image/svg+xml93XIV/1/2023INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICANATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGYhomepage: http://www.iansa.euThe Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East BohemiaPavel Drnovský1*1Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanského 62, 500 03 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic1. IntroductionHigh medieval fortifed manorial residences located in contexts with built-up areas of villages used to be inseparable components of the medieval cultural landscape. However, most of these fortifcations gradually vanished or completely disappeared. But the recent use of non-destructive archaeological methods has made a signifcant contribution to our knowledge about these fortifcations. As yet unknown sites can now be identifed with their help (digital terrain models, cropmarks) and in the case of the use of geophysical measurements, current knowledge about the nature of a particular residence can be expanded. This study deals with the possibilities of applying magnetometer measurements to the lowest level of medieval fortifcations – the rural residences of the petty nobility (fortifed manor houses) of the 14thto 15thcentury – where only scarce surface remains, or even none at all, have survived.Although geophysical methods are already well established among the various basic forms of non-destructive archaeological research, their application to the site type mentioned above is fairly uncommon in the context of Central Europe. More specifcally, the use of geoelectric resistivity measurements and ground penetrating radar measurements (GPR) may indicate the presence of masonry structures. Geoelectric resistivity measurements over the entire area of a site have been conducted for example in the case of the fortifed manor houses at Čimice (Bárta, 1983) and Mastnice in central Bohemia (Dohnal et al., 2000; Křivánek, 1999, p.19) and at Rataje (Baierl et al., 2013, p.10) and Tichá in South Bohemia (Durdík et al., 2013). The GPR measurement method has been applied in the case of the manor house at Dolný Poltár in Slovakia (Tirpák, Fottová, 2008) and the so-called Upper fortress at Kestřany in South Bohemia (Dejmal et al., 2013). Stone structures were detected in all these cases.In contrast, the use of a magnetometer survey remains underappreciated. This method has been applied in the Volume XIV ● Issue 1/2023 ● Pages 93–104*Corresponding author. E-mail: pavel.drnovsky@uhk.czARTICLE INFOArticle history:Received: 24thFebruary 2022Accepted: 12thSeptember 2022DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2023.1.7Key words:geophysical prospectingmagnetometrynon-destructive surveyMiddle Agesfortifcationsmanorial residencefortifed manor houseABSTRACTThe results of magnetometer measurements carried out in small-sized fortifcations of the High Middle Ages are presented. In most cases these fortifcations were partly or completely abandoned sites. At all sites, structures of anthropogenic origin were discovered. Thanks to the survey various components of residences were identifed: internal buildings, fortifcations, moats, ramparts. The survey method chosen proved to be suitable for detecting most parts of the 14th to 15th century residences of the petty nobility, particularly in regions with prevailing earthen and wooden architecture. Archaeological structures were detected by way of the survey measurements even at seemingly completely destroyed sites. However, the results of such a magnetometer survey need to be supplemented by other methods of geophysical and archaeological survey.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia94fortifed manor house at Obrubce in Bohemia (Křivánek, 2004, p.178), Kersko (Křivánek, 2008) and Neumětely (Křivánek, 2015). Other fortifcations have recently been investigated in South Moravia (Dresler, Tencer, 2016; Pelikán, 2017; Vágner et al., 2018; Vágner, 2021, pp.136–138) and one in Lower Austria (Filzwieser, 2018, pp.130–136). Several measurements have been applied in Poland (Bis et al., 2019, p.30; 2020; Kittel et al., 2017, Wroniecki et al., 2017). Despite the above examples, geophysical measurements conducted at such site types are still rare. Moreover, the above sites represent residences of a varied nature in terms of structure and chronology.The aim of our research was to carry out a targeted magnetometer survey within several abandoned medieval fortifcations in a specifc region that would be linked by common attributes, and, in so doing, test the use of this method in various excavation situations. The reasons for the application of a magnetometer survey are the positive results that this method can yield when attempting to identify anthropogenic activity (Křinávek, 2004; Milo, 2014).The main questions asked during the survey are the following:•to establish the potential of a magnetometer survey in small-sized medieval fortifcations,•to try to identify fortifcation elements and delimit a residence’s grounds (depending on the size and limitations of the feld measurements),•to observe which types of structures could be surveyed by magnetometer,•to observe the infuence of the current state of a site on the measurement results,•to be able to verify a newly-identifed site.The investigated area was central north-eastern Bohemia, which represents a region for which the occurrence of numerous small-sized residences of the petty nobility was typical during the High Middle Ages. In this landscape, small-sized fortifcations (fortifed manor houses) located close to village centres were typical types of manorial residences.2. Materials and methodsMeasurements were performed at all available sites in the selected area (Figure 1, Table 1). Sites without visible terrain remains were identifed on the basis of observations of cropmarks and research into archival maps. A part of them were localised and recognised for the very frst time. The locations were in diferent habitats (feld, meadow, forest, garden) and with various degrees of preservation (terrain remains, without surface remains). The selected sites are only little known: with no archaeological excavation having been conducted at any of them.The lifespan of most residences can be deduced from a few or rare written records pertaining to their owners and possibly specifed on the basis of discovered pottery fragments. All the residences were used during the 14thand 15thcenturies. The demise of some 50% of the manor houses can be placed to the close of the 15thcentury. As late as the beginning of the 16thcentury, the existence of six residences was still documented; however, they ceased to exist shortly Table 1. Overview of investigated residences, and their characteristics.DistrictIndicative lifespanTerrain remainsSurfaceApproximate extent of on-site measurementsSubsoilBabiceHradec Králové14th–15thc.yesmeadow100 %FloodplainBělušiceJičín2ndhalf of 14th–15thc.yesforest40 %SandstoneBříšťanyJičín14th–early 16thc.nomeadow75 %FloodplainDobešJičín14th–1sthalf of 15thc.yesmeadow40 %MudstoneDohaliceHradec Králové14th–17thc.yesgarden30%LoessHabřinaHradec Králové14th–1sthalf of 15thc.yesgarden75 %LoessKalthausHradec Králové2ndhalf of 14th–early 16thc.yesforest50 %MudstoneKosiceHradec Králové14th–early 16thc.nofeld85 %FloodplainMlazoviceJičín14thc. –1424yesmeadow35 %LoessNedabylicePardubice14th–1sthalf of 15thc.nofeld90 %FloodplainNechaniceHradec Králové14th–16thc.yesmeadow25 %FloodplainPřestavlkyHradec Králové14th–15thc.yesforest50%FloodplainRadostovHradec Králové14th–early 16thc.yesfeld100%FloodplainRakovJičín14th–early 16thc.nofeld100 %LoessTřebověticeJičín14th–17thc.nogarden50%FloodplainTřesiceHradec Králové14th–16thc.nomeadow80 %FloodplainVysokáJičín14th–15thc.yesforest50%Mudstone
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia95Figure 1.Locations of the sites within Bohemia. 1) Babice, 2) Bělušice, 3) Bříšťany, 4) Dobeš, 5) Habřina, 6) Kalthaus, 7) Kosice, 8) Mlázovice, 9) Nedabylice, 10) Nechanice, 11) Přestavlky, 12) Radostov, 13) Rakov, 14) Třebovětice, 15) Třesice, 16) Vysoká.Figure 2. The extent of measurements on sites with preserved terrain remains or cropmarks. The area, which could be surveyed, is highlighted in red. Diferent scales have been used. 1) Bělušice, 2) Dobeš, 3) Nechanice, 4) Kalthaus, 5) Mlázovice, 6) Třesice, 7) Kosice, 8) Nedabylice.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia96afterwards. The longest surviving one was probably the fortifed manor house at Nechanice, where some written sources allow us to believe that the beginnings of this site may date back to the late 13thcentury.1The precise date and circumstances of a fortifcation’s demise are only known for the manor house at Mlázovice, which was burnt down by soldiers led by Jan Žižka in the spring of 1424 (Čornej, 2019, p.547).Prospection at relevant sites took place under favourable vegetation conditions in 2021. A Föerster Ferex 4.032 fuxgate magnetometer was used. It was our intention to survey the entire area of the fortifcations, which was only partly possible at those sites located in felds and meadows. In the case of residences located in gardens, the situation was further complicated by modern period disturbances (fences, houses). In forested environments with thick vegetation, fortifcations could not be completely surveyed to their full extent (Figure 2). The measurements were undertaken in a confguration consisting of four probes (Ferex Con 650), whereas in the case of forested areas only one probe was used to allow for easier movement around the site. The density of the measured points was set in the range of 0.5×0.25 m. The sensing sensitivity was set at 10000 nT which corresponds to the maximum sensitivity available for the measuring unit. The calibration of the probes was done on site, against the local bedrock. The adjustment and export of data were made in Ferex Dataload 3.4.0.1., MagroLight 1.0 and Surfer 21.1.158 software. The subsequent projection onto basic maps was done in the ArcGIS application. The measurement 1Basic historical information on the individual sites comes from books by A. Sedláček (1883; 1887).results were recorded in individual magnetograms. The projection range in nT units is stated for each magnetogram.3. ResultsIt was possible to identify anomalies related to human activity at each site. These structures can be divided into the categories mentioned below. The grounds of every fortifcation are divided into the core where we monitored the presence of features. We presumed the presence of the main perimeter fortifcation to stretch along the core’s perimeter which delimited the central part. The residence’s other parts would normally include a moat and a rampart enclosure on the outer side of the moat (Table 2).3.1 Internal fortifcationsStructures interpreted as the remains of perimeter fortifcations were observed at eight sites: Babice, Bělušice, Bříšťany, Dobeš, Nedabylice, Nechanice, Rakov and Třesice Table 2. Overview of structures detected by magnetometer survey.Findings of magnetometry surveyBuildingsInner fortifcationMoatRampartDestruction layerRecent structuresBabiceyesyesnoyesnonoBělušiceyesyesnonononoBříšťanyyesyesnononoyesDobešnoyesnononoyesDohalicenononononoyesHabřinanononononoyesKalthausyesnononononoKosiceyesnoyesnonoyesMlazovicenonononoyesnoNedabylicenoyesyesnonoyesNechanicenoyesnoyesyesnoPřestavlkynononononoyesRadostovyesyesyesnononoRakovyesyesnononoyesTřebověticenononononoyesTřesiceyesyesnononoyesVysokánonononoyesyesFigure 3.Unifed legend for the interpretation of structures recorded on magnetograms.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia97Figure 4.Fortifed manor house at Babice; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.Figure 5.Fortifed manor house at Bělušice; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia98Figure 6.Fortifed manor house at Bříšťany; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.Figure 7.Fortifed manor house at Dobeš; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia99Figure 8.Fortifed manor house at Kalthaus; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.Figure 9.Fortifed manor house at Kosice; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.core’s perimeter which had the form of a terrain depression was documented in the manor house at Bělušice. Complete ground plans of such features were not surveyed at other sites. A central building probably used to stand in the fortifed manor houses at Kosice and Kalthaus. In the case of the manor house at Nechanice, this was probably one of the buildings located next to the core’s perimeter.3.3 MoatAlthough the presence of a moated enclosure is something to be expected at all sites, it is only in the case of the manor houses at Kosice and Nedabylice that it could be identifed with certainty (Figures 9 and 14). The moat itself could not be discerned, although it was possible to locate it with certainty thanks to well-preserved feld remains, or possibly based on cropmarks in aerial photographs. The moat can be rather indirectly defned as the space between the internal perimeter fortifcation and the inner side of the rampart body. At some sites, the moat could be identifed thanks to concentrations of destruction layers (see below). At Kosice, the moat manifested itself as weak positive magnetic anomalies. At Nedabylice, it was visible as a positive line next to the moat’s outer edge.(Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14). These “structures” manifested themselves as strong positive signals at all sites, whereas maximum values were reached in the case of the manor houses at Dobeš and Nechanice. The defensive walls which enclosed the cores of the manor houses at Babice and Dobeš had a regular, circular layout. In contrast to this, the residences at Nedabylice and Třesice had a square layout. An irregular oval form was observed in the manor houses at Bělušice, Bříšťany, and Rakov. The fortifed manor house at Nechanice was probably enclosed by a pointed, polygonal defensive wall. The course of the fortifcations around the manor house at Bělušice was also observed in the area of the entrance, where it protruded towards the moat. This situation could possibly be indicative of the presence of a gate. No perimeter fortifcation was noticed in the manor house at Kalthaus – only a separate building used to stand on the artifcial motte.3.2 Internal buildingsFeatures located within the grounds could be interpreted at the sites of Babice, Bělušice, Bříšťany, Kalthaus, Kosice, Nechanice, Rakov and Třesice (Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14). Such structures usually showed as positive values. The central building of the manor house at Třesice took up the whole area of the surveyed core and several buildings along the core’s perimeter were documented in the fortifed manor houses at Babice and Rakov. A complete feature located next to the
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia100Figure 10. Fortifed manor house at Mlázovice; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.Figure 11.Fortifed manor house at Nedabylice; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.3.4 Rampart bodyThe rampart body was identifed at two sites: Babice and Nechanice (Figures 4 and 12). In both cases, the outer and inner feet of the ramparts manifested themselves as magnetic anomalies. At Nechanice, these consisted of predominantly positive values; at Babice, they ranged from positive to negative values.3.5 Destruction layerDestruction layers are usually regarded as anomalies with highly positive signals which form continuous surfaces within the grounds of fortifed manor houses. They are distinctly present in the manor houses at Mlázovice and Nechanice (Figures 10 and 12). In the case of the Mlázovice
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia101Figure 12.Fortifed manor house at Nechanice; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.Figure 13. Fortifed manor house at Rakov; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.manor house, such anomalies cover the surface of the core, the inner side of the moat, and its bottom, but they do not continue on the outer side of the moat. According to our opinion, these are phenomena related to the residence’s destruction which were associated with the efects of fre when wooden structures burnt and daub plaster was fred. The debris then slid down from the manor house core to the area of the moat and accumulated at its bottom and next to the moat’s inner side. This could explain the absence of positive signals on the outer side of the moat where debris from the residence’s core did not end up. According to the testimony of written sources, the manor house at Mlázovice was destroyed by a military intervention. Fragments of fred daub were also recovered from there during surface prospecting. In the manor house at Nechanice, positive anomalies cover the bottom of the inner moat, they do not occur in the other moats. This situation can again be interpreted as an accumulation of destruction components from the manor house core. The interpretation of the situation in the fortifed manor house at Habřina remains complicated. Strong
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia102positive anomalies there cover the slopes of the motte, while the core itself seems not to contain them. It is impossible to prove without excavation whether this is a manifestation of burnt-down internal structures of the motte. Fired daub can be found there as well.3.6 Disturbing modern and recent componentsBipolar anomalies covering the surface of most surveyed situations can be regarded as disturbing components. The course of a recent ditch was documented next to the fortifed manor house at Třesice. Anomalies south and east of the course of the fortifcation at Rakov can also be regarded as disturbing and uncontemporaneous with the existence of the noble residence. They signifcantly difered from the remaining anomalies associated with the fortifed manor house in their intensity. The strong positive anomaly located next to the eastern edge of the northern course of the fortifcation of the manor house at Bříšťany is also a manifestation of a recent metal fence enclosing a nearby farmstead.4. Discussion of resultsAs already stated in the introduction, the use of magnetometer measurements in small-sized fortifcations of the High Middle Ages is not very common. The weakness of this work is the use of only one of the geophysical methods – magnetometry. Important results and verifcation can be obtained by using other methods: geoelectric resistivity measurement and the ground penetrating radar measurement (Křivánek, 2008; 2015 and Pelikán, 2017). Equally important is verifcation by archaeological excavation. Research in other localities, where the above methods have been used, can be used to compare our results. An example is the Rozprza motte-and-bailey residence in Central Poland (Kittel et al., 2017) or the locality of Żelechow in Mazovia (Bis et al., 2020). Here it was possible to observe fortifcations and internal features on the magnetogram. The results were verifed by archaeological excavations. A combination of diferent geophysical methods was also used in the research of the fortifed manor house Krzczonów in Lesser Poland, where magnetometry also identifed a number of positive results (Wroniecki et al., 2017). Comparisons of results between geophysical methods and archaeological excavations was also enabled by surveys of early medieval fortifcations in Moravia and Poland (Krasnodębski et al., 2018; Milo, 2019 and Milo et al., 2020). In those cases, settlement features, courses of fortifcation systems and evidence of the efects of fre could be identifed.One of the reasons for the inadequate attention that has been paid to small-sized medieval fortifcations so far could be the assumption that archaeologically-detectable structures were completely destroyed during recent interventions (levelling out or removal of soil from artifcial hills). In spite of such thoughts, the surveys also provided certain proven information about sites which had been completely dismantled and levelled out. It turned out that this kind of measurement is suitable for the investigation of settlements for which we lack any other information concerning their internal structure, extent or the manner of their demise.Anthropogenic structures were detected at all sites which projected themselves into the fnal magnetogram. In some cases, it was possible to delimit the grounds of residences and to identify internal buildings. The individual sites are linked by common features: their existence being predominantly in the 14thand the frst half of the 15thcentury, the builder (owner) being one of the local petty nobilities, and the fortifcations being part of rural residences.It can be judged from the results that the main construction element used at all these sites were wooden structures. We did not detect traces of masonry structures at any of the sites. Despite a magnetometer survey being not very efcient when trying to identify masonry structures, it is quite unlikely that such structures would go undetected in all cases.No archaeological excavation took place at any of the sites which would confrm the results obtained through magnetometer measurements. However, our measurements can be compared with investigations of similar sites elsewhere in Central Europe. In these cases, it was possible Figure 14.Fortifed manor house at Třesice; the magnetogram is on the left, its interpretation is on the right.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia103to identify the described structures with features unearthed during archaeological excavations. For example, a wooden palisade wall was documented by the excavation of a motte at Bełcz Mały in Silesia (Biermann et al., 2011). Internal buildings, i.e., a wooden central building or several wooden buildings, were identifed by excavations of mottes at Ervěnice in Bohemia (Nechvátal, 1965) and Koválov in Moravia (Unger, 1994).Strongly positive values at certain sites could be indicative of the fact that they had been afected by fre. In the case of Dobeš and Nechanice, these are perimeter walls delimiting the residence’s internal grounds. In the manor houses at Habřina, Mlázovice and Nechanice again, we probably managed to identify destruction layers consisting of burnt and charred building structures. The central building in the manor house at Kalthaus, from which fnds of burnt daub are known, was probably also exposed to fre. In the case of localities afected by fre, the interpretation of the measured data and the style of the magnetogram are also important. The colour scale may show an alternative representation of the situation on a magnetogram (Figure 15).Measurement results were infuenced by the current state of the surface. Sites in felds and meadows are more contaminated with recent objects. In the case of localities with terrain relics, the position of the magnetometer probes to the measured surface afects the measurement result. The position of the probes and their infuence on the measurement is visible in the case of the Bělušice site (Figure 5).Surprisingly, the existence of moated enclosures did not manifest itself. It seems not to matter whether the moat is currently completely defunct or whether it is still apparent as a terrain depression. Rampart bodies which could be expected in this type of fortifcation only manifested themselves in a limited number of cases. Sites damaged by agricultural activity could have been completely destroyed, even beneath their base. The magnetically positive anomalies lining the outer and inner feet of the three ramparts enclosing the fortifed manor house at Nechanice could be indicative of the presence of reinforcing wooden structures.5. ConclusionThe magnetometer surveys that were conducted at various sites have shown that this form of geophysical prospecting was useful for obtaining a deeper knowledge of small-sized fortifed residences of the High Middle Ages. It was possible to identify sites whose localisation has usually only been based on archival maps or cropmarks. It was also possible to recognise basic components of residences within fortifed grounds: internal buildings, walls, ramparts and moated enclosures, and in exceptional cases, also destruction layers. It has turned out that the chosen method was benefcial for obtaining basic knowledge about the investigated site. The results yielded from the magnetometer measurements must be accompanied and complemented by the application of geoelectrical resistivity surveys and radar measurements which are better able to recognise other types of structures, due to their nature. With regard to the fact that most residences of the 14thand 15thcentury’s petty nobility in the northeast of Bohemia were still built of wood and clay, as proven by our research, magnetometry can be regarded as a suitable survey method. However, only classical archaeological excavation is able to provide an in-depth understanding of the residences in question. Furthermore, geophysical surveys are still suitable for gaining a basic overview of preserved structures in a particular fortifcation.ReferencesBAIERL, P., ČAPEK, L., HLOŽEK, J., MENŠÍK, P., 2013. Využití geofyzikálních metod Katedry archeologie v Plzni v lesním prostředí v letech 2011–2012. In: O. Chvojka, ed. Archeologické prospekce a nedestruktivní archeologie v Jihočeském kraji, kraji Vysočina, Jihomoravském kraji a v Dolním Rakousku. Sborník z konference, Jindřichův Hradec 6. 3. – 7. 3. 2013.Archeologické výzkumy v Jižních Čechách, Supplementum9. České Budějovice: Jihočeské muzeum v Českých Budějovicích, pp. 7–16.BÁRTA, V., 1983. Geofyzikální výzkum středověkých struktur v Čechách v letech 1980–1982. In: E. Pleslová-Štiková, ed. Geofyzika v archeologii, 4. celostátní symposium, Dům vědeckých pracovníků ČSAV Liblice, 1.–4. 11. 1982. Praha: Archeologický ústav ČSAV pp. 29–44.Figure 15.Comparison of diferent forms of magnetogram outputs. The fortifed manor house at Nechanice. To be compared with the Figure 12.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2023 ● XIV/1 ● 93–104Pavel Drnovský: The Possibilities and Results of Magnetometer Survey in Small-Sized Fortifcations of the High Middle Ages. A Case Study on Research into Manorial Residences in the 14thto 15thCentury in East Bohemia104BIERMANN, F., KIESELER, A., NOWAKOWSKI, D., 2011. Problematyka późnośredniowiecznych dworów na kopcu na śląsku w Świetle badań wykopaliskowych przeprowadzonych w 2009 r. W Bełczu Małym, gm. Wąsosz. Przegląd archeologiczny,59, 137–166.BIS, W., HERBICH, T., RYNDZIEWICZ, R., 2019. Geofzyka w służbie archeologii: badania późno średniowiecznego fortalicjum Ciołków w Żelechowie. Archaeologia Historica Polona, 27, 27–49.BIS, W., HERBICH, T., RYNDZIEWICZ, R., OSIADACK, M., RADOMSKI, M., CEMBRZYŃSKI, P., ZBIERANOWSKI, M., MAJEWSKI, J., 2021. An integrated geophysical and archaeological approach to the study of the Late Medieval castle in Żelechów in Mazovia, Poland. Archaeological Prospection, 4(28), 485–503.ČORNEJ, P., 2019. Jan Žižka. Život a doba husitského válečníka. Praha: Paseka.DEJMAL, M., GRÜNSEISEN, J., MERTA, D., VÁGNER, M., ZBRANEK, H., 2013. Využití nedestruktivních metod při systematickém záchranném výzkumu Horní tvrze v Kestřanech. In: O. Chvojka, ed. Archeologické prospekce a nedestruktivní archeologie v Jihočeském kraji, kraji Vysočina, Jihomoravském kraji a v Dolním Rakousku. Sborník z konference, Jindřichův Hradec 6. 3. – 7. 3. 2013. Archeologické výzkumy v Jižních Čechách, Supplementum 9. České Budějovice: Jihočeské muzeum v Českých Budějovicích, pp. 65–76.DOHNAL, J., JÁNĚ, Z., VALENTA, J., ZIMA, L., 2000. Geofyzikální průzkum středověkého tvrziště u zaniklé vesnice Mastnice (okr. Nymburk). Castelologica Bohemica,7, 343–350.DRESLER, P., TENCER, T., 2016. Neznámé opevněné sídlo v Dolních Bojanovicích. Archaeologia historica,41(1), 241–249.DURDÍK, T., HLOŽEK, J., BAIERL, P., 2013. Tvrz Tichá, okr. Český Krumlov. Využití prostoru tvrziště ve světle geofyzikálního průzkumu a archeologického odkryvu. In: O. Chvojka, ed. Archeologické prospekce a nedestruktivní archeologie v Jihočeském kraji, kraji Vysočina, Jihomoravském kraji a v Dolním Rakousku. Sborník z konference, Jindřichův Hradec 6. 3. – 7. 3. 2013. Archeologické výzkumy v Jižních Čechách, Supplementum 9. České Budějovice: Jihočeské muzeum v Českých Budějovicích, pp. 101–106.FILZWIESER, R., 2018. Die historische Landschaft des Leithagebirges. Methodische Untersuchung zur interdisziplinären Verwendung historischer Quellen und archäologischer Prospektionsdaten anhand der Herrschaft Scharfeneck.Unpublished thesis (Dr. Phil.), Universität Wien.KITTEL, P., SIKORA, J., WRONIECKI, P., 2017. A Late Medieval motte-and-bailey settlement in a lowland river valley landscape of Central Poland. Geoarchaeology, 2018, 558–578.KRASNODĘBSKI, D., MAŁKOWSKI, W., 2018. Badania archeologiczne grodziska w Zbuczu, gm. Czyże, pow. Hajnowski. Historia Slavorum Occidentis, 2(17), 105–121.KŘIVÁNEK, R, 1999. Geofyzikální měření ARÚ Praha na archeologických lokalitách v roce 1998. Zprávy ČAS Supplément, 58, 19–20.KŘIVÁNEK, R., 2008. Závěrečná zpráva o geofyzikálních průzkumech prováděných na základě HS č. 760059/06 na lokalitách ZSO Kersko, k. ú. Hradišťko, okr. Nymburk. In: T. Klír, ed. Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd v mladším středověku a raném novověku. Praha: Univerzita Karlova, Filozofcká fakulta, pp. 1–13.KŘIVÁNEK, R., 2004. Geofyzikální metody. In: M. Kuna, ed. Nedestruktivní archeologie. Teorie, metody a cíle. Praha: Archeologický ústav, pp. 117–183.KŘIVÁNEK, R., 2015. „Atypical“ use of combinations of geophysical methods for archaeological heritage preservation in the Czech Republic. Archaeologia Polona,53, 472–476.MILO, P., 2014. Frühmittelalterliche Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Eine vergleichende Strukturanalyse durch Archäologie und Geophysik. Studien zur Archäologie Europas, 21. Bonn: Habelt–Verlag.MILO, P., 2019. Early Medieval hillforts and the possibilities of their investigation by geophysical methods. Archaeologia Historica Polona, 27, 7–26.MILO, P., TENCER, T., VÁGNER, M., PRIŠŤÁKOVÁ, M., MURÍN, I., 2020. Geophysical Survey of the Hillfort Staré Zámky near Brno–Líšeň, Czech Republic. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica, Natural Sciences in Archaeology, 11(2), 183–195.NECHVÁTAL, B., 1965. Archeologický výzkum v Ervěnicích a problémy dalšího studia středověkých tvrzí v Čechách. Archeologické rozhledy, 17, 810-812, 830-847.PELIKÁN, O., 2017: Výzkum středověkých hrádků a tvrzí geofyzikálními metodami. Unpublished thesis (Bc.), Masaryk University, Brno.SEDLÁČEK, A., 1883. Hrady, zámky a tvrze království českého. Díl 2. Hradecko. Praha: František Šimáček.SEDLÁČEK, A., 1887. Hrady, zámky a tvrze království českého. Díl V. Podkrkonoší. Praha: František Šimáček.TIRPÁK, J., FOTTOVÁ, E., 2008. Geofyzikálny prieskum zaniknutej dediny Dolný Poltár. In: Ve službách archeologie 2. Brno: Archeologický ústav AV ČR Brno, 30–34.UNGER, J., 1994. Koválov. Šlechtické sídlo z 13. století na Jižní Moravě.Brno: Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost v Brně.VÁGNER, M., 2021. Zaniklé ohrazené středověké vesnice na jižní Moravě z pohledu metod nedestruktivní archeologie. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Masaryk University, Brno.VÁGNER, M., TENCER, T., PRIŠŤÁKOVÁ, M., ŠIMÍK, J., DRESLER, P., 2018. Zaniklá středověká ves „Vsisko“ z pohledu metod nedestruktivní prospekce. Studia archaeologica Brunensia,23(1), 105–122.WRONIECKI, P., BREJCHA, R., SIKORA, J., 2017: Knowing Without Digging? Non-invasive Research of the Krzczonów Earthwork and its Surroundings, Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia, 12, 177–197.