- Tytuł:
-
Antropogeniczne formy krajobrazowe powstałe w pradziejach i wczesnym średniowieczu w dorzeczu środkowej Wieprzy
Prehistoric and Early Middle Age anthropogenic forms within the landscape of the middle Wieprza river catchment - Autorzy:
- Rączkowski, W.
- Powiązania:
- https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/294783.pdf
- Data publikacji:
- 2008
- Wydawca:
- Stowarzyszenie Geomorfologów Polskich
- Tematy:
-
formy antropogeniczne
krajobraz kulturowy
wczesne średniowiecze
Pomorze
Wieprza
anthropogenic forms
cultural landscape
Early Middle Ages
Pomerania
Wieprza river - Opis:
-
W dolinie Wieprzy znajduje się stosunkowo niewiele form antropogenicznych o genezie pradziejowej lub
wczesnośredniowiecznej widocznych obecnie w krajobrazie. Są to głównie kurhany oraz grodziska. Kurhany pochodzą z
okresów od epoki brązu po wczesne średniowiecze, natomiast grodziska reprezentują wyłącznie okres wczesnego średniowiecza.
Tradycyjnie funkcja kurhanów sprowadzana jest do miejsca pochówku zmarłego, a grodziska miały pełnić głównie
rolę związaną z obronnością. Coraz częściej pojawiają się interpretacje wskazujące, że kurhany mogły również odgrywać rolę
legitymizowania praw do danego terytorium, wyznaczać granice terytorialne poszczególnych grup społecznych. Unikatowy
wczesnośredniowieczny zespół osadniczy z okolic Wrześnicy pozwala na jego interpretację (w tym krajobrazowych form antropogenicznych)
jako złożoną strukturę społeczno-kulturową, w której wszystkie elementy były ze sobą powiązane znaczeniowo.
Anthropogenic forms within the landscape of the central catchment of the Wieprza river are only a small part of the traces of primeval and medieval cultural activity. Likewise, the range of these remains is very narrow. So far only two types of such remains have been identified. They are barrows (earth or stone-earth mounds connected with burials) and the ramparts of medieval strongholds. The burial mounds currently identified in the landscape date from different periods – from the Bronze Age (approx. 1000 BC.) to the early Middle Ages. They not only occur in clusters numbering from several to hundreds, but also in isolation. It is hard to define any clear cultural patterns connected with the location and construction of the mounds in any specific period. In the regions of Janiewice and Żukowo the burial mounds were built on elevated ground, on small morainic hills. It has not been ruled out that such locations were chosen consciously, so that the form of the mound would not only dominate the past landscape but also serve as a point of reference for the local community (as well as any travellers). The second category of archaeological sites whose form in the landscape has survived are strongholds. In the catchment of the central Wieprza river all the strongholds date from the early Middle Ages. Three are situated in the Wieprza valley: Wrześnica (site 7) and Sławsko (site 5) on the flood plain, and Stary Kraków (site 6) on the edge of the valley. Three remaining sites are located a few kilometres east of the Wieprza valley: in Gać (site 2), Kczewo (site 2) and Dobrzęcin (site 3). Each of the six strongholds is in a specific position and of particular size and shape, therefore we can rule out any repetition of construction design. All the strongholds (except for Sławsko) date from the 8th–9th/10th centuries. The largest concentration of anthropogenic earthworks in the central Wieprza catchment can be found around Wrześnica. There is an early medieval stronghold and a complex of six burial mounds. We can also include the remains of medieval villages (all on the left bank of the Wieprza) of which there are no traces visible as landscape forms. The whole settlement complex is unique in Pomerania and the archaeological and environmental research carried out so far leads to discussion as to how the medieval landscape was shaped. I assume that for the elite living in the stronghold the range of visibility related to power, control over the living and the relation between this world and the one of the dead. But there is also another visual relation which seems to be important – the range of visibility from the burial mounds, particularly where larger mounds are concerned. The ancestors buried on the top of the burial mounds had a huge range of visibility over the micro-region and in a symbolic way they controlled the whole range of activities of the living – their settlements, fields and other places of activity. The elite living in the stronghold were also under the control of their ancestors. The whole community could be safe from enemies, inner disturbances in social relations as well as spiritual influences. The community was controlled and protected by their ancestors. Thanks to mutually inclusive relations between the inhabitants of the settlement and those of the stronghold, as well as the ancestors’ graves, a complex structure was created and social structure was authorised and strengthened. From a social aspect both the stronghold and the burial mounds became the proof of power, symbolizing the prestige of the group as well as its elite. The elite who lived in the stronghold could, thanks to the range of visibility, in a both practical and symbolic way control the area and be, in a way, intermediaries for contact between the world of the living (on the left bank of the Wieprza river) and that of the dead (on the right bank of the river). And vice versa, the ancestors could control the world of living. How the positions of the strongholds and burial mounds to be constructed were chosen was not therefore due to environmental conditions but the juncture of the whole social and cultural structure which was essential for the community. - Źródło:
-
Landform Analysis; 2008, 7; 143-153
1429-799X - Pojawia się w:
- Landform Analysis
- Dostawca treści:
- Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł