DEFINITIONS

Bals ç is the architect who provides an eloquentdefinition of the cula:

Cula, a characteristic building for Oltenia is a fortifieddwelling. The cula is related with similar types ofarchitecture at the south of Danube, but has its ownRomanian features. It all begun at the end of the XVIIcentury and maintained for one hundred years,meanwhile spreading exclusively in Oltenia and in thenorth-west part of Muntenia (Balsç 1954, 83).

Ghika-Budes çti’s definition is adding somespecification to Balsç’s rough description:

They are fortified rural dwellings, having several floors,locked entrance, secured with an oak girder, sometimeshaving ramparts. The first floor is the cellar, the upperlevels are used for habitation. At the last floor there is a

veranda and an arcade gallery with pillars from where theowners could either enjoy the view or use it in defencepurposes (Ghika-Budes çti 1936, 114).

Also Janeke has another distinctive feature ofthe culas to mention:

The fortress like towers added by the boyars to theircountryside establishments were called cule, a distinctspecies of the Romanian architecture (Janeke 1932, 75).

THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

In the last century in Roumania a lot of brief articles,reviews and debates were published. Only threegeneral books on the cula theme were published:Cretçianu (1969), Atanasescu & Grama (1974) andGodea (2006). The first two books were written byarchitects and are very well structured but also veryshort. The last one, written by an ethnographer,gathers most of the previously published informationprinted all together but does not carry on with thefeatures that were not detailed before.

A very relevant approch to the subject is the bookpublished by the Austrian engineer Janeke (1932). Hemakes very good points on the subject and is the onlyauthor who makes a comparison between thepeasant’s habitations in the fields or hills, theboyard’s mansions at the countryside and in the cityand the cula in Wallachia. He is also the only one who

The culas in Oltenia

Silvia Ileana Costiuc

Figure 1Picture of the cula from Gros çerea (Voinescu 1908, Figure 8)

published construction details of the culas inCurtisçoara and Gros çerea.

Professor Gheorghiu’s (1985) book has a chapterabout the culas. There is information about the culasthat were built in already existing establishments withfortified walls and the author also explains howthe regular mansions begun to be fortified.

Medrea’s book in 1969 is maybe the onlypublication found until now that has a plan of the landon which the cula from Mãldãres çti belongs to.Voinescu’s book published in 1908 is the only oneresearched until now that has a distant photo of thecula in Gros çerea.

The following chapters were not detailed until nowby the authors preoccupied on this subject: a parallelbetween the Romanian culas and the culas from theBalkans, comparison with the peasant’s habitationand with the masonry of the local churches, analysisof the constructive details, maps with visibility andprecise localisation of the culas, at region scale and atlocal scale, the study of the domains andestablishments they used to belong to, also furnishingand natural lighting, heating elements, decorations,classification by volume type and an approach of theannexed tower.

THE ETYMOLOGY

Pus çcariu states that the word «cula originates in thevulgar Latin cubula, derived from the Latin cuba,cuib used as nest», in Romanian cuib (Pus çcariu 1904,251). «In Portuguese the corespondent wouldbe caio – retreat, concealment» (Pusçcariu 1904, 251).In the folk’s legend collection published byRãdulescu-Codin (1910) the term cula «is used withthe meaning of a place where a treasure was hidden»or with the meaning «of a place where the Jewsburied their money». The second meaning of theword cula in the Balkan countries is that of a tower,bastion, fortress or habitation outside the village orcity and it was certified by two importantRomanian linguists (Pus çcariu 1904; S çaineanu 1900).

THE HISTORY

During the XVII century several pashalics from theSouth of the Danube were out of control and they

were making short intrusions towards the north of theDanube, in small groups of riders that were veryaggressive. These groups of robbers came from thepashalics Silistra, Rusciuc and Vidin. The locals triedto survive the attacks by their own means. The poortook their families and cattle and run into the woods.The rich had built fortified walls around monasteries,they «hardened their manors by primitive defencemeans» and this is how they faced the groups ofoutlaws that detained powerful fire weapons (Balsç

1954). Not only the Turks represented a threat to thelocal boyards, but sometimes the rebelled peasantswho were having a very difficult life throughout thecentury. Also there were trying to protect from thewild dangerous animals living nearby and from timeto time the boyards used to have fights between eachother as well.

During the XVIII century The Principality ofWallachia was one of the few tributary states to theOttoman Empire and was ruled by Greek lords fromFanar – a neighbourhood in Constantinople.

From all the defensive architecture that wasdeveloped on the Romanian ground between the Xivcentury to the beginning of the Xix century,the cula is the most modest. It is assumed that thereweren’t culas any earlier than the XVII th century,when the first solid manors that prefigured the originsof the culas were built (Janeke 1934; Bals ç 1954).

284 S. Ileana

Figure 2The map of Romania with the historical culas and the turkishattack lines. Map illustrated with Adobe Photoshop by SilviaCostiuc, using the refrence list.

It is very difficult to establish the building year sincethere are no inscriptions. Seems like the ones fromCurtisoara, Mãldãresçti, Pojogeni, Rovinari and Sçuici werebuilt in the beginning of the Xviii century but it is likelythat by archaeological means hey would discover that theculas are older (Cretçeanu, 1969).

THE GEOGRAPHY. EMPLACEMENT. STRATEGY

There are culas as well in the Balkan region -Bulgaria, Macedonia – Albania and Serbia.Thedifferences between the Romanian culas and the onesfrom the south of the Danube are the following: thewalls are not plastered usually, in Romania there isonly one cula from the approximately 100 found in thebibliography - that does not have plaster - in Bujoreni.Another difference is that the culas from the Balkansdo not have a veranda at the last level, the roof is muchmore flat than the narrow ones in Romania and in theBalkans the culas can be found in numbers in the samelocality. In Romania they are isolated and solitary nearthe settlement guarding sometimes up to 20 km awayto the south and 20 kilometers to the north. Also theproportions are quite different.

During the interrupted Austrian occupation ofOltenia, between 1718-1839, the peasants in Olteniawere not stable like in Germany, they used to livespreaded into small hamlets of 3 up to 5 housesprimitively built. In the fields regions there werevillages (Janeke 1934, 33).

The culas in Romania are located on a hill withoptimal visibility, the lands have been stubbed out

downhill in front of the most important elevation ofthe cula, to the south. (Ionescu 1986; Atanasescu1974). In the Figure 8 (Voinescu 1908) it is obviousthat there were no trees to obstruct the view from thecula in Gros çerea to the south. At the north side of thecula, most of the times there is a forest. By placing allthe culas on the map of the region it became obviousthat there was a strategic network of culas.(Atanasescu & Grama 1974) The distances betweentwo culas or between a cula and a monastery tower ora tower built by the boyards associated - are of about20 km.

Most of the culas from the The Principality ofWallachia were situated in Oltenia or in the north-west part of Muntenia. All these culas are in theproximity of the river Jiu, Olt or their affluents.

Because of the common threat the boyardscultivated friendly relations among themselves. Theyused to be prepared and armed at anytime for a newinvasion and they were using a signalisation systembetween culas in case of danger. «In daytime theywere burning humid fabrics that produce dense fogand they were sending intermittent signals. At nightthey were burning a torch and moved it rapidly for thepeople in the village to see and also the owner of thecula up north» (Ionescu 1986, 164).

Sometimes the culas are situated near old Thracianor Roman ruins (Ionescu 1986, Atanasescu & Grama1974; Cret çianu 1969) but this is a hypothesis still tobe verified, so far only a small number of them aresituated near ancient ruins and anyway the strategicinterest was different.

The culas in Oltenia 285

Figure 3Visibility map illustrated with Adobe Photoshop by SilviaCostiuc, using the refrence list and Google Earth. For thevisibility areas with yellow the source was Atanasescu &Grama (1974)

Figure 4Syntesis of the culas positioning study. Map illustrated withAdobe Photoshop by Silvia Costiuc, using the refrence listand Google Earth. For the visibility areas the source wasAtanasescu & Grama (1974)

FROM WHAT TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE THE CULA

DERIVES

In the beginning of the XX Th Century themagazine Convorbiri literare (Antonescu 1907) andan art historian (Tzigara-Samurcasç 1909) publishedan argument about the origins of the cula. Antonescuinsists that the cula is a national product, becausesince ancient architecture to the medieval towersRomanians used to have similar constructions in theirterritory. He asserts that the Roman Towers guardingthe Roman Empire border used to have similarproportions with the cula. Apparently the ThracianTowers of habitation had similar proportions. Severalauthors mention that the Thracian towers thatbelonged to the kings from Sarmisegetuza are to befound on the Trajan’s Column in Rome (Antonescu1907, 495; Ionescu 1986, 151-2).

Tzigara-Samurcas ç (1909) declines the localhistorical evolution and asserts that the culas are aBalkans importation, exactly like the etymology of theword and that it has its origins into the Roman Empirewatch towers, copied by the Ottoman Empire. Inresponse, Antonescu (1907, 1208) states that «theBalkan influence on the Romanian cula will be provenonly when a cula with an open veranda will be foundin the Balkans175». Also, Drãgut ç (2000, 325) notesthat «in the Xviii century some workers of Aromanianorigins that had some sort of facilities from the Turkishauthorities and they came into the Balkan countriesdisseminating construction techniques and Ottomandecorations». The Cretçianu couple (1969, 12) writesthat probably the culas in Oltenia developed in parallelwith the ones from the other side of the Danube,starting from the boyard’s mansions with the skillfullocal workers, a «unique and profoundly original» typeof architecture was born.

Some other architecture historians (Balsç 1954;Ionescu 1986) also consider that there is an obviousrelation between the culas from the north and south ofthe Danube but it is very difficult to judge which sidewas more influential. Since the population in thenorth of the river was invaded and in the south therewere internal conflicts it is logic to deduce that theones from the north were constrained to develop amore efficient fortified architecture and strategicnetworks inspired by the local masters.

Only ten years latter after the romantic arguebetween Tzigara-Samurcasç (1909) and Antonescu

(1907) the Austrian officer Janeke (1932) whopublished the same book in German first in 1918,made a concise description of the peasant’s habitationfrom the hill side and from the depression and also ofthe manors and the winter residences of the boyardsin the urban areas. He mentions that the peasant’shabitations are influenced by the Germanic traditionsthat came with the colonisers in the MeridionalCarpathians since the year 1150. He also recons thatthe clerical architecture is of Asian and Byzantineorigins in The Principality of Wallachia. Beside theveranda or pinacle similarities between culas and thepeasant house in the region, there are similarconstructive details at the woodworks.

VILLAGES, PEASANTS AND BOYARDS

ESTABLISHMENTS, DOMAINS AND CHURCHES

The communities around the culas where sometimesformed by the landlord. In Aninoasa a boyard wantedto start an agricultural exploitation, so he first boughtsome land even if the area was not populated. Than hefound and convinced people from nearby to move tohis domain, giving them a small piece of land to builda house and offering some other facilities. This wasthe case in Aninoasa township, where the Gros çereavillage and cula is (Janeke 1932, 40).

The establishment in the hills villages of the richpeasants and small and middle boyars were in a shapeof a horseshoe, with the house in the back, at the sideshaving annexes of the house, stables and other allsurrounded by a wooden strong fence and anenormous locker fortress like. The fortress look waseven more obvious when inside the courtyard was ahabitation tower with a very sharp sloped roof.

In the mountains and hills all the regular houseshad the cellar as the socle of the house. Because of thepractical use of space this distribution was alsoadopted in the plain houses as well. The cellar wasused as stable, food deposit and others. Neverthelessthe house up the socle had a more beautiful view, itwas more safe and could have been better used asdefence because usually the basement was made instone. The floor above it was made of wood plasteredwith clay. Another new element in the configurationof the regular traditional house in the hills of Olteniais the pinnacle, eccentric from a basic rectangle. Thispinnacle is the joint between the stair and the porch,

286 S. Ileana

resulting in an airy sunless space where the peasantused to make their routine works in the summer. Alsothe entrance in the cellar is under this pinnacle. Theflooring of the cellar is left in earth as it is, becausethey used to dig potatoes and other into the earth tokeep them fresh for long (Janeke 1932).

The manor in the countryside are usually located atthe side of the village, the establishment is similar withthe peasant’s, only that they are larger and morecarefully handcrafted. The manor courtyards alsoinclude barns, stables and accommodations for theservants. The manor is made in red bricks, it is massive,located in the back of the courtyard having a hugegarden on the other side. The plan is usually square, ithas the alleyway in the middle that usually ends into theporch in enfilade or into the pinnacle. The first floor hasthe same use as in the regular house but sometimes it isused for accommodation for the administrator of thedomain – like in Potlogi and Mogos çoaia.

The pinnacle to the north used to be open becausemost of the boyards only used to spend their summerat the countryside. The ceiling was done with obliquematching boards. The column are in brick sometimesrounded (Janeke 1932).

In the XVII Century some manors were built withtheir vaulted cellars elevated above ground level –before it used to be half into the ground, this is thecase in Glogova, that was modified in the XViiCentury and was added with a defence chamber andramparts guarding the entrance. Other manorsmodified like this are in Crainici, Vlãdaia andBudeasa (Ionescu 1986, 148-9).

Sometimes the same boyards who built manors orculas used to be the founders of the churches nearby.Sometimes the same workers had built the manor andthe Church – like in Curtis çoara, where the Church andthe cula have the same type of arches at theveranda. The corbels for candles in the culas is likethe ones from the churches. The churches architectureinfluenced the boyard’s architecture (Janeke 1932).

ABOUT THE OWNERS AND THEIR WAY OF LIFE.PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY HABITATION

In the XVII the Century the agrarians class develops.During the Fanariot Reigns from the Xviii Century inThe Principality of Wallachia - the court fromBucharest had flourished and became theboyards favourite residence for the winter. During thesummer at the countryside the boyards used to eat atthe same table with the servants, but in Bucharestthey became «Parisians». In Bucharest thearchitecture had French influences allready (Janeke1932, 55-56).The culas belong to the middle and lower classlandlords, the high boyards moved permanently toBucharest, where they had full time guards and armedstuff. In some of the villages «the landlords had tobuilt fortified courts and therefore they no longerneeded culas» (Ionescu 1986, 164). Also the peasantsdid not need to build culas because they did not havea fortune to defend. Still some of them had builtwooden culas.

TYPOLOGY

Because 3 quarters of the culas found in thebibliography no longer exists, the study was limitedon the tipology of the 23 culas that still exist today ashstorical monuments. Some of them had to beeliminated from the study because they had beendramatically modified.

By the number of levels there are culas with twofloors and culas with three floors. The culas with twofloors are: peasant culas – with wooden pillars at theveranda or even a wooden structure – like the onesfrom Cernetçi – Nistor, Runcurel and Larga; composedplan – not a simple rectangle close to a square plan –Sçuici and Zãtreni and the last ones are Retevoies çti,

The culas in Oltenia 287

Figure 5The Church ( 1774 – 1790 ) near the cula in Mãldãres çti. Fototaken in 03.10.2010 by Silvia Costiuc

Brosçteni and Cernetçi – T. Vladimirescu, the threehave an almost square plan. The culas with threefloors are the big ones, with composed plan –Mãldãresçi and with a rectangular plan – Curtis çoaraand Mãldãresçti – Buca. The small ones with threefloors are without a veranda – Mioveni and withveranda: Sçiacu, Gros çerea, Cernãtesçti, Brabova. Thereare two exceptions, the cula from Bujoreni – the onlyone that has an exterior stair and no plaster, also theveranda is missing and there is the exception ofCartianu house. In this case the historians don’t knowyet if it is a modified cula that used to be opaque andit was open on all sides after the danger times passedor if it was from the beginning like that.

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Masonry- ramparts, columns, graduation of thedepth of the wall

The walls are made of red bricks sometimes mixedwith rocks and sometimes just in rooks / like in thecase of Bujoreni and the north wall of cula Greceanuin Mãldãresçti. It is hard to guess the compositionsince all of them except one are plastered. Themasonry walls have 65 cm up to 100 cm in depth.

It is interesting that the culas have no basement,there were not found any surveys or researchregarding how deep the walls go under the ground.Another interesting feature of the walls of the culas isthat they become thiner each floor up. There are nopapers on the netting of the brick inside the wall, butthere are some hypothesis considering the ancientbricks dimension and the depth of each wall on everyfloor. The bricks from Curtis çoara have 5 x 11 x 23 cmand the ones in Gros çerea have 5,5x13x27 cmapproximate.

The ground floor is opaque and sometimes even thenext floor, the walls only have some ramparts butwhich are not covering all the angles of approach.

Changing the disposal of the brick inside the walleach course, the masons built the huge decorativecartouches and also the small ones at the exterior ofthe Grosçerea cula. The arches at the veranda from thelast floor are the result of a skillful combinationbetween wooden and masonry architecture. Somebricks where profiled for certain needs – like near themain entrance or the round columns at the veranda.

The ramparts at the first levels or even at the lastfloor have a masonry arch or a very strong woodenlintel. At Mãldãresçti - Greceanu cula, the smallopenings were closed on the interior by a stonetriforium with a local late Renaissance like drawingcharacteristic during the reign of ConstantinBrâncoveanu.

Some of the culas have masonry domes as ceilingslike Almãj, Hotãrani and others.

288 S. Ileana

Figure 6 and 7Plans, section and constructive details of the cula inGrosçerea (Janeke 1932, 64-65)

Carpentry – entrance, windows, floors, platforms,stairs and trap doors, timber support and shingle

The main entrance was secured by a long girder thatentered the whole way into the wall. Sometimes thedoor has two leafs, and sometimes three – the onefrom the middle having a mechanism that permits itsextraction in case they needed to operate with bigbarrels. Otherwise it has a structural role. The woodenplanks have at least 5 cm depth and at some culas theplanks are coated with metal strips fixed by hobnails.Another very interesting aspect of the entrancemechanism is some observation in Gros çerea, that thefixed part of the woodwork is cleverly joint with themasonry. Meaning that the profile of the pillar thatholds the opening at the side is not rectangular but ithas a T shape and it is incarcerated into the wall.

The wooden beams are impressively huge, inCurtisçoara there is one beam at the ground floor thathas 10 m in length and 40 cm wide and about 65 cmin elevation. The ones from Gros çerea are massive aswell considering the openings, and most of the beamsare manually cut with the drawing knife. Atanasescu

The culas in Oltenia 289

Figure 8Drawings made by the students during the French-Romanianworkshop, 2010-2011, an academical restoration projectCulas from Oltenia, between the West University ofTimis çoara and the School of Chaillot, Paris. Projectcoordinated by S çtefan Mãnciulescu chief architect ofHistorical Monuments for the Corrèze, Haute, LoireDepartament

Figure 9Foto of the cula in Gros çerea, by Silvia Costiuc 05.10.2011

Figure 10Drawings made by the students during the French-RomanianWorkshop, 2010-2011, an academical restoration projectCulas from Oltenia, between the West University ofTimis çoara and the School of Chaillot, Paris. Projectcoordinated by S çtefan Mãnciulescu chief architect ofHistorical Monuments for the Corrèze, Haute, LoireDepartament

(1974) states that the wooden beams have a conicprofile so that they could not be extracted from theexterior of the cula.

There is a special care to the structural anddefencive joints between wood and masonry. Thestairs are made out of planks with a rectangularprofile very well attached to the masonry. Most of theculas have a wooden hatch at the end of the stair.

The secured main entrance into the cula has side

ramparts and it is locked by a girder that has a tunnelinside the wall and it can be slided to hold the doorplanks. Not only that this girder can slide and it isvery resistant but it could also be rotated and get intoa blocked position so that it is impossible to move itfrom its place from the outside.

Sometimes there is the presence of a fake door –much more sophisticated and decorated leading onlyto the stables or to the food depository and to a roomthat has no connection to the rest of the house. Thetwo side planks from the exterior door in Gros çereahad a massive mechanism in wood that permitted therotation, like in the following picture. The third plank,it is mobile but it also holds the lift from the abovewall.

The stairs are on the exterior only in theexceptional case of Bujoreni, some other culas that nolonger exist, like the one from Pojogeni used to havea mobile stair linking the ground floor with thefirst floor and this stair was elevated through thehatch up to the next level in case of danger (Ionescu1986).

The cula from Cernetçi is the only one that haswooden sculptural pillars at the veranda under theroof.

The rafters are most of the times rare, but thismakes the roof become curved and gives it a pleasantaspect. The shingle is 15 cm long and disposedstarting from the overhang, each row covering 10 cmout of the previous row (Janeke 1932, 45).

Veranda

Antonescu (1907, 497) states that «the veranda was alate addition» to the architectural object. Ionescu(1986) stresses the fact that the veranda is the greatestdifference between the Balkan culas and the onesfrom the Romanian territory. He also points out thatthe veranda is the follow up of the pinnacle from theregular houses that used to make the junction betweenthe stair and the porch. At the culas, the pinnaclerectangle blends with the porch surface, and becomesa very pleasant place for spending summerafternoons, watching the great view in peacefull timesor watching for the enemies in times of danger. Thespecific veranda could also have been inspired by theinterior galleries from the monasteries. Probably thatthe porch lacks from the culas in the balkan region

290 S. Ileana

Figure 11Foto of the cula in Gros çerea, by Silvia Costiuc 05.10.2011

Figure 12Detail of a traditional house basement door. Drawing madeby the students during the French-Romanian Workshop,2010-2011, an academical restoration project Culas fromOltenia, between the West University of Timis çoara and theSchool of Chaillot, Paris. Project coordinated by S çtefanMãnciulescu chief architect of Historical Monuments for theCorrèze, Haute, Loire Departament

and the slope of the roof is not that sharp as wellbecause of the climatic differences.

As Mendrea (1969) mentioned, the decoratedverandas with trilobite arches makes the buildinglook more recreational and peaceful rather thanfortified architecture.

The veranda has an essential role in the defensivecharacteristics of the cula, most of them are facingsouth or at least downhill to a flowery field or to awhite valley.

Interior fountains

The cula in Curtis çoara used to have an interiorfountain that was closed in the XXth Century whenthe landlords made a water and even hot waterinstallation. There had been more other culasmentioned for having an internal fountain.

The back-room

The majority of the culas had a secret room, that usedto be the last redoubt for the women and children. Insome of the culas this secret hiding either for thetreasures, either as a life saving place it is placedunder the stairs and it has a blind wall – like inGrosçerea. In Mãldãresçti the hiding place is under theroof, it has a fireplace and a bed and it has a mobilestair. Also it was kept to our days «a board tied witha rope that was used for transporting food to thehidden persons» – the children, the women, while the

man kept fighting the attackers and the mobile stairwas retracted (Zamora 2006, 32).

Furnishing

Del Chiaro, one of the narrative travellers of the timewrites that even in Târgu Jiu in the XVIII Century theydid not used chairs, only benches with a high backagainst the wall, covered with a cloth. The tables wereplaced in the corners, the beds were attached to thewalls and they were layed only in the evening. Insidethe rooms they used different aromatic herbs. They didnot use any interior decorations except an icon whichwas placed on the eastern wall over a damask orbrocade. (Sçtefulescu 1906, 219-226). «Generally thefurniture is very sobre, only the few rich owners of theculas did afford to have vaulted ceilings, stuckornaments and paintings» (Janeke 1932, 79).

The annex tower

A significant number of the existing culas that we knowof have an extra tower added to the north. Some saidthat the tower was used for religious purposes servingas an oratory maybe because some of them have a ma-sonry dome similar with the domes from the orthodoxchurches. The towers are connected at the first floorwith the culas through a gallery. Some said that itserved the owners as a toilet. But Janeke (1932, 74) ex-plains that one of the culas, from S çuici, has some kindof a tower only that it is higher than the habitation build-ing so he states that the annex tower was a watchtower.

In the case of Curtisçoara, the small tower is one floorlower than the cula and it is facing north. The cula wasattacked sometimes from behind by local outlaws thatused to live in the woods. And there is this hypothesisthat the small tower was added later to the constructionbut there is no scientific proof (Janeke 1932).

HEATING

They had a stove with an oval door usually. The heatgoes to one or two round or square tall clay tubes, andbecause the contact surface is big and the walls of thestove are thin the room heats up really quickly.(Sçtefulescu 1906, 219)

The culas in Oltenia 291

Figure 13Foto of the cula in Mãldãres çti, by Silvia Costiuc 03.10.2011

DECORATIONS

The culas have been built with a big expence ofmoney, the priority wasn’t to decorate it, like itusually happens with the boyards mansions a thetime. Still there are a few decorations. The exteriordecorations at the cula from Grosçerea are obtainedonly by the inventive brickworks. The cula fromMãldãres çti has some elements that testify thecharacteristic architecture for the reign of C.Brâncoveanu.

OWNERSHIP

The culas and the domains that they belonged to wereexpropriated 60 years ago from the rich and became astate property. Now, some of them were requested incourt by their natural owners and some were given

back their familly cula - like in Curtis çoara andBrabova. But most of them are a state property andare located in remote villages with bad infrastructure,no tourism at all and also placed on sharp hills – likeGrosçerea and they are difficult to use, not to mentionthat some of them have very small interior surfaceand poor natural lighting.

STATE OF CONSERVATION

Judging by the current pictures found on the Internetonly the culas from Mãldãres çti and casa Cartiu are ina relative good conservation estate. All the rest havemajor problems with the water infiltration trough theroof. Some have now even structural problems andmost of them are in a pre collapse state.Unfortunatelly, all of them were carefully taken careof at the base with cement plastering back in thesixties.

Draghiceanu (1931, 108) in a report for theNational Commission of the Historical Monumentswrites that «the old woman who was been living theretook well care of the building and kept the bulletmarks on the facade on purpose».

Their current use is for some museums and themost of them are abandoned, yet they represent aspecific type of fortified architecture, a testimony fora considerable amount of technical knowledge andonly very few of them had been kept. After theFanariot Reigns passed, there came the peace and theboyards no longer felt the need to live in poorlylighted spaces, humid conditions with 1 meter thickwalls and climbing three floors to the bedroom, wheneach floor could have been of about 15 square meters- like in the case of Gros çerea.

REFERENCE LIST

Antonescu, Teohari. 1907. «Iarasç originea culelor?». InConvorbiri literare, XLI, nr. 12. Bucures çti: Institutul dearte grafice CAROL GOBL.

Antonescu, Teohari. 1907a. «Culele sunt sau nu nationale?».In Convorbiri literare. XLI. Bucuresçti: Institutul de artegrafice CAROL GOBL.

Antoniu, Alexandru. 1901. Album general al României: com-pus din 300 de tablouri reprezentînd monumentele istoricesçi contimporane, posis çiuni pitoresci, domeniul coronei s çi

292 S. Ileana

Figure 14Foto of the cula in Mãldãres çti, by Silvia Costiuc 03.10.2011

costume nat çionale: cu descriirea istoricã s çi pitoreascã.Dresda/Berlin: Stengel&Co.

Atanasescu, Iancu & Grama, Valeriu. 1974. Culele dinOltenia. Craiova: Scrisul Romanesc.

Balsç, Sçtefan. 1954. Vechi locuint çe boieresçti din Gorj inStudii s çi cercetãri de istoria artei. nr. 3-4. Bucures çti:Academia Republicii Populare Române; Institutul deIstoria Artei.

Bãrcãcilã, Alexandru,. 1927. Însemnãri din Gorj inBuletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice.Bucures çti:Inst. de arte grafice CAROL GOBL. XX.

Brãtulescu, Victor. 1933. Biserica s çi cula din Racovit çã-Muscel in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice.Bucures çti: Institutul de arte grafice CAROL GOBL.

Buga, D., Cucuta, C. & Suciu, M.. 2002. Dict çionargeografic al Judet çului Gorj. Târgu Jiu: Societatea deGeografie din România. Filiala Gorj.

Cãrãbis ç, Vasile. 1995. Istoria Gorjului. Bucures çti: Editis. Cãrãbis ç, Vasile, 2002. Morile s çi pivele de pe Valea

Jales çului. Târgu Jiu: Centrul Judet çean al Creat çieiPopulare Gorj.

Cret çeanu, Radu, Cret çeanu, Sarmiza. 1969. Culele dinRomânia. Bucures çti: Meridiane.

Curinschi-Vorona. 1981. Istoria arhitecturii în România.Bucures çti: Ed. Tehnica.

Davidescu, Mis çu. 1964. Monumente istorice din Oltenia.Bucures çti:Meridiane.

Drãghiceanu, Virgil N.. 1931. Câteva monumente dinMuntenia in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice.Bucures çti: Inst. de arte grafice CAROL GOBL.

Drãghiceanu, Virgil N.. 1931a. Monumente istorice dinOltenia. Raport din anul 1921 in Buletinul ComisiuniiMonumentelor Istorice.Bucures çti: Inst. de arte graficeCAROL GOBL.

Drãgut ç, Vasile. 2000. Arta româneascã. Bucures çti: Vremea.Enache, S çtefan & Plesça, T.. 1982. Zona etnograficã Dolj.

Bucuresçti: Sport Turism.Focsça, Gheorghe. 1954. Elemente decorative în arhitectura

popularã din zona etnograficã a Jiului de Sus in Studii s çicercetãri de istoria artei. Nr. 3-4. Bucures çti: AcademiaRepublicii Populare Române -Institutul de Istoria Artei.

Focsça, Gheorghe & Godea, Ion.2002. Arhitectura Gorjului.Timisçoara: Editura de Vest.

Focsçeneanu, Ion. 1963. Trei cule din Oltenia in ArhitecturaR.P.R.. Nr. 4/1963. Bucures çti.

Gheorghiu, Teodor Octavian. 1985. Arhitectura medievalade apãrare din Romania. Bucuresti: Ed. Tehnicã.

Ghika-Budes çti, Nicolae. 1936. Evolut çia arhitecturii înMuntenia s çi Oltenia in Buletinul ComisiuniiMonumentelor Istorice. Bucures çti: Inst. de arte graficeCAROL GOBL.

Giurescu, Constantin C.. 1913. Material pentru istoriaOlteniei supt austrieci. vol. II. 1726-1732. Bucures çti:Gutenberg.

Godea, Ion. 2006. Culele din Romania – tezaur dearhitectura europeanã. Timisçoara: Editura de Vest.

Golescu, Maria. 1943. Un architect român de la începutulveacului al XIX-lea in Buletinul ComisiuniiMonumentelor Istorice. Bucuresçti: Inst. de arte graficeCAROL GOBL.

Greceanu, Olga N.. 1937. Cula din Mãldãres çti. Bucures çti:Institutul de arte grafice Triumful.

Ionescu, Grigore. 1965. Istoria arhitecturii in IstoriaRomâniei. Vol III. Bucures çti: Editura Academiei.

Ionescu, Grigore. 1971. Arhitectura popularã în România.Bucuresçti: Meridiane.

Ionescu, Grigore. 1981. Arhitectura pe teritoriul Românieide-a lungul veacurilor. Bucures çti: Editura Academiei.

Ionescu, Grigore. 1986. Arhitectura româneasca. Tipologii.Creatçii. Creatori. Bucures çti: Editura Tehnicã.

Janeke, Wilhelm. 1932. Casã t çãrãneascã s çi casã boiereascãîn România. Bucures çti: Ed. Casei S çcoalelor.

Janeke, Wilhelm. 1918. Das Rumanische Bauerin – undBojarenhaus. Bucures çti: Konig Carol-Verlag.

Joja, Constantin. 1989. Arhitectura româneascã în contextEuropean. Bucures çti: Ed. Tehnicã.

Machat, Cristoph. 1995, Denkt.maler in Rumanien.Munchen: Icomos Nationalkomitee der BundesrepublikDeutschland.

Mendrea, Sandu. 1966. Culele de la Mãldãres çti. Bucuresçti:Meridiane.

Nicolescu, Corina. 1954. Locuintçe domnes çti în cuprinsulmãnãstirilor în veacurile XV-XVII in Studii s çi cercetãride istoria artei. Nr. 3-4. Bucuresçti: Academia RepubliciiPopulare Române.Institutul de Istoria Artei.

Pus çcarius, Sextil. 1904. Studii s çi notit çe filologice inConvorbiri literare. XXXVIII. Nr. 12. Bucuresçti: Inst. dearte grafice CAROL GOBL.

Rãdulescu - Codin, C.. 1910. Din trecutul nostru: Legende,traditçii sçi amintiri istorice. Bucuresçti: Editura CarteaRomâneascã.

Sçãineanu, Lazar. 1900. Influentça orientalã asupra limbii s çiculturii române. Vol. 2. Bucuresci: Editura LibrarieiSocecu.

Stahl, Henri H. & STAHL H. Paul. 1968. Civilizat çiavechilor sate românes çti. Bucuresçti: Ed. S çtiint çificã.

Stahl, Paul H.. 1957. Locuintçele t çãrãnes çti cu douã caturi laromâni in Studii s çi cercetãri de istoria artei. Nr. 3-4. AnulX. Bucuresçti: Academia Republicii Populare Române.Institutul de Istoria Artei.

Stahl Paul H.. 1963. Vechi case sçi biserici de lemn dinMuntenia in Studii s çi cercetãri de istoria artei. Nr. 2.Anul X. Bucures çti: Academia Republicii PopulareRomâne. Institutul de Istoria Artei.

S çtefulescu, Alexandru. 1904. Gorjul istoric s çi pitoresc.Târgu Jiu: Tipografia Nicu D. Milosçescu.

Sçtefulescu, Alexandru. 1905. Cãlãuza Gorjului. Târgu Jiu:Ed. Librãriei Nicu D. Milos çescu.

The culas in Oltenia 293

Sçtefulescu, Alexandru. 1906. Istoria Tîrgu Jiului. Tîrgu Jiu:Tipografia Nicu D. Milos çescu.

Stoicescu, Nicolae. 1970. Bibliografia localitãt çilor s çimonumentelor feudale din România. Craiova: MitropoliaOlteniei.

Theodorian – Carada, Marius. 1920. Din frãmântãriletrecutului. Bucures çti: Gutenberg.

Trajanescu, I. D.. 1912. Biserica sçi culele din Mãldãres çti(Vâlcea) in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice.Anul V. Bucures çti: Inst. de arte grafice CAROL GOBL.

Tzigara-Samurcas ç, Al.. 1909. Arta în România. Bucures çti:Ed. Minerva.

Vãtãsçianu, Virgil. 1974. Metodica cercetãrii în istoria artei.Bucuresçti: Editura Meridiane.

Voinescu, Ion. 1908. Monumente de artã tãrãneascã dinRomania. Bucures çti: CAROL GOBL.

Zamora, Luiza & Bonciocat, S çerban. 2007. Cule: caseboieresçti fortificate din România. Iind edition. Bucures çti:Igloo.

294 S. Ileana