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