The Lemko house – architecture of forgotten identity. The traditional chŷža, its contemporary reinterpretations and the role of architects in the transmission of the Lemko heritage

Dominika Cieplak

doi:10.37190/arc260101

Abstract

The article focuses on the redefinition of the Lemko house in the context of post-war displacement and contemporary attempts to refer to the traditional architecture of the region. The home is understood here as a space deeply rooted in cultural, familial, and emotional dimensions of identity, the meaning of which in the Lemko community significantly changed after World War II. Particular attention is paid to the concept of the chŷža – the archetype of the Lemko house – and its contemporary reinterpretations in single-family housing. The aim of the article is to identify the constitutive features of the modern Lemko house and the ways in which architecture can mediate the transmission of heritage. The analysis considers both material aspects (form, proportions, details, materials) and immaterial aspects (language, traditions, relationship with the environment), revealing the tension between fidelity to tradition and adaptation to the contemporary needs of the inhabitants. The paper is based on interviews with representatives of the Lemko community and with architects who have designed buildings inspired by the Lemko archetype, as well as on a comparative analysis of these realisations. The design strategies outlined in the article range from the preservation of selected traditional features to their deliberate transformation. The role of language, memory and landscape as co-creators of the sense of home is also highlighted. As a result, a definition of the contemporary Lemko house is proposed as a space of cultural continuity – embedded in the region but open and dynamic, where tradition is realised not only through architectural form, but also through the persistence of community, language and culture.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2026

1(85)

Dominika Cieplak*

The Lemko house – architecture of forgotten identity.

The traditional chŷža, its contemporary reinterpretations

and the role of architects in the transmission

of the Lemko heritage

DOI: 10.37190/arc260101

Published in open access. CC BY-NC license.

Abstract

The article focuses on the redenition of the Lemko house in the context of post-war displacement and contemporary attempts to refer to the tradi-

tional architecture of the region. The home is understood here as a space deeply rooted in cultural, familial, and emotional dimensions of identity, the

meaning of which in the Lemko community signicantly changed after the World War II. Particular attention is paid to the concept of the chŷža – the

archetype of the Lemko house – and its contemporary reinterpretations in single-family housing.

The aim of the article is to identify the constitutive features of the modern Lemko house and the ways in which architecture can mediate the trans-

mission of heritage. The analysis considers both material aspects (form, proportions, details, materials) and immaterial aspects (language, traditions,

relationship with the environment), revealing the tension between delity to tradition and adaptation to the contemporary needs of the inhabitants.

The paper is based on interviews with representatives of the Lemko community and with architects who have designed buildings inspired by the

Lemko archetype, as well as on a comparative analysis of these realisations.

The design strategies outlined in the article range from the preservation of selected traditional features to their deliberate transformation. The role

of language, memory and landscape as co-creators of the sense of home is also highlighted. As a result, a denition of the contemporary Lemko house

is proposed as a space of cultural continuity – embedded in the region but open and dynamic, where tradition is realised not only through architectural

form, but also through the persistence of community, language and culture.

Key words: architectural heritage, Lemko house, chŷža, Lemkos/Rusyns, minority architecture

Introduction

The house – regardless of its location, construction, or

aesthetics – occupies an important place in the hierarchy of

human values (Bartmiński 2008, 56). It is associated with

family, community, or homeland, encompassing both build-

ings and the surrounding landscape with clearly dened

boundaries and characteristics. Human self-realisation is

achieved through the formation of bonds, relationships,

and surroundings – made possible by the ability to dwell

in and participate in a particular milieu (Heidegger 1970,

322, 323). The loss of the home therefore entails a loss of

belonging, a disruption of stability, and a weakening of

identity, depriving the individual of a sense of security and

of a place to which their memories are attached.

The Lemkos were displaced rst as part of the mutual

population exchange between Poland and the Soviet Un

ion (1944–1946) to the territories of the Ukrainian Soviet

Socialist Republic, and later through Operation “Vistula”

(1947–1950) to the so-called Recovered Territories. As

a result, they lost their homeland – the Lemko Region, an

ancestral space that constituted the foundation of their cul-

tural identity (Watral 2019, 53, 54). Forced displacement

resulted in alienation, disintegration of communities, and

diculties in rebuilding social life and culture (Wilk 2019,

224–315). Years of assimilation led to a transformation in

the denition of the Lemko house: for many, it no longer

existed as the traditional wooden house in the Lemko

* ORCID:

0009-0000-7967-9084. Doctoral School of the Krakow

University of Technology, Poland, e-mail: dominika.cieplak@doktorant.

pk.edu.pl

4 Dominika Cieplak

Region, but instead endured in the practice of religion,

rituals, language, and the memory of former ways of life,

forming a component of Lemko identity regardless of their

new, unfamiliar places of residence (Sitek 1996, 154–159).

This article aims to dene the characteristics of the

con temporary Lemko house through an analysis of recent

re sidential projects in the Carpathians inspired by the tra-

ditional Lemko house – chŷža. The article focuses on the

preservation and reinterpretation of elements of architec-

tural heritage within the context of contemporary function-

al and cultural needs. A distinction between the concepts

of “house” and “chŷža” is adopted from an identity-based

perspective, along with the identication of features con-

stitutive of Lemko residential architecture. Contemporary

architectural projects were analysed in terms of their formal

and spatial references to the chŷža archetype, as well as the

elements that have been adapted in response to broader so-

cial and technological changes. As a result of the conducted

research, a denition of the contemporary Lemko house is

proposed as a form of dynamic continuation of heritage,

combining enduring components of tradition with elements

shaped by the realities of the present day.

State of research

To understand what constitutes the contemporary Lemko

house, it is rst necessary to consider the universal mean-

ing of the concept of home as a symbolic and emotionally

charged space. Home is often described as a “psycho-spa-

tial entity and an emotional warehouse” (Easthope 2004,

134) as it accumulates human experiences. At the level of

visual representation, this concept is articulated through

a stable and recurrent set of elements, a pattern clearly re-

ected in children’s drawings. Children most often depict

a home according to a similar schema, typically including

windows, a door, a roof with a chimney, and a garden en-

closed by a wooden fence. Moreover, these illustrations

frequently portray not only the building itself, but also its

inhabitants, its surroundings, and even atmospheric condi-

tions (Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska 2017, 23).

In the context of migration, home becomes a synthesis

of the culture of the place of origin and the new context,

facilitating the preservation of tradition and identity (Ślu-

sarczyk, Pustułka 2017). In addition, home functions as

a place of shelter, security, and family bonds, which links it

to concepts of identity, belonging, and stability (Gatkowska

2016, 125, 126). From the perspectives of psychology and

sociology, home is perceived as an emotionally embedded

space that enables the expression of feelings and the reduc-

tion of tensions (Kubacka 2018, 201).

The Lemkos’ attachment to their homesteads in the Car-

pathian region is reected in the Lemko language, which

distinguishes between the terms “home/house” (дім/dim)

and “chŷža” (хыжа). Prior to displacement, these terms were

used interchangeably to refer to the same type of building

– a wooden house constituting the space of family life.

After

the war, these two concepts became dierentiated, and chŷža

came to symbolise the past, associated exclusively with the

lost Lemko Region. Under the new post-displacement con-

ditions, Lemkos no longer used the term chŷža to describe

their new dwellings in the so-called Recovered Territories.

Over time, however, as they formed ties to their new sur

roundings, these dwellings gradu ally came to be perceived

as a “home” (Misiak 2015, 68).

During the interwar period, research on the Lemko Re-

gion intensied with some attention given to the analysis of

traditional architecture (Udziela 1934; Falkowski, Paszny-

cki 1935; Pieradzka 1939; Reinfuss 1946, 1990). Accord-

ing to research, the traditional chŷža was characterised by

a wooden log construction and an elongated, rectangular

form set on a stone foundation (Smoczkiewicz 1968, 8). Win -

dows, small and divided into smaller panes, provided day-

light to the living interiors. The ratio of window area to

oor area in the main living room reached as much as 1:12,

which constituted a high level of daylight for houses dat-

ing from the turn of the 19

and 20

centuries (Tłoczek

1985, 75). Houses were covered with high, steeply pitched

roofs featuring a characteristic eaves overhang, initially

thatched with straw and later covered with wooden shingles

(Gosztyła, Mikrut 2017a, 207–210). In the eastern part of

Lemko Region, single-building farmsteads predominated

(Fig. 1) (Tłoczek 1985, 74, 75), whereas in the west res-

idential and farm functions were separated (Fig. 2) (Rein-

fuss 1946, 190, 191). The living area occupied one third or

up to one half of the livestock/utility part (Tłoczek 1985,

74). According to research, most residential buildings had

a one-and-a-half-bay layout (Prokopek 2019, 224; Gosz-

tyła, Mikrut 2017b). The residential part, accessed through

the entrance hall (sień), contained a stove that formed the

functional centre of the house (Fig. 3) (Kępa 1971, 25).

Larger houses featured interiors arranged in an enlade

(through-passage) layout. Traditional nishing materials

included wood, clay, and straw. Wooden oors were used

in the utility areas, while clay oors were applied in the

residential spaces (Priadka 2005, 14). The cottages were

decorated with limewash, with oral or geometric mo-

tifs painted around windows and doors (Gosztyła, Mikrut

2017a, 208–210; Ostrowińska 1986, 126–128). In the Lem-

ko–Boyko borderland, houses were painted in shades of red

(Falkowski, Pasznycki 1935, 60).

Thus far, research on Lemko architecture has focused

primarily on the historic fabric of chŷža dwellings and

Orthodox churches, while post-displacement transforma-

tions of Lemko architecture remain insuciently explored.

Analyses that consider the changing needs of the com-

munity and their impact on the contemporary form and

function of houses are largely lacking. As a result, there

is no clear denition of the contemporary Lemko house,

which makes it dicult to identify its characteristic fea-

tures and to assess its signicance within the cultural her-

itage of the region.

Methods

After Operation Vistula, between 1948 and 1958, only

a small number of Lemkos returned to their ancestral lands

in the Carpathians, where they encountered numerous dif-

culties. The lack of ocial consent for organised re-emi-

gration, along with conicts with new settlers arising from

cultural dierences and property disputes, signicantly hin-

 TheLemkohouse–architectureofforgottenidentity 5

dered this process (Kalbarczyk 2005, 72). Return entailed

not only the reconstruction of the material and symbolic

home but also adaptation to a transformed social environ-

ment. Settlement took place primarily in the ruins of former

homesteads or through the construction of new, multi-sto-

rey houses that met contemporary standards (Koprowski

2016, 147, 206).

The redenition of the Lemko house, as a key element

of identity, thus became a necessity in the wake of post-war

resettlements. The destruction of traditional architecture,

together with diverse post-displacement experiences, has

led to contemporary variations in how the concept of home

is understood, reecting the unique trajectories and living

realities of the Lemko community. In order to examine the

Fig. 1. Chŷža from Komańcza 63 (Команча/Komanča) from 1885:

a) plan and orientation of the house (elaborated by D. Cieplak, source: The National Institute of Cultural Heritage, wooden house from Komańcza,

the green card, ref. no. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_N_18_BK.20641, PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_18_BK.217622),

b) contemporary view, house in the collection of the Museum of Folk Architecture in Sanok (photo by D. Cieplak)

Il. 1. Chyża z Komańczy 63 (Команча/Komanča) z 1885 r.:

a) rzut i usytuowanie chyży (oprac. D. Cieplak, źródło: Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa, chałupa z Komańczy,

karta zielona, sygn. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_N_18_BK.20641, PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_18_BK.217622),

b) zdjęcie współczesne, budynek w kolekcji Muzeum Budownictwa Ludowego w Sanoku (fot. D. Cieplak)

a b

Fig. 2. Chŷža from Wierchomla Wielka 80 (Верxомля Велика/Verchomlja Velyka) from 1831:

a) plan and orientation of the house (elaborated by D. Cieplak, source: The National Institute of Cultural Heritage, wooden house no. 80,

the green card, ref. no. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_12_BK.383127),

b) archival photograph from 1965 (source: The National Institute of Cultural Heritage, wooden house no. 80,

the green card, ref. no. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_12_BK.383127)

Il. 2. Chyża z Wierchomli Wielkiej 80 (Верxомля Велика/Verchomlja Velyka) z 1831 r.:

a) rzut i usytuowanie chyży (oprac. D. Cieplak, źródło: Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa, dom (chałupa) nr 80, karta zielona,

sygn. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_12_BK.383127), b) zdjęcie archiwalne z 1965 r. (źródło: Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa, dom (chałupa) nr 80,

karta zielona, sygn. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_12_BK.383127)

a b

6 Dominika Cieplak

signer and owner of the house in Leszczyny; Norbert Mech

(NM), designer and owner of a house in Nowica.

Towards a redefinition of the Lemko house

after displacement

When dening the concept of home, the study partic-

ipants most frequently referred to security, intimacy, and

a place to which one returns. Home was also repeatedly de-

scribed as an element of identity that provides direction in

life (AC, ODF, NMN, DZ). According to Małecka-Nowak,

home connects history with the present – as a Lemko living

in a house with a Jewish past, she preserved symbols of

the former inhabitants, such as a mezuzah and a menorah,

and juxtaposed them with Lemko icons. She also noted that

while a house is inseparably linked to its location, it reects

the character of its inhabitants, their interests, passions, and

origins (NMN). Chlipała, on the other hand, emphasised

that the boundaries of the home extend beyond its walls,

encompassing both the surrounding landscape and the local

community (AC).

The respondents unequivocally associated chŷža with

the space of Lemko Region, while emphasising that the

Lemko house is constructed through language and culture

(ODF, DZ, MS). Małecka-Nowak also noted a clear dis-

tinction between her grandparents’ place of residence be-

fore displacement, a chŷža in Banica (Баниця/Banycja

)

near Izby (Ізбы/Izbŷ), and their home after returning to the

To emphasise the region’s cultural identity, the author uses Polish

place names supplemented with the original Lemko spelling in Cyrillic

and its Latin transliteration.

current meaning of a Lemko house, eight interviews were

conducted with individuals connected to the Lemko com-

munity

. The study involved the following participants:

Aleksandra Chlipała (AC), owner of a house inspired by

a chŷža in Uście Gorlickie; Olena Duć-Fajfer (ODF), pro-

fessor at the Jagiellonian University, Lemko literary and

language scholar, Lemko poet; Bogdan Kareł (BK), Lemko

woodcarver; Iwona Iskra-Krynicka (IIK), architect; Natalia

Małecka-Nowak (NMN), Lemko activist, president of the

Ruska Bursa Association and board member of the Lemko

radio station lem.fm; Michał Szymko (MS), PhD, Lemko

art historian; Agnieszka Stopka (AS), Lemko from Czarna

Woda; Dawid Zdobylak (DZ), Lemko painter and Doctor

of Fine Arts. The perspectives of the participants enriched

the analysis with cultural and identity-related dimensions.

The respondents reected on the general meaning of home,

the role of the traditional chŷža in the context of forced

displacement, and the characteristics that a contemporary

Lemko house should possess. This enabled a comprehen-

sive approach to the research problem. In addition, archi-

tects commented on their contemporary projects inspired

by the archetype of a Lemko house: Bartłomiej Homiński

(BH), PhD, designer of the studio in the Beskid Niski; Ma-

ciej Jagielak (MJ), PhD, specialist in ecological construc-

tion and designer of the house in Uście Gorlickie; Marcin

Janusz (MJan), designer and owner of the house in Oderne;

Piotr Krynicki (PK), Lemko architect and translator, de-

The interviews were conducted between 2023 and 2025, and the

collected research material is stored in the author’s archive. The study

was carried out with the approval of the Senate Ethics Committee of the

Cracow University of Technology (decision no. 11 of 13 May 2025).

Fig. 3. Chŷža from Bartne 40 (Бортне/Bortne) from 1927:

a) plan and orientation of the house (elaborated by D. Cieplak, source: The National Institute of Cultural Heritage, farmstead no. 40,

the white card, ref. no. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_N_12_ZE.58482, PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_12_ZE.29004;

Muzeum Dwory Karwacjanów i Gładyszów in Gorlice. Conservation study. Elaborated by J. Rotko, 2021),

b) archival photograph (photo by W. Grzesik, source: Zagroda Maziarska w Łosiu, ref. no. N8-2-07-1)

Il. 3. Chyża z Bartnego 40 (Бортне/Bortne) z 1927 r.:

a) rzut i usytuowanie chyży (oprac. D. Cieplak, źródło: Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa, zagroda nr 40, karta biała,

sygn. PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_N_12_ZE.58482, PL.1.9.ZIPOZ.NID_E_12_ZE.29004;

Muzeum Dwory Karwacjanów i Gładyszów w Gorlicach. Opracowanie konserwatorskie. Proj. J. Rotko, 2021),

b) zdjęcie archiwalne (fot. W. Grzesik, źródło: Zagroda Maziarska w Łosiu, sygn. N8-2-07-1)

a b

 TheLemkohouse–architectureofforgottenidentity 7

Lemko Region, a house in Gorlice, which did not resemble

a chŷža, yet remained “Lemko” through the continued cul-

tivation of tradition (NMN). Duć-Fajfer and Zdobylak fur-

ther emphasised that in the Lemko language, the expression

“to go to the chŷža” (іти до хыж/ity do chŷž) carries the

same meaning as “to go home”, not necessarily to a dwell-

ing resembling the archetypal Lemko cottage. In Polish,

by contrast, this distinction is more clearly articulated for

them (ODF, DZ). Iskra-Krynicka, aware of this semantic

nuance, acknowledged that she associates chŷža primarily

with Lemko architecture from the pre-displacement period

(IIK). For some, the contemporary use of the term chŷža

to refer to one’s own home constitutes a conscious act of

reconstructing cultural identity (AS).

An interesting aspect of Lemko building practices in

the Western Borderlands, identied in the study by

Da wid

Zdobylak, is the more or less conscious referenc e to wood-

en cottages from the Lemko Region through decorative

ele ments. On masonry houses formerly inhabited by the

Ger man population, white-and-brown stripes appeared,

in spired by the lime-washed joints between wooden logs.

The addition of new rooms further resulted in the elonga-

tion of the building mass, bringing its proportions closer to

the chŷža archetype (DZ).

Contemporary projects inspired by chŷža

When working in the Lemko Region and engaging with

the local heritage, the architect is not merely a designer of

new forms, but also a mediator in the reconstruction of the

identity of place. In designing buildings inspired by the

past, the architect makes a conscious choice regarding how

deeply to draw on historical models and to what extent they

should be adapted to contemporary expectations (NM).

Each new project emerging within the Lemko landscape is

situated in a place marked by a complex history, where the

material traces of former culture have largely been erased

by forced displacement, changes in ownership, and years of

neglect. Architecture can thus become a tool for recovering

memory – not only by reproducing forms, but also by re-

interpreting them in ways that restore their meaning within

a contemporary context.

When asked to dene the contemporary Lemko house

and to identify its dening characteristics, the respondents

emphasised the complexity and multidimensional nature

of this concept. For many of them, the contemporary Lem-

ko house is not merely a building inspired by the tradition-

al chŷža, but above all a space that refers to local identity

– both materially and spiritually (ODF, NMN, DZ). Some

participants argued that a contemporary chŷža should con-

stitute an authentic interpretation of traditional forms with-

in new realities (BK, MJan), drawing on historic village

layouts (IIK, PK) as well as local materials such as wood,

stone, and clay (MJ). Janusz noted that a contemporary

home cannot be reduced to a stylistic quotation but rath-

er, it should express the spirit of its time by combining

traditional elements with modern technical and aesthetic

solutions (MJan). In spatial terms, such a home should

be located within the Lemko Region (MS), however, the

spiritual and identity-related dimensions of the Lemko

home can also be constructed beyond its geographical

boundaries (DZ).

For many, the contemporary Lemko house is above all

a space rooted in culture and language – a place where

values, traditions, and memory of the past are transmitted

(ODF, NMN, DZ, MS, PK). Duć-Fajfer emphasised that

a truly Lemko home is one in which the Lemko language

is spoken and family bonds are nurtured, and that its es-

sence lies deeper than architectural form alone (ODF). The

phenomenon of constructing buildings stylised as Lemko

chŷžas yet lacking an authentic connection to local culture,

often created for tourism or commercial purposes, was

also criticised (NMN). Małecka-Nowak further reected

on the problem of the disappearance of traditional archi-

tecture and the absence of systemic solutions supporting

building practices grounded in local heritage. Consequent-

ly, the contemporary Lemko home remains an open cat-

egory, oscillating between material references to the past

and a metaphorical understanding of home as a space of

cultural continuity.

Projects inspired by chŷža therefore constitute not only

an aesthetic reference to the past, but also an attempt to an-

chor new buildings within a place of strong identity. They

involve a balancing act between delity to tradition and the

need to adapt to a changing world, between material her-

itage and the requirements of contemporary users (MJan,

MS). While the role of the architect in this process is cru-

cial, many designers emphasise that the awareness of inves-

tors, who decide to build in areas of cultural and landscape

value, is equally important. It is the investors who initiate

the design process, articulate their expectations, and there-

by shape the direction of dialogue with the architect (MJan,

BH). Jagielak nevertheless pointed out that investors often

select from familiar and readily available solutions, and

that it is the architect’s task to propose alternatives rooted

in the culture of the region (MJ).

The analysis of selected projects made it possible to ex-

amine this process, including the ways in which traditional

forms are reinterpreted, the materials employed, functional

solutions, and the ideas that shape the contemporary archi-

tectural expression of the Lemko house.

Architect’sownhouseinNowica

The house in the hamlet of Przysłup in Nowica (Нoвиця/

Novycja) designed by Norbert Mech

was built on the site

of a former Lemko farmstead, where the traditional chŷža

had stood prior to the displacements. The building was lo-

cated at a distance from the village centre, set back from

the road and oriented gable-end towards it, which repre-

sents a departure from the local tradition of Przysłup and

Nowica, where houses were most often positioned with

their long side facing the road (APP, AG, Dorf Nowica in

Galizien Jasloer Kreis, ref. no. 56/126/0/-/0897M).

Concept design: Małgorzata Kural-Mech, MSc Eng. Arch.; Nor-

bert Mech, MSc Eng. Arch. Architectural and construction project: Nor-

bert Mech, MSc Eng. Arch. (architecture); Łukasz Sekuła, MSc Eng.

(structural design); Marek Sadowski, MSc Eng. (electrical installations);

Iwona Hartung-Lenard, MSc Eng. (sanitary installations).

8 Dominika Cieplak

The architect consciously referred to the regional archi-

tecture still preserved within the fabric of the locality. Both

the choice of wood as the primary structural material and

the applied technical solutions draw on local carpentry tra-

ditions. The traditional Lemko house was constructed using

log construction, typically in its simplied form with project-

ing log ends (ostatki), extending beyond the corners. In the

case of this house, log construction was also employed, albeit

in a more compact form – without projecting ends, with the

corners nished using a dovetail joint. Although this solution

departs from the traditional technique used in the region,

it remains consistent with the principles of local carpentry

craftsmanship while also inuencing the building’s aesthet-

ics, giving it a more unied and contemporary character.

The proportions of the building (width/length = 0.35)

correspond to those of a Lemko house from Komańcza

(relocated to the Museum of Folk Architecture in Sanok),

although the threshing-house (boisko) was omitted in fa-

vour of enlarging the residential part. The house neverthe-

less includes a separate utility section with an independent

entrance. The ridge height exceeds that of the traditional

chŷža, as the upper oor has been adapted for residential use,

signicantly altering the character of the building through

the introduction of roof-lights and a projecting gable. The

protruding eaves, extending 125 cm, form a covered perim-

eter walkway and provide roong for a terrace raised above

ground level. The roof was covered with modern, environ-

mentally friendly Eternit (bre-cement roong), constitut-

ing a contemporary reinterpretation of a material widely

used in post-war adaptations of Lemko buildings. A gablet

roof (przyczółek), characteristic of Lemko architecture, was

incorporated into the design. The interior is bright due to

extensive glazing, while natural wood predominates in the

nishes. The central element of the living area is a stove

with integrated seating – a contemporary interpretation of

the traditional chimney-corner (zapiecek) (Fig. 4).

Although the project is not considered to be a direct re-

construction of a Lemko house, its form, spatial layout, and

structural logic clearly reference it. The owner does not re-

fer to the building as a chŷža itself, emphasising its contem-

porary character, however, he regards the use of this term as

a compliment, indicating that the house integrates well with

its surroundings and local tradition.

HouseinUścieGorlickie

The project in Uście Gorlickie (Устя Рускє/Ustja Rusk-

je), designed by Maciej Jagielak and Anna Leoniak

, is

a contemporary interpretation of the Lemko chŷža. The de-

sign combines inspiration drawn from the region’s historic

architecture with modern technological solutions and an

ecological approach. The building, characterised by an elon-

gated plan and a gable roof, refers to the traditional division

into residential and utility parts with a wide entrance hall

(sień), while not attempting to be a faithful reconstruction.

Its proportions (width/length = 0.45) reect the archetypal

features of the chŷža. The house was oriented parallel to

the road, contrary to the traditional gable-end orientation,

and set apart from compact village development, reecting

contemporary residential preferences (APP, AG, Dorf Uście

Ruskie in Galizien Jasloer Kreis, ref. no. 56/126/0/-/1725M).

The structural system of the house is based on a timber

frame, with the wall cavities inlled with straw bales. This

material choice results both from an intention to use nat-

ural and locally available resources and from the need to

achieve adequate insulation performance. Importantly, the

technology of straw-bale wall construction does not derive

from local tradition – rather, as the designers explain, it was

adopted from American models of natural building, indi-

cating a deliberate fusion of regional inspiration with glob-

al inuences. The ground oor of the building was slightly

Concept design: Maciej Jagielak, PhD Eng. Arch.; Anna Leoniak,

MSc Eng. Arch. (Marimo Architects). Architectural and construction

project: Joanna Maria Kornecka, MSc Eng. Arch., Maciej Jagielak, PhD

Eng. Arch. (architecture); Łukasz Kosecki, MSc Eng. (structural de-

sign); Wojciech Potoczek, MSc Eng. – Woinstal (sanitary installations);

Karol Liszka, MSc Eng. – KLK Projekt (electrical installations).

Fig. 4. Architect’s own house in Nowica: a) plan and orientation of the house (elaborated by D. Cieplak), b) contemporary view (photo by N. Mech)

Il. 4. Dom własny w Nowicy: a) rzut i usytuowanie domu (oprac. D. Cieplak), b) zdjęcie współczesne (fot. N. Mech)

a b

 TheLemkohouse–architectureofforgottenidentity 9

temporary reinterpretation of the traditional Lemko house

The building was erected on the site of a former farm-

stead (APP, AG, Dorf Nowica in Galizien Jasloer Kreis,

ref.

no. 56/126/0/-/0897M), thereby embedding the project

within the historical settlement and landscape context of

the village. It is thus the only example discussed in the ar-

ticle of a contemporary house realised in situ. The building

is oriented parallel to the road, in accordance with the local

spatial pattern. It was constructed on a stone foundation,

allowing it to be adapted to the natural slope of the terrain.

Its elevated position in relation to the valley enhances the

exposure of the southern façade and strengthens the visual

opening towards the surrounding landscape.

The form of the building is based on a rectangular plan

and is covered with a gable roof with a 45° pitch, clad in

metal sheeting. A distinctive design feature is a porch-like

space running around the house along the line of the eaves.

When the sliding shutters are closed, it reads as a single,

compact volume with an eaves-less character. As a result, the

building appears to have dierent proportions when viewed

from the road than from the southern, terrace-oriented side.

This solution refers to the so-called zachata (or prychata)

– a storage space located between the roof edge and the

wall – and the priczyna – a type of external corridor or porti-

co conceived as a duplication of the external wall (Reinfuss

1936, 5; 1946, 195). The width-to-length ratio of the en-

closed volume is 0.63, while that of the actual external walls

of the residential part is 0.53. Unlike the archetypal Lemko

chŷža, which was a single-storey building, the project de-

scribed here incorporates a full-height usable upper oor.

The building’s elevations are distinguished by a dier-

entiated surface nish – dark, vertically arranged timber

cladding on the gable walls and light-coloured plaster on

the side elevations. This contrast lends the building a con-

temporary character while simultaneously referencing the

Concept design and architectural and construction project: Piotr

Krynicki, MSc Eng. Arch.

elevated above ground level, responding both to the site’s

topography and to the need for protection against moisture

– a solution characteristic of traditional rural buildings.

The gablet roof of the building and protruding eaves

extending 78 cm are covered with green metal sheeting.

Although this solution departs from the historic roong

materials traditionally used in Lemko houses, it represents

a compromise between contemporary technical require-

ments and the desire to reference regional aesthetics. Large

glazed openings, introduced at the owners’ request, provide

abundant daylight to the interior, creating a clear contrast

with the traditional chŷža, in which small and restrained

window openings predominated (Fig. 5).

The interior is maintained in a natural aesthetic, charac-

terised by the extensive use of wood and ecological mate-

rials. It reinterprets traditional Lemko interiors, in which

wood and earthen oors formed the basic elements of

nish. The central feature is a clay stove made by a local

stove-maker. Although the house draws on traditional form,

it represents a conscious reinterpretation adapted to con-

temporary needs. Ecological principles were fundamental

to the project – natural materials were used, and construc-

tion work was carried out partly by hand, with the involve-

ment of the owners and local craftsmen.

Both the location on a detached plot and the functional

character of the house depart from the historical, compact

village layout, which once fullled an important social

function. At the same time, the owners’ activities, such as

establishing an orchard and cultivating the land, refer to

the traditional relationship between people and their envi-

ronment. The design thus demonstrates not only a formal

transformation of the chŷža, but also a shift in its socio-cul-

tural function, aligning with the principles of permaculture

and natural building.

Architect’sownhouseinLeszczyny

The design of Piotr Krynicki’s own house in the village

of Leszczyny (Ліщыны/Liščŷnŷ) constitutes another con-

Fig. 5. House in Uście Gorlickie: a) plan and orientation of the house (elaborated by D. Cieplak), b) the house during construction (photo by M. Jagielak)

Il. 5. Dom w Uściu Gorlickim: a) rzut i usytuowanie domu (oprac. D. Cieplak), b) dom w trakcie budowy (fot. M. Jagielak)

10 Dominika Cieplak

log-building tradition, in which natural timber was com-

bined with whitewashed joints. It constitutes a subtle evo-

cation of the aesthetic of the Lemko house, translated into

a modern architectural language.

The southern elevation is extensively glazed: three large

terrace windows open the interior towards the landscape

and provide daylight to the living area. On the northern

side, the entrance zone accommodates auxiliary rooms

and vertical circulation – a separate entrance to the utility

section is also provided. The living area is organised as an

open plan, where the kitchen, dining space, and living room

form a single spatial sequence, with a stove located at the

centre (Fig. 6).

Krynicki emphasised that a key intention of the project

was for the house to resonate with the village and its spatial

structure. The building was positioned at a point closing

a visual axis extending from the road, thereby becoming

a signicant landscape element within the local settlement

structure. Moreover, the designer is of Lemko origin, and

the Lemko language is used in the house in everyday life.

It is precisely this identity-based dimension – which, as the

architect himself noted, he considers sucient – that allows

the project to be regarded as a contemporary Lemko house.

In this sense, the design goes beyond formal references to

tradition, becoming an expression of cultural continuity and

of personal engagement in its contemporary persistence.

StudioinBeskidNiski

The studio project in the Beskid Niski by 9780 Architek-

is composed of two building volumes connected by

a single roof and separated by an unheated entrance hall

(boisko). When the large shutters are closed, the building

appears as an almost windowless structure. Although the

Concept design and architectural and construction project: Bar-

tło miej Homiński, PhD Eng. Arch., and Michał Jezierski, MSc Eng.

Arch. (9780 Architekci). General contractor: BATPOL.

extensive glazing departs from the traditional Lemko house,

characterised by small windows, it responds to the needs of

contemporary users. Despite its formal inspiration drawn

from the Lemko chŷža, the building does not serve either

a residential or an agricultural function and instead, it is

conceived as a space dedicated to work.

Homiński emphasised that the site location had a deci-

sive inuence on the project, both in cultural and technical

terms. Dicult access to the plot, requiring the crossing

of a ford, determined the choice of timber as the primary

structural material due to its light weight and ease of trans-

port. The clay-rich, poorly permeable subsoil necessitated

raising the ground oor to protect the building from mois-

ture, a solution that recalls historical construction practices.

Due to the lack of precise locational data, it is not possible

to relate the building’s orientation to the traditional village

layout. The width-to-length ratio of the enclosed volume is

0.31, which corresponds more closely to eastern patterns of

Lemko architecture.

The selection of materials in the analysed building was

guided by criteria of durability and the reduction of main-

tenance requirements. The roof covering was made from

a single sheet of titanium–zinc metal, eliminating the risk

of leakage at joints. The eaves, with a projection of 75 cm,

were designed as part of a plain gabled roof without a gab-

let, a feature that distinguishes this project from both histor-

ical and contemporary interpretations of the Lemko house.

The façades are clad in untreated larch boards, whose sur-

faces undergo a natural patination process in accordance

with the design intent. The plinth and external paving were

executed in locally sourced sandstone, while the steel ele-

ments were left in their raw, galvanised nish, further mini-

mising the need for subsequent maintenance (Fig. 7).

The interior, like the external form, is characterised by

simplicity and functionality. The bright space, dominated by

timber, supports creative work, while large areas of glazing

open it towards the surrounding landscape. The design har-

moniously combines contemporary architectural language

Fig. 6. Architect’s own house in Leszczyny: a) plan and orientation of the building (elaborated by D. Cieplak),

b) contemporary view (photo by I. Iskra-Krynicka)

Il. 6. Dom własny w Leszczynach: a) rzut i usytuowanie domu (oprac. D. Cieplak), b) zdjęcie współczesne (fot. I. Iskra-Krynicka)

 TheLemkohouse–architectureofforgottenidentity 11

with the principles of vernacular architecture, responding

to the current challenges of building in the Lemko Region.

Architect’sownhouseinOderne

The nal project discussed is the house designed by

Marcin Janusz

in the hamlet of Oderne (Одерне/Oderne),

located in the municipality of Uście Gorlickie in the Beskid

Niski region. The building represents a contemporary inter-

pretation of the traditional Lemko house. It retains the key

characteristics of vernacular architecture, reworked to meet

Concept design: Marcin Janusz, MSc Eng. Arch. Architectural

and construction project: Marcin Janusz, MSc Eng. Arch. (architecture);

Wolarek i Zatorowski (structural design). General contractors: Hażbud

Gorlice; El-Bud Gorlice; Dan-Ko.

the needs of contemporary users. The house serves a res-

idential function, with an unused attic and a large terrace

that opens the building towards the surrounding landscape

– an element absent from the traditional chŷža.

Its proportions (0.55) refer to those of smaller Lemko

houses. Originally conceived as an elongated rectangular

plan (0.25), the layout was ultimately formed into a U-shape,

allowing for the creation of an 80-square-metre internal ter-

race. The orientation of the gable towards the road recalls

the historical village layout (APP, AG, Dorf Uście Ruskie

in Galizien Jasloer Kreis, ref. no. 56/126/0/-/1725M). Al-

though the façades are clad in timber, they do not reproduce

the traditional log construction, and the roof, with a 45°

pitch, lacks the characteristic eaves. A reference to tradition

is provided by the use of wooden shingles – not only on the

roof but also on the façades (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7. Studio in Beskid Niski: a) plan and orientation of the building (elaborated by D. Cieplak),

b) contemporary view (photo by B. Kutniowski)

Il. 7. Pracownia w Beskidzie Niskim: a) rzut i usytuowanie pracowni (oprac. D. Cieplak), b) zdjęcie współczesne (fot. B. Kutniowski)

a b

Fig. 8. Architect’s own house in Oderne: a) plan and orientation of the house (elaborated by D. Cieplak),

b) contemporary view (photo by M. Grabowiecki, E. Mrozińska)

Il. 8. Dom własny w Odernem: a) rzut i usytuowanie domu (oprac. D. Cieplak),

b) zdjęcie współczesne (fot. M. Grabowiecki, E. Mrozińska)

a b

12 Dominika Cieplak

The central element of the interior is a replace, refer-

encing the traditional stove located in the main living room.

These adaptations highlight an eort to integrate regional

patterns with contemporary architectural solutions. While

this project departs most markedly in its form from the tra-

ditional Lemko chŷža, it remains consistent with the prin-

ciples of regional architecture through the use of natural

materials and its harmonious relationship with the Lemko

landscape.

Discussion

The analysis of contemporary projects inspired by the tra-

ditional Lemko house reveals a range of design approaches

that combine elements of the region’s architectural heritage

with the requirements of contemporary construction. The

table below (see Table 1) presents 23 features characteristic

of traditional Lemko houses and examines their presence

(“+”), absence (“−”) or partial/modied occurrence (“±”) in

Table 1. Comparison of the characteristics of the traditional Lemko chŷža and the degree of their presence in contemporary projects

(elaborated by D. Cieplak)

Tabela 1. Zestawienie cech tradycyjnej chyży łemkowskiej oraz stopnia ich obecności we współczesnych realizacjach

(oprac. D. Cieplak)

Analysed architectural features

Nowica

(1)

Uście

Gorlickie

(2)

Leszczyny

(3)

Beskid

Niski

(4)

Oderne

(5)

Location in the Lemko Region + + + + +

Residential function + + + – +

Separate utility function + + + – –

Residential function limited to the ground floor – – – – +

Orientation consistent with the archetypal village layout – – + – +

In situ location on the site of former buildings – – + – –

Unheated entrance hall (boisko) – + – + –

Timber construction + + – + +

Log construction + – – – –

Raised ground floor + + + + +

Stone foundation – – + + +

Elongated rectangular form (width/length = 0.3–0.6) + + ± + ±

Gable roof + + + + –

Roof covered with thatch or wooden shingles – – – – +

Roof with extended eaves + + + + –

Gablet roof (przyczółek) + + – – –

Side canopy (zachata) or porch (priczyna) – – + – –

Small windows – – – – –

Divided window glazing – – – – –

Decorative detailing around doors or windows – – – – –

Centrally located stove + + + ± ±

Wooden or clay interior + + + + +

Clay floor in the residential part – + – – –

Legend: (+) – feature present, (−) – feature absent, (±) – feature partially present or occurring in a modified form.

 TheLemkohouse–architectureofforgottenidentity 13

ve selected case studies: Nowica (1), Uście Gorlickie (2),

Leszczyny (3), Beskid Niski (4) and Oderne (5).

The analysis reveals several distinct trends. All of the

contemporary projects discussed above are located within

the territory of the historical Lemko region, and the ma-

jority serve a residential function (1, 2, 3, 5), indicating

continuity in the original role of the chŷža. In many cas-

es, the separate utility section has been omitted (4, 5), al-

though in some projects it has been retained – in Nowica

and Uście Gorlickie – while in Leszczyny it takes the form

of a contemporary reinterpretation of the so-called zachata

and priczyna. In all of the analysed houses, the residential

function extends across both the ground oor and a usable

attic, with the exception of the house in Oderne, where it is

limited to the ground oor.

Orientation in relation to the traditional village layout

was preserved in only two cases (3, 5), while the remaining

projects (1, 2, 4) were located at a distance from the com-

pact settlement structure, often on plots of a recreational or

residential character. The house in Leszczyny is the only

one among the analysed examples that was built on the site

of a former chŷža.

From a constructional perspective, timber buildings pre-

dominate, however, log construction was employed only in

the Nowica project. The remaining examples are based on

timber-frame or hybrid structural systems. All of the houses

feature a raised ground oor, referencing solutions histor-

ically used in the region in response to high ground mois-

ture. Stone foundations are present in the buildings in

Od-

erne, Leszczyny, as well as in the studio in the Beskid Nis ki,

recalling the traditional foundations of Lemko houses.

The massing of each house is based on an elongated

rectangular plan, with width-to-length proportions ranging

from 0.3 to 0.6. An exceptional case is the project in Od-

erne, where the unusually long volume was articulated into

a U-shaped form, altering its proportions towards those

more closely associated with western architectural models.

Gable roofs are present in most of the analysed examples

(1, 2, 3, 4), although their material nishes vary. Traditional

wooden shingles were used only in Oderne, while in the re-

maining cases – metal roong (2, 3, 4) already encountered

prior to the post-war displacements – or Eternit sheets (1),

recalling the appearance of post-war altered Lemko houses,

were applied. Protruding eaves appear in four projects (1,

2, 3, 4), whereas the traditional gablet is present only in the

buildings in Uście Gorlickie and Nowica.

The interiors of the houses dier markedly from tradi-

tional examples in terms of daylighting. All of the analysed

projects abandon small windows in favour of large areas of

glazing, responding to contemporary expectations regarding

daylight and openness to the landscape. In two cases (3, 4),

sliding or operable shutters were employed, allowing the

large, glazed openings to be closed, which constitutes a mod-

ern reinterpretation of earlier practices aimed at protecting

interiors from cold and excessive light. Traditional window

glazing subdivisions were not retained in any of the build-

ings, nor were decorative details around doors and windows,

which have disappeared entirely from contemporary design.

The stove, as a key element of the Lemko house, appears

in the majority of the analysed projects: as a clay stove in

Uście Gorlickie, a stove with seating in Nowica, a replace

in Oderne, and a kitchen stove in Leszczyny. Its location

at the centre of the living area indicates the preservation of

its integrative and symbolic role. Interior nishes are most

often executed using natural materials, primarily timber

and clay, representing a continuation of traditional nishing

techniques.

From an identity-related perspective, the house in Lesz-

czyny stands out most clearly. Its designer is of Lemko ori-

gin, uses the Lemko language in everyday life, and regards

the building itself as a contemporary manifestation of a Lem-

ko house. In the remaining cases, cultural references are pri-

marily formal, structural, or landscape-based in character.

Conclusions

Contemporary projects inspired by the Lemko house de -

monstrate that the house is no longer merely a material

struc ture, but also a carrier of cultural, emotional, and iden-

tity-related meanings. In the examined examples, tra dition

is neither uncritically preserved nor entirely aban doned – in -

stead, it becomes the subject of conscious transformation,

a dialogue with the past, and a response to contemporary

needs. Architecture thus functions as a mediator between

memory and modernity, while the boundary between recon-

struction and reinterpretation becomes increasingly blurred.

The Lemko house in its contemporary interpretation is

not a closed category but assumes diverse forms depending

on the intentions of designers and inhabitants. For some,

its Lemko character resides in language, ritual, and family

narrative, for others, in the deliberate use of forms, pro-

portions, or materials rooted in local tradition. Regardless

of the strategy adopted, each of the analysed projects rep-

resents an attempt to renew the relationship with heritage

– both through its presence and through its transformation.

In light of the analysis conducted, the following deni-

tion may be proposed: a contemporary Lemko house is

a residential space rooted in the cultural context of the Lem -

ko Region, in which tradition and identity are articulated

through both architectural form and social, symbolic, and

linguistic relationships. It may assume diverse forms – from

material reinterpretations of the chŷža archetype to imma-

terial acts of cultural continuity – yet it invariably refers to

Lemko identity through its relationship with place, memo-

ry, and community.

The conclusions presented open up a broad research per-

spective, indicating the potential applicability of the adopted

methodology – combining an analysis of the house arche-

type, its symbolic meanings, and contemporary reinterpre-

tations – to other minority, ethnic, and refugee groups. Such

an approach makes it feasible to capture both the diverse

denitions of home within particular communities and the

role of contemporary architecture in processes of identity

reconstruction and the sustaining of cultural heritage.

In the Lemko context, this line of inquiry will be contin-

ued through research planned in Lower Silesia – a region

of post-war settlement for a signicant part of the Lemko

community. An analysis of this area will allow for an exam-

ination of the phenomenon of the “house in exile” and an as-

sessment of the extent to which elements of the Carpathian

14 Dominika Cieplak

Streszczenie

Łemkowski dom – architektura zapomnianej tożsamości.

Tradycyjna chyża, jej współczesne reinterpretacje oraz rola architektów w transmisji dziedzictwa Łemków

W artykule podjęto problem redenicji łemkowskiego domu w kontekście powojennych wysiedleń oraz współczesnych prób nawiązywania do tra-

dycyjnej architektury regionu. Dom rozumiany jest tu jako przestrzeń głęboko zakorzeniona w tożsamości kulturowej, rodzinnej i emocjonalnej, której

znaczenie w społeczności łemkowskiej uległo istotnym przekształceniom po drugiej wojnie światowej. Szczególna uwaga poświęcona została pojęciu

chyży – archetypu budownictwa mieszkalnego Łemków – oraz jego współczesnym reinterpretacjom w architekturze jednorodzinnej.

Celem autorki była identykacja cech konstytutywnych dla współczesnego domu łemkowskiego oraz rozpoznanie sposobów, w jakie architektura może

pośredniczyć w transmisji dziedzictwa. W analizie uwzględniono zarówno aspekty materialne (forma, proporcje, detale, materiały), jak i niematerialne

(język, tradycje, relacje z otoczeniem), ukazując napięcie między wiernością tradycji a adaptacją do współczesnych potrzeb mieszkańców. Podstawą opra-

cowania były wywiady z przedstawicielami społeczności łemkowskiej oraz z architektami projektującymi budynki inspirowane łemkowskim archetypem.

Zarysowane w artykule strategie projektowe rozpięte są między zachowaniem wybranych cech tradycyjnych a ich świadomym przekształceniem.

Podkreślona została także rola języka, pamięci i krajobrazu jako współtworzących sens domu. W rezultacie zaproponowana została denicja współcze-

snego domu łemkowskiego jako przestrzeni kulturowej ciągłości – osadzonej w regionie, lecz otwartej i dynamicznej, w której tradycja realizuje się nie

tylko poprzez formę architektoniczną, ale także poprzez trwanie wspólnoty, języka i kultury.

Słowa kluczowe: dziedzictwo architektoniczne, dom łemkowski, chyża, Łemkowie/Rusini, architektura mniejszości

archetype have been transferred, as well as how contempo-

rary projects engage with Lemko tradition when confronted

with the local, complex cultural context of Lower Silesia,

shaped by both pre-war heritage and post-war migrations.

These studies also have an applied dimension, as they may

provide a basis for formulating planning and design guide-

lines for rural areas inhabited by Lemkos. Understanding

contemporary strategies for reinterpreting tradition makes

it possible to identify architectural characteristics that not

only integrate into the cultural landscape but also support

processes of reconstruction and revitalisation of Lemko spa-

tial identity.

References

Archiwum Państwowe w Przemyślu [APP]. Archiwum Geodezyjne [AG],

ref. no. 56/126/0/-/0897M. Dorf Nowica in Galizien Jasloer Kreis,

1850. Accessed June 2, 2025, at https://www.szukajwarchiwach.gov.

pl/en/jednostka/-/jednostka/18051042.

Archiwum Państwowe w Przemyślu [APP]. Archiwum Geodezyjne [AG],

ref. no. 56/126/0/-/1725M. Dorf Uście Ruskie in Galizien Jasloer

Kreis, 1850. Accessed June 2, 2025, at https://www.szukajwarchiwach.

gov.pl/en/jednostka/-/jednostka/18051595.

Bartmiński, Jerzy. “Dom i świat – opozycja i komplementarność.” Post

scriptumPolonistyczne 1, no. 1 (2008): 55–68.

Easthope, Hazel. “A Place Called Home.” Housing,TheoryandSociety 21,

no. 3 (2004): 128–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090410021360.

Falkowski, Jan, and Bazyli Pasznycki. Napograniczułemkowskoboj

kowskiem:zarysetnograczny. Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, 1935.

Gatkowska, Izabela. “Dom w empirycznych sieciach leksykalnych.” Et

nolingwistyka.ProblemyJęzykaiKultury 28 (2016): 117–35. https://

doi.org/10.17951/et.2016.28.117.

Gosztyła, Marek, and Agata Mikrut. “Badania budownictwa ludowego na

wybranych przykładach historycznych miejscowości łemkowskich.”

CzasopismoInżynieriiLądowej,ŚrodowiskaiArchitektury 34, no. 64

(2017a): 205–12. https://doi.org/10.7862/rb.2017.206.

Gosztyła, Marek, and Agata Mikrut. “Wyniki badań przeprowadzonych

na wybranych planach łemkowskich chyż.” Czasopismo Inżynierii

Lądowej, Środowiska i Architektury 34, no. 64 (2017b): 39–48.

https://doi.org/10.7862/rb.2017.228.

Heidegger, Martin. Budować,mieszkać,myśleć.Esejewybrane. Czytelnik,

1970.

Kalbarczyk, Tomasz. “Powrót Łemków.” Biuletyn IPN 5, no. 1–2 (2005):

64–76.

Kępa, Elżbieta. “Urządzenie wnętrza mieszkalnego na Łemkowszczyźnie

w XIX i XX w.” MateriałyMuzeumBudownictwaLudowegowSa

noku, no. 13 (1971), 21–32.

Koprowski, Marek A. Łemkowie:losyzaginionegonarodu. Wydawnictwo

Replika, 2016.

Kubacka, Małgorzata. “Dom jako miejsce emocjonalne.” KulturaiSpo

łeczeństwo 62, no. 3 (2018): 191–208. https://doi.org/10.35757/KiS.

2018.62.3.10.

Misiak, Małgorzata. “Językowy obraz DOMU w etnolekcie łemkowskim.

Analiza danych słownikowych.” SlavisticaVilnensis 60 (2015): 61–73.

https://doi.org/10.15388/SlavViln.2015.60.9931.

Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska, Stanisława. “Jakie dane są relewantne etno-

lingwistycznie?” Etnolingwistyka. Problemy Języka i Kultury 29

(2017): 11–29. https://doi.org/10.17951/et.2017.29.11.

Ostrowińska, Anna. “U Rusinów przed półwieczem.” Magury 86 (1986):

122–26.

Pieradzka, Krystyna. Na szlakach Łemkowszczyzny. Komitet do Spraw

Szla chty Zagrodowej na Wschodzie Polski przy Towarzystwie Roz-

wo ju Ziem Wschodnich, 1939.

Priadka, Andrzej. Łemkowskaodyseja.

Andrzej Priadka

, 2005.

Prokopek, Marian. Etnograa:materialna kulturaludowaPolski natle

porównawczym. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2019.

Reinfuss, Roman. Łemkowie:opisetnograczny. W.L. Anczyc i Spółka, 1936.

Reinfuss, Roman. “Próba charakterystyki etnogracznej Rusi Szlach tow-

skiej na podstawie niektórych elementów kultury materialnej.” Lud

37 (1946): 160–235.

Reinfuss, Roman. ŚladamiŁemków. PTTK Kraj, 1990.

Sitek, Wojciech, ed. Mniejszośćwwarunkachzagrożenia:pamiętnikiŁem

ków. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1996.

Smoczkiewicz, Leszek. “Budownictwo Łemków zachodnich (analiza

kon strukcji wybranych obiektów).” MateriałyMuzeumBudownictwa

LudowegowSanoku 7 (1968): 5–14.

Ślusarczyk, Magdalena, and Paula Pustułka. “Transnarodowość w prze-

strzeni domowej polskich rodzin migracyjnych w Norwegii.” Studia

HumanistyczneAGH 16, no. 1 (2017): 23–37. https://doi.org/10.7494/

human.2017.16.1.23.

Tłoczek, Ignacy. Dom mieszkalny na polskiej wsi. Państwowe Wy daw-

nictwo Naukowe, 1985.

Udziela, Seweryn. Ziemiałemkowskaprzedpółwieczem:zapiskiiwspom

nieniazlat1888–1893. Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze, 1934.

Watral, Marta. “Czy Łemkowie mają ojczyznę poza Łemkowyną? Li te rac kie

al ternatywne modele ojczyzny w literaturze łemkow s kiej.” LitterariaCo

pernicana 30, no. 2 (2019): 51–63. https://doi.org/10.12775/LC.2019.019.

Wilk, Anna. Łemkowie:międzyintegracjąarozproszeniem(1918–1989).

Neriton, 2019.