Archaeology or Forestry? Do we really need to choose? Case study from lowland woodland Tvořihrázský les in Czech Republic



Year of publication 2013
Type Appeared in Conference without Proceedings
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Arts

Description It is well known among archaeologists that prehistoric monuments covered with woodlands are much better preserved than those present in open, mostly arable landscapes. However as extensive use of heavy machinery in forestry was widespread, especially following WWII, more monuments which survived nearly untouched until the present or recent past are being heavily damaged or even lost. As forest covers around 30% of the area in Central European countries, the potential for preservation of archaeological monuments is very high – and this is especially true in lowland areas which were densely inhabited through the past. The main aim of this poster is to present and discuss an example of good cooperation between academic archaeologists and local forestry managers in the area of Tvořihrázský les (in the Czech Republic). This cooperation led to an increase of archaeological evidence, better knowledge about the prehistoric population and vegetation dynamics, and significant improvement in commonly used forestry techniques on archaeological sites. To sum up our approach: The better the understanding of the landscape history is - the better heritage management is.
Related projects:

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.