Zprávy památkové péče 2016, 76(Příloha):96-105

Heritage protection of archaeological sites with immovable relics. Possibilities for their protection using the example of three fortified settlements located in a forested environment

Pavla Popelářová

In the Czech Republic there are many sites that are archaeological in nature, but only a fraction of them are currently protected by law in some way. This article begins by addressing the general issue of the declaration and registration of all sites at the time of effectiveness of Act no. 22/1958 Coll., On Cultural Properties and Act no. 20/1987 Coll., On State Heritage Preservation, and then provides an overview of listed monuments that are archaeological in nature and which are listed by the Czech National Heritage Institute in the Central List of Cultural Properties (ÚSKP). As can be seen from graph no. 3, by the end of 2015 there were recorded a total of 1,318 monuments of various types in the Czech Republic, while 13 of the most important of these were also declared by government order to be national heritage properties (Tab. 2). Eight other sites must also be included in the total number of protected sites which are generally protected as archaeological reserves (Tab. 1).
The next section shows a list of a selected type of fortified settlement for detailed evaluation from the perspective of heritage property conservation and documentation. It discusses the time of the declaration (Graph 1) of this second most common registered type on the list, the selection criteria for registration of suitable candidates, and the cancellation of protection in the past for a total of 15 sites, including the reasons for the cancellation. This is also associated with the controversial question of whether the actual inclusion to the ÚSKP led to the secured protection of the properties and whether this does not lead to a reduction to the level of hitherto unprotected sites. In the event that this really is the case, then some suggestions and options are presented on how to at least attempt to mitigate the adverse impact on the archaeological heritage fund. From our perspective, it is very important to primarily create an awareness of the owners of the land upon which the monument is located and a subsequent responsible approach to all activities that affect the heritage property. For these purposes, however, the most accurate demarcation of the properties in documents of varying natures is essential (for building and land management, forest management plans, zoning and planning etc.). Currently, in our country it is possible to use a method of airborne laser scanning to achieve these ends, wherein several possibilities to obtain such data come into consideration from freely available sources (less detailed, Fig. 1a) published by a web application, to commercial products from several providers (relatively detailed, Fig. 1b). For the documentation and demarcation of archeological properties, both types of data are well usable, but always with respect to the conditions in their procurement and particularly in the type of heritage properties.
The final section carefully evaluates three fortified settlements in the Czech Republic located throughout the country as a possible model regarding the needs of preservation of archaeological properties, settlements which are currently not included on the list of protected properties. Using not only the digital terrain models, but also older literature and maps, as well as field research, an interpreted plan of fortified settlements was created in which all immovable relics of fortified settlements were drawn in, as well as the hitherto negative interventions into their structure (Fig. 12-14). All settlements have been violated by a variety of activities, yet a relatively large proportion of authenticity still remains. This is especially true in comparison with some fortified settlements already included in the ÚSKP, where their time classification is not known or confirmed, for instance, or where the terrain was largely violated by activities that protected sites would undoubtedly not deserve.

Keywords: archaeological cultural heritage; heritage protection; fortified settlement; LiDAR

Published: December 1, 2016  Show citation