Ancestral Landscapes.

TMO 61, Maison de lOrient et de la Mditerrane, Lyon, 2011

BURIAL MOUNDS IN WEST BOHEMIA: THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH1

Ladislav MEJDA*

ABSTRACT
West Bohemia, the westernmost part of the Czech Republic, has always been regarded as a region abundant in prehistoric tumuli. These burial mounds were usually built in groups of variable sizes, sometimes forming vast and impressive necropoleis. These mostly contain burials dating from the Middle Bronze Age to the Early La Tne period. In the rst part of my paper I am going to summarize the local history of research into this classical source of archaeological knowledge. The former aims, methods, achievements and rates of discovery will be contrasted with the contemporary situation. My intention is to demonstrate the enormous potential of the present research conditions as well as to identify their weaker aspects. Finally, possible avenues of future work will be considered.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this short paper is to highlight the main characteristics of past and present research into burial mounds in the region of West Bohemia, Czech Republic. After a brief overview of the work carried out in the 19th and 20th centuries, my attention will be redirected to present-day research activities. It should remain clear from my account that both old and recent results have their importance in the whole picture and that neither are devoid of problems and controversies of some kind.

* 1.

University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Philosophy & Arts, Department of Archaeology, Univerzitn 8, 306 14 Plze, Czech Republic. The work on this paper was supported by the University of West Bohemia in Plze and by the research programme Neglected archaeology (Czech Ministry of Education, MSM4977751314).

120

LADISLAV MEJDA

LOOKING BACK

West Bohemia is a region with a high concentration of prehistoric barrow cemeteries. Research into them started in the 19th century and, quite understandably, this early stage of investigation produced many portable nds but relatively little contextual information (Chytrek et al. 2005). However, one student of barrows in this early era was undoubtedly a bright exception to usual standards of the day. Frantiek Xaver Franc (1838-1910), originally a gardener, worked for the aristocratic Waldstein family. He was in charge of gardens surrounding the Kozel chateau located some 20km south of Plze (the capital of West Bohemia) and led landscaping projects in the Kozel estate. Here he encountered a number of well preserved archaeological monuments and, supported by his sponsor, approached the problems of their origin and interpretation. This self-educated man developed a meticulous method of excavation and recording. He left behind a thorough textual description of the situations he uncovered, accompanied with plans and sections, as well as numbered drawings of individual nds (g. 1). In 1893, being already an experienced excavator, he was appointed to the museum in Plze as its secretary. There he continued eldwork and published several short articles. Franc retired in 1904. Unfortunately, two major accounts on his Fig. 1 hlavy-Hjek (district Plze-south), tumulus No.44 (Middle Bronze Age). Section, plan and nds as extensive excavations could not be published recorded by F.X. Franc in 1880. Reproduction photograph for many decades and nally went to print under made and adapted by the author. The original is kept in the the editorship of V. aldov as late as in 1988. Zpadoesk museum, Plze. The scope and quality of Francs work is simply amazing, especially when compared to the results of his many contemporaries at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Yet this apparent quality might become a dangerous trap for the present-day student. In fact, we have only a vague understanding of his real eld practice. His results look similar to modern recording systems but most probably they also contain some unrealistic, idealized component, which we must be aware of. For example, Franc most probably failed to recognize cremated bones in graves as human remains and deemed them representative of offerings of animal meat (Jlkov 1961). There is a disagreement between his drawings, which show the excavated tumuli as completely dismembered structures, recorded in their whole layout and one or two sections, and the present-day eld situation, where we identify clear remains of mounds cut by central and sometimes traverse trenches. A list of puzzling issues could continue: this outstanding documentation usually resulted from only one-day work in the eld; Franc neither mentioned nor depicted any of the medieval nds that in fact abound on the site hlavy-Hjek, thoroughly excavated by him in 1878-1882 (g. 2). A new evaluation of these old reports, partly by means of re-excavation, is one of the most important tasks we face today (mejda 2003). It is especially so because nearly all our current knowledge of West Bohemian prehistory is in one way or another built on these early discoveries (trnct 1964; Pleiner, Rybov 1978).

BURIAL MOUNDS IN WEST BOHEMIA

121

THE APPEARANCE OF TUMULI IN WEST BOHEMIA

The more than a century-long history of eld research has resulted in a great number of nds. A puzzling aspect of these collections is that the nds do not represent all chronological periods evenly. This is especially true of the 3rd millenium B.C., while the following overlap of the Early Bronze Age into the 2nd millennium left but faint trace in terms of sites and related movable artefacts (Jlkov 1957; aldov 1960). This period may be aptly called the Dark Age of West Bohemian prehistory. Although the evidence of human activity is extremely scarce (Metlika et al. 2007), it would not be feasible to interpret this fact as a real lack of occupation nor as an extreme conservatism of cultural traits which led to the survival of middle Neolithic culture into much later times. The neighbouring regions (Central and NW Bohemia, Bavaria) show explicitly that a profound cultural shift had generally been accomplished and a similar development must be expected in the area of our interest. Therefore, it is probably wiser to conclude that regional variations in the archaeological visibility of past human occupation are primarily conditioned by the depositional practices and post-depositional transformations. For some cultural groups, these forces could have brought the fossil record close to a state of complete obliteration or physical inaccessibility (Surovell, Brantingham 2007). From the very start of the middle Bronze Age (Reinecke Br A2/B1) onwards, we are confronted with the Tumulus and following Urneld cultures (Rybov, aldov 1958; ujanov-Jlkov 1970; aldov 1976), abundant in tumuli containing remarkable assemblages of artefacts (a range of pottery and bronze types deposited as grave goods plus infrequent nds of gold or organic materials). A longterm tradition of building tumuli was established at this time that lasted with some uctuations up to the early La Fig. 2 hlavy-Hjek (district Plze-south), tumulus No.44. A selection Tne period (ujanov-Jlkov of nds retrieved during the re-excavation by the author in 2002. 1 int et al. 1959; aldov 1971; arrowhead, 2 prehistoric pottery, 3-6 medieval pottery (not to scale). Soudsk 1994; aldov 1999). The society and spiritual world of these peoples must have been complex and advanced in many respects. Yet our understanding of their world is still mostly based on burials; information gathered from settlements remains surprisingly inarticulate. However, the latest catalogues of the existing evidence on the middle to late Bronze Age residential areas brought forward a somewhat fuller picture (Militk 1996; Hrkov 2002; Jir 2006), offering advancements in our still insufcient knowledge. Burials are surely known much better than settlements. Nevertheless, much crucial information is missing, such as the demographic prole of population buried in tumuli, as well as other scientic contributions. We must also be aware that even such an iconic discovery as the burial assemblage with a bronze cult wagon from Milave has serious shortcomings in the quality of its contextual record. The particular barrow was excavated incompletely in 1880s, the report compiled with a considerable delay and revised afterwards. We know that more attention was paid to metal items than pottery and other less

122

LADISLAV MEJDA

striking inventories (Lang 1887/1888; ujanovJlkov 1983 and 1984; Kytlicov 1988). This means that a great deal of caution is necessary when we study and attempt to interpret such attractive evidence. Therefore, the critique of original sources is always strongly recommended. One thing is clear though, even without detailed research. Barrows were not built for everyone despite their relatively high number in the region (my estimation based on available reports exceeds two thousand burial mounds). Seen in the time perspective, this number is the product of long-term accumulation and cannot represent more than a tiny fragment of the prehistoric population.

NEW DIMENSIONS IN THE RESEARCH OF WEST BOHEMIAN BARROWS

Fig. 3 Horuany-Na Radlici (district Plze-south), plan of the tumulus cemetery. The author surveyed this site with M. ez and E. Rampich by means of GPS and laser distance meter in 2003 (UTM coordinates shown). Dark grey: tumuli; light grey: forest; background map after CENIA (http://geoportal.cenia. cz).

In opposition to the standard methodology of the past two centuries, much more attention is being paid today to non-destructive eld methods. Aerial archaeology, GPS and total station topographic surveying complemented by geophysics are excellent tools of the new era (g. 3), yet they inevitably have their own limitations. Above all, they have only a limited ability to reveal the chronological and cultural afnities of studied features and in many cases an informed guess is all we can work out from our observations. Nevertheless, this is a productive way of gaining data for studies into cultural landscape structuring and development, long-term use and reuse of different types of monuments and symbolic/spiritual meanings of particular places and man-made burial constructions (mejda 2004). Traditional excavation techniques remain spatially restricted and their role now resides predominantly in rescue work on endangered or recently damaged sites (preservation by record). Besides this, and to a lesser extent, their signicance now lies also in attempts to test, by means of well-targeted test pits, those preliminary hypotheses based on the results of non-destructive research. Both rescue and academic excavations should ideally be problem oriented and therefore not contradictory (Roskams 2001), although in practice much depends on local research traditions and the personal experience of individuals involved in a particular project. One paradox of modern research is that the more sophisticated methods we have in hand, the fewer the number of spectacular nds we discover. Of course this has several reasons; partly it is caused by the fact that the total volume of archaeological sources for every period is limited and non-renewable and we are slowly and inevitably closing to the point of its total obliteration from the landscape. Other factors are no less valid, like the predominant use of machinery in agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction and construction works, resulting in a lack of direct contact in daily life between people and the archaeological record. On the other hand, there is still plenty of hitherto unexplored evidence left for research, either in the eld or in museum collections. Sometimes it is just a question of new tools and approaches (such as GIS or scientic analysis), which can contribute signicantly to the present understanding of available evidence. One of the methods most recently introduced into Czech archaeology is aerial survey (Gojda 1995). Even in West Bohemia, where the geology and vegetation cover do not provide optimal conditions for this type of reconnaissance, several sites had been recorded that turned out to be levelled tumuli (mejda 2007).

BURIAL MOUNDS IN WEST BOHEMIA

123

The contribution of this prospection technique helps to rectify the well-known bias toward woodland, where the preservation of earthworks is generally much better than in open arable land. Geophysics can offer a valuable insight too not only into a tumulus interior but also into what is present in its close vicinity, in seemingly empty space between barrows and in their wider surroundings. This approach represents another research topic that in the past has been largely ignored or insufciently studied. In the geological conditions of the region in question the results seem to be slightly better from electrical resistivity surveys than magnetometry, although both methods are best combined to provide complementary data (Kivnek 2005). Excavation as the classical archaeological technique must not be omitted from this list, as quite frequently only this type of work can put diverse threads of evidence together and provide ne detail to the whole picture (g. 4).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Today, prehistoric tumuli are as endangered a monument category as they have ever been. Despite this, the monitoring and responsible research of them does not seem to be a priority of the contemporary Czech archaeologist, whose major capacities are tied up with rescue archaeology projects. These are seldom carried out in remote forested areas, where tumuli remains have typically survived. Their progressive deterioration caused by forest management, the dynamics of natural factors and treasure hunters continues unrecorded except in minor and more or less haphazard undertakings. In this connection, it can be mentioned that the important political and economic changes that have happened in the Czech Republic in the last twenty years were accidentally accompanied by the retirement of most scholars involved in barrow research in the post-war era in West Bohemia (see references). Even these factors have had serious effects on the continuity of research. Finally, the rapid development of technologies, electronics and newly introduced models of higher education in archaeology, hand in hand with the onset and substantial expansion of commercially-based rescue archaeology, changed practically everything known to previous scholarly practice (see also Harding et al. 2007, p. 17).

Fig. 4 hlavy-Hjek (district Plze-south), tumulus No.44. Three-dimensional CAD model of the tumulus sections (simplied). Remains of the central stone structure were removed later, which produced no additional nds (all artefacts associated with the burial were discovered by F.X. Franc in 1880, see g. 1).

124

LADISLAV MEJDA

Now there is an apparent vacuum left by the retired scholars. The middle-aged archaeologists dedicated to the subject are few and much hope, therefore, rests on the new generation of young colleagues and PhD students who have recently started several interesting research projects (e.g. Kovov, Krituf 2007; Krituf, Ryt 2007). They involve untraditional themes as well as new methodological tools, which have recently become available. The only remaining problem is that projects of this kind are typically run by individual persons on a very small scale and do not produce the substantial collections of data that could potentially provide answers to the questions asked by present-day archaeological theory. The positive contribution so far resides mainly in the development and application of new prospection techniques and the scientic analyses of samples taken from spatially limited excavations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHYTREK M., HRKOV J., METLIKA M. 2005, Die archologische Forschungsgeschichte im sdwestlichen Teil Westbhmens, Archologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West- und Sdbhmen 14, p. 90-104. TRNCT V. 1964, Plzesko v pravku, Minulost Zpadoeskho kraje 3, p. 208-225. UJANOV-JLKOV E. 1970, Mittelbronzezeitliche Hgelgrberfelder in Westbhmen, Archeologick studijn materily 8, Prague. UJANOV-JLKOV E. 1983, Sto let od vkopu mohyly s bronzovm vozkem u Milav, in Vron zprva Okr. archivu Domalice za rok 1982, Horovsk Tn, p. 59-65. UJANOV-JLKOV E. 1984, Rekonstrukce pln mohylovch pohebi Milave-Chrastavice, Ltn a TebniceNmice, okres Domalice - Reconstruction of plans of the Tumulus Culture cemeteries from MilaveChrastavice, Ltn and Tebenice - Nmice (distr. of Domalice ), Archeologick rozhledy 36, p. 411-422. UJANOV-JLKOV E., RYBOV A., ALDOV V. 1959, Mohylov pohebit na Hjku u hlav, o. Plze - Die Hgelgrbersttte am Hjek bei hlavy, Bez. Pilsen, Pam. arch. 50, p. 54-119. GOJDA M. 1995, Zum Projekt der Luftbildarchologie in Bhmen, Konzeption und Methoden, in J. Kunow (ed.), Luftbildarchologie in Ost- und Mitteleuropa, Forschungen zur Archologie im Land Brandenburg 3, Potsdam, p. 199-208. HARDING A., UMBEROV R., KNSEL C., OUTRAM A. 2007, Velim: Violence and Death in Bronze Age Bohemia. The results of eldwork 1992-95, with a consideration of peri-mortem trauma and deposition in the Bronze Age, Prague. HRKOV J. 2002, Rovinn sdlit milavesk kultury v zpadnch echch - 1. st, Sbornk Zpadoeskho muzea v Plzni - Historie 16, p. 9-87. JLKOV E. 1957, Zpadn echy na potku doby bronzov - Westbhmen zu Beginn der Bronzezeit, Pam. arch. 48, p. 15-57. JLKOV E. 1961, Kostrov pohby ze stedn doby bronzov v mohylch na Plzesku - Die Skelettgrber aus der mittleren Bronzezeit in der Hgelgrbern des Pilsener Gebietes, Pam. arch. 52, p. 195-200. JIR L. 2006, Siedlungen der Hgelgrberkultur in Westbhmen Bemerkungen zum heutigen Kenntnisstand, Archeologick pracovn skupina vchodn Bavorsko/zpadn a jin echy - Archologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West- und Sdbhmen 15, p. 22-31.

BURIAL MOUNDS IN WEST BOHEMIA

125

KOVOV T., KRITUF P. 2007, Mohylov pohebit v poles Vtu - Prehistoric Burial Mound Cemeteries in the Forest Vyt, Domalice District, in P. Krituf, L. mejda, P. Vaeka (eds), Opomjen archeologie 20052006 (Neglected archaeology 2005-2006), Plze, p. 141-147. KRITUF P., RYT L. 2007, Mohylov pohebit na okrese Psek - Burial Mound Cemeteries in the Psek Region. Method of Visual Survey of the Burial Mound Cemeteries, in P. Krituf, L. mejda, P. Vaeka (eds), Opomjen archeologie 2005-2006 (Neglected archaeology 2005-2006), Plze, p. 133-140. KIVNEK R. 2005, Role geofyziklnch men v archeologickch projektech AR Praha - The role of geophysical measurements in archaeological projects of Institute of Archaeology in Prague, in V. Haek, R. Nekuda, M. Ruttkay (eds), Ve slubch archeologie VI - In service to archaeology VI, Brno, p. 129-138. KYTLICOV O. 1988, K sociln struktue kultury popelnicovch pol - Zur sozialen Struktur der Urnenfelderkultur, Pam. arch. 79, p. 342-389. LANG F. 1887/1888, O nlezech u Milave a Velkch Luenic, Pam. arch. 14, p. 209-211. METLIKA M., EZ M., TUREK J. 2007, Nlezy z obdob zvru eneolitu v jihozpadnch echch - Late Neolithic Period in South-western Bohemia, Archeologick vzkumy v jinch echch 20, p. 109-116. MILITK J. 1996, Siedlungen der mittelbronzezeitlichen Hgelgrberkultur in Westbhmen, Archeologick pracovn skupina vchodn Bavorsko/zpadn a jin echy - Archologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/ West- und Sdbhmen 5, p. 60-64. PLEINER R., RYBOV A. (eds) 1978, Pravk djiny ech, Prague. ROSKAMS S. 2001, Excavation, Cambridge. RYBOV A., ALDOV V. 1958, O pohebnm ritu milavesk kultury v zpadnch echch - ber den Grabritus der Milaveer Kultur in Westbhmen, Pam. arch. 49, p. 348-411. SOUDSK E. 1994, Die Anfnge der keltischen Zivilisation in Bhmen: Das Grberfeld Mantn-Hrdek, Prague. SUROVELL T. A., BRANTINGHAM P. J. 2007, A note on the use of temporal frequency distributions in studies of prehistoric demography, JAS 34, 11, p. 1868-1877. ALDOV V. 1960, Pspvek k otzce osdlen jihozpadnch ech v asn dob bronzov - Beitrag zur Frage der Besiedlung Sdwestbhmens in der frhen Bronzezeit, Pam. arch. 51, p. 527-538. ALDOV V. 1971, Pozdn haltatsk ploch hroby v zpadnch echch a jejich vztah k souasnm mohylm. Pohebit Nynice a kava-Svre - Die westbhmischen spthallstattzeitlichen Flachgrber und ihre Beziehung zu den zeitgleichen westbhmischen Hgelgrbern (Das Grberfeld von Nynice und kavaSvre), Pam. arch. 62/1, p. 1-134. ALDOV V. 1976, Pspvek k problematice mohylovo-milaveskho obdob na Stbrsku, Archeologick rozhledy 28, p. 481-493. ALDOV V. (ed.) 1988, F. X. Franc, hlauer Ausgrabungen 1890, Pehled nalezi v oblasti Me, Radbuzy, hlavy a Klabavy 1906, Prague. ALDOV V. 1999, Bestattungsbruche in der hallstattzeitlichen Hgelgrberregion Sdwestbhmens, Archeologick pracovn skupina vchodn Bavorsko/zpadn a jin echy - Archologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/ West- und Sdbhmen 8, p. 36-43. MEJDA L. 2003, Zprva o archeologickm vzkumu lokality hlavy-Hjek v roce 2002, in Sbornk Muzea stednho Poszav v Ratajch nad Szavou a Archeologick spolenosti Zpadoesk univerzity v Plzni II, Prague, p. 33-36. MEJDA L. 2004, Continuity of funerary areas, in M. Gojda (ed.), Ancient landscape, settlement dynamics and non-destructive archaeology: Czech research project 1997-2002, Prague, p. 305-31MEJDA L. 2007, Leteck prospekce a dokumentace pamtek v zpadnch echch pomoc ikmho snmkovn - Aerial prospection

126

LADISLAV MEJDA

and documentation from a low-ying aircraft in the west Bohemia, in P. Krituf, L. mejda, P. Vaeka (eds), Opomjen archeologie 2005-2006 (Neglected archaeology 2005-2006), Plze, p. 261-270.