70118 S5002320

Mfcdt* :'oh«vvioo in Bohomia

f ”*⁰*’” GL    BP    DP    SD    Bd

BA5 SS.20 11.60 14.20    8.80    *

06    35.60    1100    -    S.70    10.20

d jMux

GL    Bp

f4    22*0    11.20

Wild Boar (Sm*' scrofia)

titiUS

Bp

Has ss.00

Han? (Lepus eunoparus)

Radius

Bp

11H/13    10.20

SOH    10.30

Srd mttatarsai

Bp

UB/6    6.00

5(1 mHotorsal

GL Bp SD Bd^-UGOS    50.10    8.30 3.50    5.60

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE 0/87

Petr DRDA

Unenrthing Łho foundations of a wooden building (foaturo 0/87) in the north-west comer of the aouthem half of the quadrangular endosure in the 1987-88 komom was the high point of several yoara of nrchaeological investigation in Miccko 2ehrovice. The discovery was not entirely unex-pected. On the contrary, the main impulse behind the finał phnse of excavations was the considara-tion t hut if there were to be any traces of a notable building within the endosure at all. then thcy sliould be searched for exactly in that north-west comer. These expectntions were not disappointed. With no doubt, the (ind dearly justifies the idea that the structure of the inner layout of at least some of the sites of the "Yiereckschanse* type is govemed by certain habitual customs or rules Undoubtedly. speciul significance was attached to the building within the area ondosed by banks (cf. Venclova 1989; 1991). This assortion is also supported by other important circunistnnces. The power of local tradition or of some sort of internat rules must have beon so strong or binding that soon after the first building had been destroyed a new one was built in ex;\ctly the same posi-tion. Another important aspect is that apart frora an intentionally selected location it could have meant that an all-out effort was madę to retain a similar outward architectonic appearance of the building. Adherence to the same proportions and retontion of the slightly trapeaoidal shape of the original plan bears out the validitv of this assumption.

Reconstruction of building 0/87-1

At first glance, howeeer, any aimilarity between the two foundations ends with the above stated characteristics. The plans constituted twd dif-ferent systems of sub-surface struetures ot dis tinct character. Three direct superimpositions were recordod which establish the chronologi-cal seąuence. The original. larger plan «V87-1. reforred to hereafter as building 1) was outlined by narrow wali trenchea, eontaining pp8t holes not largo in cross-section, but in most cases extremely deop. Of similar character wen* four post holes positioned so that thoy formed an almost rectan-gular square inside tho ground plan. Their standard dimensions wora only excceded by two pits in the opposite comers of the northem side (Fig. 1). The second ground plan (0/87-11. rrferred to in the fbllowing text as building II). on the other hand. was mnrked by large pits with fiat bottoms. barely half as deep. They constitutc a plan of a later building of reduced dimensions Some of the post holes display projections jutting out of an other-wise reguł ar, almost rectangular, contour of each post hale as a typical construction feature (Fig. 2). The specific features of both foundations are due to difierent construction concepts.

In building I it is the concera for stability that comes to the fore The supporting structure was elaboratcly fixed in the ground. The framework of the construction was madę of vertical. meticulous-ly hewn. square-sided oak posts, 8-10 cm x 20-max. 35 cm in cross-section. The bulkier posts probably added extra support to the comers of the exposed northem side. As far as the workman-ship is conceraed there are no apparent di (Teren -ces between the supporting members inside and outside, along the plan perimeter. This argues against the alteraatire that the construction at the perimeter functianed only as a fonce and not as walls pro per Ensuring high stability of the building against collapse can be achieved only by connecting the perimeter structure with the spa-cious roof structure whose load was thus dis-tributed both between the inner structure of the building and the perimeter walls. The reconstruction (Fig. 3) assumes that the height of the walls reached 2 m. as proven by concreto evidence in one of the late La Tfene houses at Hraaany (Jansova 1986. 52). Thin vertical laths (wat tle) plastered over with daub were set in the wali trenchee and fastened onto the timber perimeter structure of the building.

The roof structure most probably supported a hipped roof. A elear indication of that is proeided by a ridge post, set to the ground. a tracę of which has been, coinci den taiły, preserved at the bottom of post hole 22 of the later plan. The ridge post would be placed close to the tie collar beant of the inner structure. probably being lot into the boam by an (unspecified) joint. On the Southern side of the roof structure. which took less st ram. the ridge piece was probably supported by a king post tenonsd into the tie collar beani. Important com-