image/svg+xml
63
XI/1/2020
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary
Interpretations of Floor Formation Processes from Medieval Brno,
Czech Republic
Lenka Lisá
a*
, Pavel Staněk
b
, Antonín Zůbek
b
, Ladislav Nejman
c
a
Institute of Geology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Rozvojová 269, Prague 6, 165 00, Czech Republic
b
Archaia, Bezručova 15/78, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
c
School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
1. Introduction
The foor is an inseparable part of medieval buildings. It
is usually composed of intentionally or non-intentionally
prepared material (the passive layer) and a trampled/dumped
or maintained layer during the use of the building (the active
layer) (see details in Gé
et al.
, 1993 and Rentzel
et al.
, 2017,
summarised in Macphail and Goldberg, 2018; Karkanas
and Goldberg, 2019). The internal space of a building
may include not only domestic foors but also a byre. The
formation of the domestic foor depends on many factors
(status of the building or its parts, cultural diferences,
geological background) and the formation processes of the
fnal product may be quite complex and the detailed history
difcult to resolve (Lisá
et al.
, forthcoming). In particular,
foor deposits can be a source of high-value information.
Variations in foor residues are being proftably examined in
order to understand uses of space and the nature of activities
in a settlement (Courty
et al.
, 1989). There is a number of
studies dealing with foors from Neolithic tell deposits or
prehistoric sunken houses (Novák
et al.
, 2012; Milek
et al.
,
2012; Parma
et al.
, 2011; Kuna
et al.
, 2012) or experimental
studies (Macphail et al., 2004; Banerjea, 2015a; 2015b; Lisá
et al.
, forthcoming), but case studies dealing with medieval
foor deposits are quite rare (see Macphail
et al.
, 2007 and
Borderie
et al.
, 2018).
In every case, the foor usually captures the day-to-day life
of the building in some way. It is also frequently the most
neglected part of ethnographic research. The maintenance
processes which form the foor are not always well known
and difer locally and over time. Using micromorpology in an
archaeological context is one useful method for recognising
Volume XI ● Issue 1/2020 ● Pages 63–72
*Corresponding author. E-mail: lisa@gli.cas.cz
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 20
th
January 2020
Accepted: 22
nd
April 2020
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2020.1.5
Key words:
micromorphology in archaeological context
living space
timber and earth architecture
masonry burgher architecture
domestic foors
ABSTRACT
The way people used diferent types of buildings and how they used their living space in the past is often
imprinted into the foors of buildings. The term foor is quite complex and to understand it, more than
macroscopic observations are needed. One useful method is the application of soil micromorphology in
an archaeological context. The timber and earth architecture of medieval Brno is still not well known.
A rescue archaeological excavation of block 601 near Veselá Street revealed a unique situation where
above-ground foors dated to the 13
th
–14
th
century had survived while buried under a garbage dump and
discarded construction material. Two groups of buildings excavated in superposition within diferent
parts of a single plot revealed that it is possible to track diferent maintenance practices through time
and space. In the frst building, the hypothesis of sweeping maintenance practice was proposed. In
the younger building situated in the same area, the degradation or the removal of a wooden plank
foor could have been the origin of the observed micro-structure. In the third and fourth buildings, the
maintenance practices were diferent again due to a wetter environment. The third (older) building
revealed hay and straw covering followed by sweeping while mat coverings were laid on the surfaces
and swept in the fourth (younger) building. The information deduced from micromorphological
observations has not fully solved the questions about the foors, but it has certainly elucidated possible
interpretations of the oldest phases of the town’s development.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
64
foor formation processes and the types of domestic foors,
stabling or byre waste deposits (Stoops
et al.
, 2010;
Nicosia and Stoops, 2017; Macphail and Goldberg, 2018;
Karkanas and Goldberg, 2019) combined, for example, with
archaeobotany (Lisá
et al.
, forthcoming; Borderie
et al.
,
2018), or geochemistry (Milek
et al.
, 2012; Macphail
et al.
,
2004; Lisá
et al.
, forthcoming).
Most of the research regarding medieval foors has been
conducted in England (summary in Macphail and Goldberg,
2018). These foors are typifed by the presence of: clay
foors; lime-mortared and plastered surfaces; rammed
chalk, brickearth “clay” slabs; adobe-like brick earth,
plastered foors; or plant-tempered, daub foors. They are
usually divided into so-called
constructed
foors typifed
by their sterile character of very poorly humic soil, and
beaten-foor accumulations
typifed by their massive and
compact structure with generally weak, but sometimes well-
developed, laminae. These are usually composed of sand,
silt and fne brickearth, charcoal, burned soil, organic matter,
eggshell, mollusc shell, bone and coprolite fragments. The
matrix often includes phytoliths, individual ash crystals
and ashy concentrations. Microlaminated occupation foor
deposits in various later medieval contexts (AD 1400–1539)
have also been observed. These deposits, which probably
refect a hospital regime, are composed of laminae 0.5–1.0
mm thick and show regularly alternating compositions of: 1)
ash, fne charcoal, cess, burned fragments of bone, eggshell
and soil; and 2) humus, brickearth soil and earthworm
granules. In some cases, foor coverings were also recorded
as a part of the foor sequence (Dragon Hall site, Norwich
– see Macphail, 2003 and Shelley, 2005). There are also a
number of sites where planked foor accumulations have been
suggested, but these have been found below wooden foors,
which usually do not survive. Such deposits are suggested,
for example, for grubenhӓusers (sunken foored house)
flls in the Anglo-Saxon village West Stow (Macphail and
Goldberg, 2018, p.378), or for Early Slavic grubenhӓusers in
Roztoky, Czech Republic (Novák
et al.
, 2012); for trampling
efects in general, see Rentzel
et al.
, 2011.
The formation of domestic foors related to a non-bricked,
medieval town environment in the Czech Republic, and its
information value, has never been previously discussed,
even at the macroscopic level. The main aim of this paper is
to demonstrate the potential for interpreting the sedimentary
record of macroscopically-detected foor layers. How exactly
has the layer, identifed macroscopically as the foor, formed
– and what can be revealed about the formation processes of
these layers in terms of the use of space and social cultural
status of these sites?
2. Material and methods
The oldest phase of Brno burgher architecture is represented
mainly by timber and earth buildings constructed only from
wood and earth. The masonry burgher architecture appears
locally in the late phases of the 13
th
century (Holub
et al.
,
2005; 2013; 2015, pp.315–323). Most of the building remains
have been located in sunken parts, such as timber and earth
cellars. These are the most typical record of the non-masonry
constructed buildings in medieval Brno. Above-ground
foors are extremely rare due to their poor preservation.
One exception has been noted during a rescue
archaeological project realized during the construction of
the Janáček Cultural Centre (Figure 1). These excavations
revealed above-ground building structures with more-
or-less-laminated foor deposits. The documented area is
located in the NW part of the historical city of Brno. Two
sides of the block were originally delimited by town walls.
The medieval residential building was oriented towards
Veselá Street leading from the Veselá Gate to the Fish Market
(today’s Dominikánské Square). The block had nine plots
(Vičar, 1965), eight of were oriented towards Veselá street.
The rescue archaeological excavation partly unearthed just
fve of these.
The geological background of the study area is composed
of alkaline loess deposits situated on calcareous marine clays
(Přichystal, 2011). This sedimentary background has a strong
infuence on the preservation of organic materials from the
study strata. During the period from the 13
th
to 20
th
century,
the ground level has risen approximately 3 metres, which
has helped in the preservation of the above-ground foors.
Its present-day altitude is therefore 219.6 metres above sea
level (asl). The suggested ground level following its growth
during the 13–14
th
centuries is now some 1.5 metres lower
than the present-day.
Two sites (that included four buildings) within the
excavated area (Figure 1) were chosen for a micromorphology
trial in archaeological research and for a comparison of
the identifed foor layers. The frst site includes an older
building 1 (sample 1) and a younger building 2 (sample 2).
The second site includes an older building (sample 3) and the
younger one (sample 4). Each of the sites has an older phase
dated to the second half of the 13
th
century and a younger
phase dating slightly afterwards into the second half of the
13
th
century up to the frst half of the 14
th
century. Floors,
i.e.
the locations chosen for sampling, are composed of massive
as well as thin-laminated layers, but the formation processes
of these particular layers, and their interpretation, is not
possible based only on macroscopic observations.
The sedimentary sections were macroscopically
documented and micromorphological samples were taken
from the parts that refected the lamination (that suggested
the foor deposits). Finally, four micromorphological
samples from four diferent locations were cut out of the
sections and put into plastic Kubiena boxes. Samples were
taped in cling flm and transported to the laboratory of the
Institute of Geology, Czech Academy of Sciences, where
they were slowly dried and subsequently impregnated by
resin Pollylite 2000 in a vacuum chamber. After six weeks
of curing, the samples were thin-sectioned in an 8×5 cm
format. Samples were described according to Stoops (2003).
Detailed micromorphological descriptions are included in
Table 1.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
65
Figure 1.
The study area within the block nr. 601 and orientation of the studied buildings within the diferent plots.
Table 1.
Detailed micromorphological description of subfacies detected during observation. The abbreviation in the table: SF – subfacies; CPV – compound
packing voids; R – rare; P – present; C – common; OM – organic matter; Q – quartz; Ptg – plagioclase.
SampleMicrostructureGroundmassOrganic residuesPedofeaturesInterpretation
1
SF 1
(1 cm)
Subangular
blocky; pores:
CPV; vughs,
cracks and planes
Q, Ptg, mica, soil aggregates,
rock fragments; unsorted,
locally oriented, loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50. Light
brown aggregates has local
striated Bf, dark brown
aggregates has crystalic Bf
Dark brown and black
dotting – C; partly
decomposed to decomposed
OM – P; charcoal – R;
phytoliths – R
Phosphate
staining –
C; gypsum
crystals – C;
passage
features – P
Passive layer – material
representing older
destruction
1
SF2
(1 cm)
Complex; pores:
vughs, chambers,
cracks, planes
Q, Ptg, mica, sorted, visible
mineral orientation; loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; brown,
crystalic Bf
Brown, dark brown doting
– P, decomposed organic
matter – P, charcoal – P,
phytoliths – R; bones – R
Gypsum
crystals – P,
phosphate
staining – P
Maintained foor by wet
sweeping
1
SF3
(1 mm)
Platy; pores:
planes
Q, Ptg, mica; sorted, oriented
articulated phytoliths and
mineral fraction, loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; grey
brown, crystalic Bf
Articulated phytoliths –
C; wood fragments – R;
charcoal – C; decomposed
organic matter – C; burned
bone – R
Fe staining – P;
Trampled and
maintained foor –
added straw or mat
1
SF4
(1 mm)
Platy; planesQ, Ptg, mica; sorted
homogenous matrix;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; brown,
crystalic Bf
Brown, dark brown doting
– P, decomposed organic
matter – R
Phosphate
impregnation –
C; gypsum – R
Intentionally prepared
passive layer highly
infuenced by
postdepositional
processes
0 400 m
0 20 m
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
66
1
SF5
(1 mm)
Subangular
blocky; pores:
CPV; vughs,
cracks and planes
Q, Ptg, mica, soil aggregates,
rock fragments; unsorted,
locally oriented, loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50. Light
brown aggregates has local
striated Bf, dark brown
aggregates has crystalic Bf
Dark brown and black
dotting – C; partly
decomposed to decomposed
OM – P; charcoal – R;
phytoliths – R
passage
features – P
Passive layer – material
represent older
destruction
2
SF6
1.5 cm
Subangular
blocky; pores:
CPV, cracks
Q, Ptg, mica, sorted with
no orientation expect the
occasional presence of straw;
loam, C/F(50µm) = 50:50;
light brown, crystalic Bf
Decomposed organic matter
– P; articulated phytoliths
– P;
P staining – P;
CaCO3 nodules
– P;
Passive layer or daub
destruction
2
SF7
(1–1.5
cm)
Complex; p:
vughs; cracks;
chambers
Q, Ptg, mica; moderately
sorted loam C/F; deposited
under the angle; (50µm) =
50:50; grey brown; crystalic
Bf
Charcoal – C; bones – P;
decomposed OM – P; wood
fragments – P
Gypsum
crystals – C;
P nodules –
C; silty clay
coating – C;
Material accumulated
below the plank foor.
The plank foor was
maintained by wet
sweeping
2
SF8
(1.5–2
cm)
Complex; pores:
CPV, cracks
Q, Ptg, increased amount of
mica; moderately sorted sandy
loam, no preferred orientation,
rock fragments; C/F(50µm) =
50:50; crystalic Bf.
Locally organic matter
dotting – P; CaCO3 nodules
– P; upper part – CaCO3
coating – P
Fe nodule –
R; silty clay
infllings –
P; passage
features – P
Passive layer
composed of alluvium,
partly infuenced
by postdepositional
processes.
3
SF9
(2 cm)
Vughy; pores:
vughs; cracks;
chambers
Q, Ptg, mica, well sorted,
no preferred mineral
orientation;, sorted loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; light
to grey matrix with brown
crotovinas, crystallic Bf
Charcoal – R; black and dark
brown organic dotting – P
P nodules
and staining
– C; root
bioturbation
– R;
Passive layer infuenced
by phosphatic
illuviation
3
SF10
(1 cm)
Platy; pores:
planes; vughs,
chambers
Q, Ptg, mica, moderately
sorted loam, preferred
mineral orientation;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; brown,
crystalic Bf
Charcoal – C; articulated
phytoliths – C; decomposed
organic matter – C; faecal
spherulites – R
silty clay
infllings – C;
phosphate
nodules – C;
Trampled and
maintained layer with
possible added straw
or matt
3
SF11
1cm
Complex; pores:
cracks, channels,
vughs, planes
Q, Ptg, mica, well sorted,
no preferred mineral
orientation;, sorted loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; brown
to grey matrix, crystallic Bf
Black dotting – PP staining – C;
P coating – P;
CaCO3 nodules
– R
Passive layer infuenced
by phosphatic
illuviation
4
SF12
(1.5 cm)
Subangular
blocky; pores:
CPV; cracks,
vughs
Q, Ptg, mica, sparitic
carbonate, rock fragments
– R; no preferred mineral
orientation, sorted
homogenous loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; light
brown with dark brown
crotovinas; crystalic Bfabric
Charcoal – R; partly
decomposed OM; black
dotting – P; bone fragments
– R
Passage
features – R
Passive layer
4
SF13
(1 cm)
Platy; pores:
planes
Q, Ptg, mica, moderately
sorted loam, preferred
mineral orientation;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; brown,
crystalic Bf
Articulated phytoliths in
two main layers – C; bones
– C; burned bones – R;
decomposed OM – C, partly
decomposed OM – P; egg
shell – R; charcoal – P,
P coating – P
Trampled and
maintained layer with
possible matting
4
SF14
(2 cm)
Subangular
blocky; pores:
CPV; cracks,
vughs
Q, Ptg, mica, sparitic
carbonate, rock fragments
– R; no preferred mineral
orientation, sorted
homogenous loam;
C/F(50µm) = 50:50; light
brown; crystalic Bfabric
Charcoal – R; partly
decomposed OM; black
dotting – P;
Passage
features – R;
P nodules and
staining – P,
channels – R;
CaCO3 nodules
– P
Passive layer
postdepositionally
infuenced by p
iluviation
Table 1.
Detailed micromorphological description of subfacies detected during observation. The abbreviation in the table: SF – subfacies; CPV – compound
packing voids; R – rare; P – present; C – common; OM – organic matter; Q – quartz; Ptg – plagioclase. (
Continuation
)
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
67
3. Results
3.1 Sedimentological and geochronological context
Sample 1 was macroscopically composed of two strata (209
and 211) (Figure 2). The lower layer (209) was composed of
plastic yellow loam. The original thickness of this layer was 2–8
cm. The overlying layer marked as 211 was composed of light
grey plastic loam with visible microlayering. The construction
features of the building were rarely preserved and they are
represented by column and post pits sunken into the foor. The
foor plan was probably 7×5 metres in size and the building
was situated at the edge of the NW part of the plot. A freplace,
heating facility or another function feature was not identifed.
Stratigraphically, the building refects one of the oldest activities
at the plot – dated to the 13
th
century. The abandonment of the
building was not triggered by fre. The absence of daub suggests
the wooden construction of the building. After abandonment,
the site was used as a garbage dump area. A new building
constructed there later is represented by sample 2.
Sample 2 was macroscopically composed of one layer
of ochre-coloured plastic loam (Figure 2). In some parts
microlamination was detected. The thickness of this layer
was approximately 25 cm. The foor plan was approximately
8.0×7.5 metres in size. Construction features were not
identifed. In the NE part of the building repaired relicts
of the heating facilities were detected. Its relationship to
the excavated building remained unclear. The building
was abandoned after a fre, which was documented by the
charcoal layer and burned daub. It is possible to date the
building to the younger period (from the second half of the
13
th
century to the frst half of the 14
th
century).
Sample 3 was macroscopically described as being
composed of three layers (Figure 3). The lowermost layer
was composed of ochre plastic loam 2–10 cm thick (marked
as 2149). The layer above (marked as 2150) was composed of
brown-grey plastic loam and its thickness was approximately
1–2 cm. The layer marked as 2142 overlapping this stratum
had a similar character to that of layer 2149. The thickness
of the 2142 layer was approximately 6–5 cm. The building
was only detected due to the presence of the brown-grey
trampled layer (layer 2150), but its type of construction
and form remained unclear. Its foor plan was probably
rectangular with the width exceeding 4.5 metres (perhaps
up to 6–7 metres) and length of 6 metres. This feature was
located near the southern part of the plot at a distance of
approximately 20–26 metres from the street. A function
Figure 2.
The documentation of studied deposits of the frst and second building.
Figure 3.
The documentation of studied deposits of the third and fourth building.
0 1 m
0 1 m
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
68
of this feature was not identifed. A relict of a non-specifc
heating facility was recorded there. A 13
th
century antiquity
of the feature was suggested based on diagnostic features of
its ceramic fragments. It appears that layer 2142 is, in fact,
a new foor horizon of the same building. The long-term
activities in the same area are captured in sample 4.
Sample 4 was macroscopically composed of three layers.
The lowermost layer was composed of ochre plastic loam
12–24 cm thick (marked as 2173). The overlying layer
2176 was 0.5–1 cm thick and it was composed of brown-
grey plastic loam. It was overlain by layer 2263 with a
similar appearance to layer 2173. Layer 2263 was 10 cm
thick. The function of this feature was not identifed and the
structure and foor plan of this building remained unclear. It
is probable that the foor plan had a width of 4 metres and
length greater than 2 metres. The described strata are in fact
the second stage of the building from where sample 3 was
taken, and it is clear that the building had become smaller
and also shifted towards the street line. The dimension of the
younger building decreased and the backyard of the building
became an open space. It also means that the back of the
building was located only 23 metres from the street line
during the existence of the younger building. The open space
is documented by the pavement constructed of stone layers
(thickness of 0.4 m). Based on a ceramic fragment, the age
of the feature was estimated from the later part of the 13
th
century up to the frst half of the 14
th
century. The occupation
ended after the building was destroyed in a fre.
3.2 Micromorphological description of studied strata
Micromorphological observations usually reveal much
greater detail of subfacial variability. Sample 1 was divided
into 5 subfacies (Figure 4) and the transition between
macroscopically-divided layers is therefore not so simple
to explain. It is possible that subfacies 1–4 corresponds to
layer 211, while subfacies 5 corresponds to layer 209. The
mineral compositions are quite similar. Generally, subfacies
1 and 5 are the most similar to each other. They are both
composed of soil aggregates and unsorted with a subangular,
blocky microstructure. The main diference between these
two subfacies is the presence of recently-formed gypsum
crystals and phosphatic nodules found in subfacies 1.
Subfacies 2 is sorted, quite homogenous with the occasional
presence of charcoal, phytoliths, gypsum crystals and with
a visible orientation of the mineral fraction. A similar
orientation is also visible in subfacies 3, but the composition
of this subfacies is quite distinct: articulated phytoliths and
microcharcoal are quite common. The surface is slightly
undulated. Subfacies 4 is quite homogenous, sorted, with
rare organic matter and gypsum crystals. It has a platy
microstructure and it is fully impregnated by phosphates
(Table 1).
While, on the one hand, only one layer, albeit with slight
microlayering, was identifed macroscopically in sample 2
(Figure 5), micromorphological observations revealed that
at least three layers are present. The uppermost part of the
sample (labelled subfacies 6) is represented by a sorted
loam of a loess origin with a minimal amount of organic
material. Mineral orientation was not detected here. The
layer below (marked as subfacies 7) is quite diferent. It
contains a lot of chambers and cracks, organic matter, bone
fragments, phosphate nodules, and recently-formed gypsum
crystals. The third-described subfacies (SF 8) is relatively
homogenous with a small amount of organic material,
moderately-sorted, sandy loam with an increased amount of
mica (in contrast to subfacies 6). This may indicate a diferent
provenance of its source material. A detailed description is
provided in Table 1.
Sample 3 contained three subfacies (Figure 6), which
can be linked to the original macroscopic description. The
Figure 4.
Sample 1 and divided subfacies.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
69
subfacies marked as SF9 therefore corresponds to layer
2142, subfacies marked as SF10 corresponds to layer 2150,
and subfacies marked as SF11 corresponds to layer 2149.
As already visible during the macroscopic observations,
subfacies SF9 and SF11 are quite similar, composed of
sorted loam with a minimal amount of organic residue. The
main diference is the presence of crotovinas in subfacies
SF9. Subfacies SF 10 represents the surface where diferent
organic residues have accumulated over time. The presence
of articulated phytoliths and the presence of silty-clay
infllings and phosphate-rich accumulations is signifcant.
This is the only case where occasional faecal spherulites
were detected (see details in Table 1).
Sample 4 (Figure 7) is quite similar to sample 3. In
sample 3, the micromorphogically-divided subfacies also
corresponded to the macroscopical observations. Subfacies
SF12 corresponds to layer 2263, subfacies SF13 corresponds
with layer 2176, and SF14 corresponds with layer 2173.
While SF12 and SF14 are quite sterile, homogenous loams
(with SF14 more post-depositionally infuenced by illuviated
P than SF12), layer SF13 represents the surface where
diferent organic residues have accumulated (in a similar
fashion to SF 10). In this case, very abundant articulated
phytoliths are apparent in the two layers interrupted by a thin
layer of a matrix similar to SF12 and SF14; bone fragments,
burned bone fragments, charcoal and decomposed organic
Figure 5.
Sample 2 and divided subfacies.
Figure 6.
Sample 3 and divided subfacies.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
70
matter were all frequently present. In contrast to SF10,
however, the silty-clay infllings were not observed here (see
details in Table 1).
4. Discussion
4.1 The role of preparation layers
The micromorphological observations of the presented
samples revealed quite distinct diferences between the
“foors” observed macroscopically. There is the ever-
present question of what exactly should be called a
“foor” – it is not merely the surface where accumulation
of occupational debris, trampling and maintenance take
place (see details in Macphail and Goldberg, 2018). As
already stated, the “foor” is usually quite a complex term
subsuming the preparation (passive) layer and trampled/
dumped/maintained (active) layer (see review in Karkanas
and Goldberg, 2019; Macphail and Goldberg, 2018).
At the very minimum, buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 contained
intentionally-prepared, passive layers (SF5 for building
1, SF8 for building 2, SF11 for building 3 and SF14 for
building 4 – see Table 1). In building 1, the passive layer
(SF5) represents a deterioration from older daub. This
was an unexpected fnding, because archaeologists did
not recover any evidence of older construction activities
in building 1. One possibility is that the passive layer
was intentionally prepared using a loam daub from older
destroyed structures. Such material is very difcult to
recognize by common archaeological techniques if it has
not been infuenced by fre destruction.
The passive layer of building 1 (SF5) and the overlying
building 2 (SF8) difer in their provenance. While building 1
possesses a passive layer composed of soil and loess
aggregates (SF5), building 2 has a passive layer consisting of
silty loam that originated from river alluvium (SF8). There
could be many reasons for the decision to use a diferent
material, ranging from better permeability (see Lisá
et al.
,
2009) to easier access to the source material.
In the case of buildings 3 and 4, the passive layer was
composed of sorted loam represented by redeposited loess
(SF11 and SF14).
Another layer, which, in some cases, may also be
understood as the passive layer, is the material above the
active layer (see SF1 for building 1, SF6 for building 2,
SF9 for building 3 and SF12 for building 4). In the case of
building 1 (SF1), it is composed of construction material
which corresponds with the macroscopical observations,
i.e.
the building was not destroyed by fre. On the other
hand, we know that the second building was destroyed by
fre, but the layer situated above the active layer (SF6) is
not composed of burned daub or charred material. Could
this mean that subfacies SF 1 (composed of unburned daub
remains) represents another passive layer? In such a case
we would need to assume that building 2 had two phases of
foor preparation (SF8 and SF6), and that we were not able to
detect the second active layer macroscopically buried under
the fre debris.
Buildings 3 and 4 have similar passive layers (SF11 and
SF14). In both cases, these are represented by homogenous
loam with a probable loess origin. These sediments are not
in fact contaminated by daub or burned daub and were used
as intentionally-prepared passive layers. Again, this suggests
that for buildings 3 and 4 the active layers had to be repaired
by the intentional accumulation of a new passive layer (in
the case of building 3 it should be SF9, and for building 4 it
should be SF12). This also means that we were not able to
discern the second active layers of these buildings, probably
because they were buried and destroyed under the fnal
debris.
Figure 7.
Sample 4 and divided subfacies.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
71
4.2 The information value of the active layer
The active layers provided interesting information about the
use of the buildings: It was not clear during the archaeological
excavations if we were dealing with a house, byre or a stable
(see review in Macphail and Goldberg, 2018). All studied
samples showed that the active layers should most probably
be linked most probably with domestic foors. One of the
main reasons for this assertion is that the studied active foors
do not contain fragments of animal dung (Shahack-Gross,
2017; Canti and Brochier, 2017). The only case where a rare
presence of faecal spherulites was detected is the active layer
of building 3 (SF10). We had an opportunity to see how the
active foor layer changes over time in the same position at
a single plot.
In the case of building 1 (SF2 and 3) and building 2 (SF7)
the change was quite dramatic and probably corresponds with
a change in the cultural-behavioural status of the building.
The active layer of the older building (SF2 and 3) shows
signs of repeated maintenance. It seems that two phases
of digging maintenance were detected. Maintenance of the
older one (detected in SF3 – see Table 1) included mainly
wet sweeping and adding straw to the foor; continuous
trampling and sweeping accumulated at least a 1 cm thick
layer. This may correspond to one generation (Lisá
et al.
,
forthcoming). The overlying layer (SF2 – see Table 1) shows
a slightly diferent type of maintenance. At frst, the foor
was probably maintained by wet sweeping. The wetting
triggered illuviation of phosphates down the section and
its drying out produced the more-recently-formed gypsum
crystals. The absence of vivianite refects the absence of
redoximorphic conditions. The thickness of the active layer is
again approximately 1 cm, which may correspond to another
single generation (occupation) of the building. Extended
beating of the surface corresponding with longterm use is
represented by the planes imprinted in the layer below the
active layers,
i.e.
in SF4.
Building number 2 has a diferent active layer. The high
porosity of the active layer combined with the missing planes,
a number of wood fragments, bone and organic dumping
suggests its origin under a planked foor. The plank foor
was probably maintained by wet sweeping, which produces
the silty-clay coating within the active layer (SF7). The use
of the plank foor does not necessarily indicate a change of
building use – to an elevated cultural-behavioural status. We
do not yet know what was the surface diference between
diferent parts of the building, but we can assert that the
active foor layer difered between building 1 and building 2.
Signifcant diferences are also present between the
active foor layers of buildings 3 and 4. Furthermore, the
active foors detected in buildings 3 and 4 (SF10 and 13)
signifcantly difer to the active foors detected in buildings
1 and 2 (SF2, 3 and 7). In both cases, the active layers of
buildings 3 and 4 (SF10 and 13) are composed of articulated
phytoliths. In the older building (building 3, SF10), the
active layer is extremely rich in phosphates, and the presence
of articulated phytoliths is not as signifcant as in the active
layer of building 4. One possible explanation is the presence
of cover mats on the surface. Organic mats laid on the surface
may prevent the mechanical infuence of a foor surface and
the initiation of muddy surfaces, and thus make the surface
drier. Two thick mats, or two phases of mat accumulation,
were certainly detected in building 4. It seems that in both
cases, the surface of the mats was maintained by sweeping
because the inorganic material within the foor is oriented
horizontally. The idea of the presence of organic mats may
also suggest that the surface in plot 2 (buildings 3 and 4)
was probably much wetter than in buildings 1 and 2. The
layers (expressed in SF11 and SF14) situated below these
active layers have signs of phosphate illuviation but no
signs of recent gypsum, so the question is if the maintenance
was due to wet sweeping. In every case, the use of space in
buildings 3 and 4 did not difer much over time, but it did
difer signifcantly between buildings 1 and 2.
5. Conclusions
Micromorphological analyses of foors from the four buildings
excavated within one plot revealed new information about
the use of domestic foors in space and over time. In the case
of buildings 1 and 2, which are situated in superposition, the
type of active foor did change signifcantly, which suggests
a change in cultural habits, or the status of the building
(room). During the older phase (13
th
century), the surface of
the active foor layer was swept, and then wet swept and kept
clean. During the younger phase represented by building 2
(from end of the 13
th
century to the beginning of the 14
th
century), the building may have had a plank foor which was
maintained by wet sweeping.
In the case of buildings 3 and 4, also situated in superposition,
the type of active foor did not noticeably change over time.
During the 13
th
century (building 3), the end of the 13
th
century and the beginning of the 14
th
century, the surface of
the active foor layer was covered repeatedly by hay, straw or
by mat coverings (especially in building 4) and kept clean by
sweeping. The surface was much wetter than in buildings 1
and 2, which may be related to the diferent periods of building
construction. At the same time, it can be stated that the
position of the buildings within the plot determined the way
the buildings were used. The exact use of the buildings has not
so far been determined, but it is possible that buildings 3 and 4
possessed a lower social status than buildings 1 and 2.
The structures of the passive layers show that they were
mostly intentionally prepared and the material used for the
preparation difered based on unknown conditions. In some
cases, pure loess was used while in other cases, older debris,
or alluvial river deposits, were used for construction of the
passive layer.
Acknowledgements
The research was fnanced by GA CR project No. 17-
23836S – Transformation of the Burgher House in the 13
th
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 63–72
Lenka Lisá, Pavel Staněk, Antonín Zůbek, Ladislav Nejman: Floor Maintenance as a Possible Cultural Behavioural Status? Preliminary Interpretations of Floor
Formation Processes from Medieval Brno, Czech Republic
72
century (Brno-Prague-Wroclaw) – and co-fnanced by the
internal programme of the Institute of Geology of the Czech
Academy of Sciences, v. v. i., in Prague No. RVO 67985831.
The authors would like to thank both anonymous reviewers,
who helped to increase the quality of this paper.
References
BANERJEA, R.Y., BELL, M.G., MATTHEWS, W., BROWN, A.D., 2015a.
Applications of micromorphology to understanding activity areas and
site formation processes in experimental hut foors.
Archaeological and
Anthropological Sciences
, 7(1), 89–112.
BANERJEA, R.Y., FULFORD, M., BELL, M., CLARKE, A., MATHEWS,
W., 2015b. Using experimental archaeology and micromorphology to
reconstruct timber-framed buildings from Roman Silchester: a new
approach.
Antiquity
, 89(347), 1174–1188.
BORDERIE, Q., BALL, T.B., BANERJEA, R.Y., BIZRI, M., LEJAULT, C.,
SAVE, S., VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, A., 2018. Early Middle Ages houses
of Gien (France) from the inside: geoarchaeology and archaeobotany of
9
th
–11
th
c. foors.
Environmental Archaeology
, 2018, 1–19.
CANTI, M.G., BROCHIER, J.E., 2017. Faecal Spherulites. In: C. Nicosia,
G. Stoops, eds.
Archaeological Soil and Sediment Micromorphology.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 51–54.
COURTY, M.A., GOLDBERG, P., MACPHAIL, R.I., 1989.
Soils and
Micromorphology in Archaeology.
Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOLUB, P., KOLAŘÍK, V., MERTA, D., PEŠKA, M., ZAPETALOVÁ,
D., ZŮBEK, A., 2005. Ke stavu poznání nezděné měšťanské architektury
vrcholně středověkého Brna.
Forum urbes medii aevi
, 2, 44–101.
HOLUB, P., KOLAŘÍK, V., MERTA, D., PEŠKA, M., ZŮBEK, A.,
2013. Bürgerliche Architektur des hochmittelalterlichen Brno/ Brünn.
In: Y. Hofmann, U. Richter, eds.
Die Frügeschichte Freibergs im
überregionalen Vergleich. Städtische Frügeschichte – Bergbau – früher
Hausbau.
Halle, pp. 457–471.
HOLUB, P., KOLAŘÍK, V., MERTA, D., PEŠKA, M., ZŮBEK, A., 2015.
Medieval Brick Architecture in Brno in the Context of South Moravia.
Forum urbes medii aevi
, 9(1–2), 310–337.
KARKANAS, P., GOLDBERG, P., 2019.
Reconstructing Archaeological
Sites; Understanding the Geoarchaeological Matrix.
Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
KUNA, M., HAJNALOVÁ, M., KOVAČIKOVÁ, L., LISÁ, L., NOVÁK,
J., BUREŠ, M., CÍLEK, V., HOŠEK, J., KOČÁR, P., MAIER, A.,
MAKOWIECKI, D., SCOTT CUMMINGS, L., SŮVOVÁ, Z.,
SVĚTLÍK, I., VANDENBERGHE, D., VAN NIEULAND, J., YOST,
C., ZABILSKA-KUNEK, M., 2013. Raně středověký areál v Roztokách
z pohledu ekofaktů.
Památky archeologické
, 104, 59–147.
LISÁ, L., KOČÁR, P., BAJER, A., KOČÁROVÁ, R., SYROVÁ, Z.,
SYROVÝ J., PORUBČANOVÁ, M., LISÝ, P., PEŠKA, M., in print.
The Floor – a voice of human lifeways. A geo-ethnographical study
of historical and recent foors at Dolní Němčí Mill, Czech Republic.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
.
LISÁ, L., KOLAŘÍK, V., BAJER, A., 2009. The geoarchaeological
and micromorphological reconstruction of medieval food store room
foor layers; the case study from Tišnov, Czech Republic.
Frankfurter
Geowissenschaftliche Arbeiten.
Serie D, Band 30, Archaeological Soil
Micromorphology, 71–80.
MACPHAIL, R.I., CRUISE, G.M., ALLEN, M.J, LINDERHOLM, J.,
REYNOLDS, P., 2004. Archaeological soil and pollen analysis of
experimental foor deposits; with special reference to Butser Ancient
Farm, Hampshre, UK.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 31, 175–191.
MACPHAIL, R.I., CROWTHER, J., CRUISE, G.M., 2007.
Microstratigraphy: soil micromorphology, chemistry and pollen, In: D.
Bowsher, T. Dyson, N. Holder, I. Howell, eds.
The London Guildhall.
An archaeological history of a neighbourhood from early medieval to
modern times
. MoLAS Monograph 36, London: Museum of London
Archaeological Service.
MACPHAIL, R.I., CROWTHER, J., CRUISE, G.M., 2007.
Micromorphology and post-Roman town research: the examples of
London and Magdeburg. In: J. Henning, ed.
Post-Roman Towns and
Trade in Europe, Byzantium and the Near-East. New methods of
structural, comparative and scientifc methods in archaeology.
Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG, pp. 303–317.
MACPHAIL, R.I., GOLDBERG, P., 2018.
Applied Soils and Micromorphology
in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MILEK, K., 2012. Floor formation processes and the interpretation of
activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of turf buildings at Thvera,
northeast Iceland.
Anthropological Archaeology
, 31, 119–137.
NICOSIA, C., STOOPS, G., 2017.
Archaeological Soil and Sediment
Micromorphology.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
NOVÁK, J., LISÁ, L., POKORNÝ, P., KUNA, M., 2012. Charcoal analyses
as an environmental tool for the study of Early Medieval sunken houses
inflls in Roztoky near Prague, Czech Republic.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 39(4), 808–817.
PARMA, D., LISÁ, L., JAROŠOVÁ, M., PETR, L., 2011. Geoarchaeology
of La Tène Sunken Houses at Syrovice, Czech Republic: Importance
for Understanding Living Strategies.
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica,
Natural Sciences in Archaeology
, 2(1), 15–25.
PŘICHYSTAL, A., 2011. Geologie brněnského prostoru. In: R. Procházka,
ed.
Dějiny Brna 1. Od pravěku k ranému středověku
. 1
st
ed., Brno:
Statutární město Brno, Archiv města Brna, pp. 17–40.
RENTZEL, P., NICOSIA, C., GEBHARDT, A., BRӦNNIMANN, D.,
PÜMPIN, C., ISMAIL-MEYER, K., 2017. Trampling, poaching and the
efects of trafc. In: C. Nicosia, G. Stoops, eds.
Archaeological Soil and
Sediment Micromorphology.
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 281–298.
SHAHACK-GROSS, R., 2017. Animal Gathering Enclosures. In: C. Nicosia,
G. Stoops, eds.
Archaeological Soil and Sediment Micromorphology.
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 265–280.
STOOPS, G., 2003.
Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and
Regolith Thin Sections.
Madison, Wisconsin, USA: Soil Science Society
of America.
STOOPS, G., MARCELINO, V., MEES, F., 2010.
Interpretation of
Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths.
Amsterodam:
Elsevier.
VIČAR, O., 1965. Místopis Brna v polovici 14. století. Prostor uvnitř
městských hradeb.
Brno v minulosti a dnes
, 7, 242–283.