Spatial analysis of finds and the possibilities of its use in the study of Lithuanian iron age settlements

Straipsnyje analizuojamos erdvinės analizės taikymo galimybės Lietuvos geležies amžiaus gyvenvietėse. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į archeologinio konteksto formavimosi procesų identifikavimo būtinybę prieš taikant erdvinę analizę. Erdvinė analizė - pagrindinis metodas, kurio pagalba galima būtų identifikuoti šių gyvenviečių struktūrą, tačiau neatsižvelgiant į formavimosi procesų metu vykusius pokyčius archeologiniame kontekste, dažniausiai nuves prie klaidingi} išvadų. Formavimosi procesams identifikuoti svarbi visa archeologinių tyrinėjimų metu aptinkama medžiaga - tiek individualūs radiniai, tiek masinė medžiaga, bet svarbiausia - tiksli fiksacija lauko darbų metu.The analysis of a settlement's structure and the arrangement of the various activity areas provides the most valuable information that can be attained from the excavation of an archaeological settlement. Meanwhile, practically nothing is currently known about the structure of Lithuanian Iron-age settlements. The small scale of the excavations is usually given as the main reason for this, but the limitations of the methodological techniques in the interpretation of settlement material should be considered the main problem. Settlement finds are mainly analyzed using the typological principle while ignoring their spatial arrangement. Consequently, only a small part of the available information is used. Settlement material should be understood as a spatial artefact distribution, not an amorphous assemblage of finds. The main tool for this purpose is spatial analysis methods. Such analysis, however, can only be applied after the cultural and natural formation processes of the archaeological context have been recognised. The archaeological context is not merely a filtered version but rather a transformation of the systemic context. Unfortunately, the approach that the spatial distribution of artefacts in an archaeological context directly reflects the spatial distribution of the activity areas still prevails among Lithuanian archaeologists. Areas with a thicker and more intensive cultural layer are related to more intensive activity areas and definite concentrations of artefacts are identified as the locations of buildings in some cases. It is by no means a wrong attitude; various formation proprocesses considerably change the spatial distribution of artefacts: e.g. some areas are periodically cleaned and the refuse collected there displaced to other areas. Reuse processes also shift the archaeological context considerably. The archaeological context forms not only during a settlement's or a building's occupational phase but also during the abandonment and post-abandonment phases. Very dissimilar or even inverse processes may occur during different phases. Therefore, zones with different formation processes must first be recognized in the analysis of the settlement's structure and the more precise function of the separate activity areas should be identified afterwards. Such characteristics as function, size, stage of artefact's use-life, damage, use-wear, suitability for reuse or secondary use, and many others are very important for the identification of refuse types. Nevertheless, the best results are obtained by using as many different artefact properties as possible. Since there are very few distinct buildings and other structures in Lithuania's excavated Iron Age settlements, it is impossible to draw any remarkable conclusions without the assistance of spatial analysis methods and the identification of the formation processes. The latter is a very complicated task that requires detailed fixation during the excavation. It must be stressed that all of the artefacts, not only individual finds but also pottery, bones, stones, clay plaster, etc. are informative and important in spatial analysis. But that importance is also directly dependent on the precise spatial fixation of the finds