Layers of landscape, layers of site/Kihid maaasktikul ja muistises.

Vedru, Gurly

Introduction: remembering the landscape

Different human activities take place in landscape. People live their everyday life there, using the available possibilities. In that way landscape is both the source and enabler of practical actions (De Certeau 1984). People accommodate themselves to it and change it by leaving traces of their activities. These traces are parts of the landscape of future generations, living in the same sites. But landscape offers different opportunities by being a source of inspiration for several mental practices like remembering and forgetting (c.f. e.g. Knapp & Ashmore 2000 and references). Both remembering and forgetting can be associated with the same places and objects.

Landscape always includes layers of the past, whether in the physical form of some archaeological object or as a mental layer only. In the latter case it is impossible to distinguish them and they remain in the realm of fantasy. Archaeological objects also possess their layers of meaning: some are assigned by modern people and others were given by the people in the past. Those meanings were most probably different in different times.

People are social beings who create places through their activities in time and space (Hash & Chippindale 2002, 2 ff). Places are not equal but of different importance, they have their own hierarchy. The importance can be changed by building an edifice or a grave; thus distinguishing it from other places left intact. It does not mean that the latter places were considered less important--also the opposite situation is possible. A place could have been charged with such a mental significance that changing it was not allowed--it was a taboo. Holy groves could be presented as an example of such behaviour. Also places that were considered dangerous for ordinary people could exist (Hash & Chippindale 2002, 9), but which despite of it (or because of it?) occupied an important place in the mental map of people. Decisions whether to change a place or leave it intact are always made from the standpoint of a concrete place, physical landscape has gained a semantic meaning. That language is not understood by all people and understanding it may differ within a society. Meanings of landscape may have changed in the course of time, but it is thought that knowledge of important places has been transmitted from generation to generation. Several places considered meaningful by the societies of agriculturalists may actually be derived from earlier times and have had importance in the subsistence practices of hunter-gatherers (Hash & Chippindale 2002, 9 and references). Any kind of concepts considering the origin of special and/or important places and their meanings have certainly transformed in the course of time, but perceiving and interpreting a place as such has remained. The importance of a place is most understandable for those who gave that meaning, but also to the wider group of contemporary people and through oral tradition to later generations as well. In that sense, landscape is always culturally constructed by people--no place has an importance of its own, people have attached meanings to them and in that sense landscape is a creation of people.

Landscape has several layers and several meanings; layers of different time periods are intertwined and create a unique whole. That whole is interpreted by people and different people perceive, understand and interpret it differently.

Landscape possesses meanings even if it has not been consciously changed by people. Conscious changing means above all creating such monuments that were intended to last through ages, e.g. building a stone grave was such an act. Cutting down trees and founding a path also changes landscape and adds a new layer of meanings, but these actions do not necessarily start from a conscious will to change the landscape. This paper deals with changes, made consciously by people, who wanted to create a lasting object.

This article analyses the landscape use in a small area from the viewpoints of two burial places. Those are a stone grave called Varetimagi (Hill of Ruins) and a pit grave cemetery, both located in the village of Kaberla (Fig. 1). The stone grave is situated near the glint bluff; the pit grave cemetery was founded on a low moraine hillock. How was the landscape used when the stone grave was erected and why was it built on the high glint edge? Was that place already important before the grave? What attitude did people, living in the same area in later periods have towards the stone grave? That question is closely connected with the use of the grave in different periods: the grave was built in the Pre-Roman Iron Age and was reused to some extent in the Viking Age. Why was the grave reused at all?

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Kaberla: location and nature

The village of Kaberla is located in Kuusalu parish, Harjumaa. The buildings of the modern village are situated both in the North Estonian Plateau and on the North Estonian Coastal Plain in front of it. Shallow Kaberla River flows in the western part of the village and runs its waters to the Gulf of Finland. The areas west and north-west from the river are sandy; the biggest sandy plain is known as Kalevi Luva (Fig. 1). The limestone bluff rises as a promontory in the northeastern part of the present village. The lower areas beneath the glint were still damp in the 1970s and were drained later in the course of melioration (Vedru 2004). A number of quite large granite boulders can be found about 150-200 m from the glint edge, material for building the stone grave was partly gathered from there. Several old limestone quarries are located near the glint; some of them may also have been used for providing limestone slabs for the Varetimagi stone grave.

Resulting from the situation that some archaeological sites are located on the coastal plain and some on the plateau above the glint, there is a big difference in altitude and also natural environment. According to the natural conditions, those areas were most probably used for different purposes. The peculiarity of the landscape was used for ritual communication in micro scale in different periods.

The Varetimagi stone grave

The stone grave was built at the most attractive place in the local landscape in the Pre-Roman Iron Age. It is located in the north-eastern part of the present Kaberla village, about 1 km from its core area. The grave was built close to the high glint edge, where an extensive view is provided to the lower areas on the south-west, west and north-west (Figs 2-4). The area to the north remains in the same level with the grave and the lowering is slow on the north-east, east and south-east sides. The grave is located on the transition zone of thin 100 (1) and thicker moraine soils.

The grave has a diameter of ca 50 m and its surface is elevated ca 1.5 m above the surrounding ground. The mound of the grave has a regular round shape and its edges slope gently to the surrounding ground. The archaeological excavations showed that the grave was used in different periods: in the Pre-Roman

Iron Age and in the Viking Age (Vedru 2005).

The place chosen for a grave was (and still is) the most attractive one in Kaberla, a place that presupposed some kind of a monument. An extensive view opens to the village situated on lower ground and also to the areas further to the south.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

People who erected the grave probably lived ca 1.5 km away on the lower area not very far from the Kaberla River. That place is visible from the grave (Fig. 3). The possibility that this place was inhabited is indicated by a potsherd with striated surface, similar to the ones found in the grave; that potsherd was found during the excavations of the pit-grave cemetery of the later period. Because only one sherd was found it cannot be supposed that the cemetery, belonging to the late prehistoric times and to the Middle Ages was founded exactly on top of an earlier settlement site, but that it is somewhere in the vicinity.

The use of landscape before and after erecting the stone grave

Human activities took place in the areas of Kaberla long before the grave was erected on the high glint edge. The oldest traces indicating human activities are stray finds that have been found somewhere near the river (Fig. 1). These include a fragment of a boat-shape battle-axe and a shaft-hole axe; the latter has been lost (Lang 1996, 411). As the area offers different natural resources, it is quite plausible that there were settlement sites of the Stone Age, not yet discovered. The stray fords also indicate that. True enough, in some cases it has been suggested that stray fords, found separately and without a context may have been purposefully left to places with no inhabitation in the vicinity (Thomas 1996, 169 ff.). But in Kaberla there were suitable conditions for an early origin of human settlement and there is no reason to doubt it. So it is quite probable that such settlement existed in Kaberla at least in the Neolithic.

A period without any archaeological finds, lasting for millennia followed the possible Neolithic settlement. The next archaeological site is the stone grave, built in the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

A long period without any archaeological finds also follows the erecting of the grave. Changes took place in the Viking Age, when villages started to form in Estonia. Most of these were still inhabited in the Middle Ages and like many others, Kaberla is still inhabited today.

The village was not straight beside the river but located a few hundred metres east of it, near a spring, both on the limestone plateau and in front of it. The cultural layer of the site is traceable almost everywhere in the core area of the present village, on both sides of the old Tallinn-Narva road. As can be detected on the basis of the nature of the cultural layer, the most dense settlement was located on the limestone plateau. The villagers cultivated fields located to the north-east and east from the Varetimagi stone grave. About 300 m to the south from the settlement site there was a pit grave cemetery that was used since the second half of the 12th century to the end of the 17th century (Selirand 1974, 75 ff ). That cemetery was located ca 300 m to the south from the old Narva road and 200 m east from the Kaberla River. People were buried on a north-south oriented moraine hillock that rose only a little higher above the surrounding ground. The area of the cemetery is now under a quarry and there is no possibility to restore the natural environment it once had.

Discussion: Kaberla--layers in the landscape and on archaeological site

Although settlement sites of the Stone Age are still not known in Kaberla, it is quite plausible that the area was inhabited already in that period. It is proved by only two stray finds. Those artefacts originate from the period when demands to the natural environment had changed since earlier times, and the direct connection of settlement sites with the bodies of water had disappeared. Above it was indicated that every stray find cannot be connected with a settlement site nearby, but at times people have taken objects (both singular and sets) and left them to uninhabited places that still possessed meanings. Farther parts of bogs and mires, caves and forests have been such places. Leaving objects) somewhere had probably several meanings, and carrying out such an act comprised a degree of mystery as did also the knowledge about which objects were suitable for specific occasions. Such behaviour could therefore have been an important manifestation of social power. Places where objects were taken and left, were important; they were known and remembered (Thomas 1996, 169). One must also keep in mind that objects were simply lost by people and their findspots may thus be accidental. In case of objects purposefully left somewhere, the context of the find is most important. In Kaberla, as in several other cases, the context of the finds is completely lost. It also remains unknown why the stone axes of Kaberla were hidden at all. Regardless of whether the axes were lost or left in a special place on purpose, the people who left or lost these objects had to live somewhere. It is most likely that they lived in the area of present Kaberla village, which had suitable natural conditions both for hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists.

Finds from the Bronze Age are not known in Kaberla. Finding settlement sites of that period is problematic in Estonia because of their thin and unintensive cultural layer. Also no stone graves or cup-marked stones are known there. It is impossible to say whether this is the result of insufficient research or whether the stone graves have been destroyed in the course of time. The latter seems quite impossible since the fossil field remains, situated on loo areas where the graves were usually erected, are well preserved. It is most likely that the graves would have been preserved or on the contrary, the quite large clearance cairns would have been destroyed. One cannot exclude the possibility that the settlers of Kaberla buried their dead in some other manner, which makes the fording of their burials impossible; or that some of the large clearance cairns completely covered with turf layer are in fact small stone-cist graves. Distinguishing such a grave from a clearance cairn only by visual observation is impossible. It is also possible that for some reason the Kaberla area was not inhabited in the Bronze Age.

One of the clearance cairns mentioned was excavated and it gave evidence of agricultural activities of the 12th century AD (Vedru 2003a, 101), but (at least more active) land cultivation in the vicinity of earlier stone graves started only in the Viking Age. Until that period there existed another attitude towards earlier graves that excluded or restricted agricultural activities in their surroundings.

I have suggested that the people inhabiting the areas of Kaberla in the Neolithic, left it or that their activities left no visible and permanent traces on the landscape and that the situation continued until the Viking Age (Vedru 2003b). But the discovery of Varetimagi stone grave proves that the area was (re)inhabited at least since the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Nevertheless, more than thousand years after the building of the grave, there are again no signs of any human activity and it is therefore not possible to confirm that the settlement had no gaps until the Viking Age. In the Viking Age people lived in the village of Kaberla and used the Varetimagi grave for burying their dead.

The Varetimagi stone grave is visible from almost every direction and commands the best or at least one of the most outstanding places in local terrain and therefore it might have been a landmark for people approaching from further areas. Supposing that the settlement was situated near the pit-grave cemetery of later periods, in the vicinity of the river, we can suppose that deliberate opposition in landscape took place, where the dead ancestors were on the high glint edge and the living were further down. Similar use of the landscape has also occurred in other places, e.g. in Tougu and Ilumae (Lang 2000, 166, 187). Analogical landscape use when graves were erected in higher places is known in different places and among several cultures of the world. For example, in eastern and western Flanders, where the surface of the earth is flat, the barrows of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages were erected on higher spots. Contemporary settlement sites are not known (Bourgeois & Cherrette 2004, 96). Placing graves on higher places was very common in Finland (Huurre 1990, 106), Denmark (Ethelberg et al. 2000, fig. 1.3) and elsewhere (e.g. Kristiansen & Larson 2005). Further parallels can be brought from Tibet, where corpses are taken to the mountains.

According to the possibilities of the terrain, such opposition between the living and the dead is not so clearly evident in other places of north Estonia. The place was supposedly chosen carefully, taking into consideration both the nature and other places used for everyday life. As already mentioned, the grave could have been a landmark or a sign on a landscape.

In the second half of the 12th century people started to bury their dead in the pit-grave cemetery. Information written down at the beginning of the 20th century says that ca 1 km from the present village there was a stone grave, situated close to the glint edge. That grave was destroyed in the course of tillage. When it was destroyed, human bones and a socketed spear head was found, but all of them were lost (Parmas 1925, 40). If that grave really existed, it was situated probably somewhere in the vicinity of Varetimagi grave, maybe some hundred metres north-east or east from it. Juri Selirand thinks that this grave was used by the inhabitants of Kaberla before establishing the pit-grave cemetery, and some villagers probably continued to use it even later (Selirand 1962, 157).

At the present state of investigations one can assume that the Varetimagi stone grave was no longer used at the end of prehistoric times. (2) Selirand assumed that only one wealthy family buried its dead in the pit-grave cemetery at the beginning (Selirand 1962, 157), and it cannot be excluded that other villagers still used stone graves). Even if it was not the case, the people who established the pit-grave cemetery had to be aware of the existence of the previous stone grave.

Two graves of Kaberla are examples of different, opposing uses of landscape (c.f. Table 1).

The stone grave was erected in a place that dominates the surroundings, the only exceptions are the directions to the west and south-east; the pit-grave cemetery was established on a low area south of the village. It is most probable that the stone grave was built from that position--the highest place in the terrain, close to the glint edge with extensive view of the lower areas. The latter also included visual connection with the probable dwelling place. Assuming that the potsherd with the striated surface found on the excavations of the pit-grave cemetery indicates a settlement site in the vicinity, it seems that the opposite view was also important. People could see both the high lint edge and the grave from the settlement site.

The late prehistoric pit-grave cemetery was established on a small moraine hillock, south from the village. Although at present the hillock is destroyed by a quarry, the nature of the place was probably not very attractive at the time of burying. There was soil suitable for burials beneath the ground surface, in higher and visually more attractive places in the vicinity of Kaberla, but for some reasons they were not used.

Comparing these two graves, it is evident that they are in diametrically different conditions and places. High was replaced with low, above the ground surface with beneath the ground surface, north direction with south direction. It seems that the opposing was deliberate, probably reflecting changes in people's perception of the landscape, at least in that part which considered the concept of the sacrality of the landscape. It can be supposed that changes in the perception of the landscape were a part of larger changes inside the society. In earlier periods, places with peculiar or at least slightly different nature were chosen for establishing graves, but by the 12th century the sacrality of a natural place or nature had disappeared and shifted to the burial place itself. The latter could be located in any place; its existence consecrated the place, not the other way round (it is still possible that previously it had been some kind of a symbiosis of the two).

There were a few burials with limestones in the pit-grave cemetery, and Selirand, who excavated it, supposed that in some way it continued earlier habits of burying in stone graves (Selirand 1974, 77). Maybe that was a direct connection with the Varetimagi stone grave and people buried in that grave? As it was used just before the pit-grave cemetery was established, the link could be quite concrete.

Varetimagi stone grave is not the only one in Estonia that was reused after several centuries. The same is detected in several other places, e.g. Uuskula II grave in Virumaa (Lang 2000, 147 ff.), many graves in Lagedi (Lang 1996, 211 ff.) and others. This did not take place in Kaberla only, but is a wider phenomenon.

Graves reused after long periods are known in several places in Europe. Such reuse is connected with the cultural memory of people (Holtorf 1998, 24 and references); it has also been considered as a source of power for later elite (Williams 1998). Later actions in old graves brought bones and objects into daylight and that gave more solid ground for interpreting them as mythical and supernatural (Williams 1998, 97).

Monumental stone graves, and in Estonian conditions Varetimagi is monumental, acted as preservers of memory (for British isles c.f. e.g. Cummings 2003; Fowler 2003; Jones 2003; but also Williams 2003, 3 ff and references). On such occasions reusing an old grave has been connected with several factors, one of the most important was probably remembering, direct dealing with the past. Such behaviour has taken place in several places around the world (c.f. Williams 2003, 10 and references). Monuments have biographies that came into being and were complemented in the course of their usage and re-usage. With using and re-using a monument, its importance was (re)interpreted by people (Jones 2003, 65 and references). It can be supposed that later reuse might happen when there was a need to manifest oneself through ancestors and/or through a place. Ancestors and a place might be treated as one, i.e. earlier generations were inseparably connected to the place.

Other interpretations also exist. The graves of Merinas, living on Madagascar, are not meant for remembering individuals, but places where the individual is forgotten and dispersed into an idealized collective of ancestors (Williams 2003, 6 and references; Lang 2007, 89 ff). Yet even in that case it still means remembering only it proceeds through forgetting. Maybe there were some analogical ideas that provoked the reuse of an old grave after centuries or a millennium. The past was thus connected to the present and the buried person and its contemporaries with past settlers.

Conclusion

Landscape has both physical and mental layers; similar layers can be seen in archaeological sites. People interpret both and give them cultural meanings. Changing the landscape was sometimes a conscious act, aiming to preserve something for ever--such a change was, for example, building a stone grave. It was an act that can retrospectively be understood as a conscious site creation. In the Pre-Roman Iron Age Kaberla Varetimagi stone grave was built on a place where there are no traces of an earlier settlement. So it is impossible to say whether that place was important already in the previous periods. It is possible that it did, because it is one of the most significant places in local landscape. The grave was built on a place with a different environment compared to the settlement site of the same time. The grave was on a high glint edge while the settlement was located on a low area; the two objects can be mutually observed. The stone grave was reused after a long gap again in the Viking Age. When burying in the stone grave ended, people started to use a pit-grave cemetery. That was a new way to bury the dead and the place for establishing such a grave was determined according to different principles. The connections with the important sites of earlier periods and/or ancestors were emphasized by using some limestones in a few graves of the pit-grave cemetery, re-creating or at least accentuating genealogical connections with the people who inhabited the area in the past. This shows differences in the use of the landscape and new mental layers in previous sites. Both graves were part of the world of the people of that time and possessed several and probably different meanings.

Resumee

Maastikul leiavad aset mitmesugused inimtegevused. Seal elatakse oma iga-paevast elu Belle eri avaldumisvormides, kasutades olemasolevaid voimalusi. Inimesed kohanevad maastikuga ja muudavad seda, jattes maha jaljed oma tegevusest, millega omakorda peavad arvestama jargmised polvkonnad. Kuid maastik pakub ka teisi voimalusi, ones inspiratsiooniallikaks mitut laadi mentaalsetele tegevustele, nagu maletamine ja unustamine, kusjuures molemad voivad seostuda uhtede ning samade kohtade ja objektidega.

Mineviku kihid on maastikul alati olemas kas fuusiliselt mingisuguse objekti naol voi uksnes mentaalselt tahenduskihina. Samal kombel on ka muististel oma tahenduskihid: uhed on need, mida omistavad neile tanapaeva inimesed, teised aga need, mida omistasid neile mineviku inimesed. Needki tahenduskihid olid ilmselt eri aegaddl erinevad.

Inimesed loovad kohti oma tegevusega. Kohad ei ole vordsed, vaid erineva tahtsusega, neil on oma hierarhia. Ehitades mingisse paika hoone voi kalme, on seda muudetud, eristatud teistest kohtadest, mis on jaanud muutmata. Vumane ei tahenda, et muutmata paigad oleksid ilmtingimata vahem tahtsad, voimalik on ka vastupidine olukord. Paik vois oma olemuselt nuvord suure vaimse tahendusega laetud olla, et selle muutmine oli tabu. Samuti vois olla kohti, kus vubimine vois tavainimesele ohtlik olla, kuid sellest hoolimata (voi just seetottu?) oli neil inimeste mentaalsel kaardil tahtis positsioon. Valik, kuidas mingisse paika on suhtutud, seda muudetud voi muutmata jaetud, on iga kord tehtud konkreetsest kohast lahtudes. Fuusiline maastik on omandanud margilise tahenduse.

Tahendused maastikul on voinud aegade jooksul muutuda, kuid arvatakse, et teadmised tahtsatest paikadest on polvest polve edasi antud. Nu monedki maaharijate kogukondadele tahtsad kohad voivad parineda marksa varasemast ajast ja need voisid olla hoopis kuttide-korilaste toimetulekustrateegiate seisukohast olulised paigad. Kindlasti on igasugused arusaamad eriliste/oluliste kohtade alguparast ja ka sellest, milles nende tahtsus seisneb, aegade jooksul transformeerunud, kuid mingi koha erilisuse tunnetamine voi koha motestamine erilisena on jaanud pusima. Maastik on seega alati inimese poolt kultuuriliselt konstrueeritud: uhelgi paigal pole tahendust iseenesest, inimesed on selle mingil pohjusel neile paikadele omistanud ja selles mottes on maastik inimeste looming.

Maastikul on omad tahendused ka sus, kui inimesed ei ole seda ise teadlikult muutnud. Teadlikuks muutmiseks pean ennekoike selliste monumentide rajamist, mis on moeldud kestma labi aegade, naiteks kivikalme ehitamist. Maastiku muutuseks on ka naiteks puude raiumine ja teede-radade tekkimine aja jooksul, mis lisavad varasemale uue tahenduskihi, kuigi see ei pea olema tingimata alguse saanud tahtlikust ning teadlikust muutmissoovist.

Kaesolevas artiklis on analuusitud Kaberla (Kuusalu kihelkond, Harjumaa) purkonna muinasaegset maastikukasutust lahtuvalt sealsest kahest matmispaigast: Kaberla Varetimae kivikalmest ja sarnas kulas asuvast maa-alusest kalmistust (joon 1). Kivikalme asub klindiserva lahistel, maa-alune kalmistu madalal moreenkunkal. Molemad paiknevad praeguse asustusuksuse servaaladel.

Varetimae kalme ehituseks oli ara kasutatud koige atraktuvsem koht Kaberla umbruse maastikul, mis lausa eeldas mingisugust monumenti (joon 2). Korgemal klindiserval asetsevalt kalmelt avaneb avar vaade madalal olevale kulale ja veelgi kaugemale louna poole jaavatele aladele.

Varetimae kalme rajanud inimesed elasid arvatavasti umbes 1,5 km kaugusel madalamatel aladel, paigas, mis on kalme juurest ka nahtav (joon 3). Hiljem asus selle laheduses maa-alune kalxnistu. Viimase kaevamistel leiti kalme keraamikaga sarnane rubitud pinnaga savinoukild.

Ent inimtegevus leidis sunsetel aladel aset juba ammu enne kalme ehitamist klindipealsele. Kaberla purkonna vanimateks leidudeks on juhuslikult paevavalgele tulnud venekirve katke ja silmaga kivikirves (joon 1). Kuna see purkond pakkus eri loodusressursse, on usnagi toenaoline, et Kaberla joe aares oli kiviajal asulakohti, mida praegu pole veel leitud. Sellele voimalusele vutavad ka juhuleiud. Tosi kull, monel juhul on oletatud, et uksikuna ja kontekstivaliselt leitud esemed voisid olla meelega jaetud kohtadesse, kus asustust laheduses ei olnud voi vahemalt ei pidanud ilmtingimata olema. Esemeid (nu uksikuid kui ka kogumeid) jaeti mingil pohjusel asustamata kohtadesse, millel oli suski tahtsust tolleaegsete inimeste jaoks. Niisugusteks on olnud naiteks soode-rabade kaugemad osad, koopad ja metsad. Eseme(te) mahajatmisel oli arvatavasti mitu tahendust ja selle sooritamine holmas teatud saladusastet nagu ka teadmine, millised esemed olid milliste sundmuste puhul selleks toiminguks kohased. Seetottu vois saarane kaitumine olla sotsiaalse mojuvoimu tahtsaks avaldusvormiks. Kohad, kuhu asju sel moel vudi ja maha jaeti, olid kahtlemata tahtsad, neid teati ning peeti meeles. Moistagi ei saa alati valistada ka voimalust, et esemed lihtsalt kaotati ja nende leiukohad on seetottu taiesti juhuslikud. Sihilikult kuskile jaetud asjade puhul on aga eriti oluline nende leiukontekst. Kaberla nagu ka paljude teiste paikade kohta, kust parinevad mitmesugused juhuleiud, puuduvad tapsed leiuandmed.

Voimalikule (hilis)kiviaegsele asustusele jargnes Kaberlas aastatuhandetepikkune aeg ilma arheoloogiliste leidudeta. Ajaliselt jargmiseks muistiseks ongi eelrooma rauaajal ehitatud Varetimae kivikalme.

Pikk leidudeta periood jargnes ka kalme ehitamisele. Muutus asustuses toimus viikingiajal, mil kogu Eesti alal hakkasid laiemalt levima kulad. Enamik neist oli asustatud ka muinasaja lopusajanditel ja keskajal ning paljud tol ajal tekkinud kulad, teiste seas ka Kaberla, on pusinud tanapaevani.

Viikingiaegne kula ei paiknenud vahetult joe aares, vaid sellest monisada meetrit ida pool, allika umber, nu klindipealsel kui ka selle esisel alal. Muistise kultuurkiht on jalgitav peaaegu koikjal praeguses kulatuumikus kahel pool Vana-Narva maanteed. Kulaelanikud harisid polde, mis jaid Varetimae kalmest kirde ja ida poole. Kulaasemest umbes 300 m louna poole jaab Kaberla maa-alune laibamatustega kalmistu, kuhu maeti 12. sajandi teisest poolest kuni 17. sajandi lopuni. Kalme oli rajatud umbritsevast maapinnast vaid pisut korgemale seljandikule.

Varetimae kivikalme on peaaegu igalt poolt nahtav ja sunsel maastikul parimat voi vahemalt uht silmapaistvaimat kohta omav matmispaik vois omal ajal olla maamargiks kaugemalt tulijatele. Oletades asulakoha paiknemist kusagil hilisema maa-alune kalmistu laheduses joe pool, on tegu maastikulise vastandamisega, kus surnud esivanemad olid korgel klindiserval, elavad aga eemal madalal alal. Sellist vastandavat maastikulahendust on esinenud teisteski kohtades nu Eestis kui ka mujal maailmas.

12. sajandi teisel poolel hakati matma Kaberla maa-alusesse kalmistusse. Praeguse uurimisseisu juures naib, et Varetimae kalmesse muinasaja lopul enam ei maetud. Samas olid maa-alune kalme rajanud inimesed varasema kivikalme olemasolust ilmselt teadlikud.

Kaberla kaks kalmet on naited erinevast, vastandavast maastikukasutusest (tabel 1). Kui kivikalme asus umbritseva suhtes domineerival kohal, erandiks vaid laane ja kagu suund, sus hilisem matmispaik jai madalale alale. Vagagi toenaoliselt lahtuti kivikalme ehitamisel just sellisest asendist: korgeim koht maastikul, klindiserva vahetus laheduses, kust avaneb avar vaade madalamatele aladele, sealhulgas ka toenaolisele elamispaigale. Oluline oli ka vastupidine vaade, kus lisaks klindiservale vois samuti paista selle juures olnud kivikalme.

Muinasaja lopu kalmistu polnud ilmselt ka matmise ajal erilise looduse poolest just silmapaistev. Maa-aluseks matmiseks sobivat pinnast oleks muinasaja lopul voidud Kaberla laheduses leida ka korgematel ja visuaalselt efektsematel kohtadel, kuid mingil pohjusel neid kasutusele ei voetud.

Omavahel vorreldes jaavad Kaberla kaks matmispaika diametraalselt eri oludesse ja kohtadesse. Korge asendus madalaga, maapealne maa-alusega, pohjakaar lounakaarega. Naib, et taas on tegu teadliku ja tahtliku vastandamisega, mis kajastab ilmselt muutusi inimeste maastikutunnetuses, oigemini kull selles osas, mis puudutab maastiku sakraalsuse moistet. Voimalik, et maastikutunnetuse muutus oli vaid uks osa suurematest uhiskonnasisestest muutustest. Kui varem valiti kalmekohtadeks maastikul erilise voi vahemalt uldisest millegi poolest eristuva loodusega paigad, sus nuudseks oli arvatavasti kohalt voi looduselt sakraalsus kadunud ja see oli toenaoliselt ule kandunud hoopis matmispaigale kui sellisele. Vumane vois aga asuda kus iganes, selle olemasolu puhitses ruumi, mitte vastupidi (voimalik, et varasematele aegadele oli olnud iseloomulik nende kahe sumbioos). Maa-aluses kalmistus leidus ka uksikuid paekividega matuseid, mida on peetud varasema kivikalmetesse matmise kombe sumboolseks jatkamiseks. Ehk on sun tegu mitte nuvord traditsiooni edasikestmisega uldises mottes kui just otsese seosega Varetimae kalmega ja siena maetutega? Arvestades seda, et Varetimae kalmesse oli maetud vukingiajal ja voimalik, et ka muinasaja lopusajanditel, vois selline seos olla usnagi konkreetne.

Kalmeid, mida parast sajandeid ja aastatuhandeid on uuesti kasutatud, on teada mitmel pool Eestis ning ka mujal Euroopas. Sellist taaskasutust on seostatud inimeste kultuurilise maluga, seda on peetud hilisema eludi voimu allikaks. Hilisem tegevus vanadel kalmetel toi paevavalgele luid ja esemeid, mis andis omalt poolt veelgi alust nende tolgendamisele muutiliste ning uleloomulikena.

Monumentaalsed kivikalmed--seda Varetimae Eesti oludes kahtlemata oli/on--toimisid inimeste jaoks kui malu alalhoidjad, selle sailitajad. Sellisel juhul on vana kalme hilisemat taaskasutust seostatud mitmete teguritega, millest uheks olulisemaks peetaksegi maletamist, vahetut minevikuga tegelemist. Monumentidelgi olid oma biograafiad, mis tekkisid ja taienesid nende kasutamisel ning (korduval) taaskasutusel. Koige selle kaigus (re)interpreteerisid sugupolved nende tahtsuse. Nu voib oletada, et selline hilisem taaskasutus vois aset leida naiteks seoses vajadusega manifesteerida end esivanemate jalvoi koha kaudu. Molemaid voidi kasitada uhtselt, st varasemad sugupolved olid paigaga lahutamatult seotud.

Tolgendusvoimalusi on aga veelgi. Naiteks Madagaskaril elavate merina'te kalmed ei ole moeldud mitte uksikisikute meelespidamiseks, vaid kohtadeks, kus indivud unustatakse ja ta hajub idealiseeritud esivanemate kollektuvi. Ka sellisel juhul on tegemist maletamisega, ehkki see toimub labi unustamise. Voib-olla on mingi samalaadne mote olnud ka ajendiks votta vana kalme aastasadu voi koguni tuhat aastat hiljem uuesti kasutusele. Sedasi seostati olevikku minevikuga ja maetu kaasaegseid varasemate elanikega.

doi: 10.3176/arch.2009.1.02

Acknowledgement

The present research was financed by the Estonian Science Foundation (grant No 6998).

References

Bourgeois, J. & Cherrette, B. 2004. Evolution of burial places in western Flandes in the Bronze Age.--Spatial Analysis of Funerary Areas. Eds L. Smejda & J. Turek. Vydavatelstvi a nakladatelstvi Ales Cenek, Plzen, 94-102.

Certeau, M. de. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Cummings, V. 2003. Building from memory. Remembering the past at Neolithic monuments in western Britain.--Archaeologies of Remembrance. Death and Memory in Past Societies. Ed. H. Williams. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 253.

Ethelberg, E., Jorgensen, E., Meier, D. & Robinson, D. 2000. Det Sondrejyske Landbrugs Historie. Sten- og bronzealder. Haderslev.

Fowler, C. 2003. Rates of (ex)change. Decay and growth, memory and the transformation of the dead in early Neolithic southern Britain.--Archaeologies of Remembrance. Death and Memory in Past Societies. Ed. H. Williams. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 45-63.

Holtorf, C. J. 1998. The life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). The Past in the Past: the Reuse of Ancient Monuments. Eds R. Bradley & H. Williams. (World Archaeology, 30, 1, 23-38.) Routledge.

Huurre, M. 1990. 9000 vuotta Suomen esihistoriaa. Otava, Helsinki.

Jones, A. 2003. Technologies of remembrance. Memory, materiality and identity in Early Bronze Age Scotland.--Archaeologies of Remembrance. Death and Memory in Past Societies. Ed. H. Williams. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 65-88.

Knapp, A. B. & Ashmore, W. 2000. Archaeological landscapes: constructed, conceptualized, ideational.--Archaeologies of Landscape. Contemporary Perspectives. Eds W. Ashmore & A. B. Knapp. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1-30.

Kristiansen, K. & Larson, T. B. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lang, V. 1996. Muistne Ravala. Muistised, kronoloogia ja maaviljelusliku asustuse kujunemine Loode-Eestis, eriti Pirita joe alamjooksu purkonnas, 1. 2. koide. (MT, 4.) Tallinn.

Lang, V. 2000. Keskusest aaremaaks. Viljelusmajandusliku asustuse kujunemine ja areng Vihasoo-Palmse purkonnas Virumaal. (MT, 7.) Tallinn, 9-369.

Lang, V. 2007. Joining together graves and souls.--Colours of Archaeology. Material Culture and the Society. Papers from the Second Theoretical Seminar of the Baltic Archaeologists (BASE) Held at the University of Vilnius, Lithuania, October 21 22, 2005. Ed. A. Merkevicius. Vilnius, 79-91.

Nash, G. & Chippindale, C. 2002. Images of enculturing landscapes. A European perspective. European Landscapes of Rock-Art. Eds G. Nash & C. Chippindale. Routledge, London, 1-19.

Parmas, O. 1925. Kuusalu. Manuscript in AI.

Selirand, J. 1962. Kaberla maa-alone kahnistu.--Muistsed kalmed ja aarded. Ed. H. Moos. (Arheoloogiline kogumik, IL) Tallinn, 131-168.

Selirand, J. 1974. Eestlaste matmiskombed varafeodaalsete suhete tarkamise perioodil (11.-13. sajand). Eesti Raamat, Tallinn.

Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. An Interpretive Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Vedru, G. 2003a. Archaeological excavations in Kaberla and Lagedi villages. -AVE, 2002, 97-103.

Vedru, G. 2003b. Muinasaegne asustus Kaberla purkonnas.--Arheoloogiga Laanemeremaades.

Uurimusi Juri Seliranna auks. Eds V. Lang & U. Tamla. (MT, 13.) Tallinn, 325-334.

Vedru, G. 2004. Aruanne arheoloogilistest kaevamistest Kaberla Varetimae kivikahne12004. aastal. Manuscript in AI.

Vedru, G. 2005. Archaeological excavations of the Varetimagi stone grave in Kaberla.--AVE, 2004, 77-82.

Williams, H. 1998. Monuments and the past in early Anglo-Saxon England.--The Past in the Past: the Reuse of Ancient Monuments. Eds R. Bradley & H. Williams.--World Archaeology, 30, 1, 90-108.

Williams, H. 2003. Introduction. The archaeology of death, memory and material culture. Archaeologies of Remembrance. Death and Memory in Past Societies. Ed. H. Williams. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 1-24.

(1) In Estonian, 100 (swedish alvar) is called for the area with thin (10-30 cm) and humus-rich soil; these loo areas are located in the coastal area of northern and western Estonia. In north Estonia 100 areas can be found near the glint on the North Estonian limestone plateau.

(2) The excavation plot of 2004 measured 10 [m.sup.2] only, the main aim of these excavations was to confirm the nature of the object.

Gurly Vedru, Institute of History, Tallinn University, 6 Ruutli St., 10130 Tallinn, Estonia; gurli11@mail.ee

Table 1. Graves in Kaberla: contrasts and similarities

Pit-grave cemetery                  Varetimagi stone grave

New                                 Old
Low                                 High
Inhumation                          Cremation
Beneath the ground surface          Above the ground surface
Earth                               Stone
Earlier settlement site?            Earlier grave
On the border of the settlement     On the border of the settlement
  unit (south-east)                   unit (north-east)