Ar,pxlxonu M,lpcBa,nu

TRANSYLVANIA AND THE BULGARIAN EXPANSIONIN TIIE 9TH AND 1OTH CENTURIES

The victories of the Frankish armies over the Avars in the late 8h century opened a newera in the history of Central Europe. The qaganate was divided between the Frankish Empireand Bulgaria; new Slavic ethnies and polities came into being in the peripheral regions escapedfrom the Avarian control (Moravra, Croatia, and Serbia). The history of the Middle Danubianbasin in the 9il'century will be the history of the shifting power balance in which were involvedthe Frankish Empire, Bulgaria, and Moravia (a new state born in one of the former peripheriesof the Avarian qaganate).

Transylvania was peopled by sedentary communities subjected to the Avars, who wereinterested in the rich salt resources, around whom were concenfrated their cemeteriesr. Theethnicity of the sedentary people is difficult to discern by archaeolory, since the most findsconsist in slow wheel made pottery, an artifact spread all over Cenhal and Eastern Europe afterthe 8h ceiltury (the so-called Donau-Typus), which cannot be associated with a single ethnicity.Recent researches suggest however that other kind of pottery, worked on the fast wheel, can beascribed to the Romance population, because the Slavs did not borrow this technique of Romanorigin2. More suitable for ethnic identifications are the cemeteries, but even in this case, thesituation is ttzzy. Most cemeteries belong to the Mediag Soup, a local variant of funeraldiscoveries spread over large areas in Cental Europe peopled by Slavs3; there is no clearevidence for the existence of a not Slavic population on the basis of the firneral rite or of theinventory of these graves. There is no doubt that Transylvania was settled by Slavic hibes afterthe end of the 6s cenhrry, but the presence of the Romance population that became later theRomanian people remains a conundrum, if it is searched only through archaeology. In fact, thestudy of the Roman continuity in Transylvania requires a comparative approach that includesarchaeological, linguisfi c, and ethnological data.

The subjection of the local population to the Avar masters meant the payment of atribute, but not only. There are some indications that a local military force has appeared in the8'century Transylvania within the Avarian qaganate. The cooperation of the Slavic chiefs withthe Avars is attested elsewhere (especially in Slovakia). In Transylvania, two sprns dated in the

' M, Rusu, Notes sur les relati.ons culturelles entre les Slaves et la population romane de Transylvanie(l/f-X sidcles), tn Les Slaves et le monde mdditerranden, Vf-Xf siicles (Symposium internationald'archdologie slave, Sofia, 23-29 awil 1970), Sofia, 1973, p. 196; K. Horedt, Siebenbtirgan imFrfihmittelalter, Bonr1 1986, p. 66-72; A. Madgearu, Salt Trade and lladare in Early MedievalTransylvania, n EphNap, I l, 2001, p. 27 l-273.' I. Stanciu, Despre ceramica medievald timpurie de uz comun, lucratd la roata rapidd, in asezdrile de peteritoriul Romdniei (s eco lele VI I I-n, in A Med, 3, 200A, p. 127 -19 l.'K. Horedt, Siebenbiirgen p. 60-66.

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

8h century (at $ura Mici and Medigoru Mare) could testify the existence of a military forcethat was not of Avarian origtn (the Avars did not use spws), but still r:nder Avarian control'Both sites are located near salt mines (Ocna Sibiului and Praid). The end of the Avariandomination gave freedom to these small local chiefs, but for a short time, because the southemTransfvania entered under another domination, the Bulgarian one.

Some historians placed the moment when the Bulgarians conquered Transylvania in804, when it is supposed that the Bulgarian qan Krum (813-814) moved his armies against theeastern and southern parts of Avarias. Another opinion emphasizes that no contenrporarysource supports this idea, and that the Avars recorded as fighters in the Bulgarian army in 811where allies and not subjects. According to this viewpoint, the extension of the Bulgariandomination in Transylvania took place at once with the conquest of the territory between Tiszaand Danube (previously a no man's land), fulfilled by the Bulgarian qan Onrurtag (814-831) in827; before this offensive, the Transylvanian Avars were supposed to be under Frankishsovereigrty6. The offensive westsrn policy of Omurtag (who launched a canpaign up toSi;;trm in 8271\, the troubles attested in the Timok area between 818 and 8248, and the

n A. Madgearu, Pinteni datali in secolele VIII-X descopeifi in jumdntea de sud a Transilvaniei, tnMousaios,4,1,1994,p. 155-157; A. Madgearq Suh Trqde and ll/adare,p.276'5 A. C. S6s, Dre slawische Bafiltrerung Westungams im 9. Jahrhundert, }'dihrcfun, 1973, p. 12; R.Browning, Byantium and Butgaria. A Comparative Study across the Early Medieval Frontier, PoAotf1975, p. 68; V. Be$evliev, Die pronbulgarische Periade der bulgarischen Geschichte, Ansterdarr! 1981, p.

235-2i6:W. Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Stqpenvolk in Mittelatropa, 567-822 n. Chr., Miincherr 1988,p' 322;L Mladjov, Trans-Danubian Bulgaria: Realily and Ficfion,inBlzantine Studies, N,S, 3, 1998, p.96.6 K. lioredt, 'Zeligrad'-Blindiana. Beitrdge zur Geschiehte Siebenbfirgerx im 9.'10. Jahrhundert, n

Iden\ IJntersuchuigm zur Friihgeschichrte Siebenbilrgens, Bukares! 1958, p. 126; Y.-Gjgzelev,Butgarisch-frdnkiscie Beziehungen in der ersten Hiilfu des IX. Jhs,, tn Blzantinobulgariga,2t 19!6, p.

ZO-IS; S. Bn".r*q "La Bulgaie d'au deh de l'Ister" d la lumidre des sources ecrites midievales,ln EB,

20, 4, 1984, p. 123; L Fodo{ Die nulgaren in den ungarischen Iilndern wd,hrend d.er Ansiedlungsperiodeder llngarn,- in Mitteilungen des Bulgarischen Forschungshatintes in Osteneich, 6, 2,1984, p. 47; A.

Schwariz, Pannonien i* g. lahrhridert und die Anfinge der direden Beziehungm ztvischen dem

Ostfrdnkischm Reich und den Bulgaren, rn Graae und Differenz imfriihen Mittelalter, ed. by W. Pohl,H. Reimitz (Osteneichische Akademie der Wissenschafter\ Philosophisch-Historische Klasse,

Denkschrifteq)82;,2000, p. 100-101; B. M. Szoke, Political, Culnral and Ethnic C'onditions in the

Carpathian Basin'at the Ttme of the Magtar's Conquest, in Europe's Centre qround AD 1004'

Coitributions to History, Art and irchaeologt, ed. by A. Wieczorelg H.-M. Hinz, Stuttgart, 2000'p' 137;

C. Szalontai, Kritisch-e Banerhtngen zur- Rolle der Bulgaren im 9. Jahrhundert in der GrolSm

L/ngarischm Tiefebene und in Siebenbiirgen, tn A f,46ra Ferenc Milzeum Evtcdnyve. Studia

Archaeologica, 6, 2ffi0, P. 265.7 V, Gjuze"lev , Outgari"sZn.-frankische Beziehungen, p.25'34; W. Pohl, Die Awaren, p' 327a H. Bulin'

Aax ortgines des formatiins dtatiques des Slqves du Moyen Danubg au IX sidcle, rn L'Europe aux

IXe-XIi sidcles. Aux origines dei Eta* nationaux, Varsovie, 1968, p. 168-170;_ A. 9^ f91' Die

slawische Bevdlkerung, p tZ-tl, 18-19; V. Be5evliev, Die protobulgarkche Periode, p' 284'286; C.

B6lint, Sfidungarn i* iO. Jahrhundert, Budapes! 1991, p. 100; A. Schwarcz, Pannonien im 9'

Jahrhundert, p. 1 02- 1 04.t Th" ,o-.uil ed Tirnociani took refuge in ttre Frankish Pannonia because their land was occupied by

Bulgaria. See Annales Regni Francoram, a.818 (Fantes ad Histgliam \egni Francortt* A?r-Karolini

illitrandam, ed. by R. Ra-u, Berlin, 1960, I, 116); A. Birc6cili, "Dacia de la Dundre" a analelor francedin secolul al lX-lea. Evenimente Siprobleme,Craiova 1947,p.6-ll; V. Gjuzelev, Bulgarisch-frdnkischeBaiehungen, p. 25; H. Btiin, Ar*t'origines, p. 173; A. Decei, Romdnii din veacul at IXJea pdni in al

XIII-lea in lumina izvoarelor armeneSti, in lderrl Retalii romdno-orienlale, Bucureqti, 1978, p. 5l; W.

PoIl, Die Awaren,p,327 .

42

TMNSYLVANA AND TTIE BWGARAN EXPANSION

reestablishment of the Bulgarian-Frankish borndary on Tisza after 832e are showing that

Bulearia moved its western frontier on Tisza. The space between Tisza and Danube was left

r*ilfil. mlr-rv.rtru*O extension implies that also Transylvania was in the core of the

Bulgarian interests at least since the reigrr of omwtag. Bulgaria had the salne reason like the

Avis to mastsr this territory: the salt (andperhaps gold) resources'

The Frankish annals recorded n 824 tftui tt" people called Abodriti, neighbors of

Bulgarians, settled in Dacia near the Danube (contermini Bulgaris Daciam-Danubio

adiicentem incolunt), were attacked by Bulgariatt. Einhard has specified that this Dacia was

located on the other bank of the Danube, in front of Pannonia ("'utramque Pannoniam et

adpositam in altera Danubiae ripa Datiam)t'. H" had in mind the Banat and not Dacia

Ripensis. For the westcrn auttrors-of tlrat century (the Anonymous Geographer fromRaveirna'

or Alfred the Great), Dacia was only the North-Danubian province' On the other han4 the

Bulgarian domination was already extended in the former Dacia Ripensis. The territory

conluered by Bulgana in824was iherefore somewhere in Banatr3.

How far to the north was extended the Bulgarian territory along the Tisza River? In

severai-gd' century settlements from the Hajdu-Bihar and B6!6s Counties (norft+astem

ff*gury) was found a kind of pottery very similar with the Dridu A typer4, but it was later

observed that these sites belongto tlri saltovo-Majack culture, because the amphoroidal jugs

are missing, while ottrer types siecific for the Saltovo area were foundrs' The Dridu culture was

specific for tfre Lower Danubian area. Its sources were Roman, Slavic and Protobulgmian, but

the result was a poliethnic culture, under the influence of the Byzantine civilization' The Dridu

culture was not Romanian or Bulgarian. It was the archaeological expression of a certain level

of civilization and economic life, spread in the area where the products of the pottefy

workshops located in the lower Danubian area were able to penetate. This is the reason why

tfri, potti.y was not found south of the Balkan Morurtains (where the Byzantine influence was

mucir stronger and the economy was better developed). If these pots do not illustrate relations

with the Lower Danubian are4 they cannot be used as a proof for an extension of Bulgaria

e V. Besevliev, Die protobulgarische Periode,p' 286; A. Schwarcz, Pannonien im 9' Jahrhundert'

p.103-104.id C. S*fo"oi, Kritkche Bemerhmgen,p.268-274, has demonsftated ttrat no archaeological data can

support the Bulgarian domination in the region between Danube and Tisza.rr Annales Regni Francorum,a'824,Ioc' cit.,p' 138'12 Einhardi Yita l(aroli, c. 15,loc. cit,p. 184.t, A Artul.a discussion in,q,. N4aagearrq Gensza Si evolulia voievodatului bdndlean din secolul^al X-lea,

n Studii Si materinle de istoie midie,16,1998, p. lg4-195. The North-Danubian location of Dacia is

also supported by A. B6rc6c ild, "Dacia de la Dunire", p. 22'25; P. P. Panaitescu [A. Grecu] , Bulgaria in

nordul Dundrii in veaeuile o,t IX-X-\"a, n Studii Si cercetdri de istorie medie, l, 1, 1950, p' 229: H'

Btllltn, Am oigines, p. 169;P. Ratko3, Die grossmdhrischen slawen und die Altrnagtaren, m studiind

zvesi archeotigi,tk"ho tistavu slovenstrei naaemie, vio4 1968, p' 214, footrote 17; S' Brezean," "tr,

Butgarie d'au iela de l'Ister", p. 123; M. Eggers, Das '�Grossmdhrische Reich'' Realitiit oder Fihion?

Eine Neuinterpretation der Quetlen nr Geschichte da mittleren Donauraumes im 9 Jahrhundert,

Stuttgart 1996, P. 64-65.,; i.-fr4ot"rne"y, Die ethnischen Probleme des Gebietes lsttich der Thei/t im 9 Jh',1n Rapports du IIIe

Congrh Internitional d'ArchdologieSlave, Bratislava,l,1979,p' 539-541; B' M' Szdke' Siidost'Ungarn

im 9. Jahrhundert im Lichte ier Siedlungsforschungen, m Trudy V muhdunarodnogo kongressa

arlheologov slavlslov (Kiev, I 985), 4, Kiw, I 988, p' 199'201'it g. M- Szlike, S*dosl- Ungarn im'9.'Jahrhundert,p.202;C.Szalontai, Kritische Bemerhtngen,p'272'

43

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

north of the confluence Mureg-Tiszat6. The reglon called Crigana was most probable out of theBulgarian sphere of interests, since what mattered was the conhol over the salt taffic on theMureg valley, The relations with the Saltovo-Majack culture can be explained as anarchaeological evidsnce of the settlement of the Khazars or Kavars in this area, recorded byGesta Hungarorum. The territory escaped from the Avarian domination at the beginning of the9d'cenhyy, and evolved as a duchy about which we know that it was ruled by Menumorout inthe earlv iOb centurv'7.

6ownsteam on the Danube, Bulgaria has occupied another regton. The precise datewhen an area from Wallachia came under the Bulgarian domination is not known, but itcertainly happened before 813, when Krum has deported there thousands of prisoners takenfrom Adrianople and Macedonia. The Byzantine sources recorded that they were settled in theso-called "Bulgaria beyond the Danube"rs. The location of this krritory caused manydiscussions that cannot be detailed here. The right solution was give,n by the archaeologicalevidence: 9ft century artifacts of Byzantine urban origin (clay water pipes, bricfts, and a kind ofpottery specific for the Byzantine towns) were found especially in several points west andnorth-west of Oltenila (Chimogi, Ciscioarele, Greaca, Radovanu, Curcani, Mironegti), but alsoin other places from Wallachia. They can be asc'ribed only to these Byzantine people movednorth of the Danube, on the road to the salt mines of the present day Prahova and BuzduCountiesre. Similm objects were found in some pourts (Dragosloveni, Budegti, C^0mpineanca,Gugegti, $endrod) near the mouth of Siret River, the end of other salt roadsz0. The brickforffess of Slon (Prahova County) was built for Bulgaria by these Byzantines resettled beyondthe Danube. The fortress was located in the Prahova salt area to defend the Tabla Bufii pass (an

important way to Transylvania)2l.The North-Danubian telritories from Wallachia and southern Moldavia were conquered

for the salt resources (vital for any medieval society), but also for stategic reasons (defenceagainst the Khazars, next against the Hungarians and the Byzantine outpost installed at theDanube's mou*rs;. The Byzantine sources are showing that this North-Danubian region wasruled by its own commanders, but the control was not^very sfrong. The prisoners escaped quiteeasily in 838, because the Bulgarian forces were weal*'.

Another Bulgarian buffer area was located in the southeastern corner of Moldavia (the

so-called Bugeac). Its mission was the defence against the Khazars. Some older works consider

16 Admitted by Gh. I. Britianrl Le therne de Bulgarie et la chronologie de l'Anonyme Hongrois, tn Acta

Hisnrica. Societas Academica Dacotomania, MiiLnchen, 10, 1972, p. 109; K' Mestf':Mzy, Dieethnischen Probleme, p. 539-541; S. Brezeanrl "La Bulgarie d'au deh de l'Ister", p. 129-130; H'

Dimihov, BulgariaanitheMagtarsattheBeginningofthetffCentury,:r;rEB,22,2,l9S6,p'69.tt e, Uadgearu , Voievodatul lui M"n *orout in lumina cercetdrilor recente, tn Analele Universitdlii din

Oradea. Istorie-arheologie, 11, 2001, p. 3843.tt P. P. Panaitescu, Bulgaria fu nordul-Dundrii,p.22G227; S. Brezeanu, ula Bulgarie d'au dela de l'Ister"'p. l2l-122; D. Gh, feodor, Quetques aspects concernant la relations entre Rownains, Blzantins et

Bulgares aux IX-X siirles n.e., n in n*l Iratitunlui de Istarie si Arheologie "A. D. Xerwpol',Iaqi, 24,2,1987.o.2-3,'t p.'bn. Teodor, Quetques aspects,p. g-12; O. Damia& Corciddratiot* sur Ia citadelle m bique de

Slon-Prahova, n Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, 9, 2003,p' 485487.20 M. Com$a" Un drum "are l"go linutul Yrancei de Dundre Si uistenla unui cnuat pe valeq Putnei in

secolele IX-X, in Yrancea. Studii Si comunicdri, 5'7 , 1987 , p. 3944." O. Damiaq Considerations, p. 487 491 (with previous bibliography).22 V. Be$evliev, Die protobutgarische Periode,p. 354; S. Brezeanu, "La Bulgarie d'au dela de l'Ister",p.

128-129;I. Mladjov, Trans-Danubian Bulgatia,p. 87-90'

44

TRANSYLVANIA AND T'HE BULGARUN EXPANSION

that this was the single North-Danubian region dominated by Bulgaria and that the Byzantineprisoners were settled there23, but the archaeological discoveries are clearly showing the placewhere the prisoners were moved2a.

An extension of the Bulgarian conkol over Transylvania, a land so rich in salq was thenatural continuation of this expansionist policy. If Bulgaria mastered the Tisza-Muregconfluence, it can be supposed that the Mureg valley was a way of penetation towardTransylvania. Transylvania was out of the Frankish sphere of interests. After 832, betweenBulgaria and the Frankish Empire were established peaceful relations that lasted until the endof the Frankish domination in Pannonia. The territories of these. powers were separated after832 by a neuhal area between Tisza and Danube, called by a 10* cenflrry source Avarorum etPannoniorum solitudinu2s. The word solitudines refers to a region out of political organization,a buffer area, and not to an uninhabited area'u. The name of the Avars is only rerniniscence andit does not prove the survival of an Avarian power cent#' .

A major change in the political situation in the Middle Danubian area that hadconsequences also for Transylvania was the emergence of Moravia. The following discussionwill pay attention to this state not only because it was a new factor in the intemational relations,but also because the location of Moravia is crucial for the urderstanding of the position held byTransylvania in the Bulgarian expansionist policy.

The Siavs settled in the territories conquered by the Franls from the Avars wereorganized under the rule of several chiefs. Among therr\ the Moravians became the mostprominurt. The first known ruler of Moravia was Moimir, around 830. He occupied in 833 theneighboring duchy of Nita led by Privina. In 838, Privina found refuge in Pannonia, under theFrankish protection. His duchy included the western Pannonia (the residence was at Mosapurg- Talavhr). The next Moravian ruler, Rastislav (846-870) was put as a vassal in the place ofMoimir by the emperor Ludovic the German, but he rebelled in 855. Confronted in 863 with anew Frankish aggression, Rastislav asked the Byzantine Emperor Michael m $42-867) for aChristian mission. His county was already the field of a missionary activity exerted by theGerman bishoprics and by the pakiarchate of Aquilea. Rastislav wished a strong ally -Byzantium - against the Franla and the Bulgars, who closed an alliance against Moravia in863. The empsror has sent the Saints Constantine and Methodius, who established the Slavicchurch in Moravia. krcluded in the Christian world, Moravia emerged soon as a major threatfor the Frankish possessions in Pannonia, but also for Bulgaria, and a valuable partrer for theByzantine Empire. The expansion of this state occurred during the reign of Svatopluk (871-894). Based in Nita, he conquered the principality of Rostislav and next a large part of theFrankish Pannonian possessions. His state became thus a neighbor and enemy of Bulgaria. Theend of Moravia was the result of the Hungarian inroads. These steppe warriors were first allied

" N. Bdnescn, L'ancien etat bulgare et les pays roumains, Bucarest 1947 , p. 29-31; Idery Les frontidra del'ancien. Ent bulgare, n Memoriat Louis Petit. Mdtangw d'histoire et d'archeologie byantines, Bucares!

J.9a8, p. 6-10; A. Decei,Romfrn\ p.45-59; S. Brezearu, "La Bulgarie d'au dela de l'Ister",p.128-129.'* Without knowing this archaeological evidence, P, P. Panaitesa4 Bulgaria in nordul Dundrii, p. 228,has shown tlrc impossibility of the location of the Nortlr-Danubian Bulgaria in Bugeac (the settlers wereagricultors, and that area is not suitable for this occupation).25 Regino, Chronicon,a.889 (lulonumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores,I, 601).2u N. P6trin, Phitological Notes for the Earty History of the Hungarians and the Slavs, in ESY,72,2000, p. 37-38.2t w. Pohl, Die Awaren,p.324.

45

ALEXANDRUMepcnnnu

with Svatoplulds, but later, in 892, they were swnmoned by the German king Amuif againstMoravia, when a new war began, in cooperation with Bulgaria. At the end of the 9e century,the Moravian state was divided between the sons of Svatopluk, collapsed, and its core wasoccupied by the Hungarians. The last ruler, Svatopluk II, rei^gned between 894 and 906 over alessened state, unable to be defended against the Hungarians2e.

Until 1971, nobody doubted that Moravia, the state where the Saints Qrnl andMethodius fulfilled their mission, was located in the presentday region of the Czech Republic.A reexamination of the Westem, Slavonic and Byzantin€ sources suggested to an Americanscholar of Hungarian origin, Irnre Boba, the idea that this country was located in Serbia, nearthe Morava River, that its political and religious centet was Sirmium, and that the expansion inthe northern Moravia and Slovakia was a later achievement, after 87030. Many historians,especially Slovaks and Czechs, rejected the theory, while other researchers provided newarguments for a southem location of Moravia" but with different solutions than Boba. The mostimporant adhermt of Boba is Martin Eggers, who wrote a large book that concludes that,before its expansion toward north and wes! Moravia was located in the lower Tisza basin, andthat its capital Moravon was the same with Morisena (Cenad). Its population was composedfrom South-slavic colonists from Serbia and Bosnia settled thEre as defenders of the boundaryin the service of the Franks, who finally rebelled against their masters. Senga Toru hasproposed (before Eggers and with some differences) a location in the southern area betwesnTisza and Danube, while Charles Bowlus has argued that the defence of the PannonianFrankish possessions was directed to south-east, hence Moravia should be located there. He

developed Eggers' ideas, but he failed too in explaining the absence of any forhess in the areawhere he thinlcs it was Moravia, although he acknowledged that Moravians won in 855 becausethey used stong fortifications3t. The Slavicist Horace G. Lunt denied the usual identification of

the principality of Rostislav, but he recognized that none of the proposed relocations is

convincing32. The most recent conftibution, based on the identification of Moravon with

2t S. Nikolov, The Magnr connection or Constantine and Methodius in the steppes, Byzantine and

Modem Greek Studies , 21, !997 , p. 79-92 suggests ttrat *re Hungarians became in 861 Bpantine allias

against Bulgaria and the Frankish Errpire, after the diplomatic mission of Sts. Constantine and

Methodius in Khazaria. Moravia was included together wittr ttre Hungarians into a coalition directed

against the rival errpire and Bulgaria. The fust Hungarian raids in the Frankish Errpire (862 and 863)were most probable stimulated by the Byzantine envoys.2n H. Bulirt Atn origines, p. 173-2M; A. C. S6s, Die slqwi.sche Bevdlkerung, p. 2942 (for Privina); M.

Eggers, Das 'Grassmlihrische Reich', p. 302-305, 316; C. R. Bowlus, Franks, Moruvians and Magnrs.

fni Strussle for the Middle Danube 788-907, Philadelphia, 1995, p. 104-267; D. Cbplovid, Cmtral

Europe ii-tni fo-ld' Centuries, n Central Europe, 1997, p.9-11; P. Barford, Ihe Early Slavs: culture

and society in early mediwal Eastern Europe,Ithaca, 2001, p' 108-111.'o I. Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered. A Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources, The Hague,

1971. He developed the theory in many other studies published until his death in 1996 (also aposthumous one in 1999).3t S, Toru, La situation geogaphique de la Grande Moravie et les Hongrois conquerants, tnJahrbiicher

fir Geschkhte Osteuropas. NF, 30, 4, lg82,p. 533-540; M. Eggers, Das 'Grossmiihrische Reich'; C' k

Bowlus, Franfts, Moravians and Magtars (the affirmation about the fortifications at p' I l9). M. Eggem,

Das ,Grossmiihrische Reich', p. 168-180 considered *rat the fortifications consisted only in the earthen

walls of Roman origin, but this is untlrinkable. The sources are clearly speaking about strongholds,3t H. Lunt, Cyrit ind Methodius with Rastislav Prince of Morava: where were they ?, m Thessaloniki'

Great Moravia, 1999, p. 87 -t12,

46

TRANSYLVANIA AND TTTE BULGARUN EXPANSION

Morisena, supposes that the Moravian city Dowina was the Transylvanian Deva33. Oneconsequence of this theory on the location of Moravia is the rejection of the Bulgariandomination in the Belgrade-Morava area and in Banat3a. If its supporters would be right, ttranthe political map of 9e century Cenhal Europe would radically change ,

Short time after Boba has put forward his ideas, many historians and linguists haveshown their inconsistency. Besides the Czech and Slovak historians (disturbed by the removingof Moravia from their history), other scholars brought solid arguments against the Boba-Eggers-Bowlus theory. Because we do not have space here for an extensive commentary, wewill refer only to two of them. One of the most important specialists in Slavic philologr, HenrikBimbaum, has emphasized the linguistic proofs for the composing of the early Slavonic texts inthe Bohemian environrnent (a consequence of the mission in Moravia), and in the same timethe rmdoubted meaning of the archaeological discoveries made in the nortlrern Moravia andSlovakia for the location of the Sts. Constantine and Methodius' mission. He also pointed thatvaluable contemporary sources like the Bavarian Geographer (845) or the so+alled EnglishOrosius (written by Alfred the Great in 890) do really support the North-Danubian location ofMoravia35. Another outstanding scholar, a historian, Herwig Wolfram, has dernonsfrated thatthe knowledge of Constantine Porphyrogenitus about the Middle Danubian area was so poorthat his information on the southem location of Moravia (invoked by Boba and Eggers for theirtheories) was just a confusion between the land of Svatopluk and another region, called withthe same name, that was indeed located in the northern Serbia. He also has proved that theathibute 'Great' grven by the unperor concems its position outside the former frontiers of theRoman Empire, and not the size or its ancienbless in comparison with the other Moravia36, Theinconsistency of the arguments put forward by Eggers was also examined by Eduard Miihle,who emphasized, among other instances, that the area between Danube and Tisza has nomchaeological relics that can justiff the location of the Moravian state37.

We agree that the theory infoduced by Boba cannot be accepted and we think that anydiscussion about the location of Moravia should take into account three certain premises, whichare based not only on the written evidence, but also on archaeological arguments (usuallyignored or misunderstood by Boba and his supporters):

1- The only churches that can be ascribed to the Byzantine mission in Moravia (but alsoto the previous missions started from the Frankish Empire) were discovered in the northemMoravia and Slovakia. The archaeological researches performed since the '50-ies andespecially in the last decade are clearly showing that the churches from Uhersk6 Hradi5te-Sady,Miluldice, and Nita were built in the 9' ceirtury, and that they could accommodate a

" N. Tnrnt, In quadam civitate, quae lingua gentis illius Dowina dicitur, n Zeitschnfi fiir SlavischePhilologie, 61, 7 ,2002,p. 1-24.'* M. Eggers, Das 'Grossmdhrische Reich',p. 57-69 denied the Bulgarian domination in Banat andTransylvania wittr the clear purpose to find a space for his Great Moravia." H. Birnbaurn, Were was the Center of the Moravian State ?, in R. Maguire, A, Timberlank (ed.),Ameican Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slwis* (Bratislava, August-September 1993), Literature, Linguistbs, Poetics, Columbus, 1993, p. ll-24; lder\ Where was theMissionary Field of SS. Cyril and Methodiw ?,tnThessaloniki-Great Moruvia, L999,p.47-52.'" H. Wolfrarq The Image of Central Europe in Constantine VII Porphyrogenifiu, m Constantine VIIP-orphyrogenitus and his age, ed. by A. Markopoulos, A*tens, 1989, p. 8-11." E. Miihle, Altmiihren oder Moravia? Neue Beitrdge zur geographischen Lage einu fnhmitte-alterlichen Herrschaftsbildung im dstlichen Europa, n Zeitschrifi fir Ostmittelatropa-Forschung, 46,2,1997,p.205-223,

47

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

Byzantine mission. Moreover, the most recent finds suggest that even the grave of St.

Methodius was at Uherskd IImdiSt€. These churches were built in the area where the

excavations fulfilled in the second half of the last century unearthed several fortesses which

;;r;;e 8u' ;11rry sites. In the same area was found a large amount of th century"spurs that

testify the existence of a stong military organization and also various rich artifacts'". On the

.onnory, the area between Oanube and Tisza did not produce such finds. The concenfration of

spurs is crucial for the location of a military center.' 2-Belgrade was mastered b^y Bulgaria during the whole history of Great Moravia' This

fact was OenieO by Nicole P6trfui3E, who thinks that there is no proof that the bishop Sergtus

recorded in the letter of Pope John VItr to King Michael (878) was under Bulgarianj*iuAi"tion. In fact, the letters said that the superior of Sergios was a certain George. She did

not know that sometimes between 866 and 893, the archbishop of Bulgaria was called

G;tg# The list of the participants at the Constantinolllcgungr,l-of 879 is showing tlrat tlre

birh6 of Moravon (tvtorava on thr Danube) was too rn B,ulgana4t. On the other hand, from

Vita 3. Clementiresults that Belgrade was the residence of a Bulgarian commander Radislav,

who bore the title of Bori Tarkhirfz. Therefore, Belgrade and Morava were in Bulgaria when

the state of Svatopluk reached its largest area. Eggers thinls that ttrc Bori Tarkhan was settled

at Belgrade after 882 when Bulgaria has attacked Moravia,.gnd that the city of Belgrade

recorded in the letter of Pope lofi Vm was Berat in Albaruaa3, but he has no arguments for

these statements. on the contary, Boba admitted that Belgrade was contolled byBulganas.

Likewise x.ue can be a continuous Bulgarian occupation of Belgrade since 827 (and until the

end of the Bulgarian state). Eggers also denied that Bulgaria occupied the territory betweeir

Tisza and Danube, because this does not fit withhis ideas'3- The area between the lower Tisza valley and Danube could not be the core of

Moravia because it was not a trritory proper for sedentary populations' There,a{e no

arctraeotogical finds that can illustate the unerge,nce of a state. The identification of Morava

city wittr ilrlorisena is impossible. The river name Mureq I Moris is too different fromMorava'

ani the excavations madl at Morisena (CenaQ do not zupport the existsnce of a church since

tlt t0' ;t"ry The church of Morisena was built around 1000 for Ahtum. As for the

identification of Dowina with Deva, this idea is a big fantasy'

3s J. poulflq Die Zatgernchafi der archdologischen Grabungen und Quellen iiber Grofimiihren, in

Grossmiihrm und di.e\"fors" der tschechoslowak*chen Staatlichkeit, ed' by J. Poulilc B' Clno'povsk!,prague, 1986, p. Z+-Zl, eiS-ig;T. Stefanovidovl, Das GrolSmiihrische R9t1h zwischm Ost und llest, b

c"it ai Europe, 1997, p. tr!-t+o; L. Gahrka, The Sacral Area in tlherske Hradiflte.Sady and its

Significance io the negiining af the' Moravian State in the 9th Cmtury, n Central Europe, 1997 , p. 142-

t4"7;i, poulflq Atr Fmge ai totattsierung der "inffibilis munitio" und "urbs anti4ua Rastizi" nach den

Fuldauer Annalen, in Central Europe, 1997, 122-131.i;{iin^, Coro"thani Marahenses': Phitological Notes on the Early History of the Hungarians and the

SJavs, inESI',70, 1998, P.M,56.,o i. lorA*ou, Kirptrs ni peCatite na srednovel<ovna Bdlgariia, Sofia, 291, p. 79-8 I , _tt l. i;*,

'n"iLi*n*"n iiber einige Bisti)mer in Bulgarien wiihrend der ersten Jahnehnte nach 870'

n Symposiun Methodlanum Beitrige der Intematioialen Tagung in Regensburg (!Z'- !*- la.'^AprilD61n rum Gedenken an den I100. Tidestag des ht. Method',ed-by K. Tros! E. V6lkl, E' wedel (selecta

Slavica" 13), Neuried, 1988, p. 187-188..i?E333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333e;#lt*, ii prininlga*che Periode,p.352;I. Mladjov, Trans-Danubian Bulgaria, p' 101'

103-104.ot M. Eggers, Das 'Grossmlihrische Reich! p. 55{0'n I. Boba, Moravia's History,P.85'

48

TRANSYLVANIA AND THE BULGARIAN EXPANSION

We can conclude that there were two regions called Morava. One of thern was placed inthe present Czech Republic: the core of the state of Rostislav and Svatopluk. Another one waslocated around the Morava River in northem Serbia; the latter was in the 9'curtury a part ofBulgaria and it had no relation with the evolution of the state where Saints Constantine andMethodius acted as missionaries. The northern Moravia became for a while, under Svatopluk, aregional power, that achieved the conquest of some territories in the Pannonian Frankishmarches and in the buffer space between those and Bulgaria. The land south of the Danube (inthe present Serbia) remained under Bulgarian confol dtring all the 9ft and 10ft centuries, up tothe Byzantine conquest.

The expansion of Moravia during the reigrr of Svatopluk made this state a neighbor ofBulgaria along the Tisza valley. This fact explains why Bulgaria was attacted in the Frankish-Moravian conflicts after 863. Bulgaria was interested to preserve the confol over the riversused for salt traffic and perhaps to extend its domination north of the Mureg valley, in Criqana,where the Moravian and Bulgarian spheres of interest interfered. The name of Menumoroutmirrors some relations between his duchy and Moravia, evsn his ethnic origin was mostprobable Kherranan. The conflicting relations between Bulgaria and Moravia started in 863,when the Frankish emperor Ludovic the German asked Boris for cooperation in the war againstRostislav, but Bulgaria was not able to support the Franks because it was attacked byByzantium. The first true Bulgarian attack over Moravia occurred in 881 or 882, most probablethrough the disputed area of Crigana. The Moravians defeated the Bulgarians, and the resultwas the expansion of Svatopluk's realm in the region between Danube and Tisza*'. It wassupposed that Moravia also acquired "the left-bank along the Middle-Tisza tenitory includingthe salt route on the lower Maros river", an area called'llrbaptized Moravia" by ConstantinePorphyrogenitus, whose position is defined by the rivers mentioned in De AdministrandoImperio, chapter 4046. This would mean that the western Banat and Crigana were included inMoravia, but we carurot be sure about that. No artifacts lestiffing a Moravian influence werefound until now in these regions, although many 9* centuries settlements and funeralassemblages were researched. The single fact that can suggest the extension of Moravia inCrigana is the name of the ruler Menumorout.

An 1lm century Persian source (Gardizi) that preserved data from the last decades of the9' century gives some geographical details about the position of Moravians. We are quotinghere the last English tanslation: "Above the Nandur lBulganans] along the banks of the riverthere is a great mountain [range]. Beyond that mountain [range] there are a people belonging tothe Chrishans and they are called the Moravians [Morvat]. Between thern and the Nandur is aten days joumey. They are a numerous people. Their clothing resembles that of the Arabs,[consisting] of a hnban, shirt and waistcoat. They have agriculture and vines for they have [anabundance of] water. Their water nms over the ground for they have no ditches. It is reported

ot P. Ratko5, The Territorial Developmmt of Great Moravia (Fbtion and Reality), n Studia HistoricaSlovaca,16, 1988, p. 145-147; L. E. Havlilq Bulgaria and Morcvia between Byzantium, the Franks andRome, in Palaeobulgarica, 13, 1, 1989, p. 16; Idenr, Mdhren und die Ungarn am Ende des 9. und amAnfang des 10. Jahrhunderts, tn Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, d. by W. KaEingo, G.Marckhgott (Forschungen zur Geschichte der Stiidte und Miirkte Osteneichs, 4),Lir'tz,l99l,p.ll2.* P. RatkoS, Territorial Development, p. 147, 149. See also B. Dostiil, Das Vordringen dergrossmdhrischen materiellm Kultur in die Nachbarkinder, n Magna Moravia. Commentationes admemori.am missionis blzantinae ante XI saecula in Moraviam adventus editae,Pragtrc. 1965, p. 370; P.Ratko5, Die grossmcihrischen Slawen, p. 195-198; L. E. Havlilg Bulgaria and Moravia, p. 18; L. E.Havlilq "He megale Marabia" and "he chora Morabia", in Byantinoslavica, 54, l, 1993, p. 78.

49

Arp<,qNPNUMADC}EARU

that their number is greater ttnn lthat ofl the Byzantines' They are tryo separate [religrous]conununities and theleater part of their commerce is with the West'/7. The description was

used in order to estabiish the distance between Bulgaria and. Moravia at about 350400 lfft"

measured along the buffer space betwee,n Danube and Tiszaa8. However, it can be observed

that the relation is quite oonfusing. It is not possible ttlat the Moravians were much more

numerous than the Byzantines. ThL description of their dressing seems to be equally wrong'

unless it concems an Oriental people like the Kavars settled in Criqana. Eve'n the ten days could

be a stereotype, since the same distance is me,ntioned betweeir Pechoregs and Khazars,

between Hrmgarians and Saqlabs, and between Pechenegs and Saqlabs' The momeir! of the

description is-not certain O"ior" or after the eastern expansion of Moravia in 882). In these

circumstances, we consider that this source cannot provide certain facts about the position of

Moravia, even if it contains several details.More clear is the description made by Alffi the Great in 890 (tanslation in modern

English made by R. Ekblom): "...these Moravians Maroaral have west of them the

ftti"ingi*r, and bohermi*r, und part of the Bavarians; and south of thenl on the other side of

the Daiube, is the county of Carinthia, south to the mo'ntains called the Alps. Torvards the

same mountains lie the bormdaries of the Bavarians and the Swabians; then east of the counfiy

of carinthia, beyond the wildemess [westeirneae], is Bulgaria, and east of it is Greece; and east

of Moravia is the Vistula country, and east of iiare the bacians, who were formerly Goths"so'

The daa reflect the situation arormd g71, wh€rlthe English Wulfstan has visited Ratisbonasr'

From this conternporary description results without any doubt that Moravia was located east of

Bohemia. nowlus madl no commeirt on this passage, wtrile Boba and Eggers ti"d 1o interpret

the name Moroaraas a refere,nce to a different Slavic people, Moricanis2 (but the Moricani are

attested on the to*er nibe and they can not be identifiei with a people with such a locations3).

After this discussion about the location of Crreat Moravi4 we arrive at our main concem:

the evideirce for a Bulgarian domination in Transylvania' The main argurnat is based-on an

event oocasioned by the-Frankish-Moravian wars. In 892, the emPeror Amulf asked the BulqryJt

uar Vladimir to sdp the salt export in Moravia. This was a condition of the new alliance fieaq/'.

To be effective, t6is enrbargo iequirBa trc existe,nce of a total Bulgarian corrtol ov.er Jhe salt

resources in tlre areas close ti Moravia, otlrenvise the Gennan demand would be meaningless' Of

c,ourse, the salt was twrsported from Transylvania" which suggests that ttris regon was mastered

by Cjgaria. Some historians thought tlr,at Bulgaria was able to set this erribargo only because it

er*,fted a conhol over the mouth of Tisza --ouo its middle valeft' This orpinion ignores the

ot p.A. Martinez Martinez, Gardizib two chapters on the Turks, tn Archiwm Eurasiae Medii Aevi,z,

1982,p .161.;'ip'ilri.;!, Die grossrndhrischen Slawen,p.196197;I. Fodor, Die Butgarm, P'48; P' RatkoS, TIre

Tenitarial Developnent,p' 149'150; Cs. Blelint Sildungarn,p' 101' -.it firir *orO .o*'the buffer qpace between Danube and Tisza (Avarorum et Pannonioram

solitudines,see footrotes 25 and 26).ff;i;k#; iWi tni ci*t as Geographer, in Sndia Neophilolosica. A Joumal of Gamanic and

Romanic philologt, Up'p*fu, U, tgit-ig+Z,-p. ll7.-Alfred ncant tbat Greece lies south+ast of

Carinthi4 and Dacia south-east of Moravia (Ibiden',p' 122,142)'tt P, Ratkos, The Territoial Darcbpnen4 p. 146'"i.';;;;: M;niio', Hi"tory,p. rsi-rsg;-M. Eggers, Das 'Grossmdhrische Reich',p' 116-121'5' P. Ratkos, The Territorial Development,p.128'" Arr"dfudoo"*, a.892 (Monimenta Germaniae Historica, Scripnra,I' 408)'" N. gA''"..; i,*iiur-int'i*lg*", p.4748;Ider+ Lu frontidres,p. 1l-13; A. Decei Romdnii,p' 54;

D. Gh. Teodor,Quelques uPects,P'1 '

50

TRANSYLVANIA AND T'HE BULGARAN EXPANSION

fact that even in this case the Moravians could receive sall by the way that reached Slovakiaalong the Someg valley and by Szolnok We consider that only a Bulgarian domination over theTransylvanian salt mines could explain the clause included in the teaty o f 892s6 .

The Bulgarian domination in the salt mines area is illustated by archaeological facts.The fine pgay polished pottery discovered in some 9ft century sites concentated around AlbaIulia (AI# iuliatt, ghnaian;tt, cdlnicse, SAnbenedic6o, sebequt; indicates the existence of acultural enclave (this pottery is not specific for the rest of the Transylvanian cemeteries andsettlements, but is common in the Lower Danubian area, where it is lcnown as the Dridu Btype). A similar pottery was also found in the south-eastern corner of Transylvania, at Poianand Cernat62. In these sites were also found amphoroidal jugs, which are too specific for theDridu culture, but not also for the Saltovo-Majack culture, which is too defined by the samegrdy pottsry. This means that the Transylvanian sites are indeed related with the Dridu culhre.Several archaeologists have emphasized that the pnesence ofthe fine gray polished pottery andespecially of the amphoroidal jugs into an isolated area in Transylvania testifies the penetrationof the Dridu culture in that areau3. Contary to a quite common idea, the Dridu culture was notspread all ovsr Romania, because the B type of pottery was not found in Moldavia or in themost part of Transylvania. Only the existence of this tlpe defines this culture, because the Atype (with carved decoration) is a local form of the Donau-typus pottery*.

We consider that ttre penefration of the pottery produced in the Lower Danubian area intoa welldefined area around Alba Iulia (and in a lesser extent in the south*astem Transylvania)could testify close contacts with Bulgaria. Both areas belong to the regions wittt high denstty ofsalt mines. Two cemeteries found in the first area, at Ciurnbnrd and Oriqtie, are very significantfor the problern of the Iower Danubian influences in this centlal part of Transylvania. The

ll p. p. Panaitescu" Bulgaria in nordul Dundrii, p. 229-230 stessed this.t' R. R. Heitel, Unele consideralii privind civilizalia din bazinul carpatic in cursul celei de-a douajumdtdliasecoluluiallX-leatnluminaizvoarelorarheologice,nSCll/A,34,2,1983,p. 103-107;Ider4Die Archdologie der Ersten und Zweiten Phsse des Eindringens der Ungarn in das innerkarpatischeTraruilvanim, in Dacia, i/S, 38-39, 1994-t995, p. 407408; V. Moga, H. Ciugudean, Repertariularheologic al jude,tului Alba, }J.Jrba lulia, 1995, p.37,43; H. Ciugudearl Catsbgul acpoziliei "Anul I00Ala Alba luliq -intre istorie Si arheologie",Alba lulia, 1996, p. 4-8.tt K. Horedt, 'Zeligrad'-Blindiana,p. 112-118; I. A. Aldea, H. Ciugudean, Noi descoperirifeudal-timpuii la Blandiana (jud. Alba), in Apulum,19, 1981, p. 145-149; K. Horedt, Siebmbtirgen,p.72-78;Gh Anghel, H. Ciugudeaq Cimitirul feudal timpuriu de la Blandiana (jud. Alba), n Apulum, 24, 1987,p. 179-196; R Heitel Die Archaologie,p.40T;V. Moga, H. Ciugudean, Repertoriul,p' 60.t'R R. Heinl, IJnele consideralii, p. 104; Iderrq Die Archiiologie, p.415; V. Moga, H. Ciugudear\Repertoiul, p. 80-81.uu L B6n4 Vdll<erwanderung und Friihmiaelalter (271-895), in Kune Geschichte Siebmbiirgens,Budapesg 1990, p. lM; V. Moga, H. Ciugudeaq Repertoiul,p.173.u' V. Mog4 H. Ciugudear! Repertoriul, p. 167; N. M. Simina, Considerasii asupra mormintelormetlievale timpurii descoperite in anul 1865 la SebeS $ud. Alba), n AMed, 4,2002, p. 47'50.u' Z. Szekely, L'aspect de Ia culture matdrielle des VIIIe-Xe siecles dqns le Sud-Est de la Transylvanie, inLes questions fondamantales du peuplement du Bassin des Carpathes du VIIIe au Xe siecle (Mitteilungendes Archaeologrsches Institub der Ungarische Akademie der Wisseruchaften, Beiheft l), Budapesq1972,p.127-128; I. Fodor, Die Bulgaren, p. 50; R. R Heitel, Die Archiiologie,p.4L5.u3 M. Rusu, Notes sur la relations, p. 198; R. R Heitel, Unele consideralii, p. 103-104; I. Fodor, DreBulgaren, p. 49; P. Diaconq Extersion du premier Etat bulgare au Nord du Danube (VIIk-Xe siicles).La culture materielle, tn EB, 21, l, 1985, p. 110; K. Horedt Siebmbiirgm, p. 75-76; N' M' Simin4Consideratii.n. 52.uo P. Diuconrr" Extension,p. 108-110.

5 1

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

cemetery from Ciurnbnrd consists from32 graves W-E oriente{ disposed in lines. The inventoryincluded earings, perrdants, beads, knives, but not also pottery or weaponsut.

The argument for the Moravian origrn of the people buried at Ciumb'rud was thesimilarity between some of the earrings found in the graves and a kind of earrings said to bespecific for the Great Moravian sites in Slovakia. Based on this archaeological evidence,several researchers infeffed that the Ciurnbrud cemetery belonged to a Moravian colony settledfor the salt traffic or to a group of refugees, expelled from Moravia because their faith or as aconsequsnce of the Hwrgarian inroads66.

When the Ciumbrud cemetery was published, the knowledge about the Moravianearrings was not well developed. The Nita ffi (which is indeed a close analogy for theCiumbrud pieces) was not yet defined by B. Chropovslc! (in 1962). More recent studies have

shown ttraitlre so-called Nita q/pe earrings (fig. a) were indeed produced in the area aroundNiba, but their models were borrowed from northern Serbia. They are different than the usualadomments found in northern Moravia and Slovakia and, as has supposed TatianaStefanovidov{, they could testiff an immigration of a southem Slavic group in the Nita area,sometime in the second half of the 9ft cenhnry, after the troubles occasioned by the expansion ofMoravia under Svatopluk6i.

The analogies betwee,tr the Nita earrings and several pieces found in the northern Serbia(Vinda, Kurvingrad, Prahovo) were also remarked since long time ago, and explained as theiesult of the cuitural unity shaped by the Great Moravian state68. Othsr earrings of Niha typewere found in cerneteries from Wallachia (Ob6rgia Noui, Sultana), Moldavia (Arsura'

Riducinari), and Bulgaria (Trojan, Galice)6e. The cemetery of Sultana provided seven pieces

of this kind associateA *itfr pottery and other objects dated in the 9'and 10' cenfltries'". This

shows that the earrings discovered at Ciurnbrud are not necessary Moravian imports. They

belong to a cultural area that included Bulgaria and Great Moravia, two areas influenced by the

65 A. Dankanits, I. Ferenczi, Sdpdturile arheologice de la Ciumbrud, m MCA,6, 1959, p. 605-610'66 A, Dankanit, I. Ferenczi, iapdt rtl" arheo{ogice, p. 610-611; M. Comga, Die bulgarische Henschafi

ndrdlich der Donau wiihrend ies IX. und X. Jh. im Lichte der archiiologische Forschungen, in Dacia,

NS, 4, 1960, p.419;8. Dostal, Zur Interpretatian der grossmi)hrischen Funde in den Nachbarliindan,rnkr Congr*- international d'archiologie slave, 3, Varsovie, 1970, p. 188-189 (but he accepted a

eyzantirie origin); M. Rusu" Notes suiles relations, p.200; K. Horedt, Siebenbilrgen, p.78,,80; R' R

Heite\ Uneliconsiderafii, p. 106, 113; A. Madgearu" Pinteni dotoli,p. 158-159; R. R. Heitel, Die

Archii.ologie, p. 408; Z.-X. pnter, N. Boroffra, Neue mittelalterliche Griiber der Ciumbrud Gruppe aus

Brooslor:aSii, Fundstelle Bdhtmerberg/Dealul Pemilor X8, in Transsilvanica. Archdologische(Jntersuchungen zur iilteren Geschichte des siiddstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenl<schrirt fir Kurt Horedt,

brsg. vonN. Boroffl<A T. Soroceanu, Rahdeq 1999,p.328; N. M. Simin4 Consideralii,p,52'ut i. Strfunovidov6, Schmtrck des Nitraer Typs und seine Bqiehungetl zu Siidosteuropa im 9.

Jahrhundeft,nA WosinslE M6r Mtaeum Evk)nyve,ls, 1990, p.215-219.ut M. Cbtouid-Ljubinkovii, Der Zusammenhang des Schrnuckes des Nitra-Gebietes und Norfuerbietu im

IX. Jahrhunden, m SlovArch, 18, l, 1970,p. I l3-l15. For Prahovo: M. Jankovii, Some informatiow on

prodrction of non-ferrous metals in the iegian of Kjrc in the DanublYalley from 9th to I lth C, n-Zbomik Narodnog Muzeia, Arheologija,Beognd, 11, l, 1983, p, 103, T. IV5'

6e B, Dosgil, Oi Vontrtngen, p. 405; V. Grigorov, ObeStite v starobdlgarslwta ktltury na sever ot

Dunav (Les boucles d'oreifes aals ta culure protobulgaire au nord du Danube), n Arheologiia, 40, 34,

1999, p. 24-36 (a tipology of the earrings), especially 34 for the ea:rings as testimonies of the Bulgarian

domination in the southem Transylvania)'to B. Mirea, La necropole birityelte de'Suhana. Rewltats et problimes, in Dacia, N5,32, 1988, Pl. l/5/3,

217 I 3, 3 nA, 3 I 28, l0 18217, | 5 I 127 | 3, I 8i I 5 8/5.

52

TMNSYLVANA AND TTIE BULGARIAN EXPANSION

same Blzantine civilization. By this reason some researchers are thinking that the cemetery ofCiumbrud is Bulgarian, not MoravianTr.

More recent researches uneartlred a similar cemet€ry at Ord$ie-Dealul Pemilor, point X8.Ten inhurnation graves with ttre orientation W-E were found in the excavations fulfilled in 1991-1994. The bones were so bad preserved tlrat ttre antlropological analysis is not possible. Only theurventrory can suggest the gender and the age of some skeletons. Seven gaves have inventory,consisting from b'ronze tenple-rings (Kopfschmucbiryge), glass beads, silver earrings, lead andbronze pendants, bronzanecklaces, and an iron knife72. The chronology and the typolory of thetemple-rings show that the cernetery was used in the 9t century, by a population that had relationswith the spreadurg area of the Kottlach culhre, i.e. with the West Slavic milieu. The inventorypresents many similarities with that of the Ciunrbrud cemetery, and by this reason the excavatorshave called their discovery a 'hecropolis of Ciumbrud t5pe". The most interesting pieces are fivesilver earrings, found together in the grave number 7 (the richest in the cernetery). They havehanrnnered crescent pendants with small ovoid sub-pendants (fig. 5). This type of earrings is ofByzantine fashion (evolved from the earrings with star-shaped pendant), but it was found in manysites in the arsa of Great Moravia. Similar eanings are also lnown at Ciumbnr4 but also atSultanaT3. As well as those from Ord.ttie, they were hammered and not cas! like the crescent-shaped earrings typical for the Kdttlach cultureTa.

Similar crescent-type earrings were also found in the cemetery Alba Iulia II75, a sitedefined by a significant presence of the fin" gr"y polished pottery. This means that theseearrings were associated in the same cultural milieu with the pottery of Lower Danubianfashion, not present in Moravia or Slovakia. The coexistsnce of the Dridu B pottery withcrescent-type earrings in the 9fr century sit€ of Alba Iulia means that the cornrnunity br.ried inthe cemetery Alba Iulia II used both artifacts.

To the same culhral group belongs the cemetery of Ghirbom-Gruiul M6ciuliilor, datedin the th century on the basis of the gold earrings that can be included in the Nitra type'o.

Another artifact specific for the Lower Danubian area but also for Moravia is the leadinterlaced circular pendant. These pendants were found at Ciumbrud and Or6gtie. Another onecomes from Berghin (the discovery place is near the cernetery of GhirbomGruiulM6ciuliilor)7t. This kind of pendants was used between the 9ft and the 116 cenhrry, mostly inthe north<astern Bulgaria. The new discovered piece from Berghin seems to be later than thosefrom Ciwnb,rud and Or6gtie, because its omamentation indicates a relationship with the pieces

tt I. Fodor, Die Bulgarm, p. 49-50; I. B6n4 Vdlkerwanderang,104.'' Z.-K. Pinter, N. Boroflca, Neue mittelalterliche Grdber,p.313-327.

]' n. Uir,ea Za ruhropole,Pl.2ll4l2,3l28a:Y . Grigorov, Obqtite v starobdlgarskan ktltura,p.3l-32.'* Z.-K. Pinter, N. Boroflr4 Neue mittelalterliche Griiber,p.325.t5 Gh. Anghel, H. Ciugudea4 Cimitirul, p. 195; R. R. Heitel, Die Archdologie,p.40S; H. Ciugudeaq

4nul 1000,p.8.'o L A. Aldea, E. Stoicovici, M. Bldja4 Cercetdri arheologice in cimitirul prefeudal de la Ghirbom(comuna Berghin, jud. Alba), m Apulum, 18, 1980, p. 154, 173; E. Stoicovici, M. BHjan, Obiets deparure en metal prdcianx ddcouverts d Ghirbom (dep. de Alba), in Acta Musei Porolissensis, 14-15,1990-1991, p. 231-247; V. Moga" H. Ciugudea4 Repertoriul, p. 100. The real chronology wasestablished by R. R Heltsl, Die Archiiologie, p. 410 and Gh. Anghel, Necropola birituald prefandald deI a Ghirb om (Gruiul F ierului), n Apulum, 34, 1997, p. 27 A.tt A. Dankanits, I. Ferenczi, Sapdnrile arheologice, p. 608, fig. 3/8; Z.-K. Pnter, N. Borofl<a, Neuemittelalterliche Grdber, p. 321, Abb. 717; S. Nemeti, tJn pandantiv bizantin de la Berghin, iud. Alba, inEphNap, 12, 2004 ( forthcoming).

53

ALEXANDRUMENCNENU

dated in the last decades of the 10m century and in the 1lfr cenhtry78. Even so, the pendant fromBerghin suggests that the contacts between the mea around Alba Iulia and the Lower Danubianreglon continued after the restoration of the Byzantine administation.

The ealrings and potdants found arormd Alba Iulia testiff the inclusion of this area intoa space of cultural exchanges that encompassed the Lower Danubian region and Moravia. Thecirculation of these prestige goods in all these areas was a consequence of the trade that linkedthem, namely the salt trade. The above-mentioned salt embargo implies a significant amount ofthis tade and, therefore, an outcome that meant exchange of other goods.

Because the geopolitical situation examined in the first part of our study suggests aBulgarian domination in Transylvania or in some points of this reglon, it can be inferred thatthe sites that provided artifacts with Bulgarian analogies can be ascribed to a populationoriginated from Bulgaria or with shong relations with this kingdomTe. However, it is highprobable that Bulgaria has exerted its domination with the aid of the local population subjectedto the tibute, Romanian and Slavic. This indirect way of contol seerms to be a general featurefor all the North-Danubian regions dominated by Bulgaria. It consisted in the delegation of thepower to subjected or allied populations settled in the peripheral areas. Some researchersconsider that the North-Danubian territories were ruled by a kind of governors that orjoyedautonomy (for instance, Gla4 recorded by Gesta Hungarorum in Banat)8o. The same modelcould be tue for Transylvania.

The pair of 9e century Frankish spws from TirtEria (Alba Counry) is not Moravianinportssr; they belong to a group of pieces came in Tranqylvania from the Frankish eastsrnpossessions, as like ur th" fOttf*n type eanings from Sdlacea andZald#z. The same gravediscovered at Tdrtiria included weapons of Frankish origrn: a sword, a spearhead and a javelin

head83. The grave was located few kilometers from the settlement of Blandiana. O*rer 9'cenffryspurs were fourd in the settleinsnt of Iemut (Mureq County), together with horse gear and

78 S. Nemeti, IJn pandantiv bizantin, with previous bibliography. A tlpological study on these pieces wasprepared by Stela Doncheva, The Lead Medallions - Amulets or Elernents of Decoration (About SomeNew Finds from Bulgaria)r paper presented at the intemational conference "Cultur[

9i civilizafie laDurirea de Jos", Cil5ragi, 4' October, 20M.7e K. Horedt, Voiqodanl de la Bdlgrad- Alba lulia, m SCIV, 5, 34, 1954, p. 496; M. Comtq Diebulgarische Herrschafi, p. 397, 41.1412; [. Fodor, Die Bulgaren, p. 49-50; K. Horedq Siebmbiirgen, p.

75:76,94i Gh. Anghel, H. Ciugudean, Cimitirul, p. 195; L B6n4 Ydllerwanderung, p. 103-105; A.Madgearq Romdnii in opera Notarului Anonim,Cluj-Napoca, 2001, p. l9Ll94.80 R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria,p.87; P. Koledarov, Administrative Structure and Frontier setup of the First Bulgarian Tsardom, EB, 14, 3,1978, p. 135, 137;Y. Besevliev, Die protobulgarischePeriode,p. 354; Dimihov 1986, 69; I. Mladjov, Trans-Danubian Bulgaria,p. 85: "ttris contol was oftenvery nominal and in fiuny cases delegated to allied but intemally autonomous non-Bulgarian ethno-political units",0t Ar hur considered K. Horedt, Siebenbiirgen, p. 80, 103, 185.82 The Kdttlach earrings are not Moravian objects, as considers I. M. Jiplic in his book review at A.Madgearu, Romdnii (Acn Trrae Sqtemcastrensis, l, 2002, p. 217-218). The Kittlach culttue wasrpt"ud in Ausfiia, SlovEnia and Croatia, duing ttre Frankish domination; the specific objece formd incerneteries from Crigana and Transylvania testifr the presence of people came from the Frankishpossessions, not from Moravia.l' N. M. Simin4 Descoperiri apa(indnd feudalismului timpuriu la Tdrtdria (iud, Alba), n Buletinulcercurilor Stiinlifice studenleSti. Arheologie-ktorie, Alba Iulia, 2, 1996, p' 155; Z.-K. _\t2tet ImMiereschtai enidectae Bewafiungssnicke ind Teile militiirischen Ausriistung karolingischer Herhtnfi,inAMed, 2, 1998, p. 145-153,

54

TRANSYLVANA AND TTIE BULGANAN EXPANSION

weapons and, very significanf with pottery made on the fast wheelsa. It can be observed thatIemut is not too far from another salt area (the mines of Praid and Ocland). This associationbetween salt mines and spurs is significant for the relation between salt tade and warfaress.

We have already seen that local military elite appeared rn Transylvania during theAvarian domination. These sedentary warriors intoduced the use of the spurs. After theBulganan expansion, they turned to the new mastetrs, preserving their positions and militaryskills, The Frankish spurs were imported in this area as a consequence of the good Frankish-Bulgarian relations. The grave can be ascribed to one of those warriors who defended the saltroad on the Mureg valley.

The center of the Bulgarian Transylvanian enclave was the former Roman city ofApulum (Alba Iulia), where several groups of graves dated in the 9fr and 10ft centuries and asettlement from the same period were researched. The sites of Blandiana, Sebeg, Ordqtie andCiumbnrd are all around Alba Iulia86. The old Romanian name of the city was Bdlgrad.It wassupposed that this name of Slavic origin was given because the ancient ruins made of whitestone still existed in the early Middle Ages87. Of course, this can be fue, but we should observethat other such Roman ruins were still visible (for instance, at Sarmizegetusa) and they werenot called in the same way. Nobody thought until now that a relation can be establishedbetween this name and the other Belgrade, the former Singtdunum. As we have alreadymentioned, Belgrade was in the 9m century a Bulgarian border town and the residence of abishop. If we admit that the Transfvanian Bigrad belonged too to Bulgaria, then we cansuppose that this pair of names is not a coincidsnce. The color white can refer to the position ofthe cities, becausi for the Tiirkic populations, the West was symbolized by this color88. TheBulgarians continued to preserve Tiirkic faditions and institutions even after theChristianization. Our opinion is that both fortresses received their name because they wereplaced in the westem comers of the Bulgarian state. The Transylvanian Bilgrad was theresidence of the ruler who exerted the power on behalf of Bulgaria, It cannot be excluded thatthis power center emerged just after the breakdown of the Avarian qaganate, as a polityorganized by the local Romanian and Slavic population, subjected by Bulgaria after some time,most probable in the 830s8e.

The survival of the Roman precinct of Apulum was the reason why this place becamethe center of the Bulgarian enclave. The most interesting discov.ery from Alba Iulia is the roundchapel or baptisteriurn (rotonda), ideirtified under the 12' century church ttnough theexcavations rnade by Radu R. Heitel. This monument shows the existence of a power center,whatever was the ethnic origin of its rulereo. It was ascribed first to the Byzantine missionfulfilled in 948 by the bishop Hierotheos among the Hungarians, but later researches haveshown that the area where Hierotheos exerted his activity was located elsewhere, which meansthat the monument from Alba Iulia could have another origxl. Taking into account the Frankishmodel of this kind of chapel and the archaeological context, the burldrng of the monument

to I. Stanciq Despre ceramica medievald,p. 137,155, Pl. W4-7.t5 A. Madgearu, Salt Trade and llarfare,p. 279; N. M. Simlna, Consideralii,p.53.8uLFodor, DieBulgarm,p.5l-52;K.Horedt, Siebenbiirgen,p.T5;N.M.Simina,Consideralii,p.54.tt Gh, Anghel , Alba lulia, Bucuregti, 1987 ,p. 21.tt O. Pritsalq Orientierung und Farbsymbolik, n Saeculum, 5, 1954, p. 377 (Iderr! Studies in MedinalEurasian History,Variorur& Inndoq 198 1, I).8e K. Horedg Voiandanl de la Bdlgrad,p.49l-492,504.t Cl" lngnet, Alba lulia,p. 21 sustained that Alba Iulia was the center of a Romanian pricipalrty.

55

ALEXANDRUMADGEARU

could also be placed in the 9ft century, dwing the Bulgarian dominationer.The Mureq River was the northem timit of the teritory dominakd by Bulgaria in

fransylvaniae2. The most advanced point was perhaps Ocna Mureg, the salt mine located near thecemetery of Ciumbrud. Within the mea between Mureg^and the Southe,ln Carpathians there is asignificant ccmcentation of Old Bulgarian place-namese3. A small creek called Preslav on thet oitoty of Ohaba villageea is located just few kilometers east of the csmeteries of Berghin andGhirbom. This urusual place-name that recalls the name of the Bulgarian capital was thsreforepreserved in the area that provided artifacts with close Bulgarian analogies. The oernetery and thesettlernent from Blandiana are located in a place called Jeligrad or Jiligrad, whose nanre colnesfrom the Old Slavic word celi "eantire". The same place-name is attested two more times inTransylvania, near the medieval forfress Ceatea de Balti and at Debacant. We do not know whythe inhabitants gave this name to the hill of Blandian4 since no fortess exist there. However, theexistence of a name derived from the Slavic word that means "forfess" suggests that thesettlernent was considered quite important in the pei'iod when the name was givan.

The northem half of Transylvania remained free, although it had too irrportant saltresources (for instance. the mines of Sic and Cojocna). The analysis of the data recorded byGesta Hungarorum in comparison with other sources and with the archaeological finds allowedus to prove that a Romanian and Slavic polity emerged in the reglon of the Somequl Mic valley,around Cluj, sometimes in the th century. Its birth and development were too enabled by thesalt traffice6. This free territory was perhaps inhabited by what Alfred the Great has called"Dacians". Of course, they were not tlre ancient Dacians. The name was geographic, and it wasgrven by the author according to its source, Orosius. The existence of a distinct "Dacian" polity

iesults irom the explanation-provided by Alfred: "the Dacians, who were formerly Goths"e7.For the early medieval authors, such ethnic labels reflect the mastership over a territory and notthe population itself. If the Goths were the masters in the time of Orosius, things changed in the

age of Alfred. The new masters are called with the old name of the province.The building of several fortifications in this northem part of Transylvania was

considered a result of a Moravian influencee8. The fortresses of DlbAca, Ortelec and $irioaradisplay indeed similarities with the Burgwatl-type Moravian fortesses, but their chronology is

noi yet established. In fact, there is no clear evidence for their building before the downfall of

Svafupluk's stateee. It is also frue that such analogies do not necessary mean a Moravianpr"r"n.", since similar contemporary forffesses are known in areas certainly not dominated by

Moravia (for instance, in Bukovina).

" A. Madgearv, Romdnii, p. 194, with previous bibliography. tn his last worh R' R. Heitel, Die

Archiiolosie.p.4l7,427 chose the later date, in ttre middle of the l0'' cenfilry.n2 The sir*'opinion at L, Makftai, Politische Geschichte Siebenbiirgens im 10. Jahrhundert, m

Forschungen i)ber Siebmbiirgen und seine Nachbarn. Fes*chrifi fir Attila T. Szab6 und Zsigmond Jalm,

ed. byIC Bend4I, Miinchen, 1987,p.36,4445.e3 E.

"Pehovic i. baco-slava, rn Dacorornania, 10, 2, 1943,269; I. Fodor, Die Bulgaren, P. 50; V' Frdlila"

Lexicologie Si toponimie romdneascd,Timigoara, 1987, p. 113.to V. Fra6H, op. cit.,p. I13.nt lbidem.* A. Madgeanr, Romdnii,p. 159-205; Idern, Sa/t Trade and Warfare,p. 280'tt p. Ruttio5, bfu SroniAtrischm Slawm, p. 196 sustained that "das Gebiet am oberlauf der TheiIJ

bildete eine nicht niiher bekannte, aber etwa unabhiingige provinz - Dazien".nt Heitel, unele consideralii,p.gS;R, R. Heitel, Die Archiiologie,p.4l6,footrote 85.'A. Madgearq Romdnii,p. 159-181.

56

TRANSYLVANIA AND ME BWGARAN EXPANSION

The end of the Bulgarian domination in Transylvania was a consequence of theHunganan land-taking of Pannonia, put it did not happen very soon, The first attacks of theHrmgarians in the last years of the 9^ cantury were directed against Moravra and next againstthe Frankish possessions in Pannonia. Another target was the westem part of Bulgaria (mostprobable the area around Belgrade). The source that remembsrs these inroads said that theHungarians ravaged Carantanorum, Marahensium ac Vulgarumfinastt. I. Fodor has supposedthat Simeon closed an alliance with the Pechenegs in order to defend Transylvania againstHungariansro', but there is no clear proof for this assumption. In the next years after theoccupation of Pannonia, the Hungarians directed their invasions only to the west, until theysuffered a first defeat at Merseburg in 933. In the following year occulred the first inroadagainst Bulgaria and Byzantium. The invaders crossed by the duchy of Banat led by Glad, apolrty sptit from Bulgaria few years before, in the aftermattr of Symeon's defeat and deathro2.

The Hungarian aggression in Banat sigmfied the end of the Bulgarian hegemony northof the Danube. The Hungarians were already the masters of the area between Danube andTisza. The Hungarians entered in Translvania by north-west, but they succeeded to conqueralso the area around Alba Iulia. The excavations made at Alba Iulia attest the burning of thesettlement developed in the th century. The destuction level was followed by another onedefined by Hungarian relics. Bilgrad was conquered by a Hungarian group of warriors, whoestablished a new power center, ruled by the bearer of the title of glas. We-consider that thishappened soon after 934, whur the Hungarians began the eastern campaigns'"'.

If the Bulgarian territories from Wallachia survived most probable until 971, those fromBanat and Transfvania were lost as a consequence of the Hungarian inroads started in 934.There is no evidence for the existence of local rulers subordinated to Bulgaria after Gladroa.Both regions changed subjection from south to west. It is fue that the Bulgarians were still theeastem neighbors of Hungarians across the Danube in a passage from De AdministrandoImperio, ch. 40, written around 950, but the date of the source used by ConstantinePorphyroguritus is not sure. For instance, it can be placed 1n927, when a monk Gab'riel visitedthe Hungariffislo5, and when Bulgaria was indeed extended east of the Danube, in Banat andTransylvania.

The recent idea expressed by a young Bulgarian scholar from USA that the Hungarianchief established at Bdlgrad accepted the Bulgarian sovereignty has no proofsl6. He fied toextend as much as possible in space and time the Bulgarian domination north of the Danube,sometimes wittr valid arguments, but sometimes with exaggerationsrot. More likely seems to bethe opinion of F. Makh who supposed that the local Bulgarian ruler from B[lgrad kept the

f ff negino, Chronicon, a.889 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptora,I, 601).'"' I. Fodor, Die Bulgarm,p.5l.tot A. Madgearu, Geneza Si evotuyia voievodatului bdndtean,p.197-199.to' L Fodor, Die Bulgaren,p.52;R. R Heitel Die Archiiologie,p.407408;H. Ciugudeaa Anul 1000,p.8-11;A. Madgearu, Romdnii,p.142-145,153-157; N. M. Simina, Consideralii. p. 55'56.ru Except ttre period of the short revival of tlre Bulgarian state under Samuel, when the duke Achtumwas his vassal. See A. Madgearg Genua qi evolu,tia voievodatului bdndlean,p' 205'207.tot L. E. Havlilg "He megale Morabia" and "he chora Morqbia", in Byzantinoslavica,54, t,1991,p . 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 .lou L Mladiou , Trans-Danubian Bulgaria,p. 124.tot He ignores (I. Mladjov, Trars-Danubian Bulgaria, p. 106, foobrote 137) that the document of 1231that remembered a terra Bulgarorum in the southem Traluylvama is a 19' cennrry forgery (N. Binescu,L'ancien dtat bulgare,p. 49-50).

57

ALEXANDRUMEOCNERU

power under Hungarian confrol (he located gt Alba Iulia the residence of 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 subjected by Stephen Ilon. In any case, even if this Kean

was indeed a duke somewhere in Transylvaniarto, this does not mean that his territory was still

under Bulgarian domination.

BIBLIOGRAP}IY:

Aldea" L A., H. Ciugudea4 Noi descoperii fatdal-timpurii Ia Blandiana (iud. Alba), in Apulum,19,1981,p.145-149.

Aldea, L A., E. Stoicovici, M. Bl6jan, Cercetdri arheologice in cimitirul prefailal de la Ghirbom(comuna B erghin, jud. Alba), ia Aptlum, I 8, 1 980, p.l 5 | - 177'

Anghel, Gh., Alba.Ialla, Bucuregti, 1987.Anghel, Gh., Necropota birituald prefeudald de la Ghirbom (Gruiul Fierului), rn Apulum,34, 1997, p.

255-27r.Anghel, Gh., H. Ciugudean, Cimitirul fadal timpuiu de la Blandiana (jud. Alba), Apuhm5 24,1987,

179-t96.Bflint, C., Siidungarn im 10. Jahrhundert,Budapest, 1991,Barfor{ P ., The Early Slavs: calture and society in early medieval Eqstern Europe, lthaca, 200 I ..Bdnescu, N, L'ancien dtat bulgare et les pays roumains,Bucarest, 1947.Bdnescu, N., tar frontidres de l'ancien Ent bulgare, rn Mdmorial Louis Petit. Mdlanges d'histoire et

d'archdologie byzantines,Bucarest 1948, p, 4-14.Bdrc6cil[, A, "Dacia de la Dundre" a analelor france din secolul al IXJea. Evenimente Si probleme,

Cratovan 1947.Belevliev, Y ., Die protobulgarische Peiode der bulgarischen Geschichte, Amsterdarq 198 I .Bimbaurq H., ll/here was the Center of the Moravian State ?, in R Maguire, A. Timberlank (ed'),

American Contributions to the Eleventh Internstional Congress of Slavists @ratislava, August'Septenber 1993). Literature, Linguistics, Poetics,Colwnbus, 1993'p.ll'24'

Bimbaunl H., llhere was the Missionary Field of SS. Clril and Methodius ?, tn Thessaloniki'GreatMoravia,1999,p.47-52

Boba, L, Moravia's History Reconsidered. A Reinterpretationof Medieval Sources, The Hague' l97l'B6na, I., V1lkerwanderung und Friihmittelaher (271-895), m Kune Geschichte Siebenbilrgens,

Budapest, 1990, p, 62-106.Bowlus, C. R., Franks, Moravians and Magnrs. The Struggle for the Middle Danube 788-907,

Philadelphia, 1995.Br[tianu, GIL L, Le thdme de Bulgarie et la chronologie de l'Anonyme Hongrois, n Acta Hisbrica.

Societas Academica Dacoromanla, Miincheq lO, 1972,p' 105-1 12.Brezeanq 5., uk Bulgarie d'au dela de l'Ister" d la lumidre des sources dcrites mddiivales,BB,20, 4,

1984, p, 121-135.Browning, R., Byzantium and Bulgaria. A Comparative Study across the Early Medieval Frontier,

LondorL 1975.Bulin5 H., Aw oigines des formati.ons dtatiques des Slaves du Moyen Danube au IX sidcle, m L'Europe

aux IXe-XIe sidcles. Aux origines des Etats nationaux,Varsovie, 1968, p. '49.204'Caplovid, D.,Cantral Europein the *o-ldn Centuies,mCentral Europe,1997,p.7-14.

to8 F. Irdaklr, Relations hungaro-bulgares au temps de prtnce Gdza et du roi Etienne ler, in Hungaro-Bulgarica, V. Szegedi Botgarisztilw, S*gu4 1994, p. 29. Kean was located in the south'westernTransylvani4 but not at Alba hrli4 by K. Hored! Voievodatul de Ia Bd.lgrad, p. 505-506.'oe G. Kristo, Lu Keqn dans le bassin carpatique, m Hungaro-Bulgarica, V, Szegedi Bolgarisztilra,Szeged, ll-24, 1994,p. I l-18.rr0 Other historians identified him with Sannrel.

5 8

TMNSYLVANIA AND THE BWGARAN EXPANSION

Central Europe tn *-ldh Centuies, International Scimtifi.c Conference, Bratislava October 2-4, 1995,Bratislava, 1997 (Central Europe).

Chropovsk!, 8., Das Grofhmiihrische Reich, n lklt der Slawen. Geschichte, Gesellschafi, Kultur, ed. byJ. Herrrnanru Miinchen, 1986, p. 161-182.

Ciugudean, H, Canlogul apozgui "Anul 1000 la Alba lulia -intre istoie Si arheologie",Alba lulia, 1996.Comga, M., Die bulgarische Hercschafi ndrdlich der Donau wdhrend des IX. und X. Jh. im Lichte der

archiiologische Forschungen, in Dacia, NS, 4, 1960, p . 395422.Comga, M, Un drurn care lega linutul Yrancei de Dundre Si existen{a unui cnezat pe valea Putnei in

secolele IX-X, in Yrancea. Sndii Si comunicdri, 5-7 , 1987 ,p. 3944.Corovii-Ljubinkovii, M., Der Zusammmhang des Schmuckes des Nitra-Gebietes und Nordserbiens im

IX. Jahrhundert, n SlovArch, I 8, 1, 1970, p. 1 l3-l I 7.Damiar\ a, Considirations sur la citadelle m brtque de Slon-Prahova, in Sndia Antiqua a

Archaenlo gica, 9, 2003, p. 483 496.Dankanits, A., Ferenczi 1., Sdpdturile arheologice de la Ciumbrud, in MCA, 6, 1959, p. 605-615.Decei, A., Romdnii din veacul al E-lea pdnd in al KII-lea ?n lumina izvoarelor armeneqti, in Idern,

Relalii romdno-orimtale, Bucuregti, 1978, p. 15-117.Diacornr, P'., Extercion du premier Etat bulgare au Nord du Danube (ItIIIe-Xe sidcles). La calture

materielle, m EB, 21, 1, 1985, p. 107-1 13.Dimitov, H., Bulgaria and the Magtars at the Beginning ofthe If Century,mEB,22,2,1986,p.61-77.Dost6l, 8., Das Vordringm der grossmdhrischen materiellen Kultur in die Nachbarldnder, in Magna

Moravia. Commentationes ad memoiam missionis byzantinae ante XI saecula in Moraviamadvenhu editae, Pragae, 1965,p. 361 4 I 6.

Dost6l, 8., Zur Interpretation der grossmdhrischen Funde in den Nachbarliindern, in ler Congresintemational d'archeologie slave,3, Varsovie, 1970, p. 184-191.

Eggers, M., Dcs 'Grossmfrhrische Reich'. Realitdt oder Fihion ? Eine Neuinterpretation der Quellen zurGeschichte des mittleren Donauraumes im 9 Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, 1995.

Ekblorq R., Alfred the Great as Geographer, tn Studia Neophilologica. A Journal of Gerrnanic andRomanic Philologt, Uppsala, 14, 194l-1942, p. 115-lM.

Fodor, L, Die Bulgaren in den ungarkchen Liinderu wdhrend der Ansiedhmgsperiade der Ungam, inMitteilungen des Bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in Osterreich,6,2, 1984,p. 47-54.

Frefh, Y., Lacicologie Si toponimie romdneascd, Timigoara, 1987.GaluIk4 L, The Sacral Area in Uherslrc Hradiite-Sady and its Significance to the Beginntng of the

Moravian State in the 9th Century , rn Central Europe , 1997 , p . 142-L48 .Gjuzelev, V., Bulgarisch-friinkische Baiehungen in der ersten Halfre des IX. Jfu., in

Byantinobulgarica, 2, 1966, p. l5-39.Grigorov, Y., ObeStite v starobdlgarskata lwlnra na sever at Dunav (Les boucles d'oreilles dans la

culture protobulgaire au nord du Danube),nArheologiia,40,34, 1999,p.21-42.Havlilr, L.8., Bulgaria and Moravia between Byzantium, the Franl<s and Rome, n Palaeobulgarica, 13,

l, 1989, p. 5-20.Havlik, L. E., Mdhren und die Ungarn am Ende des 9. und arn AnJbng da 10. Jahrhunder*, in Baiern,

Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, ed. by W. Katzinger, G. Marcl'{rgott (Fonchungen zwGeschichte der Stiidte und Miirkte Osterreichs, 4), Lirr., 199 1, p. I 05- 120.

Havlih L.E., "He megale Morabia" and "he chorq Morabia",rnByantinoslavica,54, l, 1993, p.75'82.Heitel, R. R, Unele considerasii privind civilhalia din bazinul caryatic in cursul celei de-a douajumdtdsi

a secolului al lX-leain lumina izvoarelor arheologice,inSCIVA,34,2, 1983,p. 93-l15.Heitel, R. R., Die Archdologie der Erctm und Zweiten Phase des Eindringers der Ungarn in das

innerlurpatische Transilvanien, in Daci.a, NS, 38-39, 1994-1995, p. 389439.Hored! K.,Voievodatul dela Bdlgrad-Alba lulia,mSCIY,5,34,1954,p.487'512.Horedt, K, 'kligrad"-Blindiana. Beitrdge zur Geschichte Siebenbilrgens im 9.-10. Jahrhundeft, rn

lder\ Untersuchungm zur Frilhgeschichte Siebenbilrgew, Bukarest, 1958, p. ll2'137 'Horedt, K, Siebenbiirgen im Frilhmittelalter,Bon+ 1986.Jankovi6, M' Some informations on pro&tction of non-fenous metals in the Region of Kliut in the

Danube Valley from gth to I lth C, m Zbomik Narodnog Muzeja, Arheologija, Beograd 11, 1,1983, p. 99-l 18.

59

AT"SXANDRUMADGEARU

Jordanov, L, Korpus na peCatitena srednovekowa Bdlgariia, Sofia, 2001.Koledarov, p., Admtnistrative Stntcture and Frontier set up of the First Bulgarian Tsardom, tn EB, 14,3,

1978,p.132-140.Krist6, G., Les Kean dans Ie bassin carpatique, in Hungaro-Bulgarica, V. Szegedi Bolgarisztilw, Szeged

1994,p.11,-24.Knzev, A., Bemerlwngen iiber einige Bistilmer in Bulgarien wdhrend der ersten Jahnehnte nach 870,n'

Symposium Mahodnnum. beitrdge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (17. $ la.,ApriliCA, ^* Gedentren an den. 110b. Todestag des hl, Method, ed.by K. Tros! E. V6lkl, E. Wedel(Selecta Slavica, l3), Neuried, 1988, p. 187'192.

LunqH.,ClrilandMethodiuswithRastislaiPinceofMorava:wherewerethqt?,nThessaloniki-GreatMoravia, 1999, p. 87 -l 12.

Madgear,L A., Pinteni datali tn secolete YIII-IX descoperili in iumdtatea de sud a Transilvaniei, in

Mousaios, 4, l, 1994,P. 153-163.Madgearrl A., Genaa qt evolupa voievodaului bd.ndlean din secolul al X-Iea, m Sndii gi materiale de

istorie medie,16, 1998, P. l9l'207.Madgearu, A., Romdnii in opera Notarului Anonl.z, Cluj-Napoca, 2001.Madleanl,L.,SahTrade a;dWarfarein Early Mediqal Transylvanin,inEphNap,l1,2001, p. 271''283.

fvfadlearu, A., Voievodatul lui Menumorort in lumina cercetdilor recente, in Analele UniversitdPii din

Oradeo. Istorie-arheologie, 1 l, 200 1, p. 38-5 1.Maldq F., Relations h*rgaroJrigares * i" pt de prince G&a et du roi Etienne ler, in Hungaro-

Bulgarica, Y. Szegedi Bolgarisztilca,Szeged L994, p. 25-33.Makkai, 1., poltttt"hi Go"ii"ht" Siebenbtirgens im 1A. Jahrhundert, in Fonchungen fiber

Siebenbiirgen und seine Nachbarn. Festchrirt fir Attila T. Szab6 und Zsigmond Jako, ed' by K.

Benda, I, Miinchen, 1987, P. 33-50.Martinez, A.P.,'GardizibnwchaptersontheTurla,nArchiwmEurasiaeMediiAai,Z,l99,p'lW'217.Mestertr.izy, ll., Di" ethnischen Problene des Gebiaes dstlich der TheilS im 9 Jh., m Rapports du IIIe

Coigris Intemational d'Archialogie,s/ave, Bratislava" l, 1979, p' 539-54 1'

Mitea, B.,ia ndcropole biituelte de Sultana. Resul;lcl:r,s et problimes,inDacia, NS, 32, 1988, p' 9l-139.

Mladjov, 1., Trans-ianubian Bulgaria: Reality and Fiction,n Byantine Sttrdies, NS, 3, 1998, p. 85-128.

Moga" V., H. Ciugudean, Repertoriul arheologic aliudeluluiAlba, Nbalulia, 1995.

Mtifu;, 8., Altmahren otler Morsvia? Neue Beitrdge zur geographischen Lage einerfriihmittelalterlichen'Hirrschaftsbildung im iistlichen Europa, n Zeitschrifr fir Ostnitteleuropa-Forschung, 46, 2,

1997,p.205-223Nemeti, 5., Un pandantiv binntin de Ia Berghin, jud. Alba, EphNap, 12, 2Q[,4 (forttrcoming).

Nikolov, 5., Ihe Magtar connection or C-onstantine and Methodius in the steppes, tn Blzantine and

Modem Greek Studies, 21, 1997, p. 79'92.panaitescn" P. P. [A. Grecu],

'Bulgmia i nordul Dundrii Xn veacuile al IX-XJea, in Sudii Si cercetdri de

istorie medie,l, 1, 1950, P. 223'236.P6tfu\ N., Caranthani Marahenses: Philological Notes on the Early History of the Hungarims and the

,S/avs, inESI/, 70, 1998, P. 39'63.pefiin, N., Philotogical Notes jor the Earty History of the Hungarians and the Slmts, in ESy, 72, 2A00,

P.29'rrr'Petrovici, 8. Daco-slava, in Dacorornania, 10, 2, 1943, p. 233-277'pinter, Z.-*., Im Miereschnl entddae Bewffiungsstiicke und Teile militiirischen Ausrilstung

lurolingis cher Herhnrt, n AMed, 2, 199.8, p' 145- I 5 3'pinter, Z.-K,,

-Boroffra, N.,- Neue mittelalterliehe Grdber der Ciumbrud Gruppe aus Broos/Orct{tie,

Fundstelle B1hmertrerg/Dealul Pemilor X8, n Transsilvanica. Archiiologische Untersuchungen

zur iilteren Geschtchti des siiddstlichen Mittelanropa. Gedenkschrirtf)r Kurt Horedt, hrsg. von

N. Boroffka, T. Soroceam, Rahdeq 1999, p. 313-330.Pohl, w., Die Awqren. Ein Steppenvolk in Miaelanropa, 567-822 n. Chr.,Mtinchen' 1988'poulih J., Die Zaryenschai der archiiologischen Grabungen und fuellen iiber GroPmiihm, io

Grossmiihren und iie Anfiinge der tschechoslowakischen Staatlichkeit, ed. by J. Poulflr, B.

Chropovsk!, Prague, 1986, P. 9-89.poulilq 1., iur Fiage db Lopnlxierung der 'inffibilis munitio" und "urbs antiqua Rastizi' nach den

60

TMNSYLVANIA AND THE BULGARAN EXPANSION

Fuldauer Annalm, in Cmtral Europe, 1997, p. l2l-132.Pritsalc O., Orientierung und Farbsymbolik, n Saeculum, 5, 1954, p.376-383 (lderra Studies in Medieval

Eurssian Hi,story,Yaionmy London, I98I, I).Ratko5, P., Die grossmtihrischen Slawen und die Altmagnren, n Sudijnd Zvesti archeologickiho ristavu

Sloverakej Akaddmie Vied, 1968, p. 193-219.Ratko5, P., The Territorial Developmant of Great Moravia (Fiction and Reality), n Studia Historica

Slovaca, 16, 1988, p. 12l-156.Rusq M., Notes sur les relations culturelles entre les Slaves et la population romqne de Transylvanie

(W-X siicles), in Les Slaves et le monde miditenanden, Vf-Xf siicles (Symposiuminternational d'archeobgie slave, Sofia, 2 3-29 m)ril I 970) , Sofia, 1973, p. I 89-201 .

Szalontai, C, Kritische Banerlatngen zur Rolle der Bulgarm im 9. Jahrhundet in der GrofienUngarischen Tiefebme und in Siebenbi)rgen, m A Mdra Ferenc Mweum Evkbnyve. StudiaArchaeologica, 6, 2000, p. 263-286.

Schwarcz, A., Pannonien im 9. Jahrhundert und die Anf;inge der direhen Beziehungen zwischen demOstfriinkischen Reich und den Bulgaren, in Grenze und Differenz imfrtihen Mittelsher, ed. by W.Pohl, H. ReimiE (Osteneichische Akademie der Wissenschafteq Philosophisch-HistorischeKlasse, Denkschrifteq 287), zOW,p. 99-l 04.

Simina, N. M., Descoperii aparyindnd feudalismului timpuriu la Tdrtdria (jud. Alba), in BuletinulcercurilorStiinfifrcesndenpeSti.Arheologie-istoie,AlbaIulia,2,t996,p, 155-161.

Simina, N. M., Considerafii esupra mormintelor medievale timpurii descoperite in anul 1865 la SebE(ud. Alba), i\ AMed, 4,2002, p. 47-58.

S6s, A. C., Die slawische Bevt)lkerung ltestungarns im 9. Jahrhundert,Miinchen" 1973.Stanciq I., Despre ceramica medievald timpuie de rn comun, lucratd la roata rapidd, in asezdrile de pe

teritoriul Romdniei (secolele YIII-$, tn AMed, 3, 2040, p, 127 -191.Stoicovici, E., M. Blljan, Objets de parure en metal prdcieux ddcouverts d Ghirbom (dep. de Alba), Acta

Musei Porolissensis, 14- I 5, I 99G. 1 99 I, p. 237 -247 .Sz6kely, 2., L'aspect de la culture matdrielle des VIIIe-Xe sidcles dans le Sud-Est de la Transylvanie, rn

Les questions fondamentales du peuplement du Bassin des Carpathes du VIIIe au Xe siicle(Mitteilungen des Archaeologisches hstitub der Ungarische Akadernie der WissenschafteqBeiheft l), Budapes! 1972, p. 125-128.

Szdke, B, M., Sildost-Ungarn im 9. Jahrhundert im Lichte der Siedlungsforschungen, in Trudy Vnrezhdrmarodnogo kongressa arklreologov slavistov (Kiev, 1985), 4, Kiev, 1988, p. L99-2M.

Sziikeo B. M, Political, Cultural and Ethnic Conditions in the Carpathian Basin at the Time of theMagtarb Conquest, in Europe's Centre around AD 1000. Contributions to History, AX andArchaeologt, ed. byA. Wieczorelg H.-M. Hinz, Stuttgart,2000, p. 137-139.

Stefanovidovd,T., Schmuck des Nitraer Typs und seine Beziehungen zu Sildosteuropa im 9. Jahrhundert,A Wosirsky M6r Muzeum Evkdnyve, 15, 1990, p, 215-230.

Stefanovidov6"T.,DasGrofmdhrischeReichzwischenOstundl(est,inCantralEurope,lggT,p. 133-141.Teodor, D. Gh, fueQues qspects concernant les relations entre Roumains, Byzantins et Bulgares aux IX-

X sidcles n.e.,nAnwrul hstiatului de Istorie qi Arheologie ,,A. D. Xenopo1",24,2,1987, p. l-16.Thessaloniki-Great Moravia,. Proceedings of the International Confermce, Thessuloniki, t6-19 October

1997, Hellenic Associationfor Slavic Studies, Thessaloniki,1999 (Thessaloniki-Great Moravia).Tont S., La situation geographique de la Grande Morqvie et les Hongrois conquerants, in Jahrbilcher

f)r Geschichte Osteuropos, NF, 30, 4,1982,p. 533-540.Trun! N., In quadam civitqte, quae lingua gentis illius Dowina dicitur, in Zeitschnfi fir Slavische

Philologie, 61, l, 2002, p. l-24.Wolfrarq H., The Image of Central Europe in Constantine VII Porphyrogenittts, in Constantine WI

Porphy'ogenitus and his age,ed. byA, Markopoulos, Athens, 1989, p. 5-14.

6 1

t . / J ' . / / / . /', 7\z wISI"eNnN )

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

re%?:,2,

l lI

t )

BOSNIEN.

I t ( lSLAWONIEN

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

oqN9

=n

o

4

UC

€a

cnH

@

n\ t\ \\J

Szombathelya

HOrdgtie

\\\

)I

%N6

Northern Serbia

AVg

Galice

rlw

Nitra

Aq/

ffiTrnovec

QTrojanArsura

fig.4

0 r \

#,ffifig.5

OF:A9rpffiBrno

AL/@cl

Sultana

n,W@ { $

Liptovsk6 Mara

ntV6

ObArgia

tr

Fig.4. Earrings of Nitra-type (after Dostril 1965, 405, Abb. ?; Stefanovidov6 1990, 223,227'229;

Pinter, Boroflka 1999, 317, fig,4/6);Fig.5. Earrings of Ordqtie-tYPe.