The 1932 plan: the Allika farmyard is already there
Four building marks, fields and ditches are visible on the plan. It does not yet tell the story of every house, but it gives an unusually clear view of the yard when the place was called Piiritusevabriku A-11.
Correction, 17 September 2026. The earlier identification of Piiritusevabriku A11 / property 12526 with present-day Allika has been withdrawn: it is a different plot in Maidla. Its plan and four building symbols cannot be treated as the plan or buildings of the present farmyard. The earlier research stage is preserved below. The new working identification is Allika A10 / 2067, based on the 1935 plans; this does not establish legal ownership.
Read the updated Allika A10 source check →
Rahvusarhiiv · ERA.T-3.22.2534 · Allika A10A yard visible on paper
The 1932 plan has no house photographs and no people’s names. It has a yard, fields, ditches and four tiny building marks. Yet it is one of the most moving images we have, because it shows this place long before our present-day photographs.
The paper needs a calm reading. It tells us where things stood and how large the Piiritusevabriku A-11 plot was; it does not say which mark can be called today’s sauna or house. That makes it both a very specific and a very modest witness.
We are looking at the same yard somebody measured in 1932, without forcing the plan to answer questions it was never made to answer. The next find must make those links.
Rahvusarhiiv plan ERA.T-3.22.1281 is dated 1932. It gives Piiritusevabriku no. A-11 an area of 10.320 hectares and shows four building marks in the farmyard.
The archival description connects this A-11 with property number 12526. The full name matters: another A-11 existed in the Maidla area.
A plan is strongest for reading place and distance. It lets us see the yard, tracks and distribution of land, but not decide which present wall corresponds to a 1932 mark.
Piiritusevabriku is a parcel name here. The name alone does not prove that a distillery stood in the present farmyard.
The plan names neither the uses of the buildings nor an owner. Connecting its four marks to present buildings requires separate, direct evidence.