Piotr Pranke

Instytut Historii i Archiwistyki UMK

The controversy between normanists and anti-normanists

1

The controversy between normanists and anti-normanists is one of the longest and

most emotional discussions in European historiography. The origin of that controversy comes

back to the eighteenth century. Those time the thesis claiming, that only the Germans was

able to create their own state, was constructed. The main example supposed to be Rus’, on

which territory the basis of a state supposed to be constructed by Swedish

2

. This conception

was a ‘stroke to Russian historical romanticism’

3

and met with extraordinary spontaneous

reaction from Russian researchers with Michail W. Lomonosov at the head. The problem of

presence of Scandinavian on the territory of Slavs was not only an academic controversy.

Since the beginning it has clear political meaning

4

. The atmosphere on the Russian court after

the the plot of Wolynskit

5

, the antipathy towards foreigners and wars conducted between

Russian and Sweden in eighteenth century gave the hypothesis of German researchers the

character of provocation and was not acceptable for Russian science

6

.

The dissertation prepared for birthday of Empress Elisabeth was related to

Scandinavian origins of Rus’ and because of the topic was claimed as an insult for Russian

nation. This issue was serious enough to research the text of dissertation to asses whether ‘if

there is anything insulting Russia and if after edition it is possible to publish’. After negative

opinions of Russian researchers, not only was not allowed to publish but also the basic Latin

text of dissertation was confiscated

7

.

Since this moment in literature we came across with two extremely different, mutually

exclusive theories. First one declared for looking for origin of Rus’ state as an effect of

Scandinavian activity. Second one neglected every remarks of Scandinavian influences on

1

Druk publikacji został sfinansowany przez Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w ramach grantu wydziałowego

349 NH.

2

W. Duczko, Skandynawowie w Europie Wschodniej okresu wikingów, [w:] Wędrówka i etnogeneza w

starożytności i średniowieczu, red. M. Salamon, J. Strzelczyk, Kraków 2004, s. 237. See also: G. Labuda,
Tworzenie się państw narodowych w Europie średniowiecznej, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 100 : 1993, z. 4, s.
42.

3

S. Tomaszewski, Nowa teoria o początkach Rusi, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 43 : 1929, z. 2, s. 288.

4

W. B. Wilinbachow, Problem normański w dziejach Europy Wschodniej, Zapiski Historyczne, R. 34 : 1969, z.

4, s. 14.

5

Ibidem, s. 13.

6

W. Duczko, op.cit. s. 238.

7

S. Tomaszewski, op. cit., s. 289.

‘creating the state on east Slavedom’

8

. The controversy between normanists and anti-

normanists was connected with the vision of the history settled down on state determinism.

In the same time normanists was claimed as the researchers claiming political

passivity of Slavs, which were supposed to build state structures under Scandinavian acts of

aggression

9

.

Stefan Tomaszewski claimed that anti-normanism ‘was born from Russian nationalism

and was reborn in next period’. Important role in the discussion between normanists and anti-

normanists played also national perception of the history. In the nineteenth-century romantic

vision of the history, the nation supposed to be the “main form of collective life of the

humanity”. ‘Common territory, language and common, creative effort in independent

developing process’

10

was claimed as a main condition of its creation.

An example of such perception of the history can be the view of Ludwik Gumplowicz,

who claimed, that the development of human history was dominated by political history. He

recognized human communities as an inductive component in progressing historical

process

11

; at the same time he separated eight sub-periods in history. Creating of state

happened in ‘aggressive period’- period of regular wars when agricultural tribes were

conquered by nomads

12

.

Panslavism has a significant impact on discussion between normanists and anti-

normanists. Deciding meaning for this trend had doctrines of ‘spiritual independence and

separateness of Slavs and also deep conviction of special mission of nations in history

13

. This

kind of beliefs expressed also Karol Potkański who claimed that historiography of 19

th

century occupied not individuals genealogy but genealogy of common nations’

14

.

Vision of immemorial captivity of Slavs in German or Turkish hand created by a part

normanist, was complete opposite to romantic perception of Slavs and was unacceptable. In

one of articles of Franciszek Krček we can find an explicit polemic with thesis of normanists

(f. ex. Peiskers): ‘... grow the people of fairly calm character, which work was peaceful...

Closed in itself for a long time does not know anything foreign... does not miss anything

foreign... No one foreign was encouraged to conquer Slav’s land... The second reason for

8

L. Leciejewicz, Normanowie, Warszawa 1979, s. 171.

9

Ibidem, s. 378.

10

W. Kamieniecki, O metodzie porównawczej w historii, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 55 : 1948, s. 7.

11

L. Gumplowicz, Socyologia, a polityka, Przegląd Historyczny, R. 9 : 1909, s .2.

12

Idem, Istota rozwoju dziejowego ludzkości, Przegląd Historyczny, R. 6 : 1909, z.1, s. 4.

13

M. Kariejew, O studyach z zakresu Zachodniej Europy w Rosyi, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 15 : 1901, s. 4.

14

K. Potkański, O pochodzeniu Słowian, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 16: 1902, s. 243.

which the Slavs grew so calmly, not disturbed, unknown; so the reason why they developed

so gradually, without bigger or rapid changes or coupes, nevertheless, independent’

15

.

Similar view had Maksymilian Kawczyński. In his opinion, the original Slavs regime

was based on clan structure and meaning of heads of those clans. ‘In their first regime Slavs

contributed to no one, weren’t obliged to any duties, owed obedience to no one, except of the

elders, but only to head of the family, so called ‘zadruga’

16

.

Similar to Kawczyński’s, were hypothesis of Oswald Balzer

17

. In his opinion the

toponomastics sources give proofs for origin of Polish settlement

18

. It is worth to point out,

that the anti-normanists belief in historiography was extremely strong and arguments were

even fantastic. One of the good examples of those arguments were the attempt to explain roots

of Ruryk from the city of Rodes in south France

19

.

The discussion between normanists and anti-normanists was also taken to Poland. We

can find three periods of its history. We can bind first period of this discussion with idea of

forming first Polish state as an effect of outer conquest. The second period was connected

with acceptance to hypothesis of creation first Piast state as an effect of inner evolution. The

third period was characteristic for reducing Scandinavian archeological discoveries to “an

import”, a remaining of Pomeranian trade.

The normanists always found the origins of Piast state in outer conquest. In their

conception Piast elite and future nobility come from Lechits clan, identified as Scandinavian

clan. The normanists always saw the creation of Piast state as an effect of outer conquest.

Between identified as Scandiavian, Lechits clan

20

. The author of such specified view was

Karol Szajnocha who saw the origins of Poland in such way:

„They settled then, our Lachs, in the same area, where even after five, six centuries

still existed the Scandinavian villages around Poznań and Międzyrzecz, still speaking in their

own language with Scandinavian travelers, which mentioned that on their descriptions of

journeys. After settled there they supposed to settle there a Lechit’s nest (Gniazdo) and

‘Gniazdo’ in old Norman language means the same as castle, fort for hiding boats, stocks and

Norman crew’

21

. In time they supposed to form ‘one nation’ with people living by the

15

F. Krčeka, Teorya Peiskera o niewoli prasłowiańskiej w świetle krytyki, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 22 :1908,

s. 640.

16

M. Kawczyński, Pierwotne rozsiedlenie plemion europejskich, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R.3 : 1889, s. 237.

17

O. Balzer, Rewizya teoryi o pierwotnem osadnictwie w Polsce Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 12 : 1898, s. 24.

18

Idem, O zadrudze słowiańskiej, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 13 : 1899, s. 244.

19

W. Duczko, Viking Rus. Studies on the presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, Leiden – Boston 2004,

s. 21.

20

H. Łowmiański, Zagadnienie roli Normanów w genezie państw słowiańskich, Warszawa 1957, s. 15.

21

K. Szajnocha, Lechicki początek Polski, Dzieła K. Szajnochy, t. 4, cz. 2, Warszawa 1876, s. 145.

Warta

22

. In his opinion the word ‘lach’ supposed to mean companion or fellow and came from

Swedish – lag, lage

23

. He shared opinion of Tadeusz Czacki, who claimed both- the law and

regime have Scandinavian origin.

Franciszek Piekosiński wrote a book: „Obrona hipotezy najazdu jako podstawy ustroju

społeczeństwa polskiego w wiekach średnich z uwzględnieniem stosunków Słowian

pomorskich i zaodrzańskich”. He recognized Lechit as ‘Polish tribe’, which settled down by

Łaba, and which supposed to conquer the territory by Warta in the end of eight century

24

.

‘Medieval regime of Polish society supposed to present the picture of the community bearing

visible signs of experienced catastrophe of conquest’

25

. In opinion of Franciszek Piekosiński

Polish regime came into existence on the basis of clan structures. As an effect of conquest

there supposed to take place a destruction of typical for Slavs system of community power for

the benefit of monarchy. Outer conquest supposed to justify basis of prince power in

knighthood and nobles

26

.

According to this scholar until the time of conquest made by Popielid’s and Piast’s,

tribes living by Odra, Noteć and Wisła did not know power of dukes and were supposed to be

ruled only by aged men (so called ‘żupan’)

27

.

Franciszek Piekosiński claimed also that ‘Normans’ plundering entire medieval world,

could not omit Baltic sea-coast and its river mouths. The main reason for Scandinavian

migrations supposed to be ‘leaving infertile fatherland by every year population growth in

young generation’

28

.

Analyzing Ibrahim Ibn Jakub report Piekosiński referred also to the issue of creating

economic foundations, necessary for keeping depended on first Piast party of warriors.

In his opinion dirham’s supposed to come to Poland by Byzantine merchants. He

explained lack of functioning on coin market invalid coins by replacing it by chopped silver

29

.

According to F. Piekosiński, knights of Mieszko I did not have to be paid, because they have

been maintained by ‘peasant people’

30

.

22

Ibidem, s. 87.

23

Ibidem, s. 89 – 90.

24

H. Łowmiański, op. cit., s. 16.

25

F. Piekosiński, Obrona hipotezy najazdu jako podstawy ustroju społeczeństwa polskiego w wiekach średnich z

uwzględnieniem stosunków Słowian pomorskich i zaodrzańskich, Kraków 1882, s. 3.

26

Ibidem, s. 71.

27

Ibidem,s. 64.

28

Idem, Najnowsze poglądy na wytworzenie się szlachty polskiej, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 4 : 1890, s. 727.

29

Idem, Al Bekri o Polakach, Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności, Wydział Historyczno – Filozoficzny, S. 2, R.

14:1900, s. 289.

30

Ibidem, s. 294.

After analyzing possible material resources, which Mieszko could have at his disposal

to pay soldier’s pay, this researcher drew such conclusion: ‘This sum was so enormous those

times, that it was possible to buy for it even entire state of Mieszko, but impossible to collect

from his serfs in his state, even after selling all of their property’

31

.

Franciszek Piekosiński leaded out some of the coat of arms from runes

32

. He found

Ruthenian heraldry as definitely richer in runic symbols

33

. Also burgeois and folk coat of

arms supposed to came from futhark

34

. Similar as Władysław Semkowicz, he searched for

Scandinavian origin of some of Polish noble families, like Awdaniec or Łabędź. They

supposed to be descendants of Ruthenian Wareg’s, not the Vikings came here directly from

Scandinavia

35

.

Hypothesis of Piekosiński about Scandinavian origin of Polish and Ruthenian heraldry

was supported by Aleksander Jabłoński. This scholar wrote about theory of Piekosiński: ‘I

admit definitely, similar as him, that both [heraldries] came from one source, namely

Scandinavian runic futhark. Here are enough main similarities, even motifs

36

.

Franciszek Piekosiński saw processes of state formation in as follows: ‘The idea of the

state stand in Piast Poland on the foreground, and every arrangement, entire social structure is

attributed to this idea’

37

.

The concept of Scandinavian presence on the territory of Piast state was supported by

Kazimierz Krotowski, who on the basis of archeological excavations (mainly from Łubówko),

managed to find ‘at least strong north European impact’ on this area

38

. Kazimierz Krotoski

saw in Awdańce family descendants of Askold coming from Kiev

39

.

He saw the origin of Piast state as followed: ‘... it becomes even a historical certainty,

hypothesis, that Polish state has been created by Kiev Polan tribe under Rus leadership,

especially descendants of murdered in Kiev, Askold, Popielid-Awdańce, settling down a lot of

villages’

40

. Kazimierz Krotoski dated those events back to eight and nine century. Soon after

these words the discussion flared up. Looking for the role of ethnic foreign warriors in origin

31

Ibidem, s. 286.

32

S. Łaguna, Nowa hipoteza o pochodzeniu szlachty polskiej, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 4 : 1890, s. 74.

33

F. Piekosiński, O źródłach heraldyki ruskiej, Kraków 1899, s. 1.

34

Idem, Najnowsze poglądy na utworzenie się szlachty, s. 728.

35

L. Leciejewicz, Normanowie nad Odrą i Wisłą w IX – X wieku, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 100 : 1993, z. 4,

s. 60.

36

A. Jabłoński, W sprawie średniowiecznej heraldyki litewsko – ruskiej, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R.12 : 1898,

s. 558.

37

F. Piekosiński, Obrona hipotezy najazdu, s. 144 – 145.

38

K. Krotoski, Echa historyczne w podaniu o Popielu i Piaście, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 39 : 1925, s. 60.

39

Ibidem., s. 53.

40

Ibidem, s. 62.

of Polish state Jože Rus called ‘lechomachia’. This researcher claimed that hypothesis of

scholars which managed to find Scandinavian around Lechit is based only on conjectures

41

.

Franciszek Bujak claimed that the determinant of Scandinavian culture in political way

was creation of state structures. He recognized as main centre in the time of forming the state

Gotland, Birka ten Sigtuna

42

.

For reconstruction of the atmosphere of returning discussion in historiography its also

worth to quote Aleksander Brückner: ‘Heresy, religious and others, have it characteristic, that

it is uneasy to root them out, that they constantly renew: you have cut Hydra’s head but in

next moment it grow again, try anew fight’

43

. In his opinion, the origin of Poland had its

genesis in Mieszko I times, to whom ‘Norman Vikings’ supposed to give a Nordic name

during the ‘postrzyżyny’ ceremony. This kind of hypothesis was called by Brückner ‘pure

fantasy, more reasonable, then any other about Piast’

44

.

The fear of overestimating the meaning of Scandinavians or Germans at all in process

of creating Polish state came back in front of events of the Second World War. At that time to

the literature came back Michał Bobrzyński old views, who wrote as followed:

„... he

arranged for himself a court in similar way, nominated officials in country, organized army,

armed it (if it was possible in German way). It was the only way to save and prepare for

independency, but minds incapable aspiring for more could not and did not want to

understand behavior of Mieszko’

45

.

Those concepts presented by Bobrzyński were mainly determined by feeling of

unavoidable confrontation between the Empire and Piast. This scholar believed, that in

Mieszko I times, ‘the question of conquering other Slav peoples by Elba and Odra appeared

again of national policy of Germany’

46

. On the other hand, he saw the question of German

roots of people living in west Slav area as followed: ‘The biggest part of proofs which

supposed to prove that Goths tribes did not come there, as tradition said, from Scandinavia,

but their fatherland is ancient Lach’s land, where polonized semi-descendants of those

Germans are today rapidly make over as Germans’

47

.

The belief of complete independency of first Piast state and its political function

seeing trough so called ‘Piast idea’, referring to necessity of defending young state against

41

J. Rus, Słowianie i wiślańscy Chorwaci od VI – X stulecia, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R 48 : 1934, s. 287.

42

F. Bujak, Dziejowe znaczenie morza, Przegląd Historyczny, R. 23 : 1921, z. 1 – 2, s. 12.

43

A. Brückner, Dogmat normański, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R.20 : 1906, s. 664.

44

Idem, Piast, Przegląd Historyczny, R. 4 : 1907, z. 1, s. 19.

45

M. Bobrzyński, Dzieje Polski w zarysie, t. 1, Jerozolima 1944, s. 65 – 66.

46

Ibidem, s. 63.

47

W. Kętrzyński, Klaudyuasza Ptolemeusza Germania wielka, Sarmacya nadwiślańska. Uwagi krytyczne,

Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności. Wydział Historyczno – Filozoficzny, S. 2, R. 16 : 1902, s. 227.

‘Drang nach Osten’ gained a special significance at that time

48

. Such constructed vision of the

past was not only connected with difficult experiences of World War Two, but also the trend

in discussion between normanists and anti-normanists

49

. The Scandinavians and their

presence on the area of Piast state were treated as element of Nazis propaganda. ‘The role of

nations of the North in developing post-feudal communities in Baltic area was often wrong

judged. The abundance of Swedish and Danish imports form VI-XI century persuaded

‘Hitler’s historians’ to overestimate the proportion of ‘Scandinavian colonization’

50

.

Opinions presenting unification of ‘Polish lands’ by Piast, which supposed to have

fear of expansive policy of the Empire, acquired growing importance

51

. In consequence –

conception of invasion stood in opposition to hipothesis of inner conquest, this time based on

hegemony one of <<polish tribes>>’

52

.

As a culminating point in development research on genesis and model of functioning

first Piast state we should recognize the time: 1948/1949 -1965/1970, when was realized

interdisciplinary scientific project connected with celebrations Millennium Anniversary of

Polish State

53

. Undertaking the studies dedicated to forming of Polish state (in extraordinary

48

About so called ‘Piast idea’, See:. H. Ludat, Średniowieczne cesarstwo a pierwsze państwo piastowskie, [w:]

Słowianie – Niemcy – Europa, red. J. M. Piskorski, Marburg – Poznań 2000, s. 9.

49

About genesis ‘the controversy between normanists and anti-normanists’ which supposed to be ‘a stroke in

Russian historical Romanism’, See: J. Bardach, O roli Normanów na wczesnośredniowiecznej Słowiańszczyźnie
wschodniej, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 60:1958, z. 2, s. 371.

50

K. Ślaski, Stosunki krajów skandynawskich z południowo – wschodnim wybrzeżem Bałtyku, Przegląd

Zachodni, R. 8 : 1952, z. 5 – 8, s. 41.

51

‘Mieszko I, son of Ziemomysł, ascended the throne of Gniezno-Poznań in 960, so in the moment when the

question of conquest Slavs living upstream Elbe and Odra appeared once again on the foreground national
German policy. See: M. Bobrzyński, op. cit., s. 63. Michał Bobrzyński pointed out method of organization the
authority in state of first Piast: ‘Meeting constantly with Germans, visiting the emperor’s court in Quedlinburg,
he watched intently German customs and law and he arranged for himself a court in similar way, nominated
officials in country, organized army, armed it (if it was possible in German way). It was the only way to save and
prepare for independency, but minds incapable aspiring for more could not and would not understand behavior
of Mieszko’, Ibidem, s. 65-66.

52

The factor for policy of unification of Piast supposed to be the attack of the Empire on Połabie. K. Krotoski,

op. cit., s. 43. See: B. Miśkiewicz, Problematyka badawcza dziejów wojennych Wielkopolski, Studia i Materiały
do Dziejów Wielkopolski i Pomorza, R. 9:1966, z. 1, s. 6-7. See also: J. Widajewicz, Terytorium Polski w II poł.
X wieku, Zapiski Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, R. 20:1955, z. 1, s. 27. Influence of outer factors was
described as secondary. In this conception foreigners were supposed to be directly dependent on duke. They
were identified as members of military party of the prince, which were supposed to be <<foreign elements, not
connected with local communities, often disposed towards community>>’. G. Labuda, Zagadnienie
suwerenności Polski w X-XII wieku, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 67:1960, z. 4, s. 1043. See also: W. Koroluk,
Główne etapy rozwoju państwowości wczesnofeudalnej na Słowiańszczyźnie Wschodniej i Zachodniej,
Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 77:1970, z. 2, s. 289. Similar view was represented also by Kazimierz Wachowski.
See: K. Wachowski, Norwegowie na Pomorzu za Mieszka I, Lwów 1932, s. 4. Zygmunt Wojciechowski
referring to origin, mentioned two concepts – first one refers to outer conquest – Rus, second was connected to
inner evolution – Great Moravia and Czec. See: Z. Wojciechowski, Mieszko I i powstanie państwa polskiego,
Zapiski Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, R. 10:1935/1937, s. 86.

53

Recently Michał Kara voiced his view the topic of meaning the millennium research. He summarized the state

of research during this interdisciplinary project connected with Millennium Anniversary of Polish State. See: M.
Kara, Najstarsze państwo Piastów – rezultat przełomu czy kontynuacji? Studium archeologiczne, Poznań 2009,

scale) was a result of change an object of interest the medieval studies and creating wider

research perspective.

Research realized in millennium program was an attempt to distance from political

history and systemic-legal studies and approaching to concentrated on written sources. In this

way issues of forming first state and social-economical and structural processes were set in

the ideological and religious context

54

.

As an effect there have been created a picture of Piast state, which established highly

centralized military organism with dominative position of a duke (and connected with him

ruling élite) and progressing feudalization. This phenomenon supposed to be present mainly

in expansive foreign policy of Gniezno state and in economic model, which effective

functioning depended on effective introducing feudal rent.

In this context, processes of a creation of a state depended on economic issues, affected not

only the process of building, but also future development of territorial structures of Piast state.

The creation of state was also connected with economical determinism

55

. Trade routes marked

out the directions of future expansion and range of young monarchy

56

. There have been

s. 11- 46. There more bibliography. In research on origin of Polish state great meaning had also (demanded in
1945) archeological excavations. They were supervised by established by Alexander Gieysztor on 3 April 1949
Commission of Research on Origins of Polish State. This trend represented also research programs connected
with millennium anniversary of Gniezno convention and Adalbertus program. See: A. Buko, Archeologia Polski
wczesnośredniowiecznej. Odkrycia, hipotezy, interpretacje, Warszawa 2005, s. 22-27. According to program
text announcing project of millennium research their aim was also ‘excavating Slav character of Western
Pomerania’ and Polish character of western frontier. See: G. Labuda, Potrzeby historiografii polskiej w
dziedzinie historii Pomorza Zachodniego w średniowieczu, Zapiski Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, R.
13:1947, s. 10.

54

M. Kara, op. cit., s. 12-13.

55

‘Trade policy of Gniezno state’ was one of the sources of strengthening a new rule system. It stimulated also

processes of formation a new state around old clan structures. M. Kara, op. cit., s. 37. See also: H. Łowmiański,
Początki Polski, t.1, cz.1, s. 487-490. See also: Idem, Podstawy gospodarcze formowania się państw
słowiańskich, Warszawa 1953, s. 229. Researchers assumed functioning a system of tributes in international
relationships which should appear between tribes and groups of tribes. M. Kara, op. cit., s. 26. Created in this
way military-political organizations should be dependent on attributing special meaning one of tribe’s canters. Its
hegemony was based on military and political productivity. Ibidem, s. 25. An example of this view by Tadeusz
Grudziński: ’Territorial expansion, typical for early feudal state would be fulfilled in this case in its most perfect
way, by complete absorption of an independent, geographically, ethnic and cultural close partner, which was not
able to create a political and state organization’. See: T. Grudziński, Z problematyki kształtowania się stosunku
prawnego Pomorza do polskiej monarchii wczesnofeudalnej, Zapiski Historyczne, R. 26:1961, z. 4, s. 16.
Economical determinism should appear mainly by creating administrative-military apparatus and church centers.
W. Kowalenko, Ekspansja Polski na Bałtyk za Mieszka I, [w:] Liber Josepho Kostrzewski octogenacis
veneratoribus dicatus, pod red. K. Jeżdzewskiego, Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków 1968, s. 416.

56

About the discussion on meaning of economical factors in state-creative processes. See also: H. Łowmiański,

Podstawy gospodarcze i społeczne powstania państwa polskiego i jego rozwoju do początku XII wieku,
Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 67:1960, z. 4, s. 945. M. Kara, op. cit., s. 28. It is worth to mention, that in
millennium historiography this expansion was secondary as an effect of organizational and state interactions on
‘activities of the upper classes’ H. Łowmiański, Podstawy gospodarcze formowania się państw słowiańskich, s.
217.

emphasized financing the power system of Piast as an effect of increasing tax charges

57

.

Disproportion between productive resources and ‘political program’ of Bolesław Chrobry and

Mieszko II state had a consequence in its collapse in 1034

58

.

This kind of model interpretation was an elaboration of state genesis trade theory,

which was perceived through Engels-Morgan theory. The belief in evolutionary vision of the

history, leading from egalitarian clan community to (as an effect of feudalization) social

stratification was very important

59

.

In research on origin of Polish state was accented again characteristic for Slav area

model of development social structures. The comparative analysis of that phenomenon was

also narrowed for Slav areas.

New kinds of terms have been created. In this way from territorial-tribal state there

supposed to evolve new centralized centers of power

60

.

Leading groups could not maintain their superiority or leading position in history.

They were replaced by other groups, which before stood on the lower level of development. It

does not breach the accuracy of view about general tendency to develop relations based on

consanguinity and relations based on territorial elements. By looking on this topic from social

side we observe, that the direction leads from relative equality of each elements to constant

depending majority of them on developing group of powerful people to the moment when

class society would be formed, in which developed state function as the apparatus of

oppression of the poorer classes; state which direction of development is decided by different

relations of individuals. We must take into consideration the influence of those factors, which

were bounded with biological and social features of early Piast population and leading feudal

class’

An important element of Marxist theory on historical process was the belief in native

character of described phenomenons

61

. The transformation of tribal aristocracy in strong

social class has been perceived as a process of disintegration tribal and clan structures. In this

conception, social and economic stratification was an effect of influence specific economical

factors

62

.

57

Ibidem.

58

See: G. Labuda, Zagadnienie suwerenności Polski, s. 1042.

59

In this way state creating processes would lead to appearing in early Piast monarchy class society. M. Kara,

op. cit., s. 33-34.

60

W. Hensel, Początki państwa polskiego i jego kultury, Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk 1971, s. 168.

M. Kara, op. cit., s. 30.

61

Ibidem, s. 34.

62

Among them was mentioned, f. ex. the development of far-reaching trade. See: W. Hensel, Podstawy dziejowe

rozwoju kultury wczesnopolskiej, Kwartalnik Historyczny, R. 67:1960, z. 4, s. 914.

The participation of first Piast state in far-reaching trade supposed to be connected

with evolving feudal relations and process of institutionalization of the power

63

.

Strengthening of Piast power supposed also to lead to transformation of former tribe boroughs

to proto-urban centers

64

. In historiography of the millennium research, the borough

administrative system, creating to effective execute goods and services, remained depended

on using coercive measures

65

. State determinism, established in economical realities, was also

the basis to further development of research on antagonistic vision of relations between the

Empire and ‘commonwealth of Slav states’

66

. Just recently the researchers pay more attention

to those elements of description in written sources, which could point out the Piast’s

aspirations to function in élite of the Empire. Does the reminiscences of discussion between

normanists and anti-normanists are still present? Texts presented on this conference fill us

with hope.

63

H. Łowmianski, Podstawy gospodarcze i społeczne powstania państwa polskiego i jego rozwoju, s. 963.

64

This phenomenon should be accompanying by building new settelments of this kind. See: L. Leciejewicz,

Miasta Słowian północnopołabskich, Wrocław -Warszawa – Kraków 1968, s. 195.

65

See: K. Modzelewski, Organizacja gospodarcza państwa piastowskiego, Poznań 2000, s. 113-114.

66

Including, of course, Piast state.