7/31/2019 04-Oratia

1/9

37

Cetatea OratiaValentin Slgeanu

Problemele pe care cetatea cunoscut sub numelede Oratia le-a pus cercettorilor sunt variate, iarrezolvarea lor este de o importan major n apre-

cierea rolului fortificaiei pe parcursul perioadei defolosin. I. Puscariu, A. Lapedatu i G. Treiber au n-cercat a atribui ridicarea cetii cavalerilor teutoni,ultimul dintre cei mentionai invocnd n sprijinulacestei ipoteze tehnica de construcie, caracteris-ticile turnului (deschis ctre interior), denumireade Dealul Sasului a culmii la captul creia se aflacetatea, precum i importana deosebit pe care oavea drumul ctre Cmpulung din punctul de vedereal colonitilor sai.

V. Vtianu a subliniat c nu pot servi argumentrii

nici elementele de planimetrie ori cele tipologice, inici pretinsul caracter teuton al colonizrii sseti laCmpulung. Ulterior A. Lapedatu a avansat propune-rea de a identifica Oratia cu cetatea Dmbovia dindocumente. La aceast prere au subscris i o partedintre arheologii care au cercetat situl n anii 1968-1970 (Alexandrina D. Alexandrescu i Lucian Chiescu;cercetrile au fost efectuate sub conducerea Alex-andrinei D. Alexandrescu, cu participarea lui LucianChiescu, Anca Punescu i Gh. I. Cantacuzino).

Gh. I. Cantacuzino a enumerat motivele pentru care

o asemenea identitate nu este posibil, adernd laprerea conform creia cetatea Dmbovia ar trebuiidentificat mai curnd cu fortificaia de la Ceteni.n fine, o ultim opinie este cea care plaseaz cetateaPiatra Craiului (Kiralko) n acest loc (n secolul al XIX-lea, Orban Balazs i apoi W. Horwath). Argumentaiape care o dezvolt Gh. I. Cantacuzino, legat att demeniunile documentare ct i de poziia propriu-zis, este suficient de convingtoare. Ca un argumentsuplimentar aducea mrturia lui Fr. Sulzer din 1781 ncare este clar identificat cetatea Piatra Craiului cuOratia.

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

2/9

38

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

3/9

39

Data la care este construit Oratia ne este n con-tinuare necunoscut. Bazndu-ne ns att pe ma-terialul arheologic gsit ct i pe documente i pecontextul istoric, putem ncadra ridicarea cetii n

a doua jumtate a secolului al XIV-lea. W. Horwath apresupus c ea fusese vam a Transilvaniei, iar o datcu trecerea cetii n proprietatea rii Romneti,Ludovic al V-lea ar fi pus s fie ridicat Branul. De altfelpare improbabil ca regii Ungariei s fi dispus constru-irea unei vmi care s se afle dincolo de teritoriulstpnit de ei.

n 1368 vama rii Romneti se lua la Longo Campovel juxta, ceea ce ar putea nsemna c la aceast datteritoriul pe care se va afla Oratia nu era n stpnireadomnilor munteni. Pavel Chihaia presupune c din

cauza faptului c cetatea era nou nu avea nume.Acceptnd acestea ar nsemna c plasm data con-struirii ei ntre 1368 cel devreme i 1377. La sfritulanului 1377 vama se mutase deja lng Rucr ceea cear indica faptul c lucrrile erau gata i cetatea puteafi dat n folosin. Din socotelile Braovului din primajumtate a secolului XVI deducem c Oratia se aflasub jurisdicia oraului, acelai lucru fiind evideniatde o scrisoare mai timpurie a lui Radu cel Mare, dinjurul lui 1496, n care cere judelui Braovului i ce-lor 12 prgari s nu-i pedepseasc nite oameni care

stricaser Podurile de la Oratii.

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

4/9

40

Cetatea strjuia drumul ce lega Cmpulungul deBraov, aflndu-se la extremitatea vestic a DealuluiSasului. Drumul trecea pe sub cetate, ocolind-o pe lanord-vest i vest, fiind parial spat n stnc datoritngustimii vii Dmboviei pe aceast poriune.

La nord i la sud panta este destul de accentuat,iar la vest i la nord-vest pereii stncii sunt abrupi.

n partea de sud i la est, pe direcia de acces dinsprecoama dealului, se afl spat un an lat de 10 m iadnc de 4 m. La spturile din 1905 s-a constatatexistena unui zid lung de aproximativ 15 m ce barapartea sudic. Cetatea este restrns ca ntindere,limea ei nedepind 20 m. n interior, pe laturavestic, unde nu se pstreaz urmele vreunui zid, seafl o platform lat de 7-8 m i nalt de 2 m, avndmotive s credem c n partea sudic s-au efectuatnivelri cu piatr spart mrunt i cu pmnt.

Fundaiile curtinelor sunt ridicate direct pe stnc,fiind mai late dect zidul propriu-zis, care are grosimeade aproximativ 2 m i este construit din piatr mijlo-cie sumar cioplit i dispus neregulat. Pentru stabili-zare i coeziune s-au folosit pietre mici. Emplectonula fost realizat din piatr mrunt legat cu mortar.n 1905 s-au observat urme ce ar indica extragereapietrei folosite pentru construcie chiar din stnca pecare se afla cetatea i s-a apreciat nlimea zidurilorla aproximativ 7 m. La nord-est se afla un turn circu-lar deschis ctre interior, asupra cruia nu s-au fcutnici un fel de precizri. Poriunea sud-estic a incinteia fost singura ocupat de construciile dependine,

cldite exclusiv din lemn dup cum atest urmelecarbonizate i cenua descoperite acolo.

Concluzia evident este c cetatea i-a ncetatexistena ca urmare a unor distrugeri violente, deoa-rece n brnele carbonizate s-au descoperit vrfuri desgei i boluri de arbalet. Artefactele descoperiten 1905 nu au fost inventariate i nici studiate temei-nic, ns campania din 1968-1970 a scos la lumin sufi-ciente asemenea dovezi pentru a susine datarea ei na doua jumtate a secolului al XIV-lea, unele elementeatestnd folosirea ei i n secolul al XVI-lea: s-au gsit

2 monede de la Mircea cel Btrn. De asemenea, s-aconstatat lipsa unor materiale anterioare celei de adoua jumti a secolului al XIV-lea.

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

5/9

41

Intrarea se afla pe latura sudic, la nlimea de 1mfa de stnc, i are deschiderea de 2m. Pe aceastporiune zidul de incint este mai gros cu 0.80m.La o dat necunoscut intrarea a fost astupat. ninterior, n partea de nord-est, se gsete cisterna,circular i cu o adncime de 5.35m i o lime de3.40m. Aceasta este cptuit cu piatr nisipoas,iar sub acest placaj, pe fundul cisternei, se gseteun strat de lut pentru impermeabilizare. Deschiderea

este mai ngust i la nceputul secolului trecut se pu-teau identifica oarecare amenajri pentru colectareaapelor pluviale. n trecerea sa pe aici n 1595, FilippoPigafetta observa cetatea Piatra Craiului descriind-oca fiind un mic castel care are artilerie. Aceastprecizare ne face s credem c platforma din parteavestic ar fi servit acestui scop, iar c pentru acoperi-rea celorlalte laturi s-ar fi folosit chiar grosimea zidu-rilor. El mai mentioneaz c ...drumul este spat ladreapta ntr-o stnc nalt i dreapt, aa c tunurilei carele trebuie ridicate n sus cu scripetele iar lascoborre lsate n jos cu funiile.

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

6/9

42

Gh. I. Cantacuzino observ c probabil unele orificii nstnc, vizibile i astzi, ar fi folosit pentru amena-jarea unor astfel de scripei. S-a presupus c una din-tre notele lui Lescalopier (1574) s-ar putea referi laOratia, caz n care meniunea c garnizoana formatdoar din civa oameni ar sta ntr-un turn n careptrund folosind o scar lung pe care o trag apoi dup

ei nu trebuie luat mot--mot, ci trebuie neles oric reedina propriu-zis se afla n turnul nord-estic,n care astfel accesul s-ar face pe la un etaj superior(ceea ce ar atesta nlimea minim a acestuia), oric ntreaga fortificaie este numit turn, accesul cuajutorul scrii portabile fcndu-se dinspre drum.Aceast ultim interpretare nu ar dovedi sub nici oform desfiinarea intrrii de pe latura sudic, careva rmne principal pn la astuparea ei.

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

7/9

43

Copyright-ul ilustraiilor:

fotografii de Valentin Slgeanu, 2006;plan dup Gh. I. Cantacuzino;reconstituire de Radu Oltean.

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

8/9

44

Bibliografia sitului:

P. Binder, Antecedente i consecine sud-transilvneneale formrii Munteniei (sec. XIII-XIV), I,Acta, 1995, p.267;Gh. I. Cantacuzino, Ceti medievale din araRomneasc n secolele XIII-XVI, Ed. Enciclopedic,Bucureti, 2001;

P. Chihaia, Cetatea i schitul lui Negru Vod dela Ceteni-Muscel, Din cetile de scaun ale riiRomneti, Bucureti, 1974;V. Drghiceanu, Cetatea i schitul lui Negru Vod, BCM,V, 1912, pp. 89-94;W. Horwath, Die Erbauung der Burg bei Rucar, DasBurzenland, IV-1, Braov, 1929, pp. 58-62;A. Lapedatu, Dou vechi ceti romneti: Poenarii iDmbovia, ?, ?;I. Puscariu, Cetatea Neamului dela Podul Dmboviei nMuscel,AARMSI, seria II, t. XXX, 1907-1908, pp. 111-114;Gr. Tocilescu, nsemnri arheologice i istorice din Rom-

nia i vecinti, Bibl. Acad, MSS Rom 5137, f. 212-214,216-217, 218-219, 246-247, 285;G. Treiber, Die Burg bei Rucar. Die Anlage der Burg, DasBurzenland, IV-1, Die Dorfer des Burzenlandes, Braov,1929;V. Vtianu, Istoria artei feudale n rile romne, pp.133-134.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

(transl. by Valentin Slgeanu)

The number of problems raised by this fortress iscountless but the answers could give us an insight inthe part it played during its history. I. Pucariu, A.Lapedatu, and G. Treiber believed that it was buildby the Teutonic Knights. G. Treiber supported hisclaims by invoking the construction technique, thetower (opened to the inner yard), the name of the hill(Sachsen Hill), as well as the importance of the roadto Cmpulung for the Saxon colonists. V. Vtianu

argued that such a conclusion is inadequate if basedonly on the layout, the typology and the so calledTeutonic colonisation at Cmpulung. Subsequently A.Lapedatu suggested that Oratia should be identifiedwith Dmbovia fortress, mentioned in the docu-ments. Archaeologists working at the site between1968 and 1970 subscribed to this opinion (AlexandrinaD. Alexandrescu and Lucian Chiescu; the works weresupervised by Alexandrina D. Alexandrescu; teammembers were Lucian Chiescu, Anca Punescu, andGh. I. Cantacuzino; see SCIV, t. 20, 1969, nr. 3; andSCIV, t. 21, 1970, nr. 3).

Gh. I. Cantacuzino strongly rejected the Dmbovit,afortress hypothesis as a false one and supported itsidentification with the ruins of Ceteni. There hadbeen another hypothesis, that Oratia was the fortressof Piatra Craiului (Kings Rock; Kiralko) fortress (XIXthcentury, Orban Balazs; afterwards, W. Horwath, DieErbauung der Burg bei Rucr, in Das Burzenland,

IV-1 , Bras,ov, 1929, pp. 58-62). Gh. I. Cantacuzinoinvestigated documents as well as topography, andused as an extra argument the testimony of Fr. Sulzer(Fr. Sulzer, Geschichte der Transalpinischen Daciens,I, Viena, 1781, p. 332), where the identity Oratia-Pia-tra Craiului was obvious.

The date of the first construction is unknown. Thedocuments, the historical context, and the archaeo-logical findings point to the second half of the XIVthcentury. W. Horwath supposed that it may have beena Transylvanian border fortress, and when it passedto Wallachia, king Ludovic the Vth ordered the build-ing of Bran castle. The assertion doesnt match thearchaeological evidence uncovered, which resemblesperfectly those found in Ceteni, Curtea de Arge,and Poenari. More probably, Ludovic the Vth orderedthe construction Bran castle as a counterweight of theWallachian fortress. A custom-house fortress could nothave been built so far away from the borders. In 1368one paid the Wallachian border tax at Longo Campovel juxta, which means that at that time the area ofOratia did not belong to Wallachian authorities. Giventhe above-mentioned information, one may place

the building of Oratia between 1368 and 1377 (whenbegan the construction of Bran). At the end of 1377the custom house was already near Ruca(r (Hurmu-zaki, I-2, pp. 242-243), suggesting that the fortresswas finished and in use. The Brasov archives (Quellenzur Geschichte der Stadt Kronstadt in Siebenburgen,I, Brasov, 1886, pp. 778, 430, 435,436 etc.; II, Braov,1889, pp.122, 202, 205; III, Braov, 1896, index) fromthe first half of the XVIth century prove that Oratiawas under its jurisdiction. Further evidence of thismay be found in a letter of Radu the Great (1496;

See I. Bogdan, Relaiile..., doc. XXXVI, about 1496, p.253) addressed to the chief magistrates of Brasov, anddemanding clemency for a gang of Wallachians thatdamaged the Podurile de la Oratii (Bridges of Oratii),probably a steep side paved with wood (Gh. I. Canta-cuzino, op.cit., p. 173). In 1969, a rectangular stonework of some kind was found north of the fortress. Itcould be connected with the aforementioned bridges(Gh. I. Cantacuzino, op.cit., p. 173).

The fortress watched over the road that linkedCmpulung to Brasov, and was located on the western

part of the Sachsen Hill.

7/31/2019 04-Oratia

9/9

45

The rock-carved road passed by the NW and W sidesof the fortress. To the N and S sides the slope is rapidand to the W and NW the rock walls are inaccessible.On the E and S areas there is a trench blocking theaccess from the hills summit, 10 meters wide and 4meters deep. The 1905 excavations unveiled a wall15 meters long that blocked the approach from the

south. The fortress is quite small, having no morethan 20 meters wide. The inside western area, wherethere was apparently no wall, has been raised area(7-8 meters wide and 2 meters high) and to the south-ern part there is evidence of a levelling with earthand finely chopped rock. The foundations of the wallsare built straight on the rock and are wider than thecurtain itself (i.e. 2 meters thick). The wall is madeof middle sized rocks barely processed and unevenlyarranged. For cohesion and levelling there were usedsmall rocks together with mortar as filling. There arecertain proofs that the rock was excavated from thevery same hill and the curtain height reached about 7meters. In the NE part of the fortress is a round toweropened to the yard. There were also out-buildingsonly in the south-eastern part and they were probablymade of wood, as proven by the carbonized remainsand the ash discovered there.

It is obvious that the fortress had a violent end,especially since in the carbonized wood were foundarrow heads and crossbow bolts.The artefacts foundduring the 1905 excavations were not studied, butthe 1968-1970 excavations dug up enough artefacts

to date the fortress in second half of the XIVth cen-tury, some of them supporting the assumption thatit was used even towards the XVIth century. Therewas no material prior to the second half of the XIVthcentury. The entrance was placed on the southernside, 1 meter higher than the ground level, and hadan opening 2 meters wide. This section of the wallis thicker with c. 0.8 meters. At an unknown datethe entry was blocked. In the NE side of the yard islocated the water-tank, 5.35 meters deep and 3.40meter wide. It was paved with sand-stone over a

layer of clay to make it watertight. The opening isnarrower and at the beginning of the XIXth centuryG. Treiber still identified some sort of drain systemfor the rain water. Filippo Pigafetta (Maria Holban,Cltori strini..., III, pp.561-562), who visited thefortress in 1595, noticed that Piatra Craiului (KingsRock) fortress was a small castle that had artillery.Knowing this, one can presume that the western plat-form served to this purpose, while the other sides ofthe fortress may have used the thickness of the wallsfor the same purpose.

He also pointed out that the road is carved in a steeprock on the right side, in such a fashion that the gunsand the wagons must be lifted using a winch and de-scended using ropes. Gh. I. Cantacuzino also noticedthat some of the still visible holes might have beenserved to this purpose.

Gh. I. Cantacuzino believes that some of Pierre

Lescalopiers (1574) notes may refer to Oratia. Thesenotes imply that the garrison (just a few men) livedin a tower in which they enter using a long ladder,pulled up afterwards, but they need not be takenword for word. They might simply imply that the liv-ing quarters were located in the NE tower, and thatthe entry was at a higher level (which would indicatethe minimum height). It is also possible that the en-tire fortress was referred to as a tower, with itsentrance to the road, by means of a portable ladder.The layout adopted here corresponds to that usedfor small defensive buildings, due to the fact thatthe fortress had to guard a strategically importantpoint. Real fortresses were, in the vast majority ofcases, strong points themselves. As far as the layout isconcerned, there can be made few precautious analo-gies, for this kind of layout is in fact an evolution fromthe type of circular enclosure with one central towerto the type of circular enclosure with curtain and atower. Such similar examples may be found at Grde,fortress, Drobeta fortress, Hrastovlje, Checiny, andPetrc.