Senovinė apeigų vieta Dauglaukyje

LTNedažnai šių dienų archeologams tenka susidurti su iš principo mažai pažįstamais archeologiniais objektais - senaisiais keliais, brastomis, prieplaukomis, pylimais, apeigų aikštelėmis ir pan. Suprantama, šių vietų radiniai nėra tokie išraiškingi nei tokie konkretūs kaip, pavyzdžiui, laidojimo paminklų, gyvenviečių ar piliakalnių. Daugelis jų sunkiai pastebimi, jų tyrimui reikia nemažų lėšų ar netradicinių metodų ir būdų, be to, tyrinėtojai gerai žino, kaip sunku juos datuoti ir interpretuoti. Galbūt dėl to ir susiklostė tradicija rečiau juos tyrinėti, o ir vertinami šie objektai labai atsargiai tiek juos identifikuojant, tiek suteikiant paminklo statusą. Taigi tebėra gal kiek nenormali situacija, kai niekas neabejoja senovėje juos buvus, bet pasakyti ką nors konkretesnio apie jų struktūrą, sistemą, ypatumus, raidą, tarpusavio ryšį bei santykį su kitais archeologiniais objektais kaip ir neturima. Tačiau darbai nestovi vietoje. Daugiausia dėmesio susilaukė vadinamieji sakraliniai mitologiniai objektai, iš laikę tam tikrą istorinę atmintį. Šiuo metu imtasi registruoti juos, išleistas netgi katalogas apie Žemaitijos šventvietes (1). Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai taip pat pateikia duomenų apie nelabai aiškius įvairaus laikotarpio objektus, neturinčius istorinės atminties. Vienas tokių - Dauglaukyje (Tauragės raj.) aptikta apeigų vieta, sudariusi vieną kompleksą su kapinynu. Dėl vėliau palankiai susiklosčiusių gamtinių sąlygų ji pasiekė mūsų dienas palyginti mažai apardyta. Šiuo metu tai vienas ankstyviausių ir didžiausių žinomų tokio pobūdžio paminklų. Straipsnio tikslas - paskelbti kai kuriuos reikšmingesnius 1991-1998 m. tyrinėjimų Dauglaukio apeigų vietoje rezultatus. [Įvadas]

ENThe article presents some important results of investigations (1991-1998) in Dauglaukis (the district of Tauragė) ritual place. Some other archaeological findings will be discussed as well (Fig.1, 2). The ritual place was found near Dauglaukis cemetery (70 - 260 AD) while looking for a burial place of a later period. The investigation exposed three cultural layers of different periods (Fig. 3). The first (lower) one could be dated to the Middle Neolithic age on the basis of ceramics fragments and an irregular processed piece of flint. The area under investigation touched only upon a small part of this layer. The third (upper) layer is dated to the beginning of the II millennium on the basis of an iron horseshoe-shaped fibula with curved ends. We mainly dealt with the second (middle) cultural layer identified as the ritual place. It consists of two horizons (the thickness of the lower one is 0,05x0,55 m, and that of the upper one - 0,02x0,2 m). Most of the finds were uncovered in the lower horizon, while the upper one yielded only some pottery fragments, single iron dross pieces, remnants of iron artifacts and a lot of charred remains which sometimes comprised entire areas. One hundred and twenty eight small pole places (their diameter-0,05x0,07 m) and twenty eight larger ones (their diameter-0,1x0,22 m) were found in the layer. The former ones are the places where small poles had been dug into while the greater part of the larger ones are the remains of large poles. Most of the pole places are scattered; they do not remind of any of recognizable constructions, e.g. buildings or fences. Some of them can be definitely related to rituals because of the burnt remains of some poles. One small pole was dug into the foundation of a fireplace. All in all, the remains of fifty six fireplaces were found. All of them are more or less alike, round, sometimes oblong, and not very deep. The presence of several layers in some of them speak about their multiple usage.The description of thirteen fireplaces in the area No. 2 is presented (Fig. 7). The probable place for measuring azimuth was also uncovered. Its centre was a fireplace (0,6x0,6 m) situated in a pole place and accompanied by parallel dark "beams" which could be remnants of small poles. The "beams" end with small pole places (Fig. 5). It is the precise orientation of the "beams" towards the cardinal points that proves this place to have served for ritual purposes. The major part of findings is pottery fragments that are very small and not identical. Surviving fragments of pot necks and bottoms show that the pots used to be small. Their inner surface is often smoky, while the outer sur face is sometimes smooth, sometimes a bit uneven, some times decorated by finger or nail marks (Fig. 8,9). None of the findings can be precisely dated, although the analogies of some of them, especially ceramics, in other cemeteries allow to date the lower horizon of the layer to 70-260 AD . The upper horizon belongs to a later period, consequently its structure and findings are of different nature. In addition, its western border covers later graves of the cemetery. The above-mentioned facts, the absence of traces of agricultural economy and a comparatively small size of the area proves this place to have been used for ritual purposes. Together with the cemetery it forms a uniform complex. Though only one third of the area has been investigated so far, we can firmly state that it is one of the earliest, largest and most distinctive archaeological objects in Lithuania.