Abstract
The main goal of this article is to present an overview of current knowledge about the subsistence strategy of Linear Pottery culture (LBK) in Moravia, Czech Republic. The main aspect of the subsistence strategy mentioned here will be the issue of dietary. Early Neolithic sites that in some way contributed to the knowledge about the dietary character (both meat and plant food) will be presented here. On this occasion, a case study of the Žádovice site, which belongs to the most recently analyzed settlements, will be presented. In addition, the methods used in the subsistence strategy of LBK in Moravia will be mentioned. The existing knowledge will be included in a broader settlement context and will be compared with each other. For the time being, it seems that in terms of the species spectrum of farmed animals, the area of Moravia does not differ from the situation known from Central Europe. Certain geographical differences are possible in Moravia, but this hypothesis must be verified in the future, depending on the expansion of the database. The study thus represents a springboard for further research in this area.
1 Introduction
In recent decades, the subsistence strategy has often been discussed in archaeology and has already been recognized by Moravian archaeology as well. The Moravian archaeological community thus responds to the generally changing approach to archaeological material. We became more interested in the background of these finds, not just the finds themselves. In other words, the current research is increasingly focused on the discovery and reconstruction of the ancient way of life. This approach is more significant in research of the Moravian Neolithic period.
Traditionally, the Neolithic period has been connected with the term “Neolithic revolution,” which (among others) is strongly related to subsistence strategy – activities used for the satisfaction of basic survival needs. As we know from numerous studies, the process of neolithization, including that in Central Europe, was not as fast and sudden as was hypothesized by earlier generations of archaeologists (Podborský, 1993). More probably, it was a sequence of gradual changes that took place in different places at different times. In the same way, other previously experienced concepts associated with the Neolithic (the so-called Neolithic package, etc.; Çilingiroğlu, 2005) are now gradually being overcome (e.g., Bickle, 2016; Divišová, 2012; Gronenborn, 2007; Mateiciucová, 2008; Reingruber, 2011; Shennan, 2018).
Of course, certain convictions used to work in Moravian archaeology as well. For example, in connection with Linear Pottery culture (LBK), the system of relative chronology, based on pottery styles, has survived for a long time due to a lack of radiocarbon data. Presently, the concept of relative chronology is being challenged (Kuča et al., 2012; Trampota, 2016). Fortunately, another conviction is slowly disappearing: the knowledge of settlement structures. Based on this statement, we should have found the LBK sites primarily just in lowlands (up to 300–350 m a.s.l.) nearby the riverine on a slight south slope (Podborský, 1993). In recent research, however, we already know many sites that do not follow this pattern, especially in the area of southwestern and eastern Moravia (Bartík, 2012; Schenk, 2007; Vaškových, 2006; Vaškových, Schenk, Kuča, Škrdla, & Langová, 2008). We are still lacking a synthesis that would consolidate the overview of new information and connect it to a broader context. In addition, this synthesis could be a starting point for further and more systematic research.
This article aims to draw attention to the current state of research of Neolithic subsistence strategy in Moravia, specifically on LBK. Another goal is an effort to put a proposal for the next direction in this research.
In connection with research on subsistence strategy, the case study of the Žádovice site, dated to the early phase of the Moravian LBK, was chosen. A large set of animal bones was obtained from this site that was osteologically analyzed, and the first results are presented here.
2 Case Study – Site Žádovice
2.1 Introduction
Site Žádovice belongs to one of the best-excavated LBK sites in the area of southeastern Moravia. The archaeological excavation took place in 1986–1987 in the form of rescue excavation. It is a polycultural site not continuously inhabited from the Early Neolithic to the Late Eneolithic. Some partial findings from specific settlement phases have been published before (Matějíčková, 1999; Šmíd, 2002), as well as some findings from the LBK settlement (Nerudová, 2011). The greatest attention has so far been paid to burials (ten individuals), also preliminarily dated to LBK (Čižmář & Geislerová, 1998). More complex processing of findings and evaluation of spatial structures was then the subject of the diploma thesis of the author of this article (Čerevková, 2015).
During the excavation, a considerable number of finds were obtained, but knowledge about the settlement is still entirely untapped. At present, the attention is mainly focused on the skeletal remains of buried humans and animals to obtain additional information about diet.
2.2 Environment
The site is situated in southeastern Moravia (Czech Republic), about 18.5 km north of Hodonín and about 47 km southeastern of Brno (Figure 1, bottom right). The settlement itself is conveniently located on a slightly elevated terrace at an altitude of approximately 220 m (Čižmář & Geislerová, 1998; Geislerová, 1989). Watercourses (creeks and small rivers) shape the surrounding landscape. The streams flow near the site and thus naturally delimit its area. The elevation difference between the confluence of the rivers and the terrace of the settlement is in the range of 15–20 m. The Morava river, the largest watercourse in the surrounding landscape and an important landscape feature, is about 12 km southeast of the site.
The location of the case study site of Žádovice (author: L. Bedáň).
From the geomorphological point of view, the area belongs to the Žádovická uplands; its filling consists of tertiary sands, clays, lignite, and rarely gravels of lacustrine, possibly brackish origin. Sedimentation took place mainly during the Upper Miocene (Pannon stage). The subsoil is formed by Pleistocene loess, on which black soil and brown soil were formed (Bína & Demek, 2012; Chlupáč, Brzobohatý, Kovanda, & Stráník, 2011; Demek, 1987).
The site’s dominant location is interesting – its protection by natural barriers: watercourses, the Chřiby mountains, and other ridges. At the same time, however, it probably provided a good overview of the adjacent area of the Morava river, which could represent an important communication corridor. With its location, the settlement refers to some of the earliest Moravian sites dated to the LBK, where also the raw material spectrum is similar (Mateiciucová, 2008; Vaškových et al., 2008).
2.3 Radiocarbon Dating
Burials in the settlement have already been analyzed in detail in a study by Čižmář and Geislerová (1998), and their conclusions can be supplemented by a radiocarbon date, which confirms the dating of one of the graves (82/100-HI) to 5369–5224 cal BC (Reimer et al., 2013), which corresponds phase Ib in Moravian relative chronology system (Čižmář, 1998). The absolute age of other funerals is currently being verified. It seems that one of the ten individuals mentioned above will be chronologically younger and will belong to the Eneolithic period.
2.4 Current Knowledge about Subsistence Strategy at Žádovice
Žádovice is one of the several LBK sites that were osteologically evaluated (basic analysis performed by G. Dreslerová). A relatively large collection of animal bones was obtained from the site; a total amount of 4,539 bones (65,884 g) came from the LBK pits (including objects probably dated to the LBK). Regarding the number of bones, about one third (1,247 bones = NISP) was determined by species (Table 1), but it was almost 75% of the whole amount in terms of weight. Based on the osteological analysis, it was found out that domesticated animals predominate here very strongly – 95%. It means a strongly self-sufficient economy focused primarily on livestock. Among domesticated animals, we can distinctly see a predominance of cattle (about 65%), followed by sheep/goat and pig (Figure 2). Rarely has the dog remains appeared.
Numbers of determined animal bones in connection with LBK pits from case site Žádovice
| Pit no. | Chronology | CaL | SuSd | O/C | Bos | Cer | SuS | Eq | Lep | Cas | Cri | Em | Total amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46 | LBK | 3 | 18 | 1 | 22 | ||||||||
| 47 | LBK | 3 | 6 | 9 | |||||||||
| 48 | LBK Ib | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 49 | LBK Ib | 9 | 9 | ||||||||||
| 52 | LBK Ib | 2 | 17 | 19 | |||||||||
| 57 | LBK Ib | 23 | 6 | 101 | 2 | 7 | 139 | ||||||
| 58 | LBK Ib/IIa | 1 | 2 | 7 | 10 | ||||||||
| 62 | LBK Ib/IIa | 8 | 8 | ||||||||||
| 64 | LBK | 2 | 5 | 12 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 35 | |||||
| 67 | LBK Ib/IIa | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||
| 68 | LBK Ib/IIa | 7 | 8 | 29 | 1 | 45 | |||||||
| 71 | LBK | 1 | 6 | 7 | |||||||||
| 72 | LBK Ib | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 73 | LBK Ib | 2 | 13 | 15 | |||||||||
| 74 | LBK Ib | 4 | 10 | 29 | 1 | 44 | |||||||
| 75 | LBK Ib/IIa | 4 | 12 | 16 | |||||||||
| 76 | LBK | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| 78 | LBK | 3 | 3 | 6 | |||||||||
| 80 | LBK II | 1 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||
| 82, 100 | LBK Ib | 1 | 3 | 31 | 35 | ||||||||
| 85 | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 88 | LBK | 7 | 59 | 77 | 1 | 1 | 145 | ||||||
| 89 | LBK | 1 | 6 | 5 | 12 | ||||||||
| 91 | LBK Ib/IIa | 2 | 10 | 12 | |||||||||
| 92 | LBK Ib | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | ||||||||
| 93 | LBK Ib | 4 | 4 | 37 | 7 | 52 | |||||||
| 94 | LBK | 1 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||
| 95 | LBK | 1 | 12 | 13 | |||||||||
| 96 | LBK | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | ||||||||
| 98 | LBK IIb | 2 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 19 | |||||||
| 99 | LBK II | 12 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 31 | |||||||
| 101 | LBK | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| 103 | LBK Ib | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
| 104 | LBK Ib | 1 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||
| 105 | LBK IIb | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||
| 106a | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 107 | LBK Ib | 1 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||
| 108 | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 110 | LBK Ib | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
| 111 | LBK IIa | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | |||||||
| 114 | LBK IIa | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||
| 115 | LBK Ib | 1 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||
| 116 | LBK Ib | 9 | 9 | ||||||||||
| 117 | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 118, 101 | LBK | 4 | 4 | ||||||||||
| 121 | LBK Ib/IIa | 1 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||
| 123 | LBK Ib | 4 | 18 | 22 | |||||||||
| 124 | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 126 | LBK Ib | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 127 | LBK Ib | 3 | 11 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 35 | |||||
| 129 | LBK | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| 132 | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 134 | LBK | 3 | 6 | 7 | 16 | ||||||||
| 136 | LBK | 5 | 1 | 5 | 11 | ||||||||
| 137 | LBK Ib | 5 | 6 | 3 | 14 | ||||||||
| 138 | LBK | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
| 142 | LBK Ib | 8 | 26 | 111 | 1 | 146 | |||||||
| 146 | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 150 | LBK Ib/IIa | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 156 | LBK Ib | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 166 | LBK Ib/IIa | 4 | 10 | 14 | |||||||||
| 171 | LBK Ib | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | ||||||||
| 172 | LBK | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
| 173 | LBK | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||
| 175 | LBK | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||
| 177 | LBK? | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| 181 | LBK | 3 | 9 | 12 | |||||||||
| 183 | LBK | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||
| 192 | LBK Ib | 3 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 20 | ||||||
| 195 | LBK Ib | 13 | 20 | 33 | |||||||||
| 196 | LBK | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
| 200 | LBK | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 202 | LBK | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||
| 205 | LBK | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||
| 207 | LBK | 3 | 13 | 16 | |||||||||
| 208 | LBK | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
| 210 | LBK Ib/IIa | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||
| 218 | LBK Ib | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||
| 219 | LBK | 6 | 13 | 19 | |||||||||
| 223 | LBK Ib | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| 224 | LBK Ib | 4 | 4 | ||||||||||
| 225 | LBK | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
| 228 | LBK Ib | 1 | 8 | 15 | 24 | ||||||||
| 234 | LBK Ib | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 236 | LBK Ib | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||
| Total | 2 | 112 | 249 | 821 | 33 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 12 | 7 | 1,247 |
Chronology (settlement phases) of pits is based on pottery decoration that is still used for Moravian LBK relative dating (Čižmář, 1998): Ib, older phase; IIa, younger “classical” phase; IIb, younger “degenerative” phase. Animal species abbreviations: CaL, Canis lupus f. familiaris; SuSd, Sus scrofa f. domestica; O/C, Ovis/Capra; Bos, Bos primigenius f. taurus; Cer, Cervidae (Cervus elaphus + Capreolus capreolus); SuS, Sus scrofa; Eq, Equus sp.; Lep, Lepus europaeus; Cas, Castor fiber; Cri, Cricetus cricetus; and Em, Emys orbicularis.
?: uncertain.
Ratio of animals in a case study site of Žádovice: (a) domesticated animals in relation to wild fauna and (b) representation of wild fauna.
The cervids (deer and roe deer) were the most common species of wild fauna here, while most of the bones came from the head (skull, teeth, antlers, including dropped antlers). However, bone and antler tools are preserved in only a few pieces in Žádovice, so the connection between deer bones and the purpose of tool production cannot be reliably proved. Other wild (hunted) fauna were represented by wild boar, beaver, horse, hare, and hamster. Interestingly, a few fragments of the carapace of a mud turtle appeared. This turtle species seeks out the still waters of the blind branches of rivers and reservoirs with warm shoals. Near Žádovice, the flow of the Morava river comes into consideration, where this turtle could have been “hunted,” or parts of its carapace could be collected. The Morava river meanders here and creates numerous blind branches, suitable habitat for the turtle. The occurrence of the horse, as well as of the hamster, is rather associated with the open steppe landscape, which, however, does not exclude the presence of a large watercourse. The species Equus hydruntinus is assumed to occur in the open landscape, which may have been associated with river valleys during the Neolithic (Crees & Turvey, 2014). In Moravia, E. hydruntinus has been documented relatively abundantly in the Mesolithic site Smolín (Musil, 1978), where we also assume the proximity of a steppe, modeled by a larger watercourse (Oliva, 2018; Valoch, 1978). The horse was identified in Žádovice only based on one uncut tooth (molar/stool) of a juvenile individual, so the exact species determination is unclear. The occurrence of horses in LBK sites in Moravia has been proved reliably (Berkovec & Nývltová Fišáková, 2003; Dreslerová, 2004; Kratochvíl, 1973; Nývltová Fišáková, 2003, 2004a, 2004b). In addition to the species E. hydruntinus, the species Equus ferus is also known from the Moravian and Bohemian Neolithic. The difference between these two species is that the E. ferus should be of more considerable height (Kyselý & Peške, 2016).
Spatial analysis of specified bones (age, type of bone) is currently underway. According to preliminary results, it appears that there are some differences in the deposition of animal bones (Figure 3). Species representation also apparently varied between households. The highest concentration of wild animals is tied to houses 1 and 2 (with house 1 the most) except boar, which did not appear in any connection to houses. However, it should be borne in mind that relatively few bones of wild animals have generally been identified, so the results should be taken with caution. In addition, the cervids are distributed in the whole settlement area and their only connection with particular households is with houses 1 and 2. At the first glance, it seems that no specific pattern can be observed in domestic animals and their relations to particular households. The cattle bones are somehow connected with all households, and the same can be said for pig bones. The sheep/goat bones were also found near houses except houses 3 and 4. In general, the highest concentration of bones of domesticated animals was found in pit no. 57, 88, and 142 (see Table 1 and Figure 3 – marked with red captions). There could be the question of some killing or butchering site with pit 88 or 142, but there is only one bone with cutting marks from pit 142 (four cuts altogether from the whole settlement) so we cannot confirm this idea. Because most pits were dated to the older phase of LBK (relative dating based on pottery decoration; Čižmář, 1998), most animal bones can also be associated with this phase. According to relative chronology, it seems that only one house belongs to the younger phase of LBK, namely house 3. The spectrum of animal species found here is practically the same as in the other houses, only the number of bones differs.
Case site Žádovice plan showing the spatial distribution of animal bones in connection settlement structure (red captions).
The spatial distribution of animal bones was also monitored in Těšetice-Kyjovice (Vostrovská, 2018) and Bylany (Pavlů, 2014). An example from Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Hachem, 2000, 2011; Hachem & Hamon, 2014) is also well known. However, the issue of waste disposal in Neolithic settlements is relatively complex, as several factors enter into this process, some of which are difficult to define (Květina & Řídký, 2016; Neustupný, 1998; Vostrovská, 2018).
Many stone tools used to process plant food also evidence the diet in Žádovice. It supports the hypothesis that the subsistence economy of the settlement population was very self-sufficient, strongly oriented toward farming. According to the basic anthropological analysis performed on buried individuals, traces of wear and tear were observed on their teeth, related to the significant consumption of plant foods. Here, too, the presence of anemia was found in at least two individuals. The lack of meat diet is considered to be one of the causes of this disease (Čižmář & Geislerová, 1998; Jarošová, Dočkalová, & Fojtová, 2008).
2.5 The Current State of Knowledge of Subsistence Strategy of Moravian LBK Culture
In Moravian Neolithic archaeology, the subsistence strategy is associated only with diet (Kuča et al., 2012). However, all activities leading to the satisfaction of basic human needs should be included (Maslow, 2014; Soukup, 2015). Aspects, such as housing, are usually assessed separately within the inner structure of the individual site.
To date, we have identified more than 400 sites of LBK in Moravia. Unfortunately, most of them are known only from rescue excavations and surface surveys. For this reason, only a small number of them were systematically excavated.
2.6 Hunting and Breeding
If we start with food (or diet), the most common evidence (and often the only one applicable) is animal bones. However, in some sites, there are few bones available due to unsuitable conditions.
Animal bones were not previously the main research focus of archaeologists within the study of Neolithic sites. From older excavations (circa until the early 1960s), we have animal bones disposed of rather seldom, as can be seen from the state of most museum collections. From recent excavations, animal bones are common; however, they are from rescue excavations and are waiting to be analyzed. Since relatively few experts in Moravian archaeology deal with the information potential of animal bones, there is minimal knowledge in this area. In the Czech Republic, we encounter more detailed osteological analyses of animal bones in the early 1970s (Clason, 1970; Kratochvíl, 1973). Since then, the state of research has not much improved, limiting the development of dietary research of the Moravian LBK. At the same time, the potential regional differences (Kováčiková, 2011) that we reliably observe in the production of ceramics and raw materials of stone tools are not reflected either.
G. Dreslerová drew attention to the unfortunate state of osteologically studied Neolithic localities (including LBK) in Moravia almost 20 years ago (Dreslerová, 2004, 2006). Since then, the situation has not improved much, and the number of sites has not increased (Uhlířová, 2012). To date, 15 collections of animal bones from Moravian LBK sites have been analyzed (Table 2). In this table, the number of bones determined at the species level is presented. Therefore, for this study, only the number of bones was considered (in NISP). At first sight, the disparity in the volume of individual collections is apparent. Unfortunately, the more detailed information from two sites (Drysice, Velatice) is not yet available. In addition, from a statistical aspect, one site is somewhat problematic – the Malhostovice, where only four fragments of cattle teeth were found. Another problem can be observed in connection with the Holubice site when the portion of the hunted game was not specified. In these circumstances, the 11 sites provide quite usable data. Of course, more extensive collections of determined bones are better for formulating possible hypotheses about the economics of a particular settlement. If we focus on sites with a larger collection of osteologically determined animal bones, we can see the substantial prevalence of domesticated animals (>90%; see Figure 4). This trend is also evident in all sites, except Hluboké Mašůvky, where the material comes from pits in superposition with the Late Neolithic settlement (Lengyel culture). Among the domesticated species, the cattle usually predominate except in Olomouc-Nemilany, where the pigs were more abundant. Based on the results of osteological analysis, it was not always possible to distinguish whether it was a domesticated or wild form of the pig, so the percentage of species may be a little different. In any case, the portion of pigs is relatively high, so probably they would predominate anyway. Except for the Olomouc-Nemilany and Postřelmov (where a small collection was analyzed), the portion of pigs is relatively low at Moravian LBK sites and usually not exceeded 14%. Only at four sites (Těšetice-Kyjovice,[1] Hluboké Mašůvky, Vedrovice, and Olomouc-Nemilany) the pigs were more than 20%. The amount of sheep/goat category is higher or almost similar to that of pigs. The percentage of sheep/goats is about 20–30% except for Olomouc-Nemilany, Holubice, and Chornice. In Chornice, the sheep/goats were not identified at all. Both Holubice and Chornice have a little osteological collection so that the results may be affected by several determined bones. As indicated in Figure 4, usually, the most kept animal at LBK Moravian sites is cattle. Exception is Olomouc-Nemilany, where pigs replace cattle. At other sites, the portion of cattle fluctuates between about 40 and 88%. It points to the fact that cattle did not always so overwhelmingly outweigh other livestock. This hypothesis will need to be updated in the future as more data become available.
A basic overview of information (location, NISP, animal species representation, radiocarbon dating) about the Moravian LBK sites with the collection of animal bones analyzed
| Site | Location | NISP | Cattle (%) | Sheep/goat (%) | Pig (%) | Domestic animals (%) | Wild animals (%) | Radiocarbon dating | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olomouc-Nemilany | Intravilán | 140 | 12.1 | 13.6 | 72.9 | 98.6 | 1.4 | Dreslerová, 2007a; Holub, 2013; Plesníková, 2017 | |
| Postřelmov | U Františka | 12 | Too few bones | cca 5000 cal BC | Davidová, 2007; Goslarm 2004; Goš & Halama, 2004 | ||||
| Vedrovice | Široká u lesa, Žádovice | 241 | 41.9 | 21.2 | 28.2 | 91.3 | 8.7 | 5450–5000 cal BC | Berkovec & Nývltová Fišáková, 2003; Nývltová Fišáková, 2003, 2004a, 2004b |
| Těšetice-Kyjovice | Sutny | 889 | 44.2 | 29.6 | 21.4 | 95.2 | 4.8 | 5200–5000 cal BC | Dreslerová, 2004, 2006; Uhlířová, 2012; Vostrovská, 2018 |
| Hluboké Mašůvky | Nivky | 78 | 46.2 | 19.2 | 21.8 | 87.2 | 12.8 | Hájek, Humpolová, & Balcárková, 2015 | |
| Uničov | Na nivách | 62 | 51.6 | 25.8 | 12.9 | 90.3 | 9.7 | Dreslerová, 2005 | |
| Hulín I | U Izidorka | 15 | Too few bones | Nývltová Fišáková, 2007 | |||||
| Mikulov | Jelení Louka | 565 | 56.8 | 23.8 | 13.8 | 95.3 | 4.7 | Klíma, 1971; Kratochvíl, 1973 | |
| Žádovice | Kravín | 1,247 | 64.7 | 21 | 9.5 | 95 | 4.6 | 5369–5224 cal BC | Čerevková, 2015 |
| Brodek u Prostějova | Hůrka | 22 | Too few bones | Dreslerová, 2007a | |||||
| Chornice | Pod Hušákem | 67 | 88.1 | 0 | 4.5 | 92.6 | 7.4 | Dreslerová, 2007b | |
| Holubice | not known | 52 | 88.5 | 7.7 | 3.8 | ? | ? | Geislerová, 1985; Peške, 1985 | |
| Malhostovice | Rybníčky | 4 | Too few bones | Čerevková, Kuča, Petřík, & Uhlířová, 2011 | |||||
| Velatice | Velatický široký | More detailed information currently unavailable | Rebrošová, 2013; Uhlířová, 2013 | ||||||
| Drysice | Dolní Radlicus | More detailed information currently unavailable | Geislerová, 1992 | ||||||
?: unknown.
The ratio of domesticated animals and wild fauna in the sites of the Moravian LBK, where the collection of animal bones was analyzed.
It is obvious that Moravian Neolithic people did not completely abandon hunting although the portion of wild fauna at so far analyzed LBK sites is just a few percent. Recently, the issue of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition has begun to be discussed, also in connection with subsistence strategies. The long-term survival of various Mesolithic phenomena undoubtedly existed (Jizerské mountains area, northern Bohemia) in connection with subsistence and stone tools (Šída, 2013, 2014) and other activities. Unfortunately, in Moravia, Mesolithic sources are still sporadic (Janák, 2004; Oliva, 2018; Sádlo, Pokorný, Hájek, Dreslerová, & Cílek, 2008; Valoch, 1978). In any case, some differences between the Mesolithic and Neolithic diets are noticeable as we know from stable isotope analyses (Bickle, 2018). It is probably not possible to discuss too specifically about the continuity of the economics and other activities from Mesolithic to Neolithic, even if we have some small connections. At least for Moravia, we still have too little data to solve this issue.
2.7 Fishing
Fishing played a significant role in the livelihood of hunting and gathering communities. Fishing is tied to suitable conditions, that is, the presence of a watercourse or water surface. Reliable documents of fishing appear from the late Paleolithic (Cristiani, Dimitrijević, & Vitezović, 2016; Rainsford, O’Connor, & Miracle, 2014; Richards, Jacobi, Cook, Pettitt, & Stringer, 2005).
Within the Czech Republic, the artifacts associated with fishing are very sporadic. Various methods of fishing were used (nets, baskets, etc.), but most of them do not leave archaeologically detectable marks in Moravia. From the Mesolithic period, we have narrowed stones from the settlement agglomeration of Smolín, which are considered as weights of fishing nets (Valoch, 1989). Similar findings are also known from the LBK period from northern Moravia (or Silesia; Janák, 2004; Janák, Knápek, & Papáková, 2011; Šikulová, 1961). It seems that in Moravia the fishing technique could have remained the same as we have similar fishing net weight from Mesolithic Smolín and LBK sites in northern Moravia.
Evidence of fish consumption includes, as with other animals, the findings of their bones. This also applies to fish bones. Usually, small and thin fish bones are difficult to distinguish during excavation, so if the filling of the objects has not been floated, the fish bones can easily escape attention. Within Moravian LBK, the findings of fish are known from the Těšetice-Kyjovice site, where one catfish (Silurus glanis) bone (probably vertebra), six unspecified fragments of northern pike (Esox lucius) bones, three unspecified fragments of Cyprinidae fish bones, and 20 unspecified fish bones. Near Těšetice-Kyjovice, the flows of the rivers Jevišovka (3 km away) and especially Dyje (Thaya; 6 km away) come into consideration as a place of the natural occurrence of the catfish, the other species prefer rather still water or slight flow river. The occurrence of fish bone in Těšetice-Kyjovice is influenced by the excavation methods, where the floating was used as it increases the number of found bones (Dreslerová, 2004, 2006; Sůvová, 2018). Unfortunately, floating is not usually used during excavations of Moravian LBK sites.
2.8 Plants
Based on archaeobotanical research, the last summary of cultivated crops in the Moravian Neolithic and Eneolithic found based on paleobotanical analyses, was given by Kočár and Dreslerová (2010). According to their findings, for LBK, we have reliably documented the occurrence of single-grain and two-grain wheat (Triticum) while single-grain occurs only in a set with two-grain (not separately). It is, after all, typical for the whole of Central Europe, where the single-grain plant itself occurs in only a few sites. The millet (Panicum) and barley (Hordeum) in the Early Neolithic cannot be reliably documented yet. Instead, we know it from younger periods, in the case of polycultural sites, where the affiliation of the findings cannot be reliably associated with the LBK. Barley is reliably documented in Poland in connection with the LBK. Similar conclusions can be drawn in the case of millet, which we also document in the form of imprints on ceramics. However, contamination by younger settlements cannot be ruled out. In addition to cereals, legumes – pea (Pisum) and lentil (Lens) – were found on about 20 sites, with peas predominating (Bogaard, 2004, 2005; Bogaard, Krause, & Strien, 2011; Bogaard et al., 2013; Kočár & Dreslerová, 2010).
From this point of view, the best-researched site in Moravia is Těšetice-Kyjovice, where all of the plants mentioned above were identified. In addition, some harvested crops were found – mainly the nuts (Corylus avellana) and berries (Fragaria vesca, Rosa sp.). In addition, the papaver (Papaver somniferum) was determined, which is often connected with younger phases of LBK (Vostrovská, 2018; Vostrovská, Bíšková, Lukšíková, Kočár, & Kočárová, 2018). The findings of the papaver are rare in Central Europe (Bakels, 1992).
3 Methods Used in Moravian LBK Research of Subsistence Strategy
The most widely used method for research on the LBK subsistence strategy is an osteological analysis of animal bones. In the study of Moravian LBK, two sites occupy a leading position: Vedrovice and Těšetice-Kyjovice. Vedrovice is well known in European Neolithic archaeology due to a large LBK cemetery (about 4,500 m2, at least 104 graves altogether), which is holding the attention of researchers since its excavation in the 1960s (Podborský et al., 2002). The anthropological material from buried individuals strongly contributed to the revelation and reconstruction of the way of life of Moravian Early Neolithic people. In connection with buried individuals, the analyses of teeth microabrasion and stable isotopes were used. The analysis of traces on the enamel surface revealed the predominance of plant food, especially in female individuals. Evidence of meat consumption more often belonged to men. Proteins turned out to be more of animal origin, but there were also traces of plant proteins, probably from legumes (Jarošová & Tvrdý, 2017; Jarošová et al., 2008; Nystrom, 2008; Richards et al., 2005; Smrčka, Bůzek, & Zocová, 2008a; Smrčka et al., 2008b). As mentioned in section 2.6, the osteological analysis of animal bones from Vedrovice was used.
In Těšetice-Kyjovice, also the buried individuals were found, a total of 12 people (Dočkalová, 2005; Dočkalová & Čižmář, 2007; Dočkalová & Koštuřík, 1996; Koštuřík & Dočkalová, 1992; Koštuřík & Lorencová, 1989; Vostrovská, 2018; Vostrovská et al., 2012). Stable isotope analyses were also used here: primarily to determine the origin and potential migration of the deceased (Bickle et al., 2014; Smrčka, Bůzek, & Zocová, 2008a). In addition, stable isotope analysis was applied to animal (sheep) bones, mainly to investigate mortality (Gillis, 2018). Interestingly, Těšetice-Kyjovice is one of the few Neolithic localities where the presence of lipids on pottery sherds was investigated by gas chromatography (GC), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and gas chromatography-combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS) analysis. These analyses showed the presence of animal (ruminants and pigs) fats and, in one case, also milk fats in the vessels (Dunne, Roffet-Salque, & Evershed, 2018). As mentioned above, analyses of plant macroresidues are also used at the site (Lukšíková, 2013; Vostrovská, 2018).
4 Discussion
The fact that the reconstruction of the life of Early Neolithic communities has recently received increased attention; it seems that the area of Moravia lags a bit behind the rest of Central Europe. Research in Moravia has focused mainly on two sites (Vedrovice and Těšetice-Kyjovice), whereas knowledge about other settlements permeates the literature only very slowly. However, individual findings help to supplement the existing information. For this reason, it is hoped that the research of the Žádovice site will bring further information.
For the time being, it seems that the settlement in Žádovice corresponds with other Moravian LBK sites, at least in terms of focusing on animal husbandry. We can observe a predominance of cattle, followed in various proportions by sheep/goats and pigs. There are, of course, differences between the analyzed collections, but it could be caused by the collection size and the number of determined bones. From a geographical point of view (Figure 5), we can think of areas with a higher share of pig breeding: southwestern Moravia (Těšetice-Kyjovice, Hluboké Mašůvky, Vedrovice) and the area of the upper course of Morava river (Postřelmov, Olomouc-Nemilany, and maybe Uničov). However, we still have a relatively small amount of data to confirm or refute this hypothesis. In addition, the character of settlement areas (inner structure, chronology, etc.) should be considered. A strong focus on cattle breeding is known as a pan-European phenomenon (Arbogast & Jeunesse, 2013; Berthon, Kováčiková, Tresset, & Balasse, 2018; Bickle & Whittle, 2013; Bogucki, 1982; Kováčiková, Bréhard, Šumberová, Balasse, & Tresset, 2012), except the southern Europe where the animal husbandry was more focused on sheep/goats (Ethier et al., 2017; Tresset & Vigne, 2001).
The location of Moravian LBK sites, where the collection of animal bones was analyzed: (1) Velatice, (2) Brodek u Prostějova, (3) Olomouc-Nemilany, (4) Postřelmov, (5) Hulín I, (6) Chornice, (7) Holubice, (8) Hluboké Mašůvky, (9) Vedrovice, (10) Těšetice-Kyjovice, (11) Žádovice, (12) Malhostovice, (13) Uničov, (14) Mikulov, and (15) Drysice (authors: L. Bedáň and A. Čerevková).
The proportion of game at Moravian Early Neolithic sites seems to be relatively uniform, which does not exceed 10%. The only exception in Moravia so far is the Hluboké Mašůvky site, where, however, the data may be affected by later activities. After all, the portion of meat from hunted animals in the diet of the first farmers in the whole Czech Republic (including Moravian and Bohemian sites) usually did not exceed 10% (Dreslerová, 2006; Kováčiková, 2009; Peške, 1989). In the wider context of Europe, the situation is more variable and the proportion of game varies depending, for example, on the adaptation and use of the environment (Benecke, 2001; Tresset & Vigne, 2001) and the period of the settlement (Arbogast, 2001; Uerpmann, 2001). The situation may also differ within one settlement, among individual households (Hachem, 2000, 2011, 2017; Vostrovská, 2018). In the case study Žádovice, some pattern was observed as well: wild animals were concentrated within houses 1 and 2, whereas the subsistence of other houses seems to be more focused on domesticated animals. Based on the total number of animal bones, house 1 with its close pits stands out from other households thus we can suggest that there were some differences in diet preference.
Undoubtedly, somewhere the Early Neolithic people maintained subsistence activities from previous periods before the full agricultural subsistence took place (Borić et al., 2004). However, grinding stone tools, traditionally associated with plant food, were proven in Moravia in the Mesolithic period – at the only explored local site Smolín (Valoch, 1978). The patterns of (Late) Mesolithic plant use are known from other parts of Czech Republic, mainly the northern Bohemia (Divišová & Šída, 2015).
Some aspects of the subsistence strategy can be identified based on the findings obtained, as can be seen in the example of the Žádovice settlement and other Early Neolithic Moravian sites. Unfortunately, the means to ensure the application of a wide range of interdisciplinary methods and approaches are only slowly gaining ground. In any case, other aspects related to the subsistence strategy, such as the use of water resources (including wells), still need to be considered (Folejtarová, 2017; Přichystal, 2008; Rulf & Velímský, 1993; Stolz, 2004). It could lead to the spread of the notion of the Neolithic way of life. A separate chapter is on food storage (Kunz, 2004; Květina et al., 2015). As for other activities ensuring the survival of Early Neolithic communities, we must, of course, accept that we will probably not document them archaeologically in the area of Moravia due to conditions.
Considering the settlement structures of the Moravian LBK together with the evaluation of the material source base and their mutual comparison could lead to further findings. It would be appropriate to create specific models of subsistence strategies that could be retrospectively tested, for example, with the help of the results of interdisciplinary analyses. Only time will reveal whether this path is correct.
5 Conclusions
The Moravian Early Neolithic is still relatively little studied in terms of subsistence strategy. It may be related to the fact that the concept of subsistence strategy within the research of the Moravian LBK but also the whole Neolithic is practically exclusively connected with diet. However, the subsistence strategy also includes other activities that lead to the satisfaction of the basic needs necessary for survival, which is, in addition to food, primarily ensuring protection from external natural conditions. The definition of basic (or otherwise primary) and secondary needs may differ, depending on the sociological and psychological foundations we base ourselves on.
From the findings so far, it seems that the Moravian Early Neolithic subsistence strategy is no different from the situation we know from Central Europe. If we look at the species composition of farmed animals, we find that in most cases, the cattle predominate, followed by sheep/goats and pigs. There are, of course, exceptions that show differences in the ratio of species of this basic breed spectrum. Furthermore, in Moravia, the portion of wild animals did not exceed 10%. We can also think about some potential geographical differences, but this hypothesis should be affected by the obtained data. There is still relatively little knowledge about it to make relevant conclusions, and other aspects such as settlement strategy or the character of the sites should be considered.
The case study of the Žádovice site presented here provided valuable information in animal husbandry in the Early Neolithic of Moravia as it provided an extensive collection of animal bones. The predominance of cattle, followed by pigs and sheep/goats, is obvious. The spatial distribution of bones according to animal species was also observed here: some differences between particular households were observed, but not always very significant. In any case, the Žádovice site may offer the potential for further research, which is currently being used.
Abbreviations
- GC
-
gas chromatography
- GC-C-IRMS
-
gas chromatography-combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry
- GC-MS
-
gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
- GIS
-
Geographic Information System
- NISP
-
Number of Identified Specimens
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank G. Dreslerová (Masaryk Museum in Hodonín – Slavic fortified settlement in Mikulčice, The National Cultural Relic) for help with basic osteological analysis of the collection of animal bones from Žádovice site, and L. Bedáň (Department of Archaeology and Museology, Brno) for help with the GIS maps. Thanks also go to J. Novotný (Department of Archaeology and Museology, Brno) for important comments and J. Walker for the English corrections.
-
Funding information: The Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic financially supported this research by institutional financing of the long-term conceptual development of the research institution – the Moravian Museum (DRKVO 000094862).
-
Conflict of interest: Author states no conflict of interest.
-
Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animals use.
-
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Arbogast, R.-M. (2001). Variabilité de la représentation des animaux sauvages et statut de la chasse sur les sites du Rubané du Nord de la France. In R.-M. Arbogast , C. Jeunesse , & J. Schibler (Eds.), Rôle et statut de la chasse dans le Néolithique ancien danubien (Actes des premières rencontres danubiennes Strasbourg, pp. 77–90). Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, International Archäologie.Search in Google Scholar
Arbogast, R.-M. , & Jeunesse, C. (2013). Early Neolithic pastoral traditions and cultural groups in northern France. In C. Colledge , J. Connoly , K. Dobney , K. Manning , & S. Shennan (Eds.), The origins and spread of domestic animals in Southwest Asia and Europe (pp. 271 –282). Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bakels, C. C. (1992). Fruits and seeds from the linearbandkeramik settlement at Meindling, Germany, with special reference to Papaver Somniferum. In The end of our third decade, papers written on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the institute of prehistory (Vol. I, pp. 55–68). Leiden: Leiden University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bartík, J. (2012). Broušená a ostatní kamenná industrie z mikroregionu povodí řeky Želetavky. (Bachelor thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Benecke, N. (2001). Zur Bedeutung der Jagd während der Linienbandkeramik im südöstlichen Mitteleuropa und in Osteuropa. In R.-M. Arbogast , C. Jeunesse , & J. Schibler (Eds.), Rôle et statut de la chasse dans le Néolithique ancien danubien (Actes des premières rencontres danubiennes Strasbourg, pp. 39–56). Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, International Archäologie.Search in Google Scholar
Berkovec, T. , & Nývltová Fišáková, M. (2003). Analýza osteologického materiálu z vybraných objektů sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích “Široké u lesa”. Přehled Výzkumů, 44, 17–39.Search in Google Scholar
Berthon, R. , Kováčiková, L. , Tresset, A. , & Balasse, M. (2018). Integration of Linearbandkeramik cattle husbandry in the forested landscape of the mid-Holocene climate optimum: Seasonal-scale investigations in Bohemia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 51, 16–27.10.1016/j.jaa.2018.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Bickle, P. (2016). Varied mobility in the Neolithic: The Linearbandkeramik on the move. In J. Leary & T. Kador (Eds.), Moving on in Neolithic studies: Understanding mobile lives (pp. 14–27). Oxford: Oxbow.Search in Google Scholar
Bickle, P. (2018). Stable isotopes and dynamic diets: The Mesolithic-Neolithic dietary transition in terrestrial central Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science – Reports, 22, 444–451.10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.09.017Search in Google Scholar
Bickle, P. , & Whittle, A. (Eds.). (2013). The first farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK lifeways. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books.Search in Google Scholar
Bickle, P. , Bentley, A. , Dočkalová, M. , Fibiger, L. , Griffiths, S. , Hamilton, J. , … Whittle, A. (2014). Early Neolithic Lifeways in Moravia and western Slovakia: Comparing archaeological, osteological and isotopic data from cemetery and settlement burials of the linearbandkeramik (LBK). Anthropologie, LI/1, 1–38.Search in Google Scholar
Bína, J. , & Demek, J. (2012). Z nížin do hor. Geomorfologické jednotky České republiky. Praha: Academia.Search in Google Scholar
Bogaard, A. (2004). Neolithic farming in Central Europe. An archaeobotanical study of crop husbandry practices. London, New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203358009Search in Google Scholar
Bogaard, A. (2005). ‘Garden agriculture’ and the nature of early farming in Europe and the near East. World Archaeology, 37(2), 177–196.10.1080/00438240500094572Search in Google Scholar
Bogaard, A. , Krause, R. , & Strien, H.-Ch. (2011). Towards a social geography of cultivation and plant use in an early farming community: Vaihingen an der Enz, Southwest Germany. Antiquity, 85, 395–416.10.1017/S0003598X00067831Search in Google Scholar
Bogaard, A. , Fraser, R. A. , Heaton, T. H. E. , Wallace, M. , Vaiglova, P. , Charles, M. , Jones, G. , … Stephan, E. (2013). Crop manuring and intensive land management by europe’s first farmers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(31), 12589–12594.10.1073/pnas.1305918110Search in Google Scholar
Bogucki, P. (1982). Early Neolithic subsistence and settlement in the Polish lowlands. British archaeological reports international series 50. Oxford: Archaeopress.10.30861/9780860541882Search in Google Scholar
Borić, D. , Grupe, G. , Peters, J. , & Mikić, Ž. (2004). Is the Mesolithic–Neolithic Subsistence Dichotomy Real? New Stable Isotope Evidence from the Danube Gorges. European Journal of Archaeology, 7(3): 221–248. 10.1080/14614103.2018.1424981.Search in Google Scholar
Çilingiroğlu, Ç. (2005). The concept of “Neolithic package”: Considering its meaning and applicability. Documenta Praehistorica, 32, 1–13.10.4312/dp.32.1Search in Google Scholar
Chlupáč, I. , Brzobohatý, R. , Kovanda, J. , & Stráník, Z. (2011). Geologická minulost České republiky. Praha: Academia.Search in Google Scholar
Clason, A. T. (1970). The animal bones of the bandceramic and middle age settlements near Bylany in Bohemia. Paleohistoria, 14, 1–17.Search in Google Scholar
Crees, J. J. , & Turvey, S. T. (2014). Holocene extinction dynamics of Equus hydruntinus, a late surviving European megafaunal mammal. Quaternary Science Reviews, 91, 16–29.10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.03.003Search in Google Scholar
Cristiani, E. , Dimitrijević, V. , & Vitezović, S. (2016). Fishing with lure hooks at the Late Neolithic Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo, Serbia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 65, 134–147.10.1016/j.jas.2015.11.005Search in Google Scholar
Čerevková, A. (2015). Sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou v Žádovicích (okr. Hodonín). (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Čerevková, A. , Kuča, M. , Petřík, J. , & Uhlířová, H. (2011). Neolitické sídliště v trati Rybníčky v Malhostovicích, místní část Nuzířov (okr. Brno-venkov). Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Sociales, XCVI(2), 37–60.Search in Google Scholar
Čižmář, Z. (1998). Nástin relativní chronologie lineární keramiky na Moravě. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Sociales, LXXXIII, 105–139.Search in Google Scholar
Čižmář, Z. , & Geislerová, K. (1998). Pohřby v jamách na sídlišti kultury s lineární keramikou v Žádovicích, okr. Hodonín. Pravěk Nová Řada, 7(1997), 39–75.Search in Google Scholar
Davidová, T. (2007). Šárecký stupeň na horním toku Moravy. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Charles Univerzity, Praha.Search in Google Scholar
Demek, J. (Ed.). (1987). Hory a nížiny. Zeměpisný lexikon ČSR. Praha: Academia.Search in Google Scholar
Divišová, M. (2012). Current knowledge of the Neolithisation process: A Central European perspective. Interdisciplinaria archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology, 3(1), 141–153.10.24916/iansa.2012.1.10Search in Google Scholar
Divišová, M. , & Šída, P. (2015). Plant use in the mesolithic period. Archaeobotanical data from the Czech republic in a European context – A review. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica, VI(1) 95–106.10.24916/iansa.2015.1.7Search in Google Scholar
Dočkalová, M. (2005). Nálezy neolitických koster z Těšetic (okr. Znojmo). In I. Cheben & I. Kuzma (Eds.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín – 2004. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae. Communicationes (Vol. 8, pp. 21–30). Nitra: Archeologický ústav SAV.Search in Google Scholar
Dočkalová, M. , & Čižmář, Z. (2007). Neolithic children burials at moravian settlements in the Czech Republic. Anthropologie, XLV(1), 31–59.Search in Google Scholar
Dočkalová, M. , & Koštuřík, P. (1996). Seskupení hrobů nositelů kultury s lineární keramikou na neolitickém sídlišti v Těšeticích-Kyjovicích, okr. Znojmo. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity, Řada M, 1, 5–30.Search in Google Scholar
Dreslerová, G. (2004). Domácí, lovná fauna a kostěná, parohová industrie z objektů s lineární a moravskou malovanou keramikou z lokality Těšetice-Kyjovice. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Dreslerová, G. (2005). Osteologický materiál. In Z. Hájek (Ed.), 2005: Ohrazené areály kultury s lineární keramikou na Moravě (II). Uničov Na nivách (Archaelogiae Regionalis Fontes 7, pp. 58–59). Olomouc: Archeologické centrum Olomouc.Search in Google Scholar
Dreslerová, G. (2006). Zpracování zvířecích kostí z neolitického sídliště Těšetice-Kyjovice (okr. Znojmo, Česká republika). Archeologické Rozhledy, 58, 3–32.Search in Google Scholar
Dreslerová, G. (2007a). Archeozoologická analýza souborů zvířecích kostí z lokalit Olomouc-Nemilany IV – “Intravilán” a Brodek u Prostějova – “Hůrka”. In I. Vostrovská (Ed.), 2007: Nové poznatky ke kultuře s lineární keramikou na střední Moravě. (Bachelor thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Dreslerová, G. (2007b). Archeozoologické vyhodnocení souboru zvířecích kostí. In Z. Hájek (Ed.), 2007: Osada kultury s lineární keramikou a moravskou malovanou keramikou v Chornici. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Dunne, J. , Roffet-Salque, M. , & Evershed, R. P. (2018). Preliminary report on organic residue analysis of pottery from Těšetice, Czech Republic. In I. Vostrovská (Ed.), 2018: Těšetice-Kyjovice – Komunitní areál prvních zemědělců. (Scientific research dissertation). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Ethier, J. , Bánffy, E. , Vuković, J. , Leshtakov, K. , Bacvarov, K. , Roffet-Salque, M. , … Ivanova, M. (2017). Earliest expansion of animal husbandry beyond the Mediterranean zone in the sixth millenium BC. Scientific Reports, 7, 1–10.10.1038/s41598-017-07427-xSearch in Google Scholar
Folejtarová, L. (2017). Využití podpovrchové vody ve starším pravěku střední Evropy. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Charles Univerzity, Praha.Search in Google Scholar
Geislerová, K. (1985). Sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou v Holubicích. Archeologické Rozhledy, 37, 368–373.Search in Google Scholar
Geislerová, K. (1989). Záchranný výzkum neolitického a eneolitického sídliště v Žádovicích (okr. Hodonín). Přehled Výzkumů, 1986, 24.Search in Google Scholar
Geislerová, K. (1992). Sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou v Drysicích, okr. Vyškov. Pravěk Nová Řada, 1992(2), 5–22.Search in Google Scholar
Gillis, R. E. (2018). Mortalita skotu, ovcí/koz a izotopové analýzy. In I. Vostrovská (Ed.), 2018: Těšetice-Kyjovice – Komunitní areál prvních zemědělců. (Scientific research dissertation). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Goš, V. , & Halama, J. (2004). Postřelmov - u Františka, [Unpublished excavation report]. Šumperk museum, Šumperk.Search in Google Scholar
Goslar, T. (2004). Postřelmov. Report on C – 14 dating in the Poznań radiocarbon laboratory. In T. Davidová (Ed.), (2007): Šárecký stupeň na horním toku Moravy. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Charles Univerzity, Praha.Search in Google Scholar
Gronenborn, D. (2007). Beyond the models: ‘Neolithisation‘ in Central Europe. In A. Whittle & V. Cummings (Eds.), Going over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in North-West Europe (pp. 73–98). London: Oxford University Press.10.5871/bacad/9780197264140.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Hachem, L. (2000). New observations on the Bandkeramik house and social organization. Antiquity, 74, 308–312.10.1017/S0003598X00059342Search in Google Scholar
Hachem, L. (2011). Le site néolithique de Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes – I. De lˈanalyse de la faune à la structuration sociale (Internationale Archäologie, 120). Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.Search in Google Scholar
Hachem, L. (2017). Animals in LBK society: Identity and gender markers. Journal of Archaeological Science – Reports, 20, 910–921.10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.09.020Search in Google Scholar
Hachem, L. , & Hamon, C. (2014). Linear pottery culture household organisation. An economic model. Proceeding of the British Academy, 198, 159–180.Search in Google Scholar
Hájek, Z. , Humpolová, A. , & Balcárková, A. (2015). Materiál kultury s lineární keramikou ze smíšených objektů a intruzivních nálezů z ohrazeného sídliště v Hlubokých Mašůvkách v poloze “Nivky”. Studia Archaeologica Brunensia, 20(1), 21–54.Search in Google Scholar
Holub, M. (2013). Olomouc – Nemilany ulice Kožušanská. Zpráva o analýze osteologického materiálu. In M. Kalábek (Ed.), Nálezová zpráva ze záchranného archeologického výzkumu. Olomouc – Nemilany, Kožušanská ulice, 2. část. Olomouc: Archeologické Centrum.Search in Google Scholar
Janák, V. (2004). Ke kontinuitě neolitického obyvatelstva na březích řeky Opavy. Acta Archaeologica Opaviensia, 1, 73–89.Search in Google Scholar
Janák, V. , Knápek, A. , & Papáková, K. (2011). Sídliště ve Studénce v kontextu osídlení kultury s lineární keramikou v Oderské bráně. Přehled Výzkumů, 52(1), 51–73.Search in Google Scholar
Jarošová, I. , Dočkalová, M. , & Fojtová, M. (2008). Vybrané dentální charakteristiky obyvatelstva ze sídlišť na Moravě – Předběžná zpráva. Ve službách Archeologie, 8(1), 222–241.Search in Google Scholar
Jarošová, I. , & Tvrdý, Z. (2017). Diet and diversity of early farmers in Neolithic period (LBK): Buccal dental microwear and stable isotopic analysis at Vedrovice (Czech Republic) and Nitra-Horné Krškany (Slovakia). Anthropologie, LV(3), 353–384.Search in Google Scholar
Klíma, B. (1971). Neolitické sídliště u Mikulova (okres Břeclav) (Eine neolithische Siedlung bei Mikulov, Bez. Břeclav). Přehled Výzkumů, 1970, 10–11.Search in Google Scholar
Kočár, P. , & Dreslerová, D. (2010). Archeobotanické nálezy pěstovaných rostlin v pravěku České republiky. Památky Archeologické, 101, 203–242.Search in Google Scholar
Koštuřík, P. , & Lorencová, A. (1989). Kostrový hrob H11 kultury s lineární keramikou z neolitického sídliště u Těšetic-Kyjovic, okr. Znojmo. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity, Řada E, 34–35, 103–126.Search in Google Scholar
Koštuřík, P. , & Dočkalová, M. (1992). Hrob H14 kultury s moravskou malovanou keramikou v Těšeticích-Kyjovicích, okr. Znojmo. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity, Řada E, 37, 25–42.Search in Google Scholar
Kováčiková, L. (2009). Příspěvek k poznání výživy a hospodářského zázemí neolitického sídliště v Černém Volu, okr. Praha-Západ. Archeologické Rozhledy, 61(2), 254–264.Search in Google Scholar
Kováčiková, L. (2011). Archeozoologie neolitu Čech. (Scientific research dissertation). Faculty of Science, Archa University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice.Search in Google Scholar
Kováčiková, L. , Bréhard, S. , Šumberová, R. , Balasse, M. , & Tresset, A. (2012). The new insights into the subsistence and early farming from neolithic settlements in Central Europe: The archaeozoological evidence from the Czech Republic. Archaeofauna, 21, 71–97.Search in Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, Z. (1973). Der Fund von Equus (Hydruntinus) hyduntinus (Regalia, 1907), und anderer Säuger aus dem Süd-mährischen Neolithikum. Slovenská Archeológia, 21(1), 195–210.Search in Google Scholar
Květina, P. , Řídký, J. , Končelová, M. , Burgert, P. , Šumberová, R. , Pavlů, I. , … Unger, J. (2015). Minulost, kterou nikdo nezapsal. Praha.Search in Google Scholar
Květina, P. , & Řídký, J. (2016). Neolithic settlement space: Waste, deposition and identity. In D. Sosna & L. Brunclíková (Eds.), Archaeologies of waste. Encounters with the unwanted (pp. 127–144). Philadelphia: Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Kuča, M. , Kovář, J. J. , Nývltová Fišáková, M. , Škrdla, P. , Prokeš, L. , Vaškových, M. , & Schenk, Z. (2012). Chronologie neolitu na Moravě: Předběžné výsledky. Přehled Výzkumů, 53(1), 51–64.Search in Google Scholar
Kunz, L. (2004). Obilní jámy: Konzervace obilí na dlouhý čas v historické zóně eurosibiřského a mediteránního rolnictví. Rolnictví na východní Moravě od baroka do II. světové války 1. Rožnov pod Radhoštěm: Valašské Muzeum v Přírodě v Rožnově pod Radhoštěm.Search in Google Scholar
Kyselý, R. , & Peške, L. (2016). Horse size and domestication: Early equid bones from Czech Republic in the Europen context. Anthropozoologica, 51, 15–39.10.5252/az2016n1a2Search in Google Scholar
Lukšíková, H. (2013). Archeobotanika lokality Těšetice-Kyjovice “Sutny”. Makrozbytková analýza pravěkých objektů ze sezón 2005–2009. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (2014). O psychologii bytí. Praha: Portäl.Search in Google Scholar
Mateiciucová, I. (2008). Talking stones: The chipped stone industry in Lower Austria and Moravia and the beginnings of the Neolithic Central Europe (LBK), 5700–4900 BC. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Brunenses/Pragensesque, 4. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.Search in Google Scholar
Matějíčková, A. (1999). Sídliště kultury zvoncovitých pohárů v Žádovicích (okr. Hodonín). Pravěk Supplementum, 5, 103–199.Search in Google Scholar
Musil, R. (1978). Die endpaläolithische (mesolithische) Faunagemeinschaft von Smolín. In K. Valoch (Ed.), 1978: Die endpaläolithische Siedlung in Smolín (mit Beitragen von W. G Mook, R. Musil, J. Pelíšek). Studie archeologického Ústavu ČSAV Brno, VI/3. Praha: Archeologický ústav ČSAV.Search in Google Scholar
Nerudová, Z. (2011). Kamenná štípaná industrie kultury s lineární keramikou ze Žádovic (okr. Hodonín). Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Socialec, XCVI(1), 19–31.Search in Google Scholar
Neustupný, E. (1998). The transformation of community areas into settlement areas. In E. Neustupný (Ed.), Space in prehistoric Bohemia (pp. 45–61). Praha: Archeologický ústav AV ČR.Search in Google Scholar
Nystrom, P. (2008). Dental microwear signatures of an Early LBK population from Vedrovice, Moravia, the Czech Republic. Anthropologie, 46(2–3), 161–173.Search in Google Scholar
Nývltová Fišáková, M. (2003). Analýza osteologického materiálu z vybraných objektů sidliště kultury s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích – “Široká u lesa”. Přehled Výzkumů, 44, 17–39.Search in Google Scholar
Nývltová Fišáková, M. (2004a). Fauna z lokality Vedrovice. In M. Lutovský (Ed.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu 2003. (pp. 63–68). Praha: Ústav archeologické památkové péče středních Čech.Search in Google Scholar
Nývltová Fišáková, M. (2004b). Fauna z vybraných objektů z lokality Vedrovice (Lineární keramika-neolit). Ve službách Archeologie, V, 173–179.Search in Google Scholar
Nývltová Fišáková, M. (2007). Archezoologická analýza zvířecího osteologického materiálu z lokality Hulín I. In I. Vostrovská 2007: Nové poznatky ke kultuře s lineární keramikou na střední Moravě. (Bachelor thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Oliva, M. (2018). Mezolit na Moravě ve světle nových výzkumů a poznatků. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Sociales, CIII(1), 3–33.Search in Google Scholar
Pavlů, I. (2014). Společnost a lidé na neolitickém sídlišti Bylany. Society and people on a Neolithic site of Bylany. Praha: Archeologický ústav AV ČR.Search in Google Scholar
Peške, L. (1985). Osteologické nálezy z Holubic. Archeologické Rozhledy, 37, 373–374.Search in Google Scholar
Peške, L. (1989). Animal bones from Bylany. In J. Rulf (Ed.), Bylany seminar 1987 (pp. 265–271). Praha: Archeologický ústav ČSAV.Search in Google Scholar
Plesníková, M. (2017). Sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou na lokalitě Nemilany – Kožušanská ulice a osídlení této kultury na Olomoucku. (Bachelor thesis). Faculty of Arts, Palackého University, Olomouc.Search in Google Scholar
Podborský, V. (Ed.). (1993). Pravěké dějiny moravy, Vlastivěda moravská, Země a lid, Nová řada, svazek 3. Brno: Spektum.Search in Google Scholar
Podborský, V. , Čižmář, Z. , Dočkalová, M. , Hladilová, Š. , Humpolová, A. , Jelínek, J. , … Salaš, M. (Eds.). (2002). Dvě pohřebiště neolitického lidu s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.Search in Google Scholar
Přichystal, M. (2008). Brno (k. ú. Bohunice, Nový a Starý Lískovec, okr. Brno-město). In Z. Čižmář (Ed.), Život a smrt v mladší době kamenné (pp. 50–59). Brno: Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Rainsford, C. , O’Connor, T. , & Miracle, P. (2014). Fishing in the Adriatic at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition: Evidence from Vela Spila, Croatia. Environmental Archaeology, 19(3), 311–320.10.1179/1749631414Y.0000000018Search in Google Scholar
Rebrošová, P. (2013). Velatice. Ohrazené sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou ve východní části Brněnska. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J. , Bard, E. , Bayliss, A. , Beck, J. W. , Blackwell, P. G. , Ramsey, C. B. , … Plicht, J. V. D. (2013). INTCAL13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 55(4), 1869–1887.10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947Search in Google Scholar
Reingruber, A. (2011). Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica, 38, 291–305.10.4312/dp.38.23Search in Google Scholar
Richards, M. P. , Jacobi, R. , Cook, J. , Pettitt, P. B. , & Stringer, C. B. (2005). Isotope evidence for the intensive use of marine foods by Late Upper Palaeolithic humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 49(3), 390–394.10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Rulf, J. , & Velímský, T. (1993). A neolithic well from most. Archeologické Rozhledy, 45(4), 545–560.Search in Google Scholar
Sádlo, J. , Pokorný, P. , Hájek, P. , Dreslerová, D. , & Cílek, V. (2008). Krajina a revoluce. Významné přelomy ve vývoji kulturní krajiny českých zemí. Praha: Malá Skála.Search in Google Scholar
Schenk, Z. (2007). Jihozápadní část Moravské brány v době osídlení kultury s lineární keramikou. Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich zemí. Sborník referátů z 25. zasedání badatelů pro výzkum neolitu Čech, Moravy a Slovenska. Archeologické studie Univerzity Hradec Králové, svazek, 1 (pp. 211–244). Hradec Králové: Univerzita Hradec Králové.Search in Google Scholar
Shennan, S. (2018). The first farmers of Europe: An evolutionary perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108386029Search in Google Scholar
Smrčka, V. , Bůzek, F. , & Zocová, J. (2008a). C and N stable isotopes in a Set of 17 Skeletons from the Vedrovice cemetery. Anthropologie. International Journal of Human Diversity and Evolution, 46(2–3), 227–231.Search in Google Scholar
Smrčka, V. , Mihaljevič, M. , Zocová, J. , Šebek, O. , Humpolová, A. , Berkovec, T. , & Dočkalová, M. (2008b). Trace-elemental analysis of skeletal remains of humans and animals at the Neolithic settlement in Vedrovice (Czech Republic). Anthropologie, XLVI(2–3), 219–226.Search in Google Scholar
Soukup, M. (2015). Základy kulturní antropologie (2nd ed.). Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart.Search in Google Scholar
Stolz, D. (2004). Neolitické studny se zachovanou dřevěnou konstrukcí a jejich organický obsah – fascinující pohled do zmizelého světa. Živá Archeologie – (Re)konstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii, 5, 29–48.Search in Google Scholar
Sůvová, Z. (2018). Druhové určení drobných obratlovců. In I. Vostrovská (Ed.), Těšetice-Kyjovice. Komunitní areál prvních zemědělců. (Scientific research dissertation). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Šída, P. (2013). O počátcích výroby neolitické broušené industrie. Archeologie Západních Čech, 7(2014), 26–33.Search in Google Scholar
Šída, P. (2014). Metabazit typu Jizerské hory v mezolitických kolekcích Českého ráje. Rekonstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii. Živá Archeologie, 16(2014), 29–31.Search in Google Scholar
Šikulová, V. (1961). K otázce rybolovu v mladší době kamenné. Časopis Slezského Muzea, Série B, 10, 1–18.Search in Google Scholar
Šmíd, M. (2002). Příspěvek k poznání pohřebního ritu kultury nálevkovitých pohárů na Moravě. In I. Cheben & I. Kuzma (Eds.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín 2001 (pp. 375–391). Nitra: Archeologický ústav SAV.Search in Google Scholar
Trampota, F. (2016). Sídelní a distribuční struktury v neolitu v regionu povodí Dyje. (Scientific research dissertation). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Tresset, A. , & Vigne, J.-D. (2001). La chasse, principal élément structurant la diversité des faunes archéologiques du Néolithique ancien, en Europe tempérée et an Mediterranée: Tentavie dˈinterprétation fonctionelle. In R.-M. Arbogast , C. Jeunesse , & J. Schibler (Eds.), Rôle et statut de la chasse dans le Néolithique ancien danubien (Actes des premières rencontres danubiennes Strasbourg, pp. 125–151). Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, International Archäologie.Search in Google Scholar
Uerpmann, M. (2001). Animaux sauvages et domestiques du Rubane “le plus ancien“ (LBK 1) en Allemagne. In R.-M. Arbogast , C. Jeunesse , & J. Schibler (Eds.), Rôle et statut de la chasse dans le Néolithique ancien danubien (Actes des premières rencontres danubiennes Strasbourg, pp. 57–75). Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, International Archäologie.Search in Google Scholar
Uhlířová, H. (2012). Fauna a kostěná a parohová industrie z nových výzkumů v sektoru B4 z lokality Těšetice-Kyjovice “Sutny”. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Uhlířová, H. (2013). Osteologická zpráva. In P. Rebrošová (Ed.), 2013: Velatice. Ohrazené sídliště kultury s lineární keramikou ve východní části Brněnska. (Diploma thesis). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Valoch, K. (1978). Die endpaläolithische Siedlung in Smolín (mit Beitragen von W. G Mook, R. Musil, J. Pelíšek). Studie Archeologického Ústavu ČSAV Brno, VI/3. Praha: Archeologický ústav ČSAV.Search in Google Scholar
Valoch, K. (1989). The Mesolithic site of Smolin, South Moravia. In C. Bonsall (Ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe (pp. 461–470). Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Vaškových, M. (2006). Vývoj osídlení středního a severní části dolního Pomoraví v neolitu a na počátku eneolitu. (Scientific research dissertation). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Vaškových, M. , Schenk, Z. , Kuča, M. , Škrdla, P. , & Langová, J. (2008). Předběžná zpráva o struktuře neolitického osídlení střední a severní části dolního Pomoraví a dolního Pobečví. In I. Cheben & I. Kuzma (Eds.), Otázky neolitu a eneolitu našich krajín – Nitra 2007 (pp. 295–304). Nitra: Archeologický ústav SAV.Search in Google Scholar
Vostrovská, I. (2018). Těšetice-Kyjovice. Komunitní areál prvních zemědělců. (Dissertation). Faculty of Arts, Masaryk Univerzity, Brno.Search in Google Scholar
Vostrovská, I. , Hájek, Z. , Šabatová, K. , Kazdová, E. , Kuča, M. , & Trampota, F. (2012). Kyjovice (okr. Znojmo) “Sutny”. LnK. MMK. Sídliště. Systematický výzkum. Přehled Výzkumů, 53(1), 132–34.Search in Google Scholar
Vostrovská, I. , Bíšková, J. , Lukšíková, H. , Kočár, P. , & Kočárová, R. (2018). The Environment and Subsistence of the Early Neolithic Settlement Area at Těšetice-Kyjovice, Czech Republic. Environmental Archaeology, 24(3), 248–262. 10.1080/14614103.2018.1424981.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Alžběta Čerevková, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
