Publications on hillforts, like those in other areas of archaeological research, serve as important sources of knowledge. Their significance has grown in recent years as the number of new hillfort excavations has decreased considerably, and accordingly earlier publications are now referenced more frequently. By 2024, a total of 48 works on hillforts had been published. The question is, however, whether these studies meet the definition of a ‘comprehensive publication’ and whether the data they present is reliable and provides a suitable basis for future research.
A comprehensive publication is a presentation of research material, usually in printed form, containing sufficient data in case the original material is lost. It is in the context of this definition that we here evaluate the Soviet-era publication of excavation results, using the excavations at the hillfort of Narkūnai (eastern Lithuania), conducted between 1976 and 1978 (Lietuvos Archeologija [Lithuanian Archaeology], vol. 5, 1985, pp. 5–49), as a case study. The material from these excavations is well preserved. Due to various restrictions during the Soviet period, the publication of excavation results was very limited. This can be seen from the fact that there are no photographs of the excavations and very little attention is paid to the pottery. Since the scope of research publications is determined by a variety of factors, in order to determine how comprehensive it is, the Narkūnai publication was compared with other works on hillforts published in the recent past. The coefficient obtained shows that the publications from the Soviet period are not comprehensive and do not cover all the research material. Therefore, it is necessary to republish studies on the major hillforts, applying the current advances in archaeological science in the fields of research and dissemination.