Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T21:41:56.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiocarbon dating of mortars from monastery hill in Tyniec, Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2026

Danuta Michalska Open the ORCID record for Danuta Michalska [Opens in a new window] ,
Irka Hajdas Open the ORCID record for Irka Hajdas [Opens in a new window] ,
Marek Krąpiec Open the ORCID record for Marek Krąpiec [Opens in a new window] ,
Monika Łyczak Open the ORCID record for Monika Łyczak [Opens in a new window] ,
Małgorzata Mrozek-Wysocka ,
Michał Tomasz Gronowski OSB ,
Anna Bojęś-Białasik ,
Monika Kamińska ,
Zuzanna Kabacińska-Booth  and
Negar Haghipour
Danuta Michalska*
Affiliation:
Geochronology Research Unit, Institute of Geology, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Irka Hajdas
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
Marek Krąpiec
Affiliation:
AGH University of Kraków, Kraków, Poland
Monika Łyczak
Affiliation:
Institute of Archeology, Faculty of Historical Sciences, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw, Poland Archaeological Company FRAMEA, Kraków, Poland
Małgorzata Mrozek-Wysocka
Affiliation:
Geochronology Research Unit, Institute of Geology, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Michał Tomasz Gronowski OSB
Affiliation:
Faculty of Culture and Arts, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec, Kraków, Poland
Anna Bojęś-Białasik
Affiliation:
Institute of Art History, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Kraków, Poland
Monika Kamińska
Affiliation:
Wawel Royal Castle – State Art Collection, Wawel, Kraków, Poland
Zuzanna Kabacińska-Booth
Affiliation:
Geochronology Research Unit, Institute of Geology, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Negar Haghipour
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Earth and Planetary Science, ETH, Zurich, Poland
*
Corresponding author: Danuta Michalska; Email: danamich@amu.edu.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec is the oldest existing monastery in Poland (11th cent. AD). The historic walls of the Monastery have survived to this day and crown the limestone hill on the Vistula River. The geological structure of the surrounding area is reflected in the composition of the mortars.

In vicinity of Tyniec one may observe outcrops of Upper Jurassic limestones represented by two facies: bedded limestones with cherts and massive limestones. Recently, it was discovered that the monks not only fortified the Tyniec hill but also partly built it up with loess. Additionally, a massive “stepped” stone platform was later built to strengthen the edge of the hill. The mortars radiocarbon dating provides the first attempt to obtain the wide chronology of the extension of Tyniec. For this purpose, the chronologically oldest layers were analyzed.

Sequential dissolution of mortars was applied to separate the carbonates of different origin. The obtained results illustrated the huge influence of mortar components and the local geological structure on the 14C measurements. In addition to the mortar, 14C measurements were also made for charcoal from Tyniec Abbey. Radiocarbon dating was performed on the selected fractions using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). Radiocarbon dating results of samples from the oldest part of the stone platform make it possible to associate its construction with the earliest monastery buildings.

Keywords

radiocarbon dating of mortarBenedictine Abbeymortar pretreatmentTyniec monastery

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , June 2026 , pp. 531 - 540
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona

Introduction

Historical buildings constitute a significant part of the cultural heritage. Often, such structures do not have a chronological framework, and the method that would determine the time of construction of the buildings is not simple for various reasons; sometimes it is the lack of appropriate dating material, and in other cases, the available material requires special pretreatment adapted to the composition of the samples. Materials that are closely related to the moment of the building’s construction are mortars. The reliability of the radiocarbon age of mortars has been discussed since the 1960s (Baxter and Walton Reference Baxter and Walton1970; Folk and Valastro Reference Folk and Valastro1976; Labeyrie and Delibrias Reference Labeyrie and Delibrias1964; Stuiver et al. Reference Stuiver, Smith, Chatters and Olson1965) through the intercomparison project MODIS 1 and 2 (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Lindroos, Heinemeier, Ringbom, Marzaioli, Terrasi, Passariello, Capano, Artioli, Addis, Secco, Michalska, Czernik, Goslar, Hayen, Van Strydonck, Fontaine, Boudin, Maspero, Panzeri, Galli, Urbanová and Guibert2017; Hayen et al. Reference Hayen, Van Strydonck, Fontaine, Boudin, Lindroos, Heinemeier, Ringbom, Michalska, Hajdas, Hueglin, Marzaioli, Terrasi, Passariello, Capano, Artioli, Addis, Secco, Maspero, Laura Panzeri, Galli, Guibert, Urbanová, Czernik, Goslar and Caroselli2017; Michalska et al. Reference Michalska, Czernik and Goslar2017) and in recent studies (Barrett et al. Reference Barrett, Keaveney, Lindroos, Donnelly, Daugbjerg, Ringbom, Olse and Reimer2021; Caroselli et al. Reference Caroselli, Hajdas and Cassitti2020; Daugbjerg et al. Reference Daugbjerg, Lindroos, Hajdas, Ringbom and Olsen2021a, Reference Daugbjerg, Lindroos, Heinemeier, Ringbom, Barrett, Michalska, Hajdas, Raja and Olsen2021b; Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Maurer and Röttig2020; Lindroos et al. Reference Lindroos, Ringbom, Heinemeier, Hodgins, Sonck-Koota, Sjöberg, Lancaster, Kaisti, Brock, Ranta, Caroselli and Lugli2018).

To obtain an accurate mortar production age, it is necessary to eliminate components that would cause a shift in 14C age, e.g., carbonate aggregate, not totally burnt fragments (dead carbon effect) or secondary crystallization (Nawrocka et al. Reference Nawrocka, Czernik and Goslar2009; Sonninen and Jungner Reference Sonninen and Jungner2001). Depending on the conditions, secondary crystallization may cause both the rejuvenation of the results and their apparent aging (Michalska and Mrozek-Wysocka Reference Michalska and Mrozek-Wysocka2020). Additional complications in the dating of mortars are also caused by admixtures of ceramic dust or terracotta (in the case of cocciopesto mortars; Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Lindroos, Heinemeier, Ringbom, Marzaioli, Terrasi, Passariello, Capano, Artioli, Addis, Secco, Michalska, Czernik, Goslar, Hayen, Van Strydonck, Fontaine, Boudin, Maspero, Panzeri, Galli, Urbanová and Guibert2017), which make the resulting binder very reactive. Considering how many factors can influence the dating of mortars, much of the latest research has focused on preparation and reliability control (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Maurer and Röttig2020; Marzaioli et al. Reference Marzaioli, Lubritto, Nonni, Passariello, Capano and Terrasi2011; Ringbom et al. Reference Ringbom, Lindroos, Heinemeier and Sonck-Koota2014).

Here, we present results of radiocarbon dating of recently excavated (Reference Hajdas, Maurer and Röttig2020) Tyniec platform. The Tyniec hill on which the Monastery is located is surrounded by carbonate formations. The main challenge in the preparation of Tyniec mortars is the separation of “dead carbon,” which might be included in the binder due to incomplete burning or in the entire mortars by presence of carbonaceous aggregate. Therefore, the sequential dissolution has been used to eliminate the contaminants. It is based on the difference between the reactivity of the fast dissolving soft binder and the limestone aggregate.

The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec is the oldest existing monastery in Poland (11th cent. AD; Figure 1). Observations made during archaeological research in recent years, also because of preliminary geophysical research (carried out by F. Welc), have become an impulse for the development of the Tyniec chronology project. In view of the discoveries made, the priority research task to be undertaken to reconstruct the material history of the abbey is to prepare a new, updated (in relation to existing theories) scenario of the topographic and architectural changes of the Tyniec Hill during the expansion of the Romanesque monastery complex (11th–13th centuries).

Figure 1.

The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec: A) map of Poland and the location of the Kraków/Tyniec; B) monastery in aerial view (photo Paweł Krzan).

A map of Poland highlighting Krakow/Tyniec and an aerial view of the Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec.

Geological background

The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec (landscape of the Vistula River valley in the western part of Krakow) was founded onto the Upper Jurassic rocks forming a fragment of carbonate buildups complex. Geologically, Kraków/Tyniec is located within the Kraków-Silesia Monocline (Gradziński Reference Gradziński1972), a structure influenced by the tectonic evolution of the Carpathian foreland (Oszczypko et al. Reference Oszczypko, Krzywiec, Popadyuk, Golonka and Picha2006). The surrounding hills are composed of Upper Jurassic limestones (Oxfordian), primarily bedded limestones with cherts stone and massive limestones, overlain by Upper Miocene clay deposits (Alexandrowicz Reference Alexandrowicz1955; Krajewski et al. Reference Krajewski, Olchowy and Rudzinski2018). In their slopes numerous cliffs with karst features can be observed (Głazek et al. Reference Głazek, Pacholewski, Rózkowski, Back, Herman and Paloc1992; Matyszkiewicz Reference Matyszkiewicz2008). The local geological structure provides a potential source of raw materials for producing mortars, including both limestones and clays (Sanjurjo-Sánchez et al. Reference Sanjurjo-Sánchez, Trindade, Blanco-Rotea, Benavides Garcia, Fernández Mosquera, Burbidge, Prudêncio and Dias2010; Skuta et al. Reference Skuta, Antonkiewicz, Guzik and Kołodziej2024).

Site and material

According to written sources (Długosz, HP, III; idem, LB, III), the monastery in Tyniec was founded in 1044 by Prince Casimir I the Restorer, perhaps on the initiative of his mother, the German Princess (granddaughter of the Holy Roman Emperor Otto II) and Queen of Poland, Richeza; it was endowed by the King Bolesław II the Bold and the Princess Judyta Maria, wife of the Prince Władysław Herman (cf. Derwich Reference Derwich and Żurowska1995; Gieysztor Reference Gieysztor and Żurowska1995; Graczyńska and Kamińska Reference Graczyńska, Kamińska, Janiak and Stryniak2014; Kamińska Reference Kamińska and Małecki2014; Kwiatkowska-Baster and Baster Reference Kwiatkowska-Baster and Baster1994; Labuda Reference Labuda and Gadomski1986, Reference Labuda and Żurowska1995; Łuszczkiewicz Reference Łuszczkiewicz1875; Michałowski Reference Michałowski1989; Sczaniecki Reference Sczaniecki1978, Reference Sczaniecki and Żurowska1995; Reference Sczaniecki2008; Szczygielski Reference Szczygielski1668; Tomkowicz Reference Tomkowicz1901; Żurowska Reference Żurowska and Żurowska1995, Reference Żurowska, Bałus, Walanus and Walczak2007). As revealed during the archaeological and architectural research conducted since 2018, before (or during) the construction of the oldest church, large-scale engineering works were carried out, consisting of strengthening or even “extending” a fragment of the hill with an earth embankment several meters thick. It was secondarily reinforced with an extremely massive stone structure in a stepped form. In such a prepared area, on the northeastern edge of the hill, Benedictine monks erected a Romanesque, three-nave basilica, and a little further to the south—monastery buildings (Kalinowski Reference Kalinowski1971a, Reference Kalinowski1971b, Reference Kalinowski1971c; Kopera Reference Kopera1908; Leńczyk Reference Leńczyk1952, Reference Leńczyk1955, Reference Leńczyk1956; Łyczak et. al, Reference Łyczak, Bojęś-Białasik, Kamińska and Rodzińska-Chorąży2024; Piątkiewicz-Dereniowa Reference Piątkiewicz-Dereniowa1971; Szyszko-Bohusz Reference Szyszko-Bohusz1947; Woźniak and Zoll-Adamikowa Reference Woźniak and Zoll-Adamikowa1971; Żurowska Reference Żurowska1971, Reference Żurowska1974, Reference Żurowska and Gadomski1986, Reference Żurowska and Żurowska1995, Reference Żurowska, Bałus, Walanus and Walczak2007). From the very beginning of its existence, the church was the burial place of important persons, including Tyniec Abbots. The chronologically oldest grave, made in the form of a stone-built tomb, could even belong to the first head of the congregation, the abbot of Tyniec and bishop of Kraków, Aaron or his successor, abbot Anchoras (Zoll-Adamikowa Reference Zoll-Adamikowa1966, Reference Zoll-Adamikowa1977).

Over time, the abbey was expanded: economic and representative buildings were built, including the so-called “Castle” (now called Opatówka) or the so-called “Starosty” (Starostwo); in the 1st half of the 14th century, the church was rebuilt in the Gothic style, and then in the 17th century it was adapted in the Baroque style. The Benedictines (except for less than a century) are present in Tyniec to the present day.

In this study, samples from the chronologically oldest layers were analyzed. The first of them— charcoal from the mortar—was taken from the lowest step of the stone platform, strengthening the edge of the hill on its eastern side (Figure 2); due to the removal of layers covering the structure in the modern period, it is not possible to date it based on stratigraphic analysis. The second sample—mortar—was taken from the aforementioned stone tomb, located in the northern aisle of the Romanesque Basilica. The relative chronology of the grave, resulting from the analysis of the surrounding strata and burial equipment, points to the second half (probably the fourth quarter; Zoll-Adamikowa Reference Zoll-Adamikowa1966) of 11th cent. AD.

Figure 2.

Location of mortar. and charcoal samples analyzed in this study: A), B) earth embankment and stepped stone platform strengthening the edge of the hill. with a location of dated charcoal sample T2/2020 (photo M. and J. Łyczak 2020); C) interior of tomb no. 15, where the dated mortar sample TKS15 was collected (photo M. Kamińska 2022).

Photos of historical sites showing locations of mortar and charcoal samples.

Methods

The mortar sample TKS15 was split into two subsamples A and B. Preparation of TKS15_A and TKS15_B (ETH-129548) from the oldest cultural layer at the Tyniec monastery for radiocarbon dating followed the protocol developed so far at the ETH Zürich Laboratory. The principle of the method is a separation of suitable grain size and discrimination between anthropogenic and geological carbonate by a sequential dissolution (Lindroos et al. Reference Lindroos, Ringbom, Heinemeier and Sveinbjörnsdóttir2007, Reference Lindroos, Ringbom, Heinemeier, Hodgins, Sonck-Koota, Sjöberg, Lancaster, Kaisti, Brock, Ranta, Caroselli and Lugli2018), a technique that targets the fast-dissolving component of the binder (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Lindroos, Heinemeier, Ringbom, Marzaioli, Terrasi, Passariello, Capano, Artioli, Addis, Secco, Michalska, Czernik, Goslar, Hayen, Van Strydonck, Fontaine, Boudin, Maspero, Panzeri, Galli, Urbanová and Guibert2017, Reference Hajdas, Maurer and Röttig2020). A grain fraction 45−63 μm was chosen for measurements. For each of the two samples, five subsamples (dissolution fractions) of CO2 were collected for the following time intervals: 1–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10–12 s, and the rest was left to dissolve until the end of the reaction.

Charcoal sample T2/2020 (MKL-A5119) was chemically pretreated with the acid-alkali-acid (AAA) method. In the next step, charcoal was combusted, purified, and transformed into graphite in a laboratory at the AGH-UST in Kraków (Krąpiec et al. Reference Krąpiec, Rakowski, Huels, Wiktorowski and Hamann2018).

The graphite and Fe powder mixture was pressed into a target holder and measured with the AMS system at the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia, USA (Cherkinsky et al. Reference Cherkinsky, Culp, Dvoracek and Noakes2010).

Results

The outcome of the radiocarbon dating performed on samples from the Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec, for 10 portions of gas collected from the mortar samples, and for the charcoal sample, is summarized in Table 1. The radiocarbon age of the fast-dissolving fractions (Fr 1, i.e., 1–3 s) shows an age close to archaeological estimates based on recent excavation work.

Table 1.

Results of the 14C AMS analysis of mortar samples.

Table summarizing radiocarbon dating results of mortar and charcoal samples.

*Only first fraction (Fr 1) dissolved in 1-3 s is accepted as an accurate radiocarbon age (RA), the combined RA is 891±45 BP; mortars TKS15_A and TKS15_B, (ETH-129548) of- the oldest cultural layer at the Tyniec monastery. Charcoal sample T2/2020 (MKL-A5119); Fr 1/1–3 s. – time range of gas collection e.g., Fr 1, gas collected during the first 3 s of leaching reaction.

Based on the assumption that the fast-dissolving fraction is the anthropogenic binder, the fraction obtained from the first seconds of the sequential dissolution is considered the best estimate of 14C age. If it agrees with the second fraction, this 14C age can be regarded as the most accurate measurement of the moment of mortar production (Ringbom et al. Reference Ringbom, Lindroos, Heinemeier and Sonck-Koota2014). In the case of Tyniec, the slower fractions are significantly older than the first fraction. Therefore, only first fractions from the two independent preparations, A and B, were combined.

Figure 3 shows all the results of the radiocarbon dating of all the fractions from two independent sequential dissolutions (SD) of sample TK15. Following the procedure outlined in Hajdas et al. (Reference Hajdas, Maurer and Röttig2020), the radiocarbon ages of the fast-dissolving fractions, 1st: 1−3 s, have the potential to provide an accurate 14C signal for the time of mortar hardening. The increase in the ages of the slow fractions (2nd, 3rd and 4th, i.e., >7 s dissolution time) indicates the presence of the geological component (“dead carbon”) (Table 1, Figure 3). Calendar ages of mortar samples were obtained using OxCal v.4.4.4 online calibration software (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2021) with the INTCAL20 calibration data set (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Austin, Bard, Bayliss, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Butzin, Cheng, Edwards and Friedrich2020). The two ages of the 1st fraction from the two independently prepared samples can be combined to 891 ± 45 BP (χ2-test: df=1 T=0.0 (5% 3.8)). The combined calibrated age (weighted mean) of the mortar sample from the Tyniec Abbey dates the mortar to 1034–1229 AD (Figure 3B) and the calibrated age of the charcoal is 994–1151 AD (Figure 3C).

Figure 3.

A) Results of radiocarbon dating of two independent sequential dissolution (SD) of sample TKS15 (ETH-129548). Each SD has results of radiocarbon dating of 5 fractions (TKS15_A and TKS15_B). The first fraction was the collection of CO2 within the first 3 s and the consecutive fractions were collected in 3-s intervals. The x-axis shows dissolution fractions: 1st fraction: 1–3 s; 2nd fraction: 4–6 s; 3rd fraction: 7–9 s; 4th fraction: 10–12 s. The 5th fraction is CO2 collected after the rest of the sample dissolved entirely. The first red and blue fractions are superimposed. B), C) Combined (weighted mean) radiocarbon age of the first fraction from two separate preparations B), and the radiocarbon age of charcoal C), calibrated using OxCal 4.4.4 and INTCAL20 data set (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009; Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Austin, Bard, Bayliss, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Butzin, Cheng, Edwards and Friedrich2020).

Multiple graphs depict radiocarbon dating results of mortar samples and charcoal.
Figure 3 Long description

Panel A: A scatter plot shows radiocarbon dating results of two independent sequential dissolution (SD) of sample TKS15. The x-axis represents dissolution fractions, labeled as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The y-axis represents the radiocarbon age in before present (BP) units. Two data series are plotted: C14 age TKS15 A SD1 in blue and C14 age TKS15 B SD2 in red. The first red and blue fractions are superimposed. Panel B: A line graph and histogram show the combined (weighted mean) radiocarbon age of the first fraction from two separate preparations. The x-axis represents the calibrated date in common era (calAD) units, and the y-axis represents the radiocarbon determination in BP units. The line graph shows the radiocarbon determination with a 95.4 percent probability range, and the histogram shows the calibrated date distribution. Panel C: Another line graph and histogram display the radiocarbon age of charcoal. The x-axis represents the calibrated date in calAD units, and the y-axis represents the radiocarbon determination in BP units. The line graph shows the radiocarbon determination with a 95.4 percent probability range, and the histogram shows the calibrated date distribution.

The archaeological chronology of this abbey points to the 11th/12th century AD, indicating a broad agreement of the obtained 14C chronology of mortar.

Discussion

The calibrated radiocarbon ages of the charcoal sample date the lowest “step”—the oldest part of the stone platform—to the period 1015–1049 AD (Figure 3C). This result makes it possible to initially associate its construction with the development of the hill for the construction of the oldest monastery buildings; the archaeological and architectural research conducted so far allowed only to determine the time of its creation in a broad framework between the 11th–12th and 17th–18th centuries. The combined age of the fast component of the mortar from the stone tomb results in 1034–1229 AD, confirming the relative chronology of the grave and archaeological expectation based on the dating of the funerary equipment. The wide range of calendar ages is partly due to the low precision of the mortar RA and partly due to the nature of the calibration curve between 1050 and 1200 AD (Figure 3B). The radiocarbon age of charcoal is only slightly older than the 1st fraction of mortar (Figure 3C and 4). The “wiggle” on the calibration curve also impacts the calibration of the charcoal age, despite the precision of the measurement (Figure 4). Nevertheless, this study adds information about the reliability of using the 1st, i.e., the fastest dissolving fraction.

Figure 4.

Calibrated radiocarbon ages of combined date (ETH-129548) from the first fraction of two separate sequential dissolutions in 3-s intervals of the same mortar sample and radiocarbon age of charcoal (MKL-A5119), in a table (A) and on the calibration curve (B).

Two graphs display calibrated radiocarbon ages of mortar and charcoal samples.

The construction chronology of the Tyniec monastic complex is often obscured by extensive transformations and unrecorded conservation, which have disrupted the integrity of the architectural stratigraphy. To address this, the radiocarbon dating of mortars serves as a key diagnostic parameter for establishing a robust temporal framework, thereby enabling a more precise interpretation of the site’s architectural history.

Conclusions

Radiocarbon dating of the mortar provides the potential to date archeological and historic buildings. This is particularly important in cases where there are no historical data on the examined objects (e.g., records in chronicles have been destroyed) and surrounding archaeological layers have been disturbed in later periods (e.g., mixing of deposits during various construction activities) or were completely removed (e.g., because of land leveling).

Mortar and charcoal dating were the first analytical methods used in the construction. Due to the platform’s unexpected (very early) nature, dating to the 11th–12th century, additional analysis of samples taken from other parts of the building is necessary to confirm this finding. In the light of the presented data, the chronology of development of Tyniec Hill still needs further investigation.

Acknowledgments

The research was financed by the National Science Centre, Poland grant no. 2023/49/B/HS3/02914.

References

Alexandrowicz, S (1955) Uwagi o genezie przełomu Wisły pod Tyńcem (Remarks on the genesis of the Vistula turn around Tyniec). Materiały do geologii obszaru śląsko-krakowskiego, Biuletyn 97, Warszawa, 271–295. In Polish.Google Scholar
Barrett, GT, Keaveney, E, Lindroos, A, Donnelly, C, Daugbjerg, TS, Ringbom, Å, Olse, J and Reimer, PJ (2021) Ramped pyroxidation: A new approach for radiocarbon dating of lime mortars. Journal of Archaeological Science 129, 105366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, MS and Walton, A (1970). Radiocarbon dating of mortars. Nature 225(5236), 937–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronk Ramsey, C (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C (2021) OxCal v. 4.4. 4 [software]. URL: https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal.html.Google Scholar
Caroselli, M, Hajdas, I and Cassitti, P (2020) Radiocarbon dating of dolomitic mortars from the convent Saint John, Müstair (Switzerland): First results. Radiocarbon 62, 601–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherkinsky, A, Culp, RA, Dvoracek, DK and Noakes, JE (2010) Status of the AMS facility at the University of Georgia. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8), 867–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugbjerg, TS, Lindroos, A, Hajdas, I, Ringbom, Å and Olsen, J (2021a) Comparison of thermal decomposition and sequential dissolution—two sample preparation methods for radiocarbon dating of lime mortars. Radiocarbon 63(2), 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugbjerg, TS, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Barrett, G, Michalska, D, Hajdas, I, Raja, R and Olsen, J (2021b) A field guide to mortar sampling for radiocarbon dating. Archaeometry 63(5), 1121–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwich, M (1995) Rola Tyńca w rozwoju monastycyzmu benedyktyńskiego w Polsce (The role of Tyniec in development of benedictinian monasticism in Poland). In Żurowska, K (ed), Benedyktyni Tynieccy w Średniowieczu. Materiały z sesji naukowej. Wawel-Tyniec 13-15 października 1994. Kraków-Tyniec, 99–120. In Polish.Google Scholar
Długosz, J (2009) Jana Długosza Roczniki czyli Kroniki sławnego Królestwa Polskiego (HP) (Jan Długosz Annals, or Chronicles of the Famous Kingdom of Poland). Publisher: PWN, Warszawa. In Polish.Google Scholar
Długosz, J (1864) Liber beneficiorum dioecensis cracoviensis (LB) (Book of benefices of the diocese of Cracow), vol. III. In Przeździecki, A (ed), Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiego dzieła wszystkie. Vol. IX, Czas. Kraków. In Polish.Google Scholar
Folk, RL and Valastro, S (1976) Successful technique for dating of lime mortar by carbon-14. Journal of Field Archaeology 3(2), 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Głazek, J, Pacholewski, A and Rózkowski, A (1992) Karst aquifer of the Cracow-Wieluñ Upland, Poland. In Back, W, Herman, JS and Paloc, H (eds), Hydrogeology of selected karst region. International Contributions to Hydrogeology 13, 289–306.Google Scholar
Gradziński, R (1972) Przewodnik geologiczny po okolicach Krakowa (Geological guide on the surroundings of Cracow). Wydawnictwa Geologiczne. Warszawa. In Polish.Google Scholar
Gieysztor, A (1995) Pierwsi benedyktyni w Polsce Piastowskiej (First Benedictines in Piast Poland). In Żurowska, K (ed), Benedyktyni Tynieccy w Średniowieczu. Materiały z sesji naukowej. Wawel-Tyniec 13–15 października 1994. Kraków-Tyniec, 9–21. In Polish.Google Scholar
Graczyńska, M and Kamińska, M (2014) Architektura monastyczna w Polsce do końca XI w. Nowe spojrzenie (Monastic architecture in Poland until the end of 11th cent. New look.). In Janiak, T and Stryniak, D (eds), Średniowieczna architektura sakralna w Polsce w świetle najnowszych badań. Gniezno, 47–66. In Polish.Google Scholar
Hajdas, I, Lindroos, A. Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, A, Marzaioli, F, Terrasi, F, Passariello, I, Capano, M, Artioli, G, Addis, A, Secco, M, Michalska, D, Czernik, J, Goslar, T, Hayen, R, Van Strydonck, M, Fontaine, L, Boudin, M, Maspero, F, Panzeri, L, Galli, A, Urbanová, P and Guibert, P (2017) Preparation and dating of mortar samples. Mortar Dating Inter-Comparison Study (MODIS). Radiocarbon 59(6), 1845–1858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Maurer, M, Röttig, MB (2020) Development of 14C dating of mortars at ETH Zurich. Radiocarbon 62(3), 591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayen, R, Van Strydonck, M, Fontaine, L, Boudin, M, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, Å, Michalska, D, Hajdas, I, Hueglin, S, Marzaioli, F, Terrasi, F, Passariello, I, Capano, M, Artioli, G, Addis, A, Secco, M, Maspero, F, Laura Panzeri, L, Galli, A, Guibert, P, Urbanová, P, Czernik, J, Goslar, T and Caroselli, M (2017) Mortar dating methodology: Assessing recurrent issues and needs for further research. Radiocarbon 59(6), 1859–1871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalinowski, L (1971a) Badania architektoniczno – wykopaliskowe w Tyńcu, 1961–1965 (Architectural and excavation research in Tyniec, 1961–1965). Folia Historiae Artium (FHA), vol. VI/VII, 5–14. In Polish.Google Scholar
Kalinowski, L (1971b) Przedmioty liturgiczne znalezione w grobach pierwszych opatów tynieckich (Liturgical objects found in tombs of the first abbots from Tyniec). FHA, vol. VI/VII, 205–214. In Polish.Google Scholar
Kalinowski, L (1971c) Zabytki rzeźby romańskiej w opactwie tynieckim (Monuments of Romanesque sculpture in Tyniec Abbey). FHA, vol. VI/VII, 137–171. In Polish.Google Scholar
Kamińska, M (2014) Aktualny stan badań i nowe koncepcje interpretacyjne romańskiego Tyńca (Current state of research and new interpretations of Romanesque Tyniec). In Małecki, J (ed), Kraków romański, Materiały z sesji naukowej odbytej 13 kwietnia 2013 roku. Kraków, 137–168. In Polish.Google Scholar
Kopera, F (1908) Materiały do inwentaryzacji zabytków sztuki i kultury w Polsce (Material for inventarisation of artistic and historic monuments in Poland). Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne 18, 633–636. In Polish.Google Scholar
Krajewski, M, Olchowy, P, Rudzinski, D (2018) Sedimentary successions in the Middle-Upper Oxfordian reef deposits from the southern part of the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland (Southern Poland) . Geological Quarterly 62(3), 653–668.Google Scholar
Krąpiec, M, Rakowski, AZ, Huels, M, Wiktorowski, D and Hamann, C (2018) A new graphitization system for radiocarbon dating with AMS on the dendrochronological laboratory at AGH-UST Kraków. Radiocarbon 60(4), 1091–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwiatkowska-Baster, B and Baster, Z (1994) Tyniec u progu tysiąclecia (Tyniec at the threshold of the millennium). Kraków. In Polish.Google Scholar
Labeyrie, J and Delibrias, G (1964) Dating of old mortars by carbon-14 method. Nature 201(492), 742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labuda, G (1986) Z dyskusji nad początkami klasztoru benedyktyńskiego w Tyńcu: fundatorzy i pierwsi opaci (From the discussion on the beginings of the Benedictine Monastery in Tyniec: fundators and first abbots). In Gadomski, J (ed), Symbolae historiae atrium. Studia z historii sztuki Lechowi Kalinowskiemu dedykowane. Warszawa, 93–109. In Polish.Google Scholar
Labuda, G (1995) Kto i kiedy ufundował klasztor w Tyńcu (Who and when funded the monastery in Tyniec). In Żurowska, K (ed), Benedyktyni Tynieccy w Średniowieczu. Materiały z sesji naukowej. Wawel-Tyniec 13-15 października 1994. Kraków-Tyniec, 23–40. In Polish.Google Scholar
Leńczyk, G (1952) Sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych w Tyńcu, pow. Kraków w r. 1950 (Report from the ezcavations in Tyniec, Cracow in 1950). Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń PAU, I–XII 1951. Kraków, 53–56. In Polish.Google Scholar
Leńczyk, G (1955) Badania wykopaliskowe w Tyńcu w latach 1948–1951 (Excavations in Tyniec in 1948–1951). Studia wczesnośredniowieczne, vol. III, 260–270. In Polish.Google Scholar
Leńczyk, G (1956) Wyniki dotychczasowych badań w Tyńcu, pow. Kraków (Results of previous research in Tyniec). Materiały Starożytne I. In Polish.Google Scholar
Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, Heinemeier, J and Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á (2007) Mortar dating using AMS 14C and sequential dissolution: examples from Medieval, non-hydraulic lime mortars from the Åland Islands, SW Finland. Radiocarbon 49(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, Heinemeier, J, Hodgins, G, Sonck-Koota, P, Sjöberg, P, Lancaster, L, Kaisti, R, Brock, F, Ranta, H, Caroselli, M and Lugli, S (2018) Radiocarbon dating historical mortars: Lime lumps and/or binder carbonate? Radiocarbon 60(3), 875–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łuszczkiewicz, W (1875) Ilustrowany przewodnik po Krakowie i jego okolicach (Illustrated guidebook of Cracow and its surroundings). Kraków. In Polish.Google Scholar
Łyczak, M, Bojęś-Białasik, A and Kamińska, M (2024) Opactwo benedyktynów w Tyńcu w świetle ostatnich badań archeologiczno-architektonicznych (The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec in the light of recent archaeological and architectural research). In Rodzińska-Chorąży, T (ed), Architektura średniowieczna i archeologia – konteksty (Medieval architecture and archaeology – contexts), VII Kongres Mediewistów Polskich 2, Wrocław, 167–184. In Polish.Google Scholar
Marzaioli, F, Lubritto, C, Nonni, S, Passariello, I, Capano, M and Terrasi, F (2011) Mortar radiocarbon dating: preliminary accuracy evaluation of a novel methodology. Analytical Chemistry 83, 2038–2045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matyszkiewicz, J (2008) The Cracow-Czestochowa Upland (Southern Poland) - The Land of White Cliffs and Caves. Przeglad Geologiczny 56(8/1), 647–652.Google Scholar
Michalska, D, Czernik, J and Goslar, T (2017). Methodological aspect of mortars dating (Poznań, Poland, MODIS) , Radiocarbon 59(6), 1891–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalska, D and Mrozek-Wysocka, M (2020) Radiocarbon dating of mortars and charcoals from Novae Bath complex: Sequential dissolution of historical and experimental mortar samples with pozzolanic admixture. Radiocarbon 62(3), 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michałowski, R (1989) Princeps fundator. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w Polsce X-XIII wieku (Princeps fundator. Study of the history of political culture in Poland of 10th–13th century). Warszawa, 89–97. In Polish.Google Scholar
Nawrocka, D, Czernik, J and Goslar, T (2009) 14C dating of carbonate mortars from Polish and Israeli sites. Radiocarbon 51(2), 857–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oszczypko, N, Krzywiec, P and Popadyuk, I (2006). Carpathian Foredeep Basin (Poland and Ukraine), Its sedimentary, structural, and geodynamic evolution. In Golonka, J and Picha, FJ (eds), The Carpathians and Their Foreland: Geology and Hydrocarbon Resources 84, 293–350.Google Scholar
Piątkiewicz-Dereniowa, M (1971) Płytki posadzkowe z opactwa benedyktynów w Tyńcu (Floor tiles from Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec). FHA, vol. VI/VII, 239–263. In Polish.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Austin, WEN, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Butzin, M, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, et al. (2020) The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62(4), 725–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringbom, Å, Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J and Sonck-Koota, P (2014) 19 years of mortar dating: Learning from experience. Radiocarbon 56(2), 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanjurjo-Sánchez, J, Trindade, MJ, Blanco-Rotea, R, Benavides Garcia, R, Fernández Mosquera, D, Burbidge, C, Prudêncio, MI and Dias, MI (2010) Chemical and mineralogical characterization of historic mortars from the Santa Eulalia de Bóveda temple, NW Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(9), 2346–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sczaniecki, P (1978) Katalog opatów tynieckich (Catalogue of Tyniec abbots). Nasza Przeszłość 49, 5–244. In Polish.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sczaniecki, P (1995) Odgadywanie początków (Discovering of the beginnings). In Żurowska, K (ed), Benedyktyni Tynieccy w Średniowieczu. Materiały z sesji naukowej. Wawel-Tyniec 13-15 października 1994. Kraków-Tyniec, 41–46. In Polish.Google Scholar
Sczaniecki, P (2008) Tyniec. Tyniec-Kraków. In Polish.Google Scholar
Skuta, I, Antonkiewicz, J, Guzik, K and Kołodziej, B (2024) Possibilities of utilizing jurassic limestones and waste raw materials generated during their processing – a case study from Central Poland. Acta Sci. Pol., Formatio Circumiectus 23(4), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonninen, E and Jungner, H (2001) An improvement in preparation of mortar for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 43(2A), 271–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Smith, C, Chatters, R and Olson, E (1965) Radiocarbon dating of ancient mortar and plaster. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Radiocarbon and Tritium Dating. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Commerce, 338–341.Google Scholar
Szczygielski, S (1668) Tinecia seu historia monasterii tinecensis (Tinecia, or the history of the Tyniec Monastery). Cracoviae. In Latin.Google Scholar
Szyszko-Bohusz, A (1947) Opactwo tynieckie (Tyniec Abbey). Tygodnik Powszechny II, no. 16 (109), 6–7. In Polish.Google Scholar
Tomkowicz, S (1901) Tyniec. Biblioteka Krakowska 18. Towarzystwo Miłośników Historyi i Zabytków Krakowa. Kraków. In Polish.Google Scholar
Woźniak, Z, Zoll-Adamikowa, H (1971) Uwagi o topografii i stratygrafii wzgórza klasztornego w Tyńcu (Remarks on topography and stratygraphy of the monastery hill in Tyniec). FHA, vol. VI/VII, 15–47. In Polish.Google Scholar
Zoll-Adamikowa, H (1966) Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzyska szkieletowe Małopolski, cz. I (Early medieval cemeteries of Lesser Poland, part 1). Wrocław. In Polish.Google Scholar
Zoll-Adamikowa, H (1977) Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzyska szkieletowe Małopolski, cz. II (Early medieval cemeteries of Lesser Poland, part 2). Wrocław. In Polish.Google Scholar
Żurowska, K (1971) Romański kościół opactwa benedyktynów w Tyńcu (Romanesque church at the Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec). FHA, vol. VI/VII, 49–113. In Polish.Google Scholar
Żurowska, K (1974) Dwa zagadkowe groby romańskie w Tyńcu (Two mysterious Romanesque tombs in Tyniec). Z otchłani wieków, XL, no. 1: 157–160. In Polish.Google Scholar
Żurowska, K (1986) Romańskie detale architektoniczne i fragmenty rzeźb odnalezione w Tyńcu w latach 1970–1980 (Romanesque architectural details and sculpture fragments found in Tyniec in 1970–1980). In Gadomski, J (ed), Symbolae historiae atrium. Studia z historii sztuki Lechowi Kalinowskiemu dedykowane. Warszawa, 111–119. In Polish.Google Scholar
Żurowska, K (1995) Romański kościół i klasztor benedyktynów w Tyńcu na tle architektury piastowskiej XI wieku (Romanesque church and Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec in the context of Piast architecture on 11th century). In Żurowska, K (ed), Benedyktyni Tynieccy w Średniowieczu. Materiały z sesji naukowej. Wawel-Tyniec 13–15 października 1994. Kraków-Tyniec, 185–198. In Polish.Google Scholar
Żurowska, K (2007) Kraków, Tyniec i benedyktyni (Cracow, Tyniec and the Benedictines). In Bałus, W, Walanus, M and Walczak, M (eds), Artifex doctus. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Jerzemu Gadomskiemu w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin. Kraków, 229–234. In Polish.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec: A) map of Poland and the location of the Kraków/Tyniec; B) monastery in aerial view (photo Paweł Krzan).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Location of mortar. and charcoal samples analyzed in this study: A), B) earth embankment and stepped stone platform strengthening the edge of the hill. with a location of dated charcoal sample T2/2020 (photo M. and J. Łyczak 2020); C) interior of tomb no. 15, where the dated mortar sample TKS15 was collected (photo M. Kamińska 2022).

Figure 2

Table 1. Results of the 14C AMS analysis of mortar samples.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Figure 3 long description.A) Results of radiocarbon dating of two independent sequential dissolution (SD) of sample TKS15 (ETH-129548). Each SD has results of radiocarbon dating of 5 fractions (TKS15_A and TKS15_B). The first fraction was the collection of CO2 within the first 3 s and the consecutive fractions were collected in 3-s intervals. The x-axis shows dissolution fractions: 1st fraction: 1–3 s; 2nd fraction: 4–6 s; 3rd fraction: 7–9 s; 4th fraction: 10–12 s. The 5th fraction is CO2 collected after the rest of the sample dissolved entirely. The first red and blue fractions are superimposed. B), C) Combined (weighted mean) radiocarbon age of the first fraction from two separate preparations B), and the radiocarbon age of charcoal C), calibrated using OxCal 4.4.4 and INTCAL20 data set (Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2020).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Calibrated radiocarbon ages of combined date (ETH-129548) from the first fraction of two separate sequential dissolutions in 3-s intervals of the same mortar sample and radiocarbon age of charcoal (MKL-A5119), in a table (A) and on the calibration curve (B).