Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal

Lodede suguvõsa algusest Eestimaal [Abstract: On the origins of the Lode family in Estonia]

Kristjan Oad — 2024-06-01

Abstract: On the origins of the Lode family in Estonia

In recent decades, the tumultuous events of the 13th century in the Eastern Baltic have begun to be thoroughly researched for essentially the first time since the beginning of modern historical research, as opposed to being often used for contemporary political propaganda.

This has already yielded significant results and considerably altered the age-old ‘big picture’ of near-total annihilation of the region’s elites and power structures by invaders. In many ways, the societal structures of the previous era continued and amalgamated with Western European political formats. Cultural Germanisation might have played a more wide-scale role among the elites than previously thought. There were invasions and immigration, of course, but the line between the winners and the losers of the many conflicts ran between specific actors and not along ethnic or religious fault lines.

Instead of sweeping generalisations based on isolated samples of evidence, in-depth studies of events and processes in different regions of the Eastern Baltic seems to be a promising research strategy. Following such analyses by other scholars on Saaremaa and Virumaa, this paper focuses on Northwestern Estonia, a region where the earliest available records present the Lode family as the dominant local actor. The paper gathers, compares, and builds upon previous research on the early history of the Estonian Lodes, with the aim of sorting out controversies, filling lacunae, and integrating the known bits of information into a coherent interpretation.

The paper finds that hypotheses arguing that the Lodes originated from Westphalia or the Archdiocese of Bremen seem to be unfounded. An identical or similar family name can be found in numerous Central European regions during the 12th–14th centuries, however the name appears in several independent instances and the different Lode families cannot be considered related based on the name alone. As for Westphalia or Bremen, other sources contradict the previously presented evidence. It altogether seems that the Lodes of those regions did not emigrate to Estonia.

The sources also contradict the hypothesis ascribing Danish origins to the Estonian Lodes. In 1229, the Lodes seem to have held considerable (if not de facto ruling) power in Western Estonia. However, after several years of intense battles against various adversaries around their fortification in present-day Tallinn, the last of the Danes who had arrived in 1219 had left the country in 1227. It is also not possible to associate the origin of the Estonian Lodes with the Swedish crusade to Western Estonia in 1220, as essentially all the Swedes who remained after the initial landing, including the top leadership, were shortly massacred by an army arriving from Saaremaa.

The stronghold of Koluvere in Western Estonia was among the earliest known holdings of the Lode family; the Teutonic Order forced them to abandon it together with most of their West-Estonian holdings in 1238. Koluvere, however, is a later name. The earliest recorded name of the place is Lode. A hypothesis has been put forward that the Lodes had arrived here from Germany in ca 1228 and that their stay of about ten years gave the place a (new) name which then remained for centuries. This paper instead proposes the more common process of the place-name becoming the name of the landholding family. The region is a lowland with many swamps and has place-names referring to wetlands; the place-name Lode could stem from Estonian words meaning marshland (lodu) or a temporary flood (looded). It is worth noting that during the wars of the early 13th century, this region did not witness such casualties among the local nobility as in some parts of Southern Estonia; instead, Western Estonia features numerous 13th-century tombstones with pagan warrior-aristocratic symbols mixed with Christian motifs.

Throughout centuries, the male name Odeward was emblematic among the Estonian Lodes. This paper finds that it seems to have been a version of the English name Edward, which was also occasionally written Odewardus. In one known instance in the late 13th century, the name of an Estonian Odeward Lode was written Eduwardus. The name Odeward/Edward was unknown in 12th and 13th-century Germany and Denmark. From early 12th century Sweden, a Jedvard (Edward) is known. This may be the result of missionary and ecclesiastical organisation in Sweden by English clerics, since that was also the period of the royally endorsed cult of Edward the Confessor as a proposed saint. During the same decades, Estonia stood out among the Baltic Sea countries as the one with direct trade relations with England, as indicated by numismatic evidence. It seems probable that the name Odeward/Edward spread to Estonia from England either via Sweden or directly.

In 1528, the Lodes used documents from 1196 and 1222 to win litigation regarding the estate of Loodna in Western Estonia. As summarised in the verdict (the original documents have been lost), the document from 1196 stated that an Odeward Lode was now a vassal of Canute VI, the king of Denmark, and held as fiefs Loodna together with several other estates throughout Northern Estonia. The document from 1222 stated that the same arrangement was in effect between Henrik Lode, son and heir of Odeward, and King Valdemar II, brother and heir of Canute. This paper concludes that these documents were authentic, since they are precise in the details regarding the times of events and the people involved. It would have been nearly impossible as well as impractical to produce such forgeries. Several cases of claiming false centuries-old association with the kings of Denmark to bolster legitimacy are known from medieval Estonia and Livonia. However, all such claims were grossly incorrect historically, as opposed to the exact match between these documents and surviving records from the 12th and 13th centuries.

The list of estates held by Odeward Lode, forming a kind of chain from Loodna in the west to Kohtla near Estonia’s eastern limits, is an intriguing object for future research. The fact that they are all located in the proximity of stronghold sites, certainly or possibly used around the year 1200, might offer a tentative explanation. As such, they might have been administrative centres for a territory beyond their immediate vicinity, similarly to the husabyar of contemporary Sweden or the kingstons of 10th-century England.

This paper finds that the hypothesis claiming that the Estonian Lodes initially had estates in Western Estonia and gained holdings in Northern Estonia only after 1238 is unfounded. Such a hypothesis would require making several cumulative assumptions regarding the politics of Northern Estonia in 1238–1241 that have no foundation in the sources and would in fact contradict what we know about the practices of the involved agents at the time. It can be surmised that the Lodes had large estates in Northern Estonia in 1241 (when the Estonian part of the Liber Census Daniae was probably compiled), but there is no direct information regarding when or how they acquired them.

Tundlikest teemadest ajalooõpetuses Eesti õpilaste vaates [Abstract: Controversial and sensitive issues from the perspective of Estonian pupils]

Hanna-Liis Kaarlõp — 2024-06-01

Abstract: Controversial and sensitive issues from the perspective of Estonian pupils

This article analyses the teaching of controversial and sensitive topics in the context of Estonian history education and answers the following questions:

- Which topics in history are controversial and sensitive according to pupils? How important is it for pupils to learn about controversial topics?

- How is the perceived sensitivity of topics related to personal background factors of pupils (nationality, ethnicity, gender, age) and contextual factors (school location, mother tongue, and mother’s level of education)?

In the theoretical part of the article, a brief overview is given of the general context of history education in Estonia and of research on history education to date, and reasons for the emergence of controversial and sensitive topics are discussed. Traditionally, the purpose of teaching history has been to narrate the history of a nation and to foster a cohesive society. The Second World War, the Holocaust, and the collapse of colonial systems led to a rethinking of history education in Western Europe and North America. Questions were raised about the role of history education in a multicultural democratic society. Equally, there was an interest in how to deal with issues of history that are controversial and sensitive for different communities, often based on traumatic experiences from the past.

Developments in Estonian history education differed from those in Western Europe, affected by Estonia’s annexation into the Soviet Union and limitations on Estonian self-determination, since education was controlled from Moscow until the early 1990s. After Estonia regained its independence, a new educational system was created and the role of history education in a democratic society was comprehensively redefined. One of the most controversial issues, both in society and in the teaching of history, has been the differences in how the Estonian and Russian communities perceive the Second World War and the subsequent occupation. Today, the war that broke out in Ukraine in 2022, as well as the changing and interconnected world, and the growing multiculturalism of Estonian society and schools have given the debate new momentum.

In the empirical part, we provide an overview of the results of a quantitative questionnaire that focused on pupils’ perceptions of sensitive topics. A total of 224 pupils in grades 9 and 11 participated in the survey. Of the pupils who completed the questionnaire, 91 were boys and 133 were girls, 107 were aged 14–16 and 117 were aged 17–19. The results indicate that the most sensitive topics for pupils are from the 20th century, especially the Second World War and the subsequent Soviet occupation. Discussing controversial and sensitive topics in school is especially important for ethnic Russian pupils or pupils with multiple ethnic identities, indicating their post-memory. An important theme that emerged in the pupils’ responses was the degree of subjectivity in the perception of sensitive topics and the link to pupils’ diverse personal and contextual sources of identification, such as nationality, gender, age, and home language, all of which intertwine in complex ways to create the personal subjective interpretation filter. However, one of the main determinants of interpretation was still the dominant national narrative. For pupils of Estonian nationality, the trauma narrative of the Second World War is noticeable in their interpretations. Contradictions were greater for pupils of Russian ethnicity. These included references to topics from Russia’s imperialist narrative (e.g. the Great Northern War, collaborationism, US expansionism, imperialist Russia, the Second World War, the collapse of the USSR, Putin’s Russia) as well as the Russian community’s trauma experience after the collapse of the USSR, the loss of its former political position, and a perceived sense of injustice related to such historical events (the topics of the collapse of the USSR, democracy, and freedom). Differences according to ethnic background were evident not only in thematic differences but also in the general perceived sensitivity to the issues. Pupils with multiple identities and ethnic Russian pupils found these topics to be more sensitive than pupils of Estonian ethnicity. These reactions instead point to the context outside the classroom, to the different historical experiences of the Estonian and Russian communities, and reflect the particularities of Estonian memory politics, the mistrust between the two communities, and the lack of reflexive and open dialogue between different understandings of history. Sensitivity may indicate not only a certain behavioural adaptation to the environment, but also the formation of identity through resistance, and a possible perceived threat to the group’s cultural traditions.

Education, including history education, cannot by itself change the deeper structural roots of the sensitivity of issues. Controversial and sensitive issues reflect social context. Pupils’ perceptions are shaped by the socio-cultural environment. Dealing with controversial and sensitive issues requires a reassessment of previous interpretations, both individually and collectively. It is therefore important to support the decolonisation of Soviet-era history-related discourse, both in the school system and in society at large. This means processing the emotive aspects of difficult historical encounters and creating new visions for the future for all concerned in an effort to avoid victim narratives and the downplaying one’s own agency. Recognising the need for memory work is important because the problem is not in abstract narratives, but in the way in which these narratives influence interpersonal interaction and everyday life. They are often unconsciously transmitted by all members of society. In the field of education, it is important to redefine the school system as a unified Estonian school and to include controversial and sensitive topics in the curriculum, while also recognising the limiting ways of talking about the social world, which reinforce the boundaries between different communities.

Matthias Asche, Werner Buchholz, Mathias Niendorf, Patrick Schiele, Anton Schindling † (koost). Protestantismus in den baltischen Landen und Litauen. Nation und Konfession vom 16. Jahrhundert bis 1918, XI, 557 lk

Madis Maasing — 2024-06-01

Ilmar Tammisto, Aadel ja riigivõim Liivimaal 1634–1680 (Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus), 368 lk, ISBN 978-9916-27-175-9

Astrid Wendel-Hansen — 2024-06-01