Fortifications in their Natural and Cultural Landscape: From Organising Space to the Creation of Power. Schriften des Museums für Archäologie Schloss Gottorf, Ergänzungsreihe, Band 15 (eds. T. Ibsen, K. Ilves, B. Maixner, S. Messal, J. Schneeweiß), 2022
Hillfort research in the area of former East Prussia has a well-documented almost 200-yearlong
hi... more Hillfort research in the area of former East Prussia has a well-documented almost 200-yearlong
history. From the outset, the focus has been on the identification, recording and large-scale mapping
of monuments. This has provided a basic understanding of the overall distribution of almost 500
monuments. The Sambian peninsula (German: Samland), in today’s Kaliningrad region of Russia,
exhibits a significant concentration of hillforts that may be linked to the rich amber deposits of this
landscape. Nonetheless, only a few of the monuments have been rigorously studied by archaeologists. While archival maps thoroughly document the hillforts, both those that still exist and those that have been destroyed, complimentary modern data in the form of topography, geology or LiDAR are sparse.
The richness of the archival record can, in some ways, compensate for the lack of modern mapping
material in identifying general trends for the siting of hillforts, and it is possible to work out general
tendencies in the positioning of hillforts in their natural and cultural landscape. But a larger obstacle
remains: The lack of dating makes it difficult to follow trends in the preferred locations of hillforts in
their respective micro-regions across the different archaeological periods.
This article aims to introduce new chronological information for hillforts in the northwest of the
Sambian peninsula, based on the modern 14C-dating of nine monuments. In combination with previous excavation results, this allows us to discuss to some extent the question of whether the large-scale location of hillforts changed over time, or whether their position in the natural and cultural landscape is independent of their chronology. The chronological information is roughly combined with a GIS-based kernel density analysis, which shows seven micro-regions with a total of 33 hillforts for the western part of the Sambian peninsula. While there are chronological gaps in the occupation of individual hill-forts, from the Late Bronze Age to the Middle Ages, almost all micro-regions that can
be provisionally regarded as settlement nodes were continuously equipped with at least one hillfort.
Apart from the presence of suitable terrain, the choice of location must therefore have depended
rather on superordinate factors, such as the location to communication routes and infrastructural con-nections, or other strategic aspects, such as political organisation and the manifestation of power or even cultural identity, which have not yet been sufficiently investigated. Most important is probably the division of the landscape into demarcated settlement nodes, to which the spatial and temporal distribu-tion of the hillforts seems to refer.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers
The former German province of East Prussia, now divided among Lithuania, Russia (Kaliningrad region), and Poland, poses unique challenges for the project, necessitating collaboration with relevant state and cultural institutions in these countries. The initiative involves an international scientific advisory board and focuses on cataloguing and making sources accessible for both digital and analogue research, including current field research.
The project explores the continuity of settlement processes during the Iron Age, particularly through the examination of hillforts, a prominent monument category in the region. The challenge lies in confirming settlement continuity through primary monuments, as direct evidence of settlements is scarce. The project developed an efficient methodology for investigating hillforts, leading to successful C14-based dating of nine such monuments in the former Kreis Fischhausen/Zelenogradskiĭ raĭon.
This provides a nuanced understanding of their occupation phases and their correlation with burial sites. The results challenge previous perspectives and contribute to the re-evaluation of entire settlement chambers. Ongoing collaborations, such as the investigation of Lithuanian hillforts, among others together with Audronė Bliujienė, demonstrate the methods lasting impact and its role in advancing our understanding of settlement dynamics in the Baltic region.
Fortifications are often viewed and studied as individual monuments, while detecting related pairs or clusters is challenging due to the reliance on clear chronological evidence for their contemporaneity. Without it, interpreting neighbouring monuments as parts of cooperative networks or opposing systems is nearly impossible. Recently, the utilization of LIDAR data and other survey methods has uncovered new elements within known hillfort complexes, shedding new light on the size and function of individual monuments.
Sometimes, previously solitary fortifications are revealed to be part of a network, significantly altering older interpretations and possibly reflecting prehistoric socio-political entities and the processes of organizing space and power to control or protect adjacent territories. Furthermore, there is a plethora of analytical computational tools available for embedding fortifications into spatial or relational networks, focusing on accessibility via routes and road systems, visibility ranges, or cultural territories on both micro- and macro-regional levels. This facilitates the identification of entire fortification systems, such as border defence systems, signalling or warning networks with chains of watchtowers and military camps, or other types of defensive barriers on land and in water. All of these insights provide a deeper understanding of sophisticated organizational structures.
This session diachronically focuses on examples and methods of detecting and interpreting networks and systems of fortifications. We aim to discuss the roles individual monuments played within larger frameworks and the impact of their organization on the control of space and power in entire regions. We welcome papers presenting case studies focusing on landscapes with either opposing systems or cooperating networks of fortifications, and how to identify, define, and interpret such agglomerations. Contributions on analytical tools or methodologies for processing data to identify systems and networks are also appreciated.
history. From the outset, the focus has been on the identification, recording and large-scale mapping
of monuments. This has provided a basic understanding of the overall distribution of almost 500
monuments. The Sambian peninsula (German: Samland), in today’s Kaliningrad region of Russia,
exhibits a significant concentration of hillforts that may be linked to the rich amber deposits of this
landscape. Nonetheless, only a few of the monuments have been rigorously studied by archaeologists. While archival maps thoroughly document the hillforts, both those that still exist and those that have been destroyed, complimentary modern data in the form of topography, geology or LiDAR are sparse.
The richness of the archival record can, in some ways, compensate for the lack of modern mapping
material in identifying general trends for the siting of hillforts, and it is possible to work out general
tendencies in the positioning of hillforts in their natural and cultural landscape. But a larger obstacle
remains: The lack of dating makes it difficult to follow trends in the preferred locations of hillforts in
their respective micro-regions across the different archaeological periods.
This article aims to introduce new chronological information for hillforts in the northwest of the
Sambian peninsula, based on the modern 14C-dating of nine monuments. In combination with previous excavation results, this allows us to discuss to some extent the question of whether the large-scale location of hillforts changed over time, or whether their position in the natural and cultural landscape is independent of their chronology. The chronological information is roughly combined with a GIS-based kernel density analysis, which shows seven micro-regions with a total of 33 hillforts for the western part of the Sambian peninsula. While there are chronological gaps in the occupation of individual hill-forts, from the Late Bronze Age to the Middle Ages, almost all micro-regions that can
be provisionally regarded as settlement nodes were continuously equipped with at least one hillfort.
Apart from the presence of suitable terrain, the choice of location must therefore have depended
rather on superordinate factors, such as the location to communication routes and infrastructural con-nections, or other strategic aspects, such as political organisation and the manifestation of power or even cultural identity, which have not yet been sufficiently investigated. Most important is probably the division of the landscape into demarcated settlement nodes, to which the spatial and temporal distribu-tion of the hillforts seems to refer.
Despite the large number of hillforts and their long history of research they constitute one of the least understood Baltic monuments. Especially dating the sites has proven difficult in most cases. Using the example of the fortification of Apuolė in Lithuania, which was examined in the 1930s by a profile section, an alternative dating method is suggested: a series of drillings, which provides insight into the mound’s stratigraphic structure, is combined with taking specific samples, which secures scientific based dating. The article presents the latest results of research in Apuolė and confirms with 15 further 14C datings from the eastern rampart the established chronological assessment that the complex dates back to 30 cal BC and 1000 cal A D (2σ = 95,4 % probability), in other words covering the entire first millennium AD. Thereby, drilling prospection is presented as an alternative method for dating fortifications and its potentials and limitations are discussed.
Zusammenfassung:
Trotz der großen Anzahl und einer langen Forschungsgeschichte zählen Burgwälle zu den am wenigsten verstandenen Denkmälern des Baltikums. Vor allem die Datierung der Anlagen ist in den meisten Fällen ungeklärt. Am Beispiel des bereits in den 1930er Jahren durch einen Profilschnitt untersuchten Burgwalls Apuolė in Litauen wird hier eine alternative Methode beschrieben, die durch Reihen von Bohrungen Einsichten in den stratigraphischen Aufbau der Wälle und gleichzeitig durch gezielte Probenentnahme naturwissenschaftlich gestützte Datierungen ermöglicht. Der Artikel stellt die Ergebnisse der jüngsten Forschungen in Apuolė vor und untermauert mit den insgesamt 15 Radiokarbondatierungen aus dem Ostwall die bisherige chronologische Einordnung der Anlage in den Zeitraum zwischen 30 cal BC und 1000 cal AD (2σ = 95,4 % Wahrscheinlichkeit) und damit in das gesamte erste nachchristliche Jahrtausend. Dabei wird die Bohrprospektion als alternative Methode zur Datierung von Burgwällen vorgestellt und mit ihren Potenzialen und Grenzen diskutiert.
лининградской обл. Российской Федерации (ра-
нее Восточная Пруссия) впервые исследовался в
1920- х гг. Считается, что за немногими исключе-
ниями находки утеряны вместе со всей Прусской
коллекцией из Кёнигсберга. Однако полевая доку-
ментация сохранилась в поместье проводившего
раскопки Герберта Янкуна. Она была изучена в све-
те современного состояния исследований. Благода-
ря архивным материалам могильник был локали-
зован; в 2003 и 2004 гг. были проведены его новые
раскопки. Всего изучено 104 погребения I тыс. н. э. и
46 других объектов, в основном современных.
Процесс функционирования могильника под-
разделяется на три фазы, разделенные перерывами.
Ранняя фаза относится к периоду Римской импе-
рии, точнее – времени перехода к поздней империи
(фаза B2 и B2/C1-C1a), вторая – к концу эпохи Вели-
кого переселения народов (фаза E), третья – к ран-
нему Средневековью (X – начало XI в. н. э.).
Погребения периода Римской империи со-
вершались по обрядам ингумации или кремации
с применением мощных каменных конструкций.
В течение двух последующих фаз кремации ис-
ключительно редки. В большинстве случаев в по-
гребальном обряде также использован камень. На
протяжении всех трех фаз встречаются погребения
коней (без использования кремации). Раскопками
2003 г. выявлен единственный небольшой курган
с каменной наброской 7 м в диаметре и 0,5 м высо-
той, под ней обнаружено богатое кремационное по-
гребение мужчины, сопровождавшееся двумя кон-
скими захоронениями, что необычно для данной
территории. Погребение датируется переходным
временем от раннего к позднему периоду Римской
империи.
Высококачественные рисунки Герберта Янкуна
зафиксировали погребальный инвентарь. Набор
вещей включает типичные для Западной Балтии
формы, известные в культуре Доллькайм-Коврово
(период Римской империи). Находки конца Вели-
кого переселения народов имеют лишь краткие
описания, и данные об этом периоде ограничены;
однако, некоторые вещи имеют аналогии в матери-
алах переходного времени между концом культуры
Доллькайм-Коврово и началом формирования ран-
несредневековой культуры пруссов. Все находки,
относящиеся к третьей фазе использования мо-
гильника (X – начало XI в.), выявлены новыми рас-
копкаи. Их следует связывать с культурой прусско-
го населения.
Важным достижением новых работ следует счи-
тать воссоздание полного и детального генерально-
го плана могильника. Он включает точно локализо-
ванные старые раскопы, все выявленные старыми
раскопками погребения, а также погребения, иссле-
дованные в ходе новых раскопок. Благодаря точной
полевой фиксации (несмотря на некоторые потери)
и сохранившимся архивным материалам в сочета-
нии с результатами современных исследований,
можно утверждать, что могильник Гросс Оттенха-
ген–Березовка занимает особое место среди многих
ранее исследованных погребальных памятников ре-
гиона, относящихся к I тыс. н. э.
The former German province of East Prussia, now divided among Lithuania, Russia (Kaliningrad region), and Poland, poses unique challenges for the project, necessitating collaboration with relevant state and cultural institutions in these countries. The initiative involves an international scientific advisory board and focuses on cataloguing and making sources accessible for both digital and analogue research, including current field research.
The project explores the continuity of settlement processes during the Iron Age, particularly through the examination of hillforts, a prominent monument category in the region. The challenge lies in confirming settlement continuity through primary monuments, as direct evidence of settlements is scarce. The project developed an efficient methodology for investigating hillforts, leading to successful C14-based dating of nine such monuments in the former Kreis Fischhausen/Zelenogradskiĭ raĭon.
This provides a nuanced understanding of their occupation phases and their correlation with burial sites. The results challenge previous perspectives and contribute to the re-evaluation of entire settlement chambers. Ongoing collaborations, such as the investigation of Lithuanian hillforts, among others together with Audronė Bliujienė, demonstrate the methods lasting impact and its role in advancing our understanding of settlement dynamics in the Baltic region.
Fortifications are often viewed and studied as individual monuments, while detecting related pairs or clusters is challenging due to the reliance on clear chronological evidence for their contemporaneity. Without it, interpreting neighbouring monuments as parts of cooperative networks or opposing systems is nearly impossible. Recently, the utilization of LIDAR data and other survey methods has uncovered new elements within known hillfort complexes, shedding new light on the size and function of individual monuments.
Sometimes, previously solitary fortifications are revealed to be part of a network, significantly altering older interpretations and possibly reflecting prehistoric socio-political entities and the processes of organizing space and power to control or protect adjacent territories. Furthermore, there is a plethora of analytical computational tools available for embedding fortifications into spatial or relational networks, focusing on accessibility via routes and road systems, visibility ranges, or cultural territories on both micro- and macro-regional levels. This facilitates the identification of entire fortification systems, such as border defence systems, signalling or warning networks with chains of watchtowers and military camps, or other types of defensive barriers on land and in water. All of these insights provide a deeper understanding of sophisticated organizational structures.
This session diachronically focuses on examples and methods of detecting and interpreting networks and systems of fortifications. We aim to discuss the roles individual monuments played within larger frameworks and the impact of their organization on the control of space and power in entire regions. We welcome papers presenting case studies focusing on landscapes with either opposing systems or cooperating networks of fortifications, and how to identify, define, and interpret such agglomerations. Contributions on analytical tools or methodologies for processing data to identify systems and networks are also appreciated.
history. From the outset, the focus has been on the identification, recording and large-scale mapping
of monuments. This has provided a basic understanding of the overall distribution of almost 500
monuments. The Sambian peninsula (German: Samland), in today’s Kaliningrad region of Russia,
exhibits a significant concentration of hillforts that may be linked to the rich amber deposits of this
landscape. Nonetheless, only a few of the monuments have been rigorously studied by archaeologists. While archival maps thoroughly document the hillforts, both those that still exist and those that have been destroyed, complimentary modern data in the form of topography, geology or LiDAR are sparse.
The richness of the archival record can, in some ways, compensate for the lack of modern mapping
material in identifying general trends for the siting of hillforts, and it is possible to work out general
tendencies in the positioning of hillforts in their natural and cultural landscape. But a larger obstacle
remains: The lack of dating makes it difficult to follow trends in the preferred locations of hillforts in
their respective micro-regions across the different archaeological periods.
This article aims to introduce new chronological information for hillforts in the northwest of the
Sambian peninsula, based on the modern 14C-dating of nine monuments. In combination with previous excavation results, this allows us to discuss to some extent the question of whether the large-scale location of hillforts changed over time, or whether their position in the natural and cultural landscape is independent of their chronology. The chronological information is roughly combined with a GIS-based kernel density analysis, which shows seven micro-regions with a total of 33 hillforts for the western part of the Sambian peninsula. While there are chronological gaps in the occupation of individual hill-forts, from the Late Bronze Age to the Middle Ages, almost all micro-regions that can
be provisionally regarded as settlement nodes were continuously equipped with at least one hillfort.
Apart from the presence of suitable terrain, the choice of location must therefore have depended
rather on superordinate factors, such as the location to communication routes and infrastructural con-nections, or other strategic aspects, such as political organisation and the manifestation of power or even cultural identity, which have not yet been sufficiently investigated. Most important is probably the division of the landscape into demarcated settlement nodes, to which the spatial and temporal distribu-tion of the hillforts seems to refer.
Despite the large number of hillforts and their long history of research they constitute one of the least understood Baltic monuments. Especially dating the sites has proven difficult in most cases. Using the example of the fortification of Apuolė in Lithuania, which was examined in the 1930s by a profile section, an alternative dating method is suggested: a series of drillings, which provides insight into the mound’s stratigraphic structure, is combined with taking specific samples, which secures scientific based dating. The article presents the latest results of research in Apuolė and confirms with 15 further 14C datings from the eastern rampart the established chronological assessment that the complex dates back to 30 cal BC and 1000 cal A D (2σ = 95,4 % probability), in other words covering the entire first millennium AD. Thereby, drilling prospection is presented as an alternative method for dating fortifications and its potentials and limitations are discussed.
Zusammenfassung:
Trotz der großen Anzahl und einer langen Forschungsgeschichte zählen Burgwälle zu den am wenigsten verstandenen Denkmälern des Baltikums. Vor allem die Datierung der Anlagen ist in den meisten Fällen ungeklärt. Am Beispiel des bereits in den 1930er Jahren durch einen Profilschnitt untersuchten Burgwalls Apuolė in Litauen wird hier eine alternative Methode beschrieben, die durch Reihen von Bohrungen Einsichten in den stratigraphischen Aufbau der Wälle und gleichzeitig durch gezielte Probenentnahme naturwissenschaftlich gestützte Datierungen ermöglicht. Der Artikel stellt die Ergebnisse der jüngsten Forschungen in Apuolė vor und untermauert mit den insgesamt 15 Radiokarbondatierungen aus dem Ostwall die bisherige chronologische Einordnung der Anlage in den Zeitraum zwischen 30 cal BC und 1000 cal AD (2σ = 95,4 % Wahrscheinlichkeit) und damit in das gesamte erste nachchristliche Jahrtausend. Dabei wird die Bohrprospektion als alternative Methode zur Datierung von Burgwällen vorgestellt und mit ihren Potenzialen und Grenzen diskutiert.
лининградской обл. Российской Федерации (ра-
нее Восточная Пруссия) впервые исследовался в
1920- х гг. Считается, что за немногими исключе-
ниями находки утеряны вместе со всей Прусской
коллекцией из Кёнигсберга. Однако полевая доку-
ментация сохранилась в поместье проводившего
раскопки Герберта Янкуна. Она была изучена в све-
те современного состояния исследований. Благода-
ря архивным материалам могильник был локали-
зован; в 2003 и 2004 гг. были проведены его новые
раскопки. Всего изучено 104 погребения I тыс. н. э. и
46 других объектов, в основном современных.
Процесс функционирования могильника под-
разделяется на три фазы, разделенные перерывами.
Ранняя фаза относится к периоду Римской импе-
рии, точнее – времени перехода к поздней империи
(фаза B2 и B2/C1-C1a), вторая – к концу эпохи Вели-
кого переселения народов (фаза E), третья – к ран-
нему Средневековью (X – начало XI в. н. э.).
Погребения периода Римской империи со-
вершались по обрядам ингумации или кремации
с применением мощных каменных конструкций.
В течение двух последующих фаз кремации ис-
ключительно редки. В большинстве случаев в по-
гребальном обряде также использован камень. На
протяжении всех трех фаз встречаются погребения
коней (без использования кремации). Раскопками
2003 г. выявлен единственный небольшой курган
с каменной наброской 7 м в диаметре и 0,5 м высо-
той, под ней обнаружено богатое кремационное по-
гребение мужчины, сопровождавшееся двумя кон-
скими захоронениями, что необычно для данной
территории. Погребение датируется переходным
временем от раннего к позднему периоду Римской
империи.
Высококачественные рисунки Герберта Янкуна
зафиксировали погребальный инвентарь. Набор
вещей включает типичные для Западной Балтии
формы, известные в культуре Доллькайм-Коврово
(период Римской империи). Находки конца Вели-
кого переселения народов имеют лишь краткие
описания, и данные об этом периоде ограничены;
однако, некоторые вещи имеют аналогии в матери-
алах переходного времени между концом культуры
Доллькайм-Коврово и началом формирования ран-
несредневековой культуры пруссов. Все находки,
относящиеся к третьей фазе использования мо-
гильника (X – начало XI в.), выявлены новыми рас-
копкаи. Их следует связывать с культурой прусско-
го населения.
Важным достижением новых работ следует счи-
тать воссоздание полного и детального генерально-
го плана могильника. Он включает точно локализо-
ванные старые раскопы, все выявленные старыми
раскопками погребения, а также погребения, иссле-
дованные в ходе новых раскопок. Благодаря точной
полевой фиксации (несмотря на некоторые потери)
и сохранившимся архивным материалам в сочета-
нии с результатами современных исследований,
можно утверждать, что могильник Гросс Оттенха-
ген–Березовка занимает особое место среди многих
ранее исследованных погребальных памятников ре-
гиона, относящихся к I тыс. н. э.
CORING IS NOT BORING! Drillings in combination with other non or minimal-invasive methods for investigating archaeological monuments [COMFORT].
This session is dedicated to multi-method approaches in archaeological investigations, that involve the use of drilling. Especially monuments like fortifications with their often enormous rampart-and-ditch systems, terraces, slopes and thick occupation layers full of archaeological and biological relicts, but also burial mounds or settlement tells, offer the perfect playground for hand augering and mechanical coring. Quick and cheap, drillings serve as an endoscope into the past of such monuments. Drillings in modern times have become an omnipresent, but not en-vogue tool on excavations to verify geophysical results, to distinguish occupation phases, and to answer palaeo-environmental questions. Yet systematic coring strategies are lacking standards.
The often multi-layered cores may contain soil material and hence information about the entire life span of the monuments. They are used for dating hillforts and other monuments by radiocarbon analysis or micromorphological studies of the soil and the relicts it contains, which provide information about the age and function of the site and its parts. Combined with (p)XRF measurements or pollen and phytolyth analysis they add information about the environment and the human impact; susceptibility measurements and other geophysical methods help to understand the geomagnetic images or ERT and GPR data. Hence there is a bouquet of methods, which can be applied to drilling cores themselves to make them speak about the history of the site.
We invite archaeologists, soil scientists, geologists, and those from related disciplines to present their method and strategy of drillings used for investigating fortifications, burial mounds or settlement tells with massive earthen elements. Reports about technical challenges, problems, limitations or successful new ideas are welcome, as are presentations on best practice examples of different methods combined with drillings and especially the results we can gain from systematic interdisciplinary coring strategies.
Contact for paper proposals or questions:
Timo Ibsen, Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology, Schleswig (ZBSA)
timo.ibsen@zbsa.eu
Or
Matija Črešnar, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana / Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Archaeology (CIRA)
Matija.Cresnar@ff.uni-lj.si