Urbańczyk Przemysław Trudne poczštki Polski

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Samsonowicz (red.), Warszawa, s.420-421.Widajewicz J.1947 Państwo Wiślan, Kraków.Wojciechowski Z.1951 Gniezno-Poznań-Kraków na tle kształtowania się państwa Piastów, PrzeglądZachodni", t.7, nr 7-8, s.335-358.Wolfram H.2000 Reichsbildungen, Kirchengrundungen und das Entstehen neuer Vólker, [w:]Europas Mitte um 1000, A.Wieczorek, H.-M.Hinz (Hrsg.), Stuttgart, t.1,s.342-353.Wyrozumski J.1999 Dzieje Polski piastowskiej (VIII wiek - 1370), [w:] Wielka historia Polski,t.2, Kraków.2002 Der Akt von Gnesen und seine Bedeutung fur die polnische Geschichte, [w:] Po-len und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahren, M.Borgolte (Hrsg.), Berlin, s.281-291.Zagrodzki T., �.1996 Czersk.Zamek i miasto historyczne, Warszawa.Zaitz E.1982 Skarb Wiślan.Informator wystawy, Warszawa.:.1990 Wczesnośredniowieczne grzywny siekieropodobne z Małopolski, Materiały'Ar-cheologiczne", t.25, s.142-174.' '398Zajączkowski S.1938 Podziały plemienne Polski w okresie powstania państwa, Katowice.Zakrzewski S.1917 Opis grodów i terytoriów z północnej strony Dunaju, czyli tzw.Geograf Bawar-ski, Lwów.1958 Kilka słów o denarze GNEZDUN CIYITAS, Wiadomości Numizmatyczne", t.2,z.1, s.1-5.Zientara B.1985 Zwit narodów europejskich.Powstawanie świadomości narodowej na obszarzeEuropy pokarolińskiej, Warszawa.śurowska K.(red.)1993 Ostrów Lednicki, Kraków.śurowska K., T.Rodzińska-Chorą\y, A.Biedroń1991 Architektura kamienna Ostrowia Lednickiego w świetle badań z lat 1987-1990, Studia Lednickie", t.2, s.357-360.śurowski J.1934 Przebieg i wyniki dotychczasowych badań archeologicznych nad najbli\szymotoczeniem kopca Krakusa, Sprawozdania PAU", t.39, nr 5, s.35-37.1935 Sprawozdanie z dokończenia badań nad otoczeniem i podstawą kopca Krakusa, Sprawozdania PAU", t.40, s.84-85.SUMMARYPOLAND'S DIFFICULT BEGINNINGSThe author of the present book is an archaeologist who has been trying to substantiatehis underground findings by information extracted from library shelves.Unfortunately,contemporary historians, archaeologists, art historians, linguists and numismatists allspeak different "languages".This makes communication difficult, as a result of whichresearchers are reluctant to explore fields dominated by other disciplines that study thepast in a different manner.One of the problems hindering the interdisciplinary debatę is the typical archaeol-ogical conviction that expanding databases improves our understanding of past reality.In addition, morę and morę scholars specialize in increasingly narrow fields and reactnegatively to "trespassers", especially if they undermine the well-rooted traditions.However, I believe that there is no other way to make progress than to take accountof the necessary criticism.In Chapter 2 (Together or separately?) I strongly support an interdisciplinaryapproach to the study of the Polish Early Middle Ages.It may sound like a truism butthe cooperation between archaeologists and historians has been usually limited to themutual borrowing of ready-made interpretations used to support hypotheses arrived atearlier.This reflects the traditional separation of the materiał culture within the studiesof the past.The way out of this deadlock leads through the reference to and applica-tion of generał anthropological knowledge with special attention to be devoted to theachievements of historical anthropology.Unfortunately, such a stance does not enjoysupport among Polish academics, who usually treat the historical and the archaeologi-cal approaches to the Early Middle Ages separately, which results in visions limitedeither to the materiał or the verbal evidence of the social reality.Chapter 3 {The origins of Early Medieval States as an interdisciplinary problem)deals with one of the obvious targets of the proposed interdisciplinary research, i.e.the early history of statehood in Central Europę.Available literaturę is immense butthe factual foundations are rather weak, which results in interpretations being supple-mented with imagination.The well-established evolutionistic approaches have beenąuestioned mostly by archaeologists who implement the ever-growing archaeologicaldatabases.This, however, reąuires the development of theoretical concepts reachingbeyond the schemes of common sense reasoning.The achievements of political andethnohistorical anthropology too shoułd be of great value here, especially in answeringa long series of the still difficult ąuestions.Early states in Central-Eastern and Northern Europę are dealt with in Chapter 4which offers a broad background for the arguments presented further on in the book.It400contains a presentation of the earliest history of the Polish state as compared with theprocesses that took place around it.Such a regional perspective is obviously necessaryto understand and explain many "national" processes that cannot be reduced to a seriesof crucial events suggested by the written sources.Similarly, there is a need to devotemorę attention to confronting the still preferred deterministic explanation, which refersto some generał mechanisms of the socio-political development, with the acknowledge-ment of the role of contingence and the interests of individuals.Hence the suggestionto avoid discussing the national perspectives of the Czechs, Poles, Ruthenians, Swedesor Hungarians and to replace them with studies of dynastie interests of the Premyslids,Piasts, Rurikids, Skjoldungs or Arpads whose actions eventually resulted in the creationofpolitical nations.In Chapter 5 (From a "tribe " to the state) I try to persuade Polish scholars to leavebehind the deeply-rooted concept of a strictly tribal organization of the populations thatinhabited lands located between the Baltic Sea and the mountains before 966 when ourfirst historical monarch, Mieszko I, was baptized.Very vague written evidence as wellas lack of archaeological evidence, which would demonstrate the existence of distinctregions of different materiał cultures, suggest that we should abandon the very usefulbut unsubstantiated vision of a politicai organization of inereasing complexity whereterritorial aggregation is the main mechanism.This is an opportunity to finally removethe commonly accepted tribes of Polanie and Wislanie from the maps of the Polish landsin the pre-state period.These rwo "tribes", which are so important to our national con-sciousness, seem to be rather Jate creations of Polish histonography and, therefore, theirplace is on a library shelf alongside other mythical figures.The search for clear-cut divi-sions during the Polish Early Middle Ages may be replaced with a vision of a relativelyuniform ethnohistorical region that was undoubtedly ethnically varied and politicallydynamie but not to the extent that would allow external (archaeological, historical orlinguistic) identification of any stable ethnopolitical territorial organizations [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Linki