Experiencing the landscape/Maastikku kogedes.

Experiencing the landscape/Maastikku kogedes. Introduction To be human is to be place-bound in a fundamental way (Tilley 2004,25) The connections between people and their surrounding landscape havebeen different in different places and times. In the past, as amongstpresent traditional tribes, it was probably more intimate and deeper.The landscape was treated as an animated whole and people communicatedwith it. Originally even hostile landscape was humanized and socializedthrough social practices (Tacon 2000, 50). All that might have left somemarks on landscape, but not necessarily. At the same time theserelations between the people and the landscape affected people'smental worlds, their mental map. Although landscape is a physicalentity, it is socially constructed in the minds of people and thesemental images and cognitive constructions are controlled by people(Children & Nash 1997, 1). So its importance for the settlers was(and is) not only economical, but also mental. People have always and everywhere explained their surroundings forthemselves, whether it is landscape as a whole or some of its elements.These explanations and reasons for searching them have probably emergedfrom the sense of place and landscape experience and from personalconnectedness with it, no matter if it comes directly or through theancestors. Especially in the latter case, an oral tradition, connectedwith some places in the landscape has played an important part (c.f.e.g. Tacon 2000, 50). Landscape is the only real thing that connectspeople of different periods--the same landscapes that are inhabitedtoday were often inhabited also millenniums ago. Undoubtedly pastlandscapes differed from those of the present but the prominentlandscape features remain the same. Changes have taken place: onceforested areas may now be open, a number of bodies of water havedisappeared or turned into bogs, rivers may have changed their course,but the main features still exist. The study of the landscape use has long traditions in Estonianarchaeology. In essence, attention has been paid to the surroundingnature of almost every excavated object. True enough, it was not broughtout separately in earlier period, but indirectly even these earlystudies give at least some idea of the landscape where some object wasfound, or that was used for some purpose. A large number of such worksexist, the oldest of them date to the end of the 19th century (e.g.Grewingk 1884). In the first half of the 20th century, more attentionwas paid to the past natural environment (e.g. Indreko 1934; Vassar1938), later years brought even more exact studies of the influence thenatural environment had upon the ancient human settlement (e.g. Moora1966; 1972; 1998; Lang 1996; 2000; Kruska 1999; 2001; 2003; Magi 2002;2004). As an addition, different layers of meaning of the landscape havebeen studied (Lang 1999; Vedru 2002). A profound analysis of landscapestudies in Estonian archaeology can be found in the article written byValter Lang (Lang 2006). All these works have focused on different aspects of the relationsbetween man and landscape, the most important of these has beenlandscape as an environment for living. This approach is also used inthe present article because the landscape experience is affected mostlyby nature, but additionally other layers of meaning of the landscape areconsidered. Most important of them is the sense of place. Which placeswere valued in different periods and why? How was the attitude towardsplaces expressed? More and more attention has been paid to the recent landscapestudies carried out in micro-scale (Bender 2001). It means more detailedanalysis in local (natural) environment and enables to detect nuancesthat could stay unnoticed otherwise. The meaning of micro-scale candiffer according to the size of the study area. In the present work itmeans a detailed study of the landscape. Questions considering the useof landscape and thereby also the sense of place can find answers if thesmall details of landscape are studied. Viewing the landscape Every place in landscape is meaningful for its inhabitants; it hasits meaning and story, some kind of importance, hierarchy, biography andgenius loci. The significance of places is different: some of them beingmore important than others. Landscape bears multi-layered meanings andsymbols, it is laden with knowledge, memories and forgetting. Placesdiffer from each other as differs also the attitude towards them. Themain topic of this article considers the attitude of ancient people totheir surrounding landscape. How is it possible to determine suchattitude in the past if it is quite certain that it is impossible tofind two persons who perceive a place in a similar way in the present(e.g. Bender 1993; Tuan 1990)? The only source of interpretation is thelandscape, how and why people used it, how they changed it or, viceversa, left unchanged. The main obstacle in such study can be thelandscape use of later periods that has caused several, sometimes quitecardinal changes that can complicate not only the discovery of ancientsettlement traces but also enable the reconstruction ofpalaeo-environment. A number of several long-termed processes where theexact chronology is not possible to detect have also taken place in thelandscape. So the task is rather difficult, but starting from the locallandscape and its archaeological objects, one can make some suppositionson the topic. One premise for such work is the good knowledge of landscape of thestudy area. It is based on several field walks in different seasons andhours, walking between the archaeological sites and approaching themfrom different directions. Christopher Tilley has expressed an opinionthat unknown landscape remains invisible--it is not known where or howto look for it. To learn how to do it one must visit the landscape; taketime for getting acquainted with it and get into the spirit of it. Inthe course of being on the landscape, the previously hiddenarchaeological sites come to the fore and the relations between them andtheir surroundings become evident (Tilley 1994, 75). The meaning of landscape varies among researchers, it is even saidthat landscape is in the eyes of the viewer and as such it is perceivedin different ways by people and cultures (Tacon 2000, 34). Today, thesocio-symbolic dimensions of the landscape are emphasised, it existsbecause people experience, perceive and contextualise it (Knapp &Ashmore 2000, 1). The present text is also based on that definition.Landscape in this text means both the nature and man-made objects ofdifferent periods (e.g. stone graves, fossil fields). Several other definitions for landscape exist, and there aredifferent approaches in landscape archaeology. The latter have onecommon statement--landscape is considered as an active component inhuman activities, being something that often caused some type of humanbehaviour (c.f. Vedru 2004, 183-184 and references). That principle isthe starting point also in the present article which analyses aprehistoric settlement of a restricted area in northern Estonia. The prehistoric use of landscape in three villages--Rebala,Joelahtme and Voerdla--is presented, focusing on monumental stone gravesand their places on landscape. Human settlement preceding the stonegraves left only modest traces to the landscape and it is difficult tobelieve that they were somehow visible in the Bronze Age. Nevertheless,quite often traces of earlier habitation have been found during theexcavations of stone graves. Probably the re-use of such places emergesfrom the landscape, its specific features. In later periods people livedin changed landscape in which stone graves were an inseparable part.Settlement traces of different periods form an integral pattern that canbe analysed as a whole to get a good review of the long-term processesin the landscape. I have been interested in the landscapes of Rebala since 2005 whenI carried out archaeological supervision in the village. Walking in astrange and unknown location, new places opened to me; they posedquestions and made me search for answers in the local landscape. Thesesearches, walks and discussions with local people inspired me to studythis topic more thoroughly. The first short visits were followed byothers that were more exhaustive; my understanding of the landscape, itspast and present was formed during these visits. Rebala and its neighbouring villages are interrelated and it is notalways possible to mark exact boundaries where the lands of one villageend and others start. In nature several places occur that can beinterpreted as borders, but Rebala and its neighbours are not divided inthat way. The klint terrace, steep in some places and separating theNorth-Estonian Plateau from the lowlands situated north of it, is theonly visible boundary here. One point of interest for me is the question of borders in thelandscape. How did they look in concrete places and how people perceivedand marked them. Intermediate zones, separating different settlementunits are often considered in archaeological literature. These wereareas with unsuitable conditions for human activities like bogs, rivervalleys, forests (Lang 1996, 349). These are natural boundaries ortransitional places where ordinary landscape was transformed. Stonegraves were often built in liminal places: near the klint escarpment,karst and bodies of water. Such liminal places in landscape couldpossess special importance for people, they were connected with change,transition in landscape and also in mentality. Similarly the grave mighthave been considered as a ritual place that was connected with personsresp. dead transition from one world to another, from one existence toanother. So the double effect was operating and one change andtransition emphasized another. But not all graves where built in suchplaces, so my interest expanded to the possible importance of other kindof landscapes and I searched for reasons that made them important andattractive enough to be proper places for graves. The aim of this work is not to give a detailed review of thearchaeological sites, or of the finds of Rebala, Joelahtme and Voerdla,that information is partly published elsewhere (Lougas 1983; 1997;Kalman 1999; Lang 1996, 39705; Lang et al. 2001). The results ofexcavations are used to reconstruct the overall settlement, but Iconcentrate on landscape experience through selection and use of places.This text gives no descriptions of the surroundings of every grave andcup-marked stone and/or the views that open from them, but emphasizesthe major features of the landscape that might have been treated asspecial. As the graves and sometimes also the cup-marked stones arelocated in close groups, the views from them are quite similar. Theviews opened to prominent features of the landscape that were and stillare different, with different meaning and range of influence. (1) Rebala, Voerdla and Joelahtme: nature, sites and the use oflandscape Three villages under study are located in Joelahtme parish,Harjumaa. The North-Estonian klint is not very far: Voerdla and Rebalaare ca 4 and 3 km from it; the lands of Joelahtme reach to it throughEllandvahe. The study area is bordered by the valley of the Jagala Riverin the east that separates it from the settlement units of Jagala andRuu, located on the eastern riverbank. Joelahtme River flows throughJoelahtme village. It starts near Voose village and runs into JagalaRiver 46 km away; it the karst region of Kostivere the Joelahtme Rivergoes underground and runs there for 2.5 km. It comes in sight again inthe southern part of Joelahtme village ca 20 m south from present StPetersburg highway (Jarvekulg 2001, 482). The large karst region ofKostivere is situated southeast from the centre of present Joelahtmevillage. In this whole region both alvars and thicker moraine soils canbe found. A few damp areas are located in the lands of the Rebalavillage that probably mark previous bogs. The areas north and west fromthe Rebala and Voerdla villages are damaged by the phosphorite miningthat has left deep openwork pits surrounded by high soil mounds. Inother places the landscapes are quite original. As it is difficult todraw borders between the Rebala and Voerdla villages, their material isdiscussed together. The oldest traces of human activities in the region date back tothe Late Neolithic. A settlement site of the Corded Ware Culture (AI4779) is located in the eastern part of Voerdla village on a meadow notvery far from the damp area (Lang 1996, 397-398, fig. 112). It ispossible that the southern part of the Voerdla village was inhabited asearly as in the Mesolithic, where several pieces of quartz flakes withworking traces were gathered (Vedru 2005, 1). That possible settlementsite is situated far from the bodies of water and it is not inaccordance with the typical landscape use of the Mesolithic. As thequartz tools were also used in later periods, this settlement siteremains undated. Two stone axes have been found from the study area. One of them isan adze that was found from the village of Rebala (AI 5381) and theother is a late shaft-hole axe (Lang 1996, 397), found on the left bankof Jagala River, somewhere near Ellandvahe, the area of stone graves inlater period. Changes in people's worldview, beliefs and through that alsoin the use of the landscape found their ultimate expression in theBronze Age. These changes left their visible marks also on the studyarea. A large number of stone-cist graves and cup-marked stones areknown. Both form groups mostly but sometimes they can be foundseparately. Although the graves and stones are often in similar naturalconditions, it is not always so. All the graves are situated on dry landand possibly also on higher spots, but some of the cup-marked stones arelocated on the edges of damp areas or even in the middle of them. Theselatter places can be considered as liminal. In Rebala and Voerdla villages both stone-cist graves andcup-marked stones can be found, the number of graves is especially inRebala higher than the number of stones. The stones concentrate mainlyon areas south from Rebala. The cup-marked stones of the villages of Rebala and Voerdla arerather big and clearly visible on the landscape. Some of them arelocated within a short distance of each other and they have visualbounds. The earth's surface is undulating, but the changes inheight remain marginal and the views opening up from most of the stonesare wide and far-reaching. In the village of Voerdla, the largest area with stones and gravesis situated north from the Old Narva road and east and southeast fromthe present village (Figs 1, 2). Fifteen stone graves and sevencup-marked stones are located in an area measuring ca 700 X 850 m. Thesesites are located on flat terrain, and the views from them are wide(Fig. 3). Some cup-marked stones are located in the western part of theRebala village. Two of them have been moved from their original placesin the course of stone clearing, carried out during the Soviet period.The third stone not very far from these two is very big and it stands inits original place. It is on a sloping land: the surface rises innortheast and east and closes the view, in other points of compass thesurface remains in the same level or descends a little. At present theland surrounding that stone is damp and bumpy. That could result fromthe drainage of the Soviet period, but it may be a relic from a previousbog that was drained. (2) [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] The graves of Rebala are situated in three main groups that havedifferent natural settings. Lastekangrud are located ca 1.5 km north ofRebala village, the edge of North-Estonian klint is situated ca 0.8 kmfrom them. The other group of stone graves is located on a ridge ca 0.7km east from Lastekangrud and the third group can be found by theRebala-Joelahtme road. Lastekangrud are located on an alvar area that seems flat. Theirsurroundings were partly destroyed by the phosphorite mining (Fig. 4).Five graves belong to that group. Vello Lougas, who excavated them,found traces from the sixth grave that was only partly preserved (Lougas1983, 295). The graves are in two groups located at a distance of ca 60m (Lang et al. 2001, fig. 1). In both groups the graves are quite closeand the views from them are similar. The southern group consists of three graves located on thenorthwest southeast line; the grave in the middle is in the highestspot. Differences in the height of the surface are minor, but clearlyvisible; the grave in the middle might possess special status in thisgroup. Maybe it is the oldest, i.e. the first grave? Charcoal gatheredbeneath the graves was dated to the 12th-10th centuries BC. One of theskeletons from the first grave was dated to the 8th-6th centuries BC,also the grave goods were of later date, but these can indicate that thegraves were used as burial and cult places also in later periods. Theoriginal burials had probably no grave goods (Lang 2007a, 120). [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] The surrounding terrain is slightly undulating, farther in thesouth and southwest it lowers, ca 0.8 m in the northeast the land risesto a ridge near the klint edge. This rise is quite high and restrictsthe view to the sea. An alvar area is located to the east from thegraves, ca 0.7 m farther it also ascends to a ridge where a number ofstone graves are located (Fig. 4). It is certain that the landscapes of the Bronze Age were differentfrom the present landscapes. The primeval alvar forests still existed atleast to some extent, as indicated in pollen analysis (e.g. Saarse etal. 1999, 397). It is supposed that graves were built into sparse thinforests, used for pasture (Lang 2000, 104; Vedru 2002, 108-109). Thelandscapes of Rebala and Joelahtme might, at least partly, have beencovered with forest. Beneath grave I of the southernmost group of Lastekangrud twosherds of Corded Ware vessel, a number of animal bones and charcoal werefound, interpreted as indicators of an earlier settlement site (Lang etal. 2001, 39). The second group of graves is situated ca 0.7 km east of theLastekangrud and ca 0.2 km to the west of Manniva road (Kalman 1999,fig. 1). Graves are located on a large ridge near the buried klint. Theridge is clearly visible from Lastekangrud but the graves on it remaininvisible. It seems that both the ridge and the klint edge wereimportant for grave builders. The stone graves near the klint of Rebala can be divided into twogroups, both oriented to the klint edge. Some of them--the firstgroup--were built on a ridge running towards the klint edge. It consistsof a dozen graves. The ridge rises about 1.5 metres from the surroundinglandscape and approaching it from lower areas, especially fromsoutheast, the graves on it loom monumentally (Fig. 5). One of thegraves on the ridge is very large, the others are more modest. As theridge is directed approximately in the south north direction, the klintedge is not visible on the southernmost graves. On the graves located onthe northern part of the ridge, the coastal plain and also the sea arevisible. The other group of graves is located on a lower area, on thegently sloping klint edge, covered with soil. The remote Valkla klint isalso visible from most of the graves near the klint of Rebala. Just some20 m to the west, a small damp area is located, (3) the age of which isnot possible to determine. The graves on the ridge, as elsewhere, have been built in thecourse of a long time and the present picture is the result of a longprocess. At the beginning both the ridge and klint edge were probablyconsidered important, as might also be the sea in the distance. What wasthe most important of them is of course not known; maybe it was the factthat all these special features occurred in one place. [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] No graves have been investigated here, but deciding from theirlocation, the oldest graves are possibly the graves on the ridge; thegraves located on the lower area might be of later date. The third group of graves is situated by the small road that leadsfrom Rebala to Joelahtme; to the east and southeast from Rebala (Fig.6). These graves can be divided into several groups; the first is in thevicinity of Rebala village (Fig. 6: I); the second can be found by theManniva road (Fig. 6: II) and the third in Joelahtme (Fig. 7). Thosegroups can in turn be divided into subgroups. The quite large graves of group I are located on flat terrain insimilar natural conditions. The distance between the graves is from 2 to20 metres. Views from the graves are quite similar: ca 1 km to the northand northwest is the same ridge where the previous graves are locatedand which closes further view; in the east the terrain gently slopes andthe view is extensive; from the southeast to the southwest the land isundulating, as is the view. Behind the northernmost graves of this groupthe land declines. Approaching these graves from the northwestdirection, we can see only the farther areas in the west and northwest,all other directions are closed off and the only view opens to the gravein front. A separate group of stone-cist graves is located west of the smallroad that leads from Rebala-Joelahtme road to Manniva road (Fig. 6: II).These graves are more modest as is their natural setting. Three gravesare located in close group on the slightly undulating terrain. One stonegrave is located near the crossroad, and does not belong to the samegroup. (4) [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] [FIGURE 7 OMITTED] A number of stone graves are situated by the eastern part of thesame road leading from Rebala to Joelahtme (Fig. 7). They stand from twoto twenty metres from each other in similar natural context. Searchingfor characteristic features of the landscape we can say that thesegraves are situated at the edge of openness and closedness. The view isclosed in the directions between the southwest and north-northeast; theview towards the southern areas is also not very extensive. A wider viewopens only to the northeast and east direction. Approaching from thenortheast direction from Ellandvahe, the land rises in front and theonly views open to two stone graves, which look monumental on thehorizon (Fig. 8). The twenty stone graves of Ellandvahe are located north ofJoelahtme on the lands of Ellandvahe farmstead (Fig. 9). Graves arelocated about 60-200 metres from the escarpment on the land descendingtowards west and south. As the land rises also between the graves andthe escarpment, both the coastal plain and river valley are not visiblefrom the graves. As an addition to the klint edge, the big stones of thearea were taken into consideration when the graves were built. The bigboulder of Ellandvahe (height 5.7 m, circuit 32.3 m) is only some 300metres from the southernmost graves of the group and on the same levelwith them. A little farther to the south and southwest the land startsto get lower again. All the graves in Ellandvahe are positioned betweenthe boulder and the klint escarpment. It is possible that the boulderacted as a landmark for people who came from southern directions, andmarked the way to the graves and/or a ritual area. A number of smallerstones are also located in the vicinity. The south-easternmost of thegraves is surrounded by three large stones at a distance of ca 20 m: theboulder is in the south, and others in north and northwest. It seemsthat the most important features have been the stones in differentdirections and the grave was built between them. Maybe it is the oldestgrave in Ellandvahe group? [FIGURE 8 OMITTED] [FIGURE 9 OMITTED] Arthur Spreckelsen excavated three of them in the 1920s; two weredated to the Bronze Age and one to the 3rd-4th centuries (Lang 1996,40102). Beside the graves, there is also a cup-marked stone. Unlike thegraves, it is on the coastal plain, some dozen metres from theescarpment. So it was in the same area with the graves, but entirely indifferent natural conditions. As in several other places near the North-Estonian klint, thegraves were built in the zone of the escarpment but not in its immediatevisibility. So it was not important to have a view to lower areas or tosome body of water; due to the rise of land they are invisible from thegraves. If the graves had been built about 20100 metres from theirpresent location, they would have been in places where both could bevisible. It seems that the closest vicinity of the klint edge wasavoided intentionally. There are also other stone graves and cup-marked stones inJoelahtme. The graves are located in several groups of different sizes.The biggest of them consists of 36 graves and is located at the distanceof some 100 metres from Joelahtme river, not far from the place were theriver appears again. Those graves are not in their original location;previously they were even closer to the river. As an addition, twograves are situated closer to the river: one on its left and the otheron its right bank. On the left riverbank also a probable cup-markedstone is located. The graves are visible from each other. There is adifference between the locations of these graves: the riverbed isvisible from the grave on the left bank, but not from the grave on theright bank. From the latter it seems that there is no river between thetwo graves. The characteristic feature is spaciousness. Later developments on the landscape Human settlement of the study area continued also in latercenturies. At least one of the graves of Ellandvahe was used for burialsin the Roman Iron Age, and it is possible that other graves were used inthat period as well. Also stone graves in Lastekangrud and Joelahtmewere used then. In the Middle Iron Age people were buried in thestone-grave of Rebala Presti. According to archaeological finds,settlements were established in all three villages in the Viking Age.The settlement site of Rebala was located on the dry higher parts of thepresent village. Traces of human activity of the Viking Age were foundbetween the easternmost graves that are situated by the Rebala-Joelahtmeroad. A few potsherds were gathered from the surface of the earth. Nosettlement layer was detracted; maybe the area was used for some otherpurpose. The settlement site of Voerdla was located on the southern partof the present village and the settlement site of Joelahtme on bothsides of the river by the sides of the Old Narva road. Discussion: (re)interpreting the landscape--people'slandscapes Three questions arise from the text above. First, how did ancientpeople experience the world and what was important for them? Theactivities that were carried out in landscape were determined by theexperience of landscape and its interpretation for people and for thecommunity. Which places were preferred and why? Second, what made oneplace more important than others? Some of the places had more power andthey were finally ritualised through grave building. Third, what wasimportant in the landscape and why? Landscape has been a source of inspiration for people living indifferent times and places. People's myths and understanding of theworld and its genesis are connected with it, as is the understanding ofa righteous way of living. People feel safe in their natural environmentwhere they can read every sign, the existence of which remains invisibleto outsiders. Such a starting point is characteristic of people livingin any type of natural conditions, also of those whose environment seemsrough or unfriendly (Tuan 1990, 77-85). It is quite understandable thatthe inhabitants of northern Estonia had similar relations to theirsurrounding environment. Why did people decide to alter some places by constructingmonuments? It has been stressed that stone graves were built to placesthat differed from the ordinary, e.g. on elevations, near the klint edgeand bodies of water (Lang 1999; 2000, 202). The study area is noexception, but in the micro-scale more details can be determined. Why a place was selected can be explained more easily in suchplaces where some outstanding natural object is located. In the studyarea this is most obvious in the cases of the ridge in Rebala village;near Joelahtme River and in Ellandvahe. These are all understandablechoices. The ridge with graves comes to the fore from all directions.Compared to the location of the Lastekangrud group, it is much moreimpressive; the views from the ridge open widely to lower areas and fromits northern end the sea is also visible. It is possible that there wasalso a bog near the ridge. Bogs and mires have possessed ritual meaningin several places and during a long period. Sacrifices have been made inthem since the Mesolithic until today in Britain, Ireland, theNetherlands, Northern Germany, Denmark and southern Scandinavia(Williams 2003, 91 and references). Among the sacrifices, dated to theBronze and Iron Ages are humans (Williams 2003), skulls (Lang 2007b,37), bronze and golden objects (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 294,306, fig. 139), pottery, etc. (Bradley 2002, 53, 55, 61). Relying onsimilar ritual activity it has been suggested that such places acted asnatural sanctuaries for the Bronze Age people, representing the lowerworld in their cosmology (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 306, 355).Building graves near bogs may carry the same belief. As an addition toRebala, graves can be found near bogs in Vao (Lang 1996, fig. 102) andin Saunja (Lang 1996, 121). Cup-marked stones are located near bogs andmires more often than graves. Such stones are known in Rebala, Vandjala,Maardu and other places. Maybe the nearby bog was one of the natural attractions for thebuilders of the graves of the Lastekangrud group. Large peat bogs wereonce in the place of the present phosphorite quarry. So it seems thatLastekangrud were built on flat fertile terrain in the vicinity of thebog. As the place was inhabited earlier, this environment could havebeen connected with ancestors or gods and their deeds. So the bog in thewest and the ridge farther in the east were mentally important. Evidencefor such connections between the features of the landscape and ancestralactivities are known from traditional cultures inhabiting several placesof the world (e.g. Tacon 2000; Tilley 1994, 37-67). The landscape isrepresented in myth and it represents the myth (Tilley 1994, 47).Although these cultures remain far in time and distance, they can bementioned just for understanding how different people'sunderstandings and attitudes towards the landscape can be. At the same time, building graves on previously important locationshas altered them essentially (Cummings 2003, 35) and with that act, alsothe attitude of the future generations was changed. New features wereadded to the landscape and new relevant knowledge. What features were considered important in Voerdla where twentygraves are located? This area is characterized by spaciousness and wideviews in all directions. Prominent features of the landscape are missingat present. In the vicinity of the grave field and cup-marked stones isa settlement site of the Corded Ware Culture and so the place isconnected with previous generations. A bog was located at a distance ofca 150 m from the north-westernmost graves and stones. If bogs andswamps were considered important places, then its vicinity may have beeninfluential in this location. Some of the cup-marked stones weresituated at the edge of the bog. It is not a unique case. In theneighbourhood of the study area a number of cup-marked stones can befound near swamps. In Loo village several cup-marked stones are standingnear the swamp and one is in the middle. In Maardu village one stone isin a damp depression. Viewing the distribution maps from a wider area,it is clear that cup-marked stones can often be found on the edges ofswamps and bogs (c.f. Lang 1996, figs 102, 108, 113, 118, 121, 129,132). One can suppose that this indicates the peculiar nature of suchplaces and these places were consequently treated in a different way. The other stone graves in Rebala are on quite flat terrain. Twograves of the first group are located on the edge of a small terrace;approaching these graves from the northeast, most of the landscaperemains invisible and the graves look monumental on the horizon. Thesame effect appears in two graves of the Joelahtme group, located onlyca 0.5 km to the east. Also the proper or right direction forapproaching them is the same--northeast. It is not possible that theimpression of the graves in a closed landscape was unnoticed by thegrave builders. That leads to the suggestion that people who built thegraves knew their landscape in detail. A place for future graves waschosen carefully, and the first grave was built in the most prominentlocation. Maybe the north-eastern direction had some kind of ritualimportance? Also the boulder of Ellandvahe, visible from the graves ofJoelahtme is situated northeast from the graves (Fig. 10). The distancebetween two locations is ca 1.5 km; it is possible that a roadconnecting them went also in that direction. In the case of Ellandvahe the nature is visibly different fromother areas--the place is at the edge of settled land, a liminal placein itself. As in several other places near the North-Estonian klint, thegraves were built in the zone of the escarpment, but are visible. So itwas not important to have a view of the lower areas or of some body ofwater, due to the rise of land they are invisible from the graves. Ifthe graves had been built about 20-100 metres from their presentlocation, they would have been in places where both could be visible. Itseems that the closest vicinity of the klint edge was avoidedintentionally. Other important landmarks were the boulder and possiblyother smaller stones in the vicinity. Although these stones bear nocup-marks, the importance of big stones is quite obvious. [FIGURE 10 OMITTED] It is possible that some important places were changed throughhuman activities while others remained unchanged. Both stone-cist gravesand cup-marked stones were often situated in natural borders--in liminalplaces, e.g. the Lastekangrud of Rebala, graves on the ridge and gravesof Ellandvahe. Conclusions People experience and interpret landscape in different ways and itis not possible to decide why some places were used for some activities.Especially difficult is to answer the question why graves were built inone place and why some stones bear cup-marks and others do not. In amicro-scale analysis we can point to some features in the locallandscape that could promote such activities. People have sought fordifference in landscape and when they found it, they used it with adifferent purpose. The important features of the study area were ridgesand lower terraces, klint, karst and probably also bogs. Wide views openfrom graves and stones and several natural objects are visible indistances. People in the landscape moved between the places, experiencedand interpreted their surroundings. A number of graves and cup-markedstones are located in places that can be considered liminal. These areborders in the landscape where the ordinary meets the different, thatwere perceived as special. These were the places where alvar met thebog, high limestone plateau ended suddenly, a river suddenly appears.These places were often used differently, mostly for burying the dead;cup-marked stones can be found in these locations as well. Somewherebetween these liminal places were the settlement sites and ordinarylandscapes of people. These landscapes carried their own meanings andwere experienced and perceived in different ways. All these placestogether formed part of people's worldview, theirself-determination and understanding of the world. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to geologist Mati Ilomets foranswering my questions considering bogs and mires. I would also like tothank Mati Nairismagi for his help during and after my field works inRebala. References Bender, B. 1993. Introduction. Landscape--meaning andaction.--Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Ed. B. Bender. Berg,Providence; Oxford, 1-17. Bender, B. 2001. Introduction.--Contested Landscapes. Movement,Exile and Place. Eds B. Bender & M. Winer. Berg, Oxford; New York,1-18. Bradley, R 2002. An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge,London; New York. Children, G. & Nash, G. 1997. Establishing a discourse: thelanguage of landscape.--Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind.(BAR International Series, 661, 1-4.) Ed. G. Nash. Archaeopress. Cummings, V. 2003. Building from memory. Remembering the past atNeolithic monuments in western Britain.--Archaeologies of Remembrance.Death and Memory in Past Societies. Ed. H. Williams. KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers, New York; Boston; Dordrecht; London; Moscow,253. Grewingk, C. 1884. Die Neolitische Bewohner von Kunda in Estlandand deren Nahbarn.--Verh. GEG, XII, 1-88. Indreko, R 1934. Looduse ja maastiku maarav osa Eesti muinasaegselasustamisel. (Eesti Rahva Muuseumi aastaraamat, IX-X.) Tartu, 113-122. Jarvekulg, A. 2001. Eesti joed. Tartu University Press, Tartu. Kalman, J. 1999. Human remains from the stone-cist graves of RebalaLastekangrud, north Estonia.--EAA, 3: 1, 19-34. Knapp, A. B. & Ashmore, W. 2000. Archaeological landscapes:constructed, conceptualized, ideational.--Archaeologies of Landscape.Contemporary Perspectives. Eds W. Ashmore & A. B. Knapp. BlackwellPublishers, Oxford, 1-30. Kriiska, A. 1999. Formation and development of the Stone Agesettlement at Riigikula, northeastern Estonia.--Environmental andCultural History of the Eastern Baltic Region. (PACT, 57.) Rixensart,173-183. Kriiska, A. 2001. Stone Age Settlement and Economic Processes inthe Estonian Coastal Area and Islands.http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/kultt/vk/kriiska/ Kriiska, A. 2003. From hunter-fisher-gatherer to farmer--changes inthe Neolithic economy and settlement on Estonianterritory.--Archaeologia Lituana, 4, 11-26. Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T. B. 2005. The Rise of Bronze AgeSociety: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge. Lang, V. 1996. Muistne Ravala. Muistised, kronoloogia jamaaviljelusliku asustase kujunemine Loode-Eestis, eriti Pirita joealamjooksu purkonnas, 1.-2. koide. (MT, 4.) Tallinn. Lang, V. 1999. Kultuurmaastikku luues. Essee maastiku religioossestja sumboliseeritud korraldusest. -EAA, 3: 1, 63-85. Lang, V. 2000. Keskusest aaremaaks. Viljelusmajandusliku asustasekujunemine ja areng Vihasoo-Palmse piirkonnas Virumaal. (MT, 7.)Tallinn, 9-369. Lang, V. 2006. Settlement and landscape archaeology inEstonia.--Archaeological Research in Estonia 1865-2005. Eds V. Lang& M. Laneman. Tartu University Press, Tartu, 293-300. Lang, V. 2007a. Pronksiaeg ja vanem rauaaeg Eestis.http://www.arheo.ut.ee/EA3.htm Lang, V. 2007b. Baltimaade pronksi- ja rauaaeg. Tartu UniversityPress. Lang, V., Laneman, M., IIves, K. & Kalman, J. 2001. Fossilfields and stone-cist graves of Rebala revisited.--AVE, 2000, 347. Lougas, V. 1983. Uber die Steingrabergruppe Lastekangrund inRebala.--TATU, 4, 295-297. Lougas, V. 1997. Archaeological excavations on the settlement siteof Joelahtme.--AVE, 1997, 156-160. Magi, M. 2002. Piirkonnad ja keskused. Asustus muinasaja lopu javarakeskaegsel Saaremaal arheoloogiliste, inimgeograafiliste ningajaloolise aja allikate andmeil.--Keskus--tagamaa--aareala. Uurimusiasustushierarhia ja voimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. (MT, 11.) Ed. V.Lang. Tallinn; Tartu, 169-232. Magi, M. 2004. "... ships are their main strength."Harbour sites, arable lands and chieftains in Saaremaa.--EAA, 8: 2,128-162. Moora, T. 1966. Asustase levimisest uhes Kesk-Eesti piirkonnas m.a.I aastatuhande esimesel poolel.--Pronksiajast varase feodalismini.Uurimusi Baltimaade ja naaberalade arheoloogiast. Eds H. Moora & J.Selirand. Eesti Raamat, Tallinn, 129-138. Moora, T. 1972. Muinasasustusest Lahemaal.--Eesti Loodus, 11,66065. Moora, T. 1998. Muistsete loodusolude osast kiviaja asustasekujunemisel Kunda umbruses.--Loodus, inimene ja tehnoloogia.Interdistsiplinaarseid uurimusi arheoloogias. (MT, 5.) Eds J. Peets& V. Lang. Tallinn, 15-151. Saarse, L., Heinsalu, A., Poska, A., Veski, S. & Rajamae, R1999. Palaeoecology and human impact in the vicinity of Lake Kahala,northern Estonia.--Environmental and Cultural History of the EasternBaltic Region. (PACT, 57.) Rixensart, 37303. Tacon, P. S. C. 2000. Identifying ancient sacred landsapes inAustralia: from physical to social.--Archaeologies of Landscape.Contemporary Perspectives. Eds W. Ashmore & A. B. Knapp. BlackwellPublishers, Oxford, 33-57. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths andMonuments. Berg, Oxford; Providence. Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone. Explorations inLandscape Phenomenology. Berg, Oxford; New York. Tuan, Y: F. 1990. Topophilia. A Study of Environmental Perception,Attitudes and Values. 2-nd ed. Columbia University Press, New York. Vassar, A. 1938. Drei Steinkistgraber aus Nordestland. (OpetatudEesti Seltsi aastaraamat, 1937.) Tartu, 1938, 304-364. Vedru, G. 2002. Maastik, aeg jainimesed.--Keskus--tagamaa--aareala. Uurimusi asustushierarhia javoimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. (MT, 11.) Ed. V. Lang. Tallinn;Tartu, 101-122. Vedru, G. 2004. People on river landscapes.--EAA, 8: 2, 181-200. Vedru, G. 2005. Aruanne 2005. a Joelahtme ja Kuusalu valdadesteostatud arheoloogilistest valitoodest. Manuscript in the Institute ofHistory. Williams, M. 2003. Tales from the dead. Remembering the bog bodiesin the Iron Age of northwestern Europe.--Archaeologies of Remembrance.Death and Memory in Past Societies. Ed. H. Williams. KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers, New York; Boston; Dordrecht; London; Moscow,89-112. Inimese seos maastikuga ja selle motestamine on eri aegadel jakohtades erinev olnud. Minevikus nagu tanapaeva traditsionaalsetehoimude juureski oli see ilmselt isiklikum ja sugavam. Maastikku onkasitatud hingestatud tervikuna, millega on suheldud ja mida onerinevalt koheldud. Algselt kohati voib-olla isegi vaenulikuks peetudmaastikku on humaniseeritud ja sotsialiseeritud. Arvatavasti on inimesedlabi aegade koikjal enese jaoks neid umbritsevat lahti seletanud, olguselleks siis kas maastik tervikuna voi moni selle uksikelement. Sellisedseletused ja pohjused nende otsimiseks on toenaoliselt valja kasvanudeelkoige maastiku- ning kohatunnetusest ja isiklikust seotusest sellega,ukskoik kas vahetult voi naiteks esivanemate kaudu. Eriti viimasel juhulon oma osa olnud ilmselt mitmesugustel suuliselt edasi antavatelparimustel ja traditsioonidel, millest vahemalt osa on olnud seotudmingite kohtadega maastikul. On ju maastik ainus reaalsus, mis seoberinevate aegade inimesi--tanapaeval asustatud maastikel elati sagelijuba aastatuhandeid tagasi, tegutsedes samades kohtades kus praegugi.Kahtlemata erinesid need maastikud paljuski nuudsetest, kuid suuredmaastiku-elemendid olid ikkagi samad. Viimasel ajal on hakatud jarjest rohkem tahelepanu pooramamaastiku-uuringutele mikrotasandil. See tahendab uha detailsematanaluusi kohalikus (loodus)keskkonnas ja sellesse pohjalikumatsuuvimist, voimaldades valja selgitada nuansse, mis muul juhul voiksidtahelepanuta jaada. Artiklis on esitatud kolme poliskula--Rebala, Joelahtme jaVoerdla--maastikukasutuse ulevaade labi kogu muinasaja. Rohuasetus onmonumentaalsetel kivikalmetel ja nende asetusel maastikul.Kivikalmete-eelne asustus jattis enesest maastikule vaid tagasihoidlikkemarke, ja on vahetoenaoline, et asulakohad ise mingil moel jalgitavadolid. Inimeste suhtumist aitab moista ka hilisemate elanikemaastikukasutus, mis lahtub juba muudetud maastikust. Eri aegadeasustusest jaanud jaljed moodustavad uhtse mustri, kus tervikuanaluusiks pole vaja seda eri perioodideks lahutada, vaid ka nende koosvaatlemine annab hea ulevaate maastikul aset leidnud pikaajalistestprotsessidest. Artiklis ongi puutud uurida just protsessi, mitte uksnesselle tulemusel tekkinud asustuspilti, kuigi nende eraldamine on kohativoimatu ning mottetu. Uheks kusimuseks, millele on vastust otsitud, ongi piiridmaastikul: millised need konkreetsetes kohtades olid ja kuidas neidinimeste poolt moisteti ning tahistati? Need olid looduslikud servaaladvoi uleminekukohad, kus tavamaastik muutus teistsuguseks, sageli ehitatikivikalmeid just sellistesse kohtadesse. Maastikulistel servaaladel voisaga olla inimeste jaoks rohutatult eriline tahtsus: need seostusidmuutuse ja uleminekuga maastikul, voimalik, et ka mentaalses tahenduses.Sarnasel moel voidi kasitada ka kalmet kui rituaalset kohta, mis oliseotud inimese, resp surnu uleminekuga uhest ilmast teise, uhest olekustteise. Seega vois toimida topeltefekt, kus uks muutus ja uleminekrohutas teist. Ent mitte koiki kalmeid ei ehitatud sellistessekohtadesse. Seega huvitab autorit ka teistsuguste maastike voimaliktahtsus, puudes leida pohjusi, mis muutsid need piisavalt olulisteks jaatraktiivseteks, et sinna matmispaiku rajada. Kolm uuritavat kula asuvad tanapaeva Joelahtme vallas Harjumaal.Tegu on suhteliselt klindiservalahedaste kuladega. Vanimad kindlad jaljed piirkonna inimasustusest parinevadhilisneoliitikumist. Pronksiajal lopliku valjenduse saanud muutusedinimeste maailmavaates, usundis ja selle kaudu ka maastikukasutusesjatsid oma nahtavad jaljed ka vaadeldavale alale. Piirkonnast on teadalohukive ja kivikirstkalmeid, kusjuures molemaid voib leida suuremateruhmadena, lohukive siiski ka uksikult. Kuigi nii kalmed kui kividvoivad paikneda sarnastes looduslikes tingimustes, ei ole see sugugimitte alati nii. Kui eranditult koik kalmed on kuivadel ja voimalusekorral korgematel aladel, siis lohukivid paiknevad monikord niisketealade servadel voi koguni keskel ehk siis ilmselgetel piirialadel. Voerdla suurim kalmete ja lohukividega ala jaab Vana-Narvamaanteest pohja poole ja tanapaevasest kulast ida ja kagu poole (joon1-3). Rebala kalmed asuvad pohiliselt kolmes, maastikuliselt usnagierinevas kohas. Lastekangrud jaavad kulast pohja poole, klindiservastumbes 0,8 km kaugusele. Teine ja arvukam ruhm asub neist omakorda umbes0,7 km ida pool oleval seljandikul ja kolmas ruhm Rebala ning Joelahtmevahelise tee aares. Viimane ruhm liitub ida pool Joelahtme laanepoolsetekalmetega (joon 4-8). Rebalast Joelahtmesse viiva tee idapoolses osas,praeguse Joelahtme surnuaia lahedal, on samuti terve hulkkivikirstkalmeid (joon 7-8). Ellandvahe kalmed jaavad Joelahtmest pohjapoole, Ellandvahe talu maadele Ristikangrumaele (joon 9). Koige lihtsam on kohavalikut seletada neis paigus, kus maastikul onmingi silmapaistev objekt. Selles suhtes on hasti eristuvad Manniva teelahedased kalmed ja Ellandvahe kalmeruhm. Neist esimene on eritisilmapaistev: kalmetega seljandik tuleb koikjalt lahenedes hasti esile.Seljandikult avaneb vaade madalamatele aladele ja sellepohjapoolsematelt kalmetelt ka kaugemale jaavale merele. Voimalik, etjuba tol ajal oli laheduses soine ala ja margalad osutusid maaravaks kaLastekangrute asukoha valikul. Lisaks neist kirde ja ida pool olevalerabalaigule, mille olemasolu pronksiajal ei ole paris kindel, jaid needvarem ka laande ning pisut kaugemale pohja poole. Praeguseks on rabadaga karjaaridega havitatud. Seega naib, et Lastekangrute ehitamiseksvaliti tasane koht margalade laheduses, mis ise oli siiski viljakalmaal. Voerdla kalmeid ja lohukive iseloomustavaks marksonaks voib pidadaavarust. Varasematel aegadel jai kalmevalja loodepoolsetestkalmetest-lohukividest vaid umbes 150 m kaugusele raba, mille ala ontanaseks osaliselt kuivendatud ja suuremas osas karjaari alla jaanud.Kui oletada selliste kohtade tahtsust kivikalmeid ehitanud inimestejaoks, siis vois seegi olla uheks teguriks, miks kalmeid hakati justsellesse kohta ehitama. Moned lohukivid olid aga algselt ilmselt niiskelalal voi siis paris selle servas. Rebala I ja II kalmeruhm on samuti suhteliselt tasasel maal. Kaksesimese ruhma kalmet jaavad aga kirde poolt lahenedes vaikese astanguservale, mistottu avaneb sealtpoolt lahenejale vaatepilt, kus maastik onsuuremas osas suletud ja ees korguvad kaks kalmet. Sama efekt ja suundtulevad esile ka Joelahtme surnuaia laheduses oleva kahe kalme puhul.Mulje, mida kalmed kirdest lahenedes jatavad, on markimisvaarne. Polevoimalik, et kalmete ehitajatele jai see markamata ja et need oleksidsellele kohale juhuslikult tehtud. Ellandvahe kalmete puhul voib samuti oletada koha valikut maastikuerilisuse pohjal. Nagu mitmel pool mujalgi Pohja-Eesti klindiservalahistel rajati ka siin kalmed kohta, kus paeastang jai kull lahedusse,ent siiski mitte paris selle servale. Seega ei osutunud tahtsakskonkreetne kalmetelt avanev vaade veekogule, kuna nii meri kui joeorgjaavad kalmete juurest maatousu tottu nahtamatuks. Maaravaks vois saadahoopis randrahn ja teised suured kivid selle laheduses. Kuigi uhelgineist kalmete juures asuvatest kividest lohke peal ei ole, voib sellejargi oletada (monede) suurte kivide tahtsust tolleaegsete inimestejaoks ja seda arvatavasti mingis ulatuses ka siis, kui neid ei olelohkudega margistatud. Inimesed on otsinud maastikus teistsugusust ja seda eriliseksotstarbeks kasutanud. Vaatlusaluses piirkonnas on ilmselt oluliseksosutunud rabad, aga ka seljandikud ja vaiksemad astangud. Paljudemuististe juurest avanevad avarad vaated ja nii monigi loodusobjekt onolnud kaugele nahtav. Maastikul liikusid aga inimesed, kes koike sedaenese jaoks lahti seletasid, tunnetasid ja motestasid. Fuusilisedmaastikud olid samaaegselt ka mentaalse tahendusega. Paljud siinsetestkalmetest ja lohukividest on sellistes kohtades, mida saab pidadalooduslikuks servaalaks. Need on piiriks maastikul, kus harilik kohtubteistsugusega, mida tunnetati erilisena. (1) The views given on maps reach to 0.5 km and more. (2) The nature of the high moors of Rebala cannot be determinedbecause they have been destroyed by the phosphorite mines. 2000-3000years ago later high moors were probably marshes (Mati Ilomets--to theauthor). (3) These small wet spots cannot be dated properly. They may havebeen bogs, but at least some of them could be man-made--the results ofquarrying limestone for building graves (Mati Ilomets--to the author). (4) This heap may not be a grave at all. It is situated on the landof a former farmstead and it might be a ruin of some smaller building. Gurly Vedru, Institute of History, Tallinn University, 6 RuutliSt., 10130 Tallinn, Estonia; Gurli.Vedru@mail.ee