Content uploaded by Ladislav Šmejda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ladislav Šmejda on Oct 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
BURIAL MOUNDS IN WEST BOHEMIA
THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH
Ladislav Šmejda *
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 Tène 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 is devoid of problems and controversies of some kind.
LOOKING BACK
West Bohemia is a region with a high concentration of prehistoric barrow cemeteries. Research into
them started in the 19th c. and, quite understandably, this early stage of investigation produced many portable
nds but relatively little contextual information (Chytráček et al. 2005). However, one student of barrows
in this early era was undoubtedly a bright exception to usual standards of the day. František Xaver Franc
(1838-1910), originally a gardener, worked for the aristocratic Waldstein family. He was in charge of gardens
Ancestral Landscapes.
TMO 58, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, 2011
* University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Philosophy & Arts, Department of Archaeology, Univerzitní 8, 306 14 Plzeň, Czech Republic.
The work on this paper was supported by the University of West Bohemia in Plzeň and by the research programme “Neglected
archaeology” (Czech Ministry of Education, MSM4977751314).
120 l. Šmejda
surrounding the Kozel chateau located some 20km south of Plzeň (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
Plzeň as its secretary. There he continued eldwork and published several short articles. Franc retired in 1904.
Unfortunately, two major accounts on his extensive excavations could not be published for many decades and
nally went to print under the editorship of V. Šaldová as late as in 1988.
The scope and quality of Franc’s 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 (Jílková 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 Šťáhlavy-Hájek, 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 (Šmejda 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 (Čtrnáct 1964; Pleiner, Rybová 1978).
Fig. 1− Šťáhlavy-Hájek (district Plzeň-south), tumulus No. 44 (Middle Bronze Age).
Section, plan and nds as recorded by F.X. Franc in 1880. Reproduction photograph made
and adapted by the author. The original is kept in the Západočeské museum, Plzeň.
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 (Jílková 1957; Šaldová 1960). This period may be
aptly called the “Dark Age” of West Bohemian prehistory. Although the evidence of human activity is extremely
scarce (Metlička 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 Eneolithic 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 (Rybová, Šaldová 1958; Čujanová-Jílková 1970; Šaldová 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 long-term tradition of building
tumuli was established at this time that lasted with some uctuations up to the early La Tène period (Čujanová-
Jílková et al. 1959; Šaldová 1971; Soudská 1994; Šaldová 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,
Fig. 2 − Šťáhlavy-Hájek (district Plzeň-south), tumulus No. 44. A selection of nds
retrieved during the re-excavation by the author in 2002. 1 – int arrowhead,
2 – prehistoric pottery, 3-6 medieval pottery (not to scale).
122 l. Šmejda
the latest catalogues of the existing evidence on the middle to late Bronze Age residential areas brought
forward a somewhat fuller picture (Militký 1996; Hůrková 2002; Jiráň 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 Milavče 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
striking inventories (Lang 1887/1888; Čujanová-Jílková 1983 and 1984; Kytlicová 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
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
re-use of different types of monuments and
symbolic/spiritual meanings of particular
places and man-made burial constructions
(Šmejda 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
Fig. 3 − Horušany-Na Radlici (district
Plzeň-south), plan of the tumulus cemetery.
The author surveyed this site with M. Řezáč 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).
burial mounds in west bohemia 123
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
(Šmejda 2007). 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 (Křivánek 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).
Fig. 4 − Šťáhlavy-Hájek (district Plzeň-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 l. Šmejda
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).
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. Kovářová, Krištuf 2007;
Krištuf, Rytíř 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
Chytráček M., Hůrková J., Metlička M. 2005, “Die archäologische Forschungsgeschichte im südwestlichen
Teil Westböhmens”, Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West- und Südböhmen 14, p. 90-104.
Čtrnáct V. 1964, “Plzeňsko v pravěku”, Minulostí Západočeského kraje 3, p. 208-225.
Čujanová-Jílková E. 1970, Mittelbronzezeitliche Hügelgräberfelder in Westböhmen, Archeologické studijní
materiály 8, Prague.
Čujanová-Jílková E. 1983, “Sto let od výkopu mohyly s bronzovým vozíkem u Milavčí”, in Výroční zpráva Okr.
archivu Domažlice za rok 1982, Horšovský Týn, p. 59-65.
Čujanová-Jílková E. 1984, “Rekonstrukce plánů mohylových pohřebišť Milavče-Chrastavice, Lštění a Třebnice-
Němčice, okres Domažlice – Reconstruction of plans of the Tumulus Culture cemeteries from Milavče-
Chrastavice, Lštění and Třebenice – Němčice (distr. of Domažlice)”, Archeologické rozhledy 36, p. 411-422.
Čujanová-Jílková E., Rybová A., Šaldová V. 1959, “Mohylové pohřebiště na Hájku u Šťáhlav, o. Plzeň – Die
Hügelgräberstätte am Hájek bei Šťáhlavy, Bez. Pilsen”, Pam. arch. 50, p. 54-119.
Gojda M. 1995, “Zum Projekt der Luftbildarchäologie in Böhmen, Konzeption und Methoden”, in J. Kunow (ed.),
Luftbildarchäologie in Ost- und Mitteleuropa, Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandenburg 3, Potsdam,
p. 199-208.
Harding A., Šumberová R., Knüsel 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.
burial mounds in west bohemia 125
Hůrková J. 2002, “Rovinná sídliště milavečské kultury v západních Čechách – 1. část”, Sborník Západočeského
muzea v Plzni – Historie 16, p. 9-87.
Jílková E. 1957, “Západní Čechy na počátku doby bronzové – Westböhmen zu Beginn der Bronzezeit”,
Pam. arch. 48, p. 15-57.
Jílková E. 1961, “Kostrové pohřby ze střední doby bronzové v mohylách na Plzeňsku – Die Skelettgräber aus der
mittleren Bronzezeit in der Hügelgräbern des Pilsener Gebietes”, Pam. arch. 52, p. 195-200.
Jiráň L. 2006, “Siedlungen der Hügelgräberkultur in Westböhmen – Bemerkungen zum heutigen Kenntnisstand”,
Archeologická pracovní skupina východní Bavorsko/západní a jižní Čechy - Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Ostbayern/West- und Südböhmen 15, p. 22-31.
Kovářová T., KriŠtuf P. 2007, “Mohylová pohřebiště v polesí Výtuň – Prehistoric Burial Mound Cemeteries
in the Forest Vytůň, Domažlice District”, in P. Krištuf, L. Šmejda, P. Vařeka (eds), Opomíjená archeologie
2005-2006 (Neglected archaeology 2005-2006), Plzeň, p. 141-147.
KriŠtuf P., Rytíř L. 2007, “Mohylová pohřebiště na okrese Písek – Burial Mound Cemeteries in the Písek Region.
Method of Visual Survey of the Burial Mound Cemeteries”, in P. Krištuf, L. Šmejda, P. Vařeka (eds), Opomíjená
archeologie 2005-2006 (Neglected archaeology 2005-2006), Plzeň, p. 133-140.
Křivánek R. 2005, “Role geofyzikálních měření v archeologických projektech ARÚ Praha – The role of geophysical
measurements in archaeological projects of Institute of Archaeology in Prague”, in V. Hašek, R. Nekuda,
M. Ruttkay (eds), Ve službách archeologie VI – In service to archaeology VI, Brno, p. 129-138.
Kytlicová O. 1988, “K sociální struktuře kultury popelnicových polí – Zur sozialen Struktur der Urnenfelderkultur”,
Pam. arch. 79, p. 342-389.
Lang F. 1887/1888, “O nálezech u Milaveč a Velkých Luženic”, Pam. arch. 14, p. 209-211.
Metlička M., Řezáč M., Turek J. 2007, “Nálezy z období závěru eneolitu v jihozápadních Čechách – Late
Neolithic Period in South-western Bohemia”, Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách 20, p. 109-116.
Militký J. 1996, “Siedlungen der mittelbronzezeitlichen Hügelgräberkultur in Westböhmen”, Archeologická
pracovní skupina východní Bavorsko/západní a jižní Čechy – Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/
West- und Südböhmen 5, p. 60-64.
Pleiner R., Rybová A. (eds) 1978, Pravěké dějiny Čech, Prague.
Roskams S. 2001, Excavation, Cambridge.
Rybová A., Šaldová V. 1958, “O pohřebním ritu milavečské kultury v západních Čechách – Über den Grabritus
der Milavečer Kultur in Westböhmen”, Pam. arch. 49, p. 348-411.
Šaldová V. 1960, “Příspěvek k otázce osídlení jihozápadních Čech v časné době bronzové – Beitrag zur Frage der
Besiedlung Südwestböhmens in der frühen Bronzezeit”, Pam. arch. 51, p. 527-538.
Šaldová V. 1971, “Pozdně halštatské ploché hroby v západních Čechách a jejich vztah k současným mohylám.
Pohřebiště Nynice a Žákava-Sváreč – Die westböhmischen späthallstattzeitlichen Flachgräber und
ihre Beziehung zu den zeitgleichen westböhmischen Hügelgräbern (Das Gräberfeld von Nynice und
Žákava-Sváreč)”, Pam. arch. 62/1, p. 1-134.
Šaldová V. 1976, “Příspěvek k problematice mohylovo-milavečského období na Stříbrsku”, Archeologické
rozhledy 28, p. 481-493.
Šaldová V. (ed.) 1988, F. X. Franc, Šťáhlauer Ausgrabungen 1890, Přehled nalezišť v oblasti Mže, Radbuzy, Úhlavy
a Klabavy 1906, Prague.
Šaldová V. 1999, “Bestattungsbräuche in der hallstattzeitlichen Hügelgräberregion Südwestböhmens”, Archeologická
pracovní skupina východní Bavorsko/západní a jižní Čechy – Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West-
und Südböhmen 8, p. 36-43.
Šmejda L. 2003, “Zpráva o archeologickém výzkumu lokality Šťáhlavy-Hájek v roce 2002”, in Sborník Muzea
středního Posázaví v Ratajích nad Sázavou a Archeologické společnosti Západočeské univerzity v Plzni II,
Prague, p. 33-36.
126 l. Šmejda
Šmejda 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. 305-331.
Šmejda L. 2007, “Letecká prospekce a dokumentace památek v západních Čechách pomocí šikmého
snímkování – Aerial prospection and documentation from a low-ying aircraft in the west Bohemia”, in
P. Krištuf, L. Šmejda, P. Vařeka (eds), Opomíjená archeologie 2005-2006 (Neglected archaeology 2005-2006),
Plzeň, p. 261-270.
Soudská E. 1994, Die Anfänge der keltischen Zivilisation in Böhmen: Das Gräberfeld Manětín-Hrádek, 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.
