Provider: Moravian Museum, Brno, Czech Republic

TY  - JOUR
JO  - Anthropologie (Brno)
TI  - Strategie der gemeinsamen anthropologischen und archäologischen Forschung der Latènezeit in Böhmen
AU  - Waldhauser J
Y1  - 1981
VL  - 19
IS  - 2
PB  - Moravian Museum, Brno, Czech Republic
SN  - 0323-1119
SP  - 115
EP  - 120
KW  - 
N2  - 
N2  - The Strategy of Joint Anthropological and Archaeological Research of the Bohemian La Tène Period.
The author has proposed close co-operation of the anthropologists (paleodemographers and archaeolo-gists) with the prehistorians, as an especially useful way of the study of th steadily growing amount of ar-chaeological and anthropological materials. He has laid out the groups of problems to be solved regarding the Celtic settlement of Bohemia in the 6lh—1st centuries B.C.
In the first part of his work he tries to reconstruct the number o inhabitants living in the Celtic home-steads, villages, oppida, settlement areas and regions in the whole of Bohemia. The respective palaeodemographic formulae are better known to the anthropologists and it would be logical to continue in the hitherto promissing practice (Šaldova 1974; Waldhauser 1980) revealing that the homesteads and villages were inhabited by an average of 10—30 individuals. The number of inhabitants of the oppida reached several thousand — in the case of Závist it can be put at 3400 people. This means that the northern half of Bohemia was inhabited by about 50 000 people (compare situation in England in the same period, Cunliffe 1979). The re-sults obtained through paleodemographic methods can be confronted with other types of calculations (e.g. according to the capacity of cereal pits in the fully excavated homesteads). The Celtic burial grounds can give us in the joint study of the two scientific disciplines answers for various questions of the social structure (Waldhauser 1978), the relation of physical types to the graves (e.g. Čižmář 1978), family relationship, anthropological "reconstruction" of families or clans and of their genealogy (cf. Chochol 1978 with the desi-deratum of the standpoint of other anthropologists), but also a confrontation of the archaeologically and an¬thropologically determined sex, age. etc.
Other questions are connected with non-ritual burials in the settlements, e.g. with the strategy of record¬ing these finds with the evaluation of the aspects of both disciplines (e.g. the infant burials are quite frequent in settlements, but appear only exceptionally in burial sites).
The author, although, he is an advocate of the so-called genetic pool, endeavours the anthropologists to follow the autochthonous and exogenous populations in the anthropological record in 400—200/150 B.C., when the former population was probably replaced by a new one, and namely to follow the anthropologi¬cal characters of the Celtic millenium in later times, when Bohemia was settled by  Germanic people.
The conclusion has been focused on methodological conditions of co-operation between archaeologists and anthropologists. The author advocates swift publication of anthropological finds and of field reports every year. He appreciates very much the research carried out by M. Stloukal and, his achievements, and also his co-operation with the Teplice Museum, including the publication of materials on some earlier finds (cf. HanákováStroukal—Muška 1977).
ER  -