Kounov stone rows within Rovina s (the Plain) upper plateau (elevation 525,2) in the region of Džbán (Jug, Mug) highlands, southwest of Louny have been and currently remain to be subject of interest to professionals, amateurs as well as local inhabitants. Concerning the professionals mainly the archeologists have tried, using their own methods, to find out the age and purpose of these megalitic formations. Gradually other specialists began to join in the process of unveiling some of the questions related to Kounov stones lines - be it scientific people from various institutions or enthusiastic private explorers. Here we do not have much room to make detail comments on all until now obtained results, considerations and speculations dealing with the given problem. There please refer to popular-scientific publication written by Messrs. HELŠUS & HLUŠTÍK (1991) providing a summary of those results concerning this and other similar formations within Bohemia. The fact that there is no a clear idea about the age and purpose of given stone rows has been expressed as well by an article in a publication of Mr. SKLENÁŘ (1995).
Therefore a discussion is going on whether this mysterious structure had actually served as a sacred grove, market area, field boundaries, astronomic track, calendar, sacrificial place, etc. What is substantial is the fact that we still do not know the age of these lines. Archeological research back
in 1976 Mr. Waldhauser, dr.and Mrs. E. Pleslova RNdr. found out in between these rows some traces of tillage (ploughing) of unknown age, along with ceramic fragments coming from the end of 1st century and modern times. However these finding levels were
evidently much younger than the period of re-development (reconstruction) of the rows. It also needs to be mentioned that there used to be a Celtic settlement within the Plain (Rovina) area just nearby, along with the fact that Rovina vicinity had been settled continuously ever since Paleolit Period. For now the problem of the formation under study has been dealt with in terms of archeology, history, geology, petrography. The witness data, foreign analogies have been applied and astronomic aspects discussed HELŠUS&HLUŠTÍK (1991).
Based on the initiative of a publisher and private scholar research worker) Mr. J. Zeman, along with archeologist Mr. J. Waldhauser, dr. and field assistance by employees of Louny District Museum some samples were taken in autumn 1996. It was because initiators of this project came to a conclusion that the problem requires other disciplines not yet engaged in clarifying two fundamental questions - the age and purpose of stone rows - to get involved. Therefore besides a physicist a pollen analyst paleoecologist has been invited to participate in the research work.
At the beginning a pollen analyst had been a bit skeptical about approaching this issue. That is to say to carry out a pollen analysis a presence of proper material containing pollen grains (particles) should be decisive. The philosophy behind the intended study was that if this method is to unveil anything what so ever then a pollen-analytical research has to be made on a material embedded beneath some of the stones not moved ever since being put in the terrain. However it has been clear that you will not be able for instance to find a material of peat (turf) character within an upper plateau and let alone on arenaceous marl subsoil. While sampling it has been found that underneath a humus layer several centimeters thick, which is quite appropriate for pollen analysis, there lies as a matter of fact just a relatively fine-grained disintegrating (mouldering, weathered) arenaceous marl envelope (shell). Stones had been seated into this white-grey material. Cretaceous marly limestone (arenaceous marl) especially the one from lowest positions was mostly inorganic and therefore seemed absolutely unsuitable for pollen analysis.
A sample of the first stone row was taken from 30cm depth out of a position corresponding that position at which the major stone used to stand. Then sampling was made 20 cm deep in between two minor stones surrounding the major one. The upper sample (5cm) was lying just close beneath humus layer. A sample was taken within 10th row out of the major stone base (30cm), then a sample 20cm deep closely attached to the main stone, sample 5cm deep from mineral and humus layer interface, and finally a sample from humus layer (0cm)
near the studied stone.
Upon chemical preparation of samples the material did not react to
hydrochloric acid (absence of carbonates) and therefore immediately made subject to 24-hour preparation in hydrofluoric acid with the aim to remove silicates. Organic components not required were removed through acetolysis method.
Already a first look into the microscope provide a surprise showing
that all the samples contain considerable amount of pollen grains and spores, and that all pollen spectrums will have positive telling value. Therefore pollen analysis was able to be made in a normal way. Its results are presented in tables and graphically illustrated by pollen diagrams. The cause of well preserved pollen grains and spores has been material´s acid environment created by decalcification of parent arenaceous marl rock.
Pollen spectrums of all seven samples in terms of their
composition as well as quantitative figures of plant taxones confirm that they had settled at a time when agricultural activity went on within the studied locality. Besides that the pollen spectrums of samples taken from both faraway distant rows resemble each other very much, differing only in details caused by closely local habitation (occurrence) of some of
the plants. Evident differences can be seen when observing pollen spectrum composition of the top and bottom samples concerning both of the rows again. In addition this should serve as evidence that ground mineral layers have not been affected by pollen coming from upper, humus positions.
Actually this locality had not been covered by woods at the time when pollen spectrums found were depositing here. Instead it used to utilized for agricultural reasons. High pollen figures for cereals Triticum type (kind of wheat) tell us about growing some of the cereals that possess given type of pollen grain (wheat Triticum, barley - Hordeum, oats - Avena). Growing of Secale (rye) has been unambiguously proved. Cultures of corn were accompanied by field weeds; Rummex Acetosella (minor sorrel) used to be very frequent over here, and this mainly during later agricultural phase. Habitation of Agrostemma githago (field cockle) has also been confirmed here along with only very sporadic presence of Centaurea Cyanus (bluebottle). As weed types can be also considered most of taxones of Silenaceae family, Sclerantus Annus, Spergula, Silene and Cerastium T. However, types of Silene family might had grown within pastures (grazing land) and other antropically generated biotopes, e.g. Dianthus (little deep forest). Typical indicators of antropogenically affected places are also Plantago Lanceolata and P.Major-Media. These grow on biotopes affected by man and domestic animals (pastures, paths and their edges, etc.). Polygonum Aviculare used to grow on continuously treaded surfaces as well as within field cultures. Also higher pollen values for Chenopodiaceae, Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Artemisia and Urtica are telling unambiguously about man activities along with eutrofisation of soil due to accumulation of animal (stock) waste. The entire Rovina (Plain) plateau was not wooded, and the edges of fields, boundaries, paths, hillsides and places alike were formerly covered by various sorts of meadow and steppe biotopes like Campanula (bell), Centaurea jacea (meadow corn-flower), C. Scabiosa, Helianthemum, Knautia, Lathyrus, Sanguisorba Officinalis, Saxifraga Granulata, Genista, Hypericum, Trifolium Pratense (meadow clover) and a whole row of other taxones out of the families found.
Very interesting and also substantial are the findings of conspicuously high pollen values - Calluna vulgaris (common heather)- concerning all the samples within 1th row and 20 and 30 cm deep in 10th row. In these depths of row 10 unusually high spore figures of Lycopodium Clavatum have been found as well. It is just these findings of high values that samples 20 and 30 cm deep, row 10, differ from those of upper samples (0 and 5 cm), which indicates different vegetation situation at the location within two different time phases. A heather as well as Lycopodium Clavatum represent very good indicators of secondarily degraded forest soil on acid base. Degraded locations can also be well indicated by Pteridium Aguilinum (bracken). It also serves as confirmation of woodless biotopes at wood pastures, alongside forest paths, etc. Heather, Lycopodim Clavatum, bracken as well as Chamaenerion Angustifolium (little willow narrow leafed) might had grown over large-scale, non cultivated areas, however affected beforehand already by human activities. But it is also possible that these plants could had grown just between the stones of the rows, where no tillage had reached. Poaceae (wild grass) represents a significant antropogenic indicator in case of pollen analyses made with the given two profiles. I assume these are for instance representatives of genera that occur within wood lightspots (Calamagrostis - cane, Deschampsia - rass).
Also the pollen spectrum of wood species corresponds to antropically affected growth. It is mainly the weed wood species swiftly penetrating within deforested areas of genuine wood growth that grew within the territory of our special interest. Betula (birch), Pinus (pine), Salix (willow) and maybe Rosa (rose) and Sambucus Nigra (common elder) used to grow just nearby most likely even in between the stones of individual rows. Not far away Alnus (alder) could be found. However, it is rather strange that a pollen of wood species that had been dominating within original wood communities, i.e. Abies (fir) and Fagus (beech), was found on sporadic basis only. Whereas currently a fir is not substantially present in the territory, a beech growth is quite typical even within close vicinity of Rovina (Plain) area. And despite a fact that for instance a profile beneath a stone in row 10 lies immediate to the hills grown over with beeches, the beech pollen even here is very sporadic. Following a birch and pine it is Picea (spruce) that ranks third concerning the number of pollen findings. So at a time when pollen spectrums found had been depositing the spruce had had to grow just nearby. The younger samples (sample 0 and 5cm within 10th row; sample 5cm in 1st row) already contain Larix (larch) pollen. Genuinely this wood species had not been growing within this territory (its nearest original habitation are Alps and Jeseníky (mountains at the north-east part of Bohemia). It wa first introduce into the territory during the seventies of 18th century ( verbal information by Mr.F. Mladý, dr.). Currently it grows right within the locality in between the stone lines. As far as the youngest samples are concerned, it is typical that pollens of Junglans (walnut-tree) and Sambucus Racemosa (clustered elder) are present.
Territory afforestness was less during the older phase than the younger
one, and vice versa, the extent of agricultural areas was much higher during the older phase. One can observe this when checking pollen figures for cereals and some of the field weeds, Rumex Acetosella (sorrel minor) in particular.
The abovementioned evaluation of pollen-analytical data found provides
an evidence about the existence of field cultures, pastures, desolated arable areas as well as other differently antropically affected places within Plain locality. And what does it imply? And what is of major importance for solving the problem of age, origin and function of Kounov stone rows ? No illusions can be afforded about giving solutions to these queries right now. Though objectively the existence of fields right between the stone lines has been proved, however with no age specification. Under a precondition that
for example a big amount of pollen Centaurea Cyanus (bluebottle) had been found, then we could speculate about medieval age or younger period. It is just this weed that had been wide spread within Bohemia since medieval age, and its pollen curve has been linked mainly to pollen curve Secale (rye). However, only the traces of bluebottle pollen were found within Rovina (the Plains). One should not exclude some of the specific
circumstances that had caused just this phenomenon within the Plains. Fagopyrum pollen can also serve as a good indicator of medieval and younger agriculture within some of the regions. In a profile at the 1th stone line a pollen similar to Fagopyrum, but smaller, has been found on sporadic basis. For now we do not know which mother plant it actually belongs to. In addition it is not quite sure whether Fagopyrum had ever been grown within Džbán (Mug) region. The spores of Anthoceros moss found do indicate a spreading of arable fields during medieval ages. Nevertheless it is more than likely that Anthoceros may indicate a
pre-medieval agriculture as well. Concerning Kounov stone lines one can speculate about the existence of agricultural lands back in the Celtic times already. I may only add that even to me it was a surprise when looking into the microscope, to see unexpectedly numerous heather pollens. Immediately the following idea came across my mind: Celts along with heather growth. But one should be very careful not to get to astray, since it is quite possible and maybe even likely that the pollen of those pollen spectrums found might
had been able to reach up to the base of the stones within stone rows during a later tillage and other activities of agricultural character. Thus the stone lines may be of an older age than the actual agricultural activity found out and therefore might had served some other purpose completely different from that of the fields. Neither will the question of the purpose of these lines be solved through pollen analysis. Thorough seating (installing) of individual stones requiring considerable elaboration (particularly under
presumption stones are not of local provenience) remains so far in opposition to an idea that only field boundaries are the reason for their erection. Even despite a fact that one forester told me sometime in the past in a completely different occasion that at Třebíč Town Region field boundary stones had somewhere been seated on top of a "nest" made of amethyst. The reason for that should have been an assurance that in this way you would quickly know about a stone having been moved a little bit or not. Nevertheless, only the single boundary stones were involved and not the
entire stone rows.
And now about a testimony of wood species´ pollen spectrum. As it has
been found out, a birch pollen prevails in case of the first row, and pine pollen prevails at row 10. Both of the wood species are apparently light-loving ones, and able to penetrate rather swiftly within deforested areas. Wood species concerning genuine wood growth that had covered Plain´s plateau and hills prior to being deforested are present with no pollen spectrum but the values there of are just negligible.
A geobotanic revamp map of Czechoslovak Republic (MIKYŠKA et al.1968) mentions a narrow strip of mapping unit Eu-Fagion, i.e. a community where beech and fir prevail along with presence of some of broad-leaved species. A much more extensive range is with a mapping unit Carpinion Betuli, Potentillo-Quercetum and
Quercion Robori-Petraeae. A mapping unit Eu-Quercion Pubescentis has been indicated on sporadic basis only, and at greater distance from a locality studied by us. Concerning all these units you have to assume a dominant role of an oak, hor-nbeam and other broadleaved species. Therefore at the first look there is a striking prevalence of spruce pollen (Picea) and vice versa just a scarce occurrence of the aforementiond wood species. What
this fact actually means ? Maybe it testifies about some spruce plant-out, unless proved later on that genuinely this wood species had been really plentiful over here (however you might doubt it). And when this plant-out had actually occurred ? During late medieval times at the earliest. That would however confirm that even these fields are of late medieval or younger age. I should point out again that considerations about the age do not
apply to stone rows. These might have been here ever since before. The youngest wood species to occur at the locality was Larix (larch), and round its vicinity it was Juglans (walnut-trees); in historical point of view both wood species were introduced only recently (larch-back in seventies of 18th century). In the meantime we can only speculate that pollen spectrums are of medieval age or younger but anyway such an age like that cannot be speculated - not even temporarily - when stone rows are concerned.
The positive result of pollen analyses made it fundamentally the fact that pollen grains were found within arenaceous marl material decomposed, along with finding out that pollen spectrums have a good telling capability. This brings a hope for future that similar but more detailed pollen-analytical research will be carried out. Pollen analysis results put forward set a good direction for further research work that this archeological locality should follow so not to leave this given set of problems unsolved and not to get lost in "blind narrow streets of archeology". In this way the initiators of this
Project have managed to shift knowledge about one mystery a step forward.
Continue according to schedule in pollen-analytical research of Rovina (Plains) and other Czech localities containing megalitic formations
Try to find under the stones standing since the moment of their "in situ" placement some organic material able to be then provided with historical date using radio-carbonic method (wood would be the best). Exclude root system of wood species that might be younger then the period of seating the stones
Use radio-carbonic method to define the age of carbonaceous layers, or of carbons straight under the stones
Continue making synthesis of all the data gained from written and map evidence taken from archives, chronicles, Forest Historical Research, Woods Economic Plans, etc. in the same way like already having been done in publication Helšus&Hluštík (1991)
Make use of floristic, geo-botanic, general natural
science and historical-archeological information along with deep knowledge of Mr.F. Mladý, RNDr. who knows the studied territory thoroughly and has for many decades carried out natural scientific research over here.
The process suggested is taking into account a major archeological research supported by research work of other specialists (geologist, petrologist, physicist, historian, malacozoologist, forester, etc.). A wide interdisciplinary research of this set of problems should deserve an independent grant project called "GAČR".
Kounov stone rows at Western Bohemia within Džbán Highlands Region
represent an interesting archeological complex concerning the characters of menheers. Their origin, purpose and age have not been found out yet, and this despite the fact that archeological research has been carried out on the spot along with making use of information provided by geologists, petrologists and witnesses. Up to date we do not know whether these sites had used to serve like market places, sacred grove, racing arena, astronomic observatory, calendar, field boundaries, sacrificial place or maybe even a landing runway. As a matter of fact all these functions use to be assigned to this site.
The method of pollen analysis has also been newly engaged in solving
the problem: despite some initial skepticism a relatively huge amount of pollen grains and spores has been found within the samples of shallow profiles (30cm) beneath the stones of 1th and 10th rows. In addition it showed that the pollen spectra obtained have a good telling quality. It has been proved that at a time when pollen spectra were depositing (except for the very top one, 5cm stout humus layer), there were fields right within the given location. This has been confirmed due to high values of Cerealia pollen (cereals) as well as field weed habitations. Also a majority of other taxones found belongs to synantroph vegetation. This includes plants of "ruderals", balks, hillsides and meadows, i.e. biotopes created by human being. The locality had been deforested and sporadically the light-loving wood species were able to be found, most likely growing within stone lines and their vicinity (birch, pine, willow, common elder and clustered elder, rose and other bushes). The pollen of wood species concerning genuine wood
communities could be found sporadically only. Especially striking were the high figures values) for heather pollen (Calluna Vulgaris) and spores of Lycopodium Clavatum. Along with habitation of Pteridium Aquilinum spores and Chamaenerion Angustifolium pollen it also shows the presence of degraded soils previously covered with woods.
| K O U N O V | 1. řada | 10. řada | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vzorek (cm) (Sample) |
5 | 20 | 30 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 30 |
AP (pyl dřevin - trees & shrubs) |
|||||||
| Abies (jedle) | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Acer (javor) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Alnus (olše) | 13 | 11 | 2 | 12 | 7 | 16 | 5 |
| Betula (bříza) | 410 | 178 | 116 | 60 | 60 | 76 | 64 |
| Carpinus (habr) | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Corylus (líska) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Cotoneaster T. (hloh) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Fagus (buk) | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Fraxinus (jasan) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Juglans (ořešák) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Larix (modřín) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Picea (smrk) | 58 | 37 | 25 | 76 | 61 | 79 | 17 |
| Pinus (borovice) | 150 | 113 | 105 | 143 | 209 | 273 | 132 |
| Quercus (dub) | 8 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Rosa T. (růže) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Salix (vrba) | 3 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 |
| Sambucus cf. racemosa (bez hroznatý) | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Sambucus nigra | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Tilia (lípa) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ulmus (jilm) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Sum AP |
672 | 351 | 258 | 318 | 362 | 472 | 226 |
Vzorek (cm) (Sample) |
5 | 20 | 30 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 30 |
AP (pyl bylin - herbs) |
|||||||
| Adonis (hlaváček) | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Agrostemma githago (koukol polní) | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Antennaria (kociánek) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Artemisia (pelyněk) | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
| Asteraceae Liguliflorae (hvězdnicovité jazykokvěté) | 3 | 12 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 75 | 12 |
| Asteraceae Tubuliflorae (hvězdnocovité trubkokvěté) | 7 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| Brassicaceae (brukvovité) | 5 | 17 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 16 | 4 |
| Calluna (vřes) | 155 | 138 | 71 | 1 | 1 | 29 | 42 |
| Campanula (zvonek) | 1 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Cardamine T. (řeřišnice) | 3 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Centaurea cyanus (chrpa modrák) | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Centaurea jacea T. (chrpa luční) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Centaurea scabiosa (chrpa čekánek) | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Cerastium T.(rožec) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Cerealia - Secale (obiloviny - žito) | 10 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 26 |
| Cerealia - Triticum T. (obiloviny - pšenice) | 170 | 258 | 258 | 37 | 29 | 347 | 183 |
| Cerealia sp. (obiloviny) | 21 | 23 | 25 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 13 |
| Chamaenerion (vrbka) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Chenopodiaceae (merlíkovité) | 5 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Convolvuvus arvensis (svlačec rolní) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cyperaceae (šáchorovité) | 0 | 0 | 10 | ||||
| Daucaceae (mrkvovité) | 18 | 8 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Dianthus T. (hvozdík) | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Euphorbia (pryšec) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fagopyrum vulgare T. (pohanka obecná) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| Genista T. (kručinka) | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Hedysarum T. (kopyšník) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Helianthemum (devaterník) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Humulus - Cannabis (chmel - konopě) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Hypericum (třezalka) | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Knautia (chrastavec) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Lamiaceae (hluchavkovité) | 0 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| Lamium galeobdolon T. (hluchavka žlutá) | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Lathyrus T.(hrachor) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Pimpinella (bedrník) | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Plantago lanceolata (jitrocel kopinatý) | 7 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
| Plantago major - media (jitrocel větší - prostřední) | 3 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Poaceae (lipnicovité/trávy) | 130 | 217 | 213 | 452 | 166 | 213 | 137 |
| Polygonum aviculare (rdesno ptačí) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Ranunculus T. (pryskyřník) | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Rosaceae (růžovité) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Rubiaceae (mořenovité) | 10 | 23 | 21 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Rumex (šťovík) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Rumex acetosella (šťovík menší) | 16 | 11 | 71 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 10 |
| Sanguisorba officinalis (krvavec toten) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Saxifraga granulata T. (lomikámen zrnatý) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Scleranthus annuus (chmerek roční) | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Silenaceae (silenkovité) | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| Silene T. (silenka) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
| Spergula (kolenec) | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Thalictrum (žluťucha) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Trifolium pratense T. (jetel luční) | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Urtica (kopřiva) | 22 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 14 | 4 | 1 |
| Vacciaceae (brusnicovité) | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||||
| Viciaceae (vikvovité) | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Varia (druhy neurčené) | 31 | 35 | 24 | 9 | 5 | 18 | 15 |
Sum NAP |
633 | 809 | 818 | 555 | 266 | 794 | 481 |
SUm AP + NAP = 100% |
1305 | 1160 | 1076 | 873 | 628 | 1266 | 707 |
PTERIDOPHYTA (kapraďorosty - fern) |
|||||||
| Athirum filix-femina T. (papradka samice) | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Equisetum (přeslička) | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Lycopodium clavatum (plavuň vidlačka) | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 119 | 212 |
| Polypodiaceae (osladičovité) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 5 |
| Pteridium (hasivka) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
BRYOPHYTA (mechorosty - moos) |
|||||||
| Anthoceros punctatus (hlevík tečkovaný) | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Bryales (mechy) | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
FUNGI (houby - fungus) |
|||||||
| Gelasinospora | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 45 | 0 |
| Microthyrium | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Thecaphora | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
Based on pollen analyses it might be said beforehand but very carefully that the fields found might be of medieval or younger age. However this cannot be stated about the stone lines since their
age might be higher.
Pollen analysis has served to find out whether to apply this method in case of studying these megalitic formations. The results are positive, however pollen-analytical research has to be carried out within a wider scope along with extending in particular a research work of other disciplines as well. I am suggesting to apply a method of radiocarbon dating, continue with archive
studies of written documents and maps, and try to engage a physicist and a scientist like for instance an experienced geobotanist and a forester. The issue of megalitic objects within Czech Republic should deserve an independent grand project headed by and archaeologist.
The author is very thankful to the initiators of a new research performed within Rovina (Plains) locality, Messrs. J. Zeman, dr. J. Waldhauser, CSc., and Foundation for Studies & Research of Boundary Phenomena (Nadace pro studium a výzkum hraničních jevů).
The author would like to thank to employees of Louny District Museum for their field assistance and professional archeological & geological consultations. The author feels especially thankful to Mr.Dr. F. Mladý, Csc. for his series of interesting botanic, archeological and recalling information.
Literature:
HELŠUS & HLUŠTÍK (1991): Stone Queries and Megalits in Bohemia.
R. MIKYŠKA (1968): Czechoslovak Geobotanic Map (Geobotanická mapa ČSSR). 1st Bohemian Lands (1. České země) Praha
K. SKLENÁŘ (1995): Blind Streets of Archeology (Slepé uličky archeologie)
Mysteries, Mistakes, Humbugs, Discoveries (Záhady, omyly, podvody, objevy) Praha.