mlekuzetal (1)

7/29/2019 mlekuzetal (1)

1/14

325

Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012)

Houses, pots and food>the pottery from Maharski prekop in context

Dimitrij Mleku/, Andreja ?ibrat Ga[pari;, Milena Horvat and Mihael BudjaDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SI

[email protected]< [email protected]< [email protected]< [email protected]

Introduction

The Iica floodplain is the micro-region on Ljubljan-sko Barje that has been most intensively investiga-

ted in the past 137 years. Three main archaeologicalresearch and fieldwork episodes can be recognisedduring this period. The first relates to Dragotin De-mans pile dwellings discovery and the excavationof several large areas of approximately 12 000m2.Unfortunately, only scant fieldwork documentationwas provided (Koroec P., Koroec J. 1969). The se-cond episode comprises Resnikov prekop (Koroec1964; Bregant 1964), Maharski prekop (Bregant1974a; 1974b; 1975) and Parte (Harej 1978; 1981;

1987) excavations. The interdisciplinary approachand sophisticated recording procedures and techni-ques that were introduced for the Maharski prekop

site excavation are worth noting. Systematic palyno-logical (ercelj 1975; 19811982; ercelj, Culiberg1978) and soil analyses (Stritar 1975; Stritar, Lob-nik 1985) run parallel. They have all resulted in de-tailed site archives that include palaeoenvironmen-tal data and conventional radiocarbon dates, alongwith catalogues of pottery and other artefact assem-blages. The third episode comprises intensive field-work (Veluek 2006) on the landscape and settle-ment dynamics in the micro-region (Budja 1994/1995; 1997; Mleku, Budja and Ogrinc 2006). Re-mote sensing research has enabled new insights in-

to landscape taphonomy and revealed a pattern ofpalaeochannels that structured the landscape and af-fected the Maharski prekop site. Radiocarbon dating

ABSTRACT In this paper, we attempt a multiscalar analysis of the Maharski prekop archaeologicalsite, connecting the landscape context, temporal dynamics, and spatial organisation with the com-

position of the artefact assemblage, the shapes, sizes and technological composition of the pottery,and traces of activities in the form of food residues on pottery. The pottery assemblage from Mahar-ski prekop is characterised by a wide variation in vessels. This can be explained by the non-specia-lised use of vessels, where they were deliberately designed to be able to perform a series of differentfunctions, which is supported by the technological analysis of fabrics and the wide range of identi-fied foodstuffs, interesting contexts with an abundance of anthropomorphic figurines are presentedand discussed.

IZVLEEK Vlanku predstavljamo rezultate venivojske analize najdia Maharski prekop na Ljub-ljanskem barju. Pokrajinske kontekste, asovno dinamiko najdia in njegovo prostorsko organiza-cijo smo povezali s podatki o sestavi artefaktnega zbira, oblikami, velikostjo in tehnolokimi znail-nostmi keramike ter s podatki o sledovih aktivnosti, dokazane z ohranjenimi sledovi hrane v/na lon-

enini. Za keramini zbir z Maharskega prekopa je znailna velika variabilnost posod. To si lahkorazlagamo kot nespecializirano uporabo lonenine, kjer so bile posode namenoma oblikovane zacelo serijo razlinih funkcij, kar so podprle tako tehnoloke analize lonarskih mas kotirok razponprepoznanih vrstivil.

KEY WORDS pottery; pile dwellings; Ljubljansko Barje; Eneolithic

DOI> 10.4312\dp.39.24


2/14

Dimitrij Mleku/, Andreja ?ibrat Ga[pari;, Milena Horvat and Mihael Budja

326

was applied to show the correlation between settle-ment and landscape dynamics (Budja, Mleku2008;2010).

The scale of analysis often determines the range ofquestions raised about data and the narratives weproduce (Jones 2002). Microscale studies, studies ofpottery technology, its chemical composition andstudies of organic traces preserved in pottery arenested in a wider context of human daily practicesand activities. Decontextualized analyses are in dan-ger of being abstracted from their archaeological con-text and cannot contribute to the wider discussionand narratives.

This paper is an attempt at a multiscalar analysis of

the Maharski prekop archaeological site, approach-ing it in terms of landscape context, temporal dyna-mics, spatial organisation, the composition of its ar-tefact assemblage, the shapes, sizes and technologi-cal composition of the pottery to the traces of activi-ties as indicated on pottery in the form of food resi-dues. The purpose is to integrate a wide range ofdata into a holistic, multiscalar picture of the site.Detailed and more technical aspects of analyses oforganic residues on pottery are presented in a com-plementary paper (Ogrinc et al. this volume). Amore plausible alliance between microscale analyti-

cal procedures and interpretative archaeology is pos-sible only by nesting the results of microscale analy-ses within wider narratives.

Maharski prekop

The excavations of the Maharski prekop site from1970 to 1977 by Tatjana Bregant are the largest ex-cavation of a settlement in the Ljubljansko Barje areaso far, since a large area of around1220m2 was excavated (Bregant

1974a; 1974b; 1975; with unpubli-shed documentation from excava-tions in 1976 and 1977). However,test trenches excavated in the vicin-ity of the site, pile clusters in the Ii-ca River and in the ditch at Maharskiprekop, cores and sediment exposu-res from the immediate environs ofthe site suggest that the settlementextended even further across thefloodplain.

A lidar image reveals that the Ma-harski prekop site is set in a land-scape criss-crossed by a network of

palaeochannels (Fig. 1). The organic infill of the pa-laeochannel that runs parallel to the site dates thesilting up of the channel to 28332466 calBC, attes-ting that the channel was abandoned before that

date. Part of this palaeochannel was already excava-ted during Bregants campaigns, where a row ofpiles located at the edge of the channel was inter-preted as a revetment that protected the site frombank erosion. Maharski prekop was located next toan active channel. The lidar survey thus revealed acomplex microtopography, which makes this areasuitable for settlement, and suggests a very dynamiclandscape of seasonal floods and shifting palaeo-channels (Mleku, Budja and Ogrinc 2006; Budja,Mleku 2010).

Sequence of radiocarbon dates

The Maharski prekop sequence is comprised of 35radiocarbon dates (Tab. 1; Fig. 2). Besides the seriesof 6 conventional dates on wooden piles completedin the 1970s and 5 AMS radiocarbon dates obtainedfrom animal bones, an additional 22 AMS radiocar-bon dates of carbonised food residues on potterywere obtained recently. The wooden structures ofMaharski prekop are dated between 4226 and 2631calBC, but the dates of bones yielded a much narro-wer span between 3641 and 3372 calBC, with only

one outlier, which was dated to 5615 and 5475 calBC(Mleku, Budja and Ogrinc 2006.Tab. 1).

A new series of direct dates of pottery significantlycontributes to the chronology of the site (Fig. 3). Thesum of distribution of AMS radiocarbon dates demon-strates roughly a bimodal distribution of probabili-ties, with a period of intensive occupation dating be-tween 4400 and 4000 calBC, and a second occupa-

Fig. 1. Maharski prekop in a landscape context.


3/14

Houses, pots and food> the pottery from Maharski prekop in context

327

Sample Conse-Site Context Material Lab code

ConventionalCalBC Median

n. cutive n. BP

15LJ MP226 Maharski prekop excavations 1977, food residue Poz48519 3920 35 25472291 2406grid sq. 60 on potery

Maharski prekop excavations 1974, wood Z353 4330 120 33542631 2991

test trench 4Maharski prekop excavations 1973, wood Z305 4345 113 33572671 3011

grid sq. 15, pile 1 (Fraxinus)Maharski prekop excavations 1974, wood Z278 4633 117 36463026 3392

grid sq. 12|, pile 40 (Quercus|)Maharski prekop sediment exposure charcoal AA27182 4680 55 36323362 3463

MP1, layer 6163cm14LJ MP177 Maharski prekop excavations 1977, food residue Poz48518 4700 40 36303369 3464

grid sq. 62 on poteryMaharski prekop excavations 1974, wood Z315 4701 104 36983106 3477

grid sq. 15, pile 4 (Sorbus)Maharski prekop grid sq. 42 bone Beta219608 4710 40 36333372 3495Maharski prekop grid sq. 42 bone (Ovis) Beta219607 4720 40 36353374 3511Maharski prekop grid sq. 42 bone (Ovis) Beta219606 4740 40 36383377 3543Maharski prekop grid sq. 32 bone Beta219611 4740 40 36383377 3543


Maharski prekop grid sq. 34 bone Beta219610 4750 50 36413376 354721LJ MP223 Maharski prekop excavations 1974, food residue Poz48661 4755 35 36373379 3566

grid sq. 32 on potery16LJ MP227 Maharski prekop excavations 1977, food residue Poz48520 4760 40 36383378 5363






grid sq. 47 on poteryMaharski prekop wood Z314 4964 99 39713533 3766




Maharski prekop excavations 1974, wood Z351 5080 110 42263646 3872grid sq. 42, pile 156 (Sorbus)


07LJ MP224 Maharski prekop excavations 1976, food residue Poz48509 5180 40 42193811 3990

grid sq. 43 on potery09LJ MP45 Maharski prekop excavations 1973, food residue Poz48512 5210 40 42243952 4016grid sq. 23 on potery







Maharski prekop grid sq. 34 bone Beta219609 6570 40 56155475 5523

Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates for Maharski prekop.


4/14


328

tion period between 3800 to 3550 calBC. The finalspike after 3500 calBC can be attributed to a wigglein the calibration curve between 3500 and 3400calBC. These two concentrations are separated by agap of around 200 years after 4000 calBC.

The oak chronology of 173 years from Maharski pre-kop is dated between 3661 and 3489 calBC (ufaret al.2010). This corresponds well with the secondconcentration of radiocarbon dates presented above

and indicates a period of intensive building and ot-her activities at the site. However, a number of datesof carbonised food/organic residues are significantlyolder than suggested by the dendrochronological se-quence. Thus at least 14 of the new dates obtainedfrom pottery fall into the period between 4400 and4000 calBC, suggesting intensive activities at the siteat the time. This is further supported by two olddates of wooden piles that fall within this period.

Two intriguing older dates from Maharski prekop

testify to sporadic activities at the site before the in-tensive occupation period between 4400 and 3550calBC. Thus, one sample of animal bone yielded adate of 56155475 calBC, which makes it contempo-raneous with the date from a Mesolithic site at Bregpri kofljici (58435307 calBC). Additionally, onedate of charred food/organic residues on pottery(47084502 calBC) is roughly contemporaneouswith the dates from Resnikov prekop (Mleku, Bud-ja and Ogrinc 2006.Tab. 1).

As already mentioned, the radiocarbon date of the or-

ganic infill of the palaeochannel (28332466 calBC)indicates the terminus ante quem for the palaeo-channel located next to the site, suggesting that the

palaeochannel silted up before that date. One dateof carbonised food/organic residue on pottery fromMaharski prekop comes immediately after this event,suggesting sporadic activities continued after theabandonment of the site.

These new dates suggest a much more complexchronological sequence for Maharski prekop thanpreviously supposed. It appears that the site was set-tled for a much longer period, had distinct phases of

occupation, and shows traces of earlier visits or acti-vities. Therefore, new chronological sequence forMaharski prekop also has implications for the chro-nology of the microregion, as the gaps in the chro-nology are filled. Consequently, instead of a discrete,short-lived site, we are dealing with a node withina complex landscape of inhabitation.

This exercise also shows the benefits of complemen-tary dating methods and samples for a better under-

Fig. 2. Radiocarbon dates from Maharski prekop.

Fig. 3. Summed radiocarbon distribution of radio-carbon dates of food residues on pottery and bonesfrom Maharski prekop.


5/14


329

standing of the chronology of a site.The radiocarbon dates of bones andcarbonised food/organic residues onpottery date events relating to the

practices of preparation and dispo-sal of food, and thus complement thedates of the wooden structures rela-ting to events of building and con-struction.

Spatial organisation

Only such large-scale excavations of-fer an opportunity for a better un-derstanding of the spatial structureof the sites. Thanks to the large area

excavated by Tatjana Bregant, it ispossible to assess the organisation ofspace within the Maharski prekopsettlement. Bregant interpreted thesite as a single-phase pile-dwellingwith several raised platforms wheresmall houses were located (Bregant1975.1730).

The site was obviously located on aslightly raised area near an activechannel which runs to the east of the excavated area.

A distinctive cut in the cultural layer is visible in thesections, which is the result of the erosion of thebanks of the stream. In the southern part of the ex-cavated area, further destruction can be observed inthe lower density of piles and the lack of a culturallayer. This erosion can be identified on the lidar-de-rived digital elevation model as a low terrace asso-ciated with the modern Iica River. The central, west-ern and northern parts of the site were not dama-ged by erosion (Fig. 4).

During the excavation, 2432 vertical wooden pileswere recorded at the site. The average vertical piledensity is almost 2 piles per m2 and the arrange-ment of piles displays a regular pattern. Over mostof the undisturbed part of the activated area, pilesare usually organised in sets of three parallel rows.Most of the rows were oriented parallel to the doc-umented palaeochannel. The mean pile diameter is5.8cm (standard deviation 3.8cm, N = 1743), al-though piles with diameters of up to 26cm havebeen found. Piles with larger diameters were oftensplit, and comprise 28% of all piles. The piles were

usually made of three types of wood, oak (Quercus),ash (Fraxinus), and rowan (Sorbus) and comprisemore than 90% of the identified taxa (ercelj 1973;

1975). Some of the recovered piles were very long,

as they were driven up to 3m into the silt (Bregant1974b.43).

This arrangement of piles can be interpreted as theremains of nine houses with dimensions of around10 x 3.54.5m arranged in parallel. Each house istherefore made of three rows of structural timbers,with a central row of centre-posts supporting a roofridgepole, while lateral the rows are wall posts. Mostof the houses are oriented with the longer side pa-rallel to the channel. Only one of the houses is ori-

ented at right angle to the others (Fig. 5).Based on the relative height of the piles, we can di-vide the settlement into two building phases. Whenthe superstructure was destroyed (either by fire,flood or decay), only parts of the posts below theoccupational surface survived. Thus the heights ofthe recovered piles may indicate the levels of occu-pational floors at the time when the houses weredestroyed. Since the original surface of the settle-ment was irregular, we cannot compare the heightsof the remaining piles directly, but we can relate

them to the surface of the cultural layer that was in-terpolated from the published sections. Piles withtops below the surface of the cultural layer were the-

Fig. 4. The elevation of the original surface where piles were loca-ted at Maharski prekop. Note the palaeochannel on the easternedge of the site.


6/14


330

refore part of older structures thanthe piles extending above the culturallayer. In this way, two phases of thesettlement, an older and younger

phase, can be identified (Fig. 6). Pilesfrom both phases are not distributedrandomly; instead, piles from the samephase tend to be clustered in groupsthat we have identified as houses. Thissupports our interpretation of pile-rows as the remains of houses, andenables us to subdivide the housesthemselves into chronological phases(Mleku, Budja and Ogrinc 2006).

However, a number of piles could not

be linked to houses at Maharski pre-kop. Some thin piles located withinthe settlement area can be associatedwith less permanent wooden structu-res such as drying racks or fences. Butthe most obvious structures were twoor three dense rows of piles runningalong the channel on the eastern sideof the excavated area. The piles inthese structures were generally ofmuch smaller diameters than those in the centralpart of the excavated area, and split piles are almost

non-existent. The type of wood used for these pileswas much more diverse than in the piles of the cen-tral area (ercelj 1973; 1975). Some piles from theeasternmost row were inclined towards the chan-nel, which obviously eroded the cultural layer. Theexcavator interpreted these structures as a revetment(Bregant 1975.1720, Fig. 1), which supports theevidence of the active paleochannel associated withthe site.

Clay surfaces that were often burned were also re-

corded within the cultural layer (Bregant 1974b. 12;1975.1415). They could be up to 20cm thick, andcovered large areas between the rows of piles, andin some cases their direct stratigraphic superposi-tion could be observed. For example, in the south-ern part of the excavated area, there is evidence ofthe superposition of two clay floors separated by athin layer of occupational debris, which could indi-cate the periodic rebuilding of surfaces (Fig. 7). Con-centrations of stones are another common feature ofthe site (Bregant 1974a.12; 1974b.41; 1975.1415).Stones form distinctive clusters or features that were

commonly found at the peripheral ends of houses.Stones were sometimes distributed along lateralrows of piles and are often associated with lenses of

charcoal, indicating that they could be interpretedas remnants of thermal structures. The concentra-

tions of stones are also often associated with grind-stones.

Additionally, around 224kg of pottery were collec-ted at the site, and the position of 131 other typesof artefacts (such as axes, spindle whorls, bone tools,loom weights, personal ornaments, cooper metal-lurgy implements etc.) was recorded during the ex-cavation (Fig. 8). Based on the assumption that thecultural layer represented a short-term occupationof the site, the excavator recorded the spatial posi-

tion of artefacts only within 4 x 4 m grid squares.Therefore, the stratigraphic position of artefacts with-in the cultural layer is lost, compelling us to treatthe artefacts as only a single spatial distributionover the site.

Most of the material enters the archaeological recordthrough depositional practices that have a clear spa-tial dimension. Artefacts discarded at their locationsof use are termed primary refuse; those discardedelsewhere are known as secondary refuse. The pri-mary refuse is rare, since we tend to clean our liv-

ing and working areas. An unmistakable characteri-stic of secondary refuse distributions in most settle-ments is clustering. People tend to dump refuse some

Fig. 5. Distribution of piles, choice of wood and reconstructedhouse plans at Maharski prekop.


7/14


331

distance from where it was produced, and whereothers have previously dumped refuse, producingconcentrations. The distribution of pottery at Mahar-ski prekop is clustered. We can observe at least three

distinct concentrations: one in the palaeochannelin the southern part of the site; in the central partof the site; around old phase house 1 and betweennew phase houses 2, 4 and 5. The distribution ofother material generally follows the distribution ofpottery, with some differences. There is a large con-centration of bone axes in front of house 1, togetherwith concentrations of stone, pottery and flint tools.Spindle whorls are concentrated in the empty spacebetween houses 4 and 2; here, personal ornamentsand finds associated with metallurgical activitieswere also recovered. On the other hand, bone tools

are concentrated in the paleochannel together withpottery (Fig. 8).

At long-term settlements, we cannot assume any di-rect relation between structural remains and artefactdistribution. Michael Schiffers (1987; LaMotta, Schif-fer 1997) work on the formation processes of the ar-chaeological record demonstrated that what we seein an archaeological record is the result of the pro-cess of building, use, abandonment, and post-aban-donment transformations often operating together,

making artefact distribution a complex palimpsestof various formation processes.

Pottery at Maharski prekop

Pottery studies have been dominated by detailedanalyses of decorative motifs and the constructionof elaborate chronological schemes. However, potsare made to be used. In most cases, the primaryfunctions of ceramic vessels are processing, storing,transporting, serving, and consuming foods and li-quids (Rice 1987.207208). The potter makes tech-nical choices related to performance in manufactureand use in accordance with the vessels intendedfunctions, controlling the shape and size of the ves-sels, paste characteristics, firing conditions, and sur-

face treatments to create vessels for specific purpo-ses (Skibo 1992.2756; DeBoer 1984; Tite 2008;van As 1984). The shape, size and capacity of a ves-sel are likely to relate very closely to the differentpotential functions of the pot (Rice 1987.207).

Marion Smith (1988) found three measures, mor-phological correlates of use, that are particularly re-levant when correlating form to function. The firstis the relative openness of the vessels, which is theratio of the circumference of the rim to the total ex-

ternal surface area; the second is the

diameter of the vessel rim and thethird is capacity of the vessel. Usinga cross-cultural approach, he isolatedseveral interesting correlations be-tween these measures and intendedfunctions of the vessel. Thus, rim sizeis proportional to the extent that thecontents of a vessel are changed. Theserving of liquids or solids correla-tes with rim forms that do not curveinward. Rim diameter is inversely

proportional to the duration of stor-age time. Vessels that require accessto contents during use will have anopening big enough for hand access.Vessels used to transport liquids havea small opening. On the other hand,Prudence Rice (1987.224226) iden-tified four loosely defined perfor-mance characteristics related to ves-sel shape: capacity, stability, accessi-bility, and transportability. These at-tributes are not defined mathemati-

cally, but are nevertheless useful indescribing the properties of a vesselin relation to intended use. Other

Fig. 6. Division of piles and houses into chronological phases ba-sed on the relative heights of the piles at Maharski prekop.


8/14


332

technological choices are also close-ly related to the intended use of thepot. Thus the choice of a particulartemper, paste characteristics and fi-

ring conditions might have an im-pact on how a vessel performs dur-ing manufacture and use (Braun1983; DeBoer 1984; Skibo 1992.2756). Technological properties such asthermal shock resistance, and heat-ing effectiveness might thus be high-ly related to the intended function.

Pottery typology and use

Our approach to the pottery assem-

blage from Maharski prekop (Bre-gant 1974a; 1974b; 1975; with un-published material from excava-tions in 1976 and 1977) is characte-rised by a focus on whole pots ra-ther than individual sherds. Duringthe initial analysis of the pottery as-semblage, 476 reconstructed or par-tly reconstructed pots were defined.Vessel form was described with theformal parameters defined by Milena Horvat (1999),and the capacity, openness and rim diameter were

estimated for 349 vessels. Openness was defined asthe ratio between orifice area and external surfacearea. The vessels were then arranged along three di-mensions: capacity, openness and rim diameter. Therim diameter and capacity highly correlate; there-fore, the relation between the vessels openness andcapacity was established to be most informative. Ba-sed on these criteria, we divided the corpus of vesselsinto 5 vessel groups. Most of the vessels have lowcapacity, below 4 litres, with the peak between 1 and2 litres; however, there are some very large vessels

with volumes up to 100 litres (Tab. 2; Fig. 910). The first vessel group consists of small pots, usu-ally with a capacity less than 0.5 litres. The relativeopenness ranges from low to moderate, while rimdiameters are highly uniform, as they fall between5 and 10cm. The low capacity, low rim diameter andmoderate openness suggest that these vessels mighthave been used for the individual consumption ofliquids.

The second group consists of vessels with very

high to extreme openness. The vessel capacity ran-ges between 0.5 and 20 litres, although most havea capacity below 4 litres. Rim diameters are very

large and the vessels are mostly shallow, indicatingvery high accessibility and stability. These vessels

might have been used for the individual consump-tion of food (in the case of low capacity vessels) andcommunal serving vessels (in the case of high capa-city vessels).

The third group consists of vessels with lower rimdiameters and moderate openness. Vessel capacityranges between 0.5 and 20 litres; most of the ves-sels have a capacity below 10 litres. These vesselsare usually of globular shape, with moderate acces-sibility. Their intermediate openness and accessibi-

lity between groups 2 and 4 suggest a variety offunctions.

The fourth group consists of vessels with lowerrim diameters and low openness. These vessels areusually deep and have low accessibility. Volumes upto 20 litres indicate that they could be used for thepreparation of full meals. However, most of the ves-sels have capacities around 1 litre, indicating thatonly certain parts of a meal could have been stirredand cooked in such pots.

The fifth group consists of a few vessels with anextreme capacity above 20 litres. The vessels in thisgroup have low openness; they are deep and inac-

Fig. 7. Distribution of stone features, querns, clay floors and woodfragments at Maharski prekop.


9/14


333

cessible. Their large capacity and ac-cessibility suggest that they can beinterpreted either as very large foodpreparation and processing vessels

or vessels for temporary storage.

The vessels from Maharski prekopdisplay a broad range of size and/orform classes associated with a va-riety of inferred functions. The va-riety of vessel forms and sizes sug-gests that the site served as a locusof diverse subsistence processing,storage, and consumption activities.There is a general lack of vesselswith very low accessibility (low rim

diameter and low openness) thatcould be interpreted as long-termstorage vessels. Capacities that peakbetween 0.5 and 2 litres suggest thatmost of the assemblage consists ofvessels for the individual consump-tion of food or food preparation forsmall groups of people. This suggestsindividual consumption, which canbe defined as when not only the eat-ing of food is done from individualvessels, but also the serving (Bats

1988.23). However, the presence of some very largevessels that could be used for food preparation orserving suggest that communal food preparation andconsumption was at least sporadically practiced.

The direct evidence of vessel use can survive in theform of external soot or as burnt food residues onthe surface, and animal fats and plant waxes absor-bed by the pottery. In the assemblage from Mahar-ski prekop, 39 vessels with organic residues wereidentified. If we interpret these residues as traces

of burnt food, and therefore an indication of cook-ing, then they can give further insight into the useof pottery. Organic residue is completely absent ingroups 1 and 2, further supporting the hypothesis

that these vessels were not used for cooking, but forthe consumption of food. Most of the food residueis present in group 3, especially in the vessels witha capacity below 5 litres, which further supports ourobservation that most of the cooking at Maharskiprekop was done on a small scale, either for verysmall groups of people, or that only elements of alarger meal may have been cooked in individualpots. However, organic residues are present on somevery large vessels in group 5 with capacities up to 80litres, indicating that cooking or processing of large

quantities of food was sporadically practiced (Fig. 9).

Pottery samples with charred organic residue on theinternal surface of the vessels were AMS radiocarbon

OrganicMedian Median rim

MedianDefinition Size

residuecapacity diameter

openess(in litres) (in cm)

Group 1 Capacity less than 0.5l 13 0 0,24 7,7 0,31

Group 2 Capacity between 0.5 and 20l, very open 14 0 2,72 22 0,42

Group 3 Capacity between 0.5 and 20l, moderately open 63 5 4,96 21,6 0,31

Group 4 Capacity between 0.5 and 20l< closed 176 16 7,00 20 0,21

Group 5 Capacity more than 20 l 36 4 33,89 35,8 0,21

Tab. 2. Vessel use groups of pottery from Maharski prekop.

Fig. 8. Distribution of pottery and other material at Maharski pre-kop.


10/14


334

dated (see above), but were also analysed for theirlipid content with a series of different methods andtechniques (as presented byOgrincet al. this vol-ume). Lipids are exceptionally well preserved, since

among 20 analysed samples only 5 yielded no li-pids, and the remainder include a wide range ofidentified foodstuffs. Most of the samples providedevidence of animal fats (including cattle adiposefats), and there is also a large number of sampleswith evidence of mixed animal and plant fats. Twosamples also yielded evidence of milk. At present, 13samples can be linked to individual vessels; their ca-pacity ranges from 1 to 51 litres; vessels were classi-fied into groups 3, 4 and 5 (Tab. 3).

Pottery technology

For the study of pottery technology of the Maharskiprekop assemblage, samples from different types ofvessels from a series of grid squares were chosen foranalysis. The study included a hand specimen de-scription of the pottery where different fabric typeswere identified (followingHorvat 1999) and later apetrographic analysis of pottery thin sections (fol-lowing Whitbread 1995.365396; Terry, Chillingar1955). The fabric groups were defined according tothe origin of the clay and ceramic recipe, which in-cludes the presence of temper in the fabric. Temperis distinguished from naturally occurring inclusions

with the aid of various criteria, including grain-sizedistribution, roundness, angularity, sorting, and mi-neralogical composition (Rice 1987.409411; Whit-bread 1995.393).

At Maharski prekop, we selected 222 pottery sam-ples, of which more than 70% come from typologi-

cally defined vessels and from all five of the vesselgroups (see above). The hand specimen analysis ofMaharski prekop pottery showed great uniformityof fabrics and recipes. We identified 4 different fab-

ric types: fabric 1 with abundant calcite inclusions(in the fine sand to gravel fraction); fabric 2 with in-clusions of calcite and grog; fabric 3 with fine-grai-ned quartz inclusions and organic material; and fab-ric 4 with abundant coarse-grained quartz. The ma-jority of vessels were made with fabric 1, which ischaracteristic of 95.9% of the pottery analysed. Fab-ric 2 with inclusions of calcite and grog in the paste,as well as fabric 4 with quartz, were present in lessthan 1% of the samples, while fabric 3 with quartzand organic matter was present in 3% of the sam-ples. The pottery from Maharski prekop was mostly

fired in a reducing or not fully oxidised atmosphere;the most common surface colour is dark grey, andthe pottery is mostly soft. These characteristics givethe pottery assemblage a very homogenous appear-ance.

Pottery samples from fabric groups 1, 2 and 3 werealso prepared for thin section analysis by polarisingmicroscope. The results of the petrographic analysisshow that the mineralogical composition of thesesamples is mostly comprised of calcite, quartz, chert,muscovite and biotite micas, dolomite, plagioclase

feldspars, opaque concentration features and orga-nic material (Tab. 4).1 The main differences betweenthe fabric groups are mostly based on the variousmaterials added as temper. Fabric 1, the most com-mon fabric group among the Maharski prekop pot-tery, is identifiable mostly by the presence of addedmonocrystalline calcite as temper and the presence

Sample Sample description Vessel Rim diameter Capacity Predominantno. group (in cm) (in litres) commodity typeMP25 absorbed food residue in pottery 4 17 4.2 mixtureMP45 absorbed food residue in pottery 4 11.4 1 ruminant goat milkMP96 absorbed food residue in pottery 3 33.9 19 plantMP100 absorbed food residue in pottery 5 39 52.9 ruminant cattle adipose fatMP121 absorbed food residue in pottery 3 28 13.1 mixtureMP144 absorbed food residue in pottery 4 17.6 4 n\aMP158 absorbed food residue in pottery 4 25.6 17.2 ruminant cattle adipose fatMP158a charred organic residue on vessel surface 4 25.6 17.2 ruminant adipose fatMP174 absorbed food residue in pottery 5 31.8 32.6 plantMP211 absorbed food residue in pottery 5 33.6 33.9 mixtureMP85 charred organic residue on vessel surface 5 39.2 51 plantMP181 charred organic residue on vessel surface 4 26.2 18 plant

Tab. 3. Vessels with the results of lipid analyses from Maharski prekop (see also Ogrinc et al. this volume).

1 12 pottery samples from Maharski prekop were already partly analysed in the 1970s using a reflected light microscope, x-ray dif-fraction and differential thermal analysis (Osterc 1975). Most of them had a similar composition to our fabric group 1 with calciteadded as temper and one of the samples had added grog characteristic for fabric 2 ( Osterc 1975.124125). No samples belongingto fabric groups 3 or 4 were described in Ostercs this study.


11/14


335

of biotite mica and rare dolomite grains among thenaturally present inclusions. The main difference be-

tween the samples is the relative abundance andcoarseness of the artificially added calcite grains. Thevessels made with this fabric come from a variety ofcontexts inside Maharski prekop and can be attribu-ted typologically and according to the radiocarbondates to all phases at the site. Fabric 2 was identifiedin only 2 pottery samples, its main characteristicbeing the addition of crushed pottery or grog tem-per alongside monocrystalline calcite. The grog infabric 2 has the same composition as fabric 1 pot-tery, which proves that the potters reused old and

used, or perhaps destroyed, pots. The natural inclu-sions of fabric 2 are mostly similar to the composi-tion of fabric 1. Fabric 3 was identified in 6 samplesin hand specimen analysis, and only one of the sam-ples was prepared as thin section. The main charac-teristic of this fabric is organic material added astemper that was mostly burned out during firing,leaving irregularly shaped voids, although some was

still present in the paste. The natural com-position of this fabric differs significantlyfrom fabrics 1 and 2, since no chert, biotiteor plagioclase feldspars were present in the

natural paste.

The petrographic results and the results ofthe X-ray diffraction of clays collected nearMaharski prekop at the Gornje mostie lo-cation suggest that the naturally occurringraw materials have a comparable mineralo-gical composition to the pottery samples.The clays are mostly composed of monocry-stalline and polycrystalline quartz, dolo-mite, muscovite and biotite mica, chloriteand plagioclase feldspars. The Pleistocene

sediments in Ljubjansko Barje such as gra-vel, sands, silts and clays were mostly trans-ported to this area by rivers such as Iica,and the sedimentological analysis of sedi-ments from the nearby archaeological siteof Resnikov prekop showed that grains lar-ger than 2mm were composed mostly of li-mestone, with rare tuff, sandstones, dolo-mite and chert (Turk 2006.9496). Fromthese results, we conclude that the clays for

pottery production at Maharski prekop were col-lected locally on the Iica floodplain; only calcite

used as tempering material was probably collectedon the karstic periphery of Ljubljansko Barje, whereit could be collected from veins, druses and speleo-thems in caves (Gams 2004.361369).

If we compare the fabric groups to the vessel groups,we observe that the most common fabric with cal-cite temper was used for creating all types of ves-sels, from small pots of less than 0.5 litres to largevessels of more than 20 litres. Only some vesselswith lower rim diameters and low openness from

the fourth group and the largest vessels from thefifth group were partly made with fabrics with ad-ded grog or organic material.

Conclusions

The production of pottery is closely related to arange of human activities: the transportation, stor-

Fig. 9. Vessels from Maharski prekop, arranged accordingto their capacity and openness. Vessel use groups are indi-cated.

Tab. 4. The basic mineralogical composition of pottery fabric groups from Maharski prekop.

Fabric group Number of samples Grid square Calcite % Quartz % Mica % Grog % Organic material %

Fabric 1 6 18, 17, 18, 37 2030% 510% 15% 0 less than 1%

Fabric 2 2 13 1020% 510% 5% 510% less than 1%

Fabric 3 1 44 0 5% 2% 0 3%


12/14


336

age, preparation, cooking andconsumption of food. How-ever, the interactions betweenthe chane opratoire of pot-

tery manufacture and the cha-ne opratoire of food prepa-ration and consumption arenot straightforward. Whilevessel shape and fabric maysuggest the intended function,the analysis of preserved li-pids in pottery indicates what was actually cooked,boiled, stored or processed in the vessels. Interpre-tation is made even more difficult by the fact thatthe same vessels may have been used for differentpurposes, or may have been reused after being con-

sidered no longer fit for their intended function(Rice 1987.207208).

The pottery assemblage from Maharski prekop ischaracterised by a large variability of vessels both interms of their forms and dimensions. Five vesselgroups were defined in our analysis; nevertheless,inter-group variability is also high. This variabilitycan be explained by the non-specialised use of ves-sels, where they were deliberately designed to beable to perform a series of different functions. Thisis further supported by the technological analysis of

fabrics. The identified fabric groups are very similar:pots were made using one general recipe characte-rised by the presence of added calcite as temper. Nosignificant differences appear between vessel-usegroups in terms of the presence of specific fabricgroups. The differences between the three definedfabric groups cannot be explained by technologicalchoices, but different traditions or individual idio-syncrasies. The generalised fabric recipe suggeststhat the intended use of a vessel was not predeter-mined during its manufacture.

Food residues on vessels, indicating that a vesselwas used for cooking, are present on a wide rangeof vessels regardless of their capacity, openness orform. Food residues are absent only in groups 1 and2, which were interpreted as vessels used for theindividual consumption of food. Therefore, vesselgroups 3, 4 and 5 could have been used for differ-ent purposes, including processing, temporary stor-age and serving of foodstuffs. The diversity and non-specialised use of pottery observed in the Maharskiprekop assemblage is consistent with the analysis of

lipids. The small number of analysed samples ana-lysed thus far does not allow strong correlations be-tween vessel shape and dimensions and their actual

use for cooking. At the moment, 13 samples can belinked to individual vessels, their capacity rangingfrom 1 to 51 litres. The range of identified foodstuffsis also wide, since at least five samples have beenidentified as corresponding to a mixture of fatty

acids (see Ogrincet al. this volume). Therefore, thevessels at Maharski prelop were used for a varietyof inferred purposes. No specialised vessels can belinked to a single function the exceptions beinggroups 1 and 2, which can be interpreted as vesselsfor individual consumption.

In terms of the spatial distribution of the pottery, wewere able to observe some clustering on the site.However, this clustering cannot be interpreted interms of specific activities or the spatial organisationof activities connected to pottery use. It is naive to

expect that the artefact distribution would reveal afunctional division of the structures at Maharski pre-kop. Instead, artefact distribution should be seen asa material residue of long-term mundane practices,such as cleaning, dumping and abandonment, as wellas post-depositional modifications, which at Mahar-ski prekop are mostly associated with water erosion.What the artefact distribution does not reflect is afrozen snapshot of social organisation, revealingfunctional variations within the site. Dumping acti-vities with their large quantities of material pro-

duced and abandonment processes are the mostlikely sources of major artefact variation, althoughthe effect of functional variation cannot simply bedismissed. Thus, we can observe patterns at Mahar-ski prekop that are the result of long-term processesof use, dumping and abandonment, which cannotbe simply interpreted as a single event or a functio-nal division of the site. The phasing of houses, thethickness and stratigraphic relations between fea-tures in the cultural layer, and the wide range of ra-diocarbon dates from the site further support theidea that Maharski prekop was a long-term and com-

plex site.

Fig. 10. Typical vessels from each defined use group from Maharski prekop.


13/14


337

The research was undertaken as part of research projects J64085 (Mihael Budja), J64016 (Duan Plut), andresearch programme P60247 (Mihael Budja) funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. We thank the LjubljanaCity Museum and our colleague Irena inkovec for providing access to the Maharski prekop pottery assemblage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

References

van As A. 1984. Reconstructing the potters craft. In S. E.van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.), The many di-mensions of pottery: Ceramics in archaeology and an-thropology. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam: 129164.

Bats M. 1988. Vaisselle et alimentation Olbia de Pro-vence (v.350v.50 av. J.C.). Modeles culturels et catego-ries ceramiques. Revue Archeologique de Narbonnaise,Supplement 18. Centre National de la Recherche Scienti-fique. Paris.

Bregant T. 1964. Poroilo o raziskovanju kolia in grad-benih ostalin ob Resnikovem prekopu pri Igu.Poroilo oraziskovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 1: 724.

1974a. Kolie ob Maharskem prekopu pri Igu razis-kovanja leta 1970.Poroilo o raziskovanju neolita in

eneolita Slovenije 3: 734.

1974b. Kolie ob Maharskem prekopu pri Igu razis-kovanja leta 1972.Poroilo o raziskovanju neolita ineneolita Slovenije 3: 3966.

1975. Kolie ob Maharskem prekopu pri Igu razis-kovanja 1973. in 1974. leta.Poroilo o raziskovanjuneolita in eneolita Slovenije 4: 7106.

Braun D. P. 1983. Pots as tools. In A. Keene and J. Moore(eds.),Archaeological hammers and theories. Academic,New York: 107134.

Budja M. 1994/1995. Spreminjanje naravne in kulturnekrajine v neolitiku in eneolitiku na Ljubljanskem barjuI.Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneo-litika v Sloveniji 22: 163181.

1997. Landscape changes in the neolithic and copperages in Slovenia. Case study: the Ljubljansko Barje re-gion. In J. Chapman, P. M. Dolukhanov (eds.), Land-scapes in Flux: Central and Eastern Europe in anti-quity. Colloquia Pontica 3. Oxbow books, Oxford: 7788.

Budja M., Mleku D. 2008. Settlements, landscape and pa-laeoclimate dynamics on the Iica floodplain of the Ljub-

ljana Marshes. In M. Budja (ed.), 15thNeolithic Studies.Documenta Praehistorica 35: 4554.

2010. Lake or floodplain? Mid-Holocene settlement pat-terns and the landscape dynamic of the Iica flood-plain (Ljubljana Marshes, Slovenia). The Holocene 20

(8): 12691275.

ufar K., Kromer B., Tolar T. and Veluek A. 2010. Da-ting of 4th millennium BC pile-dwellings on Ljubljanskobarje, Slovenia.Journal of Archaeological Science 37/8:20312039.

DeBoer W. 1984. The last pottery show: System and sensein ceramic studies. In S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritc-hard (eds.), The many dimensions of pottery. Universityof Amsterdam, Amsterdam: 527571.

Gams I. 2004.Kras v Sloveniji v prostoru in asu. Za-loba ZRC. ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana.

Harej Z. 1978. Kolie v Partih pri Igu na Ljubljanskembarju.Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in ene-olita 6: 6194.

1981. Kolie v Partih pri Igu na Ljubljanskem barju.Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolitav Sloveniji 910: 31.101.

1987. Kolie v Partih pri Igu na Ljubljanskem barju raziskovanja leta 1981.Poroilo o raziskovanju paleo-lita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 15: 141194.

Horvat M. 1999.Keramika: tehnologija keramike, tipo-logija lonenine, keramini arhiv. Znanstveni intitutFilozofske fakultete. Ljubljana.

Jones A. 2002. Archaeological Theory and ScientificPractice. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Koroec J. 1964. Kulturne ostaline na koliu ob Resniko-vem prekopu odkrite v letu 1962.Poroilo o raziskova-nju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji I: 2546.

Koroec P., Koroec J. 1969.Najdbe s koliarskih nasel-bin pri Igu na Ljubljanskem barju. Catalogi Archaeolo-gici Sloveniae 3. Narodni muzej. Ljubljana.


14/14


338

LaMotta V. M., Schiffer B. 1997. Formation processes ofhouse floor assemblages. In P. M. Allison (ed.), The Archa-eology of Household Activities. Routledge, New York:1929.

Mleku D., Budja M. and Ogrinc N. 2006. Complex settle-ment and the landscape dynamic of the Iica floodplain(Ljubljana Marshes, Slovenia). In M. Budja (ed.), 13thNeo-lithic Seminar. Documenta Praehistorica 33: 253271.

Osterc V. 1975. Mineralna sestava in mikrostruktura kera-mike s kolia ob Maharskem prekopu I.Poroila o razis-kovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji IV: 123134.

Rice P. M. 1987.Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook. The Uni-versity of Chicago Press. Chicago and London.

Schiffer B. 1987.Formation processes of the archaeolo-gical record. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.

Skibo J. M. 1992. Understanding Pottery Function. Ma-nuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Techni-que. Springer. New York.

Smith M. 1988. Function from Whole Vessel Shape: A Me-thod and an Application to Anasazi Black Mesa, Arizona.American Anthropologist, New Series 90(4): 912923.

Stritar A. 1975. Pedoloke raziskave kolia ob Mahar-

skem prekopu pri Igu 1973. leta.Poroilo o raziskova-nju raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Slove-

niji 4: 142144.

Stritar A., Lobnik F. 1985. Pedoloke raziskave koliaParte pri Igu.Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolitain eneolita v Sloveniji 13: 6773.

ercelj A. 1973. Poroilo o ksilotonskih raziskavah koliaob Maharskem prekopu raziskovanja leta 1972.Poroi-lo o raziskovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 3: 6970.

1975. Analize makroskopskih in mikroskopskih rast-linskih ostankov s kolia ob Maharskem prekopu, iz-kopavanja 1973. in 1974. leta.Poroilo o raziskova-nju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 4: 115122.

19811982. Pomen botaninih raziskav na koliihLjubljanskega barja.Poroilo o raziskovanju paleo-lita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 910: 101106.

ercelj A., Culiberg M. 1978. Ksilotomske analize lesa izkolia ob Maharskem prekopu izkopavanja 1976 in1977. Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika ineneolitika v Sloveniji 6: 103107.

Terry R., Chilingar G. 1955. Summary of Concerning someadditional aids in studying sedimentary formations by M.

S. Shvetsov.Journal of Sedimentary Research 25: 229234.

Tite M. S. 2008. Ceramic production, provenance and use a review.Archaeometry 50(2): 216231.

Turk J. 2006. Ugotavljanje paleoekolokih sprememb naLjubljanskem Barju v holocenu na primeru sedimentov zResnikovega prekopa. In A. Veluek (ed.),Resnikov pre-kop. Najstareja koliarska naselbina na LjubljanskemBarju. Operi Instrituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 10. Insti-tute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana: 9398.

Veluek A. (ed.) 2006.Resnikov prekop. The oldest pile-dwelling settlement in the Ljubljansko barje. Opera Insti-tuti Archaeologici Sloveniae 10. Institute of Archaeologyat ZRC SAZU. ZRC Publishing. Ljubljana.

Whitbread I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae. A Pe-trological and Archaeological Study. Fitch LaboratoryOccasional Paper 4. The British School at Athens. TheShort Run Press. Exeter.

mlekuzetal (1)

Documents