Romanian History and Culture

A Library of Knowledge from the Web. An Educational Website

Transylvania, Vlachs, Slavs, Avars, Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars and the Magyars.  In Memoriam  Doctor Suzana (Juja) More Heitel-Heitelné Móré Zsuzsa

In the 11th century, Abu Said Gardezi wrote about a Christian people from Rûm situated between the Slavs and Hungarians: [25]

That is the Džaihūn which is on their /the Magyars’/ left side. Beside Saqlāb /Slavs/ are a people az Rūm / from the Byzantine Empire (Rûm) [26] or of Rome [27] [28] / who are all Christians and they are called N-n-d-r, and they are more numerous than the Magyars, but they are weaker. [29]

Juja Heitel, 2007; Photo: Marina Sabados 

Papers:

1.Transylvania Trust; Theoretical and Practical Issues of Monument Preservation
VIth International Scientific Conference
Ecclesiastical Architectural Heritage
16st – 23th March 1997
Susana HEITEL Ro
The Excavations of the First Transylvanian Cistercian Monastery
2. ACADEMIA ROMÂNĂ
Institutul de Istoria Artei „G. Oprescu”
Sesiunea de comunicări a Sectorului de Artă Medievală
DATE NOI ÎN CERCETAREA ARTEI MEDIEVALE DIN ROMÂNIA
Ediţia I, Bucureşti, 16 decembrie 2004 -
Suzana MORE-HEITEL (Institutul de Istoria Artei "G. Oprescu")
Despre biserica lui Ahtum de la Morisena (Cenad, jud.Timiş)
Ediţia a doua, 15-16 decembrie 2005
SUZANA HEITEL, Institutul de Istoria Artei, Bucureşti
Date noi privind bisericile de cretă de la Basarabi–Murfatlar
Ediţia a treia, 14-15 decembrie 2006
SUZANA HEITEL, Institutul de Istoria Artei „G. Oprescu”
Despre datarea bisericii capitlului de la Arad

http://www.rrha.istoria-artei.ro/2007.php 

RRHA, 2007, vol.1, pp.120-121
Suzana Móré Heitel, dans son Intervention Sur la datation de l’église du chapitre d’Arad, a abordé le sujet du chapitre collégial d’Arad, fondé probablement par le roi Bella II (1131-1141), qui fonctionnait déjà en 1156, lorsqu’on fait mention
du prépositus Primogenitus. L’information documentaire concernant la consécration de l’église n 1224 mène à l’hypothèse selon laquelle elle n’a été terminée qu’au début du XIIIe siècle, ayant tenu ompte, également, de la possibilité que la consécration respective ait eu lieu à la suite d’une ventuelle reconstruction. Les ruines de la grande église (ayant une longueur extérieure d’environ 62 mètres)
se trouvent à côté d’Arad, dans la commune sousurbaine Vladimirescu (l’ancienne commune Glogovăţ), ù se trouvait le premier noyau de la ville médiévale.
Elles indiquent une basilique à deux tours sur la façade ouest, transept et déambulatoire autour de l’abside e l’autel, déambulatoire qui suppose l’existence dans l’église d’Arad de prestigieuses reliques à l’époque du Moyen Âge. Mais ces vestiges ne conservent plus in situ des éléments architecturaux capables à
permettre la délimitation d’éventuelles phases de construction, et les quelques fragments de sculpture en pierre provenus de l’église peuvent s’encadrer soit au XIIe siècle (bases de colonne et un chapiteau), soit au début du XIIIe siècle (éléments de voûte). À la datation de l’église contribuent indirectement les
résultats des fouilles archéologiques de 1969-1970 et 1983-1984. Les vestiges de l’église plus ancienne  découvertes alors au-dessous du monument présenté jusqu’ici, se constituent dans un terminus post quem pour son placement chronologique. Les données concernant cette église, récemment publiées, indiquent une nef carrée, une abside demi-circulaire à l’est et des murs très épais (entre 3 et 4 mètres).

Supposant qu’au début chaque côté a été pourvu d’une abside,cette église présenterait une analogie avec l’église de Feldebrő, de Hongrie, datant du XIe siècle. Son existence à cette époque-là est indirectement confirmée par la datation à la fin du même siècle des fragments de sculpture en marbre avec un décor
figuratif et végétal, réalisé dans la technique de l’incrustation, fragments découverts pendant les fouilles déjà mentionnées et présentées pour la première fois dans la présente intervention.

Archeological research:

Campania de cercetare arheologica de la Pancota - punctul "Cetatea Turceasca" (manastire in incinta unei cetati de pamant) - a fost prezentata ieri, la fata locului, intr-o conferinta de presa la care au fost invitati ziaristi de la presa scrisa si audiovizuala precum si oficialitati: Gabriel Buza, vicepresedintele C. J. A. si Iosif Retter, primarul orasului Pancota.
Colectivul de cercetare - dr. Daniel Marcu Istrate, responsabil santier, dr. Suzana Heitel, Institutul de Istoria Artei, G. Oprescu, din Bucuresti, George Pascu Hurezan, Complexul Muzeal Arad, Ioan Fedor Pascu, Sighisoara - si dr. Peter Hügel, directorul Complexului Muzeal Arad, coordonatorul programului de cercetare - au pus la dispozitia jurnalistilor importante informatii despre sit si rezultatele sapaturilor arheologice din acest an (finantate cu 40 de milioane de la Ministerul Culturii si Cultelor si 10 milioane de la Complexul Muzeal).
http://www.virtualarad.net/news/2004/va_n260804_ro.htm

Books:

Móré Heitel Suzana. Abaţia de la Pâncota şi vestigiile ei. Cluj-Napoca Mega 2006. 625167 ...


Transylvania

 Among the formations existing before that opposed Magyar penetration in Transylvania, the best known are the Glad voivodate in Banat, residing in the Cuvin citadel, of Menumorut in Crisana, residing in the Biharea citadel and of Gelu the Vlach, residing in the citadel Dabaca.

Cetatea Dabaca by korkodush.

Dabaca

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/8535962@N03/2473040987/

The history of Transylvania is particularly illusive, even though it was on the trade route from the Black Sea to Western Europe and the Apuseni mountains were the major European source of gold originated from Dacian times. There is evidence that trade continued with the Romans after their departure from the area and when the Saxons much later built their cities these were situated at the sites of earlier Dacian towns or on the trans-Carpathian trade routes.

Roman emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-5), decisions changed the course of Carpi history. The emperor began the policy of transferring large numbers of Carpi to Pannonia and evacuated the Roman province of Dacia of Roman Army and Roman colonists, but some choose to stay, providing the remaining Carpi with space to expand.

  http://www.restromania.com/Sociologie/TheEarlyHistoryOfRomania.htm   

 Vlach-Bulgarian Knezates in Transylvania and Banat

before the Magyars 

Butaul Ruler of two Getaean (Getian) Lands

 File:Buta ul.png

 There is  an Intercisa - Roman lapidarium and garden of ruins, Dunaujvaros, Hungary

See discution on this topic at:
 

Buta-ul ("the son of Buta", also spelled Butaul) was a Kutrigur Bulgar noble who ruled the Banat and Bačka regions in the 8th century.

Part of his territory is at present time in Romania (Tims, Carash Severin and Hunedoara counties) and other parts in Serbia and Hungary. He was the ruler of the two Getian Lands and the land across the Tisa were the Free Dacian-Carpi were moved several centuries earlier.

Archaeology

Buta-ul buried a large treasure in northern Banat,  before Maghyar invasion, near the present day village of Nakovo in Serbia) and the town of Sânnicolau Mare in Romania. The treasure was excavated in 1799, and today it is kept in the Vienna cultural-historical museum. While it was originally believed to belong to Atilla the Hun, research shows that it is Bulgar,  Avar, or Vlach in origin.

The treasure contains an inscription which identifies its owner: "The great župan Buta-ul, ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa".

The "great župan" (rendering veliki župan) is a traditional Slavic ruler's title, while "Getian land" was a designation for present day Banat. The land "across the Tisa" is obviously present day Bačka.

The Bulgarian domination on Getian - Vlach Banat seems to be confirmed by the treasure discovered in 1799 at Sannicolau Mare ,Timiş county Romania.

 

 

  Bazin cu cataramă; aur 22 carate, masa = 212 grame, înălțimea 25 mm; inscripție cu litere grecești (BOUTAUL

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1442520 

Romanian interpretation (Romanian only)   

Paul Lazăr Tonciulescu - "De la Țara Luanei la Ieud", Editura Miracol, București, 1998

Capitolul II. „Inscripția de pe vasul nr. 21 de la Sânnicolau Mare, cel mai vechi document epigrafic în limba română”

În acest capitol autorul prezintă ipoteza sa cu privire la inscripția de pe vasul nr. 21 din tezaurul descoperit în 1799 la Sânnicolau Mare

Inscripția de pe vasul cu nr. 21 se citește, după părerea autorului, astfel: "+BUILA ZOAPAN TECI DIRETOIRI BUTAUL ZOAPAN TARGORI ITZIRI TAICI". Analizând cuvânt cu cuvânt, a ajuns la următoarele concluzii:

  • BUILA și BUTAUL: Sunt plasate înainte de zoapan și, deci, nu sunt nume comune, ci niște antroponime. Aceasta, deoarece sensul inscripției, luată în ansmablu, se referă la drepturile unor persoane conducătoare de obști.
  • ZOAPAN: Acest cuvânt trebuie citit fonetic. Astfel, zoapanzupan, jupan. Deci zoapan corespunde cuvântului românesc zupan, atestat documentar încă din secolul al X-lea ("...omnibus Zupanis..." și "jupan Dumitru").
  • TECI și TAICI: Corespunde bănățeanului tăce, toate, căci inscripția va fi fost realizată chiar în Banat.
  • DIRETOIRI: Dreptuiri sau drepturi (vezi Direptate).
  • TARGORI: „Nu poate deriva dintr-un tardiv slav trugu, deoarece avem atestarea documentară a pre-existenței cuvântului etrusc terg, „târg”, păstrat în românescul terg, de unde a apărut toponimul Tergoviște > Târgoviște. Aici autorul face o paranteză și relevă că, de altfel, cuvântul terg nu este singurul existent și în română și în etruscă, alte câteva fiind moștenite „încă din perioada când etruscii locuiau în Munții Apuseni, înainte de deplasarea lor spre Albania și apoi în Italia.
  • ITZIRI: Adică iviri, cu alte cuvinte "apariții de scurtă durată sau intrări ale unor străini în târguri". Acest cuvânt reprezenta "vama târgurilor" care, în Evul Mediu, se plătea conducătorilor obștii de către cei care intrau cu mărfuri în târguri, astfel cum menționează multe documente ungurești, printre care și diploma din 1211 a regelui Andrei al II-lea, prin care acesta cedează cavalerilor teutoni vama târgurilor din Țara Bârsei: "...Pe lângă târgurile libere, le-am lasat în întregime dările târgurilor din acea țară...".

Deci "Jupan Buila [are] toate drepturile, jupan Butaul [are dreptul de] ițiri [în] toate târgurile".

În concluzia autorului, „inscripția de pe vasul nr. 21 din tezaurul de la Sânnicolau Mare prezintă numele a doi români din secolul al IX-lea sau poate chiar din secolele anterioare, precum și drepturile pe care aceștia le aveau în calitate de conducători. Cronologic, existența lor este confirmată de menționarea zupanilor/jupanilor în documentele citate, precum și de faptul că ne aflăm într-o perioadă în care ungurii de-abia ajunseseră în Pannonia și nu-și începuseră expansiunea dominației politice la est de Dunăre și Tisa. Ca atare, vama târgurilor încă mai aparținea conducătorilor români de tipul zoapanilor.”

În continuare, Tonciulescu spune că inscripția este un document în limba română arhaică și consemnează un act de recunoaștere a puterii politice și militare din partea obștilor unui conducător feudal local, conducător din neamul căruia, după cum va afirma mai târziu Anonymus, se va naște Ahtum, ucis în cetatea sa de la Cenad.   

 http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/traditii/history.html

Around 800, what it's now northeastern Hungar

y became part of the Slavic Principality of Nitra, which itself became part of Great Moravia in 833. Also, after 800, southeastern Hungary was conquered by Bulgaria, but was lost in 881 to Great Moravia. Western Hungary (Pannonia) was initially tributary to the Franks, but in 839 the Slavic Balaton Principality was founded in southwestern Hungary, and in 883/884 the whole of western Hungary was conquered by Great Moravia. The advanced economic and political conditions of the Slavs, who had been settling in the entire area, exerted a significant influence over the newly-arrived Magyars after 896 (see below); in fact, several Hungarian words relating to agriculture, politics, religion and handicrafts, were borrowed from Slavic peoples.

 

 VESTIGIILE UNEI ASEZARI MEDIEVALE TIMPURII IN MARAMURES

Arheologii maramureşeni au făcut câteva descoperiri extrem de importante în situl din satul Bozânta Mică, situat la confluenţa Someşului cu Lăpuşul.   Arheologul Marius Ardeleanu a remarcat şi „descoperirea a două complexe medieval timpurii, foarte importante, datate în secolul VIII d.Hr., câteva gropi de stâlpi care delimitau locuinţe sau anexe gospodăreşti de epocă romană, precum şi vetre din epoca bronzului". În situl de la Bozânta Mică au fost identificate trei sate: din epoca bronzului (aproximativ 1500-1000 î.Hr.), din epoca romană - Barbaricum (din afara graniţelor Imperiului Roman) şi din epoca medieval timpurie (sec. VIII-IX d.Hr.).

 

A chronicle by Venerable Nestor (1056 - 1136 AD) mentions Walachians (Romanians) fighting against Magyars north of the Danube in 6406 (898). [7]  Text at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians

 

 http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/

 

  Map at: http://www.romanianmuseum.com/Romania/RomaniaZones.gif

 ALEXANDRU MADGEARU, GESTA HUNGARORUM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/43718259/Madgearu-Romanians-GestaHungarorum 

 

 Fișier:FormatiuniPoliticeRomanestiSecolele IX XIII.svg

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahtum

 

Map of Central Europe in the 9th century before arrival of Hungarians, according to Hungarian historian Dr. Márki Sándor. Map reflects data from Gesta Hungarorum chronicle and it show medieval duchies of Braslav, Salan (Zalan), Glad, Menumorut (Marót) and Gelou (Gyelo), as well as neighboring countries and territories.

http://keptar.niif.hu/000500/000586/magyaro-honf-terkep_nagykep.jpg

 

   Duke Gelu

Text at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelou

Gelou[1][2] or Gelu[3][4] (Hungarian: Gyalu[5], Romanian: Gelu) was a Romanian-VLACH duke mentioned in Gesta Ungarorum (“The Deeds of the Hungarians”) as having opposed the conquest of Transylvania by Tuhutum,[1] one of the “seven dukes” of the Magyars.[2] His story was recorded only by the anonymous writer of the 13th century Gesta.[5]

 Voivoda Gelu the Vlach in the Gesta Ungarorum

According to the Gesta, on reaching the Carpathian Mountains, the Magyars found there three voivodates: that of Menumorut in Crişana, of Glad in the Banat, and of Gelu in central Transylvania.[4] Duke Gelu is described as being a “certain Vlach or Romanian”.[3]

His army was made of „Blasi et Sclavi”.

And while they tarried there some while, Tuhutum father of Horca, as he was a shrewd man, when he learned from the inhabitants of the goodness of the land of Transylvania, where Gelu, a certain Vlach, held sway, strove through the grace of Duke Árpád, his lord, to acquire the land of Transylvania for himself and his posterity. (…)

Chapter 24 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of the land of Transylvania

 It is evident from the Gesta, that Tuhutum’s attack was clearly targeted toward the salt mine district in Transylvania.[7] According to the anonymous author of the Gesta, Transylvania was inhabited by Vlachs and Slavs at that time.[2]

The aforesaid Tuhutum, a most skilful man, sent a certain shrewd man, father of Opaforcos Ogmand, to spy out for him the quality and fertility of the land of Transylvania and what its inhabitants were like, so that he might, if he could, go to war with them, for Tuhutum wished thereby to acquire a name and land for himself. (…) When the father of Ogmand, Tuhutum’s scout, circling like a wolf, viewed, as much as the human gaze may, the goodness and fertility of the land and its inhabitants, he loved it more than can be said and most swiftly returned to his lord. When he arrived, he spoke much to his lord of the goodness of that land: that that land was washed by the best rivers, whose names and advantages he listed, that in their sands they gathered gold and that the gold of that land was the best, and that they mined there salt, and the inhabitants of that land were the basest of the whole world, because they were Vlachs and Slavs, because they had nothing else for arms than bows and arrows and their duke, Geleou was inconstant and did not have around him good warriors who would dare stand against the courage of the Hungarians, because they suffered many injuries from the Cumans and Pechenegs.

Chapter 25 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of the skillfulness of Tuhutum[6]
„Quod terra illa irrigaretur optimis fluuis, quorum nomina et utilitates seriatim dixit, et quod in arenis eorum aurum colligerent, et aurum terre illius optimum esset, et ut ibi foderetur sal et salgenia, et habitatores terre uiliores homines essent tocius mundi, quia essent Blasii et Sclaui, quia alia arma non haberent, nisi arcum et sagittas, et dux Geleou minus esset tenax et non haberet bonos milites, et auderent stare audatiam Hungarorum, quia Cumanis et Picenatis multas iniurias paterentur.“,

The Magyar troops lead by Tuhutum defeated Duke Gelou by the river Almaş.[5]

Then Tuhutum, having heard of the goodness of that land, sent his envoys to Duke Árpád to ask his permission to go beyond the woods to fight Duke Gelu. Duke Árpád, having taken counsel, commended Tuhutum’s wish and he gave him permission to go beyond the woods to fight Duke Gelou. When Tuhutum heard this from an envoy, he readied himself with his warriors and, having left his companions there, went forth eastwards beyond the woods against Gelou, duke of the Vlachs. Gelou, duke of Transylvania, hearing of his arrival, gathered his army and rode speedily towards him in order to stop him at the Meseş Gate, but Tuhutum, crossing the wood in one day, arrived at the Almaş river. Then both armies came upon each other, with the river lying between them. Duke Gelou planned to stop them there with his archers.

Chapter 26 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - How they went against Gelu /sic/[6]

Next morning, before daybreak, Tuhutum divided his army in two and he sent one part a little way upstream so that, having crossed the river, they might enter into battle while Gelou’s warriors were yet unawares. And because they had an easy crossing, both forces arrived at the battle at the same time and they fought fiercely, but the warriors of Duke Gelou were defeated and many of them slain and more captured. When Gelou, their duke, saw this, he fled for his life along with a few men. As he was in flight, hastening to his castle beside the Someş River,(Dabaca) Tuhutum’s warriors, boldly pursuing Duke Gelou, slew him beside the Căpuş River. Then the inhabitants of the land, seeing the death of their lord, giving the right hand of their own free will chose to themselves as lord Tuhutum, father of Horca, and in that place which is called Esculeu, they confirmed their troth with an oath and from that day the place is called Esculeu, because they swore there. (…)

Chapter 27 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of the death of Gelu[6]

 Controversy around his story

Hungarian view  is that the anonymous notary of the Hungarian king Béla III (1172-1196)[2] wrote in the Gesta Ungarorum, based on ancient chronicles and oral tradition, that the Magyars, when they settled on the plains of the Tisza and Danube rivers, found there “Slavs, Bulgarians and Vlachs, and the shepherds of the Romans is not true[6].[4] On the other hand, around 1200, the author of the Gesta related in a novelistic form what he thought had happened at the time of the Magyar Conquest around 895.[2] However, it is evident that he did not have the faintest idea about the real state of affairs in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Magyar Conquest: instead of Simeon I of Bulgaria, Arnulf and Svatopluk, of whom he had no knowledge, he invented imaginary figures as enemies of the Hungarians.[2] In the construction of his stories, he sometimes drew on legendary elements, but more frequently he worked with toponyms.[2]In fact, the archaeological evidence published so far suggests that the excavators were embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the "Gesta" right.[1] Although the Gesta Ungarorum is in sharp contrast with the chronicle of Simon of Kéza and of other 14th century chronicles, it is a mistake to treat Gelou as a purely fictional character whose name derived from that of the Transylvanian town Gilău (Gyalu in Hungarian) [5].[7]

Romanian archaeologists proved that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of Transylvania and found  Dăbâca .[1] Archaeological research has located his voivodate, unearthing more than 40 settlements there.[4] 

There are four enclosures at Dăbâca, each one associated with earthwork fortifications; the excavators dated the third enclosure to the 9th or 10th century, while also claiming that it post-dated the second enclosure - the only defense work to have produced clearly datable artifacts, namely a silver penny of King Peter (1038-1041 and 1044-1046).[1]

 See also

 Footnotes

  1. Curta, Florin. Transylvania around A.D. 1000. 
  2.  Engel, Pál. The Realm of St. Stephen - A history of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526. 
  3. Klepper, Nicolae. Romania: An Illustrated History. 
  4.  Georgescu, Vlad. The Romanians - A History. 
  5.  Kristó, Gyula (General Editor). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század). 
  6.  Martyn Rady (2008-07-19). "The Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus, the Anonymous Notary of King Béla (a draft translation)". www.ssees.ac.uk (UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies). http://www.ssees.ac.uk/prospect/GestaHungarorum.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-04-02. 
  7.  Madgearu, Alexandru. Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania. 

 Sources

  • Curta, Florin: Transylvania around A.D. 1000; in: Urbańczyk, Przemysław (Editor): Europe around the year 1000; Wydawn. DiG, 2001; ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18.
  • Engel, Pál: The Realm of St. Stephen - A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526; I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2001, London and New York; ISBN 1-86064-061-3.
  • Georgescu, Vlad (Author) - Calinescu, Matei (Editor) - Bley-Vroman, Alexandra (Translator): The Romanians – A History; Ohio State University Press, 1991, Columbus; ISBN 0-8142-0511-9 ([1], retrieved on 2009-04-02).
  • Klepper, Nicolae: Romania: An Illustrated History; Hippocrene Books, Inc, 2005, New York, NY; ISBN 0-7818-0935-5.
  • Kristó, Gyula (General Editor) - Engel, Pál - Makk, Ferenc (Editors): Korai Magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század) /Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th-14th centuries)/; Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994, Budapest; ISBN 963-05-6722-9 (the entry “Gyalu” was written by Zoltán Kordé).
  • Madgearu, Alexandru: Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania; in: Curta, Florin (Editor): East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages; The University of Michigan Press, 2005; ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelou"

 

 http://www.cetati.medievistica.ro/cetati/Transilvania/D/Dabaca/Dabaca.htm

 

Anonymus (the author of Gesta Hungarorum) was confirmed by archaeologists.
A Christian cemetery from 8th (also 9th and 10th) century was discovered at Jucu, near Cluj, the area were Anonymus describes the presence of the duke Gelou, ruling over Wallachians and Slavs.
The 80 graves have been dated by a type of ear-rings which were not used more after 8th century.
A team of movie producer is making a documentary material which, if would reach the necesary standards, will be casted by National Geographic.
The discovery ocured due to the plans of Nokia for building a factory on that land

.-a cemetery whose history begin in 7th century and which in 8th  century was Christian (80 graves) and which continuates to be used until 10th century
-the village of the necropolis, with huts of local tradition

-the lack of Southern elements

Lets put together with what we know from elder data:

-Christian elements of 4-7th century have been discovered in Transylvania. In 4-5th century they are of a character showing the eclesiastic tradition, in 7th century there are rudimentar crosses on pottery of Dacian tradition

-the group of Bratei, the biggest and most longevive community of 1st millenium AD Transylvania (4-9th century) disscovered so far, has some Christian characteristics. And Bratei is not very far of Jucu.

-for the end of the 9th century, we have the mention of Gelou, ruler of the Wallachians and Slavs.

Such type of fortress (wich such plan) is characteristic for the earth fortresses. At the conquest of Transylvania, Hungarians didn't built castres but conquered the existing ones and used them.
Is a much to big coincidence that Anonymus speaks about the conquer of Dabâca by Hungarians at the beginning of 10th century and a century later a fotress is the same area (Somes valley), with the same name and the same importance is found as a Hungarian castrum. Also, the similitudes with Biharia are almost perfect and at Biharia surely have been discovered important amenagements from the time of Menumorut.
I have copied the article on Dabâca from The Encyclopedia of Ancient History and Archeology of Romania (1994-2000).
Look what is sayed:
Dabâca, comune in Cluj county on whose territory there is a big fortification with earth waves, moats and traces of palisades (~15 ha) on the high terrace on the right of Lonea valley.

 

The ample researches initiated in 1964 are still in progress. The fortification, of a plan aproximatively triangular, consist of 4 concentric enceints. In its first period of existence, with two phases of construction dated from the end of 8th century until the beginning of 10th century, the waves and moats have delimitated on the top of the terrace four enceints: a) wide wave of ~5 meters preceded by berma (1,25 m) and moat 1,30 m deep, delimitating the enceinte I, of ~50 m lenght, replaced ulteriorly by a wave of double width than the first, preceded directly by a moat 3,25 m deep; b) 8 m wide wave with berma (2,50 m), preceded of 5 m wide and 1-1,5 m deep moat, delimitating the terrace III at ~230 m distance of the top of the terrace; c) 7 m wide and 2,54 m deep wave, delimitating the enceinte IV at ~600 m distance of the top of terrace... In the enceintes III and IV have been discovered semi-huts, surface dwellings from wood beams, provision pits, workshops (furnaces for the reduction of ores and smithies) which gives to the 9-10th century inhabitation the character of fortified locality.

 

http://www.rumaenienburgen.com/transilvania/dabaca-foto.htm

http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats3/act3-7.htm

 The oldest of the churches whose foundations have been discovered and studied at Dabâca are not yet firmly dated; is possbile that they belong to 10th century. Most of the archaeological materials discovered at Dabâca and dated from the end of 8th century to the beginning of the 10th century consist of pottery, at this being added metal pieces (spurs of Carolingian type gold plated) and jewel pieces (silver pandatives of Byzantine structure). It have been proposed the identification of the first etape of the fortification with the residence near Somes river of Gelou, the Romanian voivod of Transylvania in the first years of 10th century, atested in the chronicle of Anonymus (castrum suum iuxta fluvium Zomus positum). The ulterior development of the settlement from Dabâca, in the time of the extension of the Hungarian domination over Transylvania and when here have been installed the center of the comitate with the same name, is atested by the writen sources (1068 - in urbem Dobuka).


I remember too to have seen reproduction of 8-9th century type of pottery from Dabâca which surely are belonging to that period. It was of Dridu type. The Daco-Romans were scattered population, peaceful (there are not weapons in their graves and villages).

Their material culture shows that they evolved separated from the South of Danube, they preserved forms of pottery from the "Classic" Roman period, while South of Danube the material culture and traditions was already Romano-Byzantine, signifiantly different to the Classic Roman period.

Look 5th century pottery from Soporu de Câmpie, near Cluj, a village were in 2-3rd centuries AD was the most important (discovered till now) Dacian community from the Roman province of Dacia.


And look 4-6th century pottery from Gropsani, in Oltenia: 

Daco-Romans were mainly agricultors, this is what archeologists have found

20-Sep-2007

http://www.allempires.net/topic5700_post403400.html#403400 

  

ROMANIAE CONTINUITAS - ARCHEOLOGIAE PROBATIO (EXEMPLI GRATIA)  http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.romanian/2006-04/msg02456.html

 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROOFS OF THE DACO-ROMANIAN CONTINUITY IN
TRANSYLVANIA BETWEEN V-X CENTURIES A.D.:


1. The vax tablets (jurisdictio tabulae) from the gold mines at Alburnus Maior (modern, Rosia).
2.The composition of coins discoveries (all in the Latin language) in the V Century at Sarmizegetusa, at Orsova and Racajdia (in Banat), at Hunedoara, near Targu-Mures and, in the northeast, near Dej.
3.The paleo-Christian vestiges, all, exclusively Romanians (V  century).
4.The stoneware and pottery objects in the central Transilvania, at Moresti and Bandul de Campie, that looks alike to those discovered at Sarata-Monteoru(the archaeological science type).
5.More than 50 (fifty) archaeological discoveries (VI-VII Centuries) being a reflexion of the autochton culture with Gepid influences (centrate in Pannonia); the generic type of those discoveries is called "Santana de Mures - Cerneahov" type, concerning the monnetary circulation, the Christian Romanian monuments (the Slavs and the Gepids were pagans!) and the cemeteries.
6.The paleo-Christian pots lid (at Tibiscum, VI Century).
7.The Romanian settlements from Baltei (near modern Medias), Cipau (near modern Ludus), Taga (near modern Gherla), Soporu de Campie (V-VI Centuries).
8.The Christian bronze earthen lamp (rush-light) discovered at Dej V-VI Centuries).
9.The "royal-feudalistic" citadel from Dabaca (near Gherla, on Samus -Somes- River); this citadel with palisade (!!!) of IX Century had belonged to Romanian Voivode Gelu (Blacus = Romanian in the Anonimus chronicle - Magister P.) and his ancestors.
10.The funeral stela from Casei.
11.The devotional cross found at Biertan is inscribed in Latin :"Ego
Zenovius votum posui" (I, Zenovius, brought this offering).
12.Latin inscriptions found on a brick unearthed at Gornea (in the
Banat) and on a bottom of a vessel at Porolissum (modern, Moigrad).
13.The autochtonous Romanian ninth and tenth Centuries artifacts
discovered at Dabaca : pottery, beads and silver buttons.
14.The archaeological research has located the 20 (twenty) settlements
in Menumorut's voivodate in Crisana (with the capital at Biharea,
near, present day, Oradea) - X Century.
15.The archaeological researches had located the 60(sixty) settlements
in Glad's voivodate in Banat (with the capital in Morisena, the modern
Cenad) - X Century.
16.The archaeological researches had, also, located the 40 (fourty)
settlements in Gelu's voivodate in central Transilvania (with the
capital at Dabaca, near the modern Cluj-Napoca) - X Century.
17.The fortress of Satu-Mare (IX Century).
18.By the contrast, in central Transylvania, because the Magyars had
neither the human resources (only ten tribes -onogur, ungur-) to
maintain "such a impressive, by extention, conquest, whose territory
ranged from Moravia and Croatia to the western Transilvania", nor the
organizational capacity, the ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS FROM THE TENTH
CENTURY ARE EXTREMELY RARE IN TRANSILVANIA. Only in the fourth quarter of XI Century those became observable.
 
Valerius M.Ciuca, r.f.,N.D.Univ.,U.S.A.

Radu Harhoiu, Gheorghe Baltag, Sighişoara „Dealul Viilor”. Monografie arheologică. Cu contribuţii de Nikolaus Boroffka şi Rodica Boroffka. I-II. Bistriţa-Cluj-Napoca, Edit. Accent, 2006, 619 + 430 p. (Complexul Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud).

Cristina Paraschiv-Talmaţchi, Mărcile de olar (secolele VII-XVI). Consideraţii şi catalog pentru teritoriul carpato-danubiano-pontic. Bucureşti, Edit. Scriptorium, 2006, 320 p. + LXXVIII pl. + 1 h.

At: http://www.medievistica.ro/texte/tribuna/carti/carti%202/carti%202.htm

http://www.newspad.ro/Unde-se-afla-cetatea-lui-Gelu,386098.html
 
 
 Duke Glad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glad_(duke)

Glad (Bulgarian and Serbian Cyrillic: Глад) was, according to the Gesta Hungarorum, a voivod (dux) from Bundyn (Vidin), ruler of the territory of Banat, during the 9th and 10th centuries. He also ruled part of south Transylvania, and Vidin region, and was a local governor or vassal of the First Bulgarian Empire under Bulgarian tsar Simeon. Glad had authority over the Slavs and Vlachs, which consisted most of the population of mentioned regions at the time.  In his army fought: „Cumani, Bulgari atque Blachi” 

 History

Glad was defeated by the Hungarians during the 10th century. The Hungarians sent an army against duke Glad and subdued the population between the Morisio (Mureş) and Temes (Timiş) rivers. When they tried to pass the Timiş river Glad came against them with a great army including Cuman, Bulgarian and Vlach support.[1] On the following day Glad was defeated by the Hungarians. The Hungarian attack against the duke Glad in Banat is dated in 934.

One of his descendants, Ahtum, was a duke of Banat and the last ruler who opposed to the establishment of the Hungarian Kingdom in the 11th century, but he was too, defeated by the Hungarian Crown.

 Name

In Banat there are still today villages Gladna and Galad, which probably were named after duke Glad. The town of Kladovo - close to the river Danube in Serbia - was probably also named after duke Glad (the original name of this town could be Gladovo, with meaning "a place that belong to Glad" in the Slavic languages). In the 15th century, near the river Zlatica in Banat, a fortress Galad was built. This fortress gained that name because the place where it was founded was itself named Galad. There is also a record on Glad monastery (Galadmonostra) from 1426.

The origin of the name Glad is most likely of Slavic origin, though the meaning of the name is not clear. In the Balkans, many places with names similar could be found where the earliest Slavic names appeared: Gladnica, Gladnić, Gladnik, Gladojević, Gladović, Gladovići, Glade, Gladov do, Gladova vrtača, Gladov vrh, Gladov krš (all in Republika Srpska), Gladište (in Montenegro), Gladišev Dol (in Metohia).

The Romanian historian Neagu Djuvara suggests that Glad was probably a Bulgarian by origin which could be confirmed by the fact that since the rule of Khan Omurtag (814-831) the governors of the Bulgarian provinces were chosen among the ruler's closest nobles, not from the local population.

 Sources

Main historical source about duke Glad is historical chronicle known as Gesta Hungarorum, written by Peter, a high priest in Buda, during the time of Hungarian King Bela III in the late 12th century.

 Literature

  • Jovan M. Pejin, Iz prošlosti Kikinde, Kikinda, 2000.
  • Prof.dr Radmilo Petrović, Vojvodina, Beograd, 2003.
  • O scurta istorie a romanilor, povestita celor tineri de Neagu Djuvara, Bucuresti, 2002 (Translated into Serbian as Njagu Đuvara, Kratka istorija Rumuna za mlade, Novi Sad, 2004).

See also

 External links

 
Constantia - Contra Margum (Kuvin)
 
 
 Numele antic al fortifica�iei a fost stabilit prin coroborarea izvoarelor literare: Notitia Dignitatum, XLI, 33 �i Priscus Panites, 1. Cum reiese din titulatur�, acest punct militar trebuie plasat la nordul Dun�rii �n fa�a localit��ii Margum (Orasja), undeva �n zona Kuvinului de ast�zi. �n lipsa unor cercet�ri arheologice sistematice, h�r�ile mai vechi �i descoperirile �nt�mpl�toare cap�t� o importan�� major�.
Harta lui Marsigli prezint� pentru Kuvin un complex de dou� fortifica�ii: prima patrulater�, secunda triunghiular�.
O hart� militar� a Kuvinului, din 1788, indic� o a�ezare triunghiular�. Compararea celor dou� h�r�i ridic� problema localiz�rii unei fort�re�e romane t�rzii de form� triunghiular�, undeva �n centrul Kuvinului modern.
Din �nsemn�rile lui Marsigli mai reiese descoperirea unei stele funerare apar�in�nd lui L. Valerius, fost centurion �n legiunea a IV-a Flavia Felix. �n sf�r�it, mai multe c�r�mizi ce poart� �tampila legiunii a VII-a Claudia completeaz� tabloul informa�iilor referitoare la aceast� localitate.
Ridicarea fort�re�ei Constantia - Contra Margum trebuie pus� pe seama lui Constantin cel Mare sau a fiului s�u Constantius al II-lea, a�a cum reiese din titulatura purtat�, precum �i din Notitia Dignitatum: castrum Augustoflavianensis, ambii �mp�ra�i purt�nd gentilicul Flavius. Distrugerea sa este legat� de invazia hunilor: �n anul 434 solia condus� de Priscus Panites i-a g�sit pe ace�tia st�p�ni pe cetate, deci este posibil s� fi fost distrus� la acea dat�.
Priscus Panites, 1;
Notitia Dignitatum, XLI, 33; IDR, III/1, p. 30-32;
N. Gudea, �n Drobeta, V, 1982, p. 106 (cu bibliografia);
D. Benea, Din istoria militar� a Moesiei Superior �i a Daciei, Cluj, 1983, p. 192-193;
M. Dordevi�, op. cit., p. 128 �i urm.
http://apar.archaeology.ro/bondoc.
 
GALAD

Mănăstirea Galad
face parte din grupa celor 12 mănăstiri medievale din dioceza Cenadului, al căror hram, patronat şi ordin au rămas necunoscute (Juhász, 1927, p. 164). O parte din aceste aşezăminte îşi au începuturile în perioada de inuenţă bizantină în regiunea Dunării de Jos apusene din secolele XI-XII, când au funcţionat aici structuri ecleziastice ale bisericii orientale (Gyóni, 1947, p. 45-49; Tăutu, 1965, p. 49 şi urm.; Moravcsik, 1978, p. 114-115). Izvoarele istorice lasă în zona de umbră momentul construcţiei şi o bună perioadă din istoria mănăstiriiGalad, sau poateGlad, al cărei nume trimite la ducele bănăţean Glad din veacul al X-lea. Cercetări arheologice viitoare vor putea conrma dacă mănăstirea Galad poate  plasată, alături de mănăstirea Orozlanos şi mănăstirea Sfântul Ioan Botezătorul din Cenad, în rândul aşezămintelor monahale de tradiţie bizantină din spaţiul Banatului şi ajunse ulterior în sec. XII-XIII, abaţii latine (Juhász, 1927, p. 165-169, cu discuţia despre mănăstirile greceşti; Moravcsik, 1970, p. 115; Suciu, 1977, p. 44)
 

Duke Ahtum

File:Ahtum sermon03 01.png

 
Ahtum’s realm

Ahtum[1][2], also Achtum[3] or Ajtony[4][5] (Bulgarian: Охтум, Hungarian: Ajtony, Romanian: Ahtum, Serbian: Ахтум), was a local ruler (voivode[1], ‘king’[6], ‘prince’[4] or tribal leader[6][7]) in modern Banat (now divided between Romania and Serbia) in the first decades of the 11th century.[6] King Saint Stephen I of Hungary (1000/1001-1038) sent Csanád - one of Ahtum’s former retainers[6] - to fight against him.[4] Csanád defeated and killed Ahtum in the king’s name, thus incorporating the territory into the Kingdom of Hungary.[6]

Romanian scholars (e.g., A. Madgearu, I. A. Pop) see Ahtum as the last member of a native dynasty established in the early 900s by Glad, who is mentioned exclusively[7] in the 13th century Gesta Hungarorum as opposing the invading Hungarians.[3]

Sources for his life

The 1597 edition of the Long Life of St Gerard

His story is narrated in the so-called Long Life of St Gerard,[3] an early 14th century compilation of different sources.[6] Although the much earlier so-called Short Life of St Gerard does not contain the Achtum episode, it has been suggested that this episode was inserted into the original, but not extant, *Life of St Gerard (of which the Short Life was an adaptation) from a different source, arguably from some legend attached to the name and family of Csanád.[3] The 13th-century Gesta Ungarorum refers three times to Ahtum.[3] His life and defeat is not mentioned by other chronicles.[4]

Life

The Gesta Hungarorum presents him as a descendant of Glad’s lineage, but everything the author of the Gesta has to say about Glad is taken directly from the Ahtum episode of the Long Life.[3] His name may be connected to the Turkic word for gold or copper (altun).[5][7] Ahtum’s ethnicity (Bulgarian, Hungarian,[7] Kavar,[5] Khazar, or Pecheneg) is a controversial issue.[3]

Ahtum’s province extended from the Körös River (Cris) to the Danube.[4] His base of power was in Morisena (now Cenad, Romania), a stronghold on the Lower Mureş River.[6] The Romanian historian Alexandru Madgearu propounds that the name of his capital in the Latin text of the Long Life (Morisena) derived from the Romanian form Morişana.[8] According to the Long Life, Ahtum "had taken his power from the Greeks".[6]

He was baptized in the Orthodox faith in Vidin (Bulgaria), an event that must have postdated the Byzantine conquest of that city in 1002.[6] He also founded a Greek monastery dedicated to St. John the Baptist near his residence.[3][4] But otherwise Ahtum was "very imperfect in the Christian faith" having as many as seven wives.[4]

Ahtum’ power was based on considerable resources, mainly cattle and horses.[6] He had so many warriors that he even dared, so we are told, to oppose King Stephen I and to levy tax upon the king’s salt as it was being transported from Transylvania.[4] One of Ahtum’s retainers named Csanád fled to the Hungarian king[6] who declared Ahtum an enemy.[4] Csanád returned at the head of a large army, with which he eventually defeated and killed Ahtum.[6]

Ahtum’s province then was organized into a Hungarian royal county with a seat in Morisena, now conveniently renamed Cenad (in Hungarian, Csanád) after its conqueror.[6] A Roman Catholic bishopric was also immediately founded at Morisena, and St Gerard was invited by King Stephen I to be its first bishop.[4]

The date of the conflict between Ahtum and Csanád acting on behalf of King Stephen I is a controversial issue.[3] The Long Life makes it clear that the conflict pre-dates St Gerard’s appointment as bishop of Cenad, which is known from other sources to have taken place in 1030.[3] On the other hand, Ahtum is said to have been baptized in Vidin, which was conquered by the Byzantine Emperor Basil II (976-1025) in 1002.[3] As a consequence, many scholars (e.g., C. A. Macartney, E. Glück, E. Fügedi)[4] favor a late date, one or two years before St Gerard’s appointment.[3] Others (e.g., I. Bóna, Gy. Moravcsik) attempted to read the evidence of the Long Life against the political background of the early 11th century; pointing to King Stephen’s military assistance of Basil II against Samuel of Bulgaria (997-1014), these scholars view Ahtum as Samuel’s ally and place Csanád’s attack either shortly before or at the same time as Basil II’s conquest of Ohrid (Macedonia) in 1018.[3] Finally, others (e.g., A. Madgearu) believe the attack took place a few years after the Byzantine take-over in Vidin, in either 1003 or 1004.[3]

The fact that the members of a certain genus Achtum (Ahtum kindred) owned landed property in Csanád County until the end of the Middle Ages may suggest that King Stephen I let Ahtum’s descendants keep some part of Ahtum’s possessions.[7]

See also

References

  1. Georgescu, Vlad. The Romanians: A History. 
  2. Pop, Ioan Aurel. Romanians and Romania: A Brief History. 
  3. Curta, Florin. Transylvania around A.D. 1000. 
  4. Fügedi, Erik. The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526. 
  5.  Macartney, C. A.. The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical and Analytical Guide. 
  6.  Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. 
  7.  Kristó, Gyula (General Editor). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század). 
  8. Madgearu, Alexandru. Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania. 

Sources

  • Curta, Florin: Transylvania around A.D. 1000; in: Urbańczyk, Przemysław (Editor): Europe around the year 1000; Wydawn. DiG, 2001; ISBN 978-83-7181-211-8
  • Curta, Florin: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250; Cambridge University Press, 2006, Cambridge; ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4
  • Fügedi, Erik: The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526; I. B. Tauris, 2001, London&New York; ISBN 1-85043-977-X
  • Georgescu, Vlad (Author) – Calinescu, Matei (Editor) – Bley-Vroman, Alexandra (Translator): The Romanians – A History; Ohio State University Press, 1991, Columbus; ISBN 0-8142-0511-9
  • Kristó, Gyula (General Editor) - Engel, Pál - Makk, Ferenc (Editors): Korai Magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század) /Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th-14th centuries)/; Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994, Budapest; ISBN 963-05-6722-9 (the entries “Ajtony” and “Galád” were written by László Szegfű and Zoltán Kordé respectively).
  • Macartney, C. A.: The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical and Analytical Guide; Cambridge University Press, 2008, Cambridge&New York; ISBN 978-0-521-08051-4
  • Madgearu, Alexandru: Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania; in: Curta, Florin (Editor): East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages; The University of Michigan Press, 2005; ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6
  • Pop, Ioan Aurel: Romanians and Romania: A Brief History; Columbia University Press, 1999, New York; ISBN 0-88033-440-1

External links


For the residential district named after him, see Menumorut, Satu Mare

One of the first feudal states in the area, a principality ruled by Prince Menumorut at the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th centuries, was centered on the citadel at Biharea, northwest of Oradea.

Menumorut[1] or Menumorout[2] (Bulgarian: Меноморут, Hungarian: Ménmarót[3], Romanian: Menumorut) ruled, according to the 13th century Gesta Ungarorum (“The Deeds of the Hungarians”), the land between the rivers Tisza, Mureş and Someş, which had been occupied by his grandfather, Morout (Bulgarian: Морут, Hungarian: Marót[3], Slovak: Moravec), when the Magyars invaded the Carpathian Basin around 895.[4] His name is composed of two parts: its first part (menu) may have originated either from the Hungarian word for stallion (as the anonymous writer of the Gesta suggests) or from the Bulgar-Turkic word meaning “great” (men); his name’s second part (morut) is the ancient Hungarian name of the Moravians.[3] According to the author of the Gesta, his land was inhabited by a nation called Cozar, but the Gesta also implies the presence of Székelys.[4]

 Menumorut in the Gesta Ungarorum

The author of the Gesta mentions that he was the vassal of the emperor of Byzantium.[1]

(…) Duke Morout, whose grandson is called by the Hungarians Menumorout, because he had concubines, had taken possession of the land between the Tisza and Igyfon wood[5], that lies towards Transylvania, from the Maros -Mures river up to the Szamos,-Somes and the peoples that are called Cozar inhabited that land. (…)

Chapter 11 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of the cities of Lodomer and Galicia[2]
 
Dicite Arpadio duci Hungarie, domino uestro, debitores sumus ei, ut amicus amico, in omnibus, que ei necessaria sunt, quia hospes homo est, et in multis indiget. Terram autem, quam petiut a nostra gratia, nullatenus concedimus nobis uiuentibus. Hoc etiam indigne tulimus quod Salanus dux ei concessit maximam terram, aut propter amorem, ut dicitur, aut propter timorem, quod negatur. Nos autem nec propter amorem nec propter timorem ei concedimus terram, etiam quantum pugillus caperet, licet dixerit ius suum esse. Et uerba sua non conturbant animum nostrum eo, quod mandauerit nobis se descendisse de Atthile regis, qui flagellum dei dicebatur, qui etiam uiolenta manu rapuerat terram hanc ab atthauo meo, sed tamen modo per gratiam domini mei imperatoris Constantinopolitani nemo protest auferre de manibus meis.“

(...) Duke Menumorout received them /Ősbő[5] and Velek[5], the envoys of Árpád, the grand prince of the Magyars/ kindly and, enriched with divers gifts, he ordered them homewards. Nevertheless, he so replied, saying: “Say to Árpád, duke of Hungary, your lord, that we owe him as a friend to a friend in all the matters that he needs because a guest is a human being and lacking in much. But the land that he seeks of our grace we will in no way surrender while we live. (…) Neither from affection nor from fear will we grant him land, even as little as he may hold in his fist, even though he says it is his right. And his words do not disquiet our thoughts when he tells us that he is descended from the line of King Attila, who is called the scourge of God, who seized this land with violent grasp from my forbear, for by the grace of my lord the emperor of Constantinople no one can snatch it from my hands.” And having said this, he gave them leave to withdraw.

Chapter 20 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - How they were sent against Bihar[2]

The Gesta narrates that Menumorut yielded to Árpád after the Magyars had expelled him from Bihor fortress.[3] Árpád’s son Zoltán married Menumorout’s daughter, and thus he inherited his father-in-law’s land after the latter’s death.[3]

(…) Ősbő[5] and Velek[5], the envoys of Duke Árpád, hastened speedily to their lord and, upon arrival, reported to their lord, Duke Árpád, the message of Menumorout. Upon hearing this, Duke Árpád and his nobles were moved by anger and they immediately ordered an army to be sent against him. (…) On the second day, they began to ride along the Tisza towards the Szamos-Somes river and they made camp at that place where is now Szabolcs[5], and at that place almost all the inhabitants of the land subordinated themselves of their own will and, throwing themselves at their feet, gave their sons as hostages lest they should suffer any harm. For almost all the peoples feared them and only a few managed by flight to escape them and, coming to Menumorout, they announced what they had done. Having heard this, so great a fear overwhelmed Menumorout that he did not dare raise his hand, because all the inhabitants feared them more than can be said (…)

Chapter 20 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - How they were sent against Bihar[2]

Tas[5] and Szabolcs[5], with victory won, returned to Duke Árpád, subduing the whole people from the Szamos-Somes river to the Cris-Körös[5], and none dared raise a hand against them. And Menumourut, their duke, preferred to prepare ways of going to Greece[5] than of proceeding against them. (…)

Chapter 28 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of Duke Menomorout[2]

(...) Duke Árpád and his noblemen sent by common counsel an army against Menumorout, duke of Bihar, of which army Ősbő[5] and Velek[5] were appointed the chief men and leaders. They, having set forth from the island, riding through the sand and flow of the Tisza, crossed at the harbor of Bőd[5], and, riding on, they encamped beside the Kórógy river, and all the Székelys[5], who were previously the peoples of King Attila, having heard of Ősbő’s[5] fame, came to make peace and of their own will gave their sons as hostages along with divers gifts and they undertook to fight in the vanguard of Ősbő’s army, and they forthwith sent the sons of the Székelys[5] to Duke Árpád, and, together with the Székelys[5] before them, began to ride against Menumorout. (...)

Chapter 50 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of the destruction of Pannonia[2]

When Menumorout heard that Ősbő[5] and Velek[5], most noble warriors of Duke Árpád, had come against them with a strong force, with Székelys[5] in the vanguard, he feared more than was fitting and dared not go against them (…). Then Duke Menumorout, having left a host of warriors in Bihar castle, fleeing before them, betook himself and his wife and daughter to the groves of Igyfon[5](Holy Forest-Ses Mountain). Ősbő[5] and Velek[5] and their entire army happily began to ride against Bihar castle and encamped beside the Jószás[5] river. (…) On the thirteenth day, when the Hungarians and Székelys[5] had filled in the castle’s moats, and sought to put ladders to the wall, the warriors of Duke Menumorout began to petition the two chief men of the army for terms and, having thrown the castle open, they came before Ősbő[5] and Velek[5], beseeching them barefoot. Putting a guard over them, Ősbő[5] and Velek[5] entered Bihar castle and found there the many goods of the warriors. When Menumorout heard this from messengers that had taken to flight, he became very greatly afraid and sent his messengers with divers gifts to Ősbő[5] and Velek[5] and asked them to incline to peace and to send their envoys to Duke Árpád to announce to him that Menumorout, who had before haughtily with a Bulgarian heart sent word through his messengers to Duke Árpád refusing to give him a fistful of land, was now defeated and overthrown and did not hesitate to give, through the same messengers, his realm and his daughter to Zolta[5], son of Árpád. (…) Duke Árpád, having taken counsel of his noblemen, approved and praised Menumorout’s announcement and (...) did not refuse Menumorout’s petition and he accepted Menumorout’s daughter as Zolta’s[5] wife, along with the realm promised to him, and, having sent envoys to Ősbő[5] and Velek[5], he instructed that, once the wedding had been performed, they should accept the daughter of Menumorout as wife to his son, Zolta[5], take with them the sons of the inhabitants placed as hostages, and give Bihar castle to Duke Menumorout.

Chapter 51 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of Duke Menumorout [2]

The second year after all this, Menumorout died without a son, and left his whole kingdom in peace to Zolta, his son-in-law.

Chapter 52 of The Deeds of the Hungarians - Of Ősbő and Velek[2]The
 
Magyars first besieged Satu Mare (Zotmar) citadel and then Menumorout's castle in Biharea, defeating him.
Gesta Hungarorum then retells the story of Menumorut, this time, he married his daughter into the Árpád dynasty, and her son Taksony, the nephew of Menumorut, became ruler of the Magyars and father of Mihály and Géza, who's son Vajk (Voicu in Romanian) became the first King of Hungary in 1001 under the Christian name Stephen.
http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Menumorut
 

After the Magyar conquest Bihar-Biharea became part of the Tercia.  The exact borders of the "Tercia parsi regni" have not been determined yet. The counties entrusted to the members of the ruling dynasty did not form a separate province within the kingdom, but they were organized around two or three centers.

The eastern block of the counties were located around Bihar (Romanian: Biharea), a city that was also the see of a Roman Catholic diocese in that time. The north-western parts of the territories were centered around Nyitra (Slovak: Nitra, German: Neutra). A third possible center of the territories was Krassó, a fortress destroyed later in the first half of the 13th century, located near to the present-day Dupljaja in Serbia.

The dukes' principal hunting-grounds lay in the "Holy Forest" (Igyfon) on the territory of the Erdélyi-Szigethegység / Seş Mountains (today in Romania) in the 11th century.

 

Controversy around his story

 Hungarian poin of view is that as nothing proves that the anonymous writer of the Gesta had factual knowledge of the real conditions of the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries  he could probably turn only to his own imagination when he outlined the history of the Magyar Conquest.[7] His methods are those of a historical novelist.[6] Therefore, he revived the enemies of the conquerors on the basis of place-names in the Carpathian Basin: thus Menumorut's name came from the ancient village Marót or Marótlaka in Bihar County.[7]On the other hand, the Gesta Ungarorum is the earliest surviving chronicle of Hungary, which was written at some point after 1196.[8] Although the version given by the unknown author of this chronicle is in sharp contrast with that of Simon of Kéza and other chronicles, but it would be a mistake to treat the Gesta as a forgery, for nothing indicates that its author had any reason to forge anything.[9]

Romanian historians tend to accept that Menumorot was the "voivode" of Crişana, one of  the Romanian incipient states on the territory of present-day Romania.[1][10][11]

 They found  at Biharea The Earthen Fortress, also called the Fortress of Menumorut, (9th century) existing even in the 5th century.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1.  Pop, Ioan Aurel. Romanians and Romania: A Brief History. 
  2. Martyn Rady (2008-07-19). "The Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus, the Anonymous Notary of King Béla (a draft translation)". www.ssees.ac.uk (UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies). http://www.ssees.ac.uk/prospect/GestaHungarorum.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-03-21. 
  3. Kristó, Gyula (General Editor). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század). 
  4. Köpeczi, Béla (Editor). History of Transylvania - Volume I: From the Beginnings to 1606. 
  5. Veszprémy, László (Translator). A magyarok cselekedetei. 
  6.  Macartney, C. A.. The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical and Analytical Guide. 
  7. Kristó, Gyula. Early Transylvania - 895-1324. 
  8. Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250. 
  9. Madgearu, Alexandru. Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania. 
  10. Klepper, Nicolae. Romania: An Illustrated History. 
  11. Georgescu, Vlad. The Romanians - A History. 

 Sources

  • Georgescu, Vlad (Author) - Calinescu, Matei (Editor) - Bley-Vroman, Alexandra (Translator): The Romanians – A History; Ohio State University Press, 1991, Columbus; ISBN 0-8142-0511-9 ([1], retrieved on 2009-03-21).
  • Klepper, Nicolae: Romania: An Illustrated History; Hippocrene Books, Inc, 2005, New York, NY; ISBN 0-7818-0935-5.
  • Köpeczi, Béla (General Editor) - Makkai, László - Mócsy, András - Szász, Zoltán (Editors) - Barta, Gábor (Assistant Editor): History of Transylvania – Volume I: From the Beginnings to 1606; Columbia University Press, 2001, New York; ISBN 0-88033-479-7 ([2], retrieved on 2009-03-21).
  • Kristó, Gyula (General Editor) - Engel, Pál - Makk, Ferenc (Editors): Korai Magyar történeti lexicon (9-14. század) /Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th-14th centuries)/; Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994, Budapest; ISBN 963-05-6722-9 (the entry “Ménmarót” was written by Zoltán Kordé).
  • Kristó, Gyula: Early Transylvania (895-1324); Lucidus Kiadó, 2003, Budapest; ISBN 963-9465-12-7.
  • Macartney, C. A.: The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical and Analytical Guide; Cambridge University Press, 2008; ISBN 978-0-521-08051-4.
  • Madgearu, Alexandru: Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania; in: Curta, Florin (Editor): East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages; The University of Michigan Press, 2005; ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
  • Pop, Ioan Aurel: Romanians and Romania: A Brief History; Columbia University Press, 1999, New York; ISBN 0-88033-440-1.
  • Veszprémy, László (Translator): A magyarok cselekedetei /The Deeds of the Hungarians/; in: Anonymus (Author) - Veszprémy, László (Translator): A magyarok cselekedetei – Kézai, Simon (Author) - Bollók, János (Translator): A magyarok cselekedetei; Osiris Kiadó, 1999, Budapest; ISBN 963-389-606-1.
 
Biharea Fortress
 
 
 
 

 The fortress Biharea , located at 13 km from Oradea, dates from the IX-X-th century and was the residence of voivode Menumoru.
 
Menumorout was grandson of Dux Morout or Moront of the khozars, some hungarian authors identifying Morout with the Moravian Morot whom the Magyars defeated in Pannonia. His lands lied east of Tisza and Ygfon forrest, from Mures river to Somes river, towards Ultrasilvania (Transylvania).
 
 
 
 
 
 
Already proven by archeological excavations (numerous coin hoards included), the passage cited above stresses the never disrupted connection the ancestors of the Romanians had with the Eastern Roman Empire, despite the political detachment occurred because of the invasions.
 
Pl. LXIII. 1-8: Benic, 9-16: Biharea ( după Oţa-colab. 2006 ). 
 
http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/bibliotheca/xxiii/ilustratii%2061%2070.htm

Institutul pentru Cercetarea Patrimoniului Cultural Transilvanean în Context European (IPTCE) director: prof.univ.dr. Sabin Adrian LUCA

 

Torques-uri, Biharea http://mail.mnir.ro/ro/colectii/istorie-medievala-photo.html
 
 
 
http://leosuteu.rdsor.ro/apuseni/bihor_se.html

 
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Menumorut
During the 1st millennium, it was Biharia, a place neighboring Oradea that was most important, being the center of the principality during the reign of Menumorut (early 10th century).
 
 
One must also remember that the Romanian population living in the earthen fortress often barred the Hungarians getting to or crossing Bihor. They had direct relations with the emperor of Byzantium to whom they were religiously subordinated.The Hungarian Kingdom, the newly imposed political ruler, turned Oradea into an important Catholic center between the 11th and the 13th centuries, and into a religious administrative center by founding the RomanCatholic Bishopric during the reign of king Ladislau I (1077 1095). From now on, Varadinum (Oradea) first mentioned with this toponymy in 1113 acquires more prestige and gets to a higher development than Biharea or other settlements in the region. The conquest of the region and the attempt to catholicize the Romanian population living here made them rise for preserving their Orthodox cult, rejecting the political and ecclesiastical organization of the Western world.
After the Roman conquest of Constantinople in 1204 that led to a marked proselytism in the regions inhabited by Orthodox congregations, they still maintained the Orthodox bishoprics in Bihor, and some other churches of Greek monks on the estate of the Roman Catholic bishopric in Oradea.
Biharea The Earthen Fortress, also called the Fortress of Menumorut, (9th century) existed even in the 5th century. The earthen Fortress is considered the most beautiful monument of this kind in Romania. It has a surface of 4.7 ha. It has a rectangular surface of 115 × 150 meters, and it is surrounded by a ditch of 15-20 meters wide and 5-7 meters high. Here, Saint Stefan (10th century) created an episcopate which, at the beginning, was meant to be orthodox, but later became roman-catholic.
http://dkmt.netion.hu/textpages/231/bh-hb_en.pdf
The high position that the RomanCatholic bishopric reaches in Oradea, representing the interest of both the Hungarian Kingdom and the papacy, will lead to its gaining a special credit with the Hungarian Kingdom and Transylvania. In those days, the two religious institutions functioned in the existing castrum whose position in the 12- 13th centuries urged the move of the center of the medieval town to the place of the future Citadel, surrounded by other districts, a place of permanent changes. The chronicles written about the Citadel, point to the fact that in 1241, during the Tartar invasion of Oradea, the clay fortress had an ovoid form, as mentioned by monk Rogerius in his Carmaen miserabile. After the siege, the local authorities had to think of reconstructing the Citadel and of turning it into a fortified place and a symbol of the ruling power. Thus, after repeated restorations in the 16th century, after the battle of Mohacs (1526) and the setting of the pashalik at Buda (1540), the Transylvanian princes thought out the vast project of erecting a solid fortress in Oradea, to oppose resistance to the Turkish invasion.
http://markthepretender.tripod.com/
 
 The fortress of Bihar
 
 Archaeological Excavations at Bihar (automatic translation from Romanian sorry needs editing)

Biharia (jud. Bihor). Încă din prima cercetare arheologică, a fost semnalată prezenţa unui zid de piatră peste valurile cetăţii de pământ (sec. IX-X-XI – XII?).

 

 Materialul ceramic a fost datat larg în sec. XI-XIII, eventual înainte de 1241 (M. Rusu, în AII Cluj, 3, 1960, p. 15). Cu reluarea cercetărilor se semnalează acolo o „fază a III-a”, un „turn” şi ziduri din cărămidă, ca şi diferite construcţii de piatră interioare, între care „un fragment de colonetă romanică, spartă în două, în formă de calotă” (Cronica 2002, p. 54). Până la punerea la punct a concluzi­ilor, menţinem obiectivul în „carantina” acestei grupe.

http://www.cetati.medievistica.ro/cetati/Transilvania/B/Biharea/album_Biharia1/index.html
A. Neo-eneoliticã settlement excavations have been continued in the central area of the plateau "Cetãþuia", opening up another box (next to the year 1993 and perpendicular to the section bus). Anthropogenic deposition layer is thin, 0.15 to 0.30 m. On the western side of the box was found a concentration of strips and chips of obsidian, from, apparently, from three different sources, because the blades have different colors : black, tinted, brown. He was found and a triangular arrowhead with retouched edges. Concentration, and the pieces scattered around could indicate a workshop worked arrowheads for hunting animals and birds in the forest Craiului Mountains piedmont. Ceramics show two levels of living: one Neolithic, and the second neo-eneolitic, highlighted pottery fragments derived from the influence of Vinci.
B. Settlement Hallstatt (A1) continued excavations in the special anthropogenic deposition (0.80 to 0.90 m) versus anthropogenic deposits in western shelf, where they drew two sections perpendicular to the section bus. The compact layer of black earth was found a large quantity of pottery and numerous Hallstatt A1 only partially burned scrap vessels or other zgurificate. The area in which were found spatula, facetted pieces of graphite, which provides clues for possible existence in this part of the central area of the plateau "Cetãþuia" of pottery. It was found, the material found that ceramics with two sides (red or brown inside and outside the black polished, sometimes grooved) was modeled on the spot, using graphite polishing. The presence of vessels bitronconice unpolished, the same color (brown) on both sides, strengthens this hypothesis. Yet, to follow in detail the use of graphite in "anointing" or polishing of the three main types of vessels, black or "two sides": cups, bowls and bowls and pots with lip invasive bitronconice ( 'urns, black outdoor and brown or brick on the inside). C. Dacian settlement has continued research within the area bounded by the waves and enclosure ditch săpându is still a box, perpendicular to the longitudinal section, the extension box, dug in 1993. In the western part of the tape was surprised a pit dug by treasure seekers, who have disturbed a high concentration of adobe and Dacian potsherds, including in secondary position were found following pieces of iron: a sickle, a knife, a sword blade fragment (?), a calculation of Lance (?) strongly corroded and some smaller fragments of iron. The pieces could indicate possibly a funerary inventory (?) Completely disturbed by previous excavations. Study reveals that pottery in this area (inside the fortified enclosure) missing ceramic enclosed in the second half of the century. II B.C. - Sec. I BC, among other fragments of black Fruit worked by hand. Tăşad are emerging from two living areas with two levels: a) The central area of the plateau "Cetãþuia, with vestiges dating back centuries. II BC - I AD, and b) the area inside the fortified enclosure (with wave and ditch), with artifacts dating yet, but in the second half of the century. I B.C. - Sec. I AD, that further research will bring new details to the internal chronology of the Tăşad Dacian settlement.
Age of migrations (sec. VII - XI), Medieval (sec. XIII-XVIII), ;
 Reserch in the Cefa (Sannicolaul Romanesc) forest have found the extension to the south of section S4 with 30 m and five boxes for digging uncovered targets. Stratigraphic situation remained the same as in previous years, observing the differences only in terms of levels of living. Neolithic remains have still appeared, Hallstatt, prefeudala, early medieval and feudal. Have not come to light Celtic and Dacian remains as they were discovered two years ago. Section swept an area heavily populated mostly in the age prefeudala, early feudal and feudal, being discovered more archaeological complex. Two pits were investigated domestic hearth furnaces and two feudal centuries. XV-XVI century four early medieval dwellings. XI-XIII and housing prefeudala seconds. IX-X. It was found that the house prefeudala was intersected by a board early feudal which in turn was overlaid by two early medieval dwellings. Above them, the green cover has been arranged from a feudal oven which only hearth. Research will continue in this sector of the settlement by the digging of the parallel sections and the unveiling of new early medieval complex which is expected to occur.
 
Excavations begun in 2001,  between July 30 to August 23. To address the objective, free, for the most part, the guides, had adopted a relative reference system. Limit sector of the complex is where the section was carried out in 1981, was called conventional T B T (T Church t). Central sector was marked with the logo of conventional T T T (T Tower t). For sector B that was for marking a square immediately north of the section house, which had square edges of the same area 28 m square was divided into smaller squares, 4 x 4 m, each equipped with the axis combined logo EV (ABCDEFG) and NS (1-2-3-4-5-6-7). Because there is no benchmark to follow, began to be dug, diagonal, square started at the corner of SV, to the NE. All diagonal was not achieved. Have been traced and investigated only squares with the initials A 1, B 2, C 3 and D 4. In the classical variant T has adopted a research, by sections. As a result, S. I / T was strictly oriented to the axis NS, over mound that betray the presence of a building. D 4 has been discovered in the foundation size and impressive technical achievement, which was suspected to be a church. Planimetry of them showed a spur of masonry solved successively twice. Spur could belong to a component inside the building (on a spring dublou on the border between the vessel and the altar?). Elevation was made of yellow sandstone blocks, shaped, which were included in asize pretty regular about. 0.42 m wide. Paramentele were washed at least once. Does not mean that the life of the building to be used brick. The coverage has been, of course, the components of wood (shingles or boards, attached with nails right, thin). Other details of construction are those related to ledge with semicircular arches, situated almost mandatory, under roof eaves. Location colonetelor probably cast, is still uncertain. Could be placed either inside the monument, or outside, always against the wall. Their form suggests different possible ritmare (eg tiles - marble). Lithic fragment with profilatura band could come from a spring in full cintru, from a door made of bricks carved in identical forms. It is clear that the main area of the monastery was endowed with a complex pavement decoration, the variety of colors and forms and diversity of manufacturing materials. It is not clear whether some lithic fragments, mostly of white marble from the scenery and parietal. It also left open the issue of locations of these components, theoretically they could be located in other parts of the former monastery. Lithic materials with profilaturi indicates that we are dealing with several phases of intervention: sec. XI (pavements, profilatura semicircular), sec. XII (caps, semicircular arches), sec. XIV-XV (?). Data no later than at minor materials, inventory. Central Tower was investigated first by a section called conventional archaeological S. I (sector T T T). Lifting solution was as follows: paramentul was built slightly more care, roughly coarse stone blocks, at least at lower levels (at -1 m high and 0.75 m from the modern ironing). The core wall was T T of stones cast amorphous forms, in as much mortar. In elevation, the situation was probably different at emplecton and parament. Parties preserved until today have drowned arrangement of bricks in mortar, the system known to be constructive in blocking T T, but the opposite spicatus. Nearby ruin, - who directed the excavation, - which comes, almost certainly, in elevation, have something more regular brick asize. It is estimated that it is an almost square plan, with sides of approx. 4.75 m. Wells. Most important, in form and execution, was made in the ground floor of the tower in the center of the enclosure. He had a diameter of 0.7 m. In the research were found roughly five rows of blocks arranged in regular asize. Depth reached using the same benchmark of deep, is -2 m. The second well must have worked for is probably near the church. Prove it was still the first campaign, the discovery of no less than four stones that made up the trunk. Shapes are different from those of the first wells in that it presents only the inner concavitatea without blocks have been prepared for regular asize. Diameter is substantially close to that of the first wells, the tower T. Palisade. It is a building which had two rows of beams placed vertically and parallel to each other. String s, willing to mid NS axis of the tape, consists of three beams. The wing was attached to profiles. Parallel thread, located west was close to the profile box, at a distance of 1.9 / 2 m. Of this number were found only two holes for pillars, the N and center. Their dimensions are smaller than those of E. Behind the string of V, respectively inside stockades, at distances of 0.16 / 0.4 m, was found a 0.35 m wide ditch, which runs through the whole box . Recorded thicknesses are 0.2 / 0.4 m. suspect that this plant is associated and identified a limit of V ditch the box A 1, respectively, about. 3 m vertical row of palisades V itself. It was found over a width of only 1 m. It is clear that he cut tombs older (eg. M. 11). There were 17 marked graves. All are without inventory. Reinhumările were quite common. Archaeological material is very diverse: six coins (sec. XIII-XV), apply card, clothing, fragments of bronze vessels, construction hardware, knives, crossbows peaks, building components (portal, friezes, colonete, capitals , window frames, components of Mosaic - 14 different types, mesh windows, dishes, candles, pot-mouth square tiles, tiles T-shaped onion T, the usual local pottery, but also import the Byzantine tradition. The entire inventory of archaeological material is already in the Arad County Museum.
 
 
 
The data concerning this period are rather scarce. However, the continuity of the Christian life is confirmed by the archaeological discoveries: six churches in a chalk mountain in Basarabi, county of Constanta, certainly a monastic settlement (dating from the 9th -11th centuries, according to certain historians from the 4th -12th centuries), foundations of two churches in the north of Dobrudgea, one in Niculitel (10th -12th centuries), another one in Garvan (former Dinogetia), from the same period. Several crosses and even cross moulds were discovered in various parts of the country, beyond the Prut river, too. The foundations of a church were discovered in Dabaca, about 30 km north-west of Cluj-Napoca (10th -11th centuries), and some others under the Catholic churches in Alba Iulia and Prejmer, country of Brasov, etc.
 
These discoveries are not only indubitable evidence on the continuity of the Orthodox Romanians in these territories, but also certain proofs of the necessity of some Romanian bishops.
 
After the invasion of Transylvania by the Hungarian Catholic kingdom (11th - 13th centuries) the so-called “counties” (Bihor, Alba, Hunedoara) were set up instead of the old Romanian political units. The same happened to the Romanians’ religious structures; Hungarian Catholic dioceses were set up instead of the Orthodox dioceses. So, once the “county” in Bihor was set up, with the residence in Biharea, a Latin diocese was created instead of the Orthodox one, that would soon be moved to Oradea, where it remained until more recently, which is also confirmed by some of the Hungarian historians. The seat of Alba county was established in Alba Iulia, where a Roman Catholic diocese was created and which still exists today, instead of the Orthodox one. The Catholic diocese of Morisena (Cenad) was created by king Steven the Saint of Hungary, in 1038, after conquering the city from prince Ohtum or Ahtum (it was also there that Latin monks were brought, in the Orthodox monastery of Saint John the Baptist). So, the Catholic dioceses in Transylvania have been set up on the very places of the old Orthodox episcopal or chorepiscopal sees from Biharea (Oradea), Alba Iulia and Morisena - Cenad. The phenomenon concerning the replacement of some Orthodox churches and monasteries with Catholic ones can be seen also in other parts of Transylvania.
 
The religious organisation of the Romanians survived in spite of the policy of Catholicization waged by the kings of Hungary, many times instigated by the pope himself. For instance, a letter of pope Inocentius III to the Archbishop of Calocea, in 1205, mentioned an Orthodox diocese “on the estate of knyaz Balea’s sons”. This diocese could have been either round Bihor or round Hunedoara, where knyazes with this name ruled, some of them founders of churches.
 

Early mediaeval amphora type vessels on Romania’s western and north-western area

 

Publication:Annals of the University of Alba Iulia - History (13/2009)
Author Name:Bacuet-Crisan, Dan;
Language:Romanian
Subject:Archeology
Issue:13/2009
 
 The boundaries of the area in discussion are formed by the Ţibleş-Gutâi-Oaş mountain chain in North, Romania’s western frontier, on the South Mureş River and on the East, the Eastern Carpathians (Pl. I/1). This vessel type was destined exclusively for liquid transportation and keeping, that’s why some of them have handles, but some of them, do not have it at all. We also mention the fact, that in the specialty bibliography these pots are mentioned under several names, like amphora, jug and in some cases flasks. Because of the fact that in the majority of cases the archeological material is very fragmentary, we can not analyze it to conclude if there were handles, or not, so we just call this kind of pottery amphora type vessels.
During this article we would like to analyze this type of pottery dating in the early medieval period, found in the north-western area of Romania, and to propose a typological and chronological classification as well. To accomplish such an objective, it’s a quite hard work, because in spite the fact that this kind of pottery is part of the 7th-13th century vessel it is rarely found. We will study archaeological discoveries published in special literature, using these information (as they are) given by the authors of the researches and/or discoveries. What concerns the north-western part of Romania, we present nine sites with amphora type vessel discoveries, sites spread on the territory of six localities (Pl. I/2).
By the characteristics of amphora type vessels discovered (dimensions, form of the pot lip, opening and neck), we have identified the existence of 4 types (each of them, having it’s own 2 variants). The classification proposed by us, concerning this type of pottery identified on the north-western area of Romania, can be dated as we present it below:
a. TYPE IA and IB last decades of the 7th century – first half of the 8th century;
b. TYPE IIA 8th century – beginning of 9th century;
c. TYPE IIB belongs to 9th – 12th centuries;
d. TYPES IIIA and IIIB 11th- -13th centuries;
e. TYPES IVA and IVB are dated in the 10th century, possible further on to the 11th century.
In the already mentioned area of this country we have registered 9 archaeological sites with amphora type pottery discoveries, for what, we now propose a typological classification. Some of them were discovered in the context of early medieval settlements (Nuşfalău “Ţigoiul lui Benedek”, Bobota “Pe vale”, Biharea “Grădina SA-Baraj”, Biharea “Lutărie 1”, Cefa “La Pădure”), others in an early medieval fortress (Biharea “Cetatea de pământ-incintă. Zona de sud-vest” (“Măr”), Biharea “Zona cetăţii de pământ”), towards early medieval residence (Sânnicolau de Beiuş “Dealul bisericii”) and one in a village’s field without precise location (Sântandrei). Of course we do not exclude the possibility of other discoveries of this kind, yet not published, the real number of these discoveries being much larger than it is in this moment.
Keywords: discoveries; settlements; fortress; residence; classification
Explanation of plates
Pl. I. Presentation of the area in discussion on the territory of Romania (western and
north-western part of Romania) (1); early medieval amphora type pottery discoveries
on the western and north-western part of Romania (2).
Pl. II. Nusfalau “Tigoiul lui Benedek” (1-2); Bobota “Pe vale” (3).
Pl. III. Sântandrei (after Cosma, Vestul).
Pl. IV. Biharea “Zona cetatii de pamânt” (1) (after Cosma, Vestul); Biharea “Cetatea de
pamânt-incinta. Zona de sud-vest” (“Mar”) (2) (after Dumitrascu, Biharea); Sânnicolau
de Beius “Dealul bisericii” (3) (after Popa, Chidiosan, O resedinta).
Pl. V. Cefa “La Padure” (after Crisan, Sapaturile).
Pl. VI. Early medieval amphora type pottery classification proposal.
Pl. VII. Chronology of early medieval amphora type pottery on the western and
north-western part of Romania.
Pl. VIII. Spreading of type I (with variants TYPE IA and TYPE IB).
Pl. IX. Spreading of type II (with variants TYPE IIA andTYPE IIB).
Pl. X. Spreading of type III (with variants TYPE IIIA andTYPE IIIB).
Pl. XI. Spreading of type IV (with variants TYPE IVA andTYPE IVB).
 
 
 Cenad
Cenad; identificarea aici a unei fortifica�ii romane t�rzii pe baza descoperirii �n anul 1941 a unei c�r�mizi cu �tampila SISC (IA), a fost contestat� de unii istorici rom�ni (IDR, III/1, p. 247). Existen�a sa nu poate fi �ns� exclus� cu totul av�nd �n vedere faptul c� respectiva c�r�mid� �tampilat� a fost descoperit� �ntr-o s�p�tur� edilitar� al�turi de alte c�r�mizi ce proveneau din funda�iile unor ziduri romane; faptul a fost verificat printr-un sondaj arheologic �n anul 1946. Mai mult, �n anii 1974 �i �n 1986 s-au efectuat alte sondaje care au scos la iveal� ceramic� roman� t�rzie. Circula�ia monetar� sus�ine aceast� ipotez� (Protase, PC, p. 174) �i �n lipsa unor cercet�ri sistematice s-ar putea admite c� la Cenad a existat c�ndva �n sec. al IV-lea o fortifica�ie roman� t�rzie, poate un turn de observa�ie, care a apar�inut fie provinciei Pannonia Secunda, fie provinciei Valeria. O rezerv� se impune totu�i: aceea a dat�rii fortifica�iei la �nceputul sec. al IV-lea (IGLR, p. 374). Mult mai pertinent� ar fi luarea �n considerare a ac�iunilor militare �ntreprinse de Constantius al II-lea �mpotriva sarma�ilor din anii 358-359, sau cele ale lui Valentinian I �mpotriva cvazilor, de numele celui din urm� leg�ndu-se o intens� oper� de fortificare a grani�elor Imperiului �n regiunea Dun�rii pannonice (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIX, 6, 2). Nu se poate preciza momentul de sf�r�it al fortifica�iei, �n tot cazul trebuie s� fi avut o existen�� efemer�, mai ales �n contextul apropiatei invazii hunice.
IGLR, p. 374; IDR, III/1, p. 246-249, ambele cu bibliografia;
D. Benea, Dacia sud-vestic� ..., p. 239-240.
http://www.cetati.medievistica.ro/cetati/Transilvania/C/Cenad/Cenad.htm 
 
Rotonda from Cenad
 
Com Cenad the center, near the Roman Catholic church, the S XI 13 x 2 m, oriented EV, parallel SX/1987 and very short distance from it, were discovered the foundations of what appears to be a rotunda. The eastern end of the section, between m from 10.70 to 12.50, the foundation stone bound with mortar as a circular apses, is the southwestern tip of a pole building on a stone, brick Roman ( held on 7 times a height of 25 cm) associated with good quality mortar. SX/1987 was unveiled in the north of the pole foundation and another circular apses, which reinforces our belief that we are dealing with a round plan hexalobat foundation. In the west of S XI, between m from 0.30 to 3 foundation stone was found one slightly curved to the south, which may be absidiola entry into building. Stratigraphy provides little evidence for this complex. Under the late medieval and modern smoothing between 1.60 to 2.00 m depth, there was a layer of dry soil with much pottery. XII-XIII, in which boilers are full of clay. This layer overlaps a level of debris (thick 0.15 to 0.25 m) and from ancient humus (from 2.00 to 2.75 m depth) that was found Roman pottery and ceramics from the SEC. X-XI. In this layer rotunda foundations were discovered. In a second section, S XII, 10 x 2 m, oriented parallel SI/1974 NV and was discovered in late smoothing a layer of dry culture. XIII-XIV and 2.60 to 2.70 m depth, 6 frames oriented VE. Potholes tombs of the first three levels overlapping construction petitioned section. The M1, having a child, were found in the skull, 4 silver rings temple dating from the SEC. XI-XII.
 
 
 
 Cenad. Planul forticaţiilor din prima jumătate a secolului XVIII cu
amplasamentul bisericilor şi mănăstirilor medievale (după Heitel)
 
 CENAD
Mănăstirea „Sfântul Ioan Botezătorul” (Romanian only)

1. Aşezată pe malul Mureşului, cetateaMorisena era, la nele veacului al X-lea şi către prima jumătate a veacului al XI-lea, reşedinţa puternicului feudal Ahtum. După botezul său de la Vidin el a adus călugări „greci” cu stareţ, pe care i-a aşezat în mănăstirea ridicată de el închinatăSfântului Ioan
Botezătorul (accepit autem potestatem a Grecis et construxit in prefata urbe
Morisena monasterium in honore Beati Johannis Baptiste, constituens in
eodem abbatem cum monachis Grecis iuxa ordinem et ritum ipsorum(SRH,
II, p. 490). Mănăstirea de rit grecesc de la Cenad a fost ridicată de Ahtum probabil în jurul Anului O MIE. În urma conictului cu regele Ştefan I el a fost învins de Chanadinus, care apoi a întemeiat mănăstirea de la Oroszlanos, unde a mutat călugării şi abatele mănăstirii din Cenad (Györffy, I3, 1987, p. 850). Biserica, închinată Sfântului Ioan Botezătorul, a fost consemnată în două documente. Biserica mănăstirii lui Ahtum a devenit după instalarea lui Gerard la Cenad în 1030 cea dintâi biserică episcopală până la ridicarea pe malul Mureşului a noi biserici episcopale închinate Sfântului Gheorghe.
 
 „Iar episcopul sfătuindu-se cu comitele Chanadin mută pe acel stareţ grec cu monahii săi la Oroszlamos şi dădu mănăstirea lor episcopului şi fraţilor ce erau cu el, care locuiră acolo până ce fu gata mănăstirea fericitului mucenic Gheorghe” (Suciu, Constantinescu, 1980, I, p. 47). Două documente papale târzii din anul 1433 oferă o informaţie importantă despre soarta celei dintâi biserici a Cenadului. Actul papal din 7 februarie 1433 făcea referire la un „capellam S. Ladislai regis supra capellam S. Johannis baptistae in civitate
Cenadiensis in corporatam” (Lukcsics, II, 1938, p. 70). Documentul papal
din 14 iulie 1433 vine să nuanţeze această informaţie precizând că „Gregorii
Petri, clerici Cenadiensis diocesis et rectoris capellae S. Ladislai sitae in
ecclesia parochiali S. Johannis Baptiste” (Lukcsics, II, 1938, p. 106). Planul acestei biserici şi poziţia ei în ansamblul topograei ecleziastice a cetăţii Cenadului îl cunoaştem graţie unei hărţi din prima jumătate a veacului al XVIII-lea, ce o vom discuta mai jos.
Conform acestei hărţi biserica mănăstirii Sfântul Ioan Botezătorul a avut planul unui dreptunghi, în interiorul căruia s-a delimitat structural monumentul prin îngroşări şi retrageri ale zidurilor spaţiul estic ind închis printr-o absidă poligonală cu cinci laturi . În imediata vecinătate a acesteia este realizat planul unei alte biserici, cu o structură simplă, formată dintr-o navă dreptunghiulară şi un cor alungit, uşor decroşat faţă de zidurile laterale ale navei (Fig. 1). Pe toată lungimea laturii sudice a corului apare desenat conturul a două încăperi. Pe ancul sudic al acestei biserici se desfăşoară o incintă de ziduri ce au fost identicate cu corpul mănăstirii. Zidurile de incintă se aă pe latura sudică şi sunt dispuse în imediata vecinătate a celei de-a doua biserici din incinta bisericii (Heitel, 2005, p. 14).
Planul celor două biserici poziţionează şi relaţia topogracă în care
se găseau în veacul al XI-lea la Cenad biserica mănăstirii Sfântul Ioan
Botezătorul şi biserica mănăstirii închinate Fecioarei Maria. Se conrmă în acest fel informaţia cunoscută până acum din Legenda Major. În ceea ce priveşte planul bisericii lui Ahtum el a fost raportat la ambianţa artei bulgare a veacului al X-lea (Heitel, 2005, p. 17). Sigur el a suferit însă modicări în cursul veacului al XIV-lea ori al XV-lea, după cum se observă pe spaţiul vestic al acestuia unde au fost ridicate două capele. Raportul din 1868 menţionează descoperirea unui sarcofag din piatră,
având sculptată pe una din laturi o cruce bizantină, fragmente arhitectonice de la monumentele romane şi gotice, urmele a două fântâni, un apeduct lucrat din cărămidă, morminte, o construcţie de formă pătrată socotită drept resturile unui baptisteriu. K.David a propus identicarea urmelor bisericii Sfântul Ioan Botezătorul din sec. al X-lea, a navei unei biserici din sec. XIII şi a unui moment din sec. XV (Dávid, 1974, p. 14-15, g. 2). România,Cenad, (Csanad), j. Timiş. 
 
Byzantium in the year 1000  By Paul Magdalino, p116
 Turning to the north-western frontier, as early as 1002, Basil II cast his gaze upon the Danubian land west of Dristra.  In that year he personally conducted and eight -month siege of Vidin. 
Shortly afterward a chieftain known as Achtum (in Hungarian Ajtony), wose land steched north to the river Koros/Caras was baptized acording to the Orthodox rite, and subsequently founded a monastery in honor of St. John the Baprist at Morisena on the river Maros/Mures. There is evidence for the promotion of Orthodoxy in and around Szeged in the first quarter of the eleven century, and we know from a rare charter that the monastery of St. Demetrios at Sirmium owned land in that district.  The fullest account of Achtum's activities is contained in the Vita Maior of St. Gerard, which reveals further that he controlled the passage of salt along the Maros, Tisza and Szeged. 

Fântânele 
Bizere Monastery

http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/scripts/arh/cronica/detail.asp?k=1369

  

Ileana Burnichioiu Adrian Andrei Rusu The Medieval Mosaics from Bizere. Die mittelalterlichen Mosaiken von Bizere. Cluj-Napoca, Ed. Mega, 2006, 56 p

Adrian Andrei Rusu-Bolindet (born in Medias, on 8 November 1951) is a researcher in Romanian mediaeval archaeology. He is also a researcher at the Institute of Archaeology and Art History in Cluj-Napoca.He is a principal researcher at the Bizere Monastery site in Frumuşeni, Arad county.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Andrei_Rusu

Ileana "Ana" Burnichioiu is an archaeologist, mediaeval historian and art historian in Romania.
Former curator at the Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilisation in Deva, Romania, Burnichioiu is currently a professor at "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia where she teaches art history.
She is also a principal researcher at the Bizere Monastery site in Frumuşeni, Arad county, where the Frumuşeni Mosaics were discovered in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ileana_Burnichioiu

BIZERE
Abaţia Sfânta Maria (Romanian only)

Abaţia Bizere, situată în valea Mureşului, poate  considerată unul din cele mai vechi şi mai importante aşezăminte ale ordinului benedictin din acest spaţiu. Atestată în anul 1183 sub forma monasterium de Bisra, aceasta avându-şi începuturile încă la finele veacului al XI-lea, după recentele argumente aduse de arheologia medievală (Györffy, I3, 1987, p. 173; Rusu, 2005, p. 152) . More on line.
 

Frumuşeni-Bizere Mosaics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumu%C5%9Feni_Mosaics

http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/cronicaCA2006/albume/078/078/album0.html

The Frumuşeni Mosaics are a set of millennium-old mosaics discovered in Romania at "Fântâna Turcului" (Turk's Well), close to the locality of Frumuşeni, on the left bank of Mureş River, near the city of Arad. The area of the discovery corresponds with the former Bizere Monastery of the 11th-16th centuries (see Details).

Discovery

The archaeological excavations from the Frumuşeni site, Fântânele, Arad County, were done by the research team composed of dr. Adrian Andrei Rusu (Institute of Archaeology and Art History in Cluj-Napoca), drd. George Pascu Hurezan (Arad County Museum Complex), dr. Peter Hugel (Arad County Museum Complex) and drd. Ileana Burnichioiu ("1 Decembrie 1918" University in Alba Iulia). The mosaic was discovered in August 2003.

Further excavations also identified a complex of monumental buildings (a 23m x 8m two-level palace/port, two churches, a tower with a well, palisades, ditches and other construction components—portal, frieze, colons, mouldings, capitals, window enclosures, arches—local and imported ceramics, sculpted pieces, coins, book binders, adornments, fragments of apparels, bronze vessels, knives, crossbow arrows, spurs, glass panes, plates, dishes and pots, candles. The area was the witness of the discovery of a well, shedding light on the reason for its name. Also discovered was a cemetery, consisting of three hundred graves.

Authorities plan to raise a museum pavilion over the site. This project is also supported by the Austrian Institute of Archeology, as well as the University of Vienna. The land on which the discovery was made, was ceded to the new museum by the local authorities.

Details

Fragment of the mosaic

The mosaics were discovered inside the ruins of a former Roman Catholic monastery, the Bizere Monastery, which functioned between the 12th and 16th century. During this period the area belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary. The mosaic is believed to have constituted the floor of the church.

The speculations concerning the Eastern Orthodox origin of the mosaics cannot be fully proved, since the style and the possible dating of the finds can also have very strong Italian connections. The archaeological evidence in itself insufficient to decide whether the monastery was of western or eastern rite. Even the possible Byzantine origin of the mosaics does not support convincingly the Orthodox identification of the place, because in one hand of the very strong relationship between the Kingdom of Hungary (see Béla III's Byzantine connections), and on the other hand the ground plan and the architectural appearance of the building-complex rather represents a classical western liturgical space.

The surface is constituted by several polychrome mosaics, grouped into three 4.5m by 1.3m panels, beautifully crafted, depicting real or fantastic animal, floral, solar and geometric representations. The bestiary, containing a wolf-headed centaur, an half dog-half boar, a winged he-goat, a bear, a rabbit, a predator bird catching a fish, seems to illustrate the allegorical battle between good and evil. The mosaics also contain several crosses with equal arms, framed by squares, and superposed by a flower, suggesting the path to salvation.

The discovery of the Orthodox church only confirms an older hypothesis of Romanian histography, which suggests that Catholic orders (Cistercians, Benedictines), had taken over from the Orthodox Christians a series of monasteries, one of which is the Bistra Monastery (toponym transformed into Bizere). The Catholic monastery ended its existence in 1551, after an Ottoman invasion.

 See also

 Further reading

  • Ileana Burnichioiu, Adrian A. Rusu, Mozaicurile medievale de la Bizere | The Medieval Mosaics from Bizere | Die mittelalterlichen Mosaiken von Bizere, Arad, 2005; Editura Mega, 2006; 55 pages.

 References

External links

Research team Adrian Andrei Rusu - responsible (iaia Cluj), George Pascu HUREZANI Peter Hügel (CM Arad), students: Ioana Barbu, Florin Marginean, Gyorfi Salan (UBB Cluj), Alina Badescu (Univ. Alba Iulia)
Area research team 2001
NAR code 9315.03
Report (in Romanian) Excavations were begun in 2001, that between July 30 to August 23. To address the objective, free, for the most part, the guides, has adopted a relative reference system. Limit sector of the complex is where the section was carried out in 1981, was called conventional T B T (T Church t). Central sector was marked with the logo of conventional T T T (T Tower t). For sector B that was for marking a square immediately north of the section house, which had square edges of the same area 28 m square was divided into smaller squares, 4 x 4 m, each equipped with the axis combined logo EV (ABCDEFG) and NS (1-2-3-4-5-6-7). Because there is no benchmark to follow, began to be dug, diagonal, square started at the corner of SV, to the NE. All diagonal was not achieved. Have been traced and investigated only squares with the initials A 1, B 2, C 3 and D 4. In the classical variant T has adopted a research, by sections. As a result, S. I / T was strictly oriented to the axis NS, over mound that betray the presence of a building. D 4 has been discovered in the foundation size and impressive technical achievement, which was suspected to be a church. Planimetry of them showed a spur of masonry solved successively twice. Spur could belong to a component inside the building (on a spring dublou on the border between the vessel and the altar?). Elevation was made of yellow sandstone blocks, shaped, which were included in asize pretty regular about. 0.42 m wide. Paramentele were washed at least once. Does not mean that the life of the building to be used brick. The coverage has been, of course, the components of wood (shingles or boards, attached with nails right, thin). Other details of construction are those related to ledge with semicircular arches, situated almost mandatory, under roof eaves. Location colonetelor probably cast, is still uncertain. Could be placed either inside the monument, or outside, always against the wall. Their form suggests different possible ritmare (eg tiles - marble). Lithic fragment with profilatura band could come from a spring in full cintru, from a door made of bricks carved in identical forms. It is clear that the main area of the monastery was endowed with a complex pavement decoration, the variety of colors and forms and diversity of manufacturing materials. It is not clear whether some lithic fragments, mostly of white marble from the scenery and parietal. It also left open the issue of locations of these components, theoretically they could be located in other parts of the former monastery. Lithic materials with profilaturi indicates that we are dealing with several phases of intervention: sec. XI (pavements, profilatura semicircular), sec. XII (caps, semicircular arches), sec. XIV-XV (?). Data no later than at minor materials, inventory. Central Tower was investigated first by a section called conventional archaeological S. I (sector T T T). Lifting solution was as follows: paramentul was built slightly more care, roughly coarse stone blocks, at least at lower levels (at -1 m high and 0.75 m from the modern ironing). The core wall was T T of stones cast amorphous forms, in as much mortar. In elevation, the situation was probably different at emplecton and parament. Parties preserved until today have drowned arrangement of bricks in mortar, the system known to be constructive in blocking T T, but the opposite spicatus. Nearby ruin, - who directed the excavation, - which comes, almost certainly, in elevation, have something more regular brick asize. It is estimated that it is an almost square plan, with sides of approx. 4.75 m. Wells. Most important, in form and execution, was made in the ground floor of the tower in the center of the enclosure. He had a diameter of 0.7 m. In the research were found roughly five rows of blocks arranged in regular asize. Depth reached using the same benchmark of deep, is -2 m. The second well must have worked for is probably near the church. Prove it was still the first campaign, the discovery of no less than four stones that made up the trunk. Shapes are different from those of the first wells in that it presents only the inner concavitatea without blocks have been prepared for regular asize. Diameter is substantially close to that of the first wells, the tower T. Palisade. It is a building which had two rows of beams placed vertically and parallel to each other. String s, willing to mid NS axis of the tape, consists of three beams. The wing was attached to profiles. Parallel thread, located west was close to the profile box, at a distance of 1.9 / 2 m. Of this number were found only two holes for pillars, the N and center. Their dimensions are smaller than those of E. Behind the string of V, respectively inside stockades, at distances of 0.16 / 0.4 m, was found a 0.35 m wide ditch, which runs through the whole box . Recorded thicknesses are 0.2 / 0.4 m. suspect that this plant is associated and identified a limit of V ditch the box A 1, respectively, about. 3 m vertical row of palisades V itself. It was found over a width of only 1 m. It is clear that he cut tombs older (eg. M. 11). There were 17 marked graves. All are without inventory. Reinhumările were quite common. Archaeological material is very diverse: six coins (sec. XIII-XV), apply card, clothing, fragments of bronze vessels, construction hardware, knives, crossbows peaks, building components (portal, friezes, colonete, capitals , window frames, components of Mosaic - 14 different types, mesh windows, dishes, candles, pot-mouth square tiles, tiles T-shaped onion T, the usual local pottery, but also import the Byzantine tradition. The entire inventory of archaeological material is already in the Arad County Museum.
Abstract   
Bibliography   
Bibliographic notes   
Source Chronicle of archaeological research in Romania
Editor CIMEC
Language EN

 Pancota

http://www.curierulnational.ro/Specializat/2004-08-31/Sculpturile+in+piatra+de+la+Pancota+sunt+rare+in+intreg+spatiul+ortodox

Sculpturile in piatra de la Pancota sunt rare in intreg spatiul ortodox specializat.
In urma campaniei arheologice din acest an desfasurata la Pancota (jud. Arad) au fost descoperite mai multe piese unicat in Romania (si rarisime in intreaga lume bizantina): este vorba de sculpturi in piatra realizate intr-o maniera aparte, specifica spatiului ortodox, gasite impreuna cu obiecte din ceramica (datate in perioada sec XII-XVI), fragmente de bronzuri (aplice de centura, legaturi de carte), podoabe si unelte din os si metal (margele, inele, etc.), fragmente de teracota si faianta. Obiectele provin din cele 35 de morminte (ce au fost cercetate pana in prezent), grupate in doua cimitire - unul cu sicrie din lemn si celalalt cu ciste de piatra. Cimitirele sunt situate in jurul bisericii ce ar fi fost inchinata, se pare, Sfintei Fecioare Maria si ar fi apartinut cultului benedictin, cu toate ca planul si decorul ei sculptat, deosebit de bogat sunt un indiciu ca ar fi apartinut Bisericii Rasaritului. O documentatie ampla, intocmita in sec. al XIX-lea, ce prezinta planuri, desene si descrieri ale ruinelor, arata ca edificiul ar fi fost construit in sec. al XI-lea, intr-o cetate de pamant careia i s-au adaugat ulterior o incinta de piatra si patru turnuri de colt. De altfel, cercetatorii nu au stabilit cu precizie nici cine a ridicat biserica in interiorul cetatii si nici cine si cand a ridicat fortificatia, presupunand doar ca aceasta face parte din seria cetatilor transilvanene construite impotriva migratorilor, in special huni.
“Cetatea Turceasca”, asa cum este numit situl de la Pancota, unde se desfasoara cercetari sistematice din anul 2000, cuprinde cinci obiective: cetatea de piatra, cetatea de pamant, biserica, manastirea, precum si constructiile epocii turcesti si este trecuta pe lista obiectivelor arheologice de interes national, elaborata de Ministerul Culturii si Cultelor; investigatiile au scopul de a clarifica relatiile cronologice dintre componentele acestui complex. Daca in perioada 2000-2002 a fost explorata partea de est a bisericii (fiind dezvelite si ruinele unei capele situate pe latura de nord a sitului), campania din acest an s-a concentrat in partea de nord-vest a acesteia; aici a fost descoperit unul dintre cele patru turnuri si s-au completat informatiile privind evolutia stratigrafica a monumentului, ne-a declarat directorul Complexului Muzeal Arad, dr. Peter Hugel. Specialistii urmaresc in teren inca un aspect deloc de neglijat: daca desenele pastrate din sec. al XIX-lea s-ar putea verifica, la Pancota s-ar afla cel mai vechi orizont de arhitectura din Transilvania.
Din pacate, insa, in sec. al XIX-lea aproape toate cladirile si pivnitele din oras au fost construite cu piatra din “Cetatea Turceasca”, astfel incat o buna parte a minelor a disparut. Atestat la 1177 intr-un document ce pomeneste de abatele acestei localitati, Pancota devine in 1332 sediul unui arhidiaconat catolic, iar din 1363 devine targ (de acum dateaza si sigiliul localitatii, inscriptia acesteia mentionand prezenta in oras a unor occidentali). In anul 1565 abatia a fost distrusa de turci.

 Cetatea turceasca”  Decoratiuni bizantine unice la Pâncota

http://www.revistamagazin.ro/content/view/3092/21/

        
          Cea de a treia campanie de sapaturi arheologice de la „Cetatea Turceasca” de lânga orasul Pâncota, judetul Arad, o cetate de pamânt de forma ovala, înconjurata de un sant de aparare, s-a încheiat cu descoperirea unor vestigii extrem de interesante. Cercetatorii au stabilit ca, în timp, în preajma bisericii s-au dezvoltat doua cimitire - unul cu sicrie de lemn, în interior, iar în exterior un cimitir cu ciste de piatra. Pâna în prezent au fost cercetate 35 de morminte, inventarul arheologic fiind destul de bogat, constând în principal din ceramica databila în secolele XII-XVI, fragmente de bronzuri (aplica de centura, legatura de carte), podoabe si unelte din os si metal (margele, inele de deget), fragmente de teracota din sec. al XV-lea; un fragment de faianta turceasca; un strapungator din os. Potrivit spuselor dr. Peter Hugel, situl de la Pâncota continua sa ridice foarte multe necunoscute, istoricii nestiind cu exactitate când si de catre cine au fost ridicate fortificatiile, presupunându-se însa ca fac parte din seria fortificatiilor de pamânt ridicate în Transilvania, în calea popoarelor razboinice migratoare, în primul rând a hunilor. În privinta bisericii, de asemenea nu se stie cine a ridicat-o în interiorul zidurilor cetatii, dar majoritatea celor care au efectuat sapaturi aici, în secolul al XIX-lea, au apreciat ca, de la bun început, biserica a fost închinata Sfintei Fecioare Maria si ca ar fi apartinut ordinului benedictin. Aceeasi documentatie (planuri, desene si descrieri ale ruinelor) arata ca biserica a fost construita în secolul al XI-lea, într-o cetate de pamânt înzestrata ulterior cu o incinta de piatra si patru turnuri de colt. „În cursul campaniilor de sapaturi arheologice, la Pâncota au fost descoperite mai multe piese de sculptura în piatra, realizate într-o maniera aparte, cunoscuta în lumea bizantina. Piesele sunt unice pe teritoriul României, astfel de lucrari mai fiind cunoscute doar în patru-cinci locuri din inima lumii bizantine”, a mai spus dr.Peter Hugel. De mentionat însa ca, în secolul al XIX-lea, mai toate pivnitele cladirilor din centrul orasului au fost construite din pietre provenind din vestigiile manastirii, care a fost transformata în „cariera de piatra” a Pâncotei, asa încât o buna parte din câmpul de ruine a disparut. Aflat la 35 km de municipiul Arad, orasul Pâncota este atestat documentar, pentru prima oara, în anul 1177, un document al vremii pomenind de Abatele acestei localitati, în anul 1219, fiind amintit, un oarecare Andrei, probabil descendent al ctitorului acesteia.

  Suzana Móré Heitel, Abaţia de la Pâncota şi vestigiile ei.

volum de autor, 113 p. + planşe şi ilustraţii,  Ed. Mega, Cluj-Napoca

- ISBN 978-973-7867-68-1
 
http://www.museumarad.ro/ro/pages/pub_2ca.htm
 

Cluj-Napoca, Edit. Mega, 2006, 113 p.

 Book Review by Adrian Andrei Rusu

Aceste pagini sunt dedicate unuia dintre cele mai fascinante monumente arheologice medievale de pe cuprinsul actualului judeţ Arad.

Volumaşul pe care îl avem sub ochi stârneşte impresii absolut contradictorii. „Cuvântul înainte” nu ne spune decât că este capitolul unei lucrări doctorale. Dar tot acolo, se mai menţionează că „varianta revizuită” a fost tipărită într-un volum apărut la Szeged, în anul  2000 (p. 8)[1]. Comparând cele două texte, constatăm că au aproximativ aceiaşi structură, cu deosebirea că textul maghiar este mai strâns şi mai bun decât cel românesc. De asemenea, calitatea ilustraţiei (absolut identică) o întrece cu mult pe cea tipărită în România. Cu alte cuvinte, autoarea a revizuit textul destinat publicaţiei maghiare, lăsându-l în varianta veche, pentru confraţii, socotiţi probabil nesemnificativi, din propria ţară. D-na Móré mai „uită” să informeze cum că mai există şi un text tematic publicat de domnia sa încă şi în anul 2001[2]. Este totuşi de amintit, pentru că, acolo concluziile domniei sale avansează doar posibilitatea apariţiei obiectivului în cea de-a doua jumătate a secolului al XI-lea, fără vreo antecedenţă bizantină, numai cu o fluentă istorie benedictină[3].

Materia cărţii noi face totalmente abstracţie de cercetarea arheologică de la Pâncota care este în curs[4], pe care tocmai autoarea noastră a iniţiat-o, în care s-a implicat direct, şi care a furnizat deja câteva informaţii publicate, de o importanţă pe care ne grăbim să o arătăm mai jos. Aşa precum arheologia cea nouă, nici numele arheologului implicat nu sunt nicăieri marcate. Este oglinda unui „divorţ” dureros, dintre istoricul de artă şi arheologul său? De acum, mai departe, aşa vom primi informaţiile din cercetarea locului: separate şi nearmonizate? Sunt întrebări la care am aştepta dezlegări.

În egală măsură, într-o manieră de lucru bizar de originală, în acest volum nu sunt citate progresele, informaţiile ori opiniile pe care instituţia editoare le-a publicat în anii imediat anteriori, despre obiectivul-subiect (Repertoriul arheologic al Mureşului Inferior. Judeţul Arad, Timişoara, 1999, p. 91-92; Adrian A. Rusu, G. P. Hurezan, Cetăţi medievale din judeţul Arad. Arad, 1999, p. 64-66; Iidem, Biserici medievale din judeţul Arad. Arad, 2000, p. 185-194, pl. color foto 29-32)[5]. Dacă o asemenea lipsită de respect a fost trecută prea uşor cu vederea de către Complexul Muzeal Arad este, credem noi, numai pentru a-i demonstra autoarei că nu este discriminată în cercetările pe care le întreprinde şi opiniile pe care le susţine. Numai că, totul este prea neelegant.

Ceea ce se citeşte este contestabil în cea mai mare parte, din punct de vedere al cronologiilor şi interpretărilor istorice.

Nu există nici un argument pentru preexistenţa valurilor de pământ faţă de construcţiile de piatră ale mănăstirii. Palisada descrisă în secolul al XIX-lea, nu este, numaidecât, o lucrare de artă militară străveche, ci s-a reutilizat masiv tocmai în clipele cuceririi turceşti, contra artileriei de foc. Chiar observatorii romantici, au notat că unele bârne erau „date cu mortar pentru mai mare rezistenţă” (p. 43). Or, mortarul era departe de a fi implicat în lucrări de fortificare cu bârne şi pământ, în preajma sfârşitului primului mileniu creştin. Deci, orice fel de datare legată de fortificaţiile de tip Burgwall (p. 43), este prea îndrăzneaţă şi, în acest moment, inutilă. Mai subliniem apoi că lectura domniei sale este în întregime tributară unei singure opinii, care se întâmplă a fi a propriului soţ (Radu R. Heitel, 1995) şi pe contextul destul de evident legat de secolul al XI-lea (pe baza mormintelor cu monedă), de la Arad-Vladimirescu. Tocmai aici, lectura bibliografiei maghiare, care este consecvent urmărită în toate celelalte compartimente, i-a scăpat complet autoarei. Oricum, pentru a nu lărgi prea mult această colaterală problemă, vom face trimitere la propriile noastre analize, apărute cu circa un an înaintea cărţii Pâncotei[6]. Doar că nici măcar devierea planimetrică, dedusă din anume desene, nu se poate asocia cu fortificaţiile, ca să nu mai scriem că, în fapt, ea însăşi este atât de nesigură, încât nu mai trebuia filozofat pe seama ei ori trimis către cazuri reale investigate într-o regiune (Bârsa) care nu are nimic comun cu Aradul, nici din punct de vedere cronologic, nici stilistic. Iar, corecţia cea mai dură survine, implacabil, în urma campaniei arheologice a anului 2004, care afirmă cum că valul s-ar putea data, „cel mai devreme, în secolul al XII-lea”[7]. Până la acceptarea fortificării din vremurile secolului al XVI-lea, nu ar mai fi decât o altă campanie de cercetare şi coroborarea cu varul din jurul bârnelor.

Deşi autoarea remarcă un mare grad de relativitate în redarea corectă a planimetriei pe toate planurile arhivistice avute la îndemână, deşi sunt cel puţin două faze majore de intervenţie pe planimetria monumentului, din care una pare a aparţine, destul de sigur, secolului al XII-lea, deşi există un act explicit din anul 1425 (care conţine termenul de reedificare) şi componente arhitectonice gotice relevate de către protoarheologii secolului al XIX-lea, concluzia majoră este aceea că nu este posibil a se opera cu un dat atât de ferm încât să se facă raportări irefutabile la epoca secolelor X-XI. Metodologic este fundamental greşit. Absolut nimeni nu-i ceruse autoarei să se angajeze în asemenea speculaţii. Având în vedere antecedentele de publicare, este vorba despre repetarea speculaţiilor. Mecanismul de fixare istoriografică este cu atât mai de neînţeles cu cât, cercetarea arheologică a monumentului fiind în curs, o parte a concluziilor trebuiau reajustate în funcţie de datele ei.

Datele arheologice au evoluat, cum este firesc, mai întâi în funcţie de preconcepţiile istoricului de artă, apoi tot mai independent. Dacă în prima campanie se înregistrau „deficienţe … la nivel de etape de construcţie, relaţiile dintre ziduri”, însă „Ipoteza formulată de Suzana Heitel pe baza acestor desene, privind originea bizantină şi datarea timpurie a primei sau a primelor două biserici, dispune deja de argumente arheologice solide”[8], în urma campaniei a 2-a „nu se poate preciza dacă biserica a fost o bazilică construită într-o singură etapă, cu nave laterale extrem de înguste, sau s-a format prin înglobarea unei biserici mai mici, căreia i-au aparţinut zidurile interioare”[9]. În ultima campanie raportată, nu mai aflăm decât despre o bazilică certă, fără nici un fel de atribuiri de rit[10].

„Compartimentul” de la nordul bisericii ajunge să fie să fie respins ca sacristie sau unul dintre pastoforii (p. 31), în favoarea unei posibile capele funerare (p. 50). Argumentul, singurul de altfel, este acela al descoperirii în apropiere a unuia dintre frumoasele şi insolitele plăci de altar. Numai că, respectiva încăpere nu este absidată, numai că, în viaţa cea lungă a mănăstirii, o sacristie trebuie să fi existat alături de altarul principal, iar altă clădire învecinată, cu o astfel de funcţie, nu există. Ceea ce urmează paginat, în legătură cu analogii de capele, mai are vreun rost?

Arheologia preia denumirea de „capelă”, dar constată numai podiri cu cărămidă de proastă calitate şi urme de boltă din acelaşi material. Încheie însă, cu o altă radicală corecţie: construcţia poate fi datată ipotetic în secolele XIV-XV[11]. Concluzia este simplă: nu s-au argumentat prin nimic funcţiile de „capelă” ale acestei încăperi, iar utilitatea de sacristie trebuie readusă în atenţie.

Ameţitoare ni se pare şi forţarea interpretării „plăcilor” ceramice (p. 43). Cele cu „dinţi de ferăstrău”, nu sunt altceva decât banale cahle, aparţinătoare secolelor XV-XVI. Sunt realizate prin stanţarea lutului moale în tipare cioplite în lemn. Deci, se pot comenta ca fiind rustice, nici pe departe deosebite. Cele cu reţele mai fine (p. 95, fig. 22f) sunt ştampilate, într-o manieră identică în care se ştampila o parte a veselei ceramice. Dacă au forma unor discuri, iarăşi nu înseamnă că nu aparţin decorului de sobe. Asemenea plăci sunt bănuite ca existând şi în arhitectura Evului Mediu târziu[12]. Baghetele de la p. 95, fig. 22i, care nu sunt decriptate în volum, sunt imitaţii de torsade care se aflau prezente la colţurile sobelor. Tot ceea ce urmează, cu referire la Zalavár, Pribina, Metodiu etc., este absolut superfluu.

Comparativ, prea puţin se insistă însă asupra cărămizilor pavimentale care, condiţionate de o situaţie arheologică incontrolabilă, sunt presupuse ca de la mijlocul sau a doua jumătate a secolului al XI-lea (p. 49), deşi în modul cel mai evident, ar fi romanice, nu de origine bizantină. Or, aici se simte o lipsă cronică de lectură specială. Singura analogie a grupului este, de astă dată, am putea-o spune fără rezerve, pescuită dintr-un manuscris grec de la Vatican. Obstinat, nu se doreşte lărgirea analogiilor către arta pre- şi romanică. Cu toate că – ne pare rău dacă aceasta ar suna ca o lecţie – , în timpurile care îi sunt plăcute Suzanei Móré Heitel, cele două jumătăţi ale Europei erau departe de a dezvolta creaţii artistice total divergente. Dacă acestea s-au scris în dreptul compartimentului „Decorului arhitectural”, discuţia se reia şi în alt loc, care priveşte mobilierul liturgic (p. 49-50), ceea ce lasă neclară concepţiile autoarei în privinţa clasificării materialelor.

Noi refuzăm să socotim dragonii sculptaţi în relief plat, de pe laturile scurte ale plăcii uneia dintre mesele de altar, ca formând o familie cu plăcile ceramice de paviment, în care sunt reprezentate o pereche de patrupede în relief. Mai scriem apoi că nu există nici cel mai mic indiciu în legătură cu incrustaţii în piatră, la aceleaşi laturi de masă. Supuse analizelor chimice, adânciturile şi-au dovedit goliciunea (p. 73, nota 164).

Iarăşi, total inexplicabil, „nu ne putem propune în cadrul lucrării prezente abordarea problemei complexe privind sursele stilistice ale reprezentărilor de animale” (p. 49). Aceasta, după ce, analiza părea a urmări stabilirea precisă a provenienţei şi datării superbelor piese. În sfârşit, încurându-se în propria logică şi încurcându-ne definitiv şi pe noi, mai găsim, totuşi, idei despre animale şi ceva mai încolo (p. 53).

Relieful plat, pe care autoarea îl socoteşte atât de bizantin (p. 46), nu este o necunoscută a artei romanice. Altarele de la Pâncota, sunt atât de „bizantine”, încât analogiile furnizate provin de la Borosima (sec. VI-VII, Herţegovina, p. 71-72, n. 151, 96, fig. 23) sau Regensburg (nedatat, Imperiul Romano-German, p. 72, n. 152, 96, fig. 24). Despre ele textul propriu zis nu spune absolut nimic, nici nu conciliază depărtările cronologice sau geografice semnificative. Dar dacă modelul/decorul reapare, la o distanţă de patru-şase secole faţă de primele exemplare identificate, este mai mult decât evident că a existat o continuitate de folosire. Sunt altarele de la Pâncota, ultimele şi cele mai nordice exemplare ale acestui tip?

Fragmentul de antependium (cancelul) aminteşte de „ornamentaţia altarelor bizantine sau occidentale” (p. 48), numai că nici unul din cea de-a doua categorie nu este adus ca analogie. Dacă cineva ar dori să o confirme sau să o contrazică pe autoare, este nevoit să întreprindă propria sa cercetare. Este destul să amintim doar că, la 1277, saşii care atacau catedrala de la Alba Iulia nu s-au oprit decât în faţa cancelului bisericii. Desigur, nimeni nu ştie cum a arătat, dar că exista, peste tot, ca mobilier de cult, în oricare biserică importantă a ritului catolic, nu este nici un dubiu.

Cu toate că a subliniat grijuliu cât de labilă este legătura cu monumentele primului ţarat bulgar, mai departe, în cursul paginaţiei, autoarea construieşte pe cronologia contextului bulgar (p. 42). În final, nu am înţeles ce datare preferă pentru cea mai veche fază a Pâncotei. Secolul IX, X, XI sau XII? Analogiile bulgare sunt de la sfârşitul primului şi din prima jumătate a celui de-al doilea, decoraţia altarelor este atribuită secolelor X-XI, planimetria secolului ultim. Cu alte cuvinte, nici o cronologie nu este stabilizată. Ce este comun, ce este real şi de reţinut finalmente din toate acestea? Nici autoarea nu dă vreun semn de preferinţă, nu transmite nimic cert. Fără avertisment, volumul se încheie brusc, lăsându-ne cu insatisfacţia unei cercetări nefinalizate. În ultimul ei aliniat, conclusiv (p. 54), totul pare, poate şi este probabil.

Acum, despre cele mai vechi elemente, cercetarea arheologică se referă doar în cadrul celei de-a treia campanii la materiale de epocă „slavă”, aglomerând însă datele despre o ceramică din secolele XI-XII[13] şi morminte din care nici unul nu a fost datat (încă?) în secolul al XI-lea.

Trebuie să o scriem noi, că Suzana Móré Heitel, ne-a indus, de fapt în eroare, şi ceea ce a publicat, ar merita doar titlul de Informaţii şi interpretări privitoare la începuturile abaţiei de la Pâncota. Într-adevăr, cineva va trebui să reia o discuţie despre lespedea funerară cu inscripţie romanică (p. 108, pl. 39/6a-b – una dintre foarte puţinele de asemenea factură descoperită pe teritoriul României) sau ancadramentul gotic (p. 91, fig. 15, identic, se pare cu piesa desenată la fig. 39/5 – databil în secolele XIV-XV, care reclamă, evident, luarea în discuţie a unui şantier serios care a intervenit la mănăstire; un alt fragment gotic a fost găsit şi în cercetarea arheologică mai nouă[14]); şi desigur, nu numai la acestea. Dar, cahlele mărturisesc amenajări locative serioase, iar despre mormintele deja golite, nu am reţinut nici un fel de nouă judecată. Regăsirea urmelor unor construcţii turceşti în chiar perimetrul bisericii, conservarea uimitoare a unor componente de arhitectură, readuce din nou în atenţie, cât de mult am putea acorda credit „cercetărilor” şi „observaţiilor” secolului al XIX-lea. 

Pentru că ar fi obligatorie continuarea investigării Pâncotei, noi spunem doar că o aşteptăm cu mai multe prudenţe şi mai bine documentată. Dacă arheologul nu se va concilia cu istoricul de artă, atunci cercetarea va fi un eşec, stârnind, ca în aceste pagini, un val de corecţii şi întrebări.

 [1] Heitelné Móré Zsuzsa, Egyházi építészet a Maros-völgy also szakaszán a 11-13. században I., în A középkori Dél-Alföld és Szer. Szerkesztette Kollár T. Szeged, 2000, p. 593-628.

[2] Monostorok a Maros mentén, în vol. Paradisum plantavit. Bencés monostorok a középkori Magyarországon. Benedictine Monasteries in Medieval Hungary. Pannonhalma, 2001, p. 272-275.

[3] Ibidem, p. 273.

[4] Vezi Cronica cercetărilor arheologice (http://www.cimec.ro/), care informează asupra a trei campanii arheologice din anii 2000, 2002, 2004. Referinţele noastre vor fi făcute în continuare la paginile web. Din acest motiv, nu se va specifica decât anul de publicare, nu şi paginaţia.  

[5] Mai adăugăm şi Dicţionarul mănăstirilor din Transilvania, Banat, Crişana şi Maramureş (Coordonator Adrian A. Rusu, Cluj-Napoca, 2000, p. 204-207), despre care autoarea are certă cunoştinţă, argumentabilă printr-o notă critică legată de un alt obiectiv din judeţul Arad.   

[6] Castelarea carpatică. Fortificaţii şi cetăţi din Transilvania şi teritoriile învecinate (sec. XIII-XIV). Cluj-Napoca, 2005, p. 80-97.

[7] Cronica 2005, sub voce.

[8] Cronica 2001, sub voce.

[9] Cronica 2003, sub voce.

[10] Cronica 2005, sub voce.

[11] Cronica 2003, sub voce.

[12] Vezi exemplificările noastre din Ziridava, 19-20, 1996, p. 144.

[13] Cronica 2005, sub voce.

[14] Cronica 2005, sub voce.

 
 

Archaeological  Site and Turkish fortification (Pâncota)
2000 - 2006

http://www.museumarad.ro/ro/pages/arc_06.htm

 

Team: Mark-Dana Istrate - Scientific, John Fedor Pascu (SC Damasus Ltd.),

Zsuzsanna Heitel (Art History Institute of Bucharest), George Pascu HUREZANI,

 Florin Mărginean, Zsuzsanna Kopeczny (Arad Museum Complex)
Fortress called "Turkish" is an earthen moat outside the city  with relatively well

preserved, located in the southeastern city Pâncota. The site was known

since the nineteenth century, when undergoing a series of excavations

which have revealed within the city, the ruins of a church, its premises and over

60 tombs in the cemetery outside. Following these interventions have been

made several drawings summary, which shows several versions of

a place of worship endowed with exceptional parietal decoration.
Lost for many decades and never processed scientifically, that

"documentation" was recovered in part by Suzana Heitel, which, based on a

thorough review of construction and artistic details, advanced the hypothesis

that the church has analogies in the South Danube of X - XI centuries,

thus representing an important link.
Results: In the five campaigns the layout of the diaconicon of the church 

was uncovered as well as the cemetery and the last campaign cut

by earthen wall fortification.

top

The archaeological site

FORTRESS (village Tauţ)
Team: George Pascu HUREZANI - Scientific, Florin Mărginean, Zsuzsanna Kopeczny

(Arad Museum Complex), Adrian Andrei Rusu (Institute of Archeology and Art

History Cluj)
The site is on a termination of the hill, a quiet terrace that descends to the east,

 located about 0.2 kilometers west of the brook Cigher, the southwestern limit of

the village Tauţ.
The emergence of medieval churches in Arad County volume was the preamble

to the start of the first systematic excavations Tauţ the point "The Castle". In

1999 the first investigations were made on the spot, all it accomplished

the first and Topographical of the site. Excavations began in autumn 2002,

the four archaeological campaigns that followed allowed the unveiling of a

series of east-west oriented buildings, which belonged to a medieval church

built in several stages: first church after the church superimposed Gothic

Romance more wide, which reuses parts of the first church. Intervention

in succession, which followed the initial phase of lifting the first place of worship,

 during the nearly four centuries, the building caused quite small changes every time.
Research objectives, results and their interpretation: It was covered area south

of the church (chapel), funerary area on the northern side, the contact area

between the upper first church and the western extension of the Gothic

church and the entry on the side west.

top

Research area
THE CHURCH (in Vladimirescu)

June 25-September 11
Team: Peter Hügel, George Pascu HUREZANI, Florin Mărginean (Arad Museum

Complex)
It was identified in the field, planimetryof a Romanesque basilica. Împrejmuirii

 duct was traced, was supervised demolition of fences, stables and other

household annexes, built illegally on the site of the monument, cleaning the

entire space, signs and explanatory panels.

top

The  archaeological site
BIZERE MONASTERY  (in Frumuseni)

July 17-August 10
Team: Adrian Andrei Rusu - Scientific (Institute of Archeology and Art History Cluj),

George Pascu HUREZANI, Florin Mărginean, Zsuzsanna Kopeczny (Arad

Museum Complex), Ileana Burnichioiu (University of Alba Iulia)
Archaeologic site Frumuseni - Bizere Monastery, is 1 km north-east of town (12

 km east of Arad), the meadow Mures, on the left bank of the river, the

section called "Fountain of Turk".
In 1183 the abbey was proven for the first time that was dedicated to the

Blessed Virgin Mary, because at the end of XII century Monastery Benedictine

 Bizere serve as seating, under royal patronage. Abbey control the transport

of salt on the river Mures. In XIII century monastery with a total of 23 monks,

had 4000 annual revenue of salt rocks (hard to be procured at that time).

XIV century Benedictine monastery experienced a steady decline, and in

1557 (after the Turkish invasion in parts of Arad and because religious

reform), the monastery was not recorded as being functional.
Excavations, which started in 2001 revealed  a palatial abbey, cemetery and in

2003 were discovered mosaics of the monastery church.
Research objectives: to investigate the area north of the church and the southwest

corner of the building refectoriului.
Results and their interpretation: 16 sections were drawn, six north of the church,

four in south-west corner of refectoriului, five on the southern side of Claustrul and

a forestry road linking the village near the forest, the total area investigated was

400 m2. Archaeological material discovered includes first, architectural fragments

(capitals, imposts, colonete, pavement component) plus the usual pottery,

glassware, ornaments, metal pieces and money

top

The archaeologica site l
Santa-MARE (Pecica)

July 25 to August 10, 2006
Team: George Pascu HUREZANI - Scientific (Arad Museum Complex), Florin

Draşovean, Alexander Szentmiklósi (Banat Museum Timisoara), John M. O'Shea,

Sarah Sherwood (University of Michigan), Alex W. Barker (University of Missouri , USA).

top

Archaeological supervision
STADIUM ASTRA (Dublin)

01 august - 07 noiembrie
Team: George Pascu HUREZANI, Florin Mărginean, Zsuzsanna Kopeczny

(Arad Museum Complex)
Supervision of excavation works to achieve Mărăcine Money Commercial

Complex (Kaufland, Plus, Media Galaxy). Scientific recording of burials in the

cemetery of 284, sec. XIX - XX and transfer the remains to the cemetery memorial.

top

Book release
Medieval Mosaics FROM BIZERE

Archeology Museum Exhibition -Istorie/Complexul Arad
04 august
Authors: Dr. Adrian Andrei Rusu, Ileana Burnichioiu
Present: Dr Peter Hügel (Arad Museum Complex), Adrian Andrei Rusu

(Institute of Archeology and Art History Cluj), Horia Medeleanu

top

Preventive excavation
VLADILACT ( Vladimirescu)

05 - 08 septembrie
Team: Peter Hügel George Pascu HUREZANI, Florin Mărginean, Zsuzsanna

Kopeczny (Arad Museum Complex) Preventive archaeological excavations

incurred in excavating the foundations for 2 houses. Celtic were found two tombs

(a warrior and a woman) dating from the SEC. III bC

top

Protection and enhancement of a historic monument
EUROPEAN HERITAGE DAY

Roman basilica Vladimirescu
September 16

top

The archaeological site

CETATUIA (Săvâr&#