Pavel Malík, Karel Faltýnek, Pavel Šlézar, Lucie Černá, Petr Holub, Václav Kolařík, David Merta, Marek Peška, Lenka Sedláčková, Hynek Zbranek, Antonín Zůbek, Ivan Čižmář, Petr Kos, Marek Lečbych, Pavel Fojtík, Martina Kršková, Sandra Sázelová, Marie Prachařová, Michaela Kovaříková, Martin Novák, Josef Jan Kovář, David Parma, Lukáš Hlubek, Lenka Kovářová, Miroslav Daňhel, Miroslav Popelka, Táňa Adámková, Monika Martinisková, Jakub Halama, František Kolář, Jana Brhelová, Tomáš Zlámal, Marek Kalábek, Klára Rybářová, Pavel Malík, Jiří Kala, Michal Přichystal, Marek Hladík, Libor Klačík, Marian Mazuch, Lumír Poláček, Jaroslav Škojec, Tomáš Zeman, Piotr Werens, Peter Kováčik, Vít Hadrava, Richard Zatloukal, Jindřich Hlas, Martin Kuča, Jakub Vrána, Hana Kartousová, Josef Večeřa, Michal Zezula, Zdeněk Hájek, Hana Koubková, Dana Menoušková, Hana Lafková, Jaroslav Dytrych, Adéla Balcárková, Svatopluk Bříza, Rudolf Feilhauer, David Rožnovský. and Obsahuje seznam literatury
Metabasic rocks of the Želešice type were one of the most intensively utilized raw materials used for the manufacture of Neolithic polished industry in the Middle Danube region. Primary sources are located in the Ophiolite Belt (formerly Metabasite Zone) of the Brno Batholith, approximately 5 km SW of Brno. All sites represent secondary workshops that are not located at the outcrops. Quarrying at the outcrops has not been directly confirmed for this period. The focus of this work is a complex description of a unique primary workshop recently discovered nearby primary outcrops. Recently obtained data has revealed new information about the lithic operational stages, morphology, dimensions and procurement of the raw material. Petrographic analysis reveals several subvarieties of metabasic rocks which were utilized to different degrees. Another goal of this work is to add to the debate regarding terminology of workshop sites., Jaroslav Bartík, Lukáš Krmíček, Tereza Rychtaříková, Petr Škrdla., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
Taphonomic, paleopathological, and paleodemographic analyses of human remains from the Mid Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia are increasingly documenting a diversity of mortuary behaviors among these successful Late Pleistocene foragers. These considerations are joined by three associated pairs of otherwise isolated appendicular remains from the site of Pavlov I (the Pavlov 31 partial hands and the Pavlov 37 and 38 tarsometatarsal skeletons), previously described morphologically but not assessed in terms of their taphonomy. They are described here with respect to their contexts and patterns of preservation to assess possible taphonomic and/or mortuary implications of these sets of antimeres. Subchondral articular bone that is free of carbonate encrustation on at least the Pavlov 37 pedal remains suggests some degree of articulation in situ. Although root etched, the elements lack carnivore or other vertebrate damage, as well as cut marks. Even though associated unilateral hand or foot remains are unexceptional among the fur-bearing faunal remains, the bilateral presence of these human remains raises questions concerning the taphonomic and behavioral/ mortuary processes responsible for their preservation: do they represent portions of abandoned human bodies, remains of naturally disturbed burials, extremities left from secondary burials, and/or intentionally manipulated human body portions? Any combination of these processes expands current perceptions of the mortuary diversity among these early modern humans., Sandra Sázelová, Jarosław Wilczyński, Piotr Wojtal, Jiří Svoboda, Erik Trinkaus., and Obsahuje seznam literatury