Ethnic Continuity in the Carpatho-Danubian Area

Elemér Illyés





    Methodological Problems  (The Significance of Archaeology in Current Romanian Historiography, Conclusion)

    The Roman Cultural Influence on the non-Romanic Peoples of Europe: Roman Imports in Barbaricum

    The Roman Influence on Culture

    The Circulation of Roman Coins in Barbaricum

    The Role of Roman Coins in Free Germania and Other Territories Outside the Roman Empire




    Roman Influence Before 106 A.D.

    The Degree of Romanization in Dacia Traiana from 106 to 275 A.D. The Definition of Romanization and the Problem in Dacia

    Towns and Rural Settlements in Dacia Traiana

    Dacian Settlements After the Conquest. The Number of Dacians in Dacia Romana

    The Rural Settlements in Dacia Traiana

    Rural Farms (villae rusticae)

    Cemeteries and Funeral Rites

    Roman Influence on Primitive (Dacian) Earthenware

    The Instriptions of the Roman Period in Trajan's Dacia



    The Former Roman Towns

    Cemeteries in Rural Areas

    The Western Group of Settlements

    Non-Roman Settlements and Tombs in Transylvania from the Mid-Third to End of the Fourth Century. The So-called Sfîntu Gheorghe (Eastern) Group of Settlements

    The Cemetery from the Fourth and Fifth Centuries A.D. at Bratei

    The Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş Culture

    The Roman Coins from 275 to 395 A.D. Found in Transylvania

    An Analysis of the Ethnic Significance Attributed to the Roman Coins

    Finds of Single Coins

    The Hoards of Coins

    —  TABLE III. Data on Six Hoards of Fourth Century Roman Coins Allegedly of "Daco-Roman" Origin


    Christianity in Transylvania in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries: A Critical Analysis of Its Alleged Significance for Romanian Ethnogenesis

    The Geographical Distribution of Christian Finds in Romania

    The Inscriptions

    The Donarium Found at Biertan

    The Written Records About Christianity




    The Old Germanic Peoples

    The Goths

    The Gepidae





    The Avars



    Archaeological Remnants of the Slavs in Transylvania

    The Extension of the Theory of Romanization to Territories Beyond Roman Dacia

    The Assumed Romanization in Muntenia

    The Assumed Romanization in Moldavia

    The Material Remains at Costişa-Botoşana

    The Hypothesis of the "Daco-Roman"-Slav Symbiosis in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries in Moldavia

    Theories About the Material Culture in the First Millenium in the Territory of Romania




    The Hungarian Conquest

    The Bulgars

    The Theory of the Dual Hungarian Conquest. The Onogur Bulgars

    The Székelys (Szeklers)

    The Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós

    The Bijelo Brdo Culture. Early Archaeological Remnants of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin

    Fortifications of the Tenth to Twelfth Centuries in Transylvania. Doboka



Methodological Problems


The nineteenth-century Romantics believed that all manifestations of a people or a nation were part of a great whole and that one could consequently draw conclusions about the whole from its parts, about the material and spiritual culture and even linguistic aspects. It was believed that a well-defined area of common material remains always indicated a special, uniform population or tribe. Great uncertainty prevails therefore with regard to the circumstances under which conclusions about migrations of people have been drawn; it is unclear whether a change in the material culture or, conversely, a continued presence of material remains in a certain area always indicates a respective change or continuity of the same population.


Great skepticism is needed in trying to answer such questions, particularly because archaeological finds do not always provide a reliable means of ethnical identification. A "uniform" archaeological area, for example, has too often been defined on the basis of insufficient analysis and interpretation of all the remains. Moreover, a really uniform material culture does not necessarily indicate an ethnically uniform population. It may be explained as easily by the existence of commerce. [1] The continuous presence of material remains in the same place does not in itself prove that the population did not change, since different peoples might use the same place, favorable for human settlement, near the estuary of a river, along an important road. A newly arrived people can, of course, also use the huts or the houses of the former inhabitants. It is also possible that the archaeological materials of two ethnically different groups coincide. Not taking such considerations into account, it has been assumed, for example, that the culture of the later Bronze Age in Northern Europe showed an ethnically uniform population and that this was Ancient Germanic. [2]


In conclusion it can be stated that it is methodologically erroneous to attempt the classification of material culture on the basis of ethnicity







or language rather than on that of the prevailing culture. Archaeological data can only establish linguistic and ethnic continuity when the ancestral population lived for a long period of time on the same territory and when no alien peoples intermingled with it. It is thus imperative to separate archaeological material and its evaluation from historical and ethnic interpretations.


Archaeological finds do make it possible in certain cases to arrive at conclusions about a social organization of ancient peoples. There are cases in which such conclusions have been corroborated by other sources, especially chronicles. In the region of the Elbe River and east of it, for example, the amount of material remains increases and rich tombs appear during the first century A.D., indicating the emergence of a powerful ruling class. In the same period, the material remains from the territory further to the west, between the Rhine and Leine rivers, do not show signs of a more pronounced social differentiation. These finds agree well with the literary sources: Roman authors wrote about kings in the eastern area, while they mention exclusively chieftains in the area between the Rhine and Leine. [3] Considering the material remains and the literary sources, a likely conclusion can be drawn about the political situation: in the east, notable Germanic tribal unions or polities were being organized during the first century A.D., while this was not the case farther to the west.


With regard to the language of the people who left a certain material culture, there are, of course, major problems to determine the ethnicity: it is clearly illogical to ask the name of the maker, what language he spoke, or to what race he belonged—only historical and anthropological evidence can provide those answers.



The Significance of Archaeology in Current Romanian Historiography


It is now official policy in Romania for archaeology to play a leading and, indeed, disproportionate role in research dealing with Romanian history in ancient times and in the early Middle Ages. [4] In Istoria Romîniei, [5] of archaeology, history, and linguistics, for example, archaeology is discussed first and at greatest length. Constantin Daicoviciu claimed in 1966 that a monograph by the archaeologist Dumitru Protase [6] gave absolute proof of Roman continuity north of the Danube. The view of many historians about the continued existence of a Roman population north of the Danube was "verified and confirmed by the concrete and indisputable data of archaeology." In the last decades innumerable publications have tried to emphasize the same view. [7] It is interesting to note that an irreconcilable difference





of opinion on the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people separates Romanian archaeologists and linguists. Suffice it to cite, for instance, the views of the prestigious linguist Ion I. Russu who stated that "the results of linguistics, by the historical comparative study of the Romanian language, appear more exact and conclusive" than archaeological finds, whose conclusions are not able to throw too much light on the origin of the Romanians. Linguistic evidence "is particularly important and instructive, especially because other available documentary sources are incomplete and deficient." [8]


The assumption in current Romanian historiography is that the material remains from the second and third centuries found on the territory of contemporary Romania indicate that the autochthonous population, that is, the Dacians, were Romanized culturally to a high degree and, therefore, that they had also adopted the Latin language; [9] these "Daco-Romans" were allegedly the ancestors of present-day Romanians.


There are a number of very serious problems with this theory that have not been pointed out sufficiently in international historical literature. To begin with, the basic catchword of the theory, "Daco-Roman," cannot be considered a scientific term, since it has several different meanings: it is used to designate Romanized Dacians as well as colonists living in Roman Dacia and non-Romanized Dacians. [10]


All too often, there is a remarkable lack of critical spirit in the interpretation of the material finds. It is rarely asked, for example, which characteristics in the material culture might be accepted as criteria of Romanization as opposed to the simple Roman influence found in most areas of Europe during the first centuries A.D. Another feature of Romanian historical treatises is the lack of any serious research aimed at correlating data about an assumed Romanized population in Romania with those found in the corresponding periods south of the Danube, in the former Roman provinces of Moesia Inferior and Superior, Dacia Ripensis and Mediterranea, Pannonia Inferior and Dardania, territories included by authoritative Romanian treatises on history and linguistics within the territory of the ethnogenesis of the Romanian language and people. [11] The unlikelihood that Romanian was formed over this extremely large territory makes it imperative to find correlations in language and culture. In other words, if one believes that material remains can explain the origin of the Romanian language, one should look for such remains in all the territories in which the early development of this language is assumed. Finally, some important conclusions were drawn from more recent archaeological excavations without taking into account certain characteristic features of the Romanian language.





The possibility of Romanization north of the Danube should not be dismissed. To find evidence of this is, however, of little value, particularly because ancient literature offers comparatively little information about the remote Dacia, so far away from Rome and Greece. The problem is the degree of Romanization, that is, the extent to which people living there adopted Roman culture and the number of such people. In other words, to what extent should one accept archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis that a significant Roman population (culturally Romanized Dacians) existed north of the Danube in the mid-third century A.D.


The new concept of early Romanization throughout the entire territory of contemporary Romania is defended almost exclusively by references to the material remains unearthed in those territories. It has even been suggested that archaeological research could entirely replace history and linguistics in the study of Romanian ethnogenesis. [12]





It must be noted that in Romanian territories the archaeological legacy is to a major extent insufficiently differentiated to allow exact ethnic determinations on the basis of typological characteristics. In spite of considerable efforts and promising results, archaeological research has not freed itself of contradictions, erroneous conclusions, and speculation. We are faced with an overvaluation of the extant material culture, based only on examination of one area without consideration of the entire European-Asiatic complex or of facts derived from other disciplines, especially linguistics. The scientific evaluation of individual cultures can only be made through the study of the culture prevailing throughout the area of its dissemination. It is not possible, for example, to reach conclusions regarding chronology and, above all, ethnicity on the basis of archaeological excavations without comparing them with those in neighboring countries. Chronological evaluations of archaeological remains require comparisons with findings of previous as well as later centuries which, on Romanian lands in general and in Transylvania in particular, are very difficult to make. Both the periods that separate as well as (those that) bind for the definition of archaeological remains are missing: the periods separating individual cultures can be as long as several hundred years so that forced attempts to bridge these gaps produce hypothetical and unscientific conclusions.





The Roman Cultural Influence on the non-Romanic Peoples of Europe: Roman Imports in Barbaricum


It is important to distinguish between the Roman remains, on the one hand, and objects of Roman style or production that could have been left by Romans as well as non-Romans, on the other. There are ruins of stone buildings, baths, amphitheaters, roads, and aquaducts throughout the Roman Empire. From such monumental traces it can be inferred that the people who made them were Romans (at least partially) and that they therefore spoke Latin. In these areas are also found Roman earthenware and other objects of everyday use—small statuettes, weapons, coins, and other things. Such objects, however, are easy to transport and are found in abundance beyond the frontiers of the empire. They in themselves are not, therefore, proof of the ethnic character of the people who left them behind.


For many centuries, the European frontiers of the Roman Empire were the Rhine and Danube rivers, [13] but exploratory and punitive expeditions into Barbaricum (barbarian lands) [14] were not infrequent. These expeditions, as well as temporary occupation of some areas have also produced important traces. Part of free Germania was occupied for some years at the beginning of the first century A.D.; parts of the present-day Romanian provinces of Muntenia and southern Moldavia, from 106 to 117 A.D.; southern Oltenia and Muntenia up to the Furrow of Novae and possibly also certain southern areas of the Banat for some decades in the fourth century; and other areas were occupied as well. Roman forts (castra) were found up to 100 km beyond the border of the empire, east of the Rhine in the contemporary Benelux countries, and north of the Danube in modern Austria and Romania, in Austria four forts were situated on the





Danube and another four at distances of up to 70 kilometers from the river. Roman settlements were also found in Slovakia and Austria, the majority close to the Danube in the north, although one was situated in Slovakia on the Hron River (Garam) about 50 kilometers from the Danube. Stones with Roman inscriptions have been found in the Netherlands, Austria, and Slovakia; on the map of the German archaeologist Hans Jürgens Eggers, a total of eight are shown in Barbaricum. [15]


Roman remains in the barbarian lands, however, more often were a result of commerce or left by returning soldiers. After the occupation of Gaul (Gallia) and the territory between the Alps and the Danube (Noricum) by the Romans, direct contact was established in the first century B.C. between the empire and the free Germanic peoples. This and flourishing industries in several Roman towns created conditions favorable for trade between the Romans and other European peoples. The degree of commerce with the Roman Empire and Roman influence upon style and customs in Barbaricum could be measured by analyzing remains of Roman origin or style. The materials found in cemeteries reflect funerary customs; but in settlements, everyday objects such as earthenware, are usually found in plenty. The amount of imported material found correlates to the population of the settlement in that period. Increased amounts of Roman products may be found in a specific area during certain periods. There were many Roman imports, for example, in the early imperial period in Bohemia and in Denmark, which may be explained by the existence of powerful societies (in the case of Bohemia the Marcomann kingdom).


The imported material is of different kinds: earthenware, bronze and glass vessels, jewelry, weapons, statuettes, and other items, as well as many coins. Two kinds of commerce can be recognized: short-distance commerce over an area within about 100 km of the frontiers; and the export of products to places as distant as present-day Russia and western Siberia and the middle parts of Sweden and Norway. Long-distance commerce used particular routes and usually started from certain Roman cities. As rich finds of Roman earthenware, especially of terra sigillata type, [16] relatively near to Roman frontiers have shown, short-distance trade with such products was very intense, although not uniformly distributed in Germania. Brooches and other small objects are also found frequently in these areas.


In certain cases, imported Roman products could give some indication of the political or ethnical situation. The greater variation of such products in the late imperial period, for example, reflects the increasing organization of the Germanic tribes and the development of more potent tribal unions. The Roman brooches found throughout





Germania up to the frontier with the Finnish-Ugrian peoples in the Baltic probably also indicate an ethnic frontier, inasmuch as the Finnish-Ugrians did not wear brooches. An even more interesting conclusion can be drawn from the distribution of bronze buckets of the Hemmoor type, which were used in the Roman Empire and also exported to Germania. They were found in different sites: in Germania, finds come predominantly from cemeteries, while south of the limes, they are found in former settlements or buried in the earth, obviously with the aim of finding them again. If the frontier between the Roman Empire and free Germania were not known, it could thus be ascertained with considerable accuracy by the way in which these buckets are treated. [17]



The Roman Influence on Culture


Most important, of course, was the intense cultural influence the Roman civilization had on the peoples of Europe. In some areas, stone houses were built on the Roman pattern, new weapons were introduced, and Roman styles of clothing were adopted. Since Romanian archaeologists use Roman characteristics in the material culture, especially in the earthenware, to support their theory of Roman continuity north of the Danube, the impact of Roman culture on non-Roman peoples of Europe should be pointed out. In examining the arguments in support of a Romanized population, this strong and widespread influence must be taken into account.


Greek and Roman art influenced that of the Germanic peoples beginning in the first century A.D., replacing the Celtic influence, which had previously been dominant. The initial effect was restricted to certain areas and was quite weak. An early characteristic was the filigree work, which spread during the first century A.D. from the Greek towns along the Black Sea and the lower Danube to large areas of Germania. The Roman influence on the Germanic peoples, that is, a group of works in which Old Germanic and provincial Roman elements are mixed, can be seen at this early stage, especially in the remains excavated from marshes in Schieswig-Holstein and in Denmark. These were probably produced partly in the Roman province of Lower Germania, in the region of the lower Rhine, and partly in the adjacent areas of free Germania. [18]


In the third century A.D. there appears in free Germania a type of sheet metal fibulae in the shape of animals, made after the animal motifs found on Roman terra sigillata. Another type of fibulae, made of silver, found in rich third century tombs in free Germania shows the stylistic influence of Roman provincial fibulae but developed further by the Old Germanic smiths, who made use of the antique techniques of filigree, granulation, and gold-covering. [19] A total of 13





figurines, in the shape of cattle, probably made after provincial Roman statuettes, were found in free Germania. They were most probably attributed a magical effect. All the pictures (mostly of animals) on vessels and fibulae made in the second to fourth centuries by Old Germanic craftsmen show a clear Roman influence. [20]


The Old Germanic potters began to use the meander-motifs found on Roman cloth. [21] Many different kinds of vessels of glass, bronze, and terra sigillata were taken as models for a series of indigenous pottery forms. There were even connections between Roman workshops of pottery and workshops in Barbaricum, for example, in Pannonia, on the one hand, and in the valley of the Vistula River, on the other. [22]


The Roman influence was so intense that it affected even the funeral customs: in the rich tombs of chieftains, a Roman vessel (of bronze, glass, or earthenware) was almost always included. In a number of tombs, coins were also interred, according to an ancient Greco-Roman tradition. [23]


The territories south of the Sudetes and the Carpathian Mountains show in several respects a more intense influence from Roman civilization than those lying north of these mountains. Consequently, in the southern area, Roman vessels were used extensively, even in everyday life, while the population living north of these mountains owned far fewer of them but often put them in the tombs. This is shown by the analysis of finds from settlements and cemeteries. [24] Also, the number of Roman fibulae is much higher in the southern area: out of a total of 600 found between the Danube and the Baltic Sea, the majority were found in Bohemia and Slovakia. [25] These are attributed to the lively contacts between the Romans and the Marcomanns and the Quadi, respectively.


In the territory between Pannonia and Dacia Traiana, several trade routes existed, for example, that between Aquincum and Porolissum. As also in free Germania, Roman products from the first four centuries A.D. were found in the Great Hungarian Plain. The records of the finds of the numerous pieces of terra sigillata have not yet been completely published. After the abandonment of Dacia, several peoples of Dacian origin appeared in the plains, among whom were also potters. They produced earthenware similar to that found at Cristeşti-Mureş (Maroskeresztúr, Mureş County). [26] The number of fibulae found in the Hungarian Plain is comparable to that from the areas north of Pannonia. The majority of these are sheet metal fibulae and knee-fibulae brought to this area during the late second and early third centuries. The commerce between the Sarmatians and the empire was predominantly of a local character (with Pannonia and Dacia).





In Sarmatian tombs many bronze mirrors have been found. The number of bronze statuettes is less than that found in Germania. Roman glass was found in 21 places. In Pannonia, Sarmatian earthenware was found, which could be explained by commerce and also by the settlement of Sarmatians in the province in the fourth century. After 322 A.D., the Sarmatians had an agreement with the Roman Empire, which can explain the construction of fortifications: a Roman tower at Hatvan-Gombospuszta and a camp at Felsőgöd-Bócsa [27] (both in Hungary).



The Circulation of Roman Coins in Barbaricum


The study of the presence and distribution of Roman coins could make valuable contributions to historical research, if certain methodological principles are followed. It is, for instance, not sufficient to consider generally the total number of coins found in a certain area; coins found in settlements or tombs, isolated or in hoards must be evaluated separately, since coins in different sites have different meanings. An important aspect is, of course, also the metal of which the coins are made: bronze, copper, silver, gold. A few hoards usually do not have much significance; but in increasing numbers, they indicate wars, invasions, and periods of unrest. In the territory of free Germania, it was possible to compare the presence of accumulations of hoards with data given by literary sources. Whenever reports exist for the time and territory in question, the findings confirmed this. [28] Coins appear in tombs, of course, only in areas where it was customary to put them there. Isolated coins could indicate trade routes. It should also be pointed out that the varying degrees of excavations cannot accurately reflect the number of actual remains in different territories.


In free Germania, Roman coins from the time of the Republic to the sixth century have been found without any significant hiatus. The Swedish archaeologist Sture Bolin, in 1926, knew of 2,500 sites with 401 hoards (114 were described in detail) and a total of 50,000 or more coins. [29] In Central Europe, coins have been found in all inhabited areas. The density of finds varies, however. Areas with large numbers of coins include Friesland, certain areas along the Rhine River, the region around the Elbe River, and the estuary of the Oder and Vistula rivers. In contrast, in the territory west of the confluence of the Morava and Danube, the number of Roman coins is low, evidently because of the low population in that frontier area. [30]


With regard to the presence of Roman coins in tombs, there is a sharp dividing line made by the Passarge River in Prussia: west of the river no coins were placed in the tombs, while to the east they are common. [31]





There are a number of places where coins were accumulated over long periods of time. Roman coins were thrown into a well in Bohemia, for example, from Celtic times until about 400 A.D.; and settlements in Friesland show a similar pattern. [32] The continuation of the same tradition, however, does not necessarily indicate the persistence of the same population.


The number of Roman coins found in the territories of Europe that never belonged to the Roman Empire varies with the different periods and the different territories.


1. From the late first century B.C. to the early second century A.D. the circulation of coins was sparse.


2. From the early second century A.D. to the first third of the third century the number of find sites increases threefold over the earlier period. This was the time of the most intense circulation of coins.


3. From the second third of the third century to the early fourth century a general decrease of the circulation of coins is found, especially in Poland and in Sarmatia but less pronounced in Austria and north of the Danube in present-day Czechoslovakia.


4. From the early fourth century to about 360 A.D. the number of bronze and gold coins increased, especially south of the Sudetes and the Carpathian Mountains.


5. From about 360 A.D. to the sixth century masses of solidi were brought especially to Pomerania. The circulation of Roman coins ends in Poland and in northern Austria in the first half of the fifth century and in all regions north of the Danube in the sixth century. [33]



The Role of Roman Coins in Free Germania and Other Territories Outside the Roman Empire


An important question is whether the people living in Barbaricum used the Roman coins as a means of payment; in other words, did these coins in Barbaricum have the function of money? There is apparently general agreement about the situation in the areas along the Roman frontier: there, Roman coins were used regularly as means of payment for goods. [34] In areas at some distance from the Roman frontier, for example, in inner Germania, the situation varied with the different areas and periods. Probably, in most instances, the Roman coins had a function as money in these areas also, although the degree of this function varied. Most of the coins were indeed found in the same state and in a chronology similar to that in the empire. [35]





In order to answer the question about the degree of this function in the different areas of free Germania, a statistical analysis of the following aspects was undertaken: 1. the structure according to which the finds appear; 2. the metal, that is, the proportion of bronze, silver and gold coins; 3. the number of Roman coins found in an area of 1,000 square kilometers. On the basis of these data, five different regions could be determined: 1. the territory of Austria north of the Danube and western Slovakia, where the coins were employed as money to a very high degree; [36] 2. Bohemia and Moravia, where this function was intense; 3. Silesia, where this function was at a medium level; 4. eastern Slovakia, Poland, and Pomerania where the coins served as money to a lesser degree; and 5. Masuria, with the lowest degree for this purpose. The differences were mainly connected with the distance of the region in question from the Danube, its relations to the main routes and also with the level of socio-economic development.


In general, Roman coins have been found in every inhabited territory. The number *-of isolated finds of coins is very high in regions that were centers of commerce: for example, the isles of the Baltic Sea during the first centuries A.D. It has also been shown that the coins found on Gotland (Sweden), for instance, became worn on this island.


Another question of importance is the metal of the coins. One of the chief arguments in favor of a Romanized population in the fourth century north of the Danube is the circulation of bronze coins, which, it is argued, were used by a population accustomed to commerce with money, rather than by the Old Germanic populations, who appreciated the coins mostly for their intrinsic value. Bronze coins, however, were extensively used in several parts of Europe outside the Roman Empire, that is, by non-Roman populations. Consequently, finds in northern Austria and in Slovakia show a similar distribution with regard to the metal as those found in the Roman provinces of Noricum and Pannonia: they contain more bronze than silver coins. In Bohemia and in Moravia, there also are many bronze coins, although the number of silver coins is slightly higher. In Poland, with the exception of Masuria, silver coins are in the majority. [37] Bronze coins were also accumulated in hoards. In this respect, there is a certain difference within free Germania. The almost worthless copper coins from the period after 250 A.D. appear sparsely in the central parts of Germania, while they are numerous in the countries along the Roman frontier. Many hoards of such coins from the second half of the third century were found in the region of the Rhine.



Roman Provinces in Southeastern Europe From 106 to 275 A.D.





Later, in the fourth century, the areas north of the Danube are richest in hoards of this type. [38]


Roman coins were also found in the plains between Pannonia and Dacia, from the second century A.D. in more significant numbers. In that century, denarii predominate (225 pieces compared with 28 bronze coins and one of gold). In the third century, the proportion is 25 denarii, 61 bronze and 12 gold. In the fourth century, bronze coins are most common among the finds: there are 262 of them, compared with 3 denarii and 24 gold coins. [39] In this territory, Roman coins of bronze or silver were found at 227 sites. The coins show signs of having been used for a considerable time. The finds suggest that the tribes living in those plains, for example, the Sarmatians, used Roman coins as money. [40]








The territory which stretched, during the first millennium B.C., from the lower Danube to the river Dniester was named Dacia by its inhabitants, the Dacians. Several tribes, related to the Thracians, were united by the Dacian King Burebista (Burvista, Burobostes) 70-44 B.C. and, again, in 80 A.D. by Decebal. It is impossible, however, to consider in either case that a valid, unified Dacian state organization existed.


As the Dacians became a threat to the Roman Empire they were defeated in two wars, in 101 A.D. and 105-106 A.D., by Trajan. Their central settlement of Transylvania with the capital Sarmizegethusa, became a Roman province known as Dacia Traiana, which was to be an outpost of the Roman Empire against the barbarians. Dacia Traiana was divided into two parts: Dacia Superior and Dacia Inferior (118-119 A.D.). Outside the province, in the northern and eastern frontiers, lived the "free Dacians." The military occupation forces consisted of two legions, one of which, at the end of 110 A.D, was withdrawn but later replaced.


As is known, the wars brought considerable losses to the Dacian men; part of the local population was deported or fled. It is also known that during the age of Trajan, and also during that of his successors, there was a significant colonization by foreign peoples from all over the Roman Empire. [41] The largest landholdings were appropriated by foreign colonizers. Likewise, the majority of the urban population—the actual Romanizing force—consisted of the upper strata of foreign colonizers: Syrians, Greeks, and others. It is difficult





to conceive that under these circumstances, in about 170 years, any effective Romanization could have taken place. [42]


The central area of urbanization and colonization was in the mineral-rich western part of the province where, for that matter, the capital Sarmizegethusa (modern name Grădişte/Várhegy), known as Ulpia Traiana in Roman times, was located. The town was somewhat to the west of the old Dacian capital of Sarmizegethusa and was inhabited, inter alia, by soldiers of the wars of conquest. Close to the military camps were built canabae, whose inhabitants were primarily soldiers' dependents and businessmen.


As a result of threats from barbarians, a new legion was transferred from Moesia to Dacia (Potaissa, Turda) in 167-168 A.D.; and Dacia was administratively redivided into Dacia Porolissensis in the north, Dacia Apulensis in the south, and Dacia Malvensis in the territory of contemporary Oltenia. The first two incorporated the territory of the former Dacia Superior.


Around 230 the number of barbarian attacks on the Roman frontiers, particularly by the Goths, increased. As a consequence, from 242 to 244, the region to the east of the Olt River was abandoned and the border relocated on the river. It is possible that a partial evacuation of the province occurred as early as 260, in the age of Emperor Gallienus. This evacuation would have encompassed the eastern part of Transylvania, and it is to be assumed that at that time the Goths were already in this territory. No findings from the military camps of this area attest to the utilization of the camps after 250 A.D. [43]


In 271, Emperor Aurelian finally ordered the evacuation of Dacia. [44] After the evacuation the lower Danube became once again the northern frontier of the Roman Empire. A total evacuation of Dacia, as reported by Eutropius, would hardly have been possible. It must be assumed, even in the absence of evidence, that a part of the local population remained in Dacia. However, the army, the entire administrative machinery, and with them also the business people, landholders, and aristocracy — in other words those whose interests were related to the Roman Empire, those who were the actual instruments of Romanization and who could have been the disseminators of the Latin language — left the province.


Concurrently with the evacuation of Dacia two new provinces, to the south of the Danube, were created for the evacuated population; Dacia Ripensis (part of Moesia Superior in the valley of the Timok) and Dacia Mediterranea (part of Dardania, the present-day eastern Serbia and western Bulgaria) with the principal fortresses of Naissus (Nis) and Serdica (modern Sofia).




Provinces of the Roman Empire in Southeastern Europe After the Abandoment of Dacia Traiana in 275 A.D.





Eutropiuss and Vopiscus's accounts of the total evacuation of Dacia are generally questioned by Romanian historians, [45] although there are also divergent opinions. Vladimir Iliescu, for example, agreed with Eutropius's narratives that Dacia was totally evacuated. [46] In his later study, however, Iliescu changed his opinion and, based on Jordanes' accounts, [47] assumed that only the Roman legions were transferred to Moesia. [48] It is to be assumed that not only were the legions transferred to Moesia but that a mass-evacuation of Dacia by Emperor Aurelian had taken place. [49]



Roman Influence Before 106 A.D.


The Greek towns that flourished along the shores of the Black Sea during the first millenium B.C. certainly exerted a significant influence, probably mainly through commercial contacts, upon the peoples living on the plains to the west, and north, just as the Roman Empire later would profoundly influence all the peoples of Europe, including those north of the Danube. The great importance of this fact was recognized by earlier Romanian historians; Vasile Pârvan, for example, asserted that the Romanization of the Dacians had been prepared for a millenium before the Roman conquest of Dacia. [50] This idea has been elaborated a great deal in current Romanian historiography; and some treatises now refer not only to preparation but to actual Romanization, beginning when the Romans reached the line of the Danube at the time of Emperors Augustus and Tiberius and continuing after the withdrawal of the Roman authorities in 271 or 272 A.D. [51] This is considered to be substantiated by the fact that the Roman army supervised the lowlands of present-day Muntenia already before the conquest of Dacia. [52] From the first century B.C. on, Dacia was an important market of Rome. Merchants from the empire wandered through the country with products from Italy and Dalmatia. Roman coins were forged in Dacia. Fugitive craftsmen from the empire were engaged at the courts of Dacian kings and noblemen; and there were even deserters from the Roman army, "all of whom were bearers of the Latin language." Furthermore, King Decebal of Dacia (87 to 106 A.D.) as a Roman ally received financial aid and advisors for his army, whose contribution to the spread of Roman civilization and the Latin language could not have been without significance.


An inscription in the Roman alphabet has been found on a Dacian clay vessel, Decebalus per Scorilo, which has been interpreted as either "Decebal, the son of Scorilo," or with per as a preposition. [53] Greek and Roman letters, engraved in stone, on pieces of earthenware, and on objects of various kinds have been found at a number of sites. [54]





Dio Cassius (150-235 A.D.) mentioned that people allied with King Decebal had sent a message written in the Latin alphabet to Trajan in 101 A.D. Some 50,000 Dacians during the reign of Augustus (63 B.C. to 14 A.D.) and 100,000 "Transdanubians" during the rule of Nero (37 to 68 A.D.) were settled south of the Danube.


Some of the circumstances mentioned above certainly contributed to rapprochement between Dacians and other barbarian peoples and the Romans. Commerce with the empire may have introduced a number of Latin words into the language of the peoples north of the Danube as it did in most other European languages. Advisors and craftsmen could also have contributed to the spread of Latin words to Dacian. A very few Dacians probably even knew the Greek or the Latin alphabet and could write, but this could not be true of more than just those at the top levels of society. [55] Several other circumstances cited as evidence, such as military raids and supervision by populations serving the empire, cannot be considered factors of Romanization. The idea of a proper Romanization before the conquest has been also refuted by some Romanian scholars. [56]



The Degree of Romanization in Dacia Traiana from 106 to 275 A.D.

The Definition of Romanization and the Problem in Dacia


Romanization must be studied as a process of acculturation, based on the military and political domination of Rome. [57] Such a process can result in assimilation or fusion or syncretism (partial adoption of the model); the model can also, of course, be totally rejected. In the case of assimilation, a non-Roman population living in the Roman Empire would adopt entirely the Roman material, social, and spiritual way of life. The first stage is the adoption of Roman material culture and economic life, followed by social, political, and spiritual assimilation. [58] The process of Romanization reaches its highest degree only when the Latin language is adopted. [59] The intensity of the process can only be studied by analyzing data referring to the Roman period of the territory in question. [60]


With respect to Romanization, primary consideration must be given to its social and political aspects. The bearers of Romanization in the Roman provinces were the two dominant social strata: the urban aristocracy and the army, both closely tied to the interests of the Roman Empire. It is, however, not known to what extent they themselves were Romanized and/or what the extent was of their contacts with the lower strata of the local population. In any event, any possible further contacts were interrupted as soon as the leading





strata—as in Dacia's case—left the land. Moreover, the Roman legions and auxiliary troops incorporated a large number of foreign, primarily eastern, elements; and there was an even greater share of them in Dacia than, for example, in Pannonia. To Trajan's Dacia came not only Greek businessmen and artisans but also miners. Moreover, Thracians emigrated to Moesia Inferior and Dacia. Under the circumstances, not only did the Latin-speaking part of the population decrease but the language of the local population also disappeared since there were no independent institutions or state organization that could have preserved the language.


The ancestors of the Romanians were a Latin-speaking people, most probably an ancient Southeastern European population, which adopted the Latin language. If and how much they adopted the Roman material, social, and spiritual way of life is not reliably known; hypotheses with regard to such a heritage are vague and of dubious value. The only thing we reliably know about the Romanian people's ancestors is that they spoke a language of Latin structure. The adoption of Latin can, therefore, not be regarded only as "the highest degree" of Romanization but the sine qua non of it; and beyond the Roman character of the ancient material remains, the real question is: Under what circumstances (in what territory, surrounded by which peoples) could the adoption of Latin take place?


There are neither historical records nor other evidence from Dacia Traiana about the degree of Romanization, that is, about the extent to which Latin was used by the inhabitants. This should be stated clearly at the beginning. Conclusions have been deduced largely from analogies with other provinces and from archaeological finds. There are records, for example, about a large number of colonists from the entire Roman Empire, about the army units stationed in the province, and about the number of towns; some 3,000 inscriptions have been found. The Roman domination lasted for about 165 to 169 years, that is, the Roman rule collapsed in Dacia earlier than in other Roman provinces. On the basis of these data, one must conclude that the possibility of Romanization existed in Dacia Traiana, insofar as there were opportunities for the spread of Roman culture and the Latin language among the non-Roman colonists and among the Dacians who possibly lived there. Beyond this general statement, there is a dearth of solid information. Many important questions remain unanswered: what, for example, was the exact proportion of Latin-speaking people among the entire population; to what extent did their number increase in the course of time; and what was the geographical and social distribution of those speaking Latin. Furthermore, the sources of information about the spread of the Latin





language through the empire is all based on Roman sources, which prevented an accurate determination of the language of the inhabitants. Since making inscriptions was a Roman custom, they indicate only the presence of people who knew Latin but reveal almost nothing about the number of people who spoke other languages. [61] From the situation in other Roman provinces we can deduce that the people who spoke Latin lived mainly in towns and were Roman functionaries or from the leading social groups. [62] Based on the Balkan Peninsula, Noricum, northern Gallia, Dardania, northern Africa, and several other territories, it is known that many native languages persisted stubbornly for long periods of time. In Africa, for example, or in Noricum as well as in Pannonia, Roman domination lasted almost twice as long as in Dacia and there were many more towns; but in spite of this, only some of the inhabitants adopted the Latin language. In several areas of this territory, people kept their original mother tongue, and a significant part of the indigenous population was only partially Romanized. [63] Similar situations are reported from other provinces. [64]


Romanization affected primarily the lower territories such as Dalmatia and the southern part of the lower Danube, and intensive Romanization occurred only in places where there were larger settlements. In Dalmatia, for example, outstanding conditions existed for Roman continuity but only until the Ostrogothic-Byzantine war of 536. [65] The invasions during the period of the peoples' migrations had devastating consequences here. Despite the exposed location of Noricum Mediterraneum, todays Slovenia, in Roman times, for example, in the three most important Roman towns of Emona, Celeia, and Poetovio, most of the Roman vestiges disappeared by the end of the fourth century and only a few elements reveal the continuity of settlements in the fifth and perhaps even into the sixth centuries. [66] Necropolises reveal Gothic and Longobardian development although continuity in the seventh century cannot be demonstrated; in other words, there is no direct connection with the Slavs.


In Pannonia, for example, the continuing existence of provincial Romans, that is, the remnants of their culture, can be discerned archaeologically, albeit with difficulty, even in the sixth century. This, however, must not be equated with Romanity and total Latinity. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that the Romanization developed differently in Dacia than in other Roman provinces. In mountainous areas like Transylvania conditions were less favorable for rapid Romanization. After the Roman occupation of Dacia the remaining population lived mainly in the rural areas, largely in mountainous regions where Romanization hardly occur. On the other hand, in areas where there was not a high degree of Romanization, the place





names of the autochthonous population should remain. Not a single Dacian place name, however, survived north of the Danube.


Roman domination of Transylvania can be determined both territorially and chronologically. Recent archaeological excavations in eastern Transylvania, for example, reveal that in this area, Roman garrisons left earlier, in fact, as early as in the middle of the third century during the reign of Gallienus. [67] in the same area, only an insignificant number of inscriptions were found. It is a well-known fact that in areas with military camps but no towns there was no Romanization - and this was the case in eastern Transylvania.


Archaeological remnants may give the answer to the following questions of crucial importance for the problem of Romanization: 1) was there a significant Dacian population in the Roman province - for example, are there a number of Dacian settlements that continue after the conquest; did Dacians live in the towns and in what proportions? - and 2) does the material culture found in originally Dacian settlements show any evidence of a progressive adoption of Roman material culture, - an evolution similar to what is known from the western provinces, - beginning in the early second century A.D. and concluding in the mid-third century? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, one may seriously consider the possibility that this population also adopted the Latin language. In the absence of such evidence, however, the language change seems unlikely.



Towns and Rural Settlements in Dacia Traiana


Of all the provinces of the Roman Empire, Dacia Traiana had the lowest number of cities: 11 or 12 towns are known to have existed, of which the more significant were Sarmizegethusa, with an estimated population of 15,000 to 20,000; Apulum and Ampeium in the area of the gold mines in the Apuseni Mountains (Erdélyi Szigethegység); Potaissa or Potavissa; Porolissum; Tibiscum; and, in southern Oltenia, Romula, Drobeta, and Dierna, of which the two last were on the shores of the lower Danube, In addition to these names, the names of a number of urban centers were preserved, such as Alburnus Maior, Vicus Pirustarum, Ger misara, Blandiana, Micia, Brucla, Aquae, Salinae. [68] In contrast to other provinces, where several settlements of the subdued local populations were left autonomous (for example, as civitas stipendiaria) no such settlement is known in Dacia Traiana. [69]


Roman culture was essentially urban; and it was in the towns where Romanization first began, when the leaders of the conquered populations in Gallia, Iberia, and elsewhere adopted the Roman culture and the Latin language. What, then, was the situation in Dacia? Did Dacians live in the





new Roman towns and in what proportios were they there? There are very few hard facts with which to answer such questions.


Inscriptions and written records provide no information about Dacians in towns since these were predominantly made by colonists of foreign origin. D. Protase, in his monograph about Roman Dacia expresses his belief that there must have been Dacians in the Roman towns: ..."beyond doubt, the autochthonous elements from the rural areas of the province were assimilated in the Roman towns to a substantial but not yet known degree" (D. Protase, Autohtonii în Dacia, 1980, p. 85.) However, he is forced to state that "it is known and acknowledged since a long time that the Dacians subdued by the Romans lived predominantly in the rural areas of the province" (p. 35); and his final conclusion is: ..."in contrast to Italy and the western provinces, where some urban centres of the autochthons continued to develop into genuine Roman towns, in Dacia, the more significant settlements of the indigenous population ceased to exist with the Roman conquest. All the towns of Trajan's province were created during the Roman domination from civilian and military settlements and of the old Dacian localities only the names were borrowed: Sarmizegetusa, Apulum, Potaissa, Napoca, Porolissum, Drobeta, Dierna, etc. In Dacia, one can not speak about a Daco-Roman urbanistic evolution. The towns, with the exception of the Greek towns in the region of the Black Sea, appeared in Dacia with the Roman domination and disappeared as such after the abolishment of this domination..." (Protase, 1980, op. cit., p 251-252).



Dacian Settlements After the Conquest. The Number of Dacians in Dacia Romana


After the conquest of Dacia in 106 A.D., "part of the autochthonous population" [70] was transferred from their villages to other territories within the province, because of the control and also for economic reasons (that is, good arable land was given to the colonists). This is the hypothetical explanation of the fact that only a few settlements and no cemeteries continued to exist after the conquest. Most of the settlements and all cemeteries of the Roman era were established after 106 A.D. [71] The new settlements in which the existence of Dacians is assumed were situated in rural areas far from the towns; the nearest one, that discovered at Obreja (Obrázsa, Alba County), was 25 kilometers from Apulum. [72] If one accepts the assumption, then one must conclude that the Dacian population that survived the wars and the conquest was almost entirely displaced. Fundamental changes in the situation of this population are indicated also by the fact that all the Dacian forts and large settlements ceased to exist at the time of the conquest. [73] As may be seen from archaeological excavations, the population of the Dacian settlements were moved, during the wars





and in the following years, from the politically and strategically affected areas to insignificant territories. [74] That part of the Dacian material culture that was the most developed also disappeared from the country. [75] High-quality Dacian earthenware is almost non-existent in the provincial era, and the old Dacian village communities were abolished. [76] Many Dacians were transferred from the province to Rome and other areas of the empire, mostly as slaves and soldiers. [77]


All these changes must have caused a significant decrease in the number of Dacians and fundamental transformations in Dacian society in general. In the past, many Romanian historians concluded on the basis of historical records that the persistence of a Dacian population in the Roman province of Dacia Traiana was questionable. According to the current official Romanian concept, however, Dacians lived in the province and were numerous in the rural areas.


Dacian personal names found in inscriptions are often cited to demonstrate that Dacians lived in the province. A breakdown of this in the inscriptions found in Dacia Traiana according to origin is as follows: [78]







Northwest African, Egyptian, others:

more than 2,200 (70-75%)

about 420 (16%)

124 (4%)

74 (3%)

64 (below 3%)

(over 1%)


The share of Thracian or Dacian personal names is thus insignificant, and some of them may even have belonged to colonists from the Balkan Peninsula. According to the Hungarian scholar András Kerényi, there are 2,600 personal names found in inscriptions in Dacia, of which 1,860 are of Latin-Italian origin, 355 Greek, 184 western Balkan and Celtic, and 67 Oriental; furthermore, 66 names are in very bad condition, and 17 are unclassified. There are only 51 Dacian or Thracian names. [79] On the other hand, it is not possible to determine to what extent Dacians used Roman names. It is also reasonable to assume that, because of socioeconomic conditions, only a small number of Dacians made inscriptions. In any case, however, these names do not suggest a significant, numerous Dacian population.


The number of military units formed by Dacians (alae, cohortes, numeri) or, more correctly, designated as Dacicus in inscriptions and military diplomas, [80] is estimated at 12 and the total number of soldiers at 8,000 to 9,000. [81] It is claimed that this indicates the existence of





a "large autochthonous population"; but it is a very dubious undertaking to try to infer the number of the Dacians living in Dacia Traiana from the number of military units designated "Dacicus." Immediately after the conquest, such units were possibly composed mainly of Dacians; but later the names of the army units did not always indicate their ethnic composition. From the fourth decade of the second century A.D., the auxiliary units were regularly filled by soldiers from the territory in which they served; and their national character disappeared. [82] If Dacians were living in the province of Dacia Traiana, Dacian men could have been recruited in the auxiliary units serving there, but the auxiliary units called "Dacicus" serving in other provinces (Moesia, Pannonia, Britannia, and so forth) were certainly composed not only of Dacians. Moreover, 12 units, even if composed exclusively of Dacians, cannot be considered a high number. In 1934, the Romanian scholar Constantin Daicoviciu was, in fact, of the opinion that it was "extremely low." [83]


About 100 hoards of Roman coins are known to have been buried in the territory of Dacia Traiana during the Roman domination; 16 of them show a composition that suggests that their accumulation began before the conquest and continued after it. Several of them contain large numbers of coins from the Roman Republic. [84] They were found in Oltenia along the Olt and Danube rivers, in southwestern Transylvania, and in the valley of the middle course of the Mureş (Maros) River. [85] The large number of republican denarii found in Dacia must be traced to the slave trade of the free Dacians with the Romans. [86]


There are also Roman coins from the time of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) with the picture of a woman symbolizing Dacia holding an eagle in one hand and a curved sword (falx Dacica) in the other. The appearance of this ancient Dacian weapon on a Roman coin "must be interpreted as a sign that the autochthons were being taken up in the Roman auxiliary troops." [87] From the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) there is a coin on which Dacia holds the Roman banner and the Dacian sword, which, according to the official view of current Romanian historiography "expresses the Roman concept about the integration of the local population into the Roman Empire and constitutes an important element in the problem of continuity." [88]


It is possible that the accumulation of these 16 hoards began before the Roman conquest in the territory of Dacia. We do not know how many of them were taken from their Dacian owners by Roman soldiers or colonists after the conquest. Nothing indicates that they were buried by members of the family whose ancestors once began to collect





them: they were found isolated, without any connection to a settlement; and the vessels or fragments of vessels in which they were found give no such indication either. These hoards could perhaps contribute to the evidence that Dacians were living in Roman Dacia; but since this was not questioned here, their significance in this analysis is limited. They are not helpful in the investigation of the possible number of Dacians living in the province. One must conclude that the available data are not sufficient to determine the approximate number of Dacians in Roman Dacia.



The Rural Settlements in Dacia Traiana


Material remains of earthenware, farming equipment, and other tools and the remains of buildings with mortar, from the period between 106 and 275 A.D. have been found at about 400 sites in the former province of Trajan's Dacia. Excluding sites in which the remains indicate towns, military stations, and baths, it is estimated that there were about 300 civilian settlements. [89] Most of these were inhabited by a peasant and pastoral population; a smaller number of these villages were inhabited mainly by workers in the salt and gold mines; and in a few villages, pottery workshops existed. At about 40 sites remains of what could have been villages (villae rusticae and sub-urbanae) have been found. This important type of Roman agricultural unit never became as significant in Dacia Traiana as in other provinces. The villages were called pagi or vici; pagi are known only on the territory that belonged to Sarmizegethusa. [90] Micia (modern Veţel) was such a pagus, developed from the civilian settlement (canabae) established in the vicinity of an important fort. Its population consisted of veterans and Roman citizens. [91] In a large number of settlements, rich finds of Roman buildings, aqueducts, and other typically Roman features are found, while others are poor and do not contain similar discoveries. The former type of villages is generally attributed to the colonists, while the Dacians are sought among the poorer ones.


The assumption of the presence of Dacians is based primarily on finds of earthenware of the primitive Dacian type in association with Roman provincial earthenware. On this basis, there were 58 rural settlements that, according to Dumitru Protase, could be attributed to the local Dacian population or in which they can be found in certain proportions. [92] These settlements were not fortified; they occupied areas of eight to ten hectares. None of them ever developed into a town. [93]


The Dacian earthenware does not include all the pre-Roman forms but only a few of them. After the conquest, the Dacian earthenware





of superior quality, produced on a wheel, disappeared completely, obviously because of the disappearance of the Dacian pottery workshops. No more Dacian bowls, large jars, or fruit dishes were produced. The earthenware was made by hand and consisted of a few primitive kinds of vessels. Dumitru Protase is of the opinion that the Dacian cup with the features typical of the preceding period, the pot of approximately a sac-like or bitronconic shape, different small mugs with a handle, and other indigenous forms of vessels must have existed, but their reconstruction is not always possible from the few and disparate fragments that have been preserved. [94] The ornamentation is also simplified, although the main motifs are preserved: the woven, alveolated, or incised belt; round prominences; incisions or alveoli on the rim of the vessel; and the simple line or the wave-line. The usual alveolated belt over the middle of the vessel is replaced by a simple streak in relief, and often no ornamentation is used at all. [95] A serious difficulty in the study of this pottery is the fact that it is generally not possible to determine the age of the vessels with any reasonable accuracy. In many cases it cannot even be proved whether a vessel was produced in the period before or after the conquest, [96] and those that are assumed to have been made in the time of the province are generally dated merely as "second or third century." [97]


It must be noted that this kind of earthenware is practically the only material attributed to Dacians living at these sites. Its quantity is low: only about 10 percent of all earthenware found in these settlements belongs to this category. Roman earthenware dominates the picture both qualitatively and quantitatively. Present everywhere, it consists of bowls, different kinds of pots, cans, lids, and other patterns of Roman provincial style. Some pieces imitate the terra sigillata [98] type. Besides pottery, of course, other objects specific to Roman culture, such as hand mills made in specialized workshops, fibulae, jewels, and coins, have also been found. A very important finding is that Roman style earthenware appears in the settlements from the first decade after the Roman conquest, without any period of transition and without showing any connection with the Dacian type. [99] In many cases these sites were insufficiently investigated; and the available descriptions are consequently vague, without exact data about relevant details, such as the stratigraphic situation. Often, further investigations will reportedly be needed in order to clarify the chronology or the ethnic attribution of the site in question.


On the basis of the estimated degree of accuracy of the descriptions, an attempt will be made to classify roughly these sites in two main groups. There are settlements in which the material was found in archaeological strata or at least in the remains of dwelling places (huts).





In other cases, the finds were made on the surface, in fields or in vegetable gardens. In the latter, the original association of Dacian earthenware with that of the Romans is uncertain. According to a generous estimate, 39 sites could be included in the first group and 19 in the second. This does not mean, however, that data about the 39 settlements are satisfactory. There are also in this group too many incomplete investigations, a lack of systematic excavations, and unproven assumptions. The settlement Sic (Szék, Cluj County), for example, is said to be probably Dacian, dating to the Roman period, and seems to continue to the beginning of the fourth century; at Vulcan (Vulkán, Braşov County), and at Cernatul de Jos (Alsócsernáton, Covasna County), [100] a pre-Roman Dacian village seems to continue its existence during the Roman period. At Archiud (Mezőerked, Bistriţa County) a 40 to 90 cm thick stratum of archaeological remains were found; in its middle appear, mixed, all the material remains from the third to the fourth century and from the eleventh to the twelfth century, and it is not possible to establish between them a strict stratigraphic succession. [101] The archaeologist Mihail Macrea dated the beginning of this settlement in the years after the Roman retreat, while Protase believes that it began in the final stage of Roman rule. [102] At Boarta (Mihályfalva, Sibiu County) poor fragments of Dacian ceramics were found; at Curciu (Küküllőkörös, Sibiu County) the inhabitants seem to have been autochthons; Ocniţa (Mezőakna, Bistriţa County), on the basis of the finds, could have a "Daco-Roman" symbiosis. At many sites, "future investigations" are considered necessary for an adequate appreciation of the situation, such as the villages in the first group: Cernatul de Jos, Feldioara (Földvár, Braşov County), Micoşlaca (Miklóslaka, Alba County), Rădeşti, former Tîmpăhaza-Ujfalău (Tompaháza-Szászújfalu, Alba County); in the second group: Ciumbrud (Csombord, Alba County), Ciunga (Csongva, Alba County), Matei (Szászmáté, Bistriţa County), Rîşnov (Barcarozsnyó, Braşov County), Şieu-Odorhei (Sajóudvarhely, Bistriţa County), Sînmihai de Cîmpie (Mezőszentmihály, Bistriţa County), Viişoara Mică (Dolj County).


Since the publication of Protase's monograph in 1966, in which 30 settlements were mentioned as showing Roman-Dacian symbiosis, another 28 settlements have been found with similar characteristics. While this can be considered a large quantity, there has not been much progress qualitatively. The relationship between the settlements in which the finds were made in strata or at least within huts is the same (in 1966, 20 to 10; after 1966, 19 to 9), and the number of those in which future investigations are considered necessary is also similar. Thus, the scanty evidence that could be provided by the





association of small amounts of earthenware of the Dacian type with the Roman provincial earthenware in a number of rural settlements of Dacia Traiana is further weakened by the fact that the primary material has been unsatisfactorily investigated. Furthermore, it should be noted that the evaluation of archaeological findings in contemporary Romania is solely designed to demonstrate the continuation of the autochthonous provincial population. Only to a limited extent, if any, is there any attention paid to the achievements of other researchers.


Most of the settlements above mentioned are not ancient Dacian villages but were created after the Roman conquest of Dacia. Only a few of them reveal some evidence of existence in pre-Roman times. More or less reliable signs of this are described at Roşia, Sibiu-Guşteriţa (Szenterzsébet), Slimnic Şarba-Stempen (Szelindek), Şura Mică (Kiscsűr), and Copşa Mică (Kiskapus), all in Sibiu County. At two sites, Cernatul de Jos and Vulcan, material remains indicate a pre-Roman Dacian settlement whose continuation in the Roman period is uncertain.


In a monograph, Ioan Glodariu gives some details of interest regarding southern Transylvania. [103] It appears that all the Dacian villages in Făgăraş (Fogaras) were abandoned after the conquest of Dacia, and some of them were destroyed. From these findings it has been concluded that the population from this area was transferred to other areas, possibly to the north of the Olt River. The Romans built fortifications along the Olt, and settlements during the Roman domination existed only north of the river. Most of these were newly created after the conquest; but some of them, such as that Şarba-Stempen, thought to be one of the largest villages of southern Transylvania during the Roman domination, existed also in the pre-Roman era. The settlement dates to the time between the second century B.C. and the mid-third century A.D.


A very important aspect to investigate is the period of time during which these villages could have existed. Under the circumstances given, with many uncertain and insufficient data, it is not, of course, possible to establish this more accurately. Meaningful conclusions may, however, be drawn from rough data, indicating whether a village was inhabited before, during, or after the Roman domination or in any two or all of these periods.


One of the main characteristics of a local, indigenous population must be that they stayed in their villages for a longer time; in this case, one would expect that while the villages of the Roman colonists (and also their towns) would be emptied of their Roman population, those of the autochthonous population would be less affected by the Roman retreat. In other words, one would expect to see at least some





degree of continuity on the village level. There are, of course, no general rules for such situations; but it would be peculiar, if, sav, half or at least a third of these villages would not have continued their existence after the Roman retreat from the province.


After the Roman conquest and the defeat of the Dacians in 106 A.D., there was a significant discontinuity of the Dacian rural settlements. This has been explained by the regulations of the Roman state, aiming at better possibilities of supervising the Dacians as well as giving valuable farming land to the colonists. A similar, or even greater, discontinuity is, however, observed at the time of the Roman retreat from Dacia. All these settlements showed signs of decline already during the first half of the third century, and most of them end their existence in the second half of that century. Romanian researchers attribute this fact mainly to the political-military situation in the north-Danubian zone of the empire, in Dacia. [104]


Of 30 rural settlements in which a Roman-Dacian symbiosis was assumed in 1966, 3 showed some evidence of continuing existence after the second half of the third century A.D. Since 1966 an additional 28 settlements have been discovered in which such a symbiosis is assumed, and only one of them continues after 275 A.D. Thus, of a total of 58 settlements, only 4 (7%) continued to be inhabited after the Roman withdrawal. Far below even the modest expectation of a third of all settlements, this is an insignificant share and also a negligible absolute number. (See Table I) It is noteworthy that in the material known up to 1966 about 30 villages, only 3 show signs of continuity after 275 A.D. and that those discovered and published from 1966 to 1980 (1 out of 28 villages suggests signs of continuity after 275 A.D.) do not offer very bright prospects toward proving the presupposed continuity in the post-Roman period in Dacia Traiana. (See Table II)


It appears from the table that less than 20% of all civilian settlements contained primitive earthenware of the Dacian type. The great majority of these settlements (more than 90%) were in existence in a period restricted to the Roman domination in Dacia.



Rural Farms (villas rusticae)


As with rural life in Dacia Traiana in general, our knowledge of farming is extremely limited. [105] The farms (villae rusticae) were important units of Roman agriculture in most provinces. In Roman Dacia, however, they never reached the size and the significance they had in other provinces. [106] The number of such farming units is difficult to establish; remains of small buildings, a wall, and other remains,






Settlements in Dacia Traiana in which the presence of Dacians is claimed and which continued to exist after the Roman retreat from the province

[[ Found at present-day village, Existed, Notes

Archiud Erked, Bistriţa County, Mugeni Bögöz, Harghita County, Şura Mică Kiscsűr, Sibiu County, Obreja Obrázsa, Alba C., Slimnic ]]

Source: Dumitru Protase, Problema continuităţii in Dacia în lumina arheologiei şi numismaticii [The Question of Continuity in Dacia in the Light of Archaeology and Numismatics], Bucharest: 1966, and Dumitru Protase, Autohtonii în Dacia, vol. I, Dacia romană, vol. I, (Bucharest: 1980), p. 83.



could have belonged to a single farming family and do not necessarily indicate a real villa rustica. So far, 10 villae rusticae have been excavated, another five were probably villae suburbanae, and about 25 are presumed to exist on the basis of finds from the surface but have not been confirmed by excavations. [107] There are, at present, intense investigations underway to determine whether Dacians were among the workers on these farms. This has not been established, nor is there any record of a Dacian owner extant. The same assumption, as in the case of the civilian settlements in general, has been made also in this connection: The presence of Dacians, according to Protase, is considered to be indicated by Dacian cups (ceasca dacică) and a few fragments of other vessels, made by hand from a paste of inferior quality which, judged by their form and ornamentation, could be assigned to the category of primitive earthenware of local, Dacian origin. [108] It is doubtful that this assumption is correct, a doubt shared elsewhere by Protase himself, who concluded his description of the rural farms with the remark that future investigations are necessary in order to establish if, to what extent, and when one may speak about the existence of a significant number of Dacians on the Roman farms. [109] It has been assumed that the local population lived predominantly






Data about the civilian settlements in Dacia Traiana 106-275 A.D. in which the presence of Dacians is claimed



in areas in which no villae rusticae existed, for example, in eastern Transylvania. [110]


Almost all of these farms are limited to the period of Roman domination. In 1966 Protase expressed his opinion that excavations should be carried out in the surroundings of the villae rusticae to search for a possible continued presence of workers after the Roman withdrawal. In his monograph of 1966 he noted that at most two such farms (at lernut and possibly at Răhău) showed some signs that this might be the case. In 1979, the archaeologist Kurt Horedt





 mentioned the possibility that Răhău (Rohó) and Cicău (Csákó) showed signs of continuity after 275 A.D. [111] In his monograph of 1980 Protase did not give any new data about this question.



Cemeteries and Funeral Rites


The Dacians cremated their dead; inhumation was practiced to a very small extent. Most frequently in the pre-Roman period, as well as later, through the fourth century, tombs consisted of an urn placed in a simple cavity of varying shapes and sizes. So far, about 300 such tombs are known. The next most frequent and simplest method was to place the remains of the burned bones in a simple cavity, without the use of an urn. The urns varied in shape and in quality, the simplest having been hand-made. In the present-day Romanian province of Dobrudja, dominated for centuries by the Greeks, and to a lesser extent in other transcarpathian areas, Greek amphorae were also used. The cavities were most often round or slightly oval when urns were used and rectangular in the absence of urns. In all these cases, the bodies were cremated in an ustrinum at a different place from that of the burial.


The other kinds of funeral rites appear almost exclusively in the transcarpathian territory, predominantly in Dobrudja and southern Moldavia. Cremation in the place of burial was frequently practiced by the Thracians, south of the Danube. One of the methods is with an oven; two such tombs are known, at Poieneşti and Zimnicea (in Vaslui and Teleorman Counties, respectively) dating to the fourth to third centuries B.C. Another is the typical Graeco-Roman form of the plane tomb without an urn, with a burn cavity of an alveolar shape. This form is found only in Istria, from the fourth century B.C. until the Roman period. Finally, there are barrow graves of Graeco-Thracian origin in Dobrudja and in southern Moldavia, and at two places in Transylvania, Şimleul Silvaniei (Szilágysomlyó, Sălaj County) and Viscri (Szászfehéregyháza, Weisskirch, Braşov County). Such tombs were probably made for tribal leaders and were not used by the Dacians in the second and third centuries A.D. Objects found in these tombs are quite poor and include clothing accessories, jewelry, knives, and similar objects, as well as earthenware. Coins were not placed in the tombs. [112]


Of importance is the relation of these funeral customs and rites to those of other peoples living in Southeastern Europe. The barrow grave form, as well as tombs with an urn, for example, was very frequent south of the Danube, among the lllyrians, as well as among the Old Germanic peoples. [113] It is noteworthy that the most common





funeral custom among the Dacians was also practiced extensively by several groups in other Roman provinces during the second and third centuries A.D. The provincial Roman cemetery found at Bad Reichenhall, in Bavaria, offers a good example of the composition of such burial spots: of the 307 tombs, the majority use an urn; there are also cavities without an urn, urns in stone boxes, such boxes without an urn, the burning of the bodies at the place of burial, and tombs with a recess. [114]


A total of 12 cemeteries and tombs from Roman Dacia attributed to a Dacian population have been presented in a monograph by Dumitru Protase. [115] Existing data about several sites, however, are too inadequate and can be used only to a very limited extent. Either the material was investigated long ago and the descriptions left by nineteenth century authors show considerable deficiencies, or decisive data are lacking because of insufficient investigations or because of the destruction of significant parts of the material. At Sighişoara (Segesvár, Schássburg, Mureş County) and at Sebeş (Szászsebes, Alba County) remains of tombs dated to the Roman period were discovered more than hundred years ago and the descriptions are from 1861 and 1876, respectively. They are, of course, not of the quality required today; thus, the report on the finds at Sebeş is, according to Protase, summary and not very clear, [116] lacking such important details as data about the shape of the cavities. Of importance is the fact that the cavities are said to have been burned, a funeral custom unusual among the Dacians but common south of the Danube. At Sighişoara the primitive earthenware is said to have been entirely destroyed, and it is not known whether there were any ornamentations on the fragments of vessels. An unusual circumstance was the presence in this tomb of 112 Roman coins (denarii from the first century B.C. to 157 A.D.) which—in Protase's view—is a unique occurrence in Dacia. [117] At three other sites, the observations are quite recent and no detailed investigations have yet been carried out. At Apele Vii and at Leu (Dolj County), remains of tombs, probably of the same type as those found at Locusteni, were found in 1972 and "are to be systematically investigated by archaeological excavations." [118] At Spahii (Gorj County), remains from a cemetery dating to the second century A.D. were found in 1974; they included Dacian but no Roman earthenware. More detailed archaeological excavations have not yet been made. [119] At Iacobeni (Mezőszentjakab, Cluj County), 4 kilometers from the cemetery at Soporu de Címpie (Mezőszopor, Cluj County), while clearing the soil in 1961 to plant grape vines, workers found about 15 tombs, Unfortunately, all the material was destroyed with the exception of four urns, which are of the red Roman type and of high





quality, possibly made at Cristeşti (Maroskeresztúr, Mureş County) and similar to those found at Soporu de Cîmpie, Lechinţa de Mureş (Maroslekence, Mureş County), Obreja, and other places. In an attempt to carry out systematic excavations in the same year, it was not possible to find any material at these sites; One cannot make precise conclusions about the funeral rites and rituals, the ethnic character of the people buried here, the size, and an exact date of the cemeteries. [120] At Şpălnaca (Ispánlaka, Alba County), 15 tombs were excavated in 1976 and 1979. They were in very poor condition: The urns and other vessels are, in general, of Roman origin. On the site of the cemetery, Dacian fragments were also found. [121] Obviously, under such circumstances, it is not possible to decide the relationship of the Dacian fragments to the Roman material. From the cemetery at Lechinţa de Mureş, three tombs were already known before the First World War, and further investigations in 1951 and 1957 have uncovered another five. Of these eight tombs, six were of the cremation type. The urns were of the red Roman provincial style, made of a high quality paste. The objects found there were also of the Roman provincial type; no Dacian earthenware was found in the cemetery. The assumption that in spite of this it belonged to the autochthonous population is based upon general considerations, such as similarities of the details of cremation with those found at Soporu de Cîmpie and Obreja, or the vicinity of the settlement found at this village in which autochthons are assumed. They may or may not be correct. Similar general considerations or assumptions are based on the premise that the rest of these above-mentioned seven cemeteries are Dacian.


More satisfactory descriptions are extant about the cemeteries excavated at the present-day villages of Locusteni (Dolj County), Cinciş (Csolnakos, Hunedoara County), Obreja, and Soporu de Cîmpie.


Locusteni. Excavated with the settlements, from 1969 to 1975 a total of 290 graves are described, of which 215 are of the cremation type and 37 contained bodies (mostly of children) interred without cremation. Of the cremation tombs, 167 contain an urn with a cover, and 48 lack an urn, having a simple unburned cavity. As is the case at Soporu de Cîmpie, the tombs were marked by stones on the surface. The earthenware found here is, like that in the nearby settlement, of both the Roman and the primitive, hand-made Dacian types. Objects are quite scarce and include fibulae of the Roman type, small Roman vessels, and silver filigree jewelry. The cemetery of Locusteni is dated to the second half of the second century A.D. and the first half of the third century. [122]


Cinciş (Csolnakos, Hunedoara County). Excavated in 1961 and 1962, it was also described in Protase's monograph 1966. Seventeen cremation





tombs and one inhumation were found here, the last with a sarcophagus made of Roman bricks. Remains of a villa rustica were found 200 meters from this cemetery. Four of the graves are places in a mausoleum with walls of stone and mortar. These four graves are richer in objects than those placed outside and are thought to have belonged to the Roman owners of the villa rustica, while eight tombs outside this construction, poorer in objects, could be attributed to the autochthonous Dacian element. [123] Primitive Dacian earthenware was found in nine tombs, all outside of the mausoleum. The tombs were of the Roman provincial type, with a burned cavity, and usually built in an east-west direction. Most of them were covered by a small hillock of earth and surrounded by a stone-ring of three to six meters in diameter. A big stone was often placed above the cavity. The objects found in this cemetery were all of the Roman provincial type: rushlights, pearls, grey vessels, four coins, four fibulae, and knives. The fragments of primitive pottery were either without ornamentation or were ornamented by alveolated or striated bands. The fibulae and the rushlights date this cemetery to the period of Roman domination.


Obreja (Obrázsa, Alba County). Most of the material in this rather big cemetery is also of Roman style. The tombs are predominantly of the cremation type (236), and in about half of the cases an urn was used. Most of the cavities are round or slightly oval, Of 165 urns of the Roman provincial type, 38 are red, of superior quality; 7 are blackish-grey, also of superior quality, while 120 are of rough Roman earthenware. Primitive hand-made earthenware was found in a much lesser quantity. Because of the coarse paste and the poor firing, these pieces are difficult to reconstruct; and their shapes cannot always be determined. [124] They are ornamented by incised belts, buttons, ornamentation used by the Dacians in the pre-Roman times but much simplified. A total of 12 such pieces, or 7.3% of all earthenware in this cemetery, were found. The Dacian cup does not appear here. An interesting and unique phenomenon is an urn of the Roman provincial type, decorated by an incised belt in the Dacian manner. Two bronze coins from the second century a.d. were found in these tombs, apparently used as oboli of Charon according to the ancient Graeco-Roman custom, and one lachrimatory (lacrimarium), presumably another indication of Roman funeral customs. These phenomena can be explained either by admitting that in the Dacian community which lived at this site, Roman colonists were also living or that the local Dacians had adopted some funeral customs from the provincial Roman types. [125]


Many of the archaeological findings of Obreja must be attributed to the Carps, such as the Carpic fibulae, the silver jewelry, and the





types of ceramics and fibulae's form, which are the same or similar to those found in Soporu de Cîmpie. [126]


Soporu de Cîmpie (Mezőszopor, Cluj County). [127] Excavated in 1955 and 1961, this is one of the largest of the cemeteries attributed by most Romanian historians to the Dacians in Roman Dacia. Out of a total of 189 tombs, 168 (89%) are of the cremation type and 21 (11%) of the inhumation type. Most of the graves contain an urn, in 136 cases placed in an usual cavity, in 3 cases in a stone box, and in another 2 cases covered by a platform of tombstones. A lesser number (27) are tombs without an urn, consisting of a simple cavity, round or oval, and small; some of these too are covered by a platform of gravestones. In all cases, the burning of the body was carried out in a place different from that of the burial. Among the Roman urns, there are high quality red ones made on a potter's wheel; grey-brownish urns of inferior quality; and hand-made, blackish-grey urns of rough paste, with Dacian ornaments. In three cases, the urn was covered by a Dacian cup. The 21 inhumation graves contain mostly the remains of bones of children below seven years of age. At least six of these contained Roman provincial pottery, while Dacian vessels (shards) were found in only one.


Earthenware was found in 167 tombs. Out of these, fragments or entire vessels of both Roman and Dacian type were found in 45, [128] or 27% of all tombs in which earthenware was found. In another 17 tombs, only pottery of the Dacian type was found. Of all earthenware pieces in the cemetery, 90% are of the Roman provincial type, and the rest are considered Dacian. The objects are ail of Roman provincial origin. The fibulae are of four different types, all of which were used in several other Roman provinces too.


There are few available data that can be used to establish the age of the remains in Soporu de Cîmpie. The earliest objects from this cemetery are two fibulae with nodules on their arch and coins from the time of Trajan through that of the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138—161 A.D.) [129] The fibulae were in use during the first century and the first half of the second century A.D. in Germania, Pannonia, north of the Black Sea, and, for example, in the Lipitza culture. They are not present in the Carpic sites, since these were settled after this type of fibula had disappeared from use. These objects date the beginning of the cemetery to the mid-second century. Of those 14 fibulae that can be dated, 11 are from the third and only 3 from the second century A.D. [130] Materials whose age could be determined with some accuracy, such as coins, fibulae, pendants, and some other jewelry, were found in 25 of the 95 tombs that contained objects. Of these 25 tombs, 9 contained objects dating to the second and 16





to the third century. It seems that more burials took place in the third than in the second century, but the number of tombs from which conclusions can be drawn is too low (about a fourth of the tombs that contained some objects and only 13% of all tombs in the cemetery) for reliable conclusions. Of the 62 tombs with Dacian pottery, only 13 contained material that could be dated; in 6 of these, the objects indicate the second and in 7, the third century. [131] One must conclude that the material is not sufficiently representative for reliable conclusions.


With regard to the last use of this cemetery, one can set it at the beginning of the fourth century on the basis of a pendant with rhomboid plaques, of a type that has been dated to the early fourth century. [132] This is questioned by Protase, who notes that the pendant found in tomb no. 1 is similar to some found in a settlement of potters at Zofipole, near Craiova, dated to the period between 200 and 400 A.D. [133] It should be noted that the rhomboid plaques are to be found also among the Carps.


The fibula with an inverted foot was in use from the end of the second to the fifth century A.D. in a vast territory of the Roman Empire as well as in Barbaricum. [134] The remains of four huts built over pits have been discovered in which there were ceramics and fibulae similar to those found in the cemetery of Kisszombat (Hungary).


The above-mentioned objects do not exclude nor do they prove a continued use of the cemetery at Soporu de Cîmpie after the Roman retreat from Dacia. It is not an ancient Dacian cemetery, already in use in pre-Roman Dacia, but was begun several decades after the conquest and fell into disuse most probably with the end of Roman domination. Later a Gepidic settlement appeared here.


In examining the excavations at Soporu de Cîmpie, Kurt Horedt concluded [135] that the cemetery can be divided in three parts, corresponding to three periods of time: Phase one, the northwestern part, is characterized by the predominance of Dacian vessels and a generally poor inventory; in phase 2a, urns of a greyish-brown color dominate and a Carpic silver ornament appears; and in phase 2b, Roman influence increases with the appearance of red toilet-powder, ball-formed urns, and imitations of sarcophagi (boxes of stone). Only in this phase were old coins from the second century placed into the tombs. [136] Such a division is, however, poorly corroborated by reality. There are indeed more Dacian vessels in the northwestern part of the cemetery than in the southeastern part where three stone boxes were found, and most of the coins are found in the southern part; but there is a significant overlapping in most respects. [137] Moreover, most of the inhumation tombs situated in the northwestern part





contain chiefly Roman material; only one of 21 contains fragments of Dacian vessels.


There are two different opinions among archaeologists about the people who once used this cemetery: In 1962 Kurt Horedt expressed his theory of a Carpic colonization, maintained also by Mihail Macrea, [138] while Dumitru Protase assumes they were Dacians living under Roman rule. This controversy underlines the great difficulties in arriving at reliable conclusions on the basis of the scarce historical records and the available archaeological material.


The migration of the Carps primarily encompasses the area from the rim of the eastern Carpathians to the heart of Moldavia. After the abandonment of the province of Dacia Traiana, the Carps moved into Transylvania, although in the years 245 to 247 Dacia was threatened by Carpic incursions. Carpic archaeological remnants have been found in various places in Transylvania (Ilişua-Uriu, Alsóilva-Felőr, Bistriţa County, Obreja, Sebeş, Mediaş.) and the ceramics thus found are difficult to differentiate from Dacian earthenware. [139]


About thirty hoards of coins found in Transylvania date from the time of the Carpic incursions and were obviously buried because of the attacks. [140] Most probably, the inscription made by an inhabitant of Apulum, a Carpis liberatus, [141] also refers to this event. In Horedt's view, [142] Carps taken as prisoners of war in those years were settled at several places in Transylvania, in the vicinity of military centers: at Soporu de Cîmpie, 20 kilometers from Potaissa, where a Roman legion was stationed; at Obreja, near Apulum at Fărcaşele, Locusteni; and Reşca, near to the military center of Dacia Malvensis-Romula (in present-day Oltenia). This hypothesis is mainly based upon the finds of several objects considered specific to the Carps; these include a piece of granulated, filigree-ornamented silver jewelry of which about 100 pieces were found in Moldavia (Carpic Poieneşti culture of the mid-third century), and safety pin with a long feather-cylinder. Horedt therefore believes that the cemetery belonged to the Carps and was begun in the first half of the third century a.d. On the basis of the older coins and Dacian ceramics erroneously taken to date the cemetery, it was assumed that the use of the cemetery began in the second century and belongs to the indigenous Dacians. However, there is a chronological gap of more than one hundred years between the Roman conquest of Dacia and the beginning of the cemeteries during which the Dacians of the first group were not in any way influenced by the Romans. [143]


The settlement of free Dacians in the Roman province of Dacia must also be postulated, since there are no historical records about the relations between these tribes and the Romans. According to Dio





Cassius, Sabianus, the governor of Dacia in 180 A.D., "has also subdued 12,000 Dacians living in the vicinity [of Dacia], who have been driven away from their ancient homeland, and was ready to help the others, promising them land in our Dacia." [144] Although this record suggests a colonization of free Dacians, it offers no proof of it, since it is not known whether Sabianus kept his promise. It must be pointed out that the immigration of free Dacians from the areas northwest and west of the territory of the former province after the Roman withdrawal is well established and unquestioned. Archaeological remains show that free Dacians settled after 275 A.D. at Cipău (Maroscsapó, Mureş County), at Archiud, and most probably also at Soporu de Cîmpie.


Dumitru Protase emphasizes that the material culture of the free Dacians is not yet sufficiently known. The following finds were connected with the presence of Carps in Dacia Traiana: Grey amphorae and fruit dishes made on a wheel; pearls, earrings of silver, and filigree jewelry; small, columbine-shaped, iron pendants; mirrors of the Sarmatian type, made of white metal; certain forms of bronze fibulae, dating to the end of the second century; and similarities in the funeral customs. [145] The objects appear in relatively small numbers. Although elements more or less characteristic of the Carps have been found at 21 places in Transylvania and Oltenia, it is not certain that Carps really settled in all these sites. Especially jewelry and fibulae can easily pass from one area to another; and it cannot be excluded that such filigree jewelry and fibulae were produced in provincial Roman workshops. [146] If one accepts as the most reliable evidence of the Carps only earthenware and the find of several objects specific to them, a colonization of Carps in the mid-third century A.D in the Roman province of Dacia, is possible at Bezid (Bözöd, Harghita County), Mediaş (Medgyes, Sibiu County), Sebeş, Cristian (Kereszténysziget, Sibiu County), Mereşti (Homoródalmás, Harghita County), Şopteriu (Septér, Bistriţa County) and, possibly, Govora-Sat. [147]


The problem has not been concluded, but the settlement of free Dacians and Carps in Dacia after the Roman retreat can be considered as proved; their settlement at several places already in the mid-third century is likely. An even earlier colonization of Carps is not documented but is not entirely to be excluded. In any case, it is unlikely that the inhabitants of Obreja or Locusteni or those buried at Soporu de Cîmpie would have been exclusively Carps or free Dacians coming in the second half of the second century.


The presence of the primitive Dacian-type earthenware in the settlement and cemeteries and the practice of cremation are practically the only solid evidence for the existence of Dacians at these sites. The amount of this type of earthenware is, however, very low (10%





of all earthenware in the sites), the majority being Roman provincial, it is not known whether the primitive earthenware was produced in the province or not; it is, in any case, practically identical to that found among the free Dacians in the same period. The Roman provincial earthenware is present from the beginning at all these sites, and no changes related to time were indicated in this respect.


Already these circumstances raise the question of whether the earthenware and the practice of cremation are really as significant as has been assumed. At some places, there are practices that would be unusual for the Dacians. At Sighişoara, for example, a large number of coins were found in the cemetery, something that is not encountered in the rest of the cemeteries. In connection with the discovery of coins, however, it must be noted that in order to make a case for Roman continuity, coins of the fourth century were deceptively included in the excavations. At Sighişoara contemporary excavations have revealed seven different phases of settlements ranging from the third to the eighth or ninth centuries. The remains indicate not only a Germanic population (pitchers with spouts) but also an as yet deliberately unnamed population group.


At Cinciş and Sebeş, the cavities were burned, contrary to Dacian custom (the Romans used predominantly inhumation). These burned cavities appear from the beginning of the cemeteries insofar as this can be determined. This would sooner suggest a group of people that had the funeral custom in question at the time they colonized the sites rather than Dacians adopting a non-Dacian funeral custom.


A difficult problem for the theory about significant numbers of Dacians in Dacia Traiana is the absence of any evidence of the old Dacian gods. In Italia, Hispania, Gallia, Germania, and Britannia, for example, strong evidence exists to indicate that under the Romans, the indigenous gods were worshipped for a long period of time under different forms and under their earlier names. [148]


All these facts taken together suggest a non-Dacian population. Dacia was populated "from the whole Roman world" (Eutropius), and this statement is corroborated by the inscriptions, the indications of many different religions. There were Thracians, Illyrians, Greeks, Orientals, and others. On the other hand, very few people came to Dacia from Italy. It is noteworthy that until the mid-1970s, the peoples that left the remains of settlements and cemeteries at Caşolţ (Hermány, Sibiu County), Calbor (Kálbor, Braşov County), and Ighiu (Magyarigen, Alba County) were considered by Romanian archaeologists to be autochthonous ("Daco-Roman"). [149] This interpretation, however, was changed a few years later. The character of the barrow graves in question was no longer demonstrable as Dacian; instead it could be





attributed to colonists from Pannonia, Noricum, and Illyria (Dalmatia). [150] It can be assumed that after the fourth century vestiges of Dacians are no more ascertainable. The risk exists, moreover, that cemeteries or settlements, in which the archaeological material known today is not as specific, have not been correctly attributed but have been erroneously assigned to the Dacians.


It is also possible that the material at the sites in question is insufficient to determine the real origin of the inhabitants; obviously the Dacian hypothesis is not by far the only possibility and, in fact, not even the most likely. It has been admitted that the material remains of Roman culture could have been left by Roman colonists, [150a] in which case, the assumption of Dacians living there is not necessary.


If one accepts the reasoning that the Dacians living in Roman Dacia adopted Roman culture and then the Latin language and had been Romanized by the time the Romans left the province around 275 A.D., Dacian elements among the remains of such a population would decrease successively and be replaced by Roman material. [151] As it appears from the description of the cemeteries there are no signs to indicate such gradual changes. It is, however, even more important to investigate whether the non-Roman population at Soporu de Cîmpie and at the other places where Dacians are assumed to have been living in Roman Dacia adopted Roman culture as a whole, in an organic way, which could indicate the emergence of a new, specific culture in which both the ancient Dacian and the new Roman elements are combined.


Relating to the adoption of funeral rites, there are, of course, major problems with regard to the assumed Romanized population and those of the non-Roman population in Dacia Traiana. In the cemetery at Soporu de Cîmpie five Roman coins from the period from 112 to 182 A.D. were found (two of them in urns) and probably were placed in the tombs for payment of the oboli of Charon, an ancient Graeco-Roman custom. It is assumed that the people living here had adopted this custom in the second century A.D. from the Roman colonists. From the whole territory of Dacia Traiana, about 20 such cases are known, which would be a consequence of the Graeco-Roman cultural-religious influence. [152] This "cultural-religious influence" is seen, however, also among peoples who did not adopt the Latin language, for example, in eastern Prussia, east of the Passarge River [153] and, in fact, also among the Carps in Moldavia. [154] The latest date of the coins found in the cemetery at Soporu de Cîmpie is 182 A.D, and it is assumed that they "date burials made in the second century A.D." [155] They were extremely worn, however, and could have been placed in the tombs much later than their date of issue. Still, if this were a





general adoption of a Roman funeral custom by Dacians living in the province, it is very peculiar that not a single coin from the third century was put into the tombs, in spite of the considerable number of Roman coins circulating in the province in the first half of that century. Moreover, the low number (five in a total of 189 tombs) of oboli of Charon far from indicates a generally adopted or widespread custom.


Although frequent in the Roman world, burned cavities in the form of a trough did not belong to the funeral customs of the Dacians in the pre-Roman era. [156] Such tombs were not found at Soporu de Cîmpie but exist at two sites in Transylvania: at Cinciş and at Sebeş. This is said to prove that the Dacians adopted this custom from the Roman colonists and used it in the interior of the province. [157] At Cinciş, this may have happened in 8 tombs and at Sebeş, in several tombs, described quite deficiently in 1876. Besides the low number of such finds, the fact that all tombs at these two places have a burned cavity while no such tombs exist in other cemeteries attributed to Dacians fits badly with a progressive adoption of funeral customs.



Roman Influence on Primitive (Dacian) Earthenware


At Soporu de Cîmpie, two urns were found that could be Dacian imitations of Roman earthenware forms: in tomb no. 89 fragments were found of a Dacian urn made by hand of a blackish paste and poorly fired. [158] The urn in tomb no. 185 was improvised from the lower part of a Dacian pot of brick-red and beige color, made on a wheel of crude paste, and without ornamentation, which could be as also the case of the urn from tomb no. 89, an imitation of an urn of Roman shape by Dacian village potters, but this time made on a wheel. [159] Two vessels can be mentioned in this context at Şarba-Stempen: The shape of a vessel decorated by Dacian ornamentation (bands in relief) and the rim of another Dacian vessel imitate Roman forms. Shards of these vessels were found among other fragments in a hut dated to the third century A.D. [160]


The only reference to a possible increase of Roman provincial material is from Şura Mică, but without any more detailed data. [161] These and a few similar examples suggest, at most, single imitations of the Roman earthenware, very frequently found in most European countries in the period in question. [162]


Adoption of Dacian forms in the provincial Roman pottery made in Roman Dacia is assumed but not demonstrated. In other provinces, for example, in the Balkan Peninsula and along the Rhine River, the influence of local earthenware upon the Roman provincial forms can be proved extensively. [163]





The Roman influence upon the primitive, probably Dacian, earthenware found at a number of sites from the time of the province is thus insignificant. The Dacian earthenware shows only small changes in the period in question, is quite uniform and preserves generally, within and outside the province, its traditions from the local Laténe period, [164] from which it developed; [165] and insofar as there were changes, they consisted of a decrease in the number of shapes and the simplification of ornamentation. The primitive Dacian earthenware, made crudely by hand, lacking any counterpart in the Roman provincial earthenware, persisted in the rural areas of the province throughout the time of Roman domination. [166] A consequence of the persistence of the traditional forms is the similarity of the Dacian earthenware throughout all the Roman period. It is not possible to decide, on the basis of the earthenware's characteristics, whether it is from the second or third century. [167] If the people who used this kind of earthenware in the province were colonists from another Roman province, all this is of little significance. If they were Dacians, however, the earthenware used throughout the Roman domination hardly fits with the hypothesis of their Romanization. The replacement of their own, ancient culture, including their native tongue, by that of the Romans would obviously imply an enormous change. It is difficult to imagine that it would have left their earthenware affected to such a small degree that the differences are insignificant when compared with the earthenware of the free Dacians and that it is not possible to demonstrate a clear difference between early (second century) and later (third century) forms.



The Inscriptions of the Roman Period in Trajan's Dacia


After a closer analysis of the archaeological complex in the former Roman province, it should be noted that the preserved inscriptions speak more against than for a rapid assimilation of the Dacians. The approximately 3,000 inscriptions from Trajan's Dacia are remarkable for the short period of Roman domination but are less so for two territories that were subject to a more extended occupation by the Romans and for which territories a better case for intensive Romanization can be made: About 7,500 inscriptions were found in Dalmatia and 3.500 in Pannonia Superior. [168] However, less than 3% of the personal names found on the inscriptions in Trajan's Dacia are Dacian (or Thraco-Dacian), some of which belonged to colonists from the Balkan Thracian language area. [169]


The closer the Roman border, the larger is the number of





inscriptions; the largest number is to be found in the Dobrudja (more than two hundred) and, after that, in Oltenia and in the Banat. The fewest are encountered in Transylvania [170] and then in the western part where the earlier Roman settlements occurred, in eastern Transylvania, in the marginally Romanized areas, only some 100 to 150 inscriptions are to be found.





There are no written records about the conquest of Dacia. [171] The withdrawal of Aurelianus's legions is also difficult to date precisely. It could have occurred in 268 A.D. but also as late as 275 A.D. [172] Whether part of the population of Dacia Traiana remained in place after the Roman retreat has been a much debated question. Eutropius's statement that Emperor Aurelian removed the Roman population from Dacia Traiana [173] and settled them south of the Danube [174] may or may not be true. There is not much point in continuing this debate, however, because we are now able to analyse archaeological material (remains of settlements and tombs, earthenware, coins, and so forth) advanced in support of the hypothesis of a Roman or Romanized population in Transylvania in the fourth century. The material remains of non-Roman peoples in Transylvania in the centuries after the Roman retreat have been known long, but new data about them have been discovered in recent decades. The problems could be formulated as follows: 1. how reliable are the arguments in favor of the Roman character of a part of the population; and 2. assuming that Romans were living there in the fourth century, what was their situation, their share of the total population; and 3. what influence from the non-Romans could reasonably be expected to be found under the given circumstances?


The material remains dated to the fourth century in Transylvania (the greater part of which was a significant share of Dacia Traiana) were recently described by Kurt Horedt, [175] who distinguishes three principal areas: 1. the western part of Transylvania, the area of the former Roman towns of Sarmizegethusa, Apulum, Potaissa, Napoca, and Porolissum, characterized by Roman finds, and a western group of rural settlements in which a "Daco-Roman" population is assumed to have been living; 2. the Sîntana de Mureş (Marosszentanna) culture in the Transylvanian Basin (Mezőség, Cîmpia Transilvaniei) and the adjacent areas (north-central Transylvania), which can be identified with the western Goths' settlements, and 3. the people of Sfîntu Gheorghe (Sepsiszentgyörgy) in eastern Transylvania with a Dacian, Roman, and Germanic (Gothic) mixed culture. To these must be added





groups of free (non-Romanized) Dacians who migrated to the former province during the second half of the third century. The boundaries between these areas are not clear-cut, and there is a considerable overlapping among them.



The Former Roman Towns


The third quarter of the third century marked the twilight of Roman life in Transylvania, and certain phenomena characteristic of the period of the peoples' migrations now come into evidence. Following the abandonment of the province of Dacia, Roman urban life shows a picture of a total extinction. No Roman town names survived in Transylvania in contrast to Noricum Mediterraneum (contemporary Slovenia), for example. This argues against Roman continuity in Transylvania. Although a few towns are located on Roman foundations, it is not possible to ascertain a continuing existence of the population; an ethnic gap exists. [176] The ancient name of Porolissum, for example, was changed in the early Middle Ages to the Slavic Moigrad. Objects such as gems, earthenware, lamps, fibulae, and coins are imported goods of the late Roman period. Remains of buildings and other signs of construction the former Roman towns in Transylvania in the post-Roman period are very few and mostly tombs, of which a total of 90 are described by Horedt; all show the rite of inhumation. [177] They were made of bricks (70%) or stone (29%), and there is one made simply in the earth. The stone sarcophagi were constructed mostly of reused pieces, and it is questionable whether new sarcophagi were constructed after the Roman retreat. [178]


An essential but quite difficult problem is a reliable estimate of the period in which the different tombs were built. In several cases, such as the tombs found in the former Roman baths (thermae) in Apulum, the situation in the former town gives an indication. Objects found in the tombs could also be helpful, such as coins, bracelets, fibulae, and so forth, while the form of the tomb is less relevant. A layer of chalk in the bottom is considered an early Christian custom; it is found in 12 tombs from 4 towns. A short review of the situation in the former Roman towns in Transylvania—Sarmizegethusa, Apulum, Potaissa, Napoca, and Porolissum—will be given here, mainly on the basis of Horedt's monograph from 1982.


At Sarmizegethusa, near to the territory of the former Roman capital of the province of Dacia Traiana, simple fireplaces, a canal, and a wall (the last to be mentioned in the Aedes Augustalium) [179] were constructed, showing that the area was also inhabited after the Roman retreat by a poor and numerically very much reduced





population. [180] The amphitheater was blocked by gravel, which is thought to indicate that it had been used for defense. On the basis of a hoard of Roman coins that end in the reign of Emperor Valentinian I (364-375) or of Emperor Valens, it is considered that all this was done during the second half of the fourth century. A total of eight isolated Roman coins from the time after 275 A.D. have been found in the territory of former Sarmizegethusa; in addition, a hoard with reportedly 69 coins was also described from the area. There are three tombs that probably date from the fourth century A.D.; all are made of bricks. One, discovered near the amphitheater in 1935, is in an east-west direction and has a thick layer of chalk on the bottom. A glazed-bronze vessel with a handle indicates its late construction. Another tomb was found in the area of the cemetery and the third one on the grounds of a suburban villa 150 meters from the walls of the town. Eleven rushlights found in the territory of Sarmizegethusa were dated to the third century or the beginning of the fourth. [181] It might be added here that after the fourth century no archaeological findings are ascertainable for the two following centuries; only a seventh century fibula of the Sarmizegethusa type, presumably from a Slavic cremation tomb, is known. [182]


At Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) on the site of the ancient Apulum, the center of Dacia and a legionary town, southeast of the eighteenth century tower, several remains of buildings, Roman baths, and pagan churches from the Roman period were unearthed between 1899 and 1915. The excavations showed that tombs had been laid down between them in a later period. The Hungarian archaeologist, Béla Cserni, excavated 56 tombs of the inhumation funeral rite from 1902 to 1908, approximately half of which are probably late Roman with the rest belonging to the Bijelo-Brdo culture. Two tombs can be dated more reliably to the fourth century by coins, another two by their contents of late Roman bracelets; and a fifth, made of bricks and attached to the wall of the Roman building unearthed here, is also considered late Roman. [183] In 1970 and 1971 some tombs that are probably late Roman were discovered at a place called Podei, in the Roman cemetery of Apulum. They were made of bricks and oriented roughly in a west-east or northwest-southeast direction. Stone monuments were reused in the construction of two of them, and three others had a layer of chalk on their bottom. [184] A rushlight found in the baths shows a cross on its bottom [185] and belongs to the objects of a Christian character from the fourth century. A total of 14 probably late [186] rushlights were found in this town, of which two have a Christian cross. A total of 45 isolated coins from the period of Diocletian to that of Gratianus were found here.





No remains of habitation from the fourth century were found in the area of the former Roman town of Potaissa (present-day Turda, Torda), one of the chief military stations of the Roman army in Dacia Traiana. Only coins from the fourth century, 15 with the place of discovery known and another 19 without (but reportedly "found in Turda") suggest that the area was inhabited in the fourth century.


Here, as in Sarmizegethusa and Apulum, the main finds are tombs. South of the Arieş (Aranyos) River, a large area of cemeteries is found. Some of the tombs here are consdiered to be late Roman. Of those discovered in 1894 and 1895, two were laid southwest by northeast, the bottom of another was covered by a thick layer of chalk, and a third had a flat cover. [187] From 1951 to 1957 several tombs were discovered between Valea Sîndului and the Arieş, on a hill named Şuia. Four of them, constructed of bricks, were oriented from west to east or southwest to northeast. Two of them were empty, and one was trapezoidal in shape. [188] A tomb discovered in 1964 on the northern shore of the Arieş was constructed of bricks, contained a silver onion-button fibula, and could be dated to 300 A.D. at the earliest. [189] In 1937 the stone sarcophagus of a child was found among other tombs east of the site of the former Roman garrison. It was made of a reused piece. Another sarcophagus of a child was trapezoidal. In 1969 5 tombs were discovered 150 meters from this site. One of them, oriented east by northeast to west by southwest and built in the shape of a trapezoid, contained bits of chalk at the head and feet of the body. In another, a silver fibula of the onion-button type, dated to the mid-third century, and a coin from the era of Emperor Commodus (180-192 A.D.) were found. A gem with the picture of the "Good Shepherd" and with the Christian inscription IXOYC was found "in Turda," but the exact spot of the find is not known; it belongs to the objects of Christian character from the fourth century.


In the area of the former capital of Dacia Porolissensis, Napoca (present-day Cluj, Kolozsvár), no traces of buildings made after the Roman domination have been found; only tombs can probably dated to the beginning of the fourth century. A three-meter thick stratum of debris between the Roman town and the present ground level may contribute to the lack of such finds. On the territory of the former town of Napoca, a hoard containing seven coins from the time immediately after the Roman retreat was found. Around the city, for example, in present-day Mănăştur (Kolozsmonostor), a total of 26 isolated coins have been reported, most of them during the last decade.


Around 1885 three sarcophagi made of reused tombstones were discovered on the present-day Ştefan cel Mare (formerly Hunyadi)





Square, somewhat to te northeast of Petőfi Street, where three sarcophagi were found in 1914. In one of these, there were two late Roman earrings. On the same site in 1927 a sarcophagus worked from an antique memorial-stone (cippus), dated somewhere from the second through the third century A.D., reused and excavated to serve as a box of a pagan sarcophagus, was discovered. Christian symbols were added to the inscription; the tomb also contained four needles. A fourth tomb was a sarcophagus made of brick, and from the same site there is also a stone sarcophagus with a cover made of an Aedicula wall. [190] Not far from this site, in Kogălniceanu (Farkas) Street, a stone sarcophagus covered by a reused Aedicula Wall was discovered, in 1974. Southeast of Roman Napoca, in Plugarilor Street, five tombs were found in 1933 and another 32 between 1972 and 1976. Of these, 28 were oriented in a west-east direction, and some of them had a layer of chalk on the bottom. There were nine stone sarcophagi and 22 tombs constructed of brick. Older monuments were reused in at least six cases. No objects were found in these tombs, because all had been plundered. [191]


Finds dating to the fourth century are scarce in the area of Moigrad (Mojgrád, antique Porolissum), near Zalău (Zilah). As is the case with the other former Roman towns, no later settlement was built here, nor have thorough excavations been done here. [192] The remains of a Benedictine monastery from the twelfth century, also mentioned in documents, were excavated in 1914. Near this building, 17 tombs (6 sarcophagi, 11 without sarcophagi) laid down later, were found, of which six were made of brick. Several Romanian archaeologists have considered these tombs to be remains of "Daco-Romans". [193] Also the  Romanian archaeologist Dumitru Protase considered that, on basis of the brick construction, these tombs can be dated to the post-Roman period. [194] Horedt rejects this interpretation and considers that these tombs were medieval. [195]


The Roman coins found at Moigrad (Porolissum) dated from the time of Emperor Constantine the Great to that of Valens. A number of objects of Christian character from several centuries were also found here; from the fourth century there is the bottom of a dish with a Chrismon (signs of Christian letters) and a votive inscription engraved on its inner side, "Ego . . . vius vot(um) p (osui)," as well as a tree and a pigeon. (As shown by István Bona, Erdély története, Budapest, 1986, vol. I, p. 564, this is most probably a forgery.) Another find from Moigrad is considered possibly of Christian origin: a fragment of a clay vessel, on which the formula Utere Felix was engraved. [195a] The inscription Utere Felix can be traced back to the last years of the province of Dacia Traiana (Horedt). Following the abandonment of the province, inscriptions were no longer used.





Cemeteries in Rural Areas


No significant continuity from the Roman epoch and after in the cemeteries found in Transylvania can be demonstrated. Even those nine cemeteries attributed by Horedt (1982, p. 96) to "Daco-Romans" were founded after 275 A.D. Moreover, while inhumation is the only funeral rite known to have been practiced in the former Roman towns, the cemeteries in rural areas show inhumation and cremation in approximately the same proportion. There is no geographical correlation either: in Suatu (Magyarszovát, Cluj County), not far from Napoca, we find inhumation; but in the two cemeteries nearest to former Roman towns (Baciu/Bács, near Napoca and Soporu de Cîmpie near Potaissa), cremation was practiced. The funeral rites are, however, of very great significance in the study of ethnic characteristics; and nine cemeteries are not, with regard to the general scarcity of finds, too low a number. In any case, the cemeteries attributed to a Roman population in Transylvania during the fourth century A.D. do not strengthen the argument for a western Roman area in Transylvania.



The Western Group of Settlements


Horedt assumed in 1982 sixteen settlements in western Transylvania to have been inhabited by a Roman population. Only one of these (near lernut) continued from the Roman epoch, all the others were founded after the Roman state abandoned the province. This lack of continuity calls for even greater evidence that the population in these newly founded villages were Romans. It is therefore necessary to scrutinize these criteria. Many different ideas have been advanced: Horedt's hypothesis in his monograph from 1982 is only one of them.


Roman coins and fibulae with an inverted foot, found in the western settlements, also appear in the eastern settlements of Transylvania, which are attributed to a non-Roman population (see below). [196] Horedt argues, however, that in the western settlements, there are two kinds of late Roman finds that appear only there: onion-shaped fibulae and twin-rowed combs. These became more general in the following centuries in the row-graves but also existed in the Roman period. An analysis of the lists of finds in Horedt's monograph shows, however, that the fibulae are found in only two sites, at Obreja and documented indirectly by a find from a tomb at Tîrnăvioara (Kisekemező, Alba County). They are, moreover, not exclusive in the group called "western" but also appear at two sites in the southeastern corner of Transylvania: Two were found at Comolău (Komolló, Covasna County), a settlement attributed to the eastern group, and one somewhat to the south of this site, at Hălmeag (Halmágy, Braşov County). [197] Twin-rowed combs were found at three sites: Aiud-Rădeşu (Szászújfalu, Alba County), Cluj-Mănăştur, and Ţaga (Cege, Cluj County). [198] The basis of classification is therefore inadequate, with





only five of the sixteen settlements in this group showing the distinguishing features and then not even exclusively.


Earthenware, one of the most reliable indicators of differences between populations, cannot be used to distinguish a possible Roman from a non-Roman population in Transylvania. To be able to analyze the pottery in the post-Roman period, it would be necessary to have a good knowledge of the earthenware from the time of the province as well as in the period immediately following the abandonment of the province, especially with regard to possible Dacian and Roman elements. Such knowledge is not, however, extant. [199] The progressive barbarization of the earthenware, parallel to the general decline of Roman culture and civilization in Dacia Traiana as early as the mid-third century, has been noted earlier. [200] It will probably never be possible to establish the features of post-Roman pottery in Transylvania and to distinguish it from that produced during the Roman period. [201] The continued production of Roman earthenware in the post-Roman period is questionable; it "may, in any case, be assumed." [202] The grey earthenware, which contains sand and was also available earlier, increased and eventually replaced the red pottery. [203] At the same time, the grey earthenware changed, becoming better fired and getting a glazed surface. This phenomenon was not, however, restricted to the territory of former Dacia Traiana but can be observed over a much larger area, such as in the valley of the Tisza River among the Sarmatians and in the Černjachov culture to the east. [204]


A total of 27 rushlights were found in Transylvania, but it is uncertain whether they are from the time of the province or later. They were found predominantly in the territories of the former Roman towns, one of them in Mercheaşa (Mirkvásár, Braşov County), near Braşov. Since no molds have been found in Transylvania, they must have been imported from the empire. It has been assumed that they were produced in the fourth century, but their forms and motifs of decoration do not contain decisive characteristics that would indicate their production in the period after Aurelian. [205]


Finds of a Christian character are cited to strengthen the assumed Roman features of the former towns in the fourth century, and bronze coins found in Transylvania are considered to be connected with a Roman population. [206] These finds will be analyzed separately. The silver and gold coins belonged predominantly to the Goths and, later, to other populations; these people used bronze coins as well, as is clearly shown by the fact that the area in which bronze coins were found in Transylvania is not restricted to the western, assumed Roman, settlements and towns but covers practically the whole province. [207] The use of such coins in Transylvania by the Goths and by the





people of the so-called Sfîntu Gheorghe culture invalidate the assumption that bronze coins must be connected with a Roman population.



Non-Roman Settlements and Tombs in Transylvania from the Mid-Third to End of the Fourth Century

The So-called Sfîntu Gheorghe (Eastern) Group of Settlements


In the valleys of the upper Oit and the Rîul Negru (Feketeügy) rivers, in a well-defined area in southeastern Transylvania, a special culture is found. [208] Because the first finds of this kind of culture were made between 1882 and 1891 at Sepsiszentgyörgy (Sfîntu Gheorghe), these settlements are called today the Sfîntu Gheorghe group. There are about 22 settlements of this kind; and the cemetery no. 1 at Bratei most probably also belongs to this culture. It is characterized by Dacian, Carpic, Roman, and Gothic remains. The Dacian influence manifests itself in simple forms of hand-made pottery, somewhat similar to that produced by the Dacians in pre-Roman times, and the hand-made, handless conic cup with a dotted circle on the lower rim characteristic of the Sfîntu Gheorghe culture. Red earthenware made on a wheel shows Roman influence, and the grey pieces made on a wheel include forms that could also be derived from Roman forms. [209] The ruffle-finished vessel very frequent in the Roman military settlements at the time of Roman rule is found in most of the settlements of the Sfîntu Gheorghe culture.


An interesting phenomenon in eastern Transylvania, which cannot be overlooked, is the early appearance of the Černjachov culture. As mentioned previously, Roman influence was strongest in western Transylvania, while in eastern Transylvania Romanization was very weak if not altogether absent. Rather a Dacian substratum is to be recognized here. After the gradual disappearance of Dacian elements, however, the components of the Černjachov culture made a very early appearance. As previously stated, after the fourth century the Dacian element is no longer archaeologicaily ascertainable. Excavations made at Sfîntu Gheorghe, Reci (Réty), Cernatul (Csemáton, Covasna County), and Bezid brought forth several objects characteristic of the Černjachov culture. The later phase of this culture in Transylvania was designated by the name Sîntana de Mureş. Both cultures, that of Sfîntu Gheorghe as well as the Černjachov culture, are characterized by the shiny grey pottery, the decoration by surface-glazing, and the large number of dishes. Some forms, such as cans with a withdrawn opening and the can from Tîrgu Secuiesc (Kézdivásárhely), described by the Romanian archaeologist Vasile Pârvan in 1926, [210] originate directly from the





Černjachov culture. The single-rowed combs with a special worked middle handle appear in the Černjachov culture but not among the remains of the Dacians or the Carps. Because of the many elements from the Sîntana de Mureş culture, these 22 settlements in the southeast have been thought to belong to that culture. They show, however, a pronounced Dacian influence; and their funeral rite was cremation, while the Sîntana de Mureş people predominantly used inhumation. [211] Whether the differences really are decisive is difficult to tell.



The Cemetery from the Fourth and Fifth Centuries A.D. at Bratei


Since 1959, at Bratei (Baráthely, Sibiu County), on the shore of the Tîrnava Mare (Nagyküküllő) River, several settlements and cemeteries have been excavated, which cover a time span from the third and second centuries B.C. (Celtic tombs) to the thirteenth century A.D. (Pecheneg settlements). The excavations reveal elements characteristic of different peoples, among which one may distinguish Romans, Germanic tribes, Slavs, Avars, and medieval inhabitants of Transylvania. A significant part of the cemetery was destroyed for a sand-pit before it could be studied (Ligia Bârzu, 1973, p. 9). A severe shortcoming of the description of this cemetery is that it does not indicate in which tomb each of the objects was found; therefore, a horizontal-stratigraphic investigation is not possible (Horedt, 1982, pp. 97-98).


A total of 348 tombs have been excavated, with all showing cremation. Most of them are quite shallow, 1.2 to 1.5 meters long, and 40 to 60 centimeters wide. The majority of the tombs (270, or 77.5%) show a red color on the bottom and sides, the effect of fire. This effect of fire and the oval shape of the tombs is explained by the burning of the body over the pit. Similar circumstances are known from several areas in modern times (New Guinea, japan.), where this type of cremation is practiced. The signs of fire have no ethnic significance as had been believed earlier. [212]


The vessels found in the cemetery are of four different kinds. There is hand-made earthenware of the Dacian type in almost every tomb. It is characterized by pots with carved margins. There are three conical dishes with handles, without a row of spots. The third kind of the earthenware, fired red with a ruffle-finish is found in almost every tomb. There are seven glass fragments from vessels probably imported from Pannonia or from the region along the lower Danube. There are also amphora, which are found in the Carpic tombs in Moldavia. Another kind of earthenware (six vessels) is fine, grey, with





surface-glazed ornamentation. These, as well as the large number of dishes and probably also the cans with the trefoil-leaf opening, are characteristic of the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture. The rest of the objects found in cemetery no. 1 at Bratei also include many pieces that belong to the Sîntana de Mureş culture, [213] including different kinds of glass cups. Three bone combs with a single-row and rounded handles were found here.


All this is very similar to the situation in the Sfîntu Gheorghe culture. When considering the differences, one should be aware of the fact that the comparison is made between objects placed in tombs (Bratei) and those found among the remains of settlements (Sfîntu Gheorghe). [214] This could explain the more frequent appearance of amphoras at Bratei (the custom could have been to place them in tombs), in spite of the many analogies with the Sîntana de Mureş culture, Horedt does not believe that the cemetery at Bratei belonged to this culture, the decisive difference being cremation at Bratei, while the Goths in Transylvania used inhumation (with the exception of those at Lechinţa de Mureş). It seems impossible today to determine whether this view is correct, but it is clear that the Roman influence in this cemetery is not more pronounced than may be expected in that period in Southeastern Europe and, in any case, is only one of several influences.


The archaeological complex of the Bratei cemetery is designated as the Bratei culture by Romanian archaeologists, even though one cannot speak of an independent culture in this instance. Rather, it is a fabrication based on hypotheses by several contemporary Romanian archaeologists influenced primarily by Ion Nestor and Eugenia Zaharia. [215] In 1973 both archaeologists proposed that the Bratei culture be called "Roman" (cultura romanică). Suzana Dolinescu-Ferche used the same designation for the remains found at Dulceanca in 1974.


One of the cemeteries, designated no. 1, from the second half of the fourth and the early fifth centuries, has been called "Daco-Roman" by the Romanian archaeologist Ligia Bârzu. The author of the most exhaustive monograph on this cemetery [216] defends this hypothesis, but the arguments advanced for this theory are not convincing. [217] Such reasoning is common in many writings defending the theory of a Romanic population in post-Roman Dacia Traiana: A single letter on a piece of earthenware, for example, is called a "linguistic document." Another argument in favor of Romanization is the mere fact that the funeral rites found in this cemetery were not typically Dacian. From the presentation given in the monograph mentioned above, it is clear that these customs were not typically Roman either. [218]





There are also Romanian archaeologists who do not believe in the "Daco-Roman" character of the Bratei people. According to Gheorghe Diaconii, for example, the funeral rites at Bratei cannot be attributed to the autochthonous component in Transylvania, [219] and the majority of the material finds there have analogues in the Sîntana de Mureş culture. Kurt Horedt believes that the cemetery in question was left by the representatives of the Sfîntu Gheorghe culture, who wandered to the site along the Tîrnava Mare River from southeastern Transylvania. [219a]


In summary, it can be concluded that the cemetery of Bratei reveals, in the first place, elements of the period of the peoples' migration and is an example of a continuity of settlement and is, at the same time, illustrative of ethnic discontinuity in Transylvania. The archaeological findings do not reveal a new, specific culture that was the product of Roman and Dacian components. In the fifth century Roman cultural influence is quite weak and diminishes further. Artifacts of a Romanic population are claimed to exist in Germanic row-tombs as is the case in Western Europe; this, however, does not mean that the same assumptions also can be made with respect to Slavic cremation tombs. Written sources of the fifth to sixth centuries as well as the archaeological complex of this period attests only Germanic peoples.



The Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş Culture


The area of dissemination of the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture is bordered on the east by the steppe of the left bank of the Dnieper and on the west by the Olt River and mid-Transylvania as far as Volhynia; on the south by the Danube and the Pontic Steppes. Its chronological limits are probably between 270 and 380 A.D. - On the basis of examination of burial sites, the German archaeologist Volker Bierbrauer places the late phases of this culture in the second half of the fourth century and sees a link between it and the Eastern Germanic tribes of the fifth century. [221] Most suitable for chronological determination of the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture are the large necropolises of Gavrilowka, Kosanowo (Ukraine), Sîntana de Mureş (Marosszentanna), Tîrgşor, and Independenţa (Romania).





The earliest phases of this culture are characterized by graves laid from north to south (Târgşor, Kosanowo) while in later phases most graves are already laid from west to east by an increasing number of graves devoid of enclosures. As the number of tombs without enclosures increases during the later phase of the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture, components of the earlier East Germanic archaeological remains are observable, such as richly endowed women's graves, combs with high handles, and thin fibulae with semicircular handles. [222] The spread of the number of richly filled women's tombs is limited to the period of Hunnic rule, that is, shortly after the culture's end, and reaches from Lower Austria to the Hungarian Plain. The hoards found in Şimleul Silvaniei, Pietroasa, and Apahida in Romania provide a similar picture. [223]


The Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture is not exclusively Gothic, except Transylvania, but representative of all the peoples who lived between the Dnieper and the Western Carpathians in the fourth century.


The Černjachov culture penetrated Transylvania only at a later stage of its evolution when their Gothic carriers moved into Transylvania in the second half of the fourth century through the Eastern Carpathians under Hunnic pressure. The name Sîntana de Mureş (Marosszentanna) culture is derived from the burial grounds of the same name, the largest of its kind, in Transylvania and represents a later stage of the Cernjachov culture. [224] Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish an earlier from a later phase even here. [225] In 1903 77 tombs were excavated. Unfortunately, the middle, and probably oldest part of the cemetery, was destroyed for a sandpit before it could be studied. The principal characteristics of the Sîntana de Mureş culture are the burial of bodies (inhumation) and the remains belonging to early East Germanic finds, such as single-rowed combs with straight rather than semicircular handles but with a bell-shaped middle section, as well as the predominance of fibulae with an inverted foot and semicircular headplates, metal clasps, and belt buckles with stamped fittings. [226] Similar material remains (of the Goths) were also found at Tîrgu Mureş (Marosvasárhely), Cluj, Ocna Mureş (Marosújvár, Alba County), Ocniţa (Mezőakna), and Pălatca (Magyarpalatka, Cluj County). The increased absence of enclosures and the west to east rather than north to south orientation of tombs would indicate a later origin for the burial grounds of Sîntana de Mureş and attest to the expansion of Arian Christianity among the Goths in the second half of the





of the fourth century. [227] The silver- and wire-framed fibula is specific to Lechinţa, Pălatca, and Valea Strîmbă (Tekerőpatak, Harghita County).



The earthenware of the Sîntana de Mureş culture is known from both the older and later settlements and tombs. It is of a good quality, well fired, without air bubbles, and includes ball-formed pots and various dishes and jars. This kind of earthenware is quite uniform and characteristic of a large area from the Dnieper River to the Apuseni Mountains (Erdélyi szigethegység) in Transylvania. About 10 cemeteries belonging to this culture are known in the Transylvanian Basin. [228]


In Transylvania the only cemetery of this type in which cremation was practiced is that found at Lechinţa de Mureş. Some of the Romanian archaeologists believed that it belonged to the "Daco-Romans," on the basis of the cremation and the Roman provincial type urn; [229] but cremation is usual in the Černjachov culture, and other objects in this tomb belong to the Sîntana de Mureş culture. [230]


More recently, several sites have been described that show characteristics of the Sîntana de Mureş culture but also contain foreign elements, one of the most important of which is influence from the north: Wooden buckets and iron axes, frequent finds in the territory between the Northern Carpathian Mountains and the Baltic Sea were found at Ciumbrud, Ocniţa, and Fîntîneîe (Újős, Bistriţa County). în the cemetery found at the brick factory in Tîrgu Mureş, three grey jars and a glass cup show Roman influence.


A number of tombs could have been left by Sarmatians. In the tomb from 30 decembrie (Unió) Street in Cluj, the skeleton was laid down in a sitting position, a Sarmatian custom; and among the objects, several pieces were found that are not usual in the Sîntana de Mureş culture, as well as a Sarmatian mirror and a jadeite bracelet of unknown origin. Which people really left these tombs cannot at present be established. A Sarmatian mirror may, for example, have been used by others than the Sarmatians, while a skeleton in the sitting position is perhaps more likely to have belonged to a Sarmatian community.


Free (non-Romanized.) Dacians from the west settled in the former province. The earthenware in three tombs of the cremation type at Cipău (Maroscsapó, Mureş County) reveals Sarmatian influences; and only the funeral rite of cremation indicates that it was left by Dacians, because the Sarmatians used only inhumation.


The Sarmatians, known also as Sauromathians, were related to the Scythians and, like them, were nomads roaming between the Ural Mountains and the Volga River and spoke an Iranian language. [231]





Like the Jaziges, [232] Roxolans, Alans, and Aorsians, the Sarmatians during their centuries-long rule exerted a significant influence over the culture of the peoples of the Pontic Steppes. They lived in the area along the Volga from the seventh to the third century B.C. and then moved west. In their western migration the Sarmatians subdued the Scythians of the Black Sea and reached the Danube and, later, also the territory of modern Hungary. They settled for hundreds of years on the edge of the Roman Empire. During the period of Roman rule in Dacia they occupied the plain between the Tisza River and Transylvania. In the third and fourth centures A.D. their rule was terminated by the Goths and Huns. It is not impossible to assume that Sarmatian tribes were included among the Kuvrat Bulgars in the Carpathian Basin, who, however, were later assimilated with the Hungarians.


The presence of another population in post-Roman Dacia Traiana is more questionable. Horedt defends the hypothesis that Carps settled at several places in the province as early as in the third century, [233] but this is not generally accepted and the material evidence is not very strong in favor of a real settlement of Carps. Here, too, the problem is to distinguish between material influence of one culture on another in a part of Europe where such influences are very complicated and the effective presence of people who were the bearers of the material finds in question. The objects of Carpic origin are considered by those who do not believe that Carps settled in large numbers in Transylvania to be imported material. [234]


A search for signs of inhabitation and activity on the sites of different types of Roman villages from the period of the province gives poor results. Villages whose inhabitants occupied themselves with different trades were frequent in other Roman provinces but are not known in Dacia Traiana. Such villages existed at some places also in Barbaricum, such as along the upper Tisza River, where villages with earthen vessels were quite numerous. From Dacia Traiana, however, only Cluj-Mănăştur, Mugeni, and Sfîntu Gheorghe, near the location called "Eprestető," where ovens of Roman construction were preserved and possibly used during the fourth century, may be mentioned in this connection. Whether the production of earthenware continued at Cristeşti after 275 A.D. is similarly uncertain; reliable proof has not been presented. [235] Of about 40 (established and assumed) farms from the time of the province, only 2 were possibly inhabited in the fourth century. [236] At only three of the thirty-seven Roman military camps it is assumed that settlements were possibly occupied in the fourth century; in two cases this assumption is made only on the basis of fragments of earthenware possibly dating to the fourth





century, and at one, Comolău, there are more intense signs of use by the Sfîntu Gheorghe people. Following the abandonment of the province, the military camps fell into disuse and were no longer inhabited. From the seventh to the eleventh century, prior to the Hungarian period, no forts existed in Transylvania. In the former civilian settlements around Roman military camps (canabae), no traces of life have been found in the post-Roman period. In the surroundings of about a third of these, however, coins from the fourth century were found, as well as fibula in one, and a ring in another; and at Sărăţeni (Sóvárad, Mureş County) two tombs of cremation were found in the former Roman garrison. A fifth category of settlements would be those built on high mountains. The existence of such a settlement was assumed at Tîrnăvioara, but the buildings in question were more likely erected much later, in the Middle Ages. At Cetatea de Baltă (Küküllővár, Alba County), as well, the construction of a tower shows the characteristics of buildings from the Middle Ages; but because the pottery fragments found here are Dacian or Roman, it is assumed to have been built earlier. [237]



The Roman Coins from 275 to 395 A.D. Found in Transylvania


In 1958 45 places were known in Transylvania in which Roman coins from the period between 275 and 395 A.D. had been found. In the following decades, many new finds have been described; and in 1982 Horedt could report 814 coins from 85 places. [238] Unfortunately, much of this material is of limited value, because many cases, especially the older finds, were poorly described and documented. The calculated results reflect only approximately the characteristics and the changes of circulation and are not mathematically exact values, since basic data about them are often uncertain. [239] Even such data as the kind of metal, the exact place of discovery, and the total number of coins originally found in the hoard are often lacking.


The distribution of the coins could contribute to our knowledge of the ways and the intensity of commerce and similar questions. More than half of the coins whose origin can be established were produced in the three Roman towns of Siscia (93 coins), Sirmium (44 coins), and Aquileia (13 coins), suggesting that most of the commerce with the empire in the fourth century went through the Mureş River valley and further through the valleys of the Tisza and Sava rivers. [240] Large numbers of coins were found along the Roman border, showing that commerce was most intense in those areas. This was also the case, of course, in the rest of Europe, with the highest





numbers of Roman coins along the entire course of the Danube and the Rhine. In the Banat, for example, more than 40,000 Roman coins (mostly in hoards) have been discovered, and in Oltenia, 15,161, including 10,000 at Celei and Craiova. [241] In Transylvania, at some distance from the empire, the number of finds is much lower (814), the ratio of Transylvania to Oltenia (without Celei and Craiova) to the Banat being 1: 5 : 50. [242] Of those 814 isolated coins found in Transylvania, 648 (79.6%) are made of bronze, 157 (19.3%) of silver, and 9 (1.1%) of gold. Between 275 and 305 A.D., there are only 1.4 coins for each year; between 305 and 364 A.D., 9.08; and between 364 and 395, 3.54 coins a year. Thus, the circulation of Roman coins was very low during the decades after the Roman retreat from Dacia and increased considerably during the time of Emperor Constantine the Great. [243]



An Analysis of the Ethnic Significance Attributed to the Roman Coins


The circulation of Roman coins in the territory of present-day Romania is considered by Romanian archaeologists and historians as an argument of primary significance, [244] proving a Roman continuity in Dacia. This function is attributed to single finds of coins, as well as to certain hoards. Already, the very fact that Roman coins continued to be used after the Roman retreat from Dacia—from the end of the third century A.D. to the beginning of the fifth century—is considered to imply a Romanized population living there. [245] A somewhat more specific argument is that many bronze coins were found in the territory in question and that these must have been used by the autochthonous population and to a lesser extent by the Goths, "who did not appreciate so much the coins as such, but rather the precious metal they contained." [246] But there are also different opinions that reject the theory. The archaeologist Kurt Horedt, for example, believes that bronze coins in general could be attributed with more probability to the Roman population, since they had value as money but only a small intrinsic value. This statement, however, should not be generalized, because the bronze coins from Cipău (Maroscsapó, Mureş County) belonged to free Dacians who migrated to the territory. [247]


An up-to-date summary of the main arguments for ethnic continuity in post-Aurelian Dacia Traiana as compared to the territories inhabited by the Sarmatians (Cf., D. Gabler in Römer und Germanen in Mitteleuropa, Berlin 1975, p. 98.) is formulated by the archaeologist Nicolae Gudea criticizing I. I. Russu. [248] Gudea refers to D. Gablers map no. 5, showing the find-sites of gold coins in Barbaricum east from





Pannonia from the first to fourth centuries A.D. Gabler remarks that the situation is not yet sufficiently known; the single findings from this territory have not yet been comprehensively published. According to Gabler, a total number of 42 gold coins (aurei and solidi) have been found in 41 places. Of these 24 were from the fourth century A.D. The number of denarii from the same century is only 3. In Transylvania 9 gold coins and 157 of silver were found from the period between 275 and 395 A.D. - These data, in spite of Gudea's assertion (Gudea, 1983, op. cit., p. 909), can not "demonstrate the ethnic character of the population of the former province (of Dacia Traiana) and the characteristic features of its life."



Finds of Single Coins


The extent to which the coins were used in commerce varied with the different territories and periods. By analyzing the finds it is now possible to determine to what extent the coins had the function of money in a certain area. The main factor that determined this was the intensity of commerce; the ethnic situation is irrelevant. North of the Black Sea, bronze coins were found with increasing frequency from the Crimea toward the west. In the fourth century A.D. the regions north of the entire course of the Danube, just beyond the Roman border, are richest in hoards consisting of copper and bronze coins of low value. [249] The number of single finds of bronze coins from the same century found so far in the plains west of Dacia (in the present-day Hungarian Plain) is 262 (compared with only 24 aurei and solidi and 3 denarii). All of the 227 find-sites of silver and bronze coins from the first to fourth centuries are located in this territory. [250] In several areas of free Germania a typically provincial Roman structure of the circulation of coins is found. In such territories as Bohemia and Slovakia, the coins were used as money to a very high degree, reflecting the general situation in the empire. The provincial circulation is thus not unique and not specific to the area of former Dacia Traiana.


The situation in the territory of former Dacia Traiana in that century can be studied from the maps supplied by Protase, [251] Preda, [252] and Horedt. [253] Corresponding to the general rule, the greatest numbers of bronze coins were found along the Danube: in Oltenia; and in the Banat, between the Timiş and Mureş rivers, where the Sarmatian Jaziges were living, which shows that this non-Roman population used bronze coins intensively. [254] In Transylvania proper a far smaller number were discovered in the valleys of the Someş, Mureş, the two





Tîrnave, and the Olt rivers. The distribution of these finds in Transylvania does not indicate any clear-cut concentration in a special territory. Bronze coins were found in the northwest, north of the Crişul Repede (Sebes-Körös) River, in an area of free Dacians. The find at Cipău has already been mentioned; and also in southeastern Transylvania, in the valley of the Olt River, many bronze coins were found. That was most probably the area of the non-Roman population called the Sfîntu Gheorghe people in the fourth century. [255] The non-Romanized Dacians living in other parts of the territories north of the Danube used Roman coins of bronze at least up to the end of the fourth century. There are finds of Roman bronze coins in Moldavia, on the plains of Muntenia, in Crişana, and in the area of Transylvania that was not occupied by the Romans. [256]



The Hoards of Coins


Six hoards of Roman coins found at Hunedoara (Vajdahunyad, Alba County), Nireş (Nyires, Cluj County), Vîlcan (Vulkán, a mountain pass), Borlova (Caraş-Severin County), Orşova, and Reghin (Szászrégen, Mureş County), containing Roman coins from the first two and a half centuries A.D. and, after a hiatus, a few coins from the fourth century, have been considered by the archaeologist Mihail Macrea to indicate the presence of "Daco-Romans" after the retreat of Aurelian. [257] Protase later developed this hypothesis further and in his monograph from 1966 considered the hoards found at Hunedoara, Vîlcan, Reghin, Nireş, Orşova, and Borlova to belong to a "Daco-Roman population" [258] Constantin Preda (1975) agreed with this theory in principle but with reservations, one of his objections being the long interruptions in the process of accumulation. [259] Preda would not take into account here the hoard of Orşova, "situated in a zone that was reconquered by the Romans." [260] Those 50 coins found in the surroundings of Reghin, are, however, also questioned by Protase, and should be eliminated from the discussion, because it is not even sure whether they really were found together, that is, whether they really were originally from a hoard. Thus, only four hoards remain, of which three contain denarii and only one consists of bronze coins (see Table ill). This is insignificant historically both as an absolute number and with regard to the total number (23) of hoards reported in Transylvania and dated to the fourth century A.D.


Horedt discussed the possible historical conclusion that could be drawn from the hoards of coins found in post-Roman Dacia. Of the 23 hoards buried in Transylvania during the post-Roman period, 15





contained bronze coins. Of these 15, 7 also contained coins from the period before Aurelian; 3 (those found at Hunedoara, Nireş, and Laslea/Szászszentlászló, Sibiu County) contained predominantly such coins and are therefore attributed to "Daco-Romans." The other four (Bistriţa, Bran-Poarta, Gherla, and Vîlcan) contained predominantly post-Aurelian coins; in these cases, "ethnic attribution is impossible" [261] There are also hoards with all coins from the post-Aurelian period (Anieş/Dombhât, Bistriţa County, Cipău, Cluj, Cluj-Someşeni/Kolozsvár-Szamosfalva, Fizeş/Fiîzesd, Hunedoara County, Gilău/Gyalu, Cluj County, and Sarmizegethusa), which have no connection with the period of the province. [262]


The hoards of silver and gold coins are not considered to be connected with "Daco-Romans." Only silver is contained in the hoards found at Sibiu (Nagyszeben) and at Ungurei (Gergelyfalva, Hunedoara County) and silver and gold in those found at Valea Strîmbă (Tekerőpatak, Harghita County) with predominantly pre-Aurelian coins. A hoard of silver at Valea Strîmbă is a remnant of Gothic material culture buried, in all likelihood, in the second half of the fourth century, probably before the invasion of the Huns. As at Firtuşu and Vădaş (Vadasd, Mureş County), only gold coins were found at Borsec (Borszék, Harghita County), from the end of the fourth century; but these were buried later than the fourth century. The hoard of gold coins at Korond-Firtosváralja (Firtuşu) was found in 1831 and could be from Gepidic-Avar times; however, it could also be attributed to the Kutrigurs. The find consisted of 237, or possibly more than 300, gold coins, of which the latest were from the times of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantinus (around 625). The burying of the treasure and the death or flight of its owner is dated at approximately the year 630. [263] The treasure of Şimleu Silvaniei (Szilágysomlyó, Sălaj County), discovered in 1797, was in all likelihood hidden by the Huns advancing from the Eastern Carpathians. The gold bars found at Crasna (Kraszna, Sălaj County) and at Feldioara (Földvár, Braşov County) are considered to have been subsidies paid by the Roman Empire to the Goths. No fewer than 19 of these hoards (except perhaps that of Firtuşu) have their latest coins dating from the time between 350 and 395 A.D. and were probably buried because of the Hunnish invasion.


About one-fourth of the hoards discussed here were buried in mountain passes and are therefore considered to have belonged to migratory populations, in Horedt's view, if one takes into account all criteria (the kind of metal, the composition of the hoard, the time span during which it was accumulated, and the place where it was





found), the following hoards could be attributed to the indigenous Roman population: Cluj, Cluj-Someşeni, Gherla (Szamosújvár, Cluj County), Hunedoara, Laslea, and Nireş. [264] Of these, only the last three hoards fulfill the criteria used earlier by Macrea, Protase, and Preda in attributing hoards of coins to "Daco-Romans": they contain bronze coins, made predominantly in the pre-Aurelian period. The accumulation of the largest part of the hoards during the Roman period was considered the fact that could connect the owners with people who had lived in the province earlier. It is therefore questionable whether the hoard found at Gherla (with predominantly post-Aurelian coins) and especially those found at Cluj and Cluj-Someşeni; with exclusively post-Aurelian coins, should be put in this group. As is known, the treasure excavated at Cluj-Someşeni, not far from Apahida, in 1962 belongs to the Gepidae; parallel finds of this sort were also discovered in several places in Hungary, as well as in the treasure-trove at Apahida (Cluj County).


The study of the hoards also indicates that bronze coins were used and frequently accumulated by non-Romans: At least three hoards attributed with certainty to non-Roman populations (Bran-Poarta, Vîlcan Pass, and Cîpău) contain predominantly or exclusively bronze coins. (See Table III)


The population of Dacia Traiana buried their money, as shown by a considerable number of hoards from the last decade of the third century, when the Carps invaded the province. [265] No hoards were found, however, from the time the empire abandoned Dacia, two or three decades later. [266] This is quite unusual if one believes that a large number of people remained in the province, since these people (as was the case around 245 A.D.) would have had every reason to expect plundering in connection with the intrusion of barbarians after the Roman withdrawal. The low intensity of circulation of coins in the period in question (caused by the economic crisis in the empire) would not prevent this, since hoards usually contain money accumulated over longer periods of time.


After the end of the fourth century, the circulation of Roman coins in the former province decreased significantly, with the exception of gold coins, whose number increased. Only eleven isolated bronze coins have been found in Transylvania from the time between the end of the fourth century and 450 A.D., and in the Banat, even fewer. This could be explained by the Hunnish invasion and, as has been previously mentioned, the economic crisis of the empire; in Roman provinces, as well as in Moesia Superior, for example, a sharp decrease in the circulation of coins is recorded in that era. [267]






Data on Six Hoards of Fourth Century Roman Coins Allegedly of "Daco-Roman" Origin


[[ Place of discovery, Year, Number of coins, Hiatus in the period of, Metal

Hunedoara, Nireş, Vîlcan Pass, Borlova, Orşova, on the northern shore of the Danube, The surroundings of Reghin ]]


Source: Dumitru Protase, Problema continuităţii in Dacia în lumina arheologiei şi numismaticii, (Bucharest: 1966); Constantin Preda, Circulaţia monedelor romane postaureliene în Dacia, Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie, 26, no. 4 (Bucharest: 1975). The lack of coins from the period between the mid-third and the early fourth century can be explained by the scarcity of commerce with the empire in that period. As one can see from the table, the data available about these hoards are not sufficient for reliable studies. In two cases it is not even known whether the coins described were initially really found in a hoard. The circulation of Roman coins ceased in the fifth century. The coins may no longer have had a monetary value but merely an intrinsic value as metal. The richly endowed graves are Germanic.







With regard to the circulation of coins in the post-Aurelian period, it can be said in conclusion that because of the economic and political situation, the circulation of Roman coins had already markedly declined by the middle of the third century. In the time of Gratianus (375-383), and at the latest during the rule of Theodosius I (379-395), the circulation of bronze coins ceases. [268] Late third and fourth century Roman coins are known from over 80 sites in Transylvania; 80 percent of these coins were bronze. During the ensuing four centuries the circulation of coins in former Dacia Traiana, if it did not come to a complete halt, continued to dwindle and thus became insignificant in comparison to other finds. Thus, it would be an exaggeration to speak of an "uninterrupted continuity" in the circulation of Roman coins. The notion of coin circulation can be used only reservedly with respect to the times of the Germanic peoples, that is, during the people's migration period. In this period gold coins belonging to the Germanic people were found; however, they had no exchange value as they were hoarded for the intrinsic value of the gold. In addition to the solidii there were also bronze coins, about 11.5 percent, which must have served as money or means of payment. [269] Of a total of 87 coins found in 33 places, 77 are solidii. Indications of the stock of coins during the period from 395 to 641 are given by Horedt; [270] additional data provided by Constantin Preda were used. [271] The majority of coin finds consist of individual pieces, and only at six places could hoards be assumed to have existed: Dobra, Firtos, Hida (Hidalmás, Sălaj County), Şeica Mică (Kisselyk, Sibiu County), "Transylvania," and Sîngeorgiu de Cîmpie (Mezőszentgyörgy, Mureş County). [272]


The coins of the first half of the seventh century still belong to the times of the Germanic peoples; the last coin of Constantine III (641) marks the end of this period. [273] No coins from the next two hundred years have been found in Transylvania. The period of coin usage ended in Transylvania earlier than in other parts of the Carpathian Basin where the circulation of coins ended only with Constantine IV Pogonatus (66S-685). [274] Only at the end of the ninth century is the existence of a solidus of Basilios I (869-870) recorded in Transylvania. [275] Actual circulation of coins began anew, however, during the reign of Stephen I, when Hungarian coins were minted.


With respect to the ethnic significance of the coins, one should not demand too much of them since they cannot, because of their function as a means of payment, unequivocally be attributed from the ethnic point of view. [276]





Christianity in Transylvania in the 4th-7th Centuries: A Critical Analysis of Its Alleged Significance for Romanian Ethnogenesis


Since Vasile Parvan published his work Contribuţii epigrafice la istoria creştinismului daco-roman (Epigraphic contributions to the history of Daco-Roman Christianity) in 1911, much has been written in Romania about early Christianity in the region of the lower Danube. [277] It is essential to define more precisely the territory to be examined. The Danube was the frontier of the Roman Empire for many centuries, and the history of the territory south of the river (including Scythia Minor, present-day Dobrudja) was very different from that north of the Danube. Such terms as "the region of the lower Danube" or "the Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic territory" used in current Romanian historiography as equivalents to present-day Romania blur the difference that existed between the different territories of present-day Romania— Dobrugea, Moldova, Muntenia, Oltenia, Transylvania—also with regard to early Christianity. Especially misleading are terms such as "Daco-Scythian Christianity" used by Eugen Lozovan. [278] He makes an attempt to prove that as early as the first millennium A.D. the two territories together with the other areas of present-day Romania were a unitary territory, to which Christianity provided "moral cohesion." [279] Christianity, it is claimed, contributed significantly to the preservation of the Latin language in this territory. These ideas are based on a faulty historical perspective with the author projecting the present situation and contemporary borders into the past.


It has been claimed that Christianity presupposes a Latin-speaking population and thus proves the existence of "Daco-Romans" in the territory and that it strengthened this Latin-speaking element. The arguments supporting this idea have varied. In Istoria României (1960), for example, the following arguments are presented: 1. In the fourth century, north of the Danube, Christian objects appear only in the area of former Dacia Traiana, which strengthens the conviction that they belonged to the Roman population; 2. In Transylvania, no objects of Christian character have been found among the material remains of the Goths, who, therefore, in contrast to the "Daco-Romans," do not seem to have been Christianized; and 3. Christianity in the fourth century north of the Danube is of the Latin character, because the objects were imported from the territory south of the Danube, the best analogues being found in the Danubian provinces of Latin Illyricum, in neighboring Pannonia, and farther away in Italy. In general, this is, as has been noted, also the economic and commerical orientation of Dacia in the fourth century. [280]


It was, however, considered necessary to support the arguments based on archaeological finds by other disputes. Even more than in





the type of the archaeological objects, the Latin character of the primitive Christianity of the Daco-Romans allegedly appears clearly in the Latin origin of the words preserved in the Romanian language for the basic notions of the Christian faith: for example, crux (cruce), domine deo (dumnezeu). In this treatise on Romanian history from 1960, the Christianity of the "Daco-Romans" is described as a faith spread from man to man, by direct contacts with the people of the empire, not by missionaries. The authors refer in this connection to the modest character of the archaeological finds and to the religious words of Latin origin, which mainly denote the basic ideas of Christianity.


In 1966 Dumitra Protase listed the objects of Christian character that were known at that time. For Transylvania, he described about 10 objects dating to the fourth and fifth centuries and emphasized that most of them had been discovered in places that had been towns or rural settlements during the Roman period and, moreover, were situated mainly in the central and southwestern part of inside-Carpathic Dacia (the mostly Romanized areas). On the other hand, no such objects were known from Gothic sites. Protase concluded that the objects of Christian character can be seen as a testimony to support the theory of the existence in "masses of the Romanic population in Dacia after Aurelian." [281] Since the appearance of Protase's monograph, the situation has changed considerably. Many new objects of Christian character have been found, also in areas other than the territory of Dacia Traiana (in Muntenia, Moldavia) and, within that territory, also among the material remains of the Goths (the Sîntana de Mureş culture). At the same time, the official theory has also changed: from continuity only in the territory of former Dacia Traiana, as asserted earlier, to "Daco-Roman" continuity in all areas of present-day Romania.


An informative description of the situation in Transylvania is given by Kurt Horedt, [282] with references to more important earlier literature. The author presents the finds critically, distinguishing clearly between objects that, with some degree of certainty, could be considered Christian and those that are not unequivocally Christian. He also gives a map showing objects of a Christian character found in Transylvania, dated separately according to century, from the third to the seventh century. Although Horedt adheres in this treatise to the theory that the finds of Christian character are connected with a Roman population north of the Danube, he does not emphasize this thesis.


Mircea Rusu, supporting the theory of Roman continuity north of the Danube, argues that the objects of Christian character were found





mainly in places where Roman towns or forts (castra) were once situated and must therefore be connected with a Roman population that continued to live there. There is only one group of finds that Rusu calls "proof": the inscriptions. [283]



The Geographical Distribution of Christian Finds in Romania


Mircea Rusu gives a list of the objects of Christian character from the third through the eighth centuries found on the territory of present-day Romania. The total number of sites, according to this list, is 117. Rusu does not, however, distinguish between proven and questionable Christian objects. As shown by the list, Christian objects dated to the third through the eighth centuries were found in 53 places in Transylvania, of which 7 are situated in or near a former Roman town and 5 near a castrum. [284]


The largest number of Christian objects and, what is more significant, the great majority of the churches were found in Dobrugea (former Scythia Minor). Ruins of a total of 36 churches have been found at 18 different localities. [285] No such finds have been made in Transylvania, although it has been assumed that a Liber-Pater-Bel-Tempel at Moigrad may have been transformed into a Christian basilica. [286]


In Transylvania 13 possible and 7 certain Christian objects were found and dated to the fourth century in 1982. [287] Four of the latter group were discovered in the territories of former Roman towns — Alba Iulia (Apulum), Turda (Potalssa), Cluj (Napoca), and Moigrad (Porolissum)—and three in other places: Biertan (Berethalom, Sibiu County), Pălatca (Magyarpalatka), and "Transylvania," that is, one from an unknown site. It should be noted that Alba iulia, Turda, and Cluj are quite large towns, which increases the chances of archaeological finds being made and reported to scientists. Of the 13 questionable Christian objects 7 can be considered to have been found on the place of former Roman towns or important settlements: Sarmizegethusa, Alba Iulia (Apulum), Veţel (Micia), 2 pieces at Turda (Potaissa), and 2 pieces at Moigrad (Porolissum). One was discovered at Bologa, the site of a Roman castrum; and the other 5 objects are from other places: Cristeşti, Pălatca, Feisa (Alba County), Mercheaşa, and "Transylvania" (possibly Zlatna). [288] The connection of these objects with a former Roman settlement or a Roman population is thus very hypothetical even for the fourth century.


The situation in Transylvania was quite different in the fifth century from that in the fourth. Objects of Christian character dated to this century have been found only at Apahida and Cluj-Someşeni. These





were made in Byzantium and appear not in a Roman but in a Germanic context from the time of the peoples' migration. [289] Objects of Christian character dated to the sixth century have been discovered in the southeastern corner of Transylvania and in the northwest. This was the period of expansion of the Eastern Roman Empire under Emperor Justinian, when the territory up to the lower Danube was reconquered. The region thus came under the influence of Byzantium, which reinforced Christianity; the inscriptions were now written in Greek. In Transylvania 14 Christian objects dated to the seventh century were found at two late-Germanic cemeteries on the middle course of the Mureş River (at Noşlac/Marosnagylak, Alba County, and Unirea-Vereşmort/Felvinc-Marosveresmart, Alba County). [290]


Rusu mentions 14 casting molds used for the fabrication of crosses or other metal ornaments. Most of them were discovered outside of the former province of Dacia Traiana. [291] This emphasizes the conclusion . about the accidental character of such sites, that is, that the Christian objects are not related to the situation in the Roman period or to a Roman population.



The Inscriptions


Given the great difference in early Christian vestiges from Dobrugea (former Scythia Minor) and from Transylvania (a large part of which was Dacia Traiana), a scholarly analysis must consider these territories separately. Here, the inscriptions found in Transylvania will be discussed in some detail. Rusu's list (1984) of third to eighth century Christian vestiges found in Romania contains the following Latin and Greek inscriptions discovered in the territory of Transylvania:



Biertan: Donarium with the inscription: "Ego Zenovius votum posui," made in the fourth century in northern Italy, most probably in Aquileia.


Veţel (Vecel, Hunedoara County): An arch of one silver fibula transformed into a ring with the inscription: "Quartine vivas." Possibly Christian, according to Horedt, 1982.


Bologa (Sebesvár, Cluj County): Silver ring with the inscription: UT(ere) F(elix). Christian character questionable, according to Horedt, 1982.


Moigrad: Vase with the inscription: "Utere Felix." Christian character questionable, according to Horedt, 1982.


Turda: Gold ring with the inscription: "Utere Felix." Christian character questionable, according to Horedt, 1982.





Apahida: Ring decorated with a cross and the inscription: OMHARIUS; ring with the monogram: MARC(us).


Cluj: A Roman cippus reused as a sarcophagus; a cross was scratched later over the Greek letters alfa and omega is questionable according to Horedt 1982.


Micăsasa (Sibiu County): Vase with a cross and inscription.



Orşova: Two gold plates (gnostic) with inscriptions; a gem with an inscription.


Sînnicolau Mare: Several vases of gold with inscriptions in Greek, Turkish with Greek letters, and Runic script.


Tîrgu Secuiesc: Amfora with a Christian inscription in Greek.


Poian (Kézdipolyán, Covasna County): Vase with a Christian inscription in Greek.



The Donarium Found at Biertan


Since this piece occupies a special place among the early Christian vestiges in Transylvania, it will be discussed in some detail.


In 1775 an ex voto with the inscription EGO ZENOVIUS VOTUM POSUI (I, Zenovius, have placed [this] present) [292] and a bronze chrismon disc with the monogram of Christ (crux monogrammatica) [of the Greek pattern, but used throughout the Christian world in the fourth century], originally probably part of a chandelier, was found in southern Transylvania. [293] The size of the inscription is 32.5 x 12.6 -13.2 centimeters and the diameter of the disc is 23.7 centimeters. It was found under a felled oak-tree near a large spring in a valley about six kilometers south of Biertan (Berethalom, Sibiu County). In 1958 and 1976 attempts were made in vain to find remains of an ancient settlement in the area. [294] These pieces were found in the Bruckenthal Museum in Sibiu (Hermannstadt, Nagyszeben) by Kurt Horedt and published in 1941. [295]


Similar pieces have been found at Bonyhád (Hungary), Poetovio (modern Ptuj), Emona (modern Ljubljana, Slovenia), and Aquileia (Italy). These finds can show the trade routes between Italy and Transylvania that corroborate the evidence of the Roman coins.


According to the current view in Romania, this ex voto was probably given by a missionary to a Christian community. The Latin text indicates, according to this interpretation, that Latin-speaking people lived in the area of present-day Biertan. [296] There are, however, serious difficulties with this interpretation and, in any case, other alternatives. With regard to the assumption of a Christian missionary, this is not impossible, although the records are vague and give no information about





the areas in which they might have worked. - More important: the ex voto was found outside the western Transyivanian area where a Latin-speaking population is assumed to have been living in the fourth century: twelve kilometers from Bratei, the site of a non-Roman population from the fourth century, and fifteen kilometers from Mediaş, where a fourth century site with remains of the Sîntana de Mureş culture was found. In his original publication, Horedt believed that the Donarium could have belonged to the Goths. [297] This was also the opinion of the Hungarian scholar András Alföldi. [298] In his later work, however, Horedt changed his opinion and attributed the Donarium to a Romanized group.


Another major difficulty with this find is that it is not connected with an archaeological site (for example, remains of a church or at least a dwelling place). It may originally have been in a wooden chapel, but this is very hypothetical. Produced in the fourth century probably in Aquileia, it is not known whether it was transported to the area near Biertan in the same century or later. If this occurred in the fourth century, it is still uncertain under what circumstances it reached the place. Commercial contacts with the empire existed, and a chandelier once dedicated to a Christian community living in a quite different territory could have been imported by people who did not understand the writing it contained. Even the most recent Romanian interpretation does not preclude the possibility that the Donarium of Biertan is imported. [299] Soldiers serving in the Roman army might have brought with them similar object from, for example, plundered churches, that may later have been found in distant places in Europe. Even if the object had been given to a Christian community, the Latin inscription of the Donarium does not necessarily imply that it was destined for a Latin-speaking population. Possession of an object, in those days, did not necessarily imply ideological identification with it. It is not impossible that Christians whose priests also knew Latin lived in the region of Biertan in the fourth century. But an object with a Latin inscription does not prove that the population living there also understood Latin. The inscription EGO ZENOYTVS VOTVM POSVI on the tabula ansata was prepared in the same place as the Chrismon - in Sirmium or in Aquileia, for the person who originally ordered it, and its connection with Dacia is not greater than that of the bronze vessels buried together with it. [300]


Inscriptions written in the Greek language were found at three places, according to the list above. The others, eight inscriptions in addition to that on the Donarium, were in Latin. They are claimed to be proof of the existence of a plentiful "Daco-Roman" population





in Transylvania who "spoke popular Latin." [301] These objects—vases, fibulae, rings, gold plates, and other items—were, however, not made in Transylvania but were imported there from the Roman Empire; they do not tell us anything about the language of the population in that territory. A possible increase in the number of such objects in the future will not change this situation.



The Written Records About Christianity


There are a considerable number of records about Christians, bishops, persecutions, and so forth, north of the Danube in the centuries after the Roman retreat from Dacia. Those mentioned by Rusu (1984) will be briefly summarized here.


In the third century, Christian martyrs are mentioned in Scythia Minor (Halmyrs). In the fourth century, there are records about the Goths living in the plains of Muntenia; and several bishops are mentioned by name: Uifila, Goddas, Sava the Goth. Bishop Teofil of Gothia took part in the Sinod of Nicea (Nikaia) in 325 A.D. There are numerous north-Danubian priests and martyrs, such as Sansalas, Batuses, and Versas.


Epiphanios, in his work entitled "Against Those 80 Heresies," written from 374 to 377 A.D., described the persecution of the Christians north of the Danube and told how they fled to the empire. [302] In 381 A.D. the Sinod in Constantinople stated that Terentius was Bishop of Scythia. Bishop Theotimos of Tomis "carried on a lively missionary activity north of the Danube, trying also to convert the Huns." In 399 A.D. the Patriarch loannes Hrisostomus of Constantinople asked Leontios, the Bishop of Ancyre, to send him people who could be missionaries among the Huns. For Scythia Minor, with some interruptions, the names of many bishops are preserved up to the eighth century. In 392 A.D. Socrate the Scholastic described Selenas, the Bishop of the Arian Goths north of the Danube, who was Goth on his father's side and Frigian on the maternal side and preached in both Gothic and Frigian. The Ostrogothic King asked the Patriarch loannes Hrisostomus in 404 A.D. to ordain Moduarius (Moduhari) a bishop. Sozomenos mentions Sigisharius, who was Bishop of the Arian Visigoths of Alarich in 409 A.D. In 438 A.D. "Marcus, the Bishop of the Novatiens in Scythia" was mentioned. In the Edict of Justinian, it is reported that "limitanei (soldier-farmers) had settled along the northern frontiers of the Eastern Roman Empire, in the territories beyond the Danube (Ister), in order to guard those frontiers." [303] In the mid-sixth century mention is made of the Gepidic Bishop Thrasaric, who fled to Constantinople after the defeat of the Gepidae by the Avars in 568 A.D.





To summarize the available records: 1. Early Christianity is richly documented in Scythia Minor (present-day Dobrudja), where ruins of eight churches are found. 2, Concrete data (the names of several bishops, martyrs, persecutions) about early Christians north of the Danube refer mainly to the Goths and the Gepidae, although other populations, such as the Huns, are also reported to have been exposed to missionary activity. 3. There is not a single record about any Latin-speaking population north of the Danube in these centuries. This is not, of course, as has been pointed out many times, sufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that some Latin-speaking people may have lived there, especially in the fourth century. It is not, however, very probable that Roman authors, who clearly distinguished between different populations—Goths, Gepidae, Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, and so on—-and were interested in the fate of Christians, themselves being Christians, would not have mentioned the presence of a large, Latin-speaking, Christian population living outside of the empire in the fourth and subsequent centuries.





A great deal has been published by Romanian archaeologists and historians with the aim of proving the presence of a Roman population in the former province of Dacia Traiana in the post-Aurelian period (fourth century A.D.). The current official view is that such a population existed. In general, the studies that deal with this problem conclude with the statement that certain material remains must be connected with a Roman population that remained in the province after 275 A.D.; but the general situation of such people, their possible relations with the other populations living in that territory in the same period, and similar problems are not adequately discussed.


An exception, to some extent, is Kurt Horedt's monograph, published in 1982, about Transylvania in the post-Roman period, in which the material remains dating from the fourth century (more exactly, from about 275 to the end of the fourth century) are described. As it clearly appears from the preceding analysis, it is quite difficult in many cases to know what remains were produced in the post-Roman period. It is often impossible to be sure that a certain find is really from the fourth century and was not left over from the Roman period. Besides the difficulties with the dating in many cases, it is often questionable whether the finds we know really represent the original situation, since most of the tombs have been plundered and are thus poor in objects. Moreover, objects of Roman style or even Roman products are found among the material vestiges of practically all





contemporary European populations and do not necessarily suggest that the people who once used them, were Romans or spoke Latin. Sarcophagi made of reused tombstones or other monuments could perhaps be connected with Romans; they might have been Christian, although the objects of Christian character found in the former Roman towns add little to the evidence that would be needed to ascertain a Roman population. Christianity in the fourth century was not a specifically Roman movement but embraced many different peoples. The objects chosen to distinguish the rural settlements from others are neither universally present in the Roman sites, nor are they found exclusively there. The earthenware found in the settlements and the cemeteries is not helpful: The late Roman earthenware can scarcely be distinguished from that produced at the time of the province. [304] Finds from tombs and from settlements whose age is reliably established are very rare so far, and their post-Roman character is stated by intuition rather than evidence. [305] If one compares the funeral rites of the towns with those found in the rural settlements in which Romans are assumed to have been living, one finds a discrepancy. The number of neither the towns nor the rural cemeteries is, of course, very high, which makes a meaningful comparison difficult.


With regard to the existence of a Roman population in Transylvania in the fourth century, there are, therefore, only possibilities, conjectures, and theories but no cogent proof. Some of the material remains and circumstances advanced in favor of the theory are even contradictory and certainly are not decisive for the problem of continuity.


Not much is known about economic life in the former Roman towns in Dacia Traiana. It is not even certain whether the kilns working during the Roman era remained in use. In any case, there is nothing in the material remains to indicate large numbers of people in these places; and also the total number of towns is low (11, perhaps 12), Moreover, after the Hunnish invasion toward the end of the fourth century, the Dacian towns were entirely depopulated. Even these few towns, however, are situated along a line that goes in a roughly northerly direction from Sarmizegethusa across a heterogenous territory to Porolissum. Instead of forming a unity in a geographically uniform area, as the Transylvanian Basin would be, for example, they are separated from one another by mountains and valleys and not insignificant distances.





The former Roman towns of Apulum, Napoca, and Potaissa were situated in the vicinity of the large area of the Sîntana de Mureş culture in the Transylvanian Basin; Porolissum was in the north, in the immediate vicinity of the free Dacians. The rural settlements also assumed to have been inhabited by Roman peasant farmers were situated among settlements of non-Roman populations: In the area between the Mureş River and the Tirnava Mare valley there are about 12 assumed Roman sites and about 15 sites that certainly belonged to non-Roman populations who immigrated to the area beginning in the second half of the third century. This area must therefore be considered, even if one accepts the existence of Romans in certain settlements, ethnically mixed. Toward the north, in the northern part of the Transylvanian Basin, the proportion of sites is rather in favor of certainly non-Roman peoples. On the whole, most of the Transylvanian Basin was characterized in the fourth century by a very distinct culture: the Sîntana de Mureş culture, mainly representing the Goths. In the southeastern comer of Transylvania and in the valleys of the upper Olt and the Rîul Negru River (Feketeügy), there was again a compact area of non-Romans, the bearers of the Sfîntu Gheorghe culture.


The situation of the Romans in the former towns and in the western group of settlements would have been analogous to that of the Roman peasants in the former provinces of Noricum and Raetia in the century after the retreat of the Roman administration from those provinces. Names of such peasants are extant. Isolated from the masses of Latin-speaking people, these Roman peasants assimilated eventually into the surrounding Germanic population. Assimilation is thus the most probable fate of a Roman population assumed to have been living in Transylvania in the fourth century. If, however, an assumed Roman population would have survived, preserving their language, then they necessarily were exposed to a very intense foreign influence. Their continuous contacts in the given geographical situation with the Goths, the free Dacians, the bearers of the Sfîntu Gheorghe culture, to mention only the most obvious non-Roman elements, would, inevitably have led to a mixing—socially, culturally, and linguistically—of the different populations. The Romanian language shows no traces of such a foreign influence from this early period. It does not contain any elements from the fourth through the sixth centuries that could not be explained by the ancestors of the Romanians living within the greater area of Latin-speaking peoples. It shows, on the contrary, a purely Latin structure (with Slavic elements from a later, well-defined time) and contains ail the innovations and usages that appeared in the period in question (the fourth through the sixth





centuries A.D.) in the idiom of the Roman populations in the Balkan Peninsula and in parts of Italy.





The Old Germanic Peoples


After the withdrawal of the Romans from Dacia Traiana, in the post-Aurelian period, the historical and ethnic picture of the former Roman province was radically changed. These changes were caused primarily by invasions of the Huns from the east that scattered the Germanic population (the Goths and the Gepidae) in Eastern Europe and destroyed all vestiges of Roman urban life north of the Danube. Contacts with the Eastern Roman Empire decreased; and money-based commerce declined and was replaced by barter trade; coinage had already ceased in Dacia Traiana by 225.


There are numerous written accounts about the history of Germanic tribes in the period of the peoples' migration. The presence of a Germanic population in Transylvania, most probably Ostrogoths, can be attested from the fourth century. Written sources of the fifth and sixth centuries refer only to Germanic peoples in that territory, and archaeological findings of that period have a Germanic character. A two-centuries-long period, from 378 to 568, marked by Eastern Germanic influence along the middle course of the Danube, has left behind extremely significant archaeological remnants whose importance, however, is deliberately played down in contemporary Romanian historical works.


The following six gold treasure-troves of the period of the peoples' migration are known to exist in the Carpathian area:


1. Pietroasa, on the south side of the Carpathians in Muntenia;


2. and 3. The two treasure-troves of Şimleu Silvaniei (Szilágysomlyó, Sălaj County), in northwestern Transylvania;


4. The grave of Prince Omharius (Apahida I) near Cluj;


5. The second princely grave of Apahida; and


6. The treasure-trove of Cluj-Someşeni. [308]


These all reflect the cultural horizon of the fifth century and are most likely attributable to the Ostrogoths. Germanic elements pertinent to Ostrogoths and Visigoths cannot, however, be easily differentiated. The Visigoth graves ceased to exist between 376 and 381 as a consequence of the advance of the Huns into Southeastern Europe.





Characteristic of the Gothic period are fibulae, belt buckles, combs, pearl necklaces, pendants of Roman origin, and spindles with clay heads located in the graves of women.


The richly-endowed graves of a Germanic (most probably Ostrogothic [Gepidic]) princely residence at Apahida (Cluj County) may be traced to the Sîntana de Mureş culture at the beginning of the third quarter of the fifth century. [309] Three princely graves were discovered at Apahida in 1889, 1968, and 1978 and have been designated respectively as Apahida I, Apahida ÍI, and Apahida III. It is assumed that such sumptuous funerary provisions originated at the time of Attila's empire, around 490, since the Germanic peoples were particularly influenced by the gold opulence of the Hunnic Empire. Small fibulae and Ostrogothic fibulae of Transylvania are characteristic of this early stage of the Merovingian period.


Fourth century Gothic and sixth century Gepidic remains have been found in the cemetery of Tîrgu Mureş. In the Mureş valley, in the cemeteries of Ciumbrud, Ocna Mureş, Gorneşti (Gemyeszeg), and Alba Iulia, remnants of a Gothic material culture, such as pearls, fibulae, ornamental combs, and vessels, have appeared. In the Tîrnava River valleys, in places such as Bezid, Odorheiu Secuiesc (Székelyudvarhely) and Porumbenii Mici-Galáttető (Kisgalambfalva, both in Harghita County), remnants of Gothic settlements have been discovered. Gothic settlements occurred most probably also in Bratei. One of the most important settlement areas of the Visigoths was in the basin of Covasna (Kovászna-Háromszék) and in Ţara Bîrsei (Barcaság). Their most important settlement has been uncovered at Sfîntu Gheorghe. [310]



The Goths


The Goths were a Germanic tribe whose original home was on the Baltic Sea and on the banks of the Vistula River. [311] At the beginning of the third century A.D. the Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths) reached the Black Sea; and by the middle of that century they split from the Visigoths (Western Goths) who advanced toward the lower Danube and wrested Dacia from the Romans (271). The territory, which earlier had been called Dacia, now became Gothia: the Gothic Empire (from 271 to 385 A.D.). In the fourth century the Goths founded a large empire extending from the Don to the mouth of the Danube.


The date of the Goths' appearance in Transylvania has been variously given. [312] The Germanic period in this territory had already begun in the second half of the second century; de facto, however, Romania's present-day territory was subject to the influence of the





Germanic peoples from the fourth to the seventh century. This conclusion is reached through archaeological and historical data.


The Ostrogoths, overrun by the Huns, moved their settlements into northwestern Transylvania and toward Pannonia. Archaeological remains related to them may be found until 471 A.D. One part of the Ostrogoths migrated south of the Danube. The Getae, south of the Danube, in Moesia, had been called Goths from the second until the fourth century A.D. in the year 488 the Ostrogoths moved into Italy because of the Gepidae penetration into Transylvania. Christianity, mostly in the form of Arianism or Audnism, was spread among the Goths as early as the beginning of the fourth century.



The Gepidae


There are no written sources about the early history of the Old Germanic people, the Gepidae. [313] They migrated together with other Germanic tribes, with the Goths, Bastarns, Eruls, Vandals, and Longobards, in the middle of the second century A.D. from the shores of the Baltic Sea and Vistula River toward the Black Sea and partially penetrated the Carpathian Basin. [314] They spoke the same or a similar language as the Goths.


The Gepidae are first mentioned in written records at the same time as the Goths, in the second half of the 250s, when they attacked Dacia. In the second half of the third century, about 269, they settled in the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin, in the region of the upper course of the Tisza and Someş rivers. In the year 290, after the withdrawal of the Romans from Dacia, the Gepidae sought to conquer this territory by warring against the Ostrogoths, who were living there. They were, however, defeated. They continued to settle in the mountainous region of the Northern Carpathians (Tisza region), although certain groups had lived in the area occupied by the Sarmatians, in the region between the Criş, Tisza, and Mureş rivers, since the last quarter of the fourth century. Their characteristic ceramics with surface-glazed ornamentations and the bronze fibula with an inverted foot are to be found in this territory.


The Gepidae were among the main allies of the Huns and were under Hunnic rule for a half century. After Attila's death, the Gepidae in alliance with other peoples attacked the Huns and defeated them at the Nedao River, in Pannonia, in 454. After conquering most of Pannonia, the Gepidae ruled for a century over the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, including Transylvania as far as the estuary of the Olt River. From 454 to 567 this territory was called Gepidia.


In the first years of their dominance, the Gepidae settled in the valleys of the greater Transylvanian rivers; and, according to written





sources, [315] their military power reached from the lower Danube to the mouth of the Olt River. Beginning with the sixth century, however, the center of the Gepidic settlements was established in the Transylvanian Basin (Mezőség, Cîmpia Transilvaniei) and its surroundings, primarily the regions of the Someşul Mic (Kis Szamos) and Mureş (Maros) rivers.


The presence of the Gepidae in the Carpatho-Danubian area in the sixth century is mentioned in several records. During the reign of Justinian (527-565) they conquered Dacia Ripensis. Theophylaktos Simokatta reported three Gepidic villages in the Banat in connection with a Byzantine military raid in the year 601. [316] In the year 626 Gepidae were also reported to be fighting in the army of the Avars at the siege of Constantinople. The capital of the Gepidic kingdom was moved to Sirmium (modem Mitrovica, Yugoslavia) around 560.


Following the settlement of the Avars in the Carpathian Basin and the defeat of the Gepidae in 567, the predominance of the Germanic peoples in the Carpathian Basin, that of the Gepidae in the Tisza region as well as in Transylvania, came to an end: The Longobards and Gepidae, as well as Romans from Raetia and Noricum and the Sarmatians, moved to Italy. Archaeological and written sources show that splinter groups of Longobards were located in the western parts of contemporary Hungary. Late Germanic groups still existed on the eastern bank of the Tisza at the beginning of the seventh century, but there was no continuity of settlements with the previous Gepidae. [317]


To this day some 21 settlements of the Germanic period have been discovered in Transylvania. [318] In addition, there are some 54 sites with cemeteries. [319] The material culture, of which the Old Germanic population was the main component, is called Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş. During the Merovingian period (500-567) several settlements of Gepidae were established in Transylvania, especially in the Mureş region and in the northern area of the Transylvanian Basin. Gepidic material remains are also found in the eastern parts of the Great Hungarian Plain (Alföld).


Moreşti-Podei (Malomfalva-Podej, Mureş County) is a typical settlement from the period of the peoples' migration, that is, of the Transylvaniari-Merovingian culture. [320] The settlement started at about the turn of the fifth to the sixth century and ended with the collapse of the Gepidic Empire (567). Similar cemeteries are also known to have existed in the Hungarian Plain. The excavations made from 1951 to 1956 uncovered 81 graves. Although there are many archaeological strata at Moreşti, there are few remains that can be used to date the levels chronologically. During the peoples' migration period the principle remains in Transylvania are of a Germanic population. Evidence





of the Gepidaes' presence may stili be found in the burial fields of Moreşti: Twin-rowed combs with five buttons ornamented with a headplate; fibulae with five buttons, ornamented with headplate and a rhomboid foot; and pearl jewelry attached to the head were found here; analogous objects were found also in the Gepid-inhabited Tisza region.


The red ceramics of the late Roman times were replaced in the period of the Germanic peoples (sixth century) by the grey high-fired earthenware made of a sandy material. Some was made on a potter's wheel and some by hand, the latter becoming increasingly more common. Ornamentation considered as being specific to the migration includes wave motifs, surface-glazing, [321] and impressed designs. A decisive change in the production and form of the fibulae occurred around the middle of the fifth century: Sheet metal fibulae were no longer made and were replaced by small cast fibulae. Somewhat later, larger fibulae with spiral ornamentations and clasps were used for clothing (Căpuşul Mare [Magyarkapus, Cluj County], Fîntînele, Moreşti, Ţaga). Small fibulae and those with spiral ornamentations do not appear in the first half of the sixth century.


Earthen fortifications of the sixth century, as well as houses erected above the ground level and square-shaped pit-huts, served primarily economic purposes, and were typical of those used by the Germanic tribes (Gepidae) in the first millenium A.D. in all the areas they inhabited. The row-graves of the Merovingian period began in the second half of the fifth century. The placing of armor and weapons in men's graves, according to East Germanic custom, was characteristic of Gepidic tombs. Men and women were buried separately.


The Roman remains at Moreşti give only a partial picture of the settlement of this area in Roman times, although in the second and third centuries it was the most important settled region in Transylvania; and no evidence exists to connect these remains with those of the later periods. [322]


The cemetery of Band (Mezőbánd, Mureş County) is part of the largest Gepidic remains in Transylvania. The cemetery of Noşlac with its 125 graves belongs to this group. Other Gepidic tombs are found in Cipău, Sighişoara, Ocniţa, and Ciurgo (Csurgó, Cluj County). In Ţaga a more elaborate woman's grave was uncovered. [323] In contrast to those on the Hungarian Plain, the continuity of use of the cemeteries of Noşlac, Unirea-Vereşmort, Band, and Bratei 3 has been verified. [324] All are located outside the areas of Avar sovereignty.


Gepidic graves of the earlier period, in the second half of the fifth century, appear in several locations in the Transylvanian Basin (Lechinţa de Mureş), as well as in the Tîrnava valley (Mediaş, Odorheiu





Secuiesc) with their characteristic Gepidic silver and gold earrings with buttons. The gold-covered fibulae and ornamented earrings found in Şeica Mică (Kisselyk, Sibiu County) in 1856 belong to the oldest Gepidic finds in the Carpathian Basin. Similar finds were discovered in Tírnava (Nagyekemező, Sibiu County), Sighişoara, Cîlnic (Kelnek), and Cluj. [325] In Noşlac Gepidic remnants of the Avar period were found. Arrowheads characteristic of the Germanic peoples were found in Cipău, Lechinţa de Mureş, Moreşti, and Ocniţa.


After 567 the Gepidic burial grounds ceased to exist, which may be explained either by the ousting of the Gepidae or by the plundering of the graves. The continued presence of the Gepidae during the Avar period, however, is unquestionable: Gepidic remnants can be archaeologically determined until 670, as eastern equestrian nomadic elements are to be found in Gepidic graves. [326] Late Germanic finds are Gepidic; however, there is no continuity of settlement in Transylvania between the Gepidae of the sixth century and the Late Germanic peoples of the first half of the seventh century. It is also possible that the Gepidae were moved or displaced by the Avars.


Since the most significant ethnic element in post-Roman Dacia Traiana was the Germanic tribes, discovery of evidence of a Romanic population among them would be of great significance. In current Romanian historiography the presence of a Romanic element in the settlements of the Old Germanic populations is generally considered an established fact and is said to be "illustrated in the predominantly Gothic archaeological complex of the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture by Geto-Dacian pottery and by some rituals." [327] A symbiosis of the Romans with the Gepidae is now assumed to have led to the assimilation of this Germanic population into the autochthons and "can no longer be identified in the archaeological material from the territory of Romania." [328]


In several earlier works published in Romania, the archaeologist Kurt Horedt has argued that certain objects found in Gepidic tombs suggest a Romanic population. [329] It has been maintained that no Gepidae dwelling places have been discovered so far on the Hungarian Plain; [330] in Transylvania, the Gepidic houses at Moreşti and Band may thus have been built "perhaps with a Roman influence." [331] The settlements in question clearly reveal characteristics of an Old Germanic people, with buildings on the surface surrounded by huts for weaving and for the preparation of meat. The earthenware, the characteristic fibulae, and the graves also indicate a Germanic people.


In a recent article published in West Germany, however, Horedt mentioned the difficulties of proving the presence of a Romanic population in the Merovingian period [332] and pointed out that several





investigations had furnished no decisive proof of a Roman population in that period. [333] Late Roman influences can no longer be detected in the sixth century Gepidic tombs.


With regard to the Gepidae living together with a Romanic population, the very generalized arguments amount to mere speculation. It is nevertheless possible that remnants of a Roman population could have been survived in Transylvania until the sixth or seventh century; this, however, cannot be proven through archaeological evidence and, in any case, cannot involve remnants of a Romanized Dacian population. Vestiges of Romans could, at best, be found in Germanic row graves but not in Slavic cremation tombs as has been assumed in several Romanian studies. This alternative is untenable as the Romans could not have practiced inhumation and shortly thereafter cremation. The change in funerary rites and the general use of cremation since the seventh century, as evidence of a comprehensive Slavization, provide the most serious archaeological objections to the assumption of late Roman continuity in Transylvania. [334] Archaeological and historical data converge in this instance.


In reference to the objects found among Gepidic material remains considered as being specific to the Romanized population in the former Roman province of Dacia, it should be noted that the Roman influence in this period was very pronounced throughout Europe; this fact certainly does not presuppose Romans living among the Goths. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine the exact dating or the designation of the archaeological finds, particularly those of objects of daily usage of the Roman population at the end of the fourth century and later. The assumption that the hairpins are an indication of a Romanized population is groundless, inasmuch as they are also found in the graves of the Gepidae. Fibulae with an inverted foot, such as those found at Moreşti, should also not be offered as evidence, since they are common throughout the Balkan Peninsula and between the Danube and the Carpathian Mountains, and are also to be found, albeit to a lesser extent, in the Gepidic tombs. [335] Furthermore, Celts could also have been the bearers of wheel-turned pottery (such as that from pre-Roman Dacia) and fibulae. Iron brooches and hairpins of the Roman bronze style, for example, of which a few have been found in Transylvania, have been also found in third to fourth century Sarmatian tombs in the region of the Tisza River and among fourth and fifth century Germanic material remains from the same area (the Hungarian Plain). [336] They also appeared in Longobard tombs in Pannonia, Bohemia, and Italy, as well as among the remains of the Bajuwars, the Franks, and other Germanic peoples. It was, in other words, a common and widespread object of ornamentation in Merovingian





times; it was not, however, characteristic of Roman tombs from the territory of the Roman Empire.


Cube-shaped earrings found in Gepidic tombs in Transylvania were claimed to be of local Roman origin. [337] They are indeed of Roman style and characteristic of the fourth to fifth centuries, but it is a misinterpretation to consider them as indications of a local Roman element in Transylvania, They belong, instead, to a large group of objects made after Roman patterns in barbarian Europe and are also found in parts of Germany, Austria, Bohemia, on the Hungarian Plain, in northern Moldavia, and in regions as remote as the Crimea. [338]


The grey, fourth-century earthenware of the Hungarian Plain often suggests a Sarmatian origin. Furthermore, wheel-made pottery in the shape of a pear or a bag is characteristic of mounted nomads in sixth and seventh centuries. Several kinds of pottery from the Carpathian Basin—the vessels of stamped ceramics and pottery with surface-glazed ornamentation—are typical of the peoples' migration period and therefore from a Germanic population. Excavations carried out in the last few years in Hungary have shown houses of the same type as both those described in Moreşti and Cipău and those with two or six poles, at Tiszafüred, Battonya (Hungary), and Eperjes (Slovakia). [339] To this one must add the fact that the number of graves and remains of settlements that could be ascribed to the Dacians in Transylvania is very low in comparison with the large volume of Celtic remains. [340] There are only a few Dacian remains of settlements, for example, in southeastern Transylvania; after the fourth century, however, the presence of Dacians in Transylvania is no longer demonstrable.


The existence of Old Germanic elements in the Romanian language has been assumed by several scholars, including the German Ernst Gamillscheg, Günter Reichenkron, and the Romanian Constantin Diculescu. Their etymologies do not, however, meet scientific requirements and belong, in fact, to the realm, of fantasy. Quoting the reputed Romanian linguist. Alexandru Rosetti, "one may say that none of the proposed etymologies stands up to critical, analysis. Those few words





for which no other etymology than the Germanic one has yet been proposed have small chances of belonging to this group of words." [341]


It is claimed that a Romanic population was living in the valleys of Transylvania and in the Transylvanian Basin in symbiosis with the Goths and Gepidae. In the same settlement or cemetery, material remains of a Romanic population are asserted to have been found, together with material left by the Germanic peoples. If this is correct, then the two kinds of people were living in the closest possible symbiosis for several centuries. The gist of the old question is, therefore, whether such a close symbiosis would be possible without having any effect on the language of the assumed Romanic population. If a Romanic population had coinhabited with and been subject to the rule of Germanic peoples in Trajan's Dacia for 300 years (275-567), the Romanian language would have to have acquired Germanic loan words just as traces of Gothic, Frankish, Burgundián, and Longobardic are to be found in the vocabulary of the Italian, Gallic, and Iberian languages. This problem will be discussed in the chapter dealing with the history of the Romanian language.





A catastrophic period in Southeast Europe began with the appearance of the Huns and Avars. As a consequence of the Hunnic invasion at the turn of the fourth century, ties with the Roman Empire come to an end and Byzantium sought to recover the lost western territories. Historically, this occurrence has been regarded as a catastrophe for Southeastern Europe. The arrival of the Huns coincides with the beginning of the early Middle Ages.


The Huns were of Scythian descent and, like the Turks, were probably of a common Turanian-Turkic origin from Inner- and Middle Asia. The first significant Hunnic invasion on the lower Danube was recorded in 395. The plain between the lower Danube and the Southern Carpathians—present-day Muntenia—became the principal settlement area of the Huns at the turn of the fourth century. After 420 to 430 A.D. remains of the Huns east and south of the Carpathians disappear because of their movement westward. Their vestiges in the transcarpathian territories can be verified in Buhăieni (Iaşi County), Dulceanca (Teleorman County), Gherăseni (Buzău County), and Conceşti (Botoşani County).


In 422 the Huns entered the Carpathian Basin. They chased the Goths from the Sea of Azov into Dacia; and later they themselves moved toward Dacia, for instance, against the Agathirs who inhabited the Carpathians. By 425 the empire of the Huns under Attila (433-453),





was established on the plain between the Tisza, Mureş, and Criş rivers (the present-day Hungarian Plain), During the later 430s the empire stretched as far as the Rhine. After Attila's death in 453, the empire disintegrated; and in 454 it collapsed following the defeat of the Huns by the Gepidae on the Nedao River. [342] Contemporary records of the dismemberment of the Hunnic Empire are scarce.


Following the collapse of the Hunnic Empire, the Gepidae and Ostrogoths were the dominant powers in the Carpathian Basin. The Gepidae occupied all of Dacia, that is, the territory between the Tisza and Danube, the Olt, and Carpathians, until the end of the fifth century. The Ostrogoths acquired Pannonia. Between the Danube and Tisza lived the Sarmatians and the Skirs. The history of the Carpatho-Danubian area between 454 and 473 was determined primarily by Ostrogothic warfare. [343]


The archaeological remnants of the Huns have been primarily of concern to Hungarian and German archaeologists. [344] Characteristic of Hunnic art are the gold diadems recovered from numerous graves of women. The barbarian cemeteries on the Hungarian Plain to the south of the Criş River ceased to exist after the settlement of the Huns in the Carpathian Basin.






The Avars


As mentioned previously, the archaeological configuration of Transylvania, with its rows of burial graves, bears the stamp of Germanic peoples. In the second half of the seventh century the row-cemeteries of the Germanic peoples came to an end and the first Avar row-cemeteries appeared in the Carpathian Basin: [345] in Transylvania along the middle course of the Mureş and Arieş rivers and in the eastern part of the Hungarian Plain along the Tisza River. [346]


The origin of the Avars is still obscure. They might have been partly Mongol, but their language was apparently Altaic. They were part of the Inner Asiatic peoples and probably stemmed from two ethnic groups. They have been traced by archaeologists to Inner Asia and to neighboring territories. [347] The Avars advance toward Europe, under pressure from the Turks, began after they lost sovereignty over the Onoguric Empire, in the Pontic Steppe, of the Bulgarian Khan Kuvrat. Toward the end of 557 they crossed the Volga and appeared in northern Caucasia. In 562 they reached the lower Danube under the leadership of Khan Bajan. In 567, following their victory over the





Gepidae and the collapse of the Gepidic Empire, the Avars moved into Transylvania and eastern Pannonia. In 568 the Avars occupied the entire plain of modern Hungary, including Pannonia, and established the Avar Empire, which assumed the role previously held by the Huns as the dominant power in Central Europe. The settlement of the Avars imposed profound ethnic and cultural changes in the Carpathian Basin, which following the Avar conquest ceased to be an area of Germanic interests. During their rule of 230 years the Avars developed new political and economic structures as well as new means of communication.


According to earlier historical views, the Avar Empire was destroyed by the Frankish King and Emperor Charlemagne and his son Pepin, with the help of the Bulgar Krum (803-814). Recent research has shown, however, that the collapse of the Avar Empire was also a result of internal discord. In the absence of evidence of the Avars' leaving the Carpathian Basin, it is fair to assume that they were assimilated into the Hungarian state, which appeared toward the end of the ninth century. The latest research indicates that east of the Danube, in the territories not occupied by Franks, the Avars retained their ethnic identity, language, and culture until the arrival of the Magyars. [348] Their territorial-political organization in this area was, however, destroyed by the Bulgarian Krum.


The remnants of Avar culture in the Carpathian Basin have not yet been explored; nevertheless, the few relics of their material culture that have been found, such as bronze castings and ornamented belt buckles, bear testimony to the Avars' highly developed culture. With the arrival of the Avars, weapons are to be found more frequently in burial grounds. The use of molded metal objects is characteristic of early Avar finds and is most probably attributable to the Kutrigurs. The dissemination area of Avar culture stretches from southern Vojvodina (Yugoslavia) as far as Transylvania, southern Slovakia, and Austria, south of Vienna.


As previously mentioned, in 567 the Avar conquest was completed. The belt buckles of this period are an important cultural characteristic. At the same time contacts developed between Byzantium and the Avar Empire. The chronology of the middle Avar period, from the last quarter of the seventh century to the beginning of the eighth century, has been established. The chronology of the late Avar period is still a subject of controversy: It is dated between the middle and end of the eighth century to the turn of the ninth century, presumably into the early ninth century; and it is characterized by cast bronze work. Equestrian nomadic objects, besides sheet metal artifacts, are limited to stirrups and snaffles.





The Avars' presence in Transylvania can be attested through archaeological evidence to having been on the middle course of the Mureş River in Gîmbaş (Marosgombás, Alba County), Noşiac, Unirea-Vereşmort, Aiud (Nagyenyed, Cluj County), Teiuş (Tövis, Alba County), Cicău (Csákó, Alba County), Band, Cipău, Moreşti, Lopadea Nouă (Magyarlapád, Alba County), Aiudul de Sus (Felenyed, Alba County), Măgina (Muzsnaháza) and Heria (Hari, both Alba County). There are remnants of the Avar culture in Transylvania in the Arieş River valley in Moldoveneşti (Várfalva, Cluj County), Comeşti (Sövényfalva, Cluj County), Címpia Turzii (Aranyosgyéres, Cluj County), and Turda, as well as in Corund (Korond, Harghita County), Dumbrăveni Erzsébetváros, Sibiu County), Nuşfalău (Szilágynagyfalu, Sălaj County), Someşeni, and Ocna Sibiului (Vizakna, Sibiu County). The pendant of an Avar cast iron filigree from the eighth or ninth century was found in Dăbîca (Doboka, Cluj County). Contemporary Avar cast iron artifacts are also known from the cemeteries of Nuşfalău and Someşeni and were still used by the Gepidae after the Avar period, as late as 630. In Noşiac Gepidic remnants of the Avar period and a belt buckle used by equestrian nomads at the beginning of the seventh century were found.


As mentioned previously, the furnishing of the late Transylvanian burial grounds (Band, Noşiac, Unirea-Vereşmort) do not necessarily reveal continuity from the Gepidae of the sixth century and the late Germanic people of the seventh century. All the cemeteries mentioned are analogous to those on the western edge of the Avar Empire, such as the ones at Környe (Hungary) in the transdanubian area. One of the most important Avar khan tombs has been excavated at Kunbábony, Hungary. In the second quarter of the seventh century today's southern Slovakia was incorporated into the Avar Empire. Equestrian nomadic graves have been found in this region.


Avar grave groups, with the characteristic equestrian nomadic material culture, appear around 670 in the Mureş valley in Transylvania, as new ethnic groups, presumably Onogur Bulgars, settled in the Avar Empire. Consequently, the ethnic structure of the late Avars is altered through the appearance of this new element whose culture is closely related to that found in the treasure-laden tombs of the Ukraine. The equestrian nomadic peoples' working of cast bronze ceases with the destruction of the Avar Empire at the end of the eighth century.


With the first Avar wave several tribes moved westward, primarily Slavic groups such as Antes, Volhynians, and Sorbs. The early Avar-Slavic symbiosis is set chronologically between 630 and 700. Slavic settlements were originally separate from the Avar; however, in Avar





cemeteries of the seventh century Slavic elements appear (Bratei 2 is, for instance, the heretofore largest known late Avar-Slavic cemetery in Transylvania). In the eighth century it is almost impossible to differentiate between Avar and Slavic material culture, for instance in ceramics.


On the basis of archaeological finds it is possible to establish the presence of the Avars in the Mureş and Tîrnava valleys of Transylvania in the eighth century. The continuing existence of the late Avars, in contrast to the account of the Russian Primary Chronicle, is assumed by Hungarian researchers. Proof of this continuity are Avar cemeteries of the tenth century. [349] At the beginning of the ninth century the Avars abandoned their graves, after which the Slavic components become more and more evident. Slavic cemeteries with Avar remnants are in Someşeni, Dăbîca, Căuaş (Érkávás, Sálaj County), and Nuşfalău (Szilágynagyfalu, Sălaj County).






The period between the seventh and tenth centuries in the Carpathian Basin is marked by two decisive events: the settlement of the Slavs and the arrival of the Magyars. As is known, the original home of the Slavs stretched over a considerable area of the East European plain, between the lower Vistula and Niemen to the north and the Carpathian Mountains to the south and from the middle Dnieper and Pripet in the east to the Oder and Elbe in the west. [350] This corresponds approximately to the written sources, especially those of the sixth century historian Jordanes. [351] Further data regarding the Slavs, particularly for the sixth century, are provided by Procopius. [352] Jordanes distinguishes among three groups of Slavs: the Venedi, the Sclavini, and the Antes. After the sixth century all Slavs called themselves Sloven (plural Slovenes) which was transcribed in Latin as Sclavus or Sclavinus (plural Sclavi, Sclavini) and which the Greeks identified as Sklavenoi or Sklavoi. The Southern Russian Slavs, who lived in the area stretching from the Moldavian Carpathians and the mouth of the Danube to the Crimea, were designated as Antes or Antai by Byzantine writers. Jordanes places the location of the Antes between the Dnieper and Dniester. The Sclavini were the Balkan Slavs while the Antes were part of the community of Eastern Slavs later known as Russians.


Written records regarding the first phase of the Slavic conquest are not always reliable. The first wave of Slavs reached the Danube toward the end of the fifth century; they were already mentioned in





written sources at the beginning of the sixth century as living on the lower Danube. With the arrival of the Avars in the Carpatho-Danubian area, Slavic attacks tend to diminish; however, regular Slavic attacks against the Balkan provinces occurred even before the arrival of the Avars, during the last years of the rule of Emperor Justinus I (518-527). During the reign of Justinian, in the years 530 to 531, Slavic incursions across the lower Danube became increasingly more frequent. In 550, with the help of the Gepidae, Slavic peoples penetrated into most of the Balkan Peninsula; in 623 an independent Slavic dominion was established north of the Danube, and the northern frontier of the Byzantian Empire collapsed. Between 610 and 641 the Slavs occupied all of the northern and central regions of the Balkan Peninsula, from the Alps to the Black Sea and from the Adriatic to the Aegean Sea, The territory stretching from the Haemus (Balkan) Mountains to the Adriatic was known as Slavinia and was incorporated into the Bulgarian kingdom in the late seventh century.


The Slavs found in the mountainous central parts of the Balkan Peninsula the ancestors of the Vlachs, as shown by numerous geographical names [353] of Rumanian origin, such as Durmitor (2528 m) and Visător, the two highest peaks in Montenegro; cf. Du Nay, 1977, op. cit., pp. 26-27: a list and map with 35 names of villages of Romanian origin, including the Romanian appellatives from which they are formed (list and map after S. Dragomir: Vlahii în nordul peninsulei Balcanice în evul mediu, 1959). There are also appellatives of Romanian origin in certain Serbian dialects.


The Slavic penetration south of the Danube was completed in the seventh century; their conquest of the Balkan Peninsula, with the exception of Greece, was essentially accomplished. As a result, new ethnic relations arose in Southeastern Europe. In the ninth century, for example, even Thracia was called Slavinia; the rural areas were Slavic but the towns Greek. Concurrently with the Slavic advance to the Danube and the Balkan Peninsula, western Slavs were moving toward the Elbe by way of the Oder.


During the second half of the fifth century eastern Slavic peoples probably occupied the Gepid-inhabited parts of Transylvania, even though the earliest Slavic archaeological finds reveal no connection with the pre-568 Gepidic culture. According to recent archaeological research in Slovakia, it seems that the Slavs made their appearance in the Carpathian Basin, coming through various mountain passes, as early as in the sixth century. It is a fact, however, that the earliest reliable extant Slavic (eastern Slavic) remains are to be found in Transylvania, that is, in eastern Transylvania in the Trei Scaune (Háromszék-Kovászna) Basin, in the valleys of the Olt and Tîrnava rivers, and can be dated to the period stretching from the sixth to the ninth and tenth centuries. Eastern Slavic peoples, the Antes,





penetrated eastern Transylvania with the Avars in the second half of the sixth century. This is indicated by the existence of Slavic place names (Borosnyó, Kovăszna, Zágon, Csernáton, Lisznyó, Szacsva, Doboly, Esztelnek, Gelence, and others), hand-made ceramics of the Prague type, cast bronze fibulae, and cremation graves from the second half of the seventh century. After the Antes, western Slavic peoples also settled there. Larger and smaller rivers have retained their Slavic names to our time. In general, it may be assumed that Slavs lived in Transylvania from as early as the seventh century (Band, Moreşti). Their presence there can be shown to have lasted until the twelfth and, to some extent, the thirteenth century.


The second Slavic wave reached the Carpathian Basin in the seventh and eighth centuries. There, they settled primarily in the middle sectors of the river valleys. An ever greater Slavic wave displaced the Avars, who still inhabited the Carpathian Basin in the seventh century; as a consequence, following the collapse of the Avar Empire, the Slavs became the most numerous inhabitants of the Basin. At the beginning of the seventh century the Slavs who inhabited the Alpine region rebelled against the Avar Empire, and between 630 and 640 the Slavs who inhabited Dalmatia freed themselves from Avar rule.


In the years of transition from the sixth to seventh centuries more Slavic peoples appeared in the valleys of the Northern Carpathians and in the region of the Morava and upper Tisza rivers as well as in northern Transylvania. These were the White Croats, related to the Poles, who lived side-by-side with the later Avars. Their presence is still mentioned in the tenth century. With the Hungarian conquerors other splinter groups of eastern Slavs from the region of the Dniester and Bug rivers reached the Carpathian Basin. It is assumed that they lived side-by-side with the Hungarians for an extended period of time. Toponymic and archaeological remnants such as place names and characteristic funeral mounds (tumulus) of eastern Slavs may still be seen in the region of Sălaj and in the valleys of the Someş (Szamos), Kraszna, and Berettyó rivers, especially in Şimleu Silvaniei and Szeged. One of their citadels was built on the ruins of ancient Porolissum and another in Ziligrad (Sóvár), in proximity of Doboka (Dăbîca).


On the eve of the Hungarian conquest the so-called Danubian Slovenes and Moravians lived west of the Danube; Bulgaro-Slavs in the larger but sparsely inhabited eastern half of the Carpathian Basin; and, as previously mentioned, the so-called White Croats in the valleys of the Northern Carpathians. The Slavic-Hungarian symbiosis lasted some 150 years; part of the Christian terminology of the Hungarian language was introduced by slavic-speaking Western missionaries in





Hungary in the tenth century. Yet, the Magyars had almost certainly come into close contact with Slavonic Christianity before their migration to Central Europe. [354]


One of the most important historical events marking the end of Antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages is the advance of the Slavs. Their arrival in the Southeastern European area caused a decisive alteration of the ethnic, linguistic-cultural, and historical configuration. In the seventh and eighth centuries the whole of the Balkan Peninsula, except Greece, was Slavized. The ancient geographic nomenclature used in the Balkan Peninsula was replaced by a new set of names that have generally survived until now. With the Slavic occupation, Latin ceased to be the official language on the Balkan Peninsula. In contrast to Western patterns, in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin (in Transylvania) no pre-Slavic place names have been preserved. No ancient, pre-Slavic population survived: Late Germanic peoples or remnants of Avars disappeared, that is, assimilated into Slavdom in the seventh century. [356]


The archaeological landscape was changed altogether. The Slavs replaced inhumation by cremation and the specific burial custom, the widow's sacrifice, characteristic of earlier Slavic tombs, was introduced. The archaeological remnants of their culture reveal a close relationship to the so-called Saltovo culture of Russia. The Slavs' conversion to Christianity was the work of Byzantium; the Serbs adopted Christianity between 867 and 874. [357]


As indicated by place- and river names of Slavic origin, the Hungarians found a Slavic population when they populated several parts of Transylvania beginning with the tenth century. But Slavs were living there also later, because the Saxons, who started to colonize certain areas beginning with the mid-twelfth century, borrowed many geographical names from them. This Slavic population disappeared after the twelfth century, being assimilated into the Hungarian, and, in some parts of southern Transylvania, into the Romanian population (see. below, chapter IV).



Archaeological Remnants of the Slavs in Transylvania


As mentioned above, at the turn of the sixth to seventh century the period of the Germanic peoples came to an end in Transylvania; and the Slavic period began. Nevertheless, until the last quarter of the seventh century, late Germanic, Avar (nomadic equestrian), and Slavic elements converged. The archaeological excavations of Transylvania reveal a continuity of settlements in the 6th and 7th centuries, that is, between the Old Germanic and Slavic and, in part also, the Avar cultures. The





discontinuation of row graves marks the disappearance of late Germanic population. In juxtaposition, the appearance of cremation funerals since the seventh century signals the arrival of the Slavs.


During the sixth and seventh centuries the Slavs borrowed much from the Roman culture, particularly in the fields of technology, earthenware, jewelry, and house-building. The most salient archaeological characteristics of Slavic culture in its earliest stages are the hand-made earthenware, cremation burial, and square pithouses. Square and horseshoe-shaped stone fireplaces are of Slavic origin. Slavic ceramics are characterized by hand-made or wheel-made kiln-fired earthenware, with circular or waved ornamentation. A grey paste (clay) is the identifying characteristic of early Slavic ceramics. The list of places where this kind of ceramics was found in Transylvania has been established by Horedt as follows: Sighişoara, Bezid, Cipău, Sfîntu Gheorghe, Sălaşuri (Székelyszállás, Mureş County), Cernat, Comana de Jos (Alsókomána, Braşov County), and Poian. [358] The earliest Slavic ceramics are difficult to distinguish from those of the Černjachov culture.


Starting with the seventh century the first Slavic cremation cemeteries, frequently with Avar remnants, are found in Transylvania. The largest Slavic urn cemetery in the Carpathian Basin is cemetery no. 2 of Bratei, on the southern bank of the Tîrnava River. At the same time it is the only cemetery that reveals an Avar-Slavic symbiosis. [359] According to archaeological findings the cemetery of Bratei 2 was put into use at the earliest at the beginning of the eighth century, in the Avar period. Some of the urns should be attributed to the post-Avar period, to the so-called Mediaş group. No connection with the cremation cemetery of Bratei 1 of the third-fourth centuries can be assumed. [360]


Six funeral groups can be distinguished in Transylvania: Mediaş, Gîmbaş, Nuşfalău, Blandiana (originally Cîrna/Maroskarna, Alba County), Ciumbrud, and Cluj. They were named after the places where they were first known to have existed. [361] The Mediaş group through its Slavic characteristics is defined as Slavic. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, late Germanic, Avar (nomadic equestrian), and Slavic elements converge. Chronologically they are set in the first half of the seventh century. The first of these tombs was excavated in 1960. In Berghin (Berve, Alba County) 360 graves were uncovered from 1976 to 1979; and in 1980 another 151 tombs were excavated. [362] Also in eastern and southern Transylvania some earlier finds of this group appeared. This type of tomb is also found in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and in the area of the Balkan-Danube culture, as well as in the area of the Slavs as the result of their wanderings toward the





west and the south; [363] the urns show Slavic characteristics in their shape, technique, and ornamentation. [364] These tombs, such as those at Bratei, Boarta, Bistriţa, and Berghin (Alba County), and also in other areas of Romania, were the predominant type for about two centuries: from the early seventh to the late ninth century. One exception is along the middle course of the Mureş River and the eastern part of the Tisza River plain where tombs of Avar equestrians are frequent.


in about half of the places, a small number (about 9%) of the bodies were buried without cremation. There are several explanations for these inhumation tombs, [365] which could be connected with religious rituals and social, or ethnic circumstances. Most of the bodies were buried with the head towards the east, contrary to the Christian funeral rites; the lower classes may have been buried in this way. The presence of such objects as a Byzantine clasp or a knife of iron in such tombs suggests, however, that even rich and powerful people were buried in this way. With regard to the ethnic character of these tombs, cremation replaces the inhumation cemeteries of the row-graves in Transylvania and is connected with the arrival of the Slavs. Furthermore, there are also biological differences between people: At Ocna Sibiului, for example, 63% of the children were buried by inhumation although some adults were also not cremated. Chronological factors also played a certain role: Inhumation replaced cremation in the ninth century, but there were inhumation tombs as early as in the seventh century.


Most of the objects found in the cremation tombs were destroyed by fire; in about 20% of these graves, bones of animals, mostly sheep, birds, and goats, were also found. The most common objects are knives, generally in a very poor condition. At Tîrnava a Byzantine clasp from the second half of the seventh century was found. Bone fragments with an ornamentation of plant motifs, probably found at Ocna Sibiului, are from the seventh to eighth centuries and belong to the Avar culture. Similar remains have been found at Alattyán, Sopronkőhida (Hungary), and Havelberg (East Germany). The fibulae are of the Slavic type; one was found at Săcuieni, for example and has been classified as belonging to group I c of Slavic fibulae in the shape of a bow. [366] A bronze clasp of the Byzantine type of the seventh century was found at Tîrnava. [367] A similar piece is known from Keszthely, and another identical piece was found in the Avar cemeteries at Szentes-Kaján (both Hungary).


The graves of the Gîmbaş group are ascribed to the equestrian nomadic population. The chronological connection between the Slavic burial grounds and the Avar is revealed by an equestrian tomb of





this group. The burial ground of Bratei is certainly Slavic, and the assumption that it may be connected with branches of Romanic peoples is incorrect.


The group of graves at Blandiana (defined as Blandiana A), which is located some 20 kilometers from Alba Iulia on the Mureş, is placed chronologically in the South Slavic (Bulgarian) period of the ninth century, the time of the arrival of the Hungarians. The place and field names which are to be found in the region, Bulgarian (Slavic) in origin, attest to this. The dissemination area of this culture reaches the lower Danube, to the former Bulgarian Empire of the ninth and tenth centuries. The territory in which this culture (also known as Balkan-Carpathian culture) originated is located to the south of the Danube on the Balkan Peninsula. The culture penetrated from the West and not from the Southern Carpathian passes into Transylvania, as is archaeologically demonstrable (Blandiana A group around Alba Iulia). [368] In conclusion, Horedt states that these typically Slavic tombs were predominant in Transylvania for two centuries, from 650 to 850. [369]



The Extension of the Theory of Romanization to Territories Beyond Roman Dacia


Several current Romanian historical works and surveys of the last decade have assumed that the early Romanization had been extended to all the territories of contemporary Romania, that is, even to those territories that never belonged to the Roman Empire. [370] The absence of any convincing evidence suggests that these arguments are the product of the current political imagination. It has been postulated that the tribes living in central and northern Moldavia (for example, the Carps), being neighbours to Dacia and Moesia, also adopted some forms of Roman civilization because of their contact with Roman culture; [371] historians speak about workshops east of the Carpathians in which Roman artisans produced glass of good quality and about buildings of Roman style, both of which are signs of Roman life in the fourth century. Another phenomenon referred to is the appearance of bronze coins, since "it is known that bronze coins were used in commerce only by the Roman population and never by the barbarians." [372] Other historians have expressed the opinion that the transcarpathian territories were increasingly Romanized from the fourth to the sixth centuries, as shown by ovens for the production of iron, pottery, and other objects, as well as by houses of the Roman type. The survival of the Romanized population is explained by reference to their assumed superior culture and "the extensive and continual process of Romanization." [373]





The Assumed Romanization in Muntenia


In a work published in 1974 a Romanian historian argued that the presence of a Romanized population ("Daco-Romans") in Muntenia in the fourth to seventh centuries had been ''indisputably proved in the numerous settlements and cemeteries." [374] The following historical circumstances are said to have contributed to the Romanization of Muntenia: The territory belonged for some years in the early second century to Moesia Inferior; and in 112 and 113 A.D., a Roman army unit (the Cohors I Hispanorum veterana) was stationed there. In the same period, the Romans erected a number of fortifications in several parts of Muntenia and southern Moldavia. Some of these have been excavated, including those at Drajna de Sus, at Mălăieşti, Tîrgşor, and Pietroasele (near Buzău). [375] After the death of Emperor Trajan in 117 A.D., the Sarmatians attacked Moesia Inferior and Dacia; they subsequently settled at several places in Muntenia. The new emperor, Hadrian, was advised to give up the Dacian province but did not follow this advice. He abandoned, however, all the towers in the interior of Muntenia and southern Moldavia; and the Roman border was drawn along the lower Danube and not far from the Olt River. The merchants traveling through Muntenia from the towns along the Black Sea toward the central areas of Dacia are also often mentioned as having contributed to Romanization.


During the time of Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337), the Byzantine Empire expanded. The area of the present-day Romanian provinces, Muntenia and Oltenia up to the furrow of Novac (Brazda lui Novac), was occupied for some time. [376] The invasion of the Huns put an end to this period. In the sixth century, the Byzantine Empire expanded northward again and reconquered the northern areas of the Balkan Peninsula up to the lower Danube. A number of towers were built along the northern shore of the river (at Litterata, Diema, and Turnu Măgurele); the ruins of the last two towers still exist. Romanian historians attribute great importance to this period of time, as well as to a record (the Novella of Justinian) thai gives some hints about the circumstances along the lower Danube. [377] It must be emphasized, however, that immediately after the death of the Byzantine ruler Maurikios (602) the Romans lost all contacts with the middle Danube.


The chief arguments for an early Romanization of Muntenia, however, are archaeological. Earthenware dating to the second and third centuries A.D. shows Roman provincial characteristics, and most of the metal objects are of Roman origin. This is the case, for example, in a settlement dating from the second half of the second century





to the beginning of the fourth century at Mătăsaru, in western Muntenia (fifty kilometers from the limes Trans-Alutanus), where excavations began in 1962; the techniques of making earthenware found here are "of the type found in the settlements of Roman Dacia." [378] Further excavations at the same site in 1977 resulted in the find of two fragments of vessels on which Roman letters were engraved after firing: RAT or BAT and NVS. At two other places in Muntenia, within 25 kilometers from the Roman frontier, fragments of vessels with Roman letters were found in the woods and fields, without any connection to a dwelling place or tomb. At Curcani, the upper part of a bowl bearing the letters MITIS was found; since similar reliefs are known from the earthenware of the Militari-Chilia culture, the vessel is thought to have been made in Muntenia. [379] At Socetu in 1968 the bottom of a vessel was found with the inscription AVRELI(V)S SILVAN(V?)S FECIT PATELAM BONAM, which was incized before firing; the vessel is probably from the third century. Available information does not make it clear whether the vessel was imported from the Roman Empire or produced locally. [380]


One of the first archaeologists to write about an allegedly Romanic material culture in sixth century Muntenia was Suzana Dolinescu-Ferche, who, with Petre Roman, described the findings: "The huts belonged to a rural settlement without fortifications on the left bank of the Olt River. The major part of the settlement was destroyed. The huts were rectangular, with rounded corners, about 2.5 by 3.0 meters, sunken in the soil at most by 0.4 to 0.5 meters. The floors were not covered with clay; no pits of poles, steps, or benches were found. The oven was made by digging in the yellow soil and had an oval shape." [381]


Based on a detailed analysis of earthenware at Ipoteşti stress is placed on the characteristics that emphasize a Dacian and provincial Roman origin, with reference to the techniques, the prevailing types, and the forms that show similarities to the autochthonous types, [as well as] the types of huts, and ovens, that may also be seen among the free Dacians in the third century A.D. In southwest Muntenia, the discoveries of the ipoteşti and Olteni types also include a large quantity of earthenware of the Roman provincial tradition. Furthermore, it has been maintained that in the fifth and sixth centuries, the types of earthenware derived from the Dacian and provincial Roman forms changed (a change brought about by the economic, ethnic, historical, and social circumstances in the territories north of the Danube), and as a consequence of these changes a new cultural picture of a rural population developed over a large area, categorized as a Romanic culture [o cultură romanică] of rural character.





The Assumed Romanization in Moldavia


According to the second century Greek astronomer and geographer Ptolemy (Ptolemaeus), the area between the Siret and Dniester rivers was inhabited in the second century A.D. by Sarmatians, Carps, and a Celtic population (Britolagai). [382] These eastern parts of Moldavia were dependent on Moesia Inferior. [383] Bastarnae were living in the northern part of the province and Costoboci (Kostobokoi) ana Carps in the west. [384] The Costoboci and the Carps are considered to have belonged to the Dacians.


Since Romanian historians consider the Carps to be one of the group from which the Romanian people originated, it is necessary to examine some of their main characteristics. Historical records about them are extant from the mid-second century A.D. until 381 A.D. Most of what is known about them, however, is based on archaeological excavations. On the basis of these findings, it can be concluded that the Carpic material culture was a continuation of the Dacian La Téne culture but was greatly influenced by the Sarmatians and the Romans and, to a lesser degree, by the Celts and Germanic peoples. They probably lived in Moldavia between the Eastern Carpathians and the Siret River beginning in the second century A.D.; later, they spread eastward, to the Prut River and even beyond it. The Costoboci lived in northern Moldavia until about 170 A.D., after which the Carps expanded to that area. At certain sites (Poiana Dulceşti, Lutărie, Tirpeşti) [385] there is a continuity between the late Dacian settlements and the early Carpic ones. The first level of settlements ends in many sites at the end of the second century A.D. Turbulent events at the end of that century are indicated by 23 hoards of Roman coins (denarii), which end with the reign of Commodus (180-192 A.D.), found in the former territory of the Carps. These hoards were usually connected with an attack of the Goths; but it is more probable that the attackers were Romans. [386] At some sites, there is continuity between the first and the second level of settlements (at Varniţă and at Silişte, for example).


During most of the third century, the Carps made occasional incursions into the Roman Empire. The first known attack occurred in 214 A.D.; the most violent one, a veritable war, was fought from 245 to 247. Emperor Philip the Arab himself was in Dacia on this occasion with the Praetorian guards (cohors praetoria), and army units were brought to Dacia from the Rhine area. Many of the inhabitants of Roman Dacia probably left the province because of this attack, although Romanian historians endeavor to maintain that it did not imply the end of Roman domination in Dacia. [387]





The Carpic culture ends in the last decade of the third century A.D. Records describe the wars with Rome from 295 to 297 and affirm that at this occasion, Carporum naţio translata omnis in nostrum solum or Carporum gens universa in Romania se tradidit. [388] A large number but not all of this population had certainly settled by this time in the Roman Empire, south of the Danube. This is shown in records about fights with the Romans from 306 to 311 and 313 to 319. According to an inscription discovered in Mauritania and dated to 319 A.D., Emperor Constantin the Great was called "Carpicus Maximus." As late as in 381, the Carps, together with the Huns, were still attacking the empire. The Carpic culture was, in any case, replaced at the beginning of the fourth century by the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture. Carpic elements were discovered among the remains of this culture. Whether this indicates the existence of Carps or only the perpetuation of certain cultural characteristics is not known.


The earthenware of the Carps is thought to have originated from the Dacian La Tène but reveals many influences from other peoples. Wheel-made vessels are more frequent (about 60% in the settlements and up to 90% in the cemeteries). From this type of vessels, about 75% were grey and the rest red; in the later phases of the Carpic culture, the number of the grey forms increased. [389] Several circumstances indicate that the red pottery in these sites was produced by the Carps and not imported from the Roman Empire. The Dacian cup is frequently found in the settlements, where it was used as a rushlight; Roman rushlights are not found in these settlements. In the cemeteries, the Dacian cup was used as a censer. One typical decoration was a belt in alveolate relief, [390] typical of Dacian vessels; but the Carps used many other types of ornamentation.


The Roman influence upon Carpic earthenware was considerable. For example, with one exception, all amphorae show a more or less intense Roman influence. The autochthonous potters changed the pointed bottom and the narrow rim, characteristic features of the Roman amphora, and created a new, specifically Carpic type. [391] Many other types of vessels and their covers are similar to Roman earthenware in certain details. [392] The Sarmatian influence upon Carpic culture was significant. Coming from the east, the Sarmatians migrated to the areas west of the Prut River in the first decades of the first century A.D. and lived together with the Costoboci and the Carps, especially at the end of the second and the first half of the third centuries. From this population no settlements are known, only cemeteries. In 1973 37 Sarmatian cemeteries were known in Moldavia; they are mostly situated on the plains and are generally quite small, containing from 2 to 13 tombs, rarely more. From the Sarmatians the Carps





borrowed several types of pearls, the characteristic mirrors, and other objects. At the beginning, finished products were borrowed, but later some Sarmatian objects were also produced by the Carps. [393] These include vessels with zoomorphic covers and protuberances. In their turn, the Sarmatians adopted the Carpic art of making earthenware on a wheel; certain vessels of a Daco-Carpic type appear frequently in the Sarmatian tombs even in the territory east of the Prut River (in the present-day Moldavian Socialist Republic). The Roman influence is seen in the earthenware, jewelry, and different objects, but especially fibulae. Among the imported products, the most frequent was the amphora. Both trade and the payment of subsidies by the Romans could have contributed to the influx of Roman earthenware to Moldavia. All imports came from Moesia Inferior (not from Dacia).


The number of isolated Roman coins found in the Carpic sites is not very high. Of a total of 55 coins, 35 were of silver, 18 of bronze, 1 of copper, and 1 unknown. Only 12 were from the third, and the others from the second century. [394] Of these 55 coins, 7 were found in tombs: 1 in an urn from the cemetery at Poieneşti, 1 silver and 4 bronze coins in the same cemetery; and the last, a silver coin, is from a cemetery at Dochia. [395] The largest single group (23) of a total of 74 hoards, ends with the reign of Emperor Commodus (180-192 A.D); 29 hoards have been dispersed or are unpublished.


Material remains of Roman style up to the third century A.D. in Moldavia have been found at Bărboşi (Vaslui County), a village about 17 kilometers from Galaţi, on the shore of the Siret River, a few kilometers north of the Danube. As previously mentioned, an important military camp existed there in the second and third centuries A.D. Only Roman material remains have been found in the ruins of the Roman fortification; but in the civil settlement west of it, "the Dacian material accounts for a significant proportion." [396] Besides Roman material, the main types of Dacian earthenware and some variants frequently used by the Carps and the Sarmatians were found there. [397] It is, however, often difficult to differentiate between the Dacian earthenware made on a wheel and that made by other groups; for one thing, the grey paste used in making it was used by several peoples. About 5-15% of the earthenware considered Dacian was made on the wheel. Some of the vessels show a Roman influence in the paste as well as in some forms; others are similar to Sarmatian vessels. [398] The inscriptions found at Bărboşi contain Greek and Latin names, as well as names originating from Asia Minor. The majority of the graffiti is in Greek. A large number of amphorae of different kinds and origin (from the shores of the Aegean Sea), lamps, fibulae, Roman bronze coins, and other objects widely used in the Roman





Empire were found around the fortification at Bărboşi. Besides Greek and Roman objects of religious cults, statues and reliefs of the Thracian and Danubian equestrian gods, as well as a number of Oriental gods, have also been found at Bărboşi. The myth of the Danubian equestrian god is considered to have been of Dacian origin; it was, however, widespread, and a total of 220 representations are known today. Even more widespread was the Thracian equestrian god, of which about 2,000 were known in 1971 in Southeast and Central Europe. Traces of the Christian faith are quite uncertain and, at best, rare. Only four ancient Christian objects have been found from the time in question at Bărboşi. There were no traces of cults from Asia Minor nor of any Germanic cults.


At several places in Moldavia, as also in other areas of Romania (and, of course, many areas of Europe in general), a certain continuous presence of human dwelling was shown from the third century A.D. during the rest of the first millenium. The stratigraphic analysis made at Dodeşti (Vaslui County), for example, indicates a succession of levels from the third to the tenth century; there is a hut dated to the sixth or seventh century, half of which is covered by a dwelling built in the eighth or ninth century; and at one meter distance from this, there is a third hut, dated to the tenth or eleventh century. [399] At Costişa-Manoaia, a settlement continues from the third to the first half of the sixth century. The level dated to the fifth century in this last mentioned site is superposed on that of the Sîntana de Mureş culture, from the end of the fourth century. [400] This is the case in several other places, for example, at Botoşana, where two levels were built upon a Sîntana de Mureş type of settlement.


With regard to dwelling places, the most common pit house is rectangular and 40 centimeters deep. A much less common form is of 80 to 110 centimeters deep and from 2.8 by 3.2 meters to 3.0 by 3.5 meters in size. Surface huts are rarely found, probably because they were of a seasonal character; made of woven twigs cemented together with clay, they were easily destroyed. The hearths are made of clay, are oval or circular, and are three to five centimeters thick, which is uncommon. Similar hearths of the same period have also been found in Slavic areas (Soviet Union and Poland). Stone ovens are frequently found in the dwelling places of the sixth to seventh centuries. They consist of an oval or circular hearth surrounded by a wail made of pebbles cemented together by earth. They are usually either one meter square with one side open or horse-shoe shaped with a size of 80 by 60 centimeters. Ovens of clay have been found in all settlements. They are cirular with a clay vault [401] and were probably used both for bread baking and firing pottery. Special kilns





have not yet been found. In some of the ovens, clay cylinders similar to those of the ovens of the Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti and Dridu cultures have been found. Pits for storing grain and other products are cylindrical or sac-shaped; most of them were empty.


Tombs from the period between the mid-fifth and the mid-seventh centuries are very rare. [402] It is difficult to determine the age of those tombs that do not contain any objects. There are the following tombs from this period: 1. An inhumation tomb with the body lying from northwest to southeast. A fibula dates this tomb to the second half of the fifth century. 2. Two inhumation tombs, one in a south by north direction and containing two bronze bracelets dating to the fifth to seventh centuries, and the other from west by northwest to east by southeast. 3. An inhumation tomb containing a bronze clasp of Byzantine origin, from the sixth or seventh century and two or three others, with a Byzantine bronze clasp of the Sucidava type from the same period in one of them. [403] From these few finds it is not possible to determine much about funeral rites. In most of the tombs the bodies were placed in a direction different from that in Christian cemeteries (east to west).


Metal objects, such as different kinds of knives, have been found in almost all dwelling places. In many sites there were also iron axes of the sixth and seventh centuries, usual in the Danubian regions, as well as arrows, hooks, chain loops, clasps, and so forth. Two fragments of an iron sickle, an iron ploughshare, a bell, and a tinder box have also been discovered at these sites. Objects of bone include knife handles, chain loops, a double comb (from the sixth century) and a cut stone awl. There are also casting moulds. Fusaiols (a weight used in spinning, usually made of clay) are found in almost all settlements.


Most of the jewels and ornaments were imported from the Byzantine towns along the southern shore of the lower Danube: fibulae of Byzantine type, "attributed especially to the Romanic population," [404] earrings, and a small, fragmentary ring with an incised eagle, a Byzantine motif; several clasps of the Sucidava and Siracuza types from the sixth to seventh centuries; and bronze bracelets. A clasp found at Botoşana is a late imitation of an Old Germanic clasp from the fifth century.


A few Byzantine coins from the sixth century have been discovered at nine places, but only two from the seventh century. Three hoards containing Byzantine coins from the first half of the fifth to the first half of the sixth century were found in southern Moldavia (two in Galaţi County and one in Bacău County), and contain 28, 26, and 30 coins, respectively. [405]





Earthenware made on a fast wheel is mostly grey and includes a vessel of Roman style that was also adopted by the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture. In Moldavia it was used between the mid-fifth and the mid-sixth centuries and is quite uncommon. The other type of earthenware made on a fast wheel, a kind of a can, is found even more rarely. Earthenware made on a slow wheel was made from two kinds of paste, one consisting of sand and gravel and the other also containing pounded fragments. These pieces are unusual. They are of a russet-brown color with grey spots and are mostly of low quality, with irregular surfaces. This type of vessel is from 15 to 20 centimeters high and is ornamented, beginning in the fifth to sixth centuries, with a simple line, and from the sixth to seventh centuries with horizontal or wave-like lines, in the sixth to seventh centuries, this type became more frequent. Hand-made pottery is found most frequently. The paste used for these pieces almost always contains pounded fragments. Most of these pieces are carelessly made, and the firing is incomplete and not uniform. Their color is predominantly russet-brown, sometimes with brownish-grey tones. The surface shows irregularities, and the vessels are often deformed. A small vessel of 15 to 25 centimeters in height is encountered often and is found at almost all the settlements. It is similar to certain Dacian vessels from the preceding period. A medium-sized vessel (height 20-25 centimeters) is rare before the eighth century. Medium-sized tureens (20 centimeters high) are found in the shape of a truncated cone, ornamented by cuts or small notches; they are unusual; and small ornamented cylindric mugs (8-10 centimeters high,) are very rare. Round pans or patens from 15 to 20 centimeters high, made to the greatest extent carelessly, are found from the mid-sixth century to the end of the tenth century. From the imported pottery only fragments have been found so far of Byzantine amphorae made of a fine paste, of yellow or reddish color, and ornamented by wide grooves or dense horizontal streaks. They are similar to those found in the settlements of the Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti culture, as well as in the Roman (Byzantine) towns along the lower Danube. One bronze pot from the Byzantine Empire was found in 1968 at Horgeşti-Bacău.



The Material Remains at Costişa-Botoşana


At several places in Moldavia, such as Costişa-Manoaia, Botoşana, Dodeşti, Bacău, and Davideni, a stratum is superposed on the level of the period after the Hunnish domination up to the mid-sixth century (the arrival of the Slavs). This stratum contains material remains of the Costişa-Botoşana group. From the second half of the fifth century





onward, all forms of pottery became simpler. Moreover, those made on the fast wheei decreased in frequency and in the sixth century, were almost entirely replaced by pottery made on the slow wheel or by hand. In the sixth and seventh centuries, most of the pottery was made by hand. [406] From the remains of the material culture, such as the technique and shape of some hand-made vessels; the preservation (although modified in some way) of some older, Roman forms in the form of the vessels made on a wheei, even if the changes in the techniques are obviously retrogressions; the use of almost the same tools and some of the ornaments; and the preservation of the type of dwelling place, one can conclude that these elements indicate contacts with the late Roman style and illustrate at the same time the local roots (in this case Dacian) of the civilization of Moldavia in the fifth to sixth centuries. [407]


It has been maintained that the "multiple parallels" between the material culture of the fifth to seventh centuries in Moldavia and the contemporary remains from southeastern Transylvania (the Bratei-Mediaş culture) show that in that period, there was a relatively uniform cultural evolution of "Daco-Roman" character in a considerably large territory. [408] According to this view, the Costişa-Botoşana culture would be a variant of the Bratei-Mediaş culture. The differences between the two could be explained by the presence in both of them of Dacians, Romanized to different degrees. The unity of these civilizations is explained in the current Romanian historiography by the multiple and continuous influences of the Roman and Romano-Byzantine civilizations, which had had a much larger role in the East-Carpathian regions of Romania than was thought earlier. [409]



The Hypothesis of the "Daco-Roman"-Slav Symbiosis in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries in Moldavia


The earliest Slavic vestiges in the western Ukraine (from the fifth and sixth centuries) were found northeast of Moldavia. Most of the Slavs came to the territory of Romania from that area. Several groups of Slavs migrated to Moldavia from the north, along the Siret River; and another group came from the area east of the Prut River and continued toward the plains of Muntenia.


The first unquestionably Slavic vestiges in Moldavia were discovered in 1953 at Suceava-Şipot. During the first decade of the excavations, a series of remains were, according to the archaeologist Dan Gheorghe Teodor, erroneously attributed to the Slavs or other migratory people but belonged in reality to the "autochthonous population." The single periods were chronologically determined by comparison with Slavic





material in adjacent territories, the stratigraphical situation of the individual discoveries, and by objects such as coins and ornaments: fibulae digitatae, brackets of the Martinovka type or from Byzantium, clasps, and Byzantine fibulae.


The early Slavs lived in shallow pit houses with a rectangular shape and slightly rounded corners. In some of them, cavities were found in and halfway between the corners; these were made for the poles supporting the roof. In one of the corners was situated an oval hearth, surrounded by pebbles or gritty stone, held together by yellow, pounded earth. The objects found in Slavic sites in Moldavia were also found in the areas east of the province (in Russia). They include pocket knives, tinder boxes of iron, different kinds of arrows, awls made of bone, grind stones, and simple hand mills. The most important ornaments are the characteristically Slavic fibulae digitatae, found also at Pastirsk (Russia). [410] A fragment of a bracket of the Martinovka type and the semicircular bronze fibulae (fibulae with handles) of the seventh century, which are scattered all over Southeastern Europe as far as the Peloponnesus, also belong to the early Slavic objects. Most of these objects were found, however, without any connection to a known archaeological site. This is indicative of the scope of Slavic trade relations. [411]


The early Slavic earthenware is hand-made from a primitive paste containing pounded fragments. It was fired ununiformly and probably in the ovens found in the dwelling places or at any rate in open ovens. The surface of the vessels is therefore usually reddish-brown. It is carelessly made; the vessels are of an irregular shape and asymmetrical. During the seventh century, there were some changes in the pottery, which has been attributed to the influence on the Slavs of the "autochthonous population." [412] The Korcak, Penkovka, and Kolocin types of Slavic earthenware from the sixth to seventh centuries are found in Moldavia and the western Ukraine and are all often found in the same settlement. The Kolocin group reveals Baltic influences. Different types of vessels also have their counterparts in the Slavic areas to the east, in the Soviet Union; one example is a vessel with a long body and very short rim, which is characteristic of the archaic Slavic Korcak-Zhitomir group of the western Ukraine. Similar vessels also exist in some settlements of the Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti-Ciurelu culture (at Bucharest and at Sărata-Monteoru), on the Danube plains, and in a few places in southeastern Transylvania (Poian and Cernatul). It should be noted that the Slavs of the Przeworsk culture and the West-Ukrainian groups migrated toward the southwest in approximately the same period. Elements of the Przeworsk culture have been discovered not only in Moldavia but also on the plains





along the lower Danube (at Străluceşti and at Militari), as well as on the Balkan Peninsula, south of the Danube.


To the Penkovka Slavic group [413] belong a vessel of an approximately bitronconic shape (truncated at both ends), also found in Muntenia but not in Transylvania, and another vessel of similar shape, with a tapering rim. A very common type in Moldavia, it is also found at Ciurelu and Dulceanca in Muntenia. A very rare vessel with a large opening and straight rim belongs (according to its shape) to the Kolocin type of Slavic pottery. At Suceava-Şipot, Botoşani and Cucorăni, decoration typical of the Kolocin group were also found on fragments of earthenware: small incised circles, broken lines in the shape of "worms," simple belts in relief beneath the rim.


The Romanian archaeologist Dan Gheorghe Teodor believes that the Suceava-Şipot culture (or "aspect") reveals Slavic material remains from the Ukraine, reminders of the Przeworsk culture but showing the "autochthonous Romanic element in the majority." [414] This is based on the claim that "the autochthonous vessels of Roman style were in the majority." [415]


In Teodor's opinion, during the seventh century the Slavic material culture underwent important changes through contacts with "the superior culture of the autochthons." The assimilation of the Slavs was, according to this view, very rapid after 602 A.D., when the Byzantine Empire was forced to retreat from the Danubian frontiers.' [416] Teodor concludes that the tools used by the Slavs were inferior to those of the "autochthons." The Old Slav population that migrated to Moldavia had only "poorly developed, extensive and periodic agriculture." [417]





On the basis of some commonly known historical facts, the following observations can be made in reference to the assumed Romanization of the transcarpathian territories in Romania. The extent of Roman civilization in these territories is difficult to define, and the spread of the Latin language is only a probability. Because of the presence of Carps, Sarmatians, Goths, and other migratory peoples, it is not possible to reach definitive conclusions regarding ethnicity and language on the basis of archaeological findings. To secure a more precise picture of the assumed Romanization of the transcarpathian territories, especially of Moldavia, it is necessary to investigate more closely historical records, particularly those regarding ethnic and archaeological considerations pertinent to this territory. However, few historical records are available.





To designate a Romanic population in Moldavia in the sixth century A.D. as "the autochthonous Romanic elements" [418] would make sense only in relation to the Slavs. It is, moreover, most unappropriate to refer to Romans in an area north of the Danube, which never was a Roman province, as "autochthons." Generalized terms such as "local," "indigenous," or "autochthonous" are used loosely and do not give a clear picture as to what group is actually autochthonous or indigenous. As is known, after the great uprising of the Dacians the Roman occupied areas of southern Moldavia and Muntenia were abandoned. The designation "autochthon" or "local" which means "original," "indigenous" inhabitants explains little in the "Daco-Roman" context and is imprecise and dispensable. Even more important is the fact that this vague term, as it is used currently, makes it more difficult to gain a clear picture of the different peoples that lived in the territory of contemporary Romania during the first centuries A.D. But who is an autochthon or indigen? Even if one uses the term "Dacian" or "Daco-Roman," it is not certain that this has anything to do with Romanians. If one accepts the free Dacians and the Carps to be "autochthons," the major difference between them and any Latin-speaking population—the fact that they spoke different languages—is blurred. The fact that these non-Latin groups migrated to Dacia in the very period when a Latin-speaking group there is assumed to have become independent from Roman domination cannot have contributed to a "revitalization of the Daco-Roman synthesis." The Romanian language, which in its pre-Slavic elements is (almost) entirely Latin, presupposes, if it developed from Latin spoken in Dacia Traiana, that the large majority of the population there spoke Latin as a mother tongue at the end of the third century A.D. Without a majority, Romanian would contain a significant amount of non-Latin elements, a mixed language would have developed, or there would have been no Romance language at all. If Latin-speaking people did exist there, the immigration of free, non-Romanized Dacians and Carps would have decreased their proportion of the population. Talk of a revitalization of the "Daco-Romans" only obscures this fact.


The confusion over the basic terms of "Daco-Roman" continuity is increased even more by the ambiguous use of "Daco-Roman." This term was said to apply to Romanized as well as non-Romanized Dacians. It is a very serious deficiency that this term is used in entirely different senses: It may designate Dacians who speak their own language and also colonists living in Roman Dacia who were not Dacians and not even necessarily Romans. The Romanian archaeologist D. Protase stated that the term "Daco-Roman", without a qualification, is equivocal, since it is used by Romanian historians today to mean





several different things. If one says "a Daco-Roman settlement" and does not know the ethnicity of the population living there, one must think of four or five possibilities: a settlement of local Dacians in the period and area of Roman Dacia; a settlement of Roman colonists in Dacia; a settlement in which a mixed population of local Dacians and Roman colonists lived; a settlement inhabited by Romanized Dacians from the post-Aurelian era; or a settlement of Romanized Dacians and Roman colonists from the same period. [419]


With respect to the alleged Romanization in Moldavia, it is relevant to note that in the second and third centuries A.D., a Roman military camp existed at Bărboşi, at the southern border of present-day Moldavia. Adjacent to this camp, in the civilian settlement, remains of Dacian (Carpic) and Sarmatian earthenware were also found; and the presence there of these two ethnic groups is thus possible. Otherwise., there are no typically Roman complexes in the territory of Moldavia. [420] Thus, the Romanization of Moldavia is frequently concocted from hypotheses. There is no proof that Latin was spoken in either Muntenia or Moldavia. Many Romanian historians admit that is difficult to determine the extent of Roman civilization in the above-mentioned territories and that the spread of the Latin language can only be presumed. In his valuable monograph about the Carps, Gheorghe Bichir stated clearly that the Carps were not Romanized in the third century. [421] Even Sanie admits that in Moldavia, remnants of Roman material culture were found, but in most of that territory, the spread of the Latin language is not certain (although, according to Sanie, probable). [422]


The Sarmatians and Carps living in Moldavia in the second and third centuries A.D. were enemies of the Romans most of the time. In spite of the presence of Roman goods, they were not Romanized, just as the rest of the European populations (the barbarians) were not Romanized but still to a great extent used objects imported from the empire, which they also tried to imitate. In addition to gold or silver coins or other precious objects, objects of everyday use were imported into territories to the north of the Danube. Imitations (imitatio imperii) of Roman costumes are also to be found. [423] That does not mean that the users of these objects were either Romans or Romanized people. All over Europe, the areas near the Roman border are rich in such remains. Particular caution is therefore necessary when drawing conclusions about the ethnic significance of such cultural effects. As is known, in the fourth century the territory of Moldavia (like most of Muntenia and part of Transylvania) was occupied by the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture, which ethnically was mainly, as previously mentioned, Old Germanic, influenced by Roman culture, as well as by Dacians, Carps, and Sarmatians. The continued existence of certain





Roman and Dacian characteristics in the material culture of the area is natural and does not presuppose the existence of Romans or Dacians (Carps).


Remains from the fifth to seventh centuries in Moldavia are scarce, often primitive, and monotonous, showing few distinguishing characteristics. With regard to earthenware, there are vessels resembling Dacian forms and certain Roman elements, although "in some way modified." [424] During the fifth and sixth centuries, the techniques become more primitive, with the share of wheel-made vessels decreasing; and in the seventh century, all earthenware was made by hand, imported earthenware and other products from the Byzantine Empire indicate trade with the inhabitants of Moldavia. Obviously, then, the material culture shows Byzantine elements, but this does not presuppose any Romanizing effect upon the inhabitants or the furthering the Latin language.


In the settlements where both Slavs and "autochthons" allegedly lived, it is not possible to differentiate between the objects belonging to the two groups. [425] The number of graves attributed to the allegedly "autochthonous" population is, at least so far, very low. Most of them do not show Christian funeral rites. The important domain of funeral rites can therefore not be used in investigating the ethnic question in Moldavia during this period.


What contemporary Romanian scholars claim to be evidence of a Roman population is in reality the effect of cultural interplay among neighboring peoples. Although the primitive Dacian earthenware is not very characteristic, which means that its similarities to other primitive earthenware do not necessarily indicate a direct relationship, such relationship certainly existed in many cases. The Sarmatians used and imitated the Dacian earthenware extensively, and Dacian influence can also be seen in the Černjachov-Sîntana de Mureş culture. Roman vessels were frequently imitated by all these peoples (Dacians, Carps, Sarmatians, Goths). Archaeological finds such as fibulae, clasps, and Christian objects of the Byzantine Empire do not offer evidence of a Romanic population, since such findings are also characteristic of the Gepidae. The simple hearth found in the dwelling places from the fifth to seventh centuries and attributed to the "autochthons" is also known at Slavic sites in Russia and Poland. [426] When talking about a unitary evolution of the material culture over a large territory (that of modern Romania) during the first millenium A.D., Romanian scholars use special aspects of culture—the Roman influences—as their point of departure. Considering this the principal characteristic and given its presence throughout the territory of Romania, they spontaneously see a unitary picture. They overlook, however, the fact





that a similar or in many cases even stronger Roman influence can be also seen beyond the frontiers of present-day Romania, in many European territories in which there can be no question of a Romanic population.


With respect to the alleged "Daco-Roman" (Romanian) - Slav symbiosis in the fifth to seventh century in Moldavia, [427] it should be noted that, according to the linguistic development, the Slavic influence upon Romanian is of a much later date. If, before the twelfth century, a Romanic population had lived in Moldavia together with the Slavs in the same settlement for 3 centuries, this would have resulted in the transfer of some elements from the Slavic dialect spoken by these Slavs to the Romanian spoken in Moldavia. This is not the case. The Moldavian sub-dialect of Northern Romanian contains all the Slavic elements of Bulgarian origin existing also in the other sub-dialects. It also contains Ukrainian elements; but these do not show ancient characteristics. They are all, without exception, from the period after the twelfth century when the Ukrainian loan words started to penetrate into the Romanian language in the northeastern part of the country. [428] Romanian archaeologists also claim now that no purely Slavic settlements or typical Slavic cemeteries have been discovered so far in Romania; everywhere, remains of the "autochthons" are found. The "autochthonous population" is also said to have been in the majority in Moldavia all the time and to have assimilated the Slavs as early as the ninth century, about three centuries after their first migration to the territory of Moldavia. [429]


If all this were historically sound—the Slavs coming to the villages of a sedentary Romanic population, which exists in every settlement of the country and always remains in the majority there, and the Slavs, living on a lower cultural level and assimilating to the Romanic population after three centuries—then ideal circumstances would have existed for the preservation of Romanic place names. Moreover, the situation would have been very unfavorable for the creation of Slavic place and river names.


Before turning to the question of place names in Moldavia, it should be pointed out that the situation described above did exist for some period of time on the Balkan Peninsula. In several areas there, the Slavs found a Roman population living on a higher cultural level than the newcomers and at the beginning also in the majority. As a consequence of this historical situation, the Slavs migrating to the Balkans borrowed a large number of place names from Latin. This is true not only about names of important towns, such as Naissus > Nis, Scupi > Skopje, Ulpiana > Lipljan, or river names, such as Almus > Lom, Margus > Morava, Timacus > Timok, but also about





the names of insignificant villages, islands, mountains, and so forth. These include, the Slovenian Cedad and the Serbian Cavtat (from Latin civitatem); Serbian Poljud (from Latin paludem); Kimp (from Latin campus); Kosljun (from Latin castellione); Silba, the name of an isle (from Latin silva); Sutomore (from Sancta Maria); and Sutlovrec (from Sanctus Laurentius); [430] or Vrčin (from Latin Orcinum, a church of the goddess Orcea existed there); Vrsar (from Latin Ursaria; cf., Italian Orsera); Grocka (from Latin Gratiana); Boleč (from Latin Bolentium); [431] and many others, which have survived to the present. [432]


In Moldavia, the opposite true, as is the case in other areas of present-day Romania. Not a single Latin place name has survived, while the entire territory abounds with place and river names of Slavic origin, including the very name of the province: Moldova, archaic Moldua, Mulduva; mold (molid, "spruce fir" cf., Bulgarian molika) [433] + the Slavic suffix -ov, -ova.


According to an earlier concept, the assimilation of the Slavs occurred in Moldavia during the eleventh to twelfth centuries, when "new ancient Romanian elements" were added to the population. [434] As Romanian history was rewritten in the 1960s and nationalist-patriotic elements came to the forefront of historical writing, this concept was also altered. The new interpretation affirmed that the ethnic assimilation had reached its final stage by the eighth century. [435] Similar statements are made about other Romanian territories. [436]


The Romanian language shows a different picture, however. On the basis of a series of characteristics of the sound pattern of the majority of the South Slavic elements, Romanian linguists agree that the most intensive South Slavic influence was exerted upon Northern Romanian from the tenth to the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. According to this view, the Slavic influence began in the ninth or tenth century; it was during this time that the elements (lexical, phonetical, syntactical, and morphological) that are most widespread entered the Romanian language, some of them appearing even in the south-Danubian dialects. [437] Thus, the period of the most intense South Slavic influence on the Northern Romanian language, established by linguistic criteria, began almost two centuries after the date recently given by archaeologists and historians as the end of the Slavic influence upon the Romanian population. Consequently, the people to which the Slavs were assimilated in the eighth and ninth centuries, if they existed at all, could not have been the ancestors of the Romanians. In other words, if the Slavs north of the Danube had been assimilated by the ninth century and had disappeared, those Slavs who exerted the very intense South Slavic influence upon Romanian must have





been living, together with the Romanians, in a territory different from that north of the Danube.


With regard to the problems connected with Romanization in Muntenia, one must note that not much is known of any activities except military of the Roman, and later, the Byzantine Empire in this area. Roman fortifications were built there and garrisons stationed from 105 to 117 A.D.; the southern part was occupied in the fourth century (during the reign of Constantine the Great); bridgeheads were created and some army units stationed north of the Danube in the sixth century. These were short episodes in the history of Muntenia. Military activity in an inimical area is otherwise not likely to exert cultural effects.


The Novella of Justinian from the sixth century A.D., to strengthen the frontier of the Byzantine Empire, attest to Emperor Justinian's interest in the plains north of the Lower Danube. It is known that Justinian tried to restore the Roman Empire in the sixth century but his efforts were only perfunctory. [438] Any further attempt was finally frustrated in the seventh century by the advance of the Moslems into the Mediterranean area. Immediately after the death of the Byzantine ruler Maurikios (602), the Romans lost all contacts with the middle Danube. Rome's control over the abandoned province of Dacia virtually ceased after the withdrawal of Aurelian's legions. For this reason another Dacia was established in this period south of the Danube. From the fourth century until the beginning of the fifth century there are no reports of crossing the Danube. During the fourth through the sixth centuries, especially after the dismemberment of the Hunnic Empire, a certain "barbarization" of the lowrer Danube occurred (through Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Sarmatians, and Bastarns), and the Romanized population declined. Finally, it must be noted that the significance of Justinian's work, already begun during the reign of Anastasius, in fortifying the Danubian limes is overestimated.


The archaeological evidence for a Romanic population in Muntenia from the fourth century A.D. onward is based on elements of Roman provincial traditions, mainly in the manufacture of earthenware and partly in the dwelling places, as well as the presence of imported products from the empire.



Theories About the Material Culture in the First Millenium in the Territory of Romania


It is noteworthy that during the last decade more than 20 cultures and their variants have been suggested as inhabitants of the territory of present-day Romania in the first millenium A.D. [439] The practice of





regarding peoples who left material remains of Roman style and used Roman objects and coins as a Romanized population has quite logically led to the recent revised views of the cultures in question. A detailed analysis of these cultures shows, however, that the officially-formulated theories are untenable. The way of classifying historical times into periods, which reflects the current trends of Romanian historiography, stubbornly disregards all evidence that does not support Romanian historical claims based on the uninterrupted presence of the Romanian people on the territory claimed to be Romanian at the end of World War I.


In 1979 it was suggested that concepts about the material cultures of the period from the second to the tenth centuries be revised. According to this view, from the second through the fourth centuries, one single culture developed on the territory of Romania, the "Daco-Roman" culture, which was comprised of numerous cultural groups. At the turn of the fourth century, a new culture called the Romanic culture emerged, developing further in the fifth through the seventh centuries. [440] The Romanic culture was influenced by foreign peoples that migrated to or lived temporarily in the territory of Romania during the fifth to seventh centuries A.D. [441] Gheorghe Diaconu is of the opinion that for the third period (from the eighth to the tenth or eleventh centuries) "the specialists use inappropriate terms: As is known, the culture of the ancient Romanian population from the eighth to the tenth centuries is designated by the terms Dridu, Bucov, Blandiana, Carpatho-Danubian, Carpatho-Balkanic, Hlincea, Dodeşti, and so forth." [442] Considering the fact that more than 20 archaeological cultures appear for the period from the second to the tenth centuries and that this number is increasing each year, Diaconu proposed abandoning these terms and designating the period from the eighth to the tenth centuries as ancient Romanian culture (cultura veche românească). [443]


An analysis of the proposed changes shows that the new concept is not based on any significantly new evidence but rather on deductions made about objects of a Roman style, as is the case in many writings referring to the period in question. It must be pointed out that the material culture in the territory of contemporary Romania in the centuries after the abandonment of Dacia Traiana by the Romans is not peculiar to a Roman population. This also applies to the Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti-Ciurelu culture, the Dridu culture, and others, which recently have been assumed to contain elements of a Romanic population. These cultures did not even cover a uniform territory but extended to different areas of Romania from the outside, which is not in





accordance with the assumption that they represented a single population: the ancestors of the Romanians.


On the basis of some commonly known facts, in reference to the Dridu and the Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti culture, the following observations can be made. The so-called Dridu culture has been placed chronologically between the eighth and the eleventh centuries. It was originally a Slavo-Bulgarian, that is a Balkan-Danubian, culture. According to the compendium Istoria României, [444] the Dridu culture was not indigenous to the territory of Romania, since its material remains are "more numerous and better represented on the territory of Bulgaria, where this culture was also formed." The material remains of this culture were found also outside Bulgaria in the regions of the Prut and Dniester rivers in the Soviet Union. The concept of certain Romanian scholars that the Dridu culture is a Romanian culture or, rather, a provincial Byzantine-Romanian culture, [445] has been contradicted even by certain Romanian archaeologists. In Petru Diaconu's view, for instance, the Dridu culture cannot provide well-grounded arguments for supporting theories on Romanian ethnogenesis, since finds of the Dridu type, as heretofore assumed, did not substantiate assertions concerning Romanian ethnicity. [446] Constantin Daicoviciu, one of the most outstanding representatives of Romanian historiography after World War II, considered that the Dridu, or Balkan-Danubian, culture originated from Bulgaria and was created by a Slavic population. [447] This concept was refuted after Daicoviciu's death in 1973, and the official theory now is that the Dridu culture was the culture of the Romanians.


The so-called Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti-Ciurelu culture, like the Bratei culture, is a pure fabrication by contemporary Romanian archaeologists. This culture is chronologically placed in the sixth and seventh centuries; and the area of its dissemination is given as Muntenia, Moldavia, and southern Transylvania. As in the case of all new cultures, the proponents of the Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti-Ciurelu culture attempt to bridge a time gap between the late Germanic population and the arrival of the Slavs but are unable to produce any evidence, archaeological or otherwise, for the continuation of a romanized population in Dacia Traiana.





The Hungarian Conquest


The events of the ninth and tenth centuries had a decisive influence on the historic and ethnic configuration of the Carpatho-Danubian





area that has persisted to some degree to our own time. In the ninth century the empire of the Avars collapsed, and the Prankish Empire established itself. Byzantium and Rome continued to exert significant influence in this area, while Greater Moravia and the empire of the Danubian Bulgars were important political factors. Finally, the Hungarian conquest (Landnahme) occurred in 895. In that age three powers exercised direct influence in the Carpathian Basin: To wit, Pannonia, as far as the Danube frontier, was under the suzerainty of the Frankish Empire; to the north Greater Moravia was dominant; and most of the eastern part of the Basin was under Bulgarian rule.


After the collapse of the empire of the Avars the numerical majority of the population of the Carpathian Basin was of Slavic origin, that is, Moravians, Sloveno-Karantas, and Bulgarian Slavs. Several settlement areas developed in accordance with the dates of the appearance and settlement of the Slavic peoples. On the basis of surviving place names, linguistic remnants, and known historic sources, it is possible to determine that "Danubian-Slovenes" lived to the west of the Danube and Bulgaro-Slavs to the east of the river, including in Transylvania. Toward the middle of the ninth century mention is made of remnants of the Gepidae who were later assimilated by the Slavs. Descendants of Romans and Huns driven from this area by Gepidae and Lombards were not to be found, since they left the Carpathian Basin during the initial phase of the nomadic peoples' migration.


As previously mentioned, the Hungarian conquest of 895 was one of the factors that had a decisive influence on the history of the Carpathian Basin. In the tenth century the Carolingian Empire (751-987) collapsed, and German influence was stopped through the appearance of the Hungarians. A further consequence was the separation of the Northern and Southern Slavs. Under the leadership of their ruler Árpád, the Magyars moved westward and northwestward from their last home (Etelköz), west of the Dnieper, and occupied the territory east of the Danube. A few of the tribes crossed the Carpathian passes and occupied Transylvania and the upper Tisza region. Historians have until now failed to agree on the chronology of the territorial acquisition of Transylvania by the conquering Hungarians. According to the majority (Hungarians and others), the Hungarians began to populate Transylvania from the west in several stages, starting from the ninth century; and by the tenth or eleventh century at the latest, the Hungarian settlements had reached the Eastern and Southern Carpathians. These data have been established by historical records as well as by the study of the geographical names of the area. It is, however, most probable that during the first phase of the conquest, at the turn of the ninth to the tenth century, the Magyars first penetrated Transylvania through the East Carpathian passes. This





is indicated by archaeological remnants and place names, as well as by the oldest Magyar oral traditions and the earliest written source of the eleventh century chronicle, Gesta Ungarorum. Following the Hungarian conquest there were changes in place names, as the majority of the place names of the ninth century, mostly of Slavic origin, disappeared.


Transylvanian conditions in the ninth and tenth century are mentioned in frequently contradictory medieval chronicles and in scarce records. According to evidence derived from surviving place names, ethnic groups of Bulgaro-Slavs and Bulgar-Turks, which were assimilated by the Hungarians by the twelfth century, lived in Transylvania. Before the Hungarian conquest, the territory to the north of the Mureş River was inhabited by an eastern Slavic population, while south of the Mureş line, the region of salt- and goldmines was settled by Bulgars. The specific areas inhabited by Slavic peoples can be determined through excavations of Slavic cemeteries of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries.


Numerous Pecheneg (Patzinaks, Latin Bissenus) formations and fewer groups of Uzes appeared in the Danubian-Carpathian area about the ninth century. The Pechenegs, a nomadic Turkic people, appeared originally in the Inner Asian steppes between 750 and 850 and occupied the steppe areas of southern Russia; later, under Tatar pressure, they fled westward. They were part of the western Turkic empire and lived on both sides of the Dnieper. In the ninth century they occupied Moldavia and Wallachia as far as the lower Danube, and in 1043 they crossed the Danube. Their movement toward Hungary followed in the tenth and eleventh centuries, following the collapse of their empire. They undertook a raid against Hungary in 1068, but their forces were largely destroyed in the vicinity of Sajósárvár (Şirioara). Afterward, the Pechenegs joined the Hungarians. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries they lived in Transylvania and were used by the Hungarians as border guards; however, except for localities bearing their names, there are no traces of their existence.


The Uzes, also a Turkic nomadic people from the south Russian steppes, shared a common origin with the Pechenegs. Like the Pechenegs before them, they were chased by the Cumans from the south Russian steppes; and in 1064 they invaded the Balkan Peninsula by way of Bulgaria, Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece. Decimated by war and disease some of them moved to the north of the Danube as far as Transylvania, while others moved into Byzantium. A few places in southeastern Transylvania, in areas inhabited by Székelys, still bear their name.





The Cumans became separated from the Mongol-related community of peoples and established their independence between the fifth and seventh centuries A.D. By 1050 they inhabited a territory in Eastern Europe to the east of the Carpathian Mountains. Around 1080 they reached the lower Danube and the Carpathians; and later they occupied Moldavia and present-day Muntenia, which, until the end of the twelfth century, was known as Cumania. They settled in the thirteenth century to some extent in Hungary and were assimilated by the Hungarians. The Cumans played an important role in the medieval history of the Balkan Peninsula.


A generally reliable source for the history of Eastern Europe in the ninth and tenth centuries is to be found in the De administrando imperio, the work of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905-959). [448] Like the Byzantine chroniclers, Constantine often confused or misidentified the names of contemporary peoples. For instance, he identified as "Turks" all the peoples who inhabited the Carpathian Basin during the ninth and tenth centuries.


Aside from the Byzantine sources, there are Muslim historical narratives, the reliability of which, however, appears to be questionable. The so-called Bavarian Geography giving a description of the lands north of the Danube, which depicts the situation in Eastern and Central Europe around the middle of the ninth century, mentioned several peoples such as the Moravians, Khazars, Ruses, Onogurs, Ungari, and Danubian Bulgars; but no mention was made of a Romanic population.



The Bulgars


The Bulgars emerged as a group of nomadic tribes composed of Ogurs (or Onogurs) and to some extent also of Huns and other Turkic peoples who lived in the second half of the fifth century (about 463 A.D.) in the Hunnic federation in the southern Russian Pontic Steppes. [449] The first written mention of the Proto-Bulgars (called Bulgari by an anonymous chronicler) is recorded in the first half of the fourth century when they were overrun by the Huns. Also known as Kutrigurs or Turanian Bulgars, they were part of the western Turkic-Altaic-speaking peoples. The name "Bulgar" is interpreted as "semi-nomadic mixed people." They were under Avar rule for a while.


Groups of Onogurs, also called Bulgarians, moved with the Avars into the Carpathian Basin and formed a considerable part of the Avar army. [450] The founder of their empire, Khan Kuvrat (Kovrat, Kobrat) succeeded in freeing himself from Avar rule sometime between 630 and 635 and established the Onoguric Kingdom—the "Old Great





Bulgaria"—which was a major military power stretching from the Caucasus (Kuban River) to the west as far as the Don. The Byzantine Empire supported Kuvrat's Onoguric Kingdom politically and economically. Around 750 several Onogur-Bulgarian ethnic groups migrated to the middle Volga; these were the Volga Bulgars.


Great Bulgaria collapsed after Kuvrat's death (642) under pressure from the westward-moving western Turkic tribe, the Khazars. Some of the Bulgarian tribes submitted to the Khazars. Others moved westward under the leadership of Kuvrat's son Asparuch (Isperich, Isperikh); and sometime between 660 and 670 they reached the mouth of the Danube, an area encompassing the southern part of Bessarabia, part of the Waliachian Plain, all of Dobrudja, and the province of Lower Moesia (679). Kuvrat's fourth son, Kuber, moved with his people and entourage into the Avar Empire in Pannonia and accepted Avar rule. The arrival of the Bulgars in Pannonia (Pannonian Bulgars) is mentioned in historical sources.


A considerable group of Bulgars moved to the Danube, and in 679 the Proto-Bulgarian conquest took place. Asparuch was the founder of modern Bulgaria (680-681) south of the Danube, which also included the Roman province of Moesia Inferior. (These were the Danubian Bulgars). In this Bulgarian state the name Bulgars was used for various ethnic groups such as Bulgars, Slavs, Vlachs, and others. In alliance with the different Slavic tribes, the Danubian Bulgars founded two successive kingdoms in the Balkan Peninsula, from 681 to 1018 and from 1186 to 1396, respectively. Their conversion to Christianity occurred in 865.


Together with Byzantium, the Bulgars were the most powerful nation between the Danube and Haemus (Balkan) Mountains after 679. They had called themselves Bulgars only from the time of Simeon (888-927), even though they were referred to as Bulgars as early as 482 in Latin, Greek, and Armenian sources.


After the destruction of the Avar Empire (796) by Charlemagne (771-814) and his son Pepin, the Bulgars, under the leadership of their Khan Krum (803-814), moved into the valley of the Tisza. During the battles that took place between 827 and 831 Khan Omurtag (814-831) annexed the eastern part of modern Hungary, the ancient Dacia (modern Transylvania), which adjoined the Frankish Empire (on the Tisza River). We are dealing here with the so-called Pannonian Bulgars whose territory, at the time of the Hungarian conquest of this area, reached as far as the Carpathian Mountains. Their resistance against the conquering Hungarians in Transylvania and on the Mureş (Maros) River was short lived.





The presence of the Bulgarians in Transylvania in the ninth century can be ascertained not only through written records [451] but also through archaeological remnants and from surviving place names. The jewelry of the ninth and tenth centuries in Ciumbrud, for example, reveals a close relationship to objects found in Bulgaria. It is known that the salt mines in the Mureş valley were held by the Bulgars and that on the middle course of that river, in Cîrna-Blandiana B (Maroskarna, Alba County) and in Ciumbrud, Bulgarian graves of the ninth century were found, which contained earthenware and jewelry of a kind that had counterparts only in Bulgaria south of the Danube. The above-mentioned cemeteries reveal a Bulgaro-Turkic rather than a Bulgaro-Slav connection. [452] It may be assumed that the carriers of the culture of the cemetery of Cîrna-Blandiana B are the people who moved from the south to the north of the Danube. According to archaeological evidence, the Bulgarian Empire settled peoples from the south to the lower Danube, in the second half of the ninth century, in the territory adjoining the middle part of the Mureş River. The sources provide no data on the ethnic composition of this population; it is known, however, that the population of the Bulgarian Empire at that time consisted of several different Slavic tribes. The locality of Zeligrad (Sóvár) in Transylvania, in the vicinity of Blandiana and Zlatna (Zalatna), the Bulgarian Zlatica (the Gold Town) also attests to onetime Bulgarian rule.


In 809 Krum conquered Serdica (modern Sofia), which up to that time had belonged to the Byzantine Empire. The inhabitants of towns and villages were carried away into Bulgarian territories on the other side of the Danube, which were regarded as the borderlands of the Bulgarian Empire. During the military campaign, which lasted until the beginning of the tenth century, Krum expanded his rule from northern Thrace to the Carpathian Mountains and from the lower Sava to the Dniester, including the territories east of the Tisza River.


The Byzantine Empire, in time, exerted increasingly greater influence over the Bulgarian territories with the result that the Bulgarians fought their oppressors, (in 1040 and 1041 and 1072 and 1073), for instance. The Byzantinization of Bulgaria and Macedonia continued in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, so that part of Macedonia fell under Byzantine suzerainty. Concurrently, attacks against the Bulgars were launched by the Magyars, who had settled in the Carpathian Basin.


From the ninth to the eleventh century the Proto-Bulgarians (Turkic Bulgarians) were absorbed into the larger Slavic population and took over the language and culture of the Slavs. In 1018 the Bulgarian landholdings were entirely conquered by the Byzantines. Following the collapse of Bulgaria, the Danube again became the northern border





of the Byzantine Empire after its earlier abandonment under pressure of the Pechenegs and Uzes.


Following an uprising in 1186, in which Cumans and Vlachs also participated, the Bulgarians, led by the brothers Asên and Peter of Cumanian origin, regained their independence. The Second Bulgarian Empire (1186-1396) was established, comprising initially the territory between the Haemus (Balkan) Mountains and the Danube. During the fourteenth century, as the Bulgarian state became divided into 3 parts, it fell under Turkish rule (1393-1396). As a result of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 and 1878, Bulgaria again regained its independence. [453]



The Theory of the Dual Hungarian Conquest. The Onogur Bulgars


As mentioned previously, the Hungarian conquest of 895 A.D. marks a historic turning point in the Carpathian Basin. [454] No other interpretation is possible. Only details discovered by subsequent research are subject to discussion. It is also known that the conquerors knew the Carpathian Basin before the conquest, since about 862. It is also known, as previously mentioned, that after the death of the founder of the Onoguric kingdoms, Khan Kuvrat (642), the Turkic-Bulgarian community was subdivided among his five sons in the southern Russian steppes and that his fourth son Kuber moved into Pannonia in 670 A.D. Except for archaeological data and information about Kuber there are no historical records. It is certain, however, that around 670, following the establishment of the empire of the Khazars, splinter groups of Onogur Bulgars made their appearance in the Carpathian Basin. Archaeological findings can be traced as far as eastern Asia as well as to the middle Volga and Kama rivers. There also, on the basis of linguistic, anthropo-geographic data, must be found the original homeland of the Magyars (that is, Hungarians). [455]


Hungarian archaeologists have assumed that a Hungarian conquest could have taken place as early as 670 A.D. [456] According to the proponents of this theory of dual conquest there were early Hungarians who came to the Carpathian Basin, or rather into the lands comprising the later Hungarian Empire in 670 and spoke Hungarian even then. The history of Kuvrat's son, Kuber, who in those years settled with his people, the Onogurs, in Pannonia may readily be related to this scenario. [457] It is known that before the conquest the Magyars lived in the Bulgar federation within the Khazar Empire.


Archaeological evidence would indicate that we are dealing with two peoples different in origin who, however, coexisted side by side:





one, wearers of belts cast in bronze bearing Byzantine tendril ornamentations (during the Avar period, after 568) and the others, with belts bearing griffin ornaments (during the Avar period, after 670). The latter moved in with the peoples already present of the Carpathian Basin.


It may be assumed that Ugric-Hungarian groups came into the Carpathian Basin with the first Avar waves around 568 or, perhaps, even as early as the fifth century with the Proto-Bulgars. The proponents of the theory of dual conquest, however, claim that the peoples who arrived in 670 were undoubtedly Ugric-Hungarians whose material civilization continued to exist also in the ninth and tenth centuries.


Other archaeologists, however, suggest that the proponents of the dual conquest theory ignore the methodological fundamental laws of archaeology. In their view the culture of griffin and tendril ornamentation could only have existed in the eighth to the beginning of the ninth centuries and not in the seventh century. Therefore, neither the carriers of that civilization nor their material civilization could have survived into the ninth to tenth centuries. Furthermore, the gap between the late-Avar culture and that of the conquering Hungarians is too great: In the ninth century the gap between the character of the late Avar and the conquerors' grave structure is so marked that still it cannot be closed. [458] A noteworthy but still now unique example is the cemetery of Sopronkőhida in Hungary. [459]


It would be premature, on the basis of archaeological research to date, to opt for the so-called dual Hungarian conquest. Chronological problems exist, especially with respect to the tying together the late Avar and the conquerors' graves. Recent excavations would tend to confirm the continuation of the late Avars, that is, of the semi-nomadic Onogur-Turkic Bulgars who joined the Avars in the seventh century, until the conquest. A village from Avar times that corresponds to villages of the time of the conquest was excavated, for instance, at Dunapentele (Hungary). [460] Graves of the late Avar period have been uncovered in several settlements of the conquerors of the tenth century; [461] some 60 graves were excavated. [462]


That various groups of peoples lived together in the Avar Empire is historically demonstrable. Also established is the general appellation of all nomadic peoples of the East as Scythians and Huns in Byzantine literature. One may, therefore, not exclude the hypothesis that Hungarian-speaking ethnic groups in the company of westward moving groups of peoples could have penetrated the Carpathian Basin even before the Hungarian conquest. One may further assume that the original Turco-Bulgarians (Kuvrat-Bulgars) and the earlv-Magyarized





Székelys settled in the Carpathian Basin as early as the middle of the seventh century. However, whether they in fact spoke Hungarian cannot be determined from materials related to post-conquest place names. On the other hand, it is known that the Finno-Ugric-speaking Magyars and the Bulgaro-Turkic groups like the Onogurs and Kutrigurs did live in some sort of symbiosis for centuries before the Hungarian conquest. Richly endowed princely graves [463] at Bócsa, Kunbábony, Atokháza (Hungary) and jewels from the graves of Ozora-Totipuszta (Hungary), as well as the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós (Sînnicoiau Mare) and the Runic script, represent an archaeological connection to the Onogur Bulgars, that is, to the presumed ancestors of the Székelys. Furthermore, the jewelry of Ozora-Tóűpuszta shows a remarkable resemblance to the Onogur Bulgarian finds excavated in Maloje Perescepina, Kelegerskije Hutora, and Zascepilovka (Soviet Union).


The Onogur Bulgars are mentioned for the first time in written sources during the first half of the fourth century. [464] It can be assumed that Onogur Bulgars wandered into the Carpathian Basin as early as in 567 and played a certain role in the multiethnic Avar Empire. Following their expulsion in about 631, they moved westward to Pannonia. After the defeat of the Avars, the Onogurs moved—probably with another splinter group of the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs—from Pannonia to Transylvania, which was incorporated into the Bulgarian State.



The Székelys (Szeklers)


There are several hypotheses regarding the origin of the Székelys (Szekiers), one of the oldest branches of the Hungarians, none of which, however, is satisfactory. [465] According to the Hunnic Chronicle of Simon de Kéza (Kézai Simon), the Székelys lived in the region of the Csigla field (campus Chigla) prior to the arrival of the Hungarians. The word "Csigla" (Chigla) is of Turkic origin. The anonymous Notary of Bela III refers to the Székelys as Siculi, Sicli, Sycli and identifies them as descendants of the Huns who were to be found in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Hungarian conquest. In all probability the Székelys belong to the Turkic-Bulgaro ethnic group (Kuvrat-Bulgars) of the sekils, siki, eskils, eszekel ("of noble origin") of the middle Volga region. From their earlier inhabitation, from the Caucasus, the Székelys moved with the Huns or with the Avars into the Carpathian Basin. According to another assumption, the Székelys had joined the Hungarians in the Hungarians' earlier homeland, Etelköz. There are also assumptions that the Székelys had joined the





Kuvrat-Bulgars and moved into the Carpathian Basin as early as the middle of the seventh century. According to this assumption the name Székely is of Onogur origin.


It is known that the Székelys moved from the trans-Danubian region (western Hungary) into middle-Transylvania during the age of the Arpáds and from there were resettled, as defenders of the eastern frontier of the empire of the Arpáds, to their present area of inhabitation in southeastern Transylvania. There are some 700,000 Székelys nowadays. Their material culture was identical to that of the Hungarians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Székelys preserved their Runic script, (rovásírás) of which sixteen characters have been borrowed from the Turkish Runic script, until modern times.



The Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós


The treasure of Nagyszentmiklós (Sînnicolau Mare, Timiş County) is one of the most significant archaeological finds from the early Middle Ages in the Carpathian Basin. Discovered in 1799, it is currently located in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. [466] The treasure comprises 23 golden objects: drinking-vessels, pots, cups, and jugs. The ninth cup is inscribed in Runic letters; an additional 12 vessels also contain Runic markings. The others are inscribed with Greek capital letters.


It has not yet been determined with any degree of certainty when and where the treasure was assembled or who ordered it and what the meaning of the Runic and Greek inscriptions may be. The Sassanide character of the objects, however, may be readily recognized. They are characteristic of the convergence of the Iranian and Middle-South Asian cultures of the steppe. The use of Greek letters in the Turkic-Bulgarian Runic script is indicative of Byzantine influences, since the Old Bulgarian letters, taken over by the Greek alphabet, are identical to the Greek ones. When taking all these factors into account, according to the German archaeologist Kurt Horedt, we are dealing with Sassanide and Byzantine influences that can be traced to Kuvrat's Turkic-Bulgarian Empire in southern Russia of the seventh century.


Recent Hungarian research places the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós (Sînnicolau Mare) as part of the late Avar cultural domain in the seventh to eighth centuries. According to this concept, the treasure cannot be related to Bulgarian art of the eighth or ninth centuries, to Bulgarian-Byzantine art, to Byzantine artworks, or even to Hungarian goldsmith art of the ninth to tenth centuries. [467] The question, then, is who in fact were the late Avars; that is, what peoples are





supposed to comprise the concept of "late Avars?" Even under the post-sixth century classification of "Avar," several different peoples may be included. It is necessary to note that the early alphabet of the Hungarians, the so-called Székely-Hungarian Runic script (rovásírás), belongs to the Turkic Runic writing used by the peoples of the Central-Asian Turkic-Khazar Empire, which in the fifth century stretched from eastern Asia to the Black Sea.


As is known, the ancestors of the Hungarians lived in their original home under Turkic-Khazar rule [468] together with the Onogur Bulgars and that Kuvrat's fifth son, Kuber, as mentioned previously, moved to Pannonia where he submitted to the Avars in the second half of the seventh century. Thus, the possibility may not be excluded—in fact, it is most likely—that part of the Magyars who lived in Kuvrat's empire, today's Székelys, the presumed successors of the Kuber Turkic-Bulgars, moved into the territory of contemporary Hungary during the second half of the seventh century and still used their original alphabet in Runic script at that time. Moreover, it is also probable that the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós may be traced back to the Onogur Bulgars, whose successors were the Székelys. The inscriptions in Runic script are related to the Runic inscriptions used in the empire of the Khazars. Furthermore, the structure of the Székely Runic script shows a near relation to that of the drinking ware contained in the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. The cross on the three Greek-inscribed cups means that those who ordered them were Christians.


As far as the Byzantine influence on the peoples of the Pontic Steppes—including the pre-Magyars—is concerned, several different points of view have been expressed by historians. There is every reason to believe that the Magyars, who once lived between the Don and the Caucasus, were in touch with the Byzantine centers in the Crimea (Pontic Steppes) as early as the sixth century and that Greek missionaries had attempted to convert them to Christianity. [469] In the first half of the sixth century the Crimean Huns were already in contact with the Christian Church in Constantinople; and by the seventh century Christian, Jewish, and Moslem missionaries had begun their activities among the peoples of the southern Russian steppe. Here, it is also best to mention the ethnic continuity in this area, which is related to the subsequent Iranians (Sarmatians, Alans, Scythians) and, later the Turkic-Mongol peoples, the Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Turks, Pechenegs, Uzes, Cumans, and Tatars.


With regard to the gold treasure of Nagyszentmiklós, it can most likely be traced to the seventh century. [470] The bent golden drinking horn was the symbol of the high status of the leaders of the equestrian nomads, such as Onogur Bulgars, Avars, and others, who ruled over





the Pontic Steppes and the Carpathian Basin in the seventh and eighth centuries. The same drinking horns as those of Nagyszentmiklós were also found in the archaeological remains of the Onogur Bulgars, the one-time rulers of the Pontic Steppes, in Malaja Perescepina (Ukraine). [471]


The Turkic Runic script, related to the Hebraic, Greek, Latin, and Arab ones, is derived from the Aramic and was disseminated in the interior of Asia by the Iranian tribal groups of the Sogdians. The western Turks introduced the script into western Asia. The script, as used by the Hungarians, was known later as the Székely Runic script (székely rovásírás) and was preserved and used in several localities in Székely inhabited territories until the sixteenth century. The old Runic script, however, which is found primarily on wood, has not survived. One of the most important remains of the Székely-Hungarian Runic script is the so-called Nikolsburg (Mikulovo, Czechoslovakia) Alphabet, consisting of 46 letters, which constitutes the foundation of early Székely-Hungarian Runic writing. Also known is the alphabet of Marsigli, of 1690, which is preserved in the library of the University of Bologna.


The Székely-Hungarian Runic script consists of 20 letters; 16 of which are of Turkic origin and 4 derived from the Greek alphabet, of which 2 resemble the Glagolitic (Old Bulgarian) script. It is written from right to left. The Turkic alphabet was deciphered by the Danish linguist V. Thomsen in 1893. It is clear from the account above, that the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós could be Old Bulgarian or Avar-Magyar; the exact determination will be made only when the script is deciphered.


The treasure of an Avar khan found at Vrap (Albania) is analogous to that of Nagyszentmiklós. Vrap is located some 25 kilometers south of Tirana. The treasure was discovered in 1901 and contained 5.6 kilograms of gold and 1.5 kilograms of silver. Through the cast tendrils and griffin ornaments the finding can be identified as one falling within the framework of the Avar culture of the last decades of the seventh century.



The Bijelo Brdo Culture

Early Archaeological Remnants of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin


The Bijelo Brdo culture derives its name from the village Bijelo Brdo, located in the vicinity of the town Eszék (Osijek, Croatia ) and can be dated between the second half of the tenth century and the beginning of the twelfth. [472] Before the end of the last century





some 200 common people's row-cemeteries were excavated in that village; the dead were laid in their graves with hairpins with S-form tails. The most recent Hungarian investigations question whether any ethnic significance can be attached to these hairpins.


The Bijelo Brdo culture appears to have been expanding in the Carpathian Basin after the second half of the tenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century cemeteries of the Bijelo Brdo type were excavated in Transylvania at Vajdahunyad (Hunedoara) and Várfalva (Moldoveneşti, castrum Turda), as well as in Moldavia (Costişa-Botoşana); identical tombs were found throughout Hungary during the age of the Árpáds, and similar types are encountered throughout Eastern Europe. For a long time this culture was attributed to the Slavs. Although its Slavic character (Croatian, Slovenian, Serbian, Slovakian) is evident during the early stages of this culture, in its later stages it is regarded as Hungarian.


Characteristics of this culture are wood and earthen fortifications which were hitherto unknown. Archaeologically the Bijelo Brdo culture in Transylvania can be shown to have existed in Lopadea Nouă (Magyarlapád, Alba County), Dăbîca (Doboka, Cluj County), Moreşti-Citfalău (Malomfalva-Csittfalva, Mureş County), Şirioara (Sajósárvár, Bistriţa County), Moldoveneşti (Várfalva, Cluj County), Cîlnic (Kelnek), and Zăbala (Zabola, Covasna County). The existence of the Bijelo Brdo culture is also revealed by the excavations carried out in Alba Iulia.


The seven graves, dating to the first half of the tenth century, that were uncovered in 1911 in Kolozsvár (Cluj) in Zápolya Street reveal equestrian nomadic Hungarian characteristics (swords, arrowheads). Women's jewelry has its counterparts in Blandiana and Tokaj (Hungary). [473] Early Hungarian equestrian finds mostly from the twelfth century were uncovered in Transylvania in Deva, Marosgombás (Gîmbaş), Kolozsmonostor (Cluj-Mănăştur), Székelykeresztúr (Cristuru Seciuesc), Csapószentgyörgy, Malomfalva-Csittfalva (Moreşti-Citfalău), Kozárvár (Cuzdrioara), Doboka (Dăbîca), Várfalva (Moldoveneşti), Marosvásárhely (Tîrgu Mureş), Marosszentgyörgy (Sîngheorghiu de Mureş), Magyarlapád (Lopadea Nouă), and Felvinc-Marosveresmart (Unirea-Vereşmort). The first evidence of the presence of the Székelys in their actual location, in southeastern Transylvania, is the burial ground of Zabola (Zăbala) from the first half of the twelfth century, where 192 tombs were uncovered. [474]



Fortifications of the Tenth to Twelfth Centuries in Transylvania. Doboka


The citadel of Doboka (Dăbîca), in the vicinity of the Someş (Szamos) River, is one of the large fortifications that were built as





part of the Hungarian defense and county systems after 950. [475] Three additional great fortifications were built in Transylvania: Várfalva (Moldoveneşti near Turda, castrum Torda, Cluj County), from the second half of the tenth century to the twelfth century; Kolozsmonostor (Cluj-Mănăştur), from the second half of the twelfth century; and Fogaras (Făgăraş), from the twelfth century (not yet excavated). Smaller fortifications were in Kozárvár (Cuzdrioara, Cluj County), from the eleventh century, to the east of the confluence of the Someşul Mare and Someşul Mic (Kis-Szamos and Nagy-Szamos) rivers; in Malomfalva (Moreşti), from the tenth century; and in Sajósárvár (Şirioara), from the second half of the eleventh century. Romanian archaeologists also include Dedrad (Mureş County), Chinari (annexed to Sîntana de Mureş), and Moigrad (Sălaj County), among these smaller fortifications.


The introduction of wood and earthen fortresses into Transylvania began only in the tenth century during the rule of Prince Géza (?-997). The construction of earthen fortresses, well known in Eastern Europe, had been undertaken by Hungarians already in their ancestral homeland in the region of the Volga and Kama rivers. The very Hungarian word vár (fortress) penetrated into the Hungarian language through the Iranians with whom the pre-Magyars lived as neighbors for more than a thousand years. The utilization of earthen fortresses represents, in Eastern Europe, the gorodisce culture, from the Russian word gorodisce meaning earthen fortress. It cannot be assumed, therefore, that earthen fortifications were to be found in Transylvania as early as the ninth century; they were built later, in the age of Hungarian territorial expansion, and are Hungarian and not Romanian-Slavic as had been assumed by a few archaeologists. Attempts were made also to claim that the development of fortresses at Doboka (Dăbîca) and also at Kolozsmonostor (Cluj-Mănăştur) occurred in earlier times, before the arrival of the Hungarians, and to assign them to the Vlach chieftain Gelou. [476] It has been proven, however, that no earthen fortifications were built in Transylvania between 650 and 950; [477] after that period they are Hungarian. The archaeological data derived from the fortresses refutes a pre-Magyar or non-Magyar origin. [478]


The excavations that started in 1975 in Voronezh (USSR) relate to the ninth century Saltovo-Majazkoi culture, which is related to the pre-Magyar. A stone fortress with Runic inscriptions was uncovered which proves that the Magyars built not only earthen but also stone fortresses in the territories of their early settlement.


So far as the dating of the structural components of the citadel of Doboka is concerned, Romanian scholars assumed that the first layer of the citadel dates back to the ninth and tenth centuries and, as such, can be designated as Slavic-Romanian. [479] According to Romanian





archaeologists, the bell-shaped pendants found along the lower (I-II) layers, as well as the findings of Darufalva (Drassburg), are Moravian products of the ninth century; or, at least, they underwent Moravian influences. This view has, nevertheless, been shown to be untenable. The numerous similar finds of treasures and jewel show that we are not dealing with a "pagan tomb" and that the treasure of Darufalva (Drassburg) can be classified with regard to age and character with the Byzantine or Russian adornments (silver earrings, Kiev) of the eleventh century. The silver of Darufalva-Doboka has no counterparts in Czech or Moravian territories of the ninth to eleventh centuries. On the other hand, some 26 finds of the Bijelo Brdo culture (primarily silver earrings, silver chains, gold-plated bell-shaped silver buttons) were brought to light, among other places, in the cemeteries of Szolnok-Repülőtér and Szob-Koliba (Hungary), as well as in Poland, Russia, Denmark, Bulgaria, and Sweden and offer proof for dating the treasure of Darufalva-Doboka to the tenth and eleventh centuries. [480] Moreover, the spores, arrowheads, flints, and in more recent periods (after 1050) a bracelet and (in the age of King Kálmán I, 1068-1116) parts of crosses, coins, and ceramics, all of which were found in the second to fourth layers of Doboka, are characteristic of the Árpád era. The finds, according to historical sources, do not antedate the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh centuries.


The name Doboka is not of Slavic origin and is not derived through the evolution of the Old Slavic form glambokъ. [481] It is, rather, ascribable to the name of the Hungarian conqueror Doboka. The excavations have demonstrated beyond any doubt that the citadel of Doboka was built in three or four periods in the age of Árpád. The first of these was in the second half of the tenth century; the second, from 1025 to 1050; the third occurred at the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries during the rule of the Hungarian King Kálmán (coin dated 1100); and the fourth during the first half of the thirteenth century.


Concurrently with the wood and earthen fortresses of the tenth to twelfth centuries, ecclesiastical stone buildings were also constructed. In various places in Transylvania stone churches were also constructed next to wooden churches in the Árpád period at Doboka, Moreşti-Citfalău, Almaş (Sălaj County), Moldoveneşti, Peteni (Petőfalva, Covasna County), and Streismgeorg iu (Sztrigyszentgyörgv, Hunedoara County). More than 20 churches from the Árpád period have been discovered, of which 5 or 6 are of stone. [482]


[Previous] [Next]

[Back to Index]


1. Rolf Hachmann, Die Goten und Skandinavien, (Berlin: 1970), p. 201.


2. Ibid.


3. ibid., p. 462.


4. Mircea Babeş, "Arheologia în frontul ştiintşlor istorice" [Archaeology in the Forefront of Historical Sciences], in Era Socialistă, 1981, 6, p. 24.


5. Istoria Romîniei, C. Daicoviciu, ed., (Bucharest: 1960).


6. Dumitru Protase, Problema continuităţii în Dacia în lumina arheologiei şi numismaticii [The Problem of the Continuity in Dacia in the Light of Archaeology and Numismatics], (Bucharest: 1966), to which Daicoviciu wrote the foreword.


7. Mostly in Romanian periodicals of history and archaeology, such as Studii şî cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie (further references will be referred to in the abbreviated form SCIVA), [Studies and investigations of





Ancient History and Archaeology], Revista de Istorie [journal of History], periodicals of the country museums of history, and other publications. A rich and up to date bibliography is given by C. Preda and Florentina Preda: "Contribuţia cercetărilor arheologice la cunoaşterea istoriei vechi a României" [The Contribution of Archaeological investigations to the Knowledge of the Ancient History of Romania], SCIVA, 7-8, 1980, pp. 1253-1279.


8. Ion I. Russu, Etnogeneza românilor, (Bucharest: 1981), p. 155.


9. Dumitru Protase, "Observaţii asupra aşezărilor rurale din Dacia romana şi postromana sec. IÍ-VI pînă !a venirea slavilor" [Observations of the Rural Settlements in Roman and Post-Roman Dada in the Second and Sixth Centuries Until the Arrival of the Slavs], Banatica, 1, 1971., p. 99.


10. Cf. Protase, Autohtonii fn Dacia, vol. I, Dacia romană (Bucharest: 1980), p. 12., note, and Protase, Un cimitir dacic din epoca romană la Soporu de Cîmpie, (Bucharest: 1976), p. 11, note 2.


11. Cf., for example, A. Rosetti, Istoria limbii române, 1968, pp. 77-78; Pascu, ed., Istoria României. Compendiu, 3rd edition, 1974, p. 68 and map no. 5.


12. SCIVA, 25, 2, 1974, p. 318 Nicolae Gudea, a review article about Dacoromania, Jahrbuch für östliche Latinität, 1, 1973, Freiburg.


13. One part of the lower Danube ceased to be the frontier from 106 to 275 A.D., when Dacia Traiana belonged to the empire.


14. The term "barbarian" is of Greek origin (barbaroi) and was used for peoples who spoke a language other than Greek. Later, however, primarily during the age of migrations, all peoples who were neither Roman nor Greek were designated as "barbarian."


15. Hans Jürgens Eggers, Der römische Import im freien Germanien, (Hamburg: 1951); cf. "die grosse Gesamtkarte."


16. Roman-type fired vessel with a red glaze and imprinted ornamentation.


17. H.J. Eggers, op. cit., p. 53.


18. W.A. von Jenny, Die Kunst der Germanen im frühen Mittelalter, (Berlin: 1940), p. 10.


19. J. Wielowiejski, "Die Kontakte Noricums und Pannoniens mit den nördlichen Völkern im Lichte der römischen Importe," in H.J. Dölle, ed., Römer und Germanen in Mitteleuropa, (Berlin: 1975), pp. 75-76; cf. also G. Witkowski-Sommer, "Spuren römischer Beeinflussung im bildnerischen Schaffen der Germanen" (Gebiet der DDR), in Römer und Germanen, 1975, p. 267.


20. G. Witkowski-Sommer, in Römer und Germanen, p. 273.


21. Wielowiejski, in Römer und Germanen, p. 76.


22. Ibid., pp. 76-77.


23. Ibid., p. 79.


24. Wielowiejski, in Römer und Germanen, p. 72.


25. Ibid., p. 70.


26. A. Salamon, "Kaiserzeitliches Fundmaterial aus Nord- und Ostungarn," in Klio 51, Berlin-Wiesbaden, p. 327; quoted in D. Gabler, "Zu Fragen der Handelsbeziehungen zwischen den Römern und den Barbaren im Gebiet östlich von Pannonien," in Römer und Germanen, p. 92.





27. D. Gabler, in Römer und Germanen, p. 107.


28. Sture Bolin, Fynden av romerska mynt i det fria Germanien (Finds of Roman Coins in Free Germania], (Lund: 1926), p. 253.


29. Ibid., p. 140.


30. Ibid., p. 142.


31. Ibid., pp. 140-141.


32. Ibid., p. 297.


33. Wielowiejski, in Römer und Germanen, p. 73.


34. Ibid., p. 77.; F. Schlette, "Formen des römisch-germanischen Handels," in Römer und Germanen, p. 129.


35. Wielowiejski, in Römer und Germanen, p. 78.


36. Ibid., p. 79.


37. Ibid., pp. 72-73.


38. S. Bolin, op. cit., pp. 186, 296.


39. Gabler, in Römer und Germanen, p. 96.


40. Ibid., p. 102.


41. Eutropius, VIII 6, 1: Ex toto orbe Romano, infinitas copias hominum transtulerat ad agros et urbes coiendas.


42. Romanian historians are supporters of a rapid process of Romanization of Dacia Traiana: for example, C. Daicoviciu, E. Petrovici, and Gh. Ştefan in Istoria României, vol. 1, (Bucharest, 1960) p. 795; Mihail Macrea, Viaţa în Dacia romană, 1969, p. 255. Hadrian Daicoviciu, "Dacii şi civilizaţia lor în secolele I î. e.n. - I e.n." in: Acta Musei Napocensis V (1968), pp. 51-58; Dumitru Berciu, De la Burebista la Decebal, p. 11.


43. Magyarország története, [The History of Hungary], (Budapest: 1984), vol. I, p. 240.


44. Eutropius: abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agris Daciae, in media Moesia collocavit [. . . "and taking out the Romans from the towns and fields of Dacia, he settled them in the middle of Moesia"], Breviarium ab urbe condita, written between 364 and 378, IX 15, 1. This is confirmed also by Vopiscus (fourth century) in Scriptores historiae Augustae, 39, 7.


45. Nicolae Iorga, "Le probleme de l'abandon de la Dacie par l'empereur Aurélien," in Revue historique du sud-est européennes, I, 1924, pp. 336-337.


46. Vladimir Iliescu, Provinciam . . . intermisit, Eutropius, IX 15, 1, in Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 15 (1970), pp. 597-600.


47. Jordanes, Romana 271.


48. Vladimir Iliescu, "Părăsirea Daciei în lumina izvoarelor literare" [The Abandonment of Dacia in the Light of Literary Sources], in Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche (SCIV), 3, 1971, pp. 425-442.


49. . . . sublato exercitu et provinciaiibus reliquit . . . , Vopiscus, Vita Aureliani, 39, 7, in Scriptores historiae Augustae.


50. Vasile Pârvan, Dacia, fifth edition (Bucharest: 1972), p. 123.


51. Istoria României. Compendiu, third edition, Ş. Pascu ed., (Bucharest: 1974), p. 70.


52. Ibid., pp. 70-71; Dumitru Tudor, "Romanizarea Munteniei, " Apulum, XII, 1971, pp. 111-117.





53. Alexandru Rosetti, Istoria limbii române, op. cit., p. 226.


54. Constantin Daicoviciu ed., Istoria României, (Bucharest: i960), pp. 327- 329. Ştefan Pascu et al, ed., Istoria României. Compendiu, 1974, p. 71; András Bodor, "Blocurile cu litere greceşti din cetăţile Dacice," in Crisia 2, 1972, pp. 27-35; Dumitru Berciu, "Scriere cu litere latine şi greceşti descoperită la Buridava (Ocniţa), jud. Vîlcea," SCIVA, 30, no. 4, 1979, pp. 481-499.


55. Istoria Romîniei, C. Daicoviciu, ed., 1960, p. 327. The presence of single letters on pieces of earthenware, for example, can hardly be considered an indication of the spread of "writing" among the population. There can be no question of the significance of writing in the Romanization of a society in which at least the masses of the population are illiterate, as were the Dacians.


56. Dumitru Protase, Autohtonii în Dacia, vol. I, Dacia romană, (Bucharest: 1980), p. 238.


57. The main points are summarized here on the basis of a review of La résistance africaine â la romanisation, (Pans: 1976) by M. Bénabou; "Observaţii privind procesul de romanizare," by Nicolae Gudea, SCIVA, 29, 2, pp. 231-240 (1978).


58. Nicolae Gudea, SCIVA, 29, 2, 1978, p. 233.


59. Ibid., p. 234.


60. Ibid.


61. András Mócsv, Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der römischen Provinz Moesia Superior, (Budapest: 1970), p. 7.


62. Ibid., chapter V. Mócsv gives a detailed analysis of the Romanization of the province of Moesia Superior, which is interesting also from the point of view of Romanization in general and methodology.


63. M. Bénabou, "Résistance et Romanisation en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire," Travaux du VIe Congres International d'Etudes Ciassiques, 1974, p. 374: 1. Romains, 2. Africains réfractaires, 3. le groupe des romanisés partiels.


64. Cf., for example, P.A. Brunt, "The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire," Travaux du VIe Congres International d'Etudes Ciassiques, 1974, pp. 161-173; Mócsy, op. cit., p. 249.


65. Volker Bierbrauer, "Jugoslawien seit dem Beginn der Völkerwanderung bis zur slawischen. Landnahme, " in Jugoslawien. Integrations-probleme in Geschichte und Gegenwart, (Göttingen: 1984), p. 67.


66. Slavko Ciglenečki, "Das Weiterleben der Spätantike bis zum Auftauchen der Slawen in Slowenien," Vortrag an der 26. Internationalen Hochschulwoche 7-11 Oktober 1985 in Tutzing bei München.


67. Zoltán Székely, "Régi idők vallatása" [The Investigation of Ancient Times], in Új Élet, Marosvásárhely, 1981, no, 14, p. 15.


68. Istoria României. C. Daicoviciu, ed., 1960, vol. I, p. 368.


69. Ibid.,


70. Dumitru Protase, Autohtonii în Dacia [The Autochthonous Population in Dacia], vol. I, Dacia romană (Bucharest: 1980), p. 238.


71. Ibid., pp. 81 82; Cf. also Protase, 1966, op. cit.





72. Ioan Mitrofan, "Aşezări ale populaţiei autohtone în Dacia Superior" [Settlements of the Autochthonous Population in Dacia Superior], in Acta Musei Napocensis IX, 1972, p. 155.


73. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 81.


74. Ioan Mitrofan, op. cit., p. 141.


75. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 84.


76. Cf. Protase, 1980, p. 239. The assumption that the rural areas were also affected by the process of Romanization has proved untenable (D. Tudor, Oraşe, tîrguri şi sate în Dacia romană, 1968, p. 8.


77. Cf., for example, Daicoviciu, Dacica, (Cluj: 1969), p. 434; Protase, 1980, op. cit., pp. 201-205.


78. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 27.


79. András Kerényi, Die Personennamen von Dazien (Budapest: 1941), p. 286. Cf G. Schramm, "Frühe Schicksale der Rumänen," in Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, vol. XXI/2 1985, p. 234.


80. Certificate for military disbandment.


81. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 198.


82. Jan Benes, Auxilia Romana in Moesia at que in Dacia. Zu Fragen des römischen Verteidigungssystems im unteren Donauraum und in den angrenzenden Gebieten, (Prague: 1979), p. 71.


83. C. Daicoviciu, "Problema numărului geto-dacilor," in Gînd românesc, Cluj, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 366-375; in Dacica, 1969, p. 17. Cf. The extremely low number of alae and cohortes composed of Dacians in the imperial Roman period, stated by Pârvan, Dacia, Cambridge, p. 190.


84. Protase, 1966, op. cit., pp. 84-102; Protase, 1980, pp. 171-195.


85. Protase, 1980, op. cit., fig. 24 (map), on p. 256.


86. Michael Crawford in Journal of Roman Studies 67 (1977), pp. 117-124; see also Studii şi Cercetări de Numismatică 7 (1980), p. 51 et. seq.


87. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 195.


88. Iudita Winkler, in Studii Clasice, (Bucharest: 1965), pp. 225 -234, quoted in Protase, 1980, p. 194.


89. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 34.


90. Istoria României, C. Daicoviciu, ed., 1960, p. 268.


91. Ibid., p. 368.


92. Protase, 1980, p. 42. Protase refers to his article in Acta Musei Napocensis, V, 1968, p. 509, where essentially the same statement is found.


93. Ibid., p. 77.


94. ibid., p. 161.


95. Ibid.


96. Ioan Glodariu, Aşezări dacice şi daco-romane la Slimnic [Dacian and Daco-Roman Settlements at Slimnic], (Bucharest: 1981), p. 39, note 96.


97. Ibid., p. 47, note 123.


98. Ibid , p. 76.


99. Ibid.


100. In 1966 Protase noted: "It remains to see whether the settlement from the Laténe does not end with the Roman conquest and whether those





few fragments considered Roman and dated to the Roman period were not simply spread there later." Protase, 1966, op. cit., pp. 29-30 (emphasis in the original text).


101. Protase, 1966, p. 106. In his monograph published in 1980, Protase refers to this page but without mentioning the mixing of material from the different periods.


102. Mihail Macrea, Viaţa în Dacia romană, 1969, p. 473; quoted by Ioan Mitrofan, 1972, p. 143; Protase, 1980, p. 43.


103. Ioan Glodariu, Aşezări dacice op. cit.


104. Ibid., pp. 74-75.


105. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 154.


106. Kurt Horedt, "Die spätrömische Siedlungen in Siebenbürgen" (II), Marisia IX, 1979, p. 70. Horedt refers here, as an example, to Pannonia: E.B. Thomas, Römische Villen in Pannonien (Budapest: 1964). See also Protase, 1980, p. 155.


107. Ibid.


108. Protase, 1980, pp. 156-157. This is the case at seven sites: Aiud, Răhău (Alba County), Deva, Cinciş, Mănerău (Hunedoara County), Chinteni and Bădeni (Cluj County). If one reckons with 40 rural farms, this amounts to about 17% of the total.


109. Protase, 1980, p. 157.


110. András Bodor, in A kolozsvári Bolyai Tudományegyetem Emlékkönyve [The Memorial Volume of the Bolyai University of Kolozsvár], (Cluj-Kolozsvár: 1956), pp. 215-217 and 223; quoted by Protase, 1980, p. 156.


111. Horedt, op. cit., p. 70.


112. Protase, op. cit., 1980, p. 99.


113. Protase cites a number of articles about Pannonia, published in Hungary by A. Mócsy, Gy. Nóvák, E. Bonis, E. Biró, and T.P. Buocz (Protase, 1976, p. 79, note 154).


114. Max v. Chlingesperg auf Berg: Die römischen Brandgräber bei Reichenhall in Oberbayern (Braunschweig: 1896); quoted by Protase, 1976, p. 79, note 154.


115. Protase, Autohtonii în Dacia, vol. I, Dacia romană (Bucharest: 1980), pp. 101-125.


116. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 116.


117. Ibid., pp. 117-118.


118. Ibid., p. 102.


119. Ibid., p. 124.


120. Ibid., p. 104.


121. Ibid., p. 125.


122. Ibid., p. 107.


123. Ibid., p. 103.


124. Ibid., p. 109.


125. Ibid., p. 115.


126. K. Horedt, Acta Musei Apulensis, Apulum, XVI, 1978, p. 234.





127. D. Protase, Un cimitir dacic din epoca romană la Soporu de Cîmpie [A Dacian Cemetery from the Roman Time at Soporu de Cîmpie], (Bucharest: 1976); Protase, 1980, op. cit., pp. 119-124.


128. Ibid., p. 56 and p. 90, Table 4.


129. K. Horedt in "Die letzten Jahrzehnte der Provinz Dakien in Siebenbürgen" Apulum XVI, 1978, p. 233. considers that these very worn coins are not reliable in dating the cemetery to the second century A.D.


130. Protase, 1976, op. cit., p. 65.


131. Ibid., p. 56.


132. Horedt, op. cit., 1978, p. 233.


133. Protase, 1976, op. cit., p. 66.


134. Ibid., p. 63.


135. Hordet, 1978, op. cit., pp. 228-231.


136. Ibid., p. 230.


137. Ibid., pp. 228-229, Figs. 11 and 12 (maps of the cemetery); Protase, 1976, sketches no. I and II (maps of the cemetery).


138. Mihail Macrea, in Apulum, VII, 1968, p. 198.


139. Horedt, Acta Musei Apulensis, Apulum, XVI, 1978, p. 225. Literature on the Carps by Gh. Bichir, Archaeology and History of the Carpi, part I-II, Supplementary Series 16, 11 (Oxford: 1976); Dolinescu Ferche Suzana, Aşezări din secolele III şi VI e.n. în sud-vestul Munteniei. Cercetările de la Dulceanca [Settlements of the Third and Sixth Centuries A.D. in Southwestern Muntenia. The Investigations at Dulceanca], (Bucharest: 1974); Gh. Bichir, "Relaţiile dintre Sarmaţi şi Daci" [The Relationship Between Sarmatians and Dacians], SCIVA, 2, 1970.


140. Horedt, 1978, op. cit., p. 215. five hoards end with the reign of Gordian III and 25 with that of Philippus.


141. Horedt, 1978, op. cit., referring to Corpus Inscriptionam Latinarum, III, 1054.


142. Horedt, 1978, op. cit., p. 225.


143. Ibid., p. 233.


144. Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXXII, 3, 3. Cf. Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, vol. II, 1970, p. 704.


145. Protase, 1980, op. cit., 223.


146. Ibid.


147. Ibid., pp. 225 and 227, note 25. At Soporu de Cîmpie, Obreja, Locusteni only the jewelry made in the filigree technique is reminiscent of the Carps; and the amphoras, the Sarmatian-type mirrors, and the zoomorph decorations are lacking.


148. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 252.


149. Istoria Romîniei, C. Daicoviciu, ed., (Bucharest: 1960) p. 391. See also Istoria României. Compendiu, Ş. Pascu, red., (Bucharest: 1974), p. 50.


150. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 115.


150a. Ibid.


151. Protase, 1976, op. cit., p. 57.


152. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 99.





153. S. Bolin, 1926, op. cit., pp. 140-141.


154. Of a total of 55 isolated coins found in Carpic sites, 7 originate from cemeteries: 1 is from an urn at Poieneşti, 5 others (4 of bronze and 1 of silver) from the same cemetery; ana a silver coin was found in a cemetery at Dochia. Gh. Bichir, Cultura Carpică [The Carpic Culture], (Bucharest: 1973), p. 132.


155. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 58.


156. Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 75.


157. Ibid., p. 83, Protase, 1976, p. 77.


158. Protase, 1976, op. cit., p. 32.


159. Ibid., p. 41.


160. Glodariu, 1981, op. cit., p. 49, fig. 25/11 and 25/14, p. 117.


161. Protase, 1980, op. cit., p. 75.


162. The Carps in Moldavia, never dominated by the Roman Empire and not Romanized, adopted Roman earthenware forms in a higher degree: most of their amphorae and many other vessels show a marked Roman influence. The Carpic potters "worked on the Roman models in a creative way" (Cf. Gh. Bichir, Cultura carpică, 1973, p. 81).


163. Protase, 1976, op. cit., p. 54, with some references to the literature in note 39.


164. La Téne is the name of a village at the Lake Neuchâtei in Switzerland, where a Celtic site with rich material remains weapons, tools, etc., was found. It represents the later period of the Iron Age, marked especially by the Celtic culture that spread over Western and Central Europe during the fifth to the first centuries B.C., designated by the name of this Swiss village. In archaeological literature, the notion "La Téne" was generalized to designate contemporary cultures of other peoples as well: the "Germanic La Téne," the "Iberian La Téne."


165. Protase, 1976, op. cit., p. 56.


166. Protase, 1980, op. cit., pp. 161-162.


167. Protase, 1976, op. cit., p. 81.


168. Haralambie Mihăescu, La langue latine dans de sud-est de l'Europe (Bucharest: 1978), Cf., G. Schramm, "Frühe Schicksale der Rumänen" in Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, vol. XXI/2 (1985) p. 234, note 21.


169. Magyarország története [The History of Hungary], vol. I, (Budapest: 1984), p. 225.


170. Emilian Popescu, Inscripţiile greceşti şi latine din secolele IV-XIII descoperite în România [Greek and Latin Inscriptions from the Fourth to Thirteen Centuries Discovered in Romania], (Bucharest: 1976), p. 18. On the Roman inscriptions of Dacia Traiana the following works provide valuable information: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), vol. 3; Inscriptions Daciae Romanae, I: Introducere istorică şi epigrafică. Diplomele militare, tăbliţele cerate, ed. by Ion I. Russu (Bucharest: 1975); vol. II: Oltenia şi Muntenia, red. by G. Florescu, C. Petolescu (Bucharest: 1977); vol. III: 1. Dacia Superior, Zona de sud-vest, ed. by LI. Russu, 1977; 2. Dacia Superior, Ulpia Traiana Dacica Sarmizegethusa, ed. by Russu, 1980; C.C. Petolescu, Cronica epigrafică





a României (1975-19801 SCIV, 32, 1931. "With regard to E. Popescu's work (Inscripţiile greceşti şi latine) it must be noted that Greek towns were founded in Dobrudja, as along the entire western coast of the Black Sea, over several centuries B.C. and Roman, later Byzantine, domination lasted there until the seventh century. A large part of Popescu's monograph (pp. 35-292) deals with the rich finds of inscriptions from that territory. Most of these are funerary inscriptions. It is obvious that they were made by the local population. Most are in the Greek language, a smaller number in Latin. By contrast, the inscriptions from the period in question found in the rest of present-day Romania are few and contain no references to local people but only short formulae or single words or letters.


On the Greek character of the towns on the shore of the Black Sea see: Dionisie M. Pippidi, A. Ştefan, E. Duroţiu-Boilă, in: "Colioque anglo-roumain d'epigraphie ancienne: Les villes gréques de Scythie Mineure a l'époque romaine", Dacia 19, 1975, pp. 141-172,


171. There are only incomplete descriptions about the history and culture of Dacia. A short summary of the Dacian history is given by M. Macrea and D. Tudor, Epoca sclavagistă romană (sec. I-III), Dacia în timpul stăpânirii romane, in: Istoria României I, Bucharest 1960, pp. 345-476. Cf., Erdély története, 1986, op. cit., p. 552,


172. About the date of the abandonment of Dacia see András Bodor, "Impăratul şi părăsirea Daciei" [The Emperor and the Abandonment of Dacia], Studia Univ. Babeş-Bolyai Ser. Hist. 17, 1972.


173. "abductosque Romanos ex urbibus et agriş Daciae, in media Moesia collocavit" [. . . and taking out the Romans from the towns and fields of Dacia, he settled them in the middle of Moesia.] Eutropius, Ab urbe condita, IX, 15, 1.


174. Dacia Ripensis (one part of Moesia Superior, in the valley of Timok) and Dacia Mediterranea (one part of Dardania, the present-day eastern Serbia and western Bulgaria).


175. Kurt Horedt, Siebenbürgen in spätrömischer Zeit (Bucharest: 1982); "Die städtischen Siedlungen Siebenbürgens in spätrömischer Zeit," Acta Musei Devensis, Sargetia, XIV, 1979; "Die spätrömischen Siedlungen in Siebenbürgen," Marisia, IX, 1979.


176. Emanuel Turczynski, Konfession und Nation. Zur Frühgeschichte der serbischen und rumänischen Nationsbildung (Düsseldorf: 1976), p. 88, note 242; Konrad Schünemann, Die Entstehung des Städtewesens in Südosteuropa (Breslau: 1929), p. 36.


177. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 89.


178. Ibid., p. 90.


179. The "Augustales" were associations concerned with the cult of the emperors in the Roman Empire. Wealthy burghers who belonged to these associations also provided support for the beautification of towns; such, for instance, was the Aedes Augustalium, a second century building of Sarmizegethusa.


180. Hadrian Daicoviciu, "Etnogeneza romanilor," in Naţiunea română, (Bucharest: 1984), p. 151. Valuable information of Sarmizegethusa is given





by Constantin Daicoviciu, "Sarmizegethusa" in Realencyclopädie, suppl. XV, 1974, pp. 599-655.


181. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 61.


182. Joachim Werner, Reinecke-Festschrift (Mainz: 1950), p. 154, no. 35, cf., Horedt, "Die städtischen Siedlungen," 1979, op. cit., p. 206, note 13.


183. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 203.


184. Ibid., p. 204.


185. Ibid., p. 62 and p. 153, Fig. 60, 4.


186. Ibid., p. 64.


187. Ibid., p. 205.


188. Ibid.


189. Ibid., p. 64,


190. The wall of a small Roman building.


191. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., pp. 66-67, 204.


192. Ibid., p. 69. A synthesis of Porolissum is given by Constantin Daicoviciu, "Porolissum," in Realencyclopädie, XXII, 1953, pp. 265-270.


193. Istoria României, 1960, p. 620.


194. Dumitru Protase, Problema continuităţii în Dacia, 1966, op. cit., p. 119.


195. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 69.


195a. Nicolae Gudea, Acta Musei Porolissensis, III, 1979, pp. 515-524.


196. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 73.


197. Ibid., p. 213, list of finds no. 7.


198. Ibid., p. 215, list of finds no. 10.


199. Ligia Bârzu, Continuitatea populaţiei autohtone în Transilvania în secolele IV-V. Cimitirul I de la Bratei [The Continuity of the Autochthonous Population in Transylvania in the 4th-5th Centuries. Cemetery 1 at Bratei], (Bucharest: 1973), p. 89.


200. Cf., for example, Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 107.


201. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., pp. 151-152.


202. Ibid., p. 152.


203. Ibid.


204. Ibid., p. 152.


205. Ibid., p. 154 and 216-217, list no. 11.


206. Ibid., p. 165.


207. Cf., the map in Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 181, with the area of the Sîntana de Mureş culture and that of the finds of coins.


208. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 73. See further Zoltán Székely, "Korai középkori temetők Délkelet-Erdélyben" [Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages in Southeastern Transylvania] in Korunk Évkönyv [Korunk Yearbook], 1973, pp. 219-228.


209. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 79.


210. Ibid., p. 80.


211. Ibid., p. 81.


212. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 100.


213. Ibid., p. 100.





214. Ibid., p. 102.


215. Ion Nestor, Revue Roumaine d'Histoire, 3, 1964, pp. 398-401; Enzyklopädisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas, (Prag: 1966), vol. 1, pp. 159-160; Ion Nestor and Eugenia Zaharia, "Raport preliminar despre săpăturile de la Bratei, jud. Sibiu" [Preliminary Report About the Excavations at Bratei, Sibiu County], in Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, 10, 1973, pp. 191-201.


216. Ligia Bârzu, Continuitatea populaţiei autohtone în Transylvania în secolele IV-V. Cimitirul 1 de la Bratei [The Continuity of the Autochthonous Population in Transylvania in the 4th to 5th Century. Cemetery 1. at Bratei], (Bucharest: 1973).


217. André Du Nay, 1977; summary of the finds pp. 143-147; a critical discussion pp. 230-2.31.


218. Further critical discussion by István Bóna, Archaeológiai Értesítő, Budapest, 103, 1976; Kurt Horedt, "Die spätrömischen Bestattungen aus Siebenbürgen," in Studii şi comunicări. Muzeul Bruckenthal, Sibiu, 21, 1981, 62.


219. Gheorghe Diaconu, "Despre denumirea şi cronologia unor culturi din Dacia romană şi regiunile extracarpatice în mileneul 1 e.n. [About the Designation and the Chronology of Some Cultures in Roman Dacia and in the Transcarpathian Territories During the First Millenium A.D.] in SCIVA, 30, 4, 1979, p. 550.


219a. A significant part of the cemetery was destroyed before it could be studied, for a sand-pit (Ligia Bârzu, 1973, p. 9). A severe shortcoming of the description of this cemetery is that it does not indicate in which tomb each of the objects were found; therefore, a horizontal-stratigraphic investigation is not possible. (Horedt, 1982, op. cit., pp. 97-98.) In his recent work, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter (Bonn: 1986), published in West Germany, Horedt states that the burial ground of Bratei is clearly Slavic and the assumption that it may be connected with branches of Romanic peoples is incorrect (p. 65).


220. SCIVA, 34 (1983), pp. 235-242.


221. Volker Bierbrauer, "Zur chronologischen, soziologischen und regionalen Gliederung des ostgermanischen Fundstoffes des 5. Jahrhunderts in Südosteuropa," in Herwig Wolfram und Falko Daim, Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert (Vienna: 1980), p. 132.


222. Ibid., pp. 134-135.


223. Ibid., p. 139.


224. István Kovács, A marosszentannai népvándorláskori temető. Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum érem- és régiségtárából, Kolozsvár. Travaux de la Section numismatique et archéologique du Musée National de Transylvanie, 3, 1912, pp. 250-367.


225. Bierbrauer, 1980, op. cit., p. 133.


226. Ibid., p. 134.


227. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 111.


228. Ibid., p. 208, list 6.





229. Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 117.


230. Horedt, 1982, p. 117.


231. Valuable information on the Sarmatians in Mihály Párducz, Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit in Ungarn, (Budapest: 1950) vols. 3, Archaeologica Hungarica, 30; Gheorghe Bichir, Les Sarmates sur le territoire de la Roumanie, Actes VIIIe Congr., Belgrade 1971, pp. 275-285; E. Dömer, "Dacii şi Sarma ţii în secolele II-III e.n. în vestul României," Apulum, 9, 1971.


232. The Jaziges, a branch of Sarmatian equestrian nomads, settled in the first decades of our era in the Hungarian Plain. In the first century A.D. their own settlement areas were in the northern part of the Hungarian Plain as well as in the northern part of the territory between the Danube and the Tisza. In the period of the conquest of Dacia the jaziges lived in the part of the Banat which had not been conquered by the Romans and they were allied with the Romans in wars against the Dacians. Together with the Roxolans they staged attacks in 117 against the Roman borders. The Roxolans, another branch of the Sarmatians, lived on the territory of contemporary Muntenia.


233. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., pp. 104-105.


234. More information on the Carpic material culture in chapter "The Assumed Romanization in Moldavia."


235. Cf., Horedt, 1982, p. 84.


236. Răhău (Rehó) and Cicău (Csákó) in Alba County, Horedt, 1982, p. 85.


237. Horedt, 1982, pp. 86-87; Horedt, "Die spätrömischen Siedlungen in Siebenbürgen," 1979, op. cit., pp. 69-72.


238. Horedt, 1982, p. 172.


239. ibid., p. 174.


240. Ibid., p. 183.


241. Ibid., p. 182.


242. Ibid.


243. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 176; cf. also Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 192, Table 3.


244. Constantin Preda, "Circulaţia monedelor romane postaureîiene în Dacia [The Circulation of Roman Coins from the Period After Aurelian in Dacia], in SCIVA, Bucharest 1975, p. 441.


245. Constantin Preda and Florentina Preda, "Contribuţia cercetărilor arheologice la cunoaşterea istoriei vechi a României" [The Contribution of the Archaeological Investigations to the Knowledge of the Old History of Romania], in Revista de Istorie, vol. 33, no. 7-8, 1980, p. 1274. In note 223, the authors refer to the following works: Constantin Preda, SCIVA, 26, 1975, 4, pp. 441-485; Kurt Horedt, Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei în sec. IV-XIII, (Bucharest: 1958); and Dumitru Protase, Problema continuităţii, op. cit., 1966. See also Constantin Preda, "Circulaţia monedelor bizantine în regiunea carpato-dunăreană" in SCIV, 23, 1972, no. 3, pp. 375-415 and Monedele geto-dacilor, (Bucharest: 1973). Information of the circulation of coins are provided by Michael Crawford in The Journal of Roman Studies, 67 (1977), pp. 117-124





and in Studii şi Cercetări de Numismatică, 7 (1980), p. 51 et. seq.; see also the short reply of Constantin Preda in Dacia, no. 24 (1980), pp. 127— 131.


246. Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 195.


247. Horedt, 1982, p. 179.


248. Nicolae Gudea, "Cîteva observaţii şi note critice cu speciala privire la partea istorică a monografiei Etnogeneza românilor de Ion I. Russu." [Some Remarks and Critical Notes with Special Reference to the Historical Part of Etnogeneza românilor by Ion I. Russu], in Acta Musei Napocensis, XX, 1983, p. 909.


249. Bolin, Fynden av romerska mynt, 1926, op. cit., pp. 186, 296.


250. Gabler, in Römer und Germanen, 1975, p. 96, Table I, and p. 97, Fig. 4 (map).


251. Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 193, Fig. 66.


252. Preda, 1975, op. cit., p. 446, Fig. 1.


253. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 173, Fig. 66.


254. Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 197.


255. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., pp. 73-82.


256. Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 196. Cf., also Horedt, 1982, p. 179.


257. Mihail Macrea, "Monedele şi părăsirea Daciei" [The Coins and the Abandonment of Dacia] in Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice, Cluj, 3, 1936-1940, pp. 300-302, Cluj; quoted by Preda, 1975, op. cit., p. 453.


258. Protase, 1966, p. 198, with two reservations, however: "If we exclude the import of these hoards from the empire into the Daco-Roman territories, and if we disregard some doubts about the integrity and unity of some of them . . ." (p. 197).


259. Preda, 1975, op. cit., p. 453, referring to Macrea, "Monedele şi părăsirea Daciei" [The Coins and the Abandonment of Dacia], in Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice, 3, 1936-1940, pp. 300-302, Cluj.


260. Ibid.


261. Horedt, 1982, p. 178.


262. Ibid.


263. István Bóna, "Az avar uralom századai" [The Centuries of the Avar Domination], in Erdély története [The History of Transylvania], (Budapest: 1986), p. 169.


264. Horedt, 1982, p. 180.


265. Cf., for example, Horedt, 1978, op. cit., p. 215.


266. Protase, 1966, op. cit., p. 184; Preda, 1975, op. cit., p. 443. The low intensity of circulation of coins in the time of the economic crisis in the empire would not prevent this, since hoards usually contain money accumulated during longer periods of time.


267. András Mócsy, Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der römischen Provinz Moesia Superior, (Budapest: 1970), p. 259.


268. Kurt Horedt, "Wandervölker und Romanen im 5. bis 6. Jahrhundert in Siebenbürgen," in: Herwig Wolfram, Falko Daim (eds.), Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert, (Vienna: 1980), p. 118.





269. Kurt Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter (Bonn: 1986), p. 53.


270. Horedt, Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei în secolele IV-XIII (Bucharest: 1958); and Horedt, Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens, (Bucharest: 1958); for supplements have been used the summary of C. Preda: SCIV, 23, 1972, and C. Preda: SCIVA, 26, 1975; cf. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, note 82.


271. Ibid.


272. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, p. 53.


273. Ibid., p. 97.


274. Ibid., p. 98.


275. Ibid.


276. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 181.


277. References to the literature are found in Istoria Romîniei, 1960; E. Lozovan, 1959-62; D. Protase, 1966; K. Horedt, 1982; M. Rusu, 1983-84.


278. Eugen Lozovan, "Aux origines du christianisme Daco-Scythique," in Geschichte der Hunnen, by Franz Altheim, 1959-1962, pp. 146-165.


279. Lozovan, 1959-62, op. cit., p. 165.


280. Istoria României, vol. I, red. C. Daicoviciu et al. (Bucharest: 1960) p. 632.


281. Dumitru Protase, Problema continuităţii, 1966, op. cit., p. 141.


282. Kurt Horedt, Siebenbürgen in spätrömischer Zeit (Bucharest: 1982), pp. 163-171.


283. Mircea Rusu, "Paleocreştinismul nord-Dunărean şi etnogeneza românilor" [Early Christianity North of the Danube and the Ethnogenesis of the Romanians], in Anuarul institutului de istorie şi arheologie Cluj-Napoca, XXVI, 1983-1984, pp. 35-81 and 51, 57.


284. Ibid., p. 40. The towns: Dierna (Orşova), Tibiscum (Jupa, a village), Ulpia Traiana (Sarmizegethusa / Grădişte), Apulum (Alba Iulia), Potaissa (Turda), Napoca (Cluj), and Porolissum (Moigrad). The castra: Mehadia, Gilău, Bologa, Gherla, Românaşi.


285. Ibid., p. 40.


286. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., p. 167. On the objects of Christian character, see also Emilian Popescu, Inscripţiile greceşti şi latine din secolele IV-XIII descoperite în România, op. cit., 1976. An earlier excellent analysis is presented by Ion I. Russu, Materiale arheologice paleocreştine în Transilvania. Contribuţii la istoria creş nismului daco-român. Studii Teologice, 10, 1958.


287. Horedt, 1982, pp. 218-219, Fundliste B and C.


288. Ibid.


289. Ibid., p. 170.


290. Ibid.


291. Mircea Rusu, 1983-1984, op. cit., p. 41.


292. CIL, III, 1617.


293. Kurt Horedt, "Eine lateinische Inschrift des 4. Jahrhunderts aus Siebenbürgen," Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice, Cluj-Sibiu, vol. IV, Sibiu, 1941, pp. 10-16; Constantin Daicoviciu, "O senzaţională descoperire arheologică în Transilvania," Transilvania, 72, 8, pp. 575-578, 1941 (in Dacica,





1969, p. 522); Istoria Romîniei, ed. C. Daicoviciu, 1960, vol. I, p. 632; D. Protase, Problema continuităţii, 1966, op. cit., pp. 144-145; K. Horedt, "Die Fundstelle des Donariums von Biertan, Kr. Sibiu," Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice (Cluj), 4, 1941-1943, pp. 10-16; and in Dacia, N.S., XXIII, 1979, pp. 341-346, Bucharest.


294. Horedt, "Die Fundstelle," 1979, p. 343.


295. Horedt, "Eine lateinische Inschrift," 1941.


296. Daicoviciu (1941) argues that even if Zenovius gave his present to a Gothic community, they must have known Latin and they could learn this language only from a Latin-speaking population in the area (Dacica, 1969, p. 525).


297. Horedt, "Eine lateinische Inschrift," 1941, quoted by Protase, 1966, p. 145.


298. Archaeológiai Értesítő, III, Budapest, pp. 252-258, quoted by Protase, 1966, p. 145.


299. Hadrian Daicoviciu, "Etnogeneza românilor," in Naţiunea română (Bucharest: 1984), p. 155.


300. István Bona, in Erdély története [The History of Transylvania], op. cit., p. 128.


301. Mircea Rusu, 1983-1984, op. cit., p. 51.


302. Fontes Historiae Dacoromanae, vol. II, p. 174. The original Latin text reads as follows: "Inveniuntur autem lapides isti in interiore barbarie Scytharum. Scythiam vero soliti sunt veteres appellare cunctam septemtrionalem plagam, ubi sunt Gothi et Dauni, Venni quoque et Arii usque ad Germanorum Amazonumque regionem."


303. Mircea Rusu, 1983-1984, op. cit., p. 41.


304. Horedt, 1982, op. cit., pp. 151-152.


305. Ibid.




308. Walter Pohl, "Die Gepiden und die Gentes an der mittleren Donau nach dem Zerfall des Attilareiches," in Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau, 1980, op. cit., p. 270. Literature on the treasure-trove of Szilágysomlyó: Nándor Fettich, "Der zweite Schatz von Szilágysomlyó," in Arch. Hung. VIII, Budapest 1932; the treasure-trove of Pietroasa: Radu Harhoiu, The Treasure from Pietroasa, Romania (Oxford: 1977). István Bona, contrary to Horedt and Protase attributed the treasure-trove of Cluj-Someşeni to the Gepidae; K. Horedt und D. Protase, "Ein völkerwanderungszeitlicher Schatzfund aus Cluj-Someşeni, in Germania 48, 1970, pp. 89-98.


309. Joachim Werner, "Namensring und Siegelring aus dem gepidischen Fürstengrab von Apahida (Siebenbürgen)," in Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 9, 1967/1968. Literature of Apahida I: Henrik Finály, "Der Grabfund von Apahida," in Ungarische Revue 1890; Apahida II: K. Horedt and D. Protase, "Das zweite Fürstengrab von Apahida," in Germania 50, 1972; Apahida III: Ştefan Matei, "Al treilea mormînt princiar de la Apahida," in Acta Musei Napocensis, 19, 1982.





310. Valuable data are provided by István Bona, in Erdély története, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 118-120.


311. On the Goths, the following works provide valuable information: Jordanes (sixth century) Getica [The History of the Goths], written in 551, ed. Th. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Hannover 1826 et. seq.; Prokopius (sixth century) Bellum Gothicum, ed. by ]. Haury and G. Wirth (Lipsiae: 1963); Procopius Caesariensis, De Bello Gothico, ed. Bonn, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (CSB), ed. Teubner (1905); with English translation in the Leeb Classical Library; N. Wagner, Getica. Untersuchungen zum Leben des lordanes und zur frühen Geschichte der Goten (Berlin: 1967); Herwig Wolfram, Geschichte der Goten (München: 1979); E. Beninger, Der westgotisch-alanische Zug nach Mitteleuropa (Leipzig: 1931); József Hampel, Altertümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn, I—III, (Braunschweig: 1905); Ludwig Schmidt, Die Ostgermanen (München: 1941); E. A. Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila (Oxford: 1966); R. Hachmann, Die Goten und Skandinavien (Berlin: 1970).


312. As 300, 325, or only after 376; cf. Kurt Horedt, "Wandervölker und Romanen im 5. bis 6. Jahrhundert in Siebenbürgen," in H. Wolfram and F. Daim, Die Völker and der mittleren und unteren Donau, op. cit., p. 117.


313. There are a vast material of literature on the Gepidae: Dezső Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken (454-568 A.D.), Archaeologica Hungarica 38, (Budapest: 1961); István Bona, Der Anbruch des Mittelalters. Gepiden und Langobarden im Karpatenbecken (Budapest: 1976); Constantin C. Diculescu, Die Gepiden (Leipzig: 1922); Kurt Horedt, Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens (Bucharest: 1958); Walter Pohl, "Die Gepiden und die Gentes an der mittleren Donau nach dem Zerfall des Attilareiches," in: Herwig Wolfram and Falko Daim, (reds.), Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert (Wien: 1980).


314. Procopius Caesariensis, Bellum Gothicum, op. cit.


315. Jordanes, Getica, 33.


316. Theophylaktos Simokatta, Historiae, VIII, 3; cf. Fontes Historiae Daco-romanae, II, 1970, p. 548.


317. Horedt, "Germanen und Romanen in Siebenbürgen," in Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde, 6 (77) Jahrgang, Heft 2/83, p. 176.


318. A üst of the settlements is given by Horedt, in Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, op. cit., notes 5, 32, 53, 66, 68, 69, 82, 88, and 89.


319. ibid.


320. On the excavations at Moreşti an excellent and detailed data are provided in: Kurt Horedt, Moreşti. Grabungen in einer vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Siedlung in Siebenbürgen, vol. 1 (Bucharest: 1979). For the second phase of the Moreşti culture (Csüged and Csitfalva) see, Kurt Horedt, Moreşti, vol. 2. Grabungen în einer mittelalterlichen Siedlung in Siebenbürgen, (Bonn: 1984). Between the two phases there are a gap of several centuries. Further literature of Moreşti: Dorin Popescu, "Das gepidische Gräberfeld von Moreşti," Dacia 18, 1974, pp. 189-238.





321. The ornamentations are weakly stamped with a wooden implement or die prior to firing. These parts are raised with a matte luster placed over the rough surface. This kind of ceramic appears suddenly during the last two decades of the fourth century. According to recent research this kind of ceramic is to be linked to the Germanic tribes.


322. Horedt, Moreşti 1979, op. cit., p. 70.


323. Bóna, Erdély története, op. cit., p. 144.


324. Ibid., p. 163.


325. Ibid., p. 143.


326. Walter Pohl, "Die Gepiden und die Gentes," op. cit., p. 248.


327. Gheorghe Diaconu, in Dicţionar de istorie veche a României. (Paleolitic- sec.X) [Dictionary of Ancient History of Romania], ed by Dionisie M. Pippidi (Bucharest: 1976) p. 544. It is asserted that Romanic elements were living together with the Gepidae in Transylvania in the fifth and sixth centuries (Istoria Romîniei, ed. C. Daicoviciu, vol. I. 1960, p. 711). See further: Constantin Preda and Florentina Preda, 1980, p. 1275.


328. Radu Harhoiu, in Dicţionar de istorie veche a României, op. cit., p. 295.


329. Kurt Horedt, "Das archäologische Bild der romanischen Elemente nach der Räumung Daziens," in Dacoromania, I, Jahrbuch für östliche Latinität, Freiburg 1973, p. 144.


330. The argument based on the lack of Gepidic dwelling places on the Hungarian Plain, in contrast to Transylvania, has proven false: such dwelling places have been found in Hungary.


331. Horedt, Dacoromania I, 1973, p. 145. It must be remembered, however, that in the current trend of the Romanian historiography the scholar is committed to find "local people," "autochthons," Romans, among the old Germanic population. It is not surprising that even prominent Romanian historians must follow the official prescriptions for writing history.


332. Kurt Horedt, "Germanen und Romanen in Siebenbürgen. Bemerkungen zu einer Besprechung," in Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde, Heft 2/83, p. 174.


333. Ibid., p. 175.


334. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, op. cit. p. 66.


335. Horedt, Moreşti, 1979, op. cit., p. 146.


336. István Bóna, "Gepiden an der Theiss—Gepiden in Siebenbürgen", in Acta Archaeologica Acad. Scient. Hung. 31, 1979. The reply of Horedt, in Acta. Arch Acad. Scient. Hung. 33, 1981, pp. 377-381.


337. Dorin Popescu, "Das gepidische Gräberfeld von Moreşti," Dacia XVIII, 1974, pp. 189-238.


338. Bóna, "Gepiden an der Theiss ," op. cit., 1979, p. 38.


339. Ibid., p. 46.


340. Horedt, Moreşti, 1979, p. 51.


341. Alexandru Rosetti, Istoria limbii române de la origini până în secolul al XVII-lea (Bucharest: 1968), p. 242.


342. The exact location of the Nedao River continues to be unknown; opinions on this subject vary: Wolfram, Goten, p. 321; Horedt, "Wandervölker





und Romanen," op. cit., p. 118, cf., W. Pohl, "Die Gepiden und die Gentes" in H. Wolfram and F. Daim (eds.), Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau, op. cit. p. 260, note 62, According to a hypothesis the Nedao River could be the modern Kapos River, a right-side affluent of the Danube (Hermann Schreiben, I goti, 1981, p. 192.).


343. W. Pohl, "Die Gepiden und die Gentes," op. cit., p. 264.


344. Hunnic archaeological remnants in Transylvania have been found in Táuteu (Tóti, Bihar County) and possibly at Moigrad (Mojgrád, Sálai County). Literature on the Huns: Franz Altheim, Geschichte der Hunnen, (Berlin: 1959-1962); Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, (Berkeley: 1973); András Alföldi, Funde der Hunnenzeit und ihre ethnische Sonderung (Budapest: 1932); Joachim Werner, Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches, (München: 1956).


345. Ludwig Schmidt, Die Ostgermanen, (München: 1941), pp. 584-585.


346. For the Avar burial graves in Transylvania see Kurt Horedt, "Die frühgeschichtliche Siedlungslandschaft Siebenbürgens," in Aluta, 1980, p. 85.


347. Valuable data on the Avars are orovided in: Dezső Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Schrifttum und Fundorte, (Budapest: 1956); Kurt Horedt, "Avarii în Transilvania," in SCIV, 7, 1956; István Bona, "Die Awaren. Ein asiatisches Reitervolk an der mittleren Donau," in Awaren in Europa, (Frankfurt am Main-Nürnberg: 1985); A. Avenarius, Die Awaren in Europa, (Bratislava: 1974); Nándor Fettich, "Dunapentelei avar sírleletek" [Avar Cemeteries at Dunapentele], in Archaeologica Hungarica, XVIII, Budapest 1936; Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567-829) in Hungary, vol. I, É. Garam, I. Kovrig, j. Gy. Szabó, Gy. Török, Avar Finds in the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest: 1975); Avar Cemeteries in Baranya County, vol. II, A. Kiss (Budapest: 1977).


348. Magyarország története, [The History of Hungary], op. cit., 1984, p. 343,


349. More detailed data in György Györffy, Tanulmányok a magyar állam eredetéről, [Studies on the Origin of the Hungarian State], (Budapest: 1959).


350. Procopius (or Prokopios Caesarea), Bellum Gothicum, 2, 15, 1; 3, 35, 13-22; 8, 25, ed. by J. Haury-G. Wirth (Lipsae: 1963); Jordanes, Romana et Getica, V, 35, ed. by Theodor Mommsen (Berlin: 1882); Zdenek Vaná, Einführung in die Frühgeschichte der Slawen (Neumünster: 1970); Francis Dvormk, Les Slaves. Histoire et civilisation de l'Antiquité aux débuts de l'époque contemporaine (Paris: 1970); Marija Gimbutas, The Slavs (London: 1971); A. P. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom. An Introduction of the Medieval History of the Slavs (Cambridge: 1970);


351. Jordanes, V, 35, Romana et Getica, op. cit.


352. Procopius, Bellum Gothicum, op. cit.


353. In Serbia the village Negrişori, in Montenegro the two highest mountains, Visitor and Durmitor. There are several Romanian place names in the mountainous area between Niš and Sofia (G. Weigand, XIII. Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache [Leipzig: 1908], p. 40 et. seq.).


354. Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, op. cit., p. 156.


355. Konstantin Josef Jireček, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe, (Prag: 1877), p. 70.





356. Kurt Horedt, "Germanen und Romanen in Siebenbürgen. Bemerkungen zu einer Besprechung," in Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde, 6 (77) Jahrgang, Heft 2/83, pp. 171-176. '


357. Georges Sp. Radojičić, "La date de la conversion des Serbes," in Byzantion 22 (1952), pp. 253-256.


358. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, op. cit., p. 95.


359. Bóna, Erdély története, op. cit., I, p. 182.


360. Ibid.


361. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, p. 59.


362. Horedt, Apulum, 18, 1980, p. 151.


363. Horedt, "Die Brandgräberfelder der Mediaşgruppe aus dem 7.-9. Jahrhundert in Siebenbürgen," in Zeitschrift für Archäologie, 10, Berlin 1976, pp. 35-57.


364. Ibid., p. 36.


365. Ibid., p. 38.


366. Ibid., p. 41.


367. Dezső Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit, 1956, op. cit., pp. 272-279, 273, Table 6:1.


368. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, op. cit., p. 101.


369. Horedt, "Die Brandgräber," 1976, op. cit., p. 46.


370. Dumitru Tudor, "Romanizarea Munteniei," [The Romanization of Wallachia], Apulum XII, 1974, p. 116; see further Dan Gh. Teodor, Teritoriul est-carpatic în veacurile V-XI e.n., [The Territory East of the Carpathians in the Fifth to Eleventh Centuries A.D.], (Iaşi: 1978).


371. Dicţionar de istorie veche a României, [Encyclopaedia of the Ancient History of Romania], ed. by Dionisie M. Pippidi (Bucharest: 1976), p. 281.


372. Nicolae Gostar, "Vechimea elementului roman la răsărit de Carpaţi," [The Antiquity of the Roman Element East of the Carpathians] in the Romanian Communist Party's ideological and official journal, the Era Socialistă, 1979, 6, p. 34.


373. Dan Gh. Teodor, "Romanitatea în Moldova în a doua jumătate a milenului I," [The Roman Population in Moldavia in the Second Half of the First Millennium], in Era Socialistă, 1981, 11, p. 36. See further Dan Gh. Teodor, Teritoriul est-carpatic, op. cit.


374. Dumitru Tudor, "Romanizarea Munteniei," 1974, op. cit., p. 116; see further Eugenia Zaharia, "Données sur l'archéologie des IVe-XIe siècles sur le territoire de la Roumanie. La culture Bratei et la culture Dridu," in Dacia, XV (1971), pp. 286-287.


375. Istoria României, ed. C. Daicoviciu, vol. I, 1960, p. 519.


376. Cf., for example, Dumitru Tudor, "Preuves archéologiques attestant la continuité de la domination romaine au nord du Danube aprés l'abandon de Dacie sous Aurelien (IIIe-Ve siècles)," Dacoromania I, 1973, pp. 149-161.


377. Fontes Historiae Dacoromanae, vol. II, 1970, pp. 379, 387.


378. Gheorghe Bichir, "Date noi cu privire la romanizarea Munteniei," [New Data About the Romanization of Wallachia], SCIVA 29, 3 (1978), p. 385.





379. Ibid., p. 388.


380. Ibid., p. 390.


381. Petre Roman, Suzana Dolinescu-Ferche, "Cercetările de la Ipoteşti (jud. Olt). (Observaţii asupra culturii materiale autohtone din secolul al VI-lea e.n. în Muntenia)." [Researches at Ipoteşti, Olt County. Remarks About the Autochthonous Material Culture of the Sixth Century A.D. in Waliachia], in SCIVA, 29, 1, 1978, p. 88.


382. Ptolemaios (Ptolemaeus) Claudius, Geografiae III,10,7; cf., Fontes ad historiam Dacoromaniae pertinentes, I, (Bucharest: 1964), p. 554. The English translation of Ptolemy's work by E.L. Stevensen (New York: 1932).


383. Fontes, I, p. 555, referring to the Register of Hunt.


384. Istoria României, C. Daicovici (ed.), 1960, vol. I, p. 518.


385. Gheorghe Bichir, Cultura carpică [The Carpic Culture], (Bucharest: 1973), p. 153.


386. Ibid., p. 150.


387. Ibid., p. 181.


388. "All the Carps were moved into our territory. The entire Carp population was transferred to Romania." [Roman Empire].


389. Bichir, 1973, op. cit., 70.


390. Ibid., p. 67; the picture on p. 259.


391. Ibid., p. 81.


392. Ibid., p. 79, 83 et seq.


393. Ibid., p. 175.


394. Ibid., pp. 127-132.


395. Ibid.


396. Silviu Sanie, Civilizaţia romană la est de Carpaţi şi romanitatea pe teritoriul Moldovei (sec. II. î.e.n.-III. e.n.) [The Roman Civilization East of the Carpathians and the Romans in the Territory of Moldavia Second Century B.C.-Third Century A.D.], (Iaşi: 1981), p. 93.


397. Ibid., p. 94.


398. Ibid., p. 96,


399. Dan Gh. Teodor, Continuitatea populaţiei autohtone la est de Carpaţi în secolele VI-XI e.n., [The Continuity of the Autochthonous Population East of the Carpathians in the 6th—11th Centuries A.D.], (Iaşi: 1984), pp. 16-17 (with illustrations).


400. Teodor, 1978, op. cit., p. 13.


401. Ibid., p. 17.


402. Ibid., p. 18.


403. Ibid., p. 19.


404. Ibid., p. 21.


405. Ibid., p. 23.


406. Ibid., p.. 132.


407. Ibid., pp. 30-31.


408. Ibid., p. 31.


409. Ibid.


410. Istoria României, ed. C. Daicoviciu, vol. I, 1960, p. 737.





411. Joachim Werner, "Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts," in: Reinecke Festschrift, ed. by Gustav Behrens and Joachim Werner, (Mainz: 1950), pp. 150-172.


412. Teodor, 1978, op. cit., p. 43.


413. This is the designation of a Slavic culture found in the region between the middle course of the Dnieper, Rosî and Teasmin rivers and the upper course of the southern Bug (Teodor, 1978, p. 43; referring to articles by D.T. Berezovetz in Kratkie Soobscenija Institut Arheologii, Kiev, and in Materialy i Issledovanija po Arheologii S.S.S.R, Moscow, and several other scholars in the Soviet Union).


414. Teodor, 1978, p. 48.


415. Ibid.


416. Ibid.


417. Ibid., p. 49.


418. Ibid., p. 48.


419. Protase, Autohtonii în Dacia, 1980, op. cit., p. 12, note. The note continues as follows: "We use ["Daco-Roman"] for its conciseness ("pentru conciziunea lui"). Usually, Daco-Roman is said to designate the population of the Romanized Dacians, mixed with the Roman colonists." A similar note is given in Protase, 1976, p. 11, note 2.


420. Silviu Sanie, 1981, op. cit., p. 226.


421. Bichir, 1973, op. cit., p. 178.


422. Sanie, 1981, p. 41.


423. Radu Harhoiu, "Die Kontinuität im Gebiet des heutigen Rumänien," in: H. Wolfram and F. Daim, Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau, 1980, op. cit., p. 108.


424. Teodor, 1978, p. 30.


425. Ibid., pp. 40-41: "Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to separate with sufficient certainty the objects found in these dwelling places, and it is thus not possible to state which elements are typical of the autochthons and which are typical of the Slavs."


426. Ibid., p. 17.


427. Dan Gh. Teodor, Teritoriul est-carpatic în veacurile V-XI e.n. Contribuţii arheologice şi istorice în problema formării poporului român [The East Carpathian Territory in the 5th-11th Centuries A.D. Archaeological and Historical Contributions to the Question of the Romanian People's Formation], (Iaşi: 1978).


428. G. Mihăilă, Studii de lexicologie şi istorie a lingvisticii româneşti [Studies of Lexicology and of the History of Romanian Linguistics], (Bucharest: 1973), p. 26. In this same part of Romania, that is, in most of Moldavia, the ancient place names of Slavic origin show an Ukrainian sound pattern, while they otherwise in Romania are mainly of a South Slavic type.


429. Teodor, 1978, op. cit., pp. 48-49.


430. These examples are given by Günter Reichenkron, who refers to Ivan Popović, Petar Skok and Anton Mayer. Cf., G. Reichenkron, "Das Ostromanische," in Völker und Kulturen Südosteuropas (München: 1959), p. 158.





431. Ivan Popović, Geschichte der serbokroatischen Sprache, (Wiesbaden: 1960), p. 154.


432. Reichenkron, "Das Ostromanische," op. cit., p. 158.


433. Alexandru Rosetti, Istoria limbii române (Bucharest: 1968), p. 329.


434. Istoria României, ed. C. Daicoviciu, vol. I, (Bucharest: i960), p. 741.


435. Teodor, 1978, op. cit., p. 33.


436. Dumitru Berciu, Dacoromania (Archaeologia Mundi), (Roma: 1976), p. 148.


437. Ioan Pătruţ, Studii de limba română şi de slavistică [Studies of the Romanian Language and Slavistics], (Cluj: 1974), p. 117. Cf., also, for example, G. Mihăilă, Studii de lexicologie, 1973, op. cit., p. 27; Emil Petrovici, Studii de dialectologie şi toponimie [Studies of Dialectology and Toponymy] (Bucharest: 1970), p. 245; Ion Coteanu, Structura şi evoluţia limbii române (de la origini pînă la 1860) [The Structure and the Evolution of the Romanian Language] (Bucharest: 1981), p. 73.


438. A.P. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom, 1970, op. cit., p. 308.


439. Gheorghe Diaconu, "Despre denumirea şi cronologia unor culturi din Dacia romană şi regiunile extracarpatice în mileniul I e.n." [About the Designation and Chronology of Some Cultures in Roman Dacia and the Transcarpathian Regions in the First Millennium A.D.] in SC1V, 30, 4, 1979, p. 547.


440. ibid., p. 550.


441. Ibid., p. 551.


442. Ibid., pp. 551-552.


443. Ibid., pp. 552-553.


444. Edited by Miron Constantinescu et al, 1969, p. 106.


445. Eugenia Zaharia, Săpăturile de la Dridu [The Excavations at Dridu] (Bucharest: 1967). The work of E. Zaharia was published only after Daicoviciu's death, who refuted the Dridu culture. Bulgarian scholars consider the Dridu culture as Bulgaro-Slavic (J. A. Bojilov, "Kultura Dridu i pürvoto bulgarskoto carstvo", in Istoriceski pregled 26, 1970, pp. 115-124.).


446. Petre Diaconu-Dumitru Vîlceanu, "Păcuiul lui Soare" [The Name of a Danubian Island], vol. I, Cetatea bizantină (Bucharest: 1972), p. 129.


447. Constantin Daicoviciu, Dacica, Cluj, 1969, p. 552. ("Der Ursprung des rumänischen Volkes im Lichte der neuesten Forschungen und Ausgrabungen," originally published in Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde, Hermannstadt 1967, 10, 2, pp. 5-19). Daicoviciu attempted to oppose to the bias of contemporary Romanian historiographers which becomes ever more remote from scientific requirements. See in particular "Corrigenda" in Acta Musei Napocensis, X 1973, p. 611 et.seq. See further C. Daicoviciu, "Izvoare istorice greşit interpretate" [Misinterpretation of historical sources], in Tribuna (Cluj), 1970, July, August, September, October, November and December.


448. Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, Greek text ed. by Gyula Moravcsik (Budapest: 1949); a new critical edition in English translation by R.J. Jenkins (Dumbarton Oaks: 1967). Relating to





the texts of Porphyrogenitus referring to the Hungarians, see György Györffy, A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról [About the Ancestors of the Hungarians and About the Conquest], 2nd edition (Budapest: 1975),


449. Valuable informations on the Bulgars are provided in: Gantscho Tzenoff, Geschichte der Bulgaren und der anderen Südslawen: Von der römischen Eroberung der Balkanhalbinsel an bis zum Ende des neunten Jahrhunderts (Berlin and Leipzig: 1935); Steven Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London: 1930); Ivan Dujčev, "Protobulgares et Slaves," Annales de l'lnstitut Kondakov, Prague, X, 1938, pp. 145-154; Christian Gérard, Les Bulgares de la Volga et les Slaves du Danube (Paris: 1939); Robert Lee Wolff, "The Second Bulgarian Empire. Its Origin and History," Speculum, XXIV, 1949, pp. 167-206.


450. Imre Boba, Nomads, Northmen and Slavs. Eastern Europe in the Ninth Century, (Mouton-The Hague: 1967), p. 77.


451. Annales Fuldenses, ed. Friedrich Kurze in: Mon. Germ. hist. Script. rer. Germ, in usum scholarum 7, (Berolini: 1891). a. 892.


452. Magyarország története [The History of Hungary], vol. I, 1984, p. 371. The Blandiana-B of the first half of the tenth century show connection to the Bijelo Brdo culture.


453. Literature: note 449.


454. Magyar is the name which the Hungarians use to denote themselves. One should speak of Hungarians only from the time of the conquest in the Carpathian Basin.


455. For more detail: Magyarország története, 1984, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 326-327.


456. Gyula László, A kettős honfoglalás [The Dual Conquest], (Budapest: 1978), p. 92; "A kettős honfoglalásról" [About the Dual Conquest], in Archaeológiai Értesítő, Budapest, 1970, 2, 97, pp. 161-190.


457. Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss, "Hitvalló Theophanes az avarokról," [The Confessor Theophanes About the Avars], in: Antik Tanulmányok, Budapest, 17 (1970), pp. 121-147; "Kuvrát fiának, Kubernek a története és az avar kori régészeti leletanyag" [The History of Kuvrat's Son Kuber and the Archaeological Material of the Avar Period], in Antik Tanulmányok, 15 (1968), pp. 85-87.


458. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, op. cit., p. 176.


459. Gyula Török, "Sopronkőhida IX. századi temetője" [The Ninth Century Cemetery of Sopronkőhida], in. Fontes Arch. Hung., Budapest 1973.


460. István Bóna, "Avar kori települések és Árpád-kori magyar falu a dunaújvárosi Öreghegyen" [Avar Settlements and a Hungarian Village of the Árpád-period at the Öreghegy in Dunaújváros], in: Fontes Arch. Hung., Budapest 1973.


461. György Györffy, Tanulmányok a magyar állam eredetéről [Studies on the Origin of the Hungarian State], (Budapest: 1959).


462. Dezso Csallány, in: Szabolcs Szatmári Szemle, 1965, pp. 134-148 and Jósa András Múzeumi Évkönyve, VIII—IX (1965-66), pp. 33-51; Cf., Gyula László, 1978, op. cit.





463. For more detail., see István Bona, "Az avarok" [The Avars], in Magyarország története [The History of Hungary] 1984, I, p. 320, map. no, 25.


464. A fundamental work on the Onogurs: Gyula Moravcsik, "Zur Geschichte der Onoguren" in Ungarische Jahrbücher; 10, 1930, pp. 53 et seq.


465. The name Székely is used exclusively in Hungarian while in international usage, especially in German, Szekier or Sekler is common. From the vast literature about the origin of the Székelys: Gyula Sebestyén, A székelyek neve és eredete [The Name and the Origin of the Székelys], (Budapest: 1897); György Györffy, "A székelyek eredete és településük története" [The Origin of the Székelys and the History of Their Settlements], in Erdély és népei [Transylvania and Its Peoples], red. by Elemér Mályusz, (Budapest: 1941); German edition Leipzig 1943.


466. Gyula László-István Rácz, A nagyszentmiklósi kincs [The Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós], (Budapest: 1977). A summary about the treasure is given in: J. Banner and I, Jakabffy, A Közép-Dunamedence régészeti bibliográfiája [The Archaeological Bibliography of the Middle Danubian Basin], (Budapest: 1954), pp. 445-447; 2, 1961, pp. 200-201. See further S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, Antik Tanulmányok [Ancient Studies], 15, 1968, pp. 84-87; Julius Németh, Die Inschriften des Schatzes von Nagyszentmiklós, (Budapest: 1932); Gyula László, Steppenvölker und Germanen, (Wien, München: 1970).


467. Magyarország története, 1984, op. cit., vol. I, p. 344.


468. Originally a nomadic Turkic people originating from Inner Asia, the Khazars built their Khazar Empire on the lower Volga and Don toward the end of the sixth century. The immense Khazar Empire stretched from the Ural Mountains to the steppes of Central Asia and the boundaries of China and comprised various peoples and communities sharing a common language of Turkic origin, Iranians, Bulgars, Finno-Ugrians and others. As of the seventh century the Khazars played an important role in Byzantine politics. In fact, the Byzantines tried to convert them to Christianity. Toward the ninth century the Pechenegs posed a serious threat to the Khazar Empire. In the tenth century the empire disintegrated and its population joined other peoples and became assimilated.


469. Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453, (London: 1971), p. 154.


470. Kurt Horedt, "Zur Zeitstellung des Schatzfundes von Sînnicolau Mare (Nagyszentmiklós)/' in: Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 13, 1983, Heft 4, pp. 503-505; Dezső Csallány range one part of the vessels to the beginning of the eighth century, Archaeológiai Értesítő, III, 7-9, 1946-48, p. 361.


471. Joachim Werner, Der Grabfund von Malaja Perešcčpina und Kuvrat, Kagan der Bulgaren (München: 1984).


472. A list of finds of the Bijelo Brdo culture is provided by Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, op. cit., note 275 and. 276. Detailed data on the Bijelo Brdo culture are provided in J. Giesler "Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Bijelo Brdo-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken," Praehistorische Zeitschrift 56, 1981, pp. 3-167.





473. For the excavations of the Zápolya Street (Kolozsvár-Cluj) see, Gyula László, "A Kolozsvár Zápolya utcai temető," Erdélyi Múzeum, Kolozsvár, 47, 1942; István Bóna, Erdély története, 1986, I, pp. 203-205.


474. Zoltán Székely, "Korai középkori temetők Délkelet-Erdély-ben" [Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages in Southeastern Transylvania], in Korunk Évkönyv, pp. 219-228. A list of tenth century old Hungarian finds in Transylvania is provided by Horedt in Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, note 274. For more detail on this; Bóna, Erdély története, 1986, I, pp. 203-217.


475. For the achievements of the year 1964 see, Ştefan Pascu, Mircea Rusu et al., "Cetatea Dâbîca," Acta Musei Napocensis (Cluj, later Cluj-Napoca) 5, 1968, pp. 153-202. A critical analysis on this is given by István Bóna, Archaeológiai Értesítő, Budapest, 79, 1970.


476. P. Iambor and Şt. Matei, "Cetatea feudală timpurie de la Cluj-Mănăştur" [The Early Feudal Fortress at Cluj-Mănăştur] in Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie, Cluj-Napoca, 1975, pp. 291-304. See further Mircea Rusu, "Cetăţile transilvănene din secolele IX-XI şi importanţa lor istorică" [The Transylvanian Fortifications of the 9th-11th Centuries and Their Historical Importance] in Ziridava, X, 1978, pp. 159-171.


477. Kurt Horedt, in: Relations Between the Autochthonous Population and the Migratory Populations on the Territory of Romania, 1975, op. cit., p. 115.


478. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986, pp. 105, 126, 136. There were earthen fortresses excavated throughout Hungary.


479. Mircea Rusu, in: Relations Between the Autochthonous Population, 1975, op. cit., p. 212.


480. Bóna, "Der Silberschatz von Darufalva" in Acta Arch. Hung. 16 (1964), pp. 154-165.


481. Franz Miklosich, Die slawischen Ortsnamen aus Apellativen (Wien: 1874), II, p. 21.


482. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, 1986,. op. cit., p. 139.