The colony backup facilities in the Grzybowo stronghold

The article pertains to one of the most significant early-medieval strongholds in central Wielkopolska. At attempt has been made to present not only the most important conclusions on the discussed fortifications but also to analyse its colony backup facilities.

The stronghold structure in the second half of the 11th c. Do the 1030s represent a breakthrough in the functioning of the stronghold 1030s represent a breakthrough in the functioning of the stronghold structure in Poland?structure in Poland?

The paper explores the issue of the 1030s, significant for, inter alia, the Polish medieval studies. It centres, in essence, on the verification of the view that the examined period can actually be deemed to have been a breakthrough in the functioning of the stronghold structure within the Piast state. Furthermore, the article addresses the question whether, in the second half of the eleventh century, the network of strongholds stood at variance with the one prevailing during the reign of Mieszko I and Boleslaw I the Brave. A political history of the 1030s, discussed on the basis of extant written sources, e.g., Gallus Anonymus, Cosmas of Prague, Tale of Bygone Years and Annales Hildesheimenses provides the starting point for analyses, most valuable for the discussion being pieces of information appertaining to the invasion of Bretislaus I and subsequent expeditions of Yaroslav the Wise into the Piast lands. Records relating to these events reveal that some strongholds were destroyed (Poznań, Gniezno), other abandoned (Giecz) or lost (Belz, Red Cities). Next, the author refers to the studies of some historians and archaeologists regarding the problem of the 1030s and the purported breakthrough in the functioning of the stronghold structure. The first research questions relating to this issue is whether the medievalists have source material (other than written) at their disposal that would enables them to determine what other strongholds, besides the ones cited above, were destroyed in the 1030s. Another question relates to the erection of new strongholds in the second half of the eleventh and in the twelfth century. It is interesting to find out whether the construction of these strongholds somehow ensued from the disaster of the 1030s. The answer to these questions necessitates the consideration of various methods of dating the relics of strongholds along with their reliability, which is particularly important in the context of hypotheses advanced by archaeologists. A large group of strongholds is believed to have ceased to function in the 1030s, as purportedly attested by results of archaeological research and dating. The author nonetheless demonstrates that establishing the chronology of strongholds by dint of pottery within one decade and with respect to the 1030s is unmanageable and draws the reader’s attention to the weaknesses of chronology based on dendrochronological, radiocarbon and AMS methods. The image of the 1030s catastrophe ought to be referred to the strongholds of Wielkopolska, inasmuch as they are mentioned in written sources. Finally, the author attempts to verify if there were other principal Piast strongholds within the then Piast domain, which were partially or completely destroyed throughout this period. Here, he refers to the results of the excavations carried out on the relics of strongholds in Kruszwica (Kujawy), Płock (Mazovia), Przemyśl (the Sandomierz Region), Kraków (Małopolska) and Wrocław (Silesia). The results of the analyses have revealed that the vast majority of these structures did not fall into destruction circa mid-eleventh century. To conclude, in view of the fact that several most important strongholds in the Piast state continued their existence, whilst key strongholds of Wielkopolska, their damage notwithstanding, were rebuilt, the 1030s should not be referred to as a breakthrough period in the functioning of the stronghold structure.