Archaeologia Lituana
Not a member yet
398 research outputs found
Sort by
XVII amžiaus Žagarės miestiečių avalynė
Get PDFThere are over 7 million cultural values in Lithuanian museums. A significant part of them are archaeological findings. However, only a tiny part of them gets to the museums, i.e., usually, visually the most beautiful and representative findings. In recent years, we can see the increase in cooperation between archaeologists and restorers of archaeological findings. Therefore, the most valuable and least lasting findings come to the hands of restorers directly from the place of discovery and are immediately preserved and restored. Such are the archaeological leather footwear findings. Archaeological footwear findings are rare among the museum exhibits. Just a few Lithuanian museums exhibit archaeological footwear findings of the 14–18th centuries.Leather footwear archaeological findings are often found in only few places in Lithuania. The specific archaeological environment is the decisive factor for remaining of leather artifacts. Most of them are found in the ancient cities of Lithuania, which were major political and commercial centers in their time: Kernavė, Vilnius, Kaunas, and Klaipėda. In other cities and towns, such findings are extremely rare or not found at all.In 1990, during the archaeological research in the former Carmelite monastery territory in Kėdainiai, in Didžioji Str. No. 17, 19, 21, in the small household pit, archeologists found leather strips and footwear manufacturing spoilage from the 17th century. Supposedly, there had to be quite a large shoemaker’s holding and workshop in the surrounding area, which probably belonged to Petras Mukčius, indicated in 1686 city’s inventory. In the findings list of research report, the leather artifacts are not mentioned and their further fate is unknown. Leather footwear leftovers are also mentioned among the findings of 2008 archaeological excavations in Ukmergė, in Utenos Str. Ten leather findings were inventoried in archaeological excavations report from the first half of the 18th century: footwear details, leather strips, straps fragments. Quite exceptional exhibits are the restored archaeological findings from Kurtuvėnai (Šiauliai district) St. Apostle Jacob’s Church, which are stored in Šiauliai “Aušra” museum and were restored in Pranas Gudynas Restoration Centre of Lithuanian Art Museum. In the basement of this church, in disintegrated crypt, the remains of two men from the 18th century were discovered. The surviving footwear was restored – it is a pair of boots of very complex construction, which were thoroughly made from bovine leather of vegetable tanning.As we can see, the footwear findings are rarely found during periphery archaeological excavations. Therefore, the footwear findings of Žagarė found during archaeological researches gained special attention from researchers.According to Algimantas Miškinis, the renaissance rectangular market square of New Žagarė was probably formed in the second half of the 16th century. It is certain, that even in the first half of the 19th century, there stood wooden trading stalls, which were destroyed by a fire that devastated the town in 1881. After the Second World War, in 1947, market places were demolished and trees were planted in the square. Since 1997, archaeological excavations of various scope were carried out in the territory of the square and its surroundings. Archaeological footwear findings were detected only during the last archaeological excavations in the market square, in 2012. The findings came directly from archaeological sites to Pranas Gudynas Restoration Center of Lithuanian Art Museum.Two different preservation methods are applied to leather findings: 1. dressing, 2. the treatment with solutions of low molecular weight hydrophilic compounds (PEG-400, 600 or glycerol). These methods help to maintain leather softness and consolidate and protect it from atmospheric moisture fluctuations. Leather Dressing is characterized by the fact that it limits or cancels the possibility of re-preservation of findings. Therefore, the preservation with PEG solution in water was chosen. In addition, the findings were wet and sufficiently soft. To preserve the leather findings we used the 10% PEG-400 solution in water-alcohol mixture (1:1) with 3% antiseptic Boramon C30 additive. After the preservation of leather and disbandment of details, cracks and laminated leather layers were glued together with acrylic copolymer A-45K acetone solution. Three different molecular weight polyethylene glycol solutions, PEG-400, 1500 and 5000 were used to preserve wood. The wood surface was covered with a protective coating of wax balsam Pronto.Most of the information about the footwear of the late historic times, which interests the researchers, is best accumulated by conserving findings before their restoration, i.e., by connecting the details and thus restoring the image close to its authentic state. When producing leather articles of complex design, the craftsmen used not only skin, but also other kinds of materials – wood, threads, textile or metal. The author of this publication drew all footwear details, determined the connection seams of the details, indicated the animal’s skin type, measured the leather thickness, ascertained footwear design, identified patterns and determined the footwear sizes according to the standard used in Lithuania. Also, the research set out to determine the timber type of certain footwear parts.In total, 2 low-cut shoes (r. s. No. 116, 178) and 3 mules (r. s. No. 118, 177 and 179) were restored. Horse skin was used for the treadsole of the low-cut shoe (r. s. No. 116), size 25 (baby footwear), while cattle skin was used for the upper part. The inlay, which was made from the part of another insole, improved shoe wearing and probably solved the problem of too large footwear. Low-cut shoe (r. s. No. 178) (Fig. 2) – the only decorated footwear finding, size 33, with low heel. All details are made from bovine skin of various thickness. Low-cut shoe is attached to the leg by front lacing.Mule (r. s. No. 118), size 33, with medium height middle heel. All leather parts are made from bovine skin but of a different thickness. Birch wood was used as filler. The unusual way of insole stitching suggests that the artist saved both materials and time. Mule (r. s. No. 177), size 39, has a pointed toe part and low heel. This footwear finding has the most intricate construction of this complex. Animal skin of different age was used to make this footwear. Based on the design and quality of materials used, it can be said that according to the price it had to be the most expensive footwear. Mule (r. s. No. 179) remained incomplete, a part of heel had been torn apart and some details are missing, it could have been size 38–39. All details were made from bovine skin of various thicknesses.The historic examples of the 17th century footwear are exhibited in major museums around the world, also the museums specialising only in the history of the development of footwear have accumulated historical footwear of this period. However, the vast majority of the exhibits are luxurious footwear of the rich. We see quite a different picture concerning footwear of ordinary people – peasants and townspeople. This footwear was often worn out and thrown away, therefore there are no historical findings. The largest amount of information about these findings is provided precisely by archaeological material and iconography.Comparing the Žagarė urban archaeological findings with the iconography data of Western Europe, it can be said that three mules that were found during the research can confirm the fact that this type of footwear at that time was very popular and well-liked among both rich and ordinary citizens. Footwear – (except for mule r. s. No. 177, which has a distinct design and sewing technique) low-cut shoes and mules, which were discovered, have a similar design, and a very similar sewing style. It can be assumed that the latter footwear could be made by the same craftsman. Straipsnyje, remiantis archeologiniais duomenimis, apžvelgiama XVII–XVIII a. Lietuvos periferijos miestelių avalynė. Kaip tipinės miestiečių avalynės pavyzdžiai detaliai pristatomi ir analizuojami XVII a. avalynės radiniai, aptikti Žagarės miesto archeologinių kasinėjimų (archeologas Ernestas Vasiliauskas) metu. Aptikti du pusbačiai ir trys klepės iki šiol yra vieninteliai informatyviausi miestiečių avalynę reprezentuojantys archeologiniai radiniai, surasti ne Lietuvos reikšmingiausių senųjų prekybos miestų teritorijoje, o periferijos miesteliuose. Radiniai autoriaus konservuoti ir restauruoti, aptartos tokio pobūdžio radinių konservavimo ir restauravimo problemos, siekiant maksimaliai išsaugoti jų informatyvumą tolesniam įvairiapusiam pažinimui. Ištirta radinių konstrukcija ir medžiagiškumas, atskleista avalynės gamybos technologija. Radiniai palyginti su to laikotarpio Vakarų Europos analogais
Aštuntoji tarptautinė mokslinė konferencija Prof. Jono Puzino skaitymai: „Ankstyvosios priešistorės paminklaviečių peržiūra: senosios medžiagos vertinimas, naujų teorijų kūrimas“ (skiriama habil. dr. Rimutės Rimantienės 95-am gimtadieniui)
Get PDF..
Ankstyviausi žirgų palaikai laidojimo objektuose Lietuvoje
Get PDFThe custom to bury horses in the East Baltic region spread after the birth of Christ. Horse graves found in the territory of Lithuania mostly date to the first millennium AD and the first half of the second millennium AD. However, origins of the custom to bury horses in the territory of Lithuania can be traced back to the Early Metal Period. In this article, the material of the earliest horse remains in burial sites found in the territory of Lithuania are analysed and interpreted. The earliest horse remains in funerary context were found in five mounds within three barrow cemeteries: Kurmaičiai, Kveciai and Ėgliškės, located in the western part of Lithuania – near Akmena, Tenžė, and Danė privers respectively. The barrow cemeteries were arranged within 3 to 7.5 kilometres of each other. Barrow mounds dating to the Early Metal Period usually contained only certain horse body parts rather than the whole skeleton. Four horse teeth were found in Kurmaičiai barrow mounds no. 8 and 11 – two on each mound. Kveciai barrow mound no. 1 contained a horse skull and a few unidentified horse bones. These bones were placed within a stone structure, which was probably disturbed at some point because the western part had only a few isolated stones left. The surviving stone structure on the eastern side was 2 metres long and 1 metre wide. Here it connected to the external stone circle of the barrow. Ėgliškiai barrow mound no. 1 contained unidentified disarticulated horse bones, scattered in a 1 square metre area between the central and middle stone circles. Barrow mound no. 2 contained several horse teeth, found near the external stone circle. Horse bones showed no signs of burning, even though cremation was the dominant burial custom during this period. Most of the barrow mounds contained cremated human remains, with the exception of mound no. 2 in Ėgliškiai, which contained two inhumations. Some cremated human remains were placed in urns with smooth or brushed surface; others were placed in small pits or surrounded by stone arrangements. Grave goods were scarce in cremation burials but they appear more frequently with inhumations. Horses were buried at a distance from human graves, so the remains of these animals were not associated with any specific human grave in the barrows. Furthermore, the horse grave in Kveciai was separated from human graves by a stone structure, which was very similar to the stone structures formed for human graves. It appears that in Kveciai barrow humans and horses were buried using the same symbols of material culture. The beginning of the custom to bury horses in Western Lithuania dates back to the end of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. These changes in burial traditions are associated with the formation of special status of horses in the Baltic region during the second and first millennium BC.Straipsnyje nagrinėjama žirgo laidojimo papročio formavimosi ankstyvuoju metalų laikotarpiu dabartinėje Lietuvos teritorijoje pradžia. Pristatomi surinkti duomenys apie ankstyviausius žirgų palaikus žmonių laidojimo vietose. Šių gyvūnų kaulų iki šiol rasta tik vakarinėje Lietuvos dalyje – Kurmaičių, Kvecių ir Ėgliškių pilkapynuose, įrengtuose nedidelėje teritorijoje Akmenos, Tenžės ir Danės upių pakrantėse. Pilkapiuose, kuriuose vyrauja degintiniai žmonių kapai, aptikta atskirų, nedegintų žirgų kūno dalių. Šie laidojimo objektai datuojami vėlyvojo žalvario amžiaus pabaiga–ankstyvuoju geležies amžiumi. Toks laidosenos pokytis siejamas su išskirtinės žirgo padėties formavimosi pradžia Baltijos regione II ir I tūkstm. pr. Kr.
Grafų Keyserlingkų ir kitų Lietuvos dvarininkų archeologiniai rinkiniai Kuršo provincijos muziejuje
Get PDFThe archaeological finds (whose chronology covers the period from 4400/4200 BC to the 16th century AD) that were brought to the Courland Province Museum (1818–1939; Kurländischen Provinzial Museum, hereinafter the KPM) before 1916 (Fig. 1) from Kaunas Province (210 items from 12 localities, with another 2 find spots being mentioned (Fig. 2)) were mainly collected in the northern part of the country, in Samogitia, where landowners of German nationality had quite a few manors (Fig. 19, Tab. 1).It is from them that the first artefacts got to the KPM in 1835. In the period between 1840 to 1883, the finds came from old Lithuanian noblemen families (from Chlewiński via Ivan Loboiko, Benedikt Karp, and Tadeusz Dowgird).Since 1882, noblemen of German nationality, such as Count Keyserlingk, Barons von Behr, von Bistram, von Grotthuß, von Pfeilitzer-Franck, von der Ropp and others, got intensely involved in the search for antiquities and research of the past. The most active participants in the collection of artefacts and the organisation of research (already in the Courland Province) were Theodor ir Otto Keyserlingk (Malgūžė–Daunorava branch) (Figs. 3–4). The period of the finds getting into the KPM from Lithuania from 1828 to 1916 can be divided into 3 stages: Stage 1(1828–1835), Stage 2 (1840–1883), and Stage 3 (1882–1914). The participation of quite a few landowners from Lithuania in the activities of the Literature and Art Society in Courland (Kurländischen Gesellschaft für Literatur und Kunst, hereinafter the Society) and the Museum was limited to the provision of information or simply to membership (von der Ropp, von Bistram, von Löwenthal, and some of the Keyserlingk and von Pfeilitzer-Franck families), which meant paying anannual membership fee of 5 roubles.In most cases, the information accumulated in the KPM on some of the objects or on exclusive finds collected in them happens to be unique (cf. Adakavas (Fig. 11), Laukžemė, Lieporai, Moliūnai, Škilinpamūšis (Figs. 12–16), Viekšniai (Kaunas Province), Vecsaules Čapāni (Fig. 5), Jaunsvirlaukas Migaļas (Courland Province, etc.). Not long after that, in the late 19th century, the said archaeological materials were put into scientific circulation. In all cases, all the discovered finds since 1828 were more or less comprehensively overviewed in the Mitauische Zeitung newspaper (which in the period of 1811 to 1831 was published under the title Allgemeine deutsche Zeitung für Rusland), and since 1882, in an anual publication Sitzungsberichte der kurländischen Gesellschaft für Literatur und Kunst nebst Veröffentlichungen des kurländischen Provinzial-Museums of the Society. Moreover, a significant part of the said artefacts (those from Adakavas and Vecsaules Čapāni) were presented in the exhibition of the 10th Congress of Archaeology of the Russian Empire in Riga, in 1896.A great part of the finds referred to in the article were collected in the late 19th to the early 20th century during gravel mining works (Lieporai) or during earthworks in manors (Škilinpamūšis), or even during the construction of complex infrastructural objects, such as, e.g. channels (in Viekšniai in the first half of the 19th century); stone axes and coins came as choice finds from farmlands (Moliūnai, Laukžemė, and Žagarė). In almost all cases, the find spots were more or less precisely known, while in the case of Škilinpamūšis, the drawings of the artefacts made by Alfred von Behr in 1889 and the plan of the find spot situation survived (Figs. 15–16). Some of the collections accumulated by landlords can be characterised as collections proper (O. Keyserlingk’s collection of stone axes from Telšiai district) (Figs. 6–10, Table 2). Some of them, and primarily Keyserlingk, managed to avoid the problem of “scientific amateurism” by inviting specialists to the expeditions to cemeteries in Vecsaules Čapāni in 1886 and Jaunsvirlaukas Migaļas in 1895: the teacher of Jelgava Gymnazium, Carl Boy, or Secretary of Moscow Historical Museum, Wladimir Sisow, who were knowledgeable about the methodology of archeological excavations. Some others chose to carry out excavations by themselves (Adakavas, Paluknys). When it comes to the acquisition of the finds, one can see a fundamental difference: it was only in the second stage that the Lithuanian nobility carried out excavations in archaeological sites by themselves (Adakavas, Paluknys).In the expeditions to the North Lithuanian archaeological sites in the 70s-80s of the 19th century, artist Julius Döring (1818–1898) is known to have been actively assisted not only by representatives of the Karp family from Joniškėlis (in Panevėžys and Pasvalys districts in 1876), but also by A. von Behr (1848–1896) from Baltapamūšis, Eduard von der Ropp (1831–1892) from Raudonpamūšis (in the surveys of Ąžuolpamūšė Hillfort in 1882), Franz von Bistram (1854–1908) from Courland Grieze, Carl Keyserling (1809–1893) from Lithuanian Griežė (Heinrichswalde, Gaiķi, Griežė, Panevėžys branches) (in the surveys of the Griežė archaeological sites and the search for Apuolė there). Later, in the late 19th to the early 20th century, new names were included in the lists of the Society and Museum members: Friedrich von Grotthuß (Fig. 4) and Paul von Stempel. The KPM received several finds from them (Fig. 17).The involvement of landlords in the studies of the past of the north-central Lithuania can be accounted for by several reasons. First, the Baltic German landlords were closely related to Germany, from which the latest achievements in education, science, and culture would reach the region: in the present case, via the University of Tartu or directly, as quite a few of them were educated in Germany. In the case in question, besides Keyserlingk, Paul von Stempel, Benedikt, Joseph and Moritz Karp from Joniškėlis studied in the University of Tartu in 1880–1886, and Oskar Kurnatowski and some others, in 1853–1856; before that, they had studied in Jelgava Gymnazium which employed an active member of the Society J. Döring and others. Iki 1916 m. į Kuršo provincijos muziejų pateko Lietuvos bajorų senųjų giminių ir vokiečių tautybės dvarininkų aptiktų įvairių plačios chronologijos (4400/4200 m. pr. Kr.–XVI a. po Kr.) archeologinių radinių iš Kauno gubernijos (210 vienetų iš dvylikos vietovių, minimos dar dvi radavietės, daugiausia iš šiaurinės dalies, Žemaitijos). Aktyviausi XIX a. pabaigoje renkant dirbinius ir organizuojant tyrimus (jau Kuršo gubernijoje) buvo grafai Theodoras ir Otto Keyserlingkai (Malgūžės–Daunoravos atšaka). Kai kurie šių rinkinių turėjo antikvarinį pobūdį, nefiksuotos tikslesnės jų radimo aplinkybės (O. Keyserlingko akmeninių kirvelių rinkinys), tačiau kiti buvo detaliau metrikuoti (Alfredo von Behro Škilinpamūšio pilkapyno ir kt. radiniai). Tam tikrais atvejais ši informacija apie kai kuriuos objektus – Adakavą, Laukžemę, Lieporus, Moliūnus, Škilinpamūšį, Viekšnius (Kauno gubernija), Vecsaulės Čapanus, Jaunsvirlaukos Migalias (Kuršo gubernija) ir kt. – ar juose surinktus unikalius radinius yra vienintelė
Gintaras Kaupe
Get PDFBurial ground Kleine Kaup is located in the eastern area of Kaup (currently – southern fringe of the town Zelenogradsk, Northern Sambia) and was discovered on August 3, 1865. Small-scale excavations at the burial ground were carried out by Сarl Engel in 1932. As it transpired from fairly sketchy information from the Berlin Archives about the excavations, 23 Prussian two-layer burials dating back to XI–XIII centuries were unearthed. Since the Prussians mostly used burial custom of cremation at that time, I was not expecting to come across any organic material when I started working at Kleine Kaup in 2008. In the course of the work, it was revealed that the bone plates were preserved with unburned horse remains at the lower burial levels. Besides pieces of amber and items made from amber (beads) with insignificant traces of exposure to fire occurred as mortuary gifts at the upper levels of Prussian burials. However, the most unanticipated amber finds occurred at a grave K52a (excavations of 2011). In the process of unearthing and cleaning a poorly preserved skeleton, polished amber beads of various diametre were found in the area of the skull, practically destroyed by tree roots. To the east of the skull pieces, at the right edge of the lower jaw, fragments of three torded temple rings were found. One of the pieces had a bead on it. To the north-east of it, two pieces of another amber bead were discovered. Thus, it became obvious that the skull of a woman buried in grave K52a was decorated with two pairs of polished amber beads right and left. Moreover, the bead on the right (or both?) was strung on iron temple rings which had hooks for fastening at one end. Direct analogies of the beads from burial site K52a with a specific rhombic cross-section are absent in the archeology of Eurasia. The dating of burial site K52a which, judging by a fragmentary set of jewellery, contains female remains is still problematic. Analogies to this complex should probably be sought in ancientry of Curonians of the Early-Middle Ages who had north-oriented graves and iron torcs and beads.Plokštinis kapinynas Kleine Kaup (Mažasis Kaupas), esantis Kaupo vietovės rytinėje dalyje (pietinis Kranzo, dabar Zelenogradskas, pakraštys, šiaurės Semba) buvo atrastas 1865 m. rugpjūčio 3 d. Nedidelės apimties kasinėjimus kapinyne 1932 m. vykdė Karlas Engelis. Iš Berlyno archyvuose išlikusios lakoniškos informacijos apie kasinėjimus aiškėja, kad kapinyne buvo surasti 23 prūsiški dviejų sluoksnių XI–XIII a. datuojami kapai. Atkasant ir valant prastai išlikusius griaučius, kape K52a greta apnykusios ir šaknų apardytos kaukolės rasta skirtingo skersmens gludintų gintaro karolių. Į vakarus nuo kaukolės likučių, prie dešinės apatinio žandikaulio pusės rasti trijų tordiruotų antsmilkinių fragmentai. Viename tokiame fragmente buvo įvertas karolis. Į šiaurės rytus nuo jo rasti dar du vieno karolio fragmentai. Taigi paaiškėjo, kad šiame kape palaidotos moters kaukolę iš kairės ir dešinės pusių puošė po du gludintus karolius. Be to, į dešinę nuo kaukolės buvęs karolis (abu?) įvertas į geležinius antsmilkinius su kabliuku užsegti viename gale
Pastarųjų dešimties metų pokyčiai Lietuvos archeologinio paveldo apsaugos teisinio reglamentavimo srityje
Get PDFThe last decade in the field of cultural and archaeological heritage protection was determined by the Law on Protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage, which came into force in 2005. The most notable changes are observed in: 1) accounting, assessment of valuable properties and listing of archeological heritage objects 2) legislation of requirements of archaeological heritage protection 3) regulation of archaeological excavations.Approx. 2,800 objects (individual objects, complex objects and sites) are listed in the state Register of Cultural Property. The majority are hill-forts (approx. 30%), burial mounds and their places (approx. 23%), burial grounds and old cemeteries (approx. 23%), ancient settlements (approx. 15%), and the rest are cultural layers of old towns, manor places, castle places and other types of archaeological sites (e.g. ancient production sites). Additionally, there are more than 450 heritage objects (mostly buildings), which are also assessed as bearing archaeologically valuable properties. Archaeological heritage comprises approx. 17% of immovable cultural values, listed in the state Register of Cultural Property.During the last decade, accomplishment of assessment of valuable properties and listing of archaeological heritage objects was planned. Thus, the coherency of heritage protection restrictions applied for land property use had to be guaranteed. For this purpose, immovable cultural assessment councils were established. Immovable cultural property is registered (listed) after an assessment council decides that a property is in the need of legal protection. The significance of immovable cultural property and the valuable properties of objects or sites of cultural heritage are determined and the boundaries of territories are defined by the immovable cultural heritage assessment councils as well. The specialised assessment council for archaeological heritage was established next to the Department of Cultural Heritage in 2012.Data exchange between the Register of Cultural Property and the Real Estate Register should be identified as an extremely important turning point in making heritage information on restrictions of land use available for cultural heritage managers and users.Nevertheless, concentration of state administrative and technical resources mainly on preparation of new documentation type for already listed heritage objects (the act of assessment council) led to the stagnation of accounting – identifying, inventorying and assessment – of new archaeological heritage objects. It also hindered elaboration of archaeological heritage management strategies from “heritage object” towards “heritage process”. Integration of the latest archaeological data into the general heritage management process (e.g. identification of new archaeological heritage objects, determination of valuable properties and values of archaeological heritage and application of relevant conservation strategies, explaining meaning of archaeological heritage preservation for descendant and non-local communities, etc.) is still weak. Re-orientation of the archaeological heritage protection perspective from the “object” towards its manager or user, as well as community in general, should be seen as the main heritage management task for the next decade.Aiming at differentiation of administrative load, heritage protection procedure was divided into two stages: initial protection of immovable cultural heritage and declaration of an object of cultural heritage protected. Special territorial planning documentation had to be prepared in order to implement the second stage of protection. The extent of resources needed for preparation of this documentation type was not initially estimated and in 2013 the procedure was turned back to the system valid in 1995–2005: a procedure of declaration of an object of cultural heritage protected for an individual and ordinary complex objects is introduced by typical or individual protection regulations, for cultural heritage sites – by special territorial planning documents.Archaeological excavations/destructive research – or “protection through documentation” – became the main form of archaeological heritage protection during the last decade. As the contract archaeology system was developed, great attention was paid to excavations’ quality control procedures. In 2011, Heritage Maintenance Regulation PTR 2.13.01:2011 „Archaeological Heritage Maintenance“ was adopted. Thus requirements for archaeological heritage excavation (where and how archaeological excavations should be conducted) became a legal norm for the first time in the history of heritage protection in Lithuanian. Legal regulations adjusted essential conditions of competition for contract archaeologists as well. Nevertheless, objectification of criteria of archaeological research is modeling the situation “of typical archaeological excavations”, and thus in the professional community raises discussions concerning the scope of scientific information obtained during the archaeological excavations.Heritage Maintenance Regulation also demands to protect archaeological heritage constructs in situ. Seeking for successful implementation of this goal, the necessity of archaeological heritage identification and research in the earliest stages of development works should be guaranteed. Attempts for identifying and coordination of various interests towards archaeological heritage should be actively applied in order not only to preserve material archaeological relics, but also to interpret and present archaeological heritage values for the society in general. Pastarasis dešimtmetis paveldo apsaugos srityje yra susijęs su 2005 m. įsigaliojusiu Nekilnojamojo kultūros paveldo apsaugos įstatymu. Ryškiausi pokyčiai vyko archeologinio paveldo apskaitos, apsaugos reikalavimų įteisinimo bei archeologinių tyrimų reglamentavimo srityse. Apskaitos problematika aptariama vertinimo, paveldo objektų gradacijos ir paveldosauginių apribojimų taikymo aspektais. Straipsnyje taip pat nagrinėjamos šios archeologinio paveldo apsaugos priemonės: informavimas apie žemės plotui taikomusarcheologinio paveldo apsaugos apribojimus; galimų veiklų ir sąlygų archeologinio paveldo objekto teritorijoje ir apsaugos zonoje nustatymas; archeologinių tyrimų privalomumo atvejų apibrėžimas. Aptariamas rcheologinių tyrimų reglamentavimas, archeologinio paveldo apsaugos in situ klausimas
