Lietuvos archeologija

This article analyses the memoirs of Germany’s and Russia’s military and political figures Rüdiger Gustav Adolf von der Goltz, Pavel Bermondt, Gustav Noske and August Winnig, which are first of all analysed as a source for researching the genesis of modern statehood in the Baltic States. All the above authors of these memoirs admit and testify that they did not approve of nor support the emergence of the Baltic States’ statehood. Only Winning, as Germany’s representative for those states, formally gave his recognition when forced to do so by international circumstances, mostly under duress from the Entente countries, while Bermondt, factually supported by R. von der Goltz, tried to compromise the statehood of the Balts using military measures that the minister of war Noske and the entire German government did not even try to contain, whereas the Entente countries were incapable of doing so. Thus, international circumstances after World War I not only created the conditions for the emergence of the Baltic States’ statehood but also acted as obstacles for this statehood to exist, as the imperial aspirations of Germany, as well as Russia, remained vibrant and were still effective in the Baltic Sea region.

The article aims to analyse the micro-level perspective in ethnography, highlighting the main features of the anthropological analysis of war. The focus of this article is the discourses that the Polish-English anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski applied in the general discipline of anthropology and in micro-level war studies. The article reveals that war is a complex process, inseparable from the daily lives of societies. This is reflected in the theoretical and practical work of anthropologists, who develop academic knowledge and apply anthropology for political purposes. Finally, the micro-level perspective is an example of interdisciplinary thinking that combines anthropological, sociological and historical approaches.

The aim of this contribution is to explore Julian Ochorowicz’s theory of rudimentary symptoms, a proposition largely based on psychological concepts, balancing between the latest findings in evolutionary biology and anthropology, and exploring the development of man and his history. This concept sought to align the reflection of human nature and culture by introducing a psychological input (the concept of subliminal traditions). The author analyses and reintroduces this concept, somewhat forgotten by researchers, that may have functioned as a bridge, both between evolutionary biology and anthropology, and Polish and West European scientific thought at that time.

The article is devoted to the results of the research of the fortress Tyagin, built by the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas on the territory of the island Bolshoye Gorodishche in the late 14th to early 15th century. The archaeological materials provided valuable information about the syncretism of the complex of monuments on the island, the typology, layout and size of the fortress. It was one of the earliest stone castle-type fortresses on the northern Black Sea coast, a part of the defensive line of the southern borders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The fortress’ defensive system included a synthesis of defensive architectural elements, ranging from timber-engineered structures known from Old Russian times to stone walls and buttresses of a new level of fortification in Europe. The fortress was armed with artillery and edged weapons, the main type being crossbows, which were widespread in Lithuania. The fortress of Tyagin was situated at the crossroads of trade routes between the East and the West, at the crossroads of the custom. The artifacts testify to the presence of Lithuanian cultural objects, Genoese influence, contact with Crimea, and trade and economic relations with Poland. The monument is an integral part of the cultural heritage of Lithuania and Ukraine.

The aim of this article is to assess the value of Marija Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė’s (Gimbutas) 1946 dissertation published in Tübingen (Germany). It is also important to follow how much of an impact this work had on Lithuanian archaeology and what inspiration it may provide for scholars today. This paper concentrates on the parts of the book which deal with burial customs during the Roman Iron Age. Relevant problems of cultural divisions based on burial site types as per Gimbutienė are examined to see how much this classification may be accepted today. The second part of Gimbutienė’s dissertation, which focused on the meaning of burial customs, provides insights that are still important for scholarship today, and reveals the young scholar’s ability to reconstruct an old belief system and to discern the prospects for the further investigation of burial site material.