Analyze: 

_The name of the village and its origins. Lukov Castle and the Šternberks. Colonization. Church of St. Catherine. Kašava's village administrator. Monetary rent. Layout of the village. Kašava's field system. Retreat of the forests._

Kašava was not always Kašava. It took some time for people to stop using the name it was given at its founding. Because the original name Kašova (village, settlement) posed some difficulties when spoken quickly, within less than two centuries the vowel "o" in the middle syllable assimilated to the easier and more pleasing "a" present in the other two syllables. We cannot say exactly when this happened. We only know that this change had already taken place by 1446.²] However, it was not absolute. The following year, the original form of the name reappears in the predicate of Jan Pečený z Kašovy.³] More importantly, due to a lack of written records, we cannot definitively determine the date of the founding of the Kašava village. As part of the Lukov estate, it remained in the hands of the sovereign and was not an object that the ruler would bestow upon anyone. Despite this, clarifying its origins is not entirely hopeless. The very existence of Lukov Castle helps us significantly in this regard. It does not matter that the first mentions of the castle itself date back only to 1332-1334, when it had almost two centuries of existence behind it. Its location on a high hill with a wide view reveals that we are dealing with a fortification from the so-called Great Moravian period. Its origin can be traced back to the second half of the 11th century. Charles IV himself provided evidence that it was a castle with a long tradition. As Margrave of Moravia, immediately after his arrival in Moravia in 1334, he decided to first redeem Lukov Castle from the pledged royal castles.⁴) The late mentions of Lukov stem from the fact that the castle had only economic and strategic importance. It could not have had administrative significance because it was located somewhat far from the old settlement area. Therefore, unlike other Moravian castles built under Prince Břetislav or his successors, it could not build upon older Great Moravian centers. Unlike them, it was also never a center of church administration, which at that time was closely related to administrative districts. When examining the settlement of the Lukov district, the existence of Kostelec further south is very important. It is a settlement that, like other similarly named villages, was a place where a church was built no later than the 12th century. Because the church was located on its very border, it could easily become an accessory to the later founded Stípa. For this reason, Kostelec could have been somewhat older than the settlement of Lukov near the castle itself. This is a very important fact when we realize that it exhibits all the characteristics of settlements that arose before the mass colonization of the 13th century.

The strategic location of Lukov Castle was also evidenced by its position on the border of large forests in the Carpathian foothills. It also guarded the long-distance road from Holešov to Vsetín and Vizovice that passed nearby. It was a starting point for the surrounding mountains, famous for their hunting, beekeeping, and later also grazing opportunities. These latter resources were utilized earlier, when settlements with names formed according to older customs using the so-called patronymic suffix "-ice" arose. Their inhabitants were not descendants but the serf families of the nobleman whose name the suffix was attached to. These settlements, like nearby Kostelec, must be placed according to their origin no later than the 12th century. The fact that settlements with names without this typical suffix also have a Czech character indicates that the great colonization of the 13th century is nothing more than a continuation of the older so-called internal colonization. However, new, precisely planned settlements arose on land of poorer quality and in more difficult terrain conditions. It was necessary to arrange everything so that the fields belonging to individual houses formed continuous, connected units. This type of settlement with fields behind the houses was characteristic of Kašava as well as the surrounding Držková, Vlčková, but also Fryšták itself and the surrounding Dolní and Horní Ves. It was also present in Hvozdná and Štípa. A kind of intermediate type between them and the older settlements around Slušovice were Všemina and Trnava, which did not have a well-developed field system characteristic of older settlements, nor the schema of colonization settlements. Although these settlements already had two or three lower tracts of land, the largest of them was only the one that joined their homesteads. With the exception of Fryšták and Dolní and Horní Ves, which already exhibited better settlement conditions than the settlements east of Lukov, a significant feature of all the colonization settlements located there was the relatively small extent of agricultural land. There were more field tracts than in Všemina and Trnava in Veliková, Lukov, Ostrava, Březová, Hrobice, Kostelec, and Neobuz, i.e., in villages that arose before the 13th century.

The period of colonization activity around Lukov is almost foreshadowed by the existence of the Lukov land administrator. He was similar to the provincial official introduced in royal castles under Přemysl Otakar II. His authority also extended to criminal offenses committed outside the actual hunting grounds of Lukov Castle. The nearby Royal Benches are essentially nothing more than evidence of the existence of its old judicial organization, similar to the King's Table near Velehrad. The establishment of the land administrator in Lukov was apparently necessitated by the need for more systematic supervision of the newly founded villages. They were a source of monetary and in-kind payments as well as labor services, which could be used to equip and maintain the castle at a high level in terms of fortifications and living quarters. The advantages of colonizing its still forested areas were also well known to its pledge holders from the Šternberk family. Therefore, colonization activity continued here even in the second half of the 14th century. At that time, the settlement of Janov, named after Jan of Šternberk, the son of the first allodial holder of Lukov, Matouš, arose in the vicinity of Kašava. Somewhat earlier, the village of Zdislavova, or Zdislavov, was founded in the vicinity of Hrobice. This happened sometime around 1332. It is more than likely that it was named in honor of the recently deceased Zdislav of Šternberk, who is mentioned as deceased in 1332.⁵) It is not excluded that the memory of his namesake father, Zdislav Sr., who sat in Ostroh in 1320-1322 and who may have already reached Lukov then or soon after, was also to be honored in this way. The last settlement of colonization origin in terms of time was the settlement founded below Kopná Hill, about which we have the first information only from 1512.

However, Margrave Charles' attempt to regain Lukov into direct royal possession was only temporary. He too was forced to take into account the power of the Šternberks and thus submit to the wishes of his father, who was forced, as part of an agreement with the Hungarian King Charles Robert, to forgive them their treasonous stance during the invasions of the Hungarian magnate Matthew Csák of Trenčín, during which territory acquired by Přemysl Otakar II in the left Pomoraví was lost. The importance of Lukov to the Šternberks is evident from the fact that not only the youngest son of Zdislav Jr., Matouš, but also his nephew Zdeněk called themselves after it as early as 1350.⁶) Matouš's mother Marketa and her other sons resided in Lukov in 1332.⁷) For the Šternberks, affected by the growth of their family, the Lukov estate was a necessity. Indirect evidence of the existence of Kašava is the fact that in the period after 1371 we already hear about several settlements established in its immediate vicinity, and this in more difficult terrain conditions. Fryšták is mentioned in 1371, Vlčková is mentioned in 1373, Držková in 1391, and Štípa itself in 1391. Dolní Ves Fryštácká, mentioned in 1397, is in itself evidence of the existence of the neighboring Horní settlement, mentioned explicitly only in 1446, because from this year we have the first complete list of all castle property.⁸] Only the lack of written records caused us to hear about Kašava so late. This may have happened because, for certain reasons, it was not possible to burden it with any income for the benefit of Matouš's extended family. This was apparently also prevented by the fact that the Lukov vassal used Kašava. We know that the neighboring Vítová was a vassal village in 1398, as well as Dešná and Ostrata themselves in 1437. Kašava had a similar position. That is why Jan Pečený z Kašavy is named after it in 1447.⁹) The emergence of new settlements on the northern and southern edges of Lukov also required a new arrangement of spiritual administration. In a time of significantly advanced internalization of religious life, it could not have been otherwise. If Fryšták could not be without a church, neither could the group of settlements on the upper Dřevnice, as well as the newly founded Hvozdná. Due to its central location at the confluence of the Dřevnice and the Vlčkovský stream, Kašava was uniquely suited to become the center of a new parish district. A church was already considered during its founding. Hence its planned location on an elevated place in the middle of the local Lukov tract. We learn about the existence of a larger number of churches in the Lukov estate from a general mention from 1446, when, among other things, patronage rights are mentioned as accessories of the Lukov settlements.¹⁰] However, we have an explicit mention of patronage rights in Kašava, and therefore also of the Kašava church, only from 1480.¹¹)

A more precise dating of the origin of the Kašava church is also made possible by its dedication to St. Catherine, who was popular during the reign of Charles IV. This is why the Šternberks chose her. They could not have acted otherwise. After all, a high church dignitary, Albert or Albrecht of Šternberk, came from the Šternberk family. He was first Bishop of Zvěřín, then Archbishop of Magdeburg, and finally Bishop of Litomyšl. As is also evident from the previous explanation, the Kašava church was not only for the Kašava settlement itself, but also for the surrounding Držková, which was then divided into Horní and Dolní, further for Vlčková, and finally also for the recently founded Janová. Later, it was also assigned to Podkopná Lhota. Economic reasons also decided on the establishment of the church in Kašava. Kašava was already a place with several mills, not large in size, but sufficient for processing local and surrounding grain production. If four serf mills and a manorial mill are mentioned in Kašava in 1631, then for the period of the High Middle Ages it is necessary to count on at least two such enterprises. Their abundance was necessitated by water conditions. The Dřevnice was more abundant, but not always. Milling was possible only in spring or autumn. More thorough utilization of its water power was therefore possible only by establishing several mills in different places. However, the mills could not be maintained without the cooperation of skilled craftsmen. Although the millers themselves were well versed in wood processing and carpentry and joinery, they were no longer sufficient for blacksmithing work. Because agriculture could not exist without it, it was not surprising that two blacksmiths were mentioned here in the second quarter of the 17th century. The Lukov lords also used the water power of the Kašava river to establish a sawmill, to which all wealthier settlers had to transport 2 logs annually. A mill with a sawmill was also present in the places where the settlement of Janová, already called Janůvka in 1480, once stood. The economic dominance of Kašava as a local center also lay in the relatively higher fertility of its land. According to the valuation estimate from the second quarter of the 19th century, the fertility of the Kašava fields was 20% higher than in Držková, Trnava, and Lhota, and 10% higher than in Vlčková. The quality of the meadows was better by 20-25%, the quality of the pastures even by 33-63% than in Vlčková and Hrobice.¹²)

A typical feature of settlements of colonization character were free and hereditary village administratorships. The village administrators were primarily manorial officials. They maintained order and also guarded the interests of the manor, especially the collection of monetary and in-kind rents, and also supervised the course of compulsory labor. By a deed of December 20, 1440, Lacek of Šternberk granted the Kašava village administratorship to an unknown Jan and his wife Dorota, with a lane, a cooking tavern, a mill, the right to hunt hares and partridges on the Dřevnice, and on the condition that they would deliver two hares and ten partridges to the manor's kitchen every Christmas.¹³) The affiliation of Kašava to the large Lukov estate had certain advantages. These included the systematic monetary remission of all obligations. The basic and therefore oldest payments were payments on St. George's Day and St. Wenceslas' Day. Later, payments on St. John's Day, St. Martin's Day, and Christmas were added to them. We encounter such an arrangement of payment deadlines everywhere in the Lukov region. New deadlines appeared at times when people received various authorizations, especially for clearing further manorial forests. This increased the pastures in Kašava to such an extent that they were more extensive than the area of arable land, which was still the basic source of livelihood. Limiting forests was necessary due to the low quality of the pastures obtained. If in the middle of the 19th century it was estimated that one acre of pasture was needed to feed one cow on the plains, in the mountains 5-10 acres were needed for this.¹⁴) The pastures in the Kašava region were not of equal value. Where it was possible to destroy the remnants of all forest undergrowth, it was still possible to establish mountain pastures or fallow land, which was plowed once every five years and otherwise served as pasture. There were few clean pastures covered only with grass. Pastures with trees predominated here. These were remnants of forest stands that could not be eradicated due to difficult conditions. The extent of these shrubby or tree stands, although it reduced grazing possibilities, allowed livestock to at least feed on their young growth during severe droughts. However, the results achieved were not commensurate with the effort expended. This is evident from the statistics from 1843. At that time, there were 105 acres of clean pastures, but 460 acres of pastures with trees and 173 acres of fallow land. From these figures, one can get a clear idea of the extent of the original forest, of which only 51 acres remained by the middle of the 19th century.¹⁵)