In the first part, we defined the characteristics of tower houses, how they have been treated by historiography and more recently by archaeology, and sketched their historical context. Today we will see the effects that historical events had on the materiality of these buildings and their influence on Basque feudal society.
The Historical Context's Influence on Materiality: The Archaeological and Architectural Reflection of History
As expected, the historical events mentioned had a clear effect on the stratigraphy of these buildings, which have been analyzed by architectural archaeology, creating quite general and obvious trends in the changes that these buildings underwent (Ibañez, Moraza & Uribarrio, 1996A: 301). First of all, in a context of instability and conflict, the military aspect of the towers prevails over habitability or comfort for the nobles (García, 2003: 131-132): generally, authors mention various inconveniences such as lack of insulation, ventilation, and lighting, humidity, lack of space… (Yrizar, 1946: 303 & García, 2003: 134). During this stage, certain elements of the building such as the balcony or scaffold, built in wood at the top to increase active defense possibilities, are appreciated.
According to García (2003: 137), the scaffold gives the defender an advantage by controlling the situation during a battle, increasing their field of vision and enabling the use of objects or firearms or bows, thus more effectively defending the base of the building and its surroundings; remember that around the tower house were usually located the most important properties and resources of the lineage, so it was also necessary to minimize property damage. The higher the scaffold, the greater its effectiveness, therefore, this need for height completely conditioned the use of space inside the tower. In García's words, «The internal space of the tower is nothing more than a transition between the ground and the scaffold, a transition to which common housing and private rooms have adapted by the noble» (2003: 137).
The military character of the towers is evident in other less obvious details during this first stage, for example, the ground floor usually did not have direct access from the ground, as access to the building was generally made via a mobile platform or ladder to the first floor, accessing the ground floor from within. The objective is clear: to protect the ground floor and thus the base of the wooden structure, the most sensitive point. The doors on the ground floor that can be seen today in many of these towers are therefore later additions (García, 2003: 136; Ibañez, Moraza & Uribarrio, 1996B: 315 & Plata, 2004: 648).
This "public" or semi-private use of the transition to the scaffold and lack of direct access to the ground floor undermines or at least casts doubt on old theories about room utilization during this initial stage, although some still hold them as valid: according to Ardanaz, «the ground floor was used for livestock, the first floor by the family, where the fire, hearth would be located. The second or higher floors were used for grain storage» (2017: 39). In contrast, other authors advocate more plausible models, giving due account of the documentary gap on this topic:
…we would have four floors with specific functions. The ground floor would be storage; the first, a living room where most daily activities took place (there would be the kitchen and communal bedroom); the second would constitute a space for celebrating important ceremonies (…) while the third would serve a purely defensive purpose in relation to the scaffold mentioned above.(García, 2003: 135)
Regarding interior divisions, Yrizar informs us that walls were built with wooden boards, using wide curtains from a medium height upwards (1946: 303). According to García and Azkarate, private spaces and internal divisions would be quite limited, not only due to the public nature of the ascent to the scaffold but also because the lineage was accustomed to hosting an entire group of vassals of different types that would undermine the private character of the interior of the tower: friends, servants, soldiers (2004: 28).
From the 15th century onwards, as peace became more widespread, the military functions of the towers were reduced (whether by legal obligation or simply due to neglect and practical necessity), changing the aesthetics of these buildings into lighter forms, with new windows and doors and fewer defensive elements: they would become dwellings rather than fortresses, significantly improving their habitability and comfort. To expand usable surface area, in many cases annexes, auxiliary buildings or towers were converted into palaces. In turn, towers began to acquire a certain symbolic value as an indicator of the lineage's antiquity, but their weight and importance in the noble heritage would decline, beginning a process of conversion into rented farmhouses (Ibañez, Moraza & Uribarrio, 1996B: 316-319; Luengas, 2019: 202).
Influence of Tower Houses on Feudal Society:
According to Azkarate and García (2004: 7), understanding a building is essential to understand its environment. In the case of tower houses, this environment is influenced by three aspects of the late medieval landscape: first, the polysemy of space, that is, the multitude of ways in which it can be understood as physical space, source of resources or route to those resources; secondly, the heterogeneity of space, regarding the random or unequal distribution of resources throughout it, generating the need for movement of goods and creating thus struggles over control of transport and its contents between social groups or sociopolitical units. Finally, the social character of space generated by anthropization.
Senior relatives saw in the landscape a source of economic resources, and the tower house was used as a tool for territorial control to exploit, besides ensuring the status and security of the lineage. The location of towers near roads, rivers or important resources is striking: in a certain way, the tower house has the role of a center for the exploitation and administration of the environment, housing within it bridges, tolls, mills, patronage chapels, farmhouses, blacksmith shops and other production zones.
In the process of wealth acquisition, historians have generally classified towers on the passive side of feudal real estate property, with churches of patronage, ironworks, and mills among others being considered active assets. These latter were seen as mere means for obtaining wealth without considering the role of tower houses in that process, which Azkarate and García encapsulate in the Banderizo Architectural System. They argue that this perception has been influenced by the pace of change in spatial conception within historiography and a mechanistic view of history (2004: 10-11).
Azkarate and García emphasize the lack of exact geographical boundaries or limits to feudal power, which thus was not entirely assured in production processes within it. These were controlled through certain strategic points: depending on the technological and productive capabilities of each point, there tended to be specialization in these areas obtaining control over the production cycle. Thus, the tower house surrounded itself with elements such as mills, ironworks, patronage churches, tolls (through gates or bridges)… by controlling those strategic points, senior relatives gained control of resources passing through them, both inputs and outputs. In summary, this set of buildings gave power over the environment, its exploitation and administration (Azkarate & García, 2004: 11-15).
For example, a mill would give them part of the grinding thanks to privileges that ensured monopoly on milling. The ironworks in turn gave control over iron and use of wood or charcoal used in its production. A patronage church, besides ensuring a political propaganda platform, provided control over tithes, allowing them to invest it or save it at will. This controlling and extractive character, combined with its logical military character, made it necessary for the tower to be equipped with good transport infrastructure, and to make use and maintenance of these communication routes profitable, feudal lords established gate tolls and tolls; thus, the roads themselves were part of this system, as they were its articulating element, and in many cases they were regulated by elements adjacent to the tower house that according to Azkarate and García have been underestimated as rentable resources (2004: 15), whether portals in cities or bridges adjacent in rural areas.
While the Feudal Architectural System reveals this administrative aspect of the tower, we must not overlook the military aspect in the context of constant violence during the Wars of Bands, as siege warfare reveals the practical sense of these fortified defensive structures. However, it seems that in some of these towers these strategic conditions are not met and their military function is called into question, not only due to architectural inconsistencies but also because of the historical distance of the lineages linked to them from the fierce struggles. What does this mean? We will see this in the next part.
Bibliography
Ardanaz Ruiz, C. (2017). “Medieval Defensive Architecture: The Tower House in Navarre. Power, Lineages and Territory”. Actas Vol. 1.indb 37. Madrid, Spanish Society of the History of Construction. Retrieved from: http://www.sedhc.es/biblioteca/actas/Ardanaz.pdf
Azkarate Garai Olaun, A. & García Gómez, I. (2004). “Late Medieval Tower Houses: Systemic Analysis of a Spatial/Territorial Restructuring Process”. Archaeology of Architecture 3, 7-37. Retrieved from: https://arqarqt.revistas.csic.es/index.php/arqarqt/article/view/59/56
García Gómez, I. (2003). Keys to Understanding the Spatial Configuration of a Banderizo Tower: The Murga Tower (14th-15th centuries). Archaeology of Architecture 2, 131-138. Retrieved from: https://arqarqt.revistas.csic.es/index.php/arqarqt/article/view/38/35
Ibañez Etxeberria, A., Moraza Barea, A. & Uribarrio Agirrebengoa, E. (1996B). Casa Torre de Galartza (Aretxabaleta), from Tower to Farmhouse through Palace: Evolution, Adaptation and Deterioration. Conclusions and bibliography. Review of Medieval Art in the Basque Country. Arts Plastics Monum. 15, 315-324.- Donostia, Eusko Ikaskuntza. Retrieved from: https://www.eusko-ikaskuntza.eus/es/publicaciones/casa-torre-de-galartza-aretxabaleta-de-torre-a-caserio-pasando-por-palacio-evolucion-acomodacion-y-deterioro/art-10772/
Luengas Carreño, D. (2017). The palace of Fagoagoa in Oiartzun (Gipuzkoa): Analysis of the construction system and original architectural elements of a Medieval Noble Residence. Actas Vol. 2.indb, Madrid, Spanish Society of the History of Construction, 925-934. Retrieved from: http://www.sedhc.es/biblioteca/actas/Luengas-Carre__o_.pdf
Plata Montero, A. (2004). Archaeology of Architecture in Biscay Territory. The tower house of Lendoño de Abajo (Orduña). Kobie, N.º 6 (vol. 2), 639-654. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260200866_Arqueologia_de_la_Arquitectura_en_Territorio_Bizkaino_La_casa-torre_de_Lendono_de_Abajo_Orduna_Building_archaeology_in_Biscayne_land_The_tower-house_of_Lendono_de_Abajo_Orduna
Yrizar Barnoya, J. (1946). The solar house of Legazpi. Boletín de la Real Sociedad Bascongada de Amigos del País, II, 3, 299-309. Retrieved from: https://www.rsbap.org/ojs/index.php/boletin/article/view/254/241
Comments