The Development of the Settlement Pattern in the Basin of the Lower Vltava (Central Bohemia) 9780860545729, 9781407347318

Citation preview

The Development of the Settlement Pattern in the Basin of the Lower Vltava (Central Bohemia) 200 -1200 A.D.

Martin Gojda

BAR International Series 447 1988

B.A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR -S447, 1988; 'The Development of the Settlement Pattern in the Basin of the Lower Vl tava (Central Bohemia), 200 - 1200 A. D.' © Martin Gojda, 1988 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860545729 paperback ISBN 9781407347318 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860545729 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

To

my mother, and

my father,

Jar,ni

la,

Jirf

CONTENTS

Page Acknowledgements

1

1. Introduction

3

2. Temporal and spatial distribution its purpose and aims

of the analysis,

General Part. Part I: Methods and various aspects of interpretation in the study of settlement history in early historic times Special Part. Part II: The development of the settlement pattern of the lower Vltava basin from the Late Roman period to the Late Hillfort period (3rd - 12th centuries A.D.)

9 . 13

61

Catalogue

146

Abbreviations

287

Bibliography

290

Summary

309

Documentation

314

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is a result of several years study of the historical sources relevant to the settlement process of the lower Vltava basin, especially on the left bank of this main Czech river, north of Prague. The work has developed as part of a complex investigation of the early medieval hillfort (castle) of Budec, studying both the immediate, and the broad hinterland of the centre. The project was later extended, both temporarily and spatially, to incorporate the investigation of some specific problems. This is the publication of the research dissertation. The original text, submitted in March 1986, has been retained with some modifications to the documentation part being made. It is divided into two parts. Part I deals with a general survey of the present state of knowledge of settlement geography, and with the main trends in the research of current early medieval and Slavic settlement investigation. Part I I deals with an attempt at the reconstruction of early medieval occupation history in the lower Vlava basin. would I ike appreciation to the

to express fol lowing:

my

sincere

gratitude

and

Prof. J. Pou I fk, the for mer Di rector of the Prague Department of the Institute of Archaeology of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences at Brno, and Dr. M. Richter, the present Di rector of the new I y es tab Ii shed Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences in Prague, who enabled the work on the subject to take place. Dr. M. Beranova, my full-time scholarship tutor and the Head of the Department of Archaeology of the Slavs, for her advice and guidance, especially at the beginning of my study, which helped me to concentrate on the most important aspect of the settlement process investigation - the reconstruction of the economic base. Dr. z. Vana, the Director of the Budec excavation project, for his continued support and advice, particularly in dating early medieval archaeological material of Central Bohemia. Dr. V. Moucha, Dr. J. Zeman, Dr. z. Smetanka, Dr. J. Rulf, Dr. L. Peske, and ing. J. Vojkovsky with the team of geodetists (all employed in the Institute of Archaeology, Prague) for their contribution to my work. Dr. J. Slama , my tutor at Charles University, whose outstanding seminars and lectures in the history of the Early Middle Ages provided me with a sound basis for my further work. Dr. in Prague

v. for

Sakar their

and Dr. M. Slabina of stimulating comment.

the

National

Museum

Dr. M. Kuna names derived tram the situation ot the abode with the suttix "- any" (typical ot the colonization ot the boundary territories): Dolany, Lesany, Olsany, Zakolany; the ancient possessive personal ending"yne" s classification) whereas others have names characteristic ot the beginnings ot the colonization beyond the boundaries ot the oldest colonized territory (type 6 - Trneny Ojezd, Tynee, Tynice, Nebusice, Makotrasy, Kralupy and Vltavou) and ot the occupation ot the less favourable hilly regions, particularly the Bohemian-Moravian Uplands (type 11 - names in"any", "ice", "- ovice"). The fol lowing conclusion is drawn, on the basis ot toponymy, tram the tact that the oldest types ot place names are distributed more or less evenly throughout the territory under study: the so-cal led earliest colonized

95

territory was settled more or less evenly but sparsely in the early period of Internal Colonization (the number of villages was one third of the present number); only in the middle of the 12th century did the settlement begin to become more dense throughout the territory by es tab Ii sh i ng vi I I ages of colonization type, again fairly evenly. This conclusion, in its essence, supports Knor>s hypothesis that permanent settlements in Central Bohemia were already occupied in the 10th century. Comparison with other sources, mainly with archaeological evidence, wi I I show how close to historical reality this hypothesis is (see Ch. 111 .3). I I .4

Dedications

of

Churches

Church dedications are another source which can be of help in analyzing the geographical history of settlement in a given territory (generally cf. Ch. I .2.d). A number of ecclesiastical structures in the territory under investigation have dedications dating to the oldest chronological horizons. The fol lowing survey wi 11 offer a general idea of the situation: 1•

Early Structures

Medieval

(pre-Romanesque

and

Romanesque)

St. Lawrence - Cernovicky, latter half of 12th century ( bet ore 1178?) on a hi 11 top NW ot today> s vi I I age, documented together with a smal I castle in 1352, the vi I I age was deserted in the early 16th century; St. Nicholas - Vrapice, close of the 12th and beginning ot the 13th century, situated on hilltop; St. Wenceslas - Dretovice, close ot the 11th 1st halt ot the 12th century, surrounded by a cemetery, situated on hi I I top on the SW end ot vi I I age; St. Matthias Dolnf Liboc (Sarka), dated according to its position in landscape (ct. Bohac 1978, 23); Our Lady (Nativity) Holub ice, the early 13th century, church in the vi I I age green; Our Lady (Assumption ?) - Unetice, todays church bui It in 1776-70 in the middle ot the village at the site ot an older church from the early 12th century; Our Lady (The Virgin Mary) - Budec, about the mid 10th century; St. Peter Praha-Bohnice, dated 1158 (inside village); Budec, before 905 (915), in the inner walled area; St. Mary Magdalene - Prednf Kopanina, first half of the 12th century (inside village); St. Clement - Levy Hradec, 9th century (documented in the 1 10th century in Christian s Legend); St.Gothard - Slany, documented about 1137 (Benedictines of the Ostrov monastery); .., St. James the Greater - Zelenice, 12th century (with a cemetery, on hi 11 top above vi I lage). 2.

High

Middle

Ages

(Gothic)

Structures

St. Martin - Zvoleneves, documented in 1352; Tursko, documented in 1257; St. Vitus(?) - Tuchomerice, referred to in the 14th century, dedication to the saint first mentioned in the 17th century; St. Michael - Svrkyne, orig. Gothic, documented in 1311; St. Procopius (?) - Stredokluky, today>s baroque church built in the place of an older structure ; St .

96

Adalbert - Slatina, orig. Gothic, 14th century; St. Peter and Paul - Prelfc, latter half of the 14th century; St. Steven Pchery, Gothic, situated on a hi I I side above the vi I lage; St. Clement - Chrzfn, vi I I age mentioned in 1292, church in the latter half of the 14th century; St.Catherine - Velvary, 14th century; Our Lady - Klecany, referred to in the 14th century, Veprek; Al I Saints - Knovfz, 14th century; St. James the Greater - Minice, referred to in 1352, surrounded by a cemetery" on an elevation in the middle of the village; St. James - Risuty; St. Bartholomew - Libcice, referred to in the 14th century, within the village; St.George - Libusfn, Early Gothic ( in hi I I fort); St . John the Babtist - Noutonice, orig. Gothic, on hi 11 top E of the vi 11 age; Zemechy (?), documented in the vi I I age (church) - about the middle of the 14th century (dedication mentioned only in the 18th century). The dedications of churches at Ear I y Premys Ii d hi I I forts can be considered as the o I dest of a I I. At many of these fortified sites (about 30 in Bohemia; cf. Slama 1977b, 272), a sma I I group of names p rev a i I, and most of these names were popular as patron saints within a broader European context in the Early Middle Ages. Judging from this it is more than probable that today)s dedications at these sites are original and that the churches have not been re-dedicated in the course of the many centuries which have elapsed from their foundation. Dedication of almost al I the remaining country churches in the lower Vltava basin also fol lows the common customs of that time. St . Mary Magdalene)s rotunda at Prednf Kopanina seems to be the only case of a later dedication (according to z. Bohac, 1978a, 26, dedications to St . Mary Magdalene and some other female patron saints were common only in the terminal phase of colonization and in the High Middle Ages). It is also interesting to note that the other churches in the territory under study which have been physically preserved from the Gothic era also have, in about a half of the cases, dedications associated with earlier chronological horizons. This might suggest that at least some of these churches were built in places where older sanctuaries had been; nevertheless, these dedications might as wel I be due to the surviving popularity of some patron saints from an earlier time to the later periods. It can be mentioned in this connection that early medieval ecclesiastical structures are also believed to have existed of course in hi I I forts - a I so in p I aces where the Romanesque or pre-Romanesque dating of the churches is not documented but where the dedication and position in terrain suggest a very early origin (e.g. St. Clement at the Lstenf hi I I fort, St. George at Libusfn; cf. Slama 1977b, 276-277). Considering the geographical distribution of the old types of dedication, they appear to be most densely concentrated in the area between the river Vltava and the Zakolansky brook whereas nothing I ike that is seen on the right bank of the river though there is a I arger group of vi I I ages documented by written sources as already existing in the year 1200. Some concentration - but (with one exception) only in structures of Gothic dating - also exists in the west end of the studied territory (Risuty, Prelfc, Pchery, Libusfn, Slany).

97

11

.5

Physical

Remains

of

Bui I dings

Investigation of dedications to patron saints is closely related with studies concerning the distribution of the remains of early medieval architecture. With the adopftion of the Christian faith, pre-Romanesque structures, almost all sacred, became important features indicating the settlement process and the changes in the structure of rural settlements, including the development of parochial administration and establishment of central church cemeteries. As can be seen from the survey of the dedications of Romanesque churches, there is evidence (architectural, archaeological, and historical) proving the existence of thirteen such churches in the territory under investigation in the lower Vltava basin. Three of them stood in hillforts (Budec: Our Lady, St. Peter; Levy Hradec: St.Clement), nine in the countryside and one in a pre-urban agglomeration (S !any). As for the structural types, . there are both centrally planned buildings (St. Peter)s rotunda at Budec and other rotundae at Levy Hradec, Holubice, Vrapice, Prednf Kopanina) and those of longitudinal plan s rotunda founded at Budec by Prince Spytihnev at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries is the oldest architectural monument surviving . The recent excavations (~olle 1982a) and investigation of standing structures (Lfbal 1981) have been of great help in establishing the date. The most important discoveries include the excavation of the foundations of the east horseshoe-shaped apse, and the north circular chapel. As found, the masonry of the nave is in fact original from the foundations up to the dome; it is datable to the period of Prince Spytihnev)s rule. Considering the structural models the Budec rotunda might fol low, attention is drawn to the Great Moravian influence (e.g. irregular rows of rubblework) and to evidence of west European - Carolingian - influence (pulpit, ambulatory?). Outside agglomerations the central churches of a round plan are only of a later date. Situated very near landlords seats, they are al I considered to be private sanctuaries. St. Mary Magdalene)s rotunda at Prednf Kopanina is the oldest amongst them, dated by Merhautova (1971, 298) to the early 12th century, though written documents refer to the vi I I age only in 1285 and fieldwalking survey has failed to yield any

98

pottery fragments of a date ear Ii er than the 13th century (oral information by courtesy of J. Frolfk). It is also difficult to date with a greater accuracy the church of St. Nicholas at Vrapice because of the present poor state of preservation of the romanesque part of the bui I ding; the rotunda is therefore only generally placed to a time between the close of the 12th and the first halt of the 13th century (Merhautova 1971, 355). The most impressive Early Middle Age monuments of Central Bohemia and the adjacent part ot the North Bohemian region include what we now cal I the Doksany group: structures with blind arcading on the outer walls as the main characteristic feature, bui It in the reign of Premysl Otakar I. In the territory under investigation this type of structure is represented by Our Lady's rotunda at Holub .ice bui It in the 1220s ( in the course of the subsequent hundred years a southern apse and a quadrangular west tower were added to the first single apse). So tar we have just a fragmentary knowledg e ot the longitudinally-planned churches. There is only archa e ological evidence tor the oldest of them, the smal I church of Our Lady at Budec, investigated by J Bohm in 1929 and 1931 and reexcavated in 1976 (tor detai Is cf. Sommer 1978). Bas ed on coins excavated in the adjacent cemetery, the buildin g of the church is t e ntatively placed to the mid-tenth century. Art history evidence is not of great help here becau se th e ground plan of the structure is uncommon inthe Cze chmi I ieu: longitudinal nave, horseshoe-shaped apse, the probl e m of the west adjunct (a tower ?). The lack of preserved architectural features and unc e rtainty of ground plan also prevent a ccurate dating of other churches: at ~ernovicky (perhaps about the mid-twelfth c e ntury), Praha-Bohnice, Slany, Ze l e nice,and Dretovice (cf. Merhautova 1971, 368-9; Lfbal 1974, 174). The structura

ava i I ab i Ii ty of documentary, toponym i c I evidence can be compared as fol lows:

Written Sources Up To 1200 A.O. Budihostice Cernovicky Kamenny Most Knezeves Knovfz Kolecly Budec Letky Li be ice Libusfn Lichoceves Lobec Lunfkov Maslovice Neumerice Noutonice Podlesfn I/

Church Dedications

Toponymy (Type 1-5)

Physical Building Remains

V

*

*

* *

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

* *

* 99

and

* *

Postrizfn Praha-Bohnice Levy Hradec Rez SI any Stare Ouholice Tursko Tynec

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

•

Vrapice Dretovice (Kralovice) Holubice

• * P,rednf

Zelenice Zvoleneves Svrkyne Preite Pchery Chrzfn Klecany Veprek Mi nice ~isuty Zemechy?

Kopani _na

•

V

•

Kovary Bucina Vinarice Vetrusice Sazena Ledee Uhol icky Stare Ouhol ice Beloky Ho lousy Uhy Panenske Brezany Sedlec Kralovice (Dretovice) Bustehrad (Busceves) Stehelceves Nelahozeves

Considering the evidence in the available sources indicated in the table, we can draw a sort of isol ine of the oldest sites in the given territory, irrespective of 9). Some data, archaeological evidence (see Fig. No. dedications, are particularly those concerning church place into the uncertain to an extent and hard to evidence chronological order; nevertheless, they do offer compared with helpful in settlement dating which has to be archaeological evidence. Only

Budec

and

Levy

Hradec

100

have

evidence

from

al I four

categories of historical sources. Three categories refer to Cernovicky, Libcice, Noutonice, Praha-Bohnice,Slany and Unetice and two to Knezeves, Knovfz, Libusfn, Lichoceves, Lobec, Lunfkov, Tursko, Vrapice, Dretovice (Kralovice), Holubice, Zelenice, Zvoleneves. If these data are projected onto the map, the highest concentration of sites documented by 3-4 categories of evidence is seen in the territory NW of the Prague hollow, mostly on the left side of the river. The maximum altitude of the sites is 250-300 m. The vi I I ages documented by two categories are scattered almost al I over the territory; their isol ine is shifted northwest and altitude reaches the critical contour I ine of 350 m above sea (see Fig. No. 9). I I .6

Basic

Factors

Of Environment

For the primeval and early historical societies, one of the main conditions in choosing a settlement territory was an optimum combination of natural factors. Recent archaeological literature, particularly in the U.K. and U.S.A., testifies to the increased attention now given to the history of relationships between man and the environment (for detai Is see Ch. I .2 .f of the Genera I Part). In Czechoslovakia the methodology of this field of study was fully surveyed by J. Rulf (1981, 1983). His approaches were applied in this study to the evaluation of the natural factors prevai I ing in the investigated territory of the lower Vltava basin. The factors subjected to the analysis comprised twelve categories which were deemed to have had the greatest influence on the choice of sites to be settled and, perhaps, also the sites to be used as cemeteries. These are: 1.

Location

a.

Plane ( locations in watermeadow, on the banks of water courses in the present inundation areas and behind them; inclination interval 0-1 degrees - in this my approach diverges from J. Rulf's classification where a plane is considered to be a terrain with the maximum inclination of 20 feet: in my view such a smal I inclination has nearly always the same conditions as a zero plane for all practical purposes).

b•

Platform ( locations at a comparatively and headlands).

c.

Slope ( locations all altitudes).

2.

The gradient of settled slope - determined by means of t h e f u n c t i o n t gt( ( r a t i o b et we e n t h e I e n g t h o f s I o p e I ine drawn through the site and the difference in elevation between two adjacent contour I ines).

3.

Altitude

above

with an inclination of 0-1 higher altitude on upland with

the

level

inclinations

of

l 01

a water

above

souce

degrees plateaus

1 degree

- calculated

at

by means of contour I ines as between the surface of the imaginary centre of the site. - cardinal

4.

Orientation

5.

Altitude

6 •

Code of the type of the water course ( in the system a river emptying into the sea is an water course, a river emptying into an order course is an order I water course etc.).

7•

Distance

8 •

Average

temperature.

9•

Average

rainfal

1 0.

Climatic

zone.

11 •

Length

12 .

Reconstructed

above

from

of

the

sea

the

points

the height water source faced

by the

difference and the

slope.

level.

site

to

the

water

accepted order I I water

source.

I•

growing

season.

vegetative

cover.

Primary maps 1 10 000 were used for the analysis and al I the necessary data were derived and calculated from them. The data on the order of the water courses and the characteristics of the network of the streams are given in the book "Hydrol ogicke pomery CSSR" and were checked against the maps of the first mi I itary map series of 1763 - 1785. The average temperatures and rainfal Is, the climatic zone and the length of the growing season were taken from the book "Ceskoslovenska vlastiveda I." The soi I conditions were studied from the manuscript maps of the Archives of the Institute for Farm Land Surveying and from some of the basic manuals. Evaluation of the vegetation covering of the territory in the past is based on the original 75 000 maps kept in the Botanical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences at PrBhonice u Prahy and on R. Mikyskffs (1968) fundamental work on geobotanical reconstruction maps. II I

Analysis

I I I .I

Characteristics of the territory today and in the agricultural uti I ization historic times.

environment in the past. Possibi I ities of landscape in the

The territory under study geomorphological units of the (Czudek 1972, 37-38, 132-133): 1.

Part Vltava up to

of the territory up to Kralupy S I any.

belongs Czech

Ii es on both from where its

102

to the Socialist banks of boundary

given of the early

fol lowing Republic the I ine

river runs

2.

Part of the territory is situated north of the Kralupy - Slany I ine up to the confluence of the Bakovsky brook with the Vltava at Veprek. The former part of the territory belongs to the geomorphological units of the Prague Table Land as a part of its subunit, the KladnoPlateau; the latter part falls within the unit of the Lower Ohre Basin Plateau (under the sub-unit of the Rfp Plateau). The area of the Kladno Plateau is 556 km square, the highest spot is 435 m above sea, the lowest 170 m above sea, the mean altitude is 310 m and the inclination is 2°54 feet; the whole area is orographical ly characterized as a variform hi I ly region. This geomorphological sub-unit I ies NW of the Prague Table Land and has a flat pseudoplain relief sloping from SW to NW in the direction of draining. In the area between the Zakolansky brook and the Vltava, the Tursko Table stands out (altitude about 300m above sea) with several si I icious schist dominants (Ers, Kamyk, Kozf hrbety). The terrain is broken on the left s i de of t he V I t av a , t he br oo k s s i n'k i n g i nt o deep va I I eys to reach the river. The Zako I ansky brook with its tributaries and the short tributaries of the Vltava are cut deep under the Vlevel of the pseudoplain (Demek , 1965, 163-166). The Rip Plateau, extending over the area of 554 km square, has similar parameters. According to J. Hromadka (Ceskoslovenska vlastiveda I' 698), the so-ca I I ed Prague sub-region is morpho I og i ca I I y character i ~ed by a great difference between its plateaus and tables on the one hand and the va I I ey of the VI tava and the Prague Ho I I ow on the other.

As for the hydrography of the (order I I) is the major water course north of the mouth of the Sarecky Kralupy its depth is 100-150 m). The the south to the north and its I ength territory is 28km.

territory, the Vltava cut deep in the relief brook (from Davie to Vltava valley runs from within the investigated

Other water courses also tend to be dominant features of their parts of the landscape. The territory under investigation has the following brooks (small rivers): Neb us icky (order IV, I ength of va I I ey 5 .2 km), Drahansky ( o r de r I I I , I • v • .4 k m ) , Ko p a n i c k y ( o r de r I V , I • v • 6 •2 k m) , Horomericky (order IV, I .v. 6.6 km), Uneticky (order 111, I .v. 15. 7 km), Premys I en sky (order I I I, I .v. 5 km), Podmoransky (order III,I.v. 6.7 km), Maslovicky (order III,I.v. 4.5 km), Zakolansky (order 111, I .v. 28.3 km), Sulovicky (order IV, I .v. 6.2 km), Dobrovfzsky (order V, I .v. 6.2 km), Lid icky (order IV,l.v. 9.2 km), Bustehradsky (order IV,l.v. 8.6 km), Dretovicky (order IV, I .v. 13.7 km), Tynecky ( IV, I .v. 13.9 km) Trebus icky (order V, I .v. 7 .5 km), Ho I ub icky (order IV, I .v. 5.2 km), Tursky (order IV,l.v. 8.2 km), Libusfnsky (order v,I.v. 6.2 km), l 3 m

N

254 asl

m

a)

0 b> V

a) b)

1 ° 1 5,

54 m

N-E

284

m

III

8

9

10

11

12

350 350

m 8-9°C m

450-500mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

350

m

8-9°C

500-550mm

81

220-230

days

4

asl 2 ° 1 5,

54 m

N-E

284 asl

m

III

250

m

8-9°C

500-550mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

1°

58 m

0

286 asl

m

III

230 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

S-E

176 m asl

II

70 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

A2

220-230

days

2

230 asl

a) b)

b • b • A2 220-230 and Bl

days

4

LETKY-LIBCICE 79

Slope

3°30'

5 m

ROZTOKY-LEVY HRADEC 139a

Platform

1°

a) b)

60 m 0 40 m

m

I I a> 250 m 8-9° C 500-550mm I I I b) 170 m

,,

SLMIY 1 54 V

STEHELCEVES 161

Sl ope

80

60 m

E

315 m asl

IV

500 m

8-9°C

450-500mm

81

220-230

days

4

Slope

5°45'

9 m

S-E

280 m asl

IV

100 m

8-9°C

450-550mm

81

200-220

days

4

CEMETERI ES 3

4

7

6

5

ROZTOKY 135

Slope

1 ° 1 5 ...

7 m

N-E

185 m asl

a) I I a) b > I I I b)

SLAT I NA 15 5

Platform

1°

30 m

0

250 m asl

V

1

ST AGE 11

" STEHELCEVES 163 V

..... .....

2

1

STAGE I

V INAR I CE 1 87

2

Platform

1

Slope

50

0

3

4

5

170 m 8-9°C 150 m

350 m 6

7

ROZTOKY 136

1 Slope

8

10

11

12

500-550mm

81

220-230

days

2

450-500mm

81

220-230

days

10

10

9

12

11

S-E asl

300 m

IV

470

m

8-9°C

450-500mm

Bl

200-220

days

4

2 m

E

280 m asl

IV

150 m

b •b • 7-8 and 8-9°C

450-500mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

7

8

2 30

8-9°C

9

20 m

vJ

STAGE A

8

4

3 a) b)

6 m N-E 10 m

5 188 m asl

6

a) I I I a) 130 m 8-9°C b > I I b) 250 m

9 500-550mm

10 81

11 220-230

12 days

b.b. 2 and 4

'I V,

KNEZIVKATUCHOMrn I CE 169

Slope

4 ° 30 ...

15 m

S-E - E 335 m asl

III

180 m

b.b 7-8 and 8-9°C

500-550mm

81

b • b • 200-220 and 220-230 days

4

..,

ZVOLENEVES 197 ST AGE C

1

22 m

2

N,

w, s

234 m asl

4

3

IV

5

400 m

7

6

8-9°C

8

450-500mm

Bl

9

220-230

10

days

11

4

12

Slope

1 ° 1 5.,

8 m

S-E

308 m asl

IV

270 m

7-8°C

b.b. 500-550 and 450-500mm

Bl

200-220

days

4

BUSTEHRAD 5

Slope

20

16 m

E

320 m asl

IV

300 m

7-8°C

b.b. 500-550 and 450-500mm

81

200-220

days

4

BUSTEHRAD 7

Slope

go

22 m

N

334 asl

m

IV

230 m

7-8°C

b.b. 500-550 and 450-500mm

81

200-220

days

10

DEBRNO 16

Slope

3°30'

18 m

N

266 asl

m

IV

800 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

81

220-230

days

4

HOROMERICE 27 Slope

1°30'

8 m

S-E

307 m asl

IV

230 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

HUMNY29

Slope

40

48 m

N-E

316 m asl

V

400 m

7-8°C

450-500mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

HUSINEC 30

Slope

12°30'

21 m

S-E

200 m asl

I I

200 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

A2

220-230

days

BUSTEHRAD 6 y

V

V V

1-1 1-1

30 50'

Slope

.,::,..

b.b. 2

and 10 KAMYK 3 7

Slope

30

10 m

E

296 asl

KLADNO 39

Slope

4°30'

?

E

KLECANY 44

Slope

70

6 m

s

m

I I I

200 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

81

220-230

days

4, 10

385 m asl

?

?

7-8°C

450-500mm

Bl

200-220

days

4

275 m asl

III

80 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

b • b • A2 220-230 and Bl

days

4

ST AGE C V

5

4

7

6

8

10

9

11

12

10

0

0

230 asl

m

III

0

8-9°C

500-550mm

Bl

220-230

days

2

Plane

10

1 m

0

177 m asl

III

300 m

8-9°C

450-500mm

A2

220-230

days

2

V

LIBCICE

80

Slope

5°45'

8 m

E

292 asl

m

IV

1 050 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

A2

220-230

days

4

LIBCICE

82

Slope

3°30'

15 m

E

1 87 m asl

II

260

m

8-9°C

500-550mm

A2

220-230

days

4

LIBUSIN

86

Slope

90

10 m

N-W

324 asl

m

V

100 m

7-8°C

500-550mm

b • b • Bl 200-220 and A2

days

4

Slope

1 ° 1 5 ...

16 m

S-E

314 asl

m

III

300 m

7-8°C

500-550mm

Bl

200-220

days

4

OLSANY 10 4

Slope

4°45'

5 m

S-E

282 asl

m

IV

130 m

8-9°C

450-500mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

PCHERY 109a

Slope

3°30'

1 m

N

V

20 m

7-8°C

450-500mm

Bl

200-220

days

4

PCHERY 109b

Slope

90

18 m

s-w

300 asl

m

V

200

m

7-8°C

450-500mm

Bl

200-220

days

4

PRAHA-BOHNICE Slope 120

4°45'

32 m

N-W

272 asl

m

III

200

m

8-9°C

500-550mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

PRAHA-SUCHDOL Platform 1 27

1°

28 m

N - E

278 asl

m

IV

850 m

8-9°C

500-550mm

Bl

220-230

days

4

V

MAKOTl~AS Y 90 ~

..... .....

3

KOVARY-BUDEC Plane 54 KRALUPY 63

U1

2

1

,,

- N-W 284 m asl

,,,

50 m Variab.

Slope

Vari ab.

ca

Slope

4°30'

a) 8 m N-E b > 10 m

PRE " " MYSLENI 1 32

Slope

1°30'

7 m

ROZTOKY 143

Slope

30

a) b)

Slope

7°30'

3 m

PRAHA-DOUJ I LIBOC 123