Saksa, Aleksandr

Uino, Pirjo

Zetterberg, Pentti

English

Journal.fi

Fennoscandia archaeologica XlI (1995) Pentti Zetterberg, Aleksandr I. Saksa and Pirjo Uino THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE FORTRESS OF KAKISALMI, RUSSIAN KARELIA, AS EVIDENCED BY NEW DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL DATING RESULTS Abstract Dendrochronological analyses were made of seven timber samples collected at archaeologi-cal excavations at the Fortress of Kiikisalmi. The samples were taken from a layer containing timber 1.5-2.5 m below the present surface. All samples were of pine, and their annual rings could be dated precisely to cover the time period AD 1184-1373. In most cases the outer-most rings had been carved off or decomposed, and thus the felling date could only be esti-mated to an accuracy of 5 to 50 years. The approximated felling dates of this material vary between 1332 and ca. 1420. Only one sample had the bark present and its felling date could be dated exactly to the winter season (September-April) 1363/1364. All dating results pre-sented here do not agree with earlier datings from this timber layer, but our material is still too limited for final conclusions. Pentti Zetterberg, Laboratory of Dendrochronology, Karelian Institute, Section of Ecology, University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland. Aleksandr 1. Saksa, Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of the History of Material Cul-ture, Dvorcovaja nab., 18, 191065 St. Petersburg, Russia. Pirjo Uino, National Board of Antiquities, P.O. Box 913, FIN-OOlOl Helsinki, Finland. Introduction The Fortress of Kiikisalmi is situated in the middle of the town on an island in the (now) shallow Riv-er Vuoksi, about four kilometers from the shore of the Lake Ladoga. The first written record of Kiikisalmi dates from 1294/95. Archaeological excavations have been carried out at several occa-sions in order to investigate the earlier building phases of the Fortress (Fig. 1; Schvindt 1898; Kirpicnikov 1979; 1984; Saksa 1992; Uino & Saksa 1993). Our aim is to present the dendrochronological dating of timber samples collected at the archaeo-logical excavations conducted in 1989 and 1990 by A.I. Saksa and P. Uino,l and to discuss the re-1 The samples were collected by P. Zetterberg (sample 01), A.I. Saksa and P. Uino (02-06), and Matti Saarnisto (07). suIts in comparison with earlier datings in order to get additional information concerning the phases of construction (see Kankainen et al. 1995). The dendrochronological dating was performed at the University of Joensuu Laboratory of Dendro-chronology and financed by the Academy of Fin-land Research Council for the Humanities. Methods and material The dendrochronological dating method is based on the examination of the annual rings observed in samples of wood. Even if conditions of other kinds have an effect, the width of each annual ring of a tree mainly reflects the weather conditions prevailing in the particular growing season. Bad years grow narrow and favourable years wide tree-rings. Because weather conditions show sim-ilar variations within large regions, also the series 215 -... , o 30M , , \ " , \ \ Fig. 1. Plan of the Fortress of Klikisalmi. 1. The fundament of the stone tower from AD 1364; 2-4. The exca-vation areas of 1972-73, 1975-76. Asterisk: the excavation area of 1989-90. of annual rings of trees of one species living at the same time in a given region are closely similar. This similarity is used in dendrochronological dat-ing. It is possible to determine the period of growth of a series of tree-rings of a sample of unknown age by comparing with a series of tree-rings of which the calendar years of growth are known. In favourable cases the outermost ring of a sample is also the last ring grown by the tree. This makes it possible to date the felling with an accuracy of one year, and sometimes it is even possible to deter-mine the month of felling if it took place during 216 the growing season. For further information about dendrochronological methods, see e.g. Zetterberg (1991). Except for one the samples from the Fortress of Klilisalmi (Fig. 2) were taken from timber where the original surface under the bark was missing. In such cases the outermost surviving tree-ring rep-resents the year before which the felling can not have taken place, but it is not possible to deter-mine the actual year of felling. Besides decay the missing of the original surface may be due to peel-ing the bark off or hewing in connection with building. Excavation, sampling, and transporta-Fig. 2. Dendrochronological sample number 04 from the Fortress of Klikisalmi. The growth rings measured from three radii date to the period AD 1215-1351. Photo P. Zetterberg. tion may also damage a softened surface. The "winter season" refers to the period be-tween two growing seasons when no radial growth takes place, i.e. from September to April. On the other hand the radial growth may begin only late in June and cease in early August. As the annual variation is considerable this definition of the winter season is suggestive only. In trees felled during a winter season the ring grown the preceding summer is the last complete one. Several pine master chronologies, all of them highly representative and based on tens of earlier datings, and stretching back to the 11th-13th cen-turies, were used in this study as reference materi-al (Zetterberg, in print). At the Laboratory of Dendrochronology seven samples were investigated. While sample 07 de-rives from the eastern part of the 1989 excavation samples 02-06 were taken in the western part of the 1990 excavation. All of the samples represent horizontal logs (Fig. 3). The samples 02-05 and 07 represent a horizon with horizontal logs (at a depth of 1.5-1.9 m) assumed to date from the ear-ly 14th century. The structure in question may have been a quay or floor of some kind. Sample 06 originates from a horizontal log belonging to a timber structure of unknown function discovered beneath the former structure (at a depth of 2.5 m), and with an earlier radiocarbon date. Sample 01 is a core taken from a log in the his-torical exhibition at the Fortress, the originalloca-tion of which is not exactly known. It was already badly affected by decay and wearing as were the samples mentioned above. Dating results The dating results given below are based on dat-ing report no. 90 of the Laboratory of Dendro-chronology (Zetterberg 1992). Fig. 4 presents the time span covered by the tree-rings observed in the samples hereby dated as well as an estimate of the felling date. The last complete ring observed in sample 01 dates from AD 1332. There is, however, some lat-217 Fig. 3. The upper horizon of wooden structures in the Fortress of Kiikisalmi in the western part of the 1990 excavation. The samples 02-05 (timber no 05 is still unseen in the profile). View from the south. Photo P. Uino 1990. er wood present, but it is not suitable for study be-cause of decay. It is possible that the tree was ferred soon after the last complete ring had grown, but it is also possible that the felling took place considerably later. Because the question cannot be solved from the available core sample, the date mentioned above represents a terminus post quem for the felling. While in sample 02 some bark was still present it was possible to determine the felling date exact-ly to the period between September 1363 and April 1364. The last observed rings in samples 03-05 scat-ter within the period AD 1335-1373. Because the surface of the logs were severely affected by de-cay and wearing it is difficult to estimate the real felling date. However, it is assumed that 5-50 rings were lost although, in principle, even more rings could have disappeared. Thus the felling dates were estimated as follows: sample 03 - AD 218 1378-1423, sample 04 - AD 1356-1401, and sample 05 - AD 13~1385. In sample 06 only 55 annual rings were present, which in this case was considered insufficient for the determination of the chronological position. Sometimes it is possible to date even shorter se-quences, if the rings show considerable variation in thickness thus allowing for a connection with other ring series representing trees grown at the same time. In this case the average thickness of the annual rings is nearly 2 rom, indicating that the tree grew fast, and lacking determining character-istics the series is not conclusive. The series shows some consistency with samples 02, 03, OS, and 07, suggesting that the last ring would repre-sent the year 1332. However, as the testvalues of fitness remain below t= 4.0 in each case, this sam-ple is given no dendrochronological date. Accord-ing to high precision radiocarbon determinations the present surface ring of this log derives from AD 1225±12 years (Kankainen in print; Kan-kainen et al. 1995). In sample 07 the last observed ring dates from AD 1348. As decay and wearing apparently have affected the surface of this sample less severely than that of several others it is possible to give a more precise estimate of the felling date: AD 1350-1360. Discussion It appears from the results, that the earliest possi-ble felling dates fall between AD 1340 and 1378. Only one tree, represented by sample OS, may have been felled before AD 1350. The trees repre-sented by samples 02-04 and 07 were, again, def-initely felled in the latter half of the 14th century, or even later, by AD 1423. Our present results do not entirely correspond with the dates of the samples collected at the exca-vations of 1972-73. According to Kolcin and Cemyh (1977, 62) fourteen timber samples were taken. Their results point to the existence of two distinct horizons of wooden structures, viz. an ear-lier from AD 1310-1360 and a later from the 1360's and 1380's, the turning point being the fire in AD 1360, mentioned in written records (Kirpicnikov 1979, 59; 1984, 126). The dating of the earlier and later Fortress of Kiikisalrni is based on a comparison of the tree-ring series with corresponding material from Novgorod, Oresek and Pskov (Kolcin & Cemyh 1977, 60-63). The oldest logs of the lowermost stratum of the earlier horizon would date from the period AD 1305-1313 (Kolcin & Cemyh 1977, 1150 1200 1250 years A.D. 1300 1350 1400 1450 somple 01 somple 02 somple 03 somple 04 sample 05 f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 ? ~ ::::::: :::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: : : :::::: ::: ::::j I::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::::::::: ~ 1----+----1 I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::3 1--+----1 sample 06 ? somple 07 Meosured r ings Felling dote approximation k:::::}J 1-----1 Fig. 4. Tree-ring sequences and felling date estimates of the dendrochrological samples from the Fortress of Klikisalmi. 113-114). However, while the surface was report-ed intact for one sample only (AD 1312), the loss of rings was not estimated for the others, and thus it is not possible to determine with certainty the felling dates of the latter (Kirpicnikov 1979, 59 note 46, where the felling dates are AD 1303-1313). Consequently the given dates are not satis-factory for a reliable dating of the structure. The outermost rings of the logs from the upper horizon date from AD 1360, 1366, and 1389, i.e. to the building phase following the fIre of AD 1360. In the fIrst place the published results represent the situation in the W part of the fortress (excava-tion area 4), not the NE part, viz. excavation area 10 (cf. Taavitsainen 1990,241), next to which the excavations of 1989-90 were carried out. Accord-ing to Kirpicnikov (1979, 59 note 46) 30 discs tak-en from area 10 were sent to Moscow for dating, but no results are available so far. However, Kirpicnikov (1979, 60 Fig. 2) interpreted the tim-ber layer discovered in area 10 as explicitly repre-senting the building phase preceding the fIre of AD 1360. The level of this layer corresponds with that of the timber layer excavated in 1989-90. Ly-ing in each others extension they form a section of a large structure, part of which is still uncovered. The divergence of the Finnish and Russian re-sults must at least to some extent depend on the fact that the samples derive from opposite sides of the courtyard. Kirpicnikov's interpretation of two different 14th century building horizons is not necessarily valid in all parts of the Fortress island. The building activity probably continued gradual-ly over a period of time and not within two re-stricted phases, even if the fIre of AD 1360 must have called for large scale rebuilding. The corre-spondence of the dendrochronological curves used by Russian and Finnish investigators is not examined, so far. Kirpicnikov connects his dendrochronological dates with records in the Novgorod Chronicle ac-cording to which the Russians would have forti-fIed the island AD 1310 and again after the fIre. As such the inference is logical. However, of our samples, only 04 and 05 may represent a building horizon earlier than the fIre, but neither of them may have been felled before 1335. On the other hand, all samples in question (02, 03, 04, and 05) belong stratigraphically as well as visually to one and the same timber structure. We are inclined to think that the timber layer at issue represents the building activity that followed the fIre, and in con-nection with which also older timber was reused. Considering the dates it is important to note that the dendrochronological method only dates the ring series of a sample. In interpreting the re-219 suIt it is necessary to take into account that the sample may in fact represent reused timber from some earlier structure. IT so, the direct use of a tree-ring date results in a date too early for the ob-ject at issue. Reuse of timber has been common, and clear marks of this are present also among the timber referred to here. E.g. in the trunk sampled as 02 a cut is clearly seen, probably indicating an earlier use as a log in a building. Reuse explains also why this log was felled at least 15 years be-fore the log found beneath it and sampled as 03 was felled. On sampling technique Even though a trunk has a sufficient number of annual rings a bad technique can result in a sam-ple containing too short a sequence, i.e. less than fifty rings. Because of this a correct sampling technique is particularly important. Timber from too young a tree would also contain an inadequate number of rings, as our sample 06. Thus, provided that several trunks are present, a representative number of samples should be tak-en, as the possibility of accurate dating will im-prove when more material is available. At a site like the Fortress of IGi.kisalmi samples should ide-ally be taken from every possible log. While dat-ing may be successful on the basis of a couple of samples only, chances of failure are very much greater. Difficulties in the interpretation of the dating results may arise from the reuse of old timber in new structures or the use of new timber for repair of old structures. Because of this there is a consid-erable risk of a sample to differ in age from the rest of the timber of the structure. Conclusions The Kakisalmi dendrochronological dates do not shed light on the question, whether there was a fortress on the island already in the 13th century (the Karelian phase, indicated by artefacts discov-ered at different excavations). The results provide 220 data for the study of the 14th century Novgorodian building activity only. The sample series is also too restricted for far-reaching conclusions. In or-der to solve problems concerning the building phases of the island, more extensive excavations are also needed. References Kankainen, T., (in print): The early history of Kiikisalmi fortress as revealed by high-precision 14C analyses of the lowest wooden structures. PACT Journal. Kankainen, T., Saksa, A. I. & Uino, P. 1995: The early history of the Fortress of Kiikisalmi, Russian Karelia - archaeological and radiocarbon evi-dence. Fennoscandia archaeologica xn. Kirpicnikov, A.N. 1979: Istoriko-arheologiceskie issledovanija drevnej Korely (UKorel'skij gorod" XIV v.). Finno-ugry i slav jane. Leningrad. Kirpicnikov, A.N. 1984: Kamennye kreposti Nov-gorodskoj zemli. Leningrad. Kolcin, BA & Cernyh, N.B. 1977: Dendro-hronologija Vostocnoj Evropy. Moskva. Saksa, A.I. 1992: Kiikisalmen maasta esiin kaivettu historia. Viipurin Suomalaisen Kirjallisuusseuran toimitteita lO. Schvindt, Th. 1898: Kiikisalmen pesiilinnan ja entisen linnoitetun kaupungin rakennushistorian aineksia. Analecta Archaeologica Fennica II, 2. Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1990: Ancient Hillforts of Fin-land. SMYA 94. Uino, P. & Saksa, A.I. 1993: Results and Perspec-tives of Archaeological Investigations at the Cas-tle of KiikisaImi/Kexholm. Castella Maris Baltici 1. Archaeologia Medii Aevi Finlandiae I. Zetterberg, P. 1991: Dendrokronologia - puun niikokulma ihmisen ja luonnon historiaan. Sai-maalta Kolille. Karjalan tutkimuslaitoksen 20-vuotiskirja (Hakamies, P., Jiiiiskeliiinen, V. & Sa-vijarvi, I., eds). Joensuu. Zetterberg, P. 1992: Kiikisalmen linnan arkeolo-gisten kaivausten puulOytojen ajoitus, dendrokro-nologiset naytteet Sill.-OlOl- SULOI07. Joensuun yliopisto, Karjalan tutkimuslaitos, ekologian osasto, Dendrokronologian laboratorion ajoitusse-loste 90 (dating report, manuscript). Zetterberg, P., (in print): Dendrochronological dat-ing in Finland. In Time and Environment, a PACT seminar, September 25-28 1990, Helsinki, Fin-land. PACT Journal. ABBREVIATIONS FA FFf FM HyalM SKS SM SMYA Fennoscandia archaeologica Finska Fomminnesforeningens Tidskrift Finskt Museum Helsingin yliopisto arkeologian laitos Moniste Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura Suomen Museo Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja TRANSLITERATION USED IN TIDS VOLUME Cyrillic Latin alphabet alphabet A a a B 6 b B B V r r g ~ ~ d E e e E e jo )I( )I( Z 3 3 Z J1 H i fI H j K K k JI 11 1 M M m H H n 0 0 0 II n p p p r C c s T T t Y Y u cI> <P f X x h Q n; c q q C III III S m In; sc 1> 'I> " bI hI r b b :3 3 e IO 10 ju 51 H ja 221 

The Early History of the Fortress of Käkisalmi, Russian Karelia, as Evidenced by New Dendrochronological Dating Results

https://journal.fi/fennoscandiaarchaeologica/article/download/126345/76175

The Early History of the Fortress of Käkisalmi, Russian Karelia, as Evidenced by New Dendrochronological Dating Results

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Journal.fi