Page 75 - buvkeramika

75
prior use might be the remains of lime mortar having stuck to some bricks with footprints / paw prints.
Possibly, all of them, or the greatest part of the bricks with footprints / paw prints found in 1979, were
made at the same time, since most of the unbroken articles are equally sized (29–29.5 × 14–15 × 8.5–9 cm).
Their size corresponds to that of bricks laid in the walls of the Southern Block, and therefore they can be
dated from the second half of the 13th century or the 14th century (Jansons 2007, 133).
The list of bricks having been found in the Southern Block, attached to the year 1979 excavation
report, shows that 123 articles had large, small or medium-size dog paw prints, 15 – cat paw prints, 9 had
the footprints of even-toed ungulates (order Artiodactyla) – sheep or goats and pigs, and 4 – footprints
of domestic birds. Since the sizes of many are similar, it can be supposed that these are products made
at the same time in one brick-kiln. The origin of footprints / paw prints can be explained in the way that
once just shaped, yet wet bricks were placed in the yard for drying, but no people were around for a rather
long time. Therefore, unattained domestic animals damaged a considerable part of the half-ready bricks
by trampling and deforming them. Probably the dogs chasing about freely had scurried about the drying
bricks for several hours or even for the whole day, but petty livestock had escaped their pens for a short
moment. Probably the raw bricks were trampled by petty livestock – goats or sheep with lambs – having
separated from the flock, that where driven back to the flock by the shepherd’s dog. On some bricks there
is only one footprint / paw print, but on others there are two or more impressions.
A brick on which there are both a dog’s and a cat’s paw prints could be evidence of one domestic
animal chasing after another one. Quite frequently one paw print / footprint is deeper but the other one
is more shallow, impressed almost on top of the first one. This is clear evidence of the characteristic gait
of the animal, when back feet are put in the footprints / paw prints left by forefeet. On several bricks the
paws of large dogs, with sharp claws, have sunk into the wet clay even by 2 to 4 cm, but the cloven feet
of artiodactyls – by almost 5 cm. Impressions of paw prints of other animals, especially cats, are rather
shallow and have only slightly damaged the smoothness of the brick surface. This indicates that on newly
shaped wet bricks the deepest footprints / paw prints were left, but later the more dried pieces were not
so much damaged by accidental treading on them. In separate bricks the animal feet / paws had not only
sunk in the widest surface but they had also deformed brick’s side edge. On some bricks animal footprints /
paw prints stretch in opposite directions. All of these can be only accidental impressions – traces left by
animals rambling around.
On the one hand, bricks with deep impressions of artiodactyl footprints and large dog’s paw prints
were waste pieces, especially in cases when brick edge or side were damaged. On the other hand, these
could be burnt and applied in construction provided that when the brick was laid in the wall only its
narrowest side or end was left visible. This is shown by a crumbled brick of Turaida on the surface of
which an artiodactyl footprint has been partly caulked with mortar – so the trace left by this animal was
not exposed in the masonry wall.
As shown by the review of bricks with footprints / paw prints found in Turaida, nothing testifies to
the fact that craftsmen would have intentionally made the footprints in bricks, or that masons would
have laid these bricks in exposed places. Therefore, one can agree with the opinions of researchers that
animal footprints / paw prints on bricks are not a decoration or a masters’ mark, or a magical symbol.
The footprints / paw prints have originated when unattained domestic animals were chasing over the
Ieva Ose. Building ceramics of Turaida Castle in the 13th–17th centuries