Karro, K 2015 Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life: Burial Site of Lahepera pia in Eastern Estonia. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 25(1): 4, pp. 1-11, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.480

RESEARCH PAPER Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life: Burial Site of Lahepera in Eastern Estonia Krista Karro*

The article will comprise a discussion on the continual aspect of landscape based on a burial place in the eastern part of Estonia. This burial place was used for collective dispersed burials into a stone grave from the 3rd to 11th centuries AD. In the second half of the 11th century the burial tradition changed, and from that time on richly furnished inhumations were practiced in the very place next to the stone grave. Previously, I have interpreted such a change in social and religious landscape as a rupture, but it can also be considered as a continuation. The physical landscape remained the same, while new religious rituals (individual inhumations instead of collective cremations) were starting to be practiced at the same location. I will argue that there were various reasons for using this place in the landscape for such a long period of time. The main reason, however, was economic, for the place was probably used as a harbour site. But as practical everyday life was prob- ably closely connected to religious life during that period, I will argue that there was also a religious importance to the place.

Introduction paruness von S.-i mälestustes, mida härra N. ei väsi umber jutustamast, on Nad lähevadki neid emaga mõisa juurde nad kõik veel elus… vaatama, sest härra N. on neile tea- tanud, et parunessi vennatütre lapsed (They are going to the mansion to see on neile külla tulnud. Aga need lapsed them, because Mr. N has told them that valmistavad Joosepile suure pettumuse. the children of the former baroness’s Need on täiesti tavaliselt riides, heledate cousin have come to visit him. But those tuulepluusidega tänapäeva vanain- children disappoint Joosep, because imesed. Nad tulevad hariliku autoga, they are in very common clothes – just ilma hobuste, püsside, tõldadeta, üldse like contemporary elderly people in ilma milletagi. Paistab nii, et päris mõis- light blouses. They come in a regular nikud ei tule enam kunagi tagasi. Aga car, without horses, rifles, coaches. It seems that the real barons and baron- esses are never coming back. But in the memoires of Baroness von S, constantly * Tallinn University, Estonian Institute of 1 Humanities, Estonia retold by Mr. S, they are all still here….”) [email protected] (Õnnepalu 2012, 68) Art. 4, page 2 of 11 Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life

This article aims to discuss a burial site in being studied and described as they are, but eastern Estonia in a way that has not been this merely serves the function of setting the done before. Namely, the purpose is to context and justifying the choice of topic. look at previously known archaeological In conclusion, the article aims to study one information about the burial site from the of Estonia’s landscapes in a way that has pre- perspective of continuation in the land- viously been practiced very little in Estonia, scape. The site in question was excavated and seeks to understand why one place may quite thoroughly in the 1970s (Lavi 1977, have been in use for 1500 years. 1978a, 1978b), and further research about it has been conducted and published by the Why are we looking for continuation author of the present article in the 2000s in landscapes? (Karro 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Landscapes are continual spaces – never fin- The history of theoretical landscape ished, but the result of processes and prac- research on other sites is new to Estonian tices (Pred 1984). This type of (contemporary) archaeology. However, in other European thinking mostly emerged in the 1970s and countries it has been more widely discussed 1980s, for before this geographers,historians and some of this literature has been used in and also archaeologists, dealt more with the theoretical framework of this article. In single objects and places, and not so much Estonia, mostly North-Estonian archaeologi- with continuity (Baker 2003). However, it cal landscapes have been studied (e.g. Lang began to be felt that archaeologists should 1996; Vedru 2001, 2002, 2009, 2011, 2013a), actually not discuss single objects so much and an overview of Estonian settlement and as landscapes as a whole. Hans Gumbrecht’s landscape archaeology has also been pro- late concept of change of chronotopes in the vided (Lang and Laneman 2006). In addition perception of history after World War II is an to North-Estonia, the settlement of Saaremaa appropriate place to start the present discus- has also been researched (e.g. Mägi 2002a, sion. A ‘chronotope’ is the social construction 2008). However, most of the landscape of temporality. While the old chronotope research has been done from the viewpoint considered the past as something that had to of settlement archaeology, and not so much be left behind, the new chronotope suggests from landscape archaeology (Lang 1996, that the past has settled in the present, or in Mägi 2002a). Some examples from the latter other words, presence is inundated by ‘past- are Gurly Vedru’s works (2009, 2011, 2013a, ness’ (Gumbrecht 2013). Driven by this idea, 2013b). Thus, this article also aims to dis- archaeological landscapes can also be seen as cuss aspects in the lives of people in the past spaces that are inundated by pastness, and through more phenomenological notions that this pastness is carried by archaeological like memory and narration. objects/monuments and artefacts. In other However, these concepts have been dealt words, the present is always affected by the with by human geographers in Estonia (e.g. past, because there is always something left Palang 2001), and there has also been some from the past in the present landscape, and co-operation with archaeologists (e.g. Palang it is this that archaeologists study. The most et al 2005). Continuation is the main theo- difficult part of archaeological research is retical conception used in the discussion. to set what remains from the past into the However, there are several other notions that context of processes and development, or as will be discussed in the context of continua- Chris Gosden and Gary Lock (1998, 4) have tion, for they form an essential part of con- stated: “For the archaeologists, sites are static tinuation itself: memory, narration/stories. entities, to be classified into land boundaries, Some attention is also paid to the research- burial monuments, hillforts and so on. We er’s perspective as to why the landscapes are arrive many millennia later when the heat Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life Art. 4, page 3 of 11 and urgency of daily life has cooled and cast in making places meaningful – after all, it a retrospective view over the landscape”. can be argued that this is the very way that So, continuation in landscapes should be locations are turned into places (Cresswell investigated, because this “retrospective” 2004). This meaningfulness is often mostly view is lacking this . By understanding the concerned with local people and their mem- concept of continuation, and some related ories of, and roots in, a place (Hernandés et concepts that will be discussed below, this al 2007) and its monuments and natural fea- can be to some extent achieved. tures (Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). This is the process by which place identity forms and a Landscape, memory, and continuation place becomes a bearer of memory (Vedru The meaning of landscape in this article and Karro 2012). should be explained, for it has many defini- Although Gumbrecht (2013) has stated tions. Landscapes are understood not only as that memory is an artefact from the past, natural and/or cultural, but as a system where it can instead be argued that artefacts and natural, cognitive and temporal components archaeological sites such as burial places are connected (Palang 2001). Landscape does facilitate memory. Landscape can also be not exist outside of the human mind (Vedru defined as the materialisation of memory, or 2002), but the human mind saves what it has the fixing of social and individual histories in had contact with - this (in a very broad sense) time. As human memory constructs rather can be called memory, and memory is a vital than retrieves, the past therefore originates aspect in the continuation of anything con- from cultural memory, which is itself socially nected with or in the human mind. constructed (Ashmore and Knapp 2000). In But landscape can also be explained as a this way landscape can become a collective network of places connected by paths, roads narrative about the people living there. and stories (Tilley 1994). Network is one Narrative is considered to be a spoken or of the key words in this definition – differ- written account of connected events (a story) ent landscapes form networks, because all or, in other words, a practice or an art of tell- landscapes (geographically, temporally or ing stories. Stories usually have a continual perceivably distanced) form one unity to a aspect, and can re-enact memories, as the certain extent, and it is only possible to study citation at the beginning of this article illus- parts of it more closely. The landscape dis- trates, and can also be mediators of a far-away cussed below is also only a part of this net- past that does not exist anymore. However, in work, for it is connected to other landscapes. a narrative the past can still be ‘hot’, ‘urgent’, Landscapes also consist of different layers, and real, while only fractions of this past real- which may each form connections with dif- ity may be physically extant. In other words, ferent kinds of landscape. One of those lay- memory is borne by artefacts, sites, objects – ers is the ‘mental layer’ (for the layers of fragments of the past. This is basically what landscape see Karro 2010a) which enables happens to archaeological landscapes – some connections to be made with distant physi- components are missing, but the still existing cal landscapes, and thus make several geo- fragments allow the story of the past to be graphically distinct landscapes continuous narrated. So, while the story is the mediator in relation to one another. This kind of con- or the tool that creates continuity between tinuation does not only appear in space, but the past and the present, we are using infor- also in time, and this idea will be argued for mation from the memory borne by objects, in this article using an Iron Age burial place or in other words, the small stories narrated in eastern Estonia as a case study. by single objects to retell the past. Time is closely connected to the concept of While dealing with archaeological or his- memory, because remembering is one aspect torical objects, the people who made and Art. 4, page 4 of 11 Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life

Fig. 1: Map of the study area. 1 – Early centre of settlement/hillfort; 2 – Probable Medieval mansion; 3 – Early Modern mansion; 4 – burial site. Coloured base map: Estonian Land Board 1996–1998 (1: 10 000); redrawn by Krista Karro at a scale of 1: 33 320. Black and white base map: Estonian Land Board 1996–1998; redrawn by Kersti Siitan. interacted with them should not be forgot- actually part of a former Estonian church par- ten. Even if it is possible to say that sites ish, dating back to at least the 15th century and objects tell stories, it is actually people (for the first historical records of the church who narrate them. It is thus people who give see Ederma and Jaik 1939), but it was prob- meaning to artefacts and sites, while objects ably formed even earlier like most Estonian and natural features help people secure their church parishes.2 The physical formation of memories (Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). It is parishes in Estonia has been dated to the archaeologists and historians who use those Latest Iron Age (1050 – 1227 AD)3, although memory laden objects to mediate between the borders changed during the reigns of sev- the people of the past and the present. In eral foreign conquerors. It has been assumed other words, they communicate with the peo- that in addition to natural borders a parish ple of the past through landscape, and this was also formed on the basis of kin lines, is what is meant by the continuous aspect of and played the role of political, economic, landscape. Furthermore, the life of past peo- and administrative unit. Ancient parishes ple also becomes continuous through this also formed counties, but the functions of continuation of the landscape, and the reflec- this system of counties differed considerably tion of this idea can be seen in burial sites from the present counties of Estonia (for – in places where human lives have become Kodavere parish see Karro 2010a; 2012; for continuous through material manifestation. ancient Estonian administrative system see Lang 2007a, 273–277). Study area: Kodavere parish It is not clear whether Kodavere parish was The example discussed in this article is a cem- a separate county by the name of Soopoolitse, etery in Lahepera village in eastern Estonia or a parish conglomerated into the larger (see the location in Fig. 1). The cemetery is Vaiga county in the Late Iron Age (Lang Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life Art. 4, page 5 of 11

2007a, 275). In Russian chronicles Kodavere shaped pin4, of a kind which were mostly has also been marked by the name of worn and deposited in Estonian graves in the Subolitch (Roslavlev and Salo 2007). However, Pre-Roman Iron Age (Lang 2007b). However, Kodavere parish area is naturally secluded other finds suggest the erection of the grave from surrounding areas by the Great Emajõgi in the first centuries AD. River and its bogs in the south, the Omedu About 85% of the grave was excavated in River in the north, bogs and forests of cen- 1977–1978, when only evidence of crema- tral Estonia in the west, and Lake Peipsi in the tions was found (Lavi 1977; 1978a). The site east. It is also the area within the present bor- had been formerly excavated by 19th century ders of Estonia, where agricultural soils reach hobby-archaeologists, and there are several closest to the lake, which enabled the emer- finds archived in the University of Tartu gence of an agricultural settlement there archaeological collections, but those finds from the last centuries of the Pre-Roman Iron come without a report which would connect Age (Aun 1974; Karro 2010a). The burial place them to certain areas in the grave. The above in Lahepera village is about 10 km from this mentioned pin is also one of those finds, earliest site in the present village of Peatskivi therefore it is not clear whether there might and it was probably later connected to the have been an earlier cemetery with pit graves hillfort which was established at the place of under the later stone grave. Such cremations the early hilltop settlement (when exactly, is in pits are very characteristic to southern and unclear). This hillfort remained the central southeastern parts of Estonia in the Bronze place of the parish until a parish church was and Early Iron Ages (Lillak 2009). established in another village – the village of The stone grave lacks Middle Iron Age Kodavere. However, the centre in Peatskivi deposits. There are only some artefacts moved closer to Lake Peipsi (to Alatskivi) in that may date back to the Pre-Viking Age. the Medieval period, and a mansion centre However, the grave was intensively used was formed there (Karro 2012). The village of again in the Viking Age, when cremations Lahepera, where the burial place is situated, with intentionally broken artefacts (mostly is a neighbouring village to Alatskivi, but is jewellery, but also some burnt weapons) situated on the shore of a small lake (Lake were undertaken (Karro 2008). This is very Lahepera) which used to be a bay of Lake common to Estonian Viking Age burials (see Peipsi (Mäemets 1977), and is thus very close e.g. Mägi 2002b). to Lake Peipsi. It seems that in the second half of the11th century, or perhaps even earlier, a shift Case study: the burial place of in burial customs took place - the people Lahepera started to make inhumations in ground pits The burial place in question is situated at the to the east of the stone grave (Lavi 1978b). present village of Lahepera at a place on the This kind of shift is considered to be a result bank of the small lake (Lake Lahepera) where of Christian influence (see e.g. Mägi 2002b; the ground is high and not very boggy. The Valk in press), but further discussion of that knoll where the burial place is located is the issue is not the topic of this article. When vil- highest point in the area and is eye-catching lage cemeteries started to emerge in south- from ground-level (Karro 2010b, 2012). ern Estonia, the same site was taken into use In the 2nd or 3rd century AD a stone grave for this purpose (for village/rural cemeteries (probably a tarand-grave, see e.g. Lang 2007a; on southern Estonia see Valk 2001). The lat- 2007b) was established at the peak of the est burial in the cemetery can be dated back knoll. It is possible that the burial place is even to the 16th century (Yurina 2011), but many older, for one of the finds, that was recently of the excavated burials are without grave re-discovered from archaeological collections goods and the bones have not been carbon by the author, is an iron shepherd’s stick dated, so it is unclear when they were buried. Art. 4, page 6 of 11 Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life

At present there are fields on the north- in prehistory (see e.g. Mägi 2002b; Lang ern bank of Lake Lahepera, but those lands 2007b), and this collective memory may were probably drained in the 1930s and have outlived several of these changes. 1960s-1970s because, according to a 17th Where the Early Iron Age is concerned, century map (Anonymous 1684), there were the human settlement in Kodavere parish only very small fields in that area. Bigger was probably spread out because of the dif- fields appear some kilometers to the west – ferent settlement logic of the fisher-hunter further from lakes Lahepera and Peipsi. The and agricultural societies of the time. It is houses on the 17th century map have formed also quite probable that in the Pre-Roman a fishing village. Estonian stone graves are Iron Age, fishing and hunting were still quite very often connected to fields, but also with important, for the soils are quite heavy and roads or harbour sites (Mägi 2004), and the not very easy to cultivate in eastern Estonia. one in question seems to be of the latter type. This is said to have caused the spread of crop cultivation to inland Estonia later than in Discussion: continuation of life over North-Estonian limestone-based soils (Kihno 1500 years? and Valk 1999; Lang 1999), sometime around Usually, landscapes cannot be discussed the year 0. Stone graves were probably a part using one site or object, but in the case of of this agriculture-based culture. The 2nd cen- the Lahepera-Peatskivi area, this site seemed tury AD, or maybe some centuries earlier (if to have been a very important one. The the hypothesis of cremations in ground pits importance of the landscape of Lahepera is under the stone grave is correct) seems the definitely a social construction, however, the most likely date for construction of the stone fact that it is a burial site provides some pos- grave at Lahepera (see above). sibilities for discussing personal aspects of Land cultivation is a field of activity that this landscape as well. needs former experience. Of course, hunt- Social construction of a landscape can ing and fishing also requires some previous also be expressed through the definition knowledge from the older people of the soci- that human-made and human-perceived ety, but land cultivation is an activity that objects in the landscape express collective makes people settle, so the dead also stay social structure. This kind of social structure with them when they have been deposited is passed on by collective memory, which in a permanent place. Slash-and-burn agri- means that social structure does not only culture causes the people to move around to have a collective aspect but is also continual. some extent, but it is still connected to ara- Artefacts and objects that reflect this struc- ble soils, and it seems that the overall area ture often stay untouched in the landscape, of arable land was not that large in Kodavere even after the society that created them has parish during this early period. So, it is prob- gone. But those artefacts and objects still able that the centre for people who were carry the collective memory of this soci- mainly engaged in that kind of activity was ety, and thus tell a story of that society. So, in the area of Peatskivi which has the best according to that archaeological landscapes soils of the parish. The continuation of settle- can narrate the story, or at least a part of the ment in that part of the parish, based on soils story of the past. and agricultural activity, can be dated from The long-term usage period of the burial at least the Early Iron Age on this basis. The place in Lahepera reflects that the site was natural advantages of a landscape thus affect remembered for a long time, perhaps for the social construction of the landscape, and as long as one-and-a-half thousand years, collective memory makes such landscapes suggesting the long-term continuation of continual. the collective memory. Evidence suggests This centre of settlement is connected to that Estonian society changed many times the burial site in question, but the burial Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life Art. 4, page 7 of 11 site itself also provides possibilities for dis- archaeologically. However, the geomorpho- cussion where continuation of landscape is logical situation and the human geographi- concerned. A burial site is a place where a cal reasons described above make it highly society buries their dead, and the traditions probable that such a place existed during the of this activity are said to reflect the social usage period of the burial site. structure of the society (e.g. Mägi 2002b). Of course, it remains debatable how much Thus, burials can be considered a significant this postulated landing place was used for aspect of social activity. Cemeteries are, of boats going fishing to Lake Lahepera or course, connected to permanent settlements Lake Peipsi, for local transportation, or as a associated with arable land, and this is also stopping place for trade vessels after Lake the case where Lahepera-Peatskivi is con- Peipsi probably became a waterway from the cerned. But land cultivation was probably Finnish gulf to Pskov and other inland areas not the only activity these people conducted, approachable by rivers that start from Lake because of surrounding natural advantages Peipsi (for the trade route see Сорокин that provided possibilities for other kinds of 1999; Karro 2010a, 2010b, 2012; Mägi in activities, such as fishing (lakes Peipsi and press). The existence of the trade route and Lahepera). Activities connected to a water its dating is not the topic of this article, but body, however, require places of embarka- the existence of a landing site near the burial tion and disembarkation, or, in other words, could well indicate the use of Lake Lahepera a harbour site. It has been discovered in and Lake Peipsi by the people living on the Scandinavia, but also in the Estonian island shore for any of these activities over a long of Saaremaa, that harbour sites in the Iron continuum. Although it is unlikely that the Age were often marked by close proximity site was in use as a harbour in the village to a burial site (e.g. Karro, 2012; Mägi 2004, cemetery period, some artefacts of foreign5 2008, 2010, in press). origin dating back to the Viking Period and It seems very likely that the Lahepera Latest Iron Age might suggest that foreign- burial site also marked a harbour. Lake ers who had stopped at Lahepera and died Lahepera is a narrow and low lake with a there were also buried there, strengthening boggy southern and western shore and a the likelihood that the area was used as a high bank on the northern shore, and there stopping point on a long distance commu- is still a connection between this lake and nication route. Lake Peipsi. The burial site is on the highest It is also possible to discuss the burial knoll on the northern bank of the lake, and site from the social point of view. As stated it is quite possible that in an open environ- above, this burial site probably outlived ment it was possible to notice it when the social changes, but remained in use. Up to shore was approached. Of course, the knoll the 11th century, cremations (very typical to is not very high, but it still catches the eye Estonian society during all periods of the against quite flat surroundings. The shores of Iron Age) were conducted, but from the sec- Lake Lahepera experienced constant human ond part of the 11th century another type of activity before 1684, when the above men- burial began to be practised used – inhuma- tioned map was compiled, and it is quite dif- tion. Inhumation cemeteries from this period ficult and maybe even impossible to discover have been uncovered from several places in through archaeology an ancient site under Kodavere parish (they are always location- this activity layer. The soil layer is thin and ally connected to Lake Peipsi), but also from has been washed constantly by the waters the North-Estonian shore, and from Western of the lake. The search for a preserved cul- Saaremaa. The oldest are in Virumaa and by tural layer from the Iron Age was conducted Lake Peipsi (Mägi-Lõugas 1995a, 1995b), and in autumn 2012 and spring 2013, but it is the artefacts of foreign origin mentioned not yet possible to locate a landing place above are found in inhumation graves, not Art. 4, page 8 of 11 Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life cremations. The inhumations at Lahepera Excellence in Cultural Theory), and by the FP can be interpreted as a shift in the local social 7 project HERCULES. structure (as a result of foreign influence) or burials of people from other areas, but the Notes site itself was still used. 1 Translated from Estonian into English by The cemetery was taken into use again (or K. Karro. continued to be used - it is not possible to say 2 Church parishes in Estonia were formed if there was a gap in utilisation or not after in the Medieval period, after the Ancient the 14th century, because most burials of that Fight for Freedom, which lasted 1208– time are unfurnished) in the Medieval and 1227, and which also marked the end of Early Modern periods as a village cemetery. the Iron Age and the beginning of the By this point in time the social and political Medieval period in Old Livonia (of which background had changed so dramatically that Estonia formed a part). The Medieval the power of the former kin lines, who had period was ended by the Livonian War used this place to bury their dead as a mani- in the fourth quarter of the 16th century, festation of their power over the landscape, although the processes which brought most likely was not valid any more.6 But the about the end of the Medieval period had place in the ground was still remembered, already started earlier in the 16th century probably considered sacred, and still used. (see e.g. Laur 1999). In this sense, the collective memory was pre- 3 The division of the Iron Age in Estonia served, despite profound historical change. is as follows: Early IA (Pre-Roman IA 500 BC – 50 AD and Roman IA 50 – 450 AD, Conclusions Middle IA (Migration Period 450 – 600 The narration above illustrates how the AD and Pre-Viking Age 600 – 800 AD), ancient burial site in the present village of and Late IA (Viking Age 800 – 1050 AD Lahepera can be interpreted as a place where and Latest IA 1050 – 1208/1227 AD) life continued despite changes in different (Lang and Kriiska 2001). spheres of people’s lives. The continuality 4 AI 2054: 7 (as it is a part of the collection of landscape can be caused by surround- of ÕES (Õpetatud Eesti Selts =Learned ing environment (soils, climate), land forms Estonian Society) it is presently located in (lakes, knolls), and the social structure of the the Cabinet of Archaeology, University of society living there. Tartu). Pieces of this distant time that have been 5 Foreign in the sense of from other parts preserved until the contemporary period of the Lake Peipsi region, e.g. North-East narrate their stories, and based on them a Estonia, North-West Russia. version of the story of past people can be 6 After 1227 Kodavere parish was included compiled. The story narrated by features of in Tartu bishopric, which then had power the landscape can be seen as a reflection of over most of southern Estonia and north- collective memory brought to present times ern Latvia. by those features. And this is how landscape References is continual, as is the life of past societies. Anonymous, 1684 Fempte Deels Trans- porterad Charta öfwer Tredie Deelen af Acknowledgements Dörpts Lähn. F 308 N 2 S 158 L 68, Aja- This research has been financed by the looarhiiv (= Estonian Historical Archives). Estonian Research Agency (IUT 3–2 Aun, M 1974 Alatskivi linnamäe (Kalevipoja Culturescapes in transformation: towards an sängi) uurimise tulemusi. Eesti NSV Tead- integrated theory of meaning making), by uste Akadeemia toimetised 23 (1): 90–93. the European Union through the European Baker, A R H 2003 Geography and history: Regional Development Fund (Centre of bridging the divide Cambridge studies Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life Art. 4, page 9 of 11

in historical geography 36. Cambridge: conceptualized, ideational. Archaeologies Cambridge University Press. DOI: http:// of Landscape. Contemporary Perspectives. dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615818 1–30. Cresswell, T 2004 Place, a short introduction. Lang, V 1996 Muistne Rävala. Muistised, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. kronoloogia ja maaviljelusliku asustuse Сорокин, П Е 1999 Водный путь по kujunemine Loode-Eestis, eriti Pirita jõe Псковско-Чудскому озеру и реке alamjooksu piirkonnas. Muinasaja teadus Нарове. Древности Пскова. Архео­ 4 (1–2). Tallinn. логия, история, архитектура. Псков: Lang, V 1999 The introduction and early Институт археологии Пскова. history of farming in Estonia as revealed 185–200. by archaeological material. In Miller, U, Ederma, B and Jaik, A 1939 Eesti evangeel- Hackens, T, Lang, V, Raukas, A and Hicks, iumi luteriusu kirikud. Tallinn. S (Eds). PACT 57: 325–338. Gosden, C and Lock, G 1998 Prehistoric his- Lang, V 2007a Baltimaade pronksi- ja tories. World Archaeology 30 (1): 2–12. rauaaeg. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/004382 Lang, V 2007b The Bronze and Early Iron Age 43.1998.9980393 in Estonia. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Gumbrecht, H U 2013 After 1945 — Latency Lang, V and Kriiska, A 2001 Eesti esiaja- as Origin of the Present. Stanford: Stan- loo periodiseering ja kronoloogia. Eesti ford University Press. Arheoloogia Ajakiri (= Estonian Journal of Hernández, B, Hidalgo, M C, Salazar- Archaeology) 5 (2): 83–109. Laplace, M E and Hess, S 2007 Place Lang, V and Laneman, M 2006 Settlement attachment and place identity in natives and landscape archaeology in Estonia. and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Archaeological research in Estonia 1865– Psychology 27 (4): 310–319. DOI: http:// 2005. Estonian Archaeology 1: 293–300. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003 Laur, M 1999 Eesti ajalugu varasel Karro, K 2008 Alatskivi asustuspiirkond uusajal 1550–1800. Tallinn: Eesti rauaajal – kalmed, asulakohad ja lin- Entsüklopeediakirjastus. namäed maastikul (lähemalt vaadatud Lavi, A 1977 Lahepera kivikalme kae- Lahepera ja Alasoo kalmeid). BA-thesis, vamisaruanne. F1 N35 S17, Tallinn Tallinn University. University, Institute of History, Archaeo- Karro, K 2010a Kodavere – parish by Lake logical archives. Peipus. Development of cultural land- Lavi, A 1978a Lahepera kivikalme kae- scape during the Iron Age. Archaeologia vamisaruanne. F1 N35 S15, Tallinn Baltica 14: 184–196. University, Institute of History, Archaeo- Karro, K 2010b Kodavere – kihelkond Peipsi logical archives. järve ääres. MA-thesis. Tallinn University. Lavi, A 1978b Lahepera maa-aluse kalmistu Karro, K 2012 Lakeside and maritime land- kaevamisaruanne 1977.-1978. aastal. F1 scapes: cases of Kodavere settlement N35 S17, Tallinn University, Institute of district (eastern Estonia) and Pöide settle- History, Archaeological archives. ment district (Saaremaa). Lietuvos arche- Lillak, A 2009 Maa-alused põletusmatused ologija 38: 253–270. Setomaal. Setomaa 2. Vanem ajalugu Kihno, K and Valk, H 1999 Archaeological muinasajast kuni 1920. aastateni. Tartu. and palynological investigations at Ala- 82. Pika, Southeastern Estonia. In Miller, U, Mäemets, A 1977 Eesti NSV järved ja nende Hackens, T, Lang, V, Raukas, A and Hicks, kaitse. Tallinn: Valgus. S (Eds). PACT 57: 223–237. Mägi, M 2002a Piirkonnad ja keskused. Asus- Knapp, A B and Ashmore, W 2000 tus muinasaja lõpu ja varakeskaegsel Saare- Archaeological landscapes: constructed, maal arheoloogiliste, inimgeograafiliste Art. 4, page 10 of 11 Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life

ning ajalooliste allikate andmeil. Keskus- the association of american geographers tagamaa-ääreala. Muinasaja teadus, 11. 74 (2): 279–297. DOI: http://dx.doi. 169–232. org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1984.tb01453.x Mägi, M 2002b At the crossroads of space Roslavlev, O and Salo, V 2007 Eesti and time. graves, changing society and ide- kihelkonnad AD 1250. Tuna 4: 71–77. ologyon Saaremaa (Ösel) 9th-13th century Valk, H 2001 Rural Cemeteries of Southern AD CCC Papers 6. Tallinn. Estonia 1225–1800 AD. CCC papers 3. Mägi, M 2004 …Ships are their main strength. Tartu. Harbour sites, arable lands and chieftains Valk, H (in press). The zhalnik graves: evi- on Saaremaa. Estonian journal of archae- dence of the Christianisation of the ology 8 (2): 128–162. Novgorod and Pskov lands? In Woloszin, Mägi, M 2008 Facing the sea. Leva vid M, Musin, A (Eds). Rome, Constantinople Östersjöns kust. In: Lilja, S (ed). En antologi and newly-converted Europe: archaeologi- om naturförutsättningar och resursut- cal and historical evidence. Polish acad- nyttjande pa bada sidor av Östersjön ca emy of sciences, Crakow. 800–1800. Research reports, 3. Södertöns Van Dyke, R and Alcock, S E 2003 Archae- högskola. 83–102. ologies of memory. Archaeologies of Mem- Mägi, M 2010 Trade, war and the diversity ory. 1–13. of rituals at late prehistoric harbour sites Vedru, G 2001 Põhja-Eesti muinasaegsest on Saaremaa. Archaeologia Baltica 14: rannikukasutusest. Eesti Arheoloogia Aja- 168–182. kiri = Estonian Journal of Archaeology 5 Mägi, M in press. Bound for the eastern (2): 110–127. Baltic: trade and centres 800–1200. In: Vedru, G 2002 Maastik, aeg ja inimesed. Kes- Barrett, J H, Gibbon, S (Eds). Maritime kus-tagamaa-ääreala. Muinasaja Teadus Societies of the Viking and Medieval World. 11: 101–118. Cambridge: McDonald Monograph series. Vedru, G 2009 Layers of landscape, layers of Mägi-Lõugas, M 1995a Eesti viikingiaegsed site. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri = Estonian käevõrud ja nende ornament. Muinasaja Journal of Archaeology 13 (1): 21–35. teadus 3: 271–325. Vedru, G 2011 Põhja-Eesti arheoloo- Mägi-Lõugas, M 1995b Iila matus. Arhe- gilised maastikud. Archaeological land- oloogilised kaevamised paberil. Eesti scapes of North-Estonia. Dissertationes teaduste akadeemia toimetised. Humani- Archaeologiae Universitatis Tartuensis 3. taarteadused 44 (4): 516–531. Tartu. Õnnepalu, T 2012 Mandala. Tallinn: Varrak. Vedru, G 2013a Searching for heights in Palang, H 2001 Maastikest siin raamatus. Northern Estonia. Muinasaja teadus, x (in Maastik, loodus ja kultuur. Maastikukäsit- press). lusi Eestis. Publicationes Instituti Geo- Vedru, G 2013b Remembering through graphici Universitatis Tartuensis 91: 8–10. place. Estonian journal of archaeology 17 Palang, H, Sooväli, H, Printsmann, A, Peil, (2) (in press). T, Kaur, E, Lang, V, Konsa, M, Külvik, Vedru, G and Karro, K 2012 Heritage as a M, Alumäe, H and Sepp, K 2005 Püsi- bearer of memory. In Amoeda, R, Lira, vad ja muutuvad maastikud Eestis: kultu- S and Pinheiro, C (Eds). Heritage 2012. urigeograafiline käsitlus. Akadeemia 10: Proceedings of the 3rd International 2209–2227. Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Pred, A 1984 Place as historically contin- Development. 339–347. gent process: structuration and the time- Yurina, G 2011 Lahepera maa-alune kalm- geography of becoming places. Annals of istu. BA-thesis, Tallinn University. Karro: Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life Art. 4, page 11 of 11

How to cite this article: Karro, K 2015 Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life: Burial Site of Lahepera in Eastern Estonia. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 25(1): 4, pp. 1-11, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.480

Published: 11 March 2015

Copyright: © 2015 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

Papers from the Institute of Archaeology is a peer-reviewed OPEN ACCESS open access journal published by Ubiquity Press