Braškov: nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Czech |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Praha
Krigl
2011
|
| Ausgabe: | 1. vyd. |
| Schriftenreihe: | Knižnice České společnosti archeologické
[2] |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Beschreibung: | 286 Seiten Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| ISBN: | 9788086912561 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV039847688 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20230306 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 120127s2011 abd| |||| 00||| cze d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788086912561 |9 978-80-86912-56-1 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)775131822 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV039847688 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a cze | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 6,11 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Fridrich, Jan |d 1938-2007 |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)101403230X |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Braškov |b nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia |c Jan Fridrich, Ivana Fridrichová-Sýkorová ; s příspěvkem Jiřího Kovandy |
| 246 | 1 | 1 | |a Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia |
| 250 | |a 1. vyd. | ||
| 264 | 1 | |a Praha |b Krigl |c 2011 | |
| 300 | |a 286 Seiten |b Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Knižnice České společnosti archeologické |v [2] | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Altpaläolithikum |0 (DE-588)4142082-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Bras̆kov |0 (DE-588)1028385552 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Mittelböhmen |0 (DE-588)4226985-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Mittelböhmen |0 (DE-588)4226985-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Bras̆kov |0 (DE-588)1028385552 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Altpaläolithikum |0 (DE-588)4142082-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sýkorová, Ivana |d 1969- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1222470748 |4 aut | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Knižnice České společnosti archeologické |v [2] |w (DE-604)BV040654223 |9 2 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=024707483&sequence=000005&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=024707483&sequence=000006&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-024707483 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 930.1 |e 22/bsb |f 09012 |g 4371 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804148781738885120 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | OBSAH
1.
Uvod
................................................................ 5-6
2.
Historie výzkumu a použité metody
..................................... 7-11
3.
Geologická situace naleziště (J. Kovanda)
.............................. 12-14
4.
Kamenná štípaná industrie z Bráškova I a
II
............................. 15-177
4.1.
Jádra
................................................................. 15-27
4.1.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 20-27
4.2.
Úštěpy
............................................................... 27-37
4.2.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 31-37
4.3.
Termolity
............................................................. 38
4.3.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 38
4.4.
Sekáče
............................................................... 38-55
4.4.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 46-55
4.5.
Pěstní klíny
............................................................ 55-57
4.5.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 56-57
4.6.
Cleavery
.............................................................. 57-66
4.6.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 62-66
4.7.
Ріску
................................................................ 66-72
4.7.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 66-72
4.8.
Protobifasy
............................................................ 72-84
4.8.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 72-84
4.9.
Klínky
............................................................... 84-109
4.9.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 84-109
4.10.
Polyedry
.............................................................. 109
4.10.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 109
4.11.
Diskoidy
.............................................................. 109-110
4.11.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 110
4.12.
Kuboidy
.............................................................. 110-112
4.12.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 111-112
4.13.
Drásadla
.............................................................. 112-116
4.13.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 115-116
4.14.
Rydla
................................................................ 116-117
4.14.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 116-117
4.15.
Vrtáky
................................................................ 117-120
4.15.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 118-120
4.16.
Dláta
................................................................. 120-122
4.16.1.
Soupis
nálezu
.......................................................... 120-122
4.17.
Vruby
................................................................ 122
4.17.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 122
4.18.
Nože
................................................................. 123-148
4.18.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 132-148
4.19.
Průbojníky
............................................................ 148-153
4.19.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 148-153
4.20.
Hoblíky
.............................................................. 153-156
4.20.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 153-156
4.21.
Hroty
................................................................ 156-160
4.21.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 159-160
4.22.
Otloukače
............................................................. 160-167
4.22.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 160-167
4.23.
Podložky
............................................................. 167-170
4.23.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 168-170
4.24.
Celkové hodnocení kamenné štípané industrie
................................ 170-176
4.25.
Braškov
II
............................................................. 176-177
4.25.1.
Soupis nálezů
.......................................................... 177
5.
MORFOMETRICKÁ ANALÝZA KOLEKCE KAMENNÉ ŠTÍPANÉ INDUSTRIE
............... 178-220
5.1.
Jádra
................................................................. 178-184
5.2.
Úštěpy
............................................................... 184-189
5.3.
Termolity
............................................................. 189-190
5.4.
Sekáče
............................................................... 190-194
5.5.
Pěstníklíny
............................................................ 195
5.6.
Cleavery
.............................................................. 195-196
5.7.
Ріску
................................................................ 196
5.8.
Protobifasy
............................................................ 196-197
5.9.
Klínky
............................................................... 197
5.10.
Polyedry
.............................................................. 198
5.11.
Diskoidy
.............................................................. 198-199
5.12.
Kuboidy
.............................................................. 199
5.13.
Drásadla
.............................................................. 199-204
5.14.
Rydla
................................................................ 204
5.15.
Vrtáky
................................................................ 204-205
5.16.
Dláta
................................................................. 205
5.17.
Vruby
................................................................ 205-206
5.18.
Nože
................................................................. 206-209
5.19.
Průbojníky
............................................................ 209-210
5.20.
Hoblíky
.............................................................. 210
5.21.
Hroty
................................................................ 210-214
5.22.
Otloukače
............................................................. 214
5.23.
Podložky
............................................................. 214-215
5.24.
Závěrečné
morf
ome
trické hodnocení kolekce artefaktů
......................... 215-220
5.24.1.
Skupiny artefaktů
....................................................... 215-218
5.24.2.
Polotovary
............................................................ 218-219
5.24.3.
Nástroje
.............................................................. 219
5.24.4
Artefakty s.l
............................................................ 219-220
6.
Prostorová disperze staropaleolitických artefaktů
...................... 221-254
7.
Braškov I v kontextu vývoje starého paleolitu
.......................... 255-265
Braškov
-
New Přezletician
Site in Central Bohemia
..................... 266-281
Literatura
........................................................... 282-286
BRAŠKOV
-
NEW PŘEZLETICIAN
SITE
IN CENTRAL BOHEMIA
There is very well preserved archaeological material from Lower Palaeolithic in Bohemia, however there are
many difficulties in all phases of studying, that can be faced only with long-term erudition, based on pleasant
atmosphere in scientific community.
This book comes to the reader ten years after the completion of the archaeological research. The discovery
of the Lower Palaeolithic settlement in the neighbourhood of lydite outcropping at
Braškov
is very important
for understanding the formation of the oldest settlement in Bohemia. For one of the authors of this text it also
represents a significant specialist satisfaction related to postulating of new Lower Palaeolithic facie
-
Přezleti-
cian (sum. in
Fridrich
2005).
Until the discovery of the site there was quite a paradox situation, striking even in the case of Lower Palae¬
olithic studies. Thanks to excellently managed and widely interdisciplinary basic archaeological research in
Přezletice (Fridrich
1979; 1989
a,b,c;
1997; 2005),
we had highly satisfactory picture of the life of our prede¬
cessors, who chose one of the
billabong
of the Palaeo-Elbe as their place for living/of life and on the banks of
the lake they hunted, gathered and
-
concerning the era from the point of archaeological material
-
lived quite
complex social lives. While the previous considerations are documented by preserved settlement structures in
the site and structurization of various zones of activities inside the settlement, the other records from
Přezlet¬
ice
present the past inhabitants as very self-confident hunters.
These characteristics in the „current existence of
Přezletice
disharmonised with the collection of chipped
stone industry, made from lydite from the local stone outcropping, which sheltered the apparently repeatedly vis¬
ited hunter camp. Regarding its chipping characteristics, the lydite from
Přezletice
is of such a bad quality that
the chipped stone industry appears as simple and primitive. The conclusions about the technological process of
working the stone material having been determined by its quality were hard to defend, especially when there
was no other substantial chipped stone industry collection available. The archaeological research in
Braškov
gave
us a sufficiently numerous chipped stone industry collection, on the basis of which we were able to verify the
postulation
of
Přezletician
as a facie of Protoacheulian in Bohemia
(Fridrich
2005).
The archaeological site is situated approx.
20
km west from Prague, north west from
Braškov,
district
Kladno
(50° 6 18.112
Ν;
14° 6 1.977
E),
on a small, almost horizontal plateau with the substratum of
Bílá
hora
argillite (fig.
1),
in altitude
439-441
m.s.1., in the south foot of
Horka
hill (altitude
447
m).
Lower Palaeolithic artefacts were scattered in an area of
1
hectare, in the depth of
0.5-3
m. They were
bound to the old Pleistocene soil (braunlehm type?) preserved in the form of a subsurface sediment.
After a very detailed
prospection
and documentation of the geological profile of the site conserved in a slit
for a prospective road in the direction east
-
west (see Chapter
3),
we deduced the original extend of the dis¬
tribution of chipped stone industry had been ca
120
χ
70
m,
i.e.
8 400
m2,
of which a non-destracted accessi¬
ble at the beginning of the survey represented
1 610
m2 (i.e.
19.20 %
of the area). From this area, a part of
960
m2 was chosen (i.e.
11.43 %
of the whole supposed area of distribution of chipped stone industry or
59.60
%
of non-destructed area) for a detailed survey. Because of ongoing construction works, we were able to sur¬
vey the rest of the site only via detailed collection. For setting the
2
χ
2
m
quadrant net, the area with the high-
266
est concentration
of chipped stone industry was chosen resulting in the rectangular area of
960
m2(fig.
2)
with
the longer side oriented
Е
-W.
Particular sectors surrounding the quadrant area were labelled according to points
of the compass and the location of stone artefacts in the general database of artefacts corresponds to this diver¬
sification:
N -
north (ca 10 m from north edge of the quadrant net, in the northern profile of the site, altitude
-
442.35
m);
W
-
west (ca
50
m
from the western edge of the quadrant net, area ca
250
m2);
E
-
east (ca
60
m
from the eastern edge, area ca
300
m2); S
-
south (ca
10
m
from the southern edge of the quadrant net, area ca
100
m2); artefacts collected in the area of a temporary road stayed without location marking, the temporary road
was in the south part of the road slit.
From the quadrant area investigated in detail by means of the method we gathered
31 630
pcs of stone frag¬
ments, which means an average density of
32.95
pcs/m2. From this amount,
4 830
pcs of chipped stone indus¬
try were chosen (i.e. artefacts reached the density of
5.03
pcs/m2). These finds were transported to the basic
laboratory processing, i.e. washing and labelling. From the whole area of
960
m2 investigated in detail can be
deduced that the artefacts represent
15.27 %
among all the stone fragments (highly dominant is lydite). Fur¬
thermore, it is necessary to add to these artefacts
404
pcs of chipped stone industry collected in surrounding sec¬
tors (see above). Most of them are from the western sector
(248
pcs, i.e.
4.74 %,
the density of tools was
0.99
pcs/m2), significantly less from the eastern sector
(93
pcs
- 1.78 %;
density of finds
- 0.31
pcs/m2), the
southern
(20
pcs
- 0.38 %,
density of finds
- 0.20
pcs/m2) and the least from the northern sector
(4
pcs
-
0.08 %).
From the road area39 pcs in total were gathered
- 0.75 %.
Very small collection of chipped stone industry
(Braškov
II, location:
50° 6 18.685
N;
14° 5 35.788
E)
was gathered also in the area to the south-west from
Horka
hill (again in the direction of the built road, in the
distance of
0,5
km from the
Braškov
I site
).
The collection consists of three artefacts (see Chapter
4)
and we
failed to record any similar find circumstances in the surroundings as in the case of the site to the south-east from
the hill. For this reason, we think that the
Braškov
II collection (choppers made from quartz and lydite pebbles;
hammerstone from lydite pebble) can be interpreted as isolated scatter of Lower Palaeolithic industry in that di¬
rection {jig.
4).
From the settlement-geographical point of view, there still remains a question over the water source for the
habitats of Lower Palaeolithic
Braškov
inhabitants. Nowadays, there is very few water-courses or springs in the
region. After analysing geographic and geological data
(Chlupáč
et al.
2002;
Chlupáč
2005)
it is possible, that
the situation of the hunters very strikingly corresponds to the site in
Přezletice,
which was also situated in a shel¬
ter of lydite outcropping very next to the billabong of Palaeo-Elbe that created a shallow lake. In the
Braškov
case, it is possible to hypothesise that the lydite outcropping was situated close to a bigger stream, relics of
which can be seen in the north-east direction from
Horka
hill (fig.
5).
The geological situation of the site is rather simple one. The basis of the slit is formed from foliated
Bílá
hora
strata till from upper
turonian
of the late cretaceous epoch. These are light yellow to greyish arenaceous
marlite, marlstone and
spongilite,
previously labelled as arenaceous marl. The upper part is intensively disin¬
tegrated down to the clay fragmentary eluvium. On the surface of this
geest,
there is a discordantly deposited
deep red tough clay horizon of soil sediment containing totally disintegrated fragments of arenaceous marls to¬
gether with numerous sharp-edged fragments, stones and boulders of lydite. In some places these are accom¬
panied by quite numerous, perfectly rounded pebbles of resistant rocks (lydites, quartzes and quartzites)
10-50
cm in diameter! This level of colour-outstanding soil settlement, specially its basis, is connected with the
finds of Palaeolithic artefacts.
Topsoil covering the red horizon has changeable thickness (from
0.30
to
2.50
m). In the investigated part
of the slit, the topsoil is formed from various clayey and argillaceous hill debris, always with a share of sharp-
edged fragments and stones of lydite and proterozoic slates, further to the west without being covered by sedi¬
ments of Upper Chalk (fig.
6).
Above described, from the distance markedly coloured red horizon of soil sediments represents with its
habitus an evidence of very intensive weathering (soil-forming) processes, evidently much more distinctive
than in the epoch of Early Pleistocene inter-glacials. Therefore this location (concerning the presence of Palae¬
olithic finds) must have got to the secondary position through the progressive shift down the slope with a great
interval from the time of its origin, which started syngenetically or just after the creation of the cultural layer.
Whereas the sharp-edged lydites and fragments of weathered arenaceous marls are in the red locality of local
origin, the origin of big boulders from resistant rocks is unknown. They are undoubtedly in a secondary posi¬
tion, however their origin is still inexplicable, despite the knowledge of the site and its broader surroundings.
They can represent accumulation residues of transgressive (tidal) gravels from the Upper Cretaceous Period,
originally repositioned from so far unknown and probably not preserved localities. However, concerning the
morphological position of the locality, we definitively give off the possibility that this can be the material from
originally fluvial Pleistocene or
Neogene
accumulation.
267
The red fossil soil sediments, where there are the finds from Palaeolithic at the basis, belong by its origin
(not by material!) to Quaternary Period; the sediments can be approximately dated to Early Pleistocene.
The research method and to a significant degree also its time table, which was very closely tied to the
progress of construction works, brought a great collection of chipped stone industry that was afterwards sub¬
jected to a detailed evaluation within the standard approach to the problems
(Fridrich
1997; 2005;
Fridrich -
Sýkorová
2005;
Sýkorová
-
Fridrich
2005;
Sýkorová 2003a Jb; Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
The research supplied us with the collection of
5234
pcs of chipped stone industry, which was afterwards
analysed in detail.
23
basic artefact types (tab. I; fig.
64)
were classified, which is itself a proof of high meas¬
ure of diversification of stone artefact on one hand. On the other hand, it attests a very self-confident behaviour
of
Přezletician
people, who can have produced a great range of standard tools for their everyday tasks, docu¬
menting also special tasks for which special working edge must have been used
(Fridrich
2005).
The whole collection of artefacts was traditionally divided into two groups: the semi-finished and finished
tools (tab.
1).
Cores, flakes and warming stones are classified as the semi-finished products. There are
819
pcs
of them representing
15.65 %
of all artefacts. They were predominantly made from local lydites
(727
pcs
-
i.e.
88.77 %
among the semi-finished products,
13.89 %
among all artefacts), distinctively less from quartzites
(92
pcs
- 11.23 %
among the semi-finished products,
1.76 %
among all artefacts) (tab.
1).
Modes of stone material obviously correspond to the selection. Again, amorphous fragments totally pre¬
dominate
(701
pcs
- 85.59 %),
followed by pebbles
(118
pcs-
14.41 %).
However, chipping qualities of lydites
are in the case of
Braškov
much better than in
Přezletice (Fridrich
1979;
1989a). It is thus evident that the se¬
lected material and its modes (in this case pebbles) clearly document high technological powers of the people,
especially when we consider the wide range of Palaeolithic types of artefacts in the collection. There were
22
semi-finished products with the marks of the contact with fire
(2.69 %),
among these
12
cores,
7
flakes and
of course
3
warming stones (tab.
2).
The total weight of the semi-finished products is
98 636
g. The biggest part falls on cores, distinctively less
on flakes and the least on warming stones, although they appear as the biggest part here (tab.
2).
The average length of all the semi-finished products is
5.03
cm (limit values
= 1.46-19.33
cm), the
average width is
4.41
cm (limit values
= 1.33-17.03
cm) and the average height is
2.50
cm (limit values
= 0.49-
11.11
cm). The average sphericity index of
0.65
(limit values
= 0.21-0.96)
classifies them among the more ro¬
bust forms, which is surely influenced with the presence of cores and warming stones in this part of the collection
(tab.
3).
It is quite surprising that regarding the length, the semi-finished products fall not only behind the tools
but also behind the average length of all the artefacts. This fact can be explained by presence of big bifaces
s.l. among the tools on one hand, on the other by the fact that the selection of suitable stone material offering
within the scope of lydites and quartzes good chipping qualities was exploited by the people till the very limit
of their technologic process of production
-
cf.
high number of residual cores documented among the cores
(44.60 %).
The relatively high share of cores and flakes surprisingly spread into the range of various forms suggests
that the roots of the technological process based on highly sophisticated working of stone material, i.e. prepa¬
ration of core and subsequent systematic flaking, are to be found in a very distant past of human culture.
When inspecting platforms which are preserved on particular flakes, it is clear that to their flaking firm
hammerstones were mostly used
.
The platforms are formed by their natural surface (at most flake forms, dom-
inantly at rough flakes, partially prepared rough flakes, amorphous flakes and atypical flakes). Besides, there
are also simply prepared platforms in our collection, e.g. at the flakes from striking platforms of the second
preparatory stage and at Kombewa-type flakes at prevailing rate. Generally, the flakes correspond to the forms
and states of extraction at the found cores.
The surface at the semi-finished products is medium-strong eolized, without patina and other secondary
changes, which would document damage of surface parts of the artefacts. This is a proof of a relatively short
time when the finds were in the open as well as of a relatively gentle way of shift which did not leave any vis¬
ible serious damage. This could indicate the shift of the whole context of the archaeological finds to the base
of lydite outcropping, which of course had a devastating effect on the final examination of the site situation, but
which did not affect the state of preserved chipped stone industry.
The second and in our case more significant part of the collection is tools. The tools represented
4 415
cases, which means
84.35 %
of all artefacts found (tab.
1).
Similarly to the previous part of the collection, their
type and sub-type range (fig.
64) (20
types of tools were determined in total) indicates that the processing ac¬
tivities of Lower Palaeolithic people were at very high level. More particularly, the range of tool types shows
a very high level of specialization of their use.
The absolute majority of the artefacts was made from lydite
(4 297
pcs, which is
97.33 %
of all the tools
or
82.10 %
of all the artefacts gathered). Beside this amount, the quartz appears as a supplement
(116
pcs form
268
2.63 %
of the tools or
2.22 %
of all the artefacts). In one case
a quarzite
was detected
(0.02 %)
and in another
a conglomerate
(0.02 %)
(tab.
1).
This state fully corresponds to the schema of the material of the semi-finished
products and it only supplements the distinctively flake character of the majority of the tools classified, which
is one of the features typical for
Přezletician (Fridrich
2005).
Modes of chosen stone material act somewhat different from the previous semi-finished product classifi¬
cation. Repeatedly, amorphous fragments dominate
(3 354
pcs
- 75.97 %),
however the share of pebbles is not
insignificant
(1 031
pcs
- 23.35 %).
Moreover, there is a trend of a slightly higher variability in this classifica¬
tion category, enriched by the presence of plates
(19
pcs
- 0.43 %)
and nodules
(11
pcs
- 0.25 %)
(tab.
2).
We
connect the higher number of used pebbles with the quite numerous group of choppers
(526
pcs, i.e.
11.91 %
of all tools). Within the chopper group, the preference for this modus of material is evident
(67.30 %),
heightened even by the use of nodules
(0.57 %).
There is therefore a deliberate and targeted choice in this case,
in other words another evidence for beforehand-elaborated plan of gathering the standardized and universal
work tools.
Contact with fire was registered at
254
tools, which is
5.75 %.
Most of the charred tools were among wedges
(111 pcs), next were punches
(32
pcs), choppers
(31
pcs), hammerstones
(26
pcs), knives
(16
pcs), anvils/cob¬
blestones
(13
pcs), planes
(12
pcs), awls
(7
pcs), chisels
(3
pcs), picks
(2
pcs) and discoids
(1
pcs) (tab.
2).
Within the scope of single types of tools, surprisingly mostly punches
(12.85 %),
anvils/cobblestones
(10.83 %)
and planes
(10.53 %)
came into contact with fire (tab.
2).
In the case of
Braškov,
the question to what degree this observation can signal inter- relations among the
three types of tools, or more precisely among specific working activities carried on near the fire or fires, will
forever stay unanswered. The site situation does not allow further verification of such observations, e.g. con¬
trary to the site in
Hořešovičky (Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
The total weight of all tools from
Braškov
is
495 733
g
and it distinctively exceeds the total weight of the
semi-finished products from the site (tab.
2).
Hammerstones
(358
pcs
- 84 400
g) and choppers
(526
pcs
-
79 670
g) belong among the heaviest tools, i.e. two types of tools which were made more from pebbles than from
amorphous fragments and whose functional usage does not prefer flake as the semi-finished product for the
creation of the practically utilizable artefact.
The average length of the tools from
Braškov
is
6.13
cm (limit values
= 1.62-30.25
cm), the average width
is
4.10
cm (limit values
= 1.23-20.68
cm) and the average height is
2.41
cm (limit values
= 0.66-9.61
cm). The
average sphericity index of
0.63
(limit values
= 0.29-1)
shows, that the tools are indeed less massive than the
semi-finished products, however they are not slight (tab.
3).
The significant length of the tools compared to the
semi-finished products is caused by the presence of the unomittable group of bifaces
s.S.,
which metrically pro¬
trude from otherwise microlithic character of this collection, as in the case of other sites which are assigned to
Přezletician (Fridrich
2005;
Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008; 2010).
The tools from
Braškov
surprise with their wide type variability, which has however its direct analogy in
the collection from
Hořešovičky (Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
Natural occurence of pebbles somewhat alters
the share of choppers in
Braškov,
which is higher in comparison to
Hořešovičky.
In our case, we can suppose
that this type of tool did not have to be substituted with other types (specified in
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
The absolutely concurrent situation between these two sites holds for the group of bifaces s.l., which also in
Braškov,
except for wedges, belongs to metrically dominant tools. Let us mention that quite a high ratio of the
semi-finished handaxes was
registred
in
Braškov
(11
pcs
-
i.e.
27.50 %),
which could be related to the use of
a lower-quality stone material of lydite, which does not reach the parameters of hornstone, used in producing
the tools in
Hořešovičky.
We suppose that to produce these sophisticated tools could have manifested the
„wrong choice of source stone material. On the other side, it is to be emphasized that the presence of very
smart and technologically well-made handaxes in
Braškov
only exponentiate the craft character of their pro¬
duction
-
a feature more than surprising in a Lower Palaeolithic collection of chipped stone industry.
Among the tools from
Braškov,
there is also a group of polyhedrons s.l., documented by the presence of three
types of these geometric tools gradually disappearing from chipped stone industry collections during the An¬
cient Middle Palaeolithic
(Fridrich - Sýkorová
2005).
Scrapers are surprisingly inexpressive, concerning both their number and sub-types. This situation is the
same as in
Hořešovičky
collection, but a bit different from
Přezletice (Fridrich
1989a), or
Bečov
IB
(Fridrich
1997)
collections.
The distribution of knives is analogous but reverse in the
Braškov
collection, although the comparison with
other
Přezletician
collections is generally the same as in the case of scrapers.
Burins, chisels, notches, punches and planes could be understood as a peculiar and obviously characteris¬
tic group of tools. The presence of awls with massive necks is also very important, since there is a direct anal¬
ogy to the inventory of stone tools from
Přezletice (Fridrich
1979;
1989a;
1997; 2005).
269
Although we almost got used to consider points not to be significant though very important part of Lower
Palaeolithic collections, in the case of
Braškov
a surprising discovery was made during their classification. This
tool type is not only numerously relatively significant with its sub-types widely varied, but
36
pcs, i.e.
47.37 %
of all the points can be classified as Quinson-type points. This, together with the
Hořešovičky
collection, could
prove prominent position of this type in collections from
Přezletician,
or, in collections of chipped stone industry
from Lower Palaeolithic.
The general account on the representation of tools from
Braškov
can be completed with not surprising but
very important types of combined tools, among which combinations of awl-chisel
(3
pieces) and awl-plane
(1
piece) belong. On the contrary, the varieties wedge-cobblestone/anvil
(lx),
hammerstone-cobblestone/anvil
(13x), type
2
chopper-cobblestone/anvil (4x) and rough partly-shaped flake-cobblestone/anvil
(lx)
could give
the evidence of multiplex usage of particular tool type (from the functional point of view).
Again, all the tools from
Braškov
are medium-strong eolized without patina or some distinctive marks of
secondary damages caused by the shift. The surface of these artefacts thus has the same features as the surface
of the semi-finished products.
As a whole, the gathered collection of chipped stone industry from
Braškov
can be described as follows.
During the archaeological research we managed to gather the collection of
5 234
pcs, which could be divided
into
23
basic types of a detailed classification {tab.
1;
fig.
64).
The collection was predominantly made from ly-
dite
(5 024
pcs
- 95.99 %).
Quartz is used as a significant complement
(208
pcs
- 3.97 %),
while quartzite
(1
pc
- 0.02 %)
and conglomerate
(1
pc
- 0.02 %)
are used marginallyi/ab. l,fig.
65).
Amorphous fragments
(4 055
pcs
- 77.47 %)
represent a dominant component of the modes of the stone
material in the collection followed by pebbles
(1 149
pcs
- 21.95 %),
plates
(19
pcs
- 0.36 %)
and nodules
(11
pcs
- 0.21 %)
(tab.
2;
fig.
66).
Charring was registered at
276
items
(5.27 %),
from this
7.97 %
are the semi-finished products and
92.03 %
are tools {fig.
67)-
It is very possible that some artefacts (wanning stones) were directly and inten¬
tionally put into fire. They could have served as thermo-accumulators or cooking stones, or they could have been
placed in the immediate vicinity of open fire and thus used as constructional elements of the fireplace. How¬
ever, it must be emphasized again, that these consideration are fully speculative, since the site situation was not
caught in situ.
Total weight of all the artefacts from
Braškov
is
594 369
g, which is quite high compared to the Lower and
Middle Palaeolithic collections from Bohemia
(Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
13),
but lower than in
Hořešovičky
and it is so even when the weight of manuports is discounted. Compared to the mentioned col¬
lection, the weight of the semi-finished products from
Braškov
falls markedly short of the weight of tools {fig.
68),
which among the Czech sites corresponds only to the situation documented in
Tmaň (Sýkorová 2003a)
and
in
Bečov IV (Fridrich - Sýkorová
2005).
It is not easy to explain the
Braškov
situation, because sites analogi¬
cal from this point of view have a different
pétrographie
background
(Fridrich 2002b).
On one side we know
that the Lower Palaeolithic people s settlements were placed close or just on the outcropping of fissionable and
used stone material,
i.e.
close to the lydite outcropping. Therefore, we consider here a similar model as in
Hořešovičky
or
Přezletice
as the most probable
-
the settlements situated close to the outcropping of stone ma¬
terial, in a place of its abundance. Total weight of the collection from
Braškov
is so much influenced by the way
of how the archaeological rescue research was carried on (see above) and by post-depositional influences to
which the site was exposed in the distant past.
We can hypothesise the features of the researched place. While in
Přezletice
and
Hořešovičky,
we consider
the places having been used for longer time, the weight and numerous ratio of tools and the semi-finished prod¬
ucts in
Braškov
together with the lack of water sources on the spot and in its vicinity can be interpreted as re¬
flecting shorter use of the place.
.
Basic metric parameters of the classified collection document its microlithic character (fig.
69-71).
The av¬
erage length of the artefacts is
5.97
cm (limit values are
1.46-30.25
cm), the average width is
4.24
cm (limit val¬
ues are
1.23-20.68
cm) and the average height is
2.48
cm (limit values are
0.49-11.11
cm). The average sphericity
index is
0.62
(limit values are
0.21-1)
suggests that the collection from
Braškov
can be as a whole considered
as moderately robust (tab. 3;fig.
72).
When these total metric values are compared with other collections with microlithic character from Bohemia
(Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
14;
Levínský
-
in print), it becomes evident that regarding the length
Braškov
parameters belongs among average collections. It can be ranked after
Přezletice
(average length
-
6.90
cm) and
Kročehlavy
(average length
- 6.09
cm), but before
Hořešovičky
(average length
- 4.93
cm),
Velké
Přítočno
(average length
- 4.42
cm),
Slaný
II (average length
- 4.46
cm),
Račiněves
(average length
- 3.87
cm)
or
Tmaň
(average length
- 3.06
cm). The average values of the sphericity index of other Lower Palaeolithic col¬
lections in Bohemia rate
Braškov
among the prevailing average but in the other way round in comparison to the
270
length. The
Braškov
collection is more robust than the artefacts from Prezletice
(0.60)
and
Kročehlavy
(0.60),
but
thinner than the finds from
Velké Pntočno
(0.64),
Tmaň
(0.66),
Račiněves
(0.67),
Slaný
II
(0.68)
and Hořešovičky
(0.69).
The comparison also implies that the bigger the length of the artefacts the thinner these collections are.
The surface of the
Braškov
artefacts is medium-strong eolized, without patina and other secondary changes.
Their variability and documented shift in working the stone material enable us to state that this collection re¬
flects high technological standardization and in case of the tools also developed demands for their wide and spe¬
cialized use at work.
The collection of the artefacts from
Braškov
can be taken as a proof of the presence of the
Přezletician
peo¬
ple in Bohemia and as a further document of the beginnings of microlithic industries in early Lower Palaeolitic
(Fridrich
2005).
We can see a direct analogy to this collection in the finds from
Hořešovičky (Fridrichová-
Sýkorová
2008)
and
Přezletice (Fridrich
1979;
1989a;
1997; 2005).
A very small collection of chipped stone industry (labelled as
Braškov
II) was discovered in the area of the
uncovering for the future motorway in the south-west direction from the
Horka
hill (fig.
73).
These are two
choppers made from pebbles of lydite and quartz and a hammerstone from lydite pebble. The artefacts are sim¬
ilarly eolized as in the case of the finds from the
Braškov
I location and their surface does not wear any traces
of other secondary changes. Regarding the state of the gathered tools, their typological tenuity and the absence
of typologically significant specimen, it can be deduced that the site was a short-term site, closely connected to
the main site in the vicinity of the lydite outcropping. All the three artefacts belong also to
Přezletician,
since
their form does not protrude its framework in any way.
Big collections of chipped stone industry, collections of thousands of pieces are suitable for morphometric
analysis, which means a survey into their length and sphericity index
(Sneed
-
Folk
1958)
projected into the met¬
ric categories, in this case in a
2
cm grid
(Fridrich 2002b;
2005;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
Chosen metric
ratios of particular types of artefacts or their groups are also scrutinised, including correlation coefficients of
basic metric data, in order to objectify the utmost overall description of particular types of artefacts regarding
their morphometry (tab.
16)
(Fridrich
2005).
Such process was chosen in order to conform to the standard pub¬
lication of the collections from Lower and Middle Palaeolitic from Bohemia
(Fridrich 2002b; Fridrich
-
Sýko¬
rová
2005;
Sýkorová
-
Fridrich
2005;
Sýkorová 2003a
J?;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
In order to clarify the high rate of standardization of the classified collection, we compared particular groups
of artefacts we considered important and mutually inter-linked as for their function and the process of their pro¬
duction.
Anvils/cobblestones, hammerstones, flakes, and cores (fig.
141)
show unusual uniformity in their distribu¬
tion in metric intervals. Nevertheless, there are shifts in between intervals bearing evidence of our premise that
flakes (the shifts towards lower categories are the most significant ones among them) were formed by pur¬
poseful exploitation of stone material with an inter-phase of cores. The fact, that in many cases hammerstones
and anvils/cobblestones were used in this process, would on the other hand show evidence of a shift of these
artefacts to the higher metric intervals
-
a trend also observable at cores. As for the robustness, particular types
of artefacts stay on supposed levels. The group seems generally very compact, without any shade of more sig¬
nificant deviations (fig.
141).
Generally compared, choppers, wedges, and punches (fig.
142)
also suggest a high rate of compatibility in¬
cluding the conformity of dominance in metric interval
4-5,99
cm. As for their functional usage, these artefact
types could not have been mutually fungible. A startling compatibility of the course of values in the sphericity
index in metric categories could further attest this conclusion (fig.
142).
Handaxes, cleavers, picks, and proto-bifaces (fig.
143)
belong mostly among longer tools (except for a bit
wider scope of proto-bifaces, which corresponds to the distribution of knives only as if shifted one level up).
However, their (bifaces s.l.) distribution in metric intervals is continuous, maximally with a shift of one inter¬
val among particular types. A robustness distribution of these artefact in the grid of metric scale seems very ho¬
mogeneous (fig.
143).
Contrary to the previous artefact groups, polyhedrons, discoids, and cuboids (fig.
144)
are concentrated in
lower metric intervals. The dispersal of their distribution is again very compact, except for the lowest and the
highest covered intervalThe group is similar also as for its robustness, with cuboids being obviously the most
robust artefacts and discoids being the least robust (fig.
144).
Chisels, planes, and wedges (fig.
145)
embody very high level of standardization within the group, except
for the distribution in the lowest and the highest metric interval. Regarding the robustness, similar situation,
where primary role is unexpectedly played by planes (fig.
145),
is again confirmed.
According to the distribution in metric intervals except the lowest one, knives and scrapers (fig.
146)
rep¬
resent almost identical artefacts with the high level of regularity in distribution. Considering their robustness,
slightly predominant are knives, although it is still very compact group of artefacts (fig.
146).
271
Burins,
awls, notches, and points (fig.
147)
seem at first quite heterogeneous from the typological point of
view, though with a discernible degree of homogeneity, especially in the middle of the intervals covered. Some
degree of homogeneity is apparent in the interval
2-7.99
cm and also among the values of the sphericity index
,
which is not surprising at these highly specialized tools {jig.
147).
Surprisingly, the semi-finished products represent a smaller part of the classified collection. Nevertheless,
their incidence is representative enough to be surveyed by means of the morphometric analysis.
Their dispersal in metric intervals covers all the scale, though the lowest and the four highest intervals are
of course less covered. The dominance in the metric category
2-3.99
cm is especially significant (fig.
148).
As
for the length, the semi-finished products are rather substandard compared to the whole
(-15.75 %)
and to the
tools
(-17.95 %).
The course of the sphericity index values is continuous and very compact. A very slight but
regular trend of heightening of the robustness in connection to the growing length of the semi-finished prod¬
ucts is evident among all the metric intervals except for the lowest one (fig.
148).
The semi-finished products
are more robust when compared either to the whole
(+4.84 %),
or to the tools
(+3.17 %).
High correlation co¬
efficients show evidence of the high rate of standardisation of the collection (l:w
= 0.85;
l:w
= 0.84;
w:h
= 0.76;
0 = 0.82).
Tools represent the dominant part of the whole collection from
Braškov
and so they generally set its fash¬
ion. They are very regularly dispersed in all metric intervals with an evident dominance in the interval
4-5.99
cm
(fig.
149).
This signals that quite a substantial part of the artefacts has a flake character. Concerning the length,
the tools slightly dominate in comparison to the whole
(+2.68 %),
and more significantly in comparison to the
semi-finished products
(+21.87 %).
The course of the sphericity index values within the intervals covered is con¬
tinuous, compact, and very regular, with an observable trend to lower the robustness with the growing length
(fig.
149).
In comparison to the whole, the tools are slightly robust
(+1.61 %),
but compared to the semi-finished
products the tools are substandard
(-3.08 %).
Correlation coefficients at the tools are high and well-balanced (l:w
= 0.75;
l:h
= 0.73;
w.h
= 0.79; 0 = 0.76).
This together with all the above stated attest that the tools from
Braškov
were made in a very conservative way and with their particular purpose in mind to serve the Lower Palaeolithic
hunters and gatherers.
Regarding the morphometric analysis, the whole
Braškov
collection of chipped stone industry can be
characterized as being very compact and standardized. Artefacts cover all metric intervals very fluently
and regularly, with the highest number of artefacts in the interval
(4-5.99
cm (fig.
150).
The course of the
sphericity index values is very regular in the same grid, without any evident fluctuations and with an
evident tendency to lowering the robustness in relation to the growing length of the artefact (fig.
150).
Very
high correlation coefficients (l:w
= 0.75;
l:h
= 0.73;
w:h
= 0.79; 0 = 0.76)
just support this opinion of ours.
The comparison of particular units of the collection shows that particular parts do not differ either in length or
in values of the sphericity index projected in metric grid (fig.
151).
From these facts we can conclude that in
Braškov
not only numerous, but also classifiable collection of stone artefacts was gathered. A prospective pre¬
cise documentation of the artefacts will enrich our general postulates on shape and content of
Přezletician
in
Bohemia.
The way the archaeological rescue research was done subsequently enabled to classify spatial relations of
particular types of artefacts, material, modes of material and charred artefacts within the site. Regarding the fact
that the surface of the found artefacts is medium-strong eolized, it was not possible to carry out the puzzle
method, which would clarify the inter-relations of the chosen artefacts within the site. Hence the following part
offers a detailed description of the spatial set-up of particular types of artefacts, including used material, modes
of material and traces after the contact with fire. The description is consistent with the documentation made at
Hořešovičky
site,
Kladno
district
(Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
In total,
4 838
pieces of chipped stone industry found in the area of metric grid
(2
χ
2
m)
were surveyed by
means of the method. More precise localization of the finds was not possible because of the time press during
our field work.
Besides the representation of particular types of artefacts, attention was paid also to the spatial distribution
of stone material used to produce them. Although it is evident that in the surveyed collection from
Braškov
the
use of local lydite distinctively dominated (see above), it is very interesting to compare spatial distribution of
lydite (fig.
175)
and quartz artefacts (fig.
176).
At first sight, it is evident that the dominant position of lydite is
clearly reflected in the number of the artefacts found in particular quadrants. Though, the distribution of lydite
compared to quartz within the quadrants seems less logical. While we meet with lydite in the south-east part of
the surveyed area, where it forms a kind of a „substantial concentration , the quartz is connected to particular
quadrants more randomly. It is less present in the south-east part we monitored with heightened caution and its
distribution evokes the feeling that it appears more often outside the south-east part of the site with higher con¬
centration of lydites.
272
Moving from the spatial organization of the artefacts found to the level of material modes, it is evident that
the above given facts also reflect this surveyed factor. At the first sight the absolute prevalence of amorphous
fragments, which were documented in all the quadrants surveyed, is apparent (fig.
177).
Their dispersion is
more or less regular in the most of the area; however, there is again an evident accumulation in the south-east
part of the surveyed area, which just supports our previous observation about the accumulation of artefacts here.
Situation of pebbles is very similar (fig.
178).
They do not appear in all the quadrants but they occupy the
majority of them. Their dispersion is less regular than at the amorphous fragments, however, it reflects again
a trend of the growing density in the south-east part of the area. Moreover, it seems that towards the north the
number of the pebbles run slightly low.
Nodules (fig.
179)
and plates (fig.
180)
act just a complements, both concerning their numerous distribu¬
tion and their spatial dispersion. While nodules appear only separately in several quadrants, plates are more
concentrated in the east half of the surveyed area. Both these material mode representatives show high rate of
spatial disorderliness.
We paid attention also to the charred artefacts as indicators of the use of fire by Lower Palaeolithic hunters.
In the area surveyed in detail we failed to find any traces of fireplace, which fully supports the above stated prem¬
ise that the artefacts are not situated in situ. The dispersion of warming stones further supports this idea (fig.
154).
However, some stone tools bearing traces of a contact with fire could support the fact, that fire was a helper in
everyday tasks connected with the survival of the hunters community. Nevertheless, the dispersion of the warm¬
ing stones is again rather disorderly in the scope of the surveyed area (fig.
181).
Their „accumulation is evi¬
dent in the south-east part of the area, i.e. on the spot with the highest density of stone artefacts, but they
surprisingly also appear in the north-west corner of the archaeological search-unit in quite a high density. These
charred artefacts are sporadically dispersed in the most of surveyed quadrants.
The dispersion of the semi-finished products
,
incl
.
warming stones
,
clearly suggest high rate of randomness
.
These artefacts are dispersed in the most quadrants of the area surveyed in detail, predominantly in a very small
number (fig.
182).
Only in the south-east part of the archaeological search-unit, their density is more tangible,
dominantly in the quadrant Dl
.
However, the density in Al-6
-
Fl-6 quadrants do not authorize us to state that
in this area we documented a manufacturing zone in situ.
Great predominance of the tools over the semi-finished products was clearly shown in the occupation of par¬
ticular quadrants by particular types (fig.
183).
The tools are present in all the surveyed area, in this case in
a relatively high number again with a slight accumulation in the south-east part of the surveyed area. Quadrant
El and F4 are of a dominant position. However, such as in other cases, it is not possible to postulate a hypoth¬
esis of a presence of a manufacturing zone in situ, since the tool dispersion in other quadrants rather evoke an¬
other idea, that of being a result of natural processes (slope shift).
When all the gathered artefacts, which we found possible to evaluate from the spatial setting point of view,
are projected into the grid of the quadrants of the area surveyed in detail, it becomes clear that the quadrants
Al-6- Fl-6 are of the highest density with quadrants F4and El being absolutely dominant (fig.
184).
The rest
of the quadrants is occupied more or less continuously, which again rather attests to an influence of natural
processes than of intentional activities of the past people.
On the other side, from the previous description of the presence and the dispersal of particular types of the arte¬
facts follows that „accumulation in Al-6
-
Fl-6 quadrants cannot be left aside. It is very surprising that in these
quadrants only some and not all artefact types are dispersed. These are cores, flakes and hammerstones from the
group connected to manufacturing of chipped stone industry. Surprisingly no distinctive accumulation of anvils/cob¬
blestones was documented. The tools
-
choppers, wedges, knives, punches and quite fuzzily awls provided even
bigger surprise. These tools belong among manufacturing tools. The bigger number of choppers and wedges is es¬
pecially distinctive, since some scholars (Wagner
1981; 1984)
regard these tools in microlithic form as
substitu¬
tive
forms. Some degree of interconnectedness (from the processing point of view) can be assumed also in case of
punches and awls
(Sýkorová - Fridrich
2005).
The presence of knives is in this light rather irrelevant, because the
presence of sharp edge is greatly general as for the differentiation of space within manufacturing activities.
Let s generalize the above-suggested ideas and although we failed to capture the situation in situ let s raise
a hypothesis that in the case of the
Braškov
site, more precisely in the case of the area surveyed in detail, the
artefacts before their discovery passed through a slope shift in the direction from the lydite outcropping. A ques¬
tion remains whether the relict in the south-east part of the surveyed area does not represent a rarely preserved
fragment of a Lower Palaeolithic settlement where production and processing activities took place (e.g. wood¬
work, work with bones and leather).
Considering the archaeological situation in
Braškov,
it stands to reason that we failed to discover a secondary
undisturbed archaeological situation as is the case of either the unique settlement in
Přezletice (Fridrich
1979; 1989
a,b,c;
1997; 2005; 2007)-,
or by natural processes less devastated site in
Hořešovičky (Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
273
Despite the above given facts,
Braškov
belongs among very important proofs of the presence of the people
with
Přezletician
culture in our country.
According to our opinion, the site in
Braškov
pertains among other tokens that people with Protoacheulian,
or more precisely
Přezletician
culture, used to dwell in central Bohemia.
We did not discover the great collection of chipped stone industry in situ but in a secondary position, which
was the consequence of the shift of the cultural layer on the slope in the south-east part of the
Horka
hill. There¬
fore it is not possible to precisely date the collection of the artefacts by means of the methods of natural science.
Nevertheless, the collection is sufficiently representative and thus it is possible to compare it with other col¬
lections of the same cultural domain in Bohemia.
Přezletice
by Prague can be rightly taken as a key site of this culture
(Fridrich
1979; 1986; 1987;
1989a,b,c;
1997; 2005; 2007;
Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008),
which will also prospec-
tively (after finalizing of the archaeological research and publishing finds from so far not published research sea¬
sons) enrich our knowledge of the way of life in Lower Palaeolithic. The collection of the chipped stone industry
from this site, which came from four archaeological horizons, can be regarded as almost identical with the
Braškov
collection, although a batch of comparing processes must be finished before any precise morphomet-
ric analysis can be carried out. From the typological point of view, both the collections are identical, the iden¬
tity is strengthen further by the use of the same stone material
-
lydite, which is of much higher quality in
Braškov.
The
Braškov
site provided us with the great collection of chipped stone industry,
5 234
pcs in total. For
a comparative study, we thus chose another great
Přezletician
collection, the finds from the
Hořešovičky
site.
Their number and the state of the collection processing enable us to postulate following conclusions.
It is needed to state beforehand that for comparative purposes we left out a group of hammerstones
0+1
from
the
Hořešovičky
collection, because the conditions of the archaeological research in
Braškov
did not allow us
to detect these artefacts (see above), although their presence at the source of the stone material is more than prob¬
able. Having left out these artefacts,
7.844
pcs of chipped stone industry became subjects of the comparative
process. The
Hořešovičky
collection was divided into
23
basic types according to the classical typological
method standardly used for Lower Palaeolithic artefact collections in Bohemia (Leakey
1971;
Fridrich 1989a;
1997; 2005;
Débenath
-
Dibble
1994).
Because of the secondary changes of the surface of Lower Palaeolithic
collection (eolization) from both these sites it is rather faint to scrutinise a technological processing of these arte¬
facts due to the very fragmented character of the data and knowledge related to this problem. Therefore in clas¬
sifying these collections, we accentuate more the forms of the particular artefact types
(Fridrich
1997)
and their
subsequent morphometric evaluation
(Fridrich
1997; 2005;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
This point of view,
moreover, takes into account also a wide variety of chosen primary sources of stone material typical for Lower
Palaeolithic in Bohemia
(Fridrich
1997; 2005).
The artefacts from the
Braškov
collection are very dominantly (tab.
1)
made from lydite, on which
95.99 %,
fall in total, rest
4.01 %
fall on quartz
(3.97 %).
Quartzite and conglomerate are only sporadically
present. The collection from
Hořešovičky
is composed in the same way, although local Palaeozoic hornstone
(97.68 %)
was the chosen material
(Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
2).
We can find quartz here as well, though
in a very supplementary amount, chalcedony
silicite,
sandstone and quartzite. Consequently, we can deduce
one feature of the behaviour of Lower Palaeolithic people from the Bohemian Basin, that of an intentional
search for suitable, though in this case relatively low-quality, stone materials In case of
Braškov
and
Přezletice
these are lydite outcroppings, the outcroppings of plates of Palaeozoic hornstone in
Hořešovičky (Fridrich
1989a;
1997;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
It is quite difficult to hypothesise about an intentional choice of material modes for the production of
certain types of tools at the sites with a positive
pétrographie
background
(Fridrich 2002b; Sýkorová 2003a;
Sýkorová
-
Fridrich
2005;
Fridrich
-
Sýkorová
2005).
In both the compared cases, amorphous fragments
were evidently chosen more often, namely
77.47 %
in
Braškov,
and even
96.06 %
in
Hořešovičky.
Contrary
to
Hořešovičky (Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
3),
there is a certain tendency in
Braškov
to prefer
a different mode
-
pebbles, in order to make choppers and hammerstones. This points at quite a logical and
ergonomie
behaviour of the makers of these artefacts and their intentional choice of the mode (tab.
2).
Use
of other modes (plates and nodules) seems to be marginal at both sites. The explanation of the difference
in use of pebbles in
Braškov
and
Hořešovičky
can be probably found in natural occurrence of pebbles in
Braškov,
and so in using all local sources of the site. The source of pebbles (as a manufacturing material)
in
Hořešovičky
was not still clearly explained; in any case it is an imported mode of material
(Fridrichová-
Sýkorová
2008).
The difference between the surveyed sites can however be found while examining the total weights of the
artefacts and while analysing the weight ratios between the semi-finished products and the tools. While in
274
Braškov
the weight of the tools dominantly prevail
(83.40 %; 495 733
g) over the semi-finished products
(16.60 %; 98 636
g), in
Hořešovičky
the ration is relatively well balanced, since the weight of the tools is
52.48 % (397 102
g) and the weight of the semi-finished products (without hammerstones
0 + 1)
is
47.52 %
(359 501
g). However, both the collections are very analogous when we taking into account a very abstract
average weight of an artefact within particular types (tab.
17;
fig.
185).
We interpret this difference as caused
by secondary causes, or, in the fact that while in the
Hořešovičky
research we managed to document a more
or less intact part of the hunters site with an almost comparable records of production and processing activities,
in
Braškov
we managed to document only a part of the hunters site (not in situ) where the archaeological finds,
in this case chipped stone industry, document the prevailing processing activities in the broadest sense of the
word.
There is an evidence of using the fire in
Přezletician
from all the three sites discovered so far. The fire,
charred artefacts and animal bones from
Přezletice
belong among the best preserved
(Fridrich
1997; 2005;
2007).
A fireplace and stone artefacts with the traces of charring are known also from
Hořešovičky
(Fridri-
chová-Sýkorová
2008;
Fridrich - Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009);
from
Braškov,
there are only stone artefacts
with the traces of charring.
In
Hořešovičky
24.85 %
of the semi-finished products,
27.56 %
of the tools were charred, which represents
26.32 %
of all in this book evaluated artefacts. In
Braškov
this percentage is distinctively lower;
2.69 %
of the
semi-finished products and
5.75 %
of all the tools came in contact with fire, which is only
5.27 %
of all the arte¬
facts (tab.
2).
Although we suppose that fire and its use represented a part of a cultural equipment of
Přezleti¬
cian
people in the Ancient Lower Palaeolithic, the secondary position of the finds does not allow other than
indirect proof of the fire use
(Fridrich
2005).
When we compare the typological spectrum of both collections (fig.
186),
they evidently fall into the same
typological frame, although with a different rate of the distribution of particular artefact types (tab.
1;
Fridri¬
chová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
2).
The cores constitute
8.14 %
of all the artefacts in
Braškov,
but
28.09 %
in
Hořešovičky.
Sub-type spectrum is in both cases relatively wide, composed of
7
variations in
Braškov,
and
of
6
in
Hořešovičky.
In
Braškov
a rounded core type can be encountered (tab.
4;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
4).
In both cases residual cores dominate among cores, which indicates a very effective use of stone mate¬
rial, a behaviour contrary to what we would expect of the past people at the material outcroppings. This effect
could be related to the very low level of chipping qualities of ly
dite
and Palaeozoic hornstone. This means that
when the block of material suitable for chipping had been found, it was exploited till the very limits of the tech¬
nological possibilities of flaking.
The prevalence of cores in
Hořešovičky
concurs with the distribution of flakes
(17.30 %),
which are less
numerous in
Braškov
(7.45 %).
Internal subdivision of flakes from both sites looks incomparable for the first
sight, but it keeps very similar structure when inspected in detail (tab.
6;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
5).
In
Braškov,
small flakes and flakes-squamae are missing, which is caused by different possibilities during the
archaeological researches. Blades and blade-flakes are very significant in
Hořešovičky,
in
Braškov
only blade-
flakes were discovered and in a very small number. The reason for the difference can be found in different chip¬
ping qualities of lydite and Palaeozoic hornstone. In
Hořešovičky,
we suppose direct chipping of plates of the
material took place, during which such a form of flake dominates as a resulting and simplest product
(Fridri¬
chová-Sýkorová
2008).
The scale of flake sub-types from both localities reflects different phases of processing
of cores. In addition to flaking from cores without particularly shaped platforms, both the collections document
also use of Kombewa-technology.
In both collections warming stones appear infrequently among the semi-finished products, in
Braškov
they
represent
0.06 %
and in
Hořešovičky
0.17 %
of all the artefacts.
A presence of stone material in pebble mode is probably the reason for a higher frequency of choppers in
Braškov (I0.05
%).
Apparently, these tools played only supplemental role in
Hořešovičky
(0.79 %).
This cor¬
responds of course to their sub-type division. In
Braškov,
all
9
variations of choppers are present, with type
1
and
2
dominating (tab.
8),
while in
Hořešovičky,
there we can meet with more or less levelled distribution of
this artefact into
7
variations
(Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
6).
The presence of bifaces s.l. appears very similar. Scarce presence of handaxes is especially striking
(Braškov
- 0.76 %;
Hořešovičky
- 0.08 %);
percentual
representation of cleavers sizes similarly up
(Braškov
- 1.97 %;
Hořešovičky
-1.19 %);
picks
(0.43 %)
and protobifaces
(0,33 %)
are less frequent in
Hořešovičky.
In
Braškov,
there are
1.26 %
of picks and
3.23 %
of protobifaces. The representation of wedges is congruently high in
Braškov
25.64 %
and in
Hořešovičky
20.17 %.
Except polyhedrons
s.S.
(Braškov
- 0.15 %;
Hořešovičky -
0.38 %),
the group of polyhedrons s.l., and its
percentual
representation respectively, is compact,. In
Braškov, discoids
represent
0.84 %,
in
Hořešovičky
0.85 %;
cuboids represent
0.78 %
in
Braškov
and
0.96 %
in
Hořešovičky.
275
Scrapers are relatively frequent in both collections;
1.05 %
in
Braškov,
2.31 %
in
Hořešovičky.
The varia¬
tion span of these tools in
Hořešovičky
is somewhat wider;
11
variants were documented there compared to
8
in
Braškov
(tab.
10;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
7).
In both collections convex-edged scrapes dominate ac¬
cordingly.
The absolute correspondence between the two collections is in the
percentual
representation of burins, both
0.33 %.
Very similar situation is with awls,
1.66 %
of all finds in
Braškov,
1.59 %
in
Hořešovičky.
Moreover, in both
collections a variation of the awl with massive neck occurs, which we regard as a characteristic tool of
Pře-
zletician (Fridrich
2005).
There are differences in the representation of chisels. They are more numerous in
Hořešovičky
(3.30 %)
than
in
Braškov
( 1.41 %
of all the artefacts). The question still remains whether this type of tool can be substituted
by some other, e.g. by wedges, which were more numerous in
Braškov
than in
Hořešovičky.
The relation be¬
tween these tool types in large collections of chipped stone industry will have to be monitored also in other
conjunctions transcending the borders of cultural areas; meanwhile, this problem stays open within
Přezletician.
Notches have similar representation in both collections have,
0.44 %
in
Braškov,
0.46 %
in
Hořešovičky.
Somewhat different is the representation of knives,
Π
.25%
in
Braškov,
while only
7.03 %
in
Hořešovičky.
This difference cannot be probably explained by different methods of the researches or by the quality and mode
of the chosen material. Furthermore, the sub-type scale is identical in both cases (tab.
14;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
8)
including the dominance of retouch-backed knives and cortex-backed knives. The ratio of knives
in the collection can be taken as a proof of some difference between
Braškov
and
Hořešovičky.
Punches are present in both collections and they do not vary much regarding their
percentual
representa¬
tion
(Braškov
- 4.76 %;
Hořešovičky
- 4.32 %).
Planes are in a similar position
(Braškov
-2.18%;
Hořešovičky
-2.30%).
Points are another type of the tool which confirms some degree of independence of the surveyed artefact
collections from each other, since the points are relatively numerous in
Braškov
(1.45 %),
less in
Hořešovičky
(0.37 %).
Very high share of Quinson type points in
Braškov
is striking, (tab.
14);
in
Hořešovičky,
they belong
also to the most numerous varieties though they are not so numerous as in
Braškov (Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008
ЛаЪ.
9).
The last two types of the tools are often taken as liminal, being classified between tools and semi-finished
products. On the sites, they are represented in mirror opposition; in
Braškov hammerstones
(6.84 %)
prevail over
anvils/cobblestones
(2.29 %),
while in
Hořešovičky
anvils/cobblestones
(4.35 %)
prevail over hammerstones
(2.21 %).
It was possible to divide these types into varieties in
Hořešovičky (Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
10; 11),
while in
Braškov
only basic forms of these tool types were documented.
While classifying large collection of chipped stone industry from Bohemia, big attention is traditionally paid
to the evaluation of metric data gathered from particular artefacts. This topic must therefore not be omitted
while comparing
Braškov
and
Hořešovičky
collections (tab.
2;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008,
tab.
3).
When average values of length, width, height and sphericity index of cores and flakes are compared
,
it be¬
comes evident that these artefacts are a little bit bigger and less robust in
Braškov
than in
Hořešovičky.
Only
wanning stones show the opposite trend in basic metric data, although they are still less robust compared to
Hořešovičky.
Choppers from both sites are very similar, they are bigger in
Braškov
regarding length, width and height
than in
Hořešovičky;
the average sphericity index is in both cases identical, i.e. that the choppers have the same
rate of robustness.
Handaxes from
Braškov
are again bigger than those from
Hořešovičky
but comparatively slimmer. The op¬
posite trend can be seen at cleavers; those from
Hořešovičky
dominate in metric values as well as in robustness.
metric dominance of
Braškov
over
Hořešovičky
is repeated again by picks and protobifaces, though they
are less robust in
Braškov.
Wedges appear similar to cleavers having smaller metric parameters in
Braškov
and
being similarly (to cleavers) less robust.
Polyhedrons j.s. are a bit fluctuating as for the comparison of basic metric data;
Braškov
ones are longer,
thinner and slimmer than those from
Hořešovičky.
Discoids from
Braškov
are shorter and narrower but they are higher than those from
Hořešovičky,
but
slightly slimmer again. Among polyhedrons s.L, cuboids are unambiguous regarding basic metric data. The
artefacts from
Braškov
are smaller and a bit slimmer.
Scrapes again appear fluctuating; length and width of scrapers from
Braškov
overreach the values of this
tool type from
Hořešovičky,
but they are
smallerand
slimmer. Contrarywise, burins are bigger in
Braškov
and
the average values of sphericity index from both collections are in accord. Awls from
Braškov
dominate over
artefacts from
Hořešovičky
in all metric parameters but they are surprisingly less robust. The same can be said
276
about chisels except for their height, which is in accord. Notches from
Braškov
are longer and wider, having
smaller height and a bit smaller scale of robustness.
The comparison of knives is fairly unambiguous; they are bigger in
Braškov
than in
Hořešovičky
and their
robustness is lower. It reflects a general trend of the decline of the robustness of majority of the artefacts and
knives particularly with their rising length, which is observable at any tool type from all the collections.
Punches from
Braškov
collection are of bigger length and width, but of smaller height while being slimmer
than those from
Hořešovičky.
Planes belong among the less levelled tools when compared; they are longer and
higher in
Brašov
than in
Hořešovičky,
but thinner and a bit more robust. Points from
Braškov
are longer but nar¬
rower and shorter than those from
Hořešovičky;
they belong to slightly slimmer tools as well.
Striking is the comparison of hammerstones from both sites. In
Braškov,
these tools are longer, though their
width and height is smaller than in
Hořešovičky.
Surprising is that
Braškov
hammerstones are in average less
robust than those from
Hořešovičky,
though this is a consequence of the used mode of material
-
pebbles.
Cobblestones/anvils represent the last tool type in both collections; those from
Braškov
dominate in all
metric categories.
The above stated description of basic metric data for particular types of tools can be generalized also on the
basic component level of the collections. From the comparison of the groups of the semi-finished products we
can conclude that their length and width is bigger in
Braškov
but in height they slightly fall behind of those from
Hořešovičky.
The semi-finished products from
Braškov
are slimmer than those from
Hořešovičky.
The evalu¬
ation of the tools conforms with all the previous finds. Generally, we can summarize that the artefacts from
Braškov
are slightly longer and wider, while those from
Hořešovičky
are slightly higher. The
Hořešovičky
col¬
lection is slightly more robust.
The descriptions of particular tool types could produce the impression that the collections are metrically
more different from each other than it could be expected in the case of analogical artefacts. For this reason, we
used simple correlations for particular basic metric values (tab.
17)
(Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
The result¬
ant values of the correlation coefficients are surprisingly high and as such they document a high rate of simi¬
larity of both collections since they are equal to
1
in overwhelming majority (only the correlation coefficient of
the average values of the sphericity index offtakes being only
0.9
represents the exception from the rule
).
Since we put both the collections of chipped stone industry through a thorough morphometric analysis, the
results should also be discussed.
The representation of the particular semi-finished products from both collections in metric categories indi¬
cates that the zones of
2-3.99
cm and
4-5.99
cm dominate in both cases; with the growing length the number of
the artefacts steeply drops off. When the trends of sphericity indexes are compared, the results are very com¬
pact and levelled both in
Braškov
and in
Hořešovičky.
It is evident, however, that the collection of the semi-fin¬
ished products from
Hořešovičky
is a bit more robust (fig.
187).
Even more striking is the situation of the tools from the compared sites where the metric interval of
4-
5.99
cm plays a dominant role. Similarly to the semi-finished products, the
percentual
representation drops off
with the growing length in higher metric intervals. When the values of the sphericity index are projected onto
these intervals, a strikingly regular tendency to decline in robustness dependent on the growing length appears
at the tools from
Braškov.
In
Hořešovičky,
the trend of the same character is a bit unsteady with the robustness
surprisingly growing in the highest metric interval (fig.
188).
However, both the tool collections can be con¬
sidered as compact and highly standardized, with the
Hořešovičky
collection being the more robust one.
The general comparison of both the collections from
Braškov
and
Hořešovičky
(fig.
189)
ends up showing
the categories of particular artefacts, their length and the average values of the sphericity index projected into
the grid of the metric intervals being in compliance. The grid of metric intervals is used for morphometric analy¬
sis of large microlithic collections, among which
Přezletician
undoubtedly belongs.
Detailed comparison of the collections from
Braškov
and
Hořešovičky
relatively clearly showed the cor¬
respondences as well as the only minor differences. For the most current comparative analysis of
Hořešovičky
and
Přezletice
see
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008.
What remains to be done is to compare these sites considering the development of human culture in the
wider geographic context (fig.
190).
Regarding the archaeological finds from the Czech territory, we tend to the
opinion of the so called „long chronology of the development of human culture in Europe [Roebroeks
-
Kolf¬
schoten
van
1995;
Roebroeks
-
Kolfschoten
van
(eds.)
1995;
Korisettar
-
Petraglia
1998;
Fiedler
1993;
Fiedler
-
Cubuk
1988;
Fridrich
1991a;
1997; 2005; 2007;
Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009;
Piperno
1992; Palma
di
Cesnola
1996; Rolland 1998;
Burdukiewicz
2003].
Although we do not leave out the opinions of the propo¬
nents of the „short chronology , as far as we are concerned, they rather simplify a quite complicated develop¬
ment of human culture not only in Lower but mainly in Proto-Elster Period of Middle Pleistocene
(Fridrich
277
2005).
We adhere to the model of biocoenoses pulsations from the Circummediterranean towards the north in
the case of Europe the pulsations having take place in the periods of climatic optima which due to its conditions
enabled to balance the nascent adaptability of Homo genus in various climatic zones
(Fridrich
1997; 2005).
This
model places human into the process of a dynamic development of the Quarternary nature and enables to ex¬
plain solitary though very important documents of the occupancy of relatively peripheral parts of the European
subcontinent.
The finds of Protoacheulian in Beroun-motorway site
(Fridrich
1991; 199
ia;
1997; 2005; 2007;
Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009)
as well as the finds of developed Oldowan in
Čakovice
and Praha-Suchdol
(Fridrich I997;
2005;
Fridrich - Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009)
from the period of Ancient Palaeolithic offer tes¬
timony on repeated visits of Homo genus in Middle Europe.
In the time of change from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic, the people with Acheulian culture s.l. (Fiedler
1988; 1993; 1997,17-25)
came into central Europe. In Bohemia, they can be identified via two basic develop¬
ment circles with very deep common roots. However some development leading to some level of difference can
be discerned
(Fridrich
2005;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
People with the culture of Lower Acheulian settled
at the Big River
(Ohře)
in north-western Bohemia, where the outcroppings of highest local quality stone mate¬
rial, especially quartzites of
Bečov
and
Skršín
types, were located
(Fridrich
1997; 2005; 2007;
Fridrich - Fridri¬
chová-Sýkorová
2009;
in print). In Bohemia of the same time, we can also meet with fading Protoacheulian
which is according to the eponymous site in
Přezletice
by Prague called
Přezletician (Fridrich
1976).
The finds
from
Hořešovičky (Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008)
and
Braškov (Fridrich
2005; 2007)
are currently also classi¬
fied into this branch of development of the oldest material culture.
Regarding our knowledge of
Přezletician,
the
Přezletice
site belongs to the key sites (not only) in Bohemia
(Fridrich
1972; 1976; 1979; 1986; 1987;
1989a,b,c; 1991b;
1997; 2005; 2007;
Fridrich - Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009;
Fejfar
—
Fridrich
1988),
although it still awaits its complete publishing. Due to adversity it also still
awaits the definite finalization of the archaeological research. Nevertheless, thanks to excellently conceived
multidisciplinary research strategy, its position among stratified sites of Lower Palaeolithic is evident. The re¬
search continued from
1960
to the beginning of
1990
(Šibrava
et al.
1979;
Fridrich
1997; 2005).
General
comparison of the chipped stone industry collection from layer
A3
is a part of the work on
Hořešovičky (Fridri¬
chová-Sýkorová
2008)
therefore it is not necessary to return to it in this book. Because of the following com¬
parison within European subcontinent with the situation in the Near East, the dating of this unique site must be
stated, since a palaeomagnetic dating, made on uncontrolled samples still appears in the specialist literature.
Therefore the authors of the book consider it incorrect. According to the test the dating is
660 000-590 000
years B.P. Contrary to it, the presence of Mimomys savini and the absence of the species
Arvìcola cantiana
rather speak in favour of more than
0.7
million B.P.
[Bucha
et al.
1975;
Bucha
-
Horáček
1979;
Fejfar
1979;
Fejfar
-
Heinrich
1987;
Fejfar
-
Heinrich
(eds.)
1990;
Fejfar
-
Heinrich
et al.
1997;
Fridrich
1997; 2005;
Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009].
According to the definition of
Přezletician (Fridrich
2005,194)
the presence of simple and rare handaxes,
cleavers, picks and protobifaces is its characteristic feature. Relatively wide scale of polyhedrons s.l. also ap¬
pears. The concomitant artefacts are characteristic by quite a wide scale of types; choppers are less frequent,
scrapers, notches, awls, knives and burins are more distinctly present. The industry is characteristic by prevail¬
ing number of the tools made from flakes. Cores are also present in surprisingly various but simple forms. Points
are a very important and outstanding component of the tool spectre; Quinson-type points surprisingly dominates,
Tayac-type points are less frequent
(Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
The use of local stone materials is sympto¬
matic. Regrettably, the material in the centre of the Bohemian Basin is of relatively worse chipping qualities
(lydit, palaeozoic hornstone), only in north-western Bohemia quarzites of
Bečov
type were used
(Fridrich
1997;
2005; 2007;
Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
-
in print). Besides the key site in
Přezletice,
we rate
Hořešovičky,
Braškov, Bečov
IB and
Stránská skála I (Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2010)
among
Přezletician
sites.
The
site Bečov
IB is in north-western Bohemia at the top of
Písečný vrch
in a so called upper outhang, an
outcropping of high quality quarzites of
Bečov-type (Fridrich
1997).
This position provided us with a super¬
position of layers from Middle Pleistocene to Holocene
(Fridrich - Smolíková
1976).
Lower Palaeolithic chipped
stone industry was found in a low depression under a diagonally laid plate of
quarzite in
the layers
7
to
9.
The
layer no.
7
is made from brown red argillceous soil of braunlehm-type, the layer no.
8
consists of Upper Chalk
sand with the high rate of loam component, and the layer no.9 is made from argillaceous tuffits masticaced by
frost
(Fridrich
1997).
The stone artefacts come from these particular horizons (layer no.
7-110
pcs, layer no.
8-115
pcs, and layer no.
9-16
pcs): Their number is not staggering from the so far mentioned collections.
Among the particular find horizons a certain development can be noticed. The fall in number of choppers and
the rise in number of bifaces s.l are the characteristics. Handaxes in atypic forms appear only in the layer no.
7.
278
The ratio of scrapes is remarkably high,
30-40 %.
The ratio of bifaces s.l. grows from the layer no.
8
from
6.09 %
to
22.73 %
in the layer no.
7
where these artefacts appear in the form of atypic handaxes, cleavers,
protobifaces and picks, which significantly prevail
(11.82 %).
Polyhedrons s.l. show similar though milder
trend in increase in number; they represent
1.74 %
in the layer no.
8,
and
6.36 %
in the layer no.
7
as discoids
and subspheroids. The group of other tools, i.e burins, awls, notches, knives and chisels, is represented in
both layers almost identically; in layer no.
8 - 13.04 %
and in the layer no.
7 - 15.45 %.
The ratio of flakes
is similar in both layers (layer no.
8 - 13.04 %,
layer no.
7 - 15.45 %).
The
Bečov
IB industry metrically
oscillates at the lower border of middle size artefacts with a tendency to a microlith form
{sensu
Fridrich
2005,
272).
The average length of the artefacts from the layer no.
9
is
9.65
cm, in the layer no.
8
it is
6.61
cm and
in the layer no.
7
it is
7.56
cm. The average values of the sphericity index (layer no.
9 - 0.58,
layer
no.
8-0.51
and layer no.
7 - 0.52)
tend to the decrease in the robustness. The surface of the chipped stone
industry from all the three layers is neither eolized nor patinated and the
quarzite
of
Bečov-type
in the amor¬
phous fragments mode is the only material used for their production
(Fridrich
1997;
Fridrich
-
Fridrichová-
Sýkorová
-
in printing).
J.
Fridrich
(2005, 201)
does not consider
Přezletician
to be a local facie characteristic only for Bohemia,
but he supposes that it is spread in a much bigger geographic space. In Moravia, we find analogy in the not much
numerous collection from
Stránská skála
I (Valoch
1972; 1987; 1995; 2004),
where a core accompanied by
flakes, hammerstone, choppers, a scraper and a pick made from local hornstone in amorphous fragments mode
were found. Animal bones with charring traces and the traces of human activities belong to this collection, too.
It is probable that contrary to
Přezletice
the animal bones were not used to produce tools, because all the bone
artefacts (the little chisel from roe tibia, handaxe from tibia of the mammoth predecessor, or anvil/cobblestone
from rhinoceros spatula with the traces of cutting and hammering) from ancient Lower Palaeolithic, i.e. from
pre-mindel age, are still connected only to the
Přezletice
site in the Czech Republic
(Fridrich
1972; 1981; 2005;
Fejfar
-
Fridrich
1988).
If we search analogous sites using the model of human genus pulsations from the Circummediterranean to¬
wards the heart of the subcontinent, we must turn to the Near East. Big handaxes (around
20
cm) accompanied
by microlithic artefacts
(2
x
1.7
x
1.4
cm) in forms of retouched flakes, notches, scrapers and awls were found
in Evron-Quarry in Israel together with mixed fauna remains (with elements from Africa, Levant and Palaeoarc-
tic). The locality is dated around
1
million years B.P.
(Ronen 2003, 113-115).
The site in
Latamné
belongs to the period of palaeomagnetic inversion Matuyama/Brunhes. It is located by
the river Orontes in Syria and „big handaxes accompanied by small flakes were reported from there (Clark
1967; 1968).
Very similar group of finds appears also in Europe at the same time. The site Ca Belvedere Monte
Poggi¬
olo
in Italy belongs to them, dated between
1-0.8
million years B.P. The chipped stone industry (almost
5 000
pcs) made mainly from pebbles has a characteristic tendency to reduce length, while the middle length of the
artefacts (median) is
4.45
cm (the limit values
= 10.8 - 1.4
cm) and mainly choppers of different forms, poly¬
hedrons, notches, scrapers and two protobifaces appear in the collection. Regarding the above mentioned abil¬
ity of Homo genus to adapt to climatic conditions, we must note that the
palynologie
analyses (Cattani
1992)
characterised the natural environment of this site by a steppe vegetation and a cooling of the climate (Antoni-
azzi et al.
1991;
Peretto
1992;
Piperno
1992, 142;
Bosinski
1992;
Bisi
et al.
1994;
Mussi
1995;
Palma di Ces-
nola
1996).
Montauto
at Vulci (Viterbo), where
146
pcs
of chipped stone industry mostly made from pebbles were
found, is similar to the above mentioned site. In the Montauto collection, choppers appear again together with
discoids, polyhedrons and protobifaces. Scrapers form a dominant component as well as notches
(Cocchi et al.
1980;
Piperno
1992, 143;
Palma di Cesnola
1996, 34-35).
French site Soleihac in the
Central
Massif is about
0.8
million years old. Apart from animal bones, a col¬
lection of chipped stone industry comes from there, consisting of small flakes, notches and atypical scrapers ac¬
companied by a handaxe made from touchstone (Bonifay
-
Bonifay
et al.
1976;
Bosinski
1992, 148).
The finds from the beginning of the Middle Pleistocene are reported from Italian Monte Gazzo, where mi¬
crolithic scrapers accompanied by handaxes (chestnut series) were found (Cremaschi
-
Peretto
1988,659-660).
Similarly, small flakes and rare handaxes (Piperno
1992; 1999;
Bosinski
1992, 148; 1995)
are reported from
Venosa Notarchirico
site.
The site
Venosa
Loreto
belongs into the warm variation E1/E2
(OIS
13),
with its metrically small notches,
awls and scrapers accompanied by a longer handaxe
(Barrai
-
Simone
1983;
Crovetto
1991;
Piperno
1992;
Bosinski
1992, 146; 1995;
Palma di
Cesnola
1996).
So far, a very small collection
(8
pcs) comes from Spanish Atapuerca layer TD
4
(Carbonell
-
Rodriguez
1994)
and a thinner layer TD
5.
The layers are dated in between
736 000
and
524 000
B.P. They are connected
279
with Acheulian s.l. having an inclination to microlithic forms. A handaxe from a find layer TD
6
is dated in ab¬
solute numbers into the period of
524 000 - 303 000
years
В
.P.
,
although the presence of the species Mimomys
savini would suggest much older age, i.e. from the beginning of Middle Pleistocene (Aguirre
et al.
1990;
Car-
bonell
et al.
1995; Carbonelt
et al.
2001; Bosinski 1992).
So far,
we paid attention to the sites where the chipped stone industry tends to lessening the metric para¬
meters with the exception of bifaces s.l. But the model of pulsations, shifts of human societies in dependence
on climate change, assets a possible syncretism of different cultural elements. As it was stated before, points,
especially Quinson- or Tayac-type, represent one of the surprising tools of
Přezletician.
We meet very often
with these types of tools among microlithic industries of Lower Palaeolithic and Tayacian respectivelly
(de
Lumley
-
Bottet
I960;
Palma di Cesnola
1996).
We will use the term Tayacian in the following part for mi¬
crolithic collections with flaked character and without bifaces s.l. from Lower Palaeolithic, although the ap¬
pellative of the culture is still discussed
Leaving aside the finds from Bizat Ruham in Israel (dated about
1
million years B.P.), the key site for the
microlithic complex of Lower Palaeolithic industry peaking during
Holstein
interglacial
complex (Burdukiewicz
2003;
Fridrich
2005)
is the Italian site Isernia
La Pineta.
Bizat Ruham finds consist of notches, awls, scrapers
and choppers of almost extremely short lengths (the biggest artefacts measure
5
cm and their average length is
2.5
cm)
{Ronen
et al.
1998;
Zaidner
2003,121-131)
and
O. Bar-Yosef
{1998)
classify them into Acheulian (due
to the presence of handaxes in the surroundings of the site). Isernia
La Pineta
is dated into the period of
736
000±40
000
years B.P. {Cremaschi
et al.
1983;
Cremaschi
-
Peretto
1988;
Anconetani et al.
1990;
Anconetani
et al.
1992;
Peretto
1991; 1992; 1994; Kraft 1994;
Burdukiewicz
2003;
Fridrich
2005).
Chipped stone industry
from this site belongs among the extremely small ones. Except cores and flakes, the tools such as choppers
(they are metrically somewhat different), scrapers, notches, awls, but also Quinson- and Tayac-type points ap¬
pear there. This site is classified into Ancient Tayacian
{Palma di
Cesnola
1996)
and the sites of
Quatro
delle
Cinfonare
(OIS
15-10)
(Peretto
et al.
1997)
and of Visogliano
(OIS
13-11)
(Cattani
-
Cremaschi
et al.
1991)
are classed within the same domain.
The finds from the last
interglacial
period of Cromer complex
(OIS
15)
could suggest a penetration of
this cultural domain into the heart of the subcontinent. The finds come from the site
Mauer
[Wagner
- Beinhauer
(eds.)
1997]
in Germany, and from the north part of the
Pannonian
Basin in Hungary, where the site
Vértesszőlős
III
(Dobosi
2003)
is situated. The site
La Pointe de
Saint
Colomban
at Carnac in France belongs to
Elster
period of
Holstein
complex
(OIS
13
or
11).
The collection of the artefacts of the flake character
(noches,
indented
tools, scrapers, knives, awls) and of the choppers made directly from pebbles is called Colombanien
(Monnier
-
Le
Cloirec
1985;
Monnier
-
Molines
1993).
J.
Svoboda
(1980; 1982; 1987; 1999).
The collection
suggests a possible connection of West Europe with the finds of the microlithic industries s.l.
(sensu
Fridrich
2005)
from the Later Lower Palaeolithic in the Bohemian Basin
(Fridrich
1997; 2005;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
The model of pulsations into the heart of the European Subcontinent from the Circummediterranean take
more particular form in the case of
Přezletician.
We suppose that Central Europe, a wider area of the Bohemian
Basin respectively, fell into the influence of the two different cultural domains: Acheulian s.l. (Protoacheulian)
and microlithic industries s.l. which some researches identify as Ancient Tayacian.
Přezletician
could represent
a fusion of these cultural domains. This could be proved by albeit rare but metrically differing bifaces s.l. and
big massive knives, as well as by the tools of significantly flake character such as scrapers, notches, awls, burins,
and knives, which tend to the microlithic complex although they never reach its metric parameters. The pres¬
ence of technological artefacts, namely of cores, flakes and to some measure also hammerstones and anvils/cob¬
blestones, is very important. We consider the presence of the points of Quinson- and Tayac-type very significant.
We suppose that the metric parameters of
Přezletician
are significantly influenced by the material which was
used in Bohemia to produce artefacts and whose chipping qualities are not the best. On the other hand, it is ev¬
ident that the people of
Přezletician
culture (except
Bečov
IB) put up with local outcroppings of low quality ly-
dite and hornstone, or eventually with quartz and quartzite pebbles from the river benches. They occupied
strategic positions often relatively far from big rivers such as stone outcroppings, plates of material providing
some protection, or top parts of hills. The affinity to big rivers and their smaller tributaries together with the de¬
mands for chipping material of good quality were inherent to the people of the Ancient Acheulian
(Fridrich
1997;
2005; 2007;
Fridrich - Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2009;
in print).
We suppose a similar development, or, the survial of
Přezletician
and Acheulian s.l., also after the settle¬
ment hiatus caused by the
Elster
glacial complex in the period of
Holstein
interglacial
complex
(Fridrich 2002b;
2005; 2007;
Fridrich
-
Sýkorová 2003a,b; Fridrich
-
Sýkorová
2009;
Fridrichová-Sýkorová
2008).
The survi¬
val included geographical and material demands of the people together with the significant trend to lessening
the metric parameters of bifaces s.l.
(Štaitd
1997; 2005)
while morphometric standards were kept.
280
The aim of the presented book is to publish the results of the archaeological research in
Braškov
in high de¬
tail. The book uses the way of classifying the large collections of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic from Bohe¬
mia
{Fridrich
1997)
and it represents another contribution to the understanding of a complicated cultural
development of humankind in the furthest past. By making the finds from
Braškov
available, we fulfil the tar¬
gets the Laboratory for Palaeolithic Research set at its founding. These are to verify and evaluate the oldest ev¬
idence of human life in Bohemia, and to get to know more about the cultural adaptations to the life in the mild
European climate. Models and hypotheses originating from the so far achieved understanding are presented to
readers. They cannot be understood as an absolute dogma impossible to repair or change, but as observations
and reflections stemming from the information gathered so far. It is evident that the mosaic of knowledge in this
area of research can still be perfected by means of other archaeological resources still awaiting their discover¬
ers and their studious and diligent work. We believe that the trend of modern Palaeolithic research of the old¬
est settlement in Bohemia which was in the second half of the last century inherent to the style of the work of
Jan Fridrich
deserves following.
Translated by
Karolína Pauknerová
281
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Fridrich, Jan 1938-2007 Sýkorová, Ivana 1969- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)101403230X (DE-588)1222470748 |
| author_facet | Fridrich, Jan 1938-2007 Sýkorová, Ivana 1969- |
| author_role | aut aut |
| author_sort | Fridrich, Jan 1938-2007 |
| author_variant | j f jf i s is |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV039847688 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)775131822 (DE-599)BVBBV039847688 |
| edition | 1. vyd. |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02355nam a2200505 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV039847688</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230306 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120127s2011 abd| |||| 00||| cze d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788086912561</subfield><subfield code="9">978-80-86912-56-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)775131822</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV039847688</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">cze</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</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">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fridrich, Jan</subfield><subfield code="d">1938-2007</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)101403230X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Braškov</subfield><subfield code="b">nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia</subfield><subfield code="c">Jan Fridrich, Ivana Fridrichová-Sýkorová ; s příspěvkem Jiřího Kovandy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1. vyd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Praha</subfield><subfield code="b">Krigl</subfield><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">286 Seiten</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., graph. Darst., Kt.</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="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Knižnice České společnosti archeologické</subfield><subfield code="v">[2]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Altpaläolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4142082-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</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="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bras̆kov</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1028385552</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Mittelböhmen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4226985-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Mittelböhmen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4226985-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Bras̆kov</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1028385552</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Altpaläolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4142082-2</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">Sýkorová, Ivana</subfield><subfield code="d">1969-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1222470748</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Knižnice České společnosti archeologické</subfield><subfield code="v">[2]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV040654223</subfield><subfield code="9">2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2</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=024707483&sequence=000005&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 2</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=024707483&sequence=000006&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:BVB01-024707483</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">930.1</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09012</subfield><subfield code="g">4371</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Bras̆kov (DE-588)1028385552 gnd Mittelböhmen (DE-588)4226985-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Bras̆kov Mittelböhmen |
| id | DE-604.BV039847688 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T00:12:36Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788086912561 |
| language | Czech |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-024707483 |
| oclc_num | 775131822 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 286 Seiten Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| publishDateSearch | 2011 |
| publishDateSort | 2011 |
| publisher | Krigl |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Knižnice České společnosti archeologické |
| series2 | Knižnice České společnosti archeologické |
| spelling | Fridrich, Jan 1938-2007 Verfasser (DE-588)101403230X aut Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia Jan Fridrich, Ivana Fridrichová-Sýkorová ; s příspěvkem Jiřího Kovandy Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia 1. vyd. Praha Krigl 2011 286 Seiten Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Knižnice České společnosti archeologické [2] Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 gnd rswk-swf Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd rswk-swf Bras̆kov (DE-588)1028385552 gnd rswk-swf Mittelböhmen (DE-588)4226985-4 gnd rswk-swf Mittelböhmen (DE-588)4226985-4 g Bras̆kov (DE-588)1028385552 g Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 s Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 s DE-604 Sýkorová, Ivana 1969- Verfasser (DE-588)1222470748 aut Knižnice České společnosti archeologické [2] (DE-604)BV040654223 2 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=024707483&sequence=000005&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=024707483&sequence=000006&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Fridrich, Jan 1938-2007 Sýkorová, Ivana 1969- Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia Knižnice České společnosti archeologické Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 gnd Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4142082-2 (DE-588)4071507-3 (DE-588)1028385552 (DE-588)4226985-4 |
| title | Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia |
| title_alt | Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia |
| title_auth | Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia |
| title_exact_search | Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia |
| title_full | Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia Jan Fridrich, Ivana Fridrichová-Sýkorová ; s příspěvkem Jiřího Kovandy |
| title_fullStr | Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia Jan Fridrich, Ivana Fridrichová-Sýkorová ; s příspěvkem Jiřího Kovandy |
| title_full_unstemmed | Braškov nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia Jan Fridrich, Ivana Fridrichová-Sýkorová ; s příspěvkem Jiřího Kovandy |
| title_short | Braškov |
| title_sort | braskov nove naleziste prezleticienu ve strednich cechach braskov new prezletician site in central bohemia |
| title_sub | nové naleziště přezleticienu ve středních Čechách = Braškov - new Přezletician site in Central Bohemia |
| topic | Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 gnd Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd |
| topic_facet | Altpaläolithikum Funde Bras̆kov Mittelböhmen |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=024707483&sequence=000005&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=024707483&sequence=000006&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV040654223 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fridrichjan braskovnovenalezisteprezleticienuvestrednichcechachbraskovnewprezleticiansiteincentralbohemia AT sykorovaivana braskovnovenalezisteprezleticienuvestrednichcechachbraskovnewprezleticiansiteincentralbohemia AT fridrichjan braskovnewprezleticiansiteincentralbohemia AT sykorovaivana braskovnewprezleticiansiteincentralbohemia |