A -Prague-Libeň (CZ). Part of the stratigraphy dated to the Late Bronze Age (E), Early Iron Age (D), Roman period (C), Early Middle Age (B), Middle Ages (A2) to the Modern period (A1) documented in 1909 by E. Štorch (after Ernée 2008: fig. 4). B-D -Prague-Záběhlice (CZ), excavation of the Bronze Age settlement layer (photos by M. Ernée). E -Prague-Záběhlice (CZ), all sunken features identified in the settlement layer (drawing by M. Ernée). F -Prague-Záběhlice (CZ), five features also sunk into the subsoil (drawing by M. Ernée).

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... always that simple. Not only in caves, on hillforts or tell settlements, on Palaeolithic sites, or in wetland regions or sites (such as lake-dwelling settlements or Wurt-settlements), but also on hundreds and thousands of typical lowland agricultural settlements, we are dealing with the phenomenon of 'settlement/cultural layers' (Kulturschichten) (Fig. 3A). Despite the very early determination that the world of sunken features is not the only one possible, even in Czech archaeology has there been in the twentieth century the gradual establishment of three leading (and many times published) paradigms regarding the 'settlement layer' on lowland ...

Context 2

... prehistoric site with well preserved settlement layers of varying thickness (of ca. 1 to 2 m) and with many in-situ finds was detected over an area of ca 2 ha. From February to April 2001, during a multi-disciplinary archaeological excavation, a total of 90,8 m 3 of settlement/cultural layers and sunken features covering a total of 65 m 2 ( Fig. 3B-D) were excavated, documented and sampled. The settlement layers, sunken features and the majority of all finds are dated to the Late and Final Bronze Age (Knovíz and Štítary Cultures; Reinecke Ha A1-Ha B2; ca 1200-900/850 BC). The settlement layer (and simultaneously also the fill of the sunken features) was excavated, documented and ...

Context 3

... all the excavated and documented sunken features at the Prague-Záběhlice site were found in the settlement layer with no contact with the subsoil (loess), as can be seen, for example, also in many of the documented storage pits ( Fig. ...

Context 4

... the excavated area of 65 m 2 we discovered 59 sunken features in total (pits, post-holes, etc.; see Fig. 3E), but only the deepest parts of five of these (8 %) were sunk into the subsoil (Fig. 3F)! The deepest parts of the five largest pits (in the subsoil) ( Fig. 3F) make up approximately 14 % of the overall volume of all 59 sunken features; they contain about 11 % of all finds from all of the sunken features (pits, etc.), they make up ...

Context 5

... the excavated area of 65 m 2 we discovered 59 sunken features in total (pits, post-holes, etc.; see Fig. 3E), but only the deepest parts of five of these (8 %) were sunk into the subsoil (Fig. 3F)! The deepest parts of the five largest pits (in the subsoil) ( Fig. 3F) make up approximately 14 % of the overall volume of all 59 sunken features; they contain about 11 % of all finds from all of the sunken features (pits, etc.), they make up almost 0.13 % of the volume of all prehistoric features (inclusive of the settlement layer) ...

Context 6

... the excavated area of 65 m 2 we discovered 59 sunken features in total (pits, post-holes, etc.; see Fig. 3E), but only the deepest parts of five of these (8 %) were sunk into the subsoil (Fig. 3F)! The deepest parts of the five largest pits (in the subsoil) ( Fig. 3F) make up approximately 14 % of the overall volume of all 59 sunken features; they contain about 11 % of all finds from all of the sunken features (pits, etc.), they make up almost 0.13 % of the volume of all prehistoric features (inclusive of the settlement layer) identified on the site, and contain only about 1.5 % of all prehistoric ...

Context 7

... loss of above-subsoil features, their structures (or parts thereof) and all finds and information from these contexts (Fig. 5E-F) In terms of settlements with preserved sunken features, or parts thereof, we must not forget all the above-subsoil features and the finds from their fills. In the first figure from the excavation at PragueZáběhlice (Fig. 3E), we can see all the features sunk only into the settlement layers, which we will lose completely if we ignore the settlement layer. Of the 59 features, a total of 92 % (54 features) are not sunk into the subsoil. These upper (above-subsoil) features (or parts of them) make up about 86 % of the volume of all 59 sunken features, ...

Context 8

... part of the same problem is the often forgotten upper part of features above subsoil level, their deepest parts being sunk into the subsoil, such as the Late Bronze Age storage pits excavated at Prague-Záběhlice ( Fig. 3F; 4C-D) or Prague--Miškovice (Fig. ...

Context 9

... the sunken features of only one of the three identified Late and Final Bronze Age occupation horizons (and five chronological horizons) were identified in the subsoil. What would have happened upon the removal of the settlement layers right up to the surface of the subsoil can also be examined in the stratigraphy recorded in 1909 at Prague-Libeň (Fig. 3A). Instead of six chronological horizons (Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Roman period, Early Middle Ages, Middle Ages to Modern), only one would remain -the Late Bronze Age storage pits. An excellent example is the Hallstatt (Early Iron Age) settlement at Prague-Hostivař ( Fig. 6; excavation by P. Kováčik, 2004Kováčik, -2006). In ...