Rytų ir Vakarų Lietuvos teritorinio apgyvendinimo skirtumai viduriniame ir vėlyvajame geležies amžiuje

LTStraipsnio tikslas - pažvelgti į geografinės aplinkos vaidmenį teritorijos apgyvendinimo regioninių skirtumų viduriniame (V-VIII a.) ir vėlyvajame (IX-XII a.) geležies amžiuje dabartinės Lietuvos teritorijoje, aspektu. Straipsnyje nagrinėjami archeologinių objektų ir jų kompleksų erdvinės sklaidos regioniniai bei chronologiniai skirtumai dabartinėje Lietuvos teritorijoje. Kartografuojant skirtingų vidurinio (V-VIII a.) bei vėlyvojo (IX-XII a.) geležies amžiaus laikotarpių archeologinius objektus pastebimi gana ryškūs jų erdvinės sklaidos regioniniai bei chronologiniai skirtumai. Ryškiausiai iš likusios Lietuvos teritorijos dalies išsiskiria V-XII a. Rytų Lietuvos regionas. Vakarų Lietuvoje šiandien aptinkami pilnesni archeologinių objektų kompleksai, susidedantys iš gynybinės ir/ar gyvenamosios, laidojimo bei ūkinės paskirties objektų, tuo tarpu Rytų Lietuvoje tokių kompleksų žinoma kur kas mažiau. Vakarinė RLPK regiono dalis užima tarsi tarpinę padėtį tarp šių dviejų sistemų. Intensyviai pastovių laukų žemdirbystei mažiau palankios gamtinės sąlygos Rytų Lietuvoje lėmė didelę ganyklinės gyvulininkystės dalį gamybinio ūkio struktūroje bei archajiškų nepastovių laukų lydiminės ir miškinės-dirvoninės žemdirbystės sistemų gyvavimą iki pat Lietuvos valstybės susikūrimo XIII amžiuje. Tokia žemėnauda turėjo didelę įtaką ir regiono apgyvendinimui. Tuo V-XII a. Rytų Lietuvos regionas išsiskyrė iš likusios Lietuvos dalies.Reikšminiai žodžiai: Geležies amžius; Teritorijos apgyvendinimas; Migruojančios gyvenvietės; Pilkapių grupės; Lydiminė žemdirbystė; Archeologinių duomenų erdvinė analizė.; Iron Age; wandering villages; Barrow groups; Fallow farming; Spatial analyse of artefacts.; Apgyvendinimas; Pilkapių; Grupės; Rytų ir Vakarų Lietuva; Archeologiniai kompleksai; Duomenų erdvinė analizė; Territorial resettlement; Moving settlements; Slash-and-burn and forest-virgin soil agriculture; East and West Lithuania; Archaeological complexes spatial data analyses.

ENMapping of individual archaeological objects and their complexes from the Middle (5th–8th centuries AD) and Late (9th-12th centuries AD) Iron ages shows rather marked differences not only in their types and forms, but also regional and chronological differences of their spatial distribution. The East Lithuanian region of the 5th-12th centuries stands out against the remaining part of Lithuania’s territory. In West Lithuania, the uncovered complexes of archaeological objects (composed of objects designed for economic activity and defensive, living and inhumation purposes) are more complete. Complexes of archaeological objects found in East Lithuania are considerably fewer. The cultural region of East Lithuanian barrows (Nalšia land in its eastern part in particular) is characterized by groups of barrows spaced a few hundred metres and sometimes extending as a few kilometres long chains. In the majority of cases, archaeological objects designed for defensive and living purposes (hillforts and old settlements) are absent in the surroundings of these rather large barrow complexes. The western part of the East Lithuanian cultural region occupies a somewhat intermediate position between the mentioned two systems. It has barrows arranged in chains as in the eastern part of East Lithuanian Region and complexes of archaeological objects characteristic of the remaining part of Lithuania.Analysis of the main systemic differences of population of the East Lithuanian Barrow Culture Region and the remaining part of Lithuania’s territory leads to the following hypotheses: In the 5th-12th centuries AD, the population of West and Central Lithuania was more sedentary than the population of East Lithuania. The existence of barrow chains characteristic of East Lithuania and the absence of hillforts and settlements dated to the mentioned time frame or their tenuous traces imply that the population of this region was semi-sedentary. Homesteads would be moved from place to place ("wandering villages", "migrating villages") within an area of a few square kilometres. The barrows remaining in the former living areas served as landmarks of territories periodically used by certain communities. They typified the birthright of a community to the land, forewarning the aliens that the territory was occupied. In the other parts of Lithuania, the population was not in need of periodical changing of its place of residence because of the more advanced farming forms (fallow farming systems) that took root in the 1st half of the 1st millennium AD. In the 5th-12th centuries AD, the population of East Lithuanian region resided in individual farmsteads or groups of small villages. Their residents buried their fellowmen in the neighbouring barrow cemeteries. Traces of small homesteads can be hardly identified today and are rarely found near barrow cemeteries. In the other parts of Lithuania, the population lived as more concentrated communities because more favourable natural conditions for farming and closer relations with the western European countries created preconditions for adoption of more advanced farming forms.The natural conditions, not too favourable for an intensive fallow farming system in East Lithuania, were responsible for the dominance of the pasture stock-breeding in the economic structure and the persistence of archaic slash-and-burn and forest-virgin soil agriculture even until the rise of the Lithuanian state in the 13th century. This type of land use strongly influenced the structure of the settlement system of the East Lithuanian region and distinguished it from the rest of Lithuania where more favourable natural conditions contributed to the earlier shift to fallow agriculture which played an important role in the economic structure of farming at the time under consideration. [From the publication]