Klaipėdos piliavietės reikšmių kaita XIX-XX šimtmečiais ir jos įpaveldinimas

LT2002 m. rugpjūčio 1-ąją šimtai klaipėdiečių susirinko dalyvauti nekasdieniame renginyje. Restauruotoje Klaipėdos pilies šiaurės rytinio (Princo Friedricho) bastiono poternoje atvėrė duris Pilies muziejaus pirmoji ekspozicijos dalis, perteikianti pilies ir miesto istoriją iki XVII a. pradžios. Eilinio muziejaus atidarymas tapo neeilinėmis iškilmėmis: beveik metus įvairiais renginiais lepinusioje Klaipėdos 750-ojo jubiliejaus programoje renginys buvo vienas kertinių, sulaukė gausybės oficialių ir ne tokių oficialių svečių, o ceremonijoje buvo pakviestas dalyvauti specialiai iš Vienos atvykęs Vokiečių ordino didysis magistras dr. Bruno Platteris. Iškilmių organizatoriai būtent jam suteikė garbę simboliškai „atrakinti“ poternoje įrengtą ekspoziciją. Vis dėlto turint omenyje tendenciją Lietuvoje iš esmės negatyviai vaizduoti Vokiečių ordiną (dar ne taip seniai pagal iš lenkų perimtą terminą vadintą tiesiog „kryžiuočiais“), keltinas klausimas, kas atsitiko, kad brolijos, prieš 750 metų pastačiusios Klaipėdos pilį, vadovui Lietuvoje buvo patikėta atverti muziejaus duris? Koks kelias atvedė į šį Ordino ir jo kadaise pastatytos pilies vertinimo pokytį? Šie klausimai verčia detaliau panagrinėti Klaipėdos pilies atradimo ir jos reikšmių kaitos istoriją - istoriją, galų gale ir nulėmusią, kad menkai apčiuopiamas objektas, kurį dar ir šiandien didžiąja dalimi galima tik įsivaizduoti, buvo ne tik įpaveldintas, bet ir tapo vienu iš Klaipėdos simbolių. Šios istorijos pagrindu studijoje siekiama parodyti, kaip praeitame šimtmetyje besikeičiančių reikšmių sistemų kontekste Klaipėdos mieste vyko konkrečios vietos pasisavinimas, kitaip tariant, šios vietos įtraukimas į „savų“ vietų gretas. [Iš straipsnio, p. 10]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Klaipėdos pilis; Klaipėdos piliavietės įpaveldinimas; Klaipėdos piliavietės įprasminimo iniciatyvos; Klaipėda castle; Inheritance of Klaipėda castle site; Initiatives to make Klaipėda castle meaningful.

ENAll that remains today of the former Castle Klaipėda (Memel) is a few bastions, water ditches, and archaeological layers. The destruction of the residential palace and the surrounding fortifications began during the mid-18th century. Although the garrison deployed in Memel employed some buildings and defence constructions of the castle for at least a hundred years after the Seven Years War, the use of the castle area for the utilitarian purposes began to prevail, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century. The palace was dismantled already during the 19th century whereas the demolition of fortifications took place much earlier than post-World War II period. In fact, the priority that was given to the industry led to huge "defortification" works that took place in 1921 already when some ditches and ramparts were destroyed matching the needs of the shipyard expansion. Moreover, in the late 1930s, use of the rest of fortifications for utilitarian purposes was considered as well. This study raises an issue of what has changed so that after a few decades an effort has emerged to preserve the citadel, a hardly imaginable object at that time in fact. Why the castle which was built by the Teutonic Order and later developed under the Prussian Dukes was destroyed at the time when the legacy of the Teutonic Order was worshiped in German Empire whereas the myth of the Prussia’s German mission should have secured the respect to the material remnants of the former Prussian glory? Why the Lithuanians started debating the preservation of a "German castle", despite the fact that the Teutonic Order was portrayed negatively in the Lithuanian historical master narrative? What has changed in their approach so that the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order was invited to open the Klaipėda Castle Museum, which started operating in 2002?.In this study, the following answers are presented to the question as to why Memel residents were allowed to destroy the castle despite the fact that the city was dominated by German culture at that time. Firstly, monument protection institutions in the surrounding area began to function rather late, mainly at the end of the 19th century, i.e. by the time when the palace was already destroyed and fortifications neglected. Secondly, at that time the prevailing approach was to preserve monuments as individual elements; buildings were granted protection either for obvious oldness’ features or when some links between those buildings and the national master narrative were discovered, 'there was a rather small amount of intellectual potential to create such links in Memel itself at that time, as Memel played a relatively marginal role in the German master narrative. Although there were considerably more attempts to identify with the legacy of the Teutonic Order in East Prussia than elsewhere in Germany no milieu that could clearly express such identification existed in Memel. The lack of obvious material objects that would "witness" the period of the Teutonic Order in the castle area also contributed to the fact that castle did not received any attention in this regard. At the same time, when the opportunity to profit from the links between the German national culture and the remains of the Castle Memel was wasted, the Lithuanians who lived on both sides of the Russian-German border at that time began to construct their own links. Local German-speaking narrative tradition used the argument that the area was inhabited before the Castle Memelburg was established and that the settlement that existed here was called Klaipėda at least from the early 18th century.But it was Simonas Daukantas, the first historian who wrote his works in Lithuanian language, who developed this argument most explicitly in the mid-19th century. Through his writings the concept that Memelburg was built on the former place of Klaipėda Castle that belonged to the ancient Lithuanians’ was established in the Lithuanian historical narrative. This concept allowed Lithuanians both to state their autochthonous presence in the area and to form their approach to the remains of the castle. As a result, local Lithuanians have developed the idea of building a Museum of Memory of Vytautas the Great, the most prominent Lithuanian Grand Duke, on the remains of the citadel in 1930. Although it was never materialized, the idea was a clear attempt to entrench the Lithuanian myth of Klaipeda’s origin, taking into account the context of the Lithuanian-German relations at the time in Klaipėda region. A variety of interpretations based on the "Daukantas’ argument" has been circulating in Lithuania long after the end of the Second World War - in fact, they are still being maintained in a somewhat unaccountable way. A research-based alternative to an approach based on meanings that stemmed from Lithuanian master narrative emerged as a result of archaeological excavations that were carried out on the former residential palace site in 1968. They were important for several reasons. Firstly, with lightning speed (against the background of the (then) Lithuanian SSR) they triggered the designation of citadel remnants as a monument and slowed down further development of industry in at least a small part of the former castle territory. Secondly, they inspired further historical and archaeological research of the castle, which fundamentally changed the knowledge about its development and significance. [Extract, p. 60-61]