ARCHIVE (All issues) / 
Content (2019, Issue 3)
Skrypnyk A. A vision of toponymic furcation problem. Considering the fortification building nomination in Kamianets-podilskySection: Domestic Landmarks Studies: Traditions, Experience, Perspectives Abstract: Introduction. The paper considers the evident problem of terminological variance in the names of medieval fortification systems of Kamianets-Podilsky.The constructions in question may be roughly divided into two types. The firs are those built on fiscal costs and aimed at protecting from theenemy attacks from other countries, which in contemporary terminology are called “military bases (objects)”. The others are castles built by regional feudalists and magnates for the purposes of their personal safety and image. Podillia has been within the sphere of political interests of several states since early Middle Ages due to its geographical position. This factor of foreign attack served a powerful impulse to build and transform fortifications constructions in the region. Kamianets-Podilsky as a regional centre can boast of a mighty fortification complex based on the natural cape. This architectural monument has become a symbol of the town and reflected on the town’s coat of arms. It is a tourist brand, a media sign, a widely used token. The town itself is most often associated with this military construction. But there has been a tendency among the present day historians and ethnographers to freely violate the use of the terms: some adhere to “fortress”, the others follow the fashion to call it a “castle”, there are double-names like “fortress-castle” etc. The terminological mess should be corrected and theoretically grounded which constituted the object of the present paper. Methodology. The author uses contemporary scholarly and methodological inventory to provide the objective and unbiased vista of treating the problem. Initially, the semantic analysis of such concepts as ‘castle’ and ‘fortress’ is carried out. Due to the method of historic retrospective, the application of the terms is followed in the documents, media, literature. The chronology of the terms usage demonstrates the approaches towards the terms choice and the reasons of terminological preferences. Results and discussion. The semantic analysis of dictionary definitions and those from other reference sources suggests the difference between the meanings of the lexemes used to nominate the ancient fortification construction in Kamianets-Podilsky. It proves that the semantic dominant of the lexeme ‘castle’ is the place of a feudalist’s dwelling. If applied to the object in question, there were some periods and episodes in its history when ‘Kamianets-Podilsky’s castle’ performed administrative, fortification functions and that of dwelling, but this term cannot stand for the whole history of the investigated object. The term ‘fortress’ stands for a fortified construction stationary buildings, regular garrison, supplies of provision and weapons, meant to combat a long-term besiegement and a circular defence. This definition can be found in popular fiction, reference editions, dictionaries and special fortification literature. All the analyzed meanings of the term ‘fortress’ contain the semantics of a particularly military object with distinct infrastructure where according to the military needs there may be a residence or dwelling of the authorities. Such characteristics are appropriate to Khotyn’s, Akkerman’s and Kamianets-Podilsky’s fortresses. Conclusions. In the author’s opinion, the free usage of the terms ‘castle’ and ‘fortress’ is highly subjective and does not bear any theoretically grounded motivation. The fortification construction in Kamianets-Podilsky used to perform definite functions according to its original purpose and throughout its history and deserves to be adequately nominated. Keywords: cultural heritage, Kamianets-Podilsky, architectural monuments, fortification constructions, fortress, castle, kronwerk. Author(s) citation:
Cite: References:
|
