The Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Estonia

Lang, Valter

doi:10.26530/oapen_423939

Cited by 66 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of the two macro-areas within Estonia can be observed clearly and continuously at least from the 1st millennium BC onward, when overseas contacts incorporated the seaside districts into the common cultural space of the www.folklore.ee/folklore www.folklore.ee/folklore www.folklore.ee/folklore www.folklore.ee/folklore www.folklore.ee/folklore Heiki Valk coastal regions of the Baltic Sea. Maritime orientation has lead to the introduction of stone graves, cup-marked stones and the earliest farming, represented in the early field systems (Lang 2007: 95-105, Tvauri 1997, 1999. Differences between the two macro-areas can be observed in archaeological records also in the Roman Iron Age (1st-5th century) (EEA 1982: 243-246 , Table XIV) and later prehistory, as well as in medieval and early modern times (e.g., Valk 2001).…”

Section: Historical Aspects Of Regional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sacred Natural Places of Estonia: Regional Aspects

Valk¹

2009

FEJF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The article discusses the sacred natural places of Estonia from a regional perspective, outlining the two main regions -sea-oriented and inland. Regionality is most clearly expressed in the distribution of hiis sites -a phenomenon characteristic of sea-related areas. There are also other phenomena bound with specific areas, such as the distribution of natural healing places, farmstead offering places, natural offering places related to the cult of Tõnis/ Tennüs and cross-signed trees. The Orthodox Setomaa region is a distinctive area due to confessional and cultural factors. Besides presenting a general survey of the sources, the article also touches upon the reasons for the emergence of regional differences, outlining geographical, historical, and confessional factors. Regional differences in sacred natural places greatly correspond to other regional peculiarities which can be observed in the traditional popular culture.Key words: history, popular culture, regional differences, sacred natural places Sacred natural places exist in different parts of the world and have generally much in common (Bradley 2000: 14-32). The concept of sacredness can be connected with most different natural objects: trees, groves, forests, boulders, rocks, stones, caves, springs, rivers, lakes, etc. depending on the local natural conditions in the area. In form and functions the sacred natural places are greatly similar in the whole Eastern Baltic area and such is the situation also within Estonia: sacred trees, stones, and springs are widespread all over the country.When investigating deeper into this seeming uniformity, however, a far more diverse picture with more or less clearly expressed regional peculiarities can be observed. In spite of its small area, the territory of Estonia is not homogeneous in character. Regional differences exist both concerning the appearance of the sacred natural places, as well as in their meanings, names and related traditions. These differences are not of random origin and character but are conditioned by certain geographical and natural preconditions, as well as by historical, cultural, and religious factors. The question of regional variations, however, has not deserved much special attention in former research. In the main general works on Estonian folk religion the sacred natural places

show abstract

Section: Historical Aspects Of Regional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sacred Natural Places of Estonia: Regional Aspects

Valk¹

2009

FEJF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence suggests that Estonian society changed many times in prehistory (see e.g. Mägi 2002b;Lang 2007b), and this collective memory may have outlived several of these changes.…”

Section: Discussion: Continuation Of Life Over 1500 Years?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lang 2007a; 2007b) was established at the peak of the knoll. It is possible that the burial place is even older, for one of the finds, that was recently re-discovered from archaeological collections by the author, is an iron shepherd's stick shaped pin 4 , of a kind which were mostly worn and deposited in Estonian graves in the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Lang 2007b). However, other finds suggest the erection of the grave in the first centuries AD.…”

Section: Study Area: Kodavere Parishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life: Burial Site of Lahepera in Eastern Estonia

Karro

2022

PIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The contrast with inland areas is seen to indicate differences in territorial strategies and cultural behaviour (tied to contrasting economic and settlement patterns), which materialised in above-ground stone graves and field markings in the coastal region. Fundamentally, the formation of these differences is explained by the geographical attributes of coastal versus inland areas (Lang 2007a(Lang , 93ff., 2011. Open settlement sites from the Late Bronze Age and/or the Early Iron Age are concentrated in two main regions, north and southeast Estonia, but this can be explained by the current state of research (Lang 2007a, 49ff.).…”

Section: A T E R I a L A N D M E T H O D Smentioning

confidence: 99%

“…;Lang 2007aLang , 253, 2007bSperling 2014). Contacts with Scandinavia had intensified by the Late Neolithic (Jaanits 1985;Lang, Kriiska 2007), with numerous Late Neolithic and Bronze Age imported stone and bronze axes of Scandinavian origin serving as examples of either direct or mediated contact (Lang 2007a(Lang , 25ff., 42ff., 2010Lang, Kriiska 2007). Considering that in Scandinavia, the tradition of depositing bronzes on the landscape was widespread throughout the Bronze Age (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pattern or Random? Contextualising Estonian Bronze Age Bronze Stray Finds on the Landscape

Paavel

2017

Archaeologia Baltica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KRISTIINA PAAVEL P a t t e r n o r R a n d o m ?C o n t e x t u a l i s i n g E s t o n i a n B r o n z e A g e B r o n z e S t r a y F i n d s o n t h e L a n d s c a p e I n t r o d u c t i o nThe majority of Estonian Bronze Age (1800-500 cal BC) large metal finds consist of approximately 45 objects, mainly axes and spearheads. Most of them, both Early and Late Bronze Age items, were found during construction, cultivation or metal detecting in non-settlement, non-burial contexts. In contrast, bronze finds from settlements are predominantly associated with on-site bronze casting (casting waste, scrap metal), and those from burial sites are of a personal nature (tweezers, razors, buttons, etc). Nearly all bronze finds from clear settlement and burial contexts date from the Late Bronze Age. A connection between stray bronze finds and settlement sites has been suggested on a few occasions, and some items have been associated with possible deposition in bodies of water. In cases of items found decades ago by laymen and in locations not surveyed by archaeologists, the possible archaeological context may have gone unrecognised. In recent years, the growing popularity of metal detectors has brought about a noticeable increase in new finds. Cooperation between detectorists and archaeologists has made it possible to check many find locations, and confirm the lack of an immediately recognisable archaeological context. How did these bronze items then enter the archaeological record? Why were they left on the landscape?Bronze Age metal finds outside settlement and burial contexts are known all over Europe. People have buried or left bronze in the landscape in multiple-object hoards, as well as individually, without reclaiming them. The tradition of depositing bronze objects in wetlands and bodies of water, as well as on dry land, has been identified almost everywhere in Europe, including Scandinavia and the southern Baltic region (e.g. Fontijn 2002;Bliujienė 2010;Yates, Bradley 2010a, 2010bSzabó 2011;Hansen 2013;Melheim, Horn 2014;Rundkvist 2015). The debate about the meaning of this phenomenon, with all its variations over large geographical and temporal distances, is still going on. Some of the currently most popular theories include sacrifice, mundane safe-keeping, conspicuous consumption and memory practice, with the problematic distinction between ritual and secular deposits still forming a large part of the discussion (Melheim 2015a, 85, and references cited therein).For Estonian material, the possibility of stray bronze finds being connected with deposition practices has until now not been systematically explored. Although the items have been studied from a typological perspective, almost no attention has been paid to the find locations, leaving most of the artefacts without a topographical context. This is partly due to the previously insufficient numbers of finds for these questions to even become relevant, and partly due to the lack of technical pos- PAT T E R N O R R A N D O M ? C O N T E X T U A L I S I N G E S...

show abstract

The Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Estonia

Cited by 66 publications

References 12 publications

Sacred Natural Places of Estonia: Regional Aspects

Sacred Natural Places of Estonia: Regional Aspects

Continuing Landscape, Continuing Life: Burial Site of Lahepera in Eastern Estonia

Pattern or Random? Contextualising Estonian Bronze Age Bronze Stray Finds on the Landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About