BALTICA6

Transcription

BALTICA6

ARCHAEOLOGIA
BALTICA
2006
6
Institute
of Baltic Sea
Region
History and
Archaeology
Lithuanian
Institute
of History
Klaipėda, 2006
BALTICA 6
UNIVERSITY
ARCHAEOLOGIA
KLAIPĖDA
UDK 902/904
Ar 46
Editorial Board
Editor in Chief
Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Žulkus (Klaipėda University, Lithuania)
Habil. dr. Vytautas Kazakevičius (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and
Archaeology, Lithuania)
Deputy Editor in Chief
Habil. dr. Algirdas Girininkas (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region
History and Archaeology, Lithuania)
Members
Prof. dr. Claus von Carnap-Bornheim (Archäologisches Landesmuseum Schloß Gottorf, Schleswig, Germany)
Dr. Rasa Banytė-Rowell (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)
Dr. Anna Bitner-Wróblewska (State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, Poland)
Dr. Audronė Bliujienė (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)
Dr. Džiugas Brazaitis (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)
Dr. Agnė Čivilytė (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)
Prof. dr. Wladyslaw Duczko (Uppsala University, Sweden)
Dr. John Hines (Cardiff University, United Kingdom)
Associated prof. dr. Rimantas Jankauskas (Vilnius University, Lithuania)
Dr. Romas Jarockis (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)
Dr. Vygandas Juodagalvis (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)
Prof. Dr. Andrzej Kola (Torun Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland)
Dr. Marika Mägi (Tallinn University, Estonia)
Habil. dr. Alvydas Nikžentaitis (Lithuanian Institute of History, Lithuania)
Dr. Jörn Staecker (Gotland University, Sweden)
Prof. habil. Dr. Andrejs Vasks (University of Latvia, Latvia)
Editorial Assistant
Jurgita Žukauskaitė (Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, Lithuania)
English Language Editor Joseph Everatt
German articles prepared by authors
Lithuanian Language Editor Roma Nikžentaitienė
Design Algis Kliševičius
Layout by Lolita Zemlienė
Archaeologia Baltica volume 6 was prepared by Klaipėda University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and
Archaeology
Cover illustration: A Brooch from Laiviai (Kretinga district) Cemetery
© Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology, 2006
© Lithuanian Institute of History, 2006
© Article authors, 2006
© Klaipėda University Press, 2006
ISSN 1392-5520
Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla
ARCHAEOLOGIA BALTICA 6
Klaipėda, 2006
SL 1335. 2006 09 28. Apimtis 27,5 sąl. sp. l. Tiražas 350 egz
Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, Herkaus Manto g. 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda
Tel. (8~46) 398 891, el. paštas: [email protected]
Spausdino spaustuvė „Petro Ofsetas“, Žalgirio g. 90, Vilnius
A RT I C L E S
Povilas Tebelškis, Rimantas Jankauskas. The Late Neolithic Grave at Gyvakarai in Lithuania
in the Context of Current Archaeological and Anthropological Knowledge............................................... 8
Bernd� Zich.
�� Neolithic Vehicle Tracks Superposed by Long-Barrow LA 3, Flintbek, North Germany................22
Algimantas Merkevičius. The Vaškai Hoard.. .......................................................................................... 32
Sebastian Brather. Zwischen „Fluchtburg“ und „Herrensitz“. Sozialgeschichtliche Interpretationen früh- und
hochmittelalterlicher Burgwälle in Ostmitteleuropa........................................................................................40
BALTICA 6
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................6
ARCHAELOGIA
CONTENTS
Marina Smirnova. Pole Constructions in Open Air Ritual Areas of the Northern Sambia
in the First Millenium AD................................................................................................................................58
Andris Šne. The Economy and Social Power in the Late Prehistoric Chiefdoms of Eastern Latvia............................68
Oleg Proshkin. The Question of the Heterogeneous Population of the Upper Oka
and the Upper Desna Region in the Middle Ages..............................................................................................80
Vladas Žulkus. Kurland. Die Grenzen und die nordlichen Landschaften in 8.-13. Jahrhundert..........................88
��
Gurly Vedru. Prehistoric Human Settlement in the Lower Reaches of the River Jägala...........................................104
Heidi Luik & Ülle Tamla. Small Bone Spades: Used Material, Processing Technology,
and Possible Function.................................................................................................................................. 112
Audronė Bliujienė. Some Notes on Curonian Women’s Bead Sets with Bronze Spacer Plates in
their Headbands, Headdresses Made of Cloth and Unaccountable Ware during the Viking Age
and Early Medieval Times........................................................................................................................... 126
Ilona Vaškevičiūtė. A New Type of Bronze Pins in Eastern Baltic........................................................................144
Vladimir I. Kulakow. Die Runen des Samlands: Funde Saison 2001..................................................................152
Krista Sarv. Medieval Leather Footwear from Tallinn.....................................................................................158
Vytautas Kazakevičius. Riders of Žąsinas (Classification of Spurs from Viking Period and Early
Middle Ages on the Basis of Material from Žąsinas Cemetery)....................................................................166
Birutė Salatkienė. The Reconstruction of Wells and Lime Bark Buckets from Lieporiai 1 Settlement............174
Mindaugas Brazauskas. The Dendrochronological Dating of Barrel Heads Finds from
the Second Part of 16th in Klaipeda / Memel..................................................................................................190
D I S C U SS I ONS
Tomas Ostrauskas. On the Genesis of Kunda Culture. A.Sorokin’s Hypothesis. Comments............................198
REVIEWS
Tomas Ostrauskas. A. Sorokin. Mesolithic culture of Butovo..........................................................................204
Kęstutis Katalynas. Vladas žulkus. Medieval klaipėda. Town and castle. Archaeology and history.............210
Ilona Vaškevičiūtė. Mindaugas Bertašius. Central Lithuania in the Eighth to the Twelfth Centuries................214
Vytautas Kazakevičius. Archaeologia Lituana...................................................................................................216
Vytautas Kazakevičius. M. Michelbertas. Corpus der Römischen Funde im
Europäischen Barbaricum. Litauen................................................................................................................218
Guidelines for authors ......................................................................................................................................220
Introduction
Introduction
Ten years have passed since the appearance of the
first volume of Archaeologia Baltica, an edition
that was conceived and edited by habil. dr. Vytautas
Kazakevičius (11.10.1953–7.9.2005). Five volumes
of Archaeologia Baltica were published during the
next decade. Starting with the sixth volume, Klaipėda
University Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and
Archaeology, in cooperation with the Lithuanian Institute of History, will become the editors and publishers
of this archaeological magazine, which is important to
both Lithuania and the entire Baltic region.
Until 2005, Vytautas Kazakevičius was the managing
editor of the magazine. The last volume of Archaeologia Baltica, which was ready in 2002, is being published just now. From the viewpoint of the editorial
board and the authors, the research articles are still
topical and are being published, with some exceptions,
as they were presented three years ago. The new editorial board has accepted several recently written articles. Three articles were omitted, as they have been
published in other scholarly journals. In this volume of
Archaeologia Baltica articles in German remain.
The new editorial board will strive to establish a close
dialogue between researchers, theoretical schools and
other different disciplines that represent the Baltic region, and will aspire to discuss problems that are important to archaeologists of the entire Baltic region.
The structure of the journal has been changed. Archaeologia Baltica will present original research articles,
reports, discussions, reviews, and comments on the latest research publications. Some volumes of Archaeologia Baltica will be designed for conference papers on
Baltic region archaeology.
This periodical, published in English twice a year,
will contain articles by Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian,
German, Polish and Russian archaeologists, and by archaeologists from other countries, with material from
different chronological periods, discussions on social
and economic phenomena of prehistoric societies, on
technological changes, and on the latest anthropological research of burial grounds.
The editors of Archaeologia Baltica are interested in
cooperation and invite archaeologists from all academic institutions and museums within the Baltic region to
contribute to this journal. This will stimulate the development of archaeology. Finally, by discussing and
expressing our views, we will contribute to the further
progress of archaeology, to the overall benefit of the
subject.
Archaeologia Baltica
Editorial board
The Late Neolithic Grave at
Gyvakarai in Lithuania
in the Context of Current
Archaeological and
Anthropological Knowledge
Povilas
Tebelškis,
R i m a n ta s
Jankauskas,
A RT I C L E S
T he L ate N e o lithic G rav e at G y vakarai
in L ith u ania in the C o nte x t o f C u rrent
A rchae o l o gical and A nthr o p o l o gical
K n o w ledge
POVILAS TEBELŠKIS, Rimantas Jankauskas
Abstract
The paper discusses a rare archaeological and anthropological find – a Late Neolithic grave, found in the year 2000 in Gyvakarai village (Kupiškis region). The site was discovered by chance, when local inhabitants were digging gravel from the
slope on the left bank of the Žvikė creek. Radiocarbon dating (two separate samples of bone analysed): 3745±70 bp (right
tibia, Ki-9470) and 3710±80 bp (left ulna, Ki-9471) confirmed the initial supposition of Late Neolithic, and actually falls
to the very end of this period. The following grave goods associated with the inhumation were found: boat-shaped polished
stone axe with shaft-hole; hafted axe, produced from flint of a greyish colour; a blade-knife, produced from flint of a greyish
colour; a hammer-headed bone (antler?) pin, found among disturbed bones of the burial (to our knowledge this is the first
hammer headed pin in Lithuania).
The osteological analysis of the burial revealed that the bones belonged to one fragmentary skeleton. Bone fragments are well
preserved, and were from parts of the skull vault, both maxillas, the right side of the mandible, five cervical, twelve thoracic,
five lumbar vertebrae, fragments of ribs, the handle of the sternum, both clavicles and scapulae, humeri, ulnae, right radius,
right and left hand bones, fragments of both coxal bones, femora, tibias, fibulas and bones of the feet. The skeleton belonged
to an adult male that died at the age of 35-45 years. The skull vault was too fragmentary for measurement, visually it can be
evaluated as hypermorphic, dolichocranic, with an average or even a broad face. The postcranial skeleton is hypermorphic,
with marked muscle insertions. The reconstructed stature is 173-176 cm. Such a massive skeleton is typical of other Lithuanian Corded Ware/Boat Axe culture people, and similar to those found in Estonia, Prussia and later the Fatyanovo people from
the Central Russian plain.
This new case forces us to revive the long-lasting discussions about the origins of Indo-Europeans and the Balts. Summarising the current empirical facts and hypotheses based on archaeological, linguistic, anthropological and genetic data, we can
find support for both migration and acculturation models. All known Corded Ware/Boat Axe burials in Lithuania are singular,
contain individuals of adult/mature age, are associated with a particular set of grave goods and characterised by a very specific
phenotype – these facts would support the hypothesis of immigration. However, some facts would also speak for the acculturation hypothesis: probably the adoption of the Indo-European language was earlier, via cultural transfer, and migrants of
Kurgan people already found communities with whom they could communicate. However, they left no significant impact on
the local anthropological substrate.
Key words: Late Neolithic, Corded Ware/Boat Axe culture, migration model, acculturation model, grave.
Introduction
The area of the eastern Baltic shore is a place of longterm interactions between various cultures and people. These interactions can be analysed from different
points of view, as the history of “ethnos” and “population” takes place in at least three autonomous and only
partially overlapping arenas: 1) biogenetic (history of
the gene pool), the object of bioarchaeology, physical
anthropology and population genetics; 2) ethnocultural
(the history of a material culture, here seen as the infrastructure, technologies, productive activities and
adaptive strategies [Harris 1997]), as much as it can be
derived by archaeological methods; 3) linguistic, with
its corresponding methods. Thus the solution of ethnocultural and linguistic problems will not be complete if
the biogenetic arena is not taken into account, and vice
versa. In contemporary archaeology, various schools
and traditions of interpretation and explanation of archaeological artefacts and their assemblages have been
developed. The need for the theory is based on the need
to sort out a plethora of archaeological facts.
Despite the many arguments and examples to the contrary, archaeologists, linguists and geneticists alike
continue to identify genetically separate populations,
with their own separate languages, material cultures
and ethnic identities as single units and norms, rather
than exceptions. The recognition of one separate phe-
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. The situation plan of the
Late Neolithic
grave in the village of Gyvakarai
nomenon (usually linguistic) sets off a search for the
presence of others (Zvelebil 1995). Such a simplistic
approach has its roots in the Romantic nationalism of
the 19th century. Modern anthropology (in the broadest sense) rejects the normative view of archaeological
culture. Different pots do not necessarily symbolise
different people. The researcher must avoid overemphasising his own methods and finds. While working
in his field, he must also take into account patterns of
development in the gene pool, the material culture and
language. We cannot assume a straightforward correlation between gene flow and the material culture
pattern, nor one between material and non-material
aspects of culture (Zvelebil 1998). Genetic analyses of
living European populations, for example, show gross
discrepancies between the genetic and linguistic affinities of a region’s population (Guglielmino et al 1990)
and provide evidence that genetic diversity is influenced more by geography than language (Rosser et al
2000). Thus, each particular find should be analysed in
a broad context.
This paper is devoted to a rare archaeological and anthropological find, a Late Neolithic grave, found in 2000
in the village of Gyvakarai in the Kupiškis region.
Archaeological finds
The site was discovered by accident, when local inhabitants were digging gravel from a slope on the left bank
of Žvikė creek (Fig. 1). During this, some bones and a
stone axe were found, but the grave was disturbed. Later, when professional archaeologists arrived at the site,
it was impossible to determine the direction and position of the body and the position of the axe. An area of
50 square metres was investigated, and the rest of the
human bones, as well as some extra artefacts, were collected. Radiocarbon dating (two separate samples of
bone were analysed) 3745±70 bp (right tibia, Ki-9470)
and 3710±80 bp (left ulna, Ki-9471) confirmed the initial supposition of Late Neolithic, and actually falls at
the very end of this period.
The following burial items associated with the inhumation were found:
Archaeological and
Povilas
Tebelškis,
R i m a n ta s
Jankauskas,
1. A stone axe, boat-shaped, with a shaft-hole, symmetrical, polished, and produced from dark, finegrained stone. The length of the axe is 15 centimetres,
the biggest width 5.5 centimetres, the blade width 3.5
centimetres, the shaft-hole diameter 2.3 centimetres,
the measurements of the butt 2.8×3.2 centimetres. The
precise position in the grave is unknown, according to
the words of the initial discoverer, it was located near
the head (Fig. 2).
2. A hafted axe, produced from flint of a greyish colour. The height is 6.3 centimetres, the width at the butt
2.3 centimetres, at the blade 3.3 centimetres, maximum
breadth 1.2 to 1.3 centimetres. The butt is of a quadrangular shape, 2.2×1.0 centimetres, the blade slightly
convex. The precise position in the grave is unknown
(Fig. 2).
3. A blade-knife, produced from flint of a greyish colour. The length is 8.6 centimetres, maximum breadth
3.3 centimetres, triangular in cross-section, slightly
convex. The sides of the blade are chipped (Fig. 2).
4. A bone (antler?) pin, found among the disturbed
bones of the burial. Broken into two pieces. The total
length is 12.3 centimetres, the head length 2.8 centimetres, the width 0.46 centimetres, with an oval-shaped
knob at one end. The upper part contains a hole (0.52
10
Fig. 3. Hammerheaded pins:
1 Gromovo (Hohenbruch);
2 Bischofsburg
(both former East
Prussia); 3 Biskupiec (Poland);
4 Chuderice (Czech
Republic); 5 Vinelz
(Switzerland);
6 Denmark;
7 Novosiolki
(Ukraine);
8 Ivachny
(Ukraine);
9 Novochernomorye (Ukraine);
10-11 Chanev;
12 Voronkovo
(both Russia)
Fig. 2. Inventory of the grave
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 4. Grave 3 in the
Voronkovo burial ground
(Yaroslavl area) and its
inventory
Fig. 5. Burials of Corded
Ware/Boat Axe culture in
Lithuania: 1 Meškos galva;
2 Alksnynė; 3 Juodkrantė;
4 Kurmaičiai; 5 Lankupiai;
6 Šakyna; 7 Grinkiškis;
8 Plinkaigalis; 9 Veršvai;
10 Paštuva; 11 Spiginas;
12 Gyvakarai
centimetres in diameter). The diameter of the needle
near the head is 0.6 to 0.9 centimetres, in the middle
0.7 centimetres, and near the blunt tip 0.7 centimetres.
The surface of the pin is polished (Fig. 2). The posi-
tion in the grave remains obscure. To our knowledge,
this is the first hammer-headed pin found in Lithuania. The closest analogies of such pins (Fig. 3) are in
today’s Kaliningrad region and Poland: single pins of
Ta b l e 1 . R a d i o c a r b o n d a t e d L i t h u a n i a n L a t e N e o l i t h i c C o r d e d Wa r e / B o a t A x e b u r i a l s
Site
Sex, age
Plinkaigalis 241
F, mature
Dating (uncalibrated),
years bp
4030±55 (OxA-5928)
Calibrated dating
(BC ± 1 σ) (Girininkas 2002)
2620-2470
Plinkaigalis 242
F, mature
4280±75 (OxA-5936)
2920-2880
Spiginas 2
Gyvakarai
M, 50-55
M, 35-45
4080±50 (GIN-5571)
3745±70 (Ki-9470),
3710±80 (Ki-9471)
2880-2470
2281-2035
2269-1977
Author
Butrimas, Kazakevičius 1985;
��
C14 – Ramsey et al 2000
Butrimas, Kazakevičius 1985;
��
C14 – Ramsey et al 2000
Butrimas 1992
11
Archaeological and
Povilas
Tebelškis,
R i m a n ta s
Jankauskas,
Fig. 6. Skeleton inventory of the Late Neolithic grave in the village of Gyvakarai
12
such a type were found in Gromovo (Hohenbruch),
Bischofsburg (Gimbutas 1956) and Biskupiec (Okulicz 1973). Similar pins are known from Denmark
(Gimbutas 1956), the Czech Republic, Switzerland
(Behrens 1952), Ukraine (Artemenko 1967, Latynin
1967), burials of Fatyanovo culture (Khanevo, Voronkovo) in the Moscow and Yaroslavl areas, where
some graves (eg Voronkovo 3) contain a very similar
inventory as in our case (a stone axe with a shaft hole,
a hafted axe, a blade-knife and a hammer-headed pin,
plus two ceramic vessels and a heavily eroded bone
instrument) (Fig. 4) (Krainov, Gadziatskaya 1987). All
these burials are dated approximately to the middle of
the second quarter of the second millennium BC. But
the highest number of such hammer-headed pins (over
100) comes from the territory north of the Black Sea
and the northern Caucasus. Latynin (1987) considers
that these pins (manufactured not from bone, but from
elk or deer antlers) should be associated with Yamna
(Kurgan, according to Gimbutas) culture and dated
to the second half of the third millennium BC. Thus,
the hammer-headed pin from Gyvakarai fits well into
Anthropological data
The osteological analysis of the burial revealed that the
bones belonged to one fragmented skeleton (Fig. 6).
The bone fragments are well preserved, and were from
parts of the skull vault, both maxillas, the right side of
the mandible, five cervical, twelve thoracic, five lumbar vertebrae, fragments of ribs, the handle of the sternum, both clavicles and scapulae, humeri, ulnae, the
right radius, the right and left hand bones, fragments
of both coxal bones, femora, tibias, fibulas and bones
of the feet. The skeleton belonged to an adult male
(according to the morphology of the pelvic bones and
skull), that died at the age of 35 to 45 years (according
to the pubic symphysis, cranial suture closure and dental wear). The skull vault was too fragmented for measurement; visually it can be evaluated as hypermorphic,
dolichocranic, with an average or even a broad face.
The postcranial skeleton is hypermorphic, with marked
muscle insertions. The reconstructed stature is 173 to
176 centimetres (Table 2).
Such a massive skeleton is typical of other Lithuanian
Corded Ware/Boat Axe culture people (see also Table
2). This very specific phenotype of the Corded Ware/
Boat Axe bearers (extreme hypermorphy, pronounced
dolichocrany, a high, broad and strongly profiled face,
and robust body build), is characteristic of Spiginas 2,
Plinkaigalis 241 and 242 individuals, (Česnys 1985a),
and similar to those found in Estonia (Mark 1956),
Prussia (for summary, see Česnys 1991a, 1991b,
1991c), and later Fatyanovo people from the Central
Russian plain. This type has no precedent in this area
(Early Neolithic Kretuonas 1B male average stature is
only 157.9 cm, and Early and Late Bronze Age from
Kirsna-Turlojiškės is 165.8
��
cm).
Measurement
1
6
1
2
4
5
6
7
7a
10
1
2
3
4
5
5(6)
Gyvakarai
(M, 35-45)
Right
Left
Clavicula
174
40
Humerus
347
342
64
26
26
20
19
69
69
76
77
51
Radius
Spiginas 2
(M, 50-55)
Right
Left
22
19
66
72
269
253
41
45
19
12
BALTICA 6
The uniqueness of the Gyvakarai find is illustrated by
the fact that till now in Lithuania only 12 such supposedly Late Neolithic Corded Ware/Boat Axe burial
places with 21 graves are known (Fig. 5) (Butrimas,
Kazakevičius 1985;
��
Girininkas 2002)��
. Unfortunately,
some of them, found in the 19th and first half of the
20th centuries, are known only from descriptions, and a
new analysis of these archaeological and anthropological finds, especially radiocarbon dating, is impossible.
The most recent and radiocarbon dated ones are from
Plinkaigalis and Spiginas, thus Gyvakarai is the fourth
and the latest dated Late Neolithic grave in Lithuania (Table 1). Fourteen Neolithic Corded Ware/Boat
Axe culture burial places with 44 graves are known in
Latvia (Grasis 1996; Girininkas 2002) and 20, with 40
graves, in Estonia (Girininkas 2002).
Ta b l e 2 . M e a s u r e m e n t s ( a c c o r d i n g t o M a rtin, Saller 1957) of postcranial skeletons
o f t w o N e o l i t h i c C o r d e d Wa r e / B o a t A x e
culture male graves
ARCHAELOGIA
the area of Kurgan culture expansion, and such finds
should be considered as (proto) Indo-European.
44
18
13
13
34
Ulna
1
2
3
11
12
13
14
39
15
19
21
29
40
16
20
285
241
38
14
19
21
29
37
Femur
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
18
19
20
478
474
32
8
8a
9
9a
10
10b
Stature (TrotterGleser), cm
Stature
(Nainys), cm
33
36
29
48
28
27
88
34
25
49
49
156
28
28
88
34
26
33
39
22
23
90
32
40
22
23
89
86
Tibia
22
88
79
77
176,3
180,2
172,7
179,0
13
Archaeological and
Povilas
Tebelškis,
R i m a n ta s
Jankauskas,
Discussion
This new Gyvakarai grave forces us to revive the longlasting discussions about the origins of the Indo-Europeans and the Balts that have continued for the last
150 years. At least three hypotheses of Indo-European
dispersal in the eastern Baltic, combining mostly archaeological, anthropological and genetic data, should
be taken into consideration.
Hypothesis 1 (Adams, Otte 1999). Hunter-gatherer
colonisation. The primary cause of the Indo-European
spread was oscillations in the climate, each of which
would have been capable of causing changes in population density. Intense cold and dry phases caused population contraction in some areas and low population
densities or almost complete depopulation. A transition
to a warmer and moister climate could be followed by
exponential expansion. Any population group that acquired both general adaptive cultural traits and technologies enabling its expansion could spread rapidly
to areas relatively free of other hunter-gatherer groups
and to make a substantial contribution to the gene pool
and linguistic legacy of Europe. At least three possible
periods of such climate change can be traced.
1a. Late Glacial (c. 15,000–10,000 BP). A gradual colonisation of the ice-free areas of northern Europe during this period occurred, with most migrations taking
place during the Late Glacial Bolling (12,800–12,000
BP) and especially Allerod (11,800–11,000 BP) interstadials, when environmental conditions in most of
northern Eurasia were particularly mild. Anthropological finds from this period are scarce. However, Late
Palaeolithic individuals from both the Last Glacial
Maximum and Recession (c. 23,000–15,000 BP) and
the Late Glacial in Central and Eastern Europe (Sungir, Dolní Věstonice, Předmosti, Maszycka, Kostenki)
almost everywhere are quite uniformly hypermorphic,
dolichocranic, with average or wide flattened faces and
robust body build (Alekseev 1978; Gochman 1986;
Vlček, Klima 1986). We can speculate about the low
intensity gene flow between small mobile hunter-gatherer groups because of their small population size and
similar modes of subsistence, causing a uniformity of
anthropological traits. Adaptations to a cold environment also cannot be excluded. Population genetic data
on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (Richards et al 1996;
Lell, Wallace 2000) points out that the great majority
(70%–80%) of modern European lineages are derived
even before this period, during the initial colonisation
of Europe that started c. 45,000 BP.
1b. The transition to the warm and moist Holocene
period after the Younger Dryas cold event (10,800–
10,000 BP) was especially impactful on both the en-
14
vironment and humans. “… changes from a mild climate to full glacial and from glacial back to something
similar to the present took place within a few decades.
The warming may not even have required more than
20 years” (Lundqvist 1996). This could have caused a
complete or almost complete depopulation in northern
and Central Europe during the Younger Dryas, and an
inflow of population at the subsequent beginning of the
Holocene, which also corresponds to the beginning of
the Mesolithic. Archaeologically, noticeable changes
in more effective technologies (microlithic stone tools,
more individual hunting in forests with the bow and
arrow, intensive fishing) (Antropologicheskiye tipy,
1988) are noteworthy, as they might have led directly
to a population wave. The Mesolithic saw a gradual
increase in population size, more settled communities
and the development of a more complex social structure and ideology (O’Shea, Zvelebil 1984; Dolukhanov
1997; Zvelebil 1998). Although the Mesolithic should
not be treated as a homogeneous entity, classic anthropological data related to the Mesolithic in general
noted a certain trend towards gracilisation: hypermassive dolichocranic people with broad flat faces were
replaced by more gracile dolichocranic, with narrower
and more profiled faces (Vasilyevka 1 and 3) or mesocranic flat-faced people (eg Zveinieki, Oleniy Ostrov,
Janislawice). Two Lithuanian (Late) Mesolithic individuals, (Spiginas 4, Donkalnis 4) fit into the range
of the second complex (Butrimas 1992; Antanaitis,
Jacobs in Ramsey et al 2000). Some investigators have
suggested eastern immigrations already in the tenth
to eighth millennia BP (Denisova 1975), resulting in
metisation with the Mongoloid stem. However, other
morphological peculiarities, including odontometry,
contradict this opinion (Balčiūnienė et al 1992) and
support regionalisation due to the development of more
localised mating networks (Petersen 1997). Jacobs
(1992) presents strong arguments for the presence of
at least two quasi-isolated human mating networks in
Mesolithic northern Europe. Population genetic analyses mtDNA of recent populations, to our knowledge,
have not been able to trace any significant Mesolithic
migrations (Simoni et al 2000), although this statement
is being discussed (Torroni et al 2001).
1c. Finally, a less severe cold and dry event corresponding to the “elm decline” in north-west and north central
Europe c. 5,200 or 5,000 BP (Behre 1988; Regnell et al
1995) with a subsequent warmer and moister climate
period than today. In this case, the hunter-gatherer population wave could be supplemented with a slower one
of early farmers. This potential event overlaps partially
with Hypothesis 2.
2b. The acculturation model (Zvelebil 1995; Zvelebil
1998). According to this hypothesis, the indigenous
forager population acquires farming techniques, along
with plant and animal domesticates, mostly by contact
through trade and exchange. In this case, spatial distribution of allele frequencies does not predict clines.
The demic diffusion model in Europe and the Near
East is supported by the data of many gene frequencies – nearly half of the alleles studied show clinal patterns (Barbujani et al 1994), which may reflect regularities related to the origin of agriculture in Europe
(Sokal 1991). On the other hand, classic craniometry
does not provide data supporting the demic diffusion
hypothesis (Harding et al 1990). Recent investigations
of mitochondrial and Y chromosome polymorphisms
have fuelled further discussion. The data of Richards et
al (1996), based on mtDNA, points out that the major
extant lineages throughout Europe predate the Neolithic expansion and that the spread of agriculture was
accompanied by only a relatively minor component of
contemporary Middle East agriculturists (only ~12%
in north and north-central Europe), thus supporting the
acculturation, or the technology transfer, hypothesis.
Data obtained by new methods, taken separately, often
brings more confusion, instead of elucidating the problem of Indo-European origins. So, where is the truth,
and who is right? In our opinion, both demic diffusion
and acculturation may have been in operation, when
generalisations are avoided. Zvelebil’s “Neolithic creolisation” hypothesis (1995) is a good synthesis of
both. It envisages three stages of Indo-European dispersal in Neolithic Europe:
A. The introduction of agro-pastoral farming to Europe
from Anatolia, which took place in 8,000–6,000 BP,
B. Adoption of farming by indigenous hunter-gatherers
via contact-induced language shift c. 6,500–4,000 BP.
The farming economy was adopted and modified by
the needs of indigenous hunter-gatherer communities.
This stage’s duration is uneven chronologically and regionally, lasting some 2,500 years or longer on the panEuropean scale. Zvelebil (1995) argues that the adoption of an Indo-European language as a lingua franca
was probably the most common course of events. The
language of farmers, as the language of innovation and
desired resources, would have enjoyed prestige status.
This mode of change probably took place in the circum-Baltic area, as the mapping of the agro-pastoral
spread, according to archaeological data, points to very
gradual changes in subsistence patterns and suggests
similar changes in the gene pool of the first farmers
(Zvelebil 1998). Traces of Globular Amphora culture
settlements in Lithuania (Brazaitis 2002; Rimantienė
2002) from the middle of the third millennium BC
prove the presence of a long-lasting frontier of interaction between agricultural and foraging modes of subsistence. Indeed,
��
it took about 1,500 years for the agricultural frontier to shift from southwest Lithuania to
southern Finland, and an extra 1,000 years to Karelia.
The transition itself was also very gradual. The availability phase, when farming is known to foraging groups
and there is an exchange of materials and information
between foragers and farmers, by presently published
data, took about 1,500–2,000 years in western Lithuania, (c. 6,600–4,400 BP), embracing all Early and Middle Neolithic (Daugnora, Girininkas 1996). In eastern
Lithuania and central Latvia, the availability phase
continued up to 3,800–3,600 BP, including also all the
Late Neolithic. The process was indeed diachronic, uneven and long-lasting, and it is no wonder that it causes
discussions on chronology among archaeologists.
The burial pattern in the Spiginas site supports the concept of a gradual change of cultures: in the Spiginas
site, four graves were unearthed in a 420-square-metre
area. Two of them are attributed to Late Mesolithic:
grave 3 – 7780+/-65 years bp (OxA-5925); grave 4 –
7470+/-60 years bp (GIN-5571), the distance between
the graves is one metre. But grave 1’s date is Middle
Neolithic, 5020+/-200 years bp (GIN-5569); and grave
BALTICA 6
2a. Renfrew’s (1987) language-farming hypothesis.
According to this, farming was introduced to Europe
from Anatolia by immigrant farmers or demic diffusion some 8,000 years ago, and those farmers, who
were the original proto-Indo-European speakers, colonised most of Europe. Major technological advances
and the transition to farming caused an increase in production and population growth, which in turn fuelled
the need for the colonisation of new habitats. The
“wave of advance” model requires only local migratory movement (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994). This model
does not exclude a limited admixture of the indigenous
hunter-gatherer population; however, the spread of
farming and languages from the Near East should have
determined clines in gene pools, defined by languages
(Barbujani et al 1994).
occurred essentially in the same way as postulated by
Renfrew for the whole of Europe. Language dispersal
during this stage would occur through replacement
by demic diffusion into the cultural provinces of the
Balkan Neolithic, the Linear Pottery and the Tripolye
cultures. Recent data on mtDNA also proves Neolithic
demic diffusion only in southern, but not northern Europe (Simoni et al 2000), as the frequencies of Neolithic haplogroups were lowest in Scandinavia (Lell,
Wallace 2000).
ARCHAELOGIA
Hypothesis 2. Neolithisation. Two hypotheses that relate the Indo-European spread due to this process are
known.
15
Archaeological and
Povilas
Tebelškis,
R i m a n ta s
Jankauskas,
16
Hypothesis 3. Kurgan culture migrations (Childe 1950;
Gimbutas 1980). According to this model, in the midfourth millennium BC, the indigenous Late Neolithic
communities in the forest-steppe between the Dnieper
and the Volga and the surrounding areas developed
horse riding skills and concentrated on the pastoral element of the Neolithic economy. These developments
provided an economic rationale for dispersal. The addition of wheeled transport from about 3000 BC increased the mobility of these groups, and created conditions radically different from before. In contact with
more sedentary agriculturists, nomadic pastoralists are
known to assume the role of the social elite, thus enabling another Indo-European language dispersal stage,
the elite dominance stage (Zvelebil 1995). Cultural and
linguistic data points to this way of Indo-European dispersal into Central Asia and back to southeast Europe.
day’s gene pool (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994) and largely
reflect the Neolithic expansion (Barbujani et al 1995),
archaeological and anthropological data often suggests
the opposite. A very specific phenotype of Corded
Ware/Boat Axe bearers (extreme hypermorphy, pronounced dolichocrany, high, broad and strongly profiled face and robust body build) is characteristic of
Spiginas 2, Plinkaigalis 241 and 242 and Gyvakarai individuals. Till now, the immigrant character of Corded
Ware/Boat Axe bearers was insufficiently disputed. It
is possible to suppose that the newcomers were not so
numerous to change the gene pool of the autochthonous
population (Butrimas, Česnys 1990). Probably, these
nomads often acted as trade intermediators and could
be more or less integrated into local communities (Girininkas 2002). In western Lithuania, the hybridisation
of local Narva early farmers and foragers and Corded
Ware/Boat Axe bearers resulted in the synthetic Baltic Coastal (Pamarių, Rzucewo, Baltic Haff) culture. If
the assumption that other Donkalnis graves are indeed
Late Neolithic is proven, we will also have an example
of the metisation of those people. In eastern Lithuania, pre-Corded Ware traditions were stronger and existed through all the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age
(Rimantienė 1996). No wonder that Girininkas (1996)
comes to the conclusion that Baltic culture reaches
back to Mesolithic times. Other researchers have also
recently disputed the purely immigrant character of
Corded Ware/Boat Axe culture and its bearers and propose new models, taking into account the relatively
broad dispersal of available radiocarbon dates and
stressing the autochthonous developments of subsistence and settlement patterns, society and ideology, and
not uniform craniometric features (Lang 1998). In contrast with “classic” genetic markers and mtDNA data,
the diversity of the Y chromosome points to a much
stronger pre-Indo-European substrate among contemporary Lithuanians and Latvians, thus diminishing
the contribution of Kurgan migrations: haplogroup 16
(Tat C allele) frequencies among Lithuanians (47%)
and Latvians (32%) are closer to Estonians (37%) and
Finns (61%), than to Ukrainians (11%), Poles (4%),
Byelorussians (2%) and Czechs (0%) (Rootsi et al
2000; Rosser et al 2000).
In the eastern Baltic, these migrants are associated
with Corded Ware/Boat Axe Culture and its bearers,
and their arrival is dated about 2400 to 2000 BC. This
roughly coincides with the beginning of the Late Neolithic, or substitution phase. This would mean that the
wave of agricultural spread (by acculturation or demic
diffusion) was reached by the second wave, Boat Axe
people migrations. Although population genetic data
of extant European populations reveals only a slight
impact of supposed Kurgan culture migrations in to-
This way notwithstanding, long-lasting discussions
about the homeland of Indo-Europeans and their emergence in the eastern Baltic still go on. Thus, when a
problem has remained unresolved for so long, and all
the time new hypotheses are created, it seems that we
are dealing with a methodological crisis of serious difficulty (Mallory 1996). It becomes evident that each
discipline involved (first linguistics, later archaeology
and classic physical anthropology, and recently population genetics, including DNA studies) after the initial
2 – 4080+/-120 bp (GIN-5570), and attributed to Late
Neolithic (Butrimas 1992).
A comparison of Lithuanian Mesolithic (Spiginas 3
and 4, Donkalnis 4) and Early Neolithic (Kretuonas
1B) skeletal material does not show any dramatic
changes in people’s physique (in both cases, mesomorphic mesocranic middle to broad face Europids with
short stature and brachymorphic body build) (Česnys
1985b; Balčiūnienė et al 1992). However, odontometric data indicates a slight reduction of the teeth size (in
the frame of the same massive Central European type)
(Balčiūnienė 1985; Balčiūnienė et al 1992). It suggests
that we should not suspect any substantial changes in
the gene pool, and the above-mentioned slight dental
reduction could be explained by the well-established
general processes of gracilisation during the transition
to Neolithic (Calcagno, Gibson 1988). This way the
majority of current data supposes a cultural rather than
demic diffusion of agriculture during at least the Early/
Middle Neolithic, or availability phase, till about 2000
BC. Lithuanian data also supports Zvelebil’s opinion
that hunter-gatherers of the coastal and lakeshore zone
were better equipped demographically and technologically to interact with the farming communities on an
equal basis than the more mobile groups of the continental interior.
Concluding remarks
Summarising the current empirical facts and hypotheses based on archaeological, linguistic, anthropological and genetic data, we can find support for both migration and acculturation models. All known Corded
Ware/Boat Axe burials in Lithuania are singular, contain individuals of adult/mature age, are associated
with a particular set of grave goods, and are characterised by a very specific phenotype. These facts would
support the immigration hypothesis. A stable isotope
analysis of Linearbandkeramik people in Central Europe (5200 to 5000 BC) proves that a number of individuals even 2,000 years earlier could migrate to
different locations during their life (Price et al 2001).
BALTICA 6
However, some facts would also speak for the acculturation hypothesis: the Spiginas 2 individual was buried in the same site as two Mesolithic and one Middle
Neolithic individual, pointing to the use of the same
site for inhumations for around 3000 years (!); genetic
data of extant populations in Lithuania and Latvia does
not contain any evident traces of a substantial inflow
of immigrants, and their gene pool has more affinities
with the pre-Indo-European substrate. An analysis of
zooarchaeological finds (Daugnora, Girininkas 1996)
and nutrition based on stable isotope analysis (Antanaitis, Ogrinc 2000) proves a very gradual transition
to an agricultural mode of subsistence. Probably, the
adoption of the Indo-European language was earlier,
via cultural transfer, and Kurgan migrants already
found communities with whom they could communicate. However, they left no significant impact on the
local anthropological substrate.
ARCHAELOGIA
stage of enthusiasm later faces these difficulties. First
of all, the possibilities and limits of each approach
should be clearly realised, and also that they are dealing with relatively independent processes. Concerning
archaeology and linguistics, a conflict for primacy between these two fields exists. There is no way in which
an archaeological record can be read as a clear expression of a linguistic entity. On the other hand, when linguists wish to place their reconstructions in real time
and space, they are at the mercy of other disciplines
(Mallory 1996). The same can also be applied to physical anthropology, with its own methodological difficulties (the opposition between typological and evolutionary approaches), as well as for genetic studies of recent
populations: we have no reliable means to track the
genealogies of individuals back to such a deep past.
Many recent gene pools can be affected by later migrations. We have to wait for the analysis of ancient
DNA from sufficient samples of Mesolithic/Neolithic
populations for more conclusive results. Another major
problem would be the as clear as possible elucidation
of all cultural patterns and variables: the availability of
resources, subsistence strategies, technological skills,
exchange patterns, artefact function (both direct and
symbolic), the social context of production, status and
prestige, mobility patterns, descent, residence and marriage rules, etc (Zvelebil 1998). These cultural variables
influence to a great extent the biological characteristics
of a population (density, life expectancy, reproduction rates, morbidity and possible vectors of selection,
mating networks) that are reflected in the gene pool of
the population. This implies an inter-disciplinary approach, and close collaboration between different disciplines. As we have tried to summarise in our report,
what is true for one arena, does not necessarily work in
another. Thus we have no grounds to reject any of the
hypotheses discussed; it just depends which approach,
biogenetic, cultural or linguistic, is given priority.
Translated by Rimantas Jankauskas
References
Adams, J., Otte, M. 1999. Did Indo-European Languages
Spread Before Farming? In: Current Anthropology 40,
73–77.
Alekseev, V.P. 1978. Paleoantropologija zemnogo šara i
formirovanije čelovečeskich ras. Paleolit. Moskva, Nauka.
Antanaitis, I., Ogrinc, N. 2000. Chemical analysis of bone:
stable isotope evidence of the diet of Neolithic and Bronze
Age people in Lithuania. Lietuvos aukštųjų mokyklų
mokslo darbai. Istorija� XLV,
��
Vilnius, 3��
–��
15.
Antropologičeskije tipy drevnego naselenija na territorii
SSSR 1988. Zubov A.A. (Ed.). Moskva: Nauka.
Artemenko, I.I. 1967. Plemena verchnego i srednego Podneprovja v epochu bronzy. Moskva.
Balčiūnienė, I. 1985. Kretuono 1-os gyvenvietės vidurinio
neolito kapai. Odontologiniai duomenys. In: Lietuvos archeologija 4, Vilnius, 12–14.
Balčiūnienė, I. Česnys, G., Jankauskas, R. 1992. ��
Spigino
mezolito kapų kraniometrija, odontologija, osteometrija ir
paleopatologija. In:
�� LA 8, Vilnius, 10–16.
Barbujani, G., Pilastro, A., Domenico, S. de, Renfrew C.
1994. Genetic Variation in North Africa and Eurasia: Neolithic Demic Diffusion vs. Paleolithic Colonisation. In:
Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 95, 137–154.
Barbujani, G., Sokal, R.R., Oden, N.L. 1995. Indo-European
Origins: A Computer-Simulation Test of Five Hypotheses.
In: Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 96, 109–132.
Behre, K.-E. 1988. The Role of Man in European Vegetation
History. In: Huntley, B. Webb, T. (Eds.). Vegetation History. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 635–672.
Behrens, H., 1952. Ein neolithisches Bechergrab aus Mitteldeutschland mit beinerner Hammer-kopfnadel und
Kupfergeräten. In: Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte. Bd. 36. Halle, S 62.
Brazaitis, Dž. 2002. Rutulinių amforų kultūra Lietuvoje –
reiškinys ar epizodas? Lietuvos archeologija 23, 29��
–��
40.
Butrimas, A. 1992. Spigino mezolito kapai. LA 8, 4��
–��
10.
17
Archaeological and
Povilas
Tebelškis,
R i m a n ta s
Jankauskas,
18
Butrimas, A. Česnys, G. 1990. ��
The Emergence of the Pamarių
(Baltic Coastal) Group of Indo-Europeans According to
Archaeological and Anthropological Data. In: The Journal
of Indo-European Studies 18, 359–377.
Butrimas, A., Kazakevičius, V. 1985.
��
Ankstyvieji virvelinės
keramikos kultūros kapai Lietuvoje. Archeologiniai tyri–��
19.
mai. In: LA 4, Vilnius, 14��
Calcagno, J.M., Gibson, K.R. 1988. ��
Human dental reduction:
Natural selection or or the probable mutation effect. In:
Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 77, 505–517.
Cavalli-Sforza, L., Menozzi, P., Piazza, A. 1994. The History
and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University
Press.
Childe, V.G. 1950. Prehistoric migrations in Europe. Oslo:
Aschelong.
Česnys, G. 1985a. Ankstyvieji virvelinės keramikos kultūros
kapai Lietuvoje. Antropologiniai tyrimai. In: LA 4,
Vilnius, 19–22.
Česnys, G. 1985b. Kretuono 1-os gyvenvietės vidurinio
neolito kapai. Antropologiniai tyrimai. In: LA 4, Vilnius,
9–13.
Česnys, G. 1991a. The Neolithic and Bronze Age man in
South-East Baltic Area. 1. An Inventory of recent and
old craniological materials from univariate viewpoint. In:
Homo 42, 1–20.
Česnys, G. 1991b. The Neolithic and Bronze Age man in
South-East Baltic Area. 2. Multivariate approach. In:
Homo 42, 130–149.
Česnys, G. 1991c. The Neolithic and Bronze Age man in
South-East Baltic Area. 3. An essay on the genesis of craniological types. In: Homo 42, 232–243.
Daugnora, L., Girininkas, A. 1996. Osteoarcheologija Lietuvoje. Vidurinysis ir vėlyvasis holocenas. Vilnius: Savastis.
Denisova, R.Ja. 1975. Antropologija drevnich baltov. Riga:
Zinatne.
Dolukhanov, P.M. 1997. The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Northern Eurasia: Environmental Changes and
Human Adaptations. In: Quaternary International 41/42,
181–191.
Gimbutas, M. 1956. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe. Mesolithik, Neolithik and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and
the Baltic Area. Cambridge.
Gimbutas, M. 1980. The Kurgan wave migrations (3400–
3200 B.C.) into Europe and the following transformation of
culture. In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8, 273–315.
Girininkas, A. 1996. The Narva culture and the Origin of
the Baltic culture. In: Jones-Bley K., Huld M.E. (Eds.).
The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Journal of
Indo-European Studies Monograph 17, 42–47.
Girininkas, A. 2002. Migraciniai procesai Rytų Pabaltijyje
vėlyvajame neolite. Virvelinės keramikos kultūra. In: LA
23, Vilnius, 73–92.
Gochman, I.I. 1986. Antropologičeskije osobennosti drevnego naselenija severa jevropeiskoi časti SSSR i puti ich
formirovanija. In: Gochman I.I., Kozintsev A.G. (Eds.).
Antropologija sovremennogo i drevnego naselenija jevropeiskoi časti SSSR. Leningrad: Nauka.
Grasis, N. 1996. Auklas keramikas kultūras apibedījumi Sarkanos un Selgās. In: Zinātniskās atskaites sesijas materiāli
par arheologu 1994 un 1995 gada pētījumu rezultātiem.
Rīga, 60–61.
Guglielmino, C.R., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P., Cavalli-Sforza,
L.L. 1990. Uralic Genes in Europe. In: Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 83, 57–68.
Harding, R.M., Rösing, F.W., Sokal, R.R. 1990. Cranial
measurements do not support Neolithization of Europe by
demic expansion. In: Homo 40, 45–58.
Harris, M. 1997, Culture, People, Nature: an Introduction to
General Anthropology, 7th ed. New York e.a.: Longman.
Jacobs, K. 1992. Human population differentiation in the
peri-Baltic Mesolithic: the odontometrics of Oleneostrovskii mogilnik (Karelia). In: Human Evolution 7, 33–48.
Krainov, D.A., Gadziatskaya, O.S. 1987. Fatjanovskaja
kul’tura. Jaroslavskoje
��
povolžje. In: Archeologija SSSR,
Moskva.
Lang, V. 1998. Some aspects of the Corded Ware Culture east
of the Baltic Sea. In: Julku, K., Wiik, K. (Eds.). The Roots
of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia I. Turku,
84–104.
Latynin, B.A. 1967. Molotočkoobraznyje bulavki, ich
atribucija i datirovka. In: Archeologičeskij sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, vyp. 9, Leningrad.
Lell, J.T., Wallace, D.C. 2000. The Peopling of Europe from
Maternal and Paternal Perspectives. In: Amer. J. Hum.
Genet. 67, 1376–1381.
Lundqvist, J. 1996. The Younger Dryas Cold Event and its
Consequences for Man. In: PACT 90, 71–81.
Mallory, J.P. 1996. The Indo-European Homeland Problem:
a matter of Time. In: Jones-Bley K., Huld M.E. (Eds.).
The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Journal of
Indo-European Studies Monograph 17, 1–22.
Mark, K. 1956. Paleoantropologija Estonskoi SSR. ��
In: Trudy
–��
228.
in-ta etnografii im. N.N. Miklucho-Maklaja 32, 170��
Martin, R., and Saller, K. 1957. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie.
Bd 1. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
O’Shea J., Zvelebil, M. 1984. Oleneostrovski mogilnik:
Reconstructing the Social and Economic Organization of
Prehistoric Foragers in Northern Russia. ��
In: Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 3, 1��
–��
40.
Okulicz, J. 1973. Pradzieje ziem Pruskich od póżnego paleolitu do VII w.n.e. Wroclaw etc.
Petersen, H.C. 1997. A discrimination analysis approach to
morphological regionalization in the European Late Mesolithic. In: Anthrop. Anz. 55, 33–42.
Price, T.D., Bentley, R.A., Lüning, J., Gronenborn, D., Wahl,
J. 2001. Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe. In: Antiquity 75, 593–603.
Ramsey, C.B., Pettitt, P.B., Hedges, R.E.M., Hodgins,
G.W.L., Owen, D.C. 2000. Radiocarbon dates from the
Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry datelist 29. Commentary on Lithuanian Stone Age grave dates by I.Antanaitis
and K.Jacobs. In: Archaeometry 42(1), 243–254.
Regnell, M., Gaillard, M.-J., Bartholin, T.S., Karsten, P.
1995. Reconstruction of Environment and History of Plant
Use During the Late Mesolithic (Ertebølle Culture)at the
Inland Settlement of Bökeberg III, Southern Sweden. In:
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4, 67–91.
Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of
Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd.
Richards, M., Côrte-Real, H., Forster, P., Macaulay, V.,
Wilkinson-Herbots, H., Demaine, A., Papiha, S., Hedges,
R., Baudet, H.-J., Sykes, B. 1996. Paleolithic and Neolithic Lineages in the European Mitochondrial Gene Pool. ��
In:
Amer. J. Hum. Genet. 59, 185��
–��
203.
Rimantienė, R. 1996. Akmens amžius Lietuvoje (2nd ed.). ��
Vilnius.
Rimantienė, R. 2002. Rutulinių amforų kultūra Vakarų Lietuvoje. In: Lietuvos archeologija ��
23, Vilnius, 41��
–��
50.
Rimantas Jankauskas
Department of Anatomy,
Histology and Anthropology
Faculty of Medicine
Vilnius University
Čiurlionio 21, LT2009 Vilnius,
e-mail: [email protected]
Received: 2002
Povilas Tebelškis, Rimantas Jankauskas
Santrauka
Etnoso ir populiacijos istoriją reikia nagrinėti atsižvelgiant į biogenetinių, materialinės kultūros ir lingvistinių procesų sąveiką. Šiuolaikinė antropologija pabrėžia
teorinių modelių svarbą siekiant susiorientuoti įvairių
faktų gausybėje. Archeologai, lingvistai ir genetikai neretai linkę pervertinti savo metodų reikšmę ir turimus
faktus nagrinėti izoliuotai, nors vis daugiau duomenų
liudija, kad ne visada galima nustatyti tiesioginius ryšius tarp biogenetinių procesų ir materialinės kultūros
vystymosi, taip pat tarp materialinių ir nematerialinių
kultūros pusių. Todėl kiekvienas naujas radinys turi
būti nagrinėjamas tokiame plačiame kontekste.
Straipsnyje aptariamas unikalus archeologinis ir antropologinis radinys – apardytas vėlyvojo neolito kapas
iš Gyvakarų (Kupiškio raj.), aptiktas 2000 m. Radiokarbono datavimas – 3745±70 (dešinysis blauzdikaulis, Ki-9470), 3710±80 (kairysis alkūnkaulis, Ki-9471)
– patvirtino vėlyvojo neolito (jo pačios pabaigos) datą.
Kape rasti iš tamsios spalvos šlifuoto smulkiagrūdžio
akmens pagamintas akmeninis laivinis kovos kirvis,
titnaginis įtveriamasis kirvukas, titnaginė skeltė-peilis
ir kol kas vienintelis Lietuvoje kaulinis (raginis?) kūjagalvis smeigtukas, analogijų kuriam randama Vidurio Europoje, Fatjanovo kultūros kapinynuose, tačiau
didžiausias skaičius – teritorijoje į šiaurę nuo Juodosios jūros ir Šiaurės Prieškaukazėje. Iki pastarojo meto
Lietuvoje žinoma 11 vėlyvojo neolito virvelinės keramikos / laivinių kovos kirvių kultūros palaidojimų,
iš jų radiokarbonu datuoti 4. Skeletas fragmentiškas,
priklausęs 35–45 m. vyrui, kurio kaukolė vizualiai
įvertinta (išmatuoti dėl fragmentiškumo nepavyko)
kaip hipermorfiška, dolichokraninė, vidutinio pločio ar
net plačiu veidu. Postkranijinis skeletas labai masyvus,
rekonstruotas ūgis – 173–176 cm. Tokios fenotipo ypatybės būdingos ir kitiems Lietuvos virvelinės keramikos / laivinių kovos kirvių kultūros atstovams (Spiginas 2, Plinkaigalis 241 ir 242), analogijų jam randama
Estijoje, Prūsijoje ir Fatjanovo kultūroje. Šis radinys
paskatino sugrįžti prie diskusijų apie indoeuropiečių
atsiradimą ir plitimą Rytų Baltijos regione. Straipsnyje
aptariamos kelios archeologiniais, antropologiniais ir
genetiniais duomenimis paremtos hipotezės. Genetikos
BALTICA 6
V Ė lyvojo neolito kapas
i Š G yvakar Ų dabartinių
archeologijos ir
antropologijos žinių
k o ntekste
ARCHAELOGIA
Rootsi, S., Kivisild, T., Tambets, K., Adojaan, M., Parik, J.,
Reidla, M., Metspalu, E., Laos, S., Tolk, H.-V., Villems,
R. 2000. On the phylogeographic context of sex-specific
genetic markers of Finno-Ugric populations. In: Künnap,
A. (Ed.). The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern
Eurasia II and III. Tartu, 148–164.
Rosser, Z.H., Zerjal, T., Hurles, M.E., Adojaan, M., Alavantic, D., Amorim, A., Amos, W., Armenteros, M., Arroyo,
E., Barbujani, G., Beckman, G., Beckman, L., Bertranpetit,
J., Bosch, E., Bradley, D.G., Brede, G., Cooper, G., CorteReal., H.B.S.M., de Knijf, P., Decorte, R., Dubrova, Y.E.,
Evgrafov, O., Gilissen, A., Glisic, S., Golge, M., Hill, E.W.,
Jeziorowska, A., Kalaydjieva, L., Kayser, M., Kivisild, T.,
Kravchenko, S.A., Krumina, A., Kučinskas, V., Lavinha,
J., Livshits, L.A., Malaspina, P., Maria, S., McEalreavey,
K., Meitinger, T.A., Mikelsaar, A.-V., Mitchell, R.J., Nafa,
K., Nicholson, J., Norby, S., Pandya, A., Parik, J., Patsalis, P.C., Pereira, L., Peterlin, B., Pielberg, G., Prata, M.J.,
Previdere, C., Roewer, L., Rootsi, S., Rubinsztein, D.C.,
Saillard, J., Santos, F.R., Stefanescu, G., Sykes, B.C., Tolun, A., Villems, R., Tyler-Smith, C., Jobling, M.A. 2000.
Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language.
In: Amer. J. Hum. Genet. 67 (6), 1526–1543.
Simoni, L., Calafell, F., Pettener, D., Bertranpetit, J., Barbujani, G. 2000. Geographic Patterns of mtDNA Diversity in
Europe. In: Amer. J. Hum. Genet. 66, 262–278.
Sokal, R.R. 1991. The Continental Population Structure of
Europe. In: Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 119-140.
Torroni, A., Bandelt, H.-J., Macaulay, V., Richards, M., Cruciani, F., Rengo, C., Martinez-Cabrera, V., Villems, R.,
Kivisild, T., Metspalu, E., Parik, J., Tolk, H.-V., Tambets,
K., Forster, P., Karger, B., Francalacci, P., Rudan, P., Janicijevic, B., Rickards, O., Savontaus, M.-L., Huoponen, K.,
Laitinen, V., Koivumäki, S., Sykes, B., Hickey, E., Novelletto, A., Moral, P., Sellitto, D., Coppa, A., Al-Zaheri,
N., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S., Semino, O., Scozzari,
R. 2001. A Signal, from Human mtDNA, of Postglacial
Recolonization in Europe. In: Amer. J. Hum. Genet. 69,
844–852.
Vlček, E., Klima, B. 1986. Lovci mamutu z Dolnich Vestonic.
Katalog k vystave. Praha.
Zvelebil, M. 1995. Indo-European origins and the agricultural transition in Europe. In: Kuna, M., Venclova, N. (Eds.).
Whither archaeology? Papers in honour of Evžen Neustupny. Praha: Institute of Archaeology, 173–203.
Zvelebil, M. 1998. Agricultural Frontiers, Neolithic Origins,
and the Transition to the Farming in the Baltic Basin. In:
Zvelebil M., Domanska L., Dennell R. (Eds.). Harvesting
the Sea, Farming the Forest. The emergence of Neolithic
Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Academic Press,
9–27.
19
Archaeological and
Povilas
Tebelškis,
R i m a n ta s
Jankauskas,
20
duomenys (mitochondrinės DNR, perduodamos motinos linija, tyrimai) liudija, kad didžioji dalis Europos
gyventojų yra pirmosios kolonizacijos bangos vėlyvojo paleolito pabaigoje palikuonys, o mezolito kolonizacijos po paskutinio ledynmečio reikšmė ginčijama.
Neolitizacijai Europoje aiškinti naudojami deminės
difuzijos iš Artimųjų Rytų („kylančios bangos“) arba
kultūros difuzijos (žemdirbystės kultūros perdavimo)
modeliai. Kartu su žemės ūkiu plito ir indoeuropiečių
kalbos. Archeologijos ir genetikos duomenų sugretinimas liudija, kad deminė difuzija iš tikrųjų galėjo vykti Pietų Europoje, tačiau Šiaurės Europai tinkamesnis
laipsniško kultūros (kartu ir kalbos) perėmimo modelis. Kurganų kultūros antrosios bangos žmonių imigracija, kaip liudija genetikos duomenys, nepaliko žymesnio pėdsako dabartinių visos Europos, taip pat ir Rytų
Baltijos regiono žmonių genofonde. Apibendrinant
archeologijos, lingvistikos, antropologijos ir genetikos
duomenis, galutinės išvados neretai priklauso nuo to,
kuriai sričiai – biogenetinei, materialinės kultūros ar
kalbos – tyrinėtojas teikia pirmenybę. Jei faktai ištraukiami iš bendro konteksto, galima pasirinkti ir migracijas, ir kultūros perdavimą paremiančių duomenų. Visi
iki pastarojo meto Lietuvoje žinomi virvelinės keramikos / laivinių kovos kirvių kultūros kapai yra pavieniai,
juose palaidoti suaugę ar brandaus amžiaus žmonės, visuose yra savitos įkapės ir visi pasižymi ypatingu fenotipu – tai paremtų jų imigracijos hipotezę. Savo ruožtu
kiti faktai paremia akultūracijos modelį: Spigino kapas
Nr. 2 yra greta dviejų mezolito ir vieno vidurinio neolito individų – toje pat vietoje buvo laidojama apie
3000 metų. Dabartinių Lietuvos ir Latvijos gyventojų
genofonde iki šiol nerasta to laikotarpio imigracijos
pėdsakų – jis artimesnis ikiindoeuropietiškajam substratui. Zooarcheologijos ir stabiliųjų izotopų tyrimų
duomenys įrodo labai lėtą perėjimą prie žemdirbystės.
Gali būti, kad indoeuropiečių kalba buvo perimta jau
anksčiau, ir pavieniai Kurganų kultūros imigrantai jau
rado bendruomenes, su kuriomis galėjo bendrauti. Kad
ir kaip ten būtų, vietos bioantropologiniame substrate
ryškesnio pėdsako jie nepaliko.
N e o l i t h i c Ve h i c l e Tr a c k s S u p e rposed by Long-Barrow LA 3,
Bernd� ��
Zich F l i n t b e k , N o r t h G e r m a n y
Neolithic Vehicle Tracks Superposed by
L o ng - B a r r o w L A 3 , F l i ntb e k ,
N o rt h G e r m an y
Bernd� ��
Zich
Abstract
Out of 71 investigated tumuli in the prehistoric cemetery near Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3 deserves special attention because
of its gradual extension in early Neolithic times and its superposition of a vehicle track.
Key words: vehicle tracks, long-barrows, megalithic graves, Funnel Beaker Culture, wheeled transportation.
In Flintbek, southwest of Kiel, the capital of SchleswigHolstein (north Germany), a Neolithic and Bronze Age
cemetery was excavated1 from 1977 to 1996 (Zich
1992b; 1992/93; 1995; 1999a; 1999b; 2005). At least
19 out of about 80 located prehistoric sites could be
identified as megalithic graves of Funnel Beaker Culture. They belong to a micro-region of less than 12
square kilometres (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, all megalithic graves in Flintbek were in very bad condition, since
they were destroyed during the 19th century. Therefore, their documentation derived mainly from subterraneous traces. On this premise, it was necessary to
excavate them completely, which is quite uncommon
in the archaeology of megaliths. This method resulted
in new ideas on the grave building and burial rites of a
megalithic community.
Six of the Flintbek sites turned out to be remains of
long-barrows2. Special attention is drawn to long-barrow LA 3 (Fig. 2). Its excavation provided excellent
information on the gradual growth of a megalithic
monument, because more than half a metre of the
raised mound had been preserved. In this case, there
were better chances to place profiles in line with the
monument. The discovery that megalithic and contemporaneous non-megalithic graves coexisted in one and
the same long-barrow3 is of great importance. At least
four extended dolmen, three Konens Høj-type graves
(Madsen 1979), two graves which seemed to contain
tree-coffins (Baumsärge), and another grave with an
ordinary case-shaped wooden coffin were found. Two
more burials in the upper layers had been destroyed by
agriculture.
Besides the graves, some traces of settlement contexts
were discovered. Among several ard-marks, a posthole
and three fireplaces, traces were found which were
eventually interpreted as vehicle tracks.
22
Northeast of chamber IV, standing out against the glacial soil and covered by the long-barrow mound, we
discovered two dark traces, 19.4 metres and 18.2 metres long, which were at points 0.6 metres wide. They
ran completely parallel, forming a slight curve (Fig.
3). The average distance between them measured 1.1
to 1.2 metres. West of the traces a single six-metrelong track, only 0.06 metres wide, ran parallel to the
others. Its profile was roundish-rectangular. The same
width was found in the middle section of the large
eastern track. Here the soil changed to sandy ground
and for that reason the tracks ran into single grooves,
which were also roundish-rectangular in profile. Furthermore, the profiles of the two main traces showed
that the transitional soil to the glacial surface was hard
and compressed and in some places covered with grey,
washed-out sand (Fig. 4). Based on these indications,
we concluded that the tracks in Flintbek had been
caused by a wheeled vehicle. In our opinion, only a
rolling movement can produce such traces. The grey
washed-out sand in the grooves indicates that rain had
rinsed some earthen material into the tracks.
This interpretation is closely linked to the results of the
long-barrow’s gradual extension (Fig. 5). Certain stratigrafical evidence suggests the following sequence. The
first burial was the Konens Høj-type grave A (Fig. 6),
which lay on the Neolithic surface. Its most significant feature is the use of wooden components (Madsen 1979, 301 ff.), shown by remarkable, up to 0.5-metre-deep postholes and some traces of mouldered wood
on the longer sides. Its inner floor was covered by a
stone pavement. Outside, the wooden construction had
been propped up by small supporting stones. The grave
contained a thin-butted flint-axe and five transverse arrowheads. The edge of an oval-shaped mound was to be
seen, which had been partly raised from the dug-out soil
of two adjacent ditches to its left and right (Fig. 2).
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Flintbek, Rendsburg-Eckernförde county (north Germany). Map of the tumulus cemetery
Fig. 2. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3, detailed plan of the excavated area
23
Bernd� Zich
�� F l i n t b e k , N o r t h G e r m a n y
After grave A, Konens Høj-type grave
B was built, almost in the same way as
grave A (Fig. 2), but in this case the Neolithic surface was thinner, because the
soil had already partly been taken to erect
the mound for the older burial. To point
out the chronological sequence of grave
A and B it is important that the dug-out
yellow glacial soil from the neighbouring posthole of grave B was lying at the
foot of the mound of grave A. This observation was also made in the schematic
view, where the soil material belonging
to grave B enclosed the already existing
mound (Fig. 5). Another important hint
concerning the dating was that on the
edge of the tumulus fragments of a late
early Neolithic lugged flask were found.
The grave itself contained another thinbutted flint-axe.
Fig. 3. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3, vehicle tracks, viewed from WSW
Fig. 4. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3, vehicle tracks in profile, viewed
from NE
In a third phase the barrow was extended
to cover grave C and D (Figs. 2 and 5),
which were probably burials in tree-coffins (Baumsärge), as indicated by parallel rows and one oval-shaped end of a
series of stones, usually found in Bronze
Age tumulus graves4. No remains of the
coffin were preserved, but in grave D
the silhouette of the buried individual
was visible. The grave goods, including
a thin-butted flint-axe and eight transverse arrowheads (Fig. 7), suggest that
we are dealing with a Funnel Beaker
Culture burial.
Some useful information concerning the
relative-chronological age of the third
phase was that the Neolithic surface had
been widely removed. This could only
have happened in conjunction with the
already existing two phases of the barrow. Stratigraphical evidence arose
from a profile, which clearly showed
that the soil material covering grave C
superposed the foot of the neighbouring
mound belonging to grave A. Another
profile across the third phase of the barrow proved that tree-coffin grave D was
younger than grave C. The condition of
the soil material showed a trunk dug into
this part of the mound.
Grave E was also of Konens Høj-type
(Figs. 2 and 5). The only difference
compared to graves A and B was a layer
24
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 5. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3, schematic view of the gradual extension
25
Bernd� Zich
Extended dolmen chambers I and II were covered by the same kind of soil (Figs. 2 and 5).
The barrow’s fifth phase was lined by packedup stones of non-megalithic size. Chronological
evidence arose from the fact that the stone line
partly overlapped the mound of grave B (Fig. 8)
and that the mound of phase V obviously superposed the older phases.
Fig. 6. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3, grave A of Konens Høj-type,
with a central pavement and a frame of stones, viewed from WSW
Gauta 2006
Fig. 7. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3, grave goods from grave D (the
length of the thin-butted axe is 17 cm)
of burnt flint instead of a stone pavement inside the burial
chamber. Its relative-chronological age was obvious by the
fact that in connection with one of its postholes the dugout glacial soil could be localised at the foot of the existing mound. Within the grave a thin-butted flint-axe and five
transverse arrowheads were found.
26
Up to the fifth phase, all burials of long-barrow LA 3 were
situated parallel with the barrow. In phase V the first megalithic chambers were built, and the orientation changed to a
transverse position.
Chamber I revealed some details concerning
construction. At first a foundation trench was
dug 0.32 metres deep into the subsoil, producing
more than four cubic metres of dug-out material,
which could be found on the Neolithic surface
close around the trench. On its perimeter six orthostates (kerbstones) were placed and supported
as required with small stones at their base. Gaps
between the pillar-stones were filled in with drywalling, and from the outside the chamber was
covered by a layer of clay, as concluded from
a remaining 0.2-metre-high collar on the outer
base of the chamber. The inner floor was almost
trough-shaped, with a burnt layer on the topsoil
and covered by a stone pavement with a coating
of fired flint. As the stones of the pavement did
not show any effects of heat, the firing must have
been done from outside the chamber.
Grave F had been dug into the mound of phase V
(Figs. 2 and 5). For this reason it is obvious that
it is younger than dolmens I and II. It contained
an ordinary case-shaped wooden coffin and was
found between grave B and chamber I. Traces of
mouldered wood could be identified especially at
the bottom. The Funnel Beaker Culture context
is given by another thin-butted flint-axe. However, its age in relation to the following graves is
rather uncertain.
Extended dolmen is to be seen in connection
with phase VI (Figs. 2 and 5). A profile of the
destroyed structure showed that its foundation
trench hardly reached the glacial soil, which was
only possible because it was dug into an already
existing mound. This assumption became clearer
with another profile of the chamber. A sixth phase
of the mound was recognised, which was larger
than phase V. It was surrounded by kerbstones,
as proven by several traces in the ground.
Phase VII of the barrow is represented by an enlargement, which now for the first time grew into
its width (Figs. 2 and 5). It was constructed in
connection with chamber IV (Fig. 9). The edges
were enclosed by large stones, and with this last
phase the barrow acquired a total size of 54 by 18
metres. A lugged flask (Fig. 10) was standing in
Fig. 8. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3. Line of stones (phase V; see left) overlapping the mound of grave B (see foreground), viewed from SW
Fig. 9. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3, destroyed chamber IV (phase VII),
viewed from NNW
situ on the pavement of chamber IV, dating phase VII to the end of
the early Neolithic period (Becker 1947, 141–145, 151–156, Fig. 34;
Hoika 1990, 211–216, Plate 2).
Chamber IV gave further important information. It was built in an
unusually large foundation trench which moreover penetrated a natu-
The observations concerning the Flintbek long-barrow’s final seventh phase
are closely related to the interpretation
of the vehicle tracks. As no traces of
clay and dug-out material from chamber
IV’s unusually large foundation trench
were found on the site, the material must
have been removed, probably by a cartlike vehicle (Zich 1992) whose wheels
caused the traces mentioned above. This
idea was supported by the evidence that
single tracks were 0.06 metres wide,
thus corresponding to the breadth of
Neolithic disc-wheels. Because of the
large amount of removed soil, we can
easily imagine that the vehicle was in
use several times, causing Fahrgeleise.
Their preservation on the surface of the
glacial soil was promoted by the fact of
the long-barrow’s growth, because in
connection with phases I to VI, most of
the Neolithic ground had already been
dug off to built up the mound. So the
tracks were well preserved, standing out
against the yellow to light brown sterile
glacial soil.
BALTICA 6
Finally, we would like to point out that
Flintbek long-barrow LA 3 was built up
in seven different phases. Meanwhile,
similar results are known from three
other long-barrows in Flintbek: also for
LA 4, LA 17/171 and LA 37 a gradually
extension was proven.
ARCHAELOGIA
ral clay bed in the subsoil. With a size
of 16 square metres and a depth of 0.41
metres, the amount of clay dug out can
be estimated at about 6.5 cubic metres.
Their immediate relation with the building of dolmen-chamber IV is proven by
the fact that the traces only ran to the
northeast edge of the foundation trench.
On the dolmen chamber’s opposite side
no traces were found, although here the
conditions for preservation were almost
the same. For this reason, we suggest
that the vehicle tracks are directly linked
to the building of chamber IV.
Chamber IV, by stratigraphical evidence
belonging to the final building phase, is
dated by the already mentioned lugged
flask to the end of the early Neolithic
period, corresponding with the Fuchs-
27
Bernd� Zich
rail-shaped traces from Helvesiek,
Lower Saxony, lying close to a
passage grave (Dehnecke 1979:
469–473, Fig. 7). Very similar traces from Schneverdingen
(Lower Saxony), Krautheim and
Großbrembach (Thuringia), superposed by burials from Single
Grave, Unetician and strata of Urnfield cultures, are known (Möbes
1986: 213, Fig. 1; Voss 1970: 234,
Fig. 19, a-b). From Denmark, information on rail-shaped vehicle
tracks from Arnitlund near Vojens,
found under a Bronze Age tumulus (Aner, Kersten 1984: 90, Abb.
66; Neumann 1958: Figs. 5–6),
should be mentioned, although
their interpretation does not seem
Fig. 10. Flintbek, long-barrow LA 3. Lugged flask (height 19 cm) from chamber IV, to be free of doubt.
dating the vehicle tracks
berg phase of the northern Funnel Beaker Culture,
dating with its climax stage to circa 3550 to 3400 BC
(Hoika 1990: 203–207, Table 1).
Wheeled transportation5 has been found in connection
with Funnel Beaker Culture in northern and middle
Europe. Carvings of carriages are known from several orthostates (kerbstones) and a smaller stone of
the large megalithic grave of Züschen (Gandert 1964:
43–46, Plate 1, 3–4; Günther 1990: 48–52, Figs. 7–8)
and from a roof-stone of the Warberg grave in Hessia
(Günther 1990: 39–43, Figs. 3–6); and moreover from
a funnel beaker from Bronocice in Poland (Kruk, Milisauskas 1982: Fig. 1, Plate 8). Furthermore, important
evidence is given by the hoard from Bytyn in Poland,
with its two harnessed oxen of copper (Gandert 1964:
47–51, Plate 2; Pieczynski 1985). Also some wooden
disc-wheels and Bohlenwege (plank ways), mainly in
Lower Saxony and Holland, dating from Funnel Beaker Culture, are known (Hayen 1989: 33).
28
Last but not least, there are clay models of disc-wheels
(Spennemann 1984), the oldest ones from the Balkans
(Häussler 1994: 223, Fig. 5), dating to the fourth and
fifth millennia BC. These examples give us an idea
about vehicles in early Funnel Beaker Culture. In this
connection, some other findings, up to now only mentioned in passing, should be considered: the so-called
Fahrgeleise. This German term has been used in research papers concerning old ways and roads (Dehnecke 1979). They are known in great numbers, dating
from post-medieval and maybe medieval times. Meanwhile, there is some information about Fahrgeleise of
even older times: The first was excavated in 1955, the
The traces under Flintbek longbarrow LA 3 were doubtless caused by a vehicle, and
may be called Fahrgeleise. This can also be proved by
comparing them to profiles of recent way or cart marks
in the same area, which means in the same quality of
soil; whereas it has clearly been shown by experiments
that movements of sledges or simple timber trails do
not cause comparable traces.
Notes
(1) The excavations in Flintbek will be published
as a monograph. The illustrations in this report can
only give some examples of the documentation. In
fact, many more profile-lines were cut into the soil
to find out numerous details concerning stratigraphical relations. These detailed plans will be discussed
in the main publication. Since the monograph will be
printed in German, captions and legends differ from
the language of the report.
The main aspect of the future publication will be the
development of a micro-region from Neolithic to
Bronze Age times. The excavations were carried out by
the Landesamt für Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Schleswig-Holstein (LVF), since 1996 Archäologisches
Landesamt Schleswig-Holstein (ALSH); the scientific
edition of the results was sponsored by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
This report is dedicated to D. Stoltenberg (ALSH),
who was responsible for the technical leadership of the
Flintbek excavations, in recognition of his excellent
work.
(4) Many similar examples are to be found in catalogues
of Bronze Age finds of the northern hemisphere: Aner
and Kersten 1973 passim; moreover Zich 2005, 31 ff.
(5) For a general view on this subject, see Piggott 1983,
Fansa and Burmeister (eds.) 2004,
��
Vosteen 1999.
References
Aner, E., Kersten, K. 1973 passim: Die Funde der älteren
Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen, Bd. 1��
–��
9, 17��
–��
19 (København and Neumünster 1973 passim).
Bakker, J.A. 2004: Die neolithischen Wagen im nördlichen
Mitteleuropa. In: Fansa, M. Burmeister, St. (edit.), Rad
und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im
Vorderen Orient und Europa. Beiheft der Archäologischen
Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Nr. 40 (2004)
283–294.
Becker, C.J. 1947: Mosefundne Lerkar fra Yngre Stenalder.
Studier over Tragtbaegerkulturen i Danmark. In: Aarbøger
1947, 1��
–��
318.
Burmeister, S. 2004: Der Wagen im Neolithikum und in der
Bronzezeit: Erfindung, Ausbreitung und Funktion der ersten Fahrzeuge. In: Fansa, M. u. Burmeister, St., Rad und
Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Beiheft der Archäologischen Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Nr. 40 (2004) 13��
–��
40.
Dehnecke, D. 1979: Methoden und Ergebnisse der historisch-geographischen und archäologischen Untersuchung
und Rekonstruktion mittelalterlicher Verkehrswege. In:
Jankuhn, H. u. Wenskus, R. (Hrsg.), Geschichtswissenschaft und Archäologie. Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs-,
Wirtschafts- und Kirchengeschichte (Sigmaringen 1979)
433��
–��
483.
Gandert, O.-F. 1964: Zur Frage der Rinderanschirrung im
Neolithikum. In: Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz 11, 1964, 34��
–��
56.
Günther, K. 1990: Neolithische Bildzeichen an einem ehemaligen Megalithgrab bei Warberg, Kreis Höxter (Westfalen). In: Germania 68/1, 1990, 39��
–��
65.
Häussler, A. 1994: Archäologische Zeugnisse für Pferd und
Wagen in Ost- und Mitteleuropa. In: Hänsel, B. u. Zimmer,
St. (Hrsg.), Die Indogermanen und das Pferd. Akten des
Internationalen interdisziplinären Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, 1.-3. Juli 1992 (Budapest 1994) 217��
–��
257.
Hayen, H. 1989: Früheste Nachweise des Wagens und die
Entwicklung der Transport-Hilfsmittel. Beiträge zur
Transportgeschichte. In: Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 10,
1989, 31��
–��
49.
BALTICA 6
(3) Long-barrow LA 3 has already been presented in
two preliminary reports of the Flintbek excavations
(Zich 1992b: 12, Abb. 4; 1992/93, 23–28, Abb. 8).
This, however, has been done in a very early state,
discussing the excavation results. The published plans
were only meant as a very schematic view to describe
the main features of the monument, and may now be
replaced by the more detailed ones (see Fig. 3 and Zich
1999a: 387–392, Abb. 12).
Hoika, J. 1990: Zum Übergang vom Früh- zum Mittelneolithikum in der Trichterbecherkultur. In: Jankowska, D.
(Hrsg.), Die Trichterbecherkultur. Neue Forschungen
und Hypothesen 1. Symposium Dymaczewo 1988 (Poznań
1990) 197��
–��
217.
Kruk, J., Milisauskas, S. 1982: Die Wagendarstellung auf einem Trichterbecher aus Bronocice in Polen. In:
�� Archäolo–��
144.
gisches Korrespondenzblatt 12, 1982, 141��
Madsen, T. 1979: Earthern Long Barrows and Timber Structures: Aspects of the Early Neolithic Mortuary Practice in
Denmark. ��
In: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45,
1979, 301��
–��
320.
Möbes, G. 1986: Urgeschichtliche und mittelalterliche Wagenspuren in den Kreisen Sömmerda und Weimar. In: Ausgrabungen und Funde 31, 1986, 213��
–��
216.
Müller, J. 2004: Zur Innovationsbereitschaft mitteleuropäischer Gesellschaften im 4. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend.
In: Fansa, M. u. Burmeister, St. (edit.) Rad und Wagen.
Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Beih. Arch. Mitt. NWDeutschland Nr. 40
(2004) 255��
–��
264.
Neumann, H. 1958: Vejspor under bronzealderhøj. In: Haderslev Amts Museum 7, 1958, 24��
–��
29.
Pieczyński, Z. 1985: Uwagi o skarbie miedzianym z Bytynia,
woj. poznańskie (Bemerkungen über den kupfernen Hortfund aus Bytyn, Woj. ��
Poznań). In: Fontes Archaeologici
Posnaniensis 34, 1985, 1��
–��
7.
Piggott, S. 1983: The Earliest Wheeled Transport. From the
Atlantic Coast to the Caspian Sea (1983).
Spennemann, D.R. 1984: Ein tönernes Radmodell aus dem
späten Jungneolithikum Süddeutschlands? In: Germania
62/1, 1984, 55��
–��
61.
Voss, K.C. 1970: Überschnittene Wagengeleise im Bereich
zweier Grabhügel der Einzelgrabkultur bei Schneverdingen, Kr. Soltau. In: Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 39, 1970, 230��
–��
235.
Vosteen, M. 1999: Urgeschichtliche Wagen in Mitteleuropa.
Eine archäologische und religionswissenschaftliche Untersuchung neolithischer bis hallstattzeitlicher Befunde.
In: Freiburger Archäologische Studien 3 (Rahden/Westf.
1999).
Zich, B. 1992a: Frühneolithische Karrenspuren aus Flintbek.
In: AiD 1992/1, 58.
Zich, B. 1992b: Ausgrabungen auf dem stein- und bronzezeitlichen Grabhügelfeld von Flintbek, Kreis RendsburgEckernförde. Ein Vorbericht. In: Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein 3, 1992, 6��
–��
21.
Zich, B. 1993: Die Ausgrabungen chronisch gefährdeter
Hügelgräber der Stein- und Bronzezeit in Flintbek, Kreis
Rendsburg-Eckernförde. Ein Vorbericht. In: Offa 49/50,
1992/93 (1993), 15��
–��
31.
Zich, B. 1995: Drei Jahrtausende Siedelverlauf und Landausbau. In: AiD 1995/2, 6��
–��
11.
Zich, B. 1999a: Flintbek, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde.
H.H. Andersen, W. Bauch, K. Bokelmann, I. Clausen,
A. Feiler-Kramer, S. Hartz, J. Hoika, H.J. Kühn, H.E. Saggau, C.M. Schirren, B. Zich, Zehnter Arbeitsbericht des
Archäologischen Landesamtes Schleswig-Holstein. Grabungsberichte der Jahre 1988-1993. In: Offa 53, 1996
(Neumünster 1999) 386��
–��
396. 431��
–��
436. 438. 445.
Zich, B. 1999b: Das Hügelgräberfeld von Flintbek nach
zwanzig Ausgrabungsjahren. In: Jahrbuch für das ehemalige Amt Bordesholm, H. 1, 1999, 7��
–��
58.
Zich, B. 2005: Flintbek. In: Aner, E., Kersten, K. u. Willroth,
K.-H., Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des nordischen
ARCHAELOGIA
(2) LA 3, 4, 17/171, 37, 137 and 167
29
Bernd� Zich
Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen Bd. XIX, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde (südlich
des Nord-Ostsee-Kanals) und die kreisfreien Städte Kiel
und Neumünster (Neumünster 2005) 31��
–��
84.
All photographs and plans published with permission
of the ALSH
Photographs by D. Stoltenberg and L. Herrmannsen.
Graphic design by H. Hammon and G. Hagel
Bernd Zich
Archäologisches Landesmuseum (ALM)
Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinische
Landesmuseen Schloss Gottorf
D-24837 Schleswig
Germany
Received: 2006
N e o l i t o la i k o ta r p i o
ve ž im o v ė ž ė s p o
i lg u o j u F l i ntb e k L A 3
pilkapiu,
Š iau r ė s V o kieti j o j e
Bernd Zich
Santrauka
Neolito ir bronzos amžiaus Flintbeko kapinynas, kuris yra į pietryčius nuo Kylio, buvo tyrinėtas nuo 1977
iki 1996 metų. Šešiose Flintbeko gyvenvietėse pavyko
aptikti ilgųjų pilkapių liekanų. Megalitinei kultūrai priklausantis LA 3 pilkapis, kuriame aptikta nuosekli laidosenos seka (1–3 pav.), vertas atskiros publikacijos.
Be to, po šiuo pilkapiu buvo aptiktos dviejų vežimų paliktos vėžės (4–5 pav.), kurių ilgis buvo 19,4 ir 18,2 m.
Atstumas tarp vėžių takų buvo 0,6 m, o vėžių plotis
siekė 1,1–1,2 m. Suspaustas dirvožemis po vėžėmis
rodo, kad jas galėjo palikti 6 cm pločio diskinis ratas.
30
Įspaustas vėžes padeda datuoti pilkapio konstrukcijos
formavimo raida (8 pav.). Ilgajame pilkapyje ankstyviausiu palaidojimu galima laikyti kapą A (9 pav.). Jo
įrangoje naudotos medžio konstrukcijos. Antrajam pilkapio įrangos etapui priklausė kapas B, kurio įranga
panaši kaip ir kapo A. Trečiajam pilkapio etapui priklauso C ir D kapai, kuriuose mirusieji palaidoti skobtiniuose karstuose. E kapas priklauso ketvirtajam pilkapio įrangos etapui. Jis yra identiškas A ir B kapams.
Visi aukščiau tirti kapai buvo orientuoti išilgai ilgojo
pilkapio sampilo. Megalitinės kameros I, II įrengtos
jau penktajame pilkapio raidos etape. Kameros, kuriose
buvo laidojami mirusieji, orientuotos jau skersai ilgojo
pilkapio sampilo. F kape aptiktas karstas pagamintas
iš storų medinių lentų. Pastarasis kapas buvo įkastas į
pilkapio sampilą megalitinių kapų egzistavimo metu.
III megalitinė kamera sietina su šeštuoju pilkapio plėtros etapu. IV megalitinė kamera (13 pav.) mirusiajam buvo įrengta šalia ilgojo pilkapio sampilo, todėl
pilkapis septintajame raidos etape, kuris priskiriamas
Piltuvėlinių taurių kultūros Fuchsbergo etapui (3550
– 3400 BC), buvo praplėstas į plotį. Šiame pilkapio
raidos etape, kuris buvo paskutinis, pilkapis tapo 54 m
ilgio ir 18 m pločio. Išlikusios vežimo vėžės siejamos
su paskutiniu pilkapio įrangos ir plėtros etapu.
Su vežimo vėžėmis, kurios išliko po LA 3 pilkapio
sampilu, galima sieti ant puodų sienelių, megalitinių
statinių akmenyse pavaizduotus vežimus su ratais ar
aptiktus medinių ratų fragmentus, kurie datuojami
IV– III tūkst. pr. Kr.
Algimantas
Merkevičius
T h e Va š k a i H o a r d
32
Algimantas Merkevičius
Abstract
The article describes the Vaškai hoard, found in the 19th century. The hoard consists of a Mälar-type axe, a shaft-hole axe and
a miniature dagger. At present, the Vaškai hoard is kept in the State Historical Museum in Stockholm and can be dated to the
beginning of the first milennium BC or the Bronze Age V (Montelius – period IV).
Key words: Vaškai hoard, axe, dagger, Lithuania, Stockholm, Bronze Age.
Introduction
Review of investigations
Not many hoards dating from the Bronze Age have
been found in Lithuania; therefore, each of them is of
particular importance. Archaeological publications refer most commonly to three hoards from the period,
found at Pabaliai, Baudėj��
os��
and Vaškai (Gimbutienė
1985: 62; Grigalavičienė 1980: 4; Grigalavičienė
1995: 155-156, Fig. 90, 177, Fig. 102, 103, etc). Some
more hoards may have been found, though. Besides the
three hoards mentioned above��
,��
Puzinas also describes
a fourth hoard found in the village of Miežaičiai (Puzinas 1938: 202-204), while Kulikauskas mentions six
hoards in Lietuvos archeologijos bruožai (Features of
Lithuanian Archaeology). He adds the hoards from
Gedminai and the Telšiai and Raseiniai areas, though
he dates the Pabaliai and Baudėjai hoards to the Early
Iron Age (LAB 1961: 107). As most of the hoards were
found before the Second World War, and the circumstances are rather ambiguous, the number of hoards is
not clear either. Some of the finds might have come
from deteriorated burials, or artificially arranged collections of finds, rather than true hoards, due to which
the number of hoards indicated by archaeological publications differs.
The earliest known reference to this hoard can be
found in Carl von Schmith’s Necrolituanica, written in
1863. Drawings of finds from the hoard are presented on page 22, Fig. 129, 131 and 132 (Fig. 1). This
means that the hoard was found before 1863, but we
know almost nothing about the circumstances. Later,
in 1880, the manuscript of Necrolituanica and some
finds from von Schmith’s collection, as well as finds
from the Konstantinovo-Vaškai hoard, were bought
in Kaunas by Montelius (Janse 1929: 176; Nerman
1933: 238; Lamm 1997: 12). At present, finds from the
Vaškai hoard are kept at the State Historical Museum
in Stockholm (Nos. 6565:14–16). The museum has
filled out find cards for the Vaškai hoard, which, in line
with Necrolituanica, indicate that the hoard was found
in the locality of Konstantinovo, Panevėžys “Kr.” The
hoard was referred to as Konstantinovo or Constantinovo by scholars in the first half of the 20th century,
while Lithuanian archaeologists, starting with Puzinas,
call it the Vaškai hoard. It is most likely that the locality of Konstantinovo had already disappeared before
the Second World War.
The present article describes the Vaškai hoard, found in
the 19th century. The circumstances of the discovery of
this hoard are even more obscure than in the case of the
other hoards. Some scholars even doubt if it is a true
hoard, as they suggest rather different dates for some
of the finds (LAB 1961: 107). Puzinas is even more categorical. He says that “probably we are dealing with
individual finds, and not a hoard” (Puzinas 1938: 202).
The fact that the shaft-hole axe should be attributed to
an earlier period was also pointed out by Gimbutienė
(Gimbutienė 1985: 62). If this is a hoard, the important
thing is to know how it turned up in northern Lithuania. The present article reviews a number of problems
related to this hoard.
The K(C)onstantinovo-Vaškai hoard has been mentioned by a number of archaeologists, but these are
mainly short presentations of information. Usually,
they include a description of the composition of the
hoard, its chronology and the place of storage. In his
short article Janse describes simply the Mälar-type axe
and the circumstances under which the hoard appeared
in Stockholm (Janse 1929: 176-177��
, Fig. 73��
). A short
description of the hoard, accompanied by a photograph
of the finds, was published by Ebert. He also discusses the dating of finds in the hoard. He attributes the
Mälar-type axe to period IV, and shifts the dating of
the shaft-hole axe to 1800–1200 BC with reference to
Tallgren��
(Ebert 1929: 7, Fig. 4: d, e, f)��
. A short description of the Konstantinovo hoard and the circumstances
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 2. The Vaškai hoard, kept at the Stockholm State Historical Museum
Fig. 1. Drawings of the artefacts in the KonstantinovoVaškai hoard, from Carl von Schmith’s Necrolituanica:
129 the shaft-hole axe; 131 the Mälar-type axe;
132 the miniature dagger
of its discovery was also published by Nerman (Nerman 1933: 238, Fig. 1–2). He attributes the hoard to
period IV, and claims that it comes from one single pot
(��
Nerman 1933:
��
238). Ebert also claims that the hoard
was found at Konstantinovo, Kr., Panevėžys (Ebert
1929: 7). Puzinas, however, indicates that the hoard
was found at Vaškai (Biržai county), in a clay pot. He
attributes the Mälar-type axe to period IV, and derives
it from central Sweden, while the shaft-hole axe is attributed to a much earlier period (Puzinas 1938: 202).
Subsequent archaeological publications already mention Vaškai instead of the locality of Konstantinovo.
The hoard is also mentioned in articles and books by
Grigalavičienë. In Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas
she attributes the hoard to the Bronze Age period IVV, and claims that all the artefacts were found in one
clay pot. (Grigalavičienė 1974: 208, 221). She also describes the hoard in a book on the earliest metal artefacts
found in Lithuania, which was published in Russian
(Grigalavičienė, Merkevičius 1980: 4, 39, 43, 46, 6869), as well as a further book on the Bronze and Early
Iron ages in Lithuania (Grigalavičienė 1995: 155, 159,
162, Fig. 89:1, 90), which briefly mentions the finds
from the Vaškai hoard. She dates the Mälar-type axe
from the Vaškai hoard to period IV. Grigalavičienė has
discussed the distribution and chronological placement
of Mälar-type axes, as well as the typology, chronology
and distribution of the shaft-hole axe (��
Grigalavičienė
1995: 155–156, 159, Fig. 89:1, 90). The Vaškai hoard
is also mentioned by Gimbutienė (Gimbutienė 1985:
62). She underlines that the shaft-hole axe should be
dated to a period earlier than that of the socketed axe,
and therefore questions the contemporaneity of the axe
(��
Gimbutienė 1985:
��
62). The Vaškai hoard is also mentioned by Okulicz (Okulicz 1976: 103, 143, Fig. 36:1)
and Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė
1986: 36).
Composition of the hoard
The hoard consists of three finds, namely a Mälar-type
axe, a shaft-hole axe (Galich type) and a miniature dagger (Fig.
��
2) (Puzinas
��
1938: 202, etc). All the artefacts
are kept at the State Historical Museum in Stockholm
(Nos. 6565:14-16).
The Mälar-type axe (SHM 6565:15) has been cleaned
and conserved, it is in excellent condition, and light
yellow in colour. The lower part of the socket displays
five horizontal rollers. One roller stretches from the top
of the socket to the beginning of the blade. Two further
rollers run from the bottom of the horizontal rollers to
the beginning of the blade. The overall length of the
axe is 12.2 centimetres. The length of the socket until
the horizontal notches is 3.5 centimetres, the diameter
of the socket 2.9 centimetres, and the thickness of the
socket 0.3 centimetres. The blade is 5.5 centimetres
long and 4.6 centimetres wide. The loop is 1.3��
centi��
metres long and 0.4��
centimetres thick.
��
33
Algimantas
Merkevičius
The shaft-hole axe (SHM 6565:14) has been cleaned
and conserved, it is in excellent condition, and of a reddish yellow “copper” colour. The composition of the
metal of this axe is very different to that of the Mälar
axe, as indicated by the dissimilarity of their colours.
The overall length of the axe is 13 centimetres. The
blade is slightly bent, ten centimetres long, 5.3 centimetres wide and 0.6 centimetres thick. The width of
the blade at the socket is 3.8 centimetres. The thickness
of the blade at the socket is 2.3 centimetres. The external diameter of the socket is 4.3 centimetres, the height
of the socket is three centimetres.
The ��
miniature dagger
��
(SHM 6565:16) is partly cleaned,
and dark green in colour. It��
has a flat pommel on the
handle, a piece of which��
is broken. The overall length
of the dagger is eight centimetres. The length of the
blade is 5.7 centimetres. The width of the blade at
the handle is 1.3 centimetres, and the thickness of the
blade at the handle 0.3 centimetres. The handle with
the pommel is 2.3 centimetres long, 0.5 centimetres
wide, and 0.3 centimetres thick.
Is it really a hoard?
As mentioned above, archaeologists in the first half of
the 20th century, as well as later authors who referred
to them, claim that the hoard was found in one pot.
Ebert writes that a shaft-hole axe, attributable to the
Galich type according to Tallgren, a Mälar-type axe
and a miniature dagger were found in a pot at Konstantinovo, Kr., Panevėžys (Ebert 1929: 7). Nerman holds
a similar opinion that all the artefacts mentioned above
were found in one pot (Nerman 1933: 238) or “in a
clay pot” (Puzinas 1938: 202). Lithuanian postwar
archaeological literature also indicates that the hoard
was found “in a pot from the Neolithic period” (LAB
1961: 107), or that “all the items were found in a clay
pot” (LAA 1974: 221). If we rely on the information
from all the authors who are mentioned above, claiming that all the artefacts were found in one clay pot,
the indisputable conclusion is that all three artefacts
mentioned above come from one and the same hoard.
The question, however, arises as to the arguments for
such statements. The authors mentioned probably refer
to Montelius himself, who had received the information from von Schmith, who must have known the circumstances of the discovery of these artefacts. Some
uncertainty exists only due to the fact that most archaeologists believe the shaft-hole axe to be much earlier
than the other two finds. If that is true, we can also
question whether the information that all the artefacts
were found in a single pot is correct.
34
The chronology and origin
of the artefacts from the hoard
The majority of scholars attribute the KonstantinovoVaškai Mälar-type axe to Montelius’ Bronze Age period IV (Nerman 1933: 238; Ebert 1929: 7; Puzinas
1938: 202; Grigalavičienė 1995: 155), and Janse to
period IV-V (Janse 1929: 176). Most scholars attribute
the Vaškai hoard Mälar-type axe to the area of central
Sweden (Janse 1929: 176; Puzinas 1938: 202; Okulicz
1976: 103; Gimbutienė 1985: 62; Grigalavičienė 1995:
155), though Mälar axes of a similar type were cast
in Lithuania as well. Excavations at the Narkűnai hillfort have yielded as many as 25 fragments of casting
moulds used to manufacture Mälar-type bronze axes
(Fig. 3) ��
(Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1986: 33, Fig. 49).
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė has defined on the basis of the
casting moulds that these axes used to be 8.5 to 9.5
centimetres long, their socket was 2.5 to three centimetres in diameter, and the blade 3.5 centimetres wide.
She believes that these axes are very close to the Swedish Mälar axes. According to her, Mälar axes were basically used in the seventh to eighth centuries BC (ibid.
34, 36).
Miniature daggers seem not to have been manufactured
in Lithuania. Four specimens have been found, including three chance finds and one from the Vaškai hoard.
These artefacts are characteristic of Scandinavia, and
present imitations of swords. Grigalavičienė attributes
the Vaškai dagger to Bronze Age period IV, and believes that the dagger originates from Scandinavia
(Grigalavičienė, Merkevičius 1980: 46; Grigalavičienė
1995: 162). A dagger comparable to the Vaškai one
has been found on Gotland��
(Fig��
. 4). It is attributed to
Montelius’ period IV (Montelius 1986: Fig. 75). Thus,
the Mälar axe and the miniature dagger are contemporaneous artefacts originating in central Sweden and
Gotland. The contemporaneity of the Mälar-type axe
and the dagger is��
indisputable.
Scholars have had especially many reservations regarding the dating of the shaft-hole axe and the circumstances of its appearance in Lithuania. With reference to Tallgren, Ebert dates the shaft-hole axe to the
period from 1800 to 1200 BC (Ebert 1929: 7). Puzinas also claims that the shaft-hole axe might be much
earlier than the Mälar-type axe (Puzinas 1938: 202).
Gimbutienė identifies this axe as an east Russian-type
shaft-hole axe, and dates it to a period earlier than that
of the Mälar-type axe, as a result of which she doubts
the contemporaneity of the hoard (Gimbutienė 1985:
62). Grigalavičienė attributes the shaft-hole axe to
the Catacomb culture and dates it to the 15th or 14th
century BC (Grigalavičienė, Merkevičius 1980: 43;
Grigalavičienë 1995: 159). This type of axe is��
charac��
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 3. A casting mould from the Narkūnai hill-fort, according to A. Luchtanas, 1981, Fig. 6
teristic of the Abashevo culture dating from the second
and third quarters of the second millennium BC. Axes
similar to the Vaškai specimen are typical of the late
stage of this culture (Priachin, Chalikov 1987: 124125, Fig. 60b, Fig. 63:12). They are also known in the
Srubnaya culture (Klochko 1993: 58), as well as other
cultures of southeast��
, northeast��
Europe and the Caucasus, in the basins of the Dniester, Bug, Volga, Don
and adjacent areas, and dated to the second millennium
BC. These axes disappeared at the end of the Bronze
Age, and were already completely out of use during
the Hallstatt period (Klochko 1993: 17). Many scholars call the shaft-hole axe from Vaškai a Galich-type
axe, with reference to the Galich hoard found in 1835,
not far from Kostroma, northeast of Moscow (Tallgren
1926: Abb. 77:1-18; Gimbutas 1965: 110-111, Fig. 73,
74). It is believed to have been discovered in a pot containing five copper idols of a human form, one small
animal figurine, one plate terminating in animal heads,
two daggers with handles of a snake-like form and with
a small snake depicted on the handle, two small, flat,
double-edged “knife-daggers” with backward-curved
points, 11 round copper plates, one double spiral made
of copper wire, three concave bracelets, small beads of
copper, silver buttons, and silver beads, etc (Gimbutas 1965: 110). In terms of typology, the shaft-hole axe
from the Galich hoard and the shaft-hole axe from the
Vaškai hoard are not identical; therefore, the interpretation of the Vaškai shaft-hole axe as a Galich-type axe
is not ��
very ��
accurate.��
A very similar axe was found in
the Nikopol hoard (Fig. 5) (Müller-Karpe 1980: Fig.
534:B1).�
Shaft-hole axes disappear at the beginning of the first
millennium BC. The end of the late distribution period of these axes coincides with the beginning of the
distribution period of Mälar-type axes and miniature
daggers, which means that the chronological discrepancy of these finds is not as big as it might seem at first
glance and as some archaeologists maintain. In terms
of typology, the Vaškai hoard shaft-hole axe can be
dated to the end of the second millennium BC or to the
beginning of the first millennium BC.
This dating of the shaft-hole axe does not conflict
with the hypothesis that artefacts of the Vaškai hoard
are more or less contemporaneous. The shaft-hole axe
could possibly have been placed in the clay pot at the
same time as the Mälar-type axe and the miniature dagger. The opinion that the pot found at Vaškai really contained a hoard is indirectly supported by the fact that at
that time it was customary to deposit and hide artefacts
in clay pots. The Galich hoard, as well as some other
hoards, were also found in one Fig. 4.
pot, as was the case at Vaškai. A miniature
This is an indirect verification
dagger
of the authenticity of the hoard. from
Appearance of the
hoard in Lithuania
The appearance of the Vaškai
hoard in Lithuania is an intricate
problem. As the artefacts of the
hoard are not very remote from
Gotland,
according to
O. Montelius,
1986,
Fig. 75
(no
scale)
35
Algimantas
Merkevičius
Fig. 5. A shafthole axe from the
Nikopol hoard,
according to H.
Müller-Karpe,
1980, Fig. 534:B1.
(no scale)
locations along this trade route, including the VolgaKama area, Lithuania, etc. The latter artefact became a
symbol of this trade route. Residents of central Scandinavia, who had a lot of good ships, were probably
the most active players on this trade route. Hundreds
of images of their ships carved on rocks are found in
central Sweden (Coles 2000). These travellers spread
Scandinavian-type artefacts, such as axes, daggers and
others, which were taken over and consequently even
manufactured by other residents on the trade route. The
skills, customs and ideas spread as well. The shaft-hole
axes, which were widespread in the northeast of Russia, were included into the exchange system of the
route, though at the time when the trade route functioned the use of shaft-hole axes was coming to an end,
due to which their distribution failed, and only a few
examples of these artefacts are known.
All three artefacts of the Vaškai hoard came to Lithuania via the trade route which ran between central Sweden, Gotland and northeast Russia at the beginning of
the first millennium BC.��
The miniature dagger, and
possibly even the Mälar-type axe, came from central
Sweden, and the shaft-hole axe from northeast Russia.
These artefacts belonged to an exceptional person, and
were either hidden in the ground or sacrificed.�
Final conclusions
36
a chronological point of view, they could have been
used at the same time and could have turned up in one
pot. All the artefacts represent luxury articles of the period. The Mälar-type axe could be attributed to local
manufacture. A production point of these axes has been
found on the Narkūnai hill-fort (Kulikauskienė 1986:
33-36, Fig. 49), though shaft-hole axes and miniature
daggers were apparently not manufactured in Lithuania. According to Gimbutienė, the finds in the Vaškai
hoard testify to relations with the north and the east
(Gimbutienė 1985: 62). In the Bronze Age an amber
trade route existed between the eastern Baltic area and
the middle Volga ��
(Fig. 6) ��
(Gimbutienė 1985: Fig. 25).
Besides amber, the route was used for the exchange
of non-ferrous metals and manufactured articles. This
is testified to by finds of Mälar-type axes and other
artefacts all the way along the zone between central
Sweden and the middle Volga. Contacts between the
residents of various regions located close to this route
were long-lasting and extensive. Artefacts from different regions were traded on this route. The manufacture
of some artefacts, such as the Mälar-type axe, which
originates in central Scandinavia, started at various
The Vaškai hoard, containing a Mälar-type axe, a shafthole axe and a miniature dagger, was found under obscure circumstances before 1863, turned up somehow
in the collection of Carl von Schmith, was purchased
by Montelius in 1880, and donated to the Royal Academy of History and Letters in Stockholm. At present,
the hoard is kept at the State Historical Museum in
Stockholm.
The circumstances of the discovery of the hoard are not
known, which raises the question, is it really a hoard?
Nevertheless, our investigation leads us to the opinion
that it is a hoard, whose artefacts were found in the
same clay pot.
Mälar-type axes originate in central Sweden. They
were manufactured and widespread in Scandinavia,
the east Baltic region and northeast Russia. These axes
are dated to the Bronze Age, Montelius’ period IV-V.
Miniature daggers comparable to the example found
at Vaškai are also attributed to artefacts from central
Sweden and Gotland, and are dated to the Bronze Age,
Montelius’ period IV. Shaft-hole axes were widespread
between south��
��
east Russia, Ukraine,
��
the Caucasus and
northeast Russia. These are dated to the second millennium BC. They disappeared at the beginning of the
first millennium BC.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 6. Amber trade routes
in the Bronze Age, according to M. Gimbutienė, 1985,
Fig. 25
The Vaškai hoard is a hoard of prestigious artefacts
which can be dated to the beginning of the first millennium BC or the Bronze Age, Montelius’ period IV.
The Vaškai hoard is a product of the trade route which
operated between central Sweden, Gotland, the east
Baltic region and northeast Russia (the middle Volga)
in the first half of the first millennium BC.
Translated by Dalė Merkevičienė
Abbreviations
LAA – Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas. 1. 1974. Vilnius
LAB – Kulikauskas P., Kulikauskienė R., Tautavičius A. Lietuvos archeologijos bruožai. 1961. Vilnius
References
Coles, J. 2000. Patterns in a rocky land: Rock carvings in
south-western Uppland, Sweden. In: Aun 27. Volume 1.
Ebert, M. 1929. Reallexikon der vorgeschichte. ��
13.
Gimbutienė, M. 1985. Baltai priešistoriniais laikais. Vilnius.
Gimbutas, M. 1965. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and
Eastern Europe. Paris. The Hague. London.
Grigalavičienė, E. 1974. Žalvario amžiaus paminklai ir
radiniai. In: Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas. Akmens
ir žalvario amžiaus paminklai. 1. Vilnius.
Grigalavičienė, E., Merkevičius A. 1980. Drevneišie
metaličeskije izdelija v Litve. Vilnius.
Grigalavičienė, E. 1995. Žalvario ir ankstyvasis geležies
amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius.
Janse, O. 1929. ��
En Lithauen funnen brons-celt av s. k. Malardalstyp. In: Forvännen. 24.
Klochko, V. 1993. Weapons
��
of the tribes of the northern Pontic zone in the 16th-10th centuries B.C. In: Baltic-Pontic
studies 1.
Kulikauskas P., Kulikauskienė R., Tautavičius A. 1961. Lietuvos archeologijos bruožai. Vilnius.
Lamm, J. P. 1997. Carl von Schmith and his Necrolituanica.
In: Archeologia Baltica. 2.
Luchtanas, A. 1981. Žalvario apdirbimas ankstyvuosiuose
rytų Lietuvos piliakalniuose. In: Lietuvos archeologija. 2,
Vilnius.
Montelius, O. 1986. Dating in the Bronze Age with special
reference to Scandinavia. ��
Stockholm.
Müller-Karpe, H. 1980. Handbuch der vorgeschichte. Bronzezeit. 4/3. München.
Nerman, B. 1933. Miscellanea.
��
In: Acta Archaeologica. ��
4.
Okulicz, L. 1976. Osadnictwo strefy wschodniobaltyckiej w I
tysiącleciu przed naszą erą. Wroclaw. Warszawa. Krakow.
Gdansk.
Priachin, A., Chalikov, A. 1987. Abashevskaja kultūra. ��
Epocha bronzy lesnoj polosy SSSR. In: Archeologija SSSR.
Moskva.
Puzinas, J. 1938. Naujausių proistorinių tyrinėjimų duomenys (1918–1938 metų Lietuvos proistorinių tyrinėjimų
apžvalga). In: Senovė. T. 4, Kaunas.
Tallgren, A.M. 1926. Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua. 2.
Tallgren, A.M. 1937. The Arctic Bronze Age in Europe. In:
Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua, 11.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1986. Narkūnų didžiojo piliakalnio tyrinėjimų rezultatai (apatinis kultūrinis sluoksnis). In:
Lietuvos archeologija, 5, Vilnius.
Algimantas Merkevičius
Received: 2002
Department of Archaeology
Faculty of History
Vilnius University
Universiteto g. 7, LT-01513, Vilnius, Lithuania
��
37
Algimantas
Merkevičius
Va š k ų lobis
ALGIMANTAS MERKEVIČIUS
Santrauka
L��
ietuvoje rasta nedaug žalvario amžiumi datuojamų
lobių, todėl kiekvienas jų yra ypač svarbus.
Straipsnyje aptariamas Vaškų lobis, rastas XIX a. Jo
radimo aplinkybės labai neaiškios. Dalis autorių abejoja, ar tai lobis, nes pavieniai radiniai gana skirtingai
datuojami. Ankstyviausias žinomas šio lobio paminėjimas yra Carlo von Schmitho „Necrolithuanicoje“,
parašytoje 1863 m. Taigi lobis buvo rastas dar prieš
1863 metus ir apie jo radimo aplinkybes beveik nieko nežinome. Šiuo metu Vaškų lobio radiniai saugomi
Valstybės istorijos muziejuje Stockholme (inventoriaus
Nr. 6565:14-16). Vaškų-Konstantinovo lobį yra minėję
nemaža archeologų, tačiau tai daugiausia trumpos informacijos apie jį. Dažniausiai aprašoma lobio sudėtis,
jo chronologija ir lobio saugojimo vieta.
Lobį sudaro 3 dirbiniai: Meliaro tipo kirvis, (Haličo
tipo) pentinis kirvis ir miniatiūrinis durklas. Meliaro
kirvis (6565:15) yra apvalytas, konservuotas, labai geros būklės, šviesiai geltonos spalvos. Su ąsele. Įmovos
apatinėje dalyje yra penki horizontalūs voleliai. Vienas
volelis eina nuo įmovos viršaus iki ašmenų pradžios.
Dar du voleliai išlieti nuo horizontalių volelių apačios
iki ašmenų pradžios. Kirvio bendras ilgis – 12,2 cm.
Įmovos ilgis iki horizontalių rumbelių – 3,5 cm, įmovos skersmuo – 2,9 cm, įmovos storis – 0,3 cm. Ašmenų ilgis – 5,5 cm, ašmenų plotis – 4,6 cm Ąselės
ilgis – 1,3 cm, ąselės storis – 0,4 cm.
Pentinis kirvis (6565:14) yra apvalytas, konservuotas,
labai geros būklės, rausvai gelsvos, „varinės“ spalvos.
Šio kirvio metalo sudėtis gerokai skiriasi nuo Meliaro
kirvio. Pentiniame kirvyje daugiau vario ir mažiau kitų
spalvotųjų metalų. Bendras kirvio ilgis – 13 cm. Ašmenys truputį lenkti, 10 cm ilgio ir 5,3 cm pločio. Ašmenų
plotis ties įmova – 3,8 cm. Ašmenų storis – 0,6 cm. Ašmenų storis ties įmova – 2,3 cm. Įmovos išorinis skersmuo – 4,3 cm, įmovos aukštis – 3 cm.
Miniatiūrinis durklas (6565:16) yra truputį apvalytas,
tamsiai žalios spalvos. Durklo rankena yra su nedidele plokščia buožele, kuri yra su dviem nedidelėmis
skylutėmis. Dalis buoželės nulūžusi. Bendras durklo
ilgis – 8 cm. Ašmenų ilgis – 5,7 cm. Ašmenų plotis ties
rankena – 1,3 cm, ašmenų storis ties rankena – 0,3 cm.
Rankenos ilgis su buožele – 2,3 cm, plotis – 0,5 cm,
storis – 0,3 cm.
38
Vaškų lobio atsiradimas Lietuvoje yra sunkiai išsprendžiama problema. Kadangi chronologiškai lobio dirbiniai nėra tolimi, jie vienu laiku galėjo būti naudojami ir
vienu metu atsirasti Lietuvoje bei sudėti į vieną puodą.
Visi dirbiniai – to meto prabangos daiktai. Meliaro kirvis galėjo būti ir vietoje gamintas, nes Narkūnų piliakalnyje rasta šių kirvių gamybos vieta, tačiau pentiniai
kirviai ir miniatiūriniai durklai Lietuvoje greičiausiai
nebuvo gaminami.
Visi trys Vaškų lobio dirbiniai atkeliavo į Lietuvą
I tūkst. pr. Kr. pradžioje funkcionavusiu prekybos keliu tarp Centrinės Švedijos, Gotlando, Rytų Baltijos
regiono ir Šiaurės rytų Rusijos. Meliaro tipo kirvis ir
miniatiūrinis durklas buvo atgabenti iš Centrinės Švedijos, o pentinis kirvis – iš Šiaurės rytų Rusijos. Šie
prestižiniai, mažai Lietuvoje naudoti dirbiniai buvo
skirti išskirtiniam asmeniui ir buvo arba saugomi užkasti žemėje, arba galbūt net paaukoti.
Sebastian
Brather
Zwischen „Fluchtburg“ und
„Herrensitz“ Sozialgeschichtliche Interpretationen frühund hochmittelalterlicher
Burgwälle in Ostmitteleuropa
Z w is c h e n „ F l u c h t b u r g “ u n d „ H e r r e n si t z “
S ozi a l g e s c hi c h t l i c h e I n t e r p r e tat io n e n
f r ü h - u n d ho c h m i t t e l a lt e r l i c h e r
B u r g w ä l l e i n O s t m i t t e l e u r o pa
Sebastian Brather
Abstract
Die Diskussionen um die Ursachen des frühmittelalaterlichen Burgenbaus im östlichen Mitteleuropa und um die Funktionen
der Befestigungen dauern an. Die steigende Zahl der Jahrringdaten gestattet neue und immer detailliertere Einblicke.
Key words: Burgwälle, Ostmitteleuropa, Mittelalter, Dendrodaten, Sozialstrukturen.
1 . Vo n d e r „ F l u c h t b u r g “ z u m
„Herrensitz“?
Burgwälle gelten als Charakteristikum des früh- und
hochmittelalterlichen Osteuropa. Ihre große Zahl ließ
diese Gebiete den Normannen als gardarike („Burgenland“) erscheinen. Im heutigen Ostmitteleuropa
wird ihre Zahl auf etwa 3000 geschätzt (Abb. 1):
700 in Deutschland, 2000 im heutigen Polen, 200 in
Mähren und der Slowakei, 120 in Böhmen (Herrmann
1976:111). Aufgrund der großen Zahl, der mitunter
„monumentalen“ Reste und der eindrucksvollen Lage
zogen die Burgwälle seit dem 19. Jahrhundert breites
Interesse auf sich. Daß es sich um militärische Befestigungen („Schanzen“) handelt, schien den meisten
Beobachtern offensichtlich; andere Interpretationen
wie die als kultische Versammlungsplätze und (Sonnen‑)Heiligtümer blieben eher marginal. Die frühmittelalterlichen Burgwälle unterscheidet von den spätmittelalterlichen Burgen formal, daß sie nicht in Stein
errichtet wurden und deshalb allein wallartige Ruinen
hinterlassen haben. Kennzeichen sind daher Wall (in
Holz-Erde-Konstruktion) und Graben; diese pragmatische Charakterisierung beschränkt sich auf die Bauform (Gebuhr/Gebuhr 2001).
Die archäologische Burgenforschung meinte, zwei
zentrale Ursachen für den Burgenbau zu erkennen.
Resümierend schrieb Carl Schuchhardt: „Der große
Dualismus, der durch Alteuropa geht mit Indogermanen im Norden und Vorindogermanen im Westen
und Süden, macht sich auch im Burgenwesen geltend. Bei den Völkern um das Mittelmeer, von der
Behla 1888: 51–76, bes. 75: „Versammlungsstätten für religiöse
40
Angelegenheiten“. – Im frühen 19. Jahrhundert dominierte die
Vorstellung, es mit Heiligtümer zu tun zu haben; vgl. Wagner
1828. Wohl erst mit Klemm 1836 setzte sich die Interpretation als
Befestigungen allgemein durch.
frühägyptischen bis zur römischen Zeit, geht der Festungsbau von den Gebietern aus, die ein Schloß für
ihre Herrschaftszwecke errichten. Im Norden ist das
erste die Volksburg, die einer sich bergenden Menge
zur Verfügung steht“ (Schuchhardt 1931:1) Zu diesen
„Volksburgen“ schienen bereits die großen umwallten
Siedlungen der jüngeren Bronze- und älteren Eisenzeit
zu gehören, die nicht selten im frühen Mittelalter erneut
genutzt wurden. Kaiser Wilhelm II., der Schuchhardts
archäologische Vorträge und Belehrungen schätzte, interessierte sich bei einem Grabungsbesuch am 2. November 1908 auf der „Römerschanze“ bei PotsdamSacrow besonders dafür, „ob schon Fürstensitz oder
nur Fluchtburg“. Allgemein habe, so Schuchhardt,
die „genetische“ Entwicklung des Burgenbaus von
der „altgermanischen Volksburg“ über den befestigten
„fränkisch-römischen Herrenhof“ zur mittelalterlichen „Herrenburg“ geführt (Schuchhardt 1913:207).
Noch die zusammenfassende Darstellung Hansjürgen
Brachmanns zum frühmittelalterlichen Befestigungsbau von 1993 verfährt im Grunde ebenso (Brachmann
1993:210). Für die slawischen Siedlungsgebiete östlich
von Elbe und Saale erschloß man eine entsprechende
Entwicklung – von den frühen „Volksburgen“ zu den
jüngeren „Herrensitzen“.
2. Burgentypen und Funktion
Grundlage dieser Funktionsbestimmungen waren und
sind primär Grundriß-Typologien (Tab. 1). Umfang
So das Gedächtnisprotokoll Schuchhardts (Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin [Preußischer Kulturbesitz], Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, I A 20, 2301/08); vgl. Meyer im Druck, Abb. 5. – Eggers
1986:224, schreibt diese mündliche Äußerung einem Telegramm
des Kaisers an Schuchhardt zu. Ein solches Telegramm läßt sich
aber nach Auskunft der zuständigen Archivare weder im Museum
für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin noch im Geheimen Staatsarchiv Berlin-Dahlem nachweisen.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Abb. 1 Verbreitung früh- und hochmittelalterlicher Burgwälle im östlichen Deutschland (nach Starigard/Oldenburg 1991:55 Abb. 2).
Ta b . 1 Ve r s c h i e d e n e f u n k t i o n a l e B u r g e n t y p e n u n d d i e j e w e i l s v e r m u t e t e n b a u l i c h e n
Charakteristika. Eindeutige Zuordnungen erscheinen demzufolge unmöglich
( v g l . Te x t )
Fluchtburg
Volksburg
Fürstenburg, Burgstadt
Herrensitz, Adelsburg
Tempelburg
Lage zur
Besiedlung
peripher
zentral?
zentral
zentral
zentral
Form: groß,
unregelmäßig



Form: klein,
rund
Vorburg,
Suburbium
?

?

?



?
militärische Anlage
strategisch
Innen
besiedlung
kaum
dicht
dicht
dicht
?
mehrteilige
Anlage
()

?
dicht
41
Sebastian
Brather
und Bauaufwand
der jeweiligen Anlage stellen dabei
den zentralen Anhaltspunkt dar (1).
Außerdem werden
Innenbesiedlung
(2) sowie Lage zu
Besiedlung
und
Verkehr (3) berücksichtigt. Diese beiden Aspekte lassen
sich allerdings nur
beurteilen, wenn
ausreichende Beobachtungen durch
Prospektion
und
Grabung vorliegen;
dies ist aber oft nicht
der Fall (Herrmann
1968:146
Anm.
5). Andere, häufig unterschiedene
Burgentypen wie
Höhen- und Niederungsburgen oder
Burgen in Spornlage, ein- und mehrteilige Anlagen,
Abschnittsund
Ringwälle (Olczak/
Siuchniński 1975)
sowie der divergierende Aufbau
der Wallkonstruktionen (Herrmann
1967) spielen für
die Ermittlung der
jeweiligen Nutzung Abb. 2Grundrisse „altslawischer Volks- und Fluchtburgen“. a) Feldberg; b) Groß Görnow; c)
praktisch keine Rolle Sternberger Burg; d) Menkendorf; e) Schlieben; f) Tornow, Burg A; g) Cösitz; h) Zehren (nach
(Jankuhn 1981:217; Herrmann/Coblenz 1985:191 Abb. 86).
Ebner 1976:15 f.).
umgebenden Besiedlung – hängen jedoch in starkem
a) Ausgedehnte Burgwälle mit großer Innenfläche Maße von der Intensität der Forschung ab und sind
werden als „Volksburgen“ (Schuchhardt 1931:232) deshalb keine verläßlichen Indikatoren. Große Wälle
bzw. „Fluchtburgen“ (Herrmann 1960:53 f.) interpre- mit nachweislich „dicht besiedelter Innenfläche“ (Martiert; hier suchte die Bevölkerung angeblich vorüber- schalleck 1954:39), die also dauerhaft bewohnt waren,
gehenden Schutz bei kriegerischen Übergriffen. Für sollen „befestigte Siedlungszentren großer vorklasRefugien sollten spärliche Funde und eine abseitige sengesellschaftlicher Gruppen von Produzenten, von
Lage sprechen. „Die Lage der Burgen in den Gauen denen sich die Oberschicht noch nicht abgesondert
erklärt sie oft von selbst als Volksburgen“, formulierte hatte“ (Herrmann/Coblenz 1985:187), gewesen sein
Werner Radig (1940:123) apodiktisch. Beide Merkma- (Abb. 2). Hier scheinen romantische Vorstellungen
le – Fundhäufigkeit innerhalb des Walls und Lage zur Herrmann/Coblenz 1985:197, zufolge war es so, „dass kleinere
Hierfür spielen vor allem lokale topographische Gegebenheiten,
42
vorhandene Baumaterialien sowie militärische Erfordernisse eine
wichtige Rolle.
Menschengruppen ständig in der Befestigung wohnten, diese gewissermaßen zur Verfügung hielten, und die Masse der Bevölkerung nur in Kriegszeiten Zuflucht fand.“
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Abb. 3
Tornow,
Burg B
– eine „kleine
Feudalburg“
(nach Herrmann/Coblenz
1985:208 Abb.
100).
einer egalitären „Frühzeit“ auf, denen entsprechend
Schuchhardt formulieren konnte: „Daß in den [sächsischen, S. B.] Volksburgen ein Fürst jemals dauernd
wohnte, dürfen wir nicht annehmen, weder nach den
literarischen noch nach den archäologischen Zeugnissen“ (Schuchhardt 1924:46).
„Dienstsiedlungen“, wie sie im přemyslidischen Böhmen, im piastischen Polen und im arpadischen Ungarn
im Umkreis zentraler „Fürstenburgen“ existierten
(Lübke 1991), waren eine Folge politischer Machtkonzentration und verweisen auf eine sozial differenzierte
Gesellschaft.
„Fürstensitze“ nimmt man aber für andere große
Burgen in Anspruch. Große „stadtähnliche“ Anlagen (Herrmann 1960:54–58), „Fürstenburgen“ bzw.
„Stammesvororte“ (Herrmann 1968:155) werden durch
mächtige Befestigungen und dichte Besiedlungsspuren
gekennzeichnet. Vorburgen bzw. Suburbien sowie Hinweise auf Handwerk und Austausch gelten als Indizien
„frühstädtischer“ Strukturen. Meistens ergibt sich diese Interpretation außerdem aus der späteren Bedeutung
der Anlagen als regionale Mittelpunkte. Abhängige
b) „Herrensitze“ (Hülle 1940:61 f.; Marschalleck
1954:36–38) sind dagegen definitionsgemäß klein. Es
handelt sich mit Schuchhardt um „kleine runde Herrenburgen“ (Schuchhardt 1931:232) bzw. mit Herrmann
um „kleine Feudalburgen“ (Herrmann 1960:65 f.). Das
weithin rezipierte Beispiel Tornow in der Niederlausitz
böte „das Bild einer kleinen, offenbar einfach organisierten Grundherrschaft [...,] von einem burggesessenen Grundherren und seiner kleinen Gefolgschaft [...]
aufrechterhalten und beherrscht“ (Abb. 3) (Herrmann
1966:139). Neben diesen kleinen Herrensitzen habe es
mittelgroße Anlagen – Herrmanns Typologie zufolge
Vor allem in Polen und Böhmen; vgl. insgesamt Šolle 1984; Herr-
mann/Coblenz 1985:210–226.
43
Sebastian
Brather
mit einem Durchmesser zwischen 40 und 80 m (Herrmann 1960:58–65) – gegeben, die als Mittelpunkte
von Burgbezirken fungierten. Parallelen in Niedersachsen hatte Schuchhardt (1931:188) als „Gauverwaltungsburgen“ bezeichnet. Eine gewissermaßen „extremistische“ Position verfocht Helmut Preidel, der (im
Anschluß an Otto Brunner [1939]) schlichtweg alle
Befestigungen als „Herrenburgen“ (Preidel 1961:61),
„Adelsburgen“ oder „Herrenhöfe“ deklarierte (Preidel
1966:57). Deshalb sah Preidel wie andere Anhänger
von „Adelsburgen“ bei mehrgliedrigen Anlagen die
„Kernburg“ als den zweifellos ältesten Teil der Befestigung an (Preidel 1961:68), während Vertreter der
„Volksburg“-These diese als spätere Hinzufügung zu
einer großen „Fluchtburg“ zu betrachten neigten (Herrmann 1960:65).
c) Neben diesen beiden „klassischen“ Typen sind des
weiteren „rein militärische Anlagen“ beschrieben worden (Marschalleck 1954:38 f.). Seine Ausgrabungen
auf dem „Breiten Berg“ bei Striegau (Strzygom) in
Schlesien hatten Gerhard Bersu zu dem Schluß geführt, „in der Grundrißanordnung [eine] starke Beziehung zur byzantinischen Befestigungstechnik“ (Bersu
1930:41) zu vermuten (Abb. 4). Im Anschluß daran
bezog auch Wilhelm Unverzagt die Anlage von Kliestow an der Oder auf „byzantinische“ Vorbilder und
rekonstruierte 1942 „Unterstände“, „Baracken“ bzw.
„Kasernen“ entlang der Innenseite des Walles (Unverzagt 1940; Kritik bei Preidel 1966:58–64). „Eine Sonderlage verleiht einzelnen Burgen den Charakter einer
Sperrburg an einer Furt oder an einer alten Völkerstraße bzw. vor einem Paß“, meinte Radig (1940:123), und
gelegentlich wurden gar territoriale „Verteidigungslinien“ fantasievoll postuliert, ohne dass entsprechend
durchgreifende und großräumige Herrschaftsbildungen zu erwarten wären.
Hatte man bereits im 19. Jahrhundert Fürstenburgen,
Zufluchtstätten und militärische Anlagen zumindest
konzeptionell getrennt (Friedel 1878:41), so warf Hülle diese Unterscheidung 1940 wieder über Bord: „Der
Zweck besonders der großen Ringwälle kann nicht
zweifelhaft sein: ihre strategisch wichtige Lage spricht
in den meisten Fällen dafür, daß sie als Wehranlagen
für eine kriegerische Truppe, seltener als Fliehburgen
für einen Gau angelegt sind. Aber auch die kleineren
Burgwälle und Burghügel haben in erster Linie militärischen Zwecken gedient: Sie waren die Sitze der „Zupane“, der kleineren slawischen Fürsten, die ein Gebiet in der Größe der späteren Burgwardeien unter sich
hatten“ (Hülle 1940:47; Hervorhebung im Original).
d) Zu erwähnen sind schließlich „kultische Anlagen“,
wie sie anhand von Chroniken des 11. Jahrhunderts für
Rethra (Thietmar von Merseburg VI,17–25) und des 12.
44
Abb. 4 Striegau (Strzygom), Breiter Berg. Nach „byzantinischen“ Vorbildern rekonstruierte Innenbebauung des als
militärische Anlage interpretierten Burgwalls (nach Bersu
aus Schuchhardt 1931: 236 Abb. 222).
Jahrhunderts für Arkona (��
Saxo Grammaticus XIV,39��
��)
überliefert sind. Entgegen Behlas (1888:51–76) Diktum und Schuchhardts (1926) Erwartungen lassen sich
dafür kaum archäologische Argumente anführen, denn
die Befunde sind natürlich nicht eindeutig. In Einzelfällen mögen sich dennoch Hinweise ergeben, doch lag
beispielsweise im entsprechend apostrophierten „slawischen Tempelort“ von Groß Raden das vermutete
Heiligtum nicht innerhalb des Ringwalls, sondern in
der offenen Siedlung davor (Schuldt 1985).
Auffälligerweise setzen sämtliche Interpretationen für
jede Anlage eine weithin dominierende Funktion voraus. Die mögliche und angesichts der Nutzungsdauer
oft wahrscheinliche Parallelität verschiedener sozialer,
politischer, militärischer, administrativer, wirtschaftlicher, religiöser und rechtlicher Aufgaben (Ebner
1976:77–82) gerät damit aus dem Blick.
3. Einordnung und Datierung
Interpretation und Datierung der Burgwälle bedingten
sich stets gegenseitig, und beides blieb bis zum Vorliegen von Jahrringdaten gleichermaßen unsicher. Daß
Neuerdings vermutet auch Kobyliński 1990:154, daß bestimmte
Aufgrund viel zu früher Datierungen bleiben auch Herleitung und
Burgwälle kultischen Zwecken dienten.
Funktion der Burgen bei Kobyliński 1990 rein hypothetisch.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Abb. 5
„Schloßberg“ bei Feldberg, Rekonstruktion der Innenbebauung (nach Herrmann 1969:49 Abb. 21).
die ostmitteleuropäischen Burgwälle weit überwiegend in das frühe und hohe Mittelalter gehören, hatte
bereits um 1870 Rudolf Virchow anhand der spezifischen „Burgwallkeramik“ herausgefunden (Virchow
1869:411 f.; 1872; 1880:228). Erst zu Beginn des 20.
Jahrhunderts konnten prähistorische Siedlungsgrabungen unternommen werden, nachdem Schuchhardt die
„Idee“ des Pfostenlochs auf ostdeutsche Verhältnisse
übertragen hatte (Schuchhardt 1909:215 f.). Die Ausgrabungen im römischen Lager von Haltern hatten
gezeigt, daß auch Holzbauten Spuren im Boden hinterlassen – und zwar in Form von Bodenverfärbungen.
Schuchhardt wurde Vorsitzender der 1927 gegründeten
Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Erforschung der nord- und
ostdeutschen vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Wall- und
Wehranlagen (Unverzagt 1985:16–23), und vom ihm
stammte die erste umfassende archäologische Übersicht zu prähistorischen Befestigungen, in der sich
auch die oben zitierten Eingangspassage findet.
Damit setzten Versuche ein, die Burgwälle in einen genaueren historischen Rahmen einzuordnen bzw. „Verfassung“ und Sozialgeschichte genauer zu analysieren.
Hier boten sich größere Spielräume, denn die Möglichkeiten archäologischer Chronologie waren begrenzt.
Grabfunde, die prinzipiell durch Kombinationsstatistiken der Grabbeigaben differenzierte Datierungen
erlauben, fallen für das östliche Mitteleuropa weitgehend aus. Ursache ist die Seltenheit von Grabbeigaben.
Nahezu alle archäologischen Datierungen stützten sich
daher auf die Keramik, deren stilistische und technologische Entwicklung eher den longues durées zugehört.
Die von Alfred Götze 1901 begründete Dreiteilung der
slawischen Keramik erlaubte für eine ungefähr sechs
Jahrhunderte währende Spanne daher allenfalls eine
Zeitangabe von jeweils etwa 100 bis 200 Jahren. So
konnte Schuchhardt den Schloßberg bei Feldberg noch
für das 1066/8 zerstörte Rethra halten (Schuchhardt
1926:25–63), obwohl der dortige Burgwall tatsächlich
200 Jahre älter ist (Abb. 5) (Herrmann 1969).
In den 1930er Jahren neigte man zu sehr frühen Datierungen der slawischen Burgwälle insgesamt, obwohl
die slawische Kultur eher als primitiv galt. Die kleinen
Rundwälle von Kleinitz, Poppschütz und Gustau in
Schlesien z. B. wurden bereits in das 6./7. Jahrhundert
gesetzt (Petersen 1937; Jahn 1937; Langenheim 1939).
Dadurch ließ sich vermeiden, eine eigenständige Burgenentwicklung – und d. h. auch Herrschaftsbildung
– im östlichen Mitteleuropa vorauszusetzen. Denn mit
der zeitlichen Nähe zur Völkerwanderungszeit konnte
germanischer Einfluß postuliert werden. Der Burgenbau wurde überaus weit zurückverfolgt und zum Indiz
spezifischer, jahrhundertelang bestehender Adels- und
Herrschaftsformen erklärt. Für Hülle war es „denkbar,
Götze 1901 („Stil I–III“); Schuchhardt 1919 („früh-, mittel- und
spätslawisch“); Knorr 1937 („revidierter Stil I–III“).
Allerdings geriet diese Auffassung tendenziell in die Nähe der
Hypothese slawischer Besiedlungskontinuität (mitunter gar seit
der Bronzezeit), was sie auch unter deutschen Archäologen umstritten bleiben ließ.
45
Sebastian
Brather
Abb. 6 Burgwälle mit Feldberger Keramik, Lage im Gelände. Die Keramikfunde weisen auf eine Nutzung der Burgwälle
im 8./9. Jahrhundert hin. Erfaßt ist lediglich das Verbreitungsgebiet der Feldberger Keramik, so daß besonders der südliche
und östliche Teil des Kartenausschnittes keine repräsentative Verbreitung der karolingerzeitlichen Burgwälle bietet. Das
Vorkommen von Burgwällen auf Geländekuppen („Höhenburgen“) wird von der Topographie (eiszeitliche Grund- und
Endmoränen) bestimmt, nicht von kulturellen oder politischen Faktoren.  Niederungsburg;  Höhenburg (verändert nach
Brather 1998:116 Abb. 1).
daß die Slawen diese Einteilung in Burgwarde, die den
Hundertschaften und Gauen bei den Germanen sehr
ähnlich sind, von den Goten übernommen“ und bei
ihrer Einwanderung nach Mitteleuropa mitgebracht
hatten (Hülle 1940:47 f.). Andererseits verwies Hülle
darauf, daß häufig große jungbronze- bzw. eisenzeitliche Anlagen10 erneut aufgesucht worden waren und
insofern gar keine slawischen (frühmittelalterlichen)
Befestigungen darstellten (Hülle 1940:61). Unabhängig von der Zeitstellung und der Nutzung der „Wehranlagen“ als „Volks-, Gau- und Kastellaneiburgen,
[als] rein militärische Anlagen und [als] kleine Herrensitze“ interpretierte Wilhelm Unverzagt die häufig
beobachteten Zerstörungen und Wiederherstellungen
als Widerspiegelung der „politischen Schicksale ihrer
Bewohner“ (Unverzagt 1942:281). Worauf die behauptete Funktion der Burgwälle jeweils zurückzuführen
sein sollte, bleibt dabei etwas unklar. In erster Linie
waren es „Flußübergänge [als] die strategisch schwachen Stellen, die eines künstlichen Schutzes bedurften“ (Unverzagt 1942:281); deshalb konnte Unverzagt
(1940:86) diese Burgwälle auch als „slawische Befe „Es sind Volksburgen, nicht Herrenburgen, denen wir in der gan-
10
46
zen ‘vorrömischen Eisenzeit’ in Mittel- und Westeuropa begegnen“; Schuchhardt 1931:116.
stigungen im deutschen Osten“ bezeichnen.
An die genannten Frühdatierungen ließ sich anknüpfen, als nach 1945 die zuvor in ein schiefes Licht geratene slawische Frühgeschichte verstärkte Aufmerksamkeit erfuhr. Das politische und wissenschaftliche
Bestreben zielte letztlich darauf, eine zu Westeuropa
parallele kulturelle und politische Entwicklung zu belegen. Dazu bedurfte es eines möglichst frühen Ansatzes, um einer solchen Entwicklung ausreichend Zeit
einräumen zu können. Folglich wurden auch die Burgwälle früh angesetzt, und zwar sowohl die „Flucht-“
als auch die „Adelsburgen“. Erstere ließen sich nun,
indirekt wiederum an romantische Konzepte ursprünglich „demokratischer“ Gesellschaften anknüpfend, als
Beleg egalitärer Verhältnisse verstehen. Und war nicht
in den Jahren zuvor die Fähigkeit der Slawen zur eigenen Staatsbildung bestritten worden? Letztere Burgen
repräsentierten, wenn sie sich als früh erwiesen, eine
dem Frankenreich vergleichbare Entwicklung zur feudalen Gesellschaft und belegten damit eine differenzierte soziale Entwicklung.
Es erschien daher und aufgrund von Parallelen in Osteuropa naheliegend, den Burgenbau (wie schon bei
Hülle) mit der Einwanderung zu verbinden. Joach-
Interessanter ist hier aber die Frage nach möglicherweise unterschiedlichen Funktionen der Burgentypen;
dafür sind die Wallkonstruktionen irrelevant. Die relativ großen Burgen Mecklenburgs, als „Feldberger
Höhenburgen“ charakterisiert (Abb. 6) und mit dem
seit 789 erwähnten Stammesverband der Wilzen identifiziert (vgl. Brather 1998), sollten eine besondere
wilzische Sozialstruktur widerspiegeln. Die anhand
weniger Suchschnitte erschlossene „regelhafte“ Innenbesiedlung in Form langer Hausreihen wertete Herrmann als Widerspiegelung egalitärer Verhältnisse – ein
möglicher Reflex „einer besonderen Abwehrsituation
[...], die auf der Konzentration vieler Krieger in Siedlungen oder Burgen beruhte“ (Herrmann 1968:173).
An der Spitze der Gesellschaft habe ein von der breiten Masse (populus) abgesonderter Stammesfürst (rex)
gestanden. Diese „gentile“ Struktur sei durch das Feh-
BALTICA 6
len einer adligen Schicht unterhalb des Fürsten gekennzeichnet gewesen und habe damit „starke Züge
der militärischen Demokratie“ getragen (Herrmann
1968:172). Herrmann dehnte diese Interpretation auch
auf die großen Burgen (Reitwein, Kliestow, Lebus)
an der mittleren Oder aus, die Unverzagt noch für byzantinischen Vorbildern folgende militärische Anlagen zur „Grenzsicherung“ gehalten hatte (Unverzagt
1942:281). Die „verspätete“ bzw. retardierende Sozialstruktur sei außerdem eine wesentliche Voraussetzung
für den prononciert heidnischen Lutizenbund des 11.
Jahrhunderts gewesen, der angesichts verbreiteter Feudalisierungstendenzen eine Sackgasse gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung darstellte.
ARCHAELOGIA
im Herrmann postulierte seit den 1960er Jahren fünf
Einwanderergruppen für das Gebiet östlich von Elbe
und Saale, indem Spezifika von Burgen- und Hausbau, Grab- und Keramikformen kombiniert und damit
homogene „Stammesgruppen“ vorausgesetzt wurden
(Herrmann 1983). Zwei dieser Gruppen (Prag, Sukow)
vertraten eine erste Einwandererwelle, auf die eine
zweite mit den drei übrigen Gruppen (Rüssen, Feldberg,
Tornow) gefolgt sei. Mit dem Zusammenstoß der Gruppen waren gewaltsame Konflikte vorprogrammiert, die
zum Burgenbau geführt hätten, wobei jede Gruppe auf
ihr aus den Ursprungsregionen vertraute Wallkonstruktionen zurückgegriffen hätte (Herrmann 1967). Die
Unterschiede – Steinplatten-Trockenbauweise an Elbe/
Saale, Plaggenschichtungen bzw. Feldsteinschüttungen
im Norden – dürften entgegen Herrmanns Annahme
primär auf den lokal zur Verfügung stehenden Baumaterialien beruhen (Henning 1997:25 Abb. 3).
Die kleinen Ringwälle vom „Tornower Typ“ mit 20
bis 50 m Durchmesser unterschieden sich Herrmann
zufolge von dem „als früheste Burgenform erkannten
Typ der Fluchtburg und des Burgbezirksmittelpunktes“, doch sind die Differenzen offensichtlich marginal
(Herrmann 1968:175). Die Niederlausitzer Ringwälle
repräsentierten angeblich „eine einfache, ursprünglich
organisierte Grundherrschaft ohne größere Eigenwirtschaft, die durch den Schutz einer starken Burg und
eine kleine Gefolgschaft des Grundherren aufrechterhalten wurde“ (Herrmann 1968:177). Damit schien
die Feudalentwicklung wie im Frankenreich verlaufen
zu sein, denn ungeachtet mancher Bedenken setzte
sich eine sehr frühe Datierung in das 7./8. Jahrhundert
durch, die weithin akzeptiert wurde (vgl. Wachter 1981
mit der Beschreibung von „Burgwällen der Landnahmezeit“). Deshalb setzte man auch die Anfänge der
großen „Fürstenburgen“ wie Brandenburg/Havel (Grebe 1991), Berlin-Spandau (v. Müller/v. Müller-Muči/
Nekuda 1993), Dorf Mecklenburg (Donat 1984)und
Starigard/Oldenburg (Gabriel 1984) bereits in das 7.
Ta b . 2 D i f f e r i e r e n d e D a t i e r u n g e n v o n B e r l i n - S p a n d a u . E r s t d i e l e t z t e n d r e i P h a s e n
stimmen ungefähr überein. Die archäologische Datierung der frühen Phasen beruhte
auf Interpolationen, die den Beginn des Burgenbaus mit einer slawischen
Einwanderung verbanden, und orientierte sich an den Ansätzen für die Burg
von Brandenburg/Havel
Phase
1
2a
2b
3
4
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
„traditionelle“ archäologische Chronologie
(v. Müller/v. Müller-Muči/Nekuda 1993:17)
um 700
erste Hälfte des 8. Jh.
zweite Hälfte des 8. Jh. – erstes Drittel des 9. Jh.
um 900 – erstes Drittel des 10. Jh.
Mitte des 10. Jh.
Mitte des 10. Jh. – zweites Drittel des 10. Jh.
letztes Drittel des 10. Jh. – 983
erstes Drittel des 11. Jh.
zweites Drittel des 11. Jh. – letztes Drittel des 11. Jh.
erste Hälfte des 12. Jh.
zweite Hälfte des 12. Jh.
Dendrochronologie
(Heußner/Westphal 1998:230 Abb. 7)
920
963–965
1035–1050
1062–1063
1075–1078
1080–1086
1106–1107
um 1150
47
Sebastian
Brather
Abb. 7 Jahrringdaten für Burgwälle der Niederlausitz. Die Daten spiegeln wechselnd intensive Phasen des Holzeinschlags und damit des Burgenbaus wider (nach Henning 1998:24 Abb. 13).
Jahrhundert, ohne daß für diese allgemeinen Überlegungen zur Datierung klare Indizien beizubringen waren (Tab. 2).
Welche Funktionen den verschiedenen Burgwalltypen
zugeschrieben werden sollten, blieb angesichts dieser
Überlegungen unverändert vage. Dies hatte einen einfachen Grund. Formale topographische Kriterien geben über Nutzung und Funktion(en) der Anlagen nicht
unmittelbar Auskunft (v. Uslar 1964:249–267; Ebner
1976:37 f.). Denn die Form der Befestigungen hängt
stets auch von den topographischen Gegebenheiten
(Höhen- oder Niederungslage, zur Verfügung stehende
Fläche) und von zeittypischen Bautechniken ab. Erst
detaillierte Ausgrabungen, genaue Datierungen und
die Einbeziehung des näheren und weiteren Umfelds
können an dieser Stelle weiterführen, und sie sind für
jeden Einzelfall zu unternehmen. Solange diese Anforderungen nicht erfüllt werden, müssen sich die Diskussionen um Nutzung und Sozialstrukturen im Kreise
drehen.
4. Dendrochronologie und Ereignisgeschichte
Die seit etwa zehn Jahren in immer größerer Zahl
vorliegenden Dendrodaten (Herrmann/Heußner 1991;
Henning/Heußner 1992) verändern das Bild des Burgenbaus erheblich. Nicht nur die Chronologie der Befestigungstypen muß grundlegend revidiert werden,
auch die zugrundeliegenden historischen Entwicklungen bedürfen einer Neubewertung. Es erscheint
schließlich fraglich, ob sich aus den Wallgrundrissen
überhaupt Rückschlüsse auf die Art der Nutzung oder
48
den Anlaß der Errichtung ziehen lassen, hängen doch
Umfang und Grundriß einer Anlage nicht unwesentlich
von der Topographie ab. Funktionen werden nun nicht
mehr aufgrund der Grundrisse, sondern anhand der
Zeitstellung ermittelt.
Das von Joachim Henning initiierte „Niederlausitzer
Burgenprogramm“ hatte Anfang der 1990er Jahre
zum Ziel, sämtliche Burgwälle einer abgeschlossenen Kleinregion dendrochronologisch zu datieren,
um endlich verläßliche Daten zu erhalten. Schmale
Schnitte durch den äußeren Wall- und Grabenbereich
dienten der Gewinnung datierbarer Holzproben (Henning 1998). Da die Wälle meist (mehrfach) erneuert
und dabei – so die plausible Annahme – jeweils nach
außen erweitert wurden, zeichnen sich einander überschneidende Gräben ab, die von jüngeren Wällen z. T.
verschüttet wurden. Methodisch ließe sich einwenden,
daß nur bis in die äußere Wallfront geführte Schnitte die
älteste Wallphase unter ungünstigen Umständen nicht
erreichen – und damit die Datierung zu jung ausfallen
kann. Das Ergebnis war jedoch überraschend eindeutig. Statt der postulierten frühen Errichtung kleiner
Rundwälle des „Typs Tornow“ im 7./8. Jahrhundert
ließ sich keine einzige der etwa 25 untersuchten Anlagen vor das letzte Drittel des 9. Jahrhunderts datieren.
Daß Wasserstand und Klima die Erhaltung älterer
Hölzer verhindert hätten und die Jahrringdaten damit
ein verfälschtes Bild lieferten, mag die Ergebnisse
zwar beeinflussen, doch zeigen Daten von Brunnen
aus offenen Siedlungen an, daß eine ländliche Besiedlung seit dem frühen 8. Jahrhundert durchaus zu fassen ist (Biermann/Dalitz/Heußner 1999). Als Beleg für
eine langfristig zunehmende soziale Differenzierung,
die bereits zur Merowingerzeit eingesetzt und rasch
Wenn dem so ist, dann dürften Binnendifferenzierungen der slawischen Gesellschaften keine große Rolle
für den Burgenbau gespielt haben. Vielmehr scheint
die unmittelbare äußere Bedrohung der entscheidende
Faktor gewesen zu sein. Sie zwang wahrscheinlich zu
diesen Verteidigungsanstrengungen – ebenso wie man
in Westeuropa Ringwälle zum Schutz gegen wikingische Plünderungen baute (van Heringen/Hendrikx/
Mars 1995).13 Über die Nutzung der Wälle ist damit
König Arnulf zog 889 gegen die Abodriten; Annales Fuldenses a.
11
889.
Die wichtigsten Berichte stammen von Thietmar von Merseburg
12
und Widukind von Corvey. – Die durch Thietmar VI,57 (urbs
quaedam Iarina [...], a Gerone dicta marchione) mit dem Markgrafen Gero in Verbindung gebrachte Burg von Gehren läßt sich
dendrochronologisch auf „um/nach 960“ eingrenzen; Henning
2002:134 Anm. 17; Gebuhr 1996.
13
Hinzuweisen ist außerdem auf die Verteidigungsbemühungen gegen die Ungarn im 10. Jahrhundert.
BALTICA 6
Die Jahrringdaten zeigen, auch wenn sie nicht immer
jahrgenau ausfallen, weil z. B. die „Waldkante“ nicht
mehr vorhanden ist oder die Zuordnung der Hölzer
zu einzelnen Wallbauphasen unsicher bleibt, daß die
Niederlausitzer Ringwälle nicht alle gleichzeitig erbaut wurden. Dennoch zeichnen sich Phasen intensiver Bau- bzw. Ausbau-Tätigkeiten ab: die Jahre um
890, zwischen 910 und 930, die 940er Jahre und um
960 (Abb. 7). Die Gleichzeitigkeit zu politischen Ereignissen dürfte kaum zufällig sein, auch wenn neue
Daten die Gewichte noch verschieben mögen. Läßt
sich der Beginn des Burgenbaus im späten 9. Jahrhundert mangels Überlieferung nicht unmittelbar mit
„historischen Daten“ verbinden11, so fällt dies für das
10. Jahrhundert nicht schwer. Bereits 905/6 zog Heinrich im Auftrag seines Vaters Otto, des sächsischen
Herzogs, gegen die Daleminzer; 928/9 kämpfte er nun
als König gegen Daleminzer, 932 gegen die benachbarten Lusizi, und 963 unternahm Markgraf Gero einen
Angriff gegen letztere und die Selpoli.12 Die meisten
Burgen wurden offenbar ungefähr gleichzeitig mit der
Erhebung Heinrichs zum König erbaut. Daraus zieht
Henning den Schluß: „Diese Burgenbaugipfel können
nur als fortifikatorische Aufrüstungsphasen vor den
drohenden sächsischen Angriffen interpretiert werden“
(Henning 2002:135). Als zusätzliches Indiz für militärische – und herrschaftliche – Hintergründe lassen sich
möglicherweise Funde von Reitersporen ansehen, die
überwiegend innerhalb von Befestigungen gefunden
werden (Kind 2002:284 Abb. 1). Der Niederlausitzer
Burgenbau insgesamt läßt sich dennoch nicht mit
einzelnen Ereignissen verknüpfen; er war eine strukturelle Reaktion auf die politischen Entwicklungen der
Jahrzehnte um 900.
noch keine endgültige Klarheit gewonnen. Handelte es
sich um nur im Notfall aufgesuchte Anlagen, die „normalerweise“ allenfalls von wenigen Kriegern besetzt
waren, oder um dauerhaft von einer größeren Gruppe
bewohnte Burgen? Läßt sich eine Antwort geben, die
sich Schuchhardt (1939:354) mit folgender Feststellung noch versagte: „Man kann also noch nicht sagen,
ob solch ein Ringwall der Sitz eines einzelnen Edelings
war oder die Genossenschaftsburg von gleichgestellten
Bauern“? Die wenigen Ausgrabungsbefunde – Tornow
(Herrmann 1966: 131 Abb. 53; 135 Abb. 54; Beilage
7), Schönfeld (Wetzel 1985:44 Abb. 28, 54 Abb. 37),
Presenchen (Henning 1991:128 f. Abb. 8–9) – ergeben
alle eine recht dichte Innenbesiedlung, doch sind deren
Nutzungsdauer und ‑intensität kaum näher zu bestimmen, weil sich dort keine Hölzer erhalten haben (Abb.
8). Angesichts der zahlreichen offenen Siedlungen im
unmittelbaren Umfeld („Vorburgsiedlungen“) und des
recht geringen Umfangs der Befestigungen stellt die
ständige Besiedlung durch die gesamte Bevölkerung
nicht die wahrscheinlichste Erklärung dar.
ARCHAELOGIA
zu einer Feudalgesellschaft geführt habe, fallen diese
Ringwälle daher vollkommen aus. Ändert sich damit
auch ihre funktionale Interpretation?
Für die großen Burgwälle in Mecklenburg und Ostholstein liegen bislang erst wenige Jahrringdaten vor,
so daß zurzeit nur ein Teil exakt zu datieren ist: Alt
Lübeck (818), Scharstorf (835), Bosau (837) und Ilow
(840) lieferten Daten aus der ersten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts (Henning 2002:139; vgl. Herrmann/Heußner
1991). Andere Befestigungen können anhand der vorliegenden Klein- und Keramikfunde ungefähr zeitlich
eingeordnet werden; für einige ergibt sich daraus eine
Datierung bereits nach der Mitte des 8. Jahrhunderts.
Auch diese „frühen“ Burgen lassen sich mit militärischen Auseinandersetzungen parallelisieren. Gegen
Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts gerieten Wilzen und Abodriten in die fränkisch-sächsischen Auseinandersetzungen hinein (Dralle 1978). In wechselnden Bündnissen wurden diese Slawen zum Ziel von Angriffen,
von denen einer 789 Karl d. Gr. bis zur civitas Dragaviti führte.14 Verschiedene Indizien deuten also
darauf hin, daß auch die „frühen“, in den Jahrzehnten
um 800 erbauten „nördlichen“ Großburgen in Situationen akuter äußerer Bedrohung entstanden. Daß
es sich um häufig umfänglichere Anlagen handelte,
ist kein Beleg für besondere (gentile?) Sozialstrukturen. Zunächst handelte es sich um eine zeittypische
Burgenbauweise, denn auch die in den „Sachsenkriegen“ errichteten Burgen besaßen große Innenflächen
(Brachmann 1993:126–152, Beilage 4; Jankuhn 1976).
Ebenso wie bei den späteren kleinen Ringwällen orientierte man sich im östlichen Mitteleuropa bereits zur
Karolingerzeit an den fortifikatorischen und waffentechnischen Möglichkeiten der zeitgenössischen Geg Die Reichsannalen bieten für die Jahrzehnte um 800 eine ganze
14
Reihe von Nennungen eroberter slawischer civitates, oppida und
castella.
49
Sebastian
Brather
Abb. 8Grundriß der älteren Burg von Presenchen, Kr. Dahme-Spreewald. Die ebenerdigen Blockbauten haben nur unregelmäßige flache „Gruben“ hinterlassen, doch zeichnet sich eine dichte Bebauung ab (nach Henning 1991:128 Abb. 8).
ner. Zwar konnten in diesen relativ großen umwallten
Flächen erheblich mehr Menschen als in den kleinen
Ringwällen unterkommen, doch gab es auch viel weniger „Großburgen“; die Größe der Anlagen mag daher
primär den „Einzugsbereich“ widerspiegeln.
50
Waren die Burgwälle also – entgegen bisherigen Annahmen – gänzlich unabhängig von sozialen Strukturen?
Zumindest für die jeweils erstmalige Errichtung eines
Burgwalls scheint dies angesichts der Datierungen und
der daraus zu erschließenden historischen Zusammenhänge häufig zuzutreffen. Unmittelbare militärische
Bedrohungen, und d. h. politische Entwicklungen, bewirkten den Bau defensiver Schutzbauten oder Verteidigungsanlagen. Dies hatte schon Schuchhardt so
gesehen, dabei allerdings wiederum Sozialstrukturen
und Ereignisgeschichte miteinander vermengend: „das
einzige politische Element, das was uns zeigt, wer Herr
im Lande war, gegen welchen Feind man sich sichern
mußte und wie diese Verhältnisse wechselten und sich
verschoben, – sind die Burgen“ (Schuchhardt 1924:7;
Hervorhebung im Original). Ist archäologisch erkennbar, daß ein Burgwall nur kurzzeitig genutzt wurde,
dürfte das diese ereignisgeschichtliche Interpretation
unterstützen. Eine größere Zahl ist aber mehrmals
erneuert, ausgebaut oder längere Zeit genutzt worden.
Für diese Fälle dürfte zutreffen, was Kurt-Ulrich
Jäschke für die Abwehr von Normannen und Ungarn
im 9./10. Jahrhundert feststellte: „Herrschaftssicherung
nach Innen war ursprünglich nicht das Ziel der [...]
Burgenbauten. Sie hatten ihren Zweck erfüllt, wenn
die äußere Bedrohung des Landes überstanden war,
und lebten nur dann weiter, wenn andere als militärische Faktoren ihren Bestand sichern halfen“ (Jäschke
1975:120). Zunehmendes Bevölkerungs- (GringmuthDallmer 1998) und Wirtschaftswachstum, daraus
entstehende rivalisierende Herrschaftsansprüche und
das Bemühen um deren Legitimation bzw. Präsentation werden dazu beigetragen haben (Biermann/Frey
2001:74 f.).
Dies gilt ebenso für wichtige „Fürstenburgen“ der
Elbslawen. Burgen wie Brandenburg/Havel, Dorf
Mecklenburg oder Berlin-Spandau lieferten bislang
keine Jahrringdaten vor dem 10. Jahrhundert (Tab.
2) (Heußner/Westphal 1998), auch wenn ein Baubeginn bereits vor 900 wahrscheinlich sein dürfte, wie
er z. B. für Oldenburg (Starigard) in Holstein (8./9.
Jahrhundert) belegt ist (Starigard/Oldenburg 1991);15
15
Es sei noch einmal an das prinzipielle Problem erinnert, die frü-
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Abb. 9Der Raum zwischen Oder und Weichsel im 10./11. Jh. Kursiv „Stammesname“ (in der Schreibweise der Quellen);
 dendrochronologischen Daten zufolge um 940 errichteter Burgwall in Großpolen (B Bnin; G Gnesen; Gb Grzybowo;
Gz Giecz; L Ląd; OL Ostrów Lednicki; P Posen);  weiterer wichtiger Burgwall um 1000; unterstrichen Bistum bzw. Erzbistum; + wichtiges Gräberfeld mit Bestattungen, die Sporen (1 Biernatki; 2 Bnin; 3 Brześć Kujawski; 4 Buczek; 5 Iwno;
6 Luboń; 7 Lutomiersk; 8 Łubowo; 9 Mielno; 10 Niepruszewo; 11 Ostrowąż; 12 Skarbienice; 13 Sowinki; 14 Szarów)
und/oder Waffen (15 Biskupin; 16 Chwalborzyce; 17 Marzenin; 18 Skokówko; 19 Śląskowo) enthalten (nach Kurnatowska
1991:84 Abb. 1; 2000a:459 Abb. 306).
hier ist mit unzutreffenden Zuordnungen von Hölzern
zu einzelnen Bauphasen des Walls zu rechnen. Diese
„Mittelpunktsburgen“ stellten dauerhaft bewohnte
und repräsentative Anlagen dar, worauf chronikalische Angaben sowie archäologische Befunde („palastartige“ Großbauten) und Funde (Luxus- und Fremdgüter, reiche Grabausstattungen) verweisen (Gabriel
1989). Sie waren Ort und Symbol16 fürstlicher Macht
und spiegeln insofern eine wirtschaftlich und sozial
differenzierte Gesellschaft wider (Brachmann 1996).
Nicht nur bei den Elbslawen, sondern auch in Böhmen
(Frolik/Smetánka 1997; Dvorská/Boháčová 1999)
und Großpolen (Kurnatowska 1991; 2000a; 2000b;
Dulinicz 2002; Dvorská/Heußner/Poláček/Westphal
1999) entwickelten sich diese wichtigen regionalen
Mittelpunkte – die sogenannten „Burgstädte“ (Burg
1995) – kaum vor dem 10. Jahrhundert; allein Mähren
machte im 9. Jahrhundert eine besondere, südöstlich
(byzantinisch) orientierte Entwicklung durch (Poláček
1996). Auch in diesen Fällen dürften unruhige Verheste Phase tatsächlich zu erfassen und sekundär verbaute ältere
Hölzer plausibel „unterzubringen“.
16
Den symbolischen Aspekt spätmittelalterlicher Burgen betont
Zeune 1996.
hältnisse zum Bau der jeweils ersten Befestigung wesentlich beigetragen haben. Mährische und böhmische
„Fürsten“ trugen im späteren 9. und im 10. Jahrhundert
untereinander und mit dem Karolingerreich gewaltsam
Konflikte aus; die großpolnischen Piasten konkurrierten zwischen 940 und 963 mit den Ottonen um das
Slawenland zwischen Elbe und Oder – und gerade in
dieser Zeit entstanden die Burgen von Gnesen, Giecz,
Bnin, Ląd, Ostrów Lednicki und Posen (Kurnatowska
2000a; Krąpiec 1998). Innerhalb kurzer Zeit – d. h. im
Zuge einer dynamischen Entwicklung – wurden aus
diesen Befestigungen die politischen, wirtschaftlichen
und kirchlichen Zentren der piastischen Herrschaft
(Abb. 9).
Der Bau sowohl der kleinen Ringwälle des 9./10. Jahrhunderts als auch der karolingerzeitlichen Großburgen
wurde in unsicheren Zeiten mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit von den slawischen Oberschichten organisiert
und forciert. Als deren dauerhafte Wohnplätze scheinen sie jedoch zunächst nicht gedient zu haben,17 denn
Auch Kempke 1999:53, resümiert: „die Wehrfunktion stand im
17
Mittelpunkt“.
51
Sebastian
Brather
die Jahrringdaten belegen einen zeitlich und räumlich
eng begrenzten Burgenbau, der mit historischen „Ereignis-Horizonten“ korrespondiert. Dennoch sind wohl
Rückschlüsse auf soziale Strukturen möglich, weil die
Errichtung ein geplantes, koordiniertes Vorgehen und
damit eine „zentrale“ Leitung voraussetzte; soziale
„Abhängigkeiten“ bestimmter Bevölkerung(sgrupp)en
lassen sich allerdings nur begründet vermuten. Die
Vielzahl an Ringwällen in der Niederlausitz dürfte
kleinräumig zersplitterte Machtverhältnisse widerspiegeln, während wenige Burgen in anderen Gebieten
für großräumigere Herrschaften sprechen. Nicht das
bloße Vorhandensein von Burgen, sondern ihre relative Häufigkeit oder regionale „Dichte“ dürfte ein Kriterium zur Abgrenzung von Herrschaftsbereichen sein.
Der Burgenbau stellt ein sekundäres, an bestimmte Situationen gebundenes Kennzeichen sozialer Differenzierung dar. Eine sozial differenzierte Gesellschaft bedarf jedoch nicht zwingend der Befestigungen, wie der
Blick auf andere historische Situationen (vorrömische
Eisenzeit, römische Kaiserzeit) unterstreicht.18 Wenn
es aber unter bestimmten Verhältnissen Befestigungen
gibt, dann machen sie indirekt Herrschaftsstrukturen
oder Machtverhältnisse sichtbar.
Wenn Burgwälle eine zunächst durch äußere Bedrohungen bedingte und damit örtlich und zeitlich spezifische Erscheinung darstellten, wie ist dann die Descriptio civitatum ad septentrionalem pagam Danubii
des sogenannten Bayerischen Geographen (Clm. 560,
fol. 149v/150r) zu bewerten? Diese kurze Liste, die
für viele gentes Osteuropas jeweils eine bestimmte
Anzahl von civitates nennt, galt bislang als Beleg für
eine flächendeckende Burgen- und Herrschaftsorganisation (Billig 1996). Wichtig ist die Datierung dieser
Quelle, die paläographisch um 900 angesetzt werden
kann.19 Relevanz für die Frühzeit slawischer Besiedlung besäße der Text nur dann, wenn er ältere „Schichten“ aufwiese. Die Jahrringdaten zeigen jedenfalls, daß
Burgwälle nicht von Beginn an die frühmittelalterliche
Besiedlung Ostmitteleuropas prägten und deshalb
nichts mit Einwanderungen und ethnischen „Überschichtungen“ zu tun haben; Burgen wurden vielmehr
in bereits bestehende „Siedlungskammern“ sekundär
hineingebaut, wie außerdem an vielen Orten ältere
Siedlungsbefunde unter dem Wall zeigen (Brather
2001:123). Eine Frühdatierung der Angaben des Textes
in die erste Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts (oder gar noch
früher), wie sie – unter der Prämisse eines frühen und
flächendeckenden Burgenbaus – nicht selten geäußert
Deshalb können Befestigungen nicht aus allgemeinen historischen
52
wurde (Herrmann 1986), müßte nun angesichts der
neuen Daten voraussetzen, daß mit dem Begriff civitas
nicht Burgen, sondern etwa „Siedlungskammern“ gemeint waren. Die knappen Angaben erlauben kaum ein
klares Urteil (zum Begriff: Hellmann 1984); lediglich
im Passus zu den Bulgaren, die ein sehr umfangreiches Gebiet bewohnen, wird die geringe Zahl von fünf
civitates damit begründet, daß dieses Volk (oder seine
Großen?) wegen seiner (ihrer?) großen Zahl und Macht
civitates nicht benötigte.20 Wahrscheinlich ist demnach, daß der Bayerische Geograph tatsächlich Burgen
auflistet – und demzufolge kaum vor den Jahrzehnten
um 900 angesetzt werden kann.
5. Gegenwärtiger Zwischenstand
Die Diskussionen um die Ursachen des frühmittelalterlichen Burgenbaus im östlichen Mitteleuropa und um
die Funktionen der Befestigungen dauern an (Abb. 10).
Die steigende Zahl der Jahrringdaten gestattet neue
und immer detailliertere Einblicke. Dessen ungeachtet
lassen sich einige Feststellungen treffen:
1. Sofern Dendrodaten vorliegen, erfolgte die Errichtung von Burgwällen in durch gewaltsam ausgetragene Konflikte geprägten Zeiten. In wieweit auch
„innerslawische“ Auseinandersetzungen den Burgenbau forcierten, ist schwer zu beurteilen; eindeutige
Hinweise darauf geben für die elbslawischen Gebiete weder schriftliche noch archäologische Quellen,
doch für Masowien zeichnet sich z. B. ein Burgenbau
als Reaktion auf piastische Expansionen ab (Dulinicz
1998; 1999). Trotz ihrer jahrgenauen Angaben können
Dendrodaten nur schwer mit einzelnen Ereignissen
verknüpft werden; sie spiegeln eher strukturelle Reaktionen auf politische Gegebenheiten wider.
2. Burgwälle stellten ein sekundäres Element frühmittelalterlicher Siedlungsstrukturen dar, denn zumindest
im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert kam man in weiten Teilen
Ostmitteleuropas ohne sie aus. Sie reflektieren damit
nicht unmittelbar wachsende soziale Differenzierungen, denn diese gab es auch ohne Befestigungen. Es
handelte sich bei den Burgwällen dennoch um eigenständige, charakteristische Bauten, die mittelbar Gesellschaftsstrukturen sichtbar werden lassen.21
3. Da es sich bei den Bauformen und Grundrissen
zunächst um zeittypische Modelle handelt, erlauben
diese Merkmale keinen Hinweis auf ihre jeweilige
Nutzung. Die Bauorganisation dürfte in den Händen
Herrmann 1965:220: Vulgarii regio est inmensa et populus multus
18
20
Erwägungen heraus postuliert werden, wie dies Hardt 2002:254
unternimmt.
19
Fritze 1989 („um 900“) und Bischoff 1960:262 Anm. 3 („noch vor
900“) – gegen Dralle 1981:43 f. (Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts) und
Fritze 1952 (zwischen 844 und 862).
habens civitates V. eo quod multitudo magna ex eis sit et non sit
eis opus civitates habere.
21
Dies gilt auch dann, falls sich unter den Befestigungen auch
„ringförmige[n] Gehege für Sklaven“ befanden, wie McCormick
2002:176 vermutet. Vgl. auch Donat 2001:235–242.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Abb. 10Archäologische Anhaltspunkte für die Rekonstruktion von Funktionen eines Burgwalls.
einer Oberschicht gelegen haben, doch waren die Anlagen keine „Herrenburgen“ im Sinne eines Adelssitzes. Zunächst bildeten sie vielleicht ad hoc errichtete
Refugien kleinerer bzw. größerer (Siedlungs-)Gemeinschaften, ohne damit romantischen Vorstellungen von
„Flucht-“ oder „Volksburgen“ zu entsprechen. Ihre
Anzahl je Region dürfte dennoch mittelbar die Reichweite politischer Herrschaft bzw. deren Zersplitterung
widerspiegeln.
4. Viele Burgwälle wurden, wenn die Bedrohung
weggefallen war, wieder aufgegeben. Andere Befestigungen existierten fort, indem sie weitere Funktionen
an sich zogen. In bzw. an den großen „Fürstenburgen“
waren neben der Herrschaft auch Kult22, Handwerk
und Austausch, Kommunikation und Schutz lokalisiert, was diese als zentrale Orte par excellence erscheinen läßt. Gerade diese strukturellen Aspekte sind
der archäologischen Interpretation direkt zugänglich,
während sich Herrschaftsverhältnisse und politische
Ereignisse allenfalls mittelbar in den Befunden reflektiert werden. Wirtschaftliche und soziale Differenzierungen kennzeichnen großräumigere Herrschaftsbildungen, wie sie sich erst an den „Großburgen“ des
10. Jahrhunderts (bzw. den großmährischen Anlagen
des 9. Jahrhunderts) ablesen lassen.
5. Die archäologische Burgenforschung muß sich in
jedem Einzelfall auf Luftbilder und geophysikalische
Kirchen fanden sich – in Mähren, Böhmen, Polen und bei den
22
Elbslawen – stets innerhalb der umwallten Fläche; vgl. zum Zusammenhang zwischen Burg und Kirche Streich 1984.
Prospektion, gezielte Flächengrabungen und präzise
Jahrringdaten sowie die Einbeziehung des Umfelds
konzentrieren. Nur dann läßt sich vermeiden, daß eine
einseitige Fixierung auf Grundrißtypen und Gesellschaftsmodelle (mangels verläßlicher topographischer,
zeitlicher und funktionaler Einordnung) zu falschen
historischen Schlüssen führt. Nur dann kann die mißliche Gegenüberstellung von „Fluchtburg“ und „Herrensitz“ überwunden werden – und die wirtschaftliche
Bedeutung der Burgen verstärkt in den Blick genommen werden.
Literatur
Behla, R. 1888. Die vorgeschichtlichen Rundwälle im östlichen Deutschland. Eine vergleichend-archäologische
Studie. Berlin.
Bersu, G. 1930. Der Breite Berg bei Striegau. Eine Burgwalluntersuchung I. Die Grabungen. Breslau.
Biermann, F./Dalitz, St./Heußner, K.-U. 1999. Der Brunnen
von Schmerzke, Stadt Brandenburg a. d. Havel, und die
absolute Chronologie der frühslawischen Besiedlung im
nordostdeutschen Raum. In: Prähistorische Zeitschrift 74,
219–243.
Biermann, F./Frey, K. 2001. Ringwall und Macht. Über die
Burgen des 9./10. Jh. am Teltow und im Berliner Raum. In:
Przegląd archeologiczny 49, 59–83.
Billig, G. 1996. Zur Rekonstruktion der ältesten slawischen
Burgbezirke im obersächsisch-meißnischen Raum auf der
Grundlage des Bayerischen Geographen. In: Neues Archiv
für sächsische Geschichte 66, 1995, 27–67.
Bischoff, B. 1960. Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und
Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit 1. Die bayrischen Diözesen. ²Wiesbaden.
53
Sebastian
Brather
54
Brachmann, H. 1993. Der frühmittelalterliche Befestigungsbau in Mitteleuropa. Untersuchungen zu seiner Entwicklung und Funktion im germanisch-deutschen Bereich.
Berlin.
Brachmann, H. 1996. Westslawische Burgherrschaft im Übergang von der Stammes- zur Staatsgesellschaft. In: Osteuropäische Geschichte in vergleichender Sicht. Festschrift
K. Zernack, hrsg. M. G. Müller/F. Adanir/Chr. Lübke/M.
Schulze Wessel. Berliner Jahrbuch für osteuropäische Geschichte 1996/1. Berlin, 55–73.
Brather, S. 1998. Karolingerzeitlicher Befestigungsbau im
wilzisch-abodritischen Raum. Die sogenannten Feldberger
Höhenburgen. In: Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Tagung Nitra 1996, hrsg. J. Henning/
A. T. Ruttkay. Bonn, 115–126.
Brather, S. 2001. Archäologie der westlichen Slawen. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa. Berlin, New York.
Brunner, O. 1939. Land und Herrschaft. Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Südostdeutschlands im
Mittelalter. Baden.
Burg 1995. Burg – Burgstadt – Stadt. Zur Genese mittelalterlicher nichtagrarischer Zentren in Ostmitteleuropa, hrsg.
H. Brachmann. Berlin.
Donat, P. 1984. Die Mecklenburg. Eine Hauptburg der Obodriten. Berlin.
Donat, P. 2001. Aktuelle Fragen der archäologischen Forschungen zur Geschichte der Slawen im nördlichen Deutschland. In: Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Jahrbuch 48, 2000, 215–257.
Dralle, L. 1978. Wilzen, Sachsen und Franken um das Jahr
800. In: Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter, hrsg.
H. Beumann. Sigmaringen, 205–227.
Dralle, L. 1981. Slawen an Havel und Spree. Studien zur Geschichte des hevellisch-wilzischen Fürstentums (6. bis 10.
Jh.). Berlin.
Dulinicz, M. 1998. Frühmittelalterliche Burgen in Masowien.
Erste Ergebnisse der deutsch-polnischen Untersuchungen.
In: Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Tagung Nitra 1996, hrsg. J. Henning/A. T. Ruttkay.
Bonn, 167–174.
Dulinicz, M. 1999. Archeologia o Mazowszu w czasie
powstawania państwa polskiego. Zarys problematyki. Archeologia Polski 44, 93–116.
Dulinicz, M. 2002. Forschungen zu den Herrschaftszentren
des 10. bis 11. Jahrhunderts in Polen. In: Europa im 10.
Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit, hrsg. J.
Henning. Mainz, 147–160.
Dvorská, J./Boháčová, I. 1999. Das historische Holz im Kontext der archäologischen Untersuchungen der Prager Burg.
In: Probleme der mitteleuropäischen Dendrochronologie
und naturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Talaue der March,
hrsg. L. Poláček/J. Dvorská. Brno, 55–67.
Dvorská, J./Heußner, U./Poláček, L./Westphal, Th. 1999.
Zum Stand der Dendrochronologie in Mikulčice (Mähren,
Tschechien). In: Probleme der mitteleuropäischen Dendrochronologie und naturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur
Talaue der March, hrsg. L. Poláček/J. Dvorská. Brno,
69–78.
Ebner, H. 1976: Die Burg als Forschungsproblem mittelalterlicher Verfassungsgeschichte. In: Die Burgen im deutschen
Sprachraum. Ihre rechts- und verfassungsgeschichtliche
Bedeutung 1, hrsg. H. Patze. Sigmaringen, 11–82.
Eggers, H. J. 1986. Einführung in die Vorgeschichte.
³München.
Friedel, E. 1878. Die Stein-, Bronce- und Eisen-Zeit in der
Mark Brandenburg. Berlin.
Fritze, W. H. 1952. Die Datierung des Geographus Bavarus
und die Stammesverfassung der Abodriten. In: Zeitschrift
für slavische Philologie 21, 326–342.
Fritze, W. H. 1989. s. v. Geographus Bavarus. In: Lexikon
des Mittelalters 4. München, Zürich, 1269 f.
Frolík, J./Smetánka, Z. 1997. Archeologie na pražskem
hradě. Praha, Litomyšl.
Gabriel, I. 1984. Starigard/Oldenburg. Hauptburg der Slawen
in Wagrien 1. Stratigraphie und Chronologie. Neumünster.
Gabriel, I. 1989. Hof- und Sakralkultur sowie Gebrauchsund Handelsgut im Spiegel der Kleinfunde von Starigard/
Oldenburg. In: Berichte der RGK 69, 1988, 103–291.
Gebuhr, R. 1996. Burg und Landschaft. Kulturhistorische
Untersuchung zur Archäologie frühgeschichtlicher Wehrbauten an Elbe und Elster am Beispiel der Burg auf dem
„Grünen Berg“ bei Gehren. Magisterarbeit HumboldtUniversität. Berlin.
Gebuhr, K./Gebuhr, R. 2001. Bemerkungen zum Begriff
„Burg“. In: Sinn und Sein, Burg und Mensch, hrsg. F.
Daim/Th. Kühtreiber. Ausstellungskatalog. St. Pölten,
418–426.
Götze, A. 1901. Die Schwedenschanze auf der Klinke bei
Riewend, Kreis Westhavelland. In: Nachrichten über deutsche Alterthumsfunde 12, 17–26.
Grebe, K. 1991. Die Brandenburg vor 1000 Jahren. Potsdam.
Gringmuth-Dallmer, E. 1998. Bevölkerungsexplosion um
die Jahrtausendwende? Zur Umgestaltung der slawischen
Siedlungslandschaft in Nordostdeutschland. In: Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen Siedlungslandschaften. Festschrift G. Kossack, hrsg. H. Küster/A.
Lang/P. Schauer. Regensburg, 577–601.
Hardt, M. 2002. Aspekte der Herrschaftsbildung bei den
frühen Slawen. In: Integration und Herrschaft. Ethnische
Identitäten und soziale Organisation im Frühmittelalter,
hrsg. W. Pohl/M. Diesenberger. Wien, 249–255.
Hellmann, M. 1984. s. v. civitas § 2. civitas bei den Slawen.
In: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde² 5. Berlin, New York, 13–14.
Henning, J. 1991. Germanen, Slawen, Deutsche. Neue Untersuchungen zum frühgeschichtlichen Siedlungswesen östlich der Elbe. In: Prähistorische Zeitschrift 66, 119–133.
Henning, J. 1997. Ringwallburgen und Reiterkrieger. Zum
Wandel der Militärstrategie im ostsächsisch-slawischen
Raum an der Wende vom 9. zum 10. Jahrhundert.
��
In: Military studies in medieval Europe. Papers of the ‘Medieval
Europe Brugge 1997’ conference 11, ed. G.
��
de Boe/Fr.
Verhaeghe. Zellik, 21–31.
Henning, J. 1998. Archäologische Forschungen an Ringwällen in Niederungslage. Die Niederlausitz als Burgenlandschaft des östlichen Mitteleuropas im frühen Mittelalter.
In: Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Tagung Nitra 1996, hrsg. J. Henning/A. T. Ruttkay.
Bonn, 9–29.
Henning, J. 2002. Der slawische Siedlungsraum und die ottonische Expansion östlich der Elbe. Ereignisgeschichte,
Archäologie, Dendrochronologie. In: Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit, hrsg. J. Henning. Mainz, 131–146.
Henning, J./Heußner, K.-U. 1991. Zur
��
Burgengeschichte im
10. Jahrhundert. Neue archäologische und dendrochrono-
BALTICA 6
tausrüstung aus Europa und ihr Beitrag zur Kultur- und
Sozialgeschichte der Ottonenzeit. In: Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit, hrsg. J. Henning. Mainz, 283–299.
Klemm, G. Fr. 1836. Handbuch der Germanischen Alterthümer. Dresden.
Knorr, H. A. 1937. Die slawische Keramik zwischen Elbe
und Oder. Einteilung und Zeitansetzung auf Grund der
Münzgefäße. Mit einem kurzen Abriß der frühmittelalterlichen Keramik. Leipzig.
��
Kobyliński, Z. 1990. Early medieval hillforts in Polish lands
in the 6th to the 8th centuries. Problems of origins, function, and spatial organization. In: From the Baltic to the
Black Sea. Studies in medieval archaeology, ed. D. Austin/
L. Alcock. London, 147–156.
Krąpiec, M. 1998. Dendrochronological dating of early medieval fortified settlements in Poland. In:
��
Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Tagung Nitra
1996, hrsg. J. Henning/A. T. Ruttkay. Bonn, 257–266.
Kurnatowska, Z. 1991. Tworzenie się państwa pierwszych
piastów w aspekcie archeologicznym, in: Od plemienia do państwa. Śląsk na tle wczesnośredniowiecznej
słowiańszczyzny zachodniej, hrsg. L. Leciejewicz.
Wrocław, Warszawa, 77–98.
Kurnatowska, Z. 2000a. Herrschaftszentren und Herrschaftsorganisation. In: Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie 1, hrsg. A. Wieczorek/H.M. Hinz. Ausstellungskatalog Budapest, Krakau, Berlin,
Mannheim, Prag, Bratislava. Stuttgart, 458–463.
Kurnatowska, Z. 2000b. Wczesnopiastowskie grody centralne. Podobieństwa i różnice. In: Gniezno i Poznań w
państwe pierwszych Piastów, hrsg. A. Wójtowicz. Poznań,
9–32.
Langenheim, K. 1939. Der frühslawische Burgwall von Gustau, Kr. Glogau. In: Altschlesien 8, 104–127.
Lübke, Chr. 1991. Arbeit und Wirtschaft im östlichen Mitteleuropa. Die Spezialisierung menschlicher Tätigkeit
im Spiegel der hochmittelalterlichen Toponymie in den
Herrschaftsgebieten von Piasten, Přemysliden und Arpaden. Stuttgart.
Marschalleck, K.-H. 1954. Burgenprobleme zwischen Elbe
und Oder. In: Frühe Burgen und Städte. Beiträge zur Burgen- und Stadtkernforschung. Festschrift W. Unverzagt.
Berlin, 29–43.
McCormick, M. 2002. Verkehrswege, Handel und Sklaven
zwischen Europa und dem Nahen Osten um 900. Von der
Geschichtsschreibung zur Archäologie? In: Europa im
10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit, hrsg. J.
Henning. Mainz, 171–180.
Meyer, M. im Druck. Zur Entwicklung der archäologischen
Grabungstechnik in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts
aus Berliner und Brandenburger Sicht. In: Berlin und
Brandenburg. Geschichte der archäologischen Forschung.
Tagung Berlin 2003, hrsg. E. Gringmuth-Dallmer/J. Kunow/W. Menghin.
v. Müller, A./v. Müller-Muči, K./Nekuda, V. 1993. Die
Keramik vom Burgwall in Berlin-Spandau. Berlin.
Olczak, J./Siuchniński, K. 1975. Typologische Klassifikation der frühmittelalterlichen Burganlagen in Mittelpommern. In: Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 16,
443–474.
Petersen, E. 1937. Der Burgwall von Kleinitz, Kr. Grünberg.
In: Altschlesien 7, 59–93.
Poláček, L. 1996. Zum Stand der siedlungsarchäologischen Forschung in Mikulčice. In: Frühmittelalterliche
Machtzentren in Mitteleuropa. Mehrjährige Grabungen
ARCHAELOGIA
logische Daten zu Anlagen vom Typ Tornow. In: Ausgrabungen und Funde 37, 314–324.
van Heringen, R. M./Hendrikx, P. A./Mars, A. 1995. Vroegmiddeleeuwse ringwalburgen in Zealand. Goes, Amersfoort.
Herrmann, E. 1965. Slawisch-germanische Beziehungen
im südostdeutschen Raum von der Spätantike bis zum
Ungarnsturm. Ein Quellenbuch mit Erläuterungen. München.
Herrmann, J. 1960. Die vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Burgwälle Groß-Berlins und des Bezirkes Potsdam. Berlin.
Herrmann, J. 1966. Tornow und Vorberg. Ein Beitrag zur
Frühgeschichte der Lausitz. Berlin.
Herrmann, J. 1967. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede im
Burgenbau der slawischen Stämme westlich der Oder. In:
Zeitschrift für Archäologie 1, 206–258.
Herrmann, J. 1968. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse der slawischen Stämme zwischen Oder/
Neiße und Elbe. Studien auf der Grundlage archäologischen Materials. Berlin.
Herrmann, J. 1969. Feldberg, Rethra und das Problem der
wilzischen Höhenburgen. In: Slavia antiqua 16, 33–69.
Herrmann, J. 1976. Zwischen Hradschin und Vineta. Frühe
Kulturen der Westslawen. ²Leipzig, Jena, Berlin.
Herrmann, J. 1983. Wanderungen und Landnahme im westslawischen Gebiet. ��
In: Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali
nell’alto medioevo 1. Spoleto, 75–101.
Herrmann, J. 1986. Ruzzi, Forsderen ludi, Fresiti. Zu historischen und siedlungsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen des
„Bayrischen Geographen“ aus der ersten Hälfte des 9.
Jahrhunderts. In: ders., Wege zur Geschichte. Ausgewählte
Beiträge, hrsg. B. Tesche. Berlin, 455–461.
Herrmann, J./Coblenz, W. 1985. Burgen und Befestigungen.
In: Die Slawen in Deutschland. Geschichte und Kultur der
slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neiße vom 6.
bis 12. Jahrhundert. Ein Handbuch. Neubearbeitung, hrsg.
J. Herrmann. Berlin, 186–232.
Herrmann, J./Heußner, K.-U. 1992. Dendrochronologie,
Archäologie und Frühgeschichte vom 6. bis 12. Jh. in den
Gebieten zwischen Saale, Elbe und Oder. In: Ausgrabungen und Funde 36, 255–290.
Heußner, K.-U./Westphal, T. 1998. Dendrochronologische
Untersuchungen an Holzfunden aus frühmittelalterlichen
Burgwällen zwischen Elbe und Oder. In: Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Tagung Nitra
1996, hrsg. J. Henning/A. T. Ruttkay. Bonn, 223–234.
Hülle, W. 1940. Westausbreitung und Wehranlagen der Slawen in Mitteldeutschland. Leipzig.
Jahn, M. 1937. Der Burgwall von Poppschütz, Kr. Freystadt.
In: Altschlesien 7, 93–112.
Jankuhn, H. 1976. Die sächsischen Burgen der karolingischen Zeit. In: Die Burgen im deutschen Sprachraum. Ihre
rechts- und verfassungsgeschichtliche Bedeutung 1, hrsg.
H. Patze. Sigmaringen, 359–382.
Jankuhn, H. 1981. s. v. Burgenkunde. In: Reallexikon der
germanischen Altertumskunde² 4. Berlin, New York, 216–
223.
Jäschke, K.-U. 1975. Burgenbau und Landesverteidigung um
900. Überlegungen zu Beispielen aus Deutschland, Frankreich und England. Sigmaringen.
Kempke, T. 1999. Slawische Burgen des 7.–10. Jahrhunderts.
In: Burgen in Mitteleuropa. Ein Handbuch 1. Bauformen
und Entwicklung, hrsg. H. W. Böhme/B. von der Dollen/D. Kerber/C. Meckseper/B. Schock-Werner/J. Zeune.
Stuttgart, 45–53.
Kind, Th. 2002. Archäologische Funde von Teilen der Rei-
55
Sebastian
Brather
56
und ihre Auswertung, hrsg. Č. Staňa/L. Poláček. Brno,
213–260.
Preidel, H. 1961. Slawische Altertumskunde des östlichen
Mitteleuropas im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert 1. Gräfelfing.
Preidel, H. 1966. Slawische Altertumskunde des östlichen
Mitteleuropas im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert 3. Gräfelfing.
Radig, W. 1940. Die sorbischen Burgen Westsachsens und
Ostthüringens. In: Hülle 1940, 119–167.
Schuchhardt, C. 1909. Die Römerschanze bei Potsdam nach
den Ausgrabungen 1908 und 1909. In: Prähistorische
Zeitschrift 1, 209–238.
Schuchhardt, C. 1913. s. v. Befestigungswesen. In: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, hrsg. J.
Hoops, Bd. 1. Stuttgart, 204–211.
Schuchhardt, C. 1919. 1. Festrede des Vorsitzenden Herrn
Schuchhardt. In: Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 51, 276–290.
Schuchhardt, C. 1924. Die frühgeschichtlichen Befestigungen in Niedersachsen. Bad Salzuflen.
Schuchhardt, C. 1926. Arkona, Rethra, Vineta. Ortsuntersuchungen und Ausgrabungen. ²Berlin.
Schuchhardt, C. 1931. Die Burg im Wandel der Weltgeschichte. Potsdam.
Schuchhardt, C. 1939. Vorgeschichte von Deutschland. 4Berlin.
Schuldt, E. 1985. Groß Raden. Ein slawischer Tempelort des
9./10. Jahrhunderts in Mecklenburg. Berlin.
Šolle, M. 1984. Staroslovanské hradisko. Charakteristika,
funkce, výrós a význam. Praha.
Starigard/Oldenburg 1991. Starigard/Oldenburg. Ein
slawischer Herrschersitz des frühen Mittelalters in Ostholstein, hrsg. M. Müller-Wille. Neumünster.
Streich, G. 1984. Burg und Kirche während des deutschen
Mittelalters. Untersuchungen zur Sakraltopographie von
Pfalzen, Burgen und Herrensitzen 1–2. Sigmaringen.
Unverzagt, M. 1985. Wilhelm Unverzagt und die Pläne zur
Gründung eines Instituts für die Vorgeschichte Ostdeutschlands. Mainz.
Unverzagt, W. 1940. Der Burgwall von Kliestow, Kr. Lebus.
In: Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte [Festschrift Carl
Schuchhardt]. Berlin, 73–87.
Unverzagt, W. 1942. Landschaft, Burgen und Bodenfunde
als Quellen nordostdeutscher Frühgeschichte. In: Deutsche Ostforschung. Ergebnisse und Aufgaben seit dem
ersten Weltkrieg. Festschrift Albert Brackmann, hrsg. H.
Aubin/O. Brunner/W. Kohte/J. Papritz, Bd. 1. Leipzig,
267–290.
v. Uslar, R. 1964. Studien zu frühgeschichtlichen Befestigungen zwischen Nordsee und Alpen. Köln, Graz.
Virchow, R. 1869. Die Pfahlbauten im nördlichen Deutschland. In: Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 1, 401–416.
Virchow, R. 1872. Über Gräberfelder und Burgwälle der Nieder-Lausitz und die überoderischen Gebiete. In: Zeitschrift
für Ethnologie 4, , Verhandlungen, (226)–(238).
Virchow, R. 1880. Der Spreewald und die Lausitz. Zeitschrift
für Ethnologie 12, 222–236.
Wachter, B. 1981. s. v. Burg § 27. Westslaw[ische] B[urg].
In: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde² 4. Berlin, New York, 202–208.
Wagner, Fr. A. 1828. Die Tempel und Pyramiden der Urbewohner auf dem rechten Elbufer unweit dem Ausfluß der
schwarzen Elster. Leipzig.
Wetzel, G. 1985. Die archäologischen Untersuchungen in
den Gemarkungen Schönfeld und Seese, Kr. Calau. In:
Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam 19, 13–117.
Zeune, J. 1996. Burgen. Symbole der Macht. Ein neues Bild
der mittelalterlichen Burg. Regensburg.
Sebastian Brather
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Universität Wien,
Austria
[email protected]
Erhalten: 2002
NUO „PILIES-SLĖPTUVĖS“
I K I „ D I D I K O RE Z I DENC I J O S “ .
RY T Ų I R V I D U R I O E U R O P O S
ANKSTYVŲJŲ VIDURAMŽIŲ IR
VIDURAMŽIŲ PILIAKALNIAI
S O C I A L I N Ė S I S T O R I J O S ASPEKTU
Sebastian Brather
Santrauka
Diskusija apie priežastis, kurios ankstyvaisiais viduramžiais vertė pradėti statyti pilis, tebesitęsia. Naujai ir
detaliau pažvelgti į šį reiškinį leidžia pastaruoju metu
gausėjančios dendrochronologinės datos. Daromos tokios išvados:
1. Žmonės piliakalnius pradėjo įrenginėti ir pilis statyti paaštrėjus tarpusavio kovoms tarp genčių ir
genčių viduje. Elbės slavų regione tai paliudyta
rašytiniais ir archeologijos šaltiniais. Mazovijoje
pilių statyba siejama su reakcija į Piastų ekspansiją. Dendrochronologines datas sunku susieti su
konkrečiais istoriniais įvykiais, tačiau jos pakankamai gerai atspindi struktūrinę reakciją į politinius
įvykius.
2. Piliakalniai yra antrinis ankstyvųjų viduramžių
gyvenviečių struktūrinis elementas. Piliakalniai
neatspindi augančios socialinės diferenciacijos – ji
egzistavo ir prieš jiems atsirandant. Piliakalnių statybos reiškinys yra tarpininkas, padedantis išryškinti visuomenės struktūrą.
3. Piliakalnių formą ir planą galima susieti su atitinkamais laikotarpiais, tačiau šie požymiai negali
parodyti jų naudojimo būdo. Pilių statybos organizavimas buvo aukštesniojo visuomenės sluoksnio rankose, tačiau jos nuo to netampa „didikų
pilimis“. Pilys turbūt pradžioje buvo skirtos pasislėpti bendruomenės nariams, tačiau jos neatitinka
romantiško „pilių-slėptuvių“ ar „liaudies pilių“
įvaizdžio. Pilių skaičius buvo susijęs su politinės
valdžios susiskaldymu regionuose.
5. Pilių archeologija turi apimti aerofotografiją, geofizinius tyrimus, kasinėjimus dideliais plotais, tikslias dendrochronologines datas, aplinkos tyrimus.
Vienpusė piliakalnių planų ir modelių fiksacija, neatsižvelgiant į topografinius, temporalinius ir funkcinius veiksnius, gali sąlygoti klaidingas istorines
išvadas. Abejotiną priešpriešą tarp sąvokų „pilis
slėptuvė“ ir „didiko rezidencija“ leistų atmesti tik
tyrimų visuma.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
4. Dauguma pilių būdavo atstatinėjamos periodiškai,
kitos keitė savo funkcijas. Pvz., didelėse „kunigaikščių pilyse“, be valdymo funkcijos, įžiūrimos ir
kitos: kulto, amatų ir prekinių mainų, komunikacijų
ir gynybinė. Tokios pilys laikomos centrinėmis vietomis. Šias funkcijas ir politinius įvykius atspindi
archeologiniai radiniai. Aukštuomenės formacijas
išryškino ūkinė ir socialinė diferenciacija bei X a.
„didžiosios pilys“.
57
Marina
Smirnova
Pole Constructions in Open Air
Ritual Areas of the Northern
Sambian Coast in the First
Millennium Ad
P o l e C ons t r u c t i ons i n O p e n A i r R i t u a l
A r e as of t h e N ort h e rn S am b i an C oas t i n
t h e f i rs t M i l l e nn i u m A D
Marina Smirnova
Abstract
The open ritual area is one type of pagan cult site. In this article are presented the results of an analysis of wooden pole frames
and constructions from six open ritual areas in the northern Sambian peninsula. Their chronogical time covers the third to the
13th centuries AD. Open ritual areas coexisted with fireplaces and pits. In the early phase pole constructions are characterised
by a rectangular shape, and subsequently a roundish shape. Analogies with open ritual areas are known in Poland, Denmark
and Germany.
Key words: open ritual area, Sambia, wooden pole, ritual, fireplace, pit, construction.
The open ritual area (ORA) represents one type of pagan cult site. The term was introduced by I.P. Rusanova (Русанова, Тимощук 1993: 6) for the notation of
places for the realisation of repeated rites, which were
never contoured or distinguished by artificial banks
or ditches. The complexity of their functional attribution and their relative sparsity for a long time made
these archaeological sites an “ungrateful theme” for
the typology, analysis of components, and describing
of chronological and local variants. However, recently
researchers from different countries have carried out
the cataloguing of ritual areas in the southeast Baltic and nearby territories (Даугудис 1988, Daugudis
1992; Русанова, Тимощук 1993; Slupecki 1994;
Vaitkevičius 1998, etc). This has revealed a considerable amount of archaeological sites in this category.
Thus, the opportunity has appeared to compare ОRA
planigraphic characteristics, and to analyse the components and means of structural organisation.
I present the results of an analysis of wooden pole
frames and constructions which form one of the organisational components of ritual areas in this quite short
publication. (Besides the timber frames and constructions for such sites, stones and pavements, pits, fireplaces and other devices should be mentioned as features of the organisation of the sacral space for ritual
activity.) A compact group of six ORAs in the northern Sambian peninsula (Kaliningrad region, Russia)
was chosen for analysis (Fig. 1). They probably had a
similar ritual function, since all of them are situated in
cemeteries or are adjoining them. Their chronological
time span is quite wide: the third to the 13th centuries
AD. The considerable role of “purgatorial fire” in the
rituals of the people who left these sites does not allow
58
us to date precisely the initial appearance of these ritual
complexes; therefore, the relative chronology here can
be based only on the abandoning of a complex or an
enclosed space. The termination of activity at these
sites is as follows:
1. third to fifth centuries AD for the “area with three
fireplaces” at Dobroye (Hünenberg);
2. fourth to fifth centuries for the “Moulder workshop”
at Dobroye (Hünenberg);
3. not later than the early sixth century for Kovrovo
(Dollkeim);
4. late tenth century for Klintsovka 1;
5. tenth century for Mokhovoye (Kaup);
6. not later than the 13th century for Klintsovka 3.
All these ritual places were excavated in 1978–2002
by the Baltic archaeological expedition under Vladimir
Kulakov.
We can reconstruct actual timber pole constructions
and frames basing ourselves only on preserved postholes, since unburned timber cannot survive in the local soil. Post-holes traced during excavations allow us
to discern two variants:
1. small shallow pits left by thin poles with a diameter
of about ten centimetres;
2. post-holes from poles with a large diameter, which
have been dug up to a metre into the subsoil.
The physical characteristics of such post-holes vary in
particular sites depending on the soil and the probable
means of their erection, but in general such differences
are seen in the majority of the sites analysed.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Open-air ritual areas on the northern coast of Sambia.
The difference between these two variants can be especially clearly seen at Dollkeim (Fig. 2). In contrast
to larger post-holes, pits of the first type never form
any complex constructions, planigraphically they may
be seen as single or forming small groups. Such pits
here were frequently dug over already existing holes
of other types. Alternatively, poles may also be traced
only at the bottom of pits covered by later deposits.
This allows us to assume a short period of existence
of thin poles.
Massive poles are included here into the original frame,
and are discussed below.
Two types of holes are identified at the Hünenberg
ORA, but not so evidently as at Dollkeim. At the eastern ritual complex (the “field with three fireplaces”
(Fig. 3), pits of a smaller diameter are seen as an irregular group in the eastern part of the eastern construction.
Meanwhile, poles of a different diameter were used in
the same sites for more complex constructions.
A combination in one construction of poles with a different diameter demonstrates the rather younger western complex (the so-called “moulder workshop”) from
the ritual area of this cemetery (Fig. 4).
In the Hünenberg ORA thin poles were probably used
as a supplementary material in complex wooden construction. At the same time, they also served as temporary markers: a function recorded not only for the ritual
area, but also for the cemetery’s surroundings.
The tendency to use poles of a different diameter in one
construction is even more clearly seen in the Klintsovka 3 open ritual area, where holes with variations in diameter of two or three times coexist in the same series
during both phases of its functioning (Fig. 5). Only in
two cases is it possible to assume a short-term use and
a slight replacement of poles, which are located near
other ritual objects in the eastern ritual group of the
early phase and the late phase of the southern group.
These post-holes were dug into pits of a larger diameter, and their characteristics give us reason to suppose
that they were not intended as poles.
A few post-holes are recorded at the Klintsovka 1 ORA
(Fig. 6), and there is not sufficient data to divide them
according to diameter.
Only two post-holes of quite a large diameter were revealed at the Kaup-Mokhovoye ritual area (Fig. 7).
At the ORA under consideration, massive poles were
used in two ways: as detached post poles, and for complex pole frames and constructions.
Post poles. These are recorded at Klintsovka 1 ORA,
where they were included in ritual groups and combined with other elements of ritual structures. They are
related to stone with traces of anthropogenic activity
and with a groove-shaped pit. This group is situated at
the southern border of the area. Revealed at the northwest border of the same area, stone rings may presum-
59
Fig. 2. Dollkeim cemetery. Pole constructions of the early and late phase
60
Marina
Smirnova
Millennium Ad
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 3. Early and late pole constructions in the “open-air ritual area with three fireplaces”, Hünenberg cemetery
ably be interpreted as the remains of the strengthening
for a pole of considerable diameter. As in the south, it
was accompanied by a stone with artificial marks and
some pits, which have a function other than the erection of poles.
A ritual group with similar elements (which comprised
a pole, a stone, and a pit of another type) marks the
western border of the ORA at Klintsovka 3 (Fig. 5).
One more post-pole was traced to the southeast of the
stone-paved fireplace.
Two massive poles were elements of a sacral structure
of the Mokhovoye-Kaup open-air ritual area (Fig. 7).
They are aligned from north to south, and have some
stone paving; however, the character of the post-holes’
infill differs, so they cannot be considered as elements
of one pole construction.
It should be noted that we do not have enough information to discuss whether these poles were decorated
with anthropomorphic carvings in their upper part, ie if
they were used as idols.
Complex pole constructions and frames. Some variants
of pole constructions and frames were recorded in the
ritual areas considered.
The earliest construction comes from Dollkeim-Kovrovo (Fig. 2). Here in the south of the ritual area the remains of a rectangular-shaped pole frame are revealed,
running from north to south. Pits of an average diameter form its long sides, and there is one more series
of pits in the central part, where the pits are aligned
in the same direction. Along the western side, at the
ancient surface, some residuals of a sod band were
found. These pieces of surface soil with roots of plants
probably adjoined the bottom of the “wall” line. Unfortunately destroyed by pits on the northern side of the
construction, they belonged to the later phase of the
ritual area’s existence. The construction is dated to the
Late Roman Period; it has analogies in Poland, and on
the southwest and western shores of the Baltic (Fig. 8)
(Mączyńska 1998: 304, abb. 7).
To the north and northeast of this construction another one appeared later, and partly overlapped it. With
modifications and rearrangements, it existed right up
61
Marina
Smirnova
Millennium Ad
Fig. 4. Pole construction at
the “moulder workshop”,
Hünenberg cemetery
Fig. 5. The open-air ritual area at Klintsovka 3: pole constructions of the early and the late phases
62
to the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries (Fig. 8). This
construction consists of two lines of massive poles, and
runs from northeast to southwest.
ular series of thin poles. The basic elements (stones,
pits, etc) of construction were found in the frames of
the rectangular area.
The southeast line length is 16.5 metres, it included
four poles, separated by 4.5 metres from each other.
The remnants of the second line are nine metres northwest of it. Only one pole has survived, while others
were destroyed by modern pits. The southwest and
northwest borders of the area are marked by an irreg-
It is interesting that sections of 4.5 metres in length and
divisible by 4.5 metres probably represent a Prussian
measure of length in those times, as this length was
revealed in other ritual areas, which will be discussed
below.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 6. The open-air ritual area at Klintsovka 1
Attention should be paid to the fact that there were permanent walls between the poles of one series. It may
be traced by the location of synchronic pits of another
character on each side of the presumable wall, as well as
by the lack of either wall remnants or even traces of it.
Stratigraphic observations on pits located inside and
outside the frame revealed “aeolian constructions”. The
geographer L.A. Zhindarev kindly confirmed that they
appear during rainy and stormy seasons in areas with
a similar soil (mild loamy sand), which clearly demonstrates the lack of a roof above the considered area.
Thus, we are dealing with pole constructions without
permanent walls, bounding the central part of the ritual
area. The frame, along with other ritual objects of the
open-air ritual area under consideration, went out of
use no later than the early sixth century AD, when burials cut into the remnants of pits and constructions in
the ritual area.
Pole constructions and frames are revealed in a ritual
area at Dobroye-Hünenberg cemetery in its eastern as
well as its western parts (Fig. 9). In many respects,
similar and partly overlapping pole constructions were
revealed at the extreme western area (the “area with
three fireplaces” (Fig. 3). The more eastern one was excavated almost completely, while the western one was
partly destroyed by a modern sand pit.
The eastern rectangular frame was constructed from
coupled poles (with somewhat massive poles erected
at the corners). Its longer sides ran from northwest to
southeast. The short sides were 4.5 metres long, while
the longer ones extended to 8.7 or nine metres. The
northwest part was fenced in by a double series of poles.
Coupled poles were also found at the centre of the construction. The locating of pits/fireplaces between the
poles of the shorter side confirms a lack of permanent
walls at least along the shorter sections, at Dollkeim.
Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to discuss
the possibility of the existence of a roof. The construction was presumably destroyed by a fire, which may be
traced by ash and charcoal in the post-holes.
Planigraphically similar remnants of the second frame,
with the same coupled poles and fireplaces on the
shorter side, were traced to the east of the above-mentioned construction. Its southeast part was destroyed
by the sand pit. Stratigraphic observations give some
grounds to suppose its later existence.
63
Marina
Smirnova
Millennium Ad
Fig. 7. The open-air ritual area, Kaup cemetery
Inside both frames there were complex ritual areas
with clay fireplaces, sacrificial pits, etc.
64
and 2.9 metres long.
The distance of 4.5 metres between coupled poles in
this frame should be noted as well.
As at the eastern ritual area, the pole construction here
coexisted with fireplaces and pits, forming a single
complex.
The construction in the western part of the sacral area
of the Dobroye-Hünenberg cemetery (the “moulder
workshop”) had slightly different characteristics (Fig.
4). It was erected in a small foundation pit of irregular
ovoid shape, facing the same way as the constructions
in the “area with three fireplaces”. Two symmetrical
series of pits left by thin poles were traced near the
short sides. Near the longer sides of the foundation pit
a similar pit was found in the northeast part, and a wider roundish hollow was recorded in the southwest. The
remnants of walls were not revealed. The pole frame
had an irregular rectangular shape with sides of two
Pole constructions in the open-air ritual area at Klintsovka 3 may be described as fences. This open-air ritual
area is the only one located outside a cemetery. During
the early as well as the late phases of its use it consisted
of a series of post-hole fencing from south-southwest
to southeast, and other elements (Fig. 5). In the late
phase, the series of close post-holes continues to the
northeast, pits of the early phase have not been recorded there, although they were probably destroyed by the
erection of the later pole construction. The planigraphics of the fence demonstrated its irregular roundish
shape, with an open space on the northwest side; the
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 8. Analogies with open-air ritual areas of the first and second chronological variants. 1 Open-air ritual areas of the
northern Sambian coast; 2 Enderupskov; 3 Højvang; 4 Hørløk; 5 Store Skinberg; 6 Farre; 7 Køstrup; 8 Bitoften;
9 Møllegårdsmarken; 10 Gjurup; 11 Friedland; 12 Novy Targ; 13 Maslomęcz; 14 Pskov; 15 Кereliai; 16 Bačkininkėliai;
17 Chodosevichi; 18 Shumsk; 19 Płock; 20 Breczlav-Pohansko
planigraphics of the pits are quite uniform in the early
phase.
A roundish paved area situated in the northwest open
sector was used as a fireplace. Inside the fence there
were pits and small stone paved areas.
Complex pole constructions and frames were not revealed in the Klintsovka 1 and Mokhovoye-Kaup open
ritual areas.
Unfortunately, the earliest pole construction belonging to the first phase of the Dollkeim ORA was later
destroyed. It is impossible to trace the location of the
entrance. Surviving remnants at the sides give reason
to suggest an orientation of the long axis from north
to south.
The long axis of all constructions from both parts of
the Dobroye-Hünenberg ORA was uniformly oriented,
and coincided with the sunset point at the summer solstice (astronomic observations were kindly made by
M.G. Gusakiv, in compliance with basic information
on the main points of sunrise and sunset, prepared at
the Physics Institute of Earth RAS). Taking into consideration the distribution of the fireplaces on the shorter
sides of the construction, the location of the pits inside
them, and the arrangement of the poles, we may suppose the existence of an entrance at the northeast side
of two constructions in the “area with two fireplaces”.
In the “moulder workshop” the location of the entrance
may be supposed to be on the southwest as well as the
northeast sides.
The orientation of the construction’s sides at the Dollkeim ORA during the late phase coincides with the
maximum of the moonrise at this latitude. From the
location of the construction’s sides, its entrance was
also at the northeast.
The alignment of the construction’s sides during the
late phase of the Dollkeim ORA (31° NE-SW) coin-
65
Marina
Smirnova
Millennium Ad
Fig. 9. Hünenberg cemetery. The “open-air ritual area with three fireplaces” and the “moulder workshop” in the cemetery
cides with the maximum point of the high moonrise
at the given latitude. By locating the objects in the
frame, we may suppose the position of an entrance in
the northeast side.
At both stages of the Klintsovka 3 ORA’s existence, its
“fence” was open to the northwest, where the fireplace
was located, so the ORA was oriented to the point of
the summer sunset at the solstice. It was in the exact direction from a southeast group of poles and pits through
a pole in front of the fireplace and the fireplace itself.
The “entrance” was presumably near the fireplace, to
the west of it, or less probably to the northwest, where
the open sector is shown in the line of poles.
It should be noted that the locating of poles and other objects inside the areas, where timber was traced,
mainly follows the same patterns: the orientation is to
the sunset at the summer solstice, to the points of sunrise and sunset of the full and new moon, and midday
points (north-south).
Such an exact arrangement of construction in accordance with astronomic points is evidence of special
accounts and measurements before the construction.
Probably, some of the pits of thin poles appeared from
the preliminary planning of the area, chosen by the ancient builders for an ORA.
66
The direction of the sunset point during the summer
solstice (there are five examples of such an alignment)
and the directions of the midday point, the moon, and
the summer sunset were probably the most important;
they are recorded for an early ORA (Hünenberg) as
well as for a later ORA (Kaup). So, this direction was
important during all the period considered.
Concerning chronological modifications in the form
and dimensions of the constructions, it should be mentioned that the rectangular shape and small dimensions
apply to more ancient ones (the early stage of Dollkeim, the “area with three fireplaces” from the Hünenberg ORA). Around the middle of the first millennium,
ORAs began to acquire other features: the areas were
enlarged, ORAs became ovoid or roundish in form.
Analogies with early areas are known in northern
Poland (Novy Targ, Maslomęcz), but they are much
more numerous in the southwest, in Denmark and in
the north of Germany (Enderupskov, Højvang, Hørløk,
Store Skinberg, Farre, Køstrup, Bitoften, Møllegårdsmarken, Gjurup, Friedland), where small pole frames
of a rectangular shape are known in cemeteries. They
are aligned mainly north-south, with a small deviation
to the northwest (Mączyńska 1998: 301–304). Late
ORAs have a roundish shape and have analogies in
remains from the same period in Lithuanian (Кereliai,
Bačkininkėliai, etc [Daugudis 1992: 65–67] and Slavic
territories [Płock, Breczlav-Pohansko, Pskov, Chodosevichi, Shumsk, etc]) (Slupecki 1994: 130–132;
Русанова, Тимощук 1993: 18) (Fig. 8).
Detached post poles are known everywhere.
There are no analogies with the ORA at Dollkeim because of its special features, though some details are the
same as at other ORAs considered. Its alignment differs,
its main axis depends on the moon instead of the sun.
In the second half of the period considered constructions gained a roundish shape, and detached post poles
were used more often.
During all the period under consideration, some technological details of constructions (alignment, measure of
length, etc) were kept to. The observance of traditions
in funeral rites and the existence of some cemeteries
throughout all the period is shown. Under these circumstances, it is possible to explain the modifications
in the forms and means of the sacral space organisation
in ORAs by changes in funeral rituals, in the participants, in the set of rituals which were followed at these
sanctuaries, and finally by changes in ideas about the
ties of the participants with the other world, the view of
the path of the deceased to the other world.
References
Daugudis, V. 1992. Pagoniškųjų šventyklų Lietuvoje klausimu. In: Ikikrikščioniškosios Lietuvos kultűra. Vilnius.
Mączyńska, M. 1998. Ein spätkaiserzeitliches “Totenhaus”
aus Ostpolen und sein Beziehungen zu Skandinavien. In:
Studien zur Archäologie des Ostsseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Neumünster.
Slupecki, L.P. 1994. Slavonic Pagan Sanctuaries. Warsaw.
Vaitkevičius, V. 1998. Senosios Lietuvos šventvietės. Vilnius.
Даугудис, В. 1988. О языческих святилищах в Литве.
In: Археология и история Пскова и псковской земли.
Псков.
Русанова, И.П., Тимощук, Б.А. 1993. Языческие
святилища древних славян. Москва.
Marina Smirnova
Institute of Archaeology
RAS, Dm. Ulyanova 19 Moscow, Russia
Received: 2002
I m . e . t ū kstantme č io
ritualini ų viet ų stulp ų
konstrukci j os š iaurin ė j e
S am b i j o j e
Analizei pasirinktos šešios pagoniškų apeigų vietos,
esančios kompaktiškoje grupėje šiaurinėje Sambijos
dalyje (1 pav.). Visos jos tyrinėtos 1978–2002 metais.
Tai apeigų vieta Dollkeime (dab. Kovrovo) (2 pav.),
dvi tokios paskirties vietos žinomos Dobroje (buv. Hünenberge) (3–5 pav.), Klincovkoje 1 (6 pav.), Klincovkoje 3 (7 pav.), Kaupe (dab. Mochovoje) (8 pav.). Jos
galėjo turėti tokias pačias funkcijas, nes yra kapinynų
teritorijose arba šliejasi prie jų. Pagoniškųjų apeigų
vietų chronologija plati – nuo III iki XIII a., tačiau intensyviau kiekviena iš jų buvo naudojama skirtingais
laikotarpiais. Antai pirmoji su trimis židiniais Dobroje
(buv. Hünenberge) datuotina III–V a., antroji – vadinamoji „liejiko dirbtuvių“ vieta Dobroje – IV–V a., VI a.
pradžia datuotina apeigų vieta Dollkeime (Kovrovo),
X a. pabaiga – Klincovkoje 1, X a. – Kaupe (dab. Mochovoje) ir ne vėlesniu kaip XIII a. laikotarpiu – Klincovkoje 3.
BALTICA 6
The early phase is characterised by rectangular frames
of rather small dimensions.
tymas bei konstrukcija. Minimos ugniavietės, akmenys, grindiniai ir duobės.
ARCHAELOGIA
Thus an analysis of pole constructions and frames in
a small area of Sambia allows us to reveal chronological differences in the arrangement of the sacral space
in an ORA:
Šių vietų planigrafinė struktūra atsekama iš išlikusių
stulpaviečių. Jų pėdsakus galima suskirstyti į du variantus: pirmasis – nedidelių ir plonų, negiliai įkastų
stulpų, kurių skersmuo – apie 10 cm, vietos; antrasis
– didesnio skersmens stulpavietės, kuriose stulpai
buvo įleisti į gruntą apie 1 metrą. Skirtumai tarp šių
dviejų variantų stulpaviečių gerai išryškėjo Dollkeime
(2 pav.). Plonieji stulpai nesudarė jokios konstrukcijos.
Jie pavieniai arba buvę įkasti nedidelėmis grupėmis.
Masyvieji stulpai sudarė kažkokių statinių konstrukcijas. Nėra duomenų, ar stulpai buvo papuošti antropomorfinėmis figūromis ir ar jie buvo laikomi šventais ir
garbinami.
Analogiškų apeigų vietų yra aptikta Lenkijoje, Danijoje, šiaurinėje Vokietijoje, kur kvadrato formos stulpaviečių vietos žinomos kapinynų teritorijose (9 pav.).
Vėlesnio laikotarpio apeigų vietų planigrafija keičiasi,
įgauna apskritą formą. Tokių aptikta Lietuvoje (Bačkininkėliai, Kereliai) ir slavų žemėse – Pskove, Chodosevičiuose, Šumske.
Šiose apeigų vietose buvo atliekamos laidotuvių apeigos, jos buvo tarsi tiltas tarp gyvųjų ir mirusiųjų pasaulių.
Vertė Vytautas Kazakevičius
MARINA SMIRNOVA
Santrauka
Straipsnyje analizuojama pagoniškų apeigų vietų planigrafinė struktūra: stulpaviečių pėdsakai ir jų išsidės-
67
Andris Šnē
The Economy and Social
Power in the Late Prehistoric
Chiefdoms of Eastern Latvia
T h e E c o n o m y a n d S o c i a l P o w e r i n t h e L ate
P r e h i st o r i c C h i e f d o m s o f E a ste r n L at v i a
Andris Šnē
Abstract
The article is devoted to the economic structure of chiefdoms’ socio-political organisation, and the role of the economy in
constructing and maintaining social and power relations in Latvia in the middle and late Iron Age.
Key words: economy, chiefdom, production, farming, craft, Middle and Late Iron Age.
Introduction: the economy as a source
of power
68
Both economic and social relations are closely tied in
different forms. Production is a social process to satisfy the material needs and wishes of people, but human
efforts through production change the environment and
transform the natural world into a social construction
(Gosden 1989: 355), so economic activities participate
in the emerging inequality of society and wealth and
power structures. Different views have been expressed
concerning the general framework and labelling of the
character of the political structure in east Latvian societies during later prehistory. In Marxist historiography,
which tended to view the Late Iron Age as the early
Middle Ages in Latvia, social organisation was connected with the so-called military democracy and the
transitional period to the feudal state (it was considered
that, for example, in eastern parts of Latvia, state-like
formations had already emerged; Moora 1952: 119;
Mugurevich 1965: 122; Tõnisson 1974: 172). Contrary to this, and using anthropological schemes of social evolution, late prehistoric societies have recently
been interpreted as chiefdoms (Šnē 1997; 2000; 2002).
Actually, the term “chiefdom”, since its invention in
Western anthropology in the 1950s, has survived many
interpretations and attributes, but is nevertheless widely used (especially in evolutionary trajectories of social development) to characterise a very broad range
of societies somewhere between segmentary societies
and early states. In these evolutionary schemes, chiefdoms are considered to describe complex pre-state and
pre-industrial societies that are regional polities with a
prestige goods economy, monumental buildings, redistribution, a political hierarchy of sites and persons, and
other characteristic features (Service 1962; 1975; Renfrew & Bahn 1996: 166–169). But we have to bear in
mind that the development of state societies is not the
intentional aim of a human population, and societies
fluctuated all the time in terms of social dynamics. Of
course, these very general terms do not describe political and social relations in practice, so they can only be
used as a point of departure and a general framework
that has to be followed by a study of the way in which
different structures of societies existed.
This article deals with the economic structure of chiefdoms’ socio-political organisation, the role of the economy in constructing and maintaining social and power
relations in present-day Latvia during later Prehistory,
that is, the period known in the chronological scheme
of Latvian archaeology as the end of the Middle Iron
Age (AD 600–800) and the Late Iron Age (AD 800–
1200), the end of which saw the start of the Crusades
and the introduction of feudalism in the Eastern Baltic
region. More extensively excavated are sites in eastern
Latvia from this period that allow us to focus attention on this region. From the seventh century, eastern
Latvia was populated by the Latgallians; their material culture is evidenced in widely excavated cemeteries such as Odukalns, Kristapiņi (over 300 graves in
each were excavated), Nukšas (more than 200 graves),
Kivti, Ģūģeri, Liepiņas (with about 150 graves), etc.
Selonian culture later developed on the left bank of
the River Daugava (where they left Lejasdopeles barrow cemetery, with about 40 excavated graves), and
from the tenth century the Livs settled along the lower
courses of the rivers Daugava and Gauja. Cemeteries
like Liepenes, Pūteļi and Priedes, with large numbers
of mounds, are attributed to the Gauja Livs, while in the
lower reaches of the Daugava the Livs left Laukskola
cemetery (with more than 600 excavated graves) and
the complex of three almost simultaneous cemeteries
on Dole Island, Vampenieši I and II and Rauši, where
almost 500 graves have been excavated. Those mentioned above, of course, are only some, but the more
widely archaeologically excavated of researched cemeteries; the number of excavated cemeteries in eastern
The economy is one of the foundations of human society; it involves different activities of people. It is used to
distinguish two groups of goods produced, subsistence
goods and wealth. According to Brumfiel and Earle
(Brumfiel, Earle 1987: 4), subsistence goods include
everything that is necessary to satisfy the everyday survival needs of a household, while wealth is made up of
goods and values used in rituals and exchange, as well
as specific and rare means of subsistence. The value
of these goods is defined through social position and
regional or long-distance trade. But both subsistence
goods and wealth play some, but a different, role in
possessing and defining social status, as well as being
concerned with the construction of power relations.
Power relations have only recently been reexamined in
archaeological discourse, but it actually also belongs to
the other social sciences. It was the studies of Michael
Foucault that put questions about power back again
into the focus of social theory. Very often, power is defined by the intentions and will of humans, it has been
viewed as the ability to achieve the proposed results.
Max Weber understood power as the ability that allows
some individual to realise his will in social relations independently of the resistance to these intentions (Clegg
1989: 72–73). Some social theorists connect power to
capacity and abilities, while others link power to the
realisation of power and the act of power. For Giddens
(Giddens 1999), power is the ability to get results independently of the interests of particular classes and
strata; power is the means to do something, and as such
it is directly involved in the action of the human agent.
Action and agency are mutually connected to power; without power there is no action, and vice versa.
Foucault (Foucault 1980; 2000) characterises power
as a particular technique, which, due to its normative
features, achieves and realises strategic goals; power
is neither institution nor structure. Power and the way
it acts are historically specific; as power is created by
everything, then power is everywhere. Power can be
understood as multiply organised, hierarchical and coordinated relations which are connected and intercon-
BALTICA 6
nected with other forms of relations, for example, kin,
production, etc. Mann (Mann 1986) puts forward his
idea about society as a network of organised power.
He distinguishes four sources of social power: ideological, economic, military and political power, the last
of which was absent in prehistoric pre-state societies.
There is no simple and common scheme of sources of
power for all societies; there were different sources
of power active in different societies and ages. Also,
sources of power do not mean the realisation of power;
it is necessary to have the presence of both, objective
situation (sources of power) and agents, active individuals who attempt to change the situation with the help
of sources of power.
ARCHAELOGIA
Latvia is about two hundred. Alongside the cemeteries
of local communities, archaeological excavations on a
different scale on a number of habitation sites have been
carried out. So among the well-researched hill-forts of
the Latgallians are Jersika, Dignāja, Asote, Oliňkalns,
Koknese and Madalâni, while in the area of the Selonians excavations took place on sites like Stupeļi and
Sēlpils hill-forts and the Krīgāni settlement. Habitation sites of the Livs are mostly studied on the basis
of material from the Daugava Livs’ settlement sites,
like Laukskola, Rauši and Kābeles, but their material
culture also dominates in Daugmale hill-fort during the
Late Iron Age.
The basis of economic power lies in the need to organise access and control over resources, including both
those necessary for subsistence and those used for surplus production and exchange. Needs for survival are
satisfied with the help of social organisation, through
the collection, transformation and redistribution of
production. Generally, there are two trends in analyses of the economic basis of political actions. Marxists stress control over the process of production, while
followers of Weber emphasise the organisation of economic exchange and trade. The emergence of forms
of exchange transforms them into the social fact that
contains the potential for the possession of power. So
economic organisation involves different stages, like
production, redistribution, exchange and consumption
(Mann 1986: 24–25).
The maintenance of power is expensive; it demands
material input, services and time. In Prehistoric societies, the economy was tied to ideology; according
to Bourdieu (1977: 191), economic power also needs
symbolic capital and symbolic violence too. Economic
sources of power are directly connected with economic
specialisation, and its relationships with the subsistence
economy. Economic aspects of the institutionalisation
of power touch the monopoly of subsistence resources,
the production of prestige goods, and their exchange
and trade.
The subsistence economy and social
relations
Control over economic processes is the way towards
the direct material control over people. Earle (Earle
1991) distinguishes ten political strategies of chiefs,
and as the first he stresses the control of the elite over
the subsistence economy. Land was the basis of the
subsistence economy for hundreds of years since the
introduction of farming; arable land was still of the
greatest importance in medieval Europe. For most so-
69
Andris Šnē
cieties in Latvia, farming was the main branch of the
subsistence economy, as is evidenced by finds of both
seeds of cereals and farming tools in habitation sites,
as well as in burials among the grave items. There is
hardly any settlement site or hill-fort where during archaeological excavations farming tools such as sickles, scythes, hand millstones and stone querns have not
been found; there are also some finds of iron ploughshares (mostly in the basin of the River Daugava)
and hoes (a tool more characteristic of the Semigallians). Some buildings of flour-mills were uncovered
in some settlements, for example, Mārtiņsala, Kābeles,
Laukskola settlements, Sēlpils and Madalāni hill-forts
(Daiga 1973; 33; Mugurēvičs 1975: 69; Šnore, Zariņa
1980: 32; Urtāns 1984: 100).
Due to the essential role of farming in the subsistence
of local societies, the question about the owners of arable land becomes very important. Soviet historiography (reflecting the political ideology, but without archaeological evidence) suggested that in the Late Iron
Age land was inherited, while there were still pastures,
forests and waters left under the control of the local
community (Moora, Ligi 1969: 29). New aspects of
property would show the study of fossil field systems
that has also started recently in Latvia (see Ritums
2000 for a contemporary survey of the research). It is
too early to speak about the results, but it seems that
different forms of property existed during later Prehistory in Latvia. According to the “local laws” codified
in the 13th century, a gradual transition from collective
property to private in Latvia had started before the Crusades (Blūzma, Lazdiņš 1998), so probably there was a
multiplicity also in forms of landowning.
The other important branch of the subsistence economy was stockbreeding. Like farming tools, different
artefacts related to stockbreeding are found in almost
any excavated habitation living site. So, for example,
in the Mārtiņsala settlement, 30 shears were found
(Mugurēvičs 1974: 58). Among the most common tools
are spindle whorls made from stone, clay, bone and
other raw material. So 56 spindle whorls were found
in the settlement at Stupeļi hill-fort (Stubavs 1978:
65), 40 were found in Sēlpils hill-fort (Šnore, Zariņa
1980: 34), while in the western part of Jersika hill-fort,
more than 90 spindle whorls were found (Mugurēvičs,
Vilcāne 2000: 100). The remains of a hearth in the
Kābeles settlement preserved a complex of about eight
or nine spindle whorls; actually this settlement site was
extremely rich in such artefacts (Daiga 1973: 31).
The bones of domesticated animals form the greatest
proportion (about 70% to 90%) of osteological evidence found in all habitation sites. So, for example,
in the Asote hill-fort, bones of domesticated animals
70
formed 71.9% of all the bones (Shnore 1961: 93-94).
There are different proportions of domesticated animals in different sites. In materials of the late Middle
Iron Age, at Ķente hill-fort, with the surrounding settlement, bones of cattle dominated (about 55%; Stubavs 1976: 84); but in Jersika hill-fort, more than half
the bones of domesticated animals belonged to pigs
(Vilcāne 2001: 68); while in Asote hill-fort they formed
72% of bones (Shnore 1961: 93). Bones of pigs formed
about a third of bones in Rēzekne hill-fort (Mugurēvičs
1985: 69); they were also dominant in material from
the hill-forts of the Selonians, Sēlpils and Dignāja
(Mugurēvičs 1977: 49; Šnore, Zariņa 1980: 168). In
some other sites, the proportion of bones of pigs and
cattle is similar or close to that of Oliņkalns and Lokstene hill-forts (Mugurēvičs 1977: 43, 89). In the excavated settlements of the Livs, for example, at Laukskola, Rauši and Mārtiņsala, the majority of bones found
belonged to cattle and pigs, and it was the bones of pigs
that usually formed the greater proportion of the bones
of domesticated animals there (Mugurēvičs 1974: 57;
Šnore 1991: 77; Zariņa 1973: 84).
Anthropological studies of pre-industrial societies put
forward the idea about the political meaning of feasts
where the main provision was pork. Feasts were organised by the leading kin or chief, and they served as
a means of creating and/or maintaining political alliances, as well as prestige. The amount and proportion
of bones of pigs found in archaeological contexts were
connected with feasts and socio-political competition
in Prehistoric and early medieval Britain also (Bradley
1984: 64). As has already been mentioned, the bones of
pigs are very often the greater part of bones of domesticated animals in late Prehistoric sites in eastern Latvia.
So probably one way to use the surplus of stockbreeding was competing feasts containing also a socially and
politically symbolic meaning.
Agricultural tools are not too common among grave
items, but, as well as exchange and trade utensils, they
are the only tools found in burials (if we do not consider warfare as a profession in Prehistory represented
by weaponry). Craft tools, for example, are always absent in burials. Shears are usually placed in the female
graves, but in a couple of burials in the Vampenieši I
and II cemeteries their finds are attributed to the male
graves (Šnore 1996: 126). Sickles are found already in
seventh and eighth-century burials, as is evidenced, for
example, in the Kalnieši II and Kalnabrici cemeteries
(Šnore 1993: 26; Urtāns 1962: 52–53). There are several late Middle Iron Age and Late Iron Age cemeteries
of the Latgallians and the Selonians in which female
burials contained sickles, for example, Jersika, Beteļi,
Skripsti, Aizkalne, Ģūģeri and other cemeteries. It is
not often that sickles and shears are put in the same
The other branches of the subsistence economy, like
fishing, hunting, beekeeping and gathering, during
later Prehistory had a secondary role. Hunting (usually
fur-bearing animals) was closely related to exchange,
as furs were among the most important goods of import. Eastern areas of Latvia and Lithuania were the
richer fur regions of the Eastern Baltic (Moora, Ligi:
1969: 22–23). In more distant areas, these branches of
the economy still had a great importance, for example, the population of the settlement on an island in
Lake Krīgāni mostly dealt with fishing (Stubavs 1980:
95–96). Also, in the economy of the Livs, fishing was
among the most important economic activities, probably due to their situation close to the Bay of Riga and
the rivers Daugava and Gauja.
Economic organisation in chiefdoms is usually characterised by redistribution. Food resources collected by
the chiefs could be used in several ways to maintain the
social and political positions of the chiefs. Following
Dodgshon (1995: 108), it is possible to distinguish four
aspects of the political use of the subsistence economy.
First, food is given out as a gift, it enabled a feeling
of dependency of members of the kin and/or community. Second, if chiefs had control over fertile land, the
rent could include cattle that were later used as, for
example, dowry wealth, leading to the conducting of
political marriage alliances. Third, and very important,
was the consumption of food in feasts. Fourth, it was a
central element to maintaining the retinue, that would
allow the minimalisation of the amount of farming activities among semi-professional warriors.
In the context of redistribution, the presence of the socalled storage pits may reflect the limited influence of
the chiefs over the subsistence economy. These pits
BALTICA 6
served for the storage of food resources (such as grain),
drying corn, and other activities. Storage pits are identified in several habitation sites, for example, in the
Asote hill-fort (Shnore 1961: 85), but they were very
common among the Livs. About 30 such constructions
were found in the Rauši settlement (Šnore 1991: 75),
while more than 100 storage pits were uncovered in
the Laukskola settlement. The largest ones covered an
area of up to two by two metres, and reached about 1.5
metres’ depth (Zariņa 1973: 82–83). So probably subsistence resources were only partly distributed among
members of society with the help of the chief, but the
other part of production was left to the disposal of the
individual households or kin.
ARCHAELOGIA
grave, as, for example, in burial 71 of Koknese cemetery. Also, sickles in some cases are found in male
burials. In the Nukšas cemetery, sickles were found
among the grave items of a (male?) cenotaph from the
tenth century (Shnore 1957: 30); the eighth-century
male burial 14 of Kivti cemetery also contained sickles
(Šnore 1987: 29); and these tools were also put in male
burials in Ģūģeri cemetery (Apala 1992: 10). It should
be noted that the tradition to put agricultural tools
in burials in eastern Latvia was not so common, and
developed as it was in the lands of the Curonians (in
western Latvia), where, for example, up to five scythes
have been found in some male cremation burials in
the Late Iron Age cemetery at Sārāji. It is hard to connect the farming tools found in burials with positions
of important social status or power, so probably these
artefacts were put in graves in favour of the subsistence
wealth of the deceased, or due to some personal skills
or abilities performed during the lifetime.
Crafts and craftsmen in social networks
A lot of attention has been paid to different aspects of
craft specialisation in Prehistoric societies. Although
some craft specialisation could be found already in
the Middle Iron Age, it was the later part of the Iron
Age when we can distinguish quite clearly different
branches of economic specialisation. Almost every excavated site contains some evidence of metallurgy and
iron-working, as well as jewellery production. These
are traces of workshops, half-made artefacts, tools with
a special function and purpose, common features of local artefacts that show and prove the existence of specialised craftsmen.
Special tools, as well as workshops, are evidence of
iron-working. Iron-working took place in both settlements and hill-forts, as remains of smithies have
been uncovered in Daugmale, Aizkraukle, Oliņkalns,
Asote, Dignāja, Jersika, etc, hill-forts, and in Spietiņi,
Rauši, Rīga and other settlements (but the number
of sites where the tools of smiths have been found is
much higher). In the Rauši settlement two deposits of
smith’s tools that were dated to the second half of the
11th century and the 13th century were found during
excavations. One of them consisted of about 40 artefacts, including tools and production (Daiga 1971).
There were quite often several smithies identified per
site, for example, in Asote hill-fort and the Rauši settlement (Shnore 1961: 97-100; Šnore 1991: 78-79). In
Asote hill-fort, three or four workshops of jewellery
production were recognised, and part of them goes
back to the tenth century (Shnore 1961: 105), while in
Oliņkalns hill-fort two such workshops from the second half of the 11th century were found (Mugurēvičs
1977: 44). Six workshops were uncovered in the Rauši
settlement (Šnore 1991: 78-79), but there usually the
tools or pieces of raw material can be used to show the
existence of specialised craftsmen.
71
Andris Šnē
It seems that other branches of crafts were usually still
organised on the domestic level. But due to the introduction of the potter’s wheel in the tenth century, pottery also moved towards a specialised branch of the
economy, at least in the areas along the River Daugava.
Despite this, as late as the 12th century there was still
hand-made pottery in use. Some kilns have been identified in several hill-forts and settlements, for example Asote, Aizkraukle and Daugmale hill-forts and the
Rauši settlement (Shnore 1961: 109; Šnore 1991: 83;
Urtāns 1967: 42; 1974: 75). In Tanīskalna hill-fort, a
footwear-making workshop with an amount of cuttings
of shoes was found (Balodis 1928: 37). According to
research by Anna Zariņa (Zariņa 1970; 1988; 1999),
weaving was done on a domestic level until the 11th
century in the area of the Livs, and until the 12th century in the area of the Latgallians. It seems that amber,
wood, horn and bone specialists had also emerged in
some cases. So nine tools for wood carving were found
in the Mārtiņsala settlement within a house’s foundations (Mugurēvičs 1974: 56), but a deposit of about 25
kilograms of raw amber was found in the Kābeles settlement in the cellar of a house (Daiga 1973: 33); a raw
amber deposit was also found in Daugmale hill-fort
(Radiņš, Zemītis 1988: 119).
Some habitations reflect a spatial organisation within
the site according to the economic activities of its inhabitants, as particular areas of the sites seem to have
a higher concentration of crafts than others. So, in
Aizkraukle hill-fort, the workshops for iron and metalworking were located close to the central part of
the plateau (Urtāns 1977: 65). The western part of the
site can be considered the area of craftsmen in Jersika
hill-fort (Mugurēvičs, Vilcāne 2000: 100); but in the
Kābeles and Lipši settlements it was the southwest part
(Daiga 1973: 33; 1976: 44). In the settlement at the
foot of Daugmale hill-fort, a concentration of crafts
tools and workshops was found in the eastern part
(Zemītis 1998: 83). But it should be noted that craftsmen’s workshops are very similar to other buildings in
their size and construction, although often workshops
consisted of two rooms. So it seems that craftsmen and
their social position were not distinguished in some
particular way; socially, they were like other members
of a community
72
Gender archaeology has paid quite a lot of attention
to labour specialisation between males and females.
Traditionally, some areas of production are regarded
as connected with male activities, while others are attributed to females, like the preparation of food, plant
gathering, weaving, etc, which can be linked with females generally all over the world (Wright 1991: 198).
The tools of these branches are female symbols, and
females are identified with these activities. But actu-
ally the division of labour and specialisation according
to sex and/or gender is not so easily distinguishable
as it is assumed: both males and females participated
in most branches of production simultaneously. And it
also goes for craft production on both levels connected
to the household and/or the market or the political elite.
Of course, it is not an easy task (and it is probably impossible) to establish who produced particular tools,
jewellery, pots, clothes and other utensils, but anyway
the role of females in these activities cannot be reduced
to only secondary activities.
According to Brumfiel and Earle (Brumfiel, Earle
1987), approaches to specialisation, exchange and
social organisation can be attributed to one of three
models: economic development, the adaptional or the
political model. The model of economic specialisation
(represented by researchers such as Friedrich Engelss
and Colin Renfrew) considers the specialisation and
intensification of exchange as an integral part of economic development. It means that the development of
specialisation goes along with an increase in political
complexity. The adaptional perspective (which includes a variety of models put forward by researchers like Marshall Sahlins, Elman R. Service and Karl
Wittfogel) in the study of specialisation and social
complexity stresses either necessity or the profitable
character of economic management, so this model proposes the inclusion of the political elite in the development of economic specialisation. It was the political
approach to the study of mutual relationships between
economic specialisation and socio-political organisation that paid primary attention to the role of the elite in
the organisation of production and exchange. According to this model, the political elite used exchange and
specialisation to create and maintain social inequality,
to form new institutions of control, and to consolidate
political alliances. The elite can fulfil these tasks with
control over long-distance trade and/or the surplus of
production. The inclusion of subsistence products in
the relations of exchange meant the creation of some
values useful for craftsmen in local exchange to obtain
the necessary means of subsistence and production. So
then a system of staple finances is replaced by a system
of wealth finances, where some production serves as a
means of payment. Actually, it is the surplus that characterises the social role of the economy (as Earle calls
it, “political economy”; see Earle 1997). If specialisation is absent in the process of production, then power
relations emerge on the basis of general production,
and the use of the surplus or surplus production is concentrated in the hands of at least partly attached specialists, and the use of the surplus is strictly limited.
So the political elite used economic specialists and
their production in the realisation of their interests,
It is still a question for debate whether economic specialists were attached to some upper layer, or if they
produced their items for the whole community. Soviet
historiography considered that craftsmen supplied only
the elite with their production, so satisfying their demands, and that some items were also imported outside
the region of their production. So in his detailed analyses of craft production from Ķente hill-fort with the
surrounding settlement, Stubavs (Stubavs 1976: 97)
states that craftsmen (jewellers) worked only according to individual requests, but they were not directed
towards the market because there was no indication
about serial/mass production and standardisation. As
we have seen, it is impossible to deny the presence of
craft specialists in societies of later Prehistory, but their
attachment to and dependence on the ruling elite would
be an overestimated conclusion. It seems that craftsmen
usually produced their goods for everybody, including
special artefacts of the elite, but mostly (due also to
their limited number) they were orientated towards the
local community in general. Probably at least some of
the specialists were full-time craftsmen, but only in the
larger sites of economic centres were they involved in
exchange and trading activities.
Exchange and the emergence of early
towns
Exchange and trade are transforming factors in societies; in fact, this was the way in which changes were
brought to societies. In chiefdoms, the economic value
of exchange is subordinate to its political and ideological value (Hedeager 1994). Long-distance trade provided chiefs with prestige goods, used either as status
symbols or as gifts. Gifts, due to their dual character
(any gift demands return in some form or another),
were of great importance, as with them there was a
possibility to establish alliances and networks of supporters. Therefore, social research has to pay attention
to the meaning and political importance of exchange/
trade in the chiefdoms under question.
BALTICA 6
The study of exchange and trade was among the favourite subjects of processual archaeology, where it
was often linked with the study of social processes. The
social role and meaning of exchange and trade characterises the finds of imported artefacts and exchange/
trade items (represented by weights and balances). As
with the development of crafts, a similar tendency of
increasing importance can be seen in exchange and
trade during later Prehistory in Latvia. Although the
interregional and local contacts can be traced since the
Stone Age, it was later Prehistory when the character
of economic contacts, exchange and trade took new
forms.
ARCHAELOGIA
craftsmen and merchants often acted as the political
personnel of the elite, especially if personal goods and
utensils were used as symbols of status and authority.
The possession of particular items as symbols gave the
legitimisation of the socio-political status by physically
expressing the social position. It is noted that in societies with a higher level of centralisation status symbols
also become more complex, their production demands
more sophisticated technologies and increasing labour
input, so actually there is a necessity for economic specialisation (Peregrine 1991).
From the middle of the tenth century, burials of local
merchants are found all over Latvia. These are graves
that, among other burial items, contain also balances
and weights (Berga 1992; 1996). Artefacts connected
with exchange and trade are usually found in male burials. More than 160 weights and more than 370 balances are found in present-day Latvia (Berga 1996: 50).
There are two regions where the exchange artefacts
are concentrated: Kurzeme (western Latvia), and the
lower reaches of the Daugava, in the lands of the Livs.
For example, in Laukskola cemetery, weights and balances were found in 19 burials (Zariņa 1997), but in
cemeteries on Dole Island in ten burials (Šnore 1996:
116). The cemeteries of the Latgallians produced much
fewer artefacts of exchange and trade. There are three
burials with these items in Ģūģeri cemetery (Apala
1992: 10), two in Jaunāķēni cemetery. Single so-called
merchant burials are found, for example, in Kivti cemetery (Šnore 1987: 28) and Jaunpiebalga cemetery. In
Lejasdopeles cemetery, weights are found in only one
burial, but balances in five (Šnore 1997). Of course,
not all individuals buried with weights and/or balances
were merchants; some of them may be taken as judges
or persons with a high social position, but at least some
of them dealt with trade.
Late Iron Age graves also show an increasing number
of imported artefacts, brought from both east and west,
that included weapons and jewellery, as well as everyday utensils. According to the distribution of western
imports (these items very often also served as prestige
goods), there are some areas with a higher concentration of finds, for example, the lower reaches of the rivers Daugava and Gauja, and the western Baltic coast of
Latvia. Imported items from the east that were mostly
mass utensils, like glass beads and cowry shells, are
concentrated in eastern Latvia, close to the borders of
the Russian principalities.
So not all of the sites and areas had the same character,
and the proportion of non-agrarian activities within the
economies of sites differed greatly. It is also clearly re-
73
Andris Šnē
74
flected in the distribution of coins over Latvia. The first
coins appeared in the late ninth century: these were
Arabic dirhams which later in the 11th century were
replaced by West European coins. The flow of coins
into Latvia ended in the second half of the 11th century. In the tenth to 11th centuries, coins, like imported
artefacts, are mostly found around the waterways, the
rivers Daugava and Gauja, in their lower reaches, so
indicating their leading role in exchange and trade
(Berga 1988). About 5,000 coins from the Late Iron
Age are found in present-day Latvia (Berga 1988: 9).
Most of them are found in hoards and deposits (some
contained a couple of hundred coins), but among the
cemeteries the richest ones are those of the Livs. There
have been found 236 coins in the cemeteries of the
Daugava Livs, and 26 in the cemeteries of the Gauja
Livs (Berga 1988: 70-89). Usually the coins were used
as pendants in necklaces, but some were put in burials as part of the ritual activities. The low number of
coin finds in the lands of the Latgallians may be partly
explained by the absence of the tradition of wearing
pendants (this is characteristic of the Balts generally),
as well as because only some areas were situated close
to waterways and land routes (Berga 1988: 25). But,
anyway, the activities of the Latgallians and the Selonians in exchange and trading are not so explicitly reflected in archaeological evidence as in the case of the
Livs. Also, among habitation sites, the largest number
of coins were at Daugmale hill-fort, where about 190
coins have been collected (Berga 1994: 41).
As it seems, trade, including long-distance trade,
played a great role in the Liv chiefdoms’ economies;
moreover, we can speak about trade as the key element of Liv societies which created their character as
an “open” society. Possibly, the geographical position
of the Liv lands, which was very suitable within Scandinavian trading networks (and trade routes meant also
cultural, social and military contacts/activities), was
the reason for the development and flourishing of the
Livs’ culture. Also, the emergence of local merchants
reflects this important role of trade in late prehistoric
societies of present-day Latvia. But we have to note
that the number of merchant burials is very low in the
Livs’ cemeteries (not to mention the cemeteries of the
Latgallians and the Selonians). So in Salaspils Laukskola cemetery, among 609 burials, just 19 are identified as merchants’ graves (15 adult male and four boys’
graves). All burials of merchants are male graves;
which is different from Scandinavia, where female
burials are also found. The explanation could probably
be some kind of job difference between genders: while
male merchants participated in long-distance trade, females took an active part in the local infrastructure of
exchange and trading activities.
Obviously, merchants were rich people, but their identification with social and political leaders is not so simple. Among the other symbols of status and power, one
of the more common was the sword as a symbol of
power, and almost all of the merchants’ burials among
the other rich grave items contained a sword. But we
have to remember that trade went side by side with
warfare and plundering, so it was a question of survival
to have good equipment. Another aspect of the burials
of the Livs’ merchants is provided by their chronology.
Most of these burials go back to the end of the 11th
century and the first half of the 12th century, a time
that is characteristic with the total flourishing of the
Livs’ material culture. An important part of it is also
the large amount of West European coins and silver, so
we might assume that the previous century was a time
of accumulation, while the end of the 11th century and
the early 12th century saw a decrease in the value and
status of silver. It was not mere a symbol of a rather
small elite, but an indicator of the quite high average
prosperity in society. Trade that was previously a resource under the control of a limited group of people
had now become an activity involving, in some form or
another, almost all members of society.
The development of non-agrarian economies (exchange and crafts) and the rise of some central economic regions and sites allow us to put the question
about the emergence of early towns in late Prehistoric
Latvia. The presence of economically and socially different sites might indicate some complexity of local
social structures. In anthropology and archaeology,
not to mention the wide range of sociological literature, a lot of studies have questioned the character of
the early town, and the criterion that would allow us
to call some sites early towns. Around a hundred definitions of “town” and “urbanisation” have been proposed. For example, according to the archaeologist
Peter Wells (Wells 1984: 15), who has elaborated the
idea of Gordon V. Childe, urban territory and urban
society may be connected with a large population and
territory, economic specialisation, supported by taxes
and tributes, monumental public buildings, writing, sophisticated art, long-distance trade, and the formation
of a religious, social or military elite. The American
anthropologist Linda Manzanilla (Manzanilla 1997: 5)
characterises urban society by the division of labour, it
is the existence of specialists dealing with non-subsistence economic activities, institutions coordinating the
economy and the existence of social groups or people
who participate in decision making and live in urban
centres. The archaeologist Georg Woolf (Woolf 1993:
223–224) mentions as criteria of urbanism the settlement hierarchy and the functions of a central site for
higher-level sites, as well as an internal structure of
There are some exceptional and widely excavated sites
in eastern Latvia that reflect the features mentioned
above. Among the most well-known archaeological
sites of Latvia is Daugmale hill-fort, situated on the
left bank of the River Daugava. The site was excavated several times, in the 1930s by Valdemārs Ģinters
(Ģinters 1936a; 1936b), in the 1960s by Vladislavs
Urtāns (Urtāns 1967; 1968; 1969; 1970; 1971), and
in the 1980s and 1990s by Guntis Zemītis and Arnis
Radiņš (Radiņš, Zemītis 1988; 1990; Zemītis 1992;
1994; 1996; 1998). The site was already used in the
first millennium BC, and the habitation there lasted until the end of the 12th century, although weak traces of
habitation can be seen also from the following centuries. Daugmale hill-fort produced an extremely large
amount of artefacts; in the settlement of Daugmale
hill-fort, farming tools formed only about 1% of the
artefacts found, trading and exchange utensils about
4% (Zemītis 1998: 83). The hill-fort has provided the
largest number of coins found in Latvia. Probably the
inhabitants of Daugmale in the second half of the 11th
century tried to introduce their own currency, as in
Daugmale and the surrounding graveyards replicas of
West European coins have been found. There are 39
known replicas of West European coins from 13 sites,
with the highest concentration in the lower reaches of
the rivers Daugava and Gauja. So 12 coins were found
in the Laukskola cemetery, eight in Daugmale hill-fort,
and four in the Ģūģeri cemetery, while only one or two
items have come from the hill-forts of the Latgallians
(Koknese, Jersika, Stupeļi). These coins were made
from copper covered by a thin layer of silver (Berga
1993). This attempt (probably led by a very ambitious
and active chief based in Daugmale) was not successful, because later such local coins did not appear any
more. The attempts to establish their own currency (although without their own symbols) may be connected
to the sharp decrease in the inflow of foreign coins in
Latvia. True, the issue of its own currency is one of the
BALTICA 6
features of a centralised society; also in Scandinavia,
the beginnings of a currency coincide with the emergence of state structures. But the failure of such an attempt indicates the quite strong positions and the influence of ideology of equality that were able to prevent
such an attempt. It seems that a settlement was also
situated on Daugmale hill-fort, or at least a large workshop of Scandinavians, as among the artefacts found
in Daugmale there are a lot of Scandinavian imports
(including also some unique items, like a stone with
runic inscriptions and a bronze figure of a rider), as
well as imitations of Scandinavian artefacts. On the
basis of archaeological research, it is stated that the
eastern part of the settlement was almost exclusively
a crafts area, where a lot of remains of different workshops were found. Like some other hill-forts on the
banks of the River Daugava, Daugmale also has its
own harbour connected to the settlement. Daugmale is
the only widely discussed site in Latvian archaeological literature and in more detail concerning its urban
character. Andris Caune (Caune 1992), and later also
G. Zemītis (Zemītis 1993), showed the similarities
between Daugmale and Scandinavian vica settlement
sites, putting the site in a wider European context and
following Scandinavian examples. It was stressed that
in a historical perspective, Daugmale played a role as
the forerunner of medieval Riga.
ARCHAELOGIA
the site divided into large areas of non-agrarian activities. We might also mention the very recent study of
the archaeologist Peter Bogucki (Bogucki 1999: 333)
who describes urban sites as agglomerations of people,
characterised by craft specialisation and long-distance
trade, as well as a military defence system. To summarise these partly overlapping definitions (and those
mentioned above do not form a complete list of the
meanings of urbanism), as characteristic features of
early towns, we may propose, first, the structure of
the site with regard to its number of inhabitants, and
a systematic and intensive regular building structure
and non-agrarian functions; and, second, the functions
of the site as a socio-economic centre which is clearly
separated from its surroundings.
Among the high number of hill-forts located on the
banks of the River Daugava, we will also name Aizkraukle and Jersika, sites that are situated on the right
bank of the river. Aizkraukle hill-fort, with its large
settlement, is one of the largest archaeological sites
in Latvia. The plateau of the hill-fort covers half a
hectare, while the settlement reaches up to three hectares including the harbour. Archaeological excavations were carried out there in the 1970s by V. Urtāns
(Urtāns 1972; 1973; 1974; 1976; 1977; Urtāns, Briede,
Urtāns 1975) and the finds include evidence about a lot
of crafts and trade activities on the site.
Jersika forms a complex with the Dignāja hill-fort,
which lies on the opposite bank of the River Daugava
just in front of it. Nearby also lies a cemetery used
from the tenth to the 14th centuries. This complex of
archaeological monuments was excavated in 1939 by
Francis Balodis (1940, the excavations in Jersika) and
Elvīra Šnore (1939, the excavations in Dignāja). Jersika
hill-fort was also researched during the last decade by
Ēvalds Mugurēvičs and Antonija Vilcāne (Mugurēvičs,
Vilcāne 1992; 1994; 2000; Vilcāne 1996; 1998; 2002).
Dignāja hill-fort was abandoned before the early tenth
century when the site of Jersika emerged. The plateau
of Jersika is 7,500 square metres, and the hill-fort is
surrounded by a ten-hectare settlement. The results of
excavations reflected the craft activities of local peo-
75
Andris Šnē
ple, and also the contacts with neighbouring areas directed eastwards. Jersika was among the sites where
the habitation continued after the Crusades, in the 14th
century.
There are a lot of other hill-forts, settlements and
complexes of archaeological sites situated close to the
course of the River Daugava and in other regions of
Latvia as well. But it is hard to judge the urban character of a site only on the basis of its topography and
morphology; it is necessary to know what kind of activities were performed there and what the subsistence
was of the inhabitants of the particular site. So, concerning the presence of the early town in late prehistoric Latvia, first of all we can accept the concept of
the town as an economic centre functioning in Latvia
during the 11th to the 12th centuries. As it seems from
evidence obtained in archaeological excavations from
sites of the tenth to the 12th centuries, urbanisation had
begun, towards urban areas in the sense of Viking Age
Scandinavia. Such forerunners of towns were trading
and craft centres, located mostly around the most important waterways, but we cannot identify a real urban
pattern where political power was also involved in the
later Prehistory of Latvia. Only in the 13th century is
it possible to find the beginnings of medieval towns in
Latvia.
So exchange and production underwent deep transformations during the late Middle and the Late Iron Age
in eastern Latvia, and the economic transformations
also influenced the abilities and possibilities for local
chiefs, as well as their political economy. Production
and its support, the expense of raids and the organisation of feasts formed a debit to the economic balance
of the chiefs, while credit consisted of income from
trade and exchange, tributes and captured goods (Gosden 1989: 368-370). And through redistribution, the
benefits of local chiefs also reached every member of
the community. It seems that societies of eastern Latvia
were generally rather prosperous, although, of course,
besides the large middle social layer, there were some
rich and also some poor members of communities. But
it was after the late Middle Iron Age (the eighth and
ninth centuries) when the earlier great differences in
the amounts of rich and poor burials were reduced, and
such extreme cases became quite rare. Economic relations and the economy itself provided opportunities for
some agents to increase their wealth, and on the same
basis also their power, while at the same time under
ideological pressure it also helped to maintain political
equality during later Prehistory.
76
Abbreviations
AE – Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, Rīga
ASM 1990-1997 – Zinātniskās atskaites sesijas materiāli par
arheologu 1990.-1997.gada pētījumu rezultātiem. Rīga,
1992-1998
LVIŽ – Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Žurnāls
LZAV – Latvijas Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis. A daļa. (until
1991 – Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis)
RT 1958-1970 – Zinātniskās atskaites sesijas referātu tēzes
par arheologu, antropologu un etnogrāfu 1958.-1970.gada
pētījumu rezultātiem. Rīga, 1959-1971. (under little modified titles in some issues)
ZASM 1971-1989 – Zinātniskās atskaites sesijas materiāli
par arheologu un etnogrāfu 1971.-1989. gada pētījumu
rezultātiem. Rīga, 1972.-1990
References
Apala, Z. 1992. Ģūģeru arheoloģiskā kompleksa izpēte. In:
ASM 1990-1991, 8–15.
Balodis, F. 1928. Izrakumi Raunas Tanīsa kalnā 1927.gadā.
(Archaioloģijas raksti, IV sēj. 1.d.). Rīga.
Balodis, F. 1940. Jersika un tai 1939.gadā izdarītie izrakumi.
Rīga.
Berga, T. 1988. Moneti v arheologicheskih pamyatnikah
Latvii IX-XII vv. Riga.
Berga, T. 1992. Waagen zum Wagen von Munzsilber in Lettland. In: Die Kontakte zwischen Ostbaltikum und Skandinavien im frühen Mittelalter. Stockholm, 33–46.
Berga, T. 1993. 11.gadsimta Rietumeiropas monētu
atdarinājumi Latvijā. In: LVIŽ 1, 22–29.
Berga, T. 1994. Daugmales pilskalna monētas (8.-12.gs.). In:
AE XVII, 41–46.
Berga, T. 1996. Saliekamie svariņi Latvijā (10.-13.gs.). In:
AE XVIII, 49–61.
Blūzma, V., Lazdiņš, J. 1998. Paražu tiesības Latvijas
teritorijā līdz XIII gs. In: Latvijas tiesību avoti. Teksti un
komentāri. 1.sēj. Seno paražu un Livonijas tiesību avoti
10.gs. - 16.gs. Rīga, 19–25.
Bogucki, P. 1999. The Origins of Human Society. Oxford and
New York.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge.
Bradley, R. 1984. The social foundations of prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power.
London and New York.
Brumfiel, E., Earle, T.K. 1987. Specialization, exchange, and
complex societies: an introduction. In: Specialization, exchange, and complex societies. Cambridge, 1–9.
Caune, A. 1992. Rīgas loma Daugavas lejteces apgabalā 10.12.gs. In: LZAV 3, 7–13.
Clegg, S.R. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London, Newbury
and New Delhi.
Daiga, J. 1971. Doles Raušu kalēja depozīts. In: RT 1971,
16–19.
Daiga, J. 1973. Kābeļu apmetne. In: ZASM 1972, 30–34.
Daiga, J. 1976. Izrakumi Lipšu ciemā un kapulaukā. In:
ZASM 1975, 39–46.
Dodgshon, R.A. 1995. Modelling chiefdoms in the Scottish
Highlands and islands prior to the ‘45. In: Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State. Cambridge, 99–109.
Earle, T.K. 1991. The evolution of chiefdoms. In: Chiefdoms:
Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge, 1–15.
BALTICA 6
över gränser. Möten mellan lettisk och svensk arkeologi.
Göteborg, 183–207.
Šnē, A. 2000. Vara un vadonība lībiešu sabiedrībās aizvēstures
beigās. In: Cauri gadsimtiem. Rīga, 141–148.
Šnē, A. 2002. Sabiedrība un vara: sociālās attiecības
Austrumlatvijā aizvēstures beigās. Rīga.
Šnore, E. 1939. Dignājas pilskalns: īss pārskats par 1939.g.
izrakumiem. In: Senatne un Māksla 4, 42–54.
Šnore, E. 1987. Kivtu kapulauks. Rīga.
Šnore, E. 1991. Raušu ciems Doles salas augšgalā. In: LZAV
6, 69–87.
Šnore, E. 1993. Agrā dzelzs laikmeta uzkalniņi Latvijas austrumu daļā. Rīga.
Šnore, E. 1996. Daugavas lībieši Doles salā. In: AE XVIII,
111–130.
Šnore, E. 1997. Lejasdopeļu kapulauks senajā Sēlijā. In: AE
XIX, 64–81.
Šnore, E., Zariņa, A. 1980. Senā Sēlpils. Rīga.
Tõnisson, E. 1974. Die Gauja-Liven und ihre materielle Kultur (11.Jh. - Anfang 13.Jh.). Tallinn.
Urtāns, V. 1962. Kalniešu otrais kapulauks. In: Latvijas PSR
Vēstures muzeja raksti: Arheoloģija. Rīga, 37–82.
Urtāns, V. 1967. Daugmales ekspedīcijas rezultāti 1966.gadā.
In: RT 1966, 41–42.
Urtāns, V. 1968. Daugmales ekspedīcijas rezultāti 1967.g. In:
RT 1967, 77–80.
Urtāns, V. 1969. Daugmales ekspedīcijas rezultāti 1968.g. In:
RT 1968, 55–57.
Urtāns, V. 1970. Daugmales ekspedīcijas darba rezultāti. In:
RT 1969, 67–69.
Urtāns, V. 1971. Daugmales ekspedīcijas darba rezultāti
1970.gadā. In: RT 1970, 56–58.
Urtāns, V. 1972. Aizkraukles arheoloģiskās ekspedīcijas guvumi 1971.gadā. In: ZASM 1971, 99–103.
Urtāns, V. 1973. Aizkraukles arheoloģiskās ekspedīcijas
1972.gada darbu rezultāti. In: ZASM 1972, 66–71.
Urtāns, V. 1974. Izrakumi Aizkraukles senvietu kompleksā.
In: ZASM 1973, 74–77.
Urtāns, V. 1976. Pētījumi Aizkraukles pilskalnā, priekšpilī
un Lejasžagaru kapulaukā 1975.gadā. In: ZASM 1975,
87–91.
Urtāns, V. 1977. Izrakumi Aizkraukles pilskalnā 1976.gadā.
In: ZASM 1976, 64–68.
Urtāns, V. 1984. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi Madalānu pilskalnā
un kapulaukos. In: ZASM 1982–1983, 99–103.
Urtāns, V., Briede, I., Urtāns, J. 1975. Aizkraukles ekspedīcijas
darbs 1974.gadā. In: ZASM 1974, 86–93.
Vilcāne, A. 1996. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi Jersikā. In: ASM
1994–1995, 120–123.
Vilcāne, A. 1998. Izrakumi Jersikas pilskalnā. In: ASM 19961997, 77–79.
Vilcāne, A. 2001. Par sēļu iespējamību Dubnas baseinā. In:
LZAV 5/6, 63–71.
Vilcāne, A. 2002. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi Jersikas pilskalnā
2000. un 2001.gadā. In: Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2000.
un 2001.gadā. Rīga, 117–122.
Wells, P.S. 1984. Farms, Villages, and Cities: Commerce and
Urban Origins in Late Prehistoric Europe. Ithaca.
Woolf, G. 1993. Rethinking the Oppida. In: Oxford Journal
of Archaeology 12(2), 223–234.
Wright, R.P. 1991. Women’s Labor and Pottery Production
in Prehistory. In: Engendering Archaeology. Women and
Prehistory. Oxford, 194–223.
Zariņa, A. 1970. Seno latgaļu apģērbs 7.-13.gs. Rīga.
Zariņa, A. 1973. Salaspils Laukskolas lībiešu ciems (izrakumu rezultātu kopsavilkums). In: ZASM 1972, 81–84.
ARCHAELOGIA
Earle, T.K. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: the Political
Economy in Prehistory. Stanford.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews
and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York.
Fuko, M. 2000. Seksualitātes vēsture I: Zinātgriba. Rīga.
Giddens, E. 1999. Sabiedrības veidošanās. Rīga.
Ģinters, V. 1936a. Daugmales pilskalna 1935.gada izrakumi.
In: Senatne un Māksla 1, 33–56.
Ģinters, V. 1936b. Daugmales pilskalna 1936.gada izrakumi.
In: Senatne un Māksla 4, 87–105.
Hedeager, L. 1994. Warrior economy and trading economy in
Viking-Age Scandinavia. In: Journal of European Archaeology 2.1, 130–148.
Mann, M. 1986. The sources of social power. Vol.1: A history
of power from the beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge.
Manzanilla, L. 1997. Early Urban Societies. Challenges and
Perspectives. In: Emergence and Change in Early Urban
Societies. New York and London, 3–39.
Moora, H. 1952. Pirmatnējā kopienas iekārta un agrā
feodālā sabiedrība Latvijas PSR teritorijā. Rīga.
Moora, H., Ligi, H. 1969. Hozyaistvo i obshchestvenniy stroi
narodov Pribaltiki v nachale XIII veka. Tallinn.
Mugurevich, E.S. 1965. Vostochnaya Latviya i sosedniye
zemli v X-XIII vv. Riga.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1974. Ciems un pils Mārtiņsalā (izrakumu
rezultātu kopsavilkums). In: ZASM 1973, 54–58.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1975. Izrakumi Mārtiņsalā. In: ZASM 1974,
68-70.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1977. Oliņkalna un Lokstenes pilsnovadi. 3.15.gs. arheoloģiskie pieminekļi. Rīga.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1985. Rēzeknes pils un tās apkārtnes novads
9.-17.gs. In: LZAV 3, 48–71.
Mugurēvičs, Ē., Vilcāne, A. 1992. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi
Jersikas pilskalnā. In: ASM 1990-1991, 75–80.
Mugurēvičs, Ē., Vilcāne, A. 1994. Arheoloģiskie pētījumi
Jersikas pilskalnā un senpilsētā. In: ASM 1992-1993, 68–
72.
Mugurēvičs, Ē., Vilcāne, A. 2000. Jersikas arheoloģiskās
pētniecības desmitgade. In: Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā
1998. un 1999.gadā. Rīga, 96–107.
Peregrine, P. 1991. Some political aspects of craft specialization. In: World Archaeology 23(1), 1–11.
Radiņš, A., Zemītis, G. 1988. Izrakumi Daugmales
arheoloģiskajā kompleksā. In: ZASM 1986-1987, 117–
121.
Radiņš, A., Zemītis, G. 1990. Daugmales arheoloģiskās
ekspedīcijas darbs. In: ZASM 1988-1989, 129–132.
Radiņš, A., Zemītis, G. 1992. Die Verbindungen zwischen
Daugmale und Skandinavien. In: Die Kontakte zwischen
Ostbaltikum und Skandinavien im frühen Mittelalter.
Stockholm, 135–142.
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 1996. Archaeology: Theories, Methods
and Practice. London.
Service, E.R. 1962. Primitive Social Organization. New
York.
Service, E.R. 1975. Origins of the State and Civilisation.
New York.
Shnore, E.D. 1957. Nukshinskij mogiljnik. Riga.
Shnore, E.D. 1961. Asotskoje gorodishche. Riga.
Stubavs, A. 1976. Ķentes pilskalns un apmetne. Rīga.
Stubavs, A. 1978. Izrakumi Stupeļu pilskalnā un senpilsētā
1977.gadā. In: ZASM 1977, 62–68.
Stubavs, A. 1980. Arheoloģiskie pētījumi Ritē (1976.-1979.
g.). In: ZASM 1979, 91–96.
Šnē, A. 1997. Social Structures of Livonian Society in the
Late Iron Age (10th – Early 13th Century). In: Arkeologi
77
Andris Šnē
Zariņa, A. 1988. Lībiešu apģērbs 10.-13.gs. Rīga.
Zariņa, A. 1997. Kapi ar tirgotāja piederumiem Salaspils
Laukskolas kapulaukā (10.-13.gs.). In: AE XIX, 97–106.
Zariņa, A. 1999. Apģērbs Latvijā 7.-17.gs. Rīga.
Zemītis, G. 1992. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi Daugmalē. In:
ASM 1990-1991, 117–121.
Zemītis, G. 1993. Daugmale (10.-12.gs.) - senākā pilsētveida
apmetne Daugavas lejtecē un Rīgas priekštece. In: LZAV
7/8, 130–136.
Zemītis, G. 1994. Izrakumi Daugmales senvietu kompleksā pilskalnā, senpilsētā un kapulaukā pie senpilsētas. In: ASM
1992-1993, 102–105.
Zemītis, G. 1996. Izrakumi Daugmales pilskalna valnī un
senpilsētā. In: ASM 1994-1995, 128–131.
Zemītis, G. 1998. Pētījumi Daugmales senpilsētas austrumu
daļā. In: ASM 1996-1997, 80–83.
Andris Šnē
Chair of Ancient and Medieval History
Faculty of History and Philosophy
University of Latvia, Brivibas 32
Rīga LV 1050, Latvia
Received: 2002
Ū kis ir socialin ė
valdžia v ė ly vuosiuose
priešistoriniuose
gentiniuose ry tin ė s
latvijos junginiuose
Andris Šnē
Santrauka
Mainai ir gamyba vidurinio geležies amžiaus pabaigoje
ir vėlyvajame geležies amžiuje rytinėje Latvijoje patyrė didelių pokyčių, o ūkio transformacijos savo ruožtu
irgi darė įtaką vietinių vadų gebėjimams ir galimybei
vykdyti jų politinę ekonomiką. Gamyba ir jos skatinimas, išlaidos karo žygiams ir švenčių organizavimas
formavo pasyvųjį vadų ekonominį saldą, tuo tarpu kreditą sudarė pajamos iš prekybos ir mainų, duoklės ir
grobio (Gosden 1989: 368–370). Perskirstant vietinių
vadų pelno dalis atitekdavo ir kiekvienam bendruomenės nariui. Panašu, kad rytinės Latvijos bendruomenės
buvo gana pasiturinčios, nors, suprantama, greta plataus vidurinio socialinio sluoksnio egzistavo ir turtingi
jos nariai bei varguomenė. Tačiau tik po vėlyvojo vidurinio geležies amžiaus (VIII–IX a.) ėmė nykti didieji
skirtumai tarp turtingų ir skurdžių kapų ir tokie kraštutiniai atvejai tapo labai reti. Ekonominiai santykiai
ir pati ekonomika sudarė galimybes kai kuriems bendruomenių nariams pagausinti savo turtus, o kartu ir
78
sustiprinti savo valdžią. Tuo pat metu, veikiant ideologiniam spaudimui, vėlyvaisiais priešistoriniais laikais
ji kartu padėjo išlaikyti politinę lygybę.
Vertė Romas Jarockis
Oleg
Proshkin
The Question of the
Heterogeneous Population of the
Upper Oka and The Upper Desna
Region in the Middle Ages
T h e Q u e s t i o n o f th e H e t e ro g e n e ou s
P opu l at i o n o f th e U pp e r O k a a n d th e
U pp e r D e s n a R e g i o n i n th e M i dd l e A g e s
Oleg Proshkin
Abstract
Among the barrows attributed to the local Slavic population in the area of the left bank of the Upper Oka and right bank of
the Upper Desna are barrows where the burial rites differ from the local inhabitants’. Different types of burials, a man’s burial
with weapon and a horse, a horse’s burial, a horse’s burial with a man’s or animal’s cremation, a man’s burial with weapons,
a man’s burial with a bird’s burial, a man’s burial under a rectangular stone barrow, were typical burial customs of Baltic and
Finno-Ugric inhabitants in the 11th to 13th centuries AD.
Key words: barrow, burial item, Slavonic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric, Oka, Desna, medieval.
A lot of barrows are known in the enormous area of
the left bank of the Upper Oka and the right bank of
the Upper Desna basin in the Kaluga and Smolensk
regions. They were erected by the local Slavic population at the end of the first or the beginning of the second millennium AD. They may be divided into three
groups by the ethnic signs.
The first group. Vyatichi barrows are situated in the
central and eastern parts of the region.
The second group. Krivichi barrows are located in the
Desna and Ugra (a left tributary of the Oka) basin.
The third group. Vyatichi and Krivichi barrows are
both situated in the Bolva river basin (a left tributary
of the Desna).
The barrows date from the 11th to the 13th centuries
AD. The earliest Slavic burial rite was cremation
with urns, bronze and glass ornaments in a mound
dated to the ninth or tenth centuries AD. (Yermolino)
(Массалитина 1992: 3–6). The rite of cremation
stopped in the 11th century. At first, the rite of inhumation of a single corpse under a barrow appeared;
and at the end of the 11th century it was laid in a pit
grave. These burials contained rich implements, such
as pottery, bronze and silver ornaments, and iron tools
(Prudki) (Прошкин 1986: 67).
Many archaeologists have investigated barrow cemeteries in this area, eg V. Sedov, T. Nikolskaya and others (Седов 1973: 10–16; Никольская 1981: 97–119).
80
From the 14th century, barrows are not typical of the
region. The inhabitants buried their dead in cemeteries
in the Christian rite. At the end of the 19th century, the
archaeologists N. Bulychov and D. Chetyrkin explored
several barrows in which the burials were committed
in a rite not typical of the inhabitants either of the ninth
to 11th centuries, or of the 14th and 15th centuries (Fig.
1). Two barrow cemeteries with such interments are
situated in the Bolva basin.
1. Trashkovichi (Fig. 1). The barrow cemetery is located 300 metres northeast of the village, on the right bank
of the Snopot’ river (a right tributary of the Bolva). It
contained 17 round mounds (Fig. 2, 1). The author researched the cemetery in 1987 and fixed the traces of
the excavations which Bulytchov did on the method of
“a well”. At the end of the 19th century, the barrows
were situated in two groups along both sides of the
road. The first group (13 mounds) are in a forest. The
barrows have been preserved up to the present. The second group (four mounds) were situated in a field and
have not been well kept. The barrows’ height was 0.6
to 1.9 metres, the diameter from six to nine metres. In
15 barrows there were burials containing inhumations,
which were supplied with rich funeral gifts, including
rings, buckles, amulets, beads, pottery and other objects from the 11th and 12th centuries (Булычов 1899).
According to the ornaments and the burial rite, local
Slavic inhabitants called “Krivichi” in written sources
made these barrows.
Two barrows (1 and 12) differed from the others very
much. In barrow 1 a burial of a dead person with a
horse was discovered. It was found at a depth of about
105 centimetres from the mound’s edge. The horse lay
on the right side, pointing north. The individual was
placed extended on its back beside the horse. Its hand
bones were stretched along its skeleton. It was pointing east. An iron spearhead and axe were laid near the
right hand of the skeleton. A clay urn was at its feet
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Map of barrow cemeteries (Drawing by O. Proshkin)
(Булычов 1899: 58) (Fig. 2, 3). Bulychov does not describe these items and does not draw them. But some
artefacts from this barrow cemetery are preserved at
the State Historical Museum in Moscow. The spearhead and axe from barrow 1 form part of the museum’s
collection (SHM, No 25778) (Fig. 4, 1). Kirpichnikov
distinguishes similar spearheads in the third type (data
from the ninth to the beginning of the 11th centuries)
(Кирпичников 1966: 13–14). But such spearheads
were found in burials of the seventh to eighth centuries
(Kochkino), and in deposits of the 15th and 16th centuries (Novgorod) (АКР 1994: 44; Медведев 1959: 130).
The axe has two pairs of side trunnions, a shaft-hole,
a small flanged butt and a cutting edge (Fig. 4, 4 from
the SHM’s collection; 5 drawing by Kirpichnikov).
Kirpichnikov groups similar axes in the fourth type
(ninth to 12th centuries) (Археология СССР 1985:
310). He dates the axe from barrow 1 at Trashkovichi
81
Oleg
Proshkin
The Question of the
Fig. 2. Vygor’ and Trashkovichi burials (Drawing by N. Bulychov)
to the 11th century (Кирпичников 1966: 118–119).
But such axes were found in later burials (Археология
СССР 1987: 141). Paulsen considers that similar axes
were made in Russia and in the eastern Baltic (Paulsen
1956: 38–39).
82
In barrow 12 a man’s skeleton was placed in a supine
position on the land surface under the mound. Its hand
bones were stretched along its trunk. It was pointing
east. An iron knife and axe were laid near its left hand,
“there was a ring in the right ear” (earring) (Булычов
1899: 60). The axe is preserved in the State History Museum. It has a narrow cutting edge, a butt, and trunnions
(Fig. 4, 2 the SHM’s collection, 3 drawing by Kirpichnikov). This axe is close to the third type of battleaxes,
but it has some distinguishing features (Кирпичников
1966: 35–36). Kirpichnikov dates the axe to the 11th
century (Кирпичников 1966: 112–113).
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 3. Leonovo: the burial
in barrow 4
(Drawing by N. Bulychov)
2. Vygor’ (Fig. 1). The barrow cemetery was situated
between the villages of Vygor’ and Prochody, and
consisted of two barrows which Bulychov excavated.
Their condition is unknown today. One of the barrows
contained the burial of a horse in the centre of the
mound. The horse lay on its right side with the head to
the southwest. A clay urn with burned bones was found
to the northwest of the horse at the edge of the mound
(Булычов 1899: 63) (Fig. 2, 2).
One burial was situated in the Ugra basin.
3. Leonovo (Fig. 1). The barrow cemetery was located
on the outskirts of the village, on the right bank of the
Popolta (a left tributary of the Ugra). It comprised nine
barrows, eight of them round, with diameters of six to
20 metres, and one rectangular, measuring 2.1 by 2.8
metres, with a height of 0.7 metres, and built of stone
(Fig. 3).
In four barrows, burials according to a rite of inhumation were discovered. They were accompanied by
burial items from the 11th and 12th centuries. The ornaments and the burial rite indicate that these barrows
were built by local Slavic inhabitants, called “vyatichi”
in written sources, and also by inhabitants of southern
and northern Russia (Булычов 1899). The rectangular
barrow was situated at the edge of the cemetery, and
was orientated from east to west. The corpse was laid
under the mound in a pit grave (the depth was 1.4m).
He was placed in a supine position, his head was
pointing east, his hands were laid on his belly (Fig. 3)
(Булычов 1899: 2).
Another three barrows with unusual burials are known
in the Zhyzdra river basin, a left tributary of the Oka.
4. Vasil’yevskoe-Parshino (Fig. 1). The cemetery incorporated 11 round barrows, with diameters from
eight to 17 metres. Bulychov excavated five of them.
Their condition is unknown today. They are not dated.
A man’s interment was discovered in barrow 3, laid
in a pit grave, and there were no implements in the
burial.
In barrow 9 a horse’s skeleton was found, at a depth
of 1.4 to 1.5 metres from the edge of the mound. Its
head was pointing south. The horse’s inhumation is not
described. But it is known that there were coals underneath the skeleton (Булычов 1899: 38).
5. Gubino-Merenistchy (Fig. 1). The cemetery was situated between the villages, near the village of Volkonskoe, in the wasteground of Dubrovka. It consisted of
20 round barrows. I. Chetyrkin excavated five of them.
Their condition is unknown today. Some pieces of pottery which have not survived were discovered in one of
the barrows. The barrows are not dated.
83
Oleg
Proshkin
The Question of the
Fig. 4. Grave items
from Trashkovichi:
1 spearhead (drawing by O. Proshkin);
2, 3 axe (2 from
the State Historical
Museum, drawing
by O. Proshkin;
3 drawing by
A. Kirpichnikov);
4, 5 axe (4 from
the State Historical
Museum, drawing
by O. Proshkin;
5 (Drawing by
A. Kirpichnikov)
In barrow 1 (the height is 1.8m, the diameter 15m) a
horse’s skeleton was discovered at a depth of about
0.5 to 0.6 metres from the edge. The burial is not described. There was a pile of ash underneath the skeleton (Четыркин 1899: 12). In barrow 2 (the height is
2.1m) “birds’ bones” were laid in the centre under the
mound of the barrow. There was a man’s skeleton with
the head pointing west in a pit grave, under the “birds
bones” (Четыркин 1899: 12).
84
Thus six types of burial are known: 1) a man’s burial
with a weapon and a horse; 2) a horse’s burial; 3) a
horse’s burial with a man’s or an animal’s cremation;
4) a man’s burial with weapon; 5) a man’s burial with
a bird’s burial; 6) a man’s burial under a rectangular
stone barrow.
The burial rite of these barrows differs very much from
the local inhabitants’ rite of the Middle Ages. There
are no analogies with the rite of the neighbouring areas, either. Written sources describing events in the
11th and 12th centuries in the Upper Oka basin area
mention the “Golyad’” tribe. Golyad’ is mentioned
for the first time in 1056, when Prince Izyaslav fought
We probably have to appeal to written sources of the
14th and 15th centuries. In the second half of the 14th
century, the Lithuanian Grand Duke Algirdas fought
the enormous Smolensk lands and the greater part of
the Upper Oka area. At the end of the 14th century,
the border dividing Lithuania and Muscovy ran along
the Ugra and Oka rivers. In the “List of Towns” of the
end of the 14th century, the next Lithuanian towns
situated in the Upper Oka area are named: Berezuesk,
Lyubutsk, Mtsensk, Moshchin, Vorotynsk, Serensk,
Devyagorsk, Meshchovsk, Obolensk, Serpeysk, Tarusa (Тихомиров 1952: 224) (Fig. 1). The first inhabitants to come from the Eastern Baltic region probably
migrated to the Oka area before 1341, before Algirdas’
campaign to Mozhaysk. In 1449, the greater part of the
Upper Oka was named as old Lithuanian possessions
(ДДГ 1950: 160–161). Only in 1503 did Moscow win
the Upper Oka and Desna area back.
The Lithuanians and other inhabitants of the Eastern
Baltic region left certain traces, such as the burial rite
typical of them. Many scholars have noticed these facts
(Кулаков 1987: 23–24; and others).
Men’s burials with horses, weapons and sacrificial
birds were typical of Baltic and Finno-Ugric peoples.
Horses’ burials were typical of nomads of the European
and Asian steppes for a long time. On Old Russian territory, horses’ burials or burials with horses are known
in the interments of fighters, and also where Slavic
peoples bordered closely Baltic and Finno-Ugric ones
(Голубева 1981: 87).
But it is impossible to regard the burials with horses in
the barrows of the Upper Oka and Upper Desna region
as fighters’ burials. They were not supplied with rich
harnesses, belt-buckles or ornaments. Steppe nomads’
burials with horses are different too (Зяблин 1955; and
others).
The burial rite with horses here has many analogies
with ones in northeast Europe, where it persisted up
to the late Middle Ages. A striking example of it is
the cremation of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Algirdas
with his horses in 1377. This rite is very ancient, and
connected with the worship of these animals. Its roots
BALTICA 6
probably derived from the Stone Age. Vaitkunskienė
divides men’s burials in Lithuania since the middle of
the first millennium AD into three groups. The second category of burials were usually supplied with a
spear and an axe, the third were supplied with a horse
(Вайткунскене 1987: 57). In most cases, such burials
in Lithuania are dated from the end of the first millennium AD to the 13th and 14th centuries (Куликаускене
1953). A horses’ burial rite with the remains of a cremation was marked in many Lithuanian cemeteries,
where it persisted up to the 15th century (Урбанавичюс
1985: 161; 1988: 401; and others). Many researchers
have noted the existence of horses’ burials from the
middle of the first millennium AD and especially at the
beginning of the second millennium AD on southeast
Baltic territory as an ordinary phenomenon (Кушнер
1991: 39; and others). In east Lithuanian barrows, the
greatest number of horses’ burials were made separately from men’s. In barrows one horse pointing south,
east or west was interred. Such burials appeared in the
middle of the first millennium AD, and spread widely
at the turn of the second millennium AD (Таутавичус
1959: 37). Men’s burials with weapons, clay vessels
and burials with sacrificial birds are known in Lithuania up to the 16th century (Урбанавичюс 1979: 439;
1985: 162; and others).
ARCHAELOGIA
this tribe (ПСРЛ 1962: 151). It was mentioned again
in 1147, when Prince Svyatoslav waged war on Smolensk (ПСРЛ 1962: 339). This shows that the Golyad’
tribe lived in the Protva basin (Oka left tributary) (Fig.
1). Many different points of view are expressed about
the ethnic origin of this tribe. Many scholars consider
that the Golyad’ are Balts (Седов 1982: 44; Кушнер
1991: 56; and others). But archaeological materials of
the Balts are not found on the River Protva in the 11th
and 12th centuries.
The rectangular stone barrow at Leonovo has analogies in the Upper Nemunas area. There, similar funeral
constructions are dated, according to the Polish and
Lithuanian coins discovered in them, to the 13th to
16th centuries (Седов 1982: 122).
Therefore, the burials in the Upper Oka and the Upper
Desna area may be connected hypothetically with the
population of the Eastern Baltic (Lithuanians, Yotvingians and others), and dated to the 11th to 15th centuries. But the local inhabitants could have built some
of them.
References
Paulsen, P. 1956. Axt und Kreuz in Nord – und Osteuropa.
Bonn.
Археологическая карта России. Ивановская область.
1994. Москва.
Археология СССР. 1985. Древняя Русь. Москва.
Археология СССР. 1987. Финно-угры и балты в эпоху
средневековья. Москва.
Булычев, Н. 1899. Журнал раскопок по части водораздела
верхних притоков Волги и Днепра. Москва.
Вайткунскене, Л. 1987. К вопросу о начале дружин
в Литве. In: Задачи советской археологии в свете
решений XXVII съезда КПСС. Москва.
Голубева, Л. 1981. Конские погребения в курганах
Северо-Восточной Руси VIII-XI вв. In: Советская
археология. № 4.
85
Oleg
Proshkin
The Question of the
ДДГ. 1950. Духовные и договорные грамоты великих и
удельных князей 14-16 вв. Москва-Ленинград.
Зяблин, Л. 1955. О татарских курганах. In: Советская
археология. XXII.
Кирпичников, А. 1966. Древнерусское оружие. In: Свод
археологических источников. Е1-36. Выпуск 2. МоскваЛенинград.
Кулаков, В. 1987. Литовцы в Калужской земле. In:
Вопросы археологии и истории Верхнего Поочья.
Калуга.
Куликаускене, Р. 1953. Погребения с конями у древних
литовцев. In: Советская археология. XVII.
Кушнер, П. 1991. Этническое прошлое Юго-Восточной
Прибалтики. Вильнюс.
Массалитина, Г. 1992. Раскопки длинного кургана у с.
Ермолино. In: Боровский краевед. 4. Боровск.
Медведев, А. 1959. Оружие Новгорода Великого. In:
Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР.
Выпуск 65. Москва.
Прошкин, О. 1986. Калужская областная экспедиция. In:
Археологические открытия 1984 года. Москва.
ПСРЛ. Полное собрание русских летописей. Том 2. 1962.
Ипатьевская летопись. Москва.
Седов, В. 1973. Ранние курганы вятичей. In: Краткие
сообщения Института археологии. Выпуск 135.
Седов, В. 1982. Восточные славяне в VI-XIII вв. Москва.
Таутавичус, А. 1959. Восточнолитовские курганы. In:
Вопросы этнической истории народов Прибалтики.
Москва.
Тихомиров, М. 1952. «Список русских городов дальних и
ближних». In: Исторические записки. 40.
Урбанавичюс, В. 1979. Могильник Диктарай. In:
Археологические открытия 1978 года. Москва.
Урбанавичюс, В. 1985. Реликты язычества в памятниках
14-16 вв. в Литве. In: Новое в археологии Прибалтики
и соседних территорий. Таллин.
Урбанавичюс, В. 1988. Исследование могильника у д.
Серяджюс. In: Археологические открытия 1986 года.
Москва.
Четыркин, И. 1899. Дневник раскопок, произведенных в
1898 г. в уездах Козельском, Лихвинском и Калужском.
In: Известия Калужской Ученой Архивной Комиссии.
№ 2. Калуга.
Oleg Proskhin
Plechanov ul. 5-33,
248030 Kaluga, Russia
Received: 2002
D ė l kit ų e tnini ų grupi ų
g y v e nto j ų O kos ir D e snos
auk š tupiuos e viduram ž iais
ОLEGAS PROŠKINAS
86
pabaigoje – II tūkstantmečio pradžioje vietinių slavų
palikti paminklai. Pagal radinius juos galima skirstyti
į 3 grupes: 1-oji grupė – viatičių pilkapiai, aptinkami
centrinėje ir rytinėje šio regiono dalyse. 2-oji grupė –
krivičių pilkapiai, jie koncentruojasi Desnos ir Ugros
(kairysis Okos intakas) baseinuose. 3-ioji grupė – viatičių ir krivičių pilkapiai. Jie aptinkami drauge ir išsidėstę Bolvos upės (kairysis Desnos intakas) baseine.
Pilkapynai datuojami IX–XIII a. Ankstyviausi IX–X a.
pilkapiai yra slavų su degintiniais kapais ir inventoriumi: urnomis, žalvariniais bei stikliniais dirbiniais. Nuo
XI a. mirusiųjų kremacija nutrūksta. Paplinta inhumacija. Iš pradžių mirusiuosius laidodavo ant pirminio žemės paviršiaus, vėliau – į duobę po pilkapio sampilu.
Kapuose daug dirbinių: puodų, žalvarinių ir sidabrinių
papuošalų, geležinių buities rakandų (pvz., Prūdki).
Nuo XIV a. pilkapiai šioje teritorijoje jau nebūdingi.
Atsiranda plokštinių krikščioniškų kapinynų.
Tarp minėtų pilkapių aptikta tokių, kuriuose laidosena nebūdinga vietiniams gyventojams nei IX–XIII, nei
XIV–XV amžiais ar dar vėliau. Du tokie pilkapynai
yra Bolvos baseine. Tai Traškovičiai. Jame 17 pilkapių, išsidėsčiusių dviem grupėmis (1:1 pav., 2:1 pav.).
Iki dabar išliko 13 pilkapių grupė, buvusi miške. Kiti
pilkapiai, XIX a. pabaigoje buvę ariamame lauke, sunaikinti. Sampilai 0,6–1,9 m aukščio ir 6–9 m skersmens. 15-oje pilkapių aptikta griautinių kapų, kuriuose
buvo XI–XII a. radinių. Tai vietinių gyventojų – krivičių – pilkapiai.
Pilkapiuose Nr. 1 ir Nr. 12 aptikti mirusieji laidoti galvomis į rytus. Įkapes sudarė ietigaliai, kirviai, peilis ir
puodeliai (4:1 pav.; 2, 4 pav.). Pilkapyje Nr. 1 šalia vyro
buvo palaidotas ir žirgas. Abu kapai datuojami XI a.
Vigor pilkapyne buvo 2 pilkapiai, kuriuos XIX a. pabaigoje ištyrė N. Buličiovas (1:2 pav.). Vieno pilkapio
centre aptikti žirgo griaučiai, atkreipti galva į pietvakarius. Sampilo pakraštyje rastas molinis indas su sudegintais kaulais (2:2 pav.).
Leoniovo pilkapyne buvo 9 pilkapiai (1:3 pav.). 8 iš jų
apskriti – nuo 6 iki 20 m skersmens, devintas – stačiakampio formos, – 2,1 х 2,8 m ir 0,7 m aukščio – buvo
sukrautas iš akmenų. 4-iuose pilkapiuose buvo rasta
griautinių kapų ir XI–XII a. dirbinių. Tai viatičių ir
galbūt šiaurės bei pietų Rusios gyventojų kapai. Stačiakampio formos pilkapyje buvo griautinis kapas,
orientuotas galva į vakarus (3 pav.).
Santrauka
Dar 3 pilkapiai su neįprasta laidosena buvo žinomi
Žizdros upės baseine.
Okos aukštupio kairiajame ir Desnos aukštupio dešiniajame krante, t. y. dabartinėse Kalugos ir Smolensko
srityse, žinoma daug pilkapynų. Tai I tūkstantmečio
Vasilevskoje–Paršino (1:4 pav.) pilkapyne yra 11 apskritos formos 8–17 m skersmens pilkapių. 5 iš jų tyrinėti N. Buličiovo. 9-ajame pilkapyje rasti žirgo griaučiai
orientuoti galva į pietus. Po griaučiais buvo anglių.
BALTICA 6
Visų išvardytų laidosenos pavyzdžių analogijų aplinkui
nėra. Rašytiniai šaltiniai, kuriuose aprašomi XI–XII
amžių įvykiai, šiose teritorijose mini galindus ir nurodo konkrečią jų gyvenamąją teritoriją – Protvos upės
baseiną (1 pav.). Vėlesni, XIV–XV a., rašytiniai šaltiniai mini Lietuvos didįjį kunigaikštį Algirdą užkariavus Smolensko žemes ir didžiąją dalį Okos aukštupio.
XIV a. antrojoje pusėje siena tarp Lietuvos ir Maskvos
ėjo Ugros ir Protvos upėmis, XIV a. pabaigos „Miestų
sąraše“ taip pat minima daug lietuvių miestų (1 pav.).
Išeiviai iš Rytų Pabaltijo turėjo palikti čia savo pėdsakų. Mirusiųjų kapai su žirgais, ginklais, taip pat su
paukščiais būdingi baltams ir finougrams.
ARCHAELOGIA
Gubino–Mereniščių (1:5 pav.) pilkapyną sudarė 20ties pilkapių grupė. 5 iš jų tyrinėjo I. Četirkinas. Viename iš jų aptikta keramikos šukė. Chronologija neaiški. Pilkapyje Nr. 1 buvo žirgo griaučiai. Paukščio
kaulų rasta pilkapyje Nr. 2, o po jais, pilkapio centre,
duobėje, buvo griautinis vyro kapas, orientuotas galva
į vakarus.
Taigi analizuoti svetimi slavams laidojimo papročiai
Okos ir Desnos aukštupių regione turi analogijų su
laidojimo tradicijomis Rytų Pabaltijyje ir palikti išeivių bei galbūt išlikusių vietinių galindų ir datuotini
XI–XV a.
87
Kurland. Die Grenzen und
die nördlichen Landschaften
in 8.–13. Jahrhundert
K u r l a n d . D i e G r e n z e n u n d d i e n ö r dl i c h e n
L a n d s c h a f t e n i n 8 . – 1 3 . J a h r h u n d e rt
VLADAS ŽULKUS
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
Abstract
Das kurische Territorium und die einzelne Territorien kurischer Landschaften genauer zu bestimmen ist es möglich anhand
der archäologischen und historischen Informationen.
Key words: Kuren, Stämmen, Balten, Landschaften, Orden.
1. Einführung
Im Bereich der Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Kuren gibt
noch keine spezielle monografische Forschung. Einer
der Gründe hierfür ist, dass das alte Kurland – ebenso
wie die Gebiete der Selen und Semgallen – heute auf
Lettland und Litauen verteilt liegt. Westlettland, dass
den halben Teil der ethnisch kurischen Gebiete einnimmt, wird seit altersher Kurland (lett.: Kurzeme) genannt. Die Erforschung der Geschichte der kurischen
Stämme ergeht sich deswegen im Allgemeinen auf
diese Region, bestehend aus kurischem, livischem und
semgallischen Kulturerbe.
Die frühmittelalterliche Küstenkultur in Litauen wurde
lange Zeit nicht als eigenständiges Forschungsobjekt
behandelt: Historiker betrachteten sie als szemaitisch,
die Archäologen als allgemein-litauisch.
”Kuren” waren sowohl in der litauischen als auch in der
westeuropäischen Geschichtswissenschaft sogar lange
Zeit ein Synonym für Letten. Die historischen Komplikationen, in dessen Folge die Kurenstämme mit dem
Gebiet des sogenannten Kurlands oder mit dem russischen Gouvernement Kurland gleich gesetzt wurden
(analog zur Identifizierung der alten Prussen mit den
Einwohnern Ostpreußens), hatte Einfluss auch auf die
Archäologie. Die kurische Kultur wurde im Wesentlichen verbunden mit den nördlichen Kuren oder mit der
im frühen Mittelalter kolonisierten Kultur der Liven.
88
Die wissenschaftlichen archäologischen Publikationen über die sind verschiedener Art: Es wurde über
die Ausgrabungen verschiedener Objekte aus dem
kurischen Altertum veröffentlicht, verschiedene Arten
der archäologischen Objekte klassifiziert, kulturelle
Charakteriska der Kuren wurden gesucht und das kurische Territorium bestimmt. Über die nordkurische
Kultur im Eisenzeitalter denken ganzheitlich lettische Archäologen nach (Latvijas 1974; ��
Мугуревич
1965; Mugurēvičs 1997; 1999; 2000a; Caune A. 1991;
Асарис 1997; Asaris 1998; 1999; Озере��
��
1986; 1987;
Vasks 1997; 1999; Urtāns 1998; Apals, Mugurēvičs
2001).
Von Archäologen wurde bisher nicht versucht, einzelne Territorien kurischer Landschaften genauer zu bestimmen, obwohl Historiker dies schon über ein Jahrhundert lang machen (Bielenstein 1892; Dopkewitsch
1933; Salys 1930). Das kurische Territorium aus historischen Quellen und archäologischen Daten zu synthetisieren versuchte Ē. Mugurēvičs (1997, 1999; 2000a).
Die südkurischen Landschaften wurden erst 1989 genauer abgegrenzt (Žulkus, Klimka 1989).
2. Die Grenzen Kurlands
A.Die Ostgrenze
Dass die östliche kurische Grenze so unterschiedlich
festgelegt wurde, liegt zuallererst an verschiedenen
Methoden: Sprachwissenschaftler, die Probleme bei
der Datierung von Gewässer- und Ortsbezeichnungen
haben, heben sehr alte “Kulturschichten” hervor, die
sich auf die Mitte des ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus beziehen. Historiker benutzen demgegenüber spätere schriftliche Quellen aus dem 13.-15. Jahrhundert.
In denen von ihnen präsentierten Grenzen sind deutlich Aufteilungen und Wanderungsbewegungen zu
verspüren, deren wichtigster Grund die Ordensinvasion war. Ein weiterer Grund liegt darin, dass Forscher
die recht ausgedehnte unbewohnte Wildnis zwischen
den Stämmen mal dem einen, mal dem anderen Stamm
zuschreiben, also den Kuren oder den Szemaiten, und
dabei das Territorium des Einen ausdehnen und des
Anderen beschneiden. Die litauischen Forscher der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts wollten die Belege der
politisch engagierten deutschen Forscher widerlegen,
dass Litauens Küste nicht litauisch (bzw. szemaitisch),
sondern kurisch gewesen sei - was zu jener Zeit als
nicht litauisch galt. In ähnlichen Wirren verstrick-
In keiner bekannten schriftlichen Quelle der Zeit vor
dem Deutschen Orden sind die Grenzen Kurlands genauer beschrieben. In der Beschreibung des Rimbert
(um 873 n. Chr.) wird indirekt auch das Territorium
Kurlands erwähnt: Am (nördlichen oder südlichen)
Rande Kurlands war Seeburg; in der Mitte Kurlands,
nach fünf Tagen Reise, die wichtigste kurische „Stadt“,
Apulia (litauisch: Apuolė); und Kurland bestand aus
fünf Landschaften. Adam von Bremen (ca. 1040-1080)
schildert Kurland als eine Insel - ”vel maxima est
illa, quae Churland dicitur” (Adami IIII: 190). In den
Ordensquellen wurden 1252 und 1253 neun kurz beschriebene kurische Landschaften erwähnt sowie 150
Siedlungen in Kurland genannt (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr.
CCXXXVI, CCXLVI, CCLIII). Dennoch
��
bleiben einige Unklarheiten wegen der Grenzen besonders in den
Randgebieten.
B.Das Problem der Südgrenze
Besonders unklar ist dabei die südliche Grenze des von
den Kuren bewohnten Gebiets. Vor der Ankunft des
Ordens gehörte der Unterlauf der Memel nicht den Kuren, wie in einer Quelle von etwa 1231 zu lesen ist. Die
Landschaft Lamata wird separat von Kurland erwähnt
(Scriptores 1, 1861: 737). Auf eine Karte von Ebstorff
aus dem Jahre 1235 (Stradiņš, Cēbere 2001: 331) liegt
Kurland aber nördlich vom Fluss Memel, Lamata ist
dort hingegen nicht namentlich erwähnt (Abb. 1). In
einer anderen Quelle aus der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts
(1265-1260: ”Descriptiones terrarum”) steht wie folgt
geschrieben: ”Samland verbündet sich mit Kurland, das
sich weiter nach Norden hinzieht und von Süden und
Westen vom Meer umgeben ist. Im Osten liegt bereits
ein heidnisches Land genannt Szemaiten (Samogitia).
Dorthin kann ein Christ niemals ohne Schwert gehen.“
(zitiert nach Gorski 1981; Mugurēvičs 1995: 24). Mit
dem von Süden umschließenden Meer ist nichts anderes als das kurische Haff gemeint. Aus dieser Beschreibung geht hervor, dass Lamata nicht zu den Samen,
sondern zu den Kuren gehörte. In einer späteren Quelle, der um 1290 geschriebenen Livländischen Reimchronik, werden die nördlichen Nachbarn der Kuren,
die Liven, als Oselêre erwähnt. Die südlichen Nachbarn werden nicht genannt - obwohl geschrieben wird,
dass Kurland eine Länge von 50 Meilen aufweise:
(Livländische 351ff.; 357f.)
Nach Kwauka ist es vom Kap Domesnes bis nach Samland eine Strecke von 50 Meilen nach Süden (Kwauka
1986: 88). So müsste die terra Lamata schon zu Kurland gehört haben. Die Situation klärt sich durch ein
Dokument vom 29. Juli 1252, in dem Lamata - bis dahin
separat vom kurischen Territorium - dem Bischofstum
Kurland zugesprochen wird (LEK Bd. ��
I,. Abt. 1, Nr.
CCXXXVI), d. h. es wird formal der Herrschaft des
Livländischen Ordens und des Kurländischen Bischofs
unterstellt. De facto wird diese Abhängigkeit auch später rechtlich bestätigt, obwohl zur südlichsten Landschaft Pilsats Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts die Gebiete
südlich der Burgen Žardė-Laistai nicht gehörten und
der Orden sich mit dem Bischof die Wiesen an der
Dreverna (in der Quelle Drivene), und die Wiesen zwischen den Flüssen Minge und Žardė sowie die Wälder
zwischen Minge und Memel nicht aufteilte (LEK Bd.
I, Abt. 1: Nr. CCXLIX).
BALTICA 6
dâ liet bie des meres strant
ein gegende, heizet Kûrlant:
die ist wol vumfzik mîle lanc.
………………………………….
Oselêre daz sint heiden sûr,
die sint der Kûuren nâkebûr.
ARCHAELOGIA
en sich manche noch heute, wenn z. B. die kurische
Landschaft Pilsats für ein „baltisch-kurischer westszemaitischer Bezirk“ gehalten wird (Pėteraitis 1992: 51).
Eine der der unglaublichsten Einordnungen des kurischen Lebensraums stammt von Kustavi Grotenfelt.
Er wies nach, dass die Kuren ein ehemalig finnischer
Stamm seien und ihr Lebensort sei die Insel Ösel (estnisch: Saaremaa) gewesen (Grotenfelt 1912: 155ff).
Was sagen dazu archäologische Quellen? Deutliche
Unterschiede lassen sich anhand der Ausgrabungen der
Gräberfelder der Kuren und ihrer Nachbarn feststellen.
Im Mittelalter - bzw. dem Baltischen mittleren Eisenzeitalter (5.-7. Jahrhundert) - wurden die Toten in den
Küstengebieten Litauens und Lettlands unverbrannt in
Gräbern bestattet, die mit unregelmäßigen ovalen oder
rechteckigen Steinkreisen markiert waren (im südlichen
Teil wurde diese Sitte schon seit dem 1.-3. Jahrhundert
praktiziert. Weiter nach Norden kann man solche, auf
das 5.-7. Jahrhundert datierten Gräber im Gräberfeld
von Ošenieki (Vērgale) finden, das eine schon von altersher bestehende Grenze Kurlands markiert. Weiter
nach Norden breitet sich vom Fluss Tebra eine wenig
besiedelte Gegend aus, und vom Fluss Abava, einem
rechten Nebenfluss der Venta, beginnt der Lebensraum
der Liven, der baltischen Finnen. Die Liven beerdigten
ihre Toten in Gräbern mit Steinkonstrukten; manchmal
verbrannten sie ihre Toten, manchmal aber auch nicht.
(Tenisons 1994: 24; Vasks 1997; 63ff, 73f).
Später breiteten sich die Liven noch nach Süden aus.
Livische Hydronyme kann man entlang des Flusses
Rīva und am Oberlauf der Užava, südlich des Flusses
Abava und im Gebiet links des Flusses Slocene finden (Mugurēvičs 1987: 64, Abb. 11). Die nördliche
Grenze des kurischen Territoriums überschritt im 10.
Jahrhundert den Fluss Tebra (Mugurēvičs 1997a: 78).
Zwischen den Siedlungen der Liven und der Kuren lag
eine Wildnis von 6-15 km Breite.
89
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
C. Nordost- und Südostgrenze
Im Nordosten reichten die Kuren auch nicht bis an den
Mittellauf der Venta: Die östliche Grenze verlief an
den Oberläufen von Virvytė und Minge, in Richtung
der Szemaiten breitete sich Wildnis aus. Im Südosten
lebten Kuren bis zum 5./6. Jahrhundert am rechten
Ufer der Jūra, in späteren Zeiten kann man hier schon
Szemaiten finden; die südliche Grenze befand sich
zwischen Priekulė und Klaipėda.
Die kurischen Grenzen begannen sich ab dem 11. Jahrhundert zu verändern, als die Kuren begannen, ihre
Herrschaft auszudehnen, und dabei zuerst die bis dahin
unbesiedelten Gebiete zwischen den Stämmen besetzten. So entstand im Norden Kurlands „die Landschaft
zwischen Skrunda und Semigallia”. Als dies nicht
mehr ausreichte bedrängten die Kuren im Norden die
Wenden, die am Unterlauf der Venta lebten, sowie die
an den Küsten der Bucht von Riga lebenden Liven.
Die Wenden wurden gezwungen, sich zurückzuziehen
und siedelten sich in Latgallen und in der Gegend von
Cēsis (deutsch: Wenden) an. Die Eroberung der livischen Gebiete dauerte einige Jahrhunderte. Anhand archäologischer Informationen kann man sehen, wie sich
die livischen Gräberfelder langsam mit den Kuren typischen Gräbern abwechseln. An den finno-ugrischen
Hintergrund der nördlichen Gebiete Kurlands erinnern die Namen der kurischen Landschaften: Bandava
(Bandowe), Ventava (Winda), Vanema (Wannenia) =
Vredecuronia. Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts war den
Quellen nach das ganze im 13. Jahrhundert als Kurland bezeichnete Territorium von Kuren kolonisiert
(Mugurēvičs 1997a: 78).
Archäologische Daten zeigen, dass sich nördlich der
Flüsse Venta und Abava livische, kolonisiert livische,
aber nur wenige kurische Gräberfelder aus dem 11.13. Jahrhundert finden lassen. Frühere als auf das
11./12. Jahrhundert datierte Gräberfelder mit kurischen
Brandgräbern wurden nicht gefunden. Das nördlichste
derzeit bekannte Gräberfeld ist Nevejas Upesvagari
(Asaris 1997).
Liven lebten noch an den Unterläufen von Imula und
Amula, den linken Nebenflüssen der Abava (Gräberfelder von Matkules Lanksēde und Matkules Bienes),
den Oberläufen der Abava (Gräberfelder Virbu Zunnas, Lipstu Stautiņi) und entlang des Flusses Slocene
(Tukuma Jaunais tirgus). Zwischen der Abava und den
Seen Sasmaukas und Lubezers wurden mehr livische
als kurische Gräberfelder gefunden (Asaris 1996: 38,
Abb. 1; Mugurēvičs 1999). Nördlich der Abava wurden keine Gräberfelder mit kurischen Brandgräbern
gefunden, die auf früher als das 11./12. Jahrhundert datiert werden könnten. Die Kuren siedelten anfangs ent-
90
Abb. 1. Auf eine Karte von Ebstorff aus dem Jahre 1235
liegt Kurland nördlich vom Fluss Memel.
lang der Abava und übernahmen fruchtbarere bereits
von Liven kultivierte Gebiete, bevor sie nach Norden,
Nordosten und Osten drängten. Es wird allgemein angenommen, dass die Kolonisierung der Liven friedlich
vonstatten ging, jedoch zumindest anfänglich müssten
die Kuren auf deutlichen Widerstand der örtlichen Bewohner gestoßen sein. Nicht zufällig kann man in den
Gräbern kurischer Männer eine große Anzahl Waffen
finden, was die Vermutung nahe legt, dass es hier noch
im 12. Jahrhundert das Gefolge eine wichtige soziale
Institution war (Asaris 1997).
In den schriftlichen Quellen des 13. Jahrhunderts werden Siedlungen im Norden Kurlands erwähnt und Vermutungen über zuvor dichter besiedelte Orte geäußert.
Zahlreich neue Siedlungen entstanden nur in der Niederung des Flusses Rinda und in der „Landschaft zwischen Skrunda und Semigallia ” (Asaris 1999:128).
Die nach dem 11. Jahrhundert in den ehemals livischen
Landschaften gegründeten Zentren waren stärker kolonisatorischer Art. Es waren militärisch-administrative
Zentren mit wenigen dazu gehörigen Siedlungen, die
einen geringen Einfluss auf die örtliche finno-ugrische
Kultur ausübten. Dies zeigt sich nicht nur im dünnen
Netzwerk kurischer Gräberfelder, sondern auch in
der Verbreitung von kurischen Handwerkswaren. Im
11./12. Jahrhundert waren die kurischen kammförmigen Anhänger, die Miniaturen von Werkzeugen zum
Bänderweben nördlich der Abava völlig unbekannt
(��
Озере��
1986).
Das 10./11. Jahrhundert kann als Periode der kurischen Expansion auch in Richtung ihrer östlichen und
südlichen Nachbarn gesehen werden. Den zugenommenen kurischen Einfluss auf die Szemaiten an den
3. Die Landschaften und ihre
Bestimung
Bei der Kartografierung der archäologischen Objekte
wurden unterschiedliche Territorien innerhalb des kurischen Stammes festgestellt - die Grenzen der sogenannten „Landschaften“, welche sich bereits im 5./ 6.
Jahrhundert gebildet hatten (Abb. 2).
Fünf solcher Landschaften wurden - ohne Angabe ihrer Namen in der Mitte des 9. Jahrhunderts erwähnt
(Vita Anskarii: 1884: 853, 30c). Mugurēvičs vermutet
berechtigterweise, es wären die Landschaften Pilsats,
Megowe, Ceklis, Duvzare und Piemare gewesen, und
hat dabei das in jener Zeit von Kuren bewohnte Territorium im Sinn (Mugurēvičs 1997a: 78).
Die Ordensquellen des 13. Jahrhunderts erwähnen bereits neun kurische Landschaften (von Süd nach Nord):
Pilsats, Megowe, Ceklis (Ceclis), Duvzare, Piemare
(Bihavelanc), “terra inter Scrunden et Semigalliam”,
Ventava (Winda), Bandava (Bandowe) und Vanema
(Wannenia, Vredecuronia). In einem Dokument vom
12. August 1252 werden die südlichen Landschaften
als unbewohnt ausgenommen, ”von den landen, die
noch ungebuwet sin, als Ceclis, und Megowe, Pilsaten und Dovzare”. In der Teilungsurkunde von 1253
- es handelt sich um die Aufteilung der Ländereien
des “unbebauten” Kurlands zwischen dem Bischof
von Kurland und dem Deutschen Orden -werden fünf
solcher „unbebauten“ Landschaften erwähnt: Ceclis,
Megowe, Dovzare, Ceclis, “terra inter Scrunden et
Semigalliam” (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. CCXXXVI).
��
Man kann annehmen, dass zwischen ihnen auch schon
im Jahre 853 (Vita Anskarii 1884: 853, 30.c) erwähnte Länder stehen. In diesen “unbebauten” Landschaften kann man den schriftlichen Quellen zufolge eine
durchgehende Landeseinteilung beobachten: Borchsukunge (castelleturae), Land, Burg. “Unbebaut” bedeutete nicht wüstes Land, es war nur gemeint, dass
das Gebiet noch nicht vom Orden beherrscht war (vgl.
Salys 1930: 188ff) Schon die Untersuchungen von
H. Dopkewitsch hatten folgendes gezeigt: 1. Von den
Anhand der archäologischen, historischen und linguistischen Informationen ist es möglich, die verschiedenen Landschaften der Kuren auf Landkarten zur
lokalisieren. Das Territorium der einzelnen kurischen
Gebiete war von sehr unterschiedlich Größe - von einigen Hunderten bis zu Tausenden Quadratkilometern.
Im einzelnen gab es folgende Landschaften: Pilsats mit ca. 200 qkm Größe; Megowe und Duvzare - etwa
jeweils 500 qkm; Ceklis - ca. 2500 qkm, Bihavelank
(Piemare) - etwa 1250 qkm; Ventava – um 600 qkm,
Bandava über 1600 qkm, Vanema über 4000 qkm und
das Territorium der Landschaft zwischen Skrunda und
Semigallia betrug um 1200 qkm. Archäologisch am
besten untersucht worden sind die südlichen kurischen
Landschaften Pilsats und Megowe sowie ihre Nachbarlandschaft Lamata (Žulkus, Klimka 1989). Die
Ziel der unseren Forschungen ist das Territoriium des
Landschaft Ceklis und die einzelnen Territorien der
nordkurischen Landschaften genauer zu bestimmen.
BALTICA 6
Deutschen ist dieses Land nicht besiedelt worden; 2.
Die einheimische kurische Bevölkerung wurde bei den
Grenzbestimmungen als sachkundig herangezogen
– die ”seniores et discretiores”, von denen 1253 die
Rede ist, sind nichts anderes als einheimische Kuren
gewesen (Dopkewitsch 1933: 11).
ARCHAELOGIA
Ufern der Jūra in jener Zeit zeigen die kurischen Funde in den Gräberfeldern von Bikavėnai und Žąsinas
(Vaitkunskienė 1997). In den prussischen Landschaften
auf der Halbinsel Samland kann in den Gräberfeldern
des 10. bis 12. Jahrhunderts zahlreich kurischer Frauenschmuck gefunden werden. V. Kulakov ließ sich zu
der Vermutung hinreißen, prussische Krieger hätten
kurische Frauen geheiratet, denn massiv verbreitet sind
kurische Schwertscheidenbeschläge, Waffen und Pferdeausrüstungsteile für kurische Krieger im prussischen
Gefolge (Kulakov 1994: 107ff).
A.Ceklis
Zwischen den größten kurischen Landschaften lag Ceklis (Ceclis) das im Osten von Szemaiten und im Süden
von der zur Landschaft Lamata gehörenden Wildnis
begrenzt wurde. Unter Rücksichtnahme auf alle Daten
(archäologische, historische und geografische) sind die
Grenzen von Ceklis bis heute allerdings nicht genauer
bestimmt worden.
Die südliche Grenze von Ceklis verlief entlang des
Flusses Minge bis zum Nebenfluss Skinija an ihrem
Unterlauf. A. Salys zog diese Südgrenze vom Oberlauf der Venta direkt bis zum Memeldelta und rechnete
dabei zu den Kuren Gebiete der Szemaiten am Fluss
Virvytė sowie die fast unbewohnte von sumpfigen Wäldern bewachsene Wildnis in der Gegend von Rietavas
(Salys 1930). Der südlichste derzeit bekannte Ort von
Ceklis ist der Burgwall von Dovilai an der Minge. In
Quellen aus dem 13. Jahrhundert wurde die Südgrenze Ceklis noch südlicher gezogen - sie verband Ventės
ragas (Die Windenburger Ecke) mit dem Unterlauf der
Memel (Salys 1930), das heißt zu ihr hätte ein Teil des
Territoriums von Lamata gehört.
Im Südwesten trennte ein einige Kilometer breiter
Waldstreifen, der sich entlang der linken Nebenflüsse
der Smiltelė bis zum Oberlauf der Šventoji hinzog, die
91
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
Abb. 2. Die Territorien innerhalb des kurischen Stammes und die Grenzen der sogenannten “Landschaften” (V. Žulkus.)
I – Terra Lamata; II - Szemaiten; III – Semigallen. 1 – Pilsats; 2 – Megowe; 3 – Duvzare; 4 – Ceklis; 5 – Bihavelank (Piemare); 6 – Bandava; 7 – Ventava; 8 – Vanema (Vredecuronia); 9 – Die “Landschaft zwischen Scrunda und Semigallia”.
92
Siedlungen Ceklis von der Küste. In diesen Wäldern
entsprangen alle rechten Nebenflüsse der Dangė-Akmena. Die Burgwälle, Siedlungen und Gräberfelder am
westlichen Rand von Ceklis befanden sich in den Flussniederungen entlang der Minge und der Flüsse Salantas und Erla, sowie entlang der Bartuva. Nicht wenige
der damaligen Burganlagen am westlichen Rand von
Ceklis wurden 1253 erwähnt: Gargždai – Garisda,
Lekemė – Letsime, Stalgėnai (Paminijis) – Pamenie,
Kalniškiai – Kalnesemme und Kartena – Kartine (LEK
Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr. CCLIII;
��
Salys 1930: 180f).
Es ist nicht ganz klar, ob das Territorium zwischen den
Flüssen Venta und Vadakstis sowie den Sümpfen von
Kamanai von altersher kurisch bewohnt war oder später erobert worden war. Diese Gegend trennte ein Band
von Sümpfen vom zentralen Territorium der Landschaft – mit einer separaten Gruppe von Burgwällen
und Gräberfeldern: Daubariai, Šapnagiai (heutiger Bezirk/Rajon Mažeikiai).
Im Nordosten von Ceklis lebten die Kuren in der Gegend des heutigen Mažeikiai bis zum Mittellauf der
Ašva. Zwischen den Siedlungen der Kuren und der
Semgallen lag bis zu 15 km breite sumpfige und bewaldete Wildnis. Die Grenze zwischen den Stämmen
markierte die Ašva- ein Hydronym mit der Bedeutung
einer mytologischen Stute, was eindeutig einen sakralen Raum kennzeichnet. Nach Informationen aus historischen Quellen des 13. Jahrhunderts gehörte dieser
Raum zwischen den Stämmen zur Landschaft Ceklis,
während Archäologen am rechten Ufer der Venta und
ihrem Nebenfluss Dabikinė zerstörte Gräber der Semgallen fanden. Die alten Gräber der Semgallen überschreiten im Allgemeinen die Venta nicht (Jarockis
1998: 49), nur an der Einmündung der Virvytė wurden
nördlich der Venta welche gefunden (Pavirvytė-Gudai).
I. Vaškevičiūtė schreibt den Semgallen einen recht großen Raum zwischen dem Unterlauf der Virvytė und der
Venta zu (Vaškevičiūtė 1993: 126, Abb. 1), obwohl sich
dort Ödnis befand und hinter den Sümpfen im Süden
schon Szemaiten lebten. Vom Mündung der Virvytė in
die Venta verlief die Westgrenze des Territoriums der
Szemaiten ein Stück nach Süden am Mittellauf der
Virvytė. Nördlich gab es eine etwa 10 km breite waldreiche Wildnis, hinter der bereits Kuren lebten.
Das genauer bestimmte Territorium von Ceklis betrug
etwa 2500 qkm, in ihm sind mehr als 180 Wohnorte
bekannt, und nach aktuellsten Daten kamen auf eine
Siedlung in der Landschaft Ceklis etwa 14 qkm.
BALTICA 6
Die kurische Ostgrenze verlief bei der Umgebung von
Telšiai. Die ethnische Grenze zwischen Kuren und
Szemaiten hat dabei das Flüsschen Telšė anscheinend
nicht überschritten. Westlich davon wurden die Verstorbenen mit den charakteristischen kurischen Grabbeigaben brandbestattet, aber südöstlich vom Fluss
Patekla liegen dicht beieinander zwei Burgwälle und
fünf Gräberfelder mit Gräbern unverbrannter Szemaiten (Tautavičius 1981a). Es handelt sich dabei um die
ehemalige kleine szemaitische Landschaft Viešvė, die
im 13. Jahrhundert schon dem Territorium Ceklis angeschlossen worden war (Salys 1930).
ARCHAELOGIA
Im Norden wurde Ceklis von den Landschaften Duvzare und Bandava sowie der Landschaft zwischen Skrunda und Semigallia begrenzt. Diese Nordgrenze stimmte fast vollständig mit der heutigen litauisch-lettischen
Grenze überein und passierte von West nach Ost die
Flüsse Apše (rechter Nebenfluss der Barta) und Lūšė
(linker Nebenfluss der Venta) sowie den Unterlauf des
Vadakstis. Im 13. Jahrhundert wurde Ceklis das Territorium zwischen den Flüssen Apšė und Virvytė zugeschrieben (von dort sind zwei Burgwälle und ein
Gräberfeld bekannt). Es ist allerdings glaubwürdiger,
dass dieses kleine Landstück zur Landschaft Duvzare
gehörte. Ansonsten stimmen archäologische und historische Daten über die Norgrenze von Ceklis überein.
Die Umgebung von Apuolė im nördlichen Ceklis war
noch im 13. Jahrhundert dicht besiedelt. Im Jahre 1253
wurden folgende Orte erwähnt: Mosėdis – Mayseden, Šakaliai – Zekulseme, Veiteliai=Gesalai – Zesele
, Užluobė – Loben (LEK Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr. CCLIII;
��
Salys 1930: 180).
Die Gruppierungen von Burgwällen mit Siedlungen
und Gräberfeldern zeigen an, dass es in der Landschaft
Ceklis 10-11 territoriale (zumeist auch administrative) Einheiten gegeben hat, die in Quellen des 13.
Jahrhunderts „Borgsochungen“ (lateinisch: castellaturae) genannt wurden. Sie waren voneinander durch
unbewohnte Gebiete getrennt. Diese Stellen sind bis
heutzutage dünner besiedelt und die heutigen Bezirks/
Rajonsgrenzen entsprechen an vielen Stellen den ehemaligen Borgsochungen. Die Borgsochungen waren
nicht einheitlich groß und sie waren auch nicht von
gleicher Einwohnerdichte. In den Borgsochungen kann
man zwischen 4 und 14 Burgwälle sowie zwischen 5
und 12 Gräberfelder finden. Eine Ausnahme bildeten
die Grenzgebiete, an den es mächtige Burgen gab,
die aber dünner besiedelt waren (Paplienijis - an der
Grenze zu den Szemaiten; Griežė - an der Grenze zu
den Semgallen). Manche dieser Grenzburgen können
schon im 13. Jahrhundert vernachlässigt gesehen werden – in Quellen des 13. Jahrhunderts wird Gondinga
nicht mehr erwähnt und Griežė (Grese) – war 1264 abgebrannt (Salys 1930: 180). Das größte Territorium mit
über 11-13 Burgwällen und 18-19 Gräberfeldern befand sich im nördlichen Teil von Ceklis – die zentrale
Burg dieses Burggebietes war Apuolė, und es existierte
noch 1253 (Appule, Ampule im LEK Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr.
CCCXXVII) Andere größere Burggebiete gab es auch
noch im Westen und Südwesten der Landschaft Ceklis.
Eines dieser Zentren war Imbarė (1253 als Embere erwähnt; und ein anderes Gondinga (dem Umfeld dieser
Burg wird der Burgwall Grigaičiai zugeschrieben, der
nicht weit vom See Ilgis befand und der 1253 als Ylse
erwähnt wird (LEK Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr.. CCLIII;
��
Salys
1930: 180).
Im Jahr 1253 wurden zwei Burgen beim See Plateliai
erwähnt, in denen sich später Bischofsburg und Bischofsgut befanden: Alsėdžiai – Alizeyde (1421 stand
93
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
auf diesem Burgwall die Burg des ersten szemaitischen
Bischof Mathäus) und Žemaičių Kalvarija (Garde), wo
am Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts ein Bischofsgut gegründet wurde (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. CCLIII;
��
Salys
1930: 178ff; Žulkus 1999a.: 150).
4. Die nördlichen Landschaften
A. Duvzare
Diese Landschaft wird in den Quellen Duizare oder
Donzare genannt (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVII;
��
PU II 357-361 (1291). Die Herkunft der Landschaftsbezeichnung ist nicht ganz klar. Nach Meinung von
K. Būga stammt der Name vom See Duvzaris (jetzt
See Pape), das Wort Duvzaris hätte demnach zwei Bedeutungen. Die Erklärung von K. Būga (Būga Bd. 3
(1961): 165), der auch in Betracht zieht, dass zu Zeiten
der Wikinger sich an der Küste völlig andere Seen befanden (Žulkus, Springmann 2001) ist aber nicht überzeugend.
Das Territorium, wie es anhand von schriftlichen Quellen und archäologischen Daten bestimmt wird, ist kleiner als von Historikern aufgezeigt (Latvijas vēstures
1998: 12). Die südliche Grenze von Duvzare verlief
am Mittellauf des Flusses Šventoji. Vom Oberlauf der
Šventoji bog die Grenze von Duvzare nach Norden bis
zum Mittellauf der Vārtāja (lit.: Bartuva) in der Gegend des heutigen Skuodas und verlief weiter nach
Süden mit der Apšė und ihrem Nebenfluss Virvytė.
Von Oberlauf der Apšė wandte sich die Grenze Richtung Norden bis zum Oberlauf des Flusses Virga (die
an deren Oberlauf befindliche Siedlung Elkene gehörte bereits zur Landschaft Bandava). Dieser Fluss,
die Virga, bildete die nördliche Grenze von Duvzare
sowie die südliche von Bihavelank. Vom Zusammenfluss von Virga und Vārtāja verlief die Grenze entlang
des Flusses bis zur Mündung der Barta, und von dort
Richtung der Mittelläufe von Ječupe und Tosele sowie
der Küstenseen. An den Oberläufen der Barta zwischen dem Fluss Barta und dem Meer, gab es - wie
am See Pape - bis dato keine archäologischen Funde.
In diesen seen- und sumpfreichen Gebieten (wo sich
hier die großen Sümpfe Kirbas purvs ausbreiten) lebte
fast niemand. Solch unbewohnte Gegenden existierten
ansonsten zwischen Duvzare und Megowe sehr selten.
Ausgedehnte sumpfige Wildnis gab es im Osten des
Gebiets, an der Grenze zur Landschaft Ceklis und im
Nordwesten, zwischen den Siedlungen von Duvzare
und Bihavelank.
Das so bewohnte Territorium von Duvzare war also
deutlich kleiner, nicht 500 sondern nur etwa 400 qkm
groß. In der Landschaft Duvzare wurden über 30 Wohn-
94
orte gezählt; auf eine Siedlung kamen dabei – ohne den
unbewohnten Küstenraum – etwa 12 qkm Territorium.
In Dokumenten aus der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts
werden 14 Wohnorte in Duvzare genannt (LEK Bd.
I, Abt. 1, Nr. ��
CCCXXVII-CCCXXIX; Mugurēvičs
1999: 59f), von denen Teil noch nicht lokalisiert werden konnten.
Von Archäologen wurde festgestellt, dass der östliche Teil von Duvzare, entlang der Bartuva und nördlich von ihr, der dichter besiedeltere war. Hier wurden 11 Burgwälle und 8 Gräberfelder gefunden (in
zweien von ihnen befanden sich sowohl kurische als
auch livische Gräber). Zwei von diesen Burgwällen Didždāmas und Trekņu – wurden stechen als wichtigere Handwerkszentren heraus (Asaris1995: 14; 1998:
95). Im Jahre 1253 wurde Didždāmas als Damis und
Trekņu als Trecne erwähnt; des weiteren wurde noch
eine Siedlung in Duvzare lokalisiert. Im östlichen Teil
von Duvzare könnte es 3 oder 4 Burgbezirke gegeben
haben und als ein wichtigeres Verwaltungszentrum gilt
Damis (ein anderes nah gelegenes Zentrum, Aizvīķu,
gehörte im 13. Jahrhundert zur Landschaft Ceklis).
Im westlichen Teil von Duvzare sind 6 Gräberfelder
und 4 Burgwälle bekannt (alle am Fluss Šventoji). Von
den in 13. Jahrhundert erwähnten Orten wurden nur
drei lokalisiert: Popissen (wahrscheinlich beim Fluss
Tebra), Rutzowe (Rucava) und Emplitten (Impiltis).
Drei der bekannten Burgwälle liegen nebeneinander
im Abstand von 0,3 bis 1,3 km, und unter ihnen befand
sich das wichtigste Zentrum von Duvzare: Impiltis
(Emplitten, Empilten, Ampillen, Ampilten). Bei einem
Hauptburgwall befanden sich 2 Siedlungen, ein Gräberfeld und ein mythologischer Stein (“Opferstein)”.
Folglich kann man in Impiltis ein wichtiges Handelsund Handwerkszentrum vermuten. Impiltis existierte
als politisches und wirtschaftliches Hauptzentrum der
Landschaft Duvzare bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts.
Im Jahre 1263, als Duvzare den Kuren vom Orden abgenommen wurde, wurde die Burg Implitis niedergebrannt, ihre Besatzung zog sich nach Litauen zurück.
Der Burgwall von Impiltis wurde von Archäologen
erforscht, aber eine endgültige zusammenfassende Erforschung des Gräberfelds ist noch nicht erfolgt (LEK
Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr. CCCXXIX; LAA II: 69, 70, Nr. 238,
239; Vaitkevičius 1998: 101).
Über die alten Einwohner von Duvzare wissen wir wenig, denn die Gräberfelder sind – mit Ausnahme von
Tiltini – noch nicht erforscht. Außer den Wohnorten
wurde in der Landschaft Duvzare im 13. Jahrhundert
einer der wichtigsten heiligen Orte dieser Landschaft
erwähnt: ”Die heilige see to Dovzare ” (LEK Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVIII). ��
Wo sich dieser See befand ist
jedoch bis heute unklar.
Die südliche Grenze von Bihavelank verlief – ebenso wie die Nordgrenze der benachbarten Landschaft
Duvzare mit den Flüssen Tosele, Ječupe, Barta, Vārtāja
und Virga bis zu ihren Oberläufen. Von hier wandte
sich die Grenze der Landschaft nach Norden bis zur
Quelle der Tebra und verlief mit diesem Fluss bis zur
Mündung in die Saka. Die Saka war die Nordgrenze
des bewohnten Territoriums von Bihavelank. Historiker ziehen die Grenze noch weiter nördlich (Latvijas
vēstures 1998: 12), was aber völlig unbegründet ist,
denn zwischen den Flüssen Saka und Užava wurde
weder von Archäologen eine einzige Siedlung gefunden noch wurden sie in Quellen erwähnt. Von Saka
aus befand sich nach Norden eine 10 bis 20 Kilometer
breite Wildnis. Im Westen stieß Bihavelank ans Meer,
obwohl auf etwa 80 km Länge die Küste dieses Gebietes fast unbewohnt war. Wie auch in anderen kurischen
Küstenlandschaften befanden sich die Siedlungen in
einigen Kilometern Abstand vom Meer, zahlreich waren sie an den östlichen Ufern der „Haffseen“. Eine
Ausnahme bildeten nur einige nahe der Küste befindliche Dörfer im 13. Jahrhundert (Medce, Lypa, Percunencalwe – vielleicht Perkone?). Insgesamt gab es
laut Quellen Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts in dieser Landschaft mehr als 40 bewohnte Orte. Zusammen mit den
von Archäologen identifizierten Orten (Burgwälle und
Gräberfelder) wurden in Bihavelank über 60 Wohnorte gefunden. Die rund 1250 qkm von Bihavalank ent-
Verwaltungs- und wichtige Handwerkszentren des Altertums könnte man an folgenden Orten suchen: Bei
den Burgwällen am Ort Vārtāja (in der Nähe wurde im
13. Jahrhundert Byrsegalewe erwähnt), Vecpils (nicht
weit vom See Durbe mit den Siedlungen Octo, Duppele, Ylmede, Drage, Warva), Matra (in der Nähe ist die
Siedlung Medce bekannt) und Grobiņa (um den Ort
befinden sich einige Gräberfelder und aus den Quellen ist die Siedlung Salene bekannt) sein. Einige dieser
Burgwälle sind recht groß, und außerdem gut befestigt:
Vecpils – 1800 qm, Grobiņa – 2800 qm, Vārtāja – 4800
qm. An allen Wohnorten wurden zahlreiche bearbeitete Fundstücke gefunden (Asaris 1995: 14; 1998: 95).
Die Territorien der ”Borchsukungen“ vor der Ankunft
des Deutschen Ordens sind hier nicht so einfach zu
erkennen wie anderenorts. Aufgrund der besonderen
uneinheitlichen geografischen Umgebung bildeten
die Siedlungen keine kompakten Territorien sondern
erstreckten sich entlang der damaligen Seen und zwischen den Sümpfen, die meisten gruppierten sich am
Fluss Tebra bei Aizpute (dt.: Hasenpot) (teils zur Landschaft Bihavelank teils zur benachbarten Landschaft
Bandava gehörig). 5-6 Gebiete hätten sich vor der Ankunft der Deutschen Borchsukungen bilden können. Zu
Ordenszeiten sind auf dem Territorium von Bihavelank
5 Borchsukungen gewähnt: Sacken (1230 „Kiligunde“
genannt, 1305 ”castrum Sacke” - deutsch: Sackenhausen), Zierau (”castrum Zintere” – der Burgwall Dzintare am Fluss Tebra), Aizpute, Grobiņa und Durbe. Ihre
Gebiete entsprachen wahrscheinlich den territorialen
Gebilden der Vor-Ordens-Zeit (Dopkewitsch 1933:
78ff). Die wichtigste Territorien von Bihavelank beherrschte nach einer Quelle von 1230 der kurische
Herrscher Lamikis - ”Lammekinus rex et pagani de
Curonia, de terris Esestua, scilicet Durpis et Saggara”
(BG 419). Dem ”König” Lamikis hat wahrscheinlich
der größere Teil des Territoriums Bihavelank gehört
(Mugurēvičs 2000a: 81, 86).
Auf Wirtschaft und Besiedlung von Bihavelank übte
seine spezifische geografische Beschaffenheit großen
Einfluss aus. In dieser Landschaft lagen bei bis zu
40km Landschaftsbreite in Ost-West-Richtung alle
bekannten Wohnorte nicht mehr als einige Kilometer
vom Wasser entfernt, von Flüssen oder Seen, und der
BALTICA 6
Der Landschaftsname, den man in den ältesten bekannten Quellen findet, ist Bihavelanc, Bihavelant (LEK
Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. ��
CCXLVIII; PU II 357-361 (1291)).
Lettische Historiker nennen diese Landschaft Piemare,
Litauer Pamarys (Die Begriffe bezeihen sie auf ein Territorium an einer größeren Wasserfläche, größer als ein
See – litauisch marios). Es wurde auch versucht, diese
Landschaft Ezertuve zu nennen (von lett. ”ezers” = der
See). Dabei wurde sich auf eine Quelle von 1230 gestützt, in der erwähnt wird, dass Esestua vom ”König”
Lammekinus regiert werde. Diese Bezeichnung wurde
allerdings auch anders erklärt: ”den Namen der altkurischen Landschaft Esastoue möchte ich als eine semgallische Sprachform Iesēstuve ‘die Besteigungsstelle’
deuten” (Blesse 1938: 81). K. Būga erklärt – wie auch
andere Sprachwissenschaftler – die Benennung als
”Land entlang des Haffs”. Diese Erklärung der Bezeichung verursacht keine größeren Diskussionen, außer
dass die Forscher mit dem ”Haff” den Libau-See meinen (Būga Bd. 3 (1961): 165), und noch ist unbekannt,
ob der jetzt seperate See Bihevalank seinerzeit eines
gemeinsames Haff bildete. Ē. Mugurēvičs meinte, dass
Bihavelanc bedeutet „Land an der See“ (Mugurēvičs
1999: 60f).
sprachen also rund 20 qkm pro Einwohner, d. h. diese
Landschaft war dünner besiedelt als die ehemaligen
kurischen Territorien im Süden. Die Situation in Bihavelank wurde durch Wasserreichtum und sumpfige
Beschaffenheit bestimmt. Nach heutigen Daten war
besonders der Süden – zwischen den Flüssen Tosele
und Otaņķe – dünn besiedelt, dort gab es keine bedeutenden Burgen. Wesentlich mehr Siedlungen befanden
sich in der Mitte der Landschaft und in ihrem Norden,
entlang der Flüsse Ālande, Durbe und Saka.
ARCHAELOGIA
B. Bihavelank (Piemare)
95
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
Großteil lag direkt an Gewässern, die mit dem Meer
verbunden waren. Viele der Flüsse von Bihavelank
waren sehr kurz - sie flossen in den Lagunensee und
verbanden die Seen Tosmare, Libau, Meeke und Pape.
Dieser große Lagunensee war an einigen Stellen mit
dem Meer verbunden und bot gute Bedingungen für
Fischfang und Schifffahrt sowie Nah- und Fernhandel. Grobiņa, das bekannteste kurische Handelszentrum mit einer Kolonie von schwedischen Wikingern
und Händlern, lag auf einer kleinen Anhöhe an dem
zu jener Zeit wasserreichem Fluss Ālande, nur einige
Kilometer vom Lagunensee. Die Ufer der Grenzflüsse
Tebra, Virga und Vārtāja waren sowohl von Seiten der
Landschaft Bihavelank als auch in den benachbarten
Landschaften Bandava und Duvzare dicht besiedelt
und die Flüsse dienten als wichtige Wasserwege. Bei
den wichtigsten Handelszentren wurden Depotfunde
aus dem mittleren und späten Eisenzeitalter (Wikingerzeit) gefunden. In der Landschaft Bihavelank wurden
sogar 7 Schätze gefunden sechs davon in der Umgebung von Grobiņa. In allen Depotfunde wurden arabische und westeuropäische Münzen gefunden (Urtāns
V. 1977: 165, 170, 175, 196, 216).
C. Bandava
Der Name Bandava (Bandowe) wird zum ersten Mal in
Ordensquellen erwähnt (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. ��
CCXLVIII) Dort werden auch fast 50 Ortsnamen Bandavas
genannt.
Der Name Bandava kommt vom entweder von “banda” - ein kleines Ackerstück im Wald oder hängt mit
dem indo-europäischen bhen (hauen, fällen) zusammen. So könnte der Landschaftsname Bandava “gerodetes Land” bedeuten (Mugurēvičs 1999: 62).
Die Ostgrenze von Bandava stimmt mit der heutigen lettisch-litauischen Grenze überein: Sie verlief
am Oberlauf der Apše sowie an Jonupis ir Lūšė, Nebenflüssen der Venta, bis zur Venta. Von diesem Orte
in Richtung des Flusses Barta waren die Siedlungen
entlang beider Seiten des Flusses Venta verteilt. Hier
lagen einige in den Quellen des 13. Jahrhunderts erwähnte und lokalisierte Siedlungen: Celde, Lene,
Scrunden, Bandowe. Entlang der Venta verlief die östliche Grenze von Bandava bis zur Gegeng von Kuldīga
(Goldinghen). Von dort entfernten sich die Siedlungen
von Bandava etwas von der Venta. Nicht weit davon
lagen auch einige Orte von Ventava, die mitunter auch
Bandava zugeordnet werden: die Siedlungen Wyllegalle, Cormele, Ywande, Kemele, Walteten sowie der See
Nabba,. In den noch verbliebenen rund 15 km bis zur
Mündung der Venta näherte sich die Nordgrenze von
Bandava wieder der Ortschaft Varve (Warva). Von der
96
Mündung der Venta bis zur Wildnis zwischen Bandava
und Bihavelank im Süden war die Küstenregion kaum
besiedelt. Einige Kilometer vom Meer sind zwei livische Gräberfelder und die Siedlung Lippeten unweit
des Flusses Užava bekannt. Dieses Gebiet südlich der
Venta wird manchmal zur Landschaft Ventava gerechnet (Latvijas vestures 1998: 12). Jenseits der Wildnis,
in Richtung des Zusammenflusses von Alokste und Tebra überquerte die Landschaftsgrenze von Bandava in
südlicher Richtung den Fluss Tebra. Der Ort Aizpute
gehörte zu Bandava. Weiter nach Süden – unweit der
Tebra – wurden die Wohnorte Perbona und Calvien
(Burgwall Kalvenes) gefunden. Noch weiter nach Süden wurde die Westgrenze markiert durch die in der
Mitte des 13. Jahrhundert noch existenten Siedlungen
an den Oberläufen der Flüsse Vārtāja, Virga und Runia:
Assiten, Elkene, Amboten (Embute), Baten .
Auf dem Territorium von Bandava, das knapp über
2000 qkm betrug, sind über die Quellen hinaus noch
etwa 30 Burgwälle und 25 Gräberflder mit kurischen
und livischen Gräbern bekannt. Bis zur Ankunft des
Ordens muss es in der Landschaft Bandava nicht weniger als 100 Wohnorte gegeben haben und so kommen
rein rechnerisch auf eine Siedlung in dieser Landschaft
etwa 20 qkm Territorium.
In Bandava könnte es bis zu 10 kleinere Gebietseinheiten
gegeben haben. Von den Borgsochungen der Ordenszeit
entsprach nur Bandove im Norden einem vorherigen
Burggebiet. Anderenorts waren die neuen Gebietseinheiten viel größer als die alten (vgl. Dopkewitsch 1933).
1253 wurden die ”castellaturis” Dzerbiten und Mesote
erwähnt (LEK Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVII).
Die Zentren der Burgbezirke werden bei größeren
Burgwällen vermutet. Anhand der archäologischen Datenlage lassen sich unter den Burgwällen von Bandava
einige differenzieren: anhand ihrer Größe, Befestigungsanlagen und der Funde, die auf ein entwickeltes
Handwerk hinweisen. An der Landschaftsgrenze, am
Fluss Užava, neben Alsunga (Alswanghen) befindet
sich der Burgwall Dižgabalkalns (1100 qm groß). In
dessen Nähe liegt ein teilweise untersuchtes weitläufiges kurisches Gräberfeld.
Eines der größten wirtschaftlichen und administrativen
Zentren hat sich in der Nähe von Kuldīga, der späteren
Hauptstadt des Herzogtums Kurland, befunden. Am
Ufer der schiffbaren Venta befand sich der etwa 1 ha
große Burgwall Veckuldīga (Alt-Kuldīga) mit einem 9
ha großen Hackelwerk, das bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhundert bewohnt gewesen ist. Die reichen Funde, Gegenstände und Schmucksachen, in den Gräberfeldern
der Gegend von Kuldīga (Lielivande, Padures Remeši)
sind womöglich im Hackelwerk Veckuldīga hergestellt
worden.
D. Die „Landschaft zwischen Scrunda
und Semigallia“
In einem Dokument vom 5. April 1253 wird unter ”unbekanten Curländischen Ländereien” eine ”terra, quae
est inter Scrunden et Semigalliam” erwähnt (LEK Bd.
I, Abt. 1, Nr. ��
CCXLIX). 1291 wird diese Landschaft
nicht mehr erwähnt (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. DXL). ��
Sie
existiert auch nicht auf der Landkarte ”Lettland am
Ende 12. Jahrhundert”, im 1998 vom Lettischen Historischen Institut heraus gegebenen lettischen Geschichtsatlas. Dieses Territorium wird dort zur Landschaft
Bandava gerechnet (Latvijas vēstures 1998: 12).
Landschaft zwischen Scrunda und Semigallia bedeutete
in der Mitte des 13. Jahrhundert nicht eine Landschaft
mit eigenen ethnischen Zügen, sondern nur ein großes
dünn besiedeltes Territorium, halb Wildnis, zwischen
den Stämmen gelegen.
Die Größe der Landschaft betrug etwa 1120 qkm,
obwohl sie auch über 100 qkm größer gewesen sein
könnte, wenn man das überhaupt nicht bewohnte Gebiet zwischen den Flüssen Vadakstis und Ezerupe sowie dem See Cieceres hinzuzählt.
Südliche Grenze der Landschaft zwischen Scrunda und
Semigallia waren die damaligen Flussverläufe von Vadakstis und Ezerupe bis zu ihrem Zusammenfluss mit
der Venta. Südlich von diesen Stellen lag die Landschaft Ceklis und südöstlich, hinter den dünn besiedelten Orten, befand sich das Territorium der Semgallen.
Die Westgrenze der Landschaft verlief in der Nähe der
Flussufer der Venta; an den Ufern befanden sich Burgen
und Siedlungen, die zur Landschaft Bandava gehörten.
Die nördliche Grenze war die Škede, ein Nebenfluss
der Venta, an dem im 13 Jahrhundert die dort befindlichen Siedlungen Varme und Scheden (Škede) erwähnt
wurden. Eine solche Grenzsetzung zeigte auch Būga
auf (Būga Bd. 3 (1961): 166). Nördlich vom Fluss
Škede bis zu den Siedlungen von Ventava befand sich
ein Raum von einigen Kilometer unbewohnten Landes. Die östliche Landschaftsgrenze verlief am Mittellauf der Imula (wahrscheinlich befand sich hier die
ehemalige Siedlung Sascile - Satiki?) sowie an deren
Außer den 11 in dem Dokument von 1253 erwähnten
Siedlungen (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. ��
CCXLIX) sind in
der Landschaft zwischen Scrunda und Semigallia noch
neun Burgwälle und drei Gräberfelder (Mugurēvičs
1999: 65) bekannt (ohne die am linken Ufer der Venta gefundenen Gräberfelder und die Burgwällen von
Ranku und Krievu kalns). Der Großteil der Chronologie dieser Burgwälle ist unbekannt (Asaris 1995), die
Gräberfelder sind unerforscht, deshalb kann man nur
sehr ungefähr annehmen, dass es in dieser Landschaft
im 12./13. Jahrhundert etwa 25 bewohnte Orte gegeben habe. So kämen auf einen Wohnort ungefähr 45-50
qkm.
BALTICA 6
Oberlauf (der östlichste Burgwall dieser Landschaft
war wohl Gaižu am rechten Ufer der Imula) bis zum
See Ciesere. Bei diesem See befanden sich die Siedlungen Celme und Salden (heute lettisch: Saldus). Vom
See Ciesere verlief die Ostgrenze in südlicher Richtung
entlang des Oberlaufs der Ezerupe. Östlich der Landschaft zwischen Scrunda und Semigallia befand sich
an vielen Stellen eine bis zu zehn und mehr Kilometer
breite Wildnis.
ARCHAELOGIA
Bedeutende Zentren kann man auch bei den Burgwällen Turlava (Turlowe) und Embute (Amboten) vermuten, doch ihr Erforschungsgrad erlaubt es nicht, ihre
Besiedlungsdauer sowie ihre Bedeutung genauer zu
bestimmen (Asaris 1995: 14; 1998: 95f). Außer diesen
Burgwällen gab es andere, auf denen die Burgen der
weniger wichtigen Fürsten standen – die Burgen der
Burggebietsherrscher. Eine von ihnen ist das ehemalige Kazdanga. In seiner Umgebung ist ein Depotfund
von Silberbarren bekannt (Urtāns V. 1977: 194ff).
Die Siedlungen der Landschaft zwischen Scrunda und
Semigallia verteilen sich sehr unregelmäßig. Ein Teil
der Burgen und Wohnorte lag am Fluss Venta, aber
eben diese könnten auch zur Landschaft Bandava
gehört haben. Einige Dörfer befanden sich am Fluss
Škede, aber hier ist nicht ein einziger Burgwall gefunden worden. Ein nicht besonders großes Burggebiet
könnte sich am Mittellauf der Ciecere befunden haben
(Burgwälle Ciecere und Bendelu). Ein anderer Wohnort befand sich am Fluss Zane. Der zentrale Teil der
Landschaft war nicht besonders sumpfig, aber von großen Waldgebieten bewachsen und völlig leer.
Das am dichtesten besiedelte Territorium und Kern
der Landschaft war die Umgebung des damaligen
Saldus (dt. Frauenburg) mit vier Burgwällen, zwei
Gräberfeldern und zwei in den Quellen des 13. Jahrhundert erwähnten Siedlungen. Folglich war auf dieses
Burggebiet ein Drittel aller Siedlungen und Burgwälle konzentriert und es ist die einzige Stelle in dieser
Landschaft mit einer solch bedeutenden Burgen- und
Siedlungskonzentration. So ist sehr wahrscheinlich,
dass bei der Nennung der „terra inter Scrunden et Semigalliam“ im 13. Jahrhundert nur an dieses Burggebiet gedacht wurde, dessen Fürst auch die umliegenden
Territorien kontrollierte.
E . Ve n t a v a
Die Landschaft Ventava - Wynda ist eine der „neuen“
kurischen Landschaften, die erst im 11.-12. Jahrhundert erobert wurden, zuvor lebten hier Liven. Sie wur-
97
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
de ebenfalls das erste Mal im 13. Jahrhundert in den
Ordensquellen erwähnt. Zweifellos bekam die Landschaft ihren Namen vom Fluss Venta und ihr Territorium erstreckte sich entlang der beiden Ufer der Venta.
In Quellen aus dem 13. Jahrhundert fanden mehr als
20 Ortsnamen von Ventava ihre Erwähnung, von denen der Großteil bereits identifiziert ist. Andererseits
sind die Grenzen von Ventava nicht besonders klar.
Historiker ziehen die südliche Grenze vom Mittellauf
der Užava bis zum Fluss Abava. Die nördliche und
nordöstliche Grenze wird normalerweise vom heutigen lettischen Küstenstädtchen Ovīši bis zum 1251
erwähnten See Usmas (Husman) gezogen (Latvijas
vestures 1998: 12); ebenso wird sie auch von Archäologen gesetzt (Vasks 1999: 78; Mugurēvičs 2000a: 81).
Damit wurden die Grenzen von Ventava auf Kosten
der Landschaft Bandava nach Süden ausgeweitet und
Ventava wird ein Teil der unbewohnten Gebiete zugeschrieben, so die Wildnis südwestlich der Wohnorte
der Landschaft Vanema (Vredecuronia). Besonders
strittig ist die Grenze von Ventava am linken Ufer des
Flusses Venta. Nach Mugurēvičs (2000a: 80ff) gehörte zur Landschaft Ventava das ganze Territorium zwischen dem linken Ufer der Venta und dem Meer bis
zum Mittellauf der Užava. Dem stehen Informationen
aus einem Dokument des Jahres 1253 entgegen, nachdem die Siedlungen am linken Ufer des Flusses Užava,
die damaligen und in der Zwischenzeit identifizierten
Orte Warve, Walteten und Lippeten nicht zur Landschaft Ventava, sondern zu Bandava gehörten (LEK
Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVIII). ��
Das zu Ventava gehörige Vendzava lag nach Mugurēvičs am linken Ufer der
Ventava, wohingegen in der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts
eindeutig geschrieben wurde, Wense (Vensen) sei ”ab
opposito Goldinghen” (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVIII). Wense muss folglich südlich vom Fluss Abava
gewesen sein, am rechten oder linken Ufer der Venta.
Apussen, westlich der Venta, und Wense waren zusammen die südlichsten Siedlungen, die in den Quellen des
13. Jahrhunderts erwähnt wurden.
Bei der weiteren Diskussion über die Grenzen von
Ventava kann der Gleichsetzung von Sirien (Syrien)
mit Ziras, Terewenden mit Terande und Edualia (Edvale, Edewalen) mit Edole am rechten Ufer der Užava
nicht zugestimmt werden.
Die so lokalisierten Orte, die im 13. Jahrhunderts erwähnt wurden, überschneiden sich nach Westen mit
den 1253 erwähnten Orten der Landschaft Bandava
- stagnum Nabba, Kemele, Ywande, Cormele, Wyllegale. Und deutlich dehnen sich damit die Grenzen
Ventavas auf Kosten der Landschaft Bandava aus. Verwirrung stiftet hier ein Dokument von 1230, in dem
die Herrschaft von ”Lammekinus rex de Curonia”
98
(Mugurēvičs 2000a: 81) erwähnt wird. Dieser kurische Nobele beherrschte Gebiete sowohl in Ventava als
auch in Bandava und Bihavelank (Piemare).
Der archäologischen und historischen Datenlage
zufolge hat es am Ende des 12. Jahrhundert in der
Landschaft Ventava über 30 Siedlungen gegeben
(Mugurēvičs 2000a: 75). Wenn man die unbewohnten
Gebiete nordöstlich des Unterlaufes der Venta und die
Wildnis zwischen den südöstlichsten besiedelten Orten
Ventavas und dem Fluss Škede ausnimmt, dann hätte
das bewohnte Territorium nur rund 600 qkm betragen.
Es zog sich fast 50 km entlang der Venta hin; die breiteste Stelle (etwa 40 km) befand sich zwischen den
Seen Usmas und Nabba, die schmalste beiderseits des
Flusses Venta an der Küste. Es scheint, als ob Ventava
eine der am dichtesten besiedelten kurischen Landschaften war, hier kamen auf eine Siedlung rund 20
qkm Territorium.
Der größte Teil der Siedlungen befand sich an der Venta, dem wichtigsten Wasserweg im nördlichen Kurland.
Die Struktur dieser Siedlungen ist in der Landschaft
Ventava ähnlich wie in der Landschaft Ceklis, wo sich
die Lebenszentren entlang des Flusses Minge gruppierten. Ein Unterschied zu Ceklis ist, dass anhand der
schriftlichen Quellen des 13. Jahrhundert festgestellt
werden kann, dass sich am Fluss Venta sowohl Siedlungen von Ventava als auch von Bandava befanden.
Es hat den Anschein, als ob diese Situation Zeugnis
einer Konkurrenz ist, beim Versuch Schifffahrt und
Handel über den Fluss Venta zu kontrollieren. Jedoch
gibt es zwischen den bekannten Wohnorten überhaupt
keine Befestigungen und die ersten Burgwälle tauchen
erst in 35 Kilometern Entfernung von der Mündung des
Flusses auf. Wenn man von deren Verteilung ausgeht,
dann standen früher von Pilten bis Kuldīga beiderseits
des Flusses Venta nur Burgen, die von den Menschen
Ventavas errichtet waren. Von Kuldiga aus weiter nach
Süden wurde der Fluss allerdings schon von den Einwohnern der Landschaft Bandava kontrolliert.
Die große Konzentration von Siedlungen, Gräberfeldern und Burgwällen zeigt dass Vindava, das Zentrum
der Landschaft Ventava in der Gegend von ZlēkasPriednieki lag. In Priednieki sind neben Funden der
Ostseefinnen (Liven) und der Kuren (9.-13. Jahrhundert) auch Gegenstände skandinavischer Herkunft festgestellt worden. Nördlich der Siedlung befindet sich ein
Burgwall –Pabērzkalns mit zwei parallelen Erdwällen
und einem schmalen Plateau. Dieser Burgwall stellt einen für Kurland fremdartigen Befestigungstypus dar.
Die archäologischen Ausgrabungen bestätigten an die
��
In der Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts in Kastellaturen Neuhausen und Alswanghen sind einigen Familien von Lammathe, Lammike erwähnt (Bauer 1933: 147ff).
F. Va n e m a ( Vr e d e k u r o n i a )
Der ganze nördliche Teil von Kurland bildete die Landschaft Vanema (Miera Kursa), die in den Quellen des
13. Jahrhundert als Vredecuren, Vredekuronia (LEK
Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVIII)
��
erwähnt wurde. Noch
im 13. Jahrhundert bestand der Großteil der Bewohner
dieser Landschaft nicht aus Kuren, sondern aus mehr
oder weniger kolonisierten Liven
Vanema war die größte Landschaft Kurlands, ihre Fläche 4000 qkm. Sie wurde nach Nordwesten, Norden
und Osten vom Meer begrenzt. Auch die Grenze auf
dem Land bietet keinen Anlass für größere Diskussionen. Südwestlich wird die Grenze vom Küstenstädtchen Oviši in Richtung See Usmas bis zu den Mittelläufen von Imula und Amula gezogen. An der südlichen
Grenze flossen die Abava und ihr Nebenfluss Slocene
bis zu den Gewässern der Bucht von Riga (Latvijas
vēstures 1998: 12). Die archäologischen Daten präzisieren diese Grenzziehungen: Zwischen Vanema und
Ventava lag bis zum See Usmas eine bis zu 10 km breite Wildnis; unbewohnt war auch der Raum zwischen
den Flüssen Amula und Abava - Erwähnung fand er
im 13. Jahrhundert als ”wiltnisse tusche Candowe und
Semigallen” (LEK Bd. I,
��
Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVIII).
��
Aus Vanema wurden in den Quellen des 13. Jahrhundert etwa 45 bewohnte Orte erwähnt, meistens Dörfer.
Natürlich befanden sich die Burgwälle zumeist bei den
in den Quellen erwähnten Wohnorten (Asaris 1999:
128f).
Der größte Teil des Territoriums von Vanema war vergleichsweise dünn besiedelt. Sehr klar sind die Kon��
Nach Mugurēvičs (1999: 63) um 6800 qkm., weil er zur
Landschaft Vanema auch die umgebende Wildnis zählt
Im südwestlichen Teil der Landschaft breiteten sich die
Burgen und Siedlungen entlang des Flusses Rinda, bei
den Seen Puzes und Usmas und am Unterlauf der Stende aus. Neben fünf derzeit bekannten Burgwällen sind
auch einige der im 13 Jahrhundert erwähnten Siedlungen (LEK Bd. ��
I, Abt. 1, Nr. CCXLVIII)
��
lokalisiert
worden: Anse, Popen, Puse (Pussen), Topen (Copen),
Vietsede, Matre, Moden, Cersangere, Ugale. Das
wichtigste Zentrum dieses Burggebietes ist allerdings
bis heute nicht identifiziert worden, viele Burgwälle
mit ihren ehemaligen Siedlungen sind auch noch nicht
erforscht (Asaris 1998: 91ff). Mit dem See Usmas und
den bei ihm befindlichen Wohnorten geht diese Mikroregion Vanema direkt in die Landschaft Ventava über.
Der See Usmas war eine wichtige Stätte der Kommunikation mit den anderen Gebieten der Landschaft Vanema, die sich am Fluss Abava befanden.
BALTICA 6
zentrationsstellen der ehemaligen Burgen, Siedlungen
und Gräberfelder. Die alten livisch und kurisch bewohnten Gebiete stimmen sehr gut mit den Grenzen
der im 14.-16. Jahrhundert erwähnten Borgsochungen
überein, die als territorial-administrative Einheiten des
Ordens bei dessen Expansion seiner alten Territorien
in die zwischen den Gebieten liegende Wildnis eingerichtet wurden. Es ist gut möglich, dass an manchen
Stellen die Grenzen der neuen Burggebiete auch mit
den vorherigen Grenzen übereinstimmen, in denen die
Landschaft kontrolliert und genutzt wurde.
ARCHAELOGIA
sem Ort die Datierung des Burgwalls in die Wikingerzeit und den skandinavischen Einfluss. Die Gegenden
von Priednieki, Paberzkalns und Pasilciems gehörten
in der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts zu den Territorien Winda genannt. Der Herrscher dieser Landschaft
war der ”König” Lammekinus, dessen Hauptsitz sich
wohl im Burggebiet Normis befunden hat. Der Ortsname Normis lässt sich als das heutige Schleck identifizieren (Mugurēvičs 1999: 62f; 2000a: 86-87). Die
Analyse des archäologischen Fundmaterials zeugt von
intensiver wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung, die zur Bildung von Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungszentren führte. Mit der Landschaft Winda gibt nach Meinung von
Mugurēvičs einen Zusammenhang mit der Inschrift
auf dem Runenstein der Schonhems-Kirche auf der Insel Gotland. Der Runenstein spricht von einem Mann
Liknat, der im (Gebiet) Winda (a:uitau) gestorben ist.
(Mugurēvičs 2000a: 83, 86f).
Entlang des Flusses Abava gibt es einige Dutzende
Burgwälle der Landschaft Vanema, livische, kurische
und gemischte Gräberfelder (dorp Husman, Rende
(Rennen), Pedewale, Zabele, Mattecul (Mateculen),
Wane, Cabele (Kabilwen), Candowe, Pure). An der
Slocene, einem Nebenfluss der Abava, die sich am
Rande der Landschaft befand, lag das gut bekannte
Zentrum Tukums (Tuckemen). Entlang der Flüsse Abava und Slocene verlief zur Wikingerzeit ein wichtiger
Weg, der die semgallischen Bewohner der Bucht von
Riga mit dem Oberlauf der Venta verband.
Die Komplexe von zwei Burgwällen, die BurggebietsZentren waren, sind erforscht: Matkule (Burgwall,
Vorburg, Siedlung, Kultort und Gräberfeld) und Sabile
(Burgwall, Siedlung und Gräberfeld). Die Ausgrabungen ergaben, dass die beiden Orte Zentren von Handwerk, Handel, Verwaltung und Kultus waren (Asaris
1998: 94).
Zweifellos befand sich Talsi, wo der 3300 qm große
Burgwall mit Vorburg, dem etwa 4 ha großen Hackelwerk und den Grabstätten im See Vilkumuiža einen
einheitlichen bildete. Als ein lokales Zentrum nicht
��
Für Nordkurland wurden die administrativ-territoriale Einheiten Borchsukunge in die Quellen des 13. Jahrhunderts
nicht erwähnt.
99
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
weit von Talsi sei Mezite genannt (Burgwall von 2400
qm, Hackelwerk von etwa 2 ha, zwei Gräberfelder,
Kultstätte oder Versammlungsplatz (”Thingplatz”)
– der sogenannte „Götzenberg“). Wie man aus im Hackelwerk schließen kann, haben im 13. Jahrhundert die
Kuren gegen die Deutschen gekämpft. A. Bielenstein
hat diesen Ort als das im Jahre 1234 erwähnte ”castellatura Lodgiae” identifiziert (Asaris 1998: 94).
Ohne Zweifel lässt sich auch sagen, dass ein separates kleineres Territorium im Norden von Vanema den
Komplex Dundaga (Dondagen) bildete. Abgeschnitten
vom Meer durch ein einige Kilometer breites Band von
Sümpfen, standen zur Wikingerzeit hier auf 6-10 km
vom Meer kleine Burgen mit Nebensiedlungen und
Dörfern. Das Zentrum dieses Burggebiets befand sich
bis zur Ordenszeit beim großen Burgwall Dundaga(s)
Kalnadarzs (Asaris 1999: 129). Das von den umgebenen Territorien getrennte Dundaga bildete zur Ordenszeit eine eigene Kirchgemeinde. Ende des 13. Jahrhundert gab es in Dundaga auf einem Raum von rund 300
qkm 15 Dörfer mit dazu gehörenden Feldern (Auns
1998). Die zerstreuten Dörfer, die in diesem Burggebiet lagen, können als typisch und charakteristisch für
die heidnischen Kuren angesehen werden.
Die Landschaft Vanema unterschied sich im 13. Jahrhundert von den anderen kurischen Landschaften im
12.-13. Jahrhundert durch ihre noch sehr uneinheitliche ethnische Zusammensetzung. Zwischen Stende
und Škede sowie am Oberlauf der Abava bestand der
größte Teil der Einwohner immer noch aus den örtlichen Liven, die in großen Dörfern (150-200 Einwohner) lebten. Die Verteilung der kurischen Gräberfelder
und Fundstücke (Asaris 1999: 129) zeigt deutlich, dass
die Kuren zuerst einzelne Territorien Vanemas aus denen von ihnen errichteten Burgen kontrollierten, bei
denen sich auch Ansiedlungen von Handwerker und
Händlern bildeten und erst später in die benachbarte
livische Umgebung eindrangen.
5. Zum Schluss
Die kurischen Gebiete waren nicht gleichmäßig dicht
besiedelt. Die meisten Burganlagen und Wohnorte befanden sich in Kurland bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts im zentralen und südlichen Teil. Die nördlichen
Gebiete, aus denen im 10. Jahrhundert die Liven vertrieben worden waren, waren – besonders an der Küste
– vergleichsweise dünn besiedelt. Die meisten Burgen
und Dörfer konzentrierten sich hier auf das Landesinnere.
In den neuen kurischen Ländern wurden die gleichen
territorialen und wirtschaftlichen Strukturen wie in den
100
alten eingepflanzt, in denen sie schon einige Jahrhunderte lange Tradition hatten. Die Wirtschaftsstruktur
der Stämme, Länder und Burggebiete sollte ausbalanciert sein, weswegen eine entsprechende Anzahl
primärer und zentraler Wirtschaftseinheiten existierte.
Die Expansion des Ordens in die westbaltischen Gebiete begann um die Jahrhundertwende 12./13. Jahrhundert. In der zweiten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts hatte
sich der Orden schon auf fast dem gesamten Territorium ausgebreitet, das später zum Ordensstaat gehören
sollte.
Die alten kurischen politischen, administrativen und
gesellschaftlichen Strukturen wurden in der Ordenszeit zerstört oder verändert. Die verschiedenen alten
politischen und administrativen Zentren erfüllten seit
dem 13. Jahrhundert eine andere Bedeutung als in den
entsprechenden Strukturen des Ordens.
A B K Ü RZUN G EN
AHUK – Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis
ATL – Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje
LEK – Liv-, Est- und Kurländisches Urkundenbuch
PBVK – Pirmā Baltijas vēsturnieku konference
Historische QUELLEN
Livl��
ändische Reimchronik. Hildesheim. 1993.
Liv-, Est-und Kurländisches Urkundenbuch. Abt. 1.Bd.1.
(Neudruckausgabe). Aalen. 1967.
Vita Anskarii auct. Rimberto. In: Scriptores rerum germanicarum in usum scolarum. Hannoverae. 1884. P. 5-79.
L ITERATUR
Apals, J., Mugurēvičs,
��
Ē. 2001. Vēlais dzels leikmets (agrie
viduslaiki) 800.-1200. g. In: Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. t.
pr. Kr. – 1200. g. Rīga. Lpp. 290-377.
Asaris, J. 1995. Kurzemes pilskalni. In: Kurzeme un kurzemnieki. Rīga. Lpp. 12-17.
Asaris, J. 1996. Par kuršu izplatību Ziemeļkurzemē 11. – 13.
gs. In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XVIII. Rīga. Lpp. 3842.
Asaris, J. 1998. ��
Kurländische Handwerkszentren im 12.-13.
Jahrhundert. In: Culture Clash or Compromise? The Europeanisation of the Baltic Sea Area 1100-1400 AD. Acta
Visbyensia XI. Visby. P. 91-97.
Asaris, J. 1999. The Use of Archaeological data fot the
Identification of Primary Units in Northern Kurzeme. In:
Europeans or not? Local Level Strategies on the Baltic
Rim 1100-1400 AD. CCC papers: 1. Visby. ��
P. 127-130.
Auns, M. 1998. ��
Acquisition of the acquired. The establishing
of a real administration in Livonia. In: Culture
��
Clash or
Compromise? ��
The Europeanisation of the Baltic Sea area
1100-1400 AD. Acta Visbyensia XI. ��
Gotland. S. 259-267.
Bielenstein, A. 1892. Die Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes und der lettischen Sprache in der Gegenwart und im
13. Jahrhundert. St. Petersburg.
Blesse, E. 1938. Sprache als Quelle zur Geschichte der lettischen Volksstämme. In:
�� PBVK. Rīgā. S. 70-93.
Būga, K. 1958, 1959, 1961. Rinktiniai raštai. T. 1-3. Vilnius.
Caune, A. 1991. ��
Die Gräbertypen und Bestattungssitten im
Vladas Žulkus
Klaipėdos Universitetas
H. Manto 84, LT-92294 Klaipėda
BALTICA 6
Vasks, A. 1997. The cultural and ethnic situation in Latvia
during the early and middle Iron Age (1st-8th century AD).
In: Latvian Ethnic History 3(16). University of Latvia.
Rīga. P. 49-74.
Vasks, A. 1999. Latvian archaeology: research and
conclusions. In: Inside Latvian archaeology. Gotarc series
A, Vol. 2. Göteborg. P. 3-88.
Vaškevičiūtė, I. 1993. Pietinių· žiemgalių· dvasinė kultūra ir
materialinė būtis V-XII a. Daktaro disertacija. ��
Vilnius.
Žulkus, V., Klimka, L. 1989. Lietuvos pajūrio žemės
viduramžiais. Lietuvos istorija. Vilnius.
Žulkus, V., Springmann, M-J. 2001. Die Flüsse als Straßen
der Europäisierung, Fluss und Hafen Šventoji – Heiligen
Aa. In: L��
übeck Style? ��
Novgorod Style? ��
Baltic Rim ��
Central
Places as Arenas for Cultural Encounters and Urbanisation 1100 – 1400 AD. CCC papers: 5. Riga. P. 167-183.
Асарис��, ��
И��
. 1997.
��
О северных ��
территориях ��
расселения
куршей в ��
X��
-��
XIII� ��
вв. (по ��
материалам могильников). In:
Vakarų baltai: etnogenezė ir etninė istorija. ��
Vilnius��
, 199208.
Мугуревич, Е.С. 1965: Восточная Латвия и соседние земли в ��
X��
-��
XII� ��
вв. ��
Рига.
Озере, И. А. 1986. Привески-амулеты из могильников
Курземе X-XV вв. Kраткие сообщения Института
археологии Академии наук СССР. Вып. 183. Москва,
41-49.
Озере, И. А.1987. Этническая истории куршей V-IX веков. Автореферат диссертации кандидата историческич наук. Москва.
��
ARCHAELOGIA
Ostbaltikum in der Zeit vom 1. bis 13. Jahrhundert. In:
Horst/H. Keiling (Hrsg.), Bestattungswesen und Totenkult.
Berlin. S. 257-274.
Gorski, K. 1981. Descriptiones terrarum. In:
�� Zapiski Historiczne, T. XLVI, R. 1981, Z. 1. S. 7-16.
Grotenfelt, K. 1912. Über die in den alten nordischen Quellen
erwähnten Kuren und ihre Wohnsitze. In: Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja XXVI. Helsinki, 1912.
Dopkewitsch, H. 1933. Die Burgsuchungen in Kurland und
Livland vom 13. - 16. Jahrhundert. Mitteilungen aus der
livländischen Geschichte 25. Bd.
��
1. Heft. Riga.
Jarockis, R. 1998. Šiaurės Lietuvos piliakalnių ir jų papėdžių
gyvenviečių žvalgomieji tyrinėjimai 1996 metais. In:
�� ATL
1996 ir 1997 metais. Vilnius. P. 66-70.
Kulakov, V. 1994. Vakarų lietuvių V-XII a. radiniai prūsų
žemėse. In: Klaipėdos miesto ir regiono archeologijos ir
istorijos problemos. AHUK II. Klaipėda. P. 107-122.
Kwauka, P. 1968. ��
Das Kurische im nördlichen Ostpreußen.
In. „Memeler Dampfbooot“. 1968. 03. 20, Nr. 6, 7. S. 74f.,
87f.
Latvijas, 1974. Latvijas PSR arheoloģija. Rīga.
��
Latvijas vēstures atlants. 1998. Rīga.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1995. Ģeogrāfiskais traktāts “Descriptiones
terrarum” un tā informācijas avoti par Austrumbaltijas
tautām 13. gadsimta vidū. ��
In: Latvijas Zinātņu Akademijas
Vēstis 7/8/1995. Rīga. Lpp. 23-30.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1987. Pūres Zviedru kapulauks. In:
Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XV. Rīga. Lpp. 56-67.
Mugurēvičs, Ē.��
1997. Kurlands Siedlungsplätze in frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. ��
In: Archaeologia Baltica 2. ��
Vilnius. S.
85-93.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1997a. Ethnic processes in baltic-inhabited
territories and the emergence of the Latvian nation in the
6th to the 16th century. In: Latvian Ethnic History 3(16).
University of Latvia. Rīga. P. 75-92.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 1999. Novadu veidošanānas in to robežas
Latvijas teritorijā (12. gs. – 16. gs. vidus). In:
�� Latvijas
zemju robežas 1000 gados. Rīga. Lpp. 54-90.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 2000. Die Balten im frühen Mittelalter nach
schriftlichen Quellen. In:
�� Archaeologia Baltica 4. Vilnius.
S. 71-80.
Mugurēvičs, Ē. 2000a. Arheoloģiskie pētījumi Ventas lejteces apgabala dzels laikmeta un viduslaiku pieminekļos.
Izrakumi Zlēkās. In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XX. Rīga.
Lpp. 74-87.
Pėteraitis, V. 1992. Mažoji Lietuva ir Tvanksta. ��
Vilnius.
�� Tauta ir
Salys, A. 1930. Die žemaitischen Mundarten. In:
žodis. T.III.
��
Kaunas.
Stradiņš, J., Cēbere, D. 2001. Zinātnes un augstskolu
aizsākumi Rīgā (līdz 19. gs. pirmajai pusei). ��
In: Senā
Rīga. Pētijumi pilsētas arheoloģijā un vēsturē. ��
3. Rīga.
Lpp. 325-432.
Tenisons, Ē. 1994. Arheologu domas par lībiešu izcelsmi. ��
In:
Lībieši. Rīga. Lpp. 16-33.
Tautavičius, A. 1981a. Žemaičių etnogenezė (archeologijos
duomenimis). In: Iš lietuvių etnogenezės. Vilnius. P. 2735.
Urtāns, J. 1998. Latvijas seno kulta vietu identifikācija. In:
Latvijas vēsture 1998 Nr. 2. Lp. 19-24.
Urtāns, V. 1977. Senākie depoziti Latvijā (līdz 1200. g).
Rīga.
Vaitkevičius, V. 1998. Senosios Lietuvos šventvietės.
Žemaitija. Vilnius.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1997. Dėl vakarų žemaičių kultūros substrato. In: Vakarų baltai: etnogenezė ir etninė istorija. Vilnius. P. 151-163.
Erhalten: 2002
K uršas . R ibos ir šiaurin ė s
žem ė s V I I I – X I I I amžiais
VLADAS ŽULKUS
Santrauka
Kuršių pietinių ir šiaurinių žemių teritorijos apibrėžiamos remiantis archeologijos ir istorijos šaltiniais.
Adomas Bremenietis (apie 1040–1080 m.) Kuršą manė
esant sala: „vel maxima est illa, quae Churland dicitur“
(Adami IIII: 190). Ordino 1252 ir 1253 m. šaltiniuose
yra paminėtos kuršių žemės ir apie 150 gyvenviečių.
Nepaisant to, atribojant atskiras žemes neaiškumų išlieka.
Prieš ateinant Ordinui Nemuno deltoje yra buvusi atskira Lamatos žemė (apie 1231 m. rašytas dokumentas), tačiau jau 1235 m. Ebstorfo žemėlapyje (1 pav.)
ir XIII a. vid. aprašymuose Kuršo pietinė riba vedama
iki Sambijos, t. y. iki Nemuno žiočių. Lamata Kuršui
buvo priskirta Ordinui pareiškus savo teises į Kuršą.
Iki Ordino laikų pietinė Pilsoto žemės (kartu ir Kur-
101
VLADAS
ŽULKUS
šo) riba ėjo įpiečiau Smiltelės upelio. Šiaurinė kuršių
apgyventos teritorijos riba iki X a. buvo Tebros upė,
tik vėliau kuršiai apsigyveno į šiaurę nuo jos. Šiaurės
rytuose kuršiai nesiekė Ventos vidurupio, rytinė kuršių teritorijos riba ėjo Virvytės ir Minijos aukštupiais.
Pietryčiuose iki V–VI a. kuršių kultūra reiškėsi dešiniajame Jūros krante, vėliau atsitraukė arčiau Minijos.
Nuo XI a. kuršių sienos kito prasidėjus jų ekspansijai.
Pirmiausia jie apgyvendino kaimynines pusiau dykas
žemes (atsirado Žemė tarp Skrundos ir Žiemgalos),
vėliau išvijo vendus iš Ventos žemupių ir pradėjo kolonizuoti lyvių žemes. XIII a. pr. kuršiai kontroliavo
teritoriją nuo Nemuno žiočių pietuose iki Rygos įlankos šiaurėje.
XIII a. vidurio Ordino šaltiniuose yra minimos 9 kuršių žemės. Archeologijos ir XIII a. rašytinių šaltinių
duomenimis, nustatyti tokie apytikriai žemių dydžiai:
Pilsotas apie 200 km2, Mėguva ir Duvzarė – apie 500
km2, Ceklis (Ceclis) – apie 2500 km2, Piemare (Bihavelanc) – apie 1250 km2, Žemė tarp Skrundos ir Žiemgalos – (“terra inter Scrunden et Semigalliam”) – apie
1200 km2, Ventava (Winda) – apie 600 km2, Bandava
(Bandowe) – apie 1600 km2 und Vanema (Wannenia,
Vredecuronia) – daugiau kaip 4000 km2. Pietinių kuršių žemės yra labiau ištirtos ir jų teritorijos apibrėžtos
tiksliau. Ceklio ir šiaurinių žemių teritorijų bei ribų tyrimas yra šio straipsnio uždavinys.
Ceklio pietinė riba ėjo išilgai Minijos iki jos intako
Skinijos. Rietavo apylinkėse driekėsi didelė dykra.
Labiausiai į pietus nutolusi Ceklio gyvenvietė, atrodo,
bus buvę Dovilai prie Minijos. Ordino laikais Ceklis
nusidriekė iki pat Ventės rago. Pietvakariuose žemės
ribos ėjo Smiltelės intakų aukštupiais iki Šventosios
aukštupių. Vakarinės gyvenvietės ir pilys stovėjo Minijos pakrantėse, prie Salanto, Erlos ir prie Bartuvos.
Šiaurėje Ceklis ribojosi su Duvzare, Bandava ir žeme
tarp Skrundos ir Žiemgalos. Ši siena beveik sutapo su
dabartine Latvijos–Lietuvos siena ir ėjo Apšės ir Lūšės
upėmis bei Vadaksties žemupiu. XIII a. Cekliui priskirta teritorija tarp Apšės ir Virvytės anksčiau galėjo priklausyti Duvzarės žemei. Neaišku, ar nuo seno kuršių
buvo kontroliuota teritorija tarp Ventos ir Vadaksties
bei Kamanų pelkynai. Ribą tarp Ceklio kuršių ir žiemgalių galėjo žymėti Ašvos upė. Rytuose Ceklis siekė
Telšės upę.
Duvzarės pietinė riba ėjo Šventosios vidurupiu. Nuo
Šventosios aukštupių siena yra ėjusi iki Vartajos (Vārtāja, liet. Bartuva) vidurupio. Toliau nuo Apšės aukštupio link Virgos aukštupio. Virgos upė buvo šiaurinė
Duvzarės ir pietinė Piemarės žemės riba. Nuo Virgos ir
Vārtājos santakos siena ėjo paupiu iki Bartos, o nuo čia
suko link Ječupės bei Toselės vidurupių ir link pajūrio
ežerų.
102
Piemarė (liet. Pamarys) pietuose ribojosi su Duvzare
ir tarp šių žemių buvusiomis dykromis. Rytinė teritorijos riba ėjo Tebros ištakomis, toliau šia upe iki jos
santakos su Saka. Saka buvo Piemarės šiaurinė riba, už
jos tęsėsi 10–20 km pločio dykra. Vakaruose Piemarė
priėjo iki pajūrio ežerų ir iki pat pajūrio, kuris vikingų
laikais buvo apgyventas labai retai.
Bandavos rytinė siena ėjo Apšės aukštupiu, Jonupio
ir Lūšės upėmis iki Ventos. Bandavos gyvenvietės
buvo abipus Ventos upės (gyvenvietės Celde, Lene,
Scrunden, Bandowe). Palei Ventą Bandavos teritorija
tęsėsi iki Kuldigos (Kuldīgos, Goldinghen) apylinkių.
Nuo čia Bandavos gyvenvietės atsitraukė nuo Ventos.
Apie 15 km nuo Ventos žiočių Bandavos šiaurinė riba
priartėjo prie Varvės (Varve) vietovės. Pietinė siena
peržengė Tebros upę, Bandavai priklausė ir Aizputės
apylinkės. Dar labiau į pietus ribas žymėjo Vartajos
(Vārtāja) aukštupiai, Virgos (Virga) ir Runios (Runia)
upės su gyvenvietėmis Assiten, Elkene, Amboten (Embute), Baten.
Žemė tarp Skrundos ir Žiemgalos XIII a. buvo labai
retai apgyventa teritorija, pusiau dykra, buvusi tarp
kuršių ir žiemgalių genčių. Pietinė žemės riba buvo Vadaksties ir Ezerupės tėkmės iki jų susiliejimo su Venta.
Įpiečiau jau buvo Ceklio žemė, o į pietryčius – Žiemgala. Vakarinė siena ėjo netoli nuo Ventos, šiaurinę sieną ženklino Škedė, Ventos intakas. Rytinis žemės kraštas baigėsi ties Imulos upe ir Cieserės (Ciesere) ežeru.
Nuo šio ežero rytinė siena suko į pietus, palei Ežerupės
(Ezerupe) aukštupius. Į rytus nuo šios žemės driekėsi
10 ir daugiau kilometrų pločio dykra.
Ventava yra viena iš „naujųjų“ žemių, kuršių kolonizuotų XI–XII a. Žemės teritorija apėmė plotus abipus
Ventos upės. Pietinė žemės riba buvo Užavos vidurupiai iki pat Abavos. Šiaurinė ir šiaurrytinė siena paprastai vedama nuo dabartinio pajūrio miestelio Oviši
(Ovīši) iki Usmo (Usmas) ežero. Pietinės žemės ribos
ir teritorija apie Ventą žymima nevienareikšmiai, neretai Ventavai yra priskiriamos kai kurios Bandavos
gyvenvietės (Warve, Walteten, Lippeten). 1230 m. paminėtas kuršių karalius Lamikis („Lammekinus rex de
Curonia“) valdė žemes abipus Ventos: Ventavos, Bandavos, Piemarės teritorijose.
Visą šiaurinę Kuršo dalį apėmė Vanemos (Vanema)
žemė, įkurta buvusiose lyvių teritorijose. Šiaurės vakaruose, šiaurėje ir rytuose žemės ribos buvo Baltijos
jūra. Gana aiški yra ir šios žemės pietinė riba, ji ėjo
nuo Oviši pajūryje į rytus link Usmo (Usmas) ežero
iki Imulos (Imula) ir Amulos (Amula) upių vidurupių,
Abavos ir Slocenės upėmis iki Rygos įlankos. Apie
Usmo ežerą, tarp Amulos ir Abavos, nuo Vanemos žemės iki Ventavos buvo dykros. Vanemos žemė buvo
gana retai apgyventa, vienas svarbiausių žemės centrų
BALTICA 6
Senoji kuršių politinė, administracinė ir ūkinė sankloda Ordinui atėjus buvo pertvarkyta. Ordino valstybės
struktūroje pasikeitė ir žemių teritorijų ribos, ir senųjų
centrų reikšmė bei funkcijos.
ARCHAELOGIA
buvo Talsio (Talsi) apylinkėse, šiaurinėje dalyje išsiskyrė Dundagos (Dundaga) kompleksas.
103
Gurly Vedru
Prehistoric Human Settlement
in the Lower Reaches of the
River Jägala
Prehistoric Human Settlement in the
Lower Reaches of the River Jägala
Gurly Vedru
Abstract
This paper describes traces of human activities in the lower reaches of the River Jägala (North Estonia) from the Mesolithic
till the Middle Ages. Attention is paid to the conditions essential to life and how people adjusted to them in the Prehistoric
period and the Middle Ages. Also, the topic of the ritual landscape is discussed and the possible religious and ritual significance of the landscape analysed. This paper also tries to find an answer to the question whether people in Prehistoric times
were only guided by economic considerations, or if there were also other aspects that attracted them near the banks of the
River Jägala.
Key words: landscape, environment, Estonia, Prehistoric period, settlement, grave, economy.
Introduction
The River Jägala is one of the longest rivers in north
Estonia. It starts in central Estonia and runs into the
Gulf of Finland 77 kilometres away. The upper and
middle reaches of the river flow on the Central Estonian Plateau where it is surrounded by marshy terrain,
and the middle reaches flow across a cultural landscape and through forests. On the lower reaches there
are alvar and morainal areas which were inhabited by
people relatively early. The mouth of the river lies on
new and relatively unproductive soil. At the transition
from the glint to the coastal lowland the river forms a
waterfall with a height of about eight metres, which
is one of the highest in north Estonia. It flows into the
Gulf of Finland at a distance of two kilometres from
the waterfall (Fig. 1). The aim of this paper is to study
human settlement in the neighbourhood of the estuary,
ancient relics on the terrain which are directly or indirectly connected with the river. While investigating
the formation and development of the settlement of
the region, several questions arise. It is not possible to
find answers to all of them. However, some can be answered. What were the main factors in the colonisation
of this area? Was it just the alvars, which were easy
to cultivate, or were there also other reasons, spiritual
rather than economic ones? Why were some places
colonised, then abandoned and then recolonised? What
kind of changes took place in human settlement in the
different phases of the Prehistoric Period?
Alvar soils are located in the coastal area of northern and
western Estonia. In north Estonia alvars are located near
the glint, ie on the north Estonian limestone plateau. They
are thin (10–30 cm) and humus-rich and could be cultivated easily with primitive tools. Thus, alvars were the first
areas to be cultivated in Estonia.
104
The first archaeological excavations in the lower
reaches of the River Jägala took place in the 1920s,
when Arthur Spreckelsen, a Baltic-German amateur
archaeologist, excavated the hill-fort of Jägala Jõesuu.
Several plots were opened in different parts of the hillfort, and a Stone Age settlement layer was unearthed
beneath the fortifications of a later period (Spreckelsen 1925). Another Baltic-German researcher, Adolf
Friedenthal, excavated one of the stone graves located
on the left bank of the River Jägala, at the end of the
1920s (Friedenthal 1929). The next archaeological
investigations took place in 2001, when the author of
this paper excavated a settlement site of the Prehistoric
Period (Vedru 2001). Although some sites in the region
have been excavated and the results published, or local
antiquities have been used in more extensive studies,
either independently or as comparative material (Jaanits 1959; Lang 1996, Vedru 2001), a study encompassing all the known antiquities as well as the general
background has still not been made.
Human settlement cannot be analysed just by marking findspots and settlement sites on a map; it requires
a thorough locality analysis, starting from the peculiarities of any specific place (Tilley 1994). The present
paper will discuss the relations between man and nature, the possible significance of the river for people
at different times, and, through this, the settlement in
different phases of the Prehistoric Period. The subject
of human settlement on the lower reaches of the River
Jägala is part of an extensive project analysing prehistoric settlement in the area between the Jägala and Valgejõe rivers. The financial support for the archaeological investigations in the framework of the project, and
Jõesuu means the mouth of a river in Estonian.
BALTICA 6
for the writing of this paper, comes from
the Estonian Science Foundation (grant
No 4202).
ARCHAELOGIA
The region of the lower reaches of the River Jägala will be discussed mainly as a living environment, ie from the point of view
of the nature of the area (Preucel, Hodder
1996: 32). Attention will be paid to what
conditions the environment offered to
people in these areas, and how people adjusted to them in different times. In addition, the topic of the ritual landscape will
be discussed, and the possible religious
and ritual significance of the landscape
will be analysed, ie we will try to find an
answer to the question whether the people
of these times were guided only by economic aspects or whether there were also
other aspects that attracted them.
People understand the surrounding landscape differently, and it is probably not
possible to find two people who would
interpret the same place identically. It all
depends on the individual, their outlook,
conceptions and prejudices, as well as age,
social position, and a variety of other factors (Bender 1993a, b). Most likely the
view of landscape and place of Prehistoric
people varied in the same way. Still, why
are monuments found in certain places?
What was the reason for choosing a site?
Thus, when analysing the ancient relics of Fig. 1. Stone Age archaeological sites in the region of the lower reaches of
a certain region, we cannot find answers the River Jägala: 1 glint; 2 waterfall; 3 stray find; 4 settlement site
to questions concerning ancient settlement
merely by assessing the natural factors of the location. North Estonian landscapes are predominantly flat, ar
It must also be taken into account that people who lived ticulated only by the glint edge and water bodies. Of
in a place gave a meaning to it, and that some places had the latter, a river that made the landscape impressive
a greater significance than others. Although we are not could have possessed various meanings for the people
able to reconstruct the thoughts of people of the past, it living there, being at the same time both a natural boris still possible to analyse the known monuments from der between settlement areas and a centre or an axis
the point of view of their relation to the landscape, and around which the settlement concentrated (Lang 1996:
to try to perceive the wholeness, ie the creations of Fig. 102, 103, 104).
people together with nature. In this paper, I will not
describe abstract landscapes whose soil and nature are
typical of a certain region, but a specific area. Though
it has many features similar to other places, it is still
different and unique, and the settlement of this area developed accordingly, as we can assume on the basis of
the antiquities preserved. Thus, my study also includes
a phenomenological interpretation, and an analysis of
the archaeological monuments of the location from the
point of view of the people who lived in the landscape
(Thomas 1993; Tilley 1993, 1994, etc).
Archaeological sites on river landscapes have been
studied in various places in the world (Buikstra,
Charles 2000; Lehtonen 2000; Snead, Preucel 2000,
etc). Several studies have pointed out that both rivers
and especially waterfalls possessed a great psychologiNorth Estonian Glint is a part of the Baltic Glint. It divides north Estonia into two landscape regions: the north
Estonian coastal plain in the north and the north Estonian
limestone plateau in the south. Glint or the north Estonian
limestone bluff is in some places visible as a high and steep
terrace; in other places it is completely buried. The height
of the bank sporadically rises to 25–35 metres.
105
Gurly Vedru
River Jägala
cal importance for people. The significance of rivers
and waterfalls seems to be quite universal, and is regarded as true, for example, for the Australian Aboriginals (Taçon 2000), the Saami (Bradley 2002, 6) and the
ancient Greeks (Bradley 2002, 23). It is also thought
that in the Neolithic Period in Britain some rivers that
were borders and/or places where ritual communication
was carried out had a significance in myths (Edmonds
1999: 21, 99). Sacrifices were made to some rivers, as
well as to other bodies of water (Bradley 2002: 51).
Waterfalls are considered places of mental importance,
where different worlds – the upper world, the lower
world and the earth plain – made contact and where
an intense connection existed between different levels
of existence (Taçon 2000: 37–40). Taking all this into
consideration, we might suppose that the waterfall on
the River Jägala also had at least some significance for
ancient people living in the vicinity, and that their beliefs and memories of their ancestors were connected
with it.
This account book was compiled in about 1240 by
monks who had arrived to baptise the Estonians. The
list of villages also shows their size in ploughlands (Johansen 1933). Two villages in the lower reaches of the
River Jägala are mentioned in this list, both of which
are also represented by archaeological finds.
Monuments
The Stone Age
The oldest settlement in the region dates back to the
Mesolithic Period and is located on the highest terrace of a small triangular cape at the confluence of the
Jõelähtme and Jägala rivers (Fig. 1). The finds gathered from the surface were quartz and flint flakes with
working traces (AI 6458). Traces of human activities
from the Neolithic Period are more numerous and
are found in a larger area. Only one settlement site is
The present article about the Prehistoric human settlement in the region of
the lower reaches of the River Jägala is
based mainly on known archaeological
monuments and on the results of fieldwork carried out on them. For a long
time, the only monuments known in the
region were groups of stone cist graves
and cup-marked stones on the left bank
of the river, the hill-fort near the mouth
of the river, and some stray finds. Only
in recent years have settlement sites been
sought and found during archaeological
survey trips (Vedru 1999, 2000, 2001b).
Although it is possible that more settlements will be found as a result of future
investigations, it cannot alter the overall
picture to a great extent, because most of
the prehistoric periods are already represented by archaeological sites. Most likely there might be some Stone Age settlement sites in the vicinity of the river that
have yet not been discovered, and also the
present knowledge about the settlement
of some periods might be updated with
sites of a different nature. For example,
we may discover additional Bronze Age
settlement sites or additional Late Iron
Age burial sites.
106
In addition to archaeological data, information about villages at the end of the
Prehistoric Period and the beginning of Fig. 2. Bronze Age and pre-Roman Iron Age archaeological sites in the rethe Middle Ages can be obtained from gion of the lower reaches of the River Jägala: 1 settlement site; 2 stone-cist
a written source, Liber Census Daniae. grave; 3 cup-marked stone
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
known from this period, and is located
near the estuary of that time, in a meander of the river on the high right bank. In
1920–1923 archaeological excavations
were carried out here under the supervision of Arthur Spreckelsen (Spreckelsen
1925). The finds dated the settlement
to the Middle Neolithic Period (Jaanits 1959; Lang 1996: 397). In addition,
two Neolithic boat axes have been found
from the village of Koogi (AI 3198; AM
293), and an antler axe (AI 4415) on the
right bank of the River Jägala.
Settlement sites and stray finds from the
Neolithic Period are also known in the
neighbouring areas. In the west they are
located at a distance of about four kilometres from the River Jägala on alvar
areas suitable for early farming (Lang
1996: 397–399, Fig 112). In the east the
distance to the next settlements, situated
by the River Kaberla, is almost the same.
There we can find a fragment of a boatshaped axe from a Neolithic settlement
(Vedru 2003: 329).
From the Bronze Age to the
Roman Iron Age
In spring 2001 a settlement site, first used
in the Bronze Age, was discovered in the
immediate vicinity of the Jägala waterfall Fig. 3. Roman Iron Age archaeological sites in the region of the lower
reaches of the River Jägala: 1 tarand grave; 2 stray find
(Fig. 2; Vedru 2001b). The settlement is
located on a high bank at about 30 or 40
metres from the water. Besides the waterfall, there is a In this region, the stone cist graves and cup-marked
ford in the river with a smooth limestone bed and shallow stones are remarkably numerous in the western alwater. The Bronze Age settlement was relatively small var areas but absent in the Kaberla area (Lang 1996:
and not very dense. On the basis of the finds recovered Fig. 113, 121).
during a survey and archaeological excavations, we may
presume that a single farm, the predominant settlement
form of that period, was located here. Nearby, at about F r o m t h e M i d d l e I r o n A g e t o t h e e n d
100 metres from the site, at the former location of the o f t h e P r e h i s t o r i c P e r i o d
waterfall, there is a stone with 15 cup marks. The stone
is relatively large and clearly visible. In the vicinity From this period, only a few monuments are known,
about ten more cup-marked stones are known, around in the lower reaches of the River Jägala. The hill-fort
the village of Koila on the left bank of the river, and by of Jägala Jõesuu and the settlement nearby belong to
the side of the River Jõelähtme (Fig. 2). On the left bank the Middle Iron Age. The hill-fort was most likely
there are also some groups of stone cist graves, which built in the sixth century, and was used until the secon the terrain are related to the edge of the glint and the ond half of the first millennium (Lang 1996: 327). The
Jõelähtme and Jägala rivers. Two finds recovered from concentrated settlement site from the Viking Age was
the three stone graves date from the Late Bronze Age, situated about one kilometre upstream from the hilland one from the third or fourth centuries (Lang 1996: fort, in the immediate vicinity of the waterfall, on the
401–402). In the village of Koila some graves from the right bank of the river. The place had been inhabited
already in the Bronze Age, but in the following centuRoman Iron Age were also found (Fig. 3).
107
Gurly Vedru
River Jägala
ries the settlement shifted downstream to a presumed
harbour site. Another settlement, established in the
Viking Age, is located in the village of Koila, about
0.5 kilometres south of the Joa settlement, around 200
metres from the River Jõelähtme (Fig 4). It is possible
to assume on the basis of finds that these sites were
also inhabited at the end of the Prehistoric Period and
in the Middle Ages. Both villages are also mentioned
in Liber Census Daniae: the size of the village of Joa
was eight ploughlands, and that of the village of Koila
ten ploughlands (Johansen 1934: 437–438). Thus both
these ancient villages were founded in the Viking Age
and, possibly with some intervals, have been inhabited
up to the present day.
In the west, in the Rebala settlement centre, there may
be some graves dating back to the Roman Iron Age; in
the east there are none. Changes in settlement patterns
took place in the Viking Age, when villages appeared
in Estonia. In both neighbouring settlement clusters,
villages are known that stayed there all through the end
of the Prehistoric Period and the Middle Ages.
Discussion: the formation of settlements, development and the reasons
for development
It has been shown above that the lower reaches of the
River Jägala were inhabited, to a greater or lesser extent, all through the Prehistoric Period. However, it is
possible to distinguish some periods of more intensive
settlement. The oldest inhabited site in this region is
the high terrace of a small triangular cape at the confluence of the Jägala and Jõelähtme rivers. By its natural
conditions, the place was, no doubt, attractive for Stone
Age man: besides the river there were forests, and the
sea was not far, so that different sources of subsistence
were available, which was very important. There was
a waterfall nearby, which, being a remarkable natural object, evidently possessed an equal spiritual significance. In addition to surface finds, the age of the
settlement can be deduced indirectly from its relative
distance from the sea, because Mesolithic settlements
were located mainly near inland water bodies.
108
The next settlement by age was closer to the sea, near
the estuary. This was relatively well protected by a meander of the river (Fig. 1); the distance to the previous
settlement site is about 1.5 kilometres. Whether the
settlement at the confluence was also used at that time
remains a question, since no pottery has been found
there. Moreover, no archaeological excavations have
been carried out; thus, we cannot say for sure that the
site was uninhabited in that period. Even if it were, that
would not mean that the waterfall was forgotten by the
people or had lost its significance. It is possible that
the tenets of that time demanded some distance, or at
least did not preclude it. The journey to the falls might
have possessed a significance of its own, and how it
was performed, either on foot or by water.
But coming back to the economic factors, the choice
of habitation on the seashore may indicate that, besides
being a source of food, the sea might have been a vital
communication link with distant places (Vedru 2001a),
ie it may have been to some extent already “domesticated” at that time. The Neolithic population was also
more settled and attached to one place; thus, a strategically vital living place may have been of greater importance than the possible spiritual support expected
from the immediate neighbourhood of the waterfall.
The Jõesuu settlement by the estuary was abandoned at
the end of the Stone Age. Since several stray finds have
been recovered from the region (Fig. 1), there may be
some hitherto undiscovered settlement sites.
In the Bronze Age a new shift occurred in settlement
patterns: people moved back upstream, to the alvar
areas. It has been repeatedly accentuated that alvars,
with their thin layer of soil, were the earliest tilled areas in Estonia (Lõugas 1970: 28, 29, 44), and this is
the type of soil where the Bronze Age and the pre-Roman Iron Age monuments of the discussed area come
from. Since the tenets were transformed together with
the increasing significance of cultivation, the newly inhabited areas may be connected with a new religion.
Still, it need not mean that places of significance for
the previous generations forfeited their importance.
The stone cist graves typical of the period are clustered
on the left bank of the River Jägala, and none can be
found on the right bank (Fig. 2). Excavation results
suggest that these grave groups date back to the Late
Bronze Age and were probably also used at the beginning of the Roman Iron Age. The graves are situated in
two groups. Most of them, nearly 30 graves, are located
at the edge of the glint and have a view of the sea and
partly of the estuary of the River Jägala; there is also a
single cup-marked stone nearby. The other group, consisting of only five graves, is located on the left bank
of the River Jõelähtme, not far from the place where
it runs into the River Jägala. Though graves are few
in this location, there are a dozen cup-marked stones
in the area, situated roughly parallel to the riverbank,
mostly in view of each other and the riverbank. Thus
it seems that where many graves were sited, the cupmarked stones were few, and vice versa (Vedru 2002).
All the graves and stones in the locality are situated
high on the glint and have a view of the river and/or the
sea from above. This location limited access to them
from these sides, which, considering the steep edge of
It is possible that, to some extent, the
site of the later hill-fort near the estuary
was also used. Excavations there have
revealed a few potsherds belonging to
the second half of the first millennium
BC (Lang 1996: 326). Possibly, it was a
habitation near the harbour or some other
place connected with marine activities.
The monuments known to date from the
Roman Iron Age are scarce, not only in
the vicinity of the River Jägala but also
in the wider region. The settlement on the
right bank of the River Jägala had been
abandoned by that time, and the monuments from the Roman Iron Age are concentrated on the left bank of the river. In
the whole region, a few tarand graves
are known, only one of which has been
excavated; the others have been identified by their shape. Presumably, a change
occurred in that period in settlement patterns as well as in ideology (Lang 1996:
358). This assumption is based on the fact
Fig. 4. Viking Age archaeological sites in the region of the lower reaches of that there are everywhere more stone cist
the River Jägala: 1 hill-fort; 2 settlement site; 3 harbour site
graves than tarand graves. Perhaps the
Joa settlement was also abandoned due
the glint, made approaching them from the water bodies to the disappearance of the old ideology expressed by
difficult, if not impossible. This choice of location may cup-marked stones and stone cist graves. However, we
have had a certain meaning, and, furthermore, a similar also have to take into account that with primitive tilllocation pattern for monuments is also characteristic of age the fertile land was soon exhausted, and new areas
were put under cultivation, and so the settlement shiftother regions of north Estonia (Vedru, 2002).
ed. Thus, farms stayed in a place for only a short time
Only one cup-marked stone is known from the right and left no easily perceivable marks on the ground.
bank of the River Jägala, about 50 metres from it. The
river can be seen from this stone, and in the past the The settlement pattern changed once again in the Midwaterfall lay roughly in line with it. Nearby, at about dle Iron Age, when the monument complex by the es100 metres from the stone and 30 to 40 metres from the tuary of the River Jägala appeared. The hill-fort was
river, there is a Bronze Age settlement site. Cup-marked founded on a well-protected site in a meander of the
stones near settlement sites are also known from else- river where people had already lived in the Stone Age,
where. It seems that some rule existed, according to and it was still being used in the Viking Age. Potsherds
which graves were located further from settlements, from the second half of the first millennium found there
while cup-marked stones could be (but not necessarily) confirm the latter belief. Finds have also been recovnear the settlements (Vedru 2002). The habitation by ered from the vicinity of the hill-fort, where presumthe waterfall was by the ford near the edge of the glint. ably a settlement from that period existed (Lang 1996:
This may have been a cult site rather than a settlement, Fig. 115). This complex is probably connected with
since the waterfall, which may have had an important the harbour site nearby, that may have been much used
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
part in religious activities, may also have
served as a sacrificial place, the more so
that sacrifices are known to have taken
place by the waterfall in later times. On
the other hand, it could just have been a
single farm among fertile soil, located in
that place only because of the favourable
natural conditions.
109
Gurly Vedru
River Jägala
during this period. Possibly only a trading site, and not
a habitation, was located near the harbour at that time.
Two more settlement sites from the same period are
known in the lower reaches of the River Jägala. The
first of these is located on the right bank of the river
by the waterfall where a Bronze Age settlement had
been. The Iron Age settlement was located on the same
site, but was considerably larger. The finds and the intensive cultural layer indicate that it must have been
a village consisting of several farms. Considering the
short distance to the Jõesuu hill-fort, it seems possible
that this village owned the hill-fort, and by this also
controlled the harbour.
The other Viking Age settlement site is known on the
right bank of the river, in the present village of Koila,
by the side of the road to the River Jägala. Considering
the nature of the cultural layer identified, and by the
finds collected from the surface, we may presume that
this settlement was much less intensive than the Joa
settlement. Both settlement sites were still occupied
at the end of the Prehistoric Period and in the Middle Ages. In the neighbourhood of the village of Koila
some stray finds have come to light, some of which
are believed to come from a grave (Lang 1996: 404).
Though the grave mentioned was situated on the left
bank of the River Jõelähtme, it may have belonged to
the people living in the village of Koila on the other
bank.
Both settlement sites are also mentioned in the list
of villages of Liber Census Daniae, compiled in the
1240s. Thus, these are the oldest villages with permanent settlements in the lower reaches of the River Jägala that have been preserved to the present day.
As regards the periods of more intensive settlement,
we may observe that in the lower reaches of the River
Jägala the Stone Age stands out, with traces of human
activity found in several places, as do the Bronze and
pre-Roman Iron ages. The next intensive period was
the Viking Age, and only the Roman Iron Age and the
following Middle Iron Age are poorly represented.
How can this absence of finds be explained? It cannot have been due to the population leaving. The few
known monuments and the fact that the period is also
relatively poor in finds in other regions of Estonia refute this hypothesis (Lang 1996: Fig. 109, 127; Vedru
1999). The small number of graves might be the result of a change in ideology, due to which fewer stone
graves were built. Settlements may have been located
in different places where they have not yet been discovered.
110
In conclusion, it might be said that the settlement of
the region has been concentrated around the river since
the Stone Age. Alongside the economic advantages,
the waterfall could have been an additional attraction.
The waterfall is remarkable in Estonia for its size, and
people could have associated their tenets and (mythical) antecedents with it. It could also have been a place
where communication with spirits took place. Moreover, the area in the lower reaches offered suitable conditions for people who lived there in different periods
of the Prehistoric Period. In the Stone Age the river
and the forests in the vicinity, and later also the fertile
soil, offered what people needed. Throughout the ages,
the river has probably also been an important route
for traffic. Thus, the location and changes in settlement patterns can be explained by the suitability of the
natural conditions for the main activities of the period.
However, I have also tried to bring in another viewpoint, by stressing the psychological importance of the
waterfall. It is possible that this is the place where both
economic and psychological reasons intertwined.
In the course of time, some sites were abandoned and
others inhabited, and the relations between people and
their surroundings changed. Still, the area never completely lost its significance as a suitable living environment.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express her gratitude to the Estonian Science Foundation (grant No 4202), the artist
Kersti Siitan, and the translators Liis Soon and Piret
Viilu.
References
Bender, B. 1993a. Introduction. Landscape – Meaning and
Action. In: Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Providence/Oxford, 1–17.
Bender, B. 1993b. Stonehenge – Contested Landscapes (Medieval to Present Day). In: Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Providence/Oxford, 245–279.
Johansen, P. 1933. Die Estlandliste des Liber Census Daniae.
Kopenhagen-Reval.
Lang, V. 1987. Tallinna ümbruse tarandkalmed. In: Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR. Social Sciences, 36, 2, 190–206.
Lang, V. 1996. Muistne Rävala. Muistised, kronoloogia ja
maaviljelusliku asustuse kujunemine Loode–Eestis, eriti
Pirita jõe alamjooksu piirkonnas. Tallinn.
Lõugas, V. 1970. Eesti varane metalliaeg (II a.-tuh. keskpaigast e.m.a.–1. sajandini m.a.j.). Dissertatsioon ajalooteaduste kandidaadi kraadi taotlemiseks. Tallinn. (Manuscript in the archives of the AI).
Preucel, R.W., Hodder, I. 1996. Nature and Culture. In: Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. Oxford, 23–38.
Spreckelsen, A. 1925. Der Burgberg Jaggowall, Ksp. Jegelecht, Estland. In: Beiträge zur Kunde Estlands, X, 16–32.
Thomas, J. 1993. Time, Culture and Identity. London and
New York.
All illustrations by Kersti Siitan
Gurly Vedru
Institute of History
Rüütli 6, Tallinn 10130, Estonia
Received: 2002
P rie š istorin ė s ž moni ų
g y venviet ė s J egalos
( J ä gala ) ž emup y je
Gurly Vedru
Santrauka
Jegala (Jägala) yra viena ilgiausių upių šiaurinėje Estijoje. Tekėdama link pajūrio žemumos, ji suformuoja
maždaug 8 m aukščio vandens krioklį, kuris yra vienas
didžiausių šiaurinėje Estijoje. Dar už 2 km nuo krioklio upė įsilieja į Suomių įlanką. Šio tyrimo tikslas yra
ištirti upės žiočių kaimynystėje esančias žmonių gyvenvietes bei senovės reliktus toje vietoje, kuri yra tiesiogiai ar netiesiogiai susijusi su upe. Jegalos žemupio
regionas vietos gamtos požiūriu yra traktuojamas kaip
gyvenamoji aplinka. Dėmesys yra skiriamas gyvybiškai svarbioms šiame regione sąlygoms ir žmonių prisitaikymui įvairiais laikotarpiais prie jų. Be to, aptariama
ir ritualinių apeigų vietų tema, analizuojama ir galima
religinė bei ritualinė šios vietovės svarba, mėginant atsakyti į klausimą, ar tų laikų žmonės vadovavosi tik
ekonominiais sumetimais, ar egzistavo ir kitų aspektų,
kurie traukė juos.
BALTICA 6
me trikampiame kyšulyje prie Joeletmės (Jöelähtme)
ir Jegalos upių santakos (1 pav.). Neolito laikotarpio
žmonių veiklos pėdsakai yra gausesni ir aptinkami
didesnėje teritorijoje. Iš šio laikotarpio yra žinoma
tik viena gyvenvietė, buvusi prie to meto upės žiočių,
upės vingyje, aukštame dešiniajame krante. Tarp bronzos amžiaus gyvenviečių tipų atsiranda naujų požymių – žmonės ima judėti aukštyn upe. Žmonių veiklos
paminklų aptinkama greta upės, krioklio ir iš dalies
pajūryje (2 pav.). 2001 m. pavasarį visiškai greta Jegalos vandens krioklio buvo aptikta bronzos amžiaus
gyvenvietė (2 pav.). Greta jos, toje vietoje, kur kažkada buvo vandens krioklys, guli akmuo su 15 taurės
pavidalo ženklų. Šalia, Koilos kaime, kairiajame upės
krante ir greta Joeletmės upės, aptikta dar maždaug 10
tokių akmenų (2 pav.). Kairiajame upės krante yra kelios grupės akmenimis išklotų kapaviečių, kurios šioje
vietovėje yra susijusios su Joeletmės ir Jegalos upėmis.
Du tose kapavietėse aptikti radiniai yra datuojami vėlyvuoju bronzos amžiumi, o vienas – III–IV amžiais.
Koiloje buvo aptikta ir keletas kapaviečių iš romėniškojo geležies amžiaus laikotarpio (3 pav.).
ARCHAELOGIA
Tilley, C. 1993. Art, Architecture, Landscape (Neolithic
Sweden). In: Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Providence/Oxford, 49–84.
Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places,
Paths and Monuments. Oxford/Providence, USA.
Vedru, G. 1999. Archaeological Evidence for Settlement in
the Surroundings of Lake Kahala. In: PACT 57. Environmental and Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic Region.
Rixensart, 405–414.
Vedru, G. 2000. Aruanne arheoloogilistest välitöödest
Jõelähtme ja Kuusalu kihelkonnas 1999. a. (Manuscript in
the archives of the AI).
Vedru, G. 2001a. Põhja–Eesti muinasaegsest rannikukasutusest. In: Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri 5, 2, 110–127.
Vedru, G. 2001b. 2001. Aastal Jägala ja Valgejõe vahelisel
alal teostatud arheoloogiliste välitööde aruanne. (Manuscript in the archives of the AI).
Vedru, G. Forthcoming. Inimene, aeg ja maastik.
Jaanits 1959=Янитс‚ Л. 1959. Поселения эпохи неолита
и раннего металла в приустье р. Эмайыги (Эстонская
ССР). Таллин.
Jegalos Joesu (Jägala Jõesuu) piliakalnis ir greta esanti
gyvenvietė yra priskiriami viduriniam geležies amžiui.
Jie greičiausiai atsirado VI amžiuje ir gyvavo iki antrosios pirmojo tūkstantmečio pusės. Vikingų laikotarpio
gyvenvietė buvo maždaug 1 km atstumu aukštyn upe
nuo piliakalnio, greta vandens krioklio, dešiniajame
upės krante. Kita gyvenvietė, įkurta Vikingų laikotarpiu, yra Koilos kaime, apie 500 m į pietus nuo Joa gyvenvietės ir apie 200 m nuo Joeletmės upės (4 pav.).
Remiantis radiniais, galima daryti išvadą, kad šios vietos irgi buvo apgyvendintos priešistorinio laikotarpio
pabaigoje ir viduramžiais. Abi gyvenvietės yra minimos ir Liber Census Daniae. Joa gyvenvietė buvo
8 arimų, o Koilos – 10 arimų dydžio. Taigi abi šios
senovinės gyvenvietės atsirado vikingų laikotarpiu ir
su tam tikrais intervalais išliko gyvenamos iki mūsų
dienų.
Seniausia regiono gyvenvietė yra datuojama mezolito
laikotarpiu ir yra ant aukščiausios pakopos nedidelia-
111
Small Bone Spades: Material
U s e d , P r o c e s s i n g Te c h n o l o g y,
and Possible Function
Heidi Luik
Ülle Tamla
S m a l l B o n e S pa d e s : M at e r i a l U s e d ,
P r o c e ss i n g T e c h n o l o g y, a n d P o ss i b l e
Function
Heidi Luik and Ülle Tamla
Abstract
Estonian and Latvian small bone spades are discussed. The majority of spades are found in hill-forts and settlement sites from
the 11th to the 13th centuries. The tools and technique of manufacture are investigated.
Key words: Estonia, Latvia, 11th to 13th centuries, bone spades, bone manufacturing.
112
Introduction
Small bone spades in Estonia
The writing of the present paper was inspired by finds
of several small bone spades in archaeological excavations of recent years, and the study of local boneworking in connection with the financial support of the
Estonian Science Foundation for the research projects
“Ancient Hill-Forts of Estonia: Varbola Jaanilinn. Fortifications, Buildings, Finds. The Socio-Economic and
Military-Political Background” and “Bone Artefacts
in Estonian Archaeological Material from the Prehistoric and Medieval Periods (the last quarter of the first
millennium and the first half of the second millennium
AD)”. With the help of the grants mentioned, the technique of manufacture of bone artefacts has been investigated, the material identified, and copies of some
bone objects, including a small bone spade, have been
made.
In Estonia a total of 39 small bone spades and some
presumed blanks are known from 13 spots (Table 1 and
Fig. 1–11). Of these finds, about one third have been
published (Moora, Saadre 1939: Fig. 27; Тыниссон,
Селиранд 1978: Fig. 2: 1; Краут 1980: Plate 18: 12–
15; Tamla, Tõnisson 1990: Plate 11: 3; Tamla 1992:
Fig. 5: 4; Valk 2000: Photo 5: 1, 2; Tamla, Maldre
2001: Fig. 8–11; Luik 2001: Fig. 5 and 6; Lang et al
2002: Fig. 6).
No special publication has been issued about bone
spades as a separate type of artefact, and they have
rarely been published along with other finds. Therefore, the present paper sets out to make a survey of all
known finds of small bone spades, and to investigate
the material, tools and technique of manufacture. At the
same time, we try to find out whether the differences
in their shape, material and decoration enable us to determine their field of use and their users, and to specify
the territorial differences or chronology. The present
study is based on all known finds of small bone spades
in Estonia (the collections of the Institute of History in
Tallinn and of Tartu University, and the archaeological collections of Pärnu and Viljandi museums) and in
Latvia (the find complexes of Daugmale, Aizkraukle,
Mārtiņsala, Talsi and Jersika in the Latvian History
Museum in Riga). The information about small bone
spades from other regions is mostly from archaeological literature.
The majority of Estonian small bone spades are found
at hill-forts and settlement sites, mainly the larger hillforts and settlement sites from the end of the Prehistoric Period (11th to 13th centuries), but some also come
from sites with both earlier and later material. None of
the bone spades were found at sites with only medieval
finds, which indicates that they were not manufactured
any more by the Middle Ages. In some excavations,
those of the Kuusalu settlement site and the Varbola
hill-fort, it was observed that several small bone spades
were found on a relatively small and densely builtover area (Luik 2001: 24; Селиранд, Тыниссон 1978;
Тыниссон, Селиранд 1978). The origin of the bone
spades from Savastvere is different: four small bone
spades were found, together with bronze ornaments, in
a hoard discovered in a settlement layer dating from the
middle or the second half of the 12th century (Jaanits
et al 1982: 363–365). Only two bone spades have been
found among the contents of graves, both from the excavations of the flat cemetery of Pada, dated to the late
12th or early 13th centuries. One of them, a fragmentarily preserved openwork specimen, was placed between
the legs of a young man who died at the age of 18 to 20
years, slightly above the knees (grave 92). The other,
a plain small bone spade, was discovered with a dou-
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Distribution of bone spades
in Estonia and Latvia:
1 Lehmja; 2 Rebala; 3 Kuusalu;
4 Pada; 5 Varbola; 6 Keava;
7 Soontagana; 8 Lõőhavere;
9 Savastvere; 10 Mustivere;
11 Viljandi; 12 Otepää; 13 Rőuge;
14 Talsi; 15 Cēsis; 16 Mārtiņsala;
17 Daugmāle; 18 Aizkraukle;
19 Jersika (Drawing by Kersti
Siitan)
Fig. 2. Bone
spades from
the Savastvere hoard
(AI 3355:
130, 132,
131, 133.
Drawings by
Heidi Luik)
ble burial of children (grave 122), where it was located
beside an earthenware vessel on the tibiae of a child
buried at the age of six to eight years (Tamla, Maldre
2001: 373). Although no small bone spades have hitherto been found with cremation burials, we must bear
in mind that burnt bone artefacts are, as a rule, not discernible. Generally, bone artefacts are discovered in
cremation burials only if they contain preserved metal
rivets (eg combs), or if they bear visible ornamentation
(eg Luik 1994: Fig. 12–14; 1998: Fig. 17, 33–37; Mägi
2002: Plates 1: 6; 24: 2, 3 and 25: 15).
Small bone spades in Latvia
In Latvia, small bone spades (a total of 54 specimens
from six spots; Table 2 and Fig. 1; 12–15) occur on the
113
Heidi Luik
Ülle Tamla
Livs’ territories, and only a few
have been published (eg Ģinters
1936: Fig. 13: 6; Apals 1998:
Fig. 6: 14).
Latvian bone spades come from
hill-forts, the overwhelming majority of them, 40 specimens,
from the Daugmale hill-fort.
Daugmale was the most important manufacturing and trade
centre in the lower reaches of
the River Daugava, and has been
classified as proto-town or early
urban centre, and controlled the
trade on the River Daugava until
the last quarter of the 12th century (Urtāns 1994; Latvijas pilskalni 1998; Radiņš 2000: 121;
Ciglis et al 2001: 12). Since
1935, large-scale excavations
have been carried out in Daug- Fig. 3. Bone spades from Lõhavere hill-fort (AI 4133: 1355, 1961a, AI 3578: 1311,
male, and extensive material re- AI 4133: 1961. Drawings by Heidi Luik)
covered (circa 18,000 artefacts
and 200,000 potsherds; Radiņš 2000: 102).
From the southeastern-most centre of the Daugava
Livs, Aizkraukle, nine spades and blanks are known,
from other find spots one or two specimens have been
found. We must also consider the possibility that the
material we have seen does not include all the bone
spades found in Latvia.
Small bone spades in other regions
Relying upon information from published finds, as well
as a brief study of the Novgorod collection of finds, we
may suppose that small bone spades were also used
in northwest Russia, eg in Novgorod (Колчин et al
1985: 80; НГМ КП 33996/A-100: 27) and Pskov (eg
Белецкий 1991: 29). The reason why only one small
bone spade is known from Finland (Visa Immonen,
pers. comm.) probably lies in the poor preservation
of bones in the soil there. An object rather similar to
specimens from the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea,
named “a flat spoon”, was found in Schleswig, north
Germany (Ulbricht 1984: 63, Plate 46: 14). At least
three small spades made of reindeer antler have been
found in Arctic Norway. According to the description
by Thorleif Sjövold (Sjövold 1974: 257) they are about
ten-centimetre-long specimens, rather flat, with short
handles and wide blades, the edge of which is more
or less sharp. In Sweden, two small bone spades are
known from Birka (Arbman 1940: Plate 151: 3, 8).
About one of these, richly decorated with plaited deco-
114
Fig. 4. Bone spades made of rib from Rõuge (AI 4040:
3698) and Otepää (AI 4036: IIIO 216. Drawings by Heidi
Luik)
ration and pits, and with a partly preserved blade, it is
not clear whether it was spade-shaped or spoon-shaped
like the other finds depicted on the same plate. The
spoons found in the British Isles have flat blades, like
Estonian and Latvian small spades, but their shape is
more triangular or oblong, and they have round edges
(MacGregor 1985: Fig. 98: l-p).
Larger spade-shaped objects (up to 20cm long), mostly
made of whale bone, have been found in Norway and
the British Isles (Sjövold 1974: Plates 27: I; 28: f and
59; MacGregor 1985: 176–177, Fig. 93: g, h). Obviously, the range of their use (which is not definitely
known, but it has been presumed that they might have
been used for chopping meat) is different from that of
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 5. Bone spades from Varbola hill-fort (AI 4783: 746, AI
5299: 372. Drawings by Kersti Siitan)
Fig. 7. Bone spades from Lehmja settlement site (AI 5310
III: 700/ 744, 566. Drawings by Heidi Luik)
Fig. 6. Bone spades from Kuusalu settlement site (AI 5043:
536, 444. Drawings by Heidi Luik)
Fig. 8. Bone spades from Pada cemetery (AI 5366: XCII,
12, CXXI, 4. Drawings by Heidi Luik)
small bone spades. It must only be mentioned that several of the large bone spades from Norway come from
richly furnished (women’s) graves dating from the period from the seventh century to the second half of the
ninth century (Sjövold 1974: 257 ff.).
decorated (Fig. 3: 1; 6: 2; 12: 4). Some have flat handles of an even width. These specimens are not decorated either (Fig. 2: 1, 3; 4: 1, 2; 9: 2). Most frequent
are small bone spades with flat handles widening in
the middle. Some of these handles have profiled edges.
This type also contains some undecorated spades (Fig.
2: 2, 4; 5: 2; 7: 2; 8: 2), but often they are decorated
with a pattern of pits or engraved lines (Fig. 3: 2–4; 6:
1; 7: 1; 10; 12: 2, 3), where sometimes the pits form a
cross (Fig. 5: 1; 12: 1). One of the Daugmale spades
has an engraved plaited ornament on the handle (Fig.
13: 3). Some have openwork carved handles; sometimes these are also decorated with lines or pits (Fig.
8: 1; 9: 1; 11:1, 3, 4; 13: 1, 2). Some spades have a
pierced hole(s) in the upper part of the handle (Fig. 5:
1; 11: 1; 13: 1), which indicates the possibility that they
The appearance of small bone spades
Most of the small bone spades discussed have smooth
polished surfaces. The decorated specimens often have
decoration on both sides. The shape of the handles of
bone spades varies. There are small spades with thin
handles, the diameter of which is nearly the same in
width as in thickness. The handles often end with a
slightly widening knob. Such spades are usually not
115
Heidi Luik
Ülle Tamla
Fig. 10. Bone spade from
Keava (TÜ 1026: 412.
Drawing by Heidi Luik)
Fig. 9. Bone spades from Viljandi (VM 10742: 390, 781.
Drawings by Kersti Siitan)
were probably worn as pendants. It was
also possible to hang spades which had
handles ending with a knob or an extension (eg Fig. 2: 2; 6; 10). There are also
spades which have no hole, knob or extension on their handle (eg Fig. 2: 1, 3,
4), and which accordingly could not be
hung.
Most of the wholly preserved spades
are seven to nine centimetres long. The
shortest is the 5.3-centimetre specimen
from the Savastvere hoard. Some shorter
ones are around six centimetres long. The
longest spades are about ten centimetres
long. The blades of the spades are mostly
1.6 to 2.5 centimetres wide. The thickest
place, usually in the middle part of the
spade, is 0.15 to 0.7 centimetres thick;
on specimens made of rib it is 0.15 to
0.25 centimetres, and on those made of
long bones it is 0.25 to 0.7 centimetres.
Material and manufacture.
Experiment in making a
bone spade
116
The material of the bone spades found in Estonia was
identified by Liina Maldre, an osteologist at the Institute of History. According to her, the majority of small
spades are made of bone; only one, a specimen from
Kuusalu (Table 1: 21), is thought to be made of elk
antler (Luik 2001: Fig. 6: 1). According to Maldre, the
Fig. 11. Bone spades from Soontagana hill-fort (PäM 2766:
856, PäM 2767: 1343, 1130, PäM 1971a: 410, 480. Drawings by Heidi Luik)
Depending on the material – long bone
or rib – used for making the spade, the
preparation was different. From long
bones, first of all, the epiphysis was removed, then the bone was sawn or split
into strips of the required width (Ulbricht 1984: 19, Fig. 2). These strips
were cut into pieces of the required
length, of which the spades were
carved (Fig. 16). Ribs were first cut
into pieces, after that both edges were
cut off and the bone was split longitudinally into two thin plates (Fig. 17: a;
Ulbricht 1984: 22). Another possibility
was to cut a piece of a suitable length
from the rib, and, without splitting it,
to carve a spade (Fig. 17: b). After that,
Fig. 12. Bone spades decorated with dots from Daugmale (A 9964: 7424, 105,
there were two possibilities: first, to
7727, A 11971: 1165. Drawings by Heidi Luik)
use the spade made of unsplit rib (Fig.
17: b1; eg Table 2: 25 and 39), in this case spades with
spades are too thoroughly worked to make it possible
one porous side that split incidentally in the course of
to determine the animal species, and in most cases also
processing or use were cast aside. The second possibilthe part of the skeleton from which the bone for the
ity was that the spade was split deliberately after carvspade was taken. In many cases, long bones were used;
ing it in order to get two spades (Fig. 17: b2; eg Fig.
while a more accurate identification of the bone is im14). In this case, porous bone tissue can be observed on
possible. Most likely they were the metacarpal and
the rear sides (Fig. 4: 1; 9: 2). We do not know whether
metatarsal bones of cattle and horses, which have quite
it was left this way because the artefact would become
a thick and straight compact part, but other bones also
too thin and brittle if the rear side was also polished,
could have been used. The smaller part of the spades,
or whether the artefact remained unfinished for some
six in total (Fig. 4; 9: 2; 11: 2–4), are made of ribs. The
reason. The latter seems likely, for instance, in the case
Latvian spades are also mostly made of long bones;
of an unfinished spade from Viljandi (Fig. 9: 2). From
the use of ribs is considerably rarer, it was identified in
Soontagana fragments of two very thin spades are
only eight cases (Table 2: 1, 15, 19, 22, 25, 39, 46 and
known, with both sides polished (Fig. 11: 3, 4). This
48; Fig. 14). Three spades (Table 2: 6, 7 and 26; Fig.
was possibly the reason why these spades were broken
15) are different from the others, since they are made
while in use.
of the shield of a sturgeon (Acipenser sturio, identified
Small bone spades made of the shield of a sturgeon,
by Lembi Lõugas).
found in Latvia, are very rare. They are characterised
In determining the method of work and its sequence,
by the flaky slivering surface, and by the rear with large
blanks and unfinished artefacts play an important part,
round pores (Fig. 18). One of these was found at Daugmaking it possible to recreate the production chain
male and two at Aizkraukle. One of the latter is an unu-
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
(Averbouh 2001). Among Estonian and
Latvian finds there are some presumed
blanks and unfinished spades (Fig. 9:
2; 11: 2, 5; 14 and 15; Luik 2001, Fig.
6: 5). The sawn-off ends of long bones,
and fragments of long bones and ribs
bearing cutting traces, which may be
debris from bone-working, including
the manufacture of bone spades, occur among finds from several sites (eg
Soontagana: PäM 2766: 713; Varbola:
Tamla, Maldre 2001: 372, Fig. 3 and
4; Otepää: Maldre 2001: 21, Fig. 7: a;
Daugmale: A 11971: 1694).
117
Heidi Luik
Ülle Tamla
Fig. 13. Bone spades from Mārtiņsala (RDM I 2443) and
Daugmale (A 11971: 735, A 11970: 1752. Drawings by
Heidi Luik)
Fig. 15. An unfinished spade made from the shield of a
sturgeon found at Aizkraukle (A 12301: 238. Drawing by
Heidi Luik)
sually large specimen with the width of the blade at 3.5
centimetres. Since its handle is broken, its length cannot be determined. The other of the Aizkraukle spades
is unfinished (Fig. 15), which proves that spades were
made from the shield of a sturgeon on the spot.
The tools used for bone-working can best be studied
on the basis of debris from bone-working and unfinished objects, since the finished artefacts are usually
carefully polished, and thus the traces left by tools are
not discernible any more. Most likely a saw was used
for the primary cutting of the bone, but due to further
processing traces of sawing cannot be seen on the artefacts. They can be observed on the debris from bone
working found in Otepää and Varbola (Maldre 2001:
Fig. 7: a; Tamla, Maldre 2001: 372, Fig. 4). For the
longitudinal splitting of bones, especially the shorter
fragments, an axe was used (Ulbricht 1984: 29), or a
chisel and a hammer (Spitzers 1999: Fig. 12). However, the main tool for carving bone spades was obviously a knife. It was even possible to smooth the surface only with a knife. On the basis of traces on several
spades, we can say that most were smoothed with a
knife. Sometimes rasps and files were also used, traces
of them are discernible on some bone objects (eg on
one of the spades from Varbola, Fig. 5: 2, as well as
on some Latvian spades, eg Table 2: 4 and 52). For
the final polishing, organic matter may have been used,
such as sand and leather, ash, chalk, etc (Ulbricht 1978:
118
Fig. 14. Unfinished spades made of rib found at Aizkraukle
(A 12222: 139. Drawings by Heidi Luik)
Some artefacts from the shield of a sturgeon have also
been found in Estonia: eg a larger pendant was found in
Pada settlement site (Тамла 1983: Table 15: 4), and a piece
of a shield came to light in the excavation of Town Hall
Square in Tallinn (Fig. 18).
Among spades made of long
bones there are decorated and
undecorated specimens. The
ornamentation usually consists
of a simple pattern of pits and
engraved lines, the application
of which did not require special tools: a knife with a sharp
point was enough. For carving
Fig. 16. The stages of making a spade from a rib: a) the piece of rib is split longitudiopenwork
spade handles, the banally into two thin plates and then the spade is made; b) the spade is carved without
sic tool was also a knife, which
splitting the rib; b1) a spade of unsplit rib is used; b2) the spade is split deliberately
after carving in order to get two spades. (Drawing by Heidi Luik)
was also used to make the larger
holes. Small round holes were
obviously made with an auger.
The spades made of ribs are usually undecorated, only sometimes
(eg on spades from Soontagana)
have some holes been bored in
the handles (Fig. 11: 3, 4).
Fig. 17. A fragment of a shield of a sturgeon found at Tallinn (AI 4061: 2681).
(Photograph by Erki Russow)
Fig. 18. The stages of making a spade from the metacarpal bones of cattle.
(Drawing by Heidi Luik)
Jana Ratas, of the Institute of
History, has made an experimental copy of one of the openwork
spades from Varbola (Fig. 19).
She used the metapodium of an
elk. First, the bone was boiled until the emission of grease ceased.
The bone was sawn into pieces
before boiling, to make it possible to use a smaller pot. Ingrid
Ulbricht thinks it is likely that
bone was boiled to prepare it
for further processing (Ulbricht
1984: 18-19). Arthur MacGregor,
on the contrary, asserts that long
boiling removes collagen from
the bone (in boiling water, collagen turns into gelatine, which
is soluble in water), thus making the bone brittle (MacGregor
1991: 360). Raw bone is the easiest to cut and process, but freshly
boiled bone is also relatively easily cut. Later, it becomes harder
to process. Ratas discovered in
the course of her experiment that
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
41; MacGregor 1985: 58). Polishing the surface was important
also, because this way the pores
on the surface were filled in, thus
preventing the excessive drying
of the bone. By preserving its
moisture, the bone also preserves
its tenacity and elasticity; a dry
bone becomes brittle and fragile.
119
methods the experiment used also demonstrated how
beautiful and impressive new bone objects were, compared to preserved archaeological ones (Fig. 19).
The use
Heidi Luik
Ülle Tamla
What were small bone spades used for? They have often been called pendants, but only some of them are
given a hole in the upper part of the handle. Neither
are they all decorated. Without precluding the possibility that some of the spades were used as ornaments
(pendants resembling in shape and in size bronze amulets, imitating, most likely, padlock keys), it seems
more likely that they were commodities which could
be worn hanging from a belt or a chain. It is assumed
that they were cosmetic or toilet objects. For instance,
it has been suggested that they were dandruff-scrapers
(Moora, Saadre 1939: 176). But they could also have
been used to take ointment or salve, including honey,
from a receptacle and/or to spread it on the skin (as
spatulas).
Fig. 19. A bone spade from Varbola (ERM A 484) and a
copy of the spade made by Jana Ratas. (Photograph by
Heidi Luik)
to make a boiled bone more easily workable, it must
be soaked in hot water from time to time. It is also
possible to make an artefact from a raw bone, and to
clean it by boiling afterwards, but raw bone tends to
putrefy very quickly. The bones may also have been
cleaned of meat and grease by some other method, for
instance by burying them in the ground for some time
(Luik 2000: 144), or by putting them into an anthill,
where ants clean them. This method is nowadays used
by hunters for preparing trophies.
Next, Ratas cut a piece of a suitable size from the bone
using a saw; the further processing was done mainly
with a knife and a rasp. For piercing the holes, she used
an auger and a knife. Because of the absence of more
suitable tools, she carved the cavities in the handle of
the spade with modern chisels for making woodcuts
and linocuts, holding the blade at the required angle
against the bone, and hitting the handle with a hammer. In her opinion, this can also be done with a sharptipped chisel and a hammer. For finishing the surface,
a knife and a file were used, and the final polishing
was done with sand and a piece of woollen cloth. It
took about 25 hours (after boiling the bone) to make
this spade, but we must bear in mind that this was just
the first attempt. Carefully copying the shape and size
of the original also extended the time. An experienced
craftsman would, no doubt, take considerably less time
to make such an artefact. Besides, the study of the
120
Who used these spades? About gender and age we can
only draw conclusions on the basis of finds from burials, which are very few. Therefore, we cannot say anything definite on this point. The only finds from burials
suggest that these objects could also have been used by
(young) men and small children. Could the small bone
spades be some objects belonging to the local elite? The
assumption of their cosmetic use would connect them
primarily with the wealthier section of the population.
This is supported by the finds’ locations: the majority
of the spades are found at hill-forts, which were the political centres of their time, and most of them are also
mentioned in the Chronicle of Henry the Livonian (HCL
1982). Spades found in the early urban manufacturing
centre of Daugmale are especially numerous. The rich
hoard of bronze and silver ornaments, also containing
four small bone spades, found at Savastvere (Jaanits et
al 1982: 363-365, Fig. 249; Luik 1999: 143, Fig. 10,
11) most likely also belonged to a wealthy and influential woman. Both bone spades from the Pada cemetery
come from richly furnished graves. In the double grave
there was a small penannular brooch by the chest of a
child aged six to eight years; the hands were decorated
with bracelets of bronze wire; around the neck was a
necklace of three sheet pendants coated with silver, a
tooth pendant, a bronze bell and glass beads; and at
the feet there was an earthernware pot. Still richer was
the burial site of a young man buried together with a
Such pendants have been found in Latvia, in the richly furnished female burial site of the Scandinavian type in Smukumi (From Viking to Crusader 1992: No 2247), and in the
burial ground in Jaunzeme (Tõnisson 1974: Plate 32: 7).
Find place
Savastvere
Savastvere
Savastvere
Savastvere
Lõhavere
Lõhavere
Lõhavere
Lõhavere
Lõhavere
Lõhavere
Mustivere
Otepää
Rõuge
Varbola
Varbola
Varbola
Varbola
Kuusalu III
Kuusalu III
Kuusalu III
Kuusalu III
Kuusalu III
Kuusalu III
Lehmja III
Lehmja III
Lehmja III
Pada
Pada
Rebala
Viljandi
Viljandi
Keava
Keava
Keava
Keava
Soontagana
Soontagana
Soontagana
Soontagana
Soontagana
Soontagana
hoard
hoard
hoard
hoard
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
settlement
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
settlement
settlement
settlement
settlement
settlement
settlement
settlement
settlement
settlement
cemetery
cemetery
settlement
settlement
settlement
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
Find number
AI 3355: 130
AI 3355: 131
AI 3355: 132
AI 3355: 133
AI 3578: 1311
AI 4133: 1355
AI 4133: 3439
AI 4133: 1961
AI 4133: 1961a
AI 3578: 313
AI 3993: 503
AI 4036: IIIO 216
AI 4040: 3698
AI 4783: 576
AI 4783: 746
AI 5299: 372
ERM A 484
AI 5043: 389
AI 5043: 444
AI 5043: 463
AI 5043: 528
AI 5043: 536
AI 5043: 562
AI 5310 III: 566
AI 5310 III: 700/ 744
AI 5310 III: 875
AI 5366: CXXI, 4
AI 5366: XCII, 12
AI 5916: 8
VM 10742: 390
VM 10742: 781
TÜ 1026: 412
TÜ 1026: 432
TÜ 1026: 508
TÜ 1026: 503
PäM 2766: 856
PäM 2767: 1130
PäM 1971a: 410
PäM 1971a: 607
PäM 2767: 1343
PäM 1971a: 480
Material
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
rib
rib
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
antler?
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
rib
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
rib
rib
long bone
rib
long bone
Decoration
undecorated
undecorated
undecorated
undecorated
dots, lines
undecorated
dots
dots
dots
undecorated
fragment
undecorated
undecorated
fragment
dots
profiled, undecorated
openwork
undecorated
undecorated
dots
dots, lines
dots, lines
undecorated
undecorated
dots
openwork, lines
undecorated
openwork, dots
undecorated
openwork, dots
unfinished
dots
fragment
undecorated
openwork, dots
openwork
openwork
openwork
fragment
blank?
blank?
BALTICA 6
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
?
?
ARCHAELOGIA
Ta b l e 1 . S m a l l b o n e s p a d e s f o u n d i n E s t o n i a
121
Heidi Luik
Ülle Tamla
122
Ta b l e 2 . S m a l l b o n e s p a d e s f o u n d i n L a t v i a
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Find Place
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Aizkraukle
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Daugmale
Mârtiňsala
Mârtiňsala
Talsi
Jersika
Cēsis
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
settlement
settlement
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
hill-fort
Find number
A12222: 139
A12222: 171
A 12276: 164
A 12276: 224
A 12301: 43
A 12301: 238
A 12301: 299
A 12345: 7
A 12345: 199
A 9964: 105
A 9964: 172
A 9964: 672
A 9964: 911
A 9964: 1035
A 9964: 1456
A 9964: 2033
A 9964: 2331
A 9964: 2349
A 9964: 2510
A 9964: 3630
A 9964: 4115
A 9964: 4505
A 9964: 4669
A 9964: 6242
A 9964: 6359
A 9964: 6531
A 9964: 6813
A 9964: 6920
A 9964: 7424
A 9964: 7464
A 9964: 7727
A 9964: 7959
A 9964: 8218
A 11970: 61
A 11970: 1752
A 11971: 281
A 11971: 735
A 11971: 1165
A 11971: 1522
A 11971: 1536
A 11971: 2401
A 12150: 441
A 12705: 107
A 12600: 100
A 12695: 127
A 12695: 466
A 12763: 77
A 12763: 100
A 12826: 157
RDM I 2443
RDM I 2445
A 11431: 1938
A 10330: 665
VI 242: 92
Material
rib
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
shield of a sturgeon
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
rib
long bone
long bone
long bone
rib
long bone
long bone
rib
long bone
long bone
rib
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
rib
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
rib
long bone
rib
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
Decoration
blank (2)
undecorated
dots
undecorated
undecorated
unfinished
dots
undecorated
profiled, dot
dots
openwork
fragment
openwork, dots
dots
undecorated, hole
dots
undecorated
undecorated
fragment
undecorated
fragment
profiled
profiled, openwork
openwork, dots
undecorated
undecorated
fragment, undecorated
dots, lines
fragment, dots
dots, lines
dots, lines
unfinished
plaited
fragment, dots
openwork, dots
profiled, dots, lines
undecorated
undecorated
undecorated
openwork
dots, lines
undecorated
undecorated
undecorated
dots
unfinished?
undecorated
openwork, dots
profiled, dots
undecorated
fragment
openwork
Acknowledgements
This article was supported by the Estonian Science
Foundation (grant No 4203) and the project “Estonian
Language and National Culture”. The authors wish to
thank Jānis Ciglis from the Latvian History Museum,
Liina Maldre and Lembi Lõugas who identified the
bone material, the artist Jana Ratas who made a copy
of a small bone spade, the artist Kersti Siitan, and the
translator of the article Liis Soon.
Abbreviations
A – Latvian History Museum, Riga
AI – Institute of History, Tallinn
ERM – Estonian National Museum, Tartu
PäM – Pärnu Museum
RDM – Collection of the Dome Church of Riga
VI – Latvian Institute of History, Riga
VM – Viljandi Museum
TÜ – University of Tartu
НГМ – State Museum-Reserve of Novgorod
References
Apals, J. 1998. Vendi un Cēsu Riekstu kalns. In: Senā Rīga.
Pētījumi pilsētas arheoloģijā un vēsturē. Rīga, 125–143.
Apals, J., Atgāzis, M., Graudonis, J., Loze, I., Mugurēvičs,
Ē., Vasks, A., Zagorska, I. 2001. Latvijas senākā vēsture. 9
g. t. pr. Kr.-1200. g. Rīga.
Arbman, H. 1940. Birka I. Die Gräber. Tafeln. Stockholm.
Averbouh, A. 2001. Methodological Specifics of the TechnoEconomic Analysis of Worked Bone and Antler: Mental
Refitting and Methods of Application. In: British Archaeo In analyses of the contents of graves the Danish archaeologist Lotte Hedeager has introduced a method where, in
comparing graves, she does not consider every find separately, but counts the number of different artefact types
(NAT). By this method, the NAT of the child’s burial site
with a bone spade from Pada is 9, and the NAT of a male
burial is 12. Such a method of comparison has not been
used widely in Estonia. In her latest study, Marika Mägi
(Mägi 2002: 115, Fig. 51) presents a calculation for burials in Saaremaa, where the average NAT for the 12th century is circa 10. Thereby, the burials analysed in the stone
graves belong to the wealthier section of the population of
Saaremaa.
BALTICA 6
logical Reports, International Series 937, 2001: Crafting
Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space.
Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked
Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August–5 September
1999. Oxford, 111–121.
Brīvkalne, E. 1964. Daži amatniecības darinājumi Tērvetes
pilskalnā. In: Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, VI. Rīga, 85–
104.
Ciglis, J., Zirne, S., Žeiere, I. 2001. Lībieši senatnē / The Livs
in Antiquity. Rīga.
From Viking to Crusader. 1992. Scandinavia and Europe
800-1200. Nordic Council of Ministers in collaboration
with the Council of Europe. The 22nd Council of Europe
Exhibition. Uddevalla.
Ģinters, V. 1936. Daugmales pilskalna 1935. g. izrakumi. In:
Senātne un Māksla, I. Rīga, 33–56.
HCL 1982. Henrici Chronicon Livoniae / Henriku Liivimaa
kroonika. E. Tarvel (ed.) Tallinn.
Jaanits, L., Laul, S., Lõugas, V., Tõnisson, E. 1982. Eesti esiajalugu. Tallinn.
Lang, V., Tvauri, A., Rohtla, M.-L. 2002. The Hill-Fort of
Keava. In: Archaeological Field Works in Estonia, 2001.
Latvijas pilskalni (Eiropas kultűras mantojuma dienas “Latvijas pilskalni” 1998. gada 12.-13. septembris). 1998. Rîga.
Luik, H. 1994. Ühepoolsed luukammid Eestis. In: Stilus, 5.
Tallinn, 4–55.
Luik, H. 1998. Muinas- ja keskaegsed luukammid Eestis.
Muinasaja Teadus, 6. Tallinn.
Luik, H. 1999. Kammikujulised luu- ja pronksripatsid Eestis. In: Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri / Journal of Estonian Archaeology, 3: 2. Tallinn, 131–159.
Luik, H. 2000. Luust uisud Eesti arheoloogilises leiumaterjalis. In: Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri / Journal of Estonian
Archaeology, 4: 2. Tallinn, 129–150.
Luik, H. 2001. Luuesemed Kuusalu Pajulinnast ja asulatest.
In: Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri / Journal of Estonian Archaeology, 5: 1. Tallinn, 3–36.
MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory & Horn. The Technology of Skeletal Materials Since the Roman Period.
London.
MacGregor, A. 1991. Antler, Bone and Horn. In: J. Blair,
N. Ramsey (eds.). English Medieval Industries. London,
355–378.
Maldre, L. 2001. Bone Artefacts from Otepää. In: British
Archaeological Reports, International Series 937, 2001:
Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and
Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ)
Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August–5
September 1999. Oxford, 19–30.
Moora, H., Saadre, O. 1939. Lõhavere linnamägi. In: Muistse
Eesti Linnused. 1936.-1938. a. uurimiste tulemused. Tartu,
139–182.
Mägi, M. 2002. At the Crossroads of Space and Time. Graves,
Changing Society and Ideology on Saaremaa (Ösel), 9th13th centuries AD. CCC papers, 6. Tallinn.
Radiņš, A. 2000. Daugavas ceļš un Daugmale. In: Cauri
gadsimtiem. Rakstu krājums veltīts Valdemāram Ģinteram
(1899-1979). Latvijas Vēstures Muzeja Raksti, 7. Rīga,
101–121.
Sjövold, T. 1974. The Iron Age Settlement of Arctic Norway,
II. Late Iron Age. Tromsö Museums Skrifter, X: 2. Tromsö-Oslo-Bergen.
Spitzers, T. 1999. Sotzialwirtschaftshistorische Aspekte der
Spätmittelalterlichen Knochenbearbeitung Anhand von
Abfällen der Perlendrechslerei aus Konstanz am Boden-
ARCHAELOGIA
spear: on each arm he had bracelets twisted out of three
wires; on the third finger of each hand there was a ring
twisted from several wires; he also had a bronze chain
with an openwork pendant round the neck, a penannular brooch and bronze spirals on the chest, a belt with
a bronze buckle and plaques, with a tinderbox and a
sheathed knife with a bone handle hanging from it. The
knife is remarkable for its finely worked bone handle,
decorated with an S-pattern and two lozenge-shaped
bronze plaques. This handle is evidently not of local
origin, but made by a specialised craftsman.
123
Heidi Luik
Ülle Tamla
see. In: Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich,
15, 241–250.
Tamla, Ü. 1992. The Hill-Fort of Varbola-Jaanilinn and the
Settlement at Jalase. In: PACT, 37. Estonia: Nature, Man
and Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of a Round Table held
at Tallinn, April 1991 at the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Rixensart, 145–155.
Tamla, Ü., Maldre, L. 2001. Artefacts of Bone, Antler and
Canine Teeth among the Archaeological Finds from the
Hill-Fort of Varbola. In: British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 937, 2001: Crafting Bone: Skeletal
Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of
the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research
Group, Budapest, 31 August–5 September 1999. Oxford,
371–381.
Tamla, Ü., Tõnisson, E. 1990. Archäologische Ausgrabungen
auf der Wallburg Varbola-Jaanilinn 1988–1989. In: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Social Sciences, 4. Tallinn, 423–427.
Tõnisson, E. 1974. Die Gauja-liven und ihre Materielle Kultur 11. Jh.-Anfang 13.Jhs. Tallinn.
Ulbricht, I. 1978. Die Geweihverarbeitung in Haithabu. In:
Die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu, 7. Neumünster.
Ulbricht, I. 1984. Die Verarbeitung von Knochen, Geweih
und Horn im mittelalterlichen Schleswig. In: Ausgrabungen in Schleswig. Berichte und Studien, 3. Neumünster.
Urtâns, J.T. 1994. Latvian Hillforts: The Originality of the
Archaeological Reality. Amsterdam.
Valk, H. 2000. Archaeological investigations in Late Prehistoric-Early Medieval Viljandi and Pilistvere churchyard.
In: Archaeological Field Works in Estonia, 1999. Tallinn,
39–53.
Белецкий В.Д. 1991. Древний Псков. Каталог выставки.
Ленинград.
Колчин Б., Янин В.��
,��
Ямщиков С. 1985.�
�� Древний Новгород. Прикладное искусство и археология. Москва.
Краут А. ��
1980. Спасательные
��
раскопки ��
поселения ��
позднего железнего века в Куусалу.��
��
In:� Proceedings of the
Estonian Academy of Sciences. Social Sciences, 4. Tallinn,
382��
–��
386.
C��
елиранд Ю.,
��
Тыниссон Э.
��
1978. Предварительные
результаты исследования городища Варбола в 19741976 гг. In: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Social Sciences, 1. Tallinn, 90–95.
Тамла Т. 1983. Селище в Пада. In: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Social Sciences, 4. Tallinn,
302–306.
Тыниссон Э., Селиранд Ю. 1978. О раскопках городища
Варбола. In: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Social Sciences, 4. Tallinn, 358–360.
Ülle Tamla
Rüütli 6 10 130 Tallinn, Estonia
Heidi Luik
Rüütli 6 10 130 Tallinn, Estonia
124
Received: 2002
K auliniai maži kastuv ė liai : medžiaga , gam y bos
technologija, naudojimas
HEIDI LUIK, ÜLLE TAMLA
Santrauka
Maži kauliniai kastuvėliai paplitę visoje Estijos teritorijoje, išskyrus Saaremą. Latvijoje jie iš esmės aptinkami Dauguvos lyvių teritorijoje. Randama šių dirbinių ruošinių ir nebaigtų drožti kastuvėlių, dėl to, kaip
manoma, jie yra vietinės gamybos. Kastuvėlius galima
sieti su XI–XIII amžių gyvenvietėmis. Vienintelis Vikingų laikotarpiu datuotinas kastuvėlis, pagamintas iš
šonkaulio, aptiktas Rougėje (Rõuge).
Iš viso Estijoje surasta 39 tokie dirbiniai ir keletas
ruošinių (1 lentelė ir 1–11 pav.). Dauguma jų aptikti
XI–XIII a. piliakalniuose ir gyvenvietėse. Nė vienas
toks dirbinys nebuvo rastas viduramžių gyvenvietėse.
Tai rodo, kad tuo metu jie jau nebuvo gaminami. Tik
du kastuvėliai aptikti XII–XIII amžiaus pradžios Pados (Pada) kapinyno kapuose. Latvijoje maži kauliniai
kastuvėliai (iš viso 54 vienetai) rasti lyvių teritorijoje
(2 lentelė, 1, 12–15 pav.). Latvijoje jų aptikta piliakalniuose. Dauguma, apie 40 vienetų, buvo Daugmalės
(Daumāle) piliakalnyje, 9 kastuvėliai ir ruošiniai yra iš
Aizkrauklės (Aizkrauklė), likusieji – iš kitų vietų.
Šie dirbiniai taip pat buvo naudoti ŠV Rusijoje, t. y.
Novgorode ir Pskove. Panašių dirbinių rasta ir Šlėzvige. 3 kastuvėliai, padaryti iš šiaurės elnio rago, žinomi
iš arktinės Norvegijos, 2 aptikti Birkoje.
Daugelis aptariamų dirbinių yra gerai nugludintu paviršiumi ir ornamentuoti iš abiejų pusių. Ornamentas
sudarytas iš duobučių arba linijų, kartais kryžių iš
duobučių (3:2-4, 6:1, 7:1, 10, 12:2, 3, 5:1, 12:1 pav.).
Vienas kastuvėlis iš Daugmalės yra papuoštas tinkliniu
ornamentu (13:3 pav.). Yra ir neornamentuotų kastuvėlių (2:2, 4, 5:2, 7:2, 8:2 pav.).
Rankenėlės įvairios (2:1, 3, 3:1, 4:1, 2, 6:2, 9:2,
12:4 pav. ). Kai kurių dirbinių rankenėlių galuose išgręžtos skylutės, todėl galima prielaida, kad jie buvo
nešiojami ant kaklo (5:1, 11:1, 13:1 pav.).
Gerai išlikusių kastuvėlių ilgis yra 7–9 cm, jų ašmenų
plotis 1,6–2,5 cm. Pagaminti iš ilgųjų gyvūnų kaulų,
dažniausiai iš arklių ir galvijų čiurnų kaulų. Mažesnieji
drožti iš šonkaulių. Latvijoje šie dirbiniai taip pat dažniausiai gaminti iš ilgųjų kaulų. Šonkauliai naudoti retai (2 lent.). Labai retai maži kauliniai kastuvėliai daryti iš eršketo (Acipenser sturio) žvynų (18 pav.). Vienas
Istorijos instituto konservatorius J. Ratas pagamino
vieno iš kastuvėlių kopiją. Darbas truko 25 valandas.
Žinoma, įgudę meistrai tokį dirbinį pagamindavo greičiau.
BALTICA 6
Kokie įrankiai buvo naudojami kaulams apdirbti, geriausiai galima pamatyti tyrinėjant dirbinių nuolaužas
ir nebaigtus gaminti daiktus. Užbaigti dirbiniai yra
kruopščiai nupoliruoti ir jų paviršiuje įrankių paliktų
pėdsakų nematyti. Išilginiam kaulo perskėlimui naudoti kirvis, kaltas ir kūjelis. Pagrindinis įrankis kauliniams kastuvėliams gaminti, be abejonės, buvo peilis.
Kartais naudotos ir dildės. Jų palikti pėdsakai matyti
ant dirbinių paviršių (5:2 pav.). Galutiniam daikto poliravimui naudoti ir smėlis, oda, pelenai bei kreida.
ARCHAELOGIA
iš jų nebaigtas gaminti (15 pav.). Tai įrodo, kad jie taip
pat gaminti vietoje.
Kam buvo naudojami maži kauliniai kastuvėliai? Dažnai jie skiriami kabučiams, tačiau tik dalis galėjo turėti
tokią paskirtį. Greičiausiai jie buvo skirti kosmetikos
ar tualeto reikmenims, pavyzdžiui, pleiskanoms pašalinti, taip pat galėjo būti naudojami ir balzamui ant
odos tepti. Kas juos naudojo? Apie tai, kokios lyties ir
amžiaus gyventojai kastuvėlius naudojo, galima spręsti iš kapuose rastų šių dirbinių. Tačiau kapuose jų rasta
nedaug. Tai jaunų vyrų ir mažų vaikų kapai. Daugiausia kaulinių kastuvėlių aptikta piliakalnių kultūriniuose
sluoksniuose, kurie tuo metu buvo politiniai regionų
centrai. Daugelis jų minimi Henriko Latvio Livonijos
kronikoje. Turtingas žalvarinių ir sidabrinių daiktų lobis su 4 kauliniais kastuvėliais, aptiktas Savastverėje
(Savastvarė), priklausė turtingai moteriai. Taip pat
dviejuose turtinguose kapuose kastuvėliai rasti ir Pados kapinyne.
Maži kauliniai kastuvėliai buvo paplitę žemyninėje
Estijoje ir Dauguvos lyvių teritorijoje Latvijoje. Ruošiniai ir nebaigti gaminti tokie dirbiniai rodo jų vietinę
kilmę. Dar negalima kalbėti apie tai, kad juos gaminti
specializavosi atskiri meistrai. To daryti neleidžia dabar turima šaltinių bazė.
125
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
Some Notes on Curonian
Wo m e n ’s B e a d S e t s w i t h B r o n z e
Spacer Plates in their Headbands, Headdresses Made of
C l o t h a n d U n a c c o u n t a b l e Wa r e
d u r i n g t h e Vi k i n g A g e a n d E a r l y
M e d i e v a l Ti m e s
S o me N o tes o n C u r o n i an W o men ’ s B ea d
S ets w i th B r o n z e S pace r P l ates i n the i r
H ea d ban d s , H ea d d r esses M a d e o f C l o th
an d U nacc o untab l e Wa r e d u r i n g
the V i k i n g A g e an d E a r ly M e d i eva l T i mes
AudronĖ BliujienĖ
Abstract
Curonian women’s bead sets with bronze spacer plates or pectoral ornaments, headbands, headdresses made of cloth, caps
adorned with metal spirals and unaccountable ware from the Viking Age and early medieval times in a lot of cases are not
correctly interpreted. Some of the Curonian ornaments investigated in this article have good parallels in Livonian, Gotlandic
and Scandinavian material and material from Finland. At the same time, bead sets with spacer plates both in Gotland and in
Curonia were an outcome of the rivalry between Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire in designing symbols of power
and prestige.
Key words: bead set, spacer plate, pectoral ornament, headband, headdress, unaccountable ware.
S o m e n o t e s o n C u r o n i a n w o m e n ’s
headdress
It seems that Curonian culture is one of the best known
of its kind researched by scholars. However, some aspects of Curonian culture based on inaccurate assumptions are interpreted wrongly. This has happened with
Curonian headdresses, to which have been attributed
even bead sets composed of bronze spacer plates and
monochromic and multicoloured glass and bronze
beads. The same has happened with unknown designed
cloth headdresses and ware with clasps. The problem
occurred because different research classifies identical objects as different artefacts. Another part of this
problem developed out of objective conditions, such
as unpublished material of Curonian cemeteries, the
poor survival of artefacts even during excavations, or
the fragmentation of artefacts in the storage of museums. Furthermore, littoral soil creates bad conditions
for the preservation of all sorts of organic material
(bone, cloth, leather). These aspects do not promote
the positive analysis of material. The appearance and
development of the custom of cremation also aggravates research into these ornaments. Similarly, without quoting simultaneous analogies from the Eastern
Baltic region, Scandinavia, Gotland, Finland and other
countries, the wrong conclusions about some culture
features of Curonian culture are reached.
126
Metal clasps of the Curonians’ prede c e s s o r s i n We s t e r n L i t h u a n i a n S t o n e
Circle Grave Culture
For centuries, both married women and young girls
of Baltic tribes covered their hair. Women wore hemispherical caps in the Western Lithuanian Stone Circle
Grave Culture, the Nemunas delta region and central Lithuania from the end of the second century till
the middle of the fourth century (phase B2/C1–C3)
(Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1959: 32–33, Figs. 2–3;
Jovaiša 1992: 97; Kačkutė 1995: 14). These caps were
fastened with cloth with tiny bronze bobbles with legs,
of a specific design.
At the same time, headbands designed with tiny bronze
bobbles fastened by leather or cloth were common to
women’s garments of Western Lithuanian Stone Circle
Grave Culture (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1959: 45–46,
Fig. 19; Kačkutė 1995: 15–18). Some such headbands
were adorned with double flat spirals.
To the headbands were attributed artefacts made from
four to seven leather strips, with bronze staples and
joined to two bronze clasps (Fig. 1: 1) (Bezzenberger
1892: 153, 160–161, Tafel: VIII: 15; Šturms 1942;
Stankus 1995: 39–40, Fig. 33; Banytė-Rowell 2001:
Fig. 25). Most of the headbands with clasps are too
fragmented, and it is impossible to reconstruct the ornament or even to describe them as headbands (Stankus
1995: Fig. 33). It should be mentioned that headbands
with clasps are concentrated between the left bank of
the middle reaches of the River Minija and the vicinity
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Unaccountable ware: 1 Baitai cemetery, grave 37; 2 Palanga, grave 20; 3 Palanga, grave 108; 4 Laiviai, stray find
(LNM AR 2: 31–32); 5 Palanga, grave 90; 6 Laiviai, grave 15; 7 Palanga, grave 100 (1–5 bronze, leather, birch bark;
6 bronze, leather, birch bark, silver plate; 7 bronze, leather, birch bark, cloth; 1 - after Banytė-Rowell, 2001, Fig. 25; 2–7
LNM AR. Drawings by Audronė Ruzienė).
127
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
Fig. 2.
Aukštkiemiai
(formerly Oberhof, Klaipėda
district), grave
202:1–4, 5
armlet, and
grave 388:6–7
(photograph from
VDKM archive,
no scale)
of Klaipėda. An exception to this distribution is only
the headband found at Mazkatuži (Liepāja district,
Latvia). However, bronze clasps produced from two
rectangular bronze plates similar to clasps are attributed as headbands, belts, amrings and garment clasps
at the same time (Bezzenberger 1892: 153, 160–161,
Tafel: VIII: 15; Stankus 1995: 63, Fig. 55: 13–14).
To the specific armlet might be ascribed ornaments
made from two or four leather strips and embraced
with bronze staples, and in the front part joined with
a round clasp similar to the decoration of box-shaped
neck-rings (Fig. 2:5). Such ornaments have been found
only at Lazdininkai (Kalnalaukis, grave 81/2003) and
Aukštkiemiai (formerly Oberhof, Klaipėda district,
grave 202) (Butkus, Kanarskas 2005: 118–119; MVF
archive; photograph of Aukštkiemiai cemetery, graves
202 and 388, from VDKM archive). The armlet from
Aukštkiemiai has not survived, and the headband (?)
from Lazdininkai (Kalnalaukis) was found to have disintegrated. Therefore, it is difficult to judge their real
purpose.
It might be that all the artefacts mentioned above were
pieces of headbands which women of the Western
Baitai (Klaipėda district, grave 37), Bandužiai (Klaipėda
district, in graves 63 and 85 only rectangular bronze clasps
were found), Mazkatuži (Liepāja district, grave 5), Šernai
(Klaipėda district, graves 24 and 72). Artefacts found in
the Šernai cemetery by Adalbert Bezzenberger are ascribed
as parts of belt clasps (grave 24) or details of a headband
(grave 72) (Bezzenberger 1892: 153, 160–161, Tafel: VIII:
15).
128
Lithuanian Stone Circle Grave Culture wore from the
end of the second century till the middle of the fourth
century (phases B1/C2–C3). However, for the moment
there is not enough data to argue that headbands with
rectangular clasps in a certain way came into the Curonian culture of the seventh to ninth centuries (Figs.
1: 2–7; 3: 2).
Bead sets with bronze spacer plates or
headbands of Curonian women?
Several Curonian women’s bead sets with bronze
spacer plates are attributed as headbands, while other
ornaments strung with the same accessories (spacer
plates and different sorts of beads), after more than 50
years of intensive investigations into Curonian culture,
are considered to be pectoral ornaments (Figs. 4–6)
(Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1959: 48–49; 1986: 146–147;
1997: 39–40, Fig. 31; Kuncienė 1981: 78; Bliujienė
2001: 235–242, Figs. 2–4). Therefore, the problem of
confusing the same ornament originates from several
different reasons. Firstly, ornaments with spacer plates
and different beads appeared in Curonia during the
Late Viking Age, when the Curonians developed cremation burial customs. Only a few ornaments strung
with bronze spacer plates and beads have been found
in late inhumation graves. In these cases, ornaments
strung with bronze spacer plates and different beads
were found on the breast or on the nape of the deceased
women (Valatka 1956; 2004: 56–59; LAB 1961: Fig.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 3. Lazdininkai cemetery (Kalnalaukis, Kretinga district) inhumation woman’s grave 72/2000 (1 clay; 2 bronze, leather,
birch bark; 3 silver, bronze, silver plate, blue glass; 4 bronze, iron, silver plate, blue glass; 5 silver; 6 bronze, silver plate,
blue glass; 7 bronze, birch bark; 8 amber; 9 iron; drawing by Virgilijus Truklickas)
129
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
Fig. 4. Pectoral ornament
or bead set from Bandužiai
cemetery, cremation burial
43a (MLIM, bronze, glass;
photograph by Mindaugas
Brazauskas)
270; LLM 1958: Fig. 415). However, it is difficult to
establish exactly how such ornaments were located
on the bodies of deceased women even in inhumation
graves, because in the coastal cemeteries skeletons and
other organic materials have disappeared. Most of the
bead sets are found in a disintegrated state. Therefore,
the position of the artefact in the grave provides few
clues in discussing the original placement of the ornaments. Consequently, at Siraičiai grave 7(18) and
Gintališkė grave 5 fashionable bead sets or pectoral ornaments strung with bronze spacer plates and different
beads were found.
A hemispherical cap adorned with bronze spirals and
fixed to the deceased woman’s hair with two different
headdress pins and a fashionable bead set with seven
bronze spacer plates were found at the Siraičiai cemetery in the inhumation grave 7(18). This is obvious
from the report of the researcher Vitas Valatka (Valatka 1956; 2004: 56–59). A similar pectoral ornament
was found at the Bandužiai cemetery in a woman’s
cremation burial 43A (Fig. 4). The bead set was found
on the nape of the deceased woman at Siraičiai. This
ornament was 23 centimetres in length and has seven
bronze spacer plates 5.8 centimetres wide. Each of the
bronze spacer plates has 12 small holes; a bronze wire
was threaded through these holes, and about five hundred small black and white glass beads (with a diameter of 0.4 centimetres) were strung on the bronze wire
(Valatka 1956; 2004: 56–59).
130
One more fashionable bead set or pectoral ornament
and hemispherical cap adorned with bronze spirals were
found in the richly equipped female (girl’s) grave 5 at
the Gintališkė cemetery (Plungė district). The bead set
was found on the breast of the deceased person in an extended position (Baleniūnas 1940: 14–17; LAB 1961:
Fig. 270; LLM 1958: Fig. 415). This fashionable pectoral ornament was strung from two rectangular-shaped
bronze spacer plates, 42 blue, whitish and yellow glass
beads and bronze spirals. All the parts of this bead set
were strung in five rows (Baleniūnas 1940: 14–17). A
bronze neck ring and necklace strung with 35 glass and
bronze beads were found on the deceased girl’s neck
(Baleniūnas 1940: 14; LLM 1958: Figs. 362, 415).
There was a reason to put fashionable pectoral jewellery on the girl’s breast. The importance of the bead set
was emphasised in this act at the same time.
Vladas Nagevičius has written about the “garland of
bronze spirals” from the first Pryšmančiai cemetery
(Nagevičius 1935: 62). However, he did not indicate
the circumstances of the finding of this artefact, and just
mentioned that a “garland of bronze spirals” was found
during his previous excavations in 1909, and that this
item is similar to the artefact from the male grave 65
(Nagevičius 1935: 51, 84, Tables I: 4, VII: 1). It might
be that the cap adorned with ten rows of spirals was
found in the male inhumation grave 65. On the other
hand, it might be that an elaborate but typical Curonian
men’s belt set with pendants was enclosed in this grave
beside the deceased man’s head (Nagevičius 1935:
26–27, 61, tab. VII: 1). The artefact written about by
Nagevičius in 1958 was somehow reconstructed as a
female “headband” (LLM 1958: 332, Figs. 359–360).
This reconstruction of a “headband” or “garland of
bronze spirals” has no clasp or other possibility to be
fastened to the hair, cap or cloth headdress, because all
the parts of it are not joined into one piece.
A few bead sets or ornaments with bronze spacer plates
were found in “specific graves” and perhaps collective
cremations, or are known as a stray finds (Lekemė village, Plungė district) (Butėnienė 1959: 164; VolkaitėKulikauskienė 1959: 48–49, Fig. 21; Valatka 2004: 73).
This artefact is in the LNM (LNM AR 3: 59).
The pectoral ornament came to the Alka Museum in Telšiai
from the private collection of Lapinskas (from Lekemė village).
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 5. Bronze spacer plates of Curonian bead sets: 1–3 Pryšmančiai I: KM without inventory numbers; 4 Klaišiai (Truikiai), stray find; 5 Lazdininkai (Kalnalaukis), cremation burial 179/1976 (1–2, 4–5 bronze; 3 bronze covered by tin; 1–3, 5
drawings by Virgilijus Truklickas, 4 after Dakanis, 1983)
As mentioned above, only a few intact well-preserved
examples of bead sets with bronze spacer plates are
known in the area inhabited by the Curonians. However, even these bead sets with bronze spacer plates
with clear enough finding circumstances provoked the
rise of a myth about Curonian “headbands” (VolkaitėKulikauskienė 1959: 48–49, Fig. 21; 1970: 123–128;
1987: 189, Fig. 30, 2001: 128–130).
The residual part of the Curonian bead sets with bronze
spacer plates or just the constituent parts of spacer plates
were found in cremation graves of the tenth to the 12th
centuries, or are known as stray finds (Figs. 4–6). Bead
sets or pectoral ornaments are found in small piles together with other grave goods (Bandužiai, Klaipėda
district, grave 43a). Sometimes broken, burned, but
mostly unburned grave goods are in disorder, scattered
all over the grave pit in Curonian cremation burials
(Girkaliai, grave 24; Kretinga, graves 6 and 34; Palanga, grave 198; Slengiai, graves 23 and 25). Sometimes bronze spacer plates as additional grave goods
are found in birch bark boxes (Kiauleikiai, grave
10/1985) (Šimėnas 1984). Therefore, it is possible to
make a reconstruction of the set as a fashionable pec-
131
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
Fig. 6. Bead set and dress pins from the Palanga cemetery, cremation burial 198 (reconstruction) (bronze, glass, opaque
past; drawing by Audronė Ruzienė; reconstruction Audronė Bliujienė)
toral ornament, actually applying to the cremation and
inhumation burial context, and analogous with Scandinavia, Gotland, Finland and other regions of the eastern
Baltic zone (Fig. 7). There is insufficient data to support
the assumption that Curonian women wore headbands.
Judging from the distribution of complete artefacts and
single spacer plates, fashionable pectoral jewellery with
bronze spacer plates, multicoloured glass and bronze
beads, as well as bronze spirals, were popular enough
ornaments in southern Curonian lands.
Curonian bead sets with bronze spacer
plate distribution and chronology
Bead sets with bronze spacer plates or fashionable pectoral ornaments have been found in burials with elaborated grave goods. These pectoral ornaments are known
only from the Curonian territory around Klaipėda in
the south to Talsi in the north. Women of the other
Bandužiai cremation burial 43a; Ėgliškiai-Anduliai
(former Anduln, Kretinga district, stray finds; MVF I
a 829k, 2377, 2378, 2949, 3506), Genčai the 1st cemetery (Kretinga district; stray find LNM AR 694: 1899),
Gintališkė (Plungë district; inhumation grave 5), Girkaliai
(Klaipėda district; cremation burials 17, 23 and stray find
LMIM inv. no. 4412), Kiauleikiai (stray find LNM AR 4:
391), Klaišiai–Truikiniai (Skuodas district; stray find),
Kretinga (cremation burials 6 and 34), Laiviai (Kretinga
district; graves 43 and 198), Lazdininkai (Kalnalaukis)
Kretinga district; graves 61, 73, 126 and 179), Lekemė
(Plungė district; stray find TAM inv. 4491); Palanga (cremation burials 67, 198, 271 and stray finds LNM AR 396:
2762, 2764, 2839), Pryšmančiai the 1st cemetery (Kretinga district; KM stray finds without inv. no.), Ramučiai
(Klaipėda district; grave 213), Siraičiai (Telšiai district;
inhumation grave 7 (18)) and Slengiai (Klaipėda district;
cremation burials 23 and 25) cemeteries, Vilkumuiža Lake
(Talsi region Latvia; LVM PV 12380, 12 386).
132
Baltic tribes did not have such fashionable pectoral ornaments designed from glass or bronze beads, bronze
spirals and bronze spacer plates.
Curonian women probably wore bead sets from the end
of the ninth century, but most finds probably belong
to between the tenth and 11th centuries (LAB 1961:
454–455; Bliujienė 2001: 240). It might be that bead
sets with bronze spacer plates were used into the 12th
century and the first half of the 13th century, as they are
combined with penannular brooches with star-shaped
terminals and bracelets with animal terminals in grave
complexes (Vaitkunskienė 1978: 54–55, 97–101, maps
34: 4; 58).
The design of Curonian bead sets with
bronze spacer plates
An exceptional element of Curonian bead sets and pectoral ornaments are bronze spacers (Figs. 4–6). Bead
sets contain from two to ten ornamented spacer plates
(Figs. 4; 6). Bronze spacer plates are of two types: “T”
shaped (Fig. 5: 3, 5; 5) and rectangular shaped (Fig. 5:
1–2, 4; 4). The length of both spacer types of plates is
usually five to seven centimetres, and the width only
0.5 to 0.8 centimetres. Just a few spacer plates are ten
centimetres or 3.2 to 3.5 centimetres in length (Fig.
5: 2, 4). It should be pointed out that most Curonian
spacer plates are straight. Curonian spacer plates are
exclusively decorated in geometrical patterns (Figs.
4–5). A layer of white metal covers some of the spacer
plates. The layer of white metal in most cases is tin
(Bliujienė 2001: 240).
In the third group of Curonian bead sets with spacer
plates are necklaces of which the construction is not
clear, and which in most cases are known only as separate bronze spacer plates (Fig. 5).
Fig. 7. Round openwork silver pendant from Aska, Hagebyhöga in Östergötland (Sweden), c 800. Diameter 3 cm,
enlarged (after B. Arrhenius, 2001, Fig. 5)
Fashionable Curonian bead sets with spacer plates
had to cover a woman’s breast as a pectoral ornament
(Figs. 4, 6). In most cases, it is impossible to say how
pectoral ornaments were terminated and how they
were fastened to the woman’s garment. Where leather
strips and spirals terminated some of the bead sets,
probably the leather strips were tied on to the nape of
the woman’s neck. It might be that most of the pectoral ornaments in which fine bronze wire was used as
the thread terminated in eyeholes directly fastened into
the garment cloth (Bandužiai, burial 43a). Two small
bronze pins with spiral heads were found at Palanga
cremation burial 198. It might be that pins untypical
of the Curonians fastened the pectoral ornament to the
garment (Fig. 6).
The typology of Curonian bead sets
with bronze spacer plates
Curonian bead sets with bronze spacer plates are strung
in a different ways. It is possible to divide them into
three groups. To the first group belong bead sets which
have six to ten bronze spacer plates and small whitish,
black, blue glass beads or beads of glass paste. Most
beads are ball or barrel shaped, only 0.4 to 0.6 centimetres in diameter. These small beads were strung on fine
bronze wire using bronze spacer plates. Pectoral ornaments of this group have 330 to 350, or even 500, small
glass beads. Only three bead sets belongs to the first
group (Bandužiai, grave 43a, Siraičiai, grave 7(18) and
a stray find from the village of Lekemė (Fig. 4).
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Bead sets with two bronze spacer plates with different
amounts of monochrome and multicoloured glass and
bronze beads, as well as spirals, might be ascribed to
the second group. Amber beads are not included in Curonian bead sets with bronze spacer plates or pectoral
ornaments, except grave 34 at the Kretinga cemetery.
Sets of the second group are strung in such a way that
the beads are in the centre of the ornament. These sets
ended with bronze spirals. Such necklaces have been
found at Gintališkė (grave 5), Girkaliai (grave 24) and
Palanga (grave 198) cemeteries (Fig. 6).
Curonian bead sets with bronze spacer
plates and parallels with the eastern
Baltic region and Scandinavia
Similar bronze spacer plates are known from the territories inhabited by the Livonians (Daugmale, Martinsala, Rauši, Krimulda; Lauskola–Salaspils, Rīga
district) from cemeteries from the middle of the tenth
to the middle of the 11th centuries, or even the middle
of the 12th century (Thunmark-Nylén 1992: 109–11;
Les Vikings 1993: 294). The bronze spacer plates found
in Latvia are a bit bent and decorated with simple
geometrical designs imitating impressed foil. Spacer
plates similar to the Curonian ones have been found
in Gruobina, Latvia (Nerman 1958: Tafel 2: 14, 19:
105). Necklaces with bronze “T” shaped spacer plates
are found in Finland at the Luistari cemetery in Eura
(grave 1260) and at the Anivehmaanmäki cemetery
(Ranta 1999: 72, Fig. 1). The spacer plates found in
Finland are very similar to the Curonian ones as well.
At the Luistari cemetery grave 1260, bead sets were
found which are very similar to Curonian pectoral ornaments with spacer plates of the second group. The
bead sets found in Finland belong to the Middle and
the Late Viking Age (Ranta 1999: 72).
Bead sets with “T” shaped bronze spacer plates are
characteristic of Gotland in the Vendel Period (750–
800) (Nerman 1969: Tafel 285: 2263–2269). Such
spacer plates are known from the mainland of Scandinavia. Several bead sets with spacer plates have been
found in Zealand and Bornholm (Kyndby, Nørre Sandegård). These pectoral ornaments are terminated with
openwork spacer plates (Gaimster 1998: Fig. 165: 2–
3). Viking Age mainlanders ceased using bead spacers,
but Gotland women went on using them and developed
them into large and richly decorated pectoral ornaments
133
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
134
(Thunmark-Nylén 2000: 176). Gotlandic and Curonian
bead sets are composed of the same elements: straight
spacer plates, and monochrome and multicoloured
glass beads (Thunmark-Nylén 1995: Abb. 47, 173b: 1,
179b: 8, 192b: 15, 241: 6; 1998: Tafel 161: 14). The
bead sets of Gotland women were completed with
two spacer plates. However, Gotlandic bead sets are
more elaborate, they were strung with opaque paste,
tinted glass, limestone and rock crystal beads, and
often enough these pectoral ornaments were adorned
with bracteates, fish head and other pendants. Several
spacer plates are decorated in Scandinavian styles of
the Viking Period (Thunmark-Nylén 1995: Abb. 49a:
5, 166b: 13, 207b: 16; 1998: Tafel 161: 1–14). The
decoration of Curonian spacer plates is less sophisticated, because Baltic parts of pectoral ornaments were
decorated only with geometrical patterns (Figs. 4–6).
The latest bead sets on Gotland came from graves from
the second half of the tenth century (Thunmark-Nylén
1992: 111–112).
depicted on a round openwork silver pendant from
Aska, Hagebyhöga in Östergötland (Sweden). This
pendant was found in the very rich grave of the socalled “Lady of Aska” (Fig. 7). The round openwork
cast pendant gives a remarkably detailed picture of a
woman with clasped hands, a dress with horizontal
stripes on its lower part, and a mantle hanging down
on each side. The hemispherical cap of the “Lady of
Aska” might be similar to Curonian women’s caps.
The type of fibula and bead set depicted on the pendant went out of fashion at the beginning of the Viking Age, or even earlier, in all of Scandinavia except
Gotland. The funeral of the “Lady of Aska” took place
in the middle of the tenth century. In the grave a lot of
perhaps inherited jewellery (berlok-shaped, lozengeshaped and round silver pendants) was found. It might
be that on the round openwork pendant from Aska a
pregnant goddess Freyja is depicted (Arrhenius 2001:
306–307, Fig. 5).
Bead sets with spacer plates spread across the south Curonian territory in the tenth and 11th centuries. During
this period, the Curonians held the most comprehensive
relationship with Gotland. These circumstances allow
us to suggest that Gotlandic pectoral ornaments of the
Late Viking Age inspired Curonian bead sets. Also,
it should be mentioned that local jewellers produced
Curonian bead sets with bronze spacer plates. Monochrome and multicoloured glass beads were imported
by Curonia from the east (Syria and Byzantine), from
Kievan Russia and the western Slavic lands. Glass producing centres were in Wolin (Poland) (Kuncienė 1981:
86–87). Glass beads were imported from the continent
by Scandinavia or produced on the basis of imported
raw material at the Viking centres such as Hedeby, and
perhaps Ribe and Birka (Calmer 1977: 165). Some of
the glass beads might have come from Western Europe
through Scandinavia (Мугуревич 1965: 76). It is possible that notched blue glass beads were produced in the
Baltic lands (Moora 1938: 365; Kuncienė 1981: 86).
C u r o n i a n w o m e n ’s c a p s a n d o t h e r
headdresses made of cloth
However, bead sets with spacer plates, both in Gotland
and in Curonia, were an outcome of the rivalry between Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire
in designing symbols of power and prestige. Elaborate bead sets or pectoral ornaments appeared under
Byzantine influence, and were adapted to adorn the
costumes of wealthy German ladies on the continent
(Gaimster 1998: 242–243). Elaborate pectoral jewellery was worn by Frankish queens, as depicted on the
shroud of Queen Balthilde (d. circa 680). It is a great
pity that in Baltic prehistoric applied art, no figurative
styles formed. Therefore, parallels with Scandinavia
are useful. Women wearing a huge garnet brooch and
a fashionable pectoral ornament with spacer plates are
The iconography of the pendant of the “Lady of Aska”
is a useful parallel for making a comparison with Curonian archaeological material. The “Lady of Aska” pendant is a good indication that Curonian women wore
similar hemispherical caps. Curonian women also used
to wear some sort of kerchiefs and other cloth headdresses of an indistinct shape (Genčai, the first cemetery, inhumation grave 21) (Tautavičius 1970: 112;
1996: 173). The inference of such a conclusion is possible because sometimes some patches of cloth are
found beside the deceased’s heads.
Shreds of caps adorned with spirals were found in several southern Curonian cemeteries in women’s inhumation graves. Similar caps adorned with bronze spirals have been found in Curonian men’s graves as well
(Pryšmančiai, the first cemetery, inhumation grave
65) (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1997: Fig. 52). The caps
were adorned with rows of bronze spirals attached in
a special order to a cap at the front of the headdress.
Sometimes bronze spirals terminated with bronze
chains, and one or two amber beads terminated these
bronze chains (Palanga, graves 11, 104, 119 and 142)
(Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1964: 49, Fig. 10). Specially
designed bronze pins or crossbow brooches decorated
Genčai, the 1st cemetery, Kretinga district, inhumation graves 11, 36, 46, 60, 67, 76, 93, 95, 171 and 230;
Gintališkė, Plungė district, inhumation graves 5, 7, 14 and
20; Kiauleikiai, Kretinga district, inhumation grave 1/1984;
Palanga, inhumation graves 11, 104, 114c, 119, 142 and
144; Siraičiai, Telšiai district, inhumation grave 7(18).
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 8. Curonian women’s headdress fasteners: 1, 3 Genčai 1st cemetery, grave 93; 2 Gintališkė, stray find; 4 Palanga, grave
100; 5 Genčai 1st cemetery, grave 130 (1, 3, 5 bronze, covered with white metal plates, blue glass; 2 bronze, blue glass,
4 bronze covered with white metal, rivets; drawings by Virgilijus Truklickas)
135
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
with ringlets fastened the caps to the hair (Figs. 3: 3; 8).
Frequently, one or even two headdress pins have been
found close to the deceased women’s heads in graves
from the eighth to the 12th centuries (Kuncienė 1978:
9–10, map. 4; Tautavičius 1996: 172–173). Such pins
have been found on the right side of women’s heads
as mentioned by a couple of researchers (VolkaitėKulikauskienė 1997: 40).
C u r o n i a n w o m e n ’s w i m p l e
(nuometas): myth or reality?
In Lithuanian historiography the opinion dominates
that Curonian headdresses were very similar to the
Lithuanian “wimple” (nuometas) during the Viking
Age and early medieval times (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė
1964: 41–52; 1970:123–126, Fig. 14–15; 1997: 40–43,
Fig. 33; Vaitkunskienė 1981: 22–23, Fig. 6; Bliujienė
1995: 42, Fig. 2; 1997: Fig. 1: 2; 1999: Table 9; Žulkus
2005: Fig. 54). Moreover, Curonian women’s “headbands” are linked with a young girl’s headdresses;
wimples are attributed to Curonian women’s headdress
(Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, 1964: 46–50, Fig. 6, 8, 10;
1970: 126; 1986: 156–168; 2001: 128–130). However,
there is no indication that Curonian women wore metal
headbands or wimples made from cloth during the Viking period and early Viking times. Wimples have been
reconstructed based on the finds in Palanga cemetery
graves 30, 70, 147 and Siraičiai cemetery grave 7(18)
(Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1964: 41–52; 1970: 123–126;
1997: 40–42). However, the grave plans and the location of the grave goods in the mentioned burials do not
support such conclusions. There is no information for
the reconstruction of a headdress based on the material
mentioned. The report, plans and archaeological material of excavations at Palanga cemetery do not give any
grounds for the reconstruction of wimples (Tautavičius
1962; 1970: 113–114). In grave 147 at Palanga cemetery, near the deceased woman’s head, two bronze pins
were found, and in the space beside the head 221 small
blue glass beads were located. There is no information
to see these beads as “white linen wimple” (detailing Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1970: 123, Fig. 15; 1997:
40). Glass beads are typical additional Curonian grave
goods, mostly found over the head or close to the head
of the deceased, sometimes in boxes of birch bark.
There is no information about white linen cloth woven with two heddles in the graves mentioned above of
the Palanga cemetery (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1997:
40–41). There is no data for a wimple’s reconstruction
Genčai, the 1st cemetery, inhumation graves 11, 46, 60,
76, 93 and 171; Kiauleikiai, inhumation grave 1/1998; Palanga, inhumation graves 114c, 119 and 142.
Information from Elvyra Pečeliūnaitė-Bazienė, a research
136
in the other graves of the Palanga cemetery, or in the
other Curonian burial grounds of the Viking period and
early medieval times.
It might be that the headdress of Curonian women was
similar to that worn by other European women of the
period. European women’s headdresses made of a piece
of cloth are well enough known from manuscripts, illuminations, effigies in stone or wood and other sources
(Baltrušaitis 1948: 77–78; Hook, Macgregor 1997: 50–
52, Fig. 67). However, European women’s headdress is
not the same as wimples, as we know from Lithuanian
archaeological literature (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė1964:
41–52; 1970:123–126, Fig. 14–15; 1997: 40–43, Fig.
33; Vaitkunskienė 1981: 22–23, Fig. 6; Bliujienė 1995:
42, Fig. 2; 1997: Fig. 1: 2; 1999: Table 9; Žulkus 2005:
Fig. 54).
Hans Adelhauser and Cesare Vecello were the first to
publish a depiction of garments and Gardin residents at
the end of the 16th century (Reklaitis 1999a: 171–180).
Women from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are depicted with caps, or their heads are wound with a round
piece of cloth in the shape of a turban in the publications of the authors mentioned (Reklaitis 1999 a: Fig.
3, 5, 9, 11). The turban was introduced to the garments
of Europeans through the adventures in Palestine in
the 11th century (Guzevičiūtė 1995: 40). In the European fashion, a turban-like headdress was called a barbette, and was in use from the 12th to the 15th century
(Guzevičiūtė 1995: 40–44).
Wimples (nuometas) are mentioned in written sources
only from the 16th and the 17th centuries (LEB 1964:
363–365; Bernotienė 1974: VI). Instead of a wimple,
married women wore a sort of headdress of white linen
several metres long, which was of eastern origin, but
also adopted in Europe in the 19th century (Baltrušaitis
1948: 77–78). There is no information about wimples
in peasants’ garments from ancient Prussia in the 17th
to 19th centuries (Reklaitis 1999b: 323–340). Ethnographic information about women’s headdresses made
of cloth (linik, linkainis, nâmatas, namiotka, namitka,
ubrus) from Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine is
very late and comes only from the 17th century and
even the second half of the 18th century (Калашникова
1986: 112–132; Лаул 1986: 190–207; Зарина 1986:
172–189).
It should be emphasised that in Lithuania wimples were
worn only in the eastern part. These facts are quite well
documented by ethnographic sources. There is only
er of archaeological textiles, to whom I owe my sincere
gratitude.
Information from Dalia Bernotaitė, curator of the textiles
collection at the LDM, to whom I owe my thanks for sharing useful information.
U n a c c o u n t a b l e w a r e f r o m w o m e n ’s
graves in coastal cemeteries of the
seventh to ninth centuries
Artefacts of an unknown purpose or unaccountable
ware are found around deceased women’s heads10 in
the southern Curonian lands (Fig. 9). The unaccountable ware consists of several leather strips, double
rectangular bronze plates with clasps and birch bark
(Figs. 1: 2; 3: 2). The leather strips, of 0.5 centimetres in width, fully covered with bronze staples, are the
main part of this item. Both ends of each leather strip
are joined to bronze rectangular double plates (Figs. 1:
2; 3: 2). The bronze plates are covered with a layer of
white metal or plate. These plates are adorned with two
or three rows of bronze rivets (Fig. 1). The heads of the
rivets are mostly in the shape of a semicircle. The unaccountable ware has distinctive clasps. On one bronze
plate are two holes, on another plate are two hooks.
The hooks are always on the back of the bronze plates.
Unaccountable ware is only one type of Curonian artefact which has such clasps. Unaccountable ware is covered with birch bark inside. Only a little unaccountable
ware without birch bark inside is known. The artefacts
of an unknown purpose or unaccountable ware have a
diameter of 4.5 to six centimetres, and are only four to
4.5 centimetres in height.
Unaccountable ware was widespread in the southern
Curonian lands from the seventh to the ninth century
(Fig. 1: 2–7)11. However, artefacts such as parts of head D. Bernotaitė.
Except man’s grave 17/1948 from the Laiviai cemetery.
11
Ėgliškiai-Anduliai (Kretinga district, graves 262, 271, 388,
410 and 477, the exact number of artefacts is not clear. The
archive is at the MVF; part of the material was at the Prussia Museum and in the museum at Insteburg; ZAI, 1905,
Tafel: XI: 1), Genčai 1st cemetery (graves 159, 195, 206,
207, 232, 233, 236, 254, 259 and loose finds), Kašučiai
(Kretinga district, graves 4, 8, 12, 13? and 20), Kiauleikiai (Kretinga district, graves 17, 19 and 10/1985), Laistai
(Klaipėda region, grave 55, exact number of artefacts is
not clear), Laiviai (graves 18, 33, 43, 57, 67 and 15/1949,
17/1949) Lazdininkai (Kalnalaukis), grave 64/1980, grave
72/2000), Palanga, graves 20, 48, 34a, 92, 100, 108, 112?,
113?, 123?, 142, 143, 162? 327 and 334), Pryšmančiai,
1st cemetery (grave 67/1987) and Užpelkiai, grave 73. A
catalogue of unaccountable artefacts cannot be precise for
the moment, because material from Curonian cemeteries at
10
BALTICA 6
bands, armlets or belt clasps are known in graves from
the end of the second till the middle of the fourth century, as mentioned above (Fig. 1: 1; 2:5) (Bezzenberger, 1892: Tafel: VIII: 15; Šturms 1942; Stankus 1995:
38–39, Fig. 22, 28, 33; Banytė-Rowell 2001: Fig. 25).
The construction of the clasps and material from which
unaccountable ware was made in the Roman Iron Age
and in the Late Migration Period/the Viking Age is the
same, and this fact is amazing (Figs. 1: 1–7; 2:5; 3: 2).
The construction of unaccountable ware is similar to
Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian clasps of class B, form
B7 (Hines 1993: 39–41). Clasps were adopted in England as part of a female costume in which they were
used only as wrist-clasps. In Scandinavia, clasps of
class B were found in men’s graves, and were used to
fasten the trouser-legs between the knee and the ankle
(Hines 1993: 76–82). There are only two examples of
clasps being used for headdresses, one clasp was found
under the chin. In general, clasps of class B were widespread in Scandinavia, on Gotland, Anglo-Saxon England and even in Finland and Estonia during the second
to the sixth centuries (Hines 1993: 39–41, Fig. 78: a).
ARCHAELOGIA
one very late ethnographic wimple known in the western areas. A similar wimple comes from around Rucava
(Latvia) (Girnis 1926: Fig. 3). It should be mentioned
that knots in wimples are tied on the left side or the
back. In Curonian women’s graves, bronze head pins
and brooches are mostly found on the right-hand side
or over the head of the deceased person.
Unaccountable ware has been found only near deceased
women’s heads, over the head or near the head, mostly
on the right-hand side of the buried woman (Fig. 9)12.
It should be mentioned that unaccountable ware has
never been found under the head or in such a position
that allowed it to be interpreted as head ornaments.
Very often, unaccountable ware is located five to 15
centimetres above the head of the deceased woman,
but frequently these strange items are found together
with small iron or bronze rods (needles or pins?) (Figs.
3: 2; 9: 2)13. In most cases these artefacts are empty inside. However, sometimes inside unaccountable ware
pieces of folded cloth are found (Genčai I, graves 159,
232, 254; Palanga, graves 48, 92, 100, 108); pieces of
raw amber (Palanga, graves 73 and 100); amber spindle whorls, amber plaques, bronze needles (Genčai 1st
cemetery, grave 233, Kiauleikiai, grave 10/1985) and
miniature clay cups (Užpelkiai, grave 73). Sometimes
unaccountable ware is put into birch bark boxes together with another’s additional grave goods (Kiauleikiai,
grave 10; Laiviai, grave 57). At times, unaccountable
ware has been found under miniature clay cups near
the deceased person’s head (Baleniūnas 1941: 23). It
Aukštkiemiai, Ėgliškiai-Anduliai, Ramučiai, Laistai is not
published and most of the unaccountable ware is found as
poorly preserved finds.
12
Unaccountable ware is found on the breast of the deceased
person at Genčai, 1st cemetery, in graves 207 and 254; in
the middle of the grave pit at Laiviai, grave 15/1949; and
around the waist at Genčai, 1st cemetery, in grave 259.
13
Genčai, 1st cemetery, graves 195, 206 and 233; Kašučiai,
graves 8 and 12; Laiviai, graves 57 and 15/1949; Palanga,
grave 20; Pryšmančiai, 1st cemetery, grave 67.
137
Fig. 9. Palanga, grave 20; and Pryšmančiai 1st cemetery, grave 67/1986 (1 after A. Tautavičius, 1963; 2 after
R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, 1986)
138
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
However, an interpretation of the wearing of unaccountable ware is not possible, because it is usually found as
poorly preserved finds or comes from destroyed graves.
In the German archaeological tradition, unaccountable
ware was known as armstulpen or “armbands” (Hoffman 1941: 100–101; MVF I a). Obviously, the term
armstulpen given to unaccountable ware by Hoffmann has a strict sense, because they have a similar
fastener to Anglo-Scandinavian clasps (Hines 1993).
Unaccountable ware is depicted by German archaeologists in an extended position (Gaerte 1929: Abb. 316,
256). However, Hoffmann makes a difference between
Curonian sash-like bracelets and unaccountable ware
(Hoffman 1941: 100–101). Gimbutienė and Baleniūnas
ascribed unaccountable ware as bracelets, but with a
question mark. Perhaps they were basing themselves
on the opinion of German scholars (Baleniūnas 1940b:
17–18, 33–34, 47–48; Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė 1946:
250, Tafel 9, Abb. 29).
There is no evidence that unaccountable ware was
bracelets or the clasps of shirt sleeves in the area inhabited by the Curonians. Only at the Laiviai cemetery, in
grave 15, was unaccountable ware found over the head
together with a spiral bracelet (Baleniūnas 1940b).
Unaccountable ware was found on the breast, together
with a spiral bracelet, a little above other grave goods at
the Genčai 1st cemetery, in grave 207. Unaccountable
ware has been found once on the breast of the deceased
person according to the plan in the same cemetery, in
grave 254 (Merkevičius 1987: 46–47, Figs. 99–100;
Stankus 1996: 12–13, Figs. 61–62).
In Butėnienė, Merkevičius, Stankus, Tautavičius and
Stepiņš14 unaccountable ware is ascribed as boxes
(Butėnienė 1964: 88; Merkevičius 1985; 1987; Stankus
1985; 1996; Tautavičius 1963). Perhaps the reason for
such a decision was that unaccountable ware was covered inside by birch bark. However, these artefacts
have no bottom, which is necessary for a box. The last
year’s unaccountable ware is ascribed to head ornaments (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, 1997: 42–44, Fig. 35;
2001: 216–218, Fig. 81; Stankus 1995: 38-39; BanytėRowell, 2001, Fig. 25). However, there is no information that this unaccountable ware from the Viking
Personal information from the Latvian archaeologist Dr.
Ingrida Virse, for which I am grateful.
14
Translated by Audronė Bliujienė and Joseph Everatt
Abbreviations
BALTICA 6
Age was found on the head or under the head of the
deceased person (Fig. 9). As mentioned above, inside
the unaccountable artefacts folded pieces of cloth, raw
amber or small amber artefacts and even clay pots were
found. This is why these artefacts have no connection
with Curonian women’s headdress. Until today, the
purpose of Curonian unaccountable artefacts is open.
Obviously the construction of unaccountable ware is
similar to clasps. However, there is no evidence of the
purpose Curonian women used these clasps for.
ARCHAELOGIA
should be mentioned that graves with unaccountable
ware are very wealthy. In graves with unaccountable
ware cruciform or pins with round heads and different
pendants, crossbow fibulaes, neck rings and fingerings
are found (Fig. 3). In these graves ornaments made of
silver or artefacts with a silver coating are found. From
ten to 15 grave goods are found in one burial together
with unaccountable ware (Bliujienė 1995: 47).
ATL – Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje, Vilnius.
BA – Archaeologia Baltica, Vilnius
ILKI – Iš lietuvių kultūros istorijos, Vilnius
LEB – Lietuvių etnografijos bruožai, Vilnius, 1964
LA – Lietuvos archeologija, Vilnius
LPA – Latvijas PSR Arheoloģija, Rīga, 1974
LEB – Lietuvių etnografijos bruožai, Vilnius, 1964
LLM – Kulikauskienė R., Rimantienė R., Lietuvių liaudies
menas. Senovės lietuvių papuošalai. I knyga, Vilnius,
1958
MAD’A – Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai, serija A,
Vilnius
Sb. Prussia – Sitzungsberichte der Altertumsgesellschaft
Prussia, Königsberg
ZAI – Zeitschrift der Altertumsgesellschaft Insterburg (18001905), Insterburg, 1905
Museums and institutions
KM – Kretinga Museum, Kretinga
LII – Lithuanian Institute of History Archive, Vilnius
MLIM –Lithuanian Minor History Museum, Klaipėda
LNM AR – National Museum of Lithuania, Department of
Archaeology, Vilnius
LVM – Latvian Historical Museum, Riga
MVF – Staatliche Mussen zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Museum für Vor-und Frügeschichte, Berlin and Vorgeschichtliche Abteilung des Königlichen Museums für
Völkerkunde, Berlin
TAM – Alka Museum, Telšiai
VDKM – Vytautas the Great War Museum, Kaunas
References
Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė, M. 1946. Die Bestanttung in Litauen
in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit. Inaugural Dissertation zur
Erlangung des Doktorgrades einer Hohen. Philosophischen
Fakultät der Eberhard - Karls Universität zu Tübingen.
Arrhenius, B. 2001. Beliefs behind the Use of Polychrome
Jewellery in the Germanic Area. In: Roman Gold and
Development of the Early Germanic Kingdoms. Aspects
of technical, socio-political, socio-economic, artistic and
intellectual development, A.D. 1-550. Symposium in Stockholm 14-16 November 1997. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie
och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 51. Stockholm,
297–310.
139
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
140
Callmer, J. 1977. Trade Beads and the Bead Trade in Scandinavia ca. 800-1000 A.D. In: Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series In 4°. No. 11.
Baleniūnas, P. 1940a. Gintališkės kapinyno (Kretingos raj.)
/Plungės raj./ 1940 m. tyrinėjimų dienynas. In: LII. F. 1,
b. 954.
Baleniūnas, P. 1940b. Laivių kapinyno, Kretingos raj.
tyrinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII. F. 1, b. 761.
Baleniūnas, P. 1941. Kiauleikių (Kretingos raj., Rūdaičių
apyl.) kapinyno 1941 m. kasinėjimų dienoraštis. In: LII.
F. 1, b. 605.
Baltrušaitis, J. 1948. Lithuanian Folk Art. München.
Banytė-Rowell, R. 2001. Vakarų Lietuvos kapinynų su
akmenų vainikais kultūrinė sritis III a. – V a. pradžioje.
Daktaro disertacija. Humanitariniai mokslai, istorija (05
H).
Bernotienė, S. 1974. Lietuvių liaudies moterų drabužiai XVIII a. pab. – XX a. Vilnius.
Bernotaitė, A., Tautavičius, A., Navickaitė, O. 1956.
Archeologinių ekspedicijų dokumentinė medžiaga.
1949–1957 m./1957 m.: Aukštadvario piliak. gyv., Trakų
raj.; Diržiai, Pakruojo raj.; Siraičių kap., Telšių raj.;
Bačkininkėlių piliak. ir gyv., Prienų raj.; Dovainionių
piliak., Rumšiškių piliak., Darsūniškio pilk., Kaišiadorių
raj./. In: LII. F. 1, b. 225.
Bezzenberger, A. 1892. Litauische Gräberfeld bei Schernen.
In: Sb. Prussia. H. 17. Königsberg, 141–168.
Bliujienė, A. 1994. Užpelkių kapInyno tyrinėjimai 1992 ir
1993 metais. In: ATL 1992 ir 1993 metais. Vilnius, 132–
137.
Bliujienė, A. 1995. Apskriti kabučiai kuršių kultūroje VIII a.
pabaigoje – IX amžiuje. In: Lituanistica. 1995. Nr. 1(21),
39–72.
Bliujienė, A. 1998. VIII a. Lamatos moterų ovalūs
kiauraraščiai kabučiai ir jų germaniškos paralelės. In: Lituanistica. 1998. Nr. 2(34), 66–87.
Bliujienė, A. 1999. Vikingų epochos kuršių papuošalų ornamentika. Vilnius.
Bliujienė, A. 2001. Curonian bead sets with bronze spacer
plates and their Scandinavian parallels. In: Fornvännen.
2001/4, 235–242.
Butėnienė, E. 1959. Siraičių X–XII a. senkapis. In: ILKI. Vilnius, T. I, 159–176.
Butėnienė, E. 1964. Laivių kapinyno laidosena. In: MADA.
T. 1(16), 83–99.
Butkus, D., Kanarskas, J. 2005. Lazdininkų (Kalnalaukio)
kapinynas. In: ATL 2003 metais. Vilnius, 118–119.
Dakanis, B. 1983. Klaišių (Truikinių) senkapio, Skuodo
raj. žvalgomieji archeologiniai tyrinėjimai. In: LII. F. 1, b
1143.
Danilaitė, E. 1961. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Kiauleikiuose.
In: ILKI. Vilnius, T. 1, 101–124.
Gaerte, W. 1929. Urgeschichte Ostpreussens. Königsberg.
Gaimster, M. 1998. Vendel period bracteates on Gotland. On
the significance of Germanic art. In: Acta Archaeologia
Lundensia. Series In 8, No. 27. Lund.
Girnis, P. 1926. Tikumi rucavniekos un nīciniekos. In: Latvijas Saule. 1926, Nr. 4, Rīga, 447–448.
Guzevičiūtė, R. 1995. Kepurių kelionės. Turbanas. In:
Lietuvių liaudies kultūra. Nr. 3, 40–44.
Hines, J. 1993. Anglo-Scandinavian Clasps of Classes A-C
of the 3rd to 6th centuries A.D. Typology, Diffusion and
Function. In: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets
Akademie. Stockholm.
Hook, M., Macgregor, A. 1997. Medieval England. Archaeological Collections. In: The Ashmolean Museum from Al-
fred the Great to Richard III. Oxford.
Hoffmann, J. 1941. Die spätheidnische Kultur des Memellandes (10.–12. Jahrh. n. d. Zw.). Königsberg.
Jovaiša E. 1992. Dauglaukio plokštinis kapinynas. In: ATL
1990 ir 1991 metais, T. 1, 95–99.
Kačkutė, R. 1995. Lietuvos moterų galvos dangos papuošalai
I–IV amžiais. In: Baltų Archeologija. 1995 Nr. 3 (6) - 4
(7), 14–24.
Kazakevičius, V. 1993. Plinkaigalio kapinynas. In: LA. T. 10,
Vilnius.
Kuncienė, O. 1978. Smeigtukai galvos apdangalui susegti.
In: Lietuvos TRS archeologijos atlasas. Vilnius, 9–10,
map. 4.
Kuncienė, O. 1981. IX–XIII a. stiklo karoliai Lietuvoje. In:
LA. T. 2, Vilnius, 77–92.
LAB, 1961. Kulikauskas, P., Kulikauskienė, R., Tautavičius,
A. Lietuvos archeologijos bruožai. Vilnius.
LEB, 1964. Lietuvių etnografijos bruožai. Vilnius.
Les Vikings 1993. Les Vikings … Les Scandinaves et
l’Europe 800 – 1200, Paris.
LLM, 1958. Kulikauskienė R., Rimantienė R., Lietuvių liaudies menas. Senovės lietuvių papuošalai. I knyga. Vilnius.
LPA, 1974. Latvijas PSR Arheoloģija. Rīga.
Merkevičius, A. 1985. Genčų km. I kapinyno, Kurmaičių
apyl., Kretingos raj., 1985 m. tyrinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII.
F. 1, b. 1192.
Merkevičius, A. 1985. Genčų km. I kapinyno, Kurmaičių
apyl., Kretingos raj., 1987 m. tyrinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII.
F. 1, b. 1303.
Moora, H. 1938. Die Eisenzeit In Letland bis etwa 500 n.
Chr. II Teil. Analyse. Tartu.
Mugurēvič, E., 1997. Kurlands Siedlungslätze in frühgeschiclitcher Zeit. In: BA. T. 2. Vilnius, 85–93.
Mugurēvič, E. 2000. Die Balten im frühen Mittelalter nach
schriftlichen Quellen. In: BA. T. 4. Vilnius, 71–80.
Nerman, B. 1958. Grobin – Seeburg. Ausgrabungen und
Funde. Stockholm, Uppsala.
Nerman, B. 1969. Die Vendelzeit Gotlands. T. II. Tafeln.
Stockholm.
Radiņš, A. 1999. 10.–13. Gadsimta senkapi latgaļu
apdzīvotajā teritorijā un austrumlatvijas etniskās, sociālās
un politiskās vēstures jautājumi. Rīga, 1999.
Ranta, H. 1999. Bead Finds from the Viking Age and Crusade Periods – Indicators of Cultural Contacts or Ethnic
Indentity? In: Fenno-Ugri et Slavi 1997. Cultural Contacts
In the Area of the Gulf of Finland in the 9th–13th centuries.
Helsinki, 70–76.
reich C. 2006 in print Archaelogia Lituana, t. 7, Vilnius
Reklaitis, P. 1999a. Lietuvos gyventojų tipai XVI a. grafikoje: Adelhauser-Heldt-Vecellio. In: Prarastosios Lietuvos
pėdsakų beieškant. Vilnius, 171–180.
Reklaitis, P. 1999b. Lietuvio valstiečio Mažojoje Lietuvoje
ikonografija. In: Prarastosios Lietuvos pėdsakų beieškant.
Vilnius, 323–340.
Stankus, J. 1995. Bandužių kapinynas. In: LA. T. 12, Vilnius.
Stankus, J. 1996. Genčų km. I kapinyno, Kurmaičių apyl.,
Kretingos raj., 1995 m. tyrinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII. F. 1,
b. 2463.
Šimėnas, V. 1984. Kiauleikių kapinyno, Kretingos raj., 1984
metų kasinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII. F. 1, b. 1162.
Šimėnas, V. 1984. Kiauleikių plokštinio kapinyno, Kretingos
raj., 1985 metų kasinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII. F. 1, b. 1220.
Šturms, E. 1942. Mazkatuźi Liepājasaps. Rucavas pag. 1942,
In: LVM AA Nr. 302.
Received: 2002;
Audronė Bliujienė
revised: 2006
Klaipėda University
Institute of Baltic Sea Region
History and Archaeology
Tilžės g., 13, LT-91251 Klaipėda, Lithuania
K eletas pastab ų apie kur ši ų moter ų V iking ų laik ų
ir ankst y v ų j ų viduramži ų
karoli ų vėrinius su žalva r i n i a i s s k i r st i k l i a i s ,
ap g a lv i us , g a lv o s
apdangalus iš audinio ir
neaiškios paskirties
d i r b i n i us
BALTICA 6
Мугуревич, Е. 1965. Восточнаяя Латвия и соседние земли
в X–XIII в.в. Rīga.
Зарина, А.Э. 1986. Одежда жителей Латвии в VII–XVII
в.в. In: Древняя одежда народов Восточной Европы.
Москва, 172–189.
ARCHAELOGIA
Tautavičius, A. 1962. Palangoje, Komjaunimo gatvėje
esančio senkapio archeologinių kasinėjimų, vykdytų 1962
m. balandžio 23 d. – birželio 13 d., ataskaita ir radinių
sąrašas. In: LII. F. 1, b. 45, 183.
Tautavičius, A. 1970. Vakarinės Žemaitijos dalies IX – XII
a. moterų kepuraitės. In: Muziejai ir paminklai. Vilnius,
112–114.
Tautavičius, A. 1996. Vidurinysis geležies amžius Lietuvoje
(V – IX a.). Vilnius.
Thunmark-Nylén, L. 1992. Some Comparative Notes on
Gotlandic and Livonian Bead Spacers of the Viking Period. In: Contacts across the Baltic Sea during the Late
Iron Age (5th-12th centuries). Lund.
Thunmark-Nylén, L. 1995. Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands. I Abbildungen der Grabfunde. Stockholm.
Thunmark-Nylén, L. 1998. Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands. II
Typentafeln. Stockholm.
Thunmark-Nylén, L. 2000. Some Notes on the Contacts between Gotland and the East Baltic Area. In: BA. T. 4. Vilnius, 173–180.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1978. Pasaginės segės kampuotais galais.
In: Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas. T. IV. Vilnius,
54–55, žem. 34: 4.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1979. Gintališkės kapinynas. In: LA. T. 1,
44–74.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1981. Sidabras senovės Lietuvoje. Vilnius.
Valatka, V. 1956. Džiugo kapinyno Telšių raj. Siraičių kaime
1956–1957 m. archeologinių tyrimų medžiaga. In: LII.F.
1, b. 68.
Valatka, V. 2004. Džiugo kapinyno 1956–1957 tyrinėjimai.
In: Žemaičių žemės tyrinėjimai. I knyga. Archeologija.
Rašytinis palikimas Žemaičių muziejus „Alka“. Vilnius.
Vaškevičiūtė, I. 1992. IV–XI a. įvijiniai apgalviai. In: LA. T.
8. Vilnius, 128–134.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1959. Senovės lietuvių moterų
galvos danga ir jos papuošalai. In: Iš lietuvių kultūros istorijos. Vilnius, 1959.T. II, 30–53.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1964. Nauji duomenys apie
Vakarų Lietuvos moterų galvos dangą ankstyvojo feodalizmo laikotarpiu. In: MAD‘ A. T. 2 (17). Vilnius, 41–52.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1970. Lietuviai IX–XII amžiais.
Vilnius.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1987. Lietuvių tautybės susidarymas. In:
�� Lietuvių etnogenezė. Vilnius.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1988. Dėl kai kurių Pryšmančių I
(Kretingos raj.) kapinyno papuošalų gamybos. In: MAD’A.
T. 3(104). Vilnius, p. 37-51.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1997. Senovės lietuvių drabužiai
ir jų papuošalai. Vilnius.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 2001. Lietuva valstybės
prieaušriu. Vilnius.
ZAI, 1905. Zeitschrift der Altertumsgesellschalft Insterburg
(1800–1905), Insterburg.
Žulkus, V. 2005. Kuršiai Baltijos jūros erdvėje. Vilnius�
��.
Волкайте-Куликаускене, Р.К. 1986. Одежда литовсев с
древнейшых времён до ��
XVII��
в. ��
In��: Древняя одежда народов Восточной Европы. Москва, 146–171.
Калашникова, Н.М. 1986. Одежда украинцев в XVI–XVII
в.в. In: Древняя одежда народов Восточной Европы.
Москва, с.12–32.
Лаул, С.К. 1986. Одежда эстонцев в I- XVII в. в. In:
Древняя одежда народов Восточной Европы. Москва,
190–207.
AUDRONĖ BLIUJIENĖ
Santrauka
Atrodytų, jog kuršių kultūra yra viena iš labiausiai pažinių dėl savo pakankamai plataus tyrinėjimo masto.
Tačiau vis dėlto kai kurie kuršių kultūros aspektai nuo
seno, remiantis klaidingomis prielaidomis, neteisingai
interpretuojami. Taip atsitiko su kuršių moterų galvos
danga, kuriai priskirti net vėriniai su žalvariniais skirstikliais, vienspalviais ir įvairiaspalviais stiklo ir žalvario karoliais bei žalvarinėmis įvijomis (4, 6 pav.).
Dalis kuršių vėrinių su žalvariniais skirstikliais skiriama apgalviams, o kiti lygiai tokie pat dirbiniai vadinami karolių vėriniais ar jų dalimis (4, 6 pav.). Iš nedegintuose kuršių moterų kapuose, aiškiomis radimo
aplinkybėmis, rastų žalvarinių skirstiklių ir įvairiarūšių
karolių išsidėstymo yra akivaizdu, kad jie yra puošnių
vėrinių dalys (4–6 pav.). Išskirtinė kuršių karolių vėrinių detalė yra žalvariniai skirstikliai (4 pav.). Nagrinėjami kuršių vėriniai susideda iš 2–10 žalvarinių
ornamentuotų skirstiklių, įvairiaspalvių stiklo ir žalvario karolių, žalvarinių įvijų (4, 6 pav.). Skirstikliai yra
dviejų tipų. Vieni jų „T“ raidės pavidalo (5: 3–5 pav.),
kiti – stačiakampiai (5: 1–2, 4 pav.). Dažnai tame pačiame vėrinyje esantys skirstikliai yra ne tik skirtingo
dekoro, bet ir skirtingų tipų (6 pav.). Kuršių vėriniai su
žalvariniais skirstikliais yra nevienodai suverti, todėl
juos galima būtų skirstyti į tris grupes. Pirmajai gru-
141
AUDRONĖ
BLIUJIENĖ
pei priklausytų vėriniai, sudaryti iš 6–10 žalvarinių
skirstiklių ir smulkių juodų, balzganų, melsvų stiklinių
karoliukų (4 pav.). Antrajai kuršių vėrinių su žalvariniais skirstikliais grupei priklausytų vėriniai, kuriuose
yra tik 2 žalvariniai vėrinio skirstikliai ir žalvariniai
bei įvairiaspalviai stikliniai karoliai, o žalvarinės įvijos
suvertos centrinėje vėrinio dalyje. Trečiajai kuršių vėrinių su žalvariniais skirstikliais grupei priklausytų visi
neaiškios konstrukcijos vėriniai ir jų dalys – žalvariniai
skirstikliai (5 pav.).
X a. vid. – XI a. vid. ar net XII a. vid. panašių žalvarinių vėrinių skirstiklių ir pačių vėrinių rasta lyvių
moterų kapuose. Panašių į kuršių karolių vėrinių skirstiklių rasta Gruobinioje (Latvija). Vėrinių su žalvariniais „T“ raidės formos skirstikliais, visiškai panašiais
į kuršių, rasta Suomijoje, kur jie skiriami viduriniam ar
vėlyvajam vikingų laikų periodams. Vendelio periodu
vėriniai su tiesiais metaliniais abiejų tipų skirstikliais
buvo paplitę Gotlande. Tokie skirstikliai buvo žinomi
ir Skandinavijoje. Puošnių krūtinę dengiančių vėrinių
aptikta ir kai kuriuose Skandinavijos taikomojo meno
pavyzdžiuose (7 pav.). Vėlyviausių gotlandiškų vėrinių
su skirstikliais randama X a. antrosios pusės kapuose.
Pietinių kuršių gyventoje teritorijoje karolių vėriniai
išplito X–XI a. Būtent X–XI a. visapusiški santykiai
tarp kuršių ir Gotlando buvo intensyviausi. Tai leidžia
teigti, kad kuršių vėrinių su skirstikliais plitimui įtakos turėjo panašūs Gotlando karolių vėriniai. Tačiau
tiek Gotlando, tiek Skandinavijos, o kartu ir kuršių
karolių vėriniai su skirstikliais yra Vakarų Europos ir
Bizantijos imperijos įtakų kuriant valdžios ir prestižo
simbolius atspindžiai. Kuršių karolių vėriniai suverti
ir žalvariniai skirstikliai gaminti vietos juvelyrų. Įvairiaspalvius vikingų laikotarpio stiklo karolius kuršiai
importavo iš Artimųjų Rytų, Senosios Rusios žemių ar
vakarų slavų teritorijos.
Konkretesnių duomenų, kad kuršių moterys vikingų
laikais nešiojo apgalvius, nėra. Tačiau tai nereiškia,
kad kuršių moterys galvos nedengė. Vikingų laikais
kuršės nešiojo kepuraites, skareles ir neaiškios formos
galvos apdangalą iš audinio ar audinio ir žalvarinių
grandelių. Kepuraitės ar kita danga iš audinio kartais
būdavo prisegamos smeigtukais, skirtais galvos apdangalui pritvirtinti, ar lankinėmis žieduotomis segėmis
(3: 3; 8 pav.).
Lietuvos archeologinėje literatūroje vyrauja nuomonė,
kad kuršių moterų galvos apdangalas iš audinio yra
artimas etnografinėje medžiagoje žinomam lietuvių
moterų galvos apdangalui nuometui. Tačiau turima
medžiaga, kapų aprašai ir planai tokių išvadų daryti
neleidžia. Išvados, kad kuršės nešiojo nuometus, nepalaiko nei žinoma etnografinė ar ikonografinė medžiaga. Matyt, kuršių moterų galvos apdangalas iš audinio
142
turėtų būti artimas kitų šio laikotarpio Europos moterų
galvos dangai, kurios atvaizdų randame rankraštinėse
knygose ar tiek taikomajame, tiek vaizduojamajame
romanikos mene.
Pietinių kuršių nedegintuose kuršių moterų kapuose
randama neaiškios paskirties dirbinių iš odinių, kaustytų žalvarinėmis sankabėlėmis, juostelių ir žalvarinių
apkalų (1, 2: 2 pav.). Išsiskiria savitas šių dirbinių užsegimas: vienoje plokštelėje yra dvi nedidelės skylutės,
kitoje – du kabliukai. Tai vieninteliai ne tik kuršių, bet
ir apskritai baltų papuošalai, turintys tokį užsegimą.
Beveik visų šių dirbinių vidus išklotas tošimi. Aptariamų neaiškios paskirties dirbinių randama tik moterų
kapuose, galvos srityje, virš galvos ar netoli galvos,
dažnai dešinėje pusėje, bet jų nerasta po mirusiosios
galva ar tokioje pozicijoje, kad galima būtų teigti juos
esant galvos papuošalais (9 pav.).
Nors tokie dirbiniai pietinių kuršių žemėse išplito
VII–IX a., bet ankstyviausių šio tipo dirbinių, siejamų
su apgalviais ar diržų sagtimis, rasta Vakarų Lietuvos
kapų su akmenų vainikais srityje II a. pab. – IV a. vid.
kapuose (B2/C1–C3 periodai) (1: 1 pav.). Tačiau nėra
pakankamai duomenų, kad šios sąsagos siekia ankstyvuosius vikingų laikus. Pajūrio Lietuvos ir Latvijos
medžiaga teikia duomenų, kad romėniškuoju laikotarpiu vakarų baltų moterys, be žalvariniais spurgeliais
puoštų kepuraičių, galėjo nešioti kelių tipų apgalvius,
susidedančius iš odinių juostelių, padengtų žalvarinėmis sankabėlėmis, ir apskritų sąsagų, kurios panašios į
dėželinių antkaklių užsegimą (2 pav.).
Vikingų ir ankstyvųjų viduramžių laikų dirbinius su
sąsagomis vokiečių archeologai sieja su odos juostelėmis ir vadina „armstulpen“ ar „armband“ (1: 2–7 pav.).
Pagal užsegimo konstrukciją šie dirbiniai artimi anglosaksų ir Skandinavijoje randamoms sąsagoms. Marija
Gimbutienė ir Pranas Baleniūnas šiuos dirbinius vadino apyrankėmis. Eugenija Butėnienė, Algimantas
Merkevičius, Jonas Stankus, Adolfas Tautavičius šiuos
neaiškios paskirties dirbinius laikė dėžutėmis, matyt,
todėl, kad jie iškloti tošimi. Tačiau šie savitos konstrukcijos dirbiniai neturi dugnelio, kuris būtinas dėžutei (1: 2–7 pav.). Reginos Volkaitės-Kulikauskienės
nuomone, o ja remdamiesi ir kai kurie kiti lietuvių archeologai mano, kad tai cilindro formos galvos papuošalas. Tačiau nėra duomenų, rodančių šiuos dirbinius
buvus nešiotus kaip galvos papuošalus. Be to, šiuose
dirbiniuose rasta sulankstytų audinių, gintaro žaliavos
ir dirbinių bei puodelių. Todėl nagrinėjamus dirbinius sieti su galvos papuošalais nėra jokio pagrindo.
Turimais duomenimis, šių dirbinių iš odinių juostelių
paskirtis tebelieka neaiški, nors jų konstrukcinis panašumas su sąsagomis yra neabejotinas. Tačiau ką šios
sąsagos susegdavo – neaišku.
A N e w Ty p e o f B r o n z e P i n i n
the Eastern Baltic
ILONA
VAŠKEVIČIŪTĖ
A ne w t y pe o f b r o n z e p i n
i n T H E E a s te r n B a lt i c
Ilona Vaškevičiūtė
Abstract
This article introduces rosette-headed pins found at Pavirvytė cemetery (in the Akmenė district) in the rich female grave 138.
Rosette-headed pins were quite well known in Semigallia. However, most of the ornaments in this grave are more typical of
Curonian culture than of the Semigallians. Some decorative elements or ideas probably penetrated from Curonia to Semigallia
at the end of the 11th century. Key words: rosette-headed pins, grave goods, relationships, Semigallians.
Introduction
Pins used to be among the favourite Baltic ornaments.
They were popular from the end of the second millennium BC till the end of the 13th century AD. However,
only from the first centuries AD did multiple pins as
ornaments and various shaped pins start to spread. In
the first centuries AD, pins were in use by almost all
the Baltic tribes, but from the second half of the first
millennium they were worn by the Samogitians, Semigallians, Curonians, Lettigallians and Selonians only.
Pins of different shapes were worn: crook-like, with
flask-shaped heads, with triangular and ringed heads,
cruciform pins, and pins with rounded openwork
heads, etc. Men wore only certain types, mostly crooklike, and pins with flask-shaped heads, and, more rarely, pins with triangular and ringed heads. Some pins
used by men were made from iron; bronze pins for men
were less ornamented. Women wore more sophisticated pins. The custom was to button clothes with a pair
of pins which were connected by long chains. Sometimes pendants were attached to the pins’ eyelets. Pairs
of pins with pendants and chains formed an integral
ornament. An ordinary pair consisted of two identically shaped pins, though two different-shaped pins were
also composed into integral breast ornaments. Most
pins were made of bronze, but some of them have silver-plated heads.
Only very seldom are two pairs of pins found in a
grave. One such grave was found in Pavirvytė cemetery (in the Akmenė district) in grave 138. In this grave
a woman was buried whose clothes were decorated
with two pairs of pins. One pair consisted of cruciform
pins with flattened plates at the ends of the terminals,
the other pair constituted very rare rosette-headed pins
144
(Fig. 1: 2). The main attention in this article is given to
this particular type of pin.
Although rosette-headed pins are very rare, they have
not received enough attention from archaeologists.
Fēliks Jākobsons, in 1930, mentions them in his article “Divas retas rotas adatas” (Jakobsons 1999: 55–
57), about pins found in the graves at Tūraida Puteļi
(in the Riga district) and Ciemalde Jaunsvirlaukas (in
the Jelgavas district). An article by Ilona Vaškevičiūtė
(Vaškevičiūtė 2000: 25–27) deals with the pins from
Pavirvytė; and a reconstruction of clothes from the
same grave has been performed by R. VolkaitėKulikauskienė (Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė 1987: 195,
Fig. 34). Other rosette-headed pins have found their
way into the list of archaeological references only in a
general context (Latvijas 1974: 213–214, Fig. 57: 5).
Finding places
Rosette-headed pins have been found in only a few
sites in Lithuania. Two of them, making an integral
breast ornament, were found in the Pavirvytė cemetery
mentioned above, in grave 138; another one (in a pair
with a pin of another type) in the Jakštaičiai-Meškiai
(Šiauliai district) cemetery (Fig. 1: 1). Two other pins
of this type were found accidentally in the Biržai district, the exact finding place is unknown (now in the
custody of the Biržai area Sėla museum) (Fig. 1: 3). A
few more rosette-headed pins are known from Latvia.
Two of them, making an integral breast ornament, were
found in the Semigallian cemetery of Mežotne Centre (in the Bauska district); (Fig. 1:4) two more pins
were excavated in the Semigallian cemetery at Salgales Lieldālūži (Jelgava district). One rosette-headed
pin was found in the Ciemalde Jaunsvirlaukas, Tura-
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Rosette-headed pins. 1 Jakštaičiai-Meškiai cemetery; 2 Pavirvytė cemetery; 3 Biržai strayfind; 4 cemetery at
Mežotne Centre (drawings by Ilona Keršulytė)
145
the Eastern Baltic
ILONA
VAŠKEVIČIŪTĖ
ida Pūteļi (Jakobsons 1999: 56) and Kerklini
(Saldus district) cemeteries. A rosette-headed
pin from Kerklini is a stray find (Engel 1933:
76, Figs. 14: 12).
Rosette-headed pins
The pins are 14.5 to 19 centimetres long, with
heads (terminals) of four to five centimetres in
width. A pin head is an openwork ringlet with
six relief outgrowths, ending in three knobbles.
Six concurrent spokes divide the ringlet into six
symmetrical parts, and in every one of them a
hole in a round or an oval shape is formed. Pins
from the Biržai region are slightly different.
Outgrowths decorating the pins seem not to be
interrelated; therefore, the pin heads seem to be
visually lighter and more graceful (Fig. 1: 3).
As has been mentioned, most rosette-headed
pins were found in Semigallia. In grave 138 in
the Pavirvytė cemetery, a woman whose grave
goods consisted of over 30 items was buried. The
grave was discovered 55 centimetres deep, in a
220 by 70-centimetre pit. The deceased woman
was buried lying on her back with her legs extended and arms folded. The head was orientated at 310 degrees northwest (Fig. 2). The head
was covered with a cloth headdress whose edges were decorated with bronze loops, clamped
close to each other with no gaps in between.
On the cloth headdress was a simple headband
consisting of a bronze chain with plenty of maple seed-shape pendants attached. On the right
side of the cranium two amber beads, probably
hooked into the headdress, were found. Two
neck-rings were found on the neck of the deceased woman. One of the neck-rings integrates
four tugs, and was similar to a collar; the second
neck-ring was plaited from wire, terminating
with loops. Apart from the neck-rings, the neck
of the deceased woman was decorated with two
rows of a necklace, consisting of 68 ribbed blue
glass beads. Two pairs of pins were found in the
breast area. The first pair comprised two cruciform pins with flattened terminals, connected
by an iron chain, made of 7.5-centimetre-long
sticks, muffled in bronze wire. The second pair
consisted of rosette-headed pins linked by a Fig. 2. Pavirvytė cemetery grave 138 (drawing by Ilona Keršulytė)
bronze chain. This chain was 170 centimetres
long and was plaited out of four loops. When the chain bronze spiral bracelets; the fingers were adorned with
was attached to the rosette-headed pins, the completed three spiral finger rings. The breast area of the lady in
ornament might have reached the woman’s waist. The grave 138 was decorated with an ornate bronze silwrists of the deceased woman were decorated with ver-plated penannular star-shaped brooch. Two other
146
Fig. 3. Find fom Pavirvytė grave 138
(photograph by V. Urbanavičius)
Fig. 4. Cemetery at Mežotne Centre, grave goods of grave 9
(drawings by Ilona Keršulytė)
smaller penannular brooches, with poppy seed-shaped
and star-shaped terminals, were lying alongside the left
pelvic bone and the right foot bones. Outside the pelvic
bones and alongside both foot bones were ornaments.
Each of them was made of three spirals, linked by a
connecting plate with a chain and bells at the terminals. These types of ornaments decorated the edges of
a cloth wrap, skirt or apron. Alongside the head, on the
right side of it, a spindle whorl was found, and an awl
It is interesting to note that an identical bone amulet
was attached to the pendant of a pin discovered in the
Jakštaičiai-Meškiai cemetery. This cemetery undoubtedly belongs to the Samogitian ethno-cultural sphere.
However, some of the burials at least (including all the
inhumation graves) are attributed by researchers to the
Semigallians (Urbanavičius 1977: 13). The pin found
in the Jakštaičiai-Meškiai cemetery is from disturbed
woman’s grave 71. The rosette-headed pin was connected to the pair with a broken cruciform pin (only
part of this pin survives). The burial was disturbed,
discovered at 25 centimetres depth, and in a 220 by 60centimetre pit, with the head orientated at 325 degrees
northwest. In this grave, together with the above-mentioned pins, only an iron awl survived. It is possible
that a “broken pin”, trying to equalise the length of
both pins, was intentionally broken and attached to the
Jakštaičiai-Meškiai breast ornament. The length of the
rosette-headed pin is 14.5 centimetres; the so-called
“broken pin” is the same length. The part of the broken
cruciform pin needle over the eyehook is nicely ornamented with concentric circlets. Therefore, the broken
pin was readjusting the rosette-headed pin (Fig. 1).
BALTICA 6
While observing the rich and rare set of grave goods,
our attention is firstly attracted by the rosette-headed
pins. These pins are equipped with eyeholes, to which
were threaded V-shaped pendants, terminating with a
chain. The pendant which was put on the right side of
the deceased woman was attached to a bone amulet.
ARCHAELOGIA
was found between the foot bones. On the right side
of the waist was a knife with an exceptionally ornate
scabbard with bronze bindings (Fig. 3).
The pins found in grave 9 in the Mežotne Centre cemetery also belong to a rich woman’s grave. A pair of rosette-headed pins was discovered here in one set, with
an integrated four-piece neck-ring, similar to that found
at Pavirvytė in grave 138. In Mežotne Centre grave 9
more grave goods were discovered: one of them was
a crossbow fibula with ladders, covered with white
metal plate and adornments with spiral ringlets (Fig.
4). Crescent-shaped pendants with three outgrowths
were attached to the rosette-headed pin from the grave
at Mežotne Centre.
Chronology and distribution
of rosette-headed pins
The grave with the rosette-headed pin from the cemetery at Mežotne Centre dates from the 11th century.
At the Turaida Pūteli cemetery, a rosette-headed pin
was found in grave 23, together with a Cnut (1016–
1035) silver denar and Arabic dirhems. At the Ciemal-
147
ILONA
VAŠKEVIČIŪTĖ
the Eastern Baltic
Fig. 5.
Disribution
of rosetteheaded pins:
1 Pavirvytė;
2 JakštaičiaiMeškiai;
3 Biržai;
4 Mežotne
Centre;
5 SalgalesLieldlūži;
6 Ciemalde
Jaunsvirlaukas; 7 Tūraida
Pūteļi;
8 Kerklini
(drawing
by Ilona
Keršulytė)
de Jaunsvirlaukas cemetery, rosette-headed pins were
found together with a small penannular brooch dating
from the 11th/12th centuries (Jakobsons 1999: 56).
Other pins found in the Jakštaičiai-Meškiai, Salgales
Lieldālūži and Kerklini cemeteries, as well as those
known from the Biržai museum, are hardly datable, due
to the finding circumstances (no other datable grave
goods). Specifying the chronology of rosette-headed
pins allows us to correct the complex of grave goods
found at Pavirvytė cemetery in grave 138 (neck-rings,
a penannular brooch with a star-shaped foot, cruciform
pins with flattened terminals, etc).
Integrated neck-rings are rare in Lithuania. Alongside the Pavirvytė neck-rings, others are known from
Ringuvėnai (Šauliai district) and Šaukėnai (Radviliškis
district) (Kuncienė 1978: 27). Integrated neck-rings
148
in Latvia are discovered mainly in Semigallian sites.
Only nine neck-rings of this type have been discovered
in Latvia. A few integrated neck-rings have been found
in Lettigallian, Estonian and Livian lands, where these
ornaments are dated to the tenth/11th centuries (Latvijas 1974: 214, taf. 56: 4). Plated neck-rings terminating
with loops are more typical of Curonian materials from
the tenth to the 12th centuries (Kuncienė 1978b: 29).
Penannular brooches with star-shaped terminals were
also more popular with the Curonians than with the
Semigallians, and were worn from the tenth to the 12th
century (Vaitkunskienė 1978: 54). Cruciform pins with
flattened terminals were liked both by the Semigallians and the Curonians. These pins were particularly
popular from the ninth to the 12th century (Tautavičius
1996: 237–238). The set of grave goods allows us to
However, the rosette motif is not extraneous to the Baltic ornamentation tradition, and has been known since
the Roman Iron Age (Michelbertas 1986: 122, Fig. 41).
In the Middle and Late Iron Age this motif spread rather widely. The rosette motif was particularly popular
among the Curonians, and was used in the decoration
of pins with triangular heads (Tautavičius 1996: 232)
and pins used to attach headdresses (Kuncienė 1978a:
9–10, Map 4).
Some ornaments found in Pavirvytė grave 138 were
more typical of the Curonians than the Semigallians.
Probably single ornaments and some decorative elements or ideas penetrated from Curonia to Semigallia
at the end of the 11th century.
Translated by Algimantas Dautaras
Abbreviations
LA – Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas, Vilnius, t. IV,
1978
References
Engel, C. 1933. Führer durch die vorgeschichtliche Sammlung des Dommuseums von Carl Engel, Riga. Tafel
��
14:12.
Jakobsons, F. 1999. Divas retas rotas adatas. In: Austrumbaltijas dzelzs laikmeta pçtîjumi. Latvijas vçstures muzeja
raksti Nr. 6. Arheoloìija, Rîga, 55-57.
Kuncienė, O. 1978. Sudėtinės antkaklės. In: LA, t. IV, Vilnius, 27.
Kuncienė, O. 1978a. Smeigtukai galvos apdangalui susegti.
In: LA, t. IV, Vilnius, 9-10.
Kuncienė, O. 1978b. Vytinės antkaklės kilpiniais galais. In:
LA, t. IV, Vilnius, 29-30.
Latvijas, 1974. Latvijas PSR arheoloģija, Rîga.
Michelbertas, M. 1986. Senasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje,
Vilnius.
Lithuanian Institute of History
Kražių g. 5
LT-01108 Vilnius
e-mail: vaskeviciute��
@istorija.lt
BALTICA 6
The distribution of rosette-headed pins testifies that
pins of this type were popular in Semigallia (Fig. 5).
The question is: where does the Semigallian tradition
of such pins come from? If we look over all Semigallian ornamentation, we will see that openwork and the
rosette motif were never popular. In Semigallian sites
neither pins with openwork heads, nor flat openwork
brooches (Vaitkunskienė 1978a: 68) were found. Actually, only some flat and not openwork brooches are
known (Degėsiai) (Vaitkunskienė 1978a: 68), or a flat
brooch like a four-leaved clover (Linkuva), and one or
two pins with openwork heads (Vaškevičiūtė 1987: 33,
Fig. 4; 12).
Tautavičius, A. 1996. Vidurinis geležies amžius Lietuvoje (VIX a.), Vilnius.
Urbanavičius, V. 1977. Jakštaičių-Meškių kapinyno
tyrinėjimai 1974 metais. In: Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai
Lietuvoje 1974-1975 metais, Vilnius, 129-134.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1978. Segės žvaigždiniais galais. In: LA, t.
IV, Vilnius, 54-55.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1978a. ��
Keturkampės segės. In: LA, t. IV,
Vilnius, 68.
Vaškevičiūtė, I. 1987. Jauneikių (Joniškio raj.) V-XI a. kapinynas. (4. Krūtinės papuošalai). In: Mokslų akademijos
darbai, serija A, Vilnius, 2 (99), 25-38.
Vaškevičiūtė, I. 2000. Rozetiniai smeigtukai Žiemgaloje. In:
Lietuvos aukštųjų mokyklų mokslo darbai. Istorija, Vilnius,
XLIII, 25-27.
Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, R. 1987. Lietuvių tautybės susidarymas.In: Lietuvių etnogenezė, Vilnius, 183-199, fig.
34.
ARCHAELOGIA
date the Pavirvytė grave to the 11th century. Such dating does not contradict the grave complex with rosetteheaded pins found in the cemetery at Mežotne Centre
(Latvijas 1974: 216), and the pin found in the Turaida
Pūteļi cemetery.
Received: 2002
N aujas smei g tuk ų tipas
Ry t ų Pabaltij y
Santrauka
Smeigtukai – vieni iš labiausiai mėgtų baltų papuošalų, tačiau nuo I tūkstantmečio antrosios pusės po Kr.
jie nešioti tik žemaičių, žiemgalių, kuršių, latgalių bei
sėlių gentyse.
Labai retais atvejais kape randame po dvi smeigtukų
poras. Toks palaidojimas aptiktas Pavirvytės (Akmenės raj.) kapinyne. Čia kape Nr. 138 palaidota moteris,
kurios drabužius puošė dvi smeigtukų poros – vieną
sudarė kryžiniai smeigtukai suplotomis plokštelėmis
kryžmų galuose, kitą ypač reti smeigtukai rozetine galvute (1: 2 pav.).
Lietuvos teritorijoje tokie smeigtukai žinomi tik iš kelių radimo vietų. Du, sudarantys vientisą krūtinės papuošalą, rasti jau minėtame Pavirvytės kapinyne, dar
vienas (kartu su kitos formos smeigtuku) rastas Jakštaičių-Meškių kapinyne (1: 1 pav.) bei dar du smeigtukai, priskirtini šiam tipui, rasti atsitiktinai (radimo vieta – Biržų apskritis) ir yra Biržų kraštotyros muziejuje
(1: 3 pav.).
Keletas smeigtukų rozetine galvute žinomi iš Latvijos.
Du, sudarantys vieną krūtinės papuošalą, rasti žiemgališkame Mežuotnės centro kapinyne (1: 4 pav.) ir dar
149
the Eastern Baltic
ILONA
VAŠKEVIČIŪTĖ
du – taip pat žiemgališkame Salgalės Lieldalūžių kapinyne. Po vieną rasta Ciemaldų Jaunsvirlaukių (Jelgavos r.), Turaidos Pūces (Rygos r.) ir Kerlinių kapinynuose.
Smeigtukai yra 14,5–19 cm ilgio, 4–5 cm pločio galvutėmis. Smeigtukų galvutė – tai kiauraraštis žiedelis
su 6 reljefinėmis ataugėlėmis, užsibaigiančiomis trimis gumbeliais. Kiek kitokie yra Biržų smeigtukai.
Smeigtukus puošiančios ataugėlės tarsi nesujungtos
tarpusavyje, taigi smeigtukų galvutės vizualiai atrodo
lengvesnės ir dar grakštesnės (1: 3 pav.)
Kaip minėta, dauguma šių smeigtukų rasti žiemgalių
kapuose.
Mežuotnės centro kapas datuojamas XI amžiumi.
Smeigtukai, rasti Jakštaičių-Meškių, Lieldalūžių, Kerlinių kapinynuose ir esantys Biržų kraštotyros muziejuje, dėl radimo aplinkybių (nėra kitų datuotinų įkapių)
yra sunkiai datuojami. Turaidos Pūces kapinyno kape
Nr. 23 smeigtukas rastas viename komplekte su Kanuto (1016–1035 m.) sidabriniu denaru ir arabų dirhemu,
o Ciemaldų Jaunsvirlaukių kapinyne – kartu su nedidele pasagine segute (XI–XII a.?). Patikslinti rozetinių
smeigtukų nešiojimo laiką gali Pavirvytės kape kartu
su rozetiniais smeigtukais rastos kitos įkapės – sudėtinė ir vytinė kilpiniais galais antkaklės, pasaginė segė
žvaigždiniais galais, kryžiniai smeigtukai suplotomis
plokštelėmis kryžmų galuose. Minėtos įkapės rodo,
jog smeigtukai rozetine galvute buvo nešioti XI a. Tokiam datavimui neprieštarauja Mežuotnės centro bei
Turaidos Pūces kapinyne rasti minėtieji smeigtukai.
Rozetine galvute smeigtukai paplitę Žiemgaloje
(5 pav.). Jeigu peržvelgtume visą žiemgalių papuošalų ornamentiką, pamatytume, kad čia niekada nebuvo
populiarus ažūro ar rozetės motyvas. Tačiau šis motyvas nesvetimas kitų baltų genčių ornamentikai, ypač
mėgstamas kuršių. Matyt, iš Kuršo į Žiemgalą XI a.
pabaigoje plito ne tik pavieniai papuošalai, bet ir kai
kurie puošybos elementai ar idėjos.
150
Vladimir
Kulakov
D i e R u n e n d e s S a m l a n d s :��
F u n d e��
S a i s o� n��
2 00
� � 1�
D i e R u n e n D E S S a m l a n ds :�� F
��
u n de��
S a i so
� ��
n 2 �00
� �1
152
Vladimir Kulakov
Abstract
Im Jahre 2001 wurden in die Kulturchichten der wikingerzeitlichen Siedlung Korallen-Berg (Kurische Nehrung, Kaliningrader Gebiet) der Funde mit Runen entdekt (eine bronzene Plattenfibel und ein Fragment der Knochenplatte). Ein Anhänger
mit einem runenartigen Zeichen befindet sich im Besitz des Museus in Zelenogradsk.
Key words: Kurische Nehrung, Runenfunde, Korallen-Berg, Wikinger, Feindwörter.
2001 wurde bedeutend für die Entwicklung ��
der
Skandinavistik��
von der Begebenheit bezeichnet: ��
in
der Serie “Die altertümlichsten Quellen nach der
Geschichte Osteuropas” h��
��
at das Licht
��
die nächste
Variante des
�� Corpus��
��
der ��
Denkmäler ��
des runischen
Schrifttum��
in Osteuropa (Мельникова 2001)
��
gesehen.
Die erste Erfahrung solcher Ausgabe wurde Prof.
�� Dr.
��
E��
.��
Mel’nikova��
in ��
1977 unternommen und erfasste
wie altrussischen��
��
, auch skandinavisch��
en��
Arealen��
��. ��
In
jene ferne Zeit der besonderen Verwunderung rief
das Fehlen in ��
Corpus��
der ��
Denkmäler des
��
runischen
Schrifttum��
des Materials aus ��
der baltischen Stammarealen��
nicht herbei. Die
��
für die sowjetische historische
Wissenschaft traditionelle Ausnahme der
��
Balten��
aus
der ��
Wikingerb��
ewegung, das Fehlen in den Moskauer
Bibliotheken vieler wissenschaftlicher Ausgaben aus
der “��
��
baltischen��
Republiken��
des ��
UdSSR”, endlich - die
Unwissenheit der baltischen Sprachen ��
haben ��
ganz das
Fehlen des Materials aus ��
Baltikum��
in ��
Corpus� ��
1977��
erkl��
ä��
rt��. ��
Doch der ��
runische ��
Denkmäler aus s��
��
ü��
d-��
östlich��
en�
Baltikums��
werden und in ��
Corpus� ��
2001, in die Zeiten
des offiziell��
��e ��
Distanzierung� ��
von die
��
“beseitigend��
e��
s��
��
ich”
sowjetischen ��
w��
issenschaftlichen ��
Traditionen ignoriert.
Prof. Dr. E��
.��
Mel’nikova��
ha��t� vollständig
��
nicht bemerkt
alt und verlaßend in die letzten Jahre der Angabe über
den Funde der Runen und der runerartige Zeichnen�
in Baltikum��
��
(ihre Zusammenfassung ��
sieh��: ��
Kulakov�
2001). Offensichtlich die ��
Runenz��
eichen (die Minimum
- die runenartige Begriffzeichen) aus prußisch��
e Areal��
, mehr bis zu ihrer Publikation (��
Kulakov��
1993а:
104-108) festgelegt durch
��
Prof. Dr.
��
E��
.��
Mel’nikova��
in
Corpus� ��
2001 sind beiläufig mit den folgenden Wörtern
bezeichnet: “Wenn es nicht die zufälligen Kratzern, so
die Besitzz��
��
eichen, ��
die Zeichnen��
für das Gedächtnis,
aber ��
nicht ��
dem kommunikativen ��
Text sein dürfen”
(Мельникова 2001: 80). Dabei niedriger werden die
Zeichen auf Dirhemen��
��
aus osteurop��
��
ä��
ischen M��
ü��
nzsch��
ä��
tzen��
(Мельникова ��
2001: ��
17-174) ausserordentlich
ausführlich betrachtet, es ist von “��
die Zeichnen��
für das
Gedächtnis” nicht unterscheidend formal. In diesem Fall
haben ��
die ��
abgesondert��
en runischen��
und ��
runenartigen�
Zeichen sich ��
w��
ü��
rdig��
der wissenschaftlichen Analyse
erwiesen. Hier beobachtet
��
man noch
��
eins das helle
Beispiel die hartnäckige Unlust von den Historikern
und den Archäologen Rußlands, das baltische
��
Material
��
bei der Analyse des Phänomenes der Wikingerb��
��
ewegung, werdend für die einheimischen historischen
Disziplinen vom obligatorisch��e� Teil
��
der Erfüllung der
wissenschaftlichen Programme (��
K��
улаков ��
1998: ��
241)
zu berücksichtigen.
Doch die reale Situation, die in die Archäologie ��
des Baltikums��
existiert, ist von der kameralen
��
Konstruktionen
��
der gegenwärtigen Forscher der Epoche ��
der Wikinger�
fern. In das Jahr des Erscheinens aus dem Druck nächst��e�
Corpus ��
der ��
runischen Aufschriften
��
in ��
westbaltischen
Stammareal��
, auf der Halbinsel ��
Samland��˙ ��
wurden drei
neu��
e��
Funde��
��
der
��
Runen��
und der runenartigen
��
Zeichen
��
gemacht. Nicht rechnend sich vom Experten in ��
Skandinavistik��
und die Natter besonders in der Arbeit mit
Runenfunden��
, werde nur von der ��
Publikation dies��
en Artefacten��
, ihre Interpretation
��
gelassen den Spezialisten
begrenzt werden.
Für die sommerlichen Monate 2001 in de��
n��
Begriff
��
des�
Historisch-arch��
ä��
ologischen Museum in Zelenogradsk
(ehem. Cranz, Kr. Samland)��
unter den
��
��
viel��
en��
Strei��
funden��
hat man
��
Artefact ü��
��
bergeben��
, die herbeirufende
besondere Interesse gehandelt. Es ist Anh��
��
ä��
nge��,
gemacht��
e��
aus ��
dem Klotze der��
S��
��
ilber��
barre (sog. “Typ
��
litauische Barre”)��. Die
�� Öffnung
��
im Oberteil ��
des Artefact��
war grob durchbrechen��
��
. Auf einer der Oberflächen
nach noch nicht der gerinnenden Oberfläche des Metales
wurde Rune�
�� “юurs”
��
(Abb. 2,
��
links) durchgeschnitten.
Die Anhä��
nge��
ist vom
��
��
ortlichen��
Bewohner V��
��
.��
S ��
Ivanov
2-3 Jahre jenes rückwärts in der Uferunterbrechung (in
Offnung��
der ��
Torfschicht der
��
��
intensiv schwarz��
en��
Farbe)
auf dem r��
��
echt��e ��
Ufer��
��
Medwezija-Fl��
üß��
(ehem. Beerenbruch-Graben)��
in ��
0,4 ��
Kilometer zu Nord-Westen von
des Heiligtumes��
in Ort�
��
Dubki��
-Kunterstrauch entdeckt.
Erwannte Heiligtum��
stellt oval im Plan den Platz
mit Ma��
ß��
nahme� ��
94 ��ő 47
��
M� vor��
��
, nach dem Perimeter
��
umgeben von den Rollsteinen. Im Zentrum ��
des Heilig-
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Abb��.� ��
1. ��
Die
Denkmäler der
Archäologie
der Ufer des
��
Kurischen
Haff��
: 1 - die
neolitische und
bronzezeitliche
Denkmäler;
2 - ��
die Flachgr��
ä��
berfeldern� ��
I��
.�IV��
.��
��
Jh. n. ��
Chr.��;
3 - ��
die Flachgr��
ä��
berfeldern�
V��
.��
-VIII��
. Jh��
.;
5 - ��
die Flachgr��
ä��
berfeldern�
IX��
.��
-XII��
. Jh��
. Von
den arabischen
Ziffern sind die
archäologisch��e�
Denkmäler des
küstennahen
Streifens auf
dem Territorium
kaliningrader
das ��
Kaliningrader Gebiet
��
und teilweise
der L��
��
itauisch��e�
Republik
bezeichnet: 1.
Nida��
, ��
Siedlung��
, V��
.��- ��
III��.�
Jt. v. Chr.;� 2.
��
Morskoje�
(Pillkoppen),
Fundstelle��
-2,
Fr��
ü��
hbronzezeit��;
3. ��
Morskoje�
(Pillkoppen),
Fundstelle��
-1,
III��
. Jt. ��
v. ��
Chr.��;
4 - 8. ��
Morskoje�
(Pillkoppen),
Fundstellen��- 3-6,
�� III��
��
. Jt��.� ��
v. ��
Chr.��; 9.
��
Morskoje,
��
Schlo��
ß��
berg Piles-Kalns��
, XII��
.��
-XIV��
. Jh��
.; ��
10. Rybatschyj��
��
(Rossitten), Wall
“��
Querwall��
”��
, XI��
.��
-XIII��
. Jh��
.; ��
11. Stangenwalde, Flachgr��
��
ä��
berfeld��
, XII��
.��
- XIV��
. Jh.��; ��
��
, Siedlung��
��
-1, ��
III��
. Jt. ��
v. ��
Chr.��;
��
, Siedlung��
��
-2, ��
III��
. Jt. ��
v. ��
Chr.��; ��
��
, Schlo��
��
ß��
berg��
(Rasita); ��
15. Neu-Lattenwalde, Fund��
��
stelle, ��
III��.
Jt. v. Chr.��; 16.
�� Lesnoje��
��
(Sarkau), Wall, XI��
. Jh.��; ��
17. ��
Lesnoje, Fund��
��
stelle, ��
III��
. Jt. ��
v. ��
Chr.��; ��
18. ��
Lesnoje��
, ��
Flachgr��
ä��
berfeld��
, XII��.�
- XIII��
. Jh.� ��
19. ��
Yrzekapinis, Flachgr��
��
ä��
berfeld��
, VIII��
. -��
��
Anf��
. XII��
Jh��
.; ��
20. Klinzovka��
��
(Wickiau), Flachgr��
��
ä��
berfeld��
-2, V��
. Jh. n.
Chr.;� 21.
��
��
Malinovka��
(Wargenau), Siedlung��
��
und Flachgr��
��
ä��
berfeld��
, VI��
.��
- XI��
.��
Jh��
��
.��;� ��
22. Klinzovka��
��
, ��
Flachgr��
ä��
berfeld��
-3, XI��
.��
- XII��.
Jh��
.; ��
23. Mochovoje
��
(Wiskiauten)��
, Siedlung��
��
und H��
��
ü��
gel- und Flachgr��
ë��
berfeld��
Kaup bei Wiskiauten, entsprechend ��
Anf��. ��
IX��.
JH��
. - ��
J.��
1016, V��
.��
- XI��
. Jh��
.; ��
24. Zelenogradsk��
��
(Cranz), Wall ��
“��
Schwedenschanze��
”��
, XIII��
.��
- XIV��
. Jh��
.; ��
25. Sosnovka
��
(Bledau)��,
Schlo��
ß��
berg-Heiligtum��
Galgenpusch, XI��
.��
- XII��
. Jh��
.; ��
26. Muromskoje��
��
(Laptau), Flachgr��
��
ä��
berfeld��
, X��
.��
- XI��
. Jh��
.; ��
27. ��
Insel Ry��
batschyj��
(Insel Rodahn), Schlo��
��
ß��
berg��
, X��
.��
- XIV��
. Jh��
.; ��
28. Zaton��
��
(Glomsack), Burg
��
Neuhausen,
��
XIII��
. ��
-��
XIV��
��
. Jh��
., Hafen, XVI��.�
- XVIII��
. Jh��
., Speisehalle��
��
Glomsack, XVIII��
. Jh��
. - ��
um��
J.��
��
1815��;� ��
29.��
Mokroje��
, H��
��
ü��
gel- und Flachgr��
ë��
berfeld��
, XI��
.��
- XIV��
. Jh��
.; ��
30.
Chrabrovo��
(Powunden), ��
Bistumschlo��
ß��
,��
XIII��
.��
- XV��
. Jh��
.; ��
31. Nekrasovo��
��
-��
Chrabrovo��
, Wall, XIII��
. Jh��
.; ��
32. Nekrasovo��
��
, Schloß
Schaaken, XIII��
.��
- XV��
. Jh��
.; ��
33. ��
Lazowskoje��
(Trömpau), Schlo��
��
ß��
berg��
, XI��
.��
- XII��
. Jh��
.; ��
34. ��
Lazowskoje��
, Flachgr��
��
ä��
berfeld��, ��
IX��
.��XI��
.��
��
Jh��
.; ��
35. Wasilewskoje��
��
(Wesselhöfen), Schlo��
��
ß��
berg��
, XIII��
.��
- XIV��
. Jh��
.; ��
36. Puschkonskoje��
��
(Gallgarben), Schlo��
��
ß��
berg��
, XIV��.
Jh��
.; ��
37. Drozdovo��
��
(Droosden), ��
Schlo��
ß��
, XII��
.��
- XIII��
. Jh��
.; ��
38. Polessk��
��
, ��
Flachgr��
äberfeld, XI��
.��
- XII��
. Jh��
., östlich
- Schloß Labiau, XIII��
.��
- XV��
. Jh��
.; ��
39. ��
Löbertshof, Flahgr��
��
ä��
berfeld��
, XI��
.��
- XII��
.��
Jh��
��
.; 40. ��
Tiulenino��
(Viehof), Flachgr��
��
äberfeld,
XII��
.��
-XIII��
. Jh��
.; 41. Retschki��
��
(Groß Pöppeln), ��
Schlo��
ß��
, XIII��
.��
- XIV��
. Jh��
.; 42. Korallen-Berge (Süd und Nord),
Siedlungen��
X��
. -��
��
��
XI��
. Jh��
.; 43. ��
Dubki��
-Kunterstrauch, Heiligtum��
��
, X. ��
Jh. ��
(nach: ��
Кулаков 1995:
��
86-90, рис.
�� 1).
��
153
Vladimir
Kulakov
D i e R u n e n d e s S a m l a n d s ��:
F u n d e��
S a i s o� n��2 00
� � 1�
Denkmales ��
des Runensrifttum��
auf keine Weise nicht.
Die semantische Bedeutung ��
der Rune ��
auf dies��
er Fund�
- ��
apothtop��
ä��
ische (vorziehend)��
oder eigent��
��
ü��
mliche.
Abb. 2. Silbern��
e Anh��
änger aus ��
Dubki��
-��
Kunterstrauch��
(��
links
- Avers��
).
tumes befindet sich��
das von
��
den Steinen ausgestellte
Bassin mit der Wasserquelle (Смирнова 2001: 170),
sakralisierende durch der Prussen��.� Das
��
Vorhandensein
auf einem der Steine der Einzäunung des
��
Heiligtumes�
des Bildes ��
des Opfertriplet der fr��
ü��
hmittelalterlichen
S��
ä��
mben��
läßt dieses ��
Denkmal ��
des prußisch��
��
e Kult��
zu,
in X. Jh.��
zu datieren (Кулаков ��
1988: Abb. 8,12). ��
Dieses Heiligtum��
trat in der sakrale
��
Ring
��
ringsherum des
polyethnischen handels��
-handwerklichen Zentrums
Kaup ��
(Кулаков ��
1993б: 43).
Grob, mit nicht entfernt��
en��
��
Niednageln��
(Abb. ��
2, rechts)
erledigt ��
die Anh��
ä��
nger��
mit Rune�
��
“юurs” ��
w��
urde nicht für
Tragweise��
auf dem Körper des Menschen vorbereitet,
��
aber��
für der��
kultischen ��
Ziele (das Opfer��
gabe��
, ��
die ��
votive��
Aktie), daß ��
von der Stelle ��
der Fund der Anh��
ä��
nger��, verbunden
��
zu den
��
Heiligtum ��
betont wird. Sich
befindend in seine Grenze (auf dem Zweig des
��
heilige
Baum��
?) ��
die Anh��
ä��
nger��
dann hat sich in den Wasser
verlaufend in der Nähe ��
der Graben��
erwiesen, die und
die��
se Fund��
auf den Norden ��
von ��
Heiligtum��
bezogen
haben, wo sie in der endlichen Rechnung in die Hande
V��
.��
S. ��
Ivanov��
geraten hat. Solcher Gattung silbern��
en
Anh��
ä��
ngern��
, gemacht äußerst nachlässig, begegnen im
Material der ��
Wikingerzeit��
, einschließlich - auf zentral
Schlo��
ß��
berg��
in ��
Gniozdovo��
nicht selten. ��
Dort die
��
Anh��
ä��
nger��
, habend offenbar
��
die votive
��
Bedeutung,
��
wird
��
man
von der zweiten H��
��
älfte X��
.��
- XI��
.��
��
Jh.��
datiert. (Пушкина
2001: 316). Die Wahrheit, auf ��
den runischen��
��
Anh��
ä��
ngern ��
Skandinaviens (östliches Schweden, Insel
��
Ö��
land��)
existieren nucht
��
nur ein��
Zeichen,��
sondern auch��
von
ein bis zu drei ��
Runenz��
eilen (Мельникова ��
2001: ��
176,
177).� Doch
�� “Rune�
�� “юurs”��
��
w��
ie das Symbol ��
des As�
urs spielte die wichtige Rolle in altskandinavische�
��
Magie��: ohne
��
es, wie in eddische
��
Lied��
“die ��
SigdrivaRede��
”, d��
��
ie ��
magische ��
Formel gesagt wird, ist gesehen,
d��
arf die gesuchte Aktion nicht
��
anstellt��
” (Мельникова 2001: 185) nicht. Deshalb auf Anh��
��
ä��
nger��
aus den
Umgebungen des
��
Heiligtumes� Dubki/Kunterstrauch�
��
wurde der Skandinavier, keine Zeit sich wendend mit
dem Gebet��
zu den Göttern, ein ��
Runenzeichen��
begrenzt
ist bekannt. Diese Besonderheit ��
des ��
veröffentlicht��
en
Artefactes��
verringert seine Bedeutung wie des
ю
154
In der Feldsaison 2001. die B��
��
altische Expedition des
Institutes der Archäologie der Akademie
��
der Wissenschaften Ru��
ß��
lands��
hat zur Forschung der
��
Altert��
ü��
mer�
des s��
ü��
d-westlichen ��
westlichen ��
Teiles ��
der Kurischen
Nehrung��
(Nord��
teil des Bezirk Zelenogradskij��
des�
Kaliningrader��
Gebietes) angetreten. Einen ��
Teil dieser
Arbeiten wurden die Ausgrabungen, geleitet auf Sied��
lung in Ort Korallen-Berg��
(��
von kurische “Koralis”
��“K��
ö��
nig”) am südlich��
��e ��
D��
ü��
ne statt.
Zum erstenmal ��
das ��
archäologisch��e��
��
Denkmal, sich
einrichtend in 6 Kilometer zu S��
��
ü��
d-W��
esten von
Rossitten, Kr. Fischhausen/Samland (jetzt - die
Siedlung ��
Rybatschij��) auf
��
südlich��
e��
und nord��
liche
D��
ü��
nen��
Korallen-Berge, wurde der Wissenschaft in
1869 bekannt. Er wurde im Lauf der archäologisch��
en�
Untersuchungen, geleitet in the Herbst jener Jahres
nach der der Initiative der Physikalisch-ökonomischen
Gesellschaft (Königsberg) auf ��
Kurische Nehrung��
von
den Professoren ��
v. Wittich��
, ��
G��
. ��
Berendt��
und ��
R��. ��
Lomeyer��
geöffnet. Eine ihr��
e��
grundlegende Aufgabe waren die
Ausgrabungen des
��
Flachgr��
ä��
berfeldes Stangenwalde�
(Кулаков 1990: 86, 87), vorhanden östlich von Koral��
len��
-��
Berge��. Das
��
schlechte herbstliche Wetter hat nicht
gestört, in 1869 qualitativ Probegrabung
��
in KorallenBerge��
zu leiten. ��
Ist, habend��
��
auf südlich��
e��
und nord��
liche
D��
ü��
nen��
unter��
Grassschiht��
auf die Schicht ��
des ��
“steri��
len��”
D��
ü��
nensandes��
gesehen, die obenerwähnten Kollegen
aus Königsberg haben dieses Denkmal wie
��
zerstört��
��e�
von der Erosion ��
Flachgr��
ä��
berfeld��
(S��
c��
hifferdecker
1873: 51) berücksichtigt.��
��
Nachdem die
��
D��
��
ü��
nen Korallen-Berge��
(wenn mit ��
Probegrabung��
, so unbedeutend)
in 1870 durch
��
Herrn Paul Schifferdecker untersucht
��
wurden, hat der Zweifeln nicht geblieben was in ��
Ort
Korallen-Berge��
die Reste ��
der Siedlung��
(Schifferdecker
1873: 60) entdeckt sind. Auf es bezeichnen gefunden��
en�
in die einigen Punkt��
e��
auf südlich��
e��
und nord��
liche
D��
ü��
nen��
die Reste der Ansammeln ��
der Holzkohlen��,
die Schicht der
��
verbrennend��e� “Häuschen”
��
a��
��
uf dem
südlichen Rand des Hügels I, des gespalteten Gerölles
(ist��
Konservant��
auf dem Herd in die nächtliche Zeit),
die Steine mit den Resten “��
d��
er ��
L��
ehml��
ösung” zwischen
ihnen, die Keramik und d��
i��
e��
unverbrannten� ��
Tierk��
nochens (Schifferdecker 1873: 56-59). Die Wahrheit, die
eingeschränkten finanziellen Umstände haben Herrn
��
P��
. ��
Schifferdecker��
nicht zugelassen, die Ausgrabungen
wieder der
��
geöffnet��
��
en fr��
ü��
hmittelalterliche Siedlung�
in die nachfolgenden Feldsaisons zu entfalten. Diese
Möglichkeit wurde den Archäologen nur durch 131
Jahr nach den Arbeiten Herrn
��
P. Schifferdecker��
auf
Korallen��
-��
Berge� ��
vorgestellt.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Abb. 4. Foto des Fragmentes des Elchs��
��
chulterblattes Nr�
��
250��
a aus Korallen-Berg��
(Süd).
der etnisch-kulturellen��
Charakteristiken des gegebenen
Denkmales.
Abb. 3. ��
Die Funde��
mit den Runenz��
��
eichen aus Grabungs��
fl��
ä��
che��
I ��
der Siedlung Korallen-Berg��
(Süd): 1��
- Avers��
��
mit der
��
Zinnplattierung��
und Revers��
��
mit durchgeschnitten��
e Zeichen
der��
B��
��
ronzen��
fibel��
Nr��
��
8 ��
aus��
dem Oberhorizont; 2 - das
Fragment des Elchs��
��
chulterblattes Nr��
��
250a aus dem unteren
Horizont mit den durchgeschnittenen Zeichen.
Die Siedlung��
wurde im Anfang Juli 2001 im Lauf der
archäologisch��e��
��
Untersuchungen, geleitet von
��
der von
��
der B��
��
altischen Expedition ��
IfA��
der RAdW��
��
auf Kurische
��
Nehrung��
(Кулаков, ��
Тепляков, ��
Пузакова, ��
2001: 44)
entdeckt. Leider, N��
��
ord��
d��
ü��
ne��
��
Korallen-Berg��
, besetzt vom
��
Hof Herrn
��
A.I. Grigor’ev��
und ��
verfügend der kulturellen
Schicht der ��
Wikingerzeit��
, zu den Ausgrabungen ist
nicht brauchbar. Die Arbeiten wurden auf südlich��e
D��
ü��
ne��
Korallen-Berg��
��
unternommen. ��
In Juli ��
2001 unter
ander��
e Funde��
in erosierte
�� Teil
��
dies ��
D��
ü��
ne ��
wurden drei
eisern��
en Barren��
gefunden. ��
Ähnlich��
e��
Funde��
��
unter dem
Namen Eisen-Schlacken erwähnt ��
Herrn P. Schifferdecker��
unter ��
der Materiellen��
auf Nord��
d��
ü��
ne��
Korallen��
Berg��
(S��
c��
hifferdecker ��
1873: 55). ��
Das alles bezeichnete
auf den offenbar nicht gewöhnlichen Charakter sich
einrichtend��
e��
hier��
Siedlung�.
Von der Aufgabe der Arbeiten auf südlich��
e D��
ü��
ne Korallen-Berg��
(wegen des Studiums einer ��
D��
ü��
ne��
wird
seine Benennung in diesem Fall in der einzigen Zahl)
verwendet es gab die Entdeckung der kulturellen
Schicht und die Feststellung der
��
chronologisch��
��
en��
und�
Für den Beschluß der erwähnten höher Aufgabe auf
westlich��
e Grenze��
des hochgelegnen ��
Teiles des ��
D��
ü��
nenp��
latzes wurde die
��
Grabungsfl��
ä��
che ��
I��
.��
B��
��
ei seinem
Aufmachen wurden zwei ungleichzeitige Horizonte
mit den zahlreichen archäologischen Komplexen des
Siedlungsc��
harakteres entdeckt. Im
��
��
s��
ü��
d��
-östlich��e� ��
Teil ��
der
Grabungsfl��
ä��
che��
, innerhalb des ��
Oberranges wurde die
Pfosteng��
rube 1 geöffnet. Ihre
��
Form im Plan - oval, ��
Ma��
ßnahme� 0,30
��
��x� ��
0,26 ��
M��
, ist die ��
��
Tiefe ��
von der ��
Obergrenze
des Oberhorizontes 0,13 M, ��
durch Sanderde��
mit der
grossen Quantität ��
der Asche- und Kohle��
inschaltungen,
bezeichnend auf gefüllt was die stehende hier fr��
��
ü��
her�
Säule der Einwirkung des Feuers unterworfen wurde.
In 0,20 M��
��
zum Norden ��
von der Grube ��
1, auf ��
0,53 M�
��
ist es als das Niveau ihres Boden höher ist entdeckt
leicht geschmolzene bronzene Plattenfibel��
. Auf ihrer
Vorderseite wurden die Reste ��
der sog. Zinnplattierung�
aufgespart. Auf der ��
Hinters��
eite��
der Fibel befindet sich�
das durchschneidene
��
Zeichen
��
als “��
��
d��
as schräge Kreuz”,
entsprechend��
der Rune “��
��
geb��
o”��
(Abb. 3,1).�
��
Dieses
Zeichen kann sind, des Besitzers oder des Bezeichnens
der Gabe dies��
��
er Fibel bekannt.
��
Die geraden Analogien dies��
er Spange��
sind auf kurische
��
Schlo��
ß��
bergBirutes Kalnas��
bekannt, wo solch��
e Fibel
durch Prof. Dr. Vladas ��
Ž��
ulkus in� ��
IX��
.��
-XII��
. Jh.��
datiert
wird (Ž��
ulkus� 1997:
�� 176
��
pav.,7, 32
��
lent.), ��
ferner - in
nordkurischen Fudmaterial in Lettland, ��
teilweise - auf
Flachgr��
ä��
berfeld� ��
Laiviai und Viš��
p��
ilis (Vaitkunskienė
1981: 54, 34 pav). Typologische��
��
Vorgänger solch��
er
Fibeln��
kann ��
der Artefact��
, gefunden in ��
1991 auf die
155
D i e R u n e n d e s S a m l a n d s ��:
F u n d e��
S a i s o� n��2 00
� � 1�
Vladimir
Kulakov
Aschenplatz (��
Stellen der Verbrennung��
)��
auf Gr��
��
ä��
berfeld
H��
ü��
nenberg��
(��
bei Rantau-Neu Kuhren in Noed-Samland��
) (Kulakov 1994:
��
2 pav sein.,1), aufsteigend zu
den ��
traditionelle kurische
��
Sticknadeln
��
mit ��
kreuzf��
ö��
rmige Kopfen�.
Innerhalb des unteren, frühen Horizontes, geöffnet auf
Grabungsfl��
ä��
che��
I unter dem sich einrichtenden höher
Ansammeln der
�� verbrannten
��
Holzplatten��
(wurde der
Teil ��
der Hausruine��
) in Q.
�� 10
��
die hohe Konzetration
der Funden��
bezeichnet. Unter
��
ihnen: 40 Knochen der
Tiere (einschliesslich - des ��
Elchk��
nochens), den ��
Teil
der Schale des Hirsches, des
��
zwei
��
��
Bockh��
ornes, das
bearbeite Fragment
��
des Hornes und das Fragment des
Schulterblattes ��
des Elches��
(?) Nr�
��
250ŕ ��
mit geglattene�
��
von der äusser Oberfläche, auf die ��
beobechtet man die
durchgeschnitten ��
durch ��
Pfriem��
Zeichen, sehr erinnernd
der Runen der
�� jünger��
��
e Futark� ��
“��
kaun��
”��/ ��
“юurs” / ��
“��
gebo�”1
(Abb. 3,2; 4). Das letzte Zeichen von der Schreibung
mahnt das ähnliche Zeichen auf ��
Fibel Nr��
8 (Abb. 3,1).
��
Außerdem zusammen mit dies��
en Funde��
in ��
Q. ��
10 sind ��
27
Fragmente der Wände der
��
grau-gelben drehgemachten
Tongef��
äß��
en��
, das Fragment ��
des Lehmblockes��
��
mit dem
Bilsenkraut von der Fasadeno��
��
berfläche, das Stück
des Lehmblockes��
mit dem
��
Unterdr��
ü��
ck der Stange�
gefunden.
Das ��
flache Knochenf��
ragment ��
Nr� ��
250��
a��
war zusätzlich
abgeplattet��
, auf daß sein Schnitt (Abb. ��
3,2) bezeichnet.
Möglich, wurde diese Operation bei der Hilfe
eines aus der flach��
��
en��
S��
��
chleif��
steinen��
, im ��
Überschuß
gefunden in ��
Grabungsfl��
ä��
che� ��
I. ��
D��
ann dem scharfen
Gegenstand (eisern��
e Pfriem��
) gab es zwei parallel
die horizontalen Linien��
geschnittet��
, und zwischen
ihnen sind drei Zeichen, entsprochen mit ��
der Runen�
der jünger��
en Futark��
zugefügt. Die
��
Aufschrift wird in
die semantische Linie, erinnernd die ��
apotroph��
ä��
ische
Formel aufgebaut. Sie ist zu den in den verschiedenen
Sprachen bekannten Formelen der
��
Feindw��
ö��
rter��
, schick��
ende der Kranheit� vergleichbar.
�� Die
��
��
Scutzs��
emantik dies
und solcher Formelen mit der
��
Rune “��
��
kaun��
”��
wie des
Schlüsselzeichens betonen des ��
magische Vermerkes
��
auf Halsringen��
��
aus Schatz�
��
1988 in Moskauer Kreml��’�
(Молчанов 1995: 42). In ��
Corpus der
��
runischen
��
Aufschriften 2001 sind zwei Knochen aus Maskowits��
chi��
(Weißrußland), enthaltend der Runen��
��
schrift, nach
Liniensystem��
und den Sinn (Мельникова ��
2001: 220)
��
sind nah
��
dem
��
Fund��
aus ��
Korallen-Berg��
aufgeführt.
Die b��
eide ��
Funde��
, entdeckt��
e��
in die
��
erst��
��
e��
Saisons der
Ausgrabungen auf ��
Kurische Nehrung��
, bezeichnen
auf ��
Stand��
des skandinavischen ethno��
��
-kulturellen
Elementes im gegebenen Mikroregion Baltikums�
��
auf dem Ausgang der Epoche ��
der Wikinger��. ��
Das
1.
156
Dankend der komp��
ä��
tente ��
Ü��
bersetzung Herrn Dr.
��
F.B. Us��
penskij.
keramische Material und übrig��
e Funde��
datieren U��
��
nter��e�
und die Ober��
e H��
orizonte des
��
Korallen-Berges (S��
ü��
d)�
entsprechend in den bedingten Rahmen 950-1010
und 1010-1200. Die Interesse der
��
dänisch��
��
en Konungen��
zwar in diese Periode
��
ist in der skandinavischen
schriftlichen Tradition (Mickevičius 1993: 162), die
konstanten Militärs und die Handelskontakte ��
zwischen
J��
ü��
tland��
und Kurnareal
��
im
��
Umkreis Palanga haben in X.XI. Jh��
. z��
u��
r Bildung in der Mündung Rou��
��
žė��
-Fl��
üß��
es��
des
Siedlungk��
omplexes mit polyethnischen Bevölkerung
geführt (��
Ž��
ulkus� ��
1997: ��
290). ��
Die ��
überzeugenden
Analogien zwischen den ��
Siedlungsm��
aterialien in der
Rou��
žė��
-M��
ündung (einschließend den
��
Fund��
auf Hei��
ligtum Birutes-Kalnas��
d��
es��
Stück��
s��
des Knochens mit
den runenv��
ö��
rmigen��
Zeichen - ��
Ž��
ulkus� ��
1997: ��
169 pav.,
2) und Korallen-Berg��
��
(Süd) lassen
��
für den letzten zu
auch, die den Charaktere gemischt��
e��
B��
��
evölkerung zu
vermuten.
Literatur und Archivalien
Kulakov��
,��
V. 1994.��
��
Vakarų ��
Lietuvių ��
V - XII a. radiniai Prūsų
žemėse. In: Klaipėdos miesto ir regiono archeologijos ir
istorijos problemos. Klaipėda�.
Mickevičius��
,��
A. ��
1993.��
Kuršiai
��
Sakso Gramatiko duomenimis��. In:
�� Klaipėdos miesto ir regiono archeologijos ir
istorijos problemos. Klaipėda�.
Schifferdecker��
,��
P. ��
1873. Bericht ��
über eine Reise zur ��
Durchforschung der Kurischen Nehrung in archäeologischer
Hinsicht.� In:
�� SPÖG�, 14. Jahrg., 2. Abt.
Vaitkunskienė��,� L.
�� 1981.
��
Sidabras senov��
ė��s Lietuvoje,
��
Vilnius.
Ž��
ulkus��
,��
V. ��
1997. Palangos ��
viduramžių ��
gyvenvietės,
Klaipėda.
Кулаков, В.И. 1988. Птица-хищник и птица-жертва в
символах и эмблемах IX-XI вв. In: СА, № 3.
Кулаков, В.И. 1990. Древности пруссов ��
VI-XIII ��
��
вв.
Кулаков, В.И. 1993а. Элементы письменной культуры
населения земли пруссов. In:�
�� КСИА, вып. 208.
Кулаков, В.И. 1993б. Северная Самбия: апрель 997 года
In:� КСИА, вып. 210.
Кулаков, В.И. 1995. Археологический перипл Куршского
залива. In:
�� Изучение памятников морской археологии.
Вып. 2. Санкт-Петербург.
Кулаков, В.И. 1998. Коллоквиум “Протогородские центры Руси между Скандинавией, Византией и Востоком
(��
VIII-X� ��
вв.)” (Париж, ��
1997). ��
In: РА, 1998, № 4.
Кулаков, В.И. 2001. Руноподобные знаки и руны
старшего футарка в древностях юго-восточной Балтии.
Юбилейный сборник А.В. Цауне, Рига ( в печати).
Кулаков, В.И., Тепляков, Г.Н., Пузакова, Г.С., 2001.
Остров Розиттен: история заселения, КалининградКёнигсберг.
Мельникова, Е.А. 2001. Скандинавские рунические надписи. In: Новые находки и интерпретации. Тексты, перевод, комментарий.
Молчанов, А.А. 1995. Языческие обереги клада древнерусских, скандинавских и восточных ювелирных
изделий ��
XI��-� ��
нач. ��
XIII� ��
вв. ��
из ��
Московского ��
Кремля. ��
In:
Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. Язычество, христианство, церковь, Москва.
A b k ��
ü ��
rzungverzeichnis
КСИА - Краткие сообщения Института археологии
РА - Российская археология
СА - Советская археология
SPÖG - Schriften der Physikalisch-Ökonomischer Gesellschaft.
Vladimir Kulakov
Institut für Archaologie RadW
Dm. Uljanova – Str., 19
117036 Moskau Russland
[email protected]
BALTICA 6
Įrašas išsidėsto į semantinę liniją, primenančią
apotropeistinę formulę. Ją galima palyginti su įvairiose
kalbose aptinkamomis užkeikimų formulėmis siunčiant
ligas.
ARCHAELOGIA
Пушкина, Т.А. 2001. Подвеска-амулет из Гнёздова. Норна у источника судьбы. In: Сборник статей в честь
Елены Александровны Мельниковой, Москва.
Смирнова, М.Е. 2001. Открытые культовые площадки
северного побережья Самбии. In: Практика и теория
археологических исследований, Москва.
Архив ИА РАН, Р-��
I��. Кулаков
��
В.И., Отчёт о раскопках
��
Балтийской экспедиции в 2001 г. на Кораллен-Берг.
Erhalten: 2002
2001 met ų sezono S ambijos
r u n os
VLADIMIRAS KULAKOVAS
Santrauka
2001 metų vasarą į Zelenogradsko rajoninį istorijosarcheologijos muziejų pateko kabutis, pagamintas iš
sidabrinio lydinio nuopjovos. Vienoje iš jo pusių, dar
nespėjus sukietėti metalui buvo įrėžta runa ю��
urs (2 pav.
kairėje). Kabutis aptiktas prieš 2��
–��
3 metus Medvežės
upės kranto nuošliaužoje, 0,4 km į šiaurės vakarus nuo
Dubki-Kunterstrauch giraitėje esančios šventyklos.
Šiame kabutyje skandinavas, kreipęsis malda į dievus,
išgraviravo vieną runą.
Tyrinėjant gyvenvietę Korallen-Berg (Süd) kopoje 1
duobėje aptikta nedaug apdegusi žalvarinė kryžinė segė.
Jos priekinėje pusėje išliko alavo ir cinko plokštelės
pėdsakų. Užsegimo pusėje matyti įbrėžtas ženklas –
įstrižas kryžius, atitinkantis runą gebî (3:1 pav.). Tai
gali būti savininko ženklas arba šios segės dovanojimo
ženklas.
10 kvadrate, X amžiaus pabaiga datuojamame
kultūrinio sluoksnio horizonte, aptikta įvairių dirbinių
sankaupa. Tarp jų briedžio (?) mentės kaulas su
išlygintu paviršiumi, kuriame matyti įrėžti ženklai, primenantys runas kaun /�� юurs ��/��
��
gebo (3: 2; 4 pav.).
157
Medieval Leather Footwear
f r o m Ta l l i n n
Krista Sarv
M e d i e va l L e at h e r F o o t w e a r f r o m Ta ll i n n
Krista Sarv
Abstract
Finds of footwear in the excavations in Town Hall Square and Vene, Vaimu, Sauna and Roosikrantsi streets reflect the medieval footwear fashion of Tallinn as well as of the whole of northern and Central Europe. Strap shoes, low laced shoes and
high laced shoes might be considered as fashion footwear. The respective chronologies of northern Europe demonstrate the
existence of thong, strap and low laced shoes and high laced shoes through many centuries, but the peaks of use – the period
of the fashion – of these types do not exceed 70 to 80 years. Since Tallinn belonged to the Hanseatic League, the cultural
phenomena occurring here were probably the same in Central and northern Europe.
Key words: footwear, shoes, Tallinn, Medieval.
158
The large number of finds from urban excavations and
the possibilities for different interpretations of written
sources have induced researchers to use archaeological
finds to explain social and cultural phenomena. Thanks
to the discussion in archaeological theory about a single find group as a possible reflection of society, which
enables us to seek answers to a constantly widening
variety of questions, the rather illustrative role of
leather finds in excavation reports has begun to change
towards exhaustive analysis. In earlier excavation reports, most attention was paid to construction remains
and the analysis of pottery, the first expressing some
structural development, the other supporting it chronologically. The Dutch archaeologist Groeneman-van
Waateringe stresses three criteria which make the typochronology of footwear vital for archaeology. First,
footwear is the only category of clothing of which the
development is known starting from the Neolithic period. Second, since footwear is a part of clothing, it
has a direct connection with human culture, from the
aspect of fashion. One can express oneself through
clothing, and distinguish oneself from others, to demonstrate one’s belonging to a group, or to single oneself
out individually. Third, footwear provides information
about the health of individuals (Goubitz, Driel-Murray,
Groeneman-van Waateringe 2001: 393). During the
past two decades, rich find material has been recovered
from archaeological excavations in Tallinn. In several
sites, quantities of leather artefacts and fragments of
them have been discovered, thanks to the good preserving qualities of the cultural layer. Investigations of
archaeological leather have been rather modest up to
now. In local archaeological literature, only a couple
of universal articles have been published about leather
finds from Tartu and Tallinn (Valk-Falk 1984, 1985),
but also a more thorough analysis of leather footwear
from the excavations in Pärnu in 1990 (Rommot 1990).
In recent years, a review has been published of the medieval leather footwear found in the excavation of Sauna Street 10, Tallinn (Sarv 2000), and an analysis of the
leather finds from Roosikrantsi Street, Tallinn, written
by A. Kurbatov, an archaeologist from St. Petersburg,
is going to be published.
The present article sets out to give a survey of the
footwear of medieval townsmen, on the basis of footwear found in various archaeological excavations in
Tallinn.
Material
The leather footwear discussed in the article comes
from four sites inside the medieval town wall: Town
Hall Square, Sauna Street, Vaimu Street, Vene Street,
and Roosikrantsi Street in a medieval suburb outside
the town wall (Fig. 1).
Single examples of footwear have also been found at
some other sites in Tallinn, but these five excavations
were selected for their larger area and the better documentation of the finds. Besides, the material from Town
Hall Square and Vene Street deserves special attention,
since the location has been suggested as the general
residence of shoemakers and the footwear trade (Kaplinski 1995: 23). The excavations in Sauna Street were
the most extensive, a whole dwelling complex was discovered together with outbuildings and fences. From
these excavations, the largest and most interesting col-
2. Viru 1/Vene 2 and 4
Excavations: 1996–1997, 20 sq. m
Leather finds: 49 pieces of footwear
3. Roosikrantsi St. 9 and 11
Excavations: 1996, 2,294 sq. m
4. Sauna St. 8 and 10
Leather finds: of nearly 10,000 pieces
of leather, 5,638 came from footwear
BALTICA 6
1. Town Hall Square
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Location plan of the excavation areas
5. Vaimu 2/Pikk 47
Excavations: 2001, 68 sq. m
lection of leather finds was recovered, 59.6 % of which
is fragments of footwear. Owing to its diversity, this
collection forms the basis of the typology of medieval
footwear of Tallinn. The material from Roosikrantsi
Street is especially interesting for being found in a suburb, thus providing comparative material for the finds
from within the town wall.
Te r m i n o l o g y
Among the parts of archaeological leather footwear,
soles and uppers prevailed. Whole shoes were few, and
no pairs of shoes were found. Other smaller details of
footwear were also numerous: connecting pieces of uppers, edgings, heel-stiffeners, seam margins of soles,
fastening parts and lace-hole reinforcements.
In the article, the terms “shoe”, “boot” and “soft peasant shoes” are used to specify footwear more accurately. Shoes are footwear with soles and uppers cut
separately from a piece of leather. Shoes are either
with or without fastenings. Shoes can be divided into
three categories by the length of the leg: low, with the
leg ending at the ankle; medium-high, the leg ending above/on the ankle; high, the leg reaching at least
halfway up the fibula. A boot is footwear without fastening, with a separately cut upper, leg and sole, and
with the leg covering the fibula. A soft peasant shoe is
slipper-like footwear made of a single piece of leather,
fastened with a cord or thong(s) running through slits
cut in the edges of the piece. Considering the above,
archaeological leather footwear can be divided into the
following types: thong shoes, strap shoes, laced shoes,
pumps, laced boots and soft peasant shoes.
159
Krista Sarv
160
Medieval footwear in
Ta l l i n n
Thong shoes are low, medium or
high shoes, fastened with leather
straps over pairs of slits in the
front and rear parts of the shoe.
By the length of the leg and the
type of fastening, thong shoes
are divided into several groups.
1. Low shoes fastened with one
leather strap: footwear with the
upper consisting of a single piece
of leather, or sometimes also having one or two connecting pieces
(Fig. 2: 1). Characteristic were the
pairs of slits, up to six in number,
immediately below the upper
edge, for the fastening straps.
This type had two versions: a)
thong shoes with a V-shaped incision on the instep; b) thong shoes
cut very low on the sides, and the
uppers rising sharply from the
middle of the side towards the
toe. The seams on the top edges
of the uppers of both suggest an Fig. 2. Some examples of shoes from Tallinn. (Drawn by Sofia Pantelejeva)
edging of a leather strap, or perhaps a fastening of the lining. Numerous finds of edg- thong shoe (AI 6332: 511) was decorated with three
ing straps seem to support the first. 2. Medium-high oval incisions, made in an openwork technique, with a
shoes fastened with a single leather strap (Fig. 2: 1.1). leaf-shaped middle part. Two of the uppers found (AI
Besides the height, this type is discernible by the up- 6332: 181, 263) had incisions in the shape of a willow
per consisting of two parts, the toe and the heel cut to- leaf in the toe part, evidently meant as decoration. The
gether, and a separate connecting piece for the (inner) irregular perforation on the toe part of one upper (AI
side. An exceptional specimen of this type (AI 6332: 6332: 208) might also be a decoration.
122) was found at Sauna Street: its toe and heel parts
The parts of strap shoes found (Fig. 2: 3) belonged to
are cut separately. The two pairs of slits for a leather
the low and light type, fastened with two straps cut tostrap were usually located at the ankle and by the lower
gether with the upper. On the uppers found, two differedge of the upper. An important characteristic is the
ent fastening constructions could be observed: one type
Y-shaped incision on the instep. 3. High shoe fastened
had the straps cut together with the heel part, the other’s
with a single leather strap. This is distinguished from
strap on the inner side of the footwear was cut together
the thong shoe fastened with a single strap only by the
with the connecting piece. Two different modes were
length of the leg and the fact that the top edge of the
also used for fastening strap shoes. The most common
upper lacked traces of sewing. The rest of the technical
was a fastening where the straps were connected by a
details are the same. Uppers with a Y-shape incision on
thong pulled through the holes at the ends of the straps
the instep prevailed.
and tied. Among the strap shoes found in Town Hall
By the length of leg and the mode of fastening (4) (me- Square, a fastening where the straps were held together
dium-)high shoes fastened with two leather straps and by a knotted thong, which was fastened to the middle
(5) high thong shoes fastened with three leather straps of the instep, prevailed. Some of the uppers had heelcould also be distinguished (Fig. 2: 1.2 - 1.2.1).
stiffeners, or seam traces suggesting such details. The
heel-stiffeners found in Sauna Street were either trapThe thong shoes found in Tallinn were simple in their
ezoid or triangular. Among the archaeological finds in
construction, and relatively modest. Decoration on
Tallinn, there is an upper of a strap shoe (AI 6332: 49),
footwear was observed only on a couple of low shoes
probably dating from a later period, the heel part of
from Sauna Street. The toe part of the upper of one
One upper of a laced shoe (AI 6332: 16) found at Sauna
Street had two slits on the instep, cut towards the toe.
It was not necessarily decoration, it might also have
been deliberate damage to the shoe. From the excavation at Town Hall Square, a fragment of a laced shoe
came to light with an incision on the toe in the shape
of an oak leaf.
The high laced shoe (Fig. 2: 2) was footwear with the
leg up to 23 centimetres high and the upper consisting of two or three parts. Toggle-holes were cut in the
outer edge of the leg, and on the opposite side toggles
were fastened on thongs of a length of about three centimetres. The boot was fastened with the toggles pulled
through the toggle-holes. Among the finds from Sauna
Street, three varieties of high laced shoes could be distinguished, differing from each other by the number
of parts. A) Two-part uppers: the toe part and leg were
cut together, and the fastening with the knotted straps
separately. Trapezoid and triangular heel-stiffeners
occurred as complementary details. B) Three-part uppers: the toe and a part of the leg were cut together, the
upper part of the leg and the fastening with the straps
were separate. For the heel-stiffener, a very wide triangular piece of leather was used. C) Three-part uppers:
toe, leg and fastening parts were all cut separately.
Reinforcing parts in the shape of a high triangle or a
high lozenge also belonged to the heel part of the upper. Among the finds from Sauna Street there was a
piece of a leg, which, based on the seam traces, came
from a laced boot with the two-part upper (leg and toe)
cut separately. Among the finds is footwear decorated
in an openwork technique. One of the best-preserved
legs of a child’s/woman’s laced boot (AI 6332: 165)
is decorated over its whole length with a belt in a Tshaped pattern, consisting of three rows of four-mil-
Fig. 3. Part of the back of a soft peasant shoe, Sauna St. 10
(AI 6332:370). (Drawn by Krista Sarv)
limetre crosses on a 20-millimetre-wide belt, incised
with a stamp and lined on each side with two-millimetre-long lozenge indentations. At the ankle, the same
pattern forms a circle with a diameter of 15 millimetres, with a cross consisting of smaller crosses incised
in the middle. The same pattern, in a triangular design,
also covers the toe part of the upper.
ARCHAELOGIA
The low laced shoe (Fig. 2: 4) used in medieval Tallinn
was low footwear, its upper consisting of one or two
parts. The fastening was a narrow U-shaped incision
at the side, with two pairs of holes at each side for the
leather thong fastening. Seam traces at the top edge
of some uppers found at Sauna Street suggest edging
or lining. Six fragments found at Sauna Street have a
narrow V-shaped incision on the instep. The U-shaped
lace-hole reinforcement and the triangular heel-stiffener belonged also to laced shoes as complementary
details.
BALTICA 6
which consisted of two parts sewn together in the middle of the heel. Of the 38 fragments of strap shoes, only
one part of a child’s footwear (AI 6332: 407) was decorated. The main decorative element was a leaf-shaped
slit reaching almost to the toe of the shoe, with a piece
of leather in the middle connected to the rest of the upper by narrow radial straps.
Among the finds from Town Hall Square, there is a toe
part of a high laced shoe (AI 4061: 4995) with decoration applied in the same technique. The decoration
consists of three stylised blossoms in small holes, located in a triangle at the end of the toe part of the upper. Another decorated high laced boot from Town Hall
Square had a toe of a sandal shape: on each side of the
toe a jagged slit had been cut, and between them is a
leather strip, a couple of centimetres wide, tapering towards the toe, with very jagged sides. At Roosikrantsi
Street two very elegant legs of boots (AI 6109: II/473,
II/718) were found, with an indented top edge above
two horizontal rows of small holes.
The boot was footwear without a fastening, with a leg
probably slightly higher than that of a high laced shoe.
The upper presumably consisted of separately cut toe
and leg parts.
Among the archaeological finds from Tallinn, there are
some plain uppers of a single piece of leather which
might belong to a slipper-like pump (Fig. 2: 5). This is
a very plain slip-on shoe. One piece of such an upper,
found at Sauna Street, bore sewing traces, suggesting a
triangular heel-stiffener.
The last type of footwear is soft peasant shoes, made of
a rectangular piece of leather with holes or slits at the
edges for the fastening laces. In the excavations discussed there are few of these (15 in total). Of the nine
peasant shoe fragments found at Sauna Street, eight
were children’s footwear, and only one poorly preserved specimen belonged to an adult. The children’s
soft peasant shoes were usually made of two parts: the
heel and toe were cut separately. Two of the shoes of
this type had the back part joining in the middle of the
heel. Based on the relatively large holes, the heel was
161
Krista Sarv
sewn with a leather thong and the front and back parts
with thread or with bass (Fig. 3).
The fastenings of soft peasant shoes were different:
four of them had slits in the sides for a coarser leather
thong or a bass band; three had smaller holes in the
sides, evidently for a finer leather thong. The soft peasant shoes of adults, found at Tallinn, were all similar,
made of thicker leather and fastened by a leather thong
running through holes in the edges.
Dating
The context of the footwear found at Town Hall
Square, and Vene, Vaimu, Sauna and Roosikrantsi
street excavations covers a wide time scale from the
13th to the 15th centuries. Most of the footwear from
Vene Street came from the cultural layer of the 13th
and 14th centuries (Jaanits, Smirnov 1998). Based on
radiocarbon dating of the samples from the excavation
on Roosikrantsi Street, the footwear cannot be dated
to later than the mid-14th century (Ševeljov 1997: 19).
The cultural layer is too heavily mixed, so a more accurate dating of the finds is not possible. Stratigraphically, the discerned types of archaeological footwear in
Tallinn are distributed quite evenly, all types are represented in almost all archaeological layers. Only at Sauna Street was it observed that the first strap shoe was
found 0.5 metres higher than other types of footwear.
The somewhat later spread of strap shoes, with its peak
in the 14th and 15th centuries, is also confirmed by
the respective chronologies of Pärnu, Estonia (Rommot 1990: 3), Stockholm, Sweden (Zerpe, Fredriksson
Distribution of shoe forms
162
1982: 223), and Schleswig, Germany (Schnack 1992:
96) material. Substantial help and chronological support for the more accurate dating of the finds can be
found in the chronologies of archaeological footwear
of other medieval Hanseatic towns. Since the finds at
Tallinn generally resemble strongly those from Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway (Cinthio 1976;
Koch 1988; Larsen 1992; Schia 1977; Zerpe, Fredriksson 1982), chronological support should be sought
from the northern shore of the Baltic Sea. Although
these chronologies cannot be applied directly to the Estonian finds, they give the “lifetime” of the shoe types
in these geographically relatively close areas. The use
of Scandinavian chronologies is also based on the fact
that in medieval registers of artisans, shoemakers’
names of Scandinavian origin occur quite frequently
(Kaplinski 1980).
Based on the very well-dated burning layers of Bergen, the peak of the use of laced shoes was the period 1170 to 1248, when all height varieties are represented. After 1248, this type of footwear does not
vanish, it just occurs less frequently. From 1476 to the
18th century, only the high variety of laced shoes is
used. The low ones do not occur among archaeological
finds. Thus we may say that lace shoes were used in
Bergen for more than 500 years, but low laced shoes
were used for only 300 years. The absolute peak of
the laced shoes lasted for 75 to 80 years only. Strap
shoes were used in Bergen for nearly 450 years, with
the peak in 1332–1413, when it prevailed in local footwear traditions for over 80 years (Larsen 1992, Fig.
54). In Swedish towns, strap shoes became predomi-
Fashionable or everyday footwear?
A quantitative analysis of footwear finds from Tallinn
proves the prevalence of thong shoes (see table). These
shoes were most numerous among the finds from
Sauna Street and Town Hall Square, while in the material from Roosikrantsi Street this type of shoe was
missing. Such a long “lifetime” and abundance among
archaeological finds, as well as the bad state (sometimes completely worn out) of the thong shoes found
in Tallinn, and the frequently occurring rough patching, do not allow us to connect this type with fashion.
It seems rather that this was easily made and probably also quite cheap everyday footwear. The next by
number was strap shoes. All strap shoes found and
the pieces of them came from within the Town Wall.
In Roosikrantsi Street in the suburb such finds were
missing. The third quite large type of footwear was the
high laced shoe, which was more or less equally represented among the finds from Vaimu and Roosikrantsi
streets and Town Hall Square, and slightly more in the
material from Sauna Street 8 and 10. All finds from
Roosikrantsi Street were elegantly decorated. These
decorated pieces from Roosikrantsi and Sauna streets,
and the not so frequent occurrence, suggest that high
laced shoes were the footwear of wealthier townsmen.
Finds of boots were remarkably few. This does not
necessarily indicate their low popularity or rare use.
Numerous finds of waste leather have shown that boot
BALTICA 6
legs of stronger leather were often used again, and the
frequent finds of toe parts from uppers of strong leather, of no specific type, may belong to boots. Boots were
meant to protect the feet from water, mud and extreme
temperatures. At the same time, they would also protect the feet from injuries at work. Boots were made
of tougher leather than other footwear, the sewing of
their multi-layered soles was complicated. Although
shoemakers could also make boots, special guilds of
boot-makers existed everywhere in Europe (Goubitz,
Driel-Murray, Groenman-van Waateringe 2001, 229).
The scarcity of boot finds may also be caused by their
belonging to the category of special footwear, eg for
builders.
ARCHAELOGIA
nant in the 13th and the 14th centuries (Groenman-van
Waateringe 1993: 505). The pieces of strap shoes from
the layers of the 14th century from the excavations of
Vene and Vaimu streets, and the respective finds from
Sauna Street on a wider time scale, mark the spread of
strap shoes here also. How widely they were used, and
whether strap shoes belonged to the paraphernalia of a
common townsman, cannot be said yet. The use of the
laced shoe was stable, without any rise or fall to speak
of, in northern and Central Europe for a long time in
the 12th to the 16th centuries (Larsen 1992: Fig. 54;
Schnack 1994: Abb:8). In the archaeological material from Tallinn, the period of their use is also hard
to identify. More concrete is the dating of high laced
shoes. In Germany the peak of their use falls in the
first half of the 13th century and the mid-14th century
(Schnack 1993: 65). In Denmark the peak of their use
falls into the period 1323 to 1365 (Koch 1988: Table
1). The low laced shoes found at Roosikrantsi Street
come from deposits of the mid-14th century. The chronology of boots is desultory, only in Bergen has it been
possible to date this type of footwear to the period 1198
to 1413. The rest of the footwear types cannot be dated
with any accuracy, owing to the scarcity of finds.
References
Cinthio, M. 1976. Skor. In: A. W. Mårtensson (et al) Uppgrävt förlutet för Pkbanken i Lund. En investering i arkeologie. Archaeologica Lundensia VII. Malmö, 307–316.
Goubitz, O., Driel-Murray, C. van, Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 2001. Stepping through Time. Archaeological
Footwear from Prehistoric Times until 1800. Zwolle.
Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 1993. Organische Funde aus
Lübeck. Ein Spiegelbild der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen
Entwicklung der Hansestadt. In: Archäologie des Mittelalters und Bauforschung im Hanseraum. Rostock, 505–510.
Jaanits, K., Smirnov, P. 1998. Aruanne arheoloogilistest kaevamistest (uuringutest) kinnistul Viru 1/Vene 2 ja 4 Tallinnas. (Manuscript in the archives of the AI).
Kaplinski, K. 1980. Tallinna käsitöölised XIV sajandil. II.,
Lisad. Tallinn.
Kaplinski, K. 1995. Tallinn – meistrite linn. Tallinn.
Koch, H.D. 1988. Fodtøj af læder og dets datering ca. 12501500. Hikuin 14. Moesgård, 61-78.
Rommot, A. 1990. Pärnu 1990. Aasta arheoloogiliste väljakaevamiste nahaleidudest. Tallinn (Manuscript in the archives of the AI).
Sarv, K. 2000. Finds of Leather Footwear from the Excavations at Sauna Street 10 in Tallinn. In: Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis/Archaeological field works in Estonia 1999.
Tallinn, 75–85.
Schia, E. 1977. Sko som arkeologisk kildemateriale. Hikuin,
3, 303–324.
Schnack, C. 1992. Die mittelalterlichen Schuhe aus Schleswig Ausgrabung Schild 1971-1975. In: Ausgrabungen
in Schleswig, Berichte und Studien. 10 Neumünster.
Schnack, C. 1994. Mittelalterliche Lederfunde aus Konstanz
(Grabung Fisschmarkt). In: Materialhefte zur Archäologie.
Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württenberg. Stuttgard.
Ševeljov, V. 1997. Aruanne arheoloogilistest uuringutest
Tallinnas kinnistutel Roosikrantsi tn. 9 ja 11. Leiumaterjali
iseloomustus. Leidude nimekiri, II kd. (Manuscript in the
archives of the AI).
Zerpe, B., Fredriksson, M. 1982. Skor och andra läderföremål, in Dahlbäck. Helgeandsholmen. Stockholm,
217–240.
Valk-Falk, E. 1984. Tartu 1981/82 aasta ja Tallinna 1982
aasta arheoloogiliste kaevamiste nahaleidude analüüs.
Tallinn.
Valk-Falk, E. 1985. Arheoloogilised nahaleiud Tartu vanalinnast. Tartu - minevik, tänapäev. Tallinn, 64–70.
163
Krista Sarv
Krista Sarv
Estonian Historical Museum,
Pikk 17, 10123 Tallinn, Estonia
odinis V id u ram ž i ų apavas
iš Talino
KRISTA SARV
Santrauka
Archeologinių tyrinėjimų Talino Rotušės aikštėje metu
Vene, Vaimu, Sauna ir Roosikrantsi gatvėse aptiktas
apavas atskleidžia viduramžių apavo madas ne tik Taline, bet ir visoje Šiaurės bei Vidurio Europoje. Dirželiais suvarstomas apavas – žemais ir aukštais aulais
suvarstomi batai gali būti skiriami modeliniam apavui.
Tuo pat metu odinis apavas, atrodo, buvo naudotas ir
vidutinių miestiečių kiekvieną dieną. Auliniais batais
turėjo būti avima dirbant sunkius darbus. Mažai rasta minkšto valstietiško apavo. Minkštas valstietiškas
apavas buvo nešiojamas, kaip manoma, žemiausiam
socialiniam sluoksniui priklausiusių miestiečių. Tačiau, atrodo, šis požiūris yra paviršutiniškas. Minkštas
apavas buvo lengvas ir lengvai apsiaunamas, jis buvo
labai patogus. Įvairių tipų modelinio apavo nešiojimo
chronologiją nustatyti yra sunku dėl komplikuoto kultūrinio sluoksnio stratigrafijos. Reprezentatyvios Šiaurės Europos chronologinės sistemos rodo, kad įvairių
modelių batai buvo dėvimi daugelį šimtmečių, tačiau
pavieniai modeliai išsilaikydavo ne ilgiau kaip 70–80
metų. Talinui tapus Hanzos miestu, kultūriniai reiškiniai ėmė nebesiskirti nuo Vidurio ir Šiaurės Europos.
164
Received: 2002
Riders From Žąsinas Cemetery
(The Classification of Spurs
F r o m T h e Vi k i n g P e r i o d a n d
Early Middle Ages on
the Basis of Material
Vytautas
Kazakevičius f r o m Ž ą s i n a s C e m e t e r y )
R i d ers fr o m Ž ą s i n as C emetery
( T h e c l ass i f i cat i o n o f sp u rs fr o m t h e V i k i n g
per i o d a n d ear ly M i d d l e A g es o n t h e bas i s
o f mater i a l fr o m Ž ą s i n as cemetery )
Vytautas Kazakevičius*
Abstract
Spurs are among the primary attributes of riders. Baltic spurs are distinctive, affected by their long development from the
beginning of the first millennium to the late Middle Ages. Their genesis is linked to the local tradition of employment and the
mismatch with typological frameworks of spurs discovered in other sites. Therefore, while analysing spurs discovered in the
Žąsinas cemetery, a typological system had to be shaped, which could be applied to characterise all spurs of the above period
discovered in Lithuania and the entire Baltic area.
Key words: spurs, typological scheme, Samogitians, Viking Period, early medieval times.
Ž ą s i n a s c e m e t e r y, i t s l o c a t i o n ,
a brief history of its excavation
and its significance
The Žąsinas (Šilalė district) village prehistoric cemetery occupies part of the hill where the graveyard of
the village is located. The cemetery has been known
since the beginning of the 20th century, when the hill
was ploughed, potato stores dug, gravel excavated, and
finally, in 1929, a byway was built to connect the villages of Žąsinas and Gūvainiai (Vaitkunskienė 1976:
1–2). Naturally, items from destroyed burials of the
third and fourth, and eighth to 12th centuries, belonging to it, appeared in Kaunas Vytautas the Great Museum, and later in the National Museum of Lithuania.
Since 1970 Žąsinas cemetery, like other monuments
in the Šilalė district, was frequently visited by Vladas Statkevičius, a devotee of regional studies who
was trying to protect monuments from destruction, to
identify their boundaries, and finally, to collect items
from destroyed monuments (Statkevičius 1975: 6, 14,
22, 24, 26, 52, 60, 61). Žąsinas cemetery was undisturbed until 1976, when Laima Vaitkunskienė started
the excavation of the site, which she did from 1976
to 1979 (Vaitkunskienė 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979). The
author of this article participated in the excavations in
1976 (Vaitkunskienė 1976: 3). Throughout the entire
period of Vaitkunskienė’s excavations, an area of 2.67
square metres was explored. Another 315-square-me VDKM 628: 1–8; 843: 1–5. Material from Žąsinas cemetery collected and discovered by V. Statkevičius is preserved in the National Museum of Lithuania (LNM AR
618: 1–836).
∗
Article prepared for publication by Au��
dronė Bliujienė.
166
tre area was excavated while revising the area of the
site with an eye to exploratory research. A total of 203
graves were discovered, belonging to the tenth to the
12th centuries (Vaitkunskienė 1979: 69–71). After the
start in 1976, it was found that a hoard of bronze ornaments had been discovered in Žąsinas village on the
River Lokysta and its nameless right tributary. Petras
Jakas, a local villager, discovered it around 1966, when
digging a cellar at a depth of one and a half metres.
It is obvious that the findings were lost and only a
bronze ring with a thickened front part became a part
of Statkevičius’ collection (Vaitkunskienė 1976: 5). In
1996, Arūnas Strazdas did some research of the location of the Žąsinas village hoard, but nothing was discovered (Strazdas 1996: 6–7).
Žąsinas cemetery is a site of Samogitian burial traditions, one of the largest Samogitian burial grounds
from the point of view of excavated graves. A typical
Samogitian burial monument, it has distinct patterns of
Curonian cultural influence in the manner of the burials (cremation burial customs, the position of burial
items), and the material culture (battleaxes, swords,
men’s belts with pendants, sharing common features
with findings from Gotland, spurs with clearly profiled bows, flat brooches of different types) (Fig. 1: 1)
(Kazakevičius 1996: 17, Fig. 7; Вайткунскене 1985:
67–76). The Curonian influence in Samogitian culture
penetrated even deeper. A good example of such permeability are pins of women’s headdress, intercepted
from the Curonians. Changing the purpose and decora
��
These spurs, according to the typology applied to the material from Žąsinas cemetery, are attributed to type V.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. Žąsinas cemetery (Šilalė district), grave 85: 1 – bronze, leather; 2–4 iron; grave 85 includes more grave
goods: fragment of a spearhead, two necklaces terminating with loops and a small maple-shaped pendant; after Laima
Vaitkunskienė 1977 (drawings by A. Gaižauskaitė, LII archive)
tion of the ornament, Samogitian jewellers, including
those from the Žąsinas community, employed them as
breast ornaments (Вайткунскене 1985: 74–75).
Žąsinas cemetery is located in a strategically favourable
place, which could easily be reached by the River Jūra
from the lower reaches of the Nemunas. The people
who left this cemetery could have acted as trade inter-
mediaries for remote Samogitian communities. Thus,
Žąsinas cemetery is close to other significant Samogitian burial sites, like Bikavėnai, Paragaudis (both in
the Šilalė district), and Upyna (Telšiai district), which
indicate that these were important Samogitian centres
of manufacturing and trade in the Viking Period and
medieval times.
167
Vytautas
Some remarks on Baltic spurs
Spurs are among the primary attributes of riders. Iron
and bronze spurs appear in Lithuania in the second half
of the second century and the beginning of the third
century (phases B2a–C1a) (Michelbertas 1986: 176–
177; 2000: 287–291; Перхавко 1978: 113–122).
Spurs belonging to the late Migration Period and
the middle of the Iron Age were closely analysed by
Kazakevičius and A. Tautavičius (Kazakevičius 1993:
80–83, Fig. 136; Tautavičius 1996: 152–156, Figs.
58–59). However, there is no unanimous typological
scheme for spurs discovered in the Baltic territories,
no chronology established by and based on other findings, and no discussions on their genesis. Spurs of the
Viking Period and early medieval times are discussed
only when publishing material on spurs from separate cemeteries or ethnic regions; therefore, they seem
to be abundant in types (Vaitkunskienė 1979a: 67,
Fig. 14: 12–14; Stankus 1995: 90–91, Fig. 76: 8–11;
Gintautaitė-Butėnienė, Butėnas 2000: 52–54, Fig. 46;
Vaškevičiūtė 2004: 82–83, Fig. 75). A wider analysis
did not reveal imported sash-like openwork spurs, in
the bows of which immovable male heads are integrated (Nagevičius 1935: Table VI: 12; Kuncienė 1972:
217, Fig. 31).
Special studies on spurs in European archaeological
historiography are also not numerous. One of the most
significant is a study by the Polish researcher Zofia
Hilczerówna. The author analyses Polish spurs of the
tenth to the 13th centuries, and distinguishes three types
of spurs and seven sub-types (Hilczerówna 1956). The
Russian archaeologist and armour researcher Anatoli
Kirpichnikov describes 588 spurs discovered in a wide
area inhabited by eastern Slavs. On the basis of their
constructional peculiarities (side, spike and loops), he
distinguishes five types of spurs and two sub-types.
The chronological framework of his research is wider,
and includes the ninth to the 13th centuries, the period prior to the invasion of Russia of the MongolsTartars in the 13th century (Кирпичников 1973).
The most comprehensive article on the appearance
and spread of spurs in Eastern Europe was written by
V. A. Perkhavko (Перхавко 1978: 113–126). This author makes use of some Lithuanian material. Another
very useful and comprehensive article was written by
the Latvian archaeologist Elvira Šnore, who analyses
spurs discovered in Asote (Jēkabpils district, Latvia)
hill-fort (Шноре 1962: 577–585).
However, until recent years there has been no manifestation of a wider interest in spurs. While analysing
spurs discovered in the Žąsinas cemetery, it is necessary to make our own typological system, which, due
168
to the general standardisation of weaponry, warriors’
and riders’ equipment, might suit a generalisation of
spurs discovered all over Lithuania and even the entire
Baltic area and belonging to the late Viking Period and
the early medieval times.
The classification of spurs from
Žąsinas cemetery
It is evident that those who were buried with spurs were
riders. Spurs from the considered period were worn on
one foot. For those buried in the Žąsinas cemetery, 16
spurs were pegged to the left foot and four to the right.
One spur was discovered by the foot, one on the breast
of the deceased person, and one together with other artefacts. The location of another ten spurs is not clear.
Most spurs from the Viking Period and early medieval
times were discovered on the left foot in other Samogitian, Semigallian and Curonian cemeteries as well
(Tautavičius 1996: 152–153; Vaškevičiūtė 2004: 83).
In the Žąsinas cemetery spurs were discovered in 37
graves (Nos 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 29, 31, 34, 38, 59, 60, 61,
62, 64, 72, 76, 83, 85, 93, 97, 101, 107, 112, 116, 121,
136, 148b, 148c, 150, 151b, 152, 153, 156, 182, 199,
202b and 203). Another three were discovered incidentally. The discovered spurs are both iron and bronze.
Only 25 of them have survived. Spurs from other
graves were destroyed, and their classification is not
possible. On the basis of the above, a typological system of the tenth to 12th centuries has been constructed.
As a basis for the typology, separate components of
spurs are taken into consideration: the bow, spikes and
bow terminals. According to these components, five
types of spurs were discovered in the Žąsinas cemetery. First type: sash-like spurs with a long spike and
loops at the bow terminals (Fig. 2: 1–2). Second type:
sash-like spurs with a short spike and loops at the bow
terminals (Fig. 2: 3–4). Third type: with round, even
or torgue bow, with a short spike and loops at the side
terminals (Fig. 2: 5–8). Fourth type: with an integrated
bow, and short spike and loops at the bow terminals
(Fig. 2: 9–10). Fifth type: sash-like spurs with profiled
edges, a short spike and enclosed loops at the bow terminals (Fig. 2: 11).
Spurs of type 1 were discovered in six graves (Nos
62, 148b, 151b, 152, 199 and 202). The bows of these
spurs are simple and round in cross-section, symmetrical, around nine centimetres in length, with a seven to
eight-centimetre distance between the bow terminals.
The spike is four to six centimetres in length, and
conical. The side terminals have enclosed loops (Fig.
2: 2). Spurs of type II also come in two sub-types: A,
with enclosed loops; and B, with open-type loops and
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 2. Typology of spurs from Žąsinas cemetery (Šilalė district): 1 type 1, subtype B (grave 158B); 2 type 1, subtype A
(grave 148B); 3 type 2 (grave 13); 4 2 sub-type A (grave 182); 5–7 type 3 (graves 61, 85 and 72); 8 type 3, sub-type A
(grave 153); 9 type 4, sub-type A (grave 38); 10 type 4 (grave 116); 11 type 5 (grave 64) (1, 6 iron; 2–5, 7–11 bronze;
LNM AR 618: 109, 196, 252, 266, 289, 372, 433, 608, 618, 708; drawings by A. Ruzienė)
turned-up terminals (Fig. 2: 1). Type II spurs also have
two sub-types of variants: A, with multiangular pommels on the spikes (Fig. 2: 4). A spur of B variant was
discovered in grave 151b. It is analogous to other spurs
of the type, except for the bow terminals. They have
open-type loops with turned-up terminals and small
turned-down scrolls.
Spurs of the second type were discovered in nine
graves, and one was discovered accidentally (4, 8, 13,
31, 83, 93, 112, 153, 182 and stray finds). Their bows
are analogous to spurs of type 1, i.e. simple and round,
seldom of a triangular cross-section. The bows are
shorter, up to six centimetres in length, symmetrical,
with a six to eight-centimetre width between the bow
terminals with closed-type loops. The spikes are short,
2.5 to three centimetres in length, and conical (Fig. 2:
3–4).
Spurs of type 2 and variant A were discovered in two
graves (8 and 182). They were in poor condition. For
example, a spike section with a round pommel only
survived in grave 8. The sides are absent; therefore, it
is impossible to specify their cross-section and terminals. A small section of a round bow and a multiangular pommel on a spike survived only in grave 182. The
tip itself is missing too. Spurs of type 2 were popular
enough. Spurs of this type occur among Semigallian
graves (Vaškevičiūtė 2004: Fig. 75: 9).
Spurs of type 3 were discovered in six graves: 12, 34,
61, 72, 85, 153 (Fig. 2: 5–8). Their bows have a round
cross-section, or are even (grave 61) torgue shaped, five
to seven centimetres in length, and symmetrical. The
distance between the side terminals is seven to nine
centimetres. They have open-type loops, with or without turned-down small scrolls (Fig. 2: 8). The spikes
are short, 1.5 to three centimetres in length, conical,
and sometimes also turned back (grave 85) (Fig. 1: 2).
A bronze spur, attributable to type 3 and variant A, was
discovered in grave 153, with a spike with a multiangular pommel. It is very well preserved and even its
decoration, a row of eyes, is clearly visible (Fig. 2: 8).
Other spurs, less decorated with different geometrical
patterns, were discovered in graves 61 and 72. The
terminals of the spur found in grave 61 are decorated
with groups of zigzag lines at their loops, those of the
second spur with two rows of stamped triangles (Fig.
2: 7). Spurs with shaped sides are discovered in Semigallian graves, while a spur which might be analogous
to the one found in grave 153 of the Žąsinas cemetery
was discovered in Linkuva (Pakruojis district), grave
5 (Vaškevičiūtė 2004: 93, Fig. 75: 10, 10). Spurs with
shaped sides were discovered in Laiviai cemetery
(Gintautaitė-Butėnienė, Butėnas 2002: Fig. 46: 2).
Spurs of type 4 are the most integrated and the most
decorated. They were discovered in graves 38, 93 and
169
Vytautas
116 (Fig. 2: 9–10, 3: 5). The bows
are integrated, made of two or three
shaped, round in cross-section, wires,
bent, with closed-type loops at the terminals. A spike is welded in the middle of the sides. The bows are four to
five centimetres in length, and symmetrical. The width between the bow
terminals is eight to ten centimetres.
The spikes are conical, two to 2.5 centimetres in length. A spur from grave
38 is attributable to type 4, variant A.
Its spike has a multiangular pommel
with decorated eyes at its sides (Fig.
2: 9). It seems that these spurs were
worn by Curonians and Semigallians (Gintautaitė-Butėnienė, Butėnas
2002: Fig. 46: 1; Vaškevičiūtė 2004:
Fig. 75: 7).
Fig. 3. Žąsinas cemetery (Šilalė district) grave 93
(2, 5, bronze; 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, iron; after Laima Vaitkunskienė 1977;
drawings by A. Gaižauskaitė, LII archive)
Fig. 4. Genčai, the 1st cemetery, inhumation grave 177/136
(1–4 bronze; 5–6 iron; after Algimantas Merkevičius, 1986)
170
A spur of type 5 was discovered in
grave 64 (Fig. 2: 11). Its bow is flat
with cruciform-shaped outgrowths,
five to seven centimetres in length, and
symmetrical. The distance between
the side terminals is nine centimetres.
The side terminals are closed-type,
profiled loops with crescent-shaped
outgrowths. The spike is short (2 cm
in length), and pyramid-shaped. The
bow is decorated with three longitudinal raised lines. The middle line is
decorated with a single row of eyes
(Fig. 2: 11). This type of spur seems to
have been a popular attribute with Curonian riders according to its distribution (Fig. 4: 1). It has been discovered
in the foremost Curonian cemeteries:
in Ėgliškiai-Anduliai, Genčai first,
Laiviai and Pryšmančiai first (all in
the Kretinga district) cemeteries, and
the Samogitian Paragaudys (Šilalė district) cemetery (Vaitkunskienė 1983:
15; Gintautaitė-Butėnienė, Butėnas
2002: Fig. 46: 4).
The chronology of spurs
Spurs from the Viking Period and early Middle Ages are discovered only
in men’s graves, and in exceptional
cases in horses’ graves (Pakalniškiai,
Šakiai district; horse grave 106)
(Antanavičius 1971). Most spurs are
discovered in graves with weaponry.
Among the correctly dated artefacts from grave 4, a
bronze bracelet with tapered terminals and multiangular pommels was discovered. Analogous bracelets
are well-known from archaeological sites of western
Lithuania and Samogitia in particular. For example, in
Bikavėnai, 23 bracelets of this type were discovered,
in Paragaudys 13. Bracelets with tapered terminals are
dated to the tenth and 11th centuries (Vaitkunskienė
1978a: 105). Chronological indicators in grave 7 are
absent. Grave 13 could be dated only on the basis of a
plated bronze neck-ring with a hook and loop terminals
king, dated to the tenth or 11th centuries (Kuncienė
1978: 29). Grave 62 ought to have been rich in grave
goods, but it was destroyed, and the ornaments did
not survive. Stirrups and a bronze binding of a sword
chape (Ib sub-type) with a piece of sword blade alone
enables us to date it to the tenth or 11th centuries.
Most stirrups discovered at Žąsinas cemetery have a
curved foot-bar without holes for a belt. According
to the classification of Juozas Antanavičius, such stirrups are closest to type 2 sub-type A, and type 6 subtype A (Antanavičius, 1976: 71, 75–76, Fig. 1: 2a, 6a;
Kazakevičius 1998: 292, 315, Fig. 7). Stirrups of type
2 sub-type A are attributed to the tenth and 11th centuries, and those of type VI sub-type A were widespread
in Lithuania and neighbouring areas around the tenth
to 12th centuries (Antanavičius, 1976: 71, 76). Stirrups
of type 6 were about the most popular in Lithuania
(Tautavičius 1978: 125). A sword chape with stylised
openwork bird figures belongs to the third variant of
sub-type Ib (Kazakevičius 1998: 292, 315, Fig. 7).
Typical decoration of these bindings is curved lines and
symmetrically located openings. They already have no
tripartite simplicity, which is typical of other versions
of this sub-type. These sword chapes were produced by
local craftsmen and dated to the tenth and 11th centuries (Kazakevičius 1998: 294). Only two stirrups from
grave 72 of the Žąsinas cemetery could be dated by
a chronological indicator. They might be attributed
to type 6 sub-type A (according to Antanavičius) and
dated to the tenth to the 12th centuries (Antanavičius
1976: 74–77, Fig. 1: 6a). Grave 93 was disturbed, and
BALTICA 6
the burial items were dissipated (Fig. 3). Only the area
of the legs survived undisturbed. Stirrups of sub-type
IIA, dated to the tenth and 11th centuries, were discovered there (Antanavičius 1976: 71). A silver spiral
bracelet with flanged scrolls, discovered not in the primary position but in the breast area, is hardly datable.
Therefore, a more scientific chronology of this grave is
not clear. Grave 112 was also destroyed and no datable
items were discovered. A bracelet with tapered terminals, dated to the eighth to 12th centuries, was discovered in grave 116. A more precise dating of the grave
is not possible. A bracelet of another type was discovered in grave 152. It is massive, with slightly flattened
terminals, with a half-round bow, decorated with rows
of hacks and triangles. It is dated to the eighth to 12th
centuries (Vaitkunskienė 1978c: 95–97). Like those
described above, grave 153 was also destroyed. Two
A-type stirrups were discovered in it. The spur of this
grave is well preserved in particular, and, on the basis
of analogous spurs and other datable burial items discovered in other cemeteries, it might be dated to the
tenth century (Kazakevičius 2000: 20–22).
ARCHAELOGIA
Spurs from the Žąsinas cemetery were discovered together with spearheads, swords, knives, riding bits and
different decorations (Kazakevičius, 2006). Spurs are
discovered with the following spearheads: narrow with
a pronounced midrib and a large socket; with a round
lanceolate blade; with willow-shape blades; with lanceolate blades; with E-type spearheads and hafted
spearheads with one barb (Kazakevičius, 2006). Some
graves in which spurs, ornaments and stirrups were
discovered ought to be mentioned separately, as they
again reveal the complexity of a chronology (Figs. 1;
3).
It is necessary to mention graves in which bronze-plated neck-rings terminated with loops (graves 8, 12, 13,
34, 64, 85, 199) and conical terminals (83), penannular
brooches with quadrangular and multiangular (graves
8, 12, 34, 83, 136, 203), cylindrical (grave 31) and poppy seed-shaped terminals (grave 148c), crossbow fibulae with ladders (graves 136, 156) and cruciform (grave
203) brooches were discovered, apart from spurs.
Spurs were also discovered together with spearheads
of all types: with narrow pronounced midribs and flat
sockets (graves 8, 12, 148c), with lanceolate blades,
simple round sockets (grave 31), with willow-shaped
blades (graves 38, 150), with lanceolate blades (graves
34, 59, 148b), type E (graves 34, 59, 64, 136), and with
hafted and one-barb spearheads (grave 148c).
After a review of the chronology of spurs, we can notice that a chronology of Žąsinas cemetery spurs covers
the entire period of its use; though, due to the relatively
short chronological stage, it is very hard to follow their
genesis. In dating spurs from the Žąsinas cemetery, it is
not possible to make use of a typology and chronology
of spurs discovered in other areas, for example, of the
western and eastern Slavs. Baltic spurs are distinctive,
with a long period of development from the beginning
of the first millennium to the late Middle Ages. Their
genesis is linked to the local tradition of employment,
and does not match the typological framework of spurs
discovered in other regions. Therefore, it is possible to
refer only to local spurs, discovered in Lithuania and
the Baltic area. Only very late spurs, when a standardisation of shape is traced, might be comparable.
The above and similar spurs were discovered in other
171
Vytautas
172
Samogitian graves, and in Semigallian graves culturally close to them (Vaškevičiūtė 2004: 82–83, Fig. 75).
Translated by Algimantas Dautaras
Abbreviations
LAA – Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas I–XII a. radiniai.
T. IV, Vilnius, 1978
LA – Lietuvos archeologija, Vilnius
LII – Lithuanian Institute of History, Vilnius
References
Antanavičius, J. 1971. Pakalniškių kapinyno (Šakių raj.)
1971 m. tyrinėjimų dienoraštis. In: LII R, F. 1, b. 372.
Antanavičius, J. 1976. Balno kilpos Lietuvoje X–XIV a. In:
Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, A serija, 1(54),
69–81.
Gintautaitė-Butėnienė, E., Butėnas, E. 2002. ��
Laivių kapinynas. In: LA, t. 22, Vilnius, 9–198.
Hilczerówna, Z. 1956. Ostrogi Polskie z X–XIII wieku.
Poznań.
Kazakevičius, V. 1993. Plinkaigalio kapinynas. In: LA, t. 10,
Vilnius.
Kazakevičius, V. 1996. IX–XIII a. baltų kalavijai. Vilnius.
Kazakevičius, V. 1998. Iš vėlyvojo geležies amžiaus baltų
ginklų istorijos (kalavijų makštų galų apkalai). In: LA, t.
15, Vilnius, 287–332.
Kazakevičius, V. 2000. Baltų ir skandinavų karinių ryšių
beieškant. In: Istorija, XLIII, 19–24.
Kazakevičius, V. Žąsino ginklai. In: Šilutės kraštas, Vilnius..
Kuncienė, O. 1972. Prekybiniai ryšiai IX–XIII amžiais. In:
��
Lietuvos gyventojų prekybiniai ryšiai I–XIII a., Vilnius,
149–254.
Kuncienė, O. 1978. Vytinės antkaklės kilpiniais galais. In:
��
LAA, t. IV, Vilnius: 29–30.
Michelbertas, M. 1986. Senasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje
I–IV amžius. Vilnius.
Michelbertas, M. 2000. Die Bronzesporen der römischen
Kaiserzeit in Litauen. In: Superiores Barbari, Kraków:
287–292.
Nagevičius, V. 1935. Mūsų pajūrio medžiaginė kultūra
VIII–XIII amž. (Pryšmančių ir kitų vietų kasinėjimai. In:
Senovė, t. 1, Kaunas, 3–124.
Statkevičius, V. 1975. Kraštotyrininko užrašai. In: LII R, F.
2, b. 38.
Stankus, J. 1995. Bandužių kapinynas. In: LA, t. 12, Vilnius.
Strazdas, A. 1996. Neaiškių archeologijos objektų žvalgymo
ir žvalgomųjų kasinėjimų Raseinių ir Šilalės rajonuose
1996 m. ataskaita. In: LII R, F. 1, b. 2691.
Tautavičius, A. 1978. Balno kilpos. In: LAA, t. IV, Vilnius:
125–127.
Tautavičius, A. 1996. Vidurinysis geležies amžius Lietuvoje
(V–IX a.). Vilnius.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1976. Žąsino kapinyno, Šilalės raj., 1976
m. kasinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII R, F. 1, b. 527.
m. kasinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII R, F. 1, b. 456.
m. tyrinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII R, F. 1, b. 660.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1978a. Vytinės apyrankės. In: LAA, t. IV,
Vilnius: 105–106.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1978b. Apyrankės
��
smailėjančiais galais.
In: LAA, t. IV, Vilnius: 105.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1978c. VIII–XII a. masyvios apyrankės.
In: LAA, t. IV, Vilnius: 95–97.
m. tyrinėjimų ataskaita. In: LII R, F. 1, b. 697.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1979a. Gintališkės kapinynas. ��
In: LA, t. 1,
Vilnius, 44–75.
Vaitkunskienė, L. 1983. Skandinaviški elementai žemaičių
kultūroje X–XI a. In: Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 1982 metai, Vilnius, 5–16.
Vaškevičiūtė, I. 2004. Žiemgaliai V–XII amžiuje. Vilnius.
Вайткунскене��, ��
Л. 1985. Контакты ��
между ��
балтскими племенами на территории в X–XII вв. In: Проблемы этногенеза и этнической истории балтов, Вильнюс.
Кирпичников, А.Н. 1973. Снаряжение всадника и верхового коня на Руси IX–XIII вв. Лениниград.
Перхавко, В.Б. 1978. Появление и распространение шпор
на территории Восточной Европы. In: Советская археология, Но. 3, Москва, 113–123.
Шноре, Э.Д. 1962. Шпоры городища Асоте и иx место
в классификации шпор. In: Światowit, T. 24, Warsawa,
577–585.
Vytautas Kazakevičius
History and Archaeology
Tilžės g. 13, LT-91251 Klaipėda
Prepared for print: 2006
Ž ą s i n o k ap i n y n o ra i te l i a i
( V i k i n g ų i r a n k st y v ų j ų
v i d u ramž i ų pe n t i n ų
k l as i f i k ac i ja , rem i a n t i s
Ž ą s i n o k ap i n y n o me d ž i a g a )
Santrauka
Vienas iš svarbiausių raitelio atributų – pentinai. Baltų
pentinai yra saviti, nuėję ilgą raidos kelią nuo I tūkstantmečio pradžios iki vėlyvųjų viduramžių. Jų genezė
susieta su vietine naudojimo tradicija ir neatitinka kituose regionuose aptinkamų pentinų tipologinių bruožų. Lyginti iš dalies galima tik pačius vėlyviausius pentinus, kuomet atsiranda jų formų standartizacija. Todėl
tenka remtis tik vietiniais pentinais, aptiktais Lietuvoje
ir kitose baltų teritorijose.
Todėl analizuojant Žąsino kapinyne rastus pentinus
teko sudaryti savą tipologinę sistemą, kuri gali būti
taikoma visiems Lietuvoje, o galbūt net visoje baltų
erdvėje rastiems to laikotarpio pentinams apibendrinti.
Žąsino kapinyne pentinų aptikta 37 kapuose (Nr. 4, 7,
8, 12, 13, 29, 31, 34, 38, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 72, 76, 83,
I tipo pentinai dar skirstomi į du variantus: A – su uždaromis kilpomis ir B – su atviromis kilpomis užriestais
į viršų galais. II tipo pentinų taip pat dar išskiriamas
A variantas – su daugiakampe buožele ant spyglio.
I tipo pentinų rasta šešiuose kapuose (Nr. 62, 148b,
151b, 152, 199, 202). Šių pentinų ienelės pusiau apskrito skersinio pjūvio, simetriškos, iki 9 cm ilgio, atstumas tarp ienelių 7–8 cm. Spyglys 4–6 cm ilgio, kūgio formos. Ienelių galai užbaigti uždaromis kilpomis
(2 : 2 pav.). B varianto pentinas aptiktas kape Nr. 151B.
Jis analogiškas kitiems šio tipo pentinams, išskyrus ienelių galus. Jie užbaigti užriestomis į viršų atviromis
kilpomis su atgal atriesta sraigele (2 : 1 pav.).
II tipo pentinų rasta devyniuose kapuose ir vienas atsitiktinai (Nr. 4, 8, 13, 31, 83, 93, 112, 153, 182 ir atsitiktinis). Jų lankelis analogiškas I tipo pentinams, t. y.
pusiau apskrito, retai trikampio skersinio pjūvio. Ienelės šiek tiek trumpesnės, iki 5–6 cm ilgio, simetriškos.
Atstumas tarp ienelių galų 6–8 cm. Ienelių galai užbaigti uždaromis kilpomis. Spygliai trumpi, 2,5–3 cm
ilgio, kūgio formos (2 : 3–4 pav.). Dviejuose kapuose
(Nr. 8, 182) aptikti II tipo A varianto pentinai. Jie blogai išlikę (1 pav.).
V tipo pentinas aptiktas kape Nr. 64. Jo ienelės plokščios su kryžiaus pavidalo ataugomis, 5–7 cm ilgio,
simetriškos. Atstumas tarp ienelių galų 9 cm. Ienelių
galai užbaigti uždaromis profiliuotomis kilpomis su
pusmėnulio pavidalo ataugomis. Spyglys trumpas –
2 cm ilgio, piramidės formos. Ienelės puoštos trimis
išilginėmis reljefinėmis linijomis. Vidurinė linija sudaryta iš ornamentuotos viengubų akučių eilės (2 : 11
pav.).
BALTICA 6
galų 8–10 cm. Spygliai 2–2,5 cm ilgio, kūgio formos.
IV tipo A variantui skirtinas pentinas iš kapo Nr. 38.
Jo spyglys su daugiakampe buožele, kurios šonai ornamentuoti akutėmis (2 : 9–10 pav.).
ARCHAELOGIA
85, 93, 97, 101, 107, 112, 116, 121, 136, 148B, 148C,
150, 151B, 152, 153, 156, 182, 199, 202B, 203). Dar
trys rasti atsitiktinai. Tipologijos pagrindu imamos atskiros pentino dalys: ienelės, spyglys ir lankelio galų
užbaigimas. Pagal šiuos dėmenis Žąsino kapinyne aptikta penkių tipų pentinų: I tipas – juostiniai ilgu spygliu, su kilpomis ienelių galuose (1 : 1–2 pav.). II tipas
– juostiniai trumpu spygliu, su kilpomis ienelių galuose (1 : 3–4 pav.). III tipas – apskritu lygiu ar tordiruotu
lankeliu su trumpu spygliu ir kilpomis ienelių galuose
(2 : 5–80 pav.); IV – sudėtiniu lankeliu, trumpu spygliu su kilpomis ienelių galuose (2 : 9–10 pav.). V tipas – juostinis profiliuotomis ienelėmis trumpu spygliu
su uždaromis kilpomis ienelių galuose (2 : 11 pav.).
Žąsino kapinyno pentinai rasti drauge su ietigaliais,
kalavijais, kovos peiliais ir įvairiais papuošalais, tokiais kaip žalvarinės vytinės įvijinės antkaklės kilpiniais ir kūginiais galais, pasaginės segės keturkampėmis ir daugiakampėmis, cilindrinėmis ar aguoninėmis
galvutėmis, taip pat lankinėmis laiptelinėmis segėmis.
Pentinai aptikti taip pat su visų tipų įmoviniais ir įtveriamaisiais ietigaliais ir kitais X–XII a. radiniais.
Žąsino kapinyne aptiktų pentinų chronologija aprėpia
visą kapinyno naudojimo laikotarpį, ir pasekti jų genezę dėl palyginti trumpo chronologinio tarpsnio yra
ypač sunku. Datuojant Žąsino kapinyno pentinus negalima naudotis kituose regionuose, pavyzdžiui, vakarų ar rytų slavų žemėse, aptiktų pentinų tipologija ir
chronologija.
III tipo pentinai rasti šešiuose kapuose (Nr. 12, 34, 61,
72, 85, 153). Jų ienelės apskrito skersinio pjūvio, lygios (kapas Nr. 61) arba tordiruotos, 5–7 cm ilgio, simetriškos. Atstumas tarp ienelių galų 7–9 cm. Ienelių
galai užbaigti atviromis kilpomis su atriestomis atgal
sraigelėmis arba be jų. Spygliai trumpi, 1,5–3 cm ilgio, kūgio formos, kartais irgi tordiruoti (kapas Nr. 85)
(2 : 5–8 pav.). Kape Nr. 153 aptiktas žalvarinis pentinas skirtinas A variantui, nes jo spyglys yra su daugiakampe buožele (2 : 8 pav.).
IV tipo pentinai pagal formą sudėtingiausi ir puošniausi. Jų aptikta kapuose Nr. 38 ir 116. Ienelės sudėtinės,
pagamintos iš dviejų arba trijų tordiruotų apskrito skersinio pjūvio vielų sulenkiant jas ir galuose sudarant uždaras kilpas. Ienelių viduryje privirinamas spyglys. Ienelės 4–5 cm ilgio, simetriškos. Atstumas tarp ienelių
173
T h e R e c o n s tru
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
a n d L i m e B a r k B u c k e t s fr o m
L i e p o ri a i 1 S e ttl e m e n t
Birutė
Salatkienė
T H E R E C O N S ��
TR�
U ��
C T �I ��
O N O ��
F �
W ��
ELLS �
A�
N ��
D �
L �IM
� ��
E
B A R K B U C K E T S from L I E P O R IAI 1 S E T T L E M E N T
Birutė Salatkienė
Abstract
Unique findings, wells with wooden constructions and buckets made of lime bark in them, were detected recently in the Lieporiai 1 settlement near Šiauliai (in northern Lithuania). These objects were parts of an iron smelting site dated to the fourth
to eighth centuries. Reconstructions of the well and the technique of producing lime bark buckets were made by B. Salatkienė
and A. Šapaitė. A detailed description of the artefacts and their environment constitutes the first part of this paper, and the
technique of reconstruction and producing lime bark buckets forms the second.
Key words: iron smelting site, well, wooden construction, log, plank, lime bark, bucket, reconstruction.
I n tr o d u c ti o n
Archaeological experimentation is still not practised
in Lithuania, nor are many reconstructions of archaeological monuments or findings made. Some archaeologists have attended festivals of experimental archaeology, where they reconstructed ancient technologies
and artefacts. Also, some reconstructions are shown
in the new archaeological exhibitions of museums.
Nevertheless, no Lithuanian archaeologists have documented and publicised their experiments, nor their
aims, techniques or results.
The aim of this article is to provide exact descriptions
of the wells and the buckets found in the Lieporiai
1 settlement, as well as to show the process of their
reconstruction and the experience involved in it. The
idea of reconstruction first arose when the author of
this article was invited to be a member of the Lithuanian delegation that participated in the Days of Experimental Archaeology which took place at Biskupin in
Poland. In the summer of 1998, an attempt was made
to reconstruct the process of lime bark bucket production, starting with the selection of a tree and ending
with the testing of the buckets. A report of this was
presented at the second conference of the Lithuanian
Museums Association in 1999 (Salatkienė 1999).
174
The first part of this article focuses on the circumstances and the interpretation of the discovery of the
wells and buckets. Wooden wells, as well as lime bark
buckets, are unique artefacts in Lithuania; therefore,
the publication of all data attendant to their location,
form, dimensions and function is essential for an understanding of the experiment. In the second part of the
article, the process and the refining of the methodology
are described consistently and in detail, focusing not
on unsuccessful attempts, but, instead, looking for new
possibilities and trying new buckets. Reconstruction
drawings and photographs of the wells and buckets are
also included.
The complex of archaeological monuments from the
fourth to eighth centuries found in the southern outskirts of the town of Šiauliai, in the north of Lithuania,
has been explored since 1987. Two settlements and
a cemetery belong to this complex. It is one of few
Lithuanian complexes of archaeological monuments
which have not only remained in good condition, but
have also been excavated for more than ten years. The
Lieporiai complex was found when the limits of the
town almost reached it. It remained undestroyed only
because at that time, Lithuania gained its independence
and Soviet construction stopped. The first cemetery was
found in 1987. During the exploration of the cemetery,
in 1990–1991, 95 graves and 450 findings were discovered. It was determined that Samogitians (Vaškevičiūtė
1988; Salatkienė 1992; Salatkienė 1993) were buried
there in the fourth to seventh centuries (Fig. 1). When
looking for the boundaries of the cemetery, the settlement, belonging to the same period, was found close
to the cemetery (Salatkienė 1993a). In order to define
the boundaries of the settlement more exactly, an aerial
photograph of the locality was taken. In taking it, the
second settlement, situated 800 metres from the first
one, was found. After survey explorations were made,
it was established that the second settlement also belonged to the fourth to seventh centuries (Salatkienė
1994; Salatkienė 1994a).
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 1. The Lieporiai archaeological complex
During explorations in 1992–1997 and 2000–2001,
three cultural layers were found in the first settlement
of Lieporiai (Salatkienė 1996). In the earliest, layer A,
Paleolithic findings, from the tenth to eighth millennia
BC (Rimantienė 1996), were discovered (Salatkienė
1994). Layer B is dated to the fourth to fifth centuries,
the period of iron smelting. In the latest, layer C, the
charred logs of ten burnt buildings were found; there-
fore, it has become known as the period of buildings.
It is believed that the buildings of the settlement had
burned down during a fire at the turn of the seventh and
the eighth centuries; therefore, this layer probably belongs to the sixth to seventh centuries. An area of 3,000
square metres in the first Lieporiai settlement was explored. About 3,000 clay potsherds, with even and
rough surfaces, animal bones, iron-making trade tools,
175
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
Birutė
Salatkienė
Fig. 2. The Lieporiai 1 settlement
amber and glass beads, as well as other similar things,
were found in this settlement (Salatkienė 1993a, 1994,
1994a, 1996, 1996a, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002).
In cultural layer B, the place of iron production was
found (Salatkienė 1997). Numerous sedimentary ore
excavation holes and hearths, four wells from which
water was drawn to wash the ore, as well as parts of
20 furnaces and a smith’s forge, were found. Moreover, 400 kilograms of slag was collected, as well as one
bloom, a lot of pieces of the furnace’s walls, and fragments of several nozzles. In addition to all this, several
stone iron smelting tools and smith’s tools (four anvils,
two stone hammers to work the bloom and many polishing stones), were found.
176
The Lieporiai settlement provided much information
about the iron smelting trade in Lithuania, as almost
all the findings discovered in the settlement define iron
smelting, as well as the smith’s trade, and encompass
the entire cycle of production from the extraction of
the raw material to the made article (Salatkienė 2003).
This has given other Lithuanian archaeologists and researchers into old metallurgy a reason to focus their
attention on the Lieporiai settlement (Navasaitis 1996,
1997, 1999, 1999a; Stankus 2001).
One type of finding connected with the iron smelting
trade, found in the first Lieporiai settlement, is unique
in Lithuanian archaeological material. These findings
include wells constructed from wood, and eight lime
bark buckets which were used to draw water and were
The wells
The first well was found in 1992 under a burnt house.
A hole, almost round in shape, the diameter of which
was 2.5 metres and the depth 3.65 metres, was found.
The hole had vertical walls and a horizontal bottom.
A wooden, oblong construction of 1.3 by 0.6 to 0.7
metres was found in the hole. The construction was
broader at the northeast end. The northwest end of the
well was supported with four split logs, which were
15 to 21 centimetres wide and five to eight centimetres thick. The height of the remaining parts of the logs
was 2.45 metres, but their original height should have
been about five metres. The inner sides of the split logs
were trimmed. They were very well fitted, without any
gaps. The fastening of the southwest end of the well
consisted of a split log and a split, trimmed and slightly
convex plank. The width of the log was 20 centimetres,
while the plank was 40 centimetres wide and eight to
ten centimetres thick. The log and the plank were fitted
close to each other as well.
The long southeast and northwest walls of the well consisted of split planks, which were five to 12 centimetres
thick, 25 to 35 centimetres wide, and 1.5 metres long.
The planks were laid very close over the top of each
other in a horizontal position. Eight planks have survived in the southeast wall, and nine in the northwest
wall. The northwest wall had collapsed, but was fixed
with three thinner, more smoothly trimmed planks,
and with one four-centimetre-thick wooden cleat. The
construction of the well was supported from the inside as well as from the outside. The end split logs,
as they were overlapping by ten centimetres at both
ends behind the vertical ones, held the side planks. At
the southwest end, vertical stakes had been hammered
into both corners of the well, one in each corner. In
the western corner, the stake, the diameter of which
was eight centimetres and the length 1.65 metres, was
round; while the stake in the eastern corner was square,
ARCHAELOGIA
BALTICA 6
discovered in the wells (Fig. 2). The wooden parts of
the wells were built according to the principle of column construction. These wells are the earliest findings
of their kind in Lithuania so far. Moreover, the lime
bark buckets have no parallels in Lithuania. Similar
but not identical findings are known from much later
periods. These are big lime bark crocks with plank bottoms, dated to the 12th to 15th centuries, and found
during exploration of the medieval town of Kernavė
(Kernavė 2002). Also, a similar but very disintegrated
lime bark bucket, which had no bottom, was found by
the archaeologist Daiva Luchtanienė during explorations of the Old Town of Vilnius. This finding is dated
to the 16th century.
Fig. 3. The wooden construction of the first well
trimmed, eight centimetres thick and 1.95 metres long.
At a depth of 3.7 metres, between these two stakes,
a 12-centimetre transom was hammered in. On both
ends of the transom, square mortises were chipped out.
Both stakes were embedded into these mortises. The
northeast end was supported only with vertical stakes,
without a transom (Fig. 3). Two vertical stakes, 12 centimetres in diameter and 1.85 to two metres in length,
supported the northwest wall, which had come down.
From the outside, the northwest wall was supported
with three vertical stakes, beside the corners of the
well. Two stakes had been hammered into the bottom
of the well, the bottom part of the third stake was at a
Fig. 4. A reconstruction of the first well
177
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
Birutė
Salatkienė
Fig. 5. The second
bucket in situ
178
depth of 3.6 metres. Only behind the northeast wall of
the well was sterile soil, a yellow sandy loam. Here
the wall of the well hole coincided with the wall of
the wooden construction. Behind the three other walls
there were ten to 30-centimetre gaps, that were filled
with a mixture of soil, ashes and charred logs (Fig. 4).
have disappeared when the level of the ground water
fell. Now the hole of the well is completely dry; however, signs of water having been there are very clear.
These signs are silt and stratified sand. The walls of the
well could have been supported with vertical stakes,
and horizontally woven branches of trees.
The well, as has been mentioned, had collapsed, and
then it was repaired, but collapsed again, as the northwest wall was destroyed by a water course. This water
course is still noticeable. When the wall collapsed for
the second time, the well had already silted up, and
filled with stones, logs and sticks. Four lime bark buckets were found in it. They were sunk in the west corner
of the well, at depths of three to nine metres. The buckets lay one over the other; this indicates the gradual
silting up of the well (Fig. 5).
The second well belongs to the period of the early iron
trade. This conclusion can be drawn from the fact that
the edge of the well hole was level with the ground,
so that people could bring and put clay on the edge of
the hole. The walls of the 16th furnace were modelled
from this clay.
The hole of this well, as well as the holes of the other
wells in Lieporiai, had been filled with soil, and its
edges collapsed inwards. In the end, a fireplace was set
up on the top of the hole.
The second well was excavated in 1996. The surface
of the well hole appeared in the yellow sandy loam of
the sterile soil, at a depth of 80 centimetres. The hole
was very big, four, five by five, and four metres in size.
However, this was only the contour of the collapsed
edges of the hole. The original form of the hole emerged
at a depth of 1.7 metres from the present surface of
the ground. At this depth, in a southwest and northeast
direction, the hole of the well is slightly oblong; the
size is 1.5 by one metre. The edges of the hole are vertical and smooth, and its bottom is semicircular. It is
comparatively shallow, just two metres deep from the
present surface of the land. At the bottom of the hole is
a 30 to 40-centimetre layer of silt, whereas in the walls
there are small layers of sand and silt, such as can be
found at the bottom of a water body (Fig. 6). The well
had no surviving wooden constructions, which could
The third well was found 30 metres northwest of the
first well, and 5.5 metres east of the second. This, as
well as the first one, was found under the charred logs
of a burnt foundation. An oblong, 2.2 by 1.6 by 2.7metre deep pit had been dug for this well. The hole had
sloping walls and a pointed bottom. It is possible that
the well was used for some time without any support.
This can be presumed from the fact that a thin layer
of silt could be seen at the very bottom of the well,
and one sunken bucket was covered with sand from the
walls. Moreover, from the bottom part of the wooden
construction to the bottom of the well, there was a 40centimetre gap with stratified silt from the well and
sand from the walls in it. The entire hole of the well
was not supported, just 2.3 centimetres of the upper
part. A wooden support held the sloping walls of the
well hole. Their upper parts have not survived (Fig. 7).
Fig. 6. The second well
Fig. 7. The third well
The southern wall of the well consisted of two planks,
46 to 50 centimetres wide, 1.8 metres long, and seven
to eight centimetres thick. The planks were laid horizontally along the hole of the well, one over the other
on the edges of the hole. The planks were split and
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
trimmed, their ends
were straight and
well sanded. The
support of the northern wall of the well
also consisted of
two planks, 20 to 37
centimetres wide,
three to five centimetres thick, and
1.85 metres long.
The planks were
laid in the same way
as in the southern
wall. The eastern
wall of the well was
supported by three
vertical planks and
a round stake. The
width of all three
planks was 25 centimetres, their length was 50 centimetres, and they
were seven centimetres thick. The transom, which was
80 centimetres long and five centimetres thick, held the
planks and the stake from the inside. It was inserted
between the side planks. The western wall of the well
was supported in a very simple way. It consisted of two
vertical planks that were 20 to 23 centimetres wide,
30 to 31 centimetres long and seven centimetres thick.
Gaps of five to ten centimetres separated them from
the side walls of the well. A 15-centimetre gap was left
between the planks. Perhaps the wooden construction
of this well should be called the support of the walls,
and not the construction itself. As far as the lime bark
buckets are concerned, four were found in the third
well. One of them lay at the top of the well; the other
three were below the first one, at the very bottom of the
well (Fig. 8).
The third well had not been used very long, or at least
for a considerably shorter period of time than the first
well. First, it was quite shallow, poorly supported, and
had quickly silted up. Secondly, all four buckets had
sunk at the same depth to the very bottom of the well
(Fig. 9). The abandoned well had filled up with stones
and soil, in which animal bones, potsherds, sticks and
lots of chips of wood were found. Finally, there was a
fireplace on the top of the silted-up hole.
The fourth well was found six metres to the south of
the third well. The place for the well had not been chosen accidentally, but perhaps knowing beforehand that
a water course was there and that the groundwater was
not deep. First of all, an oblong, rectangular, 1.9-metre-long and 1.1-metre-wide pit was dug from east to
west. The depth of the hole was 1.7 metres from the
179
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
Birutė
Salatkienė
Fig. 8. A reconstruction of the third well
Fig. 10. The fourth well
Fig. 9. The buckets at the bottom of the third well
180
surface of the sterile soil (2.4 metres from the present
surface of the ground). It is difficult to say what tools
were used for the excavation of the hole. No digging
tools were found in the Lieporiai cemetery or the settlement, but the four wells and 104 holes testify that
tools existed. After digging the hole, the wooden walls
of the well were constructed. Along the southern and
northern walls of the hole, birch and poplar logs, 1.9
metres long and ten centimetres in diameter, and with
bark, were laid one over the other. They were contiguous with both ends of the hole and were probably
inserted very firmly. From within, the end walls held
the sidewalls of the logs (Fig. 10). At the eastern and
western ends of the well, on the edges, 18 centimetres from the western end and 12 centimetres from the
eastern end of the hole, several planks were set. The
planks were 50 to 52 centimetres long, 12 to 30 centimetres wide and four centimetres thick. From within,
the western plank was held both by two vertical stakes
with sharp ends, and by a transom. The stakes were
hammered 40 centimetres into the bottom of the well,
and an 82-centimetre-long and five-centimetre-thick
transom was inserted between the side logs of the wall.
The same type of transom, only 70 centimetres long,
held the eastern planks as well, with a thin 42-centimetre-long, seven-centimetre-wide, and two-centimetre-thick smaller plank that was inserted between the
planks and the transom. This is how the bottom of the
construction of the ends of the well looked. The upper
part of the construction consisted of vertical, split, 20centimetre-wide and ten-centimetre-thick planks. At
The walls of the hole dug for the well were not completely even and vertical. Ten to 25-centimetre gaps
were left between the wooden construction of the well
and the walls of the hole. They were filled with a greenish brown sand, which accumulated during the digging
of the hole. In the sand there were sticks, small planks,
bark and chips of wood.
The well was very shallow, and presumably that was
the reason why it soon filled up with silt. During that
time the wooden construction of the well disintegrated
a little. The well was neglected. Oak beams and planks
were thrown into it. It filled up with mud when its
western wall fell down. Soon the hole of the well filled
up with stones. The bottom of this layer of stones was
at a depth of 1.8 metres, and the top was at a depth of
1.3 metres. Over a period of time the hole of the well
became even with the surface of the ground. Finally, as
in the case of the third well, in the filled-up hole of the
well, another hole for a fireplace was dug. Attempts to
determine the function of the fireplace have all failed
(Fig. 11).
Black, thick mud, which is full of admixtures such as
sand that had fallen from the walls, remnants of organic material, ash, charred logs, coal, stones, sticks
and bark settled in the bottoms of all the wells. Poles,
sharpened with axes, beams with trimmed ends,
stumps, planks, and a large amount of chips of wood
were thrown into them, especially into the third and
the fourth ones. Some archaeological ware, such as
clay pots and shards, stone grinders, whetstones, slag,
pieces of clay, and also bones and animals’ teeth were
found in the soil which filled up the abandoned wells.
All of the abandoned wells were filled with stones.
ARCHAELOGIA
BALTICA 6
the western end there were three. They were closely
set, side by side, further towards the western end of the
hole, ten centimetres above the bottom, which was a
cross plank. These vertical planks presumably touched
the top of the construction. Therefore, they had to be
about 2.5 centimetres long, and had to stick out at least
0.5 metres over the surface of the ground. The bottom
parts, which were one metre long, survived only because they had collapsed into the mud of the well. The
vertical planks of the edge rested upon the logs of the
side walls. From within, the same type of transoms as
the bottom ones could have held the planks, but they
have not survived. At the eastern end, only fragments
of the lower parts of two planks which were 30 centimetres tall were found, but it is possible that the construction of the eastern end of the well was the same as
that of the western one, only it has not survived. The
planks of the eastern end were set right above the bottom plank.
Fig. 11. A reconstruction of the fourth well
Later, buildings were built on the site of the wells. Domestic findings, such as shards, bones, clay and other
objects were found in the soil which filled the siltedup wells; therefore, all these wells have been ascribed
to layer B, the iron smelting period of the Lieporiai
settlement. The second, third and fourth wells were
dated using the carbon dating method and the dendrochronological method. It was determined that the first
well appeared in about 318±38AD (Kairaitis 1997).
The third well was dated to 374±50 AD, and the fourth
was dated to 523±50 AD (Mažeika 1999). These were
not drinking water wells, they were dug because there
were no natural water bodies close to the location, and
the water from the wells was used to wash the ore before smelting.
The author of this article noticed the similarity between
the wells described above and the wooden wells in the
Pruzskow (Poland) iron smelting museum, where a reconstruction of the Biskupce iron smelting trade of the
first to the fourth centuries AD has been made. This
monument has not been duplicated; therefore, the exhibition in this museum (muzeum Starozytnego Hutnictva w Pruszkowie. Wystawa-Czas Źelaza. Panorama
mazowieckiej wsi hutniczej z pierwszych wiekow n.e.)
must be considered analogous.
Although the wooden constructions of the wells were
found to have significantly deteriorated, it was possible to determine what material they were built from.
It consisted of pine, birch and poplar trees. Thin logs
with bark (the fourth well), split logs, thick trimmed
planks (the first, third and fourth wells) were used for
181
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
Birutė
Salatkienė
Fig. 12. A reconstruction of the fourth well in the Šiauliai Aušra museum
the construction. Oblong holes for all the wells had
been dug, and later wooden supports were assembled in
these holes. The shape of all the wooden constructions,
except the ones in the second well, which was round,
was rectangular. The types of constructions were also
uniform: the sides were made from recumbent stumps,
logs or planks, and the corners were made from vertical ones. The corners of the insides of the wells were
supported with transoms. They could have been thick,
trimmed, with cuts for stakes (the first well), or rather
thin poles, the ends of which were inserted between
the side logs or planks (the third and fourth wells). The
original look of the wells can be roughly reconstructed
from these facts (Fig. 12). Following a graphic reconstruction, the first well was renewed for the 2004 exhibition in the Aušra museum in Šiauliai.
The buckets
In two of the four wells, the first and the third, eight
lime bark buckets (four buckets in each) were found.
Even though they look alike and the circumstances of
their discovery are similar, the conditions of the buckets differ; therefore, it is necessary to describe each
bucket individually. The first, second, third and fourth
buckets were found in the first well, while the fifth,
sixth, seventh and eighth buckets were discovered in
the third well.
182
The first bucket. At a depth of 3.2 metres, at the southwest end of the well, appeared a piece of bark, the size
of which was 21 by 29 centimetres. During the process of its preparation, it turned out that this piece of
bark could have been a box, stitched up with lime bast
from bark, which was turned so that the bast was on the
upper side. The box lay in such a way that its bottom
faced the western corner of the well. It was flattened
and deformed; there was only a five to ten-centimetre
gap between its edges. A stone, the size of which was
ten by 12 by six centimetres, and some wood chips
were in the box. No one understood what kind of find
the bucket was, so it was simply called “a box”. This
bucket had almost completely deteriorated, only pieces
of it remained.
The second bucket. At a depth of 3.4 metres, also at
the southwest end of the well, 30 centimetres from the
wall, lay the second bucket, the opening of which faced
the western wall. The bucket was flattened, as in the
case of the first one. The height was 16 centimetres,
and its width was 26 centimetres; however, the bottom has not survived. This was the first find that was
recognised as a bucket, because a loop made from lime
bast was noticed by the upper edge. A cord twisted
from lime bast had survived in the loop. The length
of the cord was seven centimetres. The discovery of
the bucket finally allowed for the interpretation of the
wooden construction as a well, while before this there
had been many doubts.
The third bucket. At a depth of 3.6 metres in the corner of the well lay the third bucket. Its bottom was
pressed against the corner pillar, and its opening faced
the inside of the well. Its side was pressed against one
of the fallen planks of the northwest wall of the well.
The diameter of the bucket and the height were 18 centimetres. Unlike the buckets described above, this one
had not completely lost its form; it was only slightly
flattened. The third bucket, like the other buckets, was
BALTICA 6
Fig. 14. The fourth bucket
sewn from a piece of turned tree bark, which was in
good condition; therefore, the conclusion was made
that it was lime bark. The hems of the bucket were also
in a good state. The side of it was sewn with double
hems, making oblique, 1.5-centimetre-long stitches.
The bottom was sewn to the sides, making stitches of
the same length, with 0.7-centimetre gaps between the
stitches (Fig. 13).
The seventh bucket. Over the southeast corner of the
sixth bucket, only facing in the opposite direction, lay
the seventh bucket. Its opening faced southwest. The
southern, unsupported wall had fallen on to this bucket.
It was flattened, and its bark was crumpled. The height
of the bucket was 25 centimetres and its width was 27
centimetres. It had been made in the same way as all
the other buckets.
The fourth bucket. At a depth of 3.9 metres, 35 centimetres from the southwest end of the well, alongside
the well, lay the fourth bucket. Its bottom faced the
southwest wall. It was flattened and disintegrating. The
height, as well as its width, was 22 centimetres. Although it had deteriorated quite a bit, its shape and the
technique of its production could be determined quite
clearly. The only parts missing were the cord and some
pieces.
The eighth bucket. The eighth bucket was found at
the same depth as the sixth and the seventh. It lay two
centimetres west of the sixth bucket, across the well,
with its opening facing southwest. The bottom lay on
the bottom of the well, on sand. From above, it was
covered with mud, but it was in rather good condition;
it was less flattened than the fifth bucket, even though
its bark was crumpled. The remaining few pieces of a
very disintegrated bast cord were noticed in the loops.
The fifth bucket. At a depth of 3.1 to 3.2 metres, in
the very middle of the well, in thick mud, lay the fifth
bucket. It was flattened, very crumpled and disintegrated. The height of the bucket was 24 centimetres, and its
width was 21 centimetres. The bucket lay 55 centimetres from the western end of the well, and its opening
faced the northwest side. The two loops of the bucket
had survived, but the cord was broken (Fig. 14).
From these descriptions, it is clear that all the lime
bark buckets were made in the same manner, only the
dimensions differed slightly. Those found in the third
well were three to four centimetres taller and wider
than the buckets in the first well. Among the buckets
found, there was one that seemed much newer than the
rest (the sixth), but there were also a few in poor condition (the first, the second and the fifth), as well as a few
that were more or less threadbare. From these facts, we
can draw the conclusion that, as time passed, lime bark
buckets became softer, their bark became sodden and
puckered, but they were still used, until the cords of the
buckets broke and the buckets sank.
The sixth bucket. At a depth of 3.3 to 3.4 metres, in
the middle of the well, lay the sixth bucket. It pointed
in the opposite direction to the fifth bucket. This bucket
is in the best condition. Presumably, it had sunk while
still new and preserved its original form. The bucket
was almost round, 25 centimetres long, and had a diameter of 25 centimetres. The bark of the bucket was
very smooth, not crumpled. On the surface of the bark,
cracked lime tree bast could be seen. The edges of the
bark were overlapping by four centimetres, and sewn
with a bast cord, the same way as all the others. Both
loops had survived, but not the cord. It was full of well
mud and sand from the bottom.
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 13. The third bucket
R e c o n s tru c ti o n
Data from archaeological excavations has provided
some information about the material used in the production of the buckets and the sewing technique; however, it was necessary to determine the process of the
preparation of the material and the method of production of the buckets.
183
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
Birutė
Salatkienė
The tradition of producing domestic objects from lime
bark, or sewing them to make an oblique hem, as in
the case of the buckets described, has not survived
in Lithuania. However, lime bark boxes with plank
bottoms, nailed with tacks, can be seen in museums.
The sides of these boxes are quilted, making a single
hem along the side. Moreover, the use of lime bast for
twisting string and weaving bast shoes is also known.
K. Ščesnulevičius (Ščesnulevičius 1936) wrote about
bast shoe weaving in 1936. In his article, he describes
the kinds of trees and the type of bark which had been
used for weaving bast shoes, when the bark was taken,
and how the bark was prepared and kept. This information was useful in the process of choosing the trees and
preparing the bark. Lime bark used to be gathered in
the spring and summer. The bark at the bottom of a tree
was cut with a knife along the bottom of the trunk, and
peeled until it came off. Later, it would be soaked for
about two weeks. Then it was dried, and the bast was
pulled out and wrapped up. This “pickled” bast is especially flexible and solid. Bast bark weaving with hooks
is also known in Lithuanian villages. This method was
taken from one of the craftsmen.
The raw material and tools. The buckets were made
from green lime bark. For this purpose, a young,
straight lime tree, with as few branches as possible,
growing in a forest and about 15 centimetres in diameter, is needed.
The buckets are sewn using twisted lime bast cord.
Loops for the handle and the handle itself are made
from cord of the same type.
An axe, a knife, an awl, a hook for weaving the string,
and some wax, are needed for the production of a
bucket (Fig. 15). In order to ensure the accuracy of the
experiment, copies of axes, knives and awls found in
the cemetery at Lieporiai, as well as a wooden hook
and some wax that were taken from ethnographical
material, were used for this reconstruction.
184
The preparation of the raw material. Having cut a
lime tree, a 0.6 to one-metre-area of the trunk, free of
bigger branches, scars or other bark injuries, is cut out
with a knife, across the trunk, from both ends, and then
cut lengthwise. For this purpose, a very sharp knife is
needed, so that the bark is cut to the very timber; otherwise, the uncut bast will tear the bark and spoil its
edge. A straight and undamaged edge of the bark guarantees the watertightness of a bucket. The bark from
the trunk is then peeled off with the blade of a knife
or an axe, carefully pulling the bast from the timber
along the lengthwise cut and increasing the gap. If the
tree is barked in spring, it can be barked using only the
hands, placing the fingers into the gap between the rind
and the trunk. Usually, while barking a tree, the bast
Fig. 15. The tools for making buckets
Fig. 16. Peeling the bark from the lime trunk
cracks lengthwise in some places, but the outer side of
the bark has to remain undamaged.
The best time to bark a tree is in spring, when the bark
separates easily from the trunk. After bark gathered in
the spring has been soaked, the bast separates from it
very easily, and it is flexible and solid. The peeled bark
may be kept dried. However, before the buckets are
made, the bark must be soaked in cold water for up
to three days. If necessary, the bark may be peeled off
during other seasons, but it becomes more difficult, as
it is more likely to be damaged and the bast is almost
impossible to separate from the bark; therefore, they
have to be cut with a knife (Fig. 16).
Once the bark is peeled, it must immediately be turned
so that the bast is on the top (if it cannot be done immediately, then at least before it gets dry). It has to be
rolled into a cylinder and tied up with a string. Only in
this way can the bark be completely straightened, so
that its edges do not turn towards the inside.
Bark from the very top of the tree and from bigger
branches is peeled for bast. Using a knife or an axe,
the lower edge of the bark, the width of which is not
important, is peeled until the bark tears off. The pieces
of bark are soaked in water for two or three weeks, in
order for the bast to separate from the bark more easily.
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 17. The lime bark prepared for sewing
Fig. 18. Sewing the bucket
Then the pieces of bark are taken out of the water and
dried. After that, the bast is pulled by hand. It is thin,
flexible and soft, and can easily be woven into string
(Fig. 17).
was put through, and from the opposite side the end
was pulled out. The waxed end of a bast cord, twisted
between the fingers, becomes hard and pointed and can
be pulled through the hole quite easily.
String is woven from bast using a wooden hook, which
is made from a tree branch, 30 centimetres long and
one centimetre in diameter, with a smaller branch
sprouting from it. The branch is cut five centimetres
from the join, which is of the same length. The length
of the handle of the hook is about 25 centimetres. The
ends are smoothed with a knife.
Sewing a bucket. The edges of the lime bark are cut
using a knife till they are even. A 75 to 80-centimetre-long and 22 to 25-centimetre-wide rectangle is cut
and rolled lengthwise down the bast, with the outward
side of the bark facing inside. During the archaeological excavations, it was noticed that the bark of buckets
was rolled with the bast facing outwards, but it was not
clear why all these buckets were rolled only this way.
Having tried to roll the bark so that the bast was facing
inwards several times, the outward side soon cracked.
Thus, it became clear that the bark has to be rolled with
the bast facing outwards only. The edges of the bark
overlap five to seven centimetres, and the cylinder is
tied tightly with bast or cord made from it. The remaining piece of bark is pressed with a plank in order to
uncurl it. It will be used for the bottom of the bucket.
If the bark is soaked for several days, it uncurls easily,
and it is not necessary to press it (Fig. 18).
The string is woven from one 30 to 40-centimetrelong and one-centimetre-wide piece of bast. One end
of the bast is put around the hook, leaving a five to seven-centimetre tip on one side. This tip, together with
the longer end of the bast, is taken with the left hand,
and the hook is turned around its longitudinal axis using the right hand. This way, the long and the short
ends are twisted, and the rest of the string is woven
following the same method. In order for the bast to stay
woven, its twisted end is wrapped around the hook. Finally, when the bast is woven, the string is wound off
the hook and its pointed, single end is waxed with good
beeswax. The waxed end of the string should look like
a needle.
Looking for a way to sew bark with a cord, the first
method tried was to pull the end of the cord through a
hole made with an awl, using a darning needle, which
was made especially for the purpose, but this method
failed. The end of the cord cracked, split into threads,
and could not be pulled through the hole. What was
helpful here was a technique used by shoemakers. A
hole was made with an awl, the waxed end of the cord
Bark scalded with boiling water or soaked in cold water for a day becomes more flexible. A bucket of a more
regular form is made from such bark. It appears that
bark may be softened and steamed by putting the lime
log into a heated bread-baking stove, but we did not try
this method (Ščesnulevičius 1936).
The bucket is sewn leaving the bark cylinder tied
tightly with bast; otherwise, it would be impossible to
keep it rolled and to sew it evenly. In order to keep
the outward edge of the bark pressed to the side of the
bucket more tightly, an oblong piece of bark can be put
crosswise behind the bast. It is sewn using cord wo-
185
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
Birutė
Salatkienė
186
ven from dried bast. The archaeologist R. Rimantienė
once wrote that before the process, the bast was soaked
(Rimantienė 1995), but our experiment showed that
this was not true. Wet bast cannot be twisted, knotted
or tightened, and loosens up immediately. It is also impossible to point it and to pull it through a hole. The
most convenient way to sew it is to use a 30 to 40centimetre-long cord; a longer cord usually cracks by
the time the sewing is over, and it breaks more often.
The side of the bucket is sewn making a double hem in
the following way: a hole is made with an obtuse (so
that the bark does not split as easily) iron awl through
both of the overlapping ends of the bark. The hole is
made 1.5 centimetres from the top of the cylinder, two
to three centimetres from the outward edge of the bark.
A well-twisted, waxed, pointed bast cord is stringed
into the hole and tied firmly. The shorter end of the
cord is stringed into the gap between the overlapping
edges of the bucket, and the longer one is used for sewing. Alongside the overlapping edge, two lines of holes
are made, one to 1.5 centimetres from each another.
The gaps between the holes are 0.5 to one centimetre
wide, and the holes are arranged in a chessboard order.
By stringing the cord through the holes of both lines,
skew stitches are formed. Such a double hem presses
the joining pieces more tightly and does not damage
the outward edges of the bark. Every hole is made separately, so that it does not get covered. The holes are
made in the same direction as that in which the cord
will be stringed, because the outward hole is wider and
its edges are more even.
After sewing the side of the bucket, the excess string
is cut off. The bucket is put on a straightened piece of
bark, laid with its outward side facing up. Pressing it
very tightly, the bottom of the bucket is cut out with a
sharp knife. The bottom is several millimetres wider
than the cylinder of the bucket. It is sewn to the bucket
making a double hem as well, using holes with 0.5centimetre gaps between them. The cord is stringed in
succession into the holes of the cylinder and into the
holes of the bottom. The holes are not made ahead of
time or all at once, but while sewing, each one is made
separately. It is easier to string the cord into a newly
made hole, as, after some time, the hole contracts and
it has to be widened with an awl. The bottom holes are
made from the inside of the bucket, while the holes of
the cylinder edges are made from the outer side. The
cord is stringed into the holes in this order, because
otherwise, trying to make a hole at the bottom of the
cylinder from the inner side is very difficult, as it is
hard to see. The holes in the cylinder are made not in
a line, but in chessboard order, every other hole a bit
lower so that the bast does not rip lengthwise and does
not fall together with the bottom.
Fig. 19. A replica of a lime bark bucket
After the bucket is sewn, holes for a vertical loop are
made 2.5 to three centimetres from each other, approximately in the middle of the overlapping edges, two
centimetres below the upper edge. If the loops are not
made where the edges of the cylinder overlap, is impossible to keep the bucket balanced, as the heavier side of
the bucket will weigh it down. The loop is made from
a double bast cord. In order for it to be firmer, the same
cord is wound around the outer side of the loop. A loop
of the same kind is made on the opposite side of the
bucket. A 0.5-centimetre-thick cord, woven from twobast ply, is stringed into the loops. Then, a 40 to 50centimetre-long cord, thicker than that used earlier for
sewing, is taken. One of its edges is stringed through
the loop and bent so that one quarter of its length remains on one side, with the other three quarters on the
other side. Then both ends of the cord are twisted into
one. The end of the shorter part is stringed between the
cord’s filaments, and fastened so that it does not break
or come loose. The bast is not slippery, and the cord
stays twisted. The other end of the cord is twisted the
same way. The handle can be made in the following
way. A single cord is stringed into one of the loops;
the cord is bent in the middle and twisted to the end by
hand. Then its end is pulled through the second loop.
Its ten-centimetre end is bent under the loop and woven
into the twisted cord. This way, a firm cord handle for
the bucket is made from double bast. The capacity of
the bucket is usually eight or nine litres (Fig. 19).
A finished lime bark bucket was tested. It was soaked
in water for three days. During this time the bark became swollen, and all of the holes were filled; the overlapping edges were tightly pressed. The bast cord also
became swollen, and filled the holes tightly. The bucket
became almost completely hermetic. It could be used
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
Fig. 20. The Days of Living Archaeology in Kernavė, 2001.��
Making lime bark buckets
to draw water, which dripped only slightly from it. After being carried for 100 metres, 0.5 litres of water had
dripped from the bucket. This shows that the bucket is
not suitable for carrying and keeping water. However,
it is suitable for drawing water from a well, because it
is light, capacious, and can easily be drawn up from a
deep well. Fastening the bucket to a perch can draw the
water; otherwise the bucket will not sink and be filled
with water. A stone found in the first bucket could have
been used as a form of ballast, so that the bucket sank
and was filled with water.
It is possible that buckets in wells were kept in the
water all the time, and that is why they did not dry
out and were watertight. It was noticed that the bark
of a bucket used for a longer period of time would get
softer; the bucket would lose its resilience, and would
become soft and flat like a basket. No bucket has been
found with the entire cord remaining, which indicates
that the buckets sank when their cords broke.
To this day, 150 buckets have been made using the
method described above. A reconstruction of the method of production was elaborated further in 1998–2002,
when the author of this article and Audronė Šapaitė,
the head of the archaeological department at the Aušra
museum in Šiauliai, participated in various experimental archaeology events. The method of production was
demonstrated at the Biskupin festival of open archae-
ology in Poland, from 9 to 19 September 1998, and
18 to 22 September 1999, as well as at the Kernavė
archaeological museum during the Days of Living Archaeology, and at the international symposium “Ancient Trades and Traditions of the Countries of the
Baltic Sea Region” in Nida in 1999. The method was
also demonstrated in Nida in 2000–2002 during the Viking Festival; in Volin, Poland, in 1999 and 2001; it
was also shown in 2002 at the “Living History” camp
which took place in the Šiauliai region and was hosted
by Šiauliai Aukuras, the nature and cultural heritage
protection club; also, in 2000, during the ancient trades
day at the Aušra museum in Šiauliai; at the festival of
medieval trades in 2001 in Cēcis, Latvia, as well as in
several other places (Fig. 20).
C o n c lu s i o n s
1. In 1987–2002 the Lieporiai complex of archaeological monuments (a cemetery and two settlements)
near Šiauliai was excavated. A site for iron smelting was excavated, and dated to the fourth to eighth
centuries AD.
2. Unique findings, four wells (three with wooden
constructions) and eight lime bark buckets, were
discovered.
187
� � � �c �ti� ��
o n o ��f ��
We �ll� ��s
Birutė
Salatkienė
3. A reconstruction of a wooden well was made at the
Aušra museum in Šiauliai in 2004, but archaeological experiments in lime bark bucket production
were accomplished in 1998.
4. Lime bark, an axe, a knife, an awl, a hook for weaving the string, as well as some wax, is needed for
the production of a bucket. The method of production has been reconstructed and 150 buckets have
been made using this method. All the reconstructions were demonstrated at festivals of experimental archaeology in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.
References
188
Kairaitis J., Karpavičius J. 1997. Dėl šulinio iš Lieporių gyvenvietės amžiaus. Kauno botanikos sodas. In: Šiaulių
“Aušros” muziejaus Archeologijos skyriaus archyvas.
Kernavė - litewska Troja. 2002. Katalog wystawy ze zbiorow
Panstvovego Muzeum-Rezerwatu Archeologii w Kernavė.
Warszawa.
Mažeika J., Petrošius R. 1999. Šiauliai No 1, Šiauliai Nr. 2.
Geologijos institutas, Radioizotopinių tyrimų laboratorija.
In: Šiaulių “Aušros” muziejaus archeologijos skyriaus archyvas.
Navasaitis J., Chodočinskas S., Blaževičius H. 1996. Šlako
reikšmė kalviškosios geležies metalurgijoje. In: Mechanika-96. Tarptautinės konferencijos pranešimų medžiaga.
Kaunas, 177–180.
Navasaitis J. 1997. Lieporių rudnelės rekonstrukcija. In:
Kultūros paveldas-97: Respublikinio seminaro medžiaga
(Metalų gavyba, jų sudėtis ir metalinių dirbinių gamyba).
Vilnius, 39–44.
Navasaitis J., Sveikauskaitė A., Selskis A. and Matulionis E.
1999. Ironmaking technique during the Roman period in
Lithuania. In: Prehistoric and Medieval Direct Iron Smelting in Scandinavia and Europe. Aspect of Technology and
Society. Aarhus, 87–97.
Navasaitis J., Sveikauskaitė A., Selskis A. 1999a. Lietuvos
rudnių šlako sudėtis ir savybės. In: Lietuvos archeologija.
18. Vilnius, 121–133.
Rimantienė R. 1995. Lietuva iki Kristaus. Vilnius, 55.
Rimantienė R. 1996. Akmens amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 21.
Salatkienė B. 1992. Lieporių (Šiauliai) kapinyno 1990–1991
m. Tyrinėjimai. In: Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje
1990–1991 m. Vilnius, 117–122.
Salatkienė B. 1993. Žemaičių karių kapai Lieporių V-VIII a.
po Kr. kapinyne. In: Mūsų kraštas. No 2(3), 21–29.
Salatkienė B. 1993a. The complex of archaeological monuments in Lieporiai 5th-8th c. AD. Vejle, 103–105.
Salatkienė B. 1994. Lieporių gyvenvietės tyrinėjimai. In: Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 1992–1993 m. Vilnius,
64–73.
Salatkienė B. 1994a. Ar išsaugos Šiauliai savo archeologinius paminklus? In: Mokslas ir gyvenimas. No 4, 32–33.
Salatkienė B. 1996. Lieporių I gyvenvietės tyrinėjimai. In:
Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 1994–1995 m. Vilnius, 47–52.
Salatkienė B. 1996a. Lieporių archeologinių paminklų kompleksas. In: Šiaulių metraštis 1994–1995. Šiauliai, 161–
169.
Salatkienė B. 1997. Geležies lydymo verslas Lieporių I-oje
gyvenvietėje. In: Kultūros paveldas-97: Respublikinio seminaro medžiaga (Metalų gavyba, jų sudėtis ir metalinių
dirbinių gamyba).Vilnius, 30–39.
Salatkienė B. 1998. Lieporių 1-sios gyvenvietės tyrinėjimai.
In: Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 1996 ir 1997 metais. Vilnius, 90–99.
Salatkienė B. 1999. Archeologinė rekonstrukcija kaip tyrimo
metodas. In: Lietuvos muziejų rinkiniai. Tyrinėjimų metodika. Konferencijos tezės ir pranešimai. Vilnius, 10–12.
Salatkienė B. 2000. Lieporių 1-sios gyvenvietės tyrinėjimai.
In: Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 1998 ir 1999 metais. Vilnius, 103–106.
Salatkienė B. 2001. Lieporių 1-ji gyvenvietė. In: Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2000 metais. Vilnius, 37–40.
Salatkienė B. 2002. Lieporių 1-ji gyvenvietė. In: Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2001 metais. Vilnius, 47–53.
Salatkienė B. 2003. Geležies lydymo ir apdirbimo radiniai
Lieporių 1-oje gyvenvietėje. In: Istorija. Lietuvos aukštųjų
mokyklų mokslo darbai. LVI. Vilnius, 3–16.
Stankus J. 2001. Geležies gamybos Lietuvoje apžvalga. In:
Lietuvos archeologija. 21. Vilnius, 171–182.
Ščesnulevičius K. 1936. Vyžos. In: Gimtasai kraštas. Šiauliai. No 1(9), 15–18.
Vaškevičiūtė I. 1988. Lieporių (Šiaulių raj.) kapinynas. In:
Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 1986–1987 m. Vilnius, 114–116.
Birutė Salatkienė
Šiauliai University
P. Višinskio g. 38, 76352 Šiauliai
Tel. +37061440949
Received: 2002
Š ulini ų ir liepos
karnos kibir ė li ų iš 1 - osios
L iepori ų g y venviet ė s
rekonstrukci j a
Birutė Salatkienė
S a n tr a u k a
Lietuvoje mažai domimasi eksperimentine archeologija. Tiek archeologinis eksperimentas, atliekamas kaip
mokslinio tyrimo dalis, tiek rekonstrukcijos muziejų
ekspozicijose tebėra retas dalykas. Neaprašomi ir nepublikuojami net tie eksperimentai, kurie atliekami
eksperimentinės archeologijos festivaliuose ar panašaus pobūdžio renginiuose.
Svarbiausias šio straipsnio tikslas yra aprašyti ir paskelbti archeologinio eksperimento – liepos žievės kibirėlių vandeniui iš šulinio semti siuvimo ir bandymo
rezultatus – medžiagas, eigą. Buvo padarytos ir šulinių,
kuriuose rasti kibirėliai, medinių sienų rekonstrukcijos,
tačiau ne natūraliomis sąlygomis, žemėje, laukuose, o
muziejuje ir brėžiniuose.
Patys rečiausi ir vertingiausi vidurinio, geležies lydymo, laikotarpio horizonto radiniai. Tai geležies lydykla,
kur vietoje buvo kasama hidratinė geležies rūda (rūdos
kasimo duobės ir rūdos žaliava), plaunama (šuliniai ir
juose paskendę kibirėliai, klojinys), degama (rūdos deginimo duobės), lydoma (20 rudnelių liekanos, medžio
anglių degimo duobės ir židiniai), gauta kritė kaitinama žaizdre (kalvio žaizdras) ir galutinai apdirbama,
kalant ant akmeninių priekalų. Unikalūs geležies lydyklos radiniai – tai mediniai šuliniai su nuskendusiais
kibirėliais, neturintys vienalaikių analogijų Lietuvos
archeologinėje medžiagoje.
Visi Lieporių šuliniai įrengti šiek tiek skirtingai. Trys iš
jų (1, 3, 4) turėjo medines konstrukcijas, o vienas – neturėjo. Visos medinės konstrukcijos stulpinių statinių
tipo, tačiau pirmajam šuliniui naudoti skelti pusrąsčiai,
antrajam – skeltinės lentos, o trečiajam – nestori apvalūs rąsteliai. Visi mediniai šuliniai keturkampiai, pailgi, nuo 1,3 iki 1,8 m ilgio ir nuo 0,6 iki 0,8 m pločio, o
šulinys be medinių sienų buvo apvalus, apie 1 m skersmens. Visais atvejais pirmiausia buvo iškasama duobė
(nuo 2,4 m, 2,0 m, 2,7 m, 4,65 m gylio) ir jos sienos
sutvirtinamos medinėmis konstrukcijomis, viduje prilaikomomis skersiniais rąsteliais ar kartimis.
1998 metų vasarą, ruošiantis dalyvauti Biskupino
(Lenkija) gyvosios archeologijos festivalyje, buvo
padaryta liepos žievės kibirėlių gamybos rekonstrukcija (B. Salatkienė, A. Šapaitė), po to dar keletą metų
eksperimentuota ir tobulinta technologija bei įrankiai.
Liepos žievė tinka nuo 15–18 cm storio, tiesių, mažai šakotų, nukirstų pavasarį medelių. Žievę geriausia
lupti pavasarį, kada ji lengvai atsiskiria nuo kamieno.
Išmirkius pavasarį nuluptą žievę, nuo jos labai gerai
atsiskiria karna, ji būna lanksti ir tvirta. Nuluptą žievę
galima laikyti išdžiovintą, prieš tai išvertus ją luobu į
išorę, susukus į cilindrą ir surišus. Luobu į vidų žievė
nesisuka, jos viršutinis sluoksnis trūksta. Prieš kibirėlių
siuvimą džiovintą žievę reikia 1–3 dienas mirkyti šaltame vandenyje. Kibirėliai siūti liepos karnos virvelėmis. Karnoms paruošti žievė mirkoma apie 2 savaites,
po to išlupamas vidinis jos sluoksnis, kuris išdžiūvęs
tampa tvirta karna. Virvelė vejama mediniu kabliu, jos
galas vaškuojamas, kad lengviau pralįstų pro skylutę
žievėje. Į cilindrą sulenktos ir surištos žievės kraštai,
užleisti vienas ant kito, siuvami dviguba siūle įstrižais
dygsniais, skylutes dygsniams praduriant geležine yla.
Kibirėlio dugnas išpjaunamas peiliu, taip pat luobu į išorę, ir prisiuvamas virvele įstrižais dygsniais. Kilpelės
daromos iš karnos virvelės, praduriant po dvi skylutes
kibirėlio šonuose. Į kilpeles įtvirtinama storesnė vyta
virvutė, kuri atstoja kibirėlio lankelį.
BALTICA 6
Minėti radiniai buvo rasti 1983 metais pietiniame
Šiaulių miesto pakraštyje aptiktame Lieporių archeologiniame komplekse, kurį sudaro 3 vienalaikiai paminklai – IV–VIII a. pr. Kr. gyvenvietės ir kapinynas.
Kompleksas tyrinėjamas nuo 1987 metų. Kapinyne ištirti 95 kapai, surinkta daugiau kaip 450 archeologinių
dirbinių, nustatyta, kad tai žemaičių paribyje su žiemgaliais gyvenusios bendruomenės palikimas. Lieporių
1-osios gyvenvietės vakarinėje dalyje ištirtas 2858 m2
plotas ir užfiksuoti trys kultūrinio sluoksnio horizontai.
Seniausias iš jų priskirtas Pabaltijo Madleno kultūrai ir
datuotas X–VIII tūkst. per. Kr. Vidurinis, IV–VI a. po
Kr., horizontas priklauso tam laikotarpiui, kai šioje gyvenvietės dalyje buvo lydoma geležis, o vėlyviausias,
VI–VIII a., horizontas – tai laikotarpis, kai apleistoje
geležies lydykloje buvo pastatytos sodybos ir apsigyveno žmonės.
mos, kiti sunykę labiau, o keletas visai suminkštėję ir
susiploję kaip krepšiai.
ARCHAELOGIA
Pirmojoje straipsnio dalyje detaliai aprašomos medinių
šulinių su nuskendusiais liepos žievės kibirėliais atradimo aplinkybės, o antrojoje – jų rekonstrukcijos eiga.
Apie 25 cm skersmens ir tokio pat aukščio kibirėlis
būna maždaug 8–9 l talpos. Tris dienas šaltame vandenyje mirkytas kibirėlis tampa pakankamai sandarus
semti vandeniui iš šulinio ir nešti nedidelį atstumą.
Vandeniui ilgesnį laiką laikyti kibirėlis netinka. Gali
būti, kad kibirėliai buvo naudojami tik sėmimui, nuolat
būdavo vandenyje, neišdžiūdavo ir išlikdavo sandarūs.
Tačiau jie greitai minkštėdavo, deformuodavosi, jų virvelės trūkdavo ir jie skęsdavo.
Kibirėlio gamybos rekonstrukcija buvo demonstruojama 1998–2003 metais įvairiuose eksperimentinės ir
gyvosios archeologijos renginiuose Lietuvoje, Len��
kijoje ir Latvijoje.
Pirmajame ir trečiajame šuliniuose buvo rasti aštuoni
nuskendę ir dumble užsikonservavę kibirėliai. Jie šiek
tiek skyrėsi dydžiu (aukštis nuo 16 iki 27 cm, skersmuo nuo 18 iki 27 cm), tačiau visi buvo cilindro formos, karnos virvele susiūti iš luobu į viršų išverstos
liepos žievės, prisiūtu dugnu. Kibirėlių lankeliai suvyti
iš karnos virvelės, šonuose įvertos į kilpeles. Vienas
kibirėlis buvo nuskendęs dar naujas, nepraradęs for-
189
Provenance Study of Late
16th Century Barrels Found in
Klaipėda
Mindaugas
Brazauskas
P r o v e n a n c e S t u d y o f L at e 1 6 t h C e n t u ry
Barrels Found in Klaipėda
Mindaugas Brazauskas
Abstract
The article examines trading conditions in medieval Klaipėda (Memel) and reports the results of the latest dendrochronological dating of oak found in the Old Town.
Key words: dendroprovenancing, dendrochronology, oak chronology, Hanseatic League, timber trade, urban archaeology,
barrels, Baltic Sea region.
Dendroprovenancing: new opportunities for archaeological research
The use of the dendrochronological method in archaeology has advanced significantly over the last few decades. This method of timber dating has disclosed quite
a few facts about historical events never mentioned in
written records, it has shed a light on the daily routines
of the remote past, and uncovered processes never
before heard of in the archaeology of settlements and
towns.
From the standpoint of the present, it is easy to understand the significance to West European dendrochronologists of identifying and dating Baltic timber
exported via Gdansk and other Baltic ports. Due to the
timber trade, a huge amount of wood of Baltic origin
spread all over Western Europe between the 14th and
17th centuries, and Western dendrochronologists find
it difficult to date the wood because of the shortage of
Baltic region oak chronologies. In turn, due to the international trade, certain amounts of timber of “exotic”
provenance (coming, for example, from Norway, the
Netherlands, England or France) had to settle in the archaeological context of the towns of the Baltic region.
Local dendrochronologists are faced with the task of
identifying, dating and establishing the provenance of
the timber.
The potential of dendrochronological dating has not
been fully exploited, despite the fact that one of the initial targets of dendrochronological dating was merely
the designing of chronologies suitable for the precise
dating of construction or archaeological wood that no
thorough archaeological research could do without.
190
It would currently be correct to say that the dendrochronological method, doomed to function merely as
an auxiliary branch of archaeology, has outgrown itself. In the history of dendrochronology, dendrolabs
appeared in Denmark, Germany, England and Sweden
throughout the Sixties and Seventies of the 20th century, with the aim of accumulating samples of wood,
dating them, and designing chronologies of wood to
cover the period from the Stone Age to the present.
We can probably now talk about the current maturity
of the method, as a wide circle of researchers occupied
in the field have mastered the principles of establishing
the date of woodcutting and of interpreting the results
obtained. Establishing dates became a routine and obvious goal of dendrochronology. However, due to personal contacts and the exchange of data, new problems
surfaced in dendrochronological research. Next to the
question when the tree was cut (with the aim of designing chronologies of softwood and hardwood, covering the period from the present to prehistoric times,
and precise dating methods), new ones arose: where
and when the tree was cut. Next to the chronology, the
precise time and place of cutting the tree became of
interest (the specific wood, the terrain, and the region,
such as northern France or Finland). This new branch
of dendrochronology became known as “dendroprovenancing” (Bonde et al 1995: 202).
A s h o r t r e v i e w o f K l a i p ė d a ’s t r a d e i n
the late medieval period
After the foundation of Klaipėda (Memel) in 1252, it
would periodically attract the glow of the Hanseatic
towns. As early as the spring of 1261, the vice-master
of Livonia, in his letter to Lübeck merchants, informed
them about the conditions for colonists to settle in
Klaipėda and asked them to come before winter started
(Žukas 2005: 71).The newborn city was even awarded
Lübeck trading rights; however, it lost them in the late
15th century due to developments unfavourable to the
city.
The minor importance of the port of Klaipėda cannot
be disputed; however, it would be incorrect to state
that from 1252, the year when the town was founded, no effort was made to exploit the harbour and the
huge commercial potential of the River Nemunas and
the western region of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
There was at least one good reason preventing boats
from by-passing Klaipėda, and that was its favourable
location: from the Aistmares Strait to the entrance of
the Curonian Lagoon next to Klaipėda, for a stretch of
150 kilometres, and north of Klaipėda to Liepaja, for
around 75 kilometres, there was not a single safe haven
or a safe anchorage for boats during a storm (Žulkus
2002: 102).
In historical records, the activities of brokers (in German Lieger) in Klaipėda in the early 16th century have
not been sufficiently covered. Brokers were part of the
Order’s trade network managed by the Order’s officials residing in Marienburg and Königsberg (Žulkus
2002: 102). These brokers, although they did not have
the rights of town citizens, started buying up local
goods in Žemaitija, the west of Lithuania, and shipping
them to different European ports. As early as the second half of the 16th century, boats sent by them would
sail to Lübeck, the Netherlands, Holland, England and
Scotland, while the population of Klaipėda had direct
trading relationships almost exclusively with Danzig
(Zembrickis 2002: 82–83).
Unfortunately, data on the volume of timber leaving
the Klaipėda area does not seem to exist; however, the
It is highly probable that the major boom in timber exports from Klaipėda coincided with the beginning of
the shipbuilding industry there. For dendrochronology,
this is an important fact, as it narrows the area of provenance of some of the timber to the city’s environs. The
first ship was built in Klaipėda in 1517 (Žulkus 2002:
107). This date symbolises a special stage in its development as a maritime city and a centre for maritime
trade. Ensuing events in the development of the town
testify to its economic growth.
BALTICA 6
fact of the existence of timber exports is witnessed by
a document from 1468, with reference to a shipment
of fish and timber being forfeited in Lübeck and sold
(Willoweit 1969, cited in: Žulkus 2002:111).
ARCHAELOGIA
Because of this historical change in its history,
Klaipėda’s name appeared in Hanseatic records less
and less frequently. That was only natural: Hanseatic
towns, such as Danzig (currently Gdansk), Königsberg
(currently Kaliningrad), Riga, and a number of other
towns which had at least trading stations of Hanseatic
merchants, overshadowed Klaipėda as a member of
trade relationships. Klaipėda was reluctantly excluded
from the current network of dendroprovenancing research because, as early as the 14th century, the River
Prieglius was linked with the Curonian Lagoon by a canal, and from that time on, Gdansk was the chief commercial port of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Wazny
1992: 331). A stereotype was formed by which, in the
15th to the 17th centuries, in terms of the level of trade,
Klaipėda was a small and insignificant coastal town,
but not a trading partner or even a supplier of raw materials. However, it was not exclusively exports from
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that were served by the
Prieglius–Curonian Lagoon canal: goods travelled by
this route from Klaipėda to Königsberg and vice versa
all year round (in winter, the overland route down the
Curonian Spit was used) (Žulkus 2005: 74).
In the early 16th century, the town settled in a new location, a planned structure of streets formed, and craftsmen’s guilds appeared in the late 16th century. Slowly
but surely, the commercial and economic potential of
the town was gaining strength. The fact of a new and
dangerous trading competitor becoming established
on the eastern Baltic is witnessed by Königsberg merchants’ complaints and protests against the trade and
shipping in Klaipėda (Žulkus 2005: 83).
Dendrochronological analysis
of barrel heads found in
t h e O l d To w n o f K l a i p ė d a
A rather interesting trading situation in Klaipėda in the
middle of the 16th century was disclosed in the analysis of construction timber and barrel remains on the
site of number 3 Žvejų Street, in the Old Town (Fig.
1). The main point of interest is the possibility of establishing trading contacts in the 16th century with the
help of dendroprovenancing, and producing tangible
proof via timber analysis, and not merely on the basis
of historical records or imported articles found in the
process of archaeological excavations.
In 2005, exploratory archaeological excavations on the
site of number 3 Žvejų Street took place under the supervision of R. Jarockis. The place presented special
interest, as in a city map/drawing of 1670, there was a
building with the inscription “WAGE” next to it. The
site was merely 20 metres away from the 16th-century
course of the River Danė that served as a port at that
time. Archaeological articles found on the site were
scarce and not very informative. Therefore, dendrochronological examination became a basic part of the
whole project that contributed to a more precise reconstruction of the development of that particular part of
the Old Town.
191
Mindaugas
Brazauskas
Klaipėda
Fig. 1. A model of
17th-century Klaipėda/
Memel (photograph by
V. Žulkus). The arrow
shows the place of
the 2005 excavations
(number 3 Žvejų Street)
Pine (Pinus sylvestris) and oak (Quercus robur) were
examined. The present article shall focus exclusively
on oak.
Three pieces of oak were taken for examination from
the construction of the building.
• Key code Zvej3 S3: 148 tree rings. The date of the
last ring is 1544. The later wood had four rings. The
estimated date is c.1544.
• Key code Zvej3 S2: 153 tree rings. The date of the
last ring is 1521. The later wood has not survived. The
estimated date is c.1535 or later.
• Key code Zvej3: 146 tree rings. The date of the last
ring is 1519. The later wood has not survived. The estimated date is c. 1533 or later.
The general scale obtained embraced a period of 154
years, from 1373 to 1526.
Ta b l e 1 . N u m b e r 3 Ž v e j ų S t r e e t , K l a i p ė d a :
coefficients of individual curve
correlation
TBP*
THO**
Zvej3 S2
Zvej3 S3
4,212
4,528
Zveju3
Zvej3 S3
3,948
3,143
Zveju3
Zvej3 S2
3,488
4,008
* Transformation Baillie/Piltcher
** Transformation Holstein
192
It should be noted that timber samples from the site excavated demonstrated excellent overlapping with one
another (Table 1), and also with the mean value curves
of the archaeological/construction timber in Klaipėda
Old Town and Baltic 1 (the results of synchronisation
are presented in Table 2).
Ta b l e 2 . T h e s i t e a t n u m b e r 3 Ž v e j ų
Street, Klaipėda: correlation coefficients
of individual oak samples with Baltic 1
and Klaipėda (Memel) oak chronology
Baltic 1
Memel
TBP*
THO**
TBP*
THO**
Zvej3 S2
4,70
4,19
8,30
7,57
Zveju3
3,89
4,25
6,74
8,50
Zvej3 S3
4,55
4,53
4,85
4,96
Zvej Mean
5,63
5,62
8,15
9,33
*Transformation Baillie/Piltcher
**Transformation Holstein
The correlation coefficient between Klaipėda (Memel)
archaeological architectural oak wood chronology and
the samples from the site at number 3 Žvejų Street is
sufficiently high (TBP: 4.84–8.3). There is no doubt
that the timber used for construction on that site is
of local provenance. This fact is not contradicted by
historical data or the charter of 1475, by which the
Lübeck trading rights in Klaipėda were substituted for
Kulm Rights; the inhabitants of Klaipėda were allowed
to cut wood for construction and shipbuilding, as well
as to build ships; however, they were not allowed to
sell them (Žulkus 2002: 107).
The dated oak samples from the archaeological site at
number 3 Žvejų Steet were included in the Klaipėda
(Memel) oak wood scale presented in Table 4.
A different dendrochronological context came up when
parts of barrels found on the site were examined. Five
pieces of oak barrel heads were taken for examination:
Baltic2
E. Pomerania
Memel
THO**
TBP*
THO**
TBP*
THO** TBP* THO**
Stat1
6,57
6,22
2,57
2,734
3,08
3,49
6,06
5,23
Stat2
2,73
2,55
1,14
1,27
3,25
3,55
3,23
3,55
Stat3
2,18
1,5
3,25
3,40
1,90
1,15
3,98
3,40
Stat4
8,78
8,93
3,94
3,84
4,88
4,77
5,26
3,61
Stat5
3,54
3,75
4,09
3,15
3,36
2,70
1,45
1,94
ARCHAELOGIA
Baltic1
TBP*
BALTICA 6
Ta b l e 3 . C o e f f i c i e n t s o f c o r r e l a t i o n o f b a r r e l s a m p l e i n d i v i d u a l c u r v e s w i t h B a l t i c o a k
wood master chronologies
*Transformation Baillie/Piltcher
**Transformation Holstein
Ta b l e 4 . M e d i e v a l o a k m a s t e r c h r o n o l o g y o f K l a i p ė d a
MEMEL
1288
324
285
Untitled
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
1290
1300
1310
115
115
94
96
115
106
70
113
134
56
104
148
86
97
106
79
103
124
89
91
76
93
80
112
101
82
105 122
MEMEL
1320
97
136
141
110
120
122
95
104
105 106
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
1330
1340
1350
1360
1370
1380
118
108
104
127
94
108
116
117
106
128
110
103
98
96
96
152
68
106
87
84
92
137
116
96
99
86
102
113
121
112
84
117
120
96
112
94
142
99
106
100
133
100
106
130
53
95
102
106
112
105
66
86
119
100 108
96
108
100
74
96
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
1390
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1500
106
107
107
76
82
90
93
115
97
105
110
113
107
104
92
102
89
138
101
77
102
100
90
136
124
120
105
98
107
96
116
70
108
88
76
108
130
92
92
64
114
99
86
63
77
102
86
92
102
118
82
114
100
110
109
108
80
130
78
82
94
100
90
118
111
112
124
88
108
100
93
80
98
107
94
116
88
98
116
102
105
112
90
88
77
94
116
104
105
96
129
106
89
126
106
96
102
114
101
87
98
99
88
136
98
114
95
109132
103
114
96
83
98
84
92
114
72
100
94
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
MEMEL
1510
1520
1530
1540
1550
1560
1570
1580
116
105
91
108
83
116
112
97
106
100
86
96
94
98
73
999
112
111
94
88
92
98
103
110
88
101
101
124
98
104
82
106
107
95
82
82
112
96
92
114
104
109
121
102
95
106
96
99
95
87
98
70
99
96
98
78
99
102
110
102
105
110
92
88
98
95
96
102
110
120
112
90
115
74
• Key Code Stat 1: 293 tree rings. The date of the last
ring is 1580. The later wood had nine rings. The final
estimated date is c. 1585.
ring is 1564. The later wood has not survived. The final
estimated date is c. 1578 or later.
The primary results of synchronisation prove that the
oak used for the barrels does not come from the same
193
Klaipėda
Mindaugas
Brazauskas
194
Ta b l e 5 . I n d i v i d u a l t r e e r i n g s e r i e s o f b a r r e l h e a d s f r o m K l a i p ė d a
(number 3 Žvejų St.)
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1288
1290
1300
1310
1320
1330
1340
1350
1360
1370
1380
1390
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1500
1510
1520
1530
1540
1550
1560
1570
1580
115
115
94
96
115
116
76
110
93
101
107
102
112
69
83
86
89
112
89
102
106
122
119
117
91
124
93
116
112
97
96
115
106
97
120
91
106
120
119
99
83
102
86
102
88
169
98
64
89
105
97
143
94
107
91
94
104
97
73
70
113
134
111
80
93
101
123
61
119
118
121
109
98
92
93
113
73
97
83
80
107
106
118
88
74
85
103
103
56
104
148
97
94
77
95
127
114
106
125
87
93
49
116
85
72
62
85
101
92
86
111
78
118
93
110
103
104
86
97
106
86
72
95
105
108
111
104
93
127
89
134
90
106
115
112
85
131
83
72
71
112
108
98
76
82
112
79
103
124
110
74
123
148
97
102
95
81
93
85
122
116
112
122
83
121
100
91
70
103
78
106
102
105
121
102
89
91
76
79
144
92
92
101
139
92
94
106
99
120
63
87
121
112
97
110
93
81
90
107
88
92
95
87
98
93
80
101
95
116
120
50
102
72
113
63
89
132
101
112
106
136
109
89
117
117
88
49
99
84
101
85
99
102
324
101
82
77
84
123
112
55
92
106
89
108
115
115
101
100
93
97
147
101
111
101
116
136
112
101
117
100
88
98
285
115
74
102
105
81
95
84
78
87
88
99
101
92
83
99
76
90
114
69
92
92
151
102
100
101
142
114
112
90
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1397
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1500
1510
1520
1530
1540
192
70
106
37
98
69
84
86
95
147
97
106
90
73
79
134
60
136
59
94
134
65
113
100
103
111
110
93
85
114
156
63
97
99
87
107
62
102
116
69
92
106
113
103
103
123
78
106
143
119
86
74
92
96
75
41
101
81
127
103
146
47
143
121
105
72
99
116
100
93
52
110
107
115
100
138
94
120
146
120
101
97
149
91
70
123
113
82
86
106
136
115
92
112
114
98
101
126
104
152
99
128
98
58
113
162
97
100
110
112
100
54
87
131
119
91
99
118
85
93
999
169
115
177
67
81
102
91
96
63
105
102
100
143
72
102
142
100
96
47
72
137
127
118
40
108
123
115
112
75
109
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1429
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1500
1510
1520
1530
1540
1550
1560
151
99
140
137
75
82
90
75
112
72
90
101
90
99
110
86
104
151
77
92
93
106
91
83
95
84
79
105
141
103
104
123
67
100
74
90
91
111
91
115
81
110
86
73
104
63
91
117
106
108
92
105
109
97
130
103
91
100
108
87
80
99
88
96
108
127
106
91
104
81
68
56
105
124
105
121
99
119
95
87
85
124
124
94
82
83
137
111
111
112
103
115
87
117
103
134
116
67
102
135
112
106
102
91
97
121
89
77
149
116
91
117
84
88
99
102
101
111
95
114
72
169
92
85
99
121
90
108
114
103
88
90
110
116
110
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1451
1460
1470
1480
1490
1500
1510
1520
1530
1540
1550
1560
128
87
108
117
103
94
74
85
113
75
115
184
113
96
108
104
125
92
126
107
90
98
108
130
103
125
89
79
109
99
115
91
100
111
98
125
74
120
77
75
100
79
108
110
103
133
101
132
108
82
69
68
83
120
97
116
112
82
108
93
92
86
92
103
151
106
87
110
111
113
89
108
123
102
98
124
97
103
103
91
103
110
110
130
98
117
89
106
104
82
73
87
99
105
125
96
96
69
99
85
104
97
89
101
75
124
82
97
82
83
92
115
88
1472
1480
1490
1500
1510
1520
1530
229
113
112
99
121
88
112
172
117
90
120
122
152
101
188
123
71
168
86
151
71
110
118
129
111
73
107
87
area, although there is no doubt that the samples are
of the same age. Klaipėda (Memel) oak wood chronology applies to merely two cases: Stat 1 and 4, that
present local, or at least Baltic, provenance. The rest
of the wood clearly came from another region. The results obtained are not final. The dendrochronological
dates established are not reliably validated by the statistical T values (Table 3). Great attention was paid to
the visual similarity, as well as to the existence of a not
very significant, but recurring, signal on the chronologies of Klaipėda, Baltic 1 and Baltic 2 (Hillam, Tyers
1995: 402-403), eastern Pomerania (see Wazny) and
Hamburg (see Eckstein).
The material presented for examination – parts of barrel heads – do not seem to belong to one and the same
barrel. Probably the site examined (number 3 Žvejų
Street, Klaipėda) was a place where no longer used
barrels were discarded. Again, we have to remember
that the plot was close to the presumed cargo handling
area and the town scales essential for trading activity.
It needs to be added that the synchronisation results
among individual curves was very low, except for Stat
3 and Stat 4 (TBP-5.50, THO-3.79). The correlation of
Stat 2 was negative.
The correlation of Stat 1 implies wood coming from
Klaipėda’s environs. A high coefficient of correlation
with Klaipėda construction wood and Vilnius Lower
Castle was observed (Pukienė 2002:106): TBP-2.68,
THO-3.31, as well as a high coefficient of similarity
(GL 60.7). Ultimately, the Baltic 1 scale adds to the
probability of the said supposition.
In accordance with the synchronisation data, Barrel 4
represented a typical sample of Baltic region wood. The
correlation with Baltic region chronologies was excellent, while the negative result in the case of the Plateliai scale implied the provenance of the wood being
the northern part of the former Prussia, from Klaipėda
to Gdansk. The position of Stat 3 was essentially validated by its relationship with the curve of Stat 4. The
scales overlapped with a rather high coefficient (TBP5.50, THO-3.79); however, in the case of other scales,
it was only the Klaipėda scale that indicated a reliability of correlation. Evidently, the sample had to be reexamined with respect to other master chronologies.
The most complicated situation occurred in the case of
samples Stat 2 and Stat 5. The scales available at the
86
104
101
69
94
86
105
72
69
120
69
126
73
102
79
77
84
81
94
79
113
87
96
61
90
92
101
114
121
94
86
86
96
103
118
117
118
84
91
98
moment of examination did not produce a reliable signal on the accessible scales. Baltic 1 and Baltic 2 scales
allow us to presume that the material examined was oak
wood from the Baltic region; however, the scales of
eastern Pomerania and Klaipėda suggest a provenance
of regions adjacent to the Baltic Sea area. One of the
reasons to believe that the barrels came from places far
beyond the boundaries of the Baltic Sea region is the
following: Klaipėda was visited by boats coming from
Holland, France, Sweden (Gotland), Norway, Stralsund, Danzig, Lübeck, Kolberg, Königsberg, ports of
the River Šventoji, and from Curonia (Žulkus 2002:
106). Herring from Norway would arrive at Klaipėda
in barrels; beer, wine, mead and pipes were transported
in barrels, too. Salt was brought from Baye (France),
from Flanders (Žulkus 2002: 111), and from Luneburg
via Lübeck.
BALTICA 6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ARCHAELOGIA
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
The facts presented suggest that the barrel dating results have to be reexamined by dendrochronologists of
Western Europe, by comparing the curves of the barrels with the 16th-century oak wood chronologies of
England, Norway, Holland and France.
Conclusions
In accordance with the dendrochronological analysis
of construction wood found on the site at number 3
Žvejų Street in Klaipėda, we can state that construction
work first started there around 1560 (the estimated date
of the latest sample is c. 1554). The dating of barrel
heads, given the dates established, would be c. 1553 or
later, c. 1561 or later, c. 1579 or later, c. 1578 or later,
and c. 1585. A lath survived in only one, the last sample (c. 1585). It is currently difficult to establish how
long the wood had been stored and dried before the
barrels were produced. There is also no answer to the
question as to the period of time that the barrels served
as containers for goods, or whether that was their secondary use. On the basis of the latest established data,
the barrels most likely appeared in the archaeological
context of the Old Town in the period between c. 1560
(the first construction work in the area) and 1590 (the
latest ring in the wood of 1585).
Ultimately, the issue whether this dating of barrel parts
is correct, given the low statistical T value, remains
open. It is only possible to confirm or deny the dating
results by comparing the established figures with other
195
Klaipėda
Mindaugas
Brazauskas
West European chronologies (at the time the present
article was being written, they were not accessible).
For this reason, a series of annual growth found in the
individual barrel samples (Table 5), as well as a chronology of Klaipėda archaeological oak wood (Table 4),
is published with the article.
References
Bonde, N., Tyers, I., Wazny, T., Where does the timber come
from? Dendrochronological evidence of timber in Northern Europe. Archaeological Sciences 1995, 201–204.
Pukienė, R., 2002. Paprastojo ąžuolo metinio radialiojo
prieaugio kaitos chronologija nuo 1208 iki 1408 metų.
Dendrologia Lithuaniae, 6, 102–107.
Hillam, J., Tyers, I., 1995. Reliability and repeatability in dendrochronological analysis: tests using the Fletcher archive
of panel-painting data. Archaeometry 37 (2), 395–405.
Wazny, T., 1992. Historical timber trade and its implications
on dendrochronological dating. In: T.S. Bartholin, B.E.
Berglund, D. Eckstein, F.H. Schweingruber, O. Eggertsson
(eds.), Tree Rings and Environment: Proceedings of the
International Symposium, Ystad, South Sweden, 3-9 September, 1990. Lundqua Report (Department of Quaternary
Geology, Lund University, Sweden) 34, 331–333.
Zembrickis, J., 2002. Klaipėdos karališkojo Prūsijos jūrų ir
prekybos miesto istorija, I t. Klaipėda, 2002.
Žulkus, V., 2002. Viduramžių Klaipėda. Miestas ir pilis. Ar�
��
cheologija ir istorija. Vilnius: Žara.
Received: 2006
History and Archaelogy
Tilžės g. 13, LT-91251 Klaipėda, Lithuania
X V I A . AN T ROSIOS PUSĖS
S TAT INI Ų , RAS T Ų K LAIPĖDOS
SENA M IES T Y J E , K IL M ĖS
T Y RI M AS
Santrauka
Dendrochronologijos taikymo archeologijoje plėtra
pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais yra ženkliai pažengusi į
priekį. Šis medienos datavimo metodas papildė nemaža istorijos šaltiniuose nutylėtų praeities faktų, nušvietė kasdienybę ir padėjo ištirti daugelį archeologijos
moksle nežinomų gyvenvietėse bei miestuose vykusių
procesų.
196
Suklestėjus medienos prekybai XIV–XVII a., po Vakarų Europą pasklido nemažas kiekis baltiškos kilmės
medienos, kurios datavimą Vakarų Europos dendroch-
ronologams sunkina Baltijos regiono ąžuolo chronologijų nepakankamumas. Savo ruožtu nemaža kitų regionų kilmės medienos (pvz., iš Norvegijos, Anglijos,
Prancūzijos) turėjo nusėsti į Baltijos regiono miestų
archeologinį kontekstą. Šiuo atžvilgiu ne ką mažiau
svarbesniu uždaviniu vietos dendrochronologams tampa tokios medienos identifikacija, datavimas bei kilmės nustatymas.
Gana įdomi XVI a. vidurio Klaipėdos miesto prekybos situacija atsiskleidė analizuojant 2005 m. vykdytų žvalgomųjų archeologinių tyrimų metu Žvejų g. 3
(Klaipėda) sklype paimtas ąžuolo medienos nuopjovas
(konstrukcinė architektūrinė mediena bei statinių liekanos). Domino klausimas, ar galima dendrochronologiškai atskleisti XVI a. prekybos kontaktus ir gauti jų
apčiuopiamą įrodymą per medienos tyrimus, neapsiribojant vien istoriniais šaltiniais ar importuotais dirbiniais, rastais archeologinių tyrimų metu.
Remiantis Žvejų g. 3 sklype aptiktos konstrukcinės
medienos dendrochronologinėmis datomis galima
teigti, kad pirminis apstatymas šioje senamiesčio dalyje susiformavo apie 1554–1560 metus.
Pirminiai sinchronizacijos rezultatai parodė, kad statinių gamybai naudota mediena nėra iš to paties arealo, nors jų vienalaikiškumas neabejotinas. Klaipėdos
ąžuolo medienos chronologija tik dviem atvejais tiko
medienai datuoti. Tuo tarpu kita dalis medienos yra
aiškiai kito regiono kilmės. Statinių datavimas, atsižvelgiant į gautas datas, būtų: apie 1553 m. ar vėliau,
apie 1561 m. ar vėliau, apie 1579 m. ar vėliau, apie
1578 m. ar vėliau, apie 1585 m. Tik viename vėliausiame mėginyje buvo išlikusi balana (apie 1585 m.).
Labai sunku pasakyti, kiek laiko mediena buvo sandėliuojama, džiovinama iki gaminant statines. Tuo labiau
nežinoma, kiek metų statinės buvo naudojamos kaip
prekių tara, ar jos naudotos antrą kartą. Remiantis kol
kas turima vėliausia data, tikėtina, kad statinės į senamiesčio archeologinį kontekstą pateko intervale nuo
maždaug 1560 metų (pirminis apstatymas) iki maždaug 1590 metų (vėliausia statinės rievė 1585 m.).
Galiausiai klausimas, ar tokios dabar pateiktos statinių
dalių datavimo datos yra teisingos, atsižvelgiant į gana
žemą statistinį rodiklį, lieka atviras. Datavimo rezultatų patvirtinimas ar paneigimas įmanomas vien tik nustatytą medienos augimo poziciją palyginus su kitomis
Vakarų Europos ąžuolo chronologijomis (straipsnio
rašymo metu jos nebuvo prieinamos). Dėl šios priežasties čia publikuojamos statinių lentučių dendrochronologinės skalės bei Klaipėdos archeologinio ąžuolo
medienos skalė.
Tomas
Ostrauskas
On The Genesis Of Kunda
C u l t u r e . A . S o r o k i n ’s
Hypothesis. Comments
DISCUSSIONS
O n th e G e n e sis o f K unda C u ltu r e .
A . S o r okin ’ s H y p oth e sis . C o m m e nts
Tomas Ostrauskas
Introduction
Though Mesolithic Kunda culture is one of the earliest
explored prehistoric European and global phenomena
of this period, the question of its genesis is still a source
of passionate debates among researchers. In this article, I will attempt to discuss it with Sorokin, the Russian archaeologist and famous researcher of the Upper
Volga and the Oka river basins in the Late Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic ages. In 1999, Sorokin presented, apart
from other hypotheses, a detailed and reasoned hypothesis of the genesis of Kunda culture, which treats the
question as a cultural process in the wider Mesolithic
context of the East European forest region. I address
this study to researchers of the Late Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic ages in Eastern Europe with the proposal
to consider it an invitation for discussions to promote
further research of the genesis of Kunda culture.
The history of research into
the genesis of Kunda culture
198
At the end of the 19th century C. Grewingk, the first
researcher of Kunda settlement in northern Estonia, attempted to link its origin to Finno-Ugric tribes, which
came from Finland or Sweden (Янитс 1959, 7). The
interwar Estonian archaeologist R. Indreko initially
derived Kunda culture from Palaeolithic centres of
Central and Western Europe (Indreko 1948, 398).
Later, however, he changed his mind and related its
origin to Borshevo 1 type settlements with stemmed
spearheads from the Don-Desna region in the Late
Palaeolithic Period (Indreko 1964, 58-61). In a study
summarising explorations of Stone Age Estonia, and
published in Estonia in 1959, the archaeologist L. Janits assumes that, though the material for findings is
not sufficient, Kunda culture probably formed several
multi-original elements: Askola culture and the impacts of the south and east (Янитс 1959, 327-328). At
the beginning of the Seventies, the Polish researcher
S.K. Kozlowski hypothesised about a huge circle of
northwestern cultures, including Kunda culture. According to Kozlowski, cultures of this circle formed at
the start of the Holocene Period after the convergence
of a wave of migration from Siberia and the inheritance of Swiderian culture, including some suppositional influence of the northern Black Sea coast. The
northwest circle of cultures included northern forest
territories from the Baltic Sea to the Urals (Kozłowski
1971, 69-71). In subsequent studies, Kozlowski related
the appearance of the northwest circle of cultures in
the northern part of Eastern Europe only to westward
expanded Siberian cultures (Kozłowski, Kozłowski
1977, 242-243). In his latest summarising study about
the Polish Mesolithic Age, he draws a curtain over the
question of Kunda culture, though he attributes it to the
northwest circle of cultures together with the Nemunas
and Kudlaevka cultures (Kozłowski 1989, 177-179).
This position taken by the researcher probably proves
that the question of the Kunda’s genesis is not obvious
to him. In the Eighties and Nineties of the 20th century, most researchers would relate Kunda culture to
Swiderian culture, though indirectly, since they were
embarrassed by typological and technological differences in collections of flint artefacts. The Lithuanian
Stone Age researcher R. Rimantienė noted a few components which were characteristic of the formation of
the above culture: Maglemosian and Askola cultures,
together with the inheritance of Swiderian culture
from the southeast, probably from the Valdaj highlands
(Rimantienė 1984, 94). A similar attitude is taken by
L.V. Kolcov. Like Rimantienė, he derives separate elements of Kunda culture from different cultures. He
thinks that the flint inventory of Kunda culture formed
its bone and horn tools under the influence of Swiderian and Ahrensburg cultures, its schist and quartz of
Duvensee-Maglemosian cultural communities, and of
Askola culture from southern Finland. According to
this Russian scientist, the influence of Swiderian culture dominated (Кольцов 1977, 134; 1979, 24). To the
Latvian researcher I. Zagorska, early Mesolithic Latvian and Estonian Pulli-type settlements derive from
Researchers have only isolated radio-carbonic dates
regarding both Late Swiderian and Kunda cultures, so
it makes it impossible to identify precisely the time of
the extinction of the first culture and the time of the origin of the second, and to elaborate their interrelations.
However, the strongest argument of sceptics on the
Swiderian origin of Kunda culture is the different flint
processing technique and the typological composition
of flint tools. The primary treatment of flint, based on
direct split by soft hammerstone, separating irregular
blades from two-end cores, is typical of Swiderian culture. The basic types of artefacts are stemmed arrowheads, scrapers and burins. The latter are either central,
shaped with different side percussion, or sidelong and
transversal, shaped by retouch and percussion (Sulgostowska 1989, 38-57). Pressure technique, which implies the percussion of regular blades from one-end,
mostly conical cores, is dominant in Kunda culture.
Arrowheads, including stemmed ones, as well as burins, are mostly shaped by percussion at the broken ends
of the blades and by waste flakes, though burins shaped
by retouch and percussion are not unusual either. The
widespread blade-shaped technique, when numerous
microlithic flint blades with retouched sides and ends,
elements of former stone hunting tools, are discovered,
is noteworthy (Ostrauskas 2000: 2002a, 98; 2000b,
78).
Summarising briefly the attitudes of the origin of
Kunda culture, the researchers can be divided into two
groups. Some of them link it to large-scale migration
from the east (from Siberia). Others link the genesis of
Kunda culture to Swiderian culture of the late Palaeolithic Period, and try to explain the differences in the
available archaeological material by different cultural
impacts.
In 1995 the Muscovite archaeologist A. Sorokin proposed an unusual solution to the question of the genesis of Kunda culture (Sorokin 1999). In his 2002 study
“Mesolithic of Zhizdra Polesie” the researcher proposed a slightly widened hypothesis on the genesis of
Kunda culture (Сорокин 2002, 120-122). According
to this hypothesis, Reseta, Kunda and Butovo cultures
(the first and the third are spread between the basins of
the Volga and Oka rivers) make up different stages of
one single chain of cultural development. According to
him, Pulli-type settlements of Kunda culture in Latvia
and Estonia reflect the seasonal migration of people of
Reseta culture from the Upper Volga, along the Daugava valley and to the Eastern Baltic region in the preBoreal Period. Sorokin distinguishes an early period
in Kunda culture, that is, Pulli-type settlements. He
thinks the links between settlements of the early stage
with settlements of the Boreal Period (Kunda-Jalavere)
are not proven (Сорокин 2002, 120). He believes only
the understratum of Pulli and Lepakoze settlements
can be attributed to the early stage of Kunda culture.
According to Sorokin, hunting tools and relics of flint
tools discovered have no analogues in other Mesolithic
settlements of the Eastern Baltic region. He believes
the genesis of Pulli-type settlements cannot be related
to Swiderian culture, as no one-edged spearheads and
micro-blades, no retouched blades or micro-burin technique, and so on, have been discovered in Swiderian
culture. Nevertheless, he finds these and other (eg Reseta-type microlithic spearheads) peculiarities only in
Reseta cultures which existed in the basins of the Volga
and Oka rivers in the early Kunda period. It appears
from this that Sorokin’s hypothesis is the only one to
“discover” complexes of settlements which directly
stimulated the formation of features typical of Kunda
culture. These are the Reseta 3 settlement, and the understratum of the Ust’-Tudovka 4 settlement (Сорокин
2002, 121-122). In addition, he thinks both the microburin technique and Reseta-type microlithic spearheads from Pulli-type settlements are vanishing relics
(Сорокин 2002, 122); therefore, Pulli-type settlements
are related to the later period, while the Reseta 3 settlement is datable to an earlier period than that of the Pulli
settlement. Spearheads in Butovo culture settlements
(eg Butovo, Prislon settlement), typical of Pulli-type
complexes, indicate that some types of Butovo spearhead originate from those belonging to Pulli-type complexes and Reseta culture (Sorokin 2002, 122).
Sorokin has noticed rightly that broadly significant (all
Mesolithic of the northern part of the Eastern Baltic
region) differences between findings in complexes of
BALTICA 6
S o r o k i n ’s h y p o t h e s i s o n t h e g e n e s i s o f
Kunda culture and a critique of it
ARCHAELOGIA
the late Palaeolithic Salaspils Laukskola settlement in
the lower reaches of the Daugava. She relates this settlement to Swiderian and Ahrensburg cultural monuments in Lithuania, Byelorussia and Poland (Загорска
1981, 63-64). The Estonian researcher K. Janits and
the Byelorussian archaeologist V.P. Ksenzov derive
Kunda culture from Swiderian culture (Янитс 1990,
30; Kсензов 1994, 24). The famous Ukrainian archaeologist L. Zalizniak believes Kunda culture and other
post-Swiderian cultures derive from Swiderian culture
(Зализняк 1989, 80-89). The Polish archaeologist
Z. Sulgostowska analysed research on the transition
period from Palaeolithic to Mesolithic in the Eastern
Baltic region and points to gaps which do not allow us
to prove undoubtedly genetic ties between Swiderian
and Kunda cultures (Sulgostowska, 1999). The most
significant among them are presented below.
199
Tomas
Ostrauskas
Fig. 1.The formation of early mesolithic Kunda culture in the region and the directions of its spread in the first half of the
eighth millenium: 1 directions of migration of Swiderian culture in the early Holocene; 2 region of formation of Kunda
culture; 3 directions of spread of Kunda culture; 4 the areal of formation of Kudlayevka culture; 5 direction of spread of
Kudlayevka culture; 6 Butone culture; 7 Pesochny Row culture; 8 Yenevo culture; 9 sites of Reseta culture
200
the early, pre-Boreal stage of Kunda culture (Pulli-type
settlements) and material on monuments of the subsequent Mesolithic periods are full of questions whether
it is one single culture. In my articles on the subject
of Kunda culture research (Ostrauskas 2000; 2002a), I
stated my opinion that flint findings and technologies
discovered in pre-Boreal Period settlements of this culture are conditioned by the import of high-quality flint
material from the Nemunas basin. After a stoppage in
the import in the second half, at the end (?), of the preBoreal Period some types of artefacts and technologies
are no longer found, as local Estonian or Latvian stone
material is no good for them. A continuity in the work-
ing of horn and antler tools in the northern part of the
eastern Baltic region (Estonia and Latvia), however,
survives until the end of the Boreal Period. Moreover,
the Latvian researcher I. Zagorska proved that horn
and antler collections of the early and late Mesolithic
periods are too different and they should not be jumbled into one culture (Zagorska 1992, 109, 112-113,
Fig. 19). I have suggested delineating the caesura of
Mesolithic development in the northern part of the
eastern Baltic at the end of the Boreal Period. The
end of flint imports signals the end of the early Kunda
culture period, together with its typical flint processing technology; consequently, the extinct tradition of
I would not like to agree with Sorokin on the stratigraphically separate layer in the Lepakoze settlement.
The settlement’s researcher himself does not single
it out (Янитс 1990, 7). A greyish seam, discovered
in some places beneath a ploughing layer, contained
finds, and was not sterile at all, as Sorokin maintains
(Сорокин 2002, 120). The Lepakoze collection could
be interpreted in two different ways. It is either the remains of relatively contemporaneous pre-Boreal settlements with small quantities of imported flint or material from the pre-Boreal Period, or finds from imported
and local material which are intermingled with finds
from local material alone and belong to subsequent periods. In any case, the huge amount of finds (11,588
items) indicates that it could be the remains of a few
settlements. Similar greyish sand seams are frequent
among sandy Lithuanian settlements. They are discovered also in ploughed settlements beneath undisturbed
sites in woods under the soil. Probably the origin of
seams is different, as some are likely to be patterns of
mixed soil. The latest radio-carbon investigation of
Kunda settlement revealed three stages of settlement:
Early Mesolithic (in pre-Boreal 9000-9500 bp), Middle Mesolithic (second part of Boreal 8000-8500 bp)
and Neolithic (3500-4000 bp) (Akerlund, Regnell,
Possnert 1996, 266, 269). This is why I am inclined
to link the only stemmed arrowhead and part of other
material from this campsite to the pre-Boreal Period of
settlement.
Sorokin emphasises similarities in primary flint
processing techniques (one-end conical cores, pressure
technique, micro-blades of a regular shape, etc) between Reseta culture and Pulli-type settlements, though
in fact it is only a manifestation of features which are
typical of most cultures in a common Mesolithic Euro-
According to Sorokin’s publication, stemmed heads
are not discovered in Reseta culture settlements of
an early stage, as, for example, in Sukontsevo 8 and
9 (Sorokin 1999, 427 Fig. 1), so I think that stemmed
heads from the collections of the Reseta 2 and 3 sites
imply the addition of material from Butovo and perhaps Swiderian cultures. Therefore, flint hunting tools
from early Kunda, discovered in the Butovo and Prislon sites (Кольцов, Жилин 1999, 62, 77, Fig. 2, 4, 30)
and perhaps coming from Nemunas coastal material,
BALTICA 6
pean context. Only an incomplete introduction to materials of archaeological collections could explain his
pointed similarities between Pulli-type and Reseta culture settlements on the basis of the hunting inventory.
Lancet-shaped microlithic arrowheads (“Reseta type
microlithic arrowheads”) in Pulli settlements are only
painted upside-down non-isosceles triangle microliths.
There is no sign of the micro-burin technique in the
Pulli collection. I personally explored every single
item and flake. This technique is not to be discovered
in any other Kunda culture settlement of the pre-Boreal Period either (unless collections are mixed with the
remains of Janislavici or early Neolithic settlements).
Not a single example of micro-burin technique was
discovered even in 2002, when a 500-square-metre
area of the Paramėlis 3C settlement in Lithuania was
explored. As far as I am acquainted with Latvian and
Estonian archaeological material, a micro-burin discovered in the Koškeni campsite in Kurzeme (western
Latvia) and probably dated to the second half of the
Mesolithic Period (Zagorska 1992, 105, Fig. 19: 15), is
likely to be the only one; whereas the only lancet discovered comes from the Osa early Neolithic settlement
at Lake Lubana (eastern Latvia). Microlithic blades of
early Kunda culture, as well as other tools with massive blades, were made without the employment of the
micro-burin technique. With the necessity of division,
blades simply used to be broken. “Unilateral” Pullitype heads or blades, as I call them on the basis of their
application, are spread in the entire cultural territory
from southern Finland to the Nemunas basin and the
Upper Volga (Prislon). These heads are made from
massive blades, and should not be identified with type
A microlithic heads from Reseta, though their application might be similar, that is, as arrowheads or bladed
bone hunting tools. Bladed Pulli-type heads from early
Kunda culture show that analogous bladed heads are
traced among the Butovo cultural material discovered
(eg Prislon, Reseta 3, Kultino 4 settlements) and they
have to be linked to Butovo rather than to Reseta culture (Кольцов, Жилин 1999, Fig. 15, 30; Сорокин
2002, Fig. 50-51). My suggestion to colleagues exploring the Mesolithic Period of the Upper Volga and Oka
rivers would be to examine the hypothesis.
ARCHAELOGIA
typical horn and antler processing should signal the
end of Kunda culture at the end of the Boreal Period.
However, all settlements from southern Finland (Lahti
Ristola) to southern Lithuania, northeast Poland and
western Byelorussia with imported flint material, Kunda percussion technology and stemmed arrowheads
should be linked to the early pre-Boreal stage of Kunda
culture. At the moment, I have material about at least
33 settlements and 45 find spots with single Pulli-type
arrowheads (Ostrauskas 2000, Fig. 1; 2002a, Fig. 1).
In short, Sorokin’s hypothesis can hardly explain the
huge numbers of settlements and finds in the Nemunas and Narev basins. He simply had no opportunity
for a detailed acquaintance with the material on Kunda
culture settlements, while forming a clear picture with
old publications is not possible. I also regret to say that
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the latest material, together with data on the latest research, is almost
no longer accessible to archaeologists.
201
Tomas
Ostrauskas
202
just prove the ties between Kunda and Butovo cultures,
but not the rise of the latter from Reseta culture.
Swiderian primary processing technique into Kunda
culture technique.
Examples presented in the first chapter show how the
key differences between Kunda culture sites of the
early Mesolithic Period and flint processing technique,
the typological composition in Swiderian culture,
make researchers seek for the origin of Kunda culture
somewhere else, away from its area. This situation is
essentially changed by the Ukrainian researcher L. Zalizniak, who thinks that in monuments of post-Swiderian cultures from the early Mesolithic Period pressure
technique can be traced, which means the employment
of one-end cores for making regular-shape blades. All
this is nothing more than a normal stage in developing
the flint processing technique, the transition to an optimal form of cores for the percussion of regular-shape
blades, that is, for making one-end conical cores. Due
to new semimanufactures (blanks), a regular-shape
blade, the typological composition of flint tools and
microlithisation became possible (Зализняк 1989, 8384). Rapid and radical natural changes at the end of the
late Glacial Period and the beginning of the Holocene,
and the necessity to adapt to the influence of neighbouring cultures from forest-steppe and steppe zones,
affected by natural changes, perhaps, stimulated these
changes and determined the rise of important new features in Mesolithic culture, like, for example, the appearance of the blade processing technique.
Early Kunda culture groups could have taken some
Reseta culture-related features from Kudlaevka culture
people, who had reached the Nemunas basin already
in the first half of the pre-Boreal Period (eg the development of the blade-shaping technique?). Kudlaevka
culture, like Reseta culture, is also derived from late
Gravet groups, who survived in the steppe and forest/
steppe zones of Ukraine. Relations between Kunda and
Kudlaevka cultures could hardly be called friendly, as
the export of flint into the eastern Baltic region stopped
after Kudlaevka culture settled in the Nemunas basin.
Besides, poor cultural contact between them can be
proved by Kunda’s not mastering the micro-burin technique, which was the core of the hunting inventory in
Kudlaevka culture (Ostrauskas 2002c).
This hypothesis of Zalizniak was confirmed by
D. Stupak, another Ukrainian archaeologist. He found
that alongside typical Swiderian two-end cores, discovered in some Swiderian settlements in Ukraine (Berezno 6, Pribor 13 A, E, Г, Ж) and the Crimea (Siurenj
II), conical cores for the percussion of regular-shape
blades in the pressure technique were also employed
(Ступак 1999). As the latter technique is meant for
knapping regular-shape micro-blades suitable for making blades, Stupak presumes this kind of technology
in the above monuments of Swiderian culture had already been employed for the manufacture of integrated
hunting tools. In the Paramėlis 3C settlement, explored
in southern Lithuania in 2002, alongside the legacy of
late Swiderian and typical pre-Boreal periods of Kunda
cultures, a technique of a transitional type was discovered. Two-end cores with separated points of percussion at the edge of the striking platforms were perhaps
meant for blade pressing. Later, some cores were reshaped into one-end conical cores. A transitional-type
arrowhead discovered confirmed the attribution of
other similar heads. The precise fixing of finds in the
campsite during explorations will hopefully allow us
to complete the “refitting” of the material and planigraphic research of the settlement in the near future. It
might also prove the transformation of the typical late
The author believes that sources of good-quality flint in
the southern part of the Nemunas and the northern part
of the Narev basins were a material base for Swiderian
culture in its local form around the Nemunas basin. At
the beginning of the pre-Boreal Period these resources
of flint made up a material base for late Swiderian culture to transform into Kunda culture technologically,
as this region appeared to be the only source of goodquality flint in the total Kunda culture area, including
southern Finland, the Ladoga shores and the Upper
Daugava. Flint processing technique in Kunda culture,
that is, the employment of pressure technique for the
percussion of regular-shape blades, could form only in
the case of abundant and high-quality flint.
The facts presented above allow us to locate the area of
the formation of Kunda culture in the following way:
the southern and central parts of the Nemunas basin
(coastal areas around the Byelorussian sections of the
Nemunas, southern and central Lithuania) and the
northern part of the Narev basin (northeast Poland).
The modern subject of research in the
genesis of Kunda culture
This chapter is to show what we are missing to finally solve the question of the origin of Kunda culture.
Firstly we need at least a small but reliable series of C14 dates from late Swiderian and early Kunda culture
settlements in the Nemunas basin. It would be good to
explore another one or two settlements of the transitional period, and to perform detailed planigraphic and
technological research (re-fittings) in them. With respect to the relations of Kunda culture settlements with
settlements in Estonia and Latvia, it would be useful to
discover new settlements with extant organic material
findings. Otherwise, a comparison of collections from
We have more questions than answers; therefore, the
endeavours of each researcher to unveil the secrets of
the past are encouraged.
References
Akerlund, A., Regnell M., Possnert, G. 1996. Stratigraphy
and Chronology of Lammasmiagi site at Kunda. In: Coastal Estonia. Recent Advances in Environmental and Cultural History. ��
Pact 51.
Indreko, R. 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeit in Estland: ut einen Ubersicht uber die Geologie des Kunda-Sees von
K.Orviku. In: KVHAA. Handlingar. Del.66. Stockholm.
Indreko, R. 1964. Mesolithische und Frühneolitische Kulturen in Osteuropa und Westsibirien. ��
Stockholm.
Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. 1977. Epoka kamienia na
ziemiach polskich. Warszawa.
Kozłowski, S.K. 1971. Północno-wschodni krąg kultur mezolitycznych. In: Z polskich badań nad epoką kamienia.
Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk Ossolineum, 27–
102.
Koz��
łowski, S.K. 1989. Mesolithic in Poland. A new Approach. ��
Łodz.
Ostrauskas ,T. 2000. Mesolithic Kunda Culture. A Glimpse
from Lithuania. In: Muinasaja taedus Tallinn, 167–180.
Ostrauskas, T. 2002a. Kundos kultūros tyrinėjimų problematika. In: Lietuvos archeologija. T. 23. Vilnius, 93–106.
Ostrauskas, T. 2002b. Kabeliai 2 Stone Age Site. In: Archaeologia Baltica. Vol. 5. Vilnius, 51–82.
Ostrauskas, T. 2002c. Mezolitinė Kudlajevkos kultūra Lietuvoje. In: Lietuvos archeologija. T. 23. Vilnius, 137–162.
Rimantienė, R. 1984. Akmens amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius.
Rimantienė, R. 1996. Akmens amžius Lietuvoje (2 leidimas).
Vilnius.
Sorokin, A.N. 1999. On the Problem of influence of Volga-Oka Mesolithic to the Origin of Kunda Culture. In:
L’Europe des derniers chasseurs: epipaleolitthique et
mesolithique. Actes du 5e colloque international UISPP,
commission XII, Grenoble, 18-23 septembre 1995. Paris,
425–428.
Sulgostowska, Z. 1989. Prahistoria międzyrzecza Wisły, Niemna i Dniestru u schyłku plejstocenu. Warszawa.
Sulgostowska, Z. 1999. Final palaeolithis Masovian cycle
and mesolithic Kunda culture relations. In: Tanged points
Tomas Ostrauskas
The Lithuanian Institute of History
Kražių 5, LT-2000 Vilnius, Lithuania
BALTICA 6
cultures in Europe. ��
Lubelskie ��
Materiały archeologiczne. T��.
XIII. Lublin, 85–92.
Zagorska, I. 1992. The Mesolithic in Latvia. In: Acta Archeologica Kobenhavn. 63, 97–117.
Загорска, И.А. 1981. Ранний мезолит на территории
Латвии. In: Latvijas PSR Zinatnu Akademijas Vestis. No.2
(403), 53–65.
Зализняк��
,��
Л.Л. 1989��.� Охотники на северного оленя Украинского Полесья эпохи финального палеолита. Киев.
Кольцов��
,��
Л.В. 1977��.� Финальный палеолит и мезолит
Южной и Восточной Прибалтики. Москва.
,��
Л.В. 1979��. ��
О ��
характере сложения раннемезолитических культур Северной Европы��
. In:� Советская
Археология №.4, 15–25.
,��
Л.В., Жилин��
,��
М.Г. 1999��.� Мезолит Волго-Окского междуречья. Памятники бутовской культуры.
Москва.
Kсензов��,� В.П.
��
1994��
.��
Мезолитическия культуры ��
Белорусского Подвинья и Поднепровья. Автореф. канд. дис.
истор. наук. Минск.
Сорокин, А.Н. 2002. Мезолит Жиздринского полесья.
Проблема источниковедения мезолита Восточной Европы. Москва.
Ступак, Д.В. 1999. Технологïï розщеплення кремню
свiдерскоï культури Украïнского Полiсся за аналiзом
нуклеусiв. In: Vita Antiqua. Vol. 2. Kиïв, 18–24.
Янитс��
,��
К.Л. 1990��
.��
Кремневый инвентарь стоянок Кундаской культуры. Автореф. канд. дис. истор. наук. Москва.
Янитс��
,��
Л.Ю. 1959��. Поселения эпохи неолита и раннего
металла в приустье р. Эмайыги (Эстонская ССР).
Таллин.
ARCHAELOGIA
these settlements is not possible. Findings from bone
and antler dominate among the Latvian and Estonian
material, while flint finds alone are available from the
Nemunas basin. Research into the economy of Kunda
culture and relations with the surroundings is impossible without peatbog settlements in the Nemunas basin. Early Kunda culture groups employed high-quality
flint from mines (according to the researcher W. Migal,
of the Archaeological Museum in Warsaw), which allows us to search for flint mines exploited by Kunda
culture people. Naturally, the genesis and development
of ethnic-cultural phenomena cannot be conclusively
reconstructed without anthropological data. Researchers have almost no material for the elaboration of relations between Kudlaevka and Kunda cultures.
Received: 2002
203
A. Sorokin. Mesolithic Culture
of Butovo.
REVIEWS
REVIE W S
A . S o r o k i n . M e s o l i t h i c C u lt u r e o f B u t o v o .
Moscow: Nauka. 2002. 256 p.
In 1990, some Russian colleagues provided the expedition of the archaeologist A. Girininkas with a few copies of Sorokin’s study “Mesolithic Culture of Butovo”
in Russian (Moscow, 1990). A few students, followers
of Girininkas, won the books in a draw (I was lucky to
get one of them). The principles of criticism of sandy
Stone Age settlements, as archaeological sources, presented in the study by Sorokin, and the principles of
the analysis of the collections of flint findings, were
among the most important stimuli for the “young expedition generation” to start immediately and to improve radically the research methodologies for Stone
Age settlements. Firstly, to correct the fixing of finds,
which is the basis for the preservation of information
about monuments. That was the first rather significant
introduction of young archaeologists (Dž. Brazaitis, E.
Šatavičius, and others), organised by Girininkas, to the
research of Sorokin.
Sorokin’s 2002 study is about the Mesolithic Period of
the Zhizdra river basin, and examines the problems of
East European Mesolithic source analysis. It consists
of 256 pages, with 57 statistical tables, 49 pictures of
finds, and two maps.
204
In the introductory part of the book, the author introduces the Mesolithic Period as a form of human adaptation to the early Holocene (post-glacial period) and
underlines the particularity of Mesolithic communities
in the East European forest region. According to the
author, a concrete historical principle is very important in analysing theoretical and global processes, as
it is based on actual facts and grants real content to
abstract theoretical contemplation. Therefore, a polesie, a sandy lowland micro-region of the River Zhizdra
was selected as grounds for the model, reflecting the
entirety of processes in the sandy flatlands of Europe.
The author was planning to implement the following:
to introduce the Mesolithic material of the Zhizdra micro-region, to make a thorough analysis of it and to
identify the general features of archaeological complexes, and to find the location of these complexes in
the Mesolithic Period of the Desna-Oka region. Another important aim of the study was to present his own
methodology on how to explain the “cultural diversity”
of archaeological sources and complexes: to find out
whether it is a syncretic complex of a natural formation (a mechanically mixed collection without human
interruption), or whether it reflects cultural processes
and cultural metastasis. The Zhizdra micro-region, as
one of the best explored Mesolithic Russian flatland
regions, is most appropriate for these tasks. Around 70
Mesolithic monuments, linked by different researchers to several Mesolithic cultures, are identified in the
Zhizdra polesie or around it.
In the first chapter Sorokin characterises the paleogeography of the selected micro-region. Peripheral sandy
lowlands, or polesies, had been shaped by flow platforms of internal tectonic sags in the process of the
melting of the glaciers. The Zhizdra polesie is among
the largest at the northeastern edge, and includes the
basins of the Pripet’, the midstream Dnieper and the
Desna. The Zhizdra is a tributary of the upper Oka,
and the Zhizdra polesie meets the basins of the Oka
and Desna rivers. On the basis of palynological data,
the author presents brief characteristics of the natural
environment at the beginning of the Holocene (pre-boreal, boreal and first atlantis periods, 10,300 to 7,000
years ago), which actually covers the Mesolithic Period in the Zhizdra basin. The natural environment of
the Zhizdra polesie and its development in the early
and mid-Holocene periods was similar to the natural
conditions of sandy flatlands covered by mixed forests
and stretching from Britain to the Urals.
The history of archaeological research in the Zhizdra
polesie is briefly, but thoroughly, reviewed in the second chapter. It started at the end of the 19th century,
though the largest contribution was made in the period
1951 to 1984, when the Upper Oka Expedition from
the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR was working there. Besides, starting from 1973, a digest of archaeological monuments
in the Kaluga region was under way. Mesolithic settlements in the Zhizdra basin were also explored by I.
Frolovas and A. Smirnov.
In the chapter entitled “Stratigraphy of monuments and
methodology of field tests in settlements of zandric
type”, Sorokin notes that an excess of water and powdery sediments are dominant in the polesie. These circumstances determined the topography of Mesolithic
The fourth chapter of Sorokin’s book is designed for
a criticism of Mesolithic sources on the Zhizdra polesie. The author identifies five types of archaeological
material. Selected (sorted), mixed collections or rare
sets might be employed only as a subsidiary. Only
the so-called “clean” and abundant enough (over 100
morphologically evident items) collections are valuable sources and can be employed in the solution of
culturological problems. Thirteen basic settlements
of the micro-region are characterised in the chapter.
All of them are sandy, and the level of their exploration is different. The author thinks that five abundant
enough, “relatively clean”, without typological “sorting” collections of settlements might be singled out.
These are the Krasnoye “Vasia”, Krasnoye 3, Krasnoye 8 “Penioshki”, and Reseta 2 and 3 settlements.
The material collected in these settlements or acquired
in different sites of these settlements during extensive
research was divided by Sorokin into 15 complexes.
They were employed in further research.
BALTICA 6
In the largest (70 pages) chapter in the study, “Inventory of Mesolithic settlements in the Zhizdra polesie”,
the author describes in detail 15 flint finding collections from five of the above settlements and compares
them both with each other and with collections of Mesolithic monuments from neighbouring regions. The
collections are described in a detailed and precise way.
Readers can form a rather clear and preliminary view
of the collections on the basis of descriptions and pictures of the findings. It is preliminary, because any selfrespecting researcher can only shape his own attitude
to a concrete collection after a review of the settlement
material.
ARCHAELOGIA
settlements, priorities in choosing living sites and peculiarities of the formation and survival of the cultural
layer. All Mesolithic settlements in the Zhizdra polesie
started on the edge of river banks in the vicinity of lakes
or similar valleys. Usually the genuine colours of cultural layers in Mesolithic settlements do not differ from
the natural colours of the soil and its lower layers. It is
generally traced as a “horizon with finds”. Later cultural layers in zandric zones were affected by numerous
destructive factors: natural, climatic, biochemical, etc.
They all influenced unfavourably the survival of the
cultural layers. According to the author of the study, it
is very important to choose a proper methodology for
an archaeological field test to collect the most information possible for research. While working in sandy
flatlands, researchers employ both a traditional finding
horizon methodology and specially designed ones, like
vertical horizon scrape. The first destroys the microstratigraphy of the cultural layers; the second, recording the stratigraphy more carefully, reduces the opportunities for horizontal research. Sorokin developed a
methodology of three-dimensional finding fixation and
introduced it in 1982. This methodology enables us to
preserve a considerably larger amount of information
about cultural layers destroyed in settlements during
explorations, and at the same time offers an opportunity for the versatile analysis of a cultural layer, from
stratigraphic, horizontal and other aspects. It should
be mentioned that similar methodologies have been
developed, improved and employed in the research of
settlements from the Stone and Bronze ages during the
expeditions by Girininkas and his “school” in Lithuania since 1990.
A few remarks of a general character about what kind of
information I missed in the description of sets on Mesolithic settlements from the Zhizdra region. In most
collections, flint material of several kinds was traced.
It would also be interesting to trace the interrelations
between findings of different material in each settlement from the point of view of technology, typology
and planigraphic analysis. It would be good to describe
in detail the evidence of primary processing technique:
striking points, remnants of platforms on blades and
flakes, shapes and sizes of bulbs, blade profiles, and
so on. This would enable us to form a clear view about
the primary flint knapping technique and provide additional material for contemplation about the identity of
collections. Despite the abundant pictures of findings,
I missed some significant findings described in the text,
firstly, pictures of microliths and arrowheads.
I would like to point out a few particular details to
draw the author’s attention. The typological distribution of microliths and hunting inventory ought to be
elaborated. To my mind, typologically identical (judging from descriptions and pictures) artefacts, namely,
microlithic blades with chipped (retouched) ends, are
classed as different types: diagonal points, trapezoid
points, micro-blades with chipped ends, microliths
with retouched sides, blades, even broad trapeziums
(for example, from Krasnoye 1 “Vasia” settlement [p.
206 Fig. 11]). Short trapeziums from the same Krasnoye 1 “Vasia” settlement [p. 33-34, 39] cannot be
called trapeziums (from the aspect of trapezoid arrowheads and microliths). From the pictures (p. 206, Fig.
11: 21, 23) it becomes evident that these flint artefacts
should be called microlithic blades with retouched terminals, but not trapeziums. On page 204, a Mesolithictype lancet is depicted (Fig. 9: 16), which is treated
by the author as a broken Ahrensburg-type arrowhead.
According to Sorokin, the facet at the lancet point is
casual and in the process of a retouch (p. 38). Guessing from the blade on the left side, the retouch of this
shape is made specially for micro-burin percussion;
therefore, the artefact should be treated as a lancet. The
205
of Butovo.
REVIEWS
206
division of arrowheads into “Swiderian” and “Ahrensburgian” only on the basis of plate retouch (sometimes
very superficial, with a few tiny negatives) at the stems
does not seem to be reasonable, the more so because
there is no difference in the billets of arrowheads and
their shapes (p. 204-205 Fig. 9-10). I presume it to be
a rather formal attitude towards the material. Usually
every Swiderian culture settlement has a few arrowheads without a flattened retouch, that is, they are not
completed, or simply the barb is not removed due to
other reasons.
The sixth chapter in the study, “Mesolithic of the
Zhizdra polesie. Data analysis”, gives a detailed statistical comparison of the complexes of discovered finds.
All Sorokin’s attempts are reflected and illustrated by
57 statistical tables, a real hoard for the researcher’s
colleagues. The final conclusion of the data analysis
is that the Krasnoye 8 “Penioshki” settlement is to be
linked to Studienok-type settlements (Desna orlate
stage of Piesotchny Rov culture). The origin of the
Krasnoye 1 “Vasia” settlement is not clear. Reseta 3
and Reseta 2 are linked to Reseta culture, the Krasnoye
3 settlement to Butovo culture.
The author of the study does not discount the possibility that the above complexes of settlements do not
reflect cultural ties and transformations. They are just
a mechanically mixed inheritance of different cultures
from different times. Sorokin, however, chooses the
hypothesis of cultural interface and continuity to explain the peculiarities of Mesolithic Zhizdra collections. According to him, the chain of Reseta 3, Reseta
2 and Krasnoye 3 complexes reflects the transformation of Reseta culture into Butovo culture. On the basis of experience, working with material about sandy
Stone Age settlements in Lithuania, I should say that
Sorokin’s conclusions are too audacious. Five out of
13 (38.5%) Zhizdra polesie settlements were identified
by him as “clean” or not intermixed. For comparison:
after several revisions of material on Mesolithic finds
from about 200 Lithuanian sandy settlements, I would
recognise the Maksimoniai IV settlement complex as
the only “clean” Mesolithic collection. Mechanical
intermixture is supported by different flint material,
discovered in almost all settlements of the Zhizdra
micro-region. Huge amounts of different flint material from the Reseta 2 and Reseta 3 settlements are to
be emphasised in particular, as these are monuments
of a new Reseta culture. Having no opportunities to
view collections of flint finds, I can only preliminarily point to signs of a mechanical intermixture within
Zhizdra complexes. Nowhere in Baltic or Polish material are post-Swiderian and Swiderian arrowheads in
contemporaneous complexes. Neither are Swiderian,
post-Swiderian and other types of stemmed arrow-
heads discovered in one single complex, including the
inheritance of Mesolithic microlithic cultures (Komornica, Janislavici, Choynice-Pienkowska, etc). This also
involves settlements of post-gravethic Kudlaevka culture, which is the Reseta equivalent in early Mesolithic
of the Nemunas basin. Therefore, I think that stemmed
arrowheads from the Reseta 2 and Reseta 3 settlements
testify to a mechanical intermixture of complexes from
different times and different cultures, especially in
that, for example, the Reseta 2 complex, according to
data from Sorokin’s statistical analysis, is very close to
the “total” Mesolithic Zhizdra region complex (p. 111112). My suggestion to Sorokin would be to examine
primary flint processing technologies. In the Nemunas
basin the technologies of Kudlaevka and other Mesolithic cultures differ greatly. The method of direct
percussion was applied in Kudlaevka culture, while in
Kunda and Janislavici cultures pressure technique was
applied. Probably, Reseta culture, as a post-gravethic
culture, could employ a Kudlaevka-type technology.
My opinion is a preliminary one only. To prove it, I
would have at least to view independently all the collections of finds from the Zhizdra region.
I also think that the dating of Reseta culture settlements
on the basis of dates connected with Pulli-type settlements of Kunda culture, has no substance (p. 112). Sorokin does this with reference to his own hypothesis
about the evolution of Reseta-Kunda-Butovo cultures
(see my article “On the Genesis of Kunda Culture”
in this volume). The Chernobyl catastrophe had no
impact on radiocarbon dating (the opinion of N. Kovaluch, head of the C-14 laboratory in Kiev); therefore,
it could be performed in the Zhizdra region as well.
The shifting of dates from remote monuments is beside
the purpose.
In the chapter entitled “Place of Zhizdra polesie Mesolithic settlements in the Mesolithic of the Oka-Desna
watershed”, Sorokin introduces us briefly to the taxonomic classification of Mesolithic, characterises significant monuments of the period in the Desna and Oka
basins, and names the basic problems in the research of
the above cultures. Four cultural groups are identified
within the Desna river basin: the Smyatchka XIV group,
Desna culture and its Studienok period, and Kudlaevka
culture. Within the Oka river basin, Butovo, Reseta,
Yenev, Purgasov cultures and Krasnov 1 types of settlements are identified. As I have already mentioned,
Sorokin’s opinion about Pulli-type settlements (Kunda
culture) is very interesting for researchers into Eastern
Baltic Mesolithic. According to the author, Pulli and
Lepakoze settlements reflect the seasonal migration of
Reseta cultural groups into the Eastern Baltic region.
At the same time, Pulli-type settlements are treated as a
transitional stage between Reseta and Butovo cultures.
In this chapter, the author analyses processes that
take place during and after the formation of a cultural layer as an archaeological source, processes that
modify the cultural layer (post-depositive processes).
I totally agree with Sorokin that the fixation of finds
by means of three measurements enable us to preserve
much more information than traditional and ordinary
research methods. This information is very often vital to the value of an archaeological monument as a
source. This methodology is important in particular
for the exploration of sandy settlements with multicultural features. It is also important working in contact
zones of natural-geographic and cultural regions. The
Zhizdra polesie is in a similar contact zone. Sorokin
suggests employing technologies of “finds-markers”
(finds with features from several cultural traditions)
and hybrids (mestizos) to separate “mixed”, naturally
shaped complexes from those formed on the basis of
cultural mestization. If the above features are isolated,
or if they are not traced at all, the collection of finds
is a mechanically intermixed multicultural collection.
As East European polycultural sets of finds, “shaped”
by natural forces, are the rule rather than the exception, Sorokin offers a “naturation” term instead of the
BALTICA 6
From the point of view of archaeology, the most significant is the eighth chapter, “Problem of source analysis on the Mesolithic of Eastern Europe”. I would not
agree, though, with Sorokin, who defines archaeological sources as a type of historical source and studies of
archaeological sources only as research into the particularity of archaeological monuments, perceived as
historical sources. This theoretical attitude of Sorokin
is based on the tradition and ideology of Soviet historiography, treating archaeology only as an auxiliary discipline of prehistoric science. In short, this paradigm
does not reflect the basic difference of an archaeological source from a historical source: key historical
sources are written sources. Their origin is subjective
and they are the offspring of an ideologically engaged
human. Besides, very often it is done purposefully. Archaeological sources, on the contrary, are objective in
their essence. They reflect objectively the processes of
time. Information might become subjective only when
researching historical monuments, researching in a
harsh way on the basis of primitive methodologies. A
long time ago, archaeology became a miscellaneous,
multi-disciplinary science, closely linked to many other sciences exploring the development of the human
race and its natural environment. The historical process is no longer the only basic aim of archaeological
research.
“non-cultural forming of syncretic sets”. Naturation is
a mechanism of natural factors which influences the
formation of artefacts and mixed polycultural sets. The
naturation phenomenon is opposed to acculturation,
when human groups interact in the cultural process of
mestization. Naturation takes place under appropriate
conditions: the horizontal conjunction of settlements
from different cultures, finds in the soil, powdery deposits in the soil, pedoturbation, aeolian deposits, erosion, etc. In this chapter the author also analyses Mesolithic polycultural sets of finds which were formed in
the process of naturation in the upper Oka region. For
his final conclusions about the eventual influence of
naturation processes upon archaeologists’ deductions,
Sorokin chose Lithuania, as it is relatively well explored, materials are available due to the publications
of R. Rimantienė in 1971, etc. On the basis of descriptions of material and pictures of finds only, the author
proves that a significant amount of Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic sets are not culturally hybrid (mestizic), but
are simply mixed (p. 156-159). It is obvious that Sorokin could not perform a precise and detailed research
of separate settlements without archaeological collections. Nevertheless, in most cases his conclusions are
incredibly correct: for example, when he speaks about
the artificially mixed character of Mesolithic Nemunas
culture. Readers should know that in 1971 the study by
Rimantienė was actually the first serious generalisation
of Palaeolithic and Mesolitic material in Lithuania and
was ahead of its time, with conclusions influencing exploration in neighbouring and even remote regions. It
is understandable that Rimantienė, possessing mostly
surface collections, found it difficult to rate everything
properly, the more so because knowledge of the above
periods in neighbouring countries was even worse. The
merit of the study is unquestioned until now, and Sorokin’s attention is a manifestation of that. Thanks to
this publication, only the verification of the researcher’s
hypothesis about naturation appears to be thinkable. I
would like to add to his conclusions information that
will allow readers to evaluate more precisely the material presented by Sorokin. The so-called Baltic Madlen
complexes from the late Palaeolithic Period are traced
in Lithuania. They are divided into those similar to
Ljungby and to the Vilnius group (sometimes linked to
Ahrensburg culture). In Swiderian culture, settlements
of two stages (?) are distinguished: settlements with
stemmed arrowheads, and with willow-leaf shape arrowheads. One genuine hybrid or Chvalibogovici-type
settlement was explored (Varenie 5), in the hunting
inventory of which features of Swiderian and Ahrensburg cultures (the West European type) are reflected. At
the very beginning of the Mesolithic (the start of preBoreal) Period, late Swiderian culture still survives.
ARCHAELOGIA
This hypothesis is unusual, though Mesolithic research
of the Nemunas basin in the last decade allows us to
refute it decisively.
207
of Butovo.
REVIEWS
208
In the pre-Boreal Period, settlements of Kunda (Pulli
type) and Kudlaevka cultures are common. Probably
at the end of the pre-Boreal Period Maglemoze groups
emerge (Proto-Janislavici). Late Mesolithic is associated with Janislavici culture. In this chapter Sorokin also
analyses critically the influence of naturation processes
upon Mirnoye settlements from the coastal area of the
northern Black Sea.
At the end of the chapter Sorokin draws attention to
the necessity of criticism towards settlement sets (as
sources) before employing them in further work. I
would also like to draw the author’s attention to the
fact that the complexes analysed above do not hold
water from the point of view of naturation processes.
Sorokin presents no patterns of hybrid “finds-markers” or mestizic technologies in the Krasnoye 1 “Vasia”, Reseta 2 and 3 settlements; therefore, according
to the same naturation features, they should be treated
as naturally mixed poly-cultural sets. In the set of the
Krasnoye 1 “Vasia” settlement, the inheritance of at
least three components from late Palaeolithic Swiderian culture (presumably Smyatchka XIV type), Butovo
culture and some later Mesolithic (presumably Janislavici) culture could be traced. Components of Butovo
and Reseta cultures emerge in the Reseta 2 set, while
in the set of Reseta 3 settlement at least three different
parts can be distinguished: the heritage of Palaeolithic
Swiderian culture (Smyatchka XIV) and material from
Mesolithic Butovo and Reseta cultures. On the basis of
the above, I would like to point out that researchers of
the Mesolithic in the Volga-Oka basins should search
for a really unblended complex of Reseta culture. Reseta 2 and 3 sets do not assist us in understanding technologies and material that are to be linked to the Reseta
cultural tradition.
Finally, I would like to draw the attention of all East
European late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic researchers
to a rather substantial misunderstanding which is anchored in the historiography of the region. Ahrensburg
culture in the northern part of Western Europe is a totally different cultural phenomenon, compared to similarly named settlement groups in the upper basins of
the Dnieper, Volga and Oka (including the Nemunas,
of course). With its primary flint processing technology, West European Ahrensburg culture is totally identical to Swiderian culture (the same two-end cores for
blades). Therefore, the identification of East European
cultural groups with their flake technologies (alongside
other differences) with then existing West European
cultural phenomena is misleading and indefensible.
The appearance of the terms “Ahrensburg” or “Eastern
Ahrensburg” in the context of East European material
was conditioned by the poor exploration of local regions and the search for similar stemmed arrowheads
in well-explored northwest Europe. Attempts to oppose these finds to the abundant inheritance of Swiderian culture were also influential. I find it advisable
to withdraw from using the term “Ahrensburg” with
respect to East European material, as the terminology is abundant and complicated enough (Perstunska,
Volkushanska, Krasnoselie, Desna, Grensko, Yenevo,
Piesochny Rov cultures, let alone different monumental types and groups).
Sorokin’s study is valuable not only as an exceptionally exhaustive and diverse publication about archaeological sources and Mesolithic settlements from the
Zhizdra river region. Processes in cultural layers of
sandy settlements are summarised and analysed in detail with respect to theories of cultural mestization. The
theory of naturation processes was designed, clear criteria and methods were established to recognise factors
of such a character, and finally to solve the problem.
Abundant patterns of application demonstrate the vitality of the method and introduce readers to critically
evaluated material on standard Mesolithic monuments
of the upper Volga-Oka region.
Tomas Ostrauskas
Kražių 5, LT-01108, Vilnius, Lithuania
Vladas Žulkus. Medieval Klaipėda.
To w n A n d C a s t l e . A r c h a e o l o g y a n d
REVIEWS H i s t o r y. V l a d a s Ž u l k u s . M e d i e va l K l a i p Ė d a . T o w n a n d C a s t l e . A r cha e o l o g y a n d H i s t o ry. Vi l n i u s : Ž a r a , 2 0 0 2 . 1 6 8 p . I l l u s t r a t e d . S u m m a r y i n G e r m a n
In commemoration of Klaipėda’s 750th anniversary, an
abundantly illustrated book (112 photographs, pictures
and maps) about the past of the town and the castle
has appeared. It was written in Lithuanian and English
by the archaeology professor Vladas Žulkus. A work
of perfect polygraphic quality, it is one of few studies
published in Lithuania in which research findings about
centenary research on urban development are presented to a wider circle of readers in plain language. The
propositions are laconic and clearly formulated, with
abundant references to sources and other authors. An
impressive number of them was employed: 38 written
sources, historical plans and research reports, including also 227 publications, about ten per cent of which
were written by the author himself.
The chronological framework (the Middle Ages) of
the subject and the analysed material (it notes that the
“publication of archaeological material about Klaipëda
is not the aim of the book. No priority was given to
archaeological material in the process of writing”) are
given in the title and the preface of the book. In fact, a
wider period is analysed, as historic, iconographic and
archaeological material, covering the 17th and 18th
centuries, is presented in most chapters. Besides, the
use of archaeological material is comprehensive, including archaeological finds of the last decade that are
still unknown to Lithuanian readers, such as a significant part of a Renaissance tile collection, and a stamp
from the end of the 13th century, discovered just a few
years ago.
Simple cartographic and iconographic sources are mentioned after the preface, followed by a short history of
the research into Klaipėda. It is stated that after the researchers at the turn of the 20th century (A. Boetticher,
E. Zurkalowski, J. Sembritzki, A. Semrau, K. Forstreuter), the history of Klaipėda was not considered interesting for a long period of time, mainly due to political
reasons. The resumption of studies was stimulated by
archaeological research into the castle and the town,
which started and was provided with new information
in the Seventies. Žulkus, the organiser and leader of the
group that was involved in them, summarises the job in
the book: “Between 1977 and 2002 almost 40 studies
were published, though the typologisation and dating
of archaeological material on Klaipėda is insufficient”
210
(p. 11). It is implied modestly that, thanks to the studies of J. Genys, E. Paleckis, R. Sprainaitis and Žulkus,
the amount of published archaeological material about
Klaipėda was the highest in Lithuania for a long time.
Recently Vilnius has exceeded it.
The historical context is surveyed, and is followed by
an analysis of the development of the town of Memel
and the castle, founded by the Germans. The historic
lands around modern Klaipėda, including Lamata,
Mėguva and Pilsotas (more attention is given to the
latter), are characterised. Thirty archaeological objects, existing now or known from historical sources,
are introduced, together with a plan of Pilsotas (Plate
1). Some of them are localised only approximately (for
example, Ouse Varpe temple, Galmene and Octe castles), and some are uncertain (Nos 2, 10, 11). Probably
the explanation holds no information about arbitrary
signs and symbols due to a fault of the printing house.
The area covered by the plan is rather small (around 12
by 17 km). Maybe the author could make another plan
or scheme, with areas neighbouring on Pilsotas and/or
larger objects, like Palanga, which is mentioned in the
book several times?
While characterising the development of the town and
the castle, more attention is obviously paid to the latter.
It is explained by the different level of exploration and
the amount of information available. A deeper characterisation of the development of urban fortifications is
missing; their evolution from the first half of the 16th
century to the end of the Seven Years War in the middle of the 18th century is described in one sentence.
This cannot be explained by a lack of material, as there
is sufficient in Vytautas Šliogeris’ article, published in
1982. The interesting material mentioned about confessional and ethnic relations, such as, for example,
the fact that in the 16th century local Lithuanians had
to attend services in a shed (eine Scheuer) and in the
17th century in a tavern (p. 69), ought to be followed
by wider comments. While analysing archaeological
finds, discussed and supplied with numerous photographs and pictures in the second part of the book,
an uncertainty appears regarding the interpretation of
some subjects on laminar tiles. The gingerbread clothes
Šliogeris, V., Bastioniniai įtvirtinimai Klaipėdoje. In:
Architektūros paminklai, T. 7. Vilnius 1982, p. 13–22.
The book is likely to see more editions; therefore, attention should be paid to inaccuracies. There is no
clear decision on how to name modern Polish towns
(the German or Polish spelling), inhabited in the period
by German colonists. Both versions are presented only
when speaking about Küstrin, even the use of the “ü”
is not forgotten (p. 42); whereas the names of Torun
and Wroclaw (p. 32, 57, 102) are transcribed from the
Polish name alone, Kolberg and “Elbingians” (p. 38,
39, 106) from the German, Gdansk (Danzig) and its
inhabitants are called alternately one way or the other.
It is not fair to identify kapers (corsairs) with pirates,
that is sea marauders: they used to attack the merchant
vessels of enemy countries or those trading with them.
They even had official permission for such actions.
It is worth making a correction to the statement on p.
23: “An attempt was made to join the castle and the
town into one solid defensive system-location.” In
fact, the term “location” (locatio) is perceived as “a
one-time action, uniting two elements: urban reform
from economic, dimensional aspects and the introduction of civil liberties of foreign origin, connected with
the settlement of colonists in the town”. It should be
noted that most location towns, founded in new territories, had no castles whatsoever, but they were fortified. The remark on p. 32 of a “Classical convent-type
castle” characterisation, which contradicts the valid
Katalynas, K., Vilniaus koklių ornamentų prototipai. In:
Mokslas ir Lietuva, 1991 Nr. 4, p. 102, 103 pav. 9–24.
Illustrierte Geschichte der deutschen fruhburgerlichen
Revoliution. Berlin, 1974, Q:46.
Wędzki, A., Kierunki rozwoju miast srodkowej Europy
w XII i XIII w. In: Początki i rozwoj Starego Miasta w
Poznaniu. Poznan 1977, Q:124.
Plg. Rębkowski M. Pierwsze lokacje miast w księstwie
zachodniopomorskim. In: Przemiany przestrenne i kulturowe. Kolobrzeg, 2001, ryc. 9–14, 16–21.
BALTICA 6
proposition of the eighth footnote about the incorrectness of such a classification should be treated as an
oversight. The same should be said about a sentence
on p. 40: “V. Šliogeris thinks these are the remains of
ancient bastion external stone pleckwerk with firing
openings, as he maintains in his studies something different. In his article about Klaipėda bastions he characterises pleckwerk as stonework, where greensward
rectangles are used instead of bricks and a mixture
of mould, manure and twitch grass instead of grout.
This mixture was used for the reinforcement of the
sides of bulwarks, erected by fortifiers”; whereas in
the above article about research on the Prince Friedrich
bastion the elements discovered are not called pleckwerk, but “a stonework shell”. The “French traveller
Ghillebert de Lannoy” could be among other famous
visitors to Klaipėda, and he could have been travelling
in 1413–1414 for his own pleasure. Even if he is not
to be suspected of spying for those who had knighted
him shortly before, namely, the brothers of the order
or Crusaders from the German sanctuary in Jerusalem
named after the Holy Virgin, he is still to be treated as
“Ghillebert de Lannoy, a Burgundian knight and diplomat”.
ARCHAELOGIA
of a man, portrayed in a dynamic situation (Plate 51)
recall the 16th-century noble fashion. If that is true, a
woman drawing him towards a bed (?) could hardly be
treated as “a lady”. I have never seen all the portraits of
16th-century West and East European rulers; therefore,
I cannot say that an elderly bearded man with a cap in
the Renaissance style in Plate 100 is not “an old king”.
Again, it is known that in the area from Germany to
Latvia firstly historic personalities, connected with the
Reformation, were portrayed on tiles manufactured in
16th century. They were both followers and leaders of
the movement (such as Saxon kurfürst Johann Friedrich, Hessen landgrave Philip) and savage opponents
of it, like the emperor Charles V. That is why the old
man for me is much more like the Saxon kurfürst Friedrich the Prudent, the father of the above Johann Friedrich and a protector of Martin Luther, whose portrait
was painted by Dürer in 1523.
More should be said about the evolution of Klaipėda
tile schemes, presented on p. 97. A. Swiechowska
noted eight basic types of Warsaw tiles with a defined
date10. In Lithuania and Byelorussia, attempts were
made in the Seventies and Eighties in the last century
to make schemes of their evolution11. In these attempts
the fact was ignored that tile ovens, the techniques of
their construction and manufacture, and ornamentation
were taken from culturally more advanced countries
(Czechia, Germany, Poland); later, the knowledge was
constantly updated. The shortening of tile sections, offered as a basic feature of their evolution, was predetermined not by the evolution of the tile itself, but by
developing the oven construction technique. Besides,
the length changed, subject to its planned position on
the oven. If it was doubted that the lower parts of ovens
might not sustain the weight of the upper parts, their
See Zabiela G. Tomasz Torbus. Die Konventenburgen
im Deutschordensland Preussen. In: Lietuvos istorijos
metraštis, 2000 m. Vilnius 2002, Q:367.
Šliogeris, V., Bastioniniai..., p. 13.
Šliogeris, V., Poternos ir kazematai Klaipėdos pilies Princo Frydricho bastione. In: Lietuvos pilių archeologija.
Klaipėda, 2001, p. 83, 84.
Klimas, P., Ghillebert de Lannoy. Dvi jo kelionės Lietuvon
Vytauto Didžiojo laikais (1413–1414 ir 1421 metais).
Kaunas, 1931, p. 18.
10
Swiechowska, A., Kafle warszawskie. In: Szkice staromiejskie. Warszawa, 1955, tab. 1.
11
Trusov, O., Pamiatniki monumentalnogo zodchestva
Bielorusii XI–XVII vv. Minsk, 1988, Q:130–150, ris. 74,
84.
211
Vladas Žulkus. Medieval Klaipėda.
To w n A n d C a s t l e . A r c h a e o l o g y a n d
REVIEWS H i s t o r y. walls would be thickened, changing correspondingly
the shape of the tiles. For example, a lower part of ten
metres in height of the oven from the Artus palace in
Gdansk (the first half of the 16th century) was bricked
with tiles of an incredible neck length (about 80cm).
Therefore, it is hardly possible to talk about the evolution of local tiles or the heating installations in the
construction of which they were used. In the above example, the conversion of utensil-shape tiles into plated
ones, with deeply concave plates (judging by the Renaissance rosette-shape ornamentation final stage of the
process, according to the author of the scheme, which
took place in the first half or the middle of the 16th
century) is based entirely on the external similarity
of different tile types. It should be noted that former
Gothic tiles had almost smooth plates; therefore, the
scheme discussed is no good in principle and has to
be rejected.
These minor remarks do not reduce the significance of
this interesting and well-presented book. One of the basic positive factors is that it is a collection of separate
facts and ideas from different studies, including a bibliography of almost all the writing about the history of
Klaipėda. Undoubtedly, the book is also very useful to
both ordinary readers and to specialists. Unfortunately,
such books are not numerous, and the initiative of Vladas Žulkus and Klaipėda municipality is welcome.
Kęstutis Katalynas
212
ReVIEWS
Mindaugas Bertašius.
Central Lithuania in the Eighth
t o t h e Tw e l f t h C e n t u r i e s
M i n d a u g a s B e rta š i u s . C e n t r a l L i t h u a n i a i n t h e E i g h t h
t o t h e T w el f t h C e n t u r i e s
K a u n a s : Vy t a u t a s M a g n u s U n i v e r s i t y P u b l i s h i n g C e n t r e . 2 0 0 2 . 2 7 0 p .
This book deals with prehistoric central Lithuania. It is
one of the few studies whose subject is the prehistory
of a single tribe or region. It consists of 12 chapters, in
which the climate, peculiarities of the soil, and the development of the region in Roman times and the great
migration are reviewed. The largest part of it covers the
Viking era, outlines the region within the entire world
of the Baltic tribes, and shows its importance on the
eve of the formation of the state.
In the preface to the book, the author explains,
why “central Lithuania” is more appropriate than
“Aukštaitija” (Upland Lithuania). He does not go into
the disputes about the size of Upland Lithuania, though
several times he points out that the cemeteries of central Lithuania belong to the Upland Lithuanians. His
attitude towards the boundaries of the territory is similar, based on exceptional culture. For the above, he employs not only material from explored cemeteries with
graves belonging to the same culture, but hill-forts as
well. Though prior to this, he writes that the hill-forts
of the region are not explored. Even if they were, they
would hardly differ from those of other regions in the
period discussed.
214
The chronological framework of the book is the eighth
to the 12th centuries. The beginning of the period is
identified with the start of the Viking invasions, and
cultural, social and economic changes in Scandinavia
and the Baltic region, while the end is linked to the
beginning of Lithuania’s transition into a state. Thus,
the main subject of the book is the region of central
Lithuania in the Viking period. The author also pays
much attention to the Roman period, represented by
abundant cemeteries from the time. One more factor
is favourable: most of them are already explored. The
rich material culture of the region shows that local
communities were involved in regional activity, due to
which the inhabitants of the Kaunas area are attached
to the cultural circle of the eastern Balts. The author
presumes that the inhabitants of the Kaunas area and
the eastern Balts are akin to each other. Abundant imported articles (bronze and silver) prove that trading
relations were active. The author tries to imagine the
possible items of trade. Probably he liked the idea of
Wojciech Nowakowski that the population of central
Lithuania could be importing items which the inhabit-
ants of the Lower Vistula, directly connected with the
“amber trade-route”, were short of. The assumption
is made that these could be slaves. Shortly after, he
notes logically that we lack arguments for the above
assumption. At the same time, he thinks that a wellarmed community could maraud and capture people
from neighbouring tribes. It is hard to agree with this
assumption, in particular when we know that brass articles are also abundant among the other Baltic communities. According to this assumption by the author, the
latter also “captured people from other tribes” to turn
them into slaves and to sell. Thus, it would mean that
slaves from the Baltic world came in large numbers.
This kind of “abundance” would be described in written sources from the period. We have the opposite.
A significant part of the book is devoted to the cultural
particularity of the region, including the development
of cremation traditions and ritual horse offering, as one
of the attributes characterising central Lithuania. The
author employs a wide range of material from cemeteries in central Lithuania, but the most attention is paid
to Marvelė cemetery, where he explored over 400 cremations. He tries to answer the question, where the cremation tradition in central Lithuania came from. Was it
from the east, as R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė presumes
(Lietuvių tautybės ištakos. Archeologijos duomenys.
In: Lietuvių etnogenezė. Vilnius, 1987, p. 155), or
southwest Europe, as proposed by A. Tautavičius
(A. Tautavičius. Archeologinės kultūrinės sritys. In:
Lietuvių etnogenezė. Vilnius, 1987, p. 136,139)? The
author is inclined to believe it came from the west Baltic tribes, firstly from the Sudovians and the Przeworsk
cultural region (p. 71).
The book emphasises the particularity of central Lithuania. The author thinks that around modern-day Kaunas,
in Viking times, an administrative centre and a marketplace, where different cultures intersected, could have
existed, though at the same time he admits that such a
centre has not yet been identified archaeologically. The
author’s contemplations about the region of central
Lithuania on the eve of the formation of the state are
interesting. He envisages all kinds of preconditions for
the appearance of the state in the 11th and 12th centuries (the hierarchical structure of settlements, specialised handicrafts, the professional military structure);
BALTICA 6
ARCHAELOGIA
that is to say, this is already the first step, according to
the author, on the way to the formation of the state. He
also insists upon the Vikings’ role in the appearance
of such a structure. In previous literature the attitude
dominated that the example of ancient Russia was very
significant for the appearance of Lithuania as a state
(R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė. Lietuviai IX-XIIa. Vilnius,
1970, p. 44). Isn’t the trend of an “example” in the formation of a state becoming a matter of fashion? It is
evident that such a finding could be disputed. Central
Lithuania, that is, the Upland Lithuanians, was not the
only tribe to be very close to founding a state in the
11th and 12th centuries. Almost all the Baltic tribes in
this period were close to it, but only one of them made
the fateful step.
Bertašius’ book is the first, and, I would say, a successful study about the prehistory of this region. I think
it will be acknowledged by the academic community,
young people studying, and everyone who is interested
in their own history.
215
REVIEW A r c h a e o l o g i a L i t u a n a
A r c h a e o l o g i a L i t u a n a . V o l s . 1 - 3 , Vi l n i u s , 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 2
The first volume of Archaeologia Lituana, launched by
the Department of Archaeology at Vilnius University
in 1999, did not surprise the archaeological community
in Lithuania. It had to happen. The department is the
only base in Lithuania for training archaeologists, and
one of the strongest with respect to its scientific potential. It has seven highly qualified employees, doctors of
science, including two professors and three associate
professors. Therefore, such an edition for this department is both necessary and obligatory.
Three volumes of Archaeologia Lituana have already
reached its readers. It is totally shaped and formed by
now, and takes its place among other publications advocating Lithuanian archaeology. I would like to introduce it briefly to the readers of Archaeologia Baltica
too.
The editorial staff of Archaeologia Lituana consists of
Mykolas Michelbertas (senior editor, Vilnius University), Aleksiejus Luchtanas (deputy senior editor, Vilnius
University), Violeta Vasiliauskienė (managing editor,
Vilnius University), and the members Wojciech Nowakowski (Warsaw University), Adolfas Tautavičius
(Castle Research Centre, Vilnius), Albinas Kuncevičius
(Vilnius University), Jonas Stankus (Lithuanian Institute of History), and Indrė Antanaitis-Jacobs (Vilnius
University).
A r c h a e o l o g i a L i t u a n a . Vo l . 1 . Vi l n i u s ,
1999, 232 p.
216
This volume was intended for the publication of material from the international conference “Reading Jonas
Puzinas”, held in 1996. It begins with an introduction
by Mykolas Michelbertas, where he presents the concept, aims and objectives of the publication. Aleksiejus
Luchtanas introduces archaeological science and its
development at Vilnius University from 1919 to 1989,
when the independent Lithuanian state was restored.
The second article by Luchtanas and V. Sidrys analyses the spread of bronze in the Eastern Baltic region
in the years before Christ. The authors conclude that
the import of bronze to the Eastern Baltic started from
the 16th century BC. Local amber merchandise greatly
stimulated its import. Michelbertas, in a short article,
analyses Roman-period barbed spearheads discovered
in Lithuania. R. Banytė looks at the analysis and dating of finds from two rich burials in the old Iron Age
cemetery discovered in Baitai in the Klaipėda region.
M. Karczewski analyses the chronology of burials
with weaponry discovered in the Paprotki Kolonii
cemetery belonging to the Bogaczew culture and dated
to the end of the Roman Period and the beginning of
the Great Migration. Wojciech Nowakowski discusses
chronology issues of the late Roman and great migration periods in the Klaipėda region, on the basis of
material from the Aukštkiemiai (Oberhof) cemetery.
He manages to identify three chronological periods in
the cemetery: the first period around 150–250, on the
basis of discovered Roman coins, pins with rosettes
and profiled heads, neck-rings with cone-shaped and
coiled wire terminals, and shielded brooches; the second period around 250–300, on the basis of late versions of crossbow brooches with a bent foot from the
fourth Almgren group, and bracelets with thickened
terminals; the third period on the basis of late crossbow brooches with a bent foot, neck-rings and bracelets from moulded wire, and buckles with methopic
tongues. A. Astrauskas, G. Gleiznienė and V. Šimėnas
write about shoulder-belts, which are very rare in the
Baltic lands. They analyse their construction and manufacturing technique, chronology, use and social issues.
In her research, Audronė Bliujienė analyses Curonian
male and female ornaments from the eighth to the 11th
centuries, treating them as part of global patterns. She
also reviews the world outlook of men and women in
the different types of ornaments they wore. Vytautas
Kazakevičius analyses imported E-type spearheads
with decorated sockets which are discovered in the
Baltic area. He also discusses their chronology and
origins. He finally concludes that these spearheads are
imported, originate from Scandinavia, and date from
the Viking period. V. Kulakow reviews the Baltic focus
of Viking movements via traditions of ethnic diffusion
and art. He defines the ethno-cultural situation which
emerged in the Eastern Baltic region, and determines
the rather peaceful character of Viking movements in
the Baltic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugric lands.
The first volume finishes with book reviews and a
chronicle of the research world.
In the section entitled “Discussions, debates”, Mykolas Michelbertas criticises Raymond Sidrys’ article on
the state of Lithuanian archaeology. In the section for
reviews, a survey is made of new books. In the section
“Chronicle of research”, a review of research activity
for 1998–1999 in the Department of Archaeology of
Vilnius University is presented.
BALTICA 6
This volume starts with an article by M. Hoffman
about the genesis and typology of the barrows of the
western Balts in the early Iron Age. According to the
author, at least 470 barrow cemeteries, with 1,450 barrows, are known. In all, 423 of them (28%) from 184
cemeteries are already explored. Eight types are identified. Aleksiejus Luchtanas analyses the extinction of
brushed pottery culture in the Neris basin (on the basis
of material from Kernavė hill-forts and settlements).
His key finding is that the second quarter of the first
millennium AD is to be treated as the beginning of a
new barrow culture in east Lithuania, that people of the
brushed pottery culture were not the direct predecessors of the new east Lithuanian culture, when the new
culture started developing. R. Banytė-Rowell analyses
the peculiarities of burial rites in western Lithuania in
the late Roman Period. According to her, west Lithuanian cemeteries with stone circles continue the tradition of the previous period of equipping graves with
plenty of stones. The Latvian archaeologist J. Ciglis,
in his article, revises the chronology of some Lettigallian and Selonian articles from the mid-Iron Age.
A. Radiņš analyses Lettigallian burial rites and items
from the tenth to the 13th centuries. The numismatist V.
Smilgevičius describes Prague mites in the Labanoras
hoard from the collections of Lithuanian museums.
ontological and craniological analysis of material from
the cemetery. Due to the poor condition of the remains
of bone, material from five graves only was investigated. Audronė Bliujienė and D. Butkus present material from a warrior’s grave of the seventh century, discovered in Lazdininkai (Kalnalaukis) in the Kretinga
region. According to the authors, it is a grave equipped
with rich burial items, belonging to a man of a high social position. R. Beganskaitė and S. Satkūnaitė discuss
practical conservation aspects regarding grave goods
from the grave of the first half of the seventh century in Lazdininkai (Kalnalaukis) cemetery. Vytautas
Kazakevičius analyses a rare 11th-century spearhead
with a silvery socket, discovered in Vilkija in the Kaunas region. He introduces the circumstances of the discovery, analogies and origins. L. Kurila writes about
reflections of social relations in material from cremations discovered in barrows of eastern Lithuania. The
main conclusion of his article is that a thorough analysis of osteological material could assist in answering
some questions connected with the world outlook, and
sexual and inter-generation relations. A. Simniškytė
analyses the chronological and structural changes of
the Juodoniai (Rokiškis region) hill-fort settlement.
She also tries to clarify the course of the formation of
the cultural layer, and identifies three chronological
stages of it.
ARCHAELOGIA
2001, 159 p.
In the section for discussions and debates Aleksiejus
Luchtanas and G. Vėlius discuss with G. Zabiela cremation traditions in east Lithuania in the 13th and 14th
centuries.
At the end of the volume, a survey is made of new
books.
2002, 171 p.
This volume starts with a publication by a young archaeologist ,G. Grinevičiūtė, about the fourth Stone
Age settlement in Gribaša in the Varėna region. The
material discovered in it is dated to the Late Palaeolithic/Late Neolithic periods. Mykolas Michelbertas, in
his article, summarises the results of his explorations
in Gintarai, in the Kretinga region, in the period 1977
to 1981. It is an old Iron Age cemetery, with 25 graves
from the second to the fifth centuries. E. PečeliūnaitėBazienė analyses the remains of fabric from the same
Gintarai cemetery. The author found that wool dominates among the materials. The soil conditions for
vegetal threads are unfavourable, so linen was not discovered. The anthropologist A. Barkus presents an od-
217
REVIEW
M. Michelbertas.
Corpus der Römischen Funde im
Europäischen Barbaricum. Litauen
M . M i c h elberta s . C o r p u s d er r ö m i s c h e n F u n d e i m
e u r o p ä i s c h e n B a rb a r i c u m . L i ta u e n .
Vi l n i u s : U n i v e r s i t ä t Vi l n i u s , L e h r s t u h l f ü r A r c h ä o l o g i e , 2 0 0 1 . 6 8 S .
Ta f . 11 , K a r t e
Books by Lithuanian authors in a foreign language are
rare in the archaeological world. Feeling more as inhabitants of a European province rather than patriots of
our own country, we still hesitate to present the results
of our research in other languages which are popular
and widely used in the international academic community. A welcome exception is this new study, which
has recently reached its readers. The author is a famous
Lithuanian archaeologist, head of the Department of
Archaeology at Vilnius University, Professor Mykolas
Michelbertas, who has dedicated all his scientific talent
to old Iron Age exploration, collecting in driblets, and
accumulating information about the seemingly distant
Roman Empire, its provinces and the relations of the
Baltic tribes with it. He has produced over 350 scientific and popular articles, and several large studies on
the exploration of archaeological monuments.
All known artefacts of Roman material culture (over
100 items), and around 1,000 coins from the Roman
Empire, discovered in Lithuanian archaeological sites
(barrow cemeteries and burial grounds, hill-forts, settlements and hoards) are collected and presented in his
book. These abundant and very valuable archaeological sources are registered, analysed and interpreted,
and are presented to all researchers involved in studies
on “barbarian” European countries. Consequently, the
author presents the material in German, providing it
with exhaustive explanations, as some material could
be problematic for a wider circle of German readers to
perceive, though it is routine for our archaeologists.
This book is a part of a big international scientific
project, which also involves other European countries
that were not a part of the Roman Empire but experienced its direct cultural and economic influence. This
is European Barbaricum or Germania libera. Modern
Lithuania, a remote backwater of the European barbarian world in those days, is one such area.
The structure of the book is well balanced and arranged
logically. It consists of a preface, an introduction, a catalogue, a list of localities, pictures and a map.
The idea of the book and the story of its birth are dis ��
A. Tautavičius. Mykolo Michelberto bibliografija ��
(1961–
1998).
218
cussed in the preface, naming the people directly concerned and the financial sources.
The first written sources by ancient historians about the
Aistians are presented in the introduction. Readers are
introduced to Germania by Tacitus, familiar to all archaeologists and researchers of ancient times, in which
he provides information about the territories and lifestyle of the Aistians (Balts), and about facts from Pliny
on direct trading relations with the Roman Empire and
the amber route, which existed for a few centuries. Due
to this route, the names of Aistian tribes became familiar and are mentioned separately in subsequent written sources. These are the Galindians, Sudovians and
Selonians. Readers are introduced to the term “Balts”,
which was proposed by the German linguist Georg
Nesselmann in the middle of the 19th century. It is followed by a short introduction to former ethnic-cultural
areas in modern Lithuania.
Explanations to the book are put in a separate chapter.
They provide us with information about the administrative division of Lithuania, including the names of district centres and regions, about the introduction of the
exploration and collection of archaeological artefacts,
the beginning of professional museology, and the fate
of collections (in particular from western Lithuania)
during the Second World War and after it. The author
analyses the population of modern Lithuania, and its
expansion since the beginning of the Iron Age. Numbers of imported articles increased together with the
increase in the population. Artefacts are more abundant
in sites where the population density is higher. This
chapter provides a list of references, abbreviations and
tables of illustrations.
The catalogue makes up the largest part of the book.
It is designed on the basis of the latest administrative
division of the Republic of Lithuania – the districts and
regions. It will be useful for researchers, as some foreign archaeologists have a poor understanding of the
division and the smaller territorial units of the country.
A lot of room is given to the coins of the Roman Empire. Alongside glass and enamel beads, they make up
the largest part of finds. At the moment, over 100 find
sites, with over 1,000 Roman coins, have been discov-
The book is provided with one specific chapter which
is not usually typical of similar publications. It is dedicated to Lithuanian transcription. No doubt, this is a
positive feature of the book, as foreign scholars distort
the place-names beyond recognition, having no idea
how to read them properly.
BALTICA 6
The catalogue introduces other spare artefacts of Roman origin, including the circumstances of their finding, dates, thorough descriptions of artefacts and other
items discovered together, references and conservation
sites.
ARCHAELOGIA
ered in Lithuania. It was not difficult for the author to
arrange a catalogue of coins, as an article by him on
the subject has recently appeared. He draws the attention of readers to the fact that Roman coins in graves
are typical of the cemeteries of the western Balts. It
separates them from other analogous monuments of
barbarian Europe.
The book is illustrated with pictures professionally
drawn by I. Maciukaitė. Unfortunately, they are not too
numerous. It would have been worth introducing more
pictures of items, despite their poor condition.
This book is valuable for several aspects: 1) material
about the Iron Age in Lithuania has never before been
presented so broadly to readers in a foreign language;
2) it penetrates a pan-European readership, and assists
in the better understanding of the economic-cultural
influence of the Roman Empire on the Baltic tribes.
Henceforth, the Baltic area will no longer remain a
blank spot on the archaeological map of European cultures.
It is hard to evaluate critically the work of a person
who has spent all his life, consistently and purposefully, exploring the material culture of the Iron Age
in Lithuania. This is a professional and mature work;
therefore, we can only express our admiration regarding the accuracy of Professor Michelbertas, and wish
him further success in researching his favourite area.
��
Michelbertas M., Römische Münzen in der Gräberfeldern
Litauens. In: Archaeologia Baltica. Vilnius, 1995 81–87.
219
Guidelines for Authors
Guidelines for Authors
Archaeologia Baltica is a semiannual academic refereed journal published in English about the archaeology of the regions around the Baltic Sea, with the focus
on the eastern shore of the Baltic. The editorial policy
is to publish a wide range of contributions in all fields
of archaeology related to the Baltic Sea region, from
methodology to synthesis and theory. These may take
the form of substantial research papers (up to 8,000
words) or shorter research reports. Short papers may
include, for instance, new techniques, philosophical
discussions, current controversies and suggestions for
new research, as well as conventional research papers.
Review or overview papers are welcome, as long as
they are sufficiently critical, succinct and make a conceptual contribution to the field. The submission of a
paper will be held to imply that it represents an original
article, not previously published, and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
Separate volumes publish the material of international
conferences concerned with archaeological research in
the Baltic Sea region.
Articles for Archaeologia Baltica should be typed in
English, double-spaced on A4 paper, with at least 30millimetre margins. Submitted articles must include:
• the name(s) and address(es) of the author(s), as well
as an abstract of up to 100 words, and up to eight key
words;
• a summary up to an eighth of the length of the whole
text, for translation into Lithuanian;
• captions for figures and tables supplied separately
and appended to the disc copy of the text, and labelling
on figures, in publishable form.
Three hard copies and a computer version (in Word for
Windows) of contributions must be submitted to the
managing editor. Computer-generated drawings must
be provided in hard copy and digital format (EPS or
TIFF).
References should be arranged using the Harvard citing system (see http://bournemouth.ac.uk/library/using/harvard_system.html).
References in Cyrillic should be transcribed into Roman letters according to the following system:
220
Cyrillic Roman Cyrillic Roman
а�a
б�b
в�v
г�g
д�d
е�e
ё�e
ж
zh
��
з
z�
и�i
й�i
к�
k
л�l
м�
m
н�
n
о�
o
п�
p
р�r
с��
s�’
т�t
у�
u
ф�f
Cyrillic Roman
х��
kh
ц��
ts
ч��
ch
ш��
sh
щ��
shch
ъ
”
ы�
y
ь’
э�e
ю��
iu
я��
ia
Footnotes and endnotes should be avoided if at all possible.
Authors will be contacted by one of the editorial team.
Articles will be submitted to two referees and to a
professional language reviser. Manuscripts will then
be returned with comments. After the completion of
suggested changes (the computer version should be
corrected too), a new manuscript should be sent to the
editors for distribution. Text proofs of papers will be
provided to authors, to which only minor corrections
will be allowed.
Three free copies of Archaeologia Baltica and ten reprints of each paper will normally be supplied to the
authors.
More detailed information is available from the editors.
Contact us at:
Klaipėda University,
History and Archaelogy
Tilžės 13, LT-91251 Klaipėda, Lithuania
Tel +370-46-410190
Fax +370-5-2440643

BALTICA6

Transcription

Similar documents

Studies into the Balts` Sacred Places