Search results

1

Głos w dyskusji o Projekcie Lednica i używaniu wykrywaczy metali w badaniach archeologicznych

100%

Sabaciński M.

Studia Lednickie

|

2020

|

vol. 19

119-127

EN

The article is a record and expanded version of the author’s participation in the discussion during the conference on 28 September 2018, entitled: “Współczesne techniki i metody ochrony dziedzictwa kulturowego w kontekście współpracy archeologów i detektorystów” (Contemporary techniques and methods of protection of cultural heritage in the context of cooperation between archaeologists and detectorists). The presented point of view is the opinion of an employee from an institution which deals with the protection of heritage and first and foremost gives priority to arguments from the restorers. The aim of the text is to present fieldworks as one of the elements of research, which consists of the following stages: planning, exploration, processing and interpretation, preservation and safekeeping of the monuments, as well as publications and wide sharing of the results.

2

Biskupin... i co z tego? Wiedza totalna w kontekście rozwoju prospekcji

100%

Wroniecki P.

Studia Lednickie

|

2020

|

vol. 19

59-80

PL

Over the past two decades, archaeologists have been steadily opening up with regards to the use of metal detectors. However, there is still debate about who, when, where and on what terms should they be allowed to be used. Reflecting on this issue, it is impossible to resist the impression that this problem is only one of many symptoms of a certain unfinished, broader discussion about approaches to recognising archaeological monuments. In this process the use of metal detectors already has an established role. The methodology of their application has been refined over years of practice and adapted to the nuances of archaeological fieldwork. So, when looking for a place for detectors in archaeological research, we are really discussing the role of metal detectors as one of the methods in the holistic archaeological cognitive process known as archeological prospection. In practice archaeological prospection involves a search and documentation procedure that is based on the overarching principle of the application of various imperfect methods that complement each other. In the context of prospection in Poland, the currently dominant and common archaeological documentation is based on single method recognition, namely field-walking, as part of the Archaeological Picture of Poland (AZP) programme. Although the creators of the AZP themselves were aware of its imperfections and limitations, currently the perception of this documentation has undergone a severe primitisization. From my perspective the problem around AZP is the uncritical use of this data. For example, it was somehow forgotten that what was marked in the AZP records are not de facto “archaeological sites”, but a positive record of places where it was possible to observe finds on the surface (mostly pottery and flint), thus leading to an extremely biased and incomplete record. The incomplete recognition of archaeological monuments has a number of consequences that are difficult to accept. They are worsened by the fact that the effect of the single method AZP has customarily become the official record of monuments. Something that was inherently incomplete became the “objective” foundation for administrative decisions. This is manifested, for example, by accidental – costly – discoveries or, the even more harmful, complete omission and destruction of monuments during various construction investments. The problem of knowledge based on one method and competing specialisations does not only apply to archaeology. This phenomenon has been described by V. Frankl, an Austrian philosopher, who noticed the harmful effects of the fragmentary view of specialists on human nature. Thus the key problem is not that we have not yet decided which method is the best, but the view that only one method is appropriate. As long as archaeologists believe that all potential knowledge can be acquired through one ideal method, it will be difficult to take a step forward. We are stuck in an unsolvable and idle dispute. AZP, excavations, metal detectors or geophysics, are just one of many ways to explore the past elements of a larger whole in which archaeological prospection plays a fundamental role.

3

Přehled nedestruktivních geofyzikálních měření Archeologického ústavu AV ČR v Praze na archeologických lokalitách ve správě Muzea Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy

100%

Křivánek R.

Studia Lednickie

|

2020

|

vol. 19

165-218

EN

The results presented in this article were created as part of a thematically focused long-term Czech-Polish project Stratygrafia wybrannych grodów najstarszego państwa Przemyślidów i Piastów w świetle porównawczych badań nieinwazyjnych. This working project was based on the systematic cooperation of the geophysicist of the Institute of Archaeology of CAS in Prague (Roman Křivánek) and the archaeologists of Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of PAS in Warsaw/Poznan (Michał Kara) and the Museum of the First Piasts at Lednica (Arkadiusz Tabaka and other MPP archaeologists). In spite of the minimal financial background, based on practically only the means of inter-academic exchange, a collection of archaeogeophysical results from several Polish early medieval fortified sites and their background has been collected during the last decade. The cooperation of geophysicists with archaeologists in the geophysical monitoring of early medieval hillforts was in some cases supplemented by the results of new and older archaeological researches. Examples of non-destructive geophysical measurements of early medieval (possibly polycultural) sites managed by the Museum of the First Piasts at Lednica were chosen for the periodical published by the MPP. The results of two different geophysical methods (magnetometer and resistivity measurement) are presented in selected results. Between 2009 and 2011, caesium magnetometer Smartmag SM-4g (Scintrex) was used for area measurements, and in the following years a fi vechannel fl uxgate gradiometer (Sensys). Resistivity measurements were performed using RM15 (Geoscan Research) apparatus with Wenner arrangement of electrodes A0.5M0.5N0.5B. A third geophysical method – profile measurements using Cobra-WIFI radar (Radarteam) was also applied to other sub-areas of two sites (Giecz and Lednica). On the one hand, the annexes of the article contain plans of sites with plots of all geophysically monitored areas within the sites, on the other, it contains examples of geophysical measurements showing and commenting on the most significant identified anomalies or also unknown subsurface situations. In the case of the Dziekanowice site, the fields outside the archaeological park with the reconstruction of the palisade fortifications were verified by magnetometer measurements. The result was the confirmed continuation of settlement (and locally also groups of burnt-out situations or relics of production features), not only on the higher terrace, but also on the lower terrain closer to the lake. In the northern area of the Dziekanowice Museum, a large number of anomalies related to the intensive polycultural settlement of the terrace over the lake, but also to a large number of recent disturbances, metals and various excavations or power lines, which have been identified by the magnetic field survey. In the case of the Dziekanowice site on the southern peninsula of the castle and the ethnographic open-air museum, a new potential site was confirmed by a combination of magnetometer and resistivity measurements, which could be intentionally reinforced or fortified along the perimeter of the peninsula with a raised terrace. However, the inner situation within the park meadow peninsula is less clear from the non-destructive prospection and without clear archaeological findings. More geophysical measurements were carried out inside and outside the Giecz hillfort. Th e results of surveys inside the hillfort were limited to a different extent by modern landscaping (park, electrification, new roads, landfills, metals). In the present example of areal magnetometer measurement on the western bailey (site no. 4), a large number of anomalies of different origins were distinguished. Some of the line structures may be related to the outer fortification of the hillfort, other lines were caused by the recently reinforced roads or by an amelioration area. Numerous groups of small, different magnetic anomalies then indicated a large extent of external settlement and apparently a burial ground cemetery, again with local contamination of surfaces by metals and the consequences of earlier exploratory research. An example of the result of a magnetometer survey of the inner surface of the Grzybowo hillfort can, then, serve as an alarming evidence of how the shallow subsurface layers of the site can be contaminated. Recent scattered metals, repeatedly burnt fi res for many years after clearing the bushes and other consequences of modern land use for various public events caused most of the magnetic anomalies. Only in the northern less contaminated part were disturbing magnetic anomalies, the torsion anomalies of the ditch division of the hillfort, and within, the concentrated sunken features, differentiated. In the case of the Lednica hillfort in the middle of the Lake of Lednica, several different geophysical measurements were also carried out over several years. The results of the magnetometer measurements and resistivity survey of the southern and western surroundings of the acropolis have been published. An example of partial resistivity measurements on the northern bailey over the terrace edge to lower terrains along the island’s shores is largely linked to the resistivity survey results west of the acropolis. Repeating strips of high resistivity on the west, north and east flat banks are likely to prove targeted reinforcement (protection) of banks along the perimeter of the bailey, and the course of the paved path outside the bailey terrace cannot be excluded. In the case of Wielka Ledniczka on a smaller wooded island with a central motte south of the Lednica hillfort, similar situations along the shores (as of Lednica) have been identified on a flat area along the perimeter of the island. The combination of magnetometer and resistivity measurements are apparently confirmed by bands of the higher resistivity relics of reinforcement or protection of the island’s shores. A direct line of high resistivity, possibly a paved path leading to the northeast shore of the island, was then distinguished from the site of the defunct wooden bridge on the northwest shore of the island. Despite the difficulty of comparing the results of individual geophysical measurements in various conditions of sites, the set of results also shows several similar features concerning the character of measured anomalies in the given environment. Options application or interpretation of magnetometer and resistivity measurements along the waterlogged shores of the lake, on gravel terraces or sandy soils, can not be the same. However, the surface results of geophysical measurements undoubtedly provide information on the real state of immovable archaeological monuments and can be used in future archaeological projects of the region and/or can be compared with other already realized methods of archaeological exploration and research.

Refine search results

3 Studia Lednickie

1 Křivánek R.

1 Sabaciński M.

1 Wroniecki P.

3 2020

Głos w dyskusji o Projekcie Lednica i używaniu wykrywaczy metali w badaniach archeologicznych

Biskupin... i co z tego? Wiedza totalna w kontekście rozwoju prospekcji

Přehled nedestruktivních geofyzikálních měření Archeologického ústavu AV ČR v Praze na archeologických lokalitách ve správě Muzea Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy