879 NBSI 169 732 466 2

“CASTRUM BENE”Permanent Committee and Editorial Board

PhDr. Peter BEDNÁR, CSc. Archeologický ústav SAV, Nitra (Slovakia)

Dr Artur BOGUSZEWICZ, Lecturer Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Wydział Nauk Historycznych i Pedagogicznych, Katedra Etnologii i Antropologii Kulturowej, Wrocław (Poland)

Ing. Arch. Petr CHOTĚBOR, CSc. Odbor památkové péče, Kancelář prezidenta republiky, Praha – Hrad (The Czech Republic)

Dr. György DOMOKOS Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Ungarische Archivdelegation, Ständige Archivdelegation beim Kriegsarchiv Wien (representing Hungary)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Istvan FELD Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Régészettudományi Intézet, Budapest (Hungary)

Mag. Dr. Martin KRENN Bundesdenkmalamt, Abteilung für Archäologie, Krems an der Donau (Austria)

Dr. Sc. Tajana PLEŠE Hrvatski restauratorski zavod, Služba za arheološku baštinu, Odjel za kopnenu arheologiju, Zagreb (Croatia)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Katarina PREDOVNIK Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo, Ljubljana (Slovenia)

Dr. Adrian Andrei RUSU Institutul de arheologie şi istoria artei al Academiei Române, Cluj-Napoca (Romania)

CASTRUM BENE 12

THE CASTLE AS SOCIAL SPACE

Edited by

Katarina Predovnik

Ljubljana 2014

THE CASTLE AS SOCIAL SPACE

Monograph Series, no.: Castrum Bene, 12

Editor: Katarina PredovnikReviewers: Dr Tomaž Lazar, Mag Tomaž Nabergoj, Dr Miha Preinfalk, Dr Benjamin ŠtularProofreading: Katarina PredovnikTechnical Editor: Nives Spudić

© University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, 2014All rights reserved.

Published by: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts)Issued by: Department of ArchaeologyFor the publisher: Branka Kalenić Ramšak, the dean of the Faculty of Arts

Design and layout: Nives SpudićPrinted by: Birografika Bori d.o.o.Ljubljana, 2014First editionNumber of copies printed: 300

Price: 24.90 EUR

CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 930.85(4)(082) 728.81(4)(091)(082) The CASTLE as social space / edited by Katarina Predovnik. - 1st ed. - Ljubljana : Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete = University Press, Faculty of Arts, 2014 ISBN 978-961-237-664-2 1. Predovnik, Katarina Katja 274698240

In memoriam

Tomáš Durdík

* 24. January 1951 – † 20. September 2012

Dr Tomáš Durdík guiding the Castrum Bene 9 conference excursion in 2005 (photo by I. Sapač).

This volume is dedicated to our dear friend and colleague Tomáš Durdík, Czech medieval archaeologist and passionate researcher of castles, one of the founders of the Castrum Bene

international castellological conferences and member of Castrum Bene Permanent Committee from the very beginning in 1989 until his sudden death in 2012. The 12th conference in Ljubljana in 2011 was

the last Castrum Bene conference he ever attended.

7

Contents

Preface ....................................................................................................................................................11Katarina Predovnik

The Castle as Social Space: An Introduction .................................................................................13 Katarina Predovnik

Part I: The Social Dimensions of Medieval Buildings ..........................................................................23

The Gozzoburg in Krems and the Hofburg in Vienna: Their Relevance to the Study of the Social Space in Medieval Architecture ................................................................................25Paul Mitchell

Die Burg als Spiegel der Gesellschaft – Überlegungen an Hand des Salzburger Erzbistums .......37Patrick Schicht

The Social History of Medieval Buildings: A Comparative Case Study of Bodiam Castle and Ightham Mote, England ..........................................................................................................49Gemma L. Minihan

Baugestalt als Spiegel des Wandels des Sozialstatus. Fallbeispiel der Oberen Feste Kestřany in Südböhmen ................................................................................................................................55Michael rykl

Eine Residenz für zwei Haushaltungen – das hochkomplexe Raum- und Bauprogramm beim Neubau der Albrechtsburg in Meißen 1470 ..........................................................................71Günter donath

Castles and Gender in Late Medieval Holland ..............................................................................83Wendy landewé

Part II: The Daily Lives of Castle Dwellers and their Dependents ........................................................93

Das Leben einer Frau in der mittelalterlichen Burg ......................................................................95Daniela Dvořáková

Die Pflichten der Untertanen und ihre Möglichkeiten in der Burg Helfenburk im 14. Jahrhundert ............................................................................................................................103František Gabriel, Lucie kurSová

The Fortress as a Social Space: the 16th–17th-Century Venetian Terraferma as a Case in Point .........................................................................................................................................111Alessandro Brodini

8

Part III: Archaeological Evidence ........................................................................................................123

Aussage der archäologischen Quellen zum Alltag der höheren Schichten der Burgbewohner in Böhmen ....................................................................................................................................125† Tomáš durdík

Tracing the Castle Crew. (Zoo)archaeological Search for the Inhabitants of Viljandi Castle (South Estonia) in the Late 13th Century .....................................................................................139Arvi haak, Eve rannaMäe

Gesellschaftlicher Kontext und Nutzung der Vorburgareale der mittelalterlichen Adelsburgen in Böhmen ..............................................................................................................153Josef Hložek

Hinterzimmer der oberschlesischen Burgen ................................................................................167Arkadiusz Przybyłok

Part IV: Research Dilemmas ................................................................................................................173

Civitas or Refugium? Life in the 10th–11th-Century Castles in Medieval Hungary .....................175Maxim Mordovin

A Critical Approach to ‘Peasant Fortifications’ in Medieval Transylvania .................................189Adrian Andrei ruSu

Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Case of the Castle: Context, Problems, Perspectives ..........199Vytautas volungevičiuS

Part V: Castles in Contemporary Social Contexts ...............................................................................207

Blicke auf Burgen und Schlösser in Slowenien ...........................................................................209Igor SaPač

Kloster-Residenzen oder Wehrbauten der „Marien-Diener“ in Preußen – zwei Bilder der Deutschordensburgen einst und heute .........................................................................................221Barbara PoSPieSzna, Kazimierz PoSPieSzny

Die Erschließung der Burgen im Spessart zwischen Forschung und Zivilgesellschaft. Veränderung als Chance ..............................................................................................................233Harald roSManitz

Mittelalterliche Burgen in Kroatien zwischen dem akademischen und dem populärwissenschaftlichen Zugang: auserwählte Beispiele .........................................................247Silvija PiSk

Using a Mobile-Guide System in Medieval Castles, Fortifications and Battlefields ..................255Elissa ernSt, Kari uotila, Jari-Pekka PaalaSSalo, Isto huvila

9

Part VI: Case Studies ...........................................................................................................................263

Burg Pustý hrad bei Zvolen – eine Zeugin mittelalterlichen Lebens. Differenzierung des Raumes der königlichen Burg aufgrund der archäologischen, architektonischen und historischen Forschung ................................................................................................................265Ján beljak, Pavol Maliniak, Noémi beljak Pažinová, Michal ŠiMkovic

The Medieval Castle and Town of Temeswar (Archaeological Research Versus Historical Testimonies) .................................................................................................................................277Zsuzsanna koPeczny

Garić and Krčin – Two Croatian Late Medieval Castles and Their Role in the Cultural and Historical Landscape ...................................................................................................................289Tajana PleŠe

The Medieval Castle of “Vrbouch” in Klenovec Humski (North-West Croatia): Ten Seasons of Archaeological and Conservation Work ..................................................................................301Tatjana Tkalčec

A View on Life in a Castle. An Analysis of the Architecture and Finds from the Castle of Cesargrad, Croatia (2008 and 2010 Excavation Campaigns) ......................................................313Andrej janeŠ

Marchburch – Upper Maribor Castle. Preliminary Results of Archaeological Excavations in 2010 and 2011 ..........................................................................................................................325Mateja ravnik, Mojca Jančar, Mira STrmčnik gulič

11

Preface

This volume, the 12th in the – sadly, incomplete – series entitled Castrum Bene, is the outcome of the international castellological conference that was held in Ljubljana, Slovenia in 2011.

Ever since the international Central European initiative of castle scholars Castrum Bene was first established informally at Mátrafüred in Hungary in 1989, its so-called Permanent Committee consisting of national representatives has been organizing regular biennial theme conferences and editing a mono-graph series of conference proceedings, also bearing the title of Castrum Bene. The initiative connects scholars interested in feudal architecture – castles, fortresses and manors – from the point of view of various disciplines, such as archaeology, art and architectural history, and documentary history. Its pur-pose is to stimulate castle studies and create opportunities for the exchange of information on the latest developments in this field, with particular focus on Central Europe.

Each conference takes place in one of the countries represented in the Permanent Committee (listed in alphabetical order): Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The national representative undertakes the organization in cooperation with local scientific institutions, while the entire Permanent Committee acts as a scientific board and helps define the theme, as well as the programme of each conference.

The 12th Castrum Bene conference took place in Ljubljana, Slovenia, from 28 September until 2 October 2011. It was organized by the Department of Archaeology at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts. This was the first and, so far, the only Castrum Bene conference to have been organized in Slovenia. Its theme – ‘The Castle as Social Space’ (Ger. ‘Die Burg als sozialer Raum’) – was aimed at exploring the social dimensions of medieval castles, as well as early modern fortresses and manors, thereby focusing on the various aspects of human interaction with these intriguing buildings in the past and present.

While the aristocracy and lower gentry as the builders and owners of castles have always received a lot of scholarly attention, much less is known about the ways in which other social groups perceived, used and experienced castles. How did castles shape the living spaces of the members of various gender, age, professional and status groups? Which parts of a castle complex and its surroundings would have been accessible or at all visible to an individual considering his or her social background? How did the social relations played out through the daily activities taking place in and around castles determine or mould their architectural disposition and form? What meanings did castles hold for the owners, their wardens, their friendly or hostile visitors and, on the other hand, for the servants going about their daily business or the peasants working the lord’s land and paying their yearly duties? Do the written docu-ments, preserved architectural remains and artefacts uncovered at individual castle sites offer us an in-sight into these intricate worlds of past lived experience and in what way? Is it at all possible to detect the clues of individual lives lived in, around and with the castles?

Furthermore, the fascination which castles continue to exert on both scholars and the general public today is also of interest here. Which images and readings of castles prevail today, how and in what ways are they explored and exploited in the academia, heritage industry and popular culture? Are there differ-ent social readings of castles as heritage today or did they exist in the past? Are there particular gendered experiences connected with castles? Does it (still) hold true that castle studies are dominated by male scholars, as they clearly have been until the mid-twentieth century? If so, what are the reasons for that? How, if at all, can the particularly masculine or feminine approaches to the study of castles be defined?

These issues were explored to a greater or lesser extent by 52 contributors from 15 European countries who presented 36 papers and 4 posters. Not all of these are represented in this volume and therefore the printed papers do not encompass all of the issues covered at the conference. Still, the 28

12

papers included here represent an interesting cross-section of the various approaches and reflections on the social roles and meanings of castles.

Many individuals contributed their share to the scientific excellence and the smooth running of the conference in 2011. My sincere thanks goes to all conference participants, and especially to those colleagues and students who devoted their time and efforts to the practical matters. Dr Tina Milavec managed the registration desk, while Dr Vesna Merc and Dr Igor Sapač acted as tour guides at confer-ence excursions. Archaeology students Katarina Bračun, Ben Gros, Anja Ipavec, Lailan Jaklič, Izidor Janžekovič, Luka Pukšič and Iva Jennie Roš took care of catering during coffee breaks and the recep-tion; they helped at the registration desk, and offered technical and information services to the partici-pants. Their help was invaluable.

This book has taken a long time to complete. I am grateful to all authors who have duly handed in their manuscripts and then shown so much patience and friendly cooperation in the course of the produc-tion process. I must also thank the four peer reviewers, Dr Tomaž Lazar, Mag Tomaž Nabergoj, Dr Miha Preinfalk and Dr Benjamin Štular for their useful comments, and the technical editor and designer Nives Spudić for her flexibility and responsiveness. I can only hope and wish that this volume does credit to their work and will find a favourable response among its readers.

Katarina Predovnik

July 2014

13

CASTRUM BENE 12, 2014, 13–21

Katarina Predovnik

The Castle as Social Space: An Introduction

In the past few decades, castle studies have boomed and ripened into a vibrant interdisciplinary field, embracing approaches from different disciplines and exploring a multitude of issues and themes. It seems rather banal nowadays to state that medieval castles had multiple functions, not only the military and residential, but also the economic, administrative, representational (symbolic) and social, of which none can be seen as the predominant or defining one. The paradigmatic shifts the castle studies have witnessed recently are undeniable, even though the traditional ‘military’ understanding of castles is still very resilient and hard to balance against other topics and approaches (cf. Zeune 1996; Zeune 1999; Johnson 2002; Liddiard 2005).

The complexity of castles does not end with the question about their function. We have become increasingly aware of the infinite variety of the physical appearance and layout of castles and of the complexity of their life histories and architectural development. Any attempt at typology or categoriza-tion seems doomed to failure.

The more we delve into the world of these intriguing buildings, the more new lines of research open up before us. The social aspects are the chosen theme of this volume. Trying to understand the so-cial microcosm of castles and its spatial dimensions, we are faced with many issues that can be studied from different points of view. The concepts of social space, built environment, identity construction and symbolic representation are particularly relevant and are explored – more or less explicitly – throughout this volume.

Social spaceIn social theory, space is a crucial concept. (Social) life unfolds in space and acquires meaning

through spatial contexts. The French social theorist Henri Lefèbvre maintains that space is both the locus and the outcome of social action; it is socially produced (Lefebvre 1991). Space affords opportunities for actions performed by members of social groups, enabling some and limiting others. Through spa-tial practice, individuals and groups appropriate space and inscribe social relations and meanings into space. Social structures and relationships are produced and reproduced in space; they exist in space, are projected into a space, and in that process (social) space itself is produced. Just as social relations are fundamentally asymmetrical, so are the social spaces created, perceived and experienced by members of different social groups. Social actors and groups are defined by their relative positions within social space (Bourdieu 1985). Space is therefore shaped by the relations of power, it is a means of social con-trol and domination through access control, direction and restriction of movement, staging of social interaction, and symbolic manipulation of space.

Lefèbvre has formulated a conceptual triad of (social) space (Lefebvre 1991, 33; cf. Löw 2008, 28); he differentiates between spatial practice (perceived space), representations of space (conceived space), and spaces of representation (representational space), though all three concepts are inevitably intercon-nected. ‘Spatial practice’ subsumes the space-related modes of behaviour, the (often) routinized, habitual and non-reflexive everyday practices of lived experience. ‘Representations of space’ are the conceived spaces of professionals (spatial planners, architects, scientists etc.), the ideological, cognitive aspects of space, by which it can be read and manipulated consciously by social actors. Even though these repre-sentations of space structure and influence spatial practice, this does not mean that people are necessar-

14

ily aware of them or that their actions are guided by conscious reflections on the conceived space: “The user’s space is lived – not represented (or conceived)” (Lefebvre 1991, 362; original emphasis). Spatial order is produced and reproduced habitually; its structure is naturalized through “the durable inscription of social realities onto and in the physical world” (Bourdieu 1996, 13; cf. Bourdieu 1977).

The third element of Lefebvre’s triad are the so-called ‘spaces of representation’, the symbolic as-pects of social life expressed in space through images and symbols that have the transformative potential to “undermine prevailing orders and discourses and envision other spaces” (Löw 2008, 28). Spatial structures, as any social structures, are both the medium and outcome of human actions. As explained by Anthony Giddens in his theory of structuration, social structures are not static and fixed, but are instead continually produced, reproduced and modified through conscious or sub-conscious, habitual practices of social actors, which on the other hand are structured and enabled by the very structures they produce (Giddens 1984; cf. Parker Pearson and Richards 1994, 2).

Social space is an invisible set of relationships between social actors and the things appropriated by them (Bourdieu 1996, 12). Social actors and their things (properties) are located in specific physical places and at the same time situated in social space; these locations are characterized by their relative position to other locations (of other social actors and things) and the distances separating them.

Everyday life is constituted through a sequence of activities performed in space, or, better said, in particular places. Spatial meanings are created through the undertaking of specific tasks, performance of bodily movement and gestures, acts of social interaction taking place in particular, ‘appropriate’ places. Not only is the inhabited (social) space structured as a ‘taskscape’ (cf. Ingold 1993), identities are nego-tiated through active engagement in the course of spatial practices.

Since space is actively inhabited, its structure and meanings are produced and reproduced as a nexus of social relations and power struggles. Social actors, individuals and groups, use space as a medium to establish, affirm and strengthen their own positions in society (Tilley 1994, 11; Hansson 2009, 435). Space thus “implies, contains and dissimulates social relationships” (Lefebvre 1991, 83). These are often materi-alized in the form of specific spatial structures, such as architecture, spatial dispositions of material objects, signs and symbols, but just as often, social structures are realized in space only through values and mean-ings ascribed to and actions performed in specific places. The recursive relationship between social rela-tions and spatial structure is the foundation on which social interpretation of physical spatial structures of any given society is based (cf. Ashmore 2002). However, there are no direct or simple parallels between the physical and social positioning of social actors (Bourdieu 1989, 16–17). Social actors from opposing ends of the social hierarchy may occupy the same physical location but nonetheless retain their social distance. Thus, for example, a lord and his servant were both allowed entrance to the same rooms within a castle, but for different reasons, fulfilling different social roles; in spite of their physical closeness, they remained socially distant from one another. The physical and social spatial structures are related, but they are not translated directly from one to the other medium. It is the values, attitudes, gestures, movements – in short, the embodied action of social actors – that connect the physical and social worlds. The spatial techniques and strategies of social domination rely on these connections (cf. Bourdieu 1996, 16–18).

In the post-Cartesian western world, space is commonly understood as an abstract category, an infinite, pre-existing container of substance. But in fact, this is a historically and culturally contingent type of conceived space (in Lefèbvre’s terminology), the geometrical, measurable and objective space of modern science, which has little to do with the perceived space of lived experience and the conceptions of space current in past societies (cf. Parker Pearson and Richards 1994, 3; Johnson 2007; Giles 2007). Those approaches in spatial studies that do not take account of the space as perceived, shaped and struc-tured through embodied experience of actual people are therefore inadequate, or at least problematic, when trying to understand (past) societies.

Perceived space is relational, since we perceive not only things themselves but also the relations be-tween them. “[S]pace arises from the activity of experiencing objects as relating to one another” (Löw 2008, 26). Space is lived, perceived and produced by means of the body and its senses. The relationship

15

between the body and (its) space is immediate, as the body is deployed in space and occupies space. “Before producing effects in the material realm (tools and objects), before producing itself by drawing nourishment from that realm, and before reproducing itself by generating other bodies, each living body is space and has its space: it produces itself in space and it also produces that space” (Lefebvre 1991, 170; original emphases).

Built environmentThe basic technology for imposing social order onto the physical world is an active manipulation

of environment through signification, modelling, construction – in one word, through architecture.As Mike Parker Pearson and Colin Richards have pointed out, according to the phenomenological

philosophers, dwelling is the basic principle of human existence that constitutes our relation to places (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994, 2). Houses, buildings, built environments that we create and inhabit (dwell in) actively, are the fundamental material structures, within and through which social life unfolds. They are the setting, the medium and the product of social agency and are therefore self-evidently a crucial source of information on societies that created them.

Buildings materialize the social relations between individuals and groups interacting with them and ascribing meaning to the fabric of masonry, architectural embellishments and furnishings within individual rooms, antechambers, corridors, passages, and courtyards. The built environment embodies the social val-ues and the cultural conventions of a society that creates it – it is culturally constituted (Rapoport 1990).

The relationship between people and their built environment is dynamic and recursive. In the words of Winston Churchill, “first we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us” (cited in Parker Pearson and Richards 1994, 2). People actively give their environment structure and meanings, and then act upon them. These meanings are not fixed givens but must be inferred or interpreted through practice and recurrent usage. The capacity to interpret and change meanings is limited by the already existing spatial order (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994, 4). Within that order, meanings are different for different social actors, according to their particular social position and the concrete social situation. Buildings thus have to “be understood not as static monoliths but as palimpsests of contested meanings” (Swenson 2007, 81).

Amos Rapoport explains the workings of the built environment as a form of non-verbal communi-cation (Rapoport 1990). Physical environment is used in the presentation of the self and the construction of group identities through enculturation and acculturation. Built environment as a form of material culture is a ‘physical expression of the cultural schemata’. It provides cues by which people can judge and interpret social situations and then act accordingly. For Rapoport, the built environment acts as a mnemonic device, providing cues that, if noticed, understood and heeded by social actors, activate culturally acquired knowledge about a whole set of possible, more or less appropriate behaviours. Built environment provides settings for social interaction; these consist not only of built, architectural ele-ments and their forms and dispositions, but also of furnishings – decorations, signs and moveable ele-ments. To facilitate inference and elicit the desired behavioural responses, settings must be culturally specific, clear, differentiated, and the cues they contain must be redundant. Thus, physical environment guides and elicits behaviour, while it does not determine it absolutely; the process is open to active in-terpretation by knowledgeable social actors, who may be unable to notice the cues, they may ignore or misunderstand them or simply choose to act inappropriately. Settings permit a variety of responses, but constrain them through cultural codes and conventions. They help routinize behaviours and make them habitual (Rapoport 1990, 77–81; cf. Bourdieu 1977). Cues in the built environment “locate people in particular settings that are equivalent to portions of social space and thus define a [social] context and a situation (…) In so doing, they categorize people.” Thus, interaction and communication between social actors in a given setting are limited and at the same time, enabled – some forms of interaction and com-munication become inappropriate, while others become possible (Rapoport 1990, 191).

879 NBSI 169 732 466 2