At the end of the world? Settlement in the Šumava mountains and foothills in later prehistory

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore and define the boundary of the zone of inland, mainly agricultural settlement in southern and western Bohemia, Czech Republic in the later prehistory, and to try to determine why such settlement appears not to have spread further into the Šumava foothills and mountains. With the help of predictive MaxEnt modelling – used in ecology to determine the degree of uncertainty in the geographic distribution of species – and using a comparison with data on soil productivity, we explore whether in later prehistory the agricultural settlement was limited by unsuitable natural conditions or by other factors. The boundaries of the territory suitable for agropastoral farming most probably moved in time with technological advances, increases in population density, and the changing preferences of inhabitants of the Bronze and Iron Ages. The margin of agricultural settlement in the foothills describes a line beyond which agriculture had become unprofitable; a similar boundary existed throughout the Early Middle Ages. At the same time, there was a good deal of contact across the mountains with Bavaria and Upper Austria, as is shown by archaeology both in the form of similarities between the prehistoric typo-chronological complexes and by finds of bronze and iron items along presumed routes of access. There were also montane sites (whose function is still unknown) situated beyond the margin of the agricultural zone, such as the recently discovered settlements on the Křemelná river. Apart from prospection, a wide range of other activities could have taken place, including those connected with communication and routes of access to Bavaria and Upper Austria, with which Šumava formed a common typo-chronological group.

Long-term demographic trends and spatio-temporal distribution of past human activity in Central Europe: Comparison of archaeological and palaeoecological proxies

“…During the Bronze Age, humans not only densely settled the lowland areas (Figure 5 and 6, S5 and S8), but there is clear evidence of expansion to the peripheries and highlands as well (Dreslerová et al, 2020).…”

“…This resilient and fast-growing crop, enabling a second yield in combination with winter cereals, allowed for intense colonisation of agriculturally less favourable areas at the peripheries (Šálková et al, 2019). Subsequent Iron Age communities already had at their disposal 13 different crops and several technological innovations (iron ploughshare, scythe) that played a significant role in ensuring secure food availability for dense population in both lowland and highland regions (Dreslerová et al, 2020).…”

Did they leave or not?

“…In the Middle Ages and modern times, overcrowding has sometimes been solved by the colonisation of new territories. The population density graphs show that in the late Hallstatt period, the population reached one of its peaks and, at the same time, territories in the northern parts of southern Bohemia were colonised (Dreslerová 2004), as were the foothills and montane areas of southern and western Bohemia (Dreslerová et al 2020).…”

Identification of historical trackways in forests using contextual geospatial analyses

“…Many submontane hillforts and hilltop settlements at the margins of agricultural zones were established on top of earlier medieval routes reproducing prehistoric trajectories passing through mountainous terrain. An example from prehistoric times is the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic transport of raw materials for stone production and copper exchange during the Early Bronze Age (Dreslerová et al, 2020).…”