EASTERN REV!EW

2oo1

sANKTUARIAl KULT

ToM 5

INTERDYSCYPL|NARNY ZESPÓŁ NAU KOWO-BADAWCZY:DRoGl HANDLoWE l szLAKl P|ELGRZYM|E

SPIS TREŚctEASTERN REVIEW, T. 5:2001

<SANKTUARL4 I KULTll

] zĄ Gurba, Jefz! Krńiecińsłi, Prof, Kazimierz MńIński - uczony pogra-

nicża (l9ló-l999)

sankluaria i kult

Ił-ąnda Kozak-Zlchmnn, .lan Gulba, Świat wierzeń ludności neolitu na po-graniczu Europy Zachodniej i Wschodniej .. .--.. ..,.........,,,,,,,,,...,. l9The Wor]d of Belicfs of Neolilhic Peoples ill t}e Borderland of weslemand Easlem Europ€ (Sunnu.),) ........ ,,,. . ,,,,....-,-,,,,,.. 32

1ńW Blażejeflski, Ślęż - The sacręd Mountań as a sanctuary in the Anti-qulty ,, ,,,,,..,,,.,,,,... ,, ., ,......,..,.... 35

,Ąndfzej Andefi ,'f}lle Celtic ońerworld

t}oguniła J Mareh oęlzki, Delfo§ - capital espiritual de la Hćlade ,,,.,,,,,,

,Ąnnd Tatarkie.łią, sankuańa i kult Mitry W ostii ........ ,

The sanctuańes and cult of Mitra in ńe Ancient osiia (surrfnary),,,,. 83

Ion ś. ńnokuł, The Slavonic Pagan Sanctuaries oftie l Millenium A,D,in T'he soutł!-Eastern Europe .....,,,,,,,,,.,..,...... ,, ..,,,,,,,,,,,.,. 85

Pocmucłaa 3a6aumą. CaęanbfiEił Kolrn e(c Il|łV cr. B crasqanaxxMejTbHlrqbxoi o6nacTi: óarrlr, koMeHTapi, cnpo6a rroBoro aĘll6l,rynarłłłx .,.. . ........... 9'7

Satlńuary oflhe 3'd-.tó A.D, in the Villag€ of Strvchany, Khmeln},lsĘjRegion (Ukraine): Facts and fulenpls ol Allribuling (su mal,i,) ,,,,,, l11

Iżop nou!u.raau), Ąasmoesponeiłclxi rorr. apxi slłpo6u r paririńllxt.fjlbTaxTa plfly]nax ,. .,.,.,.,,.,.,., ll3Th€ old-Europęan Pott.il Products in The Religious ct ls 3nd fuluals(srr mary) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. ,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,, l21

Ioan stunciu, "Tonbrote" als lndiz fur die Wanderurrg und die rnagisch-ritu-

,t5

53

63

ellen Glauben urrd prakiken der fTiihen slawen ] 2:]

Hpu Ha M uxeesa, Ęaą]rurt, fipaBocnaBn, ł McraMopóo3!r EoaToiłHocIaB,Hc-(ońMe}rTaIbHocTUnepfio,uar3llqecTBa .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, l55

E6teń Revbw T- 5:20a1

Mlrpam Knu,noa, llonlrTxa loraru:aqurr MoHacTrip, CBrTolo }fuKoJTa'B 6furxaiilrlem oĘ}Te r noIollxa .,,.,...,..,.,....,.

,Ietav Kmiecińshi. The cra\,,e of st James in santiago de conpośtela (In theLight of Archeological sources)

Flancisco singul, santiago de compostela a comiażos del siglo x!I: ia or-ganización del santuario apostólico del §n del mundo .,.... ,,,,,. . .

Zhigniew Lerhowira Drewnlanv LoscloJ p vt Srł Trolcv u Cręblenlu potł

The Wooden church of thc Holv Trinity in lhc Ligtt of Archaco]ogica]Excavalions (summary),,,,..,,...,.,,,

Ks, MiecłsłarJ Różańsk| Kult Mar}any w Koiegiacie łaskiej ,,,,Th€ Cult of Maria in &e Collegiale Church of Łask, (summa$,.,,,. .

llona Shupinska-Loxa. A New Cultic Buildńg fiom the Time ofJesuschnst - Exca\,?tions at ńe "Temple Area" in Beńsaida,,,,,,,,,,, 255

Ah.lrej Kfeulz Jerusalem: 1l1e sacred Place ofThree Religions ,..........,...... 263

Nutdlid Ś|.illziń\ku.ln the Footstęs ofa SamnyEsn rwanderlng Asc€lic]- Pilgrimage in lnóan Tradition ,... .. . , .......,.,.,.,. ......--....- 27:

Małgoluld Plarusiak, Religie i ńejsca śviee w Wietnanue 28,7Rcligious and sacred Places fu Vietnam (summary) .........,.,.,.......... 291

Iolańta Młor]awska, Społecaro ekonomiczle uwarunkowania rozwoju bud_dyanu w Japonii .._........299social and Economic Coidilions oi the Progress ofBuddhisn in Japanlsufirnla+ | ,,

lf, Eugenia Pątiń7 LóPei, El santuario de san Joan de ]os Lagos: ]os objeloscultuales llevados a la cotidranidad ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,. ,,,,,................, _]05

Afina Kufel-Dziery8b-sła. A]gunos santuarios en America del sur ,,, :]1i

21l

]65

17j

l tJ3

21725j

Eeśtem R.ńew , 5,2001

śt ązł - rnn SACRED MoUNTAINAS A SANCTUARY IN THE ANTIQUITY

Ślęza. ńe highe§t (7l8 m abo!€ sea level) cul_rnrnation ofńe Stęża Masslia &agment of tie sudeten Foreland (fig, l), is very well visible frornnearly everywCrere in the Silesian Lowlarrd and from the geaks of the Su-d€ten Mountains, Due to its considerable relati!€ height, Slęż (lłŁich du-ring the glaciations was the so-called nunatak) dominates over the country-side and irnpresses even a contempomĄ, observer (fig. 2). Udoubtedly itmuś have attracted the attefition ofthe people in ńe past §&ile its ph}§io-gmphic features predestined it for a p|ace of worship, which in t}te e3rlyMiddle Age§ was subśtantiated by bishop Thiehnar fiom MercebuJg whowrute about the §trongho|d in Niemcza: "Posila e§t ańem haec in pago§ilensi, vocabula hoc a quodam monte nimis exc€lso €t grandi olim sibiindito, [...] et hic ob qualitatem, cum execlanda gentilitas ibi veneraretur,ab incolis omnibus nimis honolabafur Clhietrrrar vlt, 59),

liiq. l . 7'he Lo.anon of the slęża ],lounlain in Lałer Si lesia

Archaeotogical excavations, carried out on Ślęea sńce ńe 19ń cei1.,cdńrm the fact that the mountain was irtensively penetrat€d at lea§t tlteN€olithic age, The attractiv€ness ofńe place seems to have be€n ńflu€n-ced by presenc€ of numercus mineral raw matelials aboundńg wńjn ńeMassif seĘentńite, exca}Bted in Neolńic open pits (wojciechowski1987), or granite, used for quern-stones in the Roman times and forarchitecfural details, in medievai silesian churches (Domński t965] 1995;Kaźnierczrt( 1994).

Fig- 2, The Slęża Mou,|ain and lhe villdge oIsobótka. E gf@ed b, F F lleinlzeabaul ] -:0.djlPr Fahi\laĄ W _ Pap,a,^,

^ _ Tl Ęzkie\l. z.] _ 1. r1l.k R lluu

Forcmośt, ho\łever, Ślęza is associatgd wiń a place ofwo.ship and a

majońty of artefacts discovered m the Massif are inteĘreted as theremains of the old saictuarieś (cf, Geschwaldt 1928; Końa 1988),Especially significant are stone rampańs discovered not only on slężattself but a]so on the neighbouring, loweI mountains: Radunia, stolna,wiełca and Gozdnica, The lateśt literatu.e tends to admit t}tat at ]east alĘority of these objects are the Lusatian culture worship lampalts fromthe Halstatt period, devoted to the subterranesn gods (Limisiewicz 1994:l995), The unusual charactel ofthe rarnparts coilsi§ts in the fad that theirmaiD parts do not ovellap with the cułninatlon peaks but tiat tlrcy ale

śeża - The sacBd Mountak 37

Located considerably iowel, on slightly flat slopęs (Limisiewicz 1995,

p 3o9). on the ońer halrd, however, the ear]y-mędieval theme is alwaysolesent in the research on ńe Slęża iampańs (Słupecki 1992; !994, pp,

]72-184), APart flom the early-medieval pottery found within ńe.amparts, the theme is substaiaiated by Thietmar's account quotgd ear]ier.

tt is also posśible t}at at leaś some of the ranpańs are the lemairN of an

33rly-n1ediellal stronghold or eve'l a ofe recań cast€llany caśle. The:ssue of t]re ońgins ald fimction§ of the ramparts on slęża wi]l be

.\plained followiDg detailed and complex ęxcavatlons (cf Korta i988, pp

]--86).

This "bipolarity" in establiśhing tre cłrronology is also con§tantly

:.esent rlr the research on the origins of othel, inte.esting ańefacts 1}om

si.za. i.e, famous sculpturcs (cf, Kolta 1988, pp,87-ż32).It should be

.rrłhasised here tlrat any research here is doomed to be inconrplete, as

l.ne of the sculpturcs is now located wherc it was ońńally placćd and,

a_:thennore, some of ńem havę been moved morc time§ since the late\lrddle Ages, Thus, we will never,=l]h discove. what cou]d be called,_:.ir alchaeological contei1.

\ very good example here is

-. so,called '1nonk". also klorvrt:: -jle pawn, which at prcsent §tands:1 Jrś foot of slęźa, but only in]j, ft was ]ocated in the village of

::::lcarsko, half buried in tie g.o-:: lls vicinity provided &ar orrly,_: l;ie-medjeval and modem pot-:.., , Cehak-Hohbowiczowa 1951),.:, -] al] certainty the "mo.ł" was

,:, ,: on ńe ground for some time

:.];:::. a sign of a slant cross (X):: rLrnd carved rmdemeath at its

::!: I! \§as inteĘreted as a solar, : ::ouqh a more sensible inter-,-ł:- :n qolld be lhai ol a border:. ]:n\e€n the duke's and the

:. -..'s dominions Similar signs,:- l qr]] discDss ]ater on. are

:j_: :: be found on śonre other.: -- -:< and rrrks rm the moun-:. .ś:]f (Korta 1988. pp. l93-

FiE|. 3. ',\.lan |,ilh lhe f* ' sloi?s. ulP|we fran lhe S!ęża.\hunlan

l.!ru\,nh).l!hól).

233). some researchers very deci§ively relatĘ ńe "mon}" to the Hallstattperiod and inteĘrd lt as a worship po§t (cehak-Hołubowiczowa 1977:Ge-diga 1996). sometimes, however, this sculpture was also related to theMiddle Ęes and ńterprcted as e,g, a mile śone, as in the case of a verysimilar sculpture floń Kortin (Korb 1988, pp. 130-13I), In my opinionthere are more facts to justi8, tle former hl,pothesis, especially alłer thepublication ofńe study by B, Gediga (1996)

l.-ig.1. "Beal" sbne sculpture./fon the top afthe,Śtęża Moułllafi|drav bf a,ttaĄ,

There are no equa]]y detailed anal},ses of the remaining scu]pturcsfrom slęza: the so-cailed "mushroom" (in fact a bottom pań ofan anńro-poorphjc sculpture), two "bearc" - sonetmes incorrectly called "boars"(fig. 4), the so-cailed s]ęża mluim and the so-called "man with the fish''(fig 3), h fact, Romartesque śty]istic fgatures may be distinguished only irrthe case of ńe series of lions kno§l ftom tle toĘn of sobotka Theremaining ańefacts do not have such features, and thus they shou]d not berelated to the Middte Ageś (cf orcsz 19ó2). The same concems ńe "nrarrwith the fish", who for sonre is the effigy of st Peters, I do not walt todiscuss tlre ongins ol the sculptures here, l only wish to ttdicate twoaspecls of such considerations. Firstl_v, I think ńat the signs of crossmentioned above, carved on both bears (in one case on ńe back. ill theothel on the śtomach), on tie "man Wń tie fish"_ on tie "mushroonl' andon many rocŁs on the mountain itself and its foot, are of ńmost

śbże - Th. śeńd MNhlain

impońźnce in consid€rations on t]!e ońgins of the sculptures, It should beemphasised here ńat one cross - caryed on ńe "man with the fish" - isdifferent, It is łl isosceles cross, while tlie remainńg ones are slant (X),\1oreover, tie carvin8 ofthis cross is sha]lower and its edges are less shaĘlńey arc sinrply weatiered to a greater degree) tlran in the case of theremaining ones, For tiese reasons I think tiat it is older than the others arę3nd exceptionally in its case I am prepared to admit,tiat the cross playedńe worshipping role, As to the others, I think tlat tley are signs carved in]]09 during establishing tie border between the duke's and óe church'sjominions. \ńy were they carved on the scu]ptures tben? I tiink ńat ńe.:9s of X were ca.ved on the we]l_visible rccks, which the sculptures:ndoubtedly were, wń all cenainty, as heathen "idols", they were.., eftumed before the reign of Bolesław the Brave (cf Sfupecki 1992, pj ] This, I think, explains certain ńndoimless or inconsistency in the:roice of the surfac€ of the scubture whe.e ńe sign was carved sirnplv:. sLrrface visible from the road wa§ selected. as in the case of natural

one more rcśearch problem is connected wń the sculptures. i.e, dle.:!e of s]ęźa fimctioning as a sanctuary ń tlre late Antiquity, bet$€al the:l]]llstatt period and the Nlidd]e Ages. I would like to devcte some more::.:ntion to this issue, It is supposed that the two śIo1e bears are Celtic.:.shlp sculptures (a ]iftle less frequently ńe same is ahouglt ofthe "nlan,:l ńe fish" and the renuining objects). The significance of bears in:.:. mlthology and re]igion is wel] knom" thus ńe slmbolic rneaaing

.:,}: sculptures would be obvious (cf E,g, Mat|hews 1997, p, ]59). It: ":..]d be enTha§ised that sculptures of similar sizes are known fio the

::an Peninsuia, whele theY 3re connected wń the Celtiberian cultlrra]: , :cnment (de Lożoya l93l, pp,96-97, Fig, 110, 113) This analogy was:,:-3slsed by F Geschwendt (l938, pp 34-35), some researchers evą!-j.: 'lat celtic nenetone existed on slęża (Rosen-Przeworska ]964, p,- oledżki ]997, pp 159-16l), ] think that this thesis is justified,

: , ::nng tbe unqueśtionabie f5ct of existenae in the La Tdne period ofa:,-:. celtic sett]ement region in the fertile lands of Lower Si]esia in the: _ _-i \ł roc}aw (rrr ńe direct vicinity ofslęza)

,,_ le lollch on aĘotller, !,eĄ ,nlpondnt lss,le. l,e role of Slęza a. a

.|'p ln lhe RolIlan perod tl,s l5 an lnlponanl l5§ue ps iI

::.:. the queśion of et]fiic identii.ation of archaeological cultules.: : :1.iaśs are discovered in this pat of contemporary Poland. first of

: Prżeviolsk cultulg AJchaeological and histońcal 1iteratule often.: -, :l Sleza nla.v be identified with ihe famous "Lugian grove". the- ]-. la the Nahanarvali tńlre, belonging to dle tńbal federation of

Lugians (Lugii), mentionśd by Tacitus: "Apud NŃananżlos antiquaerelĘonis locus ostenditur, praesidet sacerdos muliebri omatu, sed deosinterpretatione Romana castorem Pollumque memorant, Ea vis numini,nomm Alcls Nulla smulacra. nullum peregrinae §uper§tra]onis ve$gitum:ut fiatres tamen, ut iuveneś \,€nerantur" cracitus, Germania 43). The"Lugian grove" mentioned by Tacitus (thus Slęża itseĘ is often identifiedwith "Limios alsos" mationed by Ptotemy (Geographike }typhegesis, II,11, 13) This tiesi§ was supported by H, ł,ovłnialński (1963, pp. 250-252)ainong other§, and more rec€ntly by e.g, J, strzetczrt( (1992, pp,27-29') orM, ol$zki (l997, pp, l60-16l; 1997a, pp. 83, 88),

Until recently I also suppońed ńis view (Błażejewskj 1995, p, 8).However, I would lik€ to present a few factors, which made me change mypoint of view. To a great exlent the§e arc tlre remarks eĘressed in nu-melous publications by J, Kolendo concemed wń the ethnic picture ofPo]ish lands ń the Roman perioĄ first of all wń the location of the tdbeof Lugians (l98l; 1996) Unfońunately, aś far as I am aware, this dis-tlnguished lesearcher has not published his views conceming the issue ofthe 'Lugian grove" in a separate volume, l had an oppońrnity to aąuaiDtmysglf with the rłews during a lec,ture delivered by J, Kolendo inDecembel l99ó in the Chair of Archaeology, University of Wrocław. I donot intąrd to srrn laise t]1e views of ńe hi§torian from warsaw. It willsuFfice ro sa) t}ar he ls opposed to ldentrĄ,lng SIęż uiń ńeNaianana]i's sanctuary, and his views a.e based on deiailed analysis ofhistorical sources and linguistic research as well as on an hterpretation ofco-ordinates of "Limios al§os" indicated by Ptolemy, which differs fiomthat ofthe researchers mentioned above (which I find convincing),

Horvever, there are othe. argun,lats against the thesis of identifi-cation, probabiy better sawed &om the silesian (oI Wrccław) percpective,Firśly, neither Tacitus nor Ąolemy, when wńting about 'toly groves", donot mention a mountain or even a cu]rnination, It i§ a very inrpoltalt fact,as colsiderlng the precision and celtain briefrless cf the language,especially of the former of the ancient auńors, lie mormtain should havebe€n mentioned, If both texts we.e to be devoted to slęża, it's relativeheight, imprcssively set against the Silesian Low|and, wou]d not have beenoveriooked, The height is mentioned in tig medieńl sources, by T]rietnarquoted above and others (zerelik 1999, pp. 26-28), secondly, the plac€ (orplaces) of worship nentioned by both ancient sources are groves. se-emingly, such description may fit ńe nountain's sĘes and top coverednow ńń forest, yet, in fact the forests on s]ęż are very yolng andappeared only in ńe l6Ó-t8ń celt. as a result of modem economicactivitigs the sifuation well illustrated by the old engiavings (flg, 2),

Śleżd _ Tha śacód Muńlajh

Earliel the tĘ of ńe mountaur was a bale locŁ the middle parts welecovered with meadows $;here in ńe Middl€ Ages cattle and sh€€p graz€d,

while tle low$ pańs of t}re weśem sloPe, due to ńe pre§ence of lo€sssoils (|), werc the fields sńce tle prehi§tory (Domanski 1997, p, ]51). Theforests grew at the foot of the eaśem and nońiem §lopes (cf, Berdowski1995, pp, 16-17), Thirdly, t}e Prcsenc€ of sculpfures Grobably theproducts of celtic culture) contradict§ Tacitus's descńption oftlre "Lugiangrove": "Theae are no monumerts, no tlaces ofalien supeftition",

'e W"'@§d,dP,

0_- , ,-_-_--,, ...f 5. \rclP ,!"u. !u|.. ln lhe IlctĄl| ,.t thP.\!. lone, , spfln1 ol ,h. |lł/d 5

,ańhen sbpe(druv b, a lhar.

Considering t]rc factors mentloned above I am very reluctant tojątĘ slęź3 wlth the sanctMry of Lugii-Nahanarvali, whió, however,:..s not mean tiat I refu§e to acknowledge its gen€ral role as a place of,. orship in ńe Roman period, on ńe contrary, I consider this almost

,"&@

p a{§

42

ś€ńań, eĘeciafiy in tie colttext of the discovery of śone śructures ń thevicinĘ of st- James's sprńg on the mountain's nońhem slope(Błażjewski 1994, pp 349_351, Fig 2), These were threł rcws of §tonessituated meridionally (fig. 5), ńth a circle to the nońh whose cenhe was abig, evenly work€d śoire with a hollow in its lppel surface, \łfiiń I ńinkwas u§ed for pouring liquids (fig, ó), łr ńe vicinĘ of the §toną rłńich tinteĘret as a śacńfic€ altal, §calc€ pottery aagm€rts, probab]y from óeRorĘn peńod, werc discovercd, There is a ceńain similańy betwe€n theobject descńbed here and 1he well-ł o\łTl sanctuary łom Knrsża zam}owain Kujawy (Cofta_Bronie]łska t989, pp. 125_141), Yet, the temple fromKujawy, dated to the prc-Roinan llon Age, js connected with a cemeterywhile in t}re case of the objeci from slężg no traces of gFves was found.However, the fofm of stone a.rangemąts is very simila. some differencesmay be caus€d by different location: site 13 in Krusza zaDkowa is situatedon the top oftie culrnination, while the sanc,tuary near st. James's spńng issituated on tie slope ofa high mountain,

Fig. 6. Slone al|dl i, the viciniĄ, o./ lhe Sl, Janes'ś śprinś an lhe slęża's naflhefi.lap" Ph..l,,1-1 L Ńn:Dla

] am not sule how important the role ofthe sanctuary was and Whichgods it was devoted to. l tiiŃ that it only had ]ocal significance andconcaltrated groups of people settl€d between the rivers of Bystrzyca andoława, l would not attńbute it a inction of an ancient ampiictyory (cf,

Ślęża - Tha sac9d Mountak. . 4

Banek 1993), which undoubtedty was played by the "Lugian grove" man-tioned by Tacitus,

The discussed sanctMry at st, James spring (ńe name given in theMddle Ages probably to "baptis€" ńe fomeł heath€rt plac€) has §o fa.been the only discovery of this kind on the mormtain of slęźa, Naturally,tle object requires fuńier exca\,ations, which is difrcult not only due tothe charactef of the mountańous arca but alśo due to ń€ chanses in t}emoĘhology ofńe area camed oul m ńe loó cent, duńg laying"out of rh.tol-Id§t routes, Peńaps excavations neal other wat$ sprńgs, e.g. st,Aona's, st, Jobn's, wi]l yield similar effects, Yą I tbink that even now theobject ls wonh populallslng. especlall} in ńe contex of Śleza's conrplexissue, ufiich is till unex?labed and, despite many attempts, far fromcompiete description, l hope that the tłird millennirrm will bdng progressin this area,

BIBLIoGIŁĄ.PltYBanek K, Afiliklionie staro4rne. Krałóli,,Bcldo$słr u loo5 s/Jra ro(llnna, lin l P.4rcda \tęzaLł%U PnĄu KruJahrcz-

oreg.,_ ed, K. Tuta. sobó&a. pp, 16-20.Błźeje$ski A., A.cheologicune badania terenowe prżv źródlc św Jakuba lla

slęż\, S4ąshe Sprulozdanią Archea logicne, yol_ 35, pp, 349_351- 1993, Śląski olimp, A]cheologia j hisrońa, Iin|l Pl4]loda Ślężańs,

kiego Palku Kaljobrazoweso. cd. K. Tutą sobótk , pp. 5-10Cehrl-Hołuborł,lczo\ła H w], ki badań \łykoE€liskolł_Ych prżY rzłbic kullo$ej

w pobliżu §si GamcaJsko ^ w\\. s\idnice. SPrałozdania Pdsb-.)

u,ego tluzeln Archeolagiczneqo. vn]. 4, w 9'7-110- l958_ Slęża i Jęj okoiicc 1ł dziesięciolecie p,otskich badtlil alcheolo-

8]c/n\.lL \Ą:d ', \oL l. pp ,_2

- 19'7'7. Dzieje s!ęży na podsta\łie analiz! celaniki z w}4roŃł, naszeż!-.ie. L'J]) Sladani dN,rch wierzeń. wrocla\! . w. 7 -29 .

Colia_Bronie\lska A, ] 989. salr&tuańum cme tanre u ńźncgo okcsu laleńskiego.Ijnl ]vliejsce pradzejo\r-.h i średnio.,lrccznfLh ?fakb,* kultor,,vch1l Kfusn Zan*o\|e], Paznali, pp, lż5-1ó0,

}omeńskj G. 1965, spra\łozdanie u badań §,czesnośreainiołiccznych kamienioto-mów na stoknch góry sl§żJ rł,poblDu r,!si Sobotka-GóIkn. i, 1963rckrJ-,\pldazdanja Archeologi c:ne, .Vol. 11, w_ ż10-216 _

- l99J, Neu€ Unlcr§uchungelr żur Fórderuig und Verarbcitung YonVlncraboh§ofren Jul dcm Berg slęh '-eróIIp.,lh. ahĄB-, .l .

Rrundenbllrgisćhen r,andesnuseuns fb Ur- lłld ?inhgesćhj.hle,\o1.29. w, 223-22'7

_ 1997. wrdki p.ac \\,akopalisko§,\,ch na terelie kanieńolomó$prcd/lqo$}ch | § c/csnosledflou |ec7 n\ c h ne Slę,1 s l9.'0 rokll,s!ąskie Spra$azdafija Archeologi.zne,\ol_ 39, pp_ I43-I52

i

Gediga B-. 1997, Monunenta]na rżezba "mnicha" ślężańśkiego w świetle "sztukisnfil" , Iin l Prob len! epoh blęu i wcze§nej epoki żelaza w EuropieSlodkolłej. Ksi€a Jubileuszawa pofuęcona Markowi Gedlo\lj,Kraków. pp. 187-201

Geschwendr F,, 1928, sr/' ng del schle§erberq, ^ncisb\rlg- 1938, Der siliĄg. Ltrłd ,d tr oĄ BTeslau-Deulsch-Lissa,

Kźlmlercz}L L lgq4, Kźlnienlarze na cór/e Ślę^ w x'll-x]n $ WFik] badrń' UZ}skane $ Larach l991-Io92, ją.h'e Sprurożdania A;h?alogllz-7?e, vol, 35, pp. 355,360.

Kolendo J,, 1981, Zńdła pisane ł badaniach r!6d stiefami l§rltumĘ],mi EuropyS/odkosej w okesie rżlnskirĄ I|n:l ProbleĄ, kllltury wielbars-kej, sfupśŁ pp. 65-78,

- 1994, Lugius - człońek ż plemienia Lugiów w inśkłpcji z Narbo(CIL X]l4166), Stuńa Gorłica, vol 1, pp. t85-19,ł.

Kolla w . 199a, Taj emnicę Gór], s/ęal. Kalońce,Limisiewicz A 1994, Archeo]ogiczne badarlia N{2ł,ilu Ś]ęży, ŚIpkie Słałozda,

nia Archeolagjcrne, ńl 3 5. pp, 339,3,ł8.- 1994. Próba identyfikacji punku cenralnego w obębie kręgó\ł

kultowych na Raduni i slęł źw, 'tzczątko§! k€". s/ą*lespl@ozdania Archeologiczne. yol. 36, pp. 307 -3I2.

LnzoyaM. &.,1931. His.olia delAlte H,§panico.\o1, 1. Barc€lone,ł-owmiański H. 1963. Pocąlki Palsh. \ol, ], warszawaMatdrcws J. & c., 1 99,1, ,M lalosia Wysp Brylyj shch, Poznań.olgŁki M,. 1991, o8ólne uĘ,agi !. rcmat osadnictwa ccllyckiego ł Polscc.

Praće i Maleńab) }uluzeum Miaśb ZgieĘa. \o'1.2, w. l55-Ia6.- 1997, Próba od§rorże ia obli§za etnicune8o kll1ury prżewo§kei $

okresie rz}T n§kim na pod§lawie źródeł pisanłch i prż esłanek archeo_loglczn ch. Lin:l Kuhła ?Ęełol.rła, vol, 3, Lublń, pp, 81_93,

oro§z J, 1962, Z badali md rzezĘ na 8óże Slęł k. Wrocła\ia" Biulety1 Hjstaiisrł&, vol. 2,ł, pp. 3,ł4-359

Rosen-Prżcwo§ka J.. 1962. TraąLje celą,che w oblądołośc' Pfotas]oy,ia,,w-arsZawa.

słupęcki L. P,, 1992, Ślężą Wiełcą Radunia Micjsca L-ullu pogńskicgo u Sło-lłian w średniowieczu. ,( ,add Inik Hislaryuny, \ol- 69:2- w- 3-15.

- 1992,:;ldo ic Pasan sancfuafies. warsajł.Sirz€lcz],k J , 1992, Ił-aldalade i ich afrlkańskie Pańsl||a. warsaa.na.WojciechoBsfu W, 1987. Neoli§cznę gómic§ł,o dolnośląskich scrycnlvnitórv lV

ś$,ictle bada,i \ł},koFlisko§fch na Jaliskiei Gótz.c, Pźe4ląd Ar-ćł?o/o.9.",1_f, vol. 31, pp. l01_138,

Zerelik R, 1 99.{. Dzieje sobó&i od śIcdnio1.!,ie.za do 1740 roktr, [in:] Fabisiak w,,Popińśki K.. T,vsukie icż J,. Żerelik R, Drel" lioiólłl, sobotka,pp,2,1_58,