Lietuvos archeologija

This article examines 22 metal artefacts from Lithuania dated to the Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Ages (2nd–1st millennium BC). Most were found either accidentally or through metal detecting, while some were uncovered during archaeological investigations. Additionally, archaeological excavations were conducted at three sites where Early Bronze Age axes have previously been found. This article presents the results of these investigations, alongside an analysis of the typology, chronology, and distribution of the newly discovered Bronze Age artefacts. Additionally, a comprehensive contextual analysis was carried out on all 368 metal artefacts that date from this period in Lithuania. The analysis draws on data concerning find contexts, surrounding environmental features, archival records, and associations with other contemporary archaeological sites. The study proposes the hypothesis that some stray bronze artefacts may be interpreted as hoards, either as votive deposits or as intentionally concealed items.

Shovel-test sampling was used as a method to investigate the prehistoric land-use of two prehistoric clusters in Yli-Ii (Finland). Starting from a single surface-visible pit dwelling, an attempt was made to define the boundaries of the clusters and to compare different activity areas. The dwellings in the investigated area had a very similar structure but different find assemblages and distribution. The results of two years of shovel-test sampling are in line with the results of the excavation. They confirm some kind of economic specialization not only inside the dwellings but also in the landscape around the dwellings.

The number of inhabitants and the population density were one of the deciding factors in the development of past societies. But this topic has received little attention from Lithuanian Iron Age investigators, and the rare attempts to address it mostly use the constant presented by H. Łowmiański of 3 people/km2. This article attempts, using palaeodemographic methods to analyse the barrow material, to calculate the number of inhabitants in the Žeimena basin and the part of the microregion to the N of its widening lake area. The first 5 km buffer zone (buffer zone I; 365.5 km2) should be considered as having a barrow cemetery density closer to the average for East Lithuania; the second, which occupies only the left bank of the Žeimena (buffer zone II; 198.5 km2), is an example of exceptional density. When evaluating the number of people buried in the microregion’s barrow cemeteries, the possible large-scale destruction of barrows in the past, the number of burials in a barrow, and the number of individuals in a burial need to be taken into consideration. The probability of error is increased by an imprecise barrow chronology and it is therefore possible to present only fairly broad and somewhat unexpected population density ranges in a historiographical context: in buffer zone I – 0.3–0.6 persons/ km2, in buffer zone II – 0.6–1.1 persons/ km2.

The worlds of the living and the dead are connected to one another in people’s worldviews and their physical setting in the landscape is a material expression of this relationship. In Lithuanian Iron Age (Roman period–Viking Age) archaeology, burial sites have been rarely approached from this perspective, except for some stereotypical remarks, e.g. it has been argued that water is a boundary between the spaces of the living and the dead. The paper analyses the spatial relationship between the East Lithuanian hillforts and barrow cemeteries and discusses how it reflects the local communities’ perceptions of their communication with their dead. The study is based on five spatial perspectives: distance, direction, location in the terrain in respect to bodies of water, communicative relationship, and visual contact. It concludes that no effort was made to isolate the burial areas from those for the living, i.e. the living maintained spatial bonds with their dead and shared one landscape.