Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 99

Bernhard Hänsel †, Kristina Mihovilić and Biba Teržan Fortif cation Concepts of the Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria

T e hillfort settlement of Monkodonja, located in the vicinity of the town Rovinj, is representative of the Bronze Age Castellieri culture in Istria. Twelve years of excavations that lasted one month each year re- vealed a proto-urban settlement with extensive fortif cation system, and a tripartite division of its interior that could well ref ect the hierarchical social structure of its inhabitants. Remarkably, a change in the forti- f cation concept during the time of the settlement’s existence could also be observed. With regard to bronze objects and ceramic f nds the settlement is dated generally between the developed Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, or in Br A2 and Br B1 periods according to the chronology of Paul Reinecke. Moreover, about 40 radiocarbon dates from the Monkodonja settlement have also been analysed. T e foundation of the settlement is dated to around 1800 cal BC. T e second extensive building phase, including the rebuilding of the fortif cation system according to new defensive concepts, is dated approxi- mately to 1600 cal BC, while the destruction of the settlement occurred around 1500 cal BC or in the middle of the 15th century BC at the latest.

Introduction Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani). So far, the results are presented in the volume discussing T e hillfort of Monkodonja,1 located in the vicin- architectural remains of the Monkodonja settle- ity of Rovinj, represents one of the best preserved ment,3 whereas the second volume presents the and most important settlements of the Bronze ceramic f nds.4 T e last volume, discussing metal, Age Castellieri culture in Istria.2 As such it has bone and stone f nds is to be published in 2019.5 been the subject of systematic archaeological ex- T e principal aim of this paper is to present cavations, which continued for twelve years from the fortif cation system of the Monkodonja settle- 1997 to 2008, although each excavation season ment and to point out the changes in its concept, lasted only four weeks. It should be mentioned which occurred in the period of transition from that the research was conducted as an interna- the Early to the Middle Bronze Age. Remarkably, tional project, based on the collaboration between such changes in the construction of fortif cations the Free University of Berlin (Freie Universität can be observed not only at Monkodonja, but also Berlin) and the Archaeological Museum of Istria at several other Bronze Age hillforts as well and in Pula (Arheološki muzej Istre) together with also known by the name of castellieri or gradine in associated institutions of the Heritage Museum the territory of Istria. T is means that the change of Rovinj (Zavičajni muzej Grada Rovinja) and in the fortif cation concept should be understood the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of as the result of a historical process, most probably Arts, University of Ljubljana (Arheološki oddelek as a consequence of perpetual armed conf ict and introduction of new methods in conducting battle. T e hillfort of Monkodonja can best be de- 1 T e article was translated into English by Miha Kun- stelj (Vrhnika). Figs.1-5a. 6-7. 11a were taken from scribed as a central settlement in the region to the the publication Monkodonja I, 2015; therefore, for their authors see that publication, p. 588. To them and to Ida Murgelj (Ljubljana), Vesna Svetličič (Ljubljana) 3 As in the present article we mostly refer to this publi- and Damir Matošević (Rovinj) we would like to ex- cation, it will be further cited in the abridged form as press our sincere thanks for drawings and photo- Monkodonja I. graphs. 4 Monkodonja II. 2 Mihovilić 2013. 5 Monkodonja III in press. 100 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan

Fig. 1 Monkodonja hillfort with surroundings and coastline in the background (af er Monkodonja I) south of the Lim Channel/Limski Kanal.6 It was General Layout and Building Technique surrounded by several smaller settlements, which were situated on dominant hilltops and likewise T e founding of the settlement was clearly an act frequently fortif ed.7 Due to their elevated posi- of colonization. T e area of the settlement was tion, some of the settlements also had good vis- well planned in advance, as is evidenced by its oval ibility, allowing a kind of visual communication outline, consisting of several clearly distinct and between each other, as for example with smoke enclosed areas that are separated by broad stone signals or the like. T e location of the Monko- walls, which thus form a complex defensive sys- donja settlement enabled, in addition, control tem (Fig. 2b). T e construction of fortif cations as over the important Adriatic maritime route along well as buildings required extensive stonemasonry the Istrian coast (Fig. 1).8 work, which was obviously conducted on the site and also included the targeted hewing of stone blocks (Fig. 2a). In this respect, the f rst settlers re- shaped the stony ground of the future settlement according to their needs and wishes.9 T e entire settlement was enclosed with de- 6 Hänsel et al. 2007-2008, 87-91 Fig. 5; 2009, 154-158 fensive walls, representing the main fortif cation, Fig. 5; Monkodonja I, 52-59. 496-500 Figs. 15. 17. 20. 331. which stretched around the oval-shaped plateau 7 Here we should mention the recent archaeological ex- for more than 800 m (Figs. 2b. 3). T e dry-stone cavations at the nearby hilltop-settlement of Monbro- walls were erected in the so-called emplekton tech- do, located directly on the coastline, where besides the nique, with two parallel walls and a f lled core be- fortif cation from the Late Iron Age period, also walls tween them. T e settlement had at least two, but of the Bronze Age fortif cation have been discovered, most probably as many as three entrance gates. which can be assigned to the same period as the forti- T e northern entrance features a zigzag-shaped f cations in Monkodonja basing on associated ceramic f nds (see Müller et al. 2016). 8 Monkodonja I, 49-50 Figs. 14. 22. 9 Monkodonja I, 61-67 Figs. 24. 29. Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 101

Fig. 2 Monkodonja. a Schematic drawing of reconstructed original contours of the hill in cross-section, which was changed with stonecutting during the settlement’s construction; b Schematic drawing of the settlement ground plan with tripartite division, con- sisting of the acropolis area, the Upper and the Lower Town (a-b: af er Monkodonja I, altered) gateway, leading out to a large cave, possibly con- T e central part of the settlement was addi- nected with cult activities, and farther towards tionally fortif ed with massive walls delimiting the hinterland. T e most important entrance was the so-called acropolis area.11 T is central section located to the west, facing the seashore side and is surrounded by more or less concentric terraces, can be considered as the main gate. T roughout forming the areas of the Upper and the Lower time the gates underwent repeated improvement Town, which were further separated by a somewhat work, which consequently resulted in a kind of a less monumental wall (Figs. 2b. 3).12 labyrinth-like entrance structure.10

11 Monkodonja I, 273-307. 469-472 Appendix 4. 10 Monkodonja I, 111-193. 462-469 Appendix 2. 12 Monkodonja I, 342-372. 102 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan

Fig. 3 Monkodonja. Aerial view of the excavated and restored areas of the settlement in 2007 (af er Monkodonja I)

It is obvious that a building concept with a tri- ment area along the fortif cation wall located be- partite division had been used for the settlement tween them, the north-western part of the acro- construction from its very beginning. As a result, polis area as well as two considerably large trenches the settlement was erected on three dif erent levels on the western and three on the southern terraces that were separated from one another by an en- of the Lower Town (Fig. 3). During the course of closing wall. Such a tripartite division of the settle- this research, remains of a large number of vari- ment represents a complex defensive system and ous structures were unearthed together with enor- most probably also ref ects the social structure of mous amounts of pottery13 and bone f nds. T e its inhabitants, which was hierarchical in nature. bronze and stone f nds were not as numerous, but T e long-term excavations enabled systematic are nonetheless very interesting, as they point to exploration of the fortif cations as well as of larger areas within the settlement, such as the western and northern gates together with the inner settle- 13 Cf. Monkodonja II. Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 103 the various activities conducted there or even in- not be much earlier. It seems that the position of dicate specif c events occurring in the settlement.14 the grave B functioned as a kind of marker in the Several building phases of the settlement could landscape for the location of the entrance area be established, yet two of them are particularly and conditioned the orientation of the fortif ca- important for the understanding of the period in tion wall in its southern section, forming a corner which the hillfort was occupied. T e f rst building directly around the grave cist, above which a bas- phase represents the founding of the settlement tion was built. On the other hand, the position of and the construction of the entire fortif cation the grave also determined the location of the main system. T e second major phase, which is also the gateway in the right angle of the fortif cation wall last, encompasses the large-scale renovations both (Fig. 4a-b, in the right corner of the f gures). T us, on the main fortif cation structures as well as in it can be stated that the erection of the grave-cist B the acropolis area. together with its f rst interment had obviously been connected with the founding of the settle- ment and the initial construction of the hillfort. West Gate Area In a similar manner, the stone grave-cist A, placed in a rectangular, stone-built structure, T e best insights into the various building activ- also seems to be conceptually integrated into the ities can be gained at the main gate to the settle- gate , rather than being erected in an ment, which was positioned on the west side of already f nished gateway. In the f rst construc- the main fortif cation. Its complex structure re- tion phase the grave A had been a vealed several construction phases, which are the free-standing structure (Fig. 4a, stage 1), placed result of successive building stages that can part- in front of the gate, whereas later it was covered ly be discerned also in a chronological sense and and obscured by the fortif cation wall, which can which resulted in a labyrinth-like entrance struc- be ascribed to the second construction phase of ture by the latest phase of the gate construction the main walls (Fig. 4a, stages 2–4). Actually, the (Fig. 4a-b).15 grave-cist A provides the best terminus post quem In the f rst fortif cation phase the gate had a for the large-scale renovations of the entire fortif - rather simple design without any special struc- cation system of the Monkodonja settlement. tures and with a width of not more than one me- T e schematic drawing of dif erent construc- ter. T e entrance was placed exactly at the point tion phases in the area of the main gate (Fig. 4a) at which the fortif cation wall changed its course clearly demonstrates how dramatically the forti- in a right angle and continued some ten meters f cation concept changed throughout time. T e farther towards the west only to make another right-angle corners, characteristic of the initial right angle turn and delineate the corner in which construction phase (stage 1), were subsequently a tower was constructed (Fig. 4a, stage 1). Special omitted and a slightly curved wall was built in- attention should be drawn also to the fact that two stead, connecting the former corner of the tower graves had been located in the vicinity of the gate, and the main fortif cation wall placed more to which were subsequently integrated in the fortif - the back (stage 2). Such modif cations resulted in cation system. an entrance with no obvious corners, which, as it We discovered namely two meticulously con- seems, was easier to defend. Moreover, the same structed stone cists – the so-called graves A and rebuilding also included the construction of addi- B – which represent a prominent burial place, not tional gates in front of the already existing one and least because of their relation to the main gate the construction of further walls delineating spaces structures of Monkodonja.16 T e small mound or rooms between the former and newly erected above the grave B presumably preceded the con- fortif cation wall (stages 3–4). Outside of the new- struction of the main defensive walls within the ly-built curved wall two tower-like constructions West Gate area, although most probably it can- were erected on both sides of the entrance (stages 3–4). T e entire structure of the main gate gained the impression of a labyrinth-like entrance, which 14 Monkodonja III in press. 15 Monkodonja I, 148-177. 464-469. could ensure better protection and defence against 16 Hänsel et al. 2007-2008, 95-117 Figs. 9-23; 2009, 161- potential attackers. 175 Figs. 9-23; Monkodonja I, 194-224 Appendix 2. 104 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan

Fig. 4 Monkodonja. T e West Gate in the main fortif cation wall: a Schematic drawing of the four main building phases of the principal gateway to the settlement; b Aerial photograph of the West Gate af er the conclusion of archaeological excavations and restoration work on the walls (a-b: af er Monkodonja I) Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 105

Acropolis fortif cation dicular walls forming cassette- or box-like struc- tures between the outer and the inner front of the Comparable constructions and rebuilding of the wall, f lled with stones (Fig. 5b, blue phase). Sim- walls with right-angle corners into the curved ilar reinforcements and remodelling of the front walls without angles have been ascertained also at could be observed also south from the entrance the western side of the acropolis fortif cation of gates in the southern section, while in the mid- Monkodonja, which was the main and the most dle section of the west front wall the renewal was representative front of the acropolis fortif cation conducted on the inner side of the existing wall. wall (Fig. 5a-b). T rough constant constructional T is manner of construction made fortif cation additions, the initial, relatively narrow fortif ca- structures solid and stable, while the imposing tion wall was considerably reinforced and wid- wall-width of up to 5 m also indicates their envi- ened during several building phases, of which able height, which in our estimation could have particularly the f rst and the last one should be reached up to 4–5 m. From the top of the defen- pointed out.17 sive wall there was now an unhindered view of the In the f rst building phase the western wall was entire western side of the acropolis fortif cation divided into three sections, what gave the front a and consequently its defence was much easier. symmetrical outline. T e middle section of the Af er the renovation of the western acropolis wall, about 30 m long, protruded for a few meters wall and the remodelling of its front, the position towards the west and was f anked on both sides of the only remaining gate in the southern section by a recessed entrance. T ese two gates were po- became much more obscured from the view than sitioned in the right-angle of the wall exactly in before. As a whole, the acropolis fortif cation now the same manner as the western gateway in the emerged as an insurmountable obstacle and prac- main fortif cation and were also equally narrow, tically unconquerable. As such, it must have of- their width amounting to just about one meter. To fered greater safety to its inhabitants, even though the side of both entrances the wall continued for it did not prevent its f nal violent destruction. about 15 m or more to form corners both with T e constructional similarities observed in the northern and southern section of the fortif ca- the continuous line of the wall fronts, both at the tion wall (Fig. 5b. 6a, red phase). Both gates thus main fortif cation and at the fortif cation of the formed the right-angle corners in the acropolis acropolis area, as well as the improved protec- west fortif cation wall, identically as in the case of tion of the gateways provide clear evidence for a the West Gate in the main fortif cation. T is en- new conceptual undertaking, which was careful- abled us to propose that such constructional ele- ly planned and obviously also urgently needed in ments were typical for the building concept in the order to guarantee greater security and better de- foundation phase of the settlement. fence to the inhabitants. T e last rebuilding thoroughly changed the character of the acropolis fortif cation. All of the corners and angles of the western wall were omit- North Gate Area ted and the front of the wall now had a continuous, slightly curved line, stretching from the northern On the northern side of the main fortif cation corner of the fortif cation towards the southern there was yet another gate,18 which displays a one (Fig. 5b. 6b, blue phase). In this construction somewhat dif erent entrance passage in compar- phase, only the gate in the southern section of the ison with the West Gate of the main fortif cation acropolis western front wall were preserved, thus or the gates of the acropolis area (Fig. 7a-b). On staying in function throughout the entire period their inner side it was f anked with rectangular of the settlement occupation. In contrast, the gate structures, forming bastion-like or so-called pin- in the northern section of the west front wall were cer gate (Zangentor), which narrowed the passage completely eliminated. T e entrance was walled to the settlement. T e approach to the gate from up and in its place a newly constructed, solid for- outside was channelled through a zigzag corridor, tif cation wall was built, which featured exactly in built of huge stone blocks. T e corridor passed the this area additional reinforcements with perpen- area with artif cially hewn stone terraces and led

17 Monkodonja I, 273-307 Appendix 4. 18 Monkodonja I, 178-193. 106 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan

Fig. 5 Monkodonja. a Aerial view of the acropolis area af er the conclusion of archaeological excavations and restoration work on the fortif cation; b Schematic drawing with the fortif cation line on the western side of the acropolis area (red colour - f rst stage; blue colour - second stage) with drawings of its reconstruction (a: af er Monkodonja I; b: drawing by I. Murgelj and M. Schnelle) Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 107

Fig. 6 Monkodonja. a Ground plan of the excavated northwest area of the acropolis with the f rst building phases of the fortif cation (red colour); b Ground plan of the younger building phase with the last rebuilding of fortif cation (blue colour) (a-b: af er Monkodonja I, altered) 108 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan

Fig. 7 Monkodonja. North Gate of the main fortif cation wall: a Aerial view; b Drawing (a-b: af er Monkodonja I) to the precipitous hole of a vertical cave – an area, Istria such as at Vrčin and Gradac-Turan near Ko- which in all probability functioned as a specif c romačno, and also elsewhere, such as in Apulia at cult place. A rather particular construction of this Coppa Nevigata20 and some sites in Greece. T eir northern entrance, the position of which was ob- function is generally associated with protection viously dependent upon the location of the cave against mounted attackers. in the slope of Monkodonja hill, could possibly be interpreted as a hidden and fairly safe pathway, used for particular ritual practices. Change of the Defensive Concept: Additional defensive features for the protection Monkodonja in Context of the Castellieri of the Monkodonja settlement have been discov- Culture ered on the slopes of the hill, especially between the northern and western gates of the main fortif cation Due to our extensive research at the settlement of and to the south of the latter. Here we documented Monkodonja it is now possible to discern nearly several groupings of stone obstacles in pillar- the same kind of defensive constructions as well like shapes, which were up to one meter high.19 as conceptual changes and renewals of fortif ca- Such obstacles are typical of a specif c type of de- tion systems, especially of gates, in several other fensive structures, which can be paralleled with the Castellieri settlements in Istria and in the Karst so-called “chevaux de frise” or “Spanish rider” of Region.21 Here we wish to present only some of the early modern period. Such defensive structures the fortif cation examples that have been either are known also from other hillfort settlements in discovered in the past or can still be seen, and

19 Mihovilić et al. 2013, 69-71 Figs. 12-14; Monkodonja 20 See Recchia/Cazzella in this volume. I, 238-243 Figs. 181-188. 21 Monkodonja I, 168-174. 464-466 Figs. 117-121. 323. Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 109

Fig. 8 Gradina on the Veliki Brijun/Brioni Island. a View of the gate from outside of the settlement; b Ground plan and cross-sections of the excavated area of the gate, leading to the settlement (the numbers indicate various building phases; according to Vitasović 2000) (a: photo by K. Mihovilić; b: drawing by I. Murgelj) which of er further considerations or support for place already in the early 20th century, and from our observations and research at Monkodonja. Monvi near Rovinj,25 where the f rst excavations T e relatively comprehensible case of the gates were conducted only in the last year.26 at the settlement of Gradina on the Veliki Bri- In general, it can be stated that the four exam- jun/Brioni Island22 demonstrates features, built ples of excavated gates at the settlements of Mon- throughout several construction or rebuilding kodonja, Veliki Brijun/Brioni Island, Karaštak and phases, which are almost identical to the exam- Vrčin dif er in details, but nevertheless demonstrate ples discovered at the West Gate of the main for- clear similarities in their constructional concepts. tif cation at Monkodonja (Fig. 8a-b). Overall, In the f rst building phase, during the settlement the f rst building phase of the gateway at Gradina foundation, the fortif cation walls had been still rel- still shows rather simple gates, which by the last atively narrow (about 1.5 to 2 m), while the gate- construction phase were doubled and integrated ways were rather simple constructions, obscured by within a curved course of the fortif cation wall. the angles or corners of the projecting fortif cation Likewise, the settlement of Karaštak,23 located to walls in order to safeguard the settlement entrances. the east of Rovinj and characterised by its fortif - T roughout the period of the settlement occupation cation walls made of large stone blocks and slabs the fortif cation walls and the gates were repaired or orthostats, also features gates with several con- and renewed several times, so that in the last phase struction phases (Fig. 9a-c), comparable to the the width of the fortif cation walls in the case of examples at Monkodonja and on the Veliki Bri- the Monkodonja settlement reached about 5 m and jun/Brioni Island. Further fortif ed settlements more, whereas its height is estimated to have been 5 with similar complete examples of gateway struc- m or possibly even more. In the f nal rebuilding of tures, which had been rebuilt several times and the fortif cations the defensive concept was changed, display identical fortif cation concepts as in the the walls now had a continuous line without angles case of Monkodonja, are known from the hillfort and corners, and the gates were much better forti- of Vrčin,24 where archaeological excavations took

25 Kaspar/Kaspar 2014, 147-149. 22 Vitasović 2000; Monkodonja I, 169-170. 464-466 Figs. 26 For the information about the excavations, led by 118. 323,9-10. S. Müller and M. Čuka, we wish to thank our colleague 23 Baćić 1970; Mihovilić et al. 2001, 58-59; Monkodonja A. Hellmuth Kramberger, who also informed us that I, 169-170 Fig. 117. the ceramic discovered during the excavations contains 24 Monkodonja I, 170-172. 464-466 Figs. 119-120. the same types that can be found at Monkodonja as 323,7-8; Mihovilić 2015, 14-31 Figs. 1-2. 4. 8. well; cf. Monkodonja II. 110 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan

Fig. 9 Karaštak hillfort near Rovinj, eastern gate in the main fortif cation wall. a View of the hill Karaštak with the hillfort; b View of the fortif cation wall remains, built with orthostats; c Ground plan of the gateway to the settlement (the numbers indicate dif erent construction stages) (a-b: photographs by D. Matošević; c: drawing by I. Murgelj) f ed. Such a defensive strategy thus became a new the basis of approx. 40 radiocarbon dates, which feature of the entire Castellieri culture. Unfortu- were analysed in the Kiel laboratory and wig- nately, we still lack reliable information regarding gle-matched by Bernhard Weninger in Cologne.27 the construction of the so-called “chevaux de frise” At present we have rather reliable data regarding or “Spanish rider”, that is, whether we could connect the foundation and f rst fortif cation constructions them with the f rst or the second building phase of at the Monkodonja hillfort. T e building works the fortif cation at Monkodonja. started around 1800 cal BC or even a bit earlier, T e question arises as to when the discussed the settlement underwent large-scale renovations concept of defence strategy had been changed? T e chronological framework of the fortif cation re- 27 Hänsel et al. 2005; 2007; Monkodonja I, 424-425. 504- buildings at Monkodonja could be established on 509 Figs. 318-320. Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 111 about 1600 cal BC or during the 16th century BC Although the comparison with Troy might at the very latest and was destroyed around 1500 seem at f rst as too distant and daring, the concep- cal BC or no later than in the middle of the 15th tual similarities in the fortif cation system between century BC. In the relative chronological sense the latter and the Monkodonja hillfort are striking. this lifespan of the Monkodonja settlement corre- At the settlement of Troy fundamental changes can sponds to the Early Bronze Age A2 period and to be observed in the construction of the fortif cation the Middle Bronze Age B–C1 period (according to walls between the phases of Troy II and Troy VI the chronological scheme of Paul Reinecke). (Fig. 10). T e course of the fortif cation walls in It is reasonable to suppose that the validity of the the time of Troy II changed in orientation through results from our research go beyond the example a series of corners with either right or obtuse an- of the Monkodonja hillfort, as they also af ect the gles in a manner similar to that established for the entire chronology of the Early and the beginning in the Monkodonja settlement in its of the Middle Bronze Age in the Istrian Peninsula f rst building phase. A completely dif erent prin- and beyond, that is, in the region along the Adri- ciple is of ered by the fortif cation of phase Troy atic coast and its hinterland. T is means that the VI, with which the area of the protected was conceptual changes in the construction of fortif - enlarged. T e fortif cation walls now encircled the cations and in defensive strategy occurred both at city in a gentle curve, which again resembles the the Monkodonja settlement as well as at several circuit of defensive walls at the Monkodonja settle- other hillforts in Istria around 1600 BC or during ment in its second building phase. T e only obvi- the transition period between Early Bronze Age A2 ous dif erence are two or three additional defensive and Middle Bronze Age B1. towers at Troy, two of which are located however in the immediate vicinity of the entrances or gates. T e conception of the latter allows us to draw fur- Causes for the Change in the Fortif cation ther comparisons between the settlements of Troy Concept and Defensive Strategy and Monkodonja. Both in the period of Troy II and Troy VI we can observe several gates leading to the On the whole, it seems that the new fortif cation settlement, all of which dif ered from one another concept was introduced, because the defensive in their construction. T is fact probably points to measures were not ef cient enough anymore and a carefully considered and sophisticated defensive the inhabitants felt their security was in danger. strategy. T e same also holds true for the Mon- What was the cause for such conceptual changes? kodonja settlement, where the western, principal It is dif cult to of er a proper answer to this ques- gateway dif ers in construction from that of the tion only on the basis of our excavations and sub- northern gates in the main fortif cation wall, both sequent research, but we nevertheless assume that in the initial and the last phase of the settlement the reasons were not simple, but instead manifold. (Figs. 4. 7). Furthermore, one of the entrances to Possibly, we could see in these changes the in- the acropolis was deleted and walled up, while the troduction of new defensive concepts following the other was additionally fortif ed and consequently fortif cation systems in the Aegean or the Eastern better protected (Figs. 5-6). It should be empha- Mediterranean area, which are known for example sised that Troy VI is fairly contemporaneous with at Kolonna on the island of Aegina or in Troy. At Monkodonja and that the rebuilding of its fortif - the multiphase settlement on Aegina, the origins cation can be placed in the period of the 17th cen- of which can be placed as early as the beginning tury BC;29 therefore, the renovation had not begun of the third millennium BC, additional con- much earlier than in Monkodonja. At Troy concep- structions of a mighty fortif cation wall had been tual solutions and changes in the construction of erected in the phase VII–VIII (around 2000 BC). its fortif cation wall can thus be observed, which In this phase they completed the outer perime- do not seem to be completely unlike those in Mon- ter fortif cation wall together with complicatedly kodonja and some other hillforts in Istria. structured gateways, which were protected with curvilinear walls and towers or bastions.28 29 Korfmann/Mannsperger 1998 Abb. 41. 45. 48 Ap- 28 Walter/Felten 1981; Monkodonja I, 174-177 Figs. pendix 1; Korfmann 2001, 347-349 Figs. 368. 403; 122-123; see Gauß in this volume. Klinkott/Becks 2001, 407-414 Fig. 461. 112 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan

Fig. 10 Troy. Schematic plan with dif erent phases of city fortif cation; important for our discussion here are especially the phases Troy II (ochre) and Troy VI (red) (according to Korfmann/Mannsperger 1998)

At the same time one further astonishing con- enough, this dating completely accords with our struction detail should be pointed out: a similar dating of the last rebuilding of the acropolis for- use of cassette- or box-like structures for the con- tif cation at Monkodonja. Either these similarities struction of the fortif cation walls was employed in constructional technique are indeed purely both on the northern section of the western side coincidental, or they point to the transmission of of the acropolis fortif cation at Monkodonja (Fig. knowledge through paths yet to be resolved. 5b. 6b, blue phase)30 as well as for the oldest forti- Another cause for the change in the defensive f cation at the Hittite capital of Hattusa. T e only strategy of the Istrian hillforts should possibly be structural dif erence lies in the fact that at Hattusa sought in the new techniques of warfare.32 As is these “interior rooms” of the so-called casemate well known, in the European territory a new type walls had been packed full of earth, while at Mon- of of ensive weapons asserted itself at the transi- kodonja they were f lled with middle- and small- tion to the Middle Bronze Age period (B1), such sized stones. Such a construction of cassette-like walls is dated at Hattusa in the 16th or more likely as early as in the late 17th century BC.31 Curiously lications we thank the colleague Andreas Schachner (DAI, Istanbul Department); cf. Seeher 2006a; 2006b, 37; Schachner 2015, 72-73. 30 Monkodonja I, 296-299 Figs. 231. 234-235 Appendix 4. 32 T e changes in the style of warfare and defence in the 31 For information about the construction mode of the Late Bronze Age have been discussed recently in a fortif cation walls in Hattusha and regarding the pub- special study; cf. Heeb et al. 2014 Fig. 29. Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 113

Fig. 11 Monkodonja. a Bronze spearhead, which was discovered under the stone rubble of the acropolis fortif cation; b Distribution map of this type of bronze spearhead, which was also discovered in Monkodonja (a: af er Monkodonja I; b: map by V. Svetličič) as bronze spears and swords,33 as well as protec- recurrent conquering expeditions and looting. tive armour (helmets,34 shields35) and perhaps also T e response came in the new strategies of settle- cavalry.36 T ese resulted in a new style ment defence and consequently in the renovation of warfare, which most probably provoked more of fortif cations. As already mentioned, at the set- tlement of Monkodonja we found no remains that 33 In the last years a lot has been written about this topic, would help us to explain the conceptual change therefore we mention here only the overviews, such as in the fortif cation walls around 1600 BC. None- Harding 2007 and Hänsel 2009 as well as the volumes theless, several pieces of weaponry (spear, axes, of “Archaeologia Homerica” dedicated to warfare; cf. dagger, stone slingshots)37 have been discovered Buchholz/Wiesner 1977; Buchholz et al. 1980; 2010. in f nd circumstances or contexts, which clearly Cf. Hansen in this volume. indicate that the cause for the end of the settle- 34 Hänsel 2003; Buchholz et al. 2010. 35 Borchhardt 1977, 6-12 Fig. 8, I-II. 36 Hüttel 1981; 1982, 58-60; Cotterel 2004; Metzner- 37 Monkodonja I, 144-146. 303-305 Figs. 93-94. 240- Nebelsick 2013, 336-337 Fig. 1. 242. 114 Bernhard Hänsel † · Kristina Mihovilić · Biba Teržan ment around 1500 BC had been a military defeat Buchholz et al. 1980 and that the fortif cation system evidently was not H.-G. Buchholz/S. Foltiny/O. Höckmann, Kriegswesen, able to withstand the assault of the aggressors. On Teil 2: Angrif swaf en. Archaeologia Homerica E 2 (Göt- tingen 1980). the basis of typological characteristics of both the spearpoint and axes from Monkodonja, which Buchholz et al. 2010 belong to the Middle European weapon types, we H.-G. Buchholz/H. Matthäus/M. Wiener, Helmentwick- lung und ein unbekannter altägäischen Bronzehelm. In: should search the place of origin for the assailants H.-G. Buchholz, Kriegswesen, Teil 3. Archaeologia Ho- of Monkodonja in the territory between the Car- merica E 3 (Göttingen 2010) 135-209. pathian Basin and the Rhineland (Fig. 11a-b).38 Cotterell 2004 A. Cotterell, Chariot. T e Astounding Rise and Fall of the World´s First War Machine (London 2004). Conclusions Hänsel 2003 B. Hänsel, Bronzene Glockenhelme. Bemerkungen zu To summarise, we can conclude that the fortif ca- einem Altfund an der Neiße. In: J. Eckert/U. Eisenhau- tion system at Monkodonja ref ects the changes, er/A. Zimmermann (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven, which were related to two, if not even three im- Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrif für portant historical developments: the f rst phase Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag. Internationale Archäolo- represents the founding colonization act, which is gie, Studia honoraria 20 (Rahden/Westf. 2003) 77-84. directly connected with the formative phase of the Hänsel 2009 Castellieri culture; the second phase comprises a B. Hänsel, Die Bronzezeit – 2200-800 v. Chr. In: S. von new fortif cation concept which led to a thorough Schnurbein (ed.), Atlas der Vorgeschichte. Europa von rebuilding of the fortif cation as a response to the den ersten Menschen bis Christi Geburt (Stuttgart 2009) challenges of the new modes of warfare; and f - 106-149. 239. nally, with the demise of the settlement starts a Hänsel et al. 2005 turbulent period of “agitation” and migrations as B. Hänsel/B. Teržan/K. Mihovilić, Radiokarbonski da- well as the formation of new military elites,39 cul- tumi ranoga i srednjeg brončanog doba u Istri. Histria Archaeologica 36, 2005, 5-46. minating a century or two later with the transition of the Middle to the Late Bronze Age. Hänsel et al. 2007 B. Hänsel/ B. Teržan/ K. Mihovilić, Radiokarbondaten zur älteren und mittleren Bronzezeit Istriens. Praehisto- rische Zeitschrif 82, 2007, 23-50. References Hänsel et al. 2007-2008 B. Hänsel/D. Matošević/K. Mihovilić/B. Teržan, O soci- Baćić 1970 jalnoj arheologiji brončanodobnog utvrđenog naselja i B. Baćić, Prilozi poznavanju prahistorijske gradinske for- grobova na Monkodonji. Histria Archaeologica 38-39, tif kacije u Istri. In: V. Mirosavljević/D. Rendić-Miočević/ 2007-2008, 81-122. M. Suić (eds.), Adriatica Praehistorica et Antiqua. Miscel- lanea Gregorio Novak dedicata (Zagreb 1970) 215-226. Hänsel et al. 2009 B. Hänsel/D. Matošević/K. Mihovilić/B. Teržan, Zur Borchhardt 1977 Sozialarchäologie der befestigten Siedlung von Monko- H. Borchhardt, Frühe griechische Schildformen. In: donja (Istrien) und ihrer Gräber am Tor. Praehistorische Buchholz/Wiesner 1977, 1-56. Zeitschrif 84, 2009, 151-180. Buchholz/Wiesner 1977 Harding 2007 H.-G. Buchholz/J. Wiesner, Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutz- A. Harding, Warriors and Weapons in Bronze Age waf en und Wehrbauten. Archaeologia Homerica E 1 Europe. Archaeolingua, Series minor 25 (Budapest 2007). (Göttingen 1977). Heeb et al. 2014 B. S. Heeb/Ch. Jahn/A. Szentmiklosi, Geschlossene Gesell- schaf ? Zur Gestaltung und Bedeutung bronzezeitlicher Festungstore. In: M. Wemhof (ed.), Festschrif Alix Hänsel. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 46, 2014, 67-103. 38 Monkodonja III in press. 39 As are attested for example in the numerous warrior Hüttel 1981 graves containing swords in the necropolis of Olmo di H. G. Hüttel, Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und Osteu- Nogara in the Veneto region; see Salzani 2005. ropa. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVI,2 (München 1981). Bronze Age Hillforts in Istria 115

Hüttel 1982 1. Iskopavanje i nalazi građevina/Forschungen zu einer H. G. Hüttel, Zur Abkunf des danubischen Pferd-Wagen- protourbanen Siedlung der Bronzezeit Istriens. Teil 1. Komplexes der Altbronzezeit. In: B. Hänsel (ed.), Südost- Die Grabung und der Baubefund. Monograf je i katalozi europa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. Prähistori sche Arheološki muzej Istre 25/ Monographien und Kataloge Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1 (Berlin 1982) 39-63. Archäologisches Museum Istriens 25 (Pula 2015). Kaspar/Kaspar 2014 Monokodonja II H.-D. und E. Kaspar, Istrien in prähistorischer Zeit (Nor- A. Hellmuth Kramberger, Monkodonja. Istraživanje pro- derstedt 2014). tourbanog naselja brončanog doba Istre. Knjiga 2/1-2, Keramika s brončanodobne gradine Monkodonja/For- Klinkott/Becks 2001 schungen zu einer protourbanen Siedlung der Bronzezeit M. Klinkott/R. Becks, Wehrmauern, Türme und Tore. Istriens. Teil 2/1-2. Die Keramik aus der bronzezeitlichen Bauform und Konstruktion der troianischen Burgbefes- Gradina Monkodonja. Monograf je i katalozi Arheološki tigung in der VI. und VII. Siedlungsperiode. In: M. Korf- muzej Istre 28/1-2/Monographien und Kataloge Archäo- mann (ed.), Troia – Traum und Wirklichkeit. Ausstel- logisches Museum Istriens 28/1-2 (Pula 2017). lungskatalog (Stuttgart 2001) 407-414. Monkodonja III (in print) Korfmann 2001 B. Hänsel†/K. Mihovilić/B. Teržan/D. Komšo/N. Puc/ M. Korfmann, Der prähistorische Siedlungshügel Hisar- B. Toškan/K. F. Achino/B. Teßmann, Monkodonja. Istra- lik. Die »zehn Städte Troias« – von unten nach oben. In: živanje protourbanog naselja brončanog doba Istre. Knjiga M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia – Traum und Wirklichkeit. 3. Nalazi/ Forschungen zu einer protourbanen Siedlung Ausstellungskatalog (Stuttgart 2001) 347-354. der Bronzezeit Istriens. Teil 3. Kleinfunde. Monograf je Korfmann/Mannsperger 1998 i katalozi Arheološki muzej Istre xx/ Monographien und M. Korfmann/D. Mannsperger, Troia. Ein historischer Kataloge Archäologisches Museum Istriens XX (Pula 2018 Überblick und Rundgang (Stuttgart 1998). – in print). Metzner-Nebelsick 2013 Müller et al. 2016 C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Gedanken zur Frage des kul- S. Müller/M. Čuka/A. Hellmuth Kramberger, Monbro- turellen Wandels in der Zeit um 1600 v. Chr. in Nord- do – nova istraživanja gradine južno od Rovinja u blizini west-Rumänien und Nordost-Ungarn. In: H. Meller/ uvale Cisterna/Monbrodo – New Research on the Hillfort F. Bertemes/H. R. Bork/R. Risch (eds.), 1600 – Kultureller South of Rovinj near the Cisterna Bay. Histria Archaeo- Umbruch im Schatten des T era-Ausbruchs? / 1600 – logica 47, 2016, 21-55. Cultural Change in the shadow of the T era-Eruption? Salzani 2005 4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Okto- L. Salzani, La necropoli dell´età del bronzo all´Olmo di ber 2011 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums Nogara. Memorie del Museo civico di storia naturale di für Vorgeschichte Halle 9 (Halle/Saale 2013) 327-353. Verona 2/8 (Verona 2005). Mihovilić 2013 Schachner 2015 K. Mihovilić, Castellieri – Gradine of the Northern Adri- A. Schachner, Die Ausgrabungen in der Unterstadt von atic. In: H. Fokkens/A. Harding (eds.), T e Oxford Hand- Hattusa (2009-2014): erste vorläuf ge Ergebnisse. In: A. book of the European Bronze Age (Oxford 2013) 864-876. D’ Agostino/V. Orsi/G. Torri (eds.), Sacred Landscapes of Mihovilić 2015 Hittites and Luwians. Proceedings of International Con- K. Mihovilić, O gradini Vrčin/ Il castelliere de Monte Orsi- ference in Honour of Franca Pecchioli Daddi, , no. In: G. Codacci-Terlević/D. Divšić/K. Mihovilić/E. Vi- February 6th-8th 2014. Studia Asiana 9 (Firenze 2015) tasović, Gradina Vrčin/ Castelliere di Monte Orsino. Kata- 67-81. logi edukacijskog odjela Arheološki muzej Istre 14 (Pula Seeher 2006a 2015) 14-31. J. Seeher, Ergebnisse der Grabungen an den Ostteichen Mihovilić et al. 2001 und am mittleren Büyükkale – Nordwesthang in den Jah- K. Mihovilić/B. Teržan/B. Hänsel/D. Matošević/C. Becker, ren 1996-2000. Boğazköy Berichte 8 (Mainz 2006). Rovinj prije Rima/ Rovigno prima dei Romani/ Rovinj Seeher 2006b vor den Römern (Kiel 2001). J. Seeher, Hattusha Guide: a Day in the Hittite Capital Mihovilić et al. 2013 (Istan bul 2006). K. Mihovilić/B. Hänsel/B. Teržan, Moncodogno e le forti- Vitasović 2000 f cazioni della costa adriatica orientale nell´età del bronzo. A. Vitasović, Gradina. Histria Archaeologica 31, 2000, Scienze dell´Antichità 19 (2/3), 2013, 65-81. 5-60. Monkodonja I Walter/Felten 1981 B. Hänsel/K. Mihovilić/B. Teržan, Monkodonja. Istraži- H. Walter/F. Felten, Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt. Befesti- vanje protourbanog naselja brončanog doba Istre. Knjiga gungen. Häuser. Funde. Alt-Ägina III,1 (Mainz 1981).