The structuring of prehistoric landscape

MARTIN KUNA*
Some recent archaeological landscape projects
in Czechoslovakia have found a theoretical
background within the concept of community
areas. According to this concept prehistoric
populations are approached as divided into
communities. Each community is supposed to
have shared a common territory within which
most of its activities were concentrated. The
community area consisted of several sub-areas
(e.g. habitation areas, specific production areas,
funerary areas, etc.) where activities different in
function were performed (Neustupny 1986;
1991). The theory of community areas is not,
however, limited to the identification of com-
munity areas themselves. It is rather a general
approach, based on presumption and identifi-
cation of patterns or structures underlying the
archaeological record and reflecting structured
human behaviour in the past. Using some con-
cepts of the community area theory, this paper
aims at analysing prehistoric habitation areas i n
the territory of Bohemia and articulating some
general hypotheses concerning settlement pro-
cesses and structures on various levels of
complexity.
The concept of community areas
The concept of community area implies several
aspects in which the traditional [normative,
pre-processual) archaeological paradigm has
been challenged. Traditional archaeology
usually approached landscape as an empty
space within which some points of particular
interest, sites, are situated. Archaeologists
were usually very little concerned with the
space itself. Most of their attention was paid to
the excavation and description of sites because
only sites can provide archaeologists with the
artefactual record which was thought to be the
main or the only source of archaeological
knowledge. Everything beyond sites and arte-
facts [off-site activities, environmental back-
ground, settlement structures) was usually
viewed as a matter of secondary importance.
This attitude can still be found both in tradi
tional archaeological theory and in archaeologi-
cal field practice in Czechoslovakia (only sites
are e.g. protected by law; only positive arte-
factual evidence is registered during fieldwork
- whereas various kinds of non-artefactual or
negative evidence, although very often having
contextual significance, are mostly neglected].
111 contrast to the traditional approach, the
concept of community area makes it possible to
see landscape as a continuum of information
because any part of landscape is assumed to
have had a specific function in the past and is
therefore viewed as in principle significant for
archaeologists. Even the empirically empty
space around sites can indicate either a parti.
cular activity (which cannot be identified by our
contemporary field techniques, such as,
hunting-grounds, grazing land, etc.) or an unoc-
cupied area with a specific function or meaning
(buffer zones, etc.).
The second aspect of the community area
concept is the implicit notion that landscape
(although it is continuously inhabited and
exploited) was divided into more or less regular
spatial segments corresponding to basic
economic and social units, that is, to prehistoric
communities. The presupposition of the seg-
mented character of the cultural landscape is
based upon theoretical generalization about the
prehistoric economy and social system.
The third underlying goal of the community
area approach is to change the diachronic evalu-
ation of prehistoric agricultural populations.
Whereas traditional archaeology understands
the evolution of past societies as basically
discontinuous and divided into separate cul-
tures endowed with their individual ethnic or
*
A\-rryi,lri. 65 (1991): 3 3 2 4 7
Institute of Archaeology, Mala Strana, Lctenska 4, 118 01 Iraha 1, Czi:c:hoslovakia
STRUCTLJRING OF PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPE 333
social significance, the community area concept
stresses long-term continuity within prehistoric
populations and the r61e of their autochthonous
evolution. It has been predicted that many
community areas or their parts did not change
in extent and inner structure for centuries or
even millennia which, along with other argu-
ments, certainly limits the validity of many
migration theories (Neustupny 1982a). The con-
tinuity of prehistoric settlement systems
cannot, however, become apparent until a
sufficient density of finds is reached within a
part of the landscape.
The archaeological record is never repre-
sentative in reflecting human activities of
different kinds. Each particular type of archaeo-
logical and environmental context leaves at
least some of the particular human activities
almost completely unrecognized or unrecogni-
zable. The model of community areas brings
new possibilities for studying past economic
and social systems because it has a strong
predictive value. It forces us to define human
activities and their spatial correlates that have
not yet been discovered because they have not
been sought and their existence has not been
presumed. The archaeological record is
approached as comprehending various struc-
tures that can be explained i n terms of struc-
tured behaviour of the living society in the past.
The archaeological record must not be treated as
a set of isolated phenomena only because of the
fact that some of the elements and links of the
once-structured entity have disappeared. I
would like to show that looking for patterns and
defining structures can be useful at various
levels of the archaeological record. Before
detailing this, some comments on the general
characteristics of the archaeological record in
Bohemia and its explanatory value should be
added.
Landscape destruction, archaeological
resources and research in Bohemia
The territory of Bohemia has suffered much
damage to its archaeological record during its
recent history. Deep ploughing was practised
intensively in most of the lowland areas since
the last century and culminated in the general
removal of field boundaries during the collecti-
1;ization programme of the 1950s. This led to the
destruction of nearly all off-site activity
remains, burial mounds, enclosures and field
systems. Due to the fact that the distribution of
prehistoric habitation areas followed very simi-
lar locational principles to later medieval vil-
lages surviving until today, much of the
archaeological record has been destroyed by
intensive building and industrial activities
within the villages and around them during the
19th and 20th centuries. Large-scale open
mining i n northwest Bohemia and the intensive
industrial activities of the 1970s and 1980s
represent a recent chapter in large-scale land-
scape destruction. It seems that Czech archaeo-
logy has not always been able to cope with these
problems i n an appropriate and effective
manner. Some recently published analyses of
archaeological field activities in Bohemia serve
as a serious warning. The long-term trends in
accumulating new field information revealed a
gradual slow-down during the last decades,
quite in contrast with the increasing personal
and technical potential of archaeological insti-
tutions (KlapStB 1989). Elsewhere it has been
shown that the routine activity of archaeologists
in Bohemia is able to document less than 5% of
the total amount of permanently damaged and
destroyed archaeological contexts, the rest of
the potential information escaping without any
registration (Kuna 1990). The necessity of a
more systematic (however selective) approach
to rescue excavations and of deeper changes
within the methodology, organization and
ethics of archaeological research has been
claimed (Kuna & KlapStB 1990).
The archaeological record in Bohemia is,
however, characterized by several positive
qualities. The feedback effect of the extensive
damage to archaeological sites is the high
density of information scattered within land-
scape. The preservation of habitation sites
(composed mostly of sunken features, i.e. pits of
variable function) is relatively good, and these
sites are usually rich in distinctive finds. Even
the field-walking evidence alone usually en-
ables us to classify sites of nearly all post-
Mesolithic periods to phases of about 100-300
years. The precision of relative chronological
classification of excavated archaeological
assemblages from certain prehistoric periods
(e.g. Neolithic, Iron Age) is, of course, much
higher. The existing information base of
Bohemian archaeology is the result of long-term
processes that have been only partly influenced
by archaeologists themselves. In many respects,
334 MARTIN KUNA
however, overall utilization of the archaeologi-
cal record is very much dependent upon how
effectively existing knowledge is treated and
extended by the archaeologists. If the already
available, scattered information about indi-
vidual sites is revised and computerized it may
become a very rich source of initial hypotheses
for further theoretical research. The dense net-
work of known sites could be very successfully
completed by intensive field-walking projects
within selected regions. The methodological
convenience of air photography within the
specific conditions of intensively cultivated
(ploughed and fertilized) soils should be tested.
The limited number of wet sites in Bohemia
makes the routine employment of palynological
and other environmental studies more compli-
cated, but this handicap could be overcome by
more environment-oriented projects in future
(cf. Neustupnji 1985; 1987; Kyncl 1967; Smr i
1967).
Rapid landscape destruction in the open
mining regions has positively transformed the
theoretical and methodological orientation of
many archaeologists. The necessity of under-
taking a selective and sampling approach to all
the field projects has been admitted and much
attention has turned on total settlement struc-
tures instead of the site-oriented approach pre-
vailing before. Intensive activities within
selected small geographical units called micro-
regions (usually identified with smaller valleys
of brooks or basins) has become the leading
strategy of fieldwork. Several projects of
complex microregional studies have been
started in the coal-mining regions of northwest
Bohemia during the 1970s and 1980s (Velimskji
1986; Smri. 1986). These projects were mainly
based on fast rescue excavations of large land-
scape areas (sometimes even stripping of tens of
hectares). Although they exceeded in extent
anything that had been done in the field of
landscape archaeology in Bohemia thus far,
their results partly suffered in two ways. Firstly,
the usually very rapid nature of excavations
often limited the possibility of finding rare or
less obtrusive components and features (shal-
low cremation burials, post-hole structures,
individual pits outside the main habitation
areas, etc.). Secondly, the main goal of these
projects was usually seen as collecting as much
settlement data in the disappearing archaeo-
logical landscape as possible, while theoretical
questions appeared only later. Other projects
elsewhere i n Bohemia were initiated during the
1980s with the aim of further developing micro-
regional studies, especially by means of field-
walking landscape surveys. Along with this an
attempt to articulate a general theory of prehis-
toric settlement processes has been made
within the community area concept (Neus-
tupny 1986).
The methodology of landscape studies in
Bohemia should be understood in the context of
specific qualities of the archaeological record
here (which is very different when compared
e.g. to Britain). Having nearly no evidence of the
features surviving above the surface (field
boundaries, roads, enclosures, etc.), archaeo-
logy in Bohemia is almost completely deprived
of the chance of considering landscape struc-
ture as a whole before investigating its parts. At
the same time, a rich set of chronologically
well-defined details can be studied. Spatial
structures within this record are much more the
result of reconstruction, combining empirical
and theoretical knowledge, than of observation
(however sophisticated). I would like to show
how such reconstruction of settlement struc-
tures can operate on several levels of the
archaeological record, namely on the level of
household, of habitation area, of community
area, and of settlement zone.
Identification of prehistoric households
One of the starting-points concerning a com-
munity area is the quantification of the com-
munity population and the description of the
settlement processes on the local (site) level.
This can be done only by finding such units of
the archaeological record that reflect concrete
and measurable units of the past society.
Funerary remains often provide us with this
kind of data because the number ofthe deceased
and various demographic parameters can be
measured. The information contained in habita-
tion sites is usually more complicated. The
number of occupation relics in habitation areas
depends on at least three variables: the size of
the population group inhabiting the site area;
the number of features simultaneously used by
one group of inhabitants (family, household.
etc.); and the frequency of rebuilding of
dwellings and other facilities.
The smallest social unit which can be traced
in the archaeological record is the household
STRIJCTURING OF PREHISTOKIC LANLISCAPE 335
The household is a dynamic category, conti-
nuous in time. We can, however, expect that its
basic activities were usually bound to certain
spatial limits for a certain period of time. This
supposition is what the concept of household
cluster is based on (Winter 1976). I understand
the household cluster as a group of features
connected to one dwelling place. Each house-
hold could, of course, have produced one or
more household clusters during one generation,
depending on factors such as the life-
expectancy of houses, mobility of households,
etc. Empirical observations allow us to presume
that prehistoric household clusters were hardly
larger than 50 m in diameter.
In Central Europe household clusters were
first defined in the context of Neolithic sites
(Bogucki-Grygiell981) where the connection of
various features with the groundplans of houses
is usually obvious (cf. the concept of building
complex or Hofplatz: Pavlu 1977; Boelicke
1982). In most of the later prehistoric periods
the features that can be interpreted as houses are
extremely rare. The types of features current in
the post-Neolithic period are storage pits, pro-
duction features of different kinds, and a large
quantity of pits of unknown purpose. The
identification of household clusters on such
sites can rest only upon an observed or statis-
tically proven clustered distribution of features
and the repeated composition of such clusters as
to the different functional categories of features.
A computer program consisting of several
kinds of cluster analysis has been applied for
the identification of household clusters on some
Bronze Age habitation sites (Turkovti & Kuna
1987). In many cases clusters can, however, be
observed even without using any sophisticated
method. The interpretation of the clusters as
relics of temporary activities of individual
households seems very probable. In the context
of different sites and different prehistoric
periods the clusters vary in number and in the
kind of features that they consist of. The clusters
on the Early Bronze Age (2200-1900 BC) site at
Cakovice consisted e.g. of only one storage pit
and two or three functionally indeterminate
features; whereas the clusters on the Final
Bronze Age site (1000-750 BC) of Roztoky were
composed of one large workshop with clay
looms, oven, etc., one or two other production
features, four storage pits and some smaller
indistinct pits (FIGURES 1-3). The farmstead at
Bilina (Iron Age, La Tene B1, about 400 BC)
1
2 Roztoky, District of Prague-West.
3 DobromBfice, District of Louny.
4 Hadonice, District of Louny.
C M 40 60km 5 Radovesice, District of Teplice.
The Vinoi: brook project, including
Cakovice-Prague 9.
the site of
336 MARTIN KUNA
0 0
OO
CI
00
0 0
0
0
t
O 0 0
0
FIGURE 2. Cakovice,
the Early Bronze Age
' 0 3 habitation site.
1 Large, shallow
pits (huts?).
2 Storage pits.
3 Shallow pits of
0 I 1 a schematic plan of
2
I unknown
I
I 30 function.
0 ' - 4 Graves (Kovcifik
1983).
0 0 I
f
I
I -0
0
"0'0
\
FI GKRE 3 .
Bronze Age habitation site.
1 Large pits ~ workshops.
2 Shallower pits with production traces.
3 Storage pils.
4 Pits of unknown function (excavated by the
(1 u t h or).
Roztoky, a schematic plan of the Final
consisted of a post-hole structure, one 'sunken
hut' , one storage pit and about four larger pit:s
with few distinctive elements (Waldhauser &
Holodfiak 1984). By contrast, no such clusters
have been observed at the large Iron Age site at
Radovesice during the later Iron Age (La Tene
C-D, about 250-0 BC: Waldhauser 1984; here
FIGURE 6A). The 'clusters' of this period wen?
usually formed only by one sunken hut which
can be understood either as a change in storage
and other habitation activities or as a conse-
quence of loss of all the shallower pits durin,g
the rough removal of the top soil. Anyway, the
definition of the cluster composition char-
acteristic for a particular site, region or period of
time is an important step in interpretation of
an17 habitation site.
The inference that similar social units,
namely households of different periods, can be
reflected in a very different way (quantitatively
as well as qualitatively) can help us to under-
stand those archaeological cultures which lack.
enough habitation sites and features. The lack of
obvious settlement sites and the occurrence of
only isolated pits during certain prehistoric
periods has usually been taken as an indication
of a specific subsistence system, settlemerit
STRUCTURING OF PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPE 337
1
0 1 0 2
0
0
0
0 30m
1
-
pattern or high population mobility (typical for
some Eneolithic cultures, Middle Bronze Age,
etc.). However, this need not be the case. Some
recent large-scale excavations have made clear
that the relics of those cultures are not so much
isolated in space, as usually few in number and
sporadically dispersed within the habitation
areas. Their mutual distances are often about
several tens of metres, which may correspond
with the distances between the household clus-
ters of other prehistoric periods. This is the case
of a Funnel Beaker site at DobromBfice where
about six small pits contrasted with 200 features
of other cultures (Zapotocky & Smri. 1980; here
FIGLJRE 4). It is possible that these isolated
features represent something like minimal
household clusters which are, of course, much
less likely to be found by smaller excavations.
Variability of this kind (namely the variability
in number of the pits per cluster) can be caused
by secondary factors (like the frequency of
rebuilding of storage pits) while the main
underlying settlement pattern could have been
about the same as in other prehistoric periods.
There is, of course, no reasonable way to define
household clusters in those archaeological con-
texts where the average number of features per
cluster is supposed as smaller than 1, or where
110 exactly identifiable and quantifiable
archaeological features can be observed.
The number of households within a
habitation area
An estimation of the average number of house-
holds occupying a given habitation area can be
FIGURE 4. DobromCNce,
a schematic plan of the
Funnel Beaker
habitation site.
1 Storage pits.
2 Pits of unknown
purpose (Zapotockq-
Smri 1980).
achieved by a simple numerical operation (cf.
Neustupn$ 1983; 1986). An indispensible pre-
condition of such an operation is, however, the
estimation of other variables, such as the total
number of household clusters within the area,
the mean lifetime of the household clusters and
the total time-span of the occupation. If house-
hold clusters cannot be identified we have to
know at least the total number of certain specific
features (e.g. huts, storage pits, etc.), the time-
span of occupation, the average frequency of
rebuilding of these features, and the average
number of features that were simultaneously
used by one household.
If a household cluster (or a house) correspon-
ded to the activity of one household and if its
average lifetime was between 10 and 25 years
(probably the maximum according to published
estimates, cf. e.g. those for a Neolithic long
house; Neustupny 1983: 108), then, in most of
the habitation sites we come to a surprising
inference: the number of households that once
lived in the area might have been probably
much smaller than were our intuitive estimates.
It can be assumed that one household could
have produced even more than 50 different
features during one century; that means that
even the empirically very large and densely
occupied sites can bear witness, in fact, for the
activity of a small number of households, per-
haps only one or two (cf. e.g. the Iron Age
habitation area of Radovesice which was
completely excavated: Waldhauser 1977; 1984;
Holodiiak 1967; here FIGURE 6A). These esti-
mates fit in well with the results of demographic
338 MARI'IN Kl JNA
analyses concerning prehistoric cemeteries of
various periods. The size of the population
groups using the cemeteries is very often sup-
posed to have been about 15-20 individuals
(Encolithic, Iron Age: Stloukal 1981; Neus-
tupny 1983; Holoddak 1987).
The most complicated problem of these cal-
culations is usually represented by the esti-
mation of total habitation remains (extent of a
habitation area) and their general chronological
position. Having no idea about the whole, we
cannot decide how many households occupied
e.g. the sites of Cakovice or Roztoky (FIGURES
2-3) because the five or six observed household
clusters coming from the same archaeological
phase (c. 100 years) could be either a product of
five to six simultaneously existing households
or the remains of five rebuilding events of the
same household. The fact that many completed
excavation projects in Central Europe very often
lack an explanatory potential of this kind prob-
ably results from the prevailing inductive
approach underlying the fieldwork activities.
Excavations of continuous areas - as large as
possible but almost never covering the total
habitation area or a substantial part of it - have
been unambiguously preferred to sampling the
site as a whole (Neustupny 1982b). A con-
tinuously-excavated area very often, of course,
succeeds in discovering clear and intelligible
individual contexts, but it is, from the point of
view of the whole site, usually unrepresen-
tative, at least insofar as concerns most of the
large prehistoric habitation areas (often cover-
ing about 10-20 hectares).
The dynamics of habitation areas
The activities of individual households of the
same community can be found i n one or more
habitation areas if a longer period of time is
taken into acxount. The very fact that we cannot
find the remains of all the cultural periods or
phases within the same habitation areas indi-
cates that a kind of mobility of prehistoric
households was common. The observed dis-
continuity of habitation places has been tradi-
tionally interpreted as the result of different
'historic events' like invasions, epidemics or
other catastrophes, etc., not as a logical part of
settlement processes. One of the first processual
explanations has been given by B. Soudsky
(1966) in his model of periodic shifts of
settlements consequent upon the system of
slash-and-burn agriculture. This model, pre-
supposing periodic shifts in about each gener-
ation, was, however, articulated in the 1960s
and is no longer accepted. One other model
published since that time is analogous i n prin-
ciple, but different in time scale. This is the
model of rotation of habitation areas based
upon the observed chronological patterns of
some Late Bronze Age sites i n northwest
Bohemia (Smri 1987). Periodic shifts in inter-
vals of about 200 years have been explained as a
necessary consequence of the exhaustion of the
micro-environment of the site (especially con-
cerning e.g. reserves of wood and forage). In
general, it seems that there is, for the time being,
no better processual explanation.
Discussion about the dynamics of habitation
areas in Czech archaeology is still characterized
by one latent presupposition. It is the intuitive
notion that the village-like form of habitation
was the prevailing or the only possibility in the
past. Such an idea needs not always be correct,
being most probably a projection of the contem-
porary picture of the Czech countryside on to
the archaeological record. This approach pre-
supposes the spatial and temporal coordination
of households i n arranging their habitation
areas and in their occasional moving from place
to place.
The archaeological record itself is very
ambiguous i n this respect. Firstly, there are
more prehistoric periods in which evidence for
a dispersed settlement pattern prevails (Late
Eneolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age, Early
Iron Age, La Tene period, etc.; this inference is
based upon the preliminary results of the Vinof
brook project, cf. below, page 342). Secondly,
even if we can suppose the presence of more
than one contemporaneous household within
the same habitation area, their coordination in
time and space can mostly not be proven. I t
seems that a random, short-distance mobility of
individual households by rebuilding their
dwellings within the site is most probably the
typical way that habitation areas developed.
Apparently, rebuilding of households occurred
only exceptionally on exactly the same place,
because there are usually no superpositions 0 1
the features and clusters of the same archaeo-
logical phase. A systemic reason for more or less,
regular transfers of household activities must
obviously have existed: hygienic reasons; look-
inn for an unexdoited area from the Doint of
STRlJCTURlNG OF PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPE 339
view of clay sources; space for storage pits;
profitable use of the exploited area for some
specific activity, symbolic and religious reasons
-leaving the house after the death of its builder;
etc. The distance over which the household
usually moved was, however, mostly very short
and probably involved just leaving the range of
refuse and debris of the previous household
(household cluster). It seems that there is often
an almost standard distance (30-50 m) between
two neighbouring clusters of the same or the
immediately following phase (cf. the Early
Bronze Age site at Cakovice: FIGURE 2) or the La
Tene C-D site at Radovesice: FIGURE 6A) which
could support such a supposition. This model
is, however, not universal (cf. the cluster A in
FIC~JRE 6A, composed of huts of three conse-
cutive phases).
The continuous relocation of households
over short distances and the avoidance of the
over-exploited parts of the habitation areas can
be understood as two main general principles of
the habitation activities explaining their spatial
patterns. The degree of spatial continuity would
depend upon the time-scale used. We can
illustrate this point at the site of Radovesice
(FIGURE 6B). Whereas there is a substantial
spatial overlap between any two succeeding
chronological phases, a spatial shift can be
observed if phases more distant in time are
considered. The distribution of the La Tene A
remains almost fully coincides with the extent
of features from the preceding Hallstatt D phase.
The features of the La Tene B phase do appear
within the area of La Tene A period but they are
outside the area of Hallstatt D relics. La Tene
C-D features partly share their area with La
Tene B activity range but they are situated apart
from the Hallstatt D and La Tene A. This
phenomenon could be simply described as a
gradual growth of the site or a typical example
of horizontal stratigraphy if it were a cemetery
or a modern town where the once-erected
buildings or monuments remain in function
until the final abandonment of the site. Such a
cumulative growth cannot be suggested for a
prehistoric habitation site, and it can be sup-
posed that there were no functional obstacles to
building new dwellings or other facilities
within the household area of the preceding
phase (cf. the cluster A in FIGURE 6A). Neverthe-
less, the long-term gradual shifts of habitation
areas can be observed i n many prehistoric sites
(Kuna & Slabina 1987). As further examples of
the gradual shifts of habitation areas many Late
and Final Bronze Age sites i n Central Bohemia
(Bronze D-Hallstatt A versus Hallstatt B) can be
noted: the relics of both the periods usually
appear within the same habitation areas (sites) -
but their distribution is often (at least partly)
disjunctive.
The Radovesice site offers a preliminary
model for the dynamics of prehistoric habita-
tion areas. Such a model may, however, be only
one of the possible explanations and it may be
changed after more data is known. It seems that
most prehistoric habitation areas (omitting
specific habitation areas, such as hillforts, etc.)
were occupied by a few households - perhaps
1-3, cemeteries, however, attesting about 3-6
families. There is little evidence for any spatial
coordination of activities of individual house-
holds, but it cannot be excluded in principle (cf.
indications of a differentiation between the
living and storage areas within some sites, etc.).
It seems that activities of each household occur-
red within a household range about 40-50 m in
diameter, This household range was probably
avoided both by other contemporary house-
holds and by the next (re)building activity of the
same household. The process of rebuilding
households went on within the very same place
until the area was exploited (the results of such
an exploitation may have left archaeologically
visible traces, such as covering the area with
pits, or not). This could go on during one to
three archaeological phases (1 00-300 years, cf.
e.g. the Late Bronze Age site of Radonice, FIGURE
5). The result was a dense covering of the
habitation area with debris and refuse (the
critical density was surely a relative, culture-
dependent variable). At this point the habita-
tion area was either left, or its gradual shift or
expansion started, the result of locating new
households already outside the exploited area.
Such a shift appears as spread or growth of the
site. This process continued for some period of
time, its length most probably influenced by the
environmental capacity of the area as a whole. It
seems that there was a certain limit for intensive
habitation activities within habitation areas. It
is, for example, suspicious that Late Hallstatt
period remains are usually not found within the
preceding Late or Final Bronze Age sites. This
could point to the fact that these areas were not
suitable for occupation for the next few cen-
3 4 (I MAKTIN KUNA
0 30 m
))11
turies after the period when they were inten-
sively exploited. We must, however, admit that
there are other explanations for this particular
phenomenon (the cultural preference for
another type of micro-environment, cf. Kuna in
press), and that an exact analysis of the spatial
coincidence of these two archaeological cul-
tures has yet not been made.
Various explanations can be suggested for the
above-mentioned process, be they historic
events, man-environment relations, or social
and symbolic aspects of human activities.
According to the present state of our data as well
as our theoretical knowledge, it would be
premature to give one unambiguous solution. It
seems, however, quite certain that all of the
factors noted influenced the development of
prehistoric settlement systems simultaneously;
any of them may become the preferred expla-
nation when a particular cultural transition is
questioned. It is, for example, very probable that
the abandonment of many habitation areas and
the formation of large community areas (see
page 345 below) could be connected with the
historic event of invasion or gradual infil-
tration of foreign ethnic groups at the beginning
of the Roman era (1st century AD). Nevertheless,
the processual -environmental hypothesis about
the mooiiity of habitation areas still remains
sufficiently convincing (Smri 1987, see above,
page 338) for most of the recorded site aban-
donments. After all, the preference and aban-
FIGURE 5. Radonice,
a schematic plan of
the Late Bronze Age
hubitution site.
1 Pits of t he
transition horizon
(MiddlelLute
Bronze Age).
2 Pits of the Early
Middle Knoviz
culture.
3 Pits of the Late
Middle Knoviz
culture (Bouzek et
al. 1966).
donment of certain types of locations could well
be connected even with some social phe-
nomena and with the expected symbolic mean-
ings of things and places (e.g. the periodic usage
of naturally-protected places, hills and prom-
ontories, for habitation which correlates with
certain aspects of the development of burial
rites: Kuna in press). Progress in this field can be
achieved only by analysing more habitation
areas in detail as well as in context of the whole
community areas.
The identification of community areas
The settlement system was not, of course,
exactly the same throughout the whole prehis-
toric era. Differences and changes probably
existed in the degree of household nucleation
and mobility. Remains of variable settlement
systems are always superimposed upon each
other, resulting in a dense net of archaeological
sites. The habitation areas usually concentrate
along streams (the critical distance being
between 300 and 500 m: Rulf 1983; Kuna 8.
Slabina 1987). The concept of community areas
is based upon the notion of a community
sharing a common territory and cooperating in
certain economic and social activities. The
main problem, however, is to discover this
presumed unit within the archaeological record
and to define its dimensions. The theoretical
definition of the community area does not itself
tell us anything about the expected size of the
9
I
3
0
0
0
0
I;I(;URI,; 6.
h
1 Iiuts of the La Tene B2-C2 period. B Chronological shifts of the habitation activities.
2 La T h e C1. 3 LaTeneC2. 1 Features of the Hallstntt D period.
4 La Tene CZ-Dl. 5 La Tene D1. 2 La Tene A.
6 La T h e D2. 7 Other pits. 3 La TeneB.
8 Hut s with oven. 9 Huts with storagt: pits. 4 La Tene C-D (Waldhauser 6 SafaL' pers. comm.).
Radovesice, schematic plans of the Iron Age habitation area
f-Itrbitation structures of the La TPne C-La Tene D periods.
342 MARTIN KUNA
community, the number of its habitation areas,
and the space belonging to them. It works,
however, from the logic of the concept that a
community area must be identified with such a
minimal spatial segment of space (such a cluster
of sites) within which the occupation can be
supposed as continuous from the diachronic
point of view and where the range of different
activities is relatively complete (at least in the
sense of activities that can be archaeologically
traced).
One of the landscape sampling projects - the
Vinof brook project 1986-91 which has been
recently completed in the region of Brandys
near Prague (FIGUKE 1) -was concerned with the
investigation of community areas. Although the
whole of post-Mesolithic prehistory has been
the subject of our study, the clearest results
come from the period between the Late Bronze
Age (starting about 1300 BC) and the Roman
period (until AD 400). Mapping together the
habitation sites of the Late Bronze Age until the
Early La Tene period in this region we can see
clusters of sites, at least in one of the two valleys
of the region. These clusters (or analogical
landscape segments in other parts of the terri-
tory) comprehend sites of all the archaeological
phases concerned. It is, therefore, highly prob-
able that they reflect the existence of diachronic
territorial units, a relatively stable structure of
prehistoric communities (community areas). It
seems that in each period of time there were
independent habitation centres acting as cores
of community areas usually distanced about
1.5-2.5 km apart. Having estimated the basic
scale upon which the community areas can
appear, a tentative division of the region into
community areas for individual archaeological
phases can be made. As an example, the pre-
sumed community areas of the Late Hallstatt
period are shown in FIGURE 8A. This can be
further compared to the map of the La Tene
period (FIGURE 8B) where a more dispersed
settlement pattern has been observed but the
sites seem to cluster around the same focal
points as in the preceding period. It has been
observed that this pattern did not substantially
change during the whole prehistoric era, at least
between the Eneolithic (4th millennium BC) and
the end of the La T h e period (1st century BC).
The size of community areas and its changes
The almost regular distances between contem-
poraneous habitation cores (1.5-2.5 km) would
J
FIGURE 7.
(1300-400 ~c; f i el d survey project by the author).
Vinof brook project. Habitation areas of the Lute Bronze Age until the Lute Hallstutt periods
STRUCTIJRINC; OF PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPE
343
FIGURE 8. Vinof brook project.
A Community areas of the Late Ha ht a t t i hr l y La T h e period (c. 650-400 RC)
1 Promontory sites.
2 Sites with intensive habitation activities.
3 Low-density find scatters.
B Community areas of the La T h e B-D period (400-0 RC); low-density find scatters prevail
344 MARTIN KUNA
0
0
FKIJRE 9. Vinoi: brook project
A Community areas of the Early Roman period (0-150 AD)
1 Sites with intensive habitation activities.
2 Low-density scatters.
B
1
2 Cadastral boundaries.
Community (cadastral) areas of the 19:jOs.
The area of towns and villages.
STRUCTIJRING OF PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPE 345
suggest that a community area usually repre-
sented a territory of about 4-8 sq. km if it was a
circle around the living places. In fact, the
community areas were probably larger, having
an ovoid or irregular shape with the longer axis
perpendicular to a stream. The number of
households inhabiting such a territory is not
quite clear. Regarding the context of the habita-
tion sites as well as cemeteries we can suggest
that the communities were rather small (up to 6
households if there were more than one habita-
tion area within a community area; cf. Neus-
tupny 1983).
The size of community areas and the general
position of habitation places did not change
much during all of agricultural prehistory. The
first significant change of the settlement system
can be suggested only for the Early Roman
period during the 1st century BC. Instead of
about 15-20 smaller community areas 5-6 large
areas have been observed within the same
region (FIGURE 9A). In addition, the habitation
areas themselves moved into places previously
avoided. Both these phenomena witness a
transformation of the social system and its
spatial correlates. The tendency towards the
enlargement of communities is supported by
the evidence of large cemeteries that appear in
the Roman period which cannot be compared
with the smaller cemeteries of the most part of
the preceding periods.
Large community areas existed throughout
the whole Roman period and possibly also in
the Migration period. It is very interesting that
the settlement distribution of the High Middle
Ages (13th century onwards) - which in prin-
ciple survives today - goes back to the old
prehistoric pattern both as concerns the density
and the size of community areas and the loca-
tion of habitation areas (FIGURE 9B).
Settlement zones and general population
density
It is very probable that community areas formed
a stable structure during major parts of prehis-
tory. Within this structure the average extent of
community areas and the average number of
households within the communities did not
probably change substantially, the only known
exception being the change at the beginning of
the Roman era. If there was any oscillation of the
total population number this would probably be
reflected not in the increasing or decreasing
I
B I
FIGURE 10.
settlement zone.
A Early Bronze Age.
B
C
Vinof brook project. Extent of
Early Iron Age (Hallstatt C).
Late Hallstatt period (Hallstatt D).
population density within community areas but
by increasing or decreasing the total number of
communities (and their community areas)
within a given region. I call the territoTy that
was actually inhabited and used a settlement
zone. In the example of the landscape project of
Vinoi: brook we may observe changes in the
extent of the settlement zone during the Bronze
and Iron Ages. It seems that some areas were
abandoned during this time and recolonized
later. It can be suggested that the settlement
zone formed a coherent cluster of community
346 MARTIN KLJNA
areas at any moment of its existence, ensuring
probably the most effective interaction of
communities. The observed tendency of
population growth and decrease cannot, how-
ever, be generalized before more landscape
studies are carried out in other regions.
References
BENES, J. & D. KOUTECKY. 1987. Die Erforschung der
Mikroregion Lomsky potok [Probleme und Per-
spektiven], in Cerna (ed.): 31-8.
BOELICKE, U. 1982. Gruben und Hauser: Unter-
suchungen zur Struktur bandkeramischer Hof-
platze, in J. Pavuk (ed.), Siedlungen der Kultur
mit Linearkeramik in Europu: 17-28. Nitra: Insti-
tute of Archaeology.
BOG~XKI , P.I. & R. GRYGIEL. 1981. The household
cluster at BrzeSC Kujawski 3: small site methodo-
logy in the Polish lowlands, World Archaeology
13(1): 59-72.
BOUXK, J., D. KOUTECKY & E. NELISTUPNY. 1966. The
Knoviz settlement of northwest Bohemia. Prague:
National Museum. Fontes Archaeologici Pragen-
ses 10.
CERNA, E. (ed.). 1987. Archaologische Rettungst-
atigkeit in den Braunkohlengebieten und die
Problematik der Siedlungs-geschichtlichen For-
schung. Prague: Institute of Archaeology.
HOLOD~~AK. P. 1987. Methodische Probleme bei der
Bestimmung von Populationsgrosse in der Laten-
ezeit, Anthropologie (Brno) 2512: 143-54.
KLArFrE, J. 1989. Poznamky k nekterym tendencim v
soutasnem vyvoji archeologicke pramenne zak-
ladny [Bemerkungen zu einigen Tendenzen in
der Entwicklung der archaologischen Quellen-
basis], Archeologicke rozhledy 41: 75-84.
KOVARIK, J. 1983. SidliSte uneticke kultury v Praze
9-Cakovicich [Eine Siedlung der Uneticer Kultur
in Prag 9-Cakovice], Archaeologica Pragensia 4:
13 7-68.
KL~ NA. M 1990. K problemu registrace poruSenych
archeologickych naleziSf [Towards the regis-
tration of damaged archaeological sites], Studie a
zprovy Okresniho muzea Praha-vqchod 10
(1988): 21-44.
I n press:Social system of the Iron Age as reflected
on the microregional level, in Fonctionnernent
social de I hge du fer: operateurs et hypotheses
pour la France.
KLI NA, M. & J. KLAPSIB. 1990. Poznamky ke koncepci
t e r hni archeologicke prace [On the character
and concepts of field work in contemporary
Czech archaeology], Archeologicke rozhledy 42:
435-445.
KL: NA, M. & M. SLABINA. 1987. Zur Problematik der
Acknowledgements. 1 would like to thank Dr E. Neustupnq
and Dr N. Venclova for their comments on this paper. I am
indebted to Dr M. Slabina for his substantial work in
classifying all pottery fragments from the Vinoi. brook
project. My thanks also go to Dr J. Waldhauser and V. SalaC,
who enabled me to work with the unpublished materials of
the Radovesice site. All drawings were made by A. NBmcova.
Siedlungsareale (in der 13ronzezeit), , in Cerna
(ed.): 263-78.
KYNCL, J. 1987. Vztah vegetace a osidleni v mikrore-
gionu Luiickeho potoka na Kadalisku [The rela-
tionship of vegetation and settlement in the
microregion of the stream Luiicky potok in the
area of Kadafi], Archeologicke rozhledy 39:
622-8.
NEUSTUPNY, E. 1982a. Prehistoric migrations by infil-
tration, Archeologicke rozhledy 34: 278-93.
1982b. Optimalizace vyzkumu archeologickeho
regionu [Die Optimalisierung der Erforschung
archaologischer Region], in J. Hrala (ed.),
Metodologicke problemy Ceskoslovenske archeo-
logie: 178-82. Prague: Institute of Archaeology.
1983. Demografie pravekych pohfebiSt [The demo-
graphy of prehistoric cemeteriesj. Prague: Insti-
tute of Archaeology.
1985. K holocenu Komofanskeho jezera [On the
holocene period in the Komofany Lake area],
Pamatky archeologicke 76: 9-70.
1986. Sidelni arealy pravekych zemedelcu
[Settlement areas of prehistoric farmers],
Pamutky archeologicke 77: 226-34.
1987. Praveka eroze a akumulace v oblasti Luiick-
6ho potoka [Prehistoric erosion and accumu-
lation in the Luiice brook basin], Archeologicke
rozhledy 39: 629-43.
1991. Community areas of prehistoric farmers in
Bohemia, Antiquity 65: 326-31.
PAVL<J, I. 1977. K rnetodice analyzy sidligf s linearrii
keramikou [To the methods of linear pottery
settlement analysis), Parnatky archeologicke 68:
5-55.
RULF, I. 1983. Pfirodni prostfedi a kultury Ceskeho
neolitu a eneolitu [Naturmilieu und Kulturen des
bohmischen Neolithikunis und Aneolithikums],
Parnatky archeologicke 74: 35-95.
SMRZ, Z. 1987. Vyvoj a struktura osidleni v mikrore-
gionu Luiickeho potoka na Kadansku [The devel-
opment of settlement in the microregion of the
stream LuBicky potok in the area of Kadan],
Archeologicke rozhledy 39: 601-21.
SOUOSK~., B. 1966. Byluny, osoda nejstariich
zem6ddlcu z mladSi doby kamenne [Bylany,
station des premiers agriculteurs de Ihge de la
pierre polie]. Prague: Academia.
STI.OUKAL, M. 1981. Kostry z latenskeho pohfebiSt8 u
STKIJCTURING OF PREI IISTORIC LANDSCAPE 347
Kadovesic [Skelette aus dem latenezeitlicheri
Graberfeld bei Kadovesice], Praehistorica 8
(Varia archaeologica 2, Charles University,
Prague]: 221-3.
TURKOVA, D. & M. KLJNA. 1987. Zur Mikrostruktur der
bronzezeitlichen Siedlungen, in Die Urnen-
felderkulturen Mitteleuropas. Symposium
Liblice 1985: 217-29. Prague: Institute of
Archaeology.
VEL~MSKY, T. 1986. Archeologicke vyzkumy v oblasti
teiby severoceskych hnedouhelnych dolu -
problemy, vysledky a perspektivy [Die archao-
logischen Ausgrabungen im nordbohmischen
W
ovesice, Bez. Teplice in Nordwestbohmen (Uber-
sicht der Ausgrabungen und Stand der
Auswertung)], Archeologickk rozhledy 29:
144-76.
984. Mobilitat und Stabilitat der keltischen
Besiedlung in Bohmen, in Studien zu Sied-
lungsfragen der Latknezeit: 167-86. Marburg:
Veroffentlichungen des Vorgeschichtlichen
Seminars Marburg. Sonderband 3.
IDHAUSER, J. & P. HOLODNAK. 1984. Keltske sidligte
a pohfebiSt6 u Biliny, 0. Teplice [Keltische Sied-
lung und Graberfeld bei Rilina, Bez. Teplice],
Pamdtkv archeoloeicke 75: 181-216.
Braunkohlengebiet], i n T. Velimsky (ed.),
Archeologickk vyzkumy v severozapadnich
Cechach v letech 1973-1982: 7-35. Prague: Insti-
tute of Archaeology. Archeologicke studijni
materialy 15.
WALIIHAUSER, J. 1977. Keltske sidliSt6 u Radovesic v
severozapadnich Cechach: Prehled vyzkumu a
stav hodnoceni [Die keltische Siedlung bei Kad-
"
WINTER, M.C. 1976. The archaeological household
cluster in the valley of Oaxaca, in K.V. Flannery
(ed.), The early Mesoamerican village: 25-31.
New York (NY): Academic Press.
ZAPOTOCKY, M. & Z. SMRZ. 1980. SidliStB KNP v
Dobromeficich, okr. Louny [A Funnel Beaker
settlement site in DobromBfice, the Louny
district], Archeologicke rozhledy 32: 481-9.