I LATE PREHISTORIC SOC]ETIES AND BURIALS IN THE EASTERN BALTIC O MARIKA MAGI 3 o c c Ihen.|ic|c.1el|s*ilhhU'i.L.NlodNhdllfra11)'!a.iLdregionsi|l1rccl\lc|nBl||it.ct I ofl.atc P.chi\(r1. so.icr! Sorirl anal!s.\- \hich up ro rcccnr rinrcs \!c!c lrcdonriDlnrly bascd on \anren sources rnd c\o- luron.q $ nrso l-rl' itrl, itrg. sug!.sr solrcs hat dilTerenr $cirl syeunslnr rl'. .u lrrrlh dn cr\eregions of rhccasrcflr B.lr ic. rlo\c\cr. al lihl ghD.e.rhis crnno' bc s.cn in rh. .rcl.eologic.l c\ nhncc.itrchdirtg bur'als. TIe dncusnln in rhisrniclc subjecrs{mc prnicuhr lidrrtrc\ofburialcusroms 'o closcrconsiddarnnr rcprc\en'arncncs- collccrne \e6us indi\idurl arrnudcs.lnd g.nd.r rsfccrs Thc rcn'hssuegen drar socieries \cr hi*.rdricrl borhiD tlie southemand northcnr psrls ol' rhecancrn R,lrir. nurpo\cr \.s lringed in dilIercnrNals Ker \ords: Prchlsrorien)cicrics. burials, L.le lronAgc. Somcthcofclical spects porvcr.,^ elrcts Lrndconshrctions tend to have an ac- tunl corinrcrcixl uluc. bcsidcsthe ritual significancc. The signilicrncc ol gr.rv.s cannot be overeslinalcd rvhcnthcy rrc dcpositedin a gravc.$ hich rvcrcnol nor in easlBallic rch cology.lispccially in Estoniaand maily Lrrrilablcro nrostol the populattun(Nliigi 2002. Lanja. Latc Ir(n Age ccrnctlriesare abundanrlysup- p.81I).Wc rrrry conclrde thar thc clidcnce from buri plicd \rrh grale Soods,urrd ha\e beenquilc thorough Jl. tlLr.trr.,hurJJnrl).quipFd \irI anelacr\nornr, I) cicararcd. Ho\cvcl: rhc archacologicalc\idence to lhe cxislcnccol a social elite. shile the abscnceol' in rhcsc burial tln.cs hns succccdcdonlv to a limired conspicuousburials. or as occursin the nonhcm prrt dc-qrecft nrfiuc cin8 thc $idespreadinlcryrctation of ofthe c.slcn B{1tic in scvcralPrehistoric periods. lhc Lale IronASc s)cicrcs in iheseareas. Mosr inlcrpreti abscncc of any knld of rrchacohgically deteclablc lions arc slill birscd by a few hislorical $ntings from burirls. docsnot nccessarilyprovcan egalitariansocial thc llrh ccnrrry. Gravc goods rcllccl rrrrirrly lhe rilual behalxrur of r Allhough bLridl riles do not r.flect the social (rucl!rc comnnmity.whilc slill bcirg rndislrnguishablcfrom dircclly. lhc lwo phcDomcDaare connecled to sonc cx- olhcrsocir I rspccLs.such as poliiicaland socialorganr tcnl Morc crn bc rs$nucd whcDtaking inlo considcru- 'povefy' sation.Thc so-cLrllcd wc lth' or of gnves. trcn rsDcclsol trrrialevidcncc othcr thln th€ quantilyl II] thatis.1hc abLrnd ncc or lack ofpresened -qravegoods. qrnlity ol grAvegoods, or thc sizcof thc brrial nrounds. .. n. l J.r(rrl) ,,:\'(r.,1(J$irl' rh( <conomrc.rluirr'.n ftncclts ol individualityorcolleclivism behindbrnal of!)cictr,. Lrurmthcr lvirh the prclailing idcobgy (€.g. riles. lhc sclcclionoflhc afiefactschosen lbr cxpress- Hodd€r1982. cspccirlly p.I l9li).On thcorhcr hand. it ing statusor inruring t\.elfarein the Belond. rhc k)ca- \ould also be birsld lo rssunrclhat lhc quanlity and rion ofburialgrounds in the cul$ral landscapc.and the qualily of gfu\c goods in one burial ground rnd duF gendc.rnd.gc rario ofthc dcceased-can tell us rnuch n! .r nJdr(,rhrnLYr"J LJInor r(flccrIhe \oLr.rl pu\l rbonl lhc society.lr is llso impossibleto o\erlook thc tion of thc dcccrscd ar all. ldeology crn prcrcnr lhc imponlncc ol cslitDrling the representatilenessol ar- socialelite f|onr dcDrotNlratirgits posili{rnthrough the chacologic lly lisiblc burials,lvhich can cmbraccrhc forms ofgravcs ol gra!c goods.sith Cfiristianburial wholcpopulalion ofjust a pan ofit. riles providirrglhc closcslcxanr e for ouf geographi- cal region. Howcvcr, iD $cictics whcre some of the In acco nnec rlilh thc cultrral historical approach that doninrlcd lhc wriling ofrhc historyand archacol- I]oprlation wcfc bndcd wilh luxtrriousaficfacts, and ogy of lhc llrlric slalcs up to Lhcmiddle of the 20th Frhxps in gmndrcscgflrlc coDnructidrs, these phe' nomenr Jlqd)' ir(liJrr(r J(|r:'il .'( d ,d economic c.ntury. l)rchisloricsocicty h{s for a long ti e bccn 177 { Lak Prehisro'icso.ieties !rd @ Bnrirls ir rhe Eriern Boltic t --r- ! ! \ 0 't00 kD Fig. 1. A nap of the eastemBaltic andthe swounding deas in lhe 12thcenhtry. .J secn only throxgh the lens of historical descfiptions, easlemBalticare c lea.ly distinct,but mainly in aspecls xnd not dclincd lhrough nore theoretrcaLconcepts. ln thal havenot beendiscussedvery much so far Latvix aDdEslonia, this neant predominanilythe in- 'He U lcrprctadon()1 l\ Chronicleof Lnonia', which was wrjtlen down at the requestofthe Bishop ofRiga Archaco logi caI cvi dcncc = in the late 1220s.in addilion to what becamethe Old and interpretations er Rnyined Chronicle of Livonia', compLetedLn the of Prchi stori c socictics 1290sby an unknown wriler who was in chargeofthe '1 (, LivoDian bfanch of tbc Tcutonic Order A somewhat he southern prrt a largervaicry ofwrittcn sourccscharaclcrises the earl)' of the eastern Ba ltic o hislory ol Lilhnania. where the centralisedstate had Ilistorical Lithuania startedto take shapeas early as the llth or l2th cen- tur] (Kuncevitius 2000a;Nikzedaitjs 2001). Historical Lithuania.the southernxnd easternpats of the presentcountry, is the only regjon in the eastem Thc inlerprendon ofPrehisroric societyin the eastem Baldc \here the consoli&tion of the statehad taken Bxllic is roorcdin travcllcrs'wrilings lroln theEnhght- placc wilhoul doubr by lhe 1zLhcenlury. Thc deepso (nrl(nrr(r ud.ind. c.pc!ral.)n lsrorraa1d l.rrt.J. cial slradlicalion in these arcas,especially lron1 thc in early BaLtic-Germansrudies. ln the conditjons of lifth to the sixth cenruries,is demonstratedin princely ethnic segregalion,scholars belonging to the Bakic gravesunder bjg burial mounds(Kunceviiius 2000b). Gennan xpper class tendedio depict local ethnicitres The l2thand l3thcenturiessawtheappearanceofvery as somcthingprnnilive andunderdeveloped. Whenna- largc and sonctlncs nulliplc hill-lbns. with adjuslcd tional historf witing was c($l(hcd ;r thc caslBaltlc open scttlcmcnts.Thcsc hill fofts \rcrc pohtical ccD I rd. rour-J.rl,c. ,J "frlh lqrl ..lrJr). rh..(u tres,somclimcs ahcady rncDtioncdin lvrittcn sou.ccs. was acccptcdwith surpisnrgly few qualllicadons.In which thusindica|cd thc I-u.rhcrstralilicxlion of socicty Estonia.however, lhe earlierinlerpretalions have been (Kunce!iaixs 2000a). tumcd upsidedoNn: now the presxned primilive na- lurc ofthc locals dcpiclcd as sonethrngpositive (Ligi Ninrh to l2th-centuryburial cuslomsin centraL,south- cn.ldci{cn ,ol pr(.cflda. Iirh,.and.on.ir loo.) Ho\e\e- !€rerr rtfru:nt.\ r,, Prr\i,.,) t. rookmlch no-e I e-oc forn\ ir T \ i:' dnJT r\ruli: cd of irdividual crcmations.in tbc caslcm part ol lhc basedon the vision oftheir glorious and rvarlikepast. country mainly undcr nrcuDds.Thc artcfactualculturc In bolh cases.thc archacobgicalfacts halc tadilion in thcscareas was ln generalquite honogeneous,with ally bccn uscd for illusraling conccpLslbrmulated on only inlrequenlimpulses or imports from other areas. groundsofhistori.al critclia, and only in lhc vcry lasl There are horse sacrilices,and even separateburials ^f.1'i,.. (rrcrgc,cc fe\i decadeshas afchaeologicalevidence statcd to be rla rclcrro r.1r ol-. u.-io 'e! treatedin iis own right. elirp.r., r,c rr,\.. u r\ .,,1) frii'cl) r.l.rif ment tend to belong to the pedods before the Vking Archaeologicalthougbt about Prchistoric social sys Age (Kulikauskas./ a/. 1961,p.l92r Bliuiiena1992i tcms hasdcvclopcd somc'vh3l divclgendy in difterenl Bcrh(ius 2009; Kuila 2009). ,^.rtclicr nr thcsc crc couniics 1()thc easl ol rhe Ballic sea (Fig. l), bein-s nraliongravcs. which normally lbmr largc ccnelenes, I ll ! linkcd with thc culturalbackgro und and hislory oleach arc quitc honogcDcousand not cspccially abundant, particulaf land. On the olhcr hand.scvcral idc.ts abouL without cle,r indicalors social differenlialion (e.g Prehistoricsocielies have been so generalthatthcy can Beftaiius 2005). 6. J. eas.l)$.rh fl ) pre^rareFL-operl .onm, i:) especiallyas they were envisioncdin thc 1930s. Still, as it is known from wittcD sourccs.by thc carly l31h cenlury. Lirhuarian princes plaled a sirnilicanl ,4. historical approach is stiLl strongly infiuenced nl Jle dr rherop J rl'e b) ,fe1 deepl){rdrrFeo 'or - flaccs by c!ohtionary theorieswhich claim that pre- .'\ T\r) hcrc rr'i/ \ .onrrrndcrrdnJ r.le. in statesocial systemscan bc calcgoriscdaccordnrg b a pcace timc. s4ro posscsscdmuch prop.fty rDd had cenain hierarchy (rbout theorics scc. c.g. Ligi 1995i accumulaled considerable wealth. wliften sources Sna 2002). This makesit unavoidablcto considcrthc from the l31h century connect severalof them with Late Prehistoricnothcm halfof thc castcmBallic as mighty ccDtrcs.and mcntion thcif largc nililary forc socially lcssdcvclopcdwhcD comparcd wilh thesouth- cs (NikzcDtailis 2001). TrvcDtyonc LilhuaDian and crrf:| 'fr\c,,r{JTl.,{L\..rl i,i,rcq.rcrdrof i.ror Zcmaitijan piDccs mcnrioncd in rn xgrccmcnt wrlh supportedmuchby djfferencesft archxcokrgicnlmatc Halich-Volhyniain 1219.nve oflvhom snrgledout a,j rial. Stil1,burjal cusromsamong the linnic speakrng senior prjnces (Nikentailis 2001). By 1245. one of and Baltic-speakinginhabirants of the Lale lron Age 179 then. Mindaugas.was alreadycalled 'the highestking' Centraleaslern Baltic lands: in somedocuments (Ligi 1968,p.37fTi Kiaupa 2000). r; \-4o'rol rfe popul:rro1{je-e. acco'orng ro | ||l'udn.dn Muchless is knownabout Curonian Lale lron Age so- z, historians,ii€e larmersuniled under tenilorial colnlnu' ci€q'. Lalvian and Lithuanian archaeologistsnonnally nitics orficlds. Writtcn sourccsalso mcntion a stratum uscthc nanc Cnroniansonly lbr thc Latc Prehisloric