Problematyka adaptacji i transformacji na przykładzie krzyżackich grodów z terenu Prus i Inflant

Abstract

The subject of this article are strongholds adapted to the needs of the Teutonic Order, associated with different Old Prussian lands (Pomesania, Pogesania, Sasna, Bartia, Galindia, Warmia, Natangia, Sambia, Skalvia and Nadrovia) and Livonia (Semigallia, Latgale, Courland, Estonia). A particular attention was paid to the extent of adaptation works and the question of the transformation of these forts into mortared castles. While selecting examples of objects the priority was given to ones on which remains archaeological excavations were carried out. Amongst the described strongholds of the Teutonic Order dominated forts adapted based on structures conquered or taken over from the local population (25 defensive complexes, i.e. about 63%). Amongst them the majority – 15 structures (60%) – was transformed into mortared castles. In the group of strongholds which were transformed into mortared complexes (29 structures; groups II–IV) nearly even share have edifices adapted and created on so-called greenfield, which is characteristic of Old Prussia, while in Livonia the majority consisted of structures created on so-called greenfield (60%). Trying to determine the scope of work at forts adapted by the Teutonic Order, we encounter a difficulty of separating older elements from the Teutonic Order ones, which, obviously, makes a basis for concluding very limited. Even in the case of structures, where the scope of archaeological works was significant (Stary Dzierzgon and Weklice), sometimes we are not able to resolve fundamental issues. It is even more difficult to continue the study of the characteristics of wooden and earthen fortified structures of the Teutonic Order. Generally it can be said that the scope of the Order’s adaptations was mainly related to reconstruction and/or strengthening forts defence systems, which was primarily associated with ramparts (e.g. heighten them and constructing new ones) and moats (deepen). Also strongholds’ interiors vere adopted (ground levelling, paving baileys and transportation routes, internal division by ramparts and moats). It is hard not to point also the construction of various types of defensive or dwelling structures, but in this case – to date – no structure/structures which association with the Teutonic Order phase of given fort is not controversial (see Stary Dzierzgon, Weklice, Podzamcze, Karkus). After all, potentially largest possibilities in the discussed issues still lie in archaeological research, both traditional and non-invasive, even of those structures which from today’s perspective have been excavated ‘too early’, and the range of field work carried out there was significant.