollach. For other sites see figure 7. Geodata: © Land NÖ & BEV 2005.

operator (AND/OR) with a gamma value of 0.2, allowing for a slight compensation between the four criteria.

site. Neither local topography nor soil or historical maps give any indication that there were other, smaller water courses in the vicinity of the site in the past. Interestingly, the site is also exceptional for its seemingly continuous use throughout the Neolithic and the Bronze Age.

The resulting model rates the chances of finding LBK settlements with a value between zero (very low) and one (very high) (figure 3). Within the research area (95.7km2) a total area of 8.5km2 (9%) was attributed values of 0.8 or higher. However, 1.8km2 within this highest rated area is built over or covered by woods, and 2.9km2 is covered by alluvial sediments, most of which were deposited after the Early Neolithic. Thus the chance of finding settlement traces by surface survey in these areas is minimal.

Extensive survey From 2007 to 2009, the Austrian Archaeological Institute researched the Roman rural settlement in the hinterland of the Danubian limes between the Roman forts of Arelape (Pöchlarn) and Augustianis (Traismauer) and the municipium Aelium Cetium (St. Pölten) (Groh et al., in prep.). This area also includes the research area of this study. As part of the project, a large-scale field survey was carried out to offer insight into the land-use and settlement structures from the Neolithic up to the Early Middle Ages (ÖAI 2010). Parallel lines were surveyed by two or three persons at a time, with line intervals of c. 20m, and recorded with a handheld GPS. Within the research area of the project presented here a total area of 6.2km2 was surveyed in April and May 2007 (see figure 3). A little more than half of the surveyed area (3.5km2) offered good chances of finding Early Neolithic settlements, according to the predictive

While the high expectation values of the brook valleys are hardly surprising, the predictive model also assigns high values to some small and isolated areas in the foothills at the edge of the research area. With only one exception, all eight LBK sites, which were known at the start of the project, lie in the higher rated zones (0.5 or higher), and indeed, three of them are located in one of these smaller areas. The one exception, the Sitzenthal site, received a low score because of the very steep access to the nearest water course. While it scores well at all other points, the nearest water source is located in a steep gorge, 55m below the

115

Early Neolithic Settlement

Figure 4: Comparison of some of the analysed assemblages. The graphic shows clear differences in the composition of the assemblages collected by different amateur archaeologists and during systematic surveys, as well as slight differences between the sites. * The chipped stone artefacts of private collection nr. 1 were not counted

Figure 5: Total number of analysed shards per site and the projected number of shards after correcting for the bias of different collectors. The sites are grouped as described in the text. * HÜP = Loosdorf ‘beim Hundeübungsplatz’

116

Joris Coolen

model (value 0.5 or higher). During the survey five new sites were discovered with clear evidence of Early Neolithic occupation, along with a number of isolated and undated finds. All of these sites lie within the highly rated zones of the predictive model. Three of the newly discovered sites were marked by clear concentrations of artefacts, while the other two yielded fewer or more scattered finds. Nevertheless, the definition of sites, which is often found to be an inappropriate entity for the interpretation of fullcoverage survey data, is much less problematic for the LBK than for later periods. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the interpretation of the surface scatter in further detail (Groh et al., in prep.).

shard and pottery class was calculated out of all those assemblages of 49 fragments or more. The most distinctive selection index of each of the private collections was then used to calculate the expected number of shards, which must have been available on every site to result in the present selection (figure 5). The large difference in the amount of surface finds at the individual sites thus becomes even clearer. However, it is still blurred by the different number of surveyors active at each site, as well as the number of occasions on which the sites were surveyed. To account for this, the sites were classified into four groups: 1 surveyed by several (groups of) people on numerous occasions; 2 surveyed by several (groups of) people, but repeatedly surveyed by one person or group only; 3 repeatedly surveyed by one person or group; and 4 surveyed once.

Find assemblages Pottery fragments form the vast majority of finds in all assemblages, followed by the chipped and polished stone industry. However, there are some remarkable differences both in the constitution and size of the analysed assemblages (figure 4).

A number of sites stand out from the rest with respect to the constitution of their assemblage. The Lerchfeld site yielded a remarkably high percentage of chipped stone artefacts, which constitute 18% of the whole assemblage. This category represents barely more than ten per cent in other assemblages, even in amateur collections. It needs to be taken into account that the finds were collected by an amateur archaeologist with a slight bias towards chipped and polished stone artefacts, and that the site was also used during the Middle Neolithic. However, none of the other assemblages collected by this person contains such a high percentage of chipped stone artefacts. Since most of the studied sites have yielded finds from multiple periods, including later phases of the Neolithic, this can hardly explain the large number of chipped artefacts either. Although these finds have not yet been studied in detail, a first examination indicated that the majority of the finds consist of local raw materials. Most artefacts are flakes and blades, whereas modified tools are relatively rare. The assemblage contains a number of chalcedony/jasper nodules, some of which seem to have been tested.

A number of problems need to be considered if the assemblages are to be compared. First, the size of the assemblage depends on the total time spent on the site and the number of surveyors that have been active there. Some sites were frequently visited by several amateur archaeologists over several decades, while others, such as the sites that were newly discovered during the extensive survey, were only visited once. Second, both the constitution and the size of the assemblage greatly depend on the selection, which is made in the field. While professional archaeologists carrying out a systematic survey try to gather a representative sample of all find categories, private collectors tend to select their finds according to their personal interests, storing capacities etc. Thus, their collections usually show a much higher percentages of stone tools and decorated pottery fragments. In the case of multiperiod sites this can lead to a strong over- or underrepresentation of individual periods, since not all periods are characterised by decorative or attractive artefacts. On the other hand the high amount of diagnostic finds can offer valuable complementary information to survey assemblages, which are usually dominated by small, undateable body shards.

The surface finds from the Lanzing site comprise numerous graphite fragments up to 10cm in diameter, some of which have ground faces. Although the collection at the local museum also contains finds from a late Iron Age site in the immediate vicinity, an intensive survey revealed a strong correlation between the scatter of Early Neolithic artefacts and graphite fragments (figure 6) (Coolen 2009). The site lies close to a graphite deposit which was exploited in modern times.

Since a number of sites were represented in all collections, including survey assemblages, the bias of the individual collections could be analysed and an attempt was made to correct for the missing parts. For this purpose the percentage of decorated shards and lug fragments, and the distribution of shards (base/body/rim) and pottery classes (fine/coarse), were calculated for each site and each collection. These values were then compared to the average percentage of the respective category in all survey assemblages (which were assumed to be the least biased), resulting in a selection index. For each of the three analysed private collections, the average selection index for decorated/lug fragments,

Due to the nature of surface finds, and the rather coarse relative chronology of the LBK in Austria, the pottery fragments only allow for a rough dating of the sites (figure  7). In general, the oldest finds can be dated to the developed phase of the earlier LBK (Phase Ib in the chronology of Tichý 1962, with adaptations by Čižmář (1998)). However, the majority of finds date to the later LBK. Only a few finds could be attributed to the final stage of LBK, which is influenced by the Želiezovce and Šárka

117

Early Neolithic Settlement

Figure 6: Distribution of Early Neolithic pottery and graphite fragments collected during a field survey at the Lanzing site. Geodata: © Land NÖ & BEV 2005.

groups. This may however be due to the fact that it is not possible in most cases to distinguish between the later (Tichý IIa-b) and the final stages (IIc as defined by Čižmář (1998) and Tichý III).

the early farmers in this region were engaged in a wide distribution network, stretching several hundred kilometres both to the east and west (Harrer and Lenneis 2001). These connections are similarly reflected in the pottery as well as the lithic raw materials. The latter comprise tabular Abensberg-Arnhofen chert (‘Plattensilex’) from the well-known mining site at the Upper Danube in Lower Bavaria (Trnka 2004), Szentgál radiolarite from the Bakony mountains in western Hungary and Krumlovský Les hornstone from the Neolithic mining area in Southern Moravia. The site of Groß-Schollach has yielded several blade cores of Szentgál radiolarite, one of which is actually the largest nucleus of this raw material that has been found away from the source region (Trnka in press).

The pottery clearly reflects the position of the research area in the transition zone between two large pottery complexes which divided the LBK area during its younger phases. While Notenkopfkeramik (‘Musical Note Pottery’), typical for the eastern part of central Europe is clearly dominant, a number of finds show the filled band decorations typical for the area to the northwest, in Bohemia and Bavaria. Apart from this, a number of exceptional finds show that

118

Joris Coolen

Figure 7: Number of shards attributed to different chronological phases per site (see figure 3). The italicised numbers between brackets indicate finds of uncertain date.

Site catchment analysis

for its small catchment. Indeed, this is not a good area for farming.

As stated before, the location of LBK settlements probably strongly correlates to agricultural and economic demands. In an agricultural society the quality of a settlement location is determined by its surrounding environment rather than by the settlement place itself. It follows from this that analysing the surrounding area of a site may tell us something about its use and economy. A method often applied for this is site catchment analysis (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970). Based on earlier studies (e.g. Kreuz 1990) the radius of the analysed catchments was set to 1km. However, since the site catchment approach is based on the assumption that intensively used areas such as fields should be easily reachable from the site, a catchment with a fixed radius ignoring the actual landform is rather simplistic. The catchments were therefore calculated over a cost surface in a GIS, taking into account the relief and larger rivers. The catchment area therefore corresponds to the area which can be reached from the centre of the site in the same time as one needs to cover 1 km on level ground. Although this leads to catchments of different sizes, this approach is found to do more justice to the basic principle as defined by Chisholm (1962). Indeed, the actual size of the catchment already gives some valuable information about the environment.

The differences in the surrounding environment of the sites become even clearer when we compare the shares of different parent materials in the catchment area (Figure 9). Again, the Lerchfeld site stands out from the rest, as 60% of its catchment is underlaid by bedrock of the Bohemian Massif. In most other cases the largest part of the catchment is covered by loess or loam, usually accounting for more than 40% of the area. Since all sites are located near a brook or river alluvial sediments usually cover a considerable part of the catchment. In one case, at the Pielach site, located at the terrace edge of the Pielach valley, alluvial sediments account for almost two thirds of the catchment. This settlement possibly also depended on a different economy than the sites surrounded by loess hills. Settlement pattern Although our knowledge of Early Neolithic settlement in the research area is not complete some conclusions can be drawn about the settlement pattern. Most sites are located in the tributary valleys of the Pielach. However, adjacent valleys offering seemingly similar conditions for settlement show a remarkable difference in site density. After the extensive survey, the number of known sites in the Roggenbach valley, in the central part of the research area, is five. They show a remarkably regular distribution, spaced about 1km apart across the valley. In the adjacent valley to the east only two very small sites

The catchment areas of the analysed sites range in size from 73 to 250ha, showing the different topographical setting of the sites (figure 8). The Lerchfeld site, for example, lies in a narrow valley surrounded by steep hills, which accounts

119

Early Neolithic Settlement

Figure 8: Catchment areas of the analysed sites. Geodata: © Land NÖ & BEV 2005.

archaeologists and extensive survey by the Austrian Archaeological Institute, 13 Early Neolithic sites were identified within the research area. Three more sites, which are represented in the collections of the amateur archaeologists, could not be verified or precisely located. All sites are interpreted as settlements, characterised by a clear dominance of coarse pottery in the assemblage. The location of most sites corresponds to the scheme of LBK settlement locations known from other regions, indicating that economic demands played an important role in the choice of location. However, differences in the topographical setting and the variance of the assemblages may reflect a certain degree of economic specialisation. This may also account for the rather marginal setting of the Lanzing and Lerchfeld sites. While the former seems to be connected to a nearby graphite deposit, a possible connection between the Lerchfeld site and local lithic raw materials needs further investigation.

were found, probably representing single farmsteads of the later LBK period. Both valleys were extensively surveyed and have yielded a large amount of finds from later periods. Therefore the low density of Early Neolithic sites in the southeastern part of the research area can hardly be ascribed to the state of research, taphonomic processes or to the quality of the settlement location. Instead, it seems likely that the difference in site, and thus population, density between the valleys reflects a social-cultural phenomenon. Apart from the sites in the low lying parts of the research area there are some more isolated sites in the foothills at the edges of the area. Based on the find assemblage all of these can be interpreted as settlements. The field surveys and find analysis show that the sites differ considerably in their size (ranging from 0.5 to nearly 4ha) and the duration of their use. As we have seen there are also indications of a certain degree of economic specialisation at some of the sites. So far this seems to fit well into the model discussed at the start of this paper. However, at present none of the studied sites can be readily interpreted as a central place.

Some sites can be interpreted as single farmsteads, which were used for a relatively short timespan, while others may have been larger settlements, some of which seem to have existed throughout the LBK. However, none of the sites is particularly large compared to the so-called central places in other regions, nor does any of the find assemblages allow for such an interpretation. Since a large area, which offers a high likelihood of finding traces of Early Neolithic

Conclusions After the assessment of sites known to local amateur

120

Joris Coolen

Figure 9: Comparison of the size of the catchment areas and the proportions of different soil substrates. The highest values are marked in bold, the lowest in bold italic text.

Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9.-19.9.2002, Internationale Archäologie – Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 7, 113–124. Rahden/Westf., Marie Leidorf. Coolen, J. 2009. Systematische Oberflächenfundauf­ sammlungen in Lanzing (NÖ): eine bandkeramische Bergbausiedlung? Archäologie Österreichs 20/2, 31–39. Coolen, J. in prep. (2011). Siedlungsgeografische Studien zum Frühneolithikum in der Umgebung von Melk, Niederösterreich, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas. Langenweißbach, Beier und Beran. Gaffney, V. and van Leusen, M. 1995. Postscript – GIS, environmental determinism and archaeology: a parallel text, in G. Lock and Z. Stančič (eds.), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems. A European perspective, 367–382. London, Taylor and Francis. Groh, S., Lindinger, V. and Sedlmayer, H. 2007. Zur ländlichen römischen Besiedlung im Hinterland von Mautern/Favianis – Methodische Grundlagen einer Untersuchung großräumiger Siedlungsstrukturen am Donaulimes. Archäologie Österreichs 18/2, 56–63. Groh, S. et al. in prep. Die römische Besiedlung im Hinterland von Mautern – Favianis (working title), Zentraleuropäische Archäologie. Vienna, Austrian Archaeological Institute. Harrer, A. and Lenneis, E. 2001. Die ersten Nachweise der älteren Linearbandkeramik und andere wichtige Neufunde des Frühneolithikums aus dem Raum Melk, Niederösterreich. Archäologie Österreichs 12/1-2, 31–38. Heege, E. 1989. Studien zum Neolithikum in der Hildesheimer Börde, Veröffentlichungen der urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 35. Hildesheim, A. Lax. Kneipp, J. 1998. Bandkeramik zwischen Rhein, Weser und Main. Studien zu Stil und Chronologie der Keramik,

settlement according to the predictive model, remains to be explored, it is not known whether a main settlement in this area exists and has yet to be discovered, or if the settlement pattern follows a different model. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Anton Harrer of the Stadtmuseum Melk, Kurt and Sylvia Remes, Margarethe Linsberger and Werner Schranz for sharing their knowledge of Neolithic sites and giving me the opportunity to analyse their collections. I am also greatly indebted to Univ.-Doz. Dr. Stefan Groh of the Austrian Archaeological Institute for sharing data of the Mautern hinterland survey project, as well as to Dipl.-Ing. Helge Höllriegl of NÖGIS and Dr. Ernst Lauermann of the provincial museum of pre- and protohistory in Asparn an der Zaya for providing me with geodata of the research area. Finally, I would like to thank Kendra Leek MSc for proofreading and correcting this paper. References Chisholm, M. 1962. Rural settlement and land use: an essay in location. London, Hutchinson. Christaler, W. 1933. Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Eine ökonomisch-geografische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen. Jena, Gustav Fischer. Čižmář, Z. 1998. Nástin relativní chronologie lineární keramiky na Moravě. Poznámky k vývoji výzdobného stylu. Acta musei Moraviae, Scientiae sociales 83, 105–139. Claßen, E. 2005. Siedlungsstrukturen der Bandkeramik im Rheinland, in J. Lüning, Ch. Frirdich and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21.

121

Early Neolithic Settlement

Ramminger, B. 2007. Wirtschaftsarchäologische Untersuchungen zu alt- und mittelneolithischen Felsgesteingeräten in Mittel- und Nordhessen. Archäologie und Rohmaterialversorgung. Internationale Archäologie 102. Rahden/Westf., Marie Leidorf. Riedl, L. n.d.. Leop’s Map Models. http://www.srf.tuwien. ac.at/Projekte/MapModels/MapModels_English.htm (access January 19, 2011). Tichý, R. 1962. Osídlení s volutovou keramikou na Moravě (Die Besiedlung mit Volutenkeramik in Mähren). Památky archeologické 53, 245–305. Trnka, G. 2004. Niederbayerischer Hornsteinimport in das niederösterreichische Donautal im Raum Melk, in B. Hänsel and E. Studeníková (eds.), Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis: Neolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für Viera Němejcová Pavúková, Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 21, 309–322. Trnka, G. in press (2010). Ein bemerkenswerter Klingenkern aus Szentgál-Radiolarit von Groß-Schollach im westlichen Niederösterreich, in A. Anders et al. (eds.), Osrégészeti Tanulmányok / Prehistoric Studies 1, Budapest. Vita-Finzi, C. and Higgs, E. S. 1970. Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 1–37. Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338–353. Zeeb-Lanz, A. 2003. Das Ries und seine steinzeitlichen Bewohner. Beobachtungen zur neolithischen Besiedlungsentwicklung in einer Mikroregion, in J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für J. Lüning, Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 20, 293– 306. Rahden/Westf., Marie Leidorf. Zimmermann, A. 1988. Steine, in Boelicke, U. et al. (eds.) Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8, Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kr. Düren. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 28, 569–787. Bonn, Rheinland-Verlag. Zimmermann, A. 1995. Austauschsysteme von Silexartefakten in der Bandkeramik Mitteleuropas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 26. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Zimmermann, A. et al. 2004. Landschaftsarchäologie II – Überlegungen zu Prinzipien einer Landschaftsarchäologie. Berichte der römischgermanischen Kommission 85, 37–95.

Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 47. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Kneipp, J. 2000. Frühbäuerliche Siedlungsverbände an Diemel, Esse und Unterer Fulda, in H. J. Beier (ed.), Varia Neolithica I, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 22, 61–76. Langenweißbach, Beier und Beran. Kreuz, A. 1990. Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas. Eine archäobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der ältesten Bandkeramik, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 23. Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology. Lenneis, E. 1982. Die Siedlungsverteilung der Linearbandkeramik in Österreich. Archaeologia Austriaca 66, 1–19. Lenneis, E. 2003. Die frühneolithische Besiedlung Österreichs im Bezug zur natürlichen Umwelt, in J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für J. Lüning, Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 20, 279– 292. Rahden/Westf., Marie Leidorf. Lenneis, E. and Lüning, J. 2001. Die altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Nekkenmarkt und Strogen. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 82. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Linke, W. 1976. Fruhestes Bauerntum und geographische Umwelt. Paderborn, Schöningh. Lüning, J. 2000. Steinzeitliche Bauern in Deutschland. Die Landwirtschaft im Neolithikum. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 58. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Modderman, P. J. R. 1988. The Linear Pottery Culture: diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38, 63–139. ÖAI 2010. Field Survey. Austrian Institute of Archaeology. www.oeai.at/limeshinterland/?nr=106&spr=en (access January 19, 2011). Ostritz, S. 2000. Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsplatzwahl im mitteldeutschen Neolithikum. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 25. Langenweißbach, Beier & Beran. Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. 1978. Analysis of the Czech Neolithic Pottery. Morphological and chronological structures of projections. Prague, Institute of Archaeology. Pieler, F. 2010. Die Bandkeramik im Horner Becken (Niederösterreich). Studien zur Struktur einer frühneolithischen Siedlungskammer, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 182. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt.

122