An interview with Professor Juris Urtāns, cultural historian, archaeologist, and owner of a forest and hillfort

I must say that I am both a forest and a hillfort owner. Those interested can read the book published last year about my experiences and adventures: "Life on the Dzirkaļi Hillfort". The hillfort is located in the forest; I own about 10 ha of land there, of which only 0.3 ha can be considered agricultural land in relative terms. Relative, because it is overgrown with bushes. All my free time is spent there – in the forest and on the hillfort.

Working at the National Heritage Administration, I see that public opinion is becoming greener and greener. This may be good for animals and plants, but for people, it is unusual.

While rural regions are becoming emptier, there is no real cause for great alarm, because in a historical sense, the place will not remain empty. Latvia has always been green, forested, and overgrown. If we look back to ancient times, the only continuously open areas were lakes, swamps, and the coastline. That is why lakes and swamps are mentioned so often in our folklore; one could see further across them – the view was not obstructed by trees. Fields and meadows are not such an ancient component of the landscape. Of course, it is important which period we are talking about! Even just in the last 1000 years, our territory has changed many times in terms of landscape – wars, plagues, people disappear and agricultural areas become overgrown, and then everything gradually renews itself.

The hillfort came into my possession through privatization in the 90s, when there was an opportunity to use vouchers. It was intentional. Over 20 years, I have expanded the area I own. I get along well with my neighbours if something needs to be resolved, such as landscape design or access roads. There is another circumstance, however – neighbours change; private individuals are replaced by companies, foreign companies that own land or forest areas. You will not find direct contact with them; they have representatives. If there are real people, contact is simpler and more direct.

I also deal with forest management myself – I clear, fell, and tend to it! You couldn't call it forestry, but, for instance, it is a constant battle with bushes – hazel and their shoots. The forest on the property is young, planted in the Soviet era, or it is an overgrown clear-cut. Speaking of the Dzirkaļi Hillfort, 20 or more years ago nobody knew much about it, not even the locals, but now within the parish and the municipality, the place is known. The parish council knows that a man from Riga is doing something there. If you go to the nearby school now, nobody will be surprised that there is a hillfort in the parish territory; almost everyone knows about it. 17-20 years ago, that was not the case!

Forest-covered hillforts are a common occurrence. Is there a plan to change this, to make hillforts “visible” and noticeable?

From the point of view of history and the preservation of the hillfort, the forest that has covered the hillfort has grown, been felled, burnt down, and disappeared at least 20 times... The forest does not harm the hillfort! From the perspective of the physical preservation of the hillfort, this is normal. If we want people to see, understand, discover, and enjoy the hillfort, we must look at it differently. Looking at the experience of neighbouring countries, the forest is not the most terrible “pest” for a hillfort; they are more often “wrapped” in shrubs or overgrown with thickets. 30 people come to bush-clearing volunteer events, most of the bushes are cut down, and by the next autumn and spring, everything looks beautiful, but the bushes and their shoots grow back rapidly. If you do nothing, the undergrowth recovers, and after two or three years, everything looks as it was – perhaps even worse! Once the clearing work has started, the shoots must be trimmed at least twice a year. To create a bright, scenic view, you must invest at least 15-20 years. 80% of the maintenance (clearing) work can be done in the first go, the first time, but every subsequent year something must be done in that place again. And continuing the work is harder to organize than the first volunteer event. It happens that the private owner of a hillfort does not consider it to be very valuable; conversely, if the hill is under the jurisdiction of the municipality, one must prove how important it is – to care for it, keep an eye on it, and monitor it! There are different opinions on how to clear hillforts and make them accessible – clearing a hillfort until it is “bare” is probably not the best idea; the oldest trees should remain. There is a possibility not to clear the whole hillfort of trees, but to create scenic paths and clear the slopes. We must not forget that there are two distinct landscapes – the view from the hillfort and the view towards the hillfort.

Is there any idea of what proportion of our territory was covered by forests in the times when hillforts were active and inhabited?

Here, we definitely need to clarify which time period we are talking about! We must be specific! The “Age of Hillforts” lasted about 2500 years. The first inhabited hillforts were around the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. If we look at a “better-known” period – it is estimated that in the 13th century, about 70-100 thousand people lived in the territory of Latvia, now (in the beginning of the 21st century) there are about 2 million. If we calculate theoretically – the current area of agricultural land should be reduced at least 20 times, but probably many more times – after all, people now live mainly in cities. The rest would then be forest! Land has always had value, but undeniably, a greater value at one time was held by cultivated, worked land – arable fields, fields, pastures that yield a harvest. The value of forest land was significantly lower; it has increased in relatively recent times.

In ancient times, forests were territory that belonged to no one. Now boundaries are lines, but it wasn't like that back then. A recent study by Lithuanian colleagues shows that large forest areas between settlements were considered sacred boundary territories, not belonging to any human, and therefore belonging to higher powers. A forest can also be a sacred territory, which is hard to imagine nowadays.

Are there any forest or land owners who are trying to do something with the hillforts on their property?

At the end of last year, I participated in a discussion on these issues together with representatives of the magazine “Latvijas Architektūra”. One of the participants, Juris Zalāns, who actively participates in the surveying of Latgalian hillforts, was asked a similar question.

Juris answered very comprehensively: “If you think about hillforts, they are in the best and worst condition when they are on private property.”

Owners are different; about half of the hillforts are located on private property, the rest on municipal and state territories. Speaking of private properties, the attitude, of course, varies. Starting with the worst – “Why are you pestering me? This is my territory, I do what I want and you with your protection requirements. The forest is mine!” The “madness” lies in the fact that the owner often does not fell the forest themselves; the felling rights have been handed over to some company whose employees do not care. The trees are cut down, the hill is “messed up”, the fellers disappear, and the owner is the one responsible!

Another variant is indifference. “There is a hillfort on my territory, the state protects it, I get neither benefit nor harm from it! Maybe once a year a state official sends a surveyor, they take a look, and that's it!”

The third story. A private owner knows that there is a hillfort on their territory and considers it their personal duty to act. These hillforts are more or less maintained, there are signs and paths. Of course, it depends on the owner’s means, interest, and a whole range of other circumstances.

Municipalities are interested in hillforts. If a hillfort is located in the territory, the municipality tends to act in terms of maintenance and upkeep. If a municipality has one hillfort, it is undoubtedly in good order. But there are municipalities that own more hillforts – dozens of them. The situation there is different! We are talking about the municipalities of Central Latgale, the southwestern part of Kurzeme, and the central part of Vidzeme.

From the point of view of protection and preservation, it is good if a hillfort is not easily accessible. From a tourism perspective, it is so-called “niche tourism”. A small percentage of tourists will be those who specifically want to see a hillfort. It is unlikely that the owner will earn large incomes from entrance fees that would cover even the maintenance and clearing. Speaking of the Dzirkaļi Hillfort, I would not want buses to come here and large groups of people to walk around, trample, and climb. That does not seem appealing; I do not go on such trips.

It would seem that the most correct thing is: to pass on what we have received, in no worse condition than we received it.