Chapter 3 Catalogue of Sites in the Area
3.1. Introduction
This catalogue of sites presents all the sites in the area of interest published in the literature, all collections explored in local museums, and all artifacts collected during our intensive surface surveys between 2002 and 2004. However, I believe that there may be several amateur archaeologists in the region, who know of more sites and have additional collections; however, I have neither control over nor access to them. I also know that our survey did not cover whole area and that this list of sites cannot therefore be considered complete. I believe that continuing survey will result in the discovery of more sites in the future.
Those sites referred to in the literature but where a Paleolithic classification is doubtful are discussed in a separate catalogue (3.2.) that includes comments on why a Paleolithic classification has been rejected. However, they are not included on the site list (3.3.).
The site list (3.3.) presents only those Paleolithic sites that have been successfully relocated and whose affiliation has been verified. Sites we were unable to relocate or to confirm are not included. The sites were located and coordinates were taken by the main author, who is the guarantor of their accuracy (as defined in the column “Identification Accuracy”).
All relocated sites or sites discovered during the 2002 to 2004 surface surveys were recorded on a WGS-84 map datum using Garmin eTrex Personal Navigator.
All elevations were taken from 1:10, 000 scale maps (Základní mapa ČR) published by the Český úřad zeměměřičský a katastrální. These map use the Baltic system of elevations. All elevations are given in meters above sea level (ASL).
The sites are listed in alphabetical order according to the village or town name and cadastral (land registry) territory, which represents the basic administrative unit in the Czech Republic. Some villages or towns are comprised of several cadastral territories. The indivudal sites are identified by field names, where more names are used in the literature, all those names are referred to. Where the sites were numbered – sometimes the numbering differs from author to author – the numbers are referred to with reference to a particular piece of literature. Where the site was published giving an inaccurate cadastral territory identification, the mistake is corrected, however, the earlier location is referred to as such with an explanation.
Typological description was carried out on the basis of Klíma’s (1956) typological terminology. English equivalents were taken from Soffer (1991).
Within the framework of this project, we respected the current boundary between the spheres of interest of the IA AS CR in Brno, and the Moravian Museum in Brno, which follows cadastral territory boundary between Halenkovice and Napajedla.
Completely surveyed cadastral territories: Bílovice u Uherského Hradiště, Boršice u Buchlovic, Březolupy, Jarošov u Uherského Hradiště, Javorovec, Kněžpole u Uherského Hradiště, Kudlovice, Kunovice u Uherského Hradiště, Mařatice, Míkovice nad Olšavou, Mistřice, Popovice, Sady, Topolná, Traplice, Tučapy, Vésky.
Partly surveyed cadastral territories: Jalubí, Modrá, Komárov u Napajedel, Napajedla, Nedachlebice, Ostrožská Nová Ves, Podolí nad Olšavou, Pohořelice u Napajedel, Polešovice, Spytihněv, Stříbrnice u Uherského Hradiště, Tasov nad Veličkou, Vážany u Uh. Hradiště, Velehrad (cf. Fig. 3.1.)
73 Fig. 3.1. A map of surveyed caddastral territories (hatched).
3.2. Catalogue
BÍLOVICE Cadastral Territory: Bílovice u Uh. Hradiště
“Nad mlýnem”
Two isolated artifacts: a blade made from Krumlovský les-type chert (Variety I) and a blade fragment made from a slightly patinated radiolarite were found in 2003 aproximatively 250 m to the south of the site Štěrky (see below) but on the same hill.
“Štěrky”
The location of „Štěrky” represents an isolated low hill on the eastern margin of the Morava River valley, near the confluence of Březnice Creek and the Morava River. The distance from the current, artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is three kilometers. Geologically, the hill is composed of gravels deposited from Vizovice Highland by Březnice Creek. During a surface survey in 2003, a collection of three artifacts was collected around an elevation marker at 233.7 m. The collection consists of a burin on a broken blade (Fig. 3.2:1), a flake, and a recently broken fragment. All the artifacts are made from erratic flint. The cultural classification of these artifacts is unclear. The artifacts were found on the top of a hill, wich is typical for the Aurignacian. On the other hand, an elevation of 230 m is characteristic for the Gravettian. However, Gravettian sites are located primarily on slopes. Taking into account both the site location and a burin type (produced on a relatively thick blade), I propose an Aurignacian rather than a Gravettian classification.
“Nad vinohrady” – see BÍLOVICE/NEDACHLEBICE
74 Fig. 3.2. Bílovice-Štěrky (1) and Bílovice/Nedachlebice-Nad vinohrady (2-10). Surface collections collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
BÍLOVICE/NEDACHLEBICE Cadastral Territories: Bílovice u Uh. Hradiště and Nedachlebice
“Nad vinohrady”
The site is located on the boundary of the cadastral territories of the villages Bílovice and Nedachlebice. The site is located on northwestern-facing crest jutting from the “Rovná hora” hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 351.4 m. The elevation of the site is between 300 and 313 m. The site lies in a side valley on the left bank of the Morava River, on the left bank of the Zlámanecký Creek, ca one kilometer from its confluence with the Březnice Creek, and ca. 2 kilometers from a mouth of the Březnice Creek to the Morava River valley.
The site yielded a series of 21 artifacts, prevailing made from erratic flint, in three cases from radiolarite, in one case from Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert, and in another case from local chert. One artifact has been heated. Technologicaly, this collection consits of two cores (Fig. 3.2:9), ten flakes, a blade, three broken blades, four endscrapers and a frost-snapped fragment of a retouched edge (probably from an endscraper, Fig. 3.2:3). The first endscraper is made on a massive flake of Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert and is bilaterally retouched (Fig. 3.2:4). The second endscraper is nosed and again steeply retouched on a massive erratic flint flake (Fig. 3.2:8). The third endscraper is a blade endscraper (Fig. 3.2:5), and fourth is a frost-snapped fragment of laterally retouched carinated endscraper (Fig. 3.2:2). Based on the steeply retouched endscrapers and the site location, this small collection may be attributed to the Aurignacian.
75 BORŠICE Cadastral Territory: Boršice u Buchlovic
“Hlaviny”
The name “Hlaviny” referes to an elevation marker at 312.1 m on the eastern slope of Tučapy Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 340.4 m. During a field survey in 2003, an isolated artifact made from erratic flint was found at this spot. Typologically, this artifact lies between a thick endscraper and core (Fig. 3.3). Based on the find spot, the artifact may be affiliated with Aurignacian.
“Chrástka,” “Chrástě,” and “Vrchní staré hory”
Location This site is located on the right bank of the Morava River, on the northeastern slope of Tučapy Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 340.4 m. The elevation of the site is 255-270 m; the current distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is Fig. 3.3. Boršice-Hlaviny. Surface 3.6 km, and the location allows control of a wide area of the river basin. find collected during project. From the north, the site is bordered by a short blind gully. The artifacts Collections of IA AS CR Brno. were collected over an area of about 100 m in diameter.
History of research The first reported find from the site was a mammoth tusk, discovered by František Suchánek from Boršice during field road repare in the year 1902 (Hrubý 1940a:21; Skutil 1940:59). In 1939, at the beginning of World War II, Hrubý opened a small trench on the edge of hollow road running upslope from the road between Boršice and Nedakonice in a direction perpendicular to the tertraine’s contour, which was according to Hrubý (1940a:22) in the same place as Suchánek’s earlier find. At a depth of 200-250 cm in loessic sediments, Hrubý uncovered isolated mammoth bones (ribs fragments, fragments of long bones, and a metacarpal), two white patinated artifacts, and charcoal (Hrubý 1940a:22; 1951:71). While Hrubý did not continue with the excavation, together with several amateur archaeologists he intensively surveyed a nearby field, where they collected the core of a collection (ca. 1, 500 items) deposited now in the SM UH (Hrubý 1940a; 1951). After World War II, František Kalousek from Masaryk University chose this site for a systematic excavation (Kalousek 1955; Klíma 1965a:469). The results of this excavation were, however, negative and no report is available. From 1952, a former employee of the Institute of Archaeology, Bedřich Vyskočil, intensively surveyed the site (Klíma 1972:17) and collected a series of ca. 1,000 artifacts. In the early sixties, Vyskočil discussed Paleolithic cultural layers that had been disturbed by deep plowing (up to 80 cm) for a new vineyard with Klíma. As a result, Klíma visited the site and carried out a small-scale rescue excavation and one of his trenches (Trench A) documented a soliflucted and ashy cultural layer in situ. Trench A yielded a series of 258 artifacts in association with a small mammoth bone deposit and charcoal (Klíma 1965a, b). Based on the stratigraphy and artifact morphology, Klíma attributed the site to the Pavlovian, a classification that was confirmed 35 years later by 14C dating (Svoboda 1999:147).
In the early 1990s, when the site was visited within the framework of IA AS CR in Brno’s Gravettian Project, new terrain modification was documented. The whole slope had been terraced for a new vineyard; the height of the terrace is between two and five m and it has an average width of ca. 25 m. Unfortunately, even if though this was a well known site, this terrain modification was not reported beforehand and was not under the control of archeologists. Between 1993 and 1999 only isolated artifacts were recovered from this site. Therefore, during
Tab. 3.1. Boršice-Chrástka. Dating.
76 Fig. 3.4. Boršice-Chrástka. Klíma’s stratified collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
77 1996 and 1997, the author drilled a series of boreholes using a hand drill. This work was focused on documenting the level of destruction of the cultural layer within the site. Klíma’s sketch of the site (Klíma 1965a, Fig. 133) was overlain with both a 1:5000 scale map and the current situation. Klíma’s Trench A was localated within the first terrace, which had been created by redepositing sediments from higher elevations in this first terrace. Therefore we placed our boreholes along the first terrace, both above and below it. We documented intact loess, occasionally with isolated charcoal, along the foot of the first terrace. The intact loess was documented along the northern and northwestern border of the field. In addition, the field No. 2524, where Hrubý opened his trench is located 50-70 m to the north of Klíma’s Trench A, and the whole area between these two trenches still contains intact loess. This site may be a suitable subject for re-excavation in the future.
Material deposition As a result of this survey history, there are three primary collections: Klíma’s stratified assemblage (258 artifacts) stored in the IA AS CR in Dolní Věstonice, Vyskočil’s surface collection (576 artifacts) stored in the IA AS CR in Dolní Věstonice and a collection stored in the SM UH (consiting mainly of Suchánek’s and Hrubý’s collections, ca. 1,500 artifacts). One isolated fossil mollusc shell is stored in the Moravian Museum in Brno.
Klíma’s collection The stratified collection from Klíma’s excavation (Trench A) consists of 258 stone artifacts (according to Excavation Report No. 411/65 on file in the archives of the IA AS CR in Brno). However, only 248 artifacts have been identified in the depository. When studying the collection, three artifacts were reconstructed from two parts. Occasionally traces of iron oxides on the surface of artifacts were documented, which may indicate that not all the items are from a stratified cultural layer.
The raw material spectrum of the Klíma’s collection is characterized by the complete dominance of erratic flint, supplemented by occasional pieces of radiolarite (2), Cracow-Częstochowa Jurrasic flint (3), and fifteen others (mainly fired artifacts).
Technologically, the collection is similar to Jarošov-Podvršťa. The typological spectrum of this collection is composed of one partially backed microblade (Fig. 3.4:1), three burins (two on broken blades: Fig. 3.4:5, 11; one atypical transverse burin on lateral retouch Fig. 3.4:6) and one multiple burin (dihedral combined with burin on truncation Fig. 3.4:2), one artifact ranging morphologically between an endscraper and a truncated blade (Fig. 3.4:8), two points (Fig. 3.4:9, 13), one double point (Fig. 3.4:12), a combination of a burin/notch (Fig. 3.4:14), a fragment of the retouched blade (Fig. 3.4:3), a splittered piece (Fig. 3.4:4), and a two chisels (Fig. 3.4:7, 10).
An elongated sandstone pebble (Fig. 3.8:2) supplements the collection of knapped stone industry. Traces of red ochre were documented on its surface using a binocular light microscope.
The osteological material was according to Excavation Report No. 411/65 transferred to the Moravian Museum in Brno; however, it is currently missing.
Vyskočil’s collection Vyskočil collected this collection during the 1950s and 1960s. The problem with this collection is its contamination. Although the overall majority of the collection represents Gravettian material, it is possible to recognize post-Paleolithic intrusions from a non-patinated industry, and heavily patinated artifacts. The post- Paleolithic intrusion probably represents Aeneolithic artifacts (cf. Škrdla, Šebela and Přichystal 2003). The heavily patinated artifacts represent an artificial intrusion that occurred during storage and examination of the collection in the past and probably originates from the Aurignacian site of Boršice/Buchlovice. The names of the sites are similar (Vrchní staré hory – Vrchní horky, Nadhorky) and one bag with the latter description was found among the material. Both the post-Paleolithic and Aurignacian artifacts were separated from the collection before it was analyzed.
The Vyskočil collection consists of 577 artifacts. Similarly to Klíma’s stratified collection, the majority of artifacts are produced on erratic flint (Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint was not separated out), which is supplemented by occasional pieces of radiolarite (ten pieces, one of which represents a specific white variety documented at Jarošov- Podvršťa, one other represents a specific striped variety frequently used at Pavlov I, in the northwestern part of the site), rock crystal (1), and Troubky-Zdislavice chert (several difficult to recognize pieces, probably Aurignacian intrusions).
78 Fig. 3.5. Boršice-Chrástka. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
79 Fig. 3.6. Boršice-Chrástka. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
80 Fig. 3.7. Boršice-Chrástka. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
81 Fig. 3.8. Boršice-Chrástka. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
The most frequent tool type is burin, in fifteen cases simple burings and five cases multiple burins. The dihedral burins, are symmetrical (Fig. 3.5:17, 21) and asymmetrical (Fig. 3.5:20; 3.6:3, 5, 12), simple or polyhedral, i.e. produced by a single blow or by a series of blows. Burins on broken blades are often created by single blow (Fig. 3.5:18, 24; 3.6:10), and are only occasionally polyhedral (Fig. 3.5:16). A burin on truncated blade was documented in three cases (Fig. 3.5:19; 3.6:4, 9). Multiple burins are relatively frequent: a dihedral burin with burin on broken blade (Fig. 3.5:22), two burins on broken blades (Fig. 3.5:23; 3.6:6; 3.7:7) two dihedral polyhedral burins (Fig. 3.6:13), and in one case a dihedral burin created by a series of blows and a burin on unmodified terminus (Fig. 3.7:8). Among the other tools are three fragments of retouched blades (Fig. 3.5:11, 12; 3.6:8), two truncated artifacts (Fig. 3.5:9; 3.6:2), and two splittered pieces (Fig. 3.6:1, 3.7:4, the later may be classified as an atypical chissel or raclettes). Artifacts with only one documented example include an endscraper (Fig. 3.7:6), a denticulated blade or saw (Fig. 3.5:25), a blade with a concavely backed edge (Fig. 3.7:10), a borer (Fig. 3.5:15), and a combination of an endscraper and burin on a broken blade (Fig. 3.7:5).
82 The microlithic industry is represented by a complete microgravette (Fig. 3.5:8), a denticulated backed microblade or microsaw (Fig. 3.5:4), and a series of six backed microblades (Fig. 3.5:1-3, 5-7); some of which are without doubt fragments of microgravettes.
A fragment of a quartz pebble with clear traces of pounding, probably a broken pad (Fig. 3.8:1), and an ovoid quartz pebble with traces of impacts concentrated in the center of its flatter side and a rounded edge (Fig. 3.9) represent the heavy-duty implements. No traces of ochre were identified on their surfaces.
Two dentalium shells (Fig. 3.5:13, 14), small ivory fragments, and small fragments of mammoth molar lamellas complete the list of recovered material.
Collection in SM UH This assemblage consisting of ca. 1,400 items was collected primarily by Hrubý, Suchánek and other members of the Starý Velehrad association before and during World War II. As is the case with Vyskočil’s collection, this collection is contamined by non-patinated post-Paleolithic and heavily patinated artifacts. The post-Paleolithic material is represented by an arrowhead together with three retouched flakes (cf. Oliva 1998a, Fig. 15:10, Fig. 17:22-23, who inaccurately affiliated these artifacts with the Gravettian) and a series of other artifacts often made from Krumlovský les chert, Variety II. Another most probably post-Paleolithic artifact is missing (Hrubý 1951, tab. 1:1). The collection includes several heavily patinated (with crumbly surfaces) artifacts resembling the Aurignacian rather than the Gravettian. Another problem with the homogeneity of this collection is connected with flooding that occurred in 1997, when the depository was flooded and the artifacts subsequently resorted. The most striking example Fig. 3.9. Boršice-Chrástka. Vyskočil’s is a steeply retouched circular endscraper (current Inv. No. surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR SF1355), which is not referred to in either in Hrubý’s inventory Brno. (which is stored in the IA AS CR in Brno), where all the important artifacts were drawn or in Oliva’s (1998a) article (Oliva studied the collection before the flooding). Further evidence of contamination is the broken part of an endscraper published by Hrubý (1951, Tab. 10:1) as an artifact from Staré Město (original Inv. No. SF14651, changed to SF14697). Therefore, all artifacts were checked against Hrubý’s inventory list. The numbers often differ, but are accordance within the sequence of each individual bag (the artifacts in bags received new numbers based on the range for the particular bag). All undoubtedly post-Paleolithic, Aurignacian, and mistakably added artifacts were excluded from the collection before analysis.
From a technological point of view, as is the case with the other collections from this site, the share of cores is relatively low (see Chapter 2, Graph 2.3.). A microcore made from Troubky/Zdislavice chert (Fig. 3.11:15) may represent an Aurignacian intrusion. A block of erratic flint (Fig. 3.13:13), which indicates the probable form in which raw material had been transported from its outcrops, is very important. Almost the whole surface of this artifact is corticated, only a single blow for platform preparation of an intended core (probably a test flake) was noted.
Typologically, as with the other collections from this site, the most frequent tool is again the burin. The prevailing burin type is represented by dihedral burins (seven items); simple burins (Fig. 3.10:31; 3.11:13; 3.12:10) are more frequent than polyhedral (Fig. 3.11:16; 3.12:11). The remaining burins are transversal burins (three items, Fig. 3.12:6), burins on broken blade (two items, Fig. 3.13:12), burins on truncated blade, (two items, Fig. 3.11:19;
83 3.12:12), burins on pointed blade (two items, Fig. 3.12:1, 9), and flat burins (two items, Fig. 3.11:14). Multiple burins are relatively frequent. In two cases, a dihedral burin is combined with a burin on a broken blade (Fig. 3.12:7, 8); all other burin types are represented only by single items: a double burin on broken blade (Fig. 3.12:4), a double on a truncated blade (Fig. 3.12:3), a transverse combined with a dihedral (Fig. 3.11:17), and triple burin, which consists of a dihedral burin combined with two burins on a truncated blade (Fig. 3.11:18). One atypical item may be classified as a “Noialles-type” burin (Fig. 3.12:2).
In contrast with the other collections from this site, this collection includes more endscrapers (thirteen). The most frequent are blade endscrapers (Fig. 3.11:5-8) and endscrapers on broken blades (Fig. 3.11:2, 4, 9, 10). There is only one example of a steeply retouched endscraper produced on a flake (Fig. 3.11:11) and one case of an atypical endscraper produced on a small flake (Fig. 3.11:3). Only two endscrapers have the additional lateral retouch that is typical for Jarošov (Fig. 3.11:8, 11).
Among the other tools are a blade with Kostenki retouch (Fig. 3.10:23), a raclette (Fig. 3.11:12), truncated blades (two items, Fig. 3.10:26), a splittered piece, a notch, retouched blades, microblades and their fragments (eleven items, Fig. 3.10:9, 20, 21, 25, 28), and retouched fragments (five items, Fig. 3.10:22). In addition, Oliva (1998a, Fig. 17:12) published a saw fragment that is missing at present and therefore not included in this list of tools.
The group of microlithic implements includes distal (Fig. 3.10:7, 8) and proximal (Fig. 3.10:5, 6) fragments from backed micoblade production, a partially bilaterally backed microblade (Fig. 3.10:3), a backed microblade with additional partial dorsal retouch (Fig. 3.10:4), and a pointed backed microblade with additional dorsal retouch (Fig. 3.10:2, the tip is currently broken off, however, Oliva 1998a, Fig. 17:2 published it with a tip). Oliva (1998a, Fig. 17:4, 5) published another two backed microblade fragments, which are currently missing and are not included in the list of tools.
Other backed artifacts include the proximal fragment of blade with terminal retouch on the ventral surface (Fig. 3.10:16), a backed blade (Fig. 3.10:1), and backed blade fragments (Fig. 3.10:17-19). Another blade (Fig. 3.10:15) is naturally backed, with only a slightly retouched lateral edge, terminal retouch on the ventral surface and remarkable impact scar on the distal end. This artifact is refitted from two parts, in the list of tools the first part is classified as a retouched blade, the second part as a backed blade with terminal retouch on the ventral surface; however the complete artifact may be classified as a probably being a La Gravette point.
Points represent an important group. In one case, the point has been retouched on the proximal part of a retouched blade (Fig. 3.10:24). There are two points published by Hrubý (1951) for which a Gravettian classification is not clear. The first represents a unifacially flat and relatively steeply retouched double point (Fig. 3.10:29). This artifact looks slightly strange in a context with other Gravettian artifacts and may represent possible Aurignacian contamination (isolated artifacts were collected on several spots on Tučapy Hill, the nearest in the Hlaviny fields, ca. 500 m to the southwest). However, similar artifacts are known from Předmostí (Absolon and Klíma 1977) and Petřkovice (Klíma 1955a,b) within Gravettian contexts. Another point, classified as a leaf point (Hrubý 1951) or Quinson point (Oliva 1998a) represents an unambiguous intrusion. This artifact is made of Boršice-type chert (cf. Škrdla and Přichystal 2003), which has not yet been documented within Gravettian collections. There is a series of other artifacts produced from this type of chert, including one post-Paleolithic sickle blade, in the SM UH collection. The point’s surface may be divided onto two parts: one slightly patinated and one recently damaged (non-patinated, in the figure not hatched). It is difficult to classify this artifact. However, it most likely represents an Aurignacian intrusion or the post-Paleolithic reutilization of an originally Paleolithic artifact. The collection of points is completed by a point resembling a massive borer published by Hrubý (1951, Tab. 1:6), which is, however, missing, and therefore not included in the list of tools (Fig. 3.10:27). Similarly, a missing leaf point fragment published by Oliva (1998a, Fig. 17:21) is not listed (this artifact is currently mixed within a collection from Tasov in the SM UH depository).
Combined tools are represented by a combination of a dihedral burin and notch (Fig. 3.12:5), an endscraper and dihedral burin (Fig. 3.11:9), and a small nosed endscraper combined with transversal burin (Fig. 3.11:1).
Conclusion The site represents one of the important Gravettian sites in the area. A part of the material was excavated and is stratified. The site has not yet been exhausted and I believe that reopening it in the future will enlarge the artifact (in particular microlithic tools recovered using wet sieving) and osteological collections, and will
84 Fig. 3.10. Boršice-Chrástka. Surface collection. Collections of SM UH.
85 Fig. 3.11. Boršice-Chrástka. Surface collection. Collections of SM UH.
86 Fig. 3.12. Boršice-Chrástka. Surface collection. Collections of SM UH.
87 Fig. 3.13. Boršice-Chrástka. Surface collection. Collections of SM UH.
88 Tab. 3.2. Boršice-Chráska. Typology in particular collections.
provide precise the dating. A detailed comparison (raw material, technology and typology) with Jarošov and other sites is provided in Chapter 2, an osteological comparison is in Appendix B.
The site may be classified as a medium-sized locality.
“Pod starými horami”, Boršice II
Oliva (1998a) published an isolated find of a bidirectional core made of erratic flint (Fig. 3.14), found aproximatively 750 m the east of Chrástka, at an elevation of 210-215 m. This find may be connected with the central site of Chrástka.
Elevation Marker 331, “Svobody”, “Vrchní Fig. 3.14. Boršice-Pod starými horami. horky” (“Nadhorky”) see BORŠICE/BUCH- According to Oliva 1998a. LOVICE
BORŠICE/BUCHLOVICE Cadastral Territories: Boršice u Buchlovic and Buchlovice
Elevation Marker 331, “Vrchní horky” (“Nadhorky”), “Svobody,” “Povinná”
The site of Boršice/Buchlovice represents one of the most important Morava-type Aurignacian sites. Because there are several field names in the area around the hill’s summit (see below), I prefer to use the neutral name “Elevation Marker 331” used by Vyskočil (even if on current maps the current elevation is listed as only 330 m).
Location All the field names, which are given mentioned in the heading, are located on top of a significant hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 330 m. The hill is bounded by the Dlouhá River to the north, by the Medlovický Creek to the south, and by their confluence to the east. There are sulfuric springs ca. one kilometer to the northwest from the elevation marker at the foot of a neighboring hill.
89 According to V. Hrubý’s unpublished manuscript stored in the Archives of IA AS CR Brno, the site was originally composed of three partially isolated areas. The field named “Povinná” is located north of the Elevation Marker 331 m on the cadastral territory of Buchlovice, the field named “Vrchní horky” is located to the south and southeast of the Elevation Marker on the cadastral territory of Boršice and the field named “Svobody” is on the eastern slope of Elevation Marker on the cadastral territory of Boršice. However, the separation of the collected material according to the different fields is not possible, and the collection is studied here as a whole.
The closest Aurignacian site is located ca. 1.5 kilometers to the west on the cadastral territory of Stříbrnice (Klíma 1972). Other Aurignacian sites were reported by Žižlavský (1999) ca. 3 kilometers to the north on the cadastral territory of Buchlovice. Hrubý (1951) reported site ca. 3 kilometers to the south on the cadastral territory of Tučapy, where another four sites were discovered during 2002; Koukolky is the closest of the four sites to Elevation Marker 331 (located 2 kilometers to the south on the opposite bank of the Medlovický Creek).
History of research Suchánek found the site in 1941-1942 (Hrubý 1951:78). Before and during World War II, Suchánek, Hrubý and other members of the Starý Velehrad association intensively surveyed the site. Their finds are deposited in the SM UH.
Vyskočil collected another collection during the 1950s and 1960s. This collection was published in detail by Škrdla and Přichystal (2003) and the results are republished here. According to Žižlavský (pers. comm., see also Baščan et al. 2003:65), there were other people, groups of schoolchildren, who collected artifacts on the site; however, their collections are missing. It remains possible to collect artifacts today: in the autumn of 2002 we collected ninety items with five people working for one hour.
Material deposition There are two important collections from this site – the first, colected by Suchánek and V. Hrubý (ca. 250 items) is deposited in the SM UH, the second, collected by Vyskočil (3,931 items) is deposited in the IA AS CR, Dolní Věstonice. Several artifacts are in the Moravian Museum in Brno.
Vyskočil’s collection An accurate raw material identification is difficult because of heavy patination. Therefore, artifacts were macroscopically divided into six basic groups. This division was verified by an analysis of a limited number of artifacts from each group by Přichystal using light microscopy. For important raw materials (in the group “Other”) all artifacts were analyzed under microscopy (Škrdla and Přichystal 2003).
The raw materials categories are:
- White, patinated, high quality silicite rocks, most probably an erratic flint,
- Radiolarites,
- Troubky/Zdislavice cherts,
- Boršice-type cherts (from gravels, macroscopically similar to Olomučany-type chert),
- Cherts from local gravels (including Krumlovský les-type chert),
- Other (fired artifacts and specific materials including Stránská skála-type chert, limnic silicite, silicified sandstone with glauconite, Cretceous spongolite chert, révaite, quartzite).
The first category includes a macroscopically relatively homogenous group of intensively patinated silicates, where a white patina often covers the whole surface of the artifact and in several, cases the artifacts are heavily patinated with a crumbling patina. Because of the intensive patination of artifact surfaces, microscopical raw material determination is not possible. Only recently broken artifacts where the broken surface was not patinated were analyzed. Based on this analysis, we stated that the majority of artifacts in this group are made from erratic flint. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that this group is contamined by several artifacts made from higher quality, local Moravian Jurassic cherts (up to a maximum of 1%).
90 The determination of radiolarite artifacts was relatively easily and certain. Although this raw material is often slightly (only occasionally, intensively) patinated, because of its color, its hues are easily determinable macroscopically. This group consists of 334 items. The overwhelming majority are represented by reddish-brown hues (61%) followed by greenish hues (35%); only in a few cases was a bluish-gray or another atypical varieties (4%) documented. Imported examples were often on lower quality raw materials, which is reflected in the technological spectrum by an increase in fragments, flakes and cores and a decrease in blades, microblades, and microchips in comparison with erratic flint.
Similarly, it is possible to easily identify Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert because of its characteristic cortex and a spot-like structure reflected in its patination. However, some atypical varieties (lower quality) may be classified as local cherts because similar cherts are in local gravels. From a technological viewpoint, there is a significant increase in cores and blade and microblade fragments and a decrease in flakes. This fact may reflect the vicinity of outcrops of this raw material.
Boršice-type chert represents an important raw material. The name of this chert is derived just from this site, because it was recognized here first. The possible sources of this raw material may be ca. 10 kilometers to the northeast on the slopes of the Chřiby Hills; however, the actual utilized outcrops have not yet been discovered.
Cherts from local gravels represent a relatively frequent and heterogenous group. As the name indicates, these cherts were collected in local gravels, which are irregularly distributed along the Morava River from the river level up to an elevation of 350 m. The gravels are the source of the Jurassic chert with a characteristic black weathering cortex known as Krumlovský les-type chert. This raw material is lower in quality in comparison with outcrops in the Krumlovský les area; however, it is not possible to separate them from imports originating in the Krumlovský les area. This raw material was documented at other Aurignacian sites in the vicinity (Vokáč and Vokáč 2001:160). Different chalcedony mass, atypical spongolite cherts, atypical Troubky/Zdislavice-type cherts, and possibly atypical varieties of Stránská skála-type chert and Boršice-type chert may represent other raw materials in this group.
The last group consists of fired artifacts on the one hand, and specific raw materials represented by isolated pieces only, on the other hand. The later include:
- Silicified sandstone with glauconite originating in the local flysh; the pebble cortex relicts indicate a secondary source (two side scrapers and three flakes);
- Limnic silicite rocks from Slovakia (a flake, partly retouched flake, and retouched broken blade);
- Cretaceous spongolite chert with a honey-yellow color (two side scrapers);
- Stránská skála-type chert from its primary outcrops directly on Stránská skála hill (three flakes and a retouched flake);
- Quartzite from Devonian basal clastics; the pebble cortex indicates its source in gravels, probably transported by the Morava River from the north (a side scraper);
- Révaite from local gravels (a side scraper).
The technological spectrum of individual raw materials is presented in Table 3.3. In general, the technological category represent by flakes is predominant. The share of cores is relatively low in the case of erratic flint, which reflects not only a more economical use of raw material imported from greater distances, but also its better technological qualities in comparison with local raw materials. Erratic flint allows more precise knapping, which is indicated by the presence of microchips and microfragments. There is a significant difference between the average artifact dimension for artifacts made from erratic flint (smaller) and local raw materials.
The most common core type is prismatic, often reduced from one platform (Fig. 3.15:19, 20; 3.19:17; 3.21:3-5, 7, 8, 10-12). Another core type is pyramidal (Fig. 3.19:16; 3.21:1), which small varieties overlap a group of carinated endscrapers. Infrequent are cores made on massive flakes (Fig. 3.21:9), which overlap the group of the burins. The important feature of collection is a presence of an atypical wedge-shaped microcore (Fig. 3.21:2, cf. Svoboda
91 1995b), and cores on bifacially flat retouched artifacts again resembling wedge-shaped microcores (Fig. 3.20:3, 5). Similar artifacts were documented at several sites in the Napajedla Gate area (cf. Oliva 1987; Svoboda 1995b). Other bifacially flat worked artifacts, which are described as side scrapers and atypical leaf points (Fig. 3.20:1, 2, 4, 6), may also represent prepared raw material or cores of this type. Here is necessary to mention flat, retouched bifacial artifacts from the Aurignacian site of Karolín I (cf. Oliva 1981) and another similar artifact from the site of Nová Dědina II (Oliva 1987, Fig. 25:14), which may in fact represent a form of prepared raw material rather than Middle Paleolithic implements. While Valoch (2004) defends the idea of a Middle Paleolithic age for these artifacts, I prefer to use a Upper Paleolithic age and affiliate them with prepared wedge-shaped cores for microblade production (cf. Svoboda 1995b).
At least two atypical artifacts show “en éperon” platform preparation (Fig. 3.19:9, 10, cf. Inizan et al. 1999, 136), wich may be, but is not necessarily, an indicator of a lesser age of the collection.
The typological spectrum is in Table 3.4. The most frequent type of endscrapers is thick-nosed endscrapers (Fig. 3.16:1-3, 5, 8-13, 19), followed by steeply retouched (carinated) endscrapers (Fig. 3.16:15, 20; 3.19:21) and endscrapers on a broken blade (Fig. 3.15:1-3, 8, 9, 11). Aproximatively one-third of the nosed endscrapers represent extremely nosed endscrapers of “Lhotka” type (Fig. 3.15:15, 18; 3.16:4, 6, 7, 18; 3.19:7, 8, 12, cf. Oliva 1979). The collection of endscrapers is completed by circular endscrapers, often steeply retouched (Fig. 3.15:4-6; 3.16:14, 16, 17), blade endscrapers (Fig. 3.15:10, 12), flake endscrapers (Fig. 3.15:14, 16, 17), and in one case a double endscraper has been documented (Fig. 3.15:7).
The most common burin form is a burin on a broken blade (Fig. 3.19:19), followed by burins on truncations and simple dihedral forms (Fig. 3.17:4-7; 3.18:31). Other frequent burin forms are dihedral polyhedral (Fig. 3.17:13; 3.19:15) and multiple burins (Fig. 3.17:10, 11, 14-16; 3.19:18-20). Other burin types are represented by isiolated artifacts (cf. Table 3.4).
In his synthesis of the Aurignacian in Moravia, Oliva (1987) mentions the significance of the endscraper/burin ratio, which is in the case of Boršice-Buchlovice equal. However, this ratio is equal for all raw materials as a whole and for erratic flint in particular. In the case of radiolarite, Boršice-type chert, local cherts and other raw materials endscrapers prevail, while in the case of Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert, burins prevail. In other words, it is possible that this ratio reflects technological qualities and the economical of use of individual raw materials.
The group of other tools represents splittered pieces (Fig. 3.22:3), sidescrapers (Fig. 3.15:13; 3.20:4, 6; 3.22:1, 2, 4), and, rarely, bifacially flat retouched atypical leaf points (two complete items: Fig. 3.20:1, 2 and two fragments: Fig. 3.19:3, 4). In three cases were flat retouched side scrapers, which suggests bifaces (Fig. 3.20:4, 6; 3.22:4).
The collection includes several microlithic tools (the criterion used here was a width less than one cm), the most common form of which are backed microblades (Fig. 3.18:1-5, 7-11; 3.19:1), followed by backed retouched microblades (Fig. 3.18:12, 13, 20), two are pointed (Fig. 3.18:6, 19), one terminal retouch on the ventral surface and combined with a burin on break (Fig. 3.18:14); one has notch (Fig. 3.19:2). On only one occasion was a backed microblade fragment made from Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert, all other microlithic implements are produced from erratic flint.
The tool spectrum is supplemented by several combined tools and retouched artifacts. In the group of combined tools, the most frequent is a combination of endscraper and burin (Fig. 3.18:24, 33; 3.19:11, 13), occasionally combinations of a burin with a sidescraper, bec, chisel, truncation, and a combination of endscraper and sidescraper were documented.
The group of retouched artifacts includes retouched blades and their fragments (Fig. 3.18:16, 18, 21-23, 25-30), retouched flakes and fragments, which probably represents fragments of tools.
Collection in SM UH This collection was collected by numerous individuals including Suchánek, Hrubý, Procházka, and consists of only 247 items. This collection is well comparable to Vyskočil’s collection in all cases; however, it is of less importance in comparison to Vyskočil’s collection from both technological and typological viewpoints (cf. Fig. 3.23). The raw material spectrum is enlarged only by the occasional presence of rock crystal.
92 Fig. 3.15. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
93 Fig. 3.16. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
94 Fig. 3.17. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
95 Fig. 3.18. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
96 Fig. 3.19. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
97 Fig. 3.20. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
98 Fig. 3.21. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
99 Fig. 3.22. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
100 Fig. 3.23. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Surface collection. Collections of SM UH.
Conclusion The site is located on top of a significant hill at the highland and lowland boundary; this spot is where the Dlouhá River and Medlovický Creek leave their narrow and deep valleys and flow into more open relief. In the vicinity are sulfuric springs, which may have been a winter source of running water and important watering place for people and animals and may have influenced hunting strategy. Basing on the unique geographic position of the site, the number of artifacts collected (Vyskočil’s collection: 3,931 items, SM UH collection: ~250 items, and a series of missing and unavailable personal collections) and their spatial distribution, the site was probably occupied repeatedly during the Aurignacian and later periods (mainly post-Paleolithic). Because of the vicinity of the Gravettian site of Chráska, Gravettian hunters may have occasionally visited the hill. Although some isolated coarse, massive and eolized artifacts may theoretically indicate the presence of the Middle Paleolithic, this classification is not probable and they rather represent a coarser (heavy-duty) industry known from another sites from the same period.
The collection is characterized by an overwhelming majority of imported raw materials, by the presence of steeply retouched (carinated) and nosed (including Lhotka-type) endscrapers, by a lower proportion of polyhedral burins, by the presence of bifacially flat retouched artifacts including atypical leaf-points, and by rare backed microlithic implements. From this viewpoint, the Boršice-Buchlovice, Elevation Marker 331 material represents a typical collection of the Morava-type Aurignacien as defined by Klíma (1978).
101 BŘEZOLUPY Cadastral Territory: Březolupy
“Čertoryje”
The field of “Čertoryje,” as probably perceived by Hrubý (identified according to the field plot numbers as 2928-3162), is located east of the village of Březolupy, on a hilltop plateau, with its western slope falling towards the Březnice Creek. The summit of this hill is 288.9 m (ZM 1:10, 000, Sheet 25-33-14, 2000). On this current map and on the Czechoslovak Army’s 1957 General Staff Map (M-33-107-D-a) the Čertoryje field is located in different position, which has probably influenced Oliva’s incorrect locating of this field (cf. Oliva 1988a:42). A more detailed location of the finds can be found in Hrubý’s unpublished manuscript (stored in the Archives of IA AS CR Brno, unnumbered), which describes the location as follows: “above the creek bluff of the Březnice, north of an elevation marker of 288 m, on a slightly downward-trending terrace, east of the village.” Even though there are two elevation markers with similar heights on the current map of this area, the correct elevation marker was located using a map dating to World War II (Deutsche Heereskarte, Protektorat, 1:50, 000, 4359/Ost, from 1944), which is similar to the map used by Hrubý and presents only one elevation marker at 288 m, as mentioned by Hrubý. Hrubý in his unpublished manuscript provided other information used in relocating the site – on the same spot an intensive Neolithic occupation was documented. Based on this information (the elevation marker and Neolithic occupation), it was not a problem to relocate the site in 2003.
Tab. 3.3. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Technology of different raw materials.
The site is located on the top of a plateau of a significant hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 288.9 m. The hill is bordered by the Březnice Creek to the northwest and the Zlámanecký Creek to the east. The distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is 1.4 kilometers The site is relatively protected in a highland, being on the margin of a small side valley, which is however within sight of the Lower Morava Valley. The hill surface is composed of weathered bedrock (sandstone) covered by a thin layer of soil. Aeolian sediments are missing and the site is a surface site lacking stratigraphy.
Unfortunately, Hrubý’s finds are missing. Hrubý (1951:77) described his collection as: “infrequent surface finds of white patinated flint”. In addition, Oliva (1998a:42) described several artifacts made of flint. A new collection consisting of 23 artifacts was collected during the 2003-2004 surveys. The artifacts are produced on an erratic flint (fifteen items) supplemented by local cherts including Krumlovský les-type chert (five items), radiolarite (one item), and silicified sandstone (two items). Technologically, seven flakes, five microflakes, three fragments, a broken blade, a partly retouched pointed flake (Fig. 3.24:6), and six tools compose the collection. The group of tools consists of three splittered pieces (Fig. 3.24:1, 2, 5), a Quinson-type point (Fig. 3.24:3), a fragment of a canted scraper (Fig. 3.24:4), and a coarse biface (Fig. 3.24:7).
102 Tab. 3.4. Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331. Typology of different raw materials.
103 Culturaly, this site may be attributed to the Aurignacian, both from the viewpoint of typology and geographic setting. A Late Upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic occupation was probably located on the same spot, documented by a backed bladelet made from radiolarite.
“Čertoryje-A”
Within the framework of the 2002-2003 surface surveys, a new, small site was found ca. 750 m south of the Čertoryje site on the same crest, in the vicinity of an elevation marker of 287.6 m. The geographic setting and the geological observations are similar to the Čertoryje site proper. The collection consists of only four artifacts, which were widely distributed in the area around the elevation marker. The artifacts are made from erratic flint. The collection consists of two tools, the proximal fragment of a partly retouched blade (Fig. 3.24:10), and a fragment of partly retouched flake (Fig. 3.24:11). The first tool is a burin on a break, produced on the medial fragment of a massive blade (Fig. 3.24:8); the second burin is a dihedral burin on a distal blade fragment (Fig. 3.24:9). Culturaly, this site may be attributed to the Aurignacian, both from the viewpoint of typology and geographic setting.
“Pastvisko”
Hrubý (1951:78) found an isolated artifact in the field of “Pastvisko”, in the Field Plot No. 2011. Although the artifact is currently missing, Hrubý described it as follows: “a piece of dull brown jasper with relict cortex and with the whole surface coarsely worked.” Hrubý (1951:78) mentioned earlier finds (“from a non-patinated material, however, Paleolithic in character”; currently missing) found by V. Hobl probably at the same spot. Plot Number 2011 is located two kilometers to the northwest of Čertoryje, on the opposite bank of the Březnice Creek, at an elevation between 300-310 m. We intensively surveyed the vicinity, covering an area ca. one kilometer in diameter and found only isolated Paleolithic artifacts in the field of Pláňavy (see below). A Neolithic occupation ca. 300 m east of the 2011 was documented and as were isolated non-patinated finds on the southern margin of this field. The latter collection includes a partly retouched wide blade of brown radiolarite (Fig. 3.24:12), which is similar to Hrubý’s find. The interpretation of the site is unclear. Geographically, the site location is well comparable to Čertoryje and fits with the Aurignacian; however, in comparison with Čertoryje, no indisputable Paleolithic artifacts were documented. Therefore I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site.
“Pláňavy”
An isolated artifact was found ca. 400 m west from Field Plot No. 2011, in the vicinity of an elevation marker at 312 m. It is a recently broken fragment of a flake made from erratic flint.
Another isolated find from the cadastral territory of Březolupy lacking a more precise location was reported by J. Skutil (1936:59).
BUCHLOVICE Cadastral Territory: Buchlovice
Elevation Marker 331, “Povinná” – see BORŠICE/BUCHLOVICE
“Chrastě”
The site was discovered by Žižlavský (1999) during a surface survey made together with his friends. The site is located on top of Chrastě, a significant hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 391 m. Chrastě Hill is a part of a crest jutting in a southeasterly direction from the main crest of the Chřiby Hills. Two creeks shape the crest – Zlechovský to the northeast and Zámecký to the southwest. Given its elevation of 391 m, this site represents the highest site in the area and demonstrates that Paleolithic occupations did not stop at elevations of ca. 300 m, and continue deeper and higher into the Chřiby Hills. However, hills with an elevation above than 300 m are often forested today and therefore not accessible to surface survey. Isolated unworked nodules of Krumlovský les-type chert with its characteristic black cortex were collected here. The distance of the site from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is seven kilometers
104 Fig. 3.24. Březolupy-Čertoryje (1-7), Čertoryje a (8-11), and Pastvisko (12). Surface collections collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
105 Fig. 3.25. Buchlovice-Chrastě. Surface collection. Collections of Žižlavský.
I had the possibility to study only a part of the collection (26 artifacts). The prevailing raw material is erratic flint (eleven items), supplemented by the radiolarite (five items), Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert (three items), Krumlovský les-type chert (four items), and Boršice-type chert (three items). The collection is composed of six cores (Fig. 3.25:10), a microcore, six flakes, a broken blade, six fragments, and nine tools. The group of tools consists of four burins, a sidescraper (Fig. 3.25:6), a retouched blade (Fig. 3.25:3), a fragment of a retouched blade (Fig. 3.25:4), a blade with a notch, and a combination of burin with bec (Fig. 3.25:1). Three burins on broken blades (Fig. 3.25:2, 7, 9), and a multiple burin (Fig. 3.25:5) comprise the burins.
The site is located in a characteristic EUP position – on a hilltop – and yielded a typologically indeterminate collection of artifacts. However, the retouched blade and a multiple burin allow for an Aurignacian classification of this collection.
106 “Ploskárně”
This site was discovered by Žižlavský (1999) during the aforementioned surface survey. The artifacts were collected in the vicinity of Elevation Marker 354.1 m, ca. 150-200 m to southeast of the Chrastě Elevation Marker on the same crest. According to Žižlavský (personal communication), the material is similar to that from Chrastě. At the moment the collection is not available for study.
DOLNÍ NĚMČÍ Cadastral Territory: Dolní Němčí
“Kráčinky”
The site is located on the left bank of the Okluky Creek, on the northern slope of the hill “Babí hora,” the summit of which reaches an elevation of 347 m. Zelnitius and Hanák discovered this post-Paleolithic site in 1932, in the vicinity of St. Anne’s Chapel (Hrubý’s unpublished manuscript stored in the Archives of the IA AS CR in Brno). The artifact Inv. No. 12660, classified as Paleolithic by Hrubý (1951:79), was recognized in the SM UH depository. However, this artifact represents a fired flint found in the context of a post-Paleolithic site and a Paleolithic classification is not probable. Therefore I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site.
“Pajsarůvka”
An isolated, white patinated artifact found by Hrubý in the field of Pajsarůvka is stored in the depository of the Moravian Museum in Brno. This field is well known for its post-Paleolithic occupation. It is located between the villages of Hluk and Dolní Němčí, on the southwesten slope of the hill “Stará hora,” the summit of which reaches an elevation of 346 m. The elevation of the Pajsarůvka field lies between 250 and 300 m. The find spot is located deep in the Vizovice Highland, ca. 12.5 kilometers from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River. The find spot is on the right bank (opposite Kráčinky) of the Okluky Creek. The artifact is produced on erratic flint. Morphologically, the artifact lies on the boundary between an canted side scraper on a wide flake and an atypical Fig. 3.26. Dolní Němčí-Pajsarůvka. Hrubý’s flake core (Fig. 3.26). Culturally, this isolated find cannot surface find. Collections of Moravian be attributed to any particular culture. Museum Brno.
HLUK Cadastral Territory: Hluk
“Kráčinky”
The locating of this site is difficult. Hrubý (1951:80) locates the site in the vicinity of an elevation marker at 239 m. This elevation marker was identified on a World War II map (Deutsche Heereskarte, 4459/West). However, it lies on the cadastral territory of Vlčnov, which extends almost to the village of Hluk in this area. In his unpublished manuscript (stored in the Archives of the IA AS CR in Brno) Hrubý mentioned a position beneath the hill “Babí hora” and there are additional hand-written notes on typed manuscript referring to the field of Kráčiny and Elevation Marker 239. There are two fields with this name within the cadastral territory of Hluk, Kráčinky in the vicinity of the elevation marker and Kráčiny on the slope of Babí hora on the border between cadastral territories of Hluk and Dolní Němčí. A third location for the find-spot is in Hrubý’s (1951, Fig. 16) map, where this site is placed on the slope of the hill “Kobylí hlava.” There are several mistakes in the reporting of the site location; however, I prefer to locate this spot on the northwestern slope Babí hora on the border between cadastral territories
107 of Hluk and Dolní Němčí. This site is probably in the vicinity of Kráčinky (again a mistake in the field name – the correct term is “Kráčiny”) field within the cadastral territory of Dolní Němčí.
Hrubý refered a white patinated flint blade, another broken blade and a bigger, flat flake, however, these artifacts, originally deposited in a school collection in Hluk, are missing. The artifacts were found in the context of a post- Paleolithic site. Without a physical review of these artifacts, no classification is possible.
HOSTĚJOV – see OSVĚTIMANY/ŽERAVICE
JALUBÍ Cadastral Territory: Jalubí
“Kopaniny”
Two isolated artifacts were found during the 2003 survey in the vicinity of the Chrastě Elevation Marker, the summit of this hill reaches an elevation of 302.9 m. This site is located near Traplice’s sites of Bukáčová and Kopaniny, from which is separated by the valley of the Jalubský Creek. The first artifact represents a small blade or flake fragment made from erratic flint, the second is a flake fragment from patinated radiolarite. Based on the site location, these isolated finds, even if typologically inconclusive, may be attributed to the Aurignacian.
An isolated radiolarite blade is stored in the depository of the Moravian Museum in Brno, however, location of this find within a specific cadastral territory is unknown.
KNĚŽPOLE Cadastral Territory: Kněžpole u Uherského Hradiště
“Hrádek”
The small surface site of Kněžpole-Hrádek is located on the north-facing crest of the slope of Rovnina Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 336 m. This crest juts out into the valley and the distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is 1.5 kilometers The site is located on a crest, at an elevation between 220 and 230 m. The field name “Hrádek” (“little castle”) is probably connected with a medieval fortification on this spot (cf. Zemek 1992:525, 531). The inner part of the crest was exploited for loess and there is still a pit there with up to five-meter high loess walls, but containing no artifacts. Although the loess exploitation was mentioned as early as 1889, exploitation started earlier (Červinka 1901:41). It is surprising, that without one excaption, there are no reports concerning expected faunal remain finds in the pit. The only exception is a mammoth pelvis fragment found during excavation for a water processing plant in 1967. The bone was in loess, 2.5 meters deep, and is stored in a small exhibition in the Kněžpole library (Petr Švehla, Kněžpole, pers. comm. 2004). The mammoth bone find spot is located ca. 200-300 m to the northeast of our site.
In the past, the site was by mistakenly published as Jarošov III (Škrdla 2000; Škrdla and Kruml 2000; Škrdla and Lukáš 2000); however, it lies in the cadastral territory of Kněžpole.
The artifacts are scattered on the surface. No traces of calcium carbonate were documented on the artifact surfaces and no osteological material was found. The test pits in the field documented only redeposited slope sediments without loess. However, one artifact was found on the surface of a plowed vineyard within a private garden ca. 20 m downslope, where loess is present. This loess was not documented in the slope above the find-spot; this material may therefore have been redeposited from upslope.
This site yielded a collection of 54 artifacts made mostly of erratic flint, supplemented by radiolarite (fourteen pieces), one piece of probable Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert, one piece of marlstone, and one piece of silificificated sandstone with glauconite. Technologically, this collection consists of two cores (Fig. 3.27:9), a series of twenty-
108 Fig. 3.27. Kněžpole-Hrádek. Surface collection collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno. five flakes, nine blades (Fig. 3.27:1-7, 11), ten broken blades, a burin spall, a retouched flake (Fig. 3.27:10), a dihedral burin (Fig. 3.27:8), and five microchips. The artifacts were sporadically distributed over an area 50 m in diameter and the site may be classified as a small. The burin spall was fitted with the burin (Fig. 3.27:8). Culturally, although no typologically significant tools were collected, this collection may be attributed to the Gravettian. Both the predominance of blades in the assemblage and the location of the site support this classification.
KUDLOVICE Cadastral Territory: Kudlovice
“Hradská”
The sites “Hradská” and “Za Hradskou” are located on a significant crest, jutting in a southerly direction from the main crest of the Chřiby Hills to the Morava River Valley. The Kudlovický Creek to the west and Vrbka Creek to the east limit this crest. Gravels including Krumlovský les-type chert pebbles cover the crest. The site of Hradská is located in the vicinity of “Hradská” Elevation Marker (297.7 m) and was discovered (together with its satellite sites A and B) during the 2002 surface survey. This site is located in a highland – the distance from the regulated channel of the Morava River is 3.5 kilometers, however within sight of the Morava River Valley. This site yielded a small collection of artifacts: a partly retouched broad flake from white patinated high quality material (Krumlovský les-type chert, variety II or erratic flint), a flake from erratic flint and three fragments (erratic flint, Krumlovský les-type chert and Troubky/Zdislavice chert). Three other artifacts are burnt and their Paleolithic classification is not certain because such post-Paleolithic artifacts (three items) were collected on this spot.
109 “Hradská – A”
This find-spot is located on a rise jutting like a peninsula into Kudlovický Creek valley, ca. 350 m to the southwest from the Hradská Elevation Marker. The elevation of the site is between 285-290 m. Only a microchip of erratic flint and two fragments of patinated local cherts were collected here.
“Hradská – B”
This find-spot is located ca. 600 m to the south from Hradská Elevation Marker, at an elevation of 280 m. Only one isolated artifact – a fragment of a broad flake made of Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert – was found here.
“Za Hradskou,” Elevation Marker 307, “Křížany” (?)
According to Hrubý’s report (1951:81), in 1936 Stanislav Švub discovered a Paleolithic site in the field of Křížany in the vicinity of the Elevation Marker 307 m. According to Hrubý’s sketch (stored in the Archives IA AS CR in Brno, No. 901/59) and a 1944 map (Deutsche Heereskarte, Protektorat, 1:50, 000, 4359/West), this elevation marker was located on the crest, ca. 500 m to the north of the Hradská Elevation Marker, in the vicinity of a current elevation marker at 297.1 m. The site was rediscovered in 2002 and was repeatedly visited during our surveys from 2002 to 2004. Because there is no field name on the current map, we named this site “Za Hradskou” (i.e. “behind Hradská”). There were four find-spots documented within this area. A path referred Hradská runs on the crest top, separating the eastern and western slopes. The main site lies on the eastern edge of crest, immediately adjacent to the eastern side of the medieval Hradská Road and covers an area of 150 m long (parallel to the crest) and 30 m wide. The site yielded a collection of 271 artifacts collected in the gravelly field (including Krumlovský les-type chert) that is free of loess.
The artifacts were produced from erratic flint (182 items, 67%) supplemented by radiolarite (thirty-seven items), Krumlovský les-type chert (sixteen item) and other local cherts (eleven items), Boršice-type chert (eight items), Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert (three items), limnic silicite (one item), quartz (one item), and silicified sandstone (one item). Eleven artifacts were not classified because they were fired.
In terms of technology, the collection consists of four cores (Fig. 3.28:23), five microcores (Fig. 3.29:1, 2), eighty- five flakes, thirteen blades (Fig. 3.28:26), thirty-four broken blade fragments, eight microblades (Fig. 3.28:5-7), twelve broken microblade fragments (Fig. 3.28:4), fourteen fragments, one partly retouched blade, six partly retouched broken blade fragments, five partly retouched flakes, two partly retouched fragments, fifty-three microflakes and microfragments and twenty-nine tools.
The collection of tools consists of nine endscrapers, seven burins, three microlithic implements – a retouched microblade fragment (Fig. 3.28:3) and two slightly backed microblade fragments (Fig. 3.28:1, 2), two sidescrapers on flake blanks (Fig. 3.28:9, 22), three retouched blades (Fig. 3.28:17, 18, 3.29:5), a steeply retouched blade (Fig. 3.29:7), a splittered piece (Fig. 3.29:6), a truncated blade, and a leaf point fragment (Fig. 3.28:8, however, this radiolarite artifact may represent an Aeneolithic intrusion). The collection of endscrapers consists of threee items made on retouched blades (Fig. 3.28:9, 11, 14), one made on a flake (Fig. 3.28:16), one made on fragment (Fig. 3.28:21), three items represent carinated endscrapers (Fig. 3.28:12, 15, 20), and one endscraper is an irregular circular, steeply retouched (Fig. 3.28:13). The group of burins consists of two dihedral burins (Fig. 3.28:10), a burin on broken blade (Fig. 3.28:24), a burin on broken retouched blade (Fig. 3.29:3), a burin on truncated blade (Fig. 3.28:25), a burin on truncated flake, and a multiple burin (Fig. 3.29:4).
The site of Kudlovice-Za Hradskou represents one of the richests recently discovered sites (during the 2002-2004 period) in the area. The site is located in a characteristic EUP location and yielded a typologically significant collection of artifacts, incluing characteristic Aurignacian steeply retouched endscrapers and blades. Therefore, the collection may be attributed to the Aurignacian. However, comparing it to other collections within the region, this collection is characterized by the absence of nosed endscrapers, and polyhedral burins. Although this site is located directly on a local raw material outcrop (including Krumlovský les-type chert), the collection is characterized by only limited use of local raw materials.
110 Fig. 3.28. Kudlovice-Za Hradskou. Surface collection collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
111 Fig. 3.29. Kudlovice-Za Hradskou (1-7), Za Hradskou A (8-22), Za Hradskou B (23-25), and Za Hradskou C (26). Surface collections collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
112 “Za Hradskou – A”
This site is located close to the main Za Hradskou site, however, on the opposite side of the Hradská path, i.e. on the western side of the crest top. The two sites are only separated by a ten-meter wide strip containing no finds that lies along the western edge of the medieval Hradská Road. Spatially, this site is limited to an area ca. 20 m in diameter. The site yielded a collection of fifty artifacts collected in the gravelly field (including Krumlovský les- type chert) that is free of loess.
The artifacts were predominantly produced from erratic flint (forty-one items, 82%) supplemented by radiolarite (two items), Krumlovský les-type chert (one item) and other local cherts (five items). One artifact was not classified because fired. The technological spectrum of this collection includes two cores, three blades, five broken blade fragments, two partly retouched broken blade fragments, two microblades, a broken microblade fragment, fourteen flakes, two partly retouched flakes, three microflakes, and thirteen tools. The collection of tools consists of five endscrapers, three burins, and two microlithic implements – a retouched microblade fragment (Fig. 3.29:8) and a bilaterally backed microblade fragment (Fig. 3.29:9), a borer (Fig. 3.29:17), a retouched blade fragment (Fig. 3.29:18), and a retouched fragment. The collection of endscrapers consists of a carinated endscraper on a short thick flake (Fig. 3.29:15), a carinated endscraper on cortical blank (Fig. 3.29:21), a fragment of another carinated endscraper (Fig. 3.29:20), a thumbnail endscraper (Fig. 3.29:14), and an atypical circular endscraper, partly steeply retouched (Fig. 3.29:19). The collection of burins consists of a simple dihedral (Fig. 3.29:17), and two items made on truncation (Fig. 3.29:13, 22).
Based on the characteristic geographical position, the elevation of the site, and a series of characteristic carinated endscrapers, this collection may be attributed to the Aurignacian. However, in comparison to other collections within the region, this collection is characterized by the absence of nosed endscrapers, and polyhedral burins. Although this site is located directly on a local raw material outcrop (including Krumlovský les-type chert), the collection is characterized by only limited use of local raw materials.
“Za Hradskou – B”
This find-spot is located 150 m south of the Za Hradskou-A site. Only five isolated artifacts were collected: a flake and a fragment made from local chert, a small bi-directional core (Fig. 3.29:24), a splittered piece (Fig. 3.29:23), and a retouched blade with a broken-off distal end (originally probably an endscraper, Fig. 3.29:25). The later three artifacts are made from erratic flint. This small collection may be attributed to the Aurignacian.
“Za Hradskou – C”
This find-spot is located 350 m north of the Za Hradskou site. Only three isolated artifacts made from erratic flint were collected here: a double, nosed, and steeply retouched Aurignacian endscraper (Fig. 3.29:26), a fragment of crested blade and small microflake.
“Zbrodky”
This find-spot is located on the crest on the opposite bank of Kudlovický Creek, at an elevation of 300 m. Only two flakes (made from Krumlovský les-type chert and erratic flint) were collected here.
KUNOVICE Cadastral Territory: Kunovice u Uherského Hradiště
“Hluboček”
Hluboček Hill is a significant rise whose reaches an elevation of 351.4 m. This hill is located on the Olšava River’s left bank at the spot where the Olšava River leaves its deep and narrow valley through which it flows through the Vizovice Highlands and empties into the Lower Morava Valley. The distance from the current, artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is 8.5 kilometers. This strategic position allows control of the Morava-Olšava confluence – in other words, a crossing of ancient routes. On the northwest border of the highest plateau, i.e. in
113 a place with an excellent visual command of the confluence, a small collection of artifacts was collected. The elevation of the site lies between 345-350 m (Fig. 3.40), which makes it one of the highest sites within this region. The collection includes a massive patinated radiolarite blade, a fragment of a retouched blade from erratic flint (Fig. 3.30:1), a recently broken fragment of erratic flint, a radiolarite flake, and two raw material fragments with traces of knapping (radiolarite and Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert).
“Lintavy”
An isolated blade of patinated radiolarite (Fig. 3.30:2) was found on a crest extending from Hluboček Hill. The find-spot is located ca. 100 m northwest of this elevation marker at an elevation of 314 m (Fig. 3.40). Fig. 3.30. Kunovice-Hluboček (1), and Lintavy (2). Surface finds collected during “Petříkovec” project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
The Petříkovec field is located in the Morava River Valley. The white patinated flint blade found by Horsák (1941:89) in the Field Plot No. 10190 (Hrubý 1951:82) was not identified in the SM UH depository. The site is located at the bottom of a river valley, where the tops of isolated Early Holocene aeolian sand dunes rise above Holocene alluvial sediments. There is a collection of a post-Paleolithic industry from this site in the SM UH. Because this site is located in an atypical position in post-Pleistocene sediments, and that the artifact is included within a collection of post-Paleolithic artifacts, a Paleolithic classification for this artifact is not probable. This find, if it was really patinated rather than fired, may be connected with a possible Mesolithic occupation of the sand dunes.
“V úzkých”
Hrubý (1951:82) referred several artifacts made of white patinated flint somewhere from the field above Abrhám’s brickyard, which is known for its finds of Pleistocene fauna (Hrubý 1951:68, 82). Kristina Marešová (1985) placed the location of these finds close to the southern profile of the brickyard, ca. 50 m east of the road from Kunovice to Hluk, at an elevation ca. 230-240 m. These artifacts have not been found in the SM UH and a surface survey in this area yielded no artifacts. Therefore, the classification of this site is problematic. However, during the 2004 survey, we surveyed an area far to the east and we discovered what is probably another site, located ca. 500 east of the previously mentioned road (Fig. 3.40). The minimum distance between our site and Marešová’s point on the map is ca. 400 m, and it is therefore difficult to say if we discovered a new site or rediscovered the Hrubý’s possible site (given the fact that Hrubý’s locating of sites cannot be as precise).
Our site is located on the shallow, loessic, north-facing slope of Hlaviny Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 288.3 m. The elevation of the site is 232 m and the site position allows control of a broad area where the Olšava River enters the Lower Morava Valley, ca. five kilometers from the current confluence of Olšava and Morava rivers. Maps from the nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century show two sunken roads going upslope from Kunovice to Hlaviny Hill, which are connected just in the area of the site. These roads were plowed under sometime after 1975. That activity may have brought to the surface from a stratified layer the finds we collected; however, no traces of calcium carbonate penetration were found on the artifact surfaces. On the other hand, the artifacts were collected on loess and it may be possible to find the relict of a stratified layer in the future. A borehole drilled within the site using a hand drill documented an undisturbed loess beginning at a depth of one meter. Therefore, the site has a good perspective for future surveys. Unfortunately, the field was sown in alfalfa in 2004 and will be not plowed again for several years. The absolute coordinates of the find-spot were recorded and we may be able to excavate a small trench next year.
Fifteen artifacts were collected during the one visit to the site. The artifacts are produced from radiolarite (eight items), erratic flint (six items), and a local chert. Technologically, the collection consists of a core, unilaterally reduced from the narrow platform (Fig. 3.31:5), four flakes, two partly retouched flakes (Fig. 3.31:6), a microflake, three fragments and four tools. The collection of tools consists of two endscrapers, the first is steeply retouched on a short crested blade (Fig. 3.31:3), the second on a short flake (Fig. 3.31:2), a burin on truncated flake
114 Fig. 3.31. Kunovice-V úzkých. Surface finds collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
(Fig. 3.31:4), and a possible backed microblade byproduct (the proximal end) laterally retouched on its ventral surface (Fig. 3.31:1).
Geographically, this site lies in position similar to the neighboring sites of Ostrožská Nová Ves-Padělky and Mařatice-Kolébky, and the more distant site of Pohořelice, found within the Napajedla Gate. Culturally, the site may be attributed to the Gravettian/Epigravettian period.
MISTŘICE Cadastral Territory: Mistřice I
“Hlubočky”
The site is located relatively deeply in the Vizovice Highlands, three kilometers from the edge of Lower Morava Valley, five kilometers from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River. Isolated artifacts were collected in the vicinity south of Elevation Marker 337.4 m, including a fragment of white patinated low quality cryptocrystalline siliceous rock and two patinated radiolarite artifacts – a core and flake. Post-Paleolithic artifacts were also collected in this area.
Cadastral Territory: Javorovec
“Rovňový losek”
The find-spot is located on the edge of the Morava River Valley on a northeast-facing crest jutting out from Rovnina Hill whose summit reaches an elevation of 340 m. The Fig. 3.32. Javorovec- elevation of the site is 330 m and the distance from the artificially regulated channel Rovňový losek. Surface of the Morava River is 2.1 kilometers. Only two isolated artifacts made from erratic find collected during flint were found here: the first is a notched endscraper on a retouched blade project. Collections of (Fig. 3.32) and the second a small flake. IA AS CR Brno.
115 NAPAJEDLA Cadastral Territory: Napajedla
Nine sites from a cadastral territory of Napajedla were documented and published in detail by Oliva (1998a). Therefore I present here only supplementary information, and revised or new find-spots.
Napajedla (I)-Šardica (Gravettian site)
Napajedla (II) (Gravettian site)
Napajedla (III)-Brickyard (Gravettian site, see below)
Napajedla (IV)-Maková (Aurignacian site, eastern slope of the Maková Elevation Marker, 338.1 m)
Napajedla (V)-Jestřabí (Gravettian site)
Napajedla (VI)-Pod Dubovou (Klíma 1952)
Napajedla (VII)-Dubová (Aurignacian site?)
Napajedla (VIII)-Kotáry (Gravettian site)
Napajedla (IX)-Za žlebem (Aurignacian site)
Napajedla (III)-Brickyard, “Zámoraví”
The brickyard is located 450 m northeast of the site of Napajedla II, near the foot of the same slope. Its elevation ranges from 205 m up to 270 m. Geologically, the brickyard was in loessic sediments covering a relatively steep slope, which had been impacted by intensive landsliding.
There are three known collections from this site. The first collection was collected by Milan Šnajdr in the early 1970s, when brickyard was enlarged and ca. one meter of topsoil was removed. The exact location of finds within the brickyard is not known. The loess exploitation was soon completed and the brickyard was abandoned. However, since the fall of 2003, the removal of loess from the brickyard was begun again under the supervision of the IA AS CR and another two collections were collected during the spring 2004 survey. The first collection of artifacts was collected from the northern margin of the brickyard, on the lower brickyard terrace, while the second from the southern margin of the brickyard’s lower terrace. The distance between the two find spots is 55 m. There are significant differences between individual collections. The three collections are therefore described separately.
Šnajdr’s Collection This collection consists of 29 artifacts and is deposited in the Zlín Museum. The collection was described and published by Oliva (1998a:20) who described three more artifacts that are now missing (one of them is a semi- finished backed microsaw). The raw material spectrum consists of erratic flint supplemented by radiolarite (seven items, i.e. 24%), and one artifact is made of Cracow-Częstochowa Jurrasic flint. Technologically, the collection is composed of four tools, eight flakes, seven blades (Fig. 3.33:18-20, 24, 25, 27, 28), seven blade fragments, a partly retouched blade fragment (Fig. 3.33:26), a burin spall, and a fragment. The group of tools consists of three burins on broken blades (Fig. 3.33:21-23), and a multiple burin on a truncated blade (Fig. 3.33:17). According to Šnajdr there was fossil material, which was however not collected.
Northern Margin A collection of artifacts was collected near the northern margin of the area at an elevation ca. 210 m. Because the artifacts were covered by calcium carbonate and were followed by bone and ivory fragments, which indicated the presence of a stratified context, a small trench was excavated in the autumn of 2004. The trench hit a layer with artifacts in situ. Geologically, the gleyish find horizon, which was a maximum of 50 cm thick, represents sediments redeposited from higher parts of the slope and included Tertiary admixtures (description by Daniel Nývlt). This
116 Fig. 3.33. Napajedla-Brickyard. Southern part: surface finds collected during project, collections of IA AS CR Brno (1-2); Northern part: surface and stratified finds collected and excavated during project, collections of IA AS CR Brno (3-16); Šnajdr’s surface collection, collection of Museum Zlín (17-28).
117 situation probably indicates that material was redeposited as a result of landslides, much as we had predicted for other sites in the vicinity (cf. Napajedla-Podvinohradí, Spytihněv-Němeča).
The collection of artifacts consists of 134 items (including 52 microchips and microfragments). The prevailing raw material is erratic flint, supplemented by radiolarite (four items), silicified sandstone (two items), and three unidentified siliceous rocks. A series of 44 items shows traces of fire. The artifact surfaces look very fresh, without patina and abrasion. From a technological point of view, the collection consists of five tools, forty-six flakes, two partly retouched flakes, seven blades (Fig. 3.33:10-12), a partly retouched blade (Fig. 3.33:14), ten blade fragments, a partly retouched blade fragment (Fig. 3.33:6), a core, two microcores (Fig. 3.33:9), two burin spalls (Fig. 3.33:3, 4), and five fragments. The tools consists of a retouched blade (Fig. 3.33:13), another bilateraly retouched (or backed) blade (Fig. 3.33:15), a burin on point (Fig. 3.33:5), a short steeply retouched double endscraper (Fig. 3.33:16), and a bec (Fig. 3.33:7).
Osteological material consists of a fragmented mammoth tusk and several fragments of unidentifiable mammoth bones. In addition, three small lumps of red ochre were found.
Based on the cores and the shoulder-like retouched blade, the collection may be probably attributed to the Willendorf-Kostenki phase of the Gravettian. The mammoth tusk fragment was sent to Groningen for dating; however, the result is not yet available. This site is promising for future excavations.
Southern Margin A small collection of widely scattered artifacts was collected on the opposite margin of the brickyard, in an area approximately 20 m in diameter, at an elevation of 215 m. The stratified layer, from which the material had been removed, was not identified here. The collection of artifacts consists of sixteen items produced from erratic flint. Three artifacts are fired. In contrast with the previous collection, these artifacts are patinated white. Technologically, the collection consists of a multiple burin (Fig. 3.33:1), a truncated blade (Fig. 3.33:2), two broken blades, three flakes and nine microchips. Osteological remains include the upper jaw fragment of a wolf, and horse teeth (cf. Appendix B), the survival of which indicates their original position within stratified loessic sediments.
Conclusion The site is located within an area intensively disturbed by landslides. Three collections different from each other were collected, and most probably represent traces of repeated occupation during the Gravettian. Only one collection is datable. There is the possibility that remains of original site are still located somewhere upslope. The site has potential for future research. Therefore, it will continue to be necessary to supervise the reopened brickyard in the future.
“Maková” – in the field near a wayside cross Hrubý (1951:88) located this site in the cadastral territory of Spytihněv. However, it is possible that his site is identical with our finds from near an elevation marker on the southern slope of Maková Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 338.1 m, but is located in the cadastral territory of Napajedla. For details and discussion see Spytihněv-Maková. In 2003, a collection of four artifacts was collected ca. 25-50 m to south of the Maková Elevation Marker and included a steeply retouched, nosed Aurignacian endscraper made of erratic flint (Fig. 3.34:1) and two fired artifacts. This site may be connected with Oliva’s finds from Napajedla IV- Maková located nearby.
“Podvinohradí” Hrubý published this site (1951, 88), listing it within the cadastral territory of Spytihněv. However, it is located in the cadastral territory of Napajedla, as Bachmánek located it in the inventory cards of the Fig. 3.34. Napajedla-Maková. former Napajedla Museum (now deposited in the Zlín Museum). Surface find collected during project, collections of IA AS CR, This site was discovered in 1938 when a new road was built from Brno (1); and Hrubý’s surface Spytihněv to Napajedla. Several grades were cut on this road near the collection, collections of SM UH (2).
118 foot of Maková Hill’s eastern slope. These works were surveyed by Hrubý and Bachmánek (Museum of Napajedla), who collected archaeological and paleontological material from disturbed layers and features and carried out limited scale excavations. Hrubý (1939, 1951) reported two sites from that area: Němeča (see the Cadastral Territory of Spytihněv) and Podvinohradí. Here only Pleistocene faunal remains were collected, with no artifacts recovered; however, the find-spot is important for its geographic position. The precise location of this find is difficult to place because of Hrubý’s incomplete and ambiguous description. Therefore Oliva (1998a), using Hrubý’s first description from 1939, located this find-spot 500 m to the north of Němeča and I had previously placed it in the Duchonce area, i.e. ca. 200-300 m to the north (Škrdla and Lukáš 2000:25). However, according to Hrubý’s unpublished manuscript deposited in the Archives of IA AS CR in Brno and Bachmánek’s inventory cards from the former Napajedla Museum (now deposited in the Zlín Museum), this find-spot is located ca. one kilometer the north of the Němeča site, beneath the railroad guardhouse and near the first switch tower at Elevation Marker 192 m. This guardhouse still stands and road below it has been graded – the find-spot may be therefore located here.
The find-spot was described as a “hunting pit” 15 m in diameter, dug in marl and filled with a mammoth bone accumulation. In addition, Hrubý in the same unpublished manuscript mentioned another bone accumulation located ca. 30 m to the south. An interpretation of this find is difficult and impossible without reexcavation. Hrubý’s “romantic” interpretation as “hunting pit” has to be rejected. The find spot is located below the sites Spytihněv-Duchonce and Nad Vinohrady at the foot of slope affected by landslides. Therefore I prefer to interpret is as a possible result of a landslide; however, other possibilities such as a hunting site or natural deposition are possible (cf. Oliva 1998a).
“Prusinky” The find-spot is located on the edge of a hilltop plateau bordering the Lower Morava Valley to the east, ca. three kilometers from the Napajedla Gate. The summit of hill reaches an elevation of 281.4 m and is forested; the find- spot has an elevation of 275 m. Only two isolated artifacts were collected during a short survey in 2004 – a flake of silicified sandstone and a fired blade fragment. However, it is not clear if these artifacts are Paleolithic in age.
NEDACHLEBICE Cadastral Territories: Bílovice u Uherského Hradiště and Nedachlebice
“Nad vinohrady” – see BÍLOVICE/NEDACHLEBICE
NEDAKONICE Cadastral Territory: Nedakonice
“Díly od Polešovic”
Artifact Inv. No. 248 was described by Hrubý (1951:82) as a short, broad blade from a white patinated flint; this artifact was reevaluated. It is in fact a blade of whitish heated cryptocrystalline silicate and in addition was found within the context of a post-Paleolithic industry. In the light of these facts, a Paleolithic classification is highly improbable.
OŘECHOV Cadastral Territory: Ořechov u Uherského Hradiště
“Valachy”
Artifact Inv. No. 14858 was described by Hrubý (1951:82) as an atypical flake from a white patinated flint cracked by fire; this artifact was reevaluated. It is in fact a blade of whitish heated cryptocrystalline silicate and in addition was found within the context of a post-Paleolithic industry. In the light of these facts, a Paleolithic classification is improbable.
119 OSTROŽSKÁ NOVÁ VES Cadastral Territory: Ostrožská Nová Ves
“Padělky”
The site may be located on the basis of Horsák’s articles, in which he described finds in a garden belonging to a Mr. Botek (i.e. the field Plot No. 1392/2, Horsák 1940:93), and finds from the field Plot No. 1358/1359 (Horsák 1941:90). Later, Hrubý (1951) reported finds from several periods in field Plot No. 1358-1366 covering a broader area. Based on Horsák’s previous reports, the site may be identified in detail. The first field (Plot No. 1392/2) – Botek’s garden – is on the northern margin of the village of Ostržská Nová Ves, the other two fields represent two neighboring narrow fields near the northern edge of Ostrožská Nová Ves. The first field begins at the road from Ostrožská Nová Ves to Kunovice at an elevation of ca. 176 m, continuing upslope to a field path that represents a continuation of Padělky Street in Ostrožská Nová Ves. The second field starts at this field path and continues upslope to a small terrace at the end of field at an elevation of ca. 210 m. Based on these facts the site may be located on both sides of the field road separating these two narrow fields on the northern periphery of Ostrožská Nová Ves. However, several repeated surface surveys during 2003 did not recover any artifacts. A part of the area, including the Botek’s former garden and its immediate vicinity are currently private gardens not accesible for surveying.
The site is not stratified and the finds were collected on a loess-free gravel terrace over an area of about 100 m in diameter. The site is located on the left bank of the Morava River on a slight elevation close to the foot of the western slope of a hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 252.3 m. The elevation of the site is between 185 and 195 m. The relative elevation above the current Morava River level ranges between 12 and 22 m. The distance from the present controlled course of the Morava River is 3.2 km and the location allows the control of a wide portion of the river basin.
Within the context of a large post-Paleolithic collection, a small surface collection of white patinated and undoubtedly Paleolithic artifacts (ca. 100 items) was collected by František Botek (with additional items by Horsák 1940:93; 1941:90; and Hrubý 1940b:27; 1951:82-83). The material from this site is currently divided between two museum collections: the SM UH, which contains Horsák’s, Hrubý’s and a part of Botek’s finds and the Moravian Museum in Brno with the remainder of Botek’s collection. The unity of the two collections is documented by a refitted blade comprising the proximal end stored at the SM UH (Fig. 3.36:8) and the distal end stored in the Moravian Museum in Brno (Fig. 3.36:7).
The collection stored in the SM UH consists of 28 items. A majority of the artifacts were produced from erratic flint (25 items), with the remainder on Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint and radiolarite. Other radiolarites may be found in a non-patinated collection and their Paleolithic classification is unclear. From the technological and typological points of view the collection consists of ten blades, four blade fragments, two microblades, two microblade fragments, seven flakes, a core, and two small endscrapers (Fig. 3.36:3, 4).
The collection stored in the Moravian Museum in Brno consists of 83 items. Thirteen show a low intensity patination that may indicate a post-Paleolithic age; however, the collection was studied as a whole. With the exception of three items made from Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint and one Krumlovský les-type chert (which cannot be a Paleolithic artifact), the raw material spectrum consists solely of erratic flint. The Paleolithic age of the radiolarite artifacts is more problematic. Because no morphologically Paleolithic artifacts were documented among the radiolarite artifacts, these were not studied. This includes a radiolarite projectile point with two notches near its base (Valoch 1979, Fig. 5:9). Although this artifact has a possible analogy in a shouldered point with terminal retouch on the ventral surface from Jarošov-Podvršťa (Fig. 2.24:35), an Aeneolithic classification for it is more probable (a Štramberk-Krnov-type point). The technological spectrum consists of a core (Fig. 3.35:30) and two microcores, twenty-two blades and eighteen blade fragments, four microblades, three microblade fragments, thirteen flakes and seven microflakes, one burin spall and twelve tools. The most frequent tool type is the endscraper: two are made on distal blade fragments (Fig. 3.36:16-17), one has retouched edges and is only light patinated (Fig. 3.36:18), and one represents a fragment of a carinated, steeply retouched and nosed endscraper (Fig. 3.36:19). The second major group of tools is burins: a simple dihedral burin (Fig. 3.35:28), an atypical polyherdral burin on a crested blade (Fig. 3.35:29) and a burin on a retouched pointed blade (Fig. 3.35:24). The collection of tools is completed by raclette (Fig. 3.35:27), two
120 Fig. 3.35. Ostrožská Nová Ves-Padělky. Botek’s surface collection. Collections of Moravian Museum Brno.
121 Fig. 3.36. Ostrožská Nová Ves-Padělky. Botek’s surface collections, collections of SM UH (1-6, 8-15), and collections of Moravian Museum Brno (7, 16-19). splittered pieces, one of which may have a possible different classification (Fig. 3.35:20; cf. Valoch 1979, Fig. 5:8) and two backed microblades (Fig. 3.35:1, 2).
In general, the artifacts are mostly made of erratic flint, occasionally of radiolarite, and Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint. The typological spectrum consists of two microliths (backed microblades), six endscrapers (one of them steeply retouched), three burins (two dihedral, one made on point), two splittered pieces, and a raclette. From the technological point of view, the collection is rich in blades, microblades and microblade fragments. The dimensions of the artifacts are smaller in comparison with the other Gravettian sites in the region. The site may be classified as small; however, it remains a question as to what extent this site was affected by landslides and slope wash.
OSVĚTIMANY/ŽERAVICE Cadastral Territories: Osvětimany and Žeravice
“Hrušková”
This site is located on the boundary between the administrative districts of Uherské Hradiště and Hodonín and on the boundary between the cadastral territories of the villages of Osvětimany and Žeravice, not far from the village of Hostějov. Because of the vicinity of Hostějov, Valoch (1985) originally wrongly published this site using the cadstral name of Hostějov. The site is located in the Kyjov Highlands on Hrušková Hill, a significant hill whose
122 summit reaches an elevation of 383 m. The surface of the field is loess-free with bedrock (sandstone) immediately below the plowzone. The artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is one kilometer to the east. The artifacts were collected from a wide area on the summit of Hrušková Hill, extending down to 370 m in elevation. This represents one of the highest sites in the area. The site was discovered by Valoch, Oliva and Gebauer in 1979 and yielded a collection of 170 artifacts, which are deposited in the Moravian Museum in Brno. Valoch (1985) described the collection in detail; following paragraphs therefore presents only a brief description.
Only the raw materials were reanalyzed. The major elements of raw material spectrum are erratic flint (41%) and local cherts including Krumlovský les-type chert (33%), Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert (11%), and Boršice-type chert (7%). The raw material spectrum also includes radiolarite (eight items), Cretaceous spongolite chert (two items), silicified sandstone (one item), rock crystal (one item), and two other (probably) local cherts. One artifact is fired. In the collection, local cherts slightly prevail over imported cryptocrystalline silicate rocks. The association of rock crystal with the Paleolithic occupation is uncertain because a number of post-Paleolithic artifacts were collected on the site. Several artifacts are made from a high quality Krumlovský les-type chert different from the locally available material, suggesting the importation of this raw material from outcrops in the Krumlovský les proper or collection in the Dyje River gravels.
According to Valoch (1985) the collection is rich in raw materials with traces of knapping and preforms (15%), cortical forms (15%) and small fragments without bulb (18%), and flakes (38%). Blades are infrequent (5%), as are microflakes (8%), and bifacially retouched points (two examples). The tools consist of 24 items as well as two partly retouched fragments and a partly retouched blade (Fig. 3.37:15). The most common forms are endscrapers, burins, points and side scrapers. The endscrapers consists of a blade endscraper (Fig. 3.37:4), an endscraper on a broken bilaterally retouched blade (Fig. 3.37:2), a flake endscraper (Fig. 3.38:5), an endscraper on a retouched flake (Fig. 3.37:3), and a bilaterally retouched double endscraper (Fig. 3.37:5). The burins include a burin on broken blade (Fig. 3.37:6), a burin on broken, bilaterally retouched blade (Fig. 3.37:9), a polyhedral burin (Fig. 3.37:7), and two multiple burins (Fig. 3.37:8, 11). The points are a bifacially retouched willow-leaf shaped leaf-point (Fig. 3.37:16) and a fragment of another, wider leaf-point (Fig. 3.37:13), a retouched point (terminal retouch on the ventral surface) suggesting a Jerzmanovice-type point (Fig. 3.37:12), and the distal fragment of flat, unifacially retouched point (Fig. 3.37:10). There are four sidescrapers (Fig. 3.37:14; 3.38:2, 7, 10). Among the other tools were a bec suggesting an extremely nosed Lhotka-type endscraper (Fig. 3.37:1), a splittered piece (Valoch 1985, Fig. 3:3), the proximal end of a retouched blade (Fig. 3.38:1), and a retouched flake (Fig. 3.38:6). In addition, Valoch (1985) mentioned another flake endscraper and a flake with a notch.
Valoch (1985:11) classified this industry as indeterminate, i.e. that it cannot be attributed to any specific Upper Paleolithic culture in Moravia. The same author highlighted the leaf-points as reflecting a Szelettian influence and, on the other hand compares the flat unifacially retoched point with a similar item from Stříbrnice (Fig. 3.37:10; cf. Stříbrnice: Fig 3.48:14). He concludes that while Stříbrnice has more significant Aurignacian features, the Szeletian features are more important in Hostějov. There is one addition to make: there is another significant tool – a retouched point with terminal retouch of the ventral surface – known from Bohunician industries. In the present stage of research, there is nothing more to add and this collection may only be attributed to a generalized Early Upper Paleolithic complex.
PETROV Cadastral Territory: Petrov u Hodonína
In 1986, Jiří Chlachula (1992) excavated several artifacts on the southern outskirts of the village of Petrov. The findspot is located near a former channel of the Morava River, which is ca. 2.5 kilometers from the current, artificially regulated channel. The elevation of the find spot is about 185 m. Artifacts were excavated from a depth of 1.3 m below the current surface in a layer of of fine-grained alluvial sands. The collection of artifacts consists of a prismatic core made from a slightly patinated Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert, and a dumbell-shaped artifact carved from silty sandstone. Chlachula classified the material as a Gravettian, however, the location of the site near the river, below the alluvial sands is not characteristic for Gravettian sites. In addition, both the raw material of the core and the shape and dimension of the sandstone artifact are not characteristic for the Gravettian. Therefore, I prefer a Late Paleolithic/Mesolithic rather than a Gravettian classification for these finds.
123 Fig. 3.37. Osvětimany/Žeravice-Hrušková. Valoch’s surface collection, collections of Moravian Museum Brno. According to Valoch 1985.
124 Fig. 3.38. Osvětimany/Žeravice-Hrušková. Valoch’s surface collection, collections of Moravian Museum Brno. According to Valoch 1985.
125 PODOLÍ Cadastral Territory: Podolí nad Olšavou
“Strážné”
Several shallow crests separated by small streams jut north from the forested Hluboček Hill (366 m) towards the Olšava River valley. The westernmost of these crests follows the boundary of the cadastral territories of Hluk and Kunovice and a concentration of artifacts was discovered near the Hluboček Elevation Marker (351.4 m) (see Kunovice-Hluboček). The middle ridge consists of two high points – Kamenný vrch
Fig. 3.39. Podolí-Strážné. Surface collection collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
126 (an elevation marker at 348 m) and Strážné (327.3 m). During the 2003-2004 surface surveys, a small collection of artifacts, in part Paleolithic (Fig. 3.40) and in part Neolithic, was collected in the area of Strážné Elevation Marker. The artifacts were thinly scattered over an area of 500 m in diameter. The surface in this area is composed of gravel and is free of loess. Although the site is located deeper in the Vizovice Highland, in the Olšava River valley, it is still has a line of sight to the confluence of the Morava and Olšava rivers. The distance from artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is ca. 6 kilometers. The collection of Paleolithic artifacts consists of eighteen items. Three other artifacts (a flake, partly retouched flake, and a broken blade) are made from non-patinated radiolarite and were not classified. The raw material spectrum consists of erratic flint (seven items), patinated radiolarite (one item), Troubky/Zdislavice chert (two items), Krumlovský les-type chert (two items), silicified sandstone (one item), a probable item of révaite and four items of local cherts. Technologically, collection is composed of two irregular cores (Fig. 3.39:5, 6), five flakes, one pointed blade (Fig. 3.39:4), three broken blades, one broken microblade, two microflakes, and an artifact morphologically between core and coarse carinated endscraper (Fig. 3.39:7). Although this collection is small and typologically insignificant, based on the prevalence of local cherts and the site location, this site may be classified as Aurignacian.
“Druhé díly”
The field named “Druhé díly” refers to a low ridge jutting north from the Kamenný vrch Elevation Marker (348 m) to the Olšava River valley, east of the previously mentioned Elevation Marker of Strážné. The spot is known for its Neolithic occupation at an elevation of ca. 250 m, however, several artifacts were described as Paleolithic (Hrubý 1951:84). These artifacts were with one exception identified in the SM UH and reanalyzed. These artifacts represent technologically and typologically insignificant artifacts in the context of the site rich in post-Paleolithic industry. Their Paleolithic classification is therefore unclear and I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site.
Fig. 3.40. Podolí-Strážné, Míkovice-Radovy, and Kunovice-V úzkých, Hluboček and Lintavy. Scatter plot of collected artifacts.
127 POHOŘELICE Cadastral Territory: Pohořelice u Napajedel
“Črvrtky”
The collection of artifacts from Pohořelice (Zlín District) has been published several times (Skutil 1940; Hrubý 1951; Oliva 1998a; Škrdla 2004). Artifacts were collected during the construction of a new road from Pohořelice to Kvítkovice in the summer of 1935. The details concerning their finding are provided by the original inventory cards of the former Napajedla Museum, written by a Mr. Bachmánek (they are now stored in the Zlín Museum). These cards specify the field name “Štvrtky” (now Čtvrtky) and details about a location of finds: “during the construction of a new road from Pohořelice to Kvítkovice, in a deep cut…the workers observed the finds”. According to these cards, where the materials are drawn, the original collection of artifacts is not currently complete and several artifacts, including rock crystal items and a pierced pendant are missing. The collection was inventoried on four cards, only one of which describes the finds as Paleolithic, while the three other cards refer to the Neolithic.
This road is ca. 1.5 kilometers in length, running downslope from Pohořelice almost due north. On the edge of Pohořelice, the road runs through a deep hollow (at an elevation between 250-265 m) and its final 350 m (at an elevation between 225-245 m) cuts into a slope on its eastern side and is separated from the field by a step (baulk). However, a more precise location is not currently possible because of a lack of more detailed information. The most important reference is that artifacts were discovered and collected by road construction workers during construction. In other words, it may be interpreted that artifacts were dug from a stratified context. In addition, no linear traces of iron oxides resulting from contact with agricultural tools (plow), which are credible identificator of surface finds, were documented on the artifacts’ surfaces. In fact, traces of loessic sediments were microscopically documented in the pits on many of the artifacts’ surfaces, as were traces of precipitated calcium carbonate (positively tested for using hydrochloric acid), and worm-like structures created by precipitated limonite – all credible indicators of the stratified character of the collection. In addition, the area was surveyed and no artifacts were found on surface – another indicator of a stratified site. The question does remain as to why the collection includes only stone artifacts and no osteological material, which often survives in stratified collections.
The collection of artifacts consists of twenty-five artifacts. The first important feature of this collection is the raw material spectrum. The prevailing raw material is radiolarite (thirteen items, in one case with pebble cortex relict) followed by limnic silicite (seven items), only two artifacts are made from erratic flint, one artifact from Cracow- Częstochowa Jurassic flint, and two artifacts are made from Troubky/Zdislavice chert. Technologically, thirteen tools, six flakes, three blade fragments, a partly retouched flake, a core-like artifact, and a fragment compose the collection. Two artifacts show traces of heating. The number of tools is rather disproportionate in comparison to the remaining artifacts, which probably indicates the selectional character of this collection, something that is not surprise given the way the finds were recovered (a similar situattion has been documented in the case of Spytihněv). Burins are the predominant tool type: one burin is made on a broken blade (Fig. 3.41:5), one on the proximal end of a pointed blade (Fig. 3.41:4), one polyhedral burin is made on the distal end of laterally retouched blade (Fig. 3.41:1), and one atypical multiple is on a truncated blade (Fig. 3.41:6). Three items represent endscrapers: an endscraper on a crested blade (Fig. 3.41:8), a snapped-off endscraper head on a thick blade (Fig. 3.41:9), and an endscraper on a large blade (Fig. 3.41:7). In two cases, the flakes are ventrally retouched (Fig. 3.41:3, 17), in one case dorsally (Fig. 3.41:2), and in one other case a blade fragment has probably been retouched (Fig. 3.41:14). Rare items include a notch on a blade (Fig. 3.41:12) and a side scraper on a medial blade fragment (Fig. 3.41:18). Two partly retouched artifacts (Fig. 3.41:10, 11) round out the collection of tools.
Oliva (1998a) mentioned the possibility that a part of the non-patinated radiolarite industry may be post-Paleolithic. However, a microscopic study that documented traces of the same loessic sediments in the pits on the majority of artifacts and calcium carbonate on one radiolarite flake would indicate that the collection is homogenous rather than mixed. Culturally and chronologically, the collection may be attributed to the Late Gravettian or Epigravettian. This classification is supported by the site location (cf. with Zlín-Louky and another isolated finds in Tečovice- Stráně, Malenovice-Mezicestí a Kvítkovice-Chmelín), the prevailance of raw material Slovak in origin (radiolarite and limnic silicite), larger and massive endscrapers and retouched flakes.
The site is important for future excavations.
128 Fig. 3.41. Pohořelice-Čtvrtky. Collections of Museum Zlín.
129 POLEŠOVICE Cadastral Territory: Polešovice
Pod “Starými horami”
An isolated artifact was found five hundred meters southeast of the site of Tučapy-Nad Horkami on the slope beneath that site and at an elevation of 310 m. It is a fragment of Cretaceous spongolite chert with traces of knapping and calcium carbonate coating.
SLAVKOV
Cadastral Territory: Slavkov u Uh. Brodu
“Čtvrtky”
Hrubý (1951:84) mentioned possible Paleolithic finds from the southern slope of the hill “Nivnické Čtvrtky” (307 m and which is in fact located on the cadastral territory of Nivnice or Horní Němčí) located on the eastern margin of Slavkov’s cadastral territory. However, in his unpublished manuscript stored in the Archives of the IA AS CR Brno he mentions post-Paleolithic finds from the same spot. A collection of mainly radiolarite artifacts without typologically distinctive tool types is deposited in the SM UH. However, a Paleolithic classification is uncertain.
SPYTIHNĚV Cadastral Territory: Spytihněv
“Duchonce”
The site was discovered during the autumn 2002 survey and was subject to limited excavations in 2003 and 2004 (Škrdla and Nývltová-Fišáková 2003; Škrdla et al. 2005). The site is located at the southern entrance to the Napajedla Gate on the eastern slope beneath the Maková Elevation Marker, which has an elevation of 338.1 m. The elevation of the site lies between 245 and 248 m and the relative elevation above the current river level is in about 65-68 m; the distance from artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is 150 m. There is a former meander of the Morava River directly below the site. The Slanica mineral spring rises from the foot of Maková one kilometer north of the site. This spring has a significant chemical composition (sodium, chlorides and hydrogen sulfide) and a temperature between 10-14 °C (Květ and Kačura 1976). It may have represented a permanently flowing source of water (the temperature is sufficient to melt the permafrost, and the salinity decreases in freezing temperatures) and salt source such during glacial periods, i.e. place suitable for humans and animals.
Near the southern margin of the site is a deep and narrow valley (Duchonce) drained by a seasonal creek (flowing during wetter periods of the year). Hrubý (1951:69) reported finds of fossil bones (a mammoth molar and femur) dug in 1925 from cellar located here. However, the exact find spot is not known. In 1938, Hrubý excavated another collection of fossil bones (a mammoth tusk and molar fragments, a mammoth humerus and a wooly rhinoceros femur) during construction of the Spytihněv-Napajedla road in the field of Podvinohradí (Hrubý 1951:69). The distance of former from the Duchonce site is ca. 300-400 m, the latter ca. 250 m. Another site is located ca. 800 m to the south in the field of Němeča (Hrubý 1951:84).
Stratigraphy The site is located within a small isolated loess island, which is depicted in the geological map of the area (Havlíček 1980, Příl. V.). The loess survived only in this area, further to the south and north is eroded out. This loess island is affected by features typical for the late glacial – the loess is disturbed by solifluction and in addition, the slope is cracked into a mosaic texture and the resulting blocks have been vertically shifted. The cultural horizon lies at the bottom of the upper loess and is a grayish-blue loess rich in calcium carbonate. Below the cultural horizon are brownish sediments. The transition between loess and plowzone is sharp, lacking a B horizon, indicating intensive
130 erosion on the spot. The rate of erosion probably increased sometime in the 1950s as the result of plowing a sunken road that ran near the southern side of site.
Artifacts During two excavation seasons, a collection of 648 artifacts from an area of 30 m2 was excavated. The majority of artifacts represent sifted microchips and microfragments (smaller than 1.5 cm). In addition, a collection of three artifacts was excavated from nearby test pits and another fifteen artifacts were collected during surface survey – including a small wedge shaped core (Fig. 3.42:26).
The prevailing raw material is erratic flint, supplemented by radiolarite (3.5%). Fragments and pebbles of sandstones were collected in the cultural horizon (similarly to Jarošov); however their relation to the occupation remains unclear. Real heavy-duty implements were not found. Only two small lumps of red ochre (hematite) and two fragments of limonite were excavated.
Technologically, the collection of artifacts is composed mainly of microchips and microfragments (563 items, including 19 microblade fragments, and 32 burin spalls). The collection is important because it contains a series of 33 burin spalls (Fig. 3.42:16-17) and 21 microblades (Fig. 3.42:2-15, 23, 24); however, a precise delineation of these categories is sometimes difficult. Backed microliths, characteristic for the Gravettian, are represented by only a single item – a backed microsaw fragment (Fig. 3.42:1), which is surprising given that all sediments were sifted. Other significant artifacts include two burins, three partly retouched flakes (Fig. 3.42:19, 28, 29), and a proximal retouched blade fragment with a burin blow resulting probably from a fracture rather than intended modification (Fig. 3.42:18). The first of the burins is made on a truncated blade reconstructed from two parts (Fig. 3.42:27). There is a burin spall refitted to this burin, we were unable to refit another microflake, most probably resulting from shaping the distal end. The second burin represents the proximal fragment of a multiple burin (Fig. 3.42:25). Unfortunately the distal part of this burin is broken off and the possibility that a series of three refitted burin spalls (Fig. 3.42:17) was removed from this burin (the same raw material and shape) remains open. Five blades, eleven blade fragments, and forty flakes represent the rest of this small collection consisting of only eighty-four items larger than 1.5 cm.
One remarkable feature of this collection is its index of conjoinability – ic. For this site, it has a value that is without comparison: 25.88%. This value is for 2003-2004 excavating seasons as a whole; when the 2003 excavating season, during which the central part of the artifact accumulation was excavated, is examined alone the value reached 40.9%! The second index of refitting size is within normal values (in = 45.0%, 1/in = 2.22), as is the ratio of breaks/production sequences/reutilizations (16/3/3).
Osteological material The collection of the excavated faunal remains consists of mammoth, reindeer, and horse, probably from one or two individual in all cases (for details see Appendix B).
Distribution The artifactual and osteological materials were distributed in several isolated concentrations, which do not in all cases copy the shape of the bedrock. The central concentration is the densest and has diameter of two meters This concentration is surrounded by three small concentrations. The large bone fragments are distributed on the periphery of the main concentration, which suggests the “centrifugal effect” known from another Gravettian sites (cf. Svoboda et al. 1993). The refitting lines connect the main concentration and two small concentrations. In addition, fired bones are distributed on the periphery of the main concentration (cf. Fig. 3.43).
Conclusion The site is important from several reasons. The collection of artifacts is poor in tool types and appears finely- shaped. There is only one backed microlith and a series of non-retouched microblades. The conjoinability index is high. Only two small lumps of red ochre were found. No decorative objects were discovered. Only nine artifacts from the upper concentration show traces of fire. In addition, two isolated, small lumps of baked clay and a concentration of fired bones and teeth from the same area document the presence of fire in the upper concentration.
131 Fig. 3.42. Spytihněv-Duchonce. Surface and stratified collections collected and excavated during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
132 AB C D
Fig. 3.43. Spytihněv-Duchonce. Planigraphy. Bedrock shape with gradient vectors of slope declination (A), distribution of stone artifacts (B), bones (C), and fired bones (D).
133 A short term ocuppation, most probably “a single event” site, a possible butchering site or the remains of a lightly- constructed dwelling – hut – without a hearth inside would seemed to be indicated on the basis of the aforementioned facts, the excavated remains and their distribution (cf. Appendix B).
The loess island covers an area of more than one ha and it is therefore possible that more, similar concentrations of finds may be discovered in the vicinity in the future. Therefore this site is still important for future excavations.
“Maková” – In a field near a wayside cross
Hrubý (1951:88) mentioned a small collection of stone artifacts from the place he described as follows: “in a field near a wayside cross south of the Maková Elevation Marker”. Today it is difficult to relocate this find-spot because wayside cross has been removed and it is not clear which particular field he is referring to. However, I tried to locate it using all accessible information sources, including Hrubý’s unpublished manuscripts and old maps. Hrubý originally located his finds in the Inventory book of the SM UH under the heading of the cadastral territory of Halenkovice (Hrubý, “Soupis nálezů SM UH,” unpublished manuscript deposited in the Archives of the IA AS CR Brno). Later, he published it as being in the cadastral territory of Spytihněv (Hrubý 1951). In another article, Hrubý noted finds on Maková near Napajedla, above an elevation of 300 m (Hrubý 1948:13). Other sources of information were two maps: a 1:50,000 scale map of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia from 1944 (Deutsche Heereskarte 4359/West), and a 1:5,000 scale map from 1957 (Czechoslovak Republic State Map, Napajedla Sheet 3-5). However, there are several wayside crosses in this area south of the Maková Elevation Marker, the nearest of which is on the boundary of the cadastral territories of Spytihněv and Napajedla, 400 m south of the elevation marker. This particular cross is most probably the wayside cross mentioned by Hrubý. There are several indicators supporting this hypothesis. First, there is no other cross so close to the cadastral territory of Halenkovice and so close to the Maková Elevation Marker. In the Protectorate map, this wayside cross is identified as “Bildstock” and drawn using a specific symbol. There is only one wayside cross marked with symbol in the area south of the Maková Elevation Marker. This same symbol is used in Hrubý’s unpublished manuscript. Unfortunately, from Hrubý’s manuscript and published article is not clear if he is referring to the field to the north or to the south of the wayside cross. This cross was located on a field road (its remains are still visible in a hollow in the field) from Spytihněv to the summit of Maková, which in the vicinity of wayside cross followed the boundary between the Spytihněv (south of cross) and Napajedla (north) cadastral territories. Because Hrubý (1951:88) located the finds in the cadastral territory of Spytihněv, I present them here. However, a surface survey yielded no finds in this area; the only finds were collected in the vicinity of the Maková Elevation Marker, i.e. on the cadastral territory of Napajedla (see Napajedla-Maková).
The collection consists of four artifacts made from erratic flint: an artifact morphologically between a burin on a broken massive blade and a microcore (Fig. 3.34:3), a microblade (Fig. 3.34:2), a blade fragment, and a small flake. Culturally, especially taking into account a site location (cross is at an elevation of 320 m, on top of a ridge jutting out to the south from Maková), this collection may be classified as Aurignacian and may be connected with the finds from the vicinity of the Maková Elevation Marker.
“Nad vinohrady”
This find-spot, discovered during 2003 survey, is located not far (ca. 200 m to the north) from the site of Duchonce, on the same elevation, and ca. 1.6 kilometers to the south of the site of Napajedla II. The finds were collected on a field road between a meadow and garden. The meadow was plowed field several years ago, however, the slope was affected by landsliding and therefore abandoned. Only three stone artifacts – a blade and two microflakes from erratic flint – as well as tiny fragments of osteological material (including a chip from a mammoth molar lamelle) were found. Precipitated calcium carbonate was documented on the surface of the blade, which together with preserved oteological material indicates an origin in stratified loess. However, the small test trenches excavated during 2003 and 2004 recovered only redeposited clayish colluvial sediments including sandstone debris. However, there is possibility of finding a block of a stratified cultural horizon in the vicinity. The finds may be attributed to Gravettian.
“Němeča”
In 1938, Hrubý carried out a salvage excavation at a new road construction site in Spytihněv (Hrubý 1939:17; 1951:84-88; Skutil 1940:55). He documented three findspots in the area, where road cut through lobes at the foot
134 of a slope. These findspots were at the foot of Maková Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 338.1 m; however the ridge directly above the sites has an elevation of only ca. 300 m. The elevation of the findspots lied at about 188-189 m, and the relative elevation above the current river level is in about 8-9 m; the distance from artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is 100 m. Their locations allow control of the southern entrance of the Napajedla Gate. Two findspots with stone artifacts and faunal remains were located in the “Němeča” (sometimes referred to as “Nemeča” or “Německá”) field and the third, containing only faunal remains, in the “Podvinohradí” field. Němeča represents a 600 m wide “peninsula” jutting ca. 200 m out into the flat river valley and the Morava River flowed around it before the channel was regulated. The average elevation above the river is ca. 7 m. Taking into account the deepness of excavated cultural layer – 3.5 m – the relative elevation above the current river level is only 5 m.
The site of Němeča consists of two spots marked A and B. The main findspot – A – was described by Hrubý (1951) as a circular pit, seventeen m in diameter (Field Plot Numbers 2274-2275) filled by a cultural horizon that included stone artifacts, bone fragments and charcoal. Hrubý (1939:17) originally mentioned fifty artifacts of which only twenty-seven are deposited in the SM UH. In his unpublished manuscript (stored in the Archives of IA AS CR Brno), he mentioned that workers collected the stone artifacts, however, it was difficult to get the workers to give them up and he therefore salvaged only a portion of the finds. In addition, an intensive Neolithic occupation has been documented in the Němeča field, opening up the question of the collection’s homogeneity. Several probable post-Paleolithic artifacts were in fact included in the collection. The primary raw material is erratic flint, in five cases Krakow-Czestochowa Jurrassic flint, and one fired cryptocrystalline silicate rock. However, the artifacts made from the Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint represent post-Paleolithic rather than Gravettian artifacts (not drawn, cf. Oliva 1998a). Typologically, the collection looks like a selection of nice artifacts (mainly long blades) and tools. The typological spectrum consists of two blade endscrapers (Fig. 3.44:3, 4), a double endscraper (Fig. 3.44:5), one multiple burin (dihedral with one truncation, Fig. 3.44:2), and two combination endscraper/burins: an endscraper on a distal end of blade and a dihedral burin (Fig. 3.44:9), and an endscraper with a multiple burin and a refitted burin spall (Fig. 3.44:6). These tools are supplemented by a core (Fig. 3.45:4) and a series of blades, often partly retouched or showing utilization retouch (Fig. 3.44:1, 7; 3.45:1, 2). A blade with two notches is missing, however, the notches look like recent damage rather than original modification. Two blades were refitted with the core (Fig. 3.45:3). Two problematic artifacts round out the collection: a probably post-Paleolithic hammerstone made from a local (flysh) material and a modified fragment of sandstone interpreted as possible statuette (Valoch 1979, Tab. II). However, the notch on latter artifact looks fresh and this classification is unclear.
The second findspot marked “B” was located on the southern edge of the peninsula, 300 m of Findspot A. No additional information is available. The small collection consists of three artifacts. Two artifacts are made from a white patinated, erratic flint and show roughening of the edges as a result of redeposition that is clearly visible macroscopically. The artifacts are a double endscraper with one steeply retouched head (Fig. 3.45:5) and a blade with utilization retouch (Fig. 3.45:7). The third artifact – a fan-shaped endscraper made from a Széntgál-type radiolarite from Hungary (Přichystal concurred in the raw material classification by Oliva 1998a:27) – represents most probably a post-Paleolithic intrusion (Fig. 3.45:6). This raw material is characteristic for the Linear Band Pottery Culture (documented at this site) and not for the Paleolithic.
The findspot was relocated in the field in 2003 using the field plots mentioned by Hrubý. However, a trench located between the railroad and roadway documented only colluvial sediments ranging up to two m in depth. The stratigraphic sequence drawn by Hrubý (1951:98) was not found.
The artifacts were excavated from a low elevation not typical for the Gravettian, and several interpretations of the site location and function are likely: a short-term site, a hunting or butchering site or downslope redeposition. At the moment, I prefer the last possibility because of the lack of a loess cover above the findspots, and the new discovery of a smaller site in the “Duchonce” field, in the area above where the loess cover starts at an elevation of 245 m – as is characteristic for the Gravettian. The resolution of this problem will require systematic trenching in the area.
“Podvinohradí”
Hrubý (1951:88) published this site under the cadastral territory of Spytihněv. However, it is located on the cadastral territory of Napajedla (for details see Napajedla-Podvinohradí).
135 Fig. 3.44. Spytihněv-Němeča. Hrubý’s excavated collection. Collections of SM UH.
136 Fig. 3.45. Spytihněv-Němeča. Hrubý’s excavated collection (3: Refictted sequence of items 1, 2 and 4). Collections of SM UH.
137 STARÉ MĚSTO Cadastral Territory: Staré Město u Uherského Hradiště
“Altéře”: Parcels 2982-3029
The Altéře field is located on the same ridge as Padělky field, however, it is on the top of the crest, ca. one kilometer to the north, in the vicinity of the railroad crossing the road to Velehrad, on a gravel terrace at an elevation of ca. 215 m (manuscript stored in the Archives of the IA AS CR Brno, No. 308/1947). Artifacts described by Hrubý were identified in the SM UH depository; however, they are preudoartifacts (unworked chert fragments). The core found by Zelnitius (Skutil 1940:58, Fig. 1; Hrubý 1951:90, Fig. 10:2) is missing from the SM UH depository and cannot be restudied. Therefore the Paleolithic classification of this site is problematic and I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site.
“Čertůj kůt”
Hrubý (1951: 88) mentioned isolated finds; however, these artifacts are missing from the SM UH depository. Without a physical review of these artifacts, no classification is possible. Because the artifacts were collected from a position uncharacteristic for the Paleolithic and because a series of pseudoartifacts is mixed in other collections from Staré Město, I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site.
House No. 1306, Velehradská Street
In 1939, Hrubý (1951:89) found an isolated blade at the house No. 1306 in Staré Město construction site. The house is located ca. 400 m to the east a field of Padělky, in an elevation of 186 m. The blade (Fig. 3.46:2) is made from a cryptocrystalline silicate rock of a northern provenience (probably Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint). The distal part is recently damaged; however, the rest of the transverse scar indicates a possible burin blow. There is a flake scar on the ventral surface of the proximal part of the blade, indicating a possible impact.
“Na Čtvrtkách”
The artifacts described by Hrubý (1951:92) as Paleolithic are missing from the SM UH depository. However, based on Hrubý’s descriptions of finds as “pieces of amorphous, white patinated flint” similar to Altéře, and given the site location (near the river), these artifacts are probably pseudoartifacts. Therefore I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site.
“Na valách”
The small collection of artifacts was collected during excavation of an early medieval fortification atop a sandy dune (Valoch 1979). These artifacts are most probably Late Upper Paleolithic in age. There was a human burial at the same site; however, a LUP classification for it is problematic.
“Olší”
The site was discovered and published by Hrubý (1951:90). The find spot lies probably one kilometer to the northwest of the Staré Město railroad station on the southeastern-facing slopes running down from Elevation Marker 271.8 m (2.5 kilometers to the to the northwest, near the Velehrad-Tupesy road) to the valley of Salaška Creek at an elevation between 210 and 220 m. The distance from artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is ca. 2 kilometers. A series of post-Paleolithic artifacts are stored in the SM UH depository. Hrubý classified several artifacts as Paleolithic; however, the artifacts mentioned by him (and identified in the SM UH depository) are not necessarily Paleolithic. There was another series of possible Paleolithic artifacts described by Skutil (1941:99) – namely a carinated scraper, core and debitage – however, these artifacts were lost at the end of World War II. A Paleolithic classification for this site remains problematic – it may not, however, be ruled out.
138 “Padělky”
The field of Padělky is located on the terminus of an elongated, shallow ridge shaped by Salaška Creek on the south and Jalubský Creek on the north. The elevation is about 200 m and the relative elevation above the current river level is about twenty m. The distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is ca. one kilometer. Other find spots – Altéře and house No. 1306 (see above) – are located not far away on the same crest.
Hrubý referred to an endscraper (Fig. 3.46:1) and a flake. The flake is missing from the SM UH depository. The distal portion of the endscraper was identified on the basis of Hrubý’s draving (Hrubý 1951:90, Fig. 10:1) and the proximal end is also missing from the SM UH depository. However, the distal part of the endscraper has been re-inventoried using an incorrect inventory number (SF 14697) and the incorrect site as a result of new inventory created Fig. 3.46. Staré Město-Padělky (1), and House after the 1997 flooding. A cultural classification for No. 1306 (2). Collections of SM UH. these isolated finds is not possible. However, the assignation of this site is similar to the site of Ostrožská Nová Ves-Padělky.
“Rákoš”
Zelnitius (1938:17, 16 - Fig. 3) found an isolated artifact in the Neolithic site in the field of Rákoš. This artifact is now missing. Because the artifact was found on a Neolithic site and Zelnitius’ Paleolithic classification cannot be accepted without reservation, I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site.
STRÁŽNICE Cadastral Territory: Strážnice na Moravě
Location unknown
In 1956, Klíma (1957a) studied a collection of 72 artifacts collected by students from Strážnice and stored in the school depository. Those finds are now missing. Klíma mentioned that the artifacts were collected on the western slopes of the White Carpathians; however, a specific location is not known. The most probable location is on the slope of one of the hills on the eastern and southeastern boundary of the cadastral territory of Strážnice, i.e. Doubrava (227 m) or Žerotín (322 m). Unfortunately, these areas are not accessible for surface survey because of vineyards. The prevailing raw material was erratic flint (89%), with the remainder consisting of isolated items made from radiolarite and local Jurassic chert (the local Krumlovský les-type?). Technologically, the collection was composed of two core fragments, five flakes, three crested blades, five partly retouched blades and flakes (Fig. 3.47:7), seven tools and fifty tiny flakes and fragments. The tools consisted of a backed microblade (Fig. 3.47:1), a blade endscraper (Fig. 3.47:2), an atypical nosed endscraper (Fig. 3.47:3), a multiple burin on a truncated artifact (Fig. 3.47:8), a splittered piece (Fig. 3.47:4), a sidescraper (Fig. 3.47:11), and a borer (described as a notched artifact by Klíma, Fig. 3.47:5). Klíma compared this collection with Moravian Gravettian sites, namely Dolní Věstonice, an acceptable classification.
139 Fig. 3.47. Strážnice. Surface collection from unknown location. According to Klíma 1957a.
STŘÍBRNICE Cadastral Territory: Stříbrnice u Uherského Hradiště
“Hořístky”
The site was discovered in 1952 by Vyskočil, who had the good fortune to visit a freshly plowed field (Plot No. 297/1), at the time quite small, located within a forested area. The find spot is located on an east-facing slope of a hill whose summit reaches an elevation of 416.6 m. The elevation of the site is about 315-325 m. The site is located deep in the highlands, on a wide ridge shaped by the Dlouhá River to the north and Medlovický Creek to the south. A small, unnamed stream borders the southern edge of the site. The site of Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331 is located one kilometer to the east, and the distance from artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is ca. 8 kilometers. On the opposed side of the valley of the Medlovický Creek lies the site Tučapy-Koukolky, on the opposite side of Dlouhá River valley are Buchlovice-Chrastě and Ploskárně. According to Klíma (1972:17), the artifacts were located close to the surface in the continuous horizon that is visible in the northern and southern field boundaries. However, our test pits located in these areas did not recover any artifacts, uncovering only redeposited sandy sediments. Therefore, there still remains the theoretically possibility of finding artifacts in a stratified context within the surrounding forest. The field was not repeatedly plowed and was returned to grass after several years, which remains its current state. Vyskočil collected a series of 147 artifacts, which remain deposited in the Moravian Museum in Brno. The raw material spectrum is dominated by erratic flint. Other raw materials include radiolarite (two items), Boršice- type chert (one item), and silicified sandstone (one item, a flake with rounded edges suggesting a retoucher). Technologically, the collection consists of one core, one blade, nineteen flakes, ten partly retouched blades and their fragments, twenty-one tools and ninety-five microchips and fragments. The prevailent tool types in the collection of tools are endscraper (seven), retouched artifacts (seven items, Fig 3.48: 6,15,17,18,21), and points (two). Additional items are an isolated multiple burin on a broken blade (Fig 3.48:5), a truncated blade (Fig 3.48:13), and two combined tools: a chisel with a burin on a broken blade (Fig 3.48: 12), and a point on a bilaterally retouched Aurignacian blade combined with a simple burin on a broken blade (Fig 3.48:19). The endscrapers consist of blade endscrapers (Fig 3.48:11,22), a broken endscraper head (Fig 3.48:1), a nosed, steeply retouched endscraper (Fig 3.48:16), an atypical nosed endscraper (Fig 3.48:3), a circular endscraper (Fig 3.48:2), and an endscraper on a bilaterally steeply retouched blank with a broken proximal end (a point?, Fig 3.48:20). The points consist of a distal fragment of a steeply retouched item (Fig 3.48:10), and the distal part of blade point (Fig 3.48:14). Klíma classified this site as a Morava- type Aurignacian site and compared the collection with finds from the sites of Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331, Nová Dědina, and Žlutava (and with more problematic sites such as Předmostí and Zlín-Louky, which were probably not terribly valid) and there is nothing to change or add to his classification.
140 Fig. 3.48. Stříbrnice. Vyskočil’s surface collection. Collections of Moravian Museum Brno.
141 “Kuče”
A core and an endscraper made from erratic flint were collected by Klíma in the field of Kuče (stored in the Moravian Museum, unpublished). This find-spot may be identified on the opposite side of the small valley of an unnamed stream, ca. 300-500 m to the southeast from the site of Hořístky, at an elevation between 310-335 m.
Location unknown
A bilaterally retouched radiolarite blade (outrepassé) was published as coming from the cadastral territory of Stříbrnice (Hrubý 1940b:27, 1951:92).
SUŠICE Cadastral Territory: Sušice u Uherského Hradiště
“Kocovy” or “Kočovy”
Hrubý discovered this site during his 1930s surveys. The material from this site was published by Skutil (1940:56) and the discoverer himself (Hrubý 1951:93-94). Both authors identically localated this site on the cadastral territory of Sušice; however, on current maps the field name “Kočovy” is placed on the cadastral territory of Jalubí. Hrubý’s unpublished manuscript (unnumbered), deposited in the Archives of the IA AS CR Brno, contains a more detailed location in reference to a Neolithic ocuppation: “on the fields above brickyards, in the area of the Sušice, Jalubí, and Huštěnovice cadastral territorial boundaries, and continues to the curve in the Sušice Road, extending south from the road.” In addition, Skutil (1940:56) published an elevation for the site of between 210 and 220 m. However, determining the precise location of the site remains problematic. Taking into account all of the aforementioned information and a survey (presence of gravel including chert), the site is most probably be on a shallow, southeastern-facing slope in the area of a wayside cross (no longer standing) above a former brickyard on the cadastral boundary of Sušice and Jalubí.
The collection of artifacts deposited in the SM UH may be divided into two groups. The first group consists of non- patinated, often radiolarite flat or steeply (almost bluntly) retouched artifacts (cf. Skutil 1940: Tab. 3:4-7; Hrubý 1951:12:1-5, 13:1, 3) and a prismatic core made from Cretaceous spongolite chert (cf. Skutil 1940: Tab. 3:1; Hrubý 1951:13:4). Taking into account the post-Paleolithic occupation of this spot, those artifacts may be classified as post- Paleolithic. The second, relatively heterogenous group consists of twelve patinated artifacts, often with rounded surfaces. Local cherts are the prevailing raw material (six flakes, one fragment, and one pebble with flake scars), most probably
Fig. 3.49. Sušice-Kocovy. Hrubý’s surface collection. Collections of SM UH.
142 from gravels directly on the site. Hrubý mentioned a “flint pebble material” (in current terminology Krumlovský les- type chert) on the location. Although he was probably the first to refer to another source of the Krumlovský les-type chert, his note went unnoticed for many years. The collection of patinated artifacts also includes a radiolarite core and side scraper (Fig. 3.49:1, 2; cf. Skutil 1940: Tab. 3:2; Hrubý 1951:12:6, 13:2, 5), an eratic flint pointed blade (Fig. 3.49:3), and a Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint blade with relict cortex. A cultural classification of these finds is not possible.
“Podkopčí”
There are two blades (made from radiolarite and eratic flint) with intensively rounded surfaces from the field of Podkopčí stored in Moravian Museum in Brno. However, neither the location of this find, its possible connection with Kočovy site nor a cultural identification is possible.
TASOV Cadastral Territory: Tasov na Veličkou
“Pod Radošovem”
A collection of stone artifacts (ca. 450 items) described as Tasov-Pod Radošovem is stored in the SM UH. According to Hrubý’s inventory book (deposited in the Archives of the IA AS CR Brno), this collection was donated by the Tasov farmer J. Nekarda, who collected and excavated these artifacts on his own fields. Radošov Hill represents a significant high point within a gentle hillocky terrain on the left bank of the Morava River. The river’s artificially regulated channel is located within sight at a distance of five kilometers. The summit of Radošov Hill reaches an elevation of 244 m. The find-spot lies beneath the hill, between its foot and the village of Tasov at an elevation of ca. 210 m. A majority of this area lies within the cadastral territory of Hroznová Lhota and the site is therefore probably located with Hroznová Lhota’s cadastral territory rather than that of Tasov. However, the precise location is not known. During the 2002 survey, we found only one isolated artifact – a lightly patinated blade fragment – just at the foot of the hill.
The site is known for an extensive Neolithic occupation (Linear Band Ceramic and Moravian Painted Ware cultures, cf. excavation report no. 484/67 deposited in the Archives of the IA AS CR Brno). The majority of chipped stone artifacts are Neolithic; however, there is a series of 76 artifacts whose surfaces show a different degree of patination. Although a white tinge covers often parts of the artifacts, the surfaces of several pieces are completely covered by light, white patina, and two items are heavily patinated. The first of these latter artifacts is the proximal end of an endscraper (Fig. 3.50:8). This artifact is described in Hrubý’s inventory book (deposited in the Archives of the IA AS CR Brno) and it is therefore undoubtedly from this site. The second heavily patinated artifact – a bi- directional core (Fig. 3.50:6) – shows a rewriting of its inventory number (probably after the 1997 flooding). Therefore it the possibility that this artifact was mistakenly interpreted during the post-flood inventory cannot be excluded, as was the case with a radiolarite artifact Inv. No. SF 14749, which Oliva (1998a, Fig. 17:21) published as a find from the site of Boršice u Buchlovic-Chrástka.
Fig. 3.50. Tasov-Pod Radošovem. Nekarda’s surface collection. Collections of SM UH.
143 It is very important for understanding the site of Tasov that undoubtedly Neolithic artifacts, e.g. characteristic sickle blades, endscrapers made on characteristic curved blades (cf. Klíma 1963b), thumbnail endscrapers and microlithic trapezoids (Fig. 3.50:1-5, 7), are patinated. However, these latter microliths may also indicate a possible Mesolithic occupation, although a Neolithic classification is more probable. However, given the above-mentioned facts, some skepticism in accepting a Paleolithic age for the two artifacts in the collection is necessary. On the other hand, Paleolithic artifacts have been collected in similar position not far from here near Strážnice.
TOPOLNÁ Cadastral Territory: Topolná
“Bukovina”
A ridge runs north from the village of Topolná, jutting out in approximately a westerly direction from Hájiny Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of ca. 346 m. A small site was discovered at an elevation of 285-290 m during the 2002 survey. Twenty-seven artifacts were collected over an area of ca. 100 m in diameter. The site allows control of a large part of the Lower Morava River valley. The distance from artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is 3.5 kilometers. The surface is composed of disturbed bedrock (sandstone) and is free of loess.
This site yielded a collection consisting of 32 artifacts produced from erratic flint (22 items) and radiolarite (10 items). The collection consists of twelve flakes, a partly retouched flake, a microflake, a blade, five broken blades, a partly retouched broken blade, five fragments, and six tools. The tools are a retouched flake (Fig. 3.51:3), a splittered piece, a burin on a broken blade (Fig. 3.51:4), an atypical burin on a pointed blade (Fig. 3.51:5), a multiple polyhedral burin (Fig. 3.51:8), and a side scraper (Fig. 3.51:6). The two latter tools may be classified such as cores.
Although this collection is poor in culturally sensitive tool types, it may nevertheless be attributed to the Aurignacian.
“Nadmezná”
Another isolated artifact – a fragment of bilaterally retouched blade from erratic flint (Fig. 3.51:1) – was found at an elevation of 283 m approximately 400 m to the southeast of Bukovina on a secondary ridge jutting from the ridge with the sites of Bukovina and Osičná to the south.
“Osičná”
The site is located 650 m southwest of Bukovina on the same crest. The elevation of this site is between 260- 266 m. As is the case with the Bukovina site, its strategic position allows the control of the valley and the loess- free surface is composed of disturbed bedrock.
This site yielded a collection of 31 artifacts produced mostly from erratic flint (27 items); additionally there is one radiolarite item, local cherts (two items), and one fired artifact. Technologically, this collection consists of three cores (Fig. 3.51:11, 12), a massive flake suggesting a Levallois core (Fig. 3.51:13), fourteen flakes, three partially retouched flakes, a microflake, four broken blades, three fragments, and two tools. The tools are a fragment of a steeply retouched tool (Fig. 3.51:10) and another retouched tool fragment (Fig. 3.51:9).
Although this collection is poor in culturally sensitive tool types, it may nevertheless be attributed to the Aurignacian.
“Osičná – A”
An isolated artifact – a small erratic flint flake – was found approximately 250 m to the west from the site of Osičná at an elevation of 250 m.
144 Fig. 3.51. Topolná-Nadmezná (1), Bukovina (2-8), and Osišná (9-13). Surface collections collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
145 TRAPLICE Cadastral Territory: Traplice
“Bukáčová”
The site is located west of the village of Traplice on a ridge jutting from the main ridge of the Chřiby southeastern direction to the Morava River valley; its distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is seven kilometers. This ridge is shaped by Jankovický Creek to the northeast and Jalubský Creek to the southwest. There is an elevation marker for Bukáčová Hill on this ridge; the summit of the hill reaches an elevation of 344.0 m. The site is located on the southeast-facing slope of Bukáčová, some 200-600 m from the summit at an elevation between 325-335 m. The surface of the field is composed of gravels that include Krumlovský les-type chert and probably such Boršice-type chert nodules. The site was discovered during the spring 2003 survey and a collection of thirty-eight artifacts has thus far been collected.
The raw material spectrum reflects the availibility of local raw materials on the site and aproximatively one-half of the artifacts are produced from local cherts – Krumlovský les-type chert (eight items), Boršice-type chert (seven items), Troubly/Zdislavice-type chert (one item), and other unspecified local cherts (two items). The artifacts made from imported raw materials are thirteen on erratic flint and four radiolarite. The raw material spectrum is rounded out by coarser rocks – silicified sandstone (two items), and quartzite (one item).
The collection from a technological point of view consists of five cores, a blade (Fig. 3.52:5), a partly retouched blade, a broken blade, seven flakes, a partly retouched flake, four fragments, two microflakes, and sixteen tools. The prevailing tool type is the endscraper (nine examples), supplemented by three sidescrapers (Fig. 3.52:12, 13, 15), a dihedral burin (Fig. 3.52:10), two bilaterally retouched blade fragments (Fig. 3.52:8, 11), and a splittered piece. The endscrapers are a circular endscraper (Fig. 3.52:1), an endscraper on a retouched blade (Fig. 3.52:2), a semi-steeply retouched blade endscraper (Fig. 3.52:16), a flake endscraper (Fig. 3.52:7), a steeply retouched flake endscraper (Fig. 3.52:3), a fragment of carinated endscraper on a steeply retouched blade (Fig. 3.52:17), a carinated endscraper on a bilaterally, steeply retouched blade (Fig. 3.52:4), a nosed endscraper (Fig. 3.52:6), and a nosed and notched double endscraper (Fig. 3.52:9).
Given the characteristic carinated and nosed endscrapers and steep Aurignacian retouch, this collection may be attributed to the Aurignacian. In comparison with other collections within the region, this collection is characterized by an increase in local raw materials use and a predominance of endscrapers within the typological spectrum. Geographically, this site has one of the highest locations in the area.
“Kopaniny”
The site of Kopaniny is located ca. 400 m to the southeast of the Bukáčová site on the same crest, in the vicinity of the 317.4 m Elevation Marker. The surface of the field is composed of gravels including Krumlovský les-type chert nodules. The site was discovered during the spring 2003 survey.
The collection consists of nine artifacts made of predominantly on local cherts – a Boršice-type chert (four items), a Krumlovský les-type chert (two items), and erratic flint (three items). Technologically, the collection consists of a coarse core (Fig. 3.52:23), a flake, a blade (Fig. 3.52:21), a broken blade, a fragment of a thick Aurignacian blade, a microflake, and three tools. The tools consist of a recently damaged carinated endscraper with lateral retouch (Fig. 3.52:20), a chisel (Fig. 3.52:19), and a burin on a broken massive blade (Fig. 3.52:22).
Although the collection is poor in culturally sensitive tool types, it may be attributed to the Early Upper Paleolithic, most probably to the Aurignacian, similar to the neighboring site of Bukáčová.
“Kopaniny – A”
An isolated artifact – a local chert flake – was found 500 m to the southeast, on a northeast facing slope of a hill with an elevation marker of 317.4 m.
146 Fig. 3.52. Traplice-Bukáčová (1-18) and Kopaniny (19-23). Surface collections collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
147 “Kopaniny – B”
Another isolated artifact – a Boršice-type chert retouched flake fragment – was found 600 m to the south in the vicinity of an elevation marker at 289.1 m on the southeast-facing slope of a hill with an elevation marker of 317.4 m.
“U kříže”
Another isolated artifact – a medial blade fragment on a white patinated material (possibly erratic flint) – was found near the southeastern margin of Traplice’s cadastral territory, on an extension of the same ridge as the aforementioned sites of Bukáčová and Kopaniny, near the “U kříže” field in the immediate vicinity of the Elevation Marker 265.7 m.
TUČAPY Cadastral Territory: Tučapy
House No. 15
František Petrů collected the small collection of artifacts in the garden of his house (No. 15) during 1941 (Horsák 1942; Hrubý 1951:94). The circumstances of the find are not known with exception of one note concerning another, in this case early medieval find (possibly a burial) on the same spot at the same time (Horsák 1942). Petrů’s son remembers only his father note about an early medieval find (a pot) during the expansion of the garden.
The garden is located on a steep slope near the upper termination of a gully, running in a northerly direction to the valley of Medlovický Creek. The elevation of the garden ranges between 320-330 m. The distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is 5.5 kilometers
There are two possible locations for the finds:
1. Approximately in the center of garden, the ruins of a structure cut into the slope are visible;
2. Near the house is a garden cut into the slope.
The garden is on loess; therefore the construction activities on both places may have resulted in the disturbance of stratified sediments, bringing a number of artifacts to light. Above the garden is an old sunken road flanked by loess walls up to two m high.
Of the material published by Horsák (1942:75) and later by Hrubý (1951:94), a collection of eight artifacts was found in the SM UH depository. This collection includes a blade (Fig. 3.53:1), a microblade (Fig. 3.53:3), two flakes (Fig. 3.53:2, 4), two burnt flakes (joined into one), a microflake, and a burin spall. At least half the artifacts are made from erratic flint, and at least one is made from Krumlovský les-type chert. Traces of calcium carbonate penetration on the surface of three artifacts indicates their original position in loess and only brief exposure on the surface. The collection may be generally attributed to the Upper Paleolithic. However, on the basis of the geographic setting, an EUP classification is more probable. The site is important for future excavation, although the issue of garden being private property remains to be resolved.
“Koukolky”
The field name “Koukolky” is associated with short, elongated ridge jutting in northerly direction from the Újezdy Elevation Marker; the summit of this hill reaches an elevation of 357.5 m (Fig. 3.54). The site is oriented towards the valley of Medlovický Creek rather than towards the Morava River valley. The elevation of the site ranges between 300-315 m. The distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is five kilometers. The site Boršice/Buchlovice-Elevation Marker 331 is located directly on the opposite bank of the Medlovický Creek. House No. 15 is located 700 m to the southeast. During the 1970s, the hill was terraced, unfortunately without any archeological supervision. Calcium carbonate concretions in the field indicate the presence of loess
148 Fig. 3.53. Tučapy-house no. 15 (1-4), Koukolky (5-10), Nad panským (11-12), and Nad horkami (13-17). Surface collection, collections of SM UH (1-4), and surface collections collected during project, collections of IA AS CR Brno (5-17).
149 within the site; however, due to the removal of sediments during terracing, any possible stratified cultural layer has been probably destroyed. There are traces of penetrated calcium carbonate on the surface of one artifact. The spatial distribution of every artifact was recorded and the scatter plot may help in the future to find a relict of cultural layer in situ. The site was discovered in 2003 and repeatedly surveyed during 2003 and 2004.
The collection consists of nineteen artifacts. The prevailing raw material is erratic flint, supplemented by two artifacts made from Boršice-type chert, and one piece each of radiolarite, Krumlovský les-type chert, and fired chert. Technologically, this collection includes ten flakes, one blade and three blade fragments, two fragments, and three tools. The tools are a burin on a broken retouched flake (Fig. 3.53:8), a sidescraper (Fig. 3.53:6), and an atypical endscraper combined with a burin (Fig. 3.53:10).
This collection, although poor in culturally sensitive tool types, may be attributed to the Aurignacian.
“Nad horkami”
This site is located on a ridge between the heights of Tučapy Hill (340.4 m) and Újezdy (357.5 m), at an elevation ranging between 336-342 m (Fig. 3.54). It lies in a very strategic position allowing control of a long stretch of the Morava River valley. The distance from an artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is four kilometers.
The site was discovered in 2002 and repeatedly surveyed during 2003 and 2004. As of now, the site has yielded a collection of fourteen artifacts produced of erratic flint, and one example of patinated radiolarite. The most significant artifact is a core with prepared dorsal surface, which was reduced from both its broad and narrow edges (Fig. 3.53:17). Other tools are the terminal fragment of a retouched pointed blade (possibly a borer, Fig. 3.53:14) and a polyhedral burin (Fig. 3.53:16). Two cores, two flakes, two blade fragments, a partly retouched blade (Fig. 3.53:15), a burin spall, and an artifact resembling a burin spall or a relict of some tool damaged by intensive impact (Fig. 3.53:13) round out the collection.
Fig. 3.54. Tučapy-Nad horkami, Nad panským and Koukolky, Boršice-Chrástka and Hlaviny, and Polešovice-Pod Starými horami. Scatter plots of collected artifacts.
150 This collection, although poor in culturally sensitive tool types, may be attributed to the Aurignacian.
Another isolated artifact, which may be connected with this site, was found ca. 500 m downslope on cadastral territory of Polešovice (see Polešovice-Pod Starými horami).
“Nad panským”
The site was discovered during a 2003 survey and a collection of nineteen artifacts was collected during surveys in 2003 and 2004. The site is located in the “Nad panským” field on the northwest-facing slope of Tučapy Hill (Fig. 3.54), the summit of which reaches an elevation of 340.4 m. The elevation of the site lies between 325-335 m. The site allows control of the valley of Medlovický Creek rather than the Morava River valley, which it is possible to see from the ridge top, ca. 100 m to the east of the find-spot.
The prevailing raw material is Krumlovský les-type chert (twelve items) followed by erratic flint (six items) and a one patinated radiolarite iem. Technologically, the collection is composed of a core, six flakes, four broken blades, two fragments, four microflakes, and two tools. The tools are two atypical endscrapers, the first on a bilaterally retouched blade (Fig. 3.53:11), the second – carinated – on a steeply retouched blade/flake fragment (Fig. 3.53:12).
This collection, although poor in culturally sensitive tool types, may be attributed to the Aurignacian.
UHERSKÉ HRADIŠTĚ Cadastral Territory: Jarošov u Uherského Hradiště
Jarošov I, “Rochuz,” “Rovňa,” St. Roch’s Chapel
The site is located on the western margin of the Rovnina Hill plateau, on a field near the eastern side of the Chapel of St. Roch. The elevation of the site ranges between 300-305 m. It lies on a very strategic position that allows control of a long stretch of the Morava River valley. The distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is one kilometer
Hrubý (1951:81) discovered this site in 1945 and collected a series of twenty-eight artifacts that remain deposited in the SM UH. However, the collection is labeled Mařatice-Rochuz, which is probably the reason for Procházka not finding it and reporting it as missing (cf. Procházka 1983). Another collection is deposited in the Moravian Museum in Brno (collected by Klíma and others), and the most recent collection collected by the author is deposited in the IA AS CR in Brno.
Hrubý’s collection consists of twenty-eight artifacts produced of erratic flint (23 items), supplemented by one example each of Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint, Troubky/Zdislavice chert and Boršice-type chert, and two items of patinated radiolarite (however another three radiolarite artifacts were not classified because of possibility that they represent contamination by Neolithic material). Technologically, this collection consists of eleven flakes, two blades, three blade fragments, four partly retouched blades, a partly retouched blade fragment, a core and five tools. The tools include two burins – a burin on the proximal end of a pointed blade (Fig. 3.56:1), and a burin on a truncated blade (Fig. 3.56:5), a blade endscraper (Fig. 3.56:7), a bec (Fig. 3.56:2), and a truncated blade (Fig. 3.56:4). Three artifacts with light patina would seem to indicate a post-Paleolithic classification.
The Moravian Museum collection consists of eleven artifacts. With the exception of one piece of Troubky/Zdislavice chert, all the artifacts are produced on erratic flint. Technologically, the collection is composed of a core, two broken blades (a medial and a proximal fragment), six flakes, one microflake and one combined tool. Klíma collected this last artifact: a combination of an endscraper and burin on a long blade (Fig. 3.56:15). Similar to three items from Hrubý’s collection, this artifact shows only a light patina and resembles the Gravettian artifacts from Spytihněv-Němeča site rather than an Aurignacian artifact. A second possibility is contamination by post- Paleolithic artifacts. Late Paleolithic/Mesolithic and Neolithic (Moravian Painted Ware) occupations have been documented here (Škrdla 2002).
151 Fig. 3.55. Jarošov-Rochuz. Surface collection collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
152 Over the past ten years, the author has repeatedly surveyed this site and compiling a collection of 113 artifacts. The artifacts are produced predominately from erratic flint (81 items), other materials are radiolarite (twelve items), Troubky/Zdislavice-type chert (nine items), Boršice-type chert (two items), other local cherts (four items), silicified sandstone (four items), and limnic silicite (one item). Several other typologicaly non-diagnostic radiolarite artifacts were collected; however, these artifacts were not attributed to the Paleolithic because of other (Neolithic and Late Paleolithic) occupations on the same spot. Technologically the collection comprises five cores, forty-five flakes, eight microflakes, four partly retouched flakes, two blades, thirteen broken blades, two partly retouched blades, four fragments, a partly retouched fragment, two burin spalls, and twenty-seven tools. The tools are of five endscrapers on retouched blades (Fig. 3.55:1-5), four sidescrapers (Fig. 3.55:22; 3.56: 9, 10, 14), a foliate point (Fig. 3.55:8) and another broken foliate point tip (Fig. 3.55:9), two splittered pieces, a series of six retouched blades (Fig. 3.55:16, 19, 21; 3.56:11-13), a combination endscraper with a burin on a truncation (Fig. 3.55:7), and seven burins. The burins consists of two dihedral burins produced by single blows (Fig. 3.55:12, 13), a dihedral burin made by a series of blows (Fig. 3.55:17), a burin on a pointed blade (Fig. 3.55:11), a transverse burin (Fig. 3.55:10), a burin on truncated blade (Fig. 3.55:18), and a multiple dihedral burin (Fig. 3.55:17).
Fig. 3.56. Jarošov-Rochuz. Hrubý’s surface collection stored in SM UH (1-7), surface collection collected during project, collections of IA AS CR, Brno (8-14), and Klíma’s surface find, collections of Moravian Museum Brno (15).
153 Generally, the collections from Jarošov-Rochuz are characterized by burins (often made by a single blow, polyhedral burins are infrequent) being more numerous than endscrapers (there are only two examples blade-like, steeply retouched Aurignacian forms). The collections are completed by Aurignacian retouched blades and foliate points. Microlithic implements were not documented. In comparison to other Aurignacian collections from the area, the absence of nosed carinated endscrapers is important. The collection may be attributed to the Aurignacian both on the basis of site location and tool typology. Given the presence of foliate points, the site may be attributed to the Morava-type Aurignacian.
Jarošov II Site-cluster: see Chapter 2
Consists of the following sites:
- “Kopaniny”, 1979 Procházka’s, and 1980 Seitl and Valoch’s excavations;
- “Podvršťa”, 1996-2000 IA AS CR Brno excavations;
- “Žleb”, Hrubý’s finds.
“Podrovňa”
A recently broken small fragment of erratic flint was collected in the field of Podrovňa, ca. 800 m to the west of the Rovnina site at an elevation of 300 m.
“Rovnina”
The site is located on the north facing edge of the Rovnina Hill plateau; the summit of the hill reaches an elevation of 340 m. The distance from the artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is ca. two kilometers. The elevation of the site ranges between 325-335 m. Other sites in the Rovnina Hill area are Jarošov-Rochuz, located 1.3 kilometers to the west and Mistřice-Rovňový losek, located ca. 800 m to the northeast.
During repeated surveys carried out from 1996 through the present, the author has collected four artifacts. This assemblage consists of a recently broken finely retouched blade (Fig. 3.57:2), and a partly retouched flake (Fig. 3.57:3), both from erratic flint, a radiolarite partly retouched fragment, and Krumlovský les-type chert flake.
Cadastral Territory: Mařatice
Štancl’s Brickyard
Štancl’s brickyard was located on the eastern edge of Mařatice, at the foot of a ridge jutting from the Mařatice cemetery at an elevation ranging between 200-220 m. At the present, this brickyard has been abandoned and is currently the site of residential housing construction.
Fig. 3.57. Jarošov-Podvršťa A (1), and Rovnina (2-3). Surface finds collected during project. Collections of IA AS CR Brno.
154 Kříž (1897) reported finds of Pleistocene faunal remains from this brickyard as early as in 1897. Skutil (1940:59) and Hrubý (1951:82) quoted Zelnitius (1937:24) who mentioned stone artifacts from this site. However, Hrubý did not find artifacts at the time when the walls of brickyard were accessible and no Paleolithic artifacts were found in the SM UH depository. In addition, the site is known for a Neolithic occupation. The Paleolithic classification of this site remains very problematic and therefore I do not consider this to be a Paleolithic site (i.e. the stone artifacts from this site).
“Nadzahradí”
The artifact with Inv. No. 250 described by Hrubý (1940b:27; 1951:82) as “a rounded flint flake” was restudied and reclassified as a pseudoartifact – a fragment of local chert from gravels. Therefore, this site is rejected.
“Kolébky”
This site is located on the moderate, south-facing slope of Rovnina Hill, on the right bank of the Olšava River, however, still within sight of the Morava River and the confluence of the Morava and Olšava rivers. The field name “Kolébky” or “Kolíbky” identify the area of a blind valley (perpendicular to the Olšava River) with spring called Korábek (now regulated) at its bottom. A set of seventeen artifacts thinly distributed over an area of 300 × 100 m (Fig. 3.58) was collected on the eastern steep slope bordering this valley. The elevation of the site ranges between 250-270 m. The minimal distance from the current, artificially regulated channel of the Morava River is three kilometers; the distance from current confluence of the Morava and Olšava rivers is six kilometers. The slope with finds is heavily eroded and free of loess. The terrain morphology, the absence of loess cover (there are only Tertiary sediments on the spot), and finds located down-slope (see below) indicate the possible impact of landslides in this area. Therefore two hypotheses explaining this site are available. The first hypothesis explains this accumulation of finds as traces of a short-term or occasionally visited site. On the other hand, the second hypothesis takes into account the possible landslides and predicts a possibility that the covering loess has slid downslope and the artifacts still collected in this area represent only relicts of original site.
Fig. 3.58. Mařatice-Kolébky. Scatter plot of collected artifacts.
155 Fig. 3.59. Mařatice-Kolébky. Surface collection collected during project, collections of IA AS CR Brno (1-7), Horsák’s find from the field “Slíny”, collections of SM UH, and Hrubý’s find from the field “Koráb”, collections of Moravian Museum Brno (9).
156 The artifacts were collected during occasional surveys between 1996 and 2004. The collection consists of eighteen items. The prevailing raw material is a white patinated erratic flint, supplemented by four pieces of patinated radiolarite, and one piece is made from local chert. Technologically, the collection consists of a bidirectionally reduced prismatic core (Fig. 3.59:7), eight flakes, two blades (Fig. 3.59:5, 6), two broken blades (Fig. 3.59:3, 4), two fragments, a concavely truncated blade fragment (Fig. 3.59:2), an endscraper made on a broken blade (Fig. 3.59:8), and a retouched microblade (the retouch has almost a backing character, Fig. 3.59:1).
A second problem is the cultural identification of the finds when characteristic tool types are missing. Based on the terrain morphology (on a slope at an elevation of 250 m), the site resembles the Gravettian settlement strategy; however, its protected position in a small side valley rather resembles rather an Epigravettian settlement strategy. Generally, this site may be attributed to the Gravettian/Epigravettian period.
Other finds from the fields of Koráb, Kotvice and Slíny (see Sady) are very probably associated with this site. These find-spots were mistakenly located on the cadastral territory of Sady (Hrubý 1982:86; Marešová 1985); however, they are located within the cadastral territory of either Mařatice or Vésky. However, within the list of villages in the Uherské Hradiště area, the field of Koráb, with one section known as Kolébky, is rightly located within the cadastral territory of Mařatice (cf. Zemek 1992:570). A prepared nodule of erratic flint (Fig. 3.59:9; unpublished, stored in the Moravian Museum in Brno) was found in the Koráb field and a massive, heavily patinated Middle Paleolithic-like flake (Hrubý 1982:86; deposition unknown) was found in the Kolébky field.
“Kotvice”
An isolated, slightly patinated flint (probably from Cracow-Częstochowa Jurassic flint) blade fragment was found on a shallow south facing slope at an elevation of ca. 225 m. This find-spot is located on the opposite side of the blind valley with the Korábek spring and the site of Kolébky, which is located ca. 600 m to the east. In addition, the artifact was found not far from Marešová’s excavations in Sady-Dolní Kotvice, which is located ca. 500 m to the southwest. However, because of its light patination, the artifact cannot Upper Paleolithic in age and a Late Paleolithic through Eneolithic classification is more probable.
Cadastral Territory: Míkovice nad Olšavou
“Radovy”
The field of Radovy represents the westernmost of the crests jutting in a northerly direction from Hluboček Hill, the summit of which reaches an elevation of 351.4 m (cf. Kunovice). The site is located on the same crest, ca. one kilometer to the north of the site of Kunovice-Hluboček, in the vicinity of the contour line of 320 m (Fig. 3.40). The valley of Míkovický Creek, which is perpendicular to the Olšava River, borders the ridge to the east. The site of Podolí-Strážné is located on the opposite side of Míkovický Creek, at a similar elevation. This spot is located on a strategic position allowing control of the confluence of the Morava and Olšava rivers and the entry into the Olšava River valley – a potential route to radiolarite outcrops in the White Carpathians.
The site was discovered during the winter 2003 survey, when only three artifacts were collected: a burin on a broken blade of white patinated erratic flint (Fig. 3.60), a silicified sandstone flake, and Fig. 3.60. Míkovice-Radovy. a partly retouched radiolarite blade. Because a Neolithic polished axe Surface find collected during was collected at the same spot such, the latter two artifacts cannot be project. Collections of IA AS Paleolithic in age. CR Brno.
157 Cadastral Territory: Sady (Derfle)
“Dolní Kotvice”
Marešová (1985) found two possible Paleolithic artifacts within the framework of her excavations of an early medieval site and burial ground in the field of Kotvice. Because of the present state of Moravian Museum in Brno’s depository, it is not possible to currently identify the artifacts.
“Kolébky” and “Koráb”
This site was mistakenly localated on the cadastral territory of Sady (Hrubý 1982:86; Marešová 1985 etc.), however, it is located within the cadastral territory of Mařatice – see Mařatice.
“Padělky”
A small collection of artifacts was collected during Hrubý’s excavation of an early medieveval complex on a high spot flanking the left bank of the Morava River in Sady (Valoch 1979). These artifacts are most probably Late Paleolithic in age.
“Slíny”
The artifact Inv. No. 2470 reported by Hrubý (1951:79) represents a partly retouched distal blade fragment made from erratic flint (Fig. 3.59:10). The artifact is significantly eolized and its edges are rounded, which may indicate its transport from a place upslope. Although Hrubý (1951:79) and Marešová (1985) located the find within the cadastral territory of Derfle (now Sady), according to Marešová’s map (1985: Tab. 2, and an original map deposited in the Moravian Museum in Brno, Luděk Galuška, pers. comm. 2003) the site is located within a cadastral territory of Vésky. The precise location is therefore unknown, however, one thing is clear – the find- spot is located downslope and not far (ca. 100-300 m) from the site of Mařatice-Kolébky and may be associated with it.
Cadastral Territory: Vésky
An isolated artifact – a patinated radiolarite core tablet – was collected on a hill on the northeastern margin of Vésky (251.7 m) in the area where Olšava River abandons its narrow valley and enters into athe Lower Morava Valley, 6.5 kilometers from its current confluence with Morava River.
ÚJEZDEC Cadastral Territory: Újezdec u Osvětiman
“Díly”
In 1985, Valoch and Gebauer collected four isolated artifacts on the top of a hill lying between the villages of Újezdec and Vážany. The artifacts were collected on the southern side of a field road leading from Újezdec to Vážany at an elevation of 380 m, which is one of the highest locations for of a Paleolithic site within this area. The site is located far from the Morava River Valley, above the valley of Medlovický creek, between the Osvětimany/Žeravice site (2.5 kilometers to the west) and the Tučapy sites (3.5 kilometers to the east).
The collection consists of three flakes and one proximal blade fragment, all made from erratic flint. According to the site location, the site may be compared to the Osvětimany/Žeravice site and attributed to the EUP.
158 VELEHRAD Cadastral Territory: Velehrad
“Háj,” “Na hrádku”
In 1925, Zelnitius (1938:16, Fig. 1, 2) found two isolated artifacts in the field of Háj or Na hrádku. These fields are located on a slope south of the village. Zelnitius described the artifacts as a white patinated blade and flake. These artifacts are currently missing and any classification is impossible.
“Rákoš”
Another isolated artifact – a blade fragment – may have been found in the field of Rákoš (Zelnitius 1938:17). However, this field is known for its rich Neolithic occupation and a Paleolithic classification is uncertain. In addition, the artifact is currently missing and cannot be reanalyzed.
“Olší”
Skutil 1940:58) mentioned an isolated artifact – “an irregular radiolarite flake from a pebble with traces of knapping” – found somewhere on a plateau ca. one kilometer southern from Velehrad. However, this artifact is missing and cannot be reanalyzed. Another fact is that Hrubý (1940b:27) and, according to him, Skutil (1940:58) mistakenly placed Fig. 3.61. Velehrad-Podleščí. Surface the site on the cadastral territory of Velehrad (cf. Hrubý 1951:96); find collected during project. Collections however, it is located on the cadastral territory of Zlechov (Hrubý of IA AS CR Brno. 1951:96).
“Podleščí”
The site is located on a ridge jutting in a southeasterly direction from the Dubiny Elevation Marker (351.9 m) at an elevation of 285-295 m (the upper ridge is forested). The valleys of the Salaška Creek to the southwest and the Modranský Creek to the northeast shape this crest. The site yielded a series of six coarse artifacts made from lower quality local cherts (two irregular cortical forms, a massive flake, and a fragment) as well as a Troubky/Zdislavice chert fragment and a porcelanite sidescraper/core (Fig. 3.61). Although this small collection has an archaic appearance, this may only be a reflection of its low quality material. The collection may be attributed to the Middle or Upper Paleolithic.
ZLECHOV Cadastral Territory: Zlechov
“Pod Hájem”
The site is located on a “shallow, east-facing slope in the vicinity of an elevation marker at 237 m” (Hrubý 1951:96). However, in his unpublished manuscript deposited in the Archives of IA AS CR in Brno, Hrubý mentioned the height of the elevation marker as being 247 m. Originally, Hrubý (1940b:27) and according to him Skutil (1940:58), had mistakenly placed this site in the cadastral territory of Velehrad (cf. Hrubý 1951:96). It seems to be that this location was influenced by a series of mistakes. However, a correct spatial identification may be based on the Elevation Marker 247 m. This elevation marker was located using a map from 1942 (Deutsche Heereskarte, Protektorat, 4359/West). “Elevation Marker 237” is a mistake because the nearest elevation marker at 237 m is located in a cadastral territory of Staré Město. Therefore, this find-spot is ca. 700-900 m to the north of Zlechov, on a shallow ridge jutting to the south from near the Elevation Marker of 271.8 m. The artifact was described as a wide patinated flint blade (Skutil 1940:58), probably retouched into a broken point (Hrubý 1940b:27, 1951:96). However, this artifact is lost and cannot be reanalyzed.
159 3.3. List of Sites
160 161