Previous studies on central places of the Western Slavs clearly show that these centres, regardless of physiographic and socio-cultural conditions, various factors of their formation, created specific spatial arrangements of homogeneous characteristics or hierarchical to varying degree. They were dynamic systems, changing in time. From this perspective interesting seems to be the problem of continuation or discontinuation of specific places, the problem of their duration and continuity on the one hand, and their abandonment and translocation on the other. Continuity of the central place – as is known – we observe in the case of various archaeological sites, mainly burial grounds, as well as places referred to in the traditional archaeological and heritage protection terminology as strongholds. Due to their formal, chronological, and consequently functional diversity, the archaeologists realized long time ago that they were dealing with a very complex group of archaeological sites, including also some which do not match the classic definition of stronghold. This is reflected in frequent use of term ‘alleged stronhold’ and in the introduction of a vague term ‘quasi-stronghold’, concerning not the remains of cultural space, but an entity from a described bygone reality. It seems obvious that the principal criterion of stronghold determination should be presence of elements of an artificial space delimitation, while the functional aspect is of secondary importance, related to changing purpose of central places marked in natural and cultural landscape. There can be distinguished four stages in stronholds development, assigned, in turn, to four degrees of development of Western Slavs socio-political organization, characteristic of homo symbolicus, homo competitor, homo politicus and homo economicus (Urbańczyk 2007). They correspond to a) quasi -strongholds from the 7th–8th century; b) chieftains’ strongholds from the 9th–10th century; c) state strongholds from the 10th–11th century; d) castellan strongholds from the 12th–13th century. Inevitably, this is a generalized approach, not taking into account all functional variants, which can be attributed to early medieval strongholds known from the Polish territory. All aforementioned stages of devel58 opment were recorded in Kuyavia and Chełmno Land. Many of them showed a multiphase nature and changing functions, which would confirm in many cases the tradition of use of these places associated with their particular valorization in natural and cultural landscape.
Głównym zagadnieniem podjętym w niniejszym przyczynku jest problem występowania w krajobrazie przyrodniczo-kulturowym Kujaw i strefy chełmińsko-dobrzyńskiej we wczesnym średniowieczu określonych miejsc, które w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej nabrały szczególnego znaczenia, stając się ogniwem struktur tzw. osadnictwa grodowego. Jako wyodrębnione w przestrzeni punkty terenowe, w zależności od zmieniających się uwarunkowań społeczno-politycznych i gospodarczych, pełniły one różne funkcje nie tylko związane z obronnością. W artykule poruszono kwestię ich kontynuacji/dyskontynuacji, a ponadto problem „długiego” trwania wskazującego na tradycję miejsca centralnego. Opisywane zjawisko przedstawiono w ramach czterech przedziałów czasowych, obejmujących zarówno czasy plemienne (VII–X wiek), jak i państwowe (X–XIII wiek).
Ta pozycja jest udostępniona na licencji Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Poland