Old and Middle Iron Age Settlements and Hillforts

160

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

Old and Middle Iron Age Settlements and Hillforts R o k as Ve n g a li s

The conception of the Iron Age in Lithuanian ar­­ chaeo­­­logy differs fairly sharply from the ordinary con­ ception in the greater part of Europe. Owing to the late beginning of the use of iron, the late creation of a state, the late introduction of Christianity, and other circum­ stances, the ordinary periodization of prehistory was difficult to adapt in this region and far later eras bear the same names. Thus the 1st millennium ad is called the Iron Age rather than the 1st millennium bc, i.e. the Hallstatt and La Tène periods. Although the La Tène period (5th–1st centuries bc) is called the ‘Early Iron Age’, in fact during this period iron was still hardly used in Lithuania and this period has significantly more simi­ larities with the Bronze Age. These latter two periods are usually investigated by combining them under the joint name of ‘Early Metal Age’. The real Iron Age began in Lithuania only at the turn of the millennium, when iron began to be extracted from local bog ore, and spread rapidly, causing marked changes in both the cultural situation and in economic, social, and ideological areas. The Iron Age in Lithuania is traditionally divided into three separate periods: the Old Iron Age (1st–4th centuries), also called the Roman period, the Middle Iron Age (5th–8th centuries), also called the Migration period, and the Late Iron Age (9th–12th/13th centuries), also called the Viking and state formation period. This article discusses settlements and hillforts from the first two periods, the Old and Middle Iron Ages. During the first half – mid-1st millennium it is defi­ nitely possible to call the culture that existed in Lithu­ anian territory peripheral in respect to Europe. The influence of the centres of civilisation: Rome, Constan­ tinople, and later, the kingdoms of the Franks and other Germans was very weak here and economic relation­ ships with them were generally maintained only through intermediaries. During the entire period under discussion, Lithuanian territory was characterised by an agrarian tribal society with indistinct social stratifi­ cation that should probably be compared to more

primitive forms of chiefdom. The population lived in small communities in unenclosed or fortified (hillfort) settlements. No rudiments of urban or even proto-urban or mercantile emporia have yet to be identified from this period. The separate tribes, which are all ascribed to the Balt cultural group, are fairly clearly distinguishable in Lithuanian territory during the period in question. The tribal territories were small, from several hundred and to several thousand square kilometres, only several territories being bigger. The tribal territories can pri­ marily be distinguished by the burial customs, which were different in each of them. But recently ever more data has emerged that the lifestyles of these tribes also differed, each having its own social and economic sys­ tems, different historical development, and different stages of prosperity and setbacks. Thus the develop­ ment of the settlements throughout Lithuanian territory in the 1st millennium was not uniform, the form, struc­ ture, and function types of the settlements as well as the habitation system differing in the various regions. Until the very end of the 20th century the Iron Age interested Lithuanian archaeologists almost exclusively from just the perspective of ethnic history. The main goal of the research was the processes of the divergence of the tribes and their later consolidation into the Lith­ uanian nation, the result being that mostly burial sites were excavated. The benefit of the information supplied by settlements in respect to these questions was con­ sidered to be non-essential and therefore the knowl­ edge about Iron Age settlements gradually fell far behind the general level of Lithuanian archaeology and this gap remains fairly clear even now. This article simultaneously presents material from two somewhat different but at the same time similar archaeological object types, i.e. settlements and hill­ forts. The functional purpose of hillforts differed during various periods; sometimes they were used as settle­ ments and sometimes they functioned as a wooden

castle protecting the inhabitants from enemy attack. In the ordinary classification of Lithuanian Iron Age archaeological objects, settlements are divided into unenclosed settlements and hillfort foot settlements. Although this division is based essentially on heritage management principles and lacks any real scientific basis, it is still frequently used to this day owing to the lack of investigations of these sites. Hillforts have been of interest since the very begin­ ning of the formation of archaeology as a discipline, but unenclosed settlements came onto the horizon of Lithuanian archaeologists very late. In the second half of the 19th – early 20th century, the age of Romanticism, hillforts attracted investigators primarily owing to their connection with the 13th–14th-century struggle with the Teutonic Knights, the most celebrated and glorified period of GDL history. The first hillfort excavators worked in the 1830s, but up until the early 20th century they remained very amateurish and no highly specific infor­ mation about their results has reached our day1. More attention was devoted at that time to hillfort registra­ tion and the compiling of lists than to hillfort excavation. A separate hillfort investigation stage during the 1900s – 1910s is connected with Polish anthropologist L. Krzywicki, who was the first of the Lithuanian hillfort investigators to begin to critically evaluate the legends involving hillforts and to strive to substantiate all of his statements with firmer arguments. L. Krzywicki inves­ tigated eight hillforts more broadly in Lithuania, pub­ lishing much of his material2. He likewise wrote that his most important aim in excavating them was not the search for finds, but the collection of data about the structure of hillforts3. On the basis of the hillfort excavations, he drew conclusions about the cultural differences of East and West Lithuania, asserting that agriculture was more important in the west where hillforts were used only for defence during an attack, while in the east hillforts were inhabited continuously and the population engaged more in hunting and fi­­ shing. According to L. Krzywicki, in East Lithuania the culture was more primitive as significantly more bone and stone artefacts were found there while metal arte­ facts predominated in West Lithuania. In actuality, the hillforts he excavated in East Lithuania were earlier than those in West Lithuania4. After L. Krzywicki, hillfort investigations almost ceased until the 1950s. During nearly 40 years, larger-

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

161

scale excavations were conducted at a total of only three hillforts (Apuolė, Impiltis, Velikuškės), their mate­ rial not resulting in broader generalising works. After the Second World War, work in the field of archaeology was renewed only in the 1950s. This de­ca­de was marked by the intense sovietization of Lithuania, which was also manifested in the discipline of archaeo­lo­­gy with the necessity of rewriting the course of history and the development of society in accordance with the models dictated by the doctrine of Marxism–Leninism. In the Marxist–Leninist para­ digm, the most important driving force in history and the reason for cultural chan­ge was the class struggle and therefore social processes had to be primarily investigated. This promp­­ted an intense excavation of the hillforts. In addition, and most importantly, the settlements at their feet and the unenclosed settle­ ments finally began to be investigated. In the 1950s, excavations were conducted at a total of over ten set­ tlements and hillforts: Aukštadvaris, Bačkininkėliai,

F I G . 1. 1.

Zabiela G. Lietuvos medinės pilys. Vilnius, 1995, p. 18–22.

2.

Krzywicki L. Grodzisko Derbuckie na Żmudzi, PF, 1913, vol. XXI(V), p. 15–29; Krzywicki L. Piłkalnia pod wsią Petraszunami, Rocznik Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk w Wilnie. Wilno, 1914, vol. V, p. 1–27; Krzywicki L. Grodziska górno–litewskie, PF, 1914, vol. XXII(V), p. 13–32; Krzywicki L. Grodziska górno–litewskie. Grodzisko na Górze Ościkowej pod Rakiszkami, PF, 1917, vol. XXIV(V), p. 1–42; Krzywic­­­ki L. Piłkalnia w Gabrieliszkach, Księga pamiątkowa celem uczczenia 350–ej rocznicy założenia Uniwersitetu Stefana Batorego w Wilnie. Warszawa, 1931, p. 175–190.

3.

Krzywicki L. Żmudź staroźytna. Dawni Żmudzini i ich warownie. Warszawa, 1906, p. 88.

4.

Krzywicki L. Piłkalnia pod wsią Petraszunami, Rocznik Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk w Wilnie. Wilno, 1914, vol. V, p. 24–26.

The 1954 excavation at Nemenčinė Hillfort (Vilnius District). Photo by P. Kulikauskas, MRLIH, Photograph Section, neg. no. 4182.

162

F I G . 2.

The 1957 excavation at Aukštadvaris Settlement (Trakai District). Photo by A. Bernotaitė, MRLIH, Photograph Section, neg. no. 6047.

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

Dovainonys, Guogai–Pi­­liuona, Juodonys, Nemenčinė, Migonys, Paplienija, etc. Much of the material from these excavations has remained essential in analysing the Lithuanian Iron Age (Figs. 1, 2). Although only comparatively small areas, from several hundred to one–two thousand square metres, were excavated at individual objects, it is important that an effort was made to excavate in both the hillforts and its foot settlements. This allowed the creation of a certain settlement development model, a model con­ nected with the social model for societal development asserted by the Marxist–Leninist paradigm. According to it, up until the mid-1st millennium the population lived continuously in the hillforts as shown by the tribal community structure that existed at that time. During the 1st century they began to move down to the hillfort’s foot, the hillfort itself turning into a temporary refuge, where the people hid during an attack. This was con­ sidered to be a sign of increasing looting raids and, at the same time, of a growing social stratification. Finally in the second half of the 1st millennium, fortress-style hillforts with large enclosures and powerful fortifica­ tions appeared. The creation of such hillforts required an organised leadership, which shows the appearance of class society and exploited labour5. It is worth noting that such conclusions were reached through the pure 5.

Kulikauskas P. Pirmykštė bendruomeninė santvarka Lietuvos TSR teritorijoje, Lietuvos TSR istorija. Nuo seniausių laikų iki 1861 metų. Vilnius, 1957, p. 35–36; Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. Miniatiūrinių piliakalnių Lietuvoje klausimu, ILKI, 1959, vol. 2, p. 125–137.

deductive method, then the settlement and hillfort material only ‘confirmed’ the already created model of societal development without questioning or even correcting it. Despite this, this interpretation of the development of settlements and hillforts was estab­ lished for a very long time in the consciousness of Lithuania’s archaeologists and similar thinking is still sometimes presented even now. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the main topic or one of them in the works of almost all Lithuanian archaeo­ logists became ethnogenesis, which gradually began to be understood as the ultimate goal of archaeology. Investigations were conducted in other fields only in so far as they could help resolve ethnic problems. These tendencies had an unambiguously negative effect on the investigation of settlements and hillforts. The main sources for the analysis of all of the relevant questions of that time were obtained from burial sites, the most important being special features of the funeral rites and the geographic distribution of artefact types, which helped to distinguish tribal groups, determine their boundaries, external influences, etc. The settlement excavation data very rarely supplied additional infor­ mation for these problems and therefore a distinct regression is noticeable in their investigation during this period. The excavation of settlements and hillforts did not, of course, cease. It even expanded and over the course of time acquired an ever bigger scale. During this period, excavations were conducted on a wider scale at a total of about 60 different objects, but rescue excavations at construction sites predominated among them (at Dapšiai, Daubariai, Jautakiai, Lavoriškės, Vaitiekūnai, etc.). Such investigations were generally conducted by investigators interested in other topics and were con­ ducted in a rushed manner without continuity. In the sense of both the excavation methods and the inter­ pretation of the material, these investigations des­ cended to the level of even the earlier investigation stage. The nature of the settlement material was appa­ rently no longer essentially comprehended during this period; during the excavation it was considered that the most important tasks were only to collect the indi­ vidual finds and record the discovered structures. The interpretation of the structures and objects was very primitive: posthole = building, hearth = residential building, thick cultural layer = intense habitation, etc.

It was not surprising at all that no research problems were solved using these investigations nor did their material enter academic circulation6. Nevertheless systematic hillfort and settlement excavations with scientific goals were also conducted during this period, mostly in connection with two inves­ tigators: P. Kulikauskas and E. Grigalavičienė. P. Kulikaus­ kas conducted systematic excavations of hillforts and the settlements at their feet at seven archaeological sites (Kaukai–Obelytė, Kunigiš­kiai–Pajevonys, Pavei­­­­si­ ninkai, Piliakalniai, Sudargas, Varnupiai) in the Suvalkija region (Užnemunė) during 1961–1971 (Fig. 3). E. Griga­ la­­­vičienė conducted broad scale hillfort excavations in East Lithuania (Juodonys, Kereliai, Nevieriškė, Sokiš­­­kiai)7. In actuality, in both cases the scientific interests were directed towards ethnogenetic problems: P. Kulikauskas was concerned about the boundaries of the Jatvingian tribe and the ethnic attribution of the inhabitants of the Suvalkija region, E. Grigalavičienė about the Brushed Pottery culture and its significance in the Lithuanian ethnogenesis. They both studied hillforts because there were no or very few burial sites in these regions. Among other long-term, continuing investigations which are worth to mention are the 1978–1989 investigations at the Imbarė archaeological site in West Lithuania and investigations conducted since 1979 at the Kernavė archaeological site in East Lithuania (Fig. 4). A regression in the investigation of settlements and hillforts during this period has been observable not only in their excavation methods but also in the analy­ sis of the material and its use in making broader con­ clusions. Compared with the quantity of conducted excavations, only a very small percentage of these sites have seen the publication of the investigation material. P. Kulikauskas and E. Grigalavičienė have publicated the material from majority of their excavated sites. These pub­­lications especially focused on the formal description of the finds and the discovered structures and did not analyse the stratigraphy, spatial structure, and many other things at all. These publications essen­ tially showed that if any scientific goals were being pursued in excavating the settlements and hillforts, they remained unimplemented. The excavations in many cases did not even allow the functional purpose of the hillforts to be determined, let alone other, broader conclusions. In interpreting the settlement and hillfort material, an attempt was mostly made to analyse the

community’s economic form, although any success was only very superficial. On the basis of the studied animal bones, the establishment of husbandry was discussed, but a more detailed tracking of its development was not achieved. Because no palaeobotanical analyses were conducted at the investigated sites, nothing was learned about the development of agriculture. Almost no set­ tlement or hillfort material was used in summarising works during this period. As an exception, it is possible to mention here only several works, which analysed the 6.

Zabiela G. Lietuvos medinės pilys. Vilnius, 1995, p. 36; Zabiela G. Piliakalnių papėdžių gyvenvietės: tyrinėjimų problematika Lietuvoje, LA, 2005, vol. 27, p. 95–97.

7.

Grigalavičienė E. Nevieriškės piliakalnis, LA, 1986, vol. 5, p. 52–88; Grigalavičienė E. Sokiškių piliakalnis, LA, 1986, vol. 5, p. 89–138; Grigalavičienė E. Kerelių piliakalnis, LA, 1992, vol. 8, p. 85–105; Grigalavičienė E. Juodonių piliakalnis ir gyvenvietė (Rokiškio raj.), LA, 1992, vol. 9, p. 41–91.

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

163

F I G . 3.

The 1962 excavation at Paveisininkai Hillfort (Lazdijai District). Photo by P. Kulikauskas, MRLIH, Photograph Section, neg. no. 12469.

F I G . 4.

The 1981 excavation at Kernavė Hillfort (Širvintos District) Photo by R. Kulikauskienė, MRLIH, Photograph Section, neg. no. 50664.

164

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

finds discovered at these sites: buildings8 and pottery9. Meanwhile the largest works summarising the Lithua­ nian Iron Age that were written during this period are essentially still ‘cemetery histories’, which analyse grave goods and specific features of the funeral rites. In the 1990s and early 21st century, after the resto­ ration of independence of Lithuania, the directions of archaeological research also changed. First of all is the weak theoretical base of many works, which was charac­ teristic of this period. Objective reasons exist for this: Marxism–Leninism was mandatory during the Soviet era and was the only scientific paradigm. Researchers essentially strove to ignore it and became inclined more towards a ‘centimetric’, descriptive archaeology, in the framework of which it is fairly easy to fit the aforemen­ tioned ethnohistorical research. After the restoration of independence, the relevance of the ethnogene­­sis research that predominated up until then visibly de­clined and an odd theoretical vacuum appeared, where the paradigm that had existed before it was no longer suitable but insufficient information was avai­ lable about others and how to employ them was a serious question. Lacking a sufficient theoretical basis, it goes with­ out saying that the development of the discipline did not occur very smoothly. After rejecting the explanation, imposed by Marxism–Leninism, of cultural change through the growth of internal changes – production forces, and the development of social relationships, an attempt was made to propagate a diffusionist perspec­ tive, calling only the influence of other cultures the causes of change. But in this place it ever more fre­ quently retreated down an even more primitive path than in the previous stage, i.e. a find’s analogue in other countries became more important than the context of its discovery. Isolated finds become the most important 8.

Daugudis V. Seniausieji mediniai pastatai ir įrenginiai Lietuvoje (2. M. e. I tūkstantmečio I pusės įtvirtinimai), MADA, 1975, vol. 2(51), p. 61–70; Daugudis V. Seniausieji mediniai pastatai ir įrenginiai Lietuvoje (3. M. e. I tūkstantmečio I pusės pastatai), MADA, 1976, vol. 1(54), p. 57–67; Daugudis V. Seniausieji mediniai pastatai ir įrenginiai Lietuvoje (4. M. e. V–VIII amžių įtvirtinimai ir pastatai), MADA, 1981, vol. 2(75), p. 61–72; Daugudis V. Senoji medinė statyba Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 1982.

9.

Danilaitė E. Brūkšniuotosios keramikos išnykimo Lietuvoje klausimu, MADA, 1967, vol. 1(23), p. 35–50; Danilaitė E. Lietuvos brūkšniuotosios keramikos ornamentas, MADA, 1968, vol. 1(26), p. 41–57; Даугудис В. В. Некоторые данные о происхождении и хронологии шероховатой керамики в Литве, MADA, 1966, vol. 3(22), p. 55–66.

sources for such investigations. Settlement data are not relevant for this topic as imported artefacts are very rarely discovered in them; the focus was on only burial sites. Thus, the material from settlements was still not analysed and the gap in the knowledge about them became even deeper. This research direction was clearly not promising and therefore it did not last long. During the last decade, in excavating the Iron Age in Lithuania the research directions of social relationships, demography, and the territory’s habitation have fairly clearly predominated and an attempt has been made to apply the perspec­ tive of landscape archaeology. In analysing these to­­­pics, the lack of material on settlements is already clearly felt, but the deep gaps that have formed historically in this area cannot be filled quickly. The excavation of settlements and hillforts increa­ sed very markedly after the restoration of independence with the excavation of roughly 15–30 objects annually. But the question once again arises as to what informa­ tion they are yielding. During this period almost all of the excavations have been conducted for rescue pur­ poses, many of them only very minimal field evaluations conducted in association with the heritage manage­ ment. The bulk of these investigations are performed by investigators who engage in only commercial ar­­ chaeo­­logy and have no research interests. Due to these reasons the bulk of the excavations are limited to very small scales and the investigation sites are selected on the basis of planned construction or other work rather than any planned academic benefit. Owing to the lack of investigators’ interest, the material discovered during them generally remains only in the excavation reports instead of entering academic circulation. It is possible to note that during this period fewer hillforts and more unenclosed settlements and adjacent hillfort foot settlements are for the first time being excavated. Among the most important, long-term investigations, which can be connected with academic purposes, should be mentioned the continuation of the earlier excavations at Kernavė as well as those at Bakšiai, Jaučakiai, Lentainiai, Lieporiai, Opstainiai– Vilkyškiai and Žardė–Bandužiai settlements although they are more or less connected with rescue archaeolo­ ­gy (Fig. 5). In summarising works, the settlement and hillfort material is already being used somewhat more broadly

than in previous periods, most commonly in works analysing the settlement patterns of the regions10. Such works usually analyse all types of archaeological sites but only their geographic position and natural environ­ ment are relevant. Almost no works especially devoted to settlements exist so far and only several works have analysed the intrasite structure of settlements11. The development of knowledge about settlements and hillforts is closely connected with the field inves­ tigation methods and therefore a general perception of settlements and hillforts will not be complete with­ out a discussion of the methods. The main cultural elements of the Lithuanian Iron Age settlements are a black-soil cultural layer, and under it distinguishing features set into the sterile soil horizon (usually pits and postholes of indeterminate function, more rarely hearths, bloomeries, or other pits with a special pur­ pose) and finds (usually divided into individual and mass materials, i.e. pottery, bones, slag, etc.). For a long time, up until the very beginning of the 21st century, the cultural layer, which, it was thought, directly sho­ wed the length and intensity of the site’s habitation, was the most valued of these elements. Settlements and settlement parts, which lacked a cultural layer (unformed or destroyed), were considered to have been destroyed and consequently not excavated. The featu­ res in this case were treated simply as the uninforma­ tive ‘remnants of a cultural layer’. It is possible to treat such tendencies as only the complete miscomprehen­ sion of the processes that formed the archaeological

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

165

site, a miscomprehension which was an unavoidable consequence of a lack of interest in settlement mate­ rial. Great attention to the cultural layer affected the selection of the places to excavate as an effort was usually made to excavate where it was thickest. This in turn caused far longer trench excavation times and a resultant smaller excavated area. The cultural layer and its finds are definitely very important source of infor­ mation, but the consequence of concentrating on just this element of archaeological settlements was that after many years not one more broadly excavated set­ tle­­ment had emerged anywhere in Lithuania. Just  se­­­veral thousand square metres were excavated even at the most widely excavated objects, which were also characterised by the excavation of separate small areas scattered around the settlement rather than a single unbroken area. This is in fact more reminiscent of field evaluation strategies than the stationary, methodical investigation of a specific object. The mechanised un­­ covering of a large area was considered unmethodical and forbidden. The need for such investigations emer­

10.

Kuncevičius A., Jankauskas R., Laužikas R., Augustinavičius R., Šmigelskas R. Rytų Lietuvos teritorinis modelis I–XV a., LA, 2013, vol. 39, p. 11–40.

11.

Simniškytė A. Juodonių piliakalnio gyvenvietė. Chronologiniai ir struktūriniai pokyčiai, AL, 2002, vol. 3, p. 137–156; Vengalis R. Radinių erdvinio išsidėstymo analizė ir jos pritaikymo galimybės Lietuvos geležies amžiaus gyvenviečių tyrimuose, LA, 2010, vol. 36, p. 73–86; Vengalis R. Geležies amžiaus gyvenvietė Kernavėje: ilgalaikio apgyvendinimo atspindžiai archeologinėje medžiagoje, LA, 2012, vol. 38, p. 175–220. F I G . 5.

The 2003 excavation at Kernavė settlement. Photo by G. Vėlius, Administration of the Cultural reserve of Kernavė.

166

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

ged only after the significance of settlements without a cultural layer was understood and their excavation began, which, incidentally, occurred only in the early 21st century. Initially this was seen fairly sceptically, but thanks to such investigations there is now at least one settlement where tens of thousands of square metres have been excavated. Small excavated areas greatly limit the information provided by settlement excavations owing to the specific properties of these sites, namely the large area they occupy and the survivability of the structures. Up until now there has been no excavated Iron Age settlement in a wetland or any excavations where organic material (aside from isolated structures, e.g. wells) would have survived. Because the architecture in the territory of Lithuania in the Iron Age was exclusively wooden, no stones being used for construction, only some clay (which was daubed in the cracks between the logs), no clear traces of buildings or other structures have sur­ vived. Therefore it is possible to make judgments about a settlement’s structure and the locations of its buil­dings only from secondary evidence rather than obvious fea­ tures, e.g. the arrangement of features and the distribu­ tion of finds, which are usually revealed only after un­­ earthing a sufficiently large unbroken area. The excavation methodology is closely connected with the poor knowledge of the specific features of settlements. A very important deficiency of earlier Soviet era excavations, which does not allow their re­­ sults to be evaluated objectively now, was the failure to link the finds with the stratigraphy of the excavated object. This is especially relevant in the excavation of hillforts, where the stratigraphy is usually fairly complex. The excavation was always conducted not by strati­ graphic units but by horizon layers, usually 20 cm thick, on the basis of which the finds were recorded. The result of this method is such that such hillfort material can now be used only in a very limited manner, it being impossible to determine to which specific stratigraphic unit a find belongs. The collection of finds during an excavation was guided more by a museum perspective than the specific nature of the object under investigation. The focus was always on only ‘individual’ finds, i.e. museum exhibits, 12.

Zabiela G. Lietuvos piliakalniai: tyrinėjimų aspektas, LA, 2003, vol. 24, p. 48–50.

while important mass materials like small potsherds, slag, clay daub, etc. began to receive more attention only in the last decade. Up until that time mass mate­ rial was either collected commonly from the entire area without recording the find spot or in general not even collected. Among mass materials, more attention was given only to animal bones, which were collected and a tradition of studying them established as far back as the days of L. Krzywicki12. Animal bones were studied from many sites, but here the aforementioned problem of linking finds to the stratigraphy is again encountered. The economic development was presented by taking into consideration the changes in the bone assemblage in different layers, which were in fact recorded on the basis of depth rather than stratigraphy. Probably owing to the lack of interest of the majori­ ­ty of the investigators excavating settlements and hillforts, settlement investigations were usually limited to only collecting finds and recording the stratigraphy and planigraphy. Almost no laboratory analyses of settlement material were made and no samples were collected for it. Almost no radiocarbon dates have been available up until now from Iron Age settlements. Such dating started to be done only recently, but still only in isolated cases. The entire present-day chronology of the settlements is relative, based on only the typo­ logical method. In fact, investigated hillforts and settle­ ments are still to this day very frequently dated simply to the entire Iron Age period. Other investigations have likewise almost not been conducted. Palaeobotanical investigations in Lithuania are mostly focused on paly­ nology, with the help of which an effort is being made to trace the development of the climate and flora on a regional scale. To this end, samples are taken not from archaeological sites but from bogs, where it is possible to take samples that reflect all of the eras from the end of the last glaciation to the present day. Among ar­­ chaeo­­logists, these data are used the most by Stone Age investigators while the Iron Age was usually not analysed in detail by palynologists, but presented as a single era. Such data could not, of course, be used more broadly. Local data obtained from macrobo­ tanical in­­vestigations is somewhat more important in settlement investigations. But such analyses have not been conducted at Iron Age settlements and samples were not collected for them. Chemical testing, micro­ scopic soil testing, and similar analyses have also not

been done up until now but today the situation is gradually chan­ging13. Non-invasive methods have begun to be used in settlement investigations only in the last decade. The aerial photography method was tried, but yielded no significant results. The conclusion was drawn that this was owing to the high noise level (e.g. melioration, forest cover, urbanisation, and damming) and that the method is not justified in Lithuania14. Nevertheless the explanation that perhaps the users did not know how to employ this method properly, the attempts to see something were made under unsuitable conditions, and too little attention was paid to the flora, time of year, lighting, etc. sounds somewhat more convincing. During the last decade geophysical methods, i.e., mag­ netometry and georadar, have begun to be used. Al­­ though they have been tried at only something over ten different Iron Age settlements and hillforts, the number of investigations using these methods has risen fairly rapidly recently and they are yielding sig­ nificant new data. Up until 2013, excavations had been conducted in Lithuania at a total of about 200 hillforts, about 140 settlements at their feet, and about 130 unenclosed settlements. Nevertheless these numbers do not reflect the true situation as the majority of the sites have been excavated only fragmentally and only tens or even just several square metres have been excavated at them. The number of sites where at least several hundred square metres have been excavated is small and several thousand square metres have been excavated at only several sites (Fig. 6). The Žardė–Bandužiai archaeological site near the Curonian lagoon in West Lithuania is currently the most broadly excavated Iron Age settlement site (Fig. 7). This is a large complex, which occupies several square kilo­ metres and consists of settlement sites, three hillforts, and two burial sites, which have been discovered at various locations. The settlements began to be exca­ vated in 199015. One burial site has also been fairly broadly excavated16. The total of almost 70 000 m2 (7 ha) excavated at this complex far exceeds all of Lithuania’s other archaeological sites. This large area managed to be excavated in Lithuania for the first time after employ­ ing a method where the top soil was removed in a large area using mechanical means and only objects uncove­ red under it were excavated. This method was justified

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

167

(%) 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1-10 m2 hillforts

10-50 m2

50-100 m2

hillfort foot settlements

100-500 m2 unenclosed settlements

500-1000 m2

>1000 m2

F I G . 6.

Sizes of the excavated areas at settlements and hillforts. Drawing by R. Vengalis.

F I G . 7. 13.

Simniškytė A., Selskienė A. Fosforas kaip antropogeninės veiklos indikatorius, MLA, 2013, p. 305–328; Taraškevičius R., Bliujienė A., Karmaza B., Merkevičius A., Nemickienė R., Rackevičius G., Sar­ cevičius S., Stakėnienė R., Strazdas D., Širvydaitė S., Vaitkevičius G., Zinkutė R. Geocheminiai tyrimų metodai archeologijoje – taikymo galimybės, MLA, 2013, p. 249–304.

14.

Zabiela G. Ancient landscapes in aerial photography: The Lithuanian example of noise levels, AB, 2008, vol. 9, p. 47–52.

15.

Genys J. Žardė: a Medieval Curonian trade and craft centre, AIIL, 2012, p. 44–49; Masiulienė I. The Žardė–Bandužiai archaeological complex, AIIL, 2012, p. 50–56.

16.

Stankus J. Bandužių kapinynas, LA, 1995, vol. 12.

Main locations mentioned in the text: 1 – Aukštadvaris, 2 – Bakšiai, 3 – Imbarė, 4 – Jaučakiai, 5 – Kernavė– Semeniškiai, 6 – Lentainiai, 7 – Lieporiai, 8 – Pašatrija, 9 – Virbaliūnai, 10 – Zubriai, 11 – Žardė–Bandužiai. Drawing by R. Vengalis.

168

F I G . 8.

The Kernavė archaeological site, isohypses every 2 m: 1 – locations inhabited in the Iron Age; 2 – wet, waterlogged areas; 3 – excavated areas. Drawing by R. Vengalis.

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

because no cultural layer had formed or survived at those locations. The material discovered during the excavation was studied using various laboratory me­­­ thods, i.e. radiocarbon dating, palaeobotanical analysis, and chemical testing of the iron slag. The Žardė–Ban­ dužiai archaeological site encompasses a broad chron­ ological period with discovered traces of habitation dating from the Late Neolithic to the 13th century. The most important finds connected with the period dis­ cussed by this article are Iron Age bloomeries and other abundant objects connected with the iron smelting activities17. Another well-known archaeological site is Kernavė– Semeniškiai. Although it has not been excavated as broadly, is probably in a lead at present among Iron Age settlements owing to the abundance and impor­ tance of the finds and the amount of the information it has yielded. The site has been included in the UNESCO

NE RIS

High: 160

World Heritage list as a unique archaeological site where habitation traces from practically the entire prehistoric era from the retreat of the glaciers to early historic times have been discovered18. This East Lithuanian site is in the broad Neris river valley and on the upper terrace beside it (Fig. 8). The complex occupies several square kilometres where five hillforts, eight burial sites from various eras, and traces of settlements from various periods have been discovered. The archaeological inves­ tigations began at this site in 1979 and have continued annually since then without interruption to the present day. The excavations have been conducted by over ten archaeologists. Up until 2014, about 16 500 m2 had been excavated at this site, about 9000 m2 of which are connected with Iron Age settlements. The excavated areas are fairly small and scattered around the archae­ ological site. Larger unbroken areas, ranging in size from 360 to 2060 m2, have been excavated at several different locations. At other locations, smaller areas up to 50 m2 in size or 1–4 m2 test pits have been excavated19 (Fig. 8). Owing to this site’s unique significance and in order to preserve it as much as possible for future gen­ erations, an effort has recently been made to no longer excavate larger areas in the most meaningful parts and to be more oriented towards non-invasive investigation methods, e.g. an area of about 18 ha was surveyed using a magnetometer and ground-penetrating radar20. Kernavė has been the find spot of an especially large number of significant objects for learning about Iron Age settlements, e.g. a cultural layer with a suspected longhouse fragment from the 1st–2nd-century settle­ ment on a hillfort, a 5th-century defensive hillfort’s layer with clear signs of an attack by nomadic tribes (thought to be Huns based on the trilobate arrowheads), a 3rd–4thcentury unenclosed settlement’s rich cultural layer with building traces, signs of ferrous and non-ferrous metal­ lurgical activities, comparatively abundant imported artefacts, etc. This site is distinguished by Lithuania’s most abundant Iron Age pottery collection, which cur­ 17.

Masiulienė I. The Žardė–Bandužiai Archaeological Complex, AIIL, 2012, p. 50–56.

18.

Luchtanas A. Kernave – litewska Troja, Kernave – litewska Troja. Warszawa, 2002, p. 11–33.

19.

Vengalis R. Geležies amžiaus gyvenvietė Kernavėje: ilgalaikio apgyvendinimo atspindžiai archeologinėje medžiagoje, LA, 2012, vol. 38, p. 180–183.

20.

Merkytė I., Vengalis R., Vėlius G. Geofizikinių tyrimų metodų taikymas Kernavėje, MLA, 2013, p. 366–410.

Low: 50 –1 –2 –3

0

400 m

rently contains about 47 000 sherds21. The Kernavė Iron Age settlement material has been analysed in articles especially devoted to it22 and widely included in broa­ der, sum­­marising works. Only somewhat smaller-scale investigations have been conducted at all of the other settlement sites in Lithuania. Among these, one of the most important sites is Lieporiai archaeological complex in North Li­thu­ a­­­nia. The excavations in Lieporiai began in 1987 with the excavation of a burial site, during which a sett­lement was found. The settlement was excavated in 1991–2006, there have been excavated more than 3000 m2, largely in a single area23. Unlike in the sites discussed above, the chronological boundaries of the Lieporiai site are somewhat narrower and date to the 4th–8th centuries. Lieporiai settlement is known among Lithuanian ar­­ chaeologists primarily owing to its broadly excavated ferrous metallurgy zone, where no other activities aside from the iron smelting have been re­­corded. It is espe­ cially important that traces identifying all of the iron extraction and processing phases from ore extraction to iron artefact production in a forge have been dis­ covered there24. Other rarely found and interesting structures like buildings and wells have also been un­­ earthed there. The material from Lieporiai set­­tlement has become the basis of its investigator’s dissertation and monograph about iron metallurgy in Lithuania and it has also been widely discussed in broa­der works by other authors. Material very similar to that at Lieporiai settlement has recently been discovered at the Vir­ baliūnai site, where about 1000 m2 was excavated in 2005. A separate zone devoted to the iron smelting has been identified there as well25. Another well-known excavated site is Bakšiai settle­ ment in South Lithuania. During 1992–1998 there were excavated about 3700 m2 in a single unbroken area. The settlement had been founded in the Nemunas river valley and beyond it on the upper terrace. Only the part on the upper terrace, where a cultural layer with a fairly narrow 2nd–4th-century chronology has been discovered, has been more broadly excavated. This is a standard settlement with a cultural layer rich in finds, many diverse features, and an abundant pottery collection of roughly 12 000 potsherds. This settlement is excep­ tional mostly because of the traces of log buildings, which were discovered there and are very rarely en­­ countered in other Lithuanian Iron Age settlements

(Fig. 9). Unfortunately, this settlement’s material has so far not been broadly analysed nor have any publica­ tions been devoted to it even though it is truly worthy. Summarising works frequently mention it, but due to aforementioned reason, usually only superficially. Among the sites excavated in earlier times, Aukš­ tadvaris settlement and hillfort in Southeast Lithua­­­nia should be mentioned first. During 1957–1960, the set­­­­­­tlement and a part of hillfort was excavated. A total of about 3500 m2 was excavated and a cultural layer especially rich in finds and structures was unearthed. Several horizons identifying different stages in its deve­ lopment have been distinguished in the hillfort: a 2nd century bc – 2nd century ad settlement with the remains of burnt ‘longhouses’, 5th-century fortifications burnt during a nomad attack (with the discovery of the same trilobate arrowheads as at Kernavė hillfort), and later 13th–14th and 16th–17th-century layers. The chronology of the adjacent settlement is narrower, almost all of its material dating to the 3rd–8th centuries. During the excavations, various structures: buildings, fortifications, and other features from various periods, were identified and an especially abundant pottery collection, just the inventored sherds numbering about 20 000, and a very large number (about 1200) of individual finds connec­ ted with the daily activities, crafts (e.g. jewellery and spinning), and warfare were collected. The Aukštadvaris material has always been very widely cited in literature, but the material has, unfortunately, not been published more broadly. Only one paper has been written about its buildings and fortifications26. The very unclear exca­ vation reports, which do not contain all of the drawings, 21.

Vengalis R. Geležies amžiaus gyvenvietė Kernavėje: ilgalaikio apgyvendinimo atspindžiai archeologinėje medžiagoje, LA, 2012, vol. 38, p. 185.

22.

Piličiauskas G., Osipowicz G. The processing and use of flint in the metal ages. A few cases from Kernavė and Naudvaris sites in Lithuania, AB, 2010, vol. 13, p. 110–125; Vengalis R. Radinių erdvinio išsidėstymo analizė ir jos pritaikymo galimybės Lietuvos geležies amžiaus gyvenviečių tyrimuose, LA, 2010, vol. 36, p.73–86.

23.

Salatkienė B. Lieporiai archaeological complex, AIIL, 2012, p. 57–62.

24.

Salatkienė B. Geležies lydymo ir apdirbimo radiniai Lieporių 1–oje gyvenvietėje, Istorija, 2003, vol. 56, p. 3–16.

25.

Žalnierius A., Navasaitis J., Balčiūnas D. The iron smelting site in Virbaliūnai ancient settlement, AB, 2007, vol. 8, p. 377–386; Žalnierius A., Balčiūnas D. The iron smelting site at Virbaliūnai unencloseds, AIIL, 2012, p. 347–351.

26.

Daugudis V. Aukštadvario piliakalnio įtvirtinimai ir pastatai, MADA, 1962, vol. 1(12), p. 43–68.

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

169

170

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

FIG. 9.

F I G . 10.

A fragment of the excavated area in Bakšiai unenclosed settlement (city of Alytus). MRLIH, f. 1, no. 2077, p. 33; 2371, p. 124, 125; 2561, p. 82, 89; 2729, p. 128; 3227, p. 35. Drawing by R. Vengalis, after G. Puodžiūnas ir V. Steponaitis.

Excavated areas at Imbarė hillfort and foot settlement. Daubaras M. Imbarės piliakalnio kompleksas, ATL 2012 metais, 2013, p. 72, fig. 1.

0

160 m

do not clearly record the finds, and do not describe some of the excavated areas, sharply diminish the value of the especially valuable material for learning about Lithuanian Iron Age settlements. The majority of the earlier excavated sites are characterised by very similar problems where, apparently, the use of truly rich and unique material is currently very limited owing to insuf­ ficient or unclear recording. In West Lithuania, one of the most important of the excavated Iron Age settlement and hillfort complexes is Imbarė. A total of 1900 m2 has been excavated at the complex in separate, comparatively small areas scat­ tered around the hillfort and the settlement, e.g. in the river valley and on the upper terrace (Fig. 10). The chro­ nology of this site is fairly broad, the earliest traces of habitation dating to the 1st millennium bc, the latest to the 14th century. A cultural layer rich in finds (pottery, bones, grain, etc.) and the remains of burnt wooden buildings have been discovered in both the hillfort and in the settlement. Like many other settlements, the Imbarė material has not been thoroughly studied and has so far been the subject of only one brief summari­ sing – presentation paper27. This site’s material is mostly cited in analysing the later Late Iron Age settlements, but the earlier material is no less worthy of attention. Several sites that have been excavated in recent years should also be mentioned. The interesting mate­ rial discovered at them allows one to expect that in the future these sites will be included among the most important Iron Age settlements. First of all are Central Lithuania’s Jaučakiai and Lentainiai sites, where valu­ able pottery collections have been assembled and log building traces and other structures have been discove­ red. These investigations are important just because this region used to have no broadly excavated settle­ ments. Mention should also be made of the large-scale excavations at Zubriai settlement in the Suvalkija region (Užnemunė) and Pašatrija settlement in West Lithuania, where especially abundant pottery collections (about 14 000 and 8000 sherds respectively) have been assem­ bled. These collections have no analogues in their re­­ gions in respect to size or diversity. To this day there is a great lack of knowledge about the pottery of these regions and its chronology. Although the number of archaeological sites named here is not large at all, it is essentially the entire basis of all of the currently available information about Old

and Middle Iron Age settlements. Elsewhere only very small areas have been excavated or the excavation material has been sparse and uninformative. Although Iron Age settlements have been excava­ ted in Lithuania for decades, the academic knowledge about them is today still only in an initial stage. Instead of finding answers about the structure and develop­ ment of the settlements, it is far more important now to raise questions and create strategies to eliminate this backwardness in the knowledge about settlements as fast as possible and to ascertain what specific factors are the main obstacles to progress in this area. The first and most important thing, which needs to be done at this stage, is to very critically evaluate everything that has been written thus far about these settlements. As has been written, for a long time almost no one was interested in settlements; as a consequence, their material was unappreciated and there is a lack of knowledge about both the theoretical and method­ ological basis of their analysis. Archaeological settle­ ments are not perceived as artefacts, which have been left by the activities of communities that truly existed, and the influence of an archaeological context’s forma­ tion process on the present condition and structure of a settlement’s cultural layer has not been taken into consideration in analysing their material. As a conse­ quence a very large number of the assertions made so far in literature have been presented without scientific argumentation and are not based by the methods usu­ ally used for the analysis of settlement material. The worst thing is that such unsubstantiated and sometimes clearly erroneous assertions have begun to be cited by other authors not interested in the settlement material itself, with the result that eventually they become uni­ versally accepted, ‘unquestionable’ facts. Among the objective problems should first of all be mentioned chronology, which in many cases remains relative and based only on typology. Almost all of the Lithuanian Iron Age burials have been dated without the use of absolute radiocarbon dating. Meanwhile typologically datable ornaments are found in set­­t­ lements only in isolated cases. The main finds in sett­ lements are pottery, which has been left almost un­­­­­ investigated. A typology has been created for only

27.

Daugudis V. Imbarės archeologiniai paminklai ir jų tyrinėjimai, Žemaičių praeitis. Vilnius, 1990, vol. 1, p. 54–65.

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

171

172

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

East Lithuanian pottery, but its chronology is also only relative and not based on radiocarbon dating28. The pot­­tery from all of the other Lithuanian regions is known even less. Thus, it is currently impossible to employ either absolute or relative dating in dating the material from settlements and therefore it is not surprising at all that it is so far fairly common to date investigated settlements and hillforts to simply the 1st – early 2nd millennium, i.e. the entire Iron Age period. The isolated radiocarbon dates that have recently begun to be made have so far not changed the situation. This is because these are still few in number and because they have been chosen thoughtlessly, without there being a con­ nection to specific finds or structures. In order to essen­ tially change the chronological problems of settlements, a pottery typology should first of all be created and then linked to radiocarbon dates, which should be made systematically. The problems of the definition, classification, and terminology of archaeological settlements should be named as one of the fundamental hindrances to their objective evaluation. Although these are very subjec­ tive aspects, they greatly influence the perception and interpretation of archaeological settlements. As has been mentioned, Iron Age settlements are divided in Lithuania into unenclosed settlements and fortified settlements – hillforts while the hillfort foot settle­ ments are considered an inseparable part of the hillfort. This is a purely heritage management classification with absolutely no connection to the scholarly analy­ sis of these sites, but it is used universally. In the pre­ sent author’s opinion, the term, hillfort’, which is used for objects of very diverse function groups and diffe­rent chronologies and is based only on the similarity of their external appearance, is not suitable in a academic sense. In other words, when objects with completely different functions, i.e. certain types of settlements, defensive fortifications, the residences of high social status persons, are included in the term, ‘hillfort’, the term’s precise definition undoubtedly becomes a truly 28.

Vengalis R. Grublėtoji keramika Rytų Lietuvoje, LA, 2007, vol. 32, p. 105–132; Vengalis R. Rytų Lietuvos keramika VIII–XII a., LA, 2008, vol. 33, p. 41–70.

29.

Zabiela G. Lietuvos piliakalniai: tyrinėjimų aspektas, LA, 2003, vol. 24, p. 33–35.

30.

Zabiela G. Piliakalnių papėdžių gyvenvietės: tyrinėjimų problematika Lietuvoje, LA, 2005, vol. 27, p. 85.

complex task29. But the attempts at such definitions solve herita­­ge management problems rather than academic ones. From the perspective of heritage man­ agement, their common treatment is understandable because these different objects are usually en­­counte­ red on the same hill; they just date to different periods. But from the perspective of science, these are com­ pletely different objects and therefore should be trea­ ted appropriately and analysed separately. A se­­cond reason is because the erroneous perception of the relationship between a hillfort and the adjacent set­ tlement has become established owing to this clas­ sification, in large part caused by the term ‘foot set­ tlement’. This term unconsciously asserts that the set­ tlement is only an appen­dage of the hillfort. For ex­­­ample, even one of the main hillfort investigators, G. Zabiela asserts that ‘the foot settlement of a hillfort comprises an inseparable part of the hillfort as an archaeological complex’30. The hillfort is always per­ ceived as the central object, about which all human life revolved, and the settlement, in which they lived – only a secondary part of this complex. Instances are encountered in this context where a settlement is treated like a ‘adjacent settlement of a hillfort’ even though the hillfort’s chronology does not correspond to that of the adjacent settlement beside it. This attitude has entrenched the assertion that hillforts and the settlements at their feet indicate a central location, while the unenclosed settlements are lower rank peripheral settlements. The reason for this treatment is fairly clear and connected with the assign­ ment of this very same ‘hillfort’ term to objects with different functional purposes and different chronolo­ gies. This treatment can be considered justified when talking about hillforts as the residences of representa­ tives of the highest social status, something that existed up until the first half of the 2nd millennium. Settlements with higher hierarchical status, i.e. the first towns (Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius etc.), did in fact begin to form around such residences – wooden castles, but their status is clearly distinguishable in the archaeological material. Upon seeing these realia, the higher social status was automatically transferred without much argument to much earlier times, i.e. the mid or even first half of the 1st millennium, even though no traces of such activities have in general been recorded in hillfort layers from that time and even though the ar­­

chaeological material from ‘hillfort foot settlements’ do not differ in any way from that from all of the other ‘ordinary’ settlements. Another very important problem is that almost no data is available about the settlements’ intrasite struc­ ture, i.e. population density, settlement structure, the arrangement of the farmsteads, and the various activi­ty areas. The intrasite structure of the settlements has been left essentially almost uninvestigated, but in lit­ erature it is possible to encounter very diverse asser­ tions, usually based on preconceived, sometimes even erroneous convictions. For example, settlement size was usually defined only by the extent of the cultural layer while disregarding the far wider incidence of structures. The population density of the settlements, like the length of settlement life, is directly connected with the thickness of the cultural layer, and any area that lacks a cultural layer is considered to have been undeveloped, etc. The activity areas of settlements have not yet been thoroughly analysed. Although con­ siderable data about activities connected with various crafts are available and are being analysed, the analy­ ses are limited to qualitative analyses of the activities themselves, which does not connect them with the entire settlement’s space. Almost nothing has been known up until now about the economy of the settlements, their subsistence sys­ tem, i.e. the features of their agriculture, husbandry, and hunting-gathering. As has already been mentioned, an attempt has been made to study only bones as almost no botanical data are yet available. Although agriculture and husbandry are discussed fairly frequently in various papers, their analysis is very superficial and usually based on only isolated finds, e.g. agriculture tools, burnt grain, etc. In actuality, it is still based on the evolutio­ nistic model of agricultural development, which was formulated on the basis of Marxist–Leninist theory and states that agricultural development was constant from more primitive to more advanced forms. Ever more data recording rises and falls are now emerging. But right now the analysis of the economic systems mainly lacks data as their collection has practically not been a concern up until now. Recently settlements have been analysed signifi­ cantly more frequently at the regional level. The num­ ber of works analysing a region’s habitation systems and their development has increased. The reliability

of the conclusions of these works is greatly diminished by the fact that the representativity of the Iron Age settlements, which is still very poor, has so far been ignored. Far fewer Iron Age settlements are known than other types of sites from the same period. In fact, during the entire course of the history of Lithuanian archaeology, to this very day, settlements (aside from hillforts) have not been sought and no programmes especially devoted to a search for them have been conducted31. The archaeological settlements are not characterised by any prominent structures and local inhabitants do not recognise such settlements and therefore without conducting special field surveys, there is no reason to expect the discovery of large numbers of new objects. The bulk of the settlements currently known have es­­sentially been discovered accidentally while searching for or excavating other types of objects. One of the biggest problems in the investigation of the Lithuanian Iron Age is the identification of buildings. A building is a settlement’s most important element and is essential to the analysis of its structure and other things. The main problem here is that buildings are in general almost never found in the Iron Age settlements in Lithuania. This is probably one of the main reasons why so little can so far be said about the intrasite struc­ ture of settlements. There are a number of reasons for this failure to discover buildings: the excavated areas have been too small, the investigation methods, which do not allow surviving building construction elements to be identi­ fied, the construction of the buildings lacks elements that survive in the archaeological context, etc. The assumption should also not be rejected that perhaps excavations were simply not conducted at the right places to discover buildings. As has been mentioned, in the past areas have usually been selected for excava­ tion where the thickest cultural layer has been disco­ vered, the place, it was thought, that shows the most intensely inhabited area. But in considering the forma­ tion process theories, a more likely hypothesis would be that the habitation zone is not the place where the waste that forms a cultural layer accumulates the most intensely.

31.

Vengalis R. Lietuvos archeologinio žemėlapio reprezentatyvumas, LA, 2015, vol. 41, p. 81–110.

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

173

174

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

Iron Age buildings have mainly been analysed by V. Daugudis32. In his opinion, in the first half of the 1st millennium, like in the earlier period, the population still lived in hillforts. Long, pole construction buildings were erected on the enclosure’s edges and inside the banks. These buildings consisted of separate rooms with varying purposes, some for habitation, some for work and storage. After moving to the hillfort’s foot, the population lived in square, above-ground, pole construction buildings. They contained hearths made from stones or stones and clay as well as often a hardpacked earth floor. Only in the second half of the 1st millennium are log construction buildings encountered. V. Daugudis has so far remained the only investigator to broadly analyse Iron Age buildings and therefore his assertions have never been greatly doubted by anyone. But frequently he has interpreted the data very freely, e.g. buildings are sometimes identified on the basis of very doubtful features and the chronology is also some­ times not reliable33. The assertion that during the period under discus­ sion, the population lived in pole buildings was based only on the fact that postholes have been abundantly discovered in settlements and hillforts. Nevertheless, these postholes do not in fact clearly show buildings and a really clear arrangement of them has never been discovered, such arrangements having been encoun­ tered only in investigating earlier period hillforts. In essence, beginning in the 2nd century, the currently given date for the abandonment of the hillforts and the relocation to unenclosed settlements, not one buil­ ding has been clearly identified on the basis of post­ holes. Although postholes have been discovered in large numbers and almost everywhere in settlements, their arrangement in a clear system has never been seen, posts having obviously also been set in the ground for other reasons. Because it is not possible to identify buildings on the basis of postholes alone, investigators usually search Daugudis V. Seniausieji mediniai pastatai ir įrenginiai Lietuvoje (3. M. e. I tūkstantmečio I pusės pastatai), MADA, 1976, vol. 1(54), p. 57–67; Daugudis V. Seniausieji mediniai pastatai ir įrenginiai Lietuvoje (4. M. e. V–VIII amžių įtvirtinimai ir pastatai), MADA, 1981, vol. 2(75), p. 61–72. 33. Zabiela G. Piliakalnių papėdžių gyvenvietės: tyrinėjimų problematika Lietuvoje, LA, 2005, vol. 27, p. 97. 34. Grigalavičienė E. Žalvario ir ankstyvasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 1996, p. 26–27; Zabiela G. Lietuvos medinės pilys. Vilnius, 1995, p. 106. 32.

for another building identifier, i.e. a hearth. This would perhaps be a rational solution if only it were not used so recklessly by making a hearth equal a dwelling. In actually, the range of activities conducted in settlements during this period is sufficiently broad and lighting a fire must have truly occurred not just in dwellings. Another thing is that these distinguished hearths are often very doubtful as frequently any pit containing small pieces of charcoal in the fill is assigned to them. This direct identification of buildings on the basis of hearths is often not very scientific, for example, after finding a fire place and scattered postholes beside it in one place, it was stated that a pole building had been discovered while after finding no postholes near a fire place at another location, a log building was identified. Another feature, on the basis of which an attempt was made to distinguish buildings, was a denser find concentration. This method was based on the afore­ mentioned view that a thicker cultural layer and larger find quantities shows more intense activities at the site. In analysing the hillfort material, a conclusion was drawn on the basis of this principle that only the edges of hillfort enclosures were inhabited while the central part remained ‘uninhabited’34. There are many reasons to doubt the reliability of buildings distinguished using this method. Clearer traces of buildings at excavated Iron Age settlements are usually connected with remains of a somewhat different nature, especially charcoal and clay daub. On the basis of these two things, traces of buil­ dings have been distinguished at Aukštadvaris, Dauba­ riai, Imbarė, Kernavė, Lieporiai and other excavated sites. These buildings were distinguished significantly more clearly in the archaeological context than the aforementioned pole buildings (Fig. 11). But specific, infrequently encountered conditions are required for the identification of such buildings, i.e. the building must have burnt down and no truly intense activities must occur at its site for some time until it enters an archaeological context. But it should mainly be accen­ ­ted here that, except for the earliest 1st–2nd-century buildings on the hillforts, no other such buildings have been discovered so far with a pole construction, all of them probably having been log constructions. V. Dau­ gudis used to date log structure features to a later period, i.e. the late 1st – early 2nd millennium. Such late dating is in fact poorly substantiated and doubtful.

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

175

charred logs dark grey soil clay daub stones burnt stones charcoal clay

F I G . 11.

Traces of log buildings discovered at Daubariai adjacent settlement in 1975. MRLIH, Drawing Fund, no. 5025, drawing by V. Daugudis.

Traces of truly earlier such structures dating to the second half of the Old Iron Age and the Middle Iron Age have recently been discovered. The traces of log buildings at Bakšiai, Jaučakiai and Lieporiai settlements should primarily be mentioned here (Fig. 12). In other European regions during the period in question, the residential buildings discovered in set­ tlements from the first half – mid-1st millennium are usually very standardised with similar dimensions and uniform construction35. Meanwhile, it is far too early to talk about the standardisation of Baltic buildings and their typology in general. First of all, too few really clear traces of buildings have been discovered and second, even these greatly differ from one another. Exceptional buildings that had some specific purpose probably other than residential have also been discovered (Fig. 14). Sunken buildings were not widespread in Lithua­ nian territory but several have been recorded (Fig. 13). They probably also should not be treated as residential but as structures with some other purpose, perhaps storage. Buildings with different constructions are also mentioned in literature. For example, a round pole building, which was interpreted as a heathen temple, was identified at Bačkininkėliai hillfort36. After more carefully analysing the investigation report for this

F I G . 12.

Traces of log buildings discovered at Jaučakiai adjacent settlement in 2002. Zabiela G. Piliakalnių papėdžių gyvenvietės: tyrinėjimų problematika Lietuvoje, LA, 2005, vol. 27, p. 95, fig. 5, drawing by A. Vaškelis.

0

1m

F I G . 13.

A burnt sunken building discovered at Kernavė settlement in 1994. MRLIH, f. 1, no. 2359, p. 41, drawing by A. Luchtanas.

0

2m

35.

Gojda M. The ancient slavs: Settlement and society. Edinburgh, 1991; Hamerow H. Early Medieval settlements: The archaeology of rural communities in North–West Europe 400–900. Oxford, 2002.

36.

Navickaitė O. Bačkininkėlių piliakalnis, ILKI, 1959, vol. 2, p. 103–118.

176

FIG. 14.

A 2.5 × 2.5 m square burnt specific purpose building, discovered at Kernavė settlement in 2010. Photo by R. Vengalis.

FIG. 15.

The ‘long house’ (the charcoal in area 4a) at Aukštadvaris hillfort. MRLIH, Drawing Fund, no. 1056, drawing by V. Daugudis. grey soil black soil sand clay stones charcoal

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

hillfort, the impression was formed that the identifica­ tion of the building at this site was probably affected by unsuitable excavation me­­thods. So-called ‘longhouses’, which, it is thought, were characteristic of 1st–2nd-century settlements on hillforts, should be mentioned separately. It is thought that such buildings stood on the enclosure’s edges and contained many rooms, some habitable, others for work or sto­­ra­ge. The central part of such a hillfort’s enclosure was sup­ posedly left undeveloped. The first time such a buil­­­­­­­­­ding was identified at Aukštadvaris hillfort37 (Fig. 15). Accor­ ding to V. Daugudis, who conducted the excavation, the building was a pole construction with the posts arranged in two parallel rows. The intervals be­­tween the posts, in the author’s opinion, could have been filled with either small horizontal timbers or wattle and covered with clay. The structure’s outward facing wall could have been covered with earth to form a bank. Two better surviving rooms, i.e. habitable and work/ storage areas, have been distinguished. The habitable room had a hearth in the corner. The purpose of the storage room was determined on the basis of the finds, which ‘are reminiscent of a barn inventory’, i.e. bronze rods, a temple ornament, half of a loom weight, bone artefacts with no clear purpose, potsherds, and a small quantity of grain. Nevertheless it is difficult to objec­ tively evaluate the validity of the conclusions of V. Dau­ gudis owing to the scanty material recorded by these excavations. The Aukštadvaris data was well supple­ mented by the investigations at Kernavė hillfort. Traces of very similar buildings that stood on the enclosure’s edge were also discovered there. This building was distinguished fairly clearly, was 4 m wide, and was a pole construction (Fig. 16). In summary it is possible to state that there is no need to doubt the fact of the existence of buildings at these sites, but another ques­ tion remains as to their treatment as ‘longhouses’. In actuality, only a 7 m long segment of the building was excavated at Aukštadvaris and only a 4 m long one at Kernavė. After conducting a geophysical investigation at Kernavė hillfort, anomalies, which could be connected with the building’s continuation, were seen, but they could equally well show later defensive fortifications, which were also recorded during the investigation38. At other excavations in 1st–2nd-century hillforts, clear traces of such buildings have so far not been recorded, although it is sometimes asserted that they existed39.

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

177

Therefore the question of whether the buildings re­­ corded at Aukštadvaris and Kernavė can be considered longhouses and even more so, whether they really encircled the enclosure on all sides, needs to be left open for the moment. Thus, in summary, it is possible to say that build­ ings have been identified fairly frequently during exca­ vations in Lithuanian Iron Age settlements, but the

F I G . 16.

A fragment of the ‘long building’ with a hearth discovered at Kernavė hillfort. MRLIH, f. 1, no. 2230, p. 53, drawing by A. Luchtanas.

37.

Daugudis V. Aukštadvario piliakalnio įtvirtinimai ir pastatai, MADA, 1962, vol. 1(12), p. 48–51; Daugudis V. Senoji medinė statyba Lietuvo­­je. Vilnius, 1982, p. 29–32.

38.

Merkytė I., Vengalis R., Vėlius G. Geofizikinių tyrimų metodų taikymas Kernavėje, MLA, 2013, p. 398–401.

39.

Daugudis V. Senoji medinė statyba Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 1982, p. 32–33.

178

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

reality of the great majority of these buildings raises very strong doubts. Really clear traces of buildings are rarely discovered. Therefore in analysing this topic, the buildings mentioned in the literature need to be evalu­ ated very cautiously by checking the original sources, i.e. the excavation reports. What then is known about Lithuanian Old and Middle Iron Age settlements? Do the available data allow anything to be said about their development? A certain model for the development of settlements from this period was formulated fairly long ago. According to it, up until the time of Christ the population lived in compact settlements on hillforts. Beginning in the 1st century ad the inhabitants gradually moved to settle­ ments at the feet of hillforts. This process was not sud­ den, continuing instead until the 4th century when the last continuously inhabited hillforts were abandoned. After the inhabitants moved to the foot, the hillfort itself was used only as a fortified refuge in times of danger. After the population increased, the adjacent settlements eventually could not house the additional inhabitants resulting in unenclosed settlements being founded at a distance from the hillfort. It was asserted that the abandonment of the hillforts and the founding of settlements at their feet occurred over a long time because it was caused by social processes. It was con­ nected with the disintegration of the extended family structure and the formation of territorial structure, i.e. the breakup of huge complex families into small ones40. Later this model was somewhat corrected. It was asserted that the population lived in the hillforts up until the turn of the 3rd century. At that time some of hillforts were abandoned, but others were still inhabited. Defensive fortifications were erected in the abandoned hillforts; at the same time huge hillforts developed and probably became the centres of the tribes that were forming41. The abandonment of the hillforts began to 40.

Grigalavičienė E. Žalvario ir ankstyvasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 1996, p. 26–27; Zabiela G. Lietuvos medinės pilys. Vilnius, 1995, p. 97; Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. Miniatiūrinių piliakalnių Lietuvoje klausimu, ILKI, 1959, vol. 2, p. 125–137; ВолкайтеКуликаускене Р. Древние поселения – городища как источник для изучения развития общественных отношений в Литве, Материалы межреспубликанской научной конференции по источниковедению и историографии народов прибалтийских республик Союза ССР: Историография. Вильнюс, 1978, с. 12–18.

41.

LPA, 2005, vol. I, p. 14–20.

42.

Zabiela G. Lietuvos medinės pilys. Vilnius, 1995, p. 45–50.

be explained not as a social process but as migrations and it was asserted that newly arrived inhabitants had founded the settlements at the feet of the hillforts42. Data are currently available that can correct the lat­ ter model. Before presenting it, it is nevertheless neces­ sary to point out that settlement development differed in the various regions owing to the effects of regional culture and the differences between the natural environ­ ment and the landscape. Nevertheless it is currently possible to state something more specific about only the development of Lithuania’s East and Northeast set­ tlements. The settlements of the other regions have been investigated less, have still not been analysed, and, in addition, have no way of being dated because no pottery typology has been created. It should be mentioned that the models presented above, al­­though this was not accented, were in fact also based mostly on the data from the settlements and hillforts in East Lithuania. As has already emerged from the earlier models for settlement development, this development was fairly complex during the period in question, i.e. significant changes occurred at that time, changes that are distinct­ ­ly reflected in the structural changes of the settlements. This section presents the development of East Lithua­ nian settlements on the basis of mostly the data from Kernavė settlement, and where necessary, the addition of material from other sites. Kernavė settlement is cur­ rently the most informative and in addition, the mate­ rial from other East Lithuanian settlements does not conflict with the development modelled on its basis, only confirming it in many cases. The settlement deve­ lopment’s chronology is based on pottery typology, which, as has already been mentioned, is relative and connected with the relative chronology of the orna­ ments. Therefore this has to be kept in mind in evalua­ ting the boundaries of the distinguished stages. During the 1st – first half of the 2nd century, the population lived in compact settlements founded on hillforts (naturally separate relief formations, i.e. on hills and on promontories on rivers, streams, and sometimes lakes) and lake islands. The settlements were fortified, but these fortifications were comparatively weak. Some­ times they were limited to only unmodified natural obstacles: steep slopes and locations on islands or between bogs. Sometimes small banks were created and wooden palisades erected. It is thought that long­ houses, which also served as fortifications, stood on the

edges of the enclosures of these hillforts while the central part of the enclosures was left relatively empty. The problem connected with this hypothesis has already been discussed above. In any case, it is clear that the settlements were small, roughly 500–5000 m2 in size, larger being more rarely encountered. All of the com­ munity’s activities were probably concentrated in this compact settlement, except the obtaining of food and other resources. Buildings that acted as dwellings, work­ shops, and storage as well as iron smelting and nonferrous metal processing areas have been discovered inside the hillforts. Unfortified settlements are so far unknown in East Lithuania and perhaps did not exist. The abandonment of these settlements can be dated to the mid-2nd century. Finds dating to the second half of the 2nd–4th centuries are unknown in them. This obviously shows that all of these settlements were abandoned over a fairly brief period, not, as was stated above43, over several centuries, which was not confir­ med by any data. The arrival of new inhabitants is ge­­ nerally named as the reason for these changes, but this hypothesis can be rejected with fairly solid grounds. The appearance of new inhabitants in this case is con­ nected with the spread of new burial customs (inhuma­ tions in barrows) and a change in the pottery (hand built pottery with brushed surfaces being replaced with pottery with rough surfaces). But neither phenomenon coincides chronologically with the abandonment of the fortified settlements, both of them occurring later in the 3rd century when the population had no longer been living in these settlements for some time. Pottery and other finds dating to the 2nd–4th centu­ ries have been discovered exclusively in only unenclosed settlements, which were founded both beside previously inhabited hillforts and in completely new places. The available data shows that the new settlements were composed of single farmsteads that stood at a distance from one another and were probably surrounded by cultivated fields, which apparently belonged directly to the farmstead. These farmsteads are identified in the archaeological material as separate pottery concentra­ tions tens of meters in diameter and separated from one another by several hundred metres. These farmsteads did not remain in the very same place for a long time; over the course of time they used to move somewhat and be founded tens or hundreds of metres from the former farmstead. This phenomenon is observable in

the greater part of Europe in the 1st millennium, but there is no unanimous answer as to why this occurred44. In the 2nd–4th centuries a population increase is also seen. The number of settlements dating to the second half of this period, like the number of individual farmsteads in set­ tlements, is significantly greater than in those dating to the first half. The increasing number of burial sites also shows the same tendencies at this time. Nevertheless, the total number of inhabitants both in each settlement and in the entire region remained small45. Some of such settlements are called ‘unenclosed’ in literature, others ‘hillfort foot settlements’. But no layers, structures, or even isolated finds have been recorded in the hillforts located beside the settlements at their feet. Signs indicating only earlier (up until the first half of the 2nd-century) and later (5th–14th-century) activity have been discovered in them. Thus, it appears that no activity, even defensive, occurred in the hillforts during the 2nd–4th centuries. Of course, it is impossible to dismiss the possibility that the abandoned hillforts could have had a communications or ritual function for the communities that had settled beside them. The people must have surely known that these were the settlements of their ancestors and therefore these pla­ ­ces could have retained a certain sacral value. The exception is Southeast Lithuania’s ‘miniature’ hillforts, in which finds dating to precisely the 3rd–4th centuries have been discovered46. They need to be briefly discussed separately. These hillforts are charac­ terised by a small enclosure, weaker or stronger forti­ fications, and a fairly thick cultural layer. The available data nevertheless does not reveal these hillforts’ pur­ pose more precisely. Many hillforts that were called miniature were excavated in the 1950s and therefore their investigation methods and the degree of informa­ tion supplied by the reports do not allow any highly 43.

Vengalis R. Grublėtoji keramika Rytų Lietuvoje, LA, 2007, vol. 32, p. 124–126; Лухтанас А. К вопросу об исчезновении культуры штрихованной керамики в бассейне Нерис (городища и селища в Кярнаве), AL, 2001, vol. 2, p. 22–28.

44.

Hamerow H. Early Medieval settlements: The archaeology of rural communities in North–West Europe 400–900. Oxford, 2002, p. 104–106.

45.

Kurila L. Apgyvendinimo tankumas geležies amžiaus Lietuvoje: Žeimenos baseino mikroregionas, LA, 2014, vol. 40, p. 181–204; Vengalis R. Geležies amžiaus gyvenvietė Kernavėje: ilgalaikio apgy­ vendinimo atspindžiai archeologinėje medžiagoje, LA, 2012, vol. 38, p. 212–214.

46.

LPA, 2005, vol. I, p. 16; Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. Miniatiūri­­­nių pi­­ liakalnių Lietuvoje klausimu, ILKI, 1959, vol. 2, p. 125–137.

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

179

180

ROKAS VENGALIS

OLD AND MIDDLE IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS AND HILLFORTS

reliable conclusions to be drawn. Judging from the banks, it is possible to speculate that these objects located in a small defined region represent the earliest defensive hillforts. But the question arises as to how such a thick cultural layer could have formed in them. It has been stated that in some cases it is even 2.6–2.8 m thick47. The bulk of such a cultural layer should never­ theless be considered fill layers, which could have been created by taking earth from the cultural layer of an unenclosed settlement that previously existed beside that location. Thus such hillforts could also be later than the finds discovered in them indicate. New changes in the development of East Lithuanian settlements have been identified in the 5th century. The most important of them is that hillforts began to be used again, only now their function was defensive rather than residential. These fortified refuges, like the fortified settlements several centuries before, were created on natural hills and promontories on shores and banks. Very frequently the same place, where a settlement had previously been founded, was used for them. The creation of a fortified refuge was not limited to just natural obstacles; slopes were also made steeper and banks and ditches were created. These were then reinforced with wooden constructions and stone pa­­ ving. That these hillforts were not continuously inhabi­ ted is shown by the especially poor cultural layer and the discovery of only isolated finds. Their main, most manifested function was defensive. In peace time, they definitely performed other functions, for example, com­­­­­munity gatherings, rites, perhaps storage, etc., but it is possible to only speculate about this owing to the lack of data needed for substantiation. In the general context, several hillforts, where a very intense cultural layer rich in finds was discovered, stand out. But this was a consequence of their destruc­ tion during a fire rather than of their exceptional func­ tion. Currently, two such hillforts, Aukštadvaris and Kernavė, have been broadly excavated in East Lithuania. The fortifications at these hillforts were burnt in per­ forming their main function during an enemy attack. 47.

Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R. Migonių (Jiezno raj.) archeologiniai paminklai, ILKI, 1958, vol. 1, p. 46–47.

48.

Bitner-Wróblewska A., Kontny B. Controversy about three-leaf arrowheads from Lithuania, AL, 2006, vol. 7, p. 104–122; Лухтан А. Война V века в Литве, Беларусь у сiстэме трансеўропейскiх сувязяў у I тысячагоддзi н.э. Мiжнародная канференцыя. Мiнск, 1996, c. 53–54.

This is proven not only by the fact of the fire’s existence, but also by the abundant warfare-related finds, espe­ cially arrowheads. All of the discovered arrowheads belong to a single type, trilobate, which are connected with the nomadic tribes that troubled Europe in the mid-5th century48. The investigation of such hillforts has yielded very important information about their func­ tion and structure and they demonstrably show what caused the appearance of fortified refuges and their massive spread at precisely this time. Analogous trilo­ bate arrowheads have been discovered not only at the aforementioned two hillforts, but also elsewhere, e.g. in Plinkaigalis, Radžiūnai and Vilnius. No very important changes have been recorded in the structure of settlements in the 5th century. It seems that similar scattered farmstead villages survived in East Lithuania throughout the period discussed by this article. In the case of Kernavė settlement, a certain set­ tlement expansion is observable, the upper edges of the valley’s terrace, which had not been inhabited du­­ ring the earlier period, being settled at that time (Fig. 17). But whether this is characteristic of only this set­ tlement and whether a similar expansion occurred at other settlements during this period is so far impos­ sible to say based on the available data. Thus, in roughly this way it is possible to summarise settlement development in East Lithuania during the Old and Middle Iron Ages based on currently available data. It is so far more difficult to say anything more specific about the other regions, as has been mentioned. Among these other regions, settlement development has been analysed more broadly only in Northeast Lithuania, where it seems it was fairly similar to that in East Lithuania. This was probably the result of these areas belonging to the same cultural group, the Brushed Pottery culture, up until at least 2nd century and, in addition, the natural environment of these regions being very similar, i.e. sandy highlands with abundant lakes. Whether the settlement development of this region was identical later during the 3rd–8th centuries is difficult to say owing to the problem of a more precise settlement chronology in the Northeast Lithuania re­­ gion, i.e. to a lack of pottery research. The settlement development of the other regions differs more from that of East Lithuania. First of all, even such a question as to whether the inhabitants of those regions lived in fortified settlements analogous to those

1200 AD

600 AD

100 AD

181

F I G . 17

A reconstruction of the 5th-century Kernavė settlement: single farmsteads surrounded by cultivated fields in the Neris valley and a fortified refuge in the hillfort visible in the upper left corner. Museum of the cultural reserve of Kernavė.

known in East Lithuania is not clear. Far fewer hillforts dating to this period are known in Central, North, and West Lithuania than in East and Northeast Lithuania. In addition, the layers from this period are not clearly identifiable in either the hillforts or the unenclosed settlements, i.e. it is so far unknown precisely what pottery is characteristic of this period. It is possible to foresee another likely clear difference in respect to the cemetery data. The Central, West, and partially North Lithuanian cemetery material shows significantly larger communities existed there than in East Lithuania and therefore it is possible to expect that the settlements were larger and more densely populated, and perhaps could have had a structure other than scattered farm­ stead units. Certain differences are also shown by soli­ tary known objects that are not characteristic of East Lithuania, for example, Gabrieliškės hillfort with an intense 3rd–4th-century layer. Summarizing, owing to the historically formed spe­­­cific features of the development of archaeology, in almost every period Iron Age investigations in Lithu­ ania have focused significantly more on burial sites while settlements have received significantly less atten­ tion. This low interest in settlements has also influenced the quality of their investigation and has not allowed all of the information, which the excavation of these objects could yield, to be assimilated. Owing to this, a certain gap in the knowledge about the settlements eventually developed, which is nevertheless felt fairly

clearly even now, although during the last decade more interest has been taken in settlements than before. In earlier years the settlement material was not analysed very deeply. The majority of the statements given in literature about settlements are superficial, based more on the deduction principle, sometimes even on a general image or a preconceived opinion, rather than on specific material. Such statements can­ not be considered reliable in respect to contemporary scientific standards; therefore prior to beginning mo­­ dern investigations of settlements, a thorough review must be made of the earlier statements. In evaluating the available information about Old and Middle Iron Age settlements and hillforts in Lithua­ nia, a more detailed development model can now be presented only for the East Lithuania region. Clear changes are visible here, i.e. at the period’s start the population lived in compact settlements protected by both natural obstacles and manmade fortifications. Later these settlements were fairly suddenly abandoned and the population moved to scattered farmstead type settlements. After the unrest of the Migration Period began, defensive fortifications to guard against enemies appeared near some settlements and traces of devas­ tating attacks have been discovered at some of them. The development of the settlements in Lithuania’s other regions differs at least somewhat from that in East Lithuania, but the reconstruction of their development still lacks data.

515

A B B R E V I AT I O N S

CONTRIBUTORS

A b b re v i at i ons GDR

Grand Duchy of Lithuania



I n s t i t u t i ons

GRRCL Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania HMLM History Museum of Lithuania Minor LIH Lithuanian Institute of History MRLIH Manuscript Room of Lithuanian Institute of History NML National Museum of Lithuania ŠAM Šiauliai ‘Aušra’ Museum VGWM Vytautas Great War Museum VMMC Vytautas Magnus Museum of Culture TMH Trakai Museum of History VU Vilnius University



L i te rat u re

AB Archaeologia Baltica. Vilnius (vol. 1-5), Klaipėda AHUK Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis. Klaipėda AIIL Archaeological investigations in independent Lithuania. Vilnius AL Archaeologia Lituana. Vilnius AP Architektūros paminklai. Vilnius ATL Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje. Vilnius ILKI Iš lietuvių kultūros istorijos. Vilnius Istorija Lietuvos aukštųjų mokyklų mokslo darbai. Istorija. Vilnius KP Kultūros paminklai. Vilnius LA Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius LAŠSP Lietuvos archeologijos šaltiniai Sankt Peterburge. Vilnius LIM Lietuvos istorijos metraštis. Vilnius LPA Lietuvos piliakalniai: Atlasas. Vilnius, 2005. MADA MLA MP PF WA

Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija. Vilnius Metodai Lietuvos archeologijoje. Mokslas ir technologijos praeičiai pažinti. Vilnius Muziejai ir paminklai. Vilnius Pamiętnik fizyograficzny. Warszawa Wiadomości archeologiczne. Warszawa

Cont ributors Dainius Balčiūnas AB „Kauno paminklų restauravimo projektavimo institutas“ Raguvos Str. 5, LT-44275 Kaunas, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Linas Girlevičius UAB “Teisinga orbita” A. Vivulskio Str. 12D-41, LT-03221, Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Rasa Banytė-Rowell Archaeology Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Rytis Jonaitis Urban Research Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Zenonas Baubonis VšĮ „Kultūros paveldo išsaugojimo pajėgos“ Piliakalnio Str. 10, LT-06229 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Eugenijus Jovaiša Faculty of History, Lithuanian University of Educology T. Ševčenkos Str. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Doc. Dr. Mindaugas Bertašius Department of Philosophy and Cultural Science, Faculty of Humanities, Kaunas University of Technology Gedimino Str. 43, LT-44240 Kaunas, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Doc. Dr. Audronė Bliujienė Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipėda University Herkaus Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Ugnius Budvydas Department of Archaeology, Trakai Museum of History Kęstučio Str. 4, LT-21104 Trakai, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Adomas Butrimas Vilnius Academy of Arts Maironio Str. 6, LT-01124, Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Linas Daugnora Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipėda University Herkaus Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Asta Gerbutavičiūtė Freelance archaeologist E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Habil. dr. Algirdas Girininkas Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipėda University Herkaus Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Algirdas Juknevičius Kėdainiai Area Museum Didžioji Str. 19, LT-57255 Kėdainiai, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Vygandas Juodagalvis Archaeology Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Irma Kaplūnaitė Urban Research Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Daumantas Kiulkys Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipėda University Herkaus Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Albinas Kuncevičius Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Vilnius University Universiteto Str. 7, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Laurynas Kurila Archaeology Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Linas Kvizikevičius UAB „Kultūros vertybių paieška“ Šv. Stepono g. 31-18, LT-01312 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

516

CONTRIBUTORS

Doc. Dr. Rimvydas Laužikas Institute of Library and Information Sciences, Faculty of Communication, Vilnius University Saulėtekio Av. 9, LT-10222 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Elena Pranckėnaitė Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipėda University H. Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Eglė Marcinkevičiūtė Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Vilnius University Universiteto Str. 7, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Eduardas Remecas Numismatic Department, National Museum of Lithuania Arsenalo Str. 1, LT-01143 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Ieva Masiulienė Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipeda University Herkaus Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Doc. Dr. Birutė Kazimiera Salatkienė Department of History, Faculty of Humanities, Šiauliai University P. Višinskio Str. 38, LT-76352 Šiauliai, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Doc. Dr. Algimantas Merkevičius Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Vilnius University Universiteto Str. 7, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Habil. Dr. Mykolas Michelbertas Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Vilnius University Universiteto Str. 7, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Virginija Ostašenkovienė Šiauliai Aušros Museum Vytauto Str. 89, LT-77155 Šiauliai, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Gediminas Petrauskas Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Vilnius University Universiteto Str. 7, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Gytis Piličiauskas Archaeology Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

A Hundred Years of Archaeological Discoveries in Lithuania Edited by Gintautas Zabiela, Zenonas Baubonis, Eglė Marcinkevičiūtė Published by Society of the Lithuanian Archaeology www.lad.lt , E-mail: [email protected] Printed by printig house BALTOprint, Utenos Str. 41A, Vilnius LT-08217.

Dr. Andra Simniškytė Archaeology Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Simonas Sprindys UAB „Kultūros vertybių paieška“ Šv. Stepono g. 31-18, LT-01312 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Egidijus Šatavičius Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Vilnius University Universiteto Str. 7, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Rytis Šiaulinskas Freelance archaeologist E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Vykintas Vaitkevičius Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipėda University Herkaus Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Ilona Vaškevičiūtė Faculty of History, Lithuanian University of Educology T. Ševčenkos Str. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Rokas Vengalis Archaeology Department, Lithuanian Institute of History Kražių Str. 5, LT-01108 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]

Doc. Dr. Gintautas Vėlius Department of Archaeology, Faculty of History, Vilnius University Universiteto Str. 7, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Manvydas Vitkūnas The General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania Šilo Str.5, LT-10322, Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Doc. Dr. Gintautas Zabiela Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Klaipėda University Herkaus Manto Str. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Algirdas Žalnierius AB „Kauno paminklų restauravimo projektavimo institutas“ Raguvos Str. 5, LT-44275 Kaunas, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected]