Materials and techniques used in high-baroque stucco decorations by Baldassarre Fontana in Kroměříž Chateau, Czech Republic

Materials and techniques used in high-baroque stucco decorations by Baldassarre Fontana in Kroměříž Chateau, Czech Republic | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Materials and techniques used in high-baroque stucco decorations by Baldassarre Fontana in Kroměříž Chateau, Czech Republic Jan Válek, Sylwia Svorová Pawełkowicz, Petr Kozlovcev, Jana Zapletalová, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6976989/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in npj Heritage Science → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the materials and construction techniques employed in the Baroque stucco decorations of the Ground Halls at Kroměříž Château, executed by one of the most renowned stucco-makers of the time, Baldassare Fontana and his workshop. Sixteen samples were analysed using a combination of optical microscopy, SEM-EDS, XRD, thermal analysis, and acid dissolution technique to characterize binders, aggregates, and layer compositions. The results revealed a deliberate selection of high-purity calcitic lime, sourced from Devonian limestone near Přerov, and gypsum likely from the Ketř-Opava basin, both of which were processed with minimal impurities. Two distinct mortar types were identified: a lime-gypsum-sand core modelling mortar and a lime-rich fine finishing stucco mortar. The analysis highlighted layered construction techniques. The presence of crushed marble in some specific decorations suggests a change of the recipe and indicates that the decoration of the halls was not carried out in one single phase, and perhaps some parts were not executed under Fontana’s auspice. The analytical results also point out the technological features linked to the adaptations to local material conditions. Surface coatings were initially limited to white limewash, with later interventions introducing coloured paint layers, identifiable by zinc white pigments. The findings shed light on the material practices of 17th-century stuccatori and offer a foundation for further conservation and historical research. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 1. Introduction Stucco decorations have been the subject of recent studies aiming at understanding the composition, structure and a general technology ( 1 ). These analyses provided interesting information regarding the composition, structure and the original recipes prompting a further, more detailed research (2; 3; 4; 5) . It has also been shown that material analysis is fundamental in guiding informed decision-making during restoration design ( 6 ). These two directions currently represent the main motivation for further research: (i) to gain even more detailed knowledge about a specific historic technique linked to a building, an artist or a period, or (ii) to provide technical information in order to ensure appropriate, knowledge-based preservation of stucco works. Both of these two areas are based on a material analysis, which can describe the composition and quality of the materials used, as well as to provide information regarding the artistic technique itself. Stucco is an artistic decoration that has roots in antiquity ( 7 ). It is essentially a plasterwork that decorates walls and ceilings with plastic low or high reliefs, or relief sculptures ( 8 ). Studies have shown that Baroque stucco is usually executed as a layered mortar structure with a core made of lime, gypsum and sand covered by a lime-rich finishing mortar ( 5 , 6 ). In some regions, the term stucco also has taken hold as a general term for a fine mortar with aggregates under one millimetre, which is used as the final layer on plaster or render. Analytical methods used for historic mortars can be used to characterize stucco materials ( 9 ). However, the description of the technique is more complex and the analysis of the material only contributes to its understanding. One can draw on historical treaties (e.g., 10, 11, 12, 13) but individual artists adapted their techniques based on available materials and empirical craft experiences ( 2 ). Therefore, treatises normally contain general instructions while the actual practice depended on specific workshops in specific geographical conditions and the historical period when the work was created. Understanding the technique is also more challenging because we are examining it from a today’s perspective. The technology and materials used to make these traditional decorations have changed significantly over time, and what once required no explanation may constitute vital missing information. Travelling artists and craftsmen In the early modern period, artists and craftsmen from Lake Lugano and the nearby territories of the present-day Italian-Swiss border region (Canton of Ticino and the Lombardy region) were particularly specialised in stucco decoration. These artists and craftsmen developed a specific kind of artistic migration that spanned the whole of Europe for several centuries (evidenced during the 15th-18th centuries) ( 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ). Large teams of people, often closely connected by blood and neighbourhood ties, composed of architects, masons, plasterers, sculptors, painters and other artisan professions, were able to realize entire buildings from plans to interior decoration in various parts of Europe. Plasterers had an important position within the system and a unique know-how. They were characterised by their extraordinary flexibility in relation to local specific requirements, conditions, the wishes of their clients and the need to achieve an identical artistic effect of their works using mostly local materials ( 4 ). Surviving accounting documents and contracts suggest that they travelled light, perhaps transporting drawings and graphic designs. A common arrangement was that heavier items and material were provided locally by the commissioner. Aims The analytic study was undertaken in order to improve the understanding of the stucco technology at the end of 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, the high-baroque period in the central Europe. In addition, the study also aimed at evaluating the possibility whether or not some specific material or technological imprints exist that can be linked to the craftsmen who carried out the work or their workshops. For this reason, the study focused on one of the best stucco-makers of the time, Baldassare Fontana (1661–1733) ( 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ) and on the work he produced in Kroměříž for a major patron – the bishop of Olomouc, Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno (1624–1695), a notable supporter of high artistic quality. An interesting question also arises regarding the ability of the travelling craftsmen to adapt to the specific properties of locally available materials. 2. Site and context Kroměříž in Moravia was the seat of the bishops and archbishops of Olomouc in the early modern period. Bishop Karel von Lichtentein-Castelcorno was responsible for the construction of the monumental Archbishop's Château (UNESCO Heritage Site) in its present form after the end of the Thirty Years' War. The Château was built in 1688 according to the plans of the architect Giovanni Pietro Tencalla (1629–1702). The construction and decoration of the Château are well documented by numerous archival documents ( 22 , 23 ). The studied stuccos by Baldassarre Fontana are found in the ground halls (terrene salons) of the Château, which are the most authentically preserved early modern part of the decoration ( 24 , 25 ). The halls, located in the basement of the North wing of the Château, consist of three rooms on the transverse axis of the wing, each side ending with a grotto, Fig. 1 . Stucco decorates the vaults and walls of all three halls. In addition to B. Fontana, the painter Paolo Pagani (1655–1716) and the sculptor Fedele Raggi (c. 1637–1693) contributed to the decoration of the interiors. The stucco decorations of B. Fontana and his collaborators in the halls, created sometime between 1690 and 1693, are of exceptional artistic quality and are among the finest works of this artist ever. Illusionary effects are prominently used in them. The stuccoes depict both figural motifs of large and small angels, as well as high-quality decoration of fruit and flower festoons, baskets with fruit and flowers, and trophies ( 25 , 26 , 27 ). Regarding the materials, a general picture of what was available is known based on archival documents ( 22 ). Lime was burnt in the Château’s own limekilns. The older kiln, positioned nearby, was in operation up to around 1670/80 and the main raw material processed there was a silty limestone of Jurassic age. At the time, when the studied stuccos were produced (since 1688), a new limekiln was put in operation in Chrášťany, approximately 8 km away from the Château, where, in addition to the silty limestone, Lower Devonian limestone from the vicinity of Přerov was also burnt. This fine-grained, bench-shaped limestone was generally more difficult to acquire but was preferred for its white colour and perhaps other properties. In contrast, the silty Jurrasic limestone was known to produce a grey-ochre lime, noted for its hydraulic properties, especially when industrially produced at the end of 19th and the first half of the 20th century. Gypsum was bought from Ketř in Kladsko (Opava Basin), which is about 130 km to the north and in fact this evaporitic deposit is the only source of gypsum in the former Czech territory. 2. Samples and Methods 2.1. Samples Samples were selected from positions where an earlier damage occurred making it possible to assess the stratigraphy of layers. Due to the extreme damage, when part of the forearm of a putto was separated from the remaining torso due to corrosion of the internal supporting element, it was possible to study the construction of the relief sculptures. The sampling positions were carefully documented and the selected areas are shown in Figs. 1 to 4 . Three types of stucco decorations are represented by the sampled set; stucco relief sculptures, high relief garlands, and low relief decorative panels on the walls, Table 1 . Table 1 List of samples of the interior stucco decoration and the analytical methods applied (OM – optical microscopy, SEM-EDS – scanning electron microscopy, TA – thermal analysis, XRD – powder X-ray diffraction, AD – acid dissolution). ID Sample Element Type of decoration / position Analysis STK 1 finishing layer clump of hair relief sculpture – a nymph / Middle Hall OM, SEM-EDS STK 2 finishing layer leaf high relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / Middle Hall OM, SEM-EDS STK 3 complete stratigraphy forearm of a putto relief sculpture – a putto / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD, AD STK 4 complete stratigraphy ears of wheat low relief background / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS STK 5 complete stratigraphy tail of a naiad relief sculpture – a nymph / Middle Hall OM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD, AD STK 8 finishing layer leaf high relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / Middle Hall OM, SEM-EDS STK 10 finishing layer leaf high relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD STK 11 finishing layer leaf high relief garland above the garden entrance / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS STK 12 finishing layer leaf high relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD STK 13 finishing layer wall decoration panel–leafwork low relief / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS STK 14 core modelling mortar putto’s body relief sculpture – a putto / South Hall OM, SEM-EDS, TA, AD STK 15 finishing layer putto’s finishing layer relief sculpture – a putto / South Hall OM, SEM-EDS, TA STK 18 finishing layer leaf high relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall OM, TA, XRD STK 19 finishing layer leaf high relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS, STK 20 complete stratigraphy wall decoration panel low relief / North Hall OM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD STK 22 finishing layer wall decoration panel – flower low relief / South Hall OM, SEM-EDS 2.2 Methods Samples were documented macroscopically and their surface treatments were assessed using a stereomicroscope. The samples consisting of multiple layers were decomposed to individual structural parts, typically to the finishing layer and the core mortar, and the separated samples were identified by additional letters A, B, and C. Subsequently, each sample was processed according to the proposed analytical objectives. Four samples were large enough to determine the soluble/insoluble ratio by acid dissolution. The sampling was only possible in already damaged parts and thus, for example, no core modelling mortar was taken from the high relief decorations of the niches. Optical Microscopy (OM) Stucco mortar characteristics and composition were analysed in detail by means of polarised light microscopy (PLM) and scanning electron microscopy. For these microscopic observations, polished thin-sections and polished cross-sections were prepared. The thin-sections were studied in plane (PPL) and crossed polarised transmitted lights (XPL), polished sections were studied in reflected (RL) and fluorescent (UV) lights using an Olympus BX53M microscope with digital camera Olympus DP27. Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed by using a Tescan MIRA II LMU instrument, with an energy dispersive analytical system (EDS) from Bruker AXS. The EDS measuring conditions were as follows: carbon coated polished surface, accelerating voltage of electrons 15 kV, WD of 15 mm, high vacuum.,. The images were taken with a back-scattered electron (BSE) detector. The sites where the elemental composition was determined were chosen with respect to the homogeneity of the measured areas. The chemical composition of the binder determined its purity in terms of the content of its main compound, calcium carbonate. In addition, the mass proportion between silica, alumina, and iron oxides and calcium and magnesium oxides, expressed as cementation index (Eq. 1), was used to classify the binder as air (ci < 0.3) or feebly (0.3 < ci < 0.5) hydraulic lime following the system ( 28 ). \(\:ci=\:\frac{{2.8xSiO}_{2}+1.1{xAl}_{2}{O}_{3}+0.7x{Fe}_{2}{O}_{3}}{CaO+1.4xMgO}\) (Eq. 1) Thermal Analysis (TA) and X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) The composition of the binder component of the mortars was characterised by a thermogravimetric analysis (TGA/DTG) and XRD. Firstly, coating layers were mechanically removed and the purged samples were gently crushed. The obtained material was passed through a 63 µm sieve. The fraction below 63 µm was used further for analyses. The instrument SDT Q600 (TA Instruments) was used to measure thermal behaviour between 25°C and 1000°C for which a sample of approximately 10 mg was heated at the rate of 20°C/min in nitrogen atmosphere. Endothermic dehydration of gypsum occurs as follows: first, the adsorbed water is driven off, ending at around 105°C, and then crystalline water is driven off in two stages, the first one ending at around 175°C (forming CaSO4·½H2O), the second one ending at around 220°C (forming unstable anhydrite III). The dehydration is complete and stable at about 250°C ( 29 ). Endothermic decomposition of calcite occurs between 600°C and 900°C, the exact temperature depends on the crystallinity, and the amount and type of calcium carbonate phase ( 30 ). Before the XRD analysis, an internal standard (ZnO, 10 wt.%) was homogenized with the sample. Data were collected on a diffractometer D8Bruker Advance Pro (Cu Ká radiation, 40 kV and 40 mA) with 0.01°C step size 2ϴ and counting time0.4 s/step. Crystalline and amorphous fractions were determined with combined Rietveld-RIR method. Dissolution and sieve analysis The proportion of insoluble residue (aggregate) was determined by dissolving a sample in 8% solution of hydrochloric acid. Samples containing gypsum had to be dissolved in boiling hydrochloric acid (1:3) for about 2 min ( 31 ). After dissolution, the aggregate was washed with distilled water several times. Sieve analysis was carried out to determine the particle size distribution of the dried aggregate. Subsequently, the mineralogical composition of each size fraction was examined under a stereomicroscope. In order to estimate the mixing proportions, the insoluble portion was assigned to aggregate, while the soluble portion was regarded as binder. To estimate the mixing proportions between lime and gypsum the ratios determined by thermal analysis were used. The following bulk densities were used for conversion to volumetric units: lime putty – 1300 kg.m − 3 ; dry hydrated lime powder – 740 kg.m − 3 ; sand – 1600 kg.m − 3 ; powdered gypsum hemihydrate – 900 kg.m − 3 ; lime putty dry matter content – 45%. Protein analysis by mass spectrometry nano-LC-TimsTOF Protein digestion and purification: 100–250 µL of 50 mM NH4HCO3 containing approximately 10 µg/mL of trypsin was applied to the samples STK 3 A, B C and let react at room temperature for two hours. The solution was taken and purified on reverse phase ZipTip. After equilibrating, binding and washing steps, target compounds were desorbed from the stationary phase. The solutions were consequently used for analyses by nano-LC-TimsTOF. The LC–MS/MS system consisted of a nanoElute 2 liquid chromatograph (Bruker Daltonics) coupled to a TimsTOF HT mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics). The purified and dried samples were resuspended in 50 µl of 3% acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. The mobile phase A was water with 0.1% formic acid, and the mobile phase B was acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. A volume of 1 µl of the resuspended sample was first loaded onto a PepMap Neo-Trap trapping column (300 µm × 5 mm, Thermo Scientific) at 80 bar pressure using 100% phase A for 2.5 minutes. The sample was then eluted onto a PepSep C18 analytical column (75 µm × 100 mm, Bruker Daltonics). Peptide separation was carried out using a one-hour linear gradient of mobile phase B (3–35%). The eluted peptides were ionized using the Captive Spray 2 electrospray ionization technique. Data were acquired in Data Dependent Analysis (DDA) mode using Parallel Accumulation Serial Fragmentation (PASEF). The mass range was set to 100–1700 m/z. Ion mobility scans were performed in the range of 0.6–1.6 V·s·cm⁻², with a scan duration of 100 ms. Ten ion mobility scans were performed between two MS spectra. From the acquired data, peaklists were first extracted using DataAnalysis 6.1 software (Bruker Daltonics) and subsequently imported into the Proteinscape 4.2 proteomics data management system (Bruker Daltonics). Protein identification was performed using the Mascot search algorithm (version 2.4.1, Matrix Science), with the reference proteome of the corresponding organism downloaded from public biological databases (UniProt/NCBI) used as the search database. 3.0 Results The macroscopic examination carried out on site and in the laboratory made it possible to distinguish the main layers from which the stucco decorations were created. Most of the samples were taken from the finishing stucco layer including the applied surface finish and the subsequent coatings. By studying the stratigraphy of the putto's broken forearm, it was possible to estimate the construction sequence of this relief sculpture, Fig. 5 . The detached stucco fragment was about 8 cm in diameter and had an iron skeleton element (forged roughly to 4 x 6 mm) encased in a gypsum layer of variable thickness of 4 to 15 mm. A sample of this material was labelled STK 3A. This layer was clearly distinguishable from the subsequent layer, as there was a ‘cold joint’ between them; in some areas the two layers were not fully bonded. This indicated that the next layer was applied after the first had set. The second layer was between 10 and 40 mm thick. It consisted of several sub-layers that were very well bonded and not easily distinguishable, thus it was considered one material for the analysis. The sample of this layer was denoted STK 3B. A third layer was the final stucco layer. It was approximately 4 to 6 mm thick and was distinguishable by a finer structure (aggregate). The sample of this layer was labelled STK 3C. The sculpture of a naiad was also made of at least two layers, the finishing stucco mortar (STK 1 – hair and the tail tip denoted as STK 5B), and core modelling mortar from the tail tip denoted as STK 5A. Sample STK 4 from the low relief background composed of wheat ears also included two layers, the core modelling mortar and the finishing stucco layer. Sample STK 20 from the low relief wall panels comprised two different mortar layers, in this case a first coat (labelled STK 20B), a layer from which the plastic relief was modelled (STK 20A) and an adjacent layer of a flat stucco without decorative elements (STK 20C). Optical microscopy (OM) The whole set of samples is divided and described according to the functional layers of the stuccos. Subgroups with similar properties are further commented based on the nature of their binding system, aggregate and structure. Core mortar (samples STK 3A, 3B, 4, 5, and 14) is a layer composed of lime-gypsum binder with a predominance of the lime component, Fig. 6A. The binder in this layer is compact, pores and cracks are rare. Larger pores are mainly visible at the contact with the outer finishing stucco layer. However, both layers are well connected. Binder related particles (BRP) occur in matrix. These are usually uncracked compact lumps of fine-grained lime binder, 0,4 − 1 mm (maximum 2 mm) in size. Similarly, compact particles of gypsum or unburnt gypsum particles are dispersed throughout the layer. The lime-gypsum binder is well distributed, only rarely, there are clusters of gypsum and lime that are not well dispersed, Fig. 6B. The aggregate in the core mortar consists mainly of quartz clasts, both monocrystals and, less frequently, undulose grains. Feldspars and dark micas (biotite) are also present. Fragments of fine-grained marble are also present in samples STK 3A and STK 14. The grains in this layer are sharp-angled, irregular, and fractured; their size varies from 0.4 to 1 mm, with the largest up to 4 mm. The binder to aggregate (B/A) ratio, based on estimated volume percentage, is 1:1. Sample STK 14 is different from the other core mortar samples due to its inhomogeneous filler composition. In addition to single crystalline quartz grains, large grains and polycrystalline clusters are more abundant. The shape of the aggregate clasts varies for different fractions. The large grains are mostly oval, whereas the grains of the smaller size fractions are predominantly sharp-edged, irregularly shaped and cracked. The most frequent grain size of the fine-grained fraction is 0.3–0.5 mm, while the coarse-grained fraction has a typical size of 1–2 mm. Pores and cracks are more common in this sample than in the others. The sample of the core mortar encasing the reinforcement (STK 3A) is technically a part of this group but its composition—and, as discussed later—its function is significantly different. This material is very rich in gypsum, which forms the matrix, Fig. 6C. It contains elongated gypsum particles of various sizes, most often 0.05–0.3 mm in size. The matrix is compact, without pores and cracks. A stain with brownish to rusty hues is observed at the point of contact with the iron reinforcement. The matrix contains whole and unbroken crystals of unburnt gypsum up to 3 mm in size. They have not undergone thermal alteration and have retained their original rock structure, Fig. 6C. Other clastic grains, namely quartz, feldspar or small micas (biotite), occur in quantities corresponding to 5–10%. These grains are sharp-angled, irregular and often very fractured. The occurrence of coarse-grained gypsum particles is more frequent in this layer compared to the rest of the core modelling mortars. Finishing stucco layer forms the outer mortar layer in most of the studied samples (STK 1, 2, 3C, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20). It is composed mainly of fine-grained lime binder and fine aggregates, Fig. 6D. This layer is rich in BRPs with the most common particle size ranging from 0.5 to 1 mm , with the largest particles up to 2.5 mm. BRPs are fine-grained, usually compact, and in rare cases exhibit a partially preserved fine-grained structure of the original material, Fig. 6E. Samples STK 8 and 11 also contain a few particles of unprocessed gypsum, the presence of gypsum binder was, however, not identified. The layer is compact, with no significant pores or cracks. As with the core mortar, the B/A ratio in this layer is typically 1:1 based on estimated the volume percentage. The samples from the stucco layer do not differ in the type of binder, but can be subdivided into subgroups based on different aggregates. Subgroup – lime and siliciclastic aggregate For the stucco samples STK 1, 2, 3C, 4, and 5, a typical siliciclastic aggregate composed of predominant quartz grains, feldspars (albite), dark micas (biotite) and accessory opaque minerals, Fig. 6E. The shape of the grains is irregular, sharp-angled, and they are often cracked. Their size usually varies from 0.2 to 0.8 mm , with the largest grains reaching up to 1.5 mm . All samples in this subgroup show signs of higher grain sorting (compared to the other finishing stucco layers). In addition to the typical BRPs, finely crystalline limestone particles, up to 0.5 mm in size and irregular in shape with relics of thermal disturbance, occur in the binder, Fig. 6G. Subgroup – lime and siliciclastic aggregate, with crushed marble as a minor component In addition to the main siliciclastic component of the aggregate, significant amounts of marble clasts are present in samples STK 8, 10, 11, 15 and 20, Fig. 6H. These are sharp-angled, irregular fragments of coarsely crystalline marble with frequent twinning of grains. The size of these fragments ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 mm, with the largest grains reaching up to 0.8 mm. The marble fragments differ in grain size from the siliciclastic ones present, which may indicate separate sieving or production of these two aggregates. Sample STK 10 exhibits lower grain sorting than other stuccoes in this subgroup. Subgroup – lime and crushed marble, siliceous sand is a minor component Samples of the leaves decorating the niches in the North Hall (STK 12, 18, and 19) form a distinct subgroup due to the presence of crushed marble that replaces the siliciclastic aggregate, Fig. 6F. Finishing stucco layer on the wall panels Samples of the wall decoration panels (STK 13, 20) do not form a separate subgroup. Sample STK 20 is distinguished by a higher proportion of siliciclastic grains, mainly polycrystalline quartz fragments. Other properties of these samples do not differ from those of the finishing stucco layer. Surface finish and subsequent coating layers Most of the samples included some kind of surface finish but two, STK 10 and 18, showed no coating layers, they retained only the finishing stucco layer surface finish. In contrast, the remaining samples revealed up to eight distinguishable layers comprising a combination of limewashes and paint layers. Analysis of the surface stratigraphy showed a thin lime dense layer, which is particularly noticeable in UV light, Fig. 7A–D, and on BSE images, Figs. 8A–D. This is most likely the effect of smoothing the stucco with a metal tool, where the binder is pulled out with water to the surface. This layer is intact and had set and dried before the subsequent coatings were applied. In all samples, the first coat of paint on the stucco was a limewash which typically consisted of two to three application layers. The transitions between these application layers were barely perceptible, Figs. 7A–D and 8A–D, in either the optical or electron microscope, indicating that the craftsman applied multiple layers of limewash wet-on-wet. In samples STK 3 and 4 a clear difference in luminescence in UV light was noted between the first limewash and the subsequent coatings composed of limewashes and paint layers, Fig. 7C–D. There are distinct morphological differences between the first and the successive limewashes, which exhibit more pronounced vertical cracks and weaker adhesion. In samples STK 12 and 19, representing the stucco made with crushed marble and a highly calcitic, exceptionally white binder, the first limewash coat is cracked and detached from the stucco finishing layer resembling the secondary limewashes in samples STK 1–4. Additionally, localized dust deposits are observed between the stucco and the limewash, Fig. 8D. Coloured coatings come as the third to fifth subsequent layers. Pigments are distinctly present in the pink (STK 2), grey (STK 4), beige (STK 20C), and green (STK 22) paint layers; their compact structure confirms them as intentional paint layers. In contrast, the loose structure of the ochre layer found in samples STK 4, STK 11, and STK 12, combined with the absence of a matrix to embed the pigments and create a paint layer, suggests that it is more likely a deposit than an intentional paint application. Black thin layer of deposits was observed in samples STK 20A and C from low relief decorations. In case of sample STK 20A the black layer lies on top of the finishing stucco layer, while in sample STK 20C it lies on the first limewash, Fig. 7A–B. UV light examination of cross-sections revealed the presence of a highly luminescent pigment, zinc white (ZnO), in the upper white and coloured paint layers, Fig. 7C–D. SEM-EDS The compositions of the binding matrixes of the mortar samples detected by means of EDS analysis are compared in Table 2 . All mortars contain high proportion of CaO which corresponds to the use of lime as the main binding agent. The SO 3 content corresponds to the addition of gypsum and its elevated content was present in STK 3B, a sample of the core mortar. A certain content of SO 3 was detected in almost all mortars and lime coatings but this is more on a level of contamination as discussed later. The amount of MgO, as well as the content of other impurities (SiO 2 , Al 2 O 3 and Fe 2 O 3 ) that affect the properties of lime is generally low in all samples. Based on the composition, lime binder of the samples can be classified as a calcitic air lime. A possible exception is sample STK 4, which according to the elevated SiO 2 content determined may possess some hydraulic properties. Its binding matrix can be classified as feebly hydraulic. Within the air lime category, the matrix composition of some samples, namely STK 3B, 3C, and 11, is more heterogeneous in silica content than others, potentially providing them with some hydraulic phases too. Apart from these exceptions discussed above, overall, the lime matrix composition is relatively consistent for all mortars, BRPs and lime coatings. Common features are high CaO, low MgO and silica-based impurities. The composition of BRPs is almost always purer than the surrounding binding matrix, suggesting that the elevated silica content present in some samples may originate from sources other than the lime binder used for mortar preparation. The crushed marble particles in samples STK 12 and 19 of finishing stucco layers contained exceptionally low amounts of impurities. The chemical composition of the first limewash coat closely matches that of the measured one for BRPs, with a high CaO content of 96.7%, a low MgO content of 0.5% and variable quantities of SiO 2 , SO 3 . The presence of Al 2 O 3 was detected in minor amounts (0.4%) only in sample 22A. The chemical composition of limewashes on stuccoes with crushed marble (STK 12 and 19) is consistent, comprising 97.2% CaO, 0.8% MgO, and 1.3% of SiO2, with minor Na and Cl content. Analysis of the samples using BSE images provides a more detailed description of the layers' morphology, including their compactness and adherence. In all samples, a thin binder-dens layer is visible in BSE images. Moreover, the surface of sample STK 20C exhibits two of these layers indicating that the stucco plaster has been reworked, Fig. 8C. EDS maps of samples STK 11, 12 and 19 reveal minor deposits between the layers, primarily composed of Si and Al,, Fig. 8D. Additionally, all zinc-containing overpaints are clearly distinguishable. The zinc white layer in sample STK 4 lies on top of ochre deposit layer, Fig. 8. Two pink layers, identified in sample STK 2, showed a different chemical composition. The first layer is composed of calcium carbonate mixed with iron red, while the second layer consists of zinc white combined with iron red. Grey layer (STK 4) is rich in aluminosilicates. In sample STK 20A, the beige layer is composed of zinc oxide and chromium yellow. For the green paint layer in STK 22, zinc white and iron pigments were utilized (organic additives cannot be excluded). Table 2 Average composition of the binding matrix of the main mortar layers and of the first coating layers. Weight proportions in oxides (wt. %). Number in brackets refers to separate particles. N represents the number of analysed areas/points. CaO MgO SiO 2 Al 2 O 3 FeO SO 3 Minor elements N STK1 finishing layer Matrix 95.1 0.5 1.8 0.4 0.2 1.4 Sr 6 BRP ( 1 ) 98.7 0.2 - - - 1.1 - 6 1st coat 97.8 0.4 0.8 - - 0.7 Cl 3 STK 2 finishing layer Matrix 97.3 0.7 1.3 0.2 - 0.3 Cl 4 BRP ( 1 ) 99.2 0.8 - - - - Cl 4 STK 3 B – core mortar Matrix 80.6 0.9 5.0 1.0 3.5 7.6 Na, Cr, Cl 10 STK 3 C finishing layer Matrix 88.5 1.0 4.5 1.9 0.9 2.3 Cl 10 1st coat 95.4 0.6 1.6 - - 1.5 - 1 STK 4 finishing layer Matrix 85.0 1.0 8.7 1.9 0.6 1.7 Na, Cl 5 1st coat 95.3 0.8 1.2 - - 1.6 Na, Cl 5 STK 8 finishing layer Matrix 95.9 0.9 3.0 0.2 - - - 3 BRP ( 1 ) 94.8 0.8 2.7 - - 1.5 Na 6 1st coat 93.5 0.4 4.6 - - 0.8 Na 3 STK 11 finishing layer Matrix 92.9 0.8 6.5 1.0 2.4 1.3 Na, Zr 19 BRP ( 4 ) 95.9 0.5 2.6 0.5 Na 8 1st coat 21.1 1.4 53.8 12.2 3.6 3.7 Na, K 1 STK 12 finishing layer Matrix 96.1 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.4 Na, Cl 9 BRP ( 4 ) 96.4 0.8 1.5 - - 1.0 - 4 Marble ( 6 ) 99.8 0.2 - - - - - 6 1st coat 97.2 0.8 1.3 - - - Na, Cl 2 STK 13 - finishing layer Matrix 93.9 0.8 2.2 0.1 - 1.4 P 3 STK 15 finishing layer Matrix 93.6 0.3 2.4 0.5 0.5 1.3 - 8 BRP ( 1 ) 98.4 0.6 1.0 - - - - 2 1st coat 96.9 0.2 1.7 - - - Na 3 STK 19 finishing layer Matrix 96.8 0.5 1.0 0.2 1.2 Na, Cl 4 BRP ( 4 ) 97.4 - 0.9 - - 1.7 - 3 Marble ( 3 ) 99.0 0.3 0.3 - - - - 7 1st coat 97.2 0.8 1.3 - - - Na, Cl 2 STK 20 A finishing layer Matrix 95.6 0.2 3.3 0.2 - 0.5 Na, Cl 6 BRP ( 2 ) 98.3 0.3 0.7 - - 0.75 - 2 1st coat 51.5 1.1 27.4 9.9 4.6 Na, K, P, Ti, Cl 1 2nd coat 97.7 - 1.9 - - 0.4 - 3 STK 20 C - coarse intonaco Matrix 97.2 0.2 1.9 0.3 - 0.3 Cl 6 STK 20 C - fine intonaco Matrix 98.4 - 1.2 - - 0.2 Na 4 1st coat 98.5 0.3 1.3 - - - - 2 STK 22A - finishing layer Matrix 98.8 0.5 0.6 - - 0.4 - 3 1st coat 97.0 0.6 1.2 0.4 - 0.8 Cl 3 Mineralogical composition of the binder (fraction < 63µm) determined by XRD is in line with the SEM-EDS analytical outputs, Table 3 . Unlike the core mortar binder, which generally contains gypsum as a secondary binder (approximately 30–45 wt.%), the STK 3A sample of the mortar encasing the reinforcement is composed of gypsum with approximately 10 wt. % lime. The finishing stucco layer of the relief sculpture (STK 3C) had about 10 wt. % of gypsum added to lime which notably differs from the low relief (STK 5B) or leaves decorating niches (STK 10 and 12) where the amount of gypsum is negligible to absent. Quartz, feldspars, micas, and rutile originate from the fine fraction of aggregate. Their variable amounts are caused by the preparation of the sample, which must be finely crushed to separate the binder. The nearly 40 wt. % of quartz in sample STK 20B is however unusually high across all samples studied. The XRD of the rounded particles (STK 3B1), which were manually separated from the gypsum and lime-gypsum-based matrices, confirmed that they were composed of gypsum. The white particles (STK 3B2), which were not dissolved by the acid attack (8% HCl), were also gypsum-based as confirmed by the XRD analysis. Table 3 Mineralogical composition of the samples determined by XRD. Sample Calcite Dolomite Gypsum Quartz Albite Orthoclase Microcline Muscovite Anorthite Rutile STK 3 A Core mortar - reinforcement 9.8 - 87.7 2.4 - - - 0.1 - - STK 3 B Core mortar 51.8 - 44.2 4.0 - - - - - - STK 3 B1 Gypsum particle - - 100 - - - - - - - STK 3 B2 Undissolved particles - - 98.0 2.0 - - - - - - STK 3 C Finishing layer 80.9 - 8.0 8.9 2.2 - - - - - STK 5 A Core mortar 59.7 0.7 32.3 4.4 1.7 - 1.9 - - - STK 5 B Finishing layer 83.8 0.4 1.1 8.3 - - 4.1 2.3 - - STK 10 Finishing layer 70.7 - 1.5 17.9 3.4 2.0 - 2.2 2.3 0.1 STK 12 Finishing layer 96.9 - - 1.4 - - - 1.6 - 0.1 STK 20 B First coat 45.9 - - 39.2 5.8 2.0 1.8 5.2 0.1 Thermal analysis (TA) Two main processes were identified by TA corresponding to calcium sulphate dihydrate dehydration (between 50°C and 200°C) and calcium carbonate decomposition (between 600°C and 850°C) and their weight losses were used to quantify the proportions of gypsum (CaSO 4 .2H 2 0) and lime (CaCO 3 ), as shown in Table 4 . The analysed samples (sieved below 63 µm) were not solely composed of a binder but also included a variable amount of the finest-fraction aggregate compounds as confirmed by XRD. The presence of the fine aggregate influenced the quantified values of the binders especially in the case of samples STK 14, 10, 15, and 20B where the aggregate contamination was higher. Weight losses within the temperature range of 200–600°C are comparatively low, 1.2–3 wt. %, indicating a small amount of structurally bound water, Fig. 9 . These observations confirm the use of non-hydraulic lime and imply that the water released during this temperature interval most likely originates from clay inclusions, hydrated iron compounds or inorganic salts. Samples of the core mortar are all composed of a mixture of gypsum and lime in various proportions. The slight shifts in dehydration and decomposition peaks could be due to the presence of variable amounts of unprocessed gypsum and lime particles. This effect is clearly observable in the analysis of sample STK 12, which contains crushed marble aggregate, where the carbonate decomposition peak shifts to a higher temperature. However, it is not possible to quantify the amounts related to unprocessed particles; only a qualitative estimate based on optical microscopy can be made. Table 4 Results of thermal analysis – weight loss due to gypsum dehydration and carbon decomposition. weight loss (%wt.) (% wt.) by TG (% wt.) by XRD-QPA 50–200°C 200–600°C 600–850°C CaSO 4 .2H 2 O CaCO 3 CaSO 4 .2H 2 O CaCO 3 STK 3A 17.35 1.22 3.64 81.8 8.30 87.7 9.8 Core mortar STK 3B 7.61 2.95 23.33 33.3 53.0 44.2 51.8 STK 5A 6.23 2.64 23.31 27.2 53.0 32.3 59.7 STK 14 3.03 2.18 17.16 14.5 39.0 - - STK 3C 2.39 3.36 29.65 7.9 67.4 8.0 80.9 Finishing stucco mortar STK 5B 1.08 3.73 32.55 2.3 74.0 1.1 83.8 STK 10 0.65 3.00 28.23 0.0 64.2 1.5 70.7 STK 12 0.31 1.98 39.79 0.0 90.4 - 96.9 STK 15 0.75 2.56 22.16 1.5 50.4 - - STK 20B 0.49 2.48 20.29 0.0 46.1 - 45.9 Dissolution and sieve analysis The insoluble residue and the calcium carbonate-to-calcium sulphate ratio obtained from the thermal analysis were used to calculate the mixing proportions of the mortar. Based on the weight proportions the volumetric proportions were estimated using approximate bulk densities of the materials, Table 5 . As it is generally assumed that the raw materials were dosed in batches using building ladles or similar tools available on site, the mixing ratio was expressed in volumetric units. The simplified average proportions of the core modelling mortar could be approximately 1 to 1 for lime putty and sand with gypsum varying from 0.3 to 0.5. In the case of the final stucco mortar mixture, only one sample was suitable for the test and the ratio was 1 to 0.6 of lime putty to sand. The samples with gypsum that at first did not dissolve completely had to be treated with boiling acid. The undissolved gypsum particles are visible in Fig. 10 . The gypsum-bearing layers are characterised by whitish and rounded gypsum clusters that form rounded insoluble particles. In general, the 0.25–0.5 mm fraction dominates in size, with the 0.5–1 mm and 0.125–0.25 mm fractions being less represented. Table 5 Estimated mixing proportions of the core modelling mortar and the final stucco mortar in volumetric proportions. STK 3B STK 5A STK 14 STK 5B Undissolved residue (wt. %) 58.0 59.1 50.4 55.3 CaCO 3 /CaSO 4 .2H 2 O ratio (-) 1.6 2 2.7 - putty powder putty powder putty powder putty powder lime 1 1 1 1 sand 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.8 gypsum 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 - - The mineralogical analysis shows that a very similar sand was used for both, the core modelling mortar; and the finishing stucco mortar. The predominant components were quartz grains of various colours. Less common were rock fragments (gneiss) composed of quartz, as well as feldspars (albite) or micas (biotite). The individual sand clasts were sharp-angled, sometimes slightly rounded. but rather unworked, with an uneven surface. The shape, roundness and overall sorting of this material suggests that transport of this sand probably took place only a short distance from the source rock. The main difference in the selection of sand for the core mortar and the finishing stucco mortar is the content of fine particles. Microscopic analysis of most samples shows that the main size range of the finishing stucco mortar sand is around 0.2–0.8 mm and a maximum grain is usually not large than 1 mm, exceptionally reaching up to 2 mm. The sieve analysis shows that also the amount of the fine fraction (< 0.063 mm) differentiates this sand from the one used in the core mortar. Protein analysis by mass spectrometry nano-LC-TimsTOF The proteomic analysis of sample STK 3 from the putto’s forearm was conducted on this representative sample because it comprises three distinct mortar layers and originates from the most artistically advanced form. The results show that samples STK 3A and C do not contain any proteinaceous additive. Sample STK 3B contains some matching peptide chains of ovalbumin and collagen, Table 6 . Due to the low number of peptides, the result is inconclusive as the identified proteins from egg and animal glue could also originate from contamination. Further analysis would be required to confirm the presence of such additives. No relevant plant proteins were found. Table 6 Protein identification in sample STK 3 B. Accession Protein #Peptides FETUA_BOVIN Alpha-2-HS-glycoprotein 3 K2C1_HUMAN Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 1 3 K22E_HUMAN Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 2 epidermal 2 OVAL_CHICK Ovalbumin 2 K1C10_HUMAN Keratin, type I cytoskeletal 10 2 ALAT2_DANRE Alanine aminotransferase 2-like 2 DCPS_PIG m7GpppX diphosphatase 2 NPAP1_HUMAN Nuclear pore-associated protein 1 2 CO4A6_HUMAN Collagen alpha-6(IV) chain 2 DAAF1_DROPE Dynein assembly factor 1, axonemal homolog 2 4.0 Discussion The discussion follows the main interest of the research – the understanding of materials and technologies of the stucco production. 4.1. Materials of stucco mortars The lime binder used was of fairly uniform quality, exceptionally pure with very low amounts of MgO, SiO 2 , Al 2 O 3 and Fe 2 O 3 . Hydraulic compounds were not detected and EDS analysis revealed that the CaCO 3 content consistently exceeded 90 wt. %. The only exception is sample STK 4, where the elemental composition of the binder corresponds to slightly hydraulic lime. However, this is based only on a small measurement area, and the use of such lime is not confirmed in the other samples. It more likely represents natural heterogeneity in the raw material. The remnants of the original material structure in the BRPs suggest that a fine-grained limestone was used for burning. The main local sources of limestone are known from the estate accounting books. The chemical purity and fine-grained structure points to the locations near Přerov, where a high-quality Devonian limestone is available. Another potential source, also widely available to the estate, is Jurassic limestone from Kurovice, which, however, contains high levels of impurities, Fig. 11 . Archival sources suggest that the lime was most likely produced locally. Wood-fired lime kilns were typical of the time, and if properly managed, the lime was expected to be soft-burnt and free of ash and charcoal ( 32 , 33 ). The compactness of the matrices and controlled size of the BRPs seem to exclude the use of any type of hot mixing. The binding matrix also contains small, fine crystalline limestone particles structurally corresponding to Devonian limestone from Přerov and can thus be regarded as under-burnt remnants. The presence of these particles as well as the high density of the material, could suggest that a dry-slaked lime powder was mixed with sand and possibly also with gypsum powder before water was added. However, other mortar preparation methods that would include sieving of the binder (limiting the maximum sizes) and leaving heavier unprocessed limestone fragments cannot be ruled out based on the analysis. Moreover, the archival documents state that lime was burnt in August to be ready for spring use in 1688 ( 22 ). The practicality of storage would suggest that lime was stored in lime pits to mature. Gypsum was imported in advance from Ketř ( 22 ), and the rocks were probably quite pure with few contaminants, as indicated by the analysis of STK 3A. A scarce archival reference connected to B. Fontana’s work in Vyškov ( 34 ) suggests that the gypsum was burnt in a kiln built by local craftsmen. The wording implies that building such a kiln was a routine task that require no special explanation. The type and design of such a kiln remain unknown due to a lack of archaeological evidence or detailed studies. The gypsum rocks from the Ketř-Opava basin (a Middle Miocene calcium-sulphate-dominated evaporite area in the northern Carpathian Foredeep ( 35 ) form friable crystal clusters. Kilns similar to flare lime kilns (but with open fronts) would likely be impractical due to the incoherence of the rock ( 36 ). A more suitable method of dehydration would therefore be cooking or baking the crushed stone in pots or pans. The presence of anhydrite, a typical product of burning at higher temperatures than approximately 350°C, was not identified by XRD or by microscopy. Additionally, there was an abundance of unprocessed gypsum particles and rock fragments in the mortars. This indicates that the gypsum was most likely burnt at relatively low temperatures, producing mostly hemihydrate with some portion of under-burnt material. It remains unclear when and how the gypsum was crushed and ground to powder. Generally, crushing burnt gypsum is less energy-intensive because it becomes softer ( 36 ). The main aggregate used was siliciclastic sand, most likely of local origin. It came from fluvial sources and was of the same nature, although the fine and coarse sands were likely quarried from separate deposits. The fine sand is not merely a smaller size fraction of the coarse one. Both sands were most likely sieved to achieve the desired grain size. The analysis indicates that grain size was chosen according to the intended use. The finishing stucco layer had grains typically under 1.5 mm and contained a certain portion of a fine fraction (< 0.063 mm); the core mortar had sand up to 4 mm and had very low content of the fine fraction. There is also variability between samples, likely reflecting differences in natural resources or shifts in material supply/production timing. This is evident in sample STK 14 (core mortar from the putto in the South Hall), which features more heterogeneous sand compared to samples STK 3, 4, and 5 from the North Hall. The marble in the stucco finishing layers was produced by crushing a metamorphic limestone that differs from the fine-grained Devonian limestone used to produce lime and even more from the Jurassic limestone of Kurovice. The exact origin of this limestone has not been identified. However, similar marble was quarried in Nedvědice in South Moravia – a location that was well known to the estate, as marble for architectural elements and sculptures was obtained from there. 4.2 Execution of stucco decorations The samples were divided according to the stucco parts from which they were taken, i.e., relief sculptures, low relief, high relief, and wall panel decoration for the purpose of comparing mortars mixtures with different functions. Except for the relatively flat wall panels, all three-dimensional stucco decorations were made as layered structures, where the main shape was modelled from lime-gypsum-sand mortar mixture. The level of detail in the modelling was high and included not only correct proportions but also finer surface work. It seems that the more artistically demanding works were modelled almost to perfection, as only a very fine layer (about 3–4 mm thick) of finishing stucco mortar was used on the forearm of the putto (STK 3), compared to the more repetitive fruit and floral motifs, where the thickness of the finishing stucco was more variable. This may indicate that different workers, with different modelling skills, were employed depending on the complexity of the decoration. The skeleton of a sculpture, in the case of the studied putto, was made of forged iron. A first layer composed of gypsum mortar with a very low amount of lime, was applied directly on the iron. This layer served as a bonding bridge between the iron and the core modelling mortar, which significantly stiffened the entire skeleton. While this hypothesis cannot be verified through material analysis, the mass of the successive layers suggests that a solid base was absolutely necessary. The main body mass was modelled in layers until he desired shape and proportions were reached. The layers were not regular but were very well bonded; their interfaces were visible only in some sections. This indicates wet-on-wet application until the body part was completed in a single stage. The mortar contained lime and gypsum in proportions varying from 1.6 to 2.7. The gypsum was as coarsely ground hemihydrate with numerous under-burnt particles. Since hemihydrate sets quite rapidly, some additives were likely used to slow down the setting time. It was common at the time to use animal glue for this purpose ( 37 , 38 ). The analysis of organic additives suggested that animal glue may have been present in the core mortar; however, definitive proof based on a larger dataset was beyond the scope of this survey and remains a task for future research. A method involving repetitive reworking of the gypsum-lime mixture to prolong plasticity is also assumed but no structural evidence supports this in the current samples. One isolated cluster of gypsum mixed with lime, seen in sample STK 5, is likely a result of an improper mixing. Differences in mortar composition for the same type of stucco may reflect the work of different teams, variability in raw material supplies, or even different phases of execution. Of particular interest is the variable use of crushed marble. It was present in finishing stucco samples STK 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 20. Crushed marble completely replaced the siliciclastic aggregate in the North Halls niche garlands (samples STK 12, 18, and 19). A shortage of marble is unlikely, so its addition seems to document a deliberate change in recipe. Addition of crushed marble provides a whiter, more light-reflective surface, so its inclusion may have been influenced by aesthetic intentions. Information on the stucco making in the course of time is not available but if we assume that the addition of marble represents an improvement, then stucco without it would be the earlier work. Interestingly, the North Hall garlands are slightly less rich in decoration, asymmetrical, and exhibit a noticeable change in pattern at certain heigh–possibly due to a scaffolding of other obstacles. Another point to look at this technological change is that these stuccoes were made by a different group of craftsmen, perhaps even without involving B. Fontana’s workshop. In Fontana’s later decoration of the Gallery of Angeles at Uherčice Château (1692–1969) crushed marble was not used, even though it was apparently available, as evidenced by the study of Uccelli et al. ( 5 ). 4.3. Adaptation of modus operandi to the local conditions Travelling craftsmen and artists had to adapt to the local materials available. This is known from contracts and accounting records that document acquisition and purchase of materials ( 22 ). Interestingly, these materials are described in general terms, without any specific quality demands. The estate most likely secured the best materials available within reach, so quality was not seen as an issue. Rare notes refer to technological processes, for example, a 1688 record is stated that ‘…lime was procured and slaked in August and put out for the next year’ ( 22 ). Whether the lime was stored in pits and used as a putty, as generally assumed, or in a form of powdered hydrate remains unknown as discussed earlier. However, this was before B. Fontana and his team were commissioned to carry out the stucco decorations ( 26 ). Material analysis shows a clear preference for pure lime with high calcite content. This was a deliberate choice, as it came from a source that was not the most readily available. It is known that the quality of lime depends not only on the raw material but also on the production processes such as burning, slaking, and storing, all of which significantly affect the final product ( 32 , 39 ). While material analysis cannot unambiguously determine the production method, it can highlight characteristic properties associated with it. Some features potentially be linked to particular skills of stuccotori include: The compactness and the minimum shrinkage cracks of the finishing stucco layer indicate the use of procedures that allowed for precise control of water content in fresh mortars. For the determined mixing proportions of the finishing stucco mortar, the matured lime putty would, however, contain too much water to achieve suitable workability. There are therefore two possibilities: either the putty or the subsequent mortar was somehow dewatered, or dry-slaked lime powder was used and the right amount of water was added to adjust the required workability. Gypsum binder, when used alone or with a minimal lime content, was coarsely ground and included unprocessed particles up to 3 mm in size. Despite this coarse texture, the resulting binding matrix was compact and effectively served the purpose of fixing the structural skeleton and bridging it with the next mortar layer. The coarse grinding was likely considered adequate—possibly even beneficial—for this application. When gypsum was combined with lime to prepare the core modelling mortar, a slightly finer gypsum fraction was employed. Each mortar component was intentionally sized below a certain grain threshold, tailored to its specific role. For the finishing stucco mortar, most of the sand grains were smaller than 1.5 mm, while crushed marble particles were limited below 0.8 mm. This suggests that these aggregates were individually prepared and selectively added. BRPs in the fine stucco were the largest particles with a maximum size found about 2 mm confirming that the lime was also processed in a different manner. Coarser sand was chosen for the core mortar, where greater volume and structural mass were needed to model the shape. This practice aligns with traditional construction techniques—larger grain sizes help mitigate shrinkage and enhance mechanical strength. Lime-to-gypsum ratios in the core modelling mortar ranged from approximately 1.6 to 2.7. It is likely that gypsum was added intuitively, based on practical, on-site requirements such as the desired setting time, the weight of element being modelled and its spatial position. This flexible, experience-based approach was common among other master plasterers from Ticino, who were renowned for their expertise in the field. B. Fontana, who originated from the same region, likely shared and employed similar practices ( 40 ). 4.4 Surface finishing, coating and painting layers Based on the results, it is evident that all surface coatings were applied to dry mortar. The uniformity observed in the first two up to three application layers of the first coat, characterized by similar luminescence under UV light, strong adhesion, and sometimes indistinct borders, suggests that the limewash was applied in multiple layers, typically up to three. The first layer was usually thicker, indicating that a thicker, less diluted limewash was likely used compared to the subsequent layers. The limewash rendered the stucco a completely purely white, although the underlaying surface texture, whether rough or smooth, most likely remained visible. Tonal variations between different parts of the decoration may have been achieved by adding further whitewashes of different thicknesses. As for the stucco samples STK 12 and 19, which contained crushed marble, considering the similarities in morphology and chemical composition of the first limewashes, it can be inferred that these coatings are different from the rest of the studied ones. Deposits beneath these coatings suggest that they were applied at a later time than the other lime coats (which can be regarded as original). This suggests that stucco containing crushed marble may have been intentionally left uncoated, possibly to make the most of the material's unique lustre. Based on only one sample (STK 20A) from the low relief leaf on the wall panel, it can be assumed that originally the specific colour of stucco finishing layer could be used as final decoration too. This hypothesis should be confirmed by further studies. The coloured layers – pink (STK 2), grey (STK 4), beige (STK 20C) and green (STK 22) – are secondary interventions, while ochre layers (STK 4, 11, and 12) were interpreted as deposits. In the secondary paint layers, zinc white is predominant. Its presence allows for approximate dating of these layers to post 1780, and most probably after 1830s ( 41 ). 5. Conclusions The stucco decoration of the Ground Halls at the Kroměříž Château was described by means of material analysis of a number of samples obtained to represent the major plasterwork features. The study confirms that the stuccowork was carried out according to the generally accepted technique of the time, including the use of gypsum, forged iron reinforcement, and multilayer application and provides details about the composition of the materials used. Materials Very pure, high calcitic lime binder was determined in all samples and its source is linked to the Devonian limestone deposits near Přerov. The binder is composed of 90 wt. % CaCO 3 ; magnesium, silica, alumina, and iron impurities were minimal. This consistent quality was regarded as a deliberate choice. The use of a highly calcitic limestone was also confirmed by the composition of the BRPs, which are even purer than the matrix itself. The gypsum binder was also of high purity. The gypsum-based matrix contained an abundance of unprocessed rock particles, but no anhydrite was identified. Therefore, the dehydration of the gypsum rock was most likely carried out at temperatures below approximately 350°C. Gypsum was ground for used as a binder and particles as large as 3 mm in diameter were present. This coarse grinding may have been a particular method intended to apply this binder effectively to stiffen the iron skeleton frame. The aggregate in all samples was a deposited fluvial sand. The slight differences in mineralogy, but mainly in the particle size distribution, point to its sourcing from different locations. The documented presence of crushed marble marks a significant change in the recipe. The main stucco construction layers were the core mortar and the finishing stucco layer. These mortar mixes have different functions and this fact is reflected in their composition. The core mortar was composed of lime, gypsum and sand. The calculated volumetric mixing proportions (lime putty, gypsum, sand) were 1 : 0.4–0.5 : 1.1 in the North Hall and 1 : 0.3 : 0.7 in the South Hall. The typical/maximum grain sizes of sand were 0.4–1 mm/4 mm, lime-based BRP were 0.4–1 mm/4 mm, and gypsum particles were 0.05–0.1 mm/3 mm. The finishing stucco mortar was composed of lime and sand. Its volumetric mixing proportions were 1 : 0.6 (lime putty to sand). The typical/maximum grain sizes of sand were 0.2–0.8 mm/1.5 mm, lime-based BRP were 0.5–1 mm/2.5 mm, and crushed marble particles were 0.2–0.4 mm/0.8 mm. Stucco technology The forearm of the relief sculpture of putto was constructed in three consecutive layers. The first was composed of almost pure gypsum binder with about ten percent of lime and siliciclastic particles. After hardening, it provided a bridge and stiff background for the next layer, the core modelling lime-gypsum-sand mortar. The surface and final appearance was created by the finishing stucco layer. This layer was about 3 mm on the putto’s forearm and thicker on the phytomorphic motifs, suggesting that more artistically demanding works were finished in a great detail when the core mortar was applied. Other parts of the sculptures, like the tail of naiade or more routine and repetitive decorations (e.g., leaves) had a thicker finishing layer. This made it possible to finalise details and shapes during the application of the finishing stucco layer, also taking an advantage of heaving more material mass for creating folds and subtle modulations. The use of crushed marble in the finishing mortar layer suggested a change of the recipe. It is not clear whether this was intended to improve the appearance of the stuccoes or due to the involvement of other craftsmen. It indicates that the decoration of the halls was not carried out in one single phase, and perhaps some parts were not executed under Fontana’s auspice. Based on morphology and chemical composition of coatings, it is assumed that the initial decoration consisted of white limewashes only, applied in variable number of layers with variable thicknesses. In this way a subtle variability of white tones of the stucco decoration could have been achieved. Coloured layers came as successive modifications. Layers of deposits found in samples containing crushed marble suggest that these samples were initially left uncoated. Lack of the original coating on the wall panels should be confirmed by further studies. Some micromorphological features, such se the compactness of the binding matrix, the character of BRPs, the selection and granulometry of sand, and the gauging of gypsum were discussed in terms of potentially applied technologies of raw materials processing and mortar production. This can be linked to the craft skills of the workers, who had to adapt to the local materials and working conditions. However, the provided materials were of high quality and well suited to carrying out the decoration. Future material analysis and archival findings can provide further insights into some of the open questions identified here and will continue to support the understanding of the materials and techniques of the high baroque stucco decorations. Declarations Author Contribution JV - main concept of the reseach, survey and sampling, analalytical work, writting of the paper, proof readingMC - survey and sampling, analalytical work - microscopy, writting of the paperSSP - survey and sampling, analalytical work - SEM EDS, analysis of coating layers, writting of the paperPK - survey and sampling, analalytical work - Optical microscopy, writting of the paper, formatting and productionJZ - main concept of the reseach - art history, writting of the paper, proof readingDF - analalytical work - Thermal analysis, writting of the paperKK - sample processing, analalytical work - acid dissolution, formatting of the paper for production Acknowledgement This research was carried out within the Erasmus+ project STUDEC – Stucco Decoration Across Europe, grant number 2022-1-CZ01KA220-HED-000085652. Dr. Štěpánka Kučková and the Laboratory of Applied Proteomics of University of Chemistry and Technology Prague is thanked for the analysis of organic additives. References Rampazzi L, Rizzo B, Colombo C, Conti C, Realini M, Bartoluci U, Colombini MP, Spiriti A, Facchin L. The stucco decorations from St. Lorenzo in Laino (Como, Italy): The materials and the techniques employed by the Magistri Comanchini. Anal Chim Acta. 2008;630(1):91–100. 10.1016/j.aca.2008.09.052 . Rampazzi L, Rizzo B, Colombo C, Conti C, Realini M, Bartoluci U, Colombini MP, Spiriti A, Facchin L, Como. Italy) Archaeometry, 54 (5), 926–39 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00651.x . Caroselli M, Zumbühl S, Cavallo G, Radelet T. Composition and techniques of the Ticinese stucco decorations from the 16th to the 17th century: Results from the analysis of the materials. Herit Sci. 2020;8:1–20. Caroselli M, Valek J, Zapletalova J, Felici A, Frankeov´a D, Kozlovcev P, Nicoli G, Jean G. Study of Materials and Technique of Late Baroque Stucco Decorations: Baldassarre Fontana from Ticino to Czechia. Heritage. 2021;4:1737–53. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030097 . Uccelli M, Caroselli M, Válek J, Zapletalová J, Felici A, Nicoli G, Jean G. Characterization of the stucco decoration by Baldassarre Fontana in the Gallery of the Angels at Uherčice Château (Cz). J Archaeol Science: Rep Volume. 2022;44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103493 . Válek J, Skružná O, Kozlovcev P, Frankeová D, Mácová P, Viani A, Kumpová I. 2020. Composition and technology of the 17th century stucco decorations at Červená Lhota Château in Southern Bohemia Int. J. Archit. Herit., 14, pp. 1–16. Beard G. Stucco and decorative plasterwork in Europe. UK: Thames & Hudson Ltd.; 1983. Millar W. 1897. Plastering plain and decorative. 4th ed. UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Reprint 2010. Groot C, Ashall G, Hughes J. 2007. Characterisation of Old Mortars with Respect to their Repair, State-of-the-Art Report of RILEM TC 167-COM, RILEM publications S.A.R.L. Paladio A. Quattro Libri dell’Architettura. Venice: Apresso Bartolomeo Carampello; 1581. Scamozzi V. 1714. L’Idea dell’Architettura Universale. Venezia: per Girolamo Albrizzi. Reprint of 1615 edition. Vasari G, Dent JM. & Comp. Translated from the original published in 1550. Alberti LB. 1965. Ten books on architecture. London: Alec Tiranti. Translated from the original published in 1755. Arslan E, editor. 1964. Arte e artisti dei laghi lombardi, II, Gli stuccatori dal barocco al rococo, Como. Zapletalová J. 2019. Artists from the Lombardy-Ticino Lake Region in the Service of Bishop Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno, in: Ondřej Jakubec, editor, Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno (1624–1695). Bishop of Olomouc and Central European Prince , Olomouc, Olomouc Museum of Arts. pp. 179–190. Zapletalová J. 2022. Umělci od Luganského jezera a z blízkých regionů v českých zemích jako nositelé know-how realizace štukových dekorací, in: Pavel Waisser, editor, Renesanční a manýristické štukatérství v Čechách a na Moravě , Olomouc, pp. 36–47. Damiani Cabrini L. 2000. Le migrazioni d’arte. In: Ceschi, R., editor. Storia della Svizzera italiana. Dal Cinquecento al Settecento: Bellinzona. pp. 289–312. Máčelová L. 1949. Baldassare Fontana na Moravě (dissertation thesis), Masaryk University in Brno, Faculty of Arts, Brno. Karpowicz M. 1990. Baldasar Fontana 1661–1733. Un berniniano ticinese in Moravia e Polonia , Lugano. Karpowicz M. 1994. Baltazar Fontana , Warszava. Kurzej M. 2018. Depingere fas est. Sebastian Piskorski jako konceptor i prowizor , Kraków. Peřinka. FV. 1948. Dějiny města Kroměříže II/1–2 (Dějiny let 1619–1695). Kroměříž, p. 635. Orálková Z, Topičová S, Kouřil K. 2019 (edd.), Komunikační síť biskupa Karla z Lichtensteinu-Catelcorna (1624–1695) , Olomouc. Daniel L, Perůtka M, Togner M. 2019 (edd.). Archbishop´s Chateau & Gardens in Kroměříž , Kroměříž. Kroupa J, Pavlíček M, Štětina J, Zapletalová J. 2019. Reconstruction of the Residence in Kroměříž, 1664–1668, 1687–1698, in: Rostislav Švácha, Martina Potůčková, Jiří Kroupa, editors, Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno (1624–1695). Places of the Bishop´s Memory, Olomouc, pp. 97–154. Zapletalová. J., 2017. Saly terreny zámku v Kroměříži a návrhy soch pro Podzámeckou zahradu. Jana Zapletalová. Umění: časopis Ústavu dějin umění Akademie věd České republiky Roč. 65. č. 3, pp. 269–282. Zapletalová J, Art LXXIII. 2025, č. 1, pp. 47–56. Boynton RS. Chemistry and technology of lime and limestone. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1979. Engbrecht DC, Hirschfeld DA. Thermal analysis of calcium sulfate dihydrate sources used to manufacture gypsum wallboard. Thermochimica acta. 2016;639:173–85. 10.1016/j.tca.2016.07.021 . Földvári M. Handbook of thermogravimetric system of minerals and its use in geological practice. Budapest: Geological Institute of Hungary. Occasional Papers of the Geological Institute of Hungary; 2011. p. 213. Middendorf B, Hughes JJ, Callebaut K, Baronio G, Papayianni I. Investigative methods for the characterisation of historic mortars - Part 2: Chemical characterisation. Mater Struct. 2005;38:771–80. 10.1007/BF02479290 . Válek J, Ebel M, Maříková-Kubková J, Herichová I, Suchý M, Kodera P, Kozlovcev P, Řihošek J, Panáček M, Bryscejn J. 2015. Vápenné technologie historických staveb. Národní technické Muzeum, Praha, p. 168. Wingate M, Sakula J, Hill N. Small-scale Lime Burning: A Practical Introduction. London: Intermediate Technology; 1985. p. 185. Procházka V. Kaple sv. Otilie ve Vyškově. Památky archeologické XXXVI; 1930. pp. 1929–30. Babel M. Badenian evaporite basin of the northern Carpathian Foredeep as a drawdown salina basin. Acta Geol Pol. 2004;54(3):313–37. Bel-Anzué P, Elert K. 2021. Changes in traditional building materials: the case of gypsum in Northern Spain. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2021) 13: 177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01438-6 Cardoso IP, Pye E. Gessoes in Portuguese¨Baroque gilding grounds, part 1: A study of historical documentary sources. Stud Conserv. 2016;62(4):185–209. 10.1080/00393630.2015.1130774 . Elert K, Benavides-Reyes C, Cardell C. Effect of animal glue on mineralogy, strength and weathering resistence of calcium sulfate-based composite materials. Cem Concr Compos. 2019;96:274–83. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.12.005 . Oates JAH. Lime and limestone. Chemistry and technology, production and uses. 1st ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 1998. p. 455. Caroselli M, Cavallo G, Felici A, Luppichini S, Nicoli G, Aliverti L, Jean G. Gypsum in Ticinese stucco artworks of the 16–17th century: Use, characterization, provenance and induced decay phenomena. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2019;24:208–19. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.01.009 . Eastaugh N, Walsh V, Chaplin T, Siddall R. 2004. Pigment Compendium: A Dictionary of Historical Pigments (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080473765 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in npj Heritage Science → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 30 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 29 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 27 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 26 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 26 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 25 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6976989","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":478355938,"identity":"f19c2d4b-bbca-4b82-9d7c-f02d1cadad2d","order_by":0,"name":"Jan Válek","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jan","middleName":"","lastName":"Válek","suffix":""},{"id":478355939,"identity":"ccb92b2e-85db-4529-aabf-f5ce7cc0f03d","order_by":1,"name":"Sylwia Svorová Pawełkowicz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sylwia","middleName":"Svorová","lastName":"Pawełkowicz","suffix":""},{"id":478355940,"identity":"3c43d9c9-1d15-40a4-88f7-7436408f6255","order_by":2,"name":"Petr Kozlovcev","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Petr","middleName":"","lastName":"Kozlovcev","suffix":""},{"id":478355941,"identity":"84a9d661-32b1-4dbb-8af1-14ad01f9f9fe","order_by":3,"name":"Jana Zapletalová","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Palacký University Olomouc","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jana","middleName":"","lastName":"Zapletalová","suffix":""},{"id":478355942,"identity":"00a8d683-fc3b-4ab0-9070-5ca16f6f3077","order_by":4,"name":"Marta Caroselli","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (SUPSI)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marta","middleName":"","lastName":"Caroselli","suffix":""},{"id":478355943,"identity":"a3df7430-949e-4760-a0a4-fadbec7e125f","order_by":5,"name":"Dita Fankeová","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dita","middleName":"","lastName":"Fankeová","suffix":""},{"id":478355944,"identity":"2e6b486a-e75d-4971-8d90-282eeac7ec86","order_by":6,"name":"Kristýna Kotková","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kristýna","middleName":"","lastName":"Kotková","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-25 17:23:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6976989/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6976989/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-02121-y","type":"published","date":"2025-11-28T15:56:56+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85859210,"identity":"7c8eba87-28d0-4fec-a2b4-fdd80437a786","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 12:02:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42300,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLayout of the ground floor halls and the position of samples.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/8ba90b35a32bae2eff3486a7.jpg"},{"id":85858156,"identity":"fa0c7a65-d8c8-496e-beeb-68af09ee005e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:54:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123006,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSouth Hall stuccos (\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e), sample STK 14 of a core modelling mortar (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) and sample STK 15 of a stucco finishing layer (\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e) from a relief sculpture of a putto.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/e39c1bd8bf54014a5b59e0e7.jpg"},{"id":85858158,"identity":"0dcd7198-7757-46da-b931-9376c2bafa8b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:54:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":120133,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMiddle hall stuccoes, samples STK 2, 8 of a high relief niche frame decoration and samples STK 1, 5 – hair and tail of a naiad (\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e). Detail of sample STK 8 – previously detached finishing stucco layer exposing the core made of modelling mortar (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/a4c67f5bbbf180e0f78ebedb.jpg"},{"id":85860153,"identity":"0a215936-5824-4726-9270-c6775ee5cee6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 12:10:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":110200,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNorth hall stuccoes, sample STK 3 from a relief sculpture, putto’s forearm, sample STK 4 – low relief behind the putto, samples STK 10, 11 – garlands above the entrances, samples STK 12, 18, 19 – niche frames decorations, STK 13, 20 – wall decoration frames (\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e). Detail of the decoration panel, sample STK 20, on the side wall of one of the three entrances to the hall from the park (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/d939171690366f349ce800cf.jpg"},{"id":85859215,"identity":"881c7ac2-c043-4b70-a0e3-1699f330ccc3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 12:02:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":69975,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSection of the putto’s forearm, raking light. Legend: a – gypsum layer, b – core mortar, c – finishing stucco, d – forged iron bar\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/f491c7537a385fe41c299538.jpg"},{"id":85858227,"identity":"de7e9250-b37b-4e4e-8122-2acf209cc8b4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:54:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1360342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/384d82b5b54b75017ec4c11c.jpg"},{"id":85858176,"identity":"514019e5-782c-41a8-bfb0-5d156c4ca3aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:54:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":325636,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/3ef47be3703d6f9adb3c5176.jpg"},{"id":85858165,"identity":"58056715-db23-4bc2-ac19-03324bfb3ee8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:54:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":778008,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/d0cb896c03b4d07f4c90b248.jpg"},{"id":85858163,"identity":"dbd98e81-8667-4635-89ad-4c7a0a03f456","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:54:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":132667,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTGA and DTG curves of the core modelling mortar (left) and the finishing stucco mortars (right).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/92c14ccb5afa57a8634c959f.jpg"},{"id":85858171,"identity":"94dfb83d-304d-4448-bb30-5bec45fd2579","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:54:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":154698,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eParticle size distribution of the aggregate and the 1–2 mm fractions of sand after the dissolution of the mortars with 8 % HCl, samples STK 5A (upper) and STK 5 B (lower). White particles in the sample STK 5A are gypsum.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture10.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/84c2b56a1a2c1d90e4efa9f3.jpg"},{"id":85859223,"identity":"d80aae01-a92f-4a23-bbf9-efd6078f839a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 12:02:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":254838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Picture11.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/7e75b5d14a24c24162ab5073.jpg"},{"id":97178699,"identity":"a557c5ab-9a93-4304-a500-0f3419afffc9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-01 16:12:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4952139,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6976989/v1/fd8b4fac-46f4-467a-8c8d-6ae553eb33bc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Materials and techniques used in high-baroque stucco decorations by Baldassarre Fontana in Kroměříž Chateau, Czech Republic","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eStucco decorations have been the subject of recent studies aiming at understanding the composition, structure and a general technology (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). These analyses provided interesting information regarding the composition, structure and the original recipes prompting a further, more detailed research \u003cb\u003e(2; 3; 4; 5)\u003c/b\u003e. It has also been shown that material analysis is fundamental in guiding informed decision-making during restoration design (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). These two directions currently represent the main motivation for further research: (i) to gain even more detailed knowledge about a specific historic technique linked to a building, an artist or a period, or (ii) to provide technical information in order to ensure appropriate, knowledge-based preservation of stucco works. Both of these two areas are based on a material analysis, which can describe the composition and quality of the materials used, as well as to provide information regarding the artistic technique itself.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStucco is an artistic decoration that has roots in antiquity (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). It is essentially a plasterwork that decorates walls and ceilings with plastic low or high reliefs, or relief sculptures (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Studies have shown that Baroque stucco is usually executed as a layered mortar structure with a core made of lime, gypsum and sand covered by a lime-rich finishing mortar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). In some regions, the term stucco also has taken hold as a general term for a fine mortar with aggregates under one millimetre, which is used as the final layer on plaster or render.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytical methods used for historic mortars can be used to characterize stucco materials (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). However, the description of the technique is more complex and the analysis of the material only contributes to its understanding. One can draw on historical treaties (e.g., \u003cb\u003e10, 11, 12, 13)\u003c/b\u003e but individual artists adapted their techniques based on available materials and empirical craft experiences (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, treatises normally contain general instructions while the actual practice depended on specific workshops in specific geographical conditions and the historical period when the work was created. Understanding the technique is also more challenging because we are examining it from a today\u0026rsquo;s perspective. The technology and materials used to make these traditional decorations have changed significantly over time, and what once required no explanation may constitute vital missing information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTravelling artists and craftsmen\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the early modern period, artists and craftsmen from Lake Lugano and the nearby territories of the present-day Italian-Swiss border region (Canton of Ticino and the Lombardy region) were particularly specialised in stucco decoration. These artists and craftsmen developed a specific kind of artistic migration that spanned the whole of Europe for several centuries (evidenced during the 15th-18th centuries) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e). Large teams of people, often closely connected by blood and neighbourhood ties, composed of architects, masons, plasterers, sculptors, painters and other artisan professions, were able to realize entire buildings from plans to interior decoration in various parts of Europe. Plasterers had an important position within the system and a unique know-how. They were characterised by their extraordinary flexibility in relation to local specific requirements, conditions, the wishes of their clients and the need to achieve an identical artistic effect of their works using mostly local materials (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Surviving accounting documents and contracts suggest that they travelled light, perhaps transporting drawings and graphic designs. A common arrangement was that heavier items and material were provided locally by the commissioner.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAims\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analytic study was undertaken in order to improve the understanding of the stucco technology at the end of 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, the high-baroque period in the central Europe. In addition, the study also aimed at evaluating the possibility whether or not some specific material or technological imprints exist that can be linked to the craftsmen who carried out the work or their workshops. For this reason, the study focused on one of the best stucco-makers of the time, Baldassare Fontana (1661\u0026ndash;1733) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e) and on the work he produced in Kroměř\u0026iacute;ž for a major patron \u0026ndash; the bishop of Olomouc, Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno (1624\u0026ndash;1695), a notable supporter of high artistic quality. An interesting question also arises regarding the ability of the travelling craftsmen to adapt to the specific properties of locally available materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. Site and context\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKroměř\u0026iacute;ž in Moravia was the seat of the bishops and archbishops of Olomouc in the early modern period. Bishop Karel von Lichtentein-Castelcorno was responsible for the construction of the monumental Archbishop's Ch\u0026acirc;teau (UNESCO Heritage Site) in its present form after the end of the Thirty Years' War. The Ch\u0026acirc;teau was built in 1688 according to the plans of the architect Giovanni Pietro Tencalla (1629\u0026ndash;1702). The construction and decoration of the Ch\u0026acirc;teau are well documented by numerous archival documents (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe studied stuccos by Baldassarre Fontana are found in the ground halls (terrene salons) of the Ch\u0026acirc;teau, which are the most authentically preserved early modern part of the decoration (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). The halls, located in the basement of the North wing of the Ch\u0026acirc;teau, consist of three rooms on the transverse axis of the wing, each side ending with a grotto, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Stucco decorates the vaults and walls of all three halls. In addition to B. Fontana, the painter Paolo Pagani (1655\u0026ndash;1716) and the sculptor Fedele Raggi (c. 1637\u0026ndash;1693) contributed to the decoration of the interiors. The stucco decorations of B. Fontana and his collaborators in the halls, created sometime between 1690 and 1693, are of exceptional artistic quality and are among the finest works of this artist ever. Illusionary effects are prominently used in them. The stuccoes depict both figural motifs of large and small angels, as well as high-quality decoration of fruit and flower festoons, baskets with fruit and flowers, and trophies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the materials, a general picture of what was available is known based on archival documents (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e). Lime was burnt in the Ch\u0026acirc;teau\u0026rsquo;s own limekilns. The older kiln, positioned nearby, was in operation up to around 1670/80 and the main raw material processed there was a silty limestone of Jurassic age. At the time, when the studied stuccos were produced (since 1688), a new limekiln was put in operation in Chr\u0026aacute;šťany, approximately 8 km away from the Ch\u0026acirc;teau, where, in addition to the silty limestone, Lower Devonian limestone from the vicinity of Přerov was also burnt. This fine-grained, bench-shaped limestone was generally more difficult to acquire but was preferred for its white colour and perhaps other properties. In contrast, the silty Jurrasic limestone was known to produce a grey-ochre lime, noted for its hydraulic properties, especially when industrially produced at the end of 19th and the first half of the 20th century. Gypsum was bought from Ketř in Kladsko (Opava Basin), which is about 130 km to the north and in fact this evaporitic deposit is the only source of gypsum in the former Czech territory.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Samples and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Samples\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSamples were selected from positions where an earlier damage occurred making it possible to assess the stratigraphy of layers. Due to the extreme damage, when part of the forearm of a putto was separated from the remaining torso due to corrosion of the internal supporting element, it was possible to study the construction of the relief sculptures. The sampling positions were carefully documented and the selected areas are shown in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e to \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. Three types of stucco decorations are represented by the sampled set; stucco relief sculptures, high relief garlands, and low relief decorative panels on the walls, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eList of samples of the interior stucco decoration and the analytical methods applied (OM \u0026ndash; optical microscopy, SEM-EDS \u0026ndash; scanning electron microscopy, TA \u0026ndash; thermal analysis, XRD \u0026ndash; powder X-ray diffraction, AD \u0026ndash; acid dissolution).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eID\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType of decoration / position\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eclump of hair\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erelief sculpture \u0026ndash; a nymph / Middle Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eleaf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / Middle Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecomplete stratigraphy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eforearm of a putto\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erelief sculpture \u0026ndash; a putto / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD, AD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecomplete stratigraphy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eears of wheat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003elow relief background / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecomplete stratigraphy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003etail of a naiad\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erelief sculpture \u0026ndash; a nymph / Middle Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD, AD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eleaf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / Middle Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eleaf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eleaf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh relief garland above the garden entrance / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eleaf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ewall decoration panel\u0026ndash;leafwork\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003elow relief / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecore modelling mortar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eputto\u0026rsquo;s body\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erelief sculpture \u0026ndash; a putto / South Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS, TA, AD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eputto\u0026rsquo;s finishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erelief sculpture \u0026ndash; a putto / South Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS, TA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eleaf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, TA, XRD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eleaf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh relief decoration of the niche by phytomorphic shapes / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS,\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecomplete stratigraphy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ewall decoration panel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003elow relief / North Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS, TA, XRD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTK 22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ewall decoration panel \u0026ndash; flower\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003elow relief / South Hall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM, SEM-EDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSamples were documented macroscopically and their surface treatments were assessed using a stereomicroscope. The samples consisting of multiple layers were decomposed to individual structural parts, typically to the finishing layer and the core mortar, and the separated samples were identified by additional letters A, B, and C. Subsequently, each sample was processed according to the proposed analytical objectives. Four samples were large enough to determine the soluble/insoluble ratio by acid dissolution. The sampling was only possible in already damaged parts and thus, for example, no core modelling mortar was taken from the high relief decorations of the niches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptical Microscopy (OM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStucco mortar characteristics and composition were analysed in detail by means of polarised light microscopy (PLM) and scanning electron microscopy. For these microscopic observations, polished thin-sections and polished cross-sections were prepared. The thin-sections were studied in plane (PPL) and crossed polarised transmitted lights (XPL), polished sections were studied in reflected (RL) and fluorescent (UV) lights using an Olympus BX53M microscope with digital camera Olympus DP27.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed by using a Tescan MIRA II LMU instrument, with an energy dispersive analytical system (EDS) from Bruker AXS. The EDS measuring conditions were as follows: carbon coated polished surface, accelerating voltage of electrons 15 kV, WD of 15 mm, high vacuum.,. The images were taken with a back-scattered electron (BSE) detector. The sites where the elemental composition was determined were chosen with respect to the homogeneity of the measured areas. The chemical composition of the binder determined its purity in terms of the content of its main compound, calcium carbonate. In addition, the mass proportion between silica, alumina, and iron oxides and calcium and magnesium oxides, expressed as cementation index (Eq.\u0026nbsp;1), was used to classify the binder as air (ci\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.3) or feebly (0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;ci\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5) hydraulic lime following the system (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:ci=\\:\\frac{{2.8xSiO}_{2}+1.1{xAl}_{2}{O}_{3}+0.7x{Fe}_{2}{O}_{3}}{CaO+1.4xMgO}\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (Eq.\u0026nbsp;1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThermal Analysis (TA) and X-ray powder diffraction (XRD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe composition of the binder component of the mortars was characterised by a thermogravimetric analysis (TGA/DTG) and XRD. Firstly, coating layers were mechanically removed and the purged samples were gently crushed. The obtained material was passed through a 63 \u0026micro;m sieve. The fraction below 63 \u0026micro;m was used further for analyses. The instrument SDT Q600 (TA Instruments) was used to measure thermal behaviour between 25\u0026deg;C and 1000\u0026deg;C for which a sample of approximately 10 mg was heated at the rate of 20\u0026deg;C/min in nitrogen atmosphere. Endothermic dehydration of gypsum\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eoccurs as follows: first, the adsorbed water is driven off, ending at around 105\u0026deg;C, and then crystalline water is driven off in two stages, the first one ending at around 175\u0026deg;C (forming CaSO4\u0026middot;\u0026frac12;H2O), the second one ending at around 220\u0026deg;C (forming unstable anhydrite III). The dehydration is complete and stable at about 250\u0026deg;C (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). Endothermic decomposition of calcite occurs between 600\u0026deg;C and 900\u0026deg;C, the exact temperature depends on the crystallinity, and the amount and type of calcium carbonate phase (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). Before the XRD analysis, an internal standard (ZnO, 10 wt.%) was homogenized with the sample. Data were collected on a diffractometer D8Bruker Advance Pro (Cu K\u0026aacute; radiation, 40 kV and 40 mA) with 0.01\u0026deg;C step size 2ϴ and counting time0.4 s/step. Crystalline and amorphous fractions were determined with combined Rietveld-RIR method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDissolution and sieve analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proportion of insoluble residue (aggregate) was determined by dissolving a sample in 8% solution of hydrochloric acid. Samples containing gypsum had to be dissolved in boiling hydrochloric acid (1:3) for about 2 min (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). After dissolution, the aggregate was washed with distilled water several times. Sieve analysis was carried out to determine the particle size distribution of the dried aggregate. Subsequently, the mineralogical composition of each size fraction was examined under a stereomicroscope. In order to estimate the mixing proportions, the insoluble portion was assigned to aggregate, while the soluble portion was regarded as binder. To estimate the mixing proportions between lime and gypsum the ratios determined by thermal analysis were used. The following bulk densities were used for conversion to volumetric units: lime putty \u0026ndash; 1300 kg.m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e; dry hydrated lime powder \u0026ndash; 740 kg.m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e; sand \u0026ndash; 1600 kg.m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e; powdered gypsum hemihydrate \u0026ndash; 900 kg.m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e; lime putty dry matter content \u0026ndash; 45%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtein analysis by mass spectrometry nano-LC-TimsTOF\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtein digestion and purification: 100\u0026ndash;250 \u0026micro;L of 50 mM NH4HCO3 containing approximately 10 \u0026micro;g/mL of trypsin was applied to the samples STK 3 A, B C and let react at room temperature for two hours. The solution was taken and purified on reverse phase ZipTip. After equilibrating, binding and washing steps, target compounds were desorbed from the stationary phase. The solutions were consequently used for analyses by nano-LC-TimsTOF. The LC\u0026ndash;MS/MS system consisted of a nanoElute 2 liquid chromatograph (Bruker Daltonics) coupled to a TimsTOF HT mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics). The purified and dried samples were resuspended in 50 \u0026micro;l of 3% acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. The mobile phase A was water with 0.1% formic acid, and the mobile phase B was acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. A volume of 1 \u0026micro;l of the resuspended sample was first loaded onto a PepMap Neo-Trap trapping column (300 \u0026micro;m \u0026times; 5 mm, Thermo Scientific) at 80 bar pressure using 100% phase A for 2.5 minutes. The sample was then eluted onto a PepSep C18 analytical column (75 \u0026micro;m \u0026times; 100 mm, Bruker Daltonics). Peptide separation was carried out using a one-hour linear gradient of mobile phase B (3\u0026ndash;35%). The eluted peptides were ionized using the Captive Spray 2 electrospray ionization technique. Data were acquired in Data Dependent Analysis (DDA) mode using Parallel Accumulation Serial Fragmentation (PASEF). The mass range was set to 100\u0026ndash;1700 m/z. Ion mobility scans were performed in the range of 0.6\u0026ndash;1.6 V\u0026middot;s\u0026middot;cm⁻\u0026sup2;, with a scan duration of 100 ms. Ten ion mobility scans were performed between two MS spectra. From the acquired data, peaklists were first extracted using DataAnalysis 6.1 software (Bruker Daltonics) and subsequently imported into the Proteinscape 4.2 proteomics data management system (Bruker Daltonics). Protein identification was performed using the Mascot search algorithm (version 2.4.1, Matrix Science), with the reference proteome of the corresponding organism downloaded from public biological databases (UniProt/NCBI) used as the search database.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3.0 Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe macroscopic examination carried out on site and in the laboratory made it possible to distinguish the main layers from which the stucco decorations were created. Most of the samples were taken from the finishing stucco layer including the applied surface finish and the subsequent coatings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy studying the stratigraphy of the putto\u0026apos;s broken forearm, it was possible to estimate the construction sequence of this relief sculpture, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. The detached stucco fragment was about 8 cm in diameter and had an iron skeleton element (forged roughly to 4 x 6 mm) encased in a gypsum layer of variable thickness of 4 to 15 mm. A sample of this material was labelled STK 3A. This layer was clearly distinguishable from the subsequent layer, as there was a \u0026lsquo;cold joint\u0026rsquo; between them; in some areas the two layers were not fully bonded. This indicated that the next layer was applied after the first had set. The second layer was between 10 and 40 mm thick. It consisted of several sub-layers that were very well bonded and not easily distinguishable, thus it was considered one material for the analysis. The sample of this layer was denoted STK 3B. A third layer was the final stucco layer. It was approximately 4 to 6 mm thick and was distinguishable by a finer structure (aggregate). The sample of this layer was labelled STK 3C.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sculpture of a naiad was also made of at least two layers, the finishing stucco mortar (STK 1 \u0026ndash; hair and the tail tip denoted as STK 5B), and core modelling mortar from the tail tip denoted as STK 5A. Sample STK 4 from the low relief background composed of wheat ears also included two layers, the core modelling mortar and the finishing stucco layer. Sample STK 20 from the low relief wall panels comprised two different mortar layers, in this case a first coat (labelled STK 20B), a layer from which the plastic relief was modelled (STK 20A) and an adjacent layer of a flat stucco without decorative elements (STK 20C).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOptical microscopy (OM)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe whole set of samples is divided and described according to the functional layers of the stuccos. Subgroups with similar properties are further commented based on the nature of their binding system, aggregate and structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCore mortar\u003c/strong\u003e (samples STK 3A, 3B, 4, 5, and 14) is a layer composed of lime-gypsum binder with a predominance of the lime component, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6A. The binder in this layer is compact, pores and cracks are rare. Larger pores are mainly visible at the contact with the outer finishing stucco layer. However, both layers are well connected. Binder related particles (BRP) occur in matrix. These are usually uncracked compact lumps of fine-grained lime binder, 0,4\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 mm (maximum 2 mm) in size. Similarly, compact particles of gypsum or unburnt gypsum particles are dispersed throughout the layer. The lime-gypsum binder is well distributed, only rarely, there are clusters of gypsum and lime that are not well dispersed, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6B.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aggregate in the core mortar consists mainly of quartz clasts, both monocrystals and, less frequently, undulose grains. Feldspars and dark micas (biotite) are also present. Fragments of fine-grained marble are also present in samples STK 3A and STK 14. The grains in this layer are sharp-angled, irregular, and fractured; their size varies from 0.4 to 1 mm, with the largest up to 4 mm. The binder to aggregate (B/A) ratio, based on estimated volume percentage, is 1:1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSample STK 14 is different from the other core mortar samples due to its inhomogeneous filler composition. In addition to single crystalline quartz grains, large grains and polycrystalline clusters are more abundant. The shape of the aggregate clasts varies for different fractions. The large grains are mostly oval, whereas the grains of the smaller size fractions are predominantly sharp-edged, irregularly shaped and cracked. The most frequent grain size of the fine-grained fraction is 0.3\u0026ndash;0.5 mm, while the coarse-grained fraction has a typical size of 1\u0026ndash;2 mm. Pores and cracks are more common in this sample than in the others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample of the core mortar encasing the reinforcement (STK 3A) is technically a part of this group but its composition\u0026mdash;and, as discussed later\u0026mdash;its function is significantly different. This material is very rich in gypsum, which forms the matrix, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6C. It contains elongated gypsum particles of various sizes, most often 0.05\u0026ndash;0.3 mm in size. The matrix is compact, without pores and cracks. A stain with brownish to rusty hues is observed at the point of contact with the iron reinforcement. The matrix contains whole and unbroken crystals of unburnt gypsum up to 3 mm in size. They have not undergone thermal alteration and have retained their original rock structure, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6C. Other clastic grains, namely quartz, feldspar or small micas (biotite), occur in quantities corresponding to 5\u0026ndash;10%. These grains are sharp-angled, irregular and often very fractured. The occurrence of coarse-grained gypsum particles is more frequent in this layer compared to the rest of the core modelling mortars.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinishing stucco layer\u003c/strong\u003e forms the outer mortar layer in most of the studied samples (STK 1, 2, 3C, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20). It is composed mainly of fine-grained lime binder and fine aggregates, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6D. This layer is rich in BRPs with the most common particle size ranging from \u003cstrong\u003e0.5 to 1 mm\u003c/strong\u003e, with the largest particles up to \u003cstrong\u003e2.5\u003c/strong\u003e mm. BRPs are fine-grained, usually compact, and in rare cases exhibit a partially preserved fine-grained structure of the original material, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6E. Samples STK 8 and 11 also contain a few particles of unprocessed gypsum, the presence of gypsum binder was, however, not identified. The layer is compact, with no significant pores or cracks. As with the core mortar, the B/A ratio in this layer is typically 1:1 based on estimated the volume percentage. The samples from the stucco layer do not differ in the type of binder, but can be subdivided into subgroups based on different aggregates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSubgroup \u0026ndash; lime and siliciclastic aggregate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the stucco samples STK 1, 2, 3C, 4, and 5, a typical siliciclastic aggregate composed of predominant quartz grains, feldspars (albite), dark micas (biotite) and accessory opaque minerals, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6E. The shape of the grains is irregular, sharp-angled, and they are often cracked. Their size usually varies from \u003cstrong\u003e0.2 to 0.8 mm\u003c/strong\u003e, with the largest grains reaching up to \u003cstrong\u003e1.5 mm\u003c/strong\u003e. All samples in this subgroup show signs of higher grain sorting (compared to the other finishing stucco layers). In addition to the typical BRPs, finely crystalline limestone particles, up to 0.5 mm in size and irregular in shape with relics of thermal disturbance, occur in the binder, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6G.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSubgroup \u0026ndash; lime and siliciclastic aggregate, with crushed marble as a minor component\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the main siliciclastic component of the aggregate, significant amounts of marble clasts are present in samples STK 8, 10, 11, 15 and 20, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6H. These are sharp-angled, irregular fragments of coarsely crystalline marble with frequent twinning of grains. The size of these fragments ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 mm, with the largest grains reaching up to 0.8 mm. The marble fragments differ in grain size from the siliciclastic ones present, which may indicate separate sieving or production of these two aggregates. Sample STK 10 exhibits lower grain sorting than other stuccoes in this subgroup.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSubgroup \u0026ndash; lime and crushed marble, siliceous sand is a minor component\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSamples of the leaves decorating the niches in the North Hall (STK 12, 18, and 19) form a distinct \u003cstrong\u003esubgroup\u003c/strong\u003e due to the presence of crushed marble that replaces the siliciclastic aggregate, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6F.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinishing stucco layer on the wall panels\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSamples of the wall decoration panels (STK 13, 20) do not form a separate subgroup. Sample STK 20 is distinguished by a higher proportion of siliciclastic grains, mainly polycrystalline quartz fragments. Other properties of these samples do not differ from those of the finishing stucco layer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSurface finish and subsequent coating layers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost of the samples included some kind of surface finish but two, STK 10 and 18, showed no coating layers, they retained only the finishing stucco layer surface finish. In contrast, the remaining samples revealed up to eight distinguishable layers comprising a combination of limewashes and paint layers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the surface stratigraphy showed a thin lime dense layer, which is particularly noticeable in UV light, Fig.\u0026nbsp;7A\u0026ndash;D, and on BSE images, Figs.\u0026nbsp;8A\u0026ndash;D. This is most likely the effect of smoothing the stucco with a metal tool, where the binder is pulled out with water to the surface. This layer is intact and had set and dried before the subsequent coatings were applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn all samples, the first coat of paint on the stucco was a limewash which typically consisted of two to three application layers. The transitions between these application layers were barely perceptible, Figs.\u0026nbsp;7A\u0026ndash;D and 8A\u0026ndash;D, in either the optical or electron microscope, indicating that the craftsman applied multiple layers of limewash wet-on-wet. In samples STK 3 and 4 a clear difference in luminescence in UV light was noted between the first limewash and the subsequent coatings composed of limewashes and paint layers, Fig.\u0026nbsp;7C\u0026ndash;D. There are distinct morphological differences between the first and the successive limewashes, which exhibit more pronounced vertical cracks and weaker adhesion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn samples STK 12 and 19, representing the stucco made with crushed marble and a highly calcitic, exceptionally white binder, the first limewash coat is cracked and detached from the stucco finishing layer resembling the secondary limewashes in samples STK 1\u0026ndash;4. Additionally, localized dust deposits are observed between the stucco and the limewash, Fig.\u0026nbsp;8D.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eColoured coatings come as the third to fifth subsequent layers. Pigments are distinctly present in the pink (STK 2), grey (STK 4), beige (STK 20C), and green (STK 22) paint layers; their compact structure confirms them as intentional paint layers. In contrast, the loose structure of the ochre layer found in samples STK 4, STK 11, and STK 12, combined with the absence of a matrix to embed the pigments and create a paint layer, suggests that it is more likely a deposit than an intentional paint application. Black thin layer of deposits was observed in samples STK 20A and C from low relief decorations. In case of sample STK 20A the black layer lies on top of the finishing stucco layer, while in sample STK 20C it lies on the first limewash, Fig. 7A\u0026ndash;B. UV light examination of cross-sections revealed the presence of a highly luminescent pigment, zinc white (ZnO), in the upper white and coloured paint layers, Fig. 7C\u0026ndash;D.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSEM-EDS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe compositions of the binding matrixes of the mortar samples detected by means of EDS analysis are compared in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. All mortars contain high proportion of CaO which corresponds to the use of lime as the main binding agent. The SO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e content corresponds to the addition of gypsum and its elevated content was present in STK 3B, a sample of the core mortar. A certain content of SO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e was detected in almost all mortars and lime coatings but this is more on a level of contamination as discussed later. The amount of MgO, as well as the content of other impurities (SiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, Al\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e and Fe\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e) that affect the properties of lime is generally low in all samples. Based on the composition, lime binder of the samples can be classified as a calcitic air lime. A possible exception is sample STK 4, which according to the elevated SiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e content determined may possess some hydraulic properties. Its binding matrix can be classified as feebly hydraulic. Within the air lime category, the matrix composition of some samples, namely STK 3B, 3C, and 11, is more heterogeneous in silica content than others, potentially providing them with some hydraulic phases too. Apart from these exceptions discussed above, overall, the lime matrix composition is relatively consistent for all mortars, BRPs and lime coatings. Common features are high CaO, low MgO and silica-based impurities. The composition of BRPs is almost always purer than the surrounding binding matrix, suggesting that the elevated silica content present in some samples may originate from sources other than the lime binder used for mortar preparation. The crushed marble particles in samples STK 12 and 19 of finishing stucco layers contained exceptionally low amounts of impurities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe chemical composition of the first limewash coat closely matches that of the measured one for BRPs, with a high CaO content of 96.7%, a low MgO content of 0.5% and variable quantities of SiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, SO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e. The presence of Al\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e was detected in minor amounts (0.4%) only in sample 22A. The chemical composition of limewashes on stuccoes with crushed marble (STK 12 and 19) is consistent, comprising 97.2% CaO, 0.8% MgO, and 1.3% of SiO2, with minor Na and Cl content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the samples using BSE images provides a more detailed description of the layers\u0026apos; morphology, including their compactness and adherence. In all samples, a thin binder-dens layer is visible in BSE images. Moreover, the surface of sample STK 20C exhibits two of these layers indicating that the stucco plaster has been reworked, Fig. 8C. EDS maps of samples STK 11, 12 and 19 reveal minor deposits between the layers, primarily composed of Si and Al,, Fig. 8D. Additionally, all zinc-containing overpaints are clearly distinguishable. The zinc white layer in sample STK 4 lies on top of ochre deposit layer, Fig. 8. Two pink layers, identified in sample STK 2, showed a different chemical composition. The first layer is composed of calcium carbonate mixed with iron red, while the second layer consists of zinc white combined with iron red. Grey layer (STK 4) is rich in aluminosilicates. In sample STK 20A, the beige layer is composed of zinc oxide and chromium yellow. For the green paint layer in STK 22, zinc white and iron pigments were utilized (organic additives cannot be excluded).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage composition of the binding matrix of the main mortar layers and of the first coating layers. Weight proportions in oxides (wt. %). Number in brackets refers to separate particles. N represents the number of analysed areas/points.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMgO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinor elements\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 3 B\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; core mortar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cr, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 3 C\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Zr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, K\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 12\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarble (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 13\u003c/strong\u003e - finishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 15\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 19\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarble (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 20 A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBRP (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa, K, P, Ti, Cl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2nd coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 20 C\u003c/strong\u003e - coarse intonaco\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 20 C\u003c/strong\u003e - fine intonaco\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 22A -\u003c/strong\u003e finishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMineralogical composition of the binder (fraction\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;63\u0026micro;m) determined by XRD is in line with the SEM-EDS analytical outputs, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Unlike the core mortar binder, which generally contains gypsum as a secondary binder (approximately 30\u0026ndash;45 wt.%), the STK 3A sample of the mortar encasing the reinforcement is composed of gypsum with approximately 10 wt. % lime. The finishing stucco layer of the relief sculpture (STK 3C) had about 10 wt. % of gypsum added to lime which notably differs from the low relief (STK 5B) or leaves decorating niches (STK 10 and 12) where the amount of gypsum is negligible to absent. Quartz, feldspars, micas, and rutile originate from the fine fraction of aggregate. Their variable amounts are caused by the preparation of the sample, which must be finely crushed to separate the binder. The nearly 40 wt. % of quartz in sample STK 20B is however unusually high across all samples studied. The XRD of the rounded particles (STK 3B1), which were manually separated from the gypsum and lime-gypsum-based matrices, confirmed that they were composed of gypsum. The white particles (STK 3B2), which were not dissolved by the acid attack (8% HCl), were also gypsum-based as confirmed by the XRD analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMineralogical composition of the samples determined by XRD.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCalcite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDolomite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGypsum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuartz\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlbite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrthoclase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMicrocline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMuscovite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnorthite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRutile\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 3 A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore mortar - reinforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 3 B\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore mortar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 3 B1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGypsum particle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 3 B2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndissolved particles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 3 C\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 5 A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore mortar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 5 B\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 12\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinishing layer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTK 20 B\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirst coat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThermal analysis (TA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo main processes were identified by TA corresponding to calcium sulphate dihydrate dehydration (between 50\u0026deg;C and 200\u0026deg;C) and calcium carbonate decomposition (between 600\u0026deg;C and 850\u0026deg;C) and their weight losses were used to quantify the proportions of gypsum (CaSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e.2H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e0) and lime (CaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e), as shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The analysed samples (sieved below 63 \u0026micro;m) were not solely composed of a binder but also included a variable amount of the finest-fraction aggregate compounds as confirmed by XRD. The presence of the fine aggregate influenced the quantified values of the binders especially in the case of samples STK 14, 10, 15, and 20B where the aggregate contamination was higher. Weight losses within the temperature range of 200\u0026ndash;600\u0026deg;C are comparatively low, 1.2\u0026ndash;3 wt. %, indicating a small amount of structurally bound water, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e. These observations confirm the use of non-hydraulic lime and imply that the water released during this temperature interval most likely originates from clay inclusions, hydrated iron compounds or inorganic salts. Samples of the core mortar are all composed of a mixture of gypsum and lime in various proportions. The slight shifts in dehydration and decomposition peaks could be due to the presence of variable amounts of unprocessed gypsum and lime particles. This effect is clearly observable in the analysis of sample STK 12, which contains crushed marble aggregate, where the carbonate decomposition peak shifts to a higher temperature. However, it is not possible to quantify the amounts related to unprocessed particles; only a qualitative estimate based on optical microscopy can be made.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResults of thermal analysis \u0026ndash; weight loss due to gypsum dehydration and carbon decomposition.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eweight loss (%wt.)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(% wt.) by TG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(% wt.) by XRD-QPA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u0026ndash;200\u0026deg;C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200\u0026ndash;600\u0026deg;C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e600\u0026ndash;850\u0026deg;C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e.2H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e.2H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 3A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCore mortar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 3B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 5A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 3C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinishing stucco mortar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 5B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 20B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDissolution and sieve analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe insoluble residue and the calcium carbonate-to-calcium sulphate ratio obtained from the thermal analysis were used to calculate the mixing proportions of the mortar. Based on the weight proportions the volumetric proportions were estimated using approximate bulk densities of the materials, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. As it is generally assumed that the raw materials were dosed in batches using building ladles or similar tools available on site, the mixing ratio was expressed in volumetric units. The simplified average proportions of the core modelling mortar could be approximately 1 to 1 for lime putty and sand with gypsum varying from 0.3 to 0.5. In the case of the final stucco mortar mixture, only one sample was suitable for the test and the ratio was 1 to 0.6 of lime putty to sand. The samples with gypsum that at first did not dissolve completely had to be treated with boiling acid. The undissolved gypsum particles are visible in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e. The gypsum-bearing layers are characterised by whitish and rounded gypsum clusters that form rounded insoluble particles. In general, the 0.25\u0026ndash;0.5 mm fraction dominates in size, with the 0.5\u0026ndash;1 mm and 0.125\u0026ndash;0.25 mm fractions being less represented.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimated mixing proportions of the core modelling mortar and the final stucco mortar in volumetric proportions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 3B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 5A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTK 5B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndissolved residue (wt. %)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e/CaSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e.2H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO ratio (-)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eputty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epowder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eputty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epowder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eputty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epowder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eputty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epowder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elime\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003egypsum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mineralogical analysis shows that a very similar sand was used for both, the core modelling mortar; and the finishing stucco mortar. The predominant components were quartz grains of various colours. Less common were rock fragments (gneiss) composed of quartz, as well as feldspars (albite) or micas (biotite). The individual sand clasts were sharp-angled, sometimes slightly rounded. but rather unworked, with an uneven surface. The shape, roundness and overall sorting of this material suggests that transport of this sand probably took place only a short distance from the source rock. The main difference in the selection of sand for the core mortar and the finishing stucco mortar is the content of fine particles. Microscopic analysis of most samples shows that the main size range of the finishing stucco mortar sand is around 0.2\u0026ndash;0.8 mm and a maximum grain is usually not large than 1 mm, exceptionally reaching up to 2 mm. The sieve analysis shows that also the amount of the fine fraction (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.063 mm) differentiates this sand from the one used in the core mortar.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProtein analysis by mass spectrometry nano-LC-TimsTOF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe proteomic analysis of sample STK 3 from the putto\u0026rsquo;s forearm was conducted on this representative sample because it comprises three distinct mortar layers and originates from the most artistically advanced form. The results show that samples STK 3A and C do not contain any proteinaceous additive. Sample STK 3B contains some matching peptide chains of ovalbumin and collagen, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e. Due to the low number of peptides, the result is inconclusive as the identified proteins from egg and animal glue could also originate from contamination. Further analysis would be required to confirm the presence of such additives. No relevant plant proteins were found.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtein identification in sample STK 3 B.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccession\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtein\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e#Peptides\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFETUA_BOVIN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlpha-2-HS-glycoprotein\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK2C1_HUMAN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeratin, type II cytoskeletal 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK22E_HUMAN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeratin, type II cytoskeletal 2 epidermal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOVAL_CHICK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOvalbumin\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK1C10_HUMAN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeratin, type I cytoskeletal 10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eALAT2_DANRE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlanine aminotransferase 2-like\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDCPS_PIG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003em7GpppX diphosphatase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNPAP1_HUMAN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNuclear pore-associated protein 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO4A6_HUMAN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollagen alpha-6(IV) chain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDAAF1_DROPE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDynein assembly factor 1, axonemal homolog\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4.0 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe discussion follows the main interest of the research \u0026ndash; the understanding of materials and technologies of the stucco production.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Materials of stucco mortars\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe lime binder used was of fairly uniform quality, exceptionally pure with very low amounts of MgO, SiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, Al\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e and Fe\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e. Hydraulic compounds were not detected and EDS analysis revealed that the CaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e content consistently exceeded 90 wt. %. The only exception is sample STK 4, where the elemental composition of the binder corresponds to slightly hydraulic lime. However, this is based only on a small measurement area, and the use of such lime is not confirmed in the other samples. It more likely represents natural heterogeneity in the raw material. The remnants of the original material structure in the BRPs suggest that a fine-grained limestone was used for burning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe main local sources of limestone are known from the estate accounting books. The chemical purity and fine-grained structure points to the locations near Přerov, where a high-quality Devonian limestone is available. Another potential source, also widely available to the estate, is Jurassic limestone from Kurovice, which, however, contains high levels of impurities, \u003cstrong\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;11\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArchival sources suggest that the lime was most likely produced locally. Wood-fired lime kilns were typical of the time, and if properly managed, the lime was expected to be soft-burnt and free of ash and charcoal (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe compactness of the matrices and controlled size of the BRPs seem to exclude the use of any type of hot mixing. The binding matrix also contains small, fine crystalline limestone particles structurally corresponding to Devonian limestone from Přerov and can thus be regarded as under-burnt remnants. The presence of these particles as well as the high density of the material, could suggest that a dry-slaked lime powder was mixed with sand and possibly also with gypsum powder before water was added. However, other mortar preparation methods that would include sieving of the binder (limiting the maximum sizes) and leaving heavier unprocessed limestone fragments cannot be ruled out based on the analysis. Moreover, the archival documents state that lime was burnt in August to be ready for spring use in 1688 (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e). The practicality of storage would suggest that lime was stored in lime pits to mature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGypsum was imported in advance from Ketř (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e), and the rocks were probably quite pure with few contaminants, as indicated by the analysis of STK 3A. A scarce archival reference connected to B. Fontana\u0026rsquo;s work in Vy\u0026scaron;kov (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that the gypsum was burnt in a kiln built by local craftsmen. The wording implies that building such a kiln was a routine task that require no special explanation. The type and design of such a kiln remain unknown due to a lack of archaeological evidence or detailed studies. The gypsum rocks from the Ketř-Opava basin (a Middle Miocene calcium-sulphate-dominated evaporite area in the northern Carpathian Foredeep (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e) form friable crystal clusters. Kilns similar to flare lime kilns (but with open fronts) would likely be impractical due to the incoherence of the rock (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e). A more suitable method of dehydration would therefore be cooking or baking the crushed stone in pots or pans. The presence of anhydrite, a typical product of burning at higher temperatures than approximately 350\u0026deg;C, was not identified by XRD or by microscopy. Additionally, there was an abundance of unprocessed gypsum particles and rock fragments in the mortars. This indicates that the gypsum was most likely burnt at relatively low temperatures, producing mostly hemihydrate with some portion of under-burnt material. It remains unclear when and how the gypsum was crushed and ground to powder. Generally, crushing burnt gypsum is less energy-intensive because it becomes softer (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe main aggregate used was siliciclastic sand, most likely of local origin. It came from fluvial sources and was of the same nature, although the fine and coarse sands were likely quarried from separate deposits. The fine sand is not merely a smaller size fraction of the coarse one. Both sands were most likely sieved to achieve the desired grain size. The analysis indicates that grain size was chosen according to the intended use. The finishing stucco layer had grains typically under 1.5 mm and contained a certain portion of a fine fraction (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.063 mm); the core mortar had sand up to 4 mm and had very low content of the fine fraction. There is also variability between samples, likely reflecting differences in natural resources or shifts in material supply/production timing. This is evident in sample STK 14 (core mortar from the putto in the South Hall), which features more heterogeneous sand compared to samples STK 3, 4, and 5 from the North Hall.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe marble in the stucco finishing layers was produced by crushing a metamorphic limestone that differs from the fine-grained Devonian limestone used to produce lime and even more from the Jurassic limestone of Kurovice. The exact origin of this limestone has not been identified. However, similar marble was quarried in Nedvědice in South Moravia \u0026ndash; a location that was well known to the estate, as marble for architectural elements and sculptures was obtained from there.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Execution of stucco decorations\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe samples were divided according to the stucco parts from which they were taken, i.e., relief sculptures, low relief, high relief, and wall panel decoration for the purpose of comparing mortars mixtures with different functions. Except for the relatively flat wall panels, all three-dimensional stucco decorations were made as layered structures, where the main shape was modelled from lime-gypsum-sand mortar mixture. The level of detail in the modelling was high and included not only correct proportions but also finer surface work. It seems that the more artistically demanding works were modelled almost to perfection, as only a very fine layer (about 3\u0026ndash;4 mm thick) of finishing stucco mortar was used on the forearm of the putto (STK 3), compared to the more repetitive fruit and floral motifs, where the thickness of the finishing stucco was more variable. This may indicate that different workers, with different modelling skills, were employed depending on the complexity of the decoration.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe skeleton of a sculpture, in the case of the studied putto, was made of forged iron. A first layer composed of gypsum mortar with a very low amount of lime, was applied directly on the iron. This layer served as a bonding bridge between the iron and the core modelling mortar, which significantly stiffened the entire skeleton. While this hypothesis cannot be verified through material analysis, the mass of the successive layers suggests that a solid base was absolutely necessary. The main body mass was modelled in layers until he desired shape and proportions were reached. The layers were not regular but were very well bonded; their interfaces were visible only in some sections. This indicates wet-on-wet application until the body part was completed in a single stage.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe mortar contained lime and gypsum in proportions varying from 1.6 to 2.7. The gypsum was as coarsely ground hemihydrate with numerous under-burnt particles. Since hemihydrate sets quite rapidly, some additives were likely used to slow down the setting time. It was common at the time to use animal glue for this purpose (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis of organic additives suggested that animal glue may have been present in the core mortar; however, definitive proof based on a larger dataset was beyond the scope of this survey and remains a task for future research. A method involving repetitive reworking of the gypsum-lime mixture to prolong plasticity is also assumed but no structural evidence supports this in the current samples. One isolated cluster of gypsum mixed with lime, seen in sample STK 5, is likely a result of an improper mixing.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifferences in mortar composition for the same type of stucco may reflect the work of different teams, variability in raw material supplies, or even different phases of execution. Of particular interest is the variable use of crushed marble. It was present in finishing stucco samples STK 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 20. Crushed marble completely replaced the siliciclastic aggregate in the North Halls niche garlands (samples STK 12, 18, and 19). A shortage of marble is unlikely, so its addition seems to document a deliberate change in recipe. Addition of crushed marble provides a whiter, more light-reflective surface, so its inclusion may have been influenced by aesthetic intentions. Information on the stucco making in the course of time is not available but if we assume that the addition of marble represents an improvement, then stucco without it would be the earlier work. Interestingly, the North Hall garlands are slightly less rich in decoration, asymmetrical, and exhibit a noticeable change in pattern at certain heigh\u0026ndash;possibly due to a scaffolding of other obstacles. Another point to look at this technological change is that these stuccoes were made by a different group of craftsmen, perhaps even without involving B. Fontana\u0026rsquo;s workshop. In Fontana\u0026rsquo;s later decoration of the Gallery of Angeles at Uherčice Ch\u0026acirc;teau (1692\u0026ndash;1969) crushed marble was not used, even though it was apparently available, as evidenced by the study of \u003cstrong\u003eUccelli et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Adaptation of modus operandi to the local conditions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTravelling craftsmen and artists had to adapt to the local materials available. This is known from contracts and accounting records that document acquisition and purchase of materials (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly, these materials are described in general terms, without any specific quality demands. The estate most likely secured the best materials available within reach, so quality was not seen as an issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRare notes refer to technological processes, for example, a 1688 record is stated that \u0026lsquo;\u0026hellip;lime was procured and slaked in August and put out for the next year\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e). Whether the lime was stored in pits and used as a putty, as generally assumed, or in a form of powdered hydrate remains unknown as discussed earlier. However, this was before B. Fontana and his team were commissioned to carry out the stucco decorations (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaterial analysis shows a clear preference for pure lime with high calcite content. This was a deliberate choice, as it came from a source that was not the most readily available. It is known that the quality of lime depends not only on the raw material but also on the production processes such as burning, slaking, and storing, all of which significantly affect the final product (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e). While material analysis cannot unambiguously determine the production method, it can highlight characteristic properties associated with it. Some features potentially be linked to particular skills of \u003cem\u003estuccotori\u003c/em\u003e include:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe compactness and the minimum shrinkage cracks of the finishing stucco layer indicate the use of procedures that allowed for precise control of water content in fresh mortars. For the determined mixing proportions of the finishing stucco mortar, the matured lime putty would, however, contain too much water to achieve suitable workability. There are therefore two possibilities: either the putty or the subsequent mortar was somehow dewatered, or dry-slaked lime powder was used and the right amount of water was added to adjust the required workability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGypsum binder, when used alone or with a minimal lime content, was coarsely ground and included unprocessed particles up to 3 mm in size. Despite this coarse texture, the resulting binding matrix was compact and effectively served the purpose of fixing the structural skeleton and bridging it with the next mortar layer. The coarse grinding was likely considered adequate\u0026mdash;possibly even beneficial\u0026mdash;for this application. When gypsum was combined with lime to prepare the core modelling mortar, a slightly finer gypsum fraction was employed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEach mortar component was intentionally sized below a certain grain threshold, tailored to its specific role. For the finishing stucco mortar, most of the sand grains were smaller than 1.5 mm, while crushed marble particles were limited below 0.8 mm. This suggests that these aggregates were individually prepared and selectively added. BRPs in the fine stucco were the largest particles with a maximum size found about 2 mm confirming that the lime was also processed in a different manner.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoarser sand was chosen for the core mortar, where greater volume and structural mass were needed to model the shape. This practice aligns with traditional construction techniques\u0026mdash;larger grain sizes help mitigate shrinkage and enhance mechanical strength.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLime-to-gypsum ratios in the core modelling mortar ranged from approximately 1.6 to 2.7. It is likely that gypsum was added intuitively, based on practical, on-site requirements such as the desired setting time, the weight of element being modelled and its spatial position. This flexible, experience-based approach was common among other master plasterers from Ticino, who were renowned for their expertise in the field. B. Fontana, who originated from the same region, likely shared and employed similar practices (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Surface finishing, coating and painting layers\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBased on the results, it is evident that all surface coatings were applied to dry mortar. The uniformity observed in the first two up to three application layers of the first coat, characterized by similar luminescence under UV light, strong adhesion, and sometimes indistinct borders, suggests that the limewash was applied in multiple layers, typically up to three. The first layer was usually thicker, indicating that a thicker, less diluted limewash was likely used compared to the subsequent layers. The limewash rendered the stucco a completely purely white, although the underlaying surface texture, whether rough or smooth, most likely remained visible. Tonal variations between different parts of the decoration may have been achieved by adding further whitewashes of different thicknesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs for the stucco samples STK 12 and 19, which contained crushed marble, considering the similarities in morphology and chemical composition of the first limewashes, it can be inferred that these coatings are different from the rest of the studied ones. Deposits beneath these coatings suggest that they were applied at a later time than the other lime coats (which can be regarded as original). This suggests that stucco containing crushed marble may have been intentionally left uncoated, possibly to make the most of the material\u0026apos;s unique lustre. Based on only one sample (STK 20A) from the low relief leaf on the wall panel, it can be assumed that originally the specific colour of stucco finishing layer could be used as final decoration too. This hypothesis should be confirmed by further studies. The coloured layers \u0026ndash; pink (STK 2), grey (STK 4), beige (STK 20C) and green (STK 22) \u0026ndash; are secondary interventions, while ochre layers (STK 4, 11, and 12) were interpreted as deposits. In the secondary paint layers, zinc white is predominant. Its presence allows for approximate dating of these layers to post 1780, and most probably after 1830s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe stucco decoration of the Ground Halls at the Kroměř\u0026iacute;ž Ch\u0026acirc;teau was described by means of material analysis of a number of samples obtained to represent the major plasterwork features. The study confirms that the stuccowork was carried out according to the generally accepted technique of the time, including the use of gypsum, forged iron reinforcement, and multilayer application and provides details about the composition of the materials used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMaterials\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery pure, high calcitic lime binder was determined in all samples and its source is linked to the Devonian limestone deposits near Přerov. The binder is composed of 90 wt. % CaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e; magnesium, silica, alumina, and iron impurities were minimal. This consistent quality was regarded as a deliberate choice. The use of a highly calcitic limestone was also confirmed by the composition of the BRPs, which are even purer than the matrix itself. The gypsum binder was also of high purity. The gypsum-based matrix contained an abundance of unprocessed rock particles, but no anhydrite was identified. Therefore, the dehydration of the gypsum rock was most likely carried out at temperatures below approximately 350\u0026deg;C. Gypsum was ground for used as a binder and particles as large as 3 mm in diameter were present. This coarse grinding may have been a particular method intended to apply this binder effectively to stiffen the iron skeleton frame. The aggregate in all samples was a deposited fluvial sand. The slight differences in mineralogy, but mainly in the particle size distribution, point to its sourcing from different locations. The documented presence of crushed marble marks a significant change in the recipe.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main stucco construction layers were the core mortar and the finishing stucco layer. These mortar mixes have different functions and this fact is reflected in their composition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe core mortar was composed of lime, gypsum and sand. The calculated volumetric mixing proportions (lime putty, gypsum, sand) were 1 : 0.4\u0026ndash;0.5 : 1.1 in the North Hall and 1 : 0.3 : 0.7 in the South Hall. The typical/maximum grain sizes of sand were 0.4\u0026ndash;1 mm/4 mm, lime-based BRP were 0.4\u0026ndash;1 mm/4 mm, and gypsum particles were 0.05\u0026ndash;0.1 mm/3 mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finishing stucco mortar was composed of lime and sand. Its volumetric mixing proportions were 1 : 0.6 (lime putty to sand). The typical/maximum grain sizes of sand were 0.2\u0026ndash;0.8 mm/1.5 mm, lime-based BRP were 0.5\u0026ndash;1 mm/2.5 mm, and crushed marble particles were 0.2\u0026ndash;0.4 mm/0.8 mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStucco technology\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe forearm of the relief sculpture of putto was constructed in three consecutive layers. The first was composed of almost pure gypsum binder with about ten percent of lime and siliciclastic particles. After hardening, it provided a bridge and stiff background for the next layer, the core modelling lime-gypsum-sand mortar. The surface and final appearance was created by the finishing stucco layer. This layer was about 3 mm on the putto\u0026rsquo;s forearm and thicker on the phytomorphic motifs, suggesting that more artistically demanding works were finished in a great detail when the core mortar was applied. Other parts of the sculptures, like the tail of naiade or more routine and repetitive decorations (e.g., leaves) had a thicker finishing layer. This made it possible to finalise details and shapes during the application of the finishing stucco layer, also taking an advantage of heaving more material mass for creating folds and subtle modulations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe use of crushed marble in the finishing mortar layer suggested a change of the recipe. It is not clear whether this was intended to improve the appearance of the stuccoes or due to the involvement of other craftsmen. It indicates that the decoration of the halls was not carried out in one single phase, and perhaps some parts were not executed under Fontana\u0026rsquo;s auspice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on morphology and chemical composition of coatings, it is assumed that the initial decoration consisted of white limewashes only, applied in variable number of layers with variable thicknesses. In this way a subtle variability of white tones of the stucco decoration could have been achieved. Coloured layers came as successive modifications. Layers of deposits found in samples containing crushed marble suggest that these samples were initially left uncoated. Lack of the original coating on the wall panels should be confirmed by further studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome micromorphological features, such se the compactness of the binding matrix, the character of BRPs, the selection and granulometry of sand, and the gauging of gypsum were discussed in terms of potentially applied technologies of raw materials processing and mortar production. This can be linked to the craft skills of the workers, who had to adapt to the local materials and working conditions. However, the provided materials were of high quality and well suited to carrying out the decoration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture material analysis and archival findings can provide further insights into some of the open questions identified here and will continue to support the understanding of the materials and techniques of the high baroque stucco decorations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJV - main concept of the reseach, survey and sampling, analalytical work, writting of the paper, proof readingMC - survey and sampling, analalytical work - microscopy, writting of the paperSSP - survey and sampling, analalytical work - SEM EDS, analysis of coating layers, writting of the paperPK - survey and sampling, analalytical work - Optical microscopy, writting of the paper, formatting and productionJZ - main concept of the reseach - art history, writting of the paper, proof readingDF - analalytical work - Thermal analysis, writting of the paperKK - sample processing, analalytical work - acid dissolution, formatting of the paper for production\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research was carried out within the Erasmus+ project STUDEC \u0026ndash; Stucco Decoration Across Europe, grant number 2022-1-CZ01KA220-HED-000085652. Dr. Štěp\u0026aacute;nka Kučkov\u0026aacute; and the Laboratory of Applied Proteomics of University of Chemistry and Technology Prague is thanked for the analysis of organic additives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRampazzi L, Rizzo B, Colombo C, Conti C, Realini M, Bartoluci U, Colombini MP, Spiriti A, Facchin L. The stucco decorations from St. Lorenzo in Laino (Como, Italy): The materials and the techniques employed by the Magistri Comanchini. Anal Chim Acta. 2008;630(1):91\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.aca.2008.09.052\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aca.2008.09.052\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRampazzi L, Rizzo B, Colombo C, Conti C, Realini M, Bartoluci U, Colombini MP, Spiriti A, Facchin L, Como. Italy) Archaeometry, 54 (5), 926\u0026ndash;39 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00651.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00651.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaroselli M, Zumb\u0026uuml;hl S, Cavallo G, Radelet T. Composition and techniques of the Ticinese stucco decorations from the 16th to the 17th century: Results from the analysis of the materials. Herit Sci. 2020;8:1\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaroselli M, Valek J, Zapletalova J, Felici A, Frankeov\u0026acute;a D, Kozlovcev P, Nicoli G, Jean G. Study of Materials and Technique of Late Baroque Stucco Decorations: Baldassarre Fontana from Ticino to Czechia. Heritage. 2021;4:1737\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030097\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/heritage4030097\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUccelli M, Caroselli M, V\u0026aacute;lek J, Zapletalov\u0026aacute; J, Felici A, Nicoli G, Jean G. Characterization of the stucco decoration by Baldassarre Fontana in the Gallery of the Angels at Uherčice Ch\u0026acirc;teau (Cz). J Archaeol Science: Rep Volume. 2022;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103493\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103493\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eV\u0026aacute;lek J, Skružn\u0026aacute; O, Kozlovcev P, Frankeov\u0026aacute; D, M\u0026aacute;cov\u0026aacute; P, Viani A, Kumpov\u0026aacute; I. 2020. Composition and technology of the 17th century stucco decorations at Červen\u0026aacute; Lhota Ch\u0026acirc;teau in Southern Bohemia Int. J. Archit. Herit., 14, pp. 1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeard G. Stucco and decorative plasterwork in Europe. UK: Thames \u0026amp; Hudson Ltd.; 1983.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMillar W. 1897. Plastering plain and decorative. 4th ed. UK: Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Ltd. Reprint 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGroot C, Ashall G, Hughes J. 2007. Characterisation of Old Mortars with Respect to their Repair, State-of-the-Art Report of RILEM TC 167-COM, RILEM publications S.A.R.L.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaladio A. Quattro Libri dell\u0026rsquo;Architettura. Venice: Apresso Bartolomeo Carampello; 1581.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScamozzi V. 1714. L\u0026rsquo;Idea dell\u0026rsquo;Architettura Universale. Venezia: per Girolamo Albrizzi. Reprint of 1615 edition.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVasari G, Dent JM. \u0026amp; Comp. Translated from the original published in 1550.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlberti LB. 1965. Ten books on architecture. London: Alec Tiranti. Translated from the original published in 1755.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArslan E, editor. 1964. Arte e artisti dei laghi lombardi, II, Gli stuccatori dal barocco al rococo, Como.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZapletalov\u0026aacute; J. 2019. Artists from the Lombardy-Ticino Lake Region in the Service of Bishop Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno, in: Ondřej Jakubec, editor, \u003cem\u003eKarl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno (1624\u0026ndash;1695). Bishop of Olomouc and Central European Prince\u003c/em\u003e, Olomouc, Olomouc Museum of Arts. pp. 179\u0026ndash;190.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZapletalov\u0026aacute; J. 2022. Umělci od Lugansk\u0026eacute;ho jezera a z bl\u0026iacute;zk\u0026yacute;ch regionů v česk\u0026yacute;ch zem\u0026iacute;ch jako nositel\u0026eacute; know-how realizace štukov\u0026yacute;ch dekorac\u0026iacute;, in: Pavel Waisser, editor, \u003cem\u003eRenesančn\u0026iacute; a man\u0026yacute;ristick\u0026eacute; štukat\u0026eacute;rstv\u0026iacute; v Čech\u0026aacute;ch a na Moravě\u003c/em\u003e, Olomouc, pp. 36\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDamiani Cabrini L. 2000. Le migrazioni d\u0026rsquo;arte. In: Ceschi, R., editor. Storia della Svizzera italiana. Dal Cinquecento al Settecento: Bellinzona. pp. 289\u0026ndash;312.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026aacute;čelov\u0026aacute; L. 1949. Baldassare Fontana na Moravě (dissertation thesis), Masaryk University in Brno, Faculty of Arts, Brno.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarpowicz M. 1990. \u003cem\u003eBaldasar Fontana 1661\u0026ndash;1733. Un berniniano ticinese in Moravia e Polonia\u003c/em\u003e, Lugano.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarpowicz M. 1994. \u003cem\u003eBaltazar Fontana\u003c/em\u003e, Warszava.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKurzej M. 2018. \u003cem\u003eDepingere fas est. Sebastian Piskorski jako konceptor i prowizor\u003c/em\u003e, Krak\u0026oacute;w.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeřinka. FV. 1948. Dějiny města Kroměř\u0026iacute;že II/1\u0026ndash;2 (Dějiny let 1619\u0026ndash;1695). Kroměř\u0026iacute;ž, p. 635.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOr\u0026aacute;lkov\u0026aacute; Z, Topičov\u0026aacute; S, Kouřil K. 2019 (edd.), \u003cem\u003eKomunikačn\u0026iacute; s\u0026iacute;ť biskupa Karla z Lichtensteinu-Catelcorna (1624\u0026ndash;1695)\u003c/em\u003e, Olomouc.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaniel L, Perůtka M, Togner M. 2019 (edd.). \u003cem\u003eArchbishop\u0026acute;s Chateau \u0026amp; Gardens in Kroměř\u0026iacute;ž\u003c/em\u003e, Kroměř\u0026iacute;\u0026amp;#382.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKroupa J, Pavl\u0026iacute;ček M, Štětina J, Zapletalov\u0026aacute; J. 2019. Reconstruction of the Residence in Kroměř\u0026iacute;ž, 1664\u0026ndash;1668, 1687\u0026ndash;1698, in: Rostislav Šv\u0026aacute;cha, Martina Potůčkov\u0026aacute;, Jiř\u0026iacute; Kroupa, editors, Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno (1624\u0026ndash;1695). Places of the Bishop\u0026acute;s Memory, Olomouc, pp. 97\u0026ndash;154.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZapletalov\u0026aacute;. J., 2017. Saly terreny z\u0026aacute;mku v Kroměř\u0026iacute;ži a n\u0026aacute;vrhy soch pro Podz\u0026aacute;meckou zahradu. Jana Zapletalov\u0026aacute;. Uměn\u0026iacute;: časopis \u0026Uacute;stavu dějin uměn\u0026iacute; Akademie věd Česk\u0026eacute; republiky Roč. 65. č. 3, pp. 269\u0026ndash;282.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZapletalov\u0026aacute; J, Art LXXIII. 2025, č. 1, pp. 47\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoynton RS. Chemistry and technology of lime and limestone. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1979.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEngbrecht DC, Hirschfeld DA. Thermal analysis of calcium sulfate dihydrate sources used to manufacture gypsum wallboard. Thermochimica acta. 2016;639:173\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.tca.2016.07.021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tca.2016.07.021\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eF\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;ri M. Handbook of thermogravimetric system of minerals and its use in geological practice. Budapest: Geological Institute of Hungary. Occasional Papers of the Geological Institute of Hungary; 2011. p. 213.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiddendorf B, Hughes JJ, Callebaut K, Baronio G, Papayianni I. Investigative methods for the characterisation of historic mortars - Part 2: Chemical characterisation. Mater Struct. 2005;38:771\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/BF02479290\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF02479290\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eV\u0026aacute;lek J, Ebel M, Mař\u0026iacute;kov\u0026aacute;-Kubkov\u0026aacute; J, Herichov\u0026aacute; I, Such\u0026yacute; M, Kodera P, Kozlovcev P, Řihošek J, Pan\u0026aacute;ček M, Bryscejn J. 2015. \u003cem\u003eV\u0026aacute;penn\u0026eacute; technologie historick\u0026yacute;ch staveb.\u003c/em\u003e N\u0026aacute;rodn\u0026iacute; technick\u0026eacute; Muzeum, Praha, p. 168.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWingate M, Sakula J, Hill N. Small-scale Lime Burning: A Practical Introduction. London: Intermediate Technology; 1985. p. 185.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProch\u0026aacute;zka V. Kaple sv. Otilie ve Vyškově. Pam\u0026aacute;tky archeologick\u0026eacute; XXXVI; 1930. pp. 1929\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBabel M. Badenian evaporite basin of the northern Carpathian Foredeep as a drawdown salina basin. Acta Geol Pol. 2004;54(3):313\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBel-Anzu\u0026eacute; P, Elert K. 2021. Changes in traditional building materials: the case of gypsum in Northern Spain. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2021) 13: 177. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01438-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12520-021-01438-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCardoso IP, Pye E. Gessoes in Portuguese\u0026uml;Baroque gilding grounds, part 1: A study of historical documentary sources. Stud Conserv. 2016;62(4):185\u0026ndash;209. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00393630.2015.1130774\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00393630.2015.1130774\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElert K, Benavides-Reyes C, Cardell C. Effect of animal glue on mineralogy, strength and weathering resistence of calcium sulfate-based composite materials. Cem Concr Compos. 2019;96:274\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.12.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.12.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOates JAH. Lime and limestone. Chemistry and technology, production and uses. 1st ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 1998. p. 455.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaroselli M, Cavallo G, Felici A, Luppichini S, Nicoli G, Aliverti L, Jean G. Gypsum in Ticinese stucco artworks of the 16\u0026ndash;17th century: Use, characterization, provenance and induced decay phenomena. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2019;24:208\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.01.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.01.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEastaugh N, Walsh V, Chaplin T, Siddall R. 2004. Pigment Compendium: A Dictionary of Historical Pigments (1st ed.). Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780080473765\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780080473765\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-heritage-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"hsci","sideBox":"Learn more about [Heritage Science](http://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40494","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40494/3","title":"npj Heritage Science","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6976989/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6976989/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the materials and construction techniques employed in the Baroque stucco decorations of the Ground Halls at Kroměř\u0026iacute;ž Ch\u0026acirc;teau, executed by one of the most renowned stucco-makers of the time, Baldassare Fontana and his workshop. Sixteen samples were analysed using a combination of optical microscopy, SEM-EDS, XRD, thermal analysis, and acid dissolution technique to characterize binders, aggregates, and layer compositions. The results revealed a deliberate selection of high-purity calcitic lime, sourced from Devonian limestone near Přerov, and gypsum likely from the Ketř-Opava basin, both of which were processed with minimal impurities. Two distinct mortar types were identified: a lime-gypsum-sand core modelling mortar and a lime-rich fine finishing stucco mortar. The analysis highlighted layered construction techniques. The presence of crushed marble in some specific decorations suggests a change of the recipe and indicates that the decoration of the halls was not carried out in one single phase, and perhaps some parts were not executed under Fontana\u0026rsquo;s auspice. The analytical results also point out the technological features linked to the adaptations to local material conditions. Surface coatings were initially limited to white limewash, with later interventions introducing coloured paint layers, identifiable by zinc white pigments. The findings shed light on the material practices of 17th-century stuccatori and offer a foundation for further conservation and historical research.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Materials and techniques used in high-baroque stucco decorations by Baldassarre Fontana in Kroměříž Chateau, Czech Republic","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-02 11:54:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6976989/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-07-30T11:54:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-29T20:28:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-13T09:00:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"69934743878285326791829321334590380454","date":"2025-06-30T10:07:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"84661773865030447496985022042768846475","date":"2025-06-30T07:39:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"84050899876325723747268947147115737854","date":"2025-06-27T07:10:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-27T05:44:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-26T05:13:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-26T05:12:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj heritage science","date":"2025-06-25T17:17:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-heritage-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"hsci","sideBox":"Learn more about [Heritage Science](http://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40494","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40494/3","title":"npj Heritage Science","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cd067545-a925-4b4f-9ed7-97c3302591d5","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-01T16:06:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6976989","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-02121-y","journal":{"identity":"npj-heritage-science","isVorOnly":false,"title":"npj Heritage Science"},"publishedOn":"2025-11-28 15:56:56","publishedOnDateReadable":"November 28th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-02 11:54:18","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s40494-025-02121-y","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-02121-y","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6976989","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6976989","identity":"rs-6976989","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}