FORTIFIKACIJSKI SISTEMI BRONČANODOBNIH NASELJA U ISTRI – KONCEPTI I PROMJENE FORTIFICATION SYSTEMS OF THE BRONZE-AGE SETTLEMENTS IN ISTRIA – CONCEPTS AND CHANGES

The paper presents the results of the systematic archaeological excavations of the defense system at Monkodonja Hillfort carried out between 1997 and 2008. Some characteristics of the construction and changes in it – particularly of the hill fort entrance – are compared with other Bronze-Age hillforts in Istria and Eastern Mediterranean. The paper proposes possible reasons for and datings of the changes in the rampart and gate construction that coincided with the appearance of new weapons and, consequently, with new methods of warfare

Along the east coast of Adriatic, on the islands and in the hinterland, the remains of the settlements fortified with strong, drywall ramparts are one of the most distinctive and most significant types of Bronze-Age and Iron-Age settlements.Even today, they stand out as landmarks in the landscape in many places.Partially preserved to the present day, their ramparts are visible on the terrain, particularly in the places that have not been continually inhabited through the period spanning prehistory, Antiquity, Middle Ages and the present day.Although long abandoned, they still live in memory, particularly in folk traditions -which is indicated by the place names such as gradina, kaštelir, castelliere… On some of them, small churches were built in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages, thus preserving the sanctity of these places to the present day.
Although a monograph containing the final report on the excavations and an interpretation of the architectural remains was recently published in Vol. 25 of the Monographs and Catalogues of the Archaeological Museum of 4 A. BENAC, 1985;A. BENAC, 1986; See also B. GOVEDA-RICA, 1982;A. MILOŠEVIĆ, 1998 etc. 5 Š.BATOVIĆ, 1968a.
In medias res: by its size and defense system (Fig. 1), Monkodonja hillfort can be classified as one of the central settlements in the Rovinj area, or in the area south of Lim Bay.The fact that it was surrounded by numerous smaller, mostly fortified settlements dominating the countryside can be seen as evidence of it.There is good visual communication between them (Fig. 2).In addition, Monkodonja commands an excellent view of Istria's western coast and its numerous islets, from the Brioni Archipelago to the mouth of the Lim Bay, which means it could have visual control of a large portion of the trade route that connected southern Mediterranean with Caput Adriae and the regions beyond -the River Po valley and Central Europe. 11 The founding and building of the settlement can be seen as a unique act of colonization because the settlement has a very precise and detailed plan: the entire peak of what was once 10 MONKODONJA 1, 2015.
Glavni ulaz je postavljen na užem, zapadnom kraju ovalno oblikovanog bedema.Radi se o izuzetno kompliciranoj konstrukciji, koja 16 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 461-462, 483-496.17 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 149-193, 464-468.also divided into several distinctive terraces: our excavations showed that those had mostly been built for somewhat smaller structures, so-called "terraced houses".This part was thus named the "lower town". 15 Monkodonja settlement was thus from the very beginning conceived as a place with three separate parts, each protected with its own walls: the acropolis, upper town and lower town (Fig. 1 and 4).On the one hand, this concept can be interpreted as a defense-oriented venture, enabling gradual retreat of the population should the invaders manage to fight their way in through the lines on the main rampart or gate, because the "upper town" could still offer protection and -should its walls also fall -there would still be the acropolis as the last stand.On the other hand, this division into three parts probably also reflected the social hierarchy of the Monkodonja population -but it is beyond the scope of this paper. 16 There were at least two gates in Monkodonja's main rampart, one facing west and the other facing north.Both were systematically researched (Fig. 1 and 4).The main gate, that acquired the shape of a labyrinth in its final stage, was facing the sea and fertile fields in a valley on the way to the coast.A smaller gate can be found approximately in the center of the main rampart's longer, northern side.The gate led to the pit -a consecrated area underneath the high ground, where cultic and religious rituals were probably taking place.This gate had a shape of a zig-zag corridor tapering into an elongated "entrance-hall".There may have been a third gate on the eastern side of the settlement, but we can only speculate about it on the basis of the indistinctive anomalies recorded by the geophysical surveys. 17 The excavations also revealed two gates leading to the acropolis, both on the western part 15 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 354-372.16 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 461-462, 483-496.17 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 149-193, 464-468.170 Slika 5. Monkodonja, zapadna -glavna vrata u naselje: gore -zračni snimak glavnog ulaza s restauriranim zidovima, dolje -shematski prikaz četiriju glavnih građevinskih faza ulaznog kompleksa (foto: R. Pasternak). Figure 5 Monkodonja, western gate: above -aerial photo of main gate with reconstructed walls; belowschematic drawing of four main construction stages of entrance complex (photo by R. Pasternak).
The main gate is located in the narrower, western part of the oval-shaped rampart.It is a very complicated structure that exhibits several stages of construction (Fig. 5).They reflect the gradual dynamics of the work (the walls were not pointed; they were leant against the existing wall) and, to an extent, the change of the defense concept that resulted in major extensions.This is why the main gate started resembling a labyrinth in its final stage.
But let us start from the beginning: In the first stage of the fortification work, the main gate was rather simple, boasting no particular structural elements -save for the five stairs (up to 1m wide) leading to the settlement's elevated interior (Fig. 6).The gate is placed at a corner of the rampart, where the wall that Slika 6. Monkodonja, pogled na vrata prve faze sa stepenicama koje su ostale u funkciji kroz cijelo trajanje naselja, osim što su u drugoj fazi bile u "drugom planu", na kraju predvorja (foto: M. Roeder). Figure 6 Monkodonja, gate during first stage, with stairs that remained in use throughout settlement's existence (although somewhat "pushed back" to the end of the entrance-hall during stage 2) (photo by M. Roeder).
Sličnu gradnju i obnavljanje bedema kao na glavnom ulazu u naselje pokazuje i utvrda akropole, koja je na sjevernoj strani istražena u dužini od 28 m, a na zapadnoj strani u du-19 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 198-211, Sl. 140-145. Vidi također: B. HÄNSEL et al., 2007-2008, 104-113, Sl. 18-24;B. HÄNSEL et al., 2009, 168-175, Abb. 18-23. of burial over an extended period.The bone remains found in it belong to not less than 15 persons.We believe that it was members of the leading group/family (?) of the settlement's founder and their direct descendants who were buried in the grave.This is why it had such a special memorial place at the entrance to the settlement.Particularly mysterious and interesting is the fact that grave A was covered with the wall of the newly conceived main gate in the second phase.This makes it an unquestionable terminus post quem for the large-scale reconstruction work that introduced alterations to the concept of the Monkodonja fortification. 19 Monkodonja's main gate acquired a completely different appearance in in the second stage; obviously, a totally new concept of defense was chosen (Fig. 5, stage 2).The corner that hid from view the narrow gate of the main rampart of the first stage and the corner underneath the tower, with an in-built tumulus, had now become less importantthey were almost eliminated from the face of the main rampart.From the corner tower above grave B, the rampart slightly curves to the northern rampart, thus covering grave A, and then, without forming an any angle, leans against the northern rampart some 20m north of the original gate (Fig 1 and 5 and Fig. 7).This way, the gate was now placed next to the tower with grave B, becoming integral part of the circular rampart and thus more easily defendable.Also, the extension of the semicircular wall resulted in a double gate: There was now a long entrance-hall between the new and the old gate, with long, narrow stairs on one side and extended semicircular structures (of a still unknown function) on the other side.In the final stage, the main gate was on the outer side, flanked by two other towers (risalits).The extensions that 19 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 198-211, Sl. 140-145. See also B. HÄNSEL et al., 2007-08, 104-113, fig. 18-24;B. HÄNSEL et al., 2009, 168-175, Abb. 18-23.174 žini od oko 55 m.U prvoj fazi bedem je bio razmjerno uzak, širina je na sjevernoj dionici iznosila oko 2 m, a na zapadnoj tek oko 1,2 m.Na zapadnoj strani su zidine bile podijeljene u tri arhitektonska dijela koja su činila simetrično koncipirano pročelje.Središnji dio bedema, dužine približno 30 m, bio je pomaknut za oko tri širine zida prema vani, u smjeru zapada, na svakoj je strani zaključen uglom, gdje je zid pravokutno zavijao prema istoku za oko 6 m, a zatim ponovo u pravom kutu u dužini od oko 15 m prema sjevernoj odnosno južnoj dionici bedema koje su bile također pod pravim kutom povezane s njim.U oba ugla, pomaknuta prema unutrašnjosti akropole, bili su locirani uski ulazi/vrata u akropolu, ne šira od 1 m, do kojih je vodilo nekoliko stepenica. 20 Dvoja vrata na zapadnom pročelju bedema akropole bila su, jednako kao i glavna vrata u naselje, u prvoj fazi uvučena i skrivena u ugaonim točkama bedema (Sl.8a, 1. faza).Nema 20 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 278-289, Sl. 218-226, Prilozi 4 i 6.
followed the second stage in the main gate area, designated as stages 3 and 4, made the gate look like a labyrinth (Fig. 5, stage 3 and 4).The idea was to ensure additional protection for the gate and increase the chances of repelling potential invaders.
On the rampart of the fortification around the acropolis, researched 28 meters in length in the north and approx.55 meters in length in the west, similar construction and reconstruction works as on the main gate can be seen.In the first stage the rampart was relatively narrow -its width was approx.2m on its northern section and merely 1.20m on the western section.On the western side, the walls were divided in three distinctive architectural parts that formed a symmetrical front.The central section of the rampart, approx.30m long, was shifted outward (westward) by three widths of the wall.It had a corner on each side.The wall made a right-angle turn to the east, ran in that direction for around 6m and then, making another right turn, ran for Slika 7. Monkodonja, lučni zid 2. faze, koji je na zapadnoj strani branio cijeli ulazni kompleks i bio je prislonjen na sjeverni bedem (foto: R. Pasternak). Figure 7 Monkodonja, second-stage arched wall, leaning against northern rampart and defending entire entrance complex on western side (photo by R. Pasternak).
Although the rampart was repeatedly repaired and continuously extended, particularly important for us here is the so-called stage 4, or the second stage in this article, when substantial changes in the reconstruction of the western section of the acropolis rampart took place (Fig. 8 B: stage 2) 21 .All the corners were eliminated; without interruption and in a slightly curved line, the wall ran from the NW to SW corners of the fortification.The south gate remained as the only entrance to the acropolis; after extensions of the rampart had been made, primarily south of the gate, the gate became fully integrated into the rampart's newly-built front (Fig. 9).Unlike this gate, the northern gate of stage 1 was removed and sealed up.A completely new part of the rampart was built, using a completely new method -so-called cassette or box-like structure.Only in the rampart's core was the original wall from the first stage partially preserved.This new building method increased the stability of the walls while enabling greater width (reaching 4-5m in this section), not to mention height. 22This meant that every point on the top of the wall commanded an unrestricted view of the whole western side along the acropolis rampart (because there were no corners).It also offered perfect control over the "upper town" (western part of the settlement) and the main rampart, while providing a great view of the sea and thus enabling better and timely defense.
In short, having undergone thorough reconstruction in the second (that is, fourth) stage, the rampart became much wider and 21 In order to avoid any misunderstandings, it should be noted that the final construction of the acropolis wall is designated in this paper as the second stage.In MONKODO-NJA 1, 2015 it is designated as stage 4.
Pored moćnih zidina na Monkodonji je otkriven još jedan neobičan obrambeni element kojega nismo posebno provjerili iskopava-stronger.Its western section became curved, like the main gate in the final stage.Its south gate, now the only one, became rather inconspicuous and was additionally strengthened (Fig. 10).It must have been more reassuring.Despite this, the acropolis succumbed to unknown invaders, as is indicated by several finds of weapons, mostly in front of the acropolis wall. 23 In a nutshell, the features of Monkodonja's main rampart and the acropolis rampart indicate that the entire defense system was built with deliberation and using the same principles.In the first stage of the construction, the defense walls did not run straight; instead, particularly near the entrances/gates, they would turn at right angles.The angles were recessed inward and gates were built in them (Fig. 4: stage 1 and 8 A: stage 1).Obviously, 23 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 144-147, 303-305, Fig. 94  njima.Pod glavnim bedemom na obronku uzvisine, i to desno i lijevo od glavnog ulaza, postoje, naime, nizovi razmjerno gusto postavljenih i nepravilno razmještenih, do oko 1 m visokih šiljatih kamenih prepreka, koje onemogućavaju slobodan pristup do bedema.Očito se radi o posebnoj obrambenoj strukturi, koju možemo usporediti s novodobnim tzv."frizijskim konjima" (chevaux de fries) odnosno "španjolskim jahačima" (spanische Reiter) (Sl.11).Takve obrambene konstrukcije su poznate i kod drugih istarskih gradina kao npr.kod Vrčina i Gradca -Turna, i također drugdje, npr.Coppa Nevigata u Apuliji i Gla u Grčkoj. 24Uz to, moramo navesti da su takve prepreke služile prije svega protiv 24 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 239-243, Sl. 181-188. Vidi također: K. MIHOVILIĆ, 1997;K. MIHOVILIĆ, B. HÄNSEL, B. TERŽAN, 2013, 69-71, Fig. 12-14.at some point in time, such level of protection of the gates to the settlement and to the acropolis and the rather narrow walls could not ensure satisfactory defense of the settlement any more.As a result, the fortification concept was completely changed; comprehensive reconstruction of the ramparts began and all the corners were eliminated from them, thus giving the ramparts (together with the main gate) a curved shape (Fig. 4: stage 2 and 8 B: stage 2).The idea was probably to reduce the efficiency of the enemy's weapons and -possibly -of their battle tactics.
In addition to the powerful walls, another unusual defense element was found at Monkodonja, although it was outside the focus of our excavations.Underneath the main rampart, on the slop of the high ground, both to the right and to the left of the main gate, numerous stone barriers can be seen.Rather densely Slika 11.Monkodonja, kamene prepreke -tzv."frizijski konji" ili "španjolski jahači" -na zapadnom obronku gradine, između zapadnih i sjevernih vrata (foto: K. Mihovilić). Figure 11 Monkodonja, stone barriers -so-called "Friesian horses" or "Spanish riders" -on hillfort's western slope, between western and northern gates (photo by K. Mihovilić).
Kada se u okviru brončanog doba to događalo ukazuju radiokarbonske datacije koje smo dobili iz koštanih uzoraka s Monkodonje.Uzorci su bili analizirani u laboratoriju Sveučilišta u Kielu, a statistički ih je obradio i modelirao (wigglematching) B. Weninger sa Sveučilišta u Kölnu. 29Tako raspolažemo s oko 27 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 170-172, Sl. 119-120, 323: 7-8. Vidi također: R. BATTAGLIA, 1958;G. CODACCI-TER-LEVIĆ et. al., 2015. 28 H.-D. i E. KASPAR, 2014, 147-149.29 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 424-452, 504-509, Sl. 318-320.there have helped us establish it was built in several stages (Fig. 13), just like the main gate at Monkodonja.Also, Karašak is interesting because of its large stone slabs -orthostatsthat were once probably embedded in the inner and outer faces of the rampart and that, by their size, can be compared with the huge blocks found in Monokodnja's main rampart in the immediate vicinity of the north gate. 26 The gate at Vrčin hillfort, excavated in the 1920s, had also been built in several stages.These stages are very complex because the gate area was also used as a necropolis, containing a number of stone-cist graves placed on special pedestals in walled plots.Despite the complexity, we tried to show that the individual stages of construction, in which the ramparts were extended and the gate acquired a labyrinth-like shape, exhibit the features comparable to those of the main gate at Monkodonja. 27 Similar structures of original ramparts and later extensions were also identified at some Istrian hillforts that were sketched or drawn, but never excavated.One such example is Monvi hillfort near Rovinj.A sketch reveals an entrance in the corner of the rampart in the first stage of its construction -like in Monkodonja's first stage -and a semicircular line of the rampart formed in a subsequent stage. 28 The abovementioned examples of Istrian hillforts exhibit the same characteristics and changes in construction of their ramparts as the ones found at Monkodonja, although there are some locally-specific differences, too.It is our thesis that, in the formative stage of the Castellieri culture, there was a single fortification construction concept in place in Istria and that, over time, potential threats probably made it inefficient, thus triggering substantial changes in the fortification systems.Over 26 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 168-179, Fig. 117. See also B. BAĆIĆ, 1970;K. MIHOVILIĆ et al., 2001, 58-59.27 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 170-172, Fig. 119-120, 323: 7-8.See also R. BATTAGLIA, 1958;G. CODACCI-TERLEVIĆ et al., 2015. 28 H.-D. andE. KASPAR, 2014, 147-149.183 40 upotrebljivih i sigurnih datacija na osnovi kojih možemo s velikom sigurnošću datirati kako početnu fazu bedema tako i glavnu pregradnju bedema prema novom obrambenom konceptu.
Možda se radi o uvođenju novih obrambenih koncepata po uzoru na fortifikacijske sustave u Egejskom odnosno istočnomediteranskom prostoru, koji su poznati u Kolonni na otoku Egini ili Troji.Na Egini, gdje se time, all corners were removed from the defense walls and curved lines increased the efficiency of the walls in order to be a match to new war tactics and, probably, new weapons.
The radiocarbon dating performed on the bone samples from Monkodonja has given us a clue when exactly in the Bronze Age was this taking place.The samples were analyzed in the laboratory of the University of Kiel and were statistically processed and modelled (wigglematching) by B. Weninger from the University of Cologne. 29As a result, we now have some 40 usable and positive datings that can help us establish with high certainty the period of the first stage of the ramparts and the one in which extensions were made in order to meet the demands of the new defense concept.
The initial construction work that adhered to the first defense concept began around 1800 cal BC, perhaps even somewhat earlier -in the Early Bronze Age Bd A2 according to the central European relative chronological scheme 30 .The subsequent intensive reconstruction of the ramparts in accordance with the new defense concept took place around 1600 cal BC, maybe even in the late 17 th century BC, but certainly in the first half of the 16 th century BC.This roughly corresponds to Bd A3-B1 -the transition to Middle Bronze Age.The settlement experienced a disaster around 1500 cal BC (in the mid-15 th century BC), which corresponds to Bd B2-C1.Two or three radiocarbon datings indicate that, even after its disastrous fall, life in Monkodonja continued into Late Bronze Age, albeit not nearly as vibrant as before.However, no traces of efforts to reassume the construction work and no structural remains were found during our excavations.
Perhaps these new defense concepts were modeled after the fortification systems in the Aegean region (and Eastern Mediterranean in general), like the well-known ones in Kolonna on the island of Aegina and in Troy.The settlement on Aegina, dating back to the early 3 rd millennium BC, was built in several stages.Its powerful rampart was extended in the 7 th or 8 th stage (approx.2000 BC), when the outer rampart circuit was added, with its intricately structured entrances and protected arched walls, towers and bastions. 31Although the comparison with Troy may seem farfetched and daring, the conceptual similarities between the defense systems of Troy and Monkodonja are striking.In Troy, substantial changes in the construction of defense walls can be seen between Troy II and Troy VI (Fig. 14).The ramparts from Troy II period change their directions by making many turns at right and obtuse angles, just like the Monkodonja rampart in its first stage.However, the walls of Troy VI run in a completely different way: Built to increase the protected zone of the city, the extended slightly curved rampart encircles it, just like the Monkodonja rampart in its second stage.The only difference is that the walls of Troy are additionally protected by two or three towers, two of which are located in the immediate vicinity of the entrance/ gate.So there were several gates that led to the city during Troy II and Troy VI periods.All the gates had different structures.This fact probably indicates a very elaborate and refined defense strategy.The same applies to Monkodonja: The western (main) gate differs from 31 MONKODONJA 1, 2015, 174-177, Fig. 122-123. See also H. WALTER, F. FELTEN, 1981.kodonji.U Troji su prisutna konceptualna rješenja i promjene pri gradnji obrambenog bedema koje nisu posve različite od onih na Monkodonji i nekim drugim gradinama u Istri.
the northern gate in the main rampart, both in the initial and final stages of the settlement (Fig. 1); as for the acropolis gates, one was abandoned and sealed up and the other was extended and additionally protected (Fig. 8).We should note here that Troy VI and Monkodonja were almost contemporaries.The reconstruction of Troy's rampart took place in the 17 th century BC 32 -not much earlier than at Monkodonja.The conceptual solutions and changes in the construction of the defense wall are not totally different from the ones found at 32 M. KORFMANN, D. MANNSPERGER, 1998, Abb. 41, 45, 48, Beilage 1;M. KORFMANN, 2001, 347-349, Abb. 368, 403;M. KLINKOTT, R. BECKS 2001, 407-414, Abb. 461.
Another reason for the change in the defense strategy of Istrian hillforts should perhaps be sought in the new warfare techniques. 33As we know, various new assault weapons were introduced in Europe in the runup to the Middle Bronze Age (Bd B1), primarily swords and spears 34 , but also armed horsemen (cavalry) 35  and new accoutrement (e.g.conical helmets 36 and shields 37 ).It resulted in new a new kind of warfare, more frequent conquests and raids and -consequently -new defense strategies and rampart reconstructions.As mentioned above, Monkodonja has not yet yielded finds that would help us interpret the conceptual change in the defense wall introduced approx.1600 BC.Only a few weapons were found, suggesting that its fall around 1500 BC was caused by a military defeat and that the defense system failed to fend off the invaders.
As a conclusion, the Monkodonja fortification system reflects the changes that must have been connected with two -if not three -relevant historical processes: the founding/ colonization of the settlement, directly connected with the formative stage of the Castellieri culture (stage 1); a new fortification concept resulting in substantial reconstruction of the ramparts as an answer to the challenges of the new warfare (stage 2); and the ensuing turbulent period of turmoil, migrations and new military elites 38 that would culminate a
century or two later, at the turn of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.
This paper, dedicated to the memory of esteemed Professor Šime Batović, aims at encouraging young archaeologists to continue his work and, with Monkodonja in mind, carry out systematic archaeological excavations and thus gain a deeper insight into the prehistoric fortified settlements in Eastern Adriatic.This is the only way to better understand our past and, thus, our future.

Figure 4
Monkodonja, schematic plan of settlement divided into acropolis, upper town and lower town.

Figure 9
Monkodonja, A -south acropolis gate (left: reconstructed ramparts; right: during excavations); Bschematic drawing of stages of construction of south acropolis gate (photo by R. Pasternak).

Figure 12
Hillfort on Veliki Brijun island, schematic drawing of stages of construction of entrance complex(A. VITASOVIĆ, 2002; modified).

Figure 14
Troy, schematic drawing of all stages, including Troy II (ocher) and Troy VI (red), relevant for this paper (according to M. KORFMANN, D. MANNSPERGER 1998).