Introduction

Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2004, 8, 2

CONTENTS – SISUKORD Special issue on maritime landscapes

Marika Mägi Maritime landscapes: Introduction ...... 93 Merenduslikud maastikud: sissejuhatus ...... 96

Mateusz Bogucki Viking Age ports of trade in Poland ...... 100 Viikingiaegsed kaubasadamad Poolas. Resümee ...... 122

Marika Mägi “… Ships are their main strength.” Harbour sites, arable lands and chieftains on Saaremaa ...... 128 “... Nende suurim jõud on laevad”. Sadamad, põllud ja pealikud Saaremaal. Resümee ...... 155

Kristin Ilves The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology ...... 163 Meremehe perspektiiv maastikuarheoloogias. Resümee ...... 177

Gurly Vedru People on river landscapes ...... 181 Inimesed jõemaastikel. Resümee ...... 198

Abbreviations ...... 201 Lühendid ...... 201

Home page/kodulehekülg: http://www.kirj.ee Full text electronically available in/täistekstid on kättesaadavad andmebaasis: Central and Eastern European Online Library (C.E.E.O.L.)

ISSN 1406-2933 Sõrgadest sarvedeni ja hiirest elevandini. Luu-uurijate rahvusvaheline konverents Tallinnas. Heidi Luik ...... 175

Uus samm Balti koostöö edendamiseks. Valter Lang ...... 179

Eesti ja Soome arheoloogide jätkukoolitusseminar Tartus. Aivar Kriiska ja Mari Lõhmus ...... 182

Kodulehekülg: http://www.kirj.ee/r-arch.htm

ISSN 1406-2933

Estonian Academy Publishers, Kohtu 6, 10130 Tallinn, Estonia Tel (0) 6 454 504, fax (0) 6 466 026, e-mail [email protected]

Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus: Kohtu 6, 10130 Tallinn Tel (0) 6 454 504, faks (0) 6 466 026, e-post [email protected]

Cover designer/kaane kujundaja: Sirje Tooma

Printed by Tallinn Book Printers Ltd, Laki 26, 12915 Tallinn, Estonia Trükitud Tallinna Raamatutrükikojas, Laki 26, 12915 Tallinn

Maritime landscapes: Introduction

This is a thematic issue of the Estonian Journal of Archaeology, dedicated to the settlement archaeology of coastal areas, one-time harbour sites and early urban centres, and to the activities of prehistoric and medieval people on the sea, coasts and riverbanks. Although the main focus will be on the Estonian coast and islands, the coast of present-day Poland on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea has also been taken into consideration. This is the first collection of articles in the framework of the project “Coastal Settlements on Prehistoric and Medieval Saare- maa” (Grant No 5432 of the Estonian Science Foundation), and the settlement archaeology research group of the target-financed project Land, Sea and People: Estonia on its way from the Iron Age to the Medieval period. North-Estonia, West- Estonia and Estonian islands 600–1600 AD in the Institute of History in Tallinn. It is difficult to overestimate the role of maritime activities in the everyday life of people inhabiting coastal areas. In prehistoric times, the activities comprised fishing and seal-hunting, barter and trade, as well as piracy. Nevertheless, agriculture remained the main source of subsistence, and the presence of arable land in the vicinity was vital. In archaeological terms, such lands are marked by dwelling sites, prehistoric graves and cult places, as well as field remains, hill-forts and early stone churches. Maritime activities are primarily indicated by harbour sites and shipwrecks. All these remains mark human impact on the landscape – the cultural landscape. When agrarian activities forming the landscape are complemented with maritime ones, the result can be defined as a maritime cultural landscape. The articles in this issue consider different types of the latter. In Pomerania, the southern coast of the Baltic Sea inhabited by West-Slavic people, a state-like society was formed earlier than in the countries further North. One of the earliest signs of the forthcoming social processes was the appearance of trading ports, emporia, at the end of the 8th century. The latter are described in an article by Polish archaeologist Mateusz Bogucki. His attention is concentrated on the reasons why the trading ports emerged, on the background to their appearance, on the essential role that international trade and social circumstances played in their development. A somewhat surprising circumstance for Estonian archaeologists that appears in Bogucki’s research is the direct connection he makes between the emergence of trading ports and ethnic aspects, more particularly, the spread of the western Slavic population to the shores of the Baltic Sea. In any case, the main criteria for choosing a place for a trading port seem to be universal; 94 Marika Mägi

on the northern coast of Poland, similarly to other areas, naturally well-protected places on the estuary of a river or on a small bay, or at the crossroads of trade routes, were selected for this purpose. Several ports of trade that had started to function in the Viking Age developed into towns in later periods, and still exist today. Whether early urban centres also existed in pre-conquest Estonia, is a matter for debate. It is primarily the development of our larger towns – Tallinn and Tartu – that have been discussed in this respect. A Viking Age or even earlier predecessor of present-day Tallinn was probably the Iru hill-fort with several surrounding settlements. The location of the Iru site complex in a bend of the Pirita River, at the distance of 4 km from the estuary, was clearly a more suitable location for a Viking Age harbour and market place than the place 9 km west- wards where the later medieval town was founded and still stands. The move of harbour sites and trading ports from their former locations to places closer to the coast, where later medieval towns often developed, has been noted in several neighbouring countries. In Bogucki’s article, this pattern of development is expressively illustrated by the abandoning of Truso at the end of the 10th century, while international trade concentrated in Gdańsk instead. Another subject is the connection between international trade and large hill-forts that sometimes comprised hundreds of dwellings. In Pomerania, the hill-forts of Bardy and Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo, in Latvia for instance Daugmale, in Estonia the large 12th century hill-forts Varbola, Pöide and Pada can be cited as the best examples. Early urban centres, though, similar to those that existed on the southern or western coast of the Baltic Sea, have not been found nor excavated in Estonia so far, and the research here is, accordingly, concentrated on smaller harbour sites, which were only of local or regional importance. Maritime landscapes on prehistoric and medieval Saaremaa are the subject of Marika Mägi’s article. The bulk of her article concentrates on methods for detecting earlier harbour sites and on the special connection between harbours and the rest of a cultural landscape. Proceeding from the methods developed with the help of foreign colleagues and building upon local experiences, the first district level prehistoric harbour sites on Saaremaa have now been recorded, and trial excavations have been carried out on some of them. This work has confirmed that Estonian harbour sites often changed their location at the end of the 10th century and also in the 11th century; the Viking Age harbour of Tornimäe, at least, had been abandoned around this time. The most overt reason for this process may be seen in the land mass upheaval, which has strongly influenced the development of northern Baltic coastal areas – old harbours simply became too shallow for ships. Still, parallel processes in Poland and Scandinavia point to probably more complicated, and in any case more comprehensive reasons. In addition to the increased speed of land mass elevation, the 10th–11th centuries were also the time of the appearance of large cargo-carrying ships, as well as the period of thorough changes in social systems and international trade. Introduction 95

Analysing the location of harbour sites on Saaremaa, it is obvious that they can always be found in the vicinity of fertile arable lands. What is more, the symbiosis between arable lands and coastal sea with topographic features suitable for safe landing can be pointed out as essential preconditions for the development of centres. The seaman’s perspective on the coastal landscape, disembarking and finding suitable places, are examined in the article by Kristin Ilves. She maintains that perspectives from land and from sea are equally important for interpreting maritime cultural landscape; the perspective from the side of water requires good knowledge of local waters and seafaring skills; the practical use of a sea vessel could improve the understanding even more. Ilves also emphasizes another, currently under-represented aspect in Estonian archaeological research – the dependence of northern cultural landscapes on seasonal changes. In wintertime, when the coastal sea freezes, water expanse disappears from the minds of coastal inhabitants for months, it being impossible to use water vessels. Inland, the winter landscape also had in many aspects the same effect; the role that winter routes over frozen bodies of water played in local trade even as late as the beginning of the 20th century is well known. Ilves suggests her own terminology for distinguishing landing sites of different types, which is directly connected to ship-building technology. In her opinion, landing sites that can be considered harbours appeared on the coasts of the Baltic Sea only in the 9th–10th centuries, the so-called proto-harbours starting with the 7th century. The term harbour used by Ilves is, accordingly, parallel to Bogucki’s trading ports or emporia. Mägi has used the term harbour/harbour site in a much broader sense, considering the quite limited opportunities to detect harbours or landing places archaeologically. In her article on riverside settlement in North Estonia, Gurly Vedru concentrates on the relationship between man and river. In a broader sense, the article also deals with coastal areas, since the districts under discussion often remain at the distance of only a few kilometres from the North Estonian coast. Settlement, its continuity and/or discontinuity is considered in a longer perspective, from the Mesolithic to medieval periods. Much attention is paid to the settlement shift caused by the invention of agriculture. Vedru emphasizes the continuity of cultural landscapes and the mental connection a community has with places used by its predecessors. Riverbanks, especially the ones near naturally attractive objects like waterfalls, often remained in use after the onset of the farming economy, even if there were no arable lands in the vicinity. In such cases, new living quarters were erected closer to cultivated fields and the old dwelling sites were used for erecting stone graves or as cult places. Even if the former settlements were completely abandoned, people sometimes moved back to live there centuries later. Harbour sites, the connecting points between the land and bodies of water, have their own role to play in the continuity of cultural landscapes, as well as in the impact of landscape objects on local identity. On Saaremaa, like in Scandinavia, 96 Marika Mägi

villages were often founded in the location of late prehistoric harbour sites, even in cases when the coast, as a result of land mass upheaval, was several kilometres away. Sometimes, there was a gap of several centuries between these settlements. Similar development can be suggested on several riverbanks, where river harbours might have existed at one time. The memory of long-ago abandoned prehistoric harbour sites in the local tradition as manor sites or hill-forts also refers to continuity, in this case expressed through the hierarchic interpretation of the landscape. The former function of the site is forgotten while the knowledge of the importance of it on the cultural landscape has remained. Estonian history is directly connected to the geographical location of the country on the Baltic Sea, at the crossroads of international trade routes. Throughout the ages, the everyday life of both the islanders and the inhabitants of coastal districts has been dependent on the sea and the activities connected with it – even when people actually lived several miles away from the coast. The comparatively modest interest in Estonian archaeology as far as the maritime aspect is concerned has probably been caused solely by the political situation in the 20th century. The above-mentioned projects have been called upon to fill this gap in our knowledge, and the first results of this research are presented in this publication.

Marika Mägi

Merenduslikud maastikud: sissejuhatus

Teie ees on Eesti Arheoloogiaajakirja temaatiline erinumber, mis seekord on pühendatud rannaäärsete alade asustusarheoloogiale, kunagistele sadamakohtadele ja varalinnalistele keskustele, muistsete inimeste töödele-tegemistele merel, rannas ja jõekallastel. Ootuspäraselt on põhitähelepanu pööratud Eesti rannikule ja saartele, kuid vaatluse alla on võetud ka tänapäeva Poola rannikuala Lääne- mere lõunakaldal. Tegemist on maastikuarheoloogia-alase uurimisgrupi esimese artiklikogumikuga projekti “Saaremaa rannaasustus muinas- ja keskajal” (Eesti Teadusfondi grant nr 5432) ja Ajaloo Instituudi sihtfinantseeritava teema “Maa, meri ja rahvas: Eesti teel muinasajast keskaega. Põhja-Eesti, Lääne-Eesti ja saarte areng 600–1600 pKr” raames. Rannaaladel elavate inimeste igapäevaelus on merendusliku tegevuse rolli raske ülehinnata. Muinasajal oli see eeskätt kala- ja hülgepüük, kohalik ja rahvusvaheline kaubandus, aga ka röövretklus. Põhitoidus saadi siiski põllumajandu- sest, seepärast paiknesid lähikonnas ka sobivad põllumaad. Viimaseid tähistavad arheoloogi jaoks asulakohad, muistsed kalmed ja kultuspaigad, kunagiste põldude Sissejuhatus 97

jäänused, linnamäed ja varased kivikirikud. Merendusliku tegevuse mälestus- märkideks on peamiselt muistsed sadamakohad ja laevavrakid. Nii ühed kui teised annavad tunnistust inimese mõjust maastikule, kultuurmaastikust. Juhul kui tegemist on agraarse ja merendusliku tegevuse koosmõjuga, võib rääkida meren- duslikust kultuurmaastikust. Käesolevas erinumbris publitseeritud artiklid kes- kenduvadki viimasele. Pomeraanias, lääneslaavlastega asustatud Läänemere lõunarannikul, kujunes riiklik korraldus välja varem kui siinmail. Üheks varaseimaks märgiks toimuvatest ühiskondlikest protsessidest oli kaubasadamate – emporium’ide – teke 8. sajandi lõpul. Viimaseid kirjeldab oma artiklis Poola arheoloog Mateusz Bogucki. Ta pöörab tähelepanu kaubasadamate tekkimise põhjustele, nende arengu tagamaa- dele, rahvusvahelise kaubanduse ja ühiskondlike olude määravale rollile nende kujunemisloos. Eesti arheoloogia jaoks mõjub mõnevõrra üllatuslikult kaubasadamate tekkimise otsene seostamine etniliste oludega, lääneslaavi asustuse levi- misega Läänemere rannikualadele. Kaubasadamate asukoha valiku kriteeriumid näivad siiski olevat universaalsed: ka Poola põhjarannikul valiti selleks eeskätt looduslikult hästi kaitstud koht jõesuudmes või väikese merelahe ääres kaubateede ristumiskohas. Mitmest viikingiajal alguse saanud sadamakohast kujunesid hiljem linnad, mis eksisteerivad tänapäevalgi. On vaieldud varalinnaliste keskuste olemasolu üle vallutuseelses Eestis, eriti puudutab see siinsete suuremate linnade Tallinna ja Tartu arengulugu. Tallinna viikingiaegseks eellaseks on küll pigem Iru linnus koos kõrval asuvate asula- kohtadega. Kompleksi asukoht Pirita jõe käärus, 4 km kaugusel suudmealast, oli viikingiaegseks kaubasadamaks vaieldamatult sobivam kui keskaegne linn 9 km lääne pool. Kaubasadamate nihkumist varasemalt asukohalt n-ö merele lähemale, kuhu seejärel tekkis ka keskaegne linn, on täheldatud ka naabermaades. Bogucki artiklis illustreerib sellist arenguskeemi kõige ilmekamalt Truso mahajätmine 10. sajandi lõpul ning rahvusvahelise kaubanduse kontsentreerumine Gdańskisse. Omaette teema on suurte, vahel sadu eluhooneid mahutanud linnuste seos rahvusvahelise kaubandusega. Pomeraanias on sellisteks näideteks Bardy ja Kołobrzeg- Budzistowo linnus, Lätis Daugmale, Eestis Varbola, Pöide või Pada. Läänemere lõuna- ja läänekalda varalinnalistele keskustele sarnanevaid kohti Eestis siiski kaevatud ei ole ning seepärast keskendub siinne uurimistöö väikse- matele, üksnes piirkondliku tähtsusega sadamakohtadele. Marika Mägi artiklis on võetud vaatluse alla merenduslik maastik muinas- ja varakeskaegsel Saare- maal. Siin on põhitähelepanu pööratud võimalike sadamakohtade väljaselgitamise meetoditele, nende seosele ülejäänud kultuurmaastikuga. Viimasest lähtuvalt on esimesed piirkondliku tähtsusega sadamakohad praeguseks juba leitud ning mõnes on teostatud ka proovikaevamisi. Need on kinnitanud, et siingi muutsid sadamakohad 10. sajandi lõpul või 1000. aasta paiku asukohta. Vähemalt Tornimäe viikingiaegne sadamakoht on just sel ajal maha jäetud. Läänemere põhjaosa ranniku- alade kujunemist tugevasti mõjutanud maatõus pakub siinkohal kõige käega- katsutavama põhjenduse: vana sadam jäi laevadele lihtsalt liialt madalaks. Ometi 98 Marika Mägi

osutavad Poola ja ka Skandinaavia maade paralleelid ilmselt sügavamatele, igal juhul hoopis laiema levikuga põhjustele. Lisaks maatõusule tulid 10. sajandil kasutusele suurema süvisega laevad ning ühiskondlikus korralduses ja rahvusvahelises kaubanduses toimusid põhjalikud muutused. Saaremaa sadamakohtade paiknemises on ilmne, et need asusid viljakamate põllumaade läheduses. Veelgi enam, keskuste kujunemises on olnud vajalikuks eeltingimuseks põllumaade ja sadamakohaks sobiva rannalähedase topograafiaga mere sümbioos. Vaadet rannamaastikule, randumisele ja selleks sobivatele kohta- dele meremehe vaatevinklist valgustab Kristin Ilvese artikkel. Tema arvates on merendusliku kultuurmaastiku mõistmiseks vajalik selle vaatlemine nii maa kui mere poolt, mis omakorda on võimalik üksnes kohalike vete ja meresõiduoskuste hea tundmise ning soovitatavalt veesõiduki olemasolu korral. Ühe Eesti arheoloogias seni vähe uuritud aspektina rõhutab Ilves põhjamaise kultuurmaastiku sõltuvust aastaaegadest – talvel, rannikumere jäätudes, kaob meri rannaelanike elust mitmeks kuuks ning veesõidukite kasutamine muutub võimatuks. Sarnaselt muutub maastik ka sisemaal, taliteede osakaal veel 20. sajandi alguse kohalikus kaubanduses on ajaloolastele hästi teada. Ilves pakub välja omapoolse terminoloogia eri tüüpi randumispaikade erista- miseks, seostades neid otseselt laevaehitusega. Sadamatest Läänemere ruumis võib tema arvates rääkida alates 9.–10. sajandist, nn protosadamatest alates 7. sajandist. Termin sadam on tal seega võrdsustatud Bogucki poolt käsitletud kaubasadamate ehk emporium’idega. Lähtudes võimalusest sadama-, resp randumiskohti arheoloogiliselt maastikul eristada, on Mägi poolt kasutatud mõistet sadam/sadamakoht hoopis laiemas tähenduses. Inimese ja veekogu, seekord küll jõe suhetele keskendub Gurly Vedru Põhja- Eesti jõgede äärset asustust käsitlev artikkel. Laiemas tähenduses on siingi tegemist rannaaladega, merest vahel vaid mõne kilomeetri kaugusele jäävate piirkonda- dega. Asustust, selle järjepidevust ja/või katkemist on vaadeldud pikas perspektiivis: alates mesoliitikumist kuni keskajani. Suur osa autori tähelepanust kesken- dubki põlluharimise kasutuselevõtuga seotud asustusnihkele. Vedru artiklis rõhutatakse kultuurmaastiku järjepidevust, vaimset seost esi- vanemate poolt kasutatud aladega. Jõekaldaid, eriti kui läheduses paiknes mingi looduslikult silmatorkav objekt, näiteks juga, kasutati inimeste poolt pärast viljelus- majandusele üleminekut sageli edasi ka juhul, kui vahetus läheduses sobivaid põllumaid ei leidunud. Otsene elukoht nihkus sellisel juhul küll mujale, põldude lähikonda, vanadesse asulapaikadesse püstitati aga kalmeid või jäid need kasu- tusse kultuskohana. Ka varasema asula ala täielikul hülgamisel pöörduti vahel sajandeid hiljem samasse kohta tagasi. Kultuurmaastiku järjepidevuses, selle elementide seoses kohaliku identitee- diga on oma osa ka sadamakohtadel. Nagu on teada Saaremaal ning näiteks ka Skandinaavias, tekkisid muinasaja lõpu sadamakohtadesse hiljem sageli külad, kuigi meri võis maatõusu tagajärjel olla taandunud juba kilomeetreid eemale. Eri asustusjärkude vahele võis jääda isegi mitme sajandi pikkune paus. Tõenäoliselt Sissejuhatus 99

toimus selline areng ka mitme jõe kallastel, kus mingil ajahetkel võis olla tegu jõesadamaga. Ka ammu maha jäetud ning praegusest rannast kaugele jäävate muistsete sadamakohtade mäletamine kohalikus folklooris mõisakohtade või linna- mägedena viitab järjepidevusele, sedakorda läbi maastiku hierarhilise mõtestamise. Koha kunagine funktsioon on ununenud, teadmine koha olulisusest kultuurmaastikul on aga jäänud. Eesti ajalugu on vahetult seotud geograafilise paiknemisega mere ääres, rahvus- vaheliste kaubateede ristumiskohal. Nii saarte kui ka mandri rannalähedaste alade asukate igapäevaelu on läbi aegade sõltunud merest ning sellega seotud tegevu- sest, isegi kui elati rannast mitmeid kilomeetreid eemal. Et merenduslik aspekt on siinses arheoloogias seni vaid vähest käsitlemist leidnud, on ilmselt 20. sajandi poliitiliste olude süü. Seda tühikut on nüüd asunud täitma eelnimetatud uurimis- projektid, mille esimeseks üllitiseks ongi käesolev erinumber.

Marika Mägi

Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2004, 8, 2, 100–127

Mateusz Bogucki

VIKING AGE PORTS OF TRADE IN POLAND

The article is an overview of the Viking Age ports of trade in the territory of present Poland. The basic theoretical models concerning their emergence and function, as well as their role in society are discussed. The ports of trade, called emporium (pl. emporia) in written sources, existed in the Slavic lands during the 8th–11th centuries, and were the meeting points for merchants. The productive character of the emporia is underscored as well. In this article, the sites are discussed in geographical order. First, in the vicinity of the Odra River, the sites of Wolin, Szczecin and Kamień Pomorski are analysed. The next sites, Bardy and Kołobrzeg, are located in the estuary of the Parsęta River. Finally an overview is given of the research at Puck, Gdańsk and Truso (in the present day Janów Pomorski) in the estuary of the Vistula River. The development of the sites, as well as the most important finds, are discussed. The emergence of the ports of trade in the Slavic lands is considered in a wider context, based on two main models explaining this process.

Artiklis on antud ülevaade viikingiaegsetest kaubasadamatest tänapäeva Poola territooriumil. Käsitletakse peamisi teoreetilisi suundi taoliste sadamakohtade esilekerkimise ja funktsionee- rimise lahtiselgitamisel, samuti on pööratud tähelepanu sellele, milline tähtsus oli neil ühis- konnas tervikuna. Kaubasadamad, mida kirjalikes allikates on nimetatud emporium’ideks (mitm emporia), eksisteerisid slaavlaste poolt asustatud aladel 8.–11. sajandil. Need olid kaupmeeste kokkusaamiskohad, kuid ka käsitöökeskused. Käesolevas artiklis on käsitletud sadamakohad esitatud geograafilises järjestuses. Kõigepealt on analüüsitud Odra jõe suudmealal paiknevaid Wolinit, Szczecinit ja Kamień Pomorskit, seejärel Bardyt ja Kołobrzegi Parsęta jõe suudmes. Viimasena on antud ülevaade Vistula suudmealal asuvate Pucki, Gdański ja Truso (tänapäeval Janów Pomorski) kohta käivatest uurimistöödest. Arutletud on kohtade arengu kui ka sealsete leiumaterjalide üle. Kaubasadamate tekkimist slaavlastega asustatud aladel on vaadeldud laiemas kontekstis ning on esitatud kaks peamist mudelit selle protsessi selgitamiseks.

Mateusz Bogucki, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of Polish Academy of Science, Al. Solidarności 105, 00-140 Warszawa, Poland; [email protected]

In northern Europe, a new type of settlement appeared in the first millennium AD. On the coastal areas as well as in the lower reaches of big rivers, settlements were founded in whose economy traditional agriculture and hunting played a minor role. These new type sites functioned as centres of production, trade, and service Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 101

for merchants and travellers. In archaeological literature, these large settlements, characterised mainly by production and trade activities have been variously termed – emporium, port of trade, early form of town, pre-urban nucleus, incipient town, proto-town, Seehandelsplatz and vik (Clarke & Simms 1985, 672). Their existence was one of the phenomena that distinguishes ancient times from the Early Middle Ages – Viking Age in the northern Europe.1

1. The emergence of the ports of trade

Karl Polanyi, who has treated and defined ports of trade2 in his writings, has suggested that one of the most important characteristic in defining sites is their location (Polanyi 1963, 30–45; 1978, 92–96)3. Ports of trade were situated at the crossroads of trade routes, in most cases in naturally protected places like river estuaries, or on the shores of fjords or bays. A location like that was essential for security. Normally, the ports of trade also marked political, cultural, ethnic, or geographical borders. Security was needed by the local society which feared attacks by large numbers of well-armoured men who were interested in finding loots and slaves. Therefore, the emporia were situated in a so-called “no man’s land”. Another important precondition for an emporium was the protection given by local chieftains. They were bribed with luxury goods, especially weapons of very high quality. Their support was necessary to guarantee peace and safe conditions for trade. Characteristically, cult and religious centres can be found inside emporia or in their vicinity. In many archaic societies, priests possessed strong power over the people, and they were also interested in the profits obtained from trade.4 The temples collected profits not directly from the trade, but in the form of ceremonial payments5 and tributes. Very often the priests were also well-qualified craftsmen,

1 For other criteria for the beginning of the Viking Age, e.g. changes in art, production character, burial customs, or expansion of trade routes and goods transported see Ambrosiani & Clarke 1998, 33–38. It is essential to explain the chronological terminology used in the text. In the Scandinavian archaeology, the Viking Age is dated from the 8th to the middle of the 11th century. Centuries following it are called early Middle Ages. In Central and Eastern Europe (Russia, Poland, Germany) the early Middle Ages are dated from the 6th to the middle of the 12th century. In this text, I use the term early Middle Ages according to the Central European archaeological tradition. 2 In this text, I use both the ports of trade and the Latin word for them emporium/emporia as equivalent terms. 3 Polanyi’s model is concerned with the whole problem of the functioning of specific trade settlements from ancient (Mesopotamia) to modern times (17th-century slave markets in West Africa). Currently only Richard Hodges looks at these phenomena in a broad way, analysing sites from the North Sea to the Near East (Hodges 2000). 4 In the written sources there is a lot of information about temple treasures (Bogucki in press). 5 Here we should mention the Guldgubber (gold foils), e.g. from Sortemuld on Bornholm or Uppåkra in Scania (Watt 1992, 195–227; Thrane 1998, 253–256). 102 Mateusz Bogucki

like the Benedictine monk Theophilus Presbyter, who described the early medieval jewellery techniques in his Diversarum Artium Schedula.6 In the ports of trade, they could sell a lot of their products. Craft working in general was one of the most important activities of the emporia, and usually it developed quite soon into mass production. Tools, weapons, jewellery and other products were distributed both in local and foreign markets. Traces of blacksmithery, horn and amber products, glassmaking, weaving, boat building and other crafts are often recorded in these kind of sites. A vital role in the existence of emporia was played by trade, both long- distance trade and barter of a more local character. The ports of trade were meeting points for merchants from distant lands. The tradesmen could exchange or sell goods directly in the emporia, or just use them for storing their wares temporarily, awaiting further transportation. To make this possible, special storehouses where large amounts of goods could be deposited, were erected in such places.7 At the same time, these ports functioned as markets, where merchants could sell foreign goods and craftsmen could trade their products. People from the local society supplied the places with food, drink and other necessary products. Among the exchange articles, grain and livestock8 were probably of the greatest importance, but the locals could also sell furs, salt, honey, craft products, and other goods. Another important object of trade was slaves. The emporia were places where people from different parts of the Viking world met each other; different economic systems, for example autarkic barter exchange and medieval money markets co-existed there (Dalton 1978, 104–105). Several attempts have been made to sort out a pattern in the emergence of emporia. Although some of them have been heavily criticized because of their high degree of simplification, others can be useful for drawing some guide lines in the general pattern. Some factors can be pointed out as essential for the rise of emporia. Of primary importance is overproduction by the community in the district. Most significant was the increase in agricultural production related to the beginning of rye cultivation. Simultaneously with this came the development of craft skills, especially in blacksmith work, which now provided better and better tools. Any surplus of local products was traded for other goods inaccessible to the area. The second important factor was the consolidation of ethnic relationships, which provided for the strengthening of trans-regional bonds. The population of the community increased. In such a community, people were needed who wanted to, and had the possibility to, take the risk of transacting business. Rulers supported these persons by securing them with a guard, by protecting them and by guaranteeing peace in

6 About Theophilus, his work, and artistic monastery life in the 11th century Germany see Freise 1985. 7 We know them from Denmark in Hedeby or Tissø (Jankuhn 1986; Jørgensen 2003, 177–207). 8 Animal bones and traces of parasites found in Ribe indicate, for instance, that cattle was the main object of trade (Feveile 1994, 91–99; Madsen 1999, 197–202). Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 103

the places of exchange. The community had an organized structure and the technical requirements essential for the exchange of goods, like transport, communication routes, and separate places designed for the exchange. An important factor was the change in social structure, which led to the rise of a powerful and wealthy aristocracy and the consolidation of power in their hands. This top stratum gathered the surplus of production. In eastern and southern countries this resulted in the emergence of hill-fort centres. For the reasons mentioned above, trade contacts with the western part of Europe increased. As a consequence, contacts with the Islamic world were established, which in turn caused special places for the exchange of goods obtained mainly from long-distance trade, to get their start. These factors had different effects in different regions around the Baltic Sea, at the same time bringing about the emergence of a relatively uniform type of trade centres on the coast. Emporia were not suburbia but completely independent settlements, topographically unconnected with the local political-military centres (Herrmann 1991, 160–167; 1995, 57–72; Blomkvist 2001, 21–22). The increase of production and the emergence of trading centres in North Europe was connected with the cultural changes in the European Barbaricum at the end of antiquity and the beginning of the early Middle Ages. This kind of site was widespread over the whole of Europe, from Ireland to Russia. Among them, the areas of activity of the Slavs, the Scandinavians, the Finns and the Balts formed a distinct group around the Baltic Sea (Fig. 1). These places formed a part of a Baltic economic zone in the Viking Age (Małowist 1948, 81–120; Łosiński 2000b, 119–132). One of its most distinctive features was the use of hacked silver scrap as means of payment both in long distance trade and on local markets (Kiersnowski 1960; Hatz 1974; Callmer 1992, 99–108; 1994, 73–93; Hårdh 1996; Bogucki 2004, 49–76). In the early Middle Ages, European post-Roman towns were used mainly as residential sites for aristocracy, as well as for political and ecclesiastical administration. Early urban centres – emporia – may have had a similar function in Scandinavia and other districts around the Baltic Sea. Their growth in the Baltic zone was, as in the rest of Europe, probably connected with the development of central power. In several places in Scandinavia, the important role royal power played in the function of these ports is noteworthy. In other regions, on the other hand, such a relationship cannot be detected. This is true in particular for the Slavonic area, where it is hard to believe that a political power with royal character developed before the 10th century. The first Slavs arrived on the southern costs of the Baltic Sea in the late 6th century, but the real Slavic occupation of the area cannot be dated earlier than the 7th–8th century (Dulinicz 2001, 206–214). Archaeological investigations in the area have indicated that changes in social structure began in the late 8th and early 9th centuries (Łosiński 1994, 101–128; 2000b, 126–127). The concentration of settlements in the 8th century created preconditions for the existence of emporia in the western Slavonic area. In the 104 Mateusz Bogucki

a, g, g,

ņ rö,

sk, ńsk, Puck, 12 13 Bardy- g, 26 Dybsø Fjord, 27 Tissø, 28 Århus, 29 Sebbersund, 30 Kaupan 30 Sebbersund, 29 Århus, 28 Tissø, 27 Fjord, Dybsø g, 26 9 Königsberg/Kaliningrad, 10 Janów Pomorski, 11 Gda 11 Pomorski, Janów 10 Königsberg/Kaliningrad, 9

Pomorski, 15 Szczecin, 16 Wolin, 17 Menzlin-Görke, 18 Ralswiek, 19 Rostock-Dierkow,Gross Strömkendorf, Ralswiek,Menzlin-Görke, 19 20 Wolin, 18 17Szczecin, ń Pomorski, 16 15 Viikingiaegseid sadamakohti ja varalinnalisikeskusi Läänemere-äärsetes maades. Some Viking Age ports and early towns around the Baltic Sea. 1 Staraja Ladoga, 2 Iru-Tallinn, 3 Tornimäe, 4 Daugmale, 5 Grobi 5 Daugmale, 4 Tornimäe, 3 Iru-Tallinn, 2 Ladoga, Staraja 1 Sea. Baltic the towns around early ports and Age Viking Some 6 Palanga, 6 Palanga, 7 Linkuhnen/Rževskoe, 8 Wiskiauten/Mohovoe, 31 Västra Västra 31 Karaby, 32 Uppåkra, Östra 33 Torp, 34 Ystad-Tankbåten, Järrestad, 35 Åhus, 36 Sorte 37 Muld, Köpingsvik, 38 Herreb Hiittinen. 39 48 Stockviken, 47 Bandlundaviken, 46 Bogeviken, 45 Visby, 44 Paviken, 43 Fröjel, 42 Birka, 41 Helgö, 40 1. Joon Fig. 1. Kamie 14 Kołobrzeg, 21 Oldenburg, 22 Hedeby, 23 Dankirke, 24 Ribe, 25 Gudme-Lundebor

Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 105

eastern part of Pomerania, the Balt tribes moved in the Migration Period west- ward from the Pasłęka River line, to the eastern part of the estuary of the Vistula River – Drużno Lake and the Dzierzgoń River. In the course of the following centuries, the Vistula River constituted a political and cultural border between the Slavs and the Prussians. It was indicated by different settlement patterns and in different dynamics of economic and demographic growth (Godłowski 1981, 114). The whole district of Pomerania with socially and politically well-organized tribes became a region of interest for foreign merchants, who came there to exchange their silver and other goods for food, salt and slaves.9 It is impossible to present here all the emporia recorded in the north-western Slavonic area, or to discuss all problems connected to them. I will describe, therefore, only the sites which were situated in the territory of present-day Poland.10 They were situated in three main regions: around the Odra, Parsęta and Vistula Rivers. The land between the Odra and Vistula Rivers was inhabited by Slavic tribes, each politically independent, but still forming one larger tribal community. In written sources, they were called the Pomeranians (Piskorski 2002, 30–99). Their neighbours to the west were the Obodrites, a Slavic ethnic group, while to the east they were the Prussians.

2. The emporia on the territory of present Poland 2.1. The lower reaches of the Odra River

The largest and a most important emporium in the lower reaches of Odra River was Wolin (Fig. 2), which was founded at the crossroads of important trade routes – the river and the sea route (Filipowiak 1999, 61–70; 2000, 152– 155; 2004). The importance of Wolin is underscored by several written sources. Around the 960s, Arab traveller Ibrāhīm ibn Ja’ķūb wrote: „They [people called Wetlaba – the Wolinians] have a huge town by the Ocean. It has twelve gates. It has a port, built of bisected tree trunks. They are fighting with Meško, and their striking force is strong. They do not have a king and they do not allow one

9 The area of the Baltic economic zone in the Slavic lands is defined differently by various authors. Beside North Polabia and Pomerania, some researchers also include Great Poland and Silesia in it, because of the hack silver hoards recorded in these areas. At the same time, the hack silver hoards alone cannot be considered as a proof of the functioning of a specific economic model, based on long distance sea trade. So, the question is Ubi mare finis? I support the ideas of Władysław Łosiński, who suggested that the Baltic economic zone covered predominantly coastal areas and that no unifying features existed between different regions around the Baltic. Each region had its own character (Łosiński 2000b, 119–141). 10 For the rest of the western Slavonic area see Łosiński 1994, 101–128; Dulinicz 1999, 97–110; Müller-Wille 2001, 21–31. The emporia in the Balt Lands are discussed by Bogucki in press. The eastern Slavonic early trade centres are described by Duczko 2004, 60–114. These writings also give references to earlier publications on the same subject. 106 Mateusz Bogucki

Fig. 2. Wolin in the 9th–12th centuries. a settlement, b earliest town, c burial mound, d cremation grave, e pit grave, f fortification, g wreck, h former river bank (Filipowiak 1999). Joon 2. Wolin 9.–12. sajandil. a asulakoht, b varaseim linnaline asula, c kääbas, d põletusmatus, e laibamatus, f kindlustis, g laevavrakk, h varasem jõekallas.

[leader] to provide for them. Their rulers are seniors.”11 In the times of Adam of Bremen, Wolin was called nobilissima civitas. According to Adam, Harald Bluetooth found shelter in Jumne in 986 (II:xxvii; Tschan & Reuter 2002, 72).

11 Free translation by Mateusz Bogucki, according to Kowalski 1946, 50. Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 107

In Scandinavian tradition, there is a tale about brave Jomsvikingar,12 who controlled the waters of the southern Baltic Sea. The history of Wolin created a base for fantastic tales about the incredibly rich town Vineta, which sunk into the sea like the ancient Atlantis, because of the pride and arrogance of its inhabitants. For 12th century writers, it was hard to believe that Wolin, by this time declined, had been one of the biggest towns in the region just 100 years before.13 Wolin did not emerge in an empty spot, like for example Hedeby. It developed from a small village into a big town. Its development was directly linked to its local hinterland. The beginning of Wolin is difficult to recapitulate for various reasons. The most important is that Wolin exists as a town into our times. There- fore, as in other such cases (for example Visby), the archaeological data of its beginning is random. Opinions on the early days of the town vary from document to document. Unfortunately, only a little of the archaeological evidence has been published, and it is, therefore, difficult to prove these theories. Based on the facts known to date, it seems however correct to date the beginning of Wolin to the end of the 8th century, without excluding the possibility of some earlier, 7th–8th century, occupation at the place (Dulinicz 2001, 250–251). The possible earlier occupation probably can not be treated as a centre of production and trade. The development of Wolin into an emporium took place mainly during the period from the 9th to the 11th century. During this time, there co-existed a large complex of different sites – a hill-fort, an early town with rampart, a harbour, several cemeteries, and a pagan temple. The earliest traces indicating the importance of the place date back to the Migration Period. Postholes along the river bank witness constructions built from the mid-5th to the 8th century. Ceramics belonging to the 5th and 6th centuries have been found. Nevertheless the majority of finds were mixed with later, medieval ones. In Karsibór, in the vicinity of Wolin, a hoard of early Byzantine solidi (t.p.q. 491) were found (Ciołek 2003, 163–180). This evidence demonstrates the importance of the region, and stresses the leading role of Wolin among other settlements. Still, the 5th–8th-century site cannot be considered an emporium, let alone an early town (Filipowiak 1999, 61–70; 2004). From the very end of the 8th to the middle of the 10th century, there was a settlement on the left bank of the Dziwna River. Houses recorded there had been built on piles, in horizontal log technique. Finds of iron slag prove the presence of blacksmiths there. In the southern part of the settlement, there had been a large ditch, probably forming part of a defence system, in the first half of the 9th century. The stockade rampart was built in the second half of the 9th century. It surrounded

12 The Jomsvikingasaga has been of scientific interest for a long time (Wachowski 1914). Recent studies are discussed Słupecki 2000, 49–59. 13 This fantastic story is best represented in Helmoldi presbyteri Bozoviensis Chronica Sclavorum (Book I, cap. II), which in large part is based on the Adam of Bremen Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum (Book II: xxii /19/). The whole problem of Jumne-Winieta is discussed by Ryszard Kiersnowski (1950). 108 Mateusz Bogucki

the whole settlement, and stretched directly to the harbour at the river. Harbour constructions were built during 880s to 990s. A street, at right angles to the river, runs directly to a wooden jetty. It was reconstructed twice in every 50 years, between 900 and 995. In the southwestern part of the settlement there was a pagan temple, known from written sources, and next to it a two-roomed building where a small statuette of the god called Światowit was found (Słupecki 1994, 86–89). The two-roomed building was dated by dendrochronology to the year 996 (Ważny 2001, 156). North of the modern town of Wolin, on the southern part of the hill called Silverberg, another settlement with a harbour was detected and dated to the middle of the 9th century. Traces of blacksmithing and goldsmithing as well as of amber and horn working were recorded there. In order to erect wooden houses, timber cut in 906 or 907 had been used in the western part of the settlement. Houses on the river bank were later, dated to the end of the 10th century (Ważny 2001, 157). It was probably the site of a market place. In the beginning of the 10th century, the northern part of the settlement was surrounded by a stockade rampart. Towards the south from the town of Wolin, another settlement arose in the 9th century. By the first half of the 10th century, it had become a part of the earlier town, and surrounded by another rampart. The latter was dated to 904– 924 (Ważny 2001, 157). Both these settlements prospered in the 10th and 11th centuries. Analyses of the wood used for buildings and ramparts in Wolin indicated changes in the exploitation of the physical environment. In the very beginning, the people of Wolin used only local wood from thick forests in the vicinity. By the second half of the 10th century, they had started to use younger and thinner trees from the local forest. In the following years, the Wolinians were forced to import wood from other regions. They turned mainly to the forests south of Szczecin, approximately 50 km from Wolin, where they could again find wood of good quality. Timber was also imported from more distant regions, for instance from the southeastern coasts of the Baltic, probably from the gulf of Gdańsk at a distance of about 300 km (Ważny 2001, 157–159). Beside the archaeological evidence described above, the remains of at least seven shipwrecks were found in Wolin. In addition to whole ships, a great number of fragments were found, often re-used in buildings, ramparts, or harbour constructions. One of the boats had been built in Szlezwik, the district of Lubeka, in the 860s or 870s, and even mended there around 910 AD. The second rebuilding of the boat had been completed in the middle of the 10th century, by that time in Wolin. The boat was also dismantled in Wolin, around the year 966 (Ważny 2001, 160–161). Another significant place in the estuary of the Odra River was Szczecin (Łosiński 2000c, 156–162; Kowalska & Łosiński in press), first mentioned in written sources in 1121 (Fig. 3). The best description of it can be found in the Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 109

Fig. 3. Development phases of Viking Age Szczecin. A about 800, B about 900, C about 1050, D about 1200. a settlement, b fortification, c ditch, d road, e church, f swamp, g stream (Łosiński 1994). Joon 3. Viikingiaegse Szczecini arengufaasid. A ca 800, B ca 900, C ca 1050, D ca 1200. a asulakoht, b kindlustis, c vallikraav, d tee, e kirik, f soo, g jõgi.

third vitae of St. Otto from Bamberg from the middle of the 12th century. The importance of Szczecin was also noted by Arabian writers, who knew the town as Sāsīn/Sādżīn.14 The beginning of Szczecin is in any case earlier than the 12th century. The first settlement was established on the west bank of the Odra River as early as the end of the 8th century. It was located on the Castle Hill, a high, re- used Bronze Age hill-fort, and on the Vegetable Market near the river bank. In the latter location, a stave ship was found in one early occupation layer. The ship had been built in the first half of the 9th century, and repaired during the years 903–907. During excavations on the Castle Hill, several building constructions were found. Houses of the 10th century were built according to a regular street

14 This name was given by Abū’l-Hasan ‘ibn Sa’īd al-Gharnāti who lived in Spain in the 13th century. In his geographical work Kitāb bast al-ard fī tūliha wa’l-ard (The book of the Earth extent in its longitude and latitude), he used some earlier information. Probably from Ibrāhīm ibn Ja’ķūb, he had taken the information about the towns of Lūyānīya (Wolin) and Sāsīn/Sāğīn (Szczecin). There is also a description of the Scandinavian peninsula, called Yazīrat as-Saqlab (island or peninsula of the Slavs), which capital is B.rghādh.mā (Birka?) (Lewicki 1949, 377–378). 110 Mateusz Bogucki

plan. No proof of specialized craft workshops or traces of production were detected. The lack of artefacts like pins, needles and scissors indicate the mainly domestic character of these buildings. In the 10th century the Castle Hill was fortified with a large earthen rampart. Later fortifications also surrounded other parts of the settlement, including the Vegetable Market. In the layers dated to the second half of the 10th and the first half of the 11th century, a large number of iron tools and weapons were found, indicating that a blacksmith had been working there. The real flourishing of crafts in Szczecin can anyhow be observed in later cultural layers, which were dated to the 12th and 13th centuries – a time of prosperity for all Szczecin (Leciejewicz 1962, 117–121). In the Viking Age, Szczecin existed as a town, but never played a very important role in Baltic long-distance trade. Its supremacy in the following centuries can be connected with the decline of Wolin. The third place in the estuary of the Odra River, Kamień Pomorski, entered the scene later than Wolin and Szczecin – the earliest finds there are dated to the 10th century. Archaeological investigation has demonstrated that Kamień Pomorski played an important role mainly in the 12th and 13th centuries. Nevertheless, some single finds suggest that it may have also been a trading place earlier. First of all, a hoard of about 150 coins (t.p.q. 995) should be mentioned. Several late 10th century coins, a bone with runic inscription (fuÞ and kur), and a vessel made of Norwegian soapstone, were found in the occupation layers (Filipowiak 1962, 91–104).15 These finds indicate that Kamień Pomorski was visited by foreign merchants quite early. The character of the earliest phase of this place is a subject for future investigation.

2.2. The district around the Parsęta River

Other important Viking Age centres in Pomerania were situated in the Parsęta River region. According to Władysław Łosiński, the beginning of the Slavic occupation in this region should be dated to the late 6th century. One hundred years later, at the turn of the 8th century, a number of large hill-forts were erected there (Gołańcz Pomorska, Rościęcino, Bardy, Lubiechowo, Trzynik, Rymań). At the end of the 8th century, some of them were abandoned, while several new, smaller hill-forts were built. The latter ones were in use up to the 3rd and 4th quarters of the 9th century (Łosiński 2000a, 14–15). Among the hill-forts of the region, a hill-fort at Bardy with nearby cemetery in Świelubie was dominating. According to Łosiński, the 9th century was the time of change from an autarkic to a market economy model in the Parsęta River region. Some crafts, in particular blacksmithing, were more specialized than the others. The most important sector

15 In addition to this, a Scandinavian reliquary of St. Cordulia, made of antler in the Mammen style around the year 1000 was kept in the cathedral treasury together with later objects; it had probably arrived to Kamień Pomorski in the 12th century (Muhl 1990, 296–332). Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 111

in the economy of this region was the extraction of salt from natural sources. Salt was a very valuable product on both European and Asian medieval markets. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Parsęta region was very often visited by foreign traders. At the hill-forts of Bardy and Kędrzyno, a large number of Arabic dirhams from the beginning of the 9th century have been recorded. Scandinavian graves in the 9th-century cemetery of Świelubie prove the presence of the Scandinavians in these trade centres (Łosiński 2003, 133–139). In the second half of the 9th century, most probably in the 870s or 880s, a change in the development of the hill-fort system can be observed in the Parsęta region. Large hill-forts like Bardy and Kędrzyno were abandoned while several smaller but strongly fortified ones appeared. Only one large hill-fort stayed in use – Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo (Fig. 4). It was a hill-fort with several fortified suburbiums, altogether covering an area of about 25 ha. The depth of the occupation layer on the hill-fort reached 5 m, and the earliest parts of it were dated to the late 8th and the beginning of the 9th centuries. In the end of the 9th century, an area of about 1 ha on the hill-fort was fortified by an earthen and wooden rampart. In the central part of the hill-fort a number of 10th century houses built using wattlework were unearthed. One of the earliest was dated by dendrochronology to 917 while the latest ones had been built after the year 927. A large number of iron items and slag found in the deepest layers indicate the importance of blacksmithing. Still, it was mainly salt extraction that had attracted people to this place.16 The salt extraction was the main reason for the wealth of the district in the 9th–11th century, as well as in later medieval times (Leciejewicz 1962, 140, 157; 2000b, 167–169; Leciejewicz & Rębkowski 2000; Rębkowski 2001). Other crafts were also represented at the hill-fort of Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo. In the 9th century layers, traces of antler and amber carving were found, and a 9th – early 10th century antler workshop was excavated. Between the hill-fort rampart and a small building, almost 1700 pieces of antler were found, mainly raw material but also finished combs and knife handles, as well as semi-finished products. In addition to antler, some amber pieces, together with beads and pendants cut out of this material, were found (Leciejewicz 1962, 144; 2000b, 167–169). It is clearly observable that, as in Wolin, the quality of products deteriorated in the middle of the 11th century when the crafts started to convert to mass production. It is particularly obvious in the decoration and design of combs, which were now greatly simplified. The next important changes on the Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo hill-fort took place at the end of the 10th century. In the 980s, the rampart was rebuilt in a chest technique. This development can probably be connected with the action of the Polish chieftain Mieszko I, who took control of Pomerania. In the year 1000, Bishop Reinbern established a bishopric of Kołobrzeg. This was when mass production in

16 The earliest evidence of Viking Age occupation was recorded on the Salt Island in the estuary of the Parsęta River, and was dated to the 7th–8th centuries. 112 Mateusz Bogucki

Fig. 4. Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo in the 10th century. A hill-fort with open settlement, B salt extraction settlement (Leciejewicz & Rębkowski 2000). Joon 4. Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo 10. sajandil. A linnus koos avaasulaga, B soolatootmisasula.

craft workshops started. The increasing number of finds indicate the intensification of trade activity. In the occupation layer from this period, only a few single coins were found, but near the hill-fort and even in it, two hoards were recorded. One consisted of about 700 dirhems from the 2nd half of the 10th century, the other of about 50 West-European coins from the beginning of the 11th century. The end of the 11th century and the 12th century as a whole may be considered as the most prosperious time of Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo (Leciejewicz 1962, 150; 2000b, 167–169). The importance of the site of this period is well demonstrated through several foreign finds uncovered there during the archaeological excavations.

2.3. The district around the Vistula River

Truso was first described by Wulfstan in the 880s. The first attempts to locate the site were carried out as early as in the 16th century. Still, it was only recently, in 1982, that a large Viking Age settlement was detected near Lake Drużno in Janów Pomorski (Fig. 5). By now, there is no doubt that the settlement really is Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 113

Fig. 5. Truso, present-day Janów Pomorski (Jagodziński 2000b). Joon 5. Truso, tänapäeval Janów Pomorski.

Wulfstan’s Truso. The site, with an area of about 15 ha, is situated on the eastern bank of Lake Drużno (Jagodziński & Kasprzycka 1991, 696–715; Jagodziński 2000a, 41–56; 2000b, 170–174). The settlement had been established directly on the bank of the former bay and had probably been surrounded by a semi-circular rampart. A little stream flowed through the centre of the settlement. Buildings uncovered at the site had been constructed in wattle, palisade, and horizontal log techniques. The majority of the buildings were in the Scandinavian tradition – divided into three parts. Additional buildings were very often attached to the main one, forming isolated cottages. The houses in Truso had been built on a regular plan, and separated by streets. During archaeological excavations, some ditches arranged in regular intervals were found. Their function was probably to separate neighbouring plots. There was presumably no special construction on the seashore of Truso, and ships visiting the place landed directly on the sand,17 as in the earliest phase of the emporium of Dorestad. Wrecks of several ships were found lying directly in the sand.

17 This suggestion is based on excavation results (Jagodziński & Kasprzycka 1991, 696–715). In March 2004, Sebastian Brather from the University of Freiburg conducted a geophysical investigation. The current results, together with the analyses of aerial photographs indicate the possibility that there were port basins for ships in Truso, which were in some way similar to these in Ralswiek on the island of Rügen. Still, their existence and character needs future investigation and analysis. 114 Mateusz Bogucki

The size and location of the rampart in Truso needs additional investigation. Different data suggest that the emporium was surrounded by a semi-circular rampart very similar to the one known from Hedeby. Remains of a tower were uncovered during the excavations. The tower had perhaps formed a part of the defence system, especially considering its width – 10 m. Inside the tower, a sword pommel of X type (Petersen 1919) was found. Historical maps indicate that the rest of the Viking Age rampart was destroyed during the construction of a rail- way, which today crosses the settlement. Aerial photographs suggest furthermore that there could have been a fosse surrounding Truso. In the settlement at Truso/Janów Pomorski many traces of production activities and of craftsmen’s workshops were detected. Blacksmithing seems to have been the most important line of production, as indicated by several iron bars, semi- fabricated and finished products. Amber working was very intensive – by now, more than 10 kg of raw material, semi-finished products, and finished artefacts (e. g. beads, amulets, hnefatafl game stones) have been found. Remains of comb making, glass working, weaving, boat building (hundreds of iron nails, rivets and paddings) were abundantly recorded; of no less importance was the goldsmithery. A great variety of tools, such as small hammers, anvils, chisels and files, melting pots (one with semi-melted dirhems), clay moulds for oval brooches, as well as production refuse and finished ornaments of mainly Scandinavian types should also be mentioned among the find material. Fragments of 322 Arabic, 4 West European coins, pieces of scales and about 300 weights of different types may all be considered as evidence of trade activity in the area. The analysis of the find material dated the settlement at Truso/Janów Pomorski to a period from the end of the 8th until the beginning of the 11th century, but the majority of finds belonged to the 9th–10th centuries. The comparison of artefact chronology with the stratigraphy of the site suggests that the start of Truso may be dated further back than seen in the find material. The earliest layer contained traces of buildings but almost no metal finds. This can be interpreted as the first phase of occupation of this area by Scandinavian (?) settlers, at the time when the whole site was arranged into plots. In my opinion, the beginning of Truso should be dated to the 4th quarter of the 8th century. The artefacts from the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th centuries were brought to the settlement in the first decades of the 9th century, when it was already a well-functioning emporium. The end of Truso as an emporium should be dated to the middle or the third quarter of the 10th century. Only a few finds (combs, weights, a spur) can be dated to the beginning of the 11th century. In the middle of the 10th century, a strong political power, probably of Piast origin, dominated in the delta of the Vistula River, in the vicinity of Gdańsk. It is quite possible that the new power tried to control international trade in the whole region, succeeded in destroying Truso, and redirected the main trade routes to Gdańsk. At the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th centuries, some people were still living in the old centre of Truso; the place, however, had lost its international commercial importance. Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 115

The underwater site at Puck in the estuary of the Vistula River has often been described as an emporium but is rather a supporting local market. On the basis of ceramic and radiocarbon analyses, it has been dated to the 6th century. This interpretation is strengthened by a hoard of five solidi (t.p.q. 467 AD) uncovered in the nearest region. In the vicinity of Puck, two other hoards of solidi, one in Władysławowo-Wielka Wieś, and the other in Połchowo, were found as well as some single coins (Ciołek 2003, 163–180). The character of find material recorded in Puck is, however, unclear. On the bottom of a bay, about 300–500 metres from the present coast, a large harbour construction of wood and stone was detected, and dated to the Viking Age because of ceramics found there (Fig. 6; Stępień 1984, 311–321; Zbierski 1985, 124; Pomian et al 1997; Stępień 1998, 36–54). The preserved construction consisted of three parts: eastern, middle and western. The earliest was probably the western part, which was connected with the middle one by a bridge. The majority of the construction had been made of large wooden posts, dug into the ground. The pier had been built of wooden boxes with average measurements of 4 × 5 m (Stępień 1998, 40–41). In other parts, 2 × 2 m large wooden boxes were filled with bark, sticks, straw and stones. Some of the boxes were covered with stones.

Fig. 6. Harbour constructions in Puck (Stępień 1998). Joon 6. Sadamaehitised Puckis. 116 Mateusz Bogucki

In addition to this, a part of a house and some shipwrecks were found at Puck (Stępień 1998, 42–50). The place is also dated by dendrochronological analyses, taken from altogether 154 samples. The earliest samples dated the house to the second half of the 13th century and the harbour from the first half of the 10th century until the middle of the 14th century. Both places were most intensively used during the 13th century (Ważny 1999, 43, tab. 3). Shipwrecks found nearby were dated mainly by 14C analyses, and the earliest of them belonged to the second half of the 7th century. Two other wrecks were dated to around 950 and 1245 (Stępień 1998, 45). Only one wreck was dated dendrochronologically – it proved to have been build after the year 1216, and repaired around 1329–30 (Ważny 1999, 60, Fig. 18). As demonstrated above, almost all dates to the 7th–9th century have been obtained by 14C and ceramic analyses, which are not supported by any dendrochronological dates. For that reason, the existence of an emporium in Viking Age Puck appears less likely. First, no finds characteristic of international Baltic trade have been recorded in the nearest region. The prosperity of Puck took place during the 12th and 13th centuries. It is possible that three medieval phases in the development of Puck can be distinguished. The earliest, indicated only by two shipwrecks, can reflect a tribal organisation of local society. The next would be the time of decline, probably connected with the political influence of the Polish Piast dynasty in the Gdańsk Gulf region in the late 10th and 11th centuries. The third phase was the re-birth of the port during the 12th and 13th centuries. Still, the later port can hardly be considered as a successor to the earlier harbour; it should rather be connected with the growth of Gdańsk, the centre of the Piast dynasty administration in eastern Pommern, in the 11th and 12th centuries (Buko 2004). The date of the first Gdańsk and its development has been the subject of many years of investigation (Fig. 7). As the earliest part of the town is believed to have been at the place of the Town Hall and the Long Market, where Andrzej Zbierski has detected a 9th-century settlement. The site was interpreted as a port and trade settlement (Zbierski 1978, 79–81; Paner 1998, 113). It was generally accepted that the main part of the town, as well as a hill-fort between the arms of the Motława and the Vistula Rivers was built by the Piast dynasty, probably in 970s. During archaeological excavations, 17 occupation layers were distinguished, some of them dated to the period from 970–980s up to 1308 AD, when Gdańsk was conquered and burned down by the Teutonic Order (Paner 1998, 112). North of the hill-fort, near the later churches of St. Nicolas and St. Catharine, was the second oldest part of Gdańsk. From 980s to 1140s, a market place was situated there. In the catacombs of St. Nicolas church, a burnt-down construction of wood and stone was found. Parts of fortifications dated to before 1200 were detected in the same place. Some scholars have suggested that the fortifications originally surrounded the market; others believe that the remains can be defined as a second hill-fort at Gdańsk. Whatever the case, the fortification was destroyed in the end of the 11th century, most probably during the wars in Pomerania in the Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 117

Fig. 7. Gdańsk. G Piast Dynasty hill-fort in about 980–1308, L medieval town, M harbour and craft district in about 1150, T market place near St. Nicolas church, O 9th-century fortified harbour settlement, P 10th–12th-century fortified trade settlement (Paner 1998). Joon 7. Gdańsk. G Piasti dünastia linnus ca 980–1308, L keskaegne linn, M sadam ja käsitööliste piirkond ca 1150, T Püha Nikolause kiriku kõrval olev turukoht, O 9. sajandi kindlustatud sadamakoht, P 10.–12. sajandi kindlustatud kauplemiskoht.

time of the rule of Władysław Herman. Northwards from St. Nicolas church, some traces of a pier, with a 12th-century jetty leading to the market, were uncovered. The archaeological data, collected from different parts of Gdańsk, is often fragmentary and interpreted in different ways. In the opinion of some researchers, each of the above mentioned settlement layers had a different character and its own fortifications. They emphasize that different parts of the town were subject to different laws: Lübeck or Polish. Other scholars suggest different phases of development: a tribal port in the 9th–10th centuries, a hill-fort next to the Town Hall since the 10th century, and finally the Piast hill-fort near the Motława River from the end of the 10th century. Nevertheless, none of these hypotheses can be proven without additional excavations. The main question is – do the fortifications detected so far indicate different hill-forts, or did they belong to one very big fortification system of Gdańsk town? And, if it was one large complex, why were these parts so far from each other and do they belong to the same period? Supporting Andrzej Buko’s suggestion, I believe that at least the excavated traces indicate different phases of the development of the site. According to this hypo- thesis, we can talk of an earlier, tribal Gdańsk, and a later Piast administration centre (Buko 2004). 118 Mateusz Bogucki

In addition to the descriptions above, there are some other places in Pomerania, where emporia might have existed. The hypothetical emporia are indicated by a dense settlement net around them, as well as abundant finds of coins, ornaments, weapons, and hoards in the vicinity. Some places are suggested by their topographic localization. In this research, middle Pomerania, the estuaries of the Wieprza and Słupia Rivers, as well as Łeba should be taken into consideration. In all these three regions, a number of 10th–11th century hack silver hoards have been found.

3. Discussion

The examples described above prove that the earliest emporia were established in Pomerania in the late 8th century. The existence of earlier places of the same sort, as in Scandinavia (e.g. Lundeborg, Sortemuld or Helgö) cannot be excluded, but, apart from single hoards and stray-finds of solidi, there is no proof. At the end of the 8th century, single settlements like Wolin, Bardy or Truso developed in Pomerania. These emporia expanded in the 9th century. At the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th centuries, essential changes took part in the organization of Baltic emporia – they became important places of production. Wolin gained new fortifications and a new craftsmen’s quarter. In the Parsęta region, the trade and production activity moved from Bardy to Kołobrzeg- Budzistowo, where a new and much larger settlement got its start. The turning point in the history of Pomerania was the end of the 10th century, when Truso disappeared, and new central places in Gdańsk and Kamień Pomorski were rising. Places like Szczecin and Kołobrzeg were developing. All the settlements were characterised by urban features like streets, quarters, harbours, markets, public places and, in some of them, churches. During the 11th and 12th centuries, some of them, like Szczecin, Kamień Pomorski and Gdańsk, developed, while others, like Wolin, lost their importance. The next step in the development of Baltic towns was the bestowal of town rights and joining the Hanseatic League in the 13th century (Rębkowski 2001). The recent study has shed light on two main concepts concerning the genesis of Slavonic emporia. Both of the theories are defined by the fact that the Slavs appeared on the coastal areas of the Baltic Sea only in the 6th century. During the 7th century, they occupied most of the districts and consolidated as tribes. In the area of some early medieval centres, traces of former Germanic settlement phase are also known. When the Slavs appeared in the region, the old sea-routes with the Scandinavians were reactivated. By the second half of the 8th century, Slavic tribes had become so well-organized that the first trade centers appeared. The emporia gave the Slavs access to import goods (Herrmann 1991, 160–167; Dulinicz 1999, 106). Some of the emporia evolved from settlements into early urban centres, but still kept the traditional spatial structures. Favourable factors in their development were well-established tribal power structures and a good economic situation. The scenario described above was a typical Slavic way for Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 119

the development of early urban settlements. As examples of this model, the complex of sites at Bardy-Świelubie-Kołobrzeg (Łosiński 1994, 102–108; Leciejewicz & Rębkowski 2000) and Szczecin can be mentioned. Other centres emerged as a result of exterior interference, in co-operation with the local political elite. Primarily, the dominant Scandinavian role can be mentioned in this connection. The centres were founded on the peripheries of local tribal communities. They were built from the beginning as a place for exchange, and their inhabitants lived from the beginning in a developed social structure. The community of these centres consisted mainly of merchants and craftsmen (Łosiński 1994, 102–103). This model was alien to the Slavs. As examples of centres which were established in this way, the settlement complexes in Mecklenburg, Menzlin- Görke (Schoknecht 1977; Dulinicz 2001, 283–284), Rostock-Dierkow (Herrmann 1988, 724–729; Warnke 1992), Groß Strömkendorf (Tummuscheit 2003) and Ralswiek (Herrmann 2000, 163–166), as well as Truso in the Slavic-Prussian borderland can be pointed out. In addition to these two models, there were sites which do not fit into these definitions, and therefore represent a kind of combination of the sites described above. One site of this type is Wolin, which probably developed from a local fishing settlement into a big town predominantly because of co-operation with a settlement of Scandinavian newcomers in the vicinity (Łosiński 1994, 122–123). Economic factors, primarily the development of long-distance trade in the Baltic zone, can be pointed out as the main reason for the rise of emporia in the region. The duke’s rule and the evolution of different elements of the commodity economy, within the frames of natural primitive economy, as well as wider socio- economic changes caused by the formation of the feudal system, were the causative factors in both cases. The development of crafts and exploitation of natural resources were also essential factors. Special attention should be drawn to a manifold mutual relationship between the economy and political power – as a result of this, trade and craft developed in the main political centres (Leciejewicz 1962, 46–47, 81–83).

References

Ambrosiani, B. & Clarke, H. 1998. Birka and the beginning of the Viking Age. – Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller- Wille. Neumünster, 33–38. Blomkvist, N. 2001. The concept of the town and the dawn of urban life east and west of the Baltic. On the emergence of centres, turn-over places, towns and cities. – Lübeck Style? Novgorod Style? Baltic Rim Central Places as Arenas for Cultural Encounters and Urbanization 1100–1400 AD. (CCC papers, 5.) Riga, 11–35. Bogucki, M. 2004. Dlaczego we wczesnym średniowieczu powstawały skarby złomu srebrnego? Uwagi na marginesie prac Jacka Kowalewskiego i Przemysława Urbańczyka. – Wiadomości Numizmatyczne, XLVIII, 1 (177), 49–76. Bogucki, M. In press. Grobina – a sign of the future. Ports of trade in the Balt Lands. – Transformatio mundi – the Transition from the Late Migration Period to the Early Viking Age in the East Baltic. 120 Mateusz Bogucki

Buko, A. 2004. Archeologia Polski wczesnośredniowiecznej. Odkrycia – hipotezy – interpretacje. Warszawa. Callmer, J. 1992. Interaction between ethnical groups in the Baltic Region in the Late Iron Age. – Contacts Across the Baltic Sea during the Late Iron Age (5th–12th Centuries). Lund, 99–108. Callmer, J. 1994. Urbanization in Scandinavia and the Baltic Region ca. AD 700–1100: trading places, centers and early urban sites. – The Twelfth Viking Congress. Developments Around the Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age. (Birka Studies, 3.) Stockholm, 50–90. Ciołek, R. 2003. Znaleziska solidów na Pomorzu. – Wiadomości Numizmatyczne, XLVII, 2 (176), 163–180. Clarke, H. B. & Simms, A. 1985. Towards a comparative history of urban origin. – The Comparative History of Urban Origins in Non-Roman Europe: Ireland, Wales, Denmark, Germany, Poland and Russia from Ninth to the Thirteenth Century. (BAR International Series, 255 (i–ii).) Oxford, 669–714. Dalton, G. 1978. Comments on ports of trade in early medieval Europe. – Norwegian Archaeological Review, 11, 2, 102–107. Duczko, W. 2004. Viking Rus. Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe. Leiden. Dulinicz, M. 1999. Uwagi o początkach ośrodków handlowych a południowym brzegu Bałtyku w VIII–IX w. – Centrum i zaplecze we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie środkowej. (Spotkania Bytomskie, III.) Wrocław, 97–110. Dulinicz, M. 2001. Kształtowanie się Słowiańszczyzny Północno-Zachodniej. Warszawa. Feveile, C. 1994. The latest news from Viking Age Ribe: archeological excavations 1993. – The Twelfth Viking Congress. Developments Around the Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age. (Birka Studies, 3.) Stockholm, 91–99. Filipowiak, W. 1962. Wolinianie. Studium osadnicze, I. Materiały. Szczecin. Filipowiak, W. 1999. Wolin und Szczecin – Hafen und Topographie der mittelalterlichen Stadt. – Maritime Topography and the Medieval Town. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in Copenhagen 14–16 May 1998. Copenhagen, 61–70. Filipowiak, W. 2000. Wollin – ein frühmittelalterliches Zentrum an der Ostsee. – Europas mitte um 1000. Handbuch zur Ausstellung, 1. Stuttgart, 152–155. Filipowiak, W. 2004. Wolin – the trading emporia on the Baltic Sea. – Polish Lands in the Turn of the First and the Second Millennium. Warszawa. Freise, E. 1985. Zur Person des Theophilus und seiner monastischen Umwelt. – Ornamenta Ecclesiae. Kunst und Künstler der Romanik. (Katalog zur Ausstellung des Schnüthen-Museums in der Joseph- Heinrich-Kunsthalle, 1.) Köln. Godłowski, K. 1981. Okres wędrówek ludów na Pomorzu. – Pomorania Antiqua, 10, 65–129. Hårdh, B. 1996. Silver in the Viking Age. A Regional-Economic Study. Stockholm. Hatz, G. 1974. Handel und Verkehr zwischen dem deutschen Reich und Schweden in der Späten Wikingerzeit. Stockholm. Herrmann, J. 1988. Zur Struktur von Handel und Handelsplätzen im südwestlichen Ostseegebiet vom 8.–10. Jahrhundert. – Bericht der Römisch Germanischen Kommission, 69, 720–739. Herrmann, J. 1991. U źródeł północno-słowiańskiego wczesnego miasta. – Miasto zachodnio- słowiańskie w XI–XII wieku. Społeczeństwo – kultura. Wrocław, 159–167. Herrmann, J. 1995. Frühe Seehandelsplätzen am „äußersten Ende des westlichen Ozeans”. Geschichtliche Grundlagen, siedlungstopographische Strukturen und ethnische Herkunft ihrer Bewohner. – Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, 26/27, 57–72. Herrmann, J. 2000. Ralswiek. – Europas mitte um 1000. Handbuch zur Ausstellung, 1. Stuttgart, 163–166. Hodges, R. 2000. Towns and Trade in the Age of Charlemagne. London. Jagodziński, M. F. 2000a. Truso. Das frühmittelalterliche Hafen- und Handelszentrum im Ostsee- gebiet bei Elbing. – Westpreussen-Jahrbuch, 50, 41–56. Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 121

Jagodziński, M. F. 2000b. Truso – Siedlung und Hafen im slawisch-estnischen Grenzgebiet. – Europas mitte um 1000. Handbuch zur Ausstellung, 1. Stuttgart, 170–174. Jagodziński, M. & Kasprzycka, M. 1991. The early medieval craft and commercial center at Janów Pomorski near Elbląg on the South Baltic Coast. – Antiquity, 65/248, 696–715. Jankuhn, H. 1986. Haithabu. Ein Handelsplatz der Wikingerzeit. Neumünster. Jørgensen, L. 2003. Manor and market at Lake Tissø in the sixth to eleventh centuries: the Danish “productive” site. – Markets in Early Medieval Europe. Trading and “Productive” Sites, 650–850. Bollington, 177–207. Kiersnowski, R. 1950. Legenda Winiety. Warszawa. Kiersnowski, R. 1960. Pieniądz kruszcowy w Polsce wczesnośredniowiecznej. Warszawa. Kowalska, A. B. & Łosiński, W. In press. Szczecin: origins and history of the early medieval town. – Polish Lands in the turn of the First and the Second Millennium. Warszawa. Kowalski, T. (ed.). 1946. Relacja Ibrahima ibn Jakuba z podróży do krajów słowiańskich w przekazie al-Bekriego. (Monumenta Poloniae historica. Nova series, 1.) Kraków. Leciejewicz, L. 1962. Początki nadmorskich miast na Pomorzu Zachodnim. Wrocław; Warszawa; Kraków. Leciejewicz, L. 2000b. Kolberg (Kołobrzeg). – Europas mitte um 1000. Handbuch zur Ausstellung, 1. Stuttgart, 167–169. Leciejewicz, L. & Rębkowski, M. 2000. Kołobrzeg. Średniowieczne miasto nad Bałtykiem. Kołobrzeg. Lewicki, T. 1949. Świat słowiański w oczach pisarzy arabskich. – Slavia Antiqua, 2, 321–388. Łosiński, W. 1994. W sprawie genezy osiedli wczesnomiejskich u Słowian nadbałtyckich. – Slavia Antiqua, 35, 101–128. Łosiński, W. 2000a. Osadnictwo plemienne w dorzeczu Parsęty we wczesnym średniowieczu. – Salsa Cholbergiensis. Kołobrzeg w średniowieczu. Kołobrzeg, 13–22. Łosiński, W. 2000b. Pomorze – bardziej słowiańskie czy bardziej „bałtyckie”? – Ziemie Polskie w X wieku i ich znaczenie w kształtowaniu się nowej mapy Europy. Kraków, 119–141. Łosiński, W. 2000c. Stettin (Szczecin). – Europas mitte um 1000. Handbuch zur Ausstellung, 1. Stuttgart, 156–162. Łosiński, W. 2003. Trójramienna zapinka skandynawska z cmentarzyska w Świelubiu pod Kołobrzegiem – aspekt chronologiczny. – Słowianie i ich sąsiedzi we wczesnym średniowieczu. Lublin; Warszawa, 133–139. Madsen, P. K. 1999. Ribe between West and East – a North Sea harbour and its connections 700– 1600. – Maritime Topography and the Medieval Town. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in Copenhagen 14–16 May 1998. Copenhagen, 197–202. Małowist, M. 1948. Problematyki dziejów gospodarczych strefy bałtyckiej we wczesnym średniowieczu. – Roczniki Dziejów Społecznych i Gospodarczych, 10, 81–120. Muhl, A. 1990. Der Bamberger und der Camminer Schrein. Zwei im Mammenstil verzierte Prunkkästen der Wikingerzeit. – Offa, 47, 241–420. Müller-Wille, M. 2001. Ribe – Reric – Hedeby. Early urbanization in southern Scandinavia and the western Slavonic area. – Offa, 58, 21–31. Paner, H. 1998. Rozwój przestrzenny Gdańska w świetle badań archeologicznych. – Civitates Principales. Wybrane ośrodki władzy w Polsce wczesnośredniowiecznej. Katalog wystawy. Gniezno, 112–119. Petersen, J. 1919. De norske vikingesverd. En typologisk-kronologisk studie over vikingetidens vaaben. (Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter, II. Hist. – Filos. Klasse, 1.) Kristiania. Piskorski, J. M. 2002. Pomorze plemienne. Historia – Archeologia – Językoznawstwo. Poznań; Szczecin. Polanyi, K. 1963. Ports of trade in early societies. – The Journal of Economic History, 23, 30–45. Polanyi, K. 1978. Trade, markets, and money in the European early Middle Ages. – Norwegian Archaeological Review, 11, 2, 92–96. 122 Mateusz Bogucki

Pomian, I., Latałowa, M., Łęczycki, L. & Badura, M. 2000. Water or land? Preliminary results of an interdisciplinary project of palaeoenvironmental reconstruction at the site of the medieval harbour in Puck (N. Poland). – Abstracts from 8th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archeology, September 23–27th, 1997. Gdańsk, 27–36. Rębkowski, M. 2001. Pierwsze lokacje miast w księstwie zachodniopomorskim. Przemiany przestrzenne i kulturowe. Kołobrzeg. Schoknecht, U. 1977. Menzlin. Ein Frühgeschichtlicher Handelsplatz an der Peene. Berlin. Słupecki, L. P. 1994. Slavonic Pagan Sanctuaries. Warszawa. Słupecki, L. P. 2000. Jómsvikingalog, Jómsvikings, Jomsborg/Wolin and Danish circular strongholds. – The Neighbours of Poland in the 10th Century. Warszawa, 49–59. Stępień, W. 1984. Archeological nautical excavation in Puck harbour, Gdańsk district, Poland. – The International Journal of Nautical Archeology and Underwater Exploration, 13, 4, 311–321. Stępień, W. 1998. Wczesnośredniowieczny port w Pucku. – Historia Pucka. Gdańsk, 36–54. Thrane. E. 1998. Overvejelser af kultindholdet i Gudmes bebyggelse. – Centrala platser – centrala frågor. Samhällsstrukturen under järnåldern. Uppåkrastudier, 1. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, series in 8°, 28), 249–261. Tschan, F. J. & Reuter, T. (eds.). 2002. History of the archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen. (Records of Western Civilization.) New York. Tummuscheit, A. 2003. Groß Strömkendorf: a market site of the eighth century on the Baltic Sea coast. – Markets in Early Medieval Europe. Trading and “Productive” Sites, 650–850. Bollington, 208–220. Wachowski, K. 1914. Jomsborg (Normannowie wobec Polski w w. X). Warszawa. Warnke, D. 1992. Rostock-Dierkow – ein Wirtschaftszentrum des 8./9. Jahrhundert an der Unter- warnow. – Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, 20, 63–80. Watt, M. 1992. Die Goldblechfiguren (“guldgubber”) aus Sorte Muld, Bornholm. – Der historische Horizont der Götterbild-Amulette aus der Übergangsepoche von der Spätantike zum Frühmittel- alter. Göttingen, 195–227. Ważny, T. 1999. Dendrochronologia obiektów zabytkowych w Polsce. Warszawa. Ważny, T. 2001. Badania dendrochronologiczne podgrodzia i osady w Wolinie. – Instantia est mater doctrinae. Księga jubileuszowa Prof. Dr. hab. Władysława Filipowiaka. Szczecin, 155–165. Zbierski, A. 1978. Rozwój przestrzenny Gdańska w IX–XIII w. – Historia Gdańska I (do roku 1454). Gdańsk, 71–125. Zbierski, A. 1985. Z kręgu badań problematyki związanej z badaniami kompleksowymi nad początkami portu puckiego. – Peribalticum, IV, 123–142.

Mateusz Bogucki

VIIKINGIAEGSED KAUBASADAMAD POOLAS

Resümee

Meie ajaarvamise esimesel aastatuhandel tekkisid Põhja-Euroopas uut moodi asulad: käsitöö- ja kauplemiskohad. Nende tähistamiseks on eri maade arheo- loogiakirjanduses käibel erinevad terminid, näiteks emporium (mitm. emporia), port of trade, early form of town, pre-urban nucleus, incipient town, proto-town, Seehandelsplatz või vik. Käsitöö- ja kauplemiskohtade olemasolu on loetud üheks kriteeriumiks, eristamaks rauaaega varakeskajast või Põhja-Euroopa puhul viikingiajast. Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 123

1. Kaubasadamate tekkimine

Poola uurija Karl Polanyi on näidanud, et kaubasadamad paiknesid alati kaubateede ristumiskohal, enamasti looduslikult hästi kaitstud kohtades: jõesuudmes, fjordi või merelahe kaldal. Enamasti tähistasid kaubasadmad poliitilisi, kultuuri- lisi, etnilisi või ka geograafilisi piire ning asusid n-ö eikellegimaal. Väga oluline oli kohalike pealike poolt pakutav kaitse. Julgeoleku garanteerimise eest kogusid pealikud makse luksuskaupade, eriti kõrgekvaliteediliste relvade näol. Eliidi toe- tus oli vajalik rahu kindlustamiseks ja kaubanduse turvalisuse huvides. Emporium’idest või nende vahetust lähedusest on tihti teada religioosseid keskusi. Muistses ühiskonnas olid preestrid huvitatud kaubandusest laekuvast tulust. Lisaks olid preestrid sageli ka oskuslikud käsitöölised, kellel oli kaubasadamates võimalik oma toodangut müüa. Käsitöö kontsentreerumine kaubasadamatesse oli viimaste arengus üks olulisemaid tegureid ja tavaliselt hakati seal üsna varsti n-ö masstoodangut välja laskma. Enamikus sellistest kohtadest on leitud jälgi sepa- tööst, sarve- ja merevaigutöötlusest, klaasivalmistamisest, kangakudumisest, laeva- ehitusest ja teistest käsitööharudest. Emporium’ide arengus oli kõige tähtsam siiski kaubandus – nii rahvusvaheline kaugkaubandus kui ka kohaliku iseloomuga vahetuskaubandus. Kaubasada- mad olid kokkusaamiskohaks eri maadest pärit kaupmeestele, kes kasutasid neid kas otseselt oma kaupade müügiks või ka laokohana teel kaugematele turgudele. Sellised sadamakohad funktsioneerisid ühtlasi kauplemiskohana, kus müüdi nii mujalt toodud kaupa kui ka kohalike käsitööliste toodangut. Ümbruskonna elanikud varustasid taolisi kohti söögi-joogi ja muu vajalikuga. Kaubeldi eeskätt tera- vilja ja koduloomadega, kuid ilmselt tõid kohalikud müügiks ka karusnahku, soola, mett, käsitöökaupu ja muid tooteid. Kindlasti kaubeldi ka orjadega. Emporium’id olid turud, kus kohtusid inimesed viikingiaegse maailma eri osadest ning kus eksisteerisid kõrvuti erinevad majandussüsteemid, näiteks autarkiline vahetuskaubandus ja keskaegne monetaarne süsteem. Emporium’ide kui nähtuse tekkimise kohta on esitatud mitu teooriat, kust sel- guvad mõned kaubasadamate tekkeks olulisemad tegurid. Esimesena võiks neist mainida ületootmist ühiskonnas. Põllumajandusliku tootlikkuse kasv oli seotud eeskätt rukki kasutuselevõtuga, samuti käsitöö, eriti musta metallurgia arenguga, mistõttu suudeti paremaid tööriistu valmistada. Kohaliku toodangu ülejääk vahe- tati importkaupadeks. Sellega kaasnes rahvastiku kasv, samuti etniliste suhete konsolideerumine, mis omakorda tihendas regioonidevahelisi sidemeid. Määra- vad olid asustuse organiseerunud struktuuri väljakujunemine ja kaubavahetuseks oluliste tehniliste võimaluste olemasolu. Mööda ei saa vaadata ka ühiskondliku korralduse muutustest, mis viisid tugeva ja jõuka eliidi väljakujunemiseni. Tootlikkuse kasv ja kaubakeskuste tekkimine Põhja-Euroopas on seostatav Euroopa Barbaricum’i-osas antiikaja lõpul ja varasel keskajal toimunud kultuuri- liste muudatustega. Täiesti omaette rühma kuuluvad slaavlaste, skandinaavlaste, läänemeresoomlaste ja baltidega seotud kohad Läänemerd ümbritsevatel aladel (joon 1). Viikingiajal moodustasid need alad nn Läänemere majandustsooni. 124 Mateusz Bogucki

Kaubasadamate ilmumine Läänemere lõunakallastele oli ühtlasi seotud Euroopa keskosas toimunud etniliste muudatustega. Esimesed slaavlased tulid neile aladele 6. sajandi lõpul, täiemõõdulisest slaavi asustusest võib aga rääkida alates 7.–8. sajandist. 8. sajandil aset leidnud asustuse kontsentreerumine lõi eeldused emporium’ide rajamiseks Lääne-Slaavi aladele. Käesolevas artiklis on kirjeldatud ainult tänapäeva Poola territooriumile jää- vaid muistseid kaubasadamaid. Need paiknesid kolmes peamises regioonis – Odra, Parsęta ja Visla jõe suudmealal.

2. Emporium’id tänapäeva Poola territooriumil 2.1. Odra jõe suudmeala

Suurim ja olulisim emporium Odra jõe suudmealal oli Wolin (joon 2), kirjalikes allikates Jumne. Wolin arenes väikesest külast suureks linnaks. Arheoloogi- lise materjali põhjal sai sealne kaubasadam alguse põhiliselt 8. sajandi lõpul ning selle areng emporium’iks toimus 9.–10. sajandini. Sel perioodil oli tegemist mitmest komponendist koosneva asustuskompleksiga, kus olid esindatud nii linna- mägi, valliga ümbritsetud varalinnaline keskus ja sadam kui ka mitu kalmistut ning paganlik tempel. Teisena võiks mainida Szczecinit (joon 3), mida kirjalikes allikates nimetati esmakordselt 1121. aastal. Selle koha tähtsust märkasid ka araabia kirjamehed, kes nimetasid linna Sāsīniks v Sādżīniks. Asula tekkis seal siiski juba enne 12. sajandit, mille varaseim asustuskiht Odra jõe läänekaldal on dateeritud 8. sajandi lõpuga. 9.–10. sajandi hooned olid ehitatud korrapärase plaani alusel ja üksteisest täna- vatega eraldatud, samas pole nimetatud perioodi kihtidest leitud käsitöökodade jäänuseid ega tootmisjääke. Käsitöö tõeline õitseng iseloomustab 12.–13. sajandi Szczecinit, mil linn kasvas kiiresti. Viikingiaegne Szczecin eksisteeris kahtlemata kaubasadamana, kuid Läänemere rahvusvahelises kaubanduses polnud ta kuigi tähtis. Koha jõuline esilekerkimine järgnevatel sajanditel on ilmselt seotud Wolini allakäiguga. Kamień Pomorski, kolmas kaubasadam Odra jõe suudmes, tekkis hiljem kui Wolin ja Szczecin. Sealsed varaseimad leiud võib dateerida 10. sajandi lõpuga. Arheoloogilised kaevamised on tõestanud, et Kamień Pomorskil oli kaubanduses tähtis osa peamiselt 12.–13. sajandil.

2.2. Parsęta jõe suudmeala

Parsęta jõe suudmeala moodustas teise olulise piirkonna Pomeraanias, kus viikingiajal tekkisid kaubasadamad. Ümbruskonnas on teada mitmeid linnuseid, mille hulgas domineeris Bardy linnamägi koos kõrval asuva Świelubie kalmistuga. Arheoloogiline materjal osutab, et seal oli spetsialiseerutud mõnele käsitööharule, Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 125

millest eelkõige võiks mainida sepatööd. Ümbruskonna tähtsaim tootmisharu oli siiski soolatootmine kohalikest ressurssidest. Mõningad skandinaaviapärased matu- sed Świelubie kalmistul osutavad, et 9. sajandil elas seal teatud määral Skandi- naavia koloniste. 9. sajandi teisel poolel toimus Parsęta piirkonna linnuste süsteemis muutus: suured linnused nagu Bardy jäeti maha ning nende asemele tekkis suur hulk väiksemaid tugevasti kindlustatud linnamägesid. Püsima jäi vaid üks suur linnus – Kołobrzeg- Budzistowo (joon 4). See oli linnus koos mitme kindlustatud suburbium’iga, mis asus umbes 25 ha suurusel alal. Linnuse varaseimad kihid on dateeritud 8. sajandi lõpu ja 9. sajandi algusega. 9. sajandi lõpul kindlustati linnuse umbes 1 ha suurune ala mullast ja puust valliga. Linnuse keskel on kaevamiste käigus avastatud mitme 10. sajandi hoone jäänuseid. Rohke leiumaterjal viitab sepatööle, luu- ja sarve- ning merevaigutöötlemisele. Piirkonna jõukusele pani 9.–11. sajandil aluse soolatootmine, mille tähtsus püsis ka järgnevatel sajanditel. Aastal 1000 rajas piis- kop Reinbern Kołobrzegi piiskopkonna. See poliitiline akt on seostatav masstoo- dangu algusega sealsetes käsitöökodades. Lisandunud leiumaterjal alates 11. sajandist osutab kaubandussidemete aktiviseerumisele. 11. sajandi lõppu ja 12. sajandit võibki vaadelda kui Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo suurima õitsengu aega.

2.3. Visla jõe suudmeala

Kunagist tähtsaimat kaubasadamat Trusot on 880. aastatel kirjeldanud Wulfstan. Selle asukoht, 15 ha suurune viikingiaegne asulakiht avastati siiski alles 1982. aastal Drużno järve idakaldal tänapäeva Janów Pomorskis (joon 5). Praeguseks pole kahtlust, et tegemist on Wulfstani poolt mainitud Trusoga. Asula oli tekkinud otse kunagise merelahe kaldale ja ilmselt poolkaarekujulise valliga ümbritsetud. Enamik avastatud hoonetest oli ehitatud Skandinaavia traditsiooni kohaselt ja jagatud kolme ossa. Kõrvalhooned olid sageli liidetud elumajaga, moodustades sel viisil suletud hoovid. Majad olid eraldatud tänavatega ja paiknesid korrapärase plaani kohaselt. Truso asulakohast leiti rohkesti jäänuseid käsi- tööst, millest olulisim oli ilmselt olnud sepandus. Intensiivselt oli tegeldud mere- vaigutöötlemisega, millest annab tunnistust rohkem kui 10 kg merevaigutükke. Rohkelt leiti ka kammi- ning klaasitootmise, kangakudumise ja laevaehituse jäänu- seid, samuti märke kullassepatöökojast. 322 araabia müntide fragmenti, 4 Lääne- Euroopa münti, hõbedakaalude tükid ja umbes 300 kaaluvihti annavad tunnistust elavast kaubavahetusest. Truso on dateeritud 8. sajandi lõpu kuni 11. sajandi algusega, kuid lakkas emporium’ina olemast ilmselt juba 10. sajandi keskel või kolmandal veerandil. 10. sajandi keskpaigaks oli Visla jõe suudmealal Gdański ümbruses kerkinud esile tugev poliitiline võim, arvatavasti Piasti dünastia. Võimalik, et uus võim tahtis piirkonnas kogu rahvusvahelist kaubandust kontrollida, hävitas Truso ning suunas tähtsamad kaubateed ümber Gdańskisse. 10. sajandi lõpul ja 11. sajandi algul oli 126 Mateusz Bogucki

Trusos siiski veel elanikke, kuigi koht oli selleks ajaks oma rahvusvahelise täht- suse minetanud. Praeguseks vee alla jäänud asulat Pucki Visla jõe suudmeala läheduses on samuti sageli defineeritud kui emporium’i, kuid pigem on siiski tegemist kohalikule turule suunatud kaubasadamaga. Keraamika ja 14C analüüside abil on koht dateeritud 6. sajandiga. Puckist saadud leiumaterjali iseloom on paraku ebaselge. Lahe põhjast, tänapäeva rannast 300–500 m kauguselt, on leitud ulatuslikke sadama- konstruktsioone, mis samast saadud keraamika põhjal on dateeritud viikingiajaga (joon 6). Enamik konstruktsioonijäänustest kujutas endast maasse kaevatud jäme- daid puuposte ning kividega täidetud palkkaste. Lisaks eelnimetatuile on Puckist leitud hoonejäänuseid ning mõned laevavrakid. Dendrokronoloogia põhjal on koht dateeritud 10. sajandi alguse kuni 14. sajandi keskpaigaga. Vrakke on dateeritud põhiliselt 14C analüüside abil ning varaseim neist kuulub 7. sajandi teise poolde. Ülejäänud laevavrakid on ehitatud umbes aastatel 950 ja 1245. Vaid üks laevadest dateeriti ka dendrokronoloogia abil. See oli ehitatud pärast 1216. aastat ning parandatud aastatel 1329–30. Jääb siiski üsna kahtlaseks, kas juba viikingiaegset Pucki võib emporium’iks nimetada, kuna selle lähiümbruses pole avastatud rahvusvahelisele kaubandusele viitavaid leide. Pucki õitseng langeb perioodi 12.–13. sajandini. Koha arengus võib eristada kolme põhietappi. Neist esimene, mis on esindatud ainult kahe laeva- vrakiga, kajastab hõimuühiskondliku korralduse valitsemist ümbruskonnas. Teine etapp on langusperiood, mis oli ilmselt tingitud Piasti dünastia poliitilisest mõju- võimust piirkonnas 10. sajandi lõpul ja 11. sajandil. Sellele järgnes kaubasadama taassünd 12.–13. sajandil. Samas on varasema ja hilisema sadamakoha vahel raske otsest järjepidevust näha. Gdański teket ja arengut on uuritud juba palju aastaid. Linna varaseim osa asus arvatavasti praeguste raekoja ja Pika turu kohal. Sealt saadud asustuskiht on dateeritud 9. sajandiga ning seda on peetud käsitöö- ja kaubanduskeskuseks (joon 7). Üldiselt arvatakse, et enamik asulast ning linnus Motława ja Visla jõe ristumiskohas on rajatud Piasti dünastia poolt ilmselt 970. aastatel. Gdański vanu- selt järgmine osa jääb linnusest põhja poole, kus 980. kuni 1140. aastateni paiknes turuplats. Püha Nikolause kirikust põhja pool on leitud ka jäänuseid 12. sajandi paadisillast. Gdańskist kogutud arheoloogiline aines on sageli fragmentaarne, mida on mitmel erineval viisil tõlgendatud. Mõned uurijad on avaldanud arvamust, et kõik eelmainitud asulakihid kujutasid endast eraldi seisvaid kindlustatud asulaid. Põhi- liseks argumendiks on keskajast teada olev fakt, et Gdański eri osad olid allutatud erinevatele seadusandlustele – kas Lübecki või Poola seadusele. Teiste uurijate arvates on eri asulakihtide puhul tegemist ühe suure asulakompleksi eri arengu- etappidega. 9.–10. sajandil võis seal olla kohaliku hõimu sadamakoht, mille lähe- dale, hilisema raekoja juurde, ehitati 10. sajandil linnus. 10. sajandi lõpul rajas Piasti dünastia oma linnuse Motława jõe kõrvale. Lisaks eelkirjeldatuile on Pomeraaniast teada veel mõned kohad, kus on oletatud kunagise emporium’i olemasolu. Neile hüpoteetilistele kaubasadamatele viita- Viking Age ports of trade in Poland 127

vad ümbritsev tihe asustusvõrk ning ümbruskonnast teada olevad rohked aarded, mündi-, ehte- ja relvaleiud. Mõnda kohta võib sadamakohaks oletada üksnes topo- graafilise asendi põhjal.

3. Arutelu

Eelolevad näited osutavad, et esimesed kaubasadamad tekkisid Pomeraaniasse 8. sajandi lõpul. Sellised kohad olid näiteks Wolin, Bardy ja Truso. 9. sajandil hakkasid need kauplemiskohad kasvama ja 9. sajandi lõpul ning 10. sajandi algul toimusid nende arengus olulised muudatused: kauplemiskohtadesse kontsent- reerus ka käsitöö. Wolinisse kerkisid uued kindlustised ja käsitööliste kvartal. Parsęta jõe suudmealal jäeti maha Bardy käsitöö- ja kaubanduskeskus ning alguse sai Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo palju suurem emporium. Pomeraania ajaloos oli pöörde- punktiks 10. sajandi lõpp, mil kadus Truso kaubasadam ja Gdańskis ning Kamień Pomorskis tekkisid uued rahvusvahelise kaubanduse ja käsitööga seotud keskused. Samal ajal arenesid edasi Szczecin ja Kołobrzeg. Kõiki neid asulaid iseloo- mustasid linnalised tunnused, nagu tänavate süsteem, kvartalid, sadamad, turud, mõnes kohas ka kirikud. 11.–12. sajandil arenes osa sellistest kohtadest edasi, samal ajal kui teised, näiteks Wolin, kaotasid oma tähtsuse. Järgmiseks sammuks Läänemere-äärsete linnade arengus oli linnaõiguste saamine ja liitumine Hansa Liidu poolt loodud rahvusvahelise kaubanduse võrgustikuga. Käesolevas töös on tutvustatud kaht peamist kontseptsiooni slaavi emporium’ide arengus. Osa kaubasadamatest arenes väiksematest asulatest varalinnalisteks kes- kusteks. Soodustavaks asjaoluks nende arengus oli hõimusisese hästi arenenud võimusüsteemi olemasolu, aga ka soodne majanduslik olukord. Selline varalinnaliste keskuste arengustsenaarium oli tüüpiliselt slaavipärane. Osa keskusi tekkis seoses välispidise sekkumisega, kuigi tihedas koostöös kohaliku eliidiga. Siin- kohal tuleb mainida eeskätt Skandinaavia mõju. Sellised keskused rajati kohaliku hõimuühiskonna asustuse äärealadele. Need kaubasadamad olid ehitatud kauba- vahetuse eesmärgil ning sealsed asukad elasid algusest peale hierarhiseeritud ühiskonnas. Selline arengumudel oli slaavlastele võõras. Kaubasadamad, mis rajati viimasena kirjeldatud moel, olid näiteks asustuskompleksid Mecklenburgis (Menzlin-Görke, Rostock-Dierkow, Groß Strömkendorf ja Ralswiek), kuid see skeem kehtib ka slaavi-preisi piirialal paiknenud Truso kohta. Kõige olulisemaks teguriks Põhja-Euroopa kaubasadamate tekkes võib pidada majanduse arengut, eeskätt rahvusvahelise kaubanduse intensiivistumist Lääne- mere majandustsoonis. Mõlema eelkirjeldatud arengumudeli puhul olid tähtsa- teks eeltingimusteks vürstivõimu olemasolu ning kohalikus algelises majanduses feodaalse süsteemi kujunemise käigus toimunud muutused. Ka käsitöö arengust ning loodusvarade parematest rakendusviisidest ei saa mööda vaadata. Erilist tähelepanu tasub pöörata majanduse ja poliitilise võimu mitmekülgsele ja vastas- tikusele suhtele, mille tulemusel arenesid kaubandus ja käsitöö eelistatult tähtsa- mates poliitilistes keskustes. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2004, 8, 2, 128–162

Marika Mägi

“… SHIPS ARE THEIR MAIN STRENGTH.” HARBOUR SITES, ARABLE LANDS AND CHIEFTAINS ON SAAREMAA

The article is an overview of archaeological research done in recent years on the prehistoric and medieval maritime landscapes of Saaremaa, the biggest Estonian island. Coastal settlements in this area were considered as inseparable from maritime activities, which are reliably indicated by ancient harbour sites. Criteria for distinguishing earlier harbour sites, as well as their typical features and the connection with their agrarian hinterland are analysed both on Saaremaa and in other regions around the Baltic. Attention is also paid to social development, and how it was reflected in the distribution and character of harbours. The first distinguishable harbour sites on Saaremaa are briefly described, analysing their origin and development in a broader international context.

Artikkel võtab kokku viimaste aastate uurimistöö Saaremaa muinas- ja keskaegse merendusliku maastiku vallas. Uurimise lähtekohaks on tees rannaäärsete asustusüksuste ning merendusliku tegevuse lahutamatust seosest, mille üheks sümboliks on kunagised sadamakohad. Artiklis on vaadeldud nende leidmise kriteeriume, iseloomulikke jooni ning seost agraarse tagamaaga nii Saaremaal kui ka Läänemerd ümbritsevates maades laiemalt. Tähele- panu on pööratud sadamakohtade levikus kajastuvale ühiskondlikule arengule. Lühidalt on kirjeldatud esimesi seni identifitseeritud muistseid sadamakohti Saaremaal, nende tekkimist ja arengut on analüüsitud laiemas rahvusvahelises kontekstis.

Marika Mägi, Ajaloo Instituut (Institute of History), Rüütli 6, 10130 Tallinn, Estonia; [email protected]

It would be difficult to find another prehistoric Estonian district bound so strongly to the sea as Saaremaa. The role of maritime activities in its subsistence system was primarily defined by the insular location of the district, more precisely its spread across several islands.1 Various imported items among the otherwise local archaeological material give evidence of overseas communication, and even

1 The name Saaremaa (Ösel) is used here, as in the Middle Ages and probably earlier, to mean “The District of Islands”. The name thus embraces not only the present Saaremaa but also the island of Muhu, as well as Sõrve, Kõrkvere and others that were islands or islets during the prehistoric and medieval periods (Mägi 2002c). “… Ships are their main strength” 129

the settlement pattern is clearly oriented towards the coastline. Early medieval written sources emphasize without exception the power of the Osilian navy and the secure situation of the Osilians, especially in summer time when it was impossible to reach the island without using sea vessels.

“The Osilians are wicked Pagans, they are the neighbours of the Curonians. Their land is surrounded by sea, They are never afraid of large armies; In summer time, we know that They plunder surrounding lands, Which can be reached by sea… … Ships are their main strength.” (Older Rhyme Chronicle, 357–367)2

Nevertheless, the maritime activity of the Osilians was certainly not confined to plundering. Fishery and seal hunting, as well as barter and control over international trade might have actually played much more important roles in the local economy. This article is an overview of what has been done in the research of Osilian maritime landscapes in the last decade. In this, the main attention was paid to the last prehistoric centuries and to the (local) early Middle Ages, that is, to the period 900–1400. It covers both the Viking Age and the 12th century, the era of prosperity for Saaremaa, as well as the obscure and controversial 13th and 14th centuries when Saaremaa still kept a great part of its one-time supremacy. The study of Osilian maritime landscapes started as early as in the middle of the 1990s, when a number of prehistoric harbour sites were detected as a result of theoretical constructions and several surface survey trips. The financing of the “Coastal Settlements on Prehistoric and Medieval Saaremaa” (Estonian Science Foundation Grant No 5432), started in 2003, made it possible to intensify the research. This article is among the first publications scheduled in the framework of the project.

1. Research material 1.1. Agrarian and maritime landscapes

In areas closely connected to the sea, the terrestrial/agricultural and maritime (cultural) landscapes should be considered in their mutual relation and interaction. On the island(s) of Saaremaa, due to its geographical position, one cannot overestimate the significance of the sea in the archaeological interpretation of a cultural landscape. The soil of these islands is usually thin and infertile, and cattle breeding

2 Free translation by the author of the article. 130 Marika Mägi

has been believed to be relevant for the local subsistence industries. Maritime activities – fishing, seal hunting, barter – have always been of great importance on the islands. There is however no doubt that settlement units on prehistoric and medieval Saaremaa were first of all agrarian. A settlement unit consisted of dwellings and other buildings, arable lands, meadows, pastures, forests and other components used by its inhabitants. The settlement unit was normally an independent economic unit and thereby distinguishable from other similar ones within the same area. The traces of former settlement units preserved up to the present comprise primarily archaeological sites such as e.g. hill-forts, dwelling sites, cemeteries, cult places, and fossil fields. The landscape maintaining these traces, i.e. physical terrain influenced by human activity, can be designated as the cultural landscape. Whether the primary settlement units on Saaremaa were predominantly villages or single farmsteads is not known. No archaeological excavations have been carried out at these sites, and the former settlement units were, therefore, traced back with the help of other types of archaeological sites, mainly stone graves, hill-forts and ancient field patterns. In the areas immediately bordering the coast, an important additional aspect must be taken into consideration and treated in close connection with the characteristics of the settlement structure described above. This aspect comprises all kinds of maritime activities and their relationship with their immediate surroundings. In terms of archaeology, the maritime activities are observable through, for instance, ancient harbour sites, shipwrecks and remains of bridges. As a result of mutual influences and a dense interaction of human behaviour, physical coastal landscape and topography of the near-shore sea, a maritime cultural landscape is formed.

1.2. Harbour sites

It is essential to define where the border lies between (pre)historic harbour sites and other places which were suitable for landing boats and other watercraft. There is no doubt that the functions of the sites were different, although often overlapping; the sites can also be differentiated according to how intensively they were used. An important aspect is the socio-political location in cultural landscapes: the hinterland, and especially the connection between the harbour/landing site and the closest political, economic, cult or other centres. The terms used so far are, however, understood differently by different researchers. Danish archaeologist Jens Ulriksen has called all sites of this type landing-places, which are defined as follows: “A ‘landing-place’ is a functionally neutral term for a site that has been directly related to seafaring, in other words, a site oriented to maritime activities” (Ulriksen 1998, 13, 259). Gotland researcher Dan Carlsson mentions harbour sites and trading centres; still, not all harbour sites need be trading centres (Carlsson 1991). Some archaeo- “… Ships are their main strength” 131

logists prefer to talk only of trade centres, where, however, traces of workshops can also be found (e.g. Callmer 1991). On the other hand, the term harbour (and harbour site, especially when the site is abandoned) is ingrained in different languages, meaning sites starting from village or farm harbours with very limited importance up to large central city harbours. Seldom used and unimportant places for landing boats are, nevertheless, seldom observable in archaeological terms. Taking into consideration these arguments, and also reckoning with the fact that the term has already become familiar in Estonian archaeological literature, I have preferred to use harbour site instead of the much more general landing-place/site. In doing this, it is essential to distinguish harbour sites with different functions and importance. A harbour site can thus be defined as a place oriented to maritime activities and accessible to water vessels, and a place whose use is regulated by agreements and/or tradition and which comprises a hinterland. Accordingly, landing-places with accidental character cannot be interpreted as harbour sites in this text; in practice, it is almost impossible to distinguish them archaeologically. The hinterland of a harbour site is the area with which one or another function of the harbour site is directly connected. The size of the hinterland varies according to the function and importance of the harbour site. The hinterland of a harbour site characterised by fishing, barter and communication at the local level is formed by the agrarian settlement unit(s) using the harbour. The hinterland of a harbour site which functions as a trade centre is normally a bigger prehistoric district, e.g. a district corresponding to a later parish.3 Harbours in urban centres were usually connected to international trade, and their hinterlands can embrace whole regions. On Saaremaa, however, no urban centres emerged before the 16th century.

1.3. Research history

In many countries, the cultural (mainly agricultural) landscape has been the subject of archaeological investigation for a long time. In the North, however, special attention to the ancient settlement pattern in the coastal areas has been paid only in Scandinavia during the last 20–25 years. First of all, the research of Carlsson on the island of Gotland should be mentioned; this has provided an entirely new point of view on the ancient cultural landscapes and, thereby, on ancient societies. As a result of many archaeological inventories and excavations, Carlsson has discovered approximately 50 prehistoric harbour sites located along the coast of Gotland. Studying the establishment and development of these harbour sites, he pays much attention to their close relationship to other contemporary elements of the cultural landscape within the same area, in order to demonstrate the mutually complementary nature of the agricultural/terrestrial and maritime cultural landscapes (Carlsson 1992; 1998; 1999b).

3 In medieval (and later) Estonia, parishes were bigger than in other northern countries and can also be considered as administrative units. 132 Marika Mägi

Since the 1980s, the concept of maritime cultural landscape has also received much attention in mainland Swedish maritime and underwater archaeology. In the research there, the investigation of sailing routes, harbour sites, shipwrecks and other archaeological sites is combined with cultural history in its widest sense (for instance, toponymy is of great importance in the research); physical characteristics of the landscape such as topographical peculiarities of the coastal regions are also considered (i.e. Westerdahl 1980; 1989). In Denmark, maritime and agrarian culture landscapes have been the subjects of several research projects. This country, characterised by a very long and heavily indented coastline and a flat coastal area, can often be geographically compared with Estonia. Still, some vital differences between the landscapes of these two countries can also be pointed out, first of all the number of naturally well-protected inlets stretching far into inland Denmark. In prehistoric and early medieval Denmark, the extent of social stratification was also greater. The 8th century, when harbour sites there became clearly evident in archaeological material, was followed, within a couple of centuries, by the formation of a state and conversion to Christianity. Starting from the medieval period, the development of Estonian and Danish harbour places thus continued in somewhat different social conditions. Still, as will be demonstrated below, parallels between Estonian and Danish harbour sites can in some cases be appropriate even in the 11th–12th centuries. Mainly in the 1990s, a wide-scale research project on the island on Fyn was carried out under the supervision of Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and with the cooperation of several researchers from different fields. The project concentrated on maritime landscapes of the island during the period 500 BC–1500 AD, and resulted in the demonstration not only of interlacing connections between the coastline, maritime activities and arable lands, but also sea routes and neighbouring areas on the other side of the surrounding straits. One of the observations of the research team was that in most periods a coastal zone up to 5 km in depth could be interpreted as a maritime landscape. Much attention was also paid to historical and topographical material, and to a certain extent also to social conditions (Atlas over Fyns kyst, 1996). During the same decade, Danish archaeologist Ulriksen supervised several archaeological excavations at landing-places around Roskilde fjord on the island of Zealand. The project was completed with a monograph published in 1998 (Ulriksen 1998). In this, several types of prehistoric and medieval landing-places were distinguished, mainly according to their function and place in the settlement pattern. Ulriksen associated the different types and the development of the landing- places primarily with political changes that took place in Danish society, which were particularly well indicated by the foundation of early urban trade centres. He also pointed out some criteria for defining ancient harbour sites, which differed from those on Gotland, the most vital of which was the lack of connection between prehistoric graves and the landing-places. At the same time, the attention paid in his book to the connection between the landing-places and arable lands “… Ships are their main strength” 133

was barely sufficient: only the immediate coastal zone was observed in most cases while deeper inland areas were included in the research only occasionally. The connection between social relations and harbour sites, as well as the direct link between subsistence industries and the possibility of taking part in long distance exchange, has been treated in the research of Ulf Näsman. He has even found it essential to include in the study a number of agrarian settlements further inland, defining the coastal zone as “an approximately 30 km broad area, that is, an area within which it should be possible to reach the coast in one day” (Näsman 1991). In Estonia, modern settlement archaeology has been developed primarily by Valter Lang, who has published several books and articles on farming settlement and cultural landscape in North Estonia (e.g. Lang 1996; 2000). Coastal settlements in the same part of the country, including the habitation of riversides, have been observed in articles by Gurly Vedru (Vedru 2001; see also the article in this issue). The concept of maritime cultural landscape, treated in close connection with the Maasi shipwreck found near the coast of Saaremaa, is introduced in an article by Kristin Ilves (Ilves 2002). Iron Age and medieval settlement archaeology on Saaremaa has been treated in research in recent years by the author of this article (Mägi 1998b; 1999b; 2000; 2001c). Surface survey trips carried out mainly in the second half of the 1990s and early 2000s have resulted in the recording of several prehistoric harbour sites (Fig. 1). These investigations, when compiled with the settlement pattern on pre-

Fig. 1. Saaremaa harbour sites mentioned in the text. 1 Kurevere, 2 Kihelkonna, 3 Lülle, 4 Kogula, 5 Upa, 6 Püha, 7 Kuru Saat/Paemõis, 8 Viltina, 9 Tornimäe, 10 Muhu Linnuse. Joon 1. Tekstis mainitud sadamakohad Saaremaal. 134 Marika Mägi

historic Saaremaa in general, have indicated that the methods for distinguishing ancient harbour sites, invented by Scandinavian colleagues, can with minor additions also be used on Estonian islands, as well as probably in the rest of the country. Agrarian settlement units on Saaremaa, when possible, have always been directly connected to the sea, harbour site(s) and maritime activities. The same is true for the political and administrative centres on the island.

2. Harbour sites as archaeological evidence 2.1. Search criteria and methods

As pointed out before, experience and methods worked out by archaeologists in the countries neighbouring Estonia have been largely used in the investigation trips on Saaremaa. This approach presupposes extensive study of the literature and maps before going into the field, as well as the use of phosphate analysis and metal detector on the spot. Since the experimental work in identifying prehistoric harbour sites has however been somewhat different in different countries, methods and indicators best suited for Saaremaa have been selected in the course of the last few years’ investigations. Carlsson has stated three main criteria for distinguishing prehistoric harbour sites on Gotland. These are 1) prehistoric graves or grave-fields close to the coast; 2) a shore protected from strong winds and 3) a situation in the cultural landscape (as seen on the land-survey maps from the 18th and 19th centuries) which diverges from the normal (roads meeting at a certain point on the coast or agricultural land near the coast but no farm within a reasonable distance) (Carlsson 1991). All the abovementioned criteria can be adjusted for Saaremaa, and will be considered more closely below. In addition, the location of early medieval manors has been treated as an indicator of Osilian harbours, and the same is true for medieval churches. In a word, all components of the cultural landscape behind the harbour, the hinterland, can be taken into consideration. Some attention is also paid to toponyms possibly indicating some connection with maritime activities, and local folklore, but these must be considered as supplementary indications in locating prehistoric harbour sites. After possible prehistoric and medieval harbour sites were selected, comparing the data of historical maps with topographic features taken from modern physical/ geographical maps, these were then checked in the course of archaeological surface survey trips. During the fieldwork, a metal detector and phosphate analysis were used. The first proved to be indispensable in cases when the culture layer was not too thick. The actual detecting depth is dependent on the make of the instrument, the soil, the size and material of the artefact; we used a Minelab Explorer detector that was able to identify metal items to a maximum depth of 30 cm. The use of a metal detector can, however, be less productive at harbour sites whose role during their time of use was more central and where the prehistoric culture layer “… Ships are their main strength” 135

lies deeper, especially when villages or households have been located at the same spot in the following centuries. Since such places cannot be identified with the help of a metal detector alone, trial pits were also dug in order to define the character of the site. The most essential method in distinguishing prehistoric harbour sites on Saaremaa has proved to be phosphate analysis (for the use of this method in similar research on Gotland see, for example, Österholm 1991; Carlsson 1998). Unfortunately, the use of phosphate analysis on Saaremaa must also be considered to a certain extent problematic, due to the overuse of chemical fertilizers that characterised Soviet-era agriculture. Predominantly because of this, the absolute indexes of phosphate values in samples taken from various districts cannot be compared. The use of the spot-test method on Saaremaa is complicated mainly for the same reason: preliminary trials in spot-tests resulted in values that were completely different from the results that were obtained from a laboratory. All soil samples that were taken in course of the investigation of possible harbour sites were, therefore, analysed in the laboratory, which made the research somewhat slower and more expensive. All soil samples were taken from the deepest level of the culture layer, directly on top of the natural ground. The intensity of the cultural layer was calculated when comparing the phosphate values of the interesting area with that in the surroundings where no cultural layer was detected. In the harbour sites detected so far, the phosphate values exceeded that in the surroundings by an average of 3–4 times. Some of the probable harbour places where the phosphate values compared to the surroundings were high and/or where prehistoric artefacts were found, were selected for small-scale trial excavations. These, in any case, will be the next step in the Research Project.

2.2. Representativeness

In defining harbour sites as an inseparable part of the Osilian settlement pattern, we need to consider whether our sample is representative: how many harbour sites once used have been found or will possibly be found in the future; the finding of how many could be difficult; how large a number of the sites might have been demolished. We have to admit that, with the methods we have in use at present, it is almost impossible to locate seldom and not very intensively used prehistoric harbour sites, much less landing-places. It was agreed, therefore, to investigate harbour sites of somewhat greater significance, whose connection with the hinterlands, marked by archaeological evidence, is observable. On Saaremaa, it should be possible to find primarily district-level harbour sites, or at least to locate these theoretically on a map. The identification of harbour sites is often complicated by the fact that medieval (coastal) villages were often founded on top of abandoned harbours. Several villages of this sort exist up to the present day. In these cases, a possible prehistoric 136 Marika Mägi

layer has been covered by a later cultural layer and certainly partly demolished by the buildings of the following centuries. Since the Saaremaa landscape has in places been changed beyond recognition by Soviet-era building and development work, it is not uncommon to find the selected place for a harbour site completely destroyed due to agricultural or military structures, or by gravel pits or other activities. An area adjacent to a present-day wetland at Upa, northeast of Kuressaare, can be given as an example (Fig. 2). According to all preliminary characteristics, the place had been suitable for a harbour site a thousand years ago; however, the first visit to the site made it clear that the whole area had been completely altered through drainage and gravel pits (Mägi 2003). If the theoretical reconstructions were correct and a harbour, perhaps even the main harbour of the surrounding district, was situated at this spot in prehistory, it can never be proved. Analysing the representativeness of landing sites around Roskilde fjord, Ulriksen has assumed that places where the cultural layer contains few metal objects must remain unidentified. The suggestion is based on the fact that more than half of the harbours/landing-places in this area have been recognized by metal detectors (Ulriksen 1998). Nevertheless, a too deeply located layer with (few) metal items can lead to a similarly negative result. Another variant where a metal detector cannot be used is where scrap metal is present in the soil. This is a frequent situation

Fig. 2. Possible harbour site at Upa. Drawn using a present day map. 1 arable land (after land development), 2 dwelling site, 3 wetland, 4 demolished stone grave, 5 road. Joon 2. Võimalik sadamakoht Upas. Joonistatud nüüdisaegse kaardi järgi. 1 põllumaa (pärast maaparandust), 2 asula, 3 liigniiske ala, 4 hävitatud kivikalme, 5 tee. “… Ships are their main strength” 137

on areas of Soviet-era military use, and sometimes also in places associated with kolkhoz agriculture. Some probable historical harbour sites are simply covered by household refuse, thrown there during the last decades. Probably the most complicated to find are river harbours, whose onetime existence and importance are, at the same time, above suspicion. On the Slavonic coast of the Baltic Sea, a pattern according to which the settlement centre of the harbour was located on banks of a river, some distance away from the sea, has been considered as typical in the Viking Age (e.g. Rẹbkowski 1999). The existence of river harbours on Saaremaa can be suggested predominantly on the southern coast where the sea is often very shallow and the coast flat. In such circumstances, river estuaries with somewhat deeper waters can be the most suitable or even the only places for ships to land. Rivers change their beds over the course of time, especially in flat terrain, and the changes of water level in them are difficult to follow several centuries later. The recognition of river harbour sites, therefore, is not an easy task. In addition, the archaeological finds in such harbour places are probably similar to those found in agrarian settlement sites on river banks, which makes it difficult to differentiate between these two types. The preconditions for locating prehistoric and medieval harbour sites on Saare- maa are accordingly quite limited. In some cases it is however possible, and the first sites are already recorded. Even these few surviving harbour sites are of vital help in the reconstruction of historical settlement patterns. Some of them have been chosen as selected examples in further research.

2.3. Location

Natural landing-places can usually be located on a topographic map. They are as a rule naturally well-protected areas, if possible situated on a heavily indented coastline, generally in places with deeper water near the shore. Frequently, the harbour sites can be found beside small sea bays or what used to be a sea bay in earlier times. To avoid strong winds, places protected by a cape or island in front of the bay were preferred. Suitably steep coasts and rapidly deepening water can be considered as essential preconditions. Shores where the water is shallow up to several hundred metres from the coast were difficult to use for landing even small boats, much less larger craft. It was also complicated when the coast was too steep or very stony. A sea bottom consisting of sand or thinner gravel was an advantage. Frequently, a spring or a river can be found near a harbour site. At Roskilde fjord, Ulriksen has pointed out that for 6th–12th-century landing- places, a coastal ridge with hills or rocks on both sides was often chosen. Traces of human activity were also found on these hills (Ulriksen 1998, 113–142). Although this observation cannot be transferred directly to Saaremaa – mainly because of frequent lack of suitable hills and rocks – it is however worth considering in some cases. 138 Marika Mägi

Although the coastline of Saaremaa, as well as of Gotland and Denmark, is often heavily indented, enabling the selection of quite a number of naturally suitable landing-places, harbours were founded only at some of them. Here we face the importance of a hinterland. As far as prehistoric harbour sites on Saaremaa are concerned, direct connection with agrarian hinterlands seems to be a determinant – i.e., they were founded in the vicinity of arable lands (for a similar connection in Sweden see Näsman 1991). All surface survey trips carried out on the island so far have only supported this presumption: no prehistoric harbour sites have been recorded in sandy, stony or otherwise infertile areas. It is essential to note here, anyway, that not only the direct coastal zone but the whole hinterland was taken into account, which means that arable lands can also be situated at a distance of 1–2 kilometres from the coast. A major premise for choosing a place for a harbour is a communication route leading deeper inland: a road or a river. In most cases, harbours seem to have been established as far inland as the draft of sea craft allowed, presumably to minimise the cost of land transportation, to create better access for the people of the surrounding area, and perhaps to secure them against seaward attack. In addition, the land mass upheaval as a relevant transformation process on the flat coastal areas of Saaremaa should be taken into consideration. The speed of this process has been calculated to be 2.5–3 m per thousand years, but it varied markedly in different centuries, depending on the height of sea level in warmer or cooler climate periods, the slowing of the upheaval over the course of time, and other factors. Still, the “rule” in the determination of prehistoric and medieval Osilian harbour sites seems to be that it is practical to assume a quicker rather than a slower land mass elevation than the average; that is, the real Viking Age coastline can, in several cases, be found even higher than the 3-m contour line. The same has been recorded on the island of Gotland, which resembles Saaremaa both geographically and in the speed of land mass elevation (Carlsson 1999b, 47–51). Faster accretion of landmass in coastal transformation processes can be for instance calculated in narrow straits, when winds blow predominantly from one direction – that is, in places that very often were natural for harbour sites. The opposite process, when the waves hollow out the coast, mainly characterises shores open to winds – accordingly places that were hardly ever chosen for harbours in prehistory. It is particularly difficult to reconstruct a coastal landscape when a former sea bay has turned into a bog. Present contour lines of such areas can be even higher than the surroundings and can therefore not be relied on. Unfortunately, Saaremaa has historically been rich in wetlands, though the majority of them have by now been drained and cultivated. The land mass upheaval, the drainage works, which started as early as the 18th century, and the straightening of rivers, have thoroughly changed rivers on Saaremaa. Several rivers marked by bold lines on 17th-century maps have turned into small ditches or have completely disappeared by the present day. “… Ships are their main strength” 139

The identification of river harbours and their role in earlier settlement patterns is even more complicated by the fact that, in the flat terrain of Saaremaa, normally very meandering rivers have frequently changed their beds.

2.4. Archaeological features of harbour sites

Harbour sites investigated on the banks of Roskilde fjord and on the island of Gotland usually covered an area of 1–5 ha, while traces of human activity were characteristically found mainly along the coast and, to a lesser extent, inland. In most cases, remains of pit-houses and other simple buildings were uncovered. The number of artefacts found at these sites was seldom large, and somewhat surprisingly most of the sites were characterised by lack or shortage of finds directly associated with trade – e.g. scales and weights, coins or imported items. The artefact material – bronze artefacts, ceramics, animal bones – closely resembled that of settlement sites, and the somewhat more frequent occurrence of material related to workshops can be picked out as the only specific feature for harbour sites (Carlsson 1991; Ulriksen 1998, 113–142). In addition, some harbour places were characterised by a higher than normal number of boat rivets, providing evidence of repair work on boats (e.g. Thomsen 1991). Most of the harbour sites were not clearly separated from the surrounding area, and only the bigger Viking Age trade centres around the Baltic were normally surrounded by a semi-circular wall (e.g. Birka, Paviken; see Lundström 1985; Holmquist Olausson 2002). Björn Ambrosiani has described a harbour site at Hornö, near Birka in central Sweden, as a sandy beach, upon which a pair of stone cairns was detected. Some stone structures were also recorded along the shoreline. Directly inland from these structures there remained an area of high phosphate values and a possible building terrace. The harbour structures had been defended by a hill-fort on a neighbouring hill (Ambrosiani 1991). On a 3rd–7th-century harbour site at Lundeborg on the island of Fyn, the cultural layer was generally 50 cm, in some places up to 80 cm thick; it stretched out approximately 800 m along what used to be a small bay. The width of the cultural layer varied from 30 to 60 m (Thomsen 1991). The cultural layer in the Osilian harbour places found so far was also similar to settlement sites. On top of the hill at Tornimäe, where probably some buildings had been situated in the Viking Age, the intensely black soil was approximately 40 cm deep; on the slope, it could extend even to a depth of 70 cm (Mägi 1998a). The depth of the culture layer at the Viltina harbour site was up to 40 cm (Mägi 2000). In both cases, the soil can be characterised as intensely black, containing pieces of charcoal, burnt stones, animal and fish bones. Small harbour sites in Estonia established in historical times can often be distinguished by parallel lines of stones stretching from sea to the coast – lauters. Similar constructions, characterised by massive earthen or stone walls and a depression in between, have been recorded in Norway, where they were interpreted 140 Marika Mägi

as remains of boathouses. The same sort of boathouses also existed in Dalarna, central Sweden, as well as on the islands of Åland and Gotland (Grimm 2002). For some reason, such constructions seem to be rare in Denmark (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991a). In Estonia, the lauters mark places where boats were drawn up onto land. When a harbour also acted as a market and trading place, a pier or jetty of wood or stone was undoubtedly erected on the shore. Some kind of jetties, perhaps with a lighter construction, have probably also existed in harbours of less importance. On Saaremaa, remains of a beam palisade found at Tornimäe, when ploughing there in the beginning of the 19th century, can be interpreted as traces of a probable jetty (Luce 1811); still, these data are very obscure. In Viltina, old people have said that oak beams or planks had been found next to the harbour site (Mägi 2000). The majority of prehistoric harbours in the North were used seasonally, for instance only during the summer months (e.g. Westholm 1985; Ulriksen 1998). The same can be suggested for prehistoric harbour sites on Saaremaa.

3. Cultural landscape around prehistoric harbour sites 3.1. Stone graves

Although Carlsson has claimed a clear correlation between prehistoric harbour sites and graves on the seashore of Gotland, the theory has not been supported by Danish archaeologists. Flat burial grounds or low mounds in Denmark also cannot be considered as dominating landscapes as do stone graves on Gotland or Saaremaa. At Roskilde fjord, at least, the correlation between landing-places and graves on the shore seems to be absent (Ulriksen 1998, 113–142), neither has it been pointed out in the Fyn Research Project (Christoffersen 1996). In the case of Saaremaa, the Gotland example nevertheless seems to be appropriate: all stone graves known so far, which have been situated on the earlier coastline, mark areas that could on both natural and cultural evidence have been used for harbour sites. The phenomenon reaches back as early as the Bronze Age (e. g. Sõrve Lülle graves, Kihelkonna Kurevere graves, see topic 4), and becomes particularly evident in the latter half of the Iron Age. Some Viking Age harbour sites have been already located, using the occurrence of stone graves as the main criterion (e.g. Tornimäe, Viltina). Who were these people who were buried in the graves close to prehistoric harbour sites? This is a separate question. At Viltina, it is reasonable to assume that a large stone grave with abundant grave goods was the burial ground of two or three local elite families who also controlled a harbour site 50 m away (Fig. 3). At least one of these families had formerly buried its dead in another grave, which was closer to their arable lands (the Randvere grave). At some time in the late Viking Age, probably owing to an increase of maritime activities, they had instead started to use the grave marking their harbour site. During the 11th–12th centuries, the old grave remained a burial place mainly for children while family members “… Ships are their main strength” 141

Fig. 3. Surroundings of the harbour site at Viltina. Redrawn from a 17th-century map. 1 farm, 2 stone grave, 3 road, 4 meadow, 5 hillocks, 6 arable land, 7 wetland. Joon 3. Viltina sadamakohta ümbritsev kultuurmaastik. Joonistatud 17. sajandi kaardi järgi. 1 talu, 2 kivikalme, 3 tee, 4 niit, 5 künkad, 6 põllumaa, 7 liigniiske ala.

who had died as adults were now buried in the harbour grave (Mägi 2002b, 47–49). Such practice probably reflects the need to demonstrate power and status. When the subsistence strategies of a settlement unit are thoroughly agricultural, power is often demonstrated through stone graves at the outline of arable lands or inside fields (for the connection between stone graves and settlement units on prehistoric Saaremaa see for more details Mägi 2002c). At Viltina, as probably in several other cases, maritime activities played a notable role in the local economy, which resulted in the erection of stone graves near to a place which was the most essential for the community – the harbour.4

4 This interpretation does not exclude other possibilities. For instance, the coast could have been chosen for a grave because of its liminal character: it was the border between land and sea, thus the border between two worlds. Still, Osilian stone graves that were in their time of erection situated on the seashore were clearly concentrated around areas which were also suitable for harbours. One possibility does not exclude the other; nevertheless, the rational aspect seems to prevail over the cognitive one (for the opposite opinion in Estonian archaeology see, for example, Lang 1999). 142 Marika Mägi

It has been suggested that burial grounds around prehistoric harbour sites of more central importance have been the places where tradesmen and other visitors who had happened to die during their stay in the harbour or market place were buried. These men could of course have come originally from other districts or even lands. The idea is supported by the phenomenon that in the burial grounds around central trade places, the percentage of male burials is frequently higher, sometimes even several times higher than that of female burials. Such difference in gender has been reported for instance in Kaupang, southern Norway (Blindheim & Heyerdahl-Larsen 1995) and Kopparsvik in Visby on Gotland (Lindquist 2003)5; it also seems to be the case at Laukskola, the biggest Livonian cemetery close to the trade centre of Daugmale in the lower reaches of the River Daugava6. In the case of international trade centres of more than regional importance, as for example Birka, even burial customs different from the local tradition have been pointed out (Gräslund 1980). Harbour sites of more than regional importance are not known on Saaremaa, however. Still, some obscure data refer to unusual burials in the vicinity of some district harbour sites. For instance, uncremated human bones and some swords were found when digging graves in the later Orthodox cemetery near the Tornimäe site (SMM 1924, 102). In Laadjala, 1–1.5 km away from Upa, the possible main harbour of Kaarma district (see topic 2. 2), an inhumation burial of a man was found in 1866 (SMM 1924, 24), which can be dated to the Viking Age according to an one-edged sword and a scabbard. Viking Age Saaremaa was characterised by cremation as the dominant burial custom; the earliest Iron Age inhumation graves excavated on the island were dated to the end of the 12th century and weapons do not occur in them. Both above-mentioned burials are thus exceptional, found at the same time in the vicinity of certain or possible central harbour sites of the two wealthiest districts of the island.

3.2. Churches and/or chapels

Danish investigations have suggested that the erection of Romanesque churches on the seashore can be treated as a criterion for determining prehistoric/early medieval harbour sites (Ulriksen 1998, 130–132). In some cases, the same has been pointed out on Gotland (Carlsson 1999a; 1999b). On Saaremaa, which was Christianised late compared to Scandinavia, and where only ten stone churches were built in the Middle Ages, two churches can be considered as marking harbour sites: Kihelkonna and Püha. The churches of Jämaja and Anseküla on the peninsula of Sõrve, at this time a separate island, are also located quite close to the seashore.

5 The findings from this cemetery have so far been published only as a brief popular article. 6 The author is thankful to Latvian archaeologist Roberts Spirģis who kindly acquainted me with some material about Livonian cemeteries in the lower reaches of the River Daugava, collected by him, 2003-03-22. “… Ships are their main strength” 143

Chapels appearing here and there on the shore probably also marked harbour sites; still, most of them were presumably built of wood and are therefore not easy to detect. As an example, the Sääre chapel on the south-eastern end of Sõrve was, according to the local tradition of even as late as the 20th century, erected by local landowners for the sake of seafarers who stopped at Sääre harbour (Saaremaa 1934, 461). As a means of demonstrating wealth and power, churches can often be compared with prehistoric stone graves: the elite of Saaremaa manifested its power through both of them (Mägi 2002b, 138–157). The erection of stone graves and churches/ chapels in the vicinity of more central harbour sites can thus be considered as largely equivalent phenomena. At the time when stone graves were erected close to harbour sites on Saaremaa and Gotland, the earliest Romanesque stone churches were being built in such places in an already Christianised Denmark.

3.3. Manors and/or large farmsteads

Maps used in the present research are dated mainly from the 17th–18th century, sometimes from the 19th century (for a more detailed overview of the historical maps of Saaremaa see Mägi 2002c). The majority of the maps are stored in the Estonian History Archive in Tartu; some can be found in the State Archive in Stockholm. These are predominantly agrarian maps where the main attention has been paid to soils, landscapes and farms. On the 17th-century maps, names of farmsteads were recorded; these maps are also precious because of the cultural landscape depicted there, which at this time was still unchanged by drainage or other improvements. Since the 18th century, micro-toponyms have been noted on maps, and the maps became more detailed. In some cases, a map of West-Estonia and the Estonian islands, drawn in 1650 and complemented in 1704, has been of great value (EA, 308-2-28; the part of Saaremaa and Muhu published in Mägi 2002c, Fig. 3). This map is not very detailed but reflects other relevant aspects, for instance, the impact of land mass elevation on the landscapes of Saaremaa. The location of harbour sites abandoned centuries ago is often indicated on historical maps by roads running from different directions and meeting on the seashore at a seemingly meaningless point. Carlsson has demonstrated that Gotland harbour sites were often founded in places on the seashore, which were at more or less the same distance from the farms using them (Carlsson 1992). This seems to be quite often true on Saaremaa as well (e.g. Viltina, see Mägi 2000). The roads united harbour sites with the centres of settlement units forming the hinterland of the harbour. Similarly to Scandinavia, these were probably manors or large farmsteads owned by the local elite. The owners of these estates controlled the harbour sites and the activities carried out there, although the harbours were most probably used by all local inhabitants. Since neither prehistoric nor medieval settlement sites have been excavated on Saaremaa so far, it has remained unknown 144 Marika Mägi

whether single farmsteads or villages dominated the cultural landscape at this time. In 15th-century documents, however, both manors/enfiefments (some of them very small though, consisting of even less than one ploughland) and villages are mentioned. The variant of manor-in-a-village, when one of the households in a village is definitely larger than the others and is often situated somewhat apart, seems to occur frequently (Mägi 2002c). Villæ mentioned by chronicler Henry the Livonian in the 13th century can also be interpreted as villages, although large single farmsteads can be marked with this name as well (CHL XI: 5, XV: 7, XXI: 5; Ligi 1968, 24–26). As argued in my earlier writings, stone graves on Saaremaa seem to belong only to elite families. Even the most generous projections of the number of individuals buried in these graves result in figures that are far too small to represent the whole population; besides, the absolute majority of prehistoric graves have been recorded around manors known from medieval written sources. The graves thus mark the best arable lands, which have been owned by the elite ever since farming became the dominating subsistence industry (Mägi 2002b, 115–124; 2002c). Following the distribution of stone graves in settlement units bordering the sea, a connection between prehistoric manors (and, accordingly, stone graves around them) and harbour sites is obvious. In historical landscapes, i.e. on 17th–18th- century maps, former harbour sites are frequently marked by a manor household situated 1–2 km away (e.g. Uuemõisa close to the Tornimäe harbour site; Fig. 4). Medieval manors have occasionally also been situated almost next to their harbours

Fig. 4. Surroundings of the harbour site at Tornimäe. Redrawn from a 17th-century map. 1 farm, 2 stone grave, 3 road, 4 meadow, 5 wetland, 6 arable land, 7 river. Joon 4. Tornimäe sadamakohta ümbritsev kultuurmaastik. Joonistatud 17. sajandi kaardi järgi. 1 talu, 2 kivikalme, 3 tee, 4 niit, 5 soo, 6 põllumaa, 7 jõgi. “… Ships are their main strength” 145

(e.g. Saaremõisa and Kihelkonna on Saaremaa or Suuremõisa on Muhu). How- ever, the lack of prehistoric finds and stone graves in the vicinity of these manors indicates that they were founded only in the Middle Ages (Mägi 2001a). There are several areas on Saaremaa where manors were not founded in the medieval period. In these cases, the location of harbour sites at an equal distance from surrounding villages is particularly obvious. An appropriate example might be the Viltina harbour site, which was presumably controlled by settlement units located at the sites of the later villages of Asva and Randvere (Fig. 3). Local elite families in these places certainly controlled the harbour; whether they lived in single farms in late prehistory, or whether the settlement pattern of villages and manors inside the villages already existed then, remains unclear until more specific investigation is carried out.

3.4. Place names and local folklore

Westerdahl in particular, but Carlsson too, have emphasised the significance of (micro)toponyms in the search for harbour sites (e.g. Carlsson 1991; Westerdahl 2002). Danish archaeologists seem to be more cautious, using this evidence only as a secondary indicator, and pointing to several problems in treating place names as source material (e.g. Holmberg 1996; Ulriksen 1998, 122–124). The use of place names has also been complicated on Saaremaa. On coastal areas, micro-toponyms referring, for example, to ships or boats can occasionally be found (e.g. Paadimägi – Boat Hill, Laevamägi – Ship Hill, Paadi Auk – Boat Hole); they can in any case also occur in places so far from the seashore that even prehistoric harbour sites should be excluded. Somewhat surprisingly, a micro-toponym Linnamägi (Hill-Fort) has proved to indicate abandoned harbour sites in several cases. For instance, the hill of the Viking Age Tornimäe harbour was known as Linnamägi up to as late as the beginning of the 19th century (Luce 1811; EA, 2072-3-419), toponyms like Linnamäe Põld (Hill-Fort Field) and the Linna (Fort) farm occur in the vicinity of the Viltina harbour (EA, 3724-5-2946). A former island in what used to be the estuary of the River Maadevahe close to a Viking Age harbour site Kuru Saat, presently surrounded by wetland, is called Linnamägi; the same name is used for a wetland island in front of another probable harbour site (though small and of local importance) at Neemi (Mägi 1999a; 2001b; 2002a; 2004). Place names connected to power structures can be considered as symbols in the manifestation of authority over the landscape (see also Westerdahl 2002). Harbour sites apparently functioned as some kind of centres, and were therefore marked by names indicating their importance. It is essential to note that none of the abovementioned Linnamägi places were real hill-forts. In identifying micro-toponyms on Saaremaa, predominantly historical maps, first of all 18th–19th-century land survey maps, have been used, since only a few elderly people remember the names in detail. The preliminary investigations have led to the 146 Marika Mägi

somewhat surprising conclusion that place names often tend to change quickly. For instance, arable lands around the Tõnija village on southern Saaremaa are in 1873 marked on the map as Libbe maa peld and Surrid peld (EA, 3724–5–2492) while in the 1920s the same lands are already recorded as Kooljamäe põld (Field of the Hill of the Dead) and Hiiepõld (Field of the Holy Grove) (SMM 1924, 118–120). Present day local inhabitants, even the best informed ones, do not remember either of these names. The Tornimäe harbour site that was called Linnamägi (Hill-Fort Hill) on maps of the end of the 18th century (EA, 2072-3-419), was already known as Sillamägi (Bridge Hill) in the middle of the 19th-century (Holzmayer 1868), and in the beginning of the 20th century both these names were forgotten (see e.g. SMM 1924, 102–109). Despite these extreme examples, local place names, however, can often be used as at least complementary arguments, especially when the earliest variants are mentioned on 18th–19th-century maps. In several cases, local folklore has helped in the localisation of prehistoric harbour sites. These data are usually very obscure and not pointing directly to harbours; for instance, local tradition can remember how far inland the sea reached “in the old times”. As an example the village of Kogula can be cited, beside which a “town” was believed to have existed. The folklore of the beginning of the 20th century still remembered that a navigable sea had reached right under the walls of the “town” (SMM 1924, 88). According to contour lines on the topographic map, it must indeed have been like that about a thousand years ago, and the place at Kogula seems to be suitable for a harbour site. Old tradition also remembers how “old Estonians” were able to sail under the walls of the Valjala hill-fort; and in fact a tributary of the Lõve River reached right to this point even as late as in the 19th century, having disappeared mainly because of drainage work in later times. A lower area east of the Tornimäe harbour is remembered by some locals as an earlier navigable strait. According to contour lines there really was a strait, and the present Kõrkvere peninsula on the opposite side was an island even on the map of 1650 (EA, 308–2–28). The research conducted so far has demonstrated that folklore data are worthy of consideration in all cases. The information in local stories is generally disguised, but nevertheless people have carried on the knowledge of the peculiarities of one place or another. Even legends of underground passages can, for instance, refer to a special connection between settlement units. It is interesting to note that, at least in two cases, prehistoric harbour sites are remembered in local tradition as abandoned manors, where some people have tried to find a hidden treasure. These data can be easily associated with the above stated connection between prehistoric harbour sites and medieval manors, as well as the use of the name Linnamägi in the vicinity of abandoned harbour sites. No local tradition collected so far has directly recalled prehistoric or medieval harbour sites, while later historical harbours, “old village harbours”, are frequently pointed out. The only exception is Tornimäe, which is known as a prehistoric harbour by all locals; still, this data is clearly obtained from published literature. “… Ships are their main strength” 147

4. Discussion: harbour sites on Saaremaa and around the Baltic

Different researchers have suggested that only harbour sites around the Baltic Sea dating from the 6th century onwards have become traceable (e. g. Carlsson 1991; Ulriksen 1998, 134–138, 194–195, 216–223). It does not mean that seafaring was not practised before that. Earlier harbour sites are evidently difficult to detect, perhaps because of infrequent use, which left fewer traces in the ground, or because of fewer ships in earlier periods. One possibility is that the use of river harbours was more widespread before the 6th century; this type of harbour is particularly complicated to distinguish (see topic 2.2). Another suggestion is that earlier than 6th century harbour sites are more difficult to find because of fewer metal items in their culture layer; at the same time, a great proportion of harbour sites have been identified in the course of metal detecting (e. g. Thrane & Porsmose 1996; Ulriksen 1998, 17–19). It may be true for Estonia; on the other hand, very few settlement sites dated to the time before the 6th century have been excavated here, which makes it inadvisable to assume that such sites include fewer metal artefacts than later ones. Single harbour sites dated earlier than the 6th century are however known in the countries around the Baltic as well – notably Lundeborg, a 3rd–7th-century harbour site on the south-eastern coast of the island of Fyn in Denmark. The site was linked to Gudme 4 km inland, a ritual centre where people presumably gathered to carry out religious rites, as well as for negotiations and other social activities. Since the place was situated on an island, the visitors arrived by boat. Some Danish archaeologists assume that neither Gudme nor its harbour at Lundeborg were controlled by one single chieftain but were regulated in common by several smaller chieftains (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991a; Thomsen 1991); others consider these sites as a result of power consolidation. Archaeological excavations at Lundeborg have proved it to have been a trade centre, where, among other material, items imported from the Roman Empire have been found. It can be assumed that it was a place where not only the chieftains but also their retainers and ships’ crews arrived to trade and to conclude agreements (Ulriksen 1998, 218–219). Lundeborg was probably not the only site of its kind. Even on Saaremaa, harbour sites earlier than the 6th century can theoretically be assumed. The concentration of Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age stone-cist graves on what used to be the seashore in these periods often correlates with topographic features suitable for a harbour site. The coast near a small bay on the southern part of the Bronze Age island of Sõrve, nowadays an area 1–1.5 km south-west of the village of Lülle, where a number of stone graves are recorded, can be cited as an example. In addition to stone cist graves, two Bronze Age ship-settings have been excavated here (Lõugas 1970). Taking into account the suitable small bay and arable lands around the present village of Lülle in the vicinity, a probable harbour site or at least a landing-place could be presumed here even without the stone graves (Fig. 5). 148 Marika Mägi

Fig. 5. Surroundings of the possible Bronze Age/Pre-Roman Iron Age harbour site at Lülle. Drawn using a present day map. 1 arable land (after land development), 2 wetland, 3 stone grave, 4 road, 5 dwelling site, 6 ditch. Joon 5. Võimalikku pronksiaegset/eelrooma rauaaegset Lülle sadamakohta ümbritsev kultuurmaastik. Joonistatud nüüdisaegse kaardi järgi. 1 põllumaa (pärast maaparandust), 2 liigniiske ala, 3 kivikalme, 4 tee, 5 asula, 6 kraav.

A harbour site with a cult place nearby can be surmised at Kurevere on the north-western end of Saaremaa. A small bay stretching to the first houses of the present day village of Kurevere, with a suitably steep slope, on a coast where the water once became deep almost immediately, would have been a perfect place for a harbour for millennia. A road-embankment from the 20th century has unfortunately cut the former bay off from its outlet to the sea, causing the waterlogging of soils on the slope, thus complicating archaeological investigation (Mägi 2004; Fig. 6). The number of stone graves, as well as cup-marked stones, along the former coast of the bay is remarkable. The graves can be dated from the Bronze Age to the very end of prehistory, and some of them have been excavated (Kustin 1966; Lõugas 1977). 12th-century burials in particular were conspicuous by their abundant and luxurious grave goods (e.g. Mägi 2002b, 45–47). Kurevere village itself is situated on the borderland of arable fields on unproductive soils, which suggests that it was established quite late, perhaps in the Middle Ages; the vicinity is sparsely populated even nowadays. The only village close by that is surrounded by arable lands is Tammese, 1.8 km towards the north-east, where recently a settlement site with a strikingly intensive prehistoric cultural layer was recorded (Mägi 2004). No burial grounds are known around the village of Tammese. The great number of stone graves concentrated around the “… Ships are their main strength” 149

Fig. 6. Surroundings of the possible harbour site at Kurevere. Drawn using a present day map. 1 arable land (after land development), 2 wetland, 3 road, 4 present dwelling site, 5 probable harbour site, 6 stone grave, 7 cup-marked stone, 8 prehistoric dwelling site. Joon 6. Kurevere võimalikku sadamakohta ümbritsev kultuurmaastik. Joonistatud nüüdisaegse kaardi järgi. 1 põllumaa (pärast maaparandust), 2 liigniiske ala, 3 tee, 4 praegune asulakoht, 5 arvatav sadamakoht, 6 kivikalme, 7 väikeselohuline kultusekivi, 8 muinasaegne asulakoht.

small bay and (possible) harbour at any rate suggests that Tammese and Kurevere should be considered as forming one complex of sites; presumably people from different settlement units were buried here. The settlement at Tammese very probably functioned as a ritual centre (which does not exclude other possible functions), or at least as an agrarian and perhaps political centre controlling ritual and social activities in the vicinity. The area is the easiest to reach by sea, and suitable topographic conditions for a harbour site therefore played a vital role in the formation of the whole complex. The interest of an elite – noblemen or wealthier farmers – in controlling harbour sites was presumably associated primarily with trade and piracy, and only secondarily with more common maritime activities like fishing. Changes in harbour sites can anyhow be linked to social development. It can therefore be suggested that the less visible maritime activity before the 6th century was also the result of social conditions: single chieftains did simply not possess enough political power to control harbours with a larger hinterland. These were made possible only by gradual power consolidation before and during the Viking Age. The 6th century is frequently pointed out as revolutionary in areas around the Baltic Sea. The adoption of new burial rites, together with other archaeological and historical evidence, indicate a strengthening of warrior ideology in society 150 Marika Mägi

(e.g. Göransson 1999). In Estonia, changes occurred in the whole cultural sphere: earlier close connections with the eastern and south-eastern shore of the Baltic were gradually replaced by more intensive communication with the West. Changes in maritime activities were also indicated by the disappearance of coastal settlements, perhaps because it became too dangerous to live too close to the seashore (e. g. Crumlin-Pedersen 1991a; Näsman 1991; Christoffersen & Porsmose 1996). Fishing villages moved back to the shore only in the medieval period, in the 13th–14th centuries (e. g. Crumlin-Pedersen 1996). On Saaremaa, two harbour sites starting from the 6th or even the 5th century can be mentioned. As indicated by some single finds, the Tornimäe harbour site must have got its start in the 6th–7th centuries. A probable Migration Period harbour site Paemõis (“Limestone Manor”), excavated in 2003, was situated on the banks of the Maadevahe River, at the time of its use about 1 km upstream. It was separated from the surrounding area by a low wall (Mägi & Mägi 2002; Mägi 2004). Harbour sites around the Baltic became more “visible” starting in the 8th–9th centuries (e.g. Ulriksen 1998, 194–195, 217–223; Filipowiak 1999; Rẹbkowski 1999). Roughly at this time, Baltic Sea ships were equipped with sails, as far as it can be judged by depictions on picture stones (Westerdahl 1995; Ulriksen 1998, 219–222). It was the time when the use of the Tornimäe site was, according to present data, clearly intensified. Danish archaeologists have pointed out that the artefact material from harbour sites of this period alters: imported prestige ware was now complemented by imported but quite common items like bronze jewellery, glass beads and combs. This phenomenon is believed to be linked to the development of trade (Ulriksen 1998, 222–223). Norwegian archaeologist Axel Christophersen has pointed out the intensification of exploitation and distribution of resources which started at the end of the 8th century (Christophersen 1991). Social processes connected to this development brought along more effective control over trade, and centralisation of trade places. At harbour places of more central importance, visitors could now stay longer, for instance, for the whole summer season; craftsmen who were interested in selling their labour and production also joined them for a longer time. Merchants and other seamen visiting such places paid taxes to the chieftain(s) controlling the place, and the latter in turn guaranteed their safety for the time they stayed in the harbour. The greater part of archaeologically distinguishable late prehistoric harbour sites on Saaremaa presumably belonged to this category. At the same time, several small harbours probably existed parallel to the bigger ones, although traces of these are more difficult to detect. The next change in the development of maritime activities around the Baltic was the move of harbour sites closer to the open sea in the 11th–12th centuries (for the phenomenon in Scandinavia see e. g. Callmer 1991). In Denmark, Ulriksen has associated the move with the drift of centres, and primarily the establishment of towns (Ulriksen 1998, 222–228). The phenomenon itself is however more comprehensive and apparent also in those Baltic regions where no towns developed in “… Ships are their main strength” 151

the 11th–12th centuries. It is more likely, therefore, that the move of harbour sites was predominantly caused by the increased speed of land mass elevation, and the appearance of large cargo-carrying ships, mainly since the 11th century. The end of the Viking Age and the 12th century were periods when the Viking Age high water level in the Baltic Sea sank, which, together with the ordinary processes of land mass upheaval, changed the coastline beyond recognition in a comparatively short time. Starting from the 11th century, the number of ships on the Baltic Sea definitely increased, and several different variants of sea craft appeared. Large cargo carriers were brought into use. By the 12th century, they could carry 60 tons – the same load as cogs, which entered the scene from the late 12th century onwards (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991b; 1991c). Drafts of these deep- sea cargo carriers were also comparable with the cogs, extending to 1.5 m with a full load. All these changes meant that the 12th century is, according to current research, considered as the period of the major shift in northern ship-building (Crumlin-Pedersen 1999). Big new ships needed harbours with deeper water nearby, which resulted in the abandonment of several earlier harbour sites. This process was only accelerated by land mass elevation, which had in any case hampered access to several harbour sites. The move of harbour sites at the end of prehistory is observable also on Saare- maa. Archaeological investigation conducted so far suggests that the Tornimäe Viking Age harbour site was abandoned by the 12th century, or was now used only for small boats. Another harbour site in front and beside the Muhu hill-fort on the opposite coast of the Little Strait can possibly be treated as a successor to Tornimäe. A stone pier about 500 m north-east of the Tornimäe Viking Age harbour place probably indicates a medieval harbour, which was probably connected to a taxation centre at Uuemõisa about 1300 m away. Similarly, the main harbour site of the Kaarma district had perhaps already moved to the site of the later Kures- saare by the end of prehistory, and the same may be true for the Maasi harbour. The prosperity of prehistoric harbour sites came to an end at the beginning of the Middle Ages. In Scandinavia, the concentration of trade into single large harbours/ trade places started centuries earlier than on the eastern coast of the Baltic, and was caused by the centralisation of political power. These were early urban centres, whose usage and tax revenues were controlled by establishing kingships (Ulriksen 1998, 222–228). On Gotland, there were six main harbours in the Viking Age (Carlsson 1998). By the Middle Ages, all trade was concentrated in one place – the town of Visby (Westholm 1985), while all other harbour sites had been abandoned or functioned now only as small insignificant landing-places used only by some single farms. On Saaremaa, harbour sites of more than regional importance never developed. Similarly to the island of Gotland, 5–6 more important harbour sites probably functioned more or less in parallel here up to the 13th century. Medieval towns that were founded on the Estonian mainland right after the conquest took over the international trade, and the Osilian harbours became marginal. On the sites of several earlier harbours, fishing villages were established. Only harbours connected 152 Marika Mägi

to taxation centres retained some importance, though at a local level; the highest position was held by Maasi and Kuressaare, the harbours of the centres of medieval Osilian overlords. To a certain extent, Saaremaa harbours were still used throughout the following centuries, which is well indicated by the struggle that apparently was still hopeless at the end of the 16th century, to concentrate all trade into the harbour of Kuressaare (Seresse 1996, 75–77).

References Sources used

EA, 308-2-28 – Map of Saaremaa and West-Estonia 1650/1704. EA, 2072-3-419 – Map of the lands of Uuemõisa manor 1767. EA, 3724-5-2946 – Map of Viltina and Asva villages 1874–75. EA, 3724-5-2492 – Map of Rõõsa manor and farmsteads 1873.

Printed sources

Henriku Liivimaa kroonika. Heinrici Chronicon Livoniae (HCL). Translated and edited by E. Tarvel. Tallinn, 1982. Liivimaa vanem riimkroonika. Translation and commentary by U. Eelmäe. Tallinn, 2003. (Older Rhyme Chronicle.)

Unpublished reports

Mägi, M. 1998a. Tornimäe sadam-asulakoht. Inspektsioonide aruanne. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 1999a. Aruanne inspektsioonidest Välta, Neemi ja Ardla küladesse Pöide kihelkonnas Saaremaal. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2001a. Aruanne inspektsioonidest Saaremõisa ümbrusesse Pöide khk-s Saaremaal. Manu- script in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2001b. Inspektsioonid Tõnija küla ümbrusesse. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2002a. Kuru saat – sadamakoht Saaremaal Rõõsa külas (Valjala khk). Inspektsiooni aruanne. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2003. Inspektsioon Upa külla Kaarma kihelkonnas Saaremaal 20. mail 2003. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2004. Inspektsioonid Kurevere ja Tammese külla. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn.

Literature

Ambrosiani, B. 1991. Birka: its waterways and hinterland. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 99–104. Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. Odense, 1996. “… Ships are their main strength” 153

Blindheim, C. & Heyerdahl-Larsen, B. 1995. De dode. – Kaupang-funnene. (Bind II. Norske Oldfunn, XVI.) Oslo, 115–126. Callmer, J. 1991. Platser med anknytning till handel och hantverk i yngre järnålder. Exempel från södra Sverige. – Høvdingesamfund og Kongemagt. Fra Stamme til Stat i Danmark, 2. (Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter, XXII, 2), 29–47. Carlsson, D. 1991. Harbours and trading places on Gotland AD 600–1000. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Roskilde, 145–158. Carlsson, D. 1998. Vikingahamnar. Ett hotat kulturarv. (ArkeDok. Skrifter, 1.) Visby. Carlsson, D. 1999a. Gård, hamn och kyrka. En vikingatida kyrkogård i Fröjel. (CCC papers, 4.) Visby. Carlsson, D. 1999b. “Ridanäs”. Vikingahamnen i Fröjel. Visby. Christoffersen, J. 1996. Arkæologiske kilder. – Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. Odense, 33–42. Christoffersen, J., Porsmose, E. 1996. Den fynske kystzones bebyggelsesmønstre i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. – Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. Odense, 154–160. Christophersen, A. 1991. Ports and trade in Norway during the transition to historical time. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 159–170. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1991a. Maritime aspects of the archaeology of Roman and Migration- Period Denmark. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 41–54. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1991b. Ship Types and sizes AD 800–1400. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeo- logy, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 69–82. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1991c. Søfart og samfund i Danmarks vikingetid. – Høvdingesamfund og Kongemagt. Fra Stamme til Stat i Danmark, 2. (Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter, XXII, 2), 181– 208. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1996. Kystforsvaret. – Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. Odense, 182–193. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1999. Ships as indicators of trade in Northern Europe 600–1200. – Mari- time Topography and the Medieval Town. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Water- front Archaeology in Copenhagen, 14–16 May 1998. Copenhagen, 11–20. Filipowiak, W. 1999. Wolin und Szczecin – Hafen und Topographie der mittelalterlichen Stadt. – Maritime Topography and the Medieval Town. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in Copenhagen, 14–16 May 1998. Copenhagen, 61–70. Göransson, E.-M. 1999. Bilder av kvinnor och kvinnlighet. Genus och kroppssprak under övergangen till kristendomen. Stockholm. Grimm, O. 2002. The military context of Norwegian boathouses AD 1–1500. – Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe. Technology, organisation, logistics and administration 500 BC–1500 AD. Papers from an International Research Seminar at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 3–5 May 2000. Copenhagen, 105–123. Gräslund, A.-S. 1980. Birka IV. The Burial Customs. A study of the graves on Björkö. Stockholm. Holmberg, B. 1996. Stednavne som historisk kilde. – Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. Odense, 53–60. Holmquist Olausson, L. 2002. The fortification of Birka. Interaction between land and sea. – Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe. Technology, organisation, logistics and administration 500 BC–1500 AD. Papers from an International Research Seminar at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 3–5 May 2000. Copenhagen, 159–167. Holzmayer, J. B. 1868. Osiliana, I. Das Kriegswesen der alten Oeseler. Arensburg. Ilves, K. 2002. Merenduslik kultuurmaastik ja Maasi laev kui selle element. – EAA, 6, 2, 134–149. 154 Marika Mägi

Kustin, A. 1966. Kiviringkalme Kureveres Saaremaal. – Pronksiajast varase feodalismini. Uuri- musi Baltimaade ja naaberalade arheoloogiast. Tallinn, 87–95. Lang, V. 1996. Muistne Rävala. Muistised, kronoloogia ja maaviljelusliku asustuse kujunemine Loode-Eestis, eriti Pirita jõe alamjooksu piirkonnas, 1–2. (MT, 4.) Tallinn. Lang, V. 1999. Kultuurmaastikku luues. Essee maastiku religioossest ja sümboliseeritud korraldu- sest. – EAA, 3, 1, 63–85. Lang, V. 2000. Keskusest ääremaaks. Viljelusmajandusliku asustuse kujunemine ja areng Vihasoo- Palmse piirkonnas Virumaal. (MT, 7.) Tallinn. Ligi, H. 1968. Talupoegade koormised Eestis 13. sajandist 19. sajandi alguseni. Tallinn. Lindquist, M. 2003. Masculine – feminine – human – about the Viking-age grave-field at Kopparsvik south of Visby, Gotland. – Viking Heritage magazine, 2003, 1, 11–13. Lõugas, V. 1970. Sõrve laevkalmed. – Studia archaeologica in memoriam Harri Moora. Tallinn, 111–118. Lõugas, V. 1977. Ausgrabungsergebnisse eines Steingräberfeldes von Kurevere. – TATÜ, 26, 1, 48–52. Luce, J. W. L. 1811. Das Schloss Mone auf Ösel, oder nähere Bestimmung der Lage derjenigen Festung, auf deren Einnahme durch die Deutschen 1225 die Unterwerfung der ganzen Insel folgte. Einladungsschrift der arensburgischen Kreisschule. Riga. Lundström, P. 1985. Der Wall bei Västergarn. – Society and Trade in the Baltic during the Viking Age. (Acta Visbyensia, VII.) Visby, 269–272. Mägi, M. 1998b. Districts and centres on Saaremaa 1100–1400. – Culture Clash or Compromise? The Europanisation of the Baltic Sea Area 1100–1400 AD. Papers of the XIth Visby Symposium held at Gotland Centre for Baltic Studies, Gotland University College, Visby, October 4th–9th, 1996. (Acta Visbyensia, XI.) Visby, 147–157. Mägi, M. 1999b. Farmsteads and villages on Saaremaa from the late prehistoric to the medieval periods. Study of historical maps and archaeological evidence in Pöide district 1100–1400 AD. – Europeans or Not? Local level Strategies on the Baltic Rim 1100–1400 AD. (CCC papers, 1.) Oskarshamn, 197–212. Mägi, M. 2000. Weapons find and an ancient harbour site at Viltina Käo-Matsi. – AVE, 1999, 92–99. Mägi, M. 2001c. Landed estates on Saaremaa 1100–1400 as recorded in a study of the parish of Pöide. – Lübeck Style? Novgorod Style? Baltic Rim Central Places as Arenas for Cultural Encounters and Urbanisation 1100–1400 AD. Transactions of the Central Level Symposium of the Culture Clash or Compromise (CCC) Project Held in Talsi September 18–21 1998. (CCC papers, 5.) Riga, 315–328. Mägi, M. 2002b. At the Crossroads of Space and Time. Graves, Changing Society and Ideology on Saaremaa (Ösel), 9th–13th centuries AD. (CCC papers, 6.) Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2002c. Piirkonnad ja keskused. Asustus muinasaja lõpu ja varakeskaegsel Saaremaal arheoloogiliste, inimgeograafiliste ning ajalooliste allikate andmeil. – Keskus – tagamaa – ääreala. Uurimusi asustushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. (MT, 11.) Tallinn; Tartu, 169–232. Mägi, M. 2004. The mortuary house at Lepna on southern Saaremaa. – AVE, 2003, 45–60. Mägi, M. & Mägi, T. 2002. Archaeological fieldwork around Tõnija and Rõõsa on southern Saare- maa. – AVE, 2002, 56–64. Näsman, U. 1991. Sea trade during the Scandinavian Iron Age: its character, commodities, and routes. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 23–40. Österholm, I. 1991. Phosphate surveying of coastal settlements. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 269–274. Rẹbkowski, M. 1999. The maritime topography of medieval Kołobrzeg. – Maritime Topography and the Medieval Town. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in Copenhagen, 14–16 May 1998. Copenhagen, 55–60. “… Ships are their main strength” 155

Saaremaa 1934 = Eesti. Maateaduslik, majanduslik ja ajalooline kirjeldus, IV. Saaremaa. Tartu. Saaremaa ja Muhu muinasjäänused. (Tartu Ülikooli Arheoloogiakabineti Toimetised, II.) Tartu, 1924 (= SMM 1924). Seresse, V. 1996. Des Königs “arme weit abgelegenne Vntterthanen”. Ösel unter dänischer Herrschaft 1559/84–1613. Frankfurt am Main. Thrane, H. & Porsmose, E. 1996. Handelspladser og købstæder. – Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. Odense, 194–200. Thomsen, P. O. 1991. Lundeborg: a traiding centre from the 3rd–7th century AD. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 133–144. Ulriksen, J. 1998. Anløbspladser. Besejling og bebyggelse i Danmark mellem 200 og 1100 e. Kr. En studie af søfartens pladser på baggrund af undersøgelser i Roskilde Fjord. Roskilde. Vedru, G. 2001. Põhja-Eesti muinasaegsest rannikukasutusest. – EAA, 5, 2, 110–127. Westholm, G. 1985. The settlement at Vi, at the foot of the cliff. – Society and Trade in the Baltic during the Viking Age. (Acta Visbyensia, VII.) Visby, 293–304. Westerdahl, C. 1980. On Oral Traditions and Place Names. An introduction to the first stage in the establishment of a register of ancient monuments for the maritime cultural heritage. – International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 9, 4, 311–329. Westerdahl, C. 1989. Norrlandsleden I. Källor till det maritima kulturlandskapet. Härnosand. Westerdahl, C. 1995. Society and sail. On symbols as specific social values and ships as catalysts of social units. – The Ship as Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia. Papers from an International Research Seminar at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 5th–7th May 1994. Copenhagen, 41–50. Westerdahl, C. 2002. The cognitive landscape of naval warfare and defence. Toponymic and archaeological aspects. – Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe. Technology, organisation, logistics and administration 500 BC–1500 AD. Papers from an International Research Seminar at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 3–5 May 2000. Copenhagen, 169–190.

Marika Mägi

“... NENDE SUURIM JÕUD ON LAEVAD.” SADAMAD, PÕLLUD JA PEALIKUD SAAREMAAL

Raske oleks leida teist Eesti muistset maakonda, mis oleks olnud merendu- sega nii tugevalt seotud kui Saaremaa. Saareline asend räägib iseenda eest. Seo- tusele mere ja rannajoonega viitab siinne asustusmuster, ülemeresidemetest kõne- levad mujalt toodud esemed arheoloogilises materjalis. Kaalukas sõna on öelda kirjalikel allikatel, mis pea eranditult rõhutavad saarlaste laevastiku tugevust ja kindlustunnet eriti suvisel ajal, mil saarele pääsemine ilma laevadeta oli raske. Ometi võib kindel olla, et saarlaste merenduslik aktiivsus polnud üksnes rüüsta- misega seotud: hoopis olulisemad olid kala- ning hülgepüük, kaubandus ja kont- roll rahvusvahelise kaubanduse üle. Käesolev artikkel on ülevaade seni tehtud uurimistööst Saaremaa merendusliku maastiku vallas. Põhitähelepanu on selles keskendatud muinasaja lõpusajan- deile ning varakeskajale, seega ajavahemikule umbes 900–1400. 156 Marika Mägi

1. Uurimisaines 1.1. Põllumajanduslik ja merenduslik maastik

Rannamaastiku all pole mõistetud üksnes otseselt mereäärseid alasid, vaid ka asustusüksusi, mis piirnevad või piirnesid kunagi merega. Muinas- ja keskaegsed asustusüksused Saaremaal olid oma põhiiseloomult agraarsed ning koosnesid elu- ja muudest hoonetest, neis elavate inimeste haritavatest põldudest, nende kasutatavatest heina- ja karjamaadest ning muudest kõlvikutest. Seda inimese poolt mõjutatud maastikku nimetatakse kultuurmaastikuks. Rannalähedastel aladel liitub eelkirjeldatule veel üks oluline aspekt, mida tuleks õieti vaadelda tihedas sümbioosis eelnevaga. See on merega seotud inimtegevus, mille nähtavateks arheoloogilisteks jälgedeks on kunagised sadamakohad, aga ka näiteks koolme- ning sillakohad ja laevavrakid. Inimtegevuse, loodusliku rannamaastiku ning rannalähedase mere topograafia koosmõjus sünnibki merenduslik kultuurmaastik.

1.2. Sadamakohad

Omaette küsimuseks on, kus jookseb piir muistsete sadamakohtade ning lihtsalt laevade randa tõmbamise kohtade vahel. Varasemad uurijad on kasutanud eri termineid. Käesolevas kirjutises on sadamakoht kui veesõidukitele ligipääsetav merenduslikule tegevusele orienteeritud koht, mille kasutamine on olnud regulee- ritud kokkulepete ja/või traditsioonidega ning mida iseloomustab tagamaa olemasolu. Seega ei peeta sadamakohtadeks juhusliku iseloomuga maabumiskohti, mida, tõsi küll, on ka arheoloogilises materjalis praktiliselt võimatu eristada. Sadamakoha tagamaa all mõistetakse ala, millega üks või teine sadamakoha funktsioon on otseselt seotud. Tagamaa ulatus võib olla väga erinev ning sõltub sadamakoha funktsioonidest ja tähtsusest. Kalastamise, kohaliku vahetuskauban- duse ja esmatasandi kommunikatsiooniga seotud sadamakoha tagamaa moodusta- vad seda kasutanud agraarse iseloomuga asustusüksus või -üksused. Kauplemis- ja/või käsitöökeskusena funktsioneeriva sadamakoha tagamaaks on enamasti laiem piirkond, näiteks muinaskihelkond. Varalinnalise või linnalise keskusega seotud kaubasadamad on tavaliselt seotud rahvusvahelise kaubandusega ning nende tagamaa puhul võib rääkida regioonist. Saaremaa sadamakohtade puhul ei saa ilmselt rääkida (vara)linnalistest keskustest.

1.3. Varasem uurimislugu

Rannalähedaste alade asustusarheoloogia on Põhjamaades pälvinud arheoloogide eritähelepanu juba viimased 20–25 aastat. Eeskätt võiks mainida Dan Carlssoni pikaajalisi uuringud Saaremaa naabersaarel Ojamaal, kus praeguseks “… Ships are their main strength” 157

on välja selgitatud umbes 50 muinasaegset sadamakohta (Carlsson 1992; 1998; 1999b). Rootsi mandriosa merendusliku maastiku mõtestamisel on suure töö ära teinud Christer Westerdahl (Westerdahl 1980; 1989). Rohkesti on merendusliku ja agraarse kultuurmaastikuga tegeldud Taanis. Põhiliselt 1990. aastatel viidi Ole Crumlin-Pederseni juhtimisel läbi ulatuslik uurimisprojekt Fyni saarel, mis kes- kendus merenduslikule maastikule perioodil 500 BC–1500 AD (Atlas over Fyns kyst, 1996). Umbes samal ajal kaevas arheoloog Jens Ulriksen maabumiskohti Sjellandi saarel Roskilde fjordi ääres. Tema uurimused on avaldatud raamatuna, mida on käesolevas kirjutises ka rohkelt kasutatud (Ulriksen 1998). Põhja-Eesti rannamaastikku on spetsiaalselt käsitlenud Gurly Vedru (Vedru 2001; vt artikkel käesolevas numbris), merenduslikku kultuurmaastikku üldisemalt Kristin Ilves (Ilves 2002; vt artikkel käesolevas numbris). Saaremaa rannaasustuse ja sadama- kohtadega on mõnevõrra varem tegelnud siinkirjutaja (Mägi 1999b; 2000; joon 1).

2. Sadamakohad arheoloogilises materjalis 2.1. Otsimiskriteeriumid ja -meetodid

Saaremaa kunagiste sadamakohtade otsinguil oleme lähtunud naabermaade kolleegide poolt välja töötatud meetoditest. See eeldab ulatuslikke kameraaltöid enne inspektsiooniretkedele asumist, fosfaatanalüüsi ja metalliotsija kasutamist kohapeal. Eri maade kogemused muistsete sadamakohtade leidmisel on pisut erinevad, seetõttu on inspektsiooniretkede käigus tulnud konkreetselt Saaremaa jaoks välja selekteerida kõige paremini sobivad meetodid ja indikaatorid. Dan Carlsson on toonud välja kolm peamist kriteeriumi Gotlandi eelajalooliste sadamakohtade lokaliseerimisel. Need on: 1) kalmed ranna lähedal; 2) tugevate tuulte eest kaitstud kallas ja 3) tavapärasest erinev kultuurmaastiku ülesehitus 18.–19. sajandi katastriplaanidel (nt teede ristumiskoht näiliselt tühjal rannal või rannaäärne põllulapp ilma lähedal asuva taluta) (Carlsson 1991). Kõik nimetatud kriteeriumid kehtivad ka Saaremaal. Ajalooliste plaanide ja kaasaegsete füüsilis-geograafiliste kaartide põhjal välja selekteerunud võimalikke sadamakohti on kontrollitud arheoloogiliste inspektsioonide käigus. Lisaks tavapärastele proovišurfidele on selleks kasutatud metalli- otsijat ning fosfaatanalüüsi.

2.2. Representatiivsus

Sadamakohtade määratlemisel muistse Saaremaa kultuurmaastiku loomuliku osana on väga oluline lokaliseeritud sadamakohtade representatiivsuse aspekt: kui palju kunagi kasutusel olnud sadamakohtadest on suudetud leida või leitakse eeldatavasti tulevikus, kui paljude leidmine on raskendatud ning kui paljud või- vad olla hävinud? Praeguste meetodite juures võib paraku väita, et vähe kasuta- 158 Marika Mägi

tud muinasaegsete sadamakohtade, rääkimata randumiskohtadest, lokaliseerimine on peaaegu võimatu. Seetõttu on seatud eesmärgiks teha kindlaks mõnevõrra suurema tähtsusega sadamakohad, mille seos arheoloogiliste muististega tähis- tatud tagamaadega on ilmne. Sadamakohtade leidmist raskendab asjaolu, et tihti on samasse kohta tekkinud keskajal küla, mis eksisteerib sageli tänapäevalgi. Paljudel juhtudel on maastik arvatavas muistses sadamakohas kas maaparandus-, kruusavõtu- või muude töödega lihtsalt hävitatud (Upa Kaarma kihelkonnas, joon 2). Ilmselt on kõige keerulisem leida jõesadamaid, kuna laugjal maastikul muudavad jõed tihti oma sängi ning veetaseme kõikumised neis on raskesti jälgitavad. Lisaks tuleb arvestada asjaoluga, et jõesadamatest saadud arheoloogiline materjal ei erine jõeäärse asulakoha omast ilmselt kuigivõrd.

2.3. Asukoht

Maastikuliselt sobivad randumiskohad on enamasti juba üksnes loodusgeo- graafilise kaardi põhjal tuvastatavad. Need on tuulte eest kaitstud kohad võima- likult hästi liigendatud rannal, tihti väikese merelahe ääres, kus neid tuulte eest varjab neemik või lahe suudmes paiknev saareke. Tähtis on, et kallas oleks ran- dumiskohas sobivalt järsk ning et meri läheks kiiresti sügavaks. Merepõhi peaks olema liivane või kruusane. Sageli on randumiskoha lähikonnas allikas ja/või jõgi. Kuigi looduslikult sobivaid randumiskohti võib Saaremaal leida rohkesti, on sadamad rajatud neist siiski vaid mõnesse. Siin tuleb mängu tagamaa olulisus. Saaremaa muinasaegsete sadamakohtade puhul on täheldatav nende otsene seos agraarse tagamaaga, st need paiknevad põllumajanduslikult sobivate maade lähi- konnas. Soisest, liivasest või kivisest ümbruskonnast on muinasaegset sadamakohta mõttetu otsida. Siinkohal tuleb siiski meeles pidada, et jutt pole üksnes otseselt merega piirnevast vööndist, vaid kogu tagamaast, st põllumaad võivad jääda sadamakohast ka mõne kilomeetri kaugusele. Lisaks tuleb arvestada maa- kerkest ja muudest teguritest tingitud rannajoone muutusi.

2.4. Sadamakohtade arheoloogilised jooned

Naabermaadest teada olevatele sadamakohtadele on iseloomulik kultuurkihi ulatumine piki (kunagist) randa ja mitte kuigi palju sisemaa poole. Arheoloogi- listel kaevamistel on leitud jäänuseid ehitistest, mille hulk ja laad sõltub koha tähtsusest ja konkreetsest funktsioonist. Arheoloogiline leiumaterjal pole sadama- kohtades, suuremad kaubanduskeskused välja arvatud, kuigi rikkalik ning sar- naneb asulakohtade leiuainesele (Carlsson 1991; Thomsen 1991; Ulriksen 1998, 113–142). “… Ships are their main strength” 159

Juhul kui oli tegemist kauplemiskohaga, pidi seal kindlasti olema ka puust või kividest laevasild. Kergema konstruktsiooniga laevasillad olid ilmselt olemas ka vähem tähtsates sadamates. Enamikku Põhjamaade muinasaegsetest sadamakohtadest kasutati sesoonselt, näiteks ainult suvekuudel (Westholm 1985; Ulriksen 1998). Sama võib oletada ka Saaremaa muinasaegsete sadamakohtade puhul.

3. Kultuurmaastik sadamakohtade ümber 3.1. Kivikalmed

Sarnaselt Ojamaale on enamikul kontrollitud juhtumitest, mil Saaremaa kivikalmed asetsevad omaaegsel rannal, tähistanud need kohta, mis looduslike ja kul- tuuriliste eelduste poolest sobiksid sadamaks. Kuigi see on täheldatav ka varasemate kalmete puhul (nt Lülle ja Kihelkonna kalmed), avaldub nähtus kõige selgemalt rauaaja viimasel perioodil, kus mõningatel juhtudel on kalmete läheduses paiknenud muistsed sadamakohad suudetud praeguseks lokaliseerida (nt Tornimäe ja Viltina; joon 3, 4). Kivikalmeid omaaegsel rannikul võib pidada võimu manifestatsiooniks. Läbi- nisti agraarse asustusüksuse puhul demonstreeriti oma staatust kivikalmete näol põldude äärealal või põldudel (vt lähemalt Mägi 2002c). Juhul kui merelisel tege- vusel oli asustusüksuse jaoks oluline tähtsus, rajati ka kalme ühe olulisema asustus- üksuse osa – sadama – vahetusse lähedusse.

3.2. Kirikud ja kabelid

Taanis on täheldatud, et üheks varaste sadamakohtade lokaliseerimise kriteeriumiks on romaani stiilis kirikute rajamine nende lähedusse (Ulriksen 1998, 130–132). Teatud juhtudel esineb sama nähtus ka Gotlandil (Carlsson 1999a; 1999b). Saaremaal on otseselt sadamakohti tähistanud ilmselt vaid kaks kirikut, Kihelkonna ja Püha, lisaks on teateid rannikul paiknenud kabelite kohta. Kivikalmete ja kirikute/kabelite püstitamist olulise tähtsusega sadamakohtade lähedusse võib vaadelda kui paljuski võrdväärseid nähtusi: eliit manifesteeris oma võimu nii ühtede kui ka teiste läbi (Mägi 2002b, 138–157). Ajal, mil Gotlandil ja Saaremaal rajati sadamate lähedusse kalmeid, püstitati tollal juba kristlikus Taanis samadesse kohtadesse esimesi romaani stiilis kirikuid.

3.3. Talud ja mõisad

Sadamakohtade kunagist asukohta tähistavad tihtipeale vanadele kaartidele märgitud teed, mis mitmest suunast lähtunult lõpevad näiliselt mõttetult mere- rannal. Teed ühendavad kunagisi sadamakohti nende tagamaa moodustanud 160 Marika Mägi

asustusüksuste keskustega. Sarnaselt Skandinaavia maadele pidid needki olema eliidile kuulunud muinasmõisad-suurtalud. Nende omanikud kontrollisid sadamakohta ning seal toimuvat tegevust, kuigi sadamat kasutasid ilmselt ka ümbrus- konna ülejäänud elanikud. Carlsson on osutanud, et sadamakohaks valiti enamasti sobiv koht rannikul, mis jäi kohta kasutanud taludest, resp asustusüksuste keskustest, enam-vähem ühesugusele kaugusele (Carlsson 1992). Küllalt sageli näib sama seaduspära keh- tivat ka Saaremaal (nt Viltina, vt Mägi 2000). Olen oma varasemates kirjutistes osutanud, et kivikalmed koonduvad kesk- aegsetest allikatest teada olevate mõisate ümbrusse (Mägi 2002c). Vaadeldes kalmete levikut rannalähedastes asustusüksustes, võib nentida, et (muinas)mõisate (seega ka kivikalmete) ja tähtsamate sadamakohtade vahel valitseb selge seos. Ajaloolises kultuurmaastikus, s.o 17.–18. sajandi kaartidel, tähistabki kunagisi sadamakohti sageli nendest 1–2 km kaugusele jääv mõisasüda.

3.4. Toponüümika ja folkloor

Rannalähedastel aladel Saaremaal esineb kohati mikrotoponüüme, mis viitavad näiteks laevadele või paatidele (Paadimägi, Laevamägi, Paadi Auk vms), kõigil juhtudel ei osuta need aga ilmselt sadamakohale. Samas võib mõnevõrra üllatuslikult märkida, et vahel tähistab sadamakohti kohanimi Linnamägi. Nii on näiteks Tornimäe viikingiaegse sadamakoha küngast tuntud veel 19. sajandi algul Linnamäena (Luce 1811; EA, 2072-3-419), nimetused Linnamäe põld ja Linna talu esinevad ka Viltina sadamakoha lähiümbruses (EA, 3724-5-2946). Üsna mitmel juhul on Saaremaa muistsete sadamakohtade lokaliseerimisel olnud täiendavaks argumendiks folkloor. Enamasti pole küll tegemist otseselt sadama mäletamisega, üsna hilisesse aega dateeritud “vanad külasadamad” välja arvatud. Erandiks on siinkohal Tornimäe, mille kohta käiv info on aga ilmselgelt juba publitseeritud kirjutistest hangitud. Pärimus võib jutustada näiteks sellest, kui kaugele on meri “vanal ajal” on ulatunud. Vähemalt kahel juhul on arvatavat sadamakohta nimetatud kunagiseks mõisaasemeks jne.

4. Arutelu: sadamakohad Läänemere maades ja Saaremaal

Eri autorid on jõudnud seisukohale, et sadamakohad muutuvad Läänemere ruumis nähtavaks alates 6. sajandist pKr (Carlsson 1991; Ulriksen 1998, 134–138, 194–195, 216–223). Mõistagi ei tähenda see, nagu poleks enne meresõiduga tegeldud, varasemad maabumis-, resp sadamakohad, on arheoloogilises materjalis lihtsalt raskesti jälgitavad. Ilmselt oli laevu vähem, sadamakohti kasutati har- vemini ning nendest ei jäänud märkimisväärseid jälgi. Pole ka võimatu, et kasutati rohkem jõesadamaid, mida on keerulisem leida (vt eestpoolt). “… Ships are their main strength” 161

Ka Läänemere ruumis on siiski teada üksikuid näiteid 6. sajandist varasemate sadamakohtade kohta. Eelkõige tuleks siinkohal mainida Taanis Fyni saare kagu- rannikul 3.–7. sajandil paiknenud Lundeborgi, mis oli ilmselt seotud 4 km eemal sisemaal asunud Gudme keskusega. Viimane oli eelkõige rituaalne keskus, kuhu nähtavasti koguneti regulaarselt teatud riituste läbiviimiseks, aga ka läbirääkimis- teks või muuks ühiskondlikuks tegevuseks (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991a; Thomsen 1991). Sadamakohtade olemasolu võib oletada ka 6. sajandist varasemal Saaremaal. Ühe näitena võib tuua pronksi- ja eelrooma rauaaegse Sõrve saare lõunaranniku, praegusest Lülle külast 1–1,5 km edela poole jääva omaaegse lahesopi, mille kallas on varase metalliaja kalmeid täis tipitud (joon 5). Arvestades, et sadamakoha eeldustena olid seal olemas nii sobiv lahesopp kui ka selle lähikonnas olevad põllu- maad (mujal tolleaegse Sõrve saare rannikul nii soodsaid olusid aga ilmselt olla ei saanud), võiks seal kunagist sadama- või vähemalt maabumiskohta oletada ka ilma kivikalmeteta. Juba pronksiajal alguse saanud sadama- ning selle läheduses paiknenud kultuse- kohta võiks oletada Saaremaa loodeosas Kureveres. Kuni hilisema Kurevere küla majadeni ulatunud, samas üsna sügava veega lahesopp oma sobivalt järskude nõlvadega võis sobida sadamakohaks mitme tuhande aasta jooksul (joon 6). Kah- juks on praeguse teetammi ehitamise järel oletatava sadamakoha nõlv liigniis- keks muutunud, mis raskendab selle arheoloogilist uurimist (Mägi 2004). Piki lahesopi kunagist randa leidub rohkesti kivikalmeid, alustades pronksiaegsetest kivikirstkalmetest ja lõpetades 12. sajandi kalmetega. Kurevere küla paikneb põllu- maade äärealal väheviljakate muldade peal ja on seetõttu kindlalt üsna hilise tekkega. Lähim vana, põllumaade keskel paiknev küla on 1,8 km kirde poole jääv Tammese, kus on tuvastatud ka erakordselt intensiivne muinasaegne asulakiht (Mägi 2004). Seega võib oletada, et praegused Tammese ja Kurevere moodustasid ühtse kompleksi, millel võis kivikalmete ja lohukivide suure hulga järgi otsustades olla kultusliku keskuse funktsioone ning mille tekke vältimatuks eeltingimuseks oli soodne sadamakoht Kureveres. 6. sajandit on pea kõikjal Läänemere maades murranguliseks peetud. Oma- laadsel moel viitab merelises tegevuses toimunud muudatustele varasema (lähi)- rannikuasustuse kadumine hiljemalt 6. sajandil (Näsman 1991; Crumlin-Pedersen 1991a; Christoffersen & Porsmose 1996), võib-olla seoses rannikul elamise ohtlikuks muutumisega. Kalurikülad ja muu asustus tekkis Läänemere rannikule tagasi alles keskaja algul, 13.–14. sajandil (Crumlin-Pedersen 1996). Läänemerd ümbritsevates maades said sadamakohad veelgi “nähtavamaks” alates 8.–9. sajandist (Ulriksen 1998, 194–195, 217–223; Filipowiak 1999; Rẹb- kowski 1999). Pildikivide järgi otsustades sai Läänemere muinaslaev umbkaudu sel ajal endale purje (Westerdahl 1995; Ulriksen 1998, 219–222). Ühiskondlik areng tingis eliidi tõhusama kontrolli kaubanduse üle, mis tõi ilmselt kaasa kaubitsemis-sadamakohtade koondumise. Sellistes kohtades võidi juba pikemaks ajaks paigale jääda, näiteks kogu suvesessiooniks; seal peatusid ka käsitöölised, 162 Marika Mägi

kes olid huvitatud oma toodangu või teenuse müümisest. Sadamakohtade kasutamise eest maksid seal peatuvad laevnikud makse kohta kontrollivale peali- kule, kes vastutasuks garanteeris neile sadamas viibimise ajaks julgeoleku. Saaremaa ja üldse Läänemere sadamakohtade arengus toimus 11.–12. sajandil uus muutus, mis ilmnes sadamakohtade nihkumises n-ö merele lähemale (sama nähtuse kohta Skandinaavia maades vt Callmer 1991). Ulrikseni arvates võis see Taanis olla seotud keskuste nihkumisega ehk täpsemalt öeldes keskaegsete linnade kujunemisega (Ulriksen 1998, 222–228). Nähtus on siiski laiem ning täheldatav ka neis Läänemere regioonides, kus 11.–12. sajandil veel linnu ei kujunenud. See- pärast võib arvata, et sadamakohtade nihkumise tingis ühelt poolt maapinna järsk tõus, teisalt aga Läänemere laevade süvise kiire suurenemine alates 11. sajandist. Sel ajal võeti kasutusele suured kaubalaevad, mis 12. sajandiks suutsid võtta par- dale vähemalt 60 tonni lasti – sama palju kui 12. sajandi lõpul kasutusele tulnud koged (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991b; 1991c). Taoliste suurte kaubalaevade süvis ulatus täislastis kuni 1,5 meetrini (Crumlin-Pedersen 1999). Mõistagi vajasid taoli- sed laevad sügavama veega sadamakohti, mis muutis paljud varasemad sadamad kasutuskõlbmatuks, eriti kuna ligipääs neile oli tihtipeale läinud keerulisemaks juba maakerke tõttu. Sadamakohtade nihkumine muinasaja lõpul on jälgitav ka Saaremaal. Praegu- seks kogutud leiumaterjali põhjal võib oletada, et Tornimäe sadamakoht õigeusu kiriku all jäeti maha kas 12. sajandiks või kasutati seda ainult väiksemate paatide puhul, igal juhul näib 12. sajandi leiumaterjal seal senistel andmetel puuduvat. Võimalik, et Tornimäe järeltulijaks sai Väikese väina vastaskaldal Muhu linnuse ees ja kõrval lokaliseeritud sadamakoht. Keskaegseks võib pidada Tornimäe vii- kingiaegsest sadamakohast umbes 500 m kirde poole jäävat kividest paadisilda. Tõenäoliselt oli see Uuemõisa maksukogumiskeskuse n-ö tagasadam. Sarnaselt nihkus ilmselt juba muinasaja lõpul Kaarma piirkonna tähtsaim sadamakoht hilisema Kuressaare kohale, sama protsess võis toimuda ka Maasi sadama juures. Muinasaegsete sadamakohtade õitseng lõppes keskaja saabumisel. Mujal Põhja- maades sai kaubanduse koondumine üksikutesse sadamakohtadesse alguse juba sajandeid varem ning oli seotud seal varem kujunenud keskvõimuga. Need olid viikingiaegsed varalinnalised keskused, mille kasutamist ja nende pealt laekuvaid makse kontrollis kujunev kuningavõim (Ulriksen 1998, 222–228). Ojamaal koondus kaubandus viikingiajal 6 suuremasse sadamakohta, millest keskajaks jäi püsima vaid Visby (Westholm 1985). Saaremaal regionaalse tähtsusega viikingiaegseid kaubanduskeskusi ei tekkinud. Ilmselt oli seal sarnaselt Ojamaaga 5–6 tähtsamat sadamakohta, mis funktsioneerisid paralleelselt vähemalt 13. sajandini. Pärast vallutust Lääne-Eestisse kiiresti tekkinud linnad koondasid endasse rahvusvahelise kaubanduse, muutes Saaremaa sadamad marginaalseks. Paljudesse sellistesse, nüüd vähetähtsatesse sadamakohtadesse tekkisid kalurikülad. Teatud määral kasutati sealseid sadamaid siiski ka järgnevatel sajanditel, millest annab tunnistust kas või veel 16. sajandi lõpul lootusetuna tundunud võitlus koondada kaubandus üksnes Kuressaare sada- masse (Seresse 1996, 75–77). Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2004, 8, 2, 163–180

Kristin Ilves

THE SEAMAN’S PERSPECTIVE IN LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY Landing sites on the maritime cultural landscape

This paper examines mankind’s connection with the sea, shore and coastal areas – that is, with the maritime cultural landscape. It is suggested that archaeologists dealing with maritime landscapes should get inspiration from the seaman’s perspective in studying the impact of maritime elements within the culture under investigation. The features of navigation, piloting and safe landfall can be revealed only by approaching the landscape from the sea; the role of the water vessels is impossible to avoid. The question of the seasonal distinctions in landscape studies is also raised. Different places for landing, being the most popular and investigated antiquities in the maritime environment, are seldom defined in landscape archaeological research, and terms denoting different types of sites are often used as synonyms. Based on the inevitable dependence of landing sites upon watercrafts, these places are analysed in time and space.

Käsitletud on merenduslikku kultuurmaastikku ehk inimese suhet mere, kalda ja rannaaladega. Merendusliku kultuurmaastiku uurimisel on rannamaastikuga tegelevatel arheo- loogidel soovitatud leida inspiratsiooni meremehe perspektiivist, milles taevas, meri, mere- põhi, mere- ja maamärgid on seotud navigeerimise, lootsimise ja ohutu maabumisega. Maastiku nimetatud merenduslike aspektide hindamine on võimalik üksnes mere poolt lähenedes, sealjuures on oluline veesõiduki roll. Püstitatakse kõnealuse perspektiivi proble- maatika seoses aastaaegade muutustega. Erinevad randumispaigad on ühed huvitavaimad muistised merenduslikul kultuurmaastikul, kuid arheoloogilises uurimistöös pole randumiskohti märkivaid termineid sageli defineeritud ja tihti on üksteisest erinevaid mõisteid kasutatud sünonüümidena. Toetudes randumispaikade vältimatule sõltuvusele veesõidukitest, on avatud nimetatud kohti tähistavate mõistete sisu ning analüüsitud neid ajas ja ruumis.

Kristin Ilves, Ajaloo Instituut (Department of Archaeology, Institute of History), Rüütli 6, 10130 Tallinn, Estonia; [email protected]

Introduction

The Estonian coastline on the Baltic Sea is 3780 km, of which the mainland coastline is 1240 km, and 2540 km consists of archipelagos. There are 1502 islands in Estonian waters, approximately 9% of the total land area,1 i.e. 4133 km2. It is

1 Estonian land area is 45 227 km2. 164 Kristin Ilves

obvious that these numbers by themselves do not demonstrate the connection of the culture with the sea, yet they point to the strong connection between the natural landscape and the Baltic Sea. For this reason the question of man’s relationship to the sea, which changes the natural environment near the sea into a maritime cultural landscape, will arise in the study of mankind’s history in our coastal areas. Considering that the inhabitation of the Baltic islands, at that time not seen from the mainland, dates back to the Mesolithic period in some cases (Kriiska 2001), it is logical to assume that the sea was always more than just a body of water where the other shore could not be seen. In this article I will concentrate on mankind’s connection with the sea, the shore and coastal areas, that is, on the maritime cultural landscape. I will therefore look at the term, maritime cultural landscape, and present one possibility to explain and understand this term – approaching and looking at the landscape from the seaside, from a boat/ship, and getting inspiration from the seaman’s perspective. This subject is of importance considering that the base for mobility and thus for communication between people before airborne traffic and the Internet was definitely water and transportation over waters. Estonian research on maritime sites has so far been more concerned with perspectives from the land. This is usual even if an archaeologist is physically working “within former coastal waters” with the sites connected to the sea. The characteristics of water, e.g. salinity, currents, waves or underwater topography, and their impact on mankind’s everyday life, especially on building the watercrafts, are seldom considered. But land and sea are interdependent on each other. My objective is to draw attention to this new perspective in landscape archaeology, which will notably broaden the discipline. At the same time, I will discuss the obvious obstacles that seasonal features, the formation of ice in particular, constitutes in using the seaside perspective. Also, I want to present some possible definitions for different landing sites – one of the more interesting land-based features of the maritime landscape. The terms describing these places – usually landing-place and harbour – are often used as synonyms in Estonian archaeology and, apart from the differences between these terms, they are seldom defined; but the term is an expression of the concept itself. The topic of discussion will be illustrated with examples from the biggest island in Estonia – Saaremaa – and in light of the project “Coastal Settlements on Prehistoric and Medieval Saaremaa”, financed by the Estonian Science Foundation (Grant No. 5432). Within the framework of the Project, the coastal settlement of the island and landing sites in particular will be viewed from both the sea and the land.

The maritime cultural landscape

People live and learn in the landscape. We give a meaning to the landscape through the impact of memories, legends and names, even smells, which are connected with different places in the landscape. However, fields, forests,

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 165

mountains, waters, coasts and shores are not just constructions we create, but they exist in time and space. Humans with physically existing landscapes are the ones who give to nature a form of culture. An interaction between nature and culture in a maritime surrounding can be expressed as the maritime cultural landscape.2 The maritime cultural landscape is connected with two main factors: firstly, the landscape has to be in relation to a coast – the maritime factor. Secondly, mankind’s presence (by living in the landscape or by using physical/psychical ideas connected with the landscape) is important and constitutes the cultural factor. Therefore, a cultural landscape is an interaction between human being and landscape. Humans who consider one particular landscape as belonging to them, or who have some kind of relationship with the landscape, leave traces – “fingerprints” – there over time. These traces can be material, seen physically in the environment, but they can also be nonmaterial. The interaction between maritime nature and culture has in cultural terms, as briefly mentioned above, different scales. The place of action overcomes an apparent division between nature and culture in addressing the physical environment. Even if the features of the landscape are wholly natural they can still be discussed in terms of how they are drawn upon and reproduced by people (Firth 1995). The classical example would be a person who enjoys a view of a sea without “using” the sea – in that case the sea has also a cultural relevance, which is often underestimated. Still, in the present article, such aspects will not be analysed despite their acknowledgement. Only in the antiquarian point of view, being centred on objects, can the maritime cultural landscape be understood as the traces of human activity in the past or present that have remained both under and above the water. We can at the same time speak of material remains and, for example, about the information retained in the oral tradition i.e. the nonmaterial remains. Interpreting the term more analytically, it comprises the whole network of sailing routes, old as well as new, with ports along the coast, and its related constructions and remains of human activity, under water as well as above water (Westerdahl 1986, 7; 1989, 313). Nonmaterial aspects such as local tradition, shipbuilding traditions and place names, when taken into consideration, give additional meaning to material relics like shipwrecks, landing-places, different types of harbours, ballast-sites, sea- and landmarks. The listed cultural elements in the maritime landscape are material and nonmaterial and, according to Marek E. Jasinski (1993, 138), both of these categories have two possible meanings:

2 The term “maritime cultural landscape” was first introduced in 1979–80 and further developed by Christer Westerdahl. His work in northern Sweden 1975–80, his description of the maritime cultural landscape in Norrland and the systematic approach used there (Westerdahl 1987; 1989) have influenced similar works elsewhere in the world (e.g. Crumlin-Pedersen et al 1996; Ulriksen 1998; Parker 1999; Dobat 2002).

166 Kristin Ilves

(a) material remains with a practical meaning – e.g. landing sites, ships, sea and landmarks, different constructions under and above water, (b) material remains with a symbolic meaning – e.g. art used in shipbuilding, iconography, chapels, churches, (c) nonmaterial remains with a practical meaning – e.g. practical skills and technologies connected with category (a), (d) nonmaterial remains with a symbolic meaning – as mythology, legends, traditions and adventures. Beside the aforementioned, there are also remains, which belong to several groups at the same time and which are difficult to classify. The example of place- names and ship burials would be typical. But also meaning ascribed to large heaps of stones erected by people – cairns – can be cited here. There is a possible practical explanation of cairns having been primarily erected as navigation marks, but it is impossible to avoid the fact that they may have been erected as sepulchral monuments as well, thus carrying an additional symbolic meaning (Häggström 1998, 398–399). In all cases, in getting knowledge about the meaning of material and nonmaterial remains, the archaeologist’s background and specialisation has a big influence on interpretations. As long as the cultural elements with practical meaning are the objects of investigation, we have a good chance of studying and understanding man and society, in the hope that our functional interpretations are true. When the symbolic side of history is under discussion, the situation becomes more difficult. To inter- pret these elements, we should know the language of symbols with which we are not acquainted. The extremist post-processualist archaeologists Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley opine that material culture is a material language and they suggest it be read as we would read a text (1987, 210–211; Tilley 1989). Still, then we have to know the language that the text is written in, but we will never know how “true” our understanding is. Even if we pick up any number of words with a universal meaning, the reconstruction of the text will only be our personal understanding of the past (Jasinski 1993, 140). As the past tends to be written in a language we do not know, the learning of which is beyond our possibilities, or at least, extremely difficult, we will never entirely penetrate the semantic meaning of this language. Understanding the symbolic side of material culture is only an endeavour with speculative consequences, but still, one of the major tasks in archaeology. Regarding the interpretation above, it is important to remember that the maritime cultural landscape constitutes a part of landscape in a wider sense,3 that these terms complement each other and their separation rests mostly on geographical aspects and they broaden the landscape archaeological research in general. Still, in the case of the maritime cultural landscape, the geographical aspect of the utilisation of space is in a key position. No sea – no maritime cultural landscape.

3 On the terrestrial counterpart of the maritime cultural landscape in archaeology see, for example, Lang 1999; 2001 and on more about the relationship between these two concepts, Ilves 2002.

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 167

This fact makes it particularly significant to study not only the cultural factors, but also the natural conditions, different coastal types in particular, as well as the sea – the waves and the currents, the shallow and deep waters, the underwater rocks and grounds. Accordingly, the total topographical vision of the coastal area should be added to the study of cultural remains; deep curves under the water have the same importance as the characteristics of the land nearby.

Seaman’s perspective

A dwelling place situated by the shore can be approached and interpreted both from seaward and from land. The latter has always been in use and the spatial connection with waterfields is acknowledged both in the physical and economic sense (see, for example, Jaanits et al 1982; Vedru 2001; Kriiska 2002). However, in dealing with the actively used ancient or present day maritime cultural landscape, that is, a landscape where the inhabitants are engaged in maritime activities, it has to be reconstructed and/or seen from the sea as well. Waters also have, beside their spatial importance, their own meaning and characteristics that ought to be considered. The role of these features is crucial in the building of watercrafts, and choosing the landing site or dwelling place in general. In recommending the “from sea to land” perspective I am referring to the method suggested by the philosopher Jacob Meløe (1990, 73): one should situate oneself within the practice that the object belongs to, and then investigate the object and its contribution to that practice. People have travelled on open waters from the beginning of seaborne activity. Actually, open sea is safer in good weather than coastal waters: one can always sail without worrying about shallowness or underwater obstacles. Navigation is possible without any special instruments as the sea has its own form and features. Even in deep waters, one can determine the boat’s position using the sun or stars, the waves, drifting litter, clouds, seabirds, etc. That is why unexpected and uncontrollable landing is the biggest danger for seamen (excepting violent storms). The Baltic Sea near Estonia is filled with islands and grounds. The depths of the water and the seabed are diverse and varying. The coastal area of the islands is mostly shallow and the seabed stony. In some cases, it is extremely difficult for those who do not know the special characteristics of the islands’ coast to land in the shelf sea even with low draught boats. For example, waters near the whole southern coast of Saaremaa are relatively shallow and have many mounds of sand, which tend to change their position under influence from winds and waves (Orviku 1992, 19–20). But even a higher water level does not automatically mean better possibilities for waterborne transport. Currents may strongly affect the landing process. Fishing grounds in the past could only be discovered by observing and describing the waters in which fishermen move. It is impossible to find out these kinds of things by looking at them from the side of the land.

168 Kristin Ilves

In the study of archaeological or historical cultural landscapes in the maritime environment, it is most important to see the landscape and settlement (more widely – the world) as the seamen and fishermen did in the past, approaching the shore from the sea or from the rivers. Ole Crumlin-Pedersen (cited from Parker 2001, 23) considers it to be the major objective of maritime archaeology. I had a similar perspective even before I read this opinion. Considering the information above, I believe that only seeing is unfortunately not enough, even if it would definitely be so much easier. In the case of a maritime cultural landscape everything cannot simply be seen; it is of importance to know this landscape. For evaluating the maritime aspects of historical landscape, archaeologists have to investigate the impact of maritime elements, such as the heavens, sea, seabed, sea and landmarks, which are connected with navigation, piloting and safe landfall. In this endeavour it can be useful to gain a “seaman’s perspective”, which allows new questions to be asked. Approaching the maritime landscape from land, which is of course another possibility in landscape studies, the perspective will be different, with other kinds of factors in focus, and it is impossible to learn to know the whole maritime landscape in this way. Unfortunately, the task to see the landscape from the perspective of the seaman is rather problematic in the context of the past. The landscape is continuously changing. On the open sea, but on the shore in particular, it is very difficult to reconstruct the past circumstances as the seaman experienced these at that time. Although climate and weather conditions could have been almost the same in the past as nowadays (Aston 1985, 19), other elements of the maritime environment, especially the sea level, have changed. For example, in Saaremaa the water level of many rivers has dramatically decreased or the rivers have totally vanished, an unknown number of harbours have been filled with mud and sediment. The role of the land upheaval is notable; it is probably the most important factor in the maritime landscape of Estonia. Within these long-term processes, storms, the spreading of the riverside areas, and most of all, interference by humans, also play a vital part. At the same time, natural processes, such as erosion, can considerably change the maritime landscape – even destroying entire harbours. From the very beginning of seaborne activity until the present day, it has always been wind, and processes connected to wind, that have been in the centre of all meteorological events. For thousands of years wind and sea have been the crucial factors, which made it possible to communicate between lands and nations – during the Viking Age and at the beginning of the Middle Ages Saaremaa had a leading position in the overseas contacts in the region. Being the westernmost island in Estonia, Saaremaa and its western and southern territories in particular belong to an area of extreme winds, and among which the dangerous SW winds clearly dominate4 (Ohu 1926). At the same time, these territories are very foggy.

4 SW winds and storms, which usually take place in the cold season of the year, from September to January, are considered to be the most dangerous because they move against the main streams of the Baltic Sea; often a sea level rise accompanies SW storms (Soomere 2001, 209).

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 169

Furthermore, a bigger refraction of the beams of light is characteristic to the area, causing difficulties in visual estimation of distance. Thus, seafaring in the waters near Saaremaa always demanded great experience and skills. Accordingly, an archaeologist using “the seaman’s perspective” and dealing with the maritime cultural landscape of Saaremaa or the cultural landscape of this area in general, should have additional knowledge in geology, geography, meteorology and, of course, shipping and navigation. To find out the potential transition points in the maritime cultural landscape of Saaremaa – the places for landing, topographically well-protected sites, within the archaeologically interesting areas with easy access from both land and sea, should be taken into account. The different geological processes of coastal areas – the coast formations5 and changes6 – must be also considered. Regardless of the changes in environment and climate, present day environments can still be useful as an analogy for the past. At least certain similarities prevail, particularly in the case of maritime landscapes. Incorporation of different models such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) into this type of study would be useful. In my opinion, concerning the spiritual needs and requirements of human societies in the maritime cultural landscape, the study of these aspects always remains speculative. Even if there exists an experience of nature, aesthetic pleasure or historical experience, and the attempt to bring oneself closer to these things is fully justified, I prefer to focus on how mankind lived in the maritime landscape, rather than on the manner in which it was experienced. Whether functional or aesthetic aspects of the landscape were decisive in people’s choices, both of these decision categories is mirrored most of all in the water vessels – the boat’s hull is designed to fit the weather and the waters in which it moves. To see the landscape as the seaman and/or fisherman does, it is important to have a boat. The life of societies, which to a high degree are dependent on maritime culture, revolves mainly around the boat and its equipment, and not, in the same sense, for example around the fish. Catching fish is connected with luck, combined in some way with skill7, building a boat, repairing a boat, keeping it in good shape and handling it in all sorts of weather, that takes skill (Meløe 1990, 69). It is quite natural that you hope and pray to catch a fish and it may be a success- ful tactic, but it is impossible to build, repair and handle a boat only with the help of magic. Thus, the study of shipwrecks, but most of all, the procedures of working

5 The coast of Saaremaa can be in general divided into two different categories, which can be characterised as follows – in southern Saaremaa there are sediments which play a decisive role, and coasts actively change due to the waves that move the sediments; in northern Saaremaa, cliffs, limestone pits and quarries are typical because of the limestone, which has become denuded; this process also results in shore banks (Orviku 1992, 19–23). 6 The main coast changing factors are 1) deficiency of ice near the coast and unfrozen sediments, 2) the continuing rise of the water level in the world, which cannot be compensated by land upheaval, 3) extreme wind events, 4) interference from humans (Orviku 1992, 29–34). 7 It is a matter of (probably intensive) debate on how much skill and how much luck actually go into catching fish.

170 Kristin Ilves

ships and transferring cargoes can be one base for reconstructing the seaman’s perspective. Thanks to the boat, the seaman and/or fisherman learns the landscape to which he has wedded his life (Meløe 1990, 69). It is from a boat the seaman learns to know the weather and waterfields. Of course, the legends and stories told by others, active seafaring people, have their own impact in understanding the landscape. But whether we speak about the experiences one learns or about the stories of the others, the basic scheme is still the same – the maritime cultural landscape reveals itself from a boat and the boat is the place from which the world is seen.

The winter landscape

The discussion above will have a “slightly” different meaning in the case of winter, when the sea and the coastal waters in particular are covered with ice. If the temperature of the Baltic Sea water falls only a little under 0°C, ice starts to form. There have been occasions when the whole Baltic Sea has been frozen and crusted with ice – it was possible to even ride a horse from Estonia to Sweden in 1459, and in 1893 any kind of shipping was impossible for two months (Mey 1927, 7–8). Orientation under these conditions was probably still similar to navigation on an open sea, but directed more to the heavens – the sun, stars, clouds and winds are year-round features. Examples of crossing the entire Baltic Sea on ice are still rare. Considering the wind conditions in our region, which are the main factors in the formation of ice, the open sea is usually navigable. There is no doubt that the landscape changes dramatically during winter and so do the perspectives. Fishing and hunting continues despite the ice, but it is feasible without the special vessels for transportation over the waters. The meaning of maritime diminishes and the fact that the maritime cultural landscape is a part of landscape in a wider sense becomes more obvious. During winter, I count the seawater as an element disappearing (temporarily) from the coastal settlers’ so-called landscape consciousness and the latter is projected into the waterline/waterfront (water as space). This is generally the case for Estonians, in the opinion of Hannes Palang and Mart Külvik (1999, 373). Still, when people are engaged in maritime activities, and the maritime cultural experience and tradition have been accumulated from generation to generation, water as an element is equally important to water as space. It is the natural geography of different zones and the characteristics of the water to which the boats/ ships are intimately adapted. It should be emphasised that the definition of, for example, an object or landscape is only a theoretical tool that can be changed in the course of an investigation. The maritime cultural landscape is not so dependent on geographical, geological or meteorological conditions during wintertime. Actually, it hardly differs at all from the cultural landscape on the land as it is in winter. Large areas covered

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 171

with snow, like ice and snow crusted waterfields, can be found a long way inland, even in Estonia. At the same time it is unnecessary to compare these two landscapes visually as already the leaf fall in forests and snow cover will create totally different conditions for land travel such as a frozen sea offers for sea voyages. Thus, transportation conditions are very different and have a seasonal character both on sea and land (see also Bērziņš 2000). The terms of maritime cultural landscape and terrestrial cultural landscape fuse, and the studies of winter landscapes in general would be a totally new option.

Watercrafts and landing sites

As expressed above, coastal territories can be explored and known only with the help of a boat and knowledge on the features of the local sea. From the beginning of the history of seafaring, there have been many different kinds of vessels for transportation over the waters. The first archaeologically known “real” boats in the Baltic Sea region were dugouts and animal skin boats, and from these developed the largest and most complex “machines” built by mankind in pre-industrialised European society – plank boats, and finally, great ships8 (Crumlin-Pedersen 1999, 11). Unfortunately, we do not know much about these early plank boats, but the knowledge we have allows the guess that these vessels demanded no special sites for landing, as their construction was suitable for landing on almost every coast.9 During the decades of maritime archaeology, the number of archaeologically recorded watercrafts has grown (McGrail 2001). In the Baltic Sea region, these date mostly from the 9th to the 14th centuries, and with a few finds of wrecks from the 7th and 8th centuries they allow statements to be made about shipbuilding traditions and variations within the period. For the present discussion, it is important to point out that, beside personnel carriers, cargo carriers first appear in the 9th century and then rise dramatically in number. Earlier ships – personnel carriers in their primary function – are all basically similar in type and construction, but the wreck Ralswiek 4 from the 9th century is the first indicator of specialized cargo ships in the Baltic Sea. A single find of a cargo carrier should nevertheless not be taken as the proof of specialisation; still, different ship finds from the 10th century and onwards (for example, Klåstad, Äskekärr, Ralswiek 1, Hedeby 2) suggest that some ships were from then on designed especially for cargo carrying. Since the 11th century there is already a well-developed cargo transportation system, based on three classes of ships – small, medium and large (for more detail, see Crumlin-Pedersen 1991; 1999).

8 Boats are vessels with the hull no longer than 12 meters; the term ship is used for vessels with a hull longer than 12 meters. 9 The impact of sea and weather, as discussed above, differs from place to place and had its own role to play.

172 Kristin Ilves

At the same time, the development of shipbuilding demands changes in the places for landing – the building, using and abandonment of landing sites depend on water vessels. Landing is the most important task for every sea voyage. It is a process where a ship/boat approaches the coast/shore from the sea (or lake/river) to the depth that is safe for the vessel. In the case of smaller boats it comprises also the disembarking. Any types of landing sites are thus important transition points in crossing the line between water and land: and these are now gaining an important position in archaeological landscape research. Dan Carlsson’s investigation of these places on Iron Age Gotland, and the vast number of landing sites he detected (Carlsson 1987; 1991), became the first step in the search of sites for landing. His work and methods10 are often considered as a source of inspiration, also in case of the Estonian research on landing sites. The investigations of late Iron Age Saaremaa by Marika Mägi in the mid-1990s showed clear connections between settlement units and possible landing sites (Mägi 1998; 1999; 2000). Based on these results and in the pattern of the landing sites’ investigation in the Baltic Sea region, the project – “Coastal Settlements on Prehistoric and Medieval Saaremaa” – started in Estonia in 2003. The research concentrates on settlement units along the coast of Saaremaa, analysing their establishment, development, and their connection with maritime activities from the Bronze Age until early medieval times. It is a pilot project that is, for the first time in Estonia, focusing on the symbiotic relationship between terrestrial/agricultural and maritime cultural landscapes (see Mägi’s article in the same issue for more details). The position of the landing sites in the transition zone between land and sea offers the best possibilities for the analyses. There are many denotations for landing sites – from natural harbour, anchorage and landing-place to harbour, port and haven.11 Despite the different meanings of some of these terms, they all (but especially the names of landing-place and harbour) are frequently used as synonyms, or functionally the most neutral name – landing site – is used. Often the term of harbour is preferred. Reasons behind this situation are the already ingrained oral tradition, the place-names in active use, and the former scientific writing tradition in Estonia, which was driven by archaeologists not deeply interested in maritime sites. And, of course, if we define a harbour simply as a place of departure and arrival for watercrafts we do not need any other term, as every place in the coast/shore, where a landing process is practicable, is a harbour. Still, I believe that in academic research a distinction

10 In order to localise landing places, Carlsson used a method based on several indicators for maritime activities. Three criteria were the most decisive: 1) favourable topographical situations with regard to the landing of ships and activities on land; 2) graves or grave fields close to the coast; 3) a special situation in the cultural landscape as revealed on historical maps, which differs from normal conditions (for example, cultivated fields near the coast in absence of a farm or old roads meeting on the coast). Characteristic place-names marking a locality as formerly related to trade activity or witness the function of a site as a landing-place, as well as the existence of medieval structures like strongholds or Romanesque churches on the coast, were used as secondary indicators (Carlsson 1991). 11 This is not meant as a complete list of terms.

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 173

would be more correct, especially concerning the growing interest in these places – usage of the term “harbour” would equalise all the landing sites and their types through all the ages with one another, which is not proper. I will present here one possible and quite simplified way of defining landing sites without demanding that it be seen as an absolute truth. The following discussion is based on the above analysis on the seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology and on the importance of the development of watercrafts for landing sites. The name used throughout this article – landing site or place for landing – is the starting point for the following discussion. The reason for such frequent usage is the neutral and wide character of this term as a marker for the passages between water and land. It implies every place on the coast, on riverside areas, and lakes, with constructions or not, where the landing process is or was possible. This term extends from the (pre)historical age until the present day. I consider natural harbour to be the first term to use if we move from the simple landing sites to more complex ones. To distinguish this term further from the term “harbour”, I suggest the term of anchorage is also not wrong. This term prevails throughout history and appears in the case of almost every body of water. It denotes a place on a coast or shore with a suitable topography and a bottom for the landing process or finding a shelter, where humans usually do not interfere with the appearance or the features of the site. Anchorages are and were everywhere on coasts, and they just have to be recognised. Without sailing a vessel this would be impossible, and a good anchorage can only be found from the side of the water; it takes a seaman’s skill to recognise such a place (Meløe 1990, 72). Of course, every anchorage is not suitable for all vessels – different boat/ship types can use different natural harbours. As anchorages are and were more places for refuge and were seldom interdependent on terrestrial sites, archaeological evidence for natural harbours is almost impossible to find, except with the great exception of discovering a shipwreck. A landing-place acts as a natural harbour, where a suitable topography is a presumption for its existence. It does not need to, but usually does, include some kind of construction, and is the place where boats can be drawn ashore. Structures are important for landing in a way that does not presuppose building a new vessel for again going to sea. Landing-places will therefore be projected by the practice of using smaller boats. The difference between a landing-place and an anchorage is, that while a natural harbour is often used only occasionally, in case of need, landing-places are used frequently and they are definitely connected with terrestrial life. As there are many places on the coast matching the definition of a landing- place, of a different size and character, additional terms are needed. Therefore, the term specialised landing-place can be used for bigger sites that function as regional or local markets12 while smaller, more natural places would be named simply landing-places.

12 Mägi uses harbour site instead of the term specialised landing-place.

174 Kristin Ilves

Anchorages and even landing-places have existed in nature all the time, just waiting to be found. The sites that we could call harbours appeared in the Baltic Sea region only when the development of ships achieved a size which made it impossible to land without suitable constructions. Thus, harbours on the coasts of the Baltic Sea became a reality since the 10th–11th centuries, in some cases the 9th century, when boats and ships became increasingly bigger with each century and they were too large for their crews to draw ashore. A harbour is understood as a place on the shore, which is prepared to anchor up a boat/ship for shelter in most sorts of weather, that is, with a bottom of a material that will hold an anchor, and special, permanent constructions for landing a vessel. The interference of humans is needed for the proper functioning of the harbour – the port service possibilities are one of the most important factors in defining the harbour. The ports have hinterlands, which are different in size for different types of harbours. The definitions given above are simple and logical by themselves when one takes watercrafts as a starting-point. The functional classification is in accordance with the development of shipbuilding as it is studied through the archaeologically investigated finds of wrecks. As mentioned earlier, landing sites are meant for ships, not the opposite. Still, uniting this theoretical, ship-centred construction with land-based archaeology, a problem occurs with archaeological material from the Baltic Sea region, which implies big coastal trading-centres with a notable hinterland already since the 7th–8th centuries (e.g. Hedeby, Fröjel, Paviken). Even though the archaeologically documented ships give no proof for the existence of specialised and totally different ship types of that period that would need special constructions for landing,13 it is difficult to define these aforementioned trading places as (specialised) landing-places. To resolve this situation, I would propose a term proto-harbour, which would primarily carry the meaning of an early harbour. In most cases, these were the places that developed into specialised harbours in the following centuries.

Conclusion

The term, maritime cultural landscape – expressing the material and nonmaterial traces of human activity in the past or present that remain both under and above the water – opens up in itself a totally different perspective in landscape archaeology. The context of coasts and islands is both maritime and terrestrial; cultural remains in these places, with practical and/or symbolic meaning (landing- places, harbours, sea and landmarks, coastal settlement, shipwrecks, but also shipbuilding traditions, place-names and oral tradition) belong to both spheres. The approach from the land in explaining these elements already characterises the investigation of coastal landscapes. The meaning of the water’s spatial importance

13 Still, it has to be pointed out that the evidence in the archaeological record from the 7th–8th centuries is weak. Half of the ships found from this period come from graves of a high standard and these finds are probably not relevant to all (Crumlin-Pedersen 1999, 15).

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 175

is also often taken into consideration. However, water is not just a space without its own features; its characteristics are of importance in studying and understanding mankind’s water-bound activities. Water’s role in the building of watercrafts is especially notable, as vessels are built to fit the weather and the waters in which they move. In investigating the impact of maritime elements within the coastal areas, it would be useful for archaeologists to get inspiration from the seaman’s perspective, where everything revolves around navigation, piloting and safe landfall. For reconstructing this perspective, the models based on procedures of working ships and transferring cargoes are one possibility, and the integration of GIS into this kind of study would give a methodological basis. The study of the maritime cultural landscape from the perspective of the sea provides an increased opportunity to understand the boundaries of the cultural landscape that are dependent on natural conditions. It is also possible to explain the usage of different kinds of water vessels and landing sites. Approaching from the land mainly simplifies the explanation of the functional and social connection of the ancient monuments in the maritime landscape with the land. The study of the maritime cultural landscape both from sea and land is important, as these two features are dependent on each other. In winter, the perspectives change on the maritime landscape and become similar to those of the terrestrial landscape. The study of seasonality in maritime, but also terrestrial activities will hopefully be the subject for further research. Often, the recognition of the suitable place for landing on the coast is possible only from the boat/ship. All different landing sites are dependent on the watercrafts. This matter is the most important factor in defining the different landing sites, according to the author. A landing-place acts as an anchorage, which does not need to, but usually does, include some kind of construction, and/or place where the boats are drawn ashore. The term of specialised landing-place is needed for larger regional or local sites. Both landing-places and anchorages existed from the beginning of seaborne activity and they occur also in the present day; the recognition of these is possible merely from the perspective of the sea. The sites that can be called harbours arose in the Baltic Sea region only when the development of ships achieved a size that made it impossible to land without suitable constructions. Thus, harbours on the coast of the Baltic Sea became a reality only from the 9th, but especially from the 10th–11th centuries, when specialised shipping with small, medium and large vessels developed. For the few early trading centres from the 7th–8th centuries, the term proto-harbour denoting the places for landing would be suitable.

References

Aston, M. 1985. Interpreting the Landscape. Landscape Archaeology and Local History. London. Bērziņš, V. 2000. The conditions for travel and transport in the Stone Age. – De Temporibus Antiquissimis Ad Honorem Lembit Jaanits. (MT, 8.) Tallinn, 27–48. Carlsson, D. 1987. Äldre hamnar – ett hotat kulturarv? – Fornvännen, 82, 6–17.

176 Kristin Ilves

Carlsson, D. 1991. Harbours and trading places on Gotland AD 600–1000. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 145–158. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1991. Ship Types and Sizes AD 800–1400. – Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th–15th March, 1989. Roskilde, 72–82. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1999. Ships as indicators of trade in Northern Europe 600–1200. – Mari- time Topography and the Medieval Town. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Water- front Archaeology in Copenhagen, 14th–16th May 1998. Copenhagen, 11–20. Crumlin-Pedersen, O., Porsmose, E. & Thrane, H. 1996. Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder. Odense. Dobat, A. S. 2002. Der Seeweg nach Haithabu. Die maritime Kulturlandschaft der Schlei. – Beretning fra enogtyvende tværfaglige vikingesymposium. Aarhus, 25–43. Firth, A. 1995. Three facets of maritime archaeology: society, landscape and critique. – http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Research/Firth/ [29.08.2001]. Häggström, L. H. 1998. The ritual landscape of existing monuments. The cairns of Morlanda parish, a case study in western Sweden. – The Kaleidoscopic Past. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic TAG Conference. Göteborg, 2–5 April 1997. Göteborg, 395–403. Ilves, K. 2002. Merenduslik kultuurmaastik ja Maasi laev kui selle element. – EAA, 6, 2, 134–149. Jaanits, L., Laul, S., Lõugas, V. & Tõnisson, E. 1982. Eesti esiajalugu. Tallinn. Jasinski, M. E. 1993. Maritimt kulturlandskap – arkeologisk perspektiv. – Viking. Tidsskrift for norrøn arkeologi, LVI, 129–140. Kriiska, A. 2001. Stone Age Settlement and Economic Processes in the Estonian Coastal Area and Islands (http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/kultt/vk/kriiska). Kriiska, A. 2002. Lääne-Eesti saarte asustamine ja püsielanikkonna kujunemine. – Keskus – tagamaa – ääreala. Uurimusi asustushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. (MT, 11.) Tallinn; Tartu, 29–60. Lang, V. 1999. Kultuurmaastikku luues. Essee maastiku religioossest ja sümboliseeritud korraldu- sest. – EAA, 3, 1, 63–85. Lang, V. 2001. Maastik ja kultuurmaastik arheoloogias. – Maastik: loodus ja kultuur. Maastiku- käsitlusi Eestis. Tartu, 78–83. McGrail, S. 2001. Boats of the World. From the Stone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford. Meløe, J. 1990. The two landscapes of Northern Norway. – Acta Borealia, 1, 68–80. Mey, J. 1927. Eesti loots. Meresõidu ja lootsiasjanduse käsiraamat. Hüdrograafiline kirjeldus Eesti rannikust ja merest. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 1998. Districts and centres on Saaremaa 1100–1400. – Culture Clash or Compromise? The europanisation of the Baltic Sea Area 1100–1400 AD. (Acta Visbyensia, XI.) Visby, 147–157. Mägi, M. 1999. Farmsteads and villages on Saaremaa from the late prehistoric to the medieval periods. Study of historical maps and archaeological evidence in Pöide district 1100–1400 AD. – Europeans or Not? Local level Strategies on the Baltic Rim 1100–1400 AD. (CCC papers, 1.) Oskarshamn, 197–212. Mägi, M. 2000. Weapons find and an ancient harbour site at Viltina Käo-Matsi. – AVE, 1999, 92–99. Ohu, A. 1926. Tormid Läänemerel. Statistilis-sünoptiline käsituskatse. Tartu. Orviku, K. 1992. Characterisation and Evolution of Estonian Seashores. Doctoral thesis at the University of Tartu. Manuscript in the Library of the Tartu University. Palang, H. & Külvik, M. 1999. Maastik – osa meist endist. – Eesti Loodus, 9, 372–374. Parker, A. J. 1999. A maritime cultural landscape: the port of Bristol in the Middle Ages. – The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 28, 4, 323–342. Parker, A. J. 2001. Maritime landscapes. – Landscapes, 2, 1, 22–41. Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque. Soomere, T. 2001. Extreme wind speeds and spatially uniform wind events in the Baltic proper. – Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Tehnikateadused, 7, 3, 195–211.

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 177

Tilley, C. 1989. Interpreting material culture. – The Meanings of Things. Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. London, 185–194. Ulriksen, J. 1998. Anløbspladser. Besejling og bebyggelse i Danmark mellem 200 og 1100 e.Kr. En studie af søfartens pladser på baggrund af undersøgelser i Roskilde Fjord. Roskilde. Vedru, G. 2001. Põhja-Eesti muinasaegsest rannikukasutusest. – EAA, 5, 2, 110–127. Westerdahl, C. 1986. Die maritime Kulturlandschaft. Schiffe, Schiffahrtswege, Häfen – Überlegungen zu einem Forschungsansatz. – Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv, 9, 7–58. Westerdahl, C. 1987. Norrlandsleden II. Beskrivning av det maritima kulturlandskapet. Härnösand. Westerdahl, C. 1989. Norrlandsleden I. Källor till det maritima kulturlandskapet. Härnösand.

Kristin Ilves

MEREMEHE PERSPEKTIIV MAASTIKUARHEOLOOGIAS Randumispaigad merenduslikul kultuurmaastikul

Resümee

Inimeste liikuvuse ja seega kommunikatsiooni aluseks olid enne tänapäevale tavapärast lennuliiklust ning Interneti vahendusel toimuvat suhtlemist vesi ja veeliiklus. Arusaadavalt on mere ja merenduslikul maastikul paiknevate muististe tähtsus seega märkimisväärne ning inimasustuse ruumilised ja majanduslikud seosed vetega on olnud arheoloogilise uurimise objektiks juba aastakümneid. Kuid meri ei ole üksnes ajas ja ruumis eksisteeriv lõputu veteväli, sel on iseloo- mulikud omadused: soolsus, hoovused, lained, veealune topograafia jne. Nende mõju inimese igapäevaelule ning tähtsus veesõidukite ehitamisel või randumispaikade valimisel on senises uurimistöös paraku tagaplaanile jäänud. Käesolev artikkel keskendub inimese suhtele mere, kalda ja rannaaladega ehk merenduslikule kultuurmaastikule. Selline, n-ö merelt maale lähenemisviis on Eesti arheoloogias uus – rannikumaastiku ja -kultuuri uurimisel on teadlastel soovitatud leida inspiratsiooni meremehe perspektiivist. Nimetatud meetodi kasutuselevõtt laien- daks tunduvalt maastikuarheoloogilisi uurimistöid, integreerides sellesse ka merendusliku arheoloogia. Samuti on arutletud kõnealuse lähenemisviisi kasutamise juures ilmnevate takistuste üle, mis kaasnevad aastaaegade muutustega, näiteks lumi- ja jääkatte moodustumine, ning talvemaastike uurimise küsimuse üle üldiselt. Artikli teises pooles on võetud lähema vaatluse alla ühed huvitavaimad muistised merenduslikul kultuurmaastikul – vee ja maa piiril paiknevad randumispaigad. Kuigi maastikul leidub erinevat tüüpi randumispaiku, on arheoloogilises uurimistöös jäänud neid tähistavad mõisted tihti defineerimata ja sageli on eri- tähenduslikud terminid kasutusel sünonüümidena. Sellise olukorra põhjused pei- tuvad eelkõige arheoloogilises kirjanduses juba väga juurdunud terminikasutuses, oma roll on kindlasti ka kinnistunud suulisel traditsioonil ja kasutatavatel koha- nimedel. Autor defineerib siinkohal randumispaiku tähistavad terminid lähtuvalt veesõidukite tähtsusest ja arengust. Terminoloogia arutelu baseerub suuresti merelt maale lähenemisviisil.

178 Kristin Ilves

Kogu merega seotud kultuuripärandit hõlmav merendusliku kultuurmaastiku mõiste avab maastikuarheoloogias teistsuguse uurimisperspektiivi – rannikute ja saarte kontekst on nii merenduslik kui ka maismaaline; sealsed praktilist ja/või märgilist tähendust kandvad materiaalsed ning mittemateriaalsed kultuuriele- mendid – sadamad, maabumispaigad, mere- ja maamärgid, rannaasustus, laevavrakid, mereteed, aga ka laevaehitustraditsioonid, kohanimed ja suuline pärimus – kuuluvad mõlemasse valdkonda. Ka meresidus elukohavalik on tähendanud samaaegset lähtumist nii “merelt” kui ka “maalt”. Filosoof Jacob Meløe arvab (Meløe 1990, 73), et uurimistöös tuleb end asetada sellesse tegevusvälja, milles uuritav objekt asub, ja alles siis käsitleda nii seda objekti kui ka selle osakaalu tegevuses. Uurides merenduslikul maastikul paiknevaid muistiseid ja üritades seega hinnata maastiku merenduslikke aspekte, peaks arheoloog artikli autori arvates leidma inspiratsiooni n-ö meremehe perspektiivist, milles taevas, meri, merepõhi, mere- ja maamärgid on seotud navigeerimise, lootsimise ja ohutu maabumisega. Avamerel on inimene sõitnud alates meresõidu alguspäevadest. Tegemist on hoopis ohutuma alaga kui kaldalähedased piirkonnad, sest pole vaja muret tunda madala vee või veealuste takistuste pärast, mis rannikuvetes muudavad liiklemise sageli isegi madala süvisega alustele ohtlikuks. Orienteerumise juures tulevad abiks nii mere enda vorm ja tunnused kui ka päike, tähed, pilved, merelinnud jne. Peale väga vägivaldsete tormide on meresõitjale tegelikult alati olnud suurimaks ohuks ootamatu ja kontrollimatu maabumine ehk liiklemine rannikuvetes. Ometi on just randumine iga merereisi kõige olulisem eesmärk ja randumispaigad on tähtsad üleminekul vetelt maismaale. Lähenedes maastikule üksnes kuivalt maalt, ei saa me täielikult mõista inimesele mere poolt seatud kohanemise piire, selleks on vaja tunda maastikku nii, nagu see saab avaneda üksnes merelt. Arvestada tuleks lainete, hoovuste, madala ja sügava vee, veealuste kivide ja madalike, aga samuti ilmastikutingimustega, eriti tuulte ja ududega, mis kõik on mõjutanud elu rannikupiirkondades. Seetõttu tuleb ka arheoloogilise või ajaloolise maastiku uurimisel, hoolimata looduse ja kliima muutustest, kasutada abistava analoogiana tänapäevaseid keskkondi ning selgitada välja uuritava ala geograafilised, geoloo- gilised ja meteoroloogilised tingimused; sealjuures on geograafiliste infosüstee- mide programmi (GIS) kasutuselevõtt metodoloogilises plaanis üheks heaks eel- duseks. Et aga näha maastikku, nagu seda näeb/nägi meremees, ning arvestades nimetatud lähenemisviisiga, on oluline veesõiduki olemasolu, sest just pardal õpib meremees tundma ilma ja vetevälja ning ilmneb seos nägemise ja tegemise vahel. See lisab aktiivselt merega seotud tegevustesse kaasatud kultuuride uurimise juurde ühe kõige tähtsama objektina veesõiduki. Meremehe perspektiivi rekonst- rueerimine võib baseeruda sellel, kuidas tegutsesid laevad ja toimus kauba- vahetus. Rannikumere jäätumisega muutub merenduslik kultuurmaastik järsult. Eesti rannikualadel “kaob” vesi elanike maastikuteadvusest kolmeks kuuks ja vee- sõidukite järele puudub igapäevane vajadus. Kuid samamoodi muutub maastik

The seaman’s perspective in landscape archaeology 179

talve tulekul ka kaugel sisemaal – perspektiivid teisenevad mõlemas ümbrus- konnas. Inimene talvemaastikus ja samuti talvemaastik inimeses on hoopis tund- matu valdkond, mille uurimine rikastaks kindlasti erinevaid maastikukäsitlusi. Üksnes veesõiduki olemasolul ja uuritava piirkonna merele iseloomulike oma- duste tundmisel on lootust mõista inimest ja tema ajalugu rannikualadel. Mere- sõidu alguspäevadest alates võib üles loetleda väga palju erinevaid vetel liikle- miseks ette nähtud aluseid. Esimesed arheoloogiliselt teada olevad veesõidukid Läänemere regioonis olid ühepuu- ja nahkpaadid, millest arenesid plankpaadid ja peagi ka suured laevad. Kuigi varastest paatidest on andmed veel üsna kesised, lubab olemasolev info oletada, et tänu oma konstruktsioonile ei vajanud need alused randumiseks spetsiaalseid kohti; samas tuleb kindlasti rõhutada, et vete ja ilma mõju erines piirkonniti ning sel faktoril on randumise juures siiski oma kindel roll. Hilisemast ajast pärinevate arheoloogiliste laevaleidude hulk on aga märgatavalt esinduslikum ning laevaehituse traditsioonide ja erinevuste kohta tehtavatel oletustel on seega kindlam alus. Nii võibki juba alates 9. sajandist, eel- kõige aga alates 10. sajandist, kõnelda spetsialiseerunud laevandusest Läänemere ruumis, kuhu ilmusid esimesed selgelt kaupade transportimiseks ehitatud alused. 11. sajandi laevaleiud viitavad juba kaubanduses väga hästi arenenud transpordi- süsteemile, mis põhines kolmel laevade suurusklassil: väikesed, keskmised ja suured laevad. Laevanduse areng peegeldab ka muutusi randumiskohtades, sest need olid ehitatud veesõidukite tarbeks. Nimetatud asjaolu koos väitega, et kohti randumiseks ei saa üksnes maismaast lähtudes valida, annab suurepärase aluse erinevate randumispaikade defineerimiseks ja määratlemiseks nii ruumilises kui ka ajalises kontekstis. Käesolevas artiklis esineb küllalt sageli nimetus randumispaik (landing site, place for landing). Termini laialdase kasutamise põhjus on selle vetelt maale üle- minekukohti tähistava mõiste kõige neutraalsem ja ulatuslikum tähendusväli ning ajaline mõõde. Randumispaiga nimetus hõlmab kõiki randumist võimaldavaid või võimaldanud, nii konstruktsioonidega kui ka ilma nendeta, kohti rannikul, suudmealadel, jõe- ja järvekallastel. Seega mahuvad selle mõiste alla ka kõik allpool käsitletavad terminid – loodussadam/ankrupaik, maabumiskoht, sadam ja protosadam, nende erinevad tüübid, aga samuti käsitlemata jäänud kohad, kus randumine on või oli võimalik. Loodussadam (natural harbour) on üks lihtsamaid randumispaiku. Terminoloo- giliselt sadama nimetusega enam vahet tehes sobib sünonüümina ka ankrupaiga (anchorage) termin. See on randumiseks või varjupaiga leidmiseks sobiva topograafiaga koht rannikul, kus inimene paiga välimusse ja omadustesse ei sekku. Tavaliselt asuvad need kohad inimasustusest eemal. Olemas on/olid need kõikjal rannikul ning need tuleb/tuli üksnes ära tunda – viimane on võimatu vete poolt ja veesõidukiga lähenemata, sest iga ankrupaik pole igale laevale sobiv. Arheoloogi- liselt on ankrupaiku seetõttu peaaegu võimatu avastada; vraki leidmine on siiski seda reeglit välistavaks erandiks.

180 Kristin Ilves

Maabumiskoht (landing-place) on sarnaselt loodussadamale/ankrupaigale paatide randumiseks sobiva topograafiaga koht rannikul, mis inimese kohandavat sekkumist ei nõua, kuigi selles esineb tavaliselt erinevaid konstruktsioone. Vii- mased on olulised randumiseks viisil, mis taas merele sõitmiseks ei eelda uue veesõiduki ehitamist. Seega on maabumiskohad tähtsad eelkõige väikeste paati- dega liiklemisel, ning kuigi ka maabumispaiga äratundmisel on merelt maale vaade oluline, eristab neid loodussadamast püsikasutus ja kindel seotus inimasus- tusega. Kuivõrd maabumiskohad erinevad nii suuruse kui eesmärkide poolest, on suuremate, regionaalse või kohaliku tähtsusega kohtade puhul korrektsem kasutada eriotstarbelise maabumiskoha (specialised landing-place) nimetust. Sadama (harbour) kontseptsioon Läänemere ruumi kultuurmaastikul kerkis esile alles laevanduse arenguga üha suuremate aluste ehitamise suunas ning selliste veesõidukite kasutusele võtmisega, mis olid niivõrd suured, et sobivate rajatiste puudumisel polnud randumine enam võimalik, seega alates alles 9.–10. sajandist. Tegemist on spetsiaalsete (püsi)konstruktsioonidega kohaga rannikul, mis on rajatud laevadele randumiseks iga ilmaga ja on ankrut paigal hoidva põhjamaterja- liga. Sadamad eeldavad ka inimese pidevat sekkumist, n-ö sadamateenuseid laias tähenduses. Nende tagamaa sõltub sadama eesmärkidest. Kuivõrd Läänemere regioonis on aga arheoloogiliselt tuntud rida varaseid, eelkõige alates 7.–8. sajandist tekkinud suuri kaubitsemiskeskusi juba märkimisväärse tagamaaga, sobib autori arvates randumispaiku sealsetes kohtades tähistama termin protosadam (proto-harbour) varase sadama tähenduses. Nii maabumiskoha kui ka eriotstarbelise maabumiskoha nimetus võrdsustaks need vähetähtsate paikadega rannikul, sadama nimetus pole aga funktsionaalselt korrektne.

Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2004, 8, 2, 181–200

Gurly Vedru

PEOPLE ON RIVER LANDSCAPES

The article deals with North Estonian river landscapes and their prehistoric settlement. Notwithstanding the numerous archaeological investigations that have been carried out around the rivers here, there is still no study discussing the development of human settlement of these areas in general, and in a long-term perspective. It has been suggested that farming in Estonia started first in river valleys. Although traces of both Stone Age and Bronze Age habitation have been discovered in many valleys, the evidence is not sufficient to prove a direct connection between settlement of different periods and of different natural conditions. The present study demonstrates that inhabitants in later settlements were, at least sporadically, conscious of earlier settlements. The article analyses the development of settlement around rivers, and the background that made long-time habitation possible in some places, while others were abandoned after the end of the foraging Stone Age.

Vaatluse alla on võetud Põhja-Eesti jõemaastikud ning nende muinasaegne asustus. Kuigi mitmete siinsete jõgede kallastel on aegade jooksul läbi viidud arvukalt arheoloogilisi väli- töid, puudub seni uurimus, mis kajastaks nende alade inimasustuse arengut üldisemalt ja pikaajalises perspektiivis. On oletatud, et just jõeorud olid kohtadeks, kus viljelusmajanduse levik Eestis alguse sai. Kuigi paljudes neist on leitud jälgi nii kivi- kui pronksiaegsest elutegevusest, ei ole seda otsese seose tõendamisel erinevast ajast ja erineva iseloomuga asustuse vahel piisavaks peetud. Käesolev uurimus näitab siiski, et hilisemad elanikud olid vähemalt kohati varasemast asustusest teadlikud. Artiklis on analüüsitud asustuse arengut jõgede ümbruses ning tingimusi, mis võimaldasid mõne paiga pikaajalist kasutust, samal ajal kui teised kohad pärast püügimajandusliku kiviaja lõppu maha jäeti.

Gurly Vedru, Ajaloo Instituudi arheoloogiasektor (Department of Archaeology, Institute of History), Rüütli 6, 10130 Tallinn, Eesti; [email protected]

Introduction

“… human existence always involves Being-somewhere” (Thomas 1996, 83)

All over the world people live in very different conditions, some of which seem more pleasing and some less pleasing to outsiders. Landscapes shape people and have a direct or indirect influence on their understanding of life and their environment, past and present. Differences in landscape and nature emerge most 182 Gurly Vedru

clearly in a broader geographical perspective, but they can also be distinguished in smaller districts. The river landscapes of North Estonia have been taken under examination as one such small district. The surroundings of rivers or river valleys are often considered the starting point of the wider spread of a farming economy in Estonia. Although human settlement by the rivers had been discussed to a greater or lesser extent by a number of earlier archaeologists, it was Marta Schmiedehelm who clearly presented problems connected with it. Studying the antiquities of Northeast Estonia, she suggested in 1955 that agricultural settlement in Estonia began in places where there were nearby forestless lands suitable for grazing. She suggested that such places were river valleys, glint plains and shelving slopes. Her main argument was that groups of stone-cist graves of the Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Ages were frequently concentrated on riverbanks. In earlier archaeological literature especially, the presence of stone-cist graves was linked with the spread of settlement (critique to that Lang 2000a). On that basis a supposition was made that those areas were taken into use at the same time as the erection of stone graves, and later the settlement spread to other areas with less favourable natural preconditions for primitive tillage. This was believed to have been proven by the existence of later graves and lack of earlier ones (Шмидехельм 1955; Tamla 1996, 218–219). Although traces from the period before stone-cist graves had already been discovered near the rivers of Virumaa, and investigated by Schmiedehelm, she did not consider them as sufficient proof of direct connection between the earlier and later settlement (Шмидехельм 1955, 18, 182). At the time she completed her research, there was no data concerning settlement sites contemporaneous with stone-cist graves, and she drew all her general conclusions about settlement solely on the basis of hill-forts of a later date (Шмидехельм 1955, 179). Thus it was not really possible to determine the connection between the dwelling sites and burial grounds of the same period. Linking the spread of graves with the spread of settlement, investigators of later periods have also seen the simultaneity in the erection of graves and taking riverside areas into use. The fact that some places were, in addition to habitation, used for other purposes, and that the lack of archaeological sites does not necessarily mean that those places were not used or lacked importance and/or a meaning for the people, was disregarded. In the course of time, several monuments on riverbanks have been archaeologically investigated in Estonia. However, the results obtained have been used mainly in review papers (Jaanits 1994; Kriiska 1995; 1996a; 1997; Тамла 1987; Valk 1989), less frequently in separate studies of certain regions (Kriiska 1996b; Lang 1996) or in a wider context (Янитс 1959; Lang 1996; 2000a). The amount of such works taken together is quite large, and on the basis of their number one could suggest that it is possible to get a good overview of the issues related to human settlement of riverside areas. Nevertheless, it has mostly been an analysis of a single site or cluster of sites; problems concerning the representativeness of these sites were not discussed. In fact, the location of some archaeological sites, that is to say, why people in the past chose one or another place for their activities People on river landscapes 183

(e.g. living, burying, farming, ritual performances) seems often so self-evident that there is no need for analyses of settlement traces in different landscapes. Several questions concerning these particular places, may be asked in general about the character of human settlement, in both short and long term perspective. Subsequently, I shall try to find answers to some questions concerning prehistoric human settlement on riverbanks. The basic problem is the actual situation, that is whether settlements on riverbanks differed from settlements in other landscape types? And if they did, in what ways? How has the settlement on riverbanks developed in the course of time? Are the Stone Age settlements linked to those of the Bronze and Iron Ages, and if yes, then how were these different periods manifested through the landscape?

River landscapes as the subject of archaeological research

The present paper is an archaeological research focusing on the landscape, inhabited sites, and the humans who founded these sites. How to define landscape archaeology? There are as many possibilities for that as there are persons who are dealing with it, and researchers prefer different aspects in their definitions. How- ever, it is not possible to say that some of them are more correct than others. Still, researchers agree on one – landscape is no longer considered as just providing a passive background for human activities, but rather as an active component that influenced human behaviour. There are larger trends in landscape archaeology in which more attention is given to one or another aspect and landscape is seen as a bearer of different philosophies. In most studies, the socio-symbolic dimensions of the landscape are emphasised, in which landscape as a unit exists because it is experienced, perceived and conceptualised by humans. The importance of landscape to ancient people is not limited to the evidence provided by archaeologically detectable objects. Landscape can also be discussed as idealistic, conceptualised or constructed. The physiographic characteristics of the local landscape are more often considered as both the source and the subject of symbols, and are connected with ancestors. Also of importance is the concept of landscape that contains more than just a one-dimensional neutral relationship between man and nature. Land- scape is often regarded as the materialisation of memory that confirms social and individual histories. Memory emphasises continuity of the landscape, often through re-use, re-interpretation, re-establishment and reconstruction. Consequently, landscape as a memory is connected with the identity of the people living there (Knapp & Ashmore 2000, 1–14 and references). Landscape as a memory has been a subject for several ethno-archaeological researches. For example, Susanne Küchler has studied the meaning of the landscape among habitants of the island of New Ireland in Melanesia. She opposes the Western understanding of landscape as a soil where several processes are “inscripted” and which can be measured and described, with that of the Melanesian people’s image of landscape as a memory. For the Melanesians, the landscape is 184 Gurly Vedru

more a memory than a development; it creates mental images, in which visible forms are rather a part of the process of remembering and forgetting than a list of separate remembrances (Küchler 1993, 85–86). Chris Scarre, like many other researchers, has emphasised the need for trying to understand the symbolic or cosmological meanings of the specific locations studied, and does that despite the misgiving that this approach may be considered more empathic than scientific. He emphasises the location of monuments in specific places which posed different meanings both for the people who created them and for their descendants in later periods (Scarre 2002, 3). This approach can be applied not only to the megalithic buildings that were the topic of Scarre’s research, but also to the whole ancient settlement. Accordingly, the landscape is both the framework of human activities and the creation of it. People live and act in the landscape that existed before them, complement it and contribute new suppositions and ideas about it. Some of these ideas have been linked to conspicuous geo- graphic or topographic features that have always existed and that people had and still have to take into account. Such features are rivers, lakes and mountains, and they have formed core knowledge of people of various eras; cognition of the special landscape forms the mental landscape of people (Bergh 2002, 139). The significance of rivers and waterfalls in traditional cultures, particularly waterfalls, that lent an imaginative impact, has been the subject of several researches. It has been supposed that rivers, or part of them, held significance in the religious world of ancient people. The importance of rivers and waterfalls to humans seems to be universal; this phenomenon is thought to be valid both among the aboriginals of Australia (Taçon 2000) and the Saami (Bradley 2002, 6), as well as the ancient Greeks (Bradley 2002, 23 and references). Considering the British Neolithic Age, it has also been supposed that rivers that formed boundaries or were places where spiritual communication took place posed a position in myths. Rivers were both obstacles to movement and a means of intercourse, providing passage through places and worlds (Edmonds 1999, 21, 99). In addition to the general study of rivers and their surroundings, researches dealing with sacrifices to rivers and other bodies of water have been carried out (Bradley 2002, 51). Waterfalls are considered as holding a psychic significance for various ethnic groups scattered around the word. According to Mircea Eliade, some researchers have interpreted waterfalls as connecting points to three different worlds – the underworld, the upper world and the middle world or the earth –, as a place where one can experience the centre of the world, where axis mundi is located. It is supposed that these places provided strong connection between different levels of existence (Taçon 2000, 37; applying Eliade’s position on Estonian archaeological sites Lang 1999). Accordingly, the waterfall of the Jägala River can be considered of some importance, and its impact on people of the past was bound to be significant as well (Fig. 1). One may assume that this place was considered sacred and the beliefs, myths and memories of predecessors were associated with it. Quite possibly other North Estonian rivers and streams, discussed in this paper, also had a psychic significance for the people inhabiting or using their banks. People on river landscapes 185

Fig. 1. View of the waterfall of Jägala from the west. Joon 1. Vaade Jägala joale lääne poolt.

North Estonian landscape is mostly flat, conjoined by the edge of glint and bodies of water. Of the latter, a river making the landscape impressive would have possessed certain implications for people. Rivers have been considered as natural borders of landscape, marking different settlement areas (Lang 1996). Therefore riverbanks could be considered as the margins of settlement areas. At the same time, due to the sporadically dense settlement surrounding them, they can be considered as some kind of centre or axis around which settlement concentrated (Lang 1996, Fig. 102, 103, 104). The term river defines bodies of water of different sizes. In the following text it marks both larger “real” rivers like the Pirita, Jägala and Narva Rivers, and those, which, because of their size and water capacity, should rather be called creeks. So there are at least two groups: bodies of water properly referred to as rivers and lesser streams or creeks. Nevertheless, it must be taken into account that the amount of water flow has diminished in the course of time. This is due to the land mass upheaval of North Estonia, but land improvement works of a later period have also changed both the riverbeds and their water systems. Thus, several present-day creeks may have been navigable or partly navigable rivers in prehistoric times. North Estonian rivers flow mainly in the North Estonian plain, their lower courses on the coastal lowland. The Jägala River forms a waterfall of about 8 m 186 Gurly Vedru

at the transition from the limestone plateau to the coastal lowland; the other rivers discussed possess less conspicuous transitions. On the plain the rivers are surrounded by sporadic marshy areas, on the middle reaches, mainly by cultural landscape and forests. On the lower reaches, before the transition to the coastal plain, the landscape consists of alvar and moraine areas, which were already inhabited in prehistoric times. In the estuaries the soils are quite young and relatively unproductive. The natural surrounding of rivers varies. Some of them were surrounded by large forests, which in prehistoric times were more extensive than today. At present, only the Valgejõgi River and Jägala River run through forests, but it is likely that in the past the number of such rivers was greater. Most of the rivers discussed flow through open landscape. The open landscape is apparently both a reason as well as a consequence – the naturally sparse alvar forests were more adaptable to habitation and in the course of time they disappeared as a result of human activities. Another problem is the definition of river valley in archaeology. In the natural sciences, it means a long and quite narrow negative form of surface or depression surrounding the river which is encircled by slopes. The river, flowing in the bottom of the valley is surrounded by valley flat with sheet and banks; slopes and terraces surround it in turn. In the archaeological context, it is probably not so simple, and for that reason sites situated not only immediately on riverbanks but located at a distance of a hundred metres are discussed below. As the rivers may have changed their course through time, the sites, now further from rivers, may have originally been located closer to them. Nevertheless, this was not the case in North Estonia, where some rivers have been only partially ditched (Valkla, Kuusalu). Sites (e. g. graves) that were clearly orientated to the river and possessing a view of it, can be also considered as riverside monuments, not dependent on their exact location. Such sites mark the hinterland of the riverside settlement. The opposite situation, where the riverside areas formed a hinterland for a settlement between rivers, is possible (more details in the discussion). The oldest settlement sites, dated to the foraging Stone Age, are located around several big rivers. In Estonia, the best examples are the Pärnu River, Narva River and Emajõgi River. In the vicinity of these rivers several well- known and thoroughly investigated settlement sites are known. However, there has been no detailed study of settlements around those rivers in later periods of prehistory, nor the connections, or lack of them, between the settlements of different periods. The present paper is an attempt to analyse the formation of riverbank settlements, their changes through time, disappearance, re-formation and continuity. As the data concerning Estonia is divided too unevenly and there are some specific features in every natural region, I have chosen to discuss only areas in the vicinity of North Estonian rivers. In this, I had to make a further choice, too; archaeological investigations have been carried out in the vicinity of some rivers only, People on river landscapes 187

while others have received no attention. As most such fieldwork has been carried out in the surroundings of the lower reaches of North Estonian rivers, I shall focus on those areas. The choice I made was partly prompted by an existing situation, and by existing studies, but it is also partially subjective. I have chosen for more detailed analysis the areas of those North Estonian rivers in Harju county where I have carried out various archaeological research projects, and whose surrounding landscapes have become familiar to me in the course of time. Those are Jägala, Kaberla, Valkla, Kuusalu, Loo, Pudisoo and Valgejõgi Rivers with their surroundings. Additionally, the Pirita River in the west, and the Loobu, Pada, Purtse and Narva Rivers in the east will come under discussion. As a parallel I shall use, to some extent, the archaeological data known from the vicinity of other North Estonian rivers and compare the development of the settlement of those areas with areas further away from rivers. For a better survey of the archaeological sites located in the vicinity of the rivers, I shall first describe them by river, moving from west to east. Although attention is focused on agricultural settlement, earlier sites will be also discussed to show the connections (or lack of them) between settlements of different time periods. My objective before starting this research was the possibility of proving the connection between agricultural settlement and earlier generations that subsisted mostly by foraging. It is evident that such a connection between the settlements of different times is tenuous since only in a few cases, if any, is it possible to prove an unbreakable succession in the continuous use of one and the same place. In the course of time a particular settlement can move to another place, sometimes at a significant distance from its original location.

Settlement traces around North Estonian rivers

Traces of Stone Age settlement are known on the banks of almost every river in North Estonia. However, Bronze Age sites have not been found everywhere. In the neighbourhood of several of the rivers under discussion, both Stone Age dwelling sites and stray finds are known. Their connection to the settlement traces of the following periods will be described below. To give an overview of settlement development in riverbank areas during a longer time, archaeological sites of later periods will be discussed. Pirita is the westernmost of the rivers under discussion. The oldest settlement sites date back to the Neolithic; one of them was situated on the site of a later hill- fort on a river bend; the other was further inland in Lagedi (Lang 1996, Fig. 101). A stone axe found in a medieval settlement site at Proosa can date back either to the Late Stone Age or to the Bronze Age (Lang 1996, 380). Settlement continued in the same places into the Bronze Age, as is proven by dwelling sites at Iru and Lagedi, as well as by the numerous groups of stone-cist graves and cup-marked stones (Lang 1996, Fig. 102). The Roman Iron Age is represented by single graves 188 Gurly Vedru

only; in the second half of the first millennium, the Iru hill-fort and settlement site were inhabited, and people also lived in Lagedi. In addition to Lagedi, a burial place and some stray finds have been found at Proosa. In the Viking Age, a dwelling site was established at Väo on the left bank of the Pirita River. In the end of the prehistoric period, the number of settlement sites in the surroundings of the lower reaches of the Pirita River was higher; however, in some of them no archaeological finds have been discovered (Lang 1996, Figs. 104–106). Near the Jägala River a Mesolithic settlement site with quartz tools has been found on the higher terrace of a triangular-shaped promontory at the confluence of the Jõelähtme and Jägala Rivers, near the waterfall (Fig. 2). Another Mesolithic settlement site is known less than 1 km downstream, on the high right bank of the river. In the Neolithic Age, in the period of the Typical and Late Comb-Marked Ceramics, a dwelling site was located near the mouth of the river of that time, about 0.7 km downstream from the earlier habitation site. Here people had lived on top of a big and quite high sand drift situated at the river bend. Two boat-shaped battle- axes, found in the territory of the present Koogi village (AI 3198; AM 293), and an

4 km

Fig. 2. Settlement traces of the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. 1 settlement sites, 2 stray finds. Joon 2. Mesoliitilised ja neoliitilised asustusjäljed. 1 asulakohad, 2 juhuleiud. People on river landscapes 189

antler axe, found on the right bank of the Jägala River (Lang 1996, 397; AI 4415) date to a somewhat later time. The settlement remained near the Jägala River in the Bronze Age (Fig. 3). The dwelling site of that time was located near the waterfall, not far from the glint edge on the high right bank of the river. The Bronze Age settlement site was small and of low density, probably only a single farmstead. In its neighbourhood, less than 100 m away near the river there is a cup- marked stone (Vedru 2002a, 41; in press). A dozen cup-marked stones are located on the left bank of the Jägala River and near the Jõelähtme River which flows into the Jägala River. In the vicinity, there are some groups of stone-cist graves that seem to be connected with both the glint edge and the Jõelähtme and Jägala Rivers. The finds from three local stone graves give evidence that two of the cist-graves date back to the later Bronze Age and one to the 3rd–4th centuries (Lang 1996, 401–402). That was followed by a gap in settlement that lasted for several centuries.

4 km

Fig. 3. Settlement traces of the Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Ages. 1 settlement sites, 2 stone graves, 3 cup-marked stones, 4 hill-fort. Joon 3. Pronksi- ja eelrooma rauaaja asustusjäljed. 1 asulakohad, 2 kivikalmed, 3 lohukivid, 4 linna- mägi. 190 Gurly Vedru

The same places were re-inhabited only in the Middle Iron Age and the Viking Age (Fig. 4). In the estuary, at the place of the Neolithic dwelling site, a hill-fort was erected probably in the 6th century, and it was used until the second half of the first millennium (Lang 1996, 327). A village, founded in the Viking Age, was located in the same place where the Bronze Age farmstead had been, but it was several times larger (Vedru 2002a, 41–43). In the river valley, about 100 m downstream, some bracelets and rings were found in the course of earthworks carried out in the beginning of the 20th century. The finds were made on the left bank of the river on low-lying land between the river and the limestone bank (Laul 1956). As this is a low place regularly flooded, it could be a place where sacrifices were made. The oldest finds collected in the surroundings of the Kaberla River belong to the Neolithic Age (Fig. 2), followed by thousands of years without archaeological finds. The settlement reappeared in the Viking Age, when a settlement site, located

4 km

Fig. 4. Settlement traces of the final period of Estonian prehistory. 1 hill-forts, 2 pit grave cemeteries, 3 probable pit grave cemeteries, 4 settlement sites, 5 hoard. Joon 4. Muinasaja lõpu asustusjäljed. 1 linnamäed, 2 maa-alused kalmistud, 3 arvatavad maa-alused kalmistud, 4 asulakohad, 5 aardeleid. People on river landscapes 191

ca 200 m from the river, got its start. The same settlement was in use in later centuries (Fig. 4; Vedru 2003, 329–330). A stone grave situated about 300–400 m away from the settlement site was probably also built in the Viking Age. In the last centuries of the prehistoric period and in the Middle Ages, people buried their dead in a pit-grave cemetery located about 400 m from the dwelling site. The oldest traces of settlement on the banks of the Valkla River date to the Mesolithic (Fig. 2). A small settlement site with quartz tools, about 20 m west from the river, was probably once larger and reached the river, but buildings of a later period preclude a definite conclusion (Vedru 2002b). The only find from the Neolithic is a boat-shaped battle-axe (AM 384), found on the right bank of the river. From the habitation of the Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Ages, a number of stone-cist graves and dozens of cup-marked stones were left to the landscape, but, as in most other cases, dwelling sites of the same period are missing (Fig. 3). The oldest settlement site of the Metal Age belongs to the Roman Iron Age and is located on the left bank, further away from the groups of earlier stone graves. Roughly the same areas were re-used in the Viking Age when a large settlement was founded and used during the following centuries (Fig. 4). A similar scheme of development can be observed in the vicinity of the Kuusalu River. The earliest of the settlement sites here probably belongs to the Mesolithic Age (Fig. 2); it is situated about 20 m east of the river in the vicinity of the edge of the glint. Fragments of stone tools found around the river as stray finds are dated to the Stone Age. A settlement site from the Neolithic Age is located a little farther from the river (Vedru 1998, 57). Stone-cist graves and cup-marked stones are found at some distance from the river; however, they can still be seen from the riverbank (Fig. 3). After a gap, the area around the Kuusalu River was re- inhabited in the Viking Age, as indicated by a hill-fort, a large settlement site, and a pit-grave cemetery (Fig. 4). The settlement site was also in use in the end of the Prehistoric Period and in the Middle Ages. There is only one settlement site known near the Loo River; it was founded in the Viking Age and lasted through the Middle Ages (Fig. 4). Near the Pudisoo River only some Stone Age stray finds have been detected (Fig. 2). A Mesolithic settlement site is known at Vanaküla on the left bank of the Valge- jõgi River, about 20 m west from it (Fig. 2). About 10 km downstream, there is a Neolithic dwelling site on the high left bank of the river. It seems though, that that settlement disappeared by the end of the Stone Age; later known archaeological sites date only to the Middle Ages, when a settlement was located in the same Vanaküla. Four Mesolithic and Early Neolithic dwelling sites are located on the right bank of the Loobu River (Fig. 2). Traces of later settlement near the river are missing; the only exception is a mediaeval rural cemetery (Kriiska 1996b; Lang 2000a, Fig. 5). Several archaeological sites can be found in the area around the Pada River. Several cup-marked stones and stone-cist graves are situated near the river (Fig. 3). A number of tarand-graves are also known in the area (Шмидехельм 1955, 111–127). The Koila hill-fort, located on the left bank of the river was first used 192 Gurly Vedru

at the end of the first millennium BC, then abandoned, and taken into use again in the middle of the first millennium AD (Шмидехельм 1955, 172). Moving a little upstream, two hill-forts located about 300 m apart, together with a large settlement site, are situated just beside the river (Fig. 4; Тамла 1978, Fig. 1; 1998, Fig. 2). The larger hill-fort (Pada I) dates to the 12th–13th centuries (Tamla 1998, 291), the smaller hill-fort (Pada II) was used several times during the first millennium. The last phase is dated to the second half of the first millennium (Тамла 1978, 357). The settlement site near the larger hill-fort was used at the same time with the smaller hill-fort; its finds belong to the 8th–10th centuries (Тамла 1983, 306). A pit-grave cemetery with inhumation burials, in the area of the earlier settlement site, was contemporary with the larger hill-fort; the burials belonged to the 12th–13th centuries (Tamla 1998, 291–293, Fig. 2). Several groups of stone-cist graves and a number of tarand-graves are located on the banks of the Purtse River. Near the graves, on the right bank of the river, the Purtse hill-fort, which was used since the Viking Age is situated (Tarakallas) (Fig. 4). Schmiedehelm, who excavated the site, suggested the possibility of even earlier occupation, contemporary with the stone-cist graves (Шмидехельм 1955, 176, 178). According to data gathered from later archaeological excavations, the earliest fortifications of the hill-fort were erected in the 8th century, the later ones in the 13th century (Мяэсалу & Тамла 1983). It is also possible that a place called Taramägi, situated on the left bank of the Purtse River, was used as a hill-fort in late prehistory (Jaanits et al 1982, 200, Fig. 165). A number of stone graves, a probable hill-fort and a large settlement site of the Viking Age and Late Iron Age are also known in Lüganuse (Tamla 1996). Since the Stone Age, there was also settlement in the vicinity of the Narva River, where the earliest dwelling sites and stray finds belong to the Mesolithic Age (Fig. 2). Several settlement sites and single burial places are also known from the Neolithic (Kriiska 1996a, Fig. 1, Table 1). In the Neolithic and Early Metal Age, there was a settlement site at Narva Joaoru, where later a probable hill-fort was located (Fig. 3). The place was surrounded by a wall in the 3rd–1st century BC (Jaanits 1994; Никитюк 1997); some finds belonging to the end of the Iron Age were also gathered there (Fig. 4; Kriiska to the author, January 2004). This was a brief overview of the traces of human activity around some North Estonian rivers. However our knowledge of prehistoric settlement is far from perfect. The gaps in the development of habitation in the surroundings of the rivers of Virumaa (with the exception of the Loobu River) are conspicuous, and are probably due to our too-limited knowledge of Iron Age settlement there. How were the areas between the rivers used, according to archaeological evidence? The best overview can be gained from Figures 2 and 3 of this article. They show that only a few sites from the foraging Stone Age are known from the areas between the rivers, and even these were connected with other bodies of water (Lang 1996, 120, Fig. 113; Vedru 1999). In these areas, the number of stray finds dated to the Late Stone Age and Bronze Age is quite large. The spread of People on river landscapes 193

them indicates that settlement had moved to areas suitable for agriculture by that time (Lang 2000b). Nevertheless, mainly cup-marked stones and stone graves dated to the Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Ages are known from the areas between the rivers. It indubitably proves the importance of those areas for the people of that time. On the other hand, cult-stones and graves are not directly connected with dwelling sites, and the number of settlement sites found to date is rather small.

Discussion: riverside as an environment for living

Although traces of both Mesolithic and Neolithic settlements have been discovered in the vicinity of most of the rivers discussed, traces from inhabitation in later periods have not been found everywhere. There are also some rivers whose banks were probably only inhabited in the later centuries of prehistory. In some cases, it seems that people left the riverbank areas when the foraging economy of the Stone Age had come into end, to find new places for living further afield. Was it really so, or is our research still insufficient to explain the development of prehistoric settlement? Especially in earlier times, the research of archaeological sites has mostly been confined to detecting objects clearly standing out from the surrounding landscape. All prehistoric settlement of the area was then connected with the latter. At the same time, it can hardly be true for the surroundings of these rivers where a recent modern surface survey for finding new settlement sites has been carried out. The contact areas of forests and bodies of water, offering different resources, had been important for a foraging society; in the changed conditions, forests and the lack of necessary agricultural hinterlands stopped human settlement in several places. Arable lands are missing along the forested banks of the Valgejõgi River; consequently, people moved from there to other areas. The pattern of settlement shift was similar in other places, for example on the banks of the Loobu River, where settlement sites are not known after the Early Neolithic Age (Lang 2000a). The move of settlement towards new areas further from bodies of water can be interpreted as the first colonization, a process that took place during the Corded Ware Culture in III millennium BC. In the course of this process, lands suitable for farming, which had been uninhabited previously, were occupied (Lang 1996, 439–440; 2000a, 61–87; 2000b, 342). However, settlement persisted around several rivers. In most of the cases when the vicinity of rivers was used in the Metal Age, one can also find traces from earlier settlement sites. Another question is whether stone-cist graves located near rivers indicate earlier settlement in the vicinity. It is likely that graves were rather built at places of ritual importance than close to the dwelling sites (Mägi 2002, 173–175). The evidence that landscape functioned in different ways has been gleaned from many eras and from many parts of the world. Graves were often built at places which were considered sacred, for example on mountains or on the 194 Gurly Vedru

banks of bodies of water. These places were believed to hold a significant place in people’s beliefs. Even more, graves were erected and sacrifices carried out only in such places (e.g. Calado 2002, Figs. 2.2–2.4; Tilley 1993), while dwelling sites of the same period were built elsewhere. This pattern may not be true for all times and places; still, it seems to be correct for most North Estonian stone-cist graves. Bronze Age settlement sites in the research area are known only in the vicinity of the Jägala, Pirita and Narva Rivers. They were all located on alvar areas near the glint edge, on a riverbank. Next to the Jägala River settlement, there was a ford with a flat limestone bottom. The settlements were surrounded by fertile soils favourable for early farmers. The problem is, can continuity of settlement since the Stone Age be observed in these places? To answer this question, I shall use the Jägala River settlement as an example. The Neolithic settlement there was located a few kilometres downstream, and thus we cannot speak of direct continuity of settlement since the Mesolithic Age; still, the later period people lived not far away, on the other bank of the river. The settlement of this district had moved according to the general pattern of settlement history; one Mesolithic settlement site was located at the confluence of two rivers, the other further downstream. In the Neolithic Age, settlement had moved into the estuary of the Jägala River. When farming became the dominant branch of the economy, people moved upstream again and settled on the alvar area. The last location was used by the Viking Age people several centuries afterwards, as well as their descendants. Reaching even further back continuity has been discovered in other places. For example, long-term settlement is evident in the vicinity of the Valkla River. On the banks of the Kuusalu River, a connection between the settlements of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Ages and the Metal Age can be observed, but they are indicated by monuments of different character. Places where earlier people lived were later used only as burial grounds. Drawing conclusions is once again complicated by the disproportion of graves and settlement sites; traces of dwellings of the people who left stone graves and cup-marked stones on the landscape are not found at the Kuusalu settlement. Erecting graves on top of the dwelling sites of earlier periods was a way of expressing mental continuity between generations. Settlements disappeared from the banks of several North Estonian rivers after the end of the Stone Age. The Valgejõgi River and the Loobu River east of it may serve as examples. They both run strongly, with rapids on their lower courses. Together with the surrounding forests they offered favourable living conditions for Stone Age settlers. Owing to heavier soils and the absence of lands suitable for early tillage, later settlements moved away from the rivers and these areas were re-colonized only in the Middle Ages. Such shifting of settlement to land more suitable for farming explains why settlement around some North Estonian rivers was relatively continuous since the Stone Age while in other places it was interrupted at various intervals. East of the Loobu River, several settlement sites People on river landscapes 195

are also known from the Corded Ware Culture, proving that new areas were developed (Lang & Konsa 1998; Lang 2000a, 62–75). It is clear that continuity in the use of a particular settlement was primarily defined by environmental conditions. For example the areas near the Pirita, Jägala and Valkla Rivers, where alvar areas offered good conditions for people engaged in agriculture. Continuity of riverside settlement depended directly on suitable hinterlands. The nature and extent of soils were relevant additional factors, as well as the presence or absence of forests. If these conditions were fulfilled, settlement always stayed in the same places. The surroundings of the Valkla River may be cited as the best example. First inhabited in the Mesolithic Period, the site was never abandoned, and the settlement is still in use in the present day. Settlement concentrated near bodies of water if possible. Therefore, North Estonian river valleys can be considered as cradles of agricultural settlement, since the alvars surrounding them were favourable for early farming. Nevertheless, the drift of settlement took place much earlier than the Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Ages, in the time of Corded Ware Culture. The development of local settlement was defined by a combination of several factors. Rivers, at least some of them, were important communication routes both in summer and winter. The presence of a navigable river was probably one of the reasons why Kuusalu developed into an important centre in the Viking Age. The Kuusalu River, once certainly with more water, might have been suitable for water transport to the dwelling sites. Nevertheless, environment conditions seem not to have been the only ones considered important when choosing the place for a settlement. Continuity of settlement was possibly taken into consideration as well. Connection with an earlier settlement could be ascertained by visible traces of earlier habitation, or by oral tradition. The latter could also explain gaps in habitation, and thus establish mental continuity. Cognitive sides in continuity may have been prevailing at the riverside places where the Stone Age people had lived, and which had been used as burial grounds by later generations.

Conclusions

Several sites around North Estonian rivers, which were colonized as early as the Mesolithic Age, were later inhabited through millennia. Although several areas further from the river valleys were also used for a long time, permanent settlement in these areas began primarily in the Neolithic Age. During the colonization of new lands in the Neolithic Age, settlers of the riversides moved to areas further from the rivers, where alvar soils permitted early tillage. Settlement stayed in the same place only when environmental conditions were suitable for agriculture. On the other hand, some sort of human activity continued in several places on the riverside, even if there were no arable lands in the vicinity. Changes took place in the function of these particular sites – earlier dwelling sites were later often replaced by graves or cult-places. 196 Gurly Vedru

For a predominantly agricultural society, the banks of some rivers lost their importance as an immediate living environment but they were still used for other purposes. Some rivers and their surroundings might hold a place in religious systems and in the beliefs and traditions of the settlers of the area. Ritual communication could also use rivers and especially waterfalls as mediums between this and The Other World. Finally, I return to the beginning and to different concepts of landscape. The settlers of the island of Malaita believe the land owns the people who live on it. Landscape connects people directly with their predecessors, because their fore- fathers created the land and its present inhabitants live on it; land that is connected with predecessors at the same time belongs to the living (Van Dommelen 2000, 278–279, 283 and references). Undoubtedly, the connection between different generations was also manifested through the landscape of North Estonia.

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to express her gratitude to the Estonian Scientific Foundation (grant No 4202).

References

Bergh, S. 2002. Knocknarea: the ultimate monument: megaliths and mountains in Neolithic Cúil Irra, north–west Ireland. – Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. London; New York, 139–151. Bradley, R. 2002. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London; New York. Calado, M. 2002. Standing stones and natural outcrops: the role of ritual monuments in the Neo- lithic transition of the Central Alentejo. – Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. London; New York, 17–35. Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. London; New York. Jaanits, K. 1994. Excavations at Narva. – TATÜ, 1, 18–21. Jaanits, L., Laul, S., Lõugas, V. & Tõnisson, E. 1982. Eesti esiajalugu. Tallinn. Knapp, A. B. & Ashmore, W. 2000. Archaeological landscapes: constructed, conceptualized, ideational. – Archaeologies of Landscape. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford, 1–30. Kriiska, A. 1995. New Neolithic settlements in Riigiküla. – TATÜ, 4, 448–454. Kriiska, A. 1996a. Archaeological excavations on the Neolithic site of Riigiküla IV. – TATÜ, 4, 410–419. Kriiska, A. 1996b. Stone Age settlements in the lower reaches of the Narva River, North-Eastern Estonia. – Coastal Estonia. Recent Advances in Environmental and Cultural History. (PACT, 51.) Rixensart, 359–369. Kriiska, A. 1997. Excavations of the Stone Age Site at Vihasoo III. – Stilus, 7, 19–28. Küchler, S. 1993. Landscape as memory: the mapping of process and its representation in a Melanesian society. – Landscape. Politics and Perspectives. Providence; Oxford, 85–106. Lang, V. 1996. Muistne Rävala. Muistised, kronoloogia ja maaviljelusliku asustuse kujunemine Loode-Eestis, eriti Pirita jõe alamjooksu piirkonnas, 1–2. (MT, 4.) Tallinn. People on river landscapes 197

Lang, V. 1999. Kultuurmaastikku luues. Essee maastiku religioossest ja sümboliseeritud korraldu- sest. – EAA, 3, 63–85. Lang, V. 2000a. Keskusest ääremaaks. Viljelusmajandusliku asustuse kujunemine ja areng Vihasoo– Palmse piirkonnas Virumaal. (MT, 7.) Tallinn. Lang, V. 2000b. First landnahm in North Estonia. Appendices to ethnic history of the Corded Ware Culture. – The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia II and III. Tartu, 339–348. Lang, V. & Konsa, M. 1998. Two Late Neolithic to Early Iron Age settlement sites at Ilumäe, North Estonia. – AVE, 1997, 67–77. Laul, S. 1956. Inspektsiooniaruanne Jägalast. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Mägi, M. 2002. Piirkonnad ja keskused. Asustus muinasaja lõpu ja varakeskaegsel Saaremaal arheoloogiliste, inimgeograafiliste ning ajalooliste allikate andmeil. – Keskus – tagamaa – ääreala. Uurimusi asustushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. (MT, 11.) Tallinn, 169–227. Scarre, C. 2002. Introduction: situating monuments. The dialogue between built form and land- form in Atlantic Europe. – Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. London; New York, 1–14. Taçon, P. S. C. 2000. Identifying ancient sacred landscapes in Australia: from physical to social. – Archaeologies of Landscape. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford, 33–57. Tamla, T. 1996. Virumaa muinasaeg. – Koguteos Virumaa. Tallinn, 206–244. Tamla, T. 1998. Zum Grabraub in vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Gräbern Estlands. – Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller- Wille herausgegeben von Anke Wesse. Naumünster, 291–297. Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. London; New York. Tilley, C. 1993. Art, architecture, landscape (Neolithic Sweden). – Landscape. Politics and Perspectives. Providence; Oxford, 49–84. Van Dommelen, P. 2000. Exploring everyday places and cosmologies. – Archaeologies of Land- scape. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford, 277–285. Vedru, G. 1998. New archaeological data of the prehistory of lake Kahala area. – AVE, 1997, 62–66. Vedru, G. 1999. Archaeological evidence for settlement in the surroundings of lake Kahala. – Environmental and Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic region. (PACT, 57.) Rixensart, 405–414. Vedru, G. 2002a. Archaeological excavations in Jõelähtme and Kuusalu parishes. – AVE, 2001, 41–47. Vedru, G. 2002b. Aruanne Jägala ja Valgejõe vahelisel alal läbi viidud arheoloogilistest välitöö- dest. Manuscript in the Institute of History. Tallinn. Vedru, G. 2003. Muinasaegne asustus Kaberla piirkonnas. – Arheoloogiga Läänemeremaades. Uuri- musi Jüri Seliranna auks. (MT, 13), 325–337. Vedru, G. In press. Prehistoric human settlement in the region of the lower reaches of the Jägala River.

Валк Х. 1989. Находки на могильнике и поселении Мякса. – TATÜ, 4, 341–344. Мяэсалу А. & Тамла Т. 1983. Об оборонительных сооружениях городища Пуртсе. – TATÜ, 4, 307–310. Никитюк А. 1997. Предварительные результаты раскопок городища Нарва-Юоаорг. – Stilus, 7, 68–78. Тамла Т. 1978. Исследование городища и поселения в Пада. – TATÜ, 4, 353–357. Тамла Т. 1983. Селище в Пада. – TATÜ, 4, 302–306. Тамла Т. 1987. Об археологических памятниках в бассеине реки Пада. – TATÜ, 4, 365–369. Шмидехельм M. 1955. Археологические памятники периода разложения родового строя на северо-востоке Эстонии (V в. до н. э. – V в. н. э.). Таллин. Янитс Л. 1959. Поселения эпохи неолита и раннего металла в приустье р. Эмайыги (Эстонская ССР). Таллин. 198 Gurly Vedru

Gurly Vedru

INIMESED JÕEMAASTIKEL

Resümee

Jõgede ümbrust ehk jõeorge on sageli peetud üheks viljelusmajanduse laiema leviku lähtekohaks Eestis. Kirde-Eesti muistiseid uurinud Marta Schmiedehelm oletas 1955. aastal, et maaviljeluslik asustus sai Eestis alguse sellistes kohtades, mille lähedal oli karjatamiseks sobivaid metsadeta maid. Need olid tema arvates jõeorud, klinditasandikud ja laugjad nõlvad. Põhilise argumendina esitas ta asjaolu, et sageli on pronksi- ja eelrooma rauaaja kivikalmete rühmad koondunud jõekallastele. Kuigi Schmiedehelmi uuritud Virumaa jõgede äärest oli juba varem leitud jälgi kivikalmete-eelsest asustusest, ei pidanud ta seda piisavaks tõendiks varasema ja hilisema asustuse vaheliste otseste seoste olemasolu kohta. Ajal, mil ta oma uurimuse koostas, puudusid andmed sealsete kivikirstkalmetega samaaeg- setest asulakohtadest ning kõik üldisemad asustuse kohta käivad järeldused tegi ta üksnes hilisemasse aega kuuluvate linnamägede andmestikule toetudes. Eestis on arheoloogiliselt uuritud mitmeid jõeäärseid muistiseid, saadud tule- musi on seni aga kasutatud peamiselt ülevaateartiklites, harvem mingi piirkonna kohta koostatud üksikuurimustes või laiemas kontekstis. Vastuseta on jäänud mitmed jõgede ümbruse asustust puudutavad küsimused. Põhiprobleemiks on, kas jõgedeäärne asustus üldse millegi poolest teiste maastikuliste alade omast ehk nn tavaasustusest erines. Kui oli tegemist erinevusega, siis milline see oli? Kuidas on jõekallaste asustus läbi aegade muutunud? Kas eksisteerivad seosed kiviaegse ning pronksi- ja rauaaegse asustuse vahel ning kui need on olemas, siis milles need avalduvad? Kas jõeäärsed piirkonnad püsisid pideval kasutusel kauem kui muud alad? Neile küsimustele vastamiseks olen vaatluse alla võtnud Põhja-Eesti jõed. Põhja-Eesti maastik on valdavalt ühetasane, seda liigendavad klindiserv ja veekogud. Maastikku ilmestaval jõel võis olla inimeste jaoks mitmesuguseid tähen- dusi, olles üheaegselt nii piiriks asustusalade vahel kui ka keskuseks, mille ümber asustus koondus. Põhja-Eesti jõed voolavad peamiselt lavamaal, alamjooksul aga ranniku- madalikul. Jägala jõgi moodustab üleminekul paepealselt alalt rannikumadalikule u 8 meetri kõrguse joa, teistel käsitletavatel jõgedel pole üleminek nii silmatorkav. Lavamaal ümbritsevad jõgesid kohati soine maastik, keskjooksul aga peamiselt kultuurmaastik ja metsad. Jõgede alamjooksul leidub inimeste poolt suhteliselt varakult asustatud loopealseid ning moreenialasid, suudmealadel ja ranniku- madalikul noori ja suhteliselt väheviljakaid muldasid. Terminiga “jõgi” tähistatakse siinkohal Eesti mõistes nii suuri tõelisi jõgesid (Pirita, Jägala, Narva) kui ka selliseid, mis laiuse ja veehulga poolest on pigem ojad (Kaberla, Valkla, Loo). Mõningaid jõgesid (Valgejõgi, Jägala) ümbritsevad praegugi suured metsamassii- vid, mis olid muinasajal tõenäoliselt veelgi ulatuslikumad. Suurem osa vaatlus- People on river landscapes 199

alustest jõgedest voolab aga avatud maastikul. Viimane on arvatavasti nii põhjus kui tagajärg – looduslikult hõredamaid loometsi oli elamiseks lihtsam kohandada, aegade jooksul kadusid need inimtegevuse käigus aga lõplikult. Muutused asustuse paiknemises kajastuvad joonistel 2–4. Nagu näha, ei ole mitme jõe äärest, kus mesoliitikumis ja neoliitikumis olid asulakohad, saadud andmeid hilisemate perioodide elutegevuse kohta. Samuti on jõgesid, mille ääres elati vaid muinasaja hilisematel etappidel. Asustuse liikuvusest tulenevalt siirduti aegade jooksul vähemalt osaliselt teistele aladele, kus loodustingimused vastasid paremini inimeste muutunud vajadustele. Kui püügimajanduslike kogukondade jaoks olid olulised metsade ja veekogude kontaktpiirkonnad, mis pakkusid mitmesuguseid ressursse, siis sama põhjus – põlismetsade olemasolu ja vajalike maa- viljeluslike tagamaade puudumine – saigi mitmete kohtade inimasustuse püsivu- sele saatuslikuks. Nii puudusid näiteks Valgejõe metsastel kallastel harimiseks sobilikud mullad ja inimesed siirdusid neilt aladelt mujale. Asustuse siirdumist uutele, veekogudest kaugematele aladele on käsitletud esimese maahõivena, mis leidis aset venekirveste kultuuri ajal III aastatuhandel eKr ning mille käigus hõi- vati varem asustamata põlluharimiseks sobilikud maad. Mõne jõe ääres jäi asustus siiski püsima. Kui jõgede ümbrust metalliajal mingil moel kasutati, võib samast kohast või selle lähedusest leida jälgi varasematest asulakohtadest. Pronksiaegseid asulakohti on teada vaid Jägala, Pirita ja Narva jõe äärest. Need paiknesid kõik loopealsetel aladel klindi serva läheduses, olles ühest küljest jõega piiratud. Jägala-äärse asulakoha lähedusse jäi ka veel sileda paese jõepõhja ning madala veega koolmekoht. Asulakohtade ümbruses olid vil- jakad mullad, seega olid need kohad varastele maaviljelejatele sobivaks elukesk- konnaks. Kas nende kohtade puhul võis olla tegu asustuse järjepidevusega kivi- ajast? Küsimusele vastamiseks toon näitena Jägala jõe. Neoliitiline asustus oli seal mesoliitilisega võrreldes paiknenud mõnevõrra allavoolu ning seetõttu ei saa kõnelda asustuse järjepidevusest alates mesoliitikumist. Inimeste elukohtade ümber- paiknemisel on siin täheldatav asustuslooline skeem, mille kohaselt paiknes meso- liitiline asulakoht kahe jõe ühinemiskohas, neoliitiline aga jõe suudmes mere kaldal. Viljeleva majanduse tähtsuse kasvuga siirduti taas ülesvoolu loopealsele alale. Ilmselt ei ole siinkohal siiski tegu üksnes majanduslike põhjustega. Võib arvata, et Jägala jõe puhul on läbi aegade olnud üheks koha atraktiivsuse tõstjaks juga. Just selle lähiümbrus on kohaks, kus asustuse paiknemise järjepidevus on eri aegade muististe põhjal kuni eelrooma rauaajani üsna hästi jälgitav. Sama kehtib ka Valkla jõe lähiümbruse kohta. Kuusalu jõe ääres võib küll täheldada seost mesoliitilise, neoliitilise ning metalliaegse asustuse vahel, kuid siin on tegu erinevat tüüpi muististega. Kohti, kus varem elati, kasutati hilisemal ajal vaid matmisteks. Järelduste tegemist komplitseerib antud juhul kalmete ja asulakohtade vahekord Kuusalu asustuskeskuses, kuna endast maastikule kivikalmeid ning lohu- kive jätnud inimeste elamiskohtadest veel jälgi leitud pole. Samas on selline kalmete ehitamine varasemate aegade elukohtadele ilmselt üks võimalus põlvkondade- vahelise järjepidevuse rõhutamiseks. 200 Gurly Vedru

Mõne jõe äärest kadus asustus pärast kiviaja lõppemist. Sellisteks on näiteks Valgejõgi ja sellest ida poole jääv Loobu jõgi. Mõlemad on veerohked, alamjooksul kärestikulised jõed, mis koos ümbritsevate metsadega pakkusid kiviaja elanikele soodsaid äraelamisvõimalusi. Jõekallaste mullad on paksema lõimisega ning varaseks maaviljeluseks sobimatud, mis ilmselt tingis hilisema asustuse siir- dumise jõgedest eemale. Need alad võeti uuesti kasutusele alles keskajal. Asus- tuse ümberpaiknemine viljelusmajanduseks sobilikumatele maadele oligi ilmselt peamiseks põhjuseks, miks mõne jõe ääres elati enam-vähem pidevalt juba kivi- ajast alates, teistes kohtades aga katkes asustus lühemaks või pikemaks ajaks. Ka Loobu jõest lääne poole jäävatel aladel on teada mitmeid venekirveste kultuuri asulakohti, mis tõendavad uute alade kasutuselevõttu. Jõeäärse asustuse pidevus taandus seega suuresti sobilike tagamaade olemas- olule. Näiteks Jägala ja Valkla jõe ümbruskonnas, kus loopealsed alad pakkusid võimalusi ka viljeleva majandusega tegelevatele inimestele, jäi asustus samale kohale ka kiviajale järgnenud perioodidel. Tähtsaks osutus, millised olid mullad ning kui suur oli nende ulatus, lisaks sellele ka metsade olemasolu või nende puudumine. Kui kõik need tingimused olid täidetud, polnud asustuse pikaajalisel püsimisel samas kohas erilisi takistusi. Kas jõeäärne asustus erines samaaegsest, kuid teistes maastikulistes tingi- mustes paiknenud asustusest? Kahtlemata erines see oma asukoha poolest ning kui külad, resp talud, paiknesid jõekallastel, tingis see jõgedevahelistel aladel paiknenud asustusüksustega võrreldes ka teiste mitmesuguseks otstarbeks kasuta- tavate maade erineva paigutuse. Üldiselt koondus igasugune asustus võimaluse korral veekogude lähikonda. Viimasteks võisid küll olla ka järved ja allikad, kuid sageli olid just jõed inimestele atraktiivse elukeskkonna loomise üheks tähtsaks komponendiks, seda enam, et neid on järvedega võrreldes rohkem ning jõeäärsete alade ulatus oluliselt suurem. Seega osutub tõeseks väide, et üheks kohaks, kust maaviljeluslik asustus Põhja-Eestis alguse sai, olid jõeorud, kuna just neid ümb- ritsevad loopealsed olid algeliseks põlluharimiseks sobivad. Oma tähtsus oli kindlasti ka mentaalsetel põhjustel, millest üheks võis olla asustuse järjepidevus. Seos varasema asustusega võis ilmneda nii varasemate perioodide elutegevuse nähta- vate jälgede kaudu kui ka suulise pärimusena. Viimane täitis vajaduse korral reaal- selt eksisteerinud asustuses võimalikud lüngad ning lõi järjepidevuse ka seal, kus see tegelikult puudus. Vaimsele järjepidevusele osutavad jõgede läheduses olevad kohad, mida kiviajal kasutati elamiseks, hilisematel perioodidel aga hoopis surnute matmiseks. Samuti võis mõni jõgi ja juga olla tähtis rituaalide läbiviimise kohana. Jõeäärsed alad võivad soodsate asjaolude kokkulangemisel püsida kasutuses väga pikka aega, kuid kasutuse iseloom võib sealjuures muutuda. Aja jooksul asustus mõne jõe ääres siiski katkes. Tihti pöörduti sajandeid hiljem vanasse kohta ka tagasi.

ABBREVIATIONS – LÜHENDID

1. Museums and archives – Muuseumifondid ja arhiivid

EA – Eesti Ajalooarhiiv (Estonian Historical Archives). Tartu

2. Trükised – Publications

AVE – Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis. Archaeological Field Works in Estonia, 1997–. Koost ja toim Ü. Tamla. Tallinn, 1998–. EAA – Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri, 1997–. HCL – Heinrici Chronicon Livoniae. MT – Muinasaja teadus, 1–. Tallinn, 1991–. Stilus – Stilus. Eesti Arheoloogiaseltsi teated, 1–. Tallinn, 1992–. TATÜ – Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised, 1952–1955; Ühiskonna- teaduste seeria, 1956–1966; Ühiskonnateadused, 1967–1989; Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Ühiskonnateadused, 1990–1991; Humanitaar- ja sotsiaalteadused, 1992–1996. Tallinn.

______

Õnnitleme!

21.XI Vilma Trummal – 80 02.XII Mare Aun – 65

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION FOR 2005

SUBSCRIPTION PRICES (including delivery)

INDEX ISSN Estonia Other countries EEK EUR

year half year a year Series of Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences Biology. Ecology 78152 1406-0914 160 45 85 Chemistry 78155 1406-0124 160 45 85 Engineering 78253 1406-0175 160 45 85 Geology 78154 1406-0132 160 45 85 Physics. Mathematics 78156 1406-0086 160 45 85 Other journals Acta Historica Tallinnensia 78157 1406-2925 74 30 Estonian Journal of Archaeology 78158 1406-2933 74 17 30 Linguistica Uralica 70880 0868-4731 160 45 85 Trames 78153 1406-0922 160 45 85 Oil Shale 70236 0208-189X 160 55 108

Subscription orders (order form available at http://www.kirj.ee) should be sent to:

Estonian Academy Publishers, Kohtu 6, 10130 Tallinn, Estonia Tel. (372) 6 454 106, fax (372) 6 466 026, e-mail [email protected]

Ajakirju saab tellida aasta või kvartali kaupa kõigi Eesti ajakirjandusleviga tege- levate ettevõtete kaudu (Eesti Ajakirjanduslevi OÜ, AS Eesti Post, OÜ Kirilind) ja üksiknumbreid (ka varem ilmunuid) osta Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastusest. Täpsem teave http://www.kirj.ee