Late Prehistoric Societies and Burials in the Eastern Baltic

Home , Kaup (emporium), Selonia, Semigallia

LATE PREHISTORIC SOC]ETIES AND BURIALS IN THE EASTERN BALTIC O

MARIKA MAGI 3 o c c Ihen.|ic|c.1el|s*ilhhU'i.L.NlodNhdllfra11)'!a.iLdregionsi|l1rccl\lc|nBl||it.ct I ofl.atc P.chi\(r1. so.icr! Sorirl anal!s.\- \hich up ro rcccnr rinrcs \!c!c lrcdonriDlnrly bascd on \anren sources rnd c\o- luron.q $ nrso l-rl' itrl, itrg. sug!.sr solrcs hat dilTerenr $cirl syeunslnr rl'. .u lrrrlh dn cr\eregions of rhccasrcflr B.lr ic. rlo\c\cr. al lihl ghD.e.rhis crnno' bc s.cn in rh. .rcl.eologic.l c\ nhncc.itrchdirtg bur'als. TIe dncusnln in rhisrniclc subjecrs{mc prnicuhr lidrrtrc\ofburialcusroms 'o closcrconsiddarnnr rcprc\en'arncncs- collccrne \e6us indi\idurl arrnudcs.lnd g.nd.r rsfccrs Thc rcn'hssuegen drar socieries \cr hi*.rdricrl borhiD tlie southemand northcnr psrls ol' rhecancrn R,lrir. nurpo\cr \.s lringed in dilIercnrNals

Ker \ords: Prchlsrorien)cicrics. burials, L.le lronAgc.

Somcthcofclical spects porvcr.,^ elrcts Lrndconshrctions tend to have an ac- tunl corinrcrcixl uluc. bcsidcsthe ritual significancc. The signilicrncc ol gr.rv.s cannot be overeslinalcd rvhcnthcy rrc dcpositedin a gravc.$ hich rvcrcnol nor in easlBallic rch cology.lispccially in Estoniaand maily Lrrrilablcro nrostol the populattun(Nliigi 2002. Lanja. Latc Ir(n Age ccrnctlriesare abundanrlysup- p.81I).Wc rrrry conclrde thar thc clidcnce from buri plicd \rrh grale Soods,urrd ha\e beenquilc thorough Jl. tlLr.trr.,hurJJnrl).quipFd \irI anelacr\nornr, I) cicararcd. Ho\cvcl: rhc archacologicalc\idence to lhe cxislcnccol a social elite. shile the abscnceol' in rhcsc burial tln.cs hns succccdcdonlv to a limired conspicuousburials. or as occursin the nonhcm prrt dc-qrecft nrfiuc cin8 thc $idespreadinlcryrctation of ofthe c.slcn B{1tic in scvcralPrehistoric periods. lhc Lale IronASc s)cicrcs in iheseareas. Mosr inlcrpreti abscncc of any knld of rrchacohgically deteclablc lions arc slill birscd by a few hislorical $ntings from burirls. docsnot nccessarilyprovcan egalitariansocial thc llrh ccnrrry.

Gravc goods rcllccl rrrrirrly lhe rilual behalxrur of r Allhough bLridl riles do not r.flect the social (rucl!rc comnnmity.whilc slill bcirg rndislrnguishablcfrom dircclly. lhc lwo phcDomcDaare connecled to sonc cx- olhcrsocir I rspccLs.such as poliiicaland socialorganr tcnl Morc crn bc rs$nucd whcDtaking inlo considcru- 'povefy' sation.Thc so-cLrllcd wc lth' or of gnves. trcn rsDcclsol trrrialevidcncc othcr thln th€ quantilyl II] thatis.1hc abLrnd ncc or lack ofpresened -qravegoods. qrnlity ol grAvegoods, or thc sizcof thc brrial nrounds. .. n. l J.r(rrl) ,,:\'(r.,1(J$irl' rh(

177 { Lak Prehisro'icso.ieties !rd @ Bnrirls ir rhe Eriern Boltic

t --r-

! ! \ 0 't00 kD

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

secn only throxgh the lens of historical descfiptions, easlemBalticare c lea.ly distinct,but mainly in aspecls xnd not dclincd lhrough nore theoretrcaLconcepts. ln thal havenot beendiscussedvery much so far Latvix aDdEslonia, this neant predominanilythe in- 'He U lcrprctadon()1 l\ Chronicleof Lnonia', which was wrjtlen down at the requestofthe Bishop ofRiga Archaco logi caI cvi dcncc = in the late 1220s.in addilion to what becamethe Old and interpretations er Rnyined Chronicle of Livonia', compLetedLn the of Prchi stori c socictics 1290sby an unknown wriler who was in chargeofthe '1 (, LivoDian bfanch of tbc Tcutonic Order A somewhat he southern prrt a largervaicry ofwrittcn sourccscharaclcrises the earl)' of the eastern Ba ltic o hislory ol Lilhnania. where the centralisedstate had Ilistorical Lithuania startedto take shapeas early as the llth or l2th cen- tur] (Kuncevitius 2000a;Nikzedaitjs 2001). Historical Lithuania.the southernxnd easternpats of the presentcountry, is the only regjon in the eastem Thc inlerprendon ofPrehisroric societyin the eastem Baldc \here the consoli&tion of the statehad taken Bxllic is roorcdin travcllcrs'wrilings lroln theEnhght- placc wilhoul doubr by lhe 1zLhcenlury. Thc deepso (nrl(nrr(r ud.ind. c.pc!ral.)n lsrorraa1d l.rrt.J. cial slradlicalion in these arcas,especially lron1 thc in early BaLtic-Germansrudies. ln the conditjons of lifth to the sixth cenruries,is demonstratedin princely ethnic segregalion,scholars belonging to the Bakic gravesunder bjg burial mounds(Kunceviiius 2000b). Gennan xpper class tendedio depict local ethnicitres The l2thand l3thcenturiessawtheappearanceofvery as somcthingprnnilive andunderdeveloped. Whenna- largc and sonctlncs nulliplc hill-lbns. with adjuslcd tional historf witing was c($l(hcd ;r thc caslBaltlc open scttlcmcnts.Thcsc hill fofts \rcrc pohtical ccD I rd. rour-J.rl,c. ,J "frlh lqrl ..lrJr). rh..(u tres,somclimcs ahcady rncDtioncdin lvrittcn sou.ccs. was acccptcdwith surpisnrgly few qualllicadons.In which thusindica|cd thc I-u.rhcrstralilicxlion of socicty Estonia.however, lhe earlierinlerpretalions have been (Kunce!iaixs 2000a). tumcd upsidedoNn: now the presxned primilive na- lurc ofthc locals dcpiclcd as sonethrngpositive (Ligi Ninrh to l2th-centuryburial cuslomsin centraL,south- cn.ldci{cn ,ol pr(.cflda. Iirh,.and.on.ir loo.) Ho\e\e- !€rerr rtfru:nt.\ r,, Prr\i,.,) t. rookmlch no-e I e-oc forn\ ir T \ i:' dnJT r\ruli: cd of irdividual crcmations.in tbc caslcm part ol lhc basedon the vision oftheir glorious and rvarlikepast. country mainly undcr nrcuDds.Thc artcfactualculturc In bolh cases.thc archacobgicalfacts halc tadilion in thcscareas was ln generalquite honogeneous,with ally bccn uscd for illusraling conccpLslbrmulated on only inlrequenlimpulses or imports from other areas. groundsofhistori.al critclia, and only in lhc vcry lasl There are horse sacrilices,and even separateburials ^f.1'i,.. (rrcrgc,cc fe\i decadeshas afchaeologicalevidence statcd to be rla rclcrro r.1r ol-. u.-io 'e! treatedin iis own right. elirp.r., r,c rr,\.. u r\ .,,1) frii'cl) r.l.rif ment tend to belong to the pedods before the Vking Archaeologicalthougbt about Prchistoric social sys Age (Kulikauskas./ a/. 1961,p.l92r Bliuiiena1992i tcms hasdcvclopcd somc'vh3l divclgendy in difterenl Bcrh(ius 2009; Kuila 2009). ,^.rtclicr nr thcsc crc couniics 1()thc easl ol rhe Ballic sea (Fig. l), bein-s nraliongravcs. which normally lbmr largc ccnelenes, I ll ! linkcd with thc culturalbackgro und and hislory oleach arc quitc honogcDcousand not cspccially abundant, particulaf land. On the olhcr hand.scvcral idc.ts abouL without cle,r indicalors social differenlialion (e.g Prehistoricsocielies have been so generalthatthcy can Beftaiius 2005). 6. J. eas.l)$.rh fl ) pre^rareFL-operl .onm, i:) especiallyas they were envisioncdin thc 1930s. Still, as it is known from wittcD sourccs.by thc carly l31h cenlury. Lirhuarian princes plaled a sirnilicanl ,4. historical approach is stiLl strongly infiuenced nl Jle dr rherop J rl'e b) ,fe1 deepl){rdrrFeo 'or - flaccs by c!ohtionary theorieswhich claim that pre- .'\ T\r) hcrc rr'i/ \ .onrrrndcrrdnJ r.le. in statesocial systemscan bc calcgoriscdaccordnrg b a pcace timc. s4ro posscsscdmuch prop.fty rDd had cenain hierarchy (rbout theorics scc. c.g. Ligi 1995i accumulaled considerable wealth. wliften sources Sna 2002). This makesit unavoidablcto considcrthc from the l31h century connect severalof them with Late Prehistoricnothcm halfof thc castcmBallic as mighty ccDtrcs.and mcntion thcif largc nililary forc socially lcssdcvclopcdwhcD comparcd wilh thesouth- cs (NikzcDtailis 2001). TrvcDtyonc LilhuaDian and crrf:| 'fr\c,,r{JTl.,{L\..rl i,i,rcq.rcrdrof i.ror Zcmaitijan piDccs mcnrioncd in rn xgrccmcnt wrlh supportedmuchby djfferencesft archxcokrgicnlmatc Halich-Volhyniain 1219.nve oflvhom snrgledout a,j rial. Stil1,burjal cusromsamong the linnic speakrng senior prjnces (Nikentailis 2001). By 1245. one of and Baltic-speakinginhabirants of the Lale lron Age 179 then. Mindaugas.was alreadycalled 'the highestking' Centraleaslern Baltic lands: in somedocuments (Ligi 1968,p.37fTi Kiaupa 2000). r; \-4o'rol rfe popul:rro1{je-e. acco'orng ro | ||l'udn.dn Muchless is knownabout Curonian Lale lron Age so- z, historians,ii€e larmersuniled under tenilorial colnlnu' ci€q'. Lalvian and Lithuanian archaeologistsnonnally nitics orficlds. Writtcn sourccsalso mcntion a stratum uscthc nanc Cnroniansonly lbr thc Latc Prehisloric of nelioler, who sooneror laler formed the stmtun of inhabitantsofpresentwestenLithuaniaandthcsouth feudal lords in the Lithuarrianslate (Kiaupa 2000). ernpanofwestern Latvia, whil€ thepresnmably Baltic FinnicnrbabitaDts populaiing thc northcmpart of thc llrgionarc oitcn callcdCuonian Li!s. The inlerprela- tioDofCuronian socicly is bascdon thcconparativell abundantevidencc of the 'real' Curonians.Thc gcn Sonewhat sinilar lincs scem 1o charactcriscdrc dc eral attitudeto the ancientCuronians and their sociely vclopmcnt of social systems in Prehistoric Prussra, ha. beensrronll) Jffe(red b) nflroralron 11( Jp- which consistcdmainly ofthe Sambianpeninsula and proaches.They are regularlycalled'Baltic Vikings, thc adjaccnrcoasial arcas. Abundantly cquippedbud andthe bellicoseside of their societyhas potcntially als with weapons,horses and luxuriousinportcd ilelns hcerurcr refre.e1|.Jr1'he rc, melr ,,f,hiri,,/ulNL\ dppededil rhi. eg:of ir rh. 'ift\ and,i\rl .. ,rJnc.. 2000;Karlina 2006; Asaris e, a1.2008, pp.l29 llTr but thc burial customstumcd back to bcing nore ho Blirjiene 2008: lor J 'oneqhfl cf:ricJlpoin, of \ ie$. moseneousin the Late Viking Age, and especiaLlyin seeSna 2008). the l2th century.VikingAge and lllh to l2th-century burialcustomswere mainly diferent sots ofjndividu- The mostcommon burial places in the LateIron Age alcrcmalion gravcs,while the l2tfi centuryindicaled a arcaofthc BalticCuronians wcrc flat burialgrounds, lum to iDhumationsas a prcvailingburial rite (Kulxkov whercthc distribuiion ofthc crcnationpmcdcerough 1994,pp.l2 ,10). ly fromsouth to noth couldbe considcred to havcbccn a cleartendencyduring the ninth 1o the llth centuries. Basing himself on the decreasingnumber of female Theseindividual burials frequently contained a great burialsin the Late lronAge, the Russianafchaeologist numberofweapons, riding equipment and ornaments, Vladnnir Kulakov believesthat society becameulh- thelattefbolh in maleand female graves (e.9. Slankus nralcly nralc dominatcd.lviih thc cnstomofr!/l?c fo. 1995;Zulkus1991, p.l1; 2000; Bliujiene 1999; 2008). the widorvs of lvariors (Kulakov 1994.pp.l4,1 160). In inhumaliongraves. as they still prevailedin the Basilg himsclf mainly on folklore, Kulakov recon ninth century opposiledirectjons according 10 sex, .ncred rhede\elopmen ofLa e I'rehrsroricfru*'Jn whichwas conmon in Semigallianand especjally Lat societyas that of a theocracy,that js, a social syslem gallianccnetcrics, occuned sporadicallx allhoogh i1 ruled by priests(Kulakov 1994,pp.13.l-160). Accord- wasmore conmon to buryall thedead in onecemetery ing to Iim. archaeologicalproofofthe existenceofa 'holy in thesame direction (Kuljkauskas e/ d/. 1961,pp.3lj0- kingdom is the occunenceofcemeteries wrth 381;Vaitkunskiene 1979). Exceptionally for theBaltic Scandinavianatefacts near trading centres in Kaup culILral,phere. collec.i\e grJ\es $ i.h mixedremJ,n. and Truso. He explains the lack of princely sraves ol tlrcdead were also in use,cremalions in largeburial from this period with data ftom fblklore, accordingto pitshavc been recordcd CuroDiasouth ofthc Rivcr which chiefs and priesls were buricd ln rnaccessible Vcntain thc icnth ccntrry (c.g.Brlodis 1940).IIo\! placesand without arrel-acls. evcr the lnajorityot crcnationsin Curonialion the Thc gravcswirh $,caponsDcar Truso and Kaup c€ascd llth centuryonwards were lbund in smallgrave pits, at thc tum of ihc l lth and l2th centuries,which, as onl) ore ou'rdln each.shrcl re.enblerLre onec r1 Kulakov believes,r'as causedby the facl that, as a fe- ccnralLilbuania. In somccases. burials $,ere tbund in 'r L ot J confl..r$ r.hrhe p1e\L ) uppe-cla(. P-t.(ra1 thetop layersof largecollective grave pits, indicating warriols abandoned their homeland and setlled in easl- theirlater dale (Kulikariskas r/ al. 1961,pp.387388). ernI irhuJniarnd nor-h$esrRLrssra. lhe le$ grd\esr1 Theintroduclion ol crenalionshas been seen by ser- Prussiawit| abundantweapons and other goodsdated eralscholars as indicating the culrural jmpact either of to the period after the llth century belongedto local Scandinaviaor the Prussianarea (Asaris e/ dl 2008, feudal noblemen,the ,rllrgr mentionedin lSth-cen- p.57).Srnce nrnlh io 111h-cen1urycremations in seveF al westLithuanian cemeteries mor. artcfacts,cspccial ly weapons,in comparisonwith inhumatbngraves. v

archaeologistsconsiderthesc to bc theburialsoJmcm Semigallia, Zemaitila and Selon ia bersofmilitary retinueswho bccamcpolitically infiu' entialin Curoniansociety in lhc cighthand ninlb, and Scmigalliaand Zernairijahave often been takcn to- perhapscvcn it tbe sevenlh.centuries (Zulkus 2000: getbel in arcbacologicallerms. Arclaeological cvi- U Bliujiene2006). d€ncein thcsedistricts is similarin many respects, F allhoughsome differences can also bc traced.Late ,--l Anumberofarcbacologists and historians believe that lron Age burialcusroms In Se'nigalliaand Tcmailija statclike formationshad developed in Curoniaby fte wcrecharacterised by flat burialgounds with scvcral l2th ccntury.even though no furtherconsolidation 01- hundredinhumations, laid out in fairly resularrows. 0 o powercould be traced. Thcsc carly states a.e belicvcd Malc andfemale gravcs occuned in thesecemetcrics .l o to have alreadyexistcd in the ninth ccntury,when vithout anyspatial 'lands' logethef, differences.but rhcdircc- five wcrc mentionedin Curoniaby Rimbert lion ofthegravcs of dillerenlsexes was always lbc op- ? the Chroniclcr(Asaris el al. 2008,p.llg). The social posite(KuUkauskas er dl 1961,p.383; A€azis 1992i structurcofthe Curonians,as ii is envisionedby most Vaskeviai[te1992). From rhc l2th certury,the cuslom Latvian and Lithuanianarchacologists, follows thc of crcmalionspread into Scmigallia(Zabiela 1998; samelines as lhat of the otherBaltic peoplesbefore Kunccviiius2000b; Vasiliauskas 2001). The anefact theformation olth€ state.Thc uppcr stratum consislcd malcrialin graveswas comparalivelyhomogeneous, ofrulcrswhose powermighl, al leaslpatly, hivc been so elimesconsisting ol abundantgrave goods. whilc inhcnGd.Tbey were followed in thc socialhierarchy graveswithout atcfacls have also been recordcd. Ir by reri.rr or noblemen.the weallhypeoplc, the fr€e moslcases, grave goods followed strict genderspcci{i- peasants,and dependentpeoplc. The mostimponanl cation(Griciuviene e/ ,/. 2005). decisionswerc laken at aisembliesofthe politicaland economiclcadcrs of a district,which meantthat the Dcspit€the abundantarchacological ev'dence, vcry eldershad to reckonwith othcrstrala in society,and liltlc specialresearch has bcen conducted on thc sub- evenwith rhcfreepeasants. Thc latlerhad topaytaxcs, ject of Semitalial or ZcmJirijrnPrehrsruri( ruci- takeparl in buildingfofiificalions. and do militaryscr cry. Ho$e\er.rh{ I irlrurrrirnarchzeol"tsi', Lainr0 vicein timcsoi conflictand during raids. The stratum Varlkunskienehd" fuhli,hcd an anicle on changcsin ofdependentpcoplc was small, b€causc they were not, thc nilh to sixth-centuryZcmaittan cemetery at Pag- in thebeliefof arohacologisls, economically necessary rybis.wh€re she pointed ort thc suddenmilitarisation They could havc thcir own property,but il was more ofthc socialsystem during this pcnod. She combined advantag€ousto sell them into slavcry(Asaris e/ d/. thisphenomenon wilh thc increasingmale dominancc 2008,p.139fl). and socialhierarchisatbn oi society(Vaitkunskicnc r995). The main administrativeunils mcnlionedin writter sourcesfrom lhc lSth centuryarc bcli€vedto have Thc gen€ralinterpretation of LatePrehistoric socicty beencastl€ districls, comprising farmslcads, a village, in Scmigalliais apparentlybascd mainly on writtcn or severalvillages, with a centrein a castleor a hill- sourccs,which seem to indicatca deeplystratified sys- fort. Severalof thesecastle dislricls formed so-called lcm in a prc-srarecnndilion. wrinen sourcesmcntion landsor carly states,tbe nost ccntralof thembeiDg scvenlands inlabitedby Scmigalliars inthe early l3th iII ! Klaipeda(Asaris el d/.2008,p.140ft). ccnturywith promincnthill-forts tunctioning as politi calccntresfor thatkind ofdistricl. The nost impodant ( lhe nonhcmpan ot lale Prchisr,,ricuronia is rr- hill-foftsaccording 10 writien docuncnts, ofMerotne. cha€oloSicallypoorly investigated. and only a ftaction Tarvctcand Dobele, have also been thorougbly exca- of the resuhshave been publishcd (c.g. Kiwull I 9 I I i vatcd(Jarockis 1998). Sturms1936; Musurevi6s l9?0). Inhumationswcrc common.as well as crenationsunder low moundsof Thc Lithuanianarchacologisr Romas Jarockis suppons sand,in stonegraves or in ffatburialgrounds, ard even thc opinionthat, as a rule, a settlementwas markcd burialsin walcr bodieshave b€en rccorded in Lake onlyby on€cemet€ry and ccmcleri€s can thereforc bc VilkumuiZaat Talsi (Apals et ol 1914,p.181). uscdas indicalorsof habitationin a siiuaiionwherc veryfcw sctllementsare excavated or evenfbund. Ac- cordingto Jarockis,th€ sefllcmcnrpauem in Latelron Agc Semigalliawas comparatively even, with villagcs locatedalong the River Lielupe and irs manytributar-

181 ies(Jarockis 2009)- The settlemcnl pallem lhus seems Estonianhislorian Hcrbcn Ligi (Ligi 1968,pp.4-26). to havebeen modcratcly hicrarchical, supponing the Powerin Latgalliansociety was believed to havebeen generalvisionofScmigallian Late lron Age society as cxcncdthrough assemblies that were callcd for mak- stratif€d.but withoul consolidaling power ing decisionsand passing laws. Tbe upperstrata wcrc formedby eldcn (re'toB), bestmen (nclro,€r), and Howcvcr some historianshav€ suggestedthat the military leaders(dd, ?,'ircsrrs).Thc chroniclemen- princes Semigallian Vestartusand Nameise mentioned tions 'ftiendsand relatives',normally undcrstood as in l3th-centurychronicles could already by thendes- therclainers ofsome scrior. ignatcccntraliscd powcr. They were connected respec- tivelywilh lhc powertuland large hill-forts of Tarvete JanisApals and EvaldsMugurEvids have concludcd and Mciotnc,and Nameise seems to havesucceeded in tbe latcstover,,iew publication ofearly Latvianhis' Vestartusin his positionruling over moreor lessall tory that the terrilory 01-Late Prehistoric Latvia was Semigallianlands (Nikzentaitis200l). anangedaccording to castlcdistricls. which included severalvillases andparishes. They bclicve thathill-fort Th€ Larc Iron Age districtof Seloniawas cultumlly districrswere calfed 'lands' (teta,Iand) in early lSrh- similarto Semigalliaand l-atgale, with rhemain dif- centurywritten sourccs (Apals, Muguravits 200 , fcrenccbcing that the deadwere inhum€dunder largc collectivcmounds- Howevet archaeologicalsit€s in Archacologically,the Largallianswere chanctcnscd S€loniahavc bccn investigated less than in neighbouF by largefiat bunalgrounds wilh inhumalionssinc€ the ingarers. rnd nothin! rpecial abour Prchistoric :ocicly seventhcentury, and moundccmctcdes with similar therehas been published. inhumarionsfrom the endofthc tcnthccntury. Often, severalhundred graves can bc found.cspecially in the first typeofthesc ccmcleries. and only a few ofthem Latgalc do not containat lcaslsone gravegoods. Both male andfemale graves ficquently conlailted abundant sets In the lgth and the early 20th century,Ballic Ccr- ofjewellery,while the omamenttypcs were normally manrcicarchers rnrroduced a \ome*harnaivc villon striclly different for men and womcn. Thc oricntation prc-conquest of socieryin Latgale:highly devclopcd, ol Latgallianinlumations was fixcd firmly with the slatcor slatelikeformations, ofvhich th€ exislcncc headtowards the eastfor a ma[ and thc oppositefor wasviolenlly the interruptedby Crusadcs.Thcir idcas a woman.The percentagcofmalc and femaleburials valid Latvian rcmained amongseve.al archacologislsin on€cemetery was seldom balanccd. rhe number of very (Snc pc- until recenttimes 2005).During the first maleburials nomally clearlyexccedins the female riod ofthe indcpendedstale of theR€public ofLatvia oncs;ri€hly tumishedfemale grav€s were also much rnrhc l92nsanJ lq10r.Ihe marn addrrion rc rhisprc- lesscommon than copiously tumished male brrials ture wAsan cmphasison the democnticcharacter of (c.g. Snorc1987; Apals, Apala 19941Vilcan€ 1996; glance Prchisloricsociely, even ifarlirst it couldsccm Radits1999; Sne 2002, pp.I78-201). 1obc a sonewhatcontradictory view lt wasbclicvcd, for instance,lhata1l Latvians w€re fre€ and equal, both Two of the Latgallianccnctcrics. Nuksa and Kivti, in tcnnsol wcallhand social posiiion. However. there were studiedin $e Sovietperiod and publishedas wasan arislocracy (Henry oflivonia's r?rr()/ra|td i'?c- books(Snor€, Zeids I 957; Snor€I 987).Thc gravcs re- 1/r,'".r,folk-song d/,i), q'hooMcd castlcsand large cordcdat N ksawere divided into four socialgroups, esiat€s,and co'nmanded the :my. On thc olherhand, accordinglo lhegrave goods found in thcm.Thc basic thc historianAwcds Svabe during the interwar p€riod ideas for dividing these groups was. however,taken andcvcn lalcr formationslike ihe principalityofJer- frornHenr/'s Chronicleot Livonia,dcfinins them as sikaal lcaslwcre alrcady characterised by theinherited gravesofr"riors and,relto,"r, tbeirrctainers or oth- powerofa localking in the l2th ccntury(SnE 2005. cr noblcmcn,free peasants, or slaves(Snore, Zcids p.57,and referencet. 1957).Based on the cvidencefrom Kivri cemetery ElviraSnore concludcd thal the ninlh to the t2th can- The intcrprctationthat both early l3lh-century Latvia tury wasa timewhen social stratification de€pened in andEstonia, but especiallyLatvia, could be refered k) socicry(Snore 1987). asbcing in lhcprocessofthe formationoffeudalstruc- turcs,with inhcritcdpowet wasalso supporled by the NeI approacheslo Latgallianl-atc Pr€hisroric society 1fic northernhalf of thc eastern wcrepresenlcd in the 1990smainly by Amis R.rdits. Baltic: Livs lle suggeslcdthar livc socialgroups could be distin- guishcdin cemcrcriesothcr lhan Nukia: he addedn Thc Lat!iannalionalisrlicw in the 1930sheld loapic- O turcoftfie LatePrehistoric Livs ASa poor,savage and 'J group of lcry poor brrials. reprcsentingthe lowesl :r siratumin society.He believcdrhat rhc hienrchical disorganisedg.oup among the moredcveloped Bahic slructurcof Latgalliansociely was rhomboid-shapcdt tribes(Balodis 1938;scc also Sna 1997). However. lat thatis. lhepcrcentage ofpeoplc belonging ro thehigh- er researchershave prcsenrcd a somewhalmorc com, cstand the bw€sl siratawas very snrall (Radits 1999. plicatedvision ofrhcir LatcPrchistoric society. o o pp.tJl-151.p.l74n: lor sirnilrr idcas. scc als,, (nI One of llrc most pronincni archaeologistsdealing o 2002. Radrrthrs !l,o I !.e$ np.l15-164). tre,enred with thc GaujaLivs. but alsowith thc Livs in orher thatthcsociaIdevcloprncnl ftom a tnilitarydemocracy arcrs,wAs Elald Tdoisson,who in tbe 1970spub- I to an carly slatelook placeas earlyas the lllh cen- lishcdhis interprelationof their Latelron Age social tury lhe l2th to lSih-ccnturypnnces ofJcrsiku and systems(Tonisson 1974). IIe bcliev€dthat sorneLiv Kokncswerc probablyalrcady convcried to Eastem clders(r.,rto,r), thosc whose grnves werc narkedby OnloJorChri{:anir). a d rheirbunalgroundc irc ner- hrxuriousweaponry ruled over a groupofmililary rc- therknoM norinvcstigalcd archaeologically. tanrcrsand $ercheads ofdistncts. According 10 Tdnis, Andris Snc has criticiscdintcnsely thc idca ol-the son.social rclations bcNecn rsrlo.r and comn,urcrs emergenceof feudalrelstions and carly stalcfonna, appcaredwhich are slill unclear,but he su8gesteda lions in the lcniroryof pres€nl-dayLah.ia before the cenainsubscwicnce, cven a feudalrclationshrp, es- conqucstin the l3th ccntury(SnE 2002; 2005). He pecinllyin caseswhcre sonre villagcs wcre conneclcd himsclf uscs the tcrms chicfdom andcarlystate. and hc lvithc€nain names ofpeople in writtensources. Bascd believesthat Late lronAgc Latvian soc ieties fluctuated on burialcusloms, Tonisson could also see that lhcre continuallybetwccn these two foms of socialdevclop- .risrcda rrrarumoImiIrary retd'ners whu wer( in onc mcnt.According 1o him. thescchicfdoms wcre barely way or anotherdcpendent on thc ssrto^. He bclievcd slratificdhierarchical slruchrres, with powcrrelalions slavcsfororcd a considerablcpan of socicty.suppod, lfiat rcsemblcdauthority rather than polilical po$er 'rg Ihcec,,rom) in Lhcutper cldss cin'(. \Tnnisi, The socialorganisation in pre-CrusadeLaN-ia could 1971,p.172ft). thereforenol be considercdas feudal,lel nlonedefin Tbe burialcusroms and artcfnct mrtcrial ofthc cauia ing somcfomutions in il asslalcs. Il wasinstead quite Livs were relativelyhomogencous. They practrscd an egalitarian'nilil3ris€dsocicly', as he callsit (Sne both inhunationand rremation,bu1 the Etnainsof 2005;2002, p.465ff). tlrcifdcad wcre always covcred with sandmounds. In Sna uses predorninantlyarchaeological evidcnce inhumarions.qd, lhenre!.rrling cusrom Ihe direcrion for provinghis liew of Latviansociety. He claims was normallyilxed lvith the headtowards rhc nonh that a selllemcntpallem cxpressed cgalitarianism, as (T6nisson1974, pp.38-96; Sna 1997). did burial customs.wherc n€arly all lhe deadwere Liv cemetericsir the hwer rcachcsofthe RiverDau, cquippcdwith at leastsonrc ancfacts as gravegoods. gavademonstralc a diversityof artefactsand ethnic tlc presumesthalcxcavated cemcreries reprcsented the indica(orsunknown in anyolher cast Baltic area. This wholeof ihc population.Snrce lhc Livs andthe Curo- phenom€noncan prob.rbly bc explaincdby theirloca- nianstend to havemore weapons in theirgraves than lion in the neigfibourhoodof the Daugmalehill-fort thc Latgallians.the latterprobably had a lcssbcllicose whichtunctioncd fiom thc LateViking Age until the structurcto thcirsociety. Still, militaryvalues and hc EarlyMedicval period as a prominenltrade centre on rocs,and also weapons as symbols, wcre glorilied. and rhcRi!er Daupa!r (Migi ,I0l1,. Ccmcrene\ kno$n in warfarepnncipally mcanl obtai'ring cconomic valu€s, ihisarca wcre flal burialgrounds! ot to I lesserextenll organisedby thc rulingstrata (Sna 2007). theycoosislcd ofsand mounds with singlcburiats un- derlhcn. lr i$umali r grales.the dead were directcd with theirheads towards the northor northwcst,both in mAleand fernale burials. Although inhumations prc-

I Only rhcinhabilanis ofrhc Rilcr Garja bdrin dndfie lorver reachesoilhe River Daugavar.c includedhcre under thc

I83 vailed,cremation burials were also widcspread, under foreignemimprisoned during plunderingraids (Moora mouds or in burialpits in Ratbunal grounds (Snore 1926,pp.56-71; 1939: Moom et al. 1936,pp.197-2O0). 1996;Zari\a 1988:1997i 2006t Spirgis 2008). This visionof EstoniaoPrehistonc society remaincd An attemplto usethe burialsofthe Livs for dcfining nearlyunchanged up to thc lnlc 1990s.ln rhe 1960s, theirsocialsystem was made by Snein themid-1990s. Mooraand Herbert Ligi classifiedEstonian Lalc lron He suggestedthat itmale graves could bc dividedinto Age societyas beingin the stageof 'formingfeudal fivc. and mal€gravcs into four calegorics,according rclations',with modcralesocial and economicstrali- to how manypieces ofjewellery had been laid in th€ Iication(Ligi, Moora 1964:Ligi 1968;see also Ligi grave{SnE lq97r. Howclcr. rhe somewhal surlnsrng 1968jSelimnd 1974i Jaanits er dt 1982,p.412ff;Kahk, resultwas that for womcr,lhe mostabundant vcrsron Tawcl 1997,p.26ff). Thc greatmajority of Larc lron wasalso the mostcommon, a phenomenonthat was Agc Estonianswere bclieved to have been iicc peas- cxplainedby Snaas indicating the gcnemlly high avcr- ants, alrd a small group of nelnr6 and seniors werc aselevel ofincomcs in Liv socie!'. essentiallydefincd as wealthy peasants.

Accordingto Henryt Chronicle,in theearly l3th cen- Archacologically,Late Iron Age Estoniawas charac- nrrythe Livs pnidtribute 10 thepdnces ofPololsk, but terisedby colle€1ivecrcmation cemeteries, wherc thc no realpnncipalities as in rheLatgallianarea describ€d bonesofseveral dozendcccased were scatteredamong amongthem. ln contrastto theirelhnic Baltic neigh- stoncs,withoul individual burials being narked. Indi- bours,the chieftainsofthe Livs wercmainly refencd vidualcremation gravcs could sometimes be diferenti- ro as senio,s ar,d neliorcs; and although Kaupo, onc atedin Saaremaagravcs, a customthat was probably of theirrulers, was dcscribed as 'likc. kingand eldcr' rootedin \4king Age burialcustorns, with individual (quasi rcx et senior'),his political iniuen€c see'nsto crcmations.There werc also individual cremations un- havebeen very lnnilcd (Vassar Tarvel 197s, p.29). dcrmou.ds in someparts ofeastem Esronia, and in ihe 12thcentury singl€ inhumation cemeteries spread over thewhole mainland part ofihe country.In these,bolh Estonia menand womcn were predominantly buried with their h€adstowards the nofih or thenorthwest. Female buri- Thc interprctafionof LsronianPrehrston( ,ociety 's alswere normally supplied with a consideEblylarger noteworthyfor being characterisedby derogaloryani- amountofmelal gravc goods. tudestowards local peoplc, as was expressed by Baltic Germanand Russianl81h and l9th-centuryscholars. In ihe l2th centuryand up until Christianisation,the Evenin latertimes, th€ national-romanticview offtc prevailingburial cuslomwas, howevcr, int€rmingled Prehisrodcpas! dcfined a visionofit asstrongly egali- cremationsin stonegmves without a formalsl.ucture. tarianand morc or lcssdemocralic,less developed thaD The anefactssludied in thesecemeteries werc usu- mostof its neighbours,but pacilic and hamonious. ally mixedand oftcn badly buml tiagmcnts,and thus sirhourtudher rhoughr believed ro ruppon rhe vision Th€ generalideas ofthc 1920sand 1930ssuggcsled of 'poor' gnvesof cgalitarianvillage inhabitanls (e.g. thal the serrrB and ,nsl,o,er mentionedby Henry of Kustin1962; Sclirand 1974). Howevel the modemIn- LivoDiawere no more than more sensible,perhaps terpretalionof Late lron Agc stone cemeteriesis that also rather wealrhicr men than othcrs, who had becn thesewerc the burial placcs ofsome selected familics, clectedas villagelcaders. However, a morefixed and whilethe majority ofpeople wcrc buried in a way thal hercditaryhierarchy was already developing, especial- did not leavearchacological lraces (c.s. Magi 2002, ly amongthe leadersof largerdistricis (Moora 1926, pp.l25-r37). p.50ft). Strongholds,cvcn the mightieslones, were coDsidereddislrict ccntres, and inierpretedas purely Singleburial complexcs and inhumationgraves indi- military structurcs,built throughthe cooperationof cal€that a largepart of thejewcllery and dress accesso- thevillagers ofa district.Besidc the districllevcl srr- ries were non-genderspecific,and atributes normally rors,power was cxercised lhrough assemblies callcd associatedwith thc othergender sometimes occurred tafaJa4 in whichnor all menbut rhevillage leadeN in bothmale and femalc graves (Magi 2009). participated.Society was strictly patiarchal, and po- lygamousmaniagcs were praclised-Slaves existed. In thc I990s,the archacologistPriit Ligi pur forward but their numbcrswere small, and they were mainly new ideasof PrehisloricEstonian societr, as being deeplystraiificd as earlyas the LatcBronze Age, and r€achingth€ statc-making stag€ ofdevelopment m the l{oman lron Age (Ligi 1995).All furthcr Nrgumenlsin In rccordanccwilh his tnncs. he bclicved thal lhcre 01 his appruacbespri,cccded froln this irilial sratemcnt. had cxisledkingr. rnagnatcs-lhe peasanlryand sla\cs. and featurcsthat did not fit his nerv thcory sere lclt bu1rhal the kings $ere acluallyjusi hcrocs$bo wcrc aside or pLrshedi! with ofteD sonre\rharqLreslionablc morc powertul rhtlnordinary people. lnrportant shArcd Q nrcrhods.Ii,r in.rrn.c.thc ldcL,'ftrinc(l) 'i (\cn iI- problens. likc deinncc or olher miUlarf action. were la dilidunl8nvcs was uxplainedby the $'ell-cst{blishcd discusscdin assemblics ol rll frcc nen ( Aspclin | 885. political structurc.or it s,assilnply prcsunlcdthat sLrch pp.6]-95). In thc l9l0s, Alrrne Nlichril Tallgrcn sug- graveswould be found in the lirlure. gestcdIhat Latc lron Age lrinnish socicly was cgrli- larian. silh connnon oNnershipof land. and wilhoul E The archeologisr V.lter Lrng pointcd Lo possiblc q a any clcar stranrm of an arislocracy (-lrllfren 1931. dral poucf division t hle lron Age Est(nria.which 6 pp.245{l).Thc vision of Prchistoricliinnish socicly can be rraccd.as he bclicled. rn laxation unils ofmid- ? as cgalirarianxnd even prinritive lvas suppoicd b) llrh cenrur)sriuen $rtrces.H( inrerp'cr(dFsronixn Hclmcr Salmo (Sal'no 1951.pp.458-:16,1). A morc hi- hill forts clilc rcsidenccsand taxation ccnlrcs as of enrchieal picturc. charactcriscdby chicllains, a lLtrgc and militdry castle districts. not enlircly as construc- stratunrol liee pcrsanls.and a snall nunrbcrol sla\'cs. ai \rs $idcly (\pre\\(d uon\. iD ecrliLrdiscu\shns $as srsgcstedby Alfred Hackmanand Iilla Ki\ikoski (Lan82002i 2011). (Hackman193Ii. p.180; Kivikoski 1939,p.250i 1961, ln the early 2000s. Marika Miigi. the aLrlhorof lhc p.292). presentarticle. depiclcd lhe socicry on S:'.tremaaas Larc l.on Agc bLr.ialcusroms ft Finl0nd rve.c doDri- lo Viknrg,\ge {nd accoftl- similar Gotland or Swcden. nalcd by cfemalrcns in stonc gralcs withoul a lbr- deliDedit as a terms ol poiilicll rll' ingly chiefdoDrir mal struclure-a grale I'orln similar lo contenrporary tlrropol,'gy.I he l)rl-certuD (flrereri.aorl LRrnari,nr Eslonia. Especinlly in the soulhnesr of lhe cornlry. uherc iDdividualbu.iils conld sonretincsbc Saarcmu inhuN.rlion. both pagan and Christian. was alrerd) followed probrbly indicate a dcc|cning strutificalion widcsprcad.In onc districl. Dura.at lcastthree inhunra- !nd consolidationofpoNcr. espcciallylowards tlle eod lior (duereric.dlled ro lh( liilh lo rh( lirh cenruflcs Prchistory.I bclicve rhat thc systcms.as py- of social are known, and most archacolosicalanalyses of soci- ramidal, with the lop consislirg of elitc hnilies who e1yarc basedon lhcm. were thc only onesburied in slonc gravcs.Tlre strarum ol free pelsants and people \lithout landcd propcdy Thescinhumati r ccneterics are considcrcdIo rcprc might havc been nuch broadcr.Tlerc is no datr on sent common vrllageconrlnunity. Thc societythat is fioq,many slaacsthcre wc.c in l-atc Iron Age Eslo' buricd lhere hrs beendepictcd as coNparativelycgali- nian socicly. bul thcir numbc. Drighl hr\e been cotr- Iaridn.althoughsonle burials $ ereequ ipped wiih clcar- siderablylarger than what lvas believedcarlier (V.]gi ly morc abundantlind asscmblagesthrn olhers(( lete 2002, p.l45ll). Thc position ol women wrs cstirnalcd 1978, D 204fi). l']irkko-Liisr LchlosaloJlilander has rs being cornparalivcly bigh. and society,:' lrhoughbcl- interprclcdthe socicty buricd in the Lristln inhLrmr ligerent.corld have pracliseda mntnlinealdcscendanr tion Lrrn(rcryr! h(ing ol p(r\anr tr:tdcr:.a*uci.l system(Migi 2002, p.l46n 2009). ing it with a possibletur r nrkcl in lhc ncighbourhood (Lehlosalo-Hilandcr1982. p.77ft). Thc inponancc oi tamily burials snh considerableamount grrve a of treaponslo the societyburicd in the inhumationccm- goods, togcther lvilh some olhcr aspccts.enablc us eteriesat Eura was cslimaledlo have becn cssential. to suggcst tha! thc social syslcm on Srarcmaa,but siDcenlany lincs morc wcaponshavc been lbund In probably also in olhcr pans ol Eslonia. had srontsly the (hatr,for inslance.in lhe Birka ccnreterics,lvhich collectivc fcaMes. lt wasa society$ith a wcak or non- allogethcrcontain rpproximately the samenunbcr ot powcr probably existenl ccnlral djvidcd into clans. burjals(Lchtosalo-ljilander | 982. p.63). The clanr consislcd of extcndcd familics. and sonrc clans or hmilies dominatedothcrs (Miigi 20ll) Burials equippedwith signilicantly nmrc goods th.rn othersarc neverthclcssabsent in Late lronAgc archac ological cvidencc in Finland. LchtosaloHilandcr has Ijinland inrerpretedi( this Nay: there did not cxist rcrl chief lains in Late Iron Age Finland, and the highesl nra The firsl picturc ol Late lron Age l-innish societywas tum ol socieq,wrs tbmed lron po\\ erful pcasantsand presenlcdio thc lrtc l91h ccnlury on lhc wave ol ro- lradesmcn (Lehrosalo-Hilrndcr 198,1. pp.i46-351). mantic national visions by Jdrann Rcinhold Aspclm. This vision $as supponcdby most Finoish rcscarch-

185 ersuntil the 1980s.The laryestshatum ir socictywas leadersand their retainers,were organiscdtu the same r5.Lmedro,a\e con.i.lednihccfLd,Jnl. of \dDing way and possesseda similar sott ofpowcr as poten- wealth. The main dccisionswcre nade in assemblies tatesin the wriier's own sociely.Thal way, Henry the :; cd redid,ajr,. in u fi. \ ,ll hrc rrcn, oJ d pdnrcipare.Livonian. the most promincnt infonnani of the early- 3! There were slavesas well, but nor in largc nunbers 13rhcentury easttsaltic, expectedro lind a hierarchj- (e.g. Huune 1983, p.215f0. Lehtosalo-Hilanderalso cal and indivjdualisedsocial organisation,of the sorl poinled to lhe important role of women in Late Pre found in Christian Europe, among lhe inhabitantsof a= hisloric Finnish socieq,,which was indicated by the thc cxstcmBallic. Tlis was obviously easierfor some abundantgrave goods in women's burials (Lchiosalo crhrrcgroup'.Hea.rnbu edr rle.o p-incc'ld,,'.f/i, ;: Hilander 1982.p.78i 1981.pp.300f,346f0. kps) or kinss (konic, rex)to Latgallians,Scmigallians, Curoniansand Lidruanians.The social organisalionof .o. J , he lare.rrre npr u Jefint'Pr(hiJo h ier\ L.ing thc Estoniansand ihe Livs was obviously much more gfaves irk fie €vjdenceof Finnishstone wasmade by S conflrsingtohim.In addilionlo ihe generalser;oruand 22 h Pihlman.Herpoint is that onlymembersoffamilies neliorcs, thetitlc nahiler wasused only once,and even in graves,s4rilc ofthe upperstratum were buried stone the only known high ra*ing social person,the Ljvo- the majoriry of the population werc bnricd tu a way nirn chieftain Kaupo, was called 'a kind of king and that did not leave archaeologicalraccs. Pihlnan be- ctt$' (qua\i rer et senior')(Vassar and Tanel 1975, lieves that the inhabjlalion of Lale Iron Agc Fnnand p.29) was much broaderdlan has been believedso far, and stoDcgavcs only narked solt ofcentral poids in sel- Inter?retationsof Latc Prehistoric society in ditreF tlcmcni. no lnore than about a third ofall the villages enl east Baltic arcas vary as to ihe exact degreesof that exisredin the Late konAge. Societyas suc| was statc making fcalures.We cannot help noticing thal hierarchical,bur, as Pihlmanexpresses it.lhe top ofthc thc areasinhabiied by ethnic Balts have tradilionally hierarchicalslructure $as broad. ln one district. there bccn sccn as reachinga pre-statestage,I'hile the Bal could hav€ been severalleading households, although tic Finns lvcre believedto have been'less developed'. some of thcm could havc dominaledthe othe6 liom The oppositeview hasbccn proposedby Sna,bur it is ri ne rorime She\{li\.d I\ir .la\c^ pl?.eddn irn- somewhatblurred by the fact that hc chose1() consider portant role in thc Latc PrchisloricFinnish economy, ethnicallyheterogenous nrhabitanis in the tenitory of similario 11th-ccnluryNorway, wherefromafifth to a presentLatvia as onc cnlily (SnE 2002), thus inten' third ofinhabilants were believedto have been slaves riorral1 ,r rrrrtcrr onalh 'uopoflingrhe e\olrionaD (Pihlman2003; 2004 and reterences). point ofview ofall human societiesdeveloping along similar lines.

Co mparing different socictics Regardirgcediil re,pe'r. J I'fotlc mcnroled n $ri.- in the eastern B al tic ten documenlsand chroniclcs, cullural background and possiblc affiliation wilh a l-avouite ethnic paradigm Up to quile recenttimes, the view of Late Prehisbic seemsto irfluence the interpretations.At least sone or Early Medieval society has been shapedaccord ethnic Brlts, thc Liftuanians, did manageto establish ing ro thc sanc nould in variouscorniries on the easl rn earlys,a e. u. i appca. $ ||fo r invdoubr In $ri.- coastofthe Baltic Sca,with vicws of the early stateof ten documeds fton the early l3th century.Thc gen- Lithuaniaas the exccption.Thc ideas were sinilar to eral ideaseenstobe that.without foreignintcrvcnlion, those scvcralofier counlriesln the first halfofthe olher erhnic Baltic grcups could soon have reacheda 201hccnlury. The inlerpretationofthe pre-statesociety coherenlsocial organisation,and the samecould have was not basedon real analysesof existing evidence, happenedwithBaltic FinDicgroups in a laterperiod. lot alonc any thcorelicalconslructions, but rather on Archaeologicalburial matcrial tu eastBaltic countries the assumptionthat human socictymusl dclclop eve- la. rrad.rionJll)beer r-eareJeirhLr b) cnp\d'r'rng rywhere along similar lines. the lack orthe abundanceofg.ave goods.Su4rrisingly Howcvcr. evidenceofsocial relationsbased on Medi- enoueh,no obvious clustcrsappcar in this respect.In eval {,ritings is contadictory, and shouldonly be used all lands considc|cd tu this overvie\ t2th-century in conbination with other sources,first ofall archae burial customscharactcrised by a number of cemeter- 'th€ ology. Foreign society. Other', has in most cases ies, and by comparativelyabundanl grave goods, in- beenseen through thc pism oflhe observerkown so- cluding lots ofweapons.No princely graveshavc bcen ciety. Chloniclers assumedthat prgan socielies.lvilh recordedin any olthese areas.Still, a more theorctical approachto burial rites, with an emphasison aspects olher than merely the numbcr ofgr3ve goods,enables 186 usto prcscnta somewhatmore complicatcd vision of Collcctivism vcrsus individuality thesocietv thar is buriedin thcsesraves. The most conspicuousdiffennce when €omparing burialcustomsin theeast Balticregions is theshonage O Reprcse ntativencs s ol indrvrduclgrarc" rn rhc nonhern half uf Iheregron. F However,dre l2th ccnturyin Estoniais characterised ,-t Whencomparing lnte lron Age eastBaltic archaeo- by anincreasing numbcrofindividual, mainly inhuma- logicalmaterial in lhe norlhemand soulhem parts of tion graves,while the grealmajorily of€lite familics the region,the diflerentchamclers of burialcustoms werestill buricdin slonegraves. whcre fie Emainsof o createsa cenainpsychological bias in the assessmentthmilymembcrs lyere completely mixed. The increas- o of rhe6nd,. I rhnicBahs hdd rndrrrdualgrarcs. rn ingnunber of individualgraves mighi refer to changcs largearcas even inhumations, wher€ gravc goods of in socialsystems that graduallysimulat€d those of preservablematerials werc placedintact and subse- theirwcstem and southcm neighbours. More individu- quenllyoften very pleasingto the eye.On the othcr al graveswcrc known in Finland,predoninantly in thc hand,ihe Finnicinhabitanb in thenonhcm halfofthe coastalzones, whcrc overseas contacts with Scandina- eastemBaltic used to burytheir dead cremated, and the vianshad always bccn close. An exceplionamong the gmvegoods were intcnlionally destroycd before being BalticFinnic ethnic groups was thc Livs,who- at ieast gatheredon a p)re,and thus only too oftenmelted in a at theend ofPrehislory, never uscd to burytheir dcad lierce fire. Only a few piecesofsuch distortedartefacts in collectiveslone graves. weredepositeJ In 'ronegra\es. probably follo$ing a sorr of pars pro toto prir.ciple when picking then up Withthc cxceptionofa few pcriodsand afeas, thc Es- liom thepyre site (e.g. Sclirand 1974; Karvonen 1998; loniaosare throughout Pfehistory slrongly expressed M.isi 2002;Mandel 2003i Wickholm, Ranincn 2006). by collectile burial customs.whcrc rhe remainsof Althoughthe anefacl lypcs. as end producrs afterthese lhe dcadnixed in onebig gravc-On lhe contary thc rirual ordeals,may freqLrentlybe rccogoisable.lhesc Scandinavianand Balticneighbous of the Estonrans finds wefe neverconsidered as attractiveas intactar pr:rctiscdindividual burials with abundantly€quipped tefacts.thus easily crcati g athoughtlessinerpretation warriorgraves, slarting fron as early as the end ol' of'poor'graves,and, by extension,of a 'poor'culture. lhe StoneAge. Close mutual ties bctween individuality, expressedin burialrites, wanior idcology,and the Theintcrpretation of socialrelations mirrored in burial slratificationof socialsystems, havc bcen noticed rn customsdepends v€ry much on thc esrimalionof a manycountries, but appea.much carlier thar the l2th givencommunity using a panicularburial ground. In centuryAD (Milgi2007. and rcfcrences). the southernhalfofthe eastEaltic region, cemeterics. offell consistingof hundredsof gravcs.are normally fhere's nodoubr rhar in lhc llrh andl.zrh cenruncr. considcrcdro represenlan enlirevillagc communiiy. weaponsposscsscd a significanceas statussymbols. Similarinterpretations prcvailed earlier in thcnorthem andwardorswcrcheld in highestecm in all areasrn thc half of the easternBaltic as well, but herethey have easternBaltic. Ncvcftheless, the aforcmentioned differ- changcdduring reccrl decades.Both in Estoniaand encesin burialrites tend to indicalethat the actualway in Filtland,it is now presumedthat mcmbers of only the waniorscould practisctheir powersmight h6vc selec(cdfamilies, probably those forming a broader variedFom slrongindividual based and hierarchical upperstratum in tbeir socicties,were buricd in stone socialorganisations in the south,to somewhatlimit€d graves, frcquently €quipped with abundanl grave powerswithin ftamcworks ofcollective clan-based oF goodsthroughourthe l2th ccnlury.How thc rcslof ihe ganisalionin northcrnareas. The latter probably meant populationwas buri€d is nol known,but this degree thateven warlords. who appearedas 'proper'leaders ofposlmortal treatmcntsuggests quite a considerable 1othei. southcmneighbours, or, for instance,Henry socialdifference betwecn the eliteand evcryone else. theLivonian, did nol achrallyposscssrcal power, apan The numberofstone gravcs, and even morc so ofthe from personzlaulhority to torcewishcd-for solurions adefactsfound in them,incr$sed considerably in the rhroughin assemblicsof areaor clanrcprcseniaiives, middleor at the endof thetenth century and the 1llh andparticularly not in questionsthat remained outside and l2tb €entunesform€d the period ofthe mostcon lhc limitsofth€ir powcr,such as militaryactivily. Al- spicuousgave fumishing.This phenomcnoncan be thoushkings and princesin deeplyhierarchical, pre- explainedby the deepeningsocial stratification which stateor earlystatc so€ieties always had to dealwith took placcwithin th€ framcworksofold and already magnatesas well, theirpersonal influcnc€ in decrsron exislingsocial struclures.

187 makingwas presumably many times greater, as wellas ancfacls,associated unexceptionally with the maleor beingsupported by ideology.A somewhatexccpoonal .fcnralcgender, were put in budals,and w€re rhereforc formor 'ocieD p-obzbl, Tarked rhc ir(icnl Prussian:.probablyusedin reallife, it showshow lessesalitarian if we believeKulakov's inteQretations of a onc-limc senderroles presumably were. Drawing parallels wilh waffioraristocracy ruled by priests. phcnomenathal are closer and mor€ familiarto us, dif- .ei ferencesin maleand female dress compared io gender rolesnow and hundred years ago can bc erlough. Cender relations However gender-specificartefacts are not complctely Genderroles are embeddedwithin any given social absentin Latelron AgeEstonian burials. Somejewel- organisationin a manor reflected in one way or an- lcry, such as chain arrangementsand spiral bracclcts, othcrin burialriles, panicularly in lhe composilionof occur predominantlyin femalegraves, while weapons Sravegoods and the mtio ofmale and fcmalcburials. are more chamcterislicof nale graves.The lack of Cornparingditrerent east Baltic rcgions in lhisrcspccl, specificmale jewellery is onc of the fealuresdistin- theconspicuous differenccs bcrwccn thc soulhcmand guishingEstonia ftom its closeslneighboursr all the northcmareas cannot be overlooked.Considering so- abundanljewellery lhat local m€n wore belong€dlo cicly in a broad€rconte{t, these differences iend to similarlypes as what wasused by local women.We conclatcwith olheraspects ofburial customs,differ- can concludcthat, for instance,Latgallian or Lithu- entiatingthese two majorregions. anianmen probablyconsidered il Lmdignified,or at leastimproper, to decoratethemselves with jewcllcry When the pcrccntageof gcndcr-spccilic arlcihcls similartothatofwomen, butthis attitudc did nol cbaF amunt i, tigh. ir rLL-sro I'd\e BUUJ\ dill-ercccs in acteriseancient Estonian socicty. malc andfemale dress, and therefore probably points 10a polarisalionofroles playedby menand women ln Eslonia,as well as in somen€ighbouring countrics in lhc panicularsociety. Although ii cannolbe pointed (cspcciallyBallic Finnic),attribut€s associated with out asa rule,strictly differcniiatcd gcndcrs commonly one gender have somctimcsoccured in graves that referto a male-dominatedsociety whcrc wo'ncn arc includeditems that $'ere nomally associalcdwilh fte subo.dinateto men(e.g. Kent 1999).In theeast Bahic other gender,and where even boncs wcrc somedmes areas,lhisphenomenon charactcriscs mainly thc cthnic biologicallydetemincd for thc othergenderA female Balts,bul it can also,1o a somewharsmaller exlent, chain arrang€rnent,or parts of one, can, for instance, bc appliedto othcrneighbouing peoples, such as fie somctimcsbc found in male gmves,and weaponsare Scandinavians(e.9. lorgensen 1990i Rundkvist 2003). recordedin somefemale gmvcs (M?lgi 2002, pp.77ff). M€nin LalePrehistoric eastBaltic areas wor€ abundanl jewellery,which, for theethnic Balts, always se€ms 10 The cuslomof puttingweapons in womcn'sgraves, havedifered from femal€omaments. The numberof whichar€ otheNise abundantly cquippcd with female jcwellcry unisexartefacts, if they modest(e.g. Bliujicna I999; and otheraltribules, s€ems to characterise Radiqi1999r Snc 2002). prcdominanllyBaltic Finnic burials,but it has also bccn rccordcdsporadically in othernorth Eufopean The completelyinteminglcd burials jn Esronianand areas,such as Birka or in Norway(Arwidsson 1986; Finnishstone graves do not in mostcases €nable us 10 Thalin-Bersman1986). In Latsale ard Scmigallia, differentiateindividuals, let alonedefine their gcndcr. oneexample ofsuch aburialis knownin cach(Radi0s The phenomenonsuggests that similarattitudcs also 1999,p.83; Vaskeviii.te2007).: Pirkko-Liisa Lch- dominatedthe societyliom whichthc funcrdlparlics losalo-Hilanderhas rcponed some weapol|s, including drewtheir attitudes- At thc vcry cndoflhc Prchisloric oneofth€ mostluxuious swords in Finnisharchaeol- period,whenmore inhumations appcarcd on thcsccnc. ogy,in abundantlyequipped fcmrlc gdvcs in Finland the great number of udsex artefactsin thesegravcs (Lehrosalo-Hilander1984, p.402ff), but this custom standsout from the rest multiple jewellery and iypes se€msto have beenpanicularly widespreadin Kare- of accessories,as well as tools,can be found in both : maleand female burials. | find n inportanr ro ditremliate betwen the occurenccs of weaponsin saves tharm olheNise equippcdeilh guves Cullural-anthropologicatpamllels have demonstrated abundant femalc spccific attribuld, and iD that, according ro mosl of fte grave eoods, bclong to that numerousnon gendercdancfacts in gravcschaF a man, but wheretle skclctonhas been biologically actefisesocieties where genderroles are balanccd idcntifiedas lemale.Tle lattercases prcbably illustrate (e.g.Fasan 1991, pp.305426). when mor€differcnt complelelydiflerent socialphenomen. (for somcpossiblc cxplanations.see e.g. Simniakytd 2007). ---

lin (Kochkurkinrlgill. p.92fi).Scvcral Liv rlorrcn evidenccol Ballic Finnicburirls. on the othcrhand, wcreburied logether with a wcapon,nonnally an axe secms1o indicatc comparativcly balanced gendcr roles or n spcar(Tonisson 1974. p.109. labl€s ll. Vl; Magi in theirsocicties. This assumes lhat lvomcn tulfillcd a 2l)02,p.7\ Zatia 2006,tab. l9l. l). weaponsare rolc in thescsocictics thal somehow compensated for U quircwidcsprcad in lamalccrcmalion complcxes on thc suprcmacyof warriorstatus, which is rcfleciedm Fi Saarernaa(Magi 2002. p.77U).1 but becauscof specific othcr sources.Some panicular features in Medieval -.r problemsconcening thc nnalysisof thescgraves. the legislatrcnand iblklore,and parallelswith cultuftl \lcaponsattachment to thc complexcscan always be anthropologicallystudied and archaeologically similar (.is so(ielics.suggcst that rhis role could.in mostprob- o dbilir).b( fro\ ide.lb) d morrihn\.ilJc\ccnr \ystem rn Weaponsin lcmalc gravesdo not neccssarilyindi- c exlcndcdfam ilics (Bhftkvisl 2005.pp. I 82 I 9 I i Mligi possibility catefcnalc waniors.although tlis cannot 2002,p.146; 2009). be cxchrdedeithcr weaponswcre comnonly used as symbolsof powcr.which can also be ftc most.eliablc €xplanationfor their prcsencei0 thc aforcncntroncd D iffere nt socicties in different gravcs.It is obviousthal weaponsin Baltic Finnic cullural sphcres gravcsindicate, as a rule,only thescfemal€ burials- whcreabundant grave goods suggest thc high social An ovenierv ol burial custonrsin differentareas posilionofthe deccasedwoman anyway. Female jcw- ,lernolnraresrhe F'ssihil.r) ro Jr5rrngursh|qn ndjol ellcry in abundanllyequippcd male elravcs may. lbr sphcresofculture in the eastemBahic, chancterised instance,ibllowing a simibr linc of reasoning.sym- by somc*hal dilTerentsocial stnrcturcs. The areas bolisefamily amliation. Thc phcnomcnon may aLso be in}abitcdby lhe rncicnlLivs formeda kind ol trans- explainedin severalotherways, bul lo sumup the nrosl fonrralionzone b€tween thesc two spheres,whcfe the e5scnlialdeJucrron. |l war nor Lons'Jered improplr In burial rites possessedl-catu.cs characlerisric of bolh a padicularsociely ro supplythc deadwith ncmsthat the norlhcmand the southcrnhall of lhc easternBal refenedro thc othcrgcnder. That thc etbnicBalts al- tic.l-heLatgalliar aod Curoniar areas also to a certain Inosrne!\.r pracu\(d such a cusromprobrbly minor, exlcntshowed a blcndof cultual chamcteristics.espc a dilferentidcolosy. and thcrefore also adiverse social cidllyil wer,,ke Inro Jon'idcrdrion rhc crhnrc riruali,'n syslcm.The cngcndercdpolansation of Sravegoods. up to a compl€t€lackofjewellcry (except forbuckles). in malegr3vcs. and a ldckofwcapoDs infenmlegraves, Thc Lalc Prchisloricsocicties ol- the Senigallians. ( alsocharaclcrises the Late PrehistoricScandinavrans /emririjans.Largrllianr and thL'(\ourhcrn) urunr- andseverai other Gennanic socicl ies (e.g. Harke I 992; answere characterised by lhe dominanceoflhc male anda warfior-bascdsocial hierarchy, which probably Jesch1991, pp.l0ll2l ). resemblcdlhat of lhc earlyScandinavian kingdoms. Oncmorc asp€ct can bc notedwhen conparing burial or generallymost contemporary Wesi European coun- customsin differcnteas! Baltic areas. Thc elhnicBalls trics.These kinds of socialrclations were familiar to seemgenerally to havcsurrcndcred more gravc goods chroniclcrslike Hcnrythe Livonian. ln ftesesocicties. to male gravcs.while Late PrehistoricBaltic Finnic carly-lllh centuryGermans knew exactly which pow- TI femaleinhumations rend io showmore metal objects crs1o appeal 10, and could rccordingly also call Lhem thangravcs ol men in thesa'ne cemcterics. This phe- nomenondocs not nevcfthclesspoint to anylhingfinal pcrcenrrgc abuurgcndc. rolrs. Ihe.rar.b.,f x rrlc ,)a) e\cnin Thc la'gc ol rendcr^Fcilic anela('s ir graves very male-dominaledsocicties. bc expresscdlhrougb rnight be consideRdan indicationof strong ihejcwellery of his wifc. malc donrinancein lhese societics,and thereforc presumablyshow thal anccstmldescent was lraced S€veralrcsearchers havc suggeslcd that gcndcrrolcs throughthe patemalline. AlthouSh family affilintion lcndto be in correlationwith socialsystems(e.9. Kcnt wd, probabl\relcvrnr io dll pcoplf.tu$cr relarion- 1999).Gcndcr polarisation in clhnic Baltic societies shipswcre rnainly individual by nature.A strongrela- thus hints at a stronglymal€-domimted or wamo.- tionshipwilh a panicularchicftain or princcwas most centralisedsoci€iy, which fiis wiih th€ interyrctation rclcvantin a wanior'slilc. Thcprince. cven though hc olllh€'r sogty as hicrarchical.rhc archaeologicrldefinitelyhad 1()dcal \rilh mighly reprcsentativcsof ' Fnrmthc distinguishablc compleies, about l0% olau thc his aristocracy.Iook dccisionshimsclf thar $'ere rel, o.cmationburials ofSaaftoe wonenand girls contained cvantto theenthe socicty. somet,?c ofweapon. Warriors and lhe hierarchicsbased on them werc cer- 1989;Carlsson 1990). Ir is alsonot correctto believe tainly importantin northemeast Baltic societicsas that societicswith colleclivepower structures should ' . well, but positionsof powerthere seem to havehad necessarilyd€velop towards nore individual hier- much more collectivechancteristics. Society as a archiesover the courseof tjme. On the contrary,the wholewas undoubtcdly hierarchical and not egalilar- samecollcctivc atlitudeswere obvious in Estonianand ian, as was imaginedand presentedby scholarsrn thc Latvian societiesaffer the conquest:th€ rolc rhal vas- firsthalfoflhe 20thcentury Members ofrhe dominant salsorlhelanded gentry played in thepolitical syslems familieswere etected as represcnlalives ofth€ir clans, ofMedievalLivonia was remarkable, €specially in the chieftainsin peacefultirnes as well aswarlords. Power north€mpart ofEstoria and on the Estonianislands. struc(uresmight havcbccn duplicaled, as ofien hap- pcncdin lhat kind of socicty,and women might bavc hadaccess to someofthem, for example,to somekind Conclusions of council for clan representaiivcs.Some doninant presented familicswcre probablymore influcnlialthan others, Theovcrview in this articleon LatePrehis- but this aulhorityrested upon collective,or family- tonc or carly Medieval,that is, mainly l2th-century bascd,property and powerl and was not directly asso- buial rires and their inrerpretationsuggests at firsr ciatcdwith paniculaf individuals. glancea quitesimilar view of thesesocieties. How- evc! il is obviousthat thc lraditionofhisiory wriling Althoughpower in suchpolitical and socialorgani inLatviaandLithuania tends in mostcases to se€early salionscan be characterisedas collcctive,there werc statesin arcasinlabiled by ethnicBalb, whileEstoni- c€nainlychiefiains elected to administeril. However, anand Finnish archaeologists, at least up to the 1990s, theycould rotate, come f.om diffcrenlruling families, havelalkcdmair y ofegalita.iansocial structures €ven and their authoritywas prcsunablylimited. Whcn as latcas th€ 12thcentury. Although different cultural communicatingwilh potentatesfrom countrieswilh backgroundsand varyingnational identities can bc an inheritedpolitical and economic hierarchy, such as seenbehind these assumptions, it would b€ dificult to Estoniansouthem neighbours or I3th-ccnturyCnlsad- denythat l2th cenlurysocieties in th€cast Baltrc area €rs,this ditrerencc in socialstrucnlres probably caused r€allyseem to havcbccn ditrerent in s€vcmlrespects. s€riousmisDdcrsundings and much ialk at cmsspur- This standFinrcan only be supponedb) d compari- poscs.The chronicler Henry of Livoniaat least,as weu sonofthc archaeologicalevidence. Still, this variation as othcr Crusaders,was clearlyunable to determrne couldmost likely be explained by culturalditrerences, who rulcdsuch societi€s, or who tookthe ultimate de- andnot by differentslages in somekind ofdevelop- menthiefarchy ofhuman societies.

Ahhoughit is pcrhapsincomprehensiblc to someof We can ass€rtthat, at leaslpanly, the varying interpre- its ncighbous,a society\rhich hadcollective power lalionsofLatc Prehistoricsocieties might be caused by slructurescould function succcssfully, and from timc thediffcrent researcb situations.In Estonia and Latvia, ro timccould cooperare $irh ncighbouringretion,. Late Prebistodcsoci€q, has been discussed intensely certainlyno lesseffectively than societieswith inherit- in archacologicalliterature over dlc lasttwo decades. ed hierarchicalstructures, when th€y wcre ftagmented Thesequestions seem lo have attractedmuch less at- into smallerpolitical units. Neilher were their rcchno- lention,al leastin publicalionson archaeologydealing logicalo. economiclcvels nec€ssarily lower than those with ancientSemigallia, Zemaitija or areasthat were of mor€ individual-basedhierarchical syslems; these ruledby the GrandDuchy of Lithuaniain laier cen- aspectswere heavily dependent on factorsother than powcr struclures,even lhough lhc laller also playeda role.A socialorganisation with strongcolleciive tra- ditionsshould definitcly nol be consideredto bc at a Ackno wl edgemcnts lowcr stageof socialdcvclopment, but as a cultural The peculiarity.lf we draw parallelswith Scandinavia, rcscarchwas conductcdwith the support of TaF geaFinanced societieson Collandand Iceland,for exarnple,were ProjectNo SF0l30054sl2of the Eslo- nian Ministry Educalion somewhatdiffclcnt to thosein CentralSwcdenor Den- of and R€search,and cmnt No ETF9027 mark(e.9. Randsborg 1980; Sawyer I 982;llyenstrand from thc EstonianScience Foundalion. CARLSSON,A., I 990.Gorland och Visby nellan vlkingalld o\ och ncdcltid ctl dcbafinniiel Metd. Me.lehi.lla*eola AJch.Baltica ,4,trd?o/ograBrl/Ld (vilnius sincc1995, sjsk tid\ lo i.ft,3. 1- | 5. Klaipedasince 2006) CLEVE. N.. l97rJ Skeletterutaltenpa Kiulohotmi Kjrlo tt. U (vilnius nkikgoti.l ach kotslognid G/?vlitlrei C (Suoden Mulna Lietuvosarch. l.;etur,r,4,rrr"/,sia sincel9?9) F ismuisloyhdistyksenAikakauskirja XLIH 2.) FT FAOAN,B M . l99l ,,lncientNarthl|neicd. Thedr.hdeol os 0fa 0tujnent. New Yo:*. CRICIUVIENI,E , GRIZAS,G., BUZA, 2.. 2005.SEMi APALS.J.. Al,ALA.2.. 1994.Der letlg.llischeKJieSer und gdllians,V-XIrr .ent./,r z'nsalidi Bak\ arche.Iosijot (nach O Kaulham in dcr \Vikingcrcit do Matc alcndcs potDdd Kdtolaqos/The Setnigd idn!. Bolti. Atthdeolagi c GraberfeldesGugeri).1,: P/chistati. Cnres as a \aurt. ,t nl L'hibtion. abla/,s/c. Lieluvosnacionalis nuziejusi c a.f tnlarndtiar Srnpasi"n at Kdnl.isa, Oland, Mar 2l LalvijdsNacionalaisvesturesmuzejs, 2l-1j2. ,J. -1192.Uppsala. 9l- l l-0. HACKM,\N, ,\., 1938. Das Brok.lgfibedel.! ron Prkki AI'ALS, J.. MUGUREVICS,E.,2001. Vebis dzelzslaik l, i, lMAr'r.t.(Suomen Muinaistuuisloyhdisllksen Aika- (agric tr1:Ldrias tenafa mcts viduslaiki)800. )ZOQ.E kauskirj.XLI). Hclsinki. rasnre9 g t prKr 1?r0 g. LatvijaslEsldes instilnLa ARKE.Ir., I992.,4rsehntsis.he lra/fenerabet d.s 5. bis7. apgids.Riea, 290 377. Jdhfiundc s. Zens.htifttt Archiiologiedes Mittelaliers. APALS. J.. ATGAZIS,M.. DAIGA. J., DEryISOVA,I{,, GRAUDONIS.J., LOZE, I., MUCURIV].S, i., STU HODDER,L, 1982.Sr'mlolr in A.|ian. Ne\rStadies h Ar BAVS.A.; SNORT,E.i ZAGORSK]S,I., ZARTNA,A.. .rd!,/,!? Canbridge 1.)11Latuidr PSRafieobtia. RigarZin.he. IIUURRE.M.. l9Nl. 9tra)ilutotta SL.n1e erihistoriaa.llel ARWIDSSON,G., 1986.Hicbmcscr 1r: Atrra / , S)rre ,l ndlFen rl* 35 -37. natische Crtihz,r,z&. Slockholn, I IYENSfB-{N D, A., I 989.lb.ltuar ochStestugox Oti del ASARIS, J., MUIzINIEKS, V, RADqIS, A.] VIRSE.]., tidisa Gotldnrl.Stockholm Archreological lieports. 22. ZtjLRE. L,2008.Kursirerar, e / cauft)nidash,lntiqtir. Liga: LarvljasNacionalais vdstures muzejs. JAANI'IS. 1.. LAUL, S.. LOUGAS.V, I'ONISSON.E.. pdkanluddi ASPELIN.J. R, 1EL5.Suatnen aetkkdat aika- 19826€r,i rsi,la&A, Tallinn ,r. Hchinki. JAROCKIS.R., i998.Scmigallia 1100 1400 Arcvicw ofaF (tefoil) ATGAZIS,M, 1992.FnsI f,nds of lhieeamed cbaeologlcrland bisiorical sources. /,: N. BLOMKVIS'I', nr ,?, Die Kont4kteNis.hen brooches Latvia. Osthatti' .d. Cul rc Cldshar Canprannel TheEutapanidtiaa of kmund Skandinarienin Miu.larer (SttultuBari- Jriihen theBalti SeaArud 11AA - | 4rr,1r. (AclaVlsbyensia Xl). . d Sta.kho I h iehsi a 9. A ctd Uhire B itati s Stackhaln iets is.) Visby,4553 .TAROCKIS,R. 2009.G.aves, plairs and settlenent devel- BALODIS,t. 193E.Latviesu selvesturc.1rr f. BALODIS, opmert Semigallia600 1600AD.1,j J. STAECKER,ed A. TENTELIS,eds.Iatic, rtsr,ru, -1.Riga. |he ru.ption o.f Ma.lieral Eurap. in the Ballir Sea^e- BALODIS,A..I940 Detaldttd Lettland. Upp.al^. sian Papersolthe xlth vith), Srnpoti|n held at (rot BERTASIUS, M., 2tJO5.Maoela. Din Grcihettld Mlel (r.no,e.tnologijo lon.l Uhtttsit!, Irs}r. \risby: Gotland UniveBiry Pres, Lto-",. I Bi'd K.u!. .n\q 243-259, siletas,HumaritariDirt moksl! iirkultct s. JESCH.J., 1991 Wonanin thenk itlsAse. S\tfolk. g.aves, lnd theper- BEPiIASIUS.M.,2009.lrorso sac,ifice. JORGIINS|N, L., 1990. B@[email protected] Gldsery.ircl. Two fome6 ofpublic rituals.,.1/.i ,arL?, I LThehose and Ccneteri.s.fn n ttu Late ItunAse a" Bonihahn (A*eoL ($uldvie\ .ites.and mu in Europeanantiquity bLrial ogist@Studi4, rtl) . Copcnhas.n. militaryald everydaylifc), 305313. Ii{HK, J.. TARVEL,E., 1997. At L.ana11icuistory ol Ih. (Raisiinetpilkapiai. tsLIUJIENE,A., 1992.Ali.tos Z,?rr Bdlti. Caunltirs.(Acra Univesitalis Slockholmrenss. ror 105 I27. 4/c,r?..6- StldiaBallica Stockholmiensia 20.). Stockholm. popaoldlll BLruJIENE, A., 1999. nkikg epa.has kttiilt LA.RLINA.I, 2006.Courodar ship buildiry. navigalion Lcidykla. ,rr4rerrtd. VilDius:Di€medzio aDdcontads irith Scandrnavia..Iri L. BLUE.F. HOCKIR. BLlUJIENE,A.,2006.Role ofthe Curonlansin theEaslem A. ENGLERI eds. C,,,e.1ed hr the Sea.PraceerlinEs proccss Baltic dca. Thc transition iiom thc Lalc Migra- af|he Tekth]ntemdtiahol Slnpasirn oh Baoi an.1Ship (cultural lion Periodlmolhe E.rly VikingAge .specls).1,; ,4rehaealos,Roskil.b 2AU. IStsSA,10. Oxford: oxbo$ M. BERTASIUS.ed. ?|d,irnndtio M\ndi Thetrdnsitian Books.195-l9iJ Ji.an the Ldte Mgtutioh Pet iod ta the EdrU nking,,lge ia KARVO\If\. I.. oo8 D.lib.r-r.l) dd'nrgedobje..s in deIairBdlri.. Kaunas:Kaunas Univesity of Technolog), lronAge denation cemeteries.\!]lh referenceto lhe ob- Dcparhncnlof Philosophyand CultuEl Scienca. I 8l- I 9l tcclsliom thccrcBltion ccmctcres ofYljpii.i in Lietoand BLlU.rlENE,A.. 2008.Trade. *arfare, lootingand hoard- Peiviienienl in Lonpit1 d. Fenbtcandia Archdeolagn:d, ing: attributes of Viking Age contactsacross thc Baltrc xj,313. tn: Partiuni kii" vnatua. Raktu bdja s.lL^Ivlj^s Sea. KENT. S., 1999 Egalitarianisn,equality, and equitable NacionihVcsturesMuzeja raksti, 14. Arhcololiia). Riga, poirer 1ri L. SWEELY,TRACY, ed. Mokilestiig porer 167-t19. Ganrlardnrl tha interyretdtian af po$ar in dfthdeolas. BLOMKVTST.N..200s. TheD6ure4, afthe Bahi. The Londondnd New Yort: Routledge,1048. Re.eptiDn oJ Cdthalic Wand Slneh ik the Eurcped, KIAUPA,2.,2000. The establishmenlofthe stale 1rr Z. North,(AD 1A7t 1225).Leiden, Bosion:Bnll. KIAUPA,J. KIAUPIENE. A KUNCF,VI.IUS,EdS. Z'E

191 Histoty oJ Lithuonio belore 179J. Vjln'us: LilhunEn h- MAGI, M.,201l. Oseland the Danish Kingdom: E-visiting sratuleofHisrory 45 72. Hcnry\ chroniclca.d lhc archacologicalcvidence./rr M. KIVIKOSKI, 8., 1939. Die Eisenzeit in Aurorqu{Cebiet. TAMM, L. XAIJUNDI, K.S. JENSEN(cds), Cn.iadtag SuomenM!inaismuisloyhd;tykscn Aikakauskirja, XLlll. and.hmni.le ||ritins on the ue.lidal AahEl,ontiet: Th. Hehinki. .hbni.te oIHehry olLirokia (edtu I3th c). AshgarePub- KMKOSKI, E., l96l. Sronehesihistotia. Stohen histotia lishing,Il7-141. MANDEL,M.,2003. Z,id,rnaa 5. 13 sajandikdlned.Ikl KIWULL, E., 1911.Gewodreste und B.onzetundcaus EcstiAialoomuuscm. T.tid ajaloo alalt, 5. Tallinn. cinemletlischen Grfiberfelde der jfirgere! Eisenzoitbei MOOTIA,H, 1426.t,,tlJi, I,ntaurnr^6.t i".se^vur' W.ndcn.MiIteiIunBen 2\. l-29. ajal /,: TaftuUlikooli a.keobogiakabineli loimelused, KOCHKURKINA,S.L. 1981. Atheolagicheshe pan),atniki Mar1u. Koreb, Y-XYrL Le lngtul MOORA.H.. 1939.MDislse Eeslilinnused. /ri H. MOORA. KULAKOV Vl., 1994.P/,sr, (T ) 1ru).Moskya cd. MuistseEesti liirused. 19J6. 1938.d. tuintiste tul- KULIKAUSKAS,P., KULIKAUSKIENE.R., TAUTAVI- ehrsed. Ttr!.9-16. CIUS,A., 196l . Lietuvosmheoloaros ',?oj4i. vilnius. MOORA,H., LAID, E., MAGISTE,J., KRUUS.H., 1936. KUNCEVIeTS, 4., 2000a.On rhc cvc of rhc Lithu- Eesti ajaluEt I Etiajahts ja nuishe vabdd$$ 6. anian Sla|e. 1,.. Z. XIATIPA, J. KIAUPIENE. A. KUNCEVIaIUS, eds. The Historr of Lithuania hcJa,ft MUGURIVICS,E., 1970.Nekotorye voprosy ernicheskoy / 79J.Mlnius: Lithunian Insitutc of Historyl8-41 i$rorii Kume v x xrv vv. Ii: vzdimosrEi haltov i KUNCEVIaIUS,A.,2000b- Unions of rheBallic rribes. 1rl ptibahtlskih Jinkov. RjBt,21 3a. Z. KIAUPA. J. KIAUPIENE,A. KUNCEVI.IUS, CdS. NIKZENTATTTS.A., 2001.Zu. r-mgeder Fit6lenschichl in Th! Ht:h'rf [email protected] / "qr Vilniur:LilhuaDrin der baltische.Gesellschaff des 13.Jahrhundcns. /ri M. InsiturcofHistory 33 38. AUNS. cd. ,!ibe.l.ttle? Noveorcd Sryle? Bdltic Rih KURILA, 1.. 2009.Symbolic hore buials in thehon Age CenttulPla..s as Aren^ fur Cuhurul Erlarnterc atd Ur af EastLith\ania. Arch. Bahtca I 1. Thc hosc end m6n 1n hanivtian 11t)U t 440 AD. Tlansa.tio$ af the centEt !.r- Europeanartiquity (woddvlew. bnrial riles, and militar1 el synposiuh of the Cuhate Ctashot Cahptuthiie (CCC) andeveryday life), 242-251. pbj?.| held in Tdlsi Septetubet| 8-2I 1998.ln CCe Pa- KUSTIN.4.. 1962.Randvcrc kivikalmistu Slarcmaal. /rr pcrs.5. Riga,129-136. Multse.l kalned ja aanlerl. ,4rh.alfusilnte kogtrtik . PIHLMAN,S.,2003. Ikivanha nja-rlue v0llantukikohdak- Tallinn.5E-110. si? Kaupunkhsijmti nutakautistataustaa vaslen. /rr L. LANG,V. 2002.vak6 ja linnNpiirkond ecstis.Lisandeid SEPPANEN.ed. rdqz,/.@ pinh tlrennaltu. A*aoloAi muisrsehaldustrukruun unmBele permiselrH.rjumaa sid n.ikiikllrtia liuan hisloriad. /r: ArchacologiaMedii naitel../rr V lng, ed. '(arhr taEonaa ti.i,tald. Uuri- Aevi Fitrlandiae.lX, 27-41. h usi ast6 tushierorhia j a viji nukeslw te k4 une', is estEes - PIHLMAN,S.,2004. veestrljahdys hislonallisn ajan tait ?ir.(Muirasaja leadus, I I ). Tallim, 125'168. rccs? voisiko aincstoja rulkna |oisinkin! Ahoa 66-67/ LANC, V,20ll. Tncelessdeath Missing burials in Bronze 2N2-2003.47,94. and lrc. Age Estonia.,r/ouiah Jotmal oI A,xhaeolo&r. RADINS, A., 1999.10.- /.i. gadrinta sehkapilatCal, apdzi- l5:2, 109-129. rotuja lenttija M Ansttunlotviar etnhkis. so.ialas uh LEHTOSALO,HILANDER,P.-L., t942. Ltittoti !. A A* poliris*as rcshfusjaufijrtui. .rr: Latvijas VasturcsMuzcja ioLcrcm.l RefectingThe Finnish nkineAge So.iery.lnl rak,ni m 5. Arheololija. Rtga. SuomenMui.aismuistoyhdistyksen Aik.kauskirja 8213. RANDSBORC,K., 1980. Ire liking Age ih Dehha*. The Helsinki. .fathation oIa skre. London: Dvkwatlh. LEIITOS,\LO-lllLANDER"P-L.,I984. Kcski-jamydhAis- RUNDKVIST,M.. 2001.aarshal.lcr 2. Studiesof Ldt?Itun alrakansi.Ih: Suomenhiltoria 1. lotroo-Helsinki,250- ,4aeGol/ard. Stockholm. 405. SALMO,H., r952.Satai?rran histotia tl. Rdutakau\i. Pon. LlCl, H.. 1964. Talupoesadekooruited Eesth | 3. Mj ahdisl SAWYER,P H., 1982.-(,,gs a l4kings.Scandihavia dn.1 19.sajakdi alg$eni. T^llin. DurcpeAD 70GI l0A-London and Ncw York. LICI, H., MOORA, H.. 1964.Holaistro i ohtchastwnni, SELIRAND. J., 1974.terrlaste nofuiskonbcd vraleadddl st@inorcdov Pribaltiki v nII veka.K bprcsu o eo!1ikro- setesuhete ldrkdnise perioodil (11. I 3. sajdn.l). Tallinn. |ea i t fe o.1a I n! h oh osc h 4 n i!.'l ^llia. SIMNISKyTE,A., 2007.wcapons in Ircn Age women's LICI, P, 1995.Uhiskondlik6t oldesr Eesrialal hilispronksi- ga\es. Atth. Balti.a,a a[leapons,weapo4r! dr.l Ma|. hl ja muaajaf.ftj Mtinxaja leadus,3- T^ttin, ta2-270. menorian t,,t@tas Kgakeviiit6), 283-29l - MACI, M. 2002. At the Crc$nn ls of SpaceMd ntnc. SlE, e-, lggZ-Sciat srncnresof Livoniansociery in lhe Graw, Chdnging So.ietr and l.leolog, oa S@rcn@ Lare kon ABe (lot eany l3r .cnr\tryl. lh: ,4rkeolosi gth (asel), I 3th centuriesAD. 1r: CCC papc6, 6. Tallinn: nwr Eiinser Ma'td nellan lettis* Nh svNI a*eoloei. VisbyUnive6ity Collea8ue; lnslitute of HistoryTallinn. Cdleborg,183 207. MACI, M., 2007.Collecfviry veBus individualily: th€ waF SNE,L.,2002. S"bi",!,,b" vMa: socialasaoiecibas Artt dor ideolo8y ol Ircn Age bEial rites on Saarcmaa,,.Aur. tuhlatuia ain sluresbeisas. "n Pijga. Balticd E (Wedpoas,Weapohry ahd Man. Ih nenorian y!- SNE,A., 2005.UndeBruding powcr: on the studyof late tautds Kara keyii ius),263-272. prehisloricsocial and poliiical slructur€s in LaNia.1r V MAOI, M., 2009 Abielu, kisnaniseerimineja akulturar- LANG, ed. Iktaarchdeolagid, 1. Cxr rc and Material sioon.Pcrckondlikukoraldusc varascmast ajaloost Ecstis. Culture. Pape6 flon the.frst theoretical sehinat oI th. Aiadne lnks,lX,76-10:1 Bdltic archaeolagins (BASE-3)hel.l ut the University oj t92

,--. ---

na1r,E\torit1, OLtol,cr l7tl119lr, l/l0j Tanu.ltiga.Vil TiN,lNIANli. w'IIMM NN eds.P,?rser. (r,e, Md ol M'ltrer. Dtti B.ittaige at Ld"rle:kurtlt O:lpt!r$.ns. SNE,4..2007wa.lilre.ndpo$sin l.relrehisroncsocicli- U'eissenburgrLard$ranuschan Oslpreu$en, Abteilung esin thclerilory oiLarvia(icnth to 12ftccnturieJ). ,,l,rr. U qJlti.r,t 'U,,p n. w?I,-i.hJV.nt. la a,nnr,n ZULKUS,V,2000. DieVolkefr.ndctune und die westbal- Y!tdutds Ka: dketi a n 6\ 254-262. tendie Inbtclruns der Kurcn ,4rch.Baltica.4.a9-108. - 5\4. ^. 20u^.K-(r \rlrnsr rc,ruri\la,nsp(irs un r(\. ;-.] ttresmiti tr1:Patiirhi kutilt s.ndthi. Rtkstt ttojrhls. ,1: l{cceivcd:28 ljcbrudry20ll:Revised: 4Apnl 20ll: Larlijrs Nacion.l V.yurcs Mu2ejanksli. 14.Arleologi- Acccpred:26 August 20ll - ja.Riga, l8l l9l. 0 SNOR!. r1.,zElDS. t, I957 Nukiihski,b!!il,ik.RiE . Mlrik. MJSi o (il'l/ J SNoRI, E.. lgrl?- lapl/a,tr. Riga. o SNOREj,!.. 1996 DuugavaslibiesiDol.s sala,.a4"a/oir@ Riiiilli516. l0ll0 rullinn w Erlost.tJijd,Xl/Itl. ||t|30. t SIIRCIS,R.,2008. tnl4r?rt\t suktasu *riir \a:irrofitn Einaili marikanuei(arnail.ce u libieiu kulttn^'dttttiha Ddryar! lejk.e 10.-li gadrrrd. Riga:Latvij as VEsturcs lnsiitil. AtSidlt STANKUS.J, 1995.Banduiiu kupinynas. Zt.ra?r d,t/'. BENDRUOMENESIR t2. LAI DOSENA VELYVOJOJE STUPJTIS,E. 1916.Zrr yotg?t.hk hte lel Lire, lti: Ltt^sia RYTU PABALTIJO SeptninonalisAnriqua, X. HelsinIi.25 51. TALLC l{EN, A. M.. 191 1 . .t/one, ntiltaisuts Stoh'e"hts PRIESISTOREJE

THALTNBltRcMAN. 1., 1986. Dic w.rTeng.rbc.von Bitk^. ln: Birka I: 2. S5tehatilthe Arohsen det Ctubu- MARIKAMAGI /idde. Slockholn.5'10. ToNISSON,E.. l9'14.Di. Gatia-l.iwn un.lihtu natd.i.tle Ktllur (t l. .Ih Anfars t3. Jhs.).Ein !)eittuEat On BaI I is.ha, Fii hge!.h ic h I e. lallinr. Santrauka VAITKUNSKILNE.1.. 1979.Cintaliskes klpinynas. rrerr Vel).vosiospricsistores ar ankstln{q viduramriqapz- vAtTKUl.,SKll nl sd,ur Ni, 1., leo5 ftrLfomarn{ d valga,t. y. XII a.. laidojimoapeigos irjq interprctaci clitedunng ftc Middlc hon Agc in Lithuania.,4,trr.dl titu.1.94J06. Jd.kJrp r bJ\o n.InJn)rriibrne.rraipsn)jc. is tirmo VASILIAUSKAS.E.. 2001.XII Xlll r. Zicm8aliulaidoji i\ilg'nio rodobJvu. raniriraipaIasU \isuomenas m.i.rdnor d,t/,.21.VilniDs.135 354. strukhlrosvaizdq. Akivaizdu, kad istorikai,rasydami VASKEVICIT--rT!.I., 1992 Bunal pucLiccsin onc oflhe tradicin9Lietuvos ir Larvijosistorijt iki susiformuo (Dntd.ts Balticrribcs ScmigaUiuDs.r': at tutsth? RuIic janiank,r)\osiom. val,rlbems. nuroJo. tad Iio, vie S.u dx,inq !h. Ld!. hn| Age (S't lzr enhriei Bahi( S.a CanJaftrcc,Lrnd O.tobct25-27. l99l.Lrnd.9t 98 tos buvoapgyventos ctuiniq bnllLl. Tuo ta$u Estijos VASKIVIaIUTi;, L, 2007.scmigallian rrrntr wcrponry ir Suonijosarchcologai. bentjau iki 1990m., nurodo andils reicctionin burialriles in thelifth to lhc l2'i cen netikiXIl a.iarp Siose toritorijose gyvenusiq bendruo- tury AD. '1fth. Bauird.8 (Wedpans.'|eaponrt an.lndn meniqegzistavus egalilarinQ socialing strukt[r4. Nors In rleotoiah r\rdrtas Kazolteriahs), 214-222 skirtingaskultirinis fonasir b€siskirianaiostautincs VASSAR,A.. TARVEL.E.. 1975.Die ostbaltischcn sl,mne lapalybesgaldjo slypeti po siomisauksaiau archeo- ,,nKor,rl lescn dn dc'r,h-.lJnJnJ\.(1.4!g<.{on l im 12.-13.Jahdundcn. Fprti NSr Tca.l6teAkadeethid logq paleiklomispriclaidonris, b[q sunhr nuncigli. ..1',, Toi n. ! ised. Uh i skotnar.dllu sed l, 2G 39. lad XII a. bcndruom(nerryliniame B0ltijos rcgione ii vlLCANll, A., 1996 Visku Maklvas kapulauks(8. 12. tiesubuvo skirtingos keletu aspcktU. Sis porilris gali tltheobkid u En'ost Xwt, t62 tao. ss.). 4/ia. buri rrk paiirelkusarcheologrnr'l tynmq WICKHOLM,A.,RANINIIN, S..2006. The broken pcoplc: s-rindTramd' dcconslructionofpcrso hoodin lron Agc linlnnd.Esro- duomenis.Visgi sic skirtumai,matyt, tureit bnri pa- niakJoumal oIllt."haeologr /0j?,150 166. aiskinamiegzislawsiais kultlriniais skirtumais, o ne ZABIEL.4, C., 1998.Laidosend pagoniSko.jojc Licn'lojc. a^ skiningaistam tikrais bendruomcniU hierarchijos rys- etuyatlrch., 15,351-319. ZARINA.A.. tq88./it'ci aps.,6\ /0 /.i s\ Ri8i. ZARINA.A.. 1997.Katiar tiryotajapicderumicm Salaspils Calimamanyti, kad skirtingaval)'vosios priesistoras Laukskolaskaprlauka (10 13.gt) A lealosijdm [tro- visuomenCsstrukuros interpretacija, gali b i paaiski gtrfiia,nx.91-106. ZULKUS,V, 1991.Die Ptuss.nlnd ihre Nachbahim l. namasusidariusia skirtinsa ryrinejimq situacija. Esti Jaltlause.dnacl ChristiGeburt. /r: V ZULKUS.H -H. ju. ir I .r!,jos arcl,eol,,srrrejeli,er:, rurol e pneii5rorines visNmcnasraidos strukfira buvo intensyviaiapta- r dmaor.\Lr nrdrs dt.em de(imr'nei ,,'.. SIrdip.lyie !.1 aulori teigia,kadjos keLiamosproblcnos neFirauke tyinilojq dimesio,bentjau publikacijosc. kuriose aF cheologtuiaisnetodais tyrinelami senovts Ziemgaros, ,iemairiJo.,r\rr cgondr. kurie \ele.nrai. a krr' trl klauseLietuvos Didti4ai Kunigaikityslei.

VerteAlgirdas Gi.ininkas

t94 KIAIPEDA L]NIVERSITY o\ t-l

() SOCIETIES frl OFTHE PAST: t-IF-r APPROACHES - TO LANDSCAPE, BURIAL CUSTOMS m

AND GRAVEGOODS (, I rrl ts U