Věteřov Culture

The eastern part of central Europe underwent dynamic socioeconomic development at the end of the Early Bronze Age, accompanied by qualitative changes in material culture. The technological transformation is most visible on the most accessible and most frequent evidential sources of this period: potsherds. This transformation in vessel morphology made it possible to identify the Věteřov group (Stuchlík 1984), which is found most often in Moravia at the end of the Early Bronze Age and its transition to the Middle Bronze Age. The pottery of the given period in Moravia is characterised by typical and easily identifiable forms with a quality surface treatment and decorative elements. A similar situation is also found in the surrounding areas. Based on the amount and quality of pottery at the end of the Early Bronze Age, a high level of pottery and its establishment as a separate craft branch is traditionally assumed (Furmánek – Veliačik – Vladár 1991; Neustupný a kol. 1960, 210; Ondráček – Stuchlíková 1988, 28; Stuchlíková 1993, 270; Tihelka 1960, 30; Točík 1964, 21). Likewise associated with the possible professionalization of pottery production is the origin of the products, which provides important testimony on the organisation of production and the economic relationships with the regional settlement structure. This study evaluates a selected segment of pottery production from the lowland Věteřov group settlement in Hulín-Pravčice, based on the analyses of forty-nine pottery samples from four sunken features. The methodology was focused on determining the technological and material characteristics using a combination of a macroscopic investigation along with a micropetrographic analysis of thin sections, and X-ray fluorescence. This hierarchy of methods makes it possible to define the variability of production, to classify it into production groups and to separate specimens with differing origins. It was determined that local loessic and alluvial materials, or their combinations, were used to make the pottery. Naturally, it must be pointed out that it is difficult to divide the samples into production groups based on micropetrography and phase composition. This is caused by a location near the Morava River valley, the vast territory of which is also reflected in the composition of the pottery. In this geological environment it is difficult, and in the case of very fine-grain material virtually impossible, to determine the precise provenance of the pottery. The certain chemical difference in the specimens of micropetrographic group D2 (bowls and amphorae) and a specimen from a jar from which a section was not obtained suggests that these artefacts could have been manufactured at a different site. The granularity and phase composition of certain specimens (group A) do not rule out the possibility of the intentional addition of a sandy temper to the ceramic fabric. The material is always homogeneous or well-homogenised, and the addition of grog was not recorded. Evidence of manufacturing techniques was evaluated mostly macroscopically and shows that bowl-shaped forms have a significantly high representation of attributes corresponding to coiling or pinching techniques, whereas multiple types of techniques come into consideration with other pottery forms. Smoothing was the most common surface treatment on bowls, burnishing in the case of pots, cups and amphorae. On the other hand, surface roughening is typical for larger pots, pointing to a practical function for these vessels. The surface of three vessels is decorated with encrustation made of burnt and ground bone, and the surface of one vessel was covered with a white carbonate coating. The spectrum of determined firing temperatures and atmospheres does not show signs of standardisation and appears to have been highly varied. There are a wide range of possibilities, from open and pit firings to those in earth-mound kilns, and not even single-chamber furnaces can be ruled out, despite the fact that their atmosphere or temperature does not correlate with the composition or type of vessels. Noteworthy is a specimen influenced by a temperature above 1200 °C, which could be evidence of the presence of pyrotechnology producing such high temperatures, or a fire at the settlement. The studied ceramic artefacts have a high degree of technological variability with respect to their raw materials, production technique and firing. Hence, no signs of standardisation (after Eerkens –Bettinger 2001) were differentiated on the technological level in the entire spectrum of evaluated pottery vessels with respect to efforts to produce artefacts that would reveal the same production technology, morphology, optical qualities, etc. This observation naturally does not apply in cases of the formal spectrum of vessels and their surface treatment, which has led scholars to assume the existence of the professional production of pottery (Furmánek – Veliačik – Vladár 1991; Neustupný a kol. 1960, 210; Ondráček – Stuchlíková 1988, 28; Stuchlíková 1993, 270; Tihelka 1960, 30; Točík 1964, 21). Here it is possible to consider the contrast between high technological variability representing various production traditions within a single settlement and attempts at a certain standardisation of appear-ance reflecting the identity of artisans and manifesting itself in the uniformity of forms and surface
treatment. A somewhat different trend was identified in the case of bowl-shaped vessels, which are characterised by specific technological and material standardisation as well as by a higher representation of imports and the use of a specific raw material (fine-grain material). This can hypothetically be explained by the higher degree of the individual specialisation of their producers and/or a special
role served by these forms of vessels.