|
|
|
| Lithuania. Castles. Hillforts |
|
HILL-FORTS OF LITHUANIA: AN ASPECT OF INVESTIGATIONS
Summary Basing on the material collected from all hill-forts investigated until 2000 inclusive in the territory of the present Lithuania, some problems of their research are being analyzed in the article. If not properly tackled, these problems may affect knowledge on hill-forts. The first problem is the very definition of hill-fort. Till now, rather different archaeological objects were called hill-forts. Judging only from their current appearance, almost in all cases deformed under later impact of people and natural forces, it is impossible to define them. Any hill-fort as a separate type of archaeological values may be defined only having applied elements of reconstruction on a primary level of hill-fort relief. Hill-forts are derivatives of relief with outer earthwork fortifications and traces of old human activities. According to such a definition, hill-forts may be distinguished from military fortifications of New times, fortified manor sites or simple piles of earth, as well as fortified settlements. The most difficult is to identify hill-forts – hiding places, as the latter are least investigated. According to the data of 2000, 993 hill-forts are known in Lithuania, however, due to absence of clear differences between hill-forts themselves and their components, in fact they make a smaller figure. As no new data on hill-forts are available, we made use of data from the traditional lists. Accordingly, in the period from 1886 to 2000, 152 hill-forts were investigated in Lithuania (Table 1, Fig. 1). Investigations are considered to be any documented excavations of an area not smaller than 1 m2. Investigations of a hill-fort are considered to be excavations of the area and defensive ramparts (including slopes). In all investigated hill-forts the total area makes 3,7 ha investigated (on average 244 m2 per hill-fort), however, almost 80 % of investigations were carried out on areas of hill-forts (Fig. 2). Their were investigated at a rate of 6% of total area only. Two of them were investigated fully, namely the areas of the Kereliai and Vaitekūnai hill-forts. The investigated area of defensive ramparts in the hill-forts per hill-fort is even smaller and reaches on the average only 112 m2 (the ramparts being investigated in each other hill-fort). Therefore, basing on the accumulated data, we may speak only about a reliable idea of hill-fort area. Usually the hill-fort is the main part of a bigger complex of archaeological monuments, which consists of a foot settlement, a cemetery and a holy site, mostly unknown. Investigations of foot settlements and cemeteries allocated to the hill-fort may remarkably extend the idea about the hill-fort itself, however, only few of the former were investigated at large. Most data were received from investigations at the Kernavė complex. There was fully investigated a farmstead from the 14th century occupying the area of about 1000 m2 what allows at least approximately to evaluate density of development of settlements not yet investigated. It seems that settlements were denser developed in previous epochs. The material from cemeteries is not sufficient to evaluate populations of human communities, which had abandoned hill-fort complexes. How to speak about the structure of then society, basing on investigated complexes of a hill-fort and a settlement or a cemetery, when even elementary data are lacking. Interpretation on the excavated material from hill-forts, even if this material was published, is often rather problematic. Converting the material investigated mostly by paleoosteological aspect per one eaten animal (Table 2), we get that one animal had all in all 4–25 bones and was eaten each 3–6 years what is an obvious nonsense. These simple calculations show that, considering the present level of investigation rate of hill-forts, we may speak only about the most common tendencies in their dynamics. Leaving such conclusions aside, we must declare that the mosaic method in studies on hill-forts where a desirable picture is received by combining various details from different hill-forts, has already exhausted its possibilities. A new, more individual and more realistic picture of the hill-fort should disclose, first of all, its authentic structure, what may be achieved only after large investigations. This structure should be dynamic, based on a range of different variables, from choice of a place for a hill-fort up to its present view.
LITHUANIAN WOODEN CASTLES BY DATA OF WRITTEN SOURCES Tomas Baranauskas
The castles of Lithuania played an important role in the epoch of battles with the crusaders and contributed to consolidation and upholding of Lithuania’s statehood, as well as served as important defensive and administrative centers. Lithuania was a country of wooden castles. Stone castles appeared here in the 14th century, as an exception proving the rule. How wooden castles looked like, little is known, therefore, analogies with other countries may be useful. The castles standing in Ruthenia, Lithuania and territory of other Balts formed a castle region connected by close ties and many common traits. The castles of Lithuania experienced Ruthenian influence and brought their own influence on Ruthenian castles. The Lithuanian word “dailidė” (carpenter) even entered the Ruthenian language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as well as the present Belarusian language. Some facts speak about influence of Lithuanian castles on Russian castles (In the middle of the 15th century in the Duchy of Tver an island castle was built named Troki; the Lithuanians were mentioned as taking part at construction of Siberian castles in the 17th century). The written sources of the 13–15th centuries mention 71 castle or castle site in the territory of ethnic Lithuania of that time. 64 castles were wooden (See Annex). However, they made only a part of the whole castle network. The Act on Division of South Curonia listed 82 castles, from which about 60 were located in the small area of the present territory of Lithuania, but they were not Lithuanian castles in a sense of those times. Not all castles mentioned in sources may be easily localized nowadays. The place and even names of some of them may be established only hypothetically. The Article proposes new locations for some unclear castles. All castles mentioned in sources are mapped (Fig. 1). The castle Xedeyctain, which was attacked in Samogitia in 1329, may be related by march route to Šiauduva – a Samogitian district center. The name of the castle Sisditen/Sirditen mentioned in the Medininkai countryside in 1314 should be corrected as Siraiten and the castle itself should be related to the Šiuraičiai hill-fort on the edge of the Medininkai district. The Pilėnai castle, which was heroically defended in 1336, is localizable in the Pilės hill-fort near Kaltinėnai. This hill-fort dominated by its size in the region defended by Duke Margiris, who died in battle in the Pilėnai castle. Jean de Preïs in his description of the march of 1329 mentioned the castles of Galidaine and Ycoine, which should be identified as the castles of Gediminas and Aukaimis mentioned in another description of the same march. The Bebirvaitė castle burnt by the crusaders in 1308 in Karšuva ought to be near the Bebirvytis stream (the affluent of the Bebirva River) in the environs of Šimkaičiai. Nevertheless, no hill-fort is known presently in that locality. The Skronaitė castle, committed to flames at the same time, most likely stood on the Eržvilkas hill-fort. The castles attacked in 1348 in the Šiauliai land cannot be easily localized, in particular that of Businne. Instead of the latter name, the name Bulinė is proposed associating it with a similar microtoponym from the present town of Šiauliai. This castle may be also localized in the hill-fort of Šiauliai by the march route of 1348 (The castle was standing between Kuliai and Dubysa). During the same march attacked castle’s name was Ceila or Zela, most likely twisted designations for the land center – Šiauliai. However, it ought to be related not to the present town of Šiauliai which in the 13th century was on the border of Samogitian and Semigalian tribes, but to Šiaulėnai and to the neighboring Kudinai hill-fort called as the Šiaulė hill. In the land of Šiauliai one should search for the Tvirimantas castle once belonging to Vykintas, the Samogitian duke of the13th century. In historiography this castle was associated with the Tverai locality. However, the castle name should be related to the personal name Tvirimantas, which left no traces in the present toponymy. Vykintas is associated with the land of Šiauliai (He took the lead of the Šiauliai battle in 1236). The most suitable hill-fort for the Tvirimantas castle might be the Kubiliai hill-fort in midcourse of the Dubysa River, nevertheless, no proving data are available. The Medraba castle burnt by the crusaders in the lower reaches of the Nemunas River in 1291 should have been not far from Veliuona. In 1422 here was mentioned the Medinai or Rusteikiai hill (Medyny alias Rusteyki), which can be associated with this castle and with the Žuklijai hill-fort on the left bank of the Nemunas River, opposite the Rūstekonys village. The Kolainiai castle with the elder Surminas, assaulted at the Nemunas River in 1290, is associated with the present town of Jurbarkas. Such localization is seconded by mention of the Surminas hill-fort in Jurbarkas in 1411. Assaults on castles of Aukshtaitija were carried out later, mostly after destroy of castles in the lower reaches of the Nemunas River (below Kaunas). The place of the Visvaldė castle (mentioned since 1385) standing in the lower reaches of the Nemunas River is not quite clear in historiography, but, following descriptions of the crusaders’ ways, should be related to the Karmėlava hill-fort. This is the same castle without any name mentioned by Jogaila in the Privilege of 1387 as a “new castle at the Neris River opposite Šatijai”. The Sunerpil or Simmerpil castle destroyed in 1381 in the Trakai Duchy should be associated with Semeliškės (Semelpilis). It was never rebuilt. The most important castles of Aukshtaitija were mentioned in the ”List of Ruthenian Castles” (Merkinė, Kernavė, Kaunas, Vilkmergė, Maišiagala, Vilnius, Old Trakai, New Trakai Peninsular and Island castles, Medininkai, Galšia, Lyda, Punia, Perloja and Rodūnia). Misleading is a tendency in Russian historiography to date unreasonably this source to 1387–1392 (M. Tichonov) or even earlier, to 1375–1381 (V. Janin). Dating by archaic elements, one should also rate conditions of the Middle Ages where a synchronous list of castles of the whole East Europe was unthinkable. In fact, the castles mentioned in this list reflect the situation formed at the end of Vytautas’ ruling, most likely about 1421–1425. Information about the Trakai castles and dating given in other annexes to the chronicle of Naugardas I of new edition (“List of Ruthenian Castles” being the only annex dated to the earlier period) proves it. Most disputes in historiography rose on Mindaugas’ castle Voruta mentioned in 1251, which was unreasonably regarded by many researchers as the capital of Mindaugas. The most recent researches allow to consider the Šeimyniškėliai hill-fort, called as the Varutė hill, the most plausible site for the Voruta castle. Not far away from this place on the Palatavis hill-fort at the Latava stream there was a Latava manor belonging to Mindaugas and associated with the crowning of Mindaugas in 1253 (in Lettowia, in curia nostra). This manor was regarded as a castle as well what was evidenced by mention of the Latava hill-fort (borchval, nomine Lettow) at the end of the 14th century. All sources of the 13–15th centuries taken together enable to reconstruct some picture of a wooden castle. Wooden castles usually were built very quickly, sometimes even in a week, so they ought not to be rather complex structures. Defenders defended the castle standing on its walls, by lances, swords, pickets etc. Often walls suffused with blood. It shows that defensive galleries of the Middle Ages were mostly open, while in later wooden castles the defense went on only through shooting holes. In the course of battles with the crusaders the structure of wooden castles improved with time, drop-log construction of walls (Fig. 2) disappeared and castles fitted for active defense. Some sectors of castle were more fortified. When in 1336 the crusaders invaded the Pilėnai castle, they had to fight more than an hour with Duke Margiris who defended in such a sector. This sector is known to have a basement-hideout. The castle usually was linked with the remaining part of the defensive complex by bridge. It is doubtful whether the Lithuanian castles had drawbridges. Bridges were usually not hoisted but dropped into a castle ditch. Sometimes bridges were defended not to let the enemy destroy them. All depended on the strategic position of the bridge, on the ratio of attacking and defending forces, the strength of castle and other circumstances. If sallies from the castle were planned, then the bridge ought to be saved. In the 14–15th centuries drawbridges were mentioned only in the southern lands of the GDL (Lutsk, Kamenets) where Poland exerted its influence. In the lower reaches of the Nemunas River at the castles sometimes peculiar bridges-foreworks were installed. They were fortified by towers (propugnacula) and hindered the crusaders from sailing along the Nemunas River (New Kaunas, Paštuva). At the castles there were more or less fortified baileys (suburbium, preurbium, hachelwerc, vorburg). Here the castle garrison lived with their families. They backed up to the castle only in case of enemy’s attack. In the very castle only representatives of nobility and their bodyguards slept. The bailey was the place to keep animals and to stock provisions. When a greater army concentrated in the castle fully quartering the whole castle and bailey, then camps were set out outside the castle. The more important castles needed not small plots around. Some castles had two baileys: at the foot of the main hill-fort and on a separate hill-fort (Veliuona). Baileys were weaker than castles and often were burnt down. Afterwards they were hastily rebuilt as an indispensable component of the castle. In 1315 the subcastle of Veliuona was twice burnt in a near month (on September 8 and October 12). Sometimes the sources mention uninhabited fortifications-foreworks outside the castle. In Veliuona a small forework was installed simply on a slope of the hill-fort (mentioned as a small ante-murale in 1363). Castle stockades formed a large network. The written sources of the 13–14th centuries show that various stockades (terrae defensiones, Landwehren, hegene, indagines) fenced territories of lands, countrysides, field communities. Often stockades were made from piled trees and sometimes no efforts were spared to make mounds. Simplest stockades were made by warriors, who felled trees in the course of military actions. Stockades as such were long known in the Baltic lands. As early as 935, viking Egil pirating in Curonia was entangled in stockades and captured by the Curonians. Numerous stockades traversing the landscape were useful for farming, therefore, they remained for a long time after losing of their defensive significance. Even at the end of the 19th century some fields were fenced in Samogitia. Wooden castles were built and used until the 16–17th centuries. Sources shed more light on their exterior, however, these data are little investigated. We may find a short description of late wooden castle in the inventory of 1553 of the Daugėliškiai castle. The inventory of 1549 describes more exhaustively the Radoškoviči castle standing near the ethnic border of Lithuania in the ethnically mixed territory (Fig. 3). The inventory of 1585 describes in short the Plateliai castle falling into decay. In 1563 and 1566 in the occupied GDL land of Polotsk Ivan the Terrible, the tsar of Russia, built 9 wooden castles which were burnt by the army of Stephen Batory in 1579. S. Pachlovicki painted six of them theretofore. On the basis of these paintings B.D. Kavalieri made plate engravings, which survived until nowadays and are the oldest authentic images of wooden castles (Fig. 4). Images of wooden bridges may be seen in the plate engraving of Grodno of 1568 where the stone castle of Grodno is represented (Fig. 5). There remained more exhaustive data about wooden castles of Russia from the 17th century. The remnants of five wooden castles (towers, walls) remained in Siberia. They make a valuable source for reconstruction of earlier castles. A characteristic feature of Siberian castles from the 17th century is oblams (Russian облам). Oblams are bigger upper timber frames of towers and walls, with horizontal openings between them and main timber frames. They remind of brattices and machicolations of stone castles, rather popular since the crusades (Fig. 6). The investigators of wooden castles of Ruthenia often transfer actually oblams to reconstruction of wooden castles of the 11–12th centuries. However, they could not appear earlier than the 13–14th centuries when castles passed from passive to active defense. Most likely even then wooden castles contained no oblams, since we do not see them in plate engravings of 1579 of castles standing in the Polotsk land.
Kauno castle
Kauno castle
Kauno castle
Kauno castle
Veliuonos hillfort
Veliuonos hillfort
Veliuonos hillfort
Veliuonos hillfort
Sauginiu hillfort (by V. Daugudį).
Punios hillfort (by R. Kulikauskienę).
Vilniaus castle (by V. Daugudį).
Kernavės hillfort (by R. Sidrį and A. Luchtaną).
Narkūnu hillfort (by R. Kulikauskienę).
|
.png "Image")
.png "Image")
.png "Image")
.png "Image")
.png "Image")
