Lietuvos archeologija

The article presents material from the archaeological excavations at Aþuðilë barrow cemetery. During 2000–2007, 12 badly disturbed mounds were excavated in it. They were ringed with pits or ditches and some of them had stone kerbs. Cremations with grave goods or the remains of disturbed burials and isolated finds were discovered in the barrows. The majority of them date to the 8th–9th centuries.

The article investigates the social organisation of the societies that left the East Lithuanian barrow culture. It makes a comparative analysis of osteologically identified adult male and female burials. The burial rite elements that indicate an individual’s status were defined in the study: the construction of the barrow, the construction of the grave, burial in an individual or collective grave, burial in a new or previously created barrow, the number of artefacts, the number of artefact types, and the imputed value of the sets of grave goods. A survey of the burials reveals five interconnected status dimensions, namely sex, age, achieved status, ascribed status, and chronological change.

The article analyses the possibilities of using intrasite spatial analysis in Lithuanian Iron Age settlements. It notes the need, prior to an analysis, for identifying the formation processes of the archaeological context. Spatial analysis is the main method for identifying the structure of settlements, although disregarding the changes, which occurred during the formation processes, in the archaeological context usually leads to erroneous conclusions. All the material found at an archaeological site: both individual finds and mass material, is essential for identifying the formation processes, but the most crucial condition is their precise fixation during the excavation.

The article analyses the structure of the archaeological Iron Age (1st–12th century) settlement at Kernavė. By analysing the settlement’s finds, cultural layer, and features, an effort was made to reveal what were the tendencies of their spatial distribution in the settlement and what information the remains of this material provides about the structure of the settlement that actually existed. After systemising the settlement’s material, concentrations, several tens of metres in diameter, of finds and features from separate periods were distinguished. These concentrations are located at a different place in each period. This shows that the archaeological settlement, which occupies a large area, was in fact inhabited sparsely and it appears that it was only separate single-residence farmsteads. These farmsteads did not stand in the same place the entire period of the settlement’s existence; at some interval they were moved a certain distance from the earlier location. The ‘movement’ of the farmsteads occurred within the boundaries of a defined territory, and an archaeological settlement much bigger in diameter gradually formed from the isolated small diameter concentrations within it. The analysis conducted here allows the likely locations of these farmsteads to be distinguished, but data about the structure and layout of these farmsteads is still greatly lacking.