Micromorphological Evidence of Neolithic Rondel-like Ditch Infillings. Case Studies from Těšetice-Kyjovice and Kolín, Czech Republic

Lisá, Lenka; Bajer, Aleš; Válek, David; Květina, Petr; Šumberová, Radka

doi:10.24916/iansa.2013.2.1

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, the inner area had been destroyed by earlier building development and the excavation area was delimited by the construction of the by-pass; therefore, none of the several areas excavated during the 2008 season included the central area of the rondel. We have chosen the 2008 excavation area for this study, because it was the only opportunity to compare all four rondel ditches; furthermore, several samples for soil micromorphology (or microstratigraphy) analyses were taken from this area (Lisá et al, 2013).…”

Section: The Kolín Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Together with qualitative, quantitative, and spatial analyses of artefacts and radiocarbon dating, this method has the potential to explain the formation processes behind archaeological features. Recently, a geological approach in the form of soil micromorphology (or microstratigraphy) has also been applied to the Kolín site (for a detailed report, see Lisá et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Were Neolithic Ditches Filled In? Deposition Study of Two Enclosures from Bohemia

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to analyse the correlation between finds and ditches, the duration of ditch fills, and the manner of the demise of Late Neolithic rondels (Kreisgrabenanlagen) in the Czech Republic. Two comparable long-term projects are discussed here: Kolín (central Bohemia) and Vchynice (north-west Bohemia). Qualitative, quantitative, and spatial analyses of the different categories of finds (pottery fragments, lithics, daub, and faunal remains) from the ditch fills show that only finds from the bottom layers of the ditches were contemporary with the primary function of the rondels. However, the bottom layers often only contained a few artefacts. The richest parts of the ditches, the middle and upper layers, from both sites illustrated similar characteristics: after the rondels lost their primary function, the ditches were filled by both natural and cultural agents over a long period. As a consequence, some previous, and widely accepted, interpretations of the relationship between individual areas of rondels and their relationship with surrounding features, as well as the relationship of the finds from ditch fills to rondel function and chronology, need to be revisited.

show abstract

Section: The Kolín Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Were Neolithic Ditches Filled In? Deposition Study of Two Enclosures from Bohemia

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Neolithic roundel was never identified on loess from aerial photographs (see Figure 1a), and the aerial documentation of uncovered parts of the enclosure was carried out during rescue excavations (see Figure 1c-e). Additional magnetic susceptibility measurements in situ on vertical profiles also documented changes in the fills of open ditches-more about fills in [31]. Another measurement of magnetic susceptibility observed the superposition of the end of the outer unfinished ditch of the roundel with a Neolithic long house (different phases of Neolithic settlement and activities at the site).…”

Section: Ditch Enclosuresmentioning

confidence: 90%

Comparison Study to the Use of Geophysical Methods at Archaeological Sites Observed by Various Remote Sensing Techniques in the Czech Republic

Křivánek

2017

Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A combination of geophysical methods could be very a useful and a practical way of verifying the origin and precise localisation of archaeological situations identified by different remote sensing techniques. The results of different methods (and scales) of monitoring these fully non-destructive methods provide distinct data and often complement each other. The presented examples of combinations of these methods/techniques in this study (aerial survey, LIDAR-ALS and surface magnetometer or resistivity survey) could provide information on some specifics and may also be limitations in surveying different archaeological terrains, types of archaeological situations and activities. The archaeological site in this contribution is considered to be a material of this study. In case of Neolithic ditch enclosure near Kolín were compared aerial prospection data, magnetometer survey and aerial photo-documentation of excavated site. In the case of hillforts near Levousy we compared LIDAR data with aerial photography and large-scale magnetometer survey. In the case of the medieval castle Liběhrad we compared LIDAR data with geoelectric resistivity measurement. In case of a burial mound cemetery we combined LIDAR data with magnetometer survey. In the case of the production area near Rynartice we combined LIDAR data with magnetometer and resistivity measurements and result of archaeological excavation. Fortunately for successful combination of geophysical and remote sensing results, their conditions and factors for efficient use in archaeology are not the same. On the other hand, the quality and state of many prehistoric, early medieval, medieval and also modern archaeological sites is rapidly changing over time and both groups of techniques represent important support for their comprehensive and precise documentation and protection.

show abstract

“…The interest in similar assemblage analyses has recently focused on fillings of the rondel ditches, which are probably characterised by the specific conditions of formation and function, and also of formative and post-deposition processes (Lisá et al, 2013;Řídký et al, 2014). Some formal characteristics of finding assemblages, such as weight, density and size of the fragments in their horizontal and vertical distribution, and also refits across the entire vertical section were observed.…”

Section: Chronology and Interpretation Of Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vertical Structure of Neolithic Finds in the Fills of Archaeological Features

Končelová¹,

Midgley²,

Rulf³

et al. 2019

IANSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Neolithic site in Bylany (Kutná Hora district) was systematically surveyed between 1953 and 1967 to the southeast of today's village and afterwards the history of the settlement was gradually supplemented with information concerning other microareas (Bylany 1-5) within this cadastre (Figure 1). Located in the western part was the Neolithic microarea designated as Bylany 4; in accordance with its surface surveys and sondages, its range and cultural content were determined as belonging to the period of Linear Pottery culture (LBK) and Stroked Pottery culture (SBK). Already the first probe from 1965, which was conducted roughly in a southeast-northwest direction through the central part of this microarea, uncovered two ditches with a tapering (V) profile (Zápotocká, 1983). These features were reminiscent of other rather well-known (but at that time still quite rare) circular enclosures with ditches from the period of the Stroked Pottery and Lengyel culture in the area of the

show abstract

Micromorphological Evidence of Neolithic Rondel-like Ditch Infillings. Case Studies from Těšetice-Kyjovice and Kolín, Czech Republic

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

How Were Neolithic Ditches Filled In? Deposition Study of Two Enclosures from Bohemia

How Were Neolithic Ditches Filled In? Deposition Study of Two Enclosures from Bohemia

Comparison Study to the Use of Geophysical Methods at Archaeological Sites Observed by Various Remote Sensing Techniques in the Czech Republic

The Vertical Structure of Neolithic Finds in the Fills of Archaeological Features

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About