image/svg+xml
53
XIII/1/2022
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey of an
Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
Peter Milo
1*
, Michaela Prišťáková
1
, Tomáš Tencer
1
, Michal Vágner
1
, Igor Murín
2
1
Department of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Arne Nováka 1, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Archaeological Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2, 949 21 Nitra, Slovakia
1. Introduction
Studying fortifed settlements is one of the essential topics
in mediaeval archaeology. Research within Moravia
(a region located in the eastern half of the Czech Republic)
has long tended to concentrate on resolving the issues of
important sites related to the existence of the Moravian
principality in the 9
th
and 10
th
centuries. However, the sites
linked to the building of the Přemyslid domain in the 11
th
and 12
th
centuries have been investigated to a lesser extent.
Moravia was annexed by Bohemia in the frst half of the 11
th
century. This process went hand in hand with the building
of an administrative system of fortifed points to ensure
the execution of Přemyslid princely power in Moravia.
This paper presents the results of research into the fortifed
settlement of Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada, which
represents one such local centre. The present study aims
to extend our knowledge with new data acquired with the
help of a combination of non-invasive survey methods. The
results of our contribution are summarised and an attempt is
made to show them in the context of other well-known facts.
2. The site and its archaeological excavation
The fortifed settlement of Vysoká zahrada is situated
north of the village of Dolní Věstonice. The site used to be
surrounded by the Dyje (Thaya) River from its southern side,
but since the 1980s the surrounding area has been fooded
due to the construction of the Nové Mlýny waterworks
(Figure 1). The fortifed area of the settlement covers an area
of about 1 ha, and preserved ramparts in the northern and
western part reach up to 6 m in height. The southern part
of the site was destroyed due to the meandering fow of the
Dyje River.
The site was mentioned for the frst time by Inocenc
Ladislav Červinka in 1928 as a fortifed settlement from
the time of the Bohemian Duke Břetislav (Červinka, 1928,
p.124). The beginning of settlement dates back to the second
half of the 10
th
century (Měřínský, 1986, pp.61–62, p.66).
Volume XIII ● Issue 1/2022 ● Pages 53–61
*Corresponding author. E-mail: peter.milo@mail.muni.cz
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 19
th
November 2021
Accepted: 5
th
January 2022
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2022.1.5
Keywords:
Early Medieval Period
fortifed settlement
fortifcation
archaeological excavation
electrical resistivity tomography
ground-penetrating radar survey
magnetometry
ABSTRACT
The fortifed settlement at Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada belongs to the important Early Medieval
centres connected with the establishment of the Přemyslid domain in Moravia. The site functioned
as a local administrative and economic centre from about the middle of the 11
th
century to the end of
the 12
th
century. In written historical sources it was known as Strachotíngrad (“Castrum Strachotín”).
Between 1948 and 1986, several minor archaeological excavations were made at this site. Our work’s
purpose was to gain new knowledge by deploying proven geophysical prospecting methods in
archaeology. The frst two of these methods, Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and Ground-
penetrating radar (GPR) focused on the rampart. Within the third used method – magnetometry, we
focused on the prospection of the inner area of the hillfort. Based on the results, it was possible to
identify some of the construction features of the fortifcation and locate the course of the no longer
existing rampart and several settlement structures. At the same time, the geophysical survey also made
clear the overall plan of past archaeological excavations.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
54
The fortifcation is presumed to have been built in the second
half of the 11
th
century (Procházka, 2009, p.134). According
to Boris Novotný, it had two construction phases, and the
demise of both can be linked to violent events (Novotný,
1982a, pp.325–326, p.333). During the second half of the
11
th
century, a single-nave stone church with a horseshoe-
shaped apse was built, and sometime in the middle of
the 12
th
century was surrounded by a wooden palisade.
Around this time, a cemetery was established by the church
(Jelínková and Kavánová, 2002, p.387). The site is also
known from written sources as the Přemyslid administrative
centre Strachotíngrad (“Castrum Strachotín”; Fridrich, ed.,
1904–1907, pp.254–255, no. 289; Boczek, ed., 1836, p.293,
no. 318; Měřínský, 1985, p.207).
The frst archaeological excavations were carried out by
Josef Poulík in 1948 and 1950–1952 (Novotný, 1982b).
Further feld research took place in 1979 by Zdeněk Měřínský
(Měřínský, 1981, p.42). He subsequently returned to the site
in 1986 due to the damaged fortifcation in the northeast
corner of the site, done by construction workers (Himmelová
et. al.
, 1989, p.56). No archaeological excavation has taken
place on the site since then.
Two trial trenches through the fortifcation were made
during the excavations, frst in the eastern part, the second
in the northern part. In both trenches, remains of wooden
beams and strongly burned layers were preserved. In
the northern trench, on the outer side of the fortifcation,
a collapsed layer of horizontal wooden beams on the top of
an intensely-burned layer was found. In the original body of
the rampart, layers of dark and light-coloured clay alternated
with layers of grey-black sand occurred. The individual
layers were probably separated by an organic layer of wicker
or twigs. During the research, fault lines were identifed in
several places, along which there was a shift of the overlying
layers. The construction of the rampart was described as log
chamber-bound, without embedded elements into the subsoil
(Figure 2; Novotný, 1982b).
Inside the fortifed settlement, the dark cultural layer lay
under alluvial clay, gravel, and sand. The thickness of the
complex of alluvial layers ranges from 60–100 cm, but in
some places, it reaches almost 2 m (Měřínský, 1981, p.42;
Novotný, 1982b). The stratigraphy of the site is quite
complicated. In various places, two cultural layers (both
chronologically dated into the same period) were separated
by another alluvial layer. The cultural layer was signifcantly
mixed with carbon, and burnt layers were also found around
and in some archaeological features. There were several
excavated archaeological structures: a stone church with
burial ground with 95 skeletons, a hut, possibly with log
construction, several hearths, sunken pits, stone cumulations
and stakeholes. One of the excavated features was possibly
used for the production of glass rings (Měřínský, 1985,
p.207; Sedláčková and Zapletalová, 2012, p.541).
3. Location of archaeological excavations
The site was excavated using long trial trenches, which were
subsequently expanded in places where more interesting
archaeological situations were captured. Seasons 1948 and
1950 have spatially clear layouts. However, in seasons
1951–1952, spatial references of the excavated felds are
Figure 1.
Location of geophysical
prospections and archaeological excavations
at the Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada
fortifed settlement. The polygons of the
excavation grid are based on the site reports
(Novotný, B., 1982b), results of geophysical
prospection and the digital elevation model
of the area (background data: ČÚZK).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
55
incomplete, and some plans are also missing from site
reports. Furthermore, there is no known layout from the
1979 excavation.
To solve the problems associated with the localisation
of the surveyed areas, we used available data from the
digital elevation model of the 5
th
generation (DEM), results
of magnetic prospection and known descriptions of the
excavated areas. In the frst step, we georeferenced overall
layouts from 1948 and 1950 by DEM. Remnants of the
trench, located in the northern part of the fortifcation, are
still visible in the form of a slightly lowered part of otherwise
consistent fortifcation (Figure 3). This observation
proved useful as a confrmation between layouts and the
contemporary terrain. Subsequently, the plans from the 1951
season were georeferenced, as they are directly linked to the
1950 layouts. R
eferencing the
long trenches from this season
was slightly problematic and possibly less accurate. There
is no entire layout of the 1951 season, and long trenches are
located according to their description in the site reports and
their connection to already excavated parts of the site. The
main problem was the missing information concerning their
length. Therefore, they were reconstructed as was written in
the site reports “
... on the riverbank, where the fortifcation is
missing
” (Novotný, 1982b). The excavation from 1952 has
Figure 2.
Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká
zahrada. Photography of the west side of the
rampart´s trial trench situated in the northern
part of the site. Black parts of the profle
represent strongly-burned layers located on
the inner side of the hillfort (Novotný, B.,
1982b).
Figure 3.
Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká
zahrada. Magnetogram of the surveyed area.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
56
known dimensions; nevertheless, its spatial reference was
problematic. The excavated area has a partly overlaid area
from season 1951, but its extent is not known. Therefore,
its location was specifed from the magnetometry results,
which showed a signifcant anomaly in the described area
with the corresponding dimensions (Figure 3). In addition to
this, a small test trench was carried out next to the northern
fortifcation trench. It is known only from a description
and photographs. Therefore, it was placed in the layout
based on its relative position with the fortifcation trench
(Novotný, 1982b). In 1979, another area of the settlement
was excavated, but its spatial location was almost entirely
unknown. The area is supposed to be in the north-western
part of the site (Měřínský 1981, p.42). Based on knowledge
from other excavated parts of the site and their record on
the magnetogram, we reconstructed the possible location of
this excavated area. The magnetogram showed two strong
anomalies whose mutual position and dimensions match
the known description (Figure 3). Also, knowledge about
the changing thickness of the alluvial layers was taken into
account. Their thickness decreases in the direction to the
fortifcation and to the north.
4. Geophysical survey – method, results and analysis
The geophysical survey aimed to detect subsurface structures
and locate areas with potential occurrence of archaeological
features and contexts. We selected the most used methods in
geophysical archaeological prospection: electrical resistivity
tomography (ERT), ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and
magnetometry. Nonetheless, each of these methods has its
limitations. However, a combination of diferent methods
that examine diferent physical properties may contribute to
a better understanding of an archaeological site (Clark, 1996;
Gafney, 2008; Schmidt
et. al.
, 2016; Scollar
et. al.
, 1990).
For more profound research of buried archaeological
features, we selected measurement by the ERT method. The
measurement result is a 2D ERT profle representing the
distribution of apparent electrical resistivity (Ωm) on the
profle in both the horizontal and vertical plane (Papadopoulos
et. al.
, 2006; Tsokas
et. al.
, 2009). ERT measurements with
the ARES GF instrument (GF INSTRUMENTS) were
performed in two places – in the west and north part of the
rampart. The lengths of the measured profles were 47 m.
The spacing between the electrodes was 1 m. The Wenner,
Schlumberger, and Dipole-Dipole confgurations were
applied. The RES2DINV program (GEOTOMO) was used
to process the measured data. A topographic correction was
applied, and a fnal model representing the real distribution
of the specifc electrical resistivity in a given profle was
created.
The GPR method is based on the repeated transmission
of high-frequency electromagnetic pulses to the investigated
environment and using the feedback of their response. It
works on the principle of monitoring changes in physical
quantities in the measured spatial environment,
i.e.
,
material diferences in the subsoil (permittivity) and specifc
resistances of individual layers (inhomogeneities) (Conyers
and Goodman, 1997; Conyers, 2012). For the GPR survey
at Dolní Věstonice, X3M Ramac georadar (Geoscience AB
Malå) and two shielded antennas with a central frequency
of 250 and 500 MHz were used. In total, three parts of the
fortifcation were surveyed – the southeast part (polygon GPR
P1 with length 21 m and width 5 m), northern part (polygon
GPR P2 with length 43 m and width 5 m), and western part
(profle GPR P3 with length 47 m)
. For the antenna with
a central frequency of 250 MHz, the distance between the
Figure 4.
Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká
zahrada. Archaeological interpretation of the
magnetic prospection data.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
57
Figure 5.
Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada. 1: Horizontal time slice of surveyed rampart in the north of the fortifed settlement (GPR P2; depth 0.9–1.0 m).
2: Interpretation of GPR data from GPR P2. 3: Horizontal time slice of surveyed rampart in the southeast of the fortifed settlement (GPR P1; depth 0.9–1.0
m). 4: Interpretation of GPR data from GPR P1.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
58
profles was set to 0.5 m, whereas with an antenna with
a central frequency of 500 MHz to 0.25 m. The interval of
measured points on individual profles was set to 0.1 m. The
topographic data were collected at 1 m intervals. Multiple
data lines collected over an area were processed using GPR
Slice software (Geophysical Archaeometry Laboratory).
Individual profles w
ere processed in Rad Explorer
software (Geoscience AB Malå), where standard flters and
topographic corrections were applied.
Magnetometry is based on the monitoring of local
variations of the Earth’s magnetic feld. Identifed
inhomogeneities (magnetic anomalies) are caused by
diferent ratios of ferromagnetic materials in the monitored
features and their enclosing soil matrix (Dalan, 2008;
Fassbinder and Stanjek, 1993; Fassbinder, 2015; Le Borgne,
1960). The magnetic survey of the site was carried out with
a fuxgate magnetometer LEA MAX (Eastern Atlas) with
10 Ferex CON650 (FOERSTER) probes. The density of the
magnetic measurements was 0.5 m on the X-axis and 0.1 m
on the Y-axis (measurement direction). The survey covered
the entire suitable terrain (mainly the inner area of the
fortifed settlement) and two small segments of the rampart
Figure 6.
Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada. 1: Profle of the hillfort’s fortifcation based on the results of archaeological excavations. 2: ERT model in
Wenner confguration of the surveyed fortifcation in the north of the fortifed settlement. 3: GPR vertical time/depth slice and its interpretation of the same
rampart’s section.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
59
in the northern and western parts. The total investigated
area was 1.03 ha. Measured data were collected with spatial
information from the GNSS receiver – Trimble R-10 model
2 (Trimble, USA). Measurement data were processed using
standard procedure in the LEAD2 program. ArcGIS Pro 2.8
(ESRI) software was used to present and interpret the results.
GPR and ERT focused on the investigation of the
rampart. The frst GPR profle (GPR P1) was situated on the
southeast side of the stronghold, where the rampart should
be originally located. A GPR survey revealed there several
inhomogeneous layers (Figure 5). However, it is impossible
to determine whether these are remnants of the rampart
or just some recently displaced layers. The two remaining
profles (GPR P2 and GPR P3) surveyed the preserved
rampart. Homogeneous layers, probably formed only by
clay, were identifed on both GPR profles along their entire
length (Figures 5 and 6). On the outer side of the ramparts
remains, a noticeable homogeneous layer could also be
found, which fell away downwards and could be related to
the destruction of the ramparts. In addition to a large number
of homogeneous layers, which could all be associated with
the destruction of the fortifcation, several linear anomalies
located in the body of the rampart were identifed in area
GPR P2. They stretch parallel to the rampart on its outer
side, at a depth of about 1 m below the level of today’s
terrain. Their interpretation is unclear, but they are probably
remnants of the internal structure of the rampart (Figure 5).
The GPR survey did not identify the remains of the ditch in
any of the cases investigated.
In both ERT profles, all three selected confgurations
recorded similar results. The upper and front part of the
bank has higher electrical resistivity values than the central
and lower part of the rampart (Figure 6). It is probably due
to a sandy soil with a possible mixture of stone. In the lower
part, the area is made of a material with very low resistance
values. These may be remnants of the original timber
structure flled with clay. Approximately in the frst third
from the inner edge, a slight vertical anomaly with higher
values of electric resistivity was visible. We could expect
the increased occurrence of wooden structural elements
here.
In the magnetic data, the rampart has higher magnetic
values (around 50 to 150 nT) than its surroundings (0–0.2 nT)
(Figure 3). This is proof that the fortifcation was subjected
to the destructive efects of one or more fres, probably in
its entirety and not only in the section that was examined
by archaeological excavation. Equally high magnetic values
are also shown in the area in front of the fortifcation, where
we can expect layers of the destroyed rampart. The remains
of the rampart manifested itself as a signifcant anomaly in
the south-eastern part of the surveyed area. Despite the fact
that the rampart is no longer visible in the feld, the magnetic
survey recorded its course here. The probable reason is that
this part of the rampart was also burned down. We did not
notice the remains of the rampart on the southern side of the
hillfort. Apparently, it was destroyed by the meandering fow
of the Dyje River.
The magnetic survey completely covered the inner
area of the hillfort. The survey aimed to record potential
archaeological features. In addition to the past archaeological
excavation mentioned above, the magnetic map is dominated
by bipolar magnetic anomalies with high magnetic values
(Figure 3). Some of these anomalies can be of archaeological
origin, but it is more likely that these are mainly recent iron
artefacts. They are scattered all over the area of the stronghold.
We have also registered anomalies that can be described
as potential archaeological features. These are characterised
by slightly positive magnetic values (2–10 nT). In total,
13 such structures were recorded (Figure 4). Most of them
are located in the western part of the fortifed settlement.
These are features with irregular to round and oval ground
plans and dimensions of 3 to 10 m
2
. The dating and function
of these features are unknown. However, we must note that
the recorded features undoubtedly represent only a small part
of the total number of features on the site. Archaeological
excavation allows us to believe that the site’s occupation
was much denser than the geophysical survey suggests.
Unfortunately, the younger alluvial layer, which covered the
archaeological situations, caused weak magnetic contrast of
the fllings of the potential archaeological features. We cannot
even rule out that some of the interpreted archaeological
features are structures of pedological origin.
Up to now, our knowledge of the settlement of the fortifed
settlement in Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada and its
fortifcation has been based only on the knowledge gained
through archaeological excavation. The geophysical survey
of the site thus signifcantly complements the set of existing
information. New evidence of settlement activities has been
provided by the magnetic research. The GPR and ERT
surveys provided new information about the rampart.
The recorded ERT and GPR results confrmed previous
fndings of archaeological excavation of the fortifcation.
The results of the GPR measurements did not show a much-
diferentiated picture of the internal structure of the rampart.
It appears that the rampart body consists only of clay and
wood, without the presence of larger stone structures. This
result would correspond to the fndings of the archaeological
excavations (Novotný, 1982a; Novotný, 1982b). The results
of the ERT confrm the fndings of the GPR survey: the
rampart body is relatively homogeneous. Nevertheless, we
can observe the possible presence of material with higher
resistivity values. Even so, the presence of stone features in
the rampart body cannot be completely ruled out.
We have also gathered similar results at other prospected
sites. As part of the project, while the fortifcations in Dolní
Věstonice were being geophysically surveyed, a total of ten
early medieval hillforts in southwestern Slovakia and south
Moravia were also being subjected to similar research. By
combining individual methods, several structural elements
have been identifed in detail in several ramparts. From
the point of view of geophysical measurement results,
the rampart in Dolní Věstonice is very similar to the
outer rampart of Bailey II in hillfort Brno – Staré Zámky
(Milo
et. al.
, 2020a, pp.191–193, Figure 9) and the ramparts
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
60
in Bíňa (Henning and Ruttkay, 2011, pp.273–275). On the
other hand, there are fortifcations, such as in Svätý Jur –
Neštich (Milo
et. al.
, 2020b, pp.108–114, Figures 4–8),
which exhibit higher electrical resistance values as well as
signifcant inhomogeneities in the GPR survey. It confrms
that stone was a very signifcant building material there.
The geophysical survey has told us very little about the
settlement structure. The features identifed on the magnetic
map represent only a part of the archaeological traces here.
That is mostly due to the younger alluvial layers of clay, gravel
and sand, which have covered the original settlement horizon
(Měřínský, 1981, p.42). We also know of similar situations
from other sites, for example, from Majcichov; the magnetic
prospection revealed only a few potential features in the inner
area of the hillfort. This state is because of an alluvial layer
covering the original settlement horizon (Fottová
et. al.
,
2007, pp.224–225 ), which acts as a barrier that does not
allow individual settlement features to be identifed using the
magnetic survey. In the last analysis, further archaeological
excavation will be needed to address future issues related to
the form and structure of the settlement.
5. Conclusions
Our knowledge of the fortifed settlement of Dolní Věstonice
– Vysoká zahrada has previously been based on data obtained
solely from archaeological excavations. The conclusions
presented in this paper are based on the results of geophysical
surveys conducted in 2019. The aim of the geophysical
prospection was to detect subsurface structures in an efort to
locate areas with the potential occurrence of archaeological
situations in the inner area of the stronghold and defne the
internal structure of the rampart. The magnetic survey in the
inner area of the stronghold confrmed a few archaeological
features, which can be interpreted as settlement structures of
various kinds. Due to the covering of the original settlement
horizon by a thick alluvial layer, we cannot properly defne
the settlement structure. However, magnetic research
has signifcantly helped to locate past archaeological
excavations. The ERT and GPR survey confrmed the
results of the archaeological excavation on the character of
the fortifcation. In addition, a magnetic survey found that
the entire rampart was probably subjected to fre (one or
several fres). In the south-eastern sector of the survey, it was
possible to fnd the course of the now non-existent levelling
rampart. In future work, it will be necessary to verify the
geophysical results – in this case, a magnetic survey by
targeted archaeological excavations, extending them with
additional data potentially brought in by large-scale ground-
penetrating radar and geoelectric resistivity measurement.
Acknowledgements
This publication is based on research supported by the Czech
Science Foundation (GACR) under Grant No. 18-16153S
“Early medieval strongholds in the light of non-destructive
investigation”.
References
BOCZEK, A., ed., 1836: Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae I.
396‐1199. Olomucii: Anton Friedrich Mittrowsky.
CLARK, A., 1996.
Seeing beneath the soil. Prospecting methods in
archaeology,
London: Routledge.
CONYERS, L.B., 2012.
Interpreting ground-penetrating radar for
archaeology,
Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.
CONYERS, L.B., and GOODMAN, D., 1997.
Ground Penetrating Radar:
An Introduction for Archaeologist,
Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira
Press.
ČERVINKA, I. L., 1928.
Slované na Moravě a říše Velkomoravská.
Brno:
Pravěk.
DALAN, R.A., 2008. A review of the role of magnetic susceptibility
in archaeogeophysical studies in the USA: recent developments and
prospects.
Archaeological Prospection,
15
,
1–31.
FASSBINDER, J.W.E., 2015. Seeing beneath the farmland, steppe and
desert soil: magnetic prospecting and soil magnetism.
Journal of
Archaeological Science,
56
,
85–95.
FASSBINDER, J.W.E., and STANJEK, H., 1993. Occurrence of bacterial
magnetite in soils from archaeological sites.
Archaelogia Polonia,
31
,
117–128.
FOTTOVÁ, E., HENNING, J., and RUTTKAY, M., 2007. Archeologický
výskum včasnostredovekého hradiska v Majcichove. Archäologische
Grabung eines frühmittelaltrelichen Burgwalls in Majcichov. In
:
K. Pieta,
A.T. Ruttkay, and M. Ruttkay, eds.
Bojná. Hospodárské a politické
centrum nitrianského kniežatstvá. Bojná. Wirtschaftliches und politisches
Zentrum Nitraer Fürstentums.
Archaeologia Slovaca Monographiae, 9,
Nitra: Archeologický ústav Slovenskej akadémie vied, pp. 217–236.
FRIDRICH, G., ed., 1904–1907: Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni
Bohemiae I. 805‐1197. Pragae: Sumptibus Comitiorum Regni Bohemiae.
GAFFNEY, C., 2008. Detecting trends in the prediction of the buried past:
A review of geophysical techniques in archaeology.
Archaeometry,
50
,
313–336.
HENNING, J., and RUTTKAY, M., 2011. Frühmittelalterliche Burgwälle
an der mittleren Donau im ostmitteleuropäischen Kontext: Ein deutsch-
slowakisches Forschungsprojekt. In: J. Macháček, and Š. Ungerman, eds.
Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa.
Studien zur Archäologie
Europas, 14, Bonn: Habelt Verlag, pp. 259–288.
HIMMELOVÁ, Z., KUNDERA, L., and MĚŘÍNSKÝ, Z., 1989.
Grabungauf dem Burgwall ‚Vysoká zahrada‘ bei Dolní Věstonice (Bez.
Břeclav).
Přehled výzkumů,
31
,
56.
JELÍNKOVÁ, D., and KAVÁNOVÁ, B., 2002. Slovanské osídlení v oblasti
vodního díla Nové Mlýny. In
:
S. Stuchlík, ed.
Oblast vodního díla Nové
Mlýny od pravěku do středověku.
Brno: Archeologický ústav AV ČR,
Brno.
LE BORGNE, E., 1960. Infuence du feu sur les propriétés magnétiques
du sol et sur celles du schiste et du granite.
Annales de Géophysique,
16
,
159–195.
MĚŘÍNSKÝ, Z. 1981. Výzkum hradišť ‘Petrova louka’ u Strachotína
a ‘Vysoká zahrada’ u Dolních Věstonic v roce 1979 (okr. Břeclav).
Přehled výzkumů,
24
,
41–42.
MĚŘÍNSKÝ, Z. 1985. Archeologická topografe katastrálních území obcí
v oblasti vodního díla Nové Mlýny (okres Břeclav).
Jižní Morava,
21
,
205–220.
MĚŘÍNSKÝ, Z. 1986. Morava v 10. století ve světle archeologických
nálezů.
Památky archeologické,
77
,
18–80.
MILO, P., TENCER, T., VÁGNER, M., PRIŠŤÁKOVÁ, M., and MURÍN,
I. 2020a. Geophysical Survey of the Hillfort Staré Zámky near Brno-
Líšeň, Czech Republic.
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica, Natural
Sciences in Archaeology,
11(2)
,
183–195.
MILO, P., VAVÁK, J., VÁGNER, M., PRIŠŤÁKOVÁ, M., MURÍN, I., and
TENCER, T., 2020b. Svätý Jur-Hillfort Neštich – new insights on the
settlement and fortifcation of the early medieval hillfort.
Študijné zvesti
Archeologického ústavu SAV,
67
,
103–127.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2022 ● XIII/1 ● 53–61
Peter Milo, Michaela Prišťáková, Tomáš Tencer, Michal Vágner, Igor Murín: Dolní Věstonice – Vysoká zahrada: an Integrated Geophysical Survey
of an Early Medieval Fortifed Settlement
61
NOVOTNÝ, B., 1982a. K problematice způsobu výstavby opevnění
nížinného hradiště Strachotína – Vysoké Zahrady u Dolních Věstonic
na Moravě.
Archaeologia historica,
7
,
325–334.
NOVOTNÝ, B., 1982b. Nálezová zpráva, č. j. 366/54. Manuscript deposited
in the Archive of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of
Sciences in Brno.
PAPADOPOULOS, N.G., TSOURLOS, P., TSOKAS, G.N., and SARRIS,
A. 2006. Two dimensional and three-dimensional resistivity imaging
in archaeological site investigation. Archaeological Prospection.
Archaeological Prospection,
13
,
163–181.
PROCHÁZKA, R., 2009.
Vývoj opevňovací techniky na Moravě a v českém
Slezsku v raném středověku,
Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie věd
České republiky, Brno.
SCOLLAR, I., TABBAGH, A., HESSE, A., and HERZOG, I., 1990.
Archaeological prospecting and remote sensing,
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
SEDLÁČKOVÁ, L., and ZAPLETALOVÁ, D., 2012. Skleněné kroužky
z Brna a problematika raně středověkého sklářství na Moravě.
Archeologické rozhledy,
64
,
534–548.
SCHMIDT, A., LINFORD, P., LINFORD, N., DAVID, A., GAFFNEY,
C., SARRIS, A., and FASSBINDER, J.W.E., 2016.
EAC guidelines for
the use of geophysics in archaeology: Questions to ask and points to
consider,
Namur: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium.
TSOKAS, G.N., TSOURLOS, P.I., and PAPADOPOULOS, N., 2009.
Electrical resistivity tomography: A fexible technique in solving
problems of archaeological research. In: S. Campana, and S. Piro, eds.
Seeing the unseen. Geophysics and landscape archaeology.
London:
CRC Press, pp. 83–104.
image/svg+xml