Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné: dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Czech |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Praha
Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fak., Masarykova Univ. [u.a.]
2007
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses / Pragensesque
3 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The use of stone raw materials in the Neolithic and Eneolithic |
| Beschreibung: | 282 S. zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| ISBN: | 9788073082079 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023219137 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20100913 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 080318s2007 abd| |||| 00||| cze d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788073082079 |9 978-80-7308-207-9 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)439440668 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV023219137 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a cze | |
| 049 | |a DE-739 |a DE-12 |a DE-19 | ||
| 080 | |a 903/904 | ||
| 084 | |a NF 2445 |0 (DE-625)125212:1307 |2 rvk | ||
| 084 | |a 6,11 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Šída, Petr |d 1976- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)141709200 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné |b dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří |c Petr Šída |
| 264 | 1 | |a Praha |b Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fak., Masarykova Univ. [u.a.] |c 2007 | |
| 300 | |a 282 S. |b zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses / Pragensesque |v 3 | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The use of stone raw materials in the Neolithic and Eneolithic | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr. |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Neolitik - Arheološke najdbe | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Neolithikum |0 (DE-588)4075272-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Steinbearbeitung |0 (DE-588)4256435-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Chalkolithikum |0 (DE-588)4138001-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 4 | |a Češka - Arheološke najdbe | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Nordböhmisches Gebiet |0 (DE-588)4075449-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Nordböhmisches Gebiet |0 (DE-588)4075449-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Steinbearbeitung |0 (DE-588)4256435-9 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr. |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 1 | 0 | |a Nordböhmisches Gebiet |0 (DE-588)4075449-2 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 1 | |a Neolithikum |0 (DE-588)4075272-0 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | 2 | |a Chalkolithikum |0 (DE-588)4138001-0 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | 3 | |a Steinbearbeitung |0 (DE-588)4256435-9 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 810 | 2 | |a Pragensesque |t Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses |v 3 |w (DE-604)BV022424472 |9 3 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016405070 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 900 |e 22/bsb |f 09013 |g 4371 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 900 |e 22/bsb |f 09012 |g 4371 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804137505443807232 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | OBSAH
I. Úvod
.........................................................................................11
1.1. Definice oblasti zájmu
.....................................................................12
1.2.
Historie výzkumu neolitu v oblasti horního Pojizeří
............................................12
II.
Základní kolekce a jejich datování
...............................................................14
III.
Suroviny
....................................................................................15
111.1.
Silicity
.................................................................................15
111.2. Amfibolové horniny
.....................................................................15
111.3. Pískovce
................................................................................15
111.4. Ostatní místní suroviny
...................................................................15
111.5. Dálkové importy
........................................................................16
IV.
Popisný systém kamenné industrie
..............................................................17
IV.
1.
Typologické schéma
......................................................................17
IV.3. Struktura a význam databáze
..............................................................27
V. Základní výzkumy
.............................................................................30
V.l.
Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
................................................................30
V.2. Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
......................................................................33
V.3. Jistebsko
.................................................................................35
V.4. Velké Hamry I a
II
........................................................................37
V.5. Jeskynní lokality Českého ráje
-
Babí, Zemanova a Kudrnáčova pec
..............................37
V.6. Klamorna, k.ú. Dneboh
....................................................................37
V.7. Lokality pozdního paleolitu
................................................................38
V.8. Ostatní lokality
..........................................................................40
VI.
1.
Surovinová skladba
......................................................................49
VI.
Starší fáze kultury
s
lineární keramikou
..........................................................49
VI.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
.........................................................51
VI.3. Prostorová analýza rozptylu artefaktů
......................................................53
[7]
Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní
dohé
kamenné
VII.
Střední fáze kultury
s
lineární keramikou
........................................................
56
VILI. Surovinová skladba
.....................................................................
56
VII.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
........................................................
57
VII.3. Prostorová analýza rozptylu artefaktů
......................................................
59
VIII.
Mladší fáze kultury
s
lineární keramikou
.......................................................
61
IX.
Kultura
s
keramikou lineární
...................................................................
oz
IX.
1.
Surovinová skladba
......................................................................
62
IX.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
.........................................................
63
IX.3 Prostorová analýza rozptylu artefaktů
.......................................................
63
IX.4 Surovinová skladba objektu
753............................................................
63
IX.5 Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza objektu
753...............................................
64
X.
Neolitická těžba v podhůří Jizerských hor
.........................................................
67
Х.1.
Lokality
s
doklady neolitické těžby a zpracování kamene
.......................................
67
X.2. Rozbor industrie a terénní situace na zkoumaných lokalitách
...................................69
X.3. Exkurz: Broušené artefakty v mezolitu?
......................................................
7^
X.4. Exkurz: Další těžební lokality České republiky
................................................
7^
X.5. Exkurz: Dílenské areály ve východních Čechách
..............................................
7(*
X.6. Exkurz: Archeologie a hory
................................................................
77
XI.
Starší fáze kultury
s vypíchanou
keramikou
.......................................................80
XI.
1.
Surovinová skladba
......................................................................80
XI.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
.........................................................80
XII.
Mladší fáze kultury
s
vypíchanou keramikou
.....................................................82
XII.l. Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
...............................................................82
XII.2. Horky nad Jizerou
.......................................................................86
XI1.3. Mšeno
.................................................................................87
XII.4. Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
....................................................................90
XII.5. Sázava, Bílý kámen
.....................................................................107
XIII.
Období lengyelské kultury a závěr neolitu
.....................................................
1°9
XIV.
Nerozlišený neolit
.........................................................................110
XIV.l. Turnov- Maškovy zahrady
.............................................................110
XIV.2. Krnsko
.........................................................................113
XIV.3. Nová Ves, Vepřek
....................................................................114
XIV.4. Turnovsko
2002,
sběry
................................ ................115
XV.
Starší a střední eneolit
................................ ........117
XV.
1.
Problematika „Kozákovských dílen staršího eneolitu
........................................1
17
XV.2. Plaňany
................................. ..118
[8]
Obsah
XVI.
Exkurz: Mezolit a pozdní paleolit
.............................................................120
XVI.l. Pozdní paleolit
........................................................................120
XVI.2. Mezolit
..............................................................................126
XVI.3. Závěr
к
pozdnímu paleolitu a mezolitu
...................................................130
XVII.
Mladší eneolit
.............................................................................131
XVII.l. Dneboh, Klamorna
...................................................................131
XVII.2.
Bylany,
Denemark,
ostatní kamenná industrie
............................................132
XVIII.
Pozdní eneolit
............................................................................136
XIX.
Exkurz: Mladší pravěk
......................................................................138
XIX.l. Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
.............................................................138
XIX.2. Třebusice
.............................................................................140
XX.
Závěry
....................................................................................142
XX.l. Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
..............................................................142
XX.2. Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
...................................................................146
XX.3. Mšeno
................................................................................147
XX.4. Jistebsko
..............................................................................148
XX.5. Mladší fáze kultury
s
keramikou lineární, kultura
s
moravskou malovanou keramikou
a závěr neolitu
...........................................................................148
XX.6. Starší a střední eneolit a problematika tzv. Kozákovských dílen
...............................149
XX.7. Mladší eneolit
.........................................................................150
XX.8. Kultura se šňůrovou keramikou
-
pozdní eneolit
...........................................150
XX.9. Transport suroviny a primární výroba
-
co vypovídají artefakty
..............................150
XX.10. Areály
-
vývoj pracovní organizace
......................................................151
XX.ll. Neolitické dílny
.......................................................................152
XX.
12.
Artefakty, suroviny, distribuční areály
....................................................154
XX.13. Závěr
................................................................................163
LITERATURA A PRAMENY
.....................................................................166
Prameny:
...................................................................................170
SUMMARY: The use of
stone
raw materials in the Neolithic and Eneolithic.
The workshop areas of the Upper
Jizera
Basin
.......................................................171
Obrazová příloha...............................................................................
176
[9]
THE USE OF STONE RAW MATERIALS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC
The workshop areas of the Upper
Jizera
Basin.
1.
Introduction
Over the course of the whole five years that the author has de¬
voted to the subject of the stone industries of the Neolithic and
Eneolithic periods in the Upper
Jizera
Basin, it has been possi¬
ble to process some
10,000
artefacts from the assemblages from
the region
{Davidová
et al.
2004;
Prostředník.- Šída
2002; 2003;
2004;
Prostředník, Šída
-
Kyselý
2002;
Prostředník
et al.
in press;
Řídký
-
Šída
2004;
Šída
1999;
2001a; 2001b; 2001c;
200Ы;
2003;
2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2004d;
in press
1;
in press
2;
in press
3;
Šída
et d
2004;
Šrein
et al.
2002).
While this number may seem large,
«
is in fact the bare minimum needed to obtain at least a par¬
tially complete picture of the use of stone and stone raw materials
here. In actuality this picture is still fragmentary, as for some pe¬
riods a sufficiently representative collection dies not exist, some
important research could not be evaluated, some periods are by
contrast over-represented, which seems not to reflect the state of
excavation but the actual realities. Despite all these problems the
author has attempted to produce a comprehensive overview of
the production and use of stone tools in the later and terminal
Stone Ages.
2.
Turnov-Maškovy zahrady (Mašek
Gardens)
The collection from
Turnov-Maškovy zahrady
is not among the
argest assemblages of stone industry from the Czech Neolithic.
ts
575
pieces (not including undated artefacts) place it among the
iypical settlement assemblages from Bohemia.
¿I- The early phase of the Linear Pottery culture
total of
163
artefacts can be dated to the early Linear Pottery
Period. Three areas of occurrence have been identified on the
asis of a study of the artefact scatter. Area
1
yielded a total of
66
artefacts
(40.5%
of the total assemblage), area
2 37
artefacts
( -7%) and area
3 54
artefacts
(33.1%).
A detailed typological
summary is provided in Table
6.3,
and an overview of the scatters
m
Table
6.8.
Overall, it may be said that the individual areas display very
jfflilar structures of material content, and thus activities. With
d
Є
excePtion of certain indications of a separation of the pro-
sUC lon °f chipped industry (area
3
contains more artefacts as¬
sociated with this and fewer documenting other activities
-
there
еіі^8ГЄа ЄГ
Occurrence of
grattoirs
in area
1),
there is no direct
1
enee
for the presence of zones specialising in particular acti-
settľ
АГЄа
1
^еЫеа
13
Pieces of industr7linked t0 work at the
(9
З*?*1
α97%)>
area 2 9
Pieces
(24.3%)
and area
3
just
5
pieces
%>> while the other artefacts were linked to the production
of chipped industry (except blades, which might themselves have
served as tools). The separation
oíF
of the chipped industry pro¬
duction may be linked to the unpleasant effect of its waste, which
is just as sharp as the artefacts made and which could cause very
nasty injuries.
2.2.
The middle phase of the Linear Pottery culture
A total of
53
artefacts could be classified as comping from the
middle Linear Pottery period. This industry accumulated in set¬
tlement pits, two post holes and a clay pit, and forms two separate
areas. Area
1
yielded a total of
19
artefacts
(35.8%
of the assem¬
blage and area
2 23
artefacts
(43.4%
of the assemblage. A detailed
typological overview is provided in Table
7.3,
and an overview of
the scatters in Table
7.8.
Both areas show just the same characteristics in terms of ar¬
tefact presence, and thus the activities associated with these. In
area
1
there were a total of
6
pieces of industry linked to general
work at the settlement
(31.6%
of the industry in the area) and
area
2
contained
7
such artefacts
(30.4%),
while the other arte¬
facts were linked to the production of chipped industry (except
blades, which might themselves have served as tools). In addition
to occasional stone industry production other settlement activi¬
ties were also expressed here.
2.3.
Linear Pottery culture
Taking this assemblage as a whole, it can be divided into two
groups by the number of pieces of industry. In the first and most
numerous, the industry comes from a total of
11
feature. The total
number of pieces from each does not exceed
5,
and is often only
1.
The second group, by contrast, contains just one feature, which
however contained
32
peieces of stone industry. An overview of
the dating is provided in Table
9.1 -
but it seems appropriate to
assess the content of feature
753
separately.
2.4.
Feature
753
The whole of feature
753
yielded a total of
32
pieces of stone in¬
dustry (Table
9.7).
On the basis of this analysis the feature may be
characterised as an area with special feature. It displays a higher
proportion of tools than of evidence for their production. The
identification of its function is also important; during excavation,
the feature was classed as a semi-sunken hut. The author assumes
that the early phase LBK ceramics entered the feature as intru¬
sions, and that the feature itself can be dated to the middle phase.
The two areas that could be separated out in the preceding chap¬
ter (both showing the same characteristics and found in the en-
[171]
Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné
trance
areas of longhouses) are thus joined by a third, which lies
within the semi-sunken hut and which shows a different structure
of activities, more oriented towards other work, the production of
chipped stone industry being somewhat subsidiary.
2.5.
The Stroke-ornamented Ware culture
After the hiatus which existed at the site from the late phase of the
Linear Pottery culture to the end of the early phase of the Stroke-
ornamented Ware culture, settlement appears again during the
later phase of the latter, and can be dated approximately to StK
phase IV. This period is expressed through the greatest number of
pieces of stone industry of all
(222) -
of which
139
pieces
(62.6%)
come from a single feature, no.
1002.
The scatter of the industry classifiable to the later phase of
the Stroke-ornamented Ware culture differs from that of the pre¬
ceding periods. More pronounced accumulations appear in only
three features. There is a complete lack of accumulations that mi¬
ght separate out particular areas. It will surely come as no surprise
to know that two of these features are semi-sunken huts (one in
superposition over a clay extaction pit); the function of the third
is uncertain, but it has been interpreted as a silo. These features
and their environs were designated by the excavators areas
1-3
(numbered from the west and north). Area
1
yielded a total of
34
artefacts
(15.3%
of the collection), area
2 40
artefacts
(18%)
and
area
3 139
artefacts
(62.6%).
A detailed typological overview is pro¬
vided in Table
12.3,
and an overview of the scatters in Table
12.8.
In area
2
(feature
1244)
it was mainly production waste that
had accumulated
(77.5%).
Goven the identification of this featu¬
re s function as that of a silo, it may be interpreted in two ways.
One os that this is a pit that, after the termination of its initial
function, served as a midden; this may also be linked to the hi¬
gher proportion of charred industry here. The second possibility
is that this feature is analogous to feature
164
from
Mšeno,
i.e.
is a grave within a silo. This would be supported by the essential
agreement of the characteristics of the stone industries (they dis¬
play a marked similarity in terms of the types represented and
degrees of charring).
The other two areas show similar compositions (working to¬
ols without blades here forming
30-36%
of the content, including
blades
44-50%).
These figures are reminiscent of the situation in
feature
753
(early to middle phase of the Linear Pottery culture),
and the functional determinations are also similar (semi-sunken
huts). These were likely features that served as workplaces, with
chipped industry being produced here as a complement, and to
a lesser degree. The actual workshops that specialised in the pro¬
duction of chipped stone industry were elsewhere (either outsi¬
de the settlement or elsewhere within in). The remains of such
a workshop were investigated in
1988
not far from Ohrazenice
(Sida 2001a,
b; 2004b). Workshop relicts similar in extent to those
from
Maškovy zahrady
have also been investigated at a number
of other sites
(Loděnice
-
Benkova
2001;
Zápotocká
2001;
Horky
-
Lička
et al.
1999).
A
feature
from
Lobeč (Spurný
1951;
Sklenář
1982, 200-201)
is evidently a relict from the same production
sphere as Ohrazenice.
2.6.
Neolithic
The majority of the features assigned to the Neolithic generally
contain a minimum of stone industry finds. The only exception is
feature
1367,
which can moreover be classed to a particular cul¬
ture with a certain degree of likelihood.
2.7.
Feature
1367
Feature
1367
yielded a total of
66
pieces of stone industry (Table
¡4.4).
General work at the settlement is represented by
13.6%
of
[172]
the artefacts
(9
pieces), rising with the inclusion of the blades to
28.8% (19
pieces). In the areas belonging to the early phase of the
Linear Pottery culture this figure (excluding blades) ranges from
9.3
to
24.3%,
whilst in areas of the middle phase it is constant at
around
31%.
The structure of the industry in the investigated as¬
semblage corresponds well to similar assemblages from the early
phase of the Linear Pottery culture, matching the estimated age of
the collection well.
We have before us a collection from a little differentiated
area, which from several independent indicators may be assigned
to the early phase of the Linear Pottery culture. All kinds of work
took place in the area, from the production of stone industry (the
evidence for which is predominant) to the other common tasb
that were undertaken in the settlement at this time.
3.
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
The collection from Turnov-Ohrazenice shows a marked prepon¬
derance of workshop elements (Tables
12.20.-24).
The produc¬
tion of chipped industry was rather a complementary activity to
a polished industry priduction line (tools for working on the fi¬
nal treatment of polished industry), but it is likely that special
chipped artefacts were made here (probably sickles, but perhaps
other items as well). The high proportion of fragments with
silic¬
ite
nodule cortex indicates the transport of cores that had not
been entirely cleaned of their cortexes, as also attedted by the dis¬
tribution of cortex sizes among the flakes. The silicites came at
least in part from glaciogenic and glaciofluvial sediments, but a
large part must come directly from natural outcroppings. The raw
material for the production of the polished industry came from
Jizera
terrace material.
On part of the site at Turnov-Ohrazenice the remains were
found of a total of
8
features, In two cases these were extensive
clay pits (feature
1
hiding within it a far more complex develop¬
ment), whilst the other features may be described as typical sett¬
lement pits. The development of feature
1
is the most complex. It
most probably started life as a normal clay pit, into the centre of
which a rectangular feature was later dug, measuring 2x3m and
with a protruberance to the east that may be interpreted as an en¬
trance. This feature was sunken by around lm in comparison to
the surrounding terrain.
On the basis of their content (a conspicuously greater quan¬
tity of ceramics, notable concentrations of production waster
and manufacturing tools), this rectangular hollow with entran¬
ce area to the east may be interpreted as a site of stone industry
manufacturing. On the basis of the occurrence of a pronounced
quantity of charred industry, and above all the large quantity of
thermofracts (warming stones
-
both accumulating mainly in the
southern part of the sunken feature south of the entrance area
and presumed entrance
-
segment C) we may also presume that
this workshop was closed. It was a sunken hut measuring roughly
3x2m with entrance to the east, dated stage IV of the Stroke-Or¬
namented Ware culture. This interpretation is also supported by
the marked occurrence of daub in feature
1.
More closely unidentified activities linked to production al¬
so took place in
sectores
F
and
G
of feature
8.
Whether this was
merely the deposition of waste stemming from manufacture, or
manufacture actually took place here, cannot be ascertained; the
former seems more likely however.
Overall, it may be said that there is a very striking concentra¬
tion of pieces that fit together within the area of a feature
pres
med
to have been closed
-
a production site (fig.
35).
lhe
charac¬
ter of those does not refute the hypothesis, but rather supports
ι
·
4.
Mšeno
Two assemblages of different ages were assessed at
Mšeno.
Т»е
first comes from feature
164,
and is dated to the early phase of the
Stroke Ornamented Ware culture, while the second comes from
the later phase of the same culture (tables
11.2,12.13).
The earlier phase of the Stroke Ornamented Ware culture is
as yet not understood in detail in the Upper
Jizera
region. Thanks
to the kindess of Dr. M.
Lička
the author was able to assess an as¬
semblage of this age from feature
164
at
Mšeno
-
which in terms
of its content is highly unusual. This was a common storage pit,
into which however the inhumation burials of several individuals
were made. The stone industry deposited with them is thus in
the nature of funerary gift. As shown below, it well reflects the
structure of the usual settlement material. The total of
86
pieces
classes this as a medium-sized collection. It it however extremely
valuable, as all of the artefacts are grave gifts, meaning that they
all entered the feature at the same time. It seems that already worn
tools and production waste were placed in the grave. The tool pre¬
forms placed in the grave were however for the most part dama¬
ged through firing (so that they could no longer be used?). The
author presumes that this fact is associated with the rite. It is inte¬
resting that the whole collection well
reflectes
the structure of the
stone industry at a settlement. This collection is exceptional for
the Bohemian Neolithic, as such richly outfitted graves are few.
The industry of the later phase of the Stroke Ornamented
Ware culture was no different to the general framework that one
might expect.
¡.Jistebsko
The work of the
Šrein
husband and wife team culminated in
2001
with the discovery of the undisturbed remains of extraction at a
site of suitable raw material occurrence. In the spring of the fol¬
lowing year, the presumption of a Neolithic age for the surviing
relicts was confirmed with the aid of surface artefact collection,
along with
microboring
and archaeological trenching. In
2002
and
2003
trench
1
yielded
1700
artefacts. A similar quantity was then
recovered in the
2004
season from trenches
2
to
5.
All together,
these collections form an assemblage of some
4000
Neolithic ar¬
tefacts, thus far the largest from any of the studied localities. Sys¬
tematic survey of the surroundings continued in
2004;
May saw
the discovery of extraction field II, and July of the extraction field
•
^e surface between the individual areas has been damaged
by the transformation into medieval fields, but artefacts can also
be found here. In the Jistebsko cadastre, the surviving extraction
relicts, together with the artefact scatters over the area disturbed
m
the Middle Ages, form an extended band that logically contin¬
ues into the neighbouring cadastre of
Maršovice.
The presominant component is waste from the manufac¬
ture of polished tool pre-forms (amorphous fragments, flakes,
Pre-forms; tab.
10.2.-3.).
To a lesser extent, manufacturing also
aPPear here (various types of hammerstone, as do stone mining
tools. The spatial scatter of the industry will be demonstrated in
a projection onto the western profile. The artefacts accumulate at
e surface (to the greatest extent in the surface parts of the cen-
r heap) and at the base of the extraction pits, immediately at the
workface. These concentrations are most visible when the
arte¬
st
density is considered. The scatters of all the artefact types are
similar (where numbers are sufficient to make it possible to draw
conclusions). The only artefact type to fall outside this framework
ls
t e hammerstone.
This reaches a maximum in the surface parts
?
certal pile, as is the case with flakes and other artefacts;
У
contrast, however, it is almost entirely absent from the base
he extraction pit and the workface. This differentiation in the
°_a
er
cannot be explained simply. It is probably a consequence
0
the siting of the manufacturing area above the workface, as a
e °f which flakes produced during manufacture came into
ose Proximity of the extraction pit. The hammerstones used
Were tnen likely deposited elsewhere (they may have stayed above
Summary
in the manufacturing area, which no investigations have yet been
conducted). A definitive anwer will be possible only after further
excavations. The suitability of the excavation strategy adopted,
however, has been shown; were every artefact not measured in
precisely, this difference would not have been revealed.
Radiocarbon dating was conducted at the VERA-Laboratori-
um (Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator Laboratory) in
Vienna (O. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Walter Kutschera; for assistance in re¬
trieving the data we are endebted to Ao. Univ. Prof. Mag. Dr. Eva
Wild and Mag. Dr. Peter Steier). A sample from layer
5
(no.
571,
immediately below the surface) was dated VERA-2982
325+30
BP. After calibration, this value yielded an interval of
1480-1650
AD (with
95.4%
probability).
A second sample (no.
1717,
from the base of the extrac¬
tion pit) was dated VERA-2981 6120±35 BP. After calibration,
this value yielded intervals of
5210-5160
ВС
(14%probability),
5150-4920
ВС
(79%
probability) and
4880-4850
ВС
(with
2.4%
probability).
6.
Early phase of the Linear Pottery culture, Moravian painted
pottery culture and the end of the Neolithic
For this period there is a lack of extensive stone industry assem¬
blages in the region (this is partly merely a question of carrying
out major surveys, such as Dneboh
-
Hrada,
although it is also
partly down to the fact that the assemblages are missing).
The early phase of the Linear Pottery culture is significantly
represented at the highland locality of Dneboh
-
Hrada
(house
with a floor level, oven, tell stratigraphy). The survey by Dr. Ples-
lová,
however, remained unpublished at the finds reporting stage.
For the requirements of this work the entire assemblage cannot
be dealt with due to time restraints (the collaboration of other
experts is required to identify the pottery). Other finds from this
period mostly come from collections. For this work only a smal¬
ler stone industry assemblage from
Hrada,
deposited with the
museum in
Turnov,
has been used.
In the region of
Turnov
at the locality of
Karlovice - Čertova
ruka
artifacts have been found that clearly belong to the culture
with Moravian painted pottery. Unfortunately a survey was car¬
ried out before the Second World War, so the documentation of
assemblages of finds does not allow any differentiation of the ages
of the industries and, moreover, the
abri
Novákova pec
was inten¬
sively settled throughout the whole of antiquity, so the assembla¬
ges themselves were contaminated in prehistory.
The situation is likewise bleak for the end of the neolithic,
where we have finds proving the presence of several different
cultural groups (Samborzec culture group and others), although
assemblages of the stone industry are unfortunately small or do
not occur at all. There are no known old eneolithic assemblages
from the Upper
Jizera
river region at all
(Sida
2004a).
7.
Old and middle phase of the eneolithic and the issue of
Kozákov
Worbhops
In the first half of the 20th century several cave localities in the
region of
Proskalí, Hruboskala
and
Klokočské skaly
were inves¬
tigated by amateurs. The numerous finds from the chipped stone
industry were published by
J. Filip
as late neolithic stone-work¬
ing workshops from below
Kozákov
(Fťříp
1947).
The dating was
based on the small inspection probes made by F.
Prošek,
who,
particularly in
Babí pec,
found a relict of an undisturbed situation
when he unearthed a semi-finished axe beneath a layer of sand
with chipped stone tools. It is interesting that during the Second
World War
Jan Filip
had put the age of the industry as mesolithic,
but this dating was later repudiated by F.
Prošek
and J.
Skutil.
On the basis of this typological analysis we can state that the
majority of the chipped stone industry dates back to the mesoli-
[173]
Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné
thic, with only a minimal intermixture of the later postmesolithic
(the ratio is something like
50
to
100
ku
1).
Mesolithic strata was
evident in the eneolithic and later disturbed, so the upper layers
became mixed up (bioturbation itself is able to move artifacts to
relatively great depths, which is further aided by the activities of
mankind)
{Sida 2004a).
Re-dating of what was until then the largest eneolithic col¬
lection of the stone industry in Bohemia completely changed the
situation. Suddenly there is a lack of material. The only late eneo¬
lithic locality that has been properly investigated in the region is
Dneboh
-
Hrada.
Here, of course, we come up against the pro¬
blem of the manufacturing, which is missing. In the region as a
whole there is not one collection of either the old eneolithic or
of the middle phase of the eneolithic that could be assessed. The
only option is to resort to assemblages from other regions, but
there is no abundance of these either. To give at least a rough idea
of the situation I will list a small collection of the
Funneled
bea¬
ker culture from
Plańany.
No industry has been assessed for the
middle phase of the eneolithic.
8.
Early eneolithic
Klamorna is the only highland locality of the early eneolithic
Pojizeří
that has been surveyed. Unfortunately the survey carried
out by Dr.
Solle
has not yet been processed so we can only work
with a limited collection of
53
pieces from the industry. In the
literature the locality is attributed to the
řivnáč
culture. Unfortu¬
nately, however, this is not wholly correct, as checks on the pottery
housed in the National Museum have shown that typical
řivnáč
shapes do not occur here, in fact the predominant finds can be
assigned to the Culture with spherical amphoraes. Thus it seems
that Klamorna could be one of just a few culturally pure localities
of this northern culture. In order to fully illustrate the range of
the industry I am also including an assessment of the other stone
industries from the
řivnáč
fortified site in Bylany
-
Denemark.
9.
Corded pottery culture
-
late eneolithic
The stone industry collection is unfortunately limited to the avail¬
ability of artifacts in museum collections. Sadly some have been
lost, whilst it has not been possible to physically study others for
a variety of reasons. Therefore the assemblage studied is not com¬
plete and we can expect that other pieces will be added in the
future, although these cannot alter the conclusions already drawn
(tab.
18.1.).
The overall abundance of the raw materials used does not
deter from the situation at the end of the eneolithic, where there
was a total breakdown of the rules for using raw materials and the
worst rocks were used (diorites and sandstone).
10.
Transport of raw materials and primary production
-
evi¬
dence provided by artifacts
We can see how raw materials were transported and handled as a
reflection of the complexity of the social and cultural ties of soci¬
ety. There is a certain difference as to whether a community used
subsistence materials in the immediate vicinity or whether it de¬
veloped a system for acquiring new materials from remote places
(from either subsistence or bartering). All the assemblages from
all the periods in
Turnov - Maškové zahrady
are mostly made up
of remote raw materials. We must now focus on how they were
transported there.
There are basically three ways in which they could have been
transported
-
by transporting entire pieces of raw material, trans¬
porting the cores, and transporting the laminae. It is important to
be aware that probably none of these methods actually prevailed,
and a combination was likely to have been used. Therefore the
[174]
following ideas may refer to the main trends, yet there will always
be deviations and exceptions. For illustration we will use the main
assemblages from
Turnov
-
Maškové zahrady
and
Ohrazenice
(mainly due to the fact that they are so representative). The eneo¬
lithic period cannot be characterised in this way.
The first indicator of production using bulbs of raw material
(in this case made of
silicite,
which has a clearly distinguishable
outer crust) is the ratio between the artifacts manufactured from
raw materials with a crust and materials without one (it showes
degrese of raw material preparation; products with a crust are pre¬
dominant in the first phase of the preparation of the core). The ra¬
tio in the collections we studied
(Turnov - Maškové zahrady
and
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice) fluctuates between
1.9:1
and
3.8:1.
Thus we
may assume that the material was transported to the settlement
in the form of cores or laminae. Primary preparation clearly (for
energy reasons) took place at the site where the materials were
found. It seems that the reduction in the ratio corresponds to the
increased number of cores in the assemblage and thus with the
increased proportion of workshop elements it contains (the only
exception in the StK assemblage in
Turnov,
where the reduction
in the ratio is not so marked). The lower core numbers also indi¬
cates that the laminae were brought in from elsewhere.
What is interesting is the ratio between the individual lami¬
nae fragments. The fact that they are erratic implies that they were
brought in from a different place. It is peculiar that all the ratios
actually indicate that the laminae were transported into the sys¬
tem, including cases where a complex was wholly devoted to ma¬
nufacturing. It seems that the type
С
fragments are undersized in
the assemblages (probably due to the fact that they were so hard
to tell apart). Therefore they should be omitted from our consi¬
derations. If we try to summarise the above according to the in¬
dividual periods, we can speculate that for the older phase of the
linear pottery culture, fragments of type
В
laminae were trans¬
ported and a small proportion of laminae made from cores were
produced at the settlement itself. Whether the main workshops
were outside of the survey site at the settlement or somewhere
completely different is unknown. Production existed at the sett¬
lement during the middle phase of the linear pottery culture (the
reduced proportion of laminae in the assemblage is peculiar).
Laminae fragments, however, show that type
В
fragments were
transported. Conflicts arise here due to the sizes of the assembla¬
ges, which are pushing the limits of cogency. In the case of site
753
(middle phase of the linear pottery culture), where laminae were
produced at the settlement to a limited extent, the proportion of
laminae implies that
AB
fragments were transported. In the case
of settlements that were home to the Stroked pottery culture the¬
re is evidence of production at the settlement (reduced propor¬
tion of artifacts without crusts and a higher proportion of cores).
Considering what was said above about type
С
fragments, we
cannot reliably decide what the reduced numbers of these frag¬
ments in this assemblage mean. We can see it as proof that type
AB
laminae fragments were transported to the settlement from
elsewhere. There might be other reasons for the low proportion
(poor determinability, small sizes). We know that laminae were
produced at the settlement and it is likely that these were supple¬
mented by laminae that were brought in from other places (from
peripheral manufacturing complexes, specialised manufacturing
region outside the settlement?). We cannot decide whether the
laminae were transported whole or in fragments. In the case
о
site
1367
(older phase of the linear pottery culture) we have ab^
solutely no proof of production (cores), so the scarcely balance
ratio between the laminae fragments can be considered as pro°
that the laminae were transported.
The situation in Ohrazenice is peculiar. The unbalanced pr
portion of laminae fragments implies that they were transport«
·
This, however, is contradicted by the high proportion of
сог^
The answer to this problem seems to lie in the fact that workshop
were specialised in producing polished stone; the chipped stone
production industry would then have served as subsistence pro¬
duction to cater to the needs of the workshop (tools for making
axe handles
-
the picture would have been similar to that in the
StK settlement). Whether entire laminae were then transported
away from the area cannot be determined, although it seems that
there was at least supplementary production of reworked laminae
for the manufacture or repair of sickles (for an overview, see tab.
20.3.).
It therefore seems that the raw materials in all periods were
at least in the form of cores when they reached the settlement
(the fact that they were worked at the settlement is proven partly
by residues found and partly by the amorphous shards and fla¬
kes resulting from the quarrying work). For all periods, however,
we must surmise that laminae were transported from elsewhere,
either as whole laminae, or in fragments. We have proof that the
cores were transported in finds from the
Přepere
4
locality.
11.
Complexes
-
development of organised work
Developments in the neolithic move towards a greater differen¬
tiation of space and the work that is carried out within it (these
developments can be illustrated using the surveys performed
in
Turnov
-
Maškové zahrady
and
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice;
for the
eneolithic period we do not have the appropriate assemblages).
While the complexes of the older phase of the linear pottery cul¬
ture do not greatly vary from one another (relatively low propor¬
tion of debris from other work, complexes housed within a long
building
-
in front of it, but not in the entrance area; in one case
the complex also contains sunken huts). What is interesting is
the difference between the two parts of complex
1 -
in a sunken
hut and the adjacement pit (feature
1190)
there is a greater accu¬
mulation of relicts from the chipped stone production industry,
while in the surrounding area in front of the building there is a
greater accumulation of remnants from work activities. This fact
could imply a certain differentiation in the settlement, when the
chipped stone production industry was first separated and trans¬
ferred to the sunken hut. In the middle phase of the linear pot¬
tery culture dissimilarities start to appear. In contrast to the older
phase, the percentage of debris from other activities increases.
The working complex situated in the sunken hut shows the high¬
est proportion of debris from other activities. In the period of the
Stroked pottery culture the only complexes that occur are those
loacted in sunken huts and a new type of complex appears in a
silo, a fact which we are unable to clearly interpret. It could partly
have been a dumping site for debris, or could have been used for
graves. There is now a major differentiation between the sunken
huts of this period. From the purely manufacturing site in
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
(11.2 %
of debris from other activities, which here,
however, could be related to stone industry production) to the
sunken hut from
Turnov - Maškovy zahrady,
which, in contrast,
contains
36 %
of debris created as a result of other activities. On
the other hand, the silo features a similar proportion of debris to
that found in the manufacturing site in
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice.
We are facing the developments of how space was dealt with,
which arose from the early neolithic settlement that featured ve¬
ry little (or no) differentiation; the basic unit of which was the
lcmg buildings that the majority of the activities at the settlement
were associated with (work and a place to live). Right from the
start, specific areas were segregated; originally these worked in
Summary
parallel with the areas associated with the long buildings. In the
early neolithic all work complexes became completely bound to
these specific sites
-
sunken huts. AH evidence indicates that from
this point the long buildings were used exclusively for residen¬
tial purposes. The matter of the existence and function of sunken
huts in the neolithic period has not been conclusively dealt with
and should be the subject of further discussion. The first attempts
have been made
(Čižmář
1998),
but this will need to be built on
in the future with new assessments of material.
12.
Neolithic workshops
As the result of a detailed study we have been able to set aside
several types of workshop which are seen to have developed over
time. Unfortunately we do not currently have enough knowledge
of the situation in the eneolithic and in some parts of the neoli¬
thic, so the following classification cannot yet be generalised to
cover the whole of the neolithic and eneolithic period.
1.
Primary workshop manufacturing area
-
this is bound
to the source of the raw material (Jistebsko
-
LBK and old
STK); we can assume that a large proportion of these works¬
hop areas are in an area of morainal sediments (processing
silicites)
2.
Secondary non-specialised workshop area at the settle¬
ment (responsible for catering to the general needs of the
settlement
-
LBK-STK),
3.
Workshop within the settlement
-
segregation of the chip¬
ped stone production industry (and other forms of work)
into a specific area (sunken huts
-
appearing in the early
neolithic?
-
the partial transfer of work to the sunken huts is
apparent from the beginning of the LBK)
4.
Specialised workshop or workshop region used principal¬
ly for the chipped and polished stone production indus¬
try (this is characterised by the huge amount of workshop
debris). Segregated to the edge of or outside the settlement.
Appears in the early phase of STK.
13.
Conclusion
Analysis of the stone industry allows us to monitor how
the chipped stone industry developed within the settlement and
how the raw materials were quarried, worked and transported. It
is possible to differentiate work complexes within the settlement
and then compare these with other cultures. The discovery of the
prehistoric quarrying and manufacturing site in the cadaster of
the municipality of Jistebsko has proved to be very important in
helping us to understand how the raw materials were quarried
and handled.
Despite the fact that these are still only the initial results
and many problems still need to be resolved, analysis of the stone
industry provides us with a number of interesting conclusions.
We can pose many questions that were previously impossible and
find the answers to them. This should be the aim of every analy¬
sis of the stone industry; if we are to learn more we cannot limit
ourselves to a simple description of small collections which, in
the end, only inform us that the chipped or other stone industry
existed at the locality. It is necessary to start to focus on large as¬
semblages; this is the only way for us to make progress in terms of
our knowledge and understanding.
[175]
|
| adam_txt |
OBSAH
I. Úvod
.11
1.1. Definice oblasti zájmu
.12
1.2.
Historie výzkumu neolitu v oblasti horního Pojizeří
.12
II.
Základní kolekce a jejich datování
.14
III.
Suroviny
.15
111.1.
Silicity
.15
111.2. Amfibolové horniny
.15
111.3. Pískovce
.15
111.4. Ostatní místní suroviny
.15
111.5. Dálkové importy
.16
IV.
Popisný systém kamenné industrie
.17
IV.
1.
Typologické schéma
.17
IV.3. Struktura a význam databáze
.27
V. Základní výzkumy
.30
V.l.
Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
.30
V.2. Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
.33
V.3. Jistebsko
.35
V.4. Velké Hamry I a
II
.37
V.5. Jeskynní lokality Českého ráje
-
Babí, Zemanova a Kudrnáčova pec
.37
V.6. Klamorna, k.ú. Dneboh
.37
V.7. Lokality pozdního paleolitu
.38
V.8. Ostatní lokality
.40
VI.
1.
Surovinová skladba
.49
VI.
Starší fáze kultury
s
lineární keramikou
.49
VI.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
.51
VI.3. Prostorová analýza rozptylu artefaktů
.53
[7]
Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní
dohé
kamenné
VII.
Střední fáze kultury
s
lineární keramikou
.
56
VILI. Surovinová skladba
.
56
VII.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
.
57
VII.3. Prostorová analýza rozptylu artefaktů
.
59
VIII.
Mladší fáze kultury
s
lineární keramikou
.
61
IX.
Kultura
s
keramikou lineární
.
oz
IX.
1.
Surovinová skladba
.
62
IX.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
.
63
IX.3 Prostorová analýza rozptylu artefaktů
.
63
IX.4 Surovinová skladba objektu
753.
63
IX.5 Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza objektu
753.
64
X.
Neolitická těžba v podhůří Jizerských hor
.
67
Х.1.
Lokality
s
doklady neolitické těžby a zpracování kamene
.
67
X.2. Rozbor industrie a terénní situace na zkoumaných lokalitách
.69
X.3. Exkurz: Broušené artefakty v mezolitu?
.
7^
X.4. Exkurz: Další těžební lokality České republiky
.
7^
X.5. Exkurz: Dílenské areály ve východních Čechách
.
7(*
X.6. Exkurz: Archeologie a hory
.
77
XI.
Starší fáze kultury
s vypíchanou
keramikou
.80
XI.
1.
Surovinová skladba
.80
XI.2. Kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza
.80
XII.
Mladší fáze kultury
s
vypíchanou keramikou
.82
XII.l. Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
.82
XII.2. Horky nad Jizerou
.86
XI1.3. Mšeno
.87
XII.4. Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
.90
XII.5. Sázava, Bílý kámen
.107
XIII.
Období lengyelské kultury a závěr neolitu
.
1°9
XIV.
Nerozlišený neolit
.110
XIV.l. Turnov- Maškovy zahrady
.110
XIV.2. Krnsko
.113
XIV.3. Nová Ves, Vepřek
.114
XIV.4. Turnovsko
2002,
sběry
. .115
XV.
Starší a střední eneolit
. .117
XV.
1.
Problematika „Kozákovských dílen" staršího eneolitu
.1
17
XV.2. Plaňany
. .118
[8]
Obsah
XVI.
Exkurz: Mezolit a pozdní paleolit
.120
XVI.l. Pozdní paleolit
.120
XVI.2. Mezolit
.126
XVI.3. Závěr
к
pozdnímu paleolitu a mezolitu
.130
XVII.
Mladší eneolit
.131
XVII.l. Dneboh, Klamorna
.131
XVII.2.
Bylany,
Denemark,
ostatní kamenná industrie
.132
XVIII.
Pozdní eneolit
.136
XIX.
Exkurz: Mladší pravěk
.138
XIX.l. Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
.138
XIX.2. Třebusice
.140
XX.
Závěry
.142
XX.l. Turnov
-
Maškovy zahrady
.142
XX.2. Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
.146
XX.3. Mšeno
.147
XX.4. Jistebsko
.148
XX.5. Mladší fáze kultury
s
keramikou lineární, kultura
s
moravskou malovanou keramikou
a závěr neolitu
.148
XX.6. Starší a střední eneolit a problematika tzv. Kozákovských dílen
.149
XX.7. Mladší eneolit
.150
XX.8. Kultura se šňůrovou keramikou
-
pozdní eneolit
.150
XX.9. Transport suroviny a primární výroba
-
co vypovídají artefakty
.150
XX.10. Areály
-
vývoj pracovní organizace
.151
XX.ll. Neolitické dílny
.152
XX.
12.
Artefakty, suroviny, distribuční areály
.154
XX.13. Závěr
.163
LITERATURA A PRAMENY
.166
Prameny:
.170
SUMMARY: The use of
stone
raw materials in the Neolithic and Eneolithic.
The workshop areas of the Upper
Jizera
Basin
.171
Obrazová příloha.
176
[9]
THE USE OF STONE RAW MATERIALS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC
The workshop areas of the Upper
Jizera
Basin.
1.
Introduction
Over the course of the whole five years that the author has de¬
voted to the subject of the stone industries of the Neolithic and
Eneolithic periods in the Upper
Jizera
Basin, it has been possi¬
ble to process some
10,000
artefacts from the assemblages from
the region
{Davidová
et al.
2004;
Prostředník.- Šída
2002; 2003;
2004;
Prostředník, Šída
-
Kyselý
2002;
Prostředník
et al.
in press;
Řídký
-
Šída
2004;
Šída
1999;
2001a; 2001b; 2001c;
200Ы;
2003;
2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2004d;
in press
1;
in press
2;
in press
3;
Šída
et d
2004;
Šrein
et al.
2002).
While this number may seem large,
«
is in fact the bare minimum needed to obtain at least a par¬
tially complete picture of the use of stone and stone raw materials
here. In actuality this picture is still fragmentary, as for some pe¬
riods a sufficiently representative collection dies not exist, some
important research could not be evaluated, some periods are by
contrast over-represented, which seems not to reflect the state of
excavation but the actual realities. Despite all these problems the
author has attempted to produce a comprehensive overview of
the production and use of stone tools in the later and terminal
Stone Ages.
2.
Turnov-Maškovy zahrady (Mašek
Gardens)
The collection from
Turnov-Maškovy zahrady
is not among the
argest assemblages of stone industry from the Czech Neolithic.
ts
575
pieces (not including undated artefacts) place it among the
iypical settlement assemblages from Bohemia.
¿I- The early phase of the Linear Pottery culture
total of
163
artefacts can be dated to the early Linear Pottery
Period. Three areas of occurrence have been identified on the
asis of a study of the artefact scatter. Area
1
yielded a total of
66
artefacts
(40.5%
of the total assemblage), area
2 37
artefacts
( -7%) and area
3 54
artefacts
(33.1%).
A detailed typological
summary is provided in Table
6.3,
and an overview of the scatters
m
Table
6.8.
Overall, it may be said that the individual areas display very
jfflilar structures of material content, and thus activities. With
d
Є
excePtion of certain indications of a separation of the pro-
sUC lon °f chipped industry (area
3
contains more artefacts as¬
sociated with this and fewer documenting other activities
-
there
еіі^8ГЄа'ЄГ
Occurrence of
grattoirs
in area
1),
there is no direct
1
enee
for the presence of zones specialising in particular acti-
settľ'
АГЄа
1
^еЫеа
13
Pieces of industr7linked t0 work at the
(9
З*?*1"
α97%)>
area 2 9
Pieces
(24.3%)
and area
3
just
5
pieces
'
%>> while the other artefacts were linked to the production
of chipped industry (except blades, which might themselves have
served as tools). The separation
oíF
of the chipped industry pro¬
duction may be linked to the unpleasant effect of its waste, which
is just as sharp as the artefacts made and which could cause very
nasty injuries.
2.2.
The middle phase of the Linear Pottery culture
A total of
53
artefacts could be classified as comping from the
middle Linear Pottery period. This industry accumulated in set¬
tlement pits, two post holes and a clay pit, and forms two separate
areas. Area
1
yielded a total of
19
artefacts
(35.8%
of the assem¬
blage and area
2 23
artefacts
(43.4%
of the assemblage. A detailed
typological overview is provided in Table
7.3,
and an overview of
the scatters in Table
7.8.
Both areas show just the same characteristics in terms of ar¬
tefact presence, and thus the activities associated with these. In
area
1
there were a total of
6
pieces of industry linked to general
work at the settlement
(31.6%
of the industry in the area) and
area
2
contained
7
such artefacts
(30.4%),
while the other arte¬
facts were linked to the production of chipped industry (except
blades, which might themselves have served as tools). In addition
to occasional stone industry production other settlement activi¬
ties were also expressed here.
2.3.
Linear Pottery culture
Taking this assemblage as a whole, it can be divided into two
groups by the number of pieces of industry. In the first and most
numerous, the industry comes from a total of
11
feature. The total
number of pieces from each does not exceed
5,
and is often only
1.
The second group, by contrast, contains just one feature, which
however contained
32
peieces of stone industry. An overview of
the dating is provided in Table
9.1 -
but it seems appropriate to
assess the content of feature
753
separately.
2.4.
Feature
753
The whole of feature
753
yielded a total of
32
pieces of stone in¬
dustry (Table
9.7).
On the basis of this analysis the feature may be
characterised as an area with special feature. It displays a higher
proportion of tools than of evidence for their production. The
identification of its function is also important; during excavation,
the feature was classed as a semi-sunken hut. The author assumes
that the early phase LBK ceramics entered the feature as intru¬
sions, and that the feature itself can be dated to the middle phase.
The two areas that could be separated out in the preceding chap¬
ter (both showing the same characteristics and found in the en-
[171]
Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné
trance
areas of longhouses) are thus joined by a third, which lies
within the semi-sunken hut and which shows a different structure
of activities, more oriented towards other work, the production of
chipped stone industry being somewhat subsidiary.
2.5.
The Stroke-ornamented Ware culture
After the hiatus which existed at the site from the late phase of the
Linear Pottery culture to the end of the early phase of the Stroke-
ornamented Ware culture, settlement appears again during the
later phase of the latter, and can be dated approximately to StK
phase IV. This period is expressed through the greatest number of
pieces of stone industry of all
(222) -
of which
139
pieces
(62.6%)
come from a single feature, no.
1002.
The scatter of the industry classifiable to the later phase of
the Stroke-ornamented Ware culture differs from that of the pre¬
ceding periods. More pronounced accumulations appear in only
three features. There is a complete lack of accumulations that mi¬
ght separate out particular areas. It will surely come as no surprise
to know that two of these features are semi-sunken huts (one in
superposition over a clay extaction pit); the function of the third
is uncertain, but it has been interpreted as a silo. These features
and their environs were designated by the excavators areas
1-3
(numbered from the west and north). Area
1
yielded a total of
34
artefacts
(15.3%
of the collection), area
2 40
artefacts
(18%)
and
area
3 139
artefacts
(62.6%).
A detailed typological overview is pro¬
vided in Table
12.3,
and an overview of the scatters in Table
12.8.
In area
2
(feature
1244)
it was mainly production waste that
had accumulated
(77.5%).
Goven the identification of this featu¬
re's function as that of a silo, it may be interpreted in two ways.
One os that this is a pit that, after the termination of its initial
function, served as a midden; this may also be linked to the hi¬
gher proportion of charred industry here. The second possibility
is that this feature is analogous to feature
164
from
Mšeno,
i.e.
is a grave within a silo. This would be supported by the essential
agreement of the characteristics of the stone industries (they dis¬
play a marked similarity in terms of the types represented and
degrees of charring).
The other two areas show similar compositions (working to¬
ols without blades here forming
30-36%
of the content, including
blades
44-50%).
These figures are reminiscent of the situation in
feature
753
(early to middle phase of the Linear Pottery culture),
and the functional determinations are also similar (semi-sunken
huts). These were likely features that served as workplaces, with
chipped industry being produced here as a complement, and to
a lesser degree. The actual workshops that specialised in the pro¬
duction of chipped stone industry were elsewhere (either outsi¬
de the settlement or elsewhere within in). The remains of such
a workshop were investigated in
1988
not far from Ohrazenice
(Sida 2001a,
b; 2004b). Workshop relicts similar in extent to those
from
Maškovy zahrady
have also been investigated at a number
of other sites
(Loděnice
-
Benkova
2001;
Zápotocká
2001;
Horky
-
Lička
et al.
1999).
A
feature
from
Lobeč (Spurný
1951;
Sklenář
1982, 200-201)
is evidently a relict from the same production
sphere as Ohrazenice.
2.6.
Neolithic
The majority of the features assigned to the Neolithic generally
contain a minimum of stone industry finds. The only exception is
feature
1367,
which can moreover be classed to a particular cul¬
ture with a certain degree of likelihood.
2.7.
Feature
1367
Feature
1367
yielded a total of
66
pieces of stone industry (Table
¡4.4).
General work at the settlement is represented by
13.6%
of
[172]
the artefacts
(9
pieces), rising with the inclusion of the blades to
28.8% (19
pieces). In the areas belonging to the early phase of the
Linear Pottery culture this figure (excluding blades) ranges from
9.3
to
24.3%,
whilst in areas of the middle phase it is constant at
around
31%.
The structure of the industry in the investigated as¬
semblage corresponds well to similar assemblages from the early
phase of the Linear Pottery culture, matching the estimated age of
the collection well.
We have before us a collection from a little differentiated
area, which from several independent indicators may be assigned
to the early phase of the Linear Pottery culture. All kinds of work
took place in the area, from the production of stone industry (the
evidence for which is predominant) to the other common tasb
that were undertaken in the settlement at this time.
3.
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
The collection from Turnov-Ohrazenice shows a marked prepon¬
derance of workshop elements (Tables
12.20.-24).
The produc¬
tion of chipped industry was rather a complementary activity to
a polished industry priduction line (tools for working on the fi¬
nal treatment of polished industry), but it is likely that special
chipped artefacts were made here (probably sickles, but perhaps
other items as well). The high proportion of fragments with
silic¬
ite
nodule cortex indicates the transport of cores that had not
been entirely cleaned of their cortexes, as also attedted by the dis¬
tribution of cortex sizes among the flakes. The silicites came at
least in part from glaciogenic and glaciofluvial sediments, but a
large part must come directly from natural outcroppings. The raw
material for the production of the polished industry came from
Jizera
terrace material.
On part of the site at Turnov-Ohrazenice the remains were
found of a total of
8
features, In two cases these were extensive
clay pits (feature
1
hiding within it a far more complex develop¬
ment), whilst the other features may be described as typical sett¬
lement pits. The development of feature
1
is the most complex. It
most probably started life as a normal clay pit, into the centre of
which a rectangular feature was later dug, measuring 2x3m and
with a protruberance to the east that may be interpreted as an en¬
trance. This feature was sunken by around lm in comparison to
the surrounding terrain.
On the basis of their content (a conspicuously greater quan¬
tity of ceramics, notable concentrations of production waster
and manufacturing tools), this rectangular hollow with entran¬
ce area to the east may be interpreted as a site of stone industry
manufacturing. On the basis of the occurrence of a pronounced
quantity of charred industry, and above all the large quantity of
thermofracts (warming stones
-
both accumulating mainly in the
southern part of the sunken feature south of the entrance area
and presumed entrance
-
segment C) we may also presume that
this workshop was closed. It was a sunken hut measuring roughly
3x2m with entrance to the east, dated stage IV of the Stroke-Or¬
namented Ware culture. This interpretation is also supported by
the marked occurrence of daub in feature
1.
More closely unidentified activities linked to production al¬
so took place in
sectores
F
and
G
of feature
8.
Whether this was
merely the deposition of waste stemming from manufacture, or
manufacture actually took place here, cannot be ascertained; the
former seems more likely however.
Overall, it may be said that there is a very striking concentra¬
tion of pieces that fit together within the area of a feature
pres""
med
to have been closed
-
a production site (fig.
35).
lhe
charac¬
ter of those does not refute the hypothesis, but rather supports
ι
·
4.
Mšeno
Two assemblages of different ages were assessed at
Mšeno.
Т»е
first comes from feature
164,
and is dated to the early phase of the
Stroke Ornamented Ware culture, while the second comes from
the later phase of the same culture (tables
11.2,12.13).
The earlier phase of the Stroke Ornamented Ware culture is
as yet not understood in detail in the Upper
Jizera
region. Thanks
to the kindess of Dr. M.
Lička
the author was able to assess an as¬
semblage of this age from feature
164
at
Mšeno
-
which in terms
of its content is highly unusual. This was a common storage pit,
into which however the inhumation burials of several individuals
were made. The stone industry deposited with them is thus in
the nature of funerary gift. As shown below, it well reflects the
structure of the usual settlement material. The total of
86
pieces
classes this as a medium-sized collection. It it however extremely
valuable, as all of the artefacts are grave gifts, meaning that they
all entered the feature at the same time. It seems that already worn
tools and production waste were placed in the grave. The tool pre¬
forms placed in the grave were however for the most part dama¬
ged through firing (so that they could no longer be used?). The
author presumes that this fact is associated with the rite. It is inte¬
resting that the whole collection well
reflectes
the structure of the
stone industry at a settlement. This collection is exceptional for
the Bohemian Neolithic, as such richly outfitted graves are few.
The industry of the later phase of the Stroke Ornamented
Ware culture was no different to the general framework that one
might expect.
¡.Jistebsko
The work of the
Šrein
husband and wife team culminated in
2001
with the discovery of the undisturbed remains of extraction at a
site of suitable raw material occurrence. In the spring of the fol¬
lowing year, the presumption of a Neolithic age for the surviing
relicts was confirmed with the aid of surface artefact collection,
along with
microboring
and archaeological trenching. In
2002
and
2003
trench
1
yielded
1700
artefacts. A similar quantity was then
recovered in the
2004
season from trenches
2
to
5.
All together,
these collections form an assemblage of some
4000
Neolithic ar¬
tefacts, thus far the largest from any of the studied localities. Sys¬
tematic survey of the surroundings continued in
2004;
May saw
the discovery of extraction field II, and July of the extraction field
•
^e surface between the individual areas has been damaged
by the transformation into medieval fields, but artefacts can also
be found here. In the Jistebsko cadastre, the surviving extraction
relicts, together with the artefact scatters over the area disturbed
m
the Middle Ages, form an extended band that logically contin¬
ues into the neighbouring cadastre of
Maršovice.
The presominant component is waste from the manufac¬
ture of polished tool pre-forms (amorphous fragments, flakes,
Pre-forms; tab.
10.2.-3.).
To a lesser extent, manufacturing also
aPPear here (various types of hammerstone, as do stone mining
tools. The spatial scatter of the industry will be demonstrated in
a projection onto the western profile. The artefacts accumulate at
e surface (to the greatest extent in the surface parts of the cen-
r heap) and at the base of the extraction pits, immediately at the
workface. These concentrations are most visible when the
arte¬
st
density is considered. The scatters of all the artefact types are
similar (where numbers are sufficient to make it possible to draw
conclusions). The only artefact type to fall outside this framework
ls
t e hammerstone.
This reaches a maximum in the surface parts
?
certal pile, as is the case with flakes and other artefacts;
У
contrast, however, it is almost entirely absent from the base
he extraction pit and the workface. This differentiation in the
°_a
er
cannot be explained simply. It is probably a consequence
0
the siting of the manufacturing area above the workface, as a
e °f which flakes produced during manufacture came into
ose Proximity of the extraction pit. The hammerstones used
Were tnen likely deposited elsewhere (they may have stayed above
Summary
in the manufacturing area, which no investigations have yet been
conducted). A definitive anwer will be possible only after further
excavations. The suitability of the excavation strategy adopted,
however, has been shown; were every artefact not measured in
precisely, this difference would not have been revealed.
Radiocarbon dating was conducted at the VERA-Laboratori-
um (Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator Laboratory) in
Vienna (O. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Walter Kutschera; for assistance in re¬
trieving the data we are endebted to Ao. Univ. Prof. Mag. Dr. Eva
Wild and Mag. Dr. Peter Steier). A sample from layer
5
(no.
571,
immediately below the surface) was dated VERA-2982
325+30
BP. After calibration, this value yielded an interval of
1480-1650
AD (with
95.4%
probability).
A second sample (no.
1717,
from the base of the extrac¬
tion pit) was dated VERA-2981 6120±35 BP. After calibration,
this value yielded intervals of
5210-5160
ВС
(14%probability),
5150-4920
ВС
(79%
probability) and
4880-4850
ВС
(with
2.4%
probability).
6.
Early phase of the Linear Pottery culture, Moravian painted
pottery culture and the end of the Neolithic
For this period there is a lack of extensive stone industry assem¬
blages in the region (this is partly merely a question of carrying
out major surveys, such as Dneboh
-
Hrada,
although it is also
partly down to the fact that the assemblages are missing).
The early phase of the Linear Pottery culture is significantly
represented at the highland locality of Dneboh
-
Hrada
(house
with a floor level, oven, tell stratigraphy). The survey by Dr. Ples-
lová,
however, remained unpublished at the finds reporting stage.
For the requirements of this work the entire assemblage cannot
be dealt with due to time restraints (the collaboration of other
experts is required to identify the pottery). Other finds from this
period mostly come from collections. For this work only a smal¬
ler stone industry assemblage from
Hrada,
deposited with the
museum in
Turnov,
has been used.
In the region of
Turnov
at the locality of
Karlovice - Čertova
ruka
artifacts have been found that clearly belong to the culture
with Moravian painted pottery. Unfortunately a survey was car¬
ried out before the Second World War, so the documentation of
assemblages of finds does not allow any differentiation of the ages
of the industries and, moreover, the
abri
Novákova pec
was inten¬
sively settled throughout the whole of antiquity, so the assembla¬
ges themselves were contaminated in prehistory.
The situation is likewise bleak for the end of the neolithic,
where we have finds proving the presence of several different
cultural groups (Samborzec culture group and others), although
assemblages of the stone industry are unfortunately small or do
not occur at all. There are no known old eneolithic assemblages
from the Upper
Jizera
river region at all
(Sida
2004a).
7.
Old and middle phase of the eneolithic and the issue of
"Kozákov
Worbhops"
In the first half of the 20th century several cave localities in the
region of
Proskalí, Hruboskala
and
Klokočské skaly
were inves¬
tigated by amateurs. The numerous finds from the chipped stone
industry were published by
J. Filip
as late neolithic stone-work¬
ing workshops from below
Kozákov
(Fťříp
1947).
The dating was
based on the small inspection probes made by F.
Prošek,
who,
particularly in
Babí pec,
found a relict of an undisturbed situation
when he unearthed a semi-finished axe beneath a layer of sand
with chipped stone tools. It is interesting that during the Second
World War
Jan Filip
had put the age of the industry as mesolithic,
but this dating was later repudiated by F.
Prošek
and J.
Skutil.
On the basis of this typological analysis we can state that the
majority of the chipped stone industry dates back to the mesoli-
[173]
Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné
thic, with only a minimal intermixture of the later postmesolithic
(the ratio is something like
50
to
100
ku
1).
Mesolithic strata was
evident in the eneolithic and later disturbed, so the upper layers
became mixed up (bioturbation itself is able to move artifacts to
relatively great depths, which is further aided by the activities of
mankind)
{Sida 2004a).
Re-dating of what was until then the largest eneolithic col¬
lection of the stone industry in Bohemia completely changed the
situation. Suddenly there is a lack of material. The only late eneo¬
lithic locality that has been properly investigated in the region is
Dneboh
-
Hrada.
Here, of course, we come up against the pro¬
blem of the manufacturing, which is missing. In the region as a
whole there is not one collection of either the old eneolithic or
of the middle phase of the eneolithic that could be assessed. The
only option is to resort to assemblages from other regions, but
there is no abundance of these either. To give at least a rough idea
of the situation I will list a small collection of the
Funneled
bea¬
ker culture from
Plańany.
No industry has been assessed for the
middle phase of the eneolithic.
8.
Early eneolithic
Klamorna is the only highland locality of the early eneolithic
Pojizeří
that has been surveyed. Unfortunately the survey carried
out by Dr.
Solle
has not yet been processed so we can only work
with a limited collection of
53
pieces from the industry. In the
literature the locality is attributed to the
řivnáč
culture. Unfortu¬
nately, however, this is not wholly correct, as checks on the pottery
housed in the National Museum have shown that typical
řivnáč
shapes do not occur here, in fact the predominant finds can be
assigned to the Culture with spherical amphoraes. Thus it seems
that Klamorna could be one of just a few culturally pure localities
of this northern culture. In order to fully illustrate the range of
the industry I am also including an assessment of the other stone
industries from the
řivnáč
fortified site in Bylany
-
Denemark.
9.
Corded pottery culture
-
late eneolithic
The stone industry collection is unfortunately limited to the avail¬
ability of artifacts in museum collections. Sadly some have been
lost, whilst it has not been possible to physically study others for
a variety of reasons. Therefore the assemblage studied is not com¬
plete and we can expect that other pieces will be added in the
future, although these cannot alter the conclusions already drawn
(tab.
18.1.).
The overall abundance of the raw materials used does not
deter from the situation at the end of the eneolithic, where there
was a total breakdown of the rules for using raw materials and the
worst rocks were used (diorites and sandstone).
10.
Transport of raw materials and primary production
-
evi¬
dence provided by artifacts
We can see how raw materials were transported and handled as a
reflection of the complexity of the social and cultural ties of soci¬
ety. There is a certain difference as to whether a community used
subsistence materials in the immediate vicinity or whether it de¬
veloped a system for acquiring new materials from remote places
(from either subsistence or bartering). All the assemblages from
all the periods in
Turnov - Maškové zahrady
are mostly made up
of remote raw materials. We must now focus on how they were
transported there.
There are basically three ways in which they could have been
transported
-
by transporting entire pieces of raw material, trans¬
porting the cores, and transporting the laminae. It is important to
be aware that probably none of these methods actually prevailed,
and a combination was likely to have been used. Therefore the
[174]
following ideas may refer to the main trends, yet there will always
be deviations and exceptions. For illustration we will use the main
assemblages from
Turnov
-
Maškové zahrady
and
Ohrazenice
(mainly due to the fact that they are so representative). The eneo¬
lithic period cannot be characterised in this way.
The first indicator of production using bulbs of raw material
(in this case made of
silicite,
which has a clearly distinguishable
outer crust) is the ratio between the artifacts manufactured from
raw materials with a crust and materials without one (it showes
degrese of raw material preparation; products with a crust are pre¬
dominant in the first phase of the preparation of the core). The ra¬
tio in the collections we studied
(Turnov - Maškové zahrady
and
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice) fluctuates between
1.9:1
and
3.8:1.
Thus we
may assume that the material was transported to the settlement
in the form of cores or laminae. Primary preparation clearly (for
energy reasons) took place at the site where the materials were
found. It seems that the reduction in the ratio corresponds to the
increased number of cores in the assemblage and thus with the
increased proportion of workshop elements it contains (the only
exception in the StK assemblage in
Turnov,
where the reduction
in the ratio is not so marked). The lower core numbers also indi¬
cates that the laminae were brought in from elsewhere.
What is interesting is the ratio between the individual lami¬
nae fragments. The fact that they are erratic implies that they were
brought in from a different place. It is peculiar that all the ratios
actually indicate that the laminae were transported into the sys¬
tem, including cases where a complex was wholly devoted to ma¬
nufacturing. It seems that the type
С
fragments are undersized in
the assemblages (probably due to the fact that they were so hard
to tell apart). Therefore they should be omitted from our consi¬
derations. If we try to summarise the above according to the in¬
dividual periods, we can speculate that for the older phase of the
linear pottery culture, fragments of type
В
laminae were trans¬
ported and a small proportion of laminae made from cores were
produced at the settlement itself. Whether the main workshops
were outside of the survey site at the settlement or somewhere
completely different is unknown. Production existed at the sett¬
lement during the middle phase of the linear pottery culture (the
reduced proportion of laminae in the assemblage is peculiar).
Laminae fragments, however, show that type
В
fragments were
transported. Conflicts arise here due to the sizes of the assembla¬
ges, which are pushing the limits of cogency. In the case of site
753
(middle phase of the linear pottery culture), where laminae were
produced at the settlement to a limited extent, the proportion of
laminae implies that
AB
fragments were transported. In the case
of settlements that were home to the Stroked pottery culture the¬
re is evidence of production at the settlement (reduced propor¬
tion of artifacts without crusts and a higher proportion of cores).
Considering what was said above about type
С
fragments, we
cannot reliably decide what the reduced numbers of these frag¬
ments in this assemblage mean. We can see it as proof that type
AB
laminae fragments were transported to the settlement from
elsewhere. There might be other reasons for the low proportion
(poor determinability, small sizes). We know that laminae were
produced at the settlement and it is likely that these were supple¬
mented by laminae that were brought in from other places (from
peripheral manufacturing complexes, specialised manufacturing
region outside the settlement?). We cannot decide whether the
laminae were transported whole or in fragments. In the case
о
site
1367
(older phase of the linear pottery culture) we have ab^
solutely no proof of production (cores), so the scarcely balance
ratio between the laminae fragments can be considered as pro°
that the laminae were transported.
The situation in Ohrazenice is peculiar. The unbalanced pr
portion of laminae fragments implies that they were transport«
·
This, however, is contradicted by the high proportion of
сог^
The answer to this problem seems to lie in the fact that workshop
were specialised in producing polished stone; the chipped stone
production industry would then have served as subsistence pro¬
duction to cater to the needs of the workshop (tools for making
axe handles
-
the picture would have been similar to that in the
StK settlement). Whether entire laminae were then transported
away from the area cannot be determined, although it seems that
there was at least supplementary production of reworked laminae
for the manufacture or repair of sickles (for an overview, see tab.
20.3.).
It therefore seems that the raw materials in all periods were
at least in the form of cores when they reached the settlement
(the fact that they were worked at the settlement is proven partly
by residues found and partly by the amorphous shards and fla¬
kes resulting from the quarrying work). For all periods, however,
we must surmise that laminae were transported from elsewhere,
either as whole laminae, or in fragments. We have proof that the
cores were transported in finds from the
Přepere
4
locality.
11.
Complexes
-
development of organised work
Developments in the neolithic move towards a greater differen¬
tiation of space and the work that is carried out within it (these
developments can be illustrated using the surveys performed
in
Turnov
-
Maškové zahrady
and
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice;
for the
eneolithic period we do not have the appropriate assemblages).
While the complexes of the older phase of the linear pottery cul¬
ture do not greatly vary from one another (relatively low propor¬
tion of debris from other work, complexes housed within a long
building
-
in front of it, but not in the entrance area; in one case
the complex also contains sunken huts). What is interesting is
the difference between the two parts of complex
1 -
in a sunken
hut and the adjacement pit (feature
1190)
there is a greater accu¬
mulation of relicts from the chipped stone production industry,
while in the surrounding area in front of the building there is a
greater accumulation of remnants from work activities. This fact
could imply a certain differentiation in the settlement, when the
chipped stone production industry was first separated and trans¬
ferred to the sunken hut. In the middle phase of the linear pot¬
tery culture dissimilarities start to appear. In contrast to the older
phase, the percentage of debris from other activities increases.
The working complex situated in the sunken hut shows the high¬
est proportion of debris from other activities. In the period of the
Stroked pottery culture the only complexes that occur are those
loacted in sunken huts and a new type of complex appears in a
silo, a fact which we are unable to clearly interpret. It could partly
have been a dumping site for debris, or could have been used for
graves. There is now a major differentiation between the sunken
huts of this period. From the purely manufacturing site in
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice
(11.2 %
of debris from other activities, which here,
however, could be related to stone industry production) to the
sunken hut from
Turnov - Maškovy zahrady,
which, in contrast,
contains
36 %
of debris created as a result of other activities. On
the other hand, the silo features a similar proportion of debris to
that found in the manufacturing site in
Turnov
-
Ohrazenice.
We are facing the developments of how space was dealt with,
which arose from the early neolithic settlement that featured ve¬
ry little (or no) differentiation; the basic unit of which was the
lcmg buildings that the majority of the activities at the settlement
were associated with (work and a place to live). Right from the
start, specific areas were segregated; originally these worked in
Summary
parallel with the areas associated with the long buildings. In the
early neolithic all work complexes became completely bound to
these specific sites
-
sunken huts. AH evidence indicates that from
this point the long buildings were used exclusively for residen¬
tial purposes. The matter of the existence and function of sunken
huts in the neolithic period has not been conclusively dealt with
and should be the subject of further discussion. The first attempts
have been made
(Čižmář
1998),
but this will need to be built on
in the future with new assessments of material.
12.
Neolithic workshops
As the result of a detailed study we have been able to set aside
several types of workshop which are seen to have developed over
time. Unfortunately we do not currently have enough knowledge
of the situation in the eneolithic and in some parts of the neoli¬
thic, so the following classification cannot yet be generalised to
cover the whole of the neolithic and eneolithic period.
1.
Primary workshop manufacturing area
-
this is bound
to the source of the raw material (Jistebsko
-
LBK and old
STK); we can assume that a large proportion of these works¬
hop areas are in an area of morainal sediments (processing
silicites)
2.
Secondary non-specialised workshop area at the settle¬
ment (responsible for catering to the general needs of the
settlement
-
LBK-STK),
3.
Workshop within the settlement
-
segregation of the chip¬
ped stone production industry (and other forms of work)
into a specific area (sunken huts
-
appearing in the early
neolithic?
-
the partial transfer of work to the sunken huts is
apparent from the beginning of the LBK)
4.
Specialised workshop or workshop region used principal¬
ly for the chipped and polished stone production indus¬
try (this is characterised by the "huge" amount of workshop
debris). Segregated to the edge of or outside the settlement.
Appears in the early phase of STK.
13.
Conclusion
Analysis of the stone industry allows us to monitor how
the chipped stone industry developed within the settlement and
how the raw materials were quarried, worked and transported. It
is possible to differentiate work complexes within the settlement
and then compare these with other cultures. The discovery of the
prehistoric quarrying and manufacturing site in the cadaster of
the municipality of Jistebsko has proved to be very important in
helping us to understand how the raw materials were quarried
and handled.
Despite the fact that these are still only the initial results
and many problems still need to be resolved, analysis of the stone
industry provides us with a number of interesting conclusions.
We can pose many questions that were previously impossible and
find the answers to them. This should be the aim of every analy¬
sis of the stone industry; if we are to learn more we cannot limit
ourselves to a simple description of small collections which, in
the end, only inform us that the chipped or other stone industry
existed at the locality. It is necessary to start to focus on large as¬
semblages; this is the only way for us to make progress in terms of
our knowledge and understanding.
[175] |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Šída, Petr 1976- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)141709200 |
| author_facet | Šída, Petr 1976- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Šída, Petr 1976- |
| author_variant | p š pš |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023219137 |
| classification_rvk | NF 2445 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)439440668 (DE-599)BVBBV023219137 |
| discipline | Geschichte |
| discipline_str_mv | Geschichte |
| era | Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr. gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr. |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02753nam a2200577 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023219137</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20100913 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">080318s2007 abd| |||| 00||| cze d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788073082079</subfield><subfield code="9">978-80-7308-207-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)439440668</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023219137</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">cze</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-739</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="080" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">903/904</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">NF 2445</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)125212:1307</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,11</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Šída, Petr</subfield><subfield code="d">1976-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)141709200</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné</subfield><subfield code="b">dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří</subfield><subfield code="c">Petr Šída</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Praha</subfield><subfield code="b">Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fak., Masarykova Univ. [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">282 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses / Pragensesque</subfield><subfield code="v">3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The use of stone raw materials in the Neolithic and Eneolithic</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr.</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Neolitik - Arheološke najdbe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Neolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075272-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Steinbearbeitung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4256435-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Chalkolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4138001-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Češka - Arheološke najdbe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Nordböhmisches Gebiet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075449-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Nordböhmisches Gebiet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075449-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Steinbearbeitung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4256435-9</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr.</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Nordböhmisches Gebiet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075449-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Neolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075272-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Chalkolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4138001-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Steinbearbeitung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4256435-9</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="810" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pragensesque</subfield><subfield code="t">Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses</subfield><subfield code="v">3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV022424472</subfield><subfield code="9">3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016405070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">900</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09013</subfield><subfield code="g">4371</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">900</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09012</subfield><subfield code="g">4371</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Češka - Arheološke najdbe Nordböhmisches Gebiet (DE-588)4075449-2 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Češka - Arheološke najdbe Nordböhmisches Gebiet |
| id | DE-604.BV023219137 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T20:15:16Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:13:22Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788073082079 |
| language | Czech |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016405070 |
| oclc_num | 439440668 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-739 DE-12 DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
| owner_facet | DE-739 DE-12 DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
| physical | 282 S. zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publishDateSearch | 2007 |
| publishDateSort | 2007 |
| publisher | Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fak., Masarykova Univ. [u.a.] |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses / Pragensesque |
| spelling | Šída, Petr 1976- Verfasser (DE-588)141709200 aut Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří Petr Šída Praha Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fak., Masarykova Univ. [u.a.] 2007 282 S. zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses / Pragensesque 3 Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The use of stone raw materials in the Neolithic and Eneolithic Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr. gnd rswk-swf Neolitik - Arheološke najdbe Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd rswk-swf Steinbearbeitung (DE-588)4256435-9 gnd rswk-swf Chalkolithikum (DE-588)4138001-0 gnd rswk-swf Češka - Arheološke najdbe Nordböhmisches Gebiet (DE-588)4075449-2 gnd rswk-swf Nordböhmisches Gebiet (DE-588)4075449-2 g Steinbearbeitung (DE-588)4256435-9 s Geschichte 11500 v. Chr.-2000 v. Chr. z DE-604 Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 s Chalkolithikum (DE-588)4138001-0 s Pragensesque Dissertationes archaeologicae Brunenses 3 (DE-604)BV022424472 3 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Šída, Petr 1976- Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří Neolitik - Arheološke najdbe Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd Steinbearbeitung (DE-588)4256435-9 gnd Chalkolithikum (DE-588)4138001-0 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4075272-0 (DE-588)4256435-9 (DE-588)4138001-0 (DE-588)4075449-2 |
| title | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří |
| title_auth | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří |
| title_exact_search | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří |
| title_full | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří Petr Šída |
| title_fullStr | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří Petr Šída |
| title_full_unstemmed | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří Petr Šída |
| title_short | Využívání kamenné suroviny v mladší a pozdní době kamenné |
| title_sort | vyuzivani kamenne suroviny v mladsi a pozdni dobe kamenne dilenske arealy v oblasti horniho pojizeri |
| title_sub | dílenské areály v oblasti horního Pojizeří |
| topic | Neolitik - Arheološke najdbe Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd Steinbearbeitung (DE-588)4256435-9 gnd Chalkolithikum (DE-588)4138001-0 gnd |
| topic_facet | Neolitik - Arheološke najdbe Neolithikum Steinbearbeitung Chalkolithikum Češka - Arheološke najdbe Nordböhmisches Gebiet |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016405070&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV022424472 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sidapetr vyuzivanikamennesurovinyvmladsiapozdnidobekamennedilenskearealyvoblastihornihopojizeri |