Culture and Material Culture: Papers from the First Theoretical Seminar of the Baltic Archaeologists (BASE) Held at the University of Tartu, Estonia, October 17th-19th, 2003

186 Pages·2005·20.354 MB·English

by  Valter Lang (ed.)

INTERARCHAEOLOGIA, 1
Official publication of
the University of Tartu,
the University of Latvia and
the University of Vilnius
Interarchaeologia
Organisational and Editorial Board:
Valdis Bērziņš University of Latvia
Marge Konsa University of Tartu
Valter Lang University of Tartu
Algimantas Merkevičius University of Vilnius
Rėdą Nemickienė University of Vilnius
Andrejs Vasks University of Latvia
Interarchaeologia is a peer-reviewed publication of extended presentations
held at theoretical seminars of the Baltic archaeologists
Interarchaeologia, 1
Culture and Material Culture
Editor: Valter Lang
English editor: Alexander Harding
Lay-out: Meelis Friedenthal
Printed in Estonia by Pakett Press, Tallinn
ISSN 1736-2806
ISBN 9985-50-384-8
INTERARCHAEOLOGIA, 1
CULTURE AND MATERIAL CULTURE
Papers from the first theoretical seminar of the Baltic archaeologists
(BASE) held at the University of Tartu, Estonia, October 17th-19th, 2003
Edited by Valter Lang
Tartu - Riga - Vilnius 2005

Contents
Baltic Archaeological Seminar: An Introduction 7
(Valter Lang)
Valter Lang 11
Archaeological Cultures and Ethnic History: Some
Examples from the East-Baltic Early Iron Age
Mindaugas Bertašius 29
The Archaeology of Group: From Situational Construct
to Ethnic Group
Algimantas Merkevičius 39
Material Culture and the East-Baltic Bronze Age Society
Andris Šnē 53
Understanding Power: On the Study of Late Prehistoric
Social and Political Structures in Latvia
Vykintas Vaitkevičius 71
Interpreting the East Lithuanian Barrow Culture
Tönno Jonuks 87
Principles of Estonian Prehistoric Religion with Special
Emphasis to Soul Beliefs
Romas Jarockis 97
Christian Coins in Pagan Graves? Artefacts, Texts and
Research Traditions
Rasa Banyte-Rowell and Anna Bitnėr: Wróblewska 105
From Aestii to Esti. Connections between the Western
Lithuanian Group and the area of distribution of tarand-
graves
Mari-Liis Rohtla 121
Crossbow Fibula as a Reflection of Social Status and
Relations
5
Audronė Bliujienė ........................147
Pottery in Curonian Cremation Burials. Some Aspects of
Interaction across the Baltic Sea in the Late Viking Age
and Early Medieval Period
Kristiina Johanson ........................167
Putting Stray Finds in Context - What Can We Read
from the Distribution of Stone Axes...
6
Baltie Archaeological Seminar:
An Introduction
The meeting held in Tartu (Taevaskoja) ternationally visible and recognised. This
in 2003 was not the first time archaeolo­ situation must change, and nobody but us,
gists from the three Baltic States have met the Baltic archaeologists, can do it.
to discuss the problems concerning our
common past Communication and coop­ The Baltic Archaeological Seminar
eration between the (East) Baltic - i.e. Es­ (BASE) was devised to be an internation­
tonian, Latvian and Lithuanian - archae­ al medium for Baltic archaeologists, who
ologists is almost as old as professional could come together and discuss the main
archaeology in these countries. Between current problems in the Baltic archaeolo­
the two world wars, when the number gies. For the history of archaeology, it is
of archaeologists was very small and the worth mentioning that the idea of BASE
amount of work that had to be done very was conceived at the Püssirohukelder Inn
large, contacts and cooperation were also in Tartu on a lovely spring evening in
very close. A significant role in the devel­ 2002, when some Estonian and Lithuanian
opment of East-Baltic archaeologies was archaeologists were relaxing after a long
performed by the Second Congress of the work day. We recognized then that there
Baltic Archaeologists held in Riga in 1930, was an urgent need for new ideas and in­
where more than a hundred researchers terpretations in this rather traditional and
from twelve countries around the Baltic old-fashioned branch of science in the
Sea met. The next meeting, held in Tartu Baltic countries. We also realised that it
in 1935, was much smaller (only nine for­ was extremely important to bring together
eign participants). After World War II, the in one room as many Baltic archaeologists
archaeologists of the East Baltic could only as possible - those who think that the time
meet either in the context of wider sym­ is ripe to initiate CHANGES.
posia also involving researchers from the At that time we actually did not know
neighbouring Soviet republics (the con­ what BASE really was or what it could be­
ferences held in 1949 in Leningrad and come in the future. We thought that BASE
in 1951 in Tartu deserve mention here), should become our common idea that we
or through personal contacts and friend­ would develop together. Therefore, SEMI­
ship. Those contacts were sometimes quite NAR ONE was launched just for the start,
close, indeed, bringing about the exchange for the purpose of gathering the ideas and
of ideas and literature; nevertheless, they wishes of all of the participants. It was or­
were occasional, and did not embrace the ganised by the Chair of Archaeology of
majority of archaeologists and the whole the University of Tartu and was planned
of our archaeologies. as a two-day event: the first day was dedi­
Since the late 1980s, the archaeologies cated to seminar papers and discussions,
in three independent Baltic States have and the second day to an excursion to
developed separately and independent­ archaeological sites and on-site discus­
ly from each other and, as it often seems, sions. A total of 22 participants from four
from the rest of the world as well. As it ap­ countries took part in this event: twelve
pears from several archaeological books from Estonia, three from Latvia, six from
published recently in Europe and cover­ Lithuania and one from Poland. Fourteen
ing general developments on the conti­ papers were presented at the seminar. It
nent, the Baltic archaeologies are not in­ was decided by the participants that the
7
Interarchaeologia, 1
BASE would be continued in the follow­ tremely popular and important in the Bal­
ing way: the seminars would be held every tic archaeologies since at least the 1950s.
second year in different countries, while However, theoretical discussion of prob­
the extended articles written on the basis lems concerning the mutual relations be­
of seminar papers would be published in tween ethnicity and material culture has
the year after the seminar. Thus the next clearly been insufficient so far. Even in
seminar of BASE will be held in Lithuania this collection one can recognise different
in 2005, and this volume is the publication attitudes to the analysis of this question,
of eleven papers of fourteen presented in from the relatively traditional (cultural-
the first seminar in Tartu. It was also de­ historical) approaches to the more con­
cided that an organisational and editori­ temporary.
al board consisting of one senior and one These papers are followed by those that
younger scholar from each Baltic country concentrate more on the possibilities of
would be chosen, with the tasks of both social interpretations of archaeological
organising the seminars and preparing evidence. What was the nature of the pre­
corresponding publications. historic societies in question? What was
The leading theoretical question of the their social structure, how and when did
first seminar was how to interpret material hierarchization take place, and was so­
culture - a problem that all archaeologists cial inequality established? How can one
must deal with from the very beginning characterise power relations in different
of their scientific research. The interpre­ prehistoric periods? Questions like these
tation of the material culture of the past were either not asked prior to the late
is indeed one of the central problems in 1980s or the answers were strongly biased
archaeology. Since the development of by the Soviet Marxist approach.
archaeology as a science, the majority of The relations between material culture
research has concentrated on typology, and the religious aspects of culture are a
chronology and chorology, and the dating third but still minor topic. Here again, the
of material objects. These subjects of re­ previous understandings were strongly
search are definitely necessary, but should influenced by the Soviet Marxist ideology.
not be the final goal of archaeology. A. M. Instead of the study of individual phenom­
Tallgren already pointed out in the 1930s ena, there is now an attempt to see religion
that in archaeology, forms and types, i.e. as a whole picture and as a narrative of a
products, have been regarded as more certain period. In addition to that, there
real and alive than the society that creat­ is always the possibility of interpreting
ed them. The brilliant systematization, re­ many religious aspects of culture differ­
garded as exact, has not led, and does not ently from previous times, if new evidence
lead, to an understanding of society. The has come to light and new approaches are
mutual relations between material objects introduced.
and society raise an extremely complex set Finally, there are several papers dedi­
of questions that cannot be solved within cated to the analysis of cultural contacts
a small circle of researchers but need wid­ within the Baltic region and reflections of
er discussion. material remains based on settlement ar­
The eleven articles presented in this col­ chaeology. These have been rather tradi­
lection are not strictly grouped into sub­ tional topics in our archaeologies, which
parts; yet, they still follow a certain line of does not mean that everything is already
content. The first two or three papers place known, or that new approaches are im­
ethnic interpretations of material culture possible. The intra-regional contacts with­
in the forefront. This topic has been ex­ in the East-Baltic region are of special in­
8