Triumphal arch

The church features several layers of murals, but not all of them are clear because of damage and fading. Three layers are distinguishable in certain parts of the southern side of the triumphal arch, which is best seen in the area where the central figure is painted. In this middle zone, one sample was taken from each of the three layers, while a single sample was collected from the lower figure to determine which layer it belonged to. We also took a sample from the lower (or possibly middle) layer on the northern side of the arch in an attempt to identify these layers more properly. During the sampling process, the strength of the plaster varied between the three layers already by feel. The oldest layer (sample VMD 7) consists of the most brittle plaster, which is also rather thin and uneven as if it traced the stone wall beneath. The middle layer of plaster, which had also been heavily hammered before the new mural was painted, is also exceedingly fragile (VMD 8). The cross-sections of the samples confirm that all the plasters consist of lime and sand of different granulation and grain colours. Similarities can be detected between the plaster on the northern wall (VMD 2, Fig. 1), the one beneath the lower figure on the southern wall (VMD 1, Fig. 2), and the one belonging to the middle layer of the middle band (VMD 8, Fig. 3). All three plasters show an orange hue, while the sand consists of dark, orange, and translucent grains. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis reveals that the plaster is composed of a generous amount of aggregate (quartz) and only a little binder (calcite), which is why the plaster is so crumbly. At the same time, it also contains some feldspars and muscovite, i.e. impurities that also affect the quality of the plaster. The plots of both layers are very similar, which may indicate that they were painted by the same workshop within a short period of time. The top plaster (VMD 9), on which the blackened figure was painted, is between three and five millimetres thick and the most solid, perhaps consolidated. The cross-section of the sample (Fig. 4a–4b) reveals a somewhat orange plaster with orange aggregate grains, similar to the plaster on the earlier two layers (VMD 7, 8). However, its chemical composition is different: while it is also high in quartz and even lower in calcite, i.e. binder, it also contains a significant amount of impurities such as feldspars and muscovite, indicating a poorly washed sand and an inferior-quality plaster. In terms of its composition, it is similar to the plaster beneath the kneeling figure on the inside of the triumphal arch (VMD 4a) – perhaps this is the same layer of the murals. On the lower layer of the same side, i.e. the southern end of the triumphal arch, the plaster is also solid, while it is exceedingly brittle on the opposite, northern side of the triumphal arch (VMD 2). Thus, we can conclude that the latter must have been applied simultaneously as the first or second painting layer on the southern side (VMD 7, 8), while the former coincides with the third layer. In all cases, the sand was most likely locally sourced and used in murals from different periods. On the northern side of the inner triumphal arch, we can still see the giornate applied individually for each figure.

Interior triumphal arch wall, chancel

We can discern two layers of paintings on the triumphal arch wall, as the kneeling (donor?) figure was painted on the upper layer of plaster. It may have been added later, but belongs to the same set of murals. On the chancel walls, the fragmentary nature of the murals makes it unclear whether there are two or even more layers and how they follow each other, except in the window splay, where the diamond-shaped decoration was painted over the figure of a female saint. Samples were only taken from the interior triumphal arch wall, as the paintings on the chancel walling and ceiling are too high. Already with the naked eye, we can see that all of the plaster consists of lime and sand, just like in the case of the triumphal arch. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of a sample taken from the chin of the kneeling figure in the corner of the northern part of the interior triumphal arch wall (VMD 4a, Fig. 8) confirms that it is composed of lime and sand (mainly quartz). However, the aggregate content is considerable, contributing to the plaster’s brittleness. The presence of feldspars and muscovite indicates poorly washed sand, which also affects the quality and durability of the plaster. The X-ray diffraction XRD analysis of this plaster reveals a plot that is almost identical to the plaster from the most recent, uppermost layer on the triumphal arch (VMD 9), which is also confirmed by the cross-sections (Fig. 4a). The results of the analyses of the plasters therefore indicate that the mural was painted at the same time. On the other hand, the three samples taken from the lower bordure of the Nativity scene (Fig. 9) and the drapery of the angel in the Annunciation scene (Fig. 10) differ from this one and all those taken from the triumphal arch: the aggregate contains elongated greyish grains, which are absent from all the other plasters at this location. Moreover, a thin layer of plaster or limewash can also be detected between the plaster and the paint layer. Although we also found limewash on the lower (or middle) layer of the northern side of the triumphal arch (Fig. 1), it appears white on the sample, whereas it is translucent on the samples taken in the chancel, indicating that this is not the same register. Obviously, the plaster had already been dry before this thin layer was applied, as the already-formed lime crust is clearly visible on the surface. The analysis of the samples also reveals a lime and sand plaster mainly consisting of aggregate (quartz) and much less lime. At the same time, the feldspar and muscovite content is much lower here than in the case of the samples from the kneeling figure (VMD 4a) or the figure painted on the upper layer of the triumphal arch (VMD 9). The XRD analysis plots are similar to those for the lower two layers from the triumphal arch (VMD 7, 8). However, the cross-section of the sample from the interior triumphal arch wall (VMD 3, Fig. 9) reveals a different plaster than that of the layers from the triumphal arch itself (Figs. 3, 5). Judging from the plasters, the mural on the upper part of the interior triumphal arch was therefore painted by another painter than the image of a kneeling figure or the paintings on all three layers of the triumphal arch. Nevertheless, the blackened pigments present on this mural and the upper layer of the arch suggest the possibility that the murals were at least painted by the same workshop. It is also possible to distinguish the giornate in some places.