About hillforts
Hillforts as well as other archeological monuments from the past never existed isolated. They appeared, developed and vanished or were abandoned together with other contemporaneous objects and were related to them by their functions. The castles that stood on hillforts protected local settlements whose inhabitants supplied the crews with necessary products. Those who died defending the castle and people living in the surroundings were buried in community burial grounds.
The concept of “hillfort” is rather broad from both the territorial and chronological points of view. Because of this, hillforts are considered to be objects that are quite diverse by their external appearance and their structure: from the very early hillforts which are very similar to ordinary hills to the later ones reinforced with distinctive moats and ramparts. The present look of hillforts can hardly display common, uniting all hillforts, features and at the same time differentiating them from other ancient fortifications. That is the consequence of the current condition of hillforts. All the hillforts, which have survived until today, have been damaged by various natural and human forces: washed away by rivers, ploughed, dug with pits, etc. Today only sporadic fortifications of hillforts can be detected: slopes (Šeimyniškiai, Utena district), which have maintained their original appearance.
All the rest is so much or nearly completely deformed or destroyed that even with a specialist‘s eye it is difficult to perceive the features of a hillfort. Besides, trees and bushes that grow on hillforts hide still visible features and prevent from seeing hillforts with a wider view.
With reference to the current level of our knowledge of hillforts and on the basis of the collected data, hillforts are identified as relief formations featuring close type external earthen fortifications with traces of the activities of the people who once constructed them. From the total number of hillforts, there stand out a dozen objects of the Modern Times (XVI-XVIIIc.), externally similar to hillforts, but according to the data available, of later times and not related to the castles that used to stand there. Those were temporary or war field military fortifications, locations of fortified manors or old mounds without any defensive functions.
The very name of the “hillfort” is rather old and originates from the times when the main elements of the wooden castle erected on top of the hillfort were earth ramparts. In the Lithuanian language the word “pilis” (castle) originates from the word “pilti” (pile, cast). The word „pilis“ makes a part of the name of some castles mentioned in the XIVc. (Paršpilis, Naujapilis). In XIVc., with appearance of stone/brick castles, at the same time and later old wooden catles and hillforts were abandoned and the origin and historical sequence of the concept „pilis“ was lost and confused. Sometimes the very location of a hillfort got lost and forgotten: a hillfort was started to be called a more impressive hill near the original hillfort, or only the name of the location, reminding the castle, survived.
A complex of archaeological monuments with a hillfort in the center comprises foreworks, baileys, foot settlements, old cemeteries, ritual places, sometimes old manufacturing sites, roads, etc. Lacking more comprehensive research on pre-historic epochs of human communities who lived in various territories of Lithuania and regarding the current level of our knowledge, such complex could include all the above said hillforts with contemporaneous objects located within the distance of 1km of the hillfort. In all times hillforts were arranged in the most rational way: by selecting a location maximum protected by natural barriers (naturally steep slopes, additionally protected by water at the foot).
The hillfort, as a defensive facility, contains two basic elements, i.e. the fortified locus (site) itself and its fortifications. The fortified locus is the levelled summit of the hilltop, a former yard of the castle or another fortification. There were various buildings, troops were assembled or local people looked for refuge. The locus was usually arranged on the summit of a mound and only in rare cases below it. Most frequently it has marks of levelling off the ground, but that is not the element necessary for the locus. Even after assessing the great damage they have suffered because of ploughing, it still can be seen that some loci, due to different reasons, were never flat and sometimes their heights differed up to even 7 meters. The shapes of the loci also varied and only in rare cases were of regular forms: round, quadrangular or triangular. Most often they are shaped as irregular oval, quadrangular with rounded corners or trapeze. The edges or even bigger parts of sites of hillforts on the banks of rivers have been washed away and the sites themselves have changed their shape.
The site was enclosed by fortifications. They were built either of earth or wood. The use of stone for fortifications is not characteristic to Lithuanian hillforts, which used to be more common in earlier epochs. Earth fortifications included ramparts, ditches, terraces and slopes, as well as wood fortifications, which included various fences, barriers, towers and walls.Fortifications of Lithuanian hillforts are very diverse. They usually were combined: wooden walls stood on ramparts and the edges of the site, barriers were on the slopes and along ditches. Earthen fortifications usually consisted of several lines: apart from the main rampart and ditch there used to be one or a few lines of additional smaller ramparts and shallow ditches.The height and steepness of slopes of a hillfort were one of more important features of inaccessibility of the castle. Employing the height and steepness of slopes of natural hills and prominences, the slopes were additionally fortified (supported or paved by stones, with ramparts on the flatter or lower side, whose external slope was elevated by digging a ditch at the foot). Depending on the period and machinery for seizing a castle, ramparts were built both on the edges of the sites and on slopes, and sometimes at the foot. At present only part of former earth fortifications can be seen on hillforts, and remains of wooden fortifications are found during archaeological research.
The remaining earth fortifications, as the most distinctive element of external appearance of hillforts, have been greatly deformed in the course of ages: ramparts have been scarfed, ditches levelled off, slopes flattened. Presently observed terraces in hillforts most frequently are the remains of small ditches that used to be on slopes and levelled off ramparts behind them. Since not a single hillfort has remained with its appearance what it used to be at the time life activities stopped there, while visiting hillforts one has just to imagine the fortitude of the former castle: to heighten ramparts by one two meters, to deepen ditches, to steepen slopes.
The hillfort was subjoined by further three constituent parts of the archaeological complex: foot settlements, foreworks and baileys. Foot settlements, which were attached to the majority of hillforts, are uncovered most often.That was the dwelling place of people who had constructed it and which protected them in turbulent times. Foot settlements were most frequently located near the hillfort in all locations suitable for living. Depending on the size of the community and the duration of existing in the place, they occupied areas of various size: from tenths of a hectare to a dozen hectares.
The locations of foot settlements are distinguished in the environment by their specific cultural layers, usually by the soil of a darker color (saturated with charcoal) and various remnants of people‘s life traces in it: the remains of buildings, stone paving, hearths, clay plaster, and very rarely with remaining wood, various household and manufacturing waste: pots fragments, animal bones, iron melting waste (slag). Since the cultural layer of foot settlements is fertile land, in Lithuania, which is the land of agriculture, the locations of foot settlements most frequently were plowed nearly as soon as they were abandoned, therefore, the cultural layer was disrupted or even completely destroyed; the only remaining fragments are the ones in recesses or in the places unsuitable for farming (most often at the edges of the marshes or wet water bodies) or single finds in stone. Therefore, the real area occupied by foot settlements usually was larger than the one protected now.
Foreworks and baileys are scarce satellites of hillforts, characteristic exceptionally of the latest hillforts, i.e. those dated to the XIIth – beginning of the XVth centuries. They appeared in order to strengthen the main wooden castle in the hillfort when there was not enough space for stronger fortifications in the hillfort and some of them had to be behind the old fortification boundaries. Foreworks here are called purely defensive closed installations, as if they were the continuation of the castle itself, and which were usually more fortified than the site of the castle itself. The example of such foreworks is Narkūnai Little hillfort in Utena district. In isolated cases a castle had two foreworks. Meanwhile a bailey is a foot settlement or part of it surrounded by now visible fortifications. Such is the bailey of Šeimyniškiai hillfort protected by ditches. In the chronicles of the Order of XIII–XIV centuries while mentioning Lithuanian castles under assault, foreworks, baileys and foot settlements were not separated and called using the name „suburbium“, „preurbium“, „Vorburg“ (German), which are usually translated from Latin as bailey.
Comprehension of hillforts as the oldest Lithuanian fortifications is impossible without their exploration. Two directions of explorations can be singled out, namely, surveys of hillforts and archaeological excavations.During surveys information is collected about the location of the hillfort, its appearance, finds, previous references in written sources and literature as well as the verbal tradition, the site is photographed and in some cases its plan is drafted.
The first traces of interest in hillforts can be found already in the XVIc. Hillforts started to attract more attention in the XIXth century with a more intensive development of science of history and with the rising wave of romanticism. The title of the first explorers of Lithuanian hillforts is shared by two persons: Pranciškus Vilčinskis (1799–1859) and Frédéric Dubois de Montepereux (1798–1850). The former started excavations of Narkūnai and Pakalniai hillforts in Utena district in 1835, and the latter wrote the first summarizing work on them. Here hillforts are depicted as ancient defensive locations. In the second half of the XIXth century diggings of hillforts spread widely, which is witnessed today by old pits present in many hillforts. They were done by curious or wishing to get rich quickly people inspired by legends about hidden treasures. Only a small part of those „excavations“ were recorded in a way and some erratic data have reached our days.
At the end of the XIXth c. with the beginning of Lithuanian national liberation movement interest in the history of the country increased, especially in its witnesses – hillforts. More and more often they were mentioned in the press, various documents about hillforts started to be collected and attempts were made to find out their origins. The first list of Lithuanian hillforts including 63 hillforts was compiled by Motiejus Valančius in 1872. A little later, in 1881, Jonas Basanavičius wrote a big article on hillforts during the times of fighting with crusaders and published it in the first issues of „Aušra“ in 1883–1884. The article mentions 76 locations of castles at that time, a great number of which are related with hillforts. However, the most diverse data on Lithuanian hillforts were presented by Fiodor Pokrovskij (1855–1903) in the compiled archeological maps of Vilnius, Grodno and Kaunas governorates. There is information about 230 hillforts in the present territory of Lithuania based on literary sources and collected from special forms. Nevertheless, these valuable data became little known to the wider public as they were published in Russian. In 1909 Juozapas Radziukynas (1841–1925) tried to fill in the remaining gap in the knowledge about Lithuanian hillforts in Lithuanian governorates. He published the first Lithuanian booklet devoted to hillforts where 36 hillforts were described. At the end of the XIXc. hillforts were started to be studied wider and more comprehensively.
After their abandonment hillforts have reached our days being more or less damaged. They were plowed, gravel dug from them, their slopes were washed away by water, cultural layers were destroyed by trees and cave animals. The need for protection of hillforts arose only in the beginning of the XXth century. In the forties to seventies of the XXth c. attempts were made to protect them against devastating anthropogenic factors, i.e. erosions caused by ploughing, digging, constructions and flows of visitors.What remained were ponds created at the hillfoots of hillforts, which was a result of reckless economic activity, which in its turn had essentially changed the environment of hillforts. In interwar Lithuania great attempts were made to preserve the most famous hillforts by managing them or handing them over to the association for beautification of Lithuania or even taken over by the state. Little by little municipalities also got involved in handling of hillforts.
The Lithuanian hillforts represent just a small part of the gigantic array of prehistoric fortifications, which were widespread in the forest and forest – steppe zone all over Europe in the prehistoric and early historic times. This array stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, from the polar circle to the steppe zone and the Alps. It contained tens of thousands of fortifications of various structures, forms and sizes, chronology and purpose, which existed since the IV millennium BC till the Modern Times. The origins of fortifications remain an unsolved scientific mystery in the history of humankind. One thing which is more or less agreed on is that fortifications were the result of new social relations. This is testified by various fortifications found in other parts of the world, which appeared when society achieved a certain level of development and later disappeared. However, everywhere the appearance of fortifications is related with increasing tension between separate communities. Their defensive purpose is obvious, no matter the enemy: hostile tribes, wild animals or even unfriendly intended natives.
With reference to fortifications, several types of hillforts of the Brushed Pottery culture can be singled out, which most probably are different chronologically and functionally. One group is made up of already mentioned small hillforts on top of mounds without evident fortifications (Armališkės, Utena district). Their cultural layer was thin where stone axes were found. Such hillforts have nearly not been investigated till now. No evident remains of foot settlements were found at the foothills of these hillforts. The other group includes big hillforts (40–80m in diameter) with prolonged quadrangular and oval sites (Antilgė, Jaurelis Utena d.) without evident fortifications. As investigations show, these hillforts were dwellings of larger communities. Their fortifications consisted of only double wooden fences on the edges of the site (Narkūnai, Utena d.). These hillforts existed longer, have a thicker cultural layer, which sometimes is overlayed by remains of later epochs, and so part of them have survived till our days. The third group contains hillforts constructed on tops of mounds as well as on forelands of banks, 30–80m in size most commonly with quadrangular sites, reinforced with ramparts in the corners (Dryžiai, Utena d.). Very often these hillforts have additional lines of fortifications (ditches and ramparts) on the slopes. These are the best known and most investigated hillforts of Brushed Pottery culture. They were used for a considerable span of time, defensive fortifications were repeatedly reconstructed, expanded and fortified. These hillforts outlived the times of the fall of the Brushed Pottery culture and existed till the middle of the I millennium. At their foothills there were large settlements, reaching the area of up to 6ha. A separate type of earlier hillforts are small hillforts erected on tops of small mounds with round, up to 20 meters in diameter sites, enclosed with 2–3 rings of fortifications. Usually, the first ring of ramparts encloses the site, 3–4m below the site there is a ditch on steepened slopes, outside of which there is a rampart. Sometimes below the first ring of fortifications the second one was installed. A separate and rather scarce type of hillforts of Brushed Pottery culture are very large (0.5–3ha) hillforts-settlements which had only natural fortifications. Usually they were just steep slopes with water at the foot. Some of such hillforts were erected on separate hills with slopes of medium steepness (Kubiliai, Kalviai, Utena d.). They were just large weakly fortified settlements. These hillforts and also numerous other foot settlements of the Brushed Pottery culture remain nearly uninvestigated. The most investigated foot settlement of Narkūnai hillfort showed that people lived there only in the first centuries AD.
Hillforts of the XIIIth c., not counting the latest tribe hillforts, are less known. In the fights with the Teutonic Order they underwent repeated reconstructions. If there was a castle in such a hillfort in the XIVc., the hillfort retained the appearance of that time, but earlier layers could have been destroyed while rebuilding the castle. Quite a number of hillforts of the XIIIc. were constructed in place of previous hillforts by only fortifying their fortifications. In the XIIIc. fortifications of hillforts were not very strong. If a wooden castle was built in the place of the previous hillfort, the site was already flat. Nearby these first state castles there were no larger foot settlements.
In the XIVc. fortifications of hillforts were much stronger. It is especially distinctive in the hillforts abandoned at the end of the XIVc. and the first half of the XVc. Ramparts made of pressed clay reached the height of 5–7 meters, behind them there were deep (6–10m deep) ditches – Šeimyniškiai, Utena d. Very often next to them there were foreworks or baileys. The sites of those hillforts were also larger, slopes were steep, which were additionally reinforced with supplementary ramparts and ditches at the foothills – Taurapilis, Utena d.
To the group of the latest hillforts are also assigned fortifications that could be compared to massive fortified military camps. These objects were too big for wooden castles. Next to the hillforts of the XIV – beginning of the XVc. there were large foot settlements whose size was several to a dozen hectares.
The time of decline of wooden castles and final abandonment of hillforts is still not fully explored. So far written sources have been the main grounds of reliance; however, the data from the XVc. have not been systematized. According to them, the wooden castles on Narkūnai (Utena), Taurapilis (Tauragnai) hillforts existed till only 1433. It means that the history of hillforts continued till at least the middle of the XVc. And even in later centuries there were various earthen fortifications externally similar to hillforts and often considered to be such even now.
In the latest period of their development Lithuanian hillforts were an exceptional phenomenon in European history, conditioned by the late formation of the state and the threat of the Order. Neighboring and more distant countries built stone and brick castles whose strength depended more on the thickness of walls rather than the steepness of slopes and height of ramparts of hills on which they were built. Wooden fortifications could not stand any longer against firearms, and first of all cannons, which appeared in Europe in the XIV century. And even though wooden castles can be still found in other countries in that time, for example, Denmark, they were no longer fortifications there. As stonework was changing earthen and stone ramparts, wooden fortifications transformed into auxiliary and independent fortifications, no longer related to hillforts. Europe and Lithuania met the Modern Times with already abandoned hillforts which since then have become the object of interest of ancient legacy.
Internet, literature and other sources used:
Wikipedia
Encyclopedia of Utena Region (Gediminas Isokas)
Book “Water mill ring of Northeastern Aukštaitija”
Book “Lithuanian valsčiai. Užpaliai”
Texts by Gintautas Zabiela
Project materials of Utena diving center
Book “Vyžuonos. Region and people“
Book “Manors and castles of Lithuania“(2015)
“Hillforts of Lithuania. Atlas“. Vilnius, 2005.
https://www.lietuvos.dvarai.lt
Leonora Buičenkienė’s book: „Legends of Utena region“