Klaipėdos universitetas

Between the 16th and the 18th centuries, the area known from 1920 to 1939 as the Klaipėda region (Memel territory) experienced a variety of migration flows, which have been described by researchers on several occasions. When considering issues of migration, among other data, scholars from different fields often interpret personal and place names found in historical records. Based on the historical onomastics of the Klaipėda region, this article deals with the oikonyms and personal names derived from etymons bearing the meaning ‘new settler’. It examines their distribution, evolution, etymology, and motives behind picking these onymons. The author draws on research methods of historical onomastics, along with an analysis of historical sources and genealogical information. In addition to suggesting mutual links between onyms (personal names and oikonyms) of Baltic origin, the author puts forward hypotheses about the directions of population migration in the northern area of what was then the Memel eldership (Hauptamt Memel). The paper aims to offer linguistic insights into possible migration trends in the Klaipėda region in the 16th to the 18th centuries, which could later be verified by historical research.

The results of the Thirteen Years’ War (1454–1466) did not remove the tensions between Poland and the Teutonic Order. A new conflict emerged at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, as the Teutonic Order sought to get rid of the Polish king’s protection of the Order’s dominions in Prussia, established under the terms of the Peace of Thorn (Toruń), some of which were not met at all. The article examines several historical sources prepared for the eventual war in Prussia and published a long ago. These are the Military Regulations (Kriegsordnung) of 1507, and two lists of property owners of the Memel (Klaipėda) Command (Komturei) who were to perform their military obligations, dated by previous research to around 1500 or 1510–1520. The connection between these documents has not so far been examined, although the author of the article assumed the existence of a connection a dozen years ago. The author examines this connection in detail, by discussing the emergence of these documents and the efforts of their initiators to adapt innovations in the organisation of defence borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire to the practices of the Teutonic Order. By examining the content of the sources and the statistical information they provide, the article raises a separate question: to what extent do the statistics generated by these sources make it possible to get details about land ownership in Prussia in the early 16th century.

Late Medieval Prussia, an area ruled by the Teutonic Order, was a multilingual entity, with the Baltic and Slavic languages used by the local population alongside the German language. This linguistic diversity was a challenge to priests, and to their pastoral work. A command of the languages of their parishioners was crucial for them, as they not only had to teach and hear confession, but also to announce the instructions of the local bishop. So far, historians have discussed the linguistic skills of the clergy mainly in the context of the Christianisation of the native Prussian population. This article deals with the issue by focusing on Late Medieval Prussia and the lower clergy. It discusses the provisions of synodal statutes and papal documents regulating the clergy’s command of the languages of their parishioners. The author explores problems of linguistic skill relating to the origin and education of the local clergy, in addition to the impact of the right of patronage and the practical activities of Prussian and Polish chaplains. He also pays attention to the tradition of employing interpreters to support priests who did not know the local Baltic and Slavic languages; this was especially problematic during confession.

In the late 14th and early 15th centuries, the region of Žemaitija (Samogitia) was still contested between the Teutonic Knights and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Its conquest and conversion were the final objective of the Teutonic Order’s campaigns in the southern Baltic region. The article assesses the language and ideology of crusading and holy war concerning the conquest of Žemaitija, as reflected in selected correspondence from the period by the Teutonic Order. It begins with a historical overview of the problem, along with a brief outline of the donations of Žemaitija to the Teutonic Knights at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century. Following this, the paper outlines the use of specific themes from the crusading movement in the 14th century in Prussia, before examining the presence (or lack thereof) of these elements concerning Žemaitija. Other specific themes are identified and discussed concerning the ideological expression of the Teutonic Order’s mission and image in its external correspondence, one being the depiction of Žemaitija as the end of Christendom (daz ende der cristenheit). This article suggests that this was an attempt to fit the conquests into a broader framework: Žemaitija was depicted as the successor to the Order’s earlier wars against the Prussians. Finally, the article discusses the presence of this imagery in the visual culture of the Ordensland, particularly in Königsberg Cathedral and its surrounding pilgrimage churches.

The article is devoted to the scientific and organisational activities of Hermann Sommer (1899–1962), the founder and head of the Office for the Care and Preservation of the Cultural Heritage in the Fischhausen district of the German province of East Prussia, during the difficult period of Germany’s history from 1929 to 1945. It describes the circumstances surrounding the creation, as well as the later rescue and finally rediscovery by the archaeological community, of Sommer’s historical and archaeological legacy. One of the most important components of the archaeological part of the heritage is the Fischhausen Archive, a card-index archive of archaeological monuments that were known in the district in question by 1945. By this time, the first experience of using the data from the archive had already demonstrated the enormous potential of these documents for the reconstruction of the prewar state of research, as well as for the modern study of the archaeological sites on the Kaliningrad Peninsula. The search for the rest of his legacy has already resulted in a number of unexpected discoveries of further archaeological material. Preliminary results also indicate that similar archives of archaeological monuments could also have been created for other districts of the former German province of East Prussia.