Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich:
Saved in:
| Format: | Book |
|---|---|
| Language: | Polish |
| Published: |
Kraków
PAU
2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Item Description: | Zsfassung in czech., engl. u. franz. Sprache u.d.T.: The únětice culture and the věteřov group in Moravia on the ground of chipped stone |
| Physical Description: | 298 S. zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. 30 cm |
| ISBN: | 8360183295 |
Staff View
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023017465 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20160404 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 071122s2006 abd| |||| 00||| pol d | ||
| 020 | |a 8360183295 |9 83-60183-29-5 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)77504885 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV023017465 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a pol | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-188 | ||
| 084 | |a NF 1650 |0 (DE-625)125211:1308 |2 rvk | ||
| 084 | |a 8,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 6,11 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 6,12 |2 ssgn | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich |c Jerzy Kopacz ; Lubomír Šebela |
| 264 | 1 | |a Kraków |b PAU |c 2006 | |
| 300 | |a 298 S. |b zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |c 30 cm | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in czech., engl. u. franz. Sprache u.d.T.: The únětice culture and the věteřov group in Moravia on the ground of chipped stone | ||
| 505 | 0 | |a Bibliogr. [159]-170. Indeks | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Kultura unietycka / Polska |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Kultura unietycka / Czechy / Morawy |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / inwentarze |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / klasyfikacja |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Kultura unietycka - Czechy - Morawy |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Kultura unietycka - Polska |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - inwentarze |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - klasyfikacja |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Ausgrabung |0 (DE-588)4129464-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Bronzezeit |0 (DE-588)4008357-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Mähren |0 (DE-588)4074432-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Mähren |0 (DE-588)4074432-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Bronzezeit |0 (DE-588)4008357-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Ausgrabung |0 (DE-588)4129464-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kopacz, Jerzy |e Sonstige |0 (DE-588)133604055 |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Šebela, Lubomír |d 1953- |e Sonstige |0 (DE-588)133791718 |4 oth | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016221598 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 900 |e 22/bsb |f 0901 |g 4371 |
Record in the Search Index
| _version_ | 1804137235409272832 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | SPIS TREŚCI
OD
AUTORÓW
................................................................................................................................................................7
1.
WSTĘP
.........................................................................................................................................................................9
1. 1.
NARODZINY PROJEKTU
.................................................................................................................................11
1. 2.
BADANIA NAD KRZEMIENIARSTWEM SCHYŁKOWYM W POLSCE I NA MORAWACH
..........................13
2.
MORAWY W POCZĄTKACH EPOKI BRĄZU
...................................................................................................... 15
2. 1.
RAMY CHRONOLOGICZNE
.............................................................................................................................17
2. 2.
KULTURA UNIETYCKA
..................................................................................................................................17
2. 3.
GRUPA WIETERZOWSKA
................................................................................................................................29
3.
SUROWCE KAMIENNE MORAWSKICH INWENTARZY KRZEMIENIARSKICH
Z WCZESNEGO OKRESU EPOKI BRĄZU (Antonin
Přichystal)
....................................................................37
3. 1.
ROGÓWCE TYPU
STRÁNSKÁ SKÁLA............................................................................................................
39
3. 2.
ROGÓWCE TYPU
KRUMLOVSKÝ
LES
-
WARIANTY I,
II,
III
......................................................................40
3. 3.
BREKCJE ROGOWCOWE
.................................................................................................................................40
3. 4.
MORAWSKIE ROGÓWCE JURAJSKIE
............................................................................................................41
3. 5.
SPONGIOLITY KREDOWE
..............................................................................................................................41
3. 6.
KRZEMIONKOWE ZWIETRZELINY SERPENTYNITU (PLAZMA)
..............................................................42
3. 7.
MASA CHALCEDONOWA
................................................................................................................................42
3. 8.
RADIOLARYTY, ROGÓWCE RADIOLARIOWE
...............................................................................................42
3. 9.
GRANULIT,
ORTOGNEJS,
CZERWONAWY METAKWARCYT (OTOCZAKI)
...............................................42
3. 10.
SYLICYTY Z OSADÓW GLACJALNYCH (KRZEMIENIE NARZUTOWE)
....................................................42
3. 11.
KRZEMIEŃ JURAJSKI Z WYŻYNY KRAKOWSKO-CZĘSTOCHOWSKIEJ
..................................................43
3. 12.
BAZA SUROWCOWA KRZEMIENIARSTWA WCZESNOBRĄZOWEGO NA MORAWACH
..........................43
3. 12. 1.
KULTURA UNIETYCKA
.......................................................................................................................43
3. 12. 2.
GRUPA WIETERZOWSKA
....................................................................................................................44
3. 13.
UWAGI KULTUROWO-CHRONOLOGICZNE
................................................................................................44
4.
CHARAKTERYSTYKA INWENTARZY
.................................................................................................................47
4. 1.
ROZKŁAD ŹRÓDEŁ
..........................................................................................................................................49
4. 2.
TECHNIKI KRZEMIENIARSKIE
.....................................................................................................................52
4. 3.
TYPOLOGIA WYROBÓW
..................................................................................................................................54
4. 3. 1.
GROCIKI
..................................................................................................................................................56
4. 3. 2.
PŁOSZCZA
..............................................................................................................................................57
4. 3. 3.
NARZĘDZIA NOŻOWATE
......................................................................................................................59
4. 3. 4.
DRAPACZE
..............................................................................................................................................60
4. 3. 5.
FORMY Z ODBICIEM RYLCOWYM
......................................................................................................61
4. 3. 6.
PIKI, PRZEKŁUWACZE, WIERTNIKI
...................................................................................................61
4. 3. 7.
TYP KRUMMESSER
...............................................................................................................................61
4. 3. 8.
PÓŁTYLCZAKI
........................................................................................................................................62
4. 3. 9.
WIÓROWCE
.............................................................................................................................................62
4. 4.
FORMY SPECJALNE
-
SEGMENTY (Jerzy Kopacz,
František Matějka, Jiřina Matějková,
Lubomír Šebela, Petr Škrdla)
............................................................................................................................63
4. 4.1.
DEFINICJA I KLASYFIKACJA
................................................................................................................64
4. 4. 2.
ANALIZA STATYSTYCZNA
....................................................................................................................65
4. 4. 3.
ANALIZA FUNKCJONALNA SEGMENTÓW Z
ŠUMIC
I HODONIC
...................................................65
4. 4. 4.
KONTEKST KULTUROWY
....................................................................................................................69
4. 4. 5.
KONKLUZJA
...........................................................................................................................................70
4. 5.
INWENTARZE KAMIENNE KULTURY UNIETYCKIEJ I GRUPY WIETERZOWSKIEJ
-
PORÓWNANIE
...................................................................................................................................................70
4. 6.
KILKA UWAG NA TEMAT WIÓROWCÓW, SEGMENTÓW I KRZEMIENIARSTWA
SCHYŁKOWEGO
.................................................................................................................................................71
5.
DYSKUSJA PREHISTORYCZNA
...........................................................................................................................75
5. 1.
KRZEMIENIARSTWO KULTURY UNIETYCKIEJ I GRUPY WIETERZOWSKIEJ NA TLE
WCZESNOBRAZOWEJ KARPACKIEJ STREFY KULTUROWEJ
.......................................................................77
5. 2.
GENEZA KRZEMIENIARSTWA WCZESNEJ EPOKI BRĄZU NA MORAWACH
...........................................79
5. 3.
O „REWOLUCJI TECHNOLOGICZNO-NARZĘDZIOWEJ
..............................................................................81
6.
ZAKOŃCZENIE
.......................................................................................................................................................83
7.
ŹRÓDŁA KAMIENNE Z TERENU MORAW
........................................................................................................87
7. 1.
ZASADY PREZENTACJI
....................................................................................................................................89
7. 2.
KATALOG
..........................................................................................................................................................91
8.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
.....................................................................................................................................................157
KULTURA
ÚNĚTICKÁ A VĚTEŘOVSKÁ SKUPINA NA MORAVĚ NA ZÁKLADĚ KAMENNÉ ŠTÍPANÉ
INDUSTRIE
(Souhrn)
.......................................................................................................................................... 171
THE
ÚNĚTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VĚTEŘOV
GROUP IN MORAVIA ON THE GROUND
OF CHIPPED STONE MATERIAL (Summary)
................................................................................................181
LA CULTURE
ÚNĚTICE
ET LE GROUPE
VĚTEŘOV
EN MORAVIA SUR LA BASE DES INVENTAIRES
LITHIQUES TAILLÉES (Résumé)
....................................................................................................................191
TABLICE
.....................................................................................................................................................................201
INDEKS NAZW MIEJSCOWOŚCI...........................................................................................................................
291
Early Bronze Age chipped stone inventories belong to the so-called Terminal Chipping Industries,
the term related to materials from the turn of the Stone and Bronze Ages and younger
(Kopacz
1987, 171;
2001, 9;
Kopacz,
Šebela 2000a,
313, 330;
Libera
2004).
They differ in many respects from their older
counterparts, especially those of the Neolithic and Early Eneolithic. In studies of this kind of evidences
a specific analythical approach is required.
Our interest is focused on Moravia, a territory in the very center of Europe. In prehistoric times,
and also in more recent periods, it has been a crossroad of inter-cultural relations
-
between the Carpathian
Basin in the south and plains in the north, as well as between western and eastern parts of Central
Europe. At the beginning of the Bronze Age Moravia was a transit territory in spreading ideas of the new
civilization northwards, especially to Upper Silesia and Lesser Poland. An important part in this process
was played by people of two Moravian Early Bronze formations
-
the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group (Fig.
1).
The
Únětice
culture
The
Únětice
culture was possibly the most outstanding Central European unit of its time. Besides
Moravia, it has been recognized in Bohemia, in the adjacent part of Germany, in southern Poland, western
Slovakia, and
-
partially
-
in Lower Austria (on the left bank of the Danube River). Despite its Moravian
origin, its eponymous locality
(Únětice, Praha-západ
district) is located in Bohemia.
The
Únětice
culture is rooted in the terminal phase of the Stone Age. Among its genetic components
there are: the local (Moravian) Corded Ware culture, the Bell Beaker culture, and elements related to the
Carpathian Basin
(Makó-Kosihy-Čaka, Vučedol,
Nagyrév).
The southern ancestry of the
Únětice
culture is
indirectly confirmed by the fact that its earliest finds are concentrated in southwestern Moravia.
The long period of the existence of the
Únětice
culture has been divided into five consecutive
phases
(Ondráček,
1964,
I,
185-225).
The oldest one
(Únětice
I) is dated from the closing part of the
Eneolithic period, the other four
(Únětice
II-V) belong to the Early Bronze Age. Today, more common
division is a simplified version assuming three developing stages of the culture in question. The earliest
stage corresponds with
Únětice
I, the middle one is framed in phase
BAŁ
of P. Reinecke s chronological
division of the Bronze Age, and the last stage into the beginning of BA2.
Early settlement of the culture in question covered limited areas to the southwest of Brno and
around
Moravský Krumlov, Znojmo, Mikulov, and Kyjov.
In the middle stage new settlement centers
developed, e.g. between
Olomouc, Prostějov,
and
Přerov.
To the east the
Únětice
culture reached the
Morava
River and got in touch with the milieu of the
Nitra
culture.
The
Únětice
culture expanded even more during the final stage of its development, penetrating
beyond the
Morava
River, and also to the north along the
Svitava
River. Its traces have been also regis¬
tered in the part of Silesia today within the borders of the Czech Republic.
Summary
The Moravian
Únětice
culture is known mainly from cemeteries. Dead were usually buried in wooden
coffins in the contracted position, males on their right side, and females of their left. They were furnished
with pottery (usually
2-4
vessels), and also with bronze, bone, and stone artifacts.
Settlement sites of the
Únětice
culture are usually located on gentle slopes in proximity to water
sources (rivers, streams),
200-400
m
above sea level. They contain remains of post houses, partially
interred dwellings, and utility pits (e.g. grain storage). In the early stage fortified settlements appeared.
Later they would become the benchmark of the
Věteřov
group.
The
Věteřov
group
The name
Věteřov
group derives from a locality in the
Hodonín
district with an upland settlement.
It was recognized as a separate identity (than named the
Věteřov
type) in
1946
by K. Tihelka
(1946).
According this author
(1946;
1952a, 1952b; 1953b; 1957a, 1957b) the
Věteřov
type was a syncretic unite
that had absorbed elements of the
Únětice
culture and the
Maďarovce
group (from Slovakia). The Tihelka s
concept was later modified by
A. Točík,
who assumed
(1964, 53)
that both groups (i.e. the
Věteřov
and the
Mad arovce) had developed separately from the same genetic root. His theory is today commonly accepted
in Czech and Slovak archaeology.
The
Věteřov
group is a Moravian component of a vast complex, often refereed to as the
Věteřov-
Madarovce culture. It has been affirmed on most territories of Moravia, in the adjacent part of Lower
Austria and in Silesian
Opava
region. Similar to it is the so-called
Böheimkirchen
Type (in Lower Austria,
on the southern bank of the Danube River).
Undoubtedly, the
Věteřov
group developed from the
Únětice
culture. It has been confirmed by
numerous similarities between the early
Únětice
pottery and that of the oldest
Věteřov.
Another element
in common is utilization of fortified hilltop settlements that have been recognized as a benchmark of the
final period of the Early Bronze Age in Moravia.
Changes observed in pottery forms led to distinguishing three chronological phases of the unit in
question
(Stuchlíková
1984,
I,
197-200;
1987a,
104),
the oldest one deriving directly from the so-called
Únětice-Věteřov
horizon. Most of the finds have been classified to the Classic Phase. In contrast, the Post-
Classic Phase was a brief episode. It marks the very end of the Early Bronze Age in Moravia.
The rocks
Moravian chipped stone inventories of the Early Bronze Age are made almost entirely of local raw
material (Map
1;
Data Table
1;
cf.
also
Přichystal, Šebela,
Kopacz
2004).
Most common are rocks from
deposits in a small mountain range called
Krumlovský
les,
about
40
km southwest from Brno.
The so called cherts of the
Krumlovský
les Type
are siliceous rocks, originally formed in Jurassic
and Cretaceous sediments on eastern borders of the Bohemian Massif (Tables LXXX-LXXXII). They are
known exclusively from secondary deposits, mainly from gravels of the eastern part of the mountain
range of this name, but also from other places (e.g. in Brno-city area). Studies of
A. Přichystal
(1984)
resulted in singling out two main variants of the rock in question (KL I and KL II). Later, examination of
chipped stone inventories allowed to recognize the third variant (KL III), exact deposits of which remain
unknown (probably they are not from
Krumlovský
les).
Cherts of the
Krumlovský
les
Type (especially KL I) have been recognized as by far the most impor¬
tant rocks in the Moravian Early Bronze Age.
Another important raw material from the
Krumlovský
area is the chert breccia (i.e. pieces of cherts
cemented with light yellow substance, similar to that recognized in certain types of quartzit; Tables
LXXXIII
and LXXXIV). However, it has been recognized also in the adjacent part of the so-called
Boskovice
Groove,
in
Brno-Líšeň
area, and in some places in the Moravian
Karst.
One peculiar feature of this rock is that it
often forms big blocks, up to a few meters in diameter. Due to its good chipping qualities, availability of
sizable chunks, and attractive appearance, the chert breccia was frequently used in Moravian Early Bronze
Age inventories, especially from early part of this period.
THE UNĚTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VĚTEŘOV
ОТПРЯЛ
Significant share in the analyzed material have cherts from Upper Jurassic limestones of the Oxford
formation, described as the
Stránská skála
Type (Table
LXXXVII).
Denudated relics of limestone of that
age are visible in a few places in eastern suburbs of Brno, the most important of them being an elevation
called
Stránská skála
(Table
LXXXVI).
Cherts of the
Stránská skála
are usually gray or bluish gray in color and often have dotted, striped,
or banded patterns visible on the surface, depending on their position in the
Stránská skála
profile.
Contrary to so-called banded flint from
Krzemionki Opatowskie
(Lesser Poland), patterns of cherts from
the Brno area are never angular. Despite diverse appearance (color, surface patterns) the siliceous
substance of the rock in question is always non-transparent.
Cherts of the
Stránská skála
type were utilized as raw material in various prehistoric periods.
Its Early Bronze Age use was apparently continuation of the Neolithic exploitation, mainly by people of
the Funnel Beaker culture
(cf.
Svoboda, Šmíd
1996).
In our material it has a distinctive position only in
the inventories of the older stage of the
Únětice
culture.
Glacial sediments of northernmost Moravia and the adjacent part of Silesia (Bohemian Silesia) are
abundant with Cretaceous silicites of good chipping qualities. These rocks, known also as erratic or Baltic
flints, were transported there from the Baltic region by continental ice lobes. Sporadically they can be
found also beyond
glaciation
areas (Mindel, Riss).
Although silicites from glacial sediments are common components of Moravian Neolithic and
Eneolithic inventories, in the Early Bronze they were utilized only sporadically. It should be noticed,
however, that one specific type of artifact of this period (bifacial point, to be described later) was
typically made of this kind of rock. Because these forms are considered to be in the Moravian milieu long
distant imports, it is not a case of utilization of local (Moravian) raw material.
Other rocks of Moravian origin confirmed in the analyzed inventories (e.g. Moravian Jurassic cherts
or Cretaceous spongiolite; Tables
LXXXV
and
XXXVI)
were of a marginal importance. There have been
also individual cases of utilization of artifacts made of non-Moravian rocks (radiolarite from the White
Carpathians, and Jurassic flint from
Cracow-Częstochowa
Upland).
The evidences
Early Bronze Age chipped stone artifacts have been found in
86
Moravian localities (Map
2) -
those
of the
Únětice
culture on
73
sites in
64
localities (Map
3)
and of the
Věteřov
group on
19
sites in
18
localities (Map
4;
in some localities there are two or more sites). Single artifacts dated generally to the
Early Bronze Age without specific cultural assignations are known from
7
other localities. Besides, we
have
2
artifacts of the unknown provenience (denoted from Moravia ).
The
Unětice
culture sites have yielded at least
780
artifacts (without practically uncountable
artifacts from stone extracting and processing sites in
Kubšice
and
Moravský
Krumlov
II). One hun¬
dred and two of them are grave finds (from
40
sepulchral sites), the others come from
42
settlement
sites.
Artifacts related to the
Věteřov
group number
642.
They come exclusively from settlement sites,
very occasionally accompanying human burials in settlement pits.
Chipping techniques and tool typology
Frequency of blades and blade-related forms in inventories of the
Unětice
culture is
8.8
per cent,
in those of the
Věteřov
group
- 21.8
per cent (Data Table
2).
Our materials reveal also evidences of sporadic use of the splintering technique (the
Unětice
culture
- 3.6
per cent and the
Věteřov
group
- 2.3
per cent; Data Table
3).
There are also a few tools
representing the block-reduction technique (mainly bifacial points).
Comparing technical aspects of both assemblages it should be noticed that chipped stone invento¬
ries of the
Věteřov
group are more blade-like than their
Únětice
counterparts. At the same time they
reveal less elements reflecting expedient or haphazard chipping (the splintering technique).
Summary
Moravian Early Bronze Age inventories are composed in most part of not very diagnostic artifacts.
Among forms classified by us as tools there are many
silex
pieces with irregular, partial retouch, or only
bearing traces of utilization. We call them the functional tools. However, there are also forms typologically
well defined -the typological tools. They have been classified within the following groups:
1.
Arrow heads.
2.
Bifacial points.
3.
Knife-like tools.
4.
Endscrapers.
5.
Burin-like tools.
6.
Picks, perforators, and boring tools.
7.
The Krummesser type.
8.
Truncated blades.
9.
Retouched blades.
10.
Segments.
Frequency of the tool groups listed above in inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group is presented on Date Table
4.
Ad
1.
There are
32
arrow heads in our material, most of them
(24)
being related to the
Únětice
culture. They are of various shape and size. Besides prevailing heart-shape forms (Table
LIV:
1; XLIII:
6;
L:
5)
there are arrow heads with a convex (Table
XLI: 3, XLIX: 3)
or straight base (the artifact from
Troskotovice; not illustrated), and
-
occasionally
-
the stemmed forms Table.
XLIV: 1).
Very interesting
are two artifacts of the
Únětice
culture with
trapezoid
notch at the base (Table VI:
6;
LXVIII:
2).
Such
forms are typical for the Bell Beaker culture
-
in Moravia and elsewhere.
In relation to the size it can be said that Moravian Early Bronze age arrow heads are rather bigger
that their counterparts from the end of the Stone Age. Another characteristic feature is a clear asymme¬
try tendency observed in many artifacts, both of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group.
Ad
2.
Bifacial points are rare yet very significant artifacts of the Moravian Early Bronze Age. Alto¬
gether
12
artifacts of that type (including those fragmentarily preserved) have been registered
(1
of the
Únětice
culture,
4
of the
Věteřov
group, the others
-
without cultural context).
Interesting observations have been made in relations to raw material used for production of Moravian
bifacial point. Seven of them are of the
silicite
from glacial sediments, two others
-
of the Moravian
Jurassic chert (the raw material of the remaining
3
artifacts has not been determined).
The most interesting is the artifact from
Horní
Sukolom (Table
LXVI:
4).
It has a wedge-like blade
and a massif fish-tailed handle triangular in cross-section. It is similar to North European points of
Aghte s Type IV or Lomborg s Type IV E. Not very far from it is the point from
Žerotice
(Table
XLVI: 5),
with even more massif handle of the rectangular cross-section but not fish-tailed (Type Illb after Aghte,
or
IV
A after Lomborg).
Other Moravian bifacial points (e.g. Table
LXVII: 4; LXVII: 1)
have also their analogies in the North
European milieu. There are also certain similarities (such us the pointed handle of the artifact from
Kobylí;
Table XL:
1)
to forms from other parts of Central Europe (Volhynia, Slovenia).
Moravian bifacial points look rather exotic in the Moravian Early Bronze Age. We assume that most
of them are long-distance imports from western Baltic regions. Fragments of artifacts of that type of the
Moravian Jurassic chert (from
Křepice,
Znojno
district; Table
XLII: 1, 20)
seem to be local imitations of
imported, undoubtedly precious (prestigious?) goods.
Ad
3.
Seventeen forms have classified by us as knife-like tools. The group includes classic knives (i.e.
tools with one longitudinal sharp edge, a pointed tip, and a shaped back), and also less regular forms. Alto¬
gether, there are
17
knife-like tools in our inventories
-7
in the
Únětice
culture and
10
of the
Věteřov
group.
THE UNĚTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VÉTËRÖFGRögfl
Most representative is the artifact from the settlement of the
Únětice
culture in
Brno-Černá
Pole
(Table VI:
7).
It was made from a chunk of chert of the
Stránská skála
type with the block-reduction
technique. Also artifacts from
Kobeřice, Vyškov
district (Table
XLIII: 11,13)
and Hodonice (Table
XXXIV:
1)
can be described as regular knives.
The other knife-like tools (e.g. Table
VIII: 3;
XL:
9;
LI:
4,
LIV:
9)
lack certain elements of the
classic knife, such as asymmetric outline or continuous retouch of the cutting edge. Therefore, their
typological assignation is to some extent subjective.
Ad
4.
Endscrapers are rather frequent in the analyzed inventories. There are
33
such forms:
23
in the
Únětice
culture,
9
in the
Věteřov
group,
1
artifact without cultural specification. They are much
diversified in the scope of technique utilized for their manufacture, size, and shape. Some of them are
made from regular blades (Table
XLIV: 5; LXIV: 9),
but flake forms prevail.
Most of endscrapers are
20-30
mm long, while lengths of the biggest forms
-
from
Moravský Krumlov
II (Table
LXII: 1)
and
Kubšice
(Table
XLVII: 7) -
are respectively
55
and
36
mm.
Shape of the analyzed form is diverse
-
from classic (e.g. Table
LVII: 4)
to very irregular (eg.
Table
XXXV: 9;
LXVIII:
9).
Regarding certain artifacts (e.g. Table
XLIV: 5)
we cannot exclude Neolithic
intrusions or reutilization of older finds.
Ad
5.
Only one form (from the
Unětice
culture cemetery in
Slavkov
u Brna;
Table
L:
11)
can be
described as a burin. Moreover, one flake from the settlement site of this culture in
Tešetice
(not
illustrated) shows a burin spall negative. However, we are not sure if it was the case of a purpose blow.
Already mentioned artifact
Kobeřice
(Table
XLIII: 11)
has a point shaped by a burin blow, in this
case undoubtedly intentionally. Due to its very distinctive form, the tool in question has been classified
as a knife.
Ad
6.
Artifacts featuring characteristics of picks, perforators, and boring tools (totaling to
9)
have
been included into one tool group. Not surprisingly, the presence of pick-like tools has been confirmed on
the extraction-processing site in
Kubšice
(Table
XLV: 1, 6; XLVI: 9).
The artifact from Hodonice (Table
XXXVIII:
14)
is a classic perforator, while the original form from
Hulín
(Table XL:
7)
has been described
in the literature as the so-called double-horn
(cf.
Schild,
Królik, Mościbrodzka
1977, 64).
The remaining
tools of this group are borers
(cf.
Table XX:
2).
Ad
7.
Krummesser (the curve knife) is a specific form combining elements of chipping and polish¬
ing technique. It was made of various raw materials, most often of non-siliceous rocks. The presence of
one tool of that type has been confirmed in the inventory from the
Unětice
culture settlement site in
Šatov
(Table
LII:
9).
Krummesser originated in the Early Bronze Age milieu of the Southern Carpathians, especially in
the Glina-Schneckenberg cultural complex. The artifact from
Šatov
is probably the westernmost find of
this type in Central Europe.
Ad.
8.
There is only one artifact that can be described as the truncated blade (from the settlement
site of the
Únětice
culture in
Bratčice;
Table
VII:
1).
It is made from a small, regular blade and have
a slanting retouched truncation in the distal part of the blank.
Truncation blades appear to be very rare finds in terminal inventories, yet have been confirmed in
the Moravian Bell Beaker culture, as well as in the Mierzanowice culture.
Ad.
9.
Tools of this type, very significant in Eneolithic inventories, are represented in our material
by a single artifact
-
found in a grave of the
Únětice
culture in Bolelouc (Table
XLVIII:
7).
It is made from
an oblong, slightly twisted blade blank of the
silicite
from glacial sediments. The form of the artifact
resamble the so-called Flame Knife
(Flammförmige
Messer),
defined by P. Valde-Nowak
(2000)
and recog¬
nized as a typical form of the Corded Ware culture.
Summary
The retouched blade from Bolelouc is interpreted by us as an example of the reutilization of the
older artifact (of the Corded Ware culture) as a grave good. The raw material utilized corroborates with
this presumption, as silicites from glacial were commonly used in the Moravian Late Eneolithic, but very
seldom in the Early Bronze Age.
Ad
10.
Segments are undoubtedly the most characteristic stone tools of the Moravian Early Bronze
Age. So far artifacts of that type have not been specified in the literature, being described as endscrapers,
retouched blades, retouched flakes, etc. Our term derives from the fact that the forms in questions served
most probably as inserts of a bigger, composed tool. The definition of the segment is following:
A flat, oblong form, with a tendency to the symmetry in relation to the shorter axis, most
often of the outline close to the quadrangle, shaped by transformation of transversal sides,
and with well defined, usually denticulated cutting edge on the longer side.
Out
80
segments singled by us,
43
are related to the
Únětice
culture and the remaining
37
to the
Věteřov
group. The collection is diverse in the scope of raw material, the half-product utilized, the shape
of the cutting edge and the opposite edge, and the utilization traces. For analytical purpose these features
has been coded into alphanumeric symbols and presented in Date Table
5
(with references of individual
artifacts to Illustration Tables).
The analysis has not revealed any significant differences between segments of the
Unětice
culture
and the
Věteřov
group (Data Table
6).
In both case the main raw material utilized was the chert of the
Krumlovský
les
Type, variant I. In the first unit in question variant II of this rock has also been confirmed.
Segments made of the chert breccia appear in both collections, most often in the
Věteřov
group. Majority
of the artifacts in question are made from blade blanks, very often regular.
A certain diversification can be observed in the shape of the segments. Arched forms have
been confirmed only in assemblages of the
Unětice
culture, while in the
Věteřov
group most typical are
trapeze-like forms. Similarly, segments of the first unit have usually more crude denticulation of the
cutting edge than their
Věteřov
counterparts.
Macroscopic observations of segments have revealed traces of use on several forms (most often
the so-called sickle gloss). Three artifacts have been selected for a detailed examination under the
metalographic optical microscope Leitz (by F.
Matějka)
and
-
subsequently (two of them)
-
under the
electronic microscope JSM-676007 Joel (by J.
Matějková).
The microscopic examination confirmed the presence of parallel lines at more or less right angles
to the cutting edge of the form (Tables LXXII-LXXV). They indicate that the composed tool with
seg¬
mental
inserts was being moved during the work rather perpendicularly than obliquely to its longer
axis.
Comparison of the inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group
Chipped stone inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group are very similar in raw
material utilized, chipping techniques, and sets of tools. However, a close examination reveals also certain
differences.
Utilization of local rocks is the mark of all terminal industries, yet the chert breccia seems to be
especially typical for
Věteřov
assemblages (more precisely
-
to the younger phase of the Early Bronze
Age). Stone raw material was not a subject of the trade, even within the territory of Moravia. The same
can be said about complete stone tools, with one exception to the rule (the bifacial points which were
imported from the north).
Sites of the
Věteřov
group are more saturated with stone artifacts than their
Únětice
counter¬
parts (respectively
33.5
and
7.1
objects per one settlement). However, this observation is of a limited
value due to an asymmetric distribution of the finds (more than half of all analyzed artifacts of the
Věteřov
group come from one site
-
Budkovice).
THE ÚNÉTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VETERÖVGRÖUPj
Comparing technical aspects that we notice, the blade technique is typical for both assemblages.
Yet, the frequency of blade-like forms is higher in the
Věteřov
group; in contrast to rather a smaller share
of the splintered forms (they are more frequent in
Únětice
assemblages).
In general, technical differences between inventories of both units in questions can be better
described as quantitative rather than qualitative.
Conclusions
Moravia of the Early Bronze Age was a western flank of the Carpathian cultural zone. Therefore, in
our consideration of chipped stone inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group we should
take into account possible relations with their contemporaries from this region. Especially interesting are
units of the so-called
Ері
-Corded circle to the north of the Carpathian range.
Comparing inventories of the Moravian units of our interest with those of the Mierzanowice culture
we observed many general-level similarities (use of local rocks, decline of long-distance trade of stone
tools and raw material, a high share of the so-called functional or expedient tools, etc.). On the side of
differences is the blade technique
-
negligible in the
Ері
-Corded circle, but substantial in Moravia. Also
segments, typical for the latter territory, have not been so far confirmed in the North-Carpathian zone
(Lesser Poland and southwestern Ukraine).
Taking our attention to the east we see obvious relation with cultures of the Hungarian Early Bronze
Age
-
the
Csepel
group, the Early
Nagyrév
culture, and the
Otomani
culture (the latter developed in
western Romania and subsequently spreading northwest). Especially interesting is the presence of seg¬
ment-like tools (eg. in the Early
Nagyrév
layer of
Tószeg;
Kopacz
2001,
Table
XXXVI: 4).
The unique
Moravian Krummesser (from
Šatov)
is also genetically related to the eastern (possibly
Otomani)
milieu.
We assume that similarities of Early Bronze chipped stone inventories from Moravia and Hungary
(especially from Transdanubia) are related to the fact that both territories were earlier subjected to colo¬
nization of the Bell Beaker culture.
In our speculations on Moravian Early Bronze Age chipping industries should take into consi¬
deration the origin of the
Únětice
culture. Especially important are their connection with the Bell
Beaker culture. Inventories of the latter reflect the mobility of the Bell Beaker people. In relation to
chipped stone material we observe (in Moravia, Transdanubia, and elsewhere) the presence of rocks
from distant deposits, just opposite to the situation in the Moravian Early Bronze Age. However, simi¬
larities in general concepts of production and utilization stone tools (e.g. a common use of functional
tools) are
-
in our opinion
-
very significant.
What is a genetic background of the Early Bronze Age
segmental
tools in Moravia? It is rather
doubtful that they could have developed from Neolithic sickle blades
-
due to chronological distance, lack
of intermediate links, and (probably) different function. In an attempt to answer this important question
we should focus our attention to
segmental
finds related to the Bell Beaker culture. Especially interesting
are two bifacial
segmental
points discovered in the cemetery in Marefy
(Šebela, Škrdla
2003).
This arti¬
facts, as well as finds from other sites of the Bell Beaker culture in Moravia and Bohemia indicate where
we should look for archetypes of the Early Bronze Age segments.
The astonishing revival of the blade technique in the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group (in
comparison with the Moravian
Proto-Únětice
culture from the Terminal Eneolithic;
cf.
Kopacz,
Šebela
1998)
was most probably related to the demand for blanks used for production of segments. If we should
trace back the Moravian Early Bronze Age blade tradition, the Bell Beaker culture also fit into the picture.
However, blades in Bell Beaker assemblages seem to be related rather to the local substratum than to
chipping traditions brought from settlers coming from the west. In other words
-
it is rooted in the Late
Eneolithic. If so, our speculation should be obviously focused on the most significant cultural identity of
southern Moravia of that period
-
the
Jevišovice
culture
(cf.
Medunová-Benešová
1972).
Studies of the Moravian chipped stone inventories from the beginning of the Bronze Age have
revealed many of their specific features in the scope of chipping technique and tools utilized, especially in
comparison with the contemporary material of the
Ері
-Corded Circle. In the same time they fit well to the
__
Summary
picture of Terminal Chipping Industries. They also indicate that replacing stone by metal in the New
Epoch was a long lasting
-
also in the territory of Moravia.
English version by
Jerzy Kopacz
|
| adam_txt |
SPIS TREŚCI
OD
AUTORÓW
.7
1.
WSTĘP
.9
1. 1.
NARODZINY PROJEKTU
.11
1. 2.
BADANIA NAD KRZEMIENIARSTWEM SCHYŁKOWYM W POLSCE I NA MORAWACH
.13
2.
MORAWY W POCZĄTKACH EPOKI BRĄZU
. 15
2. 1.
RAMY CHRONOLOGICZNE
.17
2. 2.
KULTURA UNIETYCKA
.17
2. 3.
GRUPA WIETERZOWSKA
.29
3.
SUROWCE KAMIENNE MORAWSKICH INWENTARZY KRZEMIENIARSKICH
Z WCZESNEGO OKRESU EPOKI BRĄZU (Antonin
Přichystal)
.37
3. 1.
ROGÓWCE TYPU
STRÁNSKÁ SKÁLA.
39
3. 2.
ROGÓWCE TYPU
KRUMLOVSKÝ
LES
-
WARIANTY I,
II,
III
.40
3. 3.
BREKCJE ROGOWCOWE
.40
3. 4.
MORAWSKIE ROGÓWCE JURAJSKIE
.41
3. 5.
SPONGIOLITY KREDOWE
.41
3. 6.
KRZEMIONKOWE ZWIETRZELINY SERPENTYNITU (PLAZMA)
.42
3. 7.
MASA CHALCEDONOWA
.42
3. 8.
RADIOLARYTY, ROGÓWCE RADIOLARIOWE
.42
3. 9.
GRANULIT,
ORTOGNEJS,
CZERWONAWY METAKWARCYT (OTOCZAKI)
.42
3. 10.
SYLICYTY Z OSADÓW GLACJALNYCH (KRZEMIENIE NARZUTOWE)
.42
3. 11.
KRZEMIEŃ JURAJSKI Z WYŻYNY KRAKOWSKO-CZĘSTOCHOWSKIEJ
.43
3. 12.
BAZA SUROWCOWA KRZEMIENIARSTWA WCZESNOBRĄZOWEGO NA MORAWACH
.43
3. 12. 1.
KULTURA UNIETYCKA
.43
3. 12. 2.
GRUPA WIETERZOWSKA
.44
3. 13.
UWAGI KULTUROWO-CHRONOLOGICZNE
.44
4.
CHARAKTERYSTYKA INWENTARZY
.47
4. 1.
ROZKŁAD ŹRÓDEŁ
.49
4. 2.
TECHNIKI KRZEMIENIARSKIE
.52
4. 3.
TYPOLOGIA WYROBÓW
.54
4. 3. 1.
GROCIKI
.56
4. 3. 2.
PŁOSZCZA
.57
4. 3. 3.
NARZĘDZIA NOŻOWATE
.59
4. 3. 4.
DRAPACZE
.60
4. 3. 5.
FORMY Z ODBICIEM RYLCOWYM
.61
4. 3. 6.
PIKI, PRZEKŁUWACZE, WIERTNIKI
.61
4. 3. 7.
TYP KRUMMESSER
.61
4. 3. 8.
PÓŁTYLCZAKI
.62
4. 3. 9.
WIÓROWCE
.62
4. 4.
FORMY SPECJALNE
-
SEGMENTY (Jerzy Kopacz,
František Matějka, Jiřina Matějková,
Lubomír Šebela, Petr Škrdla)
.63
4. 4.1.
DEFINICJA I KLASYFIKACJA
.64
4. 4. 2.
ANALIZA STATYSTYCZNA
.65
4. 4. 3.
ANALIZA FUNKCJONALNA SEGMENTÓW Z
ŠUMIC
I HODONIC
.65
4. 4. 4.
KONTEKST KULTUROWY
.69
4. 4. 5.
KONKLUZJA
.70
4. 5.
INWENTARZE KAMIENNE KULTURY UNIETYCKIEJ I GRUPY WIETERZOWSKIEJ
-
PORÓWNANIE
.70
4. 6.
KILKA UWAG NA TEMAT WIÓROWCÓW, SEGMENTÓW I KRZEMIENIARSTWA
SCHYŁKOWEGO
.71
5.
DYSKUSJA PREHISTORYCZNA
.75
5. 1.
KRZEMIENIARSTWO KULTURY UNIETYCKIEJ I GRUPY WIETERZOWSKIEJ NA TLE
WCZESNOBRAZOWEJ KARPACKIEJ STREFY KULTUROWEJ
.77
5. 2.
GENEZA KRZEMIENIARSTWA WCZESNEJ EPOKI BRĄZU NA MORAWACH
.79
5. 3.
O „REWOLUCJI TECHNOLOGICZNO-NARZĘDZIOWEJ"
.81
6.
ZAKOŃCZENIE
.83
7.
ŹRÓDŁA KAMIENNE Z TERENU MORAW
.87
7. 1.
ZASADY PREZENTACJI
.89
7. 2.
KATALOG
.91
8.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
.157
KULTURA
ÚNĚTICKÁ A VĚTEŘOVSKÁ SKUPINA NA MORAVĚ NA ZÁKLADĚ KAMENNÉ ŠTÍPANÉ
INDUSTRIE
(Souhrn)
. 171
THE
ÚNĚTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VĚTEŘOV
GROUP IN MORAVIA ON THE GROUND
OF CHIPPED STONE MATERIAL (Summary)
.181
LA CULTURE
ÚNĚTICE
ET LE GROUPE
VĚTEŘOV
EN MORAVIA SUR LA BASE DES INVENTAIRES
LITHIQUES TAILLÉES (Résumé)
.191
TABLICE
.201
INDEKS NAZW MIEJSCOWOŚCI.
291
Early Bronze Age chipped stone inventories belong to the so-called Terminal Chipping Industries,
the term related to materials from the turn of the Stone and Bronze Ages and younger
(Kopacz
1987, 171;
2001, 9;
Kopacz,
Šebela 2000a,
313, 330;
Libera
2004).
They differ in many respects from their older
counterparts, especially those of the Neolithic and Early Eneolithic. In studies of this kind of evidences
a specific analythical approach is required.
Our interest is focused on Moravia, a territory in the very center of Europe. In prehistoric times,
and also in more recent periods, it has been a crossroad of inter-cultural relations
-
between the Carpathian
Basin in the south and plains in the north, as well as between western and eastern parts of Central
Europe. At the beginning of the Bronze Age Moravia was a transit territory in spreading ideas of the new
civilization northwards, especially to Upper Silesia and Lesser Poland. An important part in this process
was played by people of two Moravian Early Bronze formations
-
the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group (Fig.
1).
The
Únětice
culture
The
Únětice
culture was possibly the most outstanding Central European unit of its time. Besides
Moravia, it has been recognized in Bohemia, in the adjacent part of Germany, in southern Poland, western
Slovakia, and
-
partially
-
in Lower Austria (on the left bank of the Danube River). Despite its Moravian
origin, its eponymous locality
(Únětice, Praha-západ
district) is located in Bohemia.
The
Únětice
culture is rooted in the terminal phase of the Stone Age. Among its genetic components
there are: the local (Moravian) Corded Ware culture, the Bell Beaker culture, and elements related to the
Carpathian Basin
(Makó-Kosihy-Čaka, Vučedol,
Nagyrév).
The southern ancestry of the
Únětice
culture is
indirectly confirmed by the fact that its earliest finds are concentrated in southwestern Moravia.
The long period of the existence of the
Únětice
culture has been divided into five consecutive
phases
(Ondráček,
1964,
I,
185-225).
The oldest one
(Únětice
I) is dated from the closing part of the
Eneolithic period, the other four
(Únětice
II-V) belong to the Early Bronze Age. Today, more common
division is a simplified version assuming three developing stages of the culture in question. The earliest
stage corresponds with
Únětice
I, the middle one is framed in phase
BAŁ
of P. Reinecke's chronological
division of the Bronze Age, and the last stage into the beginning of BA2.
Early settlement of the culture in question covered limited areas to the southwest of Brno and
around
Moravský Krumlov, Znojmo, Mikulov, and Kyjov.
In the middle stage new settlement centers
developed, e.g. between
Olomouc, Prostějov,
and
Přerov.
To the east the
Únětice
culture reached the
Morava
River and got in touch with the milieu of the
Nitra
culture.
The
Únětice
culture expanded even more during the final stage of its development, penetrating
beyond the
Morava
River, and also to the north along the
Svitava
River. Its traces have been also regis¬
tered in the part of Silesia today within the borders of the Czech Republic.
Summary
The Moravian
Únětice
culture is known mainly from cemeteries. Dead were usually buried in wooden
coffins in the contracted position, males on their right side, and females of their left. They were furnished
with pottery (usually
2-4
vessels), and also with bronze, bone, and stone artifacts.
Settlement sites of the
Únětice
culture are usually located on gentle slopes in proximity to water
sources (rivers, streams),
200-400
m
above sea level. They contain remains of post houses, partially
interred dwellings, and utility pits (e.g. grain storage). In the early stage fortified settlements appeared.
Later they would become the benchmark of the
Věteřov
group.
The
Věteřov
group
The name
Věteřov
group derives from a locality in the
Hodonín
district with an upland settlement.
It was recognized as a separate identity (than named the
Věteřov
type) in
1946
by K. Tihelka
(1946).
According this author
(1946;
1952a, 1952b; 1953b; 1957a, 1957b) the
Věteřov
type was a syncretic unite
that had absorbed elements of the
Únětice
culture and the
Maďarovce
group (from Slovakia). The Tihelka's
concept was later modified by
A. Točík,
who assumed
(1964, 53)
that both groups (i.e. the
Věteřov
and the
Mad'arovce) had developed separately from the same genetic root. His theory is today commonly accepted
in Czech and Slovak archaeology.
The
Věteřov
group is a Moravian component of a vast complex, often refereed to as the
Věteřov-
Madarovce culture. It has been affirmed on most territories of Moravia, in the adjacent part of Lower
Austria and in Silesian
Opava
region. Similar to it is the so-called
Böheimkirchen
Type (in Lower Austria,
on the southern bank of the Danube River).
Undoubtedly, the
Věteřov
group developed from the
Únětice
culture. It has been confirmed by
numerous similarities between the early
Únětice
pottery and that of the oldest
Věteřov.
Another element
in common is utilization of fortified hilltop settlements that have been recognized as a benchmark of the
final period of the Early Bronze Age in Moravia.
Changes observed in pottery forms led to distinguishing three chronological phases of the unit in
question
(Stuchlíková
1984,
I,
197-200;
1987a,
104),
the oldest one deriving directly from the so-called
Únětice-Věteřov
horizon. Most of the finds have been classified to the Classic Phase. In contrast, the Post-
Classic Phase was a brief episode. It marks the very end of the Early Bronze Age in Moravia.
The rocks
Moravian chipped stone inventories of the Early Bronze Age are made almost entirely of local raw
material (Map
1;
Data Table
1;
cf.
also
Přichystal, Šebela,
Kopacz
2004).
Most common are rocks from
deposits in a small mountain range called
Krumlovský
les,
about
40
km southwest from Brno.
The so called cherts of the
Krumlovský
les Type
are siliceous rocks, originally formed in Jurassic
and Cretaceous sediments on eastern borders of the Bohemian Massif (Tables LXXX-LXXXII). They are
known exclusively from secondary deposits, mainly from gravels of the eastern part of the mountain
range of this name, but also from other places (e.g. in Brno-city area). Studies of
A. Přichystal
(1984)
resulted in singling out two main variants of the rock in question (KL I and KL II). Later, examination of
chipped stone inventories allowed to recognize the third variant (KL III), exact deposits of which remain
unknown (probably they are not from
Krumlovský
les).
Cherts of the
Krumlovský
les
Type (especially KL I) have been recognized as by far the most impor¬
tant rocks in the Moravian Early Bronze Age.
Another important raw material from the
Krumlovský
area is the chert breccia (i.e. pieces of cherts
cemented with light yellow substance, similar to that recognized in certain types of quartzit; Tables
LXXXIII
and LXXXIV). However, it has been recognized also in the adjacent part of the so-called
Boskovice
Groove,
in
Brno-Líšeň
area, and in some places in the Moravian
Karst.
One peculiar feature of this rock is that it
often forms big blocks, up to a few meters in diameter. Due to its good chipping qualities, availability of
sizable chunks, and attractive appearance, the chert breccia was frequently used in Moravian Early Bronze
Age inventories, especially from early part of this period.
THE UNĚTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VĚTEŘOV
"ОТПРЯЛ
Significant share in the analyzed material have cherts from Upper Jurassic limestones of the Oxford
formation, described as the
Stránská skála
Type (Table
LXXXVII).
Denudated relics of limestone of that
age are visible in a few places in eastern suburbs of Brno, the most important of them being an elevation
called
Stránská skála
(Table
LXXXVI).
Cherts of the
Stránská skála
are usually gray or bluish gray in color and often have dotted, striped,
or banded patterns visible on the surface, depending on their position in the
Stránská skála
profile.
Contrary to so-called banded flint from
Krzemionki Opatowskie
(Lesser Poland), patterns of cherts from
the Brno area are never angular. Despite diverse appearance (color, surface patterns) the siliceous
substance of the rock in question is always non-transparent.
Cherts of the
Stránská skála
type were utilized as raw material in various prehistoric periods.
Its Early Bronze Age use was apparently continuation of the Neolithic exploitation, mainly by people of
the Funnel Beaker culture
(cf.
Svoboda, Šmíd
1996).
In our material it has a distinctive position only in
the inventories of the older stage of the
Únětice
culture.
Glacial sediments of northernmost Moravia and the adjacent part of Silesia (Bohemian Silesia) are
abundant with Cretaceous silicites of good chipping qualities. These rocks, known also as erratic or Baltic
flints, were transported there from the Baltic region by continental ice lobes. Sporadically they can be
found also beyond
glaciation
areas (Mindel, Riss).
Although silicites from glacial sediments are common components of Moravian Neolithic and
Eneolithic inventories, in the Early Bronze they were utilized only sporadically. It should be noticed,
however, that one specific type of artifact of this period (bifacial point, to be described later) was
typically made of this kind of rock. Because these forms are considered to be in the Moravian milieu long
distant imports, it is not a case of utilization of local (Moravian) raw material.
Other rocks of Moravian origin confirmed in the analyzed inventories (e.g. Moravian Jurassic cherts
or Cretaceous spongiolite; Tables
LXXXV
and
XXXVI)
were of a marginal importance. There have been
also individual cases of utilization of artifacts made of non-Moravian rocks (radiolarite from the White
Carpathians, and Jurassic flint from
Cracow-Częstochowa
Upland).
The evidences
Early Bronze Age chipped stone artifacts have been found in
86
Moravian localities (Map
2) -
those
of the
Únětice
culture on
73
sites in
64
localities (Map
3)
and of the
Věteřov
group on
19
sites in
18
localities (Map
4;
in some localities there are two or more sites). Single artifacts dated generally to the
Early Bronze Age without specific cultural assignations are known from
7
other localities. Besides, we
have
2
artifacts of the unknown provenience (denoted "from Moravia").
The
Unětice
culture sites have yielded at least
780
artifacts (without practically uncountable
artifacts from stone extracting and processing sites in
Kubšice
and
Moravský
Krumlov
II). One hun¬
dred and two of them are grave finds (from
40
sepulchral sites), the others come from
42
settlement
sites.
Artifacts related to the
Věteřov
group number
642.
They come exclusively from settlement sites,
very occasionally accompanying human burials in settlement pits.
Chipping techniques and tool typology
Frequency of blades and blade-related forms in inventories of the
Unětice
culture is
8.8
per cent,
in those of the
Věteřov
group
- 21.8
per cent (Data Table
2).
Our materials reveal also evidences of sporadic use of the splintering technique (the
Unětice
culture
- 3.6
per cent and the
Věteřov
group
- 2.3
per cent; Data Table
3).
There are also a few tools
representing the block-reduction technique (mainly bifacial points).
Comparing technical aspects of both assemblages it should be noticed that chipped stone invento¬
ries of the
Věteřov
group are more "blade-like" than their
Únětice
counterparts. At the same time they
reveal less elements reflecting expedient or "haphazard" chipping (the splintering technique).
Summary
Moravian Early Bronze Age inventories are composed in most part of not very diagnostic artifacts.
Among forms classified by us as tools there are many
silex
pieces with irregular, partial retouch, or only
bearing traces of utilization. We call them the functional tools. However, there are also forms typologically
well defined -the typological tools. They have been classified within the following groups:
1.
Arrow heads.
2.
Bifacial points.
3.
Knife-like tools.
4.
Endscrapers.
5.
Burin-like tools.
6.
Picks, perforators, and boring tools.
7.
The Krummesser type.
8.
Truncated blades.
9.
Retouched blades.
10.
Segments.
Frequency of the tool groups listed above in inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group is presented on Date Table
4.
Ad
1.
There are
32
arrow heads in our material, most of them
(24)
being related to the
Únětice
culture. They are of various shape and size. Besides prevailing heart-shape forms (Table
LIV:
1; XLIII:
6;
L:
5)
there are arrow heads with a convex (Table
XLI: 3, XLIX: 3)
or straight base (the artifact from
Troskotovice; not illustrated), and
-
occasionally
-
the stemmed forms Table.
XLIV: 1).
Very interesting
are two artifacts of the
Únětice
culture with
trapezoid
notch at the base (Table VI:
6;
LXVIII:
2).
Such
forms are typical for the Bell Beaker culture
-
in Moravia and elsewhere.
In relation to the size it can be said that Moravian Early Bronze age arrow heads are rather bigger
that their counterparts from the end of the Stone Age. Another characteristic feature is a clear asymme¬
try tendency observed in many artifacts, both of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group.
Ad
2.
Bifacial points are rare yet very significant artifacts of the Moravian Early Bronze Age. Alto¬
gether
12
artifacts of that type (including those fragmentarily preserved) have been registered
(1
of the
Únětice
culture,
4
of the
Věteřov
group, the others
-
without cultural context).
Interesting observations have been made in relations to raw material used for production of Moravian
bifacial point. Seven of them are of the
silicite
from glacial sediments, two others
-
of the Moravian
Jurassic chert (the raw material of the remaining
3
artifacts has not been determined).
The most interesting is the artifact from
Horní
Sukolom (Table
LXVI:
4).
It has a wedge-like blade
and a massif "fish-tailed" handle triangular in cross-section. It is similar to North European points of
Aghte's Type IV or Lomborg's Type IV E. Not very far from it is the point from
Žerotice
(Table
XLVI: 5),
with even more massif handle of the rectangular cross-section but not "fish-tailed" (Type Illb after Aghte,
or
IV
A after Lomborg).
Other Moravian bifacial points (e.g. Table
LXVII: 4; LXVII: 1)
have also their analogies in the North
European milieu. There are also certain similarities (such us the pointed handle of the artifact from
Kobylí;
Table XL:
1)
to forms from other parts of Central Europe (Volhynia, Slovenia).
Moravian bifacial points look rather exotic in the Moravian Early Bronze Age. We assume that most
of them are long-distance imports from western Baltic regions. Fragments of artifacts of that type of the
Moravian Jurassic chert (from
Křepice,
Znojno
district; Table
XLII: 1, 20)
seem to be local imitations of
imported, undoubtedly precious (prestigious?) goods.
Ad
3.
Seventeen forms have classified by us as knife-like tools. The group includes classic knives (i.e.
tools with one longitudinal sharp edge, a pointed tip, and a shaped back), and also less regular forms. Alto¬
gether, there are
17
knife-like tools in our inventories
-7
in the
Únětice
culture and
10
of the
Věteřov
group.
THE UNĚTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VÉTËRÖFGRögfl
Most representative is the artifact from the settlement of the
Únětice
culture in
Brno-Černá
Pole
(Table VI:
7).
It was made from a chunk of chert of the
Stránská skála
type with the block-reduction
technique. Also artifacts from
Kobeřice, Vyškov
district (Table
XLIII: 11,13)
and Hodonice (Table
XXXIV:
1)
can be described as regular knives.
The other knife-like tools (e.g. Table
VIII: 3;
XL:
9;
LI:
4,
LIV:
9)
lack certain elements of the
classic knife, such as asymmetric outline or continuous retouch of the cutting edge. Therefore, their
typological assignation is to some extent subjective.
Ad
4.
Endscrapers are rather frequent in the analyzed inventories. There are
33
such forms:
23
in the
Únětice
culture,
9
in the
Věteřov
group,
1
artifact without cultural specification. They are much
diversified in the scope of technique utilized for their manufacture, size, and shape. Some of them are
made from regular blades (Table
XLIV: 5; LXIV: 9),
but flake forms prevail.
Most of endscrapers are
20-30
mm long, while lengths of the biggest forms
-
from
Moravský Krumlov
II (Table
LXII: 1)
and
Kubšice
(Table
XLVII: 7) -
are respectively
55
and
36
mm.
Shape of the analyzed form is diverse
-
from classic (e.g. Table
LVII: 4)
to very irregular (eg.
Table
XXXV: 9;
LXVIII:
9).
Regarding certain artifacts (e.g. Table
XLIV: 5)
we cannot exclude Neolithic
intrusions or reutilization of older finds.
Ad
5.
Only one form (from the
Unětice
culture cemetery in
Slavkov
u Brna;
Table
L:
11)
can be
described as a burin. Moreover, one flake from the settlement site of this culture in
Tešetice
(not
illustrated) shows a burin spall negative. However, we are not sure if it was the case of a purpose blow.
Already mentioned artifact
Kobeřice
(Table
XLIII: 11)
has a point shaped by a burin blow, in this
case undoubtedly intentionally. Due to its very distinctive form, the tool in question has been classified
as a knife.
Ad
6.
Artifacts featuring characteristics of picks, perforators, and boring tools (totaling to
9)
have
been included into one tool group. Not surprisingly, the presence of pick-like tools has been confirmed on
the extraction-processing site in
Kubšice
(Table
XLV: 1, 6; XLVI: 9).
The artifact from Hodonice (Table
XXXVIII:
14)
is a classic perforator, while the original form from
Hulín
(Table XL:
7)
has been described
in the literature as the so-called double-horn
(cf.
Schild,
Królik, Mościbrodzka
1977, 64).
The remaining
tools of this group are borers
(cf.
Table XX:
2).
Ad
7.
Krummesser (the curve knife) is a specific form combining elements of chipping and polish¬
ing technique. It was made of various raw materials, most often of non-siliceous rocks. The presence of
one tool of that type has been confirmed in the inventory from the
Unětice
culture settlement site in
Šatov
(Table
LII:
9).
Krummesser originated in the Early Bronze Age milieu of the Southern Carpathians, especially in
the Glina-Schneckenberg cultural complex. The artifact from
Šatov
is probably the westernmost find of
this type in Central Europe.
Ad.
8.
There is only one artifact that can be described as the truncated blade (from the settlement
site of the
Únětice
culture in
Bratčice;
Table
VII:
1).
It is made from a small, regular blade and have
a slanting retouched truncation in the distal part of the blank.
Truncation blades appear to be very rare finds in terminal inventories, yet have been confirmed in
the Moravian Bell Beaker culture, as well as in the Mierzanowice culture.
Ad.
9.
Tools of this type, very significant in Eneolithic inventories, are represented in our material
by a single artifact
-
found in a grave of the
Únětice
culture in Bolelouc (Table
XLVIII:
7).
It is made from
an oblong, slightly "twisted" blade blank of the
silicite
from glacial sediments. The form of the artifact
resamble the so-called Flame Knife
(Flammförmige
Messer),
defined by P. Valde-Nowak
(2000)
and recog¬
nized as a typical form of the Corded Ware culture.
Summary
The retouched blade from Bolelouc is interpreted by us as an example of the reutilization of the
older artifact (of the Corded Ware culture) as a grave good. The raw material utilized corroborates with
this presumption, as silicites from glacial were commonly used in the Moravian Late Eneolithic, but very
seldom in the Early Bronze Age.
Ad
10.
Segments are undoubtedly the most characteristic stone tools of the Moravian Early Bronze
Age. So far artifacts of that type have not been specified in the literature, being described as endscrapers,
retouched blades, retouched flakes, etc. Our term derives from the fact that the forms in questions served
most probably as inserts of a bigger, composed tool. The definition of the segment is following:
A flat, oblong form, with a tendency to the symmetry in relation to the shorter axis, most
often of the outline close to the quadrangle, shaped by transformation of transversal sides,
and with well defined, usually denticulated cutting edge on the longer side.
Out
80
segments singled by us,
43
are related to the
Únětice
culture and the remaining
37
to the
Věteřov
group. The collection is diverse in the scope of raw material, the half-product utilized, the shape
of the cutting edge and the opposite edge, and the utilization traces. For analytical purpose these features
has been coded into alphanumeric symbols and presented in Date Table
5
(with references of individual
artifacts to Illustration Tables).
The analysis has not revealed any significant differences between segments of the
Unětice
culture
and the
Věteřov
group (Data Table
6).
In both case the main raw material utilized was the chert of the
Krumlovský
les
Type, variant I. In the first unit in question variant II of this rock has also been confirmed.
Segments made of the chert breccia appear in both collections, most often in the
Věteřov
group. Majority
of the artifacts in question are made from blade blanks, very often regular.
A certain diversification can be observed in the shape of the segments. Arched forms have
been confirmed only in assemblages of the
Unětice
culture, while in the
Věteřov
group most typical are
trapeze-like forms. Similarly, segments of the first unit have usually more crude denticulation of the
cutting edge than their
Věteřov
counterparts.
Macroscopic observations of segments have revealed traces of use on several forms (most often
the so-called sickle gloss). Three artifacts have been selected for a detailed examination under the
metalographic optical microscope Leitz (by F.
Matějka)
and
-
subsequently (two of them)
-
under the
electronic microscope JSM-676007 Joel (by J.
Matějková).
The microscopic examination confirmed the presence of parallel lines at more or less right angles
to the cutting edge of the form (Tables LXXII-LXXV). They indicate that the composed tool with
seg¬
mental
inserts was being moved during the work rather perpendicularly than obliquely to its longer
axis.
Comparison of the inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group
Chipped stone inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group are very similar in raw
material utilized, chipping techniques, and sets of tools. However, a close examination reveals also certain
differences.
Utilization of local rocks is the mark of all terminal industries, yet the chert breccia seems to be
especially typical for
Věteřov
assemblages (more precisely
-
to the younger phase of the Early Bronze
Age). Stone raw material was not a subject of the trade, even within the territory of Moravia. The same
can be said about complete stone tools, with one exception to the rule (the bifacial points which were
imported from the north).
Sites of the
Věteřov
group are more "saturated" with stone artifacts than their
Únětice
counter¬
parts (respectively
33.5
and
7.1
objects per one settlement). However, this observation is of a limited
value due to an "asymmetric distribution" of the finds (more than half of all analyzed artifacts of the
Věteřov
group come from one site
-
Budkovice).
THE ÚNÉTICE
CULTURE AND THE
VETERÖVGRÖUPj
Comparing technical aspects that we notice, the blade technique is typical for both assemblages.
Yet, the frequency of blade-like forms is higher in the
Věteřov
group; in contrast to rather a smaller share
of the splintered forms (they are more frequent in
Únětice
assemblages).
In general, technical differences between inventories of both units in questions can be better
described as quantitative rather than qualitative.
Conclusions
Moravia of the Early Bronze Age was a western flank of the Carpathian cultural zone. Therefore, in
our consideration of chipped stone inventories of the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group we should
take into account possible relations with their contemporaries from this region. Especially interesting are
units of the so-called
Ері
-Corded circle to the north of the Carpathian range.
Comparing inventories of the Moravian units of our interest with those of the Mierzanowice culture
we observed many general-level similarities (use of local rocks, decline of long-distance trade of stone
tools and raw material, a high share of the so-called functional or expedient tools, etc.). On the side of
differences is the blade technique
-
negligible in the
Ері
-Corded circle, but substantial in Moravia. Also
segments, typical for the latter territory, have not been so far confirmed in the North-Carpathian zone
(Lesser Poland and southwestern Ukraine).
Taking our attention to the east we see obvious relation with cultures of the Hungarian Early Bronze
Age
-
the
Csepel
group, the Early
Nagyrév
culture, and the
Otomani
culture (the latter developed in
western Romania and subsequently spreading northwest). Especially interesting is the presence of seg¬
ment-like tools (eg. in the Early
Nagyrév
layer of
Tószeg;
Kopacz
2001,
Table
XXXVI: 4).
The unique
Moravian Krummesser (from
Šatov)
is also genetically related to the eastern (possibly
Otomani)
milieu.
We assume that similarities of Early Bronze chipped stone inventories from Moravia and Hungary
(especially from Transdanubia) are related to the fact that both territories were earlier subjected to colo¬
nization of the Bell Beaker culture.
In our speculations on Moravian Early Bronze Age chipping industries should take into consi¬
deration the origin of the
Únětice
culture. Especially important are their connection with the Bell
Beaker culture. Inventories of the latter reflect the mobility of the Bell Beaker people. In relation to
chipped stone material we observe (in Moravia, Transdanubia, and elsewhere) the presence of rocks
from distant deposits, just opposite to the situation in the Moravian Early Bronze Age. However, simi¬
larities in general concepts of production and utilization stone tools (e.g. a common use of functional
tools) are
-
in our opinion
-
very significant.
What is a genetic background of the Early Bronze Age
segmental
tools in Moravia? It is rather
doubtful that they could have developed from Neolithic sickle blades
-
due to chronological distance, lack
of intermediate links, and (probably) different function. In an attempt to answer this important question
we should focus our attention to
segmental
finds related to the Bell Beaker culture. Especially interesting
are two bifacial
segmental
points discovered in the cemetery in Marefy
(Šebela, Škrdla
2003).
This arti¬
facts, as well as finds from other sites of the Bell Beaker culture in Moravia and Bohemia indicate where
we should look for archetypes of the Early Bronze Age segments.
The astonishing revival of the blade technique in the
Únětice
culture and the
Věteřov
group (in
comparison with the Moravian
Proto-Únětice
culture from the Terminal Eneolithic;
cf.
Kopacz,
Šebela
1998)
was most probably related to the demand for blanks used for production of segments. If we should
trace back the Moravian Early Bronze Age blade tradition, the Bell Beaker culture also fit into the picture.
However, blades in Bell Beaker assemblages seem to be related rather to the local substratum than to
chipping traditions brought from settlers coming from the west. In other words
-
it is rooted in the Late
Eneolithic. If so, our speculation should be obviously focused on the most significant cultural identity of
southern Moravia of that period
-
the
Jevišovice
culture
(cf.
Medunová-Benešová
1972).
Studies of the Moravian chipped stone inventories from the beginning of the Bronze Age have
revealed many of their specific features in the scope of chipping technique and tools utilized, especially in
comparison with the contemporary material of the
Ері
-Corded Circle. In the same time they fit well to the
_
Summary
picture of Terminal Chipping Industries. They also indicate that replacing stone by metal in the New
Epoch was a long lasting
-
also in the territory of Moravia.
English version by
Jerzy Kopacz |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author_GND | (DE-588)133604055 (DE-588)133791718 |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023017465 |
| classification_rvk | NF 1650 |
| contents | Bibliogr. [159]-170. Indeks |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)77504885 (DE-599)BVBBV023017465 |
| discipline | Geschichte |
| discipline_str_mv | Geschichte |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02768nam a2200601 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023017465</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20160404 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">071122s2006 abd| |||| 00||| pol d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">8360183295</subfield><subfield code="9">83-60183-29-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)77504885</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023017465</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">pol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">NF 1650</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)125211:1308</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">8,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,11</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,12</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich</subfield><subfield code="c">Jerzy Kopacz ; Lubomír Šebela</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Kraków</subfield><subfield code="b">PAU</subfield><subfield code="c">2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">298 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt.</subfield><subfield code="c">30 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in czech., engl. u. franz. Sprache u.d.T.: The únětice culture and the věteřov group in Moravia on the ground of chipped stone</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bibliogr. [159]-170. Indeks</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kultura unietycka / Polska</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kultura unietycka / Czechy / Morawy</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / inwentarze</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / klasyfikacja</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kultura unietycka - Czechy - Morawy</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kultura unietycka - Polska</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - inwentarze</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - klasyfikacja</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Funde</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4071507-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ausgrabung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4129464-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bronzezeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008357-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Mähren</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4074432-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Mähren</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4074432-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Bronzezeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008357-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Ausgrabung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4129464-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Funde</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4071507-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kopacz, Jerzy</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)133604055</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Šebela, Lubomír</subfield><subfield code="d">1953-</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)133791718</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016221598</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">900</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0901</subfield><subfield code="g">4371</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Mähren (DE-588)4074432-2 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Mähren |
| id | DE-604.BV023017465 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T19:11:46Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:09:04Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 8360183295 |
| language | Polish |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016221598 |
| oclc_num | 77504885 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-188 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-188 |
| physical | 298 S. zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. 30 cm |
| publishDate | 2006 |
| publishDateSearch | 2006 |
| publishDateSort | 2006 |
| publisher | PAU |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich Jerzy Kopacz ; Lubomír Šebela Kraków PAU 2006 298 S. zahlr. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. 30 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in czech., engl. u. franz. Sprache u.d.T.: The únětice culture and the věteřov group in Moravia on the ground of chipped stone Bibliogr. [159]-170. Indeks Kultura unietycka / Polska jhpk Kultura unietycka / Czechy / Morawy jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / inwentarze jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / klasyfikacja jhpk Kultura unietycka - Czechy - Morawy jhpk Kultura unietycka - Polska jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - inwentarze jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - klasyfikacja jhpk Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd rswk-swf Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 gnd rswk-swf Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 gnd rswk-swf Mähren (DE-588)4074432-2 gnd rswk-swf Mähren (DE-588)4074432-2 g Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 s Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 s Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 s DE-604 Kopacz, Jerzy Sonstige (DE-588)133604055 oth Šebela, Lubomír 1953- Sonstige (DE-588)133791718 oth Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich Bibliogr. [159]-170. Indeks Kultura unietycka / Polska jhpk Kultura unietycka / Czechy / Morawy jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / inwentarze jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / klasyfikacja jhpk Kultura unietycka - Czechy - Morawy jhpk Kultura unietycka - Polska jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - inwentarze jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - klasyfikacja jhpk Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 gnd Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4071507-3 (DE-588)4129464-6 (DE-588)4008357-3 (DE-588)4074432-2 |
| title | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich |
| title_auth | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich |
| title_exact_search | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich |
| title_full | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich Jerzy Kopacz ; Lubomír Šebela |
| title_fullStr | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich Jerzy Kopacz ; Lubomír Šebela |
| title_full_unstemmed | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich Jerzy Kopacz ; Lubomír Šebela |
| title_short | Kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na Morawach na podstawie materiałów krzemieniarskich |
| title_sort | kultura unietycka i grupa wieterzowska na morawach na podstawie materialow krzemieniarskich |
| topic | Kultura unietycka / Polska jhpk Kultura unietycka / Czechy / Morawy jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / inwentarze jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / klasyfikacja jhpk Kultura unietycka - Czechy - Morawy jhpk Kultura unietycka - Polska jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - inwentarze jhpk Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - klasyfikacja jhpk Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 gnd Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 gnd |
| topic_facet | Kultura unietycka / Polska Kultura unietycka / Czechy / Morawy Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / inwentarze Narzędzia z kamienia / Czechy / Morawy / klasyfikacja Kultura unietycka - Czechy - Morawy Kultura unietycka - Polska Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - inwentarze Narzędzia z kamienia - Czechy - Morawy - klasyfikacja Funde Ausgrabung Bronzezeit Mähren |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016221598&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kopaczjerzy kulturaunietyckaigrupawieterzowskanamorawachnapodstawiemateriałowkrzemieniarskich AT sebelalubomir kulturaunietyckaigrupawieterzowskanamorawachnapodstawiemateriałowkrzemieniarskich |