Theoretical and Methodological
Considerations in Central
European Neolithic Archaeology
Proceedings of the ‘Theory and Method in Archaeology of the
Neolithic (7th - 3rd millennium BC)’ conference
held in Mikulov, Czech Republic, 26th – 28th of October 2010
Edited by
Jan KoláU
František Trampota
BAR International Series 2325
2012
Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2325
Theoretical and Methodological Considerations in Central European Neolithic Archaeology. Proceedings of the
‘Theory and Method in Archaeology of the Neolithic (7th ‐ 3rd millennium BC)’ conference held in Mikulov,
Czech Republic, 26th – 28th of October 2010
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012
ISBN 978 1 4073 0908 8
Copy‐editing by Robert Brukner
The preparation of this book was co‐funded by the Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Printed in England by 4edge Ltd, Hockley
All BAR titles are available from:
Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from
Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
gravE typology and Chronology of a lEngyEl
CulturE sEttlEMEnt:
forMalizEd MEthods in arChaEologiCal data
proCEssing
Peter Demján
Department of Archaeology, Comenius University
Gondova 2
SK-81499 Bratislava
Slovakia
peter.demjan@gmail.com
Abstract: The application of typological methods is a well-known means to ind regularities within an archaeological assemblage. A
formalized approach is needed when dealing with larger sets of data to eliminate bias arising from deining types a priori and searching
for structures which we already expect to exist. By creating a quantitative descriptive system and using multivariate statistic methods
we are able to identify similarities and dissimilarities between single artefacts as well as between individual ind complexes. These
similarities (or factors) represent chronological and cultural relationships as well as post-deposition transformations. We can further
sort ind complexes using seriation (e.g. correspondence analysis) to elaborate a chronological sequence. This paper presents an
application of a formalized typological and chronological method on graves and their inventories from the Lengyel Culture settlement
in Svodín (Southwest Slovakia) using multivariate statistical analysis.
Keywords: Pottery analysis, typology, relative chronology, multivariate analysis, Lengyel Culture, settlement burials.
important of these sites - Svodín (Southwest Slovakia) provided the basis for this paper. Excavated between
1971 and 1983 under V. Němejcová-Pavúková, it yielded
inds from 111 graves, two rondels and several hundred
settlement features dating to stage I of the Lengyel culture.
While the material from rondels has already been published
(Němejcová-Pavúková 1995), the settlement features and
graves await publication. In this paper the methods and
techniques used for processing the rich burial inds within
the settlement will be presented.
Introduction
In the area of western Hungary and southwest Slovakia a
new cultural phenomenon appears around 4800 BC -the late
Neolithic Lengyel cultural complex. It is characterized by
a distinct pottery, rich in shape repertoire, and with a broad
palette of painted motifs. The relatively large and densely
populated settlements consist of three-part longhouses, often
with a central circular ditched earthwork - the so-called
“rondel”. Inhabitation spreads to new natural environments,
occupying higher elevation sites and the distance between
individual settlements increases. Development within social
structures is also relected in changing burial practices.
Settlement burials which appeared during the preceding
middle Neolithic Želiezovce culture are now the only form
of burial we ind. Lengyel sites provide us with valuable
evidence about the development in both ritual and everyday
life of Late Neolithic society. Unfortunately, only a handful
of settlements with burials from the irst stage of this culture
have been excavated and published to date (Dombay 1960;
Kalicz 1985; Němejcová-Pavúková 1986a; NěmejcováPavúková 1995; Neugebauer-Maresch et al., 2002).We
expect new additions when material from recent rescue
excavations in Hungary is published.
Approaching burials within settlements
When processing inds from settlement burials we have to
keep in mind speciic elements which differentiate these
features from those graves found in a regular burial ground
located outside of a settlement.
The irst question to pose is whether we are really dealing
with burials inside the occupied area of the community,
or rather graves or grave groups located in vicinity of the
settlement, placed eventually on abandoned habitation.
Considering that a settlement can grow or shrink over time,
or it can be abandoned and later resettled, we must take into
account the possibility that a nearby burial ground could be
absorbed by its boundaries, or new burials can be situated in
a previously inhabited area. If the archaeological evidence
is lacking reliable stratigraphic relationships between the
graves and settlement structures, the question of whether
The scarcity of information about early Lengyel settlements
with burials makes it all the more pressing to process the
hitherto unpublished excavations and make data available
to the scientiic community. The inds from one of the most
77
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
we are dealing with true settlement burials or with a burial
ground situated nearby the settlement is not trivial.
extract information about the past living culture contained
within this assemblage, we need to correctly identify the
transformation processes which led to their present shape
and location.
The second issue concerns the chronological assignment
of graves and their inventories. We cannot assume a linear
or radial trend in burying the dead as would be the case on
a regular burial ground. Therefore graves from earlier and
later phases of the settlement can be found literary side by
side. In order to determine a chronological sequence we
need to make use of dating methods which do not rely on
stratigraphic or spatial observations.
Transformation processes
Transformation processes can essentially be divided into
three categories: pre-deposition, deposition and postdeposition (Neustupný 2007, 51-54). In the case of the
Svodín burials we are dealing with fairly well preserved
material from closed contexts (i.e. graves), which means
post-deposition processes did not substantially inluence
the composition of the (non-organic) inventories. Therefore
the deposition transformation is the one we must consider
further in our analysis of the assemblage. It represents the
process of transition of the artefact from the living to the
dead culture. The reason for this transition is very important
- for grave inventories it is an intentional exclusion from
the world of living and deposition into the ground with
ritual motivation. The selection of particular grave goods
may therefore not necessarily be a representative sample
of the material culture of the community which deposited
them. A distinct predominance of certain pottery types in
graves (pedestaled bowl, mushroom vessel) when compared
to assemblage from settlement pits may mirror this selection
process.
Application of typological method for determining a
detailed chronology
Assigning artefacts to distinct groups based on their visual
or technological similarity - the typological method - is
a well-established approach to evaluating archaeological
inds. This technique can lead to the elaboration of a
typological sequence relecting the chronological order
in which the types appeared. A traditional approach to
typology is to irst determine main categories (or classes) of
inds by empirical observation of the material. We can then
proceed to differentiate distinct types and variants within
these categories by inding similarities and dissimilarities
between the single artefacts.
A different approach is to consider the limitations of the
entirely empirical approach, which is to a great degree
inluenced by observer bias, and elaborate a typology based
on a statistical correlation between different attributes, by
which we can describe the inds (Hodder and Hutson 2003,
182). An attribute is a property of an artefact, which can be
meaningfully enumerated (either by quantifying, measuring
or indicating its presence or absence). We must keep in
mind that this process still involves a certain degree of
subjectivity, especially in the selection of the attributes
to be measured and choice of measurement techniques
(Neustupný 2007, 122-123).
The nature of post-deposition transformations of burial
inds is quite different than that of the inds from features
like pits or ditches. Material in features which have been
continuously used over a longer period of time is subject
to complex repositioning and mixing due to cultural and
natural inluences. In contrast to that grave goods often
remain undisturbed after their deposition, subject only
to natural decay processes and occasional secondary
intrusions. In this aspect the process of excavation and
documentation of the inds also has to be considered as the
de facto inal post-deposition transformation.
In our effort to achieve a chronological ordering of the
burials from Svodín we must therefore keep in mind the
possibility that distinct types of grave goods as well as the
burial rite itself were subject not only to temporal changes
but also to other hitherto unknown factors. We also have to
consider that the changes of different attributes of the grave
inventory over time happened at different frequencies. It is
possible that some aspects of the burial rite were approached
more conservatively then other and their simultaneous
presence in two closed contexts does not necessarily mean
their contemporaneity (cf. Hodder and Hutson 2003, 177).
After elaborating the typological description of our
material, we can proceed to identify chronological
relationships between types. The techniques for this are
based on the assumption that the common occurrence of
artefacts in a closed ind context (e.g. a grave or a hoard)
also implies contemporaneity. Under ideal circumstances
(i.e. if simultaneously deposited artefacts really represent
a particular ‘style’ which was commonly deposited in
graves only for a limited time span) the sequence resulting
from a seriation of the assemblage will correspond with
the chronological order of appearance of the types and the
deposition of the artefacts.
Even after taking all aforementioned factors into
consideration, the information about the past living culture
that we are able to extract will refer more to the diachronic
development of the burial rite than the actual chronological
phases of the settlement. To elaborate a complete intrasite chronology, we would have to include also all other
Such ideal conditions rarely if ever occur in real ind
assemblages. The archaeological inds we are evaluating
represent a dead culture - an assemblage of artefacts
existing in the present, representing a living culture of
the past but separated from the world in which they were
created and used (Neustupný 2007, 47). To be able to
78
Peter Demján
settlement structures, such as pits and ditches, into our
analysis.
Zalai-Gaál applied seriation to chronologically sort burial
inds from several Lengyel Culture sites (Zalai-Gaál 2007).
In the latter study a formalized method was also used to
elaborate a typology based on quantitative attributes of
ceramic inds.
Monothetic vs. polythetic structures
The presence of non-chronological relationships in a
ind assemblage is a fact of which archaeologists are
well aware. There are different ways to approach this
multidimensionality of data but they all have in common
an effort to reduce the number of dimensions (i.e.
commonalities appearing across the ind complexes)
whilst trying to highlight the cultural and chronological
aspect and suppress the aspects determined by the different
transformation processes. An example for this is the
elaboration of a typology of copper axes based on their
shapes and dimensions while ignoring their colour which
is a product of patination.
Chronological ordering using seriation depends largely
on the selection of chronologically sensitive attributes
of the artefacts. The selection process can be considered
empirical and is often based on stratigraphic observations.
This approach can reduce the seriation to a conirmatory
technique used only to validate the chronological relations
which we already identiied empirically. If on the other
hand we attempt to include all potentially chronologically
sensitive attributes in our seriation (e.g. the decoration of
pottery, the shapes of different parts of the vessels) we risk
that other than temporal dimensions of the assemblage (like
the inluence of gender or other social factors on the grave
inventory) will also affect the resulting order and will be
misinterpreted as a chronological development.
The search for hidden structures in archaeological data is
described by E. Neustupný (2007, 128-130) as a synthesis
of structures, whereas he distinguishes between monothetic
and polythetic structures citing among others the groundbreaking work of D. Clarke (1968). A monothetic structure
is characterized by one particular attribute or group of
attributes the presence of which is necessary for an artefact
to be considered a member of this structure. An example of
a monothetic structure is the linking of grave inventories
containing boar tusks with the male gender.
The aforementioned pitfalls when searching for hidden
structures can be avoided by using multivariate methods.
One of them is factor analysis (FA) - a statistical technique
used to ind important commonalities (factors) in the
assemblage similar to the more widely used principal
component analysis but putting higher emphasis to
commonalities (Shennan 1997, 303-305; Neustupný
2007, 137). The factors extracted by this method represent
polythetic structures and using a regression method we can
calculate scores representing the pertinence of each unit
(ind or ind complex) to a particular structure. Structures
(or dimensions) identiied in the assemblage in this way
can then be explored separately and chronological ordering
achieved without the risk of mixing attributes representing
different structures (e.g. attributes of grave inventory
connected with social status and attributes which represent
a change of decoration style over time).
The usage of a hierarchical monothetic approach can be
considered an evolutionary step in deining archaeological
structures. Based on a speciic attribute (e.g. the presence
of a pedestal on ceramic vessels) the inds are classiied into
categories, which are then further divided into subcategories
based on other monothetic criteria (e.g. an s-shaped neck
proile).
A polythetic structure is deined by the probability of
the presence of certain attributes. Its main difference
from a monothetic structure is that an artefact does not
necessarily need to have all the deining attributes present
to be considered a member of a structure. The traditional
empirical typological method approaches the polythetic
model by allowing exceptions when deining types. By
judging the relationships based on individual attributes the
similarity and dissimilarity of artefacts can be assessed and
polythetic structures deined.
Multivariate analysis as opposed to a simple application
of seriation can be described as an explorative technique
resulting in the synthesis of new structures which represent
chronological or other relationships between the units of
the assemblage. Based on the multidimensional approach
where each dimension represents a particular attribute of an
artefact, E. Neustupný proposed the name ‘vector synthesis’
for this family of methods to better relect its means and
goals (Neustupný 2007, 137). We could consider every
unit of the explored assemblage represented by a row of
the descriptive matrix to be a vector in a multidimensional
space the coordinates of which are the metric or quantitative
attributes of the artefact or ind complex. Using multivariate
techniques (e.g. factor analysis, multiple correspondence
analysis or cluster analysis) we synthesize the information
contained in the descriptive matrix and try to ind new
vectors which best represent the structures in a lowerdimensional space.
Formalized typological and chronological method
One of the irst formalized methods applied in archaeology
was seriation. When used correctly the resulting ordering
of rows and columns of the descriptive system will relect
a chronological ordering of the ind complexes and their
attributes (for a more comprehensive description, see e.g.
Orton 1980). The work of E. Kazdová (1984) with material
from Tešetice-Kyjovice (in southern Moravia) is an example
of the application of this technique in processing an Early
Lengyel ind assemblage. From more recent studies, I.
An important example for application of multivariate
79
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
Figure 1. Archaeological Data Manager software used for data entry, ind measurement and classiication.
statistic techniques to elaborate a formalized typology and
chronology is the work of J. Macháček (2001; 2010) on
early medieval ceramic material from Pohansko (southern
Moravia). The paper of J. John concerning the structure
of the grave inventory of the Linear Pottery Culture (John
2005) as well as other papers inspired by the seminal
work of E. Neustupný published in the book Příspěvky
k archeologii 2 (Neustupný and John 2005) should be
mentioned.
1. Search for hidden structures based on similarities and
dissimilarities within the ind assemblage and ind
complexes.
2. Elaboration of a typological classiication of the inds
and ind complexes based on the identiied structures.
3. Ordering of the individual types and ind complexes in
a chronological sequence.
Before selecting the optimal techniques for processing
the material from Svodín, output requirements had to be
considered. First, there is a need to catalogue inds because
the assemblage from the burials in Svodín have not yet
been published in their entirety. The descriptive system
must contain all the necessary data to produce a catalogue
with textual and pictorial information about the individual
burials and their inventories. The next requirement is a
classiication of the inds using a formalized method, which
is also the irst step required to identify structures within
the whole ind assemblage representing the relicts of the
past living culture. These two requirements imply also the
next step: the elaboration of an internal chronology of the
development of the burial rite on the settlement.
The irst step in creating a descriptive system was the
digitization of all available data. Drawings and photographs
of the inds were digitized into raster images and text was
transcribed into electronic form. Excavation plans were
digitized and a geodatabase was created based on them
using ArcGIS.
Descriptive system of the ind assemblage
In consideration of the need to quantify data and create
queries based on different input requirements of statistical
software packages a relational database was chosen as the
platform for creating the descriptive system. MS: Access
allows easy data entry and manipulation, is compatible
with ArcGIS, and it is possible to create queries using SQL
which is often necessary for more complex quantiication
of nominal data.
The analysis of the ind assemblage unfolds in three steps:
80
Peter Demján
Field Name
Description
ID
Unique identiier
feature_nr
Feature number
trench
Trench number
side
Body placement side (left or right)
orientation
Orientation (azimuth)
sex
Sex of the deceased
age
Age of the deceased (in coded form)
X coordinate of the grave centre
(WGS 1984 UTM 34N)
Y coordinate of the grave centre
(WGS 1984 UTM 34N)
coords_x
coords_y
Nominal descriptors for non-ceramic inds are limited to
a description of the ind type in coded form. For ceramic
inds, the shape of the plastic elements (knobs) and the
distribution and motif of painted decoration on the vessel
is described in a coded form.
Metric descriptors represent the size of the inds and,
if applicable, their quantity. For ceramic vessels,
measurements of different parts of the body are taken and
stored in these descriptors. These attributes are necessary
for the elaboration of a typology using multivariate
statistical techniques. The deinition of which parts of the
vessels should be measured was adapted from the Lengyel
pottery typology Numerical code of Moravian painted ware
(Podborský et al., 1977, 31-34) by modifying it so that it
best relects the perceived visual image of the vessel. This
is of course a point where the author’s subjective choice
is involved in the process of elaborating typology. The
ceramic vessels were irst divided into seven basic body
types based on which metric attributes can be measured
(Figure 4). The conical or convex shape was expressed as
a measure of convexity (-1 meaning a concave, 0 a conical
or cylindrical and +1 a convex shape). A degree of proile
inclination was calculated where applicable using the
formula (diameter1 - diameter2) x 5 / height suggested by
V. F. Gening (1977, 97). In the descriptive system uniied
ields are used for the attributes of all vessel body types
according to the ield descriptions in Figure 3. The points of
measurement for different vessel body types and formulas
for calculating proile inclinations are deined as follows:
Figure 2. Selected descriptors from the table of graves.
Streamlining of the data entry, veriication, processing
and publishing process was a major issue in this work. It
was necessary to process a relatively large amount of data
in a short time span and only one person was available
for all tasks. Since there was no specialized software for
archaeological data management available at that time
which would suit all the above requirements a simple
Archaeological Data Manager (ADM) software was
developed (Figure 1). It works as an interface to anMS
Access database, enhancing its functionality by streamlining
the typological classiication and measuring of inds. It also
offers the ability to graphically display the inds or ind
complexes in the database and localise individual inds
within ind complexes. Textual and pictorial data from the
descriptive system can then be compiled into a catalogue
in PDF format ready for publication. The possibility of
displaying inds as a list sorted and iltered by any variable
enables us to visually inspect the results of the ordination
using different statistical methods. This serves as useful
feedback and makes it easier to spot errors in data entry.
1. One-part vessel
• Rim diameter
• Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and
the base.
• Base diameter
• Neck proile inclination: (rim diameter - base
diameter) x 5 / neck height
2. Pedestaled one-part vessel
• Rim diameter
• Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and
the base.
• Base diameter: Diameter of the base of the upper
part (not pedestal base).
• Pedestal base diameter
• Pedestal height: Vertical distance between the base
of the vesel and the pedestal base.
• Neck proile inclination: (rim diameter - base
diameter) x 5 / neck height
• Pedestal proile inclination: (pedestal base diameter
- base diameter) x 5 / pedestal height
3. Two-part vessel
• Rim diameter
• Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and
the point where the convexity of the body changes
or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a
carination below the neck.
• Carination diameter: Diameter on the point where
the convexity of the body changes or the concavity
The inds database consists of two main tables: the table
of graves (Figure 2) and the table of grave inventory
(Figure 3). Relations between these tables and other
ancillary tables used for the coding of variables are based on
unique identiiers (ID). The description of grave inventory
is accomplished using a single table containing both
ceramic and non-ceramic inds. Some of the descriptors are
relevant for both types of inds and some only for ceramic
vessels. They can be divided into three basic categories:
localization, metric and nominal descriptors. The table also
has some ancillary ields necessary to form relations with
different data tables and for cataloguing (feature number,
ind number etc.).
Localization descriptors carry the information about the
placement of the ind inside the grave. Besides Cartesian
coordinates there is also a nominal description of the
placement in relation to the body of the deceased which is
more useful when searching for structures in the placement
of grave goods.
81
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
Field Name
Description
ID
Unique identiier
feature_nr
Feature number
ind_nr
Find number
body_type
Body type of ceramic vessel (in coded form, see Figure 4)
Localization descriptors
placement
Placement relative to body (in coded form)
placement_detail
Placement detail (in coded form)
placement_x
X coord. of the ind in the grave (in cm)
placement_y
Y coord. of the ind in the grave (in cm)
Metric descriptors
height
Find height (according to orientation on drawing) (in mm)
width
Find width (according to orientation on drawing) (in mm)
amount
Number of unique pieces (e.g. beads of a necklace)
units
Number of units (e.g. blades)
Nominal descriptor
ind_type
Find type (in coded form)
Metric descriptors relevant for ceramic inds
rim_diameter
Rim diameter (in mm)
neck_diameter
Neck diameter (in mm)
neck_height
Neck height (in mm)
belly_diameter
Belly diameter (for body types 4, 6, 7) or carination diameter (types 3, 5) (in mm)
upper_body_height
Upper body height (in mm)
lower_body_height
Lower body height (in mm)
base_diameter
Base diameter (for body types 1, 2, 3, 5, 6) or carination diameter (types 4, 7) (in mm)
pedestal_base_diameter
Petestal base diameter (for body types 2, 5) or base diameter (types 4, 7) (in mm)
pedestal_height
Pedestal height (for body types 2, 5) or base height (types 4, 7) (in mm)
neck_shape
Neck convexity (-1 to 1)
neck_carination
Carination below the neck (1 or 0)
upper_body_shape
Upper body convexity (-1 to 1)
upper_body_carination
Carination on the belly (1 or 0)
lower_body_shape
Lower body convexity (-1 to 1)
pedestal_shape
Convexity of the walls of the pedestal (for body types 2, 5) or the base (types 4, 7) (-1 to 1)
neck_proile
Neck proile inclination
upper_body_proile
Upper body proile inclination
lower_body_proile
Lower body proile inclination
pedestal_proile
Proile inclination of the walls of the pedestal (for body types 2, 5) or the base (types 4, 7)
Nominal descriptors relevant for ceramic inds
painted_type
Distribution of the painted or incised decoration on the vessel (in coded form)
painted_upper_motif
Motif of the decoration on the upper body (in coded form)
painted_lower_motif
Motif of the decoration on the lower body (in coded form)
painted_inside_motif
Motif of the decoration on the inside (in coded form)
plastic_type
Type of plastic elements (in coded form)
Figure 3. Selected descriptors from the table of grave inventory.
82
Peter Demján
•
•
of the neck begins or there is a carination below
the neck.
• Lower body height: Vertical distance between the
belly or carination and the base.
• Base diameter
• Neck proile inclination: (rim diameter - belly
diameter) x 5 / neck height
• Lower body proile inclination: (belly diameter base diameter) x 5 / lower body height
4. Two-part mushroom vessel
• Rim diameter
• Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and
the maximum body diameter.
• Belly diameter: Maximum body diameter.
• Lower body height: Vertical distance between the
belly and the carination below the belly.
• Carination diameter: Diameter on the carination
below the belly.
• Base height: Vertical distance between the carination
below the belly and the base.
• Base diameter
• Neck proile inclination: (rim diameter - belly
diameter) x 5 / neck height
• Lower body proile inclination: (belly diameter carination diameter) x 5 / base height
• Base proile inclination: (base diameter - carination
diameter) x 5 / base height
5. Pedestaled two-part vessel
• Rim diameter
• Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and
the point where the convexity of the body changes
or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a
carination below the neck.
• Carination diameter: Diameter on the point where
the convexity of the body changes or the concavity
of the neck begins or there is a carination below
the neck.
• Lower body height: Vertical distance between the
carination and the base.
• Base diameter: Diameter of the base of the upper
part (not pedestal base).
• Pedestal height: Vertical distance between the base
of the vessel and the pedestal base.
• Pedestal base diameter
• Neck proile inclination: (rim diameter - carination
diameter) x 5 / neck height
• Lower body proile inclination: (carination diameter
- base diameter) x 5 / lower body height
• Pedestal proile inclination: (pedestal base diameter
- base diameter) x 5 / pedestal height
6. Three-part vessel
• Rim diameter
• Neck diameter: Diameter of the narrowest part
between the rim and the belly or the carination
below the neck.
• Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and
the point where the convexity of the body changes
or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a
carination below the neck.
Belly diameter: Maximum body diameter.
Upper body height: Vertical distance between the
point where the convexity of the body changes or the
concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination
below the neck and the belly.
• Lower body height: Vertical distance between the
belly and the base.
• Base diameter
• Neck proile inclination: (rim diameter - neck
diameter) x 5 / neck height
• Upper body proile inclination: (belly diameter neck diameter) x 5 / upper body height
• Lower body proile inclination: (belly diameter base diameter) x 5 / lower body height
7. Three-part mushroom vessel
• Rim diameter
• Neck diameter: Diameter of the narrowest part
between the rim and the belly or the carination
below the neck.
• Neck height: Vertical distance between the rim and
the point where the convexity of the body changes
or the concavity of the neck begins or there is a
carination below the neck.
• Belly diameter: Maximum body diameter.
• Upper body height: Vertical distance between the
point where the convexity of the body changes or the
concavity of the neck begins or there is a carination
below the neck and the belly.
• Lower body height: Vertical distance between the
belly and the carination below the belly.
• Carination diameter: Diameter on the carination
below the belly.
• Base height: Vertical distance between the carination
below the belly and the base.
• Base diameter
• Neck proile inclination: (rim diameter - neck
diameter) x 5 / neck height
• Upper body proile inclination: (belly diameter neck diameter) x 5 / upper body height
• Lower body proile inclination: (belly diameter carination diameter) x 5 / base height
• Base proile inclination: (base diameter - carination
diameter) x 5 / base height
Typological classiication of pottery shapes
The irst step in typological classiication of ceramic
inds is to divide vessels into basic classes according to
different metric attributes. This step is necessary so that
the individual vessels are comparable by those attributes.
In the case of the material from Svodín seven basic classes
have been identiied (Figure 4).
For each basic class of vessels which contained a suficient
amount of specimens typological structures were identiied
using factor analysis. This was done using SPSS Statistics.
The descriptors used were all metric attributes relevant for
the particular basic vessel class. A detailed description of
performing a factor analysis of archaeological assemblages
83
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
Figure 4. Classiication of ceramic vessel body types according to measurable attributes.
84
Peter Demján
Descriptor
belly_
diameter
rim_diameter
neck_height
lower_body_
height
lower_body_
shape
base_diameter
lower_body_
proile
neck_
carination
Factor 1
0,9321
0,9080
Descriptor
lower_body_
proile
neck_shape
0,8677
0,8172
neck_proile
neck_
carination
0,2744
0,2375
neck_height
0,2134
0,1912
rim_diameter
-0,0174
0,1222
belly_diameter
-0,1407
0,0985
base_diameter
-0,2767
0,8506
0,6765
neck_shape
0,0143
neck_proile
-0,5922
lower_body_
shape
lower_body_
height
technique attempts to sort the specimens into clusters based
on their calculated distance in a Euclidean space where
the selected descriptors are represented as coordinates. The
process of clustering creates clusters of the closest (and thus
most similar) specimens irst, then groups those clusters
into larger clusters and so on, until the whole assemblage
can be sorted in a hierarchical tree structure (represented
by a dendrogram). For more detailed information on this
method see the work of C. Orton (1980, 47). Ward’s method
is particularly well suited for clustering of continuous
numerical data like the factor scores which were produced
in the irst step of our pottery analysis (Shennan 1997,
241-245). The settings used in SPSS Statistics were Ward’s
method, and measuring of interval as squared Euclidean
distance. Finally a dendrogram plot was produced.
The descriptors used in this step were the factor scores
extracted in the previous step except factor 1 which always
represented a sorting of the vessels by size. Based on the
dendrogram produced by clustering subtypes and variants
were deined. For example for vessels of body type 3 two
classes, four subclasses and eight variants were identiied
(Figure 7). The irst digit of the type code represents the
body type of the vessel, the second and third the class and
subclass and the fourth the variant.
Factor 2
0,2653
-0,3963
-0,6487
Figure 5. Loadings on factors 1 and 2 extracted for vessels of
body type 3 (two-part vessel).
is given in the works of E. Neustupný (1993; 2007) and S.
Shennan (1997). The settings used were: calculation of a
correlation matrix using coeficients, extraction of factors
using principal components method based on eigenvalue
greater than one, Varimax rotation and calculation of factor
scores using regression. In the case where less than three
factors were extracted based on the eigenvalue, the ixed
number of factors to extract was set to three. Otherwise
typological sorting would be dificult as the irst factor
always represents a sorting of the vessels by size and is
therefore discarded from further steps when elaborating a
typology. The other factors extracted in this step represent
commonalities in the assemblage according to which
the ceramic inds can be further divided into classes,
subclasses and variants. As an example we can see two
factors extracted from metric attributes of vessels of body
type 3 (two-part vessels) (Figure 5). Factor 1 represents a
similarity of the vessels based on carination diameter (here
the variable belly diameter), rim diameter, neck height and
lower body height. The negative loading for neck proile
inclination relects the fact that vessels with wider and
higher upper parts tend to have a less inclined neck proile.
Factor 2 shows a connection between the lower body proile
inclination and the convexity of the neck. The negative
loading for lower body height indicates a less probable
occurrence of vessels with high, strongly inclined lower
body and a convex or conical neck. It is a good practice to
visually inspect the results of factor analysis by sorting the
inds by their factor scores (Figure 6). This way any errors
in data entry can be identiied and we can also verify our
interpretation of the factors.
By examining the factor scores of the vessels in different
typological groups, typical factors and descriptors for
those groups were identiied and described (as is shown
in Figure 8). We have to keep in mind however that such
a description it is just a simpliied interpretation of the
structures and cannot be considered an explicit deinition
of a ceramic type as is common when using a monothetic
approach to typology. The factors and the scores calculated
for each vessel in the descriptive system represent only a
measure of probability with which the specimen belongs to
a particular structure. The clustering into distinct ceramic
classes and their subsequent description was done largely
to compare the presence of structures identiied from metric
attributes of the pottery, with other structures which will be
identiied in the descriptive system of the burial contexts
based on their nominal attributes. It is also impossible to
directly compare factors extracted for vessels of different
body types, because they represent different descriptors
depending on which parts of the body were measured.
Lastly, a classiication of the inds together with verbal
description helps us to compare our material to that from
other sites where a monothetic typological approach was
used.
Typological classiication of burial contexts
In a manner similar to identifying structures in pottery
shapes using factor analysis and their subsequent
typological classiication we can search for hidden
structures in complexes represented by graves and their
inventories. The attributes of non-ceramic grave goods
are dificult to describe by metric values. When dealing
with plastic elements (knobs) and painted decoration an
empirical approach to typology appears more appropriate
Further classiication of the pottery into classes, subclasses
and variants was conducted by applying hierarchical cluster
analysis (HCA) using Ward’s method. This multivariate
85
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
Figure 6. Vessels of body type 3 (two-part vessel), sorted by factor scores on factor 2. High positive values are typical for vessels with
strong inclination of the lower body proile and a conical neck. Negative values are typical for shapes with higher lower body.
than trying to ind a formalized method. The small number
of specimens of each kind of non-ceramic inventory makes
a more detailed classiication unnecessary.
Ceramic variants which occurred less than three times
were joined with other variants of the same subclass where
possible. The quantiication of nominal attributes describing
the position of grave goods relative to the body required
further generalization of some variables as distinct types of
grave goods were only rarely positioned on the exact same
position in different graves. The reduction in number of
variables was achieved by two steps. First, by reducing the
ceramic classes to six basic shapes (one-part bowl, two-part
bowl, pedestaled bowl, mushroom vessel, pot and beaker),
next by joining the 52 identiied positions into 18 larger
clusters. These generalizations were possible also due to
a quite regular habit of the placement of the deceased in
lexed position on the right side.
Quantiication
To be able to analyse graves from Svodín using multivariate
methods we irst need to quantify the nominal attributes
of their inventories. The attributes in this case are classes
of the ceramic vessels, painted decoration motifs, types of
plastic elements and types of non-ceramic grave goods. All
these nominal attributes can be expressed numerically by
quantifying them, i.e. counting the number of specimens
of each type in each grave. The rows of the resulting
descriptive matrix will represent the individual graves and
the columns will represent different types of decoration,
ceramic classes etc. The applicability of this method on
archaeological inds was demonstrated by L. Chroustovský
(2008).
Classiication
Factor analysis was then applied on the descriptive matrix
using SPSS Statistics with settings identical to those
used for pottery analysis. It was performed separately for
descriptors of ceramic classes, decoration motifs, plastic
knob types, non-ceramic types and positions of grave
goods. First only two factors were extracted and extreme
outliers identiied. These atypical ind complexes were
The descriptive matrix was created in MS Access by
creating a query for the table of grave inventory using
SQL. Only attributes occurring three and more times in the
assemblage were quantiied to keep a statistical relevance.
86
Peter Demján
Figure 7. Typological classiication of vessels of body type 3 (two-part vessel) according to factors 2 and 3 using Hierarchical
Cluster Analysis.
Class
hierarchy
Code
Typical
factors
class
3100
-2
subclass
3110
-2, -3
variant
3113
-3
then no longer used for the extraction of factors from the
particular type of descriptor. The reason for the elimination
of extreme outliers is that they constitute categories of their
own and suppress the more subtle structures present in the
whole assemblage. Luckily only one grave was an outlier
in all ive groups of descriptors and therefore could not
be used for the overall analysis of the burials. However,
the information contained in the shapes of its rich ceramic
inventory contributed to the elaboration of pottery shape
typology. After eliminating the outliers, factors with
eigenvalues greater than one were extracted for each of the
ive descriptor groups and factor scores were calculated
for each grave.
Factor description
high lower body
no carination, high lower
body
no carination
variant
3114
-2
high lower body
subclass
3120
3
carination below the neck
variant
3121
-2, 3
carination below the neck,
high lower body, wide base
variant
3122
-2
high lower body
variant
3123
3
carination below the neck
class
3200
2
convex neck, strong lower
body proile inclination
subclass
3210
2
convex neck, strong lower
body proile inclination
variant
3211
2
convex neck, strong lower
body proile inclination
subclass
3220
-3
no carination
variant
3221
-3
no carination
Based on the factor scores a classiication of the graves
using hierarchical cluster analysis was performed (with
settings the same as when classifying pottery) and using the
dendrograms graves were assigned to clusters according to
different types of descriptors (e.g. a grave could be in cluster
6 according to the painted decoration of its inventory and
in cluster 3 according to types of plastic knobs). Figure 9
shows an example of clustering of graves according to
plastic elements on the ceramic grave goods. These clusters
can be described by their typical factors and descriptors
similarly to the description of pottery classes and variants
Figure 8. Ceramic classes, variants and subvariants of vessels
of body type 3 (two-part vessel).
87
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
Figure 9. Typological classiication of graves according to factors 1-6 describing the occurrence of distinct types of plastic elements
on the ceramic inventory using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.
88
Peter Demján
Cluster
Typical
factors
represent the membership of a grave in a particular group.
MCA was performed using the PAST software package
created by Ø. Hammer, D. A. T. Harper and P. D. Ryan
(2001). The result is a scatter plot where the irst and second
axes represent the irst two dimensions of the reduced
multidimensional space and the dots represent individual
graves and grave types (Figure 11). By mapping the sex of
the deceased on the scatter plot it becomes apparent that the
second axis sorts the grave inventories by gender. We can
therefore hypothesize that the irst dimension represents
the chronological order. While a deinitive validation of
this hypothesis would require the presence of stratigraphic
relations between the graves (which is not the case in
Svodín) we can attempt at least a partial validation of the
chronological sequence by using external evidence. This
is also important to determine the orientation of the time
axis i.e. which end represents the earlier and which the
later burials.
Factor description
small - indistinct and
anthropomorphic knobs
1
2
2
3, 2
vertically oblong and round knobs
with horizontal opening
3
4
saddle-form knobs with vertical or
horizontal ridge
4
1
atypical (less than 3 graves)
non-speciic (no typical factors for
this cluster)
5
6
6
horizontally oblong knobs
7
5
drawn-out knobs
Figure 10. Typological grave groups (clusters) deined
according to the occurrence of distinct types of plastic elements
on the ceramic inventory.
It is reasonable to think that burials did not take place
in regular intervals one after another. We must therefore
assume that there are luctuations in our ordering based
on highly fragmented information. To be able to assess
the relative-chronological assignment of the individual
graves and their types we must irst identify gaps in the
MCA ordering on the horizontal axis. The clusters of graves
between these gaps represent typological-chronological
phases, in which there is a higher probability that the
member graves are roughly contemporaneous (Figure 12).
We can now identify structures which are typical for these
phases and compare them with inds from other early
Lengyel sites.
with the same limitations concerning such a monothetic
interpretation of polythetic structures (Figure 10). The
presence or absence of an attribute typical for a group in
a grave does not automatically assign it to that particular
group.
Determining the chronological sequence
The method of relative chronology is based on the
assumption that certain cultural phenomena are subject to
diachronic change. We already identiied relics of these
structures in the assemblage from Svodín using explorative
statistical techniques. If we order these ind complexes in
such a way that those belonging to the same structures
(represented by typological grave groups) will be close to
each other, the resulting sequence should represent their
relative chronological ordering.
External evidence
The Lengyel phase of the settlement in Svodín encompasses
only one ceramic stage (Lengyel I), which limits our search
to structures which appear only for a brief time span. By
deinition such structures will be present in relatively small
numbers in the ind assemblages which further complicates
their identiication. It must be noted that despite the small
number of excavated settlements from the Lengyel I stage
the state of processing and publication of the material
is quite good. Detailed internal chronologies have been
elaborated for the ceramic inds from Tešetice and Kamegg
using formalized methods (Kazdová 1984; Doneus 2001).
The ceramic grave inventories from Zengővárkony,
Friebritz and several other sites were evaluated in a
summarizing study, in which a formalized typology of the
pottery was elaborated based on its metric attributes and a
seriation of the ind complexes was performed (Zalai-Gaál
2007). The search for chronological links to Svodín was
based on these works. Also of great use were the extensive
works of J. Pavúk on Lengyel pottery typology (for the
latest see Pavúk 2007; 2009) and the typological analysis
of the Svodín material by V. Němejcová-Pavúková (1986a;
1986b; 1995). The burial inds from inside the rondel in
Friebritz (Neugebauer-Maresch et al., 2002) also provided
A multivariate statistic method well suited for this
application is multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).
Similarly to cluster analysis, it uses the Euclidean distance
of data points in multidimensional space to highlight
similarities and dissimilarities within a descriptive system.
Its advantages lie in its ability to work with nominal
variables (which in our case represent the membership in a
typological group) and the plotting of the resulting ordering
in the form of a two-dimensional scatter plot (Shennan
1997, 308). Various examples of the application of this
method in archaeology can be seen in P. Pavúk (2010).
A good example of the elaboration of a chronological
sequence using MCA can be seen in the work of J.
Macháček (2001; 2010).
The rows of the descriptive matrix which we have to prepare
to use this method represent the individual graves and
columns represent typological groups (by non-ceramic ind
types, ind placement, painted decoration, plastic elements
and ceramic classes). The values 1 and 0 in the matrix
89
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
Figure 11. Sorting of the graves (black dots) according to their classiication to distinct typological groups (grey dots; by nonceramic ind types, ind placement, painted decoration, plastic elements and ceramic classes) using multiple correspondence analysis
(MCA).
Figure 12. Identifying four typological-chronological phases of the settlement burials based on their chronological relations
represented by the horizontal axis of the MCA scatter plot.
90
Peter Demján
important information about the absolute dating of this
stage of the Lengyel Culture.
Feature nr
non_
cer
place
paint
plast
body
phase
MCA
order
3
8
2
5
2
1
1
2773
3
10
2
5
2
1
2
13480
2
5
6
6
2
1
3
17181
2
2
2
6
2
1
4
12280
3
8
6
3
2
1
5
13280
6
5
5
5
2
1
6
10680
2
5
5
5
2
1
7
4574
2
5
5
6
5
1
8
672
2
5
2
6
5
1
9
4876
2
2
2
5
2
1
10
7678
2
2
2
5
3
1
11
3774
2
2
2
2
2
1
12
171
2
5
2
2
5
1
13
2973
2
5
5
3
2
1
14
15
10580
Some dificulty lies in the fact that the material analyses in
the aforementioned work rely on a more or less monothetic
typological approach. Chronological assignment is directly
connected with the appearance of speciic attributes on
the pottery to which it is dificult to ind parallels in the
polythetic structures identiied in Svodín. The focus of
this article on methodical procedures does not provide
space for elaborating the several different parallels and
analogies which ultimately led to the orientation of the
time axis and a validation of the chronological sequence.
Analogies in ceramic vessel shapes and most importantly
in chronologically very sensitive motifs of painted
decoration put the typological-chronological phases I and
II of the Svodín burials into the early phase (IA) of the
Lengyel Culture. At least for phase I we can assume a
contemporaneity with the Friebritz settlement (ixed by an
analogous polythetic structure in painted decoration, found
on both sites), which is dated into the phase Lengyel IA not
only by relative-chronological observation but also by 14C
dating (Stadler and Ruttkay 2007, Figure 5). Based on the
analysis of the grave inventory it cannot be ruled out that the
settlement lasted only during the phase IA of the Lengyel
Culture, the duration of which according to radiocarbon
measurements is c. 113 years (Stadler and Ruttkay 2007,
Table 7). The resulting chronological sorting of the graves
and typological groups can be seen on Figure 13.
Examining the spatial distribution of graves from different
chronological phases over the area of the settlement shows
that there is no linear or radial trend in the burials and all
observed grave clusters contain graves from all phases.
This implies that we are dealing with burials which were
an integral part of the living settlement. Further analysis of
the material from other settlement features in Svodín and
stratigraphica relationships of graves and pits, houses and
rondel ditches, may shed more light on the relation between
the living community and its dead.
Conclusions
Choosing a formalized approach to typological and
chronological analysis of a large assemblage has proven to
have some clear advantages over the traditional empirical
approach. It is possible to eliminate observer bias in many
steps of the analysis especially when it comes to pottery
classiication. The ability to work with true polythetic
structures instead of just an advanced monothetic model
enables us to identify even subtle structures within the
assemblage and helps us distinguish between chronological
and other cultural or technical aspects.
Application of a combination of multivariate statistic
methods allows us to compare attributes with very different
frequencies of occurrence in the assemblage and where
quantiication is possible also to include both metric
and nominal attributes in our analysis. A well designed
2474
2
2
2
7
5
1
12180
2
7
6
3
5
2
16
10380
2
5
2
3
2
2
17
14481
2
5
2
3
2
2
18
9479
3
3
3
3
2
2
19
12780
2
5
5
4
1
2
20
17882
8
2
2
3
1
2
21
17281
2
2
2
5
1
2
22
17682
9
5
5
7
1
2
23
4174
2
2
2
6
4
2
24
271
2
5
2
7
2
2
25
1673
2
5
3
2
2
2
26
972
2
5
3
7
2
2
27
2173
2
5
3
7
1
2
28
3974
2
6
3
5
5
3
29
9379
5
7
3
5
1
3
30
3073
2
7
3
5
4
3
31
15981
5
7
3
5
2
3
32
17782
2
5
3
5
4
3
33
7778
2
6
3
5
1
3
34
7078
5
1
3
5
2
3
35
3574
2
5
2
5
4
3
36
14081
7
5
1
5
4
3
37
11280
1
1
1
1
1
4
38
13981
7
6
4
3
2
4
39
2373
2
6
2
5
2
4
40
16081
2
6
2
5
2
4
41
13781
2
6
2
5
2
4
42
11380
5
6
4
1
4
4
43
16381
2
5
4
1
2
4
44
13080
4
4
4
4
3
4
45
n
Group typical for phase I
n
Group typical for phase II
n
Group typical for phase III
n
Group typical for phase IV
Figure 13. Chronological sorting of the graves and their
membership of different typological groups.
91
Grave Typology and Chronology of a Lengyel Culture Settlement
formalized process of typology makes it possible to enter
new data into the descriptive system even by non-experts
and at a relatively fast pace. Here the use of metric attributes
to describe vessel shapes presents a great advantage.
John, J. 2005. Příspěvek ke struktuře pohřební výbavy v
kultuře s volutovou keramikou (A contribution to the
structure of LBK Culture grave goods), in E. Neustupný
and J. John (eds.), Příspěvky k archeologii 2, 11-19.
Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk.
Kalicz, N. 1985. Kőkori falu Aszódon. Múzeumi Füzetek
32. Aszód, Petői Múzeum.
Kazdová, E. 1984. Těšetice-Kyjovice I. Starší stupeň kultury
s moravskou malovanou keramikou. Brno, Univerzita J.
E. Purkyně.
Macháček, J. 2001. Studie k velkomoravské keramice.
Metody, analýzy a syntézy, modely. Brno, Masarykova
univerzita.
Macháček, J. 2010. Zur Methode der Bearbeitung der
(frühmittelalterlichen) Keramik aus Siedlungsarealen,
in B. Horejs, R. Jung and P. Pavúk (eds.), Analysing
Pottery. Processing - Classiication - Publication, 41-71.
Bratislava, Universita Komenského v Bratislave.
Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1986a. Vorbericht über die
Ergebnisse der systematischen Grabung in Svodín in
den Jahren 1971-1983. Slovenská archeológia 34 (1),
133-176.
Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1986b. Charakter der NachLužianky-Entwicklung der Lengyel-Kultur. Béri Balogh
Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 13, 225-232.
Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1995. Svodín. Zwei
Kreisgrabenanlagen der Lengyel-Kultur. Studia
Archeologica et Mediaevalia 2. Bratislava, Universita
Komenského v Bratislave.
Neugebauer-Maresch Ch., Neugebauer J.-W., Großschmidt
K., Randl U. and Seemann R. 2002. Die Gräbergruppe
vom Beginn der Bemaltkeramik im Zentrum der
Kreisgrabenanlage Friebritz-Süd, Niederösterreich.
Preistoria Alpina 37, 187–253.
Neustupný, E. 1993. Archaeological method. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Neustupný, E. 2007. Metoda archeologie. Plzeň, Aleš
Čeněk.
Neustupný, E. and John, J. (eds.) 2005. Příspěvky k
archeologii 2. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk.
Orton, C. 1980. Mathematics in Archaeology. London,
Collins.
Pavúk, J. 2007. Zur Frage der Entstehung und Verbreitung
der Lengyel-Kultur, in J. K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky
(eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and related Cultures in
the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 11-28.
Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności Kraków and
Institute of Archaeological Sciences Eötvös Loránd
University, Budapest.
Pavúk, J. 2009. Die Entwicklung der Želiezovce-Gruppe
und die Entstehung der Lengyel-Kultur. In A. ZeebLanz (ed.), Krisen – Kulturwandel – Kontinuitäten. Zum
Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Beiträge der
internationalen Tagung in Herxheim bei Landau (Pfalz)
vom 14-17. 06. 2007. Internationale Archäologie, Band
10, 249-266. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.
Pavúk, P. 2010. Pottery Processing at Troy. Typology,
Stratigraphy and Correspondence Analysis: How Do
They Work Together, in B. Horejs, R. Jung and P. Pavúk
After elaborating a chronological ordering in this way it
is possible to retrospectively identify attributes typical for
particular chronological phases. This information can be
then used to date inds where a polythetic structure cannot
be found due to lack of data. The fact that we derive
monothetic descriptors from hidden polythetic structures
revealed by the analysis and not vice versa underlines the
exploratory nature of this process.
Of course it has to be mentioned that this study relied on
data from fairly well preserved and documented closed
contexts and ceramic vessels which could be completely
restored. If we were dealing with highly fragmented material
from settlement pits and ditches, which is also subject to
many post-deposition transformations, the elaboration of a
reliable formal system would be more dificult.
References
Chroustovský, L. 2008. Kontingenční tabulky a vektorová
syntéza : příspěvek k možnostem transformace
nominálních dat a jejich následné matematické syntézy
(Contingency tables and vector synthesis. A contribution
on the potentional of nominal data transformation and its
subsequent mathematical analysis). In J. Macháček (ed.),
Počítačová podpora v archeologii 2, 49-60. Brno-PrahaPlzeň, Masarykova Univerzita, Archeologický ústav
Akademie věd České republiky v Praze, Západočeská
univerzita.
Clarke, D. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London, Methuen.
Dombay, J. 1960. Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in
Zengővárkony. Beiträge zur Kultur des Aeneolithikums
in Ungarn. Archaeologia Hungarica 37. Budapest,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Doneus, M. 2001. Die Keramik der mittelneolithischen
Kreisgrabenanlage von Kamegg, Niederösterreich. Ein
Beitrag zur Chronologie der Stufe MOG I der Lengyel
Kultur. Mitteilungen der prähistorischen Kommission
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Band 46. Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Gening, V. F. 1977. Program statistického zpracování
keramiky. In J. Malina, Nové metody popisu tvaru
sbírkových předmětů. Morfometrika artefaktu, 91–97.
České Budějovice, Jihočeské muzeum.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001.
PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package
for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia
Electronica [online] 4 (1), [Accessed 28 January
2011], 1-9. Available from: <http://palaeo-electronica.
org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm>.
Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the Past: Current
Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 3rd ed.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
92
Peter Demján
(eds.), Analysing Pottery. Processing - Classiication Publication, 73-98. Bratislava, Univerzita Komenského.
Podborský, V., Kazdová, E., Koštuřík, P. and Weber, Z.
1977. Numerický kód moravské malované keramiky.
Problémy deskripce v archeologii. Brno, Univerzita J.
E. Purkyně.
Shennan, S. J. 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. 2nd ed.
Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
Stadler, P. and Ruttkay, E. 2007. Absolute Chronology
of the Moravian-Eastern-Austrian group (MOG) of
the painted pottery (Lengyel-Culture) based on new
radiocarbon dates from Austria, in J. K. Kozłowski and P.
Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and related Cultures
in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 117146. Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności Kraków
and Institute of Archaeological Sciences Eötvös Loránd
University, Budapest.
Zalai-Gaál, I. 2007. Zengővárkony-Svodín-Friebritz:
zu den chronologischen Beziehungen zwischen den
territorialen Gruppen der Lengyel-Kultur aufgrund der
Gräberfeldanalyse, in J. K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky
(eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and related Cultures in
the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe, 147-184.
Kraków, Polska Akademia Umiejętności Kraków and
Institute of Archaeological Sciences Eötvös Loránd
University, Budapest.
93