Horyniec-Zdrój · Brusno stone

V3 · Sonnet

Stare Brusno · Horyniec-Zdrój · Miocene limestone

Chisel marks need raking light

The same model surface in two frames, at the same exposure. Frame A: high light. Frame B: light that you set. The name of a technique appears beside a frame only when the mark can be told apart from the colour of the stone.

Four micro-reliefs (model)

Parallel grooves in bands. Light running across the grooves gives a repeating transverse shadow; light running along them barely shows them.

Without scripts you see only a description of the frames. The model has four samples (parallel grooves, conical pits, relief folds, wedge cuts); comparing them requires JavaScript to be enabled.

Comparison of two frames of the same surface

Surface Parallel grooves — the same points of the stone in both frames, the same exposure.

Frame A, high light (75° above the plane): the gradzina grooves are almost invisible and the surface looks smooth.

Model · not a photograph

Frame A · reference

75° above the plane · from the top (0°)

Computing the model…

Technique: unnamed

Frame B, low light (15° above the plane) across the grooves: each groove casts a shadow, the mark is clear and the technique can be named with caution: gradzina.

Model · not a photograph

Frame B · you set it

15° above the plane · from the left (290°)

Computing the model…

Technique: gradzina

Light in frame B
290°
15°

What the frames show

Frame B: mark clear

Light falls across the grooves (2° off the best direction).

Diagram of the shadow cast by an edge An edge of constant height casts a shadow on a flat surface. At the default settings the shadow of light B is 3.7 times the height of the edge in length, and the shadow of high light A is 0.1 times that height.
Geometry diagram, not the profile of a particular stone. An edge of height 1 casts a shadow of length cos δ ÷ tan(elevation), where δ is the deviation from the direction across the mark. Proportions are conventional.
  • light B (shadow on the ground)
  • light A (shadow below the ground)

Limits of inference

What can be inferred from a single mark

Many craftsmen worked the same limestone and the same repertoire of motifs. That is why, for a single mark, four questions get four different answers. The first depends on the frame you set above.

  1. What technique was used to work the surface?

    Hypothesis worth considering

    With the default settings (frame B) the gradzina mark is clear: the technique and the stage of work may be named with caution. It is a hypothesis drawn from the shape of the mark; it does not point to a hand or a year.

  2. In what order was the work done?

    Only where marks cross

    Where one mark crosses another (e.g. relief running over earlier bands of gradzina), the stages can be put in order. From a single regular band of marks they cannot. A statement from an earlier version of the page; to be checked in the literature.

  3. Who made it?

    Not from the mark alone

    Many craftsmen used the same raw material and a recurring repertoire of motifs (e.g. a cross with two Marys). Without a signature or a document, a similarity of marks does not point to a name.

  4. When was it made?

    Not from the mark alone

    Dressing with the gradzina and splitting with the point chisel (szpicak) were used for centuries (according to the earlier version: from the early modern period to the first third of the 20th century; to be checked in the source). A year requires a legible inscription or a document.

Model assumptions

  • Directions. Azimuth 0–355° in 5° steps is measured from the top of the frame clockwise and denotes the side the light comes from. Elevation 10–80° in 5° steps; 0° and 90° are omitted as limiting cases.
  • Shading. Brightness depends on the tilt of the face relative to the light, plus a constant ambient light (22%). No cast shadows, reflections, moisture or lichen.
  • Heights. Relative, with a vertical exaggeration of ×3 chosen for legibility. This is not a measurement of the depth of a mark on any stone.
  • Legibility measure. Spread of brightness within the mark ÷ brightness of a smooth plane ÷ variation in the colour of the stone (in the model c. 7%). Without a unit and without a % sign, because it is not a probability. The thresholds 1 and 2.5 were chosen by the author of the page; they do not come from research. A low value means “we cannot tell it apart in this frame”, not “there is no mark”.
  • Exposure. Constant in both frames, so low light is darker, as with real lighting.
  • Samples. Generated by a procedure, not scans or photographs. The marks in the cuts sample are test strokes, not an inscription or a date.

Context

Material, hand, memory

Three statements about the same cemetery in Stare Brusno. The content is carried over from an earlier version of the page together with its links; it has not been re-checked against the sources.

Material

First there was the rock.

Local stonemasons used Miocene limestones. Their composition is linked to an ancient marine environment; the Geoheritage article describes, among other things, the remains of the organisms that built the rock. The ease of extraction and working helped the local craft to develop.

Geology: Brzezińska-Wójcik and Skowronek, 2020, pp. 4–5 (page numbers from the previous version)

Craft

Then came the hand.

The centre began with utilitarian goods: millstones and quernstones, building stone and lime. The Kresy Museum dates the beginnings of quarrying to the 15th–16th century and confirms artistic work already in the 17th century. The peak of development fell in the second half of the 19th century and the first third of the 20th. A popular “figure” was the cross with a bas-relief of the Crucified and two Marys at its foot.

Craft: Janusz Mazur, Kresy Museum in Lubaczów

Memory

In the end, memory remains.

Craftsmen from Brusno made gravestones for the various communities and faiths of the region. Stare Brusno ceased to exist after the wartime destruction of the village in 1945 and the post-war resettlements, including Operation Vistula (Akcja „Wisła”) in 1947. The cemetery is a reminder of the people who lived and worked here; the stones are not merely examples of style.

If the letters are indistinct, leave the reading open and do not fill it in with a guess.

Context: Kresy Museum; fate of the village: Geoheritage, 2020, p. 5

Horyniec-Zdrój as a point of reference

In the Geoheritage inventory (2020) the Brusno centre comprises 25 sites: from former quarries to the cemeteries and chapels of the region. According to the earlier version of the page, sites 13 and 24 are the limestone gravestones and the Poniński chapel at the cemetery in Horyniec-Zdrój. This makes it possible to set a rough village cross beside an element of spa architecture.

To be checked: the figure of 25 and the numbering of sites 13 and 24 (carried over from the previous version).

What we do not link here

We treat the spa resources of Horyniec-Zdrój separately. This page does not assume a common geological origin for this stone and the local waters; what links them is the region, not a proven connection.

Photograph (link) The photograph of the crosses in Stare Brusno from Wikimedia Commons is not embedded here: the page works offline and does not download images. Open the file on Wikimedia Commons (Henryk Bielamowicz, 2019, CC BY 3.0). Frames A and B above are a model, not this photograph.

Sources and changes

Sources, verification status and changes since V2

  • Tangible Heritage of the Historical Stonework Centre in Brusno Stare
    T. Brzezińska-Wójcik, E. Skowronek, Geoheritage 2020. The basis for the Miocene geology, the history of the centre and the inventory of 25 sites; CC BY 4.0 licence according to the previous version.
    Geoheritage documentation (PDF)
    Link kept from V2; not opened or checked in this session.
  • Rzeźba Matki Bożej [Sculpture of the Mother of God] — study by Janusz Mazur
    Kresy Museum in Lubaczów. Craft context: from farm and household tools (15th–16th c.) to figural sculpture (17th–20th c.).
    muzeumkresow.eu
    Link kept from V2; not opened or checked in this session.
  • Photograph: Stare Brusno, cemetery (HB2)
    Henryk Bielamowicz, 2019, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0. Link only, image not embedded.
    File page
    Licence status not verified in this session.
  • Design inspirations (not sources of facts)
    Rijksmuseum, Closer to Johannes Vermeer: one object matters more than the setting. Otto Storch as described by Smashing Magazine, Inspired Design Decisions: captions in quiet margins. Nothing was copied.

What changed since V2

  1. The contrast measurement in percent was replaced by a measure of mark legibility relative to the colour of the stone, without a % sign.
  2. The hypothesis checker (choice of a feature and a hypothesis, then a verdict) was replaced by a table of the limits of inference. Author and year always ended in the answer “no”, so the choice taught nothing; the technique depends on the frame.
  3. The face-geometry calculator (compass direction × direction × height) was replaced by an elevation slider and an edge diagram. Compass directions were not kept: without ephemerides and without a specific face they meant nothing.
  4. The field log of observations (saved in the browser) was removed. The page saves nothing; notes about the cemetery are better made away from the page.
  5. Three switchable lenses with hints are now three parallel paragraphs. The tasks for the photograph disappeared together with the embedded photograph.
  6. The digits in the letter sample were replaced by test marks, so that the model does not pretend to be a date or an inscription.

Kept: the shading model, the four samples, 5° steps and the elevation range of 10–80°, quick presets, the conclusions on maker and date, the rule of respect and the source links.