An Ironic Smile The Carpathian Mountains PDF

2 ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations 3
THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY – IAŞI BRANCH
Ediderunt
George BILAVSCHI, Dan APARASCHIVEI
4 ABBREVIATIONS
Copyright © Editura Academiei Române, 2018.

All rights reserved.
EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, sector 5
050711, Bucureşti, România
Tel: 4021-318 81 46, 4021-318 81 06
Fax: 4021-318 24 44
E-mail: edacad@ear.ro
web: www.ear.ro
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

Studia mediaevalia Europaea et orientalia : miscellanea in honorem
professoris emeriti Victor Spinei oblata / ediderunt: George Bilavschi,
Dan Aparaschivei. - Bucureşti : Editura Academiei Române, 2018
ISBN 978-973-27-3018-8
I. Bilavschi, George (ed.)

II. Aparaschivei, Dan (ed.)
94
Editorial assistants: Monica STANCIU, Anca BOROŞ

Computer editing: Mariana MOCANU
Cover: Mariana ŞERBĂNESCU
Final proof: 14.12.2018. Format: 16/70×100

Printing sheets: 40,75
D.L.C. for large libraries: 94 Victor Spinei
D.L.C. for small libraries: 082
Abbreviations 5
6 ABBREVIATIONS
  

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 11
Tabula Gratulatoria ...................................................................................................... 13
Professor Victor Spinei at 75 Years .............................................................................. 19
TIVADAR VIDA, To the Inner Asian Roots of the Avars ............................................ 29

FLORIN CURTA, An Ironic Smile: The Carpathian Mountains and the Migration
of the Slavs .......................................................................................................... 47
TAISHAN YU, Some Problems on the Mission of Song Yun and Huisheng to the
Western Regions, and the Routes Used by Narendrayaśas, Jinagupta and
Dharmagupta to China ....................................................................................... 73
GABRIEL CUSTUREA, CRISTINA PARASCHIV-TALMAȚCHI, Some Fibulae
Discovered in Dobruja ........................................................................................ 117
JINXIU LI, Shi Hedan 史訶耽 and the Equine Administration in the Early Tang
Dynasty ........................................................................................................................... 127
OSMAN KARATAY, Addressees of the Genizah Khazar Letter: Who Wrote to
whom? ................................................................................................................. 155
HEIKO STEUER, Der Krieger der Merowingerzeit und sein Pferd – Begleiter,
Partner oder Waffe ?Eine These zur Mentalitätsgeschichte
(“The Warrior and His Horse in Merovingian Times – Companion, Partner or
Weapon ? An Opinion for the History of Mentalities”) ...................................... 169
ИГОРЬ Л. КЫЗЛАСОВ, Тюркская руническая надпись на Евфрате.
Южносибирский способ проверки религиозных истин
(IGOR’ L. KYZLASOV, “Turkic Runic Inscription on Euphrates. South
Siberian Way of Verifying the Religious Truth”) ............................................... 193
ИРИНА КОНОВАЛОВА, Воображаемые топонимы в средневековом
географическом тексте
(IRINA KONOVALOVA, “Imaginary Toponyms in Medieval Geographical
Texts”) ........................................................................................................................... 207
ALEKSANDER PAROŃ, How to Deal with the Steppe Fauna? Considerations on
the Byzantine Perception of Nomads and on the Byzantine Policy towards
Them (10th-12th Centuries) .................................................................................. 217
CESARE ALZATI, Imperium Populi Romani: universalità e limiti territoriali
(“Imperium Populi Romani: Universality and Territorial Boundaries”) ............. 239
ИНГА А. ДРУЖИНИНА, Лунный заяц на берегах Понта
(INGA A. DRUZHININA, “Moon Rabbit on Coast of Pontus”) ....................... 251
NIKOLAY N. KRADIN, Social Structure of Early Eurasian Nomads According
to Archaeological Data ....................................................................................... 285
8 CONTENTS  СОДЕРЖАНИЕ  SOMMAIRE  INDICE  INHALT
РОМАН ХАУТАЛА, Рассмотрение четырех «вопросов» в истории Золотой

Орды на основе миссионерских источников
(ROMAN HAUTALA, “Four Case-Studies of the Golden Horde History
Based on the Missionary Sources”) .................................................................... 299
ALEXANDER V. MAIOROV, Galician-Volhynian Prince Daniel Romanovich, Rex
Coronatus of Rus’ ............................................................................................... 319
TIMOTHY MAY, Race to the Throne: Thoughts on Ariq-Böke’s and Khubilai’s
Claims to the Mongol Throne ............................................................................. 343
ȘERBAN TURCUȘ, “La disputa del sacramento”. I sacramenti ed il loro regime
canonico nella chiesa romana in relazione alla lettera del Papa Gregorio IX
del 14 Novembre 1234
(“«The Dispute of Sacraments». The Sacraments and their Canonical Status
in the Roman Church in Relation to the Letter of Pope Gregory IX of
November 14, 1234”) .......................................................................................... 359
LUDMILA BACUMENCO-PÎRNĂU, Cast Iron Cauldrons Uncovered in Golden
Horde Settlements. Case Study: Old Orhei (Republic of Moldova) .................... 379
НУРКЕН Е. КУЗЕМБАЕВ, Сюжеты о кипчако-монгольских взаимоотношениях
в средневековых мусульманских источниках
(NURKEN E. KUZEMBAEV, “Subjects Regarding the Kipchak-Mongolian
Relations in Medieval Muslim Sources”) ........................................................... 407
NERIJUS BABINSKAS, Some Aspects of the Medieval Origins of Europe’s Special
Path According to Michael Mitterauer. A Comparison of the Cases of the
Early Principality of Moldavia and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania ................... 421
SERGEI BOCHAROV, Archaeology of Venetian Gazaria, 13th-15th Centuries.
Definition of Terms and Scientific Sources ......................................................... 439
EUGEN NICOLAE, Une plaquette de cuivre avec inscription datant du quatorzième
siècle découverte à Costești, district de Ialoveni, République de Moldavie
(“A Copper Plate with a Fourteenth Century Inscription Discovered in Costești,
Ialoveni District, Republic of Moldova”) ........................................................... 455
ЧУЛПÁН ХАМИДОВА, Генеалогия правящих династий франков по данным
«Шуаб-и панджгана» Рашид ад-Дина
(CHULPAN KHAMIDOVA, “The Genealogy of Frank Rulers According
to Rashid Ad-Din’s „Shuab-i Panjganah”).......................................................... 463
ТИМУР Ф. ХАЙДАРОВ, Эпидемия средневековой чумы в понтийских
(причерноморских) степях (вторая половина XIV – первая половина XV вв.)
(TIMUR F. KHAJDAROV, “The Plague in the Pontic [Black Sea] Steppes
[Second Half of the 14th – First Half of the 15th Centuries”]) ............................. 469
ВИКТОР Л. МЫЦ, Эмблема двуглавого орла в «геральдике» государств
византийского содружества XIV-XV вв.
(VIKTOR L. MYTS, “The Emblem of the Double-Headed Eagle in the “Heraldry”
of the Byzantine Commonwealth of the 14th-15th Centuries”) ............................ 489
LIA BĂTRÎNA, ADRIAN BĂTRÎNA, The Church of Alexander the Good from
the Bistrița Monastery, Neamț County: A First Creative Synthesis in the Medieval
Ecclesiastical Architecture in Moldavia ............................................................. 513
CONTENTS  СОДЕРЖАНИЕ  SOMMAIRE  INDICE  INHALT 9
GRZEGORZ JAWOR, Particularités de «ius Valachicum» dans la Pologne du XVe

et XVIe siècles. Question de l’autorité exercée sur les paroisses orthodoxes
par les knyazes
(“Peculiarities of Ius Valachicum on Polish Territories in the 15th and 16th Centuries.
The Issue of the Authority of Knyazes [Knezes] over Orthodox Churches”) ..... 529
PETER SOUSTAL, Haliakmon – Bistrica – İnce Kara Su the Main River of Southwestern
Macedonia and its Surrounding Country ............................................................ 545
SERGIU MUSTEAȚĂ, ION TENTIUC, ION URSU, The Medieval Fortress Soroca
(Republic of Moldova) – Archaeology, History and Preservation ...................... 553
АНВАР В. АКСАНОВ, Московская Русь и тюменское ханство:
межгосударственные отношения на рубеже XV-XVI веков
(ANVAR V. AKSANOV, “Muscovite Rus’ and the Tyumen Khanate: Interstate
Relations at the Turn of the 15th-16th Centuries”) ............................................... 575
IVAN BILIARSKY, Le changement erroné d’un lexème dans un manuscrit slave
de Moldavie du XVIe siècle: ÁÐÀÂÈ – ÊÐÀÂÈ
(“The Erroneous Change of a Lexeme in a Slavic Manuscript from 16th Century
Moldavia: ÁÐÀÂÈ – ÊÐÀÂÈ”) ................................................................................. 583
GUILLAUME DURAND, Contribution à l’étude du phénomène de dédicaces
des monastères dans la Principauté de Moldavie
(“Contribution to the Study of the Phenomenon of Dedication of Monasteries
and Property Donations in the Principality of Moldavia”) .................................. 593
АНДРЕЙ ЕШАНУ, ВАЛЕНТИНА ЕШАНУ, Димитрий Кантемир в персидском
походе Петра I (1722-1723)
(ANDREI EȘANU, VALENTINA EȘANU, “Dimitrie Cantemir in the Persian
Campaign of Peter I [1722-1723]”) .................................................................... 617
ABulg Archaeologia Bulgarica, Sofia.
AErt Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest.
Am. Hist. Rev. The American Historical Review, the official
publication of the American Historical Association,
Oxford.
ArcheologijaSof Archeologija: organ na Archeologičeskija institut i
muzej pri Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite, Sofija.
ARozhl Archeologické Rozhledy, Institute of Archaeology CAS
Prague.
BerRGK Das Jahrbuch Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission, Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin.
BSNR / BSocNumRom Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Române, Bucureşti.
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift, München.
CCAR Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România, CIMEC.
CommunicAHung Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae: készült
a magyar nemzeti múzeum nyomdájában, Budapest.
Człow. i Społecz Człowiek i Społeczeństwo, Wydziału Nauk Społecznych
Uniwersytetu im. A. Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Poznan.
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
EphemNapoc Ephemeris Napocensis, Anuarul Institutului de
Arheologie şi Istoria Artei, Cluj-Napoca.
JbRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums,
Mainz.
MCA Materiale și cercetări arheologice.
MIA Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR,
Moscow-Leningrad.
MINAC Museum of National History and Archaeology from
Constanța (Romania).
Quaest. Medii Aevi Quaestiones Medii Aevi, Warsaw.
Rev. Rom. Stud. Balt. şi Revista Română de Studii Baltice şi Nordice, Asociaţia
Nord. Română pentru Studii Baltice şi Nordice, Bucureşti.
RGA Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde
(Berlin, New York).
RMMMIA Revista Muzeelor şi Monumentelor. Monumente
Istorice şi de Artă (1974-1989), Bucureşti.
SborBrno Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity.
M, Řada archeologická, Brno.
12 ABBREVIATIONS
SCIA.AP Studii şi cercetări de istoria artei. Seria Artă Plastică,

Bucureşti.
SCIV/SCIVA Studii și cercetări de istorie veche / și arheologie,
București.
SlovA Slovenská Archeológia, Nitra.
SovA Sovetskaja Arkheologija, Moskva.
Strat.Plus Stratum Plus, Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology,
High Anthropological School University in Kishinev.
Valahian J. Hist. Stud. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies, Bucharest.
VjesDal Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku,
Arheološki muzej Split.
ZborRadBeograd Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta, Beograd.
АДСВ/ADSV Античная древность и средние века / Antichnaja
drevnost’ i srednie veka, Ekaterinburg.
ИГАИМК / IGAIMK Известия Государственной академии истории
материальной культуры, Ленинград / Izvestija
Gosudarstvennoj akademii istorii material’noj
kul’tury, Leningrad.
ПСРЛ / PSRL Полное собрание русских летописей / Polnoe
sobranie russkikh letopisej, Т. 25, Мoskow, Leningrad,
1949; Т. 26, Мoskow, Leningrad, 1959; Т. 28,
Moskow, 1963; Т. 37, Leningrad, 1982; Т. 36, Moskow,
1987; Т. 24, Мoskow, 2000.
ПК / PK Посольская книга по связям России с Ногайской
Ордой: 1489-1508 гг. / Posol’kaja kniga po svjazjam
Rossii s Nogajskoj Ordoj: 1489-1508 gg., Institut
istorii AN SSSR, Moskow, 1984.
РК / RK Разрядная книга 1475-1598 гг. / Razrjadnaja kniga
1475-1598 gg., Nauka, Moskow, 1966.
Сб. РИО / Sb. RIO Сборник русского исторического общества /
Sbornik russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, Т. 41,
Tipografija F. Elionskogo i Ко, Sankt-Peterburg, 1884.
FLORIN CURTA*
Abstract:
Despite the obvious significance of the Carpathian Mountains for the presumed
migration of the early Slavs, scholars did not pay much attention to the relations
between sites attributed to the Prague culture (itself viewed as the material
correlate of Slavic ethnicity) that are located on either side of the mountains. An
examination of the chronology of those sites that are located within a short
distance (no more than 30 miles) away from the mountains shows that while
migratory movements cannot be excluded, they did not take place either at the
time, nor in the direction assumed by many archaeologists. Moreover, there are
considerable differences between different regions adjacent to Carpathian
Mountains, both in the general terms of the archaeological record, and in the
specific details of ceramic morphology concerning the handmade pottery hastily
attributed to the Prague type. Such differences do not justify either the use of
pottery as a chronological and cultural marker, nor the use of the phrase “Prague
culture.”
Keywords: Moldavia; Transylvania; Slovakia; Hungary; Poland; Slavs;handmade

pottery; Prague culture; radiocarbon dating; dendrochronology; early Byzantine
coins.
It was Victor Spinei who first noticed it. How is it possible to have settlements in
Romanian Bucovina that are coin-dated to the 6th century, while Ukrainian
archaeologists insist that in northern Bukovina, only 27 miles away across the
border, similar settlements began in the 5th century?1 If the inhabitants of the latter
were Slavs, as Ukrainian archaeologists would have it, their migration is supposed
to have started in the 5th century primarily in the southern direction, towards the
*
University of Florida, Department of History, Gainesville, USA; fcurta@ufl.edu.
1
SPINEI 1995:371. GAVRITUKHIN 1997: 43; 2000: 80; and 2005: 406 and 415, is oblivious
to the problem. GAVRITUKHIN, KAZANSKI 2017 now have 5 th century Slavs at Selişte (Republic
of Moldova) as well, over 120 miles to the southeast. STANCIU 2001: 109 and 118 tries to square the
circle by lending support to the idea of an early, 5 th century occupation phase in Botoşana.
48 FLORIN CURTA
Danube frontier of the Roman Empire.2 But if so, why did the migrants need a
century to cover a distance equal to that between modern Rădăuţi and Câmpulung
Moldovenesc, as the crow flies?3 And if the Slavs kept moving to the south, how is
it possible that dates recently advanced for their presence in western Slovakia are
almost 100 years earlier than those for the Lower Danube region, where the Slavs
are located in the written sources?4 If the settlement sites of the so-called “Lazuri-
Pişcolt” horizon in northwestern Romania came into being in the 540s, why did it
take another century for the Slavs to cover another 30 miles to the northwest, and
reach the area of the present-day frontiers between Hungary, Ukraine and Slovakia?5
Irrespective of where the presumed Urheimat was located – closer to the
Carpathians, in Bukovina, or farther away from them, in Poland or on the upper
Don River – the migration of the Slavs to the west must have crossed the mountains in
order to reach Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Croatia (Pl. I).6 There is
no mention in any source of Slavs crossing the Carpathians, but maps of the Slavic
migration have large arrows either around or across the mountain range separating
northern from Central Europe, between the Upper Elbe and the Upper Dniester
rivers.7 To track that Transcarpathian migration, archaeologists use pottery, specifically
the handmade pottery known, since the 1940s, as the Prague type.8 They generally
2
GAVRITUKHIN 1997: 42-43 and 45; 41, Fig. 2; GAVRITUKHIN 2005: 443.
3
It is important to note how different the situation is from that of a comparable pair of
settlements located on either side of the Eastern Carpathian Mountains. Poian (in southeastern
Transylvania) is 34 miles across the mountains from Gutinaş (in southwestern Moldavia) – the same
distance that separates Kodin from Botoşana. However, unlike the latter, both Poian and Gutinaş have
been dated to the same time, namely to the second half of the 6th century (STANCIU 2005:121).
4
According to FUSEK 2013: 139 and 2015: 152, the Ostrogoths crossed the frozen Danube in
469/70 to attack the Sueves. The Slavs then occupied the lands thus evacuated. The year 470 is
therefore the earliest date one could advance for the migration of the Slavs to Slovakia. FUSEK,
ZÁBOJNÍK 2005: 554 have dated to the 6th century such sites in eastern Slovakia as Haloch-Beloe
pole or Uzhhorod-Halaho, for which STANCIU 2004: 349 cannot accept a date earlier than 600.
Meanwhile, KREKOVIČ 2004 rightly notes that nationalism is the main reason for which Slovak
archaeologists insist on dating the earliest Slavic sites before 567/8 (the date of the Avar migration to
the Carpathian Basin).
5
Similarly, how is it possible to date the supposedly Slavic, handmade pottery from Kozly
(near Mělník, Czech Republic) to the first half of the 6th century on the basis of a single-sided comb
(ZEMAN 1987: 47-48), while no such pottery has so far been found across the Western Sudetes, in
the region from which the Slavs supposedly came to Bohemia? In fact, no assemblage in Lower
Silesia has so far been dated before the mid-6th century (LODOWSKI1981; SZWED 2013).
6
GINDIN 1990: 17. For Bukovina, see UDOLPH 1979 and 2016; for Poland, see MAŃCZAK
2002 and 2004; for the Upper Don river, see GOŁAB 1992. Only TRUBACHEV 1991 and 1998
locates the Urheimat inside the Carpathian Arc, in Pannonia. For a good survey of the most important
theories regarding the Slavic Urheimat, see MESIARKIN 2012.
7
See, for example, GAVRITUKHIN 2009: 11; STANCIU 2015: 142, Fig. 26.
8
Ill-defined archaeologically, the Prague-type pottery continues to be regarded as the hallmark
of the so-called Prague culture, despite the fact that other elements, such as sunken-floored buildings
with stone ovens, as well as urn or pit cremations, are regarded as characteristic for that culture. The
notion of a Prague-type pottery was introduced by BORKOVSKÝ 1940. For a critique of that notion,
see CURTA 2001.
THE CARPHATIAN MOUNTAINS AND THE MIGRATION OF THE SLAVS 49
assume that the earliest Slavs used only handmade pottery, and only later learned to
employ the potter’s wheel from the inhabitants of those regions next to the Danube
River into which they moved as a result of migration. Assemblages with exclusively
handmade pottery must therefore be of an earlier date than those combining hand-
and wheel-made pottery.
The desire to date Prague-type ceramic assemblages from Slovakia and
Poland as close as possible to the year 500, or even earlier, is the result of the
influence of Kazimierz Godłowski, the Polish archaeologist who first advanced a
model for the expansion of the Prague culture from the Urheimat to East Central
Europe.9 According to Godłowski, the Slavs migrated to those regions of East
Central Europe, which had previously been evacuated by the Germanic populations
that had moved to the west or to the south, in the direction of the Roman Empire,
or the territories that used to be under Roman rule.10 According to Godłowski’s
model, Slavic settlements in eastern Slovakia, next to one of the most important
points where the migration crossed the mountains, should pre-date any other in
Central Europe.11 But there is absolutely no evidence that the ceramic assemblages
so far known from eastern Slovakia could be dated earlier than ca. 600.12
The recent excavations carried out by the Museum of National History in
Bratislava on a site inside that city known as Rusovce has brought to light an
inhumation cemetery that was still in use during the last third of the 6 th and perhaps
even the first decades of the 7th century, as indicated, among other things, by the
scabbard mount from grave 122, with good analogies in Alamannic assemblages
dated ca. 600.13 Farther to the east, on the upper course of the Hron river, another
inhumation cemetery has recently been found during salvage excavations in Tesárske
Mlyňany, which confirms that western and central Slovakia were occupied through
the second half of the 6th century by a population that had nothing to do with the
Prague culture, but was nonetheless in contact with the Roman world, as indicated
by the three-nummia coin struck either in Alexandria or in Thessalonica for Justin I
or Justinian and deposited in grave 66.14 The tremissis struck in Constantinople for
Justinian and found in the fill of a grave discovered in another cemetery excavated
at Lužice to the north from Bratislava, on the Lower Morava river, confirms the
conclusions drawn on the basis of the other two: during the entire 6th century, the
9
GODŁOWSKI 1980 and 2005.
10
The Prague culture should therefore be dated only after the departure of the Germanic
populations, for no evidence exists of Germanic-Slavic coexistence. PLETERSKI 2008 and 2010, as
well as PAVLOVIČ 2015 do not seem to have read Godłowski or, if they did, to care at all about his model.
11
That, at least, is how FUSEK, OLEXA, ZÁBOJNÍK 2010 understood Godłowski’s model.
The attempt in BEREŠ 2013 to date the handmade pottery from eastern Slovakia to the second third
of the 6th century is based more on wishful thinking than on hard evidence.
12
BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA 1990; FUSEK 1994: 206 and 232; TOMAŠOVÁ, ULIČNÝ 1998.
13
SCHMIDTOVÁ, RUTTKAY 2007: 343-345.
14
RUTTKAY 2007: 336. Two gilded helmets of the Baldenheim type that have been found
before World War II in Dolné Semerovce near Šahy (southern Slovakia) may be associated with this
series of recent finds. Pace FUSEK 2004:165-66, the helmets have nothing to do with the Slavs.
50 FLORIN CURTA
valley of the Morava was occupied by a population that had nothing to do with the
Prague culture.15
Where, then, are the earliest assemblages with handmade pottery attributed to
the Prague type? In the immediate neighborhood of the Outer Eastern Carpathians,
the settlement excavated in Kodin, near Hlyboka (northern Bukovina, Ukraine)
produced so far the earliest assemblage associated with the Prague culture – the
second half of the 5th century.16 In light of the common opinion about the early
phase of the Prague culture being characterized by handmade pottery alone, it is
important to note that the ceramic assemblage in Kodin included also wheel-made
pottery. Moreover, some of the rim fragments found in association with a 5th-century
crossbow fibula are believed to be characteristic for later phases of the Prague
culture (Pl. II).17 A date after 500 may be advanced for house 1 in Botoşana, a site
located only 27 miles to the south from Kodin, on the other side of the present-day
Romanian-Ukrainian border. The two fibulae found in that house cannot be exactly
dated, but one of them is made of iron and has good analogies in 6th century forts in
the Balkans.18 The same is true for houses 9 and 14 in Botoşana, in which iron
fibulae have also been found.19 In both cases, the ceramic assemblages associated with
the two fibulae included both hand- and wheel-made pottery. There is incontrovertible
evidence in Botoşana for assemblages dated to the 6th century. In houses 13 and 20,
the ceramic assemblages with handmade pottery were associated with coins struck
15
TEJRAL, STUCHLÍK, ČIŽMÁŘ, KLANICA, KLANICOVÁ 2011: 259-60. For the coin,
see MILITKÝ 2004: 67. FUSEK, ZÁBOJNÍK 2010 claim that the handmade pottery found inside a
clay oven in Suchohrad is of the Prague type. However, the radiocarbon dates obtained from samples
collected on the site are 240-440, which is earlier than the earliest finds attributed to the Slavs in the
Urheimat. That the pottery in question may be related to the same population that buried its dead in
Lužice results not only from similar finds from that cemetery (e.g., TEJRAL, STUCHLÍK, ČIŽMÁŘ,
KLANICA, KLANICOVÁ 2011: 372, Pl. 39.1; 376, Pl. 43.2), but also from a bronze disc with open-
work ornament, discovered in Suchohrad (FUSEK, ZÁBOJNÍK 2010: 168, Fig. 9). The artifact is
most typical for Merovingian assemblages.
16
RUSANOVA, TIMOSHCHUK 1984: 22 and 48. The crossbow fibula (RUSANOVA,
TIMOSHCHUK 1984: 21, Fig. 19.2; 74, Fig. 14.14) was found on the floor of house 10, next to the
southwestern corner. For the dating of the fibula, see SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 1986: 602-603 and
605; GAVRITUKHIN 1989.
17
For example, the fragments published in RUSANOVA, TIMOSHCHUK 1984: 74, Fig.
14.5,8 may be classified as rim types 322 and 512, respectively, following the classification employed
by FUSEK 1994 and STANCIU 2011. The former type (also known as type B.b in the classification
of PARCZEWSKI 1993) is typical for phase Ib, while rim type 512 appears in phase IIa (FUSEK
1994: 104; STANCIU 2011: 286).
18
For example, in houses 25 and 28 from Gabrovo (KOICHEVA, KHARALAMBIEVA 1993:
68-71; Pl. I.9; III.11). One of the handmade pottery fragments from house 1 in Botoşana (TEODOR
1984: 117, Fig. 38.1) has an everted rim very similar to that of another handmade pottery fragment
from house 10 in Kodin (RUSANOVA, TIMOSHCHUK 1984: 74, Fig. 14.9). Neither one of them
appears in the classifications of the Prague-type pottery employed by PARCZEWSKI 1993, FUSEK
1994, or STANCIU 2011.
19
TEODOR 1984: 28-29 and 32-33. Though decorated with finger impressions on the lip, the
rim of a reconstructed handmade pot from house 9 (TEODOR 1984: 117, Fig. 38.2) is similar to that
of a fragment of handmade pot retrieved from house 14 (TEODOR 1984: 119, Fig. 40.4). None of the
reconstructed pots from houses 9 and 14 has any analogy in the repertoire of the Prague culture.
in Constantinople for Emperor Justinian between 527 and 538.20 The assemblage in
house 13 includes the earliest fragments of clay pans that may be dated with any
precision.21
A date within the second half of the 6th century may be advanced for house
16 in Davideni, a settlement site located 62 miles to the south from Botoşana, near
Târgu Neamţ.22 Both the fibula with bent stem and the pectoral cross from that
house may be dated to the second half 6th century.23 The same is true for the fibulae
with bent stem from two other assemblages from Davideni – houses 72 and 75.24
Firmly dated to the second half of the 6th century is the earring with star-shaped
pendant from house 28 in Izvoare-Bahna, a site located some 43 miles farther to
the south from Davideni.25 The best analogy for the earring is a specimen from a
small hoard found in Silistra together with coins struck for Justin II. 26 To the last
third of the 6th century may be dated house 6 in Bacău-Curtea Domnească, a site
located 24 miles to the south from Izvoare-Bahna. The assemblage in that house
included both hand- and wheel-made pottery, as well as a cast fibula with bent
stem, with good analogies in two hoards from Bulgaria (Koprivec and Bracigovo),
the latest coins of which have been struck for Justin II and Maurice.27 Of the same
age is the fragment of the belt buckle of the Sucidava-Beroe I B type (Schulze-
Dörrlamm’s class D1), which was found in the fill of house 17 of the settlement
excavated in Gutinaş, 25 miles to the south from Bacău.28
20
TEODOR 1984: 31 and 36-37. For the coins, see BUTNARIU 1985: 217. Unlike the
assemblage in house 13, that retrieved from house 20 included not only hand-, but also wheel-made
pottery. In direct contrast to the situation in Kodin, the handmade pottery from houses 13 and 20 in
Botoşana dated to the 6th century is most typical for the earliest phases of the Prague-type pottery
(e.g., rim types 222 and 323 that appear in phase I a).
21
CURTA 2017: 142.
22
MITREA 2001: 53-54.
23
For the fibula (MITREA 2001: 326, Fig. 66.5), a specimen with bow and stem of similar
width, see CURTA, GÂNDILĂ 2013: 112. A similar fibula, but with a zig-zag decoration on both
bow and stem was associated with handmade pottery in house 5 of the Budureasca 5 settlement (near
Mizil), over 140 miles to the south from Davideni (TEODORESCU 2009: 342, Fig. 22.1). For the
Maltese cross from Davideni (MITREA 2001: 327, Fig. 62.2), see CURTA 2004: 185.
24
MITREA 2001: 117-19 and 121-22. Like the specimen from house 16, the fibula with bent
stem from house 72 has bow and stem of the same width (CURTA, GÂNDILĂ 2013: 111). The other
fibula is a specimen with trapeze-shaped stem, which may be of a late 6th-century date (CURTA,
GÂNDILĂ 2013: 129).
25
MITREA 1998: 37-38. The ceramic assemblage contains only handmade pottery with no
analogies in the repertoire of the Prague-type pottery.
26
MITREA 1998: 141, Fig. 25.1; ANGELOVA, PENCHEV 1989: 39, Fig. 4; 40, Fig. 7.3;
MORRISSON, POPOVIĆ, IVANIŠEVIĆ 2006: 155.
27
MITREA, ARTIMON 1971: 236; CURTA, GÂNDILĂ 2013: 67. The same date may be
advanced also for the assemblage in house 51 in Davideni, which produced a similar fibula (MITREA
2001: 92-93). However, according to the initial report (MITREA 1995: 125), the fibula was found in
the fill, and not on the floor of the house.
28
MITREA 2015: 60-62. The ceramic assemblage from house 17 contains both hand- and
wheel-made pottery with combed ornament. For the dating of the buckle, see VINSKI 1967: 37. A
very similar specimen has been found in the main room of building O V in the early Byzantine
52 FLORIN CURTA
A relatively large number of so-called “Slavic” bow fibulae have been found
in assemblages that may, therefore, be dated to the late 6th or early 7th century (Pl.
III). That from house 58 in Davideni, with a fibula of Werner’s class I G, may be
dated shortly before or after the year 600.29 A similar date has been advanced for
the fibula of Werner’s type I H found in Rashkiv, not far from Kodin, in northern
Bukovina.30 Three assemblages with “Slavic” bow fibulae have the same forms of
handmade pottery, which strengthens the idea that they coincided in time.31 In
addition to handmade pottery, however, assemblages with “Slavic” bow fibulae
such as those of Davideni and Suceava, also include wheel-made pottery. Like
fibulae, wheel-made pottery, appears in the northernmost region adjacent to the
Outer Eastern Carpathians, but not beyond the Upper Prut River.32
One of the most recent assemblages with handmade pottery that has been
attributed to the Prague culture is house 1 in Udeşti, with two gold coins struck in
Constantinople for Emperor Heraclius – one of them between 616 and 625. 33 Of
the same age is grave 1 in Balta Verde, at the opposite end of the Carpathian
Mountain Arc, on the Romanian-Serbian border. The belt buckle of the Syracuse
class found in that grave together with handmade pottery and pottery thrown on a
tournette may be dated to the first decades of the 7th century.34
When do similar assemblages with handmade pottery appear inside the
Carpathian Arc? It is not easy to answer that question, primarily because handmade
pottery (including shapes that are directly comparable to the so-called Prague type)
are known from assemblages that can be dated to the 6th century and have been
attributed to the Gepids. For example, at Rákoczifalva (near Szolnok, on the
Middle Tisza river), handmade pottery appears together with wheel-made pottery
with burnished or stamped decoration.35 Handmade pottery appears together with
fortress excavated in Jelica (near Čačak, Serbia) together with a fragmentary, cast fibula with bent
stem (MILINKOVIĆ 2010: 76-86 and Pl. XII.3).
29
MITREA 2001: 99-100; CURTA 2012: 274. The same date may be advanced for the
assemblage in house 41, which, in addition to wheel- and handmade pottery, also included a fibula of
Werner’s class II B (MITREA 2001: 81-83).
30
BARAN 1988: 116; CURTA 2012: 274. The date was proposed on a typological basis, as no
other artifacts, besides handmade pottery, have been found in house 76 excavated in Rashkiv. The
same is true for another I C fibula from house 5 in Chornivka (TIMOSHCHUK, RUSANOVA,
MYKHAYLYNA 1981: 91, Fig. 7). By contrast, besides a fibula of Werner’s class I H, the
assemblage in house 2 excavated in Suceava included an awl, a spindle-whorl, and a glass bead, but
none of those artifacts can be dated with any degree of accuracy (TEODOR 2013: 14).
31
Houses 5 in Chornivka and house 41 in Davideni have rim types 623 and 624, but house 5 in
Chornivka also produced shards of rim type 624, which also appears in house 58 in Davideni
(CURTA 2012: 275).
32
But pottery thrown on a slowly-turning wheel (tournette) does appear on sites farther to the
north, in the valley of the Upper Dniester, e. g., at Nezvys’ko (near Horodenka; SMIRNOVA 1961:
216, Fig. 5.1-1) and Bobshiv (near Halych; BARAN 1972: 154, Fig. 38.1).
33
DEJAN 2015: 77 and 79, Fig. 3. For the coins, see GOGU 2001: 283 with no. 2; 296-297.
34
BERCIU 1939: 235-236; SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 2002: 177 and 179.
35
CSEH 1997: 173-75 and 176-77. One of the two assemblages in Rákoczifalva includes
fragments that bear great resemblance with rim types 222 and 322 (CSEH 1997: 181, Fig. 13.9,11),
wheel-made pottery with burnished or stamped decoration in three assemblages of

the 6th-century settlement excavated in Moreşti, near Târgu Mureş, in the heart of
Transylvania.36 Moreover, the association of hand- with wheel-made pottery with
burnished ornament is also documented in burial assemblages, for example in two
graves from Szentes and Hódmezővásárhely.37 It is of course impossible to attribute
the handmade pottery from those, and other similar sites to the Prague culture, even
if we imagine (on the basis of a single potsherd with burnished ornament from Kodin)
that contacts may have existed during the first part of the 6th century between
communities inside and outside the Carpathian Mountains.38
Nonetheless, the handmade pottery found on sites in southeastern Transylvania
has often been attributed to groups of (Slavic) immigrants coming from Moldavia
across the mountains. A “Slavic” bow fibula of Werner’s class I C (in house 19) and a
fibula with bent stem (in house 20) that were discovered in Poian, some 75 miles
across the Carpathians from Bacău, suggest a date either before or shortly after
600.39 The same may be true for the single-sided combs with animal heads found in
two houses (19 and 68) of the settlement excavated in Bratei, near Mediaş.40 It is
worth noting in this respect that in another house of that same settlement (house 5),
handmade pottery with notches on the lip is associated with wheel-made pottery,
namely fine Grey Ware with burnished and stamped ornament, as well as a silver
earring with polyhedral pendant, most typical for 6th century ceramic assemblages
in Transylvania.41 On the other hand, the seriation of 167 ceramic assemblages
from sites in southeastern and central Transylvania has demonstrated the constant
association between handmade pottery with no decoration (but with shapes other
than those regarded as typical for the Prague culture), handmade pottery with
combed decoration, clay pans, handmade pottery with finger impressions on the
rim, and pottery turned on a tournette, without decoration.42 To a greater degree
than in the lands outside the Carpathian Mountains, the handmade pottery is
most typical for the earliest phase of the Prague culture. It goes without saying that nothing in
Rákoczifalva is remotely connected with that culture.
36
HOREDT 1979: 92, 96, and 141. The association of hand- with wheel-made pottery with
stamped ornament is also documented in the 6th century in western Hungary (SKRIBA, SÓFALVI
2004: 127-28)
37
CSALLÁNY 1961: 53-54 and 135.
38
RUSANOVA, TIMOSHCHUK 1984: 30 and 51; 18, Fig. 12.4.
39
SZÉKELY 1992: 263, 266, and 268; CURTA 2012: 272; CURTA, GÂNDILĂ 2013: 129.
See also STANCIU 2013: 340, 342, and 345.
40
BÂRZU 1995: 64 and 267. For single-sided combs with horse protomes, see BUGARSKI,
IVANIŠEVIĆ 2016: 155-156.
41
BÂRZU 1995: 260-262. The association of hand- with wheel-made pottery with burnished
ornament is also documented in houses 36 and 37 of the same settlement site (BÂRZU 1995: 265 and
272). All three houses (5, 36, and 37) have been attributed to the second occupation phase of the
Bratei 1 settlement, which is dated to the 6th century (STANCIU 2015a: 181 and 183; 182, Fig. 12).
Handmade pottery appears together with Grey Ware with stamped ornament in the assemblage
discovered in house 3 at Alba Iulia-Monetărie (HAIMOVICI, BLĂJAN 1989: 336-337 and 339-340).
For recent finds of Grey Ware in the region, see NYÁRÁDI 2010-2011.
42
STANCIU 2013: 342.
54 FLORIN CURTA
associated in Transylvania not only with wheel-made pottery, but also with pottery
thrown on a tournette. All three ceramic categories appear in no less than six different
assemblages of the settlement excavated in Filiaş, 32 miles to the northeast from
Bratei.43
Pottery of the so-called Prague-type is also mentioned among finds from
settlement and cemetery sites discovered in Hungary and dated to the Early Avar
age (ca. 570 to ca. 630). The excavation of house 17 in Dunaújváros, for example,
produced a glass bead with eye-shaped inlays most typical for that age.44 The
assemblage from house 1 excavated in Hajdúnanás, near the Hungarian-Romanian-
Ukrainian border, included handmade pottery and a belt buckle of the Pápa type,
which is also typical for the first decades of the 7th century.45 The Hajdúnanás
assemblage strongly suggests a re-evaluation of the results of an older excavation in
Kisvarda, some 50 miles to the northeast, in the bend of the river Tisza.46 The
handmade pottery found there was dated to the last third of the 6 th century, before
the arrival of the Avars, only because it supposedly showed no Gepidic influence.47
Nonetheless, the Kisvarda pottery has been used by Ioan Stanciu for the dating of a
group of settlements he had excavated in northwestern Romania in the valley of the
Zalău river up to the Meseş Gate and the outskirts of Satu Mare. He called this the
“Lazuri-Pişcolt” group.48 However, if the date of the Kisvarda settlement is later
than initially assumed, then the “Lazuri-Pişcolt” group must equally be dated after
600. It is perhaps important to note in that respect that ceramic assemblages of the
“Lazuri-Pişcolt” group lack wheel-made pottery, although the pottery thrown on a
tournette is documented in assemblages from two houses in Lazuri, three in Zalău-
La blocuri, and one in Zalău-Valea Mâţii.49 The same is true for contemporaneous
settlements excavated in eastern (Prešov, Šebastovce) and central-southern Slovakia
(Nitra-Mikov dvor, Veľký Cetín, and Nitra-Šindolka), as well as in Transcarpathian
Ukraine (Zniatseve).50
43
SZÉKELY 1975: 37 and 41-43; STANCIU 2015: 108.
44
BÓNA 1973: 25. For the bead, see PÁSZTOR 1995: 78-79.
45
FODOR 2012: 712. For the buckle, see MADGEARU 1993: 174. The handmade pottery
from a house discovered in Balatonmagyaród-Hidvégpuszta has been hastily classified as of the
Prague type, but the ceramic assemblage includes remains of vessels that have nothing to do with
anything that has ever been attributed to the Slavs (SZŐKE 2008).
46
ISTVÁNOVITS 2001.
47
The ceramic assemblages with handmade pottery from southeastern Transylvania seem a
little older than those from Hungary, for they can be clearly dated to the last third of the 6 th century.
That is clearly the case of the assemblage from a sunken-floored building excavated in Şumuleu-
Fodorkert, a suburb of Miercurea Ciuc (personal information from Ioan Stanciu). The Şumuleu
assemblage is the mirror image of that found in house 6 of the settlement excavated in Bacău-Curtea
Domnească, but STANCIU 2013: 355 believes that there are many more connections with Walachia
than with Moldavia.
48
STANCIU 2011 and 2015: 128-135.
49
STANCIU 2011: 333-334, 340-341, 371-374, and 389.
50
For Prešov, see TOMAŠOVÁ, ULIČNÝ 1998: 159 and 161-162. For Šebastovce, see
BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA 1990: 97. For Nitra-Mikov dvor, see FUSEK 1991: 295-296. For Veľký Cetín, see
CHEBEN, RUTTKAYOVÁ, RUTTKAY 1994: 204-206. For Nitra-Šindolka, see FUSEK 2002: 185. For
Farther to the north, across the Tatra Mountains, in Lesser Poland, the
situation is not very different. On the floor of house 1 in Wyciąże, near Nowa Huta
(on the eastern outskirts of Cracow), archaeologists found both handmade pottery
with no ornament, and pottery thrown on a tournette, equally devoid of any
ornamentation. The fill of the house pit produced a double-sided comb.51 The
dendrochronological analysis of the oak remains found in the house indicates a date
between 625 and 635 for the felling of the trees that were used to build the house.52
In Nowa Huta, a handmade pot was found in a pit, and inside the pot was a small
hoard of bronze artifacts, including a belt mount in the form of a rosette and four
trapeze-shaped pendants – all artifacts most typical for the Early Avar age,
therefore dated to the first decades of the 7th century.53 The radiocarbon date
obtained from a sample collected from the fill of a pit (or silo) excavated in
Korzkiew, just north of Cracow, suggests that the associated assemblage with
handmade pottery must be dated to the first half of the 7th century.54 The same date
is indicated by the bronze coin struck in Nicomedia for Emperor Heraclius in 613/4
and found next to a house in Grodzisko Dolne, in the valley of the river San, not far
from the Polish-Ukrainian border.55 Much like in Slovakia and northwestern
Romania, the ceramic assemblages in Lesser Poland contain either only handmade
pottery, or a combination of handmade pottery and pottery thrown on a tournette.56
Farther to the northwest, in Lower Silesia, only the site at Polwica, southeast from
Wrocław, has produced relevant information. Both handmade pottery and pottery
thrown on a tournette have been found there, while the dendrochronological
analysis of timber remains from one of the house (perhaps a workshop) indicated a
late date – 677.57 A seventh-century date may also be advanced for the cheek piece
of a bridle bit found together with handmade pottery in a pit of the settlement
excavated in Żukowice, near Głogów.58
Zniatseve, see PENIAK 1980: 22. For a rare example of a combination of hand- and wheel-made pottery,
see HROMADA, KOLNÍK 1991: 258-261. The association of handmade pottery and pottery thrown on a
tournette is also documented in Moravia (DOSTÁL 1985: 45; MACHÁČEK 2000: 33-34).
51
POLESKA, BOBER 1996; POLESKA, BOBER, KRĄPIEC 2005. A similar comb is known
from pit 2 in Igołomia (DOBRZAŃSKA 1998: 84).
52
POLESKA, BOBER, KRĄPIEC 1998.
53
DĄBROWSKA 1984. For the pendants, see RUDNICKI 2011. See also KUBICA-
KABACIŃSKA 2005: 597 and 601, Fig. 4.
54
NOWAK, LIWOCH, MOSKAL-DEL HOYO, RAUBA-BUKOWSKA, WILCZYŃSKI 2016.
55
PODGÓRSKA-CZOPEK 2009: 82. For the coin, see CZOPEK, MORAWIECKI,
PÓDGORSKA-CZOPEK 2001. According to DULINICZ 2007: 168, the pottery from house V in
Grodzisko Dolne, next to which the coin was found, is very similar to that in house 1 in Wyciąże,
which was dendro-dated to the late 620s or early 630s. Although no dates available for southern
Poland are earlier than 600, PARCZEWSKI 2004: 267 maintains that the Slavs came to Poland as
early as the second half of the 5th century, simply because the raw amber found in a house in Bachórz
is similar to another from the Świlcza hoard.
56
BACZYŃSKA, MAJ 1981: 175; PODGÓRSKA-CZOPEK 1991: 17-18; PARCZEWSKI
1996: 282 and 274; KOSTEK 1998: 121; KUBICA-KABACIŃSKA 2005: 14-22.
57
DOBRAKOWSKI, DOMAŃSKA, NOWORYTA, ROMANOW 2000; SZWED 2013:112.
58
PARCZEWSKI 1989: 203.
56 FLORIN CURTA
This brief survey of the archaeological evidence invites a general view of the
situation both inside and outside the Carpathian Basin. The ceramic assemblages
from East Central Europe that have been attributed to the Prague culture cannot be
dated before 600, either in Slovakia or in northwestern Romania. Inside the
Carpathian Mountain Arc, the earliest assemblages that can be attributed to the
Prague culture are those of central and southeastern Transylvania, and they are
linked to the social and cultural phenomena that are reflected in assemblages on the
other side of the mountains, in Moldavia.
Can one then speak of a migration of the Prague culture to East Central
Europe? Following Kazimierz Godłowski, Slovak and Polish archaeologists insist
on the fact that that culture appears in the territories that had been evacuated by the
late antique population. Such ideas have now been challenged by finds from
Bratislava-Rusovce, Tesárske Mlyňany, and Lužice. It remains beyond doubt,
however, that no traces of any settlement are so far known for Lesser Poland,
Transcarpathian Ukraine, and eastern Slovakia that could be dated to the
6th century.59 Ioan Stanciu maintains that the same is true for the northwestern part
of the present-day territory of Romania, as no traces of late 5th – or early 6th century
settlements are known from that region.60 But he is wrong to assume the same for
southeastern Transylvania.61 Perhaps the most important assemblages in the
Szeklerland are the 6th-century inhumations found in downtown Cristuru Secuiesc,
one of which was associated with a belt buckle of the Sucidava class.62 That is also
the region with the fortified site at Porumbenii Mici, the dating of which to the 6 th
(or even, perhaps, to the 5th) century cannot be doubted.63
Can one then attribute the presence of the handmade pottery in this region to
a “Slavic” migration from across the mountains?64 The demographic growth so
clearly visible in the late 6th century through the sudden appearance of new
settlement sites where none had existed before, is certainly a good indication of
migration. Equally relevant in this respect are the extraordinary similarities between
settlements in southeastern Transylvania and those in Subcarpathian Moldavia. But
the presence of the handmade pottery in settlements located in the valleys of the
Târnava Mare (Sighişoara, Bratei) and Mureş rivers (Moreşti, Alba Iulia) cannot be
explained in the same way, because that pottery clearly pre-dates the earliest
settlements in southeastern Transylvania and has good analogies on sites located
farther to the west, along the Lower Tisza river. Nor can there be any doubt about
59
No 6th-century finds are known from Lower Silesia either, with the exception of a tongs-
shaped fibula accidentally found in 2012 in Krzyżowice, near Wrocław (BŁAŻEJEWSKI 2015).
60
STANCIU 2011: 69-70.
61
STANCIU 2015: 101.
62
KÖRÖSFŐI, SZÉKELY 2007: 333. See also BENKŐ 1992: 173. The belt buckle is of the
same type as that found in Gutinaş, which strongly suggests that the cemetery in Cristuru Secuiesc
coincides in time with the settlement in Şumuleu.
63
NYÁRÁDI 2010-2011: 328-331. The Corund dies have also been found in this region, and
they may be dated to the Early Avar age (HOREDT 1958: 95).
64
Handmade pottery, including fragments with notches on the lip, has been found at Porumbenii
Mici.
the “Lazuri-Pişcolt” group being intrusive, and the same may be said about the
population that makes its appearance in northeastern Hungary, Transcarpathian
Ukraine, and eastern Slovakia ca. 600. The situation does not appear to have been any
different on the other side of the Eastern Beskids, in the part of southeastern Poland
between the upper courses of the rivers Vistula and San, where no finds are known
that could be dated before ca. 600. By contrast, the picture is much more complicated
in central and western Slovakia, as well as in Moravia, because of the clear survival
of the local population well into the 6th and even, perhaps, the early 7th century.
If one admits that the Prague culture could therefore not be dated in any of
those regions before the early decades of the 7th century (and nothing proves the
contrary), then one could perhaps also admit a migration from the outside, although
it still remains unclear what happened to the local population. Where did that
migration originate? There is no agreement in Czech archaeology as to how Slavs
reached Moravia, either from the southeast, along the Middle Danube, or from the
northeast, namely from Silesia, following the upper course of the Oder. Gabriel
Fusek also believes that in Slovakia the Slavs came from western Ukraine and
southern Poland, in other words, both along the northern and the southern slopes of
the Tatra Mountains.65 The remarkable similarities between the archaeological
record of northwestern Romania and that from Walachia (clay ovens carved into
the walls of the sunken-floored buildings, clay rolls in the oven, clay pans, and clay
lumps in the form of small loaves of bread) led Ioan Stanciu to formulate the idea
of a migration of the Slavs from the Lower Danube to the Upper Tisza. 66 Taking
into account the chronological difference (as the settlements in Walachia coincide
in time and may be dated, at least some of them, to the 6th century, even to the
reign of Justinian), it is likely that the “migration” that Stanciu had in mind was a
forced movement of population done by and under the control of the Avars shortly
after 600, perhaps in the circumstances surrounding the wars that Emperor Maurice
was aggressively waging at that time across the Danube frontier of the empire
against both Slavs and Avars.67 If so, then one would have also to entertain the idea
that the “Slavs” of Lesser Poland may have come not from the east (that is from
Ukraine), but from the southeast, namely from the Upper Tisza valley. There are,
in fact, many more similarities between the archaeological record of northwestern
Romania and Slovakia, on one hand, and those of southeastern Poland, on the other
hand, than there are between Poland and Ukraine. One would need to admit also
the possibility that the Avars moved several groups of Slavs on the northern border
of their qaganate, from the region of the Upper Tisza to the confluence of the
Morava and Danube rivers, in other words in the northeastern parts of present-day
Hungary, as well as central and southwestern Slovakia. At any rate, the “Slavs” of
northwestern Romania did not come across the Carpathian Mountains from
Bukovina, a region with which the “Lazuri-Pişcolt” group has little, if anything in
65
FUSEK, ZÁBOJNÍK 2005: 554.
66
STANCIU 2004: 354 and 2012: 177.
67
IVANOV 2013; FERNÁNDEZ DELGADO 2016.
58 FLORIN CURTA
common.68 Nor is it likely that the “Slavic” group in the Szeklerland gradually
expanded into the central and northwestern parts of Transylvania. As a matter of
fact, the cultural influence of that group did not go beyond the river Mureş,
although, as Ioan Stanciu aptly put it, it remains unclear where the people lived,
who buried their dead in the inhumation cemeteries excavated in Band, Unirea
(Vereşmort), and Noşlac.69 Similarly, nothing indicates that what has been called
the Prague culture expanded from Lesser into central and northwestern Poland in
the course of the 7th century.70
I have so far employed the term “Slavs” several times in the sense that most
scholars use it to refer to the issue discussed in this paper. It is now taken for
granted that the “bearers” of the Prague culture were Slavs. But at a closer look,
there is absolutely no information in the written sources about the presence of the
Sclavenes in those northerly regions that were so far away from the Lower Danube.
Procopius of Caesarea tells the story of a group of Herules moving from their
abode somewhere in the Middle Danube region to Thule, and encountered on their
way “all the nations of the Slavs,” before crossing “a large tract of deserted
country.”71 Any attempt to use this information in order to locate the abode of the
Slavs is futile, because there is absolutely no geographic indication to pinpoint on
the map any of the lands that the Herules supposedly crossed on their trek to Thule.
Moreover, there is no mention of them crossing any mountains, after departing
from “the country of Illyria.” By the same token, when Jordanes places the Sclavenes
in relation to the source of a river called Visla (presumably the Vistula), this is by
no means a report from the field, but the result of his use of two maps, one with a conic
or conic-like projection, the other without any geographical projection whatsoever
(and in that respect very similar to the Peutinger Map). As a consequence, Jordanes’
Visla sometimes flows in a south-north direction, and at other times from west to east.72
Next to nothing is known about the language(s) spoken on the sites mentioned in
this paper, even though both Jürgen Udolph and Georg Holzer believe the language
known as (Common) Slavic to have emerged in the Subcarpathian region of
Bukovina and Galicia.73 What would then be the problem with calling Slavs the
“bearers” of the Prague culture? In my opinion, the 6th-century sources agree in
calling Sclavenes only those people who lived in the Lower Danube region, to the
north from the imperial frontier. They, and nobody else, were the “bearers” of the
“earliest Slavic culture.” However, the archaeological record of 6th century
68
STANCIU 2012: 177.
69
STANCIU 2013: 354.
70
PARCZEWSKI 2004: 269, who notes that the Sukow culture most typical for northern
Poland came into being around 600.
71
Procopius of Caesarea, Wars VI 15.2. Much of the recent discussion about this passage
(STEINACHER 2010: 356-359; SARANTIS 2016: 43-45 and 258) concerns the veracity of
Procopius’ account, not his knowledge of the geography of Central Europe.
72
CURTA 1999.
73
HOLZER 2004; UDOLPH 2010.
Walachia bears little, if any resemblance to that of contemporaneous Slovakia or

Poland. If the 7th-century inhabitants of Slovakia, Poland, or Moravia were Slavs,
they were very different culturally from the Sclavenes of Walachia. Conversely,
the material culture that the latter left behind is very similar to that of many
communities that lived at that same time along the Outer Carpathians, from
Bukovina all the way to the Dâmboviţa River and even beyond it, in the
southwestern parts of present-day Romania. As in relief, Victor Spinei’s ironic
smile appears in sharper contrast: the Slavs of the written sources have nothing to
do with the Prague culture, if such a culture ever existed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANGELOVA, PENCHEV 1989 Angelova, S., Penchev, V., Srebărno săkrovishte ot Silistra,
in: ArcheologijaSof, 31/2, 38-43.
BACZYŃSKA, MAJ 1981 Baczyńska, B., Maj, U., Wstępne wyniki badań na stanowisku
wielokulturowym w Szarbi, woj. Kielce, in: Sprawozdania
Archeologiczne, 33, 165-181.
BARAN 1988 Baran, V. D., Prazhskaia kul’tura Podnestrov’ia po
materialam poselenii u s, Rashkov, Naukova Dumka, Kiev.
BARAN 1972 Baran, V. D. Ranni slov'iani mia Dnestrom i Pripiat’iu,
Naukova dumka, Kiev.
BÂRZU 1995 Bârzu, L., La station no. 1 de Bratei, dép. de Sibiu (IVe-VIIe
siècles), in: Dacia, N.S., 38-39 (1994-1995), 239-295.
BENKŐ 1992 Benkő, E., A középkori Keresztúr-szék régészeti topográfiája,
Régészeti intézete, Budapest.
BERCIU 1939 Berciu, D., Arheologia preistorică a Olteniei, Ed. Ramuri,
Craiova.
BEREŠ 2013 Bereš, J., Včasnoslovanský sídliskový objekt zo Ždane, in:
Študijné zvesti, 53, 23-38.
BŁAŻEJEWSKI 2015 Błażejewski, A., A brooch from Wrocław area. A contribution
to the research on the migration period in south-west Poland,
in: Slavia Antiqua, 56, 171-182.
BÓNA 1973 Bóna, I., VII. századi avar települések és Arpád-kori magyar
falu Dunaújvárosban, Akadémiai kiadó, Budapest, 1973.
BORKOVSKÝ 1940 Borkovský, I., Staroslovanská keramika ve střední Evropě.
Studie k počátkům slovanské kultury, Nákladem vlastním,
Prague.
BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA 1990 Budinský-Krička, V., Novye materialy dlia izucheniia
drevneslavianskoi keramiki na poseleniiakh vostochnoi
Slovakii, in: SlovA, 38, 89-146.
BUGARSKI, IVANIŠEVIĆ 2016 Bugarski, I. Ivanišević, V., On the group of graves from
Aradac (Aradka) and Germanic finds from the south of the
Avar Khaganate, in: Csécs, T., Takács, M. (eds.), Beatus
homo qui invenit sapientiam. Ünnepi kötet Tomka Péter 75.
születésnapjára, Lekri Group Kft., Győr, 151-168.
60 FLORIN CURTA
BUTNARIU 1985 Butnariu, V. M., Răspîndirea monedelor bizantine din secolele

VI-VII în teritoriile carpato-dunărene, in: BSocNumRom, 77-
79 (1983-1985), nos. 131-133, 199-235.
CHEBEN, RUTTKAYOVÁ, RUTTKAY 1994 Cheben, I., Ruttkayová, J., Ruttkay, M.,
Výskum na trase ropovodu no Veľkom Cetíne, in: Študijné
zvesti, 30, 177-241.
CSALLÁNY 1961 Csallány, D., Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im
Mitteldonaubecken, Akademiai kiadó, Budapest.
CSEH 1997 Cseh, J., Gepida település Rákóczifalva határában, in:
CommunicAHung, 173-194.
CURTA 2017 Curta, F., Social identity on the platter. Clay pans in sixth to
seventh century ceramic assemblages, in: López Quiroga,
J., Kazanski, M., Ivanišević, V. (eds.), Entangled Identities
and Otherness in Late Antique and Early Medieval Europe,
Oxford BAR Publishing, Oxford, 132-177.
CURTA 2012 Curta, F. “Slavic” bow fibulae: twenty years of research, in:
BerRGK, 93, 235-342.
CURTA 2009 Curta, F., The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia: a
response to my critics, in: ARozhl, 61, 725-754.
CURTA 2004 Curta, F., Before Cyril and Methodius: Christianity and
barbarians beyond the sixth- and seventh-century Danube
frontier, in: Curta, F. (ed.), East Central and Eastern Europe
in the Early Middle Ages, University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor, 181-219.
CURTA 2001 Curta, F., The Prague type: a critical approach to pottery
classification, in: ABulg, 5/1, 73-106.
CURTA 1999 Curta, F., Hiding behind a piece of tapestry: Jordanes and the
Slavic Venethi, in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 47,
321-340.
CURTA, GÂNDILĂ 2013 Curta, F., Gândilă, A., Sixth-century fibulae with bent stem,
in: Peuce, 11, 101-176.
CURTA, GÂNDILĂ 2011 Curta, F., Gândilă, A., Too much typology, too little history: a
critical approach to the classification and interpretation of
cast fibulae with bent stem, in: ABulg, 15/3, 51-81.
CZOPEK, MORAWIECKI, PÓDGORSKA-CZOPEK 2001 Czopek, S., Morawiecki, L.,
Podgórska-Czopek, J., Znalezisko monety bizantyjskiej ze
stanowiska nr. 22 w Grodzisku Dolnym, pow. Leżajsk, in:
Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, 53, 391-402.
DĄBROWSKA 1984 Dąbrowska, E., Skarb ozdób brązowych z VI-VII w. na
stanowisku 62A w Nowej Hucie-Mogile, in: Archeologia
Polski, 29, 351-369.
DEJAN 2015 Dejan, M., Elemente răsăritene în ținuturile extracarpatice
(secolele VI-X), Ed. “Karl A. Romstorfer”, Suceava.
DOBRAKOWSKI, DOMAŃSKA, NOWORYTA, ROMANOW 2000 Dobrakowski, M.,
Domańska, J., Noworyta, E., Romanow, K., Wstępne omówienie
wyników ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych na stanowiskach
Polwica 4, Polwica 5 i Skrzypnik 8, gm. Domianów, in:
Silesia antiqua, 41, 25-54.
DOBRZAŃSKA 1998 Dobrzańska, H., Wczesnosłowiańska osada w Igołomi, in:

Archaeoslavica, 3, 71-114.
DOSTÁL 1985 Dostál, B., Břeclav-Pohansko III. Časně slovanské osídlení,
Univerzita J.E. Purkyne, Brno.
DULINICZ 2007 Dulinicz, M., Neue Befunde und absolute Daten zur
Frühgeschichte der Westslawen, in: Biermann, F., Kersting,
Th. (eds.), Siedlung, Kommunikation und Wirtschaft im
westslawischen Raum. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen
Frühgeschichte des 5. Deutschen Archäologenkongresses in
Frankfurt an der Oder, 4. bis 7. April 2005, Beier & Beran,
Langenweissbach, 167-176.
FERNÁNDEZ DELGADO 2016 Fernández Delgado, A., In aere aedificare. Las
iniciativas político-militares del emperador Mauricio en los
Balcanes durante la “decáda gloriosa”: ¿solución o
gestación de una nueva crisis?, in: Bravo, G., González-
Salinero, R. (eds.), Crisis en Roma y soluciones desde el
poder, Signifer Libros, Madrid/Salamanca, 451-477.
FODOR 2012 Fodor, I., Avar kori lakóházak Hajdúnánáson, in: Vida, T. (ed.),
Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tánulmanyok Garam Éva
tiszteletére, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest, 709-720.
FUSEK 2015 Fusek, G., Drevnee slavianskoe naselenie na territorii
Slovakii, in: Stratum plus, 5, 151-162.
FUSEK 2013 Fusek, G., Beitrag zu Problemen der Datierung von der
Besiedlung der Westslowakei in der älteren Phase des
Frühmittelalters, in: Dulinicz, M., Moździoch, S. (eds.), The
Early Slavic Settlement in Central Europe in the Light of New
Dating Evidence, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of
the Polish Academy of Sciences, Wrocław, 139-151.
FUSEK 2004 Fusek, G., “Slawen” oder Slawen ? Eine polemische
Auseinandersetzung über eine wertvolle Monographie, in:
SlovA, 52/1, 161-186.
FUSEK 2002 Fusek, G., Včasnoslovanské nálezy z Nitry-
Šindolky/Slovensko, in: Guštin, M. (ed.), Zgodni slovani.
Zgodnjesrednjeveška lončenina na obrobju vzhodnih Alp,
Narodni Muzej Slovenije, Ljubljana, 184-188.
FUSEK 1994 Fusek, G., Slovensko vo včasnoslovanskom období,
Archeologický ústav Slovenskej akadémie vied, Nitra.
FUSEK 1991 Fusek, G., Včasnoslovanske sídlisko v Nitre na Mikovom
dvore, in: SlovA, 39/1-2, 289-328.
FUSEK, ZÁBOJNÍK 2010 Fusek, G., Zábojník, J., Frühslawisches Siedlungsobjekt aus
Suchohrad. Zur Problematik der langobardisch-slawischen
Beziehungen, in: Beljak, J., Březinová, G., and Varsik, V.
(eds.), Archeológia barbarov 2009. Hospodárstvo Germánov.
Sídliskové a ekonomické štrúkury od neskorej doby laténskej
po včasny stredovek. Zborník referátov z V. protohistorickej
konferencie. Nitra, 21.-25. septembra 2009, Archeologický
ústav SAV, Nitra, 155-180.
62 FLORIN CURTA
FUSEK, ZÁBOJNÍK 2005 Fusek, G., Zábojník, J., Ausklang der Spätantike und Anfang
des Frühmittelalters in der nördlichen Peripherie des
Karpatenbeckens, in: Kaczanowski, P., Parczewski, M. (eds.),
Archeologia o początkach Słowian. Materiały z konferencji,
Kraków, 19-21 listopada 2001, Instytut Archeologii
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Cracow, 562-566.
FUSEK, OLEXA, ZÁBOJNÍK 2010Fusek, G., Olexa, L., Zábojník, J., Nové sídliskové nálezy z
Nižnej Myšle. K problematike včasnoslovanského osídlenia
horného Potisia, in: SlovA, 58/2, 337-363.
GAVRITUKHIN 2009 Gavritukhin, I. O., Poniatiie prazhskoi kul'tury, in:
Korotkevich, B. S., Machinskii, D. A., Senichenkova, T. B.
(eds), Slozhenie russkoi gosudarstvennosti v kontekste
rannesrednevekovoi v kontekste rannesrednevekovoi istorii
Starogo sveta. Materialy mezhdunarodnogo konferencii,
sostoiavsheisia 14-18 maia 2007 goda v Gosudarstvennom
Ermitazhe, Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, St.
Petersburg, 7-25, 629.
GAVRITUKHIN 2005 Gavritukhin, I. O., Kompleksy prazhskoi kul'tury s
datiruiushchimi veshchami, in: Kaczanowski, P., Parczewski,
M. (eds.), Archeologia o początkach Słowian. Materiały z
konferencji, Kraków, 19-21 listopada 2001, Instytut
Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Cracow, 403-462.
GAVRITUKHIN 2000 Gavritukhin, I. O., Nachalo velikogo slavianskogo rasselenie
na iug i zapad, in: Tolochko, P. P. (ed.), Arkheologichni
studii, vol. 1, Prut, Kiev/Chernivtsi, 72-90.
GAVRITUKHIN 1997 Gavritukhin, I. O., Khronologiia prazhskoi kul’tury, in:
Sedov, V.V. (ed.), Etnogenez i etnokul’turnye kontakty slavian,
Institut Arkheologii RAN, Moscow, 39-52.
GAVRITUKHIN 1989 Gavritukhin, I. O., Kodynskie fibuly (Tipy i nekotorye problemy
interpretacii), in: Žulkus, V. (ed.), Vakarų baltų archeologija
ir istorija. Tarprespublikinės mokslinės konferencijos medžiaga,
Lietuvos archeologijos draugija, Klaipėda, 78-85.
GAVRITUKHIN, KAZANSKI 2017 Gavritukhin, I. O., Kazanski, M., O vremeni poiavleniia
slavian na territorii Moldovy, in: Sinika, V.S., Rabinovich, R.A.
(eds.), Drevnosti. Issledovaniia. Problemy. Sbornik statei v
chest’ 70-letiia N. P. Tel’nova, Biblioteka Stratum, Chișinău/
Tiraspol, 333-354.
GINDIN 1990 Gindin, L. A., Rol’ Karpat v etnogeneze slavian. Sintez
filologicheskikh, arkheologicheskikh i lingvisticheskikh dannykh,
in: Sedov, V. V. (ed.), VI Mezhdunarodnyi kongress slavianskoi
arkheologii, g. Prilep, Iugoslaviia, 1990 g. Tezisy dokladov,
podgotovlennykh sovetskimi issledovateliami, Nauka, Moscow,
16-20.
GODŁOWSKI 2005 Godłowski, K., Frühe Slawen in Mitteleuropa, Wachholtz,
Neumünster.
GODŁOWSKI 1980 Godłowski, K., Das Aufhören der germanischen Kulturen an
der mittleren Donau und das Problem des Vordringens der
Slawen, in: Wolfram, H., Daim, F. (eds.), Die Völker an der

mittleren und unteren Donau im fünften und sechsten
Jahrhundert. Berichte des Symposions der Kommission für
Frühmittelalterforschung, 24. bis 27. Oktober 1978, Stift
Zwettl, Niederösterreich, Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 225-232.
GOGU 2001 Gogu, M., Monedele bizantine aflate în colecţia numismatică
a Muzeului Naţional al Bucovinei din Suceava, in: Suceava,
26-28 (1999-2001), 283-310.
GOŁAB 1992 Gołąb, Z., The Origins of the Slavs. A Linguist’s View,
Slavica Publishers, Columbus.
HAIMOVICI, BLĂJAN 1989 Haimovici, S., Blăjan, M., Studiul faunei din locuinţele
prefeudale (sec. V-VI e.n.) descoperite la Alba Iulia (1985,
1986 şi 1988), in: Apulum, 26, 335-346.
HOLZER 2004 Holzer, G., Proto-Slavic: historical setting and linguistic
reconstruction, in: East Central Europe, 31/1, 49-59.
HOREDT 1979 Horedt, K. Moreşti. Grabungen in einer vor- und
frühgeschichtlichen Siedlung in Siebenbürgen, Kriterion,
Bucharest.
HOREDT 1958 Horedt, K., Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei în secolele IV-
XIII, Ed. Academiei R.P.R., Bucharest.
HROMADA, KOLNÍK 1991 Hromada, J., Kolník, T., Sídliskové objekty s keramikou
pražského typu v Bratislave-Dúbravke, in: SlovA, 39/1-2,
257-274.
ISTVÁNOVITS 2001 Istvánovits, E., Korai szláv települes maradványai Kisvárda
határában, in: Jósa András Múzeum Evkönyve, 43, 165-183.
IVANOV 2013 Ivanov, S. A., The Avar-Byzantine wars of the late sixth
century as depicted by Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos: a
new source?, in: ZborRadBeograd, 50, 123-148.
KOICHEVA, KHARALAMBIEVA 1993 Koicheva, K., Kharalambieva, A., Fibuli ot
Istoricheskiia Muzeia v Gabrovo (III-VII vek), in: Godishnik
na muzeite ot Severna Bălgariia, 19, 57-72.
KÖRÖSFŐI, SZÉKELY 2007 Körösfői, Zs., Székely, A., Gepida temető
Székelykeresztúron (Szabadság tér, 44. szám – Garázsköz), in:
Acta siculica, 231-237.
KOSTEK 1998 Kostek, A., Obiekt wczesnosłowiański na stanowisku 11 w
Dynowie, pow. Rzeszów, in: Archaeoslavica, 3, 121-131.
KREKOVIČ 2004 Krekovič, E., Ktol bol prvý? Nacionalizmus v slovenskej a
maďarskej archeológii a historiografii, in: Študijné zvesti, 36,
51-53.
KUBICA-KABACIŃSKA 2005 Kubica-Kabacińska, E., Materiały wczesnosłowiańskie z
Krakowa Nowej Huty, in: Kaczanowski, P., Parczewski, M.
(ed.), Archeologia o początkach Słowian. Materiały z
konferencji, Kraków, 19-21 listopada 2001, Instytut
Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Cracow, 597-604.
LODOWSKI 1981 Lodowski, J., Osada wczesnośredniowieczna z VI-VII w. w
Chwałkowie, woj. Wałbrzych, in: Silesia antiqua, 23, 149-163.
64 FLORIN CURTA
MACHÁČEK 2000 Macháček, J., K absolutní a relativní chronologii keramiky

středodunajské kulturní tradice na jižní Moravě, in:
SborBrno, 49/5, 25-55.
MADGEARU 1993 Madgearu, A., Despre cataramele de tip "Papa" şi unele
probleme ale secolului al VII-lea, in: SCIV, 44/2, 171-183.
MAŃCZAK 2004 Mańczak, W., Przedhistoryczne migracje Słowian i
pochodzenie jezyka staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskiego, Polska
Akademia Umiejetności, Cracow.
MAŃCZAK 2002 Mańczak, W., Językoznawstwo a kwestia prakolebki Słowian,
in: Studia zachodnie, 6, 5-11.
MESIARKIN 2012 Mesiarkin, A., Prehľad pohľadov na etnogenézu Slovanov:
hľadanie pravlasti jazykovedou a archeológiou, in: Historia
nova, 2/2, 9-27.
MILINKOVIĆ 2010 Milinković, M., Gradina na Jelici. Ranovizantijski grad i
srednjovekovno naselje, Zavod na ucbenike, Belgrade.
MILITKÝ 2004 Militký, J., Import zlatých římských a raně byzantských mincí
do českých zemí v době řimské až raném středověku, in:
Archeologie ve středních Čechách, 8, 505-536.
MITREA 2015 Mitrea, I., Așezarea medievală timpurie de la Ștefan cel
Mare-Gutinaș, județul Bacău, Muzeul Municipal de Istorie,
Onești.
MITREA 2001 Mitrea, I., Comunităţi săteşti la est de Carpaţi în epoca
migraţiilor. Aşezarea de la Davideni din secolele V-VIII,
Muzeul de Istorie, Piatra Neamţ.
MITREA 1998 Mitrea, I., Aşezarea din secolele VI-IX de la Izvoare-Bahna.
Realităţi arheologice şi concluzii istorice, Complexul Muzeal
Judeţean Neamţ, Piatra Neamţ.
MITREA 1995 Mitrea, I., Fibule descoperite în aşezarea de la Davideni-
Neamţ (sec. V-VII d.H.), in: Memoria Antiquitatis, 20,123-131.
MITREA, ARTIMON 1971 Mitrea, I., Artimon, A., Descoperiri prefeudale la Curtea
Domnească Bacău, in: Carpica, 4, 225-252.
MORRISSON, POPOVIĆ, IVANIŠEVIĆ 2006 Morrisson, C., Popović, V., Ivanišević,
V., Les trésors monétaires byzantins des Balkans et d'Asie
Mineure (491-713), Lethielleux, Paris.
NOWAK, LIWOCH, MOSKAL-DEL HOYO, RAUBA-BUKOWSKA, WILCZYŃSKI
2016 Nowak, M., Liwoch, R., Moskal-del Hoyo, M., Rauba-
Bukowska, A., Wilczyński, J., Korzkiew 5 – najstarze
stanowisko średniowieczne na wyżinie Olkuskiej, in:
Materiały Archeologiczne, 41, 245-262.
NYÁRÁDI 2010-2011 Nyárádi, Zs., Gepidák a Nagy-Küküllő felső folyásának
dombközi medencéiben, in: Körösfői, Zs. (ed.), Erdély és
kapcsolatai a kora népvándorlás korában, Molnár István
Múzeum, Székelykeresztúr, 321-376.
PARCZEWSKI 2004 Parczewski, M., Uwagi o kulturze wczesnosłowiańskiej na
ziemiach polskich, in: Koško, A., Kalećyc, A. (eds.), Wspólnota
dziedzictwa kulturowego ziem Białorusi i Polski, Ośrodek
Ochrony Dziedzictwa Archeologicznego, Warsaw, 266-277.
PARCZEWSKI 1996 Parczewski, M., Rezultaty badan wykopaliskowych w Bachórz

w latach 1993-1995, in: Materiały i sprawozdania
Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, 17/3, 263-282.
PARCZEWSKI 1993 Parczewski, M., Die Anfänge der frühslawischen Kultur in
Polen, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ur- und
Frühgeschichte, Vienna.
PARCZEWSKI 1989 Parczewski, M. Żukowice pod Głogowem w zaraniu
średniowiecza, Dolnośląskie Towarzystwo Społeczno-
Kulturalne, Głogów.
PÁSZTOR 1995 Pásztor, A., A kora és közép avar kori gyöngyök és a bizánci
éremleletes sírok kronológiai kapcsolata, in: Somogyi
Múzeumok Közleményei, 11, 69-92.
PAVLOVIČ 2015 Pavlović, D., The beginning of Slavic settlement in north-
eastern Slovenia and the relation between “Slavic” and
“Lombard” settlement based on new interpretations of the
archaeological material and radiocarbon dating, in: Hebert, B.,
Hofer, N. (Hrsg.), Fachgespräch “Spätantikes Fundmaterial
aus dem Südostalpenraum”, 7. April 2014, Graz,
Bundesdenkmalamt, Vienna, 59-72.
PENIAK 1980 Peniak, S. I., Rann’oslov’iansk’e i davn’orus’ke naselennia
Zakarpattia VI-XIII st., Naukova dumka, Kiev.
PLETERSKI 2010 Pleterski, A., Zgodnjesrednjeveška naselbina na Blejski
Pristavi. Tafonomija, predmeti in čas, Inštitut za arheologijo
ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
PLETERSKI 2008 Pleterski, A., Zgodnjesrednjeveška naselbina na Blejski
Pristavi. Najdbe, Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU,
Ljubljana.
PODGÓRSKA-CZOPEK 2009 Podgórska-Czopek, J., Grodzisko Dolne, stanowisko 22 -
wielokulturowe stanowisko nad dolnym Wisłokiem. Część II.
Okres rzymski i wczesnosłowiański, Instytut Archeologii
Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów, 2009.
PODGÓRSKA-CZOPEK 1991 Podgórska-Czopek, J., Materiały z wczesnosłowiańskiej
osady w Grodzisku Dolnym, stan. 3, woj. Rzeszów, in:
Archaeoslavica, 1, 9-60.
POLESKA, BOBER 1996 Poleska, P., Bober, J., Wczesnosłowiańska półziemianka ze
stanowiska 5B (Wyciąże) w Krakowie-Nowej Hucie, in:
Materiały Archeologiczne Nowej Huty, 19, 101-128.
POLESKA, BOBER, KRĄPIEC 2005 Poleska, P., Bober, J., Krąpiec., M.
Wczesnosłowiańska półziemianka z osady w Wyciążu,
stanowisko 5b, w Krakowie Nowej Hucie, in: Kaczanowski,
P., Parczewski, M. (eds.), Archeologia o początkach Słowian.
Materiały z konferencji, Kraków, 19-21 listopada 2001,
Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Cracow,
605-610.
POLESKA, BOBER, KRĄPIEC 1998 Poleska, P., Bober, J., Krąpiec, M. Das erste
dendrochronologisch datierte frühslawische Grubenhaus aus
Polen, in: Archaeoslavica, 3, 33-70.
66 FLORIN CURTA
RUDNICKI 2010 Rudnicki, M., Zawieszki trapezowate z terenu grupy

olsztyńskiej - świadectwo kontaktów ze Słowianami?, in:
Beljak, J., Březinová, G., Varsik, V. (eds.), Archeológia
barbarov 2009. Hospodárstvo Germánov. Sídliskové a
ekonomické štrúkury od neskorej doby laténskej po včasny
stredovek. Zborník referátov z V. protohistorickej
konferencie. Nitra, 21.-25. septembra 2009, Archeologický
ústav SAV Nitra, Nitra, 669-687.
RUSANOVA, TIMOSHCHUK 1984 Rusanova, I. P., Timoshchuk, B.O., Timoshchuk.
Kodyn, slavianskie poseleniia V-VIII vv. na r. Prut, Nauka,
Moscow.
RUTTKAY 2007 Ruttkay, M., Das völkerwanderungszeitliche Gräberfeld in
Tesárske Mlyňany, Bez. Zlaté Moravce, in: Tejral, J. (eds.)
Barbaren im Wandel. Beiträge zur Kultur- und
Identitätsumbildung in der Völkerwanderungszeit,
Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften
der Tschechechischen Republik Brno, Brno, 321-338.
SARANTIS 2016 Sarantis, A., Justinian’s Balkan Wars. Campaigning,
Diplomacy and Development in Illyricum, Thrace, and the
Northern World A.D. 527-65, Francis Cairns, Prenton.
SCHMIDTOVÁ, RUTTKAY 2007 Schmidtová, J, Ruttkay, M., Das merowingerzeitliche
Gräberfeld in Bratislava-Rusovce, Lage Pieskový hon, in:
Tejral, J. (ed.), Barbaren im Wandel. Beiträge zur Kultur- und
Identitätsumbildung in der Völkerwanderungszeit,
Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften
der Tschechechischen Republik Brno, Brno, 339-359.
SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 2002 Schulze-Dörrlamm, M. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen
und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums. Teil I: Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit
Laschenbeschläg und mit festem Beschläg des 6. bis 7.
Jahrhunderts, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums/Rudolf Habelt, Mainz.
SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 1986 Schulze-Dörrlamm, M., Romanisch oder germanisch ?
Untersuchungen zu den Armbrust- und Bügelknopffibel des 5.
und 6. Jhs. n. Chr. aus den Gebieten westlich des Rheins und
südlich der Donau, in: JbRGZM, 33, 593-720.
SKRIBA, SÓFALVI 2004 Skriba, P., Sófalvi, A., Langobard település Balatonlelle
határában, in: AErt, 129, 121-163.
SMIRNOVA 1961 Smirnova, G. I., Ranneslavianskoe poselenie v s. Nezvisko,
Stanislavskoi oblasti, in: Gaidukevich, V.F. (ed.), Issledovaniia
po arkheologii SSSR. Sbornik statei v chest M. I. Artamonova,
Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, Leningrad, 210-225.
SPINEI 1995 Spinei, V., La Bucovine l’époque des grandes migrations et
au Haut Moyen Age, in: Dacia, N.S., 38-39 (1994-1995),
365-388.
STANCIU 2015 Stanciu, I., Cei mai vechi slavi în spațiul intracarpatic al
României. O scurtă examinare și contribuții la dosarul
arheologic al problemei, in: Marmatia, 12, 97-162.
STANCIU 2015a Stanciu, I., Rannie slaviane v rumynskoi chasti Karpatskogo
basseina, in: Stratum plus, 5, 163-216.
STANCIU 2013 Stanciu, I., The problem of the earliest Slavs in intra-
Carpathian Romania (Transylvania and the north-west
vicinity), in: SlovA, 61/2, 323-370.
STANCIU 2012 Stanciu, I., Despre rolul așa-numitelor “pâinișoare de lut” în
mediul așezărilor slave timpurii (sec. VI-VII), in: Marmatia,
10/1, 165-191.
STANCIU 2011 Stanciu, I., Locuirea teritoriului nord-vestic al României între
antichitatea târzie şi perioada de început a epocii medievale
timpurii (mijlocul sec. V – sec. VII timpuriu), Ed. Academiei
Române, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, Cluj-Napoca.
STANCIU 2005 Stanciu, I., Die frühen Slawen in der rumänischen
archäologischen Forschung. Kurze kritische Untersuchung,
in: Kaczanowski, P., Parczewski, M. (eds.), Archeologia o
początkach Słowian. Materiały z konferencji, Kraków, 19-21
listopada 2001, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego, Cracow, 567-582.
STANCIU 2004 Stanciu, I., Die ältesten Slawen in der Gegend der oberen
Theiß . Eine kurze Untersuchung der Problematik im Lichte
der Daten aus dem Nordwesten Rumäniens, in: Fusek, G.
(ed.), Zbornik na počest Dariny Bialekovej, Archeologicky
ustav Slovenskej akadémie vied, Nitra, 347-356.
STANCIU 2001 Stanciu, I., Slavii timpurii în cercetarea arheologică
românească, in: EphemNapoc, 11, 105-143.
STEINACHER 2010 Steinacher, R., The Herules: fragments of a history, in: Curta,
F. (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Brepols, Turnhout, 319-360.
SZÉKELY 1992 Székely, Z., Aşezări din secolele VI-XI p. Ch. în bazinul
Oltului superior, in: SCIV, 43/2, 245-306.
SZÉKELY 1975 Székely, Z., Aşezări din secolele VI-IX e.n. în sud-estul
Transilvaniei, in: Aluta, 6-7 (1974-1975), 35-78.
SZŐKE 2008 Szőke, B. M., Kora avar kori veremház Balatonmagyaród–
Hídvégpusztán, in: Zalai Múzeum, 17, 209-220.
SZWED 2013 Szwed, R., Dendrochronological and radiocarbon dating of
[the] early medieval settlements on sites 4 and 5 at Polwica
and Skrzypnik site 8, Oława powiat, in: Dulinicz, M.,
Moździoch, S. (eds.), The Early Slavic Settlement in Central
Europe in the Light of New Dating Evidence, Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of
Sciences, Wrocław, 111-132.
TEJRAL, STUCHLÍK, ČIŽMÁŘ, KLANICA, KLANICOVÁ 2011 Tejral, J., Stuchlík,
S., Čižmář, M., Klanica, Z., Klanicová, S., Langobardische
Gräberfelder in Mähren I, Brno Archäologisches Institut der
68 FLORIN CURTA
Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik,

Brno.
TEODOR 2013 Teodor, D. Gh., Așezarea medievală timpurie de la Suceava-
Șipot, Ed. Demiurg Plus, Iași.
TEODOR 1984 Teodor, D. Gh., Civilizaţia romanică la est de Carpaţi în
secolele V-VII (aşezarea de la Botoşana-Suceava), Ed.
Academiei R.S.R., Bucureşti.
TEODORESCU 2009 Teodorescu, V., Studii și cercetări arheologice în Muntenia,
Oscar Print, Bucureşti.
TIMOSHCHUK, RUSANOVA, MYKHAYLYNA 1981 Timoshchuk, B.O., Rusanova, I.P.,
Mykhaylyna, L.P., Itogi izucheniia slavianskikh pamiatnikov
Severnoi Bukoviny V-X vv. in: SovA, 2, 80-93.
TOMAŠOVÁ, ULIČNÝ 1998 Tomášová, B., Uličný, M., Včasnoslovanské sídlisko v
Prešove, in: Východoslovenský pravek, 5, 157-172.
TRUBACHEV 1998 Trubachev, O. N., Vzgliad na problemu prarodiny slavian
(paradoksy nauki i paradoksy zhizni), in: Kukushkin, Iu. S.,
Kniazevskaia, T. B., Makarova, T. I. (eds.), Kul’tura slavian i
Rus’, Nauka, Moscow, 53-62.
TRUBACHEV 1991 Trubachev, O. N., Etnogenez i kul’tura drevneishikh slavian.
Lingvisticheskie issledovaniia, Nauka, Moscow.
UDOLPH 2016 Udolph, J., Heimat und Ausbreitung slawischer Stämme aus
namenkundlicher Sicht, in Biermann, F., Kersting, Th.,
Klammt, A. (eds.), Die frühen Slawen – von der Expansion zu
gentes und nationes. Beiträge der Sektion zur slawischen
Frühgeschichte des 8. Deutschen Archäologiekongresses in
Berlin, 06.10.Oktober 2014. 1. Beiträge zum
Schwerpunktthema, Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach, 27-51.
UDOLPH 2010 Udolph, J., Die Heimat slavischer Stämme aus
namenkundlicher Sicht, in: Holzer, G., Stadnik-Holzer, E.
(eds.), Sprache und Leben der frühmittelalterlichen Slaven,
Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. Main/Berliin/Bern, 161-188.
UDOLPH 1979 Udolph, J., Studien zu slavischen Gewässernamen und
Gewässerbezeichnungen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Urheimat
der Slaven, C. Winter, Heidelberg.
VIARGEI 2016 Viargei, V. S., Suchasny stan i prablemy dasledavannia
prazhskai kul’tury u Belarusi, in: Kovalenia, A. A. (ed.),
Slaviane na territorii Belarussii v dogosudarstvennyi period.
K 90-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia doktora istoricheskikh nauk,
professora Leonida Davydovicha Pobolia, vol. 2, Belaruskaia
navuka, Minsk, 14-61.
VINSKI 1967 Vinski, Z., Kasnoantički starosjedioci u Salonitanskoj regiji
prema arheološkoj ostavštini predslavenskog supstrata, in:
VjesDal, 69, 5-98.
ZEMAN 1987 Zeman, J., Počátky slovanského osídlení Čech (Sídelní
oblasti, materiální kultura, otázky chronologie a geneze), in:
Slavia Antiqua, 30 (1984-1987), 43-50.
Pl. I. Distribution of the main sites mentioned in the text and in the notes: 1- Alba Iulia; 2 – Bacău;
3 – Balatonmagyaród; 4 – Balta Verde; 5 – Band; 6 – Bobshiv; 7 – Botoşana; 8 – Bratei; 9 – Budureasca;
10 – Chornivka; 11 – Corund; 12 – Cristuru Secuiesc; 13 – Davideni; 14 – Dolné Semerovce;
15 – Dunaújváros; 16 – Filiaş; 17 – Grodzisko Dolne; 18 – Gutinaş; 19 – Hajdúnanás; 20 - Haloch;
21 – Hódmezővásárhely; 22 – Kisvarda; 23 – Kodin; 24 – Korzkiew; 25 – Kozly; 26 – Lazuri;
27 – Lužice; 28 – Moreşti; 29 – Nezvys’ko; 30 – Nitra; 31 – Noşlac; 32 – Nowa Huta; 33 – Poian;
34 – Polwica; 35 – Porumbenii Mici; 36 – Prešov; 37 – Rákóczifalva; 38 - Rashkiv; 39 – Rusovce;
40 – Šebastovce; 41 – Selişte; 42 – Sighişoara; 43 – Suceava; 44 – Suchohrad; 45 - Şumuleu; 46 – Szentes;
47 – Tesárske Mlyňany; 48 – Udeşti; 49 – Unirea; 50 – Uzhhorod; 51 – Veľký Cetín; 52 – Wyciąże;
53 – Zalău; 54 – Zniatseve; 55 – Żukowice.
70 FLORIN CURTA
Pl. II. Dated ceramic assemblages with handmade pottery: 1 – Kodin, house 10; 2 – Botoşana, house
1; 3 – Botoşana, house 9; 4 – Botoşana, house 14; 5 – Botoşana, house 13; 6 – Botoşana, house
20. Various scales. Small numbers indicate rim types in Fusek and Stanciu’s pottery classifications.
After RUSANOVA, TIMOSHCHUK 1984 and TEODOR 1984.
Pl. III. Dated ceramic assemblages with handmade pottery: 1 – Chornivka, house 5; 2 – Davideni,
house 41; 3 – Davideni, house 58; 4 – Rákóczifalva; 5 – Wyciąże; 6 – Korzkiew. Various scales. After
TIMOSHCHUK, RUSANOVA, MYKHAYLYNA 1981; MITREA 2001; CSEH 1997; POLESKA, BOBER
1996; NOWAK, LIWOCH, MOSKAL-DEL HOYO, RAUBA-BUKOWSKA, WILCZYŃSKI 2016.
72 FLORIN CURTA

An Ironic Smile The Carpathian Mountains PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Ironic Smile The Carpathian Mountains PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 ABBREVIATIONS

THE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Copyright © Editura Academiei Române, 2018.

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

I. Bilavschi, George (ed.)

Editorial assistants: Monica STANCIU, Anca BOROŞ

Final proof: 14.12.2018. Format: 16/70×100

TIVADAR VIDA, To the Inner Asian Roots of the Avars ............................................ 29

РОМАН ХАУТАЛА, Рассмотрение четырех «вопросов» в истории Золотой

GRZEGORZ JAWOR, Particularités de «ius Valachicum» dans la Pologne du XVe

SCIA.AP Studii şi cercetări de istoria artei. Seria Artă Plastică,

Keywords: Moldavia; Transylvania; Slovakia; Hungary; Poland; Slavs;handmade

wheel-made pottery with burnished or stamped decoration in three assemblages of

Walachia bears little, if any resemblance to that of contemporaneous Slovakia or

BUTNARIU 1985 Butnariu, V. M., Răspîndirea monedelor bizantine din secolele

DOBRZAŃSKA 1998 Dobrzańska, H., Wczesnosłowiańska osada w Igołomi, in:

Slawen, in: Wolfram, H., Daim, F. (eds.), Die Völker an der

MACHÁČEK 2000 Macháček, J., K absolutní a relativní chronologii keramiky

PARCZEWSKI 1996 Parczewski, M., Rezultaty badan wykopaliskowych w Bachórz

RUDNICKI 2010 Rudnicki, M., Zawieszki trapezowate z terenu grupy

Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik,

You might also like