Lituanistica

Title

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0200

The Problem of Reference to Lithuania in 451

Vytas Jankauskas — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0200

Finding Paulinus Minoritus’s world history, which mentions Lithuania, in the Vatican Apostolic Library necessitates a contextualisation of this reference, which claims that Attila sent scouts to Lithuania. The description is given before Attila’s campaign in Italy and is also based on Andrea Danduli’s chronicle dated 451. Variants of this description are also known from the Hungarian chronicle tradition. Looking at the sources as a whole, it is most likely that this information could have come from the beginning of John the Deacon’s Venice chronicle that has not survived, or from some other source, the origin of which should be sought in a period earlier than the twelfth century.
It should be noted that the context of this information, wherein the Venetians linked the founding of their city with the destruction of Aquileia, the legend of the Venetians’ origin in Troy, Attila’s conquests, and the expanded narrative about Attila, shows that all of this contextual information was already in use in the eighth century. The available sources do not clarify whether the story of Attila sending his scouts to Lithuania was also in circulation at that time.
However, when talking about the contacts between Lithuania and the Huns, it is important to note that they are also attested by archaeological evidence. The three-leaf arrowheads found in Lithuania indicate that the forces of the Huns or the tribes subordinate to them may have reached Lithuania. Most archaeologists agree that this was an invasion, and some speak of Attila’s contingents. Thus, the historical source (Paulinus’s history) can be supported by archaeological data.
This leads to the conclusion that the name of Lithuania may have been mentioned as early as the fifth century, but comprehensive research is needed to confirm this.

The Problems of the Geography of the Battle of Durbe

Tomas Baranauskas — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0200

Fought on 13 July 1260, the Battle of Durbe marked a significant victory for the Samogitians against the Teutonic Order, leading to political shifts that included revolts among the Curonians and Prussians and a change in King Mindaugas’s policies. The article examines the geographical challenges surrounding the Battle of Durbe (1260), focusing on the localisation of Georgenburg Castle and the battlefield itself. It reevaluates two traditionally accepted locations: Georgenburg Castle, long associated with Jurbarkas on the Nemunas River, and the battlefield, commonly placed near the modern town of Durbe by Lake Durbe in Courland (modern Latvia). These assumptions are deemed poorly substantiated and are challenged through a detailed analysis of primary sources and historiographical debates.
The article traces the historiographical tradition of identifying Georgenburg with Jurbarkas, a view dominant from the nineteenth century until the 1980s. This identification, which is supported by scholars like Max Toeppen and Zenonas Ivinskis, is questioned due to the inconsistencies in primary sources and strategic considerations. The castle, built in 1259 in Karšuva (Samogitia) on ‘St George’s Hill’ by Livonian Master Burchard von Hornhausen, is described in sources like Peter Dusburg’s chronicle and the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle. Critics, including William Urban (1983) and Alvydas Nikžentaitis (1996), argue that the location of Jurbarkas on the Nemunas, far from the battle site (150–200 km), is logistically implausible for the Teutonic campaign. Urban suggests a location closer to Klaipėda, possibly near the Venta or the Akmena rivers, to align with the Order’s goal of securing connections between Prussia and Livonia. Alvydas Nikžentaitis further disputes the identification of Jurbarkas, noting that later fourteenth-century Georgenburg castles (e.g., near Veliuona) indicate the reuse of the name, thus undermining the continuity with the 1259 castle. Gintautas Zabiela (1997) proposes Vilkų Laukas, near the Jūra River, as a more likely site, identifying two contemporaneous hillforts (Kūplė and Veringa) as the Teutonic and Samogitian castles, respectively. This hypothesis may be supported by a legend from the sixteenth-century Lithuanian chronicle linking a ‘Jurbarkas’ founded by Barkus (possibly derived from Burchard) to the Jūra River, aligning with Vilkų Laukas rather than the Nemunas.
The traditional localisation of the Battle of Durbe near Lake Durbe, close to the modern town and a fourteenth-century Teutonic castle, is also scrutinised. Primary sources, including the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle and Peter Dusburg’s chronicle, consistently describe the battle as occurring ‘in a field by the Durbe River’ in Courland, with no mention of a lake or a castle. The article critiques the historiographical shift, starting with Oskar Kienitz (1849), toward associating the battle with Lake Durbe, an assumption perpetuated by scholars like Juliusz Latkowski and Zenonas Ivinskis. Reinforced by Pēteris Stepiņš’s archaeological work at the Dīri burial ground near Durbe in the 1960s, this view lacks evidence linking the site to the battle. The absence of Lake Durbe in sources suggests that the battle occurred further north along the Durbe River, possibly near such settlements as Dunalka, where a hillfort (Elkakalns) and a road crossing the river make it a plausible location. Alternative sites, such as the Darba (or Durba) River near Darbėnai (proposed by Jonas Šliūpas) or the Durbinis stream near Telšiai, are considered but deemed less likely due to naming discrepancies or the minor significance of these waterways. The proximity of the post-battle events like the Curonian revolt, the first Lithuanian garrison in Dzintare Castle, and the massacre at Vartaja (twelve days later) may indirectly support a location along the Durbe River.
It may thus be concluded that the traditional identifications of Georgenburg with Jurbarkas and of the Battle of Durbe with Lake Durbe are unsupported by primary sources and strategic logic. Georgenburg is most convincingly located at Vilkų Laukas hillforts on the Jūra River, which is supported by both archaeological evidence and historical traditions. The Battle of Durbe likely occurred along the Durbe River, north of Lake Durbe. While alternative locations like the Durbinis stream are considered, the Durbe River remains the most credible geographical marker.

Burgher Heraldry of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Late Fourteenth–Mid-Seventeenth Centuries

Oleg Odnorozhenko — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0200

The complex of burgher coats of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which dates back to the end of the fourteenth century, is distinguished by the geography of its distribution, variety of heraldic subjects and constituent elements of the coat of arms, dynamism, and complex practices of their use. In addition to the burghers of such large cities as the capital Vilnius, Kaunas, Polotsk, Vitebsk, Kyiv, Pinsk, Grodno, and Novogrudok, the use of coats of arms is also recorded in small urban communities, which indicates the prestige of heraldic signs as universal means of individual, family, and social identification. In terms of their functional purpose and content, burgher coats of arms were similar to the heraldic signs of the nobility. In particular, the main subjects in the coats of arms for both burghers and gentry were various symbols based on geometric, arrow-, cross-, circle- and letter-like figures. They also feature a wide repertoire of armorial figures, such as celestial bodies, animals, plants, defensive structures, weapons, and military equipment. There were many examples of the use of non-protective elements in burgher coats of arms, such as helmets with mantlings, noble crowns, and various crests. For the most of the burgher coats of arms, their hereditary character is evident: for generations, they were used unchanged or with only minor modifications. Besides the custom of using mostly paternal coats of arms, there are examples of inheritance of coats of arms through female lines. In some cases, the use of coats of arms with genealogical programmes is observed. The presence of all these characteristic features allows for considering the complex of burgher coats of arms as an organic component of the heraldic space of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Forced Labour Battalions in German-Occupied Lithuania 1916–1918: The Phenomenon and its Context

Edmundas Gimžauskas — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0200

Forced labour battalions, and, in general, the phenomenon of forced labour in German-occupied territories during the First World War must be understood and evaluated inseparably from both the overall context of that era and the fundamental principles advocated by Wilhelmine Germany regarding the international community and its stance and objectives in the ongoing war. The states involved in the war, including Germany, were bound by the 1907 Hague Convention on the civilians of the opposing side, which they had signed and ratified. However, at the outbreak of the war, this Hague Convention was practically the only international legal document regulating the status of civilians in wartime conditions; moreover, it was too abstract and incomplete. This provided an opportunity for Germany, which harboured indisputably aggressive war aims, to cleverly and cynically exploit the convention for its own interests.
To administer Lithuania and other lands formerly controlled by Tsarist Russia and occupied by Germany, the Germans established a special Ober Ost entity in September 1915, which was an exceptionally strict, repressive, and exploitative in its nature. The architects of this entity, generals Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff, pursued a policy that was notably independent of and unapproved even by the central government in Berlin, effectively creating a ‘state within a state’ with a bureaucratically precise and militaristic exploitative system. This large-scale coercive system was primarily intended to harness the local inhabitants of the region in various ways. Forced labour was planned as one of the elements of subjugation, which was also reflected in the ‘Administrative Statute’ – a kind of Ober Ost constitution – issued by the military administration in June 1916. The occupiers even declared that their ‘Statute’ was supposedly a natural and necessary completion of the postulates of the Hague Convention and that local residents were employed under it, albeit against their will, for their own benefit.
Emphasising rationality, the Germans first began collecting statistical data from various spheres to argue for their decisions. They were particularly interested in local labour force reserves, employment, and the possibility of directing them toward economic projects vital for war aims. After data analysis, the situation in individual Ober Ost regions was assessed as highly varied, leading the administration to conceive the idea of forming mobile groups of local workers and deploying them in the most urgent work areas. Thus, from early 1916, formations of forcibly mobilised local civilians – the so-called ‘columns’ – appeared in occupied Lithuania. They were primarily used for road and railway construction and reconstruction, as well as in agriculture and forestry.
However, the protracted war and Germany’s strategic and economic problems in it led to the appointment of Hindenburg and Ludendorff as supreme commanders of the entire German army in August 1916. Upon assuming their posts, they brought with them all the experiences and practices tested in Ober Ost, implementing them throughout the country. As the German economy suffered from a growing shortage of workers, the military command began implementing compulsory labour for civilians in occupied territories. Compared to the aforementioned ‘columns’, this time the aim was establishing forced removal of the mobilised workers from their places of residence, i.e., de facto deportations. Thus, from 3 October 1916, with Ludendorff’s relevant decree, the term ‘civilian labour battalions’ became prevalent in public discourse regarding forced labour. Officially, mobilisation into these battalions was aimed at individuals allegedly evading work and the unemployed who refused to voluntarily accept employment under German-defined conditions. It primarily targeted urban societal structures, whereas the Ober Ost lands were predominantly agrarian. Therefore, since there was an objective lack of candidates for labour battalions, the authorities resorted to the most primitive solution: organising indiscriminate round-ups of people.
Data indicate that a total of five labour battalions were formed in Ober Ost, each intended to gather up to 2000 people, mostly unskilled labourers. Their living and working conditions were truly abysmal; their status was akin to that of prisoners. Cold, hunger, beatings, and humiliation became their daily reality. The absence of basic medical assistance led to a high mortality rate among them. Soon after the battalions were established, German institutions observed growing dissatisfaction among the local population, but the initiators and proponents of these measures refused to consider any changes to the adopted strategy. Nevertheless, changes became inevitable during 1917. The Germans, who were planning legal separation of Lithuania from Russia, needed to gain at least minimal favour from the Lithuanian public. Thus, in July 1917, Ludendorff instructed the administration to prepare for the abolition of forced labour battalions, and the official announcement was made during the famous Vilnius Conference in September 1917.
In reality, however, the Germans had no intention of abandoning forced labour as such; they were merely seeking the most suitable disguise for it. Thus, from December 1917, the former battalions became ‘volunteer labour battalions’ (their members’ wages were raised, but they had to sign documents agreeing to ‘voluntarily’ continued work). At the same time, there emerged ‘penal battalions’, and anyone who displeased the Germans were liable to be sent there, even without a formal hearing. The Council of Lithuania repeatedly appealed to the occupation administration, demanding an end to the arbitrary actions concerning forced labour and an improvement of the living and working conditions of those forcibly employed. However, all those efforts yielded practically no results. Only in November 1918, with the end of the First World War and the revolution in Germany, did the situation begin to change fundamentally.

Quo Vadis, Heritage Protection? Trajectories of Theoretical Thought in Lithuania (Part I)

Rasa Čepaitienė — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0200

In Lithuania, contemporary heritage studies constitute a broad interdisciplinary field that encompasses both movable and immovable cultural heritage and involves related disciplines such as ethnology, architecture, and art history. Since regaining independence, Lithuanian heritage studies have largely freed themselves from Soviet ideological and bureaucratic constraints, developing diverse theoretical and methodological approaches comparable to those in Western and Central-Eastern Europe.
Despite scholarly progress and international collaboration, significant communication gaps persist between experts and broader society, threatening public heritage awareness and preventive measures. The article examines the findings of theoretical Lithuanian heritage studies, the main themes and problems addressed, the presence (or absence) of distinct schools or paradigms, and the academic value of these works in relation to international discourse. It also considers the discipline’s self-reflection and future prospects.
The first part of the article argues that before the twentieth century, heritage theory was underdeveloped due to geopolitical and ideological circumstances, with limited institutional support during the interwar and Soviet periods. Soviet policies oscillated between ideological suspicion and pragmatic preservation, leading to tensions reflected in such landmark cases as the 1960 controversy of Trakai Castle. Guided by international frameworks, such as those proposed by Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, the article emphasises the enduring influence of institutional traditions and disciplinary paradigms.

Bell-Ringing Traditions at Funerals of Christian Denominations in the Kėdainiai Region

Laurynas Preikša, Rasa Račiūnaitė-Paužuolienė — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0200

The article analyses the tradition of ringing bells at funerals of Roman Catholics, Evangelical Lutherans, Orthodox Christians, and Old Believers in the Kėdainiai region. It delves into the issue of how this tradition relates to the community in the Kėdainiai region and the town itself. In the conscience of the believers, the ringing of bells to announce the death of a person is associated with the afterlife and with respect for the deceased. In the Kėdainiai region, separate parishes of the same denomination live a rather isolated life. This creates the conditions for the preservation of unique and locally specific traditions of ringing bells and their variations. The ringing of bells during funerals is not common in the town of Kėdainiai, but this tradition is still alive in rural areas. The study revealed that bell ringing serves an anonymous communicative function in Roman Catholic parishes of Kėdainiai and an individual communicative function in rural areas of the Kėdainiai region. Confessional differences on eschatological issues determine the different meanings of the tradition of ringing mourning bells. The Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Old Believers associate the ringing of funeral bells with helping the soul of the deceased, while for the Evangelical Lutherans it is a sign for the living, reminding them of the inevitable future meeting with the Lord. The article is based on the data from ethnographic field research conducted between 2022 and 2025.