Eitulionys barrow cemetery as the key for studying Sudovian Culture in south-eastern Lithuania

Abstract

The article presents the Eitulionys barrow cemetery located (Trakai district) in south-eastern Lithuania. Eitulionys barrow cemetery is the biggest researched funeral monument in south-east Lithuania, in authors option is the key site for the study of Sudovian Culture in this particular region.

Full text

Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne
Różne oblicza archeologii
Pamięci Jana Jaskanisa
Warszawa 2021

Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawie
Różne oblicza archeologii
Pamięci Jana Jaskanisa
pod redakcją
Anny Bitner-Wróblewskiej,
Barbary Sałacińskiej,
Sławomira Sałacińskiego
Warszawa 2021

Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne
jest instytucja¸ kultury finansowana¸ ze środków
Samorza¸du Województwa Mazowieckiego
Redaktor wydawnictw Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie:
Wojciech Brzeziński
Redakcja:Anna Bitner-Wróblewska, Barbara Sałacińska, Sławomir Sałaciński
Tłumaczenie na język angielski:Kinga Brzezińska, Autorzy
Tłumaczenie z języka angielskiego na polski:Anna Bitner-Wróblewska
Skład i łamanie, opracowanie graficzne: Jan Żabko-Potopowicz
Projekt okładki:Jan Żabko-Potopowicz
Korekta: Autorzy, Anna Bitner-Wróblewska, Barbara Sałacińska, Sławomir Sałaciński
Zdjęcia na stronach 8–10 pochodzą z archiwum rodzinnego Danuty i Jana Jaskanisów
oraz archiwum Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie
© 2021, Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawie, Autorzy
Druk:
ISBN: 987-83-959534-6-0

Spis treści
Od Redakcji 7
Bibliografia prac Jana Jaskanisa 11
Wspomnienia o Janie Jaskanisie i Jego działalność
na różnych polach
Danuta Jaskanis
Zainteresowania i holistyczne podejście
Jana Kazimierza Jaskanisa do archeologii 25
Wojciech Szymański
Wspominając Jana… 43
Krzysztof Burek
Wspomnienie o moim Szee 51
Danuta Piotrowska
Studia historii kultury materialnej
i Archeologiczny Obóz Szkoleniowy w Biskupinie z 1951 r.
Badania dziejów archeologii z historią w tle 61
Andrzej Lechowski
Działalność muzealna Jana Jaskanisa w Białymstoku 97

Wojciech Brzeziński
Jan Jaskanis – dyrektor
Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie 105
Wojciech Nowakowski,
Wkład Jana Jaskanisa w badania nad okresem wpływów rzymskich117
Anna Bitner-Wróblewska
Archeologia bałtyjska w badaniach Jana Jaskanisa131
Grażyna Iwanowska
Wędrówki archeologiczne Jana Jaskanisa. Materiały z Jego badań
powierzchniowych w zbiorach Działu Archeologii Bałtów
Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie 151
Sławomir Sałaciński, Barbara Sałacińska
Wkład Jana Jaskanisa w badania Państwowego
Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie
nad prehistorycznym górnictwem krzemienia w Polsce 175
Marek Zalewski, Wojciech Borkowski
Obrazki z wystawy – o ekspozycji
Prahistoryczne górnictwo krzemienia na ziemiach polskich
oraz wkładzie Jana Jaskanisa w jej powstanie i organizację
VII Międzynarodowego Kongresu Krzemieniarskiego 203
Jerzy Brzozowski, Jerzy Siemaszko
Problematyka działań konserwatorskich na Suwalszczyźnie
i wschodniej części Mazur – perspektywa dwóch pokoleń 227
Wojciech Borkowski, Jacek Wysocki
Działalność i myśl konserwatorska Jana Jaskanisa 239
Aneks: Jan Jaskanis
Stan i potrzeby opieki nad zabytkami archeologicznymi
i numizmatycznymi w Polsce 259
Urszula Perlikowska-Puszkarska
Praca społeczna dr. Jana Jaskanisa na rzecz archeologii
– tworzenie Stowarzyszenia Naukowego Archeologów Polskich 279

Wokół zainteresowań Jana Jaskanisa
Jacek Andrzejowski
Kaczki ze Strycha 295
Rasa Banytė-Rowell
A brooch from Gibaičiai cemetery
– designed on the crossroad between Eastern Baltic areas 319
Audronė Bliujienė, Algimantas Bliujus
Eitulionys barrow cemetery as the key for studying
Sudovian Culture in south-eastern Lithuania 339
Marcin Engel, Cezary Sobczak
Krajobraz archeologiczny międzyrzecza Biebrzy i Supraśli
w świetle najnowszych badań nieinwazyjnych 367
Piotr Iwanicki
Groby w obstawach kamiennych kultury bogaczewskiej
z okresu wpływów rzymskich 403
Maciej Karczewski
Archeologia środowiska kultury bogaczewskiej i sudowskiej
– od czasów Kompleksowej Ekspedycji Jaćwieskiej do dziś 423
Zbigniew Kobyliński
Z najnowszych badań nad grodziskami
zachodniej części ziem pruskich 443
Bartosz Kontny
Szczyt hipotetyczności? O rekonstrukcji szczytów sudowskich 465
Izabela Mellin-Wyczółkowska, Zuzanna Wyczółkowska
Para nietypowych zapinek płytkowych
ze stanowisk w Robawach i Dłużcu 487

Katarzyna Rusin
Nowe znaleziska ozdób z emalią żłobkową
z okresu rzymskiego na Podlasiu 503
Paweł Szymański
Cmentarzysko z okresu wędrówek ludów
w Pietraszach, pow. olecki517
Sławomir Wadyl, Kacper Martyka
An astonishing discovery. A pivoting knife from Pasym
against the background of previous nds 531
Miscellanea
Ewa Banasiewicz-Szykuła, Dariusz Włodarczyk
Ślady archeologiczne bitwy pod Żyrzynem
stoczonej dnia 8 sierpnia 1863 roku,
jako przykład działań konserwatorskich 555
Stanisław Iwaniszewski
Ocena roli zjawisk niebieskich w orientowaniu
bezkomorowych grobowców kultury pucharów lejkowatych
na stanowisku 1 w Wietrzychowicach, pow. włocławski577
Anna Juga-Szymańska
Materiały z kolekcji warszawskich
w spuściźnie Marty Schmiedehelm w Tallinnie 595
Maria Krajewska
Korespondencja Ottona Szrejbera
w sprawie zabytków archeologicznych
z miejscowości Koniuchy koło Uciany w guberni kowieńskiej 617
Jerzy Łapo
Zabawa w pogańskie groby.
Niecodzienne odkrycie z miejscowości Wilkasy, pow. giżycki 633

Jan Kazimierz Jaskanis (1932–2016), who was
a famous Polish archaeologist, has dedicated
a large part of his scientific career to the studies
of the Balt lands archaeological heritage. His,
and other Polish researchers’ works on north-
eastern Poland burial sites, were used by Adolfas
Tautavičius (1924–2006) as a particular
‘bridge’
for analogous studies in south-eastern Lithuania.
Furthermore, A. Tautavičius consider
ing on dis-
tribution of similar construction burial sites,
aspects of funeral rites and assemblages of grave
goods was able to distinguish ‘stone barrows’
in south-eastern Lithuania (A. Tautavičius 1996,
p. 97–100). The term ‘stone barrows’ accurately
reflecting their main construction feature –
stone pile. From about 230–260 to 1000 special-
ly selected stones of fairly uniform size were
used for the mounds construction of these bar-
rows, as well as for building the cairns covering
the graves, the kerbs encircling the grave pits
and mounds base. According to Tautavičius,
this type of barrows belong to the Sudovian-
Jatvingian1, Sudovian-Dainavian ancestor groups
or one of the Jatvingian
tribes (A. Tautavičius
1977, p. 14–15, fig. 9; 1994,
p. 5, 9–10; 1996,
p. 97–100). During the recent decades, south-
eastern Lithuanian barrows constructed of 1–
2 rows of stone paving and earth mounds have
been ascribed to the Sudovian Culture – kultura
sudowska (A. Astrauskas 1996; A. Bliujienė
2016a, p. 213–216; table 2; 2016b, p. 9–16).
The territory of south-eastern Lithuania
covers the middle reaches of river Nemunas, the
confluence of rivers Nemunas and Merkys, as
well as the middle reaches of river Neris to the
north. New data from recent studies and ar-
chaeological material from previous excavations
suggest that south-eastern Lithuanian burial
sites, dating to the period between the 1st and
6th/7th century, are similar to Sudovian burial
monuments. Therefore, it can be suggested that
burial site in the south-eastern Lithuania (dated
to the Late Roman and Migration Periods)
belong to either the peripheral Sudovian groups
of north-eastern Poland, or should be held as
a distinct Sudovian cultural group exclusive to
south-eastern Lithuania (A. Bliujienė 2016a,
p. 225; 2016b, p. 28). As indicated by distribu-
tion of burial sites across the landscape, the
Sudovian Culture was not homogeneous. In
north-east Poland, groups of Suwałki, Augustów
and Gołdap have been identified (Fig. 1;
M. Kaczyński 1976, W. Nowakowski 2012;
2015; A. Bitner-Wróblewska 1994, p. 224–
230; M. Engel, P. Iwanicki, A. Rzeszotarska-
339
1In Lithuanian historiography tradition the term
‘Jotvingian’ is used more often than ‘Yatvingian’.
Eitulionys barrow cemetery as the key for studying
Sudovian Culture in south-eastern Lithuania
Audronė Bliujienė, Algimantas Bliujus

340
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
Lithuania during the Late Roman and Migration
Periods. A proposition has even been put for-
ward to call barrows constructed from stone
mounds the Eitulionys type (A. Astrauskas
1996, p. 7). Another barrow cemeteries group
of south-eastern Lithuania, or Group II, is lo-
cated in the plateau of Eišiškės, between rivers
Ūla and Verseka (Fig. 1:2). Group III, or barrow
cemeteries of southern Trans-Nemunas region,
are distributed between the shores of Šešupė in
the north and the left shore of the middle
reaches of Nemunas, as well as between
the
Sudovian highland and south-eastern Dainava
plain (Fig. 1:3). Just as in north-eastern Poland,
the barrow groups in south-eastern Lithuania
and in Trans-Nemunas (Litwa Zaniemieńska)
region are separated from one another by un-
inhabited lands of varying extent.
Nowakiewicz 2006; P. Szymański 2009, p. 79;
2013, p. 10–11, fig.1).
Similar pattern of ‘stone barrows’ con-
centration in groups is seen in south-eastern
Lithuania. Northern group, or Group I, of
burial sites are found across the Dzūkai high-
land and hill land of Aukštadvaris. To the south,
the majority of burial sites of Group I, are
bounded by river Verknė, while to the north
stretches a small area of uninhabited land which
separates barrows of south-eastern and eastern
Lithuanian barrows (Fig.1:1). Eitulionys, r. Trakai,
barrow cemetery is located in the range of
the Group I and is the only burial site where all
of the barrow mounds visible on the surface
have been excavated. As a result, this barrow
cemetery is considered as being the key for
studying of the development of south-eastern
Ryc. 1. Grupy kultury sudowskiej w dorzeczu środkowego Niemna, w południowo-wschodniej Litwie (1–3) i w północno-
-wschodniej Polsce: S– grupa suwalska; A– grupa augustowska; G– grupa gołdapska. Stanowiska w południowo-wschod-
niej Litwie: 1– Kudirkos Naumiestis, r. Šakiai, rzymska moneta; 2– Alinka (Raistinė), r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe;
3 – Mankūnai, r. Alytus, moneta rzymska (znalezisko luźne), kurhan; 4 – Punia, r. Alytus, moneta rzymska; 5 – Bagočiai,
r. Varėna, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 6– Baraučizna, r. Vilkaviškis, cmentarzysko; 7– Beižionys, miasto Elektrėnai, cmenta-
rzysko kurhanowe; 8– Delnica, r. Lazdijai, cmentarzysko; 9 – Dirmiškės/Dzirmiškės, r. Alytus, cmentarzysko kurhanowe;
10– Eitulionys, r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 11– Klėriškės, r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 12– Varkaliai,
r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 13 – Viečiūnai, r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 14 – Vindžiuliškiai,
r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 15 – Bakšiai, w obrębie miasta Alytus, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 16 – Visginai,
r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 17 – Katkuškės, r. Šalčininkai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 18 – Kaziuliai, miasto
Druskininkai, cmentarzysko; 19– Krikštonys, r. Lazdijai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 20– Liepynai, r. Marijampolė, cmenta-
rzysko kurhanowe; 21– Luksnėnai, r. Lazdijai, cmentarzysko; 22– Maisiejūnai (Surgantiškės), r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko
kurhanowe; 23 – Kalesninkai, r. Šalčininkai, skarb; 24 – Medžionys, r. Prienai, cmentarzysko; 25 – Prienlaukis, r. Prienai,
znalezisko luźne; 26 – Mickonys, r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 27 – Migliniškiai-Eitulionys i Migliniškiai,
r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 28– Migonys (Kleboniškis), r. Kaišiadorys, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 29– Moša (Nau-
jasodai), r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 30 – Moša (puszcza Skrebio), r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 31– Muste-
niai (Baubonys), miasto Elektrėnai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 32– Nendriniai, r. Marijampolė, cmentarzysko; 33– Papiškės,
r. Varėna, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 34– Pažarstis, r. Prienai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 35– Pučkalaukis, r. Vilnius, cmen-
tarzysko kurhanowe; 36 – Bundoriai, r. Alytus, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 37 – Radastai (Aleknonys), r. Alytus, cmenta-
rzysko; 38 – Rudamina, r. Lazdijai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 39 – Seiliūnai, r. Lazdijai, cmentarzysko; 40 – Slabadėlė,
r. Alytus, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 41– Stanaičiai, r. Vilkaviškis, cmentarzysko; 42– Verseka, r. Šalčininkai, cmentarzysko
kurhanowe; 43– Versekėlė, r. Šalčininkai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 44– Skersabaliai, r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe;
45 – Vilkiautinis, r. Varėna, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 46 – Paveisiejai, Zapsė, r. Lazdijai, cmentarzysko; 47 – Lavariškės,
r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 48– Marijampolė, w granicach miasta, moneta rzymska; 49– Kašėtos, r. Varėna, mone-
ta Walentyniana I; 50 – Intuponys (Sutrukas), r. Prienai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 51– Balandiškės, r. Trakai, cmentarzysko
kurhanowe; 52 – Pilviškės, r. Vilnius, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 53 – Nemaitonys (Žydiškės), miasto Elektrėnai, cmenta-
rzysko kurhanowe; 54– Zubriai, miasto Kalvarija, osada; 55– Suodžiai (Pjaunis), r. Šakai, dwie monety rzymskie; 56 – Kai-
rėnai, w granicach miasta Wilno, cmentarzysko kurhanowe (?); 57 – Čižiūnai, r. Trakai, kurhan; 58 – Akmeniai I–II,
r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 59– Zavišonys, r. Šalčininkai, cmentarzysko kurhanowe (?); 60– Noškūnai, r. Varėna,
cmentarzysko kurhanowe (?); 61– Margiai, r. Varėna, cmentarzysko kurhanowe (A. Bliujienė 2016b, ryc. 1)

341
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
Fig. 1.
Sudovian cultural groups in the Trans-Nemunas region, in south-eastern Lithuania (1–3) and in north-eastern Poland:
S – Suwałki Group; A – Augustów Group; G – Gołdap Group. Sites in south-eastern Lithuania: 1 – Kudirkos Naumiestis,
r. Šakiai, Roman coin; 2 – Alinka (Raistinė), r. Trakai, barrows; 3 – Mankūnai, r. Alytus, Roman coin (single nd spot),
barrow; 4 – Punia, r. Alytus, Roman coin; 5 – Bagočiai, r. Varėna, barrows; 6 – Baraučizna, r. Vilkaviškis, cemetery;
7 – Beižionys, municipality Elektrėnai, barrows; 8 – Delnica, r. Lazdijai, cemetery; 9 – Dirmiškės/Dzirmiškės, r. Alytus,
barrows; 10 – Eitulionys, r. Trakai, barrows; 11 – Klėriškės, r. Kaišiadorys, barrows; 12 – Varkaliai, r. Kaišiadorys, barrows;
13 – Viečiūnai, r. Kaišiadorys, barrows; 14 – Vindžiuliškiai, r. Kaišiadorys, barrows; 15 – Bakšiai, in the range of Alytus
town, barrows; 16 – Visginai, r. Kaišiadorys, barrows; 17 – Katkuškės, r. Šalčininkai, barrows; 18 – Kaziuliai, municipality
Druskininkai, cemetery; 19 – Krikštonys, r. Lazdijai, barrows; 20 – Liepynai, r. Marijampolė, barrows; 21 – Luksnėnai,
r. Lazdijai, cemetery; 22 – Maisiejūnai (Surgantiškės), r. Kaišiadorys, barrows; 23 – Kalesninkai, r. Šalčininkai, hoard;
24 – Medžionys, r. Prienai, cemetery; 25 – Prienlaukis, r. Prienai, stray nd; 26 – Mickonys, r. Kaišiadorys, barrows;
27 – Migliniškiai-Eitulionys and Migliniškiai, r. Trakai, barrow cemeteries; 28 – Migonys (Kleboniškis), r. Kaišiadorys,
barrows; 29 – Moša (Naujasodai), r. Trakai, barrows; 30 – Moša (Skrebio forest), r. Trakai, barrows; 31 – Musteniai
(Baubonys), municipality Elektrėnai, barrows; 32 – Nendriniai, r. Marijampolė, cemetery; 33 – Papiškės, r. Varėna, barrows;
34 – Pažarstis, r. Prienai, barrows; 35 – Pučkalaukis, r. Vilnius, barrows; 36 – Bundoriai, r. Alytus, barrows; 37 – Radastai
(Aleknonys), r. Alytus, cemetery; 38 – Rudamina, r. Lazdijai, barrows; 39 – Seiliūnai, r. Lazdijai, cemetery; 40 – Slabadėlė,
r. Alytus, barrows; 41 – Stanaičiai, r. Vilkaviškis, cemetery; 42 – Verseka, r. Šalčininkai, barrows; 43 – Versekėlė,
r. Šalčininkai, barrows; 44 – Skersabaliai, r. Trakai, barrows; 45 – Vilkiautinis, r. Varėna, barrows; 46 – Paveisiejai, Zapsė,
r. Lazdijai, cemetery; 47 – Lavariškės, r. Trakai, barrows; 48 – Marijampolė, in the range of the town, Roman coin;
49 – Kašėtos, r. Varėna, Valentian I coin; 50 – Intuponys (Sutrukas), r. Prienai, barrows; 51 – Balandiškės, r. Trakai, barrows;
52 – Pilviškės, r. Vilnius, barrows; 53 – Nemaitonys (Žydiškės), municipality of Elektrėnai, barrows; 54– Zubriai, munici-
pality of Kalvarija, settlement; 55 – Suodžiai (Pjaunis), r. Šakai, two Roman coins; 56 – Kairėnai, in the range of Vilnius
city, barrows (?); 57 – Čižiūnai, r. Trakai, barrow; 58 – Akmeniai I–II, r. Trakai, barrows; 59 – Zavišonys,
r. Šalčininkai,
barrows (?); 60 – Noškūnai, r. Varėna, barrows (?); 61 – Margiai, r. Varėna, barrows (A. Bliujienė 2016b, g. 1)

342
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
r. Kaišiadorys and, possibly Beižionys in munici-
pality of Elektrėnai (M. Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė
1946, fig. 80; A. Jankevičienė 1958, p. 39–42,
figs. 2–5; A. Bliujienė 1992, p. 109–110, figs.
5–6; E. Butėnas 1998, p. 176, fig. 12–13, 31).
It is unclear as to when exactly did minia-
ture hillforts start appearing across the territo-
ries
of south-east Lithuania, on the left shore
of the middle reaches of river Nemunas, or
in
part territories of modern-day districts of
Kaunas, Kaišiadoriai, Trakai, Prienai, Alytus and
Elektrėnai municipality. It is considered that
miniature hillforts were spread across a slightly
wider territory of the south-eastern Lithuania
than ‘stone barrows’ (Northern Group I). There
is lack of archaeological data for description
of miniature hillfort and their proper spread,
because only a small number of
this type of sites
has been investigated (R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė
1959, p. 125–134; U. Budvydas 2007; V. Juškaitis
2008; A. Kurilienė 2009, p. 86, 97, 137, 142;
R. Vengalis 2009, p. 51–58, 106–107; L. Kurila
2018, tab. 3, fig.16). Miniature hillforts differ
from other types of hillforts in their size (flat
hillfort tops measured to only 100–150 m2),
fortifications (flat hillfort tops was usually
fortified by building impressive ramparts,
hillfort slopes were made steeper) and in the
structure of cultural layer. Most likely stroked
pottery potsherds found in ramparts have been
deposited from settlements at the feet of hill-
forts (R. Vengalis 2009, p. 51–56, 155–156).
Archaeologist Eduards Volters (1856–1941),
writing at the end of the 19thcentury, some of
miniature hillforts, that he visited in Kaišiadorys
district, identified as big barrows because of their
size (cf. A. Kurilienė 2009, p. 86, 97, 137,
142).
Large foot settlements (some of them measur-
ing to 3.5 ha) were usually found to enclose
miniature hillforts (R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė
1959, p. 125–135; Z. Baubonis, G. Zabiela
2005, p. 138; U. Budvydas 2007; V. Juškaitis,
2008; A. Bliujienė 2013, p. 171–174, figs.
93,94). Despite being limited, research data
The monuments of Stroked Pottery Cul-
ture2in south-eastern of Lithuania started to
vanish during the second half of the 2nd and
the beginning of the 3rd centuries. On the one
hand, this premise is supported by archaeologi-
cal evidence, such as abandonment of settle-
ments and hillforts of Stroked Pottery Culture,
their reconstruction and incorporation into
a structurally transformed settlement space at
the final stages of existence. On the other hand,
it was established that barrows started appear-
ing at this time in the former territories of the
Stroked Pottery Culture (A. Luchtanas 2001;
R. Vengalis 2009, p. 153–155; A. Bliujienė 2013,
p. 162–165, figs. 86:1–3). Similar processes were
observed on the left shore of river Nemunas, i.e.
the Trans-Nemunas region. Here, the decline of
the Stroked Pottery Culture and new ethno-
cultural formations have been directly linked
to migration patterns of people belonging to
the Bogaczewo Culture and followed by the
Sudovians, as well as the subsequent accultura-
tion (G. Grižas, A. Bitner-Wróblewska 2007;
Z. Baubonis, O. Fediajevas, A. Merkevičius2012;
2013; M. Kontrimas 2014; A. Bliujienė 2016a;
2016b; M. Žemantauskaitė, O. Fediajevas 2018).
During the first half of the 3rd century or a bit
earlier, communities of Sudovian Culture start-
ed moving to the Trans-Nemunas region and
south-east of Lithuania, where they lived up
until the 6th/7th century. However, at the end
of the 6th century they started being pushed
southward by people of East Lithuanian Barrow
Culture. It has been observed that, during the
period between the 8th and 9th/10thcentury,
the people of East Lithuanian Barrow Culture
not only started establishing new barrow sites,
but were also re-using abandoned older barrows
and building new ones in old bar
row cemeteries
(for instance, in Alinka (Raistinė),
r. Trakai,
Vilnius Pučkalaukis, Maisiejūnai (Surgantiškės),
2In Lithuanian literature is used also the term Brushed
Pottery Culture.

343
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
rajon and Elektrėnai municipality (Fig. 2).
Furthermore, there is a sacred site, a water-
logged depression in the village of Eitulionys.
Groups of barrows, located at the vicinity of
lakes Švenčius and Asonas, are situated at a dis-
tance of 0.8 to 1.4 kilometre from each other.
The closest habitation site to Eitulionys bar-
rows is Beižionys in municipality of Elektrėnai,
miniature hillfort with a foot settlement, dated
to the second half of the 1st millennium AD,
after accidentally found potsherds of rusticated
pottery. One hundred fifty meters southwards
from Beižionys hillfort, barrow cemetery is locat-
ed (Z. Baubonis, G. Zabiela 2005, p. 138). Here,
about 50 barrows survive. On the surface of
bigger barrows (12–18 m in diameter and up to
1.5 m in height) stones are visible. It seems, that
smaller barrows probably are not covered with
stone structures (A. Tautavičius 1977, p. 27).
In 1924, local antique collectors excavated
barrow with a stone constructed mound in
Beižionys. Here, a cremation grave was dis
cover-
ed (M. Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė 1946, p. 67–
68,
fig. 80). A number of other barrows were
also excavated, however, no graves were found
(A. Tautavičius 1977, p. 27). Barrows without
graves or ‘empty’ barrows are a common feature
of East Lithuania (A. Tautavičius 1996 p. 54;
A. Bliujienė 1992, p. 119–121).
Eitulionys barrow cemetery is located
on an arable elevation surrounded by wet
meadows. There were 23 barrows surviving in
the year 19393, unfortunately, it was also not
possible to recover how many barrows there
could have been at earlier date (VAK 1935, p. 52;
A. Tautavičius 1977, p. 36–37). It is known
that, in 1933, a local land surveyor excavated
one barrow and found human remains (VAK
1935, p. 52–57). In 1978 excavations of this
monument were begun, only 21 barrows were
allowed to determine, nonetheless, the date for
appearance of this type of strongholds, which
could have been between the Late Roman and
Early Migration Periods. Thus, it is probable
that the appearance of this type of hillforts dur-
ing the Late Roman Period was a result of the
arrival of Sudovians, as well as a further conse-
quence of structural landscape reorganisation
and maybe some turmoil created by migration
of the Wielbark Culture people southward
(V. Vaitkevičius 2005a, p. 71–75, fig. 3;
L. Kurila 2016, p. 198; A. Bliujienė 2016b,
p. 13; also see A. Cieśliński 2014). Hillforts of
relatively small scale could have been used as
strongholds or as hiding places for people liv-
ing in adjacent settlements. Such places could
have been used for protection from migrating
tribes and helped limit the incomers from
Eastern Lithuania during the 5th/7th century.
These fortified structures were probably con-
tinu
ed to be used at later periods as well
(R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1959, p. 134–135;
G. Zabiela 1995, p. 47–49, fig. 35; A. Bliujienė
2013, p. 172). During the 11th–12th century,
there was a growth in number of barrows being
built across south-eastern Lithuania by the
East Lithuanian Barrows Culture people
(A. Tautavičius 1996, p. 99; L. Kurila 2009a,
p. 11–12, fig. 1; 2009b, figs. 12–13). In this
way, the Sudovian Culture is thought to have
vanished in the territories of south-eastern
Lithuania.
Construction of barrows
and funeral rites
at Eitulionys barrow cemetery
A number of barrow cemeteries – Eitulionys,
Migliškiai-Eitulionys, Migliškiai and Nemaitonys
(Žydiškai), with mounds constructed of stones
– are known between the lakes of Švenčius and
Asonas in the south-east of Lithuania. Accord-
ing to the current administrative division, these
barrow cemeteries are located at the vicinity
of Eitulionys and Migliškiai villages in Trakai
3Later insert into State Archaeological Commission
documents, made by archaeologist Pranas Baleniūnas
(1900–1965).

344
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
measured to 12 m in length, 4.5 m in width
and 0.7 m in height. Oblong-shaped barrows
are unusual for this region, and only one more
similarly shaped barrow (although it may poss-
ibly be a rampart) is known from Vilkiautinis,
r. Varėna barrow cemetery. It measured to 50 m
in length, 4 m in width and 1.6–1.8 m in height
(S. Krukowski 1913, p. 1, fig. 1; P. Kulikauskas
1977, p. 87–89, fig. 1). In some cases, they were
identified, while six barrows (nos. X, XI, XV,
XVI, XVII and XXI) appeared to be only piles
of stone (A. Bliujus 1983, p. 31, fig. 1). In the
period between years 1978 and 1981, all bar-
rows were excavated. It was found that their
shape was close to circular or oval in shape and
measured between 9 and 12 m in diameter
(A. Bliujus 1978; 1979; 1980; 1981). Only bar-
row no. III stood out from the rest, as it
Fig. 2. Barrow cemetery of Eitulionys.
r. Trakai and adjacent archaeological
sites: 1 – Eitulionys, barrow cemetery;
2 – Beižionys, municipality Elektrėnai,
miniature hillfort with a foot settlement
(a), barrow cemetery (b), sacred hill (c);
3 – Eitulionys sacred site; 4 – Migliniškiai-
Eitulionys, r. Trakai, barrow cem-
etery; 5 – Migliniškiai, r. Trakai, bar-
row cemetery; 6 – Migliniškiai, stone;
7 – Liaukiškiai, municipality of Elektrėnai,
sacred hill; 8 – Nemaitonys (Žydiškės),
municipality of Elektrėnai, sacred site;
9 – Nemaitonys (Žydiškiai), municipality
of Elektrėnai, barrow; 10 – Nemaitonys,
r. Kaišiadorys, settlement; 11 – Nemaitonys
stone (data of Department of Culture
Heritage Protection)
Ryc. 2. Cmentarzysko kurhanowe w Ei-
tuolionys. r. Trakai i sąsiednie stano-
wiska archeologiczne: 1 – Eitulionys,
cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 2 – Beižionys,
miasto Elektrėnai, miniaturowe grodzi-
sko i pobliska osada (a), cmentarzysko
kurhanowe (b), kultowe wzgórze (c);
3 – Eitulionys, stanowisko kultowe;
4 – Migliniškiai-Eitulionys, r. Trakai,
cmentarzysko kurhanowe; 5 – Miglini-
škiai, r. Trakai, cmentarzysko kurhano-
we; 6 – Migliniškiai, kamień; 7 – Liau-
kiškiai, miasto Elektrėnai, kultowe
wzgórze; 8 – Nemaitonys (Žydiškės),
miasto Elektrėnai, stanowisko kultowe;
9 – Nemaitonys (Žydiškiai), miasto
Elektrėnai, kurhan; 10 – Nemaitonys,
r. Kaišiadorys, osada; 11 – Nemaitonys,
kamień (dane Departamentu Ochrony
Dziedzictwa Kulturowego)

345
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
small pits filled with charcoal, also potsherds
belonging to the culture of Stroked Pottery and
some fragments of pottery with smoothed
polished surface discovered in barrow mounds.
The deceased were either cremated or laid
in inhumation graves. The inhumation graves
were discovered in barrows nos. III, IV, V, VIII,
XIII, XIV and XVIII. These barrows are dated
to the 3rd–4th centuries. The barrows VIII,
XIV and XVIII contain a single inhumation
graves. In the barrow no. III two inhumation
were found, while in the barrow no. XIII
three single inhumation graves were entombed.
Barrows nos. IV and V were exceptions as they
contained multiple graves of people buried at
the same time. Cremation graves, were found
deposited in mounds over the Late Roman
Period inhumation graves in barrows nos. III,
V and XIV.
hardly discernible, most of them were disturbed
and identifiable only from a few stones visible
in the top soil.
The mounds of barrows at Eitulionys were
constructed from 1 or 2 paving of stones which
were divided by a layer of soil. Larger barrows
contained from 400 to 1000 medium-sized
stones, whereas the smaller ones could contain
between 230 and 250 stones (Fig. 3). Barrows
with inhumation graves were encircled with
larger stones placed on the former top soil.
Some of the stones were fractured for a close
fit against each other (Fig. 4). Barrows with
cremation graves, however, were not encircled
with stones (A. Bliujus 1983, fig. 1). In cases
where stone circles were present, they measured
to 5.8–7.2 m in diameter. The height of
the barrows were between 0.5 m and 1.5 m.
A multitude of isolated small pieces of charcoal,
Fig. 3. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Mound of barrow no. III aer removal of the top soil. North-east view. Photograph by
A. Bliujus
Ryc. 3. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Kurhan nr III po zdjęciu warstwy darni. Widok od północnego wschodu. Fot. A. Bliujus

346
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
with head orientated north-west, at the angle
of 320–345 degrees. Positioning of arms was
unclear since graves were robbed of grave goods
in the antiquity and chest area of skeletons was
disturbed. Only leg bones and, in some in-
stances, skulls remained intact after robbing.
As a result of this, bones were found scattered
within the grave pits. There were cases when
single bones were discovered in the mound
of barrow: for instance, a mandible of a child,
aged between 6 and 7 years of age (age was
determined by anthropologist prof. Gintautas
Česnys), was found in barrow no. VI. All in-
humation graves were robbed soon after funeral
or at the time when barrow cemetery was still
in use (A. Bliujus 1979, p. 5–6, 10–14; 1980,
p. 3–4; 1981, p. 3–5; 1983, p. 34; L. Kurila
2009b, p. 45–53, figs. 2, 3).
Inhumation graves were discovered be-
neath the mounds base dug pits. The grave pits
varied in depth (0.2–0.75 m) and were rec-
tangular or oblong in shape, encircling with
stones and covering by cairns (Figs. 4, 5). In some
cases, only a few stones were found placed at the
head or feet of deceased person. A considerable
amount of charcoal were scattered inside the
grave pits. Barrow no. VIII should be noted,
as an oval pit (16 x 8 cm in diameter and 10 cm
deep) was found in the middle of the grave pit
which was filled with charcoal. The deceased
were laid on their back4in an extended position
Fig. 4. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Barrow no. IV with stone circles and a collective inhumation grave. West-side view.
Photograph by A. Bliujus
Ryc. 4. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Kurhan nr IV z kręgiem kamiennym i zbiorowym grobem szkieletowym. Widok od za-
chodu. Fot. A. Bliujus
4Except in barrow no. XVIII where the skeletal remains
was found in a prone position. This grave was robbed,
therefore, it is likely that the body of the deceased could
have been turned by the robbers (?).

347
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
Underneath the mound base of barrow
no. V, two adult individuals and an infant were
found buried. The top part of the grave was
disturbed. Some grave goods found included
a white quartz bead located next to the infant
and a socketed spearhead with lanceolate blade
at the disturbed head of one of the individuals
(Fig. 5; A. Bliujus 1981, p. 3, figs. 7, 8). It was
assumed that both barrows were constructed
at the same time, meaning that a tragedy has
struck the people (families) who were buried
there. Unfortunately, graves were robbed soon
after the funeral. Most damage was done to the
top part of the skeletons, or just the chest area.
As a result, only some grave goods remained.
Barrows nos. IV and V were placed only
a couple of metres apart. These are the biggest
barrows in the cemetery, measuring between
9.5 and 12 m in diameter and 1.2–1.3 m in
height. Within them, collective inhumation
graves were found. Barrow no. IV contained
three individuals as indicated by six tibiae
found in their original place (Fig. 4). Other
parts of skeletons scattered in the grave pit by
robbers, therefore no grave goods were found
in this multiple burial. Ages of two individuals
were determined by prof. G. Česnys: one of
them was a teenager between 16 and 18, while
the other was a child aged between 10 and 12
(A. Bliujus 1981, p. 7, fig. 7).
Fig. 5. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Stone
circle of barrow no. V and a disturb-
ed triple inhumation grave no. 2
in situ.
South-side view. Photograph
by A. Bliujus
Ryc. 5. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Krąg
kamienny w kurhanie V i naruszo-
ny szkieletowy grób zbiorowy nr 2
in situ. Widok od południa.
Fot. A. Bliujus

348
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
region was done with ritual intentions rather
than for profit (J. Jaskanis 2013, p. 244, 245;
M. Karczewski 2016, p. 117–126).
Barrow no. I contained a symbolic grave
(the cenotaph) wherein only the grave goods
were deposited without skeletal remains.
The grave was built in the mound, between 0.6
and 0.8 m deep. This was the only grave in
Eitulionys cemetery which has not been placed
in a pit beneath a mound base, even if people
building this grave were following inhumation
burial rites. The cenotaph was square shaped
(3.2×1.3 m in size) and carefully orientated in
a north-west (345 degrees) – south-east direc-
tion, covered with a stones chair and edges of
grave pit were encircled by stones (A. Bliujus
1980, p. 7–8, fig. 24; 1983, p. 36, fig. 8). The
grave pit was scattered with charcoal, while the
grave goods were found deposited in an usual
order: a spearhead with a wooden shaft was
placed at the north-west end of the grave, a spur
and fragments of an unknown iron artefact
were found at the south-east corner, in a feet
area. Symbolic graves are known from other
Sudovian burial sites from north-east of Poland
(cf. J. Jaskanis 1974, p. 124–126; A. Bitner-
Wróblewska 2007, p. 104; A. Bitner-Wróblewska,
A. Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz 2016, p. 278).
At Eitulionys barrow cemetery there were
two types of cremation graves in pits. Type one
resembled inhumation graves in their size and
equipment. Such cremation graves were found
in barrows nos. II and VI. Cremation grave
found in the barrow no. VI apparently follow-
ing of inhumation tradition, wherein a large
grave pit of an irregular shape was dug. The
edges were not layered with stones as seen in
other graves, however, the grave was dug under
the base of the mound and bones were spread
inside of the grave pit. Just as in other crema-
tion graves, there were no grave goods in this
grave (A. Bliujus 1983, 34). Barrow no. II was
built following the customs of inhumation
graves: the grave pit was oriented NW – SE
These included objects which were missed, also
iron artefacts that have been placed at the feet of
graves (such as spurs) and spearheads at the
head of graves which did not interest the grave
robbers. The nature of robbery would suggest
that bronze artefacts were the main target
as these could be re-used for making other arte-
facts or as raw material (A. Bliujus 1983, p. 34;
L. Kurila 2009b, p. 55).
As suggested by statistical data, mass
robbing of inhumation graves was especially
widespread across the territories of Sudovian
Culture in the south-east of Lithuania (for in-
stance, in Maisiejūnai (Surgantiškės), Visginai,
r. Kaišiadorys, Pilviškės, r. Vilniaus, Žydiškės-
Nemaitonys, r. Kaišiadorys and other barrow
cemeteries) as well as in the Suwałki region – in
Osowa, pow. Suwałki, Szwajcaria (now a part of
town Suwałki) and Żywa Woda, pow. Suwałki
(E. Butėnienė 1970; A. Bliujus 1983, p. 34;
L. Kurila 2009b, p. 45–55, table 1; J. Jaskanis
1974, p. 134; 2013, p. 244–245; M. Karczewski
2016, figs. 3–5). Judging by the robbed barrows
of Eitulionys and at other south-east Lithuanian
cemeteries it was suggested that mass robberies
were taking place from the late 3rd to the first
half of the 5th centuries, that is during the time
when inhumation was the prevailing burial
custom. This explanation is based on the strati-
graphy of barrow (nos. III, V and XIV) mounds,
here a cremation pit graves were placed over
disturbed inhumation graves (A. Bliujus 1981,
p. 2, figs. 5, 6). Therefore, it is probable that
graves were being robbed by local people who
were familiar with burial customs (A. Bliujus
1983, p. 34; L. Kurila 2009b, p. 53–55). In case
of barrow robbing in the Suwałki region,
the robbers were probably also most active dur-
ing the Late Roman and Migration Periods.
Here, just as in Eitulionys, some of cremation
burials were found placed over inhumation
graves (J. Jaskanis 2013, fig. 5; M. Karczewski
2016, p. 119). A hypothesis has been put for-
ward recently stating that robbing in Suwałki

349
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
a neck-ring with a spoon-shaped clasp, remains
of a spiral temple ring, penannular enamelled
brooch, two broad wristband bracelets, small
round decorative elements and an iron crossbow
brooch. Some of the grave goods were partially
melted and one bracelet was especially damag-
ed. Finds suggest that the grave dates to the first
direction (Fig. 6). At the north-west end of the
grave stones were arranged in two levels, whereas
at the opposite end only one stone was placed.
Fragments of burnt bone remains and ash were
found spread across the grave pit.
There were
grave goods positioned around bones
and ash
concentration. In this cremation was found:
Fig. 6. Eitul ionys,
r. Trakai. Cremation
grave in barrow no. II
in situ (east-side view)
and a plan. Photo-
graph and plan by
A. Bliujus
Ryc. 6. Eitulionys,
r. Trakai. Grób cia-
łopalny w kurhanie
nr II in situ (widok
od wschodu) i plan
grobu . Fot. i ry s.
A. Bliujus

350
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
Fig. 7. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Grave goods from cremation grave (barrow no. II): 1, 2, 5–7 – bronze; 3 – bronze, red
enamel; 4 – iron. Drawing by A. Bliujus, photographs by A. Bliujienė
Ryc. 7. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Wyposażenie grobu ciałopalnego (kurhan nr II): 1, 2, 5–7 – brąz; 3 – brąz, czerwona emalia;
4 – żelazo. Rys. A. Bliujus, fot. A. Bliujienė

351
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
ence and become to be part of burial rite.
There-
fore, here as in Suwałki region (M. Kaczyński
1976, p. 263–267) biritualism was common
feature of burial rites. Furthermore, recent
studies show that the tradition of
cremation has
only rooted in the east of Lithuania
during the
second quarter of the 5th and the middle of the
5th centuries (V. Vaitkevičius 2005b, p. 50–54;
A. Bliujienė 2006, p. 131–138).
The remaining cremation graves were de-
posited into earlier barrow mounds of inhuma-
tion graves. Cremated bones were placed direct-
ly inside the grave pits measuring to 0.6×0.5 m
or 0.3×0.4 m, encircled by stones, without any
grave goods (Fig. 8). As already mentioned above,
only one cremation grave at Eitulionys had
quarter of the 3rd and the beginning
of the 4th
century (or phases C1b–C2), and that
a woman
was buried here (Fig. 7; A. Bliujienė 2013,
p. 470–471, figs. 321–322). This particular
cremation grave is thought to be the earliest
known in the south-east of Lithuania. It not
only displays the spread of cremation
tradition
from the territory of Sudovians, but
also suggests
that the practice of cremation appeared in these
areas 100 years earlier than in
the Eastern
Lithuania (cf. A. Bitner-Wróblewska
2007,
p. 101–104; J. Jaskanis 2013, p. 248–250,
dia-
gram 6; A. Bliujienė 2016a, p. 218, fig. 7; 2016b,
p. 16–18). Finally, even if inhumation graves in
south-east of Lithuania prevail during Late
Roman Period, but cremation come into exist-
Fig. 8. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Crema-
tion grave no. 2 in barrow no. III
in situ. North-east view. Photo-
graph by A. Bliujus
Ryc. 8. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Grób
ciałopalny nr 2 w kurhanie nr III
in situ. Widok od północnego
wschodu. Fot. A. Bliujus

352
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
in the barrow cemetery of Moša (Naujasodai)
(G. Abaravičius 1995; 1996). It must be noted
that rituals involving the use of fire are charac-
teristic of the whole cultural sphere of the
Western Balts.
Finds from Eitulionys barrow
cemetery
All of the inhumation graves at Eitulionys were
robbed, while the cremation graves did not con-
tain any grave good deposits (except a female
grave in barrow no. II). This meant that there
were only 20 finds recovered during the ex-
cavations, which is a very small amount when
considering the number of barrows and graves
investigated. Overall, 10 inhumation graves,
1 symbolic and 5 cremation graves were found.
The richest grave was discovered in barrow
no. II. The grave goods were assigned to a female
and some of them displayed signs of having
been in a fire, while others were melted and,
possibly, intentionally broken. The grave was
dated to the period between the 4th–5th cen-
tury based on available data from the 1990’s and
accessible in this time literature (A. Bliujus 1983,
p. 38–39, fig. 9:3). Recent data from research
as well as analysis of graves and archaeological
material from south-eastern Lithuania allowed
for dating of this grave to the period C1b–C2
(A. Bliujienė 2013, p. 470–471).
Fragments of two spiral temple rings with
tapered terminals, made from a cross-section of
a diamond-shaped wire, were found in barrow
no. II. One of them measured to 5.7 cm in diam-
eter. This type of spiral temple rings was wide-
ly spread across the region of Trans-Nemunas
and in the south-east of Lithuania, and are
thought to have been worn during periods C3
and, even, D (M. Michelbertas 2011, p. 70,
fig. 2:1–4). Archaeological finds from this
grave, however, suggested an earlier date for
the spiral temple rings, that is the period C2
(Fig. 7:1).
grave goods. Generally, across the south-east of
Lithuania cremation graves contained no grave
goods – Eitulionys: barrows no.III, V, VI, XIV;
Moša (Naujasodai), r. Trakai: barrow no.3; Alinka
(Raistinė): barrow no. XVIII. The dating for
these graves is complicated, however,
indefinite
assumptions would suggest the second
quarter
of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th cen-
turies as the beginning of cremation practice.
Some of the cremation graves in the south-east
of Lithuania (in particular those which been
deposited into mounds) could be dated to the
Early Migration Period. This is because a similar
situation with placement of simple grave
goods and growing uniformity of funeral rites
during the same period is seen in cremation
graves of the broad region to the of the Great
Mazurian Lakes (A. Bitner-Wróblewska 1994,
p. 224; A. Bitner-Wróblewska, A. Rzeszotarska-
Nowakiewicz
2016, p. 277–278). Therefore,
it is likely that simplification of grave good
deposits was happening within all Sudovian
cultural groups.
Fire was an important part of funeral rites
across the south-east of Lithuania and for the
Sudovians in north-eastern Poland (J. Jaskanis
1974, p. 81; 2013, p. 248; A. Bitner-Wróblewska
2007, p. 106). Evidence for use of fire was often
found in the mounds and graves at Eitulionys
such as single charcoal bits and charcoal-filled
pits (Fig. 6; A. Bliujus 1983, p. 35–36). Barrow
no. XIX contained a pit (measuring to 2.1×1.3 m
in size and 0.35 m in depth) which was orien-
tat
ed towards the east-west and was filled with
charcoal. This case was peculiar since the orien-
tation was different to other inhumation graves
and those cremation graves which were follow-
ing inhumation as burial rite, wherein the usual
head orientation of inhumations were towards
the north-west. In the centre of this grave there
was a depression (measuring to 0.3×0.2 cm
in size and 0.15 m in depth) which was filled
with charcoal (A. Bliujus 1978, p. 7, fig. 18; 1983,
p. 35). Similar charcoal-filled pits were found

353
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
cemetery of Netta, pow. Augustów, in a child’s
grave no. 26, in Szwajcaria barrow no. CXI,
grave 2 and in Płociczno, pow. Suwałki. They
were dated to the period C1–C2 (A. Bitner-
Wróblewska 2007, p. 17, 59, pl. XIV:1,
CXXVII:2a; J. Jaskanis 2013 p. 65, 145, pl.
XCIV:1). Therefore, it is thought that the neck-
ring with a spoon-shaped clasp of Eitulionys
should also date to a similar time period. There
were also other artefacts recovered from the
cremation grave in barrow no. II at Eitulionys,
such as a penannular enamelled brooch of type
II after A. Jabłońska (1992, p. 125–128, 152,
no. 26). The brooch was decorated with red
enamel using the enamel champlevé technique
(Fig. 7:3). Brooches of type II are typical to
Sudovian Culture and
were found in the settle-
ment of Bakšiai, r. Alytus, at the barrow cemetery
of Pakalniai, r. Vilnius (inhumation grave no. 2,
barrow no. 7) and in other Central Lithuanian
cemeteries which fall into the Bogaczewo and
Sudovian spheres of influence (A. Bliujus 1983,
p. 39, fig. 9:3; V. Vaitkevičius 2004, p. 54–55,
A bronze neck-ring with a spoon-shaped
clasp was another artefact found in barrow
no. II (Fig. 7:2). Main find spots for this
type of neck-rings are concentrated in the
Central Lithuania, however, they also appear in
graves across the Trans-Nemunas region and in
the south-east and east of Lithuania. Neck-
rings with a spoon-shaped clasp are dated to
periods between the end of C2 and C3–D
(M. Michelbertas 2011, p. 70, figs. 2:1, 4:9).
Another find spot for artefacts of this type in-
cluded Semeniškės, r. Širvintos, barrow cem-
etery (of the East Lithuanian Barrow Culture
situated on the border with the northern
Sudovian group of south-eastern Lithuania).
Here, grave no. 4 (barrow no. III) contained
a neck-ring with a spoon-shaped clasp, as well
as spiral temple rings, two broad wristband
bracelets, a small cylinder, a crook-shaped pin
and an awl. This grave was dated to the period
C1b–C2 (D. Baltramiejūnaitė, R. Vengalis
2010, p. 102, fig. 4). Neck-rings with a spoon-
shaped clasp were also discovered in a Sudovian
Fig. 9. Penannular enamelled brooch discovered in Cikoniškės, r. Alytus in 2017. Photograph by A. Bliujienė
Ryc. 9. Zapinka podkowiasta zdobiona emalią odkryta w Cikoniškės, r. Alytus w 2017 r. Fot. A. Bliujienė

354
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
Distribution area of enamelled artefacts, dating
to the Late Roman Period, is vast: it run across
the north-east of Poland, the Trans-Nemunas
region, the south-eastern and Central Lithuania
and further eastward between the middle
reaches of river Dnieper and Desna and upper
reaches of river Oka, as well as in Estonia and
south-western Finland (A. Bitner-Wróblewska
2011, p. 14, figs. 1, 3; A. Bitner-Wróblewska,
A. Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz 2016, p. 296–
298, figs. 52, 55–57). Some close to such, en-
amell
ed finds reflect different routes across
which artefacts and production techniques
travelled to the lands of Balts, and where they
could start being produced.
The cremation grave of barrow no. II at
Eitulionys also contained a crossbow brooch
with a bent foot (type A 161), measuring to
8.7 cm in length. It is a frequent find in the
lands of Balts which appeared at the end of the
C1a period, was very popular during periods
C1b–C2 and is also found in contexts dated to
the period C3 and, possibly, the beginning
of period D (M. Michelbertas 1986, p. 119–
120).
These brooches were usually made from
bronze,
however, the brooch from Eitulionys is
iron (Fig. 7:4).
Finally, the same grave also contained two
broadened wrist-band bracelets (Manschetten-
armringe) which measured to 9.2 cm in width
(Fig. 7:6–7). Wrist-band bracelets are divided
into two groups which differ in terms of the
width of the band. Broad bracelets had bands
measuring from 5–6 to 9.2 cm, while narrow
ones measured from 3.5 to 4 cm in width.
Ornamentation of bands and terminals are
usually found to not differ much across the
distribution area of this type of bracelets. This
is a typical find in archaeological contexts
of Sudovian Culture. However, they were
also discovered in contexts belonging to the
Bogaczewo Culture (cf. W. Nowakowski 1998,
pls. 29:587; 2013, p. 153). Individual bracelets
were also found in barrows of the Eastern
figs. 13, 14; M. Michelbertas 2016, p. 29–30,
catalogue nos. 7, 12, 22, 23)5. An analogues
find, from an urn with cremated remains
(grave no. 81), from the Netta cemetery, was
dated to the period of B2–B2/C1. Additionally,
a typologically similar brooch from Babięta,
pow. Mrągowo / Babieten, Kr. Sensburg was
dated to B2/C1–C1a periods (W. Nowakowski
1998, p. 59, fig. 19: 475; A. Bitner-Wróblewska
2007, p. 26, 47, pl. XLII, CXII:1, CXVIII:3,
CXXV:3). Thus, the penannular brooch
from Eitulionys should be dated to the period
C1b–C2 (A. Bliujienė 2013, p. 470–471,
fig. 322: 4).
Distribution area of penannular brooches
is wider than the territories populated by the
Sudovians and people of the Bogaczewo
Culture. Comparison of all known enamelled
artefact finds, from the Sudovian territories
in the south-east of Lithuania and the Trans-
Nemunas region, has shown that there are
known almost only penannular brooches which
bows decorated with rectangular or diamond-
shaped red and green enamel inlays. Again,
penannular brooches bows ends with are round
plates fill in with red enamel (Figs. 7:3 and 9;
for comparison see M. Michelbertas 2016;
M. Žemantauskaitė, O. Fediajevas 2018, fig.
4:2). Meanwhile, enamelled artefacts from the
areas of East Lithuanian Barrow culture were
more diverse: they included various pendants
and typologically different penannular brooches
decorated with outgrowth-like elements
(for comparison see M. Michelbertas 2016).
5Recently one more penannular brooch decorated with
rectangular and round-shaped red enamel inlays were
found at Vilūnai cemetery, r. Kaišiadorys during field
walkingsurvey (personal communication by Dr. Gintautas
Zabiela). This brooch typologically and stylistically is
close to the ornaments known from Paudronys cemetery,
r. Šalčininkai, female’s grave no.18, Sargėnai in Kaunas
city, cemetery child’s grave no. 203 and Bargłów Dworny,
pow. Augustów, grave no. 4a (A. Bitner-Wróblewska
2011, fig. 5:c; M. Michelbertas 2016, p. 78, 84).

355
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
of Visginai. These were dated to the period
C1b–C2 (A. Bliujienė 2013, fig. 328:6; 2016a,
p. 219, figs. 8, 9). It must be noted that this par-
ticular buckle type was widely spread across the
Balts lands and was favoured by the Sudovians
(cf. J. Jaskanis 2013, p. 133–134).
Disturbed graves of Eitulionys also con-
tained a bronze spiral ring with 6 coils – grave
no. 2, barrow no. XIV (Fig. 10:1) and a tiny
fragment of a bronze spiral (from a mound of
barrow no. XIII). These are typical finds of the
Balts culture which have a broad chronological
range. There was also a white quartz bead of an
elongated shape (0.8 cm in length) found in bar-
row no. V. It is reminiscent of type TM LVI,
group 498 (M. Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1985,
pl. 19:498). More finds of this particular type
are known from the territory of Wielbark
Culture. They were dated to the Late Roman
Period (M. Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1985,
p. 88–89, pl. 19:498, p. 72). It is assumed that
stone beads, just like the one from Eitulionys,
were produced by imitating a cylindrical shape
of glass beads.
Other finds from Eitulionys included two
iron spurs with long, massive conical spikes
(measuring between 2.2–2.5 cm in length) and
an elongated loop by the spike which ended
with semi-circular bosses. Both spurs were as-
signed to Jerzy Ginalski’s type G1 (1991, p. 64).
One of the spurs was corroded and came from
grave no. 3 (barrow no. XIII). The second one
was discovered in a symbolic grave – barrow no.
I (Fig. 10:3). Spurs of this type are known from
south-eastern Lithuania burial sites and from
Sudovian graves dated to the Late Roman Period.
Analogous finds are known from the
Wielbark
and Przeworsk Cultures (cf. J. Jaskanis
2013,
p. 200–202). Spurs found at Eitulionys were
dated to the period C1–C2.
The largest group of finds from Eitulionys
consisted of socketed spearheads: three of them
were found in graves, while another one was
discovered in a mound of barrow no. XIII –
Lithuania located on the borderline with
Sudovian cultural monuments. In the south-
east of Lithuania, broadened wrist-band brace-
lets are the most often found type. They are
also assumed to be dating to later periods than
the narrow bracelets. The majority of broaden-
ed bracelets were recovered from cremation
graves. After a consideration of existing studies
of wrist-band bracelets (A. Bitner-Wróblewska
2007, p. 56–57; J. Jaskanis 2013, p. 154–156;
M. Michelbertas 2016, p. 77–80, figs. 7–10) it
was concluded that the bracelets from cremated
grave in barrow no. II of Eitulionys should be
dated to the period C1b–C2.
Cremation grave (barrow II) also contain-
ed two bronze round with a small boss decor-
ative elements (appliqués), measuring to 0.6 cm
in diameter and 0.4 cm in height, produced
from impressed bronze foil with concentric ring
as ornament. These round decorative elements
probably being used for embellishment either
clothes or headwear (Fig. 7:5). Similar decorative
elements are known from western Lithuania
and they are recorded in Bogaczewo Culture
site at Kamień, pow. Mrągowo / Kamen, Kr.
Sensburg and Paprotki Kolonia, pow. Giżycko
(cf. W. Gaerte 1929, fig. 146:d; R. Banytė-Rowell
2008, p. 105–109, figs. 3:4, 5:5; A. Bitner-
Wróblewska, A. Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz
2016, p. 293). Decorative appliqués from
Eitulionys found in discussed women grave,
should be dated not latter then the period C2.
There were also a number of other finds
discovered in the barrows of Eitulionys, such as
a D-shaped belt buckle with mounting (type
ML 17, based on R. Madyda-Legutko 1986,
p. 29–30, pl. 9, map 21). It was found in an
inhumation grave no. 2 in barrow no. XIII of
a woman aged between 35 and 40 – sex and age
was determined by prof. G. Česnys (Fig. 10:2).
Other find spots for this type of buckle in-
cluded a richly equipped grave of a man and
a horse in barrow no. 2 at Moša (Naujasodai),
as well as robbed graves at the barrow cemetery

356
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
blades from Eitulionys should be dated to
the C period.
Lastly, there was an iron knife found in
a grave of barrow no. XIV. It was bent in
the back and measured to 18.7 cm in length.
Knives of similar length were also discovered in
other find spots, such as barrow cemeteries of
the south-east of Lithuania (cf. Visginai) as
well as other Sudovian grave sites (cf. Netta
and Szwajcaria) where archaeological material
dated to period C and later (A. Bliujienė 2013,
fig. 328:8; A. Bitner-Wróblewska 2007, p. 81;
J. Jaskanis 2013, p. 196–197). Knives measur-
ing to 20 cm, or a bit longer, are thought to have
been used as household tools.
Settlement of the Stroked Pottery
Culture at the barrow cemetery
of Eitulionys
The barrow cemetery of Eitulionys was estab-
lished on the site of a former settlement which
belonged to the Stroked Pottery Culture. Not
much is known about this settlement since dur-
ing the excavations the focus was on the bar-
rows. Nevertheless, underneath a pile of stones
(marked as no. XX) a cultural layer (0.4–0.6 m
thick) was identified. It was dark in colour and
contained potsherds of stroked pottery as well
as charcoal. At the bottom of the cultural layer
there were small in diameter rows of postholes,
which possibly may have been remains of a twig
fencing (Fig. 11; A. Bliujus 1981, p. 6, figs. 15,
16, 20, 22). The cultural layer also contained
some potsherds of pottery with black smoothed
polished surface and a narrow-blade axe (square
B-2, depth: 1.4 m). These finds are thought
to have been mixed in from a disturbed inhu-
mation grave as its associated stone circle was
identified on top of the cultural layer. Narrow-
blade axes are typical finds in archaeological
contexts across the east and south-east of
Lithuania. However, the number of axe finds
from the Late Roman Period is not significant
possibly a cremation grave (Fig. 10:4–6). It had
a lanceolate blade which was bent (length:
23.2 cm). The spearhead with a lanceolate blade
has been assigned to Vytautas Kazakevičius
type IVA (1988, p. 42–45, fig. 16:2, map VIII)
or Piotr Kaczanowski’s type XV (1995, p. 23,
pl. XII:4). The main find spots for this type of
spearheads are grave sites of western Lithuania,
Samogitia, Central Lithuania and south-east of
Lithuania (Visginai and Eitulionys) and are
dated to the 2nd–4th centuries. The spear-
head with a lanceolate blade from Eitulionys
might belong to the period C1b–C2, after
known analogies from Sudovian sites in Netta,
grave 79, Szwajcaria, barrow 2, grave 1, Żywa
Woda, barrow 16 (A. Bitner-Wróblewska 2007,
p. 77–78, pl. XL: 5; J. Jaskanis 2013, p. 172,
fig. 21). This spearhead type is often found in
graves belonging to the Przeworsk Culture
(cf. P. Kaczanowski 1995).
A socketed spearhead with a diamond-shap-
ed blade (length 30 cm) was found in grave no. 2
(barrow no. XIV) alongside a knife and a spiral
ring (Fig. 10:1,6,7). The spearhead was assigned
to type IB, based on typology by V. Kazakevičius
(1988, p. 24–27, fig. 5, map II).
There was one
more spearhead found in grave no. I(barrow no. I)
which is of the same type as latter finds
(Fig. 10:4). Main find spots
for this spearheads
type are grave sites in western Lithuania,
Samogitia and Central Lithuania.
More specific
locations for finds of IB type include: bar-
row
cemeteries at Migonys (Kleboniškis) and
Visginai,
south-eastern Lithuania
and barrows
belonging to the Sudovian Culture in the
north-east of Poland (V. Kazakevičius1988,
p. 27; A. Bitner-Wróblewska 2007, p. 78,
pl.XCIII:5; A. Bliujienė 2013, fig. 328:1;
J. Jaskanis 2013, 173, pls. XXXVI:1, LXV:1,
LXXXVI:1). In the south-east of Lithuania, this
type was recovered from disturbed graves or
alongside other grave goods which have a broad
chronological range. It has been established that
spearheads with a distinct diamond-shaped

357
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
Fig. 10. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Grave goods from inhumation graves in barrows: 1, 6, 7 – barrow no. XIV, grave no. 2;
2 – barrow no. XIII, grave no. 2; 3, 4 – symbolic grave in barrow no. I; 5 – spearhead found in the mound of barrow
no. XIII. 1, 2 – bronze; 3–7 – iron. Photograph by A. Bliujus
Ryc. 10. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Wyposażenie grobów szkieletowych w kurhanach: 1, 6, 7 – kurhan nr XIV, grób nr 2;
2 – kurhan nr XIII, grób nr 2; 3, 4 – symboliczny grób w kurhanie nr I; 5 – grot broni drzewcowej znaleziony w nasypie
kurhanu nr XIII. 1, 2 – brąz; 3–7 – żelazo. Fot. A. Bliujus

358
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
sibility could be that they were deposited in the
mounds during funeral ritual practices. Over-
all, 200 fragments of stroked potsherds were
found in Eitulionys. These were mostly remains
of pots with distinct and an indistinct edge
pro-
files. In barrow no. XIII, even a part of a strok
ed
pot was found. Stroked pottery was dated
to the period between the 1st–2nd century
(R. Vengalis 2009, p. 56, fig. 1). Pottery with
smoothed polished surface was another type of
which fragments were recovered at Eitulionys
(more specifically, from barrows nos. I, II, IV
and XX). They were assigned to groups C3
(pots) and E1 and E2 (bowls) based on typol-
ogy established by Anna Bitner-Wróblewska
(2007, p. 90–95, 110–114, fig. 6, pl. XCVI,
XCVII). These vessels were dated to the period
between the second quarter of the 3rd and
(M. Michelbertas 1986, p. 161–162, fig. 67).
Cultural layer was also discovered underneath
a pile of stones marked as no. VII. Here, there
was also an abundance of stroked potsherds
(Fig. 12; A. Bliujus 1981, p. 7, figs. 11, 23). It
is thought that the survival of cultural layers
underneath the stone piles nos. VII and XX was
made possible by the placement of stones from
the arable fields, which protected the layers
from ploughing. Potsherds of stroked pottery
were also discovered in the mounds of barrows
nos. III, IV, VIII, XIII and XIX (A. Bliujus
1978; 1979; 1980; 1981). The mounds were
constructed from surrounding soil which meant
that it included potsherds and charcoal from
settlement layers of the Stroked Pottery Culture.
This is one explanation as to how charcoal
appeared in the mounds, while another pos-
Fig. 11. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Remains of a disturbed grave and cultural layer underneath a stone pile no. XX.
Photograph by A. Bliujus
Ryc. 11. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Pozostałości zniszczonego grobu i warstwa kulturowa odsłonięta pod skupiskiem kamieni
kurhanu nr XX. Fot. A. Bliujus

359
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
We sincerely hope that this brief article will
add to the better understanding of the Late
Roman and Early Migration Periods monuments
of the Sudovian Culture, which burial site are
spread across the south-eastern Lithuania.
dr Audronė Bliujienė
Klaipėda University, Institute of Baltic
Region History and Archaeology
Herkus Manto str. 84
92294 Klaipėda
Lithuania
audrone.bliujiene@gmail.com
Algimantas Bliujus MA
P. Skorinos 8-2
03031 Vilnius
Lithuania
balgimantas@gmail.com
the middle of the 5th century, and are assumed
to be contemporary with graves found in the
barrows and are thought to have been deposit-
ed to the mounds during ritual activities
(A. Bitner-Wróblewska 2007, p. 107; J. Jaskanis
2013, p. 223; A. Bliujienė 2016b, p. 26–27).
Lastly, other finds, beside pottery fragments,
included artefacts and waste from iron pro-
duction. These are thought to have originated
from disturbed layers of the settlement. Mound
of barrow no. VIII contained two pieces of
slag and a stone artefact of an unclear function.
Another find was discovered in the mound
of barrow no. II: it was a stone spindle whirl
reminiscent of a shell. Barrow no. III also
contained one find: a cone-shaped artefact
made of stone.Unfortunately, its function is
unclear.
Fig. 12. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Potsherds of stroked pottery found in a cultural layer (in depth between 1 and 1.3 m)
underneath a stone pile no. XX. Photograph by A. Bliujienė
Ryc. 12. Eitulionys, r. Trakai. Fragmenty naczyń kultury ceramiki sztrychowanej znalezione w warstwie kulturowej (na
głębokości między 1 a 1,3 m) odsłoniętej pod skupiskiem kamieni kurhanu nr XX. Fot. A. Bliujienė

360
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
Institute of Lithuanian History,
Archive, Vilnius, corpus 1, file no. 404.
VAK
1935 Dokumentai dėl Trakų apskrities Aukš-
tadvario, Onuškio valsčių archeologinių
paminklų apsaugos. 1927–1937 metai,
Unpublished cultural heritage protec-
tion documents of the State Archaeol-
ogical Commission. Preserved in the
archive of Culture Department of
Culture Heritage Protection, corpus 1,
file 92.
Literature
Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė M.
1946 Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorge-
schichtlichen Zeit, Inaugural-Disserta-
tion zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades
einer Hohen Philosophischen Fakultat
der Eberhard-Karls-Universitat zu
Tubingen, Tübingen.
Astrauskas A.
1996 Vidurio Lietuvos gyventojų kutūrinės
orientacijos kaita SGA–VIGA, [in]
Vidurio Lietuvoss archeologija. Etnu-
kutūriniai ryšiai (eds. A. Astrauskas,
M. Bertašius), Vilnius, p. 4–8.
Baltramiejūnaitė D., Vengalis R.
2010 Tyrinėjimai Semeniškėse, Archeologi-
niai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2009 metais,
Vilnius, p. 99–105.
Banytė-Rowell R.
2008 Metallene Trachtzierate aus einem west-
litauischen Gräberfeld der römischen
Kaiserzeit im «germanischen» und
«sarmatischen» Kontext, [in] Germania-
Bibliography
Archive sources
Abaravičius G.
1995
Mošos (Naujasodų) pilkapyno (AR–1662)
(Trakų raj., Aukštadvario apyl.) acheolo-
ginių tyrimų ataskaita, 1994, Lietuvos
istorijos instituto rankraštynas / Insti-
tute of Lithuanian History,
Archive,
Vilnius, corpus 1, file no. 2123.
1996
Mošos (Naujasodų) pilkapynas (AR–1662)
Trakų rajone, Aukštadvario apylinkėje
ataskaita 1995, Lietuvos istorijos
instituto rankraštynas / Institute of
Lithuanian History, Archive, Vilnius,
corpus 1, file no. 2339.
Bliujus A.
1978
Eitulionių pilkapyno, Trakų raj., 1978 m.
tyrinėjimų ataskaita, Lietuvos istorijos
instituto rankraštynas / Institute of
Lithuanian History, Archive, Vilnius,
corpus 1, file no. 615.
1979
Eitulionių pilkapyno, Trakų raj., 1979 m.
tyrinėjimų ataskaita, Lietuvos istorijos
instituto rankraštynas / Institute of
Lithuanian History, Archive, Vilnius,
corpus 1, file no. 689.
1980
Eitulionių pilkapyno, Trakų raj., 1980 m.
tyrinėjimų ataskaita, Lietuvos istorijos
instituto rankraštynas / Institute of
Lithuanian History, Archive, Vilnius,
corpus 1, file no. 797.
1981
Eitulionių pilkapyno, Trakų raj., 1981 m.
tyrinėjimų ataskaita, Lietuvos istorijos
instituto rankraštynas / Institute of
Lithuanian History, Archive, Vilnius,
corpus 1, file no. 935.
Butėnienė E.
1970
Nemaitionių kaimo pilkapyno, Kleviškių
apyl., J. Janonio v. kolūkis, Kaišiadorių
raj., 1970 m. tyrinėjimų dienoraštis,
Lietuvos istorijos instituto rankraštynas /

361
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
Bliujus A.
1983 Eitulionių pilkapynas, Muziejai ir
paminklai 5, Vilnius, 1983, p. 31–40.
Bliujienė A.
1992 Alinkos (Raistinės) pilkapiai, „Lietuvos
Archeologija“ 8, p. 105–127.
2006 Watershed between Eastern and West-
ern Lithuania during the Early and
Late Migration Period, “Archaeologia
Lituana” 6, p. 123–143.
2013 Romėniškasis ir tautų kraustymosi lai-
kotarpiai, Lietuvos archeologija III,
Klaipėda.
2016a
South Lithuanian barrows, [in] A Hun-
dred Years of Archaeological Dis-
coveries in Lithuania (eds. G. Zabiela,
Z. Baubonis, E. Marcinkevičiūtė),
Vilnius, p. 208–225.
2016b On Both Sides of the Middle Reaches of
the Nemunas River. A New Approach to
Old Problems, “Wiadomości Archeo-
logiczne” LXVII, p. 3–35.
Budvydas U.
2007
Lepelionių piliakalnio papėdės gyven-
vietė,
Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai
Lietuvoje 2006 metais. Vilnius, 2007,
p. 65–66.
Butėnas E.
1998 Maisiejūnų pilkapyno tyrinėjimai,
“Lietuvos archeologija” 15, p. 163–
184.
Cieśliński A.
2014 Kopce kultury wielbarskiej z Mazowsza
i Podlasia a tzw. typ rostołski – próba
nowego spojrzenia na związki cmen-
tarzysk kurhanowych z północnej
i wschodniej Polski, “Wiadomości Ar-
cheologiczne” LXV, p. 45–93.
Sarmatia. Drevnosti Central
ʹ
noi i Vos-
tochnoi
Evropy epokhi rimskogo vliania
i preresleniia narodov (eds.
O.A.Radusch,
K.N. Skvotsov) [Древности Централь-
ной и Восточой Европы эпохи римс-
кого
влияния
и переселения народов
(ред. O.А. Радюш, К.Н. Скворцов)],
Kaliningrad, p. 104–
121.
Baubonis Z., Zabiela G. (eds.)
2005 Lietuvos piliakalniai 1, Vilnius.
Baubonis Z., Fediajevas O., Merkevičius A.
2012 Zubrių neįtvirtinta gyvenvietė, Ar-
cheologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2011
metais, Vilnius, p. 59–74.
2013
Zubrių neįtvirtintos gyvenvietės tyrimai,
Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje
2012 metais, Vilnius, p. 52–60.
Bitner-Wróblewska A.
1994 Z badań nad ceramiką zachodnio-
bałtyską w okresie wędrówek ludów.
Problemy tzw. kultury sudowskiej,
Barbaricum 3, Warszawa, p. 219–241.
2007 Netta. A Balt Cemetery in Northeastern
Poland, Monumenta Archaeologica
Barbarica XII, Warszawa.
2011 East European Enamelled Ornaments
and the Character of Contacts between
the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, [in]
Inter Ambo Maria. Contacts between
Scandinavia and Crimea in the Roman
Period (eds. I. Khrapunov, F-A Stylegar),
Kristiansand-Simferopol, p. 11–24.
Bitner-Wróblewska A.,
Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz A.
2016 The Balt societies in Poland, 1–500 AD,
The Past Societies. Polish lands from the
first evidence of human presence to the
early middle ages(ed.P. Urbańczyk), vol.4.
500 BC – 500 AD (ed. A. Rzeszotarska-
Nowakiewicz), Warszawa,
p. 257–
306.

362
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
Lietuvoje 2007 metais, Vilnius, p. 73–
74.
Kaczanowski P.
1995 Klasyfikacja grotów broni drzewcowej
kultury przeworskiej z okresu rzymskiego,
Klasyfikacje zabytków archeologicznych,
Kraków.
Kaczyński M.
1976 Problem zróżnicowania wewnętrznego
„kultury sudowskiej” w późnym podokre-
sie wpływów rzymskich i okresie wędró-
wek ludów, [in] Kultury archeologiczne
i strefy kulturowe w Europie Środkowej
w okresie wpływów rzymskich. Materia-
ły
z konferencji zorganizowanej przez
Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne,
Oddział w Nowej Hucie i Instytut
Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
w dniach 20–22 września 1972 roku
w Nowej Hucie i Krakowie
, Zeszyty
Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
CCCC
XXII=Prace Archeologiczne
22, Kraków, p. 253–286.
Karczewski M.
2016 Robbery or Ritual Activities? Searching
for a Reinterpretation and Genesis of the
‘Robbed Barrows’ of Sudovian Culture,
“Archaeologia Baltica” 23, p. 112–128.
Kazakevičius V. [Казакявичюс В.]
1988 Oruzhie baltskikh plemen II–VIII vekov
na territorii Litvy [Оружие балтских
племен II–VIII веков на территории
Литвы], Vilnius.
Kontrimas D.
2014 Mankūnų pilkapis, Archeologiniai
tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2013 metais,
Vilnius, p. 131–134.
Krukowski S.
1913 Cmentarz ciałopalny bez popielnic
w Wysokiem (pow. sejneński),“Świato-
wit”
XI, p. 1–13.
Engel M., Iwanicki P.,
Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz A.
2006 Sudovia in qua Sudovitae. Nowa hipo-
teza na temat genezy kultury sudowskiej,
“Światowit”VI (XLVII), fasc. B, p. 23–33.
Gaerte W.
1929 Urgeschichte Ostpreußens, Königsberg
i. Pr.
Ginalski J.
1991 Ostrogi kabłąkowe kultury przewor-
skiej. Klasyfikacja typologiczna, “Prze-
gląd Archeologiczny” 38, p. 53–84.
Grižas G., Bitner-Wróblewska A.
2007 Ceramika kultury bogaczewskiej z po-
łudniowej Litwy, [in] Kultura boga-
czewska w 20 lat później. Materiały
z konferencji, Warszawa, 26–27 marca
2003 r. (ed. A. Bitner-Wróblewska),
Seminarium Bałtyjskie I, Warszawa,
p. 261–278.
Jabłońska A.
1992 Zapinki podkowiaste z emalią w Europe
północno-wschodniej w okresie wpływów
rzymskich, “Acta Baltico-Slavica” 21,
Warszawa, p. 115–165.
Jankevičienė A.
1958 Počkaluvkos pilkapiai, „Lietuvos TSR
mokslų akademijos darbai“, serija A
2(5), p. 37–50.
Jaskanis J.
1974 Obrządek pogrzebowy zachodnich Bał-
tów u schyłku starożytności (I–V w. n.e.),
Biblioteka Archeologiczna 23, Wrocław.
2013 Szwajcaria. Cmentarzysko bałtyjskie
kultury sudowskiej w północno-wschod-
niej Polsce, Warszawa.
Juškaitis V.
2008 Lepelionių piliakalnio papėdės gyven-
vietė, Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai

363
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
logijos šaltiniai Sankt Peterburge(eds.
A. Luchtanas, L. Tamulynas), Vilnius,
p. 67–86.
2016 Romėniškojo laikotarpio emaliuoti
dirbiniai Lietuvoje, Vilnius.
Nowakowski W.
1998 Die Funde derrömischen Kaiserzeit und
der der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Ma-
suren, Bestandkataloge des Museums
fur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6, Berlin.
2012 “Kurhany Jaćwięgów” – kilkadziesiąt lat
naukowego mitu, “Światowit”IX(L)/B,
p. 181–192.
2013 Masuren in der römischen Kaiserzeit.
Auswertung der Archivalien aus dem
Nachlass von Herbert Jankuhn, Studien
zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Archäo-
logie der Ostseegebiete 12 (eds. von
C. Carnap-Bornheim, M. Wemmhoff),
Neumünster.
2015 The roots of the Yotvingians – archaeol-
ogical traces of a Baltic tribe in the north-
eastern Poland, “Archaeologia Polona”
48 (2010), p. 21–36.
Szymański P.
2009 Ceramika z cmentarzysk tzw. skupienia
gołdapskiego kultury sudowskiej. Wstęp
do badań, [in] Ceramika bałtyjska.
Tradycje i wpływy. Materiały z konfe-
rencji, Białystok 21–23 września 2005
(red. M. Karczewska, M. Karczewski),
Białystok, p. 71–95.
2013 Z badań nad chronologią i zróżnicowa-
niem kulturowym społeczności Mazur
w późnej starożytności i u progu wczesne-
go średniowiecza, Światowit Supplement
Series B: Barbaricum 9, Warszawa.
Tautavičius A.
1966 Lietuvių ir jotvingių genčių gyventų
plotų ribų klausimų, “Lietuvos TSR
mokslų akademijos darbai”, serija A 2
(21), p. 161–182.
Kulikauskas P.
1977 Vilkiautinio pilkapynas ir jo tyrinėjimai,
“Istorija” XVII (2), p. 83–104.
Kurila L.
2009a Socialinė organizacija Rytų Lietuvoje
III–XII a. (Laidojimo paminklų duome-
nimis). Daktaro disertacija. Humanita-
riniai mokslai, istorija (05 H), Vilnius.
2009b Senieji Rytų Lietuvos kapų plėšikai,
“Lietuvos archeologija” 34, p. 43–58.
2016 East Lithuanian Barrows – Burial in
the Cradle of Lithuanian Tribes, [in]
A Hundred Years of Archaeological
Dis-
coveries in Lithuania (eds. G. Zabiela,
Z. Baubonis, E. Marcinkevičiūtė),
Vilnius, p. 192–207
2018 Signaliniai laužai Lietuvos piliakal-
niuose? Teorinis aspektas, “Lietuvos
archeologija” 44, 71–115.
Kurilienė A.
2009 Kaišiadorių rajono archeologijos sąva-
das, Kaišiadorys.
Luchtanas A. [Лухтанас A.]
2001 K voprosu ob isčesnovenii kulʹtury
štrichovanoi keramiki v baseine Neris
(gorodisča i selisča v Kernave)[К вопросу
об исчезновении культуры штрихо-
ванной керамики в бассейне Нерис
(городища и селища в Кярнаве)],
“Archaeologia Lituana” 2, p. 22–28.
Madyda-Legutko R.
1986 Die Gürtelschnallen der römischen
Kaiserzeit und der frühen Völker-
wanderungszeit im mitteleuropäischen
Barbaricum, B.A.R. International
Series 360 (1986), Oxford.
Michelbertas M.
1986 Senasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje I–IV
amžius, Vilnius.
2011 Radiniai iš Bakšių (Alytaus rajonas)
lai-
dojimo paminklo, [in] Lietuvos archeo-

sepulkralnych znanych z Suwalszczyzny, a także
– w pewnym zakresie – do tych znanych z re-
gionu Augustowa i Gołdapi. Wydaje się, że
w późnym okresie rzymskim i w okresie wędró-
wek ludów tzw. Litwę Zaniemeńską i obszar
południowo-wschodniej Litwy należy trakto-
wać bądź jako peryferie kultury sudowskiej
znanej z północno-wschodniej Polski, bądź
jako oddzielną grupę tej kultury (obok grup:
Obszar południowo-wschodniej Litwy obej-
muje środkowe dorzecze Niemna (Nemunas),
zlewiska rzek Niemen i Merecz (Merkys), a tak-
że środkowe dorzecze rzeki Wilii (Neris) na
północy. Dane
z ostatnich badań oraz dostępny
materiał archeo
logiczny z dawnych wykopalisk
sugerują, że w okresie między I a przełomem
VI–VII w. obyczaje pogrzebowe w południowo-
-
wschodniej Litwie były podobne do rytuałów
364
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ, ALGIMANTAS BLIUJUS
October 17th–19th, 2003(ed. V. Lang),
Tartu-Riga-Vilnius, p. 71–86.
2005b Vienos teorijos pėdsakais, arba mirusiųjų
deginimo paprotys Rytų Lietuvoje, “Lie-
tuvos archeologija” 27, p. 49–58.
Vengalis R.
2009 Rytų Lietuvos gyvenvietės I–XII a.
Daktaro disertacija, Humanitariniai
mokslai, istorija (05 H), Vilniaus uni-
versitetas. Doctoral theses defended in
Vilnius University.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė R.
(Kulikauskienė R.)
1959 Miniatiūrinių piliakalnių Lietuvoje
klausimu, [in] Iš lietuvių kultūros
istorijos II, Vilnius, p. 125–137.
Zabiela G.
1995 Lietuvos medinės pilys, Vilnius.
Žemantauskaitė M., Fediajevas O.
2018 Žvalgymai Cigoniškiuose, Archeologi-
niai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2017 metais,
Vilnius, p. 591–597.
1977 I–XIII a. laidojimo paminklai, [in]
Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas III,
Vilnius, p. 5–18.
1994 Jotvingiai, dainaviai, sūduviai, poleksė-
nai ir ..., Mokslo Lietuva 2 kn. 1(2),
Vilnius, p. 4–14.
1996 Vidurinis geležies amžius Lietuvoje
(V–IX a.), Vilnius.
Tempelmann-Mączyńska M.
1985 Die Perlen der römischen Kaiserzeit
und der frühen Phase der Völker-
wanderungszeit im mitteleuropäischen
Barbaricum, Römisch-Germanische
Forschungen 43. Mainz.
Vaitkevičius V.
2004 Pakalnių pilkapiai (Vilniaus r.), “Lie-
tuvos archeologija” 26, p. 47–72.
2005a Interpreting the East Lithuanian Bar-
row Culture, [in] Culture and Material
Culture. Papers from the first seminar of
the Baltic archaeologists (BASE), held
at the University of Tartu, Estonia,
Audronė Bliujienė, Algimantas Bliujus
Cmentarzysko kurhanowe w Eitulionys jako klucz do badań
nad kulturą sudowską w południowo-wschodniej Litwie
Streszczenie

365
EITULIONYS BARROW CEMETERY AS THE KEY FOR STUDYING SUDOVIAN CULTURE...
przypadki, gdy przepalone kości zostały zdepo-
nowane w nasypach wcześniejszych kurhanów,
gdzie złożono niespalonych zmarłych. Warto
zwrócić uwagę, że ogień pełnił istotną rolę
w obyczajach pogrzebowych od południowo-
-wschodniej Litwy po północno-wschodnią
Polskę.
Szczątki zmarłych były palone bez ele-
mentów wyposażenia i składane w jamach o wy-
miarach od 0,6×0,5 m lub 0,4×0,3 m, głębo-
kości 0,2 cm (kurhany nr III, V, XIV; Ryc. 8).
Z wyjątkiem kurhanu nr II żadne groby ciało-
palne nie zawierały wyposażenia (Ryc. 6–8).
W czasie badań znaleziono łącznie jedynie
20 zabytków. Najbogatszy grób to ciałopalny
pochówek kobiecy z kurhanu nr II, datowany
na fazy C1b–C2 (Ryc. 7). Chronologia innych
zabytków zamyka się w podobnych ramach cza-
sowych (Ryc. 9, 10). Trudno wydatować groby
ciałopalne wkopane w nasypy kurhanów; moż-
na przypuszczać, że pochodzą one z drugiej
ćwierci III w. lub początków IV w., gdy zapo-
czątkowano zwyczaj ciałopalenia. Niektóre
z pochówków ciałopalnych mogą być datowane
na wczesny okres wędrówek ludów.
Cmentarzysko w Eitulionys zostało zało-
żone na miejscu wcześniejszej osady kultury ce-
ramiki sztrychowanej. Poniżej skupiska kamieni
zniszczonego kurhanu nr XX zarejestrowano
warstwę kulturową o miąższości 0,4–0, 6 m.
Miała ciemną barwę, zawierała fragmenty ce-
ramiki i węgle drzewne. W spągu warstwy kul-
turowej odkryto rząd dołków posłupowych
o małej średnicy, prawdopodobnie pozostałości
płotu z żerdzi (Ryc. 11). Łącznie w Eitulionys
znaleziono 200 fragmentów ceramiki sztrycho-
wanej, w większości wylewów zarówno o wy-
odrębnionej, jak i niewyodrębnionej krawędzi
(Ryc. 12).
Tłumaczyła Anna Bitner-Wróblewska
suwalskiej, augustowskiej i gołdapskiej), wy-
dzieloną na terenie Litwy. Można tam wyróżnić
trzy skupiska kamiennych kurhanów (Ryc. 1).
Kluczowe znaczenie dla zrozumienia cha-
rakteru kultury sudowskiej na Litwie ma cmen-
tarzysko w Eitulionys, r. Trakai, ponieważ tylko
na tej nekropoli zbadano wszystkie kurhany
zarejestrowane w czasie wykopalisk. Nasypy
kurhanów zostały skonstruowane z kamieni,
których liczba waha się od 230–260 do 1000;
w kurhanach znajdowały się zarówno groby
szkieletowe, jak i ciałopalne. Podobna konstruk-
cja nasypów znana jest ze skupiska cmentarzysk
położonych między jeziorami Švenčius i Asonas,
w południowo-wschodniej Litwie (Ryc. 2).
Nekropola w Eitulionys usytuowana jest
na wyniesieniu, użytkowanym rolniczo, otoczo-
nym podmokłymi łąkami. W latach 1978–1981
przebadano tam 21 kurhanów, przy czym z sześ-
ciu z nich zachowały się jedynie skupiska ka-
mieni. Kurhany miały kształt kolisty lub owalny,
średnicę od 9 do 12 m, a wysokość od 0,5 do
1,5 m (Ryc. 3). Obiekty, w których odkryto po-
chówki szkieletowe, otoczone były kręgami ka-
miennymi. Groby szkieletowe usytuowane były
w jamach wkopanych pod nasypem kurhanu.
Jamy grobowe różniły się głębokością; na skra-
jach jam znaleziono kamienie, całość przykry-
wał płaszcz kamienny (Ryc. 4, 5). Zmarli leżeli
na plecach, w pozycji wyprostowanej, z głową
zwróconą na NW (kąt 320–350 stopni).
Wszystkie groby szkieletowe zostały wyrabowa-
ne w starożytności, wkrótce po uroczystościach
pogrzebowych lub później, ale w czasie funkcjo-
nowania cmentarzyska. Kurhan nr I zawierał
pochówek symboliczny (kenotaf ), gdzie zde-
ponowano jedynie elementy wyposażenia.
Na cmentarzysku w Eitulionys zarejestro-
wano dwa typy grobów ciałopalnych. Pierwszy
przypomina wielkością i wyposażeniem po-
chówki szkieletowe (Ryc. 6). Drugi obejmuje