Archaeometric analyses of pottery from TRB barrows and hilltop enclosures

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES

PROCEEDINGS OF THE XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006)

ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006)

Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek

VOL. 8

Session C68 (Part II)

Monumental Questions: Prehistoric Megaliths, Mounds,

and Enclosures

Edited by

David Calado Maxiliam Baldia

Matthew Boulanger

BAR International Series 2123 2010

This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S2123 Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Actes du XV Congrès Mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Outgoing President: Vítor Oliveira Jorge Outgoing Secretary General: Jean Bourgeois Congress Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek (Series Editor) Incoming President: Pedro Ignacio Shmitz Incoming Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek Volume Editors: David Calado, Maxiliam Baldia, Matthew Boulanger Session C68 (Part II). Monumental Questions: Prehistoric Megaliths, Mounds, and Enclosures © UISPP / IUPPS and authors 2010 ISBN 978 1 4073 0664 3 Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs. Contacts : Secretary of U.I.S.P.P. – International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Av. Dr. Cândido Madureira 13, 2300 TOMAR Email: [email protected] www.uispp.ipt.pt Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England [email protected] The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

169

ARCHAEOMETRIC ANALYSES OF POTTERY FROM TRB BARROWS AND HILLTOP ENCLOSURES

Matthew T. BOULANGER Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor, Columbia, MO 65211 USA

Email: [email protected]

Michael D. GLASCOCK Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor, Columbia, MO 65211 USA

Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The Central European Copper Age is characterized by the emergence of two distinctive archaeological site types: long mounds and wall-and-ditch enclosures (earthworks). Distinct though they may be, these two site types are expressions of a shared concept of monumentalism. Similar techniques of monument construction are evident in the laid-stone wall found at both site types, and, at least in the upper Morava Valley, groups of mounds invariably occur adjacent to enclosures. Proximity in space, time, and form of these site types has led to speculation concerning how they are related, yet few researchers have provided firm data to test such propositions. Technological analyses of Copper Age pottery from Rmíz and the nearby Džbán mound group provide an opportunity to examine shared aspects of ceramic manufacture, use, and disposal during the Central European Copper Age. Geochemical analysis and thin-section petrography are used to examine technological attributes of pottery from both sites in an attempt to examine shared aspects of ceramic composition and technology and to identify initial pottery-composition profiles for the region. Key words: Copper Age, Moravia, TRB, Baden, earthworks, burial mounds, petrographic and neutron activation pottery analysis

Analyses d’Archeométrie de la poterie de TBR Barows et des enclos de Hilltop

Résumé: L’âge de cuivre de l’Europe Centrale est caractérisé par l’apparition de deux types distinctifs d’archéologie: de longs monticules et des enclos de mur-et-fossé (terrassements). Bien distincts qu’ils puissent être, ces deux types sont des expressions d’un concept partagé de monumentalisme. Les techniques semblables de construction de monument sont évidentes dans le mur de pierre-étendue trouvé aux deux types de site, et aussi dans la vallée supérieure de Morava, les groupes de monticules se produisent invariablement à côté des enclos. La proximité dans l’espace, la période et la forme de ces types de site a mené à la spéculation au sujet de la façon don’t ils sont reliés, pourtant peu de chercheurs ont fourni des données fermes pour tester de telles propositions.Les Analyses technologiques de la poterie de l’âge de cuivre de Rmiz et du groupe de monticule voisin de Dzban fournissent une occasion d’examiner des aspects partagés de fabrication en céramique, leur usage et ramassage pendant l’âge de cuivre de l’Europe Centrale. La pétrographie géochimique d’analyse et de section mince est employée pour examiner les attributs technologiques de la poterie des deux sites afin d’essayer d’examiner des aspects de composition et de technologie en céramique et d’identifier les profiles initiaux de composition de la poterie pour la region.

INTRODUCTION

An ongoing debate among archaeologists studying the Neolithic and Copper Age of Central Europe concerns the cultural function, meaning, and relatedness of monumental architecture. Sites exhibiting monumental architecture have historically been considered a basic analytical units in the study of this period, and the cultural meanings ascribed to these monuments govern a priori how we view the builders. Most Central European studies of monumental architecture have focused on hilltop wall-and-ditch enclosures (earthworks).

During the past 150 years, archaeologists have proposed various hypotheses concerning how Central European enclosures functioned: i.e. as places of social gatherings, centers of ritual behavior, marketplaces, animal stockades, places of refuge from winter weather, and protective fortifications, to name only the most common hypotheses (Oliva 2004, Podborský 1999). Such determinations address only the largest and most spectacular of archaeological remains, and they are incapable of providing an objective assessment of

prehistoric cultural interactions. Few of these hypotheses have been rigorously and independently tested over a wide sample of sites, and taken individually, each of them masks considerable spatial, temporal, and functional variation among enclosures. Further, none of these hypotheses adequately explain how, if at all, different expressions of monumental architecture are culturally related.

CASE STUDY: THE MORAVIAN FUNNEL-BEAKER CULTURE (TRB)

The above-noted shortcomings are particularly apparent in the study of Copper Age-sites in the eastern Czech Republic. Here, wall-and-ditch enclosures are often surrounded by groups of burial mounds. Geographical proximity of mound groups to enclosures seems a solid base upon which to form a hypothesis of cultural association, but questions such as how and why these sites are culturally related cannot be addressed by geography alone. Chronologically, mounds and earthworks appear to be approximately contemporaneous.

MONUMENTAL QUESTIONS: PREHISTORIC MEGALITHS, MOUNDS, AND ENCLOSURES

170

However, this statement must be made with some degree of caution, as there are few radiocarbon dates to support the chronological placement of individual sites. Instead, age estimates are based upon a complex typo-chronology based on subtle differences in pottery form and decoration.

Moravian TRB pottery typo-chronology

In Central Europe, pottery analyses have historically assumed a normative framework and focused on formal and decorative styles. Vessel shapes and decorations are the primary variables for establishing pottery types. Therefore, similar types found at different sites are explained as indications that the same cultural group inhabited both sites, and that the sites are thus contemporaneous, despite the fact that the defined types may span a period of several hundred years.

ŠMÍD (1991, 1993) divides the Moravian TRB into two general phases based on stylistic attributes of ceramics: TRB I and II. Each of these broad phases is further divided into subphases “A” and “B”. Following Baldia (2004), TRB IA is believed to date ca. 4000-3850/ 3800 BC and TRB IB to ca. 3850/3800-3600/3400 BC. TRB I is identified by funnel-necked pottery that exhibits strong formal and decorative resemblances to pottery of the Baalberge Group, the Michelsberg culture of west Germany, as well as Lengyel pottery from Slovakia and Hungary (ŠMÍD 1993, 1999, 2001). Following Baldia’s (2004) assessment, Moravian TRB II ceramics appear between 3600 BC and 3400 BC. Šmíd’s (1993) TRB IIA and IIB phases are defined by an increasing tendency for pottery to show stylistic similarities with the Baden-Boleráz tradition of southeastern Central Europe. Baden-Boleráz is dated (dendrochronologically) 3384-3370 BC at the site of Arbon-Bleiche 3 near the Bodensee (Lake Constance) in Switzerland (De Capitani et al. 2002, Jacomet et al. 2004). Baldia tentatively suggests that the transition between TRB IIA and IIB could have occurred around this time. The TRB IIB represents the final ceramic tradition of the Middle Copper Age in Moravia, ending ca. 3300-3200 BC (Baldia 2004) when influences of the Baden tradition completely replace TRB ceramic styles (Šmíd 1993).

It is not our intent to discuss the vagaries of the Moravian culture-historical typo-chronology (indirect dating through the typological method applied to pottery). We wish only to illustrate that the study of the Moravian TRB has focused strongly on stylistic analyses of pottery whereas differences in ceramic paste and pottery composition have received little attention and have even been rejected as irrelevant in some regions of Central Europe (Baldia personal communication 2007). Although similarities of decoration and form may in some cases be useful for establishing culture-historical typologies, studies of pottery composition can provide answers to fundamentally different—but complimentary—archaeolo-gical questions.

Archaeometric analyses and composition of pottery

Archaeometry, the use of physical-science methods to study archaeological material, is but one way to study the technology of pottery production (e.g., Stark et al. 2000). Analyses of pottery composition can facilitate inferences of pottery-production sites or regions, thereby providing archaeologists with opportunities to begin studying inter- and intraregional interactions. Such analyses can also allow archaeologists to understand the technological aspects of prehistoric pottery manufacture, such as whether certain clays or tempering agents were selected over others.

Although some researchers in Central Europe have begun to explore the technological aspects of Copper Age pottery (Hanykýř, et al. 1997, Hložek, 2003, Hovorka et al. 2002, Hovorka et al. 2004, Rehman et al. 1992, Stobierska et al. 1998), integration of compositional analyses into mainstream Central European archaeology remains elusive. We do not argue here that compositional analysis of pottery is a panacea that will render existing pottery typologies obsolete; rather, we view all approaches to the study of archaeological material as complementary, and each approach addresses fundamentally different, yet mutually informing, aspects of pottery production, use, and disposal.

This preliminary study compares compositional and technological aspects of pottery to demonstrate the potential of archaeometric methods for addressing archaeological and anthropological questions relevant to the Moravian Copper Age.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

The pottery analyzed in this study comes from two Copper Age sites in the Morava Valley of the eastern Czech Republic (Fig. 20.1). Located between the Bohemian Massif to the west and the Carpathian Mountains to the east, the river valley is part of a natural travel corridor that links Southeast and Northwest Europe. Historically, the route through the Moravian Gate was extensively used for trade caravans and military convoys. Prehistorically, the corridor seems a likely route for the spread of ideas associated with monumentalism, including the Neolithic earthworks of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and subsequent Lengyel culture.

At least 11 hilltop earthworks exist along the Morava river valley. All of these earthworks are located on prominent hills and terraces along the eastern edge of the Bohemian Massif. Curiously, none have been identified on the eastern side of the valley. Hilltop wall-and-ditch enclosures in the central and northern valley first occur during sometime between 4000/3800-3600/3400 BC, and are associated with the appearance of TRB pottery styles. Shortly after their appearance groups of burial-mounds appear. On average, each mound group consists of 10-30

M.T. BOULANGER & M.D. GLASCOCK: ARCHAEOMETRIC ANALYSES OF POTTERY FROM TRB BARROWS AND HILLTOP ENCLOSURES

171

Fig. 20.1. Map of eastern Czech Republic showing the locations of (1) Rmíz u Laškova hillfort and (2) Náměšť na Hané-Džbán mound group. Major rivers and modern political boundaries are shown

individual barrows located in upland and valley-edge settings within 3 km of a walled earthwork. Further strengthening the apparent cultural relatedness of these expressions of monumental architecture is the fact that most enclosures in are associated with at least two mound groups.

Enclosure: Rmíz u Laškov

The site of Rmíz u Laškova (Rmíz near the hamlet of Laškov), located west of the city of Olomouc (Fig. 20.1), is located on a southeastward-facing upland terrace of the Bohemian Massif (Šmíd 1995). The eastern, southern, and western edges of this terrace slope steeply downward to a tributary of the Morava River, and the northern edge of the site forms a topographic saddle between the terrace and the eastern foothills of the massif.

Rmíz also appears to be the northernmost, largest (at approximately 17.5 ha), and oldest Copper Age-enclosure in the Morava Valley (Šmíd 1995, Baldia 2004). Four walls with corresponding ditches were constructed across the terrace and saddle, the most easily traversed approach

to the site (Fig. 20.2). An extension of the fourth, or innermost, wall was incorporated into the naturally steep slope of the terrace’s southern edge.

Rmíz appears to have served multiple functions during the TRB. The copper artifact recovered from the site is similar to those found at some of the neighboring tombs (Šmíd 1999: 135-136, Baldia 2004: 157-158), suggesting that copper production and distribution may have been centered at Rmíz. Although crop growing likely took place lower in the river valley, storage of grain or other perishables seems evident at Rmíz in the form of thick-walled amphorae. Loom weights and spindle whorls suggest on-site textile production. Querns and flaked tools are visually similar to stone from quarries located elsewhere in the valley, Poland, Slovakia, and Austria. Therefore, it seems that Rmíz was part of extensive trade and communication networks connecting settlements within the Morava Valley and spanning Central Europe.

Given the size and amount of monumental construction at the site, it seems likely that Rmíz was a prominent site within the northern valley. Oliva (2004) has suggested


172

Fig. 20.2. Planviews of (1) Rmíz u Laškova hillfort and (2) Náměšť na Hané-Džbán mound group after Šmíd. Shaded areas are locations of CARPro excavations. Thick lines in 1 depict walls. Dotted lines in 2 are

margins of burial mounds

that the labor force necessary to build and maintain the walls at Rmíz was much greater than the site itself could support, therefore implying some mechanism of labor mobilization from the surrounding environs. Further emphasizing the apparent cultural significance of the site is that it is associated with the greatest density of mound groups so far identified within the valley—five mound groups have so far been discovered near the enclosure.

Mound cluster: Náměšť na Hané-Džbán

Of the five mound groups near Rmíz, all are located less than 2.5 km from the enclosure (Baldia et al. 2002, Šmíd

1995, 1999, 2003). Of these mound clusters, the Džbán mound group is the farthest from Rmíz at ca. 2.5 km, a distance easily traversed by foot in an hour (Fig. 20.1). Excavations in 2002 conducted by the Czech-American Research Project (CARPRO) and the College of DuPage’s Czech-American Archaeological Field School focused on one of the barrows at Džbán, designated Mound 1 (Fig. 20.2).

One of us (Boulanger) identified and excavated the central burial of Mound 1. The burial consisted of the cremated remains of at least one person packed into an urn. The urn was inverted in a large bowl, and the bowl was placed into a shallow pit excavated into the underlying Bt soil horizon. The entire inhumation was surrounded by a mass of packed organic-rich, greasy clay. The two vessels comprising the central burial are stylistically attributed to the TRB/Baden-Boleráz culture and evidence for a TRB-period settlement were also identified at Džbán.

Within the earthen mound fill, excavators encountered an abundance of domestic debris including TRB-style potsherds, flint tools and flakes, spindle whorls, and calcined bone fragments. Some excavation units identified a buried topsoil (2Ab) below the mound. Within this 2Ab horizon excavators discovered what appeared to be a hearth, as well as additional TRB-style artifacts. Several transects of 50 cm x 50 cm test units were excavated across the site. The profiles of these units exhibited little to no soil development. A weathered, compact, and stony Bt horizon was encountered in most units within the first 20 cm. It seems likely that the majority of pedogenic soil existed and containing the remains of the TRB-period site, was gathered and used for mound construction. What little remains of the settlement existed in situ, may only occur below the 32 mounds at the site.

Excavations have determined that the four other mound groups surrounding Rmíz (Šmíd 1995, 1999, 2003) are also roughly contemporaneous with the TRB occupation of Rmíz. As at Džbán, these determinations are based solely on broad formal and decorative similarities of the pottery found within excavated mounds. Given that there is no clearly defined break between TRB and Baden in the study area, we choose to state only that the habitation and the interment in Mound 1 at Džbán are generally contemporaneous with occupations at Rmíz.

ANALYTICAL METHODS

Through analysis of sherds from Rmíz and Džbán, we seek to examine the compositional attributes of Copper Age pottery in the Northcentral Morava Valley. Because these attributes relate directly to the methods and techniques of pottery production, compositional analyses can be used to infer archaeologically relevant information about the people who produced the pottery, such as


173

Table 20.1. Contextual information for sherds analyzed in this study

MURR ID CARPro ID Site Unit Context X-Section Spicula Present

DZB001 DZ-01-4124 Džbán N99 E98 Mound Fill: Level 5 Y

DZB002 DZ-01-4137 Džbán N99 E98 Mound Fill: Level 5

DZB003 DZ-01-1297 Džbán N99 E100 Mound Fill: Level 1 DZB004 DZ-01-1301 Džbán N99 E100 Mound Fill: Level 1



DZB007 DZ-01-1288 Džbán N99 E100 Mound Fill: Level 1 DZB008 DZ-01-1298 Džbán N99 E100 Mound Fill: Level 1 Y Y

DZB009 DZ-01-1294 Džbán N99 E100 Mound Fill: Level 1 Y







DZB018 DZ-01-4350 Džbán N99 E79.5 Mound Fill: Level 2

DZB019 DZ-01-1369 Džbán N99 E99 Mound Fill: Level 2 DZB020 DZ-01-1770 Džbán N103 E99 Mound Fill: Level 2 Y

RMZ001 RM.1980 Rmíz TU2 Level 9: 90–95 cmbs Y

RMZ002 RM.2529 Rmíz Meter 1 Level 4, 2Ab: 62–72 cmbs

RMZ003 RM194.1.3 Rmíz N00 E05 Y RMZ004 RM162.1.37 Rmíz S01 E06 Level 3b Y

RMZ005 RM.2647 Rmíz Meter 1-3 Level 1, A: 00–10 cmbs


RMZ007 RM.2617 Rmíz Meter 1 Level 3, 2Ab: 40–62 cmbs RMZ008 RM.2531 Rmíz Meter 1 Level 4, 2Ab: 62–72 cmbs


RMZ010 RM.2608 Rmíz Meter 1 Level 3, 2Ab: 40–62 cmbs RMZ011 RM.2661 Rmíz Meter 1-3 Level 1, A: 00–10 cmbs


RMZ013 RM.1817 Rmíz TU4/3 Level 4: 90 cmbs Y


location of manufacture and regional trade or exchange. Therefore, we consider compositional analysis to be one avenue of inquiry to examine how two emergent forms of monumentalism (hilltop earthworks and burial mounds) were culturally related. As this is an exploratory study, we also seek to determine whether archaeometric methods can be successfully used to determine, albeit tentatively, site- and region-specific compositional groups related to pottery production in the Northcentral Morava Valley.

One hundred sherds were selected from the Rmíz and Džbán collections, 50 from each site. General attributes of each sherd (paste, general temper, surface treatment, thickness, etc.) were recorded, and sherds were grouped based on similarities in these attributes.

A subset of 24 sherds (12 from Džbán and 12 from Rmíz) was selected for re-firing experiments in a muffle furnace. Fragments were removed from these sherds and inserted


174

into the furnace. The furnace was then programmed to elevate its temperature to 800° C at a rate of 100° C per hour, with one hour of constant temperature between elevations. One fragment from each sherd was removed every two-hours, i.e. after each temperature range had been held constant for one-hour, but immediately preceding the next temperature elevation. Changes in the degree of paste oxidation were examined from each temperature range to estimate the temperature at which the sherds were originally fired.

A subset of seven sherds (Table 20.1) was selected for petrographic analysis, and standard geological thin sections were prepared from these sherds by a commercial laboratory. Thin sections were taken from a longitudinal axis perpendicular to the rim. Each thin section was qualitatively assessed under a polarizing microscope. Attributes such as major and minor mineral aplastics (i.e. all non-ceramic inclusions identified in thin section that are larger than 100 μm in any direction), degree of sorting of temper, and the size and sphericity of aplastics were recorded. Each thin section was also examined for remnants of decorative and constructive techniques (e.g., surface treatment, method of construction, etc.).

Samples from each of the sherds that were analyzed petrographically, and an additional 26 sherds (Table 20.1), were submitted for neutron activation analysis (NAA). One fragment of daub from Rmíz was also submitted for NAA under the assumption that it may represent locally available clay. Neutron activation analysis was conducted at the University of Missouri Archaeometry Laboratory, using standardized procedures outlined in Glascock (1992).

INTERPRETATION OF COMPOSITIONAL DATA

The interpretation of compositional data obtained from NAA is discussed elsewhere (e.g., Glascock 1992 and references therein) and is only summarized here. The primary goal of interpreting compositional data generated by NAA is to identify homogeneous groups of samples within the overall database. Some reasonable assumptions must be made in the interpretation of archaeometric data. The “provenance postulate” (Weigand et al. 1977), which holds that different chemical groups may be assumed to represent geographically restricted sources. Although analysis of samples from actual clay beds may facilitate identification of physical source locations, sources can be indirectly identified following the “criterion of abundance” (Bishop et al. 1992). As few similar projects have been conducted in the eastern Czech Republic, we assume, following Arnold (1985), that all major components of the pottery-making process were likely gathered within 6 to 7 km of these sites.

The lack of a substantial comparative database of pottery from similar contexts limits the types of conclusions that can be drawn from these data. However, we offer several

potential outcomes that imply logical explanatory hypotheses. Each of these as initial hypotheses may be viewed in concert with other archaeological data, tested, refined, and retested as more data are produced:

− Pottery produced with similar clays and tempering agents (as determined by bulk geochemical composition), but by different manufacturing methods (as revealed by petrographic analysis), reflects different cultural groups using the same geological resources;

− Pottery manufactured by similar methods, but from different parent materials, reflects the presence of single cultural group exploiting different geological resources;

− Pottery manufactured from similar materials and by similar methods reflects the presence of one cultural group using the same resources;

− And, pottery that is neither technologically nor compositionally similar may reflect pottery production by different groups in different geographical areas.

RESULTS

Most of the sherds show a laminated clay structure that is suggestive of slab building. Most surfaces are smoothed to some degree, and decoration is rare. In those cases where a sherd was decorated, the motifs are fairly simple linear incisions. Surfaces of most sherds are more fully oxidized than their paste, but no true slips were observed in the sample.

Re-firing of the sherds resulted in little to no change in paste appearance below 650-700° C. Above this temperature range, the organic material (that had imparted a black color to the sherd paste) oxidized quickly. After complete oxidation of the remaining carbonaceous material, the sherd pastes were all of similar color and texture. Therefore, it seems that much of the initially observed variation in paste color is a result of differences in firing environment (reducing versus oxidizing) and firing temperature. Further, it seems likely that all of the sherds were fired at relatively low temperatures (below approximately 650° C) and/or that they were fired in an atmosphere that was (at least partially) reducing or oxygen starved.

Thin-section analysis

All of the examined thin sections have inclusions consistent with the mineralogy and metamorphic geology of the eastern flank of the Bohemian Massif. Aplastics in all of the sherds are moderately to poorly sorted, and sub-rounded to angular grains of quartz and quartzite are the most abundant aplastics observed in all sections. Rounded fragments of metamorphosed shale, schist, gneiss, and greywacke are present in all the samples, but in varying amounts. Secondary minerals include mica indicative of


175

low-grade metamorphism: muscovite, sericite, and biotite. Accessory minerals observed in all sections include hornblende, magnetite, garnet, and plagioclase. Grog (crushed pottery) is present in some, but not all, thin sections.

One sample from Džbán (DZB008) contained an abundance of embedded spine-like aplastics, likely sponge spicules or coral bodies. Efforts to identify these aplastics are ongoing. However, for the sake of this paper we will refer to them simply as spicules. In cross section, these spines are isotropic, circular, hollow, and approximately 169 μm in diameter. The abundance of spicules in the paste of this sample is suggestive of a naturally occurring, rather than artificially added, aplastic. In handsample, the spicules are visible as small, white, needle-like inclusions within the ceramic paste. Although DZB008 is the only sample containing spicules from which a thin section was prepared, they have been observed in pottery recovered from both Džbán and Rmíz, but not from the limited number of other sites we have visited in the region.

Neutron activation analysis

Multivariate statistical routines and clustering algorithms were applied to the compositional information generated by NAA. The results indicate broad compositional similarity among most of the samples. Principal components analysis (PCA) of the 34-member database reveals that greater than 90% of the cumulative variation in the database is subsumed by eight components (Table 20.2).

Table 20.2. Principal components analysis showing the first 10 components of the 34-sample pottery dataset from Rmíz and Džbán in the upper Morava Valley, Moravia, Czech Republic

Principal Component Eigenvalue Percent

Variance Cumulative

Variance 1 0.1568 29.2753 29.2753

2 0.1011 18.8834 48.1587

3 0.0779 14.5565 62.7152

4 0.0527 9.841 72.5562 5 0.0327 6.1148 78.671

6 0.027 5.048 83.7189

7 0.0198 3.7046 87.4236

8 0.0168 3.1447 90.5683 9 0.0138 2.5798 93.1481

10 0.009 1.6869 94.835

The majority (n = 23) of samples form a large and compositionally homogeneous cluster is termed the Northcentral Morava Macrogroup (Fig. 20.3). Formation

of this group is apparent both in PCA space and when logged elemental concentrations are used to project the data in bivariate plots. An attempt was made to refine the results and test for the presence of subgroups within the Northcentral Morava Macrogroup. Despite a small sample size, two tentative subgroups were identified on the basis of correlated concentrations of multiple rare earth elements (Fig. 20.3).

One sample, the Rmíz daub (RMZ011), contains a significantly higher concentration of hafnium (Hf) and zirconium (Zr) than all of the sherds. However, when other elements are used to project the data, this sample consistently plots within or adjacent to the Northcentral Morava Macrogroup (Fig. 20.3). Hf often substitutes for Zr in the mineral zircon, and zircon is resistant to mechanical weathering below silt-sized particles (Blackman 1992, O’brien et al. 1995). Therefore, we infer that the higher concentrations of Hf and Zr in the Rmíz daub are indications of higher amounts of zircon, and thus coarse silt and sand, within the daub. To test this inference, a small portion of the daub was pulverized and then moistened to test for clay-like properties. The wet daub showed little malleability when moist, unlike clay which becomes plastic when wet.

Only 10 samples within the dataset do not consistently plot within the macrogroup (Fig. 20.3). Of these outliers, four sherds from Džbán (DZB001, DZB002, DZB004, and DZB005) and two from Rmíz (RMZ008 and RMZ010) were initially sorted into a group based on similarity of paste—black and fine-grained paste with few inclusions and no apparent surface treatment. The compositional and macroscopic similarity of these six sherds suggests that they may be a distinct compositional group associated with production of a specific style of pottery. However, it is difficult to test this propo- sition with the currently limited number of analyzed samples.

The data were projected against data produced by the only other NAA study of prehistoric Moravian pottery of which we are aware (Rehman et al. 1992). Despite the fact that Rehman, Robinson, and Shennan examined pottery associated with the Late Copper Age Bell Beaker culture, their data provide perspective for our rather small database. The macrogroup identified in this study encompasses a cluster of Bell Beaker samples from the upper Morava Valley (Fig. 20.4), suggesting that group accurately reflects compositional attributes of clay and temper available in the upper valley. Although not statistically testable at this stage, potential compositional subgroups are indicated by dashed lines (Fig. 20.4). Note that some of the outliers identified in this study fall within the range of compositional variation in Moravian prehistoric pottery identified by Rehman et al. (1992), while other outliers do not. We interpret this evidence as possible indications of intra- and interregional exchange. However, additional studies are necessary to test this hypothesis.


176

Fig. 20.3. Bivariate plot of lutetium and ytterbium concentrations of ceramic samples analyzed as part of this

study. Ellipse represent 90% confidence interval of group membership within the Northern Morava Macrogroup. Dashed line represents possible division of samples

Fig. 20.4. Bivariate plot of lutetium and chromium values of ceramic samples from Moravia. Data from

the current project are projected against data produced by Rehman et al. (1992). Solid ellipse represents 90% confidence interval of group membership. Dashed lines represent possible groupings or divisions in these data


177

CONCLUSIONS

Pottery recovered from the earthwork of Rmíz and the burial mound cluster of Džbán share similar technological, mineralogical, and chemical attributes. The majority (n = 23) of samples analyzed appear to have been manufactured from similar geological materials, both clay and temper. These results are suggestive, but far from conclusive, evidence supporting the presence of shared traditions of pottery production—including choices of raw clay and tempering materials and the relative proportions of both—at Rmíz and Džbán. Though it may be possible to subdivide the large macrogroup identified into two smaller subgroups, we hesitate to do so until additional analyses are conducted.

No conclusive differences were observed between the compositions of sherds containing spicules in their pastes, although all these sherds grouped together in the Northcentral Morava Macrogroup. At present, all that can be said regarding clay with these inclusions is that it appears to be related to pottery production at and near Rmíz, and that it is geochemically similar to other clays used in pottery production at the site.

Some amount of regional interaction is suggested by the presence of 10 sherds with anomalous chemical compositions. Though we cannot confidently determine the sources of these sherds at present, they appear to be sufficiently distinct from the remaining samples and from those analyzed by Rehman et al. (1992) to suggest that some were not manufactured from the same geological materials whereas others appear to have been made outside of the upper Morava Valley.

Despite the small sample size, this preliminary study provides an example of how archaeometry can provide independent evidence linking two types of monumental sites. Further testing of pottery from Rmíz, Džbán, and other Copper Age sites in the valley is necessary before any definitive conclusions can be drawn. Expansion of the database generated by this study may allow archaeologists to begin reconstructing regional interactions within the Morava valley and throughout much of Central Europe. In this regard, archaeometric analyses should be seen not as a replacement for existing ceramic typologies, but as a complementary method that addresses related research goals. Furthermore, compositional studies such as this one illustrate the potential utility of small non-diagnostic potsherds—artifacts commonly discarded during excavations—for providing archaeologically relevant information concerning regional interaction and the cultural importance of monumental sites.

Acknowledgments

Analysis of archaeological materials at the Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor is supported by a National Science Foundation laboratory

support grant (grant no. 0504015). The samples discussed in this paper are derived from the Czech-American Archaeological Research Project (CARPRO) directed by Drs. Maximilian O. Baldia and Miroslav Šmíd. CARPRO members Christel C. Baldia, Douglas S. Frink, Suzanne J. Miller, and John P. Staeck (Director of the Czech-American Archaeological Field School), are all acknowledged for their contributions to this research project. Drs. Baldia, Šmíd, and Staeck are acknowledged for their work in arranging and executing the archaeological fieldwork of CARPRO. The data pro-duced by Rehman, Robinson, and Shennan (1992) are archived at the MURR Archaeometry Laboratory, and at the time of publication, the data are available for download from the laboratory’s Web site: http://archaeometry.missouri. edu/. We thank Dr. Michael J. O’Brien for his insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. We also graciously thank Marcelle Charles for her translation of our title and abstract. Any errors are in the interpretation of the data are those of ours alone.

References

ARNOLD, D.E., 1985, Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BALDIA, M.O., 2004, The Oldest Stone Rampart: Enclosures and Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture (4100–2800 cal BC) in North and Central Europe. In I. Jadin, A. Hauzeur, N. Cauwe, M. Vander Linde, T. Onhan, & M. Lebeau (eds.), Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liege, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001, Section 9: Le neolithique au Proche Orient en Europe/The Neolithic in the Near East and Europe; Section 10: L’age du cuivre au Proche Orient et en Europe/The Copper Age in the Near East and Europe; Sessions generales et posters/General Sessions and Posters, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1303, Oxford: Archaeopress, p. 153-161.

BALDIA, M.O., STAECK, J.P., & ŠMÍD, M., 2002, Hügelgräber der Trichterbecherkultur in Ludérov. Pravěk (Nova řada) 11 (2001), p. 43-59.

BLACKMAN, M.J., 1992, The Effect of Natural and Human Size Sorting on the Mineralogy and Chemistry of Ceramic Clays. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, H. NEFF (ed.), Madison: Prehistory Press, p. 113-124.

BISHOP, R.L., RANDS, R.L., and HOLLEY, G.R., 1992, Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, New York: Academic Press, Vol. 5, p. 275-330.

BUCHVALDEK, M., NOVOTNÝ, BOHUSLAV, & PLESLOVÁ ŠTIKOVÁ, E., 1988, The Copper Age in Czechoslovakia, Rassegna di Archeologia 7, p. 105–142.


178

DE CAPITANI, A., DESCHLER-ERB, S., LEUZINGER, U., MARTI-GRÄDEL, E., SCHIBLER, J., 2002, Die Jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3: Funde, Archäologie im Thurgau 11, Frauenfeld: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau.

GLASCOCK, M.D., 1992, Characterization of Archaeo-logical Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In H. Neff (ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, Madison (WI): Prehistory Press, p. 11-26.

HANYKÝŘ, V., MARYŠKA, M., & BUCHVALDEK, M., 1997, Fyzikálně Chemický Výzkum Pravěké Keramiky (Physikalisch-Chemische Untersuchungen Urzeitlicher Keramik), Praehistorica XXII (Varia Archaeologica 7), p. 9-40, Prague (Praha): Charles University (Univerzita Karlova).

HEGMON, M., 1992, Archaeological Research on Style, Annual Review of Anthropology 21, p. 517-536.

HLOŽEK, M., 2003, Rekonstrukce Technologie výrpby Zvoncovitých Pohárů na Základě Mikropetro-grafických Rozborů, Rekonstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii (REA) 4, p. 116-121.

HOVORKA, D., ILLÁŠOVÁ, Ĺ., ŠTEVULA, L., DYDA, M., ŠTEVULA, L., & NEVIZÁNSKY, G., 2002, Raw Material Aspects of the Baden Culture Ceramics: Sites of Bajč-Vlkanovo, Kamenín and Stránska (Slovakia), Mineralia Slovaca 34, p. 233-240.

HOVORKA, D., MATÝSEK, D., MLATEC, R., & SLIVKA, V., 2004, Raw Material Aspects of the Neolithic Ceramics from the Cífer-Pác Site (Western Slovakia), Archeologické Rozhledy LVI/4, p. 828-840.

JACOMET, S., LEUZINGER, U., & SCHIBLER, J., 2004, Die Jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon/ Bleiche 3: umwelt und wirtschaft, Archäologie im Thurgau 12, Frauenfeld: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau.

LECHTMAN, H., & MERRILL, R. (eds.), 1977, Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, 1975 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, St. Paul (MN): West.

O’BRIEN, M.J., COGSWELL, J.W., MAINFORT, R.C., NEFF, H., & GLASCOCK, M.D., 1995, Neutron-Activation Analysis of Campbell Appliquéd Pottery from Southeastern Missouri and Western Tennessee: Implications for Late Mississippian Intersite Rela-tions, Southeastern Archaeology 14/2, p. 181-194.

OLIVA, M., 2004, Flint Mining, Rondels, Hillforts… Symbolic Works or Too Much Free Time?, Archeologické Rozhledy LVI/3, p 499-531.

PODBORSKÝ, V., 1999 Pravěká Sociokultovní Architektura na Morave (Primeval Socio-Ritual Architecture in Moravia). Brno: Ùstav archeologie a muzeologie, Filozofická fakulta Masarykovy university.

REHMAN, F., ROBINSON, V.J., & SHENNAN, S.J., 1992, A Neutron Activation Study of Bell Beakers and Associated Pottery from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, Památky Archeologické LXXXIII: p. 197-211.

SHEPARD, A.O., 1995, Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Publication 609, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institu-tion of Washington.

STARK, M., BISHOP, R., & MIKSA, E., 2000, Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Clay Selection and Use, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7/4: p. 295-331.

STOBIERSKA, E., GUBERMAT, A., & WYSZOMIR-SKI, P., Wschodniosłpwacka Ceramika Neolityczna, 1998, Szkło Ceramika 49, p. 8-14.

ŠMÍD, M., 1991, Nové nálezy kultury s moravskou malovaou keramikou na Prostejovsku, Archeologické Rozhledy XLIII, p. 185-205.

ŠMÍD, M., 1993, Nástin periodizace kultury s nálevkovitými poháry na Moravé, Pravěk (Nova řada) 2 (1992), p. 131–157.

ŠMÍD, M., 1995, Výsledky Zjišťovacího Výzkumu na Eneolitickém Hradisku Rmíz u Laškova, Pravěk (Nova řada) 3 (1993), p. 19-77.

ŠMÍD, M., 1999, Das dritte Hügelgräberfeld der Trichterbecherkultur inm Kataster von Náměšť na Hané, Bez. Olomouc, Pravěk (Nova řada) 8 (1998), p. 115-140.

ŠMÍD, M., 2001, Ludéřov (okr. Olomouc) “U žlíbku”, Přehled výzkumů 42 (2000), p. 152.

ŠMÍD, M., 2003, Náměšť na Hané (okr. Olomouc) “Džbán”, Přehled výzkumů 44 (2002), p. 218-219.

WEIGAND, P.C., HARBOTTLE, G., & SAYRE, E.G., 1976, Turqoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In T.K. Earle & J.E. Ericson (eds.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory, New York: Academic Press, p. 15-34.

WHITTLE, A.W.R., 1988, Contexts, Activities, Events—Aspects of Neolithic and Copper Age Enclosures in Central and Western Europe. In C. Burgess, P. Topping, C. Mordant, & M. Maddison (eds.), Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 403(i), p. 1-19.

Archaeometric analyses of pottery from TRB barrows and hilltop enclosures

Documents

Transcript of Archaeometric analyses of pottery from TRB barrows and hilltop enclosures