The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Mediaeval Villages 9781841717951, 9781407330433

Citation preview

BAR  S1582  2006  

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Mediaeval Villages

NEKUDA   THE AGRICULTURAL HOMESTEAD IN MORAVIAN MEDIAEVAL VILLAGES

Rostislav Nekuda

BAR International Series 1582 B A R

2006

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Mediaeval Villages Rostislav Nekuda (translated by Radek Kobzík and David Konečný)

BAR International Series 1582 2006

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1582 The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Mediaeval Villages © R Nekuda and the Publisher 2006 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 9781841717951 paperback ISBN 9781407330433 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841717951 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2006. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents List of Figures iii Introduction Research on Rural Settlements in Europe Bohemia Slovakia Hungary Austria Germany Poland England France Research on Rural Settlements in Moravia The Agricultural Homestead in Written Sources The House: Evolution of the Layout Single-chamber Houses – Semi-subterranean Structures Single-chamber Houses – Surface Structures Two-part Houses Three-part Houses Atypical Layouts The Development of the Three-part House The Construction and Appearance of Houses Furnishings of a House Cellars Auxiliary buildings Sties, Stables and Cowsheds Granaries and Garners Barns Haylofts and Sheds The Shaping of the Agricultural Homestead Ethnographical Analogies Equipment of a Homestead The Economy of an Average Homestead Manors in the Medieval Village The Ploughland Reconstructing the Buildings in the Agricultural Homestead of the Medieval Settlement Conclusion

1 3 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 11 13 21 24 25 26 27 29 33 34 40 45 51 55 55 56 60 61 62 73 75 83 85 89 92 96

Bibliography

97



.

List of Figures

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14a. 14b. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24a. 24b.

Deserted medieval village of Kravín (Turovec land register, Tábor district). Ground plan of the semisubterranean structure (A), rock accumulation (B, C), according to Z. Smetánka, J. Škabrady and R. Krajíc. Deserted medieval village of Kravín (Turovec land register, Tábor district). One of the alternatives of a homestead reconstruction, according to Z. Smetánka and R. Krajíc. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village of Svídna (Kladno district) acquired by archaeological measuring, according to Z. Smetánka. Svídna. Deserted medieval village (Kladno district). Comparison of archaeological documentation of object relics with archaeological survey, according to Z. Smetánka. Chľaba (Nové Zámky district, Slovakia). Homestead ground plan, object 57a: 1 – barn, 2 – three-part house, A – hall, B – chamber, C – pantry, 3 – fence, 4 – part of a sacristy, 5 – yard. According to M. Hanuliak. Sarvaly (Hungary). Ground plan of the deserted medieval village, according to I. Holl and N. Parádi. Hard. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village (Waldviertel, Austria), according to S. FelgenhauerSchmiedt. Hohenrode (Hessen, Germany). Ground plan of the deserted medieval village, according to P. Grimm. Königshagen (Germany). Reconstruction of the village from post-1250 based on archaeological research by W. Janssen. Wharram Percy (England). Documentation of relics of the deserted medieval village, according to M. Beresford and J. G. Hurst. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the hill-fort. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. View of the fortress and moat. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the fortress and the manor. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the manor. Overall view. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Foregrounded fortification above the fortress. Palisade trenches. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Bystřec. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. 1 – discovered structures, 2 – significantly damaged structures, 3 – homestead plots, 4 – creek, 5 – roads, 6 – contour lines 5 m apart, 7 – contour lines 1 m apart, P – spring site, B – moor. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Konůvky near Slavkov. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. 1 – unearthed house plans, 2 – possible structures, 3 – numerous unearthed and non-unearthed structures, 4 – significant terrain unevenness, 5 – fortress, 6 – church with a cemetery. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Rýmařov, Bezručova Street. Ground plan of a part of the medieval settlement. 1 – contour lines, 2 – survey lines, 3 – structures of phase I, 4 – structures of phase II, 5 – structures of phase III, 6 – contour lines of phase III, 7 – structure XX, 8 – structure of phase IV, 9 – relative point heights, 10 – structure numbers, according to Goš – Novák – Karel, 1985. Rýmařov, Bezručova Street. Semi-subterranean structure XIV. 1 – doorframe, 2 – pisé masonry, 3 – remains of a wooden floor, 4 – collapsed wall timbers, 5 – doorsill, according to Goš – Novák – Karel, 1985. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of homestead II, according to L. Belcredi, 1986. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the single-chamber house in homestead IV. Older phase, according to L. Belcredi, 1980. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice near Hrotovice. Stone foundations of a single-chamber rent charge dwelling. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of two-part house XII. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of two-part house XII. Illustration by Z. Špičák. iii

1.

3 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18

19 25 26 27 27 28 28

25. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of homestead III. a – barn, b – residential chamber, c – hall, b/c – two-part house, d – granary, e – cowshed, f – yard gateway. Illustration by M. Říčný. 26. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of three-part house V. Photograph by V. Nekuda. 27. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the three-part house in homestead XI – Reconstruction of phase I. A – residential chamber, B – auxiliary buildings, C – chamber, D – paved surface, E – dunghill. Illustration by Z. Špičák. 28. Svídna. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of a three-part house, according to Z. Smetánka. 29. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of two-wing house II. Photograph by V. Nekuda. 30. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of a two-wing house with an attached cellar. A – chamber, B – hall, C – storage room, D1, D2, D3 – narrow chambers, E – cellar, O – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda, based on documentation by Z. Špičák. 31. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the ground plan of homestead I. Illustration by Z. Špičák. 32. Hard, Austria – Waldviertel. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of two-wing house 8, according to S. Felgenhauer-Schmiedt. 33. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the house in homestead I, a – chamber, b – hall, c – chamber, o – oven. See fig. 98 for the site plan. Illustration by Z. Špičák. 34. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the house in homestead VII. Illustration by Z. Špičák. 35. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Site plan of a part of the surveyed area documenting all structures in homesteads II, III and partly IV. Ground plans of stone a masonry marking the structures of the medieval village. 36a. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Single-chamber house (A) and granary (B) in homestead II positioned separately. Originally a part of an underground passageway (D), later used as a cellar; o – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda. 36b. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Linking the house and the granary with the hall (C) in homestead II. Illustration by V. Nekuda. 37. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. The single-chamber house (A) and the granary (B) in homestead VIII; o – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda. 38. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Site plan of homestead XI. 1 – preserved stone masonry facing, 2 – walling rubble, 3 – slope reinforcement with stones, 4 – paving, 5 – surface with scattered cinder, 6 – grit surface, 7 – sand strips on slopes, 8 – daub surface, 9 – fire pit, 10 – oven, 11 – structures of grey colour, 12 – structure outline under projection level, 13 – structure image above projection level, 14 – survey outline. A – residential chamber, B – auxiliary buildings, C – storage room, D – paved surface. Illustration by Z. Špičák, according to L. Belcredi, 2000. 39. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plans of the house and the granary in homestead III. Illustration by M. Říčný. 40. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the house and with an attached granary in homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda. 41. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of homestead XI. Overall view from the south-west. Photograph by V. Nekuda. 42. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Three-part house in homestead XIV. Part of an entrenched granary in the foreground. Photograph by R. Nekuda. 43. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. The house and the granary from homestead IX. Photograph by V. Nekuda. 44. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Distribution of chambers (A) and garners (B) in homesteads III, IX and XI; o – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda. 45. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Detail of stone masonry. Photograph by V. Nekuda. 46. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Thoroughly made masonry of the granary in homestead I. Photograph by R. Nekuda. 47. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone doorsill of the residential building in homestead IV. Photograph by V. Nekuda. 48. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone with a swivel hollow and a groove for positioning a door at the house of homestead III. Photograph by V. Nekuda. 49. Construction ironware and locks. Pfaffenschlag: 1 – spinelike loop , 2 – latch with a spinelike loop, 3 – door sleeve, 4 – keyhole fittings, 5 – double latch linked with a spinelike loop, 6 – one-armed hook, 7 – solid loop spike, 11 – door handle. Mstěnice: 8 – insert key, 12, 13 – padlocks, 14, 15 – turning keys. iv

28 30 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 34 35 35 35 35

36 37 37 37 38 38 39 40 41 41 41

54a. 54b. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67a. 67b. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

Bystřec: 10 – latch. Konůvky: 9 – hook key. Illustration by J. Bakala. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Fired daub of between-timber filling. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Fired daub with rod imprints. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of house I. Side view and lengthwise profile. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of house I. View of the gable and a chamber profile. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Oven with a fire pit in the residential building of homestead XIV. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. Ground plan of auxiliary buildings with the singlechamber rent charge dwelling. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. Ground plan of the single-chamber rent charge dwelling attached to auxiliary buildings. A – oven, B – fire pit. Illustration by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Fire pit surrounded with rocks in the rent charge dwelling in homestead XI. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Tripod. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead VII, an oven with a fire pit. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Oven (obj. 1137) in the rent charge dwelling in homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Jugs. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Cups. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Cellar in homestead V. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Cellar accessible from the chamber of the house in homestead III. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Cellar in the house in homestead V. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Entrance to the cellar attached to the house in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Interior of the cellar in the house in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Survey of the underground part of the house. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. View of the barrel vault of the cellar. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Cellar profile. Survey documentation by Z. Špičák. Illustration by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Detail of the barrel vault. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Underground premises. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the underground passageway of the house in homestead IX. A – outline of the bottom of the passageway, B – niches, C – parts of the passageway recessed in an unmade terrain, D – stabilisation of the passageway by masonry, E – entrance, F – ground plan of the overground part of the house. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the underground passageway of the house in homestead XI. A – outline of the bottom of the passageway, B – niches, C – parts of the passageway recessed in an unmade terrain, D – stabilisation of the passageway by masonry, E – entrance, F – ground plan of the overground part of the house. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. View of the underground passageway in homestead IX. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Drain ditch. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead VIII. Masonry by the granary entrance. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. Entrance to the underground part of the granary. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead XIV. Photograph by R. Nekuda. 

50. 51. 52a. 52b. 53.

42 43 43 43 44 45 46 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 53 53

53

54 54 55 56 57 57

85. 86a. 86b. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102a. 102b. 103.

Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the granary in homestead I. 1 – masonry facing, 2 – masonry in unmade terrain, 3 – entrance wall, 4 – rubble, 5 – level change of the horizontal profile, K – post holes, D – granary bottom, V – entrance, S – niche, R – sloping passageway. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead III. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Písečné. House with a granary from the 16th century. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead V. Photograph by L. Belcredi. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the barn in homestead VIII. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of homesteads from the second half of the 11th century and from the first half of the 12th century. Illustration by G. Šik. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the house and the cowshed in homestead XV. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Homestead V. Example of free-standing structures in the yard. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Cowshed attached to the house in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Yard in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead II. Entrance gate with footstones on the side. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead II. Stone with a swivel hollow and a groove for positioning an entrance gate. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead X. Example of a one-wing yard. Model. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan and reconstruction of the one-wing yard in homestead XV. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of homesteads X (part), IX and VIII. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead IX. Ground plan and reconstruction. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plans of homesteads II and III: a – barn, b – chamber, c – hall, d – granary, e, f – auxiliary buildings, III: f – roofed yard entrance. Illustration by M. Říčný. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of village X. 1 – masonry, 2 – rubble, 3 – bearing wall, 4 – paving, 5 – incomplete paving, 6 – daub, 7 – ovens, 8 – entrenched post structures, 10 – storage pits and a well, 11 – outline of a entrenched structure, 12 – outline of excavation. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of homestead X, phase III. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of a hook-type homestead. Illustration by V. Nekuda base on a illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan and reconstruction of homestead XII. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Site plan of the yard in hook-type homestead III. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Ground plan outlines by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground and reconstruction of homestead XI. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. g – h: reconstruction of structures in the back of the yard, i – j: entrance from the central common, reconstruction of a rent charge dwelling attached to auxiliary buildings. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan and reconstruction of homestead XIV. A – inner yard, B – garden, a – b: view from the central common, e – f: view from the yard, d – c: view of the back of the yard. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Reconstruction of homesteads VII, VIII and partly IX. Illustration by M. Říčná. Ironware. Mstěnice: 1 – flang, 2, 3 – gate spikes, 4, 5 – axlepins, 6 – scythe-handle sleeve, 7 – scale hitch. Bystřec: 8 – spade fittings. Pfaffenschlag: 9 – asymmetrical ploughshare, 10 – ploughshare with a socket. v

i

77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84.

58 58 59 59 60 61 63 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 68 69 70 70 70 71 71 71 72 72 72

Illustration by J. Bakala (Illustration no. 8 by P. Dočkal). Ploughing with a land plough with a foregrounded coulter. According to the Codex of Jan of Jenštejn from the second half of the 14th century. Reproduction by J. Bakala. Illustration a harrow over a field in the 14th century, according to U. Bentzien, 1980. Working with a spade. The Velislav Bible of 1341. Ironware. Pfaffenschlag: 2 – scythe, 4 – scythe-handle sleeve, 5 – wool shears, 8, 9 – sickles, 10 – flail ironwork. Bystřec: 1 – scythe, 3 – scythe hammer, 6 – hay fork. Konůvky: device for scythe forging. Wooden rake. The Velislav Bible of 1341. Harvesting crop using sickles. The Velislav Bible of 1341. Storing sheaves into a so-called “oboroh” (hay racks). The Velislav Bible of 1341. Fleshing knife (A) and cutting stool (B). Earthen wharves from Mstěnice. Threshing crop. Almanac of Osek for the month of September, mid-1300s. Ironware: hoes and a vineyard knife. Ironware from Mstěnice: 1 – attachable fork spike, 2 – bit, 3 – bridle head, 4, 6 – horseshoes, 5 – curry-comb. Illustration by J. Bakala. Iron drawknife from Mstěnice. Photograph by M. Hofer. Ironware. Mstěnice: 1 – 5: nails, 6 – knife, 13 – axe. Pfaffenschlag: 7 – trowel, 9 – gimlet, 10 – hammer, 11, 12 – chisels. Konůvky: 8 – pliers. Illustration by J. Bakala. Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Grindstones. Illustration by J. Bakala. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the manor. A – masonry, B – rubble, C – stone paving, D – drain. 1 – yard entrance, 2 – entrance to the northern part of the yard, 3 – quadrangle, 4 – three-part house, 5 – oven, 6 – fire pit, 7 – auxiliary buildings, 8 – cowshed, 9 – smithy, 10 – moat, 11 – damage due to amateur survey techniques. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the oast house and the barn at the manor. Photograph by V. Nekuda. Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plans of the oast house and the barn at the manor. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Reconstruction of the deserted medieval village of Pfaffenschlag. Tracts of land at the homesteads. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Deserted medieval village of Bystřec. Croft base type of ploughland. Illustration by E. Černý. Reconstruction of the deserted medieval village of Mstěnice. Illustration by M. Říčná. Deserted medieval village of Düppel in Berlin–Zehlendorf. Reconstruction of a house. Photograph by A. von Müller. Deserted medieval village of Düppel in Berlin–Zehlendorf. Reconstruction of the village, according to A. von Müller. Mstěnice. Aerial photograph of preserved masonry of the homesteads and the manor. Mstěnice. Reconstruction of homestead XIV. Illustration by M. Říčná. Mstěnice. Homestead IV. Example of a geminate homestead. House in homestead V on the right. Illustration by M. Říčná. Mstěnice. Models of homesteads II and III. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

v

ii

104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120a. 120b. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129.

76 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83

86 87 89 89 90 92 93 93 94 94 95 95

Introduction

The study of the history of medieval villages is a subject with a broad interdisciplinary cooperation. One of the disciplines, which has markedly broadened the knowledge base related to medieval villages in the last decades, is archaeology. This field gathers evidence of material culture in connection with agriculture and the life of medieval peasants. Such a task is best fulfilled by performing a systematic archaeological survey on sites of abandoned medieval villages. In Moravia, the key evidence which best provides answers to questions related to development of agricultural settlements and homesteads has been discovered by a systematic survey at the deserted villages of Pfaffenschlag (V. Nekuda, 1976) and Mstěnice (V. Nekuda, 1985; R. Nekuda – V. Nekuda, 1997; V. Nekuda 2001). Currently, there is a survey being finished on the site of Bystřec near Blansko (L. Belcredi, 1997a, 1997b; 1999; 2000) and other facts have been acquired at the abandoned settlement of Konůvky near Slavkov (Z. Měchurová, 1997).

A grouping of all agricultural homesteads in the village together with a central common as its significant part formed the village ground plan. Besides homesteads, there were other important constructions in the overall arrangement of the village, such as a church, possibly a fort, a mill, a smithy and, in bigger villages, a tavern. However, the above-mentioned constructions exceed the scope of this work. Only a complete understanding of the medieval village and its development from the Early to Late Middle Ages will allow us to see it in the context of development of the whole medieval society. It is archaeological research which in the past forty years has discovered entirely new and authentic sources for studying medieval villages and thereby for studying medieval history. These sources serve us as means of learning about not only rich inventories and working tools, but also dwellings and farming constructions of medieval homesteads. By studying written sources, specifically inventories from the period before the Battle of White Mountain (F. Hrubý, 1927, 21–59), it is possible to even seek to reconstruct the way of life of the medieval peasant.

The goal of this work is to describe the organization of an agricultural homestead and its equipment and function. One of the main units of the agricultural homestead was a house. Based on archaeological sources, this work focuses on the ground plan, building material, wall construction, roofing, facilities and furnishing of such a house. The house together with a courtyard formed a connected system sensitively reflecting every change in living conditions of the medieval peasant. Therefore, the next task in this area is to find out when the compound agricultural settlement first occurred in Moravia and what kinds of yard there were to accompany it. To our idea of how such a settlement functioned, contribute many finds of agricultural tools together with osteological material, which provides us with information on how animals were kept. Research oriented thus contributes to a full understanding of aspects of the social and economical status of peasants during the High and Late Middle Ages.

Although pointing out the importance of archaeological sources for studying the agricultural homestead – the house and the yard as its integral parts – we need to bear in mind the limitations of such sources in relation to their location. The archaeological sources are, that is to say, not spread throughout the whole area of Moravia but mostly in the central and south-western parts. Such uneven distribution does not allow us to generalise for the area of Moravia as the development in northern and south-eastern parts could have differed (V. Goš – J. Novák – J. Karel, 1985, 201). For that reason, it is essential to compare the information gathered in Moravia with the situation in neighbouring countries.

Manors were also part of a number of villages. These were mostly residences of the gentry, and in their organization, they were not much different from larger servile homesteads. Another reason why manors are included in this study is the fact that agricultural production techniques used at manors were the same as those of servile homesteads. By surveying the manors and servile homesteads, we can cover the agricultural production of the whole medieval village. The agricultural production is directly related to a croft, which formed the economical base of the medieval village. Studying it can at least partially provide us with the characteristics of the natural environment and the cultivated land of those times.

This work mainly focuses on the period of the 13th– 15th centuries, since it is limited by the current state of research of the homestead, the courtyard and the village of the Early Middle Ages in the region of the presentday Czech Republic (B. Dostál, 1987, 9–32; R. Nekuda, 1994, 349–365) as well as in other parts of Central Europe (P. Donat, 1980). This work continues to extend the current knowledge base with the goal of bringing more information on the development of the inner structure of the medieval village.



In conclusion, I would like to thank the Museum and Regionalistic Society in Brno for initially publishing this

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages book as a part of series called Sources of History and Culture of Moravia. Furthermore, let me thank doc. PhDr. Michal Slivka, CSc. and doc. PhDr. Josef Unger, CSc. for

evaluating my work and last but not least my father Prof. PhDr. Vladimír Nekuda and Zdeněk Špičák for numerous advice and notes during the creation of this publication.



RESEARCH ON RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN EUROPE

Deserted villages provide the best conditions for the archaeological research of rural settlements. The process of their extinction during the Middle Ages occurred in all European countries. For that reason, it is essential to be aware of research results primarily in neighbouring regions and countries, i.e. in Bohemia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Germany and Poland. Furthermore, of the western countries, England and France play an important role in the context of pan-European archaeological research. That is why this chapter deals with research results from these countries as well. Bohemia Archaeological research in Bohemia was in the first instance focused on as accurate as possible localization of deserted settlements using geodetic-topographical and geophysical methods together with a surface survey (Z. Smetánka, 1973, 21, 34). As the research strategy for the medieval village in Bohemia archaeologists chose the so-called “mosaic strategy”, i.e. an interconnection of a surface survey of smaller regions with actual archaeological research (J. Klápště – Z. Smetánka, 1982, 11–13). For the period before the middle of the 13th century, research has been carried out on settlements in Krašovice near Sedlčany (A. Hejma, 1964, 178–221) and in the Vodňany region in Southern Bohemia (J. Michálek, 1997, 133– 139). In both locations, several entrenched structures were uncovered – subterranean structures, semi-subterranean structures and various pits from the end of the 12th and from the beginning of the 13th century. There was only one entrenched structure found in Krašovice (VIII/58) which was bounded by peripheral walls. Figure 1: Deserted medieval village of Kravín (Turovec land register, Tábor district). Ground plan of the semi-subterranean structure (A), rock accumulation (B, C), according to Z. Smetánka, J. Škabrady and R. Krajíc.

Another surface survey followed by a geodetictopographical survey was carried out on the site of the deserted medieval village of Kravín near Tábor. It was later narrowed down by archaeological research (R. Krajíc, 1980, 165–172). Resulting discoveries comprised a ground plan of a semi-subterranean structure with stonetiled walls and a fireplace located in the southwest part of the structure approximately in the middle of the floor. The entrance to the semi-subterranean structure in the northeast corner was formed by three steps with traces of other constructs – one on the north-western and another one on the south-eastern side (Fig. 1). Several variations of the overall appearance of the site were made based on data acquired from the archaeological research (Smetánka – Škabrada – Krajíc, 1988, 81–98). Since the decline of Kravín dates back before 1420, the surveyed structure was

probably a part of a homestead from around the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries (Fig. 2). Out of villages from the late Middle Ages in Bohemia, a deserted medieval village Svídna was surveyed. Archaeological research followed a magnetometric survey, which detected relief remains of fourteen homestead constructions. The constructions were arranged in two rows with a central common of an elongated rectangular shape in between (Fig. 3). The ground plan of the village represents a transition from the central common type to 3

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages the street type of a village. The homogeneous geometrical conception of the ground plan of Svídna suggests that the village was founded in the 13th century. It perished at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries. During the archaeological survey, ground plans of three homesteads were uncovered (I, II, III), (Fig. 4). Surveyed homesteads show a tripartite arrangement of the residential house of which the most distinct example is the tripartite base of house no. 3. The homestead also included sheds, woodsheds, a granary and most probably also a barn (Z. Smetánka, 1988; 1989, 319–324).

Figure 2: Deserted medieval village of Kravín (Turovec land register, Tábor district). One of the alternatives of a homestead reconstruction, according to Z. Smetánka and R. Krajíc.

Slovakia The basic literary work for studying the medieval village in Slovakia is a monograph titled “Stredoveká dědina na Slovensku” (Medieval Village in Slovakia) by A. Habovštiak, 1985. The author studied the development of the medieval village from the era of the Great Moravian Empire until the late Middle Ages exploring not only archaeological sources but also written and onomastic ones, as well as outcomes of art-historical research regarding church buildings and noble seats. Constructions of medieval rural settlements were found in more than 250 locations, although large surface excavations have been carried out only in 26 cases (M. Ruttkay 1999, 9). The contribution of archaeological research on the Early Middle Ages to understanding the development of rural medieval settlements in Slovakia was summed up by P. Šalkovský (1998, 9–36). The same author compiled sources concerning the typology and the spread of particular types of houses, their reconstruction, including interior equipment, and the position of the house as a part of a homestead (P. Šalkovský, 2001). One of the first surveys of deserted villages in Slovakia was carried out on the site of Zalužany (Nemešany). Out of the constructs in the village B. Pollov (1962) succeeded in excavating the church and the manor. The manor consisted of a fenced yard with a residential tower and other added

Figure 3: Ground plan of the deserted medieval village of Svídna (Kladno district) acquired by archaeological measuring, according to Z. Smetánka.

Figure 4: Svídna. Deserted medieval village (Kladno district). Comparison of archaeological documentation of object relics with archaeological survey, according to Z. Smetánka.



Research on Rural Settlements in Europe rooms interpreted as a cold chamber, a kitchen and an oven. In the area of the yard, there were also a smithy and a sheepfold. Surveys of deserted medieval villages from 13th–15th century in Slovakia were carried out in the following locations: Bajč–Medzi kanálmi (M. Ruttkay, 1989, 299– 310), Blatnica–Sebeslavce (M. Hanuliak, 1975, 170–189), Branč, Velká Ves–Arkuš (I. Cheben – J. Ruttkayová – M. Ruttkay, 1995, 30–36), Gortva–Bizovo (A. Habovštiak, 1985, 270–271), Pavľany–Krigov (D. Čaplovič, F. Javorský, 1990, 69–121), Poltár (I. Hrubec, 1971, 69–79) and Svinica (D. Čaplovič, 1981, 499–504). In the surveyed locations partially entrenched single-room constructions and semi-subterranean structures from as late as the high Middle Ages were traced (Branč, Velká Ves – Arkuš; Svinica). A single-chamber house with stone foundations and with an entrenched fire pit in the middle of the construction was discovered in the location of Pavľany–Krigov (obj. 7/82; M. Ruttkay 1998, 58, fig. 23). Besides the fire pit, the house was also equipped with an oven located behind the fire pit by the lengthwise wall. Multiple-chamber houses were also found on this site – structure 5/82 consisting of two rooms (M. Ruttkay, 1998, 59, fig. 25). This structure together with structure 1/81, which has been interpreted as a pantry and structure 8/83 interpreted as a granary formed an enclosed U-shaped yard (M. Ruttkay, 1998, 58, fig. 24). Figure 5: Chľaba (Nové Zámky district, Slovakia). Homestead ground plan, object 57a: 1 – barn, 2 – three-part house, A – hall, B – chamber, C – pantry, 3 – fence, 4 – part of a sacristy, 5 – yard. According to M. Hanuliak.

Auxiliary buildings excavated in Chľaba represent entrenched pantries with postholes along their exposed walls whose function was to support the floor of the tier construction. These pantries are identical to those excavated in Mstěnice and Pfaffenschlag. Besides auxiliary buildings, a ground plan of an L-shaped three-part house was discovered in Chľaba (Fig. 5). Walls of the house were formed by posts embedded in foundation grooves, which were filled up with dirt. Walling above the ground was constructed of wattle and daub (M. Hanuliak, 1982, 103–112).

and believes that other constructions on the site were systematically arranged in rows bounded by a network of trenches (M. Ruttkay, 1998, 58, fig. 24; 1999, 26–27). Hungary Important information about development of the medieval village of the High and Late Middle Ages has been brought by research in Hungary. The ground plan of settlements in Hungary can be classified as the road-like type. Excavated ground plans of houses and auxiliary buildings indicate regularity and methodicalness of the housing development, which can be observed in villages of Móric, Csút, Nyársapát and Sarvaly (I. Holl, 1985, 247).

Recently, it is M. Ruttkay who has focused on research of rural settlements on the territory of Slovakia (1998, 37– 66; 1999, 7–40). In his contributions, he pays attention to both research history and research results accomplished in particular locations. In relation to the development of the rural house, Ruttkay believes that the three-part house had gradually evolved from a stand-alone single-room house and a stand-alone pantry later interconnected by a hall (M. Ruttkay 1998, 52–60). The state of research in Slovakia does not allow the exploration of the characteristics of rural settlements in detail. Based on data acquired in Chotín and Nitra (Párovské Háje), we can hypothetically assume that the arrangement of homestead constructions dates back to the middle of the 12th century (M. Ruttkay 1999, 31). Ruttkay also gives an example of a settlement in Pavľany–Krigov 

The village of Móric was founded at the beginning of the 15th century and perished at the beginning of the 17th century. A survey has discovered 21 structures forming a village ground plan of an irregular triangle. The distance between the houses was 40–60 metres. Ground plans of the houses were of a rectangular shape 17–21 m long and 4–6 m wide. The houses were divided crosswise into three rooms. The middle room was equipped with an open fire pit and it was interpreted as a kitchen. One of the other

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages rooms was heated by an oven located also in the middle room. The third room had no source of heat and most probably served as a pantry or even a shed. The centre of the village was assigned for a church.

stone walls. Ground plan dispositions show that the houses were not of the same size. In addition to double-chamber houses, there were also found three-, four- or even fivechamber ones. Cellarage was excavated in both smaller and bigger houses. Ten homesteads had no cellarage at all. The existence of cellarage in this village was probably related to viticulture.

Research in Nyársapát has brought the most for understanding aspects of social differentiation within the medieval village. Houses in Nyársapát were distributed in two rows along a creek within the average distance of 20 m from each other. Some houses were of the single-room type while others were three-part houses. The differences in ground plan were also reflected in building technology (wattle-and-daub walls, stone foundations, hammeredin partitions). This village existed as early as in the 13th century and perished in 1658 during a Turkish invasion (I. Holl, 1970, 374–375). A manor was erected in the village as late as in the 15th century. It stood opposite a church.

The houses were heated by an oven usually located in the corner of the first room. Ovens were made of clay; some of them had a stone bedding and a stone-tiled muzzle. Finds of tiles in two houses (17 and 23) prove that they were equipped with a tile stove. In two cases auxiliary buildings were orthogonally attached to residential houses forming a homestead of the hook type. Freestanding auxiliary buildings located behind the house were interpreted as cowsheds; in one case – based on an analogy from vernacular architecture – as a barn (I. Holl – N. Parádi, 1982).

The best example of the road-like village type was Csút existing from 13th to 15th century. Homesteads in Csút were situated on both sides of a road. The south-western row was shorter and included a church located in an off-centre position.

Austria In the territory of neighbouring Austria, archaeological research has been carried out in the deserted medieval village of Hard. This site is found in the forest near the town of Thaya in Waldviertel. Ten homesteads were distributed in two rows forming a very narrow central common. The distance between the rows was about 10 metres (Fig. 7). Gables of the houses faced the central common. In several places stone foundations of the houses were up to one metre tall. The houses usually consisted of one wing divided crosswise into three or four rooms. Research also documented one two-wing construction. At a homestead in the southern part of the village, two

A systematic archaeological survey was carried out on the site of the deserted medieval village of Sarvaly (I. Holl – N. Parádi, 1982). The most important construction in Sarvaly was a church, which was apparently erected in three phases. This conclusion is based on finds of both extensions and Romanesque and Gothic architectural components. There was a cemetery surrounded by a stone wall spread around the church. Only a part of the burial site (34 tombs) was excavated. The initial phase of the church construction dates back to the second half of the 11th century or to the 12th century. According to Holl and Parádi the second construction phase began in the second half of the 13th century. A sacristy was added in the 14th century. Out of other rural constructions, the survey uncovered 21 ground plans of residential and auxiliary buildings and traces of two other structures (Fig. 6). Based on excavated inventory the researchers believe that the unearthed ground plans come from the period of the 14th–15th century. The village was destroyed at the beginning of the 16th century. It follows from the time classification of the excavated structures that the oldest settlement proved by the existence of the church from the 12th century was not found. The researchers believe that it was located somewhat more to the north of the excavation site. Ground plans of excavated constructions both residential and auxiliary were distinguished by stone foundations consisting mostly of one layer. There were usually rocks of a bigger size in corners. Considering the fact that no other rocks, their remains or remains of mortar or postholes were found, the above-ground parts of the houses were made of wood with a wattle-and-daub construction. Only cellarage entrenched by two-thirds found under five houses had

Figure 6: Sarvaly (Hungary). Ground plan of the deserted medieval village, according to I. Holl and N. Parádi.



Research on Rural Settlements in Europe research activities on location of Altenrode and Hohenrode (P. Grimm, 1934, 1939). Both of these surveys were important not only from the point of view of material culture, but they also highlighted the importance of archaeology for studying the medieval village. Deserted villages had mostly been thought to exist in the late Middle Ages. However, the survey in Altenrode came to a conclusion that the location had perished as early as in the 12th century.



One of the largest surveys before World War II was carried out in Hohenrode in South Harz. The survey proved two phases of a settlement; the older phase lasting from the 10th–12th century and the younger one from the 12th–14th century. At the settlement of the younger period, the survey discovered traces of the presence of Slavic people. Constructions of the older village were partly entrenched and partly overground with a post framework. Fire pits were located in the corner. In the younger village, constructions were erected on the ground level on a stone bedding. Residential houses were built on a rectangular ground plan with rounded corners (Fig. 8). In the inside, the houses were divided into two chambers. The fire pit was usually located in a smaller room by the partition. The houses were about 15 metres long and 7–8 metres wide. In addition to residential houses, the survey discovered auxiliary buildings such as granaries (those were entrenched), cellars and structures with a fire pit or an oven Figure 7: Hard. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village (Waldviertel, Austria), (so-called “Feuerhäuser”). In the according to S. Felgenhauer-Schmiedt. village of Hohenrode there were several homesteads consisting of tower constructions were discovered at both ends of a three constructions – a house, a granary and a structure longitudinal yard development. The towers together with with a fire pit. The homesteads were bounded by low the courtyard closed the central common. At the west end of stone or earthen walls. Life in Hohenrode perished the homestead, there was a tunnel leading south-east from around 1400. the tower. The village was probably founded in the 13th century and perished in the 14th century (S. FelgenhauerAnother deserted medieval village in South Harz subjected Schmiedt, 1996, 251–261). to archaeological research was Königshagen (W. Janssen, 1965). Research discovered three types of houses. The Germany first type W. Janssen describes as single-chamber rightangled houses most often with the dimensions of 8 by 6 P. Grimm can be rightly considered a pioneer in research metres that bordered the edge of a moat and respected of deserted medieval villages. During the 1930s, he led its curvature. Wattle-and-daub walls of the houses were

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 8: Hohenrode (Hessen, Germany). Ground plan of the deserted medieval village, according to P. Grimm.

Figure 9: Königshagen (Germany). Reconstruction of the village from post-1250 based on archaeological research by W. Janssen.

erected on a stone bedding. The inside equipment of the houses consisted of a fire pit surrounded by vertically positioned flat rocks. Some of the houses were already equipped with a stove.

The second type was represented by homesteads, which consisted of just the residential house. There were no auxiliary buildings by them. The lack of such farming buildings was substituted by cellars under the living 

Research on Rural Settlements in Europe quarters. According to Janssen, these houses indicate a social differentiation within the village.

Research from the deserted village of Gommersted in Thuringia represents a valuable contribution. The origin of this settlement dates back to the 8th century. Regarding the oldest period, the survey focused on remains of a small hamlet. Discovered constructions erected on stone foundations originated at the end of the 11th century and in the 12th century. In the 13th and 14th centuries four homesteads, a fortified manor house, a church and a barn existed there.

The third group was represented by two-chamber houses as well, which however were a part of homesteads consisting of several constructions. The most significant one was homestead I, which represents the only proof of a quadrilateral courtyard development on the territory of Germany. The houses of the third type consisted of two rooms where one of them – the rustic chamber – was equipped with a fire pit. The house was joined with a cowshed. There was another 12-metre-long and 4 to 5-metrewide construction located rectangularly to the cowshed. The purpose of this building remains unclear. A large volume of burnt wood on the site indicates a wooden construction. A third building with the dimensions of 9 x 5–6 metres was attached rectangularly as well and finally there was a fourth building enclosing the quadrilateral courtyard development. It had however been destroyed by a road construction. There was probably an entrance to the courtyard on this (southern) side of the homestead. Such courtyard development corresponds with homestead types discovered near Thüringen and in central Germany.

The fortified manor house can be characterized as the “motte” type. On its plateau, there was at first a wooden tower, which was later replaced by a stone one (W. Timpel, 1982). Important data about the medieval village from the period at the end of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century was brought by a survey at Machnower Krummen Fenn in Berlin–Zehlendorf (A. Müller, 1971, 152–154; A. v. Müller–L. und A. Orgel–Köhne, 1980). Homesteads consisting of a one-chamber house, an auxiliary building (granary) formed a horseshoe-shaped distribution along a central common (a more detailed description of this homestead can be found in chapter 14). An overview of surveys on rural settlements in eastern Germany from the period of the Early and the High Middle Ages was put together by E. Gringmuth – Dallmer (1996, 17–28). Poland

Next to the quadrilateral development research in Königshagen found homesteads of a hook type. The centre of the village was occupied by a church around which small houses of the first type were distributed (Fig. 9). Königshagen was founded in 1130–1150 and perished at the beginning of the 15th century. Every village has a farming base – a croft. In several places in Königshagen, there were still evident long strips of fields.

Archaeological research in Poland brought lots of information on the development of rural settlements primarily from the period of the Early Middle Ages. (e.g. Filipowiak, 1972, 167–194; Lodowski 1980). An overview of accomplished surveys based on acquired data has been compiled by two authors: Z. Kurnatowska (1988/89, 163–178) and S. Moździoch (1996, 282–295). It follows from their analyses that archaeological research of rural settlements did not exceed the 13th century. Z. Kurnatowska (1988/89, 165) states that even in the late Middle Ages mostly oval pit-dwellings with open fire pits prevailed. Pit-dwellings with a right-angled ground plan were very rare. Overground houses occurred more often during the high Middle Ages, however, together with pitdwellings. The author gives an example of a survey of a settlement from the 15th–16th century at Brutino–Koski led by K. Musianowicz (1975, 342–386). The ground plan of the settlement at Skenczniew from the 10th–14th century represents mostly one-chamber houses distributed in several regular rows with an exception of two rectangular house ground plans, which could have been divided into two or three rooms in the inside (Z. Kurnatowska, 1988/89, 173, fig. 4).

Besides agriculture, handicrafts such as pottery, metalworking and in surrounding forests even glass-making were also present in Königshagen. Results of the archaeological surveys carried out on the territory of south-western Germany have been published by G. P. Fehring (1973, 1–35). In spite of the fact that there were discovered numerous constructions on individual settlements such as semi-subterranean structures, surface structures, wells, ovens, fire pits and traces of fencing, the surveys failed to uncover a complete homestead on any of the sites. In 1976 a now-finished survey started on the site of the deserted medieval village of Holzheim near Fritzlar. This location was populated in as early as the Iron Age (900– 400 B.C.) and then from Roman times until the beginning of the 15th century. In the village, there was a church and a fortified manor out of which the survey focused on remains of a circular construction protected by a rampart and a moat (R. Wand, 1983). Many of the entrenched as well as surface constructions on the site come from the Early Middle Ages.

England



Archaeology in England plays an important role in research of medieval villages in the European region. Such a statement can be supported by the existence of an extensive publication entitled “Deserted Medieval Villages” by

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages produced exceptionally well-documented house ground plans. J. G. Hurst paid a great deal of attention to these ground plans in his work. He states that the rural house in England from the Anglo-Saxon period until the 12th and 13th centuries was built either from wood (post constructions), clay or turf. Stone as a building material for rural houses appeared as late as in the second half of the 12th century. In a similar way as in continental Europe, Anglo-Saxon houses were partly entrenched (semisubterranean structures) and partly built on ground level. J. G. Hurst believes that entrenched buildings belonged to less wealthy peasants or could have been used as manufactory constructions, especially for a production of fabric. In England just as in central Europe significant changes in medieval rural development occurred during the 12th–13th century. A characteristic feature Figure 10: Wharram Percy (England). Documentation of relics of the deserted medieval village, of these changes was a according to M. Beresford and J. G. Hurst. transition from wooden to stone constructions. J. G. M. Beresford and G. Hurst (1971), which summarizes Hurst believes that the transition evolved as a consequence existing results of archaeological surveys carried out at of a variety of social and economic factors. 290 locations. This respectable amount of data provides us with a solid knowledge base for studying the development The development of the rural homestead in the Middle of the house and auxiliary buildings, history of settlements, Ages has been well explained by archaeological research. and the social and economic history of rural people. The A house belonging to members of the lowest social class research is being carried out all over the country so as was a simple one- or two-chamber peasant cot with an to provide information on the typology of settlements attached shed which could have evolved from a former pitin different geographical conditions. Naturally, on such dwelling. Further development led to a long house (longus a large scale of surveys there are differences in quality. domus). This kind of house was of the three-chamber type That was the reason why J. G. Hurst paid attention to the that centralized both living quarters and sheds for animals methodology and scale of his work. Particularly surveys divided by a transverse hall. Such a house is considered to carried out before World War II, as well as some later be a typical residence of the medieval peasant. ones, were unsatisfactory for their research techniques. Especially the probe technique proved to be unsuitable A third type of house is represented by a spatial division of for surveying settlements for its incapability to span all the living quarters from auxiliary buildings – a so-called constructions and their relations to the surroundings. Area “farm”. The central construction of the homestead was the excavations of a large extent are much more effective. residential house. The barn and the cowshed had become An example of such a survey is the site of Wharram separate buildings. These three buildings could have been Percy where a systematic large area excavation has been located in a variety of groupings – the most usual was the underway since 1950 (Fig. 10). Area excavations have hook type. This type later developed due to the addition of 10

Research on Rural Settlements in Europe more constructions around the courtyard and the erection of walls or palings to bind the whole homestead.

Études in Paris and the universities of Caen and Aixen Provence. Surveys on several locations of deserted villages started in the 1960s in cooperation with Polish archaeologists under the management of W. Hensl. Survey results accomplished in four locations (Montaigut, SaintJean de Froid, Dracy and Condorcet) were published in 1970 in two volumes under the title of “Archéologie du Village Déserté”.

Archaeological research most often covers heating devices. English medieval homesteads generally used a fire pit of a various shape. Fire pit construction varied from simple pits in the floor to solid ones built of clay and rocks. In addition to an open fire pit, houses in some regions were equipped with an oven.

There was still a church standing on the location of Montaigut (about 55 km north-east of Toulouse) as the last evidence of the long-disappeared village. The survey discovered three phases. The oldest one reached back to the 10th century. From the oldest period the survey focused on a fortification with a rampart and a moat. The survey was unable to examine the housing development inside the fortification due to a destruction caused by fire. The second phase (11th–12th century) also dealt with a fortification which can be regarded as a manor. There was a wall built on the remains of the rampart which bounded the house and auxiliary buildings of the manor. The ending of the second phase was characterized by a rubble layer of masonry and the evening out of the rampart and the moat. The third phase included a settlement from the 13th–14th century as well as a younger period of the 16th–17th century.

Floors were mostly earthen or paved with stone. In two cases the survey discovered traces of a wood floor. Even less archaeological evidence has been discovered for the construction of the roof or methods of roofing. Based on evidence of a poor lifespan, J. G. Hurst believes that the houses must have been only superficially roofed. An important discovery for studying the development of medieval villages was the fact that the village ground plan was not stable but rather changed over time. Peasant houses did not have a permanent position. In many villages houses were rebuilt on totally new foundations and also very often with a different orientation by the next generation of their inhabitants. A good example is the settlement in Wharram Percy where the houses changed their orientation as much 90°. Such practices are hard to understand – it would have been more natural do reuse the previously built foundations. The changes where two homesteads merged into one are to be pointed out in particular. The medieval village was subject to a permanent change. Such changes were not only limited to rebuilding or merging individual homesteads, but included a complex reorganisation of the whole village ground plan. Not even churches remained in a permanent place. New church buildings were often erected together with the reorganization of the village.

Finds most often represented in the collection are: clayware, especially pots with lips and handles; furthermore metal items, animal bones, glassware and weapons. In 1964–1967 archaeological research was carried out in the deserted medieval village of Saint-Jean-le-Froid which is located 986 m above sea level. Remains of a settlement are represented by a small rural homestead and still visible ruins of a chapel. The village was first documented in 1099. Archaeological research focused on the village fortification whose rampart was still evident; furthermore on the actual village and a church with a cemetery. One of the findings of research was that the oldest church was erected in the 11th century, possibly replacing an even older one built from wood. It was a small village of four homesteads. The main source of a living was probably pastural farming. There was also a blacksmith, a potter and a coppersmith (a find of a forge for processing copper or bronze) in the village. The fortification originates from after 1282. The village was surrounded by a stone wall, a rampart and a moat. The youngest finds come from the 15th–16th century.

It is important to study the manor house and possibly the church for understanding the economic development of the village. Archaeological research carried out in such a way provides us with an opportunity to cover both of the social sectors of a rural settlement (the village and the manor house) and their place in the material culture. So far 22 churches have been surveyed on locations of deserted medieval villages in England. It follows from the given examples that research of deserved medieval settlements in England represents an important contribution to studying the development of the medieval society and especially the way of life of the medieval peasant. Information on new surveys of rural settlements from mostly the Early Middle Ages on the territory of England and Ireland can be found in proceedings published for the conference Ruralia I, Prague 1995 (PA–Supplemetum 5, 1996, 72–153).

Another surveyed village was Condorcet situated about 50 km from the town of Orange. It is noteworthy that at the beginning of the 20th century this village was still partly inhabited. There is a written reference to the village from as early as the 10th century. Research has examined only a small area of about 400 m2.

France

Another deserted village Dracy was excavated in Burgundy about 55 km from Dijon. It is stated in written sources that in 1285 the village consisted of 15 houses (hearths), i.e. about 70 inhabitants, in 1393–1400 the number dropped

The centre of research of medieval village on the territory of France is the 6th division of École Pratique des Hautes 11

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages to 4 hearths and in 1423 the village was completely abandoned. The first research phase detected only 6 houses and a part of a semi-subterranean structure. Research on this location continued until 1978 and the final number of discovered constructions was 19 (Piponnier 1984, 278). Several houses (I, II, X, XIV) were divided into two chambers. The houses were completely built from stone. Unimpaired walling was up to 2 m tall with preserved niches, windows and entrance doors. The big number of finds gives evidence of the origin of the medieval village towards the close of the 12th century or at the beginning of the 13th century.

context of economic, social and spiritual development. Their work provides characteristics of the development in the period of 11th–15th century in western Europe based on systematic research of Rougiers in France, Wharram Percy in England and Hohenrode in Germany. In addition to research results, archaeologists in France have another important source at their disposal. It is the work of a French historian E. Le Roy Ladurie about the village of Montaillou. The ground of the book lies in inquisition records conducted by Jacques Fournier in the years of 1318–1325. P. Charvát and Z. Smetánka tested the possibility to study the life of the medieval village based on an analysis of this work (1982, 219– 235). Furthermore F. Šmahel was another author who attempted to analyse the work in a general historical context (1982, 303–308). The work contains information on the agricultural homestead relevant to the topic of this publication. The homestead in Montaillou consisted of a house which included a kitchen with an open fireplace in the middle. There was clayware laid out around the fireplace such as pots, pans, bowls and pitchers. There were benches and a table positioned probably by the wall. The kitchen was connected with a chamber referred to as a cellar with beds for the house owner and his wife. There were other chambers around the kitchen for other members of the household. In some houses people and animals lived under the same roof. The homestead also consisted of a poultry-yard and a dungheap. The yard was connected with a threshing floor. Large homesteads consisted of additional constructions and grounds such as a garden, an ox pen, a dovecote, a hogpen, a sheep pen, a barn and a well. The author states that such large homesteads were rare in Montaillou.

From the period of the 13th–15th century archaeological research (1987–1994) examined a village near Caen, which written sources from the end of the 14th until the middle of the 15th century refer to as “Trainecourt” (Taupin 1996, 211–216). Research provided information on the development of the village from the 13th–15th century. The second phase of the development dates back to the end of the 13th when a substantial construction was erected in the middle of the village. The construction was exceptional for both its size (300 m2) and design. Twelve houses in the village were demolished in order to provide room for this new complex which was considerably different also in the number of auxiliary buildings. The researchers believe that it was a manor house. Half of the houses burnt down, probably during the Hundred Years’ War. The third phase is characterised by a decline of the village and a new arrangement of residential houses and auxiliary buildings within the yard. Towards the close of the 14th century the village consisted of 11 homesteads enclosed by stone walling situated on both sides of a road. There was a well approximately in the middle of the village (Taupin 1996).

It is apparent from the overview of research of medieval villages in Europe that data acquired from archaeological research in Moravia plays an important role in studying the overall development of the medieval village, agricultural production and its impact on the arrangement and structure of the medieval settlement. From this point of view archaeological research of medieval villages all over Europe significantly contributes to solving fundamental questions of economic and social history.

An overview of results of archaeological research of rural settlements in France was brought by J. M. Pesez, 1996, (171–175). Existing knowledge of development of medieval dwellings and rural settlements on the territory of western and partly northern Europe from 1300–1500 was summarised by J. Chapelot and R. Fossier (1980). These authors follow the life of the medieval village in a broad

12

Research on Rural Settlements in Moravia

Out of the locations surveyed in Moravia whose existence dates back to the 13th–15th century, the most significant ones are the deserted villages of Pfaffenschlag, Mstěnice, Bystřec and Konůvky. While the former two were populated prior to the 13th century, settlements in Bystřec and Konůvky occur only during the 13th century. All four villages then decline in the 15th century.

central common type. The homesteads consisted of rather large three-part houses mostly with multi-storey chambers, cow barns, sheds, cellars and in two cases also underground passageways (V. Nekuda, 1975). The two phases of settlement in Pfaffenschlag provided us with an opportunity to compare changes in the equipment of the homesteads and the overall structure of the village. Important information on economical and social conditions was acquired primarily from the comparison of agricultural production and livestock-keeping (V. Nekuda, 1978, 171–182).

The village of Pfaffenschlag is the first systematically surveyed location on the territory of the present-day Czech Republic where a complete survey has been carried out and a ground plan of the whole village has been acquired (Fig. 11). The settlement of the Middle Ages was preceded by an older one which perished around the middle of the 12th century. Approximately after a hundred years a new village was founded whose ground plan was successfully uncovered by the survey. There were 16 homesteads distributed in two rows alongside a creek. In relation to its ground plan, Pfaffenschlag represents a village of the

Using various methods of natural science research, particularly palaeobotany, wood analyses and archaeomagnetics, together with archaeological sources, V. Nekuda succeeded in providing a unique and perfect picture of a village of the High Middle Ages. The research represents a significant contribution to studying

Figure 11: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

13

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages fired remains of wall daub found during the survey season of 1989. The presence of gates in villages in South Moravia is documented in the Liechtenstein Land and Duties Register from 1414 which states that one of the duties of crofters was to close gates for the night (Bretholz, 1930, 37, 38, 145–146). Homestead XIV in the row on the southern side occupied a special position. The residential building of the homestead was oriented lengthwise to the central common and its dimensions have been the largest so far. All other residential houses were of a gable orientation towards the central common and the frontage of their fencing walls was equipped by a gateway or possibly by smaller Figure 12: Mstěnice. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. Illustration by Z. Špičák. entrance gates (e.g. homestead V). The overall arrangement not only dwellings and auxiliary buildings, but also the of homesteads uncovered to date gives evidence of a natural environment and economic activities of their systematic development of the medieval village which can inhabitants. In relation to the historical development be characterized as the central common type. In Mstěnice of settlements, Pfaffenschlag serves as an important such a type was formed in the second half of the 13th illustration for understanding medieval colonisation (V. century. Nekuda, 1975). The research in Mstěnice uncovered important information No less important sources for constructing a profile of the on the dwellings of gentry. A family of landed gentry village of the High Middle Ages have been brought by came to Mstěnice at the end of the 12th century and lived systematic research in Mstěnice. Even though research has in a hill-fort lookout station built outside the village (Fig. not yet been completed, the so far accomplished results in 13). Around the middle of the 13th century the hill-fort the field of organisation and equipment of the agricultural perished and a new manor – a fortress – was erected inside homestead as well as urbanistic characteristics of the whole the village, occupying a predominant position. A surface site have proved how important archaeological sources are survey uncovered its whole ground plan and a large amount for reconstructing the medieval village. of unharmed walling allowed for a reconstruction of its likely appearance. The main building material was stone, Results of this research have been published in numerous as proved partly by remains of walling and partly by a articles as well as the following monographs which are significant amount of stonework ruins. Roofs of particular also referred to in Bibliography: Mstěnice 1 (V. Nekuda, buildings were covered by shingles. Existence of this kind 1985), Mstěnice 2 (R. Nekuda – V. Nekuda, 1997) and of roofing was substantiated by numerous finds of roofing Mstěnice 3 (V. Nekuda, 2001). nails which were used to attach shingles. The main building of the stronghold was a prism tower standing approximately The ground plan of the village from the Middle Ages in the middle of the fortified area. On the east side of the covered a substantial part of the older settlement. Out of surrounding walling there was a probably one-storey 17 uncovered homesteads to date, 10 of them formed a building of two chambers – a so-called “palace”. There was continuous development with a gable orientation towards another building in the sought-east corner of the fortified the central common in the shape of an elongated arc on the area. The survey also discovered an entrance to the fortress northern side. The same grouping can be observed on the to which a wooden bridge led. The fortress was surrounded opposite southern part (Fig. 12). Between the two rows by an 11-metre wide moat. In relation to the fact that the there was an oval central common whose biggest span was number of preserved fortresses in Moravia is very small more than 30 m whereas on the eastern side the rows came (Pyšel, Nárameč in Třebíč district, Drahanovice in Prostějov as near as 8 m. It is possible to assume that there was a gate district), the result of the survey in Mstěnice is an important in this place since its existence can be derived from more illustration of the appearance of a fortified dwelling of than a 10-centimetre thick layer of burnt wood and redlanded gentry in the Middle Ages (Figs 14a & 14b). 14

Research on Rural Settlements in Moravia

Figure 13: Mstěnice. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the hill-fort. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Figure 14a: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. View of the fortress and moat. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

15

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages There was a kiln-house for drying grain with a barn outside the area of the manor yard. The kiln occupied a smaller part of the building and it was equipped with a heating flue. This construction also belongs to significant finds on the territory of the present-day Czech Republic documenting means of agricultural production and the way crops were processed (Fig. 15). On the hillock above the fortress there were discovered two advanced fortifications of a defence character. The fortifications above the fortress were protected by two trenches and a rampart. In the centre of the fortification system stood a cylindrical tower whose ground plan was defined by two palisade trenches 6.8 m wide in diameter (Fig. 16). The other advance fortification stood approximately 100 m from the tower and its purpose was to protect the entrance to the village. At the foot of the hill on whose top the second advance fortification was situated there led a road to the village. The origin of both the fortifications dates back to the end of the 13th century.

Figure 14b: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the fortress and the manor. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Based on the rich collection of finds acquired during the survey of the fortress, research also focused on the economic and social status of its owners. This research was carried out with help of written sources as well (V. Nekuda, 1985, 177–186).

Systematic archaeological research continued with a geophysical survey (V. Hašek – R. Nekuda, 1999, 496–503) whose purpose was to specify the location of a mill which is documented in the Public Land Records of the Moravian Province of 1407 (ZDB IX, no. 152, p. 261). The fortress with the manor and the mill was then sold “municionem cum villa et curia, ac molendino” by Vok ml. of Holštejn and his wife Kateřina of Mstěnice to Přibík of Radkov and his descendants. In 1998 a geophysical survey was applied to better delimit the area of the presumptive medieval mill (R. Nekuda, 1998, 219–222). In 1999 an archaeological survey began on the area of 500 m2 on which the geophysical survey had discovered numerous anomalies. After topsoil had been removed there was discovered a significant volume of stonework ruins concentrated mostly in the western half of the surveyed area. After the area had been cleaned and scattered rocks removed joint masonry loomed in the eastern part of the site which turned out to

The economic base of the fortress was a manor. The manor was separated from the fortress by a moat in written sources also referred to as a curia. The manor in Mstěnice was of a regular rectangular ground plan (40 x 25 m) surrounded by buildings all around its peripheral walling so that the inner area of the manor was completely enclosed. Foundations of all buildings were made of stone. They represented remains of a threepart house on the northern side, stables and cowsheds on the southern side and a sheepfold and a smithy on the eastern side. The southern side was closed by a wall by which other sheds was located. Research of the manor in Mstěnice brought the first archaeological evidence of a landed gentry’s residence in the Czech lands from before the Hussite period.

Figure 15: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the manor. Overall view. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

16

Research on Rural Settlements in Moravia the extent of research. Research activities were originally of a preserving character, however they later adapted a systematic form. The deserted medieval village of Bystřec is situated in the meadow tract Rakovec in the southeastern part of the cadastre of Jedovnice. The axis of the medieval village was formed by the Rakovec creek. There were visible humps stretching to the distance of 500 m alongside the creek, having remained after construction of the original settlement. It was thanks to Ervín Černý that not only the village, but also its ploughland, was located (E. Černý 1970, 34; 1971, 194). Research on this location applied geophysical magnetic survey on an area of 5.4 ha. The goal of this method was to detect the overall dislocation, possibly the size of particular constructions, and compare the results with a terrain localisation of the village ground plan created by E. Černý (1970). It was apparent from resulting magnetic anomaly maps that the objects of the survey were represented by mostly positive, and in some places also linearly oriented negative, anomalies of the geomagnetic field. These anomalies suggest positions of particular square or rectangular homesteads (houses, auxiliary buildings, etc.), of interpreted sizes of approximately 3 x 5 m, 10 x 10 m, possibly 15 x 10 m (V. Hašek – J. Kovárník, 1996). Due to the intensity and extent of particular anomalies it was possible to assume that they reflected mostly combinations of layers of red-fired daub, ovens, metal items, entrenched objects, possibly wells and relicts of walling. The overall comparison of positions of particular homesteads according to E. Černý, with the geophysical interpretation and the archaeological survey, suggested that the results of the geomagnetic survey provided more specific information on both the number and the location of present constructions situated mainly on morphological elevations in the terrain as well as their size (Fig. 17). A larger extent of settlement than assumed by the results of the surface survey could not be excluded (L. Belcredi, V. Hašek, J. Unger 1991, V. Hašek – J. Unger 1998). Archaeological research following the geophysical survey confirmed its main conclusions.

Figure 16: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Foregrounded fortification above the fortress. Palisade trenches. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

be a part of a bigger building complex as shown by another survey in the following season. Out of villages whose origin dates back to the high Middle Ages archaeological research was carried out in the following locations: Konůvky near Slavkov, Bystřec near Blansko, Teplany (also Topolany) in Břeclav district. The village of Bystřec represents an important location due to

Figure 17: Bystřec. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. 1 – discovered structures, 2 – significantly damaged structures, 3 – homestead plots, 4 – creek, 5 – roads, 6 – contour lines 5 m apart, 7 – contour lines 1 m apart, P – spring site, B – moor. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

17

So far the survey has discovered 19 homesteads.

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages The homesteads were spread on both banks of the creek. The distance between them varies from 60 m to 80 m (L. Belcredi, 1999, 69). The importance of this research lies mainly in the opportunity to compare the results of both the overall urbanistic arrangement of the village and its particular homesteads with research results obtained in south-west Moravia, particularly in Mstěnice and Pfaffenschlag. The villages in south-west Moravia seem to show a more advanced level of economic development.

was taken over by Z. Měchurová (1997). Even though she depended on documentation complied by D. Šaurová for evaluating the terrain survey, Z. Měchurová significantly contributed to understanding the material culture of the medieval village by her classification of the rich collection of finds. The village was found in a valley alongside a creek in an area of visible terrain elevations. The elevations were distributed on a stretch of 368 m on the right and 480 m on the left bank of a creek. The distance between the two rows varied. The maximum reached 44 m. Based on its ground plan type, Konůvky can be classified as a short row-type village. The terrain traces suggested approximately 30 homesteads although experience from Bystřec show that not every elevation necessarily contains a construction (Fig. 18).

Another contribution of research in Bystřec lies in a richness of finds which proves a sudden death of the settlement caused by fire, probably at the beginning of the 15th century (L. Belcredi, 1988, 459–485). The results in Bystřec are similar to data acquired by research of another deserted village in central Moravia – Konůvky in the Slavkov region. Systematic research of this site was carried out in 1960–1977 under supervision of D. Šaurová (1967, 163–174; 1973, 169–183; 1978, 347–354). When D. Šaurová passed away, the research

The survey uncovered 17 ground plans of houses, a fortress and a church with a cemetery. The village was founded around the middle of the 13th century and its decline was newly estimated during the period of the Hussite Wars (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 148).

Figure 18: Konůvky near Slavkov. Ground plan of the deserted medieval village. 1 – unearthed house plans, 2 – possible structures, 3 – numerous unearthed and non-unearthed structures, 4 – significant terrain

18

Research on Rural Settlements in Moravia Ground plans of houses in Konůvky are of an L-shape with their long sides oriented toward the creek (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 17–27).

settlement was represented by a circle of about 150 m in diameter. The survey discovered three ovens for burning lime, an underground passageway and storage pits. No residential buildings were found. The village is documented in written sources as of 1257; its death is estimated at the beginning of the 15th century (J. Unger, 1984, 65–100, M. Bálek – J. Unger, 1994, 191–197).

Data from surveys of a preserving character on other locations of deserted medieval villages are only sketchy; for example the villages of Topolany near Vranovice and Bořanovice near Přibice both in Břeclav district. The whole site of the village of Topolany had been intersected by ameliorative grooves. The site was situated on the area of approximately 17.500 m2. The area with traces of a

On the location of the village of Bořanovice (also Borovice) near Přibice research has only just discovered a settlement from the older fortification period. From the younger

Figure 19: Rýmařov, Bezručova Street. Ground plan of a part of the medieval settlement. 1 – contour lines, 2 – survey lines, 3 – structures of phase I, 4 – structures of phase II, 5 – structures of phase III, 6 – contour lines of phase III, 7 – structure XX, 8 – structure of phase IV, 9 – relative point heights, 10 – structure numbers, according to Goš – Novák – Karel, 1985.

19

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages period of fortification only a sole construction dating from the 14th–15th century has been excavated (J. Unger, 1977, 260).

Žabčice in Brno-venkov district (J. Unger, 1994). The fortress was built on an elevated location protected by a moat and a rampart. Research also focused on a nearby early Gothic church. The location of the actual village is defined by an area of 200 x 300 m. No survey has yet been carried out on this site (Z. Měřínský – J. Unger, 1983, 119–135).

An important location in northern Moravia is the deserted village on the territory of the town Rýmařov around Bezručova Street (Fig. 19). A preserving survey found that the origin of this village dates back to the middle of the 13th century and its death to the very beginning of the 14th century. Despite the short time-period of the settlement’s existence, it was possible to distinguish between four phases of colonization (V. Goš – J. Novák – J. Karel, 1985, 184–227).

Existing research on locations of deserted medieval villages in Moravia has fully proved that the villages were undergoing a qualitative change during the 13th century. This change was manifested both in the ground plan arrangement, equipment and the organisation of particular homesteads. Changes occurring in the fields of agricultural production, and the social and economic status of peasants directly reflected in organisation and equipment of their homesteads.

There were manors in many medieval villages. Systematic archaeological research of such a dwelling was carried out on the location of the deserted village of Koválov near

20

The Agricultural Homestead in Written Sources

Even though this publication is based on results of archaeological research, it is also important to be familiar with written sources closely related to the life of the medieval village. The basic unit of a medieval village was a homestead referred to in written sources as a yardland (laneus). The yardland started to divide into smaller portions as early as during the 14th century, i.e. a threequarter yardland, a half-yardland, a quarter-yardland. According to directions of the Brno Collection of Laws, all yardlands were to be of the same size and should comprise both fertile and unfertile soil. Yardlands were to be measured out with a rope. Only serfs whose land was on the edge of the village were to receive more than others due to a higher risk of their fields being damaged (M. Flodr, 1990; F. Graus, 1957, 91). Besides yardland homesteads villages consisted of homesteads with ploughland smaller that a yardland or even without any land at all (in Latin “curticula”, “curticula minor” or “curticula maior”). For example record fragments of the Brno Chapter from the end of the 14th century document “curticula parva sine agris” in the village of Prace in the Brno-venkov district (V. Nekuda, 1962, 62). Written sources also mention the term “subses” for the homestead of a smaller size. A record from 1268 documents 13 “subsides” in Martinice (near Hrušovany in the Znojmo area). The synonymity of the terms “subses” and “curticula” follows from entries in the Public Land Records of the Moravian Province. In 1379 in the village of Slatina u Hrotovic near Třebíč registered property consisting of three yardlands and a subses was documented (ZDB VI, 736). Eleven years later the Latin text in the Public Land Records of the Moravian Province uses the term curticula instead of subses (ZDB VII, 777).

Třebíč monastery, Zábrdovice monastery, Velehrad and the Olomouc diocese. Due to such transfers to new owners, whether secular or ecclesiastical, peasants became economically dependent, since the land they farmed became the property of a new landlord. The end of the 12th century and beginning of the 13th century thus meant a consolidation of civil-law and property relations codified by the Statutes of Konrád Ota II. J. Žemlička (1997, 286) aptly describes the ties of the gentry to land as “an invasion of nobility to the country”. Both the legal and social status of peasants was changed by the introduction of emfyteutic law. The new conditions were reflected primarily in a new arrangement of ploughland, in an introduction of a threefield system of farming and thus in a new organisation of the homestead as a basic unit of the medieval village. The relationship between the landlord, who was represented by the nobility, or the church and the peasant was also changing. Peasants became subject to aristocracy for a hereditary right of using the land they farmed. Most inkind payments and servant duties were transformed to tax payments in cash. The payments (so-called “interests”) were paid most often in two instalments i.e. in the spring on St. George’s day and in the autumn on St. Wenceslaus day or St. Michael’s day. Out of the ordinary the payment was delivered in one yearly instalment. A record fragment from the Brno Chapter from 1407 lists a yearly payment in the village of Podolí (Brno-venkov district) on St. Wenceslaus (V. Nekuda, 1962, 63). The yearly amount of payment from one yardland was usually one talent, i.e. 64 groschen. However, evidence of both lower and higher payments has been discovered. Besides cash payments, there existed an in-kind rent, most often chickens and eggs, but also cheese, honey and less frequently grain. Corveé duties were limited. For example record fragments of the Brno Chapter from the end of the 14th century and from 1407 list no corveé duties. The land and duties register of the Liechtenstein domain from 1414 also states a duty of one-day ploughing only in four villages. In the village of Jevišovka peasants were to bring together grain and hay for the manor. In addition to the land and duties register, we can also find records of peasant duties in the Books of Summons. For example in the village of Jamolice near Moravský Krumlov, in a record from 1409, a payment of one talent from one yardland per year was ordered. Furthermore, an in-kind rent was prescribed as two chickens and a yardland holder was to plough for three days per year (P II, 153). The village of Vilémov (Třebíč district) consisted of 38 yardlands of which 31 paid 28 groschen on St. Wenceslaus Day and St. George’s Day, in which case the peasants were also to perform their corveé at harvesttime. In any case where they were not under the obligation of performing

Another important written source concerning the status of the medieval peasant at the beginning of the 13th century is the Statutes of the Prince of Znojmo Konrád Ota II. The origin of this document dates back to the end of the 12th century (about 1190, CDB 1, 53), however only the part from the 1320s–1330s has been preserved. The statutes guaranteed the gentry land rights together with inhabitants residing on the land, which sowed the seed of a change of property and economic relationships and hence a change of life in rural villages. D. Třeštík (1979, 142), while characterizing the Czech society of the 13th century, referred to the opinion of F. Palacký, saying that all village inhabitants formed “one big prince village”. During the 12th century many cases emerged that serfs together with their land were gifted to gentry or church institutions. In that way many villages in Moravia became the property of cloisters, such as Hradisko u Olomouce, Louka u Znojma, 21

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages corveé, their rent payment was prescribed as 30 groschen, i.e. one talent short of four groschen by the date stated. The remaining seven yardland holders paid 14 groschen each. All one-yardland homesteads were to deliver two chickens and 16 eggs at Easter. There were also seven crofters (curticulae) in the village who each paid two groschen per year and at harvesttime they were to pile grain and as a one-day duty stack it in the barn. As an in-kind payment crofters delivered one chicken on All Souls’ Day and at Christmas. Two crofters delivered only one chicken (P II, p. 335–336). These examples prove that corveé duties were minimal or they were transformed to payments in cash. Therefore we cannot speak of worsening conditions of the peasants (F. Graus, 1957, 309–311).

village of Bulhary near Břeclav consisted of 31 yardlands, 29 half-yardlands and 15 crofts, i.e. 75 homesteads of various sizes total. However, six yardlands, seven halfyardlands and 12 crofts were unplanted which represents one third of the village. In spite of that, it was a large village of 50 homesteads. Let us assume that the average number of residents per homestead was six and we come to a conclusion that at the beginning of the 15th century the village of Bulhary had 300 inhabitants. In general villages in south Moravia were rather large. The number of homesteads varied from 16 in Nový Přerov to 75 in Bulhary. References to houses in written sources are also related to attacks on villages. The sources state that “things were stolen” (e.g. PO I, 326; PB II, 204) or “the door was broken open and the house searched” (PB II, 419). A record from the beginning of the 15th century documents that a house was torn down and its remains scattered (PO I, 280), grain was stolen and two chambers were ruined (PO I, 247). Another example of an attack on a village was recorded in 1415 (PO II, 314). Racek of Dambořice with peasants attacked the village of Aleš of Milovice where they broke into people’s houses. Based on the above-mentioned record in the Books of Summons, we can assume that it was possible to lock houses. In order for attackers to get into the houses, doors equipped with lock had to be broken open. Such an act is documented by a record on Švábenice from 1406 where doors were broken and locks taken away (PO I, 183). More specific information about the rural house can be found in the Books of Summons from Olomouc. A record from 1511 states that when houses were being built on the land of Václav z Ořechového, Mikuláš and Viktorin of Boršov pledged to sow a barren yardland and to erect two chambers and a hall in 18 weeks (PO VIII, 354v; IX, 77v; R. Hurt, 1970, 78). In 1530 accused Martin Černý was to build the same kind of house on three sites for Bohuslav Štolbašský of Doloplazy (R. Hurt, 1970, 78). These records from the 16th century prove that a three-part house had already been a basic structure of rural homesteads.

One-yardland homesteads in Plešice (Třebíč district) had bigger corveé duties. The village consisted of seven yardlands whose holders paid 12 groschen on St. Wenceslaus Day and St. George’s Day. Other duties were to deliver three chickens and 50 eggs at Easter. Furthermore, Corveé included three days of ploughing, delivering four sheaves of grain at harvesttime and collecting hay for two days. Crofters paid eight groschen and delivered ten eggs and one chicken (P II, p. 336). It follows from written sources that homesteads were not of the same size. This fact has also been confirmed by archaeological research of deserted villages. A homestead did not only include residential and auxiliary buildings situated around the yard but also fields, meadows, gardens and possibly vineyards. The size of a village can be deduced from the number of agricultural units, i.e. yardlands, their fractions and the number of crofters. For example a document from 1268 lists 32 yardlands and 13 crofters in the village of Martinice (CDM IV, 4). However, it is uncertain whether all yardlands were planted. More detailed information on the size of villages can be found in the Books of Summons. In 1409 in the village of Kobeřice eight yardlands were planted and ten were barren. Twelve homesteads are mentioned as “curticula maior” and seven homesteads as “curticula minor”. In both cases the homesteads were of the croft size which was documented by the following quotation about a crofter named Jan: “item subses Johann curticulam maiorem tenet”. There were also two craftsmen among the crofters – a cobbler and a weaver. Ten crofter homesteads, two aratrum homesteads and a fortress (area municionis) were empty. Furthermore, the village included two pubs, a bath house and a church (PB II, 151–152). It follows from the above-mentioned document that at the beginning of the 15th century the village of Kobeřice consisted of eight inhabited oneyardland homesteads, seven crofts, two pubs and a bath house. Such examples listing the number of homesteads are very common. However, written sources do not provide detailed information on the homestead arrangement.

Important sources for studying the state of particular homesteads are finds of preserved inventories. From the period before the Battle of White Mountain only a few of them from the years of 1560–1582 have been preserved on the territory of the Rudolec estate in the CzechMoravian Highlands. They provide us with information on agricultural tools, keeping livestock, growing crops, homestead equipment, armament and clothing. Even though this source exceeds the period of the Middle Ages, it gives us a good description of the rural homestead which over the period of 50 years did not significantly change. Many written sources deal with manors – in Latin referred to as “curia”. The most common record entries are those documenting manors’ surface area often measured in sectors (aratrum). Most manors were of the size of two sectors which corresponds to three yardlands (L. Hosák 1967, 69, 95). For example the manor in Šitbořice

Valuable data about both the size of homesteads and peasant duties can be found in the land and duties register of the Liechtenstein domain from 1414. For example the 22

The Agricultural Homestead in Written Sources (Břeclav district) consisted of the area of two sectors on three yardlands. To the manor “from time immemorial” had belonged a meadow and a forest (P II, p. 239).

books of particular manors (F. Graus, 1957, 357–405), however only a few of them have been preserved in Moravia. The oldest document comes from 1268 from the church in the village of Příkazy in the Olomouc diocese. It lists: two horses, two cows, two pigs, ten shoats, twelve sheep, twenty chickens and ten geese. There is a record from the middle of the 14th century about the manor in the village of Tvarožná which belonged to the convent of Old Brno. The document lists: three horses, two cows, six pigs and six sheep. Equipment of the above-mentioned manors was practically identical to peasant homesteads.

Written sources from 11th–12th century mention manors located on ecclesiastical land; however they do not provide any details. The annalist Cosmas writes in 1073 about a manor in Sekyř Kostel (Kosmova kronika česká II, 27). Another record about the existence of manors on ecclesiastical land is from Pohořelice, according to which in 1269 the queen Konhuta returned a manor with facilities to the convent of Virgins of Herburg in Brno (CDM III, 340; A. Kratochvíl, 1913). The main reason why cloisters set up manors in villages was to collect and store tithes. For example the monastery at Velehrad ran a manor of four yardlands in Moravská Nová Ves to which peasants were to bring together tithes (CDM VI, 91).

To provide a complete illustration of the social conditions of the Moravian medieval village, it is important to also describe villages where most property belonged to members of the landed gentry. The number of manors in such villages was from five to seven. For example the village of Horní Rozsíčka (Žďár nad Sázavou district) included five such manors likewise the village of Jestřabí in the same region. There is only a fraction of records from the 14th–15th century in the Public Land Records of the Moravian Province documenting villages consisting of only two manors. However, the written sources do not provide information on their arrangement and equipment. The existence of crofters in manor villages shows that they made their living as wage labourers in the manors (J. Mezník, 1992, 439–443).

Even though the majority of manors in villages were the property of the landed gentry (before the Battle of White Mountain there were 700 manors in Moravia), there is also evidence of manor holders belonging to the class of townspeople. For example in 1342 the king Charles IV allowed a townsman Ditlin Mořic from Brno to fortify his manor in Vlasatice with moats and walls (CDM VII, 398). Written sources mention fortified manors in Lažany (Blansko district) “curia munita cum lapidibus” – manor surrounded by a stone wall (ZDB I., p.93, no. 483) and in Kojišov (deserted settlement near Lipník na Moravě) “curia fossata” – manor fortified by a fosse (P I, p. 320).

Detailed information on manor facilities can be found in written sources from Bohemia. For example the manor belonging to the Vyšehrad Chapter in the village of Hodkovičky was fortified by walls, there was a tower in the middle of the complex, a stone parish house by the entrance gate, three cellars, three small and two large stone barns covered with shingle in the yard area (F. Graus, 1957, 67).

Written sources also document auxiliary buildings: a cowshed, a hogpen, a brewery, a malt-house, a barn, a stable, a bakery, a kitchen and a bath house. Information on manors’ equipment with agricultural tools, keeping livestock and growing crops can be found in the inventory

23

The House: Evolution of the Layout

During the High and Late Middle Ages, which denote the period of our study, the evolution of village rural settlements underwent a number of changes coming to a climax in the 13th century. The village was the basic unit of settlement, whose inhabitants made a living growing crops and keeping livestock.

11th or 12th century it is not possible to reckon a storage room attached to the house yet. There is no written or archaeological record to support this idea: on the contrary the first mentions of the ‘kleť’ suggests an extra building, separate, standing apart from the house…” (L. Niederle, 1913, 773, note 1).

One of the major changes concerned the layout of the house. Excavations of Slavonic settlements have told us that the house featured certain continuity up to the 12th century – in the case of studying early medieval settlement in Mstěnice up to the 13th century. The continuity concerned size, function and furnishings of the interior (V. Nekuda, 2001). The single-chamber dugout as well as surface structures which did not radically differ in size are omnipresent. This situation tells us that there were no great social and economical differences in the Slavonic settlement.

According to Niederle’s theory the three-part house was created by the attaching of a hall to the single-chamber dwelling, thus creating a two-part house. The originally separate storage room was then attached to this two-part house. The new archaeological evidence provided a platform for A. Pitterová (1965, 275–295) to base her theories regarding the basic layout types of the traditional house in the present-day Czech Republic on. She studied the process of the enlarging of the single-chamber house by means of new rooms being attached along the lengthwise axis of the house. The connection to fortified settlements and an urban setting was manifested in the opinion that “the three-roomed house did not come into existence as an agricultural house but as the residence of the upper class of the contemporary society and only later did it make the shift to the agricultural setting” (A. Pitterová, 1965, 286). A. Pitterová found grounds for this in the houses in Levý Hradec – a two-part building with wattle walls and a three-roomed log cabin (I. Borkovský, 1953, 621–624, 636–646).

The key issue to be clarified is the process through which the single-chamber house evolved into the threepart house and why these changes actually occurred. The evolution of house layouts in fact plays an important role in determining the contemporary economic as well as social situations. The key to these queries was provided by excavations of deserted medieval villages. Early medieval settlement, which was characterised by the occurrence of single-chamber houses, existed in Mstěnice and in Pfaffenschlag. These houses were then replaced by two-part and three-part houses during the middle of the 13th century. Excavations carried out in Bezručova Street in Rýmařov also brought evidence of a three-part house which had a chamber, a hall and auxiliary rooms. According to V. Goš – J. Novák, – J. Karel (1985, 189, 197) this was either a storage room or a stable. This three-part house dates back to the middle of the 13th century.

The problems of the basic layout types of houses found in former Czechoslovakia were also studied by V. Pražák, (1958, 219–236, 331–360). According to Pražák the basic layout types correspond to the respective settlement periods. The three-part chamber house featuring a chamber, a hall and a storage room corresponded to the regions settled by Slavs, while the house of the stable type featuring a chamber, a hall and a stable was found in the regions inhabited by German colonists.

Up until the beginning of systematic archaeological research, the evolution of the three-part house was only recorded in the theoretical concepts of L. Niederle (1913, 772–773), A. Pitterová (1965, 265–295), V. Mencl (1980, 592) and V. Pražák, (1958, 219–236, 331–360). It is necessary to review the theories of these scholars with due respect to the state of the studies in their time, with no results of agricultural settlement excavations at hand. Even so we may state that the theories of L. Niederle in particular were very realistic. These theories concern the growth of the single-chamber house and the time when this process took place. L. Niederle expresses his view on the attaching of the storage room: “I think that up until the

The works of V. Mencl (1980) are immensely valuable if they are viewed in context with the documentation of folk architecture in the former Czechoslovakia. However, if V Mencl attempted to provide an explanation of the evolution of the three-part house of the granary type, i.e. one featuring a chamber, a hall and a multiple storey granary, he has come to a contradiction in archaeological sources. His concept is based on the assumption that the granary house or at least its principal elements were brought to the present-day Czech Republic by the Slavs immediately upon their arrival (V. Mencl, 1980, 169). 24

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout

Figure 20: Rýmařov, Bezručova Street. Semi-subterranean structure XIV. 1 – doorframe, 2 – pisé masonry, 3 – remains of a wooden floor, 4 – collapsed wall timbers, 5 – doorsill, according to Goš – Novák – Karel, 1985.

The above-mentioned theories concerning the evolution of the three-part house in the agricultural setting have been based on the assumption that cultural phenomena – particularly those regarding folk architecture – have an ancient tradition and roots that reach far back into the past (V. Frolec, 1975, 342). What is the archaeological view of this issue? Single-chamber Structures

Houses

–

under the rubble from the fallen-in walls (V. Goš - J. Novák - J. Karel, 1985, 200). Semi-subterranean structure XIX in Rýmařov was of a square layout (5.1 by 4.9 m) sunken 1.44 m into the ground. The 3.1 m long ramp-shaped entrance faced the south-western wall in the older phase, but after it was filled up a new entrance was made, accessing the north-western corner of the dugout. This entrance was 4 m long and 1.1 m wide. The walls of the dugout were of vertical posts spaced at intervals of one metre. 55-cm wide planks lined the inner as well as the outer sides. The inside space was filled with packed earth. The corners were reinforced with stones. The ceiling was probably of beams boarded up on the bottom side. The floor was also of planks. There was an open fireplace in the western corner; smoke was filtered out of the residential quarters by means of a recess. The older phase featured a stepped initial part of the ‘šíje’ while in the newer era it was lined with planks and the sidewalls were lined with stones (V. Goš - J. Novák - J. Karel, 1985, 190).

Semi-subterranean

A dwelling is termed single-chambered if it is one room equipped with a heating unit. It is important to note that single-chamber houses including dugouts did not disappear even after the middle of the 13th century. Much to our surprise the existence of dugouts is documented predominantly in the urban setting. A dugout in Bruntál dates back to the 15th century, several dugouts from the middle of the 14th century were discovered in a number of localities in Olomouc, dugouts from after the middle of the 13th century were found in Uherské Hradiště, Uherský Brod and Uničov (P. Michna, 1988, 272–275). The origin of these dugouts in the urban environment is associated with the process of colonisation.

Semi-subterranean structure XXV was smaller (3.0 by 2.0 m) and sunken 70 cm into the ground. The rubble from a stone oven took up the western corner. Smoke was led out through a drain gradually rising to ground level (V. Goš - J. Novák - J. Karel, 1985, 191).

Rural dugouts with origins ranging from the end of the 13th to the middle of the 14th century were discovered in the local area of Černá Hora (V. Souchopová – B. Novotný, 1974, 82–84, R. Procházka - A. Štrof, 1983, 46–58).

The second half of the 13th century provides us with dugouts in Loštice (V. Goš, 1984, 171–178), in Žádlovice (H. Mačalová, 1984, 101–110) and in Šlapanice near Brno (L. Belcredi, 1988, 80–84). Some have also been unearthed in Bohemia, e.g. in the deserted settlement of Staré Mýto near Tisová (J. Sigl, 1985, 233–236), in the deserted settlement of Kravín near Tábor (R. Krajíc, 1980, 165–172) and in the complex of the monastery of

Important information regarding single-chamber dugouts from the second half of the 13th century has been gained from excavations of the present-day Bezručova Street in Rýmařov (Fig. 20). Two semi-subterranean structures XIX and XXV featured a heating unit, while the others may have contained open fireplaces, but these would be buried 25

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages Ostrov near Davle (M. Richter, 1982). Single-chamber dugouts were also included in the medieval settlement of Chľaba near Nové Zámky, but these did not function as dwellings but as farm buildings which also had an upper storey besides the sunken part (M. Hanuliak, 1982, 103–112). Dugouts in the deserted medieval settlement of Holzheim near Fritzlar filled a similar purpose. The leader of the research, N. Wand (1983), holds them to have an auxiliary purpose as well. It then becomes evident that dugouts served as provisional measures and as auxiliary buildings.

was found was found in the western corner. The floor was also paved with flat stones (D. Šaurová, 1977, 267). Near to the deserted village of Vilémov in the Rakovec Creek valley lies the deserted medieval village of Bystřec. The overall layout suggests that four houses in homesteads II, III, IV and IX can be considered singlechambered (Fig. 21). Homestead IX featured an oven. Local excavations documented two preceding variations of the layout. The house was always a single-chambered one, but the older layout featured a fireplace as well as the oven. The older phase also featured a frame of posts and wattle-and-daub walls, while the newer phases were curbed (L. Belcredi, 1998, 23–36). According to L. Belcredi (1986, 426) the layouts of houses in homesteads II, III and IV were “two-part dwellings with a separate storage room standing in the yard”, or as ‘single-chamber’ houses equipped with a hall of a post construction type, in effect creating a two-part house (L. Belcredi, 1987, 157). The older phase of the layout of the house in homestead IV may definitely be considered a single-chamber house (L. Belcredi, 1986, 425, fig. 2 A). Its square layout of 5 by 5 m was designated by evenly spaced postholes. The house was entered from the eastern side; an oven was placed next to the entrance on the right side (Fig. 22). A symmetrical frame of posts supported wattle-and-daub walls, which were daubed with clay both on the inside and the outside. Two postholes were found outside on the entrance side of the house. One was dug 80 cm from the northern corner and the other 1 m from the southern corner. According to L. Belcredi, (1986, 425, fig. 2A–D) the space designated by these two postholes may have served as an open anteroom.

Single-chamber Houses – Surface Structures Apart from single-chamber dugouts there were also singlechamber houses built on ground level. Their layouts were designated by either stone walls or by a system of postholes. Stone walls have been found in two houses in the deserted village of Vilémov near Blansko. The first one – house 13 – took up an area of 4 by 4 m. The floor was paved with large flat stones. The heating unit was found in the northern corner, but the leader of the excavation failed to classify the type of the heating unit; she characterised it as “a very simple stone construction with no clay daub” (D. Šaurová, 1977, 267). The second single-chamber house (no. 21) was of a square layout of 5 m by 5 m. ‘A stone fireplace unit of 1 by 1 m’

The earlier version of the house in homestead no IV was also square (5.0 by 4.8 m). The entrance was now shifted to the northern side and a large oven facing the entrance was positioned to its left, i.e. in the north-eastern corner. The construction of the walls underwent a shift to a curbed construction. Postholes were again found on the entrance side of the house; this time 2–2.5 m from the walls. This new space in layout C is again explained as being an open anteroom or hall. Consequently it is clear that house IV did not have an enclosed hall which would be a fixed part of the house in the older nor in the newer phase. The house in homestead III also fits a single-chamber description; although an auxiliary building (E) was attached to the north-eastern corner. Nonetheless it is not attached to the house as to be accessible directly from inside it. Postholes on the entrance side suggest a shed sheltering the entrance side as well as the access to the farm building. Single-chamber house layouts from the beginnings of the 13th century were unearthed in the deserted village of “Krummen Fenn” in Berlin-Zehlendorf (A. v. Müller, 1971, 152–154).

Figure 21: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of homestead II, according to L. Belcredi, 1986.

26

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout

Figure 22: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the single-chamber house in homestead IV. Older phase, according to L. Belcredi, 1980. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

important room and is equipped with a heating unit, usually an oven. The hall also serves purposes concerning agriculture. Houses which best fit the above-mentioned description were found in the deserted village of Pfaffenschlag. The layouts were designated by stone walling (Fig. 24a, 24b). House XII/67 is a good example of a two-part house. It has a rectangular layout of 9.8 by 6.7 m. The stone walls were 80 to 100 cm high and both sides were of masonry facing; these were preserved in up to four layers. The chamber had a square layout of 5 by 5 m. An oven was located in the northern corner. The area of the hall was 4.8 by 2.8 with the entrance on the north-western side. Similar layouts of two-part houses were also found in Pfaffenschlag (fig. 25) in the case of houses XIV, VX and XVI. All two-part houses lacked a storage room. Consequently these houses lacking an auxiliary element were often considered to have been the dwellings of landless serfs (V. Nekuda, 1975, 78–84). The two-part house has also been found in Mstěnice in homestead III (Fig. 25), but is not evidence of social differentiation as is the case in Pfaffenschlag, but the outcome of a construction process, as it was impossible to attach the multiple storey granary to the house (R. Nekuda - V. Nekuda, 1997, 16, 17, 61). The layout of this house was rectangular (10 by 4.5m). The chamber was square

Figure 23: Mstěnice near Hrotovice. Stone foundations of a single-chamber rent charge dwelling. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Single-chamber houses of the Late Middle Ages in Hungary are mentioned by J. Holl (1970, 375) in the village of Nyársapát. The layouts of single-chamber houses were also found in Mstěnice, but these did not function as a separate unit within the village, but were parts of homesteads VIII, XI and XII. These structures always played the role of a rent charge dwelling (Fig. 23). Two-part Houses Houses with two basic parts – the chamber and the hall – constitute this category. The chamber is the most 27

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 24a: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of two-part house XII. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 24b: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of two-part house XII. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 25: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of homestead III. a – barn, b – residential chamber, c – hall, b/c – two-part house, d – granary, e – cowshed, f – yard gateway. Illustration by M. Říčný.

of 4.5 by 4.5 m. A comparison of two-part houses in Pfaffenschlag and Mstěnice revealed that they did not substantially differ in length. No other two-part houses were found in excavations throughout Moravia. Layouts of houses in the deserted village of Bystřec published to date do not meet the above-mentioned criteria as have been delimited in the previous text.

Two-part houses were also documented outside Moravia, e.g. in Hohenrode (P. Grimm, 1939, 25). Five of six layouts were those of two-part houses. Houses in the deserted village of Königshagen (W. Janssen, 1965, 209) showed similar characteristics to the houses in Hohenrode. House I, for example, was 19 m long and 6 m wide and W. Janssen likens it to house 1 in Hohenrode. Excavation 28

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout of the deserted village of Hard in Austria (Waldviertel) disclosed the stone foundations of house 2 with a twopart layout. The larger room (8.1 by 4.5 m) was equipped with a fireplace and an oven. The layout of house 9 in the deserted village of Sarvaly in Hungary seems to have been that of a two-part structure (J. Holl - N. Parádi, 1982, 37– 38). Two-part houses existed in the Hungarian village of Nyársapát throughout the 15th century (J. Holl, 1970, 375). Excavations of the central Hungarian deserted medieval village of Szentkirály have likewise provided evidence of two-part houses from the 14th century (A. Pálóczi – Horváth, 1997, 507–513).

chamber, the hall and the storage room. The hall was accessible from the yard and was the central part of the house; one door led to the chamber and a door on the opposite side entered the auxiliary buildings – usually a storage room or a granary. Consequently these types of house are termed the three-part house of the chamber and granary type respectively. A common roof covered the three parts. Three-part houses differed in size. Houses in Pfaffenschlag and Rýmařov were usually twice as long as they were wide. Houses in Pfaffenschlag were from 16.2 to 21.7 m long and from 8.2 to 10.5 m wide. A threepart house in Rýmařov was 15.7 m long and 7.8 wide. Houses in Mstěnice were usually three times as wide as they were long. They were 15 to 17 m long and mostly had a standard width of 5 m. The ratio of length to width definitely influenced the size of the individual rooms (Fig. 26). The most important room was the chamber. Its layout was square and ranged in size from 16 to 20 m2 in Mstěnice, from 20 to 30 m2 in Pfaffenschlag and Vilémov, from 24 to 33 m2 in Bystřec and from 20 to 29 m2 in Konůvky. The largest chamber – an area of 37m2 – was found in Rýmařov. The largest halls were found in Pfaffenschlag and ranged from 20 to 61 m2; halls in Mstěnice were middle-size and ranged from 14 to 18 m2, those in Bystřec had an area from 10 to 20 m2. Storage rooms were usually square and their areas ranged from 14 to 27 m2 in Pfaffenschlag, from 12 to 16 m2 in Mstěnice, from 28 to 36 m2 in Bystřec, from 20 to 22 m2 in Konůvky and from 42 to 48 m2 in Vilémov.

Findings carried out to date concerning two-part houses suggest that these were indeed the dwellings of landless serfs, i.e. the less affluent social class in the village setting. Written sources regard their habitations as huts (F. Matějek, 1970, 15). Three-part Houses Issues concerning the three-part house in Bohemia and Moravia during the High and Late Middle Ages have been recently studied by Z. Smetánka (1993–4, 117–138). Within this context he has pointed out several dangers encountered when studying long-time archaeological research only partially and when using only some pieces of information when attempting reconstructions of buildings. Excavations throughout Bohemia, as well as in Moravia, have uncovered important information regarding the layouts, the basic shapes and the oldest occurrences and origins of the three-part house. A house is termed three-part when it includes three rooms: the

The following table includes measurements of houses obtained from excavations of deserted medieval villages:

MSTĚNICE House no.

Length (m)

Width (m)

Chamber (m²)

Hall (m²)

Storage room (m²)

Storey granary (m²)

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIV XV XVI XVII

20,0 17,0 13,0 16,5 14,5 20,0 16,0 20,0 16,5 15,0 20,0 15,0 18,7 19,0 18,0 13,0

5,0 5,0 5,0 6,0 5,0 5,2 4,8 5,0 5,2 5,0 5,0 5,5 7,0 4,0 5,0 5,0

20,0 20,0 20,0 21,0 16,0 16,0 16,0 18,5 20,3 15,7 20,0 12,2 29,6 10,5 17,6 12,2

16,0 17,5 18,5 18,0 14,0 16,0 Unexcavated 16,8 14,8 17,5 11,5 19,2 38,5 11,2 11,5 12,0

18,0 16,0 12,2 12,9 (road) 14,4 12,3 10,5 14,0 8,7 16,0 12,6 − 8,7

12,0 12,2 9,6 7,0 8,4 12,0 10,0 4,0 − −

29

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages PFAFFENSCHLAG House

Length (m)

Width (m)

Chamber (m²)

Hall (m²)

Chamber (m²) Other rooms

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIV XV XVI

19,4 19,0 21,7 16,2 17,6 20,4 13,0 19,3 21,7 17,0 23,9 9,8 10,0 10,0 8,3

9,0 9,5 8,2 9,0 9,4 8,9 5,0 9,7 9,0 10,5 7,2 6,7 9,7 7,5 6,7

3,08 21,2 35,5 23,5 23,5 23,0 12,2 28,2 23,9 20,7 27,5 23,0 20,4 22,3 21,0

49,1 26,7 20,0 28,7 24,5 45,5 12,0 32,2 61,3 47,6 44,6 13,4 20,0 27,1 ?

14,4 25,5 20,0 18,4 31,9 20,5 8,7 27,0 19,6 26,3 21,2 -

24,1 36,7 1,5 20,3 31,9 − 23,7 14,0 15,6 5,9 -

16,0 19,0

6,0 6,0

25,0 25,0

4,5 17,5

42,0 48,0

-

VILÉMOV 1 19

Z. Smetánka (1993, 118–120) has distinguished between three types of three-part houses: A. Terraced threepart house, B. Three-part house of a segmented layout and C. ‘Hook-shaped’ three-part house. For the sake of terminology we shall keep to this division, as the threepart houses in Moravia correspond to it. A. The terraced three-part house is a classic case of the house constituted by a chamber, hall and storage room or a multiple storey granary along a lengthwise axis. This type of the three-part house was found in the deserted village of Mstěnice (Fig. 26), Rýmařov, Bystřec (Fig. 27) and in the deserted village of Svídna (Fig. 28) in Bohemia. The basic three-part core was found in the houses of homesteads I, V, VII, IX and probably also X, XIV and XVII in Mstěnice. In Rýmařov the house layout of house XI fits this description, provided that the third room functioned as a storage room. In Bystřec a terraced three-part house was found in homestead XI (L. Belcredi, 2000, 219). Other homesteads in Mstěnice featured a three-part core to which auxiliary buildings were attached. Only in one case were the farm buildings on the chamber side of the house – in homestead VI. A similar layout was found in the case of the house in homestead III in Svídna. A fourth room was slightly foregrounded (Z. Smetánka, 1993, 119, fig. 1.A.).

Figure 26: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of three-part house V. Photograph by V. Nekuda

Outside of the present-day Czech Republic the terraced type of the three-part house was also found in Hungary in the deserted village of Sarvaly. Houses 6, 16, 12 and 26 (I. Holl - N. Parádi, 1982, 26, 34, 39, 40; J. Škabrada, 1988,

511–513) constitute the basic three-part core. This village also features layouts showing that new rooms were added 30

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout

Figure 27: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the three-part house in homestead XI – Reconstruction of phase I. A – residential chamber, B – auxiliary buildings, C – chamber, D – paved surface, E – dunghill. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

to the three-part core along the lengthwise axis (houses 8, 10 and 15).

XI) or two (house VIII, Fig. 31) such narrow rooms. In the case of houses II and V the two-wing layout was the result of inside segmentation (the so-called division principle). The development of the layouts of houses I, III, IX and XI was more complicated but the progression towards a rectangular layout can be determined according to joints (Figs 29 & 30).

B. The three-part house of a segmented two-wing layout also features the basic core, constituted by a chamber, a hall and a storage room or granary, but the rectangular layout was not only divided crosswise, but also lengthwise, creating in effect the so-called two-wing house (Fig. 29). The layouts of houses II and V in Pfaffenschlag may be used as examples. Narrow rooms were located along the chamber, hall and storage room. One of these was in both cases used for accessing the cellar (Figs 30 & 31). Other three-part layouts featured either one or two (houses IV,

Auxiliary buildings, especially stables, were attached along the lengthwise axis to three-part houses of segmented layouts in much the same manner as to terraced three-part houses. Such attachments were found in houses II, III, V and X in Pfaffenschlag. 31

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 28: Svídna. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of a three-part house, according to Z. Smetánka.

Figure 29: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of two-wing house II. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 30: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of a two-wing house with an attached cellar. A – chamber, B – hall, C – storage room, D1, D2, D3 – narrow chambers, E – cellar, O – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda, based on documentation by Z. Špičák.

Figure 31: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the ground plan of homestead I. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

32

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout

Figure 32: Hard, Austria – Waldviertel. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of two-wing house 8, according to S. Felgenhauer-Schmiedt.

Outside of Pfaffenschlag the three-part house of segmented layout was also found in the deserted Austrian village of Hard near Pfaffenschlag. The three-part layout of house 8 featured a narrow room (no. 4) along room no. 3 and it is possible that there was another narrow room next to room no. 1 on the north side (Fig. 32). Houses 3 and 5 were also of the two-wing layout (S. Felgenhauer-Schmiedt, 1996, 254, 255).

houses an L-shaped layout (Fig. 33). A storage room and perchance also other rooms were attached at a right angle to the chamber and hall oriented along the creek which formed the axis of the whole village in both Bystřec and Konůvky. These three-part houses were accessed from the yard; usually by means of the hall, which then led to all the other rooms, including the chamber. This layout type was termed by Z. Smetánka as “hook-shaped” (Z. Smetánka, 1993, 120). According to Z. Měchurová (1997, 25) this layout type “remains unparalleled to date” as far as inside structure featuring an oven placed along an interior wall is concerned. This layout is nonetheless found in the deserted village of Bystřec; the house in homestead I also featured an oven along the interior wall dividing the hall and the chamber.

Other medieval three-part houses excavated in central Moravia in Bystřec near Jedovnice and Konůvky near Slavkov have a different layout than the houses in southwestern Moravia. The basic arrangement of chamber – hall – storage room was not placed along a lengthwise axis but was arranged at a right angle instead, thus giving the

An L-shaped layout was also discovered in Slovakia in the localities of Chľaba and Pavlany near Krigov (Habovštiak 1985, 91–92). Atypical Layouts An atypical, almost square layout was found in house VII in Pfaffenschlag. As it was divided into four rooms, it was different from all other houses excavated to date. The four rooms were not oriented along a lengthwise axis but came into existence through the process of inside segmentation. The hall in the southern part of the house had the largest area – 39,1 m2. The other three rooms were accessible through the hall: the smaller storage room, which was built into the hall in its western end, the chamber itself and the storage room next to the chamber, whose construction was akin to that of multiple storey storage rooms in other houses. A small cellar dug out into the weather-worn rock of the adjacent hillside was accessible from the storage room. Based on the findings of a number of millstones in the hall the house was denoted as a mill (Fig. 34).

Figure 33: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the house in homestead I, a – chamber, b – hall, c – chamber, o – oven. See fig. 98 for the site plan. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

33

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages part house dating to the second half of the 13th century has only been provided by excavations of deserted medieval villages. The three-part house in Bezručova Street in Rýmařov dates back to the second half of the 13th century (V. Goš - J. Novák - J. Karel, 1985, 221). Three-part houses in Mstěnice also date back to the second half of the 13th century; this can be ascertained according to ceramics and a Prague groschen of Václav II found in the bottom layer of the floor in homestead XII (R. Nekuda - V. Nekuda, 1997, 62). Houses in the deserted village of Pfaffenschlag date back to the last quarter of the 13th century. Not only has the dating been done according to the findings of ceramics but also by means of magnetometrics (F. Hrouda, 1975, 220–21), dendrological (J. Kyncl, 1975, 109–208) and palaeogeobotanical (E. a K. Rybníčkovi, 1975. 183– 198) analyses. An illustrative example of the development of the three-part house was provided by the excavations of houses II and III in Mstěnice. The core of homestead II was formed by a single-chamber house and a multiple storey garner, which stood separately approximately 6 m from the north side of the house (Fig. 35). In this stage the sunken part of the garner featured a ramp-shaped entrance in the south-western corner oriented towards the house (Fig. 36). The Figure 34: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the sidewalls of the entrance as well house in homestead VII. Illustration by Z. Špičák. as the sunken part were lined with stones. The floor was sunken 170 The Development of the Three-part House cm below ground level, the area of the garner was 10.5 m2 (3,5 by 3,0 m). The house was later connected to the Not all archaeological research of the Early Middle Ages garner by means of a third room, thus a central hall came in the present-day Czech Republic has provided evidence into existence and in effect creating a three-part layout: of the existence of the three-part house (B. Dostál, 1987, a chamber, a hall and a multiple storey garner (Fig. 37). 9–23, 1995, 401−416). Concerning the issue of the threeAfter this several changes were made: the original entrance part house in Levý Hradec Z. Smetánka (1993, 125) has into the sunken part of the garner was walled up and the pointed out that this has no connection to a three-part so-called ‘šíje’ – the entry area – was filled up. A new house layout whatsoever. I have provided an overview of ramp-shaped entrance into the sunken part of the garner residential building layouts from the Early Middle Ages was made on the eastern side, in such a way to make the in Moravia in the almanac Archaeologica historica (R. sunken part could be accessed directly from the yard. The Nekuda 1994a, 349−365). Reliable evidence of the threecut through the ‘šíje’ was reinforced with stone walls on 34

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout

Figure 35: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Site plan of a part of the surveyed area documenting all structures in homesteads II, III and partly IV. Ground plans of stone a masonry marking the structures of the medieval village.

Figure 36b: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Linking the house and the granary with the hall (C) in homestead II. Illustration by V. Nekuda

Figure 36a: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Singlechamber house (A) and granary (B) in homestead II positioned separately. Originally a part of an underground passageway (D), later used as a cellar; o – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda.

Figure 37: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. The single-chamber house (A) and the granary (B) in homestead VIII; o – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda.

35

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 38: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Site plan of homestead XI. 1 – preserved stone masonry facing, 2 – walling rubble, 3 – slope reinforcement with stones, 4 – paving, 5 – surface with scattered cinder, 6 – grit surface, 7 – sand strips on slopes, 8 – daub surface, 9 – fire pit, 10 – oven, 11 – structures of grey colour, 12 – structure outline under projection level, 13 – structure image above projection level, 14 – survey outline. A – residential chamber, B – auxiliary buildings, C – storage room, D – paved surface. Illustration by Z. Špičák, according to L. Belcredi, 2000.

both sides (V. Nekuda, 1982, 46−47). Frequent reworking of the site plan led to the loss of some – in my opinion rather important – aspects of the layout in question. This mainly concerns the possible findings in the original ‘šíje’, whose front walling was of masonry facing and was later covered by the outside masonry of the hall. Another important element was the finding of a stone threshold approximately in the midway along the wall opposite the chamber, which entails that the upper storey of the garner was accessible directly from the hall.

by a stone rim (cca 550 by 550 cm) and the separately standing fully stone storage room (725 by 600 cm) were later connected by a hall of an inner area of 5 by 4 m accessible from the yard. This is how the three-part house developed in the first third of the 14th century (Fig. 38). The layout of the house and multiple storey garner in Mstěnice in homestead III is no less important for the interpretation of the development of the three-part house. Once again it is necessary to take into account the findings: there is positive proof of a separately standing mulitple storey garner, while there is no such evidence regarding the residential house. This is so as parts of the foundation walling of the chamber were missing. The

In Bystřec the house in homestead XI underwent similar development. According to L. Belcredi (2000, 227–230) has ascertained that the separately standing chamber delimited 36

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout

Figure 40: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the house and with an attached granary in homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Figure 39: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plans of the house and the granary in homestead III. Illustration by M. Říčný.

Figure 41: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of homestead XI. Overall view from the south-west. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

oven, an element so typical of all other chambers, was not found either. Nevertheless, documentations of the terrain revealed a slight depression with a crusty surface. As the 5 by 5 m dark-stained area with remains of wall daub was not enclosed by any stone walls, it is reasonable to argue this to have been a log cabin. An L-shaped stone wall connected to this area. Its shorter side ended at the corner of the sunken part of the garner on the north side. The L-shaped stone wall thus delimited an area of 5.5 by 3.5 m. The fact that no stone wall was found on the yard side possibly means that this wall was constructed in the same fashion as the chamber: by curbing. It is plausible that at first the single-chamber house and the multiple storey garner were separately standing buildings. A threepart house was in this case out of the question as the garner was situated off the axis of the house (Fig. 39).

of individual buildings of the agricultural homestead. The multiple storey garner in homestead IV was located in the far part of the yard so the space between it and the threepart house was interpreted as a shed.

Multiple storey garners in Mstěnice in homesteads I and III were left isolated in the yard even after the construction

Ground-level storage rooms which were parts of threepart houses were found in Mstěnice as well as the multiple

Only in the case of house VIII was the sunken part of the multiple storey garner accessible from the ground-level storage room. The findings on site and masonry analysis led to the conclusion that this garner stood separately for some time and was only later attached to the three-part house with a ground-level storage room (Fig. 40). In homestead XI in Mstěnice the multiple storey storage room was located behind the three-part house (Fig. 41), in homestead XII it was to the right of the main gate and in homestead XIV to its left (Fig. 42).

37

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages by studying the joints of house parts added of a later date. A similar situation was encountered in the development of houses I, IX and XI, where a single-chamber house and a multiple storey garner were gradually integrated into a three-part layout (Fig. 44). Archaeological findings in Mstěnice and in Pfaffenschlag formed a basis for ethnographical reflection – V. Frolec was perhaps the one interested most. The layouts found in both localities provided him with the best grounds for reasoning about the development of the three-part house. “By analyzing this material, we have already (V. Frolec, 1982, 69) arrived at the theory regarding the development of the three-part house stating that the isolated chamber was attached to a single-chamber house thus forming a third part of the three-part house layout: the hall” (V. Frolec, 1987, 67). In this context V. Frolec also mentions K. Moszynski’s theory (1929) which also denotes the hall as a third element connecting the chamber and the nearby isolated storage room.

Figure 42: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Three-part house in homestead XIV. Part of an entrenched granary in the foreground. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

In a later work exploring the continuity and discontinuity of the construction aspects of western Moravian villages V. Frolec (1988, 462–466) changed his view of the development of the three-part house in the various localities in question. He associated the development of the three-part house in Mstěnice with the inner colonization and applied Niederle’s theory of the chamber and hall and the subsequently added third part – the storage room. Colonization also played a role in Pfaffenschlag, where the separately standing storage room was connected to the single-chamber house by means of an additional hall.

storey garners. The two types of storage rooms may have been time-conditioned regarding the building of the medieval village, when the three-part layout was in the process of becoming established. The development of the three-part house can also be traced in the layouts of several houses in Pfaffenschlag. The most visible traces of progression were found in the layout of house III. The original house was undoubtedly narrower; this is evident from the set-off in the gable part of the house. The multiple storey storage room was originally separate, which is confirmed by the low walls before the entrance (Fig. 43). These walls protected the storage room when it stood separately. Stratigraphic succession was confirmed

If the situation on site in Mstěnice is taken into account, Niederle’s theory cannot be simply applied with no second thoughts. In the case of the development of the three-part layout of the house in homestead II especially, it has been

Figure 43: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. The house and the granary from homestead IX. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

38

House Layout: Evolution of the Layout

Figure 44: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Distribution of chambers (A) and garners (B) in homesteads III, IX and XI; o – oven. Illustration by V. Nekuda.

ascertained that the separately standing single-chamber dwelling was joined to the separately standing multiple storey storage room by a hall only later (V. Nekuda, 1982, 46–48). On the other hand the house in homestead III fits Niederle’s theory as the hall was indeed attached to the single-chamber house.

piece of knowledge gained. During the 14th century the south-western Moravian three-part house attained a fixed position regarding the common – its gable side faced the common. Only one house in Mstěnice featured a lengthwise orientation: house XIV, one of the largest. In Pfaffenschlag only the houses along the right side of the creek kept the gable orientation facing the common; houses on the left bank featured gable as well as lengthwise orientation.

Excavations in Mstěnice and Pfaffenschlag have brought corresponding evidence of both the development of the single-chamber house into the three-part segmentation and the more process of origin of more complex layouts – several lengthwise segmented houses in Pfaffenschlag. The notion of the development of the three-part house in such a way that a single-chamber house was connected to a previously separately standing garner and the subsequent emergence of a hall forming the third part of the three-part house layout may well be considered the most important

Houses were entered from the yard. The entrance led into the hall; the chamber was accessible through a door on one side and the storage room through a door on the opposite side. The chamber was usually the first room in the case of houses featuring gable orientation. Houses III, VI and XII in Mstěnice formed an exception: the chamber was placed only behind the auxiliary parts.

39

The Construction and Appearance of Houses

Apart from the layouts, usually designated by wellpreserved remains of stone walls, archaeological research of deserted medieval villages in Moravia has also gathered some evidence of other building materials used. These remains are mostly stone, charred wood, red-fired daub with evidence of a wooden construction, building components and fittings and roofing material.

The width of the stone foundations in all of the localities ranged from 60 to 90 cm. The walls were faced on both sides. Larger quarry stones were used for the two faces while the middle was filled with smaller ones and with dirt (Fig. 45). The walling in the sunken part of the granaries was done with particularly fine precision. The granary in homestead I can be considered a good example of such a thorough job (Fig. 46). Stones for quoins were chosen on account of their size and their shape which had to permit the attaching of the wall masonry in between corners. The height of the preserved walls varied according to its function: they could either be underpinning for a log construction or remains of a building constructed entirely of stone. In the latter case the height of the preserved walls could reach 2 m. Buildings which were fully built of stone were represented by multiple storey granaries in both Mstěnice and in Pfaffenschlag and by several halls; house II is evidence of this: a stone portal, which of course could not be part of a timber structure, was found there (V. Nekuda, 1975, 84). These findings were critical to reconstructing the whole village. The storage room of homestead XI in Bystřec may also be considered a fully stone building (L. Belcredi, 2000, 222).

The largest mass of construction material is constituted by quarry stone, some of which was scabbled, especially that which was used for thresholds, portals, swivels for doors and bollards placed beside gates. An analysis of the building stone used in Pfaffenschlag showed that the stone used for the stonework in all houses came from a local source. The prevailing type of rock was granite – used for 90% of all constructions (J. Štelcl – J. Malina, 1975, 223–225). The stonework was laid directly onto the soil. No kind of mortar was found in any of the localities in question. The crucial criteria for assessing the overall construction of the houses are the height and width of the remaining foundation masonry and the amount of rubble inside the building itself and in its immediate surroundings.

Stone thresholds were found in the entrance doors of houses and the doors to individual rooms in Pfaffenschlag. House IV was equipped with a threshold of two pieces of scabbled stone (Fig. 47). Thresholds inside house VII were made of one piece (V. Nekuda, 1975, tab. XXVI: 2; tab. XXVIII: 3). The entrances to houses in Mstěnice were lined with large flat stones. An important part of the entrances were doors (Fig. 48). Evidence of their placing is provided by swivels placed either directly in the stone thresholds or in separate swivel stones. Both of these types were found in Pfaffenschlag in house III. Doors were made of vertically oriented planks held together by massive iron bands with hinges at one end. Remains of such doors were found during excavations at the deserted village of Bystřec (L. Belcredi, 1986, 434). This type of door was suspended on massive masonry fixing, which was found both in Pfaffenschlag (V. Nekuda, 1975, fig. 141: 5, 11) and in Mstěnice. Besides the masonry fixing, the other important part of the door was the mechanism which ensured the locking of residential and auxiliary buildings. Three types of keys are included in the findings: a hook type, an insert type and a turning type. There is also a number of keyhole fittings, padlocks, door handles, latches and hasps and staples (Fig. 49). Locks which were an integral part of the door were also to be found as can be documented by a find of an iron latch from Mstěnice and a partly preserved stone jamb with modifications for one in Pfaffenschlag.

Figure 45: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Detail of stone masonry. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

40

The Construction and Appearance of Houses

Figure 46: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Thoroughly made masonry of the granary in homestead I. Photograph by R. Nekuda

Figure 47: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone doorsill of the residential building in homestead IV. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 48: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Stone with a swivel hollow and a groove for positioning a door at the house of homestead III. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

41

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 49: Construction ironware and locks. Pfaffenschlag: 1 – spinelike loop , 2 – latch with a spinelike loop, 3 – door sleeve, 4 – keyhole fittings, 5 – double latch linked with a spinelike loop, 6 – one-armed hook, 7 – solid loop spike, 11 – door handle. Mstěnice: 8 – insert key, 12, 13 – padlocks, 14, 15 – turning keys. Bystřec: 10 – latch. Konůvky: 9 – hook key. Illustration by J. Bakala.

Wood was important construction material. Analysis of charred remains of wood showed that important and widely used woods in Pfaffenschlag were pine (63%), spruce (14%), rowan and aspen (12.5%) (J. Kyncl, 1975, 201). Coniferous trees were used more widely mostly because of their straighter-grained wood. The chambers in Pfaffenschlag were usually constructed of timber, which was proved by findings of charred remains of wood as well as by numerous shreds of daub within the chambers. This was used for pointing – filling in cracks between beams and for wall daub (Fig. 50). A preserved beam placing

was found in Bystřec in homestead V (L. Belcredi, 1986, 429). The houses in Bystřec as well as in Konůvky were curbed. The house in homestead IV from an older phase of settlement formed an exception: it had a frame of posts with wattle-and-daub walls (L. Belcredi, 1986, 425). Traces of this style were also apparent in the shreds of daub (Fig. 51). The only evidence of a three-part house built by the socalled “beating” method, which involved a mixture of soil and straw or sometimes even stones beaten into plank 42

The Construction and Appearance of Houses

Figure 51: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Fired daub with rod imprints. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Figure 50: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Fired daub of between-timber filling. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Figure 52a: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of house I. Side view and lengthwise profile. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

43

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 52b: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of house I. View of the gable and a chamber profile. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

boarding gradually moved upwards until ceiling level was reached, was found in Rýmařov (V. Goš – J. Novák – J. Karel, 1985, 197).

300 cm long were preserved (L. Belcredi, 1997, 108, 112). Ceilings were also assumed to have existed in parts of layouts in the deserted village of Konůvky (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 18). D. Šaurová even speculated about ceilings in the hall (D. Šaurová, 1967, 169).

Wood was used for thresholds, frames etc. Fired remains of wall daub with impressions hinting at curbed walls are of two kinds: those with round impressions are evidence of using whole logs while ones with straight imprints mean that walls were also constructed of beams (Fig. 52).

The heavy ceilings were supported by wooden props which were usually placed in the middle of the room. Evidence of these props in residential quarters is provided by flat stones and by postholes in the case of farm buildings.

Medieval houses – especially the chambers – had ceilings. This fact was confirmed by findings in all of the localities in question. The findings include most importantly the remains of ceiling daub, the so-called pisé, which usually fell in together with the wooden ceiling construction – usually of a staging type. This situation is best preserved in the chamber of house X in Mstěnice, where the charred remains of staging lay on the floor. A similar situation also involving beams that had previously fallen in was encountered in house X in Bystřec, where seven beams

Not much archaeological evidence of ceilings is to be found. The layout of houses tells us that their roofs were gabled. Whether roof construction was of a rafter or of a clasp type is impossible to prove from archaeological sources. The roof was undoubtedly covered by straw thatch, although ridge tiles were found in Pfaffenschlag and Mstěnice. These could have been used for finishing the ridge. A house in Žeravice near Kyjov formed an exception: written record from 1540 states that its roof was of shingles (R. Hurt, 1970, 79).

44

Furnishings of a House

The central room of the house was the chamber. It is there that the most important equipment in the house was situated – the heating unit. In the case of houses of the High and Late Middle Ages these were primarily ovens. They usually had a rectangular horseshoe-shaped, pearshaped or circular layout. The rectangular ovens usually had a low wall enclosing the area of the oven and were generally block-shaped. If the layout was horseshoeshaped, pear-shaped or circular, the body of the oven was dome-shaped. Ovens were usually placed in a corner of the room along the wall separating the chamber from the hall. The ovens in Mstěnice were located on the right side (on entering the chamber) in houses I to X which were located on the north side of the common, while in houses XI, XV, XVI and XVII i.e. on the southern side of the common the ovens were on the left. Because house XIV was oriented lengthwise along the common; its oven was located in a corner to the right of the entrance (Fig. 53). The oven in house XII also featured a special position: it was placed in the corner opposite to the entrance. A single-chamber house in homestead XI which functioned as a rent charge

dwelling had an oven – situated on the right next to the entrance – as well as a fireplace in the corner opposite the door (Fig. 54). The bottom of the fireplace was sunken and carefully lined with stones (Fig. 55). Houses in Pfaffenschlag all featured very well-built ovens. All houses on the right bank of the creek with a gable orientation towards the common had ovens on the right side of the chamber – if the chambers in houses I and II were accessed by means of narrow lengthwise rooms that is. The ovens in other houses (III, V, VIII, XI, XII) were situated left of the entrance. House VII forms an exception, as its oven was placed in the corner opposite the entrance. The bottoms of ovens were lined with small stones – usually quartz, or with shreds of pottery and finished with a layer of fine clay hard fired to colours ranging from a variety of shades red to a black grey hue on the surface. A profile of an oven bottom revealed several consecutive layers of clay daub. The body of the oven itself was a dome or a block, created by a wattle-and-daub construction. The ovens were relatively large; the oven in the chamber of house

Figure 53: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Oven with a fire pit in the residential building of homestead XIV. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

45

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 54a: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. Ground plan of auxiliary buildings with the single-chamber rent charge dwelling. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 55: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Fire pit surrounded with rocks in the rent charge dwelling in homestead XI. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 54b: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. Ground plan of auxiliary buildings with the single-chamber rent charge dwelling attached to auxiliary buildings. A – oven, B – fire pit. Illustration by V. Nekuda.

similar situation was encountered in Mstěnice, where the space before the oven was daubed with clay and lined with stones as well. The fireplace in house XIV deserves some special attention. A small stone oven was bridged over by a large stone slab (Fig. 53), which could be used to keep food warm or for heating water, etc.

XV in Mstěnice filled almost 25% of the area of the room. Fireplaces were situated before the mouth of the oven – an important discovery. Such fireplaces were well-preserved in most houses in Pfaffenschlag. The fireplace bottoms were daubed in the same manner as the bottoms of ovens and were on the same level. The space of the fireplace itself was enclosed by large flat stones placed vertically. A

Bottoms of some ovens in Bystřec were daubed with clay with a high content of iron slag. Besides the oven in house 46

Furnishings of a House be found in all homesteads. The types of wood found in Mstěnice include pine, fir, birch, oak, hornbeam, maple, elm, lime, alder, polar, aspen and cherry (J. Kyncl, 1985, 190). Pine, birch, aspen and maple were primarily used for fuel. Fuel in Pfaffenschlag was provided for mostly by light-demanding trees like birch, aspen, pine and spruce (J. Kyncl, 1975, 201). The alder was also widely used for fuel. The connected fireplace and oven within the area of the chamber gives a hint as to their respective roles in the functioning of the household. The fireplace was used for preparing meals. Tripods served the purpose. Hanging kettles, which could be used for cooking out in an open fireplace were not found, it is therefore possible that pots with loops or handles along the rim were used instead.

Figure 56: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Tripod. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

II in Bystřec, which lay on a wooden frame (L. Belcredi, 1986, 435), all other ovens were constructed directly on unmade ground. House X in Bystřec featured two ovens (obj. 410, 411). A fireplace was situated before one of the ovens (obj. 410). L. Belcredi (1997, 110) reasoned that one of the ovens could have been used for firing.

The oven was primarily a source of warmth and was used for preparing meals that required baking. This meant bread in the first place.

Oven openings were very well-preserved in Pfaffenschlag and also in Mstěnice – especially in a single chamber rent charge dwelling of homestead VIII (Fig. 57). They were usually bordered by two flat stones. An important fact is that all ovens were handled and fuelled from inside the chamber. This even applies to the oven in the house of homestead I in Bystřec (V. Nekuda, 1976, 41), which L. Belcredi (1986, 435; 1997, 14) considered as being fuelled from the hall. The fuel burned in ovens as well as in fireplaces was wood. Charred remains of it are to

There is no archaeological evidence of a smoke management in the chamber. Because of the absence of postholes in the immediate proximity of the heating units it is possible to speculate about the existence of a chimney hood, which could have been suspended above the oven and fireplace. This way of drafting smoke out is suggested by a 1412 record from the village of Šitbořice, which lists a charge “for every smoking” (P II, 241). During the 16th century ovens were gradually replaced by stoves. The inventories of the Rudolec estate are evidence

Figure 57: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead VII, an oven with a fire pit. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

47

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages lined floors were also to be found in several houses in Konůvky. Having both an oven and an open fireplace in front of the oven in the chamber allowed for preparing meals in the open hearth as well as baking in the oven. An important piece of equipment in the medieval homestead was the tripod with a hollow handle; a wooden handle could be inserted into this and the tripod could be placed directly into the fire (Fig. 58). Gothic paintings give us an illustrative example in a depiction of St. Joseph and a tripod in the fire. He holds the wooden handle in his left hand and a ladle in his right hand (a detail of the painting: The Birth of Christ, Conrad of Friesach, c. 1450) or another scene depicting the birth of Christ in the post1400 gradual of Master Wenceslaus. An iron spit found in the deserted village of Bystřec is evidence of roasting meat in the fire. Ceramic articles were important equipment of a chamber and included pots of various sizes, lids, bowls, pitchers (Fig. 59) and cups (Fig. 60). Besides ceramic ones, the chamber was also furnished with wooden vessels and utensils: pails, bowls, plates and spoons for eating. The inventories of the Rudolec estate list 4 to 11 wooden bowls in a peasant homestead; the homestead of the magistrate of the village of Černá lists 24 wooden plates and an equal number of wooden spoons. The latter also owned tin utensils and one small kettle (F. Hrubý, 1927, 58). These dishes were stored on a shelf. The pails stood on the floor next to the oven.

Figure 58: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Oven (obj. 1137) in the rent charge dwelling in homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Some furniture was also necessary: a table, benches, bedding, in some cases also a cabinet. The inventory of a half-yardland homestead in Chlumek is evidence of this – there were actually two tables in the chamber (F. Hrubý, 1927, 52). It was also possible to sleep on the oven. According to the inventories of the Rudolec estate, chests were used to store dresses, shirts, comforters, tarps, towels, tablecloths, undershirts, woollen jackets, leather trousers, rabbit skin coats, sheets, Flanders skirts and scarves. Chests were fitted with lock and key (F. Hrubý, 1927, 58). A band from a chest fitting was found in Bystřec (L. Belcredi, 1988, 466). The middle part of the three-part house was the hall, accessed directly from the yard. The hall was primarily a passage into both the chamber and the storage room. Its size, however, also suggested a work space. This is true mostly of the large hallways found in the deserted village of Pfaffenschlag, where the halls took up 33 to 55% of the total house area. The largest hall was found in house IX – 61 m2. Houses I, VI, X and XI also featured large hallways ranging from 45 to almost 50% of the total house area. Quite a different situation was to be found in the deserted village of Vilémov, where a three-part house had a narrow hall of an area of only about 7 m2 (D. Šaurová, 1977, 265).

Figure 59: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Jugs. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

of this; a copper pot in a stove is listed in a chamber (F. Hrubý, 1927, 58). The pot was used for heating water. Floors in the chambers were usually of packed earth. Two houses in Pfaffenschlag formed an exception: the chamber of house I featured a floor of clay daub and the one in house VII was lined with flat stones. Stone48

Furnishings of a House Slavonic house. This theory is so far proving a groundless one as no evidence supporting it has been provided by excavations of rural settlements in Germany – no twofireplace houses have been found to date. R. Hurt (1970, 79) mentions an oven in the hall in the Kyjovsko region during the 16th century. It thus seems that the gradual displacement of the scullery into the hall comes only in the 16th century. The 16th century inventories of the Rudolec estate failed to mention a fireplace in the hall. Halls in the deserted village of Konůvky were of nearly the same size as the chambers and their size reached about 25 m2 (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 19–23). The process of the halls decreasing in size was documented by Z. Smetánka in Svídna (1993, 122). Torches were used for lighting the interiors, but were replaced by lamps to prevent fire. Burners were standard equipment in a medieval house. Iron lamps were used alongside ceramic ones in Mstěnice. The third part of the three-part house was the storage room, or, in the case of several houses in Pfaffenschlag and Mstěnice, a garner or granary. The storage room was not heated and commonly was the smallest part of the house. It was used for storing foodstuffs, tools and other equipment necessary for running a household. The furniture of a storage room consisted of chests for storing clothes and chests “to keep flour in” (F. Hrubý, 1927, 54).

Figure 60: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Cups. Photograph by R. Nekuda

The halls in the deserted village of Mstěnice were smaller than the chambers. The average area of the former was about 17 m2. The halls of houses X, XII and XIV formed an exception, as these were larger than the chambers. The largest hall was to be found in homestead XIV – 33 m2. This hall accounted for 40.7% of the total house area. Furthermore, this hall featured two entrances – one from the yard and another from the common. The house in homestead no. XIV was the only one with an entrance from the common; this implies its higher status within the village. The only items of interest regarding the furnishings of halls are a stone beater mill found in the hall of homestead VIII. This is a tool used even in the Early Middle Ages. Stone beater mills were used for the hulling of grain, i.e. for obtaining hulled barley and millet.

It can be assumed that the storage room also housed “the weaponry that to the house pertains”. Inventories of the Rudolec estate list an iron crossbow, a jack for the crossbow, rifles, a sword, spurs, a halberd, a neck-collar, a rapier, lances and front body armour. For example, Dvořák in the village of Stáje had two rifles, a sword and two pairs of spurs (F. Hrubý, 1927, 57). Evidence of weapons was found in all excavated villages. There are cutting weapons (daggers) as well as long-range weapons (arrowheads used for both bows and crossbows, cocking hooks for crossbows). There was even equipment for cavalry (spurs and stirrups).

The halls in homesteads XV and especially XVII were illustrative cases of a fireplace situated in the corner of the hall at the wall separating the hall itself and the chamber. In these two cases the fireplace was probably moved because of a lack of room in the chambers. On the other hand it also serves as evidence of the separation of ovens and fireplaces, which may be thus dated to the first half of the 15th century. A similar phenomenon was encountered by Z. Smetánka during excavations of the deserted village of Svídna in Bohemia, where an open fireplace was beyond doubt found to have been in the hall at the wall separating it from the chamber in house II. According to Z. Smetánka (1994, 122) the displacement of the fireplace into the hall occurred most probably towards the end of the 15th century. The origin of the two-fireplace house has been studied by Niederle (1913, 728–748), who ascribed the origin of the open fireplace in the hall to Frankish influence on the

The floor of the storage room lay on the same level as the floors of the chamber and hall. The three-part dwelling, whose third room serves as a storage room is termed a chamber house (V. Frolec – J. Vařeka, 1983, 96). On the other hand, in case a granary was adjacent to the hall, its floor was sunken below ground level and in consequence was a multiple storey room. A three-part house of this construction is termed a granary house. Houses belonging to this type were houses I and X in Pfaffenschlag and only the house in homestead II in Mstěnice. A special case of a granary attached to a house occurred in house VIII, where a multiple storey granary with a sunken part was situated behind the three-part house and was accessible from the storage room. In homesteads I and III the multiple storey granaries were located out in the yard, in homestead IV at 49

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages the end of the three-part house (with an entrance from a shed), in homestead no. XI behind the three-part house, in homesteads XII and XIV next to the main gate. A multiple storey granary with no sunken part stood separately in the yard of homestead V and in the case of homestead VI stood slightly before the three-part house. A separately standing granary was also encountered in the deserted village of Bystřec in homestead V (L. Belcredi, 1977, 17– 19; fig. 62) and in the village of Svídna in homestead III (Z. Smetánka, 1993, 124). The contemporaneous existence of storage rooms and granaries in agricultural homesteads necessarily leads to the assumption that the storage room was used for different purposes than the granary. Because granaries were fully built of stone, they offered better protection in case of a fire. We can therefore suppose that they were mainly used for storing grain.

The inventories of the Rudolec estate specify the multiple storey part of the granary as the top room, which was used for storing grain, buckwheat, peas, flax seed, poppy seed, millet, foodstuffs like bacon, smoked meat, cheese, pots of butter and honey (F. Hrubý, 1927, 50–59). The uses of the granary are connected to the question of a fireplace in its lower room. This arrangement is to be found in houses I and III in Pfaffenschlag. J. Škabrada (1978, 355–369) has voiced an opinion that the granaries could have doubled as temporary living quarters for spending the first winter. In the case of some granaries the idea seems acceptable, but particularly in the case of houses I and III the granaries were more probably the solution to coexistence of two families – the farmer and the old parents – under a common roof (V. Nekuda, 1975, 87).

50

Cellars

In the deserted villages of Pfaffenschlag and Mstěnice cellars formed a part of the homestead. The underground rooms were usually situated outside of the layout, but were accessible from the hall or from the chamber. The cellar itself and the hallway leading to it were lined with stone. Such a cellar was in Mstěnice in house V. It was accessible from the hall by means of a short ramp-shaped hallway. The cellar was 360 cm long, only 60 to 90 cm wide and 185 cm high. There was a recess in a sidewall. The barrel vault of the ceiling has not been preserved (Fig. 61). Cellars of the same type were to be found in Pfaffenschlag in houses III and V. The cellar in house III was accessible by way of a staircase leading from the hall. Its inside area was 150

by 100 cm (Fig. 62). Size-wise it corresponds to the one in house V in Mstěnice. It was accessible by means of a ramp-like entrance and the room itself was 190 cm below the ground. The wall opposite the entrance was rounded and had three recesses. (Fig. 63). A pitcher and a pot were found in two of them. Several cellars were dug out in unmade ground with no inside finish. Such cellars were to be found in houses II and VII in Pfaffenschlag and in house II in Mstěnice (R. Nekuda − V. Nekuda, 1997, 14). In the instance of the cellar in house II in Pfaffenschlag the cellar was dug out in weather-worn rock, so there was no need for reinforcing

Figure 63: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Cellar in the house in homestead V. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 61: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Cellar in homestead V. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 62: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Cellar accessible from the chamber of the house in homestead III. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 64: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Entrance to the cellar attached to the house in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

51

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 65: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Interior of the cellar in the house in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

the walls which were actually hewn out (Figs 64 & 65). In the corners of the 380 by 220 cm large room and halfway along each lengthwise wall there were postholes which prevented the ceiling from falling in. The cellar was accessible by means of a staircase from inside the house. The walls of the passage were lined with large flat stones. The cellar in Mstěnice in homestead XII forms an exception: it is located directly under the chamber and its construction is that of one of the most perfect cellars found in the rural environment (Fig. 66). Its ramp-like entrance with stone sidewalls led into a masonry-lined passage with a barrel vault ceiling (Figs 67a & 67b). This passage placed along the lengthwise axis of the house was not straight, but was angled at a right angle into a hallway which was somewhat wider, from which the passage then led in the direction of the transversal axis under the whole breadth of the chamber and into yet another wider room, which had the barrel vault ceiling and took up all the space under the chamber alongside the perimeter walls and all the way to the gable (Fig. 68). This vaulted room was divided in two by a wall with a doorway (Fig. 69). This type of cellarage is unique in the rural environment and provides proof of the special status of this homestead.

Figure 66: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Survey of the underground part of the house. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Figure 67a: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. View of the barrel vault of the cellar. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

D. Šaurová (1977, 264–265) has identified as a cellar a sunken object located in the storage room of house 1 in the deserted medieval village of Vilémov. It measured 3.0 m by 2.4 m with a 2 m long cut which sloped down to a depth of 2 m. The whole sunken object was reinforced with stone lining. There is also a rectangular sunken object in the three-part house 19 in Vilémov. Its depth is not stated. The sidewalls have not been reinforced with stone, but by the remnants of burned wood it can be assumed that the walls were lined with timber to prevent them from sagging. In the deserted village of Konůvky a stone-lined cellar is noted in house 1. The 5 m long and 0.5 m wide room was covered in masonry facing (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 19). In two houses in Pfaffenschlag (houses IX and XI) underground hallways served as cellars (Figs 70 & 71). They were entered by means of a sloping, ramp-like passage with walls reinforced with masonry. As can be

Figure 67b: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Cellar profile. Survey documentation by Z. Špičák. Illustration by V. Nekuda.

52

Cellars

Figure 68: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Detail of the barrel vault. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Figure 70: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the underground passageway of the house in homestead IX. A – outline of the bottom of the passageway, B – niches, C – parts of the passageway recessed in an unmade terrain, D – stabilisation of the passageway by masonry, E – entrance, F – ground plan of the overground part of the house. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 69: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. House in homestead XII. Underground premises. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

seen on the ground-plan, these hallways formed ovals 21 and 24 meters long respectively. They had a clearance of 150 to 180 cm and a width of 45 to 95 cm. The floors of the hallways are 235 to 243 cm beneath the presentday surface. Several recesses were to be found in the sidewalls. Lighting was provided for by torches or even lamps, which used to be placed into nooks near the ceiling. Three round vents leading to the surface were found in the hallway of house IX. In all probability they functioned as ventilation holes. The underground area itself could be closed off from the entrance hall by a door, which could be fastened by means of a latch, which left distinct marks in the sidewalls (V. Nekuda, 1975, 67–69, 74, 90–91; Fig. 72).

Existing archaeological research tells us that the rural house underwent the greatest changes in the course of the 13th century – both concerning the layout and the furnishings. Of no lesser importance is the finding that the evolution of the layout of the house was conditioned not only economically, but also regionally. This has been affirmed by the differences determined between houses in south-western and central Moravia. In view of this, the different cultural and structural movements together with the Great Colonization in the 13th century will require more attention in the future. The knowledge gained concerning the genesis of the tripartite house of the chamber type is priceless. Archaeological research in the localities of Mstěnice, Pfaffenschlag and Bystřec have shed light on how and on the time when the

Cellars undoubtedly had a practical use and were used for storage of foods which had to be kept cold, such as milk, cheese and meat. 53

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 71: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the underground passageway of the house in homestead XI. A – outline of the bottom of the passageway, B – niches, C – parts of the passageway recessed in an unmade terrain, D – stabilisation of the passageway by masonry, E – entrance, F – ground plan of the overground part of the house. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

single-chamber house and the isolated garner merged into one. Houses with a multiple storey granary in Mstěnice and in Pfaffenschlag are some of the oldest ones of this kind in the present-day Czech Republic.

Figure 72: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. View of the underground passageway in homestead IX. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

54

Auxiliary Buildings

Apart from the house itself, farm buildings formed an important part of the homestead. According to L. Niederle (1913, 798–817) the Slavonic homestead was comprised of sties, stables and cowsheds, barns, garners, haylofts, grain dryers etc. This cluster of buildings had to be enclosed. The period of time when this enclosed cluster of farm buildings appears can be determined by tracing the evolution of early medieval settlements in Mstěnice in the second half of the 11th century and on.

was explained as such a stall by L. Belcredi, (1986, 427– 428). The ground was dyed a dark purplish colour deep into the subsoil. It is at times difficult to provide unambiguous archaeological proof of the existence of stables and sties. Most researches lack a phosphate analysis of the soil. On the other hand this means that although the remains of stables have not been found, it does not necessarily mean that they did not exist.

Sties, Stables and Cowsheds

A criterion for proving a site a stable has been soil discoloration, the so-called “fat clay” and the depth to which the discoloration has penetrated the subsoil. Another criterion has been the finding of stone-lined channels for draining away dung-water (Fig. 73). These channels led from either the stable or sty itself (in Mstěnice it was the stable of homestead XIV) or from its immediate vicinity (stable in homestead XV in Mstěnice). The size of stables differed. Stables and sties in Mstěnice ranged from 4.0 to 36m2, in Pfaffenschlag from 5.5 to 28.2 m2. Stables in Bystřec had an area of about 20.0m2. Attempts at depicting stables and sties on the basis of period renderings, ones having anything in common with the birth of Christ in particular, must not be taken seriously. In most cases these are stereotypical images done according to old models. Nevertheless, some of these renderings depict wooden structures with thatched roofs, plank or wicker walls; these

Sties, stables and cowsheds played an important role in the homestead. The development of agriculture was closely linked with the role of the horse and what the horse required was a stable. Although cattle, sheep and pigs could spend most of the year outside, they also had to have a place to spend the wintertime. Evidence of a pigsty can be found e.g. in the Almanac of Osek from the beginning of the 14th century. Large homesteads in Mstěnice had several stables or sties for different animals. In the case of single-span homesteads the stable was placed right next to the living quarters, but in all cases the stables were accessed by separate entrances from the yard. With most other types of yards, the stables and sties were opposite the house. Other kinds of stalls for livestock besides stables were also to be found within the yard. A square area of 3 m by 3 m

Figure 73: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Drain ditch. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

55

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 74: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead VIII. Masonry by the granary entrance. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

are the structural elements which were common during the High and Late Middle Ages.

Research of the deserted medieval villages in Moravia, particularly in Mstěnice, Pfaffenschlag and Bystřec has provided us with authentic evidence concerning this important structure. An example of a granary becoming a multiple storey storage room of a tripartite house can be found in homestead II in Mstěnice. Multiple storey granaries in Pfaffenschlag have also been discovered to have been a part of the ground plans. Findings show that at first these structures were isolated. Short walls near the entrance are a common element (Fig. 74). In two cases the floors have been sunk below ground level (Fig. 75). This kind of entrance was only useful if the tier granary was a separate structure. The clearest examples of the granary first standing separately and later on being integrated into the three-part house ground plan are houses I, III, IX and XI (V. Nekuda, 1975). J. Škabrada (1978, 364) has said that granaries may have served as temporary living quarters during the time when the house and the homestead were being built. A fireplace was found in one granary only: on the floor, beside the entrance of the granary of house III there used to be a simple fireplace with a flat stone on each side (V. Nekuda, 1975, Tab. XVI: 3).

Several reasons led to establishing stalls and sties in the medieval homestead. Cattle stood for wealth (from Latin: pecus-pecunia) and so it was necessary to guard it from robbers as well as from wild animals. Production of manure was no less important; in the case of cows and sheep also the production of milk played an important role. With the introduction of traction, the horses and cows concerned had to be at hand in the yard. The stables, cowsheds etc. excavated by archaeological research to date all find these to be separate units, accessed by one or even two entrances from the yard. The so-called “Wohnstallhaus” – a type of stable accessible from inside of the hall of the house has not been found. Granaries and Garners Up till the 13th century structures called “kleť” were noted as being a part of the settlement. After the 13th century it is noted that these either became a third part of the tripartite house or an isolated structure within the yard. In case it was turned into a part of the house it became its multiple storey storage room, if the structure remained isolated or integrated among the other structures of the yard it is called a granary or a garner. Ethnographical literature favours granary as a replacement for the original Old Slavonic term of “kleť” (V. Frolec – J. Vařeka, 1983, 220).

Separate granaries were to be found in Mstěnice in homesteads I and III. They were located in the immediate proximity of the house. Their integration into the house was not possible as they stood off its longitudinal axis. The granary had two parts: a part of it was sunk below ground level; the rest was above ground level. The parts below ground level were the ones documented by archaeologists. In the case of two homesteads (V and VI) 56

Auxiliary Buildings

Figure 75: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. Entrance to the underground part of the granary. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

in Mstěnice these were not found. Generally these parts were square-shaped, the sides being 4, 3 and 2.8 metres long. Some were rectangular; the length of 3.5 metres appears four times. Some oddities were ascertained concerning granaries in Mstěnice. For example, the granary in homestead IX was integrated into the farm building opposite the house. It was square-shaped, 3.5 by 3.5 m. The excavation could not be finished because of ground water which was encountered at the depth of 106 cm. Stone lining ended at 150 cm. The granary in homestead XI was connected to the three-part house. The entrance from the yard leading into the sunken part was ramp-shaped, but with no cut. The sidewalls of the sunken part were lined with regular quarry-stone at a width of 60 cm. Homestead XII had a granary adjacent to the main gate. It was under a common roof with the adjoining farm building. The sunken part was entered from the yard by means of stairs.

Figure 76: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead XIV. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

The granary of homestead XII was located rather unusually: likewise it stood next to the main gate, but the entrance into the sunken part was oriented out onto the central common. The cut was short and so the ramp-like entrance was consequently quite steep. The inside was stilliform and about 4m2 (Fig. 76). The largest useful area could be found in the granary of homestead I – 14.4 m2 – and the

smallest granary was that of homestead XIV which had an area of only 4.2 m2. The ground plan also included “cuts” which led into the sunken part of the granary. These were called “šíje”. They were usually placed at the centre of the walls facing the yard. The “šíje” of the granary in homestead I formed an 57

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages exception: it was curved at an angle at the end (Fig. 77). Floors of the “šíje” were ramp-shaped, granaries in some homesteads – III, IV, possibly also VIII and XII – had stairs (Fig. 78). Four granaries had no “šíje” (homesteads V, VI, IX and XI). The depth to which they were sunk ranged from 1.2 to 2.4 metres. The amount of rubble – up to 15 m3 – proves that the part of the granaries above ground level was constructed of stone. Postholes, stone thresholds and reveals in the masonry are evidence of the position of doors, which in all cases opened on the inside. Separately standing granaries must have had a “šíje” sheltered by a covering, especially when the “šíje” was a long one. According to J. Škabrada in the case of the granary in homestead I one can even assume the construction of an entrance hall, which would shelter the entrance into the sunken part and also serve as an entrance into the part above the sunken space. When attempting reconstruction, J. Škabrada considered two possibilities. On the one hand it could have been a farm building, on the other it may have served as living quarters of two rooms with cellarage (R. Nekuda – V. Nekuda, 1997, 68). Judging by the fact that the equipment found was very limited and not typical of living quarters at all, the structure was pronounced to have functioned as a farm building – a multiple storey granary. Granaries differed from semi-subterranean structures in that they had a ceiling. Evidence of beam structure was noted in the granary of homestead I.

Figure 77: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the granary in homestead I. 1 – masonry facing, 2 – masonry in unmade terrain, 3 – entrance wall, 4 – rubble, 5 – level change of the horizontal profile, K – post holes, D – granary bottom, V – entrance, S – niche, R – sloping passageway. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Granaries of homesteads V and VI in Mstěnice with no sunken part and consequently without a “šíje” serve as evidence to the subsequent evolution of this structure, which has remained a part of vernacular architecture in the following centuries. A well-preserved granary in Písečné nad Dyjí in homestead 32 dating from the 16th century is an analogy of the granary in homestead VI in Mstěnice (Fig. 79). The further evolution of granaries is documented by research done in homesteads XII and XIV in Mstěnice, where the granaries appear next to the main gate. Summing up all the information about granaries in Mstěnice, there is to be seen a wide range of positioning within the homestead. It seems that the first stage was that of the isolated granary standing in the yard, as is the case with homesteads I and III, possibly also IV and VIII. A later stage has brought about the development of the multiple storey granary house, when the granary was connected to the room by means of a hallway e.g. in homestead II. In homesteads VIII (Fig. 80) and XI the granaries were situated behind the ground plan of the house, while in homestead VI the granary stood in front of the three-part house. Granaries located opposite the house were to be found in homesteads V and IX. A chronological progression can also be traced in this differing positioning, granaries with no sunken part can be considered more recent. Considering the layout of granaries within the homestead it follows that homesteads on the north side of the common formed the core of the village; newer homesteads were then added accordingly.

Figure 78: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead III. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

58

Auxiliary Buildings

Figure 79: Písečné. House with a granary from the 16th century. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 80: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

59

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages granary house found in the Danube River valley dates back to the Great Moravian Empire, but he was aware that it is impossible to document its continuity during the 10th and 11th centuries (V. Mencl, 1980, 169–170). This has been confirmed by research done in Mstěnice where the oldest found predecessor of the granary, the “kleť” dates back to the 11th century. It is necessary to briefly state that throughout the Middle Ages granaries were not only to be found in the Danube River valley. This is easily proved by the results of research done in the deserted Bohemian village of Svídna (Z. Smetánka, 1988), or in the deserted Hohenrode (P. Grimm, 1939) and Holzheim by Fritzlar (N. Wand, 1983) in Germany. Granaries documented by archaeological research in Mstěnice and Pfaffenschlag are some of the oldest ones in the present-day Czech Republic. Because granaries have remained a part of rural architecture until modern times, the ones discovered in deserted medieval villages are a primary source of further study.

Figure 81: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Underground part of the granary in homestead V. Photograph by L. Belcredi.

Barns

Granaries in Pfaffenschlag were noted as being already part of the ground plans of individual houses, but it seems clear that they were originally separately standing. All the characteristics of a granary were best kept intact in homestead IX: the sunken part one metre below ground level and a straight, ramp-shaped entrance with stonelined sidewalls. A multiple storey granary in homestead I was sunken in the same way, but its entrance was shorter and a staircase.

The oldest recorded account of barns in what is now the Czech Republic dates back to the 12th century. A nameless medieval annalist referred to as Kanovník Vyšehradský states that in 1134 AD a storm scattered about grain stored in barns (according to L. Niederle, 1913, 807). The explanation L. Niederle supplies – that these barns had a roof but were open on the sides – corresponds to the construction shown in the Velislav Bible of 1341. E. Baláš (1970, 5–8) supposes the Slavs used them earlier, even before the 12th century. The possible existence of barns on manors as well as in other places in Pohansko is also acknowledged by B. Dostál (1987, 25). According to B. Dostál the building techniques and the entrance on the gable side seen in these structures are reminiscent of the Danube River valley type of barns passable through along the lengthwise axis found in south-eastern Moravia.

Only in one homestead in the deserted village of Bystřec has a granary structure been found. It had all the characteristics of the granaries in Mstěnice: a ramp-shaped entrance with sidewalls, a stone-lined sunken part, an inside area of 9 m2. Its upper part was constructed of logs (Fig. 81). According to L. Belcredi the floor of the granary was at ground level, which means that the earth had to be packed around it (L. Belcredi, 1987, 159).

Important evidence concerning barns in the Czech countryside in the 15th century has been provided by Aeneas Piccolomini in his Historia Bohemica. He writes that barns were made of wood and covered with straw. On the contrary barns on manors were of stone and had shingle roofs (F. Graus, 1957, 67).

Contrasting the situation in Mstěnice up until the 13th century with that of the village of the High Middle Ages, radical changes in grain storage have occurred. Granaries have replaced the grain pit. However, the grain pit had not disappeared entirely from the Middle Age village. A report from 1407 AD states that: “Ondřej of Bítov looted in Černín a pit of wheat” (P II, 117, no. 502).

The barn had two main functions associated with growing grain: it was a dry place to store unthreshed grain and it then served as a covered threshing-floor to thresh it. The Moravian Books of Summons (Libri citationum et sententiarum seu) from the beginning of the 15th century serve as record of both of these functions. Jakoubek of Soběnov accuses Jan of Ptení of stealing grain yet unthreshed from his barn (P I, no. 1132, pp. 368–369). Interesting evidence of threshing grain during the winter months can be found in the dispute between Kateřina of

Granaries are also indirect evidence of the intensity of grain production. An extensive documentation of granaries in the former Czechoslovakia was carried out by V. Mencl in his impressive work Folk Architecture in Czechoslovakia (Prague 1980). When searching for the origin of the granary, V. Mencl came to the conclusion that the agricultural 60

Auxiliary Buildings Semptice and Vilém of Pernštejn, who took from her five threshers, who threshed from St. Martin’s day (November 11th) until two weeks before Shrovetide (P II, 76). Even the list of equipment written down on January 6th 1569 in the village of Černá in the Rudolec estate lists unthreshed grain in the barn: half a parník of rye, a half parník of oats and twelve shocks of barley (F. Hrubý, 1927, 53).

building were to be found in front of the bipartite house. The eaves side of the building faced the village common, the entrance led from the passage on the gable side of the house. This structure can also be considered to be a barn. Taking the rest of the homesteads into account, there probably was a barn in homestead IX. A rectangular, 9.0 by 5.0 m building with two entrances – the first 1 m wide, the second 2 m wide and facing the yard – stood in the north-eastern corner of the plot.

Barns were often damaged or even destroyed during quarrels among the landed gentry. The Books of Summons (Libri citationum et sententiarum seu) of 1418 (PB III, 226, no. 1036) are proof of this: Ondřej of Okárec sent his servants to Račice, where they looted and then burned a barn full of wheat and other buildings in the yard belonging to Žibřid of Račice.

The layout of other barns lacked a passageway, but otherwise met the criteria. The large barn in homestead XIV with an area of 50 m2 was situated behind the inner yard, which offered enough room for the wagon loaded with grain to drive into the barn.

An idea of how barns looked during the High Middle Ages has been supplied by archaeological research in Mstěnice, where eight buildings may be explained as barns according to their ground plans. The basic criterion was a passable threshing-floor. It was met best by the barn in homestead VIII, which took up the whole of one side of the yard – the side facing the garden and fields (obj. 1161) – and with an area of 16.3 by 4.4 m. The stonework was 60 to 70 cm in width and preserved to a height of 40 to 60 cm. Roughly in the middle the stonework was interrupted in a length of 300 cm on the side facing the yard and for 250 cm on the other side. The ground was much harder in this spot, doubtlessly the threshing-floor and the passageway, situated in the left part of the building. Judging by the large amounts of burned wood along both sides, the walls were probably made of logs (Fig. 82).

The barn in homestead XI had the same area as the one in homestead XI and was situated at the back of the yard by the back gate. An area of 28 m2 – as in the case of homestead II – is repeated in homesteads V and IX. In both cases the barn was located in the far part of the yard next to the main gate. It is not without interest that the layout of individual homesteads in Pfaffenschlag does not allow for the existence of barns. They were probably placed outside of the yard, on the grounds behind the homesteads, which have not been excavated. The existence of barns can be positively proved by the discovery of metal sheathing of a flail. It can therefore be assumed that these structures were of wood and that no traces of them were left, or that they were of similar construction as the “oboroh” depicted in the Velislav Bible. This type of barn was probably recorded during research in Bystřec. In Bystřec there is also evidence of a separately standing log barn of 7.0 by 4.0 m in homestead III (L. Belcredi, 1986, 428).

Another barn with a crosswise passageway was found in Mstěnice in the immediate proximity of the manor, which it undoubtedly belonged to. Its inside area of 13.5 by 5.0 m and the off-centre placed gate made it little different from the barn in homestead VIII (Fig. 108).

Haylofts and Sheds

A third site may also be considered a barn: the foundations are not very intact, but an area of 9.0 by 4.8 m is designated by rubble next to the main gate of homestead II. The barn itself was undoubtedly made of timber, because the stone was only used to level the ground.

Several narrow structures were excavated next to barns in homesteads VI and XIV and behind the granary in homestead XI. One of them was situated even behind the courtyard wall of homestead VI. The ground plan was a rectangle of 5.0 by 2.0 metres. It is evident that the structure was covered by a pent roof.

The situation at the neighbouring homestead III was similar: the remains of stonework of a 10.0 by 5.0 m farm

Figure 82: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of the barn in homestead VIII. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

61

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages Another narrow structure was found in homestead XI, also in the area behind the gate leading from the yard, where it was added to a multiple storey barn. It measured 5.0 by 1.8 metres.

Inside the yard between individual farm buildings or in its open space various kinds of postholes have been excavated, thus pointing to the locations of sheds. These were necessary in the homesteads for storing agricultural equipment, especially wagons.

Explaining the origin and development of individual types of yards in the present-day Czech Republic from ethnographical records has not been and cannot be sufficiently resolved, as none of the buildings have been inhabited for more than 200 years at a time. The only exception is the village of Klentice near Břeclav which has the ground plan of the homesteads as of 1672. Most of the local homesteads featured an eaves orientation; the living quarters and the farm buildings had a common roof. Only in a few homesteads were the farm buildings attached in an L-shaped manner to the living quarters, or did the yard have buildings on three sides (Z. Láznička, 1962, 80).

Judging by the occurrence of farm buildings within homesteads in Mstěnice, it is clear that they were equipped with all the basic farm buildings necessary for both growing grain and for keeping livestock.

Archaeological research of deserted medieval villages to date has brought authentic evidence of the individual types of agricultural homesteads and has shed some light as to the time of their origin.

The width of these structures suggests that they were in fact lean-tos where hay could be stored.

Archaeological research of settlements of the Early Middle Ages in the present-day Czech Republic documents single-chamber dwellings grouped in an arc- or horseshoeshaped layout surrounding an open area, which formed the common yard. As far as farm buildings are concerned, grain pits were to be seen in these settlements. These were usually close to the dwellings and were used to feed the family, while others in the common yard contained seed grain. This situation implies that land cultivation was a communal activity. Early Slavonic settlements in Moravia (Břeclav – Pohansko, a settlement in the vicinity of Mutěnice) were of agricultural character with an autarchic economy. Research of the earliest phase of settlement in Mstěnice has shown that the importance of the family within the village community gradually grew. L. Niederle (1913, 798) also emphasized the importance of the family in the development of the enclosed complex of farm buildings, when he characterized the time of origin as “from time immemorial, as soon as the family began to live economically”. The question of the origin of Western Slavonic homesteads has also been studied by P. Donat, (1980, 130) who reached the conclusion that enclosed settlements did not start to appear until the 12th century, because stables, barns and sheds were not found. B. Dostál, (1987, 12) on the other hand, believes that in the case of Slavonic settlements, yards of the collective type with buildings scattered around may be allowed for.

The Shaping of the Agricultural Homestead The homestead is a general term for an agricultural estate (V. Frolec – J. Vařeka, 1983, 238). The homestead as an agricultural unit contains not only the house and the farm buildings, but also the fields, the meadows, the garden, the forest and in regions where wine is grown also the vineyard. This work, focusing on the shaping of the agricultural homestead in the Early and High Middle Ages, studies the questions associated with the origin of the homestead and the disposition of the yard and the ploughland. Several studies of the layout and arranging of the Moravian agricultural homestead have been carried out to date: in ethnography (V. Frolec, 1974, 13–23; V. Pražák, 1958, 219– 236, 331–360), settlement geography (Z. Láznička, 1974, 77–94) and art history (V. Mencl, 1980, 595). While the findings of the first two fields are based predominantly on the maps of the land register (mostly from 1848), art history has to make do with assessing the aesthetics of vernacular architecture. The more recent works of our ethnographers (V. Frolec, 1974) oppose the opinions of the proponents of the ethnic theory who claim that the formation of different types of agricultural homesteads was connected with the ethnic and tribal peculiarities among the population. Settlement geography perceives the agricultural homestead as a unit and its functionality as that of an agricultural whole. The development of individual homesteads of the normed type in the present-day Czech Republic can be dated back to the 11th century and ascribed to the influence of the “Frankish yard” (Z. Láznička, 1962, 78). V. Mencl (1980, 595) has also come to support this foreign, if older, influence. He states that it can be justly assumed that in the second half of the 13th and more importantly in the 14th century the so-called Frankish yard type of gothic homestead has become a part of the Czech village. According to V. Mencl the Frankish yard has been preserved in the places where it developed with the German populace. Within Moravia it was mainly the Czech-Moravian Highlands, says V. Mencl.

Of the several localities where research was carried out, Mstěnice has most contributed to solving the question of the origin of the homestead. Settlement can be traced back as far as the end of the 8th century. Up until the first half of the 11th century the layout of the settlement did not differ from earlier Slavonic settlements. An important change started to take place from the second half of the 11th and in the 12th centuries. The settlement then contained nine dwellings (single-chamber houses), twenty-seven grain pits, eighteen farm buildings, two cellars, two outside ovens and four underground passages 62

Auxiliary Buildings

Figure 83: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of homesteads from the second half of the 11th century and from the first half of the 12th century. Illustration by G. Šik.

(V. Nekuda, 2001, 128–136). As far as internal structure is concerned, the main changes involved the disposition of houses and farm buildings into nine groups, which can be seen as the forerunners of separate homesteads (fig. 83).This development was the result of the importance of the family, which according to Niederle “started to live economically”. The courtyards in individual homesteads had an area of about 200m2. Besides houses (underground dwellings in three cases, the rest were structures above ground level) the yard also contained stables, several “kleť”, a threshing floor and several grain pits. The grouping of buildings within the yard is the oldest evidence of the collective or type of yard in Moravia. Entrances into underground passages were located outside of the yard and were common for several families. Also during the course of the 12th century the fortress system started to loosen. This led to the development of gentry land ownership and to their rights of ownership of land and serfs (J. Válka, 1991, 61). In this way new requirements regarding the social system and rule of court came into existence for the control of the rural population. In the 13th century these led to a change in the relationship between gentry and serfs. The extent of the changes is documented by the layouts of Pfaffenschlag, Bystřec and Mstěnice. It is obvious that the building of the individual yards in these villages had to take place according to a pre-planned scheme. Plots in Mstěnice were situated in an arc-shaped layout of two rows and were attached to one another. Three kinds of plots are to be found there:

2. Moderately wide and deep plots 15 to 20 m wide and 30 to 33 m long, 3. Wide, almost square plots 18 to 25 by 22 to 26 m. According to the area of individual yards the homesteads may be divided into two groups: homesteads with yards over 400m2 and homesteads with yards under 400m2. Nine homesteads fall into the first group, eight into the second. This distinction also applies to the occurrence of farm buildings. While the homesteads in the first group had all farm buildings, the second group lacked some – usually barns. Although the area of the ploughland is not known, it can be assumed that homesteads in Mstěnice with yards over 400m2 were one-yardland homesteads while the ones with yards under 400m2 were half-yardland ones (Fig. 84). House plots in Pfaffenschlag were best preserved on the right bank of the creek, where seven homesteads formed a regular row. Their yards were bounded by a wall of masonry with gateways and small entrance gates on the side facing the common. The plots of these homesteads were 23 to 25 m long, but were not uniformly wide. Their width ranged from 15 to 27 m, so according to area they may again be divide into two groups: of about 400m2 and of over 500m2. The largest yard was to be found in homestead V – almost 600 m2. The yard was surrounded by a stone wall. Plots in the deserted village of Bystřec were measured out to a uniform width of 70 metres (L. Belcredi, 2000, 215). Three so delimited plots housed two homesteads: III and V, VI and VII, I and IX.

1. Narrow and deep plots 9 to 14 m wide and 23 to 33 m long, 63

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages V. Frolec (1974, 14) characterized the basic type of the regular yard as the one-wing yard, where the farm buildings are connected to the house along a longitudinal axis. In the non-existent Pfaffenschlag these criteria are met by homesteads II, V and X. An extension with a separate entrance was built up to the house in homestead II on the southern side. Judging by its area of 28m2 it undoubtedly served as a stable (Fig. 86). In homestead V an extension was connected to the gable of the house on the south-eastern side. The inside area was 20m2, also had a separate entrance and probably also served as a stable. The yard of homestead II was surrounded by a stone wall 16 metres of which are preserved on the north side facing the village common. There were two entrances: a main gateway (Fig. 87) and a small gate. The gateway was 3 m wide and the leaf was set in a large stone which served as a swivel and had a groove to stay it. (Fig. 88). There was only one leaf. The entryway was lined with stone bollards. The small gate was 1.2 m wide and its swivel stone has also been preserved.

Figure 84: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the house and the cowshed in homestead XV. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

Two narrower buildings were attached to the southwestern gable side of the house in homestead X. Their area was 6.5 by 2.2 and 4.6 by 1.6 m and they probably functioned as stables for cattle and sheep.

Size of yard plots in the individual villages: Mstěnice m² Homestead

Pfaffenschlag m² Homestead

Bystřec m² Homestead

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIV XV XVI XVII

I II III V IX X XI

I III V

700 495 524,2 405 250 300 452,6 425 ca 300 450 450 550 253 300 350

400 560 450 589 425 500 410

In Mstěnice homesteads X (Fig. 89), XV, XVI and XVII were of the one-wing type. In all cases a stable connected to the house (Fig. 90). An important characteristic of living quarters as well as of farm buildings were separate entrances into the farm buildings directly from the yard (Fig. 86).

504 300 1500

Another type of building arrangement is defined by buildings standing on opposite sides of the yard. This type of yard is known as two-wing, parallel or paired. This type of yard was not found in Pfaffenschlag. In Mstěnice only homesteads IV, V, VII and IX meet the above-mentioned requirements. There was a three-part house with a shed and a granary on one side of the yard of homestead IV, while farm buildings occupied the opposite side. The two-wing yard of homestead V also featured a full set of buildings on the left side – viewed from the gateway – and a storied granary on the other. Homestead VII had quite an unusual layout. The left lengthwise side of the yard was occupied by a three-part house and the other by a farm building situated at its very end. The layout of the yard in homestead IX is a classic example of the two-wing yard (Fig. 91). The whole of the left lengthwise side of the yard was fully developed: a two-room farm building connected to the three-part house on one side and a long farm building took up the other side (Fig. 92).

From a typological point of view it is possible to distinguish between irregular and regular yard developments. Irregular yards are to be found in some homesteads in Bystřec, while the yards excavated in Pfaffenschlag and Mstěnice were usually of the regular type. An illustrative example of a homestead with an irregular yard is homestead V in Bystřec (Fig. 81). The house and farm buildings were separate buildings standing at random within the yard area. The irregularity of the layout was partially due to the unevenness of the terrain (L. Belcredi, 1997, 23). Because the living quarters (A), granary (B) and farm building (D) stood next to each other, the type of yard in homestead V may be labelled as a group type (Fig. 85). An identical yard form may also be found in homestead III – the layout of the house and farm buildings is the same (L. Belcredi, 1986, 428, fig. 82).

Ethnography makes a distinction between a two-wing yard and a two-sided one, where the residential house and the farm buildings occupy its two adjacent sides. Farm buildings are located at a short or longer distance and at a right angle to the house (V. Frolec, 1974, 14). This layout can be found in homesteads I and II in Mstěnice. 64

Auxiliary Buildings

Figure 85: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Homestead V. Example of free-standing structures in the yard. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 86a: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Cowshed attached to the house in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

65

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 86b: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Yard in homestead II. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 87: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead II. Entrance gate with footstones on the side. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

Figure 89: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead X. Example of a one-wing yard. Model. Photograph by R. Nekuda. Figure 88: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Homestead II. Stone with a swivel hollow and a groove for positioning an entrance gate. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

66

Auxiliary Buildings

Figure 90: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan and reconstruction of the one-wing yard in homestead XV. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 92: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead IX. Ground plan and reconstruction. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 91: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of homesteads X (part), IX and VIII. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

67

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 93: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plans of homesteads II and III: a – barn, b – chamber, c – hall, d – granary, e, f – auxiliary buildings, III: f – roofed yard entrance. Illustration by M. Říčný.

Both homesteads feature a three-part house on one side and farm buildings placed at a right angle to it. In homestead I there was a separately standing granary and in homestead II probably a barn (Fig. 93:2). Homestead X in Bystřec can also be ranked among this type: the chamber and living quarters were located on one side (Fig. 94) while a farm building stood near to the house at a right angle (Fig. 95). The origin of this homestead has been dated into the second half of the 14th century by the man in charge of the research (L. Belcredi, 1997b, 110, 121).

homesteads in Pfaffenschlag belong to this category: homestead III (Fig. 96) where a farm building in the back of the yard was connected at a right angle to a gable-oriented house. A similar situation was to be found in the yard of homestead IX: in the far side of the yard an auxiliary lean-to was linked to a granary (V. Nekuda, 1975, 43, 67) In Mstěnice the layout of homestead VI corresponds to the L-shaped type of yard. A three-part house with an auxiliary extension was across from the common. Facing the common the yard is enclosed by a low wall with a gateway. In the rear of the yard a farm building was connected to the residential house at a right angle.

This type of yard layout has been found throughout southwest Moravia and in a number of Central European countries (V. Frolec, 1974, 14). The yard of homestead III in Mstěnice is the only example of a three-sided yard to date (Fig. 93:3). Facing the common was a wall with a gateway. A farm building featuring an eaves orientation towards the common was connected to this and a two-part house with an adjacent granary stood at a right angle to it. The granary and another separately standing farm building formed the third side.

Homestead XII in Mstěnice may also be labelled L-shaped. Facing the common was an eaves-oriented auxiliary building, to which a granary was attached. Next there was a gateway and an enclosing wall. A single-chamber house – in all probability a rent charge dwelling – occupied the north-eastern corner. From the house on the yard was enclosed by a wall, which however has not been all preserved. The far – i.e. the southern – part of the yard was closed off by a wall with a small gate (Fig. 97).

The preceding types all featured separately standing residential and farm buildings. The following type differs in that the buildings are connected to one another – usually at right angles. This type is known as an “L” or “hook”-shaped yard (V. Frolec, 1974, 16). Two

In Bystřec the yard of homestead I can be counted among the L-shaped type (Fig. 98). Because the eaves side of the house faced the common, the homestead itself formed a 68

Auxiliary Buildings

Figure 94: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of village X. 1 – masonry, 2 – rubble, 3 – bearing wall, 4 – paving, 5 – incomplete paving, 6 – daub, 7 – ovens, 8 – entrenched post structures, 10 – storage pits and a well, 11 – outline of a entrenched structure, 12 – outline of excavation. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

right angle in the front part of the yard (V. Nekuda, 1976, fig. 2).

farm buildings were positioned vice versa. A gateway took up the space between the two structures. Buildings on the side opposing the house connected to the eaves-oriented structure at a right angle, but a following farm building was positioned at an obtuse angle to the preceding ones. The far side of the yard was enclosed by a low wall with a gate (Figs 99 & 100).

In case the existing L-shaped yard was further developed on a third side, a trilateral yard emerged. Its open side either faced the common (the road) or the back of the yard. Such yards have been found in Mstěnice: homesteads XI and XIV. They were both open on the far side of the yard. In homestead XI the gable side of the house faced the common, while the rent charge dwelling and adjacent

Homestead XIV in Mstěnice had a yard divided into two parts. The north side facing the common had an almost 69

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 95: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Reconstruction of homestead X, phase III. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 96 (above): Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of a hook-type homestead. Illustration by V. Nekuda base on a illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 97 (right): Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan and reconstruction of homestead XII. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

70

Auxiliary Buildings

Figure 98: Bystřec. Deserted medieval village. Site plan of the yard in hook-type homestead III. Illustration by Z. Špičák. Ground plan outlines by V. Nekuda.

Figure 99: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground and reconstruction of homestead XI. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 100: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Homestead XI. g – h: reconstruction of structures in the back of the yard, i – j: entrance from the central common, reconstruction of a rent charge dwelling attached to auxiliary buildings. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

square layout of 25.0 by 22.0 m. This part of the yard can be termed the inner part. Facing the common stood an eaves-oriented three-part house and a granary. Between these two there probably used to be a covered gateway, which means the yard was totally closed off from the common. Farm buildings positioned at right angles to the house occupied the sides of the inner yard. The southern side of the inner yard was bounded by a stone wall with a gateway and a second small gate. The southern (outer)

yard had an area of 25.0 by 14.0 m and was developed only along the western side (Fig. 101). A special status was held by homestead VIII in Mstěnice, whose yard may be ranked among the quadrilateral type (Fig. 102). The area of the yard was fully enclosed from three sides, where the layout of buildings has been preserved, only along the fourth side between the barn and the stable were there no stone walls to be found, only 71

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 102a: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of homestead VIII. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

postholes designating the area of a shed. One side was occupied by a three-part house and a storied granary. A large barn formed the whole next side – connecting to the house at a right angle. Sheds took up the side opposite the house and a single-chamber house (rent charge dwelling) and a stable faced the common. The passable threshing floor in this homestead was apparently roofed as a part of side buildings and formed an entrance into the yard (Fig. 96). Now that the different kinds of yards encountered in deserted medieval villages have been defined, several questions appear. Firstly it is the transformation of Early Middle Ages settlements into perfectly regular yard types. This comparison can only be made in Mstěnice, where the layouts of the original collective homesteads as they looked during the Early Middle Ages were obtained (V. Nekuda, 2001, 128–151). The shift from a collective homestead to a regular grouping of residential and auxiliary buildings within one yard was due to a change in the economic situation after the second half

Figure 101: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan and reconstruction of homestead XIV. A – inner yard, B – garden, a – b: view from the central common, e – f: view from the yard, d – c: view of the back of the yard. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 102b: Mstěnice. Reconstruction of homesteads VII, VIII and partly IX. Illustration by M. Říčná.

72

Auxiliary Buildings of the 13th century. Excavations of Bystřec have shown regional distinctions, because the older, collective form of homesteads still existed there until the 14th century. This discovery is all the more valuable since it is a colonized village, which in 1349 was called Mehrlinslag, which was changed to Bystrzicz in 1371 (ZDB I, 23, E. Černý, 1999, 46–47). Theories advocating the spreading of normative types of yards, especially, the so-called Frankish yard type by means of German colonization have proved to be groundless in the case of Bystřec.

orientation towards the common found in Pfaffenschlag and Mstěnice (e.g. homestead XV) have been preserved in the hilly northern part of Moravia (V. Frolec, 1974, 13). The two-wing or parallel yard type – e.g. homestead IV in Mstěnice – is to be frequently found in northern Moravia, Silesia, south-western Moravia around Třebíč and in the vicinity of Slavonice. This type is also common in a number of Central European countries (V. Frolec, 1974, 14). Homestead X in Bystřec can also be ranked among this type. In this case it cannot be called an L-shaped type as the individual buildings are not attached to one another but are all separately standing. On the other hand, homestead III in Pfaffenschlag or homestead II in Mstěnice can be considered as belonging to the two-wing type, although these are both L-shaped. According to maps from the land register this type was predominant in central and southeastern Moravia, i.e. around the cities of Brno, Kroměříž and Prostějov and to a certain extent also in the vicinity of Olomouc. The fact that L-shaped yards are accumulated mainly in the old settled regions has brought about a theory (Z. Láznička, 1962, 86) stating that the other types of yards are characteristic for regions colonized after 1200 A.D. This theory is proven groundless when confronted with the findings in Mstěnice; the village of Mstěnice lies in an old settled region and all types of yards are to be found there.

A second issue is the evolution of the various yard types. Excavations in Pfaffenschlag, Mstěnice and Bystřec have shown that all of the basic types existed throughout the 14th century. It has also been determined that several types were to be found in one place: all of the types were to be found in Mstěnice. The type of development was largely determined by the size of the settlement. Half-yardland homesteads probably were of the one-wing type of yard, while more complex types of yards with more farm buildings corresponded to one-yardland homesteads. As far as the High and Late Middle Ages are concerned, it is impossible to delimit regions by specific types of yards occurring there, e.g. the L-shaped yard can be found in the colonized villages of Pfaffenschlag and Bystřec as well as in the old settled area of Mstěnice. If we are to compare earlier theories with the evidence produced by excavations, e.g. that the Frankish yard spread into the present-day Czech Republic (L. Niederle, V. Mencl, Z. Láznička), that the house with the hip roof is of the Old Slavic origin and that the shift from side orientation to gable orientation is stated in the 12th century (V. Mencl, 1949; B. Schier, 1932), that the spreading of the gable design among rural buildings took place in the 16th century (V. Pražák, 1949–1950), it may be plainly discerned that they entirely lack support in archaeological sources.

The trilateral type, represented by homesteads XI and XII in Mstěnice is still to be found in the region of Haná in eastern Moravia, in the eastern part of Silesia, in the region between Olomouc, Bruntál and Šumperk, in the Czech Moravian Highlands south of Jihlava, west of Brno, in the vicinity of Moravské Budějovice and around Slavonice (V. Frolec, 1974, 14–16).

Irregular yard types with free-standing buildings such as those to be found in the deserted Bystřec have remained in existence up till now in the mountainous regions of eastern Moravia near to the boundary between Moravia and Silesia settled by shepherds, in the vicinity of Bruntál, Šumperk and even in several villages around Znojmo (V. Frolec, 1974, 13).

The quadrilateral type was represented by homestead VIII in Mstěnice. According to 19th century land register maps it was to be found around Svitavy, Moravská Třebová and Polička. The age and origin of this yard type was a matter of great concern for ethnographers. K. Chotek (1936, 157) opted for a German origin theory, when he wrote: “The origin … is undoubtedly purely German.” Z. Láznička also supports the theory that the quadrilateral type of homestead was “…unquestionably brought by German colonizers, which is also evident when taking into account how widespread it is in the formerly German parts of Bohemia” (Z. Láznička, 1962, 87). Recalling the results of excavations in Germany it can be plainly seen that the quadrilateral type of yard is only to be found at one site: in the deserted village of Königshagen and only as late as the 14th century, i.e. by the time that the colonization of the present-day Czech Republic was already terminated. All of the different types of yards already exited in the 14th century, as determined by excavations in Mstěnice.

By far the most numerous in Moravia, however, are yards which feature the house and auxiliary buildings spread out around its perimeter. The one-wing yards with a gable

The various types of homesteads in Moravia have their counterparts, or analogies, in Lower Austria, Slovakia and to a certain extent also in Hungary. This had

Ethnographical Analogies If we were to compare the types of medieval agricultural homesteads ascertained to date with maps of the cadastre, i.e. roughly the situation towards the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, we will come to the conclusion that yard types have not experienced any significant changes since the Middle Ages.

73

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages much to do with the overall cultural evolution of the central Danube River valley as V. Frolec (1970, 46–47, 57) has stressed when studying interethnic relationships in rural architecture and specifically the evolution and occurrence of houses of the chamber type.

rural architecture was the question of continuity or discontinuity. In solving it, V. Frolec used sources which enabled him to study the relationship between rural architecture both during the Middle Ages and during the modern times. South-western Moravia provided him with excellent conditions for this kind of research. Local deserted villages like Mstěnice and Pfaffenschlag have been systematically excavated. Findings in these villages are evidence of a continuity of development regarding village settlement. Excavations of deserted medieval villages have provided fundamental sources of study for ethnography and urbanistic geography about the house and yard, thus nearing the very origins of the different yard types in Moravia.

Václav Frolec was the most important Czech ethnographer to study the oldest types of yards on a European scale and to consult his findings with the results obtained through excavations. He was one of the few ethnographers, who admitted that attempts at tracking the development of settlement types throughout history up till the present day are futile when lacking archaeological sources. The most important issue regarding his theories about

74

Equipment of a Homestead

No equipment of vassals’ homesteads from the Middle Ages has been preserved. Limited insight into agricultural tools, grain and livestock can be gained by consulting the inventories made by F. Graus, (1957, 357–405). These mostly concern only Bohemia. Outside of Bohemia, the singular inventory of Knight Erhard Rainer of Schambach in Lower Bavaria (M. Piendl, 1969, 193−213; H. Sperber, 1982, 291−306, U. Bentzien, 1984, 65−68) has been preserved. His livestock included: 10 horses, two colts, 19 cows, 11 piglets, 32 pigs, 39 sheep, five geese, six ducks, 48 hens, two roosters. As regards farm equipment, he records three wagons with all fittings, one cart, seven yokes, eight harnesses, three ploughs with fittings, two ploughstaffs, four harrows, one scythe, one whetstone, two flails, five pitchforks for hay, two mangers, six pitchforks for manure, one hoe for manure, six baskets for manure, three shovels for sifting grain, two sieves, two racks (for drying hay) and one Schwingwanne (churn?).

Each of them would thus get over 20 ha. Furthermore it is known that the homesteads differed in the number of farm buildings, which can lead to the conclusion that the area cultivated by each homestead was also different. This is sometimes reflected in the number of finds made. However, due to the fact that iron tools were rare and the farmer had to buy them, they were often collected after the desertion and carried away. Thus it is necessary to take into account all finds made in the entire village when studying the equipment of the agricultural homestead. One of the most important pieces of equipment for tilling land was the plough. During the High Middle Ages this meant a land plough, which had an asymmetrical iron ploughshare (Fig. 103:9) and an iron coulter. An asymmetrical ploughshare was found in Pfaffenschlag (V, Nekuda, 1975, 135, 138), coulters in Mstěnice (V. Nekuda, 1999, 5) and in Konůvky (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 87, tab. LXX: 12). Tillage using a plough is rendered on many contemporary depictions. One of many is a miniature in the codex of Jan of Jenštejn from the second half of the 14th century (fig. 104). A plate that dumps the soil to the side is featured as well as a ploughshare and a coulter. The wooden shaft rested on wheels and was connected to these by means of an iron axle pin. A ploughstaff completed the fitting. This was used for scraping off soil from the ploughshare. Horses provided for traction. This can be proved by the aforementioned miniature as well as by many written records, which make a distinction between a draft horse (e.g. P I, 301, č. 814, P II 140, č. 205) and a saddle horse (P II 311, č. 1347). 16th century inventories of vassal’s homesteads of the Rudolec estate by Jihlava list the wheels and all the iron accessories but usually only one plough. The magistrate in the village of Černá had two sets of both (F. Hrubý, 1927, 40).

The equipment of the agricultural homestead is being studied not only by archaeology, but also history and ethnography. Comparisons for the High and Late Middle Ages are only available from the 16th century onwards: the inventories of vassals’ homesteads of the Rudolec estate (F. Hrubý, 1927, 21–59). The agricultural homestead was the basic unit of agricultural production. For judging this production it is necessary to start with the area of the fields, meadows and pastures belonging to a homestead. All other factors, such as the number of animals and equipment, were derived from the area. The unit of area was the yardland. Its real area was not standard, but rather fluctuated according to the value and quality of the land and also to the whole amount of land that the village had at its disposal. An average yardland had an area of about 18 ha. Excavations carried out to date have made it possible to establish the area of fields, meadows and pastures in the deserted village of Pfaffenschlag. Its ploughland had an overall area of 124 ha of arable land and over 200 ha of meadows and pastures. There were sixteen homesteads altogether. Only four of these were two-part houses (a chamber and a hall) with no farm buildings, which means these belonged to serfs owning little or no land – and had less than one yardland. Even cases of totally landless serfs have occurred, as we as are told by written record. This way 10 ha of arable land and another 10 of meadows and pastures – altogether 20 ha – would belong to each homestead in Pfaffenschlag. According to E. Černý (1962, 36–37) the excavated village of Bystřec had a toft of 393 ha. Seventeen homesteads have been excavated to date.

The homestead not only used the plough, but also the wooden plough. Finds of V-sweeps in Pfaffenschlag (V. Nekuda, 1975, 135, 137) and Mstěnice (V. Nekuda, 1999, 6–7) have proved this. These sweeps had sockets for attaching to a spade or an axle guide stay. (fig. 103: 10). The socket ploughshare from Bystřec, which L. Belcredi, (1983, 412) ranks among handlebars may be considered a special type. V-sweeps can also be a part of the handlebars for a plough. The existence of a wooden plough is confirmed by the findings in the deserted village of Konůvky (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 87, tab. LXX, no. 14): a symmetrical ploughshare with a wide blade and short lobes. The inventories of 16th century homesteads of the Rudolec estate list wooden ploughs in almost every homestead (F. Hrubý, 1927, 40). 75

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 103: Ironware. Mstěnice: 1 – flang, 2, 3 – gate spikes, 4, 5 – axlepins, 6 – scythe-handle sleeve, 7 – scale hitch. Bystřec: 8 – spade fittings. Pfaffenschlag: 9 – asymmetrical ploughshare, 10 – ploughshare with a socket. Illustration by J. Bakala (Illustration no. 8 by P. Dočkal).

Figure 104: Ploughing with a land plough with a foregrounded coulter. According to the Codex of Jan of Jenštejn from the second half of the 14th century. Reproduction by J. Bakala.

76

Equipment of a Homestead

An important event in the life of a medieval village was the haymaking time and the annual harvest. The tools necessary for the jobs associated with these events were scythes, rakes and hayforks. Findings of scythes (Fig. 107) have been noted in Pfaffenschlag (Fig. 107: 2), Konůvky (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 84, tab. LXX: 4) and Bystřec (Fig. 107: 1). Whetstones used for honing the scythes have also been found. Besides honing, an important procedure was also hammering the scythe out with a special scythe hammer (Fig. 107:3) on a stock anvil (Fig. 107: 7). A stock anvil is a head of iron on a pedestal onto which the scythe is laid when being hammered out with a scythe hammer. Both objects were found in Mstěnice (V. Nekuda, 1985, 60) and in Konůvky (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 93). Other tools needed for haymaking were wooden rakes, which unfortunately have not been preserved. Some depictions of them can nevertheless be found in the Velislav Bible of 1341 (Fig. 108). Double-pronged hayforks were used for loading hay (Fig. 107:6). They have been found in Bystřec (L. Belcredi, 1988, 471, fig, 6: A), a part of one was found in Konůvky (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 85, tab. LII: 7).

Figure 105: Illustration a harrow over a field in the 14th century, according to U. Bentzien, 1980.

The most frequent tools of the harvest were sickles. They were the basic tool of every homestead (Fig. 107: 8, 9). Konůvky features the greatest number of them to be found in one village: one hundred (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 83). A harvest using sickles is also depicted in the Velislav Bible of 1341 (Fig. 109). The half-yardland homestead in the village of Chlumek near Jihlava lists six sickles in the 16th century. Besides sickles this homestead also owned cradlescythes for cutting hay.

Figure 106: Working with a spade. The Velislav Bible of 1341.

Wooden harrows with iron spikes were used for finishing the ploughed field (Fig. 103: 2, 3). They were to be found in all excavated agricultural villages in Moravia. Finds of iron spikes have proved this (V. Nekuda, 1975, 135, fig. 138:4. R. Nekuda – V. Nekuda, 1997, 86, fig. 144 g, h. Z. Měchurová, 1997, 81−85. L. Belcredi, 1989, 446). The inventories of homesteads list “brana cum claviculis ferreis” – harrows with iron spikes (F. Graus, 1957, 377), (Fig. 105). Most homesteads in the Rudolec estate in the 16th century had two to four of these (F. Hrubý, 1927, 40). Only in one case has a roller been documented for finishing the fields: in the village of Bukovina in Bohemia (L. Petráňová – J. Vařeka, 1987, 279, 280).

The mowed hay was tied into sheaves and when dry was carted to a barn or an “oboroh” (hay racks). An “oboroh” from the 14th century is to be found in the Velislav Bible (Fig. 110). Homesteads were equipped with chaff-cutters with knives. A chaff-cutter was used for cutting straw into chaff, which was fed to livestock. Grass, which was mixed with the chaff, was also cut in this way. Chaff was still being prepared in the same way up to the first half of the 20th century, although the chaff-cutter was now more sophisticated. A medieval chaff-cutter was a simple wooden box with four legs. The important part was an iron knife with a “spike” for attaching a handle at one end and a round hole at the other. Only one find of such a 15th century knife is registered to date – in the fortress of Martinice near Votice (Fig. 111: A). Its function was first explained by M. Beranová, (1973, 388–391) who took it for a part of the chaff-cutter. The knife in question was attached onto the bottom part of the front part of the box in such as manner as to enable moving the blade up and down, thus cutting the hay. A wooden handle was attached to the aforementioned “spike”. The right front leg was longer to prevent the box from moving from side to side. A German leaflet “Gespräch zweier Gesellen”– conversation between two journeymen – depicts a chaff-

Hoes (Fig. 113) and spades were also used for fieldwork. Two types of hoes have been identified. Narrow ones – grubbers or grubbing axes – were found in Mstěnice and in Konůvky, and the second type – known as pronghoes – were found in Mstěnice and in Bystřec (V. Nekuda, 1985, 41). Spades were made of wood and fitted with a sharpened iron blade at the edge (Fig. 103:8). A well-preserved fitting was discovered in Bystřec (L. Belcredi, 1997, 115, fig. 7: F). There is a depiction of working with a spade in the Velislav Bible of 1341 (Fig. 106). 77

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 107: Ironware. Pfaffenschlag: 2 – scythe, 4 – scythe-handle sleeve, 5 – wool shears, 8, 9 – sickles, 10 – flail ironwork. Bystřec: 1 – scythe, 3 – scythe hammer, 6 – hay fork. Konůvky: device for scythe forging.

Figure 108: Wooden rake. The Velislav Bible of 1341.

78

Equipment of a Homestead

Figure 109: Harvesting crop using sickles. The Velislav Bible of 1341.

Figure 110: Storing sheaves into a so-called “oboroh” (hay racks). The Velislav Bible of 1341.

Figure 111: Fleshing knife (A) and cutting stool (B).

79

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 112: Earthen wharves from Mstěnice.

cutter which has a crosswise beam, protruding on one side and thus enabling the connection of the bottom part of the knife by means of the round hole (Fig. 111: B). From the number of chaff-cutters to be found in the inventories of the Rudolec estate in the second half of the 16th century, it can be ascertained that the chaff-cutter (also listed as a “cutting box with scythe and whetstones”, “cutter with scythes” or “box which cuts the straw” in the inventories) was part of the standard equipment of a homestead (F. Hrubý, 1927, 50–58). A “turning whetstone” is listed with the chaff-cutters; this was used to sharpen the iron knives. For processing flax homesteads were equipped with iron hackles “which chafe the flax” (F. Hrubý, 1927, 53). These hackles were used to rid the flaxen fibre of any ligneous remains. A hackle is very rarely found at excavation sites, as can be confirmed by the only find to date at the fortified settlement of Pobedim in Slovakia – a 9th century hackle (M. Beranová, 1980, 216, fig. 71:5). On the other hand, the more numerous finds of mostly ceramic spindles stand as evidence of processing flaxen or hempen fibre further on into the process (Fig. 112). A distaff is depicted in the Velislav Bible from the 14th century. Inventories of the Rudolec estate list no fewer than up to three spindles per homestead (F. Hrubý, 1927, 54).

Figure 113: Threshing crop. Almanac of Osek for the month of September, mid-1300s.

Grain stored in a barn or in an “oboroh” was threshed with flails during the wintertime. There is only one case of an iron flail fitting in archaeological inventories – from Pfaffenschlag (Fig. 107:10). It is noteworthy that no flails are listed in the inventories of the Rudolec estate. A contemporary rendering of threshers is to be found in the Almanac of Osek (Fig. 113).

A homestead was also equipped with wagons for carting hay and grain: the so-called wains “que sunt attinencia currus pro vectura annonarum aut feni” – which are fittings for the wagon when carting hay or grain (F. Graus, 1957, 381, no. 123). Only the iron parts of wains have been found during excavations. These are fittings of axles, hubs, poles and wooden stakes. A wain was also equipped with a number of axlepins (Fig. 103:4, 5). Several types of wagons are listed in the inventories: a wooden wagon, wagon platforms, twined baskets for manure, an ironfitted wagon, etc. (F. Graus, 1957, 374). The 16th century inventories of the Rudolec estate list iron-fitted wagons, hayracks, a non-fitted wagon, a splinter bar (F. Hrubý, 1927, 50–59). Fittings of a splinter bar have been found in Mstěnice (Fig. 103:7) as well as in Bystřec.

Homesteads in wine-producing regions were also equipped with vine pruning knives (Fig. 114). In the deserted village of Konůvky these were found in three houses (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 86). A number of tools in the agricultural homestead had much to do with raising livestock. Stables and sties were equipped with pitchforks and hoes for manure. Parts of these have been encountered in excavations: prong fittings of the pitchforks (Fig. 115:1) have been found in Pfaffenschlag (V. Nekuda, 1975, 135), in Mstěnice (V. Nekuda, 1985, 126), in Konůvky (Z. Měchurová, 1997, 85 and in Bystřec (L. Belcredi, 1983, 415). Evidence of horse breeding includes numerous findings of horseshoes, bridles (Fig. 80

Equipment of a Homestead 115:4, 6), stirrups, spurs and various parts of harnesses such as collars and traces. Stables were also equipped with curry-combs (Fig. 115:5). Shears were found in Pfaffenschlag (Fig. 107:5), Mstěnice and Konůvky. Besides tools for expressly agricultural and livestockkeeping purposes, homesteads also held tools for everyday use such as axes, saws (a unique find in Mstěnice), chisels, pliers, drills, hammers, scythe hammers, drawknives (Fig. 116), augers, wedges, chains, etc. (Fig. 117). Stone tools are represented by a find of a beater mill in Mstěnice. Also the 1394 inventory of the Bříství manor in Bohemia lists three beaters for a beater mill (F. Graus, 1957, 374) in the manor and in a mill.

Figure 114: Ironware: hoes and a vineyard knife.

The beater mill was used for husking grain, usually for obtaining hulled barley, millet and buckwheat. The beating in a stone beater mill was done with a wooden mallet called a beater. Besides the beater mill, stone mortars were also to be found in the rural environment – e.g. in Mstěnice (R. Nekuda, 2001, 143). They were made of non-calciferous muscovite sandstone (A. Přichystal, 2001, 162). The mortars were used for grinding the seeds of oleaginous plants. Stone grinding disks were found in Pfaffenschlag in homestead VII (V. Nekuda, 1975, 153–154). Two of them have a central square-shaped hole (5 by 5 cm) for attaching to a wooden axle, the third grindstone has a round hole (diameter of 6 cm) (Fig. 118). Additional grindstones were found in Mstěnice on the grounds of the mill (A. Přichystal, 2001, 161–165). These are parts of three grinding disks. Two thirds of the largest one have remained intact, showing a central hole of 6 by 6 cm. “Turning grindstones” are listed in the 16th century inventories in the Rudolec estate (F. Hrubý, 1927, 53). It is possible to form an idea of the number of livestock in one homestead according to the Books of Summons (P I, 338, no, 930), which list the following for a half-yardland homestead in Loděnice near to Olomouc in 1409: four horses, six cows, nine sows, Figure 115: Ironware from Mstěnice: 1 – attachable fork spike, 2 – bit, 3 – bridle head, fifteen sheep, twenty hens. As regards 4, 6 – horseshoes, 5 – curry-comb. Illustration by J. Bakala farm equipment: an iron-fitted wagon, two harrows, a plough with all fittings, 81

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 116: Iron drawknife from Mstěnice. Photograph by M. Hofer.

Figure 117: Ironware. Mstěnice: 1 – 5: nails, 6 – knife, 13 – axe. Pfaffenschlag: 7 – trowel, 9 – gimlet, 10 – hammer, 11, 12 – chisels. Konůvky: 8 – pliers. Illustration by J. Bakala.

six pints (three metek, 2.8 l) of threshed grain and all kinds of other paraphernalia. This half-yardland homestead was valued at 30 talents of groschen. The inventory of a half-

yardland homestead in the Rudolec estate lists the following as of 1580: four workhorses, five dairy cows, three heifers, three “yearling” calves, four sows, sixteen two-year-old 82

Equipment of a Homestead

Figure 118: Pfaffenschlag near Slavonice. Deserted medieval village. Grindstones. Illustration by J. Bakala.

sheep out in the field, thirteen geese, three ducklings, forty hens and a rooster. As far as farm equipment is concerned, the ­­­­­half-yardland had one iron-fitted wagon, hayracks, one plough, one wooden plough and two harrows with iron spikes (F. Hrubý, 1927, 52). A half-yardland homestead in Mezeříčko also lists a housemaid (F. Hrubý, 1927, 51). The given examples are evidence for the fact that from the beginning of the 15th century the agricultural homestead was equipped with the basic tools etc. necessary for fieldwork and with a number of livestock.

As far as spring crops are concerned, some half-yardland homesteads also grew barley and peas. Oats were the staple feed for horses. The homestead with four horses would reckon about 526 to 670 kg of oats per horse per year. Rye, wheat and buckwheat fed the family. These grains altogether meant 2307 to 2874 kg, which was enough to feed a family of seven to ten for a whole year. On condition that the family only had six members, 500 to 1000 kg were left either for sale or as a reserve in case of a poor crop. Some grain was also consumed by poultry. Besides grain only, livestock was an important source of foodstuffs. Six to eight cows needed about 10 ha of meadows and pastures. Cattle were not only important as a source of meat, but also of milk and – last but not least – of manure, procured during winter stabling. Average yearly milk production of one cow during the Middle Ages is estimated at 600 litres. Five dairy cows meant that the family would have 3000 litres of milk yearly, i.e. almost ten litres per day. Cream was collected off of the milk for butter production. The homestead of the magistrate in Černá near Jihlava lists 30 pints (más, 0.5 l) of butter in 1568; the homestead of Dvořák in the village of Stáje lists two firkins and three pots of butter (F. Hrubý, 1927, 55, 57). Sheep’s milk was used either for making cheese or for feeding pigs. Seventeen pieces of cheese were listed in the inventory of Dvořák’s homestead in the village of Stáje (F. Hrubý, 1927, 55, 57). Sheep were mostly kept for wool.

The Economy of an Average Homestead Any analysis of the economy of an average half-yardland vassal homestead takes into account so many unknowns such as soil condition, climate and unpredictable events in the life of the farmer or the livestock. Consequently an attempt at reconstructing the milieu of a medieval farmer from archaeological and written sources can never venture beyond the level of probability. Yield of the crop during the Middle Ages is estimated to have had a ratio of 1:3. Applied to a 16th century halfyardland homestead in the Rudolec estate of the CzechMoravian Highlands, the yield could have been about 800 to 1,000 kg from one ha. If we take into account the total area sown, the total yield may have been 6,400 to 8,000 kg of grain. The individual kinds of grain in a half-yardland homestead in the village of Chlumek (F. Hrubý, 1927, 52) were represented according to the following table. Grain type

Area Yield (kg) sown (ha)

Oats

4

3200−4000 1066−1330 2134−2670

Rye

2

1600−2000 520−660

1080−1340

Wheat

1,5

1200−1500 400−500

800−1000

640−800

427−534

Buckwheat 0,8

1/3 for Remainder sowing (kg) (kg)

213−266

83

The half-yardland homestead owned nine pigs in 1409 (P I, p. 338, no. 930) while such homesteads in the Rudolec estate in 1569 only had four to six (F. Hrubý, 1927, 50–51). During the warmer months of the year the pigs were left to fend for themselves in the woods, but in the winter they had to be kept in sties. The gamekeeper in the village of Černá in the Rudolec estate had three porkers in his pigpen (F. Hrubý, 1927, 53). Pigs were kept mostly for meat and lard and also for sale.

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages Poultry was also a significant source of foodstuffs. The half-yardland homestead kept 20 to 40 chickens, 13 geese and three ducks. Chickens and eggs were often used as pay in kind to the establishment. This could be one or two chickens and 15 to 30 eggs. One hen would be expected to lay about 100 eggs per year. If there were twenty layers in the homestead, the family would have about 4,000 eggs per year. If the family consumed one half of this, almost 2,000 eggs would still be left to be sold. Thirty eggs cost one groschen, 2000 eggs would bring in over 60 groschen.

Expenditures:

Geese were kept mostly for the feathers and down. Only one goose and a gander were kept during the winter, the rest of the geese were sold in the fall. This analysis of the economy of a half-yardland homestead shows that the family’s sustenance was fully provided for. There was enough of grain, meat, milk, butter and eggs. Moreover, weather conditions permitting, there was actually a surplus, which would be used to pay tithes, purchasing tools and other equipment. To form at least an approximate idea of the well-being of a half-yardland homestead it is necessary to try to record its productivity.

Price in groschen Amount Total Income

Colt

60

1

60

Calf

6

1

6

Heifer - cow

60

3

180

Pigs

13

3

45

Sheep Hens chickens Eggs

5

6

30

1

15

15

1 (30 pieces)

1800

60

Geese

2

8

16

Total

32 gr.

Wagon wheel

15 gr.

Curry-comb

1 gr.

Knives (3)

3 gr.

Saw

2 gr.

Plough

50 gr.

Horseshoes (20)

6 gr.

Axe

3 gr.

Shoes (6 pairs)

36 gr.

Clothes altogether

80 gr.

Total

226 gr.

Although this analysis is based on several assumptions, it does provide a likely outlook on the living standard of an average homestead. The situation in one-yardland homesteads was even more favourable. It may be safely stated that the standard of living in one-yardland homesteads in the Late Middle Ages and during the 16th century was not low, on the contrary, it is evidence of the relatively good economic status of the peasants. Archaeological sources have provided a very precise layout of the vassal homestead. Combining these findings with written sources has enabled the documentation of how a peasant homestead worked as well as documenting the extent of cultivated land, the growing of grain and raising of livestock.

Income: Item

Money rent

412 groschen

84

Manors in the Medieval Village

Within the medieval village the manors held a unique position both regarding architecture and layout. They also played an important role in the economics of the medieval society.

(A. Hejna, 1977, 69–79) have provided us with valuable information. Both of the manors in question are from the period of the Premyslid dynasty and feature residential and auxiliary, as well as sacral, buildings. The manor in Chvojen was protected by a moat and a rampart. A terraced church was to be found there.

Historic and archaeological sources give us two terms: courtyard and court. Both terms are used by L. Niederle, who uses the term ‘court’ for the residence of a prince (L. Niederle, 1913, 779) and ‘courtyard’ for a complex with residential buildings as well as auxiliary buildings such as stables, barns, granaries, haylofts and oast houses (L. Niederle, 1913, 798 a). For the purpose of further discourse I will use the term courtyard, which is used in old Bohemian written sources such as the Public Land Records of the Moravian Province or the Books of Summons (Libri citationum et sententiarum seu). This term was always used for a manor with residential and auxiliary buildings. According to V. Machek (1957, 104) the term ‘court’ comes from modern Czech.

From the 13th century onwards manors started to become a standard part of a number of rural settlements. These courtyards were centres of agriculture for the gentry. Information about a manor from the High Middle Ages has been provided by excavations in the deserted village of Mstěnice, where the entire location including the fortress has been excavated. The manor in Mstěnice was found west of the fortress, separated from it by a moat. The layout was a rectangle of 40 by 25 metres. Individual buildings were situated along the sides, so that the yard itself was enclosed on all sides. Places along the perimeter with no buildings were closed with stone walls. The north side was occupied by a three-part house, the western by labourers’ quarters, a stone tower and the main gate. On the other side of the gate there were stables for horses and cattle. On the side facing the fortress there was a blacksmith shop, two smaller stables and sheds (Fig. 119). Large amounts of rubble and the width of foundation masonry suggest that some buildings were all-stone. The number of shingle nails is evidence that the roofs were of shingle (V. Nekuda, 1985, 174–175).

Evidence of agricultural units, labelled as magnifico manors, has been provided by excavations in Mikulčice (J. Poulík, 1963, 125–126), Staré Město (V. Hrubý, 1964, 21–27) and in Pohansko (B. Dostál, 1975). Church buildings were also to be found as parts of the manors. Excavations in Břeclav-Pohansko have provided us with a good example of a magnifico manor. According to his finds at the site B. Dostál has summed up the knowledge about this type of settlement in the lands inhabited by Slavs. In the 11th to 13th century Russia small fortresses have been termed courtyards, but they were in fact more of a fort than an agricultural homestead (B. Dostál, 1975, 254–255). B. Dostál also mentions that the concept and layout of the manor is akin to that of the Carolinian yard. The “court” in Pohansko also had several characteristics similar to those of the Carolinian yard. It was enclosed by a log stockade, there was a number of residential as well as auxiliary buildings and it served as both a residence and also for representation. The right-angle shape of the courtyard is reminiscent of the Roman agricultural homestead, the so-called villa rustica. Courtyards in the Great Moravian Empire did not function as producers of agricultural products, but rather served as centres for their accumulation.

A stone building 20 m long and 5 wide was attached to the north-eastern corner. It was divided into two parts: the smaller western one (7 by 5 m) featured a T-shaped heat duct, which suggests this may have been an oast house (Fig. 120), the larger eastern part was a passable barn (V. Nekuda, 1985, 60–63). The find in Mstěnice is very similar to the layout of a homestead in Hodkovičky near Prague as of 1417 (F. Graus, 1957, 67). Apart from Mstěnice, a manor was also excavated in the deserted village of Konůvky near Slavkov (D. Šaurová, 169–183; Z. Měchurová, 1977, 31–39). The trapezoid plot enclosed by a moat and a stockade is an example of a transition between a courtyard and a fortress. According to P. Chotěbor and Z. Smetánka (1985, 48) this is a typical example of a manor with immediate support in the residence of the owner itself.

There is still no archaeological evidence of 10th to 12th century manors in Moravia. A manor from the first half of the 13th century was found in the deserted village of Záblacany. A wooden tower-shaped structure was excavated (R. Snášil, 1977, 254). The situation regarding manor excavation is much better in Bohemia. Finds in the localities of Chvojen and Týnec nad Sázavou near Benešov

The courtyard in Mstěnice is the only one from pre-Hussite Moravia which shows all the features of a manor. 85

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 119: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plan of the manor. A – masonry, B – rubble, C – stone paving, D – drain. 1 – yard entrance, 2 – entrance to the northern part of the yard, 3 – quadrangle, 4 – three-part house, 5 – oven, 6 – fire pit, 7 – auxiliary buildings, 8 – cowshed, 9 – smithy, 10 – moat, 11 – damage due to amateur survey techniques. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

Figure 120a: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Stone foundations of the oast house and the barn at the manor. Photograph by V. Nekuda.

A particular example of a 13th to 15th century manor in Slovakia was provided by excavation of the deserted medieval village of Zalužany (B. Polla, 1962). The central building was a residential tower-shaped structure;

its origin was dated back to the second half of the 13th century by the director of the excavation. New structures were attached to this first one over the course of the 14th century: a chamber, a kitchen and an oven for 86

Manors in the Medieval Village

Figure 120b: Mstěnice. Deserted medieval village. Ground plans of the oast house and the barn at the manor. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

baking bread. Auxiliary buildings were represented by a blacksmith shop and a sheepfold. The yard was enclosed by a stone wall.

construction. The gateway was equipped with doors. A tower and two buildings – a residential and an auxiliary one, connected to one another by means of another building – are the most typical structures (P. Chotěbor – Z. Smetánka, 1985, 47–56).

In Bohemia the attention of archaeologists focused on excavating a manor in Trocnov (A. Hejna, 1957). No enclosures or fortifications were found. This manor was not much different from a standard homestead.

K. Charvátová lists another iconographical record of a manor in the veduta of J. Willenberg, which depicts the monastery in Plasy in the early 17th century. The yard is enclosed by a stone wall with a gothic tower – according to site investigation dating back to the 14th century – in the northern corner (K. Charvátová, 1987, 295).

Two manors were documented by surface prospecting in western Bohemia: in the Plzeň district in Třebekov and in the area of Nebílovský Borek in the locality of Džbánek (K. Charvátová, 1987, 292–294). The yard in Třebekov is a large tract of land (110 by 90 m) enclosed by a wall. A square stone building of about 15 by 15 m was situated beside the main gate (it was possible to ride through the yard). The yard was probably property of the monastery in Plasy.

Starting with the establishment of money and the shift from subsistence to monetary economy the suzerains made a shift from accepting pay in kind to requiring money – especially in distant villages. Consequently the manors were no longer needed and the suzerains tried to get rid of them. Thus a number of the manors passed into the hands of yeomen, who administered them very intensively.

The manor in Džbánek was also quite large. The outer stone wall had a perimeter of 460 m. Remains of various structures were evident in the centre of the yard and along the outer wall.

Further development of the manor did not take place until the beginning of the 16th century, when the rising population resulted in market growth and a growing demand for foodstuffs. Growing grain and raising livestock proved to be profitable once again. This situation prodded the gentry to start new manors or repair and enlarge the existing ones. The manor attained the status of an important centre of agricultural production during the course of the 16th

P. Chotěbor and Z. Smetánka stressed iconographical sources and as an example suggested a depiction of a 1400 manor in the Biblia Venceslai Regis. The buildings in the yard are standing in an oval layout and are enclosed by a stockade of sharpened planks nailed to the encircling outer 87

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages century. A new type of auxiliary building was built: the brewery. Breweries became the most profitable enterprise within the scope of the economy of scale.

situated on land which he owns. The owner was usually the aristocracy or a church institution. (P. Chotěbor – Z. Smetánka, 1985, 48)

We have formed an idea of both gentry- and church-owned manors based on written, archaeological and iconographical sources. The two types were not much different as regards their overall essence or their equipment. If they were owned by the gentry they were usually located in the immediate vicinity of a fortress. Z. Smetánka and P. Chotěbor make a difference between manors of a residential and of an entrepreneurial type. The residential type usually functions as the owner’s residence or serves as a base for supplying the residence – usually the fortress. Entrepreneurial manors do not have to be the owner’s residence, but are at least

An example of the residential type is the manor in Mstěnice, which backed the local fortress. It administered fields of an area of two sectors (aratrum). The courtyard was used by the local yeomen for procuring basic products, i.e. grain, meat, milk and eggs. Wool was also provided for by a number of sheep. Written as well as archaeological sources have provided evidence for the fact that manors were an important part of medieval economics.

88

The Ploughland

An inseparable part of every rural settlement was the ploughland, i.e. the management of land used for agriculture. The village itself was usually situated in the centre of the croft. The immediate connection of the houses and estate was a basic trait of every village and rural settlement. Consequently, excavations cannot focus solely on residential and auxiliary buildings, but must take into account also the adjacent fields, meadows and pastures.

in all tracts. Because the tract land had no paths at first the peasants had to work simultaneously. This type of fieldwork was associated with the three-field economy, because the croft was divided into three parts, which were alternately sown with the spring crop and winter wheat and then left as fallow land for a year. Such a croft could only have come into existence after economic changes such as the introduction of emfyteutic law and money rent, which in the present-day Czech Republic took place in the 13th century. The tract croft is only possible in flat terrain and according to Z. Láznička (1946, 33) is typical of old settled regions.

The croft is the economic foundation of each village. Its shape was delimited by the lay of the land as well as on the manner in which land ownership was distributed in the particular village, thus several croft types are distinguished (Z. Láznička, 1946, 29–39).

An explanatory example of croft organization is to be seen in the deserted medieval village of Pfaffenschlag (Fig. 121) where the agricultural activity of the inhabitants, the extent and specialization of agricultural production and its subsequent impact on the surrounding countryside were all documented.

The documentation of crofts in the Drahanská Highlands was done by E. Černý (1979, 89–103). He found that in the very hilly terrain there were crofts of the segmented type (e.g. in Holštejn, p. 95). Most deserted villages in the Drahanská Highlands were of the croft base type. Two to three additional tracts were situated along the croft base, which corresponds with the three-field economy (E. Černý, 1922, 121).

The extent of the croft in Pfaffenschlag was determined according to balks found in the forested terrain and also using pollen analysis (E. Rybníčková – K. Rybníček, 1975, 183–198). The individual strip-shaped fields were connected to the homesteads and stretched beyond the boundary of the district. Four homesteads owned strips of land 36 m wide, another two had fields 18 m wide and one homestead had a strip 27 m wide. Similar field dimensions

Besides the croft base, there was also a tract type of land, which featured narrow strips of fields. Peasants had fields

Figure 121: Reconstruction of the deserted medieval village of Pfaffenschlag. Tracts of land at the homesteads. Illustration by Z. Špičák.

89

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 122: Deserted medieval village of Bystřec. Croft base type of ploughland. Illustration by E. Černý.

were to be found in Austria in the quarter of Waldviertel (H. J. Nitz, 1985, 51). Multiples of the number nine are not haphazard, but were the standard for medieval colonization. The strips were up to 800 m long in Pfaffenschlag, about 900 m long in Waldviertel and in the deserted village of Bystřec up to 1.600 m long (E. Černý, 1992, 120). If these measurements are converted into hectares, a 36-meterwide strip would have an area of 2.9 ha, a 27-meter-wide strip an area of 2.1 ha and an 18-meter wide one an area of 1.4 ha. This type of fields is called the croft base type.

Highlands. The deserted village of Bystřec owned fields of a total area of 395 ha and the each of the 22 homesteads administered an average of 18 ha (Fig. 122). Vilémov held a total area of 197 ha, each homestead subsequently had 8.56 ha, the deserted village of Bohdalůvka held 10 h and each homestead received 8 ha (E. Černý, 1992, 27, 55). The average total croft area of a village in the Drahanská Highlands was about 153 ha, the average homestead held 8 to 10 ha. Eighteen villages were taken into account (E. Černý, 1992, 121).

The total area of arable land in Pfaffenschlag was about 124 ha, meadows and pastures accounted for about 214 ha (V. Nekuda, 1975, 163–165). The number of strips in one tract was 12, which corresponds to the 11 homesteads and the mill. One homestead thus owned 10 ha of arable land and about 17 ha of meadows and pastureland on average. A similar situation was recorded by E. Černý in the Drahanská

Croft management in Pfaffenschlag as well as in most of the deserted villages in the Drahanská Highlands was of the three-field type and the croft layout is of the croft base type. The grain yielded from one hectare was influenced by soil quality and by climate. During the Middle Ages it has been 90

The Ploughland reckoned at 1,000 to 1,500 kg. In an attempt to reconstruct the extent and type of agriculture in both settlements in Pfaffenschlag we must resort mainly to pollen analysis. It can distinguish the individual types of plants and the extent in which they were grown with great accuracy. The area cultivated by the older settlement was relatively small, as can be learned form the fact that shortly before the desertion of the village the figures shown by the pollen analysis tell of deforestation only on a small scale. The inhabitants of this settlement focused predominantly on growing cereals; the prevalent crop was rye (Secale), wheat (Triticum) was grown on a smaller scale. Other species of grain were not found in the older settlement. Extremely low figures were recorded in the case of grasses and an almost complete lack of pollen grains of plants usually found in pastures and meadows suggests that raising livestock was not common. If it was present at all, the animals were given free range of the surrounding woods. This notion may be supported by the fact that the surrounding alder thickets were not even cleared by the inhabitants of the older settlement and turned into meadows.

thus about 35 half acres, i.e. 7 ha. Taking into account fallow land which made up one third of the total, one such homestead actually had a potential of 50 half acres, i.e. 10 ha. This agrees with the area of cultivated land per homestead in Pfaffenschlag. All of the changes taking place in the rural areas of what is now the Czech Republic during the 13th century also impacted the arrangement of the ploughland. Particular pieces of evidence of these changes were provided by the excavations in Pfaffenschlag. The croft was adjusted in such a clever manner that – with only minor changes – its main characteristics have remained the same up till today. An important novelty contrasting with the pre-13th century arrangement was a rectangular field. The new type of field was also necessary to provide all farmers with a share in each tract. In accordance with the three-year cycle strategy the fields were divided into three tracts whose functions shifted every three years: spring crop, winter wheat and fallow. The rectangular field was also advantageous for ploughing with the new plough with an asymmetrical ploughshare, which not only cut the ground up but also overturned the soil. Horses provided for traction. A horse-drawn plough enabled the farmer to cultivate larger fields. Furthermore it made the process more thorough than it was during the Early Middle Ages, when the only tools available were wooden ploughs with small sweeps.

The inhabitants of the medieval Pfaffenschlag were in all probability more numerous and more demanding as far as the extent of cultivated area is concerned, because more and more land was being cleared during this time. As soon as they arrived the new settlers turned the existing forest into fields and the alder thicket into pastureland. However, the clearing was not done by burning off the forest, as no charcoal from the period in question was found in the soil profile. The clearing was probably done by deracination – this is also supported by the ending of the village’s name – “schlag”.

The 13th century was a turning point for the villages not only as concerns the equipment of individual homesteads, but also regarding croft arrangement. This economic and legal reorganization did not take place only in the presentday Czech Republic, but throughout central Europe – along with the establishing of the emfyteutic law, money rent and the yardland system. This is the reason why studying and documenting the croft is an inseparable part of rural settlement.

Throughout this period also the basis for agriculture was growing grain. Excavations confirmed that other grain species such as oats and barley supplemented the staple rye and wheat. These new species which are sown in the spring definitely confirm that agriculture in Pfaffenschlag switched to the three-field economy. The plants cultivated also include buckwheat, which was cultivated from the very beginning of medieval settlement. Another aspect in which the newer settlement differed was the more widespread raising of livestock. Pollen analysis has unearthed evidence of the old alder thickets turning into meadows. The presence of walnut, currant and cherry seeds also suggests that orchards were also a part of the homestead.

Furthermore, studying the croft of deserted villages is important not only for the historical research of the countryside, but also for understanding the overall economic development. Land cultivated throughout the High Middle Ages was usually swallowed up by the forest again. This led to a loss of agricultural land and to the subsequent loss of tithes. Research concentrating on deserted fields brings new insight into the lay of cultivated land during the High Middle Ages. Research conducted by E. Černý (1992, 123) in the Drahanská Highlands has shown that the area of deserted crofts – now forests – is over 5,000 ha (not taking into account 22 crofts of existing villages). E. Černý rates this increase in forested areas as a kind of environmental sanitation. A similar situation regarding the state of the cultivated countryside is to be found in the estate of Brtnice in south-western Moravia. 45%, i.e. 1060 of the 2356 ha of forests recorded in 1828 served agricultural purposes during the High Middle Ages.

Inventories of the Rudolec estate inform us of the cultivated land area during the second half of the 16th century (F. Hrubý, 1927, 50–59). The types of grain present are: rye, wheat, oats and barley. Legume crops include peas and buckwheat, technical crops flax and poppies. Records state that oats were the most widely grown. A half-yardland homestead had sown 20 half acres i.e. 4 ha. Also sown were 10 half acres of rye (2 ha), 4 half acres of buckwheat and 1.5 half acres of wheat. The total area sown by the half-yardland homestead was 91

Reconstructing the Buildings in the Agricultural Homestead of the Medieval Settlement

Besides peasant homesteads also the stone foundations of a fortress, a manor and a unique oast house with a barn were unearthed in Mstěnice, therefore a singular opportunity for creating a reconstruction of the buildings and thus establishing a museum of the medieval settlement of the present-day Czech Republic. For exhibition purposes Z. Špičák has collected and processed data necessary for putting together a model (Fig. 123). The village of Mstěnice is a unique example of a community of the central common type.

of the ground. According to these finds two houses were reconstructed as log houses, five with a frame of posts and wattle or with walls supported by tapered beams with the pointed end rammed into the ground. The walls are of wattle and daub with chaff and chopped straw added to the clay. Oak wood is used as the primary construction material as its use during the Middle Ages has been ascertained by both dendrochronology and pollen analysis. The roofs of the reconstructed buildings are both of the gable and hip type. They are covered by three layers of reed thatch (Fig. 124) for the sake of insulation. The houses were equipped with fireplaces; one of them even featured an oven. The heating units were situated in the south-eastern corners of the rooms. Fireplaces were surrounded by stones. An experiment concerning heating the house showed that even during the wintertime a comfortable 20°C can be reached within half and hour. The floors were made of packed earth. As far as the furnishings are concerned only benches have been reconstructed – according to findings of postholes.

Several attempts at reconstructing excavated buildings in the present-day Czech Republic have been made to date. The first reconstruction of a residential building was made according to a plan submitted by V. Hanek at the fortified Slavonic settlement of Staré Zámky near Líšeň (Č. Staňa, 1960, 241, fig. 1). Another reconstruction was made at the excavated Slavonic settlement in Březno near Louny according to a design by I. Pleinerová (1982, 359). Not only were the buildings themselves reconstructed, but research was also carried out as regards the milieu. A large-scale reconstruction of a medieval village based on archaeological findings can be found in Berlin-Zehlendorf (A. v. Müller, 1980). This is a deserted village from the first part half of the 13th century with a considerable proportion of Slavs among the population. The layouts of fourteen homesteads comprised of a single-chamber house and an auxiliary building serving as a granary have been excavated. The individual homesteads were enclosed by fences of posts and wattle. The houses had rectangular layouts delimited by posts or only by a dark discoloration

The homesteads are situated in a horseshoe-shaped layout (Fig. 125). Besides the buildings reconstructed according to archaeological research the open-air museum of the medieval village (“Museumsdorf” in German) also contains a number of auxiliary objects: a mill, bread-baking oven, kiln, blacksmith shop, cobbler’s shop and weaving looms. As the main source of livelihood for the inhabitants was agriculture (vegetable and livestock production), several types of grain – those ascertained by pollen analysis – are grown, and sheep, goats and pigs are kept in the open-air museum. In an attempt to experience the daily life in the village to the greatest extent possible, contemporary clothing was also studied. Both men’s and women’s garments were manufactured according to the results of the studies and are subsequently being donned by employees of the openair museum when performing some of the individual tasks during particular days. Even though the scope of activity of the open-air museum is wider than the results reached by archaeological research, its contribution to understanding the daily life of a medieval village is a unique example of experimental archaeology. The state of archaeological research in Mstěnice is begging to follow this example. The conditions for reconstructing an agricultural settlement are even more favourable than in

Figure 123: Reconstruction of the deserted medieval village of Mstěnice. Illustration by M. Říčná.

92

Reconstructing the Buildings in the Agricultural Homestead of the Medieval Settlement

Figure 124: Deserted medieval village of Düppel in Berlin–Zehlendorf. Reconstruction of a house. Photograph by A. von Müller

Figure 125: Deserted medieval village of Düppel in Berlin–Zehlendorf. Reconstruction of the village, according to A. von Müller

the Berlin excavations. While the Berlin open-air museum is an example of a village form the first half of the 13th century, the open-air museum in Mstěnice would present a medieval village of a full two centuries later. There can be no doubt whatsoever as to the all-European importance of such a project. The open-air museum in Berlin was built by a group of enthusiastic volunteers and only later, after a favourable response form the general public, did the project start receiving subsidies from the national government.

nuclear power plant in Dukovany stands sponsor to this unique project. The results gained by systematic research shed some light on the important process of rural settlement evolution in Central Europe. Both the overall layout and the layout of the individual homesteads is a remarkable example of the ingenious organization of the agricultural homesteads. Archaeological research has shown that several yard types which have been ethnographically documented by means of 19th century land registers have already existed at the end of the 13th century. The first steps towards establishing the open-air museum were taken when the blueprints were drafted up and the models of the individual homesteads crafted (Figs 126 & 127). Further

This experience from the Berlin open-air museum construction has led to the founding of the Fund for Establishing the Open-air museum in Mstěnice. The 93

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages

Figure 126: Mstěnice. Aerial photograph of preserved masonry of the homesteads and the manor.

Figure 127: Mstěnice. Reconstruction of homestead XIV. Illustration by M. Říčná.

work aiming to save the excavated homestead layouts lies in conserving the foundation masonry, sanding the inside areas and maintaining the grounds between the individual homesteads in the southern part of the village.

The village of Mstěnice constitutes an archaeological site whose importance goes far beyond the boundaries of the Czech Republic. It is therefore evident that establishing the open-air museum should become a national concern.

94

Reconstructing the Buildings in the Agricultural Homestead of the Medieval Settlement

Figure 128: Mstěnice. Homestead IV. Example of a geminate homestead. House in homestead V on the right. Illustration by M. Říčná.

Figure 129: Mstěnice. Models of homesteads II and III. Photograph by R. Nekuda.

95

Conclusion

Issues concerning the medieval agricultural homestead which this treatise has engaged in have mainly been dealt with making use of archaeological sources gained by excavating deserted medieval villages. These excavations have proved that the most important changes regarding both settlement structure and development of individual villages have taken place during the 13th century. The size of the village, number and layout of the individual homesteads including findings of material nature – most notably of farm equipment – can be counted among basic archaeological sources contributing to the history of the medieval village.

Archaeological research has shown that the basic layout of the three-part house does in fact vary to some extent, as was determined by excavations in the deserted villages of Konůvky and Bystřec. Excavations in Bystřec have delimited several alterations of the layout including singlechamber houses and two-part houses. Research to date has shown that it is not possible to generalize the house types according to findings in one locality. On the contrary, research has shown that regional peculiarities did indeed exist. Within Moravia there is a difference between the south-western and central parts of the region. Changes in the agricultural system also played an important role.

Archaeological findings were supplemented by information from written sources to ensure that the resulting image of the medieval homestead is as unbiased as possible.

The change in the layout of the house took place simultaneously with the development of the yard, where all the auxiliary buildings were located. New auxiliary buildings were needed for keeping livestock and also for activities associated with growing grain. The yard was eventually filled with stables, granaries, barns, haylofts and sheds. The village of Mstěnice was best equipped with the above-mentioned types of structures. Most homesteads featured both stables for horses and cowsheds. Smaller sties housed sheep. A rising production of grain meant that more buildings were necessary for storage: barns could serve as storage rooms for some time, as the threshing only took place during the winter months. The threshed grain was then stored in storage rooms and granaries. Farm equipment and wagons could not be left outside in the cold and rain either, thus a number of sheds became yet another part of the yard. A new layout of the homestead was thus the outcome of changes in the overall development of agricultural and livestock production. An analysis of the situation on excavated sites revealed that all of the types of agricultural homesteads as delimited by the ethnography of the past two centuries date back to the High Middle Ages.

This work focuses on resolving the question of the origin and development of the homestead and its internal integration of residential as well as auxiliary buildings. No less important was the origin of the three-part house and its place within the agricultural homestead in Moravia. Excavations of settlements dating from before the 13th century only account for single-chamber houses. It was necessary to search for the causes that led to a change in the construction of the rural house and the establishment of agricultural homesteads. Archaeologists are aware of them but do not supply a direct answer explaining these social changes. This is precisely why it was important to put emphasis on an interdisciplinary approach combining archaeological and written sources. Special attention was given to the development of the three-part house. The layouts of houses in Mstěnice, Pfaffenschlag and Bystřec were most helpful in resolving this issue. Prior to high medieval settlement, older settlement has been taking place in Mstěnice and in Pfaffenschlag. This was useful when tracking the various stages of development from a single-chamber dwelling to a house comprised of three rooms i.e. the chamber, the hall and the storage room. Based on an analysis of the ground plans in Mstěnice, Pfaffenschlag and Bystřec it can be ascertained that Niederle’s theory which backs the attaching of a hall to a single-chamber house and subsequently also a storage room is applicable as well as Moszynski’s theory. Moszynski holds that the two basic units of the three-part house, i.e. the separately standing chamber and storage room were eventually joined by means of a hall.

This treatise has explained the causality of how changes in the agricultural homestead in the medieval village have influenced the general progress in agricultural production and changes in the legal and social position of the medieval peasantry. Excavated agricultural homesteads supplemented with the inventories of 16th century peasant homesteads supply important evidence of the good state of the equipment and furnishings of the homesteads in the present-day Czech Republic. Archaeological and written sources thus form a sound basis for a further, more profound understanding of the medieval village.

96

Bibliography

Abel W., 1978: Geschichte der deutschen landwirtschaft vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart.

Belcredi L. - Hašek V., 1999: Geophysical Survey and Archeological Investigation of the Deserted Medieval Village of Bystřec. Przegland Archeologiczny, Vol. 47, 1999, 167−180. Belcredi L. - Hašek V. - Unger J., 1990: Geophysikalische Prospektion auf archäologischen Lokalitäten aus dem 13. und 14. Jahrhundert in Südmähren. Beiträge zur Mittelalterachäologie in ‚Österreich 6, 5−23. Belcredi L. - Nekuda V., 1983: Pokračování výzkumu na zaniklé středověké osadě Bystřec u Jedovnic, okr. Blansko. ČMM, vědy společenské LXVIII, 43−60. Bentzien U., 1980: Bauernarbeit im Feudalismus. Landwirtschaftliche Arbeitsgeräte und-verfahren in Deutschland von der Mitte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Z. bis um 1800. Berlin. — 1984: Bäuerliche Viehhaltung und Gerätekultur im Mittelalter. Quellenkundliche Versuche und Überlegungen aus volkskundlicher Sicht. In: Bäuerliche Sachkultur des Spätmittelalters. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für mittelalterliche Realienkunde Österreichs Nr. 7, 63−92, Wien. Beranová M., Nejstarší nález řezací stolice na píci v Čechách. AR 25, 388−391. — 1975: Zemědělská výroba v 11.−14. století na území Československa. Studie Archeologického ústavu ‚ČSAV v Brně, roč. III, 1. Beresford M. - Hurst J.G., 1971: Deserted Medieval Villages. London. Borkovský I., 1953: Staročeský dvorec na Levém Hradci. AR 5, 621−646. — 1954: Obytné stavby slovanské v nových archeologických objevech, ČL 41, 59–71 Bretholz B., 1930: Das Urbar der Lichtensteinischen Herrschaften Nikolsburg aus dem Jahre 1414, Reichenberg und Komotau.

Baláš E., 1970: K problému vzniku a vývoje stodoly se zvláštním zřetelem k polygonálním stodolám v českých zemích, č. 57, 5–15. Bálek M. - Unger J., 1996: Ohrazené středověké vesnice na jižní Moravě, AH 21, 429−442. Baranowski B.- Dziekówski T. - Bartys J., 1965: Zródla ikomogrficzne do historii rolnictwa polskiego. Wroclaw − Warzsawa − Kraków. Behn F., 1957: Die Entstehung des deutschen Bauernhauses. Bericht über die Verhandlung der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Phil.–hist. Klasse, Bd. 103. Berlin. Belcredi L., 1983: Zaniklé středověké osady na Drahanské vrchovině ve světle archeologických nálezů. VVM 35, 39−45. — 1986: Přínos archeologie k poznání stavební podoby středověkého venkovského domu na střední Moravě, AH 11, 424–428, 435. — 1987a: K počátkům středověkého osídlení na lokalitě zaniklé vsi Bystřec, ČMM, vědy společenské LXXII, 121−140. — 1987b: Půdorysná a stavební podoba středověkého venkovského domu na střední Moravě, AH 12, 1987, 157–169. — 1988: Užití kovu ve středověké osadě. AH 13, 459−486. — 1988: Nález zemnice 13. století ve Šlapanicích u Brna, VVM XL, 80–84. — 1997a: Zaniklá ves Bystřec–usedlost číslo X, Z Pravěku do středověku. Sborník k 70. narozeninám Vladimíra Nekudy, 108–122, Brno. — 1997b: ZSO Bystřec, usedlost V, příspěvek k poznání členění stavebního půdorysu a podoby středověké usedlosti. Život v archeologii středověku. Sborník příspěvků věnovaný Miroslavu Richterovi a Zdeňku Smetánkovi, Praha 1997. — 1998: Archeologický výzkum zaniklé středověké vsi Bystřec, Usedlost IX. Ve službách archeologie , Sborník k 60. Narozeninám RNDr. Vladimíra Haška, DrSc., 23−35. — 1999: Urbanizace území zaniklé středověké osady Bystřec. AH 24, 69−80. — 2000a: Usedlost XI, ojedinělý výskyt trojdílného domu na ZSO Bystřec, AH 25, 215−231. — 2000b: Colonization, Development and Desertion of the Medieval Village of Bystřec. Ruralia III, Památky archeologické − Supplementum 14, 187−200, Praha 2000.

Čaplovič D., 1981: Stredoveká dedina vo Svinici a jej význam pre poznanie stredovekého dedinského osídlenia na východnom Slovensku. AH 6, 1981, 499−504. — 1987: Archeologický výzkum stredovekého dedinského domu na Slovensku. AH 12, 145−154. — 1998: Včasnostredoveké osídlenie Slovenska. Bratislava. — 1999: Život v dedinskom prostredí stredovekého Uhorska. AH 24, 41−58. Čaplovič D. - Hajnalová E. - Hanuliak M. - Ruttkay A., 1985: Stredoveká dedina na Slovensku ako základný fenomén feudálnej ekonomiky. AH 10, 11−25. Čaplovič D. - Habovštiak A., 1996: The Situation of archaeological research of Middle Age. Agricultural 97

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages Settlements in the Teritory of Slowakia. Ruralia I, PA– Supplementum 5, Praha. Černý E., 1962: Vilémov, zaniklá středověká vesnice. Časopis společnosti přátel starožitností 70, 75−85. — 1970: K metodologii terénního průzkumu zaniklých středověkých plužin. Sborník Čsl. Společnosti zeměpisné, 75, 234–242. — 1979: Zaniklé středověké osady a jejich plužiny. Metodika historickogeografického výzkumu v oblasti Drahanské vrchoviny. Studie ČSAV č. 1, Praha. — 1992: Výsledky výzkumu zaniklých středověkých osad a jejich plužin. Brno. Černý E.-Křetínský, 1999: Kronika Podomí. 650 let historie obce. Blansko. — Dějiny hmotné kultury I (1). Kultura každodenního života od pravěku do 15. století. Praha 1985. Redigoval J. Petráň. — Dějiny hmotné kultury I (2). Kultura každodenního života od 13. do 15. století. Redigoval J. Petráň. Praha 1985. Chapelot J. Fossier R., 1980: Le village et la maison au Moyen Age. Bibliotheque. Charvátová K., 1987: Hospodářské dvory klášterů ve světle písemných pramenů. Ke stavební podobě dvorů řádů benediktinského, premonstrátského a cisterckého. AH 12, 287–299. Chotěbor P.–Smetánka Z., 1985: Panské dvory na české středověké vesnici. AH 10, 47–56.

Frolec V., 1970: Kulturní společenství a interetnické vztahy v lidovém stavitelství v Podunají. Rozpravy ČSAV, řada společenských věd, 1970, roč. 80, seš. 3, Praha. — 1974: Lidová architektura na Moravě a ve Slezsku. Brno. — 1975: K otázce vztahů mezi archeologickými a etnografickými doklady vesnických obydlí. AR 27, 342–345. — 1976: Pokus o etnografickou interpretaci archeologických výzkumů středověké zemědělské usedlosti. AH 1, 49−54. — 1982: K interpretaci geneze trojdílného komorového domu. Ve světle archeologických výzkumů na jihozápadní Moravě, AH 7, 1982, 67–77. — 1987: Vesnická stavební kultura mezi středověkem a novověkem. AH 12, 1982, 47–83. — 1988: Kontinuita a diskontinuita vesnické stavební kultury na západní Moravě. Rodná země, 462–466, Brno. — 1992: Dva světy: ke genezi středověké návsi. AH 17, 305−326. Frolec V. - Vařeka J., 1983: Lidová architektura. Praha, 220.

Ebner H., 1984: Der Bauer in der mittelalterlichen Historiographie. Bäuerliche Sachkultur des Spätmittelalters. Veröfentlichungen des Instituts für mittelalterliche Realienkunde Österreichs, Nr. 7, 93−123. Edel T., 1990: Dům zemědělské usedlosti 16. A 17. století v severovýchodních Čechách, AH 15, 57−68.

Le Goff J., 1991: Kultura středověké Evropy. Praha. Le Goff J., (ed.) 1999: Středověký člověk a jeho svět. Praha. Gojda - Kuna .,1985: Časně slovanský sídelní areál v Roztokách (okr. Praha−západ)−stav výzkumu a jeho perspektivy, AR 37, 152–169. Goš V., 1984: K otázce zahloubených obydlí ve 13. století na severní Moravě (zemnice č. 16 z Loštic−náměstí). VVM XXXVI, 171−178. Goš V. - Novák J. - Karel J., 1985: Počátky osídlení Rýmařova. PA LXXVI, 184–227. Graus F., 1957: Dějiny venkovského lidu v Čechách v době předhusitské II. Praha. — 1957: Die Problematik der deutschen Ostsiedlung in tschechischer Sicht. Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte. Sigmaringen 31–78. Grimm P., 1934: Ein mittelalterlicher Gehöft bei Altenrode, Kr. Wernigerode. Zeitschrift des Harz–Vereins für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 37, 23–27. — 1939: Hohenrode eine mittelalterliche Siedlung im Südharz. Halle. Gringmuth−Dallmer E., 1996: Die landwirtschaftlichen Siedlungen im östlichen Deutschland zwischen Früh−und Hochmittelalter. Ruralia I, PA − Supplementum 5, Praha.

Felgenhauer−Schmiedt S.,1996: Archäologische Wüstungsforschung in ‚Österreich. Ruralia I, Památky archeologické−Supplementum 5, Praha. Filipowiak W., 1972: Z badań nad wczesnośredniowieczna wsia zachodniopomorska (Dobropole, pow. Kamień), Archeologia Polski 17, 167−190. Flodr M., 1990: Právní kniha města Brna z poloviny 14. století. Brno.

Habovštiak A., 1971: Hmotná kultúra stredovekých dedin vo svetle doterajšieho archeologického výzkumu na Slovensku. Agrikultura 10, 7−28. — 1985: Stredoveká dedina na Slovensku. Bratislava. — 1988–89: Das mittelalterliche Dorf in der Slowakei im Lichte der historisch–archäologischen Forschung. Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in ‚Österreich 4–5, 179–186.

Donat P., 1980: Haus und Hof in Mitteleuropa vom 7.–12. Jahrhundert Berlin. Dostál B., 1975: Břeclav–Pohansko IV. Velkomoravský velmožský dvorec. Brno. — 1982: K časně slovanskému osídlení BřeclaviPohanska. Studie Archeologického ústavu ČSAV v Brně, roč. X, 2, 55,Praha. — 1985: Břeclav-Pohansko III. Časně slovanské osídlení. Brno — 1987: Vývoj obydlí, sídlišť a sídlištní struktury na jižní Moravě v době slovanské (6.–10. století).XVI. Mikulovské sympozium, 12, 25.

98

Bibliography Hanuliak M., 1982: Stredoveké hospodárske objekty z výzkumu v Chlabe. AH 7, 103−112. Hašek V.−Kovárník J., 1996: Geofyzika v moravské středověké archeologii. Muzejní a vlastivědná práce 34, 2, 65−88. Hašek V.−Nekuda R., 1998: Zpráva o archeogeofyzikální prospekci na akci Mstěnice−ZSV u Hrotovic, okr. Třebíč (II. etapa). MS AÚ AV ČR Brno. Hašek V.−Nekuda R., 1999: Archeogeofyzikální prospekce v areálu ZSV Mstěnice u Hrotovic d´archéologie. Hachette. Hašek V.−Krajíc R. Nekuda R., 2001: Geophysical prospektion and archeological research of extinct medieval settlements in the 13th−15th centuries in the Czech Republic, in Archeological Prospektion. Volume 8, issue 1, pages 41−66, Chichester England 2001. Hašek V. − Krajíc R. − Nekuda R., 2001: Geophysical prospektion for archaeological excavation of deserted medieval settlements of 13.−15. centuries in the Czech Republic. Sborník prací filosofické fakulty brněnské university, M 5, 2000, Masarykova universita v Brně 2001. Hašek V.−Unger J., 1998: Geophysical and Archaeological Research of Medieval Architecture of the Thirteenth to Pifteenth Centuries in Moravia.−Archaeological Prospektion 5, 1−28. Hejna A., 1957: Trocnovské dvorce. ČNM 126, 1–35. — 1977: Opevněná venkovská sídla doby předhusitské v Čechách. Výsledky archeologického výzkumu z období 1965–1975. AH 2, 69–79 Holl I., 1970: Mittelalterarchäologie in Ungarn 1946–1964. Acta Archaeologica Academiae scientiarum Hungariae 22, 365–411. — 1985: Mittelalterliche Dorfgrundrisse in Ungarn. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaftlichen 14, 247n. Holl I.–Paradi N., 1982: Das mittelalterliche Dorf Sarvaly. Budapest. Hosák L., 1967: Středověká kolonizace Dyjskosvrateckého úvalu. Praha. Hrubý F., 1927: Selské a panské inventáře v době předbělohorské. ČSČH 33, 21−59. Hrubý V., 1964: Staré Město–Velehrad. Ústředí z doby Velkomoravské říše. Praha. Hurt R., 1970: Kyjovsko. Vlastivěda moravská. Brno. Husa V. − Petráň J. − Šubrtová A., 1967: Homo faber. Praha.Husa V.−PetráňJ.−Šubrtová A., 1967: Homo faber. Praha.

Klanica Z., 1986: Počátky slovanského osídlení našich zemí. Praha, Academia1986. Klápště J.−Smetánka Z., 1982: Archeologický výzkum české středověké vesnice v letech 1971−1981−AH 7, 11−31. Kobyliński Z., Struktury osadnicze na zemiach polskich u schylku starozytności i w poczatkach wczesnego średniowiecza. PAN Wroclaw 1988. Kosmova kronika česká. Překlad Hrdinův. Praha 1920. Krajíc R., 1980: Příspěvek k dokumentaci některých zaniklých středověkých osad na Táborsku. AH 5, 165– 172. — 1991: Stavební železo a uzavírací mechanismy na vrcholně středověkých lokalitách Táborska. AH 16, 324−344. Krajíc R.− Kukla Z.− Nekuda R., 1997: Středověký meč ze Mstěnic. Z Pravěku do středověku. Sborník k 70. narozeninám Vladimíra Nekudy. Brno. Kratochvíl A., 1913: Pohořelský okres. Vlastivěda moravská. Brno. Krofta K., 1919: Přehled dějin selského stavu v Čechách a na Moravě. Praha. Krüger B., 1967: Dessau–Mosigkau, ein frühslawischer Siedlungsplatz im mittleren Elbegebiet. Berlin. Kubinyi A., 1985: Bäuerliche Sachkultur des Spätmittelalters. Wien 1985, 235n. Kukla Z. − Nekuda R., 1998: Bronzový kadlub ze Mstěnic. Ve službách archeologie. Sborník k 60. narozeninám RNDr. Vladimíra Haška, 207−208, Brno. — 2001: Bronzový kadlub ze Mstěnic. Ve službách archeologie II, Přírodovědné metody v archeologii a antropologii. Brno 2001. Kurnatowska Z., 1988: Archäologische Dorfforschung in Polen, Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 4−5, 163−178. Kyncl J., 1975: Rozbor nálezů uhlíků. V. Nekuda, Pfaffenschlag, 199–209. Kyncl J., 1985: Výsledky rozboru uhlíků a paleogeobotanická rekonstrukce lokality Mstěnice. Mstěnice 1, Zaniklá středověká ves u Hrotovic. Hrádek−tvrz−předsunutá opevnění. 189−192. Brno. Láznička Z., 1962: Příspěvek k sídelně zeměpisné charakteristice moravskoslezské zemědělské usedlosti na sklonku feudalismu. ČMM XLVII, 77−94. Le Roy Ladurie E., 1980: Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 a 1324. Leister I., 1974: Das Angerdorf und die Überwindung Hufenordnung im ostdeutschen Kolonisationsgebiet. Siedlungsformen der früh- und hochmittellaterlichen Binnenkolonisation. Probleme der genetischen Siedlungsforschung, Bd. 1, 83–87. Göttingen. Lodowski J., 1980: Dolny Šlask na poczatku średniowiecza (VI−X w.). Podstawy osadnicze i gospodarcze. Wroclaw − Warszawa − Kraków − Gdańsk.

Janssen W., 1965: Königshagen. Ein archäologisch− historischer Beitrag zur Siedlungsgeschichte des südwesttlichen Harzvorlandes. Hindesheim. Kajzer L., Wstep do archeologii historycznej w Polsce. Lodz 1996, 156n. Kašpar V.−Smejtek L.−Vařeka P., 1999: Zaniklý sídlištní komplex−Stupenice na Sedlčansku (okr. Příbram). Archeologický výzkum středověkého mlýna z pozdního středověku (předběžná zpráva). AH 24, 101−110.

Machek V., 1957: Etymologický slovník jazyka českého. Praha. 99

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages Matějek F., 1970: Podsedek na Moravě. Příloha 1. Čísla VVM 22. Maťo P. − Dragoun M., Lán ve středověkých Čechách. In: Acta Univ. Carolinae. Phlosop. et historica 2, 1995, 103−110. Mencl V., 1949: Lidová architektura. Zprávy památkové péče 9, 1–43. Mencl V., 1980: Lidová architektura v Československu. Praha. Mezník J., 1992: Dvorové vesnice na Moravě. VVM 44, 439–443. Měchurová Z., 1981: Kůň jezdecký a tažný v raném středověku. ČMM LXVI, 75−91. — 1997: Konůvky–zaniklá středověká ves ve Ždánickém lese. Studie archeologického ústavu Akademie věd ČR v Brně, Roč. XVII, Brno. Měřínský Z., 1970: Zamiklá osada Řevušín u Nové Vsi (okr. Brno−venkov). VVM 22, 30−42. — 1976: Zaniklé středověké osady na panství kláštera oslavanského. AH 1, 109−120.. Okr. Třebíč−PV AÚ Brno, 39, (1995/1996), 496−503. — 1979: Záchranné archeologické výzkumy na Moravě a ve Slezsku z období 6.−16. století v letech 1970−78. AH 4, 55−71. — 1982: Studium dějin osídlení na Moravě a ve Slezsku (současný stav a další perspektivy se zvláštním zřetelem k výzkumu zaniklých středověkých vesnic). AH 7, 113−156. — 1987b: Příspěvek k možnostem rekonstrukce středověké krajiny, území zaniklých vesnic a typů sídlišť. AH 12, 111−128. — 1991: Vývoj osídlení na Moravě a ve Slezsku (současný stav výzkumu). AH 16, 27−36. — 1992: Podíl archeologických bádání na poznání středověkých dějin Moravy a Slezska. AH 17, 13−19. — 1993b: Otázky kolonizace a interetnických vztahů na středověké Moravě. AH 18, 99−118. Měřínský Z. − Nekuda R., 1993: Dva nové nálezy pozůstatků ručních palných zbraní z Moravy. Castellologica Bohemica 3, Praha. Měřínský Z. − Unger J., 1983: Archeologický výzkum pozůstatků kostela na zaniklé vsi Koválov u Žabčic. JM 19, sv. 22, 119−149. Michna P., 1988: K poznání zahloubených obydlí doby velké kolonizace. Rodná země. Sborník k 100. výročí Muzejní a vlastivědné společnosti v Brně a k 60. narozeninám PhDr.Vladimíra Nekudy, 222–284. Míka A., 1960: Nástin vývoje zemědělské výroby v českých zemích v epoše feudalismu. Praha. Moszynski K., 1929: Kultura ludowa Slowian 1. Krakow. Moździoch S., 1996: Das mittelalterliche Dorf in Polen im Lichte der archäologischen Forschung. Ruralia I, PA−Supplementum 5, Praha. Musianowicz K., 1975: Osady z wczesnego średniowiecza i średniowiecza w Brulinie−Koskach, pow. Ostrów Mazowiecka. Materialy Starozytne i Wczesniośredniowieczne 3, 342−386. Müller A., 1971: Bericht über die Grabungskampagne 1969/70 auf der mittelalterlichen Wüstung Krummen

Fen in Berlin−Zehlendorf. Ausgrabungen in Berlin 2, 152−154. Müller A., 1980: Museumsdorf Düppel. Berlin 1980. Nekuda R., 1976: Přínos historické archeologie k výzkumu zaniklých středověkých osad v Evropě. AH 1, 121−137. — 1986: Hmotná kultura zemědělské usedlosti VIII. ve Mstěnicích. ČMM LXXI, Vědy společenské, 131−155. — 1990: Třicet let archeologického výzkumu ve Mstěnicích. ČMM, Vědy společenské, LXXV, 73−98. — 1991: Přínos archeologického výzkumu ve Mstěnicích ke studiu hospodářských dějin. AH 16, 45−53. — 1992: Podzemní chodby ve Mstěnicích. AH 17, 369−379. — 1993: Sociální a hospodářské podmínky středověké kolonizace z hlediska archeologie. AH 18, 151−157. — 1994a: Obytné objekty ve světle archeologických výzkumů raně středověkých vesnických sídlišť na Moravě. AH 19, 349−365. — 1994b: Der Beitrag der Archäologie zur Wüstungsforschung in Mähren. Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie−Geschichte−Geographie, Band 12, 113−124, Bonn. — 1995a: Vývoj trojdílného domu v období vrcholného a pozdního středověku na Moravě ve světle archeologických výzkumů. AH 20, 401−416. — 1995b: Příspěvek k charakteristice zemědělských usedlostí ve středověké vesnici na Moravě. ČMM LXXX, 121−139. — 1996: Wüstung Mstěnice. Ein Beitrag der archäologischen Forschung zur Entwicklung der ländlichen Siedlungen in Mähren. In: Ruralia I, Památky archeologické. Supplementum 5, 306−310 Praha. — 1998a: Zpráva o geofyzikální prospekci ve Mstěnicích. Ve službách archeologie I, Sborník k 60. narozeninám RNDr. Vladimíra Haška. Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky,219−222. Brno. — 1998b: Der Erdställe in der mittelalterlichen Wüstung Mstěnice. Historische Keller und Gangsysteme in Europa. 173−175, Mainz. — 2001: Středověký vodní mlýn ve Mstěnicích. Ve službách archeologie II, Přírodovědné metody v archeologii a antropologii.135−148. Brno. Nekuda R. – Nekuda V., 1997: Mstěnice 2. Zaniklá středověká ves. Dům a dvůr ve středověké vesnici. Brno. Nekuda R. − Kukla Z., 1998: Zbraně, jimiž byla ostřelována tvrz ve Mstěnicích. Ve službách archeologie I, 223−228, Brno. Nekuda V., 1962: Urbáře na panství brněnské kapituly. Zlomky urbáře ze 70.−80. let století 14. a z r. 1407, urbář z r. 1619. Příspěvek k situaci venkovského lidu v období předhusitském a předbělohorském. ČMM, Vědy společenské, XLVII, 43−66. — 1975: Pfaffenschlag. Zaniklá středověká ves u Slavonic. Brno. 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pitterová A., 1956: K některým problémům slovanského domu a vesnice. VPS I, 158−167. — 1960: Příspěvek k otázce tzv. franského vlivu na slovanský dům. VPS III, 189−227. — 1965: Vývoj základních půdorysných typů hradištního domu na území ČSSR ve světle archeologických pramenů. ČL 55, 1965, 275–295. — 1968: Typy nejstarších slovanských sídlišť vesnického charakteru a jejich vývoj ve světle archeologických pramenů. ČL 55, 169−179. Plaček M., 1987: Ves a dvůr Holoubek. K otázce dvora a panského sídla ve středověku. AH 12, 345−354. — 1999: Formy feudálního sídla moravského venkova. AH 24, 291−300. Pleinerová I., 1975: Vesnice prvních Slovanů v severozápadních Čechách. Praha 1975. Polla B., 1962: Stredoveká zaniknutá osada na Spiši (Zalužany). Bratislava 1962. Poulík J., 1963: Dvě velkomoravské rotundy v Mikulčicích. Praha 1963. Pražák V., 1949–50 Vliv sociálně–hospodářského faktoru na vznik štítu v lidové architektuře. Národopisný věstník čs. XXXI, 217–238. Pražák V., 1958: K problematice základních půdorysných typů lidových staveb v Československu, ČL 219–236, 331–360. Procházka R.–Štrof A., 1983: Příspěvek k osídlení Bořitova a Černé Hory. VVM XXXV, 46–58. Přichystal A., 2001: Suroviny vybraných kamenných předmětů z prostoru středověkého mlýna ze zaniklé vesnice Mstěnice u Hrotovic. Ve službách archeologie II, Přírodovědné metody v archeologii a antropologii, Brno 2001.

— 1976a: Zaniklá středověká osada Bystřec, okres Blansko. ČMM, Vědy společenské, LXI, 39–63. — 1976b: Příspěvek k charakteristice středověké zemědělské usedlosti na Moravě. AH 1, 33−48. — 1978: K vývoji zemědělských sídlišť v 10.−13. stol.na Moravě ve světle pramenů hmotných.AH 3, 171−182. — 1981: Dvacet let archeologického výzkumu na lokalitě zaniklé středověké osady Mstěnice, 1960–1980. VVM XXXIII, 129–146. — 1982: Středověká vesnice na Moravě ve světle archeologických výzkumů zaniklých osad. AH 7, 33– 66 — 1983a: Die Wüstung als Quelle zur Siedlu ngs−Wirtschafts−und Sozialgeschichte des Mittelalters, Mittelalterliche Wüstungen in Niederösterreich. Studien und Forschungen aus dem Niederösterreichischen Institut für Landeskunde, Band 6, Wien, 196−213. — 1983b: Das mittelalterliche Dorf Mährens im Licht der archäologischen Forschung. Brno. — 1985: Mstěnice 1. Hrádek, tvrz, dvůr, předsunutá opevnění. Brno. — 1991: Současný stav středověké archeologie na Moravě. AH 16, 9−25. — 1999: Zemědělství a chov dobytka ve středověké vesnici na Moravě. VVM, LI, 1, 4−19. — 2001: Mstěnice 3. Zaniklá středověká ves. Raně středověké sídliště. Brno 2001. Nekuda V. − Unger J., 1981: Hrádky a tvrze na Moravě. Brno. Niederle L., 1913: Život starých Slovanů. Základy kulturních starožitností slovanských. Díl I/2. Praha. Nitz H. J., 1985: Planmässige Siedlungsformen zwischen dem österreichischen Weinviertel und dem Passauer Abteiland. Ostbayrische Grenzmarken. Passauer Jahrbuch für Geschichte, Kunst und Volkskunde 27, 183–198. Passau.

Richter M., 1982: Hradišťko u Davle−městečko ostrovského kláštera. Praha. Rybníčková E. – Rybníček K., 1975: Ergebnisse einer paläogeobotanischen Erforschung. V. Nekuda, Pfaffenschlag, 183–198. Ruttkay M., 1998: Dedina a dom vo vrcholnom a neskorom stredoveku. Ludová architektúra a urbanizmus vidieckych sídiel na Slovensku z pohladu najnovších poznatkov archeológie a etnografie, 37−66. Bratislava. — 1999: Výskum stredovekých dedinských sídlišť na Slovensku. (Stav a perspektívy). AH 24, 7−40. Říkovský F., 1939: Základy k sídelnímu zeměpisu Československa. Spisy. odboru čs. společnosti zeměpisné v Brně, řada B, Spis 5, Brno.

Pálóczi A., − Horváth, 1997: The Reconstruction of a Medieval (15 th Century) House at Szentkirály (Middle–Hungary). In: Život v archeologii středověku. Sborník příspěvků věnovaných M. Richterovi a Z. Smetánkovi, 507–513. Pesez J. M., 1996: Sur l´archéologie rurale en France septentrionale−Quelques questions en guise de bilan. Ruralia I, PA−Supplementum 5, Praha. Petráň J., 1963: Zemědělská výroba v Čechách v druhé polovině 16. a počátkem 17. století. Praha. Petráňová L. − Vařeka J., 1987: Vybavení venkovské zemědělské usedlosti v době předbělohorské (na pozadí poddanských inventářů) AH 12, 277−285. Piendl M., 1969: Hab und Gut eines bayerischen Ritters im 14. Jahrhundert. Festschrift Max Spindler, 193−213, München. Piponnier F., 1984: La qualité de la vie en milieu rural: Exemples Bourquiqnons. Bauerliche Sachkultur des Spätmittelalters. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für mittelalterliche Realienkunde Österreichs Nr. 7. 277– 290.

Sejbal J., 1979: Dějiny peněz na Moravě. Brno. Schier B., 1932: Hauslandschaften und Kulturbewegungen in östlichen Mitteleuropa. Liberec. Schmidt L., 1956: Antike und mittelalterliche Pflugscharen in Österreich, AA 19/20, 227−238. Slaninák M., 1975: K otázke stredovekého dedínského domu na severnom Slovensku. Zborník Slovenského národného múzea 69. Etnografia 16, 170−189. Smetánka Z., 1956: Hrábě se železnými hřeby. Příspěvek 101

The Agricultural Homestead in Moravian Medieval Villages k dějinám středověkého hospodářského nářadí. ČL 43, 268−270. — 1965: Současný stav archeologického výzkumu hmotné kultury zemědělských osad X.–XV. století v Čechách. Čsl. Časopis historický XIII , 239–268. — 1973: Archeologický výzkum středověké vesnice v Čechách v letech 1965–1970, 1, 21–34. — 1985: K ikonografii středověké vesnice. AR 37, 319−333. — 1988: Život středověké vesnice. Zaniklá Svídna. Praha. — 1989: K problematice trojdílného domu v Čechách. AH 14, 319–324. — 1994: K problematice trojdílného domu v Čechách a na Moravě v období vrcholného a pozdního středověku. Medievalia Archaeologica Bohemica 1993, Památky archeologické−Supplementum 2, Praha. Smetánka Z. – Škabrada J. – Krajíc R., 1988: Příspěvek ke kritice vypovídací hodnoty geodeticko–topografického průzkumu. Rodná země. Sborník k 100. výročí Musejní a vlastivědné společnosti v Brně a k 60. Narozeninám PhDr. Vladimíra Nekudy, 81–98 Brno. Snášil R., 1976: Životní prostředí vesnických sídlišť 10.−15. Století v ČSR. (Nástin dosavadních výsledků). AH 1, 139−149. — 1977: Nová zjištění ze zaniklých Záblacan. Středověká archeologie a studium počátků měst, 247–257. Praha. Souchopová V. − Novotný B.,1974: Záchranný výzkum středověké služebné osady u Černé Hory (okr. Blansko, PV AÚ 1973, 82−84 Brno. Sperber H., 1984: Bäuerliche Geräte des Spätmittelalters. Bäuerliche Sachkultur des Spätmittelalters. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für mittelalterliche Realienkunde Österreichs, Nr. 7, 291−306. Sperling W., 1982: Formen, Typen und Genese des Platzdorfes in den böhmischen Ländern. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeographie Ostmitteleuropas. Wiesbaden 1982. Staňa Č., 1960: Slovanské obytné objekty na hradišti Staré Zámky u Líšně. PA LI, 240−293. Steensberg A., 1952: Bodenhuse og Vandmolles i Danmark gennen 2000 A I, Arkaeologiste Landsbyundersogelser I. Kobehavn. Steensberg A. – Christensen J., 1974: Store Valby. Kobenhavn. Szabó I., 1971:Afalurendszer kialakulása Magyaarországon (X − XV század). Budapest 1971. Šalkovský P., Slavic Habitat in the Early Middle Ages. In: Slovaks in the central Danubian Region in the 6th to 11th Century, 107 − 131, Bratislava 2000. Šaurová D., 1967: Zaniklá středověká osada Konůvky na Slavkovsku. VVM XIX, 163–174. — 1973a: Systematický výzkum zaniklé středověké osady Konůvky na Slavkovsku. ZSV 1, 169–193. Uherské Hradiště. — 1973b: Zemědělské nástroje z Konůvek na Slavkovsku. AR 25, 336−339. — 1977: Vilémov – Zaniklá středověká ves na úpatí Drahanské vrchoviny. Středověká archeologie a studium počátků měst, 264–271. Praha.

— 1978: Česká vesnice v období vzniku městských aglomerací. AH 3, 325–330. Škabrada J., 1978: Sýpky domů v Pfaffenschlagu ve světle struktury vesnického domu v jihočeské oblasti. (Šíje sýpek a středověkých zemnic). AH 3, 355−369. — Půdorysy domů v zaniklé středověké vesnici Sarvaly ve světle srovnávacího materiálu z českých zemí. AH 12, 1, 511−518. Šmahel F., 1982: Oživlá minulost Montaillou. (Recenze: Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 a 1324. Paris 1973). Husitský Tábor 5, 303 − 308. Šmelhaus V., 1964: Kapitoly z dějin předhusitského zemědělství. Rozpravy ČSAV 74/IX, řada společenských věd. Praha. Štelcl J. – Malina J., 1975: Kamenné suroviny Pfaffenschlagu. V. Nekuda, 1975, 223–237. Štěpánek M., 1968: Plužina jako pramen dějin osídlení. (Příspěvky k dějinám osídlení 2). ČsČH 16, 247−274. Taupin M. C., 1996: Le hameau de Trainecourt XIIIe s. Ruralia I, PA–Supplementum 5, 211–216. Praha. Tempír Z., 1962: Typy ručních a nožních stup v Československu. ČL 49, 104−114. Timpel W., 1982: Gommerstadt–ein mittelalterlicher Herrensitz in Thüringen. Weimar. Třeštík D., 1979: Proměny české společnosti ve 13. Století. Folia Historica Bohemica 1, 131−154. Unger J., 1977: Stav výzkumu zaniklých vsí v mikroregionu na soutoku Jihlavy a Svratky. Středověká archeologie a studium počátku měst. 258−263, Praha. — 1981: Hradištní a středověká osada u Šakvic, okr. Břeclav. AR XXXIII, 55−87. — 1984: Zaniklá ves Topolany u Vranovic, okr. Břeclav. AH 9, 65–100. — 1994: Koválov. Šlechtické sídlo z 13. století na jižní Moravě. Brno. Unger J., a kol., 1980: Pohořelice − Klášterka. Studie Archeologického ústavu ČSAV v Brně, roč. VIII, 2, Praha. Válka J., 1991a: Středověká politická Morava, Za Moravu. Historická identita Moravy, 21−29. Brno. — 1991b: Středověká Morava. Dějiny Moravy. Díl I. Vlastivěda moravská. Země a lid. Nová řada, svazek 5. Brno. Vařeka P., 1991: Příspěvek k problematice vypovídacích možností konstrukčních reliktů středověkého vesnického domu. AR 43, 1991, 585–592. Wand R., 1983: Ausgrabungen in einer mittelalterlichen Dorfwüstung Holzheim bei Fritzlar. Schwalm– Ederkreis. 1983. Žemlička J., 1991: Středověké osídlení a studium hospodářských dějin, AH 16, 37−43. — 1997: Čechy v době knížecí. Praha.

102