Provincial historiography in Transylvania perpetuates a cliché claiming that once the old fortifi ca-tions (castra) of the early Arpadian era (12th–13th centuries) had been abandoned, the new stone fortifi ca-tions gained an increasingly exclusivist character. This has supposedly led to – as one of the more recent general works on the topic puts it – the ‘common people’ being “driven to live outside fortifi cations”
(Pascu and Teodorescu 2001, 157). We must fi rst state and underline the fact that none of the medieval fortifi cations, no matter when they were built, were ever meant for the lowest strata of society. Thus, no fortifi cation-like strongholds belonging exclusively to the ‘common people’ have ever existed.
During the late Arpadian era, society was well connected to fortifi cations, of both inland and border type (Fig. 1). Wide social categories were connected, to a different degree, to the same constructions.
It is true that most such fortifi cations belonged to the central authority alone. Still, one must emphasize the fact that even if the population increasingly lacked the presumed protection of fortifi cations, it never forgot what such a construction could mean from the point of view of social status. Considering this paradigm, one can better understand the transition towards a society based on fortifi cations and with connected functions, a society previously constituted and increased in numbers and not born on the spot, through the transfer of fortifi cation ownership from the king towards the elites looking for consolida-tion. The situation of fortifi cations is similar to that of other privileges and symbols: they were not cre-ated then and their implications have multiplied gradually, in the conditions of increased concern for an equilibrium between the state, represented by the king, and the people, envisaged as the sum of all those benefi ting from privileges.
Fig. 1: Dăbâca castle in County Cluj (photo by A. A. Rusu).
Abb. 1: Burg Dăbâca im Kreis Cluj (Foto: A. A. Rusu).
CASTRUM BENE 12, 2014, 189–197
190
Since we still use a strong concept, persistently supported by an obsolete historiography, I believe a critical discussion of the term ‘peasant fortifi cation’ is needed.
Saxon historiography from Transylvania employed the term Bauernburg referring to fortifi ed churches (Figs. 2 and 3). In such a context, it does hold real substance for two blessed reasons: fi rst, the church was already a building used and owned collectively (belonging to a parish, i.e. a group of believ-ers in a strictly delimited area), and second, the community was always composed of free peasants who were far from being poor. The entire Saxon University assumed the construction of fortifi ed churches, and thus local architectural works were supported, on the basis of a ‘cooperative-type’ system, through general fi nances.
The term seemed valid at least for the 15th–17th centuries, so it gave the false impression of having functioned earlier as well. A sort of a defi nition was thus conceived, referring to large-size fortifi cations that lacked the inner structures typical of ‘noble residences’ (Velescu 1964, 21).1 Still, since all fortifi ca-tions were based on a source of economical, social, and political power, one could hardly accept a gen-eralized medieval geography of monuments built by peasants. Art historian Vasile Drăguţ signifi cantly limited the extension of the term under discussion, so well rooted, when he related it to urban fortifi ca-tions (Drăguţ 1979, 84). However, several pages onwards the same author underlined the statement:
“peasant fortifi cations of the fortifi ed-church type are the most signifi cant and original contribution of Transylvanian medieval stone architecture to the European artistic patrimony” (Drăguţ 1979, 113).
Giving up the over-emphasis on the contribution of the commoners, the author tried to maintain the cliché on the basis of architectural coordinates.2 One must note the fact that Drăguţ took a signifi cant step forward, going beyond analyses that generate self-suffi ciency by suggesting European comparative terms (introduced in his other works on the topic). The comparative method was the only one capable of leading to a correct identifi cation of the state-of-fact.
Historian Gheorghe Anghel almost abandoned the term but at some point used the combined ex-pression ‘peasant feudal fortifi cations’, artifi cial due to the inexistence of ‘feudality’ itself in medieval Hungary and the unexpected association of the antonym terms ‘feudal’ (i.e. lords/nobles) and peasant.
The term ‘village community’ fortifi cation (belonging to village communities) was preserved for the wide
1 Any defi nition by difference must be accompanied by the delimitation/defi nition of the opposite term, but the latter did not take a clear shape either. Probably the author under discussion did not know very well what a noble fortifi cation had to contain.
2 I will note that the only reality that might support the validity of such a statement is the size of the phenomenon, i.e. the proliferation of fortifi ed churches (15th–17th centuries). According to such considerations, both the signifi cance and the origi-nality discussed in the text fade away.
Fig. 2: The fortifi ed church of Homorod in County Braşov (photo by A. A. Rusu).
Abb. 2: Befestigte Kirche von Homorod im Kreis Braşov (Foto: A. A. Rusu).
time span between the 9th and the 13th century (Anghel 1985, 9). Architect Teodor O. Gheorghiu believed – probably with similar arguments or under the same inspiration – that ‘peasant fortifi cations’ belong to the period between 1241 and the middle of the 14th century (Gheorghiu 1985, 65–67). Various uses of the term still persist in other German publications (for an overview see Streitfeld 1980, 122).
Historian Ştefan Pascu approached the topic in a most reductive manner. He wrote that “many of the fortifi ed settlements were in the beginning ‘peasant fortifi cations’; some of them became, later on, royal or feudal fortifi cations...” and that “an impressive number of peasant fortifi cations spread across Transylvania” (Pascu 1972, 227). At the time these lines were published, the era of imposed refl ections of differences and confl icts generating historical development (i.e. ‘popular masses’, ‘class struggle’), was long gone. Ştefan Pascu’s statements were intentional anachronisms – born, as I will subsequently show, from more than Marxism – intimately assumed and assimilated. He also preserves very obvious and exclusive associations between Romanians and peasants. Despite certain cautions, mostly expressed verbally, one must formulate and repeat in writing the corrections of Pascu’s writings due to the consid-erable impact his works had on Transylvanian and Romanian historiography in general.3
One must state from the very beginning that there were never any fortifi cations owned by peasant individuals, only by solidary collectivities of peasants. The manner in which the functioning of ‘village community’ fortifi cations is approached is dishearteningly simplistic. In such a case, someone had to be continuously in charge of mobilizing people, creating the design, gathering materials, organizing protection, internal rules, and managing the attitude towards outer individuals. Without such a person in charge, or at least a small group of such people, everything must have seemed a multiplication of the construction of the Biblical archetype of the Babel Tower.
Those searching for the historical bases of such institutional formulae might fi nd them in pre-Magyar fortifi cations. In that case, the argument would go like this: since there is no serious proof of social structuring of the Romanian community prior to 900, not only the builders but also those for whom such fortifi cations were built remain anonymous. Because anonymity is typically a characteristic of the peasant milieu, the people we are searching for must have been peasants. Egalitarian forms nev-ertheless disintegrate during wars, when democracy and collectivism never endure. Everything would be almost acceptable if one did not know a large series of fortifi cations (not only a few), located dozens of kilometers apart. Since they are thus geographically located, one might presume that peasants from
3 C. Şerban took over these ideas and passed them on to history teachers from Romania; in his opinion, Făgăraş, Hunedoara and Rupea were at fi rst peasant fortifi cations (Şerban 1988, 249, 251–252). Pascu’s ideas were posthumously perpetuated in the most recent treatise entitled Istoria Românilor as well.
Fig. 3: The fortifi ed church of Ţapu in County Sibiu
(photo by A. A. Rusu).
Abb. 3: Befestigte Kirche von Ţapu im Kreis Sibiu
(Foto by A. A. Rusu).
192
several dozens of villages got together in order to build one fortifi cation that they were obviously only able to use only in conjunction. All possible site selections would have been to the advantage of a few and the disadvantage of the majority. One therefore faces a dilemma: a ‘large’ fortifi cation can only be built by/for several administrators, and people located farther away cannot take advantage of their pos-session that was inconveniently remote. In fact, the question is whether people accepted from the start, i.e. easily, such a risk of not being able to use the fortifi cation or of using it with restrictions. If we tried bringing to life a church (erected under similar circumstances), we would obtain a model that puts an end to the absurd refl ections on the topic.
The same peasant builders supposedly founded the ‘pre-state formations’ that have either opposed or were subdued by the Hungarians. This script is good for Marxist historians,4 but not for those who have at least the common sense to recognize the capabilities of achievement reached by peasants over the historical periods prior to the modern era.
Such a conception might also be supported by the biased interpretation of some historical sources.
Rogerius, the cannon of Oradea, wrote during the 1241–1242 invasion that the inhabitants (never peas-ants since people like him were perfectly aware of the social elitism of their era!) had built fortifi cations.
As the author himself called them, they were improvised shelters and not fortifi cations as such. After the retreat of the Tatars, that same populi – that only through a forced interpretation one could, whether exclusively or necessarily, equate with peasants – castra plurima preparata (Popa-Lisseanu 1935, 55).
Finally, a last source that could be used is a document issued by King Bela IV in 1244 men-tioning that multitudo hominum were invited to become involved in the construction of fortifi cations.
Nevertheless, in the same document the king believed that an intermediary was required, a layperson or
4 V. Vătăşianu offers a typical example; for him, peasant fortifi cations (but only at a certain point, and also ‘communal forti-fi cations’ – a label that signifi cantly nuanced the concept) were seen in opposition to “feudal castles, nests of those who pro-moted the oppression politics” (Vătăşianu 1959, 17). Furthermore, at least two other special volumes (Velescu 1964; Oprescu 1957) preserve the same tonality. Quotes in these volumes are only instructive for the manner of a certain era; but not surpris-ingly, since they were never criticized they still have an unexpected and hard-to-eradicate impact today. Among these negative effects, one could mention those concepts that picture fortifi cation ruins as former nests of brigands, centres of abuse against communities or the poor. Such texts always generate contempt, blame, and even active tendency towards destruction.
Fig. 4: The castle of Bodoc in Covasna County
(plan by A. A. Rusu).
Abb. 4: Burg Bodoc im Kreis Covasna
(Plan: A. A. Rusu).
a cleric who would take over the royal concession and see to the completion of the building (this docu-ment was discussed along the same lines by E. Fügedi 1986, 50, 63).
The two latter sources also lead us to functional faults of the so-called ‘peasant fortifi cations’. If one admits the fact that it was indeed peasants who not only built them but were also meant to use them, then they would also have to assume all the consequences of using fortifi cations. Once such a building had been completed, the collectivity displayed its assumed risk of defending themselves inside it. If the peasants gave up simple reason such as taking refuge in a nearby forest, they would have risked their lives by fi ghting with agricultural tools transformed into weapons on top of a line of fortifi cation in or-der to defend the only valuable thing they owned, which was (again) their own life! Such a perspective seems to have escaped those who employed the concept. We must invite those who still believe in the dominating geography of the ‘peasant fortifi cations’ to pay attention to the detail of weapons we just mentioned, indicating the social status of their owners. Only swords were discovered in fortifi cations, for example in Agnita, Bodoc (Fig. 4), Râşnov, Şeica Mică, Tilişca, and Vurpăr (Fig. 5), so one can hardly believe we are talking about rustics. This detail has also been overlooked.
Saxon historiography noticed certain place names encompassing the word ‘Burg’ around villages (Fabini 1998, xxiii). These seem to have indicated some form of protection for those respective
com-Fig. 5: The castle of Vurpăr in Sibiu County (after Nägler and Rill 1993, 487).
Abb. 5: Burg Vurpăr im Kreis Sibiu (nach Nägler and Rill 1993, 487).
Fig. 6: The castle of Braşov (Tâmpa), Braşov County (drawing after a 19th-century plan by G. Treiber).
Abb. 6: Burg Braşov (Tâmpa), Kreis Braşov (Zeichnung nach einem Plan von G. Treiber aus dem 19. Jahrhundert).
194
munities, if not general at least rather frequent, before the building investments around parish churches.
One feels the need for more detailed chronological indications, but such are not yet available. It would be thus hard to believe that such fortifi cations were very numerous during the fi rst century of Saxon colonization, i.e. in the times when fortifi cations (castra) were rather scarce anyway and still well con-trolled by royal authorities. One still has no certainty that those fortifi cations could be appropriately labeled as ‘peasant’, in case the role of the Saxon leaders (Graeven) was fulfi lled.
Some of the fortifi cations outside village centres were then reconstructed in stone with the contri-bution of a group of neighbouring communities. Which might have been these fortifi cations and how might they have looked, in order not to err in our classifi cation? One knows of a single attempt at an architectural criterion: peasant-type fortifi cations were believed to have been those of large scale and lacking any residential towers (one example is referred to in Streitfeld 1980, 122).
Taking a closer look at monuments with known status according to written documents, one im-mediately notices the fact that the above-mentioned rules cannot be generalized. The fortifi cation of Braşovia (Tâmpa in Braşov; Fig. 6) has such traits, but nobody would dare call it a ‘peasant fortifi cation’
since there is strong proof that it has belonged to the king at least since the fi rst half of the 15th century.
The fortifi cation of Codlea also seems to have lacked a keep, but nobody presumes it might have been a peasant one.
The concept of ‘peasant fortifi cation’ reoccurred in the Saxon historiography of Transylvania after the middle of the 18th century. Losing its land and administrative privileges, the German community looked for other sources of its identity. One of the formulae they found was that of the ‘democratic’ spirit in which the Saxons solved the defense issue around their churches or through fortifi cations that did not Fig. 7: The castle of Râşnov in
Braşov County (photo by A. A. Rusu).
Abb. 7: Burg Râşnov im Kreis Braşov (Foto: A. A. Rusu).
Fig. 8: The castle of Saschiz in Mureş County (photo by A. A.
Rusu).
Abb. 8: Burg Saschiz im Kreis Mureş (Foto: A. A. Rusu).
include parish churches, such as Râşnov (Fig. 7) or Saschiz (Fig. 8). They instantly forgot the fact that it was the politically and socially (not ethnically) privileged Saxons who have built such fortifi cations.
They were privileged in comparison to other German-speaking Saxons who were serfs, due to the fact that they were located outside the privileged territory of the Saxon University. Moreover, the situation they invoke is of later date and did not appear together with the Saxons’ settlement in the province.
In order to counterbalance this interpretation, one can easily compare the case with that of the Szekler fortifi ed churches (for example, Sânzieni; Fig. 9). The latter were much rarer and were only labeled ‘peasant’ during communist times, since it was known that the Szeklers, just like the Saxons, were a privileged community considered – beside the nobles – to be the elite of the province and later the principality of Transylvania.
What is then left of the fortifi cations owned by peasants? If we were to try and ‘save’ some of Ştefan Pascu’s writings, we might refer to George Bariţiu (1886, 87–90, 101–104, 113–117) who argued, with more common sense, that Romanian peasants were involved in the building of all fortifi cations in Transylvania as labor force. The latter argument can be accepted almost without reservation.
Fig. 10: Peasant defense in the Carpathian Mountains (after Drăguţ 1979b, 65).
Abb. 10: Bäuerliche Verteidigung in den Karpaten (nach Drăguţ 1979b, 65).
Fig. 9: The fortifi ed church of Sânzieni in Covasna County (photo by A. A. Rusu).
Abb. 9: Befestigte Kirche von Sânzieni im Kreis Covasna (Foto: A. A. Rusu).
196
As a social group, peasants needed protection. However, according to the above-written, fortifi ca-tions belonged to the king who shared or leased the right to build them mostly to the aristocrats. The peasants protected both their individual households5 and (especially) their villages. No matter how com-plicated such constructions might have been they were certainly never made of stone. They were created for the defense of the village against two and four-legged ‘brigands’. But such constructions were pas-sive buildings, rather meant for ensuring protection than granting defense (Fig. 10).
Dr. Adrian Andrei RUSU Institutul de arheologie şi istoria artei al Academiei Române (Institute of Archaeology and Art History of the Romanian Academy)
Str. Mihail Kogălniceanu nr. 12-14, RO-400084 Cluj-Napoca aarusu@gmail.com
5 Researchers must still analyze if ‘fortifi ed surroundings’ already existed in those times (see Drăguţ 1979b).
References
ANGHEL, Gheorghe 1985, Fortifi caţii medievale de piatră din secolele XIII–XVI. – Dacia, Cluj-Napoca.
BARIŢIU, George 1886, Monografi ile cetăţilor Transilvaniei. – Transilvania 17, nr. 11–16.
DRĂGUŢ, Vasile 1979a, Arta gotică în România. – Meridiane, Bucureşti.
DRĂGUŢ, Vasile 1979b, Une forme représentative de l’architecture vernaculaire: les fortifi cations populaires de Moyen Âge. – Revista Muzeelor şi Momumentelor. Monumente Istorice şi de Artă 48/1, pp. 60–72.
FABINI, Hermann 1998, Atlas der siebenbürgisch-sächschischen Kirchenburgen und Dorfkirchen, Vol. I. – Monumenta, Hermannstadt and Heidelberg.
FÜGEDI, Erik 1986, Castle and Society in Medieval Hungary (1000–1437). – Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
GHEORGHIU, Teodor Octavian 1985, Arhitectura medievală de apărare din România. – Tehnică , Bucureşti.
NÄGLER, Thomas and RILL, Martin 1993, Fortifi caţia medievală de pământ din comuna Vurpăr, jud. Sibiu. – Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 17/2, 1983, pp. 485–487.
OPRESCU, George 1957, Bisericile cetăţi ale saşilor din Ardeal. – Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, Bucureşti.
PASCU, Ştefan 1972, Voievodatul Transilvaniei, Vol. II. – Dacia, Cluj-Napoca.
PASCU, Ştefan and TEODORESCU, Răzvan (eds.) 2001, Istoria Românilor, Vol. III: Genezele româneşti. – Enciclopedică , Bucureşti.
POPA-LISSEANU, Gheorghe (ed.) 1935, Izvoarele istoriei Românilor, Vol. V. – Bukovina, Bucureşti.
ŞERBAN, Constantin 1988, Principalele cetăţi din Transilvania în secolele XIV–XVII. – Studii şi Articole de Istorie 43–44, pp. 243–254.
STREITFELD, Theobald 1980, Mittelalterliche Vorhöhenburgen im südwestlichen Siebenbürgen. – Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde, Ser. 4, 3(74)/2, 1980, pp. 122–126.
VĂTĂŞIANU, Virgil 1959, Istoria artei feudale în ţările române. I. Arta în perioada de dezvoltare a feudalismului. – Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, Bucureşti.
VELESCU, Oliver 1964, Cetăţi ţărăneşti din Transilvania. – Meridiane, Bucureşti.
Adrian Andrei RUSU
Ein kritischer Zugang zu den „Bauernburgen“ in mittelalterlichen Siebenbürgen
Die Existenz dieses historiographischen Topos war durch die Hartnäckigkeit einiger Klischees der marxisti-schen Historiographie gewährt. Keine mittelalterliche Burg, nicht einmal die sogenannten „Bauernburgen“, war je für die niedrigsten Gesellschaftsschichten gemeint. Es gab also nie Befestigungen, welche ausschließlich dem
Die Existenz dieses historiographischen Topos war durch die Hartnäckigkeit einiger Klischees der marxisti-schen Historiographie gewährt. Keine mittelalterliche Burg, nicht einmal die sogenannten „Bauernburgen“, war je für die niedrigsten Gesellschaftsschichten gemeint. Es gab also nie Befestigungen, welche ausschließlich dem