336.full

7/26/2019 336.full

1/32

T

HE SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC

REFUSE FROM THE NEOLITHIC SITE AT

BYLANY, CZECH REPUBLIC

Petr Kvetina

Institute of Archaeology, Prague, Czech Republic

Abstract: This article aims to provide an interpretation of the structure and spatial patterning of thenon-ceramic refuse from the Neolithic site of Bylany. The data are considered at three levels:tackling questions of refuse management and deposition in the vicinity of houses; the spatialdistribution of refuse within the settlement area as a whole; and the quantity and structure of non-ceramic refuse from a long-term settlement perspective. The analysed assemblage of non-ceramicfinds is divided into five categories: chipped stone, polished stone, whetstones, manos/metates,and other stones without use-wear traces. The analysis is based on GIS and multivariate statistics.The spatial distribution and quantity of refuse are analysed with respect to space (in terms of prox-imity to Neolithic houses and the whole of the excavated settlement area) and time (the durationof settlement in six chronological stages). No deliberate pattern of refuse management was identi-fied in the vicinity of the houses, but the refuse was found to have a tendency towards peripheralgrouping within the settled area as a whole. Refuse quantity depends on the number of housesand settlement duration. The negative correlation between the mean density of non-ceramic arte-facts per house and the number of houses in corresponding chronological stages may be explainedby the interpretation that refuse was commonly deposited within abandoned houses, whichwould be consistent with ethnoarchaeological observations.

Keywords: Bylany, ethnoarchaeology, Linear Pottery Culture (LBK), Neolithic, non-ceramic finds,settlement refuse

INTRODUCTION

This article comprises a quantitative spatial analysis of the non-pottery assemblagefrom the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) settlement at Bylany near Kutn Hora(Fig. 1). Archaeological excavations of the Bylany site started at the beginning ofthe 1950s. At that time, only one larger-scale excavation of a Neolithic settlementsite existed, at Kln-Lindenthal, Germany (Buttler and Haberey 1936). The initialinterpretation of the LBK settlement pattern, based on the results of that excava-tion, proposed that long pits had, for example, a residential function. The primaryaim of the Bylany excavations was therefore to provide comparative material and

get more information about the first farming culture in central Europe. The goals ofthe Bylany project were formulated in several subsequent steps:

European Journal of ArchaeologyVol. 13(3): 336367Copyright 2010 SAGE Publications ISSN 14619571 DOI:10.1177/1461957110386673

7/26/2019 336.full

2/32

KVETINA:SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY 337

1. To reveal the complete Neolithic settlement on the site (Soudsk 1962).2. To create a formalized description system, and successively test it for auto-

matic data treatment (Soudsk 1967).3. To analyse archaeological data primarily concerned with the chronology of

LBK pottery and settlement (Pavlu 1989; Soudsk and Pavlu 1972).4. To publish the research results and make the archaeological data fromBylany accessible in a way that would allow further processing and analysisin the future (Kvetina and Pavlu 2007; Pavlu 2000).

The Bylany excavation was initiated by B. Soudsk and up to the present itremains one of the longest-running Czech archaeological projects, at presentbeing undertaken by a fourth generation of researchers. Large-scale excavationsbegan in 1956 and ended in 1967 due to the changing political situation in

Czechoslovakia. Almost 7 ha of Neolithic settlement comprising 144 groundplans of LBK long houses and hundreds of pits were excavated (Fig. 2). To date itremains the largest Neolithic settlement site known in the Czech Republic,although only part of the excavation that was originally projected was actuallycarried out.

Figure 1. Bylany location map within LBK settlement area in Bohemia (after Pavluand Zpotock2007: fig.2).

7/26/2019 336.full

3/32

338 EUROPEANJOURNAL OFARCHAEOLOGY13(3)

Following the excavation phase, the main documentation and publication ofthe archaeological material from Bylany was undertaken in the 1980s. Researchin the following decades focused on re-evaluation of the excavated archaeologi-cal material and on survey of the sites surroundings. The Neolithic LBK settle-ment proved not to be isolated, since this is one of the regions of Bohemia withthe highest density of settlement. Settlements here are found on slight slopes cov-

ered with fertile soils on loess subsoil (Fig. 1). The fourth envisaged phase of theproject is being realized at present; it consists of making the documented archae-ological data available in a hybrid printed and electronic publication, and on theinternet (bylany.com 20042009).

Although it is necessary to examine all the archaeological material from a givensite to gain a global insight on the discard processes, this proved to be a lengthytask for the huge assemblage from Bylany. This article is limited to a study of thefollowing categories of non-ceramic refuse: chipped stone (flints), polished stone(axeheads and adze-blades), whetstones (abrading, smoothing, polishing tools),

manos and metates (grinding slabs and handstones), and other stones without use-wear traces.1 Artefacts in these categories were not studied further, for examplewith regard to the completeness of a tool, its size or weight, because the spatialanalysis focused on the quantity of non-ceramic refuse as an indicator of generaldeposition patterns. Analysis of the non-ceramic artefacts concentrates on three

Figure 2. Plan of excavated sectors A, B, and F showing the attribution of structures to chronological

stages (Bylany images n.d. http://www.bylany.com/images/Bylany%20chronology.jpg).

7/26/2019 336.full

4/32

aspects: the first concerns refuse management and its deposition in the vicinity ofhouses; the second deals with the overall distribution of non-ceramic refuse withinthe settlement as a whole; and the third refers to the quantity and structure ofnon-ceramic refuse in relation to the long duration of the settlement.

When studying the remains from ancient settlements, it is necessary to rememberthat the individual items of the surviving artefact assemblage, and the assemblageas a whole, have undergone many changes both during and after use. Depositionof the assemblage items on a settlement is not a result of a single historic event.Various factors, which may be classed in general terms as C (cultural) and N (non-cultural) transforms or transformations (Schiffer 1987:7, 22) played their part inthe process of assemblage formation. The present analysis is concerned with theC transforms involved in the primary spatial distribution of the artefact assem-blage, here categorized as refuse, covering a broad range of both portable and

immovable features (pits, post-holes, i.e. former houses), which had completedtheir primary purpose and were subsequently discarded.

Refuse treatment is considered an anthropologically behavioural constant,which means that this phenomenon is common to all known historic and presentcultures. The quantity and structure of refuse differs with a societys economy andcomplexity; refuse produced by an industrial urban agglomeration is differentfrom that of a rural agricultural settlement. Populations differing socially or cultur-ally also define refuse in different ways; an empty tin can discarded as waste byone society may in another represent a useful container (Staski and Sutro 1991:3).

Societies differ not only in the production of refuse and its structure and definition,but also in their decision-making as to how to manage refuse. Interest in discardpractice grows with the degree of sedentism and the spatial limitations of settle-ment relocation. Refuse management is the least developed and sophisticated inmobile societies, which results in a high spatial correlation between the function ofan object and its discard, whereas industrial cities obviously feature the highestdegree of refuse management, connected to the need of their populations to main-tain a comfortable long-term existence within a limited space. In pre-industrial-ized, agricultural populations, refuse consists mainly of kitchen scraps, human and

animal waste, ashes, discarded work items and everyday tools, and abandoneddwelling, working and storage structures or parts thereof, and it seems legitimateto compare the refuse treatment by recognizably similar societies, such as those ofthe LBK villages.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three separate areas, labelled sectors A, B and F, were uncovered during thearchaeological excavation in Bylany (Pavlu 2000:15). Sector A is the largest, cover-

ing in total 44,693 m2

, and sectors B and F cover 13,409 m2

and 11, 878 m2

respec-tively (Fig. 2). Table 1 shows the number of preserved household ground plansand archaeological features in each sector.

The LBK settlement in Bylany spans the period 53504900 cal BC (Pavlu 2000:270,317318), and it consists of settlement remains formed by the pits and post-holes of


7/26/2019 336.full

5/32


structures. The basic spatial-chronological unit of the settlement is defined as aconstruction complex, which consists of the post-hole ground plan of a house andany adjacent pits situated within 5 m of the postulated walls of the house (Fig. 3).This criterion of a 5 m distance from the walls was defined after consideration ofthe overall distribution of pits and house-plans across the settlement (Pavlu

1977:13). The purpose of the pits adjacent to the house walls is not completelyclear. It is assumed that the pits served primarily as extraction pits for the materialnecessary for house construction. In the course of the life of the house the pits filledwith refuse and natural in-wash, but the length of the interval during which thepits were being filled is not known.

The Bylany LBK settlement has been divided into 25 chronological phases(Pavlu 2000:238240; Pavlu et al. 1986:352355), on the basis of the sequence of con-struction complexes and pottery typology. These original settlement phases areartificial time intervals, to each of which the same constant value of 20 years has

been attributed. This constant creates a relative timescale and represents roughlyone generation of inhabitants, during which house reconstruction is usually takento have occurred. This means one reconstruction per house per generation. These

Table 1. Number of houses and pits identified per sector.

Number of phasedSector Number of houses construction complexes Number of phased pits

A 86 70 208B 25 19 70F 33 24 68

Figure 3. Plan of house 88 including designation of the houses hypothetical tripartite internalspace and external area with pits belonging to the construction complex according to analysis.(Modified after Soudsk and Pavlu1972:318.)

7/26/2019 336.full

6/32


reconstructions were, nonetheless, not mutually synchronized, so are not necessarilysimultaneous within phases.

The construction complexes of each phase serve as a probable representation offunctionally and, in a given time-horizon, chronologically close settlement units.Phases are, however, too short a timespan to be suitable for the analysis of non-ceramic spatial distribution, since they were defined without taking into accountartefacts other than pottery. If the other artefact types (manos/metates, chippedstone, polished stone and so on) are included in the typo-chronological classifica-tion, six chronological stages are obtained (Pavlu 2000: 268). These stages reflectsignificant horizons within the finds assemblages, as first detected in the typologyof manos/metates (Pavlu 1982). Each stage encompasses several phases (Table 2and Fig. 2).

During the archaeological excavation the distribution of non-ceramic artefacts

was registered within spatial units termed features (which might represent morethan one pit or parts of individual pits), but for the present study a constructioncomplex as defined earlier was the basic analytical unit. Subdivisions reflecting thesix chronological stages and the three spatial sectors (A, B, F; Fig. 2) are used torecord the analysis results and the overall sums of values detected, as follows:

1st stage in section F 1.i. F2nd stage in section A 2.i. A (without construction complexes)2nd stage in section B 2.i. B

2nd stage in section F 2.i. F3rd stage in section A 3.i. A3rd stage in section B 3.i. B4th stage in section A 4.i. A4th stage in section B 4.i. B4th stage in section F 4.i. F5th stage in section A 5.i. A5th stage in section B 5.i. B6th stage in section A 6.i. A

6th stage in section B 6.i. B (without construction complexes)

Table 2. Correlation between intervals and phases at the Bylany settlement. Each settlement phasehas the arbitrary chronological value of 20 years (Pavlu2000:268).

Length of settlementStage (Pavlu 2000) Phase (as defined in 1986) duration (cumulatively)

1 1, 2, 3, 4 80

2 5, 6, 7, 8 1603 9, 10, 11, 12 2404 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 3405 18, 19, 20 4006 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 500

7/26/2019 336.full

7/32


The assemblage of stratified non-ceramic finds from Bylany contains 1203pieces of chipped stone, 1234 pieces of polished stone, 884 whetstones, 642manos/metates, and 2070 other stones. From this total amount, it was possibleto assign to specific chronological stages 678 pieces of chipped stone (56.36%), 795pieces of polished stone (64.42%), 590 whetstones (66.74%), 313 manos/metates(48.75%), and 1307 other stones (63.14%), as shown in Table 3.2 These datareflect the fact that a large part of the stratified finds was not assignable tostages. The reason is that the presence of a minimum of 30 potsherds with lineardecoration was set as the statistical limit for the chronological classification ofpits. Such a methodological measure contributed to the increased homogeneity ofthe assemblage and eliminated to a great degree the presence of intrusions, butat the same time it excluded a significant number of archaeological featuresfrom the analysis (Pavlu 1998:7276).

RESULTS

Analysis of non-ceramic refuse within the construction complexes

The primary aim of the analysis was to confirm or exclude preferences in refusedeposition in the pits associated with each construction complex, which can besubdivided into western, eastern and northern pits in terms of their positions rela-tive to each house. Southern pits are absent at Bylany, which seems to confirm thatthe entrance was situated on this side of the house. Finds from post-holes are

generally very rare and do not include stone artefacts. The distributional datarelative to pit capacity are shown in Table 4, where the data show a preponderanceof finds in western pits, manifested from the 2nd stage. This quantitative prepon-derance continues until the final or 6th stage where the difference between thewestern and eastern pits is by far the greatest. Northern pits in the stages wherethey exist have a significant share of the non-ceramic finds only in the 1st stage.

Table 3. Total number of non-ceramic artefacts in various sectors at different chronological stages.

Stage/sector Chipped stone Polished stone Whetstones Stones Manos/metates

1.i. F 35 61 21 125 242.i. A 6 1 0 0 12.i. B 37 25 23 22 92.i. F 88 61 22 160 303.i. A 87 58 65 69 73.i. B 66 51 39 70 214.i. A 136 181 133 208 494.i. B 8 24 20 66 13

4.i. F 2 13 14 83 65.i. A 95 139 120 208 585.i. B 16 39 25 38 36.i. A 100 138 108 252 926.i. B 2 4 0 6 0

7/26/2019 336.full

8/32


The mean concentration of finds in particular pits was calculated using theformula:

concentration in the pit = V of the pit/artefacts.

The quantity of non-pottery finds rises continuously until the 4th stage where thereis a break, with a markedly lower number of non-ceramic finds in the 5th stage.The quantity rises again in the 6th stage. Pit capacity shows a similar tendencythrough time, except that capacity in the 2nd stage is lower than in the previousstage. Both pit capacity and number of non-ceramic finds are markedly higher inthe western pits of the construction complexes, although this trend is the least sub-stantial in the 1st stage.

These data are expressed graphically in Figure 4, which shows that the preva-lence of eastern and western pits begins in the 2nd stage and continues until theend of the settlement, with eastern pits having a markedly lower capacity thanwestern pits. Northern pits only occur in the 1st, 4th, and 6th stages and representa very small share of the total pit capacity.

In order to formulate the probability of refuse preservation in respect to the par-ticular house sides, an approximate calculation of the maximum pit capacity isrequired. The determination of the real capacity of each pit requires automatedprocessing because of their variability.3 An elongated ground plan prevails in the

Bylany pits, so that the length of a pit is normally markedly greater than its width.To achieve the least volume distortion possible it is advantageous to use a GIS-based method (see later in the article, Note 3 and Figs 5 and 6).

The figures for the number of finds and for pit capacity are naturally correlatedwith settlement size as expressed by the number of houses (Table 5). Contrary toexpectation, the concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic metre is also

Table 4. Pit capacity according to location within the construction complex, number of non-ceramicfinds, and artefact concentration in the pits of the construction complexes. The find concentration isgiven per cubic metre.

Pit capacity Number of Concentration of in cubic metres non-ceramic finds finds per cubic metreStage/sector W E N W E N W E N

1.i. F 77.48 67.82 35.63 89 92 51 0.87 0.74 0.702.i. B 3.24 3.06 0 22 5 0 0.15 0.61 x2.i. F 32.1 53.83 1.94 171 125 5 0.19 0.43 0.393.i. A 130.64 76.3 0 181 59 0 0.72 1.29 x3.i. B 166.26 154.83 0 121 110 0 1.37 1.41 x4.i. A 455.17 242.62 9.08 307 280 0 1.48 0.87 x

4.i. B 77.96 89.13 0 72 25 0 1.08 3.57 x4.i. F 19.4 28.21 0 60 58 0 0.32 0.49 x5.i. A 179.65 150.88 0 202 160 54 0.89 0.94 05.i. B 114.15 16.97 0 67 12 0 1.70 1.41 x6.i. A 447.21 109.75 11.48 384 122 33 1.16 0.90 0.35

7/26/2019 336.full

9/32


Figure 4. Pit capacity of western, eastern and northern pits for each chronological stage. Values onthe Y axis are in cubic metres.

Figure 5. Schematic pit shape in the form of a spherical section.

7/26/2019 336.full

10/32


correlated with the number of houses. The concentration was calculated as the quo-tient of the pit capacity and the number of finds (Table 4). It shows a break in the2nd stage where this value rises significantly. However, the concentration falls againin the 3rd stage and reaches the value of approximately one artefact per cubic metre,which then remains practically unchanged until the end of the settlement.

No significant difference in the concentration of finds was detected in westernor eastern pits from the perspective of the position within the construction complex.The concentration in northern pits is comparable with the others in the 1st and 2ndstages, and in the following stages northern pits are either absent or the concentra-tion in them is low. A break consisting in a decrease of concentration in the 2ndstage affects western, eastern, and northern pits. At the end of the settlement, in the6th stage, there is a difference between the eastern pits, where the concentration offinds falls, and the western pits where the concentration rises.

In summary, the analysis of non-ceramic refuse deposition within the construc-tion complexes does not show any unambiguous significance for any one singlepart of a house. Although pit capacity on the western sides is higher and there arealso more finds, the relative concentration of finds on both sides of the construction

complexes is comparable.

Figure 6. Schematic pit shape where depth reflects reality, but where base shape is (unlike the situ-ation in reality) similar to surface shape.

Table 5. The result of factor analysis of the correlation between the stated variables. A single factorwas extracted from the given matrix, showing a high degree of positive correlation between thenumber of houses in the given chronological stage, the pit capacity and the quantity of non-ceramic

finds. The concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic metre of pit capacity shows negativecorrelation with the other variables. Data extraction method: principle component analysis. Onecomponent was extracted.

Component Matrix Component 1

Number of houses 0.950Number of non-ceramic finds 0.951Pit capacity 0.993Concentration of non-ceramic finds per m3 of pit capacity 0.717

7/26/2019 336.full

11/32


Distribution of non-pottery refuse within the settlement

The spatial distribution of refuse within the settlement remains (sectors A, B, and F)was studied to examine any discard patterning. Apart from pits located within con-struction complexes, excavation revealed so-called isolated pits. Although not partof construction complexes, some of these pit features were, on the basis of the potterythey contained, assigned to settlement phases. It remains a possibility that these pitswere not really isolated, but were associated with archaeologically undetected houses.

Altogether 346 pits, with a total capacity of 3800 m3, were dated. Of these, 306 pitswere associated with dated construction complexes, representing approximately2740 m3 (or 72% of the total capacity). In terms of location in relation to houses, 154pits were situated to the west, 144 pits to the east, and 8 pits to the north. The 40 iso-lated pits had a combined capacity of approximately 1050 m3 (or 28% of the total).

Table 6 shows the percentage representation of the various categories of non-

ceramic artefacts in the pits. The capacity of the isolated pits is proportional to thenumber of non-ceramic finds in them. Both variables show a comparable propor-tion that varies from 22 to 28 per cent of the total capacity of all dated pits and allnon-pottery finds. The only exception is the whetstones, of which fewer than 15 percent were found in the isolated pits. Otherwise no deliberate preference betweenisolated pits or pits adjacent to houses was detected for non-ceramic refuse discard.

Subsequently, spatial analysis focused on the overall distribution of non-ceramic artefacts within the excavated areas, using GIS projection of artefactnumbers on the vector site plan. Individual non-ceramic categories were repre-

sented as symbols on the sector stage plans of the houses (Figs 715). The posi-tion of the symbols on the plans corresponds to the centre of the archaeologicalfeature in question. A median value was calculated for the assemblage of non-ceramic artefacts from each stage (Table 7). When median values were calculatedthat included the pits without non-ceramic artefacts these usually equalled zeroor one, which limits further analysis. Median values were therefore calculatedwithout these pits. The data file for a given stage was then divided based on thearithmetic distance from the median value. The result of frequency division is aGIS projection of variables in an interval scale of below median value, median

value, and above median value.The non-ceramic finds tend to be grouped peripherally. This trend isstrongest for the chipped stone and decreases for the other artefact categories inapproximately the following order: manos/metates, polished stone, whetstones,and other stones (for a selection of graphic representations of the analyses seeFigs 715).4

Table 6. Percentage of non-ceramic artefacts in isolated pits and in pits associated with houses.

Chipped Polished Other Manos/stone stone Whetstones stones metates

Pits in the vicinity 74.48 75.60 85.25 77.66 77.64of housesIsolated pits 25.52 24.40 14.75 22.34 22.36

7/26/2019 336.full

12/32


Table7.Absoluteandmediannumberofnon

-ceramicartefactsinvariouschronologicalstages.

Mean

number

Medianvaluezero

valuesexcluded

Me

dianvalueincludingzerovalues

Chipp

ed

PolishedWhet-

Manos/ChippedPolished

Whet-

Manos/Chipped

PolishedWhet-

Manos/

Stagestone

stone

stonesStones

metatesstone

stone

stonesStonesmetatesstone

stone

stonesSton

esmetates

1.i.

1.0

6

1.85

0.6

4

3.79

0.73

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

2

0

2.i.

4.8

5

3.22

1.6

7

6.74

1.48

3

3

1

4

2

1

1

0

3

1

3.i.

2.2

8

1.63

1.5

5

2.07

0.42

3

2

2

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

4.i.

1.2

5

1.86

1.4

3

3.05

0.58

2

2

2

3

1

0

1

0

1

0

5.i.

1.8

8

3.02

2.4

6

4.17

1.03

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

6.i.

1.5

2

2.12

1.6

1

3.85

1.37

2

2.5

2

3

2

1

1

0

2

0

7/26/2019 336.full

13/32


Figure 7. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of chipped stone in the firstchronological stage.

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of chipped stone in the fourthchronological stage.

7/26/2019 336.full

14/32


Figure 9. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of chipped stone in the sixthchronological stage.

Structure of the non-ceramic refuse from the perspective of long-termsettlement duration

Settlement duration at Bylany encompassed a period of several centuries, and fur-

ther analyses of the dataset focused on changes in the quantity of non-ceramicrefuse through time. The following variables enter into the analysis: total settle-ment duration; number of houses; number of non-ceramic artefacts; relativeconcentration of non-ceramic artefacts per house; and concentration of non-ceramic artefacts in one cubic metre of pit capacity (Table 8). In order to determine

7/26/2019 336.full

15/32


Figure 10. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of other stones in the firstchronological stage.

Figure 11. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of other stones in the fourthchronological stage.

7/26/2019 336.full

16/32


the total settlement duration, the constant value of 20 years was attributed to eachchronological phase (Pavlu 2000:268; see Table 2). This constant is artificially cre-

ated but for present purposes its absolute value is not important. The number ofhouses represents the number of construction ground plans allocated to eachchronological stage and the number of non-ceramic artefacts is also calculated withreference to stage. The relative concentration of finds is determined as the quotientof the number of houses and the total number of finds in any stage.

Figure 12. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of other stones in the sixthchronological stage.

7/26/2019 336.full

17/32


Figure 13. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of polished stone in the firstchronological stage.

Figure 14. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of polished stone in the fourthchronological stage.

7/26/2019 336.full

18/32


The factor analysis undertaken detected a very strong correlation between thenumber of non-ceramic finds and the number of houses in the stages. There is alsoa significant correlation between the settlement duration, the number of houses,

and the total quantity of non-ceramic finds. The mean number of non-ceramicfinds related to one house is in moderate negative correlation with the other vari-ables studied. The first component affects 62 per cent of the assemblage variabilityand the second component 31 per cent, which together comes to 82 per cent of thetotal variability of the assemblage (Table 9). The graphic representation of the

Figure 15. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of polished stone in the sixthchronological stage.

7/26/2019 336.full

19/32


Table8.Totalsettlementdurationlength,num

berofhouses,numberofnon-ceramicartefacts,relativeconcentrationofnon-ceramicartefactsp

erhouseand

concentrationofnon-ceramicartefactspercubicmetreofpitcapacityandmean

pitcapacityperhouse.

Concentration

Mean

number

ofnon-pottery

Meanpit

Du

ration

Numberof

Chipped

Polished

Whet-

Manos/

ofnon

-pottery

artefactsin1m3

capacity

Stage

len

gth

houses

stone

stone

stones

Ston

es

metates

Total

findsperhouse

ofpitcapacity

perhouse

1.i.F

80

12

30

57

17

108

20

232

19.33

1.28

15.79

2.i.ABF

160

10

79

52

32

137

28

328

32.80

3.4

8

9.42

3.i.AB

240

14

129

98

99

122

23

471

33.64

0.8

9

37.41

4.i.A

BF

340

37

106

182

143

308

63

802

21.68

0.8

7

25.1

5

5.i.A

B

400

19

76

105

121

155

38

495

26.05

1.0

7

24.3

0

6.i.AB

500

23

85

107

91

185

71

539

23.43

0.95

23.65

7/26/2019 336.full

20/32


quantitative correlation (Fig. 16) confirms that the total amount of non-ceramicartefacts is directly related to the number of houses in the particular stages ratherthan to settlement duration. The concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubicmetre of pit capacity is also in negative correlation with the number of houses(Table 5; Fig. 17).

In terms of the separate non-ceramic categories, manos/metates show a highpositive correlation with the number of houses, followed in decreasing order byother stones, polished stone, and whetstones. The number of these artefact categoriesis also in correlation with the settlement duration, although to a lesser degreethan with the number of houses. Chipped stone shows correlation neither with thesettlement duration nor with the number of houses (Table 10).

Other analyses focused on the correlation of the following variables: number ofnon-ceramic finds; concentration of non-ceramic finds per cubic metre of pit capac-

ity; and mean number of non-ceramic finds per house. It must be remembered thatall these variables depend on the number of houses in each chronological stage; thiswas included in the analysis as a secondary and control variable. The results are dis-played on a time axis that represents the successive stages of settlement at Bylany(Figs 1819). These diagrams compare the number of houses and the amount ofnon-ceramic finds with the mean values of non-ceramic finds per house and theconcentration of non-ceramic artefacts in a cubic metre of pit capacity. They confirmthe principal component analysis: the more houses, the more non-ceramic artefacts,but the lower their mean number related to a single house (Fig. 19). The concentra-

tion of finds per cubic metre of pit capacity is stable except for the 2nd stage.These results were further refined by comparing the mean number of the dif-

ferent non-ceramic categories per house (Tables 1112). Chipped stone, other

Figure 16. The correlation between the number of non-ceramic finds, the number of houses andsettlement duration.

7/26/2019 336.full

21/32


Figure 17. Two factors were extracted: the first explains 61% of variability within the matrix andexpresses strong positive correlation between settlement duration, the number of houses and thesum of the non-ceramic industries (the longer the duration of the settlement, the more housesexisted and the greater the number of non-ceramic artefacts). The second factor explains 21% ofvariability within the matrix and shows correlation between the mean number of non-ceramic arte-

facts per house in the individual chronological intervals and the density of non-ceramic artefacts percubic metre of pit capacity (i.e. the higher average of artefacts per house, the higher their density in

pits; the capacity of pits itself remains the same).

Table 9. Correlation between the settlement duration length, number of houses, total of non-ceramicartefacts, mean number of non-ceramic artefacts per house in the various chronological stages and theconcentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic metre of pit capacity. Variable values typical for the

given factor are shown in bold. Data extraction method: principle component analysis. Rotation madeby the Varimax method with 3 iterations.

Component

Matrix of rotated components 1 2

Number of houses 0.832 0.431Duration length 0.848 0.065Non-ceramic finds 0.947 0.150Mean per house 0.030 0.954Pit concentration 0.472 0.658

7/26/2019 336.full

22/32


stones, and whetstones show the highest degree of negative correlation with thenumber of houses. A major deviation exists in the case of other stones in the 2ndstage, otherwise the mean value per house is stable. The mean number of pol-ished stone artefacts is quite stable over time, but there is also a moderate

negative correlation with respect to the number of houses. The number of manos/metates is not correlated with the number of houses, but with the dura-tion of settlement (the mean number of manos/metates rises in the 2nd and6th stages). Also the absolute number of manos/metates rises sharply in the 6thstage (Table 8).

Figure 18. Comparison of the number of houses and volume of non-ceramic industry with the

values of the mean number of non-ceramic finds per house and the density of non-ceramicartefacts per cubic metre of pit capacity. The graph confirms the findings of the analysis of themajor components, that the more houses, the more non-ceramic finds, but the less their meanvalue per house. Finds density per cubic metre of pit capacity remains stable throughout the

period of existence of the settlement, with the exception of the second stage.

Table 10. Correlation between the settlement duration, number of houses and non-ceramic findscategories in the various chronological stages. Data extraction method: principle component analysis.Rotation made by the Varimax method.

Component

Matrix of rotated components 1 2

Number of houses 0.933 0.262Chipped stone 0.130 0.959Polished stone 0.824 0.489Whetstones 0.656 0.692Stones 0.894 0.241Manos/metates 0.925 0.077Duration 0.705 0.324

7/26/2019 336.full

23/32


The quantitative differences in the studied attributes of non-ceramic refuse,manifested in the course of the settlement duration, are not unequivocally corre-lated with time. Except for the 2nd stage, it is not possible to trace trends thatwould be connected, for example with the spatial changes of the settlement (set-tlement shifted from area F towards areas A and B in the 2nd stage). Changes inthe structure of non-pottery refuse are correlated with the changing number ofhouses in the individual chronological stages rather than with the duration of thesettlement. An exception occurs in the final 6th stage when despite the decreas-ing number of houses both the absolute and mean number of manos/metates

rises. The mean number of artefacts in the western and eastern pits also differs inthis stage. Whilst the mean number of finds continues to rise in western pits, itdecreases in eastern ones (Table 11).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Archaeological settlement refuse is the result of both natural and cultural agency.Both these transformation categories were subject to a whole series of synchronicand diachronic changes. However, the management of refuse in pre-industrial

societies can be seen as influenced within limited parameters by recurrent socio-cultural requirements. The interpretation of the results of this study of settlementrefuse at Bylany leans heavily on behavioural theory (Schiffer 1976, 1987) andethno-archaeological research (e.g. David and Kramer 2001), rather than exploringthe possible symbolic aspects of discard (e.g. Chapman 2002; Chapman and

Figure 19. Graph of the quantitative relationship between the number of houses and the meannumber of non-ceramic finds per house.

7/26/2019 336.full

24/32


Table11.Meannumbersofthedifferentnon-ceramiccategoriesperhouseineachstage.Valuesforthewestern

andeasternpitsoftheconstruction

complexesarealsoshown.

Meannumberofnon-ceram

icfindsperhouse

Allpits

Westernpits

E

asternpits

Number

of

ChippedPolishedWhet-

Manos/ChippedPolis

hedWhet-

Manos/C

hippedPolishedWhet-

Manos/

Stagehouses

stones

stones

stonesS

tonesmetatesstones

stones

stonesStonesmetatesstones

stones

StonesSton

esmetates

1.i.

12

2.5

0

4.75

1.4

29

.00

1.67

0.7

5

1.58

0.42

4.17

0.50

1

.00

1.17

0.58

3.92

1.00

2.i.

10

7.9

0

5.20

3.2

01

3.7

0

2.80

3.3

0

2.60

2.00

9.20

2.20

3

.80

1.30

1.10

2.30

0.60

3.i.

14

9.2

1

7.00

7.0

78

.71

1.64

6.0

0

4.79

4.71

5.07

1.00

2

.93

2.14

2.14

3.43

0.64

4.i.

37

2.8

6

4.92

3.8

68

.32

1.70

1.4

9

2.30

2.43

4.78

0.86

1

.38

2.62

1.43

3.54

0.84

5.i.

19

4.0

0

5.53

6.3

78

.16

2.00

2.2

6

3.21

3.89

4.00

0.79

1

.58

1.89

1.89

2.89

0.79

6.i.

23

3.7

0

4.65

3.9

68

.04

3.09

2.5

2

3.39

3.26

5.09

2.43

1

.00

0.78

0.52

2.43

0.57

7/26/2019 336.full

25/32


Gaydarska 2007), and assumes that the vast majority of the refuse under discussionis primarily the result of everyday human activities.

Unlike mobile societies, sedentary populations are forced to structure theirrefuse spatially, which normally results in the loss of any direct connectionbetween where refuse is deposited and the place where the items comprising therefuse were used. The degree of spatial organization of refuse increases if the set-tled area is limited by natural conditions or cultural factors. When a settlement canexpand freely or there is no difficulty in relocation, specialized long-term areas for

refuse need not be created (Cranstone 1971:134). This does not mean that people insedentary societies would be living in the midst of their refuse, but that its deposi-tion occurs only within the so-called home discard area (see later), from where therefuse tends not to move. This could be the case with LBK settlements, where newhouses were not built on top of the old ones, but on completely new plots, whichcaused the long-term horizontal enlargement of settlements.

In cases when there is no direct spatial correlation between refuse discard and theplace where the items discarded were used, the conditions for secondary refuse for-mation are met. Its very existence is conditioned by the formation of refuse areas and

dumps, necessary for the maintenance of comfortable life at any settlement. It can beimagined that certain rules must exist within any social group to circumscribe thedeposition of refuse, following common behavioural patterns arising from generalhuman standards. A basic rule would spring from the principle of least effort: peoplewill normally invest the minimum of energy on discard, therefore refuse is depositedin the vicinity of households and activity areas. The validity of this principle hasrepeatedly been shown ethno-archaeologically (Deal 1985; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979;Graham 1994; Hayden and Cannon 1983), but it can of course be observed in mostpeoples behaviour. Categories of refuse that are subject to symbolic treatment are

exempted from the principle of least effort (e.g. Hodder 1987).Another recurring phenomenon is that refuse that would inconvenience orendanger inhabitants is placed outside the main activity area. At prehistoricsettlements this could for example be the case with the sharp debitage flakes ofchipped stone refuse. Similarly the retention of certain refuse for possible further

Table 12. Correlation between the settlement duration, number of houses and mean number of thedifferent non-ceramic categories per house in each chronological stage. Data extraction method:

principle component analysis. Rotation made by the Varimax method with 3 iterations.

Components

Matrix of rotated components 1 2 3

Number of houses 0.826 0.195 0.015Duration length 0.817 0.190 0.540Mean chipped stone 0.567 0.778 0.148Mean polished stone 0.164 0.934 0.308Mean whetstones 0.326 0.928 0.010Mean stones 0.856 0.065 0.343Mean manos/metates 0.119 0.144 0.973

7/26/2019 336.full

26/32

KVETINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY 361

reutilization or recycling is a frequent behavioural practice associated with discard.Accumulated items that await further possible use are termed provisional refuse.Since different artefact classes have different reutilization and recycling potential,they appear in the provisional refuse with different intensity. In general terms, themore effort, time, or wealth required for an objects acquisition or production, thehigher the probability that it will be placed among the provisional refuse before itsfinal discard. Complete vessels or large fragments thereof, metal tools, polishedstone tools, and damaged machines are among items occurring most often in theprovisional refuse of pre-industrial societies.

No deliberate pattern of refuse deposition within the so-called construction com-plexes was identified at Bylany. No preference was detected in the deposition of theindividual non-ceramic refuse categories according to the direction in which pits werelocated relative to houses. That there is significantly more refuse in the western pits of

the construction complexes can be explained by their higher capacity. The differencebetween western and eastern pits in the final stage of settlement at Bylany is interest-ing. The number of artefacts in western pits rises markedly (e.g. the number ofmanos/metates is triple that of the other stages), and contrary to that, the number offinds in eastern pits falls to the lowest values recorded over the lifespan of the wholesettlement. This could be interpreted as showing that within the toft area (Deal1985:262; the toft is defined as the immediate site of a dwelling and its outbuildings,as well as the location of most activities associated with the dwelling), the space onthe western side of the house served as the final refuse disposal site, whilst the eastern

side was used as the place for provisional refuse deposition. If the site was abandonedgradually and in a planned way, provisional refuse could have stopped accumulatingon the eastern side in the expectation of departure. On the other hand more items,the discard of which was otherwise low in the course of the settlement (e.g.manos/metates), were included in the final refuse on the western side.

Based on the behaviour patterns documented in economically and socially com-parable populations (Schiffer 1987), it can be argued that refuse would be morespatially structured within the Bylany households. That this patterning could notbe detected might be explicable in two ways: either such traces disappeared owing

to the effects of the formation processes involved; or the delimitation of the con-struction complexes does not reflect the original extent of the past socio-economicunits (households).

The prime trend detected for refuse management across the whole settled areaduring the various stages is the peripheral deposition of non-pottery refuse. Thismeans that non-ceramic refuse concentrates outside the hypothetical centre of thearea settled in each given stage. This trend is strongest for the chipped stone andof decreasing tendency for the other artefact categories in the following order:manos/metates, polished stone, whetstones, and other stones (Figs 715). Chipped

stone is therefore in mutual opposition to whetstones and other stones, regardingthe peripheral deposition of artefacts.Chipped stone refuse originates partly from tool production and partly from the

use of tools. Both these cases represent refuse belonging to the potentially danger-ous category for which deposition outside the activity area is typical. The raw

7/26/2019 336.full

27/32


material and technology used for chipped stone production allow for minimalreutilization and recycling of artefacts, which explains why this type of refuseseldom appears in the provisional refuse in the vicinity of houses (Figs 715).The refuse composed of unused, unneeded, or unusable stones and whetstonesaccumulated in the home discard area in the vicinity of houses (Figs 1012). Thisdiscard pattern can be explained by the principle of least effort and also the possi-ble intention of easy accessibility, since discarded whetstones and other stonescould potentially be reutilized or recycled and for this reason they could havebecome part of the provisional refuse.

A high positive correlation in relation to the number of houses and the settle-ment duration in particular chronological stages was detected for the numberof manos/metates and in decreasing order for other stones, polished stone, andwhetstones. The quantity of chipped stone is independent of the other cate-

gories. So the number of construction complexes (households) reflects the num-ber of discarded manos/metates, other stones, and other non-ceramic artefactsapart from chipped stone. These findings conform to the refuse distributionwithin the whole settled area; the quantity of refuse discarded in the home dis-card zone corresponds to the number of households. On the other hand therefuse deposited at the margins of the settled area may represent municipalrefuse that accumulated there over a long time without any direct relation toindividual households.

Another variable studied was the mean number of non-ceramic finds related to

individual houses in particular stages. It was assumed that this mean number willbe (a) in moderate positive correlation with the number of houses since a highernumber of houses (i.e. more inhabitants) causes higher discard need; and (b) broadlyconstant since the houses probably existed for a comparable length of time andthe discard rate was stable.

The analysis, however, proved that the assumption was wrong; the morehouses there are in a stage, the less refuse is deposited in their vicinity (Fig. 19).This means that in the stages with lower numbers of houses there is more refusethan was expected, and in the stages with more houses there is less refuse. It

must be remembered, of course, that the chronological stages presented here areonly artificial horizons. In reality the Neolithic village comprised both inhabitedand abandoned houses, the latter not necessarily isolated dead plots, but formingpart of the settlement life. This leads to the possibility that the refuse from theoccupied houses was partly deposited in the area of abandoned houses (Fig. 20).In this way the discard trend can be explained as showing that in stages with alow number of houses there is more mean refuse deposited than in subsequentstages with a higher number of houses: the refuse from living houses wasdeposited in the space around the previously abandoned houses. Consequently,

if a settlement stage with a high number of houses was preceded by one with fewhouses, pits of the earlier stage will contain on average more refuse, actually pro-duced in the more recent settlement stage. Such an assertion is of course not theonly possible explanation of the discard trend, although the described method ofrefuse management would match some ethno-archaeological observations (Deal1985; Stevenson 1982).

7/26/2019 336.full

28/32


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks for support and advice belong to Ivan Pavlu and other colleagues from

Bylany. I am also very grateful to Anthony Harding and Alan Saville who made theEnglish version of the text readable, and to my wife Sylvie for proofreading it. Thearticle was supported by a grant project of the Grant Agency of the Academy ofSciences of the Czech Republic (registration number A800020701): Artefacts inNeolithic society: their status and roles.

NOTES

1. Categorization of the stone artefacts follows Adams (2002:238242). The category of

other stones involves all stone objects found without clear working traces or any unequivo-cally interpretable use. This includes artefacts which presumably functioned as weights,heating stones, occasional percussion tools and so on. Fragments from stone tool productionor their use also probably belong here. Items from fine-grained sandstone that probablyserved for the final polishing and sharpening of stone (but also bone or wooden tools) werethe main objects allocated to the category of whetstones. To the category of manos/metates

belong lower grinding slabs and upper handstones. They are generally made from cruderaw materials and probably served for processing cereals. Burning traces were not takeninto consideration in this analysis.

2. The basic tool used here for quantitative and spatial analysis is a geographic informa-tion system (GIS), created in the ArcGIS 9.1 program with Autodesk Land Desktop software.

The non-ceramic finds data were analysed in database programmes MS Office 2000 Accessand Excel. The multidimensional statistical analyses were carried out in SPSS 12.3. One of the theoretical possibilities is a calculation formula tailored to each individual

pit. This procedure is in itself difficult to carry out because of the complex pit shapes, andsince there are a lot of pits (346 dated features) it would be extremely time-consuming tocalculate the capacity of every single pit. Another possibility is to maximally schematize thepit shape so that it resembles those regular shapes for which a standard capacity calculation

Figure 20. Model reconstruction of refuse management on a Neolithic site in which the majority ofthe rubbish from the living houses is being dumped on the abandoned structures.

7/26/2019 336.full

29/32


formula exists. It would then be possible to use the three basic dimensions of each pit andschematize its shape into the block form (V = a b c). This method is quick and simple,

but the distortion rate of the result is high if compared with the real volume of the pit. Yetanother possibility is to schematize the pit into the shape of a spherical cone and use the rele-

vant formula: V =1

/6 h2

(3a2

+ h2

), where a is the radius of the spherical cone base, i.e. thelength or width of the pit, and h is the height of the spherical cone, i.e. the depth of the pit.Figure 5 depicts the disadvantage of this method: although in side view there is little volumedistortion, in plan the distortion is much higher due to the irregular shape of the pitsground plan. The fourth procedure is based on the GIS software facility, which allows anexact calculation of the area of any polygon. Upon creation of a vector plan of the whole siteit is possible to calculate the area of the archaeological features. For each feature this value isthen multiplied by the depth of the pit, and thus is determined the schematic volume of thefeature, its ground plan corresponding to reality. This calculation schematizes the side viewof the pit, in that the pits depth is real, but the shape of the pits base is, unlike in reality,identical to its surface shape (Fig. 6).

4. Archaeological fieldwork in Bylany did not uncover the whole area settled in thecourse of Early Neolithic (Fig. 2). It follows from the information available, however, that thesettlement area was not continuously covered by houses; there were free spaces betweenclusters of houses. The hypothetical delimitation of activity areas is then possible. This isthe case with parts of area A, namely segments 4.i.A, 5.i.A and 6.i.A. Settlement of area Fcontinued northwards into an unexcavated part, but the southern limit of segments 1.i.Fand 2.i.F is probably delimited by houses of the 4th stage. The settled area limits cannot bedetected in area B and this area was therefore not included in the analysis. With regard tothe spatial distribution, it is necessary to note that houses in some segments (3.i.A, 5.i.A) arearranged eccentrically, and therefore the fact that refuse was deposited in the vicinity ofthose houses may distort the results of the analysis.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, J.L., 2002. Ground Stone Analysis. A Technological Approach. Salt Lake City:The University of Utah Press.

BUTTLER, W. and W. HABEREY, 1936. Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Kln-Lindenthal.Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter (Rmisch-Germanische Forschungen Band 11).

BYLANY.COM, 20042009. URL (accessed 8 October 2010): www.bylany.comBYLANY IMAGE (n.d.) Settlement chronology plan. URL (accessed 12 October 2010):

http://www.bylany.com/images/Bylany%20chronology.jpg

CHAPMAN, J., 2002. Neolithic pottery at Polgar-10 (Hungary): Measuring the habitus.Documenta Praehistorica 29:127144.CHAPMAN, J. and B. GAYDARSKA, 2007. Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric

Context. Oxford: Oxbow Books.CRANSTONE, B.A.L., 1971. The Tifalmin: A Neolithic people in New Guinea. World

Archaeology 3(2):132142.DAVID, N. and C. KRAMER, 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.DEAL, M., 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands: An ethnoar-

chaeological interpretation.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4(4):243291.DEBOER, W.R. and D.W. LATHRAP, 1979. The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo

ceramics. In C. Krammer (ed.), Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnographyfor Archaeology: 102108. New York: Columbia University Press.GRAHAM, M., 1994.Mobile Farmers: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Settlement

Organization Among the Rarmuri of Northwestern Mexico . Ann Arbor:International Monographs in Prehistory (Ethnoarchaeological Series 3).

7/26/2019 336.full

30/32

HAYDEN, B. and A. CANNON, 1983. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in theMaya highlands.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2(2):117163.

HODDER, I., 1987. The meaning of discard: Ash and domestic space in Baringo. InS. Kent (ed.),Method and Theory for Activity Area Research. An Ethnoarchaeological

Approach: 424448. New York: Columbia University Press.KVETINA, P. and I. PAVLU, 2007. Neolitick sdlitev Bylanech zkladn databze.Neolithic settlement at Bylany Essential Database. Praha: Archeologick stav.

PAVLU, I., 1977. K metodice analzy sdlit s linern keramikou. Pamtky archeolog-ick68:555.

PAVLU, I., 1982. Die Entwicklung des Siedlungsareals Bylany 1. In J. Pavk (ed.),Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearbandkeramik in Europa: 193206. Nitra:Archeologick stav SAV.

PAVLU, I., 1989. Die Keramische Chronologie der Siedlungen in Bylany. In J. Rulf(ed.), Bylany Seminar 1987. Collected papers: 5963. Praha: Archeologick stav.

PAVLU, I. 1998. Minulost a prtomnost archeologie v muzeu. Neolitick sdlite v

Mocovicch u Cslave . Praha: Archeologick stav.PAVLU, I., 2000. Life on a Neolithic Site: Bylany Situational Analysis of Artefacts . Praha:

Archeologick stav.PAVLU, I., J. RULF and M. ZPOTOCK, 1986. Theses on the neolithic site of Bylany.

Pamtky archeologick77:288412.PAVLU, I. and M. ZPOTOCK, 2007. Archeologie pravekch Cech 3. Neolit. Praha:

Archeologick stav.SCHIFFER, M.B., 1976. Behavioral Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.SCHIFFER, M.B., 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press.SOUDSK, B., 1962. The Neolithic site of Bylany.Antiquity 36(143):190200.

SOUDSK, B., 1967. Principles of automatic data treatment applied on Neolithicpottery. Praha: Archeologick stav (manuscript).SOUDSK, B. and I. PAVLU., 1972. The Linear Pottery Culture settlements patterns of

central Europe. In P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man,Settlement and Urbanism: 317328. London: Duckworth.

STASKI, E. and L.D. SUTRO, 1991. The ethnoarchaeology of refuse disposal:Current research and future prospects. In E. Staski and L.D. Sutro (eds),The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal: 14. Arizona State UniversityAnthropological Research Papers 42. Tempe: Arizona State University.

STEVENSON, M., 1982. Toward an understanding of site abandonment behavior:Evidence from historic mining camps in the southwest Yukon. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 1(3): 237265.

SUBMISSION DATA

Received 30 April 2007; accepted 11 January 2008; revised 22 April 2009 and 23 March2010

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Petr Kvetina is head of the Department of Prehistory of the Institute of Archaeology,

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, and lecturer at the Department ofArchaeology, University of Hradec Krlov, Czech Republic. His research centres onthe Neolithic site at Bylany and presently focuses on depositional and post-depositionalprocesses and intra-site spatial analyses.


7/26/2019 336.full

31/32


Address: Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha, Letensk 4, 118 01,Czech Republic. [email: [email protected]]

ABSTRACTS

Prostorov analza nekeramickho odpadu z neolitickho sdlite v Bylanech, C esk repub-likaPetr Kvetina

Clem tohoto clnku je pokus o interpretaci struktury a prostorovho rozloen nekeramickhoodpadu z neolitickho sdlite v Bylanech. V rmci problmu se soustredme na tr i rovinyotzek: zachzen s odpadem a jeho deponovn v okol domu; rozloen nekeramickhoodpadu v prostoru cel osdlen plochy; kvantitu a strukturu nekeramickho odpadu z hlediskadlouhho trvn sdlite . Analyzovan soubor artefaktu byl rozdelen do peti kategori: tpanindustrie, brouen industrie, brousky, zrnoterky (mlny) a kameny beze stop opracovn. Uitmetoda spocvala v GIS analze a vcerozmern statistice. Prostorov distribuce a poc et odpadu

byl analyzovn vzhledem k prostoru (pozici v rmci stavebnch komplexu domu i celho sdlite)a case (trvn sdlite behem esti chronologickch stupnu ). Doloit trend v deponovn nek-eramickch artefaktu uvnitr usedlost se nepodarilo. Byl vak prokzn excentrick rozptyl arte-faktu vzhledem k pomyslnmu stredu osdlench ploch jednotlivch casoprostorovch seku.Pocet artefaktu je zvisl na poctu domu a dlce trvn osdlen. Negativn korelace mezipru mernou hustotou nekeramickch nlezu vzhledem k domu a poctem domu prslunhochronologickho intervalu poukzala na monost, e oputen usedlosti byly na sdliti dlevyuvny, napr. prve pro deponovn odpadu, co koresponduje i s etnoarcheologickmipozorovnmi.

Klcov slova: Bylany, etnoarcheologie, LBK, neolit, nekeramick artefakty, sdeln odpad

(translation by Petr Kvetina)

Analyse spatiale des dchets non-cramiques du site nolithique de Bylany, RpubliqueTchquePetr Kvetina

Cet article cherche interprter la structure et la configuration spatiale des dchets non-cramiques du site nolithique de Bylany. Les donnes sont tudies trois niveaux : aborder lesquestions sur la gestion des dchets et de leur dpt dans les environs des maisons ; ladistribution spatiale des dchets dans la totalit de la zone dhabitation, et la quantit etstructure des dchets non-cramiques en cas dimplantation long terme. Lassemblage analys

de vestiges non-cramiques est divis en cinq catgories : pierres tailles, pierres polies,polissoirs, meules courantes/dormantes et autres pierres sans traces dusure. Lanalyse se fondesur SIG et les statistiques multivariables. La distribution spatiale et la quantit de dchet sontanalyses en tenant compte de lespace (par rapport la proximit des maisons nolithiques etde lensemble de la zone dhabitation fouille) et du temps (la dure de lhabitat en six phaseschronologiques). Il ntait pas possible didentifier une tendance dlibre dans la gestion desdchets dans lentourage des maisons, mais il semble y avoir un regroupement des dchets dansles priphries de la zone habite. La quantit des dchets dpend du nombre de maisons et dela dure dhabitation. La corrlation ngative entre la densit moyenne dobjets non-cramiquespar maison et le nombre de maisons dans des phases chronologiques correspondantes pourraitsexpliquer par le fait que les dchets taient frquemment dposs dans les enceintes desmaisons abandonnes, ce qui serait en accord avec des observations ethnoarchologiques.

Mots cls : Bylany, ethnoarchologie, LBK, Nolithique, trouvailles non-cramiques, dchets d'habitation

(translation by Isabelle Kayser-Gerges)

7/26/2019 336.full

32/32

Die rumliche Analyse von nichtkeramischem Abfall des neolithischen Fundplatzes Bylany,Tschechische RepublikPetr Kvetina

Dieser Beitrag soll eine Interpretation der Struktur und der rumlichen Verteilung von

nichtkeramischem Abfall des neolithischen Fundplatzes Bylany liefern. Die Daten werden hierfrin drei Ebenen ausgewertet: Klrende Fragen zum Abfallmanagement und zur Ablagerung in derUmgebung der Huser; die rumliche Verteilung des Abfalls in der gesamten Siedlung sowie dieMenge und Struktur nichtkeramischen Abfalls in einer langfristigen Siedlungsperspektive. Dasanalysierte Inventar nichtkeramischer Funde wird in fnf Kategorien unterteilt: geschlageneSteinartefakte, polierte Steinartefakte, Schleifsteine, Mahlsteine (Lufer, Unterlieger) und andereSteine ohne Nutzungsspuren. Die Analyse basiert auf GIS und Methoden multivariater Statistik.Die rumliche Verteilung und Menge von Abfall wird unter Bercksichtigung des Raumes (im Sinneder Nhe zu neolithischen Gebuden und der Gesamtheit des ausgegrabenen Siedlungsareals) undder Zeit (der Dauer der Siedlung in sechs chronologischen Stufen) untersucht. Gezielte Muster desAbfallmanagements knnen in der Umgebung der Huser nicht identifiziert werden, doch deutetsich an, dass sich der Abfall in der Peripherie des gesamten bewohnten Gebietes zu gruppieren

scheint. Seine Menge hngt von der Anzahl der Huser und der Siedlungsdauer ab. Die negativeKorrelation zwischen der mittleren Dichte der nichtkeramischen Artefakte pro Haus und der Anzahlder Huser in korrespondierenden chronologischen Phasen kann dadurch erklrt werden, dass derAbfall im Allgemeinen in aufgelassenen Husern abgelagert wurde, was mit ethnoarchologischenBeobachtungen bereinstimmt.

Schlsselbegriffe: Bylany, Ethnoarchologie, Linienbandkeramik, Neolithikum, nichtkeramischeFunde, Siedlungsabfall

(translation by Heiner Schwarzberg)


Date post:	13-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	uivar09
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

336.full

Documents