late prehistoric soc]eties and burials in the eastern baltic

Download PDF
2 downloads 0 Views 5MB Size Report
Comment
The reception of Medieval Europe in the Baltic Sea Re- gion. Papers of the XIIth ... Cemeteries from the Late Iron Age on Bornholm. (Arkæol- ogiske Studier, VIII).
I

LATE PREHISTORIC SOC]ETIES AND BURIALS IN THE EASTERN BALTIC

O

MARIKA MAGI 3

o c c Ihen.|ic|c.1el|s*ilhhU'i.L.NlodNhdllfra11)'!a.iLdregionsi|l1rccl\lc|nBl||it.ct ofl.atc P.chi\(r1.

so.icr!

Sorirl anal!s.\- \hich

up ro rcccnr rinrcs \!c!c lrcdonriDlnrly

bascd on \anren sources rnd c\o-

I

luron.q $ nrs o l-rl'itrl,itrg.sug!.srsolrcshatdilTerenr $cirl syeunslnr rl'. .u lrrrlh dn cr\e regionsof rhccasrcflrB.lric. rlo\c\cr. al lihl ghD.e.rhiscrnno'bc s.cn in rh. .rcl.eologic.l c\ nhncc.itrchdirtgbur'als.TIe dncusnln in rhisrniclc subjecrs {mc prnicuhr lidrrtrc\ofburialcusroms'o closcrconsiddarnnrrcprc\en'arncncscollccrne\e6us indi\idurl arrnudcs. lnd g.nd.r rsfccrs Thc rcn'hssuegendrarsocieries \cr hi*.rdricrl borhiDtlie southemandnorthcnrpsrlsol' rhecancrnR,lrir. nurpo\cr \.s lringed in dilIercnrNals Ker \ords: Prchlsrorie n)cicrics. burials,L.le lronAgc.

Somcthcofclical

spects

The signilicrncc ol gr.rv.s cannot be overeslinalcd i n e a s l B a l l i c r c h c o l o g y .l i s p c c i a l l yi n E s t o n i aa n d Lanja. Latc Ir(n Age ccrnctlries are abundanrlysupplicd \rrh grale Soods,urrdha\e beenquilc thorough I) cicararcd. Ho\cvcl: rhc archacologicalc\idence in rhcsc burial tln.cs hns succccdcdonlv to a limired dc-qrecft nrfiuc cin8 thc $idespreadinlcryrctationof Lale IronASc s)cicrcs in iheseareas.Mosr inlcrpreti lions arc slill birscd by a few hislorical $ntings from thc llrh ccnrrry.

porvcr.,^ elrcts Lrndconshrctionstend to have an actunl corinrcrcixl uluc. bcsidcsthe ritual significancc. rvhcnthcy rrc dcpositedin a gravc.$ hich rvcrcnol nor maily Lrrrilablcro nrostol the populattun(Nliigi 2002. p.81I).Wc rrrry conclrde thar thc clidcnce from buri J l . t l L r . t r r . , h u r J J n r l ). q u i p F d \ i r I a n e l a c r \n o r n r , to lhe cxislcnccol a social elite. shile the abscnceol' conspicuousburials.or as occursin the nonhcm prrt ofthe c.slcn B{1tic in scvcral Prehistoricperiods.lhc abscncc of any knld of rrchacohgically deteclablc burirls. docsnot nccessarilyprovcan egalitariansocial

Gravc goods rcllccl rrrrirrly lhe rilual behalxrur of r Allhough bLridl riles do not r.flect the social (rucl!rc c o m n n m i t y .w h i l c s l i l l b c i r g r n d i s l r n g u i s h a bf lrco m dircclly. lhc lwo phcDomcDa are connecledto sonc cxo l h c rs o c i rI r s p c c L ss.u c ha sp o l i i i c a l a n ds o c i a l o r g a n r tcnl Morc crn bc rs$nucd whcDtaking inlo considcrusation. Thc so-cLrllcd wc lth' or 'povefy' of gnves. trcn rsDcclsol trrrialevidcncc othcr thln th€ quantilyl that is.1hcabLrndncc or lack ofpresened -qravegoods. qrnlity ol grAvegoods,or thc sizc of thc brrial nrounds. . . n . l J . r ( r r l ) , , : \ ' ( r . , 1 ( J$ i r l ' r h ( < c o n o m r c . r l u i r r ' . n ftncclts ol individualityorcolleclivism behind brnal of!)cictr,. Lrurmthcr lvirh the prclailing idcobgy (€.g. riles. lhc sclcclionoflhc afiefactschosenlbr cxpressH o d d € r1 9 8 2 c. s p c c i r l l yp . I l 9 l i ) . O n t h c o r h c rh a n d .i t ing statusor inruring t\.elfarein the Belond. rhc k)ca\ould also be birsld lo rssunrclhat lhc quanlity and rion ofburialgrounds in the cul$ral landscapc.and the qualily of gfu\c goods in one burial ground rnd duF gendc. rnd.gc rario ofthc dcceased-can tell us rnuch n ! . r n J d r ( , r h r n L Y r " JL J I n o r r ( f l c c rI h e \ o Lr . r lp u \ l rbonl lhc society.lr is llso impossibleto o\erlook thc tion of thc dcccrscd ar all. ldeology crn prcrcnr lhc imponlncc ol cslitDrling the representatileness ol arsocialelite f|onr dcDrotNlratirgits posili{rnthroughthe chacologic lly lisiblc burials, lvhich can cmbraccrhc forms ofgravcs ol gra!c goods.sith Cfiristianburial w h o l cp o p u l a l i o o nfjust a pan ofit. riles providirrg lhc closcsl cxanr e for ouf geographical region. Howcvcr, iD $cictics whcre some of the In acco nnec rlilh thc cultrral historical approach that doninrlcd lhc wriling ofrhc history and archacolI]oprlation wcfc bndcd wilh luxtrrious aficfacts, and ogy of lhc llrlric slalcs up to Lhcmiddle of the 20th Frhxps in gmndrcsc gflrlc coDnructidrs, these phe' n o m e nr J l q d ) ' i r ( l i J r r ( r J ( | r : ' i l . ' ( d , d e c o n o m i c c.ntury. l)rchisloric socicty h{s for a long ti e bccn

II]

177

{ @

L a k P r e h i s r o ' i cs o . i e t i e s ! r d Bnrirls ir rhe Eriern Boltic

t --r-

!

!

\ 0

Fig. 1. A nap of the eastemBaltic andthe swounding deas in lhe 12thcenhtry.

't00kD

.J

secn only throxgh the lens of historical descfiptions, xnd not dclincd lhrough nore theoretrcaL concepts.ln predominanily Latvix aDd Eslonia, this neant the inlcrprctadon()1'He l\ Chronicle of Lnonia', which was wrjtlen down at the requestofthe Bishop ofRiga in the late 1220s.in addilion to what becamethe Old er Rnyined Chronicle of Livonia', compLetedLn the 1290sby an unknown wriler who was in chargeofthe LivoDian bfanch of tbc Tcutonic Order A somewhat largervaicry ofwrittcn sourccscharaclcrises the earl)' hislory ol Lilhnania. where the centralisedstatehad startedto take shapeas early as the llth or l2th centur] (Kuncevitius 2000a;Nikzedaitjs 2001).

easlemBalticare c lea.ly distinct,but mainly in aspecls thal havenot beendiscussedverymuch so far

U Archaco logi caI cvi dcncc and interpretations of Prchi stori c socictics '1 h e s o u t he r n p r r t of the easternBaltic Ilistorical Lithuania

=

(,

a o

Historical Lithuania.the southernxnd easternpats of the presentcountry, is the only regjon in the eastem Thc inlerprendon ofPrehisroric society in the eastem Baldc \here the consoli&tion of the statehad taken Bxllic is roorcdin travcllcrs'wrilings lroln theEnhght- placc wilhoul doubr by lhe 1zLhcenlury.Thc deepso ( n r l ( n r r ( r u d . i n d . c . p c ! r a l . )n l s r o r r aa 1 d l . r r t . J . cial slradlicalion in these arcas, especially lron1 thc in early BaLtic-Germansrudies.ln the conditjons of lifth to the sixth cenruries,is demonstratedin princely ethnic segregalion,scholarsbelonging to the Bakic gravesunderbjg burial mounds(Kunceviiius 2000b). Gennan xpper class tendedio depict local ethnicitres The l2thand l3thcenturiessawtheappearanceofvery as somcthingprnnilive and underdeveloped. Whenna- largc and sonctlncs nulliplc hill-lbns. with adjuslcd tional historf witing was c($l(hcd ;r thc casl Baltlc open scttlcmcnts.Thcsc hill fofts \rcrc pohtical ccD I r d . r o u r - J .r l , c . , J " f r l h l q r l . . l r J r ) . r h . . ( u tres,somclimcsahcady rncDtioncdin lvrittcn sou.ccs. was acccptcdwith surpisnrgly few qualllicadons.In which thusindica|cdthc I-u.rhcrstralilicxlionof socicty Estonia.however,lhe earlier inlerpretalionshave been (Kunce!iaixs 2000a). tumcd upside doNn: now the presxned primilive nalurc ofthc locals dcpiclcd as sonethrng positive (Ligi Ninrh to l2th-centuryburial cuslomsin centraL,southc n . l d c i { c n t . , o l p r ( . c f l d a . I i r h , . a n d . o n . ri loo.) Ho\e\e- !€rerr rtfru:nt.\ r,, Prr\i,.,) cd of irdividual crcmations.in tbc caslcm part ol lhc r o o km l c h n o - e I e - o c f o r n \ i r T \ i : ' d n J T r \ r u l i : basedon the vision oftheir glorious and rvarlike past. country mainly undcr nrcuDds.Thc artcfactualculturc in thcscareaswas ln generalquite honogeneous,with In bolh cases.thc archacobgicalfacts halc tadilion ally bccn uscd for illusraling conccpLslbrmulatedon only inlrequenl impulsesor imports from other areas. groundsofhistori.al critclia, and only in lhc vcry lasl There are horse sacrilices,and even separateburials ^ f . 1 ' i , . . r l a r c l c r r o r . 1 r( r r c r g c , c co l - . u . - i o fe\i decadeshas afchaeologicalevidencestatcd to be elirp.r.,r,c 'e! rr,\.. u r\ .,,1)frii'cl) r.l.rif treatedin iis own right. ment tend to belong to the pedods before the Vking Archaeologicalthougbt about Prchistoric social sys A g e ( K u l i k a u s k a.s/ a / . 1 9 6 1 ,p . l 9 2 r B l i u i i e n a1 9 9 2 i tcms has dcvclopcd somc'vh3ldivclgendy in difterenl Bcrh(ius 2009; Kuila 2009). ,^.rtclicr nr thcsc crc couniics 1()thc easl ol rhe Ballic sea (Fig. l), bein-s nralion gravcs.which normally lbmr largc ccnelenes, I ll linkcd with thc culturalbackground and hislory oleach arc quitc honogcDcousand not cspccially abundant, particulaf land. On the olhcr hand.scvcral idc.tsabouL without cle,r indicalors social differenlialion (e.g Prehistoricsocielieshavebeenso generalthatthcy can Beftaiius 2005). 6 . J . e a s . l )$ . r h f l ) p r e ^ r a r eF L - o p e r .l o n m , i : ) Still, as it is known from wittcD sourccs.by thc carly especiallyas they were envisioncdin thc 1930s. l31h cenlury. Lirhuarian princes plaled a sirnilicanl ,4. historical approach is stiLl strongly infiuenced nl J l e d r r h e r o p J r l ' e b ) , f e 1 d e e p l ) { r d r r F e o' o r flaccs by c!ohtionary theorieswhich claim that pre- . ' \ T \ r ) h c r c r r ' i / \ . o n r r r n d c r rd n J r . l e . i n statesocial systemscan bc calcgoriscdaccordnrgb a pcace timc. s4ro posscsscdmuch prop.fty rDd had cenain hierarchy (rbout theorics scc. c.g. Ligi 1995i accumulaled considerable wealth. wliften sources Sna 2002). This makes it unavoidablcto considcrthc from the l31h century connect several of them with Late Prehistoricnothcm halfof thc castcm Ballic as mighty ccDtrcs.and mcntion thcif largc nililary forc socially lcssdcvclopcdwhcDcomparcdwilh the south- cs (NikzcDtailis 2001). TrvcDtyonc LilhuaDian and c r r f : | ' f r \ c , , r { J T l . , { L \ . . r l i , i , r c q . r c r dorf i . r o r Zcmaitijan piDccs mcnrioncd in rn xgrccmcnt wrlh supportedmuchby djfferencesft archxcokrgicnlmatc H a l i c h - V o l h y n i an 1 2 1 9 .n v e o f l v h o m s n r g l e do u t a , j rial. Stil1,burjal cusromsamong the linnic speakrng senior prjnces (Nikentailis 2001). By 1245. one of and Baltic-speakinginhabirantsof the Lale lron Age

!

179

then. Mindaugas.was alreadycalled 'the highestking' in somedocuments(Ligi 1968,p.37fTiKiaupa 2000).

r; z,

C e n t r a l e a s l e r nB a l t i c l a n d s :

\ - 4 o ' ro l r f e p o p u l : r r o 1{ j e - e .a c c o ' o r n gr o | | | l ' u d n . d n historians,ii€e larmersuniled undertenilorial colnlnu' nitics orficlds. Writtcn sourccsalso mcntion a stratum of nelioler, who sooneror laler formed the stmtun of feudal lords in the Lithuarrianslate(Kiaupa 2000).

Muchlessis knownaboutCuronianLalelron Age soci€q'. Lalvian and Lithuanian archaeologistsnonnally uscthc nanc Cnroniansonly lbr thc Latc Prehisloric inhabitantsofpresentwestenLithuaniaandthcsouth ernpanofwesternLatvia,whil€thepresnmably Baltic FinnicnrbabitaDts populaiingthc northcmpart of thc llrgionarcoitcn callcdCuonianLi!s. The inlerprelatioDofCuroniansociclyis bascdon thcconparativell abundantevidenccof the 'real' Curonians. Thc gcn Sonewhat sinilar lincs scem 1o charactcriscdrc dc eral attitudeto the ancientCuroniansandtheir sociely vclopmcnt of social systems in Prehistoric Prussra, ha. beensrronll)Jffe(redb) nflroralron11( Jpwhich consistcdmainly ofthe Sambianpeninsulaand proaches. They are regularlycalled'Baltic Vikings, thc adjaccnrcoasialarcas.Abundantly cquippedbud andthe bellicosesideof their societyhaspotcntially als with weapons,horsesand luxuriousinportcd ilelns d p p e d e di l r h i . e g : o f i r r h . ' i f t \ a n d , i \ r l . . , r J n c . . but thc burial customstumcd back to bcing nore ho moseneousin the Late Viking Age, and especiaLlyin the l2th century.VikingAge and lllh to l2th-century burialcustomswere mainly diferent sots ofjndividualcrcmalion gravcs,while the l2tfi centuryindicaleda lum to iDhumationsas a prcvailing burial rite (Kulxkov 1994,pp.l2 ,10). Basing himself on the decreasingnumber of female burials in the Late lronAge, the Russianafchaeologist Vladnnir Kulakov believesthat society becameulhnralcly nralc dominatcd.lviih thc cnstom ofr!/l?c fo. the widorvs of lvariors (Kulakov 1994.pp.l4,1 160). Basilg himsclf mainly on folklore, Kulakov recon . n c r e d r h ed e \ e l o p m e no f L a e I ' r e h r s r o r ifcr u * ' J n society as that of a theocracy,that js, a social syslem ruled by priests(Kulakov 1994,pp.13.l-160).According to Iim. archaeologicalproofofthe existenceofa 'holy kingdom is the occunenceofcemeteries wrth Scandinavianatefacts near trading centres in Kaup and Truso. He explains the lack of princely sraves from this period with data ftom fblklore, accordingto which chiefs and priesls were buricd ln rnaccessible placesand without arrel-acls.

h c e r u r c r r e f r e . e 1 | . Jr 1 ' h e r c , m e l r , , f , h i r i , , / u l N L \

2000;Karlina2006;Asarise, a1.2008,pp.l29llTr Blirjiene2008:lor J 'oneq hfl cf:ricJlpoin,of \ ie$. seeSna2008). The mostcommonburialplacesin the LateIron Age arcaofthc BalticCuronians wcrc flat burialgrounds, whercthcdistribuiionofthc crcnationpmcdcerough ly fromsouthto noth couldbeconsidcred to havcbccn a cleartendency duringtheninth1othe llth centuries. Theseindividualburialsfrequentlycontaineda great numberofweapons,ridingequipment andornaments, (e.9.Slankus lattefbolh in female graves the maleand 1995;Zulkus p.l1;2000;Bliujiene 1999;2008). 1991, In inhumaliongraves.as they still prevailedin the ninth century opposiledirectjonsaccording10 sex, whichwasconmonin Semigallian andespecjally Lat gallianccnetcrics,occunedsporadicallxallhooghi1 wasmoreconmonto buryall thedeadin onecemetery in thesamedirection(Kuljkauskas e/ d/. 1961,pp.3lj0381;Vaitkunskiene 1979).Exceptionally for theBaltic grJ\es$ i.h mixedremJ,n. culILral,phere. collec.i\e ol tlrcdeadwerealsoin use,cremalions in largeburial pitshavcbeenrecordcd CuroDiasouthofthc Rivcr Vcntain thc icnth ccntrry (c.g.Brlodis 1940).IIo\! evcr the lnajorityot crcnationsin Curonialion the llth centuryonwardswerelbundin smallgravepits, onl) ore ou'rdl n each.shrcl re.enblerLreonecr1 ccnralLilbuania.In somccases. burials$,eretbundin thetop layersof largecollectivegravepits,indicating theirlaterdale(Kulikariskas r/ al. 1961,pp.387388).

Thc gravcswirh $,caponsDcarTruso and Kaup c€ascd at thc tum of ihc l lth and l2th centuries,which, as Kulakov believes,r'as causedby the facl that, as a fe' r L o t J c o n f l . . r$ r . h r h ep 1 e \ L) u p p e -c l a ( . P - t . ( r a 1 warriols abandonedtheir homeland and setlled in easle r n I i r h u J n i ar n d n o r - h $ e sR r Lrssra l h. e l e $ g r d \ e sr 1 Theintroduclionol crenalionshasbeenseenby serPrussiawit| abundantweaponsand other goodsdated eralscholars asindicatingtheculruraljmpacteitherof to the period after the llth century belongedto local Scandinavia or the Prussianarea(Asarise/ dl 2008, feudal noblemen,the ,rllrgr mentionedin lSth-cen-

p.57).Srncenrnlhio 111h-cen1ury cremations in seveF al westLithuaniancemeteries mor. artcfacts, cspccial ly weapons,in comparison with inhumatbngraves.

v to bc theburialsoJmcm archaeologists considerthesc bersofmilitary retinueswho bccamcpoliticallyinfiu' entialin Curoniansocietyin lhc cighthandninlb,and perhapscvcn it tbe sevenlh.centuries(Zulkus2000: Bliujiene2006).

S e m i g a l l i a , Z e m a i t i l a a n d Se l o n i a Scmigalliaand Zernairijahaveoften beentakcn togetbel in arcbacological lerms.Arclaeologicalcvid€ncein thcsedistrictsis similar in many respects, allhoughsomedifferencescan also bc traced.Late lron Age burialcusromsIn Se'nigalliaand Tcmailija wcrecharacterised by flat burialgoundswith scvcral hundredinhumations, laid out in fairly resularrows. Malc andfemalegravcsoccunedin thesecemetcrics vithout anyspatialdifferences. logethef, but rhcdircclion ofthe gravcsof dillerenlsexeswasalwayslbc opposite(KuUkauskas er dl 1961,p.383;A€azis 1992i Vaskeviai[te 1992).Fromrhc l2th certury,thecuslom of crcmalionspreadinto Scmigallia(Zabiela 1998; Kunccviiius2000b;Vasiliauskas 2001).The anefact malcrialin graveswas comparalively homogeneous, gravegoods.whilc so elimesconsisting ol abundant graveswithoutatcfaclshavealsobeenrecordcd.Ir gravegoodsfollowedstrictgenderspcci{imoslcases, cation(Griciuviene e/ ,/. 2005).

Anumberofarcbacologists andhistorians believethat haddeveloped in Curoniaby fte statclike formations l2th ccntury.eventhoughno furtherconsolidation 01powercouldbe traced.Thcsccarlystatesa.e belicvcd to have alreadyexistcdin the ninth ccntury,when five 'lands' wcrc mentionedin Curoniaby Rimbert the Chroniclcr(Asarisel al. 2008,p.llg). The social asii is envisioned by most structurcofthe Curonians, Latvian and Lithuanianarchacologists, follows thc samelinesas lhat of the otherBaltic peoplesbefore theformationolth€ state.Thcuppcrstratumconsislcd ofrulcrswhosepowermighl,al leaslpatly, hivc been inhcnGd.Tbey werefollowedin thc socialhierarchy the weallhypeoplc,the fr€e by reri.rr or noblemen. peasants, peoplc.The most imponanl and dependent decisions werclakenat aisemblies ofthe politicaland ev'dence,vcry economiclcadcrsof a district,which meantthat the Dcspit€the abundantarchacological research hasbcenconducted on thc subeldershad to reckonwith othcrstralain society,and liltlc special ruciThc latlerhadtopaytaxcs, ject of Semitalial or ZcmJirijrnPrehrsruri( evenwith rhcfreepeasants. Lainr0 takeparlin buildingfofiificalions. anddo militaryscr cry. Ho$e\er.rh{ I irlrurrrirnarchzeol"tsi', hd"fuhli,hcdan anicleon changcs in vice in timcsoi conflictandduringraids.The stratum Varlkunskiene Zcmaittancemeteryat Pagpcoplcwassmall,b€causc ofdependent theywerenot, thc nilh to sixth-century in thebeliefofarohacologisls, economically necessary rybis.wh€reshepointedort thc suddenmilitarisation They could havc thcir own property,but il was more ofthc socialsystemduringthispcnod.Shecombined wilh thc increasing maledominancc advantag€ous to sell them into slavcry(Asarise/ d/. thisphenomenon (Vaitkunskicnc and social hierarchisatbn oi society 2008,p.139fl). The main administrative unils mcnlionedin writter sourcesfrom lhc lSth centuryarc bcli€vedto have beencastl€districls,comprisingfarmslcads, a village, or severalvillages,with a centrein a castleor a hillfort. Severalof thesecastledislriclsformedso-called landsor carly states,tbe nost ccntralof them beiDg Klaipeda(Asarisel d/.2008,p.140ft).

U F ,--l

0 o .l o

?

r995).

Thc gen€ralinterpretation of LatePrehistoric socicty in Scmigalliais apparentlybascdmainly on writtcn sourccs, whichseemto indicatca deeplystratifiedsyslcm in a prc-srare cnndilion.wrinen sourcesmcntion scvenlandsinlabitedbyScmigalliars inthe earlyl3th i I I ccnturywith promincnthill-fortstunctioning aspoliti calccntresfor thatkind ofdistricl.Thenost impodant ( uroniais rrlhe nonhcmpan ot lale Prchisr,,ric hill-foftsaccording 10writiendocuncnts,ofMerotne. poorlyinvestigated. cha€oloSically andonly a ftaction TarvctcandDobele,havealsobeenthorougblyexcaof the resuhshavebeenpublishcd(c.g.Kiwull I 9 I I i vatcd(Jarockis1998). wcrc Sturms1936;Musurevi6sl9?0). Inhumations archacologisr RomasJarockis suppons common.as well as crenationsunderlow moundsof Thc Lithuanian was markcd sand,in stonegravesor in ffatburialgrounds, ard even thc opinionthat,as a rule, a settlement canthereforcbc burials in walcr bodieshave b€enrccordedin Lake only by on€cemet€ryandccmcleri€s uscd as indicalors of habitation in a siiuaiionwherc VilkumuiZaatTalsi(Apalset ol 1914,p.181). veryfcw sctllements areexcavated or evenfbund.Accordingto Jarockis, th€sefllcmcnrpauem in Latelron Agc Semigallia wascomparatively even,with villagcs locatedalongtheRiverLielupeandirs manytributar-

!

181

ies(Jarockis2009)-Thesettlemcnl pallemlhusseems to havebeenmodcratclyhicrarchical, supponingthe generalvision ofScmigallianLatelronAge societyas power stratif€d.butwithoulconsolidaling

EstonianhislorianHcrbcn Ligi (Ligi 1968,pp.4-26). Powerin Latgalliansocietywasbelievedto havebeen cxcncdthroughassemblies thatwerecallcdfor making decisions andpassinglaws.Tbe upperstratawcrc formedby eldcn (re'toB), bestmen(nclro,€r),and Howcvcr some historianshav€ suggested that the military leaders(dd, ?,'ircsrrs).Thc chroniclemenprincesVestartus andNameisementioned tions 'ftiendsand relatives',normallyundcrstood Semigallian as in l3th-centurychronicles couldalreadyby thendes- therclainersofsomescrior. powcr.Theywereconnected ignatcccntraliscd respectivelywilh lhc powertulandlargehill-fortsof Tarvete JanisApals and EvaldsMugurEvidshaveconcludcd and Mciotnc,andNameiseseemsto havesucceeded in tbe latcstover,,iewpublicationofearly Latvianhis' Vestartus in his positionruling over moreor lessall tory that the terrilory 01-Late PrehistoricLatvia was Semigallian lands(Nikzentaitis200l). anangedaccordingto castlcdistricls.which included several villasesandparishes. Theybclicvethathill-fort Th€ Larc Iron Age districtof Seloniawas cultumlly districrswere calfed'lands' (teta,Iand) in early lSrhsimilarto Semigalliaandl-atgale,with rhe maindif- centurywrittensourccs (Apals,Muguravits200 , fcrenccbcing that the deadwere inhum€dunder largc collectivcmounds-Howevet archaeological sit€sin Archacologically, the Largallianswere chanctcnscd lessthanin neighbouF by largefiat bunalgroundswilh inhumalions S€loniahavcbccninvestigated sinc€the ingarers. abourPrchistoric rnd nothin!rpecial :ocicly seventhcentury,and moundccmctcdeswith similar therehasbeenpublished. inhumarions from the endofthc tcnthccntury.Often, severalhundredgravescanbc found.cspeciallyin the first typeofthescccmcleries. andonly a few ofthem Latgalc do not containat lcaslsone gravegoods.Both male andfemalegravesficquentlyconlailtedabundant sets In the lgth and the early 20th century,Ballic Ccr- ofjewellery,while the omamenttypcswerenormally manrcicarchers rnrroduced a \ome*harnaivcvillon striclly different for men and womcn. Thc oricntation of prc-conquest socieryin Latgale:highlydevclopcd, ol Latgallianinlumationswas fixcd firmly with the slatcor slatelike formations,ofvhich th€ exislcncc headtowardsthe eastfor a ma[ and thc oppositefor wasviolenllyinterrupted by the Crusadcs. Thcir idcas a woman.The percentagc ofmalc and femaleburials valid Latvian rcmained amongseve.al archacologislsin on€cemetery was seldombalanccd.rhenumberof until veryrecenttimes(Snc2005).Duringthefirstpc- male burialsnomally clearly exccedinsthe female riod ofthe indcpendedstaleof theR€publicofLatvia oncs;ri€hly tumishedfemalegrav€swerealsomuch rn rhc l92nsanJ lq10r.Ihemarnaddrrion rc rhisprc- lesscommonthancopiously tumishedmale brrials ture wAsan cmphasis on the democnticcharacter of (c.g. Snorc1987;Apals,Apala 19941Vilcan€1996; Prchisloric sociely,evenifarlirst glanceit couldsccm Radits1999;Sne2002,pp.I78-201). 1obc a sonewhatcontradictory view lt wasbclicvcd, for instance,lhat a1lLatviansw€refre€andequal,both Two of the Latgallianccnctcrics.Nuksaand Kivti, in tcnnsol wcallhandsocialposiiion.However.there were studiedin $e Sovietperiodand publishedas wasanarislocracy (Henryoflivonia's r?rr()/ra|tdi'?c- books(Snor€,ZeidsI 957; Snor€I 987).Thcgravcsre1/r,'".r,folk-songd/,i), q'hooMcd castlcsandlarge cordcdat N ksaweredividedinto four socialgroups, esiat€s, andco'nmanded the:my. On thc olherhand, accordinglo lhegravegoodsfoundin thcm.Thc basic thc historianAwcds Svabeduringtheinterwarp€riod ideas for dividing thesegroups was. however,taken andcvcn lalcr formations like ihe principalityofJer- frornHenr/'s Chronicleot Livonia,dcfininsthemas sikaal lcaslwcrealrcadycharacterised by theinherited gravesofr"riors and,relto,"r, tbeirrctainersor othpowerofa localking in the l2th ccntury(SnE2005. cr noblcmcn,freepeasants, or slaves(Snore, Zcids p.57,andreferencet. 1957).Basedon the cvidencefrom Kivri cemetery ElviraSnoreconcludcdthaltheninlh to the t2th canThe intcrprctation thatbothearly l3lh-centuryLatvia tury wasa time whensocialstratification de€pened in andEstonia, but especially Latvia,couldbe referedk) socicry(Snore1987). asbcingin lhcprocess ofthe formationoffeudalstrucpowet turcs,with inhcritcd wasalsosupporled by the

NeI approaches lo Latgallianl-atcPr€hisroric society 1 f i c n o r t h e r nh a l f o f t h c e a s t e r n wcrepresenlcd in the 1990smainlyby Amis R.rdits. B a l ti c : L i v s lle suggeslcd tharlivc socialgroupscouldbe distinguishcdin cemcrcries othcr lhan Nukia: he addedn Thc Lat!iannalionalisrlicwin the 1930sheldloapicLivs ASa poor,savage and group of lcry poor brrials. reprcsenting the lowesl turcoftfie LatePrehistoric g.oupamongthe moredcveloped Bahic siratumin society.He believcdrhat rhc hienrchical disorganised slructurcof Latgalliansocielywas rhomboid-shapcdttribes(Balodis1938;sccalsoSna1997).However.lat haveprcsenrcd a somewhalmorccom, thatis. lhepcrcentage ofpeoplcbelongingro thehigh- er researchers plicated vision ofrhcir Latc Prchistoric society. cstandthe bw€sl siratawasvery snrall(Radits1999. p p . t J l - 1 5 1p.. l 7 4 n :l o r s i r n i l rird c a ss.c ca l s , (, n I One of llrc most pronincni archaeologists dealing 2002.np.l15-164). Radrrthrs !l,o tre,enred I !.e$ with thc GaujaLivs. but also with thc Livs in orher thatthcsociaIdevcloprncnl ftom a tnilitarydemocracy arcrs,wAs Elald Tdoisson,who in tbe 1970spubto an carly slatelook placeas earlyas the lllh cenlishcdhis interprelation of their Latelron Age social tury lhe l2th to lSih-ccnturypnncesofJcrsikuand systems(Tonisson1974).IIe bcliev€dthat sorneLiv Kokncswerc probablyalrcadyconvcriedto Eastem clders(r.,rto,r),thoscwhosegrnveswerc narkedby OnloJorChri{:anir). a d rheirbunalgroundc irc nerhrxurious weaponryruledovera groupofmililary rctherknoM nor invcstigalcd archaeologically. tanrcrsand$ercheadsofdistncts.According10Tdnis, Andris Snc has criticiscdintcnselythc idca ol-the son.socialrclationsbcNecnrsrlo.r and comn,urcrs which are slill unclear,but he su8gested a emergence of feudalrelstionsand carly stalcfonna, appcared cenain subscwicnce, cven a feudal rclationshrp, eslions in the lcnirory of pres€nl-day Lah.iabeforethe conqucstin the l3th ccntury(SnE2002;2005).He pecinllyin caseswhcresonrevillagcswcreconneclcd Bascd himsclfuscsthetcrmschicfdomandcarlystate. andhc lvithc€nainnamesofpeoplein writtensources. on burial cusloms, Tonisson could also see that lhcre believes thatLatelronAgcLatviansocietiesfluctuated .risrcd a rrrarum oImiIrary retd'ners whu wer( in onc continuallybetwccnthesetwofoms of socialdevclopway or another dcpendent on thc ssrto^. He bclievcd mcnt.According1ohim. thescchicfdomswcrebarely pan of socicty.suppod, slratificdhierarchical slruchrres, with powcrrelalions slavcsfororcda considerablc 'rg Ihc ec,,rom) in Lhc utper cldsscin'(. \Tnnisi, lfiat rcsemblcdauthorityratherthanpolilicalpo$er p.172ft). 1971, The socialorganisation in pre-Crusade LaN-iacould thereforenol be considercd as feudal,lel nlonedefin Tbe burialcusroms andartcfnctmrtcrialofthc cauia ing somcfomutionsin il asslalcs.Il wasinsteadquite Livs were relativelyhomogencous. They practrscd an egalitarian'nilil3ris€d socicly',as he callsit (Sne both inhunationand rremation,bu1the Etnainsof 2005;2002,p.465ff). tlrcifdcadwcrealwayscovcredwith sandmounds.In qd, lhe nre!.rrling cusrom Ihedirecrion Sna uses predorninantlyarchaeologicalevidcnce inhumarions. for proving his liew of Latviansociety.He claims was normallyilxed lvith the headtowardsrhc nonh pp.38-96; 1974, Sna1997). that a selllemcntpallemcxpressed cgalitarianism, as (T6nisson did burial customs.whercn€arlyall lhe deadwere Liv cemeterics ir the hwer rcachcsofthe RiverDau, cquippcdwith at leastsonrcancfactsas gravegoods. gavademonstralc a diversityof artefactsand ethnic tlc presumes thalcxcavated cemcreries reprcsented the indica(ors unknownin anyolhercastBalticarea.This wholeof ihc population. Snrcelhc Livs andtheCurophenom€non canprob.rblybc explaincdby theirlocanianstendto havemoreweaponsin theirgravesthan lion in the neigfibourhood of the Daugmalehill-fort thc Latgallians. the latterprobablyhada lcssbcllicose which tunctioncdfiom thc LateVikingAge until the structurcto thcir society.Still, militaryvaluesandhc EarlyMedicvalperiodasa prominenltradecentreon rocs,andalsoweapons assymbols,wcreglorilied.and rhcRi!erDaupa!r(Migi ,I0l1,.Ccmcrene\ kno$nin warfarepnncipallymcanlobtai'ringcconomicvalu€s, ihisarcawcreflal burialgrounds! ot to I lesserextenll organised by thc rulingstrata(Sna2007). theycoosislcd ofsandmoundswith singlcburiatsunderlhcn. lr i$umali r grales.thedeadweredirectcd with theirheadstowardsthe northor northwcst, both in mAleandfernaleburials.Althoughinhumations prc-

O 'J

:r

o o o I

I Only rhc inhabilanisofrhc Rilcr Garja bdrin dndfie lorver reachesoilhe River Daugavar.c included hcre under thc

I83

vailed,cremation burialswerealsowidcspread, under foreignemimprisonedduring plunderingraids (Moora mouds or in burialpits in Ratbunalgrounds(Snore 1926,pp.56-71;1939:Moomet al. 1936,pp.197-2O0). 1996;Zari\a 1988:1997i2006tSpirgis2008). This vision of EstoniaoPrehistoncsocietyremaincd An attemplto usethe burialsofthe Livs for dcfining nearlyunchanged up to thc lnlc 1990s.ln rhe 1960s, theirsocialsystem wasmadeby Snein themid-1990s. MooraandHerbertLigi classifiedEstonianLalc lron He suggested thatitmalegravescouldbc dividedinto Age societyas beingin the stageof 'formingfeudal fivc. and mal€gravcsinto four calegorics, according rclations',with modcralesocialand economicstralipieces to how many ofjewelleryhadbeenlaid in th€ Iication(Ligi, Moora 1964:Ligi 1968;seealso Ligi grave{SnElq97r. Howclcr.rhesomewhalsurlnsrng 1968jSelimnd1974iJaanits erdt 1982,p.412ff; Kahk, resultwasthatfor womcr,lhe mostabundant vcrsron Tawcl 1997,p.26ff).Thc greatmajorityof Larc lron was also the mostcommon,a phenomenon that was Agc Estonianswere bclievedto have been iicc peasgcnemlly cxplainedby Snaasindicatingthe highavcr- ants, alrd a small group of nelnr6 andseniors werc aselevelofincomcsin Liv socie!'. essentially defincdaswealthypeasants. Accordingto Henryt Chronicle, in theearlyl3th cen- Archacologically, Late Iron Age Estoniawas characnrrytheLivs pnidtribute10thepdncesofPololsk,but terisedby colle€1ive crcmationcemeteries, whercthc no realpnncipalities asin rheLatgallianarea describ€d bonesofseveraldozendcccasedwere scatteredamong amongthem.ln contrastto theirelhnicBaltic neigh- stoncs,withoulindividualburialsbeingnarked.Indibours,the chieftainsofthe Livs wercmainlyrefencd vidualcremation gravcscouldsometimes bediferentiro as senio,s ar,dneliorcs; and although Kaupo, onc atedin Saaremaa gravcs,a customthatwas probably of theirrulers,wasdcscribed as 'likc. king andeldcr' rootedin \4king Age burialcustorns, with individual (quasi rcx et senior'),his political iniuen€c see'nsto crcmations. Therewercalsoindividualcremations unhavebeenvery lnnilcd(VassarTarvel197s,p.29). dcrmou.dsin somepartsofeastemEsronia, andin ihe 12thcenturysingl€inhumation cemeteries spreadover thewholemainlandpartofihe country.In these,bolh Estonia menandwomcnwerepredominantly buriedwith their h€adstowardsthenofihor thenorthwest. FemaleburiThc interprctafion of LsronianPrehrston(,ociety 's alswerenormallysuppliedwith a consideEblylarger noteworthyfor being characterised by derogaloryaniamountofmelal gravcgoods. tudestowardslocalpeoplc,aswasexpressed by Baltic Germanand Russianl81hand l9th-centuryscholars. In ihe l2th centuryand up until Christianisation, the Evenin latertimes,th€ national-romantic view offtc prevailingburial cuslomwas,howevcr,int€rmingled pas!dcfineda visionofit asstronglyegali- cremations Prehisrodc in stonegmveswithouta formalsl.ucture. tarianandmorcor lcssdemocralic,less developed thaD The anefactssludiedin thesecemeteries werc usumostof its neighbours, butpacilicandhamonious. ally mixedandoftcn badlybuml tiagmcnts,andthus sirhourtudherrhoughr believed ro rupponrhevision Th€ generalideasofthc 1920sand 1930ssuggcsled 'poor' gnves (e.g. of of cgalitarian villageinhabitanls thal the serrrB and ,nsl,o,er mentionedby Henry of Kustin1962;Sclirand1974).Howevelthe modemInLivoDiawere no more than more sensible,perhaps terpretalionof Late lron Agc stonecemeteriesis that also rather wealrhicr men than othcrs,who had becn thesewerctheburialplaccsofsomeselected familics, clectedas villagelcaders.However,a morefixedand whilethemajorityofpeoplewcrcburiedin a way thal hercditary hierarchywasalreadydeveloping, especialdid not leavearchacological lraces(c.s. Magi 2002, ly amongthe leadersof largerdistricis(Moora 1926, pp.l25-r37). p.50ft). Strongholds, cvcn the mightieslones,were coDsidered dislrictccntres,and inierpretedas purely Singleburialcomplexcsand inhumationgravesindimilitary structurcs,built throughthe cooperation of cal€thata largepartof thejewclleryanddressaccessothevillagersofa district.Besidcthedistricllevclsrr- ries were non-genderspecific,and atributes normally rors,powerwas cxercisedlhroughassemblies callcd associated with thc othergendersometimes occurred tafaJa4 in which nor all menbut rhevillageleadeN in bothmaleandfemalcgraves(Magi2009). participated. Societywas strictlypatiarchal,and poPriit Ligi pur forward lygamousmaniagcswere praclised-Slavesexisted. In thc I990s,the archacologist new ideas of Prehisloric Estonian societr,as being but their numbcrsweresmall,andthey weremainly deeplystraiificdas earlyas the LatcBronzeAge, and r€aching th€statc-making stag€ofdevelopment m the

l{oman lron Age (Ligi 1995).All furthcr Nrgumenlsin his appruacbespri,cccdedfroln this irilial sratemcnt. and featurcsthat did not fit his nerv thcory sere lclt aside or pLrshedi! with ofteD sonre\rharqLreslionablc n r c r h o d sI .i , r i n . r r n . c .t h c l d c L , ' f t r i n c ( l ) ' i ( \ c n i I dilidunl8nvcs was uxplainedby the $'ell-cst{blishcd political structurc.or it s,as silnply prcsunlcdthat sLrch graveswould be found in the lirlure. The archeologisr V.lter Lrng pointcd Lo a possiblc dral poucf division t hle lron Age Est(nria.which can be rraccd.as he bclicled. rn laxation unils ofmidl l r h c e n r u r )s r i u e n $ r t r c e s .H ( i n r e r p ' c r ( dF s r o n i x n hill forts as clilc rcsidenccsand taxation ccnlrcs of castle districts. and not enlircly as militdry construcu o n \ . a i \ r s $ i d c l y ( \ p r e \ \ ( d i D e c r l i L rd i s c u \ s h n s ( L a n 82 0 0 2 i2 0 1 1 ) . ln the early 2000s. Marika Miigi. the aLrlhorof lhc presentarticle. depiclcd lhe socicry on S:'.tremaaas similar lo Viknrg,\ge Gotland or Swcden.{nd accoftlingly deliDedit as a chiefdoDrir terms ol poiilicll rll' t l r r o p o l , ' g yI.h e l ) r l - c e r t u D L R r n a r i , n(rf l r e r e r i . ao r l Saarcmu uherc iDdividualbu.iils conld sonretincsbc followed probrbly indicate a dcc|cning strutificalion !nd consolidationofpoNcr. espcciallylowardstlle eod of Prchistory.I bclicve rhat thc social systcm s.as pyramidal, with the lop consislirg of elitc hnilies who were thc only onesburied in slonc gravcs.Tlre strarum ol free pelsants and people \lithout landcd propcdy might havc been nuch broadcr.Tlerc is no datr on fioq,many slaacs thcre wc.c in l-atc Iron Age Eslo' nian socicly. bul thcir numbc. Drighl hr\e been cotrsiderably larger than what lvas believedcarlier (V.]gi 2002, p.l45ll). Thc position ol women wrs cstirnalcd rs being cornparalivcly bigh. and society,:' lrhoughbclligerent.corld have pracliseda mntnlinealdcscendanr system(Migi 2002, p.l46n 2009).

In rccordanccwilh his tnncs. he bclicved thal lhcre had cxisled kingr. rnagnatcs-lhe peasanlryand sla\cs. bu1rhal the kings $ere acluallyjusi hcrocs$bo wcrc morc powertul rhtlnordinarypeople.lnrportantshArcd problens. likc deinncc or olher miUlarf action. were discusscdin assemblics ol rll frcc nen ( Aspclin | 885. pp.6]-95). In thc l9l0s, Alrrne Nlichril Tallgrcn suggestcd Ihat Latc lron Age lrinnish socicly was cgrlilarian. silh connnon oNnershipof land. and wilhoul any clcar stranrm of an arislocracy (-lrllfren 1931. pp.245{l)T . h c v i s i o n o f P r c h i s t o r i cl i i n n i s hs o c i c l y as cgalirarianxnd even prinritive lvas suppoicd b) Hclmcr Salmo (Sal'no 1951.pp.458-:16,1). A morc hienrchieal picturc. charactcriscdby chicllains, a lLtrgc stratunrol liee pcrsanls.and a snall nunrbcrol sla\'cs. $as srsgcstedby Alfred Hackmanand Iilla Ki\ikoski ( H a c k m a n1 9 3 I i .p . 1 8 0 ;K i v i k o s k i 1 9 3 9 ,p . 2 5 0 i1 9 6 1 , p.292).

01

Q la

E q 6 ?

Larc l.on Agc bLr.ialcusromsft Finl0nd rve.c doDrinalcd by cfemalrcns in stonc gralcs withoul a lbrmal struclure-a grale I'orln similar lo contenrporary Eslonia. Especinlly in the soulhnesr of lhe cornlry. inhuN.rlion. both pagan and Christian. was alrerd) widcsprcad.In onc districl. Dura.at lcastthreeinhunral i o r ( d u e r e r i c .d l l e d r o l h ( l i i l h l o r h ( l i r h c e n r u f l c s are known, and most archacolosicalanalysesof socie1yarc basedon lhcm.

Thesc inhumati r ccneterics are considcrcdIo rcprc sent common vrllage conrlnunity.Thc society that is buricd lhere hrs beendepictcdas coNparativelycgaliIaridn.althoughsonleburials$ ereequippedwiih clcarly morc abundantlind asscmblages thrn olhers(( lete 1978, D 204fi). l']irkko-Liisr LchlosaloJlilander has interprclcdthe socicty buricd in the Lristln inhLrmr t i o n L r r n ( r c r yr ! h ( i n g o l p ( r \ a n r t r : t d c r : . a * u c i . l ing it with a possibletur r nrkcl in lhc ncighbourhood (Lehlosalo-Hilandcr1982.p.77ft). Thc inponancc oi tamily burials snh a considerableamount of grrve treapons lo the societyburicd in the inhumationccmgoods, togcther lvilh some olhcr aspccts.enablc us eteriesat Eura was cslimaled lo have becn cssential. to suggcst tha! thc social syslcm on Srarcmaa,but siDcenlany lincs morc wcaponshavc been lbund In probably also in olhcr pans ol Eslonia. had srontsly the (hatr,for inslance.in lhe Birka ccnreterics,lvhich collectivc fcaMes. lt was a society$ith a wcak or non- allogethcrcontainrpproximately the samenunbcr ot existenl ccnlral powcr probably djvidcd into clans. burjals (Lchtosalo-ljilander| 982. p.63). The clanr consislcd of extcndcd familics. and sonrc clans or hmilies dominatedothcrs(Miigi 20ll) Burials equippedwith signilicantly nmrc goods th.rn othersarc neverthclcssabsentin Late lronAgc archac ological cvidencc in Finland. Lchtosalo Hilandcr has Ijinland inrerpretedi( this Nay: there did not cxist rcrl chief lains in Late Iron Age Finland, and the highesl nra The firsl picturc ol Late lron Age l-innish societywas tum ol socieq,wrs tbmed lron po\\ erful pcasantsand presenlcdio thc lrtc l91h ccnlury on lhc wave ol rolradesmcn (Lehrosalo-Hilrndcr 198,1. pp.i46-351). mantic national visions by Jdrann Rcinhold Aspclm. This vision $as supponcd by most Finoish rcscarch-

185

ersuntil the 1980s.The laryestshatumir socictywas leadersand their retainers,were organiscdtu the same

:; 3!

a= ;: J 22

r 5 . L m e dr o , a \ e c o n . i . l e n d i h c c f L d , J n l .o f \ d D i n g way and possesseda similar sott ofpowcr as potenwealth. The main dccisionswcre nade in assemblies tatesin the wriier's own sociely.Thal way, Henry the c d r e di d , a j r , . i n u f i . \ , l l h r c r r c n , o J d p d n r c i p a r e . Livonian. the most promincnt infonnani of the earlyThere were slaves as well, but nor in largc nunbers 13rhcentury east tsaltic, expectedro lind a hierarchj(e.g. Huune 1983, p.215f0. Lehtosalo-Hilanderalso cal and indivjdualisedsocial organisation,of the sorl poinled to lhe important role of women in Late Pre found in Christian Europe, among lhe inhabitantsof hisloric Finnish socieq,,which was indicated by the thc cxstcm Ballic. Tlis was obviously easierfor some ud r r l e . o p - i n c c ' l d , , ' . f / i , abundantgrave goods in women's burials (Lchiosalo c r h r r c g r o u pH' .e a . r n b e kps) or kinss (konic, rex)to Latgallians,Scmigallians, Hilander 1982.p.78i 1981.pp.300f,346f0. Curoniansand Lidruanians.The social organisalionof , h e l a r e . rr r e n p r u J e f i n t 'P r ( h i J o h . o . i e r \ L . i n g thc Estoniansand ihe Livs was obviously much more fie €vjdenceof Finnishstonegfaveswas madeby Sirk conflrsingtohim.In addilionlo ihe generalser;oruand h Pihlman.Herpoint is that onlymembersoffamilies neliorcs, the titlc nahiler was usedonly once,and even ofthe upperstratumwere buried in stonegraves,s4rilc the only known high ra*ing social person,the Ljvothe majoriry of the population werc bnricd tu a way nirn chieftain Kaupo, was called 'a kind of king and that did not leave archaeologicalraccs. Pihlnan be- ctt$' (qua\i rer et senior')(Vassarand Tanel 1975, lieves that the inhabjlalion of Lale Iron Agc Fnnand p . 2 9 ) was much broaderdlan has been believedso far, and stoDcgavcs only narked solt ofcentral poids in sel- Inter?retationsof Latc Prehistoric society in ditreF tlcmcni. no lnore than about a third ofall the villages enl east Baltic arcas vary as to ihe exact degreesof that exisredin the Late konAge. Societyas suc| was statc making fcalures.We cannot help noticing thal it.lhe top ofthc thc areasinhabiied by ethnic Balts have tradilionally hierarchical,bur, as Pihlmanexpresses hierarchicalslructure$as broad. ln one district. there bccn sccn as reachinga pre-statestage,I'hile the Bal could hav€ been severalleadinghouseholds,although tic Finns lvcre believedto have been'less developed'. some of thcm could havc dominaledthe othe6 liom The oppositeview has bccn proposedby Sna,bur it is r i n e r o r i m e S h e\ { l i \ . d I \ i r . l a \ c ^ p l ? . e dd n i r n - somewhatblurred by the fact that hc chose1()consider portant role in thc Latc PrchisloricFinnish economy, ethnically heterogenousnrhabitanisin the tenitory of similario 11th-ccnluryNorway, where fromafifth to a presentLatvia as onc cnlily (SnE 2002), thus inten' third ofinhabilants were believedto have been slaves r i o r r a1l , r r r r r t c r r o n a l h ' u o p o f l i n gr h ee \ o l r i o n a D (Pihlman2003; 2004 and reterences). point ofview ofall human societiesdevelopingalong similar lines. R e g a r d i r gc e d i i l r e , p e 'r .J I ' f o t l c m c n r o l e d n $ r i . ten documenlsand chroniclcs,cullural backgroundand possiblc affiliation wilh a l-avouite ethnic paradigm Up to quile recenttimes, the view of Late Prehisbic seemsto irfluence the interpretations.At least sone or Early Medieval society has been shapedaccord ethnic Brlts, thc Liftuanians, did manageto establish ing ro thc sanc nould in various corniries on the easl r n e a r l ys , ae . u . i a p p c a. $ | | f o r i n v d o u b r I n $ r i . coastofthe Baltic Sca,with vicws of the early stateof ten documeds fton the early l3th century.Thc genLithuania as the exccption.Thc ideas were sinilar to eral ideaseenstobe that.without foreign intcrvcnlion, those scvcral ofier counlriesln the first halfofthe olher erhnic Baltic grcups could soon have reacheda pre-state 201hccnlury.The inlerpretationofthe society coherenlsocial organisation,and the samecould have was not basedon real analysesof existing evidence, happenedwithBaltic FinDic groupsin a laterperiod. lot alonc any thcorelical conslructions,but rather on Archaeologicalburial matcrial tu eastBaltic countries the assumptionthat human socicty musl dclclop evel a . r r a d . r i o n J l lb) e e r r - e a r e Je i r h L rb ) c n p \ d ' r ' r n g rywhere along similar lines. the lack orthe abundanceofg.ave goods.Su4rrisingly Howcvcr. evidenceofsocial relationsbasedon Medi- enoueh,no obvious clustcrsappcarin this respect.In eval {,ritings is contadictory, and shouldonly be used all lands considc|cd tu this overvie\ t2th-century in conbination with other sources,first ofall archae burial customscharactcrisedby a number of cemeter'th€ Other', has in most cases ies, and by comparativelyabundanlgrave goods, inology. Foreign society. beenseenthroughthc pism oflhe observerk own so- cluding lots ofweapons.No princely graveshavc bcen ciety. Chloniclers assumedthat prgan socielies.lvilh recordedin any olthese areas.Still, a more theorctical approachto burial rites, with an emphasison aspects olher than merely the numbcr ofgr3ve goods,enables Co mparing different socictics in the eastern B al tic

186

us to prcscnt a somewhat morecomplicatcd visionof thesocietvtharis buriedin thcsesraves.

Collcctivism

vcrsus individuality

The most conspicuous diffennce when €omparing burialcustoms in theeastBalticregions is theshonage R e p r c s en t a t i v e n c ss grarc"rn rhcnonhern ol indrvrducl halfuf Iheregron. However,dre l2th ccnturyin Estoniais characterised Whencomparinglnte lron Age eastBaltic archaeo- by anincreasing numbcrofindividual, mainlyinhumalogicalmaterialin lhe norlhemandsoulhempartsof tion graves,while the grealmajorilyof€lite familics the region,the diflerentchamclers of burialcustoms werestill buricdin slonegraves.whcrefie Emainsof createsa cenainpsychological biasin the assessmentthmilymembcrs lyerecompletely mixed.The increasof rhe 6nd,. I rhnicBahshdd rndrrrdual grarcs.rn ingnunberof individualgravesmighireferto changcs largearcaseveninhumations, wher€gravcgoodsof in socialsystemsthat graduallysimulat€dthoseof preservable materialswerc placedintactand subse- theirwcstemandsouthcmneighbours. Moreindividuquenllyoften very pleasingto the eye.On the othcr al graveswcrcknownin Finland,predoninantlyin thc hand,ihe Finnicinhabitanbin thenonhcmhalfofthe coastalzones,whcrcoverseas contacts with ScandinaeastemBalticusedto burytheirdeadcremated, andthe vianshadalwaysbccnclose.An exceplionamongthe gmvegoodswereintcnlionallydestroycd beforebeing BalticFinnicethnicgroupswasthc Livs,who-at ieast gathered on a p)re,andthusonly too oftenmeltedin a at theendofPrehislory,neveruscdto burytheirdcad lierce fire. Only a few piecesofsuch distortedartefacts in collectiveslonegraves. weredepositeJ In 'ronegra\es.probably follo$inga sorr of pars pro toto prir.ciple when picking then up Withthc cxceptionofa few pcriodsandafeas,thc Esliom thepyresite(e.g.Sclirand1974;Karvonen1998; loniaosare throughoutPfehistoryslronglyexpressed M.isi 2002;Mandel2003iWickholm,Ranincn2006). by collectile burial customs.whcrc rhe remainsof Althoughtheanefacllypcs.asendproducrs afterthese lhe dcadnixed in onebig gravc-On lhe contary thc and Balticneighbousof the Estonrans rirual ordeals,may freqLrently lhesc Scandinavian be rccogoisable. individualburialswith abundantly €quipped finds wefe neverconsidered as attractiveas intactar pr:rctiscd graves, warrior slarting fron as early as the end ol' tefacts.thuseasilycrcati g athoughtless inerpretation of'poor'graves,and,by extension, of a 'poor'culture. lhe StoneAge.Closemutualtiesbctweenindividualin burialrites,wanior idcology,andthe ity, expressed Theintcrpretation of socialrelations mirroredin burial slratification of socialsystems,havcbcennoticedrn customsdependsv€ry much on thc esrimalionof a manycountries, but appea.muchcarlierthar the l2th givencommunityusinga panicularburialground.In centuryAD (Milgi2007.andrcfcrences). the southernhalfofthe eastEalticregion,cemeterics. offell consistingof hundredsof gravcs.are normally fhere's no doubrrharin lhc llrh andl.zrhcenruncr. a significance as statussymbols. considcrcdro represenl an enlirevillagccommuniiy. weaponsposscsscd prcvailedearlierin thcnorthem andwardorswcrc heldin highestecmin all areasrnthc Similarinterpretations Baltic.Ncvcftheless, theaforcmentioned differhalf of the easternBalticas well, but heretheyhave eastern Both in Estoniaand encesin burialritestendto indicalethattheactualway changcdduringreccrl decades. in Filtland,it is now presumed thatmcmbersof only the waniorscould practisctheir powersmight h6vc selec(cdfamilies, probably those forming a broader variedFom slrongindividualbasedand hierarchical in the south,to somewhat limit€d upperstratumin tbeir socicties, wereburicdin stone socialorganisations graves, frcquently €quipped with abundanl grave powerswithinftamcworksofcollectiveclan-based oF goodsthroughourthe in northcrnareas. Thelatterprobablymeant l2th ccnlury.How thc rcslof ihe ganisalion populationwas buri€dis nol known,but this degree thatevenwarlords.who appeared as 'proper'leaders or, for instance,Henry ofposlmortal treatmcntsuggestsquite a considerable 1othei. southcmneighbours, rcalpower,apan socialdifferencebetwecnthe eliteandevcryoneelse. theLivonian,did nol achrallyposscss The numberofstonegravcs,andevenmorcso ofthe from personzlaulhorityto torcewishcd-forsolurions of areaor clan rcprcseniaiives, adefactsfoundin them,incr$sedconsiderably in the rhroughin assemblics not in questions thatremained outside middleor at the endof thetenthcenturyandthe 1llh andparticularly and l2tb €entunes form€dtheperiodofthe mostcon lhc limitsofth€ir powcr,suchas militaryactivily.Alprespicuousgave fumishing.This phenomcnon can be thoushkingsand princesin deeplyhierarchical, state or early statc so€ieties always had to deal with explainedby the deepening socialstratification which aswell, theirpersonalinflucnc€in decrsron took placcwithin th€ framcworksofold and already magnates exislingsocialstruclures.

O F

,-t

o o o

187

.ei

makingwaspresumably manytimesgreater, aswellas ancfacls,associated unexceptionally with the maleor beingsupported by ideology.A somewhat exccpoonal.fcnralcgender,wereput in budals,andw€rerhereforc formor 'ocieDp-obzbl,Tarkedrhcir(icnl Prussian:.probablyused in reallife, it showshow lessesalitarian if we believeKulakov'sinteQretations of a onc-limc senderrolespresumably were.Drawingparallelswilh phcnomena waffioraristocracy ruledby priests. thalarecloserandmor€familiartous,differences in maleandfemaledresscompared io gender rolesnow andhundredyearsagocanbc erlough. Cender relations However gender-specificartefactsare not complctely Genderroles are embedded within any given social absentin Latelron Age Estonianburials.Somejewelorganisationin a manor reflectedin one way or an- lcry, such as chain arrangementsand spiral bracclcts, othcrin burialriles,panicularlyin lhe composilion of occur predominantlyin femalegraves,while weapons goods and the mtio and fcmalc ofmale burials. are more chamcterislicof nale graves.The lack of Srave Cornparing ditrerenteastBalticrcgionsin lhisrcspccl, specificmalejewelleryis onc of the fealuresdistintheconspicuous differenccs bcrwccnthc soulhcmand guishingEstoniaftom its closeslneighboursr all the jewellerylhat local m€n wore belong€dlo northcmareascannotbe overlooked. Considering so- abundanl cicly in a broad€rconte{t,thesedifferences iend to similarlypesas what was usedby local women.We conclatcwith olheraspects ofburial customs,differ- can concludcthat,for instance,Latgallianor Lithuentiatingthesetwo majorregions. il Lmdignified, anianmen probablyconsidered or at leastimproper,to decorate themselves with jewcllcry When the pcrccntageof gcndcr-spccilicarlcihcls similartothatofwomen,butthisattitudcdid nol cbaF amuntI'd\e BUUJ\i, tigh. ir rLL-sro dill-ercccsin acterise ancientEstonian socicty. malc andfemaledress,andthereforeprobablypoints 10a polarisalionofroles playedby menand women ln Eslonia,aswell as in somen€ighbouring countrics in lhc panicularsociety. Althoughii cannolbe pointed (cspcciallyBallic Finnic),attribut€sassociated with gcndcrscommonly one gender have somctimcsoccured in graves that out asa rule,strictlydiffercniiatcd referto a male-dominated societywhcrcwo'ncnarc includeditemsthat$'erenomally associalcd wilh fte subo.dinate to men(e.g.Kent 1999).In theeastBahic other gender,and where even boncswcrc somedmes areas,lhis phenomenon charactcriscs mainlythccthnic biologicallydetemincdfor thc othergenderA female Balts,bul it can also,1oa somewhar smallerexlent, chain arrang€rnent,or parts of one, can, for instance, peoples, bc appliedto othcrneighbouing suchas fie somctimcsbc found in male gmves,and weaponsare (e.9.lorgensen1990iRundkvist2003). recorded Scandinavians in somefemalegmvcs(M?lgi2002,pp.77ff). M€nin LalePrehistoric eastBalticareaswor€abundanl jewellery,which,for theethnicBalts,alwaysse€ms10 The cuslomof puttingweaponsin womcn'sgraves, cquippcdwith female havedifered from femal€omaments. The numberof whichar€otheNiseabundantly jcwellcry and other altribules, s€ems to characterise if they modest(e.g.BliujicnaI999; unisexartefacts, prcdominanlly Baltic Finnic burials, but it has also Radiqi 1999rSnc2002). bccn rccordcdsporadicallyin othernorth Eufopean The completelyinteminglcdburialsjn Esronianand areas,suchas Birka or in Norway(Arwidsson1986; Finnishstonegravesdo not in mostcases€nableus 10 Thalin-Bersman1986).In Latsale ard Scmigallia, differentiate individuals,let alonedefinetheirgcndcr. oneexampleofsuchaburialis knownin cach(Radi0s The phenomenon suggests that similarattitudcsalso 1999,p.83; Vaskeviii.te 2007).:Pirkko-LiisaLchdominatedthe societyliom which thc funcrdlparlics losalo-Hilander hasrcponedsomeweapol|s, including At thc vcry cndoflhc Prchisloric oneofth€ mostluxuiousswordsin Finnisharchaeoldrewtheirattitudesperiod,when moreinhumations appcarcd on thcsccnc. ogy,in abundantly equippedfcmrlc gdvcs in Finland the great number of udsex artefactsin thesegravcs (Lehrosalo-Hilander 1984,p.402ff),but this custom standsout from the rest multiple jewellery and iypes se€msto have beenpanicularly widespreadin Kareof accessories, as well as tools,canbe foundbothin : | find n inportanr ro ditremliate betwen the occurenccs maleandfemaleburials. of weaponsin saves thar m olheNise equippcdeilh pamllelshavedemonstrated abundant femalc spccific attribuld, and iD guves Cullural-anthropologicat that, according ro mosl of fte grave eoods, bclong to that numerous non gendercd ancfactsin gravcschaF a man, but where tle skclctonhas been biologically actefisesocietieswhere genderroles are balanccd idcntifiedas lemale.Tle lattercasesprcbablyillustrate (for somcpossiblc (e.g.Fasan1991,pp.305426).when mor€differcnt complelelydiflerentsocialphenomen. 2007). cxplanations. seee.g.Simniakytd

---

lin (Kochkurkinrlgill. p.92fi).ScvcralLiv rlorrcn wcreburiedlogetherwith a wcapon,nonnallyan axe or n spcar(Tonisson1974.p.109.labl€sll. Vl; Magi 2l)02,p.7\ Zatia 2006,tab. l9l. l). weaponsare quirc widcsprcadin lamalccrcmalioncomplcxeson (Magi2002.p.77U).1 Saarernaa but becausc of specific problemsconceningthc nnalysisof thescgraves.the \lcaponsattachment to thc complexcscanalwaysbe

evidenccol Ballic Finnicburirls.on the othcr hand, secms1oindicatccomparativcly balanced gendcrroles in theirsocicties. This assumes lhatlvomcntulfillcda U rolc in thescsocicticsthalsomehowcompensated for Fi thc suprcmacy of warriorstatus,which is rcfleciedm othcr sources.Somepanicularfeaturesin Medieval legislatrcnand iblklore,and parallelswith cultuftl anthropologically studiedandarchaeologically similar (.i so(ielics.suggcstthat rhis role could.in mostprobo dbilir).b( fro\ ide.lb) d morrihn\.il Jc\ccnr\ystemrn c Weaponsin lcmalc gravesdo not neccssarilyindi- exlcndcdfamilics(Bhftkvisl 2005.pp.I 82 I 9 I i Mligi catefcnalc waniors.althoughtlis possibilitycannot 2002,p.146;2009). be cxchrdedeithcr weaponswcrecomnonlyusedas symbolsof powcr.whichcanalsobe ftc most.eliablc €xplanation for their prcsencei0 thc aforcncntroncd D i f f e r e n t s o c i c t i e s i n d i f f e r e n t gravcs.It is obviousthal weaponsin Baltic Finnic c u l l u r a l s p h c r e s gravcsindicate,as a rule,only thescfemal€burialswhcreabundantgravegoodssuggestthc high social An ovenierv ol burial custonrsin different areas jcw- ,lernolnrares posilionofthe deccased womananyway.Female rheF'ssihil.r)ro Jr5rrngursh |qn ndjol ellcry in abundanllyequippcdmale elravcsmay. lbr sphcresofculture in the eastemBahic,chancterised instance,ibllowinga simibr linc of reasoning. sym- by somc*hal dilTerentsocial stnrcturcs.The areas bolisefamilyamliation.Thcphcnomcnon mayaLsobe in}abitcdby lhe rncicnl Livs formeda kind ol transexplainedin severalother ways,bul lo sumup thenrosl fonrralionzoneb€tweenthesctwo spheres, whcfethe e5scnlial deJucrron. |l warnorLons'Jered improplrIn burial rites possessed l-catu.cs characlerisric of bolh a padicularsocielyro supplythc deadwith ncmsthat the norlhcmandthe southcrnhall of lhc easternBal refenedro thc othcr gcnder.Thatthc etbnicBaltsal- tic.l-heLatgalliaraodCuroniarareasalsoto a certain Inosrne!\.rpracu\(dsucha cusromprobrblyminor, exlcntshoweda blcndof cultual chamcteristics. espc rhc a dilferentidcolosy.andthcreforealsoadiversesocial cidllyil we r,,keInroJon'idcrdrion crhnrc riruali,'n polansation syslcm.The cngcndercd of Sravegoods. up to a compl€t€lackofjewellcry(exceptforbuckles). in malegr3vcs.anda ldckofwcapoDs infenmlegraves, Thc Lalc Prchisloricsocictiesol- the Senigallians. ( urunrLargrllianr and thL'(\ourhcrn) alsocharaclcrises the Late Prehistoric Scandinavrans/emririjans. by lhe dominance oflhc male andseveraiotherGennanicsociclies(e.g.HarkeI 992; answerecharacterised probably and a warfior-bascd social hierarchy, which pp.l0ll2l ). Jesch1991, resemblcdlhat of lhc early Scandinavian kingdoms. Onc morcasp€ctcanbc notedwhenconparingburial or generallymostcontemporary WesiEuropean councustomsin differcnteas!Balticareas. Thc elhnicBalls trics.Thesekindsof socialrclationswerefamiliarto seemgenerallyto havcsurrcndcred moregravcgoods chroniclcrs like HcnrytheLivonian.ln ftesesocicties. to male gravcs.while Late Prehistoric Baltic Finnic carly-lllh centuryGermans knewexactlywhichpowTI femaleinhumations rendio showmoremetalobjects crs1oappeal10,andcouldrccordinglyalsocall Lhem thangravcsol men in thesa'necemcterics. This phepointto anylhingfinal nomenondocsnot nevcfthcless abuurgcndc.rolrs.Ihe.rar.b.,fx rrlc ,)a) e\cn in Thc la'gc pcrcenrrgcol rendcr^Fcilic anela('s ir gravesrnight be consideRdan indicationof strong very male-dominaled socicties. bc expresscd lhrougb malc donrinancein lhese societics,and thereforc ihejcwelleryof his wifc. presumablyshow thal anccstmldescentwas lraced havcsuggeslcd S€veralrcsearchers that gcndcrrolcs throughthe patemalline. AlthouShfamily affilintion (e.9.Kcnt wd, probabl\relcvrnrio dll pcoplf.tu$cr relarionlcndto be in correlation with socialsystems polarisation 1999).Gcndcr in clhnic Baltic societies shipswcrernainlyindividualby nature.A strongrelathus hints at a stronglymal€-domimted or wamo.- tionshipwilh a panicularchicftainor princcwasmost centralised soci€iy,which fiis wiih th€ interyrctation rclcvantin a wanior'slilc. Thcprince.cventhoughhc olllh€'r sogty as hicrarchical.rhc archaeologicrl definitelyhad 1()dcal \rilh mighly reprcsentativcs of ' Fnrmthcdistinguishablc his aristocracy. Iook dccisions himsclf thar $'ere rel, compleies, aboutl0% olau thc o.cmation burials ofSaaftoe wonenandgirlscontainedcvantto theenthesocicty. somet,?cofweapon.

-.r s

Warriorsand lhe hierarchicsbasedon them werc cer- 1989;Carlsson1990).Ir is alsonot correctto believe tainly importantin northemeast Baltic societicsas . that societicswith colleclivepowerstructures should well, but positionsof powerthereseemto havehad ' necessarilyd€veloptowardsnore individual hiermuch more collectivechancteristics.Societyas a archiesover the courseof tjme. On the contrary,the wholewasundoubtcdly hierarchical andnot egalilar- samecollcctivc atlitudeswereobviousin Estonianand ian, as was imaginedand presentedby scholarsrn thc Latvian societiesaffer the conquest:th€ rolc rhal vasfirsthalfoflhe 20thcenturyMembersofrhedominant salsorlhelandedgentryplayedin thepoliticalsyslems familieswereetectedasreprescnlalives ofth€ir clans, ofMedievalLivoniawasremarkable, €specially in the peaceful chieftains in tirnesaswell aswarlords.Power north€mpartofEstoriaandon the Estonianislands. struc(ures might havcbccnduplicaled,as ofien happcncdin lhat kind of socicty,andwomenmight bavc hadaccess to someofthem,for example, to somekind C o n c l u s i o n s of council for clan representaiivcs. Somedoninant familicswcre probablymore influcnlialthanothers, but this aulhorityrestedupon collective,or familybascd,propertyand powerl and was not directly associatcdwith paniculafindividuals.

Theovcrviewpresented in this articleon LatePrehistonc or carly Medieval,that is, mainly l2th-century buial rires and their inrerpretationsuggestsat firsr glancea quite similarview of thesesocieties.Howevc! il is obviousthatthc lraditionofhisiory wriling Althoughpower in suchpoliticaland socialorgani inLatviaandLithuaniatendsin mostcases to se€early salionscanbe characterised as collcctive,therewerc statesin arcasinlabiledby ethnicBalb, whileEstonic€nainlychiefiainselectedto administer il. However, an andFinnisharchaeologists, at leastup to the 1990s, theycouldrotate,comef.om diffcrenlrulingfamilies, havelalkcdmair y ofegalita.iansocialstructures €ven and their authoritywas prcsunablylimited. Whcn as latcasth€ 12thcentury.Althoughdifferentcultural communicating wilh potentates from countrieswilh backgrounds and varying nationalidentitiescan bc an inheritedpoliticalandeconomichierarchy, suchas seenbehindtheseassumptions, it wouldb€ dificult to Estoniansouthemneighbours or I3th-ccntury Cnlsad- denythat l2th cenlurysocieties in th€castBaltrcarea €rs,thisditrerencc probablycaused r€allyseemto havcbccnditrerentin s€vcmlrespects. in socialstrucnlres s€riousmisDdcrsundings andmuchialk at cmsspur- This standFinrcanonly be supponedb) d compariposcs.ThechroniclerHenryof Livoniaat least,asweu sonofthc archaeological evidence. Still, thisvariation as othcr Crusaders, was clearlyunableto determrne couldmostlikely be explainedby culturalditrerences, who rulcdsuchsocieti€s, or who tooktheultimatede- andnot by differentslagesin somekind ofdevelopmenthiefarchyofhumansocieties. Ahhoughit is pcrhapsincomprehensiblc to someof We canass€rtthat, at leaslpanly, the varying interpreits ncighbous,a society\rhich hadcollectivepower lalionsofLatc Prehistoric societies mightbecausedby slructures couldfunctionsucccssfully, andfrom timc thediffcrentresearcb situations.In EstoniaandLatvia, ro timc couldcooperare $irh ncighbouring retion,. Late Prebistodcsoci€q,hasbeendiscussed intensely certainlyno lesseffectivelythansocietieswith inherit- in archacological literatureoverdlc lasttwo decades. ed hierarchicalstructures,when th€y wcre ftagmented Thesequestionsseemlo have attractedmuch less atinto smallerpoliticalunits.Neilherweretheirrcchno- lention,al leastin publicalions on archaeology dealing logicalo. economiclcvelsnec€ssarily lowerthanthose with ancientSemigallia, Zemaitijaor areasthat were of mor€ individual-based hierarchical syslems;these ruled by the GrandDuchy of Lithuaniain laier cenaspects wereheavilydependent on factorsotherthan powcr struclures,evenlhough lhc laller also playeda role.A socialorganisation with strongcolleciivetraditionsshoulddefinitclynol be considered to bc at a A c k n o w l e d g e m c n t s lowcr stageof socialdcvclopment, but as a cultural peculiarity.lf we draw parallelswith Scandinavia, The rcscarchwas conductcdwith the supportof TaF ProjectNo SF0l30054sl2of the Eslosocietieson Collandand Iceland,for exarnple,were geaFinanced nian Ministry of Educalionand R€search, and cmnt somewhat diffclcntto thosein CentralSwcden or DenNo ETF9027 from thc EstonianScienceFoundalion. mark(e.9.Randsborg 1980;SawyerI 982;llyenstrand

o\

CARLSSON, A., I 990.GorlandochVisbynellan vlkingalld och ncdcltid ctl dcbafinniiel Metd. Me.lehi.lla*eola AJch.Baltica ,4,trd?o/ograBrl/Ld (vilnius sincc1995, sjsk tid\ lo i.ft,3. 1- | 5. CLEVE. N.. l97rJ Skeletterutaltenpa Kiulohotmi Kjrlo tt. Klaipedasince2006) nkikgoti.l ach kotslognid G/?vlitlrei C (SuodenMulna Lietuvosarch. l.;etur,r,4,rrr"/,sia (vilniussincel9?9) F ismuisloyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja XLIH 2.) FT FAOAN,B M . l99l ,,lncient Narthl|neicd. Thedr.hdeol os 0fa 0tujnent. New Yo:*. CRICIUVIENI,E , GRIZAS,G., BUZA, 2.. 2005.SEMi APALS.J..Al,ALA.2.. 1994.Der letlg.llischeKJieSer und gdllians,V-XIrr .ent./,r z'nsalidi Bak\ arche.Iosijot O Kaulham in dcr \Vikingcrcit (nachdo Matc alcndcs potDdd Kdtolaqos/TheSetnigd idn!. Bolti. Atthdeolagi c,t Graberfeldes Gugeri).1,:P/chistati.Cnres as a \aurt. nl L'hibtion. abla/,s/c. Lieluvosnacionalisnuziejusi c a.ftnlarndtiar Srnpasi"n at Kdnl.isa, Oland, Mar 2l LalvijdsNacionalais vesturesmuzejs, 2l-1j2. ,J. -1192. Uppsala. 9l- l l-0. HACKM,\N, ,\., 1938. Das Brok.lgfibedel.! ron Prkki AI'ALS, J.. MUGUREVICS,E.,2001.Vebis dzelzslaik l, i, lMAr'r.t.(SuomenMuinaistuuisloyhdisllksen Aikatr1:Ldrias tenafa mcts(agricviduslaiki)800. )ZOQ.E kauskirj.XLI). Hclsinki. rasnre 9 g t prKr 1?r0 g. LatvijaslEsldesinstilnLa ARKE.Ir., I992.,4rsehnt sis.helra/fenerabet d.s 5. bis7. apgids.Riea,290 377. Jdhfiundc s. Zens.htifttt Archiiologie desMittelaliers. APALS. J.. ATGAZIS,M.. DAIGA. J., DEryISOVA,I{,, GRAUDONIS.J., LOZE, I., MUCURIV].S, i., STU HODDER,L, 1982.Sr'mlolrin A.|ian. Ne\rStadiesh Ar BAVS.A.; SNORT,E.i ZAGORSK]S,I., ZARTNA,A.. .rd!,/,!? Canbridge 1.)11Latuidr PSRafieobtia. RigarZin.he. IIUURRE.M.. l9Nl. 9tra)il utottaSL.n1eerihistoriaa.llel ARWIDSSON,G., 1986.Hicbmcscr1r: Atrra / , S)rre natische ,l ndlFen rl* Crtihz,r,z&. Slockholn, 35-37. I IYENSfB-{ND, A., I 989.lb.ltuar ochStestugoxOti del ASARIS, J., MUIzINIEKS, V, RADqIS, A.] VIRSE.]., tidisa Gotldnrl.StockholmArchreologicallieports.22. ZtjLRE. L,2008.Kursirerar,e / cauft)nidas h,lntiqtir. Liga: LarvljasNacionalais vdstures muzejs. JAANI'IS. 1.. LAUL, S.. LOUGAS.V, I'ONISSON.E.. ASPELIN.J. R, 1EL5.Suatnen aetkkdatpdkanluddiaika19826€r,i rsi,la&A, Tallinn ,r. Hchinki. JAROCKIS.R., i998.Scmigallia 11001400Arcvicw ofaF ATGAZIS,M, 1992.FnsI f,nds of lhieeamed (tefoil) cbaeologlcrl andbisioricalsources. /,: N. BLOMKVIS'I', broochesnr Latvia.,?, Die Kont4kteNis.hen Osthatti' .d. Cul rc Cldshar Canprannel TheEutapanidtiaa of kmund Skandinarien in JriihenMiu.larer (Sttultu Bari- | 4rr,1r. (AclaVlsbyensia theBalti SeaArud11AA Xl). . d Sta.khoIh iehsia 9.Actd Uhire B itatis Stackhaln iets is.) Visby,45 3 R. 2009.G.aves,plairsandsettlenentdevel.TAROCKIS, BALODIS,t. 193E.Latviesuselvesturc.1rr f. BALODIS, opmert Semigallia 600 1600AD.1,j J. STAECKER,ed A. TENTELIS,eds.Iatic, rtsr,ru, -1.Riga. |he ru.ption o.f Ma.lieral Eurap. in the Ballir Sea^eBALODIS,A.. I940 DetaldttdLettland.Upp.al^. sian Papersolthe xlth vith), Srnpoti|n held at (rot BERTASIUS, M., 2tJO5.Maoela. Din Grcihettld Mlel lon.l Uhtttsit!, Irs}r. \risby: Gotland UniveBiry Pres, L t o - " , . I B i ' d K . u ! . ( r . n o , e . t n o l o g i j o. n \ q 243-259, siletas,HumaritariDirt moksl! iirkultcts. JESCH.J., 1991 Wonanin the nk itlsAse.S\tfolk. lnd theperBEPiIASIUS.M.,2009.lrorsog.aves,sac,ifice. JORGIINS|N, L., 1990.B@[email protected] aid Gldsery.ircl.Two fome6 ofpublic rituals.,.1/.i ,arL?, I LThehose and Ccneteri.s.fn n ttu LateItunAse a" Bonihahn (A*eoL mu in Europeanantiquity($uldvie\ bLrial.ites.and ogist@Studi4, rtl) . Copcnhas.n. militaryald everyday lifc), 305 313. Ii{HK, J.. TARVEL,E., 1997. At L.ana11icuistory ol Ih. tsLIUJIENE,A., 1992.Ali.tos (Raisiinetpilkapiai.Z,?rr Bdlti. Caunltirs. (Acra Univesitalis Slockholmrenss. ror 4/c,r?.. 6- 105 I27. 20.).Stockholm. StldiaBallicaStockholmiensia BLruJIENE, A., 1999. nkikg epa.has kttiilt popaoldlll LA.RLINA.I, 2006.Courodar ship buildiry. navigalion ,rr4rerrtd. VilDius:Di€medzioLcidykla. aDdcontadsirith Scandrnavia. .Iri L. BLUE.F.HOCKIR. BLlUJIENE,A.,2006.Roleofthe Curonlans in theEaslem A. ENGLERI eds. C,,,e.1ed hr the Sea.PraceerlinEs Baltic dca. Thc transitionproccssiiom thc Lalc Migraaf|he Tekth]ntemdtiahol Slnpasirn oh Baoi an.1Ship lion PeriodlmolheE.rly VikingAge(cultural.specls). 1,; ,4rehaealos,Roskil.b2AU. IStsSA,10.Oxford:oxbo$ M. BERTASIUS. ed.?|d,irnndtio M\ndi Thetrdnsitian B o o k s1. 9 5 - l 9 i J Ji.an the Ldte Mgtutioh Pet iod ta the EdrU nking,,lge ia KARVO\If\. I.. oo8 D.lib.r-r.l) dd'nrgedobje..s in deIairBdlri.. Kaunas: KaunasUnivesityof Technolog), lron Age denation cemeteries. \!]lh reference to lhe obI 8l- I 9l Dcparhncnl of Philosophy andCultuEl Scienca. liom thc crcBltion ccmctcres ofYljpii.i in Lietoand tccls BLlU.rlENE,A.. 2008.Trade.*arfare, lootingand hoardPeiviienienl in Lonpit1 d. Fenbtcandia Archdeolagn:d, ing: attributes of Viking Age contactsacrossthc Baltrc xj,313. Sea.tn: Partiuni kii" vnatua. Raktu bdja s.lL^Ivlj^s KENT. S., 1999 Egalitarianisn,equality,and equitable NacionihVcsturesMuzejaraksti,14.Arhcololiia).Riga, poirer 1ri L. SWEELY,TRACY, ed. Mokilestiig porer 167-t19. Ganrlardnrl tha interyretdtian af po$ar in dfthdeolas. BLOMKVTST.N..200s. TheD6ure4, afthe Bahi. The LondondndNewYort: Routledge,10 48. Re.eptiDn oJ Cdthalic WandSlneh ik the Eurcped, KIAUPA,2.,2000. The establishmenl ofthe stale 1rr Z. North,(AD 1A7t 1225).Leiden,Bosion:Bnll. K I A U P AJ, . K I A U P I E N EA. K U N C F , V I . I U SE,d S .Z ' E

U

191

Histoty oJLithuonio belore 179J.Vjln'us: LilhunEn hMAGI, M.,201l. Oselandthe DanishKingdom:E-visiting sratule ofHisrory 45 72. Hcnry\ chroniclca.d lhc archacologicalcvidence. /rr M. KIVIKOSKI, 8., 1939. Die Eisenzeit in Aurorqu{Cebiet. TAMM, L. XAIJUNDI, K.S. JENSEN(cds),Cn.iadtag SuomenM!inaismuisloyhd;tykscn Aikakauskirja, XLlll. and.hmni.le ||ritins on the ue.lidal AahEl,ontiet: Th. Hehinki. .hbni.te oIHehry olLirokia (edtu I3th c). AshgarePubKMKOSKI, E., l96l. Sronehesihistotia. Stohenhistotia l i s h i n g ,lI7 - 1 4 1 . MANDEL,M.,2003.Z,id,rnaa 5. 13 sajandikdlned.Ikl KIWULL, E., 1911.Gewodresteund B.onzetundcaus EcstiAialoomuuscm.T.tidajalooalalt,5.Tallinn. cinem letlischenGrfiberfelde der jfirgere! Eisenzoitbei M O O T I AH , , 1 4 2 6t., , t l J i , I , n t a u rn r ^ 6 . t i " . s e ^ v u r ' W.ndcn.MiIteiIunBen 2\. l-29. ajal /,: TaftuUlikooli a.keobogiakabineliloimelused, pan),atniki KOCHKURKINA,S.L. 1981.Atheolagicheshe Mar1u. Koreb, Y-XYrL Le lngtul MOORA.H.. 1939.MDislseEeslilinnused. /ri H. MOORA. KULAKOV Vl., 1994.P/,sr, (T ) 1ru).Moskya cd. MuistseEesti liirused. 19J6. 1938.d. tuintiste tulKULIKAUSKAS,P., KULIKAUSKIENE.R., TAUTAVIehrsed. Ttr!.9-16. CIUS,A., 196l . Lietuvosmheoloaros ',?oj4i. vilnius. MOORA,H., LAID, E., MAGISTE,J., KRUUS.H., 1936. KUNCEVIeTS, 4., 2000a.On rhc cvc of rhc LithuEesti ajaluEt I Etiajahts ja nuishe vabdd$$ 6. anian Sla|e. 1,.. Z. XIATIPA, J. KIAUPIENE. A. KUNCEVIaIUS, eds. The Historr of Lithuania hcJa,ft MUGURIVICS,E., 1970.Nekotoryevoprosyernicheskoy / 79J.Mlnius:Lithunian Insitutcof Historyl8-41 i$rorii Kume v x xrv vv. Ii: vzdimosrEi haltov i KUNCEVIaIUS,A.,2000b-Unionsof rheBallicrribes.1rl ptibahtlskih Jinkov. RjBt,21 3a. Z. KIAUPA. J. KIAUPIENE,A. KUNCEVI.IUS, CdS. NIKZENTATTTS. A., 2001.Zu. r-mgeder Fit6lenschichl in Th! Ht:h'rf [email protected] / "qr Vilniur:LilhuaDrin der baltische.Gesellschaff des 13.Jahrhundcns. /ri M. InsiturcofHistory 33 38. AUNS. cd. ,!ibe.l.ttle? Noveorcd Sryle? Bdltic Rih KURILA, 1.. 2009.Symbolichore buials in the hon Age CenttulPla..s asAren^ fur Cuhurul Erlarnterc atd Ur af EastLith\ania. Arch. Bahtca I 1.Thc hosc end m6n1n hanivtian 11t)Ut 440 AD. Tlansa.tio$ af the centEt !.rEuropean artiquity(woddvlew.bnrialriles,and militar1 el synposiuh of the Cuhate Ctashot Cahptuthiie (CCC) andeverydaylife),242-251. pbj?.| held in Tdlsi Septetubet| 8-2I 1998.ln CCe PaKUSTIN.4.. 1962.RandvcrckivikalmistuSlarcmaal./rr pcrs.5. Riga,129-136. Multse.l kalned ja aanlerl. ,4rh.alfusilnte kogtrtik . PIHLMAN,S.,2003.Ikivanhanja-rlue v0llantukikohdakTallinn.5E-110. si? Kaupunkhsijmti nutakautista taustaavaslen./rr L. LANG, V. 2002.vak6 ja linnNpiirkond ecstis.Lisandeid SEPPANEN.ed.rdqz,/.@ pinh tlrennaltu. A*aoloAi muisrsehaldustrukruununmBele permiselrH.rjumaa sid n.ikiikllrtia liuan hisloriad. /r: ArchacologiaMedii naitel../rr V lng, ed. '(arhr taEonaa ti.i,tald. UuriAevi Fitrlandiae. lX, 27-41. h usi ast6 tushierorhiaj a viji nukeslw te k4 une', isestEes- PIHLMAN,S.,2004.veestrljahdyshislonallisnajantait ?ir.(Muirasajaleadus,I I ). Tallim, 125'168. rccs? voisiko aincstojarulkna |oisinkin! Ahoa 66-67/ LANC, V,20ll. TncelessdeathMissingburialsin Bronze 2N2-2003.47,94. and lrc. Age Estonia.,r/ouiah Jotmal oI A,xhaeolo&r. RADINS, A., 1999.10.- /.i. gadrinta sehkapilatCal, apdzil5:2, 109-129. rotuja lenttija M Ansttunlotviar etnhkis. so.ialas uh LEHTOSALO,HILANDER, P.-L.,t942.Ltittoti !. A A* poliris*as rcshfusjaufijrtui. .rr: LatvijasVasturcsMuzcja ioLcrcm.l RefectingTheFinnishnkineAge So.iery.lnl rak,nim 5. Arheololija. Rtga. SuomenMui.aismuistoyhdistyksen Aik.kauskirja8213. RANDSBORC,K., 1980.Ire liking Age ih Dehha*. The Helsinki. .fathation oIa skre. London:Dvkwatlh. LEIITOS,\LO-lllLANDER"P-L.,I984.Kcski-jamydhAis- RUNDKVIST,M.. 2001.aarshal.lcr2. Studiesof Ldt?Itun alrakansi.Ih: Suomen hiltoria 1. lotroo-Helsinki,250,4aeGol/ard. Stockholm. 405. SALMO,H., r952.Satai?rranhistotiatl. Rdutakau\ i. Pon. LlCl, H.. 1964.Talupoesade kooruited Eesth | 3. Mj ahdisl SAWYER,P H., 1982.-(,,gs a l4kings.Scandihaviadn.1 19.sajakdi alg$eni. T^llin. DurcpeAD 70GI l0A-LondonandNcwYork. LICI, H., MOORA, H.. 1964.Holaistro i ohtchastwnni, SELIRAND. J., 1974.terrlaste nofuiskonbcd vraleadddl st@inorcdovPribaltiki v nII veka.K bprcsu o eo!1ikrosetesuheteldrkdnise perioodil (11. I 3. sajdn.l).Tallinn. |eait fe o.1aIn! h oh osch4ni!.'l ^llia. SIMNISKyTE,A., 2007.wcaponsin Ircn Age women's LICI, P, 1995.Uhiskondlik6toldesr Eesrialalhilispronksi- ga\es. Atth. Balti.a,a a[leapons,weapo4r! dr.l Ma|. hl ja muaajaf.ftj Mtinxaja leadus,3- T^ttin, ta2-270. menorian t,,t@tas Kgakeviiit6), 283-29l MACI, M. 2002. At the Crc$nn ls of SpaceMd ntnc. SlE, e-, lggZ-Sciat srncnresof Livoniansocieryin lhe Graw, Chdnging So.ietr and l.leolog, oa S@rcn@ Lare kon ABe (lot eany l3r .cnr\tryl. lh: ,4rkeolosi (asel), gth I 3th centuriesAD. 1r: CCC papc6, 6. Tallinn: nwr Eiinser Ma'td nellan lettis* Nh svNI a*eoloei. VisbyUnive6ityCollea8ue; lnslituteof HistoryTallinn. Cdleborg,183207. MACI, M., 2007.CollecfviryveBusindividualily:th€waF SNE,L.,2002. S"bi",!,,b" vMa: socialasaoiecibasArtt "n Pijga. dor ideolo8y ol Ircn Age bEial rites on Saarcmaa,,.Aur. tuhlatuia ain sluresbeisas. Balticd E(Wedpoas,Weapohryahd Man.Ih nenorian y!- SNE,A., 2005.UndeBrudingpowcr:on the studyof late tautds Karakeyii ius),263-272. prehisloric socialandpoliiicalslructur€s in LaNia.1r V ja akulturar- LANG, ed. Iktaarchdeolagid, 1. Cxr rc and Material MAOI, M., 2009 Abielu, kisnaniseerimine sioon.Pcrckondlikukoraldusc varascmast ajaloostEcstis. Culture. Pape6 flon the.frst theoreticalsehinat oI th. Aiadne lnks,lX,76-10:1 Bdltic archaeolagins(BASE-3)hel.l ut the University oj

t92

--TiN,lNIANli. w'IIMM NN eds.P,?rser.(r,e, Md M'ltrer. Dtti B.ittaige at Ld"rle:kurtlt O:lpt!r$.ns. S N E , 4 . . 2 0 0 7w a . l i l r e . n d p o $ s i nl . r e l r e h i s r o n c s o c i c l i - U'eissenburgr Lard$ranuschanOslpreu$en,Abteilung esin thc lerilory oiLarvia(icnthto 12ft ccnturieJ). ,,l,rr. q J l t i . r ,t ' U , , p n . w ? I , - i . h J V . n t . l a a , n n r , n ZULKUS,V,2000. Die Volkefr.ndctuneunddiewestbalY!tdutdsKa: dketian6\ 254-262. tendie InbtclrunsderKurcn ,4rch.Baltica.4.a9-108. 5 \ 4 . ^ . 2 0 u ^ .K - ( r \ r l r n s r r c , r u r i \ l a ,n s p ( i r su n r ( \ . ttresmiti tr1:Patiirhi kutilt s.ndthi. Rtkstt ttojrhls. ,1: l{cceivcd:28 ljcbrudry20ll: Revised:4Apnl 20ll: Larlijrs Nacion.l V.yurcs Mu2ejanksli. 14.Arleologi- Acccpred: 26August20ll j a . R i g a ,l 8 l - l 9 l . SNOR!. r1.,zElDS. t, I957 Nukiihski,b!!il,ik.RiE . Mlrik. MJSi SNoRI, E.. lgrl?-(il'l/ lapl/a,tr. Riga. SNOREj, !.. 1996 Duugavas libiesiDol.ssala,.a4"a/oir@ R i i i i l l5i 1 6 .l 0 l l 0 r u l l i n n w Erlost.tJijd,Xl/Itl. ||t|30. SIIRCIS,R.,2008.tnl4r?rt\t suktasu *riir \a:irrofitn Einaili marikanuei(arnail.ce u libieiu kulttn^'dttttiha Ddryar! lejk.e 10.-li gadrrrd. Riga:LatvijasVEsturcs lnsiitil. AtSidlt B E N D R U O M E N E SI R STANKUS.J, 1995.Banduiiukupinynas. Zt.ra?r d,t/'. t2. L A I D O S E NA V E L Y V O J O JE STUPJTIS, E. 1916.Zrr yotg?t.hk hte lel Lire, lti: Ltt^sia R Y T U P A B A L T I J O SeptninonalisAnriqua,X. HelsinIi.25 51. TALLCl{EN,A.M.. 1911. .t/one, ntiltaisuts Stoh'e" hts P R I E S I S T O R E J E na1r,E\torit1,OLtol,crl7tl119lr, l/l0j Tanu.ltiga.Vil

THALTNBltRcMAN. 1., 1986. Dic w.rTeng.rbc.von Bitk^. ln: Birka I: 2. S5tehatilthe Arohsen det Ctubu/idde. Slockholn.5'10. ToNISSON,E.. l9'14.Di. Gatia-l.iwn un.lihtu natd.i.tle Ktllur (t l. .Ih Anfars t3. Jhs.).Ein !)eittuEat On BaII is.ha, Fii hge!.hichIe. lallinr. VAITKUNSKILNE.1.. 1979.Cintaliskes klpinynas.rrerr

ol

U ;-.]

0 o J o t

MARIKAMAGI

Santrauka pricsistores Vel).vosios ar ankstln

viduramriqapz-

{q v A t T K U l . , S KN l l i , 1 . , l e o 5 f t r Lf o m a r n { n l d s d , u r valga,t. y. XII a.. laidojimoapeigosirjq interprctaci clite dunngftc Middlc hon Agc in Lithuania.,4,trr. dl is tirmo Jd.kJrpr bJ\o n.InJn)rriibrne.rraipsn)jc. titu.1.94J06. VASILIAUSKAS.E.. 2001.XII Xlll r. Zicm8aliulaidoji i\ilg'nio rodobJvu. ranirirai paIasU\isuomenas m . i . r d n o r d , t / , . 2 1 .V i l n i D s . 1 3355 4 . strukhlrosvaizdq.Akivaizdu,kad istorikai,rasydami VASKEVICIT--rT!. I., 1992 Bunal pucLiccsin onc oflhe tradicin9Lietuvosir Larvijosistorijt iki susiformuo Balticrribcs ScmigaUiuDs. r': (Dntd.tsat tutsth?RuIic jani val,rlbems. ank,r)\osiom. nuroJo. tad Iio, vie S.u dx,inq !h. Ld!. hn| Age (S't lzr enhriei Bahi( ctuiniqbnllLl.Tuo ta$u Estijos Lrnd O.tobct25-27.l99l.Lrnd.9t 98 tos buvo apgyventos S.a CanJaftrcc, bentjau iki 1990m., nurodo VASKIVIaIUTi;, L, 2007.scmigallianrrrntr wcrponry ir Suonijosarchcologai. andils reicctionin burialrilesin the lifth to lhc l2'i cen netikiXIl a. iarpSiose gyvenusiq toritorijose bendruotury AD. '1fth. Bauird.8 (Wedpans. '|eaponrtan.lndn meniqegzistavus egalilarinQ socialingstrukt[r4.Nors In rleotoiah r\rdrtas Kazolteriahs),214-222 skirtingaskultirinis fonasir b€siskirianaios tautincs VASSAR,A.. TARVEL.E.. 1975.Die ostbaltischcn sl,mne , , n K o r , r ll e s c nd n d c ' r , h - . l J n J n J \ . ( 14 .! g < . { o n lapalybesgaldjoslypetipo siomisauksaiauarcheob[q sunhr nuncigli. im 12.-13.Jahdundcn.Fprti NSr Tca.l6teAkadeethid logq paleiklomispriclaidonris, Toi n. ! ised. Uhiskotnar.dllused l, 2G 39. lad XII a. bcndruom(ner ryliniameB0ltijosrcgioneii vlLCANll, A., 1996 Visku Maklvas kapulauks(8. 12. tiesubuvoskirtingoskeletuaspcktU. Sisporilris gali ss.).tltheobkid u En'ost4/ia. Xwt, t62 tao. buris-rindTramd' rrk paiirelkus archeologrnr'l tynmq WICKHOLM,A.,RANINIIN,S..2006.The brokenpcoplc: duomenis. Visgi sic skirtumai, matyt, tureit bnri padcconslruction ofpcrso hoodin lron Agc linlnnd. Esroaiskinamiegzislawsiais kultlriniaisskirtumais,o ne niakJoumaloIllt."haeologr/0j?,150 166. pagoniSko.jojc ZABIEL.4,C., 1998.Laidosend Licn'lojc.a^ skiningaistamtikraisbendruomcniU hierarchijos rysetuyatlrch., 15,351-319. ZARINA.A.. tq88./it'ci aps.,6\ /0 /.i s\ Ri8i. ZARINA.A.. 1997.Katiar tiryotajapicderumicm Salaspils Calimamanyti,kad skirtingaval)'vosios priesistoras Laukskolas kaprlauka(10 13. gt) A lealosijdm [trovisuomenCs gali strukuros interpretacija, b i paaiski g t r f i i a ,n x . 9 1 - 1 0 6 . skirtinsaryrinejimqsituacija.Esti ZULKUS, V, 1991.Die Ptuss.nlnd ihre Nachbahim l. namasusidariusia li,er:,rurole pneii5rorines Jaltlause.dnacl ChristiGeburt./r: V ZULKUS.H -H. ju. ir I .r!,jos arcl,eol,,srrreje

l ..1',,

!.1

visNmcnasraidos strukfira buvo intensyviaiapta,,'.. SIrdip.lyie r dmaor.\Lr nrdrsdt.em de(imr'nei problcnosneFirauke aulori teigia,kadjos keLiamos kurioseaF tyinilojq dimesio,bentjaupublikacijosc. netodaistyrinelamisenovtsZiemgaros, cheologtuiais \rr cg ondr.kurie\ele.nrai.a krr' trl ,iemairiJo.,r klauseLietuvosDidti4ai Kunigaikityslei.

VerteAlgirdasGi.ininkas

t94

KIAIPEDA L]NIVERSITY

o\ t-l

()

SOCIETIES frl F-r OF THE PAST: t-I APPROACHES TO LANDSCAPE, BURIAL CUSTOMS AND GRAVEGOODS

-

m (,

I rrl

ts

U