Ronow Castle in Trzciniec – interdisciplinary research on a medieval stronghold at the Czech-Lusatian borderland 19
regionally signicant road (Fig. 5: 2) ran from the south-
east and descended into the western valley, likely as part of
a route between Reichenau and Marienthal.
Within Zone I, to the east of House No. 18 (Fig. 5: 3),
a trapezoidal terrace measuring approximately 40 × 37 m
has been preserved (Fig. 5: 4). Additional terraces (Fig. 5:
5–10) and remnants of retaining walls (Fig. 5: 11–13) ex-
tend along the zone’s western section. While their chronolo-
gy remains uncertain, supercial survey suggests they may
represent early modern modications of the terrain, possi-
bly related to the regulation of road routes. In the western
valley, below the zone, a well is also visible (Fig. 1: 8).
The hill south of the castle and the eastern slope oppo-
site it (Fig. 1: 9) have been proposed as the location of the
siege camp during the 1399 assault. These locations were
suggested based on topographic suitability and accessibil-
ity, though current research has yet to produce evidence
conrming this hypothesis.
Zone II – outer fortifications
Zone II comprises the outer defensive structures of the
castle, consisting of an external embankment (Fig. 5: 14)
and a moat (Fig. 5: 15), which enclosed Zones III and IV,
forming an additional defensive perimeter. The entire sys-
tem takes on an approximately oval form measuring about
160 × 100 m. The embankments reach an elevation be-
tween 270 and 275 m a.s.l., and their course, generally
continuous along the western, northern, and eastern anks,
adapts to the natural topography of the hill. On the south-
eastern side, both moat and embankment rise to about 280
m a.s.l., indicating intentional adaptation of the defences to
terrain features and potential threats. The most substantial
segment of the embankment is preserved along the south-
ern and southeastern portions of the site, underscoring
their heightened defensive importance. In the area of the
former gate (Fig. 6: 16), however, both moat and embank-
ment were signicantly altered due to the construction
of the forester’s house in 1794 and, later, House No. 18
(Fig. 5: 3).
On the southwestern side, the line of the embankment
curves sharply; here, the moat oor drops by 3.5–4 m, and
the embankment itself disappears entirely (Fig. 6: 17). This
interruption is likely related to an old access road (Fig. 5: 18)
leading from the valley up to Zone III via the moat. On
the northern and northeastern sides, the embankment ap-
pears to be interrupted, possibly never constructed in full
or eroded over time (Fig. 5: 19). In the eastern section, near
the junction of Zones III and IV, the embankment follows
a sinuous, S-shaped path (Fig. 5: 20), while the moat bot-
tom rises several meters.
In the northern part of the moat, massive stone blocks
were recorded (Fig. 5: 21), interpreted as collapsed ma-
terial from the upper portions of the castle (Zone IV),
likely resulting from deliberate demolition or destruction
during the 1399 siege. No traces of foundations, mortar,
or masonry rubble were found on the crest of the embank-
ment. Although Karl Christian Eschke (1844) and later au-
thors mention a wall 0.6–1 m in width running along the
embank ment, no material remains conrm its existence.
However, it is plausible that a palisade or so-called parkan,
a type of fortication commonly used in response to the
development of rearms in the late 15
th
century at castles
in Bohemia and Silesia, once existed here; the remnants of
such a structure would not be visible on the surface (Biel
2021).
Zone III – outer bailey
Zone III is interpreted as the outer bailey, whose delin-
eation is clearly dened both by the topography and the
preserved architectural remains. It occupies the southeast-
ern portion of the castle hill and is subdivided into three
distinct sections (Fig. 4). The rst sub-zone, designated
IIIa, comprises a courtyard measuring 52 × 50 m. Adjacent
to its southwestern edge lies the second sub-zone, IIIb,
measuring 16 × 40 m. Below, on the southwestern slope,
sits the trapezoidal sub-zone IIIc, measuring 11 × 44 m.
Together, these form a complex structure suggesting func-
tional dierentiation within the outer bailey.
The eastern boundary of the outer bailey is dened by
a massive curtain wall preserved over a length of 34 m and
up to 5.4 m in height (Fig. 5: 22). The wall runs in a mark-
edly polygonal course, and its facing has been damaged
by later erosion. Its construction consists of medium-sized
stones carefully laid and interspersed with smaller frag-
ments, displaying a tendency toward regular coursing. Five
distinct layers are visible, each between 0.7 and 0.85 m in
height. Three wall openings have been preserved: from left
to right, the rst measures 12 cm in diameter and 1.4 m in
depth; the second is square, 11 × 11 cm, and 1.3 m deep;
and the third, 23 × 22 cm and at least 1.53 m deep, is set
at an oblique angle (~20°) relative to the wall face, likely
serving as a water drain. At this point, the wall’s thickness
exceeds 1.5 m and is probably closer to 2 m. The mortar is
a light ochre-coloured lime binder with a high content of
quartz aggregate and traces of mica.
The southwestern wall (preserved length: 70 m; height
up to 4.5 m) displays evidence of multi-phase construction
(Figs. 5: 23; 6; 7; 8; 8a). Eschke (1844, 270) and Moschkau
(1891) treated it as a monolithic defensive wall; however,
the variation in mortars and construction techniques con-
rms the existence of at least two building phases. In the
medieval walls B and F (Fig. 6), a light ochre lime mortar
with up to 70% washed quartz aggregate (grain size 3 mm
to 1.5 cm) and a minor presence of mica was used. In con-
trast, the early modern walls feature a similar light ochre
lime binder with a higher admixture of river sand and ne,
dark stones, but without mica. The segments labelled A, C,
D, E, and G (Fig. 6) were likely added during 19
th
-centu-
ry adaptations for an inn. Notably, wall E was secondarily
joined to wall F (at the joint), and wall F retains visible cor-
ners at both ends (Fig. 6: 13, 14), suggesting it originally
formed a standalone, enclosed construction element, likely
a building façade (Fig. 5: 24). Only in the later walls (C,
D, E, G) were various niches and technological conduits
identied. These are arranged in two vertical tiers and vary
in size – e.g., 7 × 9 × 65 cm; 6 × 9 × 85 cm; 13 × 10 × 30 cm
– with some set at an angle to the face, likely for drainage
purposes.
