T

HE SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC

REFUSE FROM THE

NEOLITHIC SITE AT

BYLANY, CZECH REPUBLIC

Petr Kvetina
Institute of Archaeology, Prague, Czech Republic

Abstract: This article aims to provide an interpretation of the structure and spatial patterning of the
non-ceramic refuse from the Neolithic site of Bylany. The data are considered at three levels:
tackling questions of refuse management and deposition in the vicinity of houses; the spatial
distribution of refuse within the settlement area as a whole; and the quantity and structure of nonceramic refuse from a long-term settlement perspective. The analysed assemblage of non-ceramic
finds is divided into five categories: chipped stone, polished stone, whetstones, manos/metates,
and other stones without use-wear traces. The analysis is based on GIS and multivariate statistics.
The spatial distribution and quantity of refuse are analysed with respect to space (in terms of proximity to Neolithic houses and the whole of the excavated settlement area) and time (the duration
of settlement in six chronological stages). No deliberate pattern of refuse management was identified in the vicinity of the houses, but the refuse was found to have a tendency towards peripheral
grouping within the settled area as a whole. Refuse quantity depends on the number of houses
and settlement duration. The negative correlation between the mean density of non-ceramic artefacts per house and the number of houses in corresponding chronological stages may be explained
by the interpretation that refuse was commonly deposited within abandoned houses, which
would be consistent with ethnoarchaeological observations.
Keywords: Bylany, ethnoarchaeology, Linear Pottery Culture (LBK), Neolithic, non-ceramic finds,
settlement refuse

I NTRODUCTION
This article comprises a quantitative spatial analysis of the non-pottery assemblage
from the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) settlement at Bylany near Kutn Hora
(Fig. 1). Archaeological excavations of the Bylany site started at the beginning of
the 1950s. At that time, only one larger-scale excavation of a Neolithic settlement
site existed, at Kln-Lindenthal, Germany (Buttler and Haberey 1936). The initial
interpretation of the LBK settlement pattern, based on the results of that excavation, proposed that long pits had, for example, a residential function. The primary
aim of the Bylany excavations was therefore to provide comparative material and
get more information about the first farming culture in central Europe. The goals of
the Bylany project were formulated in several subsequent steps:
European Journal of Archaeology Vol. 13(3): 336367
Copyright 2010 SAGE Publications ISSN 14619571 DOI:10.1177/1461957110386673

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

337

Figure 1. Bylany location map within LBK settlement area in Bohemia (after Pavlu and Zpotock
2007: fig.2).

1.
2.
3.
4.

To reveal the complete Neolithic settlement on the site (Soudsk 1962).

To create a formalized description system, and successively test it for automatic data treatment (Soudsk 1967).
To analyse archaeological data primarily concerned with the chronology of
LBK pottery and settlement (Pavlu 1989; Soudsk and Pavlu 1972).
To publish the research results and make the archaeological data from
Bylany accessible in a way that would allow further processing and analysis
in the future (Kvetina and Pavlu 2007; Pavlu 2000).

The Bylany excavation was initiated by B. Soudsk and up to the present it

remains one of the longest-running Czech archaeological projects, at present
being undertaken by a fourth generation of researchers. Large-scale excavations
began in 1956 and ended in 1967 due to the changing political situation in
Czechoslovakia. Almost 7 ha of Neolithic settlement comprising 144 ground
plans of LBK long houses and hundreds of pits were excavated (Fig. 2). To date it
remains the largest Neolithic settlement site known in the Czech Republic,
although only part of the excavation that was originally projected was actually
carried out.

338

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

Figure 2. Plan of excavated sectors A, B, and F showing the attribution of structures to chronological
stages (Bylany images n.d. http://www.bylany.com/images/Bylany%20chronology.jpg).

Following the excavation phase, the main documentation and publication of

the archaeological material from Bylany was undertaken in the 1980s. Research
in the following decades focused on re-evaluation of the excavated archaeological material and on survey of the sites surroundings. The Neolithic LBK settlement proved not to be isolated, since this is one of the regions of Bohemia with
the highest density of settlement. Settlements here are found on slight slopes covered with fertile soils on loess subsoil (Fig. 1). The fourth envisaged phase of the
project is being realized at present; it consists of making the documented archaeological data available in a hybrid printed and electronic publication, and on the
internet (bylany.com 20042009).
Although it is necessary to examine all the archaeological material from a given
site to gain a global insight on the discard processes, this proved to be a lengthy
task for the huge assemblage from Bylany. This article is limited to a study of the
following categories of non-ceramic refuse: chipped stone (flints), polished stone
(axeheads and adze-blades), whetstones (abrading, smoothing, polishing tools),
manos and metates (grinding slabs and handstones), and other stones without usewear traces.1 Artefacts in these categories were not studied further, for example
with regard to the completeness of a tool, its size or weight, because the spatial
analysis focused on the quantity of non-ceramic refuse as an indicator of general
deposition patterns. Analysis of the non-ceramic artefacts concentrates on three

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

339

aspects: the first concerns refuse management and its deposition in the vicinity of
houses; the second deals with the overall distribution of non-ceramic refuse within
the settlement as a whole; and the third refers to the quantity and structure of
non-ceramic refuse in relation to the long duration of the settlement.
When studying the remains from ancient settlements, it is necessary to remember
that the individual items of the surviving artefact assemblage, and the assemblage
as a whole, have undergone many changes both during and after use. Deposition
of the assemblage items on a settlement is not a result of a single historic event.
Various factors, which may be classed in general terms as C (cultural) and N (noncultural) transforms or transformations (Schiffer 1987:7, 22) played their part in
the process of assemblage formation. The present analysis is concerned with the
C transforms involved in the primary spatial distribution of the artefact assemblage, here categorized as refuse, covering a broad range of both portable and
immovable features (pits, post-holes, i.e. former houses), which had completed
their primary purpose and were subsequently discarded.
Refuse treatment is considered an anthropologically behavioural constant,
which means that this phenomenon is common to all known historic and present
cultures. The quantity and structure of refuse differs with a societys economy and
complexity; refuse produced by an industrial urban agglomeration is different
from that of a rural agricultural settlement. Populations differing socially or culturally also define refuse in different ways; an empty tin can discarded as waste by
one society may in another represent a useful container (Staski and Sutro 1991:3).
Societies differ not only in the production of refuse and its structure and definition,
but also in their decision-making as to how to manage refuse. Interest in discard
practice grows with the degree of sedentism and the spatial limitations of settlement relocation. Refuse management is the least developed and sophisticated in
mobile societies, which results in a high spatial correlation between the function of
an object and its discard, whereas industrial cities obviously feature the highest
degree of refuse management, connected to the need of their populations to maintain a comfortable long-term existence within a limited space. In pre-industrialized, agricultural populations, refuse consists mainly of kitchen scraps, human and
animal waste, ashes, discarded work items and everyday tools, and abandoned
dwelling, working and storage structures or parts thereof, and it seems legitimate
to compare the refuse treatment by recognizably similar societies, such as those of
the LBK villages.

M ATERIAL

AND METHODS

Three separate areas, labelled sectors A, B and F, were uncovered during the
archaeological excavation in Bylany (Pavlu 2000:15). Sector A is the largest, covering in total 44,693 m2, and sectors B and F cover 13,409 m2 and 11, 878 m2 respectively (Fig. 2). Table 1 shows the number of preserved household ground plans
and archaeological features in each sector.
The LBK settlement in Bylany spans the period 53504900 cal BC (Pavlu 2000:270,
317318), and it consists of settlement remains formed by the pits and post-holes of

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

340

Table 1. Number of houses and pits identified per sector.

Sector

Number of houses

Number of phased
construction complexes

Number of phased pits

A
B
F

86
25
33

70
19
24

208
70
68

structures. The basic spatial-chronological unit of the settlement is defined as a

construction complex, which consists of the post-hole ground plan of a house and
any adjacent pits situated within 5 m of the postulated walls of the house (Fig. 3).
This criterion of a 5 m distance from the walls was defined after consideration of
the overall distribution of pits and house-plans across the settlement (Pavlu
1977:13). The purpose of the pits adjacent to the house walls is not completely
clear. It is assumed that the pits served primarily as extraction pits for the material
necessary for house construction. In the course of the life of the house the pits filled
with refuse and natural in-wash, but the length of the interval during which the
pits were being filled is not known.
The Bylany LBK settlement has been divided into 25 chronological phases
(Pavlu 2000:238240; Pavlu et al. 1986:352355), on the basis of the sequence of construction complexes and pottery typology. These original settlement phases are
artificial time intervals, to each of which the same constant value of 20 years has
been attributed. This constant creates a relative timescale and represents roughly
one generation of inhabitants, during which house reconstruction is usually taken
to have occurred. This means one reconstruction per house per generation. These

Figure 3. Plan of house 88 including designation of the houses hypothetical tripartite internal
space and external area with pits belonging to the construction complex according to analysis.
(Modified after Soudsk and Pavlu 1972:318.)

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

341

reconstructions were, nonetheless, not mutually synchronized, so are not necessarily

simultaneous within phases.
The construction complexes of each phase serve as a probable representation of
functionally and, in a given time-horizon, chronologically close settlement units.
Phases are, however, too short a timespan to be suitable for the analysis of nonceramic spatial distribution, since they were defined without taking into account
artefacts other than pottery. If the other artefact types (manos/metates, chipped
stone, polished stone and so on) are included in the typo-chronological classification, six chronological stages are obtained (Pavlu 2000: 268). These stages reflect
significant horizons within the finds assemblages, as first detected in the typology
of manos/metates (Pavlu 1982). Each stage encompasses several phases (Table 2
and Fig. 2).
During the archaeological excavation the distribution of non-ceramic artefacts
was registered within spatial units termed features (which might represent more
than one pit or parts of individual pits), but for the present study a construction
complex as defined earlier was the basic analytical unit. Subdivisions reflecting the
six chronological stages and the three spatial sectors (A, B, F; Fig. 2) are used to
record the analysis results and the overall sums of values detected, as follows:
1st stage in section F
2nd stage in section A
2nd stage in section B
2nd stage in section F
3rd stage in section A
3rd stage in section B
4th stage in section A
4th stage in section B
4th stage in section F
5th stage in section A
5th stage in section B
6th stage in section A
6th stage in section B

1.i. F
2.i. A (without construction complexes)
2.i. B
2.i. F
3.i. A
3.i. B
4.i. A
4.i. B
4.i. F
5.i. A
5.i. B
6.i. A
6.i. B (without construction complexes)

Table 2. Correlation between intervals and phases at the Bylany settlement. Each settlement phase
has the arbitrary chronological value of 20 years (Pavlu 2000:268).
Stage (Pavlu 2000)

Phase (as defined in 1986)

Length of settlement
duration (cumulatively)

1
2
3
4
5
6

1, 2, 3, 4
5, 6, 7, 8
9, 10, 11, 12
13, 14, 15, 16, 17
18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

80
160
240
340
400
500

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

342

The assemblage of stratified non-ceramic finds from Bylany contains 1203

pieces of chipped stone, 1234 pieces of polished stone, 884 whetstones, 642
manos/metates, and 2070 other stones. From this total amount, it was possible
to assign to specific chronological stages 678 pieces of chipped stone (56.36%), 795
pieces of polished stone (64.42%), 590 whetstones (66.74%), 313 manos/metates
(48.75%), and 1307 other stones (63.14%), as shown in Table 3.2 These data
reflect the fact that a large part of the stratified finds was not assignable to
stages. The reason is that the presence of a minimum of 30 potsherds with linear
decoration was set as the statistical limit for the chronological classification of
pits. Such a methodological measure contributed to the increased homogeneity of
the assemblage and eliminated to a great degree the presence of intrusions, but
at the same time it excluded a significant number of archaeological features
from the analysis (Pavlu 1998:7276).

R ESULTS
Analysis of non-ceramic refuse within the construction complexes
The primary aim of the analysis was to confirm or exclude preferences in refuse
deposition in the pits associated with each construction complex, which can be
subdivided into western, eastern and northern pits in terms of their positions relative to each house. Southern pits are absent at Bylany, which seems to confirm that
the entrance was situated on this side of the house. Finds from post-holes are
generally very rare and do not include stone artefacts. The distributional data
relative to pit capacity are shown in Table 4, where the data show a preponderance
of finds in western pits, manifested from the 2nd stage. This quantitative preponderance continues until the final or 6th stage where the difference between the
western and eastern pits is by far the greatest. Northern pits in the stages where
they exist have a significant share of the non-ceramic finds only in the 1st stage.

Table 3. Total number of non-ceramic artefacts in various sectors at different chronological stages.
Stage/sector

Chipped stone

Polished stone

Whetstones

Stones

Manos/metates

1.i. F
2.i. A
2.i. B
2.i. F
3.i. A
3.i. B
4.i. A
4.i. B
4.i. F
5.i. A
5.i. B
6.i. A
6.i. B

35
6
37
88
87
66
136
8
2
95
16
100
2

61
1
25
61
58
51
181
24
13
139
39
138
4

21
0
23
22
65
39
133
20
14
120
25
108
0

125
0
22
160
69
70
208
66
83
208
38
252
6

24
1
9
30
7
21
49
13
6
58
3
92
0

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

343

Table 4. Pit capacity according to location within the construction complex, number of non-ceramic
finds, and artefact concentration in the pits of the construction complexes. The find concentration is
given per cubic metre.
Pit capacity
in cubic metres

Number of
non-ceramic finds

Concentration of
finds per cubic metre

Stage/
sector

1.i. F
2.i. B
2.i. F
3.i. A
3.i. B
4.i. A
4.i. B
4.i. F
5.i. A
5.i. B
6.i. A

77.48
3.24
32.1
130.64
166.26
455.17
77.96
19.4
179.65
114.15
447.21

67.82
3.06
53.83
76.3
154.83
242.62
89.13
28.21
150.88
16.97
109.75

35.63
0
1.94
0
0
9.08
0
0
0
0
11.48

89
22
171
181
121
307
72
60
202
67
384

92
5
125
59
110
280
25
58
160
12
122

51
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
33

0.87
0.15
0.19
0.72
1.37
1.48
1.08
0.32
0.89
1.70
1.16

0.74
0.61
0.43
1.29
1.41
0.87
3.57
0.49
0.94
1.41
0.90

0.70
x
0.39
x
x
x
x
x
0
x
0.35

The mean concentration of finds in particular pits was calculated using the
formula:

concentration in the pit = V of the pit/ artefacts.

The quantity of non-pottery finds rises continuously until the 4th stage where there
is a break, with a markedly lower number of non-ceramic finds in the 5th stage.
The quantity rises again in the 6th stage. Pit capacity shows a similar tendency
through time, except that capacity in the 2nd stage is lower than in the previous
stage. Both pit capacity and number of non-ceramic finds are markedly higher in
the western pits of the construction complexes, although this trend is the least substantial in the 1st stage.
These data are expressed graphically in Figure 4, which shows that the prevalence of eastern and western pits begins in the 2nd stage and continues until the
end of the settlement, with eastern pits having a markedly lower capacity than
western pits. Northern pits only occur in the 1st, 4th, and 6th stages and represent
a very small share of the total pit capacity.
In order to formulate the probability of refuse preservation in respect to the particular house sides, an approximate calculation of the maximum pit capacity is
required. The determination of the real capacity of each pit requires automated
processing because of their variability.3 An elongated ground plan prevails in the
Bylany pits, so that the length of a pit is normally markedly greater than its width.
To achieve the least volume distortion possible it is advantageous to use a GISbased method (see later in the article, Note 3 and Figs 5 and 6).
The figures for the number of finds and for pit capacity are naturally correlated
with settlement size as expressed by the number of houses (Table 5). Contrary to
expectation, the concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic metre is also

344

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

Figure 4. Pit capacity of western, eastern and northern pits for each chronological stage. Values on
the Y axis are in cubic metres.

Figure 5. Schematic pit shape in the form of a spherical section.

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

345

Figure 6. Schematic pit shape where depth reflects reality, but where base shape is (unlike the situation in reality) similar to surface shape.

correlated with the number of houses. The concentration was calculated as the quotient of the pit capacity and the number of finds (Table 4). It shows a break in the
2nd stage where this value rises significantly. However, the concentration falls again
in the 3rd stage and reaches the value of approximately one artefact per cubic metre,
which then remains practically unchanged until the end of the settlement.
No significant difference in the concentration of finds was detected in western
or eastern pits from the perspective of the position within the construction complex.
The concentration in northern pits is comparable with the others in the 1st and 2nd
stages, and in the following stages northern pits are either absent or the concentration in them is low. A break consisting in a decrease of concentration in the 2nd
stage affects western, eastern, and northern pits. At the end of the settlement, in the
6th stage, there is a difference between the eastern pits, where the concentration of
finds falls, and the western pits where the concentration rises.
In summary, the analysis of non-ceramic refuse deposition within the construction complexes does not show any unambiguous significance for any one single
part of a house. Although pit capacity on the western sides is higher and there are
also more finds, the relative concentration of finds on both sides of the construction
complexes is comparable.
Table 5. The result of factor analysis of the correlation between the stated variables. A single factor
was extracted from the given matrix, showing a high degree of positive correlation between the
number of houses in the given chronological stage, the pit capacity and the quantity of non-ceramic
finds. The concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic metre of pit capacity shows negative
correlation with the other variables. Data extraction method: principle component analysis. One
component was extracted.
Component Matrix

Component 1

Number of houses
Number of non-ceramic finds
Pit capacity
Concentration of non-ceramic finds per m3 of pit capacity

0.950
0.951
0.993
0.717

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

346

Distribution of non-pottery refuse within the settlement

The spatial distribution of refuse within the settlement remains (sectors A, B, and F)
was studied to examine any discard patterning. Apart from pits located within construction complexes, excavation revealed so-called isolated pits. Although not part
of construction complexes, some of these pit features were, on the basis of the pottery
they contained, assigned to settlement phases. It remains a possibility that these pits
were not really isolated, but were associated with archaeologically undetected houses.
Altogether 346 pits, with a total capacity of 3800 m3, were dated. Of these, 306 pits
were associated with dated construction complexes, representing approximately
2740 m3 (or 72% of the total capacity). In terms of location in relation to houses, 154
pits were situated to the west, 144 pits to the east, and 8 pits to the north. The 40 isolated pits had a combined capacity of approximately 1050 m3 (or 28% of the total).
Table 6 shows the percentage representation of the various categories of nonceramic artefacts in the pits. The capacity of the isolated pits is proportional to the
number of non-ceramic finds in them. Both variables show a comparable proportion that varies from 22 to 28 per cent of the total capacity of all dated pits and all
non-pottery finds. The only exception is the whetstones, of which fewer than 15 per
cent were found in the isolated pits. Otherwise no deliberate preference between
isolated pits or pits adjacent to houses was detected for non-ceramic refuse discard.
Subsequently, spatial analysis focused on the overall distribution of nonceramic artefacts within the excavated areas, using GIS projection of artefact
numbers on the vector site plan. Individual non-ceramic categories were represented as symbols on the sector stage plans of the houses (Figs 715). The position of the symbols on the plans corresponds to the centre of the archaeological
feature in question. A median value was calculated for the assemblage of nonceramic artefacts from each stage (Table 7). When median values were calculated
that included the pits without non-ceramic artefacts these usually equalled zero
or one, which limits further analysis. Median values were therefore calculated
without these pits. The data file for a given stage was then divided based on the
arithmetic distance from the median value. The result of frequency division is a
GIS projection of variables in an interval scale of below median value, median
value, and above median value.
The non-ceramic finds tend to be grouped peripherally. This trend is
strongest for the chipped stone and decreases for the other artefact categories in
approximately the following order: manos/metates, polished stone, whetstones,
and other stones (for a selection of graphic representations of the analyses see
Figs 715).4
Table 6. Percentage of non-ceramic artefacts in isolated pits and in pits associated with houses.

Pits in the vicinity

of houses
Isolated pits

Chipped
stone

Polished
stone

Whetstones

Other
stones

Manos/
metates

74.48

75.60

85.25

77.66

77.64

25.52

24.40

14.75

22.34

22.36

Median value zero values excluded

Median value including zero values

1.i.
2.i.
3.i.
4.i.
5.i.
6.i.

1.06
4.85
2.28
1.25
1.88
1.52

1.85
3.22
1.63
1.86
3.02
2.12

0.64
1.67
1.55
1.43
2.46
1.61

3.79
6.74
2.07
3.05
4.17
3.85

0.73
1.48
0.42
0.58
1.03
1.37

2
3
3
2
3
2

2
3
2
2
3
2.5

2
1
2
2
2
2

2
4
3
3
2
3

2
2
1
1
2
2

0
1
1
0
1
1

0
1
0
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
1
0

2
3
0
1
1
2

0
1
0
0
0
0

Chipped Polished WhetManos/ Chipped Polished WhetManos/ Chipped Polished WhetManos/

Stage stone
stone
stones Stones metates stone
stone
stones Stones metates stone
stone
stones Stones metates

Mean number

Table 7. Absolute and median number of non-ceramic artefacts in various chronological stages.

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

347

348

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of chipped stone in the first
chronological stage.

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of chipped stone in the fourth
chronological stage.

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

349

Figure 9. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of chipped stone in the sixth
chronological stage.

Structure of the non-ceramic refuse from the perspective of long-term

settlement duration
Settlement duration at Bylany encompassed a period of several centuries, and further analyses of the dataset focused on changes in the quantity of non-ceramic
refuse through time. The following variables enter into the analysis: total settlement duration; number of houses; number of non-ceramic artefacts; relative
concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per house; and concentration of nonceramic artefacts in one cubic metre of pit capacity (Table 8). In order to determine

350

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

Figure 10. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of other stones in the first
chronological stage.

Figure 11. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of other stones in the fourth
chronological stage.

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

351

Figure 12. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of other stones in the sixth
chronological stage.

the total settlement duration, the constant value of 20 years was attributed to each
chronological phase (Pavlu 2000:268; see Table 2). This constant is artificially created but for present purposes its absolute value is not important. The number of
houses represents the number of construction ground plans allocated to each
chronological stage and the number of non-ceramic artefacts is also calculated with
reference to stage. The relative concentration of finds is determined as the quotient
of the number of houses and the total number of finds in any stage.

352

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

Figure 13. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of polished stone in the first
chronological stage.

Figure 14. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of polished stone in the fourth
chronological stage.

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

353

Figure 15. Spatial distribution of the number and the median range of polished stone in the sixth
chronological stage.

The factor analysis undertaken detected a very strong correlation between the
number of non-ceramic finds and the number of houses in the stages. There is also
a significant correlation between the settlement duration, the number of houses,
and the total quantity of non-ceramic finds. The mean number of non-ceramic
finds related to one house is in moderate negative correlation with the other variables studied. The first component affects 62 per cent of the assemblage variability
and the second component 31 per cent, which together comes to 82 per cent of the
total variability of the assemblage (Table 9). The graphic representation of the

Duration
length

80
160
240
340
400
500

Stage

1.i.F
2.i.ABF
3.i.AB
4.i.ABF
5.i.AB
6.i.AB

12
10
14
37
19
23

Number of
houses

30
79
129
106
76
85

Chipped
stone
57
52
98
182
105
107

Polished
stone
17
32
99
143
121
91

Whetstones
108
137
122
308
155
185

Stones
20
28
23
63
38
71

Manos/
metates
232
328
471
802
495
539

Total
19.33
32.80
33.64
21.68
26.05
23.43

Mean number
of non-pottery
finds per house

1.28
3.48
0.89
0.87
1.07
0.95

Concentration
of non-pottery
artefacts in 1 m3
of pit capacity

15.79
9.42
37.41
25.15
24.30
23.65

Mean pit
capacity
per house

Table 8. Total settlement duration length, number of houses, number of non-ceramic artefacts, relative concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per house and
concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic metre of pit capacity and mean pit capacity per house.

354

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

355

quantitative correlation (Fig. 16) confirms that the total amount of non-ceramic
artefacts is directly related to the number of houses in the particular stages rather
than to settlement duration. The concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic
metre of pit capacity is also in negative correlation with the number of houses
(Table 5; Fig. 17).
In terms of the separate non-ceramic categories, manos/metates show a high
positive correlation with the number of houses, followed in decreasing order by
other stones, polished stone, and whetstones. The number of these artefact categories
is also in correlation with the settlement duration, although to a lesser degree
than with the number of houses. Chipped stone shows correlation neither with the
settlement duration nor with the number of houses (Table 10).
Other analyses focused on the correlation of the following variables: number of
non-ceramic finds; concentration of non-ceramic finds per cubic metre of pit capacity; and mean number of non-ceramic finds per house. It must be remembered that
all these variables depend on the number of houses in each chronological stage; this
was included in the analysis as a secondary and control variable. The results are displayed on a time axis that represents the successive stages of settlement at Bylany
(Figs 1819). These diagrams compare the number of houses and the amount of
non-ceramic finds with the mean values of non-ceramic finds per house and the
concentration of non-ceramic artefacts in a cubic metre of pit capacity. They confirm
the principal component analysis: the more houses, the more non-ceramic artefacts,
but the lower their mean number related to a single house (Fig. 19). The concentration of finds per cubic metre of pit capacity is stable except for the 2nd stage.
These results were further refined by comparing the mean number of the different non-ceramic categories per house (Tables 1112). Chipped stone, other

Figure 16. The correlation between the number of non-ceramic finds, the number of houses and
settlement duration.

356

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

Figure 17. Two factors were extracted: the first explains 61% of variability within the matrix and
expresses strong positive correlation between settlement duration, the number of houses and the
sum of the non-ceramic industries (the longer the duration of the settlement, the more houses
existed and the greater the number of non-ceramic artefacts). The second factor explains 21% of
variability within the matrix and shows correlation between the mean number of non-ceramic artefacts per house in the individual chronological intervals and the density of non-ceramic artefacts per
cubic metre of pit capacity (i.e. the higher average of artefacts per house, the higher their density in
pits; the capacity of pits itself remains the same).

Table 9. Correlation between the settlement duration length, number of houses, total of non-ceramic
artefacts, mean number of non-ceramic artefacts per house in the various chronological stages and the
concentration of non-ceramic artefacts per cubic metre of pit capacity. Variable values typical for the
given factor are shown in bold. Data extraction method: principle component analysis. Rotation made
by the Varimax method with 3 iterations.
Component
Matrix of rotated components

Number of houses
Duration length
Non-ceramic finds
Mean per house
Pit concentration

0.832
0.848
0.947
0.030
0.472

0.431
0.065
0.150
0.954
0.658

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

357

Table 10. Correlation between the settlement duration, number of houses and non-ceramic finds
categories in the various chronological stages. Data extraction method: principle component analysis.
Rotation made by the Varimax method.
Component
Matrix of rotated components

Number of houses
Chipped stone
Polished stone
Whetstones
Stones
Manos/metates
Duration

0.933
0.130
0.824
0.656
0.894
0.925
0.705

0.262
0.959
0.489
0.692
0.241
0.077
0.324

Figure 18. Comparison of the number of houses and volume of non-ceramic industry with the
values of the mean number of non-ceramic finds per house and the density of non-ceramic
artefacts per cubic metre of pit capacity. The graph confirms the findings of the analysis of the
major components, that the more houses, the more non-ceramic finds, but the less their mean
value per house. Finds density per cubic metre of pit capacity remains stable throughout the
period of existence of the settlement, with the exception of the second stage.

stones, and whetstones show the highest degree of negative correlation with the
number of houses. A major deviation exists in the case of other stones in the 2nd
stage, otherwise the mean value per house is stable. The mean number of polished stone artefacts is quite stable over time, but there is also a moderate
negative correlation with respect to the number of houses. The number of
manos/metates is not correlated with the number of houses, but with the duration of settlement (the mean number of manos/metates rises in the 2nd and
6th stages). Also the absolute number of manos/metates rises sharply in the 6th
stage (Table 8).

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

358

Figure 19. Graph of the quantitative relationship between the number of houses and the mean
number of non-ceramic finds per house.

The quantitative differences in the studied attributes of non-ceramic refuse,

manifested in the course of the settlement duration, are not unequivocally correlated with time. Except for the 2nd stage, it is not possible to trace trends that
would be connected, for example with the spatial changes of the settlement (settlement shifted from area F towards areas A and B in the 2nd stage). Changes in
the structure of non-pottery refuse are correlated with the changing number of
houses in the individual chronological stages rather than with the duration of the
settlement. An exception occurs in the final 6th stage when despite the decreasing number of houses both the absolute and mean number of manos/metates
rises. The mean number of artefacts in the western and eastern pits also differs in
this stage. Whilst the mean number of finds continues to rise in western pits, it
decreases in eastern ones (Table 11).

D ISCUSSION

AND CONCLUSIONS

Archaeological settlement refuse is the result of both natural and cultural agency.
Both these transformation categories were subject to a whole series of synchronic
and diachronic changes. However, the management of refuse in pre-industrial
societies can be seen as influenced within limited parameters by recurrent sociocultural requirements. The interpretation of the results of this study of settlement
refuse at Bylany leans heavily on behavioural theory (Schiffer 1976, 1987) and
ethno-archaeological research (e.g. David and Kramer 2001), rather than exploring
the possible symbolic aspects of discard (e.g. Chapman 2002; Chapman and

Western pits

Eastern pits

1.i.
2.i.
3.i.
4.i.
5.i.
6.i.

12
10
14
37
19
23

2.50
7.90
9.21
2.86
4.00
3.70

4.75
5.20
7.00
4.92
5.53
4.65

1.42
3.20
7.07
3.86
6.37
3.96

9.00
13.70
8.71
8.32
8.16
8.04

1.67
2.80
1.64
1.70
2.00
3.09

0.75
3.30
6.00
1.49
2.26
2.52

1.58
2.60
4.79
2.30
3.21
3.39

0.42
2.00
4.71
2.43
3.89
3.26

4.17
9.20
5.07
4.78
4.00
5.09

0.50
2.20
1.00
0.86
0.79
2.43

1.00
3.80
2.93
1.38
1.58
1.00

1.17
1.30
2.14
2.62
1.89
0.78

0.58
1.10
2.14
1.43
1.89
0.52

3.92
2.30
3.43
3.54
2.89
2.43

1.00
0.60
0.64
0.84
0.79
0.57

Number
of
Chipped Polished WhetManos/ Chipped Polished WhetManos/ Chipped Polished WhetManos/
Stage houses stones stones stones Stones metates stones stones
stones Stones metates stones
stones Stones Stones metates

All pits

Mean number of non-ceramic finds per house

Table 11. Mean numbers of the different non-ceramic categories per house in each stage. Values for the western and eastern pits of the construction
complexes are also shown.

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

359

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

360

Table 12. Correlation between the settlement duration, number of houses and mean number of the
different non-ceramic categories per house in each chronological stage. Data extraction method:
principle component analysis. Rotation made by the Varimax method with 3 iterations.
Components
Matrix of rotated components

Number of houses
Duration length
Mean chipped stone
Mean polished stone
Mean whetstones
Mean stones
Mean manos/metates

0.826
0.817
0.567
0.164
0.326
0.856
0.119

0.195
0.190
0.778
0.934
0.928
0.065
0.144

0.015
0.540
0.148
0.308
0.010
0.343
0.973

Gaydarska 2007), and assumes that the vast majority of the refuse under discussion
is primarily the result of everyday human activities.
Unlike mobile societies, sedentary populations are forced to structure their
refuse spatially, which normally results in the loss of any direct connection
between where refuse is deposited and the place where the items comprising the
refuse were used. The degree of spatial organization of refuse increases if the settled area is limited by natural conditions or cultural factors. When a settlement can
expand freely or there is no difficulty in relocation, specialized long-term areas for
refuse need not be created (Cranstone 1971:134). This does not mean that people in
sedentary societies would be living in the midst of their refuse, but that its deposition occurs only within the so-called home discard area (see later), from where the
refuse tends not to move. This could be the case with LBK settlements, where new
houses were not built on top of the old ones, but on completely new plots, which
caused the long-term horizontal enlargement of settlements.
In cases when there is no direct spatial correlation between refuse discard and the
place where the items discarded were used, the conditions for secondary refuse formation are met. Its very existence is conditioned by the formation of refuse areas and
dumps, necessary for the maintenance of comfortable life at any settlement. It can be
imagined that certain rules must exist within any social group to circumscribe the
deposition of refuse, following common behavioural patterns arising from general
human standards. A basic rule would spring from the principle of least effort: people
will normally invest the minimum of energy on discard, therefore refuse is deposited
in the vicinity of households and activity areas. The validity of this principle has
repeatedly been shown ethno-archaeologically (Deal 1985; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979;
Graham 1994; Hayden and Cannon 1983), but it can of course be observed in most
peoples behaviour. Categories of refuse that are subject to symbolic treatment are
exempted from the principle of least effort (e.g. Hodder 1987).
Another recurring phenomenon is that refuse that would inconvenience or
endanger inhabitants is placed outside the main activity area. At prehistoric
settlements this could for example be the case with the sharp debitage flakes of
chipped stone refuse. Similarly the retention of certain refuse for possible further

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

361

reutilization or recycling is a frequent behavioural practice associated with discard.

Accumulated items that await further possible use are termed provisional refuse.
Since different artefact classes have different reutilization and recycling potential,
they appear in the provisional refuse with different intensity. In general terms, the
more effort, time, or wealth required for an objects acquisition or production, the
higher the probability that it will be placed among the provisional refuse before its
final discard. Complete vessels or large fragments thereof, metal tools, polished
stone tools, and damaged machines are among items occurring most often in the
provisional refuse of pre-industrial societies.
No deliberate pattern of refuse deposition within the so-called construction complexes was identified at Bylany. No preference was detected in the deposition of the
individual non-ceramic refuse categories according to the direction in which pits were
located relative to houses. That there is significantly more refuse in the western pits of
the construction complexes can be explained by their higher capacity. The difference
between western and eastern pits in the final stage of settlement at Bylany is interesting. The number of artefacts in western pits rises markedly (e.g. the number of
manos/metates is triple that of the other stages), and contrary to that, the number of
finds in eastern pits falls to the lowest values recorded over the lifespan of the whole
settlement. This could be interpreted as showing that within the toft area (Deal
1985:262; the toft is defined as the immediate site of a dwelling and its outbuildings,
as well as the location of most activities associated with the dwelling), the space on
the western side of the house served as the final refuse disposal site, whilst the eastern
side was used as the place for provisional refuse deposition. If the site was abandoned
gradually and in a planned way, provisional refuse could have stopped accumulating
on the eastern side in the expectation of departure. On the other hand more items,
the discard of which was otherwise low in the course of the settlement (e.g.
manos/metates), were included in the final refuse on the western side.
Based on the behaviour patterns documented in economically and socially comparable populations (Schiffer 1987), it can be argued that refuse would be more
spatially structured within the Bylany households. That this patterning could not
be detected might be explicable in two ways: either such traces disappeared owing
to the effects of the formation processes involved; or the delimitation of the construction complexes does not reflect the original extent of the past socio-economic
units (households).
The prime trend detected for refuse management across the whole settled area
during the various stages is the peripheral deposition of non-pottery refuse. This
means that non-ceramic refuse concentrates outside the hypothetical centre of the
area settled in each given stage. This trend is strongest for the chipped stone and
of decreasing tendency for the other artefact categories in the following order:
manos/metates, polished stone, whetstones, and other stones (Figs 715). Chipped
stone is therefore in mutual opposition to whetstones and other stones, regarding
the peripheral deposition of artefacts.
Chipped stone refuse originates partly from tool production and partly from the
use of tools. Both these cases represent refuse belonging to the potentially dangerous category for which deposition outside the activity area is typical. The raw

362

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

material and technology used for chipped stone production allow for minimal
reutilization and recycling of artefacts, which explains why this type of refuse
seldom appears in the provisional refuse in the vicinity of houses (Figs 715).
The refuse composed of unused, unneeded, or unusable stones and whetstones
accumulated in the home discard area in the vicinity of houses (Figs 1012). This
discard pattern can be explained by the principle of least effort and also the possible intention of easy accessibility, since discarded whetstones and other stones
could potentially be reutilized or recycled and for this reason they could have
become part of the provisional refuse.
A high positive correlation in relation to the number of houses and the settlement duration in particular chronological stages was detected for the number
of manos/metates and in decreasing order for other stones, polished stone, and
whetstones. The quantity of chipped stone is independent of the other categories. So the number of construction complexes (households) reflects the number of discarded manos/metates, other stones, and other non-ceramic artefacts
apart from chipped stone. These findings conform to the refuse distribution
within the whole settled area; the quantity of refuse discarded in the home discard zone corresponds to the number of households. On the other hand the
refuse deposited at the margins of the settled area may represent municipal
refuse that accumulated there over a long time without any direct relation to
individual households.
Another variable studied was the mean number of non-ceramic finds related to
individual houses in particular stages. It was assumed that this mean number will
be (a) in moderate positive correlation with the number of houses since a higher
number of houses (i.e. more inhabitants) causes higher discard need; and (b) broadly
constant since the houses probably existed for a comparable length of time and
the discard rate was stable.
The analysis, however, proved that the assumption was wrong; the more
houses there are in a stage, the less refuse is deposited in their vicinity (Fig. 19).
This means that in the stages with lower numbers of houses there is more refuse
than was expected, and in the stages with more houses there is less refuse. It
must be remembered, of course, that the chronological stages presented here are
only artificial horizons. In reality the Neolithic village comprised both inhabited
and abandoned houses, the latter not necessarily isolated dead plots, but forming
part of the settlement life. This leads to the possibility that the refuse from the
occupied houses was partly deposited in the area of abandoned houses (Fig. 20).
In this way the discard trend can be explained as showing that in stages with a
low number of houses there is more mean refuse deposited than in subsequent
stages with a higher number of houses: the refuse from living houses was
deposited in the space around the previously abandoned houses. Consequently,
if a settlement stage with a high number of houses was preceded by one with few
houses, pits of the earlier stage will contain on average more refuse, actually produced in the more recent settlement stage. Such an assertion is of course not the
only possible explanation of the discard trend, although the described method of
refuse management would match some ethno-archaeological observations (Deal
1985; Stevenson 1982).

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

363

Figure 20. Model reconstruction of refuse management on a Neolithic site in which the majority of
the rubbish from the living houses is being dumped on the abandoned structures.

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My thanks for support and advice belong to Ivan Pavlu and other colleagues from
Bylany. I am also very grateful to Anthony Harding and Alan Saville who made the
English version of the text readable, and to my wife Sylvie for proofreading it. The
article was supported by a grant project of the Grant Agency of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic (registration number A800020701): Artefacts in
Neolithic society: their status and roles.

N OTES
1. Categorization of the stone artefacts follows Adams (2002:238242). The category of
other stones involves all stone objects found without clear working traces or any unequivocally interpretable use. This includes artefacts which presumably functioned as weights,
heating stones, occasional percussion tools and so on. Fragments from stone tool production
or their use also probably belong here. Items from fine-grained sandstone that probably
served for the final polishing and sharpening of stone (but also bone or wooden tools) were
the main objects allocated to the category of whetstones. To the category of manos/metates
belong lower grinding slabs and upper handstones. They are generally made from crude
raw materials and probably served for processing cereals. Burning traces were not taken
into consideration in this analysis.
2. The basic tool used here for quantitative and spatial analysis is a geographic information system (GIS), created in the ArcGIS 9.1 program with Autodesk Land Desktop software.
The non-ceramic finds data were analysed in database programmes MS Office 2000 Access
and Excel. The multidimensional statistical analyses were carried out in SPSS 12.
3. One of the theoretical possibilities is a calculation formula tailored to each individual
pit. This procedure is in itself difficult to carry out because of the complex pit shapes, and
since there are a lot of pits (346 dated features) it would be extremely time-consuming to
calculate the capacity of every single pit. Another possibility is to maximally schematize the
pit shape so that it resembles those regular shapes for which a standard capacity calculation

364

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

formula exists. It would then be possible to use the three basic dimensions of each pit and
schematize its shape into the block form (V = a b c). This method is quick and simple,
but the distortion rate of the result is high if compared with the real volume of the pit. Yet
another possibility is to schematize the pit into the shape of a spherical cone and use the relevant formula: V = 1/6 h2 (3a2 + h2), where a is the radius of the spherical cone base, i.e. the
length or width of the pit, and h is the height of the spherical cone, i.e. the depth of the pit.
Figure 5 depicts the disadvantage of this method: although in side view there is little volume
distortion, in plan the distortion is much higher due to the irregular shape of the pits
ground plan. The fourth procedure is based on the GIS software facility, which allows an
exact calculation of the area of any polygon. Upon creation of a vector plan of the whole site
it is possible to calculate the area of the archaeological features. For each feature this value is
then multiplied by the depth of the pit, and thus is determined the schematic volume of the
feature, its ground plan corresponding to reality. This calculation schematizes the side view
of the pit, in that the pits depth is real, but the shape of the pits base is, unlike in reality,
identical to its surface shape (Fig. 6).
4. Archaeological fieldwork in Bylany did not uncover the whole area settled in the
course of Early Neolithic (Fig. 2). It follows from the information available, however, that the
settlement area was not continuously covered by houses; there were free spaces between
clusters of houses. The hypothetical delimitation of activity areas is then possible. This is
the case with parts of area A, namely segments 4.i.A, 5.i.A and 6.i.A. Settlement of area F
continued northwards into an unexcavated part, but the southern limit of segments 1.i.F
and 2.i.F is probably delimited by houses of the 4th stage. The settled area limits cannot be
detected in area B and this area was therefore not included in the analysis. With regard to
the spatial distribution, it is necessary to note that houses in some segments (3.i.A, 5.i.A) are
arranged eccentrically, and therefore the fact that refuse was deposited in the vicinity of
those houses may distort the results of the analysis.

R EFERENCES
ADAMS, J.L., 2002. Ground Stone Analysis. A Technological Approach. Salt Lake City:
The University of Utah Press.
BUTTLER, W. and W. HABEREY, 1936. Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Kln-Lindenthal.
Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter (Rmisch-Germanische Forschungen Band 11).
BYLANY.COM, 20042009. URL (accessed 8 October 2010): www.bylany.com
BYLANY IMAGE (n.d.) Settlement chronology plan. URL (accessed 12 October 2010):
http://www.bylany.com/images/Bylany%20chronology.jpg
CHAPMAN, J., 2002. Neolithic pottery at Polgar-10 (Hungary): Measuring the habitus.
Documenta Praehistorica 29:127144.
CHAPMAN, J. and B. GAYDARSKA, 2007. Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric
Context. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
CRANSTONE, B.A.L., 1971. The Tifalmin: A Neolithic people in New Guinea. World
Archaeology 3(2):132142.
DAVID, N. and C. KRAMER, 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DEAL, M., 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands: An ethnoarchaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4(4):243291.
DEBOER, W.R. and D.W. LATHRAP, 1979. The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo
ceramics. In C. Krammer (ed.), Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography
for Archaeology: 102108. New York: Columbia University Press.
GRAHAM, M., 1994. Mobile Farmers: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Settlement
Organization Among the Rarmuri of Northwestern Mexico. Ann Arbor:
International Monographs in Prehistory (Ethnoarchaeological Series 3).

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

365

HAYDEN, B. and A. CANNON, 1983. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the
Maya highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2(2):117163.
HODDER, I., 1987. The meaning of discard: Ash and domestic space in Baringo. In
S. Kent (ed.), Method and Theory for Activity Area Research. An Ethnoarchaeological
Approach: 424448. New York: Columbia University Press.
KVETINA, P. and I. PAVLU, 2007. Neolitick sdlite v Bylanech zkladn databze.
Neolithic settlement at Bylany Essential Database. Praha: Archeologick stav.
PAVLU, I., 1977. K metodice analzy sdlit s linern keramikou. Pamtky archeologick 68:555.
PAVLU, I., 1982. Die Entwicklung des Siedlungsareals Bylany 1. In J. Pavk (ed.),
Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearbandkeramik in Europa: 193206. Nitra:
Archeologick stav SAV.
PAVLU, I., 1989. Die Keramische Chronologie der Siedlungen in Bylany. In J. Rulf
(ed.), Bylany Seminar 1987. Collected papers: 5963. Praha: Archeologick stav.
PAVLU, I. 1998. Minulost a prtomnost archeologie v muzeu. Neolitick sdlite v
Mocovicch u C slave . Praha: Archeologick stav.
PAVLU, I., 2000. Life on a Neolithic Site: Bylany Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Praha:
Archeologick stav.
PAVLU, I., J. RULF and M. ZPOTOCK, 1986. Theses on the neolithic site of Bylany.
Pamtky archeologick 77:288412.
PAVLU, I. and M. ZPOTOCK, 2007. Archeologie prave kch Cech 3. Neolit. Praha:
Archeologick stav.
SCHIFFER, M.B., 1976. Behavioral Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
SCHIFFER, M.B., 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
SOUDSK, B., 1962. The Neolithic site of Bylany. Antiquity 36(143):190200.
SOUDSK, B., 1967. Principles of automatic data treatment applied on Neolithic
pottery. Praha: Archeologick stav (manuscript).
SOUDSK, B. and I. PAVLU., 1972. The Linear Pottery Culture settlements patterns of
central Europe. In P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man,
Settlement and Urbanism: 317328. London: Duckworth.
STASKI, E. and L.D. SUTRO, 1991. The ethnoarchaeology of refuse disposal:
Current research and future prospects. In E. Staski and L.D. Sutro (eds),
The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal: 14. Arizona State University
Anthropological Research Papers 42. Tempe: Arizona State University.
STEVENSON, M., 1982. Toward an understanding of site abandonment behavior:
Evidence from historic mining camps in the southwest Yukon. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 1(3): 237265.

S UBMISSION

DATA

Received 30 April 2007; accepted 11 January 2008; revised 22 April 2009 and 23 March
2010

B IOGRAPHICAL

NOTE

Petr Kve tina is head of the Department of Prehistory of the Institute of Archaeology,
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, and lecturer at the Department of
Archaeology, University of Hradec Krlov, Czech Republic. His research centres on
the Neolithic site at Bylany and presently focuses on depositional and post-depositional
processes and intra-site spatial analyses.

366

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 13(3)

Address: Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha, Letensk 4, 118 01,
Czech Republic. [email: kvetina@arup.cas.cz]

A BSTRACTS
Prostorov analza nekeramickho odpadu z neolitickho sdlite v Bylanech, C esk republika
Petr Kve tina
Clem tohoto clnku je pokus o interpretaci struktury a prostorovho rozloen nekeramickho
odpadu z neolitickho sdlite v Bylanech. V rmci problmu se soustr edme na tr i roviny
otzek: zachzen s odpadem a jeho deponovn v okol domu; rozloen nekeramickho
odpadu v prostoru cel osdlen plochy; kvantitu a strukturu nekeramickho odpadu z hlediska
dlouhho trvn sdlite . Analyzovan soubor artefaktu byl rozdelen do pe ti kategori: tpan
industrie, brouen industrie, brousky, zrnoterky (mlny) a kameny beze stop opracovn. Uit
metoda spocvala v GIS analze a vcerozmern statistice. Prostorov distribuce a poc et odpadu
byl analyzovn vzhledem k prostoru (pozici v rmci stavebnch komplexu domu i celho sdlite)
a case (trvn sdlite behem esti chronologickch stupnu ). Doloit trend v deponovn nekeramickch artefaktu uvnitr usedlost se nepodarilo. Byl vak prokzn excentrick rozptyl artefaktu vzhledem k pomyslnmu stredu osdlench ploch jednotlivch casoprostorovch seku.
Poc et artefaktu je zvisl na poctu domu a dlce trvn osdlen. Negativn korelace mezi
pru mernou hustotou nekeramickch nlezu vzhledem k domu a poctem domu pr slunho
chronologickho intervalu poukzala na monost, e oputen usedlosti byly na sdliti dle
vyuvny, napr. prve pro deponovn odpadu, co koresponduje i s etnoarcheologickmi
pozorovnmi.
Klcov slova: Bylany, etnoarcheologie, LBK, neolit, nekeramick artefakty, sdeln odpad
(translation by Petr Kve tina)
Analyse spatiale des dchets non-cramiques du site nolithique de Bylany, Rpublique
Tchque
Petr Kve tina
Cet article cherche interprter la structure et la configuration spatiale des dchets noncramiques du site nolithique de Bylany. Les donnes sont tudies trois niveaux : aborder les
questions sur la gestion des dchets et de leur dpt dans les environs des maisons ; la
distribution spatiale des dchets dans la totalit de la zone dhabitation, et la quantit et
structure des dchets non-cramiques en cas dimplantation long terme. Lassemblage analys
de vestiges non-cramiques est divis en cinq catgories : pierres tailles, pierres polies,
polissoirs, meules courantes/dormantes et autres pierres sans traces dusure. Lanalyse se fonde
sur SIG et les statistiques multivariables. La distribution spatiale et la quantit de dchet sont
analyses en tenant compte de lespace (par rapport la proximit des maisons nolithiques et
de lensemble de la zone dhabitation fouille) et du temps (la dure de lhabitat en six phases
chronologiques). Il ntait pas possible didentifier une tendance dlibre dans la gestion des
dchets dans lentourage des maisons, mais il semble y avoir un regroupement des dchets dans
les priphries de la zone habite. La quantit des dchets dpend du nombre de maisons et de
la dure dhabitation. La corrlation ngative entre la densit moyenne dobjets non-cramiques
par maison et le nombre de maisons dans des phases chronologiques correspondantes pourrait
sexpliquer par le fait que les dchets taient frquemment dposs dans les enceintes des
maisons abandonnes, ce qui serait en accord avec des observations ethnoarchologiques.
Mots cls : Bylany, ethnoarchologie, LBK, Nolithique, trouvailles non-cramiques, dchets d'habitation
(translation by Isabelle Kayser-Gerges)

KVE TINA: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NON-CERAMIC REFUSE AT BYLANY

367

Die rumliche Analyse von nichtkeramischem Abfall des neolithischen Fundplatzes Bylany,
Tschechische Republik
Petr Kve tina
Dieser Beitrag soll eine Interpretation der Struktur und der rumlichen Verteilung von
nichtkeramischem Abfall des neolithischen Fundplatzes Bylany liefern. Die Daten werden hierfr
in drei Ebenen ausgewertet: Klrende Fragen zum Abfallmanagement und zur Ablagerung in der
Umgebung der Huser; die rumliche Verteilung des Abfalls in der gesamten Siedlung sowie die
Menge und Struktur nichtkeramischen Abfalls in einer langfristigen Siedlungsperspektive. Das
analysierte Inventar nichtkeramischer Funde wird in fnf Kategorien unterteilt: geschlagene
Steinartefakte, polierte Steinartefakte, Schleifsteine, Mahlsteine (Lufer, Unterlieger) und andere
Steine ohne Nutzungsspuren. Die Analyse basiert auf GIS und Methoden multivariater Statistik.
Die rumliche Verteilung und Menge von Abfall wird unter Bercksichtigung des Raumes (im Sinne
der Nhe zu neolithischen Gebuden und der Gesamtheit des ausgegrabenen Siedlungsareals) und
der Zeit (der Dauer der Siedlung in sechs chronologischen Stufen) untersucht. Gezielte Muster des
Abfallmanagements knnen in der Umgebung der Huser nicht identifiziert werden, doch deutet
sich an, dass sich der Abfall in der Peripherie des gesamten bewohnten Gebietes zu gruppieren
scheint. Seine Menge hngt von der Anzahl der Huser und der Siedlungsdauer ab. Die negative
Korrelation zwischen der mittleren Dichte der nichtkeramischen Artefakte pro Haus und der Anzahl
der Huser in korrespondierenden chronologischen Phasen kann dadurch erklrt werden, dass der
Abfall im Allgemeinen in aufgelassenen Husern abgelagert wurde, was mit ethnoarchologischen
Beobachtungen bereinstimmt.
Schlsselbegriffe: Bylany, Ethnoarchologie, Linienbandkeramik, Neolithikum, nichtkeramische
Funde, Siedlungsabfall
(translation by Heiner Schwarzberg)