První vysokoškolské centrum experimentální archeologie začalo být budováno v roce 1994 s finanční podporou Fondu rozvoje vysokých škol ČR. Jednalo se o monotematický projekt rekonstrukce života v mladší době kamenné s technologickými a funkčními experimenty. Zvláštní důraz byl přitom kladen i na sledování procesů destrukce objektů a artefaktů vyřazovaných přirozeným způsobem z činnosti. Co nejdelší sledování těchto dějů umožnily organizační formy účasti experimentátorů (každoroční dlouhodobější asi desetidenní letní pobyt a jednorázové pobyty v ostatních ročních obdobích ve volitelném semináři experimentální archeologie).

Za místo realizace projektu byla vybrána lokalita situovaná v otevřené přírodě v blízkosti Hradce Králové. Jednalo se o jižní svah s mírným sklonem nad soutokem dvou vodotečí. V letech 1994 - 1996 zde byl vybudován základ neolitického sídelního areálu: kůlový dům se stavebními jámami, keramickým hliníkem, ohništi, obilním silem, pecemi, pražnicí, studnou a malými plochami pokusných polí. Při řadě stavebních operací byly používány repliky neolitických nástrojů.

Projekt byl z právních důvodů ukončen v roce 1998. Místo bylo archeologicky prozkoumáno, byly vyzvednuty zlomky dochovaných replik. Do roku 1999 byla sledována archeologizace objektů. Na počátku roku 2000 celou situaci zlikvidovala stavební technika.

Vybudované objekty byly prakticky vyzkoušeny, aby nešlo o pouhou "kulisu". Rekonstruované objekty spadají do období první zemědělské kultury na území Čech a Moravy - patří kultuře s lineární keramikou. Takto pojatý pokus nemá v experimentální archeologii neolitu obdoby. Zatím byly spíše samostatně rekonstruovány jednotlivé objekty - domy, pece, studny nebo těžba materiálu. V některých případech nebyly komplexní projekty dokončeny (např. Těšetice-Kyjovice). Význam zde popsaného projektu proto vidím nejen v komplexnosti pojetí a snaze po důsledném používání replik nástrojů, ale i podmínkách jeho průběhu, kdy experimentátoři při stavbě objektů řešili zároveň problémy stravování a vypořádání se s počasím (extrémní horko nebo zima).

Studie shrnující výsledky projektu byla publikována v REA1/2000. Její plná verze je k dispozici zde:

 eXrea-net_REA_Borek.pdf (46 stran; 2,66 MB)

English version:

nahoru / up

1. Introduction

The first University Centre of Experimental Archaeology worked between the years 1994 and 1998. It was a monothematic project for the reconstruction of life in the Neolithic with technological and functioning experiments. A special emphasis was given to observing processes of destruction of structures and artifacts discarded in natural way. Long term observation of these processes was allowed by the presence of experimenters was organised (long term stays in summer and short term stays in other seasons as a part of an optional seminar on experimental archaeology).

A site situated in open countryside near to Hradec Kralove was selected for the project. It was a mild slope facing South above confluence of two streams. In the years 1994 - 1996 there was built the foundations of a Neolithic settlement area: a house of post structure with building pits, a clay pit, hearths, a storage pit, ovens, a roasting oven, a well and small test fields. Replicas of Neolithic tools were used in number of the building works.

The project was finished, because of legal reasons, in 1998. The site was researched, bits of surviving replicas were collected. The archaeologisation of structures was being observed till 1999. In the beginning of year 2000 the whole site was destroyed by JCBs.

In the following text I'll concentrate on the evaluation of buildings of the area from point of view of used technology, function and time demands. The built structures were tested. The system was based on the possibilities of archaeology, therefore I decided to sort the following description under structures. The reconstructed structures belonged to LBK. A project conceived this way doesn't have analogy in experimental archaeology of the Neolithic. Till now there were mostly reconstructed an independent single structures - Houses, hearths, wells or material quarrying . In some cases more complex projects hadn't been finished (for example Těšetice-Kyjovice). I see the importance of describing the project not only in the complexity of the approach and ambitious use of tool replicas but also in the conditions of its course, when the experimenters had to solve problems of food supplies and had to deal with weather.

2. Method

There is a well-known and published group of settlements from the early and middle Neolithic with large amounts of finds from the Czech territory (Bylany,Březno, Roztoky). Not even these finds are enough to create a model of a Neolithic man world. It is necessary to complement them with small but well-preserved context situations.
The model settlement area "Borek& was created this way. Beforehand, in the same time and additionally we did activities that exceeded the settlement area borders (for example gaining materials, transport). They are partly described in this article, part of them will be published in more detail later. We didn't pay any attention to some domestic activities (burying, breeding animals) although they also could have aspects for the experiment.

A house is the basis of a Neolithic settlement. The reconstruction of a house from Mohelnice was selected as a model for the project. It was marked there as an early Neolithic type of house. Later the author of this article found that this house excavated in Mohelnice in 1957 probably belongs to MMK. Despite this the reconstruction might show a small version of a Neolithic long house. The building pits were chosen along the longer sides of the house. Inside the house there were placed a shallow hole for a storage pot and hearth presumed according to finds of daub.

A group of ovens was another structure. It was placed at a chosen distance from the house according to the situation excavated in Mohelnice 1958. That way there was created a heap of soil and a clay pit. One of the ovens was used before the building of the house to create a situation of uncontemporary horizontal stratigraphy. This structure ceased to exist soon and became part of the clay pit. At a selected distance from the house there was dug a storage pit. On the settlement at Brezno u Loun the distance between storage pits and houses is 7 - 8 m. Near the house there were other pits used as a clay pit, rubbish pit and for fire. Such small pits are found commonly on Neolithic settlements together with single post holes.

A well was placed a longer distance from the house on the confluence of the two streams. A well was documented also in Mohelnice 100 m from the settlement and in Most. The hypothetically presumed test fields and an animal grave was placed at a similar distance. The burial ground in Vedrovice was placed at about 100 m from the settlement.

There were problems with placing other manufacturing activities, presumed "workshops" play an important role among them. These spaces are not possible to place straight into pits. They were activities done on the then surface. Sometimes some activities got to close pits and part of waste later became part of the infill. The workshop for making bone objects from Roztoky belongs among such lucky finds or the workshops for making stone tools from Humenne and Chotěbudice. Handling pottery waste was also tested. It was hidden in bushes or placed on a path. There was also hypothetically supposed a zone of making pottery in a shady place behind the house close to hearths.

3. Conclusions

During our experiments we tried adopting Neolithic technologies. Although we had our disposal the results of archaeological research it showed very clearly that outside knowledge of objects is not enough. It was necessary to know the contents of mixtures (daub, pottery) or nature of material (stone for polished tools, working soil with wooden tools) and characteristics generally (germination and harvest of dinkel wheat). Getting to the core of things wasn't perfect even with our possibilities for research. What than of the hunting populations?

According to our experience we got convinced there had to be at least personal contact between hunting and farming populations to make the transfer of the farming culture possible. It also results from that, that Neolithic culture had to be spread only with colonisation or with transfer on hunting population in the presence of at least a minimal number of farmers. The process of learning could take place only through personal contact (especially in family or community) and aside of that it is necessary to suppose it's a long-run process (for example in the case of passing the ability to grow crops at least one year).

In the considered model we have to necessarily suppose the presence of farming colonists. The possibility of sustaining small communities as presumed for the early phase of LBK in Central Europe is difficult to recognise. E. Neústupný suggests that the communities while moving as a whole or only as parts over long distances had problems with entering into marriages. In that case there could be accepted single persons from the hunting population. We can never certainly exclude or make exact number of kidnapped women, found children or economic and social domination as a source of stability of the incoming farming populations. Possible archaeological and anthropological evidence of such relations is the find of the grave H11 in Těšetice-Kyjovice. There was buried an adult woman, about 30 - 40 years old, with classical early LBK grave goods. She was anthropologically very different from the Mediterranean type.

I think that the farming technology (sowing, harvest and storage of products), technology of making pottery (preparation of ceramic mixture, baking and pot use), building of complicated and permanent dwellings and maybe also making of different knapped industry wouldn't be possible without the presence of those who were using these features in their everyday life. Many times we found out in experimental archaeology that we were often missing basic experience with technological problem. On the other hand the finding of the solutions meant an easy next advance, which would be impossible to think out or describe in words. The most effective and fastest way to learn is the natural process of watching the activity - so called active presence. If we allowed the necessity of migration it didn't need to be numerous, wide spread or of a demographic importance. It could be a penetration by isolated farming communities getting into neighbourhood of foragers groups. Than an integration of both systems could have happened. There is a possibility of neighbourhood coexistence, mixed marriages, captivity in the opposite culture group, economic exchange, including exchange of know-how. It is necessary to consider following course (spatial and temporal) in single regions.

The functional and technological experiences show us how demanding it is to work one's way into making of artefacts and building of structures. The current experimental archaeology should concentrate on positive gaining of experiences comparable with prehistoric reality rather then just stating negative results. In any case the mentioned demands show the problems of the hypothesis of accepting Neolithic culture by Mesolithic hunting populations. Such transfer is possible onlywithin living culture during at least one year (farming cycle).

We can observe the gradual merging of hunting and farming world outside anthropology also through archaeology if we are prepared to see such natural processes behind material remains as a gradual and long-term merging of two different worlds. In Central Europe there is for example of certain impact appearing already in the culture with stroke ware (Mazálek 1953, 203-211) and if it wasn't for the proximity of the Lengyel cultures the merging would be even faster. In the beginning of Aeneolithic, at the time of the arrival of the funnel beaker culture, it doesn't make sense any more to speak about farming or hunting population. The development moved somewhere else although we can still suppose islands of hunters (Vencl 1982). It was already clear that all the new elements of farming cultures were accepted in different ways. There couldn.t have been any unbeatable demands in the process of learning and adapting. The cultures of hunters and farmers learned to live along each other.

The article (with references) was published in the supplement Expedice Monoxylon: Pocházíme z mladší doby kamenné. Full Czech version is available here:

 eXrea-net_REA_Borek.pdf (46 pages; 2.66 MB)