Chronological signification of Linear Pottery waste assemblages and waste management at the village...

ARCHÄOLOGIE

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

LE

ArbeitsgemeinschaftSymposium

TagungKongress

17

17

ASTK

IA

ISBN 3-89646-447-7ISSN 1434-6427

Caroline Hamon, Pierre Allard and

Michael Ilett (Eds.)

The Domestic Space in LBK

Settlements

• T

he D

omes

tic S

pace

in L

BK S

ettle

men

tsC

arol

ine

Ham

on, P

ierr

e A

llard

, Mic

hael

Ilet

t (E

ds.)

The Domestic Space in LBK Settlements

Caroline Hamon, Pierre Allard and Michael Ilett (Eds.)

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH · Rahden/Westf.2013

Foreword

P. Allard, C. Hamon, S. Bonnardin, N. Cayol, M. Chartier, A.Coudart, J. Dubou-loz, L. Gomart, L.Hachem, M. Ilett, K. Meunier, C. Monchablon, C.Thevenet- Linear Pottery domestic space: taphonomy, distribution of fi nds and economy in the Aisne valley settlements

D. Bosquet - Chronological signifi cation of Linear Pottery waste assemblages and waste management at the village scale: spatial analysis of Remicourt “En Bia Flo” II (Liège province, Belgium)

E. Lenneis - Reconstruction of domestic units from distribution analysis and study of fi nds density in pit fi lls,

P. Stadler & N Kotova - The longhouses from Brunn Wolfholz, distribution of fi nds and the importance of the diff erent sites for the development of the Linear Pottery culture

S. Wolfram - Two sides of the coin: ceramic taphonomy and domestic space in the Linear Pottery settlements Hanau–Klein-Auheim and Eythra (Germany)

A. Rauba-Bukowska - New data on the distribution of pottery fi nds in the Linear Pottery settlement at Brzezie 17 in southern Poland

P. Květina & M.Končelová - Settlements patterns as seen in pottery decoration style: a case study from the early Neolithic site of Bylany (Czech Republic)

A. van Gijn & N. Mazzucco - Domestic activities at the Linear Pottery site of Elsloo (Netherlands): a look from under the microscope

M. de Grooth - Spatial aspects of fl int working at the Early Bandkeramik settlement of Geleen-Janskamperveld (prov. Limburg, The Netherlands)

L. Burnez-Lanotte & P. Allard - Stratigraphic relationships, chronological and spatial correlation of activities : one domestic unit in the blade producer settlement of Velaine “Petit Paradis” (Hesbaye, Belgium)

I.Pavlů - Activity areas around Linear Pottery houses

A. Czekaj-Zastawny - Linear Pottery Culture Settlement Patterns In The Upper Vis-tula River Basin

L. Domboróczki- The Füzesabony-Gubakút settlement

O. Rück - From yard to house row: the Bandkeramik village – layouts in rows and feature-free areas provide a new view on settlement structure

H. Stäuble - What You See Is What It Was?

p. 7-8

p. 9-28

p. 29-42

p. 43-50

p. 51-78

p. 79-90

p. 91-98

p. 99-110

p. 111-126

p. 127-140

p. 141-154

p. 155-168

p. 169-182

p. 183-200

p. 201-230

p. 231-245

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

The domestic space in Linear Pottery (LBK) settlements

Caroline Hamon, Pierre Allard and Michael Ilett

The international round table “The domestic space in LBK settlements” was organized on 7-8 October 2010 in Nanterre (France). It concludes a project financed by the French Ministry of Culture between 2007 and 2010, entitled Économie et société des populations rubanées de la vallée de l’Aisne (Allard et al. this volume). The aim of the round table was to discuss questions relating to discard practices and activity areas within Linear Pottery (LBK) settlements throughout Europe. These questions were addressed though a combined study of finds and features, both at the level of the domestic unit and the settlement.

The domestic unit of the LBK culture, as initially defined by B. Soudský and I. Pavlů at Bylany, combines the house and the area which directly surrounds it. Since occupation surfaces are not usually preserved, it is the lateral pits on either side of the house that provide most artefacts and archaeological information for this period. The primary function of these pits was probably to extract material for daub. Subsequently the pits filled up, the fill including varying quantities and kinds of refuse (pottery, lithics, animal bones, botanical remains etc), generally interpreted as household waste. The combination of several houses in occupation phases defines the village or settlement. The extent to which these phases, based on analysis of decorated pottery, provide an accurate picture of reality in terms of numbers of contemporary houses remains an open question. On the scale of the domestic unit, several points are relevant, including direct (primary) or indirect (secondary) discard in the pits, what activities are reflected by the finds and where in relationship

to the house did these activities take place. The round table provided the opportunity to discuss or clarify the definition of the domestic unit. Thus A. Czekaj-Zastawny proposes a model of the house unit that not only includes the lateral pits but also a number of isolated pits. In some cases here, features are shared by several houses. The question of secondary discard and the dynamics of refuse disposal in the settlement is approached by D. Bosquet, while S. Wolfram outlines an alternative model for the origins of finds in the pits, according to which the material could well have been deposited after the houses were abandoned. The range of activities in the settlement is discussed by M. de Grooth for the lithic industry and by A. Rauba-Bukowska for the pottery. P. Květina and M. Končelová study variation in pottery decoration in relation to the spatial development of the settlement. A. Van Gijn et N. Mazzucco use functional analysis of flint tools to reveal the spatial organization of certain activities in the settlement.

On the scale of the settlement, one often observes considerable variation in quantities of finds between the domestic units. E. Lenneis highlights variation in finds relating to the type of house, while I. Pavlů shows that the finds from lateral pits reflect secondary discard from activities outside the house and that the quantity of finds varies according to the size of the central part of the house. Models of the spatial organization of settlements are proposed by L. Domboróczki and by O. Rück, the latter challenging the existing Hofplatz model. P. Stadler and N. Kotova describe the chronological development of a settlement and its position in the regional LBK sequence.

Lastly, H. Stäuble discusses the problem of paradigms for the study of space in LBK settlements.

In sum, this publication brings together fifteen contributions from researchers from all areas of Europe concerned by the LBK phenomenon. They reflect the diversity of points of view and discussions on a topic that has not previously received a great deal of attention in research conducted on the LBK throughout Europe. We would like to thank all the colleagues and authors of the following papers for contributing to making this meeting a fruitful moment of scientific exchange. As regards the funding of the round table and its publication, we also extend our thanks to: the French Ministry of Culture, the University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, the ASAVA which has been backing archaeological research in the Aisne valley for 30 years, and CNRS UMR 8215 Trajectoires and UMR 7055 PreTech.

Chronological signification of Linear Pottery waste assemblages and waste management at the village scale:

spatial analysis of Remicourt “En Bia Flo” II (Liège province, Belgium)

Dominique Bosquet

Abstract:The main topic of this contribution is the analysis of the spatial distribution of domestic refuse in and between pits on the Linear Pottery settlement of Remicourt (Liège province, Belgium). Firstly, the stra-tigraphic distribution of ceramic sherds and lithic flake refits shows that the same object was often depo-sited in several stages into one or several pits after having first been in a place of primary deposition, probably in order to be partially or totally recycled. Secondly, through study of the spatial distribution of pits and finds quantity, it was possible to identify four additional houses at Remicourt, as well as zones situated behind houses and outside the basic domestic units, where most of the pits that contain relatively few finds are concentrated. It is suggested that these zones represent the primary deposition of objects with lesser re-use value, while the “most precious” waste was stored in or near houses, in associated lateral pits which are unquestionably the most artifact-rich on the site.

Keywords : Belgium, Hesbaye, Linear Pottery, waste management, middens, recycling, chronology.

Service public de Wallonie (DGO4), Service de l’Archéologie, Direction extérieure du Brabant wallon, 88 rue de Nivelles, 1300 Wavre, Belgique

[email protected]

Introduction

The present article summarizes and further pursues a recent examination (Bosquet et al. 2010) of the chronological meaning of Linear Pottery (LBK) waste assemblages. It is principally based on the study of the archaeological finds from the LBK site of Remicourt “In Bia Flo” II, situated near Liège in Hesbaye (fig. 1). It also follows a study on the settlement dynamics of the first Neolithic groups in this region of Belgium, revealing a pioneer phase at around 5000 BC (Bosquet and Golitko 2012; Bosquet et al. 2008; Salavert 2008). This phase is characterized by the association

in “pioneer” pits of small numbers of ceramics attributed to Modderman’s (1970) phase I, charcoal assemblages dominated by forest taxa and exempt of pomoideae (Salavert 2008), flint implements more frequently produced on diverse varieties of grainy flints rather than grey Hesbayen flint, and ceramic pastes mostly made from Oligocene and Eocene clays rather than the Cretaceous clays more commonly used during later settlement (Golitko et al. 2009; Bosquet and Golitko 2012). The greater age of these pioneer pits, revealed by ceramics and anthracology, was recently confirmed by a series of 23 AMS dates obtained on short-lived samples, primarily Triticum (Bosquet and Golitko 2012).

D. Bosquet - Chronological signification of Linear Pottery waste assemblages and waste management at the village scale: spatial analysis of Remicourt “En Bia Flo” II (Liège province, Belgium), p. 27-40.

The classification of pioneer ceramic assemblages using Modderman’s (1970) chronology shows that pioneer pits at Remicourt (60 decorated vessels) and Fexhe (32 decorated vessels) include respectively 3 % and 12,5 % vessels attributable to phase I only, against 66 % and 68 % covering phases I and II, and 28 % and 22 % attributable to phase II only, but without any comb decoration typical of the final phase of LBK ceramics.To understand the presence within a single pit of decorated vessels covering almost all of the styles recognized for the Belgian and Dutch Limburg LBK, that is to say 150 to 200 years of occupation (Jadin 2003), an analysis of the spatial distribution of ceramic and lithic refits within and between pits was conducted (Bosquet et al. 2010), in order to understand the method of LBK waste management.

Indeed, while chronology is based on the study of the contents of pits, questions regarding their duration of use, the stratigraphic distribution of material within them and the general organization and taphonomy of material deposited in these pits has only been studied by a handful of authors (David and David-Hennig 1971; Rulf 1986; Pavlu 1986; Kreuz 1990a, 1990b; Staüble 1990, 1997; Pavlu 1998; Last 1998; Pavlu 2000; Birkenhagen 2003; Staüble 2005; Kreuz 2007). These studies brought to light diverse methods of discard of pots

(Last 1998) and the existence of a link between diverse types of fill and their constituent ceramic assemblages (Rulf 1986; Last 1998): either a short-term use of the pits (Staüble 1990, 1997, 2005), or a use of the pits which precedes and accompanies the construction of a house but lasts no longer (Birkenhagen 2003; Kreuz 2007).

Nevertheless, in spite of these studies, the idea seems to survive within the scientific community that once objects of daily use were no longer needed, they were thrown directly into pits near houses. As a result, we almost automatically consider that the duration of use of these features corresponds roughly to the duration of site or house occupation. Also, the function and significance of pits which are considered not to belong to the basic domestic unit (the house and its lateral pits) are rarely questioned.

On the contrary, analyses conducted on Hesbayen LBK sites show that an important part of the waste assemblages were deposited in pits only after a phase of recycling in open-air refuse dumps, in which ceramics and lithics of different ages were mixed. Deposition in pits occurred secondarily, probably during a phase of cleaning of these primary discard areas (Bosquet et al. 2010). Bearing this in mind, one must consider that the material assemblages recovered from waste pits are not necessarily related to the total duration of site occupation, but to the corpus of ceramics present during the deposition duration, that is to say a few years of accumulation at the most. Pits situated outside the basic domestic unit contain fewer finds, but are not distributed in random fashion within the village, as is shown hereafter. The analysis of these features enables us to think further about the spatial organization and the relative complexity of recycling management at LBK villages.

1. Occupation duration documented by Neolithic pits: the facts

1.1. Erosion

The degree of erosion on Neolithic sites in Hesbaye varies according to their location on hill slopes – strong erosion on the crest and middle of

Fig. 1. Distribution of Linear Pottery sites in Hesbaye (white dot : Remicourt).

the slope, weaker at the bottom of the slope, and none on the plateau and valley bottom (Langhor 1990, fig. 4; fig. 2).

At the sites presented here, erosion was estimated from the depth of the horizon à doublets. The summit of this horizon marks the base of the Holocene Bt horizon. According to the reference profile situated in the Forest of Soignes near Brussels, this summit lies at a depth of around 130 cm when there is no erosion (Langhor 2001, p. 112-113). Therefore, when this horizon is visible, erosion can be estimated according to the following formula: 130 cm minus the depth of the horizon à doublets from the current surface (not from the archaeologically exposed surface) = rate of erosion (the current arable layer is included in the calculated rate).At Remicourt, erosion is 100 cm at the level of the eastern ditch (fig. 3), 80 cm at the level of houses II and IV, a value which remains constant up to pit 142, beyond which it decreases to reach 30 to 40 cm at the edge of the western ditch marking the bottom of the valley of «Bia Flo». In other words, at the western ditch, if we exclude the plough

zone, erosion is almost absent. Thus, the rarity of features in that part of the site is real and not due to erosion. The rest of the features at Remicourt underwent between 80 and 100 cm of erosion.

When comparing the archaeological material contained in such heavily eroded pits, truncated by 50 to 70 % in many cases, it is reasonable to think that a link probably exists between the current volume of a pit (L or diameter/2 x l x maximal depth according to Last, 1998) and the quantity of archaeological finds it contains: the least voluminous pits should contain less finds.

Fig. 2. Relief before and after erosion on a dry and concave slope (vertical scale exaggerated 6 x ;

from Langohr, 1990, fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Remicourt « En Bia Flo » II : excavation plan and erosion rate.


Figure 4, which compares these two parameters (excluding the most eroded pits, the depth of which does not exceed 10-15 cm), shows that this is not the case. On the contrary, one observes a large diversity in quantitative and qualitative terms of pit contents, all combinations being possible: few or many sherds and flint objects, more of one or the other, only one of the two, and in variable quantities regardless of the depth of the pit.

Therefore, as there is no link between the current depth of pits and finds quantity, it is possible

to compare pits without introducing bias due to erosion. In other words, we are comparing the comparable. However, when estimating the duration of use of these pits, it is necessary to keep in mind the fact that the final uppermost layer or layers of these features and the archaeological material associated with them are lacking. This basic fact means that pits cannot inform us about the entire occupation duration at these sites.

1.2. Taphonomy

Given the degree of bioturbation present in Neolithic pits due to several millennia of biological activity, it is also reasonable to think that a certain number of objects, in particular the smallest, have been affected by some degree of movement, primarily vertical. To test the hypothesis of possible vertical sorting of sherds according to their size, graphs showing the relationship between the size of sherds in cm² and their recovery depth were created for some of the studied pits (fig. 5). These graphs show that there is no link between the two parameters: sherds of any size are found throughout the depth profile of these pits, without any particular sorting by size.

Fig. 4. Remicourt « En Bia Flo » II : relation between pit volume and numbers of flints

and sherds in the fill.

Fig. 5. Remicourt « En Bia Flo » II : relation between sherd size and depth of discovery (4 pots).

1.3. Refits between pits

Although refitting between pits is still in a preliminary stage, three individual ceramic vessels connect pioneer pits 10 and 141 and five lithic refits associate the same features with pioneer pits 135 and 136 (Allard com. pers.). Identical results were obtained on a wider scale at the sites of Darion (van Berg 1988) and Waremme Longchamps (Bosquet et al. 2008, p. 307, fig. 7). It is thus reasonable to think that in part at least, these features are associated with one another. The presence of fragments of the same vessel in several pits also clearly indicates that once broken or considered unusable, pots were discarded in different places, and thus very probably at several different times.

1.4. Refits within pits

Both outside and inside the village, the analysis of refits within pits shows without ambiguity that

sherds belonging to a single vessel are distributed vertically throughout the pit fill, and are very often recovered in several layers (fig. 6). This is also true for some lithic refits identified in the pits associated with the outlying house at Remicourt. If some doubts remain regarding the attribution of certain sherds to one or another adjacent layer due to excavation technique (Bosquet et al. 2010, p.41; fig. 7), refits between objects recovered from the uppermost and bottommost layers of pits allow for no such debate.

Note also that these observations are confirmed by those of Stäuble (1990, 1997) at Bruchenbrücken and Eitzum (Germany). It is clear that there is no stratigraphic order in relation to ceramic typology, with the oldest material at the base of the pit fill, and the most recent in the upper layers of pit fill. As is the case for vessels discarded in several different pits, fragments of individual vases recovered from different levels within a single pit were also discarded at several different times.

Fig. 6. Stratigraphic dispersion of sherds from four pots in a pit at Fexhe (top) and from four pots in a pit at Remicourt (bottom).


1.5. Conclusions

From these observations, we can conclude that for the studied refuse pits, the majority of discarded ceramics and lithics were not directly thrown away at the time of breakage or use, even if the pit fill is mostly composed of superimposed sublayers. These objects were first deposited somewhere else, possibly with other types of material, and likely recycled for a time, as is frequently observed in ethnographic contexts (Beck and Hill 2004 ; David and Kramer 2001, p. 103-110 ; Hayden and Cannon 1983; fig. 8), but also in archaeological ones. Although the most obvious example is the recycling of sherds into grog, at Kovacevo (Bulgaria) there is a category of tools produced on sherds called “tokens”, which take diverse forms – some may have served as ribs (Vieugé et al. 2010). Comparable potter’s tools made on handles of coarseware pots were also recovered at three LBK sites in Hesbaye and Poland (Hauzeur 1991, p. 58, fig. 4). Examples of re-use also exist for lithics, for example projectile points made on sickle blades, blade cores used as hammerstones, particularly to

crush ochre, or rather complex cycles of use and re-use of grindingstones, some of which were reused to crush ochre (Hamon 2007, p. 115). Once the amount of discarded material was considered too intrusive and/or the remaining material unusable, all or part of the remaining heap was discarded into available pits and/or into pits dug specifically for that purpose. Then, after some time of additional accumulation in rubbish heaps, material was once again discarded into one or several pits, forming the following layer, and so on up to the abandonment of the site. This mode of waste management best explains the mixture of materials observed in excavated pits. The numerous associations between sherds and flint flakes stemming from layers situated at the bottom and the top of pits demonstrates that these layers would have accumulated fairly rapidly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that several fragments of a single vessel or of refitting lithics were systematically rejected over a period of several decades. However, if this waste was discarded over only a few years, it means that the finds recovered from excavation do not

Fig. 7. Stratigraphic attribution of sherds from a pit excavated in arbitrary 10 cm layers.

reflect the total site occupation duration, but only the composition of material present during the duration of particular rubbish discard episodes, that is to say a few years at most. It seems unlikely that the occupation duration of LBK houses did not exceed this period of time. If this is the case, we must admit that it is only a rather small part of the total volume of discarded objects that is accessible to us through excavation, the rest having been removed by erosion after the abandonment of the site, whether from the top of pits or from the residual open air refuse dumps that must have remained on the site after it was abandoned.

Consequently, the presence in these pits of ceramic vessels spanning almost the entire regional chronology is not due to the fact that houses were occupied for a period of 150 to 200 years, but rather to the presence of a small number of older style ceramics within the corpus of regularly used pottery (Bosquet et al. 2010 ; Shott and Silitoe 2004; Varien and Mills 1997 ; Shott 1996 ; Mayor 1994), as well as to the uneven duration of these older typological phases which were probably shorter than the later ones, at least in Hesbaye (Bosquet et al. 2010; Bosquet and Golitko 2012).

The probable location of these open-air refuse dumps or primary deposits within the village occupation area is examined in the following section through an analysis of the spatial distribution of waste deposits at Remicourt.

2. Waste management at the village scale: the case of Remicourt

2.1. Hypothesis

In the conclusion of a previous study (Bosquet et al. 2010, p. 55), it was suggested that some of the areas surrounded by rubbish pits and devoid of post holes, which are present at all LBK villages, could have been open-air middens comparable to those studied at a Dalupa village in the Philippines (Beck and Hill 2004, p. 304, fig. 2). Neolithic scholars typically suggest that these areas contained houses, the foundations of which have been completely destroyed by erosion. While this idea is probably valid in some cases, it is unlikely for areas located in weakly eroded zones.

To attempt to move forward on these questions, a spatial analysis of waste deposits was carried out for the excavated part of the village of Remicourt.

2.2. Context, quantitative data and method

The site of Remicourt, excavated in several campaigns between 1997 and 1998, is situated 25 km west of Liège, along the E40 motorway between Brussels and Liège (Bosquet et al., 2004). The area threatened by construction of a high speed railway line was completely excavated and 230 archaeological features were identified (fig.3), of which 116 contained no finds, whereas in the 114 other pits, 4379 flint artefacts, 358 lithics artefacts manufactured on other kind of stone, such as grinding and polishing tools, and 4327 ceramic sherds were recovered.

Whether inside or outside the village, the analyzed ceramic and lithic material came from refuse layers (fig. 9) also containing charcoal, charred seeds and burned earth derived from domestic and/or artisanal hearths and, in some cases, loamy dark brown layers corresponding to discard of organic material, primarily plant matter, according to

Fig. 8. Ethnographic example of ceramic recycling : cooking support (A), lids (B), tournette

(C), sacrifices place (D), footboards (E). (© A. Livingstone Smith et O. Gosselain; photos taken

in various parts of sub-Saharan Africa).


phytoliths (Chevalier and Bosquet 2010). These refuse layers are of variable depth and volume, and the number of finds varies considerably, from a few objects to several hundred.

To estimate richness of finds in pits, the total number of lithics and ceramic sherds was taken into account, as counting of individual pots makes no sense. Indeed, fragments of individual vessels were mostly rejected in several phases and sometimes even in different pits. Once the finds in every pit were counted, classes were created and mapped onto the excavation plan (fig. 10) to analyze the spatial distribution of pits according to their wealth in archaeological finds. In some pits, the orientation of the layers in the fill allows us to reconstruct from which direction the waste was thrown into the pit, but this is identifiable for only 30 or so of the 230 pits excavated, and fill-direction was consequently omitted from further analysis.

Richness categories where then created, with the pits at Remicourt divided as follows:

More than 300 objects: 1 pit.Between 200 and 300 objects: 4 pits.Between 150 and 200 objects: 10 pits.Between 100 and 150 objects: 8 pits.Between 50 and 100 objects: 9 pits.Between 10 and 50 objects: 44 pits.Between 1 and 10 objects: 38 pits.

No archaeological material: 116 pits.

2.3. Results and discussion

2.3.1. Basic domestic units

When we examine the spatial distribution of all the finds in the pits at Remicourt (fig. 10), it is clear that the 42 richest pits are almost always very near to houses I to IV, forming part of the basic domestic unit that has long been recognized by all researchers, and which appears to constitute an archaeological reality. Some of these rich pits surround empty zones, the proportions and orientation of which are compatible with the presence of a house, and which suggests the existence of four additional houses at Remicourt (fig. 10, M VI to IX).

Fig. 9. Remicourt « En Bia Flo » II : typical refuse layer (pit 90, M VI).

Fig. 10. Remicourt « En Bia Flo » II : spatial distribution of pits according

to the quantity of finds.

A fifth new house might also have been situated outside the excavated area to the south (fig. 10). In the absence of post holes, the precise locations of these buildings are impossible to determine, but as the refuse pits of the partly preserved houses are mostly situated along their front halves, the new houses are most likely situated in the same way.

Running in an east-west direction, the settlement is organized in three rows of three, four and two houses respectively. Clearly the chronological development of these constructions was complex: pits encroach on the internal space of several buildings, post holes were reused as silos after partial or total dismantling of houses I and IX, some pits recut others, and pits arranged in overlapping linear sequences indicate several stages of digging. The areas occupied by houses VII and VIII are the only ones empty of any features. A contrario, as far as the density of features is concerned, one wonders why there was not more overlap during successive construction phases. Analysis of the spatial distribution of pits situated outside these basic domestic units, undertaken in the following section, enables us to propose a hypothesis which could explain this pattern.

For the moment, hopes of distinguishing these constructions phases on the basis of a complete seriation of recovered ceramics are fairly low, as to date the only available chronology (Modderman 1970) does not provide such a fine-grained distinction between phases (Bosquet et al. 2010; Bosquet and Golitko 2012). It will ultimately be necessary to establish a finer chronology for Hesbaye, following the method of Blouet et al. (2008), enabling a subdivision of phases IId and IIc into several stages.

The place of primary deposition of the broken and used objects intended for recycling, which were secondarily discarded into the 42 pits included in the basic domestic units at Remicourt, may have been somewhere within the houses themselves, for instance contexts comparable to our cellars, attics and other storerooms. We might also consider storage of recyclable materials between two houses, near lateral pits, which might

have been shared by their inhabitants, possibly according to kinship or to particular household alliances (Beck and Hill 2004). This might be the case for pit 165, situated between houses I and III, which is the only one in the class «more than 300 objects», containing a total of 572 artifacts. This type of “abnormally” rich pit has also been observed at Bylany, and Last (1998) also suggests that this might indicate use by the occupants of several houses.

2.3.2. Pits situated outside of basic domestic units

This category is represented by 72 pits, in which finds are distributed as follows:

Between 150 and 200 objects: 2 pits.Between 100 and 150 objects: 4 pits.Between 50 and 100 objects: 3 pits.Between 10 and 50 objects: 14 pits.Between 1 and 10 objects: 20 pits.

No archaeological finds: 29 pits. More than half of these pits contain few or no finds.

Looking at the general plan of the site (fig. 11) it seems that these pits are clearly situated outside the basic domestic units, in three zones situated behind the three rows of houses described previously, and in a fourth area outside the enclosure, about thirty metres from the eastern entrance of the village. Erosion there corresponds to the arable layer (around thirty centimeters) and the absence of houses cannot be due to that phenomenon. Therefore, these features probably testify to activities conducted near the village, but outside the enclosure, unless this area is another zone of refuse dumping and/or recycling. Although the other such zones occupy the back of each row of houses, and thus the front of the following row, they never encroach within an area of about ten meters in front of any building, which excepting house VIII, remains free of any features. This is a logical arrangement if one wants to provide easy access to an entrance situated at the front of the house.

This layout of zones with dense concentrations of features and zones free of features suggests that, in spite of the presence of several construction phases (cf. supra) and the proximity of houses belonging


to them, all buildings at Remicourt were at least partially contemporary, although this does not actually mean that they were all occupied at the same time. It is possible that certain houses which were too old and dilapidated to be occupied were neglected and gradually recycled, serving as a raw material source to build and maintain the houses of the following phase(s), while continuing to occupy their space within the village (David and Kramer, p. 114, fig. 4.6). We can also propose that these buildings served for a certain time as places of rubbish disposal (Gorecki 1985, p. 187; David

and Kramer 2001, p. 113). From this perspective, the various construction phases are conceived in a temporal continuum – it is not necessary to raze the houses of the previous phase to construct those of the next one. It is only at the end of such a process that some houses entirely disappeared, as indicated by the replacement of post holes with silos in houses I and IX. This scenario, however hypothetical, would explain how a complex and dense village plan, established over a long period of time, can also present a high level of coherence, to such an extent that one could even consider that some elements are contemporary, as the degree of overlap between structures is low despite their density. We may again note ethnographic examples of villages in which houses are so close to one another that their roofs touch (Rück, this volume).As for the reason for the presence of these groups of pits behind houses, I propose that these were areas for diverse activities, but also that they served as dumps for less useful waste, less abundant than refuse kept in the basic domestic unit, but nevertheless potentially usable before being definitively thrown away. This type of behaviour has been observed by Hayden and Cannon (1983) in Maya villages in Mexico and Guatemala. According to its potential value, the waste is sorted and stored more or less distantly from the basic domestic unit or compound, before being moved once or twice more, and finally definitively discarded in pits.

In addition to this waste of lesser value, the zones situated behind the houses at Remicourt may also have served to store other materials such as wood for burning or construction.

Conclusion

Throughout history, and whatever the type of economic organization, waste management is predictable, though displaying a certain complexity. We can think about our own behaviour in this regard and get a glimpse of what throwing things out can reveal about the people involved, and more widely, about the organization of society. From this point of view, to throw something out is to make a cultural gesture. It was no different in the LBK, even if in that case complexity can

Fig. 11. Remicourt « En Bia Flo » II : comparison between the spatial distribution of pits associated with the domestic basic units (in black)

and pits outside these units (in red), with the possible location of the zones of activity and refuse dumping/

recycling (shading).

be only approached in its most concrete aspects: what was thrown away, where, how, for how long a period, and more speculatively, why? Previous studies (Hodder 1987 ; Dieterlen 1988) show that the choice of what is thrown away, as well as where and how it is discarded, are also notions connected to belief, gender, and age, all aspects difficult –perhaps impossible – to understand for the LBK period, even if these were probably rather important practices that structured Neolithic societies.One aspect seems firmly established, however: between the moment they were made and the moment when they were definitively discarded, LBK objects lived a more complex life than has been generally envisaged, including for some objects one or several phases of recycling, according to their potential re-use value. They were not thrown directly into pits in chronological order, but rather at several times and in several places. Similarly, once abandoned, houses very probably underwent comparable processing, as they were gradually abandoned, dismantled and replaced during the occupation period of the village.The presented study also indicates that as they reach us today, the objects involved in this waste management chaîne opératoire represent a few years of activity at the most for each house, over a probable minimum of at least two or three decades (Last 1998). It could be of some use to keep this in mind when we characterize archaeological cultures and establish their chronology by studying this waste.

Acknowledgments

To all those who participated – or who still participate – in the study of LBK of Hesbaye, To Michael Ilett, who generously allowed me to use his compilation of recent articles on the topics addressed here,To Alexandre Livingstone Smith and Olivier Gosselain, who allowed me to use their photos of African examples of ceramic recycling,To Mark Golitko for helping me with the translation of this paper,And finally to my grandfather Jean Bosquet, who kept in his workshop, among other knick-knacks, a box with the following inscription: «small ends of thread which can not be useful anymore»

References

BECK M. E. & HILL JR. M. E. (2004) – Rubbish, Relatives, and Residence: The Family use of Middens, Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory, 11-3, p. 297-333.

BIRKENHAGEN B. (2003) - Studien zum Siedlungswesen der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. Habelt/Bonn, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, 75.

BLOUET V., DECKER E., KLAG T., PETITDIDIER M.P., THOMASHAUSEN L. (2008) - Évolution de la céramique décorée rubanée en Lorraine du nord, In L. Burnez-Lanotte, Ilett M., Allard P. (eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100-4700 BC), Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin, Actes du Colloque de Namur, 24 au 25 novembre 2006. Société préhistorique française, Paris, Mémoires de la Société préhistorique française, XLIV, p. 115-128.

BOSQUET D., SALAVERT A., GOLITKO M. (2010) - Chronological signification of LBK waste assemblages: the contribution of anthracological, typological and stratigraphic data from three LBK sites in the Hesbaye (Liège Province, Belgium). ). In: Théry-Parisot I., Chabal L., Costamagno S. (eds), The taphonomy of burned organic residues and combustion features in archaeological contexts, Proceedings of the round table, Valbonne May 27-29 2008, P@lethnology,2, p. 39-57.

BOSQUET D., GOLITKO M. (2012) – Highlighting and characterising the pioneer phase of the Hesbayen Linera Pottery Culture (Liège province, Belgium), In: Wolfram S., Stauble H. (eds.), “Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder Alles beim Alten ?!”, Leipzig, 23-24. September 2010, AFD, 25, p. 87-102.

BOSQUET D., FOCK H., GOFFIOUL C., PREUD’HOMME D., MARCHAL J.-P. (2004) - La néolithisation en Hesbaye (Belgique) : apport des fouilles récentes (1996-1999) sur le tracé du TGV oriental et le domaine militaire d’Alleur, In: Section 9 et 10. Néolithique et âge du cuivre, Sessions générales et Posters, Actes du XIVème Congrès UISPP, Liège, 2-8 septembre 2001. Oxford, BAR International Series, 1303, p. 81-94.


BOSQUET D., GOLITKO M., SALAVERT A., avec la collab. de BEUGNIER V., DELIGNE F., JADIN I., MARTIN F. & QUICK R. S. (2008) - Une phase pionnière à l’origine du peuplement rubané de la Hesbaye liégeoise (Belgique), In: Burnez-Lanotte L., Ilett M., Allard P. (eds), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100-4700 BC). Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin, Actes du Colloque de Namur 24-25 novembre 2006. Société préhistorique française, Paris, Mémoires de la Société préhistorique française, XLIV, p. 301-315.

CHEVALIER A., BOSQUET D., avec la collab. de FOCK H. ET GOFFIOUL C. (2010) - Apports de l’analyse des phytolithes en contexte détritique rubané: résultats obtenus sur cinq sites de Hesbaye liégeoise (Belgique), In: Théry-Parisot I., Delhon C., Thiébault S. (eds.), Des hommes et des plantes : Exploitation du milieu et gestion des ressources végétales de la Préhistoire à nos jours, Actes du XXXème colloque International d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, Antibes-Juan-les-Pins 22-24 octobre 2009. APCDA, Antibes/Juan-les-Pins, p. 31-66.

DAVID N., KRAMER C. (2001) - Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 476 p., 14 figs, 13 tabs.

DAVID N., DAVID-HENNIG H. (1971) - Zur Herstellung und Lebensdauer von Keramik, Bayerisches Vorgeschichtsblatter, 36, p. 289-317.

DIETERLEN, G. (1988) - Essai sur la religion Bambara. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 533 p.

GOLITKO M., BOSQUET D., KEELEY L. H., JADIN I., GOEMAERE E. (2009) - Chemical Analyses of Linienbandkeramik Ceramics and Clay Samples from the Hesbaye region of Belgium by LA-ICP-MS., Poster presented at the 74nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archeologist, April 22-26, Atlanta, Georgia. Chicago, University of Illinois.

GORECKI, P. P. (1985) - Ethnoarchaeology : the need for a post-mortem inquiry, World Archaeology, 17, p. 175-91.

HAMON C. avec la collab. de GOEMAERE E. (2007)- Outils de broyage et d’abrasion en contexte rubané de Hesbaye : premiers résultats d’une analyse techno-fonctionnelle, Notae praehistoricae, 27, p. 109-119.

HAUZEUR A (1991) - Outils en céramique du Néolithique ancien, Anthropologie et Préhistoire, 102, p. 55-59.

HAYDEN B., CANNON A (1983) - Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya Highlands, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2 (2), p. 117-163.

HODDER I. (1987) - The meaning of discard: ash and domestic space in Baringo, Kenya, In: S. Kent (ed.), Method and theory for activity area research : an ethnoarchaeological approach. Columbia University Press, New-York, p. 424-448.

JADIN I. (2003) - Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont… La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique. Liège, Université de Liège, Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège, 109, 726 p.

KREUZ A. (1990a) - Die Ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas Eine Archäobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Leiden, University of Leiden, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 23, 256 p.

KREUZ A. (1990b) - Searching for «single-activity refuse» in Linearbandkeramik settlements. An archaeobotanical approach, In: Robinson, D. E. (dir.), Experimentation and reconstruction in environmental archaeology, Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology No. 9, Roskilde, Denmark, 1988. Oxbow Books, Oxford, p. 63-74.

KREUZ A. (2007) - Archaeobotanical perspectives on the beginning of agriculture north of the Alps, In: Colledge S., Conolly J. (eds.), The origins and spread of domestic plants in southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, UCL Institute of Archaeology publications, p. 259-294.

LANGOHR R. (1990) - L’homme et les processus d’érosion des sols limoneux de la Belgique et du Nord-Ouest de la France, In: Leman-Delerive G. (ed.), Les Celtes en France du Nord et en Belgique, VIème-Ier siècle av. J.C., Catalogue de l’exposition de

Valenciennes. Bruxelles, Editions du Crédit Communal, p. 211-222.

LANGHOR R. (2001) - L’anthropisation du paysage pédologique agricole de la Belgique depuis le Néolithique ancien – Apports de l’archéopédologie, Etude et Gestion des Sols, 8-2, p. 103-118.

LAST J. (1998) - The residue of yesterday’s existence: settlement space and discard at Miskovice and Bylany, Bylany Varia, 1, p. 17-46.

MAYOR A. (1994) - Durée de vie des céramiques africaines: Facteurs responsables et implications archéologiques, In: Courtin J., Binder D. (eds.), Terre cuite et société, document technique, économique, culturel, Actes des XIVèmes Rencontre internationale d’Archéololgie et d’Histoire d’Antibes. Juan-les-Pins, A.P.D.C.A., CNRS, p. 179-198.

MODDERMAN P. J. R. (1970) - Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein. Leiden, University of Leiden, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 3 (2 vol.), 218 p., 18 fig., 232 pl.

PAVLU I. (1986) - The principles of analysis of settlement refuse, In: Pavlu I., Rulf J., Zapotocki M. (eds.), Theses on the Neolithic site of Bylany. Prague, Institue of Archaeology, Pamatky Archeologicke, 77, p. 310-314.

PAVLU I. (1998) - Linear Pottery Settlement Area of the Miskovice 2 Site (Distr. Kutna Hora), Bylany Varia,1, p. 53-82.

PAVLU I. (2000) - Life on a Neolithic site. Prague, Institute of Archaeology, 340 p.

RULF J. (1986) - Analytical programme of the structure of features and finds at a Linear pottery culture (LnK) site, In: Pavlu I., Rulf J. & Zapotocki M. (eds.), Theses on the Neolithic site of Bylany. Prague, Institue of Archaeology, Pamatky Archeologicke, 77, p. 291-310.

SALAVERT A. (2008) - Analyse anthracologique de Remicourt « en Bia Flo II » (Rubané, Hesbaye). Résultats préliminaires. In: Burnez-Lanotte L., Ilett M., Allard P. (eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100-4700 BC). Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin,

Actes du Colloque de Namur 24-25 novembre 2006. Société préhistorique française, Paris, Mémoires de la Société préhistorique française, XLIV, p. 317-326.

SHOTT M. J. (1996) - Mortal Pots: On Use Life and Vessel Size in the Formation of Ceramic Assemblages, American Antiquity, 61-3, p. 463-482.

SHOTT M. J., SILLITOE P. (2004) - Modeling Use-Life Distributions in Archaeology Using New Guinea Wola Ethnographic Data, American Antiquity, 69-2, p. 339-355.

STÄUBLE H. (1990) - Die ältestbandkeramische Grabenanlage in Eitzum, Ldkr. Wolfenbüttel. Überlegungen zur Verfüllung und Interpretation von Befunden, Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, 73, p. 331-344.

STÄUBLE H. (1997) - Häuser, Gruben und Fundverteilung, In: J. Lüning (ed.), Ein Siedlungsplatz der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Bruchenbrücken, Stadt Friedberg/Hessen. Habelt, Bonn, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 39, p. 17-150.

STÄUBLE H. (2005) - Häuser und absolute Datierung der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Habelt, Bonn, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 117 p.

VAN BERG P.-L. (1988) - Le poinçon, le peigne et le code. Essai sur la structure du décor céramique dans le Rubané récent du nord-ouest. Liège, Université de Liège, thèse de Doctorat.

VARIEN M. D., MILLS B. J. (1997) - Accumulation Research : Problems and Prospects for Estimating site Occupation Span, Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory, 4-2, p. 141-191.

VIEUGE J., GOMART L. SALANOVA L. (2010) - Les estèques en céramique des potiers néolithiques de l’habitat de Kovačevo (6200-5500 av. J.-C.), Bulgarie, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 107 (4), p. 709-723.

Chronological signification of Linear Pottery waste assemblages and waste management at the village...

Documents

Transcript of Chronological signification of Linear Pottery waste assemblages and waste management at the village...