Exotic Lands, Quixotic Friends: Eastern Lithuania and the Carpathian Basin in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (AD c 380 to c 620

Armed People of East and Southeast Lithuania in the Geocultural Context of the Migration Period

“…However, this strange first impression is eliminated by the existence of the aforementioned multi-ethnic micro-regions in various parts of Europe at that time. Besides, at this point, it is worth recalling not only the contacts with the middle reaches of the danube so widely discussed in Lithuanian historiography (Tautavičius 1981;Šimė-nas 2006;Bliujienė, Steponaitis 2009;Bliujienė, Curta 2011), but also another highly important direction of contacts: eastern Lithuania, the forest zone of northeast Europe; and also the possible contacts of eastern Lithuania in a southeast direction as far as the Crimean Peninsula and the lower reaches of the don. The barrows of Tanais (the lower reaches of the don) are known to contain parallels with the buckle found in the barrow burial field of Paduobė-Šaltaliūnė, barrow 17, and with the four iron and silver brooches found in the grave of a male in the barrow burial field at Sudota I, barrow 30…”

“…furthermore, the greatest military force was concentrated there. Both Lithuanian and foreign researchers have noticed these phenomena (Werner 1977;Tautavičius 1981;1996;Bliujienė 2006;Bliujienė, Curta 2011;Bitner-Wróblewska 2007;Kurila 2007;Kurila, Kliaugaitė 2007;Gavritukhin, Vorontsov 2008). On the other hand, the imported artefacts found in east Lithuania, just like features of burial practices and cultural influences, change rhythmically along with Europe when it was engulfed in the events of the Great migration Period.…”

“…Hence, the artefacts found in this micro-region indicate multi-directional contacts. In an attempt to perceive the nature of the contacts maintained by the communities that lived between lakes Tauragnas, Žeimenis and Vajuonis, a few basic assumptions can be made (ušinskas 1988;Tautavičius 1981;Zabiela 1995, pp.47-48;Bliujienė, 2006;Bliujienė, Curta 2011;Bliujienė, Steponaitis 2009 (Anthony 1990). The fact that 'the baby' has nevertheless been caught in its fall is attested to by the returns during recent years to both old archaeological material, in search of new possibilities of analysis and interpretation, and the isotopic analysis of the enamel in human teeth (Evans et al 2006;Chenery, Evans 2012, pp.89-96;Ager 2012, p.107ff;Heighway 2012, p.85ff).…”

“…due to migration processes, artefacts spread in several different ways: by means of the exchange of luxurious gifts between nobilities; as gifts, the insignia of a person's standing; as a tax on the local nobility; as a bridal dowry; as artefacts manufactured by travelling jewellers; as trading goods; as objects of trade in war booty; or they just travelled further and further with their owners, and thus covered thousands of kilometres, with stops in between. Hence, prestigious weapons, armaments and personal ornaments, that is, the insignia of a person's standing, and in some cases indicators of the ethnos, acquired at different times and in more than one place, would travel for as long as the accumulated wealth was buried together with its male or female owners (Bezuglov, Tolochko 2002;Pinar, Ripol 2006;Bliujienė 2006;Bliujienė, Curta 2011 …”

The Cemetery of Linkuhnen/Rževskoje: An Overview on the Chronology of Fibulae from the Roman and Migration Periods to the Viking Age

“…However, this never really explained the existence of bow fibulae in East Prussia and the Baltic region, or the possibility of local production (Katsougiannopoulou 1999). The question of the classification, dating and interpretation of the European distribution of bow fibulae has been much discussed by F. Curta (Curta 2006(Curta , 2009(Curta , 2011Bliujienė, Curta 2011;Fiedler 2010). He described the fibula from grave 201 A/1933 in Linkuhnen as Veţel-Coşoveni-type, with connections to related finds in the Danube region and Transylvania from the first half of the sixth century.…”