Fortified Sites in Bohemian Archaeology from the View of Application of Non-Destructive Geophysical Methods

Abstract

The Czech landscape includes very various fortified sites built in different dimensions and periods. Only some of these fortified sites were verified mainly by small scale archaeological investigation. The other fortified sites are also without any archaeological trenching, research or exact dating. Application of geophysical measurements can bring in larger scale new information about subsurface preserved archaeological situations, fortifications, settlement and other activities. Five chosen examples of magnetometer or resistivity surveys in this paper should illustrate different possibilities of geophysical methods of various fortified sites. Their results could be used in archaeology, conservation and also heritage care of intangible archaeological monuments.

Full text

ZBORNIK INSTITUTA ZA
ARHEOLOGIJU
SERTA INSTITUTI
ARCHAEOLOGICI
KNJIGA
VOLUME
13
Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence
Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence Fortifications, defence
systems, structures and systems, structures and systems, structures and systems, structures and systems, structures and
systems, structures and systems, structures and systems, structures and systems, structures and systems, structures and
features in the pastfeatures in the pastfeatures in the pastfeatures in the pastfeatures in the past
features in the pastfeatures in the pastfeatures in the pastfeatures in the pastfeatures in the past
Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i
strukture u prošlostistrukture u prošlostistrukture u prošlostistrukture u prošlostistrukture u prošlosti
Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i
strukture u prošlosti
Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i
strukture u prošlosti
Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i
strukture u prošlosti
Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i
strukture u prošlosti
Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i
strukture u prošlosti
Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i Fortifikacije, obrambeni sustavi i
Zagreb, 2019.

FORTIFICATIONS, DEFENCE SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND FEATURES IN THE PAST
Zagreb, 2019
Proceedings of the 4th International Scientic Conference on Mediaeval Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology
Zagreb, 7th – 9th June 2017

ZBORNIK INSTITUTA ZA ARHEOLOGIJU
SERTA INSTITUTI ARCHAEOLOGICI
KNJIGA / VOLUME 13
PUBLISHER
Institut za arheologiju / Institute of Archaeology
Zagreb, Croatia
EDITORSINCHIEF AND MANAGING EDITORS
Tatjana Tkalčec
Tajana Sekelj Ivančan
Siniša Krznar
Juraj Belaj
REVIEWERS
Krešimir Filipec
Miklós Takács
EDITORIAL BOARD
Vesna Bikić (Belgrade), István Feld (Budapest), Marija Karbić (Slavonski Brod), Jana Maříková-Kubková (Prague),
Katarina Katja Predovnik (Ljubljana), Adrian Andrei Rusu (Cluj-Napoca), Jasna Turkalj (Zagreb)
TRANSLATIONS AND TEXT EDITING
Signed below the text or translated/edited by the authors
PROOFREADING
Tatjana Tkalčec
Tajana Sekelj Ivančan
Siniša Krznar
Juraj Belaj
DESIGN AND LAYOUT
Hrvoje Jambrek
PRINTED BY
Tiskara Zelina d.d., Sv. I. Zelina
CIRCULATION
150
COVER PHOTO
Medvedgrad Castle, photo by Tomislav Veić
Financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia
©Instut za arheologiju u Zagrebu. Sva prava pridržana
©Instute of Archaeology Zagreb. All rights reserved.
CIP zapis dostupan u računalnom katalogu Nacionalne i sveučilišne knjižnice u Zagrebu pod brojem
001023447
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available in the Online Catalogue of the Naonal and University
Library in Zagreb as 001023447
ISBN 978-953-6064-47-2

FOREWORD
Josef Hložek, Petr Menšík, Milan Procházka
Continuity and Discontinuity of Hill-top Settlements in Southern
Bohemia
Snježana Karavanić, Daria Ložnjak Dizdar
Traces of Defence Structures on Dubovac Hill in the Late Bronze Age
Communication Network on the Southwestern Edge of the Pannonian
Plain
Barbara Horn, Branko Mušič, Matija Črešnar
Innovative Approaches for Understanding Early Iron Age Fortifications.
Emphasize on 2D Subsurface Models in the Light of Electrical Resistivity
Tomography
Roman Křivánek
Fortified Sites in Bohemian Archaeology from the View of Application of
Non-Destructive Geophysical Methods
Marija Buzov
Fortifications and Defence Systems in Montenegro
Marija D. Marić
Late Roman Fortifications of the Eastern Part of the
Metalla Dardanica
Imperial Domain
Ana Azinović Bebek, Petar Sekulić
Late Antiquity Hilltop Fortress Crkvišće Bukovlje
Vladimir Sokol
Kuzelin – Late Antique Castrum near Zagreb
Perica Špehar
Reoccupation of the Late Antique Fortifications on the central Balkans
during the Early Middle Ages
25
45
55
63
75
91
101
113
5
7

Umberto Moscatelli
Defensive Systems and Structures in Central Eastern Italy in Early Middle
Ages: a Preliminary Approach Based on Documentary Sources
Gabriel Fusek, Michal Holeščák
Hillfort in Divinka in NW Slovakia
Drahomíra Frolíková–Kaliszová
The Transverse Fortification of the Prague Castle from the 9th–11th
Century
Dejan Radičević
Fortifications on the Byzantine-Hungarian Danube border in the 11th and
12th centuries
Mária Wolf
Daten über den Burgenbau des 11.–13. Jahrhunderts in Nord-Ost Ungarn
Krešimir Regan
The Fortifications of Knin
Vladimir Peter Goss
Some Models of Early Post-Migration Fortifications in Pannonian
Croatia. Very Preliminary Considerations
Josip Višnjić
TURNINA (TORRE DI BORASO) - Carolingian Period Fortress and High
Medieval Keep
Andrej Janeš
A Phantom Menace
Did the Mongol Invasion Really Influence Stone Castle Building in
Medieval Slavonia?
Stephen Pow
Hungary’s Castle Defense Strategy in the Aftermath of the Mongol
Invasion (1241–1242)
Erdal Eser
A 13th Century Anatolian Defense Structure Divriği Castle
125
147
157
173
187
201
137
209
251
225
239

Stefano Cecamore
Fortified Villages in the Central Apennines
Origin and Development of Defensive Structures along the Boundary Line
with the Papal States
Claudio Mazzanti
The Rediscover of a Italian Fortification: the Cantelmos Castle in Bussi
sul Tirino
Laura Biasin
Fortified Settlements in Friuli
The Self-Defence in Rural Settings
Željko Peković, Kristina Babić
Defensive systems of the Pile Gates in Dubrovnik
Zorislav Horvat
Defensive Building (Architectural) Elements of Medieval Castles in
Continental Croatia: Arrow Slits, Gun Loops, Crenellations and
Battlements
Tatjana Tkalčec
Earthwork Elements of Defensive Systems of Small Strongholds in the
Kingdom of Slavonia
Silvija Pisk
The Garić Castle and Honor Banatus
Boris Yanishevskiy
The Road from Moscow to Smolensk through the Protva River and the Ugra
River: Origin and Development
Piotr Lasek
Castles in Central, Southern, and Eastern Mazovia in the Fifteenth and
the Sixteenth century. The Features of Defence
Milan Procházka
An Outline of Transformation of Late Medieval Fortified Complexes on
the Border of Western Bosnia and Croatia
265
277
291
299
315
333
343
353
359
371

Duško Čikara
Single-Space Manor Houses in the Context of Defense and Possible Genesis
of the Post-Medieval Nobility Countryside Architecture in NW Croatia
Ivana Škiljan
Veliki Tabor – from Late Medieval Fortress to Renaissance Castle
Andrej Žmegač
The Long Term – the Example of Dalmatian Venetian Fortresses
Maria Felicia Mennella
Collections and Drawings: the Renaissance of Venetian Fortifications in
the “Stato da Tera and Stato da Mar”
Federico Bulfone Gransinigh
Evolution of Border Fortifications. From the Siege Architecture to
the Modern One throughout the Serenissima and the Empire (XVI–XVII
century)
Uroš Košir
Defending the Empire: Austro-Hungarian Great War Defence Systems in
Slovenia
David Štrmelj, Dejan Filipčić
Adaptations of the Renaissance City Walls of Zadar into Air Raid Shelters
during the Italian Reign
381
393
411
419
429
439
453

Fortifications, defence systems, structures and features in the past, ZIA Vol.13, 2019, 55–62
ROMAN KŘIVÁNEK
Fortified Sites in Bohemian Archaeology from the View of
Application of Non-Destructive Geophysical Methods
The Czech landscape includes very various fortied sites built in dierent dimensions and periods. Only some of these fortied sites were
veried mainly by small scale archaeological investigation. The other fortied sites are also without any archaeological trenching, rese-
arch or exact dating. Application of geophysical measurements can bring in larger scale new information about subsurface preserved
archaeological situations, fortications, settlement and other activities. Five chosen examples of magnetometer or resistivity surveys in
this paper should illustrate dierent possibilities of geophysical methods of various fortied sites. Their results could be used in archaeo-
logy, conservation and also heritage care of intangible archaeological monuments.
Key words: geophysical survey, non-destructive archaeology, hillfort, fortication, Bohemia, archaeological prospection
INTRODUCTION
Archaeological sites in the Czech Republic vary greatly with respect to location, scale, extent, structure and character
of internal or outer activities. Of course, the intensity of all anthropogenic activities was not the same during dierent
prehistoric, early medieval, medieval and/or post-medieval periods. The dimensions of dierent fortied sites are also very
variable, ranging from 0.X ha to more than 100 ha (e. g. Čtverák et al. 2003). But the variety and density of these sites was
also always connected with the landscape, the character of land use and social conditions and relationships varying du-
ring the time. Diverse types of fortied sites (prehistoric hillforts, Celtic oppida, early medieval hillforts, smaller medieval
strongholds or motte, medieval or modern castles, military camps, etc.) were built in specic, strategic or dominant places
in the varied terrain of the Czech landscape. Quite often fortied sites played a very important role in these communities,
sometimes on a local, frequently regional, but sometimes even on a superregional scale. These were conrmed by archae-
ological excavations of some particular areas or situations at these fortied sites. However due to the very large scale of
these sites, we have detailed archaeological information and more precise dating from only 1–2% of fortied sites. The
scale of sites and the real (nancial, personal, time) possibilities of archaeological research do not oer detailed informa-
tion about more than only smaller areas at some chosen sites. But in many cases, we also did not conduct archaeological
excavations at these sites. In a new era of accessible new spatial information (e.g. aerial prospection, remote sensing,
LIDAR, etc.) we also have new, unknown, unprotected and fully unexcavated fortied sites. In all of these stages (provi-
ded the sub-surfaces layers are preserved in situ), we can very eectively use non-destructive geophysical methods and
various techniques (e. g. Křivánek 2008; 2010; 2011; 2015a; Křivánek, Drda, Danielisová 2013; Křivánek, Tabaka 2014). The
combination of the results of archaeological investigations (or other non-destructive survey methods) with results in the
form of various geophysical measurements can be used for identication, documentation and mapping only in subsurface
preserved archaeological situations on the scale of individual archaeological contexts or the whole site (Mařík, Křivánek
2012; Křivánek 2013b; 2015b).

ROMAN KŘIVÁNEK
56
METHODS OF GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
The application of various geophysical measurements at archaeological sites in the Czech Republic (and in the former
Czechoslovakia) has a long tradition (67 years). The rst archaeological situation (the rampart of the early medieval Old
Kouřim hillfort) was veried by geophysical resistivity prole measurement in 1950 (Šolle 1977). Various prehistoric hillforts,
other enclosed areas or Slavic hillforts were observed using partial geophysical surveys in several archaeological projects.
Surveys were often targeted at specic areas of sites and brought new knowledge about the construction of fortications,
the location of gates, paths and the locations of specic activities. But during the last decade new ways of applying non-
destructive geophysical methods for the survey of the whole sites has created new possibilities for the use of geophysical
data. Of course, various geophysical methods have dierent specic limitations, distinct performance and possibilities in
the eld and a dierent speed or processing of collected data. In the case of fortied sites in the Czech Republic, magne-
tometer and geoelectrical resistivity surveys have been the two main geophysical methods for a long time. Only in some
specic areas of fortied sites were other geophysical techniques also applied, including electromagnetic or prole GPR
measurements. For magnetometer surveys of larger arable elds, pastures or meadows, various types of magnetometers
were used. This paper includes results from a gradient variant of the Smartmag SM-4g (Scintrex) caesium vapour magne-
tometer with single-prole measurement and an approximate 1.0 x 0.25 m network of data. Caesium magnetometer was
intensively used for surveys in 1998 and 2010. Later a ve channel Magneto-Arch magnetometer system with FMG-650B
(Sensys) uxgate gradiometers was used to obtain parallel ve-prole measurements with a data density of 0.5 x 0.2 m.
This instrument was used in presented results from 2010 to 2016 in this paper. Some particular areas of fortied sites with
an assumed stony construction were then subsequently surveyed using geoelectric resistivity measurements with the RM-
15 instrument (Geoscan Research) with a simple apparatus in Wenner or Schlumberger conguration with four separate
electrodes (A0.5M0.5N0.5B or A1M1N1B) and a common grid net of 1 x 1 m. A combination of magnetometer and resistivity
measurements seemed very ecient in specic particular areas of fortication or other areas inside fortied sites (e. g. ga-
tes, roads, ramparts, specic settlement, production or other activity, forested areas, etc.; Křivánek 2013b; 2015a; Křivánek,
Tabaka 2014).
EXAMPLES OF RESULTS
A. Geophysical survey of a large area of the prehistoric hillfort near Zlončice in central Bohemia represents the non-
destructive result of the verication of a new fortied site to date without any archaeological excavation. This site was
discovered only from surface artefact collections (prehistoric and mainly Neolithic nds) by an amateur regional archaeo-
logist. The system of fortication of the site situated on a wider elevated promontory over the Vltava River had never been
identied from aerial photographs. But due to the intensive magnetometer prospection, we could nally in 2010 conrm
three systems of ditch fortications of the promontory (Fig. 1; also Křivánek 2013a: obr. 2, 3 or 5; Křivánek 2015a: g. 27.1).
The inner fortication system consists of three parallel bows of ditches with an analogous interruption situation near
the SW edge of the promontory. The middle fortication system consists of two ditches interrupted in the middle of the
promontory. These two systems fortify an area of about 8–9 ha with very intense settlement activity (many oval magnetic
anomalies from probable pits). The outer fortication system consists of one single ditch with some remains of another
Fig. 1 Zlončice, district Mělník. Comparison of aerial photograph and result of magnetometer survey with interpretation of ditch fortications
and entrances on base map (source: www.kontaminace.cenia.cz; surveyed area: approx. 9.5 ha; survey: Křivánek, 2008–2010)

FORT IFIED SITES IN B OHEMIA N ARC HAEOLO GY FR OM THE VIE W OF A PPLIC ATION OF NON -DEST RUCTI VE GEO PHYSI CAL M ETHODS
57
ditch in superposition. The outer fortied area was probably not as intensively settled (only individual oval magnetic ano-
malies from pits), but some parts were damaged by a trench for a metal water pipe line. Magnetometer measurements
together with additional geophysical resistivity surveys provided no indications or relics of internal ramparts. The total
fortied area of newly conrmed immovable archaeological monument is about 12–13 ha, and more accurate dating of
the probable prehistoric hillfort will be possible after archaeological verication.
B. Geophysical surveys of a narrow sloped area with a headland above the Kokořín valley formed by sandstone rocks
near Bosyně in central Bohemia documents an ecient way of survey of polycultural sites with changes in fortications in
dierent periods. Geophysical verication of the Hallstatt and early medieval site (with later medieval/modern reuse of the
headland for a stronghold or small castle) conrmed results of archaeological nds from surface artefact collections and
results of aerial prospection. A full-area magnetometer survey in 2001 included all of the ploughed elds and conrmed
two hillfort fortications (Fig. 2; also Křivánek 2000: obr. 1 and 6; Křivánek 2003: g. 1). The inner fortication system con-
sists of an inner ditch, rampart and outer ditch. The outer fortication system consists of only a single ditch. Unfortunately,
these fortications were heavily destroyed by deep ploughing during the second half of the 20th century. From additio-
nal more detailed magnetometer measurements together with a resistivity survey in 2012, we can only separate the last
subsurface remains of the inner fortication. In the data from magnetometer, we can identify the inner and outer ditch and
some interrupted and irregular magnetic changes at the site of the original rampart. In the data from resistivity, we obser-
ve only small resistivity changes without the expected increase of resistivity at the site of the original central rampart – the
stone structure of the original rampart was nearly totally destroyed (visible only scattered blocks of stones in the ploughed
zone). Geophysical measurements of the fortied area of approx. 1.5 ha conrmed very dramatic landscape changes and
the poor state of subsurface preservation of the hillfort fortication.
C. The geophysical measurement of large inner areas of the Late Bronze Age and early medieval hillfort near Levousy
in north Bohemia represents a new non-destructive result of documentation of the archaeologically documented site
with dierent activities in various periods (Zápotocký 1992). Archaeological excavations of the inner rampart by tren-
ching in 1967 (Váňa 1973) and many surface artefact collections conrmed dierent prehistoric periods of the settlement
(Neolithic, Eneolithic, Iron Age) of the dominant terrace over the south bank of the Ohře River. The rst fortication of
the originally smaller hillfort was dated to the Late Bronze Age, while the Slavic hillfort was enlarged during the 9th–10th
Fig. 2 Bosyně, district Mělník. Comparison of aerial prospection, result of magnetometer measurement of prehistoric and early medieval hillfort
with detail of comparison of magnetometer (M) and resistivity (R) measurement of area of ploughed out fortication system (source: M.
Gojda - archive of the Institute of Archaeology, CAS, Prague, v.v.i. surveyed area: approx. 2.5 ha + 2x 0.26 ha, survey: Křivánek, 2001 and
2012)

ROMAN KŘIVÁNEK
58
century AD to a fortied area about 12 ha. But the landscape of the hillfort was also later changed by modern activities, as
the strategic location was reused for military purposes during the Austro-Prussian War in the second half of the 19th cen-
tury. Remains of prehistoric/early medieval settlement and modern military activities were also observed here from aerial
prospections. This mixture of various activities at the site were also conrmed by the results of a magnetometer survey in
2015 (Fig. 3; also Křivánek 2017: g. 2) revealing the many remains of sunken settlement features, the remains of unknown
internal divisions, but also the subsurface linear remains of military polygons (two redoubts – fortications) and magnetic
Fig. 3 Levousy, district Litoměřice. Comparison of results of aerial and geophysical prospection of the prehistoric and early me-
dieval hillfort with detail of detected high magnetic destroyed perimeter rampart fortication and other linear remains of
military activities from the Austro-Prussian War in the second half of the 19th century (source: M. Gojda - archive of the
Institute of Archaeology, CAS, Prague, v.v.i. surveyed area: approx. 9.8 ha, survey: Křivánek, 2015)

FORT IFIED SITES IN B OHEMIA N ARC HAEOLO GY FR OM THE VIE W OF A PPLIC ATION OF NON -DEST RUCTI VE GEO PHYSI CAL M ETHODS
59
disturbances from agricultural and orchard landscape changes. In some parts of the hillfort, separating the origin of ano-
malies was highly complicated. On the other hand, this result reects the actual present state of subsurface preservation
of subsoil layers. Magnetometer results, in particular combined with resistivity measurements, also helped identify the
ploughed-out stone construction of the perimeter rampart, which was fully destroyed on the surface.
D. Geophysical survey of dierent parts of the early medieval stronghold of Kouřim at the St. John site in central Bohe-
mia could be an example of large-scale mapping of a site after completed archaeological excavations. Archaeological
excavations of the central part of the Přemyslid hillfort (between the end of the 10th century and the beginning of the 13th
century AD) at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s (Šolle 1969; 1993) uncovered the remains of St. John
Church, the gate, courtyard and a massive perimeter rampart with a stone wall in front. Archaeological evidence of the
size of the fortied area is, since the time of excavation, approx. 6.2 ha with two divided areas. Magnetometer prospection
of accessible parts of the area (meadows, elds) conrmed some previously known fortications, remains of settlement,
magnetic disturbances in the areas of former excavations, modern landscape changes, while in the outer part unexpected
outer ditches and local concentrations of settlement were identied (Fig. 4). The geophysical survey probably conrmed
the presence of a southern, second fortied bailey of the hillfort with the partly ploughed subsurface remains of ditches.
The total fortied area of the hillfort could be over 10 ha. The particular combination of results from magnetometer and
resistivity measurements also showed the impact of local long-term and deep ploughing to the subsoil preservation level
of the original perimeter rampart. A worse state of subsurface remains of stone walls inside the original rampart was iden-
tied in the most intensively ploughed elds of the hillfort.
E. Geophysical survey of the chosen parts of the siege camp in the foregrounds of Nový Hrad (“New Castle”) in Prague-
Kunratice documents the dierent possibilities of the prospection of forested medieval sites. Small archaeological excava-
Fig. 4 Kouřim – sv. Jiří, district Kolín. Result of magnetometer survey of early medieval hillfort with detail of comparison
of magnetometer (M) and resistivity (R) measurement of area of locally ploughed out rampart – ditch system of
fortication (surveyed area: approx. 7.5 ha + 0.3 ha; survey: Křivánek, 2010)

ROMAN KŘIVÁNEK
60
tions in 1953 by trenching (Drobná 1953) in the inner part of the Hussite siege camp uncovered the remains of sunken fea-
tures, probably simple sunken dwellings arranged in lines. The surface remains of this settlement were newly documented
from surface and geodetic surveys by the National Heritage Institute (Kypta, Podliska 2014). The result of a magnetometer
survey inside of the fortied area enabled a reliable demarcation of the built-up (settled) area with many sunken dwellings
and concentrated burned material (probably the remains of replaces and/or metals) inside sunken features (Fig. 5; also
Křivánek 2014: obr. 6, 7 or 12). The presence of re pits had been uncovered in a former archaeological excavation. These
results also conrmed the archaeological assumption of a dierent use of the inner areas of siege camp, which were open
or featured only shallow and above-ground structures. From the point of view of fortications the combined results of
magnetometer and resistivity survey conrmed that the rampart was only made of earth, mostly of soil, or stone and soil
nature, without any stone wall or another internal some construction. The terrain at the site of the bastions with a small in-
ternal platform was only slightly modied, without any distinguishable subsurface features. The combination of dierent
new data from the eld helped describe the present state of the surface and subsurface preservation of the Hussite siege
camp located in a forested area and revealed risks to the landscape of the archaeological site.
CONCLUSION
The Czech landscape with its varying terrain has many dierent types of fortied sites (prehistoric hillforts on pro-
montories, hilltops or hill plateaus, Celtic oppida complexes, early medieval upland, lowland and wetland hillforts, smaller
medieval strongholds or motte, medieval or modern castles, military camps or various defence systems, etc.). Many ear-
lier and former archaeological investigations concentrated on dating of fortications and identifying dierent phases of
ramparts, internal settlement and other activities. The majority of this archaeological information came from individual
archaeological trenches or excavated areas of a smaller size. Only a few dozens of prehistoric, Celtic or early medieval for-
tied sites were systematically investigated more comprehensively. Non-destructive geophysical surveys (together with
other modern non-destructive methods and remote sensing techniques) can contribute to the more intensive study or
mapping of these fortied sites, especially in areas outside modern settlements, industrial zones or irreversible and deep
landscape changes.
In many cases of the Czech fortied sites the results of systematic large-area magnetometer measurements (combined
with particular geoelectric resistivity measurements) changed our ideas about the extent, structure and fortication of an
area, the way in which it was abandoned or the state of the sub-surface preservation of archaeological features. The spatial
Fig. 5 Praha-Kunratice, district Praha 4. Result of magnetometer survey of chosen parts of forested siege camp in the foreground of Nový hrad
with comparison of magnetometer (M) and resistivity (R) measurement of bastion of fortication (surveyed area: approx. 1 ha; survey:
Kř ivánek, 2014)

FORT IFIED SITES IN B OHEMIA N ARC HAEOLO GY FR OM THE VIE W OF A PPLIC ATION OF NON -DEST RUCTI VE GEO PHYSI CAL M ETHODS
61
geophysical results were used to verify some aerial or remote sensing data, old maps, surface artefact collections or metal
detector surveys. But selected examples of geophysical surveys of various fortied sites will illustrate the wide range of
application of geophysical measurements for the needs of eld and also theoretical archaeology, for conservation and
heritage care of intangible archaeological monuments. The application of non-destructive geophysical methods on va-va-
rious fortied sites can oer a quantitative and also a qualitative view on the subsurface state of archaeological situations.
The majority of archaeo-geophysial surveys of fortied sites in the Czech Republic focused primarily on verifying dierent
ditch enclosures and some chosen hillforts or strongholds. But large-scale magnetometer survey (together with particular
resistivity or other measurements) seems to be the best combination in Bohemian archaeology for surveys of many dier-
ent fortied sites. Their rapid results may aect the formulation of new archaeological or archaeological heritage projects
and may also prevent the loss of subsurface situations on ploughed or aorested terrain.
Roman Křivánek
Instute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, v.v.i.
Department of informaon resources and landscape archaeology
Letenská 4
CZ–18 01 Prague 1
krivanek@arup.cas.cz

ROMAN KŘIVÁNEK
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Čtverák, V., Lutovský, M., Slabina, M., Smejtek, L. 2003,
Encyklopedie hradišť v Čechách, Libri, Praha.
Drobná, Z. 1953, Husitský polní tábor u Kunratic, Historie
a vojenství, Vol. 2, 197–200.
Křivánek, R. 2002, Geofyzikální průzkum nově
prokázaného hradiště na k. ú. Bosyně, okr. Mělník.
Vlastivědný sborník Mělnicka, Vol. IV, 16–21.
Křivánek, R. 2003, Contribution of geophysical measure-
ments for survey and protection of hillforts, in: Pro-
ceedings of the XIXth International Symposium CIPA
2003, New Perspectives To Save Cultural Herritage,
Altan, M. O. (ed.), Antalya (Turkey) 30 September –
04 October, 2003, CIPA Istambul, 389–391.
Křivánek, R. 2008, Nové výsledky geofyzikálních
průzkumů v širším areálu pravěkého a raně
středověkého hradiště Zámka, Praha-Bohnice, obv.
Praha 8, Archaeologica Pragensia, Vol. 19, Muzeum
hlavního města Prahy, 233–256.
Křivánek, R. 2010, Geofyzikální průzkum hradišť
Přerovská hůra a Zámka ohrožených stavebním
záměrem, Archeologické rozhledy, Vol. LXII/4, 480–
491.
Křivánek, R. 2011, Combination of non-destructive me-
thods for the observation of the state of subsurface
preservation of ploughed archaeological sites: A ca-
se study from oppidum Stradonice in Bohemia, in:
Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium of
Archaeometry, Turbanti-Memmi, I. (ed.), 12th–16th
May, Siena, Italy (www.springerlinc.com): 527–532.
Křivánek, R. 2013a, Geofyzikální průzkum nově
prokázaného pravěkého hradiště na k. ú. Zlončice,
okr. Mělník, Archeologie ve středních Čechách, Vol
17/1, 2013. ÚAPPSČ, Praha, 115–120.
Křivánek, R. 2013b, Changes of structure and extent od
Early Medieval strongholds in Central Bohemia
from geophysical surveys of sites, in: Archaeologi-
cal prospection. Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Neu-
bauer, W., Trinks, I., Salisbury, R., Einwögerer, B.
(eds.), Vienna, May 29th – June 2nd 2013. Austrian
Academy of Sciences Press, Wien, 281–284.
Křivánek, R. 2014, Geofyzikální průzkum v areálu husit-
ského obléhacího tábora na předpolí Nového hradu
v Praze-Kunraticích, Archeologické rozhledy, Vol.
LX VI/4, 633–650.
Křivánek, R. 2015a, Chapter 27. Hillfort investigations
in the Czech Republic, in: Field archaeology from
around the world. Ideas and approaches, Carver, M.,
Gaydarska, B., Subías, S. M. (eds.), Springer Briefs in
archaeology, Springer International Publishing Swi-
tzerland, 157–161.
Křivánek, R. 2015b, e pontential and limitation of ge-e-
ophysical measurements on archaeological sites
partly investigated in the past: case studies from the
Czech Republic. Archaeologia Polona, Vol. 53: 2015,
Special theme: Archaeological Prospection - 11th In-
ternational Conference on Archaeological Prospec-
tion, Warsaw 15.-19. 9. 2015., Herbich, T., Zych, Y.
(eds.), Warsaw, 212–217.
Křivánek, R. 2017, Comparison study to the use of geo-
physical methods at archaeological sites observed
by various remote sensing techniques in the Czech
Republic, Geosciences, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 81, Special Is-
sue Remote Sensing and Geosciences for Archaeology
(http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/7/3/81).
Křivánek, R. (ed.), Danielisová, A., Drda, P. 2013, Ge-
ofyzikální průzkum oppid v Čechách. Zhodnocení
projektu (2003–2007) / Geophysical survey of oppida
in Bohemia. e evaluation of project (2003–2007).
Archeologické studijní materiály 23, ARÚ AV ČR
Praha.
Křivánek, R., Tabaka, A. 2014, Badania nieinwazyjne
Ostrowa Lednickiego. Fontes Archaeologici Pozna-
nienses, Annales musei archaeologici posnaniensis,
Vol. 50/2, Poznaň, 99–112.
Kypta, J., Podliska, J. 2014, Tábor obléhatelů na předpolí
Nového hradu u Kunratic (1420/1421). Povrchový
průzkum a srovnání s analogickými lokalitami, Ar-
cheologické rozhledy, Vol. LXVI/4, 609–632.
Mařík, J., Křivánek, R. 2012, Systematický nedestruktivní
výzkum raně středověkého hradiště Libice nad
Cidlinou. Nedestruktivní výzkum akropole li-
bického hradiště, Sborník Národního muzea v Praze
= Acta Musei nationalis Pragae. Series A, Historia.
Řada A, Historie, Vol. 66/1-2, 67–70, 89–90.
Šolle, M. 1969, Kouřim v mladší a pozdní době hradištní,
Památky archeologické, Vol. 60, 1–124.
Šolle, M. 1977, Zkušenost a výsledky spolupráce
přírodních věd včetně geofyzikálních metod při
archeologických výzkumech českých hradišť 8. –
12. století, Geofyzikální prospekce v archeologii – 2.
celoštátny seminár archeogeofyziky, Nové Vozokazy
1976, Zprávy ČSSA při ČSAV, Vol. XIX/4–5, 95–96.
Šolle, M. 1993, Přemyslovská a děpoltická Kouřim podle
výzkumu z let 1967–1977, Archeologické rozhledy,
Vol. 45, 268–278, 360–362.
Váňa, Z. 1973, Slovanské hradiště v Levousích (k. o.
Křesín, okr. Litoměřice) a otázka rozsahu luckého
území, Archeologické rozhledy, Vol. 25, 271–288.
Zápotocký, M. 1992, Raně středověké sídelní komory na
dolní Ohři, Archeologické rozhledy, Vol. 44(2), 185–
215.