I grew up not far from this site but have been living in Oregon for 30 years. One of the things that still strikes me when I go back to visit is just how much old stuff was around me in my childhood. Over there it's like "oh, let's put a nail salon in this 400 year old building". Here it's like: "oh, there's a 100 year old barn, we must turn it into a heritage site."
Grew up in a 15th century farm house that was built decades before Columbus set sail and re-discovered the Americas. A few years ago the wife and I were contemplating buying a property in England where the realtor enthusiastically explained that "the plumbing was modernized in the 16th century."
In The Netherlands, thanks to land reclamation and WWII we don’t have many old buildings. Most buildings in Amsterdam are 19th century or newer. The center of Rotterdam was largely rebuild after WWII. If I look at homes for sale and filter on 20th century and older that is about 5% of all homes.
Yeh, moved to Michigan from England and was taken to the oldest pub in the city, 120 years old. My local pub used to be a hunting lodge used by Henry VIII
In my hometown in Germany there's a bakery that's been in basically continous operation since about the time Christopher Columbus set sail. Annoyingly modern web site, and of course in German: https://www.fidelisbaeck.de/
Just the other day a moron set light to the crypt in St Michan's church in Dublin. It housed the ~800 year old mummified remains of a body that was called "The Crusader". Destroyed, along with other priceless mummies.
Friends of mine lived for a while in Rennes in one of the only buildings to survive a fire in the 18th century. It was from 15-something and had nary a right angle to it. A bit scary to go up the stairs, but quite cool.
It's a bit of an outdated quote now with the Schengen area, high speed trains, cheap flights and comfortable modern cars. We frequently do weekend trips 1000 kilometers away from home. And in the summer most Dutch families I know drive all the way to Spain or the south of France to go on Holiday, which is over 1200 kilometers. In the winter those same people drive to Austria or Switzerland for a ski-trip.
I have done a couple of road trips within Europe that were over 6000 kilometers.
Our local kindergarten is in a building from the 14th century, but this is really nothing special in Europe. Apart from the stones of the outer walls, the cellar and the truss, there is probably nothing original from the 14th century in this building. It has been renovated probably every 100 years at least.
Here is a typical 14th century house from the area where I grew up: https://www.tuebingen.de/i/fullscreen/1440/Bilder/stiefelhof... It is really just a normal apartment building and also doesn't look any different than neighboring houses built 300 years later.
One thing that even impressed this blasé European here who grew up surrounded by towns at least 1,000 years old was the city of Split in Croatia: here, they pragmatically built the entire old town into a ruinous roman palace by Diocletian:
I disagree on your 14th century building picture being "nothing special" to Europeans. All the major German cities that I've lived in were bombed to ashes in WW2. Most buildings are post war construction. Picturesque towns like Tübingen with conserved old buildings are an exception in Germany and attract local tourism for this reason. Split is a UNESCO world heritage site and pulls in tourists from all over the world.
Cities were bombed to smithereens but a lot of smaller towns in the countryside were spared. My Dad grew up in Berlin during WWII but my mom just a bit north in Mecklenburg, big difference between their wartime experience.
While that is true, all towns and villages under 80,000 inhabitants in my area (100 km around the village where I grew up) had historic centers with (at least) dozens of buildings that looked like my example from above, and were spared in WWII. These old half-timbered houses are so extremely common here that as a child I thought that all towns and villages looked like this.
About 10% of old growth forests still exist on the west coast. It's not great, but there are a good number of groves you can see within a few hours of the bay area.
Australian here, living in Europe.. I grew up with an understanding that the land of my childhood had been inhabited and cultivated for tens of thousands of years by the prior occupants .... and now here in Europe, I find it rather amusing that a thousand-year old building is being used for a nail salon.
That structure wasn't very old, and yes the locals were furious, but there's extra background to Shadian: there was a locally famous event there where local armed resistance to the government continued successfully for an extended period. This is perhaps a kind of 'payback' from the government.
I visited some of the oldest mosques in China and documented them with photography. One that sticks out in my memory was in Qingzhou, the old capital of Shandong.
In the grand tradition of autocracy, like many other old things, many ancient structures will lose their battle to fate due to paranoid rulers. In the grand tradition of time, however, the rulers will surely lose their own. The difference is, nobody will weep for them.
I do find it amazing that even in a place like Germany with excellent state-level surveying and archaeology services, as well as at least two centuries of enthusiastic amateurs, there are still undiscovered castles lurking in the forests...
It is not that somebody suddenly stumbled upon this castle. It was mentioned in an inventory book from 1454 and in another book form 1596. Also local field names indicated a castle. It is quite common in such cases that there are a couple of canidates for the location of a castle mentioned in a source. It required a thorough excavation to substantiate such a hypothesis.
> there are still undiscovered castles lurking in the forests
As with all anthropology/archaeology, there is a big difference between “discovered” [by science] and “known” [by the locals]. The locals most certainly know of every castle and even those castles that are now ruins probably have local legends/stories of how there used to be a castle in such and such place.
But none of that counts until an archaeologist/anthropologist comes and writes it down. They then bombastically proclaim to have discovered a thing! (that all the locals already knew about for decades/centuries)
Sauce: my partner studied anthropology and this was a running joke in her program. It is very rare for an academic to be the first to discover anything. Usually they get tipped off by someone local who doesn’t count
While there can certainly be case where items of local knowledge haven't been cataloged by (recent) science, I think that you are giving far too much credit to that side. It's not as if there was much oral tradition going on with ancient stories passed on from generation to generation, that just doesn't happen all that much in a place that had print media or better for half a millennium.
What we do have is knowledge encloded in place names ("Burgstall"), but locals won't be any wiser about the history of the thing unless they happen to be the type of person who collects and consumes books written by local history science buffs of earlier generations.
A chance discovery like this usually happens when some known (usually to science far more than to locals!) but not recently disturbed site has to make room for an infrastructure project and the archeologists are sent in to make use of the last chance to see.
You are right. The details are usually more known to science than to locals and infrastructure/building projects spur many archaelogical digs in Europe. To the point that most projects have to budget an archaeology time delay because you’re always going to hit something.
My comment was about completely undiscovered ruins/sites. Those are rare. Someone somewhere (could be a notebook) usually knows about it.
As for “no oral traditions in a country with long-standing books” – the Brothers Grimm famously started writing down oral traditions in the 1800’s. That’s only 200 years ago :) For a long long time in most of europe nobody bothered to write down what the peasants have to say.
Yeah, completely undiscovered does not happen, with the exception perhaps of battle sites which seem to keep catching archeologists by surprise. What does happen is discoveries of the kind "so we dug up this old thing, because it's in the way of some project, and we discovered that it contains identifiable traces of something much older that we did not expect."
The concept we both seem to be tiptoeing around is the idea that the best conservation approach is leaving it in the ground, for future archeologists to explore or not explore. I believe that this is a central principle of the modern approach to archeology, and one we laymen struggle to really take in. Yes, there are many sites known to science, but not analyzed to destruction by science.
"Burgstall" is not a place name, but technical terminology for a location of a former castle of which almost nothing is left. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgstall
In the case at issue here, the rock was called "Burgstein" and the forest around it "Burgholz". This names were already mentioned in a book from the 15th century and a book from the late 16th mentions a castle at the "Burgstein".[1] All this was long known,[2] but not all experts were convinced, that there had indeed been a castle on the rock. The new excavation now makes it seem even more likely.
[2] For example, one Gottlieb Fri[e]drich Rösler wrote in his "Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte des Herzogthums Wirtemberg" (2. Heft, publ. 1790): "Auf dem Burgstein einem grossen Felsen gegen Abend, auf dem die Aussicht nocht schöner ist, sind auch die Spuren der alten Burg unkenntlich geworden ..." ("On the Burgstein, a large rock towards the Evening [the West], where the view is still more beautiful, even the traces of the old castle have become unrecognisable ..."). See p. 81 of: https://books.google.de/books?id=BY05AAAAcAAJ&printsec=front...
There aren't. I'm guessing you live in a country with vast tracts of wilderness like the US or Canada. Germany is not like that.
This archeological site is a pile of rocks that once was a castle. (The rocks are probably mixed with dirt and plant life and might have been completely buried.)
As the other replies have pointed out, there aren't really undiscovered castles.
But I do recommend visiting Germany, where there are way, way more castles than you might expect. In particular I can recommend the "Castle Way" along the Neckar River. Every bend in the river has its own castle, just dozens and dozens of them.
Most are not especially dramatic. Many are just ruins; others are literally just people's homes now. Still, it's a little bit like a D&D fantasy world where there really are just castles everywhere. (And yeah, some of them have genuine dungeons.)
Lived in a small town along the Jagst river for a while, which joins the Neckar at Heilbronn. You get Castle Fatigue fairly quickly with how many castles there are around there. Its hard to care about the 15th castle you pass in as many minutes. And I grew up in Ireland, which itself has a lot of castle dotted around the place.
More like living on a body of water was like having access to a highway. And while a lot of trade happened along a river, it's also a risk for invasion from armies and raiding parties, hence the need for protection.
Tour guides of historical sites are often completely or even willfully wrong about facts like this, but in a sense almost all castles exist to exert control over nearby resources so they're probably right.
It's probably both. Rivers are convenient for transport, which means raiders can also target them since so much valuable stuff is transported that way. A castle is a sensible way (in those times) to put a protective force in place against the raiders. However, the castle and the people protecting river traffic need money, so of course that comes from tolls.
It's no different than any "protection racket" or police force: the money has to come from somewhere to offer protection, so some form of tax is normally used.
There is an immense number of dilapidated castles, keeps, strongholds or oppida all over Europe, with most of those barely visible to an untrained eye, and they have been catalogized for decades.
I’m sure there are several ruins of castles in the Saxon/Bohemian Switzerland region. It’s a vast area full of rocky terrain and old ruins might be hard to find without scientific equipment.
> Disciplina clericalis is a book by Petrus Alphonsi. Written in Latin at the beginning of the 12th century, it is a collection of 33 fables and tales and is the oldest European book of its kind.
> Then, the accomplishments are: Riding, swimming, archery, boxing, the chase, chess, writing verse. The virtues (industriae) are: not to be a glutton, a drunkard, a sybarite, not to be given to violence, to lying, covetous, and of evil life." The disciple: "At the present time I do not believe there is any man of this kind."
I’ve applied for almost 120 knight jobs in the last two years. Several of them require 30 years experience at both swimming and poetry, which is absurd. It’s possible I’m being rejected due to my drunkard status tbh.
That 'horse' looks like a bishop to me. The head is far more person-shaped than horse-shaped. And that necklace - surely homage to a surplice or other ecclesiastical garb or jewelry?
In that set you can see the rook being castle like on the end, the knight with a "triangular stick out head thing" and an elephant which has two bumps that at first glance made me think breasts rather than tusks. Then the inner two pieces with the king and queen.
The triangular head, however, is that of a horse's head rather than an upside-down miter or jewelry.
> The bishop's predecessor in medieval chess, shatranj (originally chaturanga), was the alfil, meaning "elephant", which could leap two squares along any diagonal, and could jump over an intervening piece. As a consequence, each fil was restricted to eight squares, and no fil could attack another. The modern bishop first appeared shortly after 1200 in Courier chess.
The 'boobs' could be just that, representing the queen.
That 'chess set' isn't even symmetrical! Two with triangular 'heads', one with 'boobs', one with a square projection!
Couldn't those two with grooves represent bishops? More typical of a mitre than a crown, but hey this was Germany, maybe that's correct there. And yeah, that last link to the early 'bishop' has a slot cut in it too.
Unless they found it with the board set up, then I'm gonna have doubts about any conclusions about correlations with modern chess pieces.
> This example of 11th or 12th century chess pieces from Scandinavia, now in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nuremberg, shows two kings and a smaller, though similar, queen at the back right. On the left hand side are four rooks, and at the front four knights. There are two bishops between the knights and the two kings.
The pieces between the knights and the kings again have a design that makes me think of breasts again.
However, setting aside that those are bishops / elephants (with tusks), the knights at issue are without decoration have the triangular shaped heads sticking forward.
> The separate chess pieces of the Sandomierz chess set. All have double/triple decorative lines at the bottom and belong to one playing set. First row: pawn (top view), bishop/elephant (side view), king (overview), counsellor (side view). Second row: king (side view), knight (front view), pawn (overview) and rook (side view). All images of this chess set are from the Sandomierz museum website.
The bishop/elephant again shows the tusks. The second row knight doesn't show the triangular shaped head as well though. You will see that the counsellor (Byzantine doesn't have the queen) is similar to that of the king, without the crown.
Looking at some of the links to other finds, it looks like only one of the players' pieces has the "eyes". I wonder if that is an insignia to differentiate the players since I don't see a color difference.
Using evidence rather than just "damn that looks like a bishop to me". There's lots of other old chess sets to compare to, and it sounds like these are from 11th/12th century which would be hundreds of years before bishops are thought to have been added to chess.
A. Some random folks on the internet who have looked at a single picture of a chess piece and maybe play themselves, but apparently no other qualifications.
Or:
B. Medieval historians who have years of education and study, deep familiarity with the subject matter and publish books and papers on the subject, as well as consulting with historians of chess, and who have compared it to other well known, well studied chess sets from the era.
I don't think the latter are infallible, but without something pretty compelling from the former (evidence? what's that?), I'm gonna go with the latter.
