Lietuvos archeologija

During 2011–2012 the Research Council of Lithuania financed project ‘Prehistory of the Curonian Spit: a methodological aspect of complex research’ was implemented in the Curonian Spit. The work’s aim was to find an effective archaeological investigation method for the search for prehistoric sites and the complex investigation of sites in an aeolian sedimentation environment. This article’s aim is to present the project’s achievements in the field of methodology. Seven field evaluation methods were tested to the S of Nida and at Alksnynė: GPR profiling co-ordinated with test pitting, systematic test pitting, unsystematic test pitting, field walking together with shovel test pitting, unsystematic shovel test pitting, and hand augering and mechanised coring. Field walking proved to be the most effective strategy, but its employment is greatly restricted by surface visibility. Systematic test pitting proved to be an unsuitable evaluation method in a dynamic aeolian sedimentation environment. GPR profiling co-ordinated with augering rather than test pitting holds great potential, but the search for paleosoils and lagoon shores that have been covered by aeolian deposits should be made first rather than the search for archaeological finds or settlements. In the search for new archaeological sites the experience acquired in modelling the prehistoric relief in the vicinity of already known archaeological sites should be especially useful.

The article analyses the circumstances of the discovery of two Iron Age hoards discovered in Šliktinė village (Skuodas District). These hoards, which were found by chance, were poorly investigated, and have been fragmentally mentioned in historiography, are connected with a water sacrifice ritual, and investigators call their find spot a sacrificial site. The hoards are scattered around various Lithuanian museums and some of the artefacts have disappeared and so the article analyses those archival materials and sources, which are able to help recreate the artefacts’ positions in the ground and the circumstances of their discovery and disappearance. After recreating the circumstances of the discovery of the hoards and connecting them with the finds preserved in Skuodas and Šiauliai ‘Aušra’ Museums that supposedly came from Mikytai hillfort (Notėnai Municipality, Skuodas District) and the town of Barstyčiai (Barstyčiai Municipality, Skuodas District), the conclusion was reached that the finds preserved in the aforementioned museums are part of the Šliktinė hoards.

The article tells about the ‘keen collector’ and amateur archaeologist, Antoni Zaborski, a resident of Pašušvys (Pol. Poszuszwie) (now Kėdainiai District). He had collections of archaeological objects, medals, coins, artwork, weapons, early editions, armour, china, and glass as well as an interesting ethnographic collection and a bibliological collection. A. Zaborski’s unexpected encounter with archaeology and the awareness of his own ignorance in this field persuaded him to seek out people who could help him remedy these shortcomings as well as offer support and expert advice. He corresponded with Erazm Majewski, the best known archaeologist in the Kingdom of Poland, and made many requests for specialist literature, tips, and advice. The texts of these letters are given in the Appendix.