benes 1991 hrdlovka arch in bohemia opt libre

8/12/2019 Benes 1991 Hrdlovka Arch in Bohemia Opt Libre

1/10


2/10

Milan MladekCrepe WeaversNewtonards

Mr. J C No l anThe U ls t e r MuseumBe l fa s t

LIST OF SPONSO RS

Mr. J.G . Ke l lyLi t han Ltd .Bel fas t

Mr. G.ThompsonDuncrue Indus t r i a l Es ta tBelfas t

Dr. P.F. Wa l l a ceNat iona l Museum o f I re laDublin

Published by t he I ns tit u t e o f Arc haeo l ogy ofthe Czechoslovak Academy o f Sc ie ncesLetenskA 4, 11000 Praha 1

C 1991 Ins t i t u t e of Archaeology, PragueISBN - 80-901026-1-1


3/10

E. Ne ustupny: Preface 9I. Surveys and abstracts of theoretical studiesI. Pavlu: Problems of Early Prehistory in Bohemia The present state ofresearch) .. .................................. . . .. . .. . ... .. .... . . . .. . . . 11A. Rybova, P. Drda and K. Motykova: The contribution of present researchto the Proto-Historic period in Bohemia and its future prospects . . ..... 16J. Bubenik: The archaeology of the early Middle Ages (6th-12th centuries)On the present state of early Medieval archaeology in Bohemia .............. 27M. Beranova, Z. Vana and Z. Krumphanzlova: Bohemia in the 6th-12th centuries 35M Richter and Z. Smetanka: Medieval archaeology, 1986-1990 (Traditions andperspective ................................................................ 44K. Motykova, P. Drda and A. Rybova: Some notable imports from the end ofthe Roman period ........................................................... 56J. Klapste: Bedfichuv-Svetec and early feudal residences in NW Bohemia ...... .... 64T. Durdik: Feudal residences in Bohemia......................................... 68II. Large scale excavations in Bohemia

J. Benes: ANeol Ithic settlement site at Hrdlovka-Liptice (Excavations of1987-1990) . ............................................................. 75E. Pleslova-Stikova: Makotrasy (central Bohemia). A RB settlement with twoenclosures ......................................................... 80M. Zapotocky and M. Zapotocka: Kutna Hora - Danemark. Ahillfort of theMiddle Eneolithic Rivnac culture in the E part of Central Bohemia ......... .

87P. Brichacek: Hosty (district of ceske-Budejovice) - an enclosed settlementof the Early Bronze Age.................................................... 92J. Hrala, Z. Sedlacek and M. Vavra: The Bronze Age hilltop site at Skalka-Velim (Excavations of 1984-1989) ........................................... 93M. Chytracek : Ahillfort of the Late Hallstatt and Early La Tene periods onthe Cerny-vrch (Black Hill) by Svrzno, district of Domazlice ............... 105N. Venclova: ACeltic enclosure and temple at MSecke-Zehrovice ................. 110K. Motykova, P. Drda and A. Rybova: The state of studies of the settlementpattern of the oppidum at Zavist and their evaluation .................... 115

5


4/10

a settlement of the Late Roman period ... . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126I. Pleinerova: Acemetery of the Late Romano-Barbarian period at Opocno nearLouny, NW Bohemia ... .. .... . . .......... .... .. .......... . . . . . . . . . . 130M. Gojda: Early Medieval settlements at Roztoky: the 1986-1989 excavations. ..... 135J. Justova: The bailey of the ducal residence at Libice-nad-Cidlinou and itshinterland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140J. Frolik: The most recent excavations and discoveries at Prague Castle ... . . . . . . 146B. Nechvatal: Studies on the ducal and royal centre at Vysehrad . . . . . . . . ..... .... 149T. 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 Instituteof 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... .. .... .... 170J. Benes: The Lomsky-potok project: investigations of prehistoric settlementof a micro-region with large-scale soil transfers ................. ...... ... 178P. 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 .... ,........... ..... . ... .......... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191R. Sumberova: Neolithic settlement site at Chotebudice, district of Louny(Excavations of 1988-1990) ... ...... .. .... . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194D. Koutecky: ACordedware culture cemetery at Usti -nad-Labem - Trmice . . . . . . . . . . 196J. Stauberova, B. Stauber and Zdenek Smrz: Bfezno - rescue excavations ofa Bronze Age enclosed settlement .... . ...... . ............. ........... 198D. Koutecky: ALusatian settlement site at Stadice, district of Usti-nad-Labem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.......... 202v. Ctverak: Studies of prehistoric settlement at a sand-quarry for highwaybuilding at Tfebestovice, district of Nymburk (central Bohemia) .. ..... 203V. Vokolek: Acemetery of the Silesia-Platenice culture at Kostelec-nad-Orlici ......... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... . . ..... ... 206P. Holodnak: Rescue excavations at Sobesuky, in 1985-1990 .. ... ... 210

6


5/10

. ...... . . .J. Valentova: Aceltic inhumation cemetery at Kutna-Hora - Karlov ........ 221V. Salac: La Tene period production and distribution centre at Lovosice .... 225H. Sedlackova: La Tene period sunken-floored houses at Ktinec, districtof Nymburk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228J. Bubenik: Rubin Hill and its significance for early Medieval settlement .... 233T. Velimskj: Results of studies on a deserted municipal foundation of highMiddle Ages at necin ........................................... 237T. Velimsky: On the problems of the 13th-century municipality at Kynsperk-nad-Ohi i .............................................. 240V. Some interdisciplinary projectsP. Drda and A. Majer: surveying of the Celtic oppidum of Mont Beuvray, France .. 246R. Pleiner: Study of the early production of iron in Czechoslovakia 1985-1989 ... 252I. Pleinerova: An experimental station at Brezno near Louny (NW Bohemia) ..... 256E. Cerna: New evidence for glass production in Bohemia during the high Middle

Ages . . .... I 260List of authors ............................................... 265

7


6/10

-Jaromir Benes

The Neolithic site of Hrdlovka-Liptice is situated in the Podkrusnohorska panev (Piedmont Krusne horybasin) in NW Bohemia not far from t he piedmont area of the border mountains. The basin has here a typicalcharacter, being divided into shallow valleys the axes of which are constituted by small and shortwatercourses. Our site is situated close to one of these, the Loucensky potok. The site is currently beingobliterated at a significant rate by lignite mining. The study of the Neolithic area is closely connectedto the LomskY-potok project (cf. Benes in this volume), the aim of which is primarily to expand ourknowledge of developed settlement structures.The Neolithic settlement itself is located on a slightly elevated platform between the Loucensky potokand an unnamed watercourse. Archaeological work started here in the spring of 1987 when Neolithic sherdswere collected on areas Vand SJ (cf. Fig. 1), off which arable soil was being stripped by a bulldozer. Thefindspot was subsequently opened in a series of trenches sunk according to our judgment. Generally thesoundings cleaned some 10 cm of the arable subsoil and exposed the colourcontrasting structures ofpos t-holes and sunk features. Unfortunately, our intentions have frequently been marred by the devastatingscale of the operations of the mning agency.The site is presently divided into several sections ma rked as area V (East), SJ (Nord-South), BandZ (West ).During the excavation, Area V was covered only by a sub-arable layer of soil 10-15 cm thick whichcould be cleared by a mechanical excavator equipped wth a wide- mouthed bucket with straight cutting edge.At first, we sunk four t renches at intervals of 50 m. These trenches 150-200 m long, exposed theground-plans of 19 Neol ithic buildings out of which only one was completely uncovered (plan No.9). Some ofthe remaining 18 plans are datable from pottery found in building pits, parts of which we were able toexcavate in the trenches. In Area V we also intended to define the E border of the site and succeeded indoing so. Area Vvanished first, having been entirely mined away in 1988. To make things even morecomplicated, a sand-m ining pit was subsequently opened here.

The key Area SJ was mechanically cleared as a whole, and until its obliteration at the end of thesummer of 1989 we managed to keep its destruction under control, while investigations were ongoing. Weattempted to exp lore th is area in as much detail as possible, and over two years, our efforts were rewardedwith 16 mre or less complete ground plans. This area was prominent because of the exceptional visibilityof build ing details in the ye llow, Tert iary-period loam subsoi l .Area Bwas si tuated in the S part of the segment investigated. In 1989, it was rapidly uncovered bymeans of a bulldozer which enabled us to determine the points at which the Neolithic houses once stood, butonly occasionally permitted their detailed excavation and recording. Our experience indicates, however,that we have managed to record with reasonable accuracy at least the density of buildings,here.Investigations of Area Zbrought its first evidence forth as late as 1990. Five trenches 100-180m ong and 2,5-3 mwide were sunk here. Where time and available equipment permitted, we expanded these atsom points in order to investigate some plans entirely. We succeeded, in this, for example, in the case ofthe Stroked-pot tery culture plan No.44 where samp les for phosphate analysis were taken by the author andA.Majer in order to dete rmine the functions of areas of the interior of the building.The trenches in Area Z were oriented so as to cut perpendicularly the north-aligned plans of longhouses. In a number of instances , ma terials retr ieved from features situated along the house plans willpermt their relative chrono logical dating. We chose intervals of 25 m between the individual trenches inorder to record the maximum number of house plans.Evidence other than that of the Linear-po ttery and Stroked-pottery cultures obtained atHrdlovka-Lipt ice must also be mentioned. In the 1990 campaign, a sett lement of the Jordan6w-Michelsbergchronological horizon was sampled in Area Z. Traces of a Gobular-Amphorae culture settlement were recordedin this area and a group of Cordedwa re culture grav es were invest igated. We have good evidence for theEarly Bronze Age , in the form of a group of Un etice-culture graves investigated in Area B, and also someclusters of sunken settlement features . Feature 1465 which was obviously funerary in nature yielded thetotal ly unique find of 45 pottery loomwe ights.

75,


7/10

. .By October 1990, the overall extent of the area investigated was: 25410 square metres (i.e. 2,hectares: trenches in Areas V and Z, operations in Areas SJ and Z) which has been explored by puremechanical means, almost as efficient as manual work. Furthermore, the size of the area uncovered by meaof bulldozing and investigated subsequently amounts to c.7 ha (Area Band minor undertakings in AreaThe total number of features, recorded including post-holes, is 2030.Plans of Neolithic buildings

The site of Hrdlovka is remarkable from several viewpoints, not least from the presence of ground plansstructures of the Late Neolithic (in Czechoslovak terms), Stroked-pottery culture. Together with the siat Mseno (Licka 1989), Hrdlovka thus becomes a key data base for the whole of Bohemia for this period.

i - - - - - - - - - - - _______\\ \ \ \

\\ \ \ \ \

\

\ \ \\ \

JI

I,I

I

II

1>

0 1 8

SJ

22

v

o 100mc....:;,;,;,;, ............ '=nI

Fig. 1. The Neolithic site of Hrdlovka-Liptice. The extent of investigated areas and soundings1987-1990. Key: a' - Area Z, investigated at present, as in October 1990: b - areas uncovered by bulldozinc - areas and soundings where the arable subsoil has been removed by a mechanical excavatd - Linear-po ttery culture houses; e - Stroked-pottery culture houses: f - house with a boat-shaped planthe Lengyel cultural phase. Drawn by L. Jarosova.

76


8/10

@ ;. iIi l@

.0:;

1/ CO l i( ., ee . (f> I ,e oD .o -, 0( J til ,, ,. . I t e e 0"I 0 o . .. & -.. 0 e

e e . e l i t I t I 3

, e'' .' . . , _ , J ' , ,. e@ ' Ie , ':,. Q .. 0 . 0e . ., . ...

e 8

.j ,

0 .

I:_

.o 10m.............,

,.._ ... ... . . ... .I ', I 0, . . .

.,, .. . . .'. o . ... . ,; - . .. ........... . -.. . . 2

Fig. 2. Hrdlovka-Liptice. Selected plans of Neolithic long houses from the site. Plan No. 9 belongs to theearlier Linear-pottery culture, plan No.3 to the Sarka stage (i.e. terminal Linear pottery), plan No.2 tothe earlier Stroked-pottery culture, plan No. 8 to the later Stroked-pottery culture. Drawn by L. Jarosova.

To date, 71 plans of Neolithic long houses have been recorded here. Of these, some 25 have beeninvestigated completely or almost completely. Even as excavation proceeded, it was possible to identifyseven of these as belonging to the Linear-pottery tradition and nine as belonging to the Stroked-potterytradition. The dating of the remaining plans will be the subject of further analyses. Most plans have, infact, been recorded in trenches and their dating is likely to be approximative.Here I wish to mention four interesting plans (Fig.2). Of the earlier Linear-pottery culture period,I refer to the plan No.9. The classical five-row structure is marked by a row of three larger and moredeeply set posts making up one of the transversal walls somewhat S of the building centre. The building hada conventional oblong disposition 23 m long and 7 m wide. Its N erminus was represented by a liningtrench. Plan of the building No.3 was unique in all directions/ especially in view of its dimensions. Thiswas 49 m long, the Nwall being 8 m nd the S 9 mwide. It is thus one of the largest plans of kind inCentral Europe. The dating is far from certain but it seems that it may belong to the Sarka stage(=terminal Linear pottery). The other two plans which I mention here belong to the full fledgedStroked-pottery culture. In both cases, the dating is quite safe thanks to pottery finds. Plan No.2

77


9/10

. . .in a slightly asymmetrical fashion . wi thin the N third of the E row of posts, one of the post-holes hasbeen enclosed by a hoa rd of fragments of som 35 grinding stones.Most of the bui ld ing deta ils of Neolithic house plans are fai rly well legible. In a number ofinstances, w could determine shadows of sunk pits, exact positions of posts or even shapes of timbers orboards set into the soil.Artifacts and biological remdins

Most of the Neolithic features are post-holes which define the building plans. The range of remainingsunken features is of standard character, following the norms for the Linear-pottery cultural sphere inCentral Europe. In addition to building pits, clay-mining sites, trenches and other types of sunk featuresoccur . Mst of their fillings are either unstratified, or else their stratification is not visible. Anoverwhelming majority of artifacts and biological remains come from sunk features.The key artifact group is without doubt the pottery. Its importance is decisive in determining therelative chronology of the site. We know at present that the site must have been settled throughout theNeolithic period. How far this implies continuous settlement of the same spot will emerge only in the lightof further research campaigns. I wish to point out here that the range of pottery includes a number oftypes and decorative techniques, that the quality of the pottery is high and its frequency.In addition to pottery, the Hrdlovka site has yie lded numerous groups of stone artifacts displayingwide diversity, of which Coarse stone products merit special attention. We have retrieved a considerablequantity of crushing stones, grinding stones, pestles and whetstones. The local collection of ground andpolished stonework, especially in its quantity and quality, fully accords with the standard of CentralEuropean Linear-pottery culture settlements. We have one hoard find of ground stonework consisting ofseveral items in various stages of finish and datable to the period of the Stroked-pottery culture.Aconsiderable quantity of chipped stonework has been found on the site. study of the composition ofraw -material types used in for the produc tion of the chipped stonework offers attractive prospects. Inaddition to imported grey Baltic flint , it will be necessary to take the local quartzite intoconsideration. va rieties in frequencies of type-representation in combination with both functional andmorphological features may indicate dif fering levels of the con trol of the local resources. The particularsignificance of the study of chipped stone industries is enhanced by studies of the newly identifiedspecialist craf t settlements Venc l 1989) in the vicinity of qua rtzite outcrops. The range of raw materialsfrom Hrdlovka is ra ther va ried (in addition to flint, it inc ludes Tusimice-, Becov- and Skrsin-typequartzites). In terms of inMuidual tool groups, the Hdlovka finds do not differ from what is usual in theLinear-pottery cultural sphere. .We have also managed to retrieve a small group of animal bones of average quality. The occurrence ofany bones from the Stroked-pottery culture period, especially when associated with a site with buildingplans, is especially important. It provides a unique opportunity to compare animal bones from Linear andStroked-pottery contexts of a single site.Another biological remains present are pieces of charcoal fragments or remains of wood. Some wasfound in several post-holes which, by a stroke of luck, were often components of well-dated plans,especially those of the Stroked-pottery culture .A large silo, No.765, contained a substantial quantity of material among which Mrs.V.Culikovaidentified carbonized grains of ember wheat.

opportunities for study of major settlement unitsThe study of the Hrdlovka site is an integral part of the wider research programme of Lomsky-potok(cf.J.Benes, in this volume). within this terrHory of the Lomsky- and Loucensky-potok drainage areas, weknow of 6-8 Neolithic sites closely associated with the main creeks. No Neolithic sites are to be found thetributati.es and minor watercourses (Linear or Stroked-pottery cultures). Individual sites are spaced1250-2500 m apart in the direction of the water flo w, the distance between sites belonging to drainageareas of neighbouring creeks being de termined by geomorphology. The extent of these Neolithic sites isconsiderable - c. 15 ha . It seems that wthin territory of the project, we have not recorded (and probablywill not record) any settlement cluste r of the same extent as Bylany 1 or Bylany 4 (Pavlu-Zapotocka 1983).On the contrary , the sites occurr ing in our type of landscape are likely to be all of the same size. Wehave at present several inte rpretative options for their evaluation which will have to be tested in thecourse of future research. I wi ll re fer only to two:1) Every site of the Lomsky-potok project (that is, including Hrdlovka-Liptice) will present

78


10/10

conc us ons a ou anc en mo y w n n v ua se emen areas.2) In model sites (for us only the sites at Hrdlovka and Libkovice meet these criteria), a completedevelopment sequence of the Linear- and stroked-pottery cultures will be recorded. This could show in theanalysis by a continuous chronology of materials in which no important phase will be missing. Every suchsite would thus indicate continuous settlement of a spatial segment. In terms of timet if we assume theexistence of ninety long houses and count with the maximum estimate of the life-spans of these structures,an interpretation that the site represents the remains of one or two contemporary homesteads will not seemso very surprising.The Hrdlovka-Liptice site represents a basic reference point and model for the study of majorsettlement structures. In addition, it makes a contribution to studies of the Neolithic in itself, as itconstitutes the most extensively investigated site in NW Bohemia.References

Licka, M. 1989: Grundrisse von Doppelhausern (?) aus der stichbandkeramik, In: Bylany. Seminar 1987(ed.J.Rulf), Praha, 227-231.Pavlu, I. - Zapotocka, M. 19B3: Bylany. Katalog: sekce A, dil I. Vyzkum 1953-1967 (Bylany. Acatalogue:section A, Part I. Excavation 1953-1967/ in Czech). Praha.Vencl, S. 1989: Neolithic quartzite processing site at Zichov, distr. of Teplice, In: Bylany. Seminar 19B7(ed.J.Rulf). Praha, 131-133.

79

benes 1991 hrdlovka arch in bohemia opt libre

Documents