Overall Structural Development of Akkerman’s Plan

Note 1

The plan of Akkerman’s defenses suggests a general sequence of development for its four major elements based on the logic of building outward from an initial core structure1. The initial fortification on the site was almost certainly the Citadel at the northern tip of the promontory.

This was followed by the construction of the so-called Garrison Yard, which joins the Citadel along its northern stretch, architecturally abutting its NW and NE Towers, and thereby post-dating the Citadel. This addition (which may have been essentially contemporaneous with the construction of the Citadel) increased the area enclosed roughly by a factor of ten.

This, in turn, was followed by the addition of the so-called Civil Yard to the south. Extending outward from the SW and SE corners of the Garrison Yard, this enclosure effectively tripled the size of the entire fortification, and was probably accompanied by the creation of an outer defensive Ditch (though not necessarily the one we see today) to the east and south of the fortress.

The final major addition to the fortress involved the construction of the so-called Port Yard to the west along the shore of the estuary. This is indicated clearly by the fact that its perimeter links the western wall of the Garrison Yard to the SW corner of the Civil Yard, meaning these two yards had to pre-exist the Port Yard.

This description of the basic development of the fortress’s plan leaves open the question of the specific development of individual elements. For example, closer inspection indicates that most elements have undergone extensive reconstruction and that this has probably masked the original nature of these enclosures. In other words, it is very likely that the original walls, towers, gates, and Ditch looked quite different from the surviving structures.

In such long-lived fortifications, it is common that simple defenses (e.g. timber palisades and earthen banks and ditches) are eventually replaced by more substantial ones (e.g. stone walls) and then further re-built to adjust to developments in military technology (e.g. the thickening of walls and towers to withstand artillery and the shortening of towers to support cannons). What we see today is a palimpsest of reconstruction that hopefully will provide enough clues for us to untangle Akkerman’s architectural development and attribute various elements to the appropriate period and, therefore, the individuals responsible for their construction.

With that in mind, I will provide a detailed discussion of Akkerman’s major architectural elements, highlighting those aspects that provide clues about the fortress’s development over time. This will be followed by a discussion of those plans and drawings illustrated in Mariana Şlapac’s major study of the Akkerman fortress (see n. 2) that provide additional information concerning architectural details. Finally, I will provide a possible sequence of development for the various parts of the fortress.

View all images

back

next