One of three villages in this account of the Włocławek Reservoir (1970). The description of the archival fonds lists it in the registers of land purchase and in the inventory of a cemetery. Was its land flooded? Were its buildings demolished? This material does not say.
That is why, from here on, we do not write “a village under water”. We ask about each trace separately.
Land below the reservoir’s water level, permanently under water.
Not established: which land.
Buildings pulled down on purchased land that did not lie under water.
Not established: which buildings.
Everything the fonds description does not settle. As long as that is so, we say neither “submerged” nor “demolished”.
This is where the fate of particular plots and houses sits.
Transcribed from descriptions in the V2 material, not a scan of a document. The contents of the files were not checked. Sources
The same terrain, told in two ways. The upper drawing is the popular picture. The lower one is the division used in the V2 description. The horizontal scale and the shape of the valley are the same in both.
Illustrative model, not to scale: it is not a map, a plot plan or a surveyed flooding boundary of any village. Wavy hatching means water, crossed-out houses mean buildings in the purchase strip, a dashed outline means an undetermined position.
Land below the water level. The general description in V2 points here to survey registers and rulings from 1960–1969 (ref. 108–119).
This description does not show which plots of any of the three villages lay here. To be confirmed separately for each.
Land above the water level, covered by the purchase. V2 states that buildings were pulled down because of the risk of erosion, landslides and undercutting by waves.
This is a general V2 description, not a document about a particular house. To be checked.
In 1965–1966 the cemeteries were inventoried (ref. 105–107). The inventory does not prove that graves were moved. The material does not say in which zone each cemetery lies, which is why the markers are dashed.
V2 states that Modzerowo, Dobiegniewo and Wistka Szlachecka exist today, and that it was valley land that went under water, not the whole village.
To be checked separately for each village (V2 points to the TERYT register; it was not checked here).
Choose the subject of the question. Each village gets two answers: what this material lets us say about the loss, and what endures after it. A dashed frame means “not established”, a dotted one “no mention”. Neither may be read as “no” or as zero.
Question: Land · three villages side by side
A question about the ground: purchase, flooding, demolition. Purchase is not the same as flooding.
What was lostRecorded in the description
The village appears in the purchase registers and rulings of 1960–1969 (ref. 108–119).
Not established: which plots were flooded permanently and which were only purchased.
What enduresRecorded in the description
Documentation: purchase registers and rulings in fonds 71/282/0, according to its description.
Not established: the present-day use and boundaries of this land. They are not in the material.
Basis: AP 71/282/0, ref. 108–119
What was lostRecorded in the description
Survey registers, plot lists, expropriation rulings, valuations and owners’ complaints (1960–1969, ref. 108–119).
Not established: which plots were flooded and which were purchased for the shore strip. V2 writes in general terms about a “valley strip”, but that is not a list of plots.
What enduresRecorded in the description
Dispute files: owners’ complaints and appeals alongside property valuations.
Not established: the outcome of these disputes (amounts, decisions). Requires a review of the files.
Basis: AP 71/282/0, ref. 108–119
What was lostRecorded in the description
Lists of purchased land and properties, purchase records and compensation files (1960–1969, ref. 108–119).
Not established: whether “properties” means buildings, and which land was flooded.
What enduresRecorded in the description
Purchase documentation in fonds 71/282/0.
Not established: the present-day state of the land along the Vistula. It is not described.
Basis: AP 71/282/0, ref. 108–119
A question about buildings. This is where the word “submerged” comes most easily, and where the material is most silent.
What was lostNot established
The description lists land and a cemetery, not buildings.
Not established: which buildings were demolished, which were flooded and which are still standing.
What enduresTo be checked (V2)
V2 says only that the village exists today on the edge of the reservoir.
Not established: which buildings survived. They are not described.
Basis: no document about buildings; V2 claim
What was lostNot established
The description lists land registers and valuation disputes, not buildings.
Not established: which buildings were demolished or flooded.
What enduresTo be checked (V2)
V2: the village exists today, and the expropriations concerned a “valley strip”.
Not established: what this means for particular farmsteads.
Basis: no document about buildings; V2 claim
What was lostNot established
The description mentions “properties” but does not say which buildings they are.
Not established: whether buildings are meant at all. Requires a review of the files.
What enduresTo be checked (V2)
V2: the village exists today; the necropolises and riverside land were inventoried.
Not established: the state of the buildings.
Basis: no document about buildings; V2 claim
A question about the cemetery and graves. Describing a cemetery is not the same as moving burials.
What was lostRecorded in the description
Inventory of the Lutheran (Evangelical-Augsburg) cemetery, 1965–1966 (ref. 105–107).
Not established: whether the graves were moved and whether the site was flooded or built over. The inventory does not prove this.
What enduresRecorded in the description
The village appears in the list of cemeteries surveyed and verified in the field in 2019 (Ari Ari).
Not established: what condition the cemetery is in today.
Basis: AP 71/282/0, ref. 105–107 · Ari Ari 2019
What was lostNo mention
There is no mention of a cemetery in this village in the material supplied.
Not established: whether there was a cemetery. This is a gap in the material, not a research finding.
What enduresNo mention
No mention in the 2019 list in the material supplied.
Not established: nothing. The absence of an entry is not proof that there is no cemetery.
Basis: no entry in the fonds description or in the Ari Ari 2019 list
What was lostRecorded in the description
Inventory of Catholic cemeteries, 1965–1966 (ref. 105–107).
Not established: whether the graves were moved.
What enduresRecorded in the description
The village appears in the list of cemeteries covered by the Ari Ari survey in 2019. The same list describes Smólnik / Zuzałka as the site of lapidaria from submerged villages.
Not established: whether gravestones from Wistka Szlachecka ended up there. V2 sets them side by side but does not demonstrate this.
Basis: AP 71/282/0, ref. 105–107 · Ari Ari 2019
A question about memory. An interview preserves experience but is not a register of plots.
What was lostRecorded in the description
Ari Ari lists Modzerowo among the places covered by biographical interviews (2013).
Not established: what these accounts say. This page does not quote them.
What enduresRecorded in the description
The interview collection: nearly 60 hours of conversations with over 50 people (the figures cover the whole project, not this village).
Not established: how many conversations concern Modzerowo.
What was lostTo be checked (V2)
V2 quotes the general description of the Ari Ari project: setting the history of resettlement beside the memory of everyday life. It does not name interviewees from Dobiegniewo directly.
Not established: whether the collection includes interviewees from this village.
What enduresTo be checked (V2)
The interview collection exists, but its connection to this village needs to be checked in the Ari Ari documentation.
Not established: the extent of accounts about Dobiegniewo.
Basis: Ari Ari, “Zatopione wsie” (2013), general description
What was lostNo mention
There is no mention of interviews from this village in the material supplied.
Not established: whether such accounts exist. This is a gap in the material.
What enduresNo mention
The material does not link this village to any collection of accounts.
Not established: nothing. The absence of an entry is not proof that there are no accounts.
Basis: no entry in the Ari Ari 2013 material
A question about what endures. These are V2 claims, which were not checked here.
What was lostNot established
The material does not say how much land and how many buildings the village lost.
Not established: the extent of flooding and demolition. Needs separate confirmation.
What enduresTo be checked (V2)
V2: it exists today on the edge of the reservoir and is inhabited.
Not established: boundaries and number of inhabitants. The TERYT register mentioned in V2 was not checked here.
Basis: V2 claim
What was lostNot established
The material does not give the extent of the loss.
Not established: which part of the “valley strip” was flooded and which was only purchased.
What enduresTo be checked (V2)
V2: it exists today; the expropriations concerned the valley strip.
Not established: the present-day extent of the settlement.
Basis: V2 claim
What was lostNot established
The material does not give the extent of the loss.
Not established: which land and properties were flooded.
What enduresTo be checked (V2)
V2: it exists today; the necropolises and riverside land were inventoried.
Not established: the present-day extent of the settlement.
Basis: V2 claim
The whole “under water or not” dispute comes from reading one kind of trace as if it were another. Four kinds of trace in this account, and the limit of each:
These are the years in which documentation and projects were carried out, not the days of events. Taken from V2, without re-verification. I do not arrange them on a timeline, because the spacing would suggest more than is known.
If you want to check one of the traces in the files, this draft matches a reference group to your question and says plainly whether the material supplied mentions that trace for the chosen village at all. It is not an official application. Whatever you type stays in the browser and is not saved.
This page summarises the descriptions passed on in V2. The archive and the Ari Ari resources were not consulted again, and there are no document scans or quotations from accounts here. The links lead to the materials on which V2 is based.
