hrvatski

Petrova gora - pavlinski samostan sv. Petra

Petrova Gora (Zlat, Slat Mountain, Patur gozdia) is one of the most beautiful and best preserved mountainous woodlands in Croatia, a habitat for numerous plant and animal species. Due to its large biodiversity, the central part of Petrova Gora was protected as an important landscape in 1969. Cultural and historical sights (Pauline monastery of St. Peter, Vojin Bakić’s Monument to the Revolution, etc.), as well as recreational and education facilities (mountain trails of Petrova Gora, ornithological park Petrovac, etc.) are integrated within the Petrova Gora Tourist Centre, with headquarters in the Muljava hunting lodge. Petrovac, Petrova Gora’s highest peak, is a spacious forested plateau with two slightly pronounced heads of similar altitude (Veliki and Mali Petrovac). Long continuity of settlement at Mali Petrovac is confirmed by archaeological research that uncovered prehistoric (12th to 9th/8th century BCE) and Roman (1st to 4th century CE) finds. The top plateau was inhabited during the early medieval period. In the 14th century, Pauline monastery of St. Peter was built on Mali Petrovac. During the second half of the 16th century the monastery was converted into a military facility, while, at the end of the 18th century, it was repurposed into an Orthodox temple. Remains of the monastery, now in Sisak- Moslavina County (Economic Unit Petrova Gora, Forest Office Vojnić, Forest Menagement Subsidiary Karlovac, Croatian Forests), are protected as a cultural good (Z-3260). First, partial research of the Pauline monastery of St. Peter was led by M. Kruhek (Croatian History Museum) in 1987 and 1988. After the end of research in 1988, the monastery was forgotten and overgrown with vegetation. Archaeological research, led by T. Pleše (Croatian Conservation Institute), continued in 2006 when Zlat monastery and its subsequent alterations were completely explored. Research was financially supported by the Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture, with support from Croatian Forests, Forest Management Subsidiary Karlovac. The Monastery of St. Peter on Petrova Gora was founded in 1303/1304 by Father Gerdas (Grdoš). According to Pauline chroniclers, Zlat monastery was raided already in 1393/1394 during dynastic struggles (although the attack was later attributed to mercenary, maybe Ottoman, troops from Bosnian territory). The monastery was devastated once more by Ottoman troops in the middle of the 15th century (1445 or 1448), when monks retreated to the safety of Pauline monastery in Kamensko. However, abandonment of the monastery may have been caused by insecurities caused by Ottoman incursions into surrounding areas. After the raid, consolidated Paulines from Zlat and Kamensko sent a request to Pope Nicolas V in 1451 for the permanent and legal merge of their estates. Pope Nicolas V permitted the requested merge and Paulines returned to Zlat in the last decades of the 15th century. However, they permanently abandoned the Zlat monastery again by the middle of the 16th century due to an increasing peril of Ottoman troops and sought refuge once more in the Kamensko monastery, never to return to their mountain property. During this rather short period, Zlat monks had to acquire on their own most of their possessions, unlike their fraternal monasteries. They also did not manage to obtain privileges or a status of locus credibilis. Petrovac (the name used from that time onwards for the abandoned monastery) was abandoned in 1583, and already in 1584 it fell under Ottoman authority. The former Zlat monastery obtained once more a defensive role after the movement of the demarcation line to the Una in 1654. It may be concluded that during that time one of the largest watchtowers (chardaks) in the wider area was constructed on the nave of the monastic church. Watchtower maintained its function until the Treaty of Sistova in 1791. Around the same time the resettlement of former soldiers (mainly of Eastern Orthodox faith) from the border zones into the wider area of Petrovac had begun. Therefore, at the beginning of the 19th century, the Orthodox Temple of the Descent of the Holy Spirit was erected on the foundations of the church chancel with a rectangular bell-tower along the eastern part of the southeastern façade. Zlat Monastery characteristics differ significantly from other Pauline monasteries in late medieval Slavonia: from the unusual choice of building site full of natural disadvantages to the odd layout. The unusual and asymmetric layout (which was primarily dictated by the geo-morphological determinants of the terrain disposition) of the monastery (surface area ca. 420 m2) – with the monastic church and a single monastery wing – was suited for the needs (and financial possibilities) of a small monastic community. The monastic church enclosed the southeastern part of the monastery. Its longitudinal aspect was emphasized by roughly equal dimensions of the rectangular, single nave and the sanctuary enclosed by a shallow semi- circular apse. The southwestern façade was reinforced with rectangular counterforts due to geomechanical reasons. The main entrance to the church was therefore built on the western part of the southeastern façade. The northeastern façade was also reinforced with counterforts, in this case a support for low- quality masonry. Since none of the vault’s architectural mouldings were found, it can be assumed that the monastic church had a simple, wooden coffered ceiling. Furthermore, the floor was most likely made of wooden slats. The sole monastery wing was directly connected to the church. The capitulary hall/refectory was immediately adjacent to the sanctuary, which was separated from the kitchen by a corridor. This corridor connected these two rooms with the courtyard and the outdoor area. The northeastern door was also the only communication found between the monastery complex and the outside area. It may be assumed that there was one more door (a utility entrance?) on the (presumed) wooden, massive fence, which enclosed the monastery on the western side. Thus, it can be assumed that the northeastern door could have been the main monastery gate. Given the already mentioned characteristics of the entire complex, a larger and more notable entrance gate need not be expected. It may be assumed that the sole wing had an upper floor (made of wood?) in which the dormitory was situated. However, due to the presumably small number of monks, it may be assumed that the kitchen was also used as dormitory. Instead of the customary rectangular (or square) cloister with a well, the space enclosed by the northwestern wall of the church’s nave, the southwestern façade of the monastery wing and the simple wall to the northwest enclosed a simple, rectangular courtyard. No wall on the western side was found, so it may be assumed that this area was enclosed by a wooden fence. The monastery also had no well because it was built on bedrock. Due to the simplicity of the solution of the entire monastery it may be assumed that the courtyard had an economic role. Since no architectural structures were discovered inside the courtyard during the excavations, it is reasonable to assume that there were no stone-built partitions in this area. By the same token, it may be concluded that most of the courtyard was not covered. The courtyard was certainly not paved ; instead, embossed bedrock was used. According to a review of the available comparative ground-plans (particularly those of the earliest Pauline monasteries), not a single architectural solution was found that would correspond to the one of Zlat. The most similar ground-plan solution is the Pauline Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Pilisszentlélek. However, their similarity does not lie in the likeness of their ground-plans, but in the fact that they both were founded around the same time (i.e. during the time immediately following the establishment of the order), which resulted in the need to accommodate architectural solutions to their financial abilities and modest needs. However, despite comprehensive research (archaeological, historical, and archival), some questions remain opened. First is the question about the function of the plateau before the arrival of Pauline monks. Small number of finds confirms that Mali Petrovac was inhabited throughout history: from prehistory and antiquity, to early medieval period. Although indicative, these finds are insufficient to determine size and types of settlements, understand their continuity or discover the fate of the last community before the dawn of the Monastery’s foundation. Regardless of the difficulty of making any of the above conclusions, it is clear that Mali Petrovac was inhabited from prehistory to the end of early medieval period. Its position enabled easy surveillance of road routes linking continental centres with northern Adriatic ports, as well as with south Dalmatian towns by way of routes through northeast Bosnia which connected to Pannonian communications in the proximity of Petrova Gora. The plateau of Mali Petrovac was in direct visual communication with other such positions on Medvednica, Samobor, Moslavina, Hrastovica and Zrin mountains, as well as Velebit Mountain and Mountains of Snežnik – Gorski kotar high plateau of the Dinaric Alps. Because of those features, Mali Petrovac was chosen as a position for building settlements in peaceful times, a refuge in precarious times, and as a strategic military and surveillance point. Times changed, eras passed, but the geostrategic determinant of this position remained a constant, defining the history of this plateau from time of its first recorded holders. Furthermore, the question of choosing the plateau of Mali Petrovac for the founding of the monastery is still unanswered. Did the Pauline monks bought this property, or have they received it from a local noble family? Purchase of the property (in an unusual location for the Pauline order) would be an exception, regardless of whether this monastery had (documented) patrons or not. The charter (or its later copy) could have been lost during Ottoman attacks on Zlat and later Kamensko, where Zlat monks moved their entire archives. The acquisition of Zlat property should therefore still be considered through the prism of relations between the Pauline monks and owners of the Steničnjak estate. It is still not clear how monks lived in the period from the defacement of the monastery in at the end of the 14th to the founding of the Kamensko monastery and the middle of the 15th century. Did they only functioned formaly, or were they, as suited for a small monastic community, only barely surviving? This question certainly must be considered in the context of the establishment of the Kamensko monastery within only one century and located on the same estate. In the context of wider area, the question of interrelationship with surrounding settlements, forts, and old towns (eg. old town Petrovac, mentioned by F. P. J. Fras and R. Lopašić) is still completely unexplored. A small Zlat community entered the 15th century with only a few holdings, resulting in low income, and almost no patrons. If these facts are connected to the position of the monastery and contextualised into military- political events of the period, the inevitability of its abandonment becomes clear. However, even though the position of Mali Petrovac was crucial for the fate of Zlat monastery, it was precisely because of this that continuity in the use of the abandoned edifice was ensured: first for military and later for religious purpose. Regardless of numerous unanswered questions, requiring further interdisciplinary research and questioning, Zlat monastery is (for now), after the completion of presentation, the only fully explored late medieval Pauline monastery in what was then Slavonia. This important monument of Croatian cultural heritage was presented for learning and understanding of, almost unknown, historical and artistic cultural landscapes of the period, amid the luxurious natural resources of the Petrova Gora.

Petrova gora, pavlinski samostan

nije evidentirano