Burial customs of Estonians from the early modern period have admittedly been studied rather extensively, yet one aspect of the conglomeration of Estonian burial customs as a whole – burials in sacral buildings – has for the most part remained beyond the sphere of interest of researchers. This article has been completed as a summary of materials that I have gathered in the course of preparations for writing my master’s thesis. Thereat I focus in this article on the use of one specific type of gravestead – the Erbbegräbniß (hereditary burial plot) – by the rural population.

Even though burials in Erbbegräbniß among the rural population account for only a fraction of the total number of instances of burials in sacral spaces that were affected by Baltic German customs, more than thirty Erbbegräbniß that had belonged to Estonians have been successfully identified in the course of this research work. The analysis relies primarily on documented evidence, which is decidedly lacunal because of gaps in the preservation of documents and in content related to contemporary burial entries in those documents. Nevertheless, materials that have already been found allow some generalisations to be drawn.

Several aspects of the practice in question merit attention. I consider the primary aspects requiring examination to be the regionality of the spread of the rural population’s Erbbegräbniß, the long period over which they were established and used, the specifics of the circle of users of these burial plots, and the legal aspect associated with establishing and using them.

The outlining of two regions – the near vicinity of Tallinn and the region of Western Viru County and Northern Järva County – is striking from a geographical viewpoint. In both of these regions, more than one Erbbegräbniß belonging to one or another member of the rural population are usually found in a single sacral building. Jõelähtme Parish stands out additionally with the fact that such burial sites are found in smaller chapels (Saha, Pirita) alongside the parish church. Yet the largest number of such burial sites is found in Ambla Church. Even though the majority of the rural population belonged to rural congregations, there is evidence that rural people used such burial sites in cities as well (Tartu).

Rural people started acquiring the rights to establish Erbbegräbniß in the 1630s at the latest. Such burial sites continued to be established even after the Great Northern War. The latest notice concerning the use of Erbbegräbniß originates from 1772, that is from the time immediately preceding the introduction of the ban on burying people in churches, which applied to all estates in society.

The heads of farm households (65%) and millers (24%) were the primary users of Erbbegräbniß. Peasant churchwardens and artisans are encountered once in a blue moon. The research material similarly did not indicate any noteworthy proportion of free peasants among the owners of burial sites (only one instance). The absence of manor servants and innkeepers among the owners of burial sites is typical. While manor servants were buried in church primarily in single graves or later in sepulchres based on class, the burial of innkeepers in church was generally also exceedingly rare.

Acquirement of the right to establish a burial site did not depend solely on financial capabilities, rather it was a social privilege. The congregation’s leadership consisting of the pastor and the parish church organ of government was connected to granting such privileges. Rural people were not given any discounts regarding expenses associated with the use of burial sites (the price of acquiring one, the costs of constructing the site, incidentals, etc.) and the expenses depended on the current market price (construction expenses, the cost of the covering panel) or the fee rate set by the parish church organ of government (payment for the location, incidentals).

In describing the legal aspect of the right to use a burial site, it must be stressed that although there is no information regarding transactions between peasants for transferring usage rights of burial sites, the inheritance of their usage rights from one generation to another can be traced, along with the owner’s right to allow friends or more distant relatives to also use the burial site. The right of usage reverted to the church if there were no heirs, not to the manor lord in whose manorial estate the peasant lived. Ownership of this right was for the most part entered in a list or registry kept in the church records.

The numerical relationship between Erbbegräbniß established in sacral buildings and larger grave markers erected in the church yard (primarily sun crosses) within individual parishes merits future research as a hypothesis. It appears that a relationship holds good where a larger number of Erbbegräbniß brings a smaller number of sun crosses in the church yard and vice versa.

Research on the aspect of the burial culture of the rural population described above cannot by a long shot be considered finished. Nevertheless, the facts that have already come to light by now support the review of previously widespread viewpoints in quite a few fields. Let us mention here the interpretation of folklore; the description of some aspects of the peasantry’s ownership relations; treatments of the social stratification of the rural population, etc.