Benes 1991 Lomsky Potok Arch in Bohemia 0pt Libre

8/12/2019 Benes 1991 Lomsky Potok Arch in Bohemia 0pt Libre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/benes-1991-lomsky-potok-arch-in-bohemia-0pt-libre 1/12



Milan MladekCrepe WeaversNewtonards

Mr. J C No l an

The Uls te r Museum

Be l fa s t

LIST OF SPONSO RS

Mr. J .G . Ke l ly

Li t han Ltd .Bel fas t

Mr. G.ThompsonDuncrue I n d u s t r i a l Es ta t

Belfas t

Dr. P.F. Wa l l ace

National Museum o f I re la

Dublin

Published by t he I ns tit u t e o f Arc haeo l ogy ofthe Czechoslovak Academy of Sc i ences

LetenskA 4 , 11000 Praha 1

C 1991 I n s t i t u t e of Archaeology, PragueISBN - 80-901026-1-1



E. Ne ustupny: Preface 9

I. Surveys and abstracts of theoretical studies

I. Pavlu: Problems of Early Prehistory in Bohemia (The present state ofresearch) .•.••• .................................. . . .. . .. . ... .. ..•.. . . . .. . . . 11

A. Rybova, P. Drda and K. Motykova: The contribution of present researchto the Proto-Historic period in Bohemia and its future prospects •.• .• ..... 16

J. Bubenik: The archaeology of the early Middle Ages (6th-12th centuries)On the present state of early Medieval archaeology in Bohemia .............. 27

M. Beranova, Z. Vana and Z. Krumphanzlova: Bohemia in the 6th-12th centuries 35

M Richter and Z. Smetanka: Medieval archaeology, 1986-1990 (Traditions andperspective ................................................................ 44

K. Motykova, P. Drda and A. Rybova: Some notable imports from the end ofthe Roman period ........................................................... 56

J. Klapste: Bedfichuv-Svetec and early feudal residences in NW Bohemia ...... .... 64

T. Durdik: Feudal residences in Bohemia......................................... 68

II. Large scale excavations in Bohemia

J. Benes: ANeol Ithic settlement site at Hrdlovka-Liptice (Excavations of1987-1990) .••• ............................................................. 75

E. Pleslova-Stikova: Makotrasy (central Bohemia). A RB settlement with two

enclosures ................................................••••••••......... 80

M. Zapotocky and M. Zapotocka: Kutna Hora - Danemark. Ahillfort of theMiddle Eneolithic Rivnac culture in the E part of Central Bohemia ......... .

87

P. Brichacek: Hosty (district of ceske-Budejovice) - an enclosed settlementof the Early Bronze Age.................................................... 92

J. Hrala, Z. Sedlacek and M. Vavra: The Bronze Age hilltop site at Skalka-Velim (Excavations of 1984-1989) ........................................... 93

M. Chytracek: Ahillfort of the Late Hallstatt and Early La Tene periods on

the Cerny-vrch (Black Hill) by Svrzno, district of Domazlice ............... 105

N. Venclova: ACeltic enclosure and temple at MSecke-Zehrovice ............•..... 110

K. Motykova, P. Drda and A. Rybova: The state of studies of the settlementpattern of the oppidum at Zavist and their evaluation ........•............ 115

5



a settlement of the Late Roman period •...• . ..••..•..•..• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

I. Pleinerova: Acemetery of the Late Romano-Barbarian period at Opocno nearLouny, NW Bohemia .. . .. .•..••. . •. .......... .... .. ....•...•..•.•••• . . . . . . . . . . 130

M. Gojda: Early Medieval settlements at Roztoky: the 1986-1989 excavations. ..... 135

J. Justova: The bailey of the ducal residence at Libice-nad-Cidlinou and itshinterland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

J. Frolik: The most recent excavations and discoveries at Prague Castle ... . . . . . . 146

B. Nechvatal: Studies on the ducal and royal centre at Vysehrad . . . . . . . . ..... .... 149

T. Durdik: The castle of Kfivoklat in the light of archaeological excavations ... 159

III. Regional and enviromental projects

P. Bfichacek: Rescue activities of the Plzen branch office of the Institute

of Archaeology in the period 1986-1989 ...... .. ...... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 167

Z. Smrz: Results of the study of settlement patterns in the micro-region ofLuzicky-potok (Luzice creek) in NW Bohemia . . ............ ......... .. .... .... 170

J. Benes: The Lomsky-potok project: investigations of prehistoric settlementof a micro-region with large-scale soil transfers ................. ...... ... 178

P. Meduna: On the early medieval settlement structure of NW Bohemia: investi-gation of the drainagearea of the Lornsky- and Loucensky-potok ...... . ....... 185

IV. Other important rescue and testing excavations

S. Vencl: The rescue excavation of a Gravettian site at stadice, district ofUsti-nad-Labem .... ,........... ..... . ... .......... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

R. Sumberova: Neolithic settlement site at Chotebudice, district of Louny

(Excavations of 1988-1990) ... ...... .. .... . . .. . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

D. Koutecky: ACorded···ware culture cemetery at Usti-nad-Labem - Trmice . . . . . . . . . . 196

J. Stauberova, B. Stauber and Zdenek Smrz: Bfezno - rescue excavations ofa Bronze Age enclosed settlement .... . •...... . ...........•.. •.•..••......•.. 198

D. Koutecky: ALusatian settlement site at Stadice, district of Usti-nad-Labem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.......... 202

v. Ctverak: Studies of prehistoric settlement at a sand-quarry for highway

building at Tfebestovice, district of Nymburk (central Bohemia) .. ..••..•••. 203

V. Vokolek: Acemetery of the Silesia-Platenice culture at Kostelec-nad-Orlici ......... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... . . ..... ... 206

P. Holodnak: Rescue excavations at Sobesuky, in 1985-1990 .. ••.••••.•••••••.•• ... 210

6



J. Valentova: A celtic inhumation cemetery at Kutna-Hora - Karlov .••.•..•..•.••. 221

V. Salac: La Tene period production and distribution centre at Lovosice •.•.•.•.• 225

H. Sedlackova: La Tene period sunken-floored houses at Ktinec, districtof ymburk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

J. Bubenik: Rubin Hill and its significance for early Medieval settlement ••..•.. 233

T. Velimskj: Results of studies on a deserted municipal foundation of highMiddle Ages at necin .....•..•.....•.......•..•...•..•..........•.•...•.•..• 237

T. Velimsky: On the problems of the 13th-century municipality at Kynsperk-nad-Ohi'i .•..•.•....•.•.•..•.•...•..•....•.••.....•......•..•.•.....•.•.•..• 240

V. Some interdisciplinary projects

P. Drda and A. Majer: surveying of the Celtic oppidum of Mont Beuvray, France •.. 246

R. Pleiner: Study of the early production of iron in Czechoslovakia 1985-1989 ... 252

I. Pleinerova: An experimental station at Brezno near Louny (NW Bohemia) ....•••. 256

E. Cerna: New evidence for glass production in Bohemia during the high MiddleAges • •• • •• I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 260

List of authors ..•.•....•.......•.......•..•.•.•..•..•...•..•..•.•••.......•.•.. 265

7



SETTLEMENT OF A MICRO- REGION WITH LARGE SCALE SO IL TRAN SFERS

Jaromir Benes

The Lomsky-potok (i.e. Lom creek) research took shape in the 70 s i.n line with what was then thenew scientific orientation of the Most branch office of the Archeologica l Institute (Czechoslovak Academy

of Sciences) towards the excavation of target regions which could as models of prehistoric and

medieval cultural landscapes (Velimsky : 986 with references). The possibilities for mo unt ing a detailed

investigation of this region were discussed in a paper (Benes and Koutecky 1987) which set 0 t all of thebasic data of which only the key facts are summarized here.The study area lies in NW Bohemia in 2 region devastated by the open cast mining of l ignite. It is

about 30 km 2in area, and its axis is formed by the elongated valley of the Lomsky-potok, the source of

which is situated to the west in the border mountains and which flowed into the Bilina river before thedevastation of the area. The project includes, as a control sample, the S half of the drainage area of theLoucenskY-potok. This territory, characterized by lowlands, belongs to the so-called traditional settlementarea.

So far, around one half of the area under consideration - that is, some 15 krn2 - has been mined away

or similarly devastated. This renders inevitable the use of the hydro-geomorphological reconstruction map(Benes and Koutecky 1987, PIs. 2 and 3) drawn by J. Brezak and J. Klapste especially from to 18th- and

19th-century maps. This is the only means to overcome the formidable obstacles brought about by industrialtransformations of the landscape, in particular by the 0pen cast mining of lignite.Archeological information on this area been, - and still is being gathered from an extraordinary

variety of sources. First of all, there is a strong trad ition of archeological activity amongst the localwhich thrived f3rt icularly in the first ha lf of this century , altho ugh unfortunate ly , this

tradition has been inte rrupted . Several impor tant tina g.oups have been secured ir the cou rse of thiswo rk. Though some of these have a measure of inportance for 5 ;ne periods ex tending l J€yond the borde rs ofthe project area I the ir nume rs are rather small. However , the i 'portance of pre-vlar finds growsconsiderably in present t imes , especially in viaw'f the §gtial representativeness which is enhanced bythe app lication of some analytical l l€thods. l<ii .: so:x; exceptions, the post-war pe .'iod includes the

excavations of the Archeological Institute (Cz8choslovak Academy of Sciences ), the initial stages of which ;

of course, wer been conducted before the inception of the Lomsky-potok project. originally, fieldactivities took the form of mino r rescue exca\'ati uns ;Heh , in the course of the .1970 s, developed as

a result of the dramdtic increase in open cast lignite mining into the present large scale ope rations. From

the archeological viellrpoint, this enabled the identific,ltion of sites which could be fully recorded. In

addition to . this , recent excavations eff icient technologies such as the use of

mechanical excavators wh ich make poss'ble the large-scale recording of post struc tures (as at the sites of

Hrdlovka, Libkovice , JeniSuv-Uje zd .II ? call the area de limited by the line 1 on Maps A-D a (Benes 1989b) and

define it as the GUru tcta l of all of the areas of archeological interest in ti:e pa rt of theLomsky-potok dra inage area both in the pre- and in the post-wr periods.

The stabilization and increase in the quality of the evide nce recorded from a::cheological sites in tne

course of the 19&0 s (Blazek 1989) has enabled us to make a preliminary eva luation of sp.3.tial structureswh ich identify traces of certain patterns wich rw y become the foci of academic interest . These

include phenomena which are both discrete from a spatio temporal point of view (such as the si tuat ion of

Neolithic settleme nt areas in the landscape and their interrelationships, or demographic aspects of groups

belonging to the Unetice- or La Tene cultures), and continuous (as in t.he of continuitya l lOngparticular archeo logical phenomena in the sense \Jf mutuctl relations of the type archeologization- identifiability - continuity or discont inuity of the settled area .. Benes 1989b) .

Processes of archeological formation (Krist:ansen 1985 ), important in studies of such phenomena asthe me asure of archeolog ization, the dependence of the of feature types oc Dlring on how well theyma y be recorded in large-scale excavabon:; and- last but not least - phenowena termed by Schiffer (1 978 )A-S processes (from archeological context to systemic con text ), are all of an signifi ance

for the understanding of inverse transformations (Neus tupny 1986b; on the lat te r aspect cf.Klapste).Lomski-potok project area may, in fact, represent ln several ways a crucia l po int fo f

1 78



/

/

LOMHY POIOk

o 1kmI d

•.•.. , •.. 2

..L...J......I....J... 3

\

•

. . , .' -

\. .... / ....1

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\

\

\\

\

\

\-

Fig. 1. Map A: The Lomsky-potok project area. Formalized depiction of Neolithic sites (Linear- and

Stroked- pottery culture). Map B: Formalized depiction of the Early Bronze Age sites (Unetice culture).Key: 1 - total-excavation polygon (TEP): 2 - area investigated especially in the SOlS and 60 1s: 3 - thepresent-day edge of the "Maxim Gorkiy guarry; Bk - Brezanky; H - Hrdlovka; J - JeniSuv Ujezd;L - Libkovice. Drawn by J. Brezak and H. Jonasova.

investigations thanks especially to. the homogenous qualitative representativeness of individual

archeological operations, being conducted as present in the central parts of the drainage areas of bothLomsky and Loucensky potok.sites of every archeological culture have been plotted on a digitized map of the project area, four

simplified examples of which (Maps A-D) are published here. The basic unit of information recorded on themaps is the presence of a trace of a given archeological culture within a given square of side 125 metres.

179



Some special terms in use here shou ld now be discussed: they are introduced following an originalsuggestion by E. Neustupny, commented on and developed by M Kuna, M Slabina, I. Pavlu and other

specialists in the course of a sem inar held at Most in 1987.Findspot : any point area in the field where archeological information has been recorded; location of

an archeological action .site: an ana lyt ica l term deno ting a discrete spatiotemporal unit delimited by one single so-called

archeological culture (such as Ifan Unetice-culture cemeteryll, lIa Romanperiod settlementll, etc.). In thispa per, findspots situated more than 250 metres apart are assigned to IIdifferent 'l sites (Benes 1989b).

Comone nt : a term of archeological synthesis denoting a more limited spatiotemporal unit, usuallyaccomp ainied by a definition of func t ion determination (such as lIa hut cluster of La Tene

Cculturef).Area (product ion , cult, cemetery , settlement areas - cf. Neustupny 1986a): this term belongs to the

rea lms of archeologica l interpretations and may be used only in the description of conclusions and resultsof archeolog ical inves t iga tions, when w are discussing living cultures of the past.

Let us now review he numer ical data on the numbers of sites in the total-excavation polygon (TEP) and

in the complete project area (CPA). W make use of a simple coefficient dx' which is calculated from to an

equation for all the eleven archeological periods (i = 1, ... ,11):dx = Z R( A)x / 2: R (A) i .

R (A) represents a square of 125 x1 25 metres on the map in which an archeological culture has been

identified . Whi le R( A)€P,where P is a sum of all squares of equal size on the project map, may they containthe archeol og ical feature A (the fre quency of the A features may be chosen at random). The coefficient has

a ra nge of values from0 to 1 and serves as a measure of the extent of the given archeological culture inre lation to the total extent of all of the archeological cultures observed in the project. We are working

on the level of sites, on an abstraction level wh ich does not divide up individual phenomena dynamically.In genera l, the coefficient can serve as a scale of IIdocumentabilityll, and, consequently, of lithe chance of

discovery II of specific archeological periods.Culture (CPA, TEP, d ): Neolithic (II, 7, 0.40), Aeneolithic (4, 4, 0.02), Corded ware (14, 9, 0.11),

Bell Beakers (II, 8, 0.07t, Unet ice culture (9, 8, 0.11),Tumulus culture (3, 2, 0.02), Knoviz culture (13,9, 0.26), Hallstatt period (10, 8, 0.08), La Tene (19, 9, 0.28), II Roman II age (ll, 9, 0.08), Middle Ages

(13, 9, 0.18) .Identification of cultures is preliminary but the mutual relations are hardly likely to undergo

substant ia l transfo rmat ions in the future.

Let us try to explain some aspects of certain periods. For the purpose of this article, four stages ofthe prehistoric deve lopm ent, Neoli thic, Early and Late Bronze Age and La Tene, have been selected and theircharacteristics wil l now be sketched.

The Neolithic (Linear- and Stroked -pottery cultures): Six to eight Neolithic sites are known, so farin the immediate vicin ity of the main watercourses. They do not occur on tributaries and mino

watercourses. Ma p A shows immediately that the individual sites are situated some 1250-2500 mapart alongthe stream, while their distances from sites lying on the adjacent creek is determined geomorphologically.Neolith ic sites cower considerable areas - c. 15 hectares (the lower limit of the median value is always

indicated because the area or extent of the sites is expressed by for ml digitalization). Only settlemenfeatures are present (post-ho les, extraction pits, silos, etc.). Model sites have yielded several hundre

da table features (Map A letters H, L) and I assume by analogy similar numbers will occur on other sites

also. The test ing of two hypo theses will be of key importance for further investigations of the Neolithialong the Lomsky-potok may be advan ced: 1 - on individual sites, development of the components would b

recorded only for certain chronolog ical phases (on dating methods cf. Pavlu-Rulf-Zapotocka 1986). In suc

cases, mobility within the ancient settlement area (cf. the term IImacro-sitell as used by Z. Smrz 1989) mus

be assumed. 2 - a complete sequence of the Linear- and Stroked-pottery culture would be recorded on a mode

site; in practice, this means that no major phase of the Linear- and Stroked-pottery cultures would b

miss ing fro m he site. Every site wo uld thus imply a permanent occupation (one or two farmsteads?) withithe area of the site which continues develop throughout the whole of the long Neolithic period. It may alsbe po ss ib le to combine of both models.

Neolithic sites are easy to delimit, have a considerable measure of identifiable archeologization an

a high value for dx' Excavations of the model sites of Hrdlovka (cf. my article in this volume; Ma

A letter H) and of Libkovice (excavation directed by M. Dobes; Map A letter L) have been carried out i

recent years. If we as sume that the degree to which of the chronological phases recorded is representative,in the case of the Nol ithic of Bohemia, a function of the spatial extent of the archeological action, wmay attempt a mthemat ical simula t ion, based on plans of Hrdlovka and Libkovice model sites, of fragmentar

180



LOMSKY POIOK

oI

. . . a..L..L..a...L.. 3

LOMSKY POIOK

•.•.•••.• 2

o //

n

/

f- 0 In

\\

\\\\

\ rJ : i-

i" ｾ 0:

/ /\>, < f ....... <.

, ,

: "''',: '

\\,

\

'- --

o

Fig. 2. Map c: The Lomsky-potok project area. Formalized depiction of Late Bronze Age sites (Knovlz-and stitary cultures). Map D: Formalized depiction of La Tene - period sites. Key: 1 - total-excavationpolygon (TEP); 2 - area investigated especially in the 50's and 60's; 3 - the present-day edge of the"Maxim Gorkiy guarry; Bn - Brestany; F - Jenisuv Ujezd - Farska zahrada; Jenisuv Ujezd - cemetery S of thevillage; K- Jenisuv Ujezd - crossing ; L - Libkovice; Li - Liptice. Drawn by J. Brezak and H. Jonasova.

small-scale archeological actions in ,an effort to determine the information value of incompletearcheological excavations on non-model Neolithic sites.

Early Bronze Age. In 1986, a closed group of Early Bronze Age graves was unearthed at Jenisuv-Ujezd(1990). This consisted of 9-10 graves containing the remains of 13 individuals. The two southernmost gravesbelonged to the Bell Beaker culture, the majority to the Unetice culture. The investigation raised a hostof questions. Some of these have been tackled in papers cited below, but the whole set of problems will be

181



Unetice-culture graves in our area, at the si te of Hgel by Be zanky (Mp B letter Bk). It is known thatth is group of eleven interments in nine graves was also been fairly closed and a high degree of numericalcomparability with the Jenisuv-U jezd cemetery seems probable. A recent excavation by P. Mduna of anothergroup of graves at Libkovice (Map B letter L) an area of some 4 hectares confirmed the small number of

graves (5) and their distribution in groups . It seems that the limited numbers og graves within individualgroups are not random. A hypothes is aimed at a statist ical ly representat ive analysis of anthropological sex

determinations from vailable sources of informations in Bohemia and Morav ia has been formulated asfollows: a) not all the deceased of a given local populat ion were buried in conventional inhumation graves(non -cremated bodies lying on their sides with a N-S or ientation); b) - even in the case of theinhumations , soc ial differentiation de fining the status of the deceased seems to be apparent (Benes 1988,

1990).Going back to oqr grave groups on the Lomsky-potok, there remains the question of what kind ofa demograph ic image is represented by every archeological point observed. It seems that these were smallpop ulation groups persisting on the limit necessary for survival from the viewpoint of. endo- and exogamity.

sixteen findspots obviously representing nine sites have been recorded so far in the project area. In

the arche ological sense, every site is represented by traces of a settlement and a burial site situated atintervals not greater than 200-500 metres . The sites make up a dist inct clus ter in the area of the lower

course of the Loms kY-potok . The individual sites in this cluster (a ma cro-s ite?) are some 1000-1500 metresapart . Awatercourse is always nearby, and the distance from it rare ly exceeds 200 metres. Unfortunately,no mo re than the recording of ind icat ions of both settlement and cemetery si tes could be achieved theexcavat ions conducted on tlie lower course (With the exception of the "Hugel at Brezanky). However, the

logical structure of the recorded image, the so-ca lled meaningful network of archeological entities (Benes1989b ), seems to guarantee that the information on the spatial situation of Unetice-culture monuments isobjective.

sites on which Unetice-culture settlements (or rather thei r traces) have turned up are extremelyimpover ished in terms both of the number of features and the number of datable finds. In the best cases,these are represented by a few pits .

Another site cluster my be noted som 25 00 me tres upstream on the LomskY-potok. The area between thesett led zon es on the lower and upper courses was obviously empty (no trace of the Unetice-culture has been

uncovered among a large number of archeological sites). An other independent site lies at Libkovice(settlement and cemetery, Mp B letter L, cf. supra ), some 1500 metres W f the most representative grave

group at Jenisuv-Ujezd Map B letter J) . It is not clear so far .if there wa s another site cluster in the

area of the midd le and upp er courses as the between Libkovice and Jen isuv-Ujezd has not yet beeninvestiga ted .

Investigat ions of the Early Bonze Age in the Lomsky-potok area include study of the question of theorigins of the Early Bronze period (Benes 1989b). A spatial continuity of the cemetery sites among

Corded-ware , Bel l Beaker and unetice cultures has been observed.Late and Final Bronze Age. This period has al ready been commented on in the context of the whole

project (Benes and Koutecky 1987) , but has also be en discussed in detail in the case of a unique complex of

post structures at Liptice (Map C letters Li - Benes i987a). Except in the rare case of a cemetery atBrestany (Map C letters Bn - KouteckY 1987) and traces of cemetery at Jenisuv-Ujezd, sites of th is perioddisp lay settlement features such as tens or even hund reds of storage pits or ·other sunken construction.

The studies pub l ished by Zd. Smrz (cf. his art ic le in this volume) in recent years have contributed

fund amental evidence on the mechanism of the mcro-mobility of settlement in terms of specific macro-sitesof the Late and Final Bronze Ages (the Knoviz- and Sti tary-culture periods) in a similar micro-region of

the LuzickYpotok. The author, who has observed sett lement transfers by some 2000 metres after every15 0-200 years has chosen the term rotation for his model. He assumes that the area of sites of the

and St it ary-cul ture fell into the range of 3-6 hectares. As his model is dynamic and recordschanges in time and space, the t ime when it can be used to test other landscape segments with the aim of

estabi l ishing or reject ing its ge nera l appl icab il ity to a given Central European landscape type is actuallyapproaching. Out of this follows the necessity to compare his territory with that of Lomsky-potok and totest his model.

Let us review the basic data for the sites of the BD - HB pe riod in the project area. Thirteen sites

have been reco rded, including nine in the TE P area . In additio n to one independent cemetery(Map C,

lettersBn ), six mjor settlement sites which only rarely exceed 6-7 hectares in area, and which thus conform to

the reference points given by Z. Smrz (1987 ), have been iden tified. In addition, sites with less numerous

finds of a settlement na ture have also been registered. Z. Smrz has noted these, giving them the neutraltitle of, nsettlement-activity spots .

182



Lomsky-potok are situated some 1000 metres apart, quite like the Epart of the Luzicty-potok. Apeculiarityof the Lomsty-potok seems to be the clustering of Late Bronze sites of the lower course S of thewatercourse. The question how far the same spatiotemporal dynamics operating on the Luzicky-potok will beworking here is of cardinal importance.

La Tene period. The existence of a well-known La Tene cemetery in the project area created a uniqueopportunity for the study of this prehistoric period. The importance of this cemetery (Map D letter J),which, with its 132 graves, represents one of the best groups in Central Europe (Waldhauser et al. 1978),is enhanced by its integration into a broadly planned network of settlement and cemetery sites. Both thesefunctional categories of La Tene monuments occur in relatively equal number, and this opens the way to thesolution of questions of major importance. In addition to this extensive necropolis, smaller groups of 13

graves have been excavated at the crossing site (Map D etter K, Bubenik-Velimsky 1986) and at Libkovice(Map 0 letter L, 5 graves to date, excavation by M. Oobes). Together with other finds of a funerary nature,this assemblage creates favourable conditions for the study of demographic questions .

I wish to put forward here a rather intuitive proposal to the effect that· most of the identifiedburial sites display limited grave numbers and that they are likely to be a manifestation of the burialpractices among limited kinship groups, as in the unetice culture of the Early Bronze Age. I think that an

extensive cemetery with 132 graves is, in terms of the project area, an anomaly which yields evidence on

social processes relating the break up of tribal society (on this cf. Holodnak - Waldhauser 1987 withref.).

A close connection between cemetery and settlement sites is natural. We may say at present thatsettlements of the La Tene period which left the mostly easily-identifiable pithouses were small in area.

This is convincingly shown by the author'S excavations at Jenisuv-Ujezd (Benes 1987b) and at Hrdlovka, aswell as by excavations by other authors (Salac 1984, Bubenik and Velimsky 1986). Avaluable contribution tothe project is the construction of sequences for settlement pottery, developed for the settlement atBrezanky (Salac 1984). The sites of Jenisuv-Ujezd 18 - farska zahrada (The Vicarage Garden) and Uhrbitova(By the Cemetery, Map 0 letter F) may serve as a model. It seems that the complete sequence of La Tene

culture has been recorded here. The very limited number of pit houses, rarely greater than the value of 10

- 15, implies that at a certain period of time, no more than 1 - 2 serviceable habitation structures wereoccupied together at a given site. This indicates landscape utilization through a pattern of dispersedfarmsteads. It may be estimated at present that on the same side of a creek, these were 800 - 1500 metresapart and, when on opposite sides, 450 - 500 metres apart. The areas taken up by La Tene sites amount to6-7 hectares at most given the extremely low number and density of features. The internal dynamics of

superior structural units on the macro-site level remains - represents together with demographic questions- one of the key problems of the whole project concerning the La Tene period.

It may now be added briefly that other archeological periods also constitute - or will constitute- the subject of independent studies. Corded-ware culture cemeteries and other Eneolithic periods are beinginvestigated (Buchvaldek - Velimsky 1987; at present, M. Oobes is working in this direction). Studies ofthe "Roman age have begun (M. Ernee), and significant progress has been made in studies of the Early and

Late Middle Ages (cf. the contribution of P. Meduna in this volume).Aresearch project to study a small, enclosed region may, in the future, serve as a model for testing

archeological parameters in other selected areas of Bohemia, which now demand meaningful study in their own

right (Kuna 1989) and which, as we firmly hope, may contribute to the elevation of Czechoslovak archeologyto a qualitatively higher level.

References

Benes, J. 1987a: Das Knovizer Gehoft in Liptice, in: Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas (symposium

Liblice 21.-25. X. 1985), 231-235.1987b: Jenisuv Ujezd 18, in: Vyzkumy v Cechach 1984-1985, 70.

-88: Male lineticke pohtebiste v Jenisove Ujezde a otazka nekompletnosti pohtebni populacniskupiny - Die kleine uneticer Grabstatte in Jenlsuv Ujezd und die Frage der Unvollstandigkeit der

begrabenen Populationsgruppe (Beitrag zur Kritik der archaologischen Quellen, in: M. Oockalova(ed.): Antropofagie a pohrebni ritus doby bronzove, Brno, 31-42.1989b: Benutzung der Korrelationskarten beim Studium der Siedlungskontinuitat und -diskontinuitat:Beispiel in der Mikroregion Lomsky potok in Nordwest- BOhmen, in: Veroffentlichungen des Museums fUr

183



charakter of the population groups in an .archaeological-anthropological picture, in: AnthropologieXXVIII/ 2-3, 137 - 147.

Benes, J.- Koutecky, D. 1987: Die Erforschung der Mikroregion Lomsky potok - Probleme und Perspektiven, in:E. Cerna (ed.): Archaologische Rettungstatigkeit in den Braunkohlengebieten (Symposium Most 1986),Prag, 31-38.

Blazek, J. 1989: Die Raumidentifikation der archaologischen Fundstellen in NW-Bohmen, in:Veraffentlichungen des Museums fur Ur- und FrUhgeschichte Postdam (1991 - in print).

Bubenik, J.-VelimskY, T. 1986: Archeologicky vyzkum polykulturni lokality u Jenisova djezda, okr. Teplice- Archaologische Ausgrabungen einer polykulturellen Lokalitat bei Jenisuv djezd, Bez. Teplice, in:Archeologicke vyzkumy v severozapadnich Cechach v letech 1973-1982 (edd.: T. Velimsky et al.), Praha,

42-49, 137-138.Buchvaldek, M.- Velimsky, T. 1987: Katalog snurove keramiky v Cechach II. Povodi Lomskeho potoka na

Bilinsku - Die Kataloge der Schnurkeramik in Bahmen II. Einzugsgebiet des ·Baches Lomsky potok im

Gebiet von Bilina, in: Praehistorica XIII, Praha, 63-121.Holodnak, P.- Waldhauser, J. 1987: Keltische Graberfelder in Bahmen, in: 68. Bericht der

Ramisch-Germanischen Kommission, 25-179.

Klapste, J. 1989: Poznamky k nekterym tendencim v soucasnem vyvoji archeologicke pramenne zakladny

- Bemerkungen zu einigen Tendenzen in der Entwicklung der archaologischen Quellenbasis, in:Archeologicke rozhledy XLI, 75-84.

Kristiansen, K. (ed.) 1985: Archaeological Formation Processes. The representativity of archaeologicalremains from Danish Prehistory. Copenhagen.

Kuna, M. 1989: Teze ke koncepci terenni archeologicke prace (predbezny navrh projektu intenzivnihosledovani vybranych uzemi) (Theses on the concept of archeological fieldwork - a preliminary sketchof a project of intense monitoring of selected regions, in Czech). An unpublished manuscript.

Neustupny, E. 1986a : Sidelni arealy pravekych zemedelcu - Settlement Areas of prehistoric Farmers, in:Pamatky archeologicke LXXVII, 226-234.1986b: Nastin archeologicke metody - An outline of the archaeological method, in: Archeologickerozhledy XXXVIII, 525-549.

Pavlu, 1.- Rulf, J .- Zapotocka, M. 1986: Theses on the Neolithic site of Bylany, in: Pamatky archeologickeLXXVII, 288-412.

Salac, V. 1984 : Latenske sidliste u Brestan, okr . Teplice - Eine latenezeitliche Siedlung bei Brestany, Kr.

Teplice, in : Archeologicke rozhledy XXXVI, 261 -278 .

Schiffer, M.A. 1978: Behavioral Archaeology. New York - San Francisco - London.Smrz, Z. 1987: Vyvoj a struktura osidleni v mikroregionu Luzickeho potoka na Kadansku- The development and

structure of settlement in the microregion of the stream Luzicky potok in the area of Kadan, in:Archeologicke rozhledy XXXIX, 601-621.

1989: Siedlungsgeschichtliches Studium in der Mikroregion des Baches Luzicky potok im Kadan

- Gebiet, in: Veroffentlichu-ngen des Museum fur Ur- und FrUhgeschichte Postdam (in print).Velimsky, T. 1986: Die archaologische Rettungstatigkeit im nordbahmischen Braunkohlengebiet - Probleme,

Ergebnisse und Perspektiven, in: Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte, Dresden 30, 6-36.Waldhauser, J. et al. 1978: Das keltische Graberfeld bei Jenisuv djezd in Bahmen I-II. Teplice.

184

Documents

Benes 1991 Lomsky Potok Arch in Bohemia 0pt Libre