12
Andrzej Pydyn and Konrad Lewek
On the initiative of The Prehistoric Society, in April 1992, a conference was held in Bristol titled “Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe”. Though not very large, the conference was host to intense and sometimes emotional discussions on the theoretical foundations for interpreting trade and exchange in prehistoric Europe. One thread of discussion was the “world system model”. The conference resulted in a collective post-conference publication.1 This work included an important article by Andrew Sherratt, “Who are you calling peripheral? Dependence and independence in European prehistory”.2 It was created spontaneously a few days after the conference and shows the complexity and multithreaded nature of the discussion on the “world system model”. Shortly after the conference, participants published more extensive publications presenting various aspects of the model.3
The world system model itself has been discussed, interpreted and criticised many times by sociologists, anthropologists, archaeologists and historians,4 so we will limit ourselves to a few introductory sentences here. The world system model offers a holistic rather than local or national interpretation of social and economic history. Initially, Immanuel Wallerstein5 presented a general model of the interaction between Europeans and the colonised world of the sixteenth century. In later years, this model was extended by other researchers and Wallerstein6 himself to interpret large-scale, interregional interactions from the development of early civilisations to the present day. Wallerstein was inspired by various intellectual trends, from the Annales school, with Fernand Braudel’s structures of long duration [la longue durée], through the dialectics of Karl Marx and his predecessors, to dependence theory.7
In the centre-periphery model, also presented as centre-periphery-margin or centre-semiperiphery-periphery, the exchange system connects independent units politically, economically and socially. This exchange results in highly processed products (e.g. weapons, jewellery, textiles, know-how) being exchanged for semi-processed goods (e.g. fur, leather, amber, metal ores), slaves and probably also local alliances.8 Access to interregional contacts was thus essential to obtain valuable or prestigious items that enhanced their owner’s status. In this model, described as a prestige-goods economy,9 the redistribution of valuable items provided authority, the loyalty of subjects and the stability of social structures. Disruption of access to prestige goods often collapsed or changed power structures.10 Access to prestige goods was limited by tradition, law, force and religion.11 These items often came from distant cultures, were strongly associated with their owners and were consumed or given more publicly than privately. Thus, these items often fall into the following categories: weapons, ornaments or jewellery, tableware, elements of riding gear and insignia of secular and religious power.
In European archaeology, the world system model has largely replaced the historical and cultural school.12 Nevertheless, this model cannot be used indiscriminately: Colin Renfrew13 already assessed it to be materialistic and simplistic. The model was assessed more comprehensively by Anthony Harding,14 emphasising the role of dependency theory. The utility of the world system model will differ when assessing processes lasting for centuries or even millennia from when analysing dynamic processes of only a few decades long, especially in the early Middle Ages when the centres of local power in central Europe strengthened or weakened suddenly.
Probably against the will of its creator, the world system model has become a tool that subconsciously judges and stigmatises. In this interpretation, the centre is important and culture forming (which was certainly true), and the peripheral zone merges with the marginal, losing independence and often its political and economic significance.
Clearly, central Europe of the early Middle Ages was influenced by various cultural and civilisational centres. To the southeast was the Byzantine Empire, and to the west was the Holy Roman Empire. Contacts with Scandinavia and southern neighbours were also important to the developing leadership structures and the early Piast state. It is difficult to define clearly which of these contacts was dominant, especially because the intensity of trade contacts did not necessarily coincide with the intensity of political contacts.
We will most likely never know whether the Piast transfer from chiefdom to early state was evolutionary or revolutionary. Many changes must have accrued over generations, whereas the dynamics of events during the reigns of Mieszko I and Bolesław the Brave utterly transformed the political situation in this part of Europe, not only locally but also internationally.
One example of these changes is the Lednica settlement complex. Conscious in his political, organisational and religious decisions, Mieszko I chose to completely rebuild the settlement layout in Ostrów Lednicki. Many years before the ruler’s historically recognised baptism even, the fortified settlement was significantly enlarged, a palas was built, two spectacular bridges connecting the island with the mainland were built and economic facilities were set up both on and around the island.15
The dynamic changes allowed the rule of Mieszko I to leave the periphery and the state structures of Bolesław the Brave to play a central role in the political and economic events of central Europe. Material evidence of belonging to the Christian community perfectly illustrates these changes. They indicate that the rulers of the Piast dynasty believed their country to be the equal of other European countries of the time, and they believed that it should be seen as such by foreign elites.
To determine the provenance of the devotional items found in the Lednica settlement complex is not the easiest of tasks. Some are in keeping with objects typical of the entire Christian world, while others are unique forms that have no strict analogues.16 A very interesting example is a liturgical comb found in 1962. It was made of ivory and, typologically, is a one-piece, cut form with a single set of teeth. There are reclining lions carved on the upper part, and the side surfaces are decorated with plant and geometric motifs. Such artefacts occur very extensively. They cover a vast area from North Africa, through the Middle East, Europe and the Asian steppe, to Scandinavia. The chronological range extends from the fifth to twelfth centuries.17 The closest analogues to the Lednica artefacts are from Sweden, from which they are also assumed to have been imported.18 The motif of animals facing each other, including lions, as in the artefact from Ostrów Lednicki, is most typical of Byzantine combs.19 On the other hand, forms with single sets of teeth occur mainly in Western Europe.20
This artefact is undoubtedly evidence of a Christian civilisation and indicates the importance of the Ostrów Lednicki settlement as a seat of power. For hundreds of years, similar items were stored in such important places in medieval Europe as Paris, Quedlinburg and Cologne, making the Piast centre comparable with Western ones.21
The bone reliquary claddings and metalwork book furniture are also of broadly Christian origin. Artefacts of the former type have survived to our time only as fragments. They are interpreted as long, rectangular plaquettes decorated with a wavy braid. Two more items of this type are roughly square.22 Convergent in their ornamentation, the artefacts are known from an early tenth-century casque from St. Peter’s Abbey in Salzburg, as well as from northern Italian workshops, and were made in the Longobard style. There are also analogues visible in Eastern art – mainly Byzantine, but also near Eastern.23
In the tenth and eleventh centuries, books too were prestige goods. The discovery of book remains in Ostrów Lednicki is further evidence of its central importance. They place this complex among the most important towns of the Piast state and also as a place where written culture was developed and propagated. The remains in question are limited to metalwork. The first was made of gilded sheet bronze and was rectangular, with hooks for holding the book closed. The outer surface of the find was covered with a free-flowing, climbing plant decoration. The second metalwork fitting was made of bronze sheet; a small object, measuring 1.5 × 1.6 cm, it consisted of a plate with a washer and a rivet.
During the research within the fortified settlement in Ostrów Lednicki, a stau rotheke (a reliquary of the True Cross) was also found that has no strict analogues in the archaeological literature.24 Some of its features indicate a Byzantine origin. First of all, it had a cross-shaped opening cut into the top plate, allowing the faithful to touch the relics inside.25 This was a strict rule in Byzantine Christian rituals.26 Then, an ornamentation of punctured dots on the edge was designed to imitate a row of pearls. This type of decoration was one of the most common in meso-Byzantine goldsmithing.27
Byzantine contacts are also confirmed by a gold follis minted during the co-reign of Basil II and Constantine VIII (976–1025).28 These two artefacts can be interpreted as traces of contact between the elites of Greater Poland and Constantinople. It is also likely that artefacts of Byzantine origin found their way to Lednica by other routes, such as after the plundering of Kiev by Bolesław the Brave in 1018.29 It is also worth noting that the tenth-century Ottonian court imbibed Byzantine culture through the wife of Otto II, Princess Theophanu. As a result, products from workshops in the southeast could find their way to Piast lands via the western Roman Empire.
The cultural interaction with the centre in Magdeburg left few traces in the archaeological material. Its effects can be seen in architectural endeavours. It is currently recognised that, in around the third quarter of the tenth century, two churches and a palas were built inside the fortified settlement. The first church was a chapel on an isosceles cross plan, directly adjoining the rectangular palas. The latter contained several rooms and staircases. It is suggested that their construction design is of southern origin, pointing to connections with buildings in northern Italy, Dalmatia and sub-alpine areas.30 Although these areas were part of the Holy Roman Empire in the tenth century, they are not necessarily evidence of contact with the Ottonian court. This is because the palatial and sacral buildings of the latter differed in form and layout.31 The closest analogue is probably the ninth-century palace in Devín in the Great Moravian Empire.32
The second church was erected in the northwestern part of the stronghold’s inner yard. It was a small, single-nave building with an adjoining chancel on its eastern side. In the eleventh century, annexes serving as tomb chapels were added to the church.33 The present stage of research does not allow the influences connected with the second church’s creation to be established. The coexistence of a palas featuring a chapel and an additional accompanying church is itself known from Werla (Lower Saxony), as well as from Poznań and Giecz (Greater Poland).34
Western European connections can also be found in items considered to be prestige goods. These include swords with the inscription “+VLFBREH+T”. To date, two such items have been retrieved from Lake Lednica. The first had a simple cross-guard 3.5 times the width of the blade. The cross-guard constitutes a simple rectangular block. The lenticular pommel is hollow and made of three pieces of sheet metal. The hilt of the second sword is preserved in fragments and has a rectangular cross-guard.35 Sword hilts of this type are classified as pan-European or possibly native.36 The origin of the blade with the inscription +VLFBREH+T was, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, still ascribed to workshops on the Rhine.37 If this assumption is correct, it would confirm contact with this area. This interpretation is on a somewhat less steady footing due to recent analyses by the American archaeologist Alan Williams.38 He believes they may be of northern European provenance and, more specifically, from areas within the kingdom of Norway. However, the sample he analysed is still too modest for a conclusive determination.39
Entry into the Christian world and participation in the idea of renovation of the Holy Roman Empire do not constitute all of the arguments in favour of the first Piast state’s central position: it is also evidenced by contacts maintained with neigh-bouring countries. These relations are reflected in archaeological material found in the Lednica settlement complex.
The oldest items come from areas south of the borders of modern-day Poland. They are associated with Great Moravian influences. These include a belt stud and several shaft-hole axes. The aforementioned bronze, gilded stud was a slightly asymmetrical, rectangular shield shape. The ornamentation on the front panel consisted of a series of overlapping lobes forming a border around a central floral motif. The relic has been classified as having been made in the Blatnica style, suggesting an origin in areas of heavy Avar influence. It is dated to the ninth century.40
Underwater research between 1959 and 1961 discovered a shaft-hole axe with a narrow, symmetrical head equipped with triangular upper and lower lugs and a rectangular hammer poll.41 It has numerous analogues in Moravia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, as well as in the more southern areas of central Europe. Axes of this type were used primarily in the eighth and ninth centuries, but this form is also known from eleventh-century sites.42
The next two axe heads have narrow, asymmetrical blades with a beard, a poll with a rectangular cross-section and well-defined lugs. Finds of this kind, referred to as bradatica axes, are found mainly in the area of Moravia and Slovakia.43
There are southern analogues for another axe with a narrow, asymmetric blade, an eye with a distinct cap, and a flat butt. The axe head itself is quite massive and is angled down towards the axis of the haft.44 The closest tenth-century analogues can be found in early Hungarian graves.45 From the pre-Great Moravian and Great Moravian periods, these are found in, for example, Mikulczyce and hoards of iron objects from the Czech Republic and Slovakia.46
Another artefact is a form with a narrow, asymmetrical blade with eye distinct on both sides and a flat butt with a double-sided cap. It also has a slightly distinct beard.47 So far, this specimen only has analogues among finds south of the modern-day borders of Poland.48
The last specimen is an axe head with a wide, asymmetrical blade with a double-sided cap and a beard. It has a flat butt.49 Similar items, but with a very distinct cap, have been found at Mikulczyce and dated to the ninth century50 and in a hoard of iron objects from Pokanska near Nejdek, dated to the later ninth and early tenth centuries.51
Scandinavian artefacts are represented by ornaments, militaria and tools. The first one described here is a cross-shaped pendant found in a chamber tomb from the first half of the eleventh century at Dziekanowice, site 22. Its front side consists of five crosses – a central one, whose arms each branch out into another cross. The reverse of the pendant is a flat plate.52 This item has close analogues in finds from Eketorp53 and Lackälanga54 and a cast cross from Odense and Kiev.55 Moreover, master punches used in their production have been discovered in Hedeby.56
The second Scandinavian item is a fragment of a triangular golden plate. It is 1 cm wide at the base and 1.5 cm high. It features a trefoil motif modelled from a double line of wire. The space between the wires was filled with granules. The artefact comes from a layer dated to the eleventh century. Władysław Duczko has indicated a few objects into whose surface a similar feature has been integrated. These include a pendant from Malms myr in Gotland,57 a pin found in grave Bj 832 in Birka58 and a Thor’s hammer from Bredsatra. The same researcher has also drawn attention to the spread of ornaments with the trefoil motif on early medieval artefacts anywhere from Ireland to Scandinavia.59
Among the militaria, Scandinavian origin can be attributed to three spears decorated in Ringerike style. All have an elongated deltoid leaf and a silver-plated socket. Convergent decorative motifs are known from Sweden and Finland.60 An interesting spear exemplar has ornamentation of silver and gold covering the entire socket. In the upper part, the ornamentation features eight sets of vertically stacked, step shapes. In the lower part, there are two scroll-shaped volutes with concave sides facing each other that are additionally tightly intertwined with tapes from the adjacent ornamentation.61 This type of decoration has been found on artefacts from Estonia and Sweden.62
The lower part of the third spear is divided into two rhomboid areas, with the four triangles forming their negatives. All of these fields contained decoration probably in the form of intertwining tapes.63 We again find analogues in Sweden and Estonia.64
The next group of militaria consists of shaft-hole axes. A Scandinavian origin is indicated for a specimen with a head with a narrow symmetrical blade, with upper and lower triangular lugs and a flat butt.65 It has numerous analogues in Scandinavia, where it has been classified as types A and K.66
The next artefact has a wide, symmetrical blade, whose eye has lugs and a flat butt. Similar axes were widespread mainly in northern and northeastern Europe.67 In the classical typology of Petersen, they can be found among artefacts classified into three types: G, H and K,68 and they are also often included in the group of fan-bladed specimens.69
The other axe heads differed from the one described earlier by the presence of lugs on either side of the eye.70 Such axe heads are known from Hedeby71 of Trelle-borg and Over Hornbæk.72 They have also been found in Gotland.73
The last axe of Scandinavian origin, whose blade is also wide but this time asymmetrical and ending in a beard, has an eye as in the aforementioned examples, lugs and a flat butt.74 Artefacts of this shape are classified as type D according to Petersen75 and were used from the eighth to the tenth centuries.76
Analysing the connections of the past central settlement of Lednicki, we also come across products from lands in what are today the Baltic countries. These are again represented by shaft-hole axes. Particularly worthy of note is an item with a blade ending in an accentuated beard, an eye with a lower lug and a rounded butt. It is dated to the tenth century.77 Analogues are known from Latvian and Estonian sites and from the land of Novgorod, which was occupied at that time by Finnish tribes.78 The second find is an axe whose head has a very wide, symmetrical blade and an eye with lugs and a cap. Objects of this kind are considered to originate from the north Baltic cultural circle.79
To summarise these considerations, it can be noted that, during the reign of the early Piasts (Mieszko I, Bolesław the Brave), the so-called peripheral zone of central Europe managed to create its own centre of political, military and cultural influence, establishing numerous contacts with various parts of Europe. As a consequence, for at least several decades, the early state structures of the reigns of Mieszko I and Bolesław the Brave became part of a European centre in the sense of the world system model. This is reflected in the accumulation of prestige items found in the area of the Lednica settlement complex. They are represented by ornaments and weapons of Moravian and Czech origin, from which the idea to build the palas, or its design, may also come. Scandinavian influences are visible, mainly in the form of military items and, to a marginal extent, in jewellery. We also find evidence that the early Piast state had connections with the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire.
Notes
· 1 Christopher Scare and Frances Healy, Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Bristol, April 1992 (Oxford: Oxbow, 1993).
· 2 Andrew Sherratt, “Who Are You Calling Peripheral? Dependence and Independence in European Prehistory,” in Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Bristol, April 1992, eds. Christopher Scare and Frances Healy (Oxford: Oxbow, 1993), 245–55.
· 3 Andre G. Frank, “Bronze Age World System Cycles,” Current Anthropology 34 (1993): 383–429; Andrew Sherratt, “What Would a Bronze-Age World System Look Like?” Journal of European Archaeology 1, no. 2 (1995): 1–57.
· 4 Anthony Harding, “World Systems, Core and Peripheries in Prehistoric Europe,” European Journal of Archaeology 16, no. 3 (2013): 378–400; Adriana Ciesielska, “Teoria centrum – peryferii Immanuela Wallersteina i jej recepcja w archeologii,” Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 21 (2016): 55–82.
· 5 Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, no. 4 (1974): 387–415.
· 6 Immanuel Wallerstein, Analiza systemów-światów. Wprowadzenie (Warszawa: Dialog, 2007).
· 7 Ciesielska, “Teoria centrum – peryferii Immanuela Wallersteina i jej recepcja w archeologii,” 56–58.
· 8 Andrzej Pydyn, Exchange and Cultural Interactions. BAR International Series 813 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999), 11–13.
· 9 Claude Meillassoux,“Essai d’interpretation du phénomene économique dans les sociétés traditionelles d’auto-subsistance,” Cahiers d’Etudes Africaines 1, no. 4 (1960): 38–67; Marshall Sahlins, Tribesmen (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968).
· 10 Barry Cunliffe, Greeks, Romans and Barbarians (London: B. T. Batsford, 1988), 31.
· 11 Mary Helms, Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 148–51.
· 12 Andrew Sherratt, “Who Are You Calling Peripheral? Dependence and Independence in European Prehistory,” Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Bristol, April 1992, eds. Christopher Scare and Frances Healy (Oxford: Oxbow, 1993), 245–55; Sherratt, “What Would a Bronze-Age World System Look Like?” 1–57; Kristian Kristiansen, “The Emergence of the European World System in the Bronze Age,” in Europe in the First Millenium BC (Archaeological Monographs 6), eds. Kristian Kristiansen and Jan Jensen (Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications, 1994), 7–30.
· 13 Colin Renfrew, “Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Prehistoric Europe,” in The Social Life of Things, ed. Arjun Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 141–68; Colin Renfrew, “Trade Beyond Material,” in Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Bristol, April 1992, eds. Christopoher Scare and Frances Healy (Oxford: Oxbow, 1993), 5–16.
· 14 Anthony Harding, “World Systems, Core and Peripheries in Prehistoric Europe,” European Journal of Archaeology 16, no. 3 (2013): 378–400.
· 15 Andrzej M. Wyrwa and Zofia Kurnatowska, eds., Ostrów Lednicki, Rezydencjonalnostołeczny ośrodek Pierwszych Piastów (Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2016).
· 16 Janusz Górecki, “Gród na Ostrowie Lednickim na tle wybranych ośrodków grodowych pierwszej monarchii piastowskiej,” in (Biblioteka Studiów Lednickich) 7 (Lednogóra: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2001), 114–21.
· 17 Janusz Górecki, “Liturgiczny Grzebień z Ostrowa Lednickiego Studium Analityczne,” in Liturgiczny Grzebień z Ostrowa Lednickiego Studium Analityczne, eds. Janusz Górecki and Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Dziekanowice and Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2012), 23–30.
· 18 Ragnar Blomqvist and Anders W. Martensson, “Thule Grävningen,” Archaeologia Lundensia 2 (1963): 216–18, fig. 244; Mats Roslund, “Crumbs from the Rich Man’s Table. Byzantine Finds in Lund and Sigtuna, c. 980–1250,” in Visions of the Past. Trends and Traditions in Swedish Medieval Archaeology 19 (Stockholm: Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology, 1997), 230–97, fig. 4, 7/4, fig. 5, 7/1; fig. 6 a, 7/2; fig. 6b, 7/5.
· 19 Górecki, “Liturgiczny Grzebień z Ostrowa Lednickiego Studium Analityczne,” 58.
· 20 Henri Leclercq, “Peignes liturgiques,” in Dictionnaire ď archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, eds. Fernand Cabrol and Hneri Leclercq, 13/2, 2934–2959 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1938), kol. 2951–2952, fig. 10058; Aldona Chmielowska, “Grzebienie starożytne i średniowieczne z ziem polskich,” Acta Universitatis Lodziensia 20 (1971): 92, fig. 35.
· 21 Górecki, “Liturgiczny Grzebień z Ostrowa Lednickiego Studium Analityczne,” 47–50.
· 22 Górecki, “Gród na Ostrowie Lednickim na tle wybranych ośrodków grodowych pierwszej monarchii piastowskiej,” 116.
· 23 Ewa Soroka, “Nieznany relikwiarz z Ostrowa Lednickiego,” Studia Lednickie 3 (1994): 146.
· 24 Górecki, “Gród na Ostrowie Lednickim na tle wybranych ośrodków grodowych pierwszej monarchii piastowskiej,” 116.
· 25 Janusz Górecki, “Stauroteka Lednicka,” in Stauroteka Lednicka, Materiały, studia i analizy, ed. Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2015), 32.
· 26 Maria Starnawska, Świętych życie po życiu. Relikwie w kulturze religijnej na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu (Warszawa: DiG, 2008), 227.
· 27 Tomasz Orłowski, “Bizantyjski relikwiarz Krzyża świętego z kolegiaty w Tumie pod Łęczycą,” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 51, no. 3–4 (1989): 232–33.
· 28 Arkadiusz Tabaka, “Katalog,” in Monety i biżuteria z Ostrowa Lednickiego i okolicy, eds. Arkadiusz Tabaka and Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2013), 54.
· 29 Marian Z. Jedlicki, trans. Kronika Thietmara (Kraków: Universitas, 2005) lib. 8, c. 32.
· 30 Teresa Rodzińska-Chorąży, “Stan badań nad architekturą Ostrowa Lednickiego (1993–2015),” in Ostrów Lednicki, Rezydencjonalno-stołeczny ośrodek Pierwszych Piastów, eds. Zofia Kurnatowska and Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2016), 169.
· 31 Ibid., 165–66.
· 32 Ibid., 170.
· 33 Jacek Wrzesiński and Michał Kara, “Chronologia i fazy użytkowania tzw. II kościoła na Ostrowie Lednickim),” in Ostrów Lednicki, Rezydencjonalno-stołeczny ośrodek Pierwszych Piastów, eds. Zofia Kurnatowska and Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2016), 193.
· 34 Rodzińska-Chorąży, “Stan badań nad architekturą,” 170.
· 35 Piotr Pudło and Grzegorz Żabiński, “Analiza formalna mieczy ze zbiorów muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy,” in Miecze średniowieczne z Ostrowa Lednickiego i Giecza, eds. Andrzej M. Wyrwa, Paweł Sankiewicz, and Piotr Pudło (Dziekanowice and Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2011), 25, 27–28.
· 36 Ibid., 25.
· 37 Alfred Geibig, “Beitrage zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter,” in (Offa Bücher) 71 (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1991), 116–22.
· 38 Alan R. Williams, “Crucible Steel in Medieval Swords,” in Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy, eds. Susan La Niece, Duncan Hook, Rachel Ward, and Paul Craddock (London: Archetype Press with the British Museum, 2007), 233–43.
· 39 Pudło and Żabiński, “Analiza formalna mieczy ze zbiorów muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy,” 27.
· 40 Wojciech Szymański, “Uwagi o kwestii zabytków awarskich znalezionych na terenie Polski,” Archeologia Polski 7, no. 2 (1962): 306–7.
· 41 Piotr Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” in Topory średniowieczne z Ostrowa Lednickiego i Giecza, eds P. Sankiewicz and M. A. Wyrwa (Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2013), 50.
· 42 Andrea Bartošková, “Slovanské depoty železných předmĕtů v Československu,” in Studie Archeologického Ústavu Československé Akademie Vĕd v Brnĕ, 13 (Brno: Academia místo vydání, 1986), fig. 13B:2. Йотов, Валери. Въоръжението и снаряжението от българското средновековие (VII–XI век) (Варна, 2004), 100, табло LII:595, 597.
· 43 Piotr Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” in Topory średniowieczne z Ostrowa Lednickiego i Giecza, eds P. Sankiewicz and M. A. Wyrwa (Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2013), 54.
· 44 Ibid., 57.
· 45 Bartošková, “Slovanské depoty železných předmĕtů v Československu,” 77.
· 46 Ibid., 77, Fig. 1, fig. 15:5, 18B:8, 19C:10; B. Novotný, “Nález železných nástrojů na hradišti ‘Pohansku’ w Nejdku,” Přehled výzkumů (3), Brno (1958): 74, table 25:6; Lumir Poláček, “Holzbearbeitungswerkzeug aus Mikulčice,” in Studien zur Burgwall von Mikulčice, Band 4, ed. L. Poláček (Brno: Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen, 2000), 305–6, cat. 10, Abb. 8:1.
· 47 Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 60.
· 48 Bartošková, “Slovanské depoty železných předmĕtů v Československu,” 79.
· 49 Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 65.
· 50 Lumir Poláček, “Holzbearbeitungswerkzeug aus Mikulčice,” in Studien zur Burgwall von Mikulčice, ed. L. Poláček, 4 (Brno: Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen, 2000), Abb. 6:2H.
· 51 Bartošková, “Slovanské depoty železných předmĕtů v Československu,” fig. 15:7.
· 52 Jacek Wrzesieński, “Grób ze srebrnym naszyjnikiem z Dziekanowic,” in Srebrny Naszyjnik z kaptorgami i krzyżowatą zawieszką z Dziekanowic, eds. Jacek Wrzesieński and Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Dziekanowice and Lednica: Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy, 2011), 54–56.
· 53 Marten Stenberger, Die Schatzfunde Gotlands der Wikingerzeit, 1 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1958), fig. 70.
· 54 Heidemarie Eilbracht, “Filigran- und Granulationskunst im wikingischen Norden,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Beihefte, 11 (1999), taf. 8, 128.
· 55 Władysław Duczko, Ruś Wikingów. Historia obecności Skandynawów we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie Wschodniej (Warszawa: DiG, 2006), fig. 65b.
· 56 Sunhild Kleingärtner, “Der Pressmodelfund aus dem Hafen von Haithabu,” in Die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu, 12 (Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag, 2007), tab. 1.
· 57 Władysław Duczko, “Slaviskt och gotlandskt smide i adla metaller,” in Gutar och vikingar, ed. Ingmar Jansson (Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, 1983).
· 58 Duczko, “Die Kugelandel aus BJ 832.” Birka II: 1. Systematische Analysen der Graberfunde, ed. Greta Arwidsson (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1984), 1–4.
· 59 Władysław Duczko, “Złoty młot boga Thora? O fragmencie skandynawskiej ozdoby z Ostrowa Lednickiego,” in Ostrów Lednicki, Rezydencjonalno-stołeczny ośrodek Pierwszych Piastów, eds. Zofia Kurnatowska and Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2016), 301.
· 60 Signe H. Fuglesang, Some Aspects of the Ringerikestyle: A Phase of 11th Century Scandinavian Art (Odense: Odense University Press, 1980), 152, No. 10, fig. 5B, 156, No. 21, fig. 11A, p. 153, No. 13, fig. 8B; Kristina Creutz, “Tension and Tradition. A Study of Late Iron Spearheads around the Baltic Sea, Theses and Papers,” Archaeology N.S. A8, Stockholm. 92003), S-6M: 404–5, S-15M: 408–9, S-20M: 410–11, S-52M: 426–27, FI-29M: 460–61.
· 61 Gerard Wilke, “Groty broni drzewcowej z Ostrowa Lednickiego,” in Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, eds. Paweł Sakiewicz and Andrzej M. Wyrwa (Lednica: Biblioteka Studiów Lednickich), 58.
· 62 Creutz, “Tension and Tradition,” E-57M: 348–49, E-98M, 368–69, S-21M, 412–13.
· 63 Wilke, “Groty broni drzewcowej z Ostrowa Lednickiego,” 58.
· 64 Creutz, “Tension and Tradition,” E-24M: 330–31 S-39A: 420–21, S-59A, 430–31.
· 65 Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 50.
· 66 Jan Petersen, De Norse vikingesverd. En typologisk-kronologisk studie over vikinetidens vaaben (Kristiania: Skrifter utg. av Videnskapsselskapet i Kristiania, 1919), 37–38, 44–45, fig. 27–28, 41–43.
· 67 Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 61.
· 68 Petersen, De Norse vikingesverd, 43–45, Fig. 38–39, 41.
· 69 Pär Hallinder, “Streit- und Arbeitsäxte,” in Birka II/2. Untersuchungen und Studien, Systematische Analysen der Gräberfunde, ed. Greta Arwidsson (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wik-sell, 1986), 46.
· 70 Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 69.
· 71 Petra Westphalen, Die Eisenfunde von Haithabu (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2002), 66, taf. 16; 4.
· 72 Peter Paulsen, Axt und Kreuz in Nord- und Osteuropa (Bonn: Habelt, 1956), 164–65; Anne Pedersen, “Weapons and Riding Gear in Burials – Evidence of Military and Social Rank in 10th Century Denmark?” in Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective, AD 1–1300, eds. Anne Norgård Jørgensen and Birthe L. Clausen (Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet, 1997), fig. 31, 33.
· 73 Lena Thunmark-Nylén, Die Vikingerzeit Gotlands. II. Typentafeln (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998), taf. 260:2.
· 74 Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 71.
· 75 Petersen, De Norse vikingesverd, 39–40, Fig. 31, 33.
· 76 Charlotte Blindheim and Brigit Heyerdahl-Larsen, Kaupang-Funnene. Bind II. Gravplassene i Bikjholbergene/Lamøya Undersøkelsene 1950–1957. Del A. Gravskikk (Oslo: Universitets Kulturhistoriske Museer Oldsaksamlingen, 1995), pl. 85:b; Thunmark-Nylén, Die Vikingerzeit Gotlands. I, Abb. 105:7.
· 77 Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 52.
· 78 Juri Peets, “Weapons and Edged Tools in Siksälä Cemetery. Typology and Technology,” in Siksälä. A Community at the Frontiers. Iron Age and Medieval, eds. Silvia Laul and Heiki Valk (Tallinn and Tartus: University of Tartu, 2007), 173, fig. 9:1; Хвощинская, В. Наталья. Финны на западе Новгородской земли (По материалам могильника Залахтовье) (С. Петербург. 2004), c. 94, табл. XL:21, XLV:6, LXVII:24.
· 79 Paulsen, Axt und Kreuz in Nord- und Osteuropa, 168; Kotowicz, “Analiza kolekcji toporów średniowiecznych,” 70–71.