Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza:
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Language: | Polish |
| Published: |
Rzeszów
Oficyna Wydawnicza "Zimowit"
2015
|
| Series: | Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis
tomus 31 |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Literaturverzeichnis Abstract |
| Item Description: | CD-R mit dem Titel: Katalog stanowisk, zestawienia |
| Physical Description: | 239 s., [4] k. złoż. il. (w tym kolor.) 30 cm + |
| ISBN: | 9788376671925 |
| Finding Aid: | CD-R ; 12 cm |
Staff View
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV043331990 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20170104 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 160201s2015 |||| |||| 00||| pol d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788376671925 |9 978-83-7667-192-5 | ||
| 020 | |z 8376671928 |9 8376671928 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)930501251 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV043331990 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a pol | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 6,11 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Rajpold, Wojciech |d 1988- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1096837277 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza |c Wojciech Rajpold ; [recenzent Elżbieta Kłosińska] ; Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego |
| 246 | 1 | 3 | |a Transformation setlement the lower of the Upper Vistula in the bronze age and early iron age |
| 264 | 1 | |a Rzeszów |b Oficyna Wydawnicza "Zimowit" |c 2015 | |
| 300 | |a 239 s., [4] k. złoż. |b il. (w tym kolor.) |c 30 cm + | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis |v tomus 31 | |
| 500 | |a CD-R mit dem Titel: Katalog stanowisk, zestawienia | ||
| 505 | 8 | |a Bibliogr. s. 227-232 | |
| 546 | |a Zusammenfassung in Englisch unter dem Titel: Transformation setlement the lower of the Upper Vistula in the bronze age and early iron age | ||
| 555 | |a CD-R ; 12 cm | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr. |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Kolonizacja wewnętrzna prehistoryczna / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Epoka brązu / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Epoka żelaza / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Siedlung |0 (DE-588)4054858-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Einzugsgebiet |0 (DE-588)4151469-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Weichsel |g Fluss |0 (DE-588)4079105-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Weichsel |g Fluss |0 (DE-588)4079105-1 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Einzugsgebiet |0 (DE-588)4151469-5 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Siedlung |0 (DE-588)4054858-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr. |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis |v tomus 31 |w (DE-604)BV035202175 |9 31 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000004&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Literaturverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028752142 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 930.1 |e 22/bsb |f 09014 |g 438 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 930.1 |e 22/bsb |f 09013 |g 438 |
Record in the Search Index
| _version_ | 1804175878469451776 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | SPIS TRESCI
1. Zagadnienia wstfpne......................................................................... 7
1.1. Cele, metody i sposób przedstawienia tematu............................................ 7
1.2. Historia badañ........................................................................... 8
1.2.1. Prawy brzeg Wisíy................................................................. 8
1.2.2. Lewy brzeg Wisly.................................................................. 9
1.3. Stan badañ.............................................................................. 11
1.4. Charakterystyka bazy zródlowej ......................................................... 12
1.5. Podziaí chronologiczny.................................................................. 15
1.5.1. Chronologia kultury mierzanowickiej ............................................. 15
1.5.2. Chronologia kultury trzcinieckiej ............................................... 16
1.5.3. Chronologia tarnobrzeskiej kultury luzyckiej .................................... 17
1.5.4. Chronologia kultury pomorskiej................................................... 19
2. Warunki srodowiskowe........................................................................ 21
2.1. Polozenie badanego terenu............................................................... 21
2.2. Zmiany klimatyczne i ich wplyw na osadnictwo w epoce br^zu i wczesnej epoce zelaza...... 22
2.3. Roslinnosc.............................................................................. 23
2.4. Warunki glebowe ........................................................................ 26
2.5. Streíy siedliskowe...................................................................... 26
3. Mikroregiony osadnicze ..................................................................... 31
3.1. Sposób wydzielania mikroregionów........................................................ 31
3.2. Skupiska osadnicze KMR ................................................................. 32
3.2.1. Skupiska KMR po prawej stronie Wisly............................................ 32
3.2.2. Skupiska KMR po lewej stronie Wisly............................................. 37
3.3. Skupiska KT ............................................................................ 44
3.3.1. Skupiska KT po prawej stronie Wisly............................................. 44
3.3.2. Skupiska KT po lewej stronie Wisly ............................................. 49
3.4. Skupiska TKL ........................................................................... 54
3.4.1. Skupiska TKL po prawej stronie Wisly............................................. 55
3.4.2. Skupiska TKL po lewej stronie Wisly............................................. 64
3.5. Skupiska KPM............................................................................ 71
3.5.1. Skupiska KPM po prawej stronie Wisly............................................ 71
3.5.2. Skupiska KPM po lewej stronie Wisly.............................................. 73
4. Preferencje srodowiskowe.................................................................... 79
4.1. Preferencje srodowiskowe KMR ........................................................... 79
5
4.1.1. Prawobrzezna strona Wisly.................................................. 79
4.1.2. Lewobrzezna strona Wisly ................................................. 94
4.2. Preferencje srodowiskowe KT .................................................... 104
4.2.1. Prawobrzezna strona Wisly................................................. 104
4.2.2. Lewobrzezna strona Wisly ................................................. 118
4.3. Porównanie preferencji srodowiskowych KMR i KT ................................. 127
4.4. Preferencje srodowiskowe TKL ................................................... 130
4.4.1. Prawobrzezna strona Wisly................................................. 130
4.4.2. Lewobrzezna strona Wisly ................................................. 148
4.5. Porównanie preferencji srodowiskowych KT i TKL.................................. 159
4.6. Preferencje srodowiskowe KPM.................................................... 162
4.6.1. Prawobrzezna strona Wisly................................................. 162
4.6.2. Lewobrzezna strona Wisly ................................................. 176
4.7. Porównanie preferencji srodowiskowych TKL i KPM ................................ 183
5. Struktura osadnictwa..................................................................187
5.1. Struktura osadnictwa KMR ....................................................... 187
5.2. Struktura osadnictwa KT ........................................................ 191
5.3. Struktura osadnictwa TKL ....................................................... 192
5.4. Struktura osadnictwa KPM........................................................ 197
6. Zagadnienia gospodarcze ..............................................................199
6.1. Gospodarka KMR ................................................................. 199
6.2. Gospodarka KT ...................................................................204
6.3. Gospodarka TKL ..................................................................208
6.4. Gospodarka KPM...................................................................213
7. Zagadnienia koncowe................................................................. 217
8. Bibliografía .........................................................................227
Summary..................................................................................233
8. BIBLIOGRAFIA
Aksamit T.
1962 Sprawozdanie z dzialalnosci osrodka archeologicznego
w Rzeszowie w latach 1960 i 1961, „Sprawozdania Rze-
szowskiego Osrodka Archeologicznego za 1962 r” s. 42-44.
Antoniewicz W.
1928 Archeologia Polski, Warszawa.
Balcer B.
1977 Osada kultury wczesnomierzanowickiej na stanowisku 1
w Mierzanowicach woj. tarnobrzeskie, „Wiadomosci Ar-
cheologiczne”, t. 42, s. 175-212.
Buko A.
1997 Kleczanöw. Badania rozpoznawcze 1989-1992, Warszawa.
Bukowski Z.
1990 Zum Stand der demographischen und siedlungsgeschicht-
lichen Forschung zur Lausitzer Kultur im Stromgebiet von
Oder und Weichsel, „Acta Praehistorica et Archeologica“,
Berlin, t. 22, s. 85-119.
Burek K.
2005 Sandomierskie wspominki, „Z Otchlani Wieköw”, rocznik
60, nr 1-4, Archeologia ziemi sandomierskiej, Warszawa,
s. 21-28.
Chomentowska B.
1975 Zawada pow. Staszöw, Informator Archeologiczny. Bada-
nia 1974, Warszawa, s. 304.
1980 Zawada pow. Staszöw, Informator Archeologiczny. Bada-
nia 1979, Warszawa, s. 272-273.
1981 Zawada pow. Staszöw, Informator Archeologiczny. Bada-
nia 1980, Warszawa, s. 99-100.
1989 Osada kultury luzyckiej grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Zawadzie
gmina Polaniec, woj. tarnobrzeskie, w swietle dotych-
czasowych badan, [w:] Barlowska A., Szalapata E. (red.),
Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury luzyckiej. Rzeszöw, s. 325-
342.
Cygan S.
2005 Osadnictwo nad doln^ Wislok^ w epoce br^zu i we wcze-
snej epoce zelaza, [w:] Kuras M. (red.), Archeologia Kotliny
Sandomierskiej (= Rocznik Muzeum Regionalnego w Sta-
lowej Woli), nr 4, Stalowa Wola, s. 353-365.
Czopek S.
1985 Problematyka badawcza pohidniowo-wschodniej strefy
kultury pomorskiej, „Archeologia Polski”, t. 30, s. 367-
410.
1989 Z badan nad schylkow^ faz§ grupy tarnobrzeskiej, [w:]
Barlowska A., Szalapata E. (red.), Grupa tarnobrzeska kul-
tury luzyckiej, Rzeszöw, s. 241-261.
1992a Poludniowo-wschodnia strefa kultury pomorskiej, Rzeszöw.
1992b Zabytki zelazne w materialach grupy tarnobrzeskiej, [w:]
Czopek S. (red.), Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce zelaza
i ich powiqzania z innymi terenami, Rzeszöw, s. 111-126.
1992c Uwagi o chronologii wzgl^dnej i periodyzacji materialöw
z okresu halsztackiego i starszego okresu przedrzymskiego
w swietle analizy ceramiki kultury pomorskiej, [w:] Czo-
pek S. (red.), Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce zelaza i ich
powiqzania z innymi terenami, Rzeszöw, s. 81-89.
1994 Materialy z wielokulturowego stanowiska „Krowia Göra”
w Piasecznie, woj. Tarnobrzeg, „Materialy i Sprawozdania
Rzeszowskiego Osrodka Archeologicznego za rok 1993”,
s. 27-54.
1995 Osady kultury pomorskiej - uwagi o stanie badan, [w:]
W^grzynowicz T., Andrzejowska M., Andrzejowski J., Ra-
dziszewska E. (red.), Kultura pomorska i kultura grobów
kloszowych. Razem czy osobno? Materialy z konferencji
w dniach 24-26 listopada 1993, Warszawa, s. 273-280.
1996 Grupa tarnobrzeska nad srodkowym Sanem i dolnym Wi-
slokiem, Rzeszöw.
1998 Z badan nad kultury trzcinieck^ w Polsce poludniowo-
-wschodniej, [w:] Kosko A., Czebreszuk J. (red.), Trzci-
niec - system kulturowy czy interkulturowyproces, Poznan
1998, s. 149-160.
2001 Pysznicapow. Stalowa Wola, stanowisko 1 - cmentarzysko
cialopalne zprzelomu epok brqzu i zelaza, Rzeszöw.
2002 Inhumacja i kremacja na cmentarzyskach grupy tarno-
brzeskiej, [w:] Wrzesiñski}. (red.), Popiól i kose, (= Fune-
ralia Lednickie, nr 4), Sobötka-Wroclaw, s. 231-246.
2003 Wielokulturowa osada ze stanowiska nr 3 w Kliszowie,
pow. Mielec, „Materialy i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego
Osrodka Archeologicznego” t. 24, s. 55-82.
2004a Osady tarnobrzeskiej kultury luzyckiej - wielkosc, struk-
tura, funkcjonowanie, [w:] Libera J., Zakoscielna A. (red.),
Przezpradzieje i wczesne sredniowiecze, Ksi§ga Jubileuszo-
wa na siedemdziesiqte piqte urodziny docenta doktora Jana
Gurby, Lublin, s. 221-238.
2004b Cmentarzysko cialopalne z wczesnej epoki zelaza w Kna-
pach, Rzeszöw.
227
2005a Cmentarzyska jako element regionalnej struktury osad-
niczej na przykladzie nekropoli tarnobrzeskiej kultury lu-
zyckiej, „Przegl^d Archeologiczny”, t. 53, s. 53-85.
2005b Epoka br^zu i wczesna epoka zelaza w Kotlinie Sandomier-
skiej - uwagi o stanie badañ i aktualnych problemach ba-
dawczych, [w:] Kuras M. (red.), Archeologia Kotliny San-
domierskiej (= Rocznik Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej
Woli, nr 4), Stalowa Woia, s. 241-254.
2006 Czas uzytkowania cmentarzysk tarnobrzeskiej kultury
hizyckiej - mozliwosci interpretacyjne i uwagi dysku-
syjne, „Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia”, 1.1, s. 101—
132.
2007 Zwi^zki dorzecza Wisly z terenami lasostepu ukraiñskie-
go w epoce br^zu i wczesnej epoce zelaza, [w:] Bakalara-
ska L. (red.), Wspólnota dziedzictwa archeologicznego ziem
Ukrainy i Polski. Warszawa, s. 213-225.
2008 Kilka uwag o archeozoologicznych materialach tarnobrze-
skiej kultury hizyckiej, [w:] Bednarczyk J., Czebreszuk J.,
Makarowicz R, Szmyt M. (red.), Na pograniczu swiatów.
Studia z pradziejów mi^dzymorza baltycko-pontyjskiego
ofiarowane profesorowi Aleksandrowi Kosko w 60. roczni-
c$ urodzin, Poznan, s. 83-92.
Czopek S., Kadrow S., Mitura P.
1993 Materialy z wielokulturowego stanowiska w Orliskach
Sokolnickich, woj. Tarnobrzeskie, „Materialy i Sprawoz-
dania Rzeszowskiego Osrodka Archeologicznego za lata
1991-1992”, s. 53-70.
Czopek S., Podgórska-Czopek J.
1991 Materialy z osad kultury hizyckiej (grupy tarnobrzeskiej)
i kultury przeworskiej ze stanowiska 1 w Tarnobrzegu-
-Zakrzowie, „Materialy i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego
Osrodka Archeologicznego za lata 1980-1984”, s. 71-
114.
Czopek S., Walanus A.
2003 Uwagi o chronologii i interpretacji cmentarzyska w Da-
charzowie, „Przegl^d Archeologiczny”, t. 51, s. 185-190.
Dt|browski J.
1981 Proba charakterystyki zespolu osadniczego kultury luzyc-
kiej w Worytach, [w:] Dqbrowski J. (red.), Woryty. Studium
archeologiczno-przyrodnicze zespolu osadniczego kultury
luzyckiej, Wroclaw, s. 229-238.
1988 Uwagi o rozchodzeniu si^ elementów kultury (na przykla-
dzie ceramiki lepionej), „Archeologia Polski”, t. 33, z. 1,
s. 67-112.
Demetrykiewicz W.
1897 Cmentarzyska i osady przedhistoryczne w okolicy Tar-
nobrzega i Rozwadowa nad Sanem, „Materialy Antropo-
logiczno-Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne”, t. 2, Krakow,
s. 135-152.
Dzi^ciolowski W.
1985 Analiza i klasyfikacja gleb, Poznan.
Dzi^golewski K., Godlewski P.
2009 Wschodnie oddzialywania kulturowe na terytorium za-
chodniej Malopolski we wczesnej epoce zelaza - zródla
i interpretacje, [w:] Czopek S., Trybala-Zawislak K. (red.),
Tarnobrzeska kultura luzycka - zródla i interpretacje, Rze-
szów, s. 41-52.
FlorekM.
1994 Cmentarzyska kurhanowe i kopce na lessach sandomiersko -
-opatowskich. Stan badan. Charakterystyka. Proba okreslenia
funkcji i chronologii, „Materialy i Sprawozdania Rzeszow-
skiego Osrodka Archeologicznego za rok 1993”, s. 251-280.
2004 Pradzieje i wczesne sredniowiecze Mielca i regionu. Mielec.
2007 Nowe odkrycia grobów podkoszowych kultury pomorskiej
w okolicy Sandomierza i Staszowa, „Zeszyty Sandomier-
skie”, t. 25, s. 83-85.
2009 Synchronicznosc czy asynchronicznosc przemian kultu-
rowych? Uwagi o schylku kultury trzcinieckiej na Wyzy-
nie Sandomierskiej i terenach s^siednich, [w:] Taras H.,
Zakoscielna A. (red.), Hereditas Praeteriti. Additamenta
archaeologica et histórica dedicata Ioanni Gurba Octogési-
mo Anno Nascendi. Lublin, s. 209-222.
Florek M., Gurba J.
1992 Sprawozdanie z archeologicznych badan wykopaliskowych
przeprowadzonych w Tarnobrzegu w roku 1992, maszy-
nopis w archiwum PSOZ odzial w Tarnobrzegu.
1993 Wyniki badan wykopaliskowych w Tarnobrzegu, Spra-
wozdania z badan terenowych Katedry Archeologii UMCS
w 1992 roku, Lublin, s. 14-21.
Florek M., Michalak J., Wróbel H.
1983 Koprzywnica woj. Tarnobrzeskie, Informator Archeolo-
giczny. Badania 1982, Warszawa, s. 82-83.
Florek M., Zakoscielna A.
2005 Na „zab^” - niezwykly pochówek z pocz^tków epoki br^-
zu ze Zlotej k. Sandomierza, [w:] „Z Otchlani Wieków”,
nr 1-4 rocznik 60, Archeologia ziemi sandomierskiej, War-
szawa, s. 65-70.
Florek M., Taras H.
1996 Sprawozdanie z badan zespolu grobowego kultury trzci-
nieckiej na stanowisku 1 w Dacharzowie gm. Wilczyce, woj.
tarnobrzeskie, „Archeologia Polski Srodkowowschodniej”,
1.1, s. 63-68.
2003 Dacharzów. Cmentarzysko kultury trzcinieckiej, Lublin.
Gajewska H.
1969 Trzesñ pow. Tarnobrzeg, Informator Archeologiczny. Ba-
dania 1968, Warszawa, s. 55-56.
Garbacz K.
1996 Nieznany miecz z Gr^bowa, Gm. Loco, Woj. Tarnobrzeg,
„Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 48, s. 113-117.
Gardawski A.
1955 Z badan powierzchniowych na terenie miasta Sandomie -
rza, „Wiadomosci Archeologiczne”, t. 23, s. 92-96.
1959 Plemiona kultury trzcinieckiej w Polsce, „Materialy Sta-
rozytne”, t. 5, s. 7-189.
1971 Zagadnienie fazy lódzkiej (przejsciowej fazy mi^dzy kultu-
r^ trzcinieck§ a wschodni^ kultury luzyck^), „Archeologia
Polski”, 1.16/1-2, s. 151-166.
1979 Czasy zaniku kultury luzyckiej. Okres halsztacki D i laten-
ski, [w:] Hensel W. (red.), Prahistoria ziem polskich, t. 4,
Wroclaw, s. 257-278.
Gedl M.
1962 Uwagi o kulturze luzyckiej w dorzeczu Sanu, Wieprza
i górnego Bugu, „Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 15,
s. 365-386.
228
1970 Ze studiöw nad genezq i wczesn§ faz§ grupy tarnobrze-
skiej, „Archeologia Polski”, t. 15, s. 365-386.
1989 Stosunki gospodarcze. Stosunki spoleczne, [w:] Kmieciriski
J. (red.), Pradzieje ziem Polskich, 1.1, Warszawa, s. 648-716.
Gurba J.
1960 Stanowisko archeologiczne w miejscowosci Piaseczno,
pow. Sandomierz, „Wiadomosci Archeologiczne”, t. 26:
3-4, s. 354.
Godlowski K.
1983 Czlowiek a srodowisko w okresie lateriskim, rzymskim
i w^dröwek ludöw, [w:] Kozlowski J.K., Kozlowski S.K.
(red.), Czlowiek i srodowisko w pradziejach, Warszawa,
s. 286-308.
Görski J.
1994 Z badah nad chronologic i periodyzacjc kultury trzci-
nieckiej na obszarze lessöw podkrakowskich, [w:] Mitura
P. (red.), Problemy kultury trzcinieckiej, Rzeszöw, s. 23-50.
1998 Kultura trzciniecka i kultura luzycka. Problem zmiany kul-
turowej w zachodniej Malopolsce, [w:] Kosko A., Czebre-
szuk J. (red.), Trzciniec - system kulturowy czy interkultu-
rowy proces?, Poznan, s. 361-378.
2003a Uwagi o datowaniu i kontekscie znalezisk ceramiki o ce-
chach pohidniowych w strefie zasi^gu kultury trzciniec-
kiej, [w:] Gancarski J. (red.), Epoka brqzu i wczesna epoka
zelaza w Karpatach polskich, Krosno, s. 89-135.
2003b Uwagi o mozliwosciach wydzielania trzciniecko-luzyckich
faz przejsciowych, „Kultura i Historia”, nr 4, s. 14-24.
2005 Kultura trzciniecka w Kotlinie Sandomierskiej na tie po-
röwnawczym. Zarys problematyki zrödloznawczej, chro-
nologicznej i osadniczej, [w:] Kuras M. (red.), Archeologia
Kotliny Sandomierskiej, Stalowa Wola, s. 255-270.
2007a Powi^zania kultury trzcinieckiej z obszaröw lessöw pod-
krakowskich z innymi terenami w swietle analizy cerami-
ki, [w:] Chochorowski J. (red.), Studia nad epokq brqzu
i wczesnq epokq zelaza w Europie. Ksigga jubileuszowa
poswigcona profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pigcdzie-
sifciolecie pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellohskim, Krakow,
s. 253-274.
2007b Chronologia kultury trzcinieckiej na lessach Niecki Nidziah-
skiej, Krakow.
2009 „Tarnobrzeski” wariant trzciniecko-luzyckiej zmiany kul-
turowej. Zagadnieniaproblemowe, [w:] Czopek S., Tryba-
la-Zawislak K. (red.), Tarnobrzeska kultura luzycka - zrö-
dla i interpretacje, Rzeszöw, s. 41-52.
Görski J., Kadrow S.
1996 Kultura mierzanowicka i kultura trzciniecka w zachodniej
Malopolsce. Problem zmiany kulturowej, „Sprawozdania
Archeologiczne”, t. 48, s. 9-32.
Jadczykowa I.
1990a Kultura pomorska na terenie wojewödztwa sieradzkiego,
„Sieradzki Rocznik Muzealny”, t. 7, s. 35-67.
1990b Nowe znaleziska z miejscowosci Furmany, woj. tarnobrze-
skie, „Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 43, s. 227-232.
Jakimowicz R.
1920 Zbiör wykopalisk przedhistorycznych w Muzeum Diece-
zjalnym w Sandomierzu, „Wiadomosci Archeologiczne”,
t. 4, s. 213.
1934 Z dzialalnosci muzeum oddzialu polskiego tow. krajoznaw-
czego w Sandomierzu, „Z Otchlani Wieköw”, t. 9, z. 3-5,
s. 69.
Jamka R.
1932 Cmentarzysko wczesnolateñskie w Bloniu w pow. Sando-
mierskim, „Przegl§d Archeologiczny”, t. 4, s. 224-232.
Jerzmanowski M.
1992 Mikolajöw gm. Osiek, Informator Archeologiczny. Bada-
nia 1988, Warszawa, s. 54.
Kamieöska J.
1959 Osada kultury nadcisanskiej w Malicach powiat Sando-
mierz, „Materialy Archeologiczne”, 1.1, s. 45-64.
1964 Sprawozdania z badan archeologicznych w Samborcu,
pow. Sandomierz, 1962 r., „Sprawozdania Archeologicz-
ne”, 1.16, s. 30-34.
1965 Sprawozdania z badan archeologicznych w Samborcu,
pow. Sandomierz, 1963 r., „Sprawozdania Archeologicz-
ne”, 1.17, s. 76-82.
1966 Sprawozdania z badan archeologicznych w Samborcu,
pow. Sandomierz, 1964 r., „Sprawozdania Archeologicz-
ne”, 1.18, s. 322-328.
Kadrow S.
1995 Gospodarka i spoleczenstwo. Wczesny okres epoki brqzu
w Malopolsce, Krakow.
Kadrow S., Machnik J.
1997 Kultura mierzanowicka. Chronologia, taksonomia i rozwój
przestrzenny, Krakow.
Kempisty E.
1966 Materialy do osadnictwa kultury pucharöw lejkowatych
na terenie Gör Pieprzowych w pow. Sandomierz, „Wiado-
mosci Archeologiczne”, t. 31, s. 159-162.
1978 Schylek neolitu ipoczqtek epoki brqzu na Wyzynie Malo-
polskiej w swietle badan nad kopcami, Warszawa.
Klosmska E.M.
2009 S^siedzi przez Roztocze. Kilka uwag na temat lubelskiego
i tarnobrzeskiego wariantu kultury luzyckiej, [w:] Czopek
S„ Trybala-Zawislak K. (red.), „Tarnobrzeska kultura lu-
zycka - zrödla i interpretacje”, Rzeszöw, s. 139-156.
Kobylinski Z.
1986 Koncepcja terytorium eksploatowanego przez osad§ w ar-
cheologii brytyjskiej ijej implikacje badawcze, „Archeolo-
gia Polski”, t. 31, z. 1, s. 7-29.
Kowalewska-Marszalek A.
1986 Sandomierz woj. tarnobrzeskie, Informator Archeologicz-
ny. Badania 1985, Warszawa, s. 31.
Kondracki J.
1988 Geografía fizyczna, Warszawa.
Kowalkowski A.
1991 Ewolucja gleb w holocenie, [w:] Starkei L. (red.), Geogra-
fía Polski. Srodowisko przyrodnicze, Warszawa.
Kostrzewski J.
1964 Skarby i luzne znaleziska metalowe od eneolitu do wcze-
snego okresu zelaza z górnego i srodkowego dorzecza Wi-
sly i górnego dorzecza Warty, „Przegl^d Archeologiczny”,
1.15, s. 5-133.
Kozlowski J. K., Kaczanowski P.
1992 Najdawniejsze dzieje ziem polskich (do VII w.), Krakow.
229
Krauss A.
1963 Odkrycia Archeologiczne w tarnobrzeskim zagl^biu siar-
ki w latach 1957-1961, „Materialy Archeologiczne”, t. 4,
s. 347-353.
1974 Materialy z cmentarzyska kultury luzyckiej w Gorzycach, pow.
Tarnobrzeg, „Materialy Archeologiczne” 1.15, s. 119-150.
Kraussowie J. i A.
1970 Cmentarzysko kultury luzyckiej w Furmanach pow. Tar-
nobrzeg, „Materialy Archeologiczne”, 1.11, s. 175-189.
1972 Cmentarzysko kultury mierzanowickiej w Swiniarach Sta-
rych pow. Sandomierz, „Materialy Archeologiczne”, 1.12,
s. 109-131.
Kruk J.
1973 Studia osadnicze nad neolitem wyzyn lessowych, Wroclaw.
1980 Gospodarka w Polsce poludniowo-wschodniej w V-III ty-
siqcleciu p.n.e., Wroclaw.
1993 Rozwöj spoleczno-gospodarczy i zmiany srodowiska przy-
rodniczego wyzyn lessowych w neolicie (4800-1800 BC),
„Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 45, s.7-17.
Kruk J., Przywara L.
1983 Roslinnosc potencjalna jako metoda rekonstrukcji natu-
ralnych warunköw rozwoju spolecznosci pradziejowych,
„Archeologia Polski”, t. 28, s. 19-50.
Kurnatowski S.
1992 Proba oceny zmian zaludnienia ziem polskich mi^dzy
XIII w. p.n.e. a IV w. n.e., [w:] Kaczanowski K., Kurna-
towski S., Malinowski A., Piontek J. (red.), Zaludnienie
ziem polskich mipdzyXIII w. p.n.e. a IV w. n.e. - materialy
zródlowe, proba oceny; Monografie i Opracowania Szkoly
Glównej Handlowej nr 342, Warszawa.
Kwapinski M.
1995 Zwierz^ta w gospodarce i wierzeniach kultury pomorskiej,
[w:] W^grzynowicz T., Andrzejowska M., Andrzejowski
J., Radziszewska E. (red.), Kultura pomorska i kultura gro-
bów kloszowych. Razem czy osobno? Materialy z konferen-
cji w dniach 24-26 listopada 1993, Warszawa, s. 361-367.
Lehmkühler S.
1991 Heiratskreise in der Vorgeschichte, ‘Archäologische In-
formationen”, 14, s. 155-159.
Liana T.
1962 Znaleziska z okresu póznolateñskiego i rzymskiego z te-
renów woj. kieleckiego w zbiorach PMA, „Wiadomosci
Archeologiczne”, t. 28, z. 2, s. 47-59.
Ligoda J.
2004 Cmentarzysko grupy tarnobrzeskiej na stan. 1 w Tarno-
brzegu, „Materialy i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Osrod-
ka Archeologicznego”, t. 25, s. 105-123.
Machnik J.
1957 Sprawozdanie z badan powierzchniowych lewobrzeznej
terasy Wisly na odcinku Igolomia-Sandomierz, „Spra-
wozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 4, Wroclaw, s. 151-167.
Makarowicz P.
2010 Trzciniecki krqg kulturowy - wspólnota pogranicza Wscho-
du i Zachodu Europy, Poznan.
Makowiecka M., Makowiecki D.
2005 Stan badan nad uzytkowaniem zwierz^t w okresie rozwoju
postluzyckich ugrupowan „pomorsko-kloszowych”, [w:]
Fudzihski M., Panera H. (red.), Aktualneproblemy kultu-
ry pomorskiej, Gdansk, s. 349-360.
Malinowski T.
1979 Katalog cmentarzysk ludnosci kultury pomorskiej, t. 1,
Slupsk.
Mamakowa K.
1962 Roslinnosc Kotliny Sandomierskiej wpöznym glacjale i ho-
locenie, (= Acta Palaeobotanica, vol. III., nr 2), Krakow.
Marciniak J.
1972 Z badan nad luzycko-pomorsko-kloszowym kompleksem
kulturowym na kielecczyznie, „Rocznik Swi^tokrzyski”,
t. 3, s. 119-140.
Mazur M.
2009 Geografia osadnicza w mi^dzyrzeczu Wisloki, Dunajca
i Bialej Dunajcowej w epoce br^zu i wczesnej epoce ze-
laza, [w:] Czopek S., Trybala-Zawislak K. (red.), Tarno-
brzeska kultura luzycka - zrödla i interpretacje, Rzeszöw,
s. 237-264.
Michalski J.
1987 Osadnictwo kultury trzcinieckiej w dolnym biegu rzek
Czarnej i Wschodniej, [w:] Poleska R, Rydzewski J. (red.),
Kultura trzciniecka w Polsce (materialy z sympozjum), Kra-
kow, s. 155-169.
1989 Skupienia osadnicze na obszarze grupy tarnobrzeskiej kul-
tury luzyckiej, [w:] Barlowska A., Szalapata E. (red.), Grupa
tarnobrzeska kultury luzyckiej, t. 2, Rzeszöw, s. 293-304.
1992 Osadnictwo w Malopolsce od II okresu epoki brqzu do po-
czqtköw okresu latehskiego, Warszawa.
Miskiewicz J.
1962 Materialy kultury luzyckiej z mi^dzyrzecza Pilicy i srod-
kowej Wisly, „Materialy Starozytne”, t. 8, s. 327-355.
Mitura P.
1997 Borowa woj. Rzeszowskie, Informator Archeologiczny.
Badania 1992, Warszawa, s. 35-36.
Moskwa K.
1959 Cmentarzysko cialopalne kultury luzyckiej w Gorzycach,
pow. Tarnobrzeg, „Rocznik Wöjewödztwa Rzeszowskiego”,
t. 2, Rzeszöw, s. 131-186.
1963 Gorzyce pow. Tarnobrzeg, „Z Otchlani Wieköw”, t. 29, z. 4,
s. 293.
1976a Kultura luzycka w poludniowo-wschodniej Polsce, Rzeszöw.
1976b Mokrzyszöw gm. Tarnobrzeg, Informator Archeologiczny.
Badania 1975, Warszawa, s. 64-66.
Mycielska R., Wozniak Z.
1988 Cmentarzysko wielokulturowe w Bloniu, cz^sc 1, „Mate-
rialy Archeologiczne”, t. 24, s. 5-326.
1990 Cmentarzysko wielokulturowe w Bloniu, cz^sc 2, „Mate-
rialy Archeologiczne”, t. 25, s. 5-77.
Mycielska-Dowgialfo E.
1987 Morphogenesis of Vistula Valley in northern part of Sand-
omierz Basin in the Late Glacial and Holocene, [w:] Star-
kel L. (red.), Evolution of the Vistula river valley during the
last 15 000 years, part II, (= Geographical Studies, Special
Issue 4, IGiPZ PAN), s. 115-190.
Nosek S.
1946 Kultura grobow kloszowych i podkloszowych w Polsce po-
ludniowo-zachodniej, Krakow.
230
1948 Zagadnienia praslowianszczyzny w swietle Prehistorii,
„Swiatowit”, 1.19, s. 1-178.
Ormian K., Brylska M., Gusciora J.
2001 Cmentarzysko z epoki brqzu i wczesnej epoki zelaza w Fur-
rnanach, stan 1, pow. Tamobrzeg, woj. podkarpackie, „Ma-
terialy i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Osrodka Archeolo-
gicznego” t. 22, s. 295-312.
Ostoja-Zagórski J.
1982 Przemiany osadnicze, demograficzne igospodarcze w okre-
sie halsztackim na Pomorzu, Wroclaw.
1989 Mikrostruktury spoleczne epoki brqzu w Europie Srod-
kowej. Proba rekonstrukcji, „Przeglqd Archeologiczny”,
t. 36, s. 169-208.
1992 Studia osadnicze w swietle teoretycznych problemów ar-
cheologii, [w:] Gediga B. (red.), Problemy hadan nad osad-
nictwem pradziejowym, Wroclaw, s. 17-24.
1996 Najstarsze dzieje ziem polskich. Bydgoszcz.
Pawelec A.
2005 Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym Sanem od starszego
okresu epoki brqzu do wczesnej epoki zelaza, [w:] Ku-
ras M. (red.), Archeologia Kotliny Sandomierskiej (= Rocz-
nik Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej Woli, nr 4), Stalowa
Wola, s. 368-399.
Pieróg I.
2005 Stan rozpoznania archeologicznego stanowisk z okresu
epoki brqzu polozonych w Machowie, pow. tarnobrze-
ski (Badania A. Kraussa w latach 1957-1967), [w:] Kuras
M. (red.), Archeologia Kotliny Sandomierskiej. Rocznik
Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej Woli, nr 4, Stalowa
Wola, s. 401-409.
Pelisiak A., G^bica P.
2007 Podstawy geomorfologii i gleboznawstwa día archeologów,
Rzeszów.
Przybyla M. S.
2007 Poczqtki póznej epoki brqzu w dorzeczach Sanu i Cisy -
chronologia, obraz kulturowy i transkarpackie powiqzania,
[w:] Chochorowski J. (red.), Studia nad epokq brqzu i wcze-
snq epokq zelaza w Europie. Ksigga jubileuszowa poswig-
cona Profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pigcdziesigciolecie
pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellonskim, Krakow, s. 571-640.
2009 Uwagi o genezie grupy tarnobrzeskiej nad srodkowym Sa-
nem, [w:] Czopek S., Trybala-Zawislak K. (red.), Tarno-
brzeska kultura luzycka - zródla i interpretare, Rzeszów,
s. 53-88.
Przybyla M. S., Blajer W.
2008 Struktury osadnicze w epoce brqzu i wczesnej epoce zela-
za na obszarze podkarpackiej wysoczyzny lessowej mi^dzy
Wislokiem i Sanem, Krakow.
Rajpold W.
2010 Osada z epoki brqzu i wczesnej epoki zelaza na stanowi-
sku Tarnobrzeg 5. Maszynopis pracy licencjackiej, Instytut
Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów.
Rydzewski J.
1977 Aus den Studien über die Konzentrierung und Zerstreuung
von besiedlungsspuren in Archäologischen Siedlungsfor-
schungen, „Acta Archaeologica Carpathica“, 1.17, s. 275-
287.
1981 Mozliwosc rekonstrukcji gospodarki w epoce brqzu i wcze-
snej epoce zelaza na terenie zachodniej Malopolski w swie-
tle badan osadniczych, „Acta Archaeologica Carpathica”,
t. 21, s. 227-235.
1982 Liczebnosc grupy ludzkiej a mozliwosci produkcyjne sro-
dowiska naturalnego na przykladzie zespolu osadniczego
kultury luzyckiej w Wawrzeñczycach, woj. Krakowskie,
[w:] Poludniowa strefa kultury luzyckiej i powiqzania tej
kultury z Poludniem, Kraków-Przemysl, s. 319-334.
1986 Przemiany stref zasiedlenia na wyzynach lessowych za-
chodniej Malopolski w epoce brqzu i zelaza, „Archeologia
Polski”, t. 31, s. 125-194.
1991 Poczqtki kultury luzyckiej w okolicach Krakowa, [w:] An-
fänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa (= Archaeologia
Interregionalis, 1.13), s. 247-262.
Rozwalka A.
1989 Stanowiska Tarnobrzeg-Borów 1 i 2, [w:] Dokumentacja
z ratowniczych badañ archeologicznych, Lublin, Maszy-
nopis w archiwum PSOZ oddzial w Tarnobrzegu.
Siek M.
2005 Analiza materialów z cmentarzyska kultury pomorskiej w Krze-
mienicy pow. Mielec, [w:] Fudzinski M., Panera H. (red.),
Aktualne problemy kultury pomorskiej, Gdansk, s. 369-381.
Starkei L.
1977 Paleografía Holocenu, Warszawa.
2001 Historia doliny Wisly: od ostatniego zlodowacenia do dzis,
Warszawa.
Szarek-Waszkowska E.
1975 Cmentarzysko kultury luzyckiej w Krzemienicy, pow. Mie-
lec, „Materialy i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Osrodka
Archeologicznego za lata 1970-1972”, Rzeszów, s. 3-51.
Szczepanek K.
1971 Kras staszowski w swietle badan paleobotanicznych, (= Acta
Palaeobotanica, vol. XII., nr 2), Krakow.
Scibior J.
1993 Muzeum Oknjgowe w Sandomierzu, „Zeszyty Sandomier-
skie”, 1.1, s. 25-27.
Scibior J. M.
1993 Grób szkieletowy z III okresu epoki brqzu odkryty w Zlo-
tej k. Sandomierza, „Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 45,
s. 147-153.
Scibior J.M., Scibior J.
1986 Obiekt grobowy z Nikisialki Duzej, gm. Opatów, „Spra-
wozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 38, s. 157-201.
1990a Sandomierz 78 - wielokulturowe stanowisko z przelomu
neolitu i epoki brqzu. Badania ratownicze w 1984 roku,
„Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 42, s. 157-201.
1990b Obiekt schylkowej (lódzkiej) fazy kultury trzcinieckiej
w Dwikozach, woj. Tarnobrzeg, „Sprawozdania Arche-
ologiczne” t. 42, s. 95-124.
Tabaczyriski S., Buko A.
1981 Sandomierz: starozytnosc, wczesne sredniowiecze, Rzeszów.
Taras H.
1995 Kultura trzciniecka w migdzyrzeczu Wisly, Bugu i Sanu,
Lublin.
2004 Stan badañ osad kultury trzcinieckiej w poludniowo-
-wschodniej Lubelszczyznie, [w:] Libera J., Zakosciel-
231
na A. (red.), Przez pradzieje we wczesne sredniowiecze.
Ksi$ga jubileuszowa na siedemdziesiqte piqte urodziny do-
centa doktora Jana Gurby, Lublin, s. 213-219.
2007 Stabilizacja osadnicza w czasach panowania kultury trzci-
nieckiej (1700-1100 lat przed Chr.), [w:] Banasiewicz-Szy-
kula E. (red.), Pradzieje poludniowo-wschodniej Lubelsz-
czyzny, Lublin, s. 95-105.
Trybala-Zawislak K.
2012 Klyzow, stan. 2 i Mokrzyszöw, stan. 2 - cmentarzyska cia-
lopalne z wczesnej epoki zelaza, Rzeszöw.
Trachsel M.
2004 Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie
der Hallstattzeit, (= Universitätsforschungen zur prähisto-
rischen Archäologie, B. 104), Bonn.
Twarowska E.
1973 Zawada pow. Staszöw, Informator Archeologiczny. Bada-
nia 1972, Warszawa, s. 77-78.
Urban J.
2009 Uwagi na temat uprawy roli w tarnobrzeskiej kulturze
luzyckiej na podstawie materialöw z Polski poludniowo-
-wschodniej, [w:] Czopek S., Trybala-Zawislak K. (red.),
Tarnobrzeska kultura luzycka - zrödla i interpretacje, Rze-
szöw, s. 289-302.
Wfgrzynowicz T.
1982 Szczqtki zwierz$ce jako wyraz wierzeh w czasach cialopa-
lenia zwlok, Warszawa.
Wojtal P., Wilczyriski J.
2007 Analiza zooarcheologiczna szcz^tköw ssaköw ze stanowi-
ska 22 Grodzisko Dolne, „Materialy i Sprawozdania Rze-
szowskiego Osrodka Archeologicznego”, t. 28, s. 85-90.
Wojtanowicz J.
1978 Rozwöj nizinnej czgsci doliny Sanu na tie paleogeomorfolo-
gii Kotliny Sandomierskiej, (= Annales Universitatis Mariae
Curie-Sklodowska, sec. B, t. 31), Lublin.
Wolsan M., Nadachowski A.
1992 Szcz^tki zwierz^ce z osady grupy tarnobrzeskiej kultury
luzyckiej w Bialobrzegach (okres halsztacki i latehski),
„Materialy i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Osrodka Ar-
cheologicznego za lata 1985-1990”, s. 185-188.
Wozniak Z.
1971 Z problematyki badah zaniku kultury luzyckiej w Polsce
poludniowej, „Archeologia Polski”, 1.16, s. 197-208.
Wrobel H.
1985 Grob ludnosci kultury mierzanowickiej z Sandomierza-
-Krukowa, „Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, t. 37, s. 73-79.
Zeylandowa M.
1963 Osada kultury luzyckiej w Turbii, pow. Tarnobrzeg, „Ma-
terialy Archeologiczne”, t. 4, s. 253-297.
1966 Materialy z badah archeologicznych w Turbii, pow. Tar-
nobrzeg, Materialy Archeologiczne, t. 7, s. 205-236.
Zurowski J.
1929 Z badah archeologicznych w Zlotej kolo Sandomierza w la-
tach 1927 i 1928, „Z Otchlani Wieköw”, t. 4, z. 1, s. 1-9.
1933 Rzut oka na badania archeologiczne w Sandomierskiem
lat ostatnich, [w:] Laskowski W. (red.), Sandomierskie. Wy-
dawnictwo Jubileuszowe Powszechnego Uniwersytetu Regio-
nalnego im. Stanislawa Konarskiego, Sandomierz, s. 5-16.
Internetowe portale informacyjne:
http://www.igipz.pan.pl/Roslinnosc-potencjalna-zgik.html
http://www.ilekaloriima.pl/index.php?podstrona=2)
232
TRANSFORMATION SETTLEMENT THE LOWER SECTION OF THE UPPER VISTULA
IN THE BRONZE AGE AND EARLY IRON AGE
Summary
The aim of this book was to present settlement
changes of the lower part of the upper Vistula River (on
the right side of the river it covers the area between the
lower parts of the San and Wisloka Rivers and on the
left side of the Vistula river it covers the area between
the Czarna nad Opatowka Rivers) in the Bronze Age
and early Iron Age. Therefore, this work covers approxi-
mately 2,000 years, and the main concerns are focused
on environmental preferences of the following cultures:
Mierzanowice (KMR), Trzciniec (TK), Tarnobrzeg Lu-
satian (TKL) and Pomeranian (KPM).
Altogether the research spreads across areas of
about 1200 km2. It is a territory on the border created
by three major geographical regions: the Sandomierz
Basin (micro-regions: the Vistula Lowland, Lower Wis-
loka Valley, Tarnobrzeg Plain, and Lower San Valley),
the Kielce Upland (Sandomierz Upland only) and the
Nida Basin (Polaniec Basin only). These areas are of
particular interest due to the very different environ-
mental conditions prevailing on both sides of the Vis-
tula River, which divides that land into two parts It is
worth mentioning that the right side of the discussed
area is mostly lowland covered by podsolic and les-
sives soils. On the left side of the Vistula River there are
upland areas covered by brown soils and chernozem,
and the plateau areas covered by podsolic and lessives
soils. Whereas the frequently flooded valleys of the
Vistula, Wisloka, San, Opatowka and Koprzywianka
Rivers covered by alluvial soils present different soil
conditions. This already mentioned diversity makes us
consider the environmental preferences of people that
developed the aforementioned archaeological cultures.
It is obvious that such differences must have been here
between the different cultures. However, it should be
noted, that even regarding the same culture it is possible
to notice that the people who affiliated them showed
great flexibility and they settled various areas which
were often very diverse.
The main source base for this paper was the result
of AZP (Polish Archaeological Record) research. It is
worth noting that the materials obtained for the pur-
poses of this book were verified by Professor Sylwester
Czopek and the author of the study. Nevertheless, what
is obvious, the materials derived from the research do
not give precise information on the function of the
site. Moreover, they do not allow for precise determi-
nation of the chronology. The only thing we get from
the discussed research is the information that in par-
ticular area it has been found the fragments of pottery
affiliated to this culture and not another one. However,
as long as it is so far the only quite complete collation
of all sites. What is more, the problems related to the
lack of precise chronology or function, can be defused
to some extent by using additional data coming from
the excavations.
It is obvious that the most important issue regard-
ing settlement studies is an accurate distinction of mi-
cro-regions (or settlement clusters) which means the
areas within which the sites clustered due to the fact
that they were likely linked. It is clear that the picture
that emerges now is not the real and results from the
interference of many processes. People within a micro-
region had to move inevitably leaving many traces of
settlement which over several hundred years gave us
the picture as it did. A good determination of a micro-
region allows us at least to distinguish some boundaries
within which a given community functioned and that
can be used even in determining the environmental
preferences of the group.
In order to mark the exact clusters, the author used
several different methods. In the case of the Mierzano-
wice, Trzciniec and Pomeranian cultures, two methods
233
have been implemented which result in two types of
clusters: the large ones combining several micro-re-
gions which were probably economically-linked and
the small ones linking the sites already directly related.
In the case of large clusters, the method so-called
site catchment has been used which means the most ex-
tensively used area. This method assumes that the area
within a radius of 1 km from the site was of the great-
est importance. Above this limit, any activity would be-
come less and less profitable. This assumption was also
used by the author in determining the environmental
preferences and as well as in economic analysis which
we are going to discuss later.
Small clusters have been distinguished by the use of
so-called nearest neighbour method. It involves meas-
uring the distance between the sites lying next to each
other then calculating the average of the distances and
drawing the circles around the sites with a radius equals
to the average. Moreover, it should be noted that the
sites designated within that cluster also often define
us the ranges of potential settlements. Since it is as-
sumed that a distance less than half the distance of the
nearest neighbour sets the sites which could not ex-
ist at the same time, due to the very small area. Thus,
the sites located within the region, designated in that
way, can be treated in many ways even as traces of the
movement made by people within a given cluster or as
remains of business activity. It is rather obvious that
there was only one settlement. What is more, it let us
figure out even the potential number of settlements that
could function within a given cluster during the entire
period of its operation, and therefore it shows to some
extent even the intensity of settlement or dynamics of
settlement changes.
Due to combining these two methods, we are able
to distinguish both the clusters that were linked because
of economic reasons and the clusters where people just
simply used to live. As a result, we have at least a lim-
ited opportunity to separate the sites existing at differ-
ent periods of time and mutually excluding.
Only in the case of the Tarnobrzeg Lusatian culture,
the author decided to change the method. It makes use
of the fact, that we have a well-recognized network of
cemeteries, which are assumed to exist for a long time.
They were a stabilizing element for a given community
which buried their dead there as well as moved around
it. This method gives us more accurate boundaries of
the micro-region because it points out the area with-
in which the given cemetery was used. In addition,
a properly established dating of cemetery also allows
us to determine the chronology of the entire cluster.
Moreover, a good recognition of these cemeteries let
us determine the size of groups of people who used
them. That is why we also have a range of additional
information coming from the cemeteries, which can
be directly perceived here regarding the whole cluster.
It is worth mentioning another method, even though
is not used to determine clusters, but to present the den-
sity of settlement. It is establishing the number of sites
per km2. To its purpose, the analyzed land has been di-
vided into squares with a side of 1 km and the number
of sites found in the area has been calculated. Obvi-
ously the author is aware that most of the sites did not
exist at the same time which is precluded for instance
by means of the nearest neighbour method. However,
the high density of sites in this area may indicate even
a long period of occupation of this area because it is
logical that the longer the land is used, the more sites
are collected together. Furthermore, an increasing num-
ber of sites may indicate more dynamic changes and
frequent movement of people. Finally, it may also be
an indicator of a larger group of people than in other
areas. Nonetheless, this is certainly an important indi-
cator of a higher value of these areas over those where
these sites are less common.
Another important issue in the settlement analysis
is to provide environmental preferences. The author
took into account here the following aspects: soil con-
ditions, potential vegetation, and habitat areas.
In general, soil conditions is a quite obvious factor
indicating primarily the value of the land considering
agricultural activities. As mentioned earlier, these areas
were in this respect very diverse and very fertile soils
were near the areas where the soils were classified as
wastelands. The most fertile soils covered here the ar-
eas of wide valleys (alluvial soils) and upland territories
(brown soils and chernozem). Wastelands are mainly
in the Polaniec Basin and the Sandomierz Basin.
Considering the potential vegetation, it is an ex-
tremely valuable indicator of the environment. This
is the vegetation that has never existed, but it would
have grown only in the case when the human activity
had ceased. Because of the fact that it presents the best
natural conditions of the area, it is of great importance
regarding all kinds of environmental analyzes. As in
the case of the soil conditions, potential vegetation was
also here extremely diverse. In general, it is possible
to specify 9 types of potential vegetation. However, for
234
our analysis, the most important were oak-hornbeam
forests which occupied the largest area of the analyzed
area revealing the land rather good for root crops cul-
tivation and after the deforestation also good for pas-
tures and meadows. Next, there are elm-ash riverine
forests covering mainly areas along the Vistula valley
which indicate periodically flooded nature of these
wetlands suitable for root crops cultivation. The second
important type of riverine forests are ash-alder river-
ine forests occupying small river valleys which prefer
peat-mud soils indicating the areas suitable for forest
grazing. Another important type of vegetation were
also xerothermic grasslands which preferred shallow
soils or even rocky ones, for instance loess and rendzi-
nas containing calcium carbonate. They grew on warm
habitats such as sunlit slopes of the hills, river valleys
and gorges. Although the analyzed area does not oc-
cupy too much of the discussed area and it grows only
on the boundary of the Sandomierz Upland with the
Vistula River valley, it presents us the best territory for
the settlement suitable for both intensive crops cultiva-
tion and animal husbandry. The last important poten-
tial vegetation type were pine-oak forests. They grow
on little fertile areas of the Polaniec Basin and Tarno-
brzeg Plains covered mainly by podsolic soil. In fact,
other types of vegetation such as alder forests, poplar
- alder riverine forests and pine forests occupied small
areas and did not have much significance for analyzes.
Another factor, which was considered by the author
are habitat areas (zones). These are the areas that con-
nect several important environmental factors such as
soil conditions, topography, and potential vegetation.
As for the analyzed area we are able to distinguished 5
types of habitat areas (zones A-E). Zone A - wide val-
leys of rivers such as the Vistula, Wisloka, Opatowka,
Koprzywianka; these are wetlands covered by alluvial
soils with potential vegetation of elm-ash riverine for-
ests. Zone B - sandy plains; mainly the areas on the right
side of the Vistula River and the Polaniec Basin covered
by podsolic and lessives soils with potential vegetation
of pine and pine-oak forests or oak-hornbeam forests
on better soils. Zone C - closed depressions; mostly
wetlands areas deeply located in the Tarnobrzeg Plains
and Polaniec Basin. Zone D - the upland areas; in oth-
er words any kind of elevation protruding above the
rest of the terrain e.g. drainage divides or ridges. They
are mainly covered by lessives and podsolic soils. Con-
sidering the analyzed area it is the Tarnobrzeg Ridge
which is an outlier elevation extending from Baranow,
through Tarnobrzeg to Sobow. As for the upland areas,
the territories of highly located parties of the Polaniec
Basin have been qualified to the zone. The last zone
E - it is strictly the Sandomierz Uplands. As has been
mentioned above, these are the areas covered by brown
soils and chernozem and they are covered by poten-
tial vegetation such as oak-hornbeam forest, xerother-
mic grasslands and thermophilous oak forests .
It is necessary to mention a few words about the
analyses which were carried out considering environ-
mental conditions in order to determine the environ-
mental preferences especially that this is the biggest part
of this paper. With reference to preference determina-
tion, the already mentioned method of site catchment
was really helpful here. The author started with the idea
that since areas within a radius of 1 km from the sites
were also the most intensively used, they were also pre-
ferred by them. Particularly interesting was the range
of land utilization, which was obtained by dividing the
entire area within the circles with a radius of 1 km by
the entire area. For example, if the entire area on the
right side of the Vistula River covered about 597 km2,
and the Mierzanowice culture used there 135 km2, so
the range of utilization would be 23%, while regarding
the left side where 603 km2 of the whole area and 317
km2 of used area, this factor would amount as many
as 57%. Even these figures allows us to assess the val-
ue of the two sides of the Vistula River and indicate
that the left side used to be more valuable. It is possi-
ble to calculated in the same way other factors such as
the extent of the use of particular soils, habitat areas or
potential vegetation which may give us more accurate
results and indicates the actual habitat preferences in
the area. Of course it is clear that the site catchment as-
signed us here the maximum range of the utility areas,
and in reality it was narrower because, as has been al-
ready mentioned here, the received image is the result
of overlapping a number of processes. Event though,
this is the only way to present at least a general image.
Apart from the comparison of the extend of land
utility, the author has also drawn attention to the en-
vironmental conditions within the clusters. It is obvi-
ous that one or two clusters that differ from the general
model is not unusual and can be the result of chance.
On the other hand, several such clusters may indicate
a high degree of flexibility regarding the people func-
tioning within a particular culture in which different
economic strategies were developed that can be com-
plementary. Moreover, comparing the size of clusters in
235
which different economic strategies dominated might
give interesting results. If there is a large cluster in the
centre that carried out the generally accepted way of
economy and it is surrounded by smaller clusters ly-
ing on the boundary with the other zones, it may be
an indicator of the maximum range of the impact of
the cluster, and clear evidence that we are dealing with
the dominant zone.
Another factor taken into consideration was the sites
location which means the type of terrain that they func-
tioned and the density of settlement in the area. Apart
from the obvious indication that the area where there
were most sites was the most important, it is possible
to draw further conclusions considering the use of dif-
ferent zones, and sometimes even determination the
function of the sites. As a good example we can men-
tion here zones A and B. The first one was suitable for
crops cultivation but due to frequent flooding it was not
suitable for the construction of permanent settlements.
Whereas, the zone B (being drier) was better for build-
ing permanent settlement, however, owing to less fertile
soils, it was not suitable for agricultural activities. That
is why a large number of sites located on the boundary
of these areas shows us where there were permanent
settlements, while isolated sites, deeply located in the
zone A would have indicated camps of utility purpose.
Another very important factor for the settlement was
the distance from the river courses. In order to distin-
guish it, the author has prepared maps, which marked
the distance of 0.1, 0.5, 1,2 and 5 km from the major
rivers in the area. Then the maps of the settlement con-
sidering particular cultures have been added to check
the preferences of particular cultures in this area.
Another element of this work was to determine the
settlement models which existed in different cultures
occupying the analyzed area. Owing to the data re-
garding the density of the sites and their environmen-
tal preferences, the author has tried to present the way
in which the settlement of particular cultures was be-
ing developed in the area. In this chapter you can find
the attempts to determine the number of settlements
that grew up in the area. What is more, it is possible
to notice an attempt determining whether we are deal-
ing with permanent settlements or the settlement was
more mobile in nature. Moreover, we can find here the
attempts to identify whether there was a central cluster,
or the clusters functioned equally.
Due to the fact that the work has dealt with the en-
vironmental conditions, which may deliver conclusions
considering different ways of economic activity, the
author has decided to deal with this here. First of all,
it make us use here, that the environment determines
whether it is more beneficial to practice crops cultiva-
tion, or animal husbandry. The author used this rela-
tionship to present which economic activity was of the
most suitable for people in prehistory.
This relationship between the environment and
the economy has also let the author attempt to assess
its productivity. It is known that a given area was able
to breed larger herds of animals, the other ones smaller
herds and yet another would not keep them at all. The
same applies to agricultural activities where different
conditions determined different amount of the crop.
It also allows us to make an attempt to calculate the
number of people who were able to live in this envi-
ronment. Of course, in the course of recreation of eco-
nomic preferences, the author has not used only envi-
ronmental factors. In addition to this, it has been taken
into consideration the data from palynological studies
considering Rzemien and Kras Staszowski. Moreover,
the data from studies of animal remains uncovered at
archaeological sites have been also used.
A detailed presentation of all the above mentioned
analysis is not possible in this short text. However, it is
enough to present briefly at least the most important
information coming from the methods used here and
show the habitat preferences of each culture, as well
as briefly introduce settlement models and economic
preferences.
In the case of the Mierzanowice culture, the supe-
riority of the left side of the Vistula River is evident.
The population of this culture mainly settled the San-
domierz Upland, primarily on the edge of zones A and
E, and possibly deeply in zone E. This culture virtually
ignored the Polaniec Basin where there were no evi-
dence of such settlement. In terms of preferences re-
garding the river network, the settlement within the
Koprzywianka valley dominated where it was noticed
three major clusters. Larger clusters could also be de-
tected within the Vistula valley. However, we are deal-
ing with at least two large clusters located within the
upland area near the small river courses. The settlement
of this culture model appeared here as follows. There
were large clusters including sometimes even several
dozens of sites. They were surrounded by small clusters
created by one of the two sites defining the maximum
range of the impact of this group. We cannot exclude
the supreme role of the clusters lying along the Ko-
236
przywianka valley, which clearly dominated regarding
their size in comparison to the smaller clusters located
in the north. However, this may be the result of subse-
quent settlement of these lands hence there would be
far fewer sites. In general, large clusters formed here
probably 2-3 settlements that might be inhabited by
from 50 to 100 people. The basis of agriculture was
probably related to digging stick cultivation within riv-
er valleys, supplemented by animal husbandry in the
upland area. Interestingly, there were clusters where
areas suitable for animal husbandry dominated which
may suggest that the population in the area created an
interesting way of farming, in which the cluster com-
plemented one another.
On the right side of the Vistula River, the inhabi-
tation of the Mierzanowice culture was significantly
smaller, likely it is connected with the fact that these
areas were not specially favoured by the people of that
culture. They located here their settlements within
the sandy plains, to some extent zone A was used, but
here it was much less important than on the left side.
As for clusters, there were no large examples here and
only small ones dominated consisting of just a few sites.
Hence, the settlement model predicted here would rath-
er consist of more mobile settlement based on animal
husbandry to a greater extent, while crops cultivation
was of secondary importance and limited to only a few
clusters located within the Vistula valley.
The Trzciniec settlement on the left side of the
Vistula is an example of regress with regard to the
earlier Mierzanowice settlement. The Mierzanowice
culture was represented here 412 sites while KT oc-
cupied „only” 119 sites which is a very clear decline.
However, what is worth noting, that the regress was
not seen on the right side of the river here. There was
even a slight increase from 68 sites to 78, although in
terms of land utilisation the Mierzanowice culture had
a slight advantage. As regards environmental prefer-
ence on the left side of the river, the Trzciniec culture
preferred two ways. There are here at least two large
clusters (near Zlota and Swiniary), which can be com-
pared to the previous clusters of KMR located on the
edge of zones A and E., where probably digging stick
cultivation was developed. Alongside a whole series
of small clusters was being developed, located entire-
ly in Zone E with a rather short.rm nature indicating
that the people preferred breeding. What is notewor-
thy, people of this culture also occupied the Polaniec
Basin which was virtually meaningless to KMR. There
the location within the zone D dominated where ani-
mal husbandry was rather favoured. So it seems that
we can speak of two equivalent settlement systems, the
first one with small clusters based on the breeding and
the other one with a few large clusters where crops cul-
tivation was preferred.
Considering the right side of the river, as has already
been mentioned, the settlement of the Trzciniec culture
did not marked regression in relation to the previous
Mierzanowice culture. Here we can see a greater pref-
erence of zone B., where the most clusters were located.
It was also the place where there were the larger ones
that could exist for a longer period of time. Thus, it
seems that the role of animal husbandry prevailed here.
As for the development of crops cultivation, it could
be expected only within single sites located along the
Vistula River valley in the belt from Machow, through
Tarnobrzeg to Sobow.
For both sides of the river, it can be assumed that at
first people of Trzciniec culture preferred breeding. And
while in the case of the left side of the river, obviously
it can be assumed that in the course of time, perhaps
under the influence of the earlier Mierzanowice tradi-
tions, the Trzciniec culture adopted a more sedentary
way of life and created a permanent settlement within
large clusters. However, at the same time, the groups
based on animal husbandry could still work. On the
right side, the dominance of breeding must have main-
tained for a longer period of time and crops cultivation
could become more important in the end of Trzciniec
culture development. It might also be associated with
a weaker position of the Mierzanowice culture which,
as has been mentioned above, did not create here large
clusters, and also preferred animal breeding.
The Tarnobrzeg Lusatian culture recorded a re-
newed increase in the number of sites in the analyzed
area. Because of the fact that in the case of this culture
we are dealing with better dating materials, it is pos-
sible to say much more about the settlement develop-
ment. In the initial period, the population of this culture
on the right side of the Vistula river occupied a small
area from Machow and Tarnobrzeg to Furmany and
Zupawa. As for the area of contemporary Tarnobrzeg
and Machow an agricultural activity of digging stick
cultivation was implemented within zone A and ani-
mal husbandry in zone B. Whereas, within the area of
Furmany and Zupawa animal breeding predominated
due to dominated sandy plains. On the left side of the
Vistula, people of this culture occupied the area in a belt
237
between Zlota and Sandomierz where crops cultiva-
tion dominated. Interesting that this territory overlaps
with the earlier settlement of that part of the Trzciniec
community that dealt with cultivation of the land. In
the second phase, there was an increase in the range
of settlement on the right side of the river, where the
areas around Mokrzyszow and Stale were occupied.
As for these areas zones A and B were present, hence,
it is possible to presume that crops cultivation and
animal husbandry were equally important here, how-
ever, zone A was covered here by ash-alder riverine
forests, which could suggest areas suitable for animal
husbandry. During this period, also the areas around
Baranow and Krzemienica were occupied, inhabiting
at the same time the areas suitable for crops cultiva-
tion. Hence, a system based on both crops cultivation
and animal husbandry was being developed. On the left
side it began to occupy the areas deeply located in zone
E and descending towards the Polaniec Basin. That is
why, animal husbandry became more important, even
though the clusters of farming character had an advan-
tage. However, the real expansion took place in phase
III, when almost the entire discussed area was settled
including the uninhabited so far Wisloka valley and
previously weakly inhabited the Polaniec Basin. This
sudden expansion could result from the flow of new
settlers from the east, who settled the previously unin-
habited areas and significantly increased the popula-
tion of the Tamobrzeg Lusatian culture. What is worth
noting, during this period zone A was mainly popu-
lated, which here gained in importance to become the
basis for the maintenance of the majority of people in
the area. What is more, the clusters created in previous
periods in the areas suitable for animal breeding did
not collapse but they still existed, and as for the San-
domierz Upland, zone E began to be occupied much
more willing so that these clusters proceeded the oth-
ers lying on the boundary of zones A and E.
In terms of settlement structure, it is possible to talk
about the number of clusters of rather small size of up
to 10 km2 in the zone where the settlement was not
too dense, and in the zone with denser settlement the
clusters amounted up to approximately 5 km2. What is
worth noting, considering the clusters of 10 km2, only
approximately 5 km2 was so intensively used. These
average results were similar for both the right and left
side of the Vistula. In the centre of each of these clus-
ters, as has already been mentioned, there was a cem-
etery, which in fact was the element on which the clus-
ters were distinguished here. It was just around this
cluster the population moved. It seems that the set-
tlements of this culture were not inhabited by a larger
group of people and we can present here groups of ap-
proximately 30 people. However, since the phase III it
was also the beginning of larger settlements inhabited
by more than 50 people.
Extremely interesting presents to us the settlement
of the Pomeranian culture that populated almost exclu-
sively the area of the Sandomierz Upland, without go-
ing to the territory on the right side of the Vistula river
or Polaniec Basin. Clusters of this culture was charac-
terized by a relatively small size and they consisted of
1 -2 sites, mainly cemeteries which makes it difficult
to take it into considerations. In the case of the Sando-
mierz Upland larger cemeteries were located (i.e. those
amounting up to several dozen graves), mainly in zone
A., whereas the small ones were in zone E. Thus we can
speak of a dual method of utilization with permanent
settlements on the boundary of zone A and E, as well
as mobile settlements in the interior of zone E. As has
already been mentioned, on the right side of the river
this settlement was not too numerous and most of the
sites were located within zone A. It is worth noting that
also here there were larger cemeteries that could be used
for a long period of time so here it is possible to find
permanent settlements of crops cultivation character.
What is interesting there were no clusters of breeding
nature here, which in previous cultures used to be sig-
nificant here, and they often even dominated.
What is more, it is necessary to pay attention to the
attitudes of the Pomeranian communities to the Tar-
nobrzeg Lusatian culture, with which for some time
they associated. That is why it is necessary to consid-
er the mutual relations of these cultures and the rea-
son why the Pomeranian culture was marked only in
the Sandomierz Upland extremely strong while other
areas were presented much weaker. The author in his
work has considered the possibility that a bit different
settlement system of the Tarnobrzeg Lusatian culture
within the upland areas was responsible for this fact,
where animal husbandry would be more important.
Moreover, the author has also noted that the interior
territories of the Sandomierz Upland were settled by the
Tarnobrzeg Lusatian people relatively late. It is possible
due to the existence here of two groups of the Trzciniec
culture, one of which dealt with crops cultivation and
came under the influence of the Tarnobrzeg Lusatian
culture quite quickly, while the community practicing
238
animal husbandry later adopted this new model. These
differences in the genesis and the preferences could be
decisive for the adoption of an economic model by the
Pomeranian culture in the Sandomierz Upland.
In conclusion it is worth noting that the above text
as has been mentioned several times is only the sum-
mary of much more comprehensive work. Therefore,
this implies a significant simplification and reduction
of the content to only the most important informa-
tion concerning the methodology and main conclu-
sions of this work.
239
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Rajpold, Wojciech 1988- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1096837277 |
| author_facet | Rajpold, Wojciech 1988- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Rajpold, Wojciech 1988- |
| author_variant | w r wr |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV043331990 |
| contents | Bibliogr. s. 227-232 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)930501251 (DE-599)BVBBV043331990 |
| era | Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr. gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr. |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>03297nam a2200589 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV043331990</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20170104 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160201s2015 |||| |||| 00||| pol d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788376671925</subfield><subfield code="9">978-83-7667-192-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z">8376671928</subfield><subfield code="9">8376671928</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)930501251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV043331990</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">pol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,11</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rajpold, Wojciech</subfield><subfield code="d">1988-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1096837277</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza</subfield><subfield code="c">Wojciech Rajpold ; [recenzent Elżbieta Kłosińska] ; Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Transformation setlement the lower of the Upper Vistula in the bronze age and early iron age</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Rzeszów</subfield><subfield code="b">Oficyna Wydawnicza "Zimowit"</subfield><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">239 s., [4] k. złoż.</subfield><subfield code="b">il. (w tym kolor.)</subfield><subfield code="c">30 cm +</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis</subfield><subfield code="v">tomus 31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">CD-R mit dem Titel: Katalog stanowisk, zestawienia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bibliogr. s. 227-232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zusammenfassung in Englisch unter dem Titel: Transformation setlement the lower of the Upper Vistula in the bronze age and early iron age</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="555" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">CD-R ; 12 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr.</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kolonizacja wewnętrzna prehistoryczna / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Epoka brązu / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Epoka żelaza / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Siedlung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4054858-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Einzugsgebiet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4151469-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Weichsel</subfield><subfield code="g">Fluss</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4079105-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Weichsel</subfield><subfield code="g">Fluss</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4079105-1</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Einzugsgebiet</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4151469-5</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Siedlung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4054858-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr.</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis</subfield><subfield code="v">tomus 31</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV035202175</subfield><subfield code="9">31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000004&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Literaturverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028752142</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">930.1</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09014</subfield><subfield code="g">438</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">930.1</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09013</subfield><subfield code="g">438</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Weichsel Fluss (DE-588)4079105-1 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Weichsel Fluss |
| id | DE-604.BV043331990 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T07:23:17Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788376671925 |
| language | Polish |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028752142 |
| oclc_num | 930501251 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 239 s., [4] k. złoż. il. (w tym kolor.) 30 cm + |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publishDateSearch | 2015 |
| publishDateSort | 2015 |
| publisher | Oficyna Wydawnicza "Zimowit" |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis |
| series2 | Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis |
| spelling | Rajpold, Wojciech 1988- Verfasser (DE-588)1096837277 aut Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza Wojciech Rajpold ; [recenzent Elżbieta Kłosińska] ; Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego Transformation setlement the lower of the Upper Vistula in the bronze age and early iron age Rzeszów Oficyna Wydawnicza "Zimowit" 2015 239 s., [4] k. złoż. il. (w tym kolor.) 30 cm + txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis tomus 31 CD-R mit dem Titel: Katalog stanowisk, zestawienia Bibliogr. s. 227-232 Zusammenfassung in Englisch unter dem Titel: Transformation setlement the lower of the Upper Vistula in the bronze age and early iron age CD-R ; 12 cm Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr. gnd rswk-swf Kolonizacja wewnętrzna prehistoryczna / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Epoka brązu / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Epoka żelaza / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Siedlung (DE-588)4054858-2 gnd rswk-swf Einzugsgebiet (DE-588)4151469-5 gnd rswk-swf Weichsel Fluss (DE-588)4079105-1 gnd rswk-swf Weichsel Fluss (DE-588)4079105-1 g Einzugsgebiet (DE-588)4151469-5 s Siedlung (DE-588)4054858-2 s Geschichte 2200 v. Chr.-500 v. Chr. z DE-604 Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis tomus 31 (DE-604)BV035202175 31 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000004&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Literaturverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Rajpold, Wojciech 1988- Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis Bibliogr. s. 227-232 Kolonizacja wewnętrzna prehistoryczna / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Epoka brązu / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Epoka żelaza / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Siedlung (DE-588)4054858-2 gnd Einzugsgebiet (DE-588)4151469-5 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4054858-2 (DE-588)4151469-5 (DE-588)4079105-1 |
| title | Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza |
| title_alt | Transformation setlement the lower of the Upper Vistula in the bronze age and early iron age |
| title_auth | Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza |
| title_exact_search | Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza |
| title_full | Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza Wojciech Rajpold ; [recenzent Elżbieta Kłosińska] ; Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego |
| title_fullStr | Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza Wojciech Rajpold ; [recenzent Elżbieta Kłosińska] ; Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego |
| title_full_unstemmed | Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza Wojciech Rajpold ; [recenzent Elżbieta Kłosińska] ; Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego |
| title_short | Przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem górnej Wisły w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza |
| title_sort | przemiany osadnicze nad dolnym odcinkiem gornej wisly w epoce brazu i wczesnej epoce zelaza |
| topic | Kolonizacja wewnętrzna prehistoryczna / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Epoka brązu / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Epoka żelaza / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze jhpk Siedlung (DE-588)4054858-2 gnd Einzugsgebiet (DE-588)4151469-5 gnd |
| topic_facet | Kolonizacja wewnętrzna prehistoryczna / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze Epoka brązu / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze Epoka żelaza / Polska / Wisły Górnej, Dorzecze Siedlung Einzugsgebiet Weichsel Fluss |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000004&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000005&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028752142&sequence=000006&line_number=0003&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV035202175 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rajpoldwojciech przemianyosadniczenaddolnymodcinkiemgornejwisływepocebrazuiwczesnejepocezelaza AT rajpoldwojciech transformationsetlementtheloweroftheuppervistulainthebronzeageandearlyironage |