Fig 1.
Key: 1 –barrows excavated and then reconstructed; 2 –barrows partially preserved, 3 –barrows registered in the mid-twentieth century.
Fig 2.
Geomorphological background of the cemetery in limited (A) and large (B) scale.
Table 1.
Register of barrows according to historical sources.
Table 2.
Stages of land use in prehistory and the Middle Ages.
Fig 3.
Results of field surveys around the cemetery. Key: Red dots–finds of pottery dated to the Early Bronze Age, black dots–finds of other artefacts dated to other periods of prehistory, Middle Ages or early modern times.
Fig 4.
Cross-section of the Barrow I. Scientific Archive of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Fig 5.
Outline of stratigraphic levels documented in the barrows (A) and Harris matrix (B).
Fig 6.
Stratigraphic levels in barrows. Red colour marks levels radiocarbon dated: A ‐ Barrow IV; B–Barrow III; C–Barrow II; D–Barrow I.
Table 3.
List of radiocarbon dates obtained until 2015.
Table 4.
List of radiocarbon dates used in the analyses reported in the text.
Table 5.
Determinations of stable isotopes in human bones.
Table 6.
Results of 14C dating.
Table 7.
Results of 14C dating.
Table 8.
Results of 14C dating.
Table 9.
Results of 14C dating.
Fig 7.
The results of the calibration of radiocarbon dates. R_Combine is the calibration of the mean (calculated by Oxcal) over the 14C ages obtained for the same wood sample or for bone samples from the same skeleton. Modern dates from stratigraphic level VII are not included.
Fig 8.
Probability distributions of the dates of the wood samples and (against a blue background) the dates of felling (or death of the individual) from which these samples were derived. The time interval between the formation of the dated wood sample and the felling of the tree was assumed to be exponential and to be in the range of 0–30 years (correction "d1"), 0–50 years (“d4”) or 0–300 years (“d5”). For a bone sample (ŁękiM 1957: 1068) of an individual who died at the age of 30–40 years, the rejuvenation of the calendar date was applied with a value derived from the normal distribution N (15.5).
Fig 9.
Bayesian date set modeling results. The dates of samples from stratigraphic levels II, III-IV, V and VI were assumed to form an interrupted time sequence. All samples from stratigraphic level II were assumed to represent the same calendar date.
Fig 10.
Differentiation of radiocarbon chronology of Individuals: 1, 2a, 2b and 3.
Fig 11.
Probability distributions of the dates of the wood samples and (against a blue background) the dates of harvesting the trees from which the samples were derived. The time interval between the formation of the dated wood sample and the felling of the tree was assumed to be exponential and to be in the range of 0–30 years (correction "d1"), 0–50 years (“d4”) or 0–300 years (“d5”).
Fig 12.
A. Bayesian date set modeling results. It was assumed that the sampling dates for stratigraphic level IV are identical, and that the dates for samples from stratigraphic level V that are younger than these fall within one phase. The sampling dates for stratigraphic levels VI and VII were calibrated independently. B. Barrow III, as in Fig 12.A, with a horizontal scale covering only the stratigraphic levels IV and V date range.
Fig 13.
A. Bayesian date set modeling results. VIx stratigraphic level sample dates are assumed to be within one phase. The dates of the samples from stratigraphic level VIy were calibrated as independent. B. Barrow II, as in Fig 13.A, with a horizontal scale covering only the VIx stratigraphic level date range.
Fig 14.
Calibration results of radiocarbon dates. The dated samples were bound in four dendrochronological sequences, so the differences in calendar dates of consecutive samples from a given sequence were known. The probability distribution of the date of the youngest increment associated with that sequence ("Last") is also shown for each sequence.
Table 10.
Results of calibration of the 14C age of samples: ŁM_A, ŁM_B, ŁM_C and ŁM_D. Wiggle matching modeling: OxCal v 4.4.2 [41], calibration curve IntCal 20 [42].
Fig 15.
Probability distributions of the dates of the wood samples and (against a blue background) the dates of harvesting the trees from which the samples were derived. The time interval between the formation of the dated sample wood and the felling of the tree was assumed to be exponential and within the range assuming that the trees had a maximum of 300 annual increments.
Fig 16.
Results of Bayesian date set modeling. It was assumed that the dates of felling the trees (from which the tested wood came from) fall within one phase.
Fig 17.
Comparison of the dates of the beginning of the use of barrows I-IV. Top: Probability distributions of the calendar dates of the lower bounds of Bayesian chronological models. The burial mounds were ranked according to the median distribution. Bottom: Diagram showing the probability that the beginning of the use of the burial x (with the date denoted by "t1") is older than that of the burial y (the date denoted by "t2").
Fig 18.
Comparison of the dates of the ends of the use of barrows I-IV. Top: Probability distributions of the calendar dates of the upper bounds of Bayesian chronological models. The burial mounds were ranked according to the median distribution. Bottom: Diagram showing the probability that the end of the use of the burial x (with the date denoted by "t1") is older than that of the burial y (the date denoted by "t2").
Table 11.
Typological assessment of individual vessels.
Table 12.
Typochronology of pottery from barrows I–IV.
Table 13.
Register of metal artefacts.
Fig 19.
Beginnings and ends of barrows use in the cemetery against possible human generations.
Fig 20.
Sequence of construction of barrows in the cemetery. Key: 1 –barrows excavated and then reconstructed; 2 –barrows partially preserved, 3 –barrows registered in the mid-twentieth century.
Table 14.
Beginnings of barrows in the Únětice area and basis for their chronological assessment.