Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích:
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Czech |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Brno
Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České Republiky
2013
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno
45 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Literaturverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | 180 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten CD-R ; 12 cm, 4 Beilagen |
| ISBN: | 9788086023397 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV043481938 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20160801 | ||
| 007 | t| | ||
| 008 | 160329s2013 xx a||| |||| 00||| cze d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788086023397 |9 978-80-86023-39-7 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)956324003 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BSZ424122766 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a cze | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 6,11 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Mazuch, Marian |d 1975- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1065319126 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích |c Marian Mazuch |
| 264 | 1 | |a Brno |b Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České Republiky |c 2013 | |
| 300 | |a 180 Seiten |b Illustrationen, Karten |e CD-R ; 12 cm, 4 Beilagen | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno |v 45 | |
| 546 | |a Zusammenfassung auf Englisch | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 850-950 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Keramik |0 (DE-588)4030270-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Ausgrabung |0 (DE-588)4129464-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Mikulčice |0 (DE-588)4100977-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Mikulčice |0 (DE-588)4100977-0 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Keramik |0 (DE-588)4030270-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Ausgrabung |0 (DE-588)4129464-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 4 | |a Geschichte 850-950 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno |v 45 |w (DE-604)BV025173971 |9 45 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000004&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Literaturverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 930.1 |e 22/bsb |f 09021 |g 4371 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028898682 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1815786066834096128 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
OBSAH
I. PREDMLUVA.
II. ZÄMER PRÄCE.
III. AREÄL SEVERNfHO PODHRADl MIKULCICKEHO HRADISTE.
III. 1 IJvod ke studiu severniho podhradi.
111.2 Topografie mikulcickeho hradiste.
111.3 Metody a postup terenniho vyzkumu.
111.4 Nälezovä situace a stratigrafie vybranych ploch v S podhradi.
111.4.1 Nälezovä situace a stratigrafie v prostoru S podhradi. Modelovy pfiklad na zäklade podrobneho rozboru
vybrane dilci situace - podlahovä üprava 892 a 883 a pfilehle zahloubene objekty.
111.4.1.1 Hlavni kulturni vrstva sidliste.
111.4.1.2 Podlahove üpravy.
111.4.1.3 Zahloubene objekty.
111.4.1.4 Hroby.
111.5 Charakter a struktura zästavby v areälu S podhradi.
111.5.1 Domy (podlahy), jejich konstrukce a vybaveni a ostatni objekty.
111.5.2 Struktura zästavby.
111.6 Hmotnä kultura a moznosti interpretace funkce sidliste na S podhradi.
111.7 Celkovy sidelne historicky vyvoj areälu S podhradi.
IV. VELKOMORAVSKE KERAMICKE OKRUHY - BLUCINSKY A MIKULCICKY KERAMICKY OKRUH
IV. 1 Üvodni poznämky k präci s keramikou.
IV.2 Poznämky ke stavu poznäni stratigrafie a velkomoravske keramiky v Mikulcicich.
IV.3 Blucinsky keramicky okruh.
IV.3.1 Khistorii bädäni.
IV.3.2 Charakteristika keramickych znakü na nädobäch BO na zäklade studia keramiky v Mikulcicich.
IV.3.2.1 Metoda postupu pfi vyberu keramiky blucinskeho okruhu v Mikulcicich.
IV.3.2.2 Popis jednotlivych keramickych znakü BO.
IV.3.2.3 Kvantifikace keramickych znakü BO.
IV.3.3 Vymezeni zäkladnich morfologicko-technologickych hranic u nädob BO.
IV.3.4 Shrnuti vymezeni BO.
IV.4 Mikulcicky keramicky okruh.
IV.4.1 K historii bädäni.
IV.4.2 Charakteristika keramickych znakü na nädobäch MO na zäklade studia keramiky v Mikulcicich.
IV.4.3 Vymezeni zäkladnich morfologicko-technologickych hranic u nädob MO.
IV.4.4 Shrnuti vymezeni MO.
. 7
. 9
11
II
11
12
13
.13
.13
.13
.14
.15
15
.16
.18
19
21
24
24
28
30
.30
.32
.33
.33
.44
.47
.50
53
.53
.56
.61
.66
V. KERAMICKY HORIZONT SEVERNÍHO A VYCHODNÍHO PODHRADÍ -
KERAMIKA MLADSÍ VELKOMORAVSKÉ FÁZE.68
V. 1 Pfedstavení keramického horizontu S podhradí - Velká Morava,
2. polovina 9. stoleti - pfelom 9. a 10. stoleti.68
V.2 Zastoupeni MO a BO na plochách 46 a 79.69
V.3 Zastoupeni MO a BO na plose P1974-1 (c. 45) v severním podhradí.74
V.3.1 Archeologická situace na plose 45.74
V.3.2 Zastoupeni MO a BO na plose 45.76
V.4 Vychodní podhradí mikulcického hradisté - vyzkum C1991 .78
V4.1 Archeologická situace vyzkumu C1991 ve vychodním podhradí.78
V.4.2 Strucny popis nálezové situace.79
V.4.3 Základní stratigrafie - komentáí k hlavním profilúm.80
V.4.4 Sídelní vyvoj areálu vychodního podhradí - pokus o interpretaci.81
V. 4.5 Keramicky horizont vychodního podhradí a kvantifikace MO a BO.83
VI. MOZNOSTIPOZNÁNÍ KERAMIKYMLADSÍHO VELKOMORAVSKÉHO HORIZONTU
V MIKULCICÍCH.85
VII. SROVNÁNÍ MIKULCICKÉHO A BLUCINSKÉHO KERAMICKÉHO OKRUHU.90
VII. 1 Typologické srovnání MO a BO a srovnání míry jejich zastoupeni ve shodnych kontextech
mikulcickych stratigrafíí.90
VII.2 Srovnání geografického rozsírení MO a BO.91
VII.2.1 Geografické rozsírení BO.91
VII. 2.2 Geografické rozsírení MO.91
VIII. OTÁZKA VYZNAMU A DATACE VELKOMORAVSKYCH KERAMICKYCH OKRUHÚ.
KERAMIKA JAKO CHRONOLO GICKÁ POMÚCKA K POZNÁNÍ MLADSÍHO
VELKOMORAVSKÉHO HORIZONTU?.95
IX. LITERATURA.104
SUMMARY.108
PRÍLOHY.117
VELKOMORAVSKÉ KERAMICKÉ OKRUHY A TZV. MLADSÍ VELKOMORAVSKY HORIZONT V MIKULCICÍCH
IX. LITERATURA
Bläha, J. 1980: K pocätküm slovanskeho osidleni olomouc-
keho kopce. In: B. Dostäl - J. Vignatiovä (eds.), Slovane
6.-10. stoleti, Brno, 27-40.
- 2001: Archeologicke poznatky k vyvoji a vyznamu Olo-
mouce v obdobi Velkomoravske rise. In: L. Galuska. -
P. Koufil, P. - Z. Mefinsky (eds.), Velkä Morava mezi
Vychodem a Zäpadem, Brno, 41-68.
Bohäcovä, I. 1993: Nekolikpoznämek ke studiu (rane) stfe-
doveke keramiky. Pfispevek do diskuse, AR 45, 508-518.
- 1995: Moznosti a meze obecneho konsenzu v oblasti stu-
dia rane stfedoveke keramiky (ceske resume). In: L. Polä-
cek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis
zum 11. Jahrhundert. Terminologie und Beschreibung.
ITM II, Brno, 119-125.
Bohäcovä, I. - Cihäkovä, J. 1994: Gegen wartigen Stand
des Entwicklungsschemas der Prager frühmittelalterlichen
Keramik aus den ältesten Enwicklungsphasen der Prager
Burg und ihrem Suburbium auf dem linken Moldau Ufer.
In: K. Tomkovä und Kol.: Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des
Studiums der frühmittelalterlichen Keramik in mittel
Böhmen. In: C. Staha (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mit-
teleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. ITM I, Brno,
173-179.
BuBENiK, J. 1988: Slovanske osidleni stfedniho Poohfi.
Praha.
BuBENiK, J. - Froij’k, J. 1995: Shrnuti diskuse o spolecne
terminologii zäkladnich keramickych pojmü (ceske resu-
me). In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mitteleu-
ropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Terminologie und
Beschreibung. ITM II, Brno, 127-130.
Bubeni'k, J. - Meduna, P. 1994: Zur frühmittelalterlichen
Keramik in Nord-West-Böhmen. In: C. Stana (ed.), Sla-
wische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahr-
hundert. ITM I, Brno, 183-192.
BudInsky-Kricka, V. 1959: Slovanske mohyly v Skalici.
Bratislava.
Buko, A. 1990: Ceramika wczesnopolska. Wprowadzenie
do badah. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraköw-Gdansk-Lödz.
Cernohorsky, K. 1952: Keramika a feudalismus, CL 39,
22-26.
- 1953: Keramika a feudalismus II, CL 40, 223-230.
Dostäl, B. 1961: Velkomoravske hradiste a pohfebiste
a otäzka moravskych kmenü. Sbor. CsSA, 1, 17.
- 1966: Slovanska pohfebiste ze stfedni doby hradistni
na Morave. Praha.
- 1975: Bfeclav-Pohansko IV. Velkomoravsky velmozsky
dvorec. Brno.
- 1993: Velkomoravsky femeslnicky areal v Bfeclavi-Po-
hansku, Jizni Morava 29, 31-53.
Dresler, P. 2011: Opevneni Pohanska u Bfeclavi. Brno.
Dvorskä, J. - Heussner, U. - Poläcek, L. - Westphal, T.
1999: Zum Stand der Dendrochronologie in Mikulcice.
In: L. Poläcek - J. Dvorskä (eds.), Probleme der mitteleu-
ropäischen Dendrochronologie und naturwissenschaftli-
che Beiträge zur Talaue der March. ITM V, Brno, 69-78.
Eisner, J. 1948: Zäklady koväfstvi v dobe hradistni v Cesko-
slovensku, Slavia Antiqua I, 367.
FROLiK, J. 1995: Poznämky ke studiu rane stfedoveke kera-
miky ziskane ze slozitych stratigrafii (ceske resume). In:
L. Poläcek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom
8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Terminologie und Beschrei-
bung. ITM II, Brno, 107-118.
Galuska, L. 1989: Vyrobni areäl velkomoravskych feme-
slnikü ze Stareho Mesta u Uherskeho Hradiste, PA 80,
405-454.
- 1991: Velkä Morava. Brno.
- 1995: Keramik des Marchtyps. In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Sla-
wische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahr-
hundert. Terminologie und Beschreibung. ITM II, Brno,
97-106.
Hadrava, V. 2008: Velkomoravskä keramika z Mikulcic, po-
loha - Centrälni hrad. Nepublikovanä bakaläfskä präce
na FPF SU v Opave.
Havlicek, P. - Poläcek, L. - Vachek, M. 2003: Geologi-
sche Situation im Bereich des Burgwalls von Mikulcice.
In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Studien zum Burgwall in Mikulcice
V, Brno, 11-38.
HladIk, M. 2008: Mikulcice-Valy (okr. Hodonin). Plocha
B 2006-08 (c. 82) v severozäpadnim podhradf. Ulozeno
v archivu ARÜ AV CR Brno, v. v. i., c. j. 3570/08.
- 2009: Mikulcice (okr. Hodonin). Hradiste Mikulcice-Valy,
severozäpadni podhradi, plocha B 2006-08. Stfedohradist-
ni obdobi. Hradiste, sidliste. PV 50, 403-404.
— 104 —
IX. LITERATURA
- 2010: Zur Frage der heidnischen Kultstätte in „Tesic-
ky les“ im Suburbium des Burgwalls von Mikulcice. In:
L. Poläcek -J. Mafikovä-Kubkovä (eds.), ITM VIII, Brno,
101-121, Taf. 12-14.
- 2013: Severozäpadnä bräna a opevnenie na predhradi
hradiska Mikulcice-Valy, PV 53-2, 36-67.
- v tisku a: Siedlungsentwicklung im Areal von „Tesicky les“
im Suburbium des Burgwalls von Mikulcice (T 1968-71
a T 1975-76). In: L. Poläcek et al. (ed.), Studien zum
Burgwalls von Mikulcice IX, Brno.
- v tisku b: Sondierungen im Siedlungs- und Bestattungs-
real „Tesicky les“ im Suburbium des Burgwalls von Mi-
kulcice (1955-2005). In: L. Poläcek et al. (ed.), Studien
zum Burgwalls von Mikulcice IX, Brno.
- v tisku c: Osidlenie severozäpadneho podhradia (B 2006-
08, c. 82). In: L. Poläcek et al. (ed.), Studien zum Burg-
walls von Mikulcice IX, Brno.
Hladik, M. - Mazuch, M. 2010: Problem interpretace
vzäjemneho vztahu sidlistnich a pohfebnich komponent
v prostoru mikulcicke rane stfedoveke aglomerace, PV
51, 197-207.
HladIk, M. - Mazuch, M. - Poläcek, L. 2008: Das Subur-
bium des Burgwalls von Mikulcice und seine Bedeutung
in der Struktur des Siedlungskomplexes. In: I. Bohäco-
vä - L. Poläcek (eds.), Burg - Vorburg - Suburbium. Zur
Problematik der Nebenareale frühmittelalterlicher Zen-
tren. ITM VII, Brno, 179-212.
Holubowicz, W. 1950: Garncarstwo wiejskie zachodnich
terenöw Bialorusi. Toruh.
- 1957: Garncarstwo wiejskie Albanii, Archeologia Skyska
I, 5-64.
- 1965: Garncarstwo wczesnosredniowieczne Slowian.
Wroclaw, Stud. Arch. 1.
Hruby, V. 1955: Stare mesto, velkomoravske pohfebiste
Na Valäch. Praha.
- 1965: Stare mesto, velkomoravsky Velehrad. Praha.
Chropovsky, B. 1959: Slovanske hrnciarske pece v Nitre,
AR 11, 818-825.
- 1962: Slovanske pohrebisko v Nitre na Lupke, SA 10,
175-240.
Kavänovä, B. 1987: Stavebni typy sidlistnich objektü
na hradisti v Mikulcicich, XVI. mikulovske sympozium
1986, Praha, 135-141, 473.
- 1990: Mikulcice-Valy, okr. Hodonin. Plocha B 1984-88.
Ulozeno v archivu ARÜ AV CR Brno, v. v. i. (c. j. 873/90).
- 1994: Mikulcice-Valy, okr. Hodonin. Plocha P 1973. Ulo-
zeno v archivu ARÜ AV CR Brno, v. v. i. (c. j. 488/94).
- 1996: K relativni chronologii keramiky v Mikulcicich,
Acta musei Moravice 81, 125-154.
- 1999: Mikulcice - sidliste na „Klästefisku“, PV 40,
65-125.
- 2001: Specifika pozdne velkomoravske keramiky v Mikul-
cicich (okr. Hodonin). In: Z. Mefinsky (ed.), Konference
Pohansko 1999, 40 let od zahäjeni vyzkumu slovanskeho
hradiska Bfeclav-Pohansko, 3.-4. 6. 1999, Archaeolo-
gia mediaevalis Moravica ed Silesiana 1 (2000), Brno,
199-205.
- 2003: Mikulcice - pohfebiste v okoli 12. kostela. In:
P. Koufil (ed.), Mikulcice - pohfebiste u 6. a 12. kostela,
Brno, 211-414.
Kavänovä, B. - Hlozek, M. 2003: Keramika z pfedvel-
komoravskeho a povelkomoravskeho horizontu sidliste
v okoli 12. kostela v Mikulcicich. In. P. Koufil (ed.), Mi-
kulcice - pohfebiste u 6. a 12. kostela, Brno, 415-434.
Klanica, Z. 1966: Vyzkum hradiska v Mikulcicich v roce
1965, PV 1965, 54-65.
- 1968: Vysledky ctrnäcte sezöny vyzkumu v Mikulcicich,
okr. Hodonin, PV 1967, 61-85.
- 1970: Pokus o tfideni keramiky v Mikulcicich. In: Sbor-
nik AÜ Brno V. Josefu Poulikovi k sedesätinäm, Brno,
103-114.
- 1978: Mikulcice-Valy,okr.Hodonin. PlochaP 1976-77.
Ulozeno v archivu ARÜ AV CR Brno, v. v. i. (c. j. 684/78).
- 1985: Mikulcice - Klästefisko, PA 76, 474-539.
- 1997: Kfesfanstvi a pohanstvi stare Moravy. In: R. Marsi-
na - A. Ruttkay (eds.), Svätopluk894-1994, Nitra, 93-137.
- 2006: Nechvalin, Prusänky. Ctyfi slovanskä pohfebiste I.
Brno.
- 2007: Interpretace moravskych objektü slovanskeho kul-
tu. In: E. Kazdovä - V. Podborsky (eds.), Studium sociäl-
nich a duchovnich Struktur praveku, Brno, 331-350.
- 2008: Zur Struktur des frühmittelalterlichen Zentrums
in Mikulcice. In: I. Bohäcovä - L. Poläcek (eds.), Burg -
Vorburg - Suburbium. Zur Problematik der Nebenareale
frühmittelalterlicher Zentren. ITM VII, Brno, 213-227.
Klima, B. 1985: Velkomoravskä kovärna na podhradi v Mi-
kulcicich, PA 76, 428-455.
Kotkovä, M. 2004: Rane stfedoveky hrad Drahüs. Nepub-
likovanä diplomovä präce na FF UK v Praze.
Kouril, P. 2003: Stafi Mad'afi a Morava z pohledu archeolo-
gie. Uspofädalijan Klapste, Eva Pleskovä, Josef Zemlicka.
In: Dejiny ve veku nejistot (Sbornik k pfilezitosti 70. na-
rozenin Dusana Tfestika), Praha, 110-146.
- 2008: Archeologicke doklady nomädskeho vlivu a zäsahu
na üzemi Moravy v zäveru 9. a v 10. stoleti. In: T. Stefano-
vicovä - D. Hulinek (eds.), Bitka pri Bratislave v roku 907
a jej vyznam pre vyvoj stredneho Podunajska, Bratislava,
113-135.
Krzemienska, B. - TrestIk, D. 1964: Sluzebnä organisace
v rane stfedovekych Cechäch, CsCH 12, 637-667.
Kucerovskä, T. 1998: Münzfunde aus Mikulcice. In: L. Po-
läcek (ed.), Studien zum Burgwall in Mikulcice III, Brno,
151-170.
— 105 —
VELKOMORAVSKÉ KERAMICKÉ OKRUHY A TZV. MLADSÍ VELKOMORAVSKY HORIZONT V MIKULCICl'CH
Machácek, J. 2001a: Studie k velkomoravské keramice. Me-
tody, analyzy a syntézy, modely. Brno.
- 2001b: Zpráva o archeologickém vyzkumu Breclav -
Líbivá 1995-1998. In: Z. Mérínsky (ed.), Konference
Pohansko 1999, Archaeologia mediaevalis Moravica et
Silesiana I, Brno, 39-62.
Marek, O. 1993: Nové sídlisté v areálu hradisté v Mikulci-
cích, okr. Hodonín, PV 1991, 73-74.
Mazuch, M. 2000: Príspévek k resení problematiky kera-
mickych nádob tzv. „blucinského typu“. Nepublikovaná
diplomová práce na FF UK v Praze.
- 2003: Pfedstihovy vyzkum na tzv. „akropoli“ velkomorav-
ského hradisté Mikulcice - „Valy“ PV 44, 51-56.
- 2005a: Mikulcice - Valy (okr. Fíodonín). Piocha P 1974-
II (c. 46) v severním podhradí. Ulozeno v archivu ARÚ
AV CRBrno, v. v. i. (c. j. 127/06).
- 2005b: Mikulcice - Valy (okr. Hodonín). Piocha P 2005
(c. 79) v severním podhradí. Ulozeno v archivu ARÚ AV
CRBrno, v. v. i. (c. j. 128/06).
- 2005c: Mikulcice-Valy (okr. Hodonín). Piocha C 1991
(c. 69) - „Rubisko“ - areál „vychodní podhradí“. Ulozeno
v archivu ARÚ AV CRBrno, v. v. i. (c. j. 129/06).
- 2008a: Mikulcice - Valy (okr. Hodonín). Piocha C 2007,
c. 83, vychodní podhradí. Ulozeno v archivu ARÚ AV CR
Brno, v. v. i. (c. j. 2809/08).
- 2008b: Slovanské sídlisté vpoloze Mikulcice „Podbrezní-
ky“ PV 49, 165-182.
- 2009a: Nékolik poznámek k chronologii a datování
hmotné kultury doby hradistní na Moravé. In: P. Dres-
ler - Z. Mérínsky (eds.), Archeologie doby hradistní,
Brno, 211-216.
- 2009b: Mikulcice - Valy (okr. Hodonín). Piocha P 1974-1
(c. 45), areál severní podhradí. Ulozeno v archivu ARÚ
AV CR Brno, v. v. i. (dosud bez c. j.).
- 2012: Vyzkumy severního podhradí hradisté Mikulci-
ce-Valy: k otázce násilného zániku velkomoravskych
mocenskych center na pocátku 10. véku. In: J. Dolezal -
M. Wihoda (eds.), Mezi ranym a vrcholnym stredovékem
(Pavlu Kourilovi k sedesátym narozeninám prátelé, kole-
gové, záci), Brno, 137-160.
- 2013: Prostor severovychodní brány akropole rané stre-
dovékého mocenského centra Mikulcice-Valy, PV 53-2,
69-95.
- v tisku a: Besiedlung des nördlichen Suburbiums des Burg-
wall von Mikulcice (Flächen P 1974-11 und P 2005). In:
Polácek et al. (ed.), Studien zum Burgwall in Mikulcice
IX.
- v tisku b: Besiedlung des östlichen Suburbiums des Burg-
wall von Mikulcice. In: Polácek et al. (ed.), Studien zum
Burgwall in Mikulcice IX.
Meduna, P. 2007: Kpocátkúm Litoméñc. In: Litomérická
kapitula: 950 let od zalození, Ústí nad Labern, 23-32.
MerJnsky, Z. 1985: Velkomoravske kostrove pohfebiste
ve Velkych Bilovicich, Studie AÜ CSAV Brno 12, Praha.
- 1988: Kosoctverecne olovene kfizky a jejich chronologic-
ke postaveni v rämci hmotne kultury stfedni doby hradist-
ni. In: V. Frolec (ed.), Rodnä zeme, Brno, 122-145.
- 1990: Nektere aspekty regionälni diferenciace velkomo-
ravske hmotne kultury stfedohradistniho obdobi na Mo-
rave ve vztahu k oblasti Uherskohradislska. In: L. Galuska
(ed.), Staromestskä vyroci, Brno, 65-70.
Pavlü, I. 1971: Prazskä keramika 12. a 13. stoleti. Praehis-
torica IV. Praha.
Poläcek, L. 1994: Zum Stand der Erkenntnis der frühmit-
telalterlichen Keramik aus dem Burgwall „Valy“ bei Mi-
kulcice. In: C. Stana (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mit-
teleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. ITM I, Brno,
207-217.
- 1995: Altes Gliederungssystem der Mikulcicer Keramik.
In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa
vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Terminologie und Be-
schreibung. ITM II, Brno, 131-202.
- 1996: Zum Stand der siedlungsarchaologischen For-
schung in Mikulcice. In: C. Stana - L. Poläcek (eds.),
Frühmittelalterlichen Machtzentren in Mitteleuropa -
mehrjährige Grabungen und ihre Auswertung. ITM III,
Brno, 213-260.
- 1997: Naturräumliche Bedingungen urzeitlicher Be-
siedlung. In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Studien zum Burgwall in
Mikulcice II, Brno, 29-44.
- 1998: Graphittonkeramik aus Mikulcice. In: L. Poläcek
(ed.), Frühmittelalterliche Graphittonkeramik in Mittel-
europa. ITM IV, Brno, 127-198.
- 1999: Ranä grafitovä keramika a otäzka osidleni Mikulcic
v 10. stoleti, AR 51, 740-759.
- 2003: Landwirtschaftliche Geräte aus Mikulcice. In:
L. Poläcek (ed.), Studien zum Burgwall in Mikulcice V,
Brno, 591-709.
- 2008a: Das Hinterland des frühmittelalterlichen Zent-
rums in Mikulcice (Stand und Perspektiven der For-
schung). In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Das wirtschaftliche
Hinterland der frühmittelalterlichen Zentren. ITM VI,
Brno, 257-298.
- 2008b: Mikulcice und Awaren. Zur Interpretation
„awarischer“ Funde von Mikulcice. In: J. Bemmann -
M. Schmauder (eds.), Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa.
Langobarden - Awaren - Slawen, Bonn, 579-590.
Poläcek, L. - Marek, O. 1993: Mikulcice - Valy, okr. Ho-
donin. Plocha P 1971. Ulozeno v archivu ARÜ AV CR
Brno, v. v. i.
- 1995: Die Grabungen in Mikulcice 1954-1992,
Geschichte, Grabungsmethoden und Dokumentation.
In: F. Daim - L. Poläcek - C. Stana - J. Tejral (eds.), Stu-
dien zum Burgwall in Mikulcice I, Brno, 13-82.
— 106 —
IX. LITERATURA
- 2005: Grundlagen der Topographie des Burgwalls von
Mikulcice. Die Grabungsflächen 1954-1992. In: L. Polä-
cek (ed.), Studien zum Burgwall in Mikulcice VH, Brno,
9-358.
Poläcek, L. - Marek, O. - Skojec, J. - Skopal, R. 2000:
Mikulcice (okr. Hodonin), Polni trat’ „Panske“. Slovanske
pohfebiste. Zächranny vyzkum, PV 41, 170-171.
- 2001: Mikulcice (okr. Hodonin), „Panske“. Stfedohra-
distni a mladohradistni obdobi. Pohfebiste. Zächranny
vyzkum, PV 42, 217-218.
Poläcek, L. - Mazuch, M. - Baxa, P. 2006: Mikulcice -
Kopcany. Stav a perspektivy vyzkumu, AR 58, 623-642.
Poläcek, L. - Mazuch, M. - HladIk, M. - Bartosko-
vä, A. 2007: Stav a perspektivy vyzkumu podhradi mi-
kulcickeho hradiste, PV 48, 119-142.
Poläcek, L. - Rutar, R. 2004: Mikulcice (okr. Hodonin),
„Trapikov“. Stfedni doba hradistni. Sidliste. Zjisfovaci vy-
zkum, PV 45, 212.
PoulIk, J. 1941: Pfedhradistni kostrove hroby v Blucine.
- 1948: Staroslovanskä Morava. Praha.
- 1957: Zpräva o vyzkumu na velkomoravskem hradisti
„Valy“ u Mikulcic, PA 48, 241-388.
- 1963: Dve velkomoravske rotundy v Mikulcicich. Praha.
- 1975: Mikulcice, sidlo a pevnost knizat velkomoravskych.
Praha.
- 1989-90: Po letech opet o blucinskem typu, SPFFBU-E
34-35, 27-39.
Prochäzka, R. 2009: Vyvoj opevhovad techniky na Mora-
veav ceskem Slezsku v ranem stf edoveku. Brno.
Rzeznik, P. 1993: Przyczynekdo studiöw nad technik^ wyko-
nania naczyh wczesnosredniowiecznych, PrzA 41, 75-86.
- 1995: Frühmittelalterliche Töpfertechniken im Lichte
der Keramik von der Dominsel zu Wroclaw. In: L. Polä-
cek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis
zum 11. Jahrhundert. Terminologie und Beschreibung.
ITM II, Brno, 65-78.
Släma, J. 1970: Prispevek k dejinäm ceskeho hrncirstvi 9.-
10. stol, Sb. NM - A 24, 57-165.
Smetänka, Z. 1973: Prispevek k chronologicke problemati-
ce pozdni doby hradistni, PA 64, 463-486.
Stana, C. 1960: Slovanske obytne objekty na hradisti Stare
Zämky u Lisne, PA 51, 240-293.
- 1984: Einige Fremdelemente in der Mareiellen Kultur
der Brunner Gegent im 9. Jahrhundert. In: Interaktionen
der europäischen Slawen und anderen Ethnika im 6-9.
Jahrhundert, Nitra, 217-223.
- 1990: Stare mesto a velkomoravskä hradiste. In: L. Galus-
ka (ed.), Staromestskä vyroci, Brno, 71-79.
- 1994: Die Entwicklung der Keramik vom 8. bis zur Mitte
des 11. Jahrhunderts in Mittelmähren. In: C. Stana (ed.),
Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11.
Jahrhundert. ITM I, Brno, 265-286.
- 1995: Die slawische Keramik zur Zeit der Entstehung
slawischer Staaten. In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Slawische Ke-
ramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert.
Terminologie und Beschreibung. ITM II, Brno, 79-84.
Solle, M. 1955: Dokonceni vyzkumu slovanské akropole
na Staré Koufimi, AR 7, 79-83, obr. 51 s. 70
- 1959: Knizeci pohrebistë na Staré Kourimi, PA 50/2,
353-506.
- 1966: Starä Kourim a projevy velkomoravské hmotné
kultury v Cechäch. Praha.
Stajnochr, V. 1998: Archaické technologie tvárení kerami-
ky, AR 50, 95-104.
Stefan, I. 2004: Nékolik poznämek ke stati Petra Cecha
v nové knize o Zatci, AR 56, 856-860.
Tejral, J. 1975: Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der einund-
zwanzigsten Grabungssaison in Mikulcice (Bez. Hodo-
nin), PV 46, Brno.
Tomkovä, K. 1993: Ke studiu ranë stredovëké keramiky, AR
45, 113-126.
Váña, Z. 1961 : Slovanskä keramika zabrusanského typu v SZ
Cechäch, PA 52, 465-475.
- 1968: Vlastislav. Vysledky vyzkumu slovanského hradiste
v letech 1953-1955, 1957-1960, PA 59/1, 5-192.
Vavrínek, V. 1996: Velkä Morava. In: J. Släma - V. Vavrinek
(eds.), Ilustrované ceské dëjiny 1. Slovanské osídlení ces-
kych zemi a Velkomoravskä fise, Praha, 35-78.
Vignatiová,J. 1992: Bfeclav - Pohansko II. Osídlení jizniho
pfedhradi. Brno.
Vlkolinskä, I. 1995: Zur Typologie der Keramik aus Gra-
berfelden des 9.-11. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei. In:
L. Poläcek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom
8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Terminologie und Beschrei-
bung. ITM II, Brno, 35-38
Zäpotocky, M. 1965: Slovanské osídlení na Litomëricku,
PA 56, 205-391.
SEZNAM ZKRATEK PERIODIK
AR - Archeologické rozhledy
CL - Ceskÿ lid
CsCH - Ceskoslovensky casopis historicky
ITM - Internationale Tagungen in Mikulcice
PA - Pamätky archeologické
PrzA - Przegl^d Archeologiczny
PV - Pfehled vyzkumú
SA - Slovenská archeológia
Sbor. CsSA - Sborník Ceskoslovenské spolecnosti
archeologické
Sb. NM - Sborník Národního muzea
SPFFBU - Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brnënské
university
— 107 —
SUMMARY
Archaeological research into the Greater Moravia carried
out so far can be, with only a slight exaggeration, character-
ized as two-fold archaeology, archaeology of burial grounds
and archaeology of settlement situations in power centres
of the Greater Moravian state. This seemingly provocative
division symbolizes certain dualism manifested at two levels.
First, these are obviously two completely different worlds in
terms of the animate and the inanimate; however, the dif-
ference is also archaeological, reflected in the examples of
material culture. Only sporadically do archaeologists unearth
objects shared by both these worlds (except for those with
function and shape perfection or, in turn, with simplicity
that, at least at present, cannot be typologically and chrono-
logically distinguished, such as knives and whorls), or these
joint features are seldom observed and assessed in settlement
contexts. I believe that this fact might pose a key problem in
efforts at general chronologization of the period in question.
The two branches of archaeology mentioned above have
accumulated, over decades of multiple and sometimes ex-
tensive research, vast collections of finds held in deposito-
ries, collections that, as a whole, have yet to be assessed in
archaeological terms, and this applies to both these branches.
While finds from burial sites involve, apart from rich graves
found by churches in central Greater Moravian locations,
also dozens of “village” burial grounds (some of which have
even been sufficiently excavated), information about settle-
ments in close and more distant proximity of hillforts or in
peripheral areas is rather limited. In my opinion, the lack of
investigated and, in particular, properly investigated village
settlements appears critical virtually in every segment of
archaeological knowledge of the past (from social issues to
the distribution of goods), as well as in chronological issues.
A seeming advantage of more complex vertical stratigraphy
for the study of relative chronology (typically, this concerns
settlement situations at hillforts) turns into a disadvantage
in attempts to “purge” individual contexts from residues and
intrusions, or directly in the study of the origin of some con-
texts in the cases of intense and long-term settlement. In this
respect, information about “flatter” stratigraphy of villages
with presumed shorter operation periods, and especially the
presence of sunken features with material that has a better
chance of withstanding post-deposition processes than, for
example, material from surface houses in the Mikulcice set-
tlement, could be of significant help. As a result, we might be
able to distinguish between spheres of influence of concrete
power centres in individual village settlements on the basis of
the presence of specific finds (ceramics?), and perhaps also
to learn more about internal diversification of the Greater
Moravia (comp. Mérînsky 1990; Stana 1990).
Archaeological assessment of burial grounds can be, in
my opinion, considered archaeological only in cases when
it is made on the basis of stratigraphic analysis and, in the
first phase, with the introduction of some relative chronology
rows. Results from the individual locations could then be
compared or linked, provided that the process would only
be entered by repeated phenomena with more individuals.
Obviously, as regards the existing dating of material culture
of the Slavs one cannot reject, blanket-manner, something
that has been built by several generations of archaeologists;
however, everything should be verified and divided into data
rooted in repeated phenomena and assessed stratigraphic re-
lations (or relative chronology sequences), and conclusions
that, though logical and probable, are in fact no more than
hypotheses.
The mentioned second branch of archaeology of “old
Moravia” constitutes a counterpart to burial grounds. It is
represented by a vast collection of more or less unanalysed
finds from settlement research (before, after) into Greater
Moravian power centres. While the situation in research into
the Staré Mésto - Uherské Hradistë agglomeration appears
chaotic, extensive research into the Staré Zâmky u Lisnë
hillfort, unique in terms of dating, has come to a standstill.
The greatest progress in research is apparent with the Greater
Moravian hillfort of Pohansko u Breclavi (for overall assess-
ment of existing research see Machâcek 2007).
The Mikulcice agglomeration (with its own fortified
centre and several complexes in an extramural section) is
worthy of note in this context, owing to a large potential of
chronological information in the form of the presence of, at
some places multiple, vertical stratigraphy, numerous super-
positions with a wealth of finds and now obvious differences
in the manner of the settling of the individual complexes
and their approximate dating. From my own experience, I am
— 108 —
SUMMARY
convinced that despite all problems of the old methodol-
ogy of field research sometimes involving an insufficient
manner and degree of documentation (also related to the
period when the documentation took place), a careful study
of the better researched and documented complexes would
significantly contribute to the information about the struc-
ture and function of these individual hillfort complexes, or
the whole agglomeration, in particular, to information about
its development and transformations including more ex-
act dating of these phenomena. This would be, however,
a time-consuming task with the danger of little information
potential.
The objective of this book is to define and present the
archaeological horizon of the high phase of the Greater
Moravian period in the Mikulcice “Valy” hillfort and to
characterize its specific features. It is essential that his ho-
rizon is sufficiently chronologically defined and its material
content (the most important of which is a large group of
pottery of two Greater Moravian pottery groups, Mikulcice
and Blucina groups) could help in solving more complicated
vertical stratigraphies at this location, as well as in the dating
of finds from other locations (apart from settlements, also
burial grounds with this kind of pottery and grave goods the
elements of which feature in settlement situations).
My intention was to make use of the striking variety of
stratigraphies, of the extent and period of settlement in the
individual complexes of the Mikulcice hillfort. The selection
and subsequent assessment of a settlement area from the final
phase of the Greater Moravian period that was not settled in
the previous phases and has not been affected by more recent
research and ploughing (if this is at all possible) and the defi-
nition of its material content might lead to the determination
and distinguishing of this phase of Greater Moravian culture
even in cases of large vertical stratigraphies theoretically in-
dicating longer settlement periods. In this way, the first step
would be taken towards the definition of the extent and struc-
ture of settling in the individual phases of such settlements,
and perhaps towards more precise dating within the Middle
Hillfort period (approximately from the early 9th century
until the early 10th century).
These settlement complexes have been previously defined,
chiefly on the basis of a rough classification of pottery which,
however, proves only general in this concrete respect, and
with the use of the cartographic method. The complexes typ-
ically contain “type 3” Mikulcice pottery (Rlanica 1970).
As will be analysed further, a large proportion of this “type”1
belongs with the Mikulcice pottery group (Machâcek
1 These ceramic “types” defined nearly forty years ago were in fact broad ce-
ramic groups, roughly determined on the basis of ceramic classes, which is
unfeasible in the conditions of Mikulcice and the lower basin of the River
Morava.
2001). Blucina pottery (first described by Pouiik 1948) fea-
tures together with the Mikulcice group, in the same contexts,
and should be viewed as an independent pottery group (on
the term see Bubenîk - Frolîk 1995). If such a complex
could be approximately dated, the pottery of both mentioned
groups (of which especially the percentage of the Mikulcice
group clearly dominates this horizon, and is therefore typical
and at its production peak, see further) might prove a useful
dating aid that could be also employed in the study of Middle
Hillfort period burial grounds.
The Northern Suburbium (henceforth N. Suburbium) of
the Mikulcice hillfort is a complex that best complies with all
the mentioned conditions and one that I have selected for the
introduction of a more recent Greater Moravian horizon. It
is demarcated by the defunct branch of the River Morava in
the south and west and by the fortification of the castle, or
its outer bailey.
The N. Suburbium makes up the most important settle-
ment unit of the Mikulcice hillfort, apart from the fortified
areas. This area, located north of the “acropolis” (the main
fortified section of the agglomeration) and east of a fortified
bailey, was the focal point of attention when crafts areas and
production features were discussed, i.e. the closest hinterland
of the central Mikulcice castle in the high phase of the exist-
ence of the Greater Moravian state. Given the manner and
strategy of research into the Mikulcice hillfort, when areas
belonging to the sacred sphere of Greater Moravian culture
(churches and burial grounds) were extensively exploited on
a large-scale basis, only supplemented with probes into the
settlement of the Greater Moravian nobility (especially the
fortified bailey and occasionally, as by-products of research
into rich burial grounds and the acropolis), no “crafts area”
has been indentified in Mikulcice, one that can be compared
to, for example, the Nursery location in the Pohansko settle-
ment. Archaeological research into the N. Suburbium, a vast
(ca 5 ha) and basically unexplored area, might fill this in-
formation gap concerning the structure and function of the
Greater Moravian Mikulcice agglomeration.
The N. Suburbium settlement is characterized by three
basic archaeological structures:
clay floor modifications probably intended for log
constructions,
“classic” pits of chiefly irregular shapes,
irregularly distributed graves, mostly of individuals
buried unceremoniously, but in all cases interred practical-
ly on the then surface (i.e. without grave pits), within the
destruction horizon of the settlement, and apparently with
only makeshift accumulation of earth (perhaps using the de-
struction material).
The south section of this area has yielded two pieces of
evidence of crafts. The first one is a long manger-like pit with
traces of roofing located on the bank of the defunct branch
— 109 —
VELKOMORAVSKE KERAMICKE OKRUHY A TZV. MLADSi VELKOMORAVSKY HORIZONT V MIKULCIClCH
of the River Morava. Among finds from the filling and its
surroundings, a large number of melting pots, pieces of cast
bronze and lead parts of necklaces stand out. Inside and out-
side the pit, the total of 26 melting pots, 23 bronze fragments
(cast bronze, wire, etc.) and four lead fragments of necklaces
have been found (another find worth mentioning is that of
pincers). The find situation and the listed items enable the
interpretation of the feature as a metal-smelting workshop
employing bronze and possibly lead. Another proof of crafts
production is the joint occurrence of objects pointing to-
wards specialized blacksmith activities (Klim a 1985). Apart
from the find of a fragment of a tubular furnace section and
ceramic top of a blower, it is necessary to mention a large
amount of iron slag in this part of the area.
On the example of the complex, the book presents its
detailed stratigraphic analysis and demonstrates its material
content (section III). The settlement in the N. Suburbium
has one major advantage: in the course of its research, no pre-
vious settlement was detected, nor a post-Greater Moravian
one. Results of previous research have been supplemented
by new review research conducted with the use of the con-
textual method of field research modified specially for diffi-
cult-to-read early medieval layers in Mikulcice. The overall
find situation, as will be shown further, indicates that the
settlement did not operate for long and its end was probably
violent. As the material culture of the last destruction horizon
of the settlement is, beyond doubt, typically Greater Moravi-
an, the end of the settlement might have been associated with
invasions of old-Hungarian hordes in the early 10th century
that might have proved fatal for the existence of the whole
Greater Moravia (see further).
As the time period is relatively short and not contami-
nated either from above or below, it presents an ideal pos-
sibility of presenting a ceramic horizon (on the term see
Bohacova - Cihakova 1994, 176, 179; Bohacova 1995,
125) the content of which provably falls in the same period.
This ceramic horizon is, as has been said, characterized by
a vast proportion of pottery of the Mikulcice ceramic group
(henceforth MG), and also by the presence of pottery of the
Blucina ceramic group (henceforth BG).
Another important step conveyed in a considerable part
of this publication (section TV) was, logically enough, the
definition of both these Greater Moravian groups, i.e. typo-
logical analysis based on formalized description of the in-
dividual ceramic features and their quantification, and the
following synthesis, or “definition” of the interval of what
can be counted among the MG pottery and the BG pottery.
The representation of these groups in the proportion
of their peripheries as compared to the total number in
the individual contexts of the N. Suburbium settlement is
demonstrated in the next chapter (stratigraphically older/
younger contexts, pit fillings, section V). The purpose of this
quantification is to show how typical the MG is for this set-
tlement horizon, and whether its representation (as well as
that of the BG pottery) changes in individual contexts, i.e. in
the course of the existence of the settlement whose period
of origin, as often happens in similar cases, is difficult to de-
termine. The same method was then applied to pottery from
further Mikulcice excavations (from different areas). The fol-
lowing section discusses the existence of a more recent (late)
Greater Moravian horizon at the Mikulcice hillfort and the
presence of the destruction horizon of Mikulcice as a Greater
Moravian power centre (section Vi).
Section VII outlines a basic typology comparison of the
two mentioned Greater Moravian groups and their geograph-
ical spread.
The study centres on two Greater Moravian ceramic
groups, Blucina and Mikulcice groups. If the use of both
terms is relevant and characterizes certain specific groups
of vessels with distinct features (defined in section IV) set-
ting them apart from the rest of the Middle Hillfort materi-
al, their content and spatial definition must be followed by
assessment in terms of the functional meaning (historical
meaning) of their existence and, in particular, from the point
of view of chronology and the possible use of the pottery as
a dating aid (conclusion - section VIII).
Although the question of the origin of these ceramic
groups and reasons behind their existence (function) is cer-
tainly crucial, I am rather sceptical in these matters. I believe
that answers to these questions lie on the borders of his-
torical knowledge and the questions are difficult to answer
properly, be it by verification or disproval of the hypotheses
outlined here.
The comparison of these two Greater Moravian ceramic
groups, different in many respects, opens another question
which I believe to be principal for the explanation of the origin
of the general occurrence of groups of vessels similar in some
respects. It is apparent that although both presented groups
are referred to by the same archaeological term “group”, we
are not sure what lies behind the existence of something we
consider a ceramic group, in the sense of the meaning of the
existence of a group of vessels with similar external features
and chronology and its function in a live culture. In other
words, although both these groups are the same hierarchic
units introduced for the needs of archaeological research, in
the real world the occurrence of these ceramic groups might
have had completely different reasons. The explanation of the
considerable difference in the geographical spread of the two
ceramic groups (the area of the occurrence of the BG is sev-
eral times larger than that of the MG pottery), their different
representations in the central area of the Greater Moravian
state (representation of the BG is significantly lower than the
amount of the MG pottery), the technologically perfect man-
ufacture of all ceramic features of the BG vessels (including
— 110 —
SUMMARY
their build and the quality surface finish, as shown by analysis
presented in the book) and morphological differences (fewer
large vessels among the BG pottery, even in the settlement
material; relatively narrow necks for the proportion of the
vessels unsuitable, for example, for the preparation of food,
feature in almost two thirds of the BG specimens, while with
the MG pottery with about a quarter of the vessels) could
be explained by the specific function of the BG pottery. Hy-
pothetically speaking, the vessels of this group can be de-
scribed as “tableware”, or containers for specific goods and
products. The amount of the MG pottery and its concentra-
tion in the area of the Greater Moravian centres of Mikulcice
and Pohansko point towards a more prosaic function of this
pottery. In a certain period it must have represented, at least
at the Mikulcice hillfort, the majority of ordinary consumer
ceramics. Its origin is unambiguous: it was manufactured in
a specialized workshop, most probably in Mikulcice.
What has been said so far shows that I associate the pot-
tery of the two Greater Moravian groups, Mikulcice and
Blucina, owing to its high-quality manufacture and large
spread, with specialized pottery workshops (or with individ-
ual potters with high standards of craftsmanship; on models
of the character of pottery production and its organization
see Machacek 2001, 219-221) about exact locations and
market areas of which we do not have much information
(except for a kiln in Nitra - Lupka signalling the existence
of such a workshop). We do not know where exactly these
workshops were established and by whom, who initiated
their foundation and where the production of the pottery
of these two progressive groups is rooted, i.e. where the cen-
tre of their origin lies. We know next to nothing about the
potters, the organization of the workshops, volumes of their
production and their internal order (people employed in the
workshops, selection of the workers, etc.) and about the rela-
tionships between the individual workshops.
It is possible that the pottery of the highest quality among
the Greater Moravian groups was produced directly at the
hillforts or in their hinterlands, as there must have been
high demand (clearly connected with requirements placed
on quality) for it due to the large concentration of popula-
tion, i.e. the market for the goods. If this speculation is con-
firmed, a question remains whether the craftsmen flocked to
the central hillforts for the above reasons, or whether they
were hired by the ruling strata of the individual hillforts. In
the latter case the pottery might have been also produced
outside the hillforts, in servant communities documented
by B. Krzemionska and D. Trestik (1964) for the early
medieval Czech state, which is related to the issue of the so-
cial status of potters and their freedoms, or their existence as
someone’s property. These workshops probably also supplied
the surrounding areas, even in places where local potters
(skilful enough to be able to imitate workshop production)
worked. Naturally, the potters might have produced different
kinds of vessels, which could be also said about hillfort work-
shops. This possibility appears more probable with the BG
pottery (owing to the vast territory of its occurrence). This
pottery, highly technologically advanced for its time and with
impressive decoration, must have prompted imitation by pot-
ters of lower standards, or the production of “home-made”
variants (for many reasons, e.g. for its costs and bad access to
markets, while accepting lower requirements of appearance
and quality of the vessels used).
A key for the rocketing popularity of this pottery that
might have led to its mass production in workshops on
a vast area, later making up the base of the Greater Moravi-
an state, might have been its original decoration that even
today (and all the more in comparison with the rest of the
Greater Moravian pottery output) appears highly impressive
and aesthetic. If, indeed, this pottery did not have the specif-
ic function of containers for certain commodities connect-
ed with trade (tithes?). On the other hand, the hypothesis
about a specific function of the BG pottery does not explain
its absence in the Stare Mesto - Uherske Hradiste area of
the Greater Moravian agglomeration, which also holds true
about the MG pottery.
The phenomenon described above might indicate a certain
division of the sphere of influence of the two main centres of
the Greater Moravian Empire, originally reflected in different
traditions of pottery production and later boosted by the com-
petition of workshops producing a particular kind of poetry.
This hypothesis is supported by the fact that ceramic features
typical of the individual groups are basically not combined (for
example, the Blucina decorative pattern on MG vessels etc.,
while the sporadic joint occurrence of the pottery of the three
mentioned production groups in the most important Greater
Moravian centres mentioned above, seemingly rebutting this
idea, might be explained by the extent of demand connected
with large numbers of inhabitants in these centres). It might
even directly reflect an internal division of the Greater Moravia
about which there is no information but which is indicated by
some evidence (Merinsky 1990). The border between these
spheres of influence is more or less identical with Poulik s orig-
inal demarcation of areas with the pottery of the Blucina type
and the River Morava basin type (Poulik 1948). However,
this difference, rather than social, might be due to the natural
division of southern Moravia in terms of georelief.
The last and possibly most important question is the
chronology of the two ceramic groups analyzed in the book
and the possible use of pottery as an aid for the dating of
archaeological situations and a more precise classification of
the material culture of the Greater Moravian era. Like with
any assessment of artefacts, the bottom chronological level
of the occurrence of both these ceramic groups poses a diffi-
cult-to-solve problem.
— Ill —
VELKOMORAVSKE KERAMICKE OKRUHY A TZV. MLADSIVELKOMORAVSKY HORIZONT V MIKULCICICH
I daresay that when dating a ceramic group as a whole, it
is impossible to take into account the differences in the “ad-
vancement” of vessels on the entire area of its occurrence or,
for example, an artificial development sequence of changes
within a particular group leaning, in terms of chronology, on
supplementary objects featuring in individual (selected for
a particular sequence) cases on different burial grounds to-
gether with the ceramics. Grave pottery and settlement pot-
tery should be viewed separately as the latter always appears,
within the same time horizon, at a technologically more ad-
vanced level than that from burial grounds. I witnessed this
when comparing the BG series of settlement pottery from the
Mikulcice hillfort with vessels from Greater Moravian burial
grounds that, however, might be affected by another level
making the global dating of this group more complicated, i.e.
different standards of crafts production (including pottery)
in the centres, their hinterlands and outskirts.
Apart from grave pottery, the only large BG pottery series
from settlements are published finds from Pohansko u Bre-
clavi and a BG series from Mikulcice analyzed in this book.
It clearly follows from the entire corpus published and clas-
sified with the BG, including what has been written about
this kind of pottery, that the production, spread and usage of
the BG vessels peaked in the second half of the 9th century.
Before I demonstrate the correctness of this dating on a com-
bination of evidence from research into settlement situations
of the Mikulcice hillfort, it is necessary to outline previous
attempts at the dating of the MG.
Unlike the BG pottery, the MG pottery has been known,
from the very beginning, chiefly from settlement situations.
Basic chronological classification of the Greater Moravi-
an pottery from Mikulcice carried out by L. Polacek and
B. Kavanova (for valid critical review see Machacek 2001,
240-243 inch lit.) cannot be applied to the mentioned dis-
crepancies between the Mikulcice “type 3” and the genuine
content of the MG (see section IV.4.1). The reassessed be-
ginning of the occurrence of type 3 (and possibly also the
MG) placed in the early 9th century published by B. Ka-
vanova (1996, 146, 150-151; 2003, 428) is particularly
important. I do not consider this dating of the MG valid due
to ungrounded stratigraphic observations and typological in-
discriminability of the “oldest” specimens of the mentioned
ceramics (see section IV.4.1) Another piece of evidence “sup-
porting” the early occurrence of “type 3” ceramics (and the
MG) presented by the author, i.e. a series of finds from grave
821 in Mikulcice (Kavanova 1996, 151), is a very example
of dating that I describe as unacceptable in the opening sec-
tion of the book. An isolated find of a small bronze head of
a horse from a group of Slavic-Avar artefacts the use of which
in a live culture, as a unique and rare object, might in this
case differ from the time of production and use by decades, is
supposed to determine the age of three vessels from the same
grave (!). Two of the vessels belong with the MG and one
with the BG. The whole construct is complicated by the fact
that the bronze object was not found directly by the skeleton
but in the grave filling. It is obvious how it might have got
there and from where. It is hardly surprising that the same
grave series was employed by Z. Klanica as “evidence” of the
earliest occurrence of the BG pottery (Klanica 1970, 112).
The paragraphs above comment on the existing general
dating of the BG and MG pottery. Yet pottery as an exclusive
dating aid fails, for many reasons. It is important to focus on
where, in which situations, relations and with which finds it
features. This work mentions several drawbacks that, at least
currently, hinder a relevant definition of chronology of the
early Middle Ages based on analyses and comparisons of
grave goods. In the opening passage I express my opinion
that it is the study of settlement situations that holds a hith-
erto untapped potential of chronology-related information.
This area has been neglected for many years, due to the con-
centration of early-medieval Moravian archaeology on graves
and grave goods. On the other hand, a well-known problem
of settlement archaeology lies in the fact that although with
proper methodological field research and its relevant strati-
graphic assessment, relative chronology of ceramic groups
can be relatively accurately defined, it is difficult to combine
this chronology with absolute data. One reason is that settle-
ments generally yield a small number of chronologically sen-
sitive objects, and also that methods of combining settlement
stratigraphy with historical events chiefly falter in the case of
Moravian territory in the 9th century, owing to few, usually
vague and ambiguous, written sources. In contrast, fire lay-
ers indicating possible military interventions or fights can
prove difficult to relate to concrete military campaigns that,
as is known from written records, were waged against the
Greater Moravia with unfailing regularity. Nonetheless, I be-
lieve that one concrete example in which all the mentioned
components that could be used for settlement situations, e.g.
for relatively accurate dating of pottery, come together is the
Mikulcice hillfort blending the find situations of the N. Sub-
urbium settlement and occurrence of the MG pottery.
The opening chapters point out that both ceramic groups,
especially the MG, might be essential for more accurate dat-
ing of the Greater Moravian periods. Let us now review the
evidence supplied in this work for the dating of the pro-
duction and use of this pottery to the heyday of the Greater
Moravian state.
As is demonstrated in section V, the BG and MG pottery
characterizes a ceramic horizon typical of areas in the subur-
bium of the Mikulcice hillfort, with clay subsoil and situated
outside elevated sand dunes. The N. Suburbium (the largest
and best researched) presents the best example of this type of
areas. It contains an open settlement characterized by modi-
fications to clay floors of above-ground houses (probably log
— 112 —
SUMMARY
cabins) and by positive evidence of specialized crafts produc-
tion. The floor modifications were carried out on an intact
terrain untouched by previous human activities. Research
into the area did not detect any traces of previous settlement,
and the settlement has not been affected by more recent in-
terventions and ploughing. As a result, it does not feature
multiple cultural layers, and the absence of superpositions
of the individual settlement features indicating a short-term
existence of the settlement is also remarkable.
The analysis of areas researched in the N. Suburbium
shows that the settlement ended violently (traces of fire,
accumulation of rhombic arrows and, in particular, hasty
and non-ceremonial burials directly in the destruction ho-
rizon of the settlement) and that it was not restored. In fact,
there was no time and will to bury the dead on proper burial
grounds, and there was no lack of those at the Mikulcice hill-
fort. Similarly preserved traces of fight have been detected by
research into the hillfort rampart and defunct river branches,
or wooden bridges (concentration of axes under the bridges,
unburied remains of the defenders). What is remarkable is
the number of burials in the destruction horizon (stratigraph-
ically the most recent) in further Mikulcice areas (see section
VI). All this indicates that the find situations described above
should be attributed to the last, and evidently failed, defence
of the inhabitants of the Mikulcice hillfort.
The majority of chronologically sensitive artefacts found
in the N. Suburbium can be dated to the late 9th century, or
to the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries. These are, in par-
ticular, lead parts of the Bernardsthal-type necklaces, some
types of simple earrings (with tin pipes or double-sided
grape-shaped pendants, glass buttons, simple massive bronze
rings, and others).
The mentioned evidence, based on the analysis of the ar-
chaeological situation in the N. Suburbium, as well as other
markers from different areas of the Mikulcice hillfort (see
section VI), point to a violent ending of the N. Suburbium
settlement, or to the decline of the entire Mikulcice hillfort
(in the sense of its function as a powerful political, econom-
ic and spiritual centre of the Greater Moravian state). This
decline horizon contains remains of the dead who were ei-
ther buried unceremoniously or were interred in random
positions. This indicates a hasty departure from the hillfort
when there was no time to cover the traces of the disaster
and probably no reason for resettlement (liquidation of the
elites, collapse of the whole system and the breaking of the
economic network). As the material culture of this decline
horizon is, beyond doubt, typically Greater Moravian (due
to the approximate dating of repeated kinds of unearthed
artefacts), the decline of the N. Suburbium can be related to
dramatic events in the early 10th century.
Apart from the possibility that it might have been a re-
flection of internal struggles within the Greater Moravia, an
absolute date that comes up in connection with this decline
is the year 90S or 906 when a Hungarian attack on the heart
of the Greater Moravia took place (comp. e.g. T rest Ik 1991;
Kouril 2003; Wihoda 2006). The flowering of the hillfort
and its expansion into lower positions in the vicinity of the
central castle and fortified bailey (and the emptying of these
key areas due to the construction of sacred sections and res-
idential features for the growing elites and their entourage)
might have been, owing to the supplied characteristic of
the “suburbium”, connected with the heyday of the Greater
Moravian state, possibly with the rule of Prince Rostislav or,
more likely, Svatopluk, i.e. with the second half of the 9th
century or the late 9th century. I am convinced that the con-
siderable dynamics of the development of the majority of
Greater Moravian cultural symptoms (grounded in histori-
cal sources and manifested by the tempestuous and moving
history of this state formation) cannot be defined by classic
archaeological methods in the sense of its absolute chron-
ological anchoring. Without the use of dendrochronology,
the employment of which will be highly problematic with
the Mikulcic hillfort also in the future (DvorskA - Heuss-
ner - Polacek - Westphal 1999, 73), we will be never
able to determine if the suburbium settlements lasted for
50 or 10 years. Analogically, it will be difficult to define the
turning point in the development of the Mikulcice hillfort
(and also in the development of the Greater Moravian state
as such), which was the degree of the restructuralization of
the acropolis and perhaps the development of the settlement
in the suburbium, i.e. in the closest hinterland of a Great-
er Moravian power centre, associated with it. One piece of
evidence illustrating the mentioned dynamic development
of some aspects of material culture is the occurrence of the
MG pottery.
In all analysed cases of research into the North (as well as
East) Suburbium, an enormous increase in the proportion of
the MG pottery can be proved. In the stratigraphically oldest
pit fillings, the MG pottery amounts to ca 30 %, while in the
decline horizon of the settlement it is over 60 %. This shows
that the decline of the Mikulcice hillfort occurred in the peri-
od when the production of the Mikulcice group pottery was
probably culminating.
In contrast to the MG pottery, the proportion of frag-
ments of the BG pottery in stratigrafically different settle-
ment contexts in the suburbium is constant, between 2-6 %.
The explanation for this phenomenon does not lie in the
sphere of chronology (in areas settled earlier, fragments of
the BG pottery are so sporadic that they are probably intru-
sions) but perhaps function (see above). The series of the BG
pottery from Mikulcice presents the largest collection of this
pottery from a single location, which rules out its theoretical
“peripheral” occurrence in the Mikulcice hillfort. BG vessels
have not been found as dominant at any other locations, and
— 113 —
VELKOMORAVSKE KERAMICKE OKRUHY A TZV. MLADSi VELKOMORAVSKY HORIZONT V MIKULCIClCH
the scattering of this pottery on the whole territory of its
occurrence is similar and rare.2
In contrast, no contexts of the Northern Suburbium set-
tlement have yielded features with pottery referring to the
Early Hillfort period (as is the case, for example, with strati-
graphically oldest pits in the central castle area); apart from
the MG and BG pottery, advanced Greater Moravian pot-
tery with signs of professional decoration prevails. Fragments
showing relatively poorer quality of the styling or rendering
of ceramic features (simple rims, massive walls, “heavy” pro-
portions, worse construction of vessels, etc.) that are general-
ly classified as older within the Middle Hillfort period do not
feature in the decline horizon of the Northern Suburbium
settlement at all (they can only be observed, to a small extent,
in the stratigraphically oldest horizon above subsoil; they
were thus still in use when the settlement was established).
The facts mentioned above date the climax of the pro-
duction and use of the MG pottery to the final phase of
the Greater Moravia, i.e. to the late second half of the 9th
century and the early 10th century. The Mikulcice group
pottery thus typically represents the younger (late)
Greater Moravian horizon.3 Parallel occurrence of the
Blucina group pottery and the MG pottery (in identical
contexts) has been confirmed as well. However, the bottom
limit of their occurrence will he difficult to define. A certain
hope lies in new field research into settlement areas with mul-
tiple vertical layers and superpositions of floor modifications
(north section of the central castle, fortified bailey). The ce-
ramic horizon of the MG and BG, and also the horizon of
the end of the Greater Moravian period, is discussed here as
well (see section VI), but it cannot be separated (“purged”)
from previous research in terms of its material content, the
reason being the period methodology of field research not
respecting the differentiation of artefacts after natural strati-
graphic units.
The MG pottery features at all investigated locations (for
details see section VI), and is stratigraphically highest within
the Middle Hillfort period. It is only not exactly quantified
in what degree, in proportion to the relevant stratigraphic
or chronological phase of settlement, chiefly due to lacking
stratigraphic assessment of the individual investigated areas.
With reference to the mentioned evidence, it is possible to
use the MG pottery as a key indicator for the distinguish-
ing of the peak phase of the Greater Moravian period in the
assessment of new field research in these areas with rath-
er complicated vertical stratigraphy. A hope in the “strug-
gle” against residues and intrusions is supplied, to a certain
2 The only exception might be the Stare Zamky u Lisne hillfort, yet it did not
involve the "classic” variants of the BG. In my opinion, it would be useful to
revise the dating of the pottery in order to rule out its possible higher dating.
3 These terms are sometimes employed loosely, but they make a good aid in
efforts to determine relative chronology of the researched period.
extent, by “closed” find series, especially in layers between
the individual phases of floor modifications. To what extent
the effect of dynamic growth of the representation of this
group will be possible to use in more exact relative dating
remains to be seen. Even with a positive result, this aid will
be probably limited to Mikulcice (and its closest hinterland).
The occurrence of MG pottery in Pohansko seems to show
a different picture (comp. Machacek 2001,242-243). This
phenomenon should he the subject of future, hopefully joint,
research of teams working on the two sites. Issues associated
with the decline of the Greater Moravian Pohansko hillfort
will be particularly important for this comparison. In this
respect, valuable ideas have been voiced by P. Dresler in his
latest book (2008, summary 257). It appears that although
the manner of the decline of the function of the Pohansko
hillfort differs from Mikulcice, there is evidence supporting
an identical chronological period. More and more often it
transpires that the historically presumed - but in archaeolo-
gy frequently challenged - sudden (and at least temporarily
paralyzing for the whole area) decline of the Greater Moravia
as a system (comp. e.g. VavrInek 1996) is grounded in reali-
ty, and this hypothesis is becoming ever more clear.
The isolated occurrence of the MG pottery in Olomouc
and in north-west Bohemia (Blaha 2001, see section VII.2)
fits well within this framework. For that matter, it is not a sin-
gular example of the transfer of cultural symptoms of the
Greater Moravia or of the exodus of its inhabitants immedi-
ately after this state formation ceased to exist (see occurrence
of the BG pottery and jewellery of Moravian provenance at
Stara Koufirn - Solle 1966 and on the burial ground in the
Lumbe garden at Prague Castle - Tomkova 2005; see also
an inspiring reflection by Z. Smetanka 2003, 38-53). In ad-
dition, results presented in this book resonate with hypothe-
ses of Z. Merinsky (1986,49) and P. Meduna (2007) - see
section VII.2.
I believe that the presented evidence proves a kind
of a temporary interruption of the settlement of Greater
Moravian hillforts in the area of the South Moravian low-
lands, connected with the collapse of the Greater Moravi-
an state. In my opinion, there has not been sufficient proof
supporting continual existence of Greater Moravian culture
in these centres deeper into the 10th century, despite the
fact that such dating comes up with some concrete items of
Greater Moravian provenance. However, the use of the term
“10th century” is slightly misleading in itself. In historical
terms, the difference between, for example, the years 907 and
960 is negligible. An object produced, for example, in the
environment and period of the “live” Greater Moravia might
survive its time of origin by many years, and as such does not
supply relevant chronological information. It is rather the last
mute witness to a vanished world that created it, one that is
long gone when the object surfaces.
— 114 —
SUMMARY
A key aspect should be the effort to seek those few kinds
of finds that featured both in settlements and in graves, and
that are also sufficiently typologically specific and with
“short-term occurrence” (they only feature in certain hori-
zons in their stratigraphic positions within a settlement).
These finds make up imaginary crossroads that lead in several
directions, the interchanges of which can be then linked. The
joint occurrence of the MG pottery and items mentioned
above as typical of the younger Greater Moravian horizon,
or even of the short period of the decline of this state in the
early 10th century, shows that such places exist. The MG
pottery thus might become a useful chronological aid in the
complex process of the stratigraphic assessment of the Great-
er Moravian burial grounds in the south basin of the River
Morava, one of the principal areas of the Greater Moravia.
Even a cursory glimpse at graves with the MG pottery and
the repeating types of accompanying finds fills me with op-
timism stemming from the fact that the prospective chron-
ological potential of this pottery that I try to substantiate in
this book might be real.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out once more that
the distinct arrival of regional ceramics of high technological
quality (including technical quality of the rendering of mor-
phological features) of the Greater Moravian Mikulcice and
Blucina ceramic groups probably reflected profound power
and political changes connected with ethatization, but espe-
cially with the swift and dynamic development of the Greater
Moravian state after the mid-9th century (comp. MachAcek
2001, 246), historically underpinned by the exceptional fig-
ure of King Svatopluk. Political significance of the Greater
Moravia in (in historical terms) a very short period of time
of existence must have had an immediate impact on economy,
including crafts. The dynamics of the mentioned phenome-
na and the randomness and speed of successive changes, of-
ten brought about by individuals or seemingly unimportant
events (which can be frequently observed in more recent
periods and are documented by plentiful historical sources)
are intangible in archaeological terms, and appear to defy
our sometimes “crooked” archaeological sense. The specific
occurrence of the MG pottery in Mikulcice might be a mute
witness to this phenomenon. Although future research might
confirm this speculation, archaeology and archaeologists
might never be able to prove it due to the character and limits
of the branch. In recent years, however, it has seemed that the
absurd tendency of the last few decades to place the individu-
al aspects of Slavic culture as deep in the past as possible is in
decline. I tend to think that a large number of crucial cultural
symptoms of old Moravia (stone buildings, mighty fortifica-
tions of large areas, bridges and gates, key structural changes
within hillforts, a network of satellite villages, booming pro-
duction and trade) are more likely to belong with the period
of the heyday of the Greater Moravian state than with its
initial phase. In the future, we might hear more often about
a period connected with the names of the Moravian rulers
Rostislav and, in particular, Svatopluk, about the second half
or the last third of the 9th century.4
Literature:
BlAha, J. 2001: Archeologicke poznatky k vyvoji a vyznamu
Olomouce v obdobi Velkomoravske rise. In: L. Galuska. -
P. Kouril, P. - Z. Mefinsky (eds.), Velkä Morava mezi
Vychodem a Zäpadem, Brno, 41-68.
Bohacovä, I. 1995: Moznosti a meze obecneho konsenzu
v oblasti studia rane stredoveke keramiky (ceske resume).
In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa
vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. ITM II, Brno, 119-125.
BohAcovä, I. - Cihäkovä, J. 1994: Gegen wartigen Stand
des Entwicklungsschemas der Prager frühmittelalterlichen
Keramik aus den ältesten Enwicklungsphasen der Prager
Burg und ihrem Suburbium auf dem linken Moldau Ufer.
In: K. Tomkovä und Kol.: Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des
Studiums der frühmittelalterlichen Keramik in mittel
Böhmen. In: C. Staha (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mit-
teleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. ITM I, Brno,
173-179.
BubenIk, J. - Froli'k, J. 1995: Shrnuti diskuse o spolecne
terminologii zäkladnich keramickych pojmü (ceske re-
sume). In: L. Poläcek (ed.), Slawische Keramik in Mit-
teleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. ITM II, Brno,
127-130.
Dresler, P. 2008: Opevneni Pohanska u Bfeclavi. Nepub-
likovanä disertacni price na FFMU v Brne.
DvorskA, J. - Heussner, U. - PolAcek, L. - West-
phal, T. 1999: Zum Stand der Dendrochronologie in
Mikulcice. In: L. Poläcek - J. Dvorska (eds.), Probleme
der mitteleuropäischen Dendrochronologie und natur-
wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Talaue der March. ITM V,
Brno, 69-78.
Kavänovä, B. 1996: K relativni chronologii keramiky v Mi-
kulcicfch, AMM 81, 125-154.
- 2003: Mikulcice - pohfebiste v okoli 12. kostela. In:
P. Kouril (ed.), Mikulcice - pohfebiste u 6. a 12. kostela,
Brno, 211-414.
Rlanica, Z. 1970: Pokus o tfideni keramiky v Mikulcicich.
In: Sbornik AÜ Brno V., Josefu Poulikovi k sedesätinäm,
Brno, 103-114.
Klima, B. 1985: Velkomoravskä kovärna na podhradi v Mi-
kulcicich, PA 76, 428-455.
4 Comp, dating of the fortification of the Greater Moravian Pohansko to the
80s of the 9th century - Dresler 2008, 205; dendrochronology has con-
firmed identical age of the well-known Mikulcice bridges (Polâcek 2005,
71 - bridge pillars are dated to the second half or, most often, to the last third
of the 9th century, mostly without growth rings underneath the bark).
— 115
VELKOMORAVSKE KERAMICKE OKRUHY A TZV. MLADSl VELKOMORAVSKY HORIZONT V MIKULCICICH
Krzemienska, B. - Tresti'k, D. 1964: Sluzebnä organisace
vrane stfedovekych Cechäch, CCH 12, 637-667.
Kouril, P. 2003: Stafi Madafi a Morava z pohledu archeol-
ogie. Uspofädali Jan Klapste, Eva Pleskovä, Josef Zem-
licka In: Dejiny ve veku nejistot (Sbornik k pfilezitosti
70. narozenin Dusana Tfestika), Praha, 110-146.
Machäcek, J. 2001: Studie k velkomoravske keramice.
Metody, analyzy a syntezy, modely. Brno.
- 2007: Pohansko bei Bfeclav. Ein frühmittelalterliches
Zentrum als sozialwirtschaftliches System, Studien zur
Archäologie Europas 5, Bonn.
Meduna, P. 2007: Kpocätküm Litomefic. In: Litomefickä
kapitula: 950 let od zalozeni, Usti nad Labern, 23-32.
MerInsky, Z. 1986: Morava v 10. stol. ve svetle archeolo-
gickych nälezü, PA 77, 18-80.
- 1990: Nektere aspekty regionälni diferenciace velko-
moravske hmotne kultury stfedohradistniho obdobi
na Morave ve vztahu k oblasti Uherskohradisfska. In:
L. Galuska (ed.), Staromestskä vyroci, Brno, 65-70.
Poläcek, L. 2005: Die Rolle der südmährischen Flüsse in
der Geschichte Grossmährens. In: F. Biermann - T. Ker-
sting (eds.), Siedlung, Kommunikation und Virzschaff im
westslawischen Raum, Langenweissbach, 67-78.
PoulIk, J. 1948: Staroslovanskä Morava. Praha.
Smetänka, Z. 2003: Archeologicke etudy. Osmnäct kapitol
o poznäväni stfedoveku. Praha.
Stana, C. 1990: Stare mesto a velkomoravskä hradiste. In:
L. Galuska (ed.), Staromestskä vyroci, Brno, 71-79.
Solle, M. 1966: Starä Koufim a projevy velkomoravske
hmotne kultury v Cechäch. Praha.
Tomkovä, K. 2005: Hmotnä kultura rane stfedovekych
pohfebisf Prazskeho hradu a jeho pfedpoli. In: K. Tom-
kovä (ed.), Castrum Pragense 7: Pohfbiväni na Prazskem
hrade a jeho pfedpolich. Dil 1.1, Praha, 217-304.
TrestIk, D. 1991: Kdy zanikla Velkä Morava?, SMP II, 9-27.
Vavrinek, V. 1996: Velkä Morava. In: J. Släma - V. Vävfinek
(eds.), Ilustrovane ceske dejiny 1. Slovanske osidleni
ceskych zemi a Velkomoravskä rise, Praha, 35-78.
Wihoda, M. 2006: Morava v 10. stoleti. In: P. Sommer (ed.),
Ceske zeme v ranem stfedoveku, Praha, 53-73.
— 116 — |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Mazuch, Marian 1975- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1065319126 |
| author_facet | Mazuch, Marian 1975- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Mazuch, Marian 1975- |
| author_variant | m m mm |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV043481938 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)956324003 (DE-599)BSZ424122766 |
| era | Geschichte 850-950 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 850-950 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV043481938</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20160801</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t|</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160329s2013 xx a||| |||| 00||| cze d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788086023397</subfield><subfield code="9">978-80-86023-39-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)956324003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BSZ424122766</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</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">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,11</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mazuch, Marian</subfield><subfield code="d">1975-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1065319126</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích</subfield><subfield code="c">Marian Mazuch</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Brno</subfield><subfield code="b">Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České Republiky</subfield><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">180 Seiten</subfield><subfield code="b">Illustrationen, Karten</subfield><subfield code="e">CD-R ; 12 cm, 4 Beilagen</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">Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno</subfield><subfield code="v">45</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zusammenfassung auf Englisch</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 850-950</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Keramik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4030270-2</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="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ausgrabung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4129464-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Mikulčice</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4100977-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Mikulčice</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4100977-0</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Keramik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4030270-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Ausgrabung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4129464-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Funde</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4071507-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 850-950</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno</subfield><subfield code="v">45</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV025173971</subfield><subfield code="9">45</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</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=028898682&sequence=000004&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 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</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=028898682&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Literaturverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</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=028898682&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&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="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">930.1</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09021</subfield><subfield code="g">4371</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028898682</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Mikulčice (DE-588)4100977-0 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Mikulčice |
| id | DE-604.BV043481938 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-11-15T11:02:15Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788086023397 |
| language | Czech |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028898682 |
| oclc_num | 956324003 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 180 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten CD-R ; 12 cm, 4 Beilagen |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publishDateSearch | 2013 |
| publishDateSort | 2013 |
| publisher | Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České Republiky |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno |
| series2 | Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno |
| spelling | Mazuch, Marian 1975- Verfasser (DE-588)1065319126 aut Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích Marian Mazuch Brno Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České Republiky 2013 180 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten CD-R ; 12 cm, 4 Beilagen txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno 45 Zusammenfassung auf Englisch Geschichte 850-950 gnd rswk-swf Keramik (DE-588)4030270-2 gnd rswk-swf Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd rswk-swf Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 gnd rswk-swf Mikulčice (DE-588)4100977-0 gnd rswk-swf Mikulčice (DE-588)4100977-0 g Keramik (DE-588)4030270-2 s Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 s Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 s Geschichte 850-950 z DE-604 Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno 45 (DE-604)BV025173971 45 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000004&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Literaturverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Mazuch, Marian 1975- Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR v Brno Keramik (DE-588)4030270-2 gnd Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4030270-2 (DE-588)4071507-3 (DE-588)4129464-6 (DE-588)4100977-0 |
| title | Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích |
| title_auth | Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích |
| title_exact_search | Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích |
| title_full | Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích Marian Mazuch |
| title_fullStr | Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích Marian Mazuch |
| title_full_unstemmed | Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích Marian Mazuch |
| title_short | Velkomoravské keramické okruhy a tzv. mladší velkomoravský horizont v Mikulčicích |
| title_sort | velkomoravske keramicke okruhy a tzv mladsi velkomoravsky horizont v mikulcicich |
| topic | Keramik (DE-588)4030270-2 gnd Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd Ausgrabung (DE-588)4129464-6 gnd |
| topic_facet | Keramik Funde Ausgrabung Mikulčice |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000004&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=028898682&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028898682&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV025173971 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mazuchmarian velkomoravskekeramickeokruhyatzvmladsivelkomoravskyhorizontvmikulcicich |