Századok – 2015
2015 / 2. szám - Feld István: A magánvárak építésének kezdetei a középkori Magyarországon a régészeti források tükrében. II.
380 FELD ISTVÁN in this period, and its use was not merely a consequence of the limited disponibility of time or material means. A whole series of archaeological observations prove that wooden structures built with a variety of techniques were a common feature among the residential buildings of castles, and wooden towers are also attested by written sources. Dominant features of the castles erected in this period must have been those central constructions which, built out of various materials, either rectangular or circular in their ground plan, 8 to 10 metres by side or in diameter, must have appeared as massive towers then. Unfortunately, archaeological investigation has so far been limited to the perished objects, while the early parts of structures still existing are as yet hardly known. Consequently, what seems certain is only that their lower storey, used for economic purposes, had no entrance. The question of whether the keep could in case of necessity serve as the residence of its owner or merely assumed protective functions can only be answered if its place within the castle as a whole can be identified. In case - and then we can speak about a keep-castle - no other residential building existed in the castle, one can be sure that these were multi - or polifunctional structures. Although both written and archaeological evidence attest the possibility that more keeps could stand in one and the same private castle, this, on the basis of our present state of knowledge, could not be a widespread phenomenon, no more so than that of the keepless castle. The existence of gate-towers built as such has not yet been proved, and while the majority of keeps were not suitable for side defence, we do know some exceptions, that is, structures which stood out in relief from the plane of the wall. The residential buildings were constructed on a square or oblong-shaped ground plan, with either one or more chambers, and frequently several storeys. Among the latter our knowledge about the residential level which can supposed to have existed in the storey(s) is limited, and thus the interpretation of the relevant terminology found in the written sources (domus, camera, stuba) is extremely difficult; only the term palatium can hint at the existence of a great hall (or of a building comprising such a hall). The identification of castle chapels, and thus the interpretation of their existence or absence is also difficult. What seems certain is that the thirteenth-century private castles were to provide their lords the necessary amount of comfort dining their stays there. No system could so far be established with regard to the heights and depths of the known castle walls, and the battlements which once closed the walls rarely survive. Most of the castle gates must have been relatively narrow and low-built holes; the existence of double gates with separate entrances for mounted and unmounted people has not yet been proved, and the widespread use of drawbridges is equally dubious. Little archaeological work has so far been done in the sporadic outer or lower castles, although the early esistence of some wall-straits has been attested. The assessment of all these elements from a military perspective is one of the tasks of future research. Although several baking ovens and cisterns are known from the 13th century, buildings of an explicitely economic profile have hardly been identified. Unmistakeable traces of industrial activity are equally rare, while at some places considerable amounts of grain were uncovered. A favoured topic of research used to be the analysis of the various types of castle ground plan. The oval or circular plan can no doubt frequently be observed among the known fortifications, but the more regular tetra- or pentagonal plan is also present. This was most often determined by the geographical conditions, however, and thus all speculations about ground plans in terms of either filiation or chronology are unjustified; nevertheless, the analysis of forms as an auxiliary tool of research remains important. Summarizing now both parts of the present study, it can be stated that the private castles of the period examined - which, as far as we know, cannot be separated from the few strongholds erected by bishops and abbots in the same period in terms of forms, elements and partly functions - are not suitable for a chronologically articulated statistical assessment with regard to the changing patterns of the division of power, which, in view of the well-known political role of medieval castles, would be an understandable expectation on the part of historians. Neither the beginnings of their construction, nor the supposed „castle-building waves” after 1241-42 or in the 1270s can be quantified, and no more can be the equally surmised mass abandonment of the relevant constructions after 1300. Equally open to doubt is the correspondence between castle building and the size of the builder’s landed wealth, as is the real cost of construction of buildings which frequently differed from each other considerably. The necessity of the further close scrutiny of military-strategical questions is worth emphasizing again. No „types of castles” can be rendered to the different layers of landowning society, especially because, according to the testimony of the evidence at hand, even the elite of the period could five in simple „manor-like” constructions. The
