Ar,pxlxonu M,lpcBa,nu

TRANSYLVANIA AND THE BULGARIAN EXPANSION IN TIIE 9TH AND 1OTH CENTURIES

The victoriesof the Frankisharmiesoverthe Avarsin the late 8h centuryopened new a was era in the history of CentralEurope. The qaganate dividedbetween FrankishEmpire the regionsescaped andBulgaria;new Slavicethnies politiescameinto beingin theperipheral and The history of the Middle Danubian from the Avarian control (Moravra,Croatia,and Serbia). in basinin the 9il'centurywill be thehistoryof the shiftingpowerbalance which wereinvolved (a new stateborn in oneof the formerperipheries the FrankishEmpire,Bulgaria,andMoravia of theAvarianqaganate). to Transylvania peopledby sedentary was communities subjected the Avars,who were their cemeteriesr. The interested the rich salt resources, in aroundwhom were concenfrated peopleis difficult to discernby archaeolory,sincethe most finds ethnicity of the sedentary all Europeafter consist slow wheelmadepottery,an artifactspread overCenhalandEastern in (theso-called Donau-Typus), with a singleethnicity. which cannot associated be the 8hceiltury that otherkind of pottery,workedon the fastwheel,canbe Recent researches suggest however population, the of ascribed theRomance to because Slavsdid not borrowthis technique Roman are but origin2.More suitablefor ethnic identifications the cemeteries, evenin this case,the situationis ttzzy. Most cemeteries belong to the Mediag Soup, a local variant of funeral there is no clear discoveries spreadover large areasin Cental Europepeopledby Slavs3; for the existence a not Slavicpopulationon the basisof the firneralrite or of the evidence of Thereis no doubtthatTransylvania settled Slavichibesafter was by inventoryof thesegraves. populationthat became later the of the end of the 6s cenhrry,but the presence the Romance peopleremainsa conundrum, it is searched througharchaeology. fact, the In Romanian if only requiresa comparative approach includes that studyof the Romancontinuityin Transylvania data. archaeological, linguisfi andethnological c, The subjectionof the local populationto the Avar mastersmeantthe paymentof a tribute,but not only. Thereare someindications a local military forcehasappeared the that in within theAvarianqaganate. cooperation the Slavicchiefswith The of 8'century Transylvania (especially Slovakia). Transylvania, sprnsdatedin the In theAvarsis attested elsewhere in two
' M, Rusu,Notessur les relati.ons culturellesentreles Slaves la populationromanede Transylvanie et (l/f-X sidcles),tn Les Slaveset le mondemdditerranden, Vf-Xf siicles (Symposium international d'archdologie im slave, Sofia, 23-29 awil 1970), Sofia, 1973,p. 196; K. Horedt, Siebenbtirgan Frfihmittelalter,Bonr1 1986, p. 66-72; A. Madgearu,Salt Trade and lladare in Early Medieval p. Transylvania,EphNap,l, 2001, 27l-273. I n ' I. Stanciu, lucratdla roata rapidd,in asezdrile pe de Despre ceramica medievald timpuriede uz comun, -19 p. (s lele I teritoriulRomdniei eco VI I-n, in AMed,3, 200A, 127 l. 'K. Horedt, p. Siebenbiirgen 60-66.

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

of 8h century(at $ura Mici and MedigoruMare) could testify the existence a military force still r:nderAvarian control' that was not of Avarian origtn (the Avars did not use spws),but Both sites are locatednear salt mines (Ocna Sibiului and Praid). The end of the Avarian the gavefreedom thesesmalllocal chiefs,but for a shorttime,because southem to domination one. the domination, Bulgarian underanother Transfvania entered Transylvaniain Somehistoriansplacedthe momentwhen the Bulgariansconquered the against movedhis armies qan thattheBulgarian Krum (813-814) 804,whenit is supposed that no contenrporary Another opinion emphasizes easternand southernparts of Avarias. as this supports idea,andthat the Avarsrecorded fightersin the Bulgarianarmy in 811 source Accordingto this viewpoint, the extensionof the Bulgarian where allies and not subjects. Tisza of took placeat oncewith the conquest the territorybetween in domination Transylvania (814-831) in qan (previously no man'sland),fulfilledby theBulgarian Onrurtag a andDanube to Avars were supposed be under Frankish this offensive,the Transylvanian 827; before The offensive westsrnpolicy of Omurtag(who launcheda canpaign up to sovereigrty6. in the Si;;trm in 8271\, troublesattested the Timok areabetween818 and 8248,and the
n A. Madgearu, tn Pinteni datali in secoleleVIII-X descopeifi in jumdntea de sud a Transilvaniei, ll/adare,p.276' and Suh A. 155-157; Madgearq Trqde Mousaios,4,1,1994,p. 5 A. C. S6s,Dre slawische }'dihrcfun, 1973,p. 12; R. im Bafiltrerung Westungams 9. Jahrhundert, Studyacrossthe Early MedievalFrontier, PoAotf and Butgaria.A Comparative Browning,Byantium p. Ansterdarr!1981, Geschichte, der Periade bulgarischen Die p. 1975, 68; V. Be$evliev, pronbulgarische 1988,p'322; n. Ein 235-2i6:W. Pohl,Die Awaren. Stqpenvolkin Mittelatropa,567-822 Chr.,Miincherr p.96. N,S, Studies, 3, 1998, and Bulgaria:Realily Ficfion,inBlzantine Trans-Danubian L Mladjov, 6 K. lioredt, 'Zeligrad'-Blindiana.Beitrdgezur Geschiehte im Siebenbfirgerx 9.'10. Jahrhundert,n Bukares! 1958, p. 126; Y.-Gjgzelev, Siebenbilrgens, zur Friihgeschichrte Iden\ IJntersuchuigm in Beziehungen der erstenHiilfu desIX. Jhs,,tn Blzantinobulgariga,2t19!6, p. Butgarisch-frdnkiscie EB, midievales,ln ecrites des ZO-IS; Bn".r*q "La Bulgaie d'audeh de l'Ister"d la lumidre sources S. d.er wd,hrend Ansiedlungsperiode Iilndern p. 20,4, 1984, 123;L Fodo{ Die nulgarenin denungarischen in Forschungshatintes Osteneich,6, 2,1984,p. 47; A. der llngarn,-in MitteilungendesBulgarischen i* g. lahrhridert und die Anfinge der direden Beziehungmztvischendem Schwariz, Pannonien Reichund denBulgaren,rn Graae und Differenzimfriihen Mittelalter,ed.by W. Pohl, Ostfrdnkischm Klasse, H. Reimitz (OsteneichischeAkademie der Wissenschafter\Philosophisch-Historische in and Ethnic C'onditions the Political,Culnral p. B. Denkschrifteq)82;,2000, 100-101; M. Szoke, in Conquest, Europe'sCentreqround AD 1004' Basin'at the Ttme of the Magtar's Carpathian 2000'p' 137; H.-M. Hinz, Stuttgart, Coitributionsto History,Art andirchaeologt, ed.by A. Wieczorelg Kritisch-eBanerhtngen zur- Rolle der Bulgaren im 9. Jahrhundert in der GrolSm C. Szalontai, Studia L/ngarischm Tiefebeneund in Siebenbiirgen,tn A f,46ra Ferenc Milzeum Evtcdnyve. 6, Archaeologica, 2ffi0, P. 265. 7 V, Gjuze"lev H. p.25'34; W. Pohl,Die Awaren,p' 327a Bulin' Beziehungen, , Outgari"sZn.-frankische du Moyen Danubg au IX sidcle, rn L'Europe aux Aax ortginesdesformatiins dtatiquesdes Slqves A. Aux origines dei Eta* nationaux,Varsovie,1968,p. 168-170;_ 9^ f91' Die IXe-XIi sidcles. Periode,p' 284'286;C. Die p Bevdlkerung, tZ-tl, 18-19;V. Be5evliev, protobulgarkche slawische Pannonienim 9' Budapes! 1991,p. 100; A. Schwarcz, B6lint, Sfidungarni* iO. Jahrhundert, p. Jahrhundert, 102-104. t Th" ,o-.uil ed Tirnocianitook refugein ttre FrankishPannonia their land was occupiedby because ad a.818 (Fantes Histgliam\egni Francortt* A?r-Karolini RegniFrancoram, Annales Bulgaria.See "Daciade la Dundre"a analelor I, france Berlin,1960, 116);A. Birc6cili, illitrandam, ed.by R. Ra-u, Bulgarisch-frdnkische 1947,p.6-ll; V. Gjuzelev, al din secolul lX-lea.Evenimente Siprobleme,Craiova p. p. Baiehungen, 25;H. Btiin, Ar*t'origines, 173;A. Decei,Romdniidin veaculat IXJeapdni in al Bucureqti,1978,p. 5l; W. in XIII-lea in lumina izvoarelorarmeneSti, lderrl Retaliiromdno-orienlale, . PoIl,DieAwaren,p,327

42

BWGARAN EXPANSION TMNSYLVANAAND TTIE borndary on Tisza after 832eare showing that of reestablishment the Bulgarian-Frankish Tisza and Danubewas left between Buleariamovedits westernfrontier on Tisza.The space Transylvaniawas in the core of the mlr-rv.rtru*O extensionimplies that also r*ilfil. like the at Bulgarianinterests leastsincethe reigrrof omwtag. Bulgariahad the salnereason gold)resources' this Avis to mastsr territory:the salt(andperhaps recordedn 824 tftui tt" people called Abodriti, neighborsof The Frankishannals Bulgarians, settled in Dacia near the Danube (contermini Bulgaris Daciam-Danubio this Dacia was by adiicentemincolunt),were attacked Bulgariatt.Einhardhas specifiedthat ("'utramquePannoniamet locatedon the other bank of the Danube,in front of Pannonia and not Dacia adpositamin altera Danubiae ripa Datiam)t'. H" had in mind the Banat fromRaveirna' Geographer tlrat For Ripensis. the westcrnauttrors-of century(theAnonymous province' On the other han4 the North-Danubian or Alfred the Great),Dacia was only the The territory Bulgarian dominationwas already extendedin the former Dacia Ripensis. in somewhere Banatr3. conlueredby Bulgana in824wasiherefore the north was extended Bulgarianterritory along the Tisza River? In How far to the from the Hajdu-Bihar andB6!6s Counties (norft+astem severai-gd'century settlements but it was later ff*gury) was found a kind of potteryvery similar with the Dridu A typer4, jugs the culture,because amphoroidal that observed thesesitesbelongto tlri saltovo-Majack culturewas aremissing,while ottrertypessiecific for the Saltovoareawerefoundrs'The Dridu but andProtobulgmian, wereRoman,Slavic area.Its sources specificfor tfre Lower Danubian The Dridu civilization' theresultwas a poliethnicculture,underthe influenceof theByzantine of expression a certainlevel It Bulgarian. was the archaeological or culturewasnot Romanian in the area where the products of the pottefy of civilization and economiclife, spread why areawere able to penetate.This is the reason locatedin the lower Danubian workshops (wherethe Byzantineinfluencewas tfri, potti.y wasnot found southof the BalkanMorurtains If wasbetterdeveloped). thesepots do not illustraterelations and mucir stronger the economy of are4 they cannotbe usedas a proof for an extension Bulgaria with the Lower Danubian
im e V. Besevliev, protobulgarische Pannonien 9' Jahrhundert' Periode,p' 286;A. Schwarcz, Die p.103-104. data id C. S*fo"oi, Kritkche Bemerhmgen,p.268-274, demonsftated no archaeological can ttrat has and Danube Tisza. in domination theregionbetween the support Bulgarian rr Annales cit.,p' 138' Francorum,a'824,Ioc' Regni 12 EinhardiYital(aroli, c. 15,loc.cit,p. 184. X-lea, din t, A Artul.a discussion bdndlean secolul^al Gensza evoluliavoievodatului in,q,. N4aagearrq Si of location Daciais The North-Danubian p. lg4-195. de n StudiiSi materinle istoie midie,16,1998, , [A. ild, "Daciade la Dunire", p. 22'25;P. P. Panaitescu Grecu] Bulgaria in by alsosupported A. B6rc6c n Studii Si cercetdride istorie medie,l, 1, 1950,p' 229: H' nordul Dundrii in veaeuile o,tIX-X-\"a, slawen und die Altrnagtaren,m studiind Die Am oigines, p. 169;P. Ratko3, grossmdhrischen Btllltn, "tr, naaemie, vio4 1968,p' 214, footrote 17; S' Brezean," slovenstrei zvesi archeotigi,tk"hotistavu 'Grossmdhrische Reich'' Realitiit oder Fihion? Butgaried'au iela de l'Ister", p. 123;M. Eggers,Das im da nr Geschichte mittleren Donauraumes 9 Jahrhundert, der Eine Neuinterpretation Quetlen 1996, 64-65. Stuttgart P. du ,; i.-fr4ot"rne"y, Die ethnischen lsttich der Thei/tim 9 Jh',1n Rapports IIIe des Probleme Gebietes Siidost'Ungarn B' Bratislava,l,1979,p'539-541; M' Szdke' CongrhInternitionald'ArchdologieSlave, m Siedlungsforschungen, Trudy V muhdunarodnogokongressa im 9. Jahrhundert im Lichte ier (Kiev, I 985),4, Kiw, I 988,p' 199'201' slavlslov arlheologov Bemerhtngen,p'272' it g. M- Szlike, Kritische im'9.'Jahrhundert,p.202;C.Szalontai, Ungarn S*dosl-

43

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

out was The Mureg-Tiszat6. regloncalledCrigana mostprobable of the northof the confluence was the conhol over the salt taffic on the mattered sincewhat of Bulgariansphere interests, Mureg valley, The relations with the Saltovo-Majackculture can be explained as an by of evidsnceof the settlement the Khazarsor Kavarsin this area,recorded archaeological of the at from the Avariandomination the beginning The Hungarorum. territoryescaped Gesta in 9d'cenhyy,andevolvedasa duchyaboutwhich we know that it wasruled by Menumorout theearlviObcenturv'7. 6ownsteam on the Danube,Bulgariahas occupiedanotherregton.The precisedate when an area from Wallachiacameunder the Bulgarian dominationis not known, but it taken of there thousands prisoners before 813, when Krum has deported certainlyhappened that they weresettledin the recorded sources The from AdrianopleandMacedonia. Byzantine so-called "Bulgaria beyond the Danube"rs.The location of this krritory causedmany by that discussions cannotbe detailedhere.The right solutionwas give,n the archaeological urbanorigin (claywaterpipes,bricfts,anda kind of 9ft centuryartifactsof Byzantine evidence: pottery specific for the Byzantinetowns) were found especiallyin severalpoints west and Curcani,Mironegti),but also Radovanu, Greaca, of north-west Oltenila(Chimogi,Ciscioarele, only to theseByzantinepeoplemoved in otherplacesfrom Wallachia.They canbe asc'ribed north of the Danube,on the road to the salt mines of the presentday Prahovaand Buzdu C^0mpineanca, Budegti, werefoundin somepourts(Dragosloveni, Similmobjects Countiesre. The Gugegti,$endrod) near the mouth of Siret River, the end of other salt roadsz0. brick resettled beyond County)wasbuilt for Bulgariaby theseByzantines forffessof Slon(Prahova salt waslocatedin thePrahova areato defendtheTablaBufii pass(an The fortress theDanube. way to Transylvania)2l. important Moldaviawereconquered telritoriesfrom Wallachiaand southern The North-Danubian (defence (vital for any medievalsociety),but also for stategic reasons for the salt resources and againstthe Khazars,next againstthe Hungarians the Byzantineoutpostinstalledat the region was are Danube'smou*rs;.The Byzantinesources showingthat this North-Danubian quite escaped The prisoners sfrong. but its own commanders, the controlwasnot^very ruledby wereweal*'. forces the easily 838,because Bulgarian in cornerof Moldavia (the AnotherBulgarianbuffer areawas locatedin the southeastern Someolderworksconsider the against Khazars. Its Bugeac). missionwasthe defence so-called
16 Hongrois,tn Acta de de Admittedby Gh. I. Britianrl Le therne Bulgarieet la chronologie l'Anonyme 10, 1972, p. 109; K' Mestf':Mzy, Die Hisnrica. SocietasAcademicaDacotomania, MiiLnchen, "La Bulgaried'au deh de l'Ister", p. 129-130; H' p. Probleme, 539-541;S. Brezeanrl ethnischen BulgariaanitheMagtarsattheBeginningofthetffCentury,:r;rEB,22,2,l9S6,p'69. Dimihov, tt e, Uadgearu Voievodatul M"n *orout in luminacercetdrilorrecente, AnaleleUniversitdliidin tn lui , p. 3843. 11, Istorie-arheologie, 2001, Oradea. ula tt P. P. Panaitescu, d'audelade l'Ister"' S. fu Bulgaria nordul-Dundrii,p.22G227;Brezeanu, Bulgarie Blzantins et la concernant relationsentre Rownains, aspects p. l2l-122; D. Gh, feodor, Quetques "A. Arheologie D. Xerwpol',Iaqi,24,2, aux Bulgares IX-X siirles n.e.,n in n*l Iratitunlui deIstariesi 1987.o.2-3, 't p.'bn. Teodor, g-12;O. Damia&Corciddratiot* Ia citadelle bique de m sur aspects,p. Quetques 9, et Antiqua Archaeologica, 2003,p'485487. n Slon-Prahova, Studia 20M. Com$a" drum "are l"go in Un linutul Yranceide DundreSi uistenla unui cnuat pe valeqPutnei p. 3944. StudiiSicomunicdri,5'7, 1987 IX-X, in Yrancea. , secolele " O. Damiaq Considerations, 487491 (withprevious bibliography). p. "La 22 Be$evliev, protobutgarische d'audelade l'Ister",p. 354;S.Brezeanu, Bulgarie Periode,p. Die V. Bulgatia,p.87-90' Trans-Danubian Mladjov, 128-129;I.

44

TRANSYLVANIA T'HE AND BULGARUNEXPANSION that this was the singleNorth-Danubian regiondominated Bulgariaandthat the Byzantine by prisoners were settledthere23, the archaeological but discoveries clearly showingthe place are wheretheprisoners weremoved2a. An extension the Bulgarianconkol over Transylvania, land so rich in salqwasthe of a natural continuation of this expansionistpolicy. If Bulgaria masteredthe Tisza-Mureg confluence,it can be supposed that the Mureg valley was a way of penetation toward Transylvania. Transylvania was out of the Frankishsphereof interests. After 832, between Bulgariaand the FrankishEmpirewereestablished peaceful relationsthat lasteduntil the end of the Frankishdominationin Pannonia. powerswere separated The territoriesof these. after 832by a neuhalareabetween TiszaandDanube, calledby a 10* cenflrrysource Avarorumet Pannoniorum solitudinu2s. The wordsolitudines refersto a regionout of political organization, a buffer area,andnot to an uninhabited area'u. nameof theAvarsis only rerniniscence The and it does provethesurvivalof anAvarianpower cent#' . not A major change in the political situation in the Middle Danubian area that had consequences for Transylvania the emergence Moravia.The following discussion also was of will pay attention this state only because wasa new factorin the intemational to not it relations, but alsobecause locationof Moraviais crucialfor theurderstanding thepositionheldby the of Transylvania theBulgarianexpansionist policy. in The Siavs settled in the territories conquered the Franls from the Avars were by organizedunder the rule of severalchiefs. Among therr\ the Moraviansbecamethe most prominurt.The first knownruler of MoraviawasMoimir, around830.He occupied 833the in neighboring duchyof Nita led by Privina.In 838,Privinafoundrefugein Pannonia, underthe protection. duchyincludedthe western Frankish (the His Pannonia residence at Mosapurg was - Talavhr).The next Moravianruler, Rastislav(846-870)was put as a vassalin the placeof Moimir by the emperor Ludovic the German, he rebelledin 855.Confronted 863 with a but in new Frankishaggression, Rastislavaskedthe ByzantineEmperorMichael m $42-867) for a Christianmission.His county was alreadythe field of a missionaryactivity exertedby the Germanbishopricsand by the pakiarchateof Aquilea. Rastislavwished a strong ally Byzantium- againstthe Franla and the Bulgars,who closedan allianceagainstMoravia in 863. The empsrorhassentthe SaintsConstantine Methodius, who established Slavic and the churchin Moravia.krcludedin the Christianworld, Moravia emerged soonas a major threat for the Frankishpossessions Pannonia, also for Bulgaria,and a valuablepartrer for the in but ByzantineEmpire.The expansion this stateoccurredduring the reign of Svatopluk(871of 894). Basedin Nita, he conquered principality of Rostislavand next a largepart of the the Frankish possessions. state Pannonian His became thusa neighborandenemyof Bulgaria.The wastheresultof theHungarian endof Moravia inroads. Thesesteppe warriorswerefirst allied
" N. Bdnescn, L'ancien bulgareet lespaysroumains, Bucarest1947p. 29-31;Idery Les etat , frontidra de l'ancien. bulgare,n Memoriat LouisPetit.Mdtangwd'histoireet d'archeologie Ent byantines,Bucares! "La p.45-59; Brezearu, Bulgarie deladel'Ister",p.128-129. p. A. S. d'au J.9a8, 6-10; Decei,Romfrn\ '* Without knowingthis archaeological evidence, P. Panaitesa4 P, Bulgaria in nordul Dundrii, p. 228, hasshowntlrc impossibilityof the locationof the Nortlr-Danubian Bulgariain Bugeac(the settlers were for agricultors, thatareais not suitable this occupation). and 25 (lulonumenta Historica, Scriptores,I, 601). Regino, Chronicon,a.889 Germaniae 2uN. P6trin,PhitologicalNotes the Earty History of the Hungarians in and the Slavs, ESY,72, for p. 2000, 37-38. 2tw. Pohl, Awaren,p.324. Die

45

ALEXANDRUMepcnnnu by but with Svatoplulds, later, in 892, they were swnmoned the Germanking Amuif against with Bulgaria.At the end of the 9e century, Moravia,when a new war began,in cooperation and its core was the the Moravian statewas divided between sonsof Svatopluk,collapsed, II, between894 and 906 over a The by occupied the Hungarians. last ruler, Svatopluk rei^gned the against Hungarians2e. to unable be defended state, lessened Until 1971, nobody doubted that Moravia, the state where the Saints Qrnl and regionof the CzechRepublic. in Methodiusfulfilled their mission,waslocated thepresentday to suggested an American of A reexamination the Westem,Slavonicand Byzantinsources near origin, Irnre Boba,the ideathat this countrywaslocatedin Serbia, scholarof Hungarian in the MoravaRiver,that its political andreligiouscentetwas Sirmium,andthat the expansion Many historians, after 87030. was a later achievement, the northernMoravia and Slovakia provided new especiallySlovaksand Czechs,rejectedthe theory, while other researchers thanBoba.The most but locationof Moravia" with differentsolutions for arguments a southem that, imporant adhermt of Boba is Martin Eggers,who wrote a large book that concludes north andwes! Moraviawaslocatedin the lower Tiszabasin,and toward beforeits expansion Its that its capitalMoravonwas the samewith Morisena(Cenad). populationwas composed of and colonistsfrom Serbia BosniasettledthEreasdefenders theboundary from South-slavic in the service of the Franks,who finally rebelled againsttheir masters.SengaToru has areabetwesn a (beforeEggersand with somedifferences) locationin the southern proposed that the defenceof the Pannonian Tisza and Danube,while CharlesBowlus has argued henceMoravia shouldbe locatedthere.He was Frankishpossessions directedto south-east, of the but Eggers'ideas, he failed too in explaining absence any forhessin the area developed won in 855because that he wasMoravia,although acknowledged Moravians it wherehe thinlcs of the G. Lunt denied usualidentification The theyusedstong fortifications3t. SlavicistHorace proposedrelocationsis the principality of Rostislav,but he recognizedthat none of the The most recent conftibution,basedon the identification of Moravon with convincing32.
2t S. Nikolov, TheMagnr connection Constantine Methodiusin the steppes, Byzantineand and or in became 861 Bpantine allias ttrat !997, p. 79-92suggests *re Hungarians ModemGreekStudies 21, , and againstBulgaria and the Frankish Errpire, after the diplomatic mission of Sts. Constantine into a coalition directed Methodiusin Khazaria.Moravia was includedtogetherwittr ttre Hungarians raids in the FrankishErrpire (862 and 863) the against rival errpire and Bulgaria.The fust Hungarian envoys. by stimulated theByzantine weremostprobable 2nH. Bulirt Atn origines,p. 173-2M;A. C. S6s,Die slqwi.sche p. Bevdlkerung, 2942 (for Privina);M. 'Grassmlihrische and Moruvians Magnrs. Franks, p. 316;C. R. Bowlus, Reich', 302-305, Das Eggers, D. 1995,p. 104-267; Cbplovid,Cmtral Philadelphia, fni Strusslefor the Middle Danube 788-907, culture p.9-11; P. Barford,Ihe Early Slavs: Europe,1997, n Europeii-tni fo-ld' Centuries, Central p' 2001, 108-111. Europe,Ithaca, in andsociety earlymediwalEastern 'o I. Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered. Reinterpretation Medieval Sources,The Hague, of A the theory in many other studiespublisheduntil his death in 1996 (also a 1971.He developed posthumous in 1999). one 3t S, Toru, La situationgeogaphiquede la Grande tnJahrbiicher Moravieet lesHongroisconquerants, Reich';C' k Das 'Grossmiihrische M. NF, Osteuropas. 30, 4, lg82,p. 533-540; Eggers, Geschkhte fir Bowlus,Franfts,Moraviansand Magtars (theaffirmationaboutthe fortificationsat p' I l9). M. Eggem, only in the earthen *rat considered the fortificationsconsisted Reich',p. 168-180 Das,Grossmiihrische aboutstrongholds, are The origin,but thisis untlrinkable. sources clearlyspeaking wallsof Roman 3t H. Lunt, Cyrit ind Methodius Prince of Morava: wherewere they ?, m Thessaloniki' with Rastislav p. Great Moravia,1999, 87-t12,

46

BULGARUNEXPANSION TRANSYLVANIA TTTE AND Morisena, supposes that the Moravian city Dowina was the TransylvanianDeva33. One consequence this theory on the location of Moravia is the rejection of the Bulgarian of domination the Belgrade-Morava and in Banat3a. its supporters in If area would be right, ttran thepoliticalmapof 9ecenturyCenhalEurope wouldradicallychange , Short time after Boba has put forward his ideas,many historiansand linguistshave (disturbed theremoving showntheir inconsistency. Besides CzechandSlovakhistorians the by of Moravia from their history), other scholarsbrought solid arguments againstthe BobaEggers-Bowlus theory.Because do not havespace we herefor an extensive we commentary, will referonly to two of them.Oneof themostimportant specialists Slavicphilologr, Henrik in Bimbaum, emphasized linguisticproofsfor thecomposing theearly Slavonic has the textsin of (a the Bohemianenvironrnent consequence the missionin Moravia),and in the sametime of the rmdoubted meaningof the archaeological madein the nortlrernMoravia and discoveries Slovakiafor the locationof the Sts.Constantine Methodius'mission.He alsopointedthat and (845) or the so+alled English valuablecontemporary like the BavarianGeographer sources Orosius(writtenby Alfred the Greatin 890)do really supportthe North-Danubian locationof Moravia35. Another outstanding scholar,a historian,Herwig Wolfram, has dernonsfrated that the knowledgeof Constantine Porphyrogenitus aboutthe Middle Danubianareawas so poor for thathis informationon the southem locationof Moravia(invokedby BobaandEggers their just a confusionbetween land of Svatopluk anotherregion,calledwith theories) was the and the samename,that was indeedlocatedin the northernSerbia.He also has provedthat the athibute'Great' grvenby the unperor concems positionoutsidethe former frontiersof the its in with the otherMoravia36, The RomanEmpire,andnot the sizeor its ancienbless comparison put inconsistency the arguments forwardby Eggers was also examined EduardMiihle, of by who emphasized, that the areabetweenDanubeand Tisza has no amongother instances, justiff thelocationof theMoravianstate37. mchaeological relicsthatcan and We agree that the theoryinfoduced by Bobacannotbe accepted we think that any threecertainpremises, which discussion aboutthe locationof Moraviashouldtakeinto account (usually are basednot only on the written evidence, also on archaeological but arguments ignoredor misunderstood Bobaandhis supporters): by that missionin Moravia (but also 1- The only churches canbe ascribed theByzantine to in to the previousmissionsstartedfrom the FrankishEmpire)were discovered the northem performed since the '50-ies and researches Moravia and Slovakia. The archaeological Hradi5te-Sady, are from Uhersk6 especially the lastdecade clearlyshowingthatthechurches in a Miluldice, and Nita were built in the 9' ceirtury, and that they could accommodate
" N. Tnrnt, In quadamcivitate,quae lingua gentis illius Dowina dicitur, n Zeitschnfi fiir Slavische Philologie, 7,2002,p.1-24. 61, '* M. Eggers, in Das 'Grossmdhrische Reich',p. 57-69deniedthe Bulgariandomination Banatand Transylvania theclearpurpose find a space his GreatMoravia. wittr to for " H. Birnbaurn,Were was the Centerof the Moravian State ?, in R. Maguire,A, Timberlank(ed.), Ameican Contributions to the Eleventh International Congressof Slwis* (Bratislava, AugustSeptember1993),Literature, Linguistbs, Poetics,Columbus,1993,p. ll-24; lder\ Wherewas the Moruvia,L999,p.47-52. Missionary Fieldof SS. CyrilandMethodiw?,tnThessaloniki-Great '" VII VII H. Wolfrarq TheImageof CentralEuropein Constantine Porphyrogenifiu,m Constantine p. A*tens,1989, 8-11. P-orphyrogenitus hisage,ed.by A. Markopoulos, and " E. Miihle, Altmiihren oder Moravia? Neue Beitrdge zur geographischen Lage einu fnhmitte46,2, im Europa,n Zeitschrifi Ostmittelatropa-Forschung, Herrschaftsbildung dstlichen alterlichen fir 1997,p.205-223,

47

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

Byzantinemission. Moreover, the most recent finds suggestthat even the grave of St. Methodius was at Uherskd IImdiSt. These churcheswere built in the area where the severalfortesseswhich half of the last centuryunearthed fulfilled in the second excavations that 8u';11rry sites.In the sameareawas founda largeamountof th century"spurs ;;r;;e On the and of testify the existence a stong military organization also variousrich artifacts'". of and Oanube Tiszadid not producesuchfinds.The concenfration between .onnory, the area is spurs crucialfor thelocationof a military center. ' b^y was mastered Bulgariaduringthe whole history of GreatMoravia' This 2-Belgrade who by fact was OenieO Nicole P6trfui3E, thinks that thereis no proof that the bishopSergtus recordedin the letter of Pope John VItr to King Michael (878) was under Bulgarian Shedid was a certainGeorge. j*iuAi"tion. In fact, the letterssaidthat the superiorof Sergios archbishopof Bulgaria was called between866 and 893, the not know that sometimes at The list of the participants the Constantinolllcgungr,l-of879 is showingtlrat tlre G;tg# On on of Moravon(tvtorava thr Danube)was too rn B,ulgana4t. the other hand,from birh6 Radislav, of was the residence a Bulgariancommander that 3. Clementiresults Belgrade Vita and Belgrade Moravawerein Bulgariawhen who borethe title of Bori Tarkhirfz. Therefore, thinls that ttrc Bori Tarkhanwas settled its largestarea.Eggers reached the stateof Svatopluk Moravia,.gnd that the city of Belgrade at Belgradeafter 882 when Bulgaria has attacked for but was Berat in Albaruaa3, he hasno arguments in recorded the letter of Popelofi Vm was contolled byBulganas. that Belgrade on thesestatements. the contary, Bobaadmitted of Bulgarianoccupation Belgradesince827 (anduntil the Likewisex.uecan be a continuous end of the Bulgarianstate).Eggersalso deniedthat Bulgariaoccupiedthe territory betweeir not this because does fit withhis ideas' TiszaandDanube, 3- The area betweenthe lower Tisza valley and Danubecould not be the core of populations'There,a{e no Moravia becauseit was not a trritory proper for sedentary of finds that can illustate the unerge,nce a state.The identificationof Morava arctraeotogical The river nameMureqI Moris is too differentfromMorava' is city wittr ilrlorisena impossible. of madl at Morisena(CenaQdo not zupportthe existsnce a churchsince ani the excavations built around 1000 for Ahtum. As for the The church of Morisenawas tlt t0' ;t"ry of identification Dowinawith Deva,this ideais a big fantasy'
3s J. poulflq Die Zatgernchafi der archdologischen Grabungenund Quellen iiber Grofimiihren,in ed' Staatlichkeit, by J. Poulilc B' Clno'povsk!, Grossmiihrmund di.e\"fors" der tschechoslowak*chen R9t1hzwischm Ost und llest, b prague,1986,p. Z+-Zl, eiS-ig;T. Stefanovidovl,DasGrolSmiihrische and its c"it ai Europe, 1997,p. tr!-t+o; L. Gahrka, The Sacral Area in tlherske Hradiflte.Sady , Cmtury, n CentralEurope,1997 p. 142io Significance thenegiining af the'MoravianStatein the9th "inffibilis munitio"und "urbsanti4ua Rastizi" nachden t4"7;i, poulflqAtr Fmge ai totattsierung der 122-131. 1997, Europe, in Annalen, Central Fuldauer i;{iin^, and the on Phitological Notes theEarly History of theHungarians Coro"thaniMarahenses': 1998, inESI',70, SJavs, P.M,56. ,o i. lorA*ou, Kirptrs ni peCatite srednovel<ovna Bdlgariia,Sofia,291, p. 79-8I , _ na 'n"iLi*n*"n tt l. i;*, Jahnehntenach 870' in iiber einige Bisti)mer Bulgarienwiihrendder ersten (!Z'Tagungin Regensburg n SymposiunMethodlanumBeitrige der Intematioialen !*- la.'^April K. desht.Method',ed-by Tros! E. V6lkl, E' wedel (selecta an rum Gedenken denI100. Tidestag D61n p. 1988, 187-188. 13), Slavica" Neuried, Bulgaria, p' 101' .i?E333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333e;#lt*, ii prininlga*che Periode,p.352;I. Mladjov, Trans-Danubian 103-104. otM. Eggers, 'Grossmlihrische Reich!p. 55{0' Das n I. Boba, History,P.85' Moravia's

48

TRANSYLVANIA THEBULGARIAN AND EXPANSION We canconclude thereweretwo regionscalledMorava.Oneof thernwasplacedin that Anotheronewas the present CzechRepublic:the coreof the stateof Rostislavand Svatopluk. the locatedaroundthe MoravaRiver in northemSerbia; latter was in the 9'curtury a part of and Bulgariaand it had no relation with the evolutionof the statewhereSaintsConstantine for The Moraviabecame a while, underSvatopluk, a Methodius actedasmissionaries. northern power, that achievedthe conquestof someterritoriesin the PannonianFrankish regional (in thoseandBulgaria.The land southof theDanube marches in thebuffer space between and up underBulgarianconfol dtring all the 9ft and 10ftcenturies, to remained thepresent Serbia) theByzantine conquest. madethis statea neighborof The expansion Moravia duringthe reigrrof Svatopluk of Bulgariaalongthe Tiszavalley.This fact explainswhy Bulgariawasattacted in the Frankishto the Moravian conflicts after 863. Bulgariawas interested preserve confol over the rivers perhaps extendits domination north of the Muregvalley,in Criqana, to usedfor salttraffic and of wherethe Moravianand Bulgarianspheres interestinterfered.The nameof Menumorout mirrors somerelationsbetweenhis duchy and Moravia, evsn his ethnic origin was most probableKherranan. The conflicting relationsbetweenBulgaria and Moravia startedin 863, in asked Boris for cooperation the war against Ludovicthe German whentheFrankish emperor Rostislav,but Bulgaria was not able to support the Franks becauseit was attackedby in Byzantium. The first true BulgarianattackoverMoraviaoccurred 881or 882,mostprobable the The Moraviansdefeated Bulgarians,and the result throughthe disputedareaof Crigana. of was the expansion Svatopluk'srealm in the region betweenDanubeand Tisza*'. It was "the left-bankalongthe Middle-Tiszatenitory including supposed Moravia alsoacquired that the salt route on the lower Marosriver", an areacalled'llrbaptized Moravia" by Constantine whose position is defined by the rivers mentionedin De Administrando Porphyrogenitus, were includedin Banatand Crigana This would meanthat the western Imperio, chapter4046. be Moravia,but we carurot sureaboutthat. No artifactslestiffing a Moravianinfluencewere and funeral found until now in these regions, although many 9* centuries settlements the The were researched. single fact that can suggest extensionof Moravia in assemblages Crigana thenameof theruler Menumorout. is (Gardizi)thatpreserved from the last decades the data of source An 1lmcenturyPersian detailsaboutthe position of Moravians.We are quoting 9' centurygivessomegeographical herethe last Englishtanslation: "Above the NandurlBulganans]alongthe banksof the river to thereis a greatmountain[range].Beyondthat mountain[range]therearea peoplebelonging is a thernandthe Nandur the Chrishans they are calledthe Moravians[Morvat]. Between and people.Their clothing resembles that of the Arabs, ten daysjoumey. They are a numerous and They haveagriculture vinesfor they have[an of a hnban,shirt andwaistcoat. [consisting] abundance water.Their waternms overthe groundfor they haveno ditches.It is reported of]
ot P. Ratko5,The Territorial Developmmtof GreatMoravia (Fbtion and Reality),n StudiaHistorica the Byzantium, Franksand p. L. 1988, 145-147; E. HavlilqBulgariaandMorcviabetween Slovaca,16, p. 1, 1989, 16;Idenr, Mdhrenund die Ungarnam Endedes9. und am 13, Rome, Palaeobulgarica, in tn Anfangdes 10. Jahrhunderts, Baiern, Ungarnund Slawenim Donauraum,d. by W. KaEingo, G. 4),Lir'tz,l99l,p.ll2. (Forschungen Geschichte Stiidte MiirkteOsteneichs, und Marckhgott zur der * P. p. RatkoS,Territorial Development, 147, 149. See also B. Dostiil, Das Vordringender ad n grossmdhrischen materiellm Kultur in die Nachbarkinder, Magna Moravia. Commentationes 1965,p. 370; P. editae,Pragtrc. blzantinaeanteXI saeculain Moraviamadventus memori.am missionis p. L. Slawen, 195-198; E. HavlilgBulgariaand Moravia,p. 18; L. E. Ratko5, grossmcihrischen Die p. 54, Marabia"and "hechoraMorabia",in Byantinoslavica, l, 1993, 78. Havlilq"Hemegale

49

Arp<,qNPNUMADC}EARU

They are tryo separate [religrous] that their numberis greaterttnn lthat ofl the Byzantines' was is and theleater part of their commerce with the West'/7. The description conununities Bulgariaand.Moravia at about350400 lfft" between the usedin order to estabiish distance However,it can be observed Danubeand Tiszaa8. betwee,n along the buffer space measured It is not possiblettlat the Moravianswere much more that the relation is quite oonfusing. to seems be equallywrong' of ThL description their dressing than the Byzantines. numerous the Eve'n tendayscould in settled Criqana. an it unless concems Orientalpeoplelike theKavars Pechoregsand Khazars, betweeir since the same distanceis me,ntioned be a stereotype, The momeir!of the and and and Hrmgarians Saqlabs, betweenPechenegs Saqlabs' between of expansion Moravia in 882). In these is-not certainO"ior" or after the eastern description that this sourcecannotprovidecertainfacts aboutthe positionof we circumstances, consider details. several Moravia,evenif it contains madeby Alffi the Greatin 890 (tanslation in modern More clear is the description "...theseMoravians Maroaral have west of them the English made by R. Ekblom): of and ftti"ingi*r, andbohermi*r, undpart of the Bavarians; southof thenl on the otherside the the Alps. Torvards the Daiube, is the county of Carinthia,southto the mo'ntains called theneastof the counfiy and of lie mountains the bormdaries theBavarians the Swabians; same andeast is of carinthia,beyondthe wildemess [westeirneae],Bulgaria,andeastof it is Greece; of Moraviais the Vistula country,andeastof iiare thebacians,who were formerlyGoths"so' The daa reflect the situationarormdg71,whrlthe EnglishWulfstanhasvisitedRatisbonasr' resultswithout anydoubtthatMoraviawaslocatedeastof description Fromthis conternporary ti"d 1ointerpret wtrile BobaandEggers on nowlus madl no commeirt this passage, Bohemia. (but theMoricani are Moricanis2 to thenameMoroaraas a refere,nce a differentSlavicpeople, to*er nibe andtheycannot be identifiei with a peoplewith sucha locations3). on attested the Moravi4 we arriveat our main concem: aboutthe locationof Crreat After this discussion an The main argurnat is based-on in Transylvania' for the evideirce a Bulgariandomination the Amulf asked BulqryJt wars.In 892,theemPeror by eventoocasioned the-Frankish-Moravian fieaq/'. of uar Vladimir to sdp the saltexportin Moravia.This wasa condition thenew alliance Bulgariancorrtol ov.er salt of iequirBatrc existe,nce a total To be effective,t6is enrbargo Jhe Of wouldbe meaningless' demand the closeti Moravia,otlrenvise Gennan in tlreareas resources wasmastered that which suggests ttrisregon the c,ourse, saltwastwrsportedfrom Transylvania" it only because Bulgariawas ableto setthis erribargo thoughttlr,at by Cjgaria. Somehistorians the ignores er*,fteda conholover the mouthof Tisza --ouo its middlevaleft' This orpinion
ot p.A. MartinezMartinez,Gardizib two chapters the Turks,tn Archiwm EurasiaeMedii Aevi,z, on 1982,p.161. TIre ;'ip'ilri.;!, Slawen,p.196197;I. Fodor,Die Butgarm,P'48; P' RatkoS, Die grossrndhrischen 101' -. Cs. 149'150; BlelintSildungarn,p' Developnent,p' Tenitarial it firir *orO .o*'the buffer qpacebetweenDanube and Tisza (Avarorum et Pannonioram footrotes25 and26). solitudines,see and ff;i;k#; A in iWi tni ci*t as Geographer, Sndia Neophilolosica. Joumal of Gamanic of tbat Greecelies south+ast Romanicphilologt, Up'p*fu, U, tgit-ig+Z,-p. ll7.-Alfred ncant of Carinthi4andDaciasouth-east Moravia(Ibiden',p' 122,142)' tt P, Ratkos, Territoial Darcbpnen4p. 146' The 116-121' Reich',p' "i.';;;;: M;niio', Hi"tory,p. Das'Grossmdhrische rsi-rsg;-M.Eggers, 5' P. Ratkos, Territorial Development,p.128' The " Arr"dfudoo"*, Scripnra,I' 408)' Historica, Germaniae a.892(Monimenta 54; 1l-13;A. DeceiRomdnii,p' " N. gA''"..; i,*iiur-int'i*lg*", p.4748;Ider+ Lu frontidres,p. ' uPects,P'1 D. Gh.Teodor,Quelques

50

BULGARANEXPANSION TRANSYLVANIA T'HE AND couldreceivesall by the way that reached Slovakia fact that evenin this casethe Moravians domination overthe that valleyandby SzolnokWe consider only a Bulgarian alongthe Someg in . included theteaty of 892s6 the Transylvanian minescouldexplain clause salt facts. The Bulgariandominationin the salt minesareais illustated by archaeological polishedpotterydiscovered some9ft centurysitesconcentatedaroundAlba in The fine pgay indicates existence a the of SAnbenedic6o, sebequt; Iulia (AI# iuliatt, ghnaian;tt, cdlnicse, cemeteries and cultural enclave(this pottery is not specificfor the rest of the Transylvanian settlements, is commonin the Lower Danubianarea,whereit is lcnownas the Dridu B but at cornerof Transylvania, Poian type).A similar potterywas also found in the south-eastern jugs, which are too specificfor the In and Cernat62. thesesiteswere also found amphoroidal culture,which is too definedby the same Dridu culture,but not also for the Saltovo-Majack grdypottsry.This means the Transylvanian sitesareindeedrelatedwith the Dridu culhre. that that ofthe fine graypolishedpotteryand have archaeologists emphasized the pnesence Several jugs into an isolated testifiesthepenetration areain Transylvania especially the amphoroidal of Contary to a quitecommonidea,the Dridu culturewasnot of the Dridu culturein that areau3. because B type of potterywas not found in Moldavia or in the the spread ovsr Romania, all the of mostpart of Transylvania. Only the existence this tlpe definesthis culture,because A pottery*. (with carved is a local form of theDonau-typus decoration) type in areainto of We consider ttrepenefration thepotteryproduced the LowerDanubian that extentin the south*astem Transylvania) a welldefined areaaroundAlba Iulia (andin a lesser of Both areas belongto the regionswittt high denstty with Bulgaria. couldtestifyclosecontacts and foundin the first area, Ciurnbnrd Oriqtie,arevery significant at saltmines.Two cemeteries The in for the problernof the Iower Danubianinfluences this centlal part of Transylvania.
p. p. Panaitescu" stessed this. Bulgariain nordulDundrii, p. 229-230 ll t' R. R. Heitel, Uneleconsideraliiprivind civilizalia din bazinul carpatic in cursul celei de-a doua 103-107;Ider4 jumdtdliasecoluluiallX-leatnluminaizvoarelorarheologice,nSCll/A,34,2,1983,p. Die Archdologieder Ersten und ZweitenPhssedesEindringensder Ungarn in das innerkarpatische Repertariul Traruilvanim, in Dacia, i/S, 38-39, 1994-t995,p. 407408; V. Moga, H. Ciugudean, "AnulI00A p.37,43; H. Ciugudearl Catsbgulacpoziliei lulia, al Alba, }J.Jrba 1995, arheologic jude,tului p. lulia, 1996, 4-8. la Albaluliq -intre istorie arheologie",Alba Si tt K. Horedt, 'Zeligrad'-Blindiana,p.112-118; A. Aldea,H. Ciugudean, descoperirifeudalNoi I. p. Siebmbtirgen,p.72-78; K. (jud.Alba),in Apulum,19, 1981, 145-149; Horedt, timpuii la Blandiana Gh Anghel,H. CiugudeaqCimitirulfeudal timpuriude la Blandiana(jud.Alba), n Apulum,24, 1987, Repertoriul,p' 60. Moga,H. Ciugudean, R p. 179-196; Heitel Die Archaologie,p.40T;V. t'R R. Heinl, IJneleconsideralii, 104;IderrqDie Archiiologie, p.415; V. Moga,H. Ciugudear\ p. p. Repertoiul, 80-81. uu L B6n4 Vdll<erwanderung Friihmiaelalter (271-895),in Kune Geschichte Siebmbiirgens, und Repertoiul,p.173. p. Budapesg 1990, lM; V. Moga,H. Ciugudeaq u' V. Mog4 H. Ciugudear!Repertoriul,p. 167; N. M. Simina, Considerasii asupra mormintelor in la metlievale timpuriidescoperite anul 1865 SebeS Alba),n AMed,4,2002,p. 47'50. $ud. u' Z. Szekely, in de siecles dqnsle Sud-Est la Transylvanie, des L'aspect Ia culturematdrielle VIIIe-Xe de du dupeuplement BassindesCarpathes VIIIe au Xe siecle(Mitteilungen du Lesquestions fondamantales Beiheft l), Budapesq Akademieder Wisseruchaften, Institub der Ungarische des Archaeologrsches Die p. Die 1972,p.127-128; Fodor, Bulgaren, 50;R. R Heitel, Archiiologie,p.4L5. I. u3M. Rusu,Notes la relations, 198;R. R Heitel,Uneleconsideralii, 103-104; Fodor,Dre p. I. p. sur p. 49; P. Diaconq Extersiondu premierEtat bulgareau Nord du Danube(VIIk-Xe siicles). Bulgaren, tn La culturematerielle, EB, 21, l, 1985,p. 110;K. Horedt Siebmbiirgm,p. 75-76;N' M' Simin4 52. Consideratii.n. uo Diuconrr" 108-110. Extension,p. P.

51

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

in W-E oriente{ disposed lines.The inventory from32 graves consists from Ciurnbnrd cemetery butnot alsopotteryor weaponsut. knives, beads, earings,perrdants, included The argumentfor the Moravian origrn of the people buried at Ciumb'rudwas the found in the gravesand a kind of earringssaidto be someof the earrings similarity between evidence, specific for the Great Moravian sites in Slovakia.Basedon this archaeological to belonged a Moraviancolonysettled cemetery infeffedthat the Ciurnbrud researchers several their faith or as a expelledfrom Moraviabecause for the salt traffic or to a groupof refugees, inroads66. of consequsnce theHwrgarian When the Ciumbrud cemeterywas published,the knowledgeabout the Moravian The Nita ffi (which is indeeda close analogyfor the earringswas not well developed. have (in Ciumbrudpieces)was not yet definedby B. Chropovslc! 1962).More recentstudies in (fig. a) were indeedproduced the areaaround Nita q/pe earrings shownttraitlre so-called They are differentthanthe usual Niba, but their modelswereborrowedfrom northernSerbia. adommentsfound in northern Moravia and Slovakia and, as has supposedTatiana they could testiff an immigrationof a southemSlavic groupin the Nita area, Stefanovidov{, of by occasioned theexpansion after half in sometime the second of the 9ftcenhnry, thetroubles MoraviaunderSvatopluk6i. piecesfoundin the northernSerbia and the betwee,tr Nita earrings several The analogies sincelong time ago,and explainedas the (Vinda,Kurvingrad,Prahovo)were also remarked of Othsr earrings Niha type by cuituralunity shaped the GreatMoravianstate68. iesult of the from Wallachia (Ob6rgiaNoui, Sultana), Moldavia (Arsura' were found in cerneteries pieces providedseven of The Riducinari), and Bulgaria(Trojan,Galice)6e. cemetery Sultana This the 9'and 10' cenfltries'". *itfr of this kind associateA potteryandotherobjectsdatedin imports.They Moravian at showsthat the earringsdiscovered Ciurnbrudare not necessary by influenced the belongto a culturalareathat includedBulgariaandGreatMoravia,two areas
65 Dankanits, Ferenczi, p. m de arheologice la Ciumbrud, MCA,6, 1959, 605-610' Sdpdturile I. A. 66A, Dankanit, I. Ferenczi, Henschafi Die M. p. iapdt rtl" arheo{ogice, 610-611; Comga, bulgarische in Forschungen, Dacia, der Donauwiihrendies IX. und X. Jh. im Lichte der archiiologische ndrdlich Fundein denNachbarliindan,rn der Zur p.419;8. Dostal, Interpretatian grossmi)hrischen NS,4, 1960, a d'archiologieslave,3, Varsovie,1970,p. 188-189(but he accepted kr Congr*- international p.78,,80; R' R Siebenbilrgen, p.200; K. Horedt, suiles relations, origin);M. Rusu"Notes eyzantirie R. Pinteni dotoli,p. 158-159; R. Heitel,Die Heite\ Uneliconsiderafii,p. 106, 113;A. Madgearu" Griiber der CiumbrudGruppeaus p. 408; Z.-X. pnter, N. Boroffra, Neuemittelalterliche Archii.ologie, Pemilor X8, in Transsilvanica.Archdologische Brooslor:aSii, Fundstelle Bdhtmerberg/Dealul (Jntersuchungen iilteren Geschichte siiddstlichen Mitteleuropa.Gedenl<schrirt Kurt Horedt, des fir zur N. Rahdeq1999,p.328; M. Simin4Consideralii,p,52' T. vonN. Boroffl<A Soroceanu, brsg. ut i. Strfunovidov6,Schmtrckdes Nitraer Typs und seine Bqiehungetl zu Siidosteuropaim 9. p.215-219. Evk)nyve,ls,1990, M6r Jahrhundeft,nA WosinslE Mtaeum ut M. Cbtouid-Ljubinkovii, und des des Der Zusammenhang Schrnuckes Nitra-Gebietes Norfuerbietuim on informatiow M. 18, m IX. Jahrhunden, SlovArch, l, 1970,p.I l3-l15. For Prahovo: Jankovii,Some 9th to I lth C, n metalsin the iegian of Kjrc in the DanublYalley from prodrction of non-ferrous -Zbomik p, T. 11, Arheologija,Beognd, l, 1983, 103, IV5' Muzeia, Narodnog 6eB, Dosgil, Oi Vontrtngen, 405; V. Grigorov, ObeStite starobdlgarslwta ktltury na severot v p. n aals ta culure protobulgaireau nord du Danube), Arheologiia,40, 34, d'oreifes Dunav(Lesboucles of as 34 especially for the ea:rings testimonies the Bulgarian 1999,p. 24-36(a tipology of the earrings), Transylvania)' in domination thesouthem to B. Mirea, La necropole Pl. in et Rewltats problimes, Dacia, N5,32,1988, l/5/3, de'Suhana. birityelte | |5 217 3nA, 3I 28,l0 18217, I 1273, I 8iI 58/5. I3,

52

BULGARIAN EXPANSION TMNSYLVANAAND TTIE are of someresearchers thinkingthat the cemetery same Blzantine civilization.By this reason not is Ciumbrud Bulgarian, MoravianTr. point X8. Pemilor, a at uneartlred similarcemetry Ord$ie-Dealul researches More recent fulfilled in 1991graves W-E werefoundin the excavations with ttreorientation Ten inhurnation is Only the analysis not possible. tlrat 1994. bones The weresobadpreserved ttreantlropological gaves haveinventory, Seven the genderandthe ageof someskeletons. urventrory suggest can glass lead and silver earrings, consisting from b'ronze tenple-rings(Kopfschmucbiryge), beads, The and and bronzependants, bronzanecklaces, an iron knife72. chronology the typolory of the by that was in temple-rings showthatthecernetery used the9t century, a population hadrelations area with the spreadurg of the Kottlachculhre, i.e. with the West Slavicmilieu. The inventory and the presents with thatof the Ciunrbrud cemetery, by this reason excavators manysimilarities 'hecropolisof Ciumbrud pieces five are The mostinteresting t5pe". a havecalledtheir discovery They have in found together the gravenumber7 (the richestin the cernetery). silver earrings, (fig. is pendants with smallovoid sub-pendants 5). This type of earrings of hanrnnered crescent pendant), it wasfoundin many but (evolved with star-shaped from theearrings fashion Byzantine sitesin the arsaof GreatMoravia.Similar eaningsare also lnown at Ciumbnr4 but also at and they werehammered not cas! like the crescentSultanaT3. well as thosefrom Ord.ttie, As typicalfor theKdttlachcultureTa. shaped earrings earringswere also found in the cemeteryAlba Iulia II75,a site Similar crescent-type of definedby a significantpresence the fin" gr"y polishedpottery. This meansthat these in earringswere associated the samecultural milieu with the pottery of Lower Danubian of fashion,not presentin Moravia or Slovakia.The coexistsnce the Dridu B pottery with Iulia means that the cornrnunity br.riedin earrings the 9fr centurysit of Alba in crescent-type Alba Iulia II usedbothartifacts. thecemetery M6ciuliilor, dated of the To the sameculhral groupbelongs cemetery Ghirbom-Gruiul that in theth centuryon thebasisof the goldearrings canbe includedin theNitra type'o. Anotherartifact specificfor the Lower Danubianareabut also for Moravia is the lead Anotherone pendants werefoundat Ciumbrudand Or6gtie. These interlaced circularpendant. comes from Berghin (the discovery place is near the cernetery of GhirbomGruiul mostly in was the M6ciuliilor)7t.This kind of pendants usedbetween 9ft and the 116cenhrry, piecefrom Berghinseems be laterthanthose to Bulgaria.Thenew discovered thenorth<astern with the pieces indicates relationship a because omamentation its and from Ciwnb,rud Or6gtie,
tt I. Fodor, Bulgarm,p. 49-50; B6n4 Vdlkerwanderang,104. I. Die '' Z.-K.Pinter, Boroflca, mittelalterliche Grdber,p.313-327. Neue N. ktltura,p.3l-32. . Grigorov, Obqtitev starobdlgarskan n. Uir,ea Za ruhropole,Pl.2ll4l2,3l28a:Y ]' '* Z.-K.Pinter, Boroflr4 Neue mittelalterliche Griiber,p.325. N. t5 Gh. Anghel,H. Ciugudea4 H. Cimitirul,p. 195;R. R. Heitel,Die Archdologie,p.40S; Ciugudeaq 1000,p.8. 4nul 'o L A. Aldea, E. Stoicovici,M. Bldja4 Cercetdriarheologicein cimitirul prefeudal de la Ghirbom jud. Alba), m Apulum,18, 1980,p. 154, 173;E. Stoicovici, BHjan, Obietsde M. (comuna Berghin, 14-15, d parure en metalprdcianx ddcouverts Ghirbom(dep.de Alba), in Acta Musei Porolissensis, p. was p. 1990-1991, 231-247;V. Moga" H. Ciugudea4Repertoriul, 100. The real chronology Heltsl, Die Archiiologie,p. 410 andGh. Anghel,Necropolabiritualdprefandaldde established R. R by p. 34, Ia Ghirb (GruiulF ierului),n Apulum, 1997, 27A. om tt A. Dankanits, Ferenczi, p. Sapdnrile arheologice, 608, fig. 3/8; Z.-K. Pnter, N. Borofl<a,Neue I. Grdber,p. 321, Abb.717;S. Nemeti,tJnpandantivbizantinde la Berghin, mittelalterliche iud. Alba, in EphNap,12,2004(forthcoming).

53

ALEXANDRUMENCNENU

from Evenso,thependant centuryandin the 1lfr cenhtry78. of datedin the last decades the 10m Alba Iulia andthe LowerDanubian the between meaaround that Berghinsuggests the contacts administation. of aftertherestoration theByzantine regloncontinued Alba Iulia testiff the inclusionof this areainto The ealringsandpotdantsfoundarormd regionandMoravia.The the that encompassed Lower Danubian of a space culturalexchanges of wasa consequence the tradethat linked prestige goodsin all theseareas circulationof these impliesa significantamountof salt them,namelythe salttrade.The above-mentioned embargo of exchange othergoods. that an this tade and,therefore, outcome meant a in the Because geopoliticalsituationexamined the first part of our study suggests or Bulgariandominationin Transylvania in somepointsof this reglon,it canbe inferredthat the sites that provided artifactswith Bulgarian analogiescan be ascribedto a population However,it is high originatedfrom Bulgaria or with shong relationswith this kingdomTe. local populationsubjected with the aid of the its probable Bulgariahasexerted domination that feature to and to the tibute, Romanian Slavic.This indirectway of contol seerms be a general of in by regionsdominated Bulgaria.It consisted the delegation the for all the North-Danubian power to subjectedor allied populationssettledin the peripheralareas.Someresearchers that orjoyed territorieswere ruled by a kind of governors considerthat the North-Danubian The Hungarorumin Banat)8o. samemodel by Gla4 recorded Gesta autonomy(for instance, couldbetue for Transylvania. The pair of 9e centuryFrankishspws from TirtEria (Alba Counry)is not Moravian from the Frankisheastsrn inportssr; they belongto a groupof piecescamein Tranqylvania andZald#z. The samegrave possessions, like ur th" fOttf*n type eaningsfrom Sdlacea as and origrn:a sword,a spearhead a javelin of at discovered Tdrtiria includedweapons Frankish O*rer 9'cenffry of fromthe settlement Blandiana. few kilometers head83. gravewaslocated The of spurswere fourd in the settleinsnt Iemut (MureqCounty),togetherwith horsegearand
78S. Nemeti,IJnpandantivbizantin,with previous pieces was A bibliography. tlpological studyon these - Amuletsor Elernents Decoration(AboutSome of The prepared StelaDoncheva, Lead Medallions by "Cultur[ at 9i civilizafie la New Findsfrom Bulgaria)r paper presented the intemationalconference 20M. Durirea deJos",Cil5ragi,4' October, 7eK. Horedt, Voiqodanl de la Bdlgrad- Alba lulia, m SCIV, 5, 34, 1954,p. 496; M. Comtq Die p. [. Herrschafi,p. 397, 41.1412; Fodor,Die Bulgaren,p. 49-50;K. HoredqSiebmbiirgen, bulgarische p. 103-105; A. Cimitirul,p. 195;L B6n4 Ydllerwanderung, 75:76,94i Gh. Anghel,H. Ciugudean, 2001, Anonim,Cluj-Napoca, p. l9Ll94. Notarului Romdnii opera in Madgearq 80 Browning, and Structure Frontierset Administrative and Byzantium Bulgaria,p.87;P. Koledarov, R. Die EB, BulgarianTsardom, 14,3,1978, p. 135, 137;Y. Besevliev, protobulgarische up of the First Bulgaria,p.85: "ttriscontol wasoften 69; 354;Dimihov 1986, I. Mladjov,Trans-Danubian Periode,p. ethnonon-Bulgarian to very nominal and in fiuny casesdelegated allied but intemally autonomous politicalunits", 0tAr hur considered Horedt, p. Siebenbiirgen,80,103,185. K. 82The Kdttlach earringsare not Moravianobjects,as considers M. I. Jiplic in his book review at A. l, (Acn Trrae Sqtemcastrensis, 2002,p. 217-218).The Kittlach culttue was Madgearu, Romdnii the and Croatia,duing ttre Frankishdomination; specificobjece formd in rpt"ud in Ausfiia, SlovEnia of from Criganaand Transylvaniatestifr the presence people came from the Frankish cerneteries possessions, from Moravia. not l' N. M. Simin4 Descopeririapa(indnd feudalismuluitimpuriu la Tdrtdria (iud, Alba), n Buletinul Alba Iulia, 2, 1996, p' 155; Z.-K._\t2tet Im Arheologie-ktorie, cercurilor StiinlificestudenleSti. Herhtnfi,in karolingischer Ausriistung ind Bewafiungssnicke Teilemilitiirischen enidectae Miereschtai p. 2, AMed, 1998, 145-153,

54

BULGANANEXPANSION TRANSYLVANA AND TTIE It that weapons and,very significanf with potterymadeon the fast wheelsa. can be observed Iemut is not too far from anothersalt area(the minesof Praid and Ocland).This association is for between tade andwarfaress. salt between mines spurs significant therelation salt and rn We have already seenthat local military elite appeared Transylvaniaduring the warriors intoduced the use of the spurs.After the Avarian domination.These sedentary preserving their positionsand military they turnedto the new mastetrs, Bulgananexpansion, of skills, The Frankishspurswere importedin this areaas a consequence the goodFrankishthe to Bulgarianrelations.The gravecanbe ascribed one of thosewarriorswho defended salt roadon theMuregvalley. enclavewas the former Roman city of The center of the Bulgarian Transylvanian and Apulum (Alba Iulia), whereseveralgroupsof gravesdatedin the 9fr and 10ftcenturies a Ordqtieand The settlement from the sameperiod were researched. sitesof Blandiana,Sebeg, nameof the city wasBdlgrad.It was The Ciumbnrdareall aroundAlba Iulia86. old Romanian the supposed this nameof Slavic origin was given because ancientruins madeof white that this stonestill existed the earlyMiddle Ages87. course, canbe fue, but we shouldobserve in Of and at that other suchRomanruins were still visible (for instance, Sarmizegetusa) they were relation can be established not called in the sameway. Nobody thought until now that a As betweenthis name and the other Belgrade,the former Singtdunum. we have already of Belgradewas in the 9mcenturya Bulgarianborder town and the residence a mentioned, bishop.If we admit that the Transfvanian Bigrad belongedtoo to Bulgaria,then we can is The that suppose this pair of names not a coincidsnce. color white canreferto thepositionof The by Tiirkic populations, West was symbolized this color88. the the cities, becausifor the Bulgarians continued to preserve Tiirkic faditions and institutions even after the receivedtheir namebecause they were Christianization. Our opinion is that both fortresses placed in the westem comersof the Bulgarian state.The Transylvanian Bilgrad was the that the residence the ruler who exerted poweron behalfof Bulgaria,It cannotbe excluded of just after the breakdownof the Avarian qaganate, a polity as this power center emerged subjected Bulgariaaftersometime, by and organized the local Romanian Slavicpopulation, by mostprobable the 830s8e. in The survivalof the Romanprecinctof Apulum was the reasonwhy this placebecame discov.ery from Alba Iulia is theround The thecenterof theBulgarianenclave. mostinteresting chapel or baptisteriurn(rotonda), ideirtified under the 12' century church ttnough the of showsthe existence a power center, rnadeby RaduR. Heitel. This monument excavations to the Byzantinemission It whateverwas the ethnic origin of its rulereo. was ascribedfirst have but fulfilled in 948 by the bishop Hierotheosamongthe Hungarians, later researches which means his exerted activity was locatedelsewhere, shownthat the areawhereHierotheos the origxl. Takinginto account Frankish thatthe monument from Alba Iulia couldhaveanother context,the burldrngof the monument model of this kind of chapeland the archaeological
toI. Stanciq 137,155, W4-7. Pl. medievald,p. Despre ceramica t5A. Madgearu, Trade Consideralii,p.53. and llarfare,p. 279;N. M. Simlna, Salt 8uLFodor, Siebenbiirgen,p.T5;N.M.Simina,Consideralii,p.54. DieBulgarm,p.5l-52;K.Horedt, tt Gh,AnghelAlbalulia, Bucuregti, 1987 21. ,p. , tt O. PritsalqOrientierung n 5, und Farbsymbolik, Saeculum, 1954,p. 377 (Iderr! Studiesin Medinal 1, Inndoq 198 I). Eurasian History,Variorur& 8e HoredgVoiandanl dela Bdlgrad,p.49l-492,504. K. t Cl" lngnet, Alba lulia,p. 21 sustained Alba Iulia wasthecenter a Romanian pricipalrty. of that

55

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

dominationer. dwing theBulgarian couldalsobeplacedin the9ftcentury, The Mureq River was the northem timit of the teritory dominakd by Bulgaria in nearthe the pointwasperhaps OcnaMureg, saltminelocated The fransylvaniae2. mostadvanced thereis a Carpathians the Mureg^and Southe,ln Within the meabetween of cemetery Ciumbrud. place-namese3.small creekcalledPreslavon the A of significantccmcentation Old Bulgarian just few kilometers of the csmeteries Berghinand of east villageea located is t oitoty of Ohaba that Ghirbom.This urusualplace-name recallsthe nameof the Bulgariancapitalwas thsrefore and The analogies. oernetery the with closeBulgarian artifacts preserved theareathatprovided in nanrecolnes in are from Blandiana located a placecalledJeligrador Jiligrad, whose settlernent "eantire". sameplace-name attested two more times in is The from the Old Slavic word celi We de Balti andat Debacant. do not know why forfress Ceatea near Transylvania, themedieval the However, gavethis nameto thehill of Blandian4sinceno fortess existthere. theinhabitants "forfess" suggests the that existence a name derived from the Slavic word that means of wasgivan. whenthename quite in was settlernent considered important thepei'iod remainedfree, althoughit had too irrportant salt The northem half of Transylvania by (for the resources instance. minesof Sic and Cojocna).The analysisof the datarecorded finds allowed and with in comparison othersources with the archaeological Hungarorum Gesta Mic in and us to provethat a Romanian Slavicpolity emerged thereglonof the Somequl valley, by were too enabled the in aroundCluj, sometimes the th century.Its birth and development has called This free territory was perhapsinhabitedby what Alfred the Great salt traffice6. "Dacians".Of course, and The Dacians. namewas geographic, it was theywerenot tlre ancient "Dacian"polity of The Orosius. existence a distinct to grvenby the authoraccording its source, "the Dacians,who were formerly Goths"e7. by iesults irom the explanation-provided Alfred: over a territoryandnot suchethniclabelsreflectthe mastership For the earlymedievalauthors, in thingschanged the the time of Orosius, in itself. If the Gothswerethemasters thepopulation province. are ageof Alfred. Thenewmasters calledwith theold nameof the The building of several fortifications in this northem part of Transylvaniawas of The a considered result of a Moravianinfluencee8. fortresses DlbAca,Ortelecand $irioara is Moravianfortesses,but their chronology with the Burgwatl-type displayindeedsimilarities for yet established. fact,thereis no clearevidence their building beforethe downfall of In noi mean a Moravian do It Svafupluk'sstateee. is also frue that such analogies not necessary by certainlynot dominated are forffesses known in areas pr"r"n.", sincesimilar contemporary in Moravia(for instance, Bukovina).
" A. Madgearv,Romdnii, p. 194, with previousbibliography.tn his last worh R' R. Heitel, Die of in the Archiiolosie.p.4l7,427chose laterdate, ttremiddle the l0'' cenfilry. n2 The m im Siebenbiirgens 10.Jahrhundert, sir*'opinion at L, Makftai, PolitischeGeschichte Jalm, und i)berSiebmbiirgen seineNachbarn.Fes*chrifi Attila T. Szab6undZsigmond fir Forschungen 1987,p.36,4445. ed.byIC Bend4I,Miinchen, e3E."Pehovicbaco-slava, Dacorornania, 2, 1943,269; Fodor, Bulgaren, 50; V' Frdlila" Die I. 10, rn P. i. p. 1987, 113. romdneascd,Timigoara, Lexicologie toponimie Si toV. Fra6H, cit.,p.I13. op. ntlbidem. * A. Madgeanr, 280' and Idern, Trade Warfare,p. Sa/t 159-205; Romdnii,p. tt p. Ruttio5,bfu that "das Gebiet am oberlaufder TheiIJ Slawm, p. 196 sustained SroniAtrischm provinz- Dazien". aber bildeteeinenichtniiherbekannte, etwaunabhiingige nt 85. DieArchiiologie,p.4l6,footrote R. Heitel,uneleconsideralii,p.gS;R, Heitel, 'A. Madgearq 159-181. Romdnii,p.

56

AND TRANSYLVANIA ME BWGARAN EXPANSION of The end of the Bulgarian dominationin Transylvaniawas a consequence the put of Hungananland-taking Pannonia, it did not happenvery soon,The first attacksof the Moravraandnext against in Hrmgarians the last yearsof the 9^ canturywere directedagainst Anothertargetwas the westempart of Bulgaria(most in the Frankishpossessions Pannonia. theseinroadssaid that the probablethe areaaroundBelgrade).The sourcethat remembsrs ac Marahensium Vulgarumfinastt. I. Fodorhassupposed Carantanorum, Hungarians ravaged in that Simeonclosedan alliancewith the Pechenegs order to defendTransylvaniaagainst In Hungariansro', there is no clear proof for this assumption. the next years after the but directedtheir invasionsonly to the west, until they the occupation Pannonia, Hungarians of suffereda first defeatat Merseburgin 933. In the following year occulredthe first inroad by crossed the duchy of Banatled by Glad, a againstBulgariaand Byzantium.The invaders defeatanddeathro2. of polrty sptit from Bulgariafew yearsbefore,in theaftermattr Symeon's north end of the Bulgarianhegemony in The Hungarian aggression Banatsigmfiedthe were alreadythe masters the areabetweenDanubeand of of the Danube.The Hungarians to but in entered Translvania by north-west, they succeeded conquer Tisza.The Hungarians madeat Alba Iulia attestthe burningof the also the areaaroundAlba Iulia. The excavations developed the th century.The destuction level was followed by anotherone in settlement by relics. Bilgrad was conquered a Hungariangroup of warriors,who definedby Hungarian that established new powercenter,ruled by the bearerof the title of glas. We-consider this a campaigns'"'. the began eastern happened after934,whur theHungarians soon until 971,thosefrom If the Bulgarianterritoriesfrom Wallachiasurvivedmostprobable of Banatand Transfvania were lost as a consequence the Hungarianinroadsstartedin 934. to of Thereis no evidence the existence local rulers subordinated Bulgaria after Gladroa. for were still the from southto west.It is fue that the Bulgarians Both regionschanged subjection from De Administrando Danubein a passage eastemneighborsof Hungariansacrossthe Imperio, ch. 40, written around 950, but the date of the source used by Constantine visited it Porphyroguritus not sure.For instance, canbe placed1n927,whena monkGab'riel is eastof the Danube,in Banatand the Hungariffislo5, when Bulgariawas indeedextended and Transylvania. by The recentidea expressed a youngBulgarianscholarfrom USA that the Hungarian has the Bdlgradaccepted Bulgariansovereignty no proofsl6. He fied to chief established at north of the Danube, possiblein space time the Bulgariandomination and extendas muchas to More with but wittr sometimes valid arguments, sometimes exaggerationsrot. likely seems be that the opinion of F. Makh who supposed the local Bulgarianruler from B[lgrad kept the
Scriptora,I, 601). Historica, Germaniae a.889(Monumenta fff negino,Chronicon, '"' I. Fodor, Bulgarm,p.5l. Die totA. Madgearu, voievodatului bdndtean,p.197-199. Geneza evotuyia Si to' L Fodor, Bulgaren,p.52;R. HeitelDieArchiiologie,p.407408;H. Anul 1000,p. Ciugudeaa R Die p. Consideralii. 55'56. N. M. Romdnii,p.142-145,153-157; Simina, 8-11;A.Madgearu, ru Exceptttre period of the shortrevival of tlre BulgarianstateunderSamuel, when the dukeAchtum 205'207. bdndlean,p' voievodatului Genuaqi evolu,tia washisvassal. A. Madgearg See totL. E. Havlilg "He megale t,1991, Morabia"and "hechoraMorqbia",in Byzantinoslavica,54, p.110-111. lou Mladiou Trans-Danubian Bulgaria,p.124. L , tot He ignores Mladjov, Trars-Danubian of 137)thatthe document 1231 Bulgaria,p. 106,foobrote (I. Traluylvamais a 19' cennrryforgery(N. Binescu, a that remembered terra Bulgarorumin the southem 49-50). L'ancien bulgare,p. dtat

57

ALEXANDRUMEOCNERU

power under Hungarian confrol (he located gt Alba Iulia the residenceof Kean, the duke from tft" prrioO of Stephen I, allied with Gyula)tot. A similar idea was put forward by G. Krist6: Kean was a ruler of Bulgarian origin subjectedby StephenIlon. In any case, even if this Kean was indeed a duke somewherein Transylvaniarto,this does not mean that his territory was still under Bulgarian domination. BIBLIOGRAP}IY: Aldea"L A., H. Ciugudea4Noi descoperii fatdal-timpuriiIa Blandiana(iud.Alba), in Apulum,19, 1981,p.145-149. Aldea, L A., E. Stoicovici,M. Bl6jan, Cercetdriarheologicein cimitirul prefailal de la Ghirbom jud. (comuna erghin, Alba),ia Aptlum, I 8, 1980,p.l 5| - 177' B 1987. Bucuregti, Alba.Ialla, Anghel, Gh., Anghel, Gh.,Necropotabirituald prefeudaldde la Ghirbom(Gruiul Fierului), rn Apulum,34, 1997,p. 255-27r. Cimitirulfadal timpuiu de la Blandiana(jud. Alba), Apuhm524,1987, Anghel, Gh., H. Ciugudean, 179-t96. 1991, im Bflint, C.,Siidungarn 10.Jahrhundert,Budapest, Europe,lthaca,200I .. Eqstern in caltureandsociety earlymedieval Barfor{ P., TheEarly Slavs: 1947. et dtat Bdnescu, L'ancien bulgare lespaysroumains,Bucarest, N, N., Bdnescu, tar frontidres de l'ancienEnt bulgare,rn Mdmorial Louis Petit. Mdlangesd'histoireet 1948, byzantines,Bucarest p, 4-14. d'archdologie Si Bdrc6cil[, A, "Dacia de la Dundre" a analelorfrance din secolulal IXJea. Evenimente probleme, 1947. Cratovan I Amsterdarq198 . Geschichte, Peiode der bulgarischen Belevliev,Y ., Dieprotobulgarische Bimbaurq H., ll/here was the Centerof the Moravian State ?, in R Maguire,A. Timberlank(ed'), August' of to AmericanContributions the EleventhInternstionalCongress Slavists @ratislava, 1993'p.ll'24' Linguistics, Poetics,Colwnbus, 1993). Literature, Septenber Bimbaunl H., llhere was the MissionaryField of SS.Clril and Methodius?, tn Thessaloniki'Great Moravia,1999,p.47-52 The MedievalSources, Hague'l97l' A Boba,L, Moravia'sHistoryReconsidered. Reinterpretationof Siebenbilrgens, und B6na, I., V1lkerwanderung Friihmittelaher(271-895),m Kune Geschichte p, 1990, 62-106. Budapest, Bowlus, C. R., Franks, Moravians and Magnrs. The Strugglefor the Middle Danube 788-907, 1995. Philadelphia, Hongrois, n Acta Hisbrica. Br[tianu, GIL L, Le thdmede Bulgarie et la chronologiede l'Anonyme 12. lO, 1972,p'105-1 Miincheq Dacoromanla, Academica Societas 4, mddiivales,BB,20, dcrites des Brezeanq uk Bulgaried'au delade l'Ister"d la lumidre sources 5., p, 121-135. 1984, Study across the Early Medieval Frontier, Browning, R., Byzantiumand Bulgaria. A Comparative 1975. LondorL des du dtatiques Slaves MoyenDanubeau IX sidcle,m L'Europe Bulin5H., Aw oigines des formati.ons 1968, des Aux sidcles. origines Etatsnationaux,Varsovie, p. '49.204' auxIXe-XIe Europe,1997,p.7-14. the Europein *o-ldn Centuies,mCentral Caplovid, D.,Cantral to8 Irdaklr, au Relationshungaro-bulgares tempsde prtnce Gdzaet du roi Etienneler, in HungaroF. Bulgarica, V. SzegediBotgarisztilw,S*gu4 1994,p. 29. Kean was located in the south'western p. de Transylvani4 not atAlba hrli4 by K. Hored! Voievodatul Ia Bd.lgrad, 505-506. but 'oe G. Kristo, Lu Keqn dans le bassincarpatique,m Hungaro-Bulgarica,V, Szegedi Bolgarisztilra, I Szeged, ll-24, 1994,p. l-18. rr0Otherhistorians identifiedhim with Sannrel.

58

TMNSYLVANIA AND THEBWGARAN EXPANSION

BratislavaOctober2-4, 1995, CentralEuropetn *-ldh Centuies,InternationalScimtifi.cConference, 1997(CentralEurope). Bratislava, Kultur, ed.by Geschichte, Gesellschafi, Reich,n lklt der Slawen. Chropovsk!,8., Das Grofhmiihrische p. 1986, 161-182. J.Herrrnanru Miinchen, lulia, 1996. H, Ciugudean, Canlogulapozgui "Anul1000la Albalulia -intre istoie Siarheologie",Alba Hercschafi ndrdlich der Donau wdhrenddesIX. und X. Jh. im Lichte der Comga, Die bulgarische M., p in Forschungen, Dacia,NS,4, 1960, . 395422. archiiologische pe unui cnezat valeaPutnei in Comga, M, Un drurn care lega linutul Yranceide DundreSi existen{a 5-7 IX-X, in Yrancea. Sndii Sicomunicdri, , 1987 3944. secolele ,p. und im des des Corovii-Ljubinkovii, M., Der Zusammmhang Schmuckes Nitra-Gebietes Nordserbiens p. I IX. Jahrhundert, SlovArch, 8, 1, 1970, 1l3-l I 7. n Damiar\ a, Considirations sur la citadelle m brtque de Slon-Prahova,in Sndia Antiqua a gica, 9, 2003,p. 483496. Archaenlo p. in arheologice la Ciumbrud, MCA, 6, 1959, 605-615. de Dankanits, Ferenczi Sdpdturile A., 1., in pdnd in al KII-lea ?nlumina izvoarelorarmeneqti, Idern, Decei,A., Romdniidin veaculal E-lea p. 15-117. Bucuregti, 1978, Relaliiromdno-orimtale, Diacornr,P'.,Extercion du premier Etat bulgare au Nord du Danube (ItIIIe-Xe sidcles).La calture p. 13. m materielle, EB,21,1, 1985, 107-1 oftheIf Century,mEB,22,2,1986,p.61-77. Dimitov,H.,Bulgaria theMagtarsat theBeginning and in materiellen Kultur in die Nachbarldnder, Magna Dost6l,8., Das Vordringm der grossmdhrischen ante XI saecula in Moraviam ad Moravia. Commentationes memoiam missionisbyzantinae 1965,p. 4 I 6. 361 advenhu editae, Pragae, Funde in den Nachbarliindern,in ler Congres Dost6l, 8., Zur Interpretationder grossmdhrischen p. slave,3, Varsovie, 1970, 184-191. d'archeologie intemational der zur Reich'.Realitdtoder Fihion ? Eine Neuinterpretation Quellen Eggers, Dcs 'Grossmfrhrische M., 1995. Donauraumes 9 Jahrhundert, im Stuttgart, Geschichte mittleren des A tn Ekblorq R., Alfred the Great as Geographer, StudiaNeophilologica. Journal of Gerrnanicand p. Philologt,Uppsala, 194l-1942, 115-lM. 14, Romanic der Fodor,L, Die Bulgarenin den ungarkchenLiinderu wdhrendder Ansiedhmgsperiade Ungam,in 1984,p.47-54. in Osterreich,6,2, des Forschungsinstitutes Mitteilungen Bulgarischen 1987. romdneascd, Timigoara, Frefh, Y., Lacicologie toponimie Si Hradiite-Sadyand its Significanceto the Beginntngof the GaluIk4 L, TheSacral Area in Uherslrc . MoravianStatein the9th Centuryrn CentralEurope 1997 p. 142-L48 , , , Gjuzelev, V., Bulgarisch-friinkischeBaiehungen in der ersten Halfre des IX. Jfu., in p. Byantinobulgarica, 1966, l5-39. 2, lwlnra na severat Dunav (Les bouclesd'oreillesdans la v Grigorov,Y., ObeStite starobdlgarskata 1999,p.21-42. protobulgaire norddu Danube),nArheologiia,40,34, culture au 13, the and Byzantium, Franl<s Rome,n Palaeobulgarica, Havlilr,L.8., Bulgaria andMoravia between p. l, 1989, 5-20. da Havlik, L. E., Mdhrenund die Ungarnam Endedes9. und arnAnJbng 10.Jahrhunder*,in Baiern, zw Ungarn und Slawenim Donauraum,ed. by W. Katzinger,G. Marcl'{rgott(Fonchungen 1, 4), der und Geschichte Stiidte Miirkte Osterreichs, Lirr., 199 p. I 05-120. p.75'82. l, 1993, Morabia",rnByantinoslavica,54, Morabia" and "hechorq HavlihL.E., "Hemegale privind civilhalia din bazinulcaryaticin cursulceleide-adouajumdtdsi Heitel,R. R, Uneleconsiderasii 93-l15. 1983,p. arheologice,inSCIVA,34,2, a secolului lX-leain luminaizvoarelor al ZweitenPhasedes Eindringers der Ungarn in das Heitel, R. R., Die Archdologieder Erctm und p. NS, in Transilvanien, Daci.a, 38-39,1994-1995, 389439. innerlurpatische lulia,mSCIY,5,34,1954,p.487'512. Hored!K.,Voievodatul Bdlgrad-Alba dela im Siebenbilrgens 9.-10. Jahrhundeft,rn Horedt, K, 'kligrad"-Blindiana. Beitrdgezur Geschichte 1958,p. ll2'137 ' Siebenbilrgew, Bukarest, zur lder\ Untersuchungm Frilhgeschichte im Horedt,K, Siebenbiirgen Frilhmittelalter,Bon+1986. Jankovi6, M' Someinformationson pro&tction of non-fenousmetalsin the Region of Kliut in the gth to I lth C, m Zbomik NarodnogMuzeja,Arheologija,Beograd 11, 1, Danube Valley from p. 1983, 99-l18.

59

AT"SXANDRUMADGEARU

2001. Sofia, Bdlgariia, srednovekowa na L, Jordanov, Korpus peCatitena p., Admtnistrative tn and Frontiersetup of the FirstBulgarianTsardom, EB, 14,3, Stntcture Koledarov, 1978,p.132-140. Bolgarisztilw,Szeged V. in carpatique, Hungaro-Bulgarica, Szegedi Krist6, G., LesKeandansIe bassin 1994,p.11,-24. Jahnehntenach870,n der iiber einigeBistilmerin Bulgarienwdhrend ersten Knzev,A., Bemerlwngen ' (17. Regensburg $ la.,April in Tagung Mahodnnum. beitrdgeder Internationalen Symposium ed.by K. Tros! E. V6lkl, E. Wedel des 110b.Todestag hl, Method, an iCA, ^* Gedentren den. p. 1988, 187'192. (Selecta l3), Slavica, Neuried, LunqH.,ClrilandMethodiuswithRastislaiPinceofMorava:wherewerethqt?,nThessaloniki-Great p. Moravia,1999, 87-l 12. in A., Madgear,L Pinteni datali tn secoleteYIII-IX descoperiliin iumdtatea de sud a Transilvaniei, 153-163. 4, Mousaios, l, 1994,P. din MadgearrlA., Genaa qt evolupavoievodauluibd.ndlean secolulal X-Iea, m Sndii gi materialede 1998, l9l'207. medie,16, istorie P. 2001. Cluj-Napoca, Anonl.z, Notarului in A., Madgearu, Romdnii opera p. 271''283. EarlyMediqal Transylvanin,inEphNap,l1,2001, a;dWarfarein Madleanl,L.,SahTrade din in lui Menumorortin lumina cercetdilor recente, Analele UniversitdPii A., fvfadlearu, Voievodatul 1. 1l, Istorie-arheologie, 2001,p. 38-5 Oradeo. Maldq F., Relationsh*rgaroJrigares * i" pt de prince G&a et du roi Etienneler, in Hungarop. L994, 25-33. Bolgarisztilca,Szeged Bulgarica,Y.Szegedi Makkai, 1., poltttt"hi Go"ii"ht" Siebenbtirgensim 1A. Jahrhundert, in Fonchungen fiber Jako, ed'by K. Festchrirtfir Attila T. Szab6und Zsigmond und Siebenbiirgen seineNachbarn. 1987, 33-50. I, Benda, Miinchen, P. A.P.,'GardizibnwchaptersontheTurla,nArchiwmEurasiaeMediiAai,Z,l99,p'lW'217. Martinez, im Problene des Gebiaesdstlichder TheilS 9 Jh., m Rapportsdu IIIe ll., Mestertr.izy, Di" ethnischen p' 1' l, Bratislava" 1979, 539-54 d'Archialogie,s/ave, Intemational Coigris p' NS, etproblimes,inDacia, 32, 1988, 9l-139. Resul;lcl:r,s biitueltedeSultana. Mitea, B.,ia ndcropole p. 1998, 85-128. NS, and Reality Fiction,n ByantineSttrdies, 3, Bulgaria: Mladjov,1.,Trans-ianubian 1995. aliudeluluiAlba, Nbalulia, arheologic Repertoriul Moga"V., H. Ciugudean, Lage einerfriihmittelalterlichen zur Mtifu;, 8., Altmahrenotler Morsvia?NeueBeitrdge geographischen 'Hirrschaftsbildung 46, Ostnitteleuropa-Forschung, 2, n Zeitschrifr im iistlichen Europa, fir 1997,p.205-223 (forttrcoming). jud. Nemeti,5., Unpandantivbinntin deIa Berghin, Alba,EphNap,12,2Q[,4 tn and or Nikolov, 5., Ihe Magtar connection C-onstantine Methodiusin the steppes, Blzantine and p. 21, Studies, 1997, 79'92. ModemGreek 'Bulgmia panaitescn" P. [A. Grecu], veacuile al IX-XJea,in Sudii Sicercetdride i nordulDundrii Xn P. medie,l,1, 1950, 223'236. istorie P. on Philological Notes the Early History of the Hungarims and the Marahenses: P6tfu\ N., Caranthani inESI/,70, 1998, 39'63. ,S/avs, P. in jor pefiin, N., Philotogical Notes the Earty History of the Hungariansand the Slmts, ESy, 72, 2A00, p. 10, in 8. Petrovici, Daco-slava, Dacorornania, 2, 1943, 233-277' pinter, Z.-*., Im Miereschnl entddae Bewffiungsstiicke und Teile militiirischen Ausrilstung p' I lurolingischerHerhnrt, n AMed,2, 199.8, 145- 53' -Boroffra, pinter, Z.-K,, N.,- Neue mittelalterlieheGrdber der Ciumbrud Gruppe aus Broos/Orct{tie, Untersuchungen Archiiologische Pemilor X8, n Transsilvanica. B1hmertrerg/Dealul Fundstelle Gedenkschrirtf)rKurt Horedt, hrsg.von Mittelanropa. zur iilteren Geschtchtidessiiddstlichen p. Rahdeq1999, 313-330. T. N. Boroffka, Soroceam, 1988' n. 567-822 Chr.,Mtinchen' in Ein Pohl,w., Die Awqren. SteppenvolkMiaelanropa, poulih J., Die Zaryenschai der archiiologischen Grabungenund fuellen iiber GroPmiihm, io Staatlichkeit,ed. by J. Poulflr, B. und iie Anfiinge der tschechoslowakischen Grossmiihren 1986, 9-89. Prague, Chropovsk!, P. poulilq 1., iur Fiage db Lopnlxierung 'inffibilis munitio"und "urbsantiqua Rastizi'nachden der

P.29'rrr'

60

AND THEBULGARANEXPANSION TMNSYLVANIA

p. 1997, l2l-132. Fuldauer Annalm,in CmtralEurope, p.376-383(lderraStudies Medieval 5, PritsalcO., Orientierung Farbsymbolik, Saeculum, 1954, und n in London, I98I, I). Eurssian Hi,story,Yaionmy P., Slawen die Altmagnren, n Sudijnd Zvestiarcheologickiho ristavu Ratko5, Die grossmtihrischen und p. Akaddmie Vied, 1968, 193-219. Sloverakej Ratko5,P., The Territorial Developmant Great Moravia (Fiction and Reality),n StudiaHistorica of p. 16, Slovaca, 1988, 12l-156. Rusq M., Notessur les relationsculturellesentreles Slaveset la population romqnede Transylvanie (W-X siicles), in Les Slaves et le monde miditenanden, Vf-Xf siicles (Symposium p. . international d'archeobgie slave, Sofia,23-29m)ril I 970) Sofia,1973, I 89-201 , Szalontai,C, Kritische Banerlatngenzur Rolle der Bulgarm im 9. Jahrhundet in der Grofien UngarischenTiefebmeund in Siebenbi)rgen, A Mdra Ferenc Mweum Evkbnyve.Studia m p. Archaeologica, 2000, 263-286. 6, zwischen dem Schwarcz, Pannonienim 9. Jahrhundert A., und die Anf;ingeder direhen Beziehungen Reichund denBulgaren,in Grenze Differenzimfrtihen Mittelsher,ed.by W. und Ostfriinkischen Akademie der Wissenschafteq Philosophisch-Historische Pohl, H. ReimiE (Osteneichische Klasse, Denkschrifteq 287),zOW,p.99-l04. Simina,N. M., Descoperii aparyindnd feudalismuluitimpuriu la Tdrtdria (jud. Alba), in Buletinul 155-161. cercurilorStiinfifrcesndenpeSti.Arheologie-istoie,AlbaIulia,2,t996,p, timpurii descoperite anul 1865la SebE in Simina,N. M., Considerafii esupramormintelormedievale (ud. Alba),i\ AMed,4,2002,p. 47-58. ltestungarns 9.Jahrhundert,Miinchen" 1973. S6s, C.,Die slawische A. Bevt)lkerung im medievald lucratdla roata rapidd, in asezdrile pe de StanciqI., Despreceramica timpuie de rn comun, -191. (secolele YIII-$, tn AMed,3, 2040,p, 127 teritoriulRomdniei d Stoicovici, M. Blljan, Objets parure en metalprdcieuxddcouverts Ghirbom(dep.deAlba), Acta E., de -247 MuseiPorolissensis, I 5, I 99G.99I, p. 237 . 141 sidcles de rn 2., des dansle Sud-Est la Transylvanie, Sz6kely, L'aspectde la culturematdrielle VIIIe-Xe du du Les questions fondamentales peuplement Bassindes Carpathesdu VIIIe au Xe siicle (Mitteilungen des Archaeologisches hstitub der UngarischeAkadernie der Wissenschafteq p. Beiheftl), Budapes! 1972, 125-128. in Szdke,B, M., Sildost-Ungarn 9. Jahrhundertim Lichte der Siedlungsforschungen, Trudy V im p. (Kiev, 1985), Kiev, 1988, L99-2M. slavistov 4, nrezhdrmarodnogo kongressa arklreologov Sziikeo M, Political, Cultural and Ethnic Conditionsin the CarpathianBasin at the Time of the B. in to Magtarb Conquest, Europe'sCentrearoundAD 1000.Contributions History,AX and p. Archaeologt, byA. Wieczorelg ed. H.-M.Hinz,Stuttgart,2000, 137-139. zu im Stefanovidovd,T., Schmuck Nitraer TypsundseineBeziehungen Sildosteuropa 9. Jahrhundert, des 15, p, M6r Muzeum Evkdnyve, 1990, 215-230. A Wosirsky 133-141. Stefanovidov6"T.,DasGrofmdhrischeReichzwischenOstundl(est,inCantralEurope,lggT,p. les entreRoumains, Byzantins Bulgares IXet aux Teodor, Gh, fueQuesqspects D. concernant relations qi p. X sidcles n.e.,nAnwrul hstiatului deIstorie Arheologie D. Xenopo1",24,2,1987,l-16. ,,A. Proceedings the InternationalConfermce,Thessuloniki, t6-19 October Thessaloniki-Great Moravia,. of (Thessaloniki-Great Moravia). HellenicAssociationfor SlavicStudies, Thessaloniki,1999 1997, in Tont S.,La situationgeographique la GrandeMorqvie et les Hongroisconquerants, Jahrbilcher de NF, Osteuropos, 30,4,1982,p.533-540. f)r Geschichte Trun! N., In quadamcivitqte, quae lingua gentis illius Dowina dicitur, in Zeitschnfifir Slavische p. Philologie, l, 2002, l-24. 61, VII in Wolfrarq H., The Image of CentralEurope in Constantine Porphyrogenittts, ConstantineWI p. Athens, 1989, 5-14. and byA, Markopoulos, Porphy'ogenitus hisage,ed.

61

t./J'./

',

>\l\(^"n'uh& (

7\z wISI"eNnN )

/./

re

%
?: ,2,
l l I

t )

BOSNIEN. SLAWONIEN

I t(l

Fig.l. Moravia accordingto Eggers 1995,map 18.

oq N9

=
n

o 4 UC

\\ \ t \J
Szombathely a

cn
H @

O w H
ffi
9rp
F:A

rl

Ordgtie

Brno

Nitra

A q/
Liptovsk6Mara

\\

%N ffi 6
Northern Serbia

)I

Trnovec

V 6
ObArgia

nt

Q n, 0 r \ tr W$ @{ #,ffi
cl
Sultana
Arsura

L/ @

A V g
Galice

Trojan

fig.4

fig.5

1990,223,227'229; Fig.4. Earrings of Nitra-type(after Dostril1965,405,Abb. ?; Stefanovidov6 fig,4/6); 317, Boroflka1999, Pinter, Fig.5.Earringsof Ordqtie-tYPe.