t would be hard indeed to find a more eloquent Illustration of the significance of studies concerning the social structure of Premysl-dynasty Bohemia than the fact that the revolutionary innovations in the approaches to the evaluations of Bohemian history up to 1300 A.D. usually took the form of analyses of the society of the Premysl-dynasty state (the cases in point being such names of Bohemian historiography as Julius Lippert, Josef Susta or Frantisek Graus). At present, Problems of the social structure of llth-to-I2th-century Bohemia certainly belong to major themes evocating a great deal of specialized interests (of the most significant recent summaries cf. Novy> 1972; Merhautovä - TreStik 1983, 47-51, 99-108; Sasse 1982, esp. pp. 225-306; Havlik 1987, 174-190). It is quite natural that up to now, the basic Orientation of the relevant research is determined by the guidelines set by the monumental synthesis of F. Graus (1953). His imposing volumes on the rural population groups of Pfemysl-dynasty Bohemia enabled other students a con-centration on related sets of Problems such as the origin of the state itself, the emergence and character of the ducal retinue and of the social elites or, eventually, questions of the redistributive economy of the early state of the Pfemyslids (the so-called Service Organization). Neverthe-less, the progress of time has resulted in changes of the manner of posing the Problems and conceiving answers to fresh questions. All the respect justly merited by F. Graus by the fundamental significance of his works for our knowledge of the social structure of early Bohemia cannot prevent us from seeing in him one of the architects of the historical variety of official pseudo-Marxist orthodoxy. My own firm conviction is that any attempts at analyses confined to the “history of the rural folk” or, on the other hand, to the sphere of “the ruling elite of warriors and potentates, grouped around the dukes and, together with them, making... history” are inevitably reminiscent of the renowned effort to cut out a pound of flesh from the body of a living being without shedding a single drop of his or her blood. The functioning of a social mechanism may be comprehended only if we know not only all its com-ponents in full details, but especially their functions and their mutual interactions. For this reason, I feel the need to address the problem of the social structure of early
	mediaeval Bohemia anew, to ask fresh questions and to include a wider ränge of relevant materials. The primary purpose of this text is to provide a reference framework which will be useful for the assessments of materials obtained in the course of archaeological excavations. Of course, such texts are eagerly awaited from the historians by the archaeological community; unfortunately, very few specialisls in history are willing to supply middle-range theoretical works which would be applicable to archaeological materials. A similar absence characterizes the Situation of the relevant philological or linguistic papers remaining, especially in the key area of toponymy, at a more general level — with some notable exceptions (Macek 1977; Fiedlerovä et al. 1977\ Chlädkovä et al. 1977; 1980; Nemec et al. 1980; Nemec 1988). My intention is also to initiate a discussion concerning these questions which may elucidate the relevant Problems and emphasize the features that are possible and conceivable; it is dis-quietening to find in a published academic text a reference to such a thought fossil from the good old days of Fre-derick Engels as group marriages in connection with the pre-state or incipient-state historical period of early Slavic society.
	This study focuses on the questions of property, of kinship structures and of the social Situation of women. Questions pertaining to the Status of dukes and foremost members of social elites are only summarized as they have been recently treated by a number of specialized studies, appearing also in foreign languages.
	Property of the heads of Bohemian society — the dukes, who acquired the royal title at the beginning of the 13th Century — consisted of a wide ränge of elements including, as main components, landed property as well as taxes in kind or in Services mobilized from the population. Ducal property of arable land is attested to since the final lOth Century (the Christianus text as quoted in Turek 1978, 33; cf. also CDB1 text 382 p. 361 11. 3—S, founda-tion charter of the Starä-Boleslav chapter of cannons, or CDB II : 288, 288 : 16— 17: “...agros ad nostrum aratrum... pertinentes”, year 1226). In addition to tilled soil which obviously helped to nourish the paramount of the land and his retinue, the duke possessed lands which he conferred on persons providing certain Services
	for him as a remuneration or “salary” for such assistance; Particular descriptions of such situations, dating mostly froin the times when this System was well ahead on its way to oblivion, include lands held in indivision by “ho-mines... pertinentes ad beneficium dapiferi mense nostre” (CDBIV! 1 : 159 pp. 261-262, year 1249) or “homines nostri ad nostram mensam spectantes... qui hoztinzi vulgariter vocantur” (CDB Vjl : 378, 561 : 27—31, year 1263). One of the clauses of manuscript B of the foundation charter of the LitomSrice chapter of canons of the end of I2th Century indicates that some subordinates of the dukes were entitled to hold land by virtue of their Services: if the duke withdrew his donation of a land to a servant, he had to compensate him by providing another tract of land (CDB 1:55, 58: 3 — 9). Some of the uncultivated and unoccupied land also belonged to the dukes (CDB I: 48, 51 : 1— 15 = FRBIl p. 244, duke Oldfich, 1012 to 1035; also CDB I : 387, 387 : 10- 11). The last named instance, which must be mentioning uncultivated land as in those times hop was not cultivated in Bohemia but gathered as a wild plant shows, by the specification that the donation is given from “terram, que pertinet ad ducem”, that such land could be held by other possessors than the paramount. Other cases [in point include a private gift of a “pars silvae” to the Benedictine monastery of Kladruby (CDB 1: 390, 400 : 6) or reference to a “silva Uribete et Zdezlai” (both are personal names) in a foundation charter of the Benedictine house of Opatovice (CDB 1: 386, p. 370). The dukes mobilized also for their use parts of surplus produced by both peasants (CDB II: 350, 361 : 12—14, text confected at the end of 13th Century but containing reliable earlier Information: “...duos heredes ad vexilliferum pertinentes”) and craftsmen (CDB 1: 55, 54:34—39, 1 Ith Century). In denoting the obligations of the population of Bohemia towards the dukes, the Charters use the term “ius” or “ius quod spectat ad usus principum” (CDB II : 286, 281:10 — year 1226 but ascribed to duke Vladislav I, beginning of 12th Century; CDB 1: 292, 261 : 1- 3, year 1180, CDB II: 59, 54 : 2- 3, year 1207), alluding thus to an idea likely to have been universally acknowledged as “lawful” and hardly imposed by force. On the other hand, differences in the Status of non-elite population groups concerning their obligations to the paramount are indicated by the expression “servi-tutes reales et personales”, used by some Charters (CDB II: 379, 423 : 40, second half of 13th Century). This con-tradiction between “ius” and “servitus” may well reflect Status variations between “free” and “subservient” strata of the population, as will be shown below. Our sources give some evidence on the manner by which the dukes of Bohemia acquired their estates: inheritance (CDB 1: 300, 270 : 12, year 1183; CDB 1: 402, 418 : 17-19, year 1183?), purchase (CDBI: 115, 120:10, year 1131; ibid. 390, 397:4— 5, confected at the end of 12th Century on reliable older evidence; ibid. 289, 255:15—17, year 1174—1178; ibid. 402, 419: 1—2, year 1183?), exchange (CDB 1: 287, 252:23, year 1178) as well as “alii iusti modi secundum iudicium nobilium seniorum Boemie” (CDB 1:246, 217:5-8, year 1169). The foundation charter of the Kladruby monastery is unusual in empha-sizing the fact that the duke did not donate anything which would have been acquired in an unjust or violent manner
	but only that what had been allowed to his ancestors to give to holy men according to the customs of the land {CDB 7:390, 394:26—29). Though there are several possibilities of Interpretation (first case of a more extensive donation of landed property to an ecciesiastical Institution, or emergence of deeper understanding of Chris-tianity, or alternatively purely personal motives on behalf of the duke), a conspicuous parallel with one of the texts of the so-called Opatovice homiliary, the first text of its kind from Bohemia dating from the incipient 12th Century {Hecht 1863, Sermo on pp. 61—62 fol. 155a—156b com-paring with CDB 7 : 390, 394 : 23 — 25) cannot be over-looked.
	Studies concerning non-ducal property in PfemysI-dynasty Bohemia are considerably hampered by the scar-city and heterogeneity of the existing evidence. In this case we shall have to resort not only to written sources but also to the linguistic phenomena. At first, Iet me take up the case of persons active in the ducal court who have the best Chance to appear in written sources. The text of the most ancient chronicle of Bohemia, that of Cosmas the canon, written between 1119 and 1125 {Br et-holz 1923) lists 120 names of persons of the ducal retinues. Among these, 21 are referred to only by name, and 69 turn up in various designations employing kinship terms (to be precise, those of sons, fathers, first ancestors, grand-sons, brothers, uncles without specification, “relatives” and sons-in-law). Finally, 30 names bear “Professional” titles (a “headman”, a servant, a castellan, a warrior, a priest, a chamberlain, a “governor”, a messenger, a councillor, an administrator, an “elder of the castle”). In the chronicle of the anonymous Canon of Vysehrad (Ist half of 12th Century), the same ratio is 7 :11 : 3; among the kinship terms employed the names for a son and an uncle without specification occur, Professional titles include those of warriors. The chronicle of the Monk of Säzava of the same time lists 9 personal names including 4 cases of names only and 5 functionally specified ones (messengers, a warrior, a “headman”). Virtually no data on personal property of these persons are available in the written sources (cf. infra for the scanty exceptions). It is now generally assumed that they held various functions in the ducal administration which entitled them to revenues either from the tributes and Services due to the dukes or from service holdings assigned to them for maintenance and as appurtenances of their Offices. The above mentioned data indicate clearly the intimate connection of this elite Stratum of population with Services in the ducal administration, as well as the simplicity of kinship (erminology employed in connection with them, limited frequently to the barest essentials of nuclear-family and matrimonial ties, and a strong male bias prevalent among them. Such societies, the members of which frequently trace back their origins in the male lines, usually to one single male ancestor (a feature characteristic even for the Proto-Indo-european kinship Systems), frequently assume the garb of groupings of individuals rivalling one another with a marked role of material riches and short-term power alliances. The male domination in them is usually accom-panied by strong Connections among fathers and sons and by the importance of warrior ethics; a feature that may appear in this connection is the Separation of male
	d female cemeteries. This may well fall in with observa-tions gathered at the cemetery site in the Lumbe gardens of Prague Castle, dating to the lOth— 1 Ith Century, containing an extraordinary quantity of gold and silver Ornaments and very likely to enshrine remains of persons who once lived close to the court of the first dukes of Bohemia. In fact, most of those interred here are women or young and therefore most probably not fully privileged men (Smetänka • Hrdlicka - Blajerovä 1973; 1974). The significance of marriage which may greatly aid the social ascent of the individuals concerned and which may be (even decisively) infiuenced by the social centre increases considerably (on such societies, characterized frequently by the Crow-Omaha kinship type, cf. now Thomas 1987, esp. pp. 409—410). I believe that all these features may well be applicable to the early social elite surrounding the dukes of Bohemia. Not even the major role of the centre in the matrimonial sphere may be excluded a priori: a curious clause from a royal privilege for the Olomouc church of 1256 (CDB Vjl : 84, 157 : 10- 12) forbids ex-pressedly the interference of holders of royal Offices with concluding or Suspension of matrimonial ties as such proceedings were the exclusive prerogative of ecclesiastical circles.
	A Situation which seems to be entirely different is encountered if we leave the precincts enclosed by the ramparts of ducal castles both at the centre and at the periphery of the Premysl-dynasty state. Both the geo-graphical and the social landscape of Contemporary Bohemia are characterized by settlements (probably cor-responding to communities) bearing names composed of names of persons with the suffix -ici (the •ovici suffix is here considered as a variant of the basic ‘ici form; on these cf. Smilauer 1963, 106, § 367—1; Michälek 1980; Curin 1964). In the area of the Western Slavs, such a name has been recorded as early as the lOth Century by the chronicle of bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (Holtzmann 1935 VI: 50, p. 336 11. 15- 17 - “de tribu, quae Buzici dicitur”), paradoxically enough, for the group of des-cendants of one Bucco or Burchard, clearly of German origin. Thietmar’s terminology is likely to suggest that what he really meant was a lineage starting with Mr. Bucco. In the Bohemian milieu, the most extensive description of such a social grouping is supplied by Cosmas the chronicler who speaks on several occassions of the un-fortunate group of VrSovici, of which several generations seem to have been massacred under various pretexts in the course of the 1 Ith— 12th centuries, though Cosmas’s “gens Muncia” and “gens Tepca”, interpreted in New Czech as Munici and TSptici, may well belong here. The Vrüovci collective consisted of at least three interrelated branches which may well have been collateral, at least in time as the degree to which they were linked by kinship ties cannot be elucidated from Cosmas’s text (Bo2ej, his son Mutina and his two junior sons; Nemoj, a relative to Bozej; Öä5, his son Bozej and his son Borut; 6esta and his son Jan). A later source names one “Detricus de genere Wrsowic” (CDB 11: 359, 382:26-27, confected c. 1250 to 1300 but with reliable older information) but I see no way of fitting himrinto the group illuminated by the text of Cosmas’s chronicleT Though^ the individuals of this group are not always referred to by their patronymic(?)
	ame, their affiliation to their particular group is at any raoment publicly known. The families are apparently patrilineal and probably patrilocal, adult sons assume Partner roles of their fathers. Cosmas had an inherent interest in genealogy and it is thus somewhat conspicuous that he mentions nowhere the theoretically possible an-cestor of the whole group the name of whom may be re-constructed as Vrs. The same lack of common knowledge of a forefather (?) of a given social group was displayed later on by Gerlach or Jarloch, chronicler of the end of 12th and beginning of 13th Century, who referred to a grouping which he himself called “DSpoltici” (in this form in his Latin text, name derived from the personal name Theobald in its Czech form of DSpolt), bringing it to the notice of his readers that these were descendants of DSpolt II, son of DSpolt I (FRB II p. 461; Hefmamkj/ - Fiala 1957, 111). It is thus a question which feature of the social landscape was more real — the ancestors or the Contemporary groups who might have constructed the genealogies with an eye to their own coherence, perhaps even as artificial devices? Of course it may be argued that such Czech names appear in Cosmas’s chronicle in a Latinized form; there is a theoretical possibility that, for instance, Kojata Vse-boric (Kojata son of Vlebor) could have become “Coiata filius Vssebori” in the Latin text. This is unlikely as Cosmas actually named one of his figures with a patro-nymic name (Vit 2eliboric or VSeboric: Bretholz 1923, II: 40, p. 144 1.31; Blähovä-Fiala 1975, 126).
	Who were the persons bearing the names providing the basic components of the -ici toponyms? In view of their high frequency (cf. infra), the relationships between these persons and collectives deriving their names from them must have belonged to the most common ones of their kind. If we surmise that the most usual kinship ties were those the absence of which identified the person in question as a particularly conspicuous feature, then the most common social relationships of this age were such that connected the individuals to their ancestors (an absence of such a background resulting in the personal name Bezd&d: Svoboda 1964, p. 101 § 49) and to their matemal and paternal uncles (personal names Bezstryj and Bezuj, ibid. p. 90 § 48, interpretation of kinship terms in: Nemec etal. 1980, 76— 89). Among all the personal names of early medieval Bohemia, these are the only cases involving elements of kinship terminology (except the PN NesvaCil, cf. infra). As, then, ancestors of social groupings are, though quite rarely, referred to in the written sources (CDBII: 359, 382:22— 23 — two brothers “de stirpe pre-dicti Chotyemyri”). I believe that the most likely answer to the abovementioned question is that the persons referred to in the -ici toponyms see'm to have been considered by members of the resident communities as their ancestors.
	Let us now proceed to the most difficult question of property relationship within these social groupings. Of course, most of the material culled from written sources will pertain of such collectives of higher social Standing, though similar practices are likely to have characterized (at least some of) the Iower-standing groups as well, though the evidence to substantiate this is very scanty. I am afraid that the two isolated data concerning gifts of five villages to the VySehrad chapter of canons by Nemoj of the VrSovci grouping (CDB 1:100 pp. 105— 106)
	and of the miserable one hide (“aratrum”) of land to the Benedictine monastery at Ostrov by “Detricus” of the same grouping do not suffice to indicate property dif-ferentiation within the Vrsovci lineage(?), though the “conical clan” character may well be expected in their case. However, we do possess a testimony of unusual clarity concerning property relations within such groupings, a testimony which, though it has been recorded at the beginning of the 13th Century some 60 kilometres north of our present-day frontier in Silesia, is so close to our own Situation that it is highly relevant and is worth quoting in full here: “Si quicquam possideo, quod avus meus et pater michi in possessionem reliquerunt, hoc est meum verum patrimonium. Hoc si cuiquam vendidero, heredes mei habent potestatem iure nostro requirendi. Sed quam* cumque possessionem mihi dominus dux pro meo servicio vel gratia donaverit, illam vendo eciam invitis amicis meis, cuicunque voluero, quia in tali possessione non habent heredes mei ius requirendi” (Ksi^ga Henrykowska, or the chronicle of the monastery of Henryköw/Heinrichau, Silesia: Grodecki 1949 Liber 1.8 p. 280 1. 86). The text clearly refers to a right of blood relatives to property inherited from the ancestors, a right which applied even in cases that the estate had been alienated as it operated on the principle that all members of a given kinship group are entitled to a share in the group’s landed property. In Bohemia, the right of revindication of landed property sold among relatives of the male line within one year and one day of the transfer of it is recognized by the “Ordo judicii terrae” law code of the I4th Century (JireZek 1870, 198—255, cf. §§ Id—11 on pp. 240—241). In our sources, this principle of the essential inalienability of landed property belonging to one single kinship group (apparently related to the “retrait lignager” of French historical sources, cf. for instance Duby 1953, 263) may be observed since the 12th Century. In fact, even the Nemoj’s very early donation to the Vysehrad chapter of canons (year 1100) was sub-sequently seized by secular owners but this could be a case of confiscation of the Vrsovci property after 1108 (CDB 7: 100, pp. 105—106, on further transfers of these lands until the 80’s of 12th Century cf. CDB 1:288 pp. 253 — 254). A clause prohibiting any vindications of relatives, however, is included in the text of the noble Miro-slav’s donation to the Cistercian monastery of Sedlec of 1142-1148 {CDB 1: 155, 157 : 5). Other allusions to this principle are with a high degree of probability contained in some of the Charters concerning the Benedictine house of Kladruby and written between 1158 and 1173 (PraZäk 1958, esp. p. 133 and the table between pp. 144 and 145, as well as CDB 1:268 on p. 237). Subsequently, Charters concerning somewhat turbulent fates of some of the dona-tions given to the Cistercian abbey of Plasy over the end of 12th and first quarter of 13th Century attest to such practices abundantly (CDB I: 343 pp. 309—310, year 1193; CDB 1: 344 pp. 310-311, year 1192-1193; CDB 7:406, 439:27-30, year 1187?; CDB 7:399, 414:3-4, end of 12th Century; CDB II: 125 pp. 113—114, year 1216; CDB 77: 187 pp. 172-174, year 1219; CDB 77: 258, 248 : 18-20, year 1224; CDBTI:3\6, 312:25-28, year 1228), in addition to other materials from the same age. Such property revindications could even be subsequently lega-lized including written confirmations; this is the case of
	villages donated to the Maltese knightly Order by a gentle* man named Mesek and later seized back by his brother Hroznata (CDB I : 320 p. 293). This evidence covers testi-monies of seizures of already alienated goods (cspecially concerning donations to Church institutions to the written records of which we must be grateful for documentation of this practice), property held in indivision by a group of relatives (which is not exactly the same as “retrait lig-nager”; on indivision and its historical role cf. now, for instance, Duby 1988, 98—100) and sanctions against persons intending to seize already alienated property. Wherever more particular references to such usurpers turn up, they invariably designate agnatic or cognatic relatives (brothers, nephews, specifically male, wives, children or generally “cognati” or “propinqui”). I think that we may conclude with reasonable probability that in early medieval Bohemia, birth within a certain group of relatives entitled the respective individuals to shares in the property of such groups.
	The evidence available now does not suffice for an exact determination of the nature of the social groups under consideration here. Both the data referred to above (e.g. the importance of ancestor figures) and the fact that lincages rather than clans tend to be operative in everyday life (on these questions in general e.g. Ebrey - Watson 1986, 5—6) suggest the Identification of our groupings as lineages (on clans in general cf. now Bonte 1987, esp. p. 8, on the role of kinship in societies on their way to statehood Maiseis 1987, esp. pp. 336—337). The distinc-tion among “well-born” and commoner lineages(?) is virtually impossible in our sources though even commoners could hold land, as is evidenced, for instance, by the laws of Conrad Otto of 1189 (CDB II: 325, 330: 13, the ex-pressed reference to a “nobilis“ as against “aliquis, cuius est villa”)- Other indications point to the role of kinship in property transactions in a different manner. It can be demonstrated that not infrequently, alienations of property followed instances in which the holders lost hopes of emergence of their own progeny. In these cases, they either entrusted their holdings to the dukes (CDB 1: 245, 215 : 19—22, years 1158—1169 — “post decessum uxoris”) or transferred them to ecclesiastical institutions (CDB I: 155, 157:4—5, years 1142—1148 — “deficiente in linea filiorum herede”, or CDB 1: 358, 326 : 14—18 on Blessed Hroznata, founder of the Tepla chapter of Premonstraten-sians who remained without a son). The above cited passage mentioning the “inheritor in the filial line” cm* phasizes the patrilinearity of these groupings. Of course, the male household heads were obliged to provide for their mothers, wives and daughters. One of the manners in which this was done and which may be documented in our sources was the transfer of dowry upon marrying out daughters. Married women clearly disposed of their dowries in the course of their wifely lives (e.g. Prazäk 1958, 150—151, years 1158—1166) while widows could have been provided for by an unspecified form of levirate practices. In 1149, the pope Eugene III responded to enquiries sent to him by Jindfich (Henry) Zdik, bishop of Olomouc, saying, among other things, that no one is allowed to marry the wife of his own cousin after his death (Bistfickp - Pojsi 1982, p. 137, on the originality of this text considered by G. Friedrich, editor of CDB,
	erroneously as a forgery cf. Bistficky - Pojsl 1982, pp. 50“ 51). The male bias of this form of social Organization is enhanced by the exclusive privilege of sons to enter legal transactions and negotiations (on the Situation of women in 1 lth-to-12th-century Bohemia cf. infra). Before 1197, the register of CDB1 lists 12 instances in which two brothers act together (with fathers or without them), one instance of a father with his son and three cases of three brothers. It is not until the 13th Century that more nu* merous nuclear families occur (CDB II p. 450, register s.v. Beneä, and fbid. p. 471 s.v. Drizlaus — four sons in both cases). Daughters were clearly omitted from such transaction records and written sources refer to them most irregularly. I know of only one case of this time when a woman participates actively in a legal proceeding (Pra-zäk 1958, pp. 150— 151). Ecclesiastical sources are a little more rewarding. The necrology of the Benedictine abbey of Podlazice which recorded some 1634 personal names in the course of the period 1150— 1230 (the most extensive sample of personal names of early medieval Bohemia, cf. Charvät 1985 and 1987, esp. pp. 234—235), contains, among the 1348 names of persons who probably lived in the abbey*$ “catchment area”, 413 female names. The fact that Benedictine necrologies usually recorded persons who provided support of various kinds to the respective houses indicates that these ladies are likely to have been of some social importance. Another instance in which a complete family including two sisters appeared in written sources concerns the necrology of the Premonstratensian chapter of ChotHov, giving evidence for the relatives of the founder (<Grass! 1930).
	What was the proportion of the -ici social groupings within the social landscape of early medieval Bohemia? Some idea may be gained by the quantification of the -ici toponyms in Contemporary written sources, unfortunately without any possibility to distinguish among the “well--born” and commoner lineages(?). Specialists in toponymy (cf. supra, F. Curin, E. Michälek, V. Smilauer) unanimous-ly declare that until the 13th Century, such names referred to the resident communities and their numbers could give us some clues. Within the first volume of G. Friedriche CDB I, 86 Charters list 1169 toponyms which may be assessed. Among these, the -ici names amount to 450 cases representing 38.5% of the Overall number of toponyms. This figure, however, masks a more complex development. Charters dating between 1000 and 1197 contain, without any explicit patterning, between 30% and 70% of the -/« toponyms (as against all toponyms of the Charters in question). The first texts in which this Proportion falls below 30% date from 1130 (CDB I : 111 pp. 111—115, duke SobSslav Vs donation to Vysehrad, 23.8%) and 1158-1169 (CDB 1: 245 pp. 214-216, donation of king VladtslavI to the Maltese knights, 26.3%). Twelwe Charters dating after 1180 have lower proportions of -ici toponyms (14.3% to 28.6%). Together with the two preceding ones, this makes up for 16.3% of the total of assessed texts. It may thus be said that in llth-12th-cen-tury Bohemia, approximately one-third to one-half of the Population probably belonged to the -/cf social groupings.
	Let us now proceed to the Observation of a certain historical development of these groups. It seems that beyond a certain limit of the size of their property, its
	joint management presented some difficulties and that it might have been considered useful to create the Office of an administrator, in general the eldest male, who would direct all property transfers within his particular group, assuming responsibility for the daily bread of all its members. A refiection of such a trend may be perceived in the introduction of the qualifying substantive “zupan”, meaning “holder of the highest office, overlord, the one endowed with the power to command, the paramount”, into our written sources in which it turns up from 1187 to the initial 14th Century (on this term cf. Lippen 1893; Modzeiewski 1987, 142—143; 'lemlicka 1985, 570 n. 36). The process of monopolization of the right to disposi-tions with property of the individual groups clearly con-tinued in the 13th Century. The first cases in which property transactions are put on record (and sometimes even sealed) by male relatives of the original disposers instead of themselves date from the 30's of the same Century {CDB 7///7: 99 pp. 114-115, year 1234; CDB III/l : 100 pp. 115—117, years 1232—1234). Since the second half of 13th Century, another indication in favour of my hypothesis is represented by the introduction of another new term, “vladykaM (e.g. RBMII : 1841 p. 789, year 1299), the functions of whom are amply documented in the so-called Laws of the old sire of Rozmberk of the early 14th Century (Jirecek 1870, 68—98, esp. sections II and III on pp. 71—77). There he clearly represents a male household head the constitutive attributes of whom are a wife and a fixed residence and who is entitled to the management of the family affairs including property transactions, having, at the same time, a responsibility of providing for the less privileged members of his social group (on similar developments in Germany and France cf. Duby 1988, 19-22, 135-136).
	The end of 12th and beginning of 13th Century wittnessed another important change in the structure of the -ici groups. It seems that in most of the 12th Century, the -ici names referred to groups of individuals deriving their origins from particular ancestors remote in time. Investigation of the genealogy of descendants of sire Hrut of Buko-vina, bearing a halved coat-of-arms with three horizontal bars in the left half (all the evidence gathered in Hosäk 1938, cf. also Novy 1972, 162-163 n. 128) has, however, borne out that the singulär form of this name type, a patro* nymic ending in -;c, denoted only the first generation of descendants, i.e. sons vis-a-vis their fathers, in the period after 1200. Sire Hrut had three sons, Detrich, Mutina and Zdislav, who referred to themselves by the collective “Hrutovici”. Sire Hrut the younger, son of DStrich and grandson of sire Hrut the elder, calls himself “filius De-trici”, and DStrich of Knezice, son of Hrut the younger and great-grandson of Hrut the elder, is denoted as “filius Gruth’\ These patronymics thus did not refer to a distant ancestor but to the father of the person in question (quite in the manner of the present Russian “otchestvo”). This fashion of genealogical reference became subsequently widespread in Bohemia, surviving until the beginning of 14th Century (a list of such names in: Cufin 1964, 15—16).
	By way of a conclusion to this section, it may now be said that the groups denoted by names derived from personal names by means of the -ici suffix are likely to represent patrilineal-character lineages. Though their
	members held their landed property separately, the groups as such did have the right to revindicatc property alienated beyond their boundaries. Their members probably kept fairly accurate accounts of their own genealogies and of the relevant kinship relations, much as in other comparable societies. For instance, claiming heritage in Longobard Italy required the knowledgc of one’s kith and kin as far as the seventh antecedent generation (Edictus Rothari of 643 A.D., cf. Beyerle 1962 Cap. 153, pp. 39—40). In earlier times, group coherence along the sibling line, that is, among brothers (and/or sisters) might have prevailed over links between fathers and sons (a similar case from 9th-century Saxony being discussed in Hägermann 1985, 21, 23). This possibility is indicated by the sequence of first three abbots of the Benedictine house of Säzava, rep-resented by the founder, his nephew and, as the last to assume Office, his son (on Säzava cf. now Reichertovä -Blähovd- Dvoräökovä- Hufiäiek 1988, on its first abbots Blähovä 1988,61). The quantification of ~ici toponyms contained in the first volume of G. Friedrich’s CDB shows that in the 1 Ith— 12th Century, approximately one-third to one-half of the population of Bohemia including Moravia lived in residential collectives bearing the ~ici names. Unfortunately, a breakdown of this figure between the “well-born” and commoner lineages(?) cannot be achieved on the present evidence. At least since the end of 12th and especially in the 13th Century, a trend of con-centration of executive powers in the hands of some members of these groups (usually the eldest males) is evident, perhaps with the growth of the size of their property. Together with this, distance of the genealogical link denoted by the ~ici suffix was shortened after 1200. Since that time on, such patronymics added to ordinary personal names refer to fathers of individuals bearing these “double” (“otchestvo’Mype) names.
	For studies of early social formations, the Situation and Standing of women is usually of a high information value and it may well be useful to treat the early Bohemian material from this point of view. For the period before 1000 A.D., historical sources are totally absent. For this reason, we have to rely on mere indications of which some have been mentioned already: for early medieval Bohemia, the most important kinship connections were clearly to one’s ancestors and to one’s paternal and maternal uncles (the persona] names BezdSd, Bezstryj and Bezuj, cf. supra). However, other important connections must have been traced along the female descent lines in addition to agnatic links. The Old Czech terms for spouses’ siblings, current until about the incipient 15th Century, namely “devef” (husband’s brother) and “sir” (wife’s brother) must be of early Indo-European origins, as they find exact parallels in Sanskrit and Pali while Greek and Latin lost the terms for wife’s brother (Hocart 1928y now re-printed in Needham 1987, 61 —85 on pp. 73, 76 and 79—80; up-to-date comments and bibliography in: Needham 1987, 8 and 10 n. 38). In these early societies, women probably played the role of transmitters of social Status. Before 1000, women occupied not unimportant positions in the societies both west (Heers 1974, esp. p. 25; Duby 1988, 19— 20) and north (Alodzelewski 1987, 27—28) of Bohemia. On the other hand, the most ancient authentic and more exactly datable text, giving evidence on the Situation of women
	in early medieval Bohemia, though illuminating the top echelon of the society of those times (CDB 7: 79, 85 : 5 to 10, year 1078) shows that economically, 1 Ith-century women were denied the right to dispose of landed prop-erty. It gives evidence to the effect that single (unmarried) women were nourished either by their parents or by provi-sions of their deceased husbands, wives living in wedlock were supported by their husbands. The wives had the right to dispose of their dowries, but there are instances when their husbands handled their wives’ dowry property as well. The Situation before 1000 remains unknown but this economic passivity of women was fairly typical for most of the I Ith and 12th Century. In !2th-century Charters there is not a single word on possible inheritance rights of women (e.g. CDB 1:155, 157 : 4—5, years 1142— 1148) and the very first case when a woman disposes of her landed property is datcd 1158—1166 (Prazäk 1958, 150 to 151). Even here, however, the lady in question simply transfers her dowry to her husband without even having been called by name (she identified herseif only as a daught-er of X and spouse of Y). The second half of the 12th Century saw at least a right of the wife to express her consent with landed-property transactions (e.g. CDB 7:400, 416 : 18—21, year 1173?) or approval of the wives’ right to precious objects of movable character and to the household furnishings of the same kind in cases of re-marriages after their first husbands’ deaths (CDB I : 323, 297 :3—6, year 1189). Though the earliest independent transaction con-cerning landed property by a woman is dated 1193 (Ms. Agnes of Potvorov: CDB 7:342 pp. 308—309, cf. also CDBII: 48 pp. 43-44 and CDB II: 113 pp. 107-108), the Blessed Hroznata’s provisions for the case of his death in 1197 were quite traditional: one of his sisters received an estate for Support in her widowhood (but only for such a case) while the other hand to be nourished by the abbot of Hroznata’s Premonstratensian establishment at Teplä (CDB 1:357 pp. 323— 325). It was not until after 1200 that women rose to the Status of independent benefactresses of Church institutions (CDB II: 270 pp. 263—264, year 1225), acquirers of inheritance shares (CDB 77 : 303, 301 : 27—28, year 1227) or gatherers of landed property (CDB V(1: 199 pp. 316-318, year 1259?). It thus seems that while women of the llth—12th Century did retain their role of mediators of social Status, their other func-tions were substantially limited by — if not confined to — the interiors and furnishings of their households.
	A task of extraordinary importance is represented by a study of social structures of the lower, “commoner” strata of Contemporary Bohemian society, if we do not feel at ease by listing the terms by which the Charters refer to the rural population groups and trying to interpret them in the historical manner torn apart from other types of evidence. In this connection, a document of some signi-ficance may be seen in emperor Henry IV’s charter of 1086, delimiting the borders of the episcopal see of Prague (CDB 1: 86 pp. 92—95, esp. p. 94, last comments in: Släma 1986, 46) by means of enumeration of the border-land population groups. Against the interpretation of these social bodies as tribal groups, J. Släma rightly points to the facl that some of these groupings were named after castles established by paramounts of the Premysl dynasty and thus not all of them must by necessity be
	early. This corrcfusion notwithstanding, we have in front of us a unique document of the final llth Century, listing fourteen regional population groupings. Among these, two cases mclude very old and possibly pre-Slavic collective names (Lemuzi and Chorvati), whatever they may have meant in the llth Century. Two other names may mention individual sites (Tuhost’ and Sedlec), two other have the character of the -fei names (Ljutomerici and D&dosici) while the remaining seven are characterized by the suffix -ane (Lu2ane, DScane, Psovane, Slezane?, Trebovane, “Pobarane” and MilSane). These -ane names (on which cf. Profous - Svoboda - Smilauer 1960, 631 — 632) usually consist of non-personal substantives (apeliatives) or of toponyms compounded with the •ane suffix. Personal names turn up among them only exceptionally and this makes them clearly different from the -ici names. The historical development of these -ane names is most clearly exemplified in the manuscripts of the foundation charter of the LitomSrice chapter of canons the most ancient version of which dates to c. 1057 (CDB1:55 pp. 53 — 60). The original text A has no such names at all, only a later marginal note refers to a village called “Dolany” by an archaic locative case “Dolas”. Text B, confirmed by king Pfemysl Otakarl in 121P, has five such toponyms (CDB /: 55, 57 : 7; 57 ; 13; 57 : 15; 58 : 1; 58 : 10). Two names of this type are contained in the foundation charter of the HradistS-u-Olomouce monastery of 1078 (CDB l : 79, 84 : 1, 84 : 3). Other texts likely to contain reliable infor-mation mention -ane names in times of Spytihnev II (1055— 1061: CDB I: 56, 60 : 16) and VratislavII (1061 to 1092: CDB 7: 91, 98:33, cf. also CDB 11: 359, 381 : 30, 381 : 33), Such names first occurred en masse in the large charter of bishop Jindrich Zdik for the church of Olomouc of 1131 (21 cases: CDB /: 115 pp. 116— 123). In relation to the 1169 toponyms, documented by Charters of the first CDB volume, their representation lies far below that of the -ici names, amounting to 74 cases equal to 6.3% of the total of all toponyms. At the end of the 12th Century, Population groups inhabiting such villages are referred to as “vicinatus” (CDB 7:311, 284:21-22, year 1186, text quoted by Profous - Svoboda - Smilauer 1960, 631). This may imply that unlike the -ici groups, likely to have been cemented together by (quasi?-)kinship links, the main unifying agent of the •and groups could have been represented by the factor of common residence. Even the •ane groups did, howevcr, hardly represent a unified phenomenon. Settlements established in Bohemia after 1039 by re-settlement of some population groups from Poland taken away by duke Bfetislav I and bearing -ane names (Hedgany, Krusicany: Släma 1985, 336) were noted by Cosmas the chronicler as having retained the laws and customs of their homeland. This made them un-doubtedly different from other -and groups of the same age. The relation between the regional and local Settlement units bearing -ane names may perhaps be described by the term of atomization. The original -ane names of the llth Century referred to sizable segments of the Bohemian landscape together with their population. After 1100, when these natural units were replaced by the provinces instituted by the Premysl-dynasty administration, the •ane names denoted localized Settlements, possibly sheltering population groups United by the sole factor
	of the proximity of their past or present residences. The earlier and extensive •ane Settlement units probably in-cluded a number of villages and hamlets bearing -fei names. Their disintegration following the introduction of division of Bohemia into provinces administered by ducal ofhcials after 1100 both “bared” the basic settlement tissue of the land, consisting of -fei settled places, and limited the further use of the -ane names to sites probably differing in their structure from the -fei groups.
	Having at our disposal no means for distinguishing between the “well-born” and commoner lineages and Population groups resident in the Bohemian countryside, we must limit our observations to features likely to have been of general significance. One of these features is quite definitely the role of kinship ties within society which seems to have been not negligible. In addition to the oft-quoted relations of individuals towards their ancestors, patemal and maternal uncles, the role of cognatic ties is emphasized by the existence of a personal name “NesvaJSil” (i.e. one without male marriage-related kin: Hosäk - Srämek 1980, 139; Profoits 1951, 213—214; Svo-boda 1968, 385; on the underlying substantive “svak” cf. Nemec etal. 1980, 78—79). Again, such relations must have been so typical that their absence was conspicuous enough to mark the individual in question in the manner of a personal name. Most instructive examples of village lineages named after their ancestors by means of the -fei suffix, patrilocal and patrilinear with inheritance exclusi-vely along the male descent Ünes, are supplied by the Ksi<jga Henrykowska from the borderland between Silesia and Bohemia (Grodecki 1949 Liber 1.2 p. 252, 31; Liber 1.8 p. 278, 84; Liber 1.10 p. 299, 113; fbid. p. 300, 113; ibid. p. 307, 120).
	A number of inhabitants of the countryside of early medieval Bohemia are referred to in our sources as “he-redes” (the inheritors: Sasse 1982, 249—250; Modzelewski 1987,110— 111). Against the background of all the evidence presented above, this term, likely to be indigenous to the rural strata of the Bohemian population, seems to denote individuals integrated into the economic and social structure of their communities by means of their blood rela-tionships to the earliest ancestors of these communities (in Czech, the term “dSdic1*, the inheritor, is derived from the substantive “ded”, meaning “ancestor” at that time, with the patronymic suffix -ic\ the inheritor is thus the descendant of the ancestor). Some of the “heredes” at-tained such social Status that they were invited to act as wittnesses on Charters {CDB I: 308, 278:32, year 1185: CDB II: 378, 422 : 25 to 423 : 5, a transaction of the inci-pient 13th Century recorded in the second half of the same Century). The last-named instance even includes a “heres” with a patronymic (Stepän Radostic), attesting thus to the homogeneity of genealogical usances percolating through “well-born” and commoner strata of Contemporary Bohemian society. In fact, the use of the term **here$” need not have been confined strictly to lower social ranks and it could have denoted groups of various social Standing (so in Poland: Modzelewski 1987, 110— 111, on the term also Trawkowski 1980). Groups of inhabitants of freshly asserted lands seem to have been referred to in the Charters as “hospites”. The internal structure of these groups is entirely elusive save for the fact that they
	early. This conclusion notwithstanding, we have in front of us a unique document of the final 11 th Century, listing fourteen regional population groupings. Among these, two cases mclude very old and possibly pre-Slavic collective names (Lemuzi and Chorvati), whatever they may have meant in the llth Century. Two other names may mention individual sites (Tuhosf and Sedlec), two other have the character of the -ici names (Ljutomefici and DSdosici) while the remaining seven are characterized by the suffix -ane (LuCane, Decane, Psovane, Slezane?, Trebovane, “Pobarane” and MilSane). These -ane names (on which cf. Proforn - Svoboda - Smilauer I960, 631 — 632) usually consist of non-personal substantives (apellatives) or of toponyms compounded with the -ane suffix. Personal names turn up among them only exceptionally and this makes them clearly different from the -ici names. The historical development of these -ane names is most clearly exemplified in the manuscripts of the foundation charter of the LitomSfice chapter of canons the most ancient Version of which dates to c. 1057 (CDB 1: 55 pp. 53 — 60). The original text A has no such names at all, only a later marginal note refers to a village called “Dolany” by an archaic locative case “Dolas”. Text B, confirmed by king Premysl Otakarl in 121P, has five such toponyms {CDB 1:55, 57 : 7; 57; 13; 57 : 15; 58 : I; 58 : 10). Two names of this type are contained in the foundation charter of the HradistS-u-Olomouce monastery of 1078 {CDB 1:19, 84 : 1, 84 : 3). Other texts likely to contain reliable infor-mation mention -ane names in times of SpytihnSv II (1055— 1061: CDB I: 56, 60 : 16) and VratislavII (1061 to 1092; CDB 1:91, 98 : 33, cf. also CDB II; 359, 381 : 30, 381 : 33), Such names first occurred en masse in the large charter of bishop Jindrich Zdik for the church of Olomouc of 1131 (21 cases: CDBI: 115 pp. 116—123). In relation to the 1169 toponyms, documented by Charters of the first CDB volume, their representation lies far below that of the -ici names, amounting to 74 cases equal to 6.3% of the total of all toponyms. At the end of the 12th Century, population groups inhabiting such villages are referred to as “vicinatus” {CDB 7:311, 284:21-22, year 1186, text quoted by Profous - Svoboda - Sntilauer 1960, 631). This may imply that unlike the -ici groups, likely to have been cemented together by (qua$i?-)kinship links, the main unifying agent of the -ane groups could have been represented by the factor of common residence. Even the -ane groups did, howevcr, hardly represent a unified phenomenon. Settlements established in Bohemia after 1039 by re-settlement of some population groups from Poland taken away by duke Bretislav I and bearing -ane names (Hed£any, Krusicany: Släma 1985, 336) were noted by Cosmas the chronicler as having retained the laws and customs of their homeland. This made them un-doubtedly different from other -ane groups of the same age. The relation between the regional and local settlement units bearing -ane names may perhaps be described by the term of atomization. The original -ane names of the llth Century referred to sizable segments of the Bohemian landscape together with their population. After 1100, when these natural units were replaced by the provinces instituted by the Premysl-dynasty administration, the -ane names denoted localized Settlements, possibly sheltering population groups United by the sole factor
	of the proximity of their past or present residences. The earlier and extensive -ane settlement units probably in-cluded a number of viilages and hamlets bearing -ici names. Their disintegration following the introduction of division of Bohemia into provinces administered by ducal officials after 1100 both “bared” the basic settlement tissue of the land, consisting of -ici settled places, and limited the further use of the -ane names to sites probably differing in their structure from the -ici groups.
	Having at our disposal no means for distinguishing between the “well-born” and commoner lineages and Population groups resident in the Bohemian countryside, we must limit our observations to features likely to have been of general significance. One of these features is quite definitely the role of kinship ties within society which seems to have been not negligible. In addition to the oft-quoted relations of individuals towards their ancestors, patemal and maternal uncles, the role of cognatic ties is emphastzed by the existence of a personal name “Nesvaöil” (i.e. one without male marriage-related kin: Hosäk - Srämek 1980, 139; Profous 7957, 213—214; Svo-boda 1968, 385; on the underlying substantive “svakM cf. Nemee et cd. 1980, 78—79). Again, such relations must have been so typical that their absence was conspicuous enough to mark the individual in question in the manner of a personal name. Most instructive examples of village lineages named after their ancestors by means of the -ici suffix, patrilocal and patrilinear with inheritance exclusi-vely along the male descent lines, are supplied by the Ksiega Henrykowska from the borderland between Silesia and Bohemia (Grodecki 1949 Liber 1.2 p. 252, 31; Liber 1.8 p. 278, 84; Liber T.10 p. 299, 113; ibid. p. 300, 113; ibid. p. 307, 120).
	A number of inhabitants of the countryside of early medieval Bohemia are referred to in our sources as “he-redes” (the inheritors: Sasse 1982, 249—250; Modzelewski 1987,110— 111). Against the background of all the evidence presented above, this term, likely to be indigenous to the rural strata of the Bohemian population, seems to denote individuals integrated into the economic and social structure of their communities by means of their blood rela-tionships to the earliest ancestors of these communities (in Czech, the term “d&dic”, the inheritor, is derived from the substantive “ded”, meaning “ancestor” at that time, with the patronymic suffix -ic; the inheritor is thus the descendant of the ancestor). Some of the “heredes” at-tained such social Status that they were invited to act as wittnesses on Charters (CDB 7:308, 278:32, year 1185: CDB II: 378, 422 : 25 to 423 : 5, a transaction of the inci-pient 13th Century recorded in the second half of the same Century). The last-named instance even includes a “heres” with a patronymic (Stepän Radostic), attesting thus to the homogeneity of genealogical usances percolating through “well-born” and commoner strata of Contemporary Bohemian society. In fact, the use of the term “heres’’ need not have been confined strictly to lower social ranks and it could have denoted groups of various social Standing (so in Poland: Modzelewski 1987, 110— 111, on the term also Trawkowski 1980). Groups of inhabitants of freshly asserted lands seem to have been referred to in the Charters as “bospites”. The internal structure of these groups is entirely elusive save for the fact that they
	in practice, have been treated as slaves. Reduction to a servile state (“servitus'*) constituted a punishment (CDB 1: 379, 353:9—15, confected in 13th Century but with reliable earlier information), could have been ac-cepted voluntarily (e.g. CDB I : 156, 161:6—8, years 1143—1148) or followed after the purchase of the person in question (CDB 1:19, 84: 13, year 1078). In charac-terizing this social stratum, the above commented “here-des“ designation is probably of some consequence as a social labeL It does not seem likely that it would have specified the rural strata as against the eilte ones, as members of high society undoubtedly retained their inheritance rights. The designation may thus have applied “downwards”, that is, towards the underprivileged strata. In this Vision, they would have been deprived of their capacities to inherit (landed) property and would thus have to earn their bread either by auxiliary work or by the performance of nonagrarian tasks as, for instance, various arts and crafts. In fact, a number of qualified specialists in various industrial branches can be found among them (Sasse 1982, 257). In some instances, performance of a specialized activity could have been imposed as the servile Obligation (for instance, CDB 1: 310, 282A : 22—24, year 1186 — the duke gives “servum... in pellificem”) and such situations may even find reflectton in archaeological sources. A case in point could be the iron-mining and iron*smelting district around the Moravian town of Blansko in which a definite discontinuity in the quality of metallurgical work has been observed between the 9th— lOth and 1 Ith— 12th centuries to the detriment of the latter period (Souchopovä 1986, esp. pp. 81—82). The interested and well-motivated 9th— lOth-century Professionals could have been succeeded by craftsmen feeling no attachment to the menial tasks imposed upon them. Members of the underprivileged groups obviously held personal possessions and lived in nuclear families; in the instances where these are fully enumerated in the Charters (Sasse 1982, 264, 298), all the sons and daughters are referred to, and as for the work force, the fair sex was certainly not discriminated, It also seems that these people did maintain a certain amount of genealogical information pertaining to them. This follows out of the fact that in some cases, legal procedures were put on written record decades and centuries after their implementation when the people who had been originally donated to the recipient institu-tions must have been dead for a long time. Registration of names of originally donated persons thus had any sense only if a pedigree linking the ancestor in question to persons living at the time of writing out the particular docu-ment was available and could be verified. The fact that the names of underprivileged persons transferred with the donations actually pertained to the transaction time and not to the recording time, as well as the existence of at least rudimentary genealogical information circulating among the rural folk, are borrte out by a clause from an endowment charter for the Premonstratensian canons of Litomysl, confected at the end of 12th Century but containing the original donation of duke Bfetislav II (1092-1100; CDB 7:399, 412:32-33). Duke Bretislav originally gave the canons a baker named Jan. “Subse-quently” (postea), his son Nemoj bought a slave named Valdik “cum uxore et filiis et filiabus” and transferred
	bis Service Obligation to Valdik. Unfortunately, I can see no means how to verify when this happened but this event can obviously fall anywhere between the end of llth and end of !2th Century.
	Conclusions
	The society of llth—12th-century Bohemia may be broadly conceived in four large component groups: the dukes and their retinue, the “well-born” strata, the Commoners and the undeprivileged groups (the modern notion of freedom being notoriously difficult to apply to a number of pre-industrial societies). The dukes who were the largest proprietors and the richest Bohemians of the period (but by no means the only well-to-do ones) had to rely on members of their retinue, especially on the ducal guard corps of picked warriors, to implement their rule. It is supposed that the ducal entourage was at first entirely dependent on the dukes as their incomes flowed from re-distribution of the sum total of goods and Services which the dukes were entitled to claim from the population. It seems that individual nuclear families, vying with one artother for power, wealth and prestige, strongly patriarchal, with developed warrior ethics and cult of the mili-tary virtues but relying on marriage as on one of the means to secure socially desirable positions and contacts, were originally characteristical of the ducal entourage milieu. In later times, this society appears to have merged to a considerable degree with that of the “well-born" families. The “well-bom” social stratum probably included a large number of groups identified by names composed of a personal name with the suffix -ici (quite like the Western -inga names, the cases in point being “Merovin-gians”, “Carolingians” and the like). Within these patri-linear and probably patrilocal groups, women seem to have played again the role of mediators of socially desirable contacts. The personal names after which these groups called themselves are likely to have belonged to the respective ancestors and I see no reason why these groups could not have represented lineages. Landed property held by their individual members was easily transferable within the groups but relatives of the group members had the right to revindicate property alienated across the groups' boundaries (for instance, to Church institutions). A review of the representation of Settlement names ending in -ici (and likely to have corresponded, at least in the foundation phase, to such groups) in written sources of this period of time indicates that in the course of the 11 th— I2th centuries, approximately one-third to one-half of the population of Bohemia lived in such Settlements. Unfortunately, we have no means to disdnguish which of these belonged to “well-born” lineages and which were held by commoners. These groups underwent historical development which may be called atomization and auto-nomization. Since the end of 12th Century, the -fei suffix marked only members of the first generation of descen-dants of given fathers (quite in the manner of present Russian “otchestvo” patronymics) and no longer were all those who had Sprung forth from one distant ancestor meant by it. As to autonomization, there is a distinct trend towards the increasing significance of Status of originally subordinated family members such as women
	who had gradually acquired more and more Privileges such as the right to hold at first moveable and then even immovable property (the latter, however, oniy after 1200). Moreover, from the sarne period of time (final 12th Century) we perceive a gradual concentration of executive power of management of the property of the "well-born** social groups in hands of single male individuals (lineage heads?), who ascended to decision-making positions, bearing, at the same time, responsibility for the less pri-vileged family members.
	A similar trend of atomization seem to have been opera-ting in the sphere of commoner groups. Before 1100, these were organized in large regional groupings referred to by names derived from geographical or locational features and bearing the suffix -ane (denoting most prob-ably a common geographical origin of the group of persons so named). After 1100, such groupings were replaced (at least in the written sources) by administrative provinces of the Pfemysl-dynasty state and the -ane names de-creased greatly in significance (their Proportion to the rest of Bohemian settlements mentioned in Charters dated between 1000 and 1200 amounting to 6.3%). In addition to that, the -ane names attested to after 1100 denote individual villages and the assumption that the internal structure of the resident population groups differed from that of the -ici collectives seems to be valid. The whole process might thus have started, after 1000 A.D., with the basic tissue of resident communities bearing the -ici names clustered into more or less naturally formed regional units referred to by the -ane names in written sources. After 1100, introduction of the administrative provinces of the Prcmysl-dynasty state did away with the -ane groupings and exposed thus the -ici Settlement pattem. Until 1200, the -ici names survived in a remarkably constant Proportion to the rest of the toponyms (though, in fact, it varied strongly between 30% and 70%), falling
	SOU)
	Spolecnost teto doby v Cechach lze po mem soudu cha-rakterizovat ve ctyrech velkyeh seskupenich: knize a jeho bezprostfedni okoli, obyvatelstvo „urozene“ (uvozovky naznaßuji, ze neznäme blize konkretni obsah tohoto ter-minu pramenü), obyvatelstvo neurozene a konecnS sku-piny nejmene privilegovane.
	Prostredi knizeeiho dvora bylo dostatcSne podrobnS studoväno v fad2 recenmich praci, pripojuji zde proto pouze nekolik poznämek. Upozornuji pfedevsim na sku-teßnost, ze lze pramennymi üdaji dolozit, 2e knizeti nenä-lczela vSechna nekultivovanä püda, a ie pramenne zdroje pro nabyvani knizeeiho vlastnictvi v tomto obdobi opako-vanS zdürazftuji legitimitu a spolc&nskou pfijatelnost postupü zemSpäna. To arci müze pfedstavovat eufemisticky pojaty vyraz knizeeiho diktätu, avgak vyplyva to nepo-chybne z pfedstav o pusobeni zemskeho ustredi vc shode se vSeobecnS uznävanou soustavou fädu a präva, jak to pro ranS stfedovgke Polsko predpokladä K. Modzelewski. Na poöätku tohoto obdobi zastihujeme premyslovskä kniiata obklopenä prostredim sve druziny, väzane svym ekonomickym zabezpecenim a snad i rezidenci na sluzbu v knizeci sprävni soustave. V prostredi druzinikü lze
	below 30% only in the second half and particularly during the last two decades of 12th Century. DifTerences between “well-born” and commoner groups are not well discernible in the sources; most of the commoners probably lived as peasants and kinship relations played a role in property transfers among them (they referred to themselves as "heredes”, i.e. inheritors; in Czech, the term “inheritor” = dedic may be etymologically identified with “the descendant of an ancestor”, substantive “d$d” and the generic suffix -/c). These groups may have concluded an alliance with the paramounts of the land, visualized — and perhaps also symbolized — by reciprocal exchange: the commoners supplied the material needs of the dukes who, in their turn, maintained the overall social balance referred to as “Saint Venceslas’s peace*’ (a part of the legends of official ducal seals of the period having been “Pax sancti Wen-ceslai in manu ducis XY”). Hardly any features of this social stratum are clearly discernible in the sources save for the fact that women might have played somewhat le$$ restricted social roles in these circles.
	The salient feature of the underprivileged groups is likely to have been their exclusion from holding hereditary landed property and the consequent need to earn their bread either by carrying out auxiliary tasks (e.g. as labour hands on farms) or by work divorced from tilling the soil (ans and crafts, for instance). The meagre amount of Information at our hand jndicates that these people probably held shelters and equipment needed for their professions, lived in nuclear families and might have had a sub-culture of their own including essentials of genea-logical Information, Far from having been limited to the estates of the rieh, they might have constitutcd a regulär feature of the social landscape of Contemporary Bohemia, including subservience to simple rural families.
	Translated by Petr Charvdt
	J HRN
	pfedpoklädat existenci jednotlivych jadernych rodin (nuclear families), v jejichz vzäjemnych vztazich hräly roli zre-tele mocenske i majetkove. V teto patriarchälnS a5. virilnS orientovane spolecnosti zfejmS prevlädal väle£nicky ethos i vysoke hodnoceni bojovnicke solidarity; snatkovä poli-tika tu püsobila predevSim ve smeru navazoväni spole-censky zädoucich kontaktü. V dobe pozdSjsi se 2?ejm$ pom&ry v teto skupine ptibliZily situaci „urozenych“ vrstev.
	Prostredi „urozenych“ obyvatel ranS stredovSkych Cech charakterizovaly zrejmS skupiny, oznaSovane v pra-menech nazvy, odvozenymi od osobnich jmen koncovkou -fcf. Lze si je asi predstavit jako patrilineärni a snad patri-lokälni uskupeni, opSt s roli Zen jako zprostredkovatelek spolefcensky zädoucich pribuzenskyeh spojeni. Jejich ozna-2eni bylo patrnS voleno podle predka ci nejstarsiho znäme-ho (5i uznävaneho) clena skupiny a nevidim zasadni argu-menty proti interpretaci tSchto kolektivü jako rozrodü (lineages). Sve statky drzeli jejich Slenove osobnS, avsak pfi jejich zcizoväni hrälo roli postaveni drzitele uvnitr skupiny. Zatimco vnitroskupinove prevody (napr. vgno) nenarazely na podstatnej§i pfekazky, podrzeji si ölenove
	«
	tSchto pospolitosti prävo znovu privtSlit k majetku sku-piny nemovitosti, ktere byly zcizeny mimo ni („retrait lignager“ francouzske historicke literatury). Je mimo-rädnS obtföne odhadnout kvantitativni zastoupeni tSchto skupin v Seske spoleSnosti 11.—12. stoleti. Statisticke zpracoväni jmen sidlistl s koncovkou -fct ukazuje, ze v nich v nasi dobS zila zhruba iretina az polovina obyvatelstva Cech, rremäme vsak moznost zjistit, kterä z techto jmen nälezela „urozenym“ a kterä neurozenym rozrodüm. Historicky vyvoj tSchto kolektivü, patrny v pramenech naseho obdobi, je mozno oznaSit jako atomizaci a autono-mizaci. Atomizace se projevila ve zkräceni genealogickeho vztahu, vyjädfeneho koncovkou -icij-ic, v pokroSilem 12. stoleti. Po vetsinu obdobi, o nSmz zde hovofim, ozna-Sovalo totiz osobni jmeno, tvorici zaklad pojmenoväni techto skupin, vztah ke vzdälenemu predkovi vsech ziji* eich Slenö skupiny; prävS od konce J2. stoleti nesou vsak pojmenoväni s koncovkou -/c pouze synovejednoho otce, paralelnS s takovymi zpüsoby uvädSni püvodu, jakym je napr. „otcestvo“ v dnesni ru§tine. Autonomizaci zjistujeme v podobS dvou dnes zachytitelnych aspektü. Jednak jde o zrovnoprävnSni dalsich Slenü skupiny, zretelne v pH* padS zen, ktere postupnS nabyvaji präva disponovat nejprve movitym a posleze i nemovitym majetkem (to ovSem az po roce 1200). Däle se sjednocuje rizeni tSchto skupin, ktere je zrejme tez od pokroöileho 12. stoleti postupnS svSroväno jednotlivym clenüm skupin, obvykle dospSlym muzüm, vystupujicim posleze v pramenech (hlavnS zl 13. a raneho 14. stoleti) pod oznaSenim „zu-pan“, pripadnS „vladyka***
	S atomizaci püvodnich velkyeh spolegenstvi se setkä-väme i v prostredi obyvatel neurozenych. Rozsähle geo-politicke jednotky, pfedstavovane v 11. stoleti skupinovymi pojmenovänimi s koncovkou -ane9 nahrazuji zrejme jii od konce teho2 stoleti „provinciae“ stätu a po roce 1100 se takovä pojmenoväni voll pro jednotlivä sidliste, jejichz obyvatele byli, jak se zdä, vzäjemnS spjati pouze faktem spoleSne rezidence. Struktura tSchto sidelnich kolektivü se patrnS lisila od struktury skupin nesoucich pojmenoväni na -lei. Jmcna na •arte tvori ov§em v nasich pramenech 11.—12. stoleti pouze 6,3% celkoveho poctu vyhod-notitelnych jmen sidlisf a predstavuji tak ve sve pozdSjSi podobS jev okrajovy. Pred rokem 1100 kryla zrejme tato
	Refei
	Beyerle, F. (Ed.) 1962: Leges Langobardorum 643 — 866. Deutschrechtlichcr Institutsverlag, Witzenhausen.
	Bistricky, J. - Po/sl, M. (Eds.) 1982: Sbornik k 850. vyroci posvSceni katedräly sv. Väclava v Olomouci (Volume of studies on the occassion of the 850th anniversary of consecration of St. Venceslas’s cathedral at Olomouc). Olomouc.
	Blähovä, E. 1988: Staroslovenske pisemnietvi v Cechäch 10. stoleti — Altslawisches Schrifttum in Böhmen im 10. Jahrhundert. In: Reichertovä • Blähovä - Dvoräckovä * Huhäcek 1988, 55-69;
	Blähovä, M. - Fiala, Z. (Eds.) 1975: Kosmova Kronika ceskä (Cosmas’s Chronicle of the Bohemians,translation into New Czech). Praha.
	Bonte, P. 1987: Introduction, L’Homme 27/102, 7— 3 1.
	Bretholz, B. (Ed.) 1923: Cosmae Pragensi Chronica Bohe-
	änt cele rozlehle osidlene oblasti, v nichz jednot-liva sidliste nesla zajiste i pojmenoväni na -ici. Po vytesnSni prirozenS vzniklych regionälnich uskupeni se jmeny na -ani provinciemi premyslovskeho statu po roce 1100 byla tak obnazena zäkladni sidelni struktura, tvofenä tkanl jednot-livych obyvatelskych kolektivü s pojmenovänimi na -fei. Jejich zastoupeni je po cele obdobi, ktere zde sledujeme, mozno vySislit 30%—70% vSech sldlisC zachytitelnych v pisemnych pramenech, a snizuje se teprve v poslednich dvou desetiletich 12. stoleti. Nemäme bohuiel po ruce prostredky, s jejichz pomoci bychom mohli odliSit ,,uro-zene“ a neurozene sociälni skupiny se jmeny na -fei (i to je ovSem urcity indikätor relativni stejnorodosti dobove spolecenske struktury). Mezi neurozenymi obyvateli zjevne pfevazovali zemSdSlci (ktere premyslovskä administrativa zjevne ozoacila jako „rustici“), definujici sami sebe prede-vsim jako oprävnSne podilet se podle pribuzenskyeh krite-rii na majetku spolecenske skupiny („heredes“). Zdä se, ze tyto skupiny, v terminologii dobovych pramenü svo-bodne, uzaviraly s knizaty spojenectvi, stvrzovane reci-pro£ni vymSnou statkü — hmotnych prispSvkü venkovanü za „mir svateho Väclava‘% pochäzejici od knizat. Jake zde panovaly majetkove zvyklosti a zda i zde platil „retrait lignager“, nevime. Vlastnictvi bylo zrejme opet drzeno odd£len$ (spise po rodinäch nez po jednotlivdeh) a pri zcizovani hräly zjevnS roli zretele pribuzenske. Lze tu niemene sledovat nfcktere odlisnosti od sfery „urozenych“, jmenovitS vetäi samostatnost a rovnoprävnost zen.
	Vrstva „nejmenS privilegovanych“ (operace pojmem svobody se mi nezdä pro tuto dobu a spole2nost nej-vystiznSjSi) se zrejmS od ostatnich odlisovala pfedevSim neexistenci näroku na dSdiöne nemovite vlastnictvi a z toho vyplyvajici nutnosti zivit sebe a sve rodiny praci bud pomoenou, ci väzanou na dalsi zpracoväni prirodnich produktü (remesla). O techto lidech mäme informaci mizivg mälo. Drzeli zfejmS pfibytky a vybaveni svych vyrobnich provozü, vedli obvykly iivot v jadernych rodinäch a udrzo-vali asi i zäkladni genealogicke povSdomi o spole£enske situaci sebe samych i svych blizkyeh. Vyskytovali se zrejmS v cele fade sociälnich prostfedi rane stredovSkych Cech, mezi nimiz nebyly vyjimkou ani venkovske rodiny z od-lehlejsich 2ästi zeme.
	rences
	morum (M. G. H., Scriptores, N. S. t. II). Berolini apud Weidmannos.
	CDB: Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae.
	Vol. I, ed. by G. Friedrich, Pragae 1907.
	CDB II: Same title, ed. by G. Friedrich, Pragae 1912.
	CDBIIIjJ: Same title, ed. by G. Friedrich, Pragae 1942. CDB 111)2: Same title, ed. by G. Friedrich - Z. Kristen, Pragae 1962.
	CDB IVjl: Same title, ed. by J. §ebänek - S. Duskovä, Pragae 1962.
	CDB Vjl: Same title, same editors, Pragae 1974.
	CDB Vf2: Same title, same editors, Pragae 1981.
	Charvät, P. 1985: Poznämky k nSmecke kolonizaci vy-chodnich Öech — Notes on the German colonization of East Bohemia, Archaeologia historica 10, 75—81. — 1987: Ideologickä funkee kultury v premyslovskych
	Cechäch — The ideological function of culture in Pre-mysl-dynasty Bohemia, In: Typologie rane feudälnich statu, Üstav ds. a svetovych dSjin, Praha, 229—243.
	Chlädkovä, V. et al. 1977: Ze staroCeske terminologie sociälnich vztahü (slechta, §lechtic) (From Old Czech ter-minology of social relationships: nobility, nobleman), Slovo a slovesnost 38, 229—237,
	1980: Ze $taro£e$ke terminologie sociälnich vztahü (rytier) (From Old Czech terminology of social relationships: knight), Slovo a slovesnost 41, 62—71.
	Clutton-Brock, J. 1976: The Animal Resources. In: Wilson 1976, 373-392.
	Curin, F. 1964: Historicky vyvoj oznadoväni rodiny a ro-dinne pfislusnosti v 2eskych näfeöich (Historical development of denotation of the family and family affiliation in Czech dialects). Praha.
	Dembihska, M. 1979: Dzienne racje zywnosciowe w Euro-pie w IX—XVI wieku — Rations de nourriture jour-nalieres en Europe aux IXe— XVIe siecles. In: Studia i materialy z historii kuhury materialnej 52. Wroclaw-Warszawa—Krakow—Gdansk, 6— 114.
	1987: Wyzywienie mnichow wedlug reguly benedyk-tynskiej we wczesnym sredniowieczu (VI—XI wiek) — Nourriture des moines selon la regle de Saint Benolt pendant le Haut Moyen Age (VIe— XIe siede). In: Studia i materialy do dziejöw Wielkopolski i Pomorza 32, XVI/2, 57-78.
	Duby, <7. 1953: La societe aux XIC et XIIC siecles dans la region mäconnaise. Paris.
	1988: La societe chevaleresque — Hommes et structures du Moyen Age I, s.l.
	Ebrey, P. B. - Watson, J. L. 1986: Introduction. In: Ebrey P. B. - Watson J. L. (Eds.), Kinship Organization in Late Imperial China 1000—1940, Berkeley—Los Angeles—London—Sydney, 1—15.
	Eckhardt, X. A. 1958 (Ed.): Leges Anglo-Saxonum 601 to 925, Göttingen—Berlin—Frankfurt.
	Fiedlerovä, A. et al. 1977: Ze staroceske terminologie sociälnich vztahü (pan) (From Old Czech terminology of social relationships: lord), Slovo a slovesnost 38, 53 — 64.
	FRB11: Fontes rerum bohemicarum. Vol. II, ed. by J. Emler, Pragae 1874.
	Grass!, B. 1930: Das älteste Totenbuch des Praemonstra-tenser-Stiftes Chotieschau, In: VSstnik Krälovske ceske spole2nosti nauk, trida filosoficko-historicko-jazyko-zpytnä 1930, Praha 1931, 1 — 40.
	Graus, F. 1953: DSjiny venkovskeho lidu v Cechäch v dobS predhusitske — Histoire de la paysannerie en Boheme ä l’epoque prehussite. Praha.
	Grodecki, R. (Ed.) 1949: Ksi^ga Henrykowska — Liber Monasterii B. M. V. in Henryköw (edition of the Latin text with translation into Polish). Poznan—Wroclaw.
	Havllk, L. E. 1987: Slovanske stätni ütvary raneho stredo-v6ku — Slavonic States of the early Middle Ages. Praha.
	Hägermann, D. 1985: Bremen und Wildeshausen im Frühmittelalter: Heiliger Alexander und heiliger Willehad im Wettstreit, Oldenburger Jahrbuch 85, 15—33.
	Hecht, F. (Ed.) 1863: Das Homiliar des Bischofs von Prag Saec. XII. Prag.
	Heers, J. 1974: Le clan familial au moyen age. Paris.
	HePmansky, F. - Fiala, Z, (Eds.) 1957: Letopis Jarlochüv
	(The annals of Jarloch/Gerlach, translation of the Latin text into New Czech). Praha.
	Hocart, A. M. 1928: The Indo-European Kinship System, original publication of 1928 reprinted in Needham 1987, 61—85.
	Holtzmann, R. {Ed.) 1935: Die Chronik des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg (M. G. H., Scriptores, N. S. t. IX). Berlin.
	Hosäk, L. 1938: Prispevky ke staremu rodopisu morav-skemu IX (Contributions to old genealogies of Mora-via), Casopis Spoleönosti prätel starozitnosti Ceskych 46, 154-162.
	Hosäk, L. - Srämek, R. 1980: Mxstni jmena na MoravC a ve Slezsku II (Local names in Moravia and Silesia II). Praha.
	Jirecek, H. {Ed.) 1870: Codex iuris Bohemici II/2. Typis Gregerianis, Pragae.
	Lippert, J. 1893: IJeber den historischen Werth der Bezeichnungen „zupan“ und ,,2upa“ in der böhmischen Geschichtsschreibung, Mitteilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 31, 223—237.
	Macek, J. 1977: Osada. Z terminologii sredniowiecznego osadnictwa — Osada. Aus der Terminologie der mittelalterlichen Besiedlungswesen, Kwartalnik historii kultury materialnej 3/1977, 359—373.
	Maiseis, Ch. K. 1987: Models of social evolution: trajecto-ries from the Neolithic to the state, Man N. S. 22/2, 331-359.
	Merhautovä, A. - Tfestik, D. 1983: Romänske umeni v Cechäch a na MoravS — Romanisches Kunst in Böhmen und Mähren. Praha.
	Michälek, E. 1980: OznaCoväni osob podle rodove prislus-nosti a sidla v nejstarsich ceskych textech — Denotation of persons after kinship affiliation and residence in the earliest Czech texts, Zpravodaj Mistopisne ko-mise CSAV 21, 480-486.
	Modzelewski, K. 1987: Chlopi w monarchii wczesno-piastowskiej — Les paysans dans la monarchie ancienne des Piast. Wroclaw— Warszawa— Krakow—Gdansk-Lodz.
	Needham, R. {Ed.) 1987: Imagination and proof — Selected essays of A. M. Hocart. Tucson.
	Nämec, 1. 1988: Obfadni maska v slovanske demonologii — Die Zeremonienmaske in der slawischen Dämonologie, Slavia 57/3, 241—249.
	Nemec, 1. et aL 1980: Slova a dCjiny (Words and history). Praha,
	Nov$, R. 1972: Premyslovsky stät 11. a 12. stoleti — Der pfemyslidische Staat im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert. Praha.
	Praiäk, Jt 1958: Ke kritice Ceskych aktü 12. stoleti — Zur Kritik der böhmischen Akten des 12. Jahrhunderts, Sbornik archivnich praci 8/1, 130— 153.
	Profous, A. - Svoboda, J. - Smilauer, V. 1947— I960: Mistni jmena v Cechäch (Place names in Bohemia). Vol. III by A. Profous, Praha 1951; vol. V by A. Profous, J. Svoboda and V. Smilauer, Praha 1960.
	RBM: Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae. Vol. II ed. by J. Emler, Prague 1882.
	Reichertovä, K. - Blähovä. E. - Dvoräckovä, V. - Hunätek, V. 1988: Säzava. Pamätnik staroslovenske kultury v Cechäch (Säzava. Monument of the Old Slavic cul-ture in Bohemia). Praha.
	Suhl ins, M, 1972: Stone Age Economics. London.
	Sasse, B, 1982: Die Sozialstruktur Böhmens in der Frühzeit — Historisch-archäologische Untersuchungen zum 9.— 12. Jahrhundert. Berlin.
	Släma, J. 1985: K nekterym ekonomickym a politickym projevüm ranS stredovSkeho premyslovskeho statu — — Zu einigen ökonomischen und politischen Erscheinungen im frühmittelalterlichen premyslidischen Staat, Archeologicke rozhledy 37, 334—342.
	1986: Stfedni Cechy v ranem stfedovSku II. HradiStS, prispSvky k jejich dgjinäm a vyznamu — Central Bohemia in the early Middle Ages II. The hillforts, contributions to their history and significance. Praha.
	Smetänka, Z. - Hrdl&ka, L, - Blajerovä, M. 1973: Vyzkum slovanskeho pohfebiste za Jizdärnou na Prazskem HradS — Erforschung des slawischen Gräberfeldes hinter der Reitschule auf dem Prager Burg, Archeologicke rozhledy 25, 265—270.
	1974: Vyzkum slovanskeho pohfebistS za Jizdärnou Pralskeho hradu v roce 1973 — Erforschung des slawischen Gräberfeldes hinter der Reitschule des Prager Burgs im Jahre 1973, Archeologicke rozhledy 26, 386-405.
	Souchopovä, V. 1986: Hutnictvi zeleza v 8.—11, stoleti na zäpadni Moravg — Eisenverhüttung in Westmähren im 8.-11. Jahrhundert, Studie AÜ ÖSAV Brno XIII/1. Praha.
	Svoboda, J. 1964: Staro£e$kä osobni jmena a nase prijmeni (Old Czech personal names and our surnames). Praha.
	1968: Ukäzka zpracoväni slovniku staroöeskych osob-nich jmen (Sample of work on a dictionary of Old
	Czech personal names), Zpravodaj Mistopisnc komise CSAV9/3, 374-388.
	Smilauer, V. 1963; IJvod do toponomastiky (An introduc-tion to toponymy). Praha.
	— 1963a: Starä ceskä kolonizace v Borsodu (Early Bohe-mian colonization in Borsöd), Zpravodaj Mistopisne komise CSAV 4/5, 401-402.
	Thomas, J. 1987: Relations of production and social change in the Neolithic of Northwestern Europe, Man N. S., 22/3, 405-430.
	Trawkowski, S. 1980: Heredes im frühpiastischen Polen. In: Europa Slavica — Europa Orientalis, Festschrift für H. Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, Hrsg, von K.-D. Grothusen - K. Zernack, Berlin, 262—285. I owe this reference to the courtesy of Dr. J. Cechura, National Museum, Prague.
	Turek, R. 1978: K problematice odrazu hmotne kultury öasneho stredoveku v öeskych pramenech 10. stoleti — Zur Problematik der Widerspiegelung der frühmittelalterlicher materieller Kultur in böhmischen Quellen des 10. Jahrhunderts, VSdecke präce zemSdSlskeho mu-zea 18, 29-60.
	Valica, J. 1960: Cirkevn&dovansky penitenciäl ceskeho püvodu (A Church Slavonic penitential of Bohemian origin), Slavia 29, 31—48.
	Wilson, D. M. {Ed.) 1976: The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. London.
	temlicka, J. 1985: Odboj kralevice Premysla v letech 1248—1249 a jeho sociälni zazemi — Der Widerstand des Königssohns Pfemysl in 1248—1249 und sein soziales Hintergrund, Ceskoslovensky öasopis historicky 33/4, 564-586.