Lietuvos piliakalniai : tyrinėjimų aspektas

• Hill-forts of Lithuania: an aspect of investigations
• Городища Литвы: исследовательский аспект

LTMozaikinis piliakalnių pažinimo būdas, kuomet pageidaujamas vaizdas gaunamas derinant įvairias detales iš skirtingų piliakalnių, savo galimybes jau išsėmė. Išaiškintos tik pagrindinės piliakalnių sandaros ir raidos tendencijos, kurioms atskleisti 150 po truputį tyrinėtų piliakalnių yra net per daug. Rezultatas - apie XX a. devintą dešimtmetį gautas niekada neegzistavusio piliakalnio vaizdas, kurio buvo paskelbti tik atskiri elementai. Šis vaizdas atitrūkęs nuo istorinio ir geografinio konteksto. Naujas, labiau individualus ir realistinis piliakalnio vaizdas pirmiausia turi atskleisti autentišką jo struktūrą, ką galima pasiekti tik po jo plačių tyrimų. Ši struktūra turi būti dinamiška, paremta įvairių pakitimų variacija nuo vietos piliakalniui parinkimo iki jo dabartinio vaizdo. Iš pradžių šios struktūros vaizdas daugeliu aspektu bus problemiškas bei kontraversiškas, nes piliakalnių tyrimuose labai trūksta specialiųjų dažnai kitų mokslų tyrimų, aiškinančių archeologinių tyrimų medžiagą ir ribojančių interpretavimo laisvę. Naujas piliakalnio vaizdas kartu turi būti platesnės žmonių gyvenamos iš aplinkos visumos dalis. Kad vaizdas kartu su mūsų pažinimo lygiu galėtų būti kas kartą verifikuojamas ir atnaujinamas, piliakalnių pažinimas turi remtis išsamia, kiek galima kruopščiau surinktos medžiagos publikacija. Toks piliakalnio supratimas galimas tik po sistemingų ir ilgų jų pačių, jų aplinkos ir visos surinktos medžiagos tyrimų.Reikšminiai žodžiai: Piliakalniai; Tyrinėjimai; Duomenys; Statistika.; Hill-forts; Investigations; Data; Statistics; Piliakalnis; Papėdės gyvenvietė; Archeologiniai tyrimai; Analizė; Statistika; Hill-fort; Foot settlement; Archaeological investigations; Analysis.

ENBasing on the material collected from all hill-forts investigated until 2000 inclusive in the territory of the present Lithuania, some problems of their research are being analyzed in the article. If not properly tackled, these problems may affect knowledge on hill-forts. The first problem is the very definition of hill-fort. Till now, rather different archaeological objects were called hill-forts. Judging only from their current appearance, almost in all cases deformed under later impact of people and natural forces, it is impossible to define them. Any hill-fort as a separate type of archaeological values may be defined only having applied elements of reconstruction on a primary level of hill-fort relief. Hill-forts are derivatives of relief with outer earthwork fortifications and traces of old human activities. According to such a definition, hill-forts may be distinguished from military fortifications of New times, fortified manor sites or simple piles of earth, as well as fortified settlements. The most difficult is to identify hill-forts - hiding places, as the latter are least investigated. According to the data of 2000, 993 hill-forts are known in Lithuania, however, due to absence of clear differences between hill-forts themselves and their components, in fact they make a smaller figure. As no new data on hill-forts are available, we made use of data from the traditional lists. Accordingly, in the period from 1886 to 2000, 152 hill-forts were investigated in Lithuania. Investigations are considered to be any documented excavations of an area not smaller than 1m2 . Investigations of a hill-fort are considered to be excavations of the area and defensive ramparts (including slopes).In all investigated hill-forts the total area makes 3,7 ha investigated (on average 244 m2 per hill-fort), however, almost 80 % of investigations were carried out on areas of hill-forts (Fig. 2). Their were investigated at a rate of 6% of total area only. Two of them were investigated fully, namely the areas of the Kereliai and Vaitekūnai hill-forts. The investigated area of defensive ramparts in the hill-forts per hill-fort is even smaller and reaches on the average only 112 m 2 (the ramparts being investigated in each other hill-fort). Therefore, basing on the accumulated data, we may speak only about a reliable idea of hill-fort area. Usually the hill-fort is the main part of a bigger complex of archaeological monuments, which consists of a foot settlement, a cemetery and a holy site, mostly unknown. Investigations of foot settlements and cemeteries allocated to the hill-fort may remarkably extend the idea about the hill-fort itself, however, only few of the former were investigated at large. Most data were received from investigations at the Kernave complex. There was fully investigated a farmstead from the 14th century occupying the area of about 1000 m2 what allows at least approximately to evaluate density of development of settlements not yet investigated. It seems that settlements were denser developed in previous epochs. The material from cemeteries is not sufficient to evaluate populations of human communities, which had abandoned hill-fort complexes. How to speak about the structure of then society, basing on investigated complexes of a hill-fort and a settlement or a cemetery, when even elementary data are lacking.Interpretation on the excavated material from hill-forts, even if this material was published, is often rather problematic. Converting the material investigated mostly by paleoosteological aspect per one eaten animal, we get that one animal had all in all 4-25 bones and was eaten each 3-6 years what is an obvious nonsense. These simple calculations show that, considering the present level of investigation rate of hill-forts, we may speak only about the most common tendencies in their dynamics. Leaving such conclusions aside, we must declare that the mosaic method in studies on hill-forts where a desirable picture is received by combining various details from different hill-forts, has already exhausted its possibilities. A new, more individual and more realistic picture of the hill-fort should disclose, first of all, its authentic structure, what may be achieved only after large investigations. This structure should be dynamic, based on a range of different variables, from choice of a place for a hill-fort up to its present view. [From the publication]