001	PAMÄTKY ARCHEOLOGICKI  LXXXIII PRAHA 1992
002	372—384
003	REFLECTIONS - ÜVAHY
004	NOTES ON THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF BOHEMIA IN THE I Ith— I2th CENTURY
005	POZNÄMKY K SOCIÄLNi STRUKTURE CECH V 11.-12. STOLETI
006	PF.TR CHARVAT, Archaeological Institut of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague
007	Domino Zdenek Smetänka conditori, magistro, inspiratori
008	It would be hard indeed to find a more eloquent illustration of the significance of studies concerning the social structure of Přemysl 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 Přemysl dynasty state (the cases in point being such names of Bohemian historiography as Julius Lippert, Josef Šusta or František Graus).
009	At present, problems of the social structure of 11th-to- 12th-century Bohemia certainly belong to major themes evocating a great deal of specialized interests (of the most significant recent summaries cf. Afotyŕ 1972; Merhautová - TřeStfk 1983, 47- 51. 99-108; Sasse 1982, esp. pp. 225-306; Havlik 1987, 174-190).
010	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 (19S3>.
011	His imposing volumes on the rural population groups of Přemysl dynasty Bohemia enabled other students a concentration 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).
012	Nevertheless, the progress of time has resulted in changes of the manner of posing the problems and conceiving answers to fresh questions.
013	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.
014	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.
015	The functioning of a social mechanism may be comprehended only if wc know not only all its components 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 medieval Bohemia anew,to ask fresh questions and to include a wider range of relevant materials
016	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.
017	Of course, such texts are eagerly awaited from the historians by the archaeological community; unfortunately, very few specialists in history arc willing to supply middle-range theoretical works which would be applicable to archaco* logical materials.
018	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\ Fiedteravd et o/. 1977; Chlúdkovú et al. 1977; 1980; Němec et al. 1980: Němec 1988).
019	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 disquietening to find in a published academic text a reference to such a thought fossil from the good old days of Frederick Engels as group marriages in connection with the pre-state or incipient-state historical period of early Slavic society.
020	This study focuses on the questions of property, of kinship structures and of the social situation of women.
021	Questions pertaining to the status of dukes and foremost members of social elites arc only summarized as they have been recently treated by a number of specialized studies, appearing also in foreign languages
022	Properly of the heads of Bohemian society , the dukes, who acquired the royal title at the beginning of the 13th century  consisted of a wide range of elements including, as main components, landed property as well as taxes in kind or in services mobilized from the population.
023	Ducal property of arable land is attested to since the final 10th century (the Christians text as quoted in Turek 1978, 33; cf. also CDB1 text 382 p. 361 II. 3-8, foundation charter of the Stará-Boleslav chapter of cannons, or CDB /7:288, 288:16—17:
024	"...agros ad nostrum aratrum... pertinences", year 1226).
025	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
026	for him as a remuneration or "salary" for such assistance;
027	Particular descriptions of such situauoas, dacing mostly from the times when this System was well ahead on its way io oblivion, include lands held in indivision by
028	"homines... pertinentes ad beneficium dapiferi mense nostre"
029	"... are relevant for the sake waste in our favor"
030	"... relevant to the steward in our favor"
031	(CDBIVjl : 159 pp. 261-262, year 1249)
032	or
033	"homines nostri ad nostram mensam spectantes... qui hoztinzi vulgariter vocantur"
034	"Our people ... are looking at our table hoztinzi commonly called"
035	{CDB F/1 : 378, 561 : 27—31. year 1263).
036	One of the clauses of manuscript B of the foundation charter of the Litoměřice chapter of canons of the end of 12th Century indicates that some subordinates of the dukes werc entitled to hold land by virtue of their Services
037	if the duke withdrew his donation of a land to a servant, he had to compensate him by providing another tract of land
038	(CDB 1:55, 58: 3—9).
039	Some of the uncultivated and unoccupied land also belonged to the dukes
040	{CDB I : 48. 51 : 1-15 = FRBII p. 244,
041	duke Oldřich. 1012 to 1035; also CDB 1: 387. 387 : 10- II).
042	The last named instance, which must be mentioning uncultivated land as in those times hop was not cultivated in Bohcmia but gathered as a wild plant shows, by the specification that the donation is given from
043	"terram, que pertinet ad ducem"
044	"The land, which belongs to the commander"
045	that such land could bc hcld by other possessore than the paramount.
046	Other cases ‘in point include a private gift of a
047	"pars silvae"
048	"Part of the forest"
049	io the Benedictine monastery of Opatovice (CDB /: 390, 400 : 6)
050	or reference to a
051	"silva Uribete et Zdezlai"
052	"Forest Uribete and Zdezlai"
053	(both are personal names) in a foundation charter of the Benedictine house of Opatovice (CDB 1:386, p. 370).
054	The dukes mobilized also for their use parts of surplus produced by both peasants (CDB U: 350, 361 : 12—14,
055	text confected at the end of 13th Century but containing reliable earlier information:
056	duos heredes ad vexilliferum pertinentes
057	two heirs to the relevant Bearer
058	and craftsmen (CDB 1:55, 54:34—39, ilth Century).
059	In denoting the obligations of the population of Bohemia towards the dukes, the chartere use the term
060	"ius" or "ius quod spectat ad usus principum"
061	"Rights" or "rights regarding the use of the rulers
062	(CDB II: 286, 281:10
063	year 1226 but ascribed to duke Vladislav I, beginning of I2th Century; CDB 1: 292, 261 : 1-3,
064	year 1180, CDB Ii : 59, 54 : 2-3, year 1207),
065	alluding thus to an idea likely to have been universally acknowledged as "lawful" and hardly imposed by force.
066	On the other hand, differences in the status of non elite population groups concerning their obligations to the paramount are indicated by the expression
067	"servitutes reales ct personales",
068	"The real and personal services"
069	used by some charters
070	(CDB U : 379, 423 : 40, second half of I3th ccntury).
071	This contradiction between "ius" and "servitus" may weil reflect status variations between "free" and "subservient" strata of the population, as will be shown below.
072	Our sources give some evidence on the manner by which the dukes of Bohemia acquired their estates: inheritance
073	(CDB /: 300, 270 : 12, year 1183; CDB / : 402, 418: 17-19, year 1183?),
074	purchase
075	(CAB/: 115. 120:10, year 1131; ibid. 390, 397 : 4 — 5,
076	confected at the end of 12th Century on reliable older evidence;
077	ibid. 289, 255:15— 17, year 1174— 1178; ibid. 402, 419:1 — 2, ycar 1183?),
078	exchange
079	(CDB 1: 287, 252:23, year 1178)
080	as well as
081	"alii iusti modi secundum iudicium nobilium seniorum Boemie"
082	"According to another just like the trial of noble old Bohemia"
083	(CDB 1:246, 217:5—8, year 1169).
084	The foundation charter of the Kladruby monastery is unusual in emphasizing the fact that the duke did not donate anything which would have been acquired in an unjust or violent manner
085	but only that what had been allowed to his ancestors to give to holy men according to the customs of the land
086	(CDB /: 390, 394 : 26— 29).
087	Though there are several possibilities of Interpretation (first case of a more extensive donation of landed property to an ecclesiastical Institution» or emergence of deeper understanding of Christianity. or alternatively purely personal motives on behalf of the duke). a conspicious 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
088	(Hecht 1863, Sermo on pp. 61—62 fol. 155a—156b comparing with CDB 7:390. 394 : 23— 25)
089	cannot be overlooked.
090	Studies concerning non ducal property in Premysl dynasty Bohemia are considerably hampered by the scarcity and heterogeneity of the existing evidence
091	In this case we shall have to resort not only to written sources but also to the linguistic phenomena.
092	At first, let me take up the case of persons active in tbe ducal court who have the best Chance to appear in written sources.
093	The text of the most andern chronicle of Bohemia, (hat of Cosmas the canon, written between 1119 and 1125
094	(Bret* Ms 1923)
095	lists 120 names of persons of the ducal retinues.
096	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, undes without specification. "relatives" and sons-in-law).
097	Finally, 30 names bear "Professional" titles (a "headman", a servant, a castellan, a warrior, a priest, a chamberlain, a "governor", a messengcr, a councillor, an administrator, an "elder of the castle"). in the chronicle of the anonymous Canon of Vyšehřad (Ist half of 12(h 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 incJude rhose of warriors. The chronicle of the Monk of Sázava of the same time lists 9 personal names including 4 cases of names only and 5 functionally specified ones (messengers, a warrior, a "headman").
098	Virtually no data on personal property of these persons are available in the written sources (cf. infra for the scanty exceptions).
099	It is now generally assumed that they held various functions in the ducal administration which entitled them to revenues either from che tributes and Services due to the dukes or from service holdings assigned to them for maintenance and as appurtenances of their Offices.
100	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 terminology employed in connection with them. limited frequently to the barest essential of nuclear family and matrimonial ties, and a strong male bias prevalent among them.
101	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.
102	The male domination in them is usually accompanied 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
103	and female cemeteries.
104	This may well fall in wich observations gathered at the cemetery sile in the Lumbe gardens of Prague Castle, dating to the lOth— 11 th 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.
105	In fact most of those interred here are women or young and therefore most probably not fully privileged men
106	(Smetänka - Hrdlicka - Blajerovä 1973; 1974).
107	The significance of marriage which may greatly aid the social ascent of the individuals concerned and which may be (even decisively) influenced by the social concerned increases considerably (on such societies, characterized frequently by the Crow Omaha kinhip type, cf. now Thomas 1987, esp. pp. 409 — 410).
108	I believe that all these features may well be applicable to the early social elite surrounding the dukes of Bohemia
109	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
110	(CDB VIl : 84, 157 : IC-12)
111	forbids expressededly the intcrference of holders of royal offices with concluding or suspension of matrimonial ties as such proceedings were the exclusive prerogative of ecclesiastical circles
112	A situation which seems to be cntirely 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
113	Both the geographical and the social landscape of contemporary Bohemia are characterized by settlements (probably corresponding to communities) bearing names composed of names of persons with the suffix -ici
114	(the -ovici suffix is here considered as a variant of the basic -ici form; on these cf.
115	Smi/auer 1963, 106. §367-1; Mkhdhk 1980; Cuřin 1964).
116	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
117	(Holtzmann 1935 VI: 50, p. 336 II. 15-17 - 4*
118	de tribu, quae Burici dicitur
119	tribe, which is called Buricius
120	paradoxically enough, for the group of descendants of one Bucco or Burchard clearly of German origin.
121	Thietmar’s terminology is likely to suggest that what he really meant was a lineage starting with Mr. Bucco
122	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 unfortunate group of Vršovici, of which several generations seem to have been massacred under various pretexts in the course of the 1lth—I2th centuries, though Cosmas’s "
123	gens Muncia
124	a fulfillment
125	and
126	gens Tepca
127	a Tepca
128	interpreted in New Czech as Munici and Tiptici, may well belong here.
129	The Vršovici 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 bc elucidated from Cosmas’s text (Božej, his son Mutina and his two junior sons; Nemoj, a relative to Božej; his son Mutina and his two junior sons
130	Nemoj , a relative  to Božej ;Čáč, his son Božej and his son Bořut; Česta and his son Jan)
131	A later source names one "
132	Detricus de genere Wrsowic
133	Detricus kind of Wrsowic
134	" (COB 11: 359, 382:26-27,
135	confected c. 1250 to 1300 but with reliable older Information) but I see no way of fitting him into the group illuminated by the text of Cosmas's chronicle
136	Though the individuals of this group are not always referred to by thetr patronymic name, to their  particular group is at any moment publicly known.
137	The families are apparemly patrilineal and probably patrilocal, adult sons assume partner roles of their fathers.
138	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 che name of whom may be reconstructed as Vrš
139	The samc 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 himsetf called "Děpoltici" (in this form in his Latin text, name derived from the personal name Theobald in its Czech form of Děpolt), bringing it to the notice of his readers that these were dcsccndants of Děpolt II, son of Děpolt I
140	(FJUi // P. 461; He'rmansky - Fiala 1957, Ml).
141	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,
142	Vrš
143	Kojata Všebor (Kojata son of Všebor) could have become
144	"Coiata filius Vssebori"
145	"Coiata son Vssebori"
146	in the Latin text. This is unlikely as Cosmas actually named onc of his figures wim a patronymic name
147	(Vit Želibořic or Všebořic: Bretholz 1923, II: 40, p. 144 1.31; Blahova - Fiala 1975, 126).
148	Who were the persons bearing the names providing the basic components of the -ici toponyms?
149	In view of their high frequency (cf. infra), the relationships between these persons and collectives deriving their names from (hem must have belonged to the most common ones of their kind.
150	If we surmise that the most usual kinship ttes 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 rcsulting in the personal name Bezděd:
151	Svoboda 1964, p. 101 § 49)
152	and to their maternal and paternal uncles (personal names Bezstryj and Bezuj, ibid. p. 90 § 48, interpretation of kinship terms in:
153	Němec etal. 1980, 76—89).
154	Among all the personal names of early medievat Bohemia, these are the only cases tnvolving elements of kinship tcrmtnology (except the PN NesvaSil, cf. infra). As, then, ancestors of social groupings are, though quite rarely, referred to in the written sources
155	(CDBII: 359, 382:22—23
156	two brothers
157	"de stirpe predicti Chotyemyri"
158	"Chotyemyri of the aforesaid
159	I believe that the most likely answer to the above mentioned question is that the persons referred to in the ici toponyms seem to have been considered by members of the resident communities as their ancestors.
160	Let us now proceed to the most difficult question of property relationship within these social groupings
161	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 lower standing groups as well, though the evidence to substantiate this is very scanty
162	I am afraid that the two isolated data concerning gifts of five villages to the Vyšehrad chapter of canons by Nemoj of ihe Vršovici  grouping
163	(COB f: 100 pp. I0S—106)
164	and of the miserable one hide ("aratrum") of land to the Benedictine monastery at Ostrov by "Detricus" of ihe same grouping do not suffice to indicate property differentiation within the Vršovici  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:
165	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.
166	If we get anything, because my grandfather and father had me in his possession, but that is my heritage. if to any one, I should sell this, my heirs will have the power to oblige us to seek the.
167	Sed quamcumque possessionem mihi dominus dux pro meo servicio vel gratia donaverit,
168	However, any property owner to me, my guide for the service, either because of pains
169	illam vendo eciam invitis amicis meis, cuicunque voluero, quia in tali possessione non habent heredes mei ius requirendi
170	it is also an unwanted advertising with my friends, some of them, because if it did not have possession of my heirs have the right to seek
171	(Księga Henrykowska, or the chroniclc of the monastery of Henryków/Heinrichau, Silesia:
172	Grodecki 1949 Liber £.8 p. 280 1.86).
173	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.
174	In Bohemia. the right of revindication of landed property so1d 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 the14th Century
175	(Jirefek 1870, 198— 255, cf. §§70—7! on pp. 240— 241).
176	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
177	Duby 1953, 265)
178	may be observed since the 12th Century.
179	In fact, even the Nemoj’s very early donation to the Vyšehrad chapter of canons (year 1100) was subsequcntly seized by secular owners but his could be a case of confiscation of the Vršovici property after 1108 (CDB1:100, pp. 105—106,
180	on further transfers of these lands until the 80*$ of I2th Century cf. CDB 1:288 pp. 253—254).
181	A clause prohibiting any vmdications of relatives. however, is jncluded in the text of the noble Miroslav's donation to the Cistercian monastery of Sedlec of 1142-1148 (CDB 1:155, 157: 5).
182	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 (Pražák 1958, esp. p. 133
183	and the table between pp. 144 and 145, as well as CDB /: 268 on p. 237).
184	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 of such practices abundantly (CDB!: 343 pp. 309—310, year 1193: CDB 1: 344 pp. 310-311, year 1192-1193; CDB 1:406, 439:27- 30, year 1187?; CDB !: 399. 414:3-4, end of 12th Century; CDB U : 125 pp. U3-114. year 1216; CDB //: 187 pp. 172-174, year 1219; CDB II : 258. 248: 18-20, year 1224; CDB II : 316. 312:25-28, year 1228).
185	in addilion to other matcrials from the same age
186	Such property revindications could even be subsequently lcgalized including written contirmations; this is the case of
187	villages  donated to te Maltese knightly Order by a gentleman named Měšeck and later seized back by his brother Hroznata {CDB /: 320 p. 293).
188	This evidcnce covers testimonies of seizures of already alienated goods especially concerning donations to Church institutions to the written records of which we must be grateful for documcntation of this practice, property held in indivision by a group of relatives (which is not exactly the same as "retrait lignager"; on indivision and its historical role cf. now, for instance. Duby 1988, 98—100)
189	and sanctions against persons intending to seize already alienated property.
190	Where ever more particular rcferences to such usurpers turn up, they invariably designate agnatic or cognatic relatives (brothers, nephews. specifically male, wives, children or generally "cognati" or "propinqui").
191	I think (hat we may conclude whh 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.
192	The evidence available now does not sufficc for an exact determination of the nature of the social groups under consideration here.
193	Both the data referred to above (e.g. the importancc of ancestor figures) and the fact that lineagcs rather than clans tend to be operative in everyday life (on these questions in general c.g. Ebrey - watson 1986, 5—6)
194	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, csp. pp. 336—337).
195	The distinction 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 /7: 325. 330: 13,
196	the expressed reference to a
197	"nobilis"
198	"Noble"
199	as against
200	"aliquis, cuius est villa".
201	"Someone who is responsible for the villa"
202	Other indications point to the role of kinship in property transactions in a different manner.
203	It can be demonstrated that not infrequently, alienations of property followed instances in which tbe holders lost hopes of emergence of their own progeny.
204	In these cases, they either entrusted their holdings to the dukes (CZ)£J: 245. 215 :19—22, years 1158—1169 —
205	"post decessum uxoris"
206	"After the death of his wife"
207	or transferred them to ecclesiastical institutions {CDB l: 155. 157:4—5, years 1142—1148 —
208	"deficiente in linea filiorum herede"
209	"In the absence of an heir of line"
210	or CDB 1: 358, 326 : 14- 18 on Blessed Hroznata, founder of the Tepla chapter of Premonstratensians who remained without a son).
211	The above cited passage mentioning the
212	"inheritor in the filial line"
213	"Inherits line in the subsidiary"
214	emphasizes the patrilincarity of these groupings.
215	Of course, the male household heads were obliged to provide for their mothers, wives and daughters.
216	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.
217	Married women clearly disposed of their dowries in the course of their wifely lives (e.g. Prazak 1958, 150-151, years 1158-1166)
218	while widows could have been provided for by an unspecified form of levirate practices
219	In 1149, the pope Eugene III responded to enquiries sent to bim by Jindřich (Henry) Zdik, bisbop of Olomouc, saying, among other things, that no one is allowed to marry the wife of his own cousin after his death (Bisifickf - Pojs! 1982, p. 137, on the originality of this text considered by G. Friedrich, editor of CDB,
220	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.
221	A reflection of such a trend may be perceived in the introduction of the qualifying substantive "župan", 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. Lippert 1893: Modzelewski 1987, 142-143; Žemlicka 1985, 570 n. 36)
222	The process of monopolization of the right to dispositions with property of the individual groups clearly continued in the 13th century.
223	The first cases in which property transactions arc pm 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
224	{COB Hill : 99 pp. 114-115, year 1234; COB lilt 1 : 100 pp. 115—117, years 1232—1234).
225	Since the second half of 13th century, another indication in favour of my hypothesis is represented by the introduction of another new term, "vladyka" (e.g. RBM11 . 1841 p. 789, year 1299),
226	the functions of whom are amply documented in the so called Laws of the old sire of Rožmberk of the early 14th century {Jirecek 1870, 68— 98, esp. sections II and III on pp. 71 — 77).
227	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, ac 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).
228	The end of 12th and beginning of 13th century wittnessed another important change in the structure of the" ici "groups.
229	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.
230	Investigation of the genealogy of descendants of sire Hrut of Bukovina, bearing a halved coat of arms with three horizontal bars in the left half (all the evidence gathered in Hosák 1938, cf. also Nový 1972, 162—163 n. 128) has, however, borne out that the singular form of this name type, a patronymic ending in "-ic" denoted only the first generation of descendants, i.e. sons vis-à-vis their fathers, in the period after 1200.
231	Sire Hrut had three sons, Dětřich, Mutina and Zdislav, who referred to themselves by the collective "Hrutovici".
232	Sire Hrut the younger, son of Détřich and grandson of sire Hrut the elder, calls himself "filius Detrici". and Détřich of Kněžice, son of Hrut the younger and great grandson of Hrut the elder, is denoted as "filius Gruth".
233	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").
234	This fashion of genealogical reference became subsequently widespread in Bohemia, surviving until the beginning of 14th century (a list of such names in: Cuftn 1964, 15—16).
235	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 pairilincal-charactcr lineages. Though their
236	early. This conclusion notwithstanding, we have in front of us a unique document of the final 11th century, listing fourteen regional population groupings
237	Among these, (wo cases include very old and possibly pre Slavic collective names (Lemuzi and Chorvati), whatever they may have meant in the 11 th Century.
238	Two other names may mention individual sites (Tuhošť and Sedlec), two other have the character of the "ici" names (Ljutoměřici and Dědošici) while the remaining seven are characterized by the suffix -ané (Lučané, Děčane, Pšované, Slezané, Třebované, "Pobarane" and Milčané, These -ané names (on which cf. Profous - Svoboda - Šmilauer i960, 631 — 632)
239	usually consist of non-personal substantives (apellatives) or of toponyms eompounded with the suffix.
240	Personal names turn up among them only cxceptionally and this makes them clearly different from the "ici" names
241	The historical development of these and names is most clearly exemplified in the mamiscripts of the foundation charter of the Litoměřice chapter of canons the most ancient version of which dates to c. 1057 (CDB 1:55 pp. 53 — 60).
242	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".
243	Text B, confirmed by king Přemysl Otakar I in 121P, has five such toponyms
244	{CDB /: 55, 57 : 7; 57: 13; 57 : 15; 58 : 1; 58: 10).
245	š
246	ř
247	Two names of this type are contained in the foundation charter of the Hradiště u  Olomoucc monastery of 1078 {CDB / : 79, 84 : I, 84 : 3). Other texts likely to comain reliable Information mention "ané," names in times of Spytihněv (1055— 1061 :CDB /: 56, 60: 16) and Vratislav (1061 to 1092: CDB / : 91. 98 : 33. cf. also CDB li: 359, 381 : 30. 381 : 33)
248	Such names first occurred en masse in the large charter of bishop Jindřich Zdik for the church of Olomouc of 1131 (21 cases: CDB 1:115 pp. 116-123).
249	In relation to the 1169 toponyms, documented by Charters of the first CDB volume, their representation lies far below that of the "ici" names, amounling to 74 cases equal to 6.3% of the total of all toponyms.
250	At the end of the 12th Century, population groups inhabiting such villages arc referred to as ‘vicinatus" (CDB /*.311, 284:21-22, year 1186. text quoted by Profous • Svoboda - Smilauer i960, 631).
251	This may imply that unlike the "ici" groups, likely to have becn cemented together by (quasi?-)kinship links, the main unifying agent of the -ani groups could have been represemed by the factor of common residente.
252	Even the "ané" groups did, however. hardly represent a unified phenomenon.
253	Settlements established in Bohemia after 1039 by resettlement of some population groups from Poland taken away by duke Břetislav I
254	and bearing "ané" names (Hedčany, Krusičany: Slama 1985, 336)
255	were noted by Cosmas the chronicler as having retained the laws and customs of their Homeland.
256	This made them undoubtedly different from other "ané" groups of the same age.
257	The relation between the regional and local Settlement units bearing "ané" names may perhaps be described by the term of aiomization. The original "ané"names of the 11 th Century referred to sizable segments of the Bohemian landscape together with their population.
258	After 1000 when these natural units were rcplaced by the provinces instituted by the Přemysl dynasty administration, the "ané" names denoted localized settlements. possibly sheltering population groups united by the sole factor of the proximity of their past or present residences.
259	The earlier and extensive "ané" settlement units probably included a number of villages and hamlets bearing "ici" names.
260	Their disintegration following the introduction of division of Bohemia imo provinces administred by ducal officials after 1100 both "bared:’ the basic settlemcnt tissue of the land, consisting of "ici" settled places, and limited the further use of the  "ané"  names to sites probably differing in their structure from the "ici" groups
261	Having at our disposal no means for distinguisbing 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.
262	One of these features is quick definetely 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, paternal and maternal uncles, the role of cognatic ties is emphasized by the existence of a personal name
263	"Nesvačil" (i.e. one without male mariage related kin: Hosdk - Sramek 1980, 139; Profous 1951, 213-214; Svoboda 1968s 385;
264	on the underlying substantive "svak" cf. Nemec et at. 1980, 78— 79).
265	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.
266	Most instructive examples of village lineages named after their ancestors by means of the "ici" suffix, patrilocal and patrilinear with inheritance exclusively along the male descent lines, are supplied by the Księga Henrykowska from the borderland between Silesia and Bohemia (Grodecki 1949 Liber 1.2 p. 252, 31; Liber 1.8 p. 278. 84; Liber U0 p. 299, 113; ibid. p. 300, 113; ibid. p. 307, 120).
267	A number of inhabitants of the countryside of early medieval Bohemia are referred to in our sources as "heredes" (the inheritors: Sasse 1982, 249— 250; Modzelewski 1987, 110— 111).
268	Against the background of all the evidence presented above, this term, likely to be indigenous to ihe rural strata of the Bohemian population, seems to denotc individuals integrated into the economic and social structure of their communitics by means of their blood rcla- tionships to the earliest ancestors of these communities
269	(in Czech, the term "dědic", the inheritor, is derived from the substantive "děd", meaning "ancestor" at that time, with the patronymic suffix "ic"; the inheritor is thus the descendant of the ancestor).
270	some of the ‘‘heredes" attained such social status that they were invited to act as wittnesses on Charters (CD8 / 308. 278 : 32, ycar 1185: C0811:378, 422 : 25 to 423 : 5.
271	a transaction of the incipient 13th century recorded in the second half of the same century.
272	The last named instance even includes a "heres" with a patronymic (Štěpán Radostic), attesting thus to rhe homogeneity of genealogical usances percolating through "well born" and commoner strata of contemporary Bohemian society.
273	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.
274	on the term also Trawkowski 1980). Groups of inhabitants of freshly asserted lands seem to have been referred to in the Charters as "hospites".
275	The internal structure of these groups is entirely elusive save for the fact that they
276	did claim a certain .social rank (Bohemian "hospites" on Hungarian territory: Šmilauer 1963a).
277	The name seems to have been attached to this group from outside (how did they call themselves?) and there is a remote possibility that they might have lived in settlements bearing the "ané" names (on the term cf. Sasse 1982, 250- 251
278	and in Poland Modzetewski 1987. 125—127).
279	For the mass of the early medieval rural population. Přemysl dynasty officials might have used the term "rustic", likely to have covered partly or completely the collectives whose names have just been discussed (cf. also Sasse 1982, 24H-249).
280	It is essential to note that in contemporary legal theory, the "rustici" were obviously considered as free persons.
281	The sources ascribe the privilege of paying taxes to the free population groups while the unfree segments were expected to provide "servilia opera'" Tasks' " (CDB 1: 386, 369: 19—22.
282	confected at the end of 12th century but with reliable earlier information:
283	"...quis liber..., servituti sit asstrictus et absque tributo regis permaneat et servilia opera impendat"
284	"... ... one is free, and free the slaves there is asstrictus remain and carrying out the tasks"
285	more particularly, for instance, CDB /1: 278, 272: 24— 25:
286	"servitus que narez et nocleh vulgariter dicitur"
287	"Narez and nocleh the service that is commonly called"
288	for servile taxes and services).
289	Care was taken to distinguish among "rusticos** and "serviendos** (CDB If : 375, 411 : ]4.
290	confected at the end of 13th century but with reliable earlier information, cf. also Sasse 1982, 260).
291	Contributions of ducal
292	"rustici"
293	"Rustic"
294	to the fisc (paid frequently in honey with the recurrent figure of seven "urnas" — CDB 1: 383. 364:6-7; CDB 7:390, 398:12- 13; ibid. p. 402: It. 7—10) may thus be comprehended as reciprocal gift exchange among various organs of the same community, carried out on the base of mutuality and limiting the liberty of either the donors or the recipients in no way (cf. on this in more detail Sahlins 1972, esp. pp. 140. 147, 168— 171 and 170).
295	Gradual transformations of the early medieval '‘freedom" probably occurred with the multiplication of economic subjects and emergence of non ducal complexes of landed property after c. 1150 (a charter of 1226. for instance, uses the term "nostri rustici (our country)
296	— CDB 11:288, 28$ : 16—17).
297	As a remark on the redistribution of food surplus in the early Middle Ages it may be added that new research presents the medieval food problem in a slightly different tight and the common assumption of quasi imminent starvation in those times may undergo certain modifications.
298	Unfortunately, scholars of East-Central Europe do not dispose of such a variety of sources as did Michel Rouche for France (cf. Dem- bimka 1979: 1987).
299	Without any pretension at completeness, I wish to point to a rough geographical compatibility of our region (at least in the latitude) with that in which the laws of tne. a king of Wessex, were compiled in 688 to 695
300	Ine’s laws list the following contributions in kind from ten hides (which may perhaps approximate a natural acreage unit such as our "aratrum" ("Plow")
301	representing thus a pure surplus value, annually: 10 barrels of honey, 300 loaves of bread, 12 buckets of "Welsh" ale, 30 buckets of light ale, 2 full grown cows or 10 smaller heads of cattle. 10 geese, 20 hens, 10 cheeses, a bucket of butter, 5 salmon, 20 weigh units of cattle fodder and 100 eels {Bekhan 1958. 169 §70. 1, cf. also Clutson-Brock 1976, 375).
302	In our sources, the maxim expressed in a charter dated 1130, according to which
303	"fratres singuli singula habeant aratra"
304	"Each individual brothers have plows"
305	(C£>5/: 111. 113 : 13, the reference is to subsistence lands of the canons of (he Vyšehrad chapter), may sound somewhat surprising as it is in flat contradiction with 9th-century Frankish sources giving the figure of one monk living off the surplus of thirty peasants (quoted by Merhaiitová • TřeStik 1983,48),
306	All these facts converge to indicate that the agrarian production of  11th— 12th- century Bohemia could have furnished not negligible amounts of surplus which could have been siphoned off by more social centres than just the ducal court.
307	In fact, written evidence does attest to the existence of landed property of commoners (cf. supra, Conrad Otto's laws of 1189).
308	Though the outlines of social stratification of the non elite population strata are rather nebulous, the average inhabitants of early medieval Bohemia, most probably falling under the "rustici" category, apparently held alienable property (COB II: 345 pp. 353—354. perhaps the 20*s and/ot 30*s of 13th century).
309	The "rustiti" could initiate litigations at lordly courts of justice concerning property questions (CDB It: 304, 303:9—13, year 1227) and could sometimes act as wittnesses on charters {CDB / : 296, 266 : 27 to 267 : 5. dated 1180 to 25th March 1182).
310	The manners and fashions of holding property among the rural folk elude us almost completely. The charter of the 20's— 30's of the 13th century mentions land belonging to "quisdam rusticis" "Quisdam rustic"and may possibly refer to some form of collective tenure.
311	Such an assumption could find supporting evidence — admittedly, very weak — in a clause of an Old Church Slavonic penitential of the tlth century, probably of Bohemian origin, punishing transgression against someone who "possesses a house" (and not land, the implication being "a fully privileged human being" — Vasica I960, cf. on this most recently Bláhova 1988, 64—65 and 69).
312	On the other hand, the Onltice donation charter of Zbyhněv the priest (CDB l: 124, pp. 129—131, years 1125— 1140) specifically refers to clearly delimited, well defined and individually held items of landed property which he had to buy off from a host of people including his own relatives in order to provide for his tiny chapter of canons.
313	In this very case, however, the unusually early date of the charter and the effort to add to the legal validity of the provision by means of a ducal confirmation make us somewhat apprehensive as to the frequency and popularity of such transactions and to the representativity of the charter's data in terms of the norms of rural life.
314	There is, however, one feature clearly peculiar to Zbyhnev’s procedure in comparison with situation in the elite strata of contemporary Bohemian society.
315	Zbyhnev endows his canons with both paternal and maternal inheritance (CDB 1: 124. 130 : 6 — 8).
316	For ladies of the high society, free property dispositions including acquiring of and manipulation with landed property became possible, to a more significant degree, only after 1200 (cf. supra).
317	This evidence clearly supports that of the necrology of the Podlasice Benedictine monks in which the 413 female names probably mask a number of well to do ladies residing in the country.
318	The commoner stratum of Bohemian rural society thus displays some peculiar features of its social character; most unfortunately, the scanty data do not permit any safe conclusions beyond this point.
319	Finally, there is the subject of the least privileged inhabitants of 11 th— 12th-century Bohemia who could.
320	Reduction 10 a servile state ("servitus") constituted a punishment (CDB /: 379, 353:9—15, confected in 13th century but with reliable earlier information), could have been accepted voluntarily (e.g. CDB 7:156, 161:6—8, years 1143—1148) or followed after the purchase of the person in question (CDB /: 79, 84 : 13, year 1078).
321	In characterizing this social stratum, the above commented "heredes" designation is probably of some consequence as a social label.
322	It does not seem likely that it would have specified the rural strata as against the elite ones, as members of high society undoubtedly retained their inheritance rights.
323	The designation may thus have applied "downwards", that is. towards the underprivileged strata.
324	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.
325	In fact, a number of qualified specialists in various industrial branches can be found among them (Sasse 1932, 257).
326	In some instances, performance of a specialized activity could have been imposed as the servile obligation (for instance, CDB /:310, 282A : 22 - 24, year 1186
327	— the duke gives
328	"servum... in pellisicem") "In pellificem slave ...")
329	and such situations may even find reflection in archaeological sources.
330	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— 10th and 11th— 12th centuries to the detriment of the latter period (Souchopot>á 1936, esp. pp. 81—82).
331	The interested and well motivated 9th—10th century professionals could have been succeeded by craftsmen feeling no attachment to the menial tasks imposed upon them.
332	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 (Sasst 1932, 264, 298).
333	all the sons and daughters are referred to, and as for the work force, the fair sex was certainly not discriminated.
334	It also seems that these people did maintain a certain amount of genealogical information pertaining to them.
335	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 institutions 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 document was available and could be verified.
336	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, arc borne out by a clause from an endowment charter for the Premonstratensian canons of Litomyšl, confected at the end of 12(h century but containing the original donation of duke Břetislav IÍ (1092-U00; CDB 7:399, 412:32-33).
337	Duke Břetislav originally gave the canons a baker named Jan. "Subsequently" (postea), his son Nemoj bought a slave named Valdik
338	"cum uxore et filiis et filiabus"
339	with his wife and sons and daughters "
340	and transferred his service obligation to Valdik.
341	Unfortunately I can see no means how to verify when this happened but this event can obviously fall anywhere between the end of 11th and end of 12th century.
342	Conclusions
343	The society of 11th-12th century Bohemia may be broadly conceived in four large component groups: the dukes and their retinue, the "well-bom" strata, the commoners and the undeprivileged groups (the modern notion of freedom being notoriously difficult to apply to a number of pre industrial societies).
344	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.
345	It is supposed that the ducal entourage was at first entirely dependent on the dukes as their incomes flowed from redistribution of the sum total of goods and services which the dukes were entitled to claim from the population.
346	It seems that individual nuclear families, vying with one another for power, wealth and prestige, strongly patriarchal, with developed warrior ethics and cult of the military 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.
347	In later times, this society appears to have merged to a considerable degree with that of the "well born" families.
348	The "well-born" social stratum probably included a large number of groups identified by names composed of a personal name with the suffix "ici"
349	(quite like the Western -inga names, the cases in point being "Merovingians", "Carolingians" and the like).
350	Within these patrilinear and probably patrilocal groups, women seem to have played again the role of mediators of socially desirable contacts.
351	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.
352	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)
353	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 11th—I2th centuries, approximately one third to one half of the population of Bohemia lived in such settlements
354	Unfortunately, we have no means to distinguish 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 autonomization.
355	Since the end of 12th century, the "ici" suffix marked only members of the first generation of descendants 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.
356	As to autonomization, there is a distinct uend towards the increasing significance of status of originally subordinated family members such as women
357	who had gradually acquired more and more privileges such as the right to hold at first moveable and then even immovable property (the later, however, only after 1200). Moreover, from the samc 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 Iess privileged family members.
358	A similar trend of atomizatton seem to have been operating 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 "ané" (denoting most prob ably a common geographical ot the group of persons so named).
359	After 1100. such groupings were replaced (at least in the written sources) by administrative provinces of the Přemysl dynasty state and the "ané"  names decreased greatly in sigtiificance (their Proportion to the rest of Bohemian settlements mentioned in Charters dated between 1000 and 1200 amounting to 6.3%).
360	In addition to that. the "ané" 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.
361	The wholc process might thus have started, after 1000 A.D., whh the basic tissue of resident communtties bearing the "ici" names dustered imo more or less naturally formed regional units referred to by the "oné" names in written sources
362	After 1100 introduction of the administrative provinces of (the Přemysl dynasty state did away with the "ané" groupings and exposed thus the -ici settlement pattern
363	Until 1200 the "ici" names survived in a remarkably constant proportion to the rest of the toponym (though. in fact. it varied strongly belween 30% and 70%), falling
364	SOUHRN
365	Společnost teto doby v Čechach lze po mem soudu charakterizovat ve čtyřech velkých seskupenich: kniže a jeho bezprostredni okoli, obyvatelstvo ..urozené" (uvozovky naznačuji, že neznáme bliže konkretni obsah tohoto terminu pramenú) obyvatelstvo neurozené a konečně skupiny nejměně privilegované.
366	Prositedi knižeciho dvora bylo dostatčně podrobně studováno v radě recentnich praci. připojuji zde proto pouze několik poznámek. Upozorňuji předevšim na skutečnost, že zle pramennými udaji doložit, že knižeti nenáležela všechná nekultivovaná púda, a že pramenné zdroje pro nabýváni knižeciho vlastnictvi v tomto obdobi opakovaně zdúrazňuji legitimitu a společenskou přijatelnost postupú zeměpaná
367	To arci může představovat eufemisticky pojaty výraz knižeciho diktátu. avšak vyplývá to nepochybně z představ o působeni zemského ústředi ve shoděset sc všeobecně uznávanou soustavou řádu a práva jak to pro raně středověké Polsko předpokládá  K. Modzelewski.
368	Na počátku tohoto obdobi zastihujeme přemyslovská knižata obklopená prostředim sve družiny, vázané svým ekonomickým zabczpečenim a snad i rezidenci na službu v knížeci správni soustavě. V prostředi družnikú zle
369	below 30% only in the second half and particularly during the last two decades of 12th century
370	Differences 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 rote in property transfers among them ( they referred to themselves as '‘heredes", i.e. inheritors; in Czech. the term "inheritor" » dědic may be etymologically identified with "the descendant of an ancestor", substantive "děd" and the generic suffix "ic").
371	These groups may have concluded an alliance wich the pararamounts of the land, visualized and perhaps also symbolized  by reciprocat exchange: the commoners supplied the material needs of the dukes who, in their turn, maintaincd the overall social balance referred to as "Saint Venceslas s peace" (a part of  the legends of official ducat seats of ehe period having been "Pax sancti Wenceslai in manu ducis XY").
372	Hardly any features of this social stratum arc clearly discernible in the sourccs save for the fact that women might have played somewhat tess restrictcd social roles in these circles.
373	The salient feature of the underprivileged groups is likely to have been their exclusion from Holding hereditary landed property and (he consequent need to earn their bread either by carrying out auxiiiary tasks (c.g. as labour hands on farms) or by work divorced from tilling the soil (arts and crafts. for instance). The meagre amount of information at our hand indicates 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 genealogical information.
374	Far from having been limited to the estates of the rich, they might have constituted a regular feature of the social landscape of contemporary Bohemia. including subservience to simple rural families.
375	Translated by Petr Charvät
376	předpokládat cxistenci jednotlivých jaderných rodin (nuclear families), v jejichž vzájemných vziazich hrály roli zřetele mocenské i majetkové
377	V této patriarchálně až virilně orientované společensky zřejmě převládal válečnický ethos i vysoké hodnoceni bojovnické solidarity: sňatková politika tu púsobila předevšim ve směru navazováni společensky žadoucich kontaktú
378	V době  pozdějši  ze zřejmě poměry v této skupině přibližily situaci ,,urozených" vrstev.
379	Prostředi „urozených" obyvatel rani středovikých Čech charakterizovaly zřejmě skupiny, označované v pramenech názvý. odvozenymi od osobnich jmen koncovkou
380	"ici". Lze si je asi představit jako patrilineárni a snad patrilokálni uskupeni. opět s roli žen jako zprostředkovatelek společensky žádoucich přibuzenských spojeni.
381	Jejich označeni bylo patrně voleno podlc předka či nejstaršiho známeho (či uznávaného) člena skupiny a nevidim  zásadni argumenty proti interpretaci těchto kolektivú jako rozrodú (lineages).
382	Sve statky drželi jejich členové osobně, avšak při jejich zcizováni hrilá roli postaveni držitele uvnitř skupiny.
383	Zatimco vnitroskupinově převody (např. věno) nenarážely na podstatnějši překážky, podrželi si členové
384	těchto pospolitosti právo znovu přivtělit k  majetku skupiny nemovitosti, které byly zcizeny mimo ni („retrait lignager" francouzske historické literatury)
385	Je mimořädně obtižne odhadnout kvamitativni zastoupeni těchto skupin v české společnosti II.—12. stoleti.
386	Statistické zpracováni jmen sidlišt s koncovkou "ici" ukazuje, že v nich v naši době žila zhruba třetina až polovina obyvatelstva Čech, nemáme však možnost zjistic, která z těchto jmen näležela „urozeným" a která neurozeným rozrodúm.
387	Historický vývoj těchto kolektivú, patrný v pramenech našcho obdobi. je možno označit jako atomizaci a autonomizaci.
388	Atomizace se projevila ve zkráceni genealogickeho vztahu, vyjadřeného koncovkou "ici/-ic" v pokročilem 12. stoleti.
389	Po většinu obdobi, o němž zde hovořim, označovalo totiž osobni jméno, tvořici základ pojmenováni těchto skupin. vztah ke vzdálenému předkovi všech žijicich členú skupiny; právě od konce 12. stoteli nesou však pojmenováni s koncovkou "ic " pouze synové jednoho otce, paralelně s takovými zpúsoby uváděni púvodu. jakym je např "otčestvo" v dnešni ruštiné.
390	Autonomizaci zjištujeme v podobě dvou dnes zachytitelných aspektú
391	Jednak jde o zrovnoprávněni dalšich členú skupiny, zřetelné v připadě žen, které postupně nabývaji práva disponovat nejprve movitým a posléze i nemovitým majetkem (to ovšem až po roce 1200).
392	Dále se sjednocuje řizeni těchto skupin» kteri je zfejmi tež od pokročilého 12. stoleti postupně svifoväno jednotlivým členúm skupin, obvykle dospělým mužúm, vystupujicim posléze v pramenech (hlavně až 13. a raněho 14. stoleti) pod označenim „župan\ připadně „vladyka".
393	S atomizaci púvodnich velkých společenstvi se setkáváme i v prostředi obyvatel neurozenych.
394	Rozsáhlé geopoliticke jednotky, představované v 11. stoleti skupinovými pojmenovánimi s koncovkou "ané", nahrazuji zřejmě již od konce tehož stoleti „provinciae" statu a po roce 1100 se taková pojmenováni voli pro jednotlivá sidliště, jejichž obyvatelé byli, jak se zdá, vzájemně spjati pouze faktem společné rezidence
395	Struktura těchto sidelnich kolektivú se patrně lišila od struktury skupin nesoucich pojmenováni na "ici"
396	Jména na "ané" tvoři ovšem v našich pramenech 11.—12. stoleti pouze 6,3% celkověho počtu vyhodnotitelných jmen sidlišt a představuji tak ve své pozdějši podobě jev okrajový
397	Před rokem 1100 kryla zřejmě tato
398	Refcr
399	Beyerte, F. (Ed.) 1962: Leges Langobardorum 643 — 866.
400	Deutschrechtlicher Insntutsvcrlag, Witzenhausen. Bisih'cky. J. - Pojst, M. (Eds.) 1982: Sbornik k 850. vyroßi posvSceni katedräly sv. Väclava v Olomouci (Volume of studtes on the occassion of the 850th anniversary of consecration of Sr. Venceslas’s cathedral at Olomouc). Olomouc.
401	Bldhovd, E. 1988: Staroslovfinske pisemnietvi v dechäch 10. stoleti — Altslawisches Schrifttum in Röhmen im 10. Jahrhundert. In: Reichertovd - Bldhovä • Dvofdckovd« HuÜdiek 1988, 55-69.
402	Bldhovd, M. - Fiaia. Z, (Eds.) 1975: Kosmova Kronika Ceská (Cosmas's Chroniclc of the Bohemians, Translation into New Czech). Praha.
403	Bonte, P. 1987: Introduction. L’Homme 27/102, 7—11. Bretitoh. B. (Ed.) 1925: Cosmae Pragensi Chronica Bohe-
404	pojmenováni cele rozlchlé osidlené oblasti, v nichž jednotlivá sidlišté nesla zajisté i pojmenováni na "ici".
405	Po vytěsnéni přirozeně vzniklých regionálnich uskupeni se jměny na "ané" provinciemi přemyslovského státu po roce 1100 byla tak obnažena základni sidelni struktura, tvořena tkáni jednotlivých obyvatelských kolektivú pojmenovánimi na "ici"
406	Jejich zastoupeni je po celé obdobi, které zde sledujeme, možno vyčislit 30%—70% všech stdlišť zachytitelných v pisemných pramenech, a snižuje se teprve v poslednich dvou desetiletich 12. scoleti
407	Nemáme bohužel po ruce prostředky, s jejich pomoci bychom mohli odlišit urozené a neurozene sociálni skupiny se jmény na "ici" (i (o je ovšem určitý indikátor relativni stejnorodosti dobove společenske struktury). Mezi neurozenými obyvateli zjevně převažovali zemědělci (ktere přemyslovská administrativa zjevně označila jako "rustici"), definujici sami sebe předevšim jako oprávněné podilet se podle přibuzenských kriterii na majetku společienské skupiny („heredes")
408	Zdá se, že tyto skupiny, v tcrminologii dobových pramenú svobodne, uzaviraly s knižaty spojenectvi, stvrzované recipročni výmýnou statkú, hmotných přispěvkú venkovanú za „mir svatého Václava", pocházejici od knižat.
409	Jakě zde panovaly majetkove zvyklosti a zda i zde piatil) „retrait lignager", nevime
410	Vlastnictvi bylo zřejmě opět drženo odděleně (spiše po rodinäch než po jednotlivcich) a při zcizováni hrály zjevně roli zřetele přibuzenské
411	Lze tu nicmeně sledovat některe odlišnosti od sfery „urozených", jmenovitě větši samostatnost a rovnoprávnost žen.76
412	Vrstva ..nejméeně privilegovaných" (operace pojmem svobody se mi nezdá pro tuto dobu a společnost nejvýstižněcjši) se zřejmě od ostanich odlišovala předevšim neexistenci nároku na dědičné nemovité vlastnictvi a z toho vyplývajici nutnosti živit sebe a své rodiny praci bud pomocnou, či vázanou na dalši  zpracováni přirodnich produktü (femesla).
413	O těchto lidech máme informaci mizivě málo.
414	Drželi zřejmě přibytky a vybaveni svých výrobnich provozú, vedli obvyklý život v jaderných rodinách a udžovali asi i základni genealogické povědomi o společenské situaci sebe samých i svých blizkých.
415	Vyskytovali se zřejmě v celé řadě sociálnich prostředi raně středovékých Čech, mezi nimiž nebyly výjimkou ani venkovske rodiny z odlehlejšich části země.
416	rcnces
417	morum (M. G. H., Scriptores, N. S. t. II). Berolini
418	apud Weidmannes.
419	CDB: Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae.
420	Vol. I. ed. by G. Friedrich. Pragae 1907.
421	CDB II: Same title, ed. by G. Friedrich, Pragae 1912.
422	CDB Ulii: Same title, ed. by G. Friedrich, Pragae 1942. CDB Ulf2: Same title, cd. by G. Friedrich • Z. Kristcn, Pragae 1962.
423	CDB IVfl: Same thle, ed, by J. Scbänek * S. DuSkovä, Pragae 1962.
424	CDB V'l: Same title, same editors, Pragae 1974.
425	CDB Vf2: Same title, saroc editors, Pragae 1981.
426	Chart dt, P, 198S: Poznämky k německé kolonizaci vychodnich Čech
427	Notes on the German colonization of East Bohemia, Archaeologia historica 10, 75—81. — 1987
428	. Ideologická funkce kultury v přemyslovských