ZINĀTNISKIE RAKSTI

DOI.org/10.22364/lviz.109.01

SIMPLE STONE WORK AXES

IN LATVIA: TYPOLOGY, CHRONOLOGY
AND DISTRIBUTION
Andrejs Vasks
Dr. habil. hist., senior researcher, Institute of Latvian History, University of
Latvia.

Research interests: prehistory and archaeology of Latvia, the Bronze – Pre-

Roman Iron Age in Eastern Baltic.

The article examines simple stone work axes with a shaft-hole, which consti-
tute a category of mass finds from the Bronze Age. Museums in Latvia store
or have information on about 1630 axes, the majority (92%) of which are
stray finds lacking archaeological context. Compared with battle-axes, the
simple stone axes have been given relatively little research attention. They are
divided according to form into pentagonal, Augšzeme-type and almond-sha-
ped axes, the last of which are the most numerous, making up 82% of all
work axes. The pentagonal and the Augšzeme-type axes were used through-
out the Bronze Age; and the almond-shaped axes are more characteristic of
the Late Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Age. The axes are unevenly distributed
across present-day Latvia. The largest concentrations occur in particular
areas of Augšzeme, along the River Daugava, in the Lielupe basin and in cer-
tain parts of western Latvia. Few of these axes have been found in the nort-
hern part of Latvia, which can be explained by differences in the farm model,
where agrarian farming was less important than livestock farming.

Keywords: simple stone shaft-hole work axes, present-day Latvia, Bronze Age,
typology, chronology, distribution.

INTRODUCTION
Stone axes made from volcanic (magmatic, metamorphic, ef-
flusive) rocks with a drilled shaft-hole have a prominent place
among archaeological finds from Latvia. Several typological
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
6 Andrejs Vasks

groups may be distinguished: boat-axes, straight-backed axes,

double-axes as well as simple axes, the last of which are exam-
ined in detail in the present article. The aim of the article is to
develop the typology of these axes, to try to find out their chro-
nology and to characterize the distribution of axes in the terri-
tory of Latvia.
In contrast to the boat-axes of the Late Neolithic, the simple
work axes represent a find category characteristic of the Bronze
Age in Latvia. As is the case with axes belonging to the other
groups, most of the simple axes are stray finds lacking archaeo-
logical context, on account of which it is rather problematic to
establish a precise chronology. Only a small proportion of the
axes, in most cases fragmentary, have been found on living sites,
and they are virtually absent from burials. For the latter, in the
territory of Latvia, excavations have taken place in more than 30
Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Age barrow and flat cemeteries
(the most extensive excavations were carried out in Pukuļi,
Ķivutkalns, Reznes, Kalnieši and Buļļumuiža cemetery), where
about 800 burials were studied. The grave inventory in these
burials was very scarce, with a total of about 120 units (bone
pins, rare amber pendant, small bronze object or flint tool) or
none at all. The only exception was Reznes cemetery, where
between the finds on the barrow 2 there was one double-axe
and one simple work axe1 (Fig. 2: 1).
However, the study of simple stone axes is important for a
better understanding of lifeways, economic activities and the
settlement pattern in the Bronze Age of present-day Latvia. Cur-
rently, the author has records of about 1630 such simple axes
found in Latvia, including actual artefacts as well as archive re-
ports of finds. The greatest number are held at the National His-
tory Museum of Latvia, but they are also to be found at regional
museums in Jēkabpils, Liepāja, Bauska, Ventspils and elsewhere.
They were first named “simple axes” by Eduards Šturms,
who remarked on their formal diversity and dated them to the
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 7

end of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. 2 He separated

Augšzeme-type axes from the rest of the work axes, dating these
to the final phase of the Stone Age.3 The work axes have also
been examined by Jānis Graudonis, who dated them to the Late
Bronze and Earliest Iron Age, i.e. the 1st millennium BC.4 Stone
axes with a shaft-hole have likewise been studied by Lithuanian
and Estonian researchers. The axes from present-day Lithuania
are covered in a separate chapter of Vol. 1 of the 1974 archaeo-
logical atlas of the Lithuanian SSR, authored by Ona Bagušienė
and Rimutė Rimantienė.5 The axes found in Southwest Lithua-
nia in 2002 were characterized by Vigandas Jodagalvis (Vygan-
das Juodagalvis).6 A brief overview of simple axes has been
given by Algirdas Girininkas in 2013.7 The shaft-hole stone axes
found in Estonia are considered in the collective monograph
Prehistory of Estonia, which appeared in 1982,8 and in the 2007
book by Valter Lang on the Bronze and Early Iron Age in Esto-
nia.9 The shaft-hole axes of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age
are discussed in a separate article by Kristiina Johanson.10
Simple stone shaft-hole axes are also found in other Baltic Sea
basin countries.11

TYPOLOGY
Battle-axes and their typology were subject to study already
in the first half of the 20th century. One of the first to examine
the battle-axes of Northern Europe was Swedish researcher Nils
Åberg, in 1915.12 During the 1930s and 1940s, they were the
subject of study by Finnish archaeologist Aarne Äyräpää13 and
Danish archaeologist Peter Glob.14 In Russia, the battle-axes of
Eastern Europe were studied by Aleksandr Brjusov and Maija
Zimina,15 Dmitri Krainov16 and many others. The battle- or
boat-axes from Latvia were first analysed in 1936 by Eduards
Šturms, who distinguished six subgroups. He included straight-
backed axes and double-axes as separate groups of battle-axes.
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
8 Andrejs Vasks

Šturms does not cover the simple work axes in this treatment,
except for the Augšzeme type.17 Compared with battle-axes,
the simple axes have received much less attention, even though
they outnumber the former many times over (about 90 boat-
axes and derived forms have been found in Latvia, along with
some 40 straight-backed and 25 double-axes, thus together
numbering about 153 finds, as against 1630 simple work axes).
One of the reasons why researchers have held back from analy-
sis of simple axes is their wide formal diversity along with
characteristics due simply to chance, on account of which the
creation of an all-encompassing typology is problematic. Thus,
when Jānis Graudonis attempted a typology, he was left with a
whole set of axes that he could not include in any subgroup.18
The simple stone axes are smaller than the boat-axes: they
are generally 8–12 cm in length, although shorter as well as
longer examples also occur (longer examples being repre-
sented particularly within the subgroup of Augšzeme-type
axes). In contrast to the battle-axes, the shaft-hole is in most
cases located closer to the butt. The work axes have a shaft-
hole diameter varying from 1.8 to 2.7 cm, but in most cases it
falls in the range 2.1–2.5 cm. In general, the shaft-hole has
been bored conically, the diameter at the back of the axe being
a couple of millimetres greater than at the front – evidently
intended to prevent the axe from flying off the haft when
in use.
Examining the axes in frontal view, it is possible to distin-
guish pentagonal (Fig. 1: 1–7), Augšzeme-type (Fig. 2: 2, 4, 7)
and almond-shaped axes (Fig. 2: 1, 3, 5, 6). There are also in-
termediate or hybrid forms, which cannot readily be included
in any of the above-mentioned subgroups. In the production of
the axes attention has been given primarily to the artefact’s
functionality as a tool, the form being of secondary impor-
tance. 19 The three subgroups mentioned above are distin-
guished on the basis of the experience of the author and other
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 9

Fig. 1. Stone pentagonal work axes: 1 – Lazdona, A 8693: 1; 2 – Skrundas

Spaliņi, A 8844; 3 – Alsunga, A 11693; 4 – Basu Šmidri, A 9641; 5 – Rolava
bog, A 8186; 6 – Viļāni, Madona museum, 739; 7 – Kivti settlement, LNVM VI
37: 295 After Ianis Graudonis (1967). Latviia v epokhu pozdnei bronzi i rannego
zheleza. Riga: Zinatne, table 1, 4.

researchers in the typologisation of the simple axes. In the case

of almond-shaped axes, the criteria for distinguishing them
might be open to debate. However, considering that most of
these axes are stray finds and so are not precisely dateable, fur-
ther subdivision of this subtype into variants would be purely
formal, without the possibility of verification.
Pentagonal axes. These have a flattened butt, separated from
the sides of the axe by more or less pronounced angles; and
there are distinct shoulders at the sides, opposite the shaft-hole,
with more or less pronounced shoulder angles. Depending on
the shape of the butt, two variants can be distinguished: 1) the
sides above the shoulders are straight (Fig. 1: 1, 2), 2) the sides
above the shoulders are concave; in the latter case, like the boat
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
10 Andrejs Vasks

axes, the cross section is oval or round (Fig. 1: 3–7). The front
of the axe, namely the face oriented towards the haft, is usually
somewhat oblique in relation to the back of the axe, thus giving
a broadened blade, although in many cases the two faces are
parallel. The shaft-hole may be closer to the butt or in the
middle of the axe. The cross-section of the axe at the level of the
shaft-hole is close to the square. Out of 850 axes whose form
can be determined, only 61 (7% of all work axes) can be identi-
fied as pentagonal axes. They are more characteristic of western
Latvia, although they do also occur in the River Daugava basin
(Fig. 3). Such axes are widespread in Scandinavia, where they
are classified into rectangular and diamond-shaped axes20. Some
of the pentagonal axes are hard to distinguish from derived
forms of battle-axes; thus, it is possible that the latter influenced
the development of the pentagonal axes, i.e. they represent a
further degree of degradation of the derived forms of battle-
axes. Among such pieces is an axe found on the Early Bronze
Age settlement site of Lagaža,21 as is the one found in settlement
of Kivti (Fig. 1: 7). Lithuanian researchers include them among
Baltic boat-axes of local origin.22
Augšzeme axes. Axes belonging to the Augšzeme type (to-
talling 97, or 11% of all work axes) are characterised by parallel
front, back and side faces, giving them a rectangular cross sec-
tion. They are known in Lithuanian archaeology as axes with
parallel angles.23 The shaft-hole of Augšzeme axes is always lo-
cated close to the butt. The butt may be rounded (Fig. 2: 7, 4) or
trapezoidal (Fig. 2: 2) in frontal view. On the basis of this fea-
ture, Šturms distinguishes two variants of Augšzeme-type axes.24
These axes are long and slender – generally from 12–13 cm up
to 15–16 cm in length; there is even one piece 19 cm long. The
length of the axes depended on the amount of use: the more
intensively the axe was utilised, the more frequently the blade
had to be resharpened by grinding, thus reducing the length of
the axe. An obvious example is the axe shown in Figure 2: 4,
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 11

Fig. 2. Stone work axes: Augšzeme type (2, 4, 7) and almond-shaped (1, 3, 5, 6)
forms. 1 – Reznes cemetery, barrow 2, A 8372: 5; 2 – Krāslavas Aišpuri,
A 10656; 3 – Īslīces Bērziņi, A 12753: 1; 4 – Pabažu Stūrīši, A 12193; 5 –
Ķivutkalns hill-fort, LNVM VI 9: 2078; 6 – Sātiņu Lazdu kalns, A 8026; 7 –
Pilskalne, RLB 21. Drawing: Aiga Ivbule.

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

 12
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

Andrejs Vasks
Fig. 3. Pentagonal (1) and Augšzeme type (2) axes in present-day Latvia.
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 13

reduced in length to as little as 6 cm through repeated

sharpening. Such axes occur in greatest number in the Augšzeme
region – hence the name. However, there are also many from
the southern part of Latgale. Few have been found further to the
north. Some axes of this type have also been discovered in the
western part of Latvia (Fig. 3). Many such axes occur in Lithu-
ania, especially in the north-eastern part of the country, and in
Belarus.
Almond-shaped axes. Most numerous are the almond-
shaped axes, totalling 692, or 82% of all work axes. In the ma-
jority of cases the front and back faces are somewhat obliquely
oriented to one another, resulting in a broadened blade (for
example, Fig. 2: 1). It is also characteristic that the front and
back faces of the axe meet the lateral faces at a distinct angle –
thus, the axes are rectangular in cross section. The shaft-hole is
closer to the butt. In all cases the axe-head was angled at less
than 90° to the haft. A miniature axe found at Ķivutkalns, only
5 cm long, with a shaft-hole 0.9 cm in diameter, corresponds to
a classic almond-shaped axe (Fig. 2: 5). In some cases the shaft-
hole is located in the middle of the axe (e.g., Fig. 2: 3), but this
may be due in large measure to regular resharpening of the axe
by grinding, whereby the axe was reduced in length and the
shaft-hole “shifted” to the centre. The almond-shaped axes are
not distinguished by a carefully shaped body; in many cases
they are asymmetrical and carelessly made. These axes show a
wide range of forms and sizes, evidently reflecting the preva-
lence of practical considerations, in terms of use and effective-
ness as a tool, over the aesthetics of the artefact’s form. This
kind of purely utilitarian approach is likewise a feature of the
production of bone and antler artefacts in the Bronze Age, espe-
cially in its second half.

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

14 Andrejs Vasks

CHRONOLOGY
Tracing a detailed chronology of simple axes in the Bronze
Age is problematic, since 92% of the axes are stray finds with no
archaeological context, and only about 8%, or 131 pieces, have
been recovered in the course of archaeological excavation or as
stray finds on Bronze Age settlement sites. Moreover, a large
proportion of these 131 axes are fragmentary, the morphologi-
cal features not being determinable.
In approaching the chronology of stone work axes the au-
thor followed two criteria: finds on Neolithic/Early Bronze Age
settlement sites and finds from Late Bronze Age living sites, pri-
marily hill-forts. To some extent, analogies with stone axe finds
in neighbouring countries – Germany, Poland, Denmark and
Sweden – have also been taken into account.
As indicated by finds on some Late Neolithic sites (e.g.,
Abora I), the simple axes appeared already at the end of the
Neolithic and beginning of the Bronze Age,25 while finds from
hill-forts (e.g., Ķivutkalns) show that they were still in use in the
Pre-Roman Iron Age. Certain typological features of battle-axes
that occur on some of the simple axes (e.g., parallel front and
back faces) allow such pieces to be regarded as relatively earlier,
dating from the end of the Neolithic and the first half of the
Bronze Age (the above-mentioned example of the axe found on
the Early Bronze Age settlement site of Lagaža). In this connec-
tion, mention should be made of an axe find in the village of
Vaibla, near Lake Võrtsjärv in Estonia. In this case, remains of
an ash-wood shaft were preserved in the shaft-hole. The object
was radiocarbon-dated to 3050 ± 80 BP or 1520–1052 cal BC,
i.e. to the first half of the Bronze Age.26 Since the Vaibla axe, like
the axe from Lagaža, resembles the pentagonal axes from Latvia,
there is reason to believe that the latter, too, are from the first
half of the Bronze Age. In turn finding the axe in the lower ho-
rizon of Kivti settlements (Fig. 1: 7), along with the bone and
flint tools, indicates that they were also used in the late Bronze
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 15

Age.27 In Scandinavia Evert Baudou similar axes attributed to

IV–VI period of the Bronze Age.28 These are also found in the
fortified settlements of Lusatian culture in northwestern Poland
(Biskupin, Slupcza, Jankovo),29 populated between 750 and
400 BC.30
The time when the Augšzeme axes came into use cannot be
ascertained with any certainty. In his publication of 1936,
Šturms suggested that these axes appeared in the final stage of
the Stone Age. Considering the formal symmetry of the
Augšzeme axes and the careful workmanship, which are charac-
teristics of Late Neolithic battle-axes, this could indeed be the
case. However, on the other hand, individual shaft-hole axes
have been recovered on Late Neolithic sites, including fragments
of battle-axes, but Augšzeme axes are not represented among
these finds. Accordingly, it may be concluded that these axes are
a purely Bronze Age phenomenon. As indicated by finds of such
axes at Ķivutkalns, Žaunerāni and Stanovišķi hill-fort, they were
also used in the Late Bronze Age.
The majority of almond-shaped axes can evidently be re-
garded as dating from the Late Bronze Age, namely the period
which saw more rapid development of agriculture, with an in-
creased need for appropriate tools. However, these axes were
also used in the succeeding period, the Pre-Roman Iron Age, or
at least in its first half. This is indicated by the stratigraphy of
the axe finds in the cultural layers of the hill-forts of the Late
Bronze and Earliest Iron Age. It is seen most clearly in the case
of Ķivutkalns, which, according to the latest radiocarbon dat-
ings, was inhabited from the 7th century BC up to the 1st cen-
tury AD.31 The cultural layer, about 2 m thick, has produced
98 fragments of simple stone axes as well as whole examples. In
stratigraphic terms they are distributed rather equally, occurring
in the deepest levels of the cultural layer (Late Bronze Age) as
well as in the upper levels, which relate to the Pre-Roman Iron
Age.32 In contrast to the pentagonal and Augšzeme-type axes,
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
16 Andrejs Vasks

these late almond-shaped axes feature a broadened blade, evi-

dently serving to increase the tool’s efficiency.33 As indicated by
some finds on sites from the end of the Neolithic and the Early
Bronze Age by Lake Lubāns, the earliest axes of this form are
not characterised by a broadened blade, the back and front faces
being parallel, and the shaft-hole tends to be in the central part
of the axe, as it is in the case of the boat-axes.

DISTRIBUTION
The axes are not evenly distributed across the area of pre-
sent-day Latvia. Major concentrations are observed in certain
parts of the Augšzeme region, along the River Daugava around
Jēkapbils/Krustpils, in the central and eastern parts of the
Lielupe basin, and in certain areas of western Latvia. Few of
these axes were found in the northern part of Latvia, especially
in northern Vidzeme (Fig. 4), so one might think that these
areas in the Bronze and Pre-Roman Iron Age were less
populated. Of course, one cannot deny the trivial truth that in
the north the population will always be less than in the south,
but is it the only explanation for the smaller number of axes,
that is, the smaller population of northern Latvia and Estonia in
the period in question? According to the author, the distribu-
tion of axes does not adequately reflect population density.
During this period, in north Vidzeme and Estonia there
were typical barrows with stone cists and stone coverings. Over
the past few years, more than 45 such cemeteries (previously
known about 40) have been discovered in north Vidzeme, the
Gauja Basin and the areas north of it using aerial laser scanning
(LIDAR) results.34
Therefore, the area of these barrow cemeteries cannot be
considered as sparsely populated. The low number of stone axes
is most likely explained by the different farming patterns of the
inhabitants of this area, namely the smaller or even minimal
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 17

Fig. 4. Simple stone work axes in present-day Latvia.

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

18 Andrejs Vasks

role of farming, but the greater the role of livestock farming. A

more specific picture of the economic activity of the population
in the area in question could be provided by surveys of relevant
settlement sites, but this is unfortunately not yet the case. The
widespread introduction of tillage apparently occurred later
when the stone axe was completely replaced by an iron one. For
example, in the neighbouring Haanja highlands in south-east-
ern Estonia, pollen analysis data indicate episodic tillage already
in the Bronze Age, but the constant presence of cereal pollen in
the samples has been observed only since the first centu-
ries AD.35
Since the work axes have most commonly been discovered
in the course of land tillage, the area of agricultural land was
compared against the number of axe finds. Where the extent of
agricultural land is greater, one would have a higher chance of
finding stone axes. However, the comparison showed that there
are adjacent municipalities with a similar extent of agricultural
land but with very different numbers of axe finds. This shows
that in the Bronze Age certain areas were more intensively used
than others.36
In order to establish what conditions influenced the utilisa-
tion of a particular area for agriculture, we may examine the
association between stone axes and particular soil parent mate-
rials, which consist primarily of Quaternary deposits, mainly
formed as a result of the last glaciation and the action of its
meltwaters.
The stone axes are most commonly associated with glacial
till: poorly sorted deposits created by the ice sheet, which con-
sist of clay, silt, sand, gravel and pebbles. The till, which is gen-
erally also rich in carbonates (limestone), is viewed as a fairly
favourable soil parent material. Compared with till, alluvial
(river) deposits cover much smaller areas. In Latvia, alluvial
soils make up only 2% of all soils,37 most extensively in the val-
leys of the Rivers Venta, Abava, Vārtāja, Lielupe and, of course,
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 19

the Daugava. Mainly as a result of spring floods, alluvial soils,

i.e. fertile floodplain soils, have formed on the alluvial deposits.
Accordingly, taking into account the limited areas with these
soils, the number of axes found here can be seen as noteworthy.
In western Latvia fairly large areas are taken up by the glaciola-
custrine deposits of the Baltic Ice Lake and the marine deposits
of the Littorina Sea, as well as deposits of wind-blown sand. Al-
though these are regarded as poor soil parent materials owing to
their impoverished chemical composition, judging by individual
finds of axes, they were used for agriculture, particularly on the
Coastal Plain. Evidently, although infertile, the sandy soils could
be more easily tilled. On the other hand, the glaciolacustrine
clays, which are nowadays regarded as good soil parent materi-
als, were not extensively utilised, because such soils are hard to
till. Fluvioglacial deposits, which in many cases are very sandy
and consist of well-sorted material, are likewise counted among
poor soil parent materials for agriculture, since under natural
conditions they form infertile soils. Individual finds of axes on
bog deposits indicate attempts to utilise wetland soils. However,
they have poor physical and chemical properties, are poorly
aerated, poorly drained and low in plant nutrients.
Finally, we may pose the question of why so many intact
stone axes are found in present-day cultivated fields. It is incon-
ceivable that they could have been lost accidentally while cut-
ting trees and shrubs in the frame of swidden agriculture. Al-
though the production of a shaft-hole stone axe did not require
a human lifetime or longer, as was thought in the 18th century,
it has been determined experimentally that, depending on the
hardness of the rock, an axe would have taken 10–30 hours to
make. Accordingly, a stone axe was a sufficiently valuable tool
to be recovered in the event that it became detached from its
haft.
There is no basis for regarding these stray finds of axes as
belonging to the grave inventory of destroyed burials, because at
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
20 Andrejs Vasks

the find spots, which number in the hundreds, no bones of

burials or other objects possibly deriving from the grave inven-
tory have ever been observed. Moreover, as already noted, stone
axes are not a characteristic find in the excavated graves from
the Bronze Age. In some cases the stone axes may be associated
with a possible open settlement, but in the majority of cases
(based on field assessment of the stray find locations) there is
no evidence of a settlement.
It may be thought that after long-continued use, in the
course of which an axe was regularly resharpened by grinding
the blade, which had the effect of changing the axe’s form and
thus also its centre of gravity, symmetry, etc., its efficiency as a
tool would gradually have been lost, so that it would eventually
have been discarded as useless. But the idea that these are dis-
carded axes is contradicted by the occurrence among the re-
covered pieces of a considerable proportion of axes in very good
condition, without wear. Only one explanation remains: that the
axes were intentionally placed in the ancient fields as protective
items, talismans or amulets. The fact that in the Bronze Age
stone axes no longer occur as grave goods testifies to changes in
the ritual symbolism of the axes. Evidently, the simple work
axes no longer served to express social status; however, there
are indications that they were credited with magical properties.
We may consider in this connection the miniature stone axe
found on Ķivutkalns hill-fort. It is well ground and shows all
the characteristic features of a work axe. Also found here was a
6 cm long ground stone object made from dolomite in the form
of an axe, with an incomplete shaft-hole. In the opinion of
Graudonis, who directed the Ķivutkalns excavation, the two
finds are either children’s playthings or objects with some other
significance; he suggests that they could be small cult axes re-
lated to swidden farming.38 Among the stray finds of axes from
Latvia there are some pieces measuring only 6–7 cm in length.
It seems doubtful whether axes of such minute dimensions
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 21

could have been used for clearance farming; they should rather
be counted among miniature artefacts having a special symbolic
significance. Presumably, the non-miniature axes made of sand-
stone (found in Sātiņi Parish; length: 14 cm) or limestone (finds
from Grobiņa and from Sabile early town site) and thus unsuit-
able for cutting trees and bushes, had a similar significance.
A conviction in the magical capacity of stone axes to ward
off evil and cure people as well as livestock persisted in the 19th
century and even in the 1920s and 1930s. There are a large
number of records indicating that they were popularly referred
to as “thunderballs” (Latvian pērkona lodes) or, less commonly,
as “thunder-arrows” (pērkona bultas), indicating the axes’ con-
nection with celestial forces. Such axes were also used by folk
healers for curing various ailments. Ideas concerning the pro-
tection conferred by such axes and their connection with the
sky were widespread in antiquity, not only in Latvia but else-
where in Europe as well. All of these considerations lend weight
to the idea that the Bronze Age inhabitants concealed stone
axes on or near their fields in the belief that they would confer
protection against famine, drought and suchlike misfortunes.39

CONCLUSIONS
Of all stone shaft-hole axes (1785 units), the largest group
consists of simple work axes, making up 91% of the total number
of axes. Three subgroups may be distinguished: pentagonal axes,
Augšzeme-type axes and almond-shaped axes. Additionally,
there are intermediate and hybrid forms – axes that are problem-
atic to assign to any one of these subgroups. With regard to the
last subgroup, the almond-shaped axes, it needs to be borne in
mind that most of them are stray finds, and so their chronology
cannot be precisely ascertained; further subdivision into variants
would be purely formal, with no possibility of verification.
Determination of the chronology of the simple axes within the
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
22 Andrejs Vasks

Bronze Age is difficult, because 92% of the axes are stray finds
with no archaeological context, and only about 8% have been
found in the course of archaeological excavation or as stray finds
on Bronze Age habitation sites. Simple axes have so far not been
found in graves. In the investigation of axe chronology, the au-
thor has followed two criteria: finds on Neolithic/Early Bronze
Age settlements, and finds on Late Bronze Age living sites –
primarily hill-forts. Pentagonal axes, more characteristic of west-
ern Latvia but also occurring in the Daugava basin, may be dated
to the first half of the Bronze Age but also used later. Augšzeme-
type axes are characteristic of the southern part of the Latgale
region and Augšzeme, and may be dated to the Bronze Age.
Almond-shaped axes are typical artefacts of the Late Bronze Age
and Pre-Roman Iron Age. Axes are not evenly distributed across
present-day Latvia. They concentrate more in southern Latvia,
with fewer finds in the northern areas of the Kurzeme and Vid-
zeme regions. For the latter, it is likely to be explained by a dif-
ferent farm model, where farming was less important than live-
stock farming and therefore less use of stone axes.
As they have most commonly been discovered in the course
of tillage in present-day fields, the association of stone axes with
different soil parent materials has been examined. Stone axes
are most commonly associated with glacial till, regarded as a
fairly good soil parent material. Compared with till, alluvial
(river) sediments occupy much smaller areas, only 2% of the
total, and accordingly the comparatively small number of stone
axes found in these areas can nevertheless be regarded as sig-
nificant. The majority of simple stone axes – intact, undamaged
and suitable for use – have been found on present-day fields,
which have evidently been used for agriculture already in the
Bronze Age. These cannot be regarded as accidentally mislaid
objects. Most probably, these axes were placed in the ancient
fields intentionally, as protective objects, talismans or amulets,
in the belief that they would provide a safeguard against famine,
drought and suchlike misfortunes.
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 23

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1
Jānis Graudonis (1961). Reznu kapulauks. Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, 3,
2. pielikums.
2
Eduards Šturms (1927). Akmens laikmets Latvijā. II. Savrupatradumi un
kultūras raksturojums. Rīga: Latvijas skolotāju savienība, 13.–16. lpp.
3
Eduards Šturms (1936). Latvijas akmens laikmeta materiāli. F. Balodis,
K. Straubergs (red.). Latviešu aizvēstures materiāli, II. Rīga: Latviešu Filo-
logu biedrība, 20.–23. lpp.
4
Ianis Graudonis (1967). Latviia v epokhu pozdnei bronzi i rannego zheleza.
Riga: Zinatne, s. 82–84.
5
Rimutė Rimantiene (red.) (1974). Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas. I. Ak-
mens ir žalvario amžiaus paminklai. Vilnius: Mintis.
6
Vygandas Juodagalvis (2002). Stray Ground Stone Axes from Užnemunė.
Archaeologia Baltica, 5, pp. 41–50.
7
Algirdas Girininkas (2013). Ankstyvasis metalų laikotarpis. Lietuvos ar-
cheologija. II tomas. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universitetas, pp. 135, 175–176.
8
Lembit Jaanits, Silvia Laul, Vello Lõugas, Evald Tõnisson (1982). Eesti esia-
jalugu. Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 132–133.
9
Valter Lang (2007). The Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Estonia. Estonian
Archaeology, 3. Tartu University Press, pp. 24–31.
10
Kristiina Johanson (2005). Putting stray finds in context – what can we
read from the distribution of stone axes. Culture and material culture. Pa-
pers from the First Theoretical Seminar of the Baltic Archaeologists (BASE)
held at the University of Tartu, Estonia, October 17th–19th, 2003. Interarchae-
ologia I, pp. 167–181.
11
Carl F. Meinander (1954). Die Bronzezeit in Finland. Suomen Muinais-
muistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja, 54, Helsinki, Abb. 37, 39–43; Evert Bau-
dou (1960). Die regionale und chronologische Einteilung der jüngeren
Bronzezeit im Nordischen Kreis. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studies
in North-European Archaeology, 1, Stockholm, karte 28–34; Janusz Ostoja-
Zagórski (1978). Gród Halsztacki w Jankowie nad jeziorem Pakoskim.
Wroclaw: Ossolineum, s. 102.
12
Nils Åberg (1915). Die Typologie der nordischen streitäxte. Würzburg.
13
Aarne Äyräpää (1933). Über die Streitaxtkulturen in Rußland. Helsinki.
14
Peter Glob (1945). Studier over den jyske Enkeltgravskultur. Aarbøger for
nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 1944.
15
Aleksandr Briusov, Maiia Zimina (1966). Kamenye sverlenye boevye topori
na territorii Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Arkheologiia SSSR. Svod arkheologi-
chesikh istochnikov, B4-4. Moskva: Nauka.
16
Dmitrii Krainov (1972). Drevneishaia istoriia Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurechia.
Fat`ianovskaia kul`tura. II tysiacheletiia do n.e. Moskva: Nauka.

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

24

17
Eduards Šturms (1936). Latvijas akmens laikmeta materiāli. F. Balodis,
K. Straubergs (red.). Latviešu aizvēstures materiāli, II. Rīga: Latviešu Filo-
logu biedrība, 4.–20. lpp. The scientific archive at the Archaeology Depart-
ment of the National History Museum of Latvia preserves a very extensive
card catalogue of simple stone axes compiled by Šturms, with notes on
their typology. This suggests that the researcher intended to conduct a
more detailed study of this material.
18
Ianis Graudonis (1967). Latviia v epokhu pozdnei bronzi i rannego zheleza.
Riga: Zinatne, s. 84.
19
The pointed bone pieces of the Bronze Age present a similar case: these
have an intentionally shaped tip and some show additional modification to
provide a better grip, whereas the rest of the bone has been left unmodi-
fied.
20
Evert Baudou (1960). Die regionale und chronologische Einteilung der
jüngeren Bronzezeit im Nordischen Kreis. Acta Universitatis Stockholmien-
sis. Studies in North-European Archaeology,1, Stockholm, karte 28–32.
21
Ilze Loze (1979). Pozdnii neolit i raniaia bronza Lubanskoi ravnini. Riga:
Zinatne, tab. XXII: 4.
22
Rimutė Rimantiene (red.) (1974). Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atlasas. I. Ak-
mens ir žalvario amžiaus paminklai. Vilnius: Mintis, pp. 94–95.
23
Ibid., pp. 88–89. In his publication of 1930, Šturms also refers to them as
Lithuanian (litauschen) axes; see: Katalog der Ausstellung zur konferenz Bal-
tischer archäologen in Riga 1930. Riga: Herausgegeben vom oraganisation-
komitee, 1930, s. 13.
24
Eduards Šturms (1936). Latvijas akmens laikmeta materiāli. F. Balodis,
K. Straubergs (red.). Latviešu aizvēstures materiāli, II. Rīga: Latviešu Filo-
logu biedrība, 20. lpp.
25
Ilze Loze (1979). Pozdnii neolit i raniaia bronza Lubanskoi ravnini. Riga:
Zinatne, tab. XX: 2, 3, 6.
26
Aivar Kriiska (1998). Vaibla kivikirves. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri, 2,
pp. 154–157.
27
Elvīra Šnore (1978). Celtniecības liecības Kivtu apmetnē. Arheoloģija un
etnogrāfija, 12, 53.–54. lpp., 8. att.
28
Evert Baudou (1960). Die regionale und chronologische Einteilung der
jüngeren Bronzezeit im Nordischen Kreis. Acta Universitatis Stockholmien-
sis. Studies in North-European Archaeology, 1, Stockholm, s. 47–48.
29
Jan Dąbrowski, Zdislaw Rajewski (red.) (1979). Od środkowej epoki brazu
do środkowegu okresu Lateńskiego. Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, t. IV, tabl.
XXXIV: 15; Janusz Ostoja-Zagórski (1978). Gród Halstzacki w Jankowie
nad jeziorem Pakoskim. Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków: Ossolineum, s. 102,
ryc. 10: d, 15: L.

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

 25

30
Maciej Kaczmarek, Grzegorz Szczurek (2015). The Early Iron Age Fortified
Settlements in Wielkopolska (western Poland) – past and present perspec-
tives in archaeological research. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Bd. 90, H. 1–2,
pp. 245–270.
31
Andrejs Vasks, Gunita Zariņa (2014). Ķivutkalna pilskalns un kapulauks:
jauni dati un jaunas problēmas. LVIŽ, 3, 22. lpp.
32
Jānis Graudonis (1989). Nocietinātās apmetnes Daugavas lejtecē. Rīga: Zi-
nātne, 2. tabula, 21. lpp.
33
A similar broadening of the blade to improve the effectiveness of the tool
is seen in the case of the iron axes of later times. Thus, narrow-bladed axes
are characteristic of the Early and Middle Iron Age, replaced in the Late
Iron Age by axes with a broad blade.
34
Jānis Ciglis (2018). Arheoloģisko pieminekļu apzināšana Rietumvidzemē.
Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2016.–2017. gadā. Rīga: NT Klasika, 241.–
246. lpp.
35
Silvi Laul, Kersti Kihno (1999). Prehistoric Land Use and Settlement His-
tory on the Haanja Heights, Southeastern Estonia, with Special Reference
to the Siksali – Hino Area. PACT: Environmental and Cultural History of
the Eastern Baltic Region. Rixsensart (Belgium), Vol. 57, pp. 248–249.
36
Andrejs Vasks, Laimdota Kalniņa (2006). Apdzīvotība un zemkopība Rie-
tumlatvijā agro metālu laikmetā. Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija, 23, 285.–
286. lpp.
37
Latvijas PSR ģeogrāfija (1975). Rīga: Zinātne, 11. tabula.
38
Jānis Graudonis (1989). Nocietinātās apmetnes Daugavas lejtecē. Rīga: Zi-
nātne, 24.–25. lpp.
39
Andrejs Vasks (2003). The symbolism of stone work axes (based on mate-
rial from the Daugava basin). Archaeologia Lituana, 4, pp. 27–32.

VIENKĀRŠIE AKMENS DARBA CIRVJI LATVIJĀ:

TIPOLOĢIJA, HRONOLOĢIJA, IZPLATĪBA

Andrejs Vasks
Dr. habil. hist., Latvijas Universitātes Latvijas vēstures institūta vadošais pēt-
nieks.
Zinātniskās intereses: Latvijas aizvēsture, arheoloģija, bronzas un dzelzs laik-
mets.

Rakstā aplūkoti vienkāršie akmens kātcauruma darba cirvji, kas ir masvei-

dīga bronzas laikmeta atradumu kategorija – Latvijas muzejos glabājas vai ir

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

26 Andrejs Vasks

ziņas par apmēram 1630 cirvjiem, no kuriem lielākā daļa (92%) ir savrup-
atradumi bez arheoloģiskā konteksta. Vienkāršie akmens cirvji atšķirībā no
kaujas cirvjiem pētnieku uzmanību saistījuši mazāk. Pēc formas tie iedalīti
piecstūra, Augšzemes tipa un mandeļveida formas cirvjos. Pēdējo ir vis-
vairāk – 82% no visiem darba cirvjiem. Piecstūra un Augšzemes tipa cirvji
lietoti visā bronzas laikmetā, bet mandeļveida formas cirvji vairāk raksturīgi
vēlajam bronzas un senākajam dzelzs laikmetam. Cirvju izplatība Latvijas te-
ritorijā nav vienmērīga. Liela to koncentrācija konstatēta atsevišķos Augš-
zemes apvidos, pie Daugavas, Lielupes baseinā, dažās vietās Rietumlatvijā.
Maz šo cirvju atrasts Latvijas ziemeļu daļā, kas izskaidrojams ar atšķirībām
saimniecības modelī, kurā zemkopībai bija mazāka nozīme nekā lopkopībai.

Atslēgas vārdi: vienkāršie akmens kātcauruma darba cirvji, Latvijas teritorija,

bronzas laikmets, tipoloģija, hronoloģija, izplatība.

Kopsavilkums
Redzamu vietu Latvijas arheoloģiskajā materiālā ieņem akmens cirvji
ar izurbtu kātcaurumu. Izšķiramas vairākas šo cirvju tipoloģiskās grupas:
laivas cirvji, taisnmuguras cirvji, divasmeņu cirvji un šajā rakstā sīkāk
aplūkotie vienkāršie cirvji. Atšķirībā no vēlā neolīta laivas cirvjiem
vienkāršie darba cirvji ir Latvijas bronzas laikmetam raksturīga atradumu
kategorija. Tāpat kā pārējo grupu cirvji, arī vienkāršo cirvju vairums ir
savrupatradumi bez arheoloģiskā konteksta, kas ievērojami apgrūtina to
precīzākas hronoloģijas noteikšanu. Tikai neliela daļa cirvju, pārsvarā
fragmentāru, ir atrasta dzīvesvietās, bet apbedījumos tie tikpat kā nav sa-
stopami. Šobrīd autora uzskaitē ir ap 1630 šādu Latvijā atrastu vienkāršo
cirvju – gan paši priekšmeti, gan arhīvu ziņas par cirvju atradumiem. To
lielākā daļa glabājas Latvijas Nacionālajā vēstures muzejā, taču tādi ir arī
novadu muzejos.
Kaujas cirvjiem un to tipoloģijai pētnieki pievērsās jau 20. gs. pirmajā
pusē. Salīdzinot ar kaujas cirvjiem, vienkāršajiem cirvjiem tikusi veltīta
krietni mazāka uzmanība, kaut arī to skaits daudzkārt pārsniedz kaujas
cirvju skaitu. Viens no iemesliem šādai atturībai vienkāršo cirvju analīzē
acīmredzot ir šo cirvju formu lielā daudzveidība, respektīvi, nejaušība,
kas apgrūtina visaptverošas tipoloģijas izstrādi. Tā Jānis Graudonis, mē-
ģinot šos cirvjus tipoloģizēt, atzina, ka veselu virkni cirvju neizdodas
iekļaut nevienā apakšgrupā.
Vienkāršie akmens cirvji ir mazāki par laivas cirvjiem. To garums pa-
rasti ir 8–12 cm, tomēr sastopami gan īsāki, gan arī garāki (it īpaši Augš-
zemes tipa cirvju apakšgrupā) eksemplāri. Atšķirībā no kaujas cirvjiem
kātcaurums vairumā gadījumu tiem atrodas tuvāk pietam. Aplūkojot
LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)
Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 27

cirvi pretskatā, izšķirami piecstūra formas (1. att.), Augšzemes tipa

(2. att.: 2, 4, 7) un mandeļveida formas cirvji (2. att.: 1, 3, 5, 6). Ir arī cir-
vju starpformas vai hibrīdformas, tāpēc tās grūti pieskaitīt kādai no mi-
nētajām apakšgrupām. Galvenā uzmanība cirvju izgatavošanā acīmredzot
tikusi pievērsta rīka funkcionalitātei, kur formai bija sekundāra nozīme.
Piecstūra formas cirvjiem ir noplacināts piets, respektīvi, izveidota
pieta sega, kas ar cirvja sāniem veido vairāk vai mazāk asas šķautnes, bet
sānos iepretim kātcaurumam izcelti pleci ar vairāk vai mazāk izteiktām
plecu šķautnēm. Atkarībā no pieta formas izšķirami divi varianti: 1) pieta
sāni virs pleciem ir taisni (1. att.: 1, 2), 2) pieta sāni virs pleciem ir kon-
kāvi; pēdējā gadījumā, līdzīgi kā laivas cirvjiem, pieta šķērsgriezums ir
ovāls vai apaļš (1. att.: 3–7). Cirvja priekša, proti, plakne, kas vērsta cirvja
kāta virzienā, ar muguru parasti atrodas zināmā leņķī, veidojot paplaši-
nātu asmeni, tomēr bieži abas puses ir paralēlas. Kātcaurums var būt iz-
urbts tuvāk pietam vai arī cirvja vidusdaļā. Cirvja šķērsgriezums kātcau-
ruma līmenī ir tuvs četrstūrim. No 850 cirvjiem, kuriem varēja noteikt
formu, tikai 61 (7% no visiem darba cirvjiem) pieskaitāms piecstūra cir-
vjiem. Tie vairāk raksturīgi Latvijas rietumu daļai, taču sastopami arī
Daugavas baseinā (3. att.).
Augšzemes tipa cirvjiem (pavisam 97, kas ir 11% no visiem darba
cirvjiem) raksturīgas paralēlas priekšas, muguras un sānu plaknes, tāpēc
šķērsgriezums tiem četrstūrains. Kātcaurums Augšzemes cirvjiem vien-
mēr urbts tuvu pietam. Pretskatā piets var būt noapaļots (2. att.: 4, 7) vai
trapecveida (2. att.: 2). Šie cirvji ir slaidi un gari – parasti no 12–13 cm
līdz 15–16 cm, kāds eksemplārs bija pat 19 cm garš. Cirvju garums bija
atkarīgs arī no lietošanas intensitātes – jo tā bija lielāka, jo biežāk nācās
asmeni asināt, to slīpējot, tādā veidā padarot cirvi īsāku. Uzskatāms pie-
mērs ir 2: 4 attēlā redzamais cirvis – tā garums pēc regulāras asināšanas
ir vairs tikai 6 cm. Visvairāk šādi cirvji sastopami Augšzemē – no tā arī
cirvja nosaukums –, taču daudz to arī Dienvidlatgalē. Daži šī tipa cirvji
atrasti arī Latvijas rietumu daļā (3. att.). Daudz šādu cirvju ir Lietuvā,
īpaši tās ziemeļaustrumos, kā arī Baltkrievijā.
Visvairāk ir mandeļveida formas cirvju – pavisam 692, kas ir 82% no
visiem darba cirvjiem. Lielākajai daļai šo cirvju priekšas un muguras
plakne viena pret otru atrodas noteiktā leņķī, veidojot paplašinātu as-
meni. Tāpat raksturīgi, ka cirvju priekša un mugura ar sānu plaknēm
veido asas šķautnes, respektīvi, cirvjiem ir četrstūra šķērsgriezums. Kāt-
caurums atrodas tuvāk pietam. Tipisku mandeļveida cirvja paraugu at-
spoguļo Ķivutkalnā atrastais miniatūrais cirvītis – tas tikai 5 cm garš, bet
kātcauruma diametrs 0,9 cm (2. att.: 5). Dažkārt kātcaurums atrodas

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

28 Andrejs Vasks

cirvja vidusdaļā (piemēram, 2. att.: 3), taču te sava nozīme varēja būt as-
mens regulārai asināšanai, to slīpējot un tā samazinot cirvja garumu.
Mandeļveida formas cirvji neizceļas ar rūpīgi veidotu korpusu, bieži vien
tie ir nesimetriski un pavirši darināti. Šiem cirvjiem raksturīga liela formu
un izmēru dažādība, ko acīmredzot noteica šāda darbarīka praktiskās
lietderības un efektivitātes pārsvars pār izstrādājuma formas estētiku.
Kā liecina atradumi dažās vēlā neolīta apmetnēs (piemēram, Aborā I),
vienkāršie cirvji parādījušies jau neolīta beigās – bronzas laikmeta sā-
kumā, savukārt atradumi pilskalnos (piemēram, Ķivutkalnā) liecina, ka
tie lietoti vēl senākajā dzelzs laikmetā. Uz dažiem vienkāršajiem cirvjiem
piecstūra cirvju grupā sastopamās kaujas cirvju atsevišķas tipoloģiskās
pazīmes pieļauj šādus eksemplārus uzskatīt par relatīvi agrākiem un attie-
cināt uz neolīta beigām un bronzas laikmeta pirmo pusi. Taču šāda cirvja
atradums Kivtu apmetnes kultūrslāņa apakšējā horizontā norāda uz to
izmantošanu arī vēlajā bronzas laikmetā (1. att.: 7). Augšzemes cirvju pa-
rādīšanās laiks nav kaut cik droši nosakāms. Vēlā neolīta apmetnēs ir at-
rasti atsevišķi kātcauruma cirvju, to skaitā laivas cirvju fragmenti, taču
Augšzemes cirvji atradumos nav pārstāvēti. Tāpēc atliek uzskatīt, ka šie
cirvji ir tīra bronzas laikmeta parādība. Kā liecina šādu cirvju atradumi
Ķivutkalnā, Žaunerānu un Stanovišķu pilskalnā, tie lietoti arī vēlajā bron-
zas laikmetā. Mandeļveida formas cirvju lielākā daļa acīmredzot attieci-
nāma uz vēlo bronzas laikmetu, proti, uz laiku, kad straujāk izvērsās zem-
kopība un pieauga vajadzība pēc atbilstošiem darbarīkiem. Tomēr šie
cirvji lietoti arī sekojošajā senākajā dzelzs laikmetā (500.–1. g. pr.Kr.),
vismaz tā pirmajā pusē. Uz to norāda cirvju atradumu stratigrāfija vēlā
bronzas un senākā dzelzs laikmeta pilskalnu kultūrslāņos.
Cirvju kā masveida izstrādājumu izplatība zināmā mērā raksturo Lat-
vijas teritorijas apdzīvotības ainu bronzas laikmetā. To izplatība Latvijas
teritorijā nav vienmērīga. Liela to koncentrācija konstatēta atsevišķos
Augšzemes apvidos, pie Daugavas ap Jēkabpili, Lielupes baseina centrā-
lajā un austrumu daļā, dažās vietās Rietumlatvijā. Maz šo cirvju atrasts
Latvijas ziemeļu daļā, īpaši Ziemeļvidzemē (4. att.), kas visticamāk skaid-
rojams ar šo teritoriju iedzīvotāju atšķirīgu saimniecības modeli, proti, ar
mazāku vai pat minimālu zemkopības, bet lielāku lopkopības lomu. Lai
noskaidrotu, kādi apstākļi ietekmēja tā vai cita apvidus izmantošanu
zemkopībai, aplūkota akmens cirvju saistība ar augšņu cilmiežiem, kas
veidojušies pēdējā apledojuma un tā kušanas rezultātā. Visbiežāk akmens
cirvji saistīti ar morēnu, kas parasti ir bagāta arī ar karbonātiem un tiek
uzskatīta par samērā labu augsnes cilmiezi. Salīdzinoši daudz cirvju at-
rasts uz upju piekrastu aluviālo nogulumu auglīgajām augsnēm. Tanī

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)

Simple Stone Work Axes in Latvia 29

pašā laikā glaciolimniskie māli izmantoti maz, jo šādas augsnes ir grūti

apstrādājamas.
Visbeidzot izvirzās jautājums: kāpēc mūsdienu tīrumos atrod tik
daudz veselu akmens cirvju? Nav domājams, ka tie varētu būt nejauši pa-
zaudēti, jo akmens cirvis bija pietiekami vērtīgs rīks, lai to atkal nesa-
meklētu. Acīmredzot šie cirvji ar nolūku ir nolikti senajos tīrumos kā
aizsargpriekšmeti, kā talismani vai amuleti. Bronzas laikmetā vienkāršie
akmens darba cirvji vairs nebija sociālā statusa izteicēji, tomēr dažas pa-
zīmes norāda, ka tiem tika piedēvētas noteiktas maģiskas īpašības. Šajā
sakarā uzmanību saista jau iepriekš minētais Ķivutkalna pilskalnā atras-
tais rūpīgi izveidotais miniatūrais akmens cirvītis. Turpat atrasts arī kāds
6 cm garš cirvja veidā apslīpēts priekšmets no dolomīta ar aizsāktu kāt-
cauruma urbumu. Latvijā starp savrupatradumos iegūtajiem cirvjiem ir
atsevišķi eksemplāri, kuru garums ir tikai 6–7 cm. Niecīgie izmēri liek
šaubīties par šo cirvīšu izmantošanu līdumu zemkopībā – drīzāk tie pie-
skaitāmi miniatūrajiem priekšmetiem ar īpašu simbolisku nozīmi. Jā-
domā, ka līdzīga nozīme bijusi arī tiem neminiatūrajiem cirvjiem, kas
izgatavoti no smilšakmens vai kaļķakmens un tāpēc nav piemēroti koku
un krūmu ciršanai.

ATTĒLU PARAKSTI
1. att. Akmens piecstūra darba cirvji: 1 – Lazdona, A 8693: 1; 2 – Skrundas
Spaliņi, A 8844; 3 – Alsunga, A 11693; 4 – Basu Šmidri, A 9641; 5 –
Rolavu purvs, A 8186; 6 – Viļāni, Madonas muzejs, 739; 7 – Kivtu
apmetne, LNVM VI 37: 295. Pēc: Ianis Graudonis (1967). Latviia v
epokhu pozdnei bronzi i rannego zheleza. Riga: Zinatne, 1., 4. tab.
2. att. Akmens darba cirvji: Augšzemes tipa (2, 4, 7) un mandeļveida formas (1,
3, 5, 6). 1 – Reznu kapulauks, 2. uzkalniņš, A 8372: 5; 2 – Krāslavas
Aišpuri, A 10656; 3 – Īslīces Bērziņi, A 12753: 1; 4 – Pabažu Stūrīši,
A 12193; 5 – Ķivutkalna pilskalns, LNVM VI 9: 2078; 6 – Sātiņu Lazdu
kalns, A 8026; 7 – Pilskalne, RLB 21. Aigas Ivbules zīmējums
3. att. Piecstūra (1) un Augšzemes tipa (2) cirvji Latvijas teritorijā
4. att. Vienkāršie akmens darba cirvji Latvijas teritorijā

LATVIJAS VĒSTURES INSTITŪTA ŽURNĀLS ◆ 2019 Nr. 1 (109)