Applicant: László Ferenczi, PhD
Project title: Monastic manors and the landscape impact of Cistercian estate management: A
landscape archaeological and historical ecological study on Plasy Abbey
Introduction - state of the art
Having spread into many regions of Europe, the medieval Cistercian order formed an impressive
network, consisting of around 700 monasteries. Recognizing the importance of the Cistercians and the
scale of their activities in shaping medieval landscapes, researchers in the UK and Western Europe
have pioneered studies on medieval landscape archaeology and historical topography (see e.g. Aston
1993; Bond 2004; Donkin 1978, Williams 1990; Pressouyre 1994). Despite the significant advancement
in this field, the overall environmental impact of the Cistercians remains, however, poorly understood,
particularly in regions peripheral to the expansion of Cistercian monasticism, e.g. in the Baltic, or in
Central Eastern Europe.
Studying the Cistercians can be of interest for different reasons: 1) From the viewpoint of landscape
archaeological research, the better preservation of archaeological features at rural monastic sites
should be underlined. Cistercian monasteries were essentially based in rural environments and their
lands were often located in agriculturally marginal areas. 2) Their excellence in exploiting natural
resources also renders the study of Cistercian landscapes particularly relevant for cultural-natural
landscape management. ‘Their role in managing water and reclaiming wetlands, reflecting the
increasing intensity with which the landscape was exploited during the High Middle Ages, is relatively
well known.’ (Rippon 2004) 3) In a historical perspective, the Cistercian expansion went parallel to the
emergence of urban centers. The monks were creating economic synergies, transforming their rural
environment and exploiting various resources, while supplying urban centers. 4) In regard to the
history of technology, there is evidence for knowledge transfers between monasteries. The Cistercians
implemented innovative agrarian practices and new technologies, see e.g. the problem of woodland
clearance and colonization (F.Romhányi 1994), the introduction of the open-field system (Götlind
1990), or the use of innovative water technologies (Rynne 1989; Lucas 2010). Regarding this socioeconomic
context, it has been argued that the Cistercians played a significant role in modernization.
As recent research considers some of these themes as rather problematic (advocated traditionally by
church historians, outlining ‘grand narratives’ of the history of the order), and their critical review has
been proposed by many, the task to examine more closely the impact of Cistercian monasticism on
historic environments is even more intriguing. Despite the incremental accumulation of historical data
– primarily in the form of case studies focusing on individual Cistercian estates –, the main problems
in the state-of-the-art remain:
1) the uneven availability of (locally available) archival materials to study the economic activities of
the monasteries. Ideally, a range of written documents and cartographical sources would be needed
to properly reconstruct the activities within a monastic estate), as well as to retrogressively analyze
land-use patterns and their changes;
2) the lack of systematic, intensive research to gather scientific data for paleoenvironmental
reconstructions. A recent, large-scale ERC project on ‘the Ecology of Crusading’
(http://www.ecologyofcrusading.com/) has clearly demonstrated the benefits of multidisciplinary
research in this field, collecting archaeological-paleoenvironmental data for the environmental impact
of the Teutonic Order during their colonization of the Baltic region.
As regards the Bohemian Cistercian (monastic) estates and the Abbey of Plasy in particular, there have
been several case studies and monographs produced. These works primarily discuss historical sources
from a topographical perspective, mapping monastic lands (see the works of K. Charvátová, and J.
Čechura in the bibliography). The problem of monastic farm complexes and the topography of
manorial properties have been of central importance in these studies. In written records, the manorial
farms were typically referred as predium, curia, grangia. These were usually large arable lands, but
some were also functioning as industrial establishments. They had distinctive (sometimes fortified)
building complexes similarly to ‘Hausburg’-type sites (Charvátová 1987b). Plasy had about 10 such
farms in other locations, including Kaznějov, Sechutice, Čečín, Mladotice, Olšany, Nynice, Hodyně,
Lomany, Kopidlo. Importantly, there were also Premonstratensian, Benedictine and other Cistercian
examples – see e.g. the Benedictines of Břevnov (Mirešice, Ruzyně, Třebestovice/Trzebostowicz,
Bratkovice); of Polička (Martínkovice), of Kladruby (Honezovice); the Premonstratensians of Strahov
(Chyně, Mnetěš, Tryskovice), Litomyšl (Tržek) and Teplá (Dolní Kramolín) and the Cistercians of Sedlec
(Brežany, Ovčáry, Libenice), Vyšší Brod (Skláře, Hodonice), Zlatá Koruna (Chvalovice), or Zbraslav
(Slapy, Břežany, Popovice, Neumětely) (Charvátová 1986, 1993, 2004).
The comparative study of these sites – as a group of archaeological and topographical phenomena
dating usually from the 12th-14th
centuries – is essential for understanding the economic impact of
monastic estate management and its differences (adopting to local conditions). The necessity for a
comparative research framework has been already underlined by Charvátová and others (Charvátová
1994; Dobosz 1998). From this point of view, it is important to mention that the applicant wrote his
PhD thesis on the economic historical and landscape archaeological context of Cistercian management
in Hungary, focusing primarily on Hungarian examples, but surveying extensively the English, French
and German literature concerning other regions of Central Eastern Europe and beyond. The results
already illustrated the characteristic topography of these sites and the different functions of such
farms and hinted on very interesting similarities in estate management strategies, despite the
different socio-political contexts. However, these investigation did not probe into the environmental
conditions, which is, nonetheless, similarly important to consider.
Currently, the applicant is also conducting a project at Charles University (end date: December 2021),
looking at charter evidence and topographical data concerning the lands of those monasteries, where
systematic collections of medieval charters survived in copybooks, i.e. the Cistercian monasteries of
Vyšší Brod (Hohenfurt), Zlatá Koruna (Goldenkron), and Zbraslav (Königsaal). The Premonstratensian
house of Hradisko was also selected, whose documents preserved in the archive of the Hungarian
Premonstratensian house of Csorna (Hungarian National Archive, OL DL 286280; cf. Plánská 2013).
Examples – potentially suitable for comparative research – include also monasteries from historical
Hungary (Klostermarienberg, Topuszko, Pilis), which have been studied in the framework of the PhD
thesis, as well as from Poland (Lubiąż) and Germany, Brandenburg (Chorin).
Despite the abundance of (mainly historical) studies on Cistercian, or other monastic estates In
summary, our knowledge concerning the industrial and agricultural activities of the Cistercians in the
Czech lands remains fragmentary (Charvátová 2019), as the scope of the available historicaltopographical
information is limited. Therefore, landscape archaeological research is instrumental for
bringing in new viewpoints and collecting relevant new data. Targeting the estate of Plasy Abbey to
carry out a landscape archaeological and historical ecological case study is a feasible research project
for multiple reasons: 1) the abbey was economically successful; as the oldest and the most prestigious
among the royal Cistercian foundations, it had a considerably large and congruent estate within a
radius of 10-15kms around the abbey site (including about 60 townships/settlements, and 11
granges), thus, it is a suitable area for a comparative morphological analysis of field-systems and landuse
changes; 2) historical-topographical data have been extensively studied and discussed (mainly by
Charvátová 1993; Rožmberský 1999), which allows us to focus on environmental and landscape
archaeological data, 3) although some environmental aspects have been addressed, they were
presented only in a narrative form, without systematic spatial analysis, which is now made possible
by digital tools. Although a very recent project report (Seel 2020) – initiated in the framework of the
European Cultural Heritage Year 2018 – discusses both the cultural heritage elements of the landscape
as well as environmental aspects (e.g. soil), and presents a few digital maps, GIS was used merely for
visualization purposes, and the data remains a simple inventory with no analytical agenda.
As regards archaeological investigations, only some of the manorial farms of Plasy have been surveyed
in the past; the scope of these investigations was limited to surface surveys and basic geodetic
research in the vicinity of manorial buildings. The published results do not comply with modern
standards (Anderle-Rožmberský-Švábek 1993, Charvátová 1993). Therefore, the present project also
proposes to revise previous topographical and archaeological research and carry out more
comprehensive investigations.
Main objectives and methodological remarks
In sum, the project aims to carry out comprehensive and in-depth analysis of landscape archaeological
and environmental phenomena, complementing historical-topographical studies. A single Cistercian
estate will be in the focus, and we will be comparatively looking at several manorial sites, where
monastic agency was supposedly the most intensive (including farm sites within the estate of Plasy
and other sites, which are known to have belonged to other Bohemian houses, as indicated above).
The primary goal is to closely examine their physical environments and historic landscape elements,
and expand the knowledge base concerning economic activities and environmental changes related
to land-use. It is, in a sense, a small-scale historic landscape-characterization project, seeking to
understand how local environmental conditions influenced the site selection of monastic farms.
Much like historical ecologists, we will draw on a broad range of sources, integrating them in GIS. From
a methodological perspective, it is important to highlight recent advancements in landscape
archaeological research, the application of both GIS and non-intrusive techniques – especially the
application of magnetometer and LiDAR surveys – since we also intend to use these techniques in the
project. GIS is used in landscape characterizations, based on both physical (see especially the
European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI)
(https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/1778) and cultural parameters. In regard to the
latter, Historic Landscape Characterization (HLC) was also pioneered in the UK (Fairclough et al. 2018).
GIS provides a convenient technical background for not only visualizing, but also analyzing historical
and environmental conditions on different scales, scaling up data, and connecting current and historic
conditions or patterns, facilitating a long-term view on the landscape. As for landscape archaeological
methods and the potentials of Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS), the advantages of this method have
been recently demonstrated in the Czech lands in the framework of a 2010-2011 project founded by
GAČR (Gojda-John 2013). A combination of methods – including also magnetometer surveys – has
been also instrumental at several other sites (Křivánek 2015). It has been emphasized that the
identification and mapping of archaeological features within woodlands using LiDAR is the first step
towards an improved understanding of woodland landscapes (cf. High Woods, Chichester, UK - Manley
2016).
Introducing these methods, the proposed research expands the traditional approaches of landscape
archaeological and historical topographical studies on monastic landscapes (as outlined in the above
introduction). Multidisciplinary investigations using GIS to integrate different types of data became
more of a standard in recent landscape research. We may refer to this as a “historical ecological”
framework, i.e. not as a discipline, or theory (cf. Crumley 2018). This methodology and objective are
in line with current trends of research “to re-explore the role of the natural environment in shaping
cultural landscapes.” (Holata and Světlík 2015, based on Rippon et al 2014). On the other hand, one
should also emphasize the principle that knowing the social and cultural contexts is also relevant when
interpreting landscape archaeological, environmental evidence (Svensson-Gardiner 2016). For this
reason, monastic estates are ideal for this kind of investigation.
Combining these methodological principles, our project will investigate the character of the physical
environment in order to reflect on the socio-economic division of the monastic landscape, namely in
regard to its essential segmentation into villages and manorial farms (Gutsherrschaft vs
Grundherrschaft), and the different use of the environment as an economic resource. It is also possible
to think of these landscapes and the differences as “environmental ramifications of technologies”,
since technological differences may result in spatially “distributed” landscapes (Michael 2000). Thus,
studying the heterogeneity of the landscape can potentially enlighten the problem of technological
differences in farming. (E.g. does the available evidence indicate that Cistercians introduced new
techniques of cultivation/exploitation?) Putting this in a chronological perspective – on a local scale,
the problem of internal colonization of the estate can be also revised (including the interpretation of
grange farms as “green field” or “brown field” investments). Applying a broader comparative
framework, involving a group of monasteries “colonizing” this part of Europe, could even highlight
significant regional differences in how landscapes were managed, which could underline that agrarian
innovations were implemented unevenly or selectively (Svensson – Gardiner 2016).
Themes
More specifically, the project will explore a few key themes/economic activities/, which have been of
central importance in the discussions on Cistercian (monastic) estate management:
(1) the siting of manorial centres and (agricultural) farmlands; the common assumption in the
traditional literature is that Cistercians had expert knowledge as land managers; the hypothesis will
be tested whether agricultural farms (curiae, predia, grangia) were located to capitalize on more
favorable soil conditions in comparison to their broader geographical environment, i.e. non-manorial
lands
(2) the morphology of fishponds and water management: water management was an essential activity
and apparently the most visible (and often very extensive) element of landscape transformations
related to Cistercian farms (see Aston 1988, Bond 2004); the morphology and physical geography of
fishponds and water systems will be looked at to see how physical conditions (catchment area, soil,
relief) influenced their distribution (location) and morphology
(3) the role of woodland economy is usually obscured, however, the common assumption is that
Cistercians had a considerable interest in pastoral economy as well as in the industrial use of woodland
resources; data concerning changes in woodland cover (during the post-medieval period)
complemented with LiDAR data will be used to study the age of woodland zones, the intensity of
surface features (LiDAR), areas locations of wood pastures and other potential sites associated with
economic activities will be mapped to see if there are different zones, particularly in the vicinity of the
farms and in those areas which have been identified by previous research as woodland clearances
potentially attributed to the Cistercians.
Tasks (data collection)
The project will be organized around desk-based analyses (using GIS) (I-III) and fieldwork (IV):
(I) documentary sources (medieval, post-medieval)
I.a. municipal and estate boundaries, historic settlement network, place names and land use based
on medieval charters and secondary literature (e.g. Charvátová 1993), as well as on the systematic
reading of the 18th century chronicle of the abbey (by M. Vogt, Tilia Plassensis in horto nostro, sive
Chronicum Plassense privatum (1723))
I.b. cadastre data from the Tereziánský katastr (1748), published by Chalupa 1966 and 1970, primary
data are also digitally available at http://oldcadasters.com/; the Wald Fassion in the Josephine and
Stable cadastres, concerning woodland types and soil suitability indexing
(II-III) satellite, LiDAR and cartographical surveys
II.a. present-day woodland cover (CORINE/Copernicus data) (cf: https://land.copernicus.eu/faq/clc-1;
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/)
II.b. historic woodland cover (I-II military surveys, available at mapire.eu)
II.c. available at https://archivnimapy.cuzk.cz/uazk/pohledy/archiv.html)
II.d. wood pastures (based on Google Earth imaging, ortophoto data, military surveys)
III.a. the 19th
century mosaic of agricultural parcels (based on I-II military surveys; cadaster maps vs
modern topographic maps; available at https://geoportal.cuzk.cz;
https://archivnimapy.cuzk.cz/uazk/pohledy/archiv.html
III.b. medieval field boundaries defined by hedgerows (based on Google Earth imaging, I-II military
surveys)
III.c. other (relict) landscape features, currently covered by woodland based on LiDAR data:
https://geoportal.cuzk.cz)
(IV) archaeological surveys/fieldwork
IV.a. revision of earlier archaeological excavations/surveys, mapping available archaeological site
inventories (e.g. concerning the farm at Hodyně)
IV.b fieldwork: ground truthing of LiDAR data, geodetic surveys
IV.c fieldwork: soil data collection/sampling
(V) dissemination of research results
In addition to academic conferences and science journal papers, a webpage and facebook/wordpress
profiles will be created for the project to inform the broader public about the results, including web
based, interactive visualization of data (such as cf. https://aopkcr.maps.arcgis.com), using R
Markdown for processing statistical data. We will also use this platform to provide a lookout on the
policy aspects of our work, explain its relevance for the preservation of cultural and natural
landscapes.
Methods of analysis
In connection to Task (II), the data collection will rely on the methodology of the Longwood ERC project
(Institute of Botany of the Academy in Brno), summarized by Szabó et al. 2018;
http://longwood.cz/?page_id=109). We will proceed with the analysis by intersecting land-cover data
from different periods (3-4 snapshots), which will allow us to produce different categories of polygons
(intersections) each representing particular sequences of land-use changes. Based on this, we will be
also able to produce a zonation for woodlands, including an inventory of ancient woodlands (AWI)
within the area of the whole estate. Woodland cover will be also categorized according to species
distribution (apparently responding to both human and natural factors). While our focus remains on
the neighborhood of the manorial farms, it should be noted that – as the first step of retrogressive
studies –, this spatial reconstruction of land-cover/land-use changes in the post-medieval period
(based on mostly cartographical sources – 18th
– 19th
c.) serves as a general starting point for more indepth
analysis of agrarian systems, offering the perspective of integrating socio-economic data
concerning the history of the estate (cf. Klír 2013)
As regards Task (III), LiDAR DTM 5G data will be used to identify not only the extant elements of the
agricultural mosaic, but also relict traces of cultivation – mostly medieval features –, currently covered
by the woodland. In addition to deserted medieval villages (DMV) and mining sites, such features
typically include various linear features connected to cultivation, i.e. hedgerows, field boundaries,
tracks (as noted by Holata and Světlík 2015). We will rely on the methodology and classification used
in other regional studies near Plzeň and elsewhere (see Dohnal 2011; Molnárová 2008; Sklenička et al
2009; cf. their NAKI funded project at https://www.fzp.czu.cz). We basically follow the analytical steps
described by Holata and Světlík 2015, interpolating LiDAR data to DEM, identifying micro-relief
features; carrying out ground truthing and geodetic surveys (Task IV) and comparing the observed
results to the LiDAR data.
The role of Task (IV) will be complex: in addition to validating the results of the LiDAR analysis, we will
conduct fieldwork in order to produce fresh surface surveys of archaeological phenomena at those
sites, which had been previously identified as the centers of manors, where remains of certain
structures were clearly visible on the surface. The main goal will be to complement earlier surveys,
and comprehensively map landscape features, identified either through the LiDAR survey or with the
help of cartographical materials in the vicinity of the farms. This will more promptly delineate monastic
farmlands. Finally, it is also important to refresh the archaeological database concerning settlement
phenomena prior to Cistercian activities – notably, Charvátová 1993 reported that the evidence is very
fragmentary.
In sum, a combination of desk-based and on-site methods will be used in order to identify relict
anthropogenic features in the landscape, focusing on the neighborhood of manorial centers. The
distribution and density of surface phenomena will be – in itself – informative. We will also use
physical environmental data as “explanatory variables” to interpret these patterns, to understand the
site selection of manorial sites, to characterize environmental conditions regarding lands in direct
management and contrast this to other parts of the estate. Regarding environmental variables, we
will follow Holata and Světlík and focus on topographical and hydrological character (calculating slope
gradients; reconstructing the potential water catchment areas, calculating topographic wetness
indexes) in connection to potential sites/areas of interest. On the other hand, we also look at other
factors: the geological, pedological situation of the respective phenomena. In addition to soil maps,
we will analyze chemical data from soil samples (cores/test pits). In addition to methods tested and
used already by the members of our research team (see publications in Part D1), pedological analysis
will probe into Pb and Cs isotope concentration (dating) and soil organic carbon content (Alcántara et
al 2017; Houfková et al. 2015). From these results, we expect to have answers concerning the often
problematic issue of whether these farms were “green field” or “brown field” investments – whether
the history of cultivation predates Cistercian settlement or not?
In regard to soil types, a broader comparative analysis can be also carried out relying on publicly
available soil maps (1:25000 / 50 000), exploring the distribution of similar farm sites, and using
national scale soil maps, for Germany, see e.g.
https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Boden/Informationsgrundlagen/Bodenkundliche_Karten_Da
tenbanken/BUEK200/buek200_node.html
In addition to national level data, European databases (resolution: 1km raster) collected by the
European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) can be also exploited. Although such maps are less detailed, the
1km raster fits for large-scale comparative analysis. Derived from a complex of environmental
variables (including soil maps) agricultural suitability and land use intensity – as of present – can be
also relevant indices to retrospectively characterize the location of monastic manorial farmlands:
https://www.environmentalgeography.nl/site/data-models/data/agricultural-land-use-intensitydata/
Although such analyses might seem more speculative, it is not without precedents (cf. Andersen
et al 2014), and it might be instructive in preparation for proposing more comprehensive
environmental investigations, which we envisage in the final phase of our project.
Project schedule (see also details on project output in Part C2)
M1 webpage for the publication of project reports for the public, and for data visualization
M2 internal deadlines for annual reports/publications based on research conducted in the
previous years – case studies [see the preliminary selection of journals and titles below the
table]
M3 conference papers: [see the preliminary selection of conferences below]
M4 interim workshops (exploratory/project design)
M5 ERC proposal submission preparations: by the end of the project we expect to set the agenda
for a project to be implemented at a European scale in order to more comprehensively assess
the environmental strategies of monastic expansion into the Central Eastern European region.
The workshops to be organized during the project will be aimed not only to bring together a
broader community of local researchers to share their insight and introduce preliminary
results, but also to work out the details of scaling up this research to the next level. We
envisage scientific cooperation with foreign partners, potentially from Hungary, Romania,
Croatia and Poland.
Tasks (team
members-see
below)
Year1 Year2 Year3
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
I.a-b (LF, JK)
IIa-b-c (LF, MJ)
IId (LF)
IIIa-b-c (LF, MJ)
IV.a-b-c (LF, MJ,
JH)
V (full, team
TBA)
M1 M3 M3 M2 M3 M3 M2 M3 M3
(full team) M4 M4 M4
(full team) M5 M5 M5
Institutional and personal background
The Archaeology Department of Charles University has a long-term interest in settlement- and
landscape archaeological studies. It has all the necessary technical tools to conduct fieldwork, i.e. field
equipment, processing tools (graphic- and analytic software, i.e. R, R-bridge, (http://rarcgis.github.io/)
ArcGIS Pro, AutoCAD; Topcon Tools). Processing of samples will be done in
cooperation with other laboratories (Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Faculty of Science at
Charles University in Prague), eventually professional teams of geodesists and geologists.
Team members
Tomáš Klír, PhD – archaeologist – scientific advisor, investigator – he is a Docent (associate professor)
(2020) at the Department of Archaeology of the Faculty of Arts at Charles University, where he
completed his PhD in archaeology; he is going to be responsible for quality assessment, but also
actively contributing in the evaluation of field data and publications; -- work capacity: 10%
Martin Janovský, PhD student – environmental archaeologist, investigator – he studied archaeology
at Charles University under the supervision of dr. Klír. His postgraduate research project (2016-2017)
focused on medieval human-environment interactions (Horák et al. 2018; Janovský and Horák in
press). He is currently finishing his PhD at the Czech University of Life Sciences under the supervision
of prof. Michal Hejcman; he will be responsible for LiDAR, GIS and soil analysis (in cooperation with
laboratories), fieldwork and publications; -- work capacity: 50%.
Jan Horák, PhD – historical ecologist, archaeologist, investigator – currently working at the
Department of Ecology of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CULS); as an expert in soil
analysis, he will plan and conduct field research, statistical analyses, contribute to spatial,
archaeological and pedological interpretation of the data; -- work capacity: 20%
Jan Kremer, PhD student – historian, data archivist – investigator – he is currently finishing his PhD on
Premonstratensian monastic network in CEE, under the supervision of Prof. Kateřina Charvátová;
working at the Centre for Medieval Studies at the Czech Academy of Sciences; his focusing on
monasticism, knowledge transfer and digital humanities; he will assist in database design, archival
data collection, project communication (web management); work capacity: 10% (disclaimer: his
responsibilities will not interfere with workload due to his involvement (team member) in the 2019–
2021 GAČR project “Sázava - archeology of the Benedictine monastery”.
Innovative aspects of the proposal
Archaeological research on rural settlements in the Czech Republic has a notable emphasis on the
early medieval period. This is well illustrated by scientific projects focusing on the landscape and
settlement archaeology of e.g. Němětice (GA404/98/0055) (1998-2000); Hrdlovka (IAA8002201)
(2002-2004); Budeč (GA404/04/0269) (2004-2006), Mikulčice (GAP405/11/2258) (2011-2015); or the
royal acropolis at Vyšehrad (GAP405/10/2334) (2010-2015) [source: https://starfos.tacr.cz]. This is
understandable, given the importance of high-status sites, as well as the lack of documentary evidence
concerning the respective period. In our case, however, it has to be stressed that it is particularly the
availability of both the archaeological-topographical and the documentary (written, cartographical)
evidence that makes this project feasible, as our approach will focus on the geospatial and
chronological contexts of settlements and manorial farms, applying a retrogressive analysis of landuse
patterns in combination with environmental data.
The proposed study will be the first to carry out integrated and systematic historical and
environmental research in connection to Cistercian landscapes in the Czech lands. It will improve our
understanding of the environmental impact of 12-13th century monasticism, in a region marginal to
Cistercian expansion. We plan to demonstrate that the present day ecological-physical character of
the landscape character can be used when interpreting economic activities in the past. The results will
advance knowledge on cultural landscapes (with respect to the above described themes) and
strengthen the scientific background of policy making/strategy development concerning heritage
sites/historic landscapes. Notably, woodlands around Plasy function as protected habitats and partly
as NATURE 2000 reserves (cf. https://aopkcr.maps.arcgis.com), while other monastic landscapes have
been nominated as UNESCO WH sites, or Biosphere Reserves. Upon successful completion of the
project, an ERC proposal is planned, including more intensive environmental data collection,
landscape archaeological surveys, as well as archival research to map out also the “social landscapes”
of monastic communities.
References
Alcántara et al. 2017: Alcántara, V. and Dona, A., Well R., Nieder, R. “Legacy of medieval ridge and
furrow cultivation on soil organic carbon distribution and stocks in forests.” Catena 154 (2017): 85-
94.
Anderle – Rožmberský – Švábek 1993: Anderle, J., Rožmberský, P., Švábek, V., Výsledky povrchového
průzkumu cisterciáckých dvorů na Plzeňsku. Castellologica bohemica: 261-270.
Andersen et al. 2014: Andersen, T.B. – Sandholt, P.S. – Skovsgaard, C.V.: The Heavy Plough and the
Agricultural Revolution in Medieval Europe. internet pbliation available at:
http://www.ehes.org/EHES_70.pdf
Aston 1993: Aston, M. Monasteries. Know the Landscape. London: Batsford, 1993.
Bond 2004: Bond, C. J. Monastic Landscapes. Stroud: Tempus, 2004.
Čechura 1984: Čechura, J. Liber antiquus kláštera v Plasech z let 1339–1441 – Der ‚Liber antiquus‘ des
Klosters Plass aus den Jahren 1339–1441, Časopis Národního muzea v Praze, Řada historická 153
(1984): 166–179.
Čechura 1988: Čechura, J. Dvě studie k sociálně ekonomickému vývoji klášterního velkostatku v
předhusitských Čechách – Zwei Studien zur sozialökonomischen Entwicklung des
Klostergrossgrundbesitzes im vorhussitischen Böhmen, Sborník Národního Muzea v Praze, řada A
– Historie 42 (1988): 1–72.
Čechura 1994: Čechura, J. Die Struktur der Grundherrschaften im mittelalterlichen Böhmen unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung der Klosterherrschaften (Quellen und Forschungen zur
Agrargeschichte, 39). Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1994.
Chalupa 1966: Chalupa, A. et al.: Tereziánský katastr český - Theresianischer Kataster Bohmens - Le
cadastre theresien de la Boheme, vol. 2. Praha, 1966
Chalupa 1970: Chalupa, A. et al.1970: Tereziánský katastr český - Theresianischer Kataster Bohmens Le
cadastre theresien de la Boheme, vol 3. Praha.
Charvátová 1986: Charvátová, K. “Vztah dvorú k vesnickému osídlení na panstvích cisterckých klášterú
v Čechách” [Die Beziehungen der Meierhöfe zur ländlichen Besiedlung auf den Herrschaften der
Zisterzienserklöster in Böhmen]. Archaeologia historica 11 (1986): 461–467.
Charvátová 1987a: Charvátová, K. “Le modèle économique cistercien et son application pratique en
Bohême.” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 30 (1987): 65-70.
Charvátová 1987b: Charvátová, K. “Hospodářské dvory klášterů ve světle písemných pramenů ve
světle písemných pramenu. Ke stavební podobě dvorů řádů benediktinského, premonstrátského a
cisterckého.” [Wirtschaftshöfe der Klöster im Lichte Schriftqellen (Zur Bauform der Höfe des
Benediktiner-, Prämonstratenser- und Zisterzienserordens in Böhmen)]. Archaeologia historica 12
(1987): 287–299.
Charvátová 1993: Charvátová, K. “Settlement patterns within the domain of Plasy abbey, Bohemia
1100–1400 a.d.” Památky archeologické 84 (1993): 120–147.
Charvátová 1994: Charvátová, K. “Mindful of Reality, faithful to traditions. Development of Bohemian
possessions of the Cistercian Order from the twelfth to the thirteenth Centuries.” In L'Espace
cistercien. Paris: CTHS 1994, 355–375.
Charvátová 2004: Charvátová, K. “Early Cistercian Economy in Bohemia (c. 1150-1300): The mysterious
affair of the granges.” Questiones medii aevi novae (2004): 283–296.
Charvátová 2019: Charvátová, K. “The mining and metallurgical activities of the Cistercians of the
medieval kingdom of Bohemia.” In: L'industrie cistercienne (XIIe-XXIe siècle). Eds.Benoit, P.,
Baudin, A., Rouillard, J. Troyes: Somogyi, 2019: 147-156.
Comet 1997: Comet, G. “Technology and Agricultural Expansion in the Middle Ages: The Example of
France North of the Loire.” In Langdon, J., Astill, G., and Myrdal, J. (eds). ‘Medieval Farming and
Technology’, Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997.
Crumley 2018: Crumley, C. (ed), Issues and Concepts in Historical Ecology. The Past and Future of
Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2018.
Dobosz 1998: Dobosz, J. “Die Kleinpolnishen Zisterzienser - ihr Platz in Wirtschaft und Kultur Polens
im 13. Jahrhundert. (Cistercians in Little Poland. Their Role in the Thirteenth Century Economy
and Culture)” In: Knefelkampf, Ulrich.(ed.) Zisterzienser. Norm, Kultur, reform 900 Jahre
Zisterzienser.Berlin: Springer, 1998. 127-136.
Dohnal 2011: Dohnal, M. “Středověké plužiny Velké Británie a jejich význam pro poznání
zemědělského vývoje v Českých zemích.” Český lid Vol. 98, No. 4 (2011): 337-357.
Donkin 1978: Donkin, R. A., The Cistercians. Studies in the geography of medieval England and Wales.
Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1978.
F. Romhányi 1994: F.Romhányi, B. “The role of the Cistercians in medieval Hungary: political activity
or internal colonization?,” Annual of medieval studies at Central European University Budapest
(1993/94): 180–204.
Fairclough et al 2018: Fairclough, G. and Herlin, I.S. , Swanwick, C.: Routledge Handbook of
Landscape Character Assessment Current Approaches to Characterisation and Assessment.
London: Routledge, 2018.
Faltýnová and Pavelka 2013: Faltýnová, M and K. Pavelka “Relics of mining activities in West Bohemia
- mapping by airborne laser scanning.” In: International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XL-5/W2, 2013, 261-263.
Götlind 1990: Götlind, A. The Messengers of Medieval Technology? Cistercians and Technology in
Medieval Scandinavia. Stockholm: Viktoria bokförlag, 1990; See also the review by E. Christiansen
in The English Historical Review 109 (1994): 411.
Holata and Světlík 2015: Holata, L. and R. Světlík, “Detailed digital terrain models in the research of
deserted settlement: hydrological modelling and environment of settlement areas.” In: Ružičková,
K. – Inspektor, T.: Surface Models for Geoscience. Springer: NY, 2015. 113-124.
Houfková et al. 2015: Houfková, P., Bumerl, J., Pospíšil, L., Karlík, P., Beneš, J., Bernardová, A.,
Hrabalíková, M., Molnárová, K., Hejcman, M.: “Origin and development of long-strip field
patterns: A case study of an abandoned medieval village in the Czech Republic.” Catena 135
(2015): 83-91.
Klír 2013: Klír, T. “Agrarsysteme des vorindustriellen Dorfes. Zur Interpretation mittelalterlicher
Ortswüstungen im Niederungs- und Mittelgebirgsmilieu,” In: Theune, C. et al. (Hrsg.), Stadt – Land
– Burg. Festschrift für Sabine Felgenhauer-Schmiedt zum 70. Geburtstag. (= Internationale
Archäologie, Studia honoraria 34), Leidorf, 139-157.
Lucas 2010: Lucas, A. “Narratives of Technological Revolution in the Middle Ages”, in A. Classen (eds.)
Handbook of Medieval Studies: Terms, Methods and Trends. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010, 967–990.
Manley 2016: Manley, J. (ed.), Secrets of the High Woods. Revealing hidden landscapes. London: South
Downs National Park Authority, 2016.
Michael 2000: Michael, M.: Reconnecting culture technology and nature? Taylor and Francis
Molnárová 2008: Molnárová, K. “Hedgerow-defined medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic and
their conservation – a literature review.” Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47.
Plánská 2013: Plánská, P. Liber monasterii Gradicensis klášterního archivu Csorna (Edice listin z let
1283 – 1310)
https://is.muni.cz/th/361218/ff_b/Bakalarska_prace.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0muAlBA36FDl35PMV_1SS
AC7WKpHmI2HTqII8nGDdKws3xJBlyFIMyPXo
Pressouyre 1994: Pressouyre, Léon (ed.), L'espace cistercien. Paris: Comité des travaux historiques et
scientifiques, 1994.
Rippon 2004: Rippon, S. “Making the Most of a Bad Situation? Glastonbury Abbey, Meare, and the
Medieval Exploitation of Wetland Resources in the Somerset Levels,” Medieval Archaeology 48
(2004): 91–130.
Rippon et al 2014: Rippon S., A. Wainwright, and C. Smart, “Farming regions in medieval England: the
archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological evidence”, Medieval Archaeology 58 (2014): 195–255.
Rožmberský 1999: Rožmberský, P.: Dvory plaských cisterciáků. (The grange courts of the Plasy
Cistercians) Zapomenuté hrady, tvrze a místa 21. Plzeň, 1999.
Rynne 1989: Rynne, C. “The Introduction of the Vertical Water‐mill into Ireland: Some Recent
Archaeological Evidence”, Medieval Archaeology 33 (1989): 21–31.
Seel 2018: Seel, E., “Vielfalt in der Einheit - Zisterziensische Klosterlandschaften in
Mitteleuropa“Klosterlandschaft Plasy. Internet publication, available at:
file:///C:/Users/36304/Desktop/Prague/cistercscapes.eu/Plasy_KLI_Bericht.pdf
Sklenicka et al 2009: Sklenicka, P. and K. Molnarova, E. Brabec, P. Kumble, B. Pittnerova, K. Pixova, M.
Salek: Remnants of medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic: Analysis of driving forces behind
their disappearance with special attention to the role of hedgerows. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 129 (2009) 465–473.
Svensson – Gardiner 2016: Svensson, E. and Gardiner, M.: “Agrarian technology in the medieval
landscape – an introduction” In Agrartechnik in mittelalterlichen Landschaften Technologie agraire
dans le paysage medieval. Ruralia X 9th–15th September 2013 Smolenice Castle Slovakia. The JeanMarie
Pesez conferences on medieval rural archaeology., Turnhout: Brepols 2016. pp. XIII–XVIII.
Szabó et al. 2018: Szabó, P. Suchánková, S., Křížová, L. Kotačka, M., Kvardová, M., Macek, M.,
Müllerová, J. & Brázdil, R., “More than trees: The challenges of creating a geodatabase to capture
the complexity of forest history,” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and
Interdisciplinary History, DOI: 10.1080/01615440.2018.1444523
Williams 1990: Williams, D. H., Atlas of Cistercian Lands in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press,
1990.