The Fate of Final Iron Age Strongholds of Estonia

Heiki Valk

The Fate of Final Iron Age Strongholds of Estonia Heiki Valk The article discusses two topics related to the final stage of prehistoric strongholds in Estonia: their mutual conflicts and their fate after transi tion to the Middle Ages. In western and northern Estonia some of the forts remained in continuous use in the 13th century and sometimes maybe even later. Anyway, the strongholds lost their former importance and most of their hinterlands after the feoffment. Artikkel käsitleb kaht Eesti hilismuinasaegsete linnustega seotud teemat: nende omavahelisi konflikte ja saatust pärast vallutust. Põhja- ja LääneEestis jätkus paljude linnuste kasutus 13. sajandi vältel ja osalt ehk hiljemgi. Siiski kaotasid linnused pärast läänistamist oma senise tähen duse ja enamiku senistest tagamaadest. Keywords: Estonia, strongholds, 12th–14th centuries, crusades, continuity, struggle for power, feoffment Heiki Valk University of Tartu, Department of Archaeology, Jakobi 2, Tartu 51014, Estonia [email protected] Prehistoric strongholds have traditionally been regarded as military sites, intended to offer protection in case of war danger. In Estonia archaeologists have reckoned with their role as power centres since the 1990s. The rise and fall of a stronghold gives evidence about changes in its surroundings. The

333

Heiki Valk

construction of a new stronghold is a sign of the concentration of power, but also increasing tensions and competition – either within the region concerned or in relation to the other competing regions. In a similar way, the desertion of a stronghold refers to broader changes – at least in the areas that used to function as its hinterlands. In general, similar features in the life stories of different strongholds of the same period indicate broader processes in the society as a whole. This article discusses two questions related to Estonian prehistoric strongholds in the final stage of their use – in the 12th and 13th centuries, that is, the time preceding and following the Estonian crusades (1208–1227). The first of them concerns the struggle for power and competition between the neighbouring power centres and will be treated on the basis of some case studies. The second topic, the fate of prehistoric strongholds during and, especially, after the crusades, will be discussed on the basis of data from all Estonia.

Centres and their competition Concentration of power is a general process that takes place in parallel to population growth and increasing settlement density. By the end of the Viking Age these developments had led to the formation of medieval states both in the territories of Scandinavia and the core areas of present-day Russia. Processes of power concentration developed, although not so rapidly, also in the eastern Baltic area. The population increase that can be observed in Estonia since the 11th century in the growing number of settlements, cemeteries, and stray finds is reflected in the emerging new big centres, much larger than characteristic of the Viking Age, and with much stronger fortifications (see Siig, this volume). Undoubtedly, the final centuries of prehistory were a dynamic era with rapid changes in Estonia. These changes are clearly expressed in the network of strongholds. Population growth, as well as increasing external sources of danger, caused not only concentration of power, but also competition and conflicts between the neighbouring centres. Such conclusions can be made, as shown below, on the basis of data from southern Estonia where general

334

The fate of Final Iron Age strongholds of Estonia

chronology of late prehistoric strongholds is quite well established and the network of Final Iron Age hill forts greatly differs from that of the Viking Age.

South-eastern Estonia In the Viking Age south-eastern Estonia had a dense network of small hill forts (see Siig, this volume, Fig. 2). Most of them were connected via different waterways with Lake Peipsi – a part of an important long-distance Viking trade route. The role and significance of the waterway from Pskov, a major centre on the Velikaya river with a permanent colony of Scandinavians, as witnessed by grave finds, to the Narva river and the Gulf of Finland has not been fully understood for the life of the adjacent regions. This is true of both the Estonian and the Russian research traditions. The system of small local hill forts of south-eastern Estonia collapsed in the 11th century – probably, partly because of economic, partly because of military factors (Валк 2009) and was not re-established. In the Final Iron Age the situation greatly changed (Fig. 1). Of the earlier centres only Tartu and Otepää survived on the basis of continuity. Instead of the small deserted hill forts only two new centres of considerable size, the forts of Erumäe and Uandimägi were founded in the 12th century. The former replaced the smaller stronghold of Alt-Laari, and the latter was founded on a hill with no traces of earlier occupation. The large and high hill fort of Otepää (ca 9,300 m2), permanently inhabited already since the middle of the first millennium AD, was unquestionably the main centre of Ugaunia (Ugandi) province in the Final Iron Age (Mäesalu 1993). Evidently, the land road from the lower course of the Daugava river to Pskov passed through Otepää at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries (see Veldi, this volume). Differently from other hill forts of southern Estonia, Otepää was not linked to the system of local waterways which would facilitate long-distance communication. Evidently, the site was of such importance that it became attractive even in spite of its unfavourable location in relation to the network of waterways. The hill fort of Uandimägi (ca. 3,500 m2) lies about 5 km north of Otepää. Archaeological trial excavations carried out in 1983 and 2013 (Valk et al.

335

Heiki Valk

Fig. 1.

Hill forts with Final Iron Age occupation layers in southern Estonia. a – Permanently occupied sites of the 11th/12th – early 13th century, b – sites which ceased to exist by the early 13th century, c – sites with traces of short-time occupation, presumably of the early 13th century, d – presumed Final Iron Age strongholds.

Jn 1.

Hilisrauaaegse kultuurkihiga linnused Lõuna-Eestis a – 11/12. sajandil – 13. sajandi alguses püsivalt asustatud linnused, b – 13. sajandi alguseks maha jäetud linnused, c – väheste või lühiajaliste asustusjälgedega, oletatavasti 13. sajandi alguse linnused, d – oletatav hilisrauaaegne linnus.

2014), as well as the shape of the hill, give evidence of a large amount of work done when constructing the fort. The radiocarbon dates indicate its construction in the second half of the 12th century (ibid., 82), and the 12th-century origin is shown also by the few artefact finds from the hill. As the occupation traces are poor and can be observed only sporadically, in limited areas, the

336


fort could evidently function only for a short time. The stronghold was destroyed in fire soon after its construction and was not rebuilt any more. Most noteworthy in the case of Uandimägi hill fort is oral lore about its destruction.1 The legend, which has been recorded in several versions and is still known among the native inhabitants of the surroundings, especially among the family who, according to the oral tradition, descends from the people who once lived on the hill, has the same basic plot. According to the legend, the stronghold on Uandimägi was destroyed by the lord of Otepää hill fort. The reason was that the lord of Uandimägi had killed the wife or daughter of the lord of Otepää, ordered a meal to be made from her flesh, invited her husband (or father), and hosted him with it, mentioning later also the origin of the food. The chief of Otepää left, returned with his men, and destroyed the hill fort on Uandimägi. In oral tradition, Uandimägi is considered to be older than Otepää. It is said to have been destroyed in war and deserted while Otepää was built up again.2 The use of oral tradition as a source of historical information, especially concerning the distant past, definitely demands a source-critical approach, as oral lore is, in its essence, flexible and changing. An important precondition that contributes to the preservation of tradition in the long-term perspective is attachment to some definite object in the landscape. Also special events, related to violence and emotions, contribute to the preservation of place lore. Even if eating human flesh is a wandering motif – similar legends exist also for the medieval vassal castles of Rõngu and Rannu, located at a distance of 20 and 25 km from Uandimägi (10 km from each other) (Kirschbaum 1921, 68–70) – the tradition that the stronghold perished in mutual hostilities with Otepää is still worth noting. Although lore cannot be regarded as a firm source of historical truth and the content of the historical legend can mostly neither be proved nor disproved, in the case of Uandimägi archaeological information and oral tradition do not contradict but rather support each other. Erumäe hill fort (ca. 2,500 m2), located ca. 30 km west of Otepää, was preceded by a smaller, pre-Viking Age and Viking Age hill fort of Alt-Laari (Valk et al. 2014), situated at a distance of only about 300 meters. Radiocarbon dates from two opposite parts of the rampart of Erumäe fort give evi EKM ERA: E 54635 (1) (1931), E 62329 (1922); EFA I 94, 99/101 (1967); RKM II 362, 162 (10); EKlA f 199: 42, 5–6 (1929). 2 EKM ERA: RKM, Mgn. II 3593, (11) (1982). 1

337

Heiki Valk

dence of its construction in the mid-12th century, whereby the overlapping part of 8 samples covers the late 1150s (Valk et al. 2009, 84–89). The fort was destroyed in a huge fire, which caused also the collapse of the mighty sand rampart, lined with timber boards. Its brief use in the final stage of prehistory is evinced by the low intensity of the occupation layer that contained some fragments of wheel-thrown pottery of the Final Iron Age. Thus, both sites existed only for a short time in the second half of the 12th (or very early 13th) century and perished in fire. None of them revealed crossbow bolts during the excavations, which might indicate their use in the early 13th-century crusades.

The western part of southern Estonia The western part of southern Estonia, the Final Iron Age Saccala (Sakala) province, has revealed evidence of only three Viking Age hill forts – Viljandi in the northern part of the region, and Vooru and Tõrva in its southern part. All these strongholds are connected with rivers flowing into Lake Võrtsjärv which enabled, via the Emajõgi river and Tartu, communication with the big Lake Peipsi water route. While Tõrva and Vooru hill forts have provided dates from the pre-Viking Age, since the 6th century onwards, the scanty data from Viljandi rather indicate the making of the fort only since the 10th (or 9th) century. The strongholds of Vooru and Tõrva, were deserted in the 11th century, but Viljandi continued to exist also in the Final Iron Age. Judging by Henry’s Chronicle of Livonia, the hill fort of Viljandi (Tõnisson 2008, 275–277)3 was the most important power centre at the time of crusades in Saccala province. Evidently, its rise was supported by the favourable location at the intersection of the north-south land road and the east-west waterway, as well as by agrarian surroundings with fertile lands. The yard area of the stronghold is unknown because of later earthworks at the castle of the Teutonic Order, but it has been estimated to reach about 3000–4000 m 2 . Apart from Viljandi, there is evidence of three more Final Iron Age hill forts in the Saccala area – Lõhavere at a distance of ca 30 km in the north3

In case of Estonian hill forts references to bibliography are mainly limited with references to the catalogue of Estonian prehistoric strongholds (Tõnisson 2008) and to later publications.

338


western part of the province and Naanu and Sinialliku not far from Viljandi (Fig. 1). All these sites were founded only in the Final Age and have no Viking Age background. The hill fort of Sinialliku, located ca 5 km south of Viljandi, was partly destroyed during railway construction in the late 19th century. While its original size has been estimated to have been about 4000 m 2, by the present time only some 1600 m2 has preserved. Archaeological excavations of 1965–1967 show that the hill fort may have been founded in the second half of the 11th century. The occupation layers give evidence of permanent use of the site, and in the rampart three construction stages can be distinguished. The hill fort on Naanu (1,700 m2) is situated 10 km north-east of Viljandi. During the excavations of 1952 and 1953 (Moora 1955, 78–79) it was established that the stronghold where only wheel-thrown pottery was found functioned in the 12th century and that the remains of the fortifications originate from one construction stage. The occupation layer indicates that the site was permanently inhabited. While Viljandi was besieged twice in the early 13th-century wars, in the case of Sinialliku and Naanu, in spite of large opened areas, no crossbow bolts indicating their use during the early 13th century crusades have been found. Probably, the hill forts had been deserted by that time already.

Discussion: hostilities and their backgrounds The situation in the vicinity of Viljandi and Otepää is similar in the final stage of the Iron Age: in the close vicinity of a large hill fort of Viking Age origin, new strongholds emerged. The new sites are located so close to the old one that the ‘natural’ hinterlands of the forts – in the case of such large centres as Otepää and Viljandi, the radius of at least some 10–15 km might be expected – were evidently overlapping. What might be the reason for the emergence of new large forts so close to the old centres? One possible explanation is to regard the new strongholds as ‘satellites’ of the old forts, as their military outposts, that is, fortifications defending the route to the main stronghold. Such an interpretation has been suggested, for example, in the case of Uandimägi (see Veldi, this volume). However, this statement can be questioned because Uandimägi is not situ339

Heiki Valk

ated in the direction of the presumed main external source of danger, that is, the land route from Izborsk (Irboska) and Pskov. Instead, the fort lies on the way to Tartu where the central significance of the Final Iron Age hill fort, and, consequently, also the presence of a competing power centre has strongly been questioned (Tvauri 2001). The fact that the hill fort of Saadjärve, located 17 km north of Tartu, probably still existed in the time of crusades (Lavi 2002, 241–242) refers to the possibility that Tartu did not function as a large independent political centre at the end of the Iron Age. In the case of Naanu hill fort the location is even more noteworthy. Although situated close to Viljandi, the stronghold lies aside from the main source of danger – the north-south land route connecting central Latvia with northern Estonia. From the perspective of this communication route, the hill fort is situated in the periphery, and not in the direction from where possible attacks from distant areas might emerge. Bordered in the north-east by large uninhabited wetlands, the hill fort of Naanu can in no way be regarded as a military outpost of Viljandi. Differently from the two cases mentioned above, the hill fort of Sinialliku is situated in a strategically important position, at the important north-south communication route noted above. However, judging by its size and location, this fort cannot be regarded as an ‘outpost’ of Viljandi either. The size of the two hill forts has been more or less equal (in both cases it is impossible to estimate it exactly) in the Final Iron Age and the establishment of a ‘daughter fort’ of the same size, or even bigger, when compared to the ‘mother fort’ does not seem reasonable. It seems more plausible that the new forts close to Viljandi and Otepää were not founded by the earlier centres as their military ‘outposts’, but that they emerged, despite short distances, independently – on the basis of human resources not controlled by the earlier centres. If functioning as military outposts or satellite forts of Viljandi and Otepää, at least Sinialliku and Uandimägi should have been involved in war activities of the crusades and mentioned in Henry’s chronicle, but there is no such evidence. The presence of big centres in the immediate vicinity of each other must, inevitably, have been the reason for competition and conflicts. Most likely, the forts of Naanu and Sinialliku were deserted by the time of crusades as the losers in the local power struggle, and were eliminated, one after another, by Viljandi. A similar situation can be suggested also in the case of Uandimägi

340


where conflicts between the two hill forts are reflected even in oral lore. Differently from Uandimägi, the Erumäe hill fort, as a descendant of the AltLaari stronghold, was ruled by a family or clan of long-term history as the rulers of the region. The desertion of this stronghold can be interpreted as a sign of Otepää’s victory over its long-term neighbouring centre. It can be suggested that the reason for the attack was the increasing power of the adjacent centre, reflected in the foundation of a new hill fort, instead of the old and deserted Alt-Laari site. Probably, the social background for the formation of new power centres beside the old ones was competition between different kinship groups. Although the role of kinship ties used to be considerable in the Estonian village up to the 20th century, the role of kinship groups has greatly been underestimated in the research into the Final Iron Age society in Estonia. The role of kinship was emphasized in the context of the obligatory Marxist theoretical framework since the 1950s, where development from the kinshipbased society (племенно-родовой строй) to the feudal society was regarded as an obligatory part of prehistoric social developments. However, as the 11th – early 13th centuries were treated as the period of early feudalism (in the 1950s) or as the time of transition to early feudalism (in the 1960s and 1970s) in the compulsory Marxist framework, kinship and kinship-based structures were not important any more for explaining the archaeological record. In the previous general treatment on the prehistory of Estonia the keywords ‘kin’ and ‘kinship’ were not mentioned at all in the discussion of the Late Iron Age society (Jaanits et al. 1982, 410–412). The same approach to kinship has prevailed in Estonian archaeology also since the 1990s when the concept of egalitarian society was abandoned and replaced by idea that power belonged to chieftains (or noble families) (Ligi 1995; Lang 2002c).4 In Estonian archaeology, the role of clans in social organization has been discussed again since the mid-2000s (Mägi 2007) whereby the special importance of kinship relations in Finnic societies has been stressed. The idea emerged from the fact that in Finnic burial customs, differently from those of the Balts, mixed, collective burials have clearly predominated over individual burials (Mägi In Latvian archaeology the role of kinship has been much more prominent: the Late Iron Age society as a whole has been regarded as chiefdom society, whereby the concept of chiefdom is based on kin-based social and political structures (e.g. Šnē 2002; 2009).

4

341

Heiki Valk

2013a). As in cultural anthropology collective graves have generally been regarded as indication of kinship-based society, such social organization has been suggested also for prehistoric Estonia (Mägi 2011, 330–331; 2013b, 113–114). In the context of clan-based society it has been claimed that also the Final Iron Age hill forts belonged not to single persons or families but to clans or kinship groups (Oad 2012; this volume). The importance of kinship ties and presence of kindred conflicts among the natives of Livonia is clearly expressed also in the Chronicle of Livonia by Balthasar Russow (1578, 43). The chronicle tells us that the peasants of the country followed among themselves the pagan and non-Christian right or order (ein Heidensch und Unchristlick recht): when someone of them was killed, the closest friends or kinsmen (negste Fründtschop) of the murdered person killed the assaulter without courts, even if the killer had defended himself. And when the right person was not caught, his closest relative (negeste Fründt), even a baby in the cradle had often to pay for the murder. The original text of the chronicle, printed in Rostock in 1578, notes that vengeance was practised in Livonia especially in the lands inhabited by the Estonians (insunderheit auerst in den Estisschen landen) (ibid). 5 It must also be noted that the word Fründt is of ambiguous meaning – it means both ‘friends’, ‘kinsmen’ and ‘relatives’ –, and different word use can be observed in different translations (Zemītis, this volume; Rusovs 1926, 34; Russow 1993). This ambiguity of the word, on its own, also gives evidence of the vague borderlines between friends and relatives, and of the significance of kinship ties in society. In Russow’s text, information about blood feud is presented in a retro spective way, in the context of the rule of Wennemar von Brüggenei, Master of the Livonian Branch of the Teutonic Order (1389–1401).6 This time estimation is, definitely, only conventional – indicating that by Russow’s time the general practice of vengeance belonged to the remote past already, being still reflected in historical memory. Russow’s information of blood feud among the natives of Livonia must have some definite historical roots – it gives evidence of former practices which once had been so common that were still remembered during Russow’s time by the Germans, maybe even as a ste As this fact has been omitted from the later edition of the chronicle (1584), which served as the basis for the Estonian translation (Russow 1993, 56), it has remained unnoticed in Estonian historiography. 6 In Russow’s text Woldemar von Brüggeney. 5

342


reotypic image of the natives. Evidently, the probability that the information about blood vengeance might reach the German community was the highest in the cases of occurring at the highest level, that is, among the native (Estonian) nobility, including hostilities and wars between kinship groups, and not in the cases when it was practised in ordinary village life. It seems likely that in the Iron Age society blood feud could have been a real actor also in struggle between the competing power centres. Kinship relationships (also of noble families), and the principle of blood feud may have been an essential tool that rallied armies for raids against the enemy, and, also, against the strongholds of the competing and hostile kindred. Here it must be noted that the term vereviha (‘blood hatred’) is mentioned also in oral lore as the reason for the destruction of the Uandimägi hill fort.7 The role of kinship groups cannot be underestimated also when interpreting the genesis and rapid rise of new hill forts in the close vicinity of the old ones. The making of alliances between clans, for example, by means of marriages, could quickly enlarge population resources necessary for constructing new, maybe commonly possessed and inhabited strongholds or for struggle against competing centres – probably, more quickly and efficiently than in the case of subordination by force by a chieftain (and his retinue). One might also suggest that that the new, competing Final Iron Age centres of southern Estonia may have emerged in situations when not only the old central forts, but also the kinship groups possessing them had suffered severe damage because of some reasons. Thus, the 1116 the raid of the Novgorodian prince Mstislav against Otepää, or some other major defeat, may have been a precondition for the construction of a new hill fort of Uandimägi – probably, by a competing kinship group. Signs referring to competition between power centres exist also from other parts of Estonia. In Saaremaa considerable shifts of power centres can be observed in the Late Iron Age (Mägi 2002a). In eastern Saaremaa, the hill fort of Pöide was deserted around 1000 AD, and its dominant position in the region was overtaken by the Muhu fort in the 11th century. However, the Valjala stronghold, which had been founded in the 12th century, had become the central fort for the whole island by the time of crusades. Although in the late 12th century the re-emergence of Pöide can be observed again, providing 7

EKM ERA: RKM, Mgn. II 3594 (21) < Vana-Otepää k, Käpa t, Hilja Kruus (1982).

343

Heiki Valk

evidence of the dynamics of relations between power centres, it did not restore its former position by the end of the Final Iron Age. The strongholds of Kärla Lihulinn, Paatsa, and Purtsa, located in peripheral areas, may have functioned as lower-level centres, still competing with forts located in the central settlement areas (Mägi 2002a, 215). The competition of neighbouring centres can be observed also in Harria. The chronicle of Henry of Livonia shows that different parts of the historical province were, evidently, subordinated to different strongholds – the western part to Varbola and the eastern part to Lohu stronghold. The inhabitants of Harria practised different policies and did not act as a single entity at the time of crusades (see: Oad 2012; Oad, in this volume). Probably, also in the case of Harria the future power struggle would soon have led to conflict and the destruction of one of the two central forts. A similar conflict between the competing Final Iron Age power centres (and kinship groups) might have existed also in Maritima-Rotalia (western Estonia) and Vironia, from where data about hill fort chronology are most scanty yet. The examples presented above enable us to suggest that concentration of power was accompanied by conflicts between the power centres, especially between those located in the close neighbourhood of each other. As a consequence of military conflicts the weaker centres were destroyed and eliminated by the bigger and stronger ones. Thus, the final stage of the Iron Age can be regarded not only as a period of external hostilities, but as a period of internal conflicts and power struggle at different levels – between clans, the emerging territorial centres, as well as between clans and territorial centres.

The fate of Iron Age strongholds after the crusades The traditional concept about the fate of the Estonian late prehistoric strongholds is that their use ended together with the crusades and the conquest: as new power centres with power belonging to the lords of medieval Livonia (rulers of German and Danish background), the old forts were deserted or replaced by the stone castles of the winners. This was the case in Tartu, Otepää, Viljandi, Tallinn, Lihula, and Rakvere (Fig 2: d). The resources of the colonists were at first concentrated upon the re-fortification of these pre-

344


historic strongholds that were located in strategic positions in terms of communication, bound by major land roads and, if possible, also water routes. All these sites were soon accompanied by urban settlements, among which Tallinn, Tartu, and Viljandi received town rights in the 13th century.8 Archaeological data show that in several cases, indeed, the late prehistoric hill forts, which functioned during the crusades, were abandoned after the conquest. Thus, archaeological excavations have provided no definite traces of medieval use from the hill forts of Lõhavere (Tõnisson 2008, 271–273), Soontagana (Tõnisson 2008, 266–269), and Keava (Lang 2012; Tvauri 2012), all having intensive Final Iron Age occupation layers. However, in fact, the post-conquest network of strongholds was not limited to the new stone castles in the 13th century. Archaeological data, which have accumulated since the 1980s and the 1990s, especially the radiocarbon dates, give evidence or refer to the use of several Final Iron Age strongholds also in post-conquest times (Fig. 2: a–c). Also, some artefact finds from these sites have provided reason to critically re-estimate the time of their final abandonment. The information presented below is greatly based on calibrated results of radiocarbon samples (all calibrated with 95.4% probability).9 When interpreting radiocarbon dates, one must consider that the results, even if calibrated, are merely conventional and must be regarded with source criticism. As the radioactive isotope of 14C is accumulated from the atmosphere into the outermost tree rings, the samples of charred timber which originate from the inside of the tree trunk, that is, from strongly burnt brands, do not indicate the time of cutting the tree, but some earlier time before the construction, i.e. the time when the tree was still growing. As secondary use of timber is widespread practice in construction work, one must also consider the possibility that the dated sample may originate from some earlier building. Because of In the middle or the second half of the 13th century stone castles emerged also in sites where no Iron Age stronghold had existed – Kirumpää, Paide, Pärnu, Haapsalu, Karksi, and, probably, Narva, but also in Pöide, in the vicinity of the old stronghold. 9 For calibration the OxCal 4.2 program and the IntCal 13 calibration curve were used (Bronk Ramsey 2009). As old radiocarbon dates were re-calibrated, the results often differ from the earlier calibrated dates. The earlier the year of the previous calibration, the bigger is the difference, as a rule. 8

345

Heiki Valk

Fig. 2.

Final Iron Age strongholds of post-conquest use in Estonia. a – Iron Age stronghold of definitely post-conquest use, b – highly probable post-conquest stronghold, c – possible post-conquest stronghold, d – German or Danish stone castle on site of Final Iron Age stronghold.

Jn 2.

Vallutusjärgse kasutusega hilisrauaaja linnused Eestis. a – kindlad vallutusjärgse kasutusega hilisrauaaja linnused, b – väga tõenäolised vallutusjärgse kasutusega hilisrauaaja linnused, c – võimalikud vallutusjärgse kasutusega hilisrauaaja linnused, d – saksa või taani kivilinnus hilisrauaaja linnusekohal.

these factors the radiocarbon dates may, with a high probability, indicate not the time when the burnt structures were constructed, but to an earlier time. Moreover, the fire which destroyed the structures may have occurred only after some time, sometimes probably several decades after the construction

346


work. All these factors must be taken into consideration when making conclusions about the post-conquest use of the prehistoric strongholds. In fact, the use of the site may have lasted much longer than shown by the radiocarbon dates.

Northern Estonia: Harria and Vironia Northern Estonia has revealed firm archaeological data about the postconquest use of prehistoric strongholds from Varbola, the biggest ring fort of Estonia (Fig. 3) (Tamla 1992; Tõnisson 1999; 2008, 196–198). The territory of the courtyard of the stronghold covers ca 2 hectars and the stronghold is surrounded by a stone rampart with a height of 7–10 metres on the outer and 2–7 m on the inner side. In the period of the crusades the fort was one of the two main centres of the Harria (Harjumaa) district and warbolenses are repeatedly mentioned in Henry’s chronicle as an active political force. An intensive occupation layer and about 90 stone cairns, indicating stove sites in the stronghold courtyard have enabled archaeologists to regard Varbola as an example of early urbanization (Lang 2004, 20–22). The site was excavated in 1938–1939, 1941–1943, and 1974–1989. During the excavations of the western gateway (Fig. 4) two Gotlandic coins from between 1210/1220– 1260/1270 or 1220/1225–1288/1290 (Lagersson’s group XXII)10 were found (Тамла & Тыниссон 1986, 376). One of them was discovered from the hole of one of the gateway posts, which clearly excludes secondary disturbances. Probably, the coin might be regarded as a votive offering during the renewal of the gateway in the mid-13th century. A radiocarbon sample from the remains of a gateway post gave the possible ranges of 1050–1083 (6.7%), 1125–1136 (1.6%) and 1151–1265 (87.1%).11 Two samples from other posts indicate the 11th and 12th centuries,12 but the secondary use of timber cannot be excluded either. Also, some jewellery items found from the stronghold indicate its possible use in the 2nd half of the 13th or even in the 14th century (Laid 1939, 198). There is no generally accepted opinion about the date of these coins among Swedish numismatists. The older date was provided by Lars Lagerqvist, the later date has been suggested by Nanouschka Myhrberg. Information from Mauri Kiudsoo (AI). 11 845±35BP (Tln-855). 12 Tln-945 and Tln-950. 10

347

Heiki Valk

According to Johann Renner’s chronicle, the Estonians constructed two strongholds in Harria during the big uprising of 1343 (LNR 1960, 90–91). One of them has been supposed to be Varbola (ibid., 150).

Fig. 3.

Varbola ring fort in the atlas by L. A. Mellin (1786).

Jn 3.

Varbola maalinn L. A. Mellini atlases.

In Harria two strongholds of Lohu (Tõnisson 2008, 199–202) are located at a distance of 250 m from each other. The big ring fort (6500 m2) is known as Lohu Jaanilinn and identified as castrum Lone in the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia (HCL XXVII: 6). The stronghold with a rampart of 3–5 m in height on the inner and 6–9 m on the outer side has not been studied archaeologically. However, the fort could well be the second of the two strongholds in Harria used during the uprising of 1343 (LNR 1960, 150). The small stronghold of Lohu (ca 1000 m2) was excavated in 1974 and 1975 (Тыниссон 1977). Although the occupation layers revealed only hand-made pottery of the 10th

348


Fig. 4.

The reconstructed gateway of Varbola hill fort. Foto Ülle Tamla

Jn 4.

Varbola linnuse rekonstrueeritud väravakäik.

and 11th centuries, three radiocarbon dates from brands on the inner side of the rampart give evidence of stronger fortification works either in the second half of the 12th century or, rather, in the 13th century.13 If the small fort served as a preliminary fortification to protect the way to the large fort (Tõnisson 2008, 200) and was re-fortified in the post-conquest time, one might suggest that the big stronghold of Lohu was used also in the Middle Ages. Radiocarbon dates which indicate possible post-conquest use exist also from the strongholds of Padise and Muuksi. The hill fort of Padise (3300 m2) is located in the western part of the Late Iron Age Revele district, which became a part of Harria after the conquest. This site lies on the bank of the 1) 810±60 BP; cal. 1045–1095 (8.6%), 1120–1142 (3.2%), 1147–1288 (83.6%) AD (Tln-181); 2) 810±60 BP; cal. 1045–1095 (8.6%), 1120–1142 (3.2%), 1147– 1288 (83.6%) AD (Tln-182); 3) 790±60 BP; cal. 1047–1090 (4.9%), 1121–1140 (1.7%), 1149–1299 (88.2%), 1371–1379 (0.6%) AD (Tln-183).

13

349

Heiki Valk

Padise river, controlling the way to the Gulf of Finland. The excavations carried out in 1963 and 1964 (Saadre 1970) did not reveal any occupation layer and yielded only a few shards of handmade pottery. Two radiocarbon samples with calibrated dates of 1029–1324 (87.5%) or 1345–1394 (7.9%) and 1186– 1454 (95.4%) AD,14 gained from close to each other at a depth of 2.6 m and 2.25 m from the top of the high land-side rampart, belong to the second stage of using the fort and indicate a long possible time range that might include the Middle Ages. As no Final Iron Age occupation layers were found, the Viking Age stronghold may have been re-fortified during the uprising of 1343. The stronghold of Muuksi (5300 m2) (Tõnisson 2008, 192) lies in the eastern part of prehistoric Revele (Rävala), medieval Harria province. The functions of this large fort are unclear. The excavations carried out in 1998 (Vedru 1999) gave five radiocarbon samples from the rampart, four of them indicating the medieval period: 1) 1044–1010 (6.8%), 1119–1410 (88.6%) AD,15 2) 1046–1094 (14.8%), 1120–1141 (4.8%), 1147–1259 (75.8%) AD,16 3) 1044–1102 (16.6%), 1119–1265 (78.8%) AD,17 4) 1162–1280 (95.4%) AD.18 As the likelihood that these samples might originate from prehistoric and post-conquest times appears to be rather similar, the post-conquest use of the Muuksi stronghold remains doubtful but cannot fully be excluded. Among the strongholds of Vironia (Virumaa) the hill fort of Pada is located at the crossing of the Pada river with the main road running along the northern coast of Estonia. Probably, the river was navigable from its estuary until the hill fort, located at a distance of 6 km from the sea coast. With its plateau of 11 000 m 2 Pada is one of the biggest hill forts of prehistoric Vironia. The yard of the fort with numerous stone heaps, originating from primitive stoves, is surrounded by a circular, 1.5–3 m high rampart, especially strong on the northern side with naturally weakest defence preconditions. Close to the hill fort, on a plateau on the opposite side of the valley, there is a big cemetery dating from the late 12th century up to about the middle of the 13th century – then it was deserted and burials were transferred to the parish cemetery in Viru-Nigula churchyard. The cemetery that was excavated in 780±100 BP (TA-217); 630±100 BP (TA-73). 740±101 BP (Tln-2359). 16 862±34 BP (Tln-2360). 17 855±43 BP (Tln-2366). 18 802±41 BP (Tln-2367). 14

15

350


1987–1989 (Tamla 1998) revealed 172 inhumation burials, four of them with Gotlandic coins (bracteate groups I and I b) dated to the beginning of the 13th century. One grave (no. 22) contained also 4 bracteates minted in Tallinn in 1219/1220.19 Judging by its location in the immediate vicinity of the hill fort, the cemetery can be attributed to the inhabitants of the stronghold. The gate area of Pada hill fort was excavated in 1984 and 1985, and a gateway passage with holes, similar to Varbola was unearthed there (Тамла 1986; Tamla 2011). The radiocarbon dates 1047–1089 (11.4%), 1121–1139 (3.6%), 1149–1262 AD (80.4%) AD20 and 1045–1099 (10.0%), 1119–1285 (85.4%) AD21 from the gateway indicate time between the late 11th century and third quarter of the 13th century (Tõnisson 2008, 228). A find indicating post-conquest use of the site is an iron spur (Fig. 5), re-forged from a broken rowel spur (Peets 2007, 192) and found from the path outside the gates. Rowel spurs appear in the core areas of medieval Europe in the first half of the 13th century, approximately at the same time. In England they are depicted on the Great Seal of Henry III (1218) and on the windows of Canterbury Cathedral ca 1220–1230, in France on images in Chartres’ Cathedral (constructed between 1194 and 1250), and in Italy in the Church of the Forty Crowned Saints in Rome (ca 1246) (Ellis & Egan 2004, 128; Ghenescu 2012, 245). The find is similar to an Old Rus spur type V, dated to the 2nd half of the 13th century (Кирпичников 1973, 67–68, Table 22, 4–6). In Russia such spurs spread in the middle or the second half of the 13th century; the earliest finds from Novgorod are from the 14th century (Медведев 1959, 190–191, Fig. 22: 11). Moreover, the fact that the earliest rowel spurs, as depicted on images from the first half of the 13th century, are very small and slender, with deeply curved sides and small rowels (Ellis & Egan 2004, 128), but as the spur from Pada cannot be described as ‘small and slender’, it might refer to its somewhat later origin. The hill fort of Purtse Tarakallas (ca 7500 m2) (Tõnisson 2008, 230– 232) is also located at the road along the northern coast of Estonia – on the bank of the Purtse river, ca 30 km east of the Pada hill fort. The stronghold is surrounded by a 1.5–2 m high circular rampart. As a section of its southeastern part had been severely damaged by the bulldozer works, rescue exca Information from Mauri Kiudsoo (AI). 855±35 BP (Tln-713). 21 815±60 BP (Tln-714). 19

20

351

Heiki Valk

Fig. 5.

Spur from Pada hill fort (AI 5345: 4) (Тамла 1986, Fig. 2).

Jn 5.

Kannus Pada linnamäelt.

vations took place there in 1978–1982 (Мяэсалу & Тамла 1983). The excavation results show that the original, late 11th or 12th-century rampart was extended later by adding sand on its inner side and that its top was covered with limestone slabs. The radiocarbon date from the buildings on the inner side of the re-constructed rampart gave the calibrated result of 1161–1298 AD,22 which probably indicates post-conquest time. The original rampart was twice expanded towards the hill fort plateau, in both cases supported by a dry wall of limestone slabs – at a distance of 1 m and 2.5 m from its original foot (ibid., Fig. 2). Two radiocarbon dates from the last, that is, the fourth stage of the rampart – 1) 1223–1325 (66.9%) or 1344–1394 (28.5%) AD and 2) 1257–1401 AD23 – clearly indicate its re-construction in the 2nd half of the 13th or in the 14th century. Post-conquest use of the stronghold is shown also by the date 1165–1380 AD,24 gained from brands in a depression in the yard. In Vironia one might assume medieval use in the case of the Toolse hill fort (Tõnisson 2008, 222–223), as the earthen rampart on its land side is disproportionately high, massive, and strong considering the small plateau. The fort may have functioned as the medieval predecessor of Toolse stone castle founded in 1471 (Tuulse 1942, 314–315), which guarded the harbour site on the sea coast. As trial trenches revealed no traces of an occupation layer, the date of the stronghold remains unclear. It also may be of medieval origin. 770±50 BP (Tln-434). 700±50 BP (Tln-433), 680±50 BP (Tln-354). 24 760±50 BP (Tln-579). 22

23

352


Data suggesting the post-conquest use of Final Iron Age strongholds can be found also in written records. The stronghold of Agelinde (castrum Agelinde) that was mentioned in 1226 as the first stronghold of Vironia (HCL XXIX: 6, 7) is probably identical to the Äntu Punamägi hill fort (Tõnisson 2008, 219–220). The fortifications of Agelinde had been renewed between 1225 and 1227, and the fort that belonged to the Papal territories (castrum ecclesie Romane Hagelite), which included Maritima, Jerwia (Järva) and Vironia, was destroyed by the Order of the Brethren of the Sword (Hildebrand, 1887, 21: 18) after the massacre of Pope’s vassals in Tallinn in 1233. In 1236 the Pope obliged the order to repair the fort of Agnileti (LUB I, 145; Hilde brand, 1887, 21: 18), but it was, evidently, not carried out because the order was defeated in the battle of Saule in Lithuania in the same year.

Western Estonia: Ösel and Wiek In western Estonia most data referring to post-conquest use of the Iron Age strongholds come from the island of Saaremaa. The hill fort of Paatsa (Tõnisson 2008, 237–239) (ca 1500 m2) is located in north-western Saaremaa. The excavation results of 1961 and 1963 (A. Kustin), and 1989, 1994, and 1995 (J. Peets) show that a small stronghold headed a blacksmithing centre from the 11th to the 14th century (Peets 2003, 181– 197). The post-conquest use of the site is shown by two radiocarbon dates the calibrated results of which indicate 1252–1411 and 1461–1640 AD.25 Thus, the blacksmithing site was in use even in late medieval or early modern times. Two more samples 1) 1047–1089 (11.4%), 1121–1139 (3.6%), 1149– 1262 (80.4%) AD and 2) 1046–1093 (14.3%), 1120–1141 (4.7%), 1148–1260 (76.5%) AD26 also may indicate post-conquest use of the stronghold. Kärla Lihulinn, the largest ring fort of Saaremaa (Tõnisson 2008, 240– 241) (18 000 m2) lies in the western part of the island, deep in a forest. During the trial excavations of 1995 (Peets 1996, 457–460) two penannular brooches dating probably from the 13th century were found (Fig. 6). As similar brooches have been found in the medieval context in post-conquest Karja 670±60 BP (TA-104) and 345±38 BP (Tln-1594). 855±35 BP (Tln-1540); 860±35 BP (Tln-1591).

25

26

353

Heiki Valk

Fig. 6.

Penannular brooches from Kärla Lihulinn (AI 6085: 31, 37).

Jn 6.

Hoburaudsõled Kärla Lihulinnast.

cemetery in Saaremaa (Kustin 1958) and the Cathedral cemetery of Tartu (Valk 1995, Fig. 9), the fort may be of medieval use. The Pöide ring fort (yard area 3600–3800 m2), located in eastern Saaremaa (Tõnisson 2008, 246–248), had its heyday in the Viking Age. Deserted then for over a hundred years, the fort came into use in the second half of the 12th century. The results of archaeological excavations of 1990, 1992, and 1993 (Lõugas & Mägi-Lõugas 1994) indicate its use also during the 13th century and maybe at the beginning of the 14th century (Mägi 2002b, 187–188; Mägi 2010, 180). The post-conquest use of the site was confirmed by radiocarbon dates of which only nos. 1 and 2 are at present available. Sample no. 1 from the later stage of the rampart gave the calibrated date of 1046–1265 AD,27 but the main sources about the late use of the fort were samples 3–6 from the 1990 excavations, from the upper layers. The late post-conquest 13th-century dates of these samples sparked vivid discussions during the excavations.28 From 27

851±38 BP (Tln-1531). Oral communication from Marika Mägi in November 2014. More exact information about the samples is not available. The excavation reports of the Pöide ring fort remained unfinished because of the unexpected death of Vello Lõugas, supervisor of the excavations. The report for 1990 (Lõugas [1997/98 (?)]a) includes only the results of samples no. 1 and 2. In the report for 1992 (Lõugas [1997/98 (?)]b) the numeration of samples begins with 7. Inquiries about samples no. 3–6 from the radiocarbon laboratories of the University of Tartu and the University of Tallinn did not give a positive result.

28

354


among the finds, a ring brooch, a spur and probably a penannular brooch with an attached image of the cross29 are of post-conquest origin. Also some other finds have parallels in Karja cemetery (Kustin 1958), which, judging by coin finds, dates from the post-conquest 13th century. Unfortunately, the artefact chronology of Saaremaa of the 13th and 14th centuries has been poorly studied so far in order to allow any valid conclusions on the basis of artefact typology. The Valjala ring fort (yard area ca 3600 m2), characterized as the biggest and strongest among the strongholds of Saaremaa in Henry’s chronicle and named there both as castrum and urbs, has intensive occupation layers (Tõnisson 2008, 245–246). The excavations of 1962 and 1964 allow dating the fort to the 12th and the 13th centuries (Mägi 2002a, 216), but, as noted above, artefacts from before and after the end of prehistory cannot be distinguished from each other. An indication of the post-conquest use of the fort appears when comparing data from Henry’s chronicle with the excavation results. According to Henry, the stronghold surrendered and accepted baptism in 1227 as a result of negotiations (HCL XXX: 5). As the excavation results showed that the fort had been destroyed by a fire – on the bottom of the well there were brands from burnt nearby buildings (Kustin 1966, 28–30) – the Valjala ring fort was in use also after 1227. Its medieval use is also suggested by iron nails in timber pieces found from the well – in the Final Iron Age nails were not used in constructions, as a rule. The fort may have been destroyed after the surrender of an uprising of the Osilians – either the one that took place after the battle of Saule in 1236, known on the basis of the surrender treaty of 1241 (LUB I, 285, reg. 321) or after the uprising of 1261 (LVR, 6105–6314). The appearance of the Valjala ring fort – loose stone blocks of the rampart are, differently from the other ring forts of Saaremaa not covered by turf – also enables archaeologists to suggest that the stronghold was deliberately demolished. Moreover, deliberate demolishing is reflected also in the fact that the dry wall on the inner side of the rampart was preserved in a very small height. The ring fort of Kaarma (Tõnisson 2008, 242–243) is located in the central part of Saaremaa island. The Older Rhymed Chronicle mentions a timber fortification (Hagen) in Kaarma (Carmele), in the context of the Osilians’ uprising in 1261 (LVR, 6195–6248). The stronghold has not been excavated, but it has been suggested, judging by not the circular but rectangular form of the rampart, that the fort, at least in its present shape, may originate from the SM 9946: 144a, 63, 331

29

355

Heiki Valk

post-conquest period. 30 The chronicle that characterizes the fort as hagen, der umme die Oselelre was geslagen (LVR, 6279–6280) seems to refer to timber fortifications that were specially made for the uprising. However, the location of the fort in the middle of densely populated area enables us to assume its foundation already in the Viking Age (Mägi 1998). The ring fort of Purtsa Kooljamäed in Karja parish in northern Saaremaa (ca 2000 m2) (Tõnisson 2008, 244–245) has not provided any finds except for charcoal during the trial excavations of 1895. The lack of occupation layers suggests brief use. During the big uprising of 1343 one stronghold that was conquered by the Teutonic Order troops in 1344 was built in Saaremaa (LNR 1960, 91, 107, 127, 135). This has been suggested to be identical to the Purtsa ring fort (ibid., 150) where the uneven sand ramparts also refer to deliberate destruction. As archaeological excavations of the Final Iron Age strongholds of continental western Estonia have been modest – only the small Vatla ring fort (Tõnisson 2008, 255–256) was studied by means of trial trenches by R. Stackelberg and S. Bogoyavlenski in 1895 – at present there is no information about their post-conquest use. Respective data from the region is limited to the written records about castrum Goldenboret, probably, identical to the stronghold of Kullamaa in Läänemaa (ca 2000 m2) – a hill fort once surrounded by a circular sand rampart (Tõnisson 2008, 263–264). This fort, mentioned in the same context and the same sources with Agelinde, was also a centre in the areas subordinated directly to the Pope in Estonia in the late 1220s and the early 1230s. Likewise Agelinde, also Goldenboret was destroyed by the Order of the Brethern of the Sword in 1233 or 1234 (Hildebrand 1887, 21: 24) and was ordered to be rebuilt together with Agelinde (ac reficiant castra Agnileti et Goldenboret) in 1236 (LUB I: 145). In the case of both castles it is mentioned that the Roman church, as well as its vassals and the neophytes of these lands suffered damage because of its destruction (in the case of Agelinde: et tam ecclesiam Romanam quam vassallos ejusdem necnon et neophitos dectarum terrarium in ipsa expeditione et destructione castri dampnificaverunt) (Hildebrand 1887, no. 21: 18). The stray finds, as well as a few finds from the trial excavations of 1974 have not preserved. 31 Oral communication by Ain Mäesalu (the University of Tartu). The finds perished together with other archaeological collections from the excavations carried out in the 1970s and the 1980s by the State Research and Project

30 31

356


Southern and eastern Estonia Data about the post-conquest use of Final Iron Age strongholds are most scanty from southern Estonia. The excavation results of the Final Iron Age hill forts of Saccala province – Naanu, Sinialliku, Lõhavere, and Tõrva (Tõnisson 2008, 280–281; Jegorov 2013) – give no evidence of it. Only the central hill fort of Viljandi was re-constructed as an order castle. Of the Final Iron age strongholds of south-eastern Estonia, Tartu and Otepää were replaced by the stone castles of the bishop of Tartu. As noted, the hill forts of Erumäe (Valk et al. 2009, 84–89) and Uandimägi (Valk et al. 2014, 80–83) were abandoned before 1200 AD already. The same concerns probably the small refuge hill fort of Kõrista (Tõnisson 2008, 314). The only unquestioned piece of evidence about post-conquest use of hill forts from southern and eastern Estonia comes from Kassinurme in northern Tartumaa (Lavi 2002, 248–250; Tõnisson 2008, 290–291). Two radiocarbon samples from this small stronghold (1200 m2), used also in the Final Iron Age with the calibrated dates of 1217–1298 AD (from a fireplace) and 1214–1277 AD (from the rampart)32 clearly refer to its post-crusade use. The context of the last-mentioned sample indicates the construction of new fortifications after the conquest. There are some doubts about the post-conquest use of the Alatskivi big hill fort (Tõnisson 2008, 293–294), located in the manor park, as well. Its possible medieval use is suggested by a fragment of a medieval brick found during the field inventory of 2013 at a depth of ca 40 cm from under a tree, torn out with roots by a storm. 33 A peculiarity of southern Estonia during the crusades is the re-fortification of old hill forts, which can hypothetically be connected with the Estonians’ uprising of 1223 (Fig. 7) (Lang & Valk 2011, 306–313). Traces of unfinished construction work can be observed on the hill forts of Sangaste (Tõnisson 2008, 310–312; Valk 2008, 45–52), Rosma, and Tilleoru (Tõnisson 2008, 314–317; 316–318). Also, the big rampart of Järveküla hill fort (ibid., 321–322) might date from the period of crusades. It seems likely that the Institute ‘Architectural Monuments of Estonia’ (Riiklik Uurimis- ja Projekteerimisinstituut “Eesti Ehitusmälestised”) when the institute ceased to exist in 1992. 32 760±41 BP (Tln-2329), 821±42 BP (Tln-2332). 33 Author’s fieldwork in May 2013.

357

Heiki Valk

fortification work remained unfinished after the order to surrender without fight had come from Otepää, the central stronghold, some time at the beginning of 1224. The re-fortification of the Kaloga Jaanimägi hill fort (Tõnisson 2008, 327; Valk et al. 2011, 52–54) might belong to the context of the same uprising. There, two samples of charcoal taken from the bottom of the moat, located on the circular platform 1.5–2 m below the edge of the hill fort plateau, gave calibrated results of most similar dates: 1) 1048–1086 (6.4%), 1123–1138 (2.1%) and 1150–1281 (86.9%) and 2) 1025–1253 AD. 34 As from the plateau of the stronghold no Final Iron Age pottery has been found, the hill was not permanently occupied at that time. To the context of this uprising might belong also weak occupation traces from the hill forts of Karula (Tõnisson 2008, 312–313; Valk et al. 2011, 54–59) and Tõrva. Karula revealed two crossbow bolts and Tõrva one bolt, which refers to the use of the site in the period of crusades. However, none of these ‘emergency’ hill forts provided any data of their continuous post-conquest use. Thus, as for post-crusade continuity of Iron Age strongholds in Estonia, no continuity can be observed in southern Estonia – the provinces of Saccala and Ugaunia. The first reason for the difference is the small number of strongholds of the crusade period in the region. Among the few hill forts existing at that time all major sites of strategic location – Tartu, Otepää, and Viljandi – were replaced by stone castles. The fact that the ‘emergency’ hill forts built for the uprising of 1223 were deserted and did not continue their existence is easy to explain. As sites, mostly deserted long before the uprising and re-constructed only for the desperate attempt of collective defence, they were not occupied by any definite kin or group of families and did not function as regional centres. Lõhavere is the only permanently inhabited hill fort in southern Estonia that ceased to exist after the conquest. The site may have been deserted for different reasons. As the fort was not located on a strategic communication route, the place was not chosen for a German castle. The desertion of Lõhavere may also have been caused by the acts of the Saccalan nobility during the uprising of 1223. The apostates who murdered the Christians jointly inhabiting the hill forts together with the neophytes, who brutally killed the advocatus in Jerwia and were the initiators of the uprising in Tartu and Otepää (HCL XXVI, 6, 7) were probably not allowed to control the strongholds any 34

820±50 BP (Tln-3492), 892±60 BP (Tln-3270).

358


Fig. 7

Hill forts of the crusade period in southern Estonia. a – permanently occupied central hill forts, b – hill forts re-fortified after a longer gap or founded during the early 13th century crusades, c – earlier hill forts probably re-fortified during the early 13th century crusades.

Jn 7.

Ristisõdade ajal kasutatud linnused Lõuna-Eestis. a – püsiasustusega linnused, b – 13. sajandi ristisõdade ajal taas kasutusse võetud või rajatud linnused, c – 13. sajandi ristisõdade ajal oletatavasti taaskindlustatud varasemad linnused.

more. It can be suggested that because of treachery during the uprising of 1223–1224, the elite of southern Estonia was excluded from power after its end, even at the local level (Valk 2009, 283–286). Presumably, because of infidelity, the Estonians were not allowed to have control over the fort any more and the site was destroyed. An exception from the general background of southern and eastern Estonia is the fate of the hill fort of Kassinurme, a small stronghold of local importance that continued to function. However, this site did not belong to 359

Heiki Valk

unfaithful Ugaunia but to the district of Wagia, and this may also have been the reason for the continuity. When pieced together, the data presented above form a composite picture with an unambiguous message. The use of the prehistoric strongholds did not end with the crusades in northern and western Estonia, but the forts remained in use also after the conquest. The presented data must be regarded, however, only as preliminary. Many things remain unclear concerning Vironia and continental western Estonia where most of the strongholds have not been archaeologically investigated at all. Considering the existing information, the number of strongholds of post-conquest use might turn out to be even bigger in the course of future research.

Discussion: the reasons and the context of long-term use The social background: natives and vassals Transition to the Middle Ages caused profound changes in the ownership of land in the territory of newly-born medieval Livonia. The conquest and Christianization brought along transition to the vassal system where land which belonged to the landlord – in the context of medieval Estonia, to the king of Denmark, the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order (up to 1237 the Order of the Brethren of the Sword), and the bishops of Tartu and Ösel-Wiek – who feoffed most of it to the vassals. The conquest caused also changes in the status of these Iron Age strongholds which continued to function. Evidently, in the new judicial framework the previous owner, probably, kinship group, did not retain his ownership any more, but the strongholds were regarded as part of feoffed land, most likely, as castles or manors of vassals. The existing data, both archaeological and written records, give evidence of a rather distinct geographic distribution of the post-conquest use of Final Iron Age strongholds. Most of the information comes from northern Estonia, that is, from the lands of the Danish king, and from Saaremaa island. These 360


were the areas where the native nobility, or at least part of it, preserved its social higher-class position in the new vassal system. The local nobility could retain its status especially on Saaremaa island, which enjoyed a high grade of autonomy up to the uprising of 1261, and, in a more limited way, also until the big uprising of 1343/1345 (Mägi 2002a, 210–221; 2002b 148–150). Archaeological record from the prehistoric strongholds of post-conquest use does not provide any evidence of cultural innovations of ‘European’ character – neither in building traditions nor in everyday life of their inhabitants. The fortifications of strongholds of the limestone area are still in the dry-wall techniques, and no traces of using lime mortar can be observed. Also, the find material and occupation layers, where no distinct borderline between the pre- and post-conquest time can be distinguished, gives evidence of the continuity of traditions. This gives enough reason to suggest that the strongholds might have been and occupied by people of native origin – most likely representatives of those families and kinship groups who had owned and inhabited the strongholds already before the conquest. The geographic distribution of strongholds of post-conquest use fits in well with other data about native nobility among the vassals (Valk 2009). Judging by personal names in Liber Census Daniae the share of the vassals of native origin has been estimated to be at least 10% in northern Estonia around 1240 (Moora & Ligi 1970, 84–91). However, name use cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for making judgements about ethnic origin, as becoming a vassal and adopting Christianity may have caused also the adoption of Christian (or German) names, fitting better with the new status, and used in official documentation. Especially, when considering the situation in Latvia, the southern part of medieval Livonia, the share of native vassals might be greatly underestimated in 13th-century Estonia. It has been claimed that most vassals were of native origin in Latvia in the 13th century; in the 14th century 28 manors were owned by descendants of the native nobility in Latvia, and only in the 15th century the number of manors owned by the descendants of crusaders became larger than the number of manors owned by the native vassals (Šterns 1997, 432–518). In Latvia large areas were fully enfeoffed to native vassals in the 13th century. From the early 14th century it is known that 40 native vassals (neophyti vasalli) asked the bishop of Riga to build a castle for them for protection from the pagan Lithuanians at the crossing of major routes at the Aiviekste river (Seraphim 1912, 267–272). The construction of

361

Heiki Valk

Lokstene castle, protected by a stone wall, in the same area in the first half of the 14th century can be regarded as a response to this request. The 14thcentury archaeological record from the castle, both the type of buildings and jewellery found there show that the stronghold was inhabited mainly by the natives (Mugurēvičs 1977, 96–98). There is no reason to suggest that the situation was fundamentally different in the Estonian part of medieval Livonia (excluding southern Estonia, because of the uprising of 1223 and 1224).

Changes in functions and meaning As noted, the crusades that resulted in the conquest brought about profound changes in land ownership in the area of Medieval Livonia. The feoffment of lands played a crucial role also in the fate of the strongholds. While in the Final Iron Age strongholds functioned as regional, probably independent power centres, functioning on the basis of an established taxation system (Lang 2002; 2012, 216), after feoffment their hinterlands were divided between different vassals. Although maybe still possessed and inhabited, on the basis of continuity and traditions, by the same families as before, the forts with their split hinterlands lost most of their former economic and population resources. The economic basis, established through taxation or the use of human resources (e.g. in the form of unpaid communal labour), decreased considerably. As for northern Estonia, estimates about changes in the situation can be made on the basis of Liber Census Daniae, reflecting the situation with land ownership around 1240 (Johansen 1933). Of the villages with presumed post-conquest hill forts Pada (Padagas) (40 ploughlands) belonged directly to the king. Most of the village of Purtse (Purdis) (26 ploughlands) was possessed ‘injustly’ (iniuste) by Thiedric de Kyvael, the biggest vassal landowner of northern Estonia (in all 442 ploughlands), who had taken the lands from Ricardus [gener Leonis]. Six ploughlands, maybe together with the fort, belonged to the king also in Purtse (Johansen 1933, 525, 555). It seems likely that both two hill forts that controlled the important road along the northern coast of Estonia remained at first in the possession of the king. In 1287 Lewke de Pordus, probably a descendant of Ricardus [gener Leonis], and in 1277 the vassal Engel[bertus] Purdis are mentioned (ibid., 555) as landlords in Purtse.

362


There exist no data about the total amount of lands that they possessed at that time (i.e. the economic hinterlands of the stronghold), but in about 1240 Ricardus held only a total of 43 ploughlands, 26 of them in Purtse (ibid., 827). Considering that the lands of Askaelae parish, which probably constituted the hinterlands of the Final Iron Age Purtse hill fort, included 218 ploughlands, the hinterlands of the fort, if it was enfeoffed to Ricardus, had decreased to some 20% of the original size. The supposed hinterlands of the Pada hill fort, the parish of Maum, included 560 ploughlands before the crusades (ibid., 185). Nevertheless, the economic background of the Pada hill fort may have still been much more than 20 ploughlands in Pada village: the king could provide the fort with resources from his other possessions which included 246 ploughlands in Wirland and a total of 1072 ploughlands in Estonia. The same was the situation in case of Purtse, if it belonged to the king. The hinterlands of the Varbola ring fort, that is, the size of the stronghold district has been estimated differently – as 470 ploughlands (ibid. 189–190), ca 300 ploughlands (Tõnisson 1999, 183), or 200–250 ploughlands (Lang 2002, 150). In the case of an alternative interpretation – that Varbola was a ‘trans-regional’ centre whose hinterlands consisted of all Harria, or at least its core areas, and that Varbola did not have any hinterlands of ‘its own’ (i.e. hinterlands that were not subordinated to any other stronghold) (Lang 2002, 150–151) – the size of its background is much larger – according to Liber Census Daniae, there were 1383 ploughlands in Harria (Johansen 1933, 186–188). In about 1240 the village of Varbola (Uarpal) (10 ploughlands) was held by Tuvi Cols – a small vassal whose possessions totalled only 24 ploughlands (Johansen 1933, 651, 807). Thus, the hinterlands of the large stronghold had decreased considerably after the feoffement. Tuvi (or Tuui) Cols who held Varbola village, and, probably, also the Varbola hill fort around 1240 may also have belonged to the native Estonian nobility. In general, presenting the personal name together with the patronymic (as Cols has been interpreted, see Johansen 1933, 807) is most rare in Liber Census Danie (ibid., 764–836), but it is a common way of presenting personal names in the Estonian 16th and 17th-century tradition. Moreover, the word tuvi designates ‘pigeon’ in Estonian whereby the patronymic Kolli is not of definitely German or Danish, but of old Nordic origin (Johansen 1933, 807). The small amount of enfeoffed

363

Heiki Valk

land (two villages with 24 ploughlands in all) also speaks for the suggestion of the native origin. In the case of the Lohu hill fort its Final Iron Age hinterlands can be estimated to be at least 182 ploughlands (Lang 2002, 148). In about 1240 in Lohu village 23 ploughlands belonged to the king, 4 ploughlands to Heinrich van Angern, a vassal of Estonian origin (Moora & Ligi 1970, 87–88) who held 12 ploughlands in total – 8 in Angerja and 4 in Lohu (Johansen 1933, 766) – less than 7% than the supposed original hinterlands of the fort. The king, however, owned 312 ploughlands in Harria and 244 in Revele – evidently, sufficient for the management of the strongholds. As in the case of Purtse, we do not know whether the ring fort of Lohu remained in the king’s domain or became ‘private’. But if Pada, Purtse and Lohu all remained in the king’s possession, one can speak of a rather deliberate ‘nationalization’ of strongholds in Danish northern Estonia, at least in the first post-crusade decades when the strongholds had considerable military significance. However, even if the strongholds which remained in the king’s possession did not lose their economic backgrounds, being budgeted and maintained from the king’s resources, the earlier social networks related to them probably ceased to exist soon after the feoffment of their hinterlands to different vassals. Thus, as suggested above, the forts, or at least most of them, may have remained also after the feoffment inhabited by the Estonians – probably, the members of the families who possessed them before the conquest. Although archaeology cannot prove the continuity of the inhabitants of the strongholds, the lack of finds of 13th century imported ware and the traditional building techniques (timber and dry wall constructions; not using lime mortar) speaks for their native origin. Also in case if the forts were not enfeoffed, but were taken into the king’s possession, they may have remained inhabited by native families or their descendants whose duty was to maintain the strongholds but who were legally not their owners any more. Concerning other Estonian prehistoric strongholds of post-conquest use, there are no written data about the amount of the lands of the vassals who held villages with the old forts, but a similar decrease of hinterlands as in Purtse, Varbola, Pada, and Lohu, can be suggested also in other cases. Thus, strongholds, which had formerly functioned as regional centres, lost most of their hinterlands after the feoffment.

364


Transition to the Middle Ages caused changes also in the economic significance of strongholds. In the Final Iron Age, beside acting as political centres, the strongholds functioned as centres of handicraft production (Tvauri 2002). The crusades brought about a profound shift in the organization of trade and handicraft – these were now concentrated in the newly-born towns which were founded in sites favourable for long-distance trading and communication. These changes had their impact also upon the old strongholds. In the new situation where trade and most of highly professional handicraft were concentrated in towns already, the old centres lost their economic importance. Moreover, the old sites still occupied by the natives, remained aside from the new trading and communication networks. Although the archaeological record, especially the radiocarbon dates, shows limited post-conquest use of the old strongholds, the lack of intensive, definitely medieval occupation layers gives evidence of the decline of their economic importance, as well as the fall of their meaning as centres of social life. While the strongholds played, as independent regional centres, an important role in the process of power consolidation in the Final Iron Age, the conquest had fully changed their political meaning. Important political decisions were not made in the local strongholds any more, but in the new political centres of medieval Livonia – the castles which belonged to the German and Danish landlords. Most likely, the political significance of the old strongholds as centres of social life largely corresponded to the stage of political autonomy that the region and the local nobility had preserved after subordination. In this respect, the strongholds of Saaremaa, if still in use, may continuously have functioned as political centres of the island, at least until the uprising of 1261, but perhaps also later. In continental Estonia, however, the strongholds seem to have ceased to act as regional political centres after the feoffment of lands. Now their power was limited to the lands which belonged to the owners or the holders of the sites. The military functions of strongholds in post-conquest time remain mostly unclear. Undoubtedly, the reduction of hinterlands, economic and human resources had a direct impact on the old strongholds as fortified sites. Maintenance of timber fortifications demands both material resources and human labour, persistent care and repairs. The posts dug into the ground usually do not function for more than a decade, becoming then rotten in the zone contacting the earth. A wall supported by such posts does not survive long: when

365

Heiki Valk

exposed to wind, in the case of posts rotten from below, it may easily fall over in stormy weather. The lowest logs of a cross-logged structures, when laid directly on the ground – but it was common practice in Late Iron Age building traditions in Estonia –, survive for 10–20 years and need replacement then. As after feoffment the economic possibilities to keep the fortifications of the large strongholds considerably decreased, there is enough reason to presume that by the early 14th century the timber fortifications dating from the period of crusade wars had, without recurrent investments, decayed already. Thus, one might suggest that in parallel to losing their economic and population hinterlands, strongholds lost their economic basis to maintain the timber fortifications – unless supported by extra resources by the higher landlord or, on the basis of some old communal or kinship-based volunteer traditions. However, the excavation results from Purtse show that the rampart on the land side was extended for at least twice after the conquest. It remains unknown whether the fortifications of Purtse were meant to protect an autonomous power centre of local level, or the stronghold functioned also as a part of the defence system of Danish lands, being supported by royal resources. The vicinity of the Russian border and location on the east-west road along the northern coast of Estonia give some reason for this suggestion. Of a similar strategic location is the small hill fort of Kassinurme where one of the brands also indicates post-conquest 13th-century fortifications. Likewise in Purtse the stronghold is located on an important land road which links southern and northern Estonia – the historical communication route between Tartu and Tallinn (so-called Piibe tee). It remains unclear how to interpret the reconstruction of the gateway of the Varbola fort in the middle of the 13th century. This work cannot be regarded unambiguously as a sign of re-fortification of the stronghold as a whole. Repairing the gateway was an obligatory act when considering the need to get into the courtyard. To avoid the collapse of the passage, the posts supporting its walls and ceiling had to be replaced periodically. As noted, timber posts, when dug into the ground, do not last long. However, in Saaremaa, which enjoyed a great deal of autonomy during the 13th century, the military functions of strongholds may largely have preserved. In this context one should mention the vicinity of the Pöide ring fort to the German castle, founded after the surrender of the uprising of 1261, and located at a distance of two kilometres.

366


Anyway, even if still owned and inhabited by the local noble families, the prehistoric strongholds had lost most of their former functions in medieval society. They had declined from important regional power, military, and economic centres into local manors – often too large in size for their new functions. Having lost their political, economic, military, and social functions, their administrative functions limited only to the liege, that is, villages subordinated to them, the old strongholds, gradually declined and were abandoned. Memories of the past glory were not enough to keep the old centres alive. Similar processes of decline of the old hill forts can be observed also in Latvia (Šnē 2009, 133).

The epilogue: the final use of Iron Age strongholds As known from the written data, the Estonians built three timber strongholds for the uprising of 1343 – two in Harria and one in Saaremaa (De Harrieschen makeden twe hagen und de Oseler einen) (LNR 1960 90–93, 106–107, 126–127, 134–135). As construction of strongholds requires considerable resources, the building of new forts was a serious effort and challenge. Most likely, the chronicles do not refer to the construction of totally new strongholds, but the re-fortification of old sites. It was much easier to renovate the large stone and earthen ramparts of Iron Age ring forts with new timber fortifications than to start with entirely new sites. The note about building the hags35 also provides an indirect reference, in which situation were the timber fortifications of the old forts of Iron Age origin. By the middle of the 14th century they had ceased to exist or, if still standing, were so decayed that they needed to be totally replaced. However, the uprising, which had fully changed the political situation and social organization, had once again provided the old strongholds with their former hinterlands – both in terms of population and economic resources. This is an important factor which made their re-fortification possible. As briefly noted above, the strongholds built in Harria were probably Lohu and Varbola. The rampart- and moat-like structures in the immediate The word hag, etymologically connected with the German word hauen (‘to cut’), designates timber fortifications.

35

367

Heiki Valk

surroundings of Varbola ring fort have been interpreted as originating from the year 1343 when the two forts of the Estonians in Harria were besieged by the troops of the Teutonic Order (Laid 1939, 210–214). The stronghold ceased to function after the suppression of the uprising, and the fortifications were, probably, demolished thereafter. Three coins, one from 1343–1373 and two from the second half of the 14th century, found from the top of the stone debris, which almost fully filled the gateway (probably deliberately closed), show that the passage ceased to function in the middle or the second half of the 14th century (Тамла & Тыниссон 1986, 375–376). Judging by coin finds (Молвыгин 1986), the deserted gateway came to be used as a site of occasional offerings in the 15th century, and votive coin gifts were brought also to a depression, a presumed spring site in the courtyard. In the 15th century a village cemetery was founded in the courtyard. By that time life in the fort had ended. In Saaremaa, Renner’s chronicle mentions in the context of the uprising of 1343–1345, beside the fort conquered in 1344, probably Purtsa, another stronghold – that of Mapenzar (LNR 1960 90–93). The fort that the Osilians had to demolish when finally surrendering to the Teutonic Order in 1345 has been thought to have been located in place of Maasilinna castle, for in the 19th century the site was called Maansaare (ibid., 152). As no archaeological investigations have been undertaken to study the earliest occupation layers of the castle, it remains unclear whether it was built on the site of the earlier stronghold of the Osilians or not. The latest traces of the use of Iron Age hill forts belong, however, to even later times. The excavations of the hill fort of Mõrgi (Võrumaa district), intensively used for the last time in the Viking Age, revealed proof of its very late re-use (Valk et al. 2014, 72–75). Radiocarbon analyses of the remains of a fallen and burnt timber wall at the edge of the plateau, as well as from an adjacent post hole indicate, in fact, the same time ranges – 1450–1650 AD and 1401–1631 AD. Indication of use in the same period – the date of 1312–1630 AD – came also from the soil eroded from top of the big rampart. Evidently, the fortifications of the hill fort were re-established for active defence as late as in early Modern Times – either during the wars of 1558–1582 or the Swedish-Polish War of 1600–1625/29. Radiocarbon dates which refer to similar late use of the stronghold exist also from the hill fort of Lääniste (Tartumaa district). There two samples of

368


charcoal particles, collected from different places from the uppermost layers on the slope of the large rampart, gave the dates 1449–1529 or 1551–1634 AD, 36 and 1461–1636 AD. 37 Such late re-use that has left no visible traces in occupation layers has been brief or episodic.

The broader context Data about the late, medieval use of prehistoric strongholds exist sporadically from different parts of the eastern Baltic region, giving evidence of similarities of social processes. The situation in Latvia, the southern part of medieval Livonia greatly resembles that in Estonia. Although the material has not been comprehensively analysed, data about the post-conquest use of Iron Age strongholds exist, for example, from Cēsvaine and Rauna (Tanīsa kalns) (both in northern Vidzeme), Jersika and Asote (in southern Vidzeme at the Daugava), Talsi and Matkule (both in Kurzeme), Mežotne (in Zemgale), as well as from some other sites (Mugurēvičs 1973, 32; 1983, 5–7; Auns 2001, 311; Šnē 2009, 131–132). The hill fort of Sabile in Kurzeme was inhabited up to the late 13th century (Mugurēvičs 2001, 63–71). Life continued on the Cesvaine hill fort in the second half of the 13th century, on the Jersika hill fort in the 14th century, and on the hill forts of Asote and Talsi in the 2nd half of the 14th century (Mugurēvičs 1983, 5). For the final use of the Talsi hill fort even the 15th century has been suggested (Asaris 1998, 94). Post-conquest use can be suggested also for the hill fort of Satesele (Zemītis, this volume). Most likely also the prehistoric stronghold on Templa kalns close to Alūksne continued after the conquest as a regional centre. Although the site has not been excavated, its post-conquest use is indicated by a stray find of 13th–14th-century rhombshaped pendant. 38 In Latvia written records from the 13th century also indicate several strongholds of presently unknown locations, belonging to the Order, the bishops, and the vassals (Caune & Ose 2004, 9, 13–14; Table 1, Map 1). Most likely, these data relate to sites at present known as hill forts, but it is not possible SUERC 55416 364±29 BP. SUERC-55415 348±29 BP. 38 Found during the field inventory (J. Urtāns, H. Valk et al.) in 2006. 36 37

369

Heiki Valk

to connect the names mentioned in the written records with definite monuments. It also remains unclear how many of these early timber castles were founded by the Germans and how many of them were in continuous use since the Iron Age. In Lithuania where the borderline between the Iron Age and the Middle Ages is highly conventional, the hill forts with timber fortifications continued to exist up to the 14th and the early 15th centuries, being regarded then as timber castles (Zabiela 1995; 2007). Thus, the history of Iron Age hill forts during transition to the Middle Ages is rather similar in Estonia and Latvia while in Lithuania, due to the later beginning of Europeanization, their use lasted longer. The continuous use of prehistoric strongholds in medieval times can be observed also in Finland where the most active period of using the hill forts stretches continuously from the Late Viking Age and the Crusade Period to the Middle Ages, ending in the 14th century (Taavitsainen 1990, 131; 2003, 433). There is data referring to 13th, 14th, and the early 15th century use of Iron Age sites, for example, from the Rapola and Hattula Tenhola strongholds in Häme (Taavitsainen 1999, 141–142). Also, in Karelia the use of hill forts continued for a long time. Thus, the hill fort of Pasonvuori may date from the 14th century and the Kurkijoki Lopotti hill fort from the 15th or the 16th century (Laakso 2011, 293). Data about the late re-use of prehistoric hill forts exist from eastern Karelia even from the 17th century (Таавитсайнен 1997; Taavitsainen 2003, 433). According to oral tradition, many Karelian strongholds were used as defence or refuge sites in later wars (Laakso 2011, 294–295) and there are similar data also from Latvia (see Urtāns & Vitola, this volume). The central strongholds of Ladoga Karelia developed into Novgorodian strongholds in the 14th century (Saksa, this volume) and belong also to the context of the archaeology of medieval Russia. In medieval north-western Russia, the borderline between the strongholds which functioned as power centres of pre-state local communities and those representing state power is rather vague in the archaeological sources. In Russia, where historical processes have been different from those in the Baltic countries, there is no definite chronological or ‘political’ borderline between the strongholds with earthen and timber fortifications, on the one hand, and medieval castles, on the other. All of them are designated by the term gorod (see Артемьев 1998, 36–72). Although in north-western Russia the 13th–14th-century strongholds have been regarded, due to a different

370


political affiliation, as representing a social organization different from that in the eastern Baltic area, the use of traditional hill forts (although called gorod) continued there, too, until the 14th and even the 15th century. As in the core areas of eastern Sweden where the Middle Ages began in the 11th century, there are no contemporaneous parallels to the post-conquest strongholds of Estonia, one cannot even raise the question about the longterm, that is, ‘medieval’ use of hill forts. The only parallel to the post-conquest native strongholds of Livonia could be the Iron Age ring forts on Öland, the re-use of which continued in some cases from the Viking Age to the 13th century (Andrén 2014, 77–78). However, in the peripheral areas of Sweden, strongholds similar to the ordinary hill forts existed also in medieval times, as shown by the case of the fortified manor of Styresholm in Ångermanland (Grundberg 1992; 2006).

Conclusions Two concepts have prevailed for a long time in the understanding of Estonian history of the final stage of prehistory and the beginning the Middle Ages. First, the idea of a balanced society without internal conflicts and ambitions for spreading the power, and, second, the concept that the late prehistoric strongholds were deserted as a result of the crusades, together with the surrender and the adoption of Christianity. The analysis of the archaeological source material enables us, however, to draw a different picture. The location and chronology of the Final Iron Age hill forts of southern Estonia – the part of the country where data about their age are relatively clear and complete – enables us to draw some conclusions about the mutual relations of power centres located in the vicinity of each other and with overlapping spheres of interest. The archaeological record speaks of competition between neighbouring centres, giving evidence of struggle for and concentration of power. What is significant in this context is both the emergence of new hill forts in the vicinity of the old, former forts, as well as their short lives. Two old centres of southern Estonia with a Viking Age background, Otepää and Viljandi, can be regarded as winners in the competition with

371

Heiki Valk

their emerging neighbours. Already in the 12th century, before the crusades, Otepää subjugated the forts of Uandimägi and Erumäe, and Viljandi gained victory over the adjacent hill forts of Naanu and Sinialliku. The existing data about Final Iron Age strongholds of Estonia show that several of them remained in use also after the conquest and the making of medieval Livonia – during the 13th century and in some cases also in the first half of the 14th century. The post-conquest use of strongholds may have lasted even longer than reflected by radiocarbon dates. However, the meaning and functions of old strongholds changed after the crusades. In parallel to the emergence of new ‘European’ centres – towns and stone castles –, the old strongholds seem to have lost most of their pre-conquest functions. Although still inhabited, maybe even by the same families as before, they seem to have lost their former significance as military, political, social and economic centres of regional (or even trans-regional) level. The main reason for this is that lands that formed their hinterlands in the Final Iron Age were split, as a result of feoffment, between fiefs of different holders. As a result of the conquest, the old strongholds lost their political power, and towns overtook their economic functions. Thus, having lost both their hinterlands and functions, the old strongholds gradually lost their fortifications and continued to function merely as manors of local level until their final decline and desertion, not later than in the mid-14th century. The same process of decline of prehistoric strongholds can be observed also in the southern part of medieval Livonia, the present-day territory of Latvia. In the western part of Estonia the final use of some prehistoric strongholds is related to the big uprising of 1343–1345. Since then, but often, probably already before that time, prehistoric strongholds acquired the same meaning that they have in the present time, becoming monuments and memory places, sites of popular assemblies on certain holidays, especially Midsummer. However, some of the old forts may have been secondarily re-fortified also for active defence during the wars of the 16th and the 17th centuries. And, as strategically important sites in the landscape, the hill forts have sometimes been, as witnessed by old fallen trench lines, in use also during the Estonian War for Independence (1918–1920) and in the battles of the Second World War in 1944. It is a general rule that the end of ‘prehistory’ and the beginning of ‘historical times’ or the Middle Ages depend on the written sources, being defined,

372


first, by the existence of written records, and, second, by some well-known historical events. The case of strongholds with simple, earthen and timber fortifications – a phenomenon that can be found in different countries east of the Baltic Sea – tells us that the borderlines between the eras are, indeed, vague and fuzzy Acknowledgements. The author thanks Mauri Kiudsoo, Valter Lang and Anti Selart for their comments and remarks.

References Unpublished sources Jegorov, A. 2013. Tõrva Tantusmäe muinaslinnus. Bakalaureusetöö. Tartu. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TÜ.) Kirschbaum, A. 1921. Sangaste kihelkond. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TÜ.) Kustin, A. 1966. Aruanne Valjala maalinna arheol. kaevamisest 1964. a. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TLÜ.) Lõugas, V. [1997/1998 (?)]a. Pöide (Kahutsi) maalinna arheoloogilised kaevamised 1990. a. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TLÜ.) Lõugas, V. [1997/1998 (?)]b. Pöide maalinna 1992. a. kaevamiste aruanne. (Manu script in the archaeological archives of TLÜ.) Selirand, J. 1973a. Aruanne arheoloogilistest kaevamistest Sinialliku linnamäel 1967. a (end. Viljandi kihelkond). Tallinn. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TLÜ.) Selirand, J. 1973b. Aruanne arheoloogilistest kaevamistest Sinialliku linnamäel 1968. a (end. Viljandi kihelkond). Tallinn. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TLÜ.) Selirand, J. 1973c. Aruanne arheoloogilistest kaevamistest Sinialliku linnamäel 1969. a (end. Viljandi kihelkond). Tallinn. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TLÜ.) Tamla, T. 2011. Aruanne arheoloogilistest kaevamistest Pada I linnusel Rakvere rajoonis (Viru-Nigula khk, Pada asundus, tänapäeval Viru-Nigula vald, Pada küla) 1984.–1985. aastal. (Manuscript in the archaeological archives of TLÜ.)

373

Heiki Valk

Publications Andrén A. 2014. Tracing Old Norse Cosmology. The world tree, middle earth, and the sun in archaeological perspectives. (Vägar till midgård, 16.) Nordic Academic Press, Lund. Asaris, J. 1998. Kurländische Handwerkszentren im 12.–13. Jahrhundert. – Culture Clash or Compromise? The Europeanisation of the Baltic Sea Area 1100– 1400 AD. (Acta Visbyensia, XI.), Visby, 91–97. Auns, M. 2001. Districts, administrative centres or villages? Places in North Curonia mentioned in 13th century agreements. – Lübeck Style? Novgorod style? (CCC Papers, 5.) Nordik, Riga, 307–313. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. – Radiocarbon, 51: 1, 337–360. Caune, A. & Ose. I. 2004. Latvijas 12. gadsimta beigu – 17. gadsimta vācu piļu leksikons. Latvijas Vēstures Institūts, Rīga. Ellis, B. M. A. & Egan, G. 2004. Spurs and Spur Fittings. – The Medieval Horse and its Equipment, c. 1150 – c. 1450. Ed. By J. Clark. Boydell Press, London, 124–156. Ghenescu O. 2012. Medieval rowel spurs in the collection of “Ioan Raica” municipal museum of Sebes. – Terra Sebus. (Acta Musei Sabesiensis, 4.), 243–258. Grundberg, L. (ed.) 1992. Medeltid i Ådalen. Styresholmsprojektet 1986–1992. Länsmuseet Västernorrland, Härnösand. Grundberg, L. 2006. Medeltid i centrum: Europeisering, historieskrivning och kulturarvsbruk i norrländska kulturmiljöer. (Studia archaeologica universitatis Umensis, 20.) Umeå. HCL = Heinrichs livländische Chronik = Heinrici chronicon Livoniae. Bearbeitet von Leonid Arbusow und Albert Bauer. Hannover, 1955 // Henriku Liivimaa kroonika. Tõlkinud Richard Kleis, kommenteerinud Enn Tarvel. Eesti Raamat, Tallinn, 1982. Hildebrand, H. 1887. Livonica, vornämlich aus dem 13. Jahrhundert, im vatikanischen Archiv. Riga. Jaanits, L., Laul, S., Lõugas, V. & Tõnisson, E. 1982. Eesti esiajalugu. Eesti Raamat, Tallinn. Johansen, P. 1933. Die Estlandliste des Liber Census Daniae. Wassermann, Copenhagen–Reval. Kustin A. 1958. Kalmistu XIII–XIV sajandist Karjas, Saaremaal. – TATÜ 7: 1, 47–57.

374

Laakso, V. 2011. Remembered and Recorded: Karelian Hill Forts in Folklore and Some Historical Sources. – Times, Things. 36 Essays for Jussi-Pekka Taavitsainen. Masku, 291–297. Laid, E. 1939. Varbola Jaanilinn. – Muistse Eesti linnused. Õpetatud Eesti Selts, Tartu, 183–215. Lang, V. 2002. Vakus ja linnusepiirkond Eestis. Lisandeid muistse haldusstruktuuri uurimisele peamiselt Harjumaa näitel. – Keskus, tagamaa, ääreala. Uurimusi asustushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. Koostanud ja toimetanud Valter Lang. (MT, 11.) Tallinn–Tartu, 125–168. Lang, V. 2004. Varalinnalised keskused (aolinnad) hilismuinasaegses Eestis. – “Kui vana on Tallinn?” 13. mail 2004 toimunud konverentsi ettekanded ja diskussioon. (Tallinna Linnaarhiivi Toimetised, 8.) Tallinn, 7–27. Lang, V. 2012a. Building remains at the hill fort of Keava. – Keava – the Hand of the Sun. Edited by Valter Lang. (EJA, Supplementary Series, Volume 1.) Tallinn, 11–35. Lang, V. 2012b. Settlement development and power structures in the Late Iron Age Harju district. – Keava – the Hand of the Sun. Edited by Valter Lang. (EJA, Supplementary Series, Volume 1.) Tallinn, 201–225. Lang, V. & Valk, H. 2011. An archaeological Reading of the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia: Events, Traces, Contexts and Interpretations. – Crusading and Chronicle Writing on the Medieval Baltic Frontier. A Companion to the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia. Eds. Marek Tamm, Linda Kaljundi, Carsten Selch Jensen. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham–Burlington, 291–315. Lavi, A. 2002. Kesk-Eesti idaosa linnamägedest. – Keskus–tagamaa– ääreala: uurimusi asustushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. Koost. ja toim. V. Lang. (MT, 11.) Tallinn–Tartu, 233–272. Ligi, H. (1968). Talupoegade koormised Eestis 13. sajandist 19. sajandi alguseni. Eesti Raamat, Tallinn. LNR 1960 = Bartholomäus Hoeneke Liivimaa noorem riimkroonika 1315–1348. Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus, Tallinn. LUB = Liv-, Ehst- und Curländisches Urkundenbuch. Bd. I – Dorpat, 1853. LVR = Liivimaa vanem riimkroonika. Tõlkinud ja kommenteerinud Urmas Eelmäe. Teaduslik toimetaja Enn Tarvel. Argo, Tallinn. Lõugas, V. & Mägi-Lõugas M. 1994. Investigation of ancient Monuments at Pöide 1991–1992. TATÜ, 43: 1, 27–33. Moora, H. 1955. Muistsete linnuste uurimise tulemustest Eesti NSV-s. – Muistsed asulad ja linnused. Arheoloogiline kogumik. Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus, Tallinn, 46–87.

375

Heiki Valk Moora, H., Ligi, H. 1970. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaftsordnung der Völker des Baltikums zu Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts. Eesti Raamat, Tallinn. Mugurēvičs, E. 1973. Vidus- un Austrumlatvija 13.–14. gs. (par dažām izmaiņām iedzivotāju dzīves veidā un kultūrā). – AuE, X, 27–39. Mugurēvičs, E. 1983. Latvijas viduslaiku piļu klasifikācijas un arheoloģiskās izpētes jautājumi. – AuE, XIV, 3–13. Mugurēvičs, 2001. Burg und Burgsiedlung Sabile (Zabeln) im 11.–16. Jh. – Lietuvos arheologija, 21, 63–72. Mäesalu, A. 1993. Die Burg Otepää als ein Zentrum in SO-Estland im 11.–14. Jh. – Castella Maris Baltici, 1. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, 143–148. Mägi, M. 1998. Districts and Centres in Saaremaa 1100–1400. – Culture Clash or Compromise? The Europeanisation of the Baltic Sea Area 1100–1400 AD. (Acta Visbyensia, XI.) Visby, 147–157. Mägi, M. 2002a. Piirkonnad ja keskused. Asustus muinasaja lõpu ja varakeskaegsel Saaremaal arheoloogiliste, inimgeograafiliste ning ajalooliste allikate andmetel. – Keskus, tagamaa, ääreala. Uurimusi asustushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. Koostanud ja toimetanud Valter Lang. (MT, 11.) Tallinn – Tartu, 269–232. Mägi, M. 2002b. At the Crossroads of Space and Time: Graves, Changing Society and Ideology on Saaremaa (Ösel), 9th–13th centuries AD. (CCC Papers, 6.) Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2007. Collectivity versus individuality: the warrior ideology of Iron Age burial rites on Saaremaa. – Weapons, weaponry and man (In memoriam Vytautas Kazakevicius). Archaeologia Baltica, 8, 263–272. Mägi, M. 2010. Trade, War and the Diversity of Rituals at Late Prehistoric Harbour Sites on Saaremaa. – Archaeologia Baltica, 14, 168–182. Mägi, M. 2011. Henrik, Ösel and the Danish Kingdom: Revisiting Henry’s Chronicle and the Archaeological Evidence. – Crusading and Chronicle Writing on the Medieval Baltic Frontier. A Companion to the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia. Eds. Marek Tamm, Linda Kaljundi, Carsten Selch Jensen. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham–Burlington, 317–341. Mägi, M. 2013a. Late Prehistoric Societies and Burials in the Eastern Baltic. – Archaeologia Baltica, 19, 177–194. Mägi, M. 2013b. Corporate Power Structures as indicated in Archaeological Evidence: the Case of Estonia in the Middle Iron Age and the Viking Age. – Fenno scandia Archaeologica, XXX, 107–125. Oad, K. 2012. Eestlaste lepingud üksteisega enne 13. sajandit. – Juridica, III, 151– 158.

376

The fate of Final Iron Age strongholds of Estonia Peets, J. 1996. Archaeological investigations in Saaremaa: Lihulinn hillfort of Kärla and iron smelting sites in the Tuiu area. – TATÜ 1996, 4, 457–464. Peets, J. 2007. Weapons and Edged Tools in Siksälä Cemetery. Typology and Technology. – Laul, S., Valk, H. 2007. Siksälä: A Community at the Frontiers. Iron Age and Medieval. (CCC Papers, 10.) University of Tartu, Institute of History and Archaeology, Tallinn–Tartu, 167–200. Peets, J. 2003. The Power of Iron. Iron production and blacksmithy in Estonia and neighbouring areas in prehistoric period and the Middle Ages. (MT, 12.) Tallinn. Rusovs B. 1926. Livonijas kronika. Tulkojs cand. hist. Ed. Veispals. Valters un Rapa, Rīga. Russow, B. 1578. Nye Lyfflendische Chronica Vam anfanck des Christendoems in Lyfflandt, beth up disses Jar Christi 1578. Rostock. Russow. B. 1993. Balthasar Russow. Liivimaa kroonika. Hotger, Tallinn. Saadre, O. 1970. Padise Vanalinna mägi. – Studia archaeologica in memoriam Harri Moora. Valgus, Tallinn, 147–153. Seraphim, A. 1912. Das Zeugenverhör des Franciscus de Moliano (1312): Quellen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens. Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Altertumskunde der Ostseeprovinzen Russlands, Köningsberg. Šnē, A. 2002. Sabiedrība un vara: sociālās attiecibas Austrumlatvijā aizvēstures beigās. Intelekts, Rīga. Šnē, A. 2009. The Early Town in Later Prehistoric Latvia. – The Reception of Medieval Europe in the Baltic Sea region. Papers of the XIIth Visby Symposium held at Gotland University, Visby. (Acta Visbyensia, XII.) Gotland University Press, Visby, 127–136. Šterns, I. 1997. Latvijas vēsture 1290–1500. Daugava, Rīga Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1990. Ancient hillforts of Finland: problems of analysis, chronology and interpretation with special reference to the hillfort of Kuhmoinen. (SMYA, 94.) Helsinki. Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1999. Kun nuoruus on ongelma. – Rapolan muinaislinnan keskuslinna-ajatuksen purkuyritys. – Masunni. Kirjoituksia Tampereelta ja Pirkanmaalta, 3, 131–166. Taavitsainen, J.-P. 2003. Karjalan muinaislinnat. – Karlalan synty. (Viipurin läänin histooria, 1.) Toim. Matti Saarnisto. Karjalan Kirjapaino OY, Jyväskylä, 432–434. Tamla, T. 1998. Zum Grabraub in vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Gräbern Estlands. – Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller-Wille. Hrsg. von Anke Wesse. Walter de Gruyter, Neumünster, 291–297.

377

Heiki Valk Tamla, Ü. 1998. The Hillfort of Varbola Jaanilinn and the Settlement at Jalase. – Estonia: Nature, Man and Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of a Round Table Held at Tallinn, April 1991 at the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Ed. by Tony Hackens, Valter Lang and Urve Miller. Strasbourg, 145–155. Tuulse, A. 1942. Die Burgen in Estland und Lettland. Dorpater Estnischer Verlag, Dorpat. Tvauri, A. 2001. Muinas-Tartu: uurimus Tartu muinaslinnuse ja asula asustusloost. (MT, 10.) Tartu, Tallinn. Tvauri, A. 2002. Lõuna-Eesti noorema rauaaja linnuste ja külade arheoloogilise leiumaterjali erinevused. – Keskus–tagamaa–ääreala: uurimusi asustushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. Koost. ja toim. V. Lang. (MT, 11.) Tallinn–Tartu, 275–300. Tvauri, A. 2012. Archaeological finds from the hill fort at Keava. – Keava – the Hand of the Sun. Edited by Valter Lang. (EJA, Supplementary Series, Volume 1.) Tallinn, 36–62. Tõnisson, E. 1999. Die Wallburg Varbola – ein Zentrum im westlichen Estland. Aspekte zur militärischen, politischen und sozialen Funktion. – Europeans or Not? Local Level Strategies on the Baltic Rim 1100–1400 AD. (CCC Papers, 1.) Gotland University College, Centre for Baltic Studies, Oskarshamn, 1999, 173– 184. Tõnisson, E. 2008. Eesti muinaslinnad. Toimetanud ja täiendanud Ain Mäesalu ja Heiki Valk. (MT, 20.) Tartu. Valk, H. 1995. Tartu Toomkiriku kalmistust ja ümbruskonna varasemast asustu sest. – Tartu arheoloogiast ja vanemast ehitusloost. Artiklite kogumik. (Tartu Ülikooli Arheoloogia Kabineti Toimetised, 8.) Tartu, 1995, 59–80. Valk, H. 2008. Excavations on the hillforts of south-eastern Estonia: Luhtõ, Sangaste and Rosma. – AVE 2007, 43–58. Valk, H. 2009. From the Iron Age to the Middle Ages. – Local Nobility and Cultural Changes in Estonia in the 13th Century. – The Reception of Medieval Europe in the Baltic Sea region. Papers of the XIIth Visby Symposium held at Gotland University, Visby. Ed. Jörn Staecker. (Acta Visbyensia, XII.) Gotland University Press, Visby, 273–292. Valk, H., Juurik, R. & Rannamäe, E. 2009. New excavations on the hill forts of south-eastern Estonia: Vareste, Erumäe and Tilleoru. – AVE 2008, 82–95. Valk, H., Ulst I., Metssalu, J. & Lillak, A. 2011. Excavations on the hill forts of south-eastern Estonia: Nooska, Kaloga, Karula, Võuküla and Lääniste. – AVE 2010, 49–72.

378

The fate of Final Iron Age strongholds of Estonia Valk, H., Kama, P. Olli, M. & Lillak, A. 2014. Archaeological excavations on the hill forts of south-eastern Estonia: Kauksi, Mõrgi, Alt-Laari, Paloveere and Uandimägi. – AVE 2013, 67–86. Vedru, G. 1999. Archaeological field work in the surroundings of Lake Kahala. – AVE 1998, 57–62. Zabiela, G. 1995. Lietuvos medinės pilys. Diemedys, Vilnius. Zabiela, G. 2007. Decadence of wooden castles in Medieval Lithuania. – Castella Maris Baltici, 8. Institute of the History of Latvia Publishers, Rīga, 155–160. Артемьев, А. В. 1998. Города Псковской земли в XII–XIV вв. Владивосток. Валк, X. 2009. Городища восточной Эстонии и поход князя Ярослава на Чудь. – Aрхеология и история Пскова и Псковской земли, 54. Псков, 393–406. Кирпичников, А. Н. 1973. Снаряжение всадника и верховного коня на Руси IX–XIII вв. (Археология СССР. Свод археологических источников, E 1–36.) Ленинград. Медведев, А. Ф. 1959. Оружие Новгорода Великого. – Труды Новгородской археологической экспедиции II. (МИА, 65.) Москва–Ленигнград, 122–191. Молвыгин, А. 1986. Нумизматический материал из городища Варбола Яанилинн. – TATÜ, 35: 4, 377–385. Мяэсалу, А. & Тамла, Т. 1983. Об оборонительных сооружениях городища Пуртсе. – TATÜ, 32: 4, 307–310. Рябинин, Е. А. 2001. Bодская земля Bеликого Новгорода. Дмитрий Буланин, С-Петербург. Седов, В. В. 2007. Изборск в раннем Средневековье. Наука, Москва. Таавитсайнен, Ю.-П. 1997. Городок – древняя крепостная гора в Заонежье. – Археология Севера. Сборник научных статьей, 1. Петрозаводск, 203–218. Тамла, Т. 1986. Уникальнaя оборонительная конструкция на первом городище Пада. – TATÜ, 35: 4, 366–370. Тамла Ю. & Тыниссон Э. 1986. Исследования на городище ВарболаЯанилинн. – TATÜ, 35: 4, 373–377. Тыниссон, Э. 1977. Оборонительные сооружения городища Лоху. – TATÜ, 1977, 26: 1, 77–81. Тыниссон, Э. 1987. Городища Эстонии. Диссертация на соискание ученой степени доктора исторических наук. Таллин.

379

Heiki Valk

Eesti hilisrauaaegsete linnuste saatus. Resümee Heiki Valk Eesti hilisrauaaja (11.–13. sajand) linnuste uurimisel on üldistava tasandi põhiküsimusteks olnud linnuste seos asustuspildi ja võimusuhetega. Muinas linnuste kasutuse lõppemine pole seni sisulist tähelepanu pälvinud. Üldiselt on vaikimisi arvatud, et linnuste kasutamine lõppes koos muinasaja ja risti sõdadega. Arheoloogilist materjali muinaslinnuste kohta on Eesti eri osadest kogunenud võrdlemisi ebaühtlaselt. Kõige terviklikum on üldpilt Lõuna-Eesti kohta (jn 1), kus ristisõdade ajaks oli kasutusele jäänud vaid neli suuremat muinaslinnust: Sakalas Viljandi ja Lõhavere, Ugandis Otepää ja Tartu. Samas on mitme muinaslinnuse kasutamine lõppenud hilisrauaaja teisel poolel. Sakala alal on millalgi vallutuse eelõhtul maha jäetud Viljandist lähistel asuvad Naanu ja Sinialliku linnamägi (vastavalt 10 ja 5 km kaugusel), Ugandis Otepääst vaid 5 km kaugusele jääv Uandimäe linnus ja Erumäe kants ligikaudu 30 km kaugusel. Ugandi mahajäetud keskused on enne hävingut olnud kasutusel vaid väga lühikest aega ning ka Naanu linnus on alguse saanud 12. sajandil. Mõnevõrra varasema taustaga on vaid 11. sajandil rajatud Sinialliku linnus. Võib arvata, et mahajätmise põhjuseks olid vastuolud kesksete Viljandi ja Otepää linnuste ning naabruses olevate väiksemate ja hiljem tekkinud keskuste vahel. Huvide konflikt näib olevat paratamatu, sest sedavõrd suurte linnuste “loomulik” tagamaa, sh ka maksustamisala, võiks olla vähemalt 10–15 km raadiusega. Uandimäe puhul leidub viiteid linnuse hävimisele otepäälaste käe läbi ka suulises traditsioonis. Tõenäoliselt oli linnuste vaenu oluliseks põhjuseks kuulumine konkureerivate suguvõsade valdusesse. Suguvõsade tähtsust muinasaegses ühiskonnakorralduses on Eestis kuni viimase ajani tugevasti alahinnatud – hilisrauaaja puhul on marksismiajastul rõhutatud feodaalset või kujunevat klassiühiskonda, marksismijärgsel ajastul ülikute (või ülikuperede) juhtivat rolli ühiskonnas. Suguvõsasidemete olulisusele viitab Russowi kroonikas (1578) leiduv, tagasivaatavalt minevikku osundav viide veritasust Liivimaa põlisrahvaste, iseäranis eestlaste seas. Märke võimukeskuste omavahelisest

380


konkurentsist ja ümberpaiknemisest on Eesti teistestki piirkondadest: Saaremaalt ja Harjust. Lääne-Eesti ja Virumaa kohta üldistuste tegemist takistab asjaolu, et sealseid linnuseid on arheoloogiliselt liiga vähe uuritud. Mitmetelt Eesti muinaslinnustelt on saadud arheoloogilisi andmeid, eeskätt kalibreeritud radiosüsinikudateeringuid (tõenäosus 95,4%), mis viitavad linnuste jätkuvale kasutusele ka pärast vallutust (jn 2). Sealjuures võivad süsinikuproovides kajastuvad söe vanusemäärangud olla mitmete asjaolude tõttu pigem varasemad kui hilisemad linnuse tegelikust mahajätmisajast. Harjumaal näitavad Varbola linnuse (jn 3, 4) vallutusjärgset kasutust kaks 1210/1220.–1260/1280. aastate mündileidu väravakäigust. Üks neist pärineb tugiposti postiaugust ja viitab värava rekonstrueerimisele mündi vermimisest hilisemal ajal. Hiliseid süsinikudateeringuid on ka Lohu II, Padise ja Muuksi linnuselt. Muuksis jääb dateering kahel juhul 11. sajandi – 13. sajandi keskpaiga, ühel juhul aastate 1162–1280, ühel juhul tõenäoliselt 1119.–1410. aasta vahemikku. Padisel on ühe valli seest enam kui 2 m sügavuselt saadud proovi kalibreeritud tulemuseks 1186–1454, mis võib osundada Jüriöö ülestõusu aegsele taaskasutusele. Virumaal viitavad kaks dateeringut Purtse linnamäelt kaitseehitiste uuendamisele veel 13. sajandi teisel poolel või isegi 14. sajandil. Proov linnuseõuelt andis tulemuseks aastad 1165–1380. Pada linnuse vallutusjärgset kasutust lubab oletada kannus (jn 5), mis võiks pärineda 13. sajandi teisest poolest. Kirjalike allikate põhjal on pärast vallutust Virumaal kasutusel olnud veel Agelinde linnus, mis arvatavasti paiknes Äntu Punamäe linnamäel. Selle linnuse on hävitanud ordu 1233. ja 1236. aasta vahel. Kultuurkihita Toolse II linnuse vallutusjärgsust lubab oletada väga tugev otsavall. Saaremaal viitavad Pöide maalinna vallutusjärgsele kasutusele valli viimase ehitusjärgu söeproovid, samuti mõned leiud. Valjala linnuse püsimisele pärast vallutust osundab kaevamistulemuste ja Henriku kroonika andmete kõrvutamine. Kroonika põhjal jäi 1227. aastal linnus alles, kuid selle kaevust leitud tukijäänused näitavad hävimist tulekahjus. Oletada võib ka Valjala valli lammutamist, sest korralikult laotud piirdemüüri on valli siseküljel säilinud väga madalas kõrguses. Tõenäoliselt hävitati linnus seoses saarlaste ülestõusuga – kas 1241. aasta paiku või hiljemalt 1261. aastal. Kaarma linnuse vallutusjärgset kasutust näitab Liivimaa vanema riimkroonika kirjeldus 1261. a piiramise kohta. Ka maalinna erandlikult nelinurkne põhiplaan on lubanud oletada valli vallutusjärgsust. Samas võiks, arvestades linnuse

381

Heiki Valk

paiknemist hilismuinasajal tihedasti asustatud maade keskel, selle algupära ulatuda vähemalt viikingiaega. Kärla Lihulinnas viitavad võimalikule vallutusjärgsele kasutusele kaks hoburaudsõlge (jn 6), Paatsa linnuses süsinikuproovid, mille kalibreeritud tulemus on ühel juhul 1252–1411 ja teisel juhul 1461–1640. Läänemaa linnuste vähene uuritus ei paku vallutusjärgsuse kohta arheoloogilisi pidepunkte. Teade Kullamaa linnuse hävitamisest 1233. ja 1236. aasta vahel esineb samas kontekstis Agelindega. Lõuna-Eesti linnuste vallutusjärgse kasutuse kohta andmeid pole. Piirkonna kesksed linnused – Otepää, Tartu ja Viljandi – ehitati peatselt ümber keskaegseteks kivilinnusteks, Lõhavere linnuse mahapõletamise tagamaaks võib olla Sakala ülikute aktiivsus 1223. a ülestõusu korraldamisel. Lõuna- ja Ida-Eesti ruumis on vallutusjärgseid dateeringuid vaid väiksest Kassinurme linnusest, kus kaks proovi näitavad 1217.–1298. ja 1214.–1277. a vahemikku. Võimalik, et pärast vallu tust on kasutusel olnud ka Alatskivi suur linnamägi. Samas võib Lõuna-Eestis tõdeda mitme linnuse lõpetamata jäänud väljaehitamist (Rosma, Sangaste, Tilleoru) või vahepeal maha jäetud viikingiaegse linnuse vallutusaegset taaskasutust (Tõrva, Karula) (jn 7), mis võiks seostuda 1223. a ülestõusuga. Uute, keskaegsete võimusuhete tekkimisel muutus muinaslinnuste staatus, maade läänistamise tõttu vähenesid oluliselt nende tagamaad. Taani hindamisraamatu põhjal võib teha järeldusi mõnede Põhja-Eesti linnuste vallutuseelse ja -järgsete tagamaade suuruse kohta. Kui Pada ja Purtse linnuse tagamaaks olid vastavalt 560 ja 221 adramaaga Mahu ja Askaelae kihelkond, siis 1240. aastaks olid need jaotatud eri valdajate vahel ja linnus kuulus kokku samanimelise küla maadega. Pada linnus koos 20 adramaalise Pada küla oli Taani kuninga valduses; Purtse küla 32 adramaast oli 6 kuninga, 26 ühe vasalli valduses. Vallutuse eel on Lohu linnuse tagamaa hinnatud vähemalt 182 adramaale, vallutuse järel kuulus Lohu küla 27 adramaast 23 kuningale, 4 eesti soost vasallile. Varbola linnuse otsese tagamaa suurus võis olla 200–300 adramaad, kuid kui eeldada, et see hõlmas kogu Harju, oli adramaade hulk märksa suurem. Pärast vallutust kuulus linnus arvatavasti eestlasest väikevasallile, kellel oli kokku vaid 24 adramaad. Ilmselt kaotasid teisedki jätkuvalt kasutusel püsinud linnused pärast maade läänistamist suure osa oma majanduslikest tagamaadest, nii inimestest kui ka maksubaasist. Ka siis, kui linnused, mida Taani hindamisraamat ei maini, kuulusid kuningale ja ressursid nende ülalpidamiseks tulid teistest piirkondadest laekuvate mak-

382


sude arvel, lakkas läänistamise tulemusena olemast linnustega seotud varasem sotsiaalne võrgustik. Üleminekuga keskaegsele õiguskorraldusele võisid linnused minna lääni osana maaisanda vasalli valdusesse, kuid võisid jääda ka läänistamata, s.t maaisanda omandiks. Sellisel juhul võis maaisand linnusega maavalduse anda kasutamiseks ja haldamiseks oma alamatele ilma pärimisõiguseta. Nii ühel kui teisel puhul võisid linnuses edasi elada kohalikud inimesed. Kuigi arheoloogia ei suuda tõestada linnuse elanikkonna järjepidevust enne ja pärast vallutust, räägib linliku, euroopaliku iseloomuga elulaadile viitava kultuurikihi (sh 13.–14. sajandi importkeraamika) puudumine ja traditsioonipõhiste ehitusvõtete kasutamine pigem vallutusjärgsete asukate kohaliku kui võõra päritolu kasuks. Ilmsesti muutus pärast vallutust ka linnuste tähendus haldus- ja sõjaliste keskustena. Nüüd ei saanud linnused enam olla iseseisvad ja omavahel konkureerivad võimukeskused, sest pärast vallutust määras maade kuuluvuse ja võimusuhted maaisanda otsus. Sisuliselt hakkasid varasemad piirkondlikud võimukeskused toimima mõisatena, mille võimupiirid piirdusid vastava vasalli maadega, eeskätt lähiümbruses. Alluvus samale kõrgemale maaisandale võttis, vähemalt teoreetiliselt, aluse omavaheliselt vaenutegevuselt. Võib arvata, et sõjalise vajaduse vähenemisel ja ressursside puudusel hakkasid puust kaitseehitised lagunema ja et 14. sajandi alguseks olid linnused – juhul, kui kaitseehitisi ei uuendatud – oma sõjalise tähtsuse minetanud. Sellele viitab Liivimaa noorema riimkroonika teade kolme puulinnuse ehitamisest Jüriöö ülestõusu ajal. Ilmselt pole silmas peetud uute linnuste rajamist tühjale kohale, vaid puust kaitseehitiste taastamist vanadele vallidele. Kui Varbola väravakäigu rekonstrueerimine võib tähendada üksnes läbikäigu tagamist, siis vähemasti Purtses ja Kassinurmes viitab arheoloogia ka kaitseehitiste vallutusjärgsele uuendamisele. Samas väärib märkimist, et mõlemad linnused paiknevad strateegilise liiklustee ääres. Teeäärsete linnuste kindlustamise taga võib peituda soov omada kontrolli maanteel toimuva üle. Kaitseehitiste korrashoidmiseks olid kahtlemata suuremad eeldused neil linnustel, mis olid läänistamata ja kuulusid kuninga või kõrgema maaisanda otsesesse valdusesse, sest laiem maksubaas võimaldas koondada ressursse märksa suurematelt aladelt võrreldes läänistamisjärgse vahetu tagamaaga. Võimalik, et kuningas soovis Põhja-Eesti rannikutee äärseid Pada ja Purtse linnuseid teadlikult enda käes hoida ning et Purtse kaitseehitiste kor-

383

Heiki Valk

rastamine 13. sajandi lõpus või 14. sajandi alguses oli seotud riiklike huvidega ja Vene piiri lähedusega. Hilisrauaaja linnuste arheoloogiline materjal näitab nende tähtsust käsitöökeskustena, kuid pärast vallutust said peamisteks käsitöö- ja kaubanduskeskusteks uued, vastrajatud linnad. Muutus ka kommunikatsioonivõrgustik. Peamisteks liikumismarsruutideks said linnu ja uusi võimukeskusi omavahel ning teiste kaugemate keskustega ühendavad teed. Kõrvalejäämine peamistest liiklussoontest ja uute tõmbekeskuste tekkimine ahendas samuti muinaslinnuste tagamaid. Uute keskuste tekkides kaotasid linnused laiema tähenduse ka majanduselus. Niisiis annab arheoloogia tunnistust ühest küljest vähemalt osa muinas linnuste püsimisest, teisalt aga ka nende allakäigust ja tähtsuse märgatavast langusest pärast vallutust. Samalaadne oli muinaslinnuste saatus vallutusjärgsel ajal ka keskaegse Liivimaa lõunaosas, Läti alal. Sealgi jätkus nende kasutus 13. sajandi vältel, kohati veel 14. sajandilgi, kuni oma majandusliku ja sõjalise tähenduse kaotanud vanad ja kiratsevad keskused lõpuks maha jäeti. Mitme muinaslinnuse viimane kasutus Põhja- ja Lääne-Eestis seostub 1343. a Jüriöö ülestõusuga, mille ajal harjulased ehitasid kaks puulinnust, saarlased ühe. On arvatud, et tegemist võiks olla Varbola, Lohu ja Purtsa maalinnaga. Ülestõusu aeg, mil senine võimukorraldus vähemalt osaliselt toimimast lakkas, andis linnustele tagasi varasema tagamaa ning taastamiseks vajalikud majanduslikud ja inimressursid. 1345. aastal, pärast ülestõusu mahasurumist tuli saarlastel lammutada oma Mapenzari (Maansaare?) linnus. Võimalik, et ka ülalnimetatud linnused on tahtlikult lammutatud – sellele osundab Varbolas kive täis aetud väravakäik, Valjalas tugevalt varisenud ja eemaldatud piirdelaotisega vall, Purtsas liivas vallide silmapaistvalt ebaühtlane ja räsitud ilme. Süsinikuproovid Lõuna-Eestist Mõrgi Kuningamäelt ja Lääniste linnamäelt näitavad, et ammu mahajäetud linnamägedele võidi kaitserajatisi püstitada siiski veel 16. sajandi teise poole ja 17. sajandi alguse sõdade ajalgi.

384