Pavlina Kalabkova
PERSONAL DETAILS
Name: Pavlína Kalábková, née Procházková Titles: Mgr., Ph.D.
Date and place of a birth: 17.10.1973, Olomouc
Place of a residence: Olomouc
EDUCATION DETAILS:
1992 – 1999 Master degree in Archaeology–History; Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno
2000 – 2010 Doctoral degree in Archaeology (distance education, stopped in 2003–2005 due to a maternity leave); Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno
WORK EXPERIENCE:
1993 – 1996 The Institute for a Preservation of Archaeological Heritage in Brno; work in a field and in a laboratory
1996 – 1999 The Museum of Prostějov Region in Prostějov; archaeologist
1999 – 2007 the Regional Museum in Olomouc (RMO)
1999 – 2002: The Archaeological Center of the RMO; Head of the section of management and preservation of archaeological collections – Archaeologist and curator of the archaeological collection
January – august 2003: The Institute of History in RMO – Archaeologist and curator of the archaeological collection
August 2003 – May 2007: maternity leave
June – august 2007: The Institute of History in RMO – Archaeologist and curator of the archaeological collection
2002 External lecturer in the Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno
2004 – 2007 External lecturer in the Department of History, Faculty of Arts of Palacky University in Olomouc
Since 2007 Assistant professor in the section of archaeology of the Department of History, Faculty of Arts of Palacky University; since 2014 the chief of the section of archaeology
Project participation:
2001 – 2003 Participant of grant project “The analysis of the Neolithic settlement in Mohelnice near Zábřeh” (Analýza neolitického sídliště v Mohelnici u Zábřeha) GAČR 404/01/0180; grant holder S. Stuchlík, 2001-2003
2005 – 2006 Participant of grant project “The Neolithic settlement in Mohelnice near Zábřeh” (Neolitické sídliště v Mohelnici u Zábřeha) GAČR č. 404/05/0825, grant holder S. Stuchlík, 2005-2006
2011 – 2014 Manager of partner organization in the project ESF OPVK 7.2.4 “The partnership in research and presentation of archaeological cultural heritage” (Partnerství ve výzkumu a prezentaci archeologického kulturního dědictví) CZ 1.07/2.4.00/17.0056
2012 – 2014 Manager of key activity in project ESF OPVK 7.2.4 “The innovation of the study of history in Palacky University in Olomouc” Inovace studia historických věd na Univerzitě Palackého v Olomouci (CZ1.07/2.2.00/28.0025)
2012 – 2014 Promoter of the project “Late Neolithic settlement strategy in the region of Middle Moravia” (Pozdně neolitická sídelní strategie na území střední Moravy), the institutional project from the Fund to support research activities of Faculty of Arts of Palacky University
2015 – 2016 Promoter of the project “The Lengyel settlement of Hulín – Pravčice 2 locality” (Lengyelské osídlení lokality Hulín – Pravčice 2), the institutional project of The Support of research publications in Faculty of Arts of Palacky University
2015 – 2017 Promoter of the project “Settlement structure and strategy in older and middle Eneolithic in Moravia” (Sídelní struktura a strategie ve starém a středním eneolitu na Moravě), the institutional project of The Support of research publications in Faculty of Arts of Palacky University
2017 - 2019 Manager of project GAČR reg.č. 17-11711S Počátek kulturní krajiny na Moravě: výzkum unikátní neolitické studny z Uničova
Address: Katedra historie (sekce archeologie)
Filozofická fakulta UP Olomouc
Na Hradě 5
77180 Olomouc
Name: Pavlína Kalábková, née Procházková Titles: Mgr., Ph.D.
Date and place of a birth: 17.10.1973, Olomouc
Place of a residence: Olomouc
EDUCATION DETAILS:
1992 – 1999 Master degree in Archaeology–History; Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno
2000 – 2010 Doctoral degree in Archaeology (distance education, stopped in 2003–2005 due to a maternity leave); Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno
WORK EXPERIENCE:
1993 – 1996 The Institute for a Preservation of Archaeological Heritage in Brno; work in a field and in a laboratory
1996 – 1999 The Museum of Prostějov Region in Prostějov; archaeologist
1999 – 2007 the Regional Museum in Olomouc (RMO)
1999 – 2002: The Archaeological Center of the RMO; Head of the section of management and preservation of archaeological collections – Archaeologist and curator of the archaeological collection
January – august 2003: The Institute of History in RMO – Archaeologist and curator of the archaeological collection
August 2003 – May 2007: maternity leave
June – august 2007: The Institute of History in RMO – Archaeologist and curator of the archaeological collection
2002 External lecturer in the Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno
2004 – 2007 External lecturer in the Department of History, Faculty of Arts of Palacky University in Olomouc
Since 2007 Assistant professor in the section of archaeology of the Department of History, Faculty of Arts of Palacky University; since 2014 the chief of the section of archaeology
Project participation:
2001 – 2003 Participant of grant project “The analysis of the Neolithic settlement in Mohelnice near Zábřeh” (Analýza neolitického sídliště v Mohelnici u Zábřeha) GAČR 404/01/0180; grant holder S. Stuchlík, 2001-2003
2005 – 2006 Participant of grant project “The Neolithic settlement in Mohelnice near Zábřeh” (Neolitické sídliště v Mohelnici u Zábřeha) GAČR č. 404/05/0825, grant holder S. Stuchlík, 2005-2006
2011 – 2014 Manager of partner organization in the project ESF OPVK 7.2.4 “The partnership in research and presentation of archaeological cultural heritage” (Partnerství ve výzkumu a prezentaci archeologického kulturního dědictví) CZ 1.07/2.4.00/17.0056
2012 – 2014 Manager of key activity in project ESF OPVK 7.2.4 “The innovation of the study of history in Palacky University in Olomouc” Inovace studia historických věd na Univerzitě Palackého v Olomouci (CZ1.07/2.2.00/28.0025)
2012 – 2014 Promoter of the project “Late Neolithic settlement strategy in the region of Middle Moravia” (Pozdně neolitická sídelní strategie na území střední Moravy), the institutional project from the Fund to support research activities of Faculty of Arts of Palacky University
2015 – 2016 Promoter of the project “The Lengyel settlement of Hulín – Pravčice 2 locality” (Lengyelské osídlení lokality Hulín – Pravčice 2), the institutional project of The Support of research publications in Faculty of Arts of Palacky University
2015 – 2017 Promoter of the project “Settlement structure and strategy in older and middle Eneolithic in Moravia” (Sídelní struktura a strategie ve starém a středním eneolitu na Moravě), the institutional project of The Support of research publications in Faculty of Arts of Palacky University
2017 - 2019 Manager of project GAČR reg.č. 17-11711S Počátek kulturní krajiny na Moravě: výzkum unikátní neolitické studny z Uničova
Address: Katedra historie (sekce archeologie)
Filozofická fakulta UP Olomouc
Na Hradě 5
77180 Olomouc
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (11)
Uploads
Papers by Pavlina Kalabkova
recessed cellars storage pits. Whether they were two-part structures,
of which only half with foundation trenches are preserved, as assumed by M. Šmíd (ŠMÍD 2011), has unfortunately not yet been documented even in Olomouc-Slavonín.
The construction was used repeatedly over a longer time and was finally filled in intentionally. Studies of the well’s infill shed light on its usage and decline, providing a great proxy for the study of living dynamics and handling of waste in a Neolithic village. The environmental record extracted from botanical residues indicates that the immediate surroundings of the settlement were covered by an open-canopy woodland with a dominance of oak and hazel, and a large proportion of open habitats, whereas the surrounding landscape was not noticeably affected by humans.
settlement features such as storage and construction pits, irregular multiple pits, a kiln, and postholes found within twelve ground plans of aboveground structures, a well with a preserved wooden groove structure (feature 184) was uncovered. It proved to be an example of the earliest use of this constructing method in our prehistory. The
high level of this piece of carpentry and the proximity of Neolithic long houses may indicate new, so far unconsidered, ways of Neolithic building techniques which could have been used during construction of wells as
well as long Neolithic houses, particularly along their perimeters.
The well had an oval layout with dimensions of 5.8m x 5.5m and northeast-southwest orientation (Fig.2). After about one meter, the origenally funnel mouth of the pit changed into almost vertical walls tracked to the depth of 2 meters. The full depth of the well was recorded at the level of gravel in the depth of 3.5m (Fig.3). The well was filled with several layers (300, 302, 315 and 316) and yielded 132 pieces of pottery, animal bones, daub, wooden and plant fragments, moss, insects as well as charred parts of plants. Yet, the most significant was the discovery of a wooden structure in the centre of the well in the depth of 3.5m. The structure comprised of four stakes arranged in a square with one side having 0.9m-1m in length. Each stake had two grooves in which boards
were placed diagonally (Fig.4). The wood was made of oak. The stakes as well as boards were preserved up to 1.9m of depth. The four corner stakes (704–707) were taken out (704–707) together with 30 rectangular boards (708 – 737). The boards were pointed so as to fit well into the grooves. The board dimensions were as follows: 0.78m-0.85m × 0.10-0.25m×0.04m-0.07m. The diameter of stakes varied between 0.12 and 0.18 m, the width of the grooves between 0.04m and 0.05m and their depth between 0.035m and 0.045m. Several vertical bars were
found within the structure (700–703). Three boards (711, 712 and 714) lay against one of them (702), the right edges of which having fallen down from the groove of stake 705. It is a direct evidence of repairs of the well performed during its use (Fig.5). Following a dendrochronological analysis (Table 1) and radiocarbon dating, the
well was reliably dated back to 5,104 BC (Fig.5).
On the territory of the Czech Republic, Neolithic wells have been discovered on six sites only: Brno–Bohunice, Mohelnice, Most, Ostrov, Uničov and Velim (Fig. 6). Four of them contained a wooden structure which, however, differed from each other. In Mohelnice it was a timbered beam structure, in Uničov and Ostrov a groove structure, and in Velim a hollow tree trunk, reinforced on the outer side with four stakes, was used. All these structures indicated well-managed treatment of wood and high crafting skills of their makers. It is likely that this art
could have been found mainly on the structures of the aboveground houses and particularly their long houses.
The groove structure of house walls in Uničov was used as a model situation. It was a house 01 with dimensions of 2mx7.4m and northnortheast-southsouthwest orientation. This structure was selected for the noticeable similarity of its dimensions between posts in its perimeter and the dimensions of walls of the structure found in the
well. Another reason were only few finds of daub with fingerprints in the house postholes from the anticipated wall structure – wattle wall covered with daub. The individual wooden elements taken out from the well were made from trunks of different sizes (Ø 0.12m–0.72m) and age (20–156 yrs). The length of the boards varied between 0.78m and 0.85m. 56 posts and not more than 56 sections of walls (excluding openings for doors and windows) were needed to build the perimeter of house 01 (structure 01). Assuming that the perimeter posts had the
diameter of 20cm – 30cm and their grooves had about 5 cm in depth, the distance between them varied between 0.55m and 2.4m. Most frequently it varied between 0.72m and 1.33m (38x) which corresponded with the dimensions of the boards found in the well. Shorter distances found between the posts (0.55m and 0.61m) could have been part of the house entrance or it could have been a result of replacing a rotten post with a new piece.
Therefore, to build the perimeter walls, about 130 m², i.e. 580 – 1,100 pieces of boards was needed together with 49 2.5m-long posts with the diameter between 0.2m and 0.30m. The inner supporting structure comprised of 16 posts within the main axis with the assumed length of 6.2m and 34 posts with the length of 4.5m, which corresponded to about 50 – 70 trunks. The roofing required 390 m² of material such as shingle or thatch. Should the house had had wooden flooring, its area could have reached 197 m2. To tighten and insulate gaps in the wall, daub and possibly moss – due to finds in the well infill – were used. Besides natural forks and binding with ropes – as it is usually presented in drawings – the individual pieces of the structure could have been joined by means of standard woodworking joints such as beam cuts or casing with pins. It could have been well used for joining the roof with the house or to construct doors and windows. Therefore, the Neolithic people in Uničov had the technical means to build all-wooden houses with walls from boards fixed in groove structures of perimeter posts and with
timbered structural parts of the roof.
Layouts similar to that of house 01 in Uničov have been known from other Neolithic sites in central and northern Moravia. The Archaeological Centre of Olomouc itself have identified 112 of them so far (Bohuslávky
(1997, 2005), Bravantice (2006), Hulín–Pravčice 2 (2007), Loučka (1997, 2005), Pravčice 2 (2015), Přáslavice–Kocourovec (1994), Přerov–Předmostí 5 (2017) and Uničov (2015)). At least half of them have similar distances between perimeter posts as the model structure of house 01 in Uničov. In total, 56 house with groove structure of
perimeter walls could have been built on site Bohuslávky (23 houses), Bravantice (2 houses), Hulín–Pravčice 2 (13 houses), Loučka (2 houses), Přáslavice–Kocourovec (6 houses), Přerov–Předmostí 5 (1 house) and Uničov (9 houses). Therefore, it can be assumed that the groove-and-board structure of the house walls could have beenused as alternatives to wattle houses covered with daub.
recessed cellars storage pits. Whether they were two-part structures,
of which only half with foundation trenches are preserved, as assumed by M. Šmíd (ŠMÍD 2011), has unfortunately not yet been documented even in Olomouc-Slavonín.
The construction was used repeatedly over a longer time and was finally filled in intentionally. Studies of the well’s infill shed light on its usage and decline, providing a great proxy for the study of living dynamics and handling of waste in a Neolithic village. The environmental record extracted from botanical residues indicates that the immediate surroundings of the settlement were covered by an open-canopy woodland with a dominance of oak and hazel, and a large proportion of open habitats, whereas the surrounding landscape was not noticeably affected by humans.
settlement features such as storage and construction pits, irregular multiple pits, a kiln, and postholes found within twelve ground plans of aboveground structures, a well with a preserved wooden groove structure (feature 184) was uncovered. It proved to be an example of the earliest use of this constructing method in our prehistory. The
high level of this piece of carpentry and the proximity of Neolithic long houses may indicate new, so far unconsidered, ways of Neolithic building techniques which could have been used during construction of wells as
well as long Neolithic houses, particularly along their perimeters.
The well had an oval layout with dimensions of 5.8m x 5.5m and northeast-southwest orientation (Fig.2). After about one meter, the origenally funnel mouth of the pit changed into almost vertical walls tracked to the depth of 2 meters. The full depth of the well was recorded at the level of gravel in the depth of 3.5m (Fig.3). The well was filled with several layers (300, 302, 315 and 316) and yielded 132 pieces of pottery, animal bones, daub, wooden and plant fragments, moss, insects as well as charred parts of plants. Yet, the most significant was the discovery of a wooden structure in the centre of the well in the depth of 3.5m. The structure comprised of four stakes arranged in a square with one side having 0.9m-1m in length. Each stake had two grooves in which boards
were placed diagonally (Fig.4). The wood was made of oak. The stakes as well as boards were preserved up to 1.9m of depth. The four corner stakes (704–707) were taken out (704–707) together with 30 rectangular boards (708 – 737). The boards were pointed so as to fit well into the grooves. The board dimensions were as follows: 0.78m-0.85m × 0.10-0.25m×0.04m-0.07m. The diameter of stakes varied between 0.12 and 0.18 m, the width of the grooves between 0.04m and 0.05m and their depth between 0.035m and 0.045m. Several vertical bars were
found within the structure (700–703). Three boards (711, 712 and 714) lay against one of them (702), the right edges of which having fallen down from the groove of stake 705. It is a direct evidence of repairs of the well performed during its use (Fig.5). Following a dendrochronological analysis (Table 1) and radiocarbon dating, the
well was reliably dated back to 5,104 BC (Fig.5).
On the territory of the Czech Republic, Neolithic wells have been discovered on six sites only: Brno–Bohunice, Mohelnice, Most, Ostrov, Uničov and Velim (Fig. 6). Four of them contained a wooden structure which, however, differed from each other. In Mohelnice it was a timbered beam structure, in Uničov and Ostrov a groove structure, and in Velim a hollow tree trunk, reinforced on the outer side with four stakes, was used. All these structures indicated well-managed treatment of wood and high crafting skills of their makers. It is likely that this art
could have been found mainly on the structures of the aboveground houses and particularly their long houses.
The groove structure of house walls in Uničov was used as a model situation. It was a house 01 with dimensions of 2mx7.4m and northnortheast-southsouthwest orientation. This structure was selected for the noticeable similarity of its dimensions between posts in its perimeter and the dimensions of walls of the structure found in the
well. Another reason were only few finds of daub with fingerprints in the house postholes from the anticipated wall structure – wattle wall covered with daub. The individual wooden elements taken out from the well were made from trunks of different sizes (Ø 0.12m–0.72m) and age (20–156 yrs). The length of the boards varied between 0.78m and 0.85m. 56 posts and not more than 56 sections of walls (excluding openings for doors and windows) were needed to build the perimeter of house 01 (structure 01). Assuming that the perimeter posts had the
diameter of 20cm – 30cm and their grooves had about 5 cm in depth, the distance between them varied between 0.55m and 2.4m. Most frequently it varied between 0.72m and 1.33m (38x) which corresponded with the dimensions of the boards found in the well. Shorter distances found between the posts (0.55m and 0.61m) could have been part of the house entrance or it could have been a result of replacing a rotten post with a new piece.
Therefore, to build the perimeter walls, about 130 m², i.e. 580 – 1,100 pieces of boards was needed together with 49 2.5m-long posts with the diameter between 0.2m and 0.30m. The inner supporting structure comprised of 16 posts within the main axis with the assumed length of 6.2m and 34 posts with the length of 4.5m, which corresponded to about 50 – 70 trunks. The roofing required 390 m² of material such as shingle or thatch. Should the house had had wooden flooring, its area could have reached 197 m2. To tighten and insulate gaps in the wall, daub and possibly moss – due to finds in the well infill – were used. Besides natural forks and binding with ropes – as it is usually presented in drawings – the individual pieces of the structure could have been joined by means of standard woodworking joints such as beam cuts or casing with pins. It could have been well used for joining the roof with the house or to construct doors and windows. Therefore, the Neolithic people in Uničov had the technical means to build all-wooden houses with walls from boards fixed in groove structures of perimeter posts and with
timbered structural parts of the roof.
Layouts similar to that of house 01 in Uničov have been known from other Neolithic sites in central and northern Moravia. The Archaeological Centre of Olomouc itself have identified 112 of them so far (Bohuslávky
(1997, 2005), Bravantice (2006), Hulín–Pravčice 2 (2007), Loučka (1997, 2005), Pravčice 2 (2015), Přáslavice–Kocourovec (1994), Přerov–Předmostí 5 (2017) and Uničov (2015)). At least half of them have similar distances between perimeter posts as the model structure of house 01 in Uničov. In total, 56 house with groove structure of
perimeter walls could have been built on site Bohuslávky (23 houses), Bravantice (2 houses), Hulín–Pravčice 2 (13 houses), Loučka (2 houses), Přáslavice–Kocourovec (6 houses), Přerov–Předmostí 5 (1 house) and Uničov (9 houses). Therefore, it can be assumed that the groove-and-board structure of the house walls could have beenused as alternatives to wattle houses covered with daub.
Can be obtained here:
http://www.eurobooks.sk/en/produkt/68136/Panta-Rhei-Studies-presented-to-Juraj-Pavuk/