The article examines the archaeological finds from Estonia that are decorated in Scandinavian Late Viking Age ornamental styles. The majority of such finds come from burials in local fashion. The aim of the article is to outline the role of Scandinavian ornament in culture, social strategies, ideology and identity of the local society. Belt fittings and silver-plated weapons comprise the largest part of such finds. While the belt fittings often show simplified patterns, pure Scandinavian style ornament is found on weapons. The current article aims to propose a connection between warfare and warrior culture and the usage of Scandinavian ornament in Estonia. This martial link is found to coincide with the meanings proposed for animal ornament in Scandinavia. In Estonia, the fashion to decorate weapons was most widely spread in the time of Ringerike and Urnes styles. In that period, decorated weapons may have had a specific role in social strategies, probably implying the rise in position of the warrior strata. The article also discusses international relations as the background for the adoption of Scandinavian ornament. The gender aspect is mentioned, as the Scandinavian ornament associates with the male warrior role, while different symbolic languages were used in female attire. The Late Viking Age Scandinavian ornament in Estonia is seen as the visual display of the identity of warriors’ social class and the affiliation of Estonian warriors with the Scandinavian cultural sphere, while the local identity was manifested mainly by some types of female jewellery.
{"title":"SCANDINAVIAN LATE VIKING AGE ART STYLES AS A PART OF THE VISUAL DISPLAY OF WARRIORS IN 11TH CENTURY ESTONIA","authors":"Indrek Jets","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.2.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.2.02","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the archaeological finds from Estonia that are decorated in Scandinavian Late Viking Age ornamental styles. The majority of such finds come from burials in local fashion. The aim of the article is to outline the role of Scandinavian ornament in culture, social strategies, ideology and identity of the local society. Belt fittings and silver-plated weapons comprise the largest part of such finds. While the belt fittings often show simplified patterns, pure Scandinavian style ornament is found on weapons. The current article aims to propose a connection between warfare and warrior culture and the usage of Scandinavian ornament in Estonia. This martial link is found to coincide with the meanings proposed for animal ornament in Scandinavia. In Estonia, the fashion to decorate weapons was most widely spread in the time of Ringerike and Urnes styles. In that period, decorated weapons may have had a specific role in social strategies, probably implying the rise in position of the warrior strata. The article also discusses international relations as the background for the adoption of Scandinavian ornament. The gender aspect is mentioned, as the Scandinavian ornament associates with the male warrior role, while different symbolic languages were used in female attire. The Late Viking Age Scandinavian ornament in Estonia is seen as the visual display of the identity of warriors’ social class and the affiliation of Estonian warriors with the Scandinavian cultural sphere, while the local identity was manifested mainly by some types of female jewellery.","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88268051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article discusses new AMS dates of the human bones at stone-cist grave I at Kasekula, western Estonia, in the context of previously existent radiocarbon dates, artefact finds and osteological studies. There are altogether 12 radiocarbon dates for 10 inhumations (i.e. roughly a third of all burials) of the grave, provided by two laboratories. The dates suggest three temporally separated periods in the use life of the grave(s): the Late Bronze Age, the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Late Iron Age. In the latter period, the grave was probably reserved for infant burials only. Along with chronological issues, the article discusses the apparently unusual structure of the grave and compares two competing osteological studies of the grave’s bone assemblage from an archaeologist’s point of view.
{"title":"STONE-CIST GRAVE AT KASEKÜLA, WESTERN ESTONIA, IN THE LIGHT OF AMS DATES OF THE HUMAN BONES","authors":"M. Laneman","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.2.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.2.01","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses new AMS dates of the human bones at stone-cist grave I at Kasekula, western Estonia, in the context of previously existent radiocarbon dates, artefact finds and osteological studies. There are altogether 12 radiocarbon dates for 10 inhumations (i.e. roughly a third of all burials) of the grave, provided by two laboratories. The dates suggest three temporally separated periods in the use life of the grave(s): the Late Bronze Age, the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Late Iron Age. In the latter period, the grave was probably reserved for infant burials only. Along with chronological issues, the article discusses the apparently unusual structure of the grave and compares two competing osteological studies of the grave’s bone assemblage from an archaeologist’s point of view.","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84585472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Half a century ago, Harri Moora was convinced that the Iron Age stronghold at Jagala, in northern Estonia, was still occupied in the seventh century, because of a fibula accidentally found by Erik Laid on that site in 1939 (Moora 1955, 53; Johanson & Veldi 2005, 30). Moora dated the fibula on the basis of analogies from Ukraine, without however citing Joachim Werner's influential paper on "Slavic" bow fibulae, which had been published just a few years before his own work (Werner 1950). He must have been struck by the great resemblance between the Jagala fibula (Fig. 1: 9) and other specimens, which Werner had assigned to his class II D ("fibulae with bird-heads and circle-and-dot decoration"; Werner 1950, 161 f.). (1) There are now 45 specimens known for that class, 26 (58 percent) of which have been found on the territory of present-day Ukraine, outside Crimea. (2) It is therefore time to re-examine Moora's premises in the light of the new finds and re-evaluate his conclusion regarding the northernmost find of Werner's "Slavic" fibulae. (3) [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Introduction For his classification, Werner relied on visual, mostly intuitive criteria, of which he named only two: the bird-head headplate crown and the circle-and-dot decoration on both head- and footplate. He did not pay any attention to differences in size. For example, the fibula from grave 28 in Suuk Su (Fig. 2: 31) was published side by side with that from Pastyrs'ke (Fig. 2: 24), but appears considerably smaller, although the two artefacts are almost of the same size (Werner 1950, pl. 40: 31 and 33). By contrast, in her recent study, Vlasta Rodinkova distinguished between large fibulae with rather realistically designed bird heads in the headplate crown (such as those found in grave 28 in Suuk Su or in Smorodino, Fig. 2: 29 and 31) and shorter specimens with stylized bird heads (such as those from Kerch' and burial chamber 36 in Luchistoe, Figs 1: 10 and 2: 22). According to Rodinkova, specimens of the second group were imitations of the larger and more elaborate fibulae. (4) She also noticed that some fibulae of her second group have a larger number of bird-heads (as many as eight in the case of the Kuz'minki fibula, Fig. 2: 21) than fibulae of the first group (e.g., Smorodino and an unknown location in the Middle Dnieper region, both with only five bird heads, Fig. 2: 29 and Fig. 3: 39). However, Rodinkova did not notice that the headplate crowns with five bird heads are themselves imitations of bow fibulae from the Danube region dated to the sixth century, such as that from the Fleissig collection of the National Museum of History in Budapest or the fragment from Orlea, which Joachim Werner treated as a specimen of his class I A (Werner 1950, 151 and pl. 27: 3; Csallany 1961, pl. 215: 6; Teodor 1992, 142 and fig. 7: 2). (5) It is perhaps worth mentioning that a fibula from Nea Anchialos (Greece), which belongs to Werner's class I B, has a crown of seven equal, highly stylized bi
{"title":"The Jagala Fibula Revisited, or Remarks on Werner's Class II D/Veel Kord Jagala Solest Ehk Markusi Werneri II D Klassi Kohta","authors":"Florin Curta","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.02","url":null,"abstract":"Half a century ago, Harri Moora was convinced that the Iron Age stronghold at Jagala, in northern Estonia, was still occupied in the seventh century, because of a fibula accidentally found by Erik Laid on that site in 1939 (Moora 1955, 53; Johanson & Veldi 2005, 30). Moora dated the fibula on the basis of analogies from Ukraine, without however citing Joachim Werner's influential paper on \"Slavic\" bow fibulae, which had been published just a few years before his own work (Werner 1950). He must have been struck by the great resemblance between the Jagala fibula (Fig. 1: 9) and other specimens, which Werner had assigned to his class II D (\"fibulae with bird-heads and circle-and-dot decoration\"; Werner 1950, 161 f.). (1) There are now 45 specimens known for that class, 26 (58 percent) of which have been found on the territory of present-day Ukraine, outside Crimea. (2) It is therefore time to re-examine Moora's premises in the light of the new finds and re-evaluate his conclusion regarding the northernmost find of Werner's \"Slavic\" fibulae. (3) [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Introduction For his classification, Werner relied on visual, mostly intuitive criteria, of which he named only two: the bird-head headplate crown and the circle-and-dot decoration on both head- and footplate. He did not pay any attention to differences in size. For example, the fibula from grave 28 in Suuk Su (Fig. 2: 31) was published side by side with that from Pastyrs'ke (Fig. 2: 24), but appears considerably smaller, although the two artefacts are almost of the same size (Werner 1950, pl. 40: 31 and 33). By contrast, in her recent study, Vlasta Rodinkova distinguished between large fibulae with rather realistically designed bird heads in the headplate crown (such as those found in grave 28 in Suuk Su or in Smorodino, Fig. 2: 29 and 31) and shorter specimens with stylized bird heads (such as those from Kerch' and burial chamber 36 in Luchistoe, Figs 1: 10 and 2: 22). According to Rodinkova, specimens of the second group were imitations of the larger and more elaborate fibulae. (4) She also noticed that some fibulae of her second group have a larger number of bird-heads (as many as eight in the case of the Kuz'minki fibula, Fig. 2: 21) than fibulae of the first group (e.g., Smorodino and an unknown location in the Middle Dnieper region, both with only five bird heads, Fig. 2: 29 and Fig. 3: 39). However, Rodinkova did not notice that the headplate crowns with five bird heads are themselves imitations of bow fibulae from the Danube region dated to the sixth century, such as that from the Fleissig collection of the National Museum of History in Budapest or the fragment from Orlea, which Joachim Werner treated as a specimen of his class I A (Werner 1950, 151 and pl. 27: 3; Csallany 1961, pl. 215: 6; Teodor 1992, 142 and fig. 7: 2). (5) It is perhaps worth mentioning that a fibula from Nea Anchialos (Greece), which belongs to Werner's class I B, has a crown of seven equal, highly stylized bi","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87925611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Nordqvist, Vesa-Pekka Herva, Janne P. Ikäheimo, Antti Lahelma
Introduction Copper was known and used in different parts of Eurasia several millennia before the beginning of the Bronze Age. The earliest evidence derives from the Near East and Anatolia, where copper was first used between the 11th and 7th millennia BC, whereas copper use in Europe, specifically in the Balkans and the South-East, began by the mid-6th millennium BC (Roberts et al. 2009, 1013). Copper use spread from south-eastern Europe to the steppes of southern Russia (Chernykh 1992, 41 f.) and was introduced farther to the forested regions of East European (or Russian) Plain along the rivers Volga and Kama in the 4th millennium BC (Krajnov 1987, 14 f.; Nagovitsyn 1987, 32). The use of copper was introduced in central, western and northern Europe through different processes at different times (Roberts et al. 2009, 1015 f.); copper smelting was known in the eastern Alps in the 5th millennium BC (Hoppner et al. 2005), at a time when large-scale metal production in the Balkans had begun (Bailey 2000, 209), whereas signs of metal use are few in north-western Europe before 2500 BC (Roberts 2009, 467). In north-eastern Europe the use of native copper began soon after 4000 BC in what is today the Republic of Karelia (Russian Federation), when copper artefacts appear in find assemblages. While a number of early copper finds are also known from central and northern parts of Finland, they are very rare on the Scandinavian Peninsula and in the Baltic countries. The early appearance of copper in eastern Fennoscandia is common knowledge among Russian and Finnish archaeologists, but the general picture of this early copper use is patchy and its wider context elusive, which has to do with the limited research material, different academic traditions as well as linguistic and national boundaries. As the relevant publications are mainly in Russian and Finnish, the early copper finds from northeastern Europe have often been omitted from the surveys and studies on the beginning of metal use in Europe. Even the early metal finds have been subject to some research and scientific analyses in Russia and Finland, very little has been said about why copper was adopted and how early copper use relates to broader cultural developments. This paper provides an overview and discussion of the early copper finds and metal use in north-eastern Europe. More specifically, the geographical research area stretches from the shores of Lake Onega in the east to the Baltic Sea in the west and from the Baltic countries in the south to the Arctic Ocean in the north (Fig. 1). Early metal use in this region is put in a broader context, with a special reference to the northern European Russia. The period of interest here is 4000-2000 BC (all dates are given in calibrated radiocarbon years, i.e. calBC). A large part of this time frame is commonly referred to as the Eneolithic in Russia but is called the (Sub-)Neolithic in Finland (Fig. 2). In this paper the term Neolithic is preferred, alt
铜在青铜时代开始前几千年就在欧亚大陆的不同地区被发现和使用。最早的证据来自近东和安纳托利亚，在那里铜在公元前11至7千年之间首次被使用，而在欧洲，特别是在巴尔干和东南部，铜的使用始于公元前6千年中期(Roberts et al. 2009, 1013)。铜的使用从东南欧传播到俄罗斯南部的大草原(Chernykh 1992, 41 f.)，并在公元前4000年沿着伏尔加河和卡马河被进一步引入东欧(或俄罗斯)平原的森林地区(Krajnov 1987, 14 f.);Nagovitsyn 1987, 32)。在中欧、西欧和北欧，铜的使用是在不同时期通过不同的工艺引入的(Roberts et al. 2009, 1015 f.);公元前5000年，东阿尔卑斯地区就已经知道了铜冶炼(Hoppner etal . 2005)，当时巴尔干地区已经开始大规模生产金属(Bailey 2000, 209)，而西北欧在公元前2500年之前很少有使用金属的迹象(Roberts 2009, 467)。在欧洲东北部，公元前4000年后不久，在今天的卡累利阿共和国(俄罗斯联邦)，当铜制品出现在发现组合中时，就开始使用天然铜。虽然在芬兰中部和北部也发现了一些早期的铜矿，但在斯堪的纳维亚半岛和波罗的海国家却非常罕见。在俄罗斯和芬兰的考古学家中，芬诺斯坎迪亚东部早期出现铜是众所周知的，但关于早期使用铜的总体情况是不完整的，其更广泛的背景是难以理解的，这与有限的研究材料、不同的学术传统以及语言和国家边界有关。由于相关出版物以俄文和芬兰文为主，在对欧洲金属使用开端的调查和研究中，往往忽略了东北欧早期铜的发现。在俄罗斯和芬兰，即使是早期的金属发现也受到了一些研究和科学分析的影响，但关于为什么采用铜以及早期铜的使用与更广泛的文化发展之间的关系，却很少有人说。本文对东北欧早期铜的发现和金属利用进行了综述和讨论。更具体地说，地理研究区域从东部的奥涅加湖沿岸延伸到西部的波罗的海，从南部的波罗的海国家延伸到北部的北冰洋(图1)。该地区早期的金属使用被置于更广泛的背景下，特别提到了北欧的俄罗斯。这里感兴趣的时期是公元前4000-2000年(所有日期都以校准的放射性碳年给出，即calBC)。这个时间框架的很大一部分在俄罗斯通常被称为新石器时代，但在芬兰被称为(亚)新石器时代(图2)。在本文中，新石器时代一词更受欢迎，尽管我们承认它与俄罗斯的分期相矛盾。无需深入研究这些定义背后的原因，就足以说明最近的研究(例如Vaneeckhout 2009;Mokkonen 2011;Herva et al. n.d.)越来越多地表明，研究区域内公元前4000-2000年之间的文化可以被描述为传统上认为的更真实意义上的新石器时代。在这种“新石器时代”的背景下，必须考虑北方早期铜的使用。【图1省略】【图2省略】卡累利阿和芬兰早期铜使用的文化背景和年代在对铜的发现进行更深入的研究之前，有必要对研究区域在公元前4000-2000年的文化阶段和发展进行总体概述。陶瓷年代学是这里特别感兴趣的，尽管陶器类型的绝对年代远未完成。然而，基于陶器的相对年代学为特定地点的铜发现提供了唯一可用的框架——关于这个主题的详细讨论将在另一篇文章中提供(Nordqvist et al. . ...)
{"title":"EARLY COPPER USE IN NEOLITHIC NORTH- EASTERN EUROPE: AN OVERVIEW","authors":"K. Nordqvist, Vesa-Pekka Herva, Janne P. Ikäheimo, Antti Lahelma","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.01","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Copper was known and used in different parts of Eurasia several millennia before the beginning of the Bronze Age. The earliest evidence derives from the Near East and Anatolia, where copper was first used between the 11th and 7th millennia BC, whereas copper use in Europe, specifically in the Balkans and the South-East, began by the mid-6th millennium BC (Roberts et al. 2009, 1013). Copper use spread from south-eastern Europe to the steppes of southern Russia (Chernykh 1992, 41 f.) and was introduced farther to the forested regions of East European (or Russian) Plain along the rivers Volga and Kama in the 4th millennium BC (Krajnov 1987, 14 f.; Nagovitsyn 1987, 32). The use of copper was introduced in central, western and northern Europe through different processes at different times (Roberts et al. 2009, 1015 f.); copper smelting was known in the eastern Alps in the 5th millennium BC (Hoppner et al. 2005), at a time when large-scale metal production in the Balkans had begun (Bailey 2000, 209), whereas signs of metal use are few in north-western Europe before 2500 BC (Roberts 2009, 467). In north-eastern Europe the use of native copper began soon after 4000 BC in what is today the Republic of Karelia (Russian Federation), when copper artefacts appear in find assemblages. While a number of early copper finds are also known from central and northern parts of Finland, they are very rare on the Scandinavian Peninsula and in the Baltic countries. The early appearance of copper in eastern Fennoscandia is common knowledge among Russian and Finnish archaeologists, but the general picture of this early copper use is patchy and its wider context elusive, which has to do with the limited research material, different academic traditions as well as linguistic and national boundaries. As the relevant publications are mainly in Russian and Finnish, the early copper finds from northeastern Europe have often been omitted from the surveys and studies on the beginning of metal use in Europe. Even the early metal finds have been subject to some research and scientific analyses in Russia and Finland, very little has been said about why copper was adopted and how early copper use relates to broader cultural developments. This paper provides an overview and discussion of the early copper finds and metal use in north-eastern Europe. More specifically, the geographical research area stretches from the shores of Lake Onega in the east to the Baltic Sea in the west and from the Baltic countries in the south to the Arctic Ocean in the north (Fig. 1). Early metal use in this region is put in a broader context, with a special reference to the northern European Russia. The period of interest here is 4000-2000 BC (all dates are given in calibrated radiocarbon years, i.e. calBC). A large part of this time frame is commonly referred to as the Eneolithic in Russia but is called the (Sub-)Neolithic in Finland (Fig. 2). In this paper the term Neolithic is preferred, alt","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85731280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction Topics concerning the relationship between archaeology and ethics are discussed all over the world. Estonian archaeologists have followed these societal developments and begun to ponder over the ethics of archaeology. One of the markers of such a development is the compilation and adoption of a code of ethics of Estonian archaeology--"Ethical principles of an archaeologist" (EPA) (1). It is a sign that archaeologists use the outputs of practical ethics to make their work more efficient and reason-based. The code embodies the idea of an ethical archaeology, which is a promise to archaeologists themselves, to their colleagues and to the society to behave in an ethical manner. Ethical behaviour is composed of numerous moral principles. Abiding by those principles should lead to the best possible practices and behaviour. That, however, requires knowledge about values. Having been part of the process of creating the code of ethics (see Livin 2008) I have realized that the theme of ethics in archaeology needs to evolve to a new and deeper level-the level of values. Archaeologists have an important and responsible role in society as interpreters of cultural heritage and creators of knowledge. Their narrations about the past facilitate the creation and uphold of national identity and memory. Thus, the moral dimension of an archaeologist's profession derives largely from his/her responsibilities towards the public. This is probably the primary reason why an archaeologist should be ethically fit. The president and founder of the Institute of Global Ethics, Dr. Rushworth M. Kidder states that most wrongdoings arise because actions are out of sync with values either with an individual's inner values or with values we can reasonably take for granted in the community at large. This incongruity arises because those values have remained more or less undefined (Kidder 2003, 43). This article seeks to map out the value system of Estonian archaeologists and simultaneously bring out the most important professional values of archaeologists. For conceptualizing and defining "value", I will primarily rely on Edgar H. Schein's (2004) model of culture and Milton Rokeach's theoretical standpoints presented in 1973 and 1979. Even though the current article aims to observe and discuss the normative and individual value system of archaeologists in Estonia, the goal of this paper is not to evaluate whether Estonian archaeologists behave ethically or not. Also, the results brought out in this study only reflect the situation in Estonia and without similar research conducted in other countries, it is not possible to compare the value systems of archaeologists from different regions. While this sort of study would be highly beneficial and would help put the results of the current article in a more international context, not enough research has been carried out on this topic in order to make broader conclusions about the values and ethical behaviour among European ar
世界各地都在讨论考古学与伦理学之间的关系。爱沙尼亚考古学家跟随这些社会发展，开始思考考古学的伦理问题。这种发展的标志之一是爱沙尼亚考古学伦理准则的编纂和采用——“考古学家的伦理原则”(EPA)(1)。这是一个标志，考古学家利用实践伦理的成果，使他们的工作更有效率和更有理性。该规范体现了道德考古学的理念，这是对考古学家自己、他们的同事和社会的承诺，以道德的方式行事。伦理行为是由许多道德原则组成的。遵守这些原则将导致最好的做法和行为。然而，这需要关于价值观的知识。作为创建道德规范过程的一部分(见Livin 2008)，我意识到考古学中的道德主题需要发展到一个新的更深层次——价值层面。作为文化遗产的阐释者和知识的创造者，考古学家在社会中扮演着重要而负责任的角色。他们对过去的叙述促进了民族认同和记忆的创造和维护。因此，考古学家职业的道德维度主要来源于他/她对公众的责任。这可能是考古学家应该符合道德标准的主要原因。全球伦理研究所(Institute of Global Ethics)的主席兼创始人拉什沃斯·基德尔(Rushworth M. Kidder)博士指出，大多数不法行为的出现，是因为行为与价值观不同步，要么是与个人的内在价值观不同步，要么是与我们在整个社会中合理认为理所当然的价值观不同步。这种不协调的出现是因为这些价值观或多或少没有定义(Kidder 2003, 43)。本文试图勾勒出爱沙尼亚考古学家的价值体系，同时揭示出考古学家最重要的职业价值。为了概念化和定义“价值”，我将主要依靠埃德加·h·沙因(2004)的文化模型和米尔顿·罗奇(Milton Rokeach)在1973年和1979年提出的理论立场。尽管本文旨在观察和讨论爱沙尼亚考古学家的规范和个人价值体系，但本文的目的并不是评估爱沙尼亚考古学家的行为是否合乎道德。此外，这项研究的结果只反映了爱沙尼亚的情况，如果没有在其他国家进行类似的研究，就不可能比较不同地区考古学家的价值体系。虽然这类研究将非常有益，并有助于将当前文章的结果置于更国际化的背景下，但为了对欧洲考古学家的价值观和道德行为做出更广泛的结论，在这个主题上进行的研究还不够。考古学中的价值研究是一个相对较新的课题。在考古文献中，这个话题主要是与考古对象或考古现象作为信息来源的价值有关。考古学家自身的价值以及考古学的整体价值领域受到的关注较少。价值观与考古学之间的关系主要是从遗产保护的角度来观察的(例如Mathers et al. 2004;Cooper et al. 2005)。在美国和澳大利亚，这一主题与土著人民密切相关(例如Byrne 1991;莱顿1994;斯特朗1997)。这些作品通常通过对过去的概念、对过去的使用、价值冲突、伦理责任等来处理文化认同及其考古学上的承认。在爱沙尼亚，作为本文基础的研究是第一次尝试研究考古学家的价值，希望为该领域的未来研究开辟一条道路(见Livin 2010)。…
{"title":"THE REALM OF VALUES OF ESTONIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS","authors":"Liis Livin","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.1.03","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Topics concerning the relationship between archaeology and ethics are discussed all over the world. Estonian archaeologists have followed these societal developments and begun to ponder over the ethics of archaeology. One of the markers of such a development is the compilation and adoption of a code of ethics of Estonian archaeology--\"Ethical principles of an archaeologist\" (EPA) (1). It is a sign that archaeologists use the outputs of practical ethics to make their work more efficient and reason-based. The code embodies the idea of an ethical archaeology, which is a promise to archaeologists themselves, to their colleagues and to the society to behave in an ethical manner. Ethical behaviour is composed of numerous moral principles. Abiding by those principles should lead to the best possible practices and behaviour. That, however, requires knowledge about values. Having been part of the process of creating the code of ethics (see Livin 2008) I have realized that the theme of ethics in archaeology needs to evolve to a new and deeper level-the level of values. Archaeologists have an important and responsible role in society as interpreters of cultural heritage and creators of knowledge. Their narrations about the past facilitate the creation and uphold of national identity and memory. Thus, the moral dimension of an archaeologist's profession derives largely from his/her responsibilities towards the public. This is probably the primary reason why an archaeologist should be ethically fit. The president and founder of the Institute of Global Ethics, Dr. Rushworth M. Kidder states that most wrongdoings arise because actions are out of sync with values either with an individual's inner values or with values we can reasonably take for granted in the community at large. This incongruity arises because those values have remained more or less undefined (Kidder 2003, 43). This article seeks to map out the value system of Estonian archaeologists and simultaneously bring out the most important professional values of archaeologists. For conceptualizing and defining \"value\", I will primarily rely on Edgar H. Schein's (2004) model of culture and Milton Rokeach's theoretical standpoints presented in 1973 and 1979. Even though the current article aims to observe and discuss the normative and individual value system of archaeologists in Estonia, the goal of this paper is not to evaluate whether Estonian archaeologists behave ethically or not. Also, the results brought out in this study only reflect the situation in Estonia and without similar research conducted in other countries, it is not possible to compare the value systems of archaeologists from different regions. While this sort of study would be highly beneficial and would help put the results of the current article in a more international context, not enough research has been carried out on this topic in order to make broader conclusions about the values and ethical behaviour among European ar","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87216127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.05
H. Luik
About 50 bone artefacts and pieces of bone working scrap have been found at the Keava hill fort and Linnaaluste settlement sites. More than half of these items were discovered among faunal remains in the course of the investigation of animal bones. From settlement sites I and III of Linnaaluste, finds typical of the Viking Age, particularly in northern and western Estonia, have been recovered. Finds from Keava hill fort have analogies among the finds from many hill forts and settlement sites of the Final Iron Age. Most of the bone artefacts were made of bones of domestic animals, and objects and working scrap of bones of wild animals are few in number. Based on the random choice of bones plus the level of bone working and the number of artefacts and scrap pieces in Linnaaluste, as well as in Keava, bone working was a domestic craft, and users themselves made the necessary artefacts. From the found bone artefacts it is also possible to gain information about some occupations other than bone working. 1 The research was financed by the target financed research project No. SF0130012s08.
{"title":"BONE ARTEFACTS FROM THE KEAVA HILL FORT AND LINNAALUSTE SETTLEMENT SITES","authors":"H. Luik","doi":"10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.05","url":null,"abstract":"About 50 bone artefacts and pieces of bone working scrap have been found at the Keava hill fort and Linnaaluste settlement sites. More than half of these items were discovered among faunal remains in the course of the investigation of animal bones. From settlement sites I and III of Linnaaluste, finds typical of the Viking Age, particularly in northern and western Estonia, have been recovered. Finds from Keava hill fort have analogies among the finds from many hill forts and settlement sites of the Final Iron Age. Most of the bone artefacts were made of bones of domestic animals, and objects and working scrap of bones of wild animals are few in number. Based on the random choice of bones plus the level of bone working and the number of artefacts and scrap pieces in Linnaaluste, as well as in Keava, bone working was a domestic craft, and users themselves made the necessary artefacts. From the found bone artefacts it is also possible to gain information about some occupations other than bone working. 1 The research was financed by the target financed research project No. SF0130012s08.","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74557271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.10
V. Lang, A. Heinsalu, S. Veski
Peat record from a very small basin, the former mire of Verevainu, in the nearest vicinity of the prehistoric settlement centre at Keava (4th century BC – early 13th century AD), was investigated by palaeo-ecological means, namely by pollen, charcoal, and loss-on-ignition analyses and radiocarbon dating. The study aimed at ascertaining the appearance of prehistoric man in the area and reconstructing the local vegetation history and human impact on the environment around the settlement centre. According to palaeo-ecological evidence the first sporadic cereal pollen grains appeared in the sediments in the Late Bronze Age. Both peat ignition residue values as indicators of topsoil erosion and pollen evidence suggest forest clearance, opening of landscape, and cultivation of cereals from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Approximately at AD 350–500 the rate of human impact upon environment increased notably. The comparison of palaeo-ecological data with archaeological evidence of human inhabitation displays not only large coincidences but also some discrepancies. 1
{"title":"A COMPARISON OF PALAEO-ECOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF HUMAN HABITATION AT KEAVA","authors":"V. Lang, A. Heinsalu, S. Veski","doi":"10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.10","url":null,"abstract":"Peat record from a very small basin, the former mire of Verevainu, in the nearest vicinity of the prehistoric settlement centre at Keava (4th century BC – early 13th century AD), was investigated by palaeo-ecological means, namely by pollen, charcoal, and loss-on-ignition analyses and radiocarbon dating. The study aimed at ascertaining the appearance of prehistoric man in the area and reconstructing the local vegetation history and human impact on the environment around the settlement centre. According to palaeo-ecological evidence the first sporadic cereal pollen grains appeared in the sediments in the Late Bronze Age. Both peat ignition residue values as indicators of topsoil erosion and pollen evidence suggest forest clearance, opening of landscape, and cultivation of cereals from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Approximately at AD 350–500 the rate of human impact upon environment increased notably. The comparison of palaeo-ecological data with archaeological evidence of human inhabitation displays not only large coincidences but also some discrepancies. 1","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89229792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.3176/ARCH.2012.SUPV1.06
L. Maldre
The present paper discusses the results of archaeozoological analyses of materials collected from the settlements of Linnaaluste and from the hill fort of Keava. Also the issues concerning the anatomical composition of bone material and the age of animals at slaughter are examined. The prevailing part of bone fragments belong to domesticated animals. The sheep/goats are dominating species in the materials of the Viking Age settlements (I and III). The percentage of sheep/goat is somewhat smaller and the percentage of pig is greater in the material of Final Iron Age hill fort. The relative importance of pig is even more prominent in the material of II settlement, which is mixed with bone fragments of later period. The percentage of cattle is approximately the same in all materials. The bones of game are few, the represented species are beaver, elk, fox, hare and bear. The comparative analyses of results are conducted; for comparison the archaeozoological data of other Estonian settlements and hill forts from Viking Age and Final Iron Age are used. 1 This study was supported by the target financed research project No. SF0130012s08 and grants from Estonian Science Foundation (Nos 7880 and 8526).
{"title":"ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM THE SETTLEMENT SITES AT LINNAALUSTE AND THE HILL FORT AT KEAVA","authors":"L. Maldre","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.SUPV1.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.SUPV1.06","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper discusses the results of archaeozoological analyses of materials collected from the settlements of Linnaaluste and from the hill fort of Keava. Also the issues concerning the anatomical composition of bone material and the age of animals at slaughter are examined. The prevailing part of bone fragments belong to domesticated animals. The sheep/goats are dominating species in the materials of the Viking Age settlements (I and III). The percentage of sheep/goat is somewhat smaller and the percentage of pig is greater in the material of Final Iron Age hill fort. The relative importance of pig is even more prominent in the material of II settlement, which is mixed with bone fragments of later period. The percentage of cattle is approximately the same in all materials. The bones of game are few, the represented species are beaver, elk, fox, hare and bear. The comparative analyses of results are conducted; for comparison the archaeozoological data of other Estonian settlements and hill forts from Viking Age and Final Iron Age are used. 1 This study was supported by the target financed research project No. SF0130012s08 and grants from Estonian Science Foundation (Nos 7880 and 8526).","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76943780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.3176/ARCH.2012.SUPV1.02
V. Lang
Archaeological investigations at the hill fort of Keava have revealed the remains of five fortification phases dating from the 5th6th centuries to the early 13th century. The earliest two phases (forts I and II) were recognizable only in the area of the ramparts as definite fortification structures. The later phases (forts IIIV) since the late 10th early 11th century were observable both in the area of the ramparts (defensive structures) and in the compound (building remains), as well as in the find assemblage. The hidden gateway beneath the rampart was first built during phase III; in later times, however, it was repeatedly rebuilt. Stone material was widely used in the construction of the rampart and the gateway of the last fort, which dated from the late 12th early 13th century. The fort was finally captured by the crusaders, most likely in 1224; they dug a large hollow on the northern hill slope and dropped the rampart. 1 This study was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence CECT), the target financed theme No. SF0180150s08, and by the research grants from Estonian Science Foundation (Nos 4563 and 6451).
{"title":"BUILDING REMAINS AT THE HILL FORT OF KEAVA","authors":"V. Lang","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2012.SUPV1.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2012.SUPV1.02","url":null,"abstract":"Archaeological investigations at the hill fort of Keava have revealed the remains of five fortification phases dating from the 5th6th centuries to the early 13th century. The earliest two phases (forts I and II) were recognizable only in the area of the ramparts as definite fortification structures. The later phases (forts IIIV) since the late 10th early 11th century were observable both in the area of the ramparts (defensive structures) and in the compound (building remains), as well as in the find assemblage. The hidden gateway beneath the rampart was first built during phase III; in later times, however, it was repeatedly rebuilt. Stone material was widely used in the construction of the rampart and the gateway of the last fort, which dated from the late 12th early 13th century. The fort was finally captured by the crusaders, most likely in 1224; they dug a large hollow on the northern hill slope and dropped the rampart. 1 This study was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence CECT), the target financed theme No. SF0180150s08, and by the research grants from Estonian Science Foundation (Nos 4563 and 6451).","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82109616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-01-01DOI: 10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.03
A. Tvauri
During archaeological excavations at the Keava hill fort, 137 artefacts and approximately 1680 potsherds were recovered from the area of 88 m. Most of the recovered artefacts belong to types, which were used during the 11th13th centuries. In the deeper layers of excavation area I, pottery fragments dating to the Viking Age were found. A spearhead found earlier in the hill fort belongs to the 11th century. All of the other artefacts that can be dated with reasonable certainty belong to the late 12th century or the first quarter of the 13th century. Finds from Keava are ample but also typical of the Estonian Final Iron Age hill forts (e.g. Varbola, Soontagana and Lõhavere). The assemblage is mainly composed of ornaments, personal belongings, metal parts of clothing, scrap metal and bronze work residues. 1 This study was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence CECT), the target financed theme No. SF0180150s08, and by the research grants from the Estonian Science Foundation (nos 4563 and 6451).
{"title":"ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS FROM THE HILL FORT AT KEAVA","authors":"A. Tvauri","doi":"10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2012.supv1.03","url":null,"abstract":"During archaeological excavations at the Keava hill fort, 137 artefacts and approximately 1680 potsherds were recovered from the area of 88 m. Most of the recovered artefacts belong to types, which were used during the 11th13th centuries. In the deeper layers of excavation area I, pottery fragments dating to the Viking Age were found. A spearhead found earlier in the hill fort belongs to the 11th century. All of the other artefacts that can be dated with reasonable certainty belong to the late 12th century or the first quarter of the 13th century. Finds from Keava are ample but also typical of the Estonian Final Iron Age hill forts (e.g. Varbola, Soontagana and Lõhavere). The assemblage is mainly composed of ornaments, personal belongings, metal parts of clothing, scrap metal and bronze work residues. 1 This study was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence CECT), the target financed theme No. SF0180150s08, and by the research grants from the Estonian Science Foundation (nos 4563 and 6451).","PeriodicalId":42767,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73258987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：