VLADIMIR KASHIRSKII'S EXCAVATIONS IN THE BARROW CEMETERIES BETWEEN THE VAJUONIS AND ŽEIMENYS LAKES IN 1906 AND 1907

Transcription

1 Laurynas Kurila Vladimiro Kaširskio kasinėjimai Vajuonio ir Žeimenio tarpežerio pilkapynuose 167 I'llC. 36. Погребальный инвентарь из погребения 1 по обряду трупоположения из кургана II курганного могильника Цегельне: 1 - кольцо (788/4), 2 - спиральный перстень (788/14), пряжки (788/10-12), 6 - арбалетовидпая фибула (788/8), 7 - гребень (788/16). РИС. 37. Схематический план погребения 2 по обряду трупоположения из кургана II курганного могильника Цегельне, выполненный в стандартизированном дневнике курганных раскопок (Д-Ьло, 1907, с. 26). РИС. 38. Погребальный инвентарь из погребения 2 по обряду трупоположения из кургана II курганного могильника Цегельне: 1 - гриппа (788/17), 2 - браслет (788/18). РИС. 39. Схематический план кургана IV и погребения по обряду трупоположения курганного могильника Цегельне, выполненный в стандартизированном дневнике курганных раскопок (ДЪло, 1907, с. 23). РИС. 40. План погребения по обряду трупоположения из кургана IV курганного могильника Цегельне (ДЬло, 1907, с. 23). РИС. 11. Погребальный инвентарь из погребения но обряду трупоположения из кургана IV курганного могильника Цегельне: 1 - ленточный перстень (788/21), 2, 3 - спиральные перстни (788/22, 23), 4 - шило (?) (788/24), 5 - браслет (788/15), 6, 7 - пряслица (788/19, 20). РИС. 42. Бляшки, украшавшие подстилку, устилавшую дно погребальной ямы погребения по обряду трупоположения из кургана IV курганного могильника Цегельне (выборка из 788/25-358). РИС. 43. Бляшки, украшавшие подстилку, устилавшую дно погребальной ямы погребения но обряду трупоположения из кургана IV курганного могильника Цегельне (выборка из 788/25-358). Фото Л. Курилы. РИС. 44. Фрагменты органики и бляшки от подстилки, устилавшей дно погребальной ямы погребения но обряду трупоположения из кургана IV курганного могильника Цегельне. Фото Л. Курилы. РИС. 45. Случайная находка (фрагмент украшения) из курганного могильника Цегельне (без N'-'). РИС. 46. Профиль кургана I курганного могильника Паваюонис-Рекучяй (ДЬло, 1907, с. 3). РИС. 17. Профиль кургана II курганного могильника Паваюонис-Рекучяй (ДЬло, 1907, с. 3). РИС. 48. Профиль кургана III курганного могильника Паваюонис-Рекучяй (Д1">ло, 1907, с. 4). РИС. 49. Профиль кургана IV курганного могильника Паваюонис-Рекучяй (ДЪло, 1907, с. 4). РИС.50. План курганного могильника «Камень» (ДТ>ло, 1906, с. 15). РИС. 51. Ножи из разрушенных курганов (ДЪло, 1906, с. 16). РИС. 52. Нож из разрушенного кургана (Спицынъ, 19Ü7, с. 250, рис. 33). РИС. 53. Пряслица из разрушенных курганов (ДЪло, 1906, с. И). РИС. 54. Пряслица из разрушенных курганов (Спицынъ, 1907, с. 250, рис. 32). РИС. 55. Наконечники копий из разрушенных курганов (ДЪло, 1906, с. И). РИС. 56. Наконечник копья из разрушенного кургана (Спицынъ, 1907, с. 250, рис. 31). РИС. 57. Бусы и фрагмент гривны из разрушенных курганов (ДЪло, 1906, с. 11). РИС. 58. Фрагменты гриппы, «прутик» и кремневые изделия из разрушенных курганов (ДЪло, 1906, с. 11). РИС. 59. Мелкие украшения и их фрагменты из разрушенных курганои (ДЪло, 1906, с. 11). РИС. 60. Арбалстопидная фибула из разрушенного кургана (ДЬло, 1906, с. 11). РИС. 61. Браслеты и их фрагменты из разрушенных курганоп (ДЬло, 1906, с. II). Перевод Лпскссюс Лухтанас VLADIMIR KASHIRSKII'S EXCAVATIONS IN THE BARROW CEMETERIES BETWEEN THE VAJUONIS AND ŽEIMENYS LAKES IN 1906 AND 1907 LAURYNAS KURILA S u m mary During the early period of Lithuanian archaeology (in the 19 lh and early 20, h centuries), barrows were probably the most intensively excavated category of archaeological sites, especially in Eastern Lithuania. The extent of this research determined that a rather numerous valuable data were collected; they are used by archaeologists even today. The methodologies applied to the excavations ofthat time, their fixation and the distribution of their results were of rather differing levels; therefore, the significance of earlier research for contemporary science is not even. The horizons of the material related to barrows have yet to be exhausted, especially considering its often complicated accessibility and the lack of modern analysis or publications. Vladimir Kashirskii is one of the archaeologists of the early 20, h century, whose research material deserves more attention than it receives. In 1906 and 1907, V. Kashirskii excavated and surveyed barrow cemeteries in the environs of the Vajuonis and Žeimenys lakes and gathered valuable data. He did not publish his research himself. In the press of that time, only short messages were announced as regards his investigations. However, V. Kashirskii prepared rather exhaustive reports which were handed over to the Imperial Archaeological Commission in Saint Petersburg, where they have been kept in the archives of the Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences until today. Some of the finds discovered during the investigation also found their way to the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, although there is no information about the fate of other finds. At least some of the human bones collected by him went to the Peter the

2 LIETUVOS ARCHEOLOGIJOS ŠALTINIAI SANKT PETERBURGE Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography; however, the majority of them seem to be lost shortly. These circumstances were the reasons why the research material of V. Kashirskii was little known and hard to access by Lithuanian archaeologists. 'Ihe environs of the Vajuonis and Žeimenys lakes lay at the boundary of the present Švenčionys and Ignalina districts. This micro-region abounds in lakes and is quite sparsely populated. It has an imppresive concentration of archaeological monuments: a few Stone Age setllements, the Papravalė hill-fort with a setllement, the barrow cemeteries of Šakarva I and II, Pavajuonis-Cegelnė, Papravalė, Pavajuonis-Rėkučiai, Rėkučiai-Paversmys I and II, Rėkučiai-Pakretuonė, Medžiuškiai-Akmeniškiai and two more barrow cemeteries mentioned by V. Kashirskii but later destroyed, as well as the Rėkučiai-Pavajuonis ancient defensive rampart. It is worth mentioning that most of these monuments were first discovered and described by V. Kashirskii himself. V. Kashirskii was born in Saint Petersburg in From 1888 his family lived in Vilnius. In 1904, V. Kashirskii began his studies at the Faculty of Law of Saint Petersburg University. His turn for archaeology was probably determined by his illness in 1905 when he underwent a treatment in the Kavinis manor in the present district of Ignalina, near Lake Kavinis. It seems that it was here that V. Kashirskii developed his interest in the rich archaeological heritage of the environs. Alexander Spitsyn, a member of the Imperial Archaeological Commission, who took interest in the archeological monuments of Eastern Lithuania, supported his enthusiasm. In 1906, under the mediation of A. Spitsyn, V. Kashirskii received his first permission from the Imperial Archaeological Commission to excavate and survey archaeological objects in Lake Kavinis environs. During that year, he excavated two barrows in the Kavinis barrow cemetery (presently Šakarva I), cut out a section of the Rėkučiai-Pavajuonis rampart and prospected other sites. In , V. Kashirskii studied at the Institute of Archaeology in Saint Petersburg and continued his studies at Saint Petersburg University. In 1907, after receiving permission and financial support from the Imperial Archaeological Commission once again, he continued his excavations and prospecting in the same environs: he investigated one barrow in Rėkučiai (Rėkučiai-Paversmys I?) barrow cemetery, two barrows in Vajuonis or 'the Bare Mountain (Papravalė) barrow cemetery, and four barrows in the Cegelnė (Pavajuonis-Cegelnė) barrow cemetery. Moreover, in the same year he began an investigation in the Mažulonys hill-fort, which he continued in 1908, although it remained unfinished. This season of investigation and V. Kashirskii's fledgling career of an archaeologist were soon interrupted by his death in V. Kashirskii, who only had time to become superficially acquainted with archaeology, lacked knowledge and experience; however, the lack was partially compensated by his diligence and scrupulousness. These qualities helped him to prepare informative reports. V. Kashirskii as an investigator was quick to improve: his second report excels the first one in quality quite significantly. His description of some objects, graphic fixations and drawings of finds exceeded the accounts of many contemporary Lithuanian archaeologists in both quantity and quality. The reports of the 1906 and 1907 investigations are being kept in separate files. They consist of a fair copy of the text written in V. Kashirskii's hand (in Russian), his drawings, plans or maps (of which the map of archaeological sites of the Vajuonis environs is worth mentioning), and drawings of finds. Ihe accounts themselves are not uniform; they consist of short records of separate objects. A standard description form for barrow excavations, prepared by the Imperial Archaeological Commission, was also added; it had been filled in during investigations. These files also contain a field diary with sketches of plans, and various other documentation, such as official permissions (and papers relating to their issuance), lists of finds and their handover certificates, certificates for the handover of human bones, and financial documentation. The methods applied by V. Kashirskii in barrow excavations are not exactly clear as he did not pay much attention to their description. Judging by the plans of the Kavinis barrows I and II, one might assume that the excavations were carried out by digging large quadrangular pits in the barrows. In the Šakarva barrow cemetery I, there are remains of two barrows with the marks that clearly support the thesis that such digging practices were undertaken. One barrow in the Rėkučiai-Paversmys barrow cemetery I has a trench which was dug a long time ago. It is probable that this is the Rėkučiai barrow where investigations took place in Several barrows excavated in a similar fashion exist also in the Pavajuonis-Cegelnė barrow cemetery. However, the barrows that were excavated by V. Kashirskii have now become difficult to separate from the numerous ones disturbed by other people. Digging trenches seems to have been the most often applied barrow excavation technique. Of course, excavating in this way could leave some finds or even burials undiscovered and some of the construction elements of barrows unrecorded. It is likely that strictly defined methods were not followed and that each time the method used could differ in one or another way depending on the structures that were being unearthed and the experience gained in the process. Perhaps some barrows were investigated by digging away half or a quarter of it, because in plans of Cegelnė barrows I and II, the sections that cross the centre of a barrow are depicted. In the barrow cemetery of Vajuonis or 'the Bare Mountain', flattened barrows were investigated, and it is likely that they were simply dug away to reach the sterile soil (their plans record the Planigraphie views, although there is no depiction of sections). It is likely that V. Kashirskii had only the most common knowledge of barrow excavation, yet he worked in a quite inventive manner and managed to record the most important information: the barrows' pits and ditches, stone kerbs, the three-dimensional position of burials, stone constructions, the posture of skeletons, etc. However, quite a number of important details remained undescribed. It

3 Laurynas Kurila Vladimiro Kaširskio kasinėjimai Vajuonio ir Żeimenio tarpežerio pilkapynuose 169 is not always clear whether the drawings reflect the actual stratigraphic and Planigraphie information or they are rather imagined views based on the excavated parts of barrows and the general understanding of the barrows construction. In some cases the recorded information seems to exceed what was actually uncovered. It is possible that, under outdoor conditions, only very approximate drawings were drawn. 'Ihercfore, the fair copies that were drawn after these drawings can be quite inaccurate. Some details in the drawings are schematized. During his prospecting work, most of V. Kashirskii's attention was focused on the shape of barrows and the recording of their dimensions. He also understood the importance of collecting oral information. The barrow cemetery which he himself called Kavinis (after the name of the manor that was nearby) was investigated by V. Kashirskii in The description and plan help us to locate the site of investigation in the Šakarva barrow cemetery I which is close to the northern end of Lake Žcimenys. In the plan of the barrow cemetery (which is not accurate), V. Kashirskii marked 31 barrows. The site was described in detail, although in quite a generalized manner, indicating the dimensions of barrows, their state and describing stone kerbs and pits. On the eastern border of the barrow cemetery, two barrows were excavated. Barrow I had about 7.5 m in diameter and 0.62 m in height, while the dimensions of barrow II were not indicated. Both barrows were surrounded by stone kerbs; barrow 1 was also surrounded by three pits. In barrow I, two or three cremations were found. Burial 1 (about 0.5 m 2 in size) was situated southestwards from the centre of the barrow, on the base (?). Very close to it, only in a slightly more southeasterly direction, was burial 2 which was about 0.9 m in diameter. V. Kashirskii considered these two graves as one burial. Around burial 1, several firebrands were situated, and to the north from it there was a layer of tamped or scorched sand. Burial 3 - a small (about 0.01 m 2 in size) pile of cremated bones - was situated westwards from the centre of the barrow, in the mound, above a layer of scorched (?) sand. In all the burials, bones were mixed with charcoal and ashes. None of them contained grave goods; it was only in burial 2 that, according to V. Kashirskii, a large bone of an animal was found. No finds were discovered in barrow II which had been disturbed. A buckle was found by accident in some other barrow (according to A. Spitsyn - in an inhumation). It could possibly be a quadrangular buckle with profiled sides. This find has not survived. The construction of the barrows allows them to be dated back to the Middle Iron Age. The installation of cremations of barrow I was characteristic of the middle of the 1st millenium - the early 2 n J millenium. In summary, we may define the most likely dating to be the middle of the 1st millenium or its 3 r J quarter. The barrow cemetery whose surviving part is today called Papravalė was visited and described by V. Kashirskii in This barrow cemetery was located near the northen shore of Lake Vajuonis, in a place called 'the Bare Mountain (V. Kashirskii used a Russian translation of the name). In the report it is referred to by the latter name or as Vajuonis. According to locals, many barrows had been still in existence in a decent state ten years prior to V. Kashirskii's research (around 1896). During the survey, it was only the remains of barrows - charred stains and scattered cremated bones - that drew attention. In the past, the barrows had stone kerbs. V. Kashirskii was informed that some excavation had been attempted prior to his arrival. In one barrow, crossed spearheads with an axe beneath them were found. In the territory of the barrow cemetery, as had been the case in earlier digs, a significant amount of finds were found during the survey. Some surviving barrows for some reason remained unnoticed in In 1907, two barrows were excavated in the barrow cemetery of Vajuonis or 'the Bare Mountain. It seems that, after a more detailed exploration, V. Kashirskii discovered a preserved part of the barrow cemetery. The exact location of the excavated barrows remains unknown. It is likely that both barrows I and II were partially destroyed. They had about 7 and 9 m in diameter and 0.32 m in height. Both barrows were surrounded by ditches with 1 and 5 gaps. Two cremations were found in barrow I. Cremation 1 (burials were not numbered in the report) was close to the centre of the barrow, in the mound above the base. There was a concentration (0.27 m in diameter) of cremated bones with charcoal here. Only ceramic sherds (the explorer considered them to be the remains of an urn) were found in this place. Cremation 2 lay in a southeasterly direction from the centre of the barrow, also in the mound. There were bones with some charcoal in a pile measuring 0.55 x 0.32 m. The cremation contained a Petersen E type (?) spearhead, a widebladed axe with an extended poll, two knives and an awl or a pin (stuck-in vertically). Part of a twisted-wire neck-ring (probably with cone-shaped terminals), a bracelet (most likely of a convex triangular cross-section) and some small iron pieces were found accidentally at the edge of the barrow. These finds indicate that one more burial, most probably of a female, may have existed in it. At the very centre of barrow II, almost on the surface, the only cremation to be found was located in a small pit 0.43 m in diameter. A spearhead (Kazakevičius V type) and a narrow-bladcd axe, which were crossed, were discovered above the bones with some charcoal, as were also a knife and a small piece of iron. The finds from the barrow cemetery of Vajuonis or 'the Bare Mountain have not survived. We can only presume as to their appearance from descriptions and drawings. A ritual (?) bonfire site is another obscure object that was excavated in the barrow cemetery. Neither its localization nor its primary appearance, nor the reasons that prompted digging in this particular place are specified. The bonfire site was almost round, in diameter. A layer of charcoal and ashes 0.21 m thick with streaks of sand was found there. The purpose of this object is obscure. The fact that the bonfire site was located in the territory of the barrow cemetery or near it allows us to envisage its relation to the barrows. Neither cremated bones nor finds were

4 LIETUVOS ARCHEOLOGIJOS ŠALTINIAI SANKT PETERBURGE found in this bonfire place, and this prompts us to reject its interpretation as a cremation place. Nevertheless, various rituals in which fire was involved may be directly unrelated to the cremation of bodies. In the burial sites of the Baltic tribes similar objects are known. It is also possible that the bonfire site was a relic of economic activities. In the past, this barrow cemetery was probably a large site encompassing a wide chronology. Mention was made of the remains of stone kerbs visible in the places where the destroyed barrows were located. Thus, at least part of the barrows were most probably piled up during the Old or Middle Iron Age (Roman or Migration period). Bearing in mind the shape of the ditches and the assemblages of grave goods, the two barrows investigated by V. Kashirskii could be dated back to the Late Iron Age. It is impossible to define the chronology of barrow II in a more accurate way. Based on the grave goods of burial 2, barrow I could be considered as dating back to the 2 n d half of the 10 th century - 1 st half of the 11 th century. V. Kashirskii's remark concerning the fact that the bones were placed in an urn in cremation 1 of barrow I is worth a special note. Throughout the entire East Lithuanian barrow culture, there is no analogy of such a burial. It is difficult to decide whether V. Kashirskii had objective reasons for considering the ceramic sherds as remains of an urn. The custom of burial in an urn was quite common among the eastern neighbours of the Lithuanians - the Kriviches and the Dregoviches. Perhaps this burial can be considered as a sign of the influence of the Eastern Slavs, even more so when we consider the barrow cemetery at Papravalė to be one of the furthesrmost eastern East Lithuanian barrow cemeteries. In 1907, V. Kashirskii excavated one barrow in a barrow cemetery named Rėkučiai. The localization of the site of the excavation, given in his report (near the railway), corresponds to the entire 1.5 km long array of the Rėkučiai-Pakretuonė, Rėkučiai-Paversmys I and II, and Pavajuonis-Rėkučiai barrows. The remains of a barrow with marks of a trench dug through it imply that the excavations most likely took place in the present barrow cemetery of Rėkučiai-Paversmys I. The barrow had been disturbed before excavations. It was about 8.5 m in diameter and 0.53 m hight. The barrow was surrounded by three pits. Four cremations were discovered in it. Three of them (I III) were dug into the already piled up mound near the southeastern and northwestern edge of the barrow in pits 0.27 m in diameter. Grave goods were discovered only in burial II. This group of items contained a Madyda-Legutko H22 or H23 type ornamented iron buckle, a bronze coil ring, a narrow-bladed lugged axe, and a spearhead with a slightly scallop-edged blade (Kazakevičius II type) (Kashirskii himself doubted whether the latter two grave goods were related to burial II). The fourth - 'main' - cremation was arranged on the base of the barrow. Its layer consisted of charcoal and ash with cremated bones. In this layer, to the southeast of the barrow's centre, two bronze coil rings were found. All grave goods had been charred. All the finds discovered in the Rėkučiai barrow have survived and are currently kept in the State Hermitage Museum (Collection No. 787). The construction of the excavated barrow is characteristic of the middle and 2 n d half of the 1 st millenium, although the fact that it lacked a stone kerb distinguishes it from the majority of East Lithuanian barrows of the time. Having assessed the chronology of the grave goods and the general context of East Lithuanian barrows, the barrow might be dated to the Late Migration period which conditionally embraces the latest period of the custom of inhumation and the early stage of the practice of cremating of the dead, the absolute dating of this barrow being the 2 n d half of the 5, h - I м half of the 6, h century. The artefacts discovered in the Rėkučiai barrow burial II represent a typical assemblage of grave goods that might be found in the burial of a warrior of mediocre wealth of that time. In 1907, V. Kashirskii was excavating in the barrow cemetery of Cegelnė (presently called Pavajuonis-Cegelnė) located northwest of Lake Vajuonis. He excavated four barrows (I IV) there. However, localization of their places in the barrow cemetery is now impossible. The excavated barrows were in various states of preservation varying from well preserved to destroyed. Barrow I was about 8.5 m in diameter and 0.71 m high. The diameter of barrow II was 11.3 m and height 0.92 m. Barrow III was 15 m in diameter and 1.28 m high. The diameter of barrow IV was up to 8.5 m and its height was 0.45 m. At the foot of barrow I, there were at least two pits, while at the foot of both barrows II and III there were three pits. Barrows II and III were surrounded by stone kerbs. There were layers of charcoal at the bases of all barrows. V. Kashirskii paid a lot of attention to the fixation and description of the inhumations he found in the barrows. They had been made in pits under the bases of barrows I, II and IV. The small stone kerb that was above the base and whose location and shape seemingly coincided with the contour of the deeper grave pit, is most probably attributable to the inhumation in barrow I. The pit itself was 1.46 x 0.85 m in size and 1.17 m deep and had been dug in the centre of the barrow. The deceased was laid in supine position with the head to the west (with a deviation towards the northwest?). The skeletal remains were only fragmentary. The 1.2 m length of the skeleton shows that this was a child's burial. A narrow-bladed axe and a knife were found above the waist of the buried individual, while above the right shoulder there was an iron crossbow brooch (of Vilkonys type) and a fragment of a bronze plate. Barrow II contained a double burial of a unique construction. At the bottom of a pit 2.31 x 1.5 m in size and 1.17m deep, slightly to the south of the centre of the barrow, a perfectly preserved skeleton (with only the skull showing damage) was discovered (burial 1, according to the numeration of V. Kashirskii). The buried individual was lying on the back with the head to the west (or slightly northwest?).

5 Laurynas Kurila Vladimiro Kaširskio kasinėjimai Vajuonio ir Žeimenio tarpežerio pilkapynuose l/i The length of the skeleton was 1.87 ni. According to V. Kashirskii, the remains were of an individual of a mature age. Next to the deceaseds right side and above the shoulder, there were two spearheads with long sockets and laurel and rhombus (Kazakevičius type I) shaped blades; at the left leg there was a narrow-bladed lugged axe; on the breast, there was a bronze crossbow brooch of a Prague type; on the right shoulder, there were remains of a coil ring, at the waist, a knife, an unornamented oval (Madyda-Legutko H group) bronze buckle, fragments of a bone comb, and a bronze loop, while above both knees there were two bronze buckles similar in shape, but ornamented. Various organic fragments were preserved in the burial. The second skeleton (burial 2) was placed higher, almost on the same level as the base, on the top of the pits filling, in a slightly southern direction from burial 1. The deceased was orientated towards the same direction as burial 1. The skeleton was poorly preserved. V. Kashirskii guessed that it could have belonged to a year old individual. In this burial, only two grave goods were found. A silver neck-ring with a torqued hoop, with plates on its terminals, one ending in a hook and the other having a hole, was placed on the buried individual's head, while a silver bracelet decorated using a similar principle as neck-rings with faceted terminals was found on the left hand of the buried individual. Barrow IV also contained a double inhumation. It was found in the centre of the barrow in a pit 1.24 x 0.89 m in size and about 1.6 m deep. An adult had been placed in the pit in a sitting position with the back facing the east. The bones were perfectly preserved, although part of the skeleton was not in an anatomic posture (it had collapsed). Por the latter reason, it was impossible to ascertain the exact position of the grave goods. Two clay spindle whorls (similar to a cylinder with an edge and a double truncated cone-shape) lay next to the left knee, while two coil rings (one silver, one bronze) and a silver sash-like ring with four coils on its terminals, along with a small (remade from a normal-size ornament) bronze sash-like bracelet were found near the left side. Near the head, there was a fragment of an iron article (most probably an awl), and on the left side of the head a bead was found (this article has been lost, so both its material and shape remain unclear). A mat was found under the skeleton; it was made from an organic material (birch (?) bark) (up to 1.07 m in length and m in width) and was studded with bronze fittings (overall 358 fittings or their fragments were gathered). This mat seems to have been used to cover the bottom of the burial pit. 'Ihe second individual buried in this grave - a newborn or an infant - lay above the pelvis of the adult. Only part of the skeleton was preserved. Judging from the organic remains, the little body was swaddled in some kind of mat or placed into a basket. The small bracelet found in this grave should most probably be considered to be a grave good of the infant. The only cremation in the Cegelnė harrow cemetery was discovered in barrow III, in the mound above the base near the barrows centre. Bones with charcoal were placed in a pit 0.35 m in diameter. No grave goods were found in this burial. 'Ihe excavations of this barrow were not concluded. It is possible that undetected burials may have remained in it. The finds from the Cegelnė barrow cemetery, except the bead from the grave of barrow IV, have survived and are presently kept at the State Hermitage Museum (collection No. 788). V. Kashirskii also collected the uncremated bones and donated them to the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. Only one well-preseved skull is presently kept in this museum (Kunstkamera). Osteological analysis performed by Dr. I. Shirobokov (see the article in this volume) identified the skull as that of a male aged (the possibility of sexing it as female also being presumable), although the examination of a photograph of the skull performed by Prof. Dr. R. Jankauskas claims it to be a morphological female. Unfortunately, documents do not record in which grave exactly it was discovered. It is possible to presume that this is the skull from barrow IV (barrow I contained a child's burial, in burial 1 of barrow II the skull was damaged, and the skull from burial 2 of barrow II was accidently crushed by the excavators themselves). The construction of the barrows investigated in Cegelnė was characteristic of the Middle Iron Age. The inhumations discovered in them were characteristic of the 2 n d quarter and middle of the 1st millenium. However, all of these inhumations were of particular interest and stood out from the context of East Lithuanian barrows and Baltic funeral customs in general: the burial in barrow I as having a stone construction, the burials in barrow II as being paired ones (similar burials are sometimes interpreted as human offerings), and the burial in barrow IV as an infant's burial (this grave is one of few burials of this age group in the entire region) along with an adult (a female who had died at childbirth?) and an uncharacteristic burial posture and grave arrangement. Judging from the entirety of the grave goods discovered, these inhumations can be dated to the junction of the Early and Late Migration periods, i.e. to the final stage of inhumation burials in East Lithuania and to the period of spreading cremation customs (many of the artefacts are characteristic of the earliest cremations). The burials contained features of both the Early (valuable sets of female grave goods) and Late Migration periods (expressive sets of weapons and masculine grave goods). The absolute chronology of the burials can be defined as the 5 l h - early 6, h centuries; in reference to the general context of the East Lithuanian barrows, the most probable dating is the mid- 5 1 ' 1 century. The dating of the cremation from barrow III remains obscure. The position of the grave suggests that it was dug into an earlier barrow. Some artefacts of non-indigenous origin (or the artefacts made after those examples), found in some burials in Cegelnė, relate this site to the Eurpean Barbariami, mostly to the cultures of Central and Southern Europe. Combs, such as that found in burial 1 of barrow II, are especially char-

6 LIETUVOS ARCHEOLOGIJOS ŠALTINIAI SANKT PETERBURGE acteristic of the Chernyakhov culture and also of Central and Northern Europe, while analogues of the Prague type brooch are known in Central and Southern Europe. The find spots of brooches of the Vilkonys type (as discovered in the burial of barrow I) and of a similar Pilviny type stretch from the territories of the Western Baits to the Northern border of the Black Sea. From this point of view, this barrow cemetery is a specific one, although at the same time it is quite an exemplary site in that it illustrates the East Lithuanian barrow culture of the 5 t h century (which is characterized by influences coming from Central and Southern Europe). This barrow cemetery falls into the range of wealthy burials, which embraces mainly the basin of the Žeimena river and the lake district that stretches from it towards the north. V. Kashirskii not only excavated but also visited the micro-region's barrow cemeteries known to him. During his surveys, he described the barrows or their remains, questioned the locals, collected chance finds and information about them. In 1906, he visited the barrow cemeteries near the railway. At that time V. Kashirskii seems to have surveyed the whole array of the Pavajuonis-Rėkučiai, Rėkučiai- Paversmys I and II, and Rėkučiai-Pakretuonė barrows. However, his description of the sites is quite unclear and confused. In his report, the position, shape, dimensions and condition of the barrows were concisely described. In 1907, the four large barrows of the Pavajuonis- Rėkučiai barrow cemetery were described. V. Kashirskii described their shape (flat mounds with smaller 'mounds' in the centre, with small earthworks and ditches on the top and surrounded by ditches at the feet) and provided their dimensions: 22.7, 18.5, 33 and m in diameter and 1.06, 1.42, 1.24 and 0.89 m in height. The barrows had already been dug out in pits by that time. V. Kashirskii was the first to turn attention to these striking barrows, which also included the largest barrow (actually, about 40 m in diameter) in Lithuania. Unfortunately, even today they are shrouded in mystery: the questions of whether or not they formed a complex with the nearby Pavajuonys-Rėkučiai defensive rampart, and what their relation with the neighbouring barrows was, remain unanswered. In the 1906 report, mention was made of the barrows in the western or northwestern direction of the Rėkučiai village. These barrows had been completely blown away by that time. Only the remains of bones (cremated?) and stones (remains of stone kerbs?), and the stains of charcoal and ashes were visible in the sands. No more knowledge about this barrow cemetery exists. During the same year, the Medžiuškiai-Akmeniškiai barrow cemetery, which V. Kashirskii called by the name of Akmuo ('Stone') (akmuo - stone in Lithuanian; V. Kashirskii used a Russian translation), was visited. As regards this site, he indicated 34 barrows and described their shape, dimensions and condition, and drew a schematic plan of the cemetery. V. Kashirskii refers to one more barrow cemetery on the southern shore of Lake vajuonis, which had already been completely destroyed by The locals spoke of the earlier existence of four or five barrows in this site. The place of this barrow cemetery was later localized and given the name of Lygumai. During his survey of barrow cemeteries in 1906, V. Kashirskii collected a significant amount of stray finds or inspected those the locals had hitherto discovered. Unfortunately, none of them have survived. The report lacks accurate information: the total number of the items; which items V. Kashirskii was shown or donated by local residents and which ones he found himself; the circumstances of their discovery. He presented a description of the finds, which is quite general but contains quite a lot of drawings. These data were significantly complemented by the information presented by A. Spitsyn (which shows that at least some of the finds were brought to Russia). V. Kashirskii himself notes that a great amount of barrows in the vicinities had already been dug up by that time. According to local residents, in the Akmuo ('Stone') barrow cemetery and in some barrow cemetery near the railway (Pavajuonis-Rėkučiai, Rėkučiai-Paversmys I and II, or Rėkučiai-Pakretuonė) some undisclosed individuals had already excavated and discovered inhumations placed in 0.7 m deep pits or on the base. The find spots of some of the chance finds remain unclear from the report. We may presume that the majority of them were found in the Vajuonis or 'the Bare Mountain' barrow cemetery, while part of the finds were discovered in other sites (in the Akmuo ('Stone') barrow cemetery and the one that existed near Rėkučiai). The finds described by V. Kashirskii (with the additions of A. Spitsyn) are: 10 knives, one awl (?), at least 9 spindle whorls (some of them of a double truncated cone-shape or a flattened spherical form, some of them cylindrical, or with an embossed rounded edge; some of them were ornamented), 4 narrowbladed axes, at least 5 spearheads (two of them with a low rhomboid-shaped blade (cognate to Petersen F type), two of Kazakevičius II type, and one of Kazakevičius V type), fragments of neck-rings with overlapping flat terminals and twisted-wire neck-rings with cone-shaped terminals, a few glass beads, a serdolic bead, one bronze coil bead, a crossbow brooch of Almgren 161 or 162 type, a few penannular brooches with cylindrical terminals, at least two bracelets with thickened terminals, fragments of two sashlike bracelets, an obscure find (perhaps a coil bracelet), a coil and other rings, two obscure finds (perhaps pins), bells, coils, chains, bridle-bit, ceramic sherds, and an unidentified clay article. These finds are to be dated to the period from the 3 r d -4 l h up to the 10 l h -l l/12,h centuries. Most of them had been charred. The material gathered during excavations and surveys carried out by V. Kashirskii is undeniably valuable, even when we bear in mind the deficiencies in his excavation techniques and fixation and various other problematic areas, including the fact that part of the finds collected by him has not survived. His excavations of barrows provided particularly valuable data; moreover, during the surveys, a