Scandinavian burials) (Zarin ̧a, 2006 ; 318 , 425 ). Only in and around Grobin ̧a numer-
ous grave mounds speak of a large colony of Scandinavian migrants who preserved their
cultural identity and kept contacts with their homeland. Archaeology speaks of their
peaceful coexistence with the native Curonian population.
At the main waterways, especially the Daugava, relations between the Scandinavians
and the natives seem to have been predominantly peaceful and based on mutual inter-
ests. Gifts to the local elite granted the Vikings the right to trade and passage. The role
of the numerous hill forts at Daugava was evidently not to block the waterways, but to
control the situation. Contacts with the Livic areas were presumably based on relation-
ships, including marriage (indirectly reflected also in Livs’ personal names). The inland
areas were probably involved in trade through local mediators – either independent or
representatives of the native elite – who exchanged local goods for silver at harbours and
trading places. The presence of trading Scandinavians themselves on smaller waterways
seems likely only where they had good contacts with the native elite.
A special role in Scandinavian–eastern Baltic relations belonged to Gotland, which
differed greatly from Continental Sweden both in culture and in society. The large and
numerous silver hoards indicate the Gotlanders’ special role in Viking raids and also
the non-centralised character of Viking trade (Thunmark-Nylén 1992 : 156 – 7 ).
Archaeology indicates close, peaceful and intensive contacts between Gotland and the
eastern Baltic. Close similarity in men’s costume and weapons (silver-plated spearheads,
scabbards, belt mounts with animal ornamentation) manifest the common identity
and solidarity of traders from the Gotland, Curonia, Saaremaa and Livic areas in the
tenth–eleventh centuries. The contacts were especially intensive with Curonia, geo-
graphically the closest area (Thunmark-Nylén 2000 ). Eastern Baltic women’s ornaments
from Gotland have been interpreted not as ordinary imports, but as signs of marriage
relations (Thunmark-Nylén 1992 : 157 – 60 ), and breast pins, alien to Scandinavia, were
even produced on Gotland ( Jansson 1995 ). In the light of new research, the old model
of Gotlandic expansion to the east (Nerman 1929 ) is no longer valid. The recent analysis
of E-type spearheads around the Baltic shows that, although ‘Scandinavian’ in form and
ornament, they were produced in different workshops and areas (Creutz 2003 ) and in
this light the same may be the situation concerning also other ‘Scandinavian’ artefacts
(Figure 36. 4 ). The relations between Gotland and the eastern Baltic, especially its
closest eastern neighbours – Saaremaa and Curonia – were probably mainly of mer-
cantile, not of military, character. The Gotlanders had peace with Saaremaa even during
the crusades of the early thirteenth century when Visby had become a centre of German
activities.
Thus, in the local networks of Baltic Sea trade an active role belonged also to the
eastern Baltic, especially the inhabitants of western coastal areas. It has even been
suggested that from the eleventh century Saaremaa was involved in transit trade
between the estuary of Daugava and Gotland (Ligi 1995 a: 237 ). But, on the whole, trade
on the Baltic Sea was not equal: finds of Scandinavian origin are numerous in the eastern
Baltic but eastern Baltic artefacts are quite rare in Scandinavia.
Military relationsThe military aspects of relations are also considerable. The written sources show that
Scandinavian early state formation had different zones of interest in the eastern Baltic
–– chapter 36: The Vikings and the eastern Baltic––