STUDIES

THE EARLY MIGRATION AND LATE ROMAN IMPERIAL PERIODS IN NORTH-WEST ROMANIA (THE REGION OF THE UPPER TISZA RIVER). ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND THE CONTEXT OF THE HOARD(S) FROM ȘIMLEUL SILVANIEI

Ioan Stanciu1

Abstract: Connected to the entire area of Central-Eastern Europe, the hoard (or pair of hoards) from Şimleul Silvaniei – more likely two lots of the same precious deposit, buried in close proximity – are significant discoveries for the Early Migrations Period. They have been introduced a long time ago into the academic environment and the discussions have mainly focused upon the time when the artifacts might have ended in the ground and their possible ethnical associations (references were most often made to the leading Gepid dynasty). In the context of these debates, the region of the Upper Tisa, mainly including the north-western part of present-day Romania and the north-eastern part of present-day Hungary, has always been in the center of attention. The conclusions regarding the chronology of the artifacts are more solid than those regarding the ethnical identity of their owner. The latter issue is less likely to receive a convincing interpretation in the near future. Determining past ethnical identities is in general a complex and debated topic, as data provided by both archaeology and the written sources are being analyzed criti- cally. The present initiative aims at examining the archaeological data available for North-West Romania in order to verify the (possible) local archaeological legacy of the Gepids during the Late Imperial Roman and the Early Migrations Periods, before the formation of the Reihengräberfelder horizon inside the Carpathian Basin. The result of this examination is mainly negative. For the rd3 –4th centuries, the entire area of the Upper Tisa stands out through the almost complete uniformity of material culture, that was initially strongly influenced by the Roman provincial environment, but also through the homogeneity of the funerary practices. Thus, attempts to perform ethnic differentiations between the communities who lived there stand little chance of success. One can take into discussion the very few funerary discoveries (inhumation graves) that can be dated around the middle of the 5th century, as possible indicators of direct precedents for the East-Merovingian Reihengräberfelder horizon. Regarding this possible local development one must take into consideration only a restricted area in the plain region to the south-west (Carei Plain and Ier/Ér Plain), while in the rest of the micro-regions from North-West Romania the archaeological evidence uncovered so far indicates a process of depopulation starting with the first half of the th5 century. A demographic increase can only be proven in those areas starting with the arrival of the most ancient Slavs, around the middle of the 6th century or slightly afterwards. Keywords: North-West Romania; archaeological evidence; Late Imperial Roman Period; Early Migrations Period; structuring of the Reihengräberfelder horizon, Gepids.

Preliminary data The territory of North-West Romania belongs to a wider geographic unit, i.e. the Upper Tisa Basin, a term often employed in specialized literature. In most of its meanings, including 1 Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Romanian Academy Cluj Branch, Mihail Kogălniceanu Str. 12‒14, 400084, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj County, RO. E-mail: [email protected]. Ephemeris Napocensis, XXIX, 2019, p. 7–88 8 Ioan Stanciu the geographic one, the Upper Tisa Basin can be understood as a quasi-even area and the archae‑ ological data attest the existence of uniform manifestations, produced over long periods. The basin under discussion is located in the north-eastern end of the Carpathian Basin, anchored by the northern bent of the Carpathian Mountains, with an east to west axis and extended North- South by the upper segment of the River Tisa and its affluents. The region is currently divided among four states: Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania (Fig. 1). The north-western part of present-day Romania lies in the south-eastern segment of this area (part of Central-Eastern Europe) and largely corresponds to the Lower Basin of River Someş, an important affluent of the Tisa (Figs. 1 and 2). Towards the north-east, Maramureş Depression is more isolated, directly based on the intra-mountainous segment of the Tisa. To the south-west, the valley of River Barcău, a small affluent of Crişul Repede, indicates a relatively reasonable natural barrier, at least by comparison to the Lower Someş Basin. Further east, the significant Meseşului Mountains form another natural „barrier” and contain the main access way into the Transylvanian Basin, the so-called Poarta Meseşeană (Meseş Gate). In this case one must stress the Roman precedent, as the main segment of the north-western limes of the province of Dacia was set there. Further east, Brezei High Crest is also a natural line that divides the Transylvanian Basin (Transylvania proper), to the south, from Lăpuş Depression to the north, a microregion that was also under surveillance during the existence period of the Roman province2. North-West Romania was inevitably a transition area between Transylvania and the entire region of the Upper Tisa3, just like the latter was an important area for the connections between the Carpathian Basin and the regions located north of the mountains (Fig. 1). The term Transylvania was coined from the outside and the initial Latin term – sub‑ sequently turned into Ultrasilvana, Transsilvana, Transsilvania ‒ indicated a territory located “beyond the woods” (this is also the meaning of the Hungarian term ‒ Erdély), most likely to be identified with the forests along the Plopişului (Şes) ‒ Meseşului Mountains line4. Without insisting, one should nevertheless stress that for longer or shorter periods, North-West Romania, on the one hand, and the Transylvanian Basin, on the other hand, where to some degree distinct entities. I shall just mention the differences between a formerly Roman provincial territory and the neighboring Barbaricum. A relevant example consists precisely of the significant discoveries made in Şimleul Silvaniei5 and the few others made in a restricted area (Careilor and Ierului/ Ér plains). These finds illustrate a horizon that mostly disappeared from North-West Romania around the middle of the 5th century but reappeared in Transylvania along the famous invento‑ ries from Apahida and Someşeni, in Someşului Mic Valley. One must compare the hoard(s?) or the two lots of the same precious deposit found by chance and at different times (1797 and 1889) on one of the slopes of Măgura Hill in Şimleu

2 Other observations and details in STANCIU 2011, 16‒21. 3 Specialists have presumed that in North-West Romania the main intra-regional communication route was along Someş Valley during all historical periods (see for example POSEA 1997, 160) and that two parallel routes can be reconstructed for the Middle Ages, to the north and south of the lower segment of this valley (MAKSAI 1940, Fig. on the p. 9). But the archaeological data available so far contradict this hypothesis for the period before the 11th century, when Transylvanian salt probably started to be transported on the Someş (e.g. IAMBOR 1982, 82‒84 and MĂLUŢAN 1984, 252‒253). The route along the valley of the small river Crasna runs through a more accessible land and measures almost half the distance of the route along Someş Valley, either by water or by land. At least the horizontal distribution of the vestiges that can be dated to the second half of the 6th century and the first half of the 7th century indicates the use of the Crasna route (STANCIU 2011, 314, with Fig. 183). 4 For example: KRISTÓ 2004, 23–32, 39 with map 1; POP I. A. 2011, 142–143; SĂLĂGEAN 2006, 26–27. 5 Regarding the place of discovery (Szilágysomlyó in Hungarian and Schomlenmarkt in German), the correct Romanian variant should be articulated, i.e. Şimleul Silvaniei, as used for example in IORDAN/GÂŞTESCU/ OANCEA 1974, 41. Still, the unarticulated variant has become the norm, just like the settlements of Târgu Lăpuş in the North-West and Târgu Mureş in Transylvania, for example. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 9

P O L A N D CZECH U K R A I N E REPUBLIC

S L O V A K I A Upper Tisa Basin

REPUBLIC MOLDOVA

NW Romania

Tisa (Tisza) H U N G A R Y

D a n u b e

R O M A N I A

C R O A T I A

B O S N I A -

HERZEGOVINA S E R B I A

B l a k S e a B U L G A R I A

0 25 100 km

Fig. 1. Upper Basin region of Tisa/Tisza with northwestern part of Romania. to the most significant inventories that can be dated to the Early Migrations Period in the entire Central-Eastern Europe. The hoard(s) in Şimleu was (were) undoubtedly the prestige goods of a leader or of a leading family, of symbolic importance to the entire community. The main topics of the researches performed so far are the ethnic identity of the owner and the time when the artifacts were buried. The connection between the discoveries in Şimleul Silvaniei and a possible earlier pres‑ ence of the Gepids (Eastern Germans, probably related to the Goths) in the northern part of old Dacia has been discussed some time ago6. The hoard, hoards, or the two lots of the same deposit7 most likely ended up in the ground around the middle of the 5th century in an area 6 DICULESCU 1923a, 40‒50, believes that at least some of the artifacts had been diplomatic gifts, received through contacts with the Late Roman Empire. It is more likely that the members of this community called themselves Gíbidoz. See RGA2, vol. 11 (1998), eds. H. Beck, H. Steuer, and D. Timpe, s. v. Gepiden. 1. Namenkundliches (G. Neumann), 116. The presentation of the two theories regarding the identification of the owners of the hoard(s) from Şimleul Silvaniei (Goths vs. Gepids), with bibliographic indications, in KISS 1991, 256‒258. For the issue of the “ethnicity” of the hoards from Şimleu and the rather unconvincing evidence supporting the Gepid origin theory, see also KISS P. A. 2015, 64‒70. In relation to the history of archaeological researches in Şimleul Silvaniei see POP ET AL. 2006. 7 PULSZKY 1889; PULSZKY 1890; DE BAYE 1892 (footnotes 3 and 4 on p. 5 make reference to the earliest mentions of the first hoard); HAMPEL 1905, vol. II, 15‒39; FETTICH 1932; KISS/BERHARD-WALCHER 1999; SEIPEL 1999. The two medallions from the first hoard, that specialists knew not to have ended up in Vienna, 10 Ioan Stanciu for which very few data are yet available for the Early Migrations Period. The same is true for the entire north-western region of present-day Romania8. The area of discovery is known as Şimleu Depression (sub-unit of Silvania Depression), located in the upper segment of the Crasna Valley. Şimleu Depression seems to have played a significant role in the periphery of the Dacian kingdom rather between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD9. Still, another significant discovery dated around the same time as the hoard in Şimleu was made in Tăuteu (Bihor County, previously Tăuteni), a settlement located ca. 35 km westwards in a straight line, along a small effluent of Barcău River (Berettyó in Hungarian) (Fig. 2). The two silver jugs found there by chance, decorated with mythological scenes, had been produced by a late antique workshop. Similar artifacts are known from the first grave in Apahida, by River Someşul Mic, in Transylvania, but also from the well-known hoard of Pietroasele, south of the Carpathians, or a grave from Conceşti, in Moldavia, if one is to mention only discovery places on the territory of present-day Romania (Fig. 3/1.2)10. Another “hoard” has also been signaled in the past in Moigrad (the ancient Roman Porolissum, in Sălaj County), a spot even closer to Şimleu, but its authenticity and place of discovery remain suspicious11. are probably those more recently identified in the collection of the National Museum of Transylvanian History (GĂZDAC 2007). From the very beginning historians have expressed doubts regarding the possibility that the two hoards, with similar dating and distinct but complementary inventories were buried on the same restricted plot at different times by different people. It is thus more likely that these are two distinct lots of the same precious hoard (PULSZKY 1889, 233; PULSZKY 1890, 8; DE BAYE 1892, 5; DICULESCU 1923a, 50‒51; FETTICH 1932, 10, 55‒58). Undoubtedly, the deposit had been amassed over time. One can only date it based on the medallions from Gratianus and Valens part of the first hoard in the sense that the year 375 can be considered aterminus post quem for the date when he could be buried. The wear marks on the medallions from the same hoard rather place the most likely final date of the accumulation towards the end of the first half of theth 5 century, so that one can take into consideration the end of the 4th century or the first decades of the subsequent century. The series of brooches part of the second lot cover three chronological horizons (D1, D2 and D2/3), between ca. 380 and 460 (KISS 1988; HARHOIU 1990, 189‒199, 231; KISS 1991, 252; HARHOIU 1993; CAPELLE 1994, 79‒83; HARHOIU 1994‒1995; HARHOIU 1998, 73‒82, 93‒97; BURSCHE 1999, 42‒45; SCHMAUDER 2002a, 40‒43, 160‒169; HARHOIU 2013). Michael Schmauder has settled, based on the same observations, for the second quarter of the 5th century (SCHMAUDER 2002a, 42‒43). The pairs of brooches FETTICH 1932, no. XI‒ XII and the coups no. XIV‒XV are the latest items in the second lot, as specialists believe they were produced during the middle third of the 5th century (KISS 1991, 253). Some of the details of the frames and loops of the medallions in the first lot or hoard seem to indicate a barbarian workshop that one might possibly locate even in the area of Şimleul Silvaniei (HARHOIU 1990, 232‒236; KISS 1991, 252; HARHOIU 1993, 234‒236; HARHOIU 1998, 80‒82). Most of the artifacts buried in Şimleu are female dress accessories, with parallels among items part of “princely” funerary inventories or hoards, that can be anyway connected to women at the top of the era’s Germanic elite (QUAST 2011, 135‒137). Both the total weight of the items from the two lots, around 5.5 kg gold and 2.5 kg silver and their quality stress the symbolic importance of the hoard, that very likely belonged to a royal family (KISS 1991, 251, 253). Harhoiu has also hypothesized that the find might be a ritual deposition, similar to discoveries of this kind made in Northern Europe, and that it might be connected to the defeat of the Huns at Nedao by the Germanic coalition led by the Gepids (in 454), followed by the change of the Gepid leading dynasty (HARHOIU 2013, 118‒120). 8 STANCIU 2011, 31‒49. 9 As examples POP 2006 and POP 2009. 10 DUMITRAŞCU 1975; PĂUNESCU 1994; HARHOIU 1998, 124‒127, 190 cat. no. 86; HARHOIU 1999a; SCHMAUDER 2002b; FURSIEV/SHABLAVINA 2019, especially p. 96‒100, with the illustration. 11 The useumM in Cluj acquired it in 1912 from an antiquities dealer known at the time to have also sold fakes. The context and date of discovery have remained unknown and the structure of the presumed hoard is mixed. Some of the items date to the Neolithic Period, at least one gold medallion is a modern artifact, while others cannot be dated with certainty. Apparently, some of the items are associated in a manner similar to those in a unitary inventory, most likely a funerary one, and have parallels in the East and in the Hun environment from Europe (FETTICH 1953, 161‒170; HOREDT 1977a; HOREDT 1977b; HARHOIU 1992, 108 n. 115; HARHOIU 1998, 179‒180 no. 57; ANKE 1998, 88; STANCIU 2011, 43‒44). According to István Bóna, the 4th‒6th-century artifacts added The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 11

0 10 20 30 40 50 km

T i s a Oaş Mtn.

9 T i s a

T u r Maramureş Depr. Maramureş Mtn. Oaş Depr.

Gutâi Mtn. Ecedea Iza Swamp EcedeaMl. Ecedea Swamp 5 SomeşS Plain o m e ş 7 6

10 Ţibleş Mtn. Nir Plain (Nyírség) 12 11 13 ? Baia Mare Depr. 16 17 8 * 15 14 18 *19 Carei Plain Lăpuş Depr. Codru Ridge 20 25* Lăpuş Sălaj Ier Plain

Breaza Ridge

C r a s n a n s a r C 21 B a r c ă u

I e r (É r) 23 S o m e ş 4 Z a l ă u22* 26 1 * 2 Meseş 3 Gate Silvaniei Depr. ? * Someşul Mare Agrij

24* T R A N S Y L V A N I A N Almaş

Meseş Mtn. c Şes Mtn. i M l C r i ş u l R e p e d e şu e *13 m o S B A S I N

A B C

* a b c d* e f

Fig. 2. Northwestern Romania, discoveries from the end of the 4th century to the middle third of the 5th century. A—

Transitional stage to the the Early Migration Period (stage D1, ca. 380‒420). B—Early Migration Period, stage D2, ca.

410/20‒440/50. C—Early Migration Period, stage D2/3, ca. 430/40‒460/70. According to the chronology proposed by Radu Harhoiu (HARHOIU 1998). a—Settlement. b—Funerary discovery. c—Hoard or smaller deposit made of precious artifacts. d—Gold coin (solidus), most items from Theodosius II; in Hida a small deposit, consisting of three pieces from Theodosius II. e—Solidus/medallion of the Valentinianus I. f—Other artifacts, more likely stray finds. The question mark indicates an uncertain place of discovery. The distribution of the gold coins during the three stages is relative, because the precise date on which they were buried remains unknown. 1‒3—Șimleul Silvaniei (city, Sălaj County). 4—Tăuteu/Tăuteni (Tăuteu commune, Bihor County). 5—Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét (Lazuri commune, Satu Mare County). 6—Culciu Mare‒ Zöldmező (Culciu commune, Satu Mare County). 7—Satu Mare (city, Satu Mare County). 8—Bozânta Mică‒Grind (Recea commune, Maramureş County). 9—Sarasău‒Zăpodie (Sarasău commune, Maramureş County). 10—Urziceni‒ Vamă (Urziceni commune, Satu Mare County). 11—Foeni‒Cărămidărie (Foeni commune, Satu Mare County). 12— Berea‒Soskás and Bodzás (Ciumeşti commune, Satu Mare County). 13—Ghenci‒Lutărie (Căuaş commune, Satu Mare County). 14—Ghenci‒Akasztódomb (Căuaş commune, Satu Mare County). 15—Curtuiuşeni‒Ligetdomb (Curtuiuşeni commune, Bihor County). 16—Pişcolt‒Lutărie (Pişcolt commune, Satu Mare County). 17—Dindeşti‒Ferma C.A.P. (Andrid commune, Satu Mare County). 18—Dindeşti‒Grădina lui Negreanu (Andrid commune, Satu Mare County). 19—Cig (city of Tăşnad, Satu Mare County). 20—Someş-Uileac (Someş-Uileac commune, Maramureş County). 21— Deleni/Cioara (Dobrin commune, Sălaj County). 22—Doba Mică (Dobrin commune, Sălaj County). 23—Bocşa‒La pietriş (Bocşa commune, Sălaj County). 24—Zalău (city, Sălaj County). 25—Copalnic-Mănăştur (Copalnic-Mănăştur commune, Maramureş County). 26—Vâlcele (Suplacu de Barcău commune, Bihor County). 12 Ioan Stanciu

A gold medallion (Valentinianus I) was found in Vâlcele, Bihor County, eventually right on the spot of a former settlement (Fig. 3/3). Vâlcele is located in the same hilly area, between Şimleul Silvaniei and Tăuteu, also on the southern side of Barcău River (Fig. 2)12. More recently, another medallion of this type was found in Bozânta Mică‒Grind (Maramureş County), a settlement located further north-east, at the confluence of rivers Lăpuş and Someş, with dated horizons to the Bronze Age, the Roman Period, and the Early Medieval Period (Fig. 3/4)13. A gold collar found either in Uileacul Şimleului (Sălaj County, just 7 km north-west from Şimleul Silvaniei) or, more likely, in Someş-Uileac (Szilágyújlak; currently in Maramureş County, in Sălajului Valley) can be dated towards the end of the 4th century or, more likely, during the first half of the 5th century (Fig. 4/3)14. Such jewelry items have been explained as status symbols typical to the elite of the Hun Kingdom, especially since their presence was stronger during the first half of the 5th century. Still, as military insignia, specialists have hypothesized that they originated in the Late Roman world from where the fashion was adopted by the Huns and by their allied East-Germanic chieftains15. A gilded silver spoon with an inscribed monogram was found before 1817 in another settlement located in Sălaj Valley, namely in Deleni (Sălaj County, formerly Cioara/Nagymonújfalu/Szilágycsora) (Fig. 4/1)16. In the absence of other associated artifacts, its narrower dating remains problematic, as some specialists have indicated the 4th century17, others the 6th century18 while yet others have dated the item to the 6th‒7th centuries19. The morphology of the bowl and of the connecting part to the handle might therefore indicate a later dated variant, probably after the first half of the th5 century, a period in which the elements to this “hoard” are fakes, and one is even less likely to prove that Moigrad was their place of discovery. The five artifacts that can be dated to the above-mentioned period seem to be elements of both male and female dress, with parallels to the East, West, and North, and are fakes created in the beginning of the 20th century, probably in a workshop from Germany. The author denies any connection to the inventory of a presumed Gepid princely tomb in Tiszaszőlős (BÓNA 1986b). Though strongly debated, this discovery still features in the catalogues of specialists interested in the Early Migrations Period (such as, for example, HARHOIU 1998, 179‒180 and ANKE 1998, vol. 2, 88). It is little likely that the prehistoric lot originates from the area of the settlement of Moigrad. See for this HOREDT 1977a, 291 and HOREDT 1977b, 17. 12 Solidus issued in Trier between 24 August 367 and 17 November 375 (LAKATOS A. 2001). 13 Solidus also issued during the reign of Valentinian I, after the year 368. A team coordinated by myself currently researches this settlement, where the item was found by chance by a local inhabitant during agricultural works performed in the autumn of 2013. Though they have not been published yet, the inventories of the archaeological features investigated so far indicate that the dating of the Roman-Era habitation to a period subsequent to the first half of the 4th century at the latest is little likely. Two Roman coins and a bronze brooch indicate that habitation during that period was strongest during the second half of the 2nd century and the first half of the 3rd century. The spot where the item was discovered remains uncertain, as available indications rather betray the owner’s intention to provide a plus of authenticity (CARDOS 2014; CARDOS 2017). 14 Acquired in 1902 by the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. The artefact was first mentioned by J. Hampel, who clearly noted the Someş–Uileac locality (Hung. Szamos–Újlak), in that time in Sălaj County (HAMPEL 1902, 432‒433). Afterwards, it was localized in Uileacul Şimleului (Hung. Somlyóújlak), in that time also in Sălaj County, now in Sălaj District, Măerişte commune (NESTOR 1932, 143 no. 578a; HOREDT 1945– 1947, 13 no. 5; HARHOIU 1998, 193 no. 92; ANKE 1998, vol. 2, 142; the latter author notes that the name of the discovery place has many variants). In 1942 M. Roska used the first mention of the discovery place (ROSKA 1942, 254 no. 27). The item was initially attributed to the Scythian Period. See further mentions and bibliographic indications in STANCIU 2011, 44‒45. 15 SCHMAUDER 2002a, 114‒116. 16 ARNETH 1850, 77‒78 no. 73, Pl. G.S. XII/73. The author locates the discovery in the former Solnoc County. The mention regarding the settlement of Cioara (Nagymonújfalu) features in ACKNER/MÜLLER 1865, 158 no. 752. 17 GUDEA/GHIURCO 1988, 160. 18 HARHOIU 1998, 137. 19 BÖHME 1972, 198 List III. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 13

specific to the Merovingian exam‑ 0 20 20 cm ples were established . A solidus (1–2) issued by Theodosius II was actually found in a neighboring settlement (Doba Mică), so the spoon in ques‑ tion probably ended in the ground sometime around the middle of the 5th century, maybe slightly later. Several other solidi have been found in North-West Romania, most of them issued by Theodosius II.

One item has even been signaled as 1 2 found in Şimleul Silvaniei (Figs. 2 and 23)21. The discovery of these items in a region such as that of North-West Romania is curious, as between the end of the 4th cen‑ tury and the final third of the sub‑ sequent century the archaeological cm finds known so far from this region, 3 5 mainly settlements and funerary discoveries, are very few or even lack from the best part of the ter‑ ritory. The horizontal distribution (3–4) of these vestiges nevertheless draws attention to the geographic location of the entire Depression of Silvania, marked by the valleys of rivers 4 0 Crasna, Zalău, and Barcău that indi‑ Fig. 3. The silver jugs from Tăuteu, Bihor County (1‒2). Gold cate as many easily accessible routes medallions from Vâlcele, Bihor County (3), and with a possible from the south-east to the north- discovery place at Bozânta Mică‒Grind, Maramureş County (4) north-west (Crasna, Zalău) and to (Valentinianus I). Photos taken from HARHOIU 1999 (1‒2), the west (Barcău). One must also LAKATOS 2001 (3), and CARDOŞ 2014 (4). note the valley of the small river of Sălaj, a relatively wide corridor between the bend of Someş River and the small basin where the

20 BÖHME 1972, 186; BÖHME 1974, 131. 21 Cig, Satu Mare County: isolated find, Valentinianus III (CHIRILĂ/DUMITRAŞCU/MĂLĂESCU 1971, 171). Copalnic Mănăştur, Maramureş County: isolated find, Theodosius II, year 430 (CHIRILĂ/SOCOLAN 1971, 72‒73, Pl. IX/9; STANCIU 2011, 329‒330 no. 17, with further comments and bibliographic indications). Doba Mică, Sălaj County: isolated find, Theodosius II (LUCĂCEL 1968, 18 no. 276, Pl. VIII/55). Şimleul Silvaniei, Sălaj County: isolated find, Theodosius II (SĂŞIANU 1980, 170 no. 124/XI). Zalău, Sălaj County: isolated find, Leon I, years 462‒466 (PROHÁSZKA 2005‒2006, 21‒22, 23 Fig. 2/10). An uncertain item, an issue of Theodosius II, has been signaled from the area of Chioar (a region in the south-western part of present-day Maramureş County). The initial piece of information features in LEHOCZKY 1876, 295 (comments and references to the full bibliography in KACSÓ 2015, vol. I, 462). Another uncertain discovery is an item (Theodosius II) presumably found in the area of the present-day city of Baia Mare or its surroundings (SCHÖNHERR 1904, 31; KACSÓ 2015, vol I, 114). Three solidi issued under Theodosius II have been mentioned in Hida, Sălaj County, possibly found on the same spot, part of a small deposit (HOREDT 1958, 74 no. 7; PROTASE 1966, 165 no. 27). The settlement is located already beyond Meseşului Mountains, in the north-western border of the Transylvanian Basin (Figs. 2 and 23). 14 Ioan Stanciu

city of Zalău is currently located. All these routes converge towards 1 Meseş Gate, joining the old road along Ortelec Valley, a pass that 0 5 cm ensured easy access towards and (1–2) from the Transylvanian Basin during all historical periods (Fig. 2)22. The system of Dacian fortifications that is well-known 2 in the border of Şimleul Silvaniei, with westwards and eastwards extensions, indicates the impor‑ tance of the micro-region during an earlier period23. During the final third of the 2nd century the carriers of cm the Przeworsk Culture (Vandal 5 tribes), coming from the Lower Someş, entered Crasna Valley

(3) and continued to the south-east along Zalăului Valley, almost reaching the pass over the Meseş 0 Mountains. Around four cen‑ turies later, probably by the middle of the 6th century, the oldest Slavs who reached North- 3 West Romania followed the same Fig. 4. Silver spoon from Deleni, Sălaj County (1). The cicada-shaped route. The inventories in Şimleul fibula (bronze) probably found in Satu Mare, Satu Mare County Silvaniei and Tăuteu, besides (2). Gold-collar in safer terms found at Someş-Uileac, Maramureş other isolated discoveries such as County. Drawings taken from ACKNER/MÜLLER 1965 (1), gold coins, as well as the extreme BADER 1975 (2) and HAMPEL 1902 (3). rarity of settlements and funerary discoveries that can be dated starting with the final third of the 4th century and the first two thirds of the th5 century in the same micro-regions and even the entire territory of North-West Romania, paint the picture of one or several groups of popula‑ tion on the move. Though impossible to prove, one cannot exclude the possibility that the above-mentioned artifacts or many of them ended in the ground around the same time, i.e. by the middle of the 5th century. Though, for example, the solidi issued under Theodosius II were still being preserved as precious goods around the end of the 5th century and the beginning of

22 For the importance of this pass to the connections between the Transylvanian Basin and the entire region of the Upper Tisa during Prehistory, the Early Medieval Period and the entire Middle Ages, see BEJINARIU 2018, CSOK 2010 and BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN 2015. Still the most relevant example is the impressive limes segment centered on the fort in Porolissum that the Romans built precisely in order to defend the pass and control access from north-west into Dacia Porolissensis (GUDEA 1989; newer data for example in ROMAN/URSU/LĂZĂRESCU/OPREANU 2016). Regarding the medieval period, clear data indicate the significance of this pass to the on-land transport of salt from Transylvania, from Zalău along two routes, one along Crasna Valley and the other along Barcăului Valley (IAMBOR 1982, 83; MĂLUŢAN 1984, 251‒252). 23 NEMETH/RUSTOIU/POP 2005, 25‒60; POP 2006. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 15 the subsequent century in North-West Romania. One example is the grave in Valea lui Mihai‒ Grădina lui Alexandru Stanc24.

The Roman Imperial Period Regarding the area envisaged here, available archaeological data indicate an obvious demographic decline probably already starting with the final part of the 4th century until about the middle of the 6th century, as compared to the Late Imperial Roman Period (the 2nd–4th centuries)25. Just like other closer or more distant regions, habitation gained new momentum only in the second half or the last third of the 6th century and intensified during the subsequent century26. Throughout the Roman Era, the north-western area of Romania, in its already defined sense, was part of the Barbaricum. Between the beginning of the 2nd century and the final third of the 3rd century it neighbored the province of Dacia Porolissensis. Due to its position the area was relatively strongly influenced by the Roman provincial environment, most easily noticeable in the field of pottery production27. The Dacian presence in the entire area of the Upper Tisa is generally recognized and until the Dacian-Roman wars they were probably the main regional power factor28. Regarding the subsequent period, the positive data obtained over the last couple of decades, associated with information from the ancient literary sources, contradict an older syntagm employed for the territory of North-West Romania, namely an area that developed during the Roman Period under the mark of the Free Dacians. Some archaeologists or historians have presumed the existence of a well-structured network of Dacian habitation during the 1st century AD that subsequently developed smoothly and was possibly consolidated by groups of population evacuated from the Roman province when it was organized29. Still, such a historical picture is for the time being contradicted by the lack of at least the rarity of sites and isolated discoveries dated to the final interval of the Classical Dacian Period, namely the st1 century AD. The observation also seems valid for a good part of the territory of North-West Romania, namely between the two lines of Dacian fortifications destroyed during the Roman conquest, one to the south, on the north-western border of the Transylvanian Basin, and the second to the north, along the upper segment of the Tisa30.

24 Most likely a copy of an original issued in 442‒443 (ROSKA 1930; ROSKA 1932; HUSZÁR 1954, no. XLIX/141; STANCIU 2011, 367). 25 Probably with the exception of the south-western corner of the region, i.e. Carei Plain, south of the former marsh of Ecedea, a micro-region where the sites dated to the 5th century are more numerous. Settlements and necropolises dated to the first two thirds of the th6 century (the period of the Gepid Kingdom) have also been found in this micro-region alone. Some time ago, the archeological record included 296 places of discovery that can be dated to the 2nd‒4th centuries AD, namely settlements, graves, and isolated finds, the great majority of the latter consisting of coins (MATEI/STANCIU 2000). The number of discovery places continues to increase, as new sites have been signaled, and excavations have been performed in 77 settlements (GINDELE 2010). 26 STANCIU 2016, 14‒15, 15 Fig. 2, 60 Fig. 34. 27 The example of fine gray ware, with stamped decoration, in FILIP 2008, 72‒77. For the role of Porolissum in the economic system with the neighboring Barbaricum, see OPREANU/LĂZĂRESCU ET AL. 2015, especially p. 28‒77. 28 For example: BÓNA 1986a, 62 (the local population/Dacians were identified with the Burii mentioned in some of the literary sources); OLĘDZKI 1999, 105; OLĘDZKI 2000; KOTIGOROSHKO 1991; KOTIGOROSHKO 2015. An overview of the local development of the area during the Latène and Roman periods in KOTIGOROSHKO 1995 and ARDELEANU 2011. Most of the data regarding the issue also in DUMITRAŞCU 1993a. 29 Even the title of a monographic work ‒ Dacia apuseană. Teritoriul dacilor liberi din vestul şi nord-vestul României în vremea Daciei romane [Western Dacia. The territory of the Free Dacians in West and North-West Romania in the time Roman Dacia] (DUMITRAŞCU 1993a) is significant for this view. 30 The discussion in STANCIU 2015, 348‒351. According to the chronology set for the Central European 16 Ioan Stanciu

The results of the field investigations mainly performed over the last two and a half decades have already proven a significant presence of the carriers of the Przeworsk Culture in North-West Romania, triggered by a displacement started during the Marcomannic Wars, around the beginning of the final third of the nd2 century AD. Significant groups of this popula‑ tion settled at that time in the entire region of the Upper Tisa. The movement is well illustrated by the onset of settlements with a lot of pottery specific to the environment of the Przeworsk Culture (Figs. 5‒6), especially by the inventory of certain warrior’ graves that can be connected with certainty to these settlements (Fig. 7), and, last but not least, by literary pieces of informa‑ tion31. The massive settlement of the new population (Eastern Germanics/Vandal peoples) in the north-eastern part of the Carpathian Basin starting with the Marcomannic Wars led to the structuring of an “invasive horizon”. This horizon was expressed both by a relatively compact actual habitation in the regions beyond the Roman border and by a diffuse presence in the “penetration area”, i.e. Dacia Porolissensis and the northern part of the plain between the Tisa and the Danube)32. According to an opinion, the intervention of the bearers of the Przeworsk Culture in North-West Romania took place against a local Dacian background that had already received strong influences from the neighboring Roman provincial milieu33. Still, the data and the argu‑ ments published so far in support of the identification of a habitation horizon dated to the first half of the nd2 century AD are few and not very convincing (Fig. 8)34. The inconsistent

Barbaricum, the 1st century AD should already belong to the Early Imperial Roman Period. 31 In the specialized Romanian milieu, C. C. Diculescu had already envisaged the presence of the Vandal tribes (Hasdingi) in the north-western part of Romania based on literary data making reference to events during the Maromannic Wars, but also on warriors’ graves already known at that time in Apa and Boineşti (DICULESCU 1923b, 2–7). Much later, the analysis of certain items and funerary practices in the cemetery from Medieşul Aurit made K. Horedt think of the carriers of the Przeworsk Culture present there, not only of connections between this population and the milieu of the Free Dacians (HOREDT 1973, 91–98; HOREDT 1974, 164; HOREDT 1982, 56). Beyond the graves in Apa and Boinești, in the beginning of the 1990s Sever Dumitrașcu presented the discoveries made in the Barbaricum that bordered Dacia Porolissensis to the west and to the north-west, but he did not record other vestiges that could be connected to the Przeworsk Culture (DUMITRAŞCU 1993a, 110– 111). Pottery representative to this culture has been subsequently noted in the settlement from Lazuri–Lubi-tag (STANCIU 1995, 161, 160–163, 167). See more recent contributions to this archaeological environment in North- West Romania: MATEI/STANCIU 2000; GINDELE 2000–2004; STANCIU/MATEI 2004; STANCIU/MATEI 2006; GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009a; GINDELE 2009; GINDELE 2010, 128‒139; GINDELE 2014; GINDELE 2015. Regarding the entire region of the Upper Tisa, with references to the literary sources as well: GODŁOWSKI 1984; GODŁOWSKI 1992a, 66; GODŁOWSKI 1994a; OLĘDZKI 1999; OLĘDZKI 2001; OLĘDZKI 2014. For the Ciscarpathian part of Ukraine, see KOBAL 1993–1994 and KOTIGOROSHKO 1995, 127‒128, 137‒138, 151‒154, 177‒178. In connection to North-East Hungary, HULLÁM 2010 and SOÓS 2016. A more recent examination of the literary data connected to the earlier history of the Vandals, their movement south of the Northern Carpathians and the context of the Marcomannic Wars, in KOLENDO 2003. For the graves with weapons in the distribution area of the Przeworsk Culture, see for example GODŁOWSKI 1994a and KONTNY 2008. 32 OLĘDZKI 2001, 201. 33 Admitting the local presence of the bearers of Przeworsk Culture starting with the final third of the nd2 century. More recently: GINDELE 2000‒2004, 71; GINDELE 2009, 191‒193; DUMITRAŞCU 2010, 476‒480; GINDELE 2013, 16‒19. A presumed influx of Dacian population who took refuge from the south, following the wars against the Romans, has also been taken up again in recent years (MUREŞAN 2011, 51‒52). 34 The discussion in STANCIU 2015, 352‒366. In the support of the earlier datings specialists have indicated the few strongly profiled brooches created in the Roman provincial environment. In the Empire, such artifacts are mainly dated to the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century, though at times their dating was restricted to the late 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd century or pushed to the third quarter of the 2nd century. In the Central-European Barbaricum they also seem to have been representative for the fashion of the first half of the 2nd century, but there are items that have been tentatively dated to the late phase of stage B2, i.e. even The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 17

4 3 1 2

ZalauBMV 8

7

6 5

10 11 9

16

12 13 14 15 17

19 20 18 25

24

22 23

0 20 21 cm 26

Fig. 5. Northwestern Romania, handmade pottery (coarse fabric) specific to the Przeworsk Culture environment. The vessel from no. 16 comes from the incineration necropolis in Badon‒Doaşte (Sălaj County), and the others were found in settlements: Apa‒Moşia brazilor, Satu Mare County (4, 19); Berveni‒Holmoş, Satu Mare County (1, 24); Csengersima (Hungary, Szabolcs- Szatmár-Bereg County)/Petea (Romania, Satu Mare County)‒Vamă (8, 10‒11, 14‒15, 17, 23); Hereclean‒Dâmbul iazului, Sălaj County (22); Lazuri‒Lubi tag, Satu Mare County (7, 9, 12); Moftinul Mic‒Merli tag, Satu Mare County (18); Oraşul Nou, Satu Mare County (20, 25); Zalău/Panic‒Uroikert, Sălaj County (2, 21); Zalău‒Boulevard Mihai Viteazul no. 104‒106, Sălaj County (3, 5‒6, 13, 26). After MATEI/STANCIU 2000, GINDELE 2010, and GINDELE 2014. 18 Ioan Stanciu

8 9 10 1

11 3 2 12

4

6

5 1313 14 16 15

17 21a

7 20 19 21

23 24 27 18 22 30

26 25 29 32 28 31 33 36 38 L1 35 34 37

42 40 39 41

48 43 46

49

0 20 44 45 47 cm Fig. 6. Northwestern Romania, handmade pottery specific to the Przeworsk Culture environment. Coarse fabric (1‒7), semi-fine fabric (8‒12) and fine fabric (13‒49). The fine pottery is black and relatively often contains graphite in the paste or has been polished with graphite. With one exception (18 ‒ tomb no. 1 of the incineration necropolis from Badon‒Doaşte, Sălaj County), the vessels come from settlements: Apa‒Moşia brazilor, Satu Mare County (25, 40); Badon‒La nove, Sălaj County (46); Berveni‒Holmoş, Satu Mare County (3, 8, 29); Căpleni‒Kozárd, Satu Mare County (39); Csengersima/Petea‒Vamă (6, 12‒13, 15, 19‒20, 21a, 28, 30, 35, 37, 41‒42, 44); Hereclean‒Dâmbul iazului, Sălaj County (1, 5, 7, 16, 22, 26‒27, 48); Lazuri‒Lubi tag, Satu Mare County (10, 17, 23, 36); Medieşul Aurit‒Togul lui Schweitzer, Satu Mare County (31, 49); Oraşul Nou, Satu Mare County (4, 11, 14); Zalău‒Boulevard Mihai Viteazul no. 104‒106, Sălaj County (2, 21, 32‒34, 38, 43); Zalău/Panic‒Uroikert, Sălaj County (9, 24, 45, 47). After MATEI/ STANCIU 2000, GINDELE 2010, and GINDELE 2014. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 19 archaeological researches performed in North-West Romania can be an explanation for this, but one must nevertheless note the situation, even more so as the local precedents for the second- century habitation remain generally obscure. Earlier infiltrations of carriers of the Przeworsk Culture in North-West Romania, at least in the region of the Lower Someş, are possible condi‑ tions before the Marcomannic Wars that have remained unmentioned by the literary sources35. Pottery specific to the Przeworsk environment is associated – in various proportions – to the pottery usually attributed to the Dacians in almost every settlement in North-West Romania in connection to a stage that can be dated more generally to the final third of the 2nd century and during the subsequent century. At least in East Slovakia, probably also in the area of Ukraine that lies on this side of the Carpathians, funerary discoveries and some of the researched settle‑ ments attest the cohabitation of the local Dacians and a group of population that carried the Przeworsk Culture that arrived there from beyond the Northern Carpathians already at an ear‑ lier time, starting with the second half of the 1st century AD, more likely through peaceful colonization36. The hypothesis of a population movement from the north that also included Dacian communities from the northern parts of the Upper Tisa Basin in the context of the Maromannic Wars could stand. Some of these Dacian communities had already supported a mixed cultural milieu influenced by that of the Przeworsk Culture37. The structuring process of an almost even cultural environment in the entire area of the Upper Tisa is best reflected by the production and use of wheel-thrown pottery, as a result of a technological transfer from the Roman provincial environment (fine grayware, often with stamped decoration, but also kitchenware items), that reached a peak starting with the end part of the 2nd century and throughout the 3rd century38. The ethnic and linguistic effects of such an integration remain unknown. One might suspect that the Germanic military elite played a more important role, as a local power factor39. It is clearer though that the area of North-West Romania developed under the mark of a mate‑ rial culture that was relatively homogenous through its means of expression, i.e. the so-called “Blažice-Bereg Culture” that seems to have expanded over the entire Upper Tisa Basin starting slightly after the middle of the 2nd century (ANDRZEJOWSKI 1992). Numerous items were found in Dacia and a workshop is attested in Napoca, a second possible workshop in Porolissum, the latter in the vicinity of the area under discussion here. The published datings are similar, as specialists admit the use of such brooches until the third quarter of the 2nd century (COCIŞ 1995; COCIŞ 2004, 59). See also STANCIU 2015, 362‒364. 35 GINDELE 2009, 192; GINDELE 2013, 19. A clay pot made of fine black fabric, modeled yb hand, belonging to the classic pottery of Przeworsk Culture through shape and decoration, anyway of clear northern origin, has been signaled a long time ago on the Dacian site in Măgura Moigradului, located near the fort in Porolissum (MACREA/ RUSU 1960, 213 Fig, 11/12; STANCIU 1995, 172). The item belongs to an earlier horizon, as its dating matches that of the settlement where it was found (ARDELEANU 2009a, 152, 166 Fig. 5/6.7). Its presence in a first- century-AD site indicates certain connections that the Dacians had with the northern world, or it might indicate a case of individual mobility. Other artifacts known from Transylvania and the neighboring regions from an earlier period also point in the same direction (ŁUCZKIEWICZ 2001; OPREANU/ALICU 2006; ARDELEANU 2009a, 152–153). 36 JUREČKO 1983; LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ 1986; BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA/LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ 1990; KOTIGOROSHKO 1991; KOTIGOROSHKO 1995, 67–108; GINDELE 2013, 12–13. 37 STANCIU 1995, 171; OPREANU 1998, 71‒72; OPREANU 2009, 130‒132. The tumular necropolis (incineration graves) from Lazuri‒Lubi tag might also point to northern connections with the environment of the “Carpathian Tumuli Culture” (KOTIGOROSHKO 1997; MIHĂILESCU-BÎRLIBA 1999). Still, the dating of the tumuli in Lazuri‒Lubi tag remains unclear, as the burials might have been subsequent (dating to the 4th century?) to the settlement located in close proximity. See also STANCIU 2008, 149, with footnote 19. 38 For example KOTIGOROSHKO 1993, 155. Though opinions diverge, it seems more likely that this pottery production started in the Upper Tisa Basin at the latest during the first half of the 3rd century (STANCIU 2008, 317‒319; GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009b, 148‒149; GINDELE 2011, 441). 39 Or unclear “balanced relations” between the two populations (MUREŞAN 2011, 52, 56). 20 Ioan Stanciu

0 10 20 30 40 50km Fig. 7. North‑ western Romania, militaria liaison

T u r 5 with warriors from

Ecedea 9 11 15 Ml.Swamp Ecedea 12 the Przeworsk cul‑ 13 14 1 2 ture environment:

4 shield handles (3, 6 13) and umbones 3 7 (2, 4‒6, 12), sword 2 (7), spearheads

S o m e ş (8‒11), iron spurs 3 18 Meseş 10 Gate 16 17 (21‒26). Crema‑ 19 D A C I A 8 POROLISSVM tion graves: Ba‑ P O R O LI S S E N S I S don‒Doaşte, Sălaj A B County, grave no. 3 (4), grave no. 4 1 (2‒3) and stray find in the cemetery area (25); Boineşti (Bujánháza)‒ Coasta Boineştilor 4 5 (Bélavárhegy), Satu Mare County, pos‑ 10 sibly the inventory of the same grave (6‒8); Cehăluţ, Satu Mare County, 13 inventory of the 9 11 6 14 same grave (8‒13); Medieşul Aurit‒La 7 8 12 Leşu, Satu Mare County, grave no. 28 (23), prob‑

cm ably the grave 10 with the n. 41 (5). Items from settle‑ ments: Apa‒Moşia 21 24 brazilor, Satu (21–27) 23 Mare county (16); 22 20 Csengersima/Pe‑ 15 18 19 tea‒Vamă (18, 25); Medieşul Aurit‒ 16 0 20 0 cm 17 Şuculeu, Satu Mare (2–20) 25 26 County (15, 17, 19‒20, 26); Pericei‒Gouţ Street, Sălaj County (21); Zalău‒Boul. Mihai Viteazul 104‒106, Sălaj County (14, 22, 24). After LAZIN 1992 (9‒12), MATEI/STANCIU 2000 (2‒8, 14‒15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26), ARDELEANU 2009b (21), GIN- DELE 2010 (16, 18, 25), and HOREDT 1973 (23), with references to the entire bibliography. The map indicates the hori‑ zontal distribution of the sites or discoveries mentioned in the text: Apa‒Moşia Brazilor, Satu Mare County (1); Apa‒ Gravel pit, Satu Mare County (2); Badon‒Doaşte, Sălaj County (3); Berveni‒Holmoş, Satu Mare County (4); Boineşti‒Coasta Boineştilor, Satu Mare County (5); Căpleni‒Kozárd, Satu Mare County (6); Cehăluţ, Satu Mare County (7); Crasna‒Valea Ratinului, Sălaj County (8); Csengersima/Petea‒Vamă (9); Hereclean‒Dâmbul iazului, Sălaj County (10); Lazuri‒Lubi tag, Satu Mare County (11); Medieşul Aurit‒Togul lui Schweitzer, Satu Mare County (12); Medieşul Aurit‒Şuculeu, Satu Mare County (13); Medieşul Aurit‒La Leşu, Satu Mare County (14); Oraşul Nou, Satu Mare County (15); Pericei‒Gouţ Street, Sălaj County (16); Zalău/Panic‒Uroikert, Sălaj County (17); Zalău‒Boul. Mihai Viteazul 104‒106, Sălaj County (18); Zalău‒Dealul lupului/Farkas-domb, Sălaj County (19). There were also recorded other graves with weapons, but whose in‑ ventories are not illustrated: (2) Apa/Kavicsbánya, Satu Mare County, grave or necropolis, older discovery (ISTVÁNOVITS/ KULCSÁR 1992, with the previous bibliography); (8) Crasna‒Valea Ratinului (cemetery, unpublished inventory, initial mention on MATEI 1986, 802); (19) Zalău‒Dealul lupului/Farkas-domb (mention at MATEI/POP/ANDRAŞ/BĂCUEŢ- CRIŞAN 2004). A— Settlements. B—Cremation graves of warriors. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 21 with the last third of the 2nd century40. Still, as one can also suspect the existence of certain local aspects or tendencies that remain little known, we must state that for North-West Romania current knowledge of the transformations that took place during the first two thirds of the th 41 4 century (stage C3 according to Central-European chronology) is precarious . It is difficult and somewhat risky to separate the pottery dated to the first half or the first two thirds of the above-mentioned century from the pottery specific to the rd3 century. Wheel-thrown pots were produced over a relatively long period based on the same technological tradition that had been influenced by the Roman provincial pottery42. The trial excavations performed some time ago in Culciu Mare‒Boghilaz (Satu Mare County), on the Lower Someş, though small in size, indicate the even environment of a settle‑ ment that can be generally dated slightly before and possibly after the year 300. The pottery found there was still traditional in structure, including fine ware with stamped decoration, but also burnished decoration to a smaller degree (Fig. 9). In this settlement the pottery was associ‑ ated with a luxury silver brooch, following the northern fashion (of the Litten‒Zakrzów‒Stráže type), with parallels in the graves of the representatives of Eastern Germanic tribal aristocracy. The item could be dated to the final half or third of therd 3 century, possibly reaching the begin‑ ning of the next century (Fig. 9/1)43. The pottery found in Culciu can be compared to the pottery from the late stage of the settlement in Berveni‒Holmoş (Satu Mare County), that also included few fine ware items with stamped decoration or burnished motifs (Fig. 10/8‒11)44. In Berveni, handmade pots seem to have been more numerous, sometimes decorated with oblique grooves, a type of decoration also present on earlier Przeworsk pottery (Fig. 10/26‒27)45. One should also note several fragments – probably from jugs – made on the potter’s wheel out of fine gray fabric, also decorated with vertical grooves, similar to those on the analogies from Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét (Figs. 10/14‒15 and 13/3‒5.7.13). One can rather find parallels for the brooch with inverted foot made of a single metal piece in the environment of the North-Carpathian Dobrodzień Group (as an exten‑ sion of the Late Przeworsk Culture), that could point to the 4th century (Fig. 11/1)46. The settlement in Mesteacăn (Maramureş County), where a coin most likely issued under Constantinus II, possibly Constantius II, was found, should be dated around the middle of the 4th century and during the subsequent stage47. Very few pottery fragments were unfortunately 40 OLĘDZKI 1999, with references throughout the discussion, and OLĘDZKI 2014. 41 STANCIU 1995, 156‒170; NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997; OPREANU 2004; STANCIU/MATEI 2004, 757‒762; STANCIU/MATEI 2006; STANCIU 2008, 147‒150; GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009b, 51‒54; GINDELE 2010, 128‒139; BADER/GINDELE 2014; STANCIU 2015, 350‒366. 42 Even in the case of pottery, this aspect is also indicated for the milieu of the Przeworsk Culture, as the existence th of a late stage (C3) that can be clearly identified over a good part of the 4 century remains problematic. According to one author, stage D followed C2 immediately, defined as stage 3C ‒D, covering a late phase of the Imperial Roman Period and the beginning of the Migrations Period, namely the entire 4th century and the early 5th century (GODŁOWSKI 1992b, 42‒43; GODŁOWSKI 1992c, 48). 43 Comments about the brooch: BADER/LAZIN 1980, 16 Fig. 50, 80; STANCIU 1995, 168; OPREANU 2004, 286‒287; GINDELE 2010, 135, 135 Fig. 65/9, 137, 337 Pl. 61. Also: SCHULTZ 1960; GODŁOWSKI 1970, 21‒22, 30; KREKOVIČ 1992. For the excavations there, the collected pottery and other notes, see LAZIN 1995, LAZIN 2011 and especially GINDELE 2010, 76‒84, 234‒238, 324‒337, Pls. 48‒61. 44 GINDELE 2010, 25‒32, 218‒233, 300‒321, Pls. 24‒45. 45 Some of the handmade pottery of the earlier stage of the settlement had been mixed up in later features (GINDELE 2010, 30). 46 SZYDŁOWSKI 1977. For such brooches: SZYDŁOWSKI 1974, pl. CLXXVII/i.s. (Olsztyn); TEJRAL 2000, 8 Fig. 2/14 (Žerniki Wielkie); JAKUBCZYK 2014, 199 Pl. XXIII/4 (Ojców, Ciemna-Höhle). An identical item was found in grave 1 from Rugănești, in South-East Transylvania, that can be dated towards the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the subsequent century (HOREDT 1982, 124 Fig. 50/1). 47 IUGA 1979, 312‒313. 22 Ioan Stanciu

100 150 200 250 years • • • •

B1 B2a B2b C1a (B2 /C 1 ) C1a - C 1b C1b C1b /C 2

Commodus (year 182)

Fig. 8. Artifacts from northwestern Romania as indicators for the 2nd century AD. Report on the internal chronology of the Przeworsk culture (after GODŁOWSKI 1994b). See also STANCIU 2015, 365 Fig. 12. collected there, but fine ware items with stamped decoration were still in use and the shapes of the pots are no different from those of the pottery of the previous period48. Still, in the lack of close examination, it seems that the pottery of the settlement in Suplacu de Barcău‒Lapiş I (Bihor County), in the middle basin of Barcău River, dated on the base of a double-sided comb until the second half of the 4th century49, is similar in outlook. The pottery of the settlements in Pişcolt‒Lutărie and Ghenci‒Lutărie, the latter dated on the basis of a Thomas III-type comb, is illustrative for the influences exerted by or the actual presence of the Late Sarmatian environ‑ ment in the eastern part of Nyírség, the pottery under discussion also indicates the extension of the corresponding horizon towards the end of the 4th century and even to the beginning of the subsequent century (Fig. 17/7‒10)50. Without going into further detail, one should note the fact that other settlements known from the micro-regions located towards the south-west

48 IUGA 1979; IUGA 1980; MATEI/STANCIU 2000, 67 no. 90/163, 274 Pl. 93/7‒9. 49 IGNAT/BULZAN 1997. 50 Pişcolt‒Lutărie: NÉMETI 1983, 142‒143; NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997, 624 no. 55, 656‒657 no. 55, with references to the illustration; NÉMETI/GINDELE 1998‒1999. Ghenci‒Lutărie: NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997, 621‒622, no. 44, 653‒654 no. 44, with references to the illustration; GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 291, 294 Fig. 4. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 23

(Ier/Ér Plain, the middle segment of Barcău River) also feature pottery that can be generally dated to the 4th cen‑ 2 tury and that can also be connected to the development of pottery during the previous period51.

Investigated to a relatively 3 restricted degree, the settlement in Lazuri‒Lubi tag evolved with cer‑ 1 tainty over several stages, with a peak 0 3 4 rd 52 cm 5 probably during the 3 century . The (1) large bowls with T-shaped edges and 13 burnished decoration also suggest the 10 14 connection between the latest habita‑ 9 tion phase of the settlement and the 6 15 pottery workshops located in its close 11 proximity (on the spot called Nagy Béla 7 rét), the latter dated towards the end 8 of the 4th century and the beginning 12 of the subsequent century. Such bowls were found on both sites (Figs. 11/4‒7 and 13/24‒26), in Lubi tag only found in the culture layer. Such items remain unknown from other settlements in 16 17 North-West Romania, but bowls with three handles and decoration bur‑ nished several times over are specific to 18 the kitchenware used by the carriers of 25 26 the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov 21 27 Culture that appeared during stage C2 19 th and was strongly present during the 4 22 cm 23 century (stage C3), more rarely illus‑ 20 th trated during the end of the 4 and 20 th the beginning of the 5 century (stage 24 28 53 D1) . North of the Carpathians, in the (2–32) environment of the Late Przeworsk Culture, such handless bowls were 29 th produced during the 4 century in the 0 30 31 32 51 NÉMETI 1983, 140‒143; STANCIU Fig. 9. The settlement in Culciu Mare‒Boghilaz, Satu Mare 1985‒1986; IGNAT/BULZAN 1997; County. An example of possible dating to the second half or NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997. last third of the 3rd century and towards the beginning of the 52 th The inventories had not been analyzed 4 century (a possible local stage C2b, with an extension into in detail. See MATEI/STANCIU 2000, the 4th century). 1—Luxurious silver brooch (“princely”), 53‒60 no. 146, 265‒302, Pls. 84‒121 and northern type, decorated in the technique of filigree (initially GINDELE 2010, 40‒42. in BADER/LAZIN 1980, photo taken from GINDELE 53 PETRAUSKAS 2011, 402, with 2010). Fast wheel thrown pottery: fine fabric, gray in most Fig. 3/4‒5, 403 Fig. 4; LĂZĂRESCU/ cases (1‒18) and coarse fabric (19‒28); stamped decoration CIUPERCĂ/ANTON 2015, 219; (6‒8), burnished decoration (11‒14) or incised decoration DIACONU 1965, 79‒80; PALADE 2004, (16‒18). Handmade pots (29‒32). Graphically adapted after 198‒199; ŞOVAN 2005, 173‒174. MATEI/STANCIU 2000 and GINDELE 2010 (2‒32). 24 Ioan Stanciu

cm Fig. 10. The settlement in Ber‑ 5 veni‒Holmoş, Satu Mare County, 5 2 probably dated similarly to the set‑ tlement in Culciu Mare‒Boghilaz. (1) Bronze brooch (1). Fine pot‑ 3 6 tery, wheel-thrown, gray (2‒20), stamped decoration (8‒9), bur‑ nished decoration (10‒11) and 0 1 vertical grooves (14‒15). Coarse 4 7 pottery, gray in color (21‒25) 8 except for no. 21 (brown). Hand‑ made pottery, fine fabric (31) or coarse fabric (26‒30, 32‒33). 11 9 Taken from GINDELE 2010.

54 10 12 13 workshops from Igołomia and probably even towards the beginning of the Migrations 15 17 Period in the workshops from 55 14 18 Bessów and Strzelce Małe . Bone combs such as the one on 19 Fig. 11/3, with semi-circular

16 20 handle, made of three pieces (type I, variant 2 Thomas) were mainly in use during the second half of the 3rd century 21 and the first half of the 4th cen‑ 26 tury, but also featured later, as 22 24 in the case of the Transylvanian examples from Archiud‒ 23 25 Hânsuri (settlement) and 27 Fântânele‒Rât (cemetery)56. Two bronze brooches with 30 inverted foot made of a single piece were found in the same 31 28 29 culture layer of the settle‑ 0 20 ment in Lazuri‒Lubi tag, but cm 32 (2–32) 33 one faces difficulties in dating them to a narrower interval (Fig. 11/1‒2)57. Though such brooches circulated during the entire Late Imperial Roman Period, those discovered in connection to a presumed incineration platform in Soloncy (Ciscarpathian Ukraine) have been dated in virtue of their association with other materials to the second half of 54 DOBRZAŃSKA 1990, Pls. XXXII/1‒4, XLIV/14‒16, LVII/7, LXII/6‒14, LXXIV/4.7‒9. 55 KORDECKI/OKOŃSKI 1999, Figs. 3/f-l, 10/k.r, 12/a‒b.g‒h, 13/a, 21/a.e.h. 56 THOMAS 1960, 92. Archiud: GAIU 2003, 120, 256 Fig. 14/1. Fântânele: GAIU 1995, 152‒153, pl. IV/3. 57 Items analogous to those in Lazuri have been more recently dated in the milieu of the Przeworsk Culture to stage C2, i.e. the second half of the 3rd century (JAKUBCZYK 2014, 132, 194 Pl. 18/2.4). A possible comparison can be made with a late variant of the basic shape Almgren 158, characterized by a rectangular, flattened foot, that can be dated to stage C3 and towards the beginning of the Migrations Period (TEJRAL 1992, 231, 230 Fig. 2/2.11.13, 232 Fig. 3/6.25). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 25

Fig. 11. The settlement in Lazuri‒Lubi cm tag, Satu Mare County. Bronze brooches 5 (1‒2), bone comb (3) and wheel-thrown bowls, gray fabric, burnished decoration (4‒7). Taken from STANCIU 2011. (1–3)

th the 4 century and the beginning of 1 2 th 58 the 5 century . 0 Even more relevant is the presence of some pottery work‑ shops probably active during certain periods of the 4th century, such as those in Satu Mare, Bolda, Aghireş, or Csengersima/Petea59. Like in the entire area of the Upper Tisa, in North-West Romania one can also note the continuous production of 3 fine ware items with stamped pot‑ tery, even if some of the workshops ended their activity during the 4th century or even at a previous time60. If that in Csengersima/Petea‒Vamă 4 probably ended their production sometime around the middle of the above-mentioned century61, the continued use of pots decorated 6 5 in this manner is attested in settle‑ ments such as those in Mesteacăn, Culciu Mare‒Zöldmezö, or Suplacu de Barcău‒Lapiş I. In some cases, one can note the poorer quality of 7 the fabric and the simplified decora‑ 0 20 62 cm tive motifs (Fig. 12) . (4–7)

58 KOTIGOROSHKO 1987; KOTIGOROSHKO 1995, 130‒132; VAKULENKO 1998, 242‒245. 59 Satu Mare‒Fermele nr. 2 și 8: LAZIN 1980. Bolda‒La spini/Pădurea Boldii, Satu Mare County: STANCIU 2007. Aghireş‒Sub păşune: BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN ET AL. 2009, 52‒53, 266‒269 Pls. 166‒169. The two kilns in Satu Mare have been dated until the first half of the 4th century, but a bronze brooch with inverted foot might be dated even later (STANCIU 2008, 148). Csengersima/Petea‒Vamă: GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009b; the workshops there presumably started to function around the middle of the 3rd century and were probably active during a certain part of the next century (GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009a, 54, 65). Without going into details, one must state that the dating of the kiln in Aghireş to the 5th century, even to the second half of the century, remains debatable, as it is only based on the pottery and some relative parallels of the material. According to data available so far, it is little likely that the workshops in Medieşul Aurit, just like the neighboring cemetery, were in use later than the late 3rd century or the early period of the subsequent century (DUMITRAŞCU/BADER 1967a; DUMITRAŞCU/BADER 1967b; GINDELE 2010, 66). 60 STANCIU 2008, 148, GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009b, 149 and GINDELE 2011, 441, 443, with references to the discussion and the bibliography. 61 GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009a, 66. 62 STANCIU 1995, 168. The same observation can be made for the later material from East Slovakia (LAMIOVÁ- SCHMIEDLOVÁ 2000, 17‒18). Naturally, under this respect and in connection to the entire area of the Upper 26 Ioan Stanciu

»180–230 »230–260 »260–300 »300–370/80 »370/80–420 Pottery workshops Settlements C1a–C1b C1b C2 C2–C3 ? D1 Culciu Mic Zalău 3 ? Zalău 2 ? Zalău 1 ? ? Berveni-Holmoş Csengersima/Petea ? Lazuri 1 ? Apa ? Oraşu Nou ? Tăşnad-Sere ? Lăpuşel-Ciurgău ? Bocşa ? Satu Mare ? Csengersima/Petea ? Culciu Mare 1 Suplacu de Barcău Mesteacăn Pişcolt-Lutărie Aghireş-Sub păşune Bolda Culciu Mare 2 Lazuri 2

—A —B

Fig. 12. North-West Romania, pottery workshops and settlements or stages in the development of settlements, stressing stamped and burnished decorations on fine ware pottery modeled on the potters’ wheel (cases when both types of decoration were missing have also been recorded). A—Stamped decoration. B—Burnished decoration.

At least regarding the Lower Someş Valley, the development of pottery in the settlement

Tisa, one should take into consideration distinct local developments. Pottery stamped with “classical decoration” was found in connection to an „incineration platform” in Soloncy (Ciscarpathian Ukraine, by the bent of the Tisa), dated to the second half of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century (VAKULENKO 1998, 242‒245 Fig. 2/2.6‒7). Other examples of similar datings of fine ware pottery with stamped decoration found in Luzhanka (KOTIGOROSHKO1995, 299 Fig. 80) and Ostrovany (LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ/TOMÁŠOVÁ 1999, 117 Pl. VI/13, 123 Pl. XII/4.7.9), in the area of the Upper Tisa or in the necropolis from Archiud‒Hânsuri, in North- East Transylvania (GAIU 2003, 267 Fig. 25/5‒6). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 27 from Csengersima/Petea suggests the introduction of burnished decoration towards the middle of the 3rd century, about the same time as the production of fine wares with stamped decora‑ tion started63. This dating probably also stands for the stage when burnished ornaments became more wide spread in the neighboring settlement of Lazuri‒Lubi tag64. The bowls and jugs fea‑ turing burnished motifs seem to be better represented also in the second stage of the settlement in Apa‒Moşia Brazilor (stamped pottery was missing there), possibly extending towards the 4th century65. Fine gray pots with burnished decoration, mainly jugs and bowls, sometimes different in shape than those of the 3rd century, probably started to become prevalent in North-West Romania as well only starting with the end part of the 4th century, as indicated by the produc‑ tion of the workshops in Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét66. As for the 2nd‒3rd centuries, the presence of burnished decoration seems to have been diffuse in the Barbaricum of North-West Romania, but due to the difficulties preventing more precise datings one cannot define the exact period of the th4 century when users expressed a stronger preference for pottery items decorated thus. In any case, the neighboring workshops in Csengersima/Petea and Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét (located ca. 5‒6 km apart) lie in close proximity and certainly developed similarly. Even taking into consideration the distinct chronological identifications (half a century envisaged at most between the end of habitation in Csengersima/ Petea and the foundation of the settlement in Lazuri), this is a situation worthy of note, that might indicate the perpetuation of a pottery production adapted to the preferences of the local communities. They probably developed a stronger preference for pots decorated with burnished motifs under the influence of the era’s fashion and probably in connection to the transforma‑ tions of local pottery towards the end of the 4th century (new shapes and faceted decoration, often associated with burnished decoration). It is reasonable to attribute the popularity of bur‑ nished decoration on pottery that can be dated towards the beginning of the Migrations Period to a fashion trend and foreign influences67, but one cannot avoid noting the fact that also in North-West Romania burnished decoration was characteristic to Late Latène Dacian pottery, with possible extensions to the 2nd century, at least in certain areas68. This might also explain the vaguely perceived introduction of this ornament during the 2nd and 3rd century. Except for a group of inhumation graves from Pişcolt‒Lutărie, that have been tenta‑ tively dated to the first half of the 4th century on the basis of pottery alone (the material also suggests an environment at the periphery of the Sarmatian world)69, I am unaware of other funerary discoveries that can be dated with certainty to the final stage of the Imperial Roman Era. The tumular (incineration) cemetery in Lazuri‒Lubi-tag, dated in general terms to the 2nd/3rd‒4th centuries, is for the time being the only of its kind in North-West Romania and can

63 GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009a, 65. 64 MATEI/STANCIU 2000, 269 Pl. 88/9.11‒16, 280 Pl. 99/10, as examples. 65 GINDELE 2010, 67, 70 Fig. 36/2.8‒9, 73 Fig. 39. 66 In a neighboring southern area, just like in the case of the pottery produced in the workshops of Suceag, dated towards the end of the 4th century and in the first half of the th5 century. See OPREANU 2013. 67 For example OPREANU 2013. In the case of Roman Pannonia, it was assumed that the reintroduction of this decoration characterizes the development of Late Roman pottery and must not be mandatorily attributed to groups of eastern populations (OTTOMÁNYI 1982, 88‒110). 68 Though it is insufficiently clear, one must discuss the example of the settlement in Pericei‒Strada Gouţ, close to Şimleul Silvaniei. The trial excavations performed there have identified a habitation layer that can be dated before the Marcomannic Wars. Wheel-thrown Dacian pottery, sometimes with burnished decoration, was associated with pottery modeled by hand and Roman provincial pottery in those layers (POP/PRIPON/CSÓK 2004; POP ET AL. 2009). 69 NÉMETI 1983, 140‒142, Fig. 4. 28 Ioan Stanciu

cm 5

(1)

3

0 1 4 5

2 6 7

10 11

9

8

12 13

14

17 20

18 21 15

16 19 22 23

25 24 0 20 cm 26 (2–26)

th th Fig. 13. Stage D1 (ca. the last third of the 4 century and the early 5 century) that can be set in North-West Romania with the help of the pottery workshops in Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét, Satu Mare County. Bronze brooch (1) and wheel-thrown pottery, fine fabric, gray (except for no. 13 ‒ brick-red – brown), with faceted and burnished decoration (2‒26). Taken from STANCIU 2011 (1, 2, 8, 12‒13, 16, 18, 20‒23) and GINDELE 2010 (3‒7, 9‒11, 14‒15, 17, 19, 24‒26). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 29 be connected to the Culture of Carpathian Tumuli. This complicates further the spectrum of cultural manifestations in the area70. In North-West Romania the coins dated to the 4th century, almost all of them isolated finds, add to the known general picture of the entire Upper Tisa Basin and of the Imperial Roman Period71. 25 such coins have been found, only two made of gold, mainly distributed westwards, south of the Lower Someş72. Coins issued during the Constantinian dynasty form the overwhelming majority, representing slightly more than 70% of the entire known material (an almost equal number of coins issued by Constantinus I and Constantius II and two other coins issued during the Valentinianus I – Valens period), indicating that the monetary presence intensified during that period in the area as compared to the second half of the previous cen‑ tury73. Under this regard, as compared to the rest of the discoveries, the numismatic finds point more strongly to a local, later stage of the Imperial Roman Period (C3?), a situation probably caused by the fact that the pottery of that period cannot be dated with more precision, namely also many of the settlements known so far. As previously indicated, a coin probably issued during Constantinus II (with certainty during the 4th century) was found in the settlement from Mesteacăn, while a bronze coin issued under Valens has been presumably connected to another settlement, i.e. the one in Galoşpetreu, Bihor County74. No coin hoards dated to this period have been yet found, though in the south-western vicinity of the area under discussion a hoard ending with a coin issued by Valentinianus II (year 383) was discovered in Biharea and another hoard, the last coin of which is an issue of Theodosius I (years 383‒392), was found in the county of Bihor. It was assumed that these money deposits were buried sometime around the end of the 4th century, in relation to the events triggered by the Hun invasion75.

Changes to the beginning of the Early Migration Period More exact datings, narrowing down the general identification to the th4 century, cannot be usually supported, so one faces difficulties in observing the ways in which the local environ‑ ment characteristic to the Late Imperial Roman Period continued towards the year 400 and the beginning of the 5th century76. As indicated by the above-mentioned observations, some aspects suggest that this environment received Chernyakhov, “post-Chernyakhov” elements, or northern influences during a transition stage to the Migrations Period per se (C3/D1 or D1). Connections with the areas in the vicinity of the Northern Carpathians, namely contacts with the milieu of the Dobrodzień Group and that of the Late Przeworsk Culture in general, mediated by the region of the Upper Tisa, played a more significant role, as indicated by the very situation docu‑ mented in North-Central Transylvania. One mainly envisaged specific artifacts such as the later,

70 Regarding the dating, reference was made to the final phase of the Roman Imperial Period and this might be supported by the existence of a layer of Roman habitation there that had been pierced by works for the construction of a tumulus (KOTIGOROSHKO1997, 398, 402; KOTIGOROSHKO 1998). In any case, the inventory consisted of few items, insignificant for a more exact chronological identification, and if this was the case, that the tumuli under discussion (located in close proximity or even inside the settlement on the spot called “Lubi‒tag”) could be connected to the settlement – namely the pottery kilns ‒ on the spot called “Nagy Béla rét”, located several hundred meters away. 71 KOTIGOROSHKO1995, 132‒134 and ISTVÁNOVITS 2002, 281‒282. 72 Older and more recent discoveries recorded in SĂŞIANU 1980, MATEI/STANCIU 2000 and CARDOŞ 2012. 73 One cannot exclude the possibility that some of these coins ended up in the ground significantly later than the year of issue. For example TEJRAL 1997a, 330‒331 and SCHUKIN/CHAROV 1999, 333. 74 SĂŞIANU 1980, 45. 75 SĂŞIANU 1980, 42‒44 no. 17/II, 94, 95‒96 no. 18/V. 76 GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 293‒294. 30 Ioan Stanciu

sometimes faceted shield bosses, 6 iron axes, iron piercers with wid‑ ened handle that might be explained 2 as fire steels, the metal fittings of 7 wooden buckets or even clay imita‑ 20cm tions of such containers, such as for example an item found in Obreja, and the increased presence of amber 3 beads, such as those in the cemetery 1 4 from Fântânele‒Rât77. Some of these artifacts were associated in some sites 5 with actual inhumations in circular

0 pits, while in other cases one can sus‑ pect such ritual practices with par‑ allels in the Upper Tisa region and 10 further to the north-west, though 9 incineration was characteristic to the above-mentioned Dobrodzień Group78. 8 11 The transformations that 12 took place in the beginning of the Migrations Period have been explained through the arrival of ele‑ 13 14 15 16 ments or influences specific to the late stage in the development of the Fig. 14. The pottery workshops in Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét (stage Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov D1). Examples of wheel-thrown pottery out of semi-fine or coarse fabric (1‒7) and handmade pottery (8‒16). Culture in the neighboring western regions, after the disintegration of this culture in its area of origin, namely the arrival of foreign communities and the structuring of new cultural groups, with mixed content. Specialists have often noted the strong persistence of the autochthonous cultural 77 HOREDT 1982, 119‒126 (“cultura Sântana de Mureş cu influenţe străine” [Sântana de Mureş Culture with foreign influences]); MARINESCU/GAIU 1989; TEJRAL 2000, 6‒11; GAIU 2003; OPREANU 2004‒2005; CRIŞAN/LĂZĂRESCU 2010; LĂZĂRESCU 2015, 146‒159; GAIU 2018. 78 LĂZĂRESCU 2015, 146‒159, 159 Fig. 7. One notes a “storied pot” (Etagengefäß) found in the settlement of Medieşu Aurit‒La Oşanu (Fig. 15/2), possibly wheel-thrown (DUMITRAŞCU 1997, 527, 531, 537 Pl. V). It represents a rare shape, an isolated find also in the milieu of the Dobrodzień Group, in the necropolis in Dobrodzień‒ Rędzinka ‒ Fig. 15/1 (SZYDŁOWSKI 1974, 93 catalog no. 695, Pl. CXLIV/f; SZYDŁOWSKI 1977, 120). Such a pot – wheel-thrown, with burnished decoration ‒ has been signaled in Békéscsaba (South-East Hungary), the authors of that find alluding to the same northern connections (Fig. 15/4; BÓNA 1961, 205, with Fig. 13). The association of a possible such pot (Fig. 15/3) with a “cup” with three legs and one handle, also modeled by hand (Fig. 15/5; GINDELE 2010, 387 Pl. 111/1, 388 Pl. 112/8a‒d) is probably intentional in the settlement from Tăşnad-Sere. One can also find parallels for the latter item in the north, in the cemetery from Olsztyn (Fig. 15/6; SZYDŁOWSKI 1974, 160 catalog no. 685, Pl. CCLVI/b) and in the settlement in Walków‒Kurnica (ABRAMEK/ MAKIEWICZ 2004, 321 Fig. 3, 330 Pl. I). In the lack of further indications, the settlement in Medieşul Aurit where the pot was found has been dated to the 4th century, while the settlement in Tăşnad‒Sere, with few finds, is difficult to date. Contacts with the north-Carpathian area can even be envisaged during the period before the end part of the 4th century. For the close connections between the Dobrodzień Group and the Carpathian regions, including that of the Upper Tisa, see also BŁAŻEJEWSKI 2017. This possibility has also been discussed before, in the context of the discussion around the funerary inventories with weapons from Újhartyán and Şimleul Silvaniei, attributed to the Gepids (BÓNA 1961, 199‒206). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 31 environments, but also modifications of the habitat at large, as unusual funerary habits and new types of artifacts were introduced in certain 2 3 regions. The Sântana de Mureş‒ Chernyakhov Culture reached a peak during stage C3 (the Constantinian 1 Period and the Early Valentinian Period), and the dating of the horizon marked by the above-mentioned transformations (post-Chernyakhov) presumably correspond to the final th quarter of the 4 century and the first 5 or first two decades of the subsequent century79. 0 10 The area where the Sântana cm de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture 4 (1, 3, 5–6) formed and developed did not 6 include the territory of North-West Romania, the Upper Tisa Basin in Fig. 15. Handmade pottery (1, 3, 5‒6; 2?) and wheel-thrown pottery (4). “Storied pots” (Etagengefäße) (1‒2, 4, possibly also general, but one can suspect that cer‑ 3) and three-legged cups (?) (4‒5). The incineration necropolises tain contacts existed between the two in Dobrodzień-Rędzinka (1) and Olsztyn (6) (taken from th areas throughout the 4 century. The SZYDŁOWSKI 1974). The settlements in Medieșu Aurit‒La intervention of Chernyakhov-type Oșanu (2; taken from DUMITRAŞCU 1997) and Tăşnad‒Sere elements can be observed there at a (3, 5; taken from GINDELE 2010). Békéscsaba (4; taken from later time, namely towards the end BÓNA 1961). of the above-mentioned century and the beginning of the subsequent century. The so-called “Northern Group” was thus identified in North-East Hungary, namely the area included in the Upper Tisa Basin. The group (including the cemeteries in Tiszadob, Tiszavalk, Tiszakarád‒Inasa) was dated at the turn between the 4th and the 5th century and defined by elements of Iranian tradition accompanied by Chernyakhov elements. Further south, in Barcău Valley, the necropolises in Ártánd‒Kisfarkasdomb and Ártánd‒Nagyfarkasdomb (dated at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries and in the second half of the 5th century) presumably indicate even more consistent Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture influences80. As previously indicated, during their late stage of activity the workshops in Lužanka (Ciscarpathian Ukraine) probably also produced pottery following the Cerneahovian fashion, though stamped decorations were frequent81 and in the case of South-East Slovakia such influences have been mentioned repeatedly82. This new cultural context, with a visible eastern component (Chernyakhov), the impor‑ tance of which cannot be estimated for now, is illustrated in North-West Romania by the pottery

79 TEJRAL 1988, 1‒22; TEJRAL 1992, 229‒246; TEJRAL 1997a, 328‒334; TEJRAL 2000; TEJRAL 2011, 58‒64; HARHOIU 1998, 148‒154; HARHOIU 1999b; SCHUKIN/CHAROV 1999. 80 ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1999, 69‒82, 93. “The Geszteréd-Poroshát-Herpály Group”, on the Middle Tisa, north of Barcău, has been interpreted as a mix of Sarmatians and Vandals, as specialists have revealed Late Przeworsk Culture influences (OLĘDZKI 1999, 129‒131). 81 KOTIGOROSHKO 1995, 299 Fig. 80. 82 For example: BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA 1963, 41–42; LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ 1969, 477‒478; LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ/TOMÁŠOVÁ 1999, 127‒128. 32 Ioan Stanciu produced in the workshops from Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét83. Jugs with biconical body and the line of maximum diameter located in the lower part, frequently decorated with facets and burnished motifs, are usual shapes in the settlements and cemeteries of the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture (Fig. 13/2‒5.8‒11)84. Jugs like those in Fig. 13/2‒3 are quasi-identical to an item found in the princely grave from Lébény (North-West Hungary) that has been connected to the pres‑ ence of foederati troops in Pannonia and dated to the end of the 4th century and in the early 5th century85. Through shape and especially decoration (vertical grooves), a flower-pot-shaped container points to the same direction (Fig. 13/13). Tall bowls with burnished decoration also belong to the same environment (Fig. 13/16). Some of these bowls, also made out of fine fabric, are to be compared to the similar shapes of the Chernyakhov Culture (Pl. 13/21‒23), while others can be rather connected to the local pottery of the previous stage (Fig. 13/14‒15.17)86. In connection to the production of the workshops in Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét one should mention the relatively numerous bowls and similar shapes, but smaller and wheel-thrown out of coarse fabric (Fig. 14/1‒3.5‒7), including one item decorated with alveoli at the base (Fig. 14/4). During the previous period, such vessels made of such fabric were missing from North-West Romania or were very few. In the settlement and cemetery from Archiud‒Hânsuri (North-East Transylvania) pottery made of coarse fabric, including bowls, amounts to a significant propor‑ tion87. The presence of such containers has also been signaled in the cemetery from Mihălăşeni, a site that is representative for the environment of the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture in Moldavia88. Inside this category, the smaller items interfere, in shape, with similar vessels modeled by hand with the outlook of cups, sometimes with foot, that have possibly been used and lids (Fig. 14/5‒7.9‒12)89. One should also mention the strong presence of such shapes in the settlement from Bârlad‒Valea Seacă, sometimes decorated with alveoli at the base, as well as in the cemetery there90. The bronze brooch discovered in the area of the pottery kilns in Lazuri ‒ derived from the basic shape of type Almgren VII.158 ‒ cannot provide a more accurate dating, though the large items of this type (the one in question measures 6.6 cm in length) were in use during

83 STANCIU 1995, 166; STANCIU 2008, 151‒153; GINDELE 2010, 139‒142; STANCIU 2011, 32‒33. Older excavations coordinated by Gh. Lazin have included the research of ten pottery kilns (LAZIN 2011). A partial presentation of the material with references to the previous mentions in MATEI/STANCIU 2000, 61 no. 79/148, with references to the illustration. The entire material has been presented in LAZIN/GINDELE 2010 and GINDELE 2010, 238‒266, 338‒374 Pls. 62‒98. 84 For example: HEGEWISCH 2006 and PETRAUSKAS 2011, 404, 407, 409 Fig. 9. More parallels to be found in STANCIU 2011, 32, with footnote 111. See also GINDELE 2010, 141‒142. 85 PUSZTAI 1966; OTTOMÁNYI 1982, 37‒38, Pl. VIII/11 (type 15 according to this author); HEGEWISCH 2006, with references. 86 Comments and indications of analogies in STANCIU 2011, 32. 87 GAIU 2003, 111. 88 ŞOVAN 2005, 173‒174, Pl. 320. 89 Gh. Lazin has presented this part of the pottery in the settlement and dated it to the end of the 3rd century and especially during the 4th century (LAZIN 1995). 90 PALADE 2004, for example: 282 Fig. 18/11, 303 Fig. 27/49, 312 Fig. 31/31, 331 Fig. 34/2, 470 Fig. 137/M. 133 etc. Type 2 according to Petrauskas, the cemetery in Kosanovo (PETRAUSKAS 2003, Fig. 13/a). Footed cups, identical to the item in Fig. 14/16, also feature in the contact area between the Kiev and Chernyakhov cultures (TERPILOVSKIJ 2002, Fig. 3/14‒16). The items in Fig. 14/8.10.12 can be compared to the so-called Dacian cups, though the item decorated with alveoli above the base and with the mouth opening measuring 23 cm is in fact, according to its dimensions, a bowl. In Transylvania cups with alveoli at the base have been dated to the 4th century, mainly in its second half (OPREANU 1993), while in Archiud and Suceag they feature in settlements that have been in use until towards the beginning of the 5th century (GAIU 2003, 246 Fig. 4/3.9; OPREANU 1993, 243‒244). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 33

Fig. 16. Examples of wheel-thrown pottery discovered in connection to dwellings in Culciu Mare‒Zöldmező (Satu Mare County), possibly dated towards the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century (1.3‒13). Fine or semi-fine fabric (1.3‒8) and coarse fabric (9‒13). Taken from STANCIU 2011. 2—Jug from the settlement in Archiud‒Hânsuri (Bistriţa- Năsăud County), wheel-thrown out of fine 1 2 gray fabric (taken from GAIU 2003). 20 cm the last part of the Roman Imperial Period and of the Early Migrations Period (Fig. 13/1)91. Such brooches were foreign to the Sântana de 3 Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture, as 0 they cluster during the Late Imperial Roman Period and the first half of the 5th century in the western area of the 5 Przeworsk Culture from where they spread south92. For the item in Lazuri 6 and its later dating one can men‑ tion as analogies from Transylvania 4 the items discovered in grave 5 from 7 Fântânele‒Rât and in grave 1 from Rugăneşti93. The pottery inventory of 8 some of the dwellings researched in Culciu Mare‒Zöldmező (also along the Lower Someş) have been dated 11 similarly to the kilns in Lazuri‒Nagy 10 Béla rét. The inventories in question consisted almost exclusively of wheel- thrown pots made of fine fabric (with burnished or stamped decoration) 13 or coarse fabric, that were probably 9 12 not produced before the middle of the 4th century (Fig. 16/1.3‒13)94. 91 JAKUBCZYK 2014, 134, with bibliographic references. 92 KOLNÍK 1965, 202‒204, 206‒210, 233‒234; SZYDŁOWSKI 1979; VAKULENKO 1998; GAIU 1995, Pl. V/4. 93 In Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét archaeologists also found two keys with T-shaped active part (of the “Laconian” or anchor-shaped type). One of the keys is made of iron and the other, smaller, more likely for a case, was made of bronze (STANCIU 2011, 611 Pl. 2/26‒27). No matter the origin of the type, such keys were widely distributed both horizontally and vertically in different cultural environments, including the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture; a miniature key features besides other small-size objects on the decorative gold chain from the first lot of the hoard in Şimleul Silvaniei (CAPELLE 1994, 16‒18 and Fig. 8). 94 STANCIU 1995, 143‒144, 167‒168, 184 Pl. I/1‒4, 185‒188 Pls. II‒V, 189 Pl. VI/1.4; MATEI/STANCIU 2000, 43‒44 no. 55/97, 206 Pl. 25, 207 Pl. 26, 208 Pl. 27/2.28. 34 Ioan Stanciu

For a bowl with burnished decoration and an edge structure that is less usual for North-West Romania have been indicated parallels among the pots produced and used in Igołomia until the middle of the 4th century (Fig. 16/4)95. Among the pottery of the Dobrodzień Group such items can be encountered until towards the beginning of the Migrations Period96. One of the jugs in Culciu is qasi-identical to an item found in the settlement from Archiud‒Hânsuri ‒ both featuring the same fine gray fabric – and can be connected to another item discovered in grave 1 from Rugăneşti in South-East Transylvania, with a suggested dating to the end of the 4th cen‑ tury or to the second half of that century (Fig. 16/1‒2)97. The stamped decoration on another bowl is simplified as compared to the previous period, made in a coarser manner. In North- West Romania such decoration also features on a bowl from Mesteacăn and one from Suplacu de Barcău‒Lapiş I, in settlements better dated towards the middle or the second half of the 4th century (Fig. 16/3)98. In the features researched in Culciu Mare coarse fabric kitchenware items represent the quantitative majority (Fig. 16/9‒13)99. An inhumation grave from Dindeşti (Satu Mare County), with the skeleton oriented S (the head) ‒ N, has been dated to the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century. Its inventory contained four bowls wheel-thrown out of gray fine fabric, one with stamped decoration, another handmade pot, and a bone comb, probably with a single row of teeth, unfortunately destroyed during discovery (Fig. 17/1‒6)100. The invoked pottery analo‑ gies from the environment of the Chernyakhov Culture are not so relevant, but rather the large number of pots deposited in the grave could point to a common practice among the carriers of this culture. The S‒N orientation of the deceased is also not an element character‑ istic to the Chernyakhov cemeteries, but is dominant in the Sarmatian world from the Tisa Plain101 and, on the other hand, it appears towards the end of the 4th century in the small necropolises in North-East Hungary or in the case of the necropolis in Fântânele‒Rât, in North-East Transylvania. This indicates the assimilation of northern influences and others from the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture102. Even if the chronological identification of this grave might be somewhat earlier, one must note the persistence of stamped decoration on fine ware gray pottery. In North-West Romania bone combs with bell-shaped handle and made out of three elements can probably be considered as indicators of the final part of the 4th century and the th beginning of the 5 century (stage D1). One item was also signaled on the upper course of Zalău Valley (Bocşa‒La pietriş, Sălaj County), but without clear connections to the rest of the material found there (Fig. 17/11)103. Another comb of this type was found in Ghenci‒Lutărie, Satu Mare

95 DOBRZAŃSKA 1990, vol. I, 122 Pl. XXXII/1‒2.4, 134 Pl. XLIV/14‒16, 152 Pl. LXII/6‒14, vol. II, 138, Fig. 19. 96 SZYDŁOWSKI 1984, Figs. 4/4, 5/4.10‒11. 97 Arhciud: GAIU 2003, Fig. 3/1. Rugăneşti: HOREDT 1982, 123, 126, 124 Fig. 50/20; KÖRÖSFŐI 2008, 200 Pl. 2/4, 203 Pl. 5/2. 98 Mesteacăn: MATEI/STANCIU 2000, 274 Pl. 93/7. Suplacu de Barcău: IGNAT/BULZAN 1997, 521 Pl. 10/2. 99 STANCIU 1995, 167. 100 NÉMETI 1983, 135‒137, Fig. 2; GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 287, 293 Fig. 4. 101 VADAY 1989, 194, 201. 102 TEJRAL 2000, 6‒12. 103 STANCIU/MATEI 2004, 762, 778 Pl. X. It belongs to type III, variant I according to S. Thomas (THOMAS 1960, 104‒114) or variant Ia type III according to G. F. Nikitina (NIKITINA 1969, 149, 150 Fig. 1). Such combs were already in use during the final stage of the Late Imperial Roman Era and the second phase of the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture, but have also been dated to the subsequent period, until almost the middle of the 5th century. They spread westwards under the influence of the post-Chernyakhov environment. For example TEJRAL 1992, 235, 238, 241, 244 and PINTYE 2009, 176‒177. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 35

County (Fig. 17/10)104, and similar items from an area close to the North- West, namely in the Transylvanian 1 cemetery from Fântânele‒Rât, con‑ 3 solidate the dating of these artifacts 5 to the already mentioned period105. Besides pottery, another bone comb 4 worked from several components and with curved handle, discovered in the 2 6 0 20 settlement from Pişcolt‒Lutărie, Satu cm Mare County (Fig. 18/6), points to (1–9) the same horizon106. The item belongs to a more recently identified type (Intercisa) mainly distributed in the 7 eastern part of the Tisa Plain and pre‑ sumably produced in Late Sarmatian 8 107 workshops . Another comb, with 9 two rows of teeth, that can be dated 10 to the second half of the 4th century or, more likely, towards the end of this century and the beginning of the 5th century, was found in the settlement from Urziceni‒Vamă, Satu Mare County (Fig. 17/12)108. Such tools started to be used in the Barbarian world inside the Carpathian Basin in the second half of the 4th cen‑ tury109. In North-West Transylvania a 11 comb workshop is attested in Suceag (Cluj County), a settlement dated 110 to stage D1 . Combs dated to the same chronological period have been documented in the cemetery from Fântânele‒Rât, where one item is cm associated to combs with semicircular 5 or bell-shaped handle111.

(10–12) 104 GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 291, Fig. 7/4. 105 GAIU 1995, 153, Pls. III/4 and IV/2. 0 12 106 GINDELE 2010, 140 Fig. 67/2, 141, 393 Pl. 117/1. Fig. 17. Materials that can be dated to the second half of the 4th century 107 PINTYE 2009, 181‒182, Fig. 15/2, or towards the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th century (stage 188 no. 42. D1). The inventory of an inhumation grave in Dindeşti‒Ferma C.A.P., 108 GINDELE 2010, 140 Fig. 67/3, 395 Satu Mare County (1‒6) and the inventory of a pit in Ghenci‒Lutărie, Pl. 119/1. Satu Mare County (7‒9). Bone combs found in Ghenci‒Lutărie (10), 109 For example PINTYE 2009, 169‒176. Bocşa‒La pietriş, Sălaj County(11), and Urziceni‒Vamă, Satu Mare County (12). Fine pottery, wheel-thrown (1‒4, 7‒9) and handmade 110 OPREANU 1992; OPREANU 2003, (5). Taken from GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001 (1‒9), STANCIU/ 130‒136. MATEI 2004 (10) and GINDELE 2010 (11). 111 GAIU 1995, 153, Pl. IV/1. 36 Ioan Stanciu

The evolutions of the second half of the 4th century or of the turn between the 4th and 5th centuries seem to have reached a peripheral and more isolated area in North-West Romania such as the intra-mountainous depression of Maramureş. The modest inventory of a dwelling in Sarasău‒Zăpodie has been dated to a wider interval, 1 between the 4th century and the beginning of the next century, rather based on the association between technological categories and mor‑ phology of the wheel-thrown pot‑ 3 tery found there112. A larger bowl has very good analogies in the settlement and pottery production center of 2 Igołomia, part of a group of shapes dated until the beginning of stage 0 20 cm 4 D113. Parallels can also be identi‑ (1–5) 5 fied in the Chernyakhov cemeteries in Kosanovo114 (second phase) and Gavrilovka (first phase)115 or the one in Mihălăşeni. In the latter loca‑ tion the bowl was interpreted as belonging to a shape created under the influence of the Przeworsk Culture pottery that appeared during 0 5 6 cm the first two stages of the necropolis, (6) probably until the middle of the 4th century (Fig. 18/1)116. It is pos‑ Fig. 18. Pottery (1‒5) and bone comb (6) dated to the second half of the 4th century or the end of the 4th century and the beginning sible that the material from Sarasău th th dates to the late 4 century or to the of the 5 century (stage D1). The settlements in Sarasău‒ Zăpodie, Maramureş County (1) and Pişcolt‒Lutărie, Satu Mare beginning of the subsequent cen‑ County (2‒6). Wheel-thrown pottery made of fine gray fabric tury, though this remains debatable. (1‒3) and handmade pottery (4‒5); burnished decoration (2‒3) At any rate, it illustrates in a singular and incised decoration (4‒5). Taken from POPA/HARHOIU manner a horizon that has in fact 1989 (1), GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001 (2‒5) and GINDELE remained unknown in that area. 2010 (6). The funerary inventories from Curtuiuşeni‒Ligetdomb (Bihor County) and the one probably discovered in Şimleul Silvaniei or somewhere in the vicinity of the town, both including shield umbones, are significant for the changes from the turn between the 4th and the 5th century. One can presume that they were found in connection to inhumation

112 POPA/HARHOIU 1989, 249‒256. 113 DOBRZAŃSKA 1990, vol. I, 118 Pl. XXIX/1, vol. II, 138 and Fig. 19. 114 PETRAUSKAS 2003, 253, Fig. 10/a. 115 PETRAUSKAS 2003, 283, 291, Fig. 23/b. 116 ŞOVAN 2005, 174, 188‒190, Pl. 319/1.182. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 37 graves and the one from Şimleu, that also includes a horse bid, must have belonged to a rider warrior (Fig. 19)117. These discoveries were initially dated to the rd3 century (Curtuiuşeni) and the end of the 3rd century-beginning of the 4th century (Şimleu)118. A little later, returning to the matter of the chronological identification of the grave in Újhartyán ‒ reexamined in close connection to the discoveries in Curtuiuşeni and Şimleu ‒ the dating has been set to the final third of the 4th century119. The umbones in Curtuiuşeni do not belong to any clear type – if included in the group of conical umbones they can be dated at the earliest towards the end of the 4th century and this should also be the case of the item presumably found in Şimleul Silvaniei (Fig. 19/1a‒b)120. The two lance heads found together with the umbo (types V and IX according to Kaczanowski) could be indeed earlier, but they circulated in the Przeworsk environment that they represent throughout the entire Roman Imperial Era (Fig. 19/3‒4)121. The associated buckle can be compared to similar items well-dated to the Late Roman provincial environment of the second half of the 4th century (Fig. 19/2)122. The comparison between the inventory prob‑ ably found in Şimleul Silvaniei and the inventory of a warrior’s grave from Újhartyán is justified, as both featured conical umbones (the one in Újhartyán is faceted) and bids; the one in Şimleu probably also included a sword. It is possible that the grave in North-West Romania connects on the one hand the already mentioned cemeteries in North-East Hungary and on the other hand those in North-East Transylvania (Fântânele‒Rât, Archiud‒Hânsuri, Ocniţa‒Pe dric), that are also different from the Chernyakhov burials through the deposition of weapons123. The above mentioned rider’s grave in Újhartyán has already been compared to a group that was relatively homogenous in its expression, consisting of small cemeteries and singular graves distributed south of the Northern Carpathians, that associate elements of the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture with aspects specific to a transition stage (the irregular position of the skeletons, the S‒N orientation, the presence of weapons, faceted umbones, iron axes, and wooden buckets)124. According to one author, the inventory items mentioned above but also the peculiarities of the funerary ritual, with close analogies to the north in the late environment of the Przeworsk Culture in South Poland and the Dobrodzień‒Guttentager-type cemeteries, cover a cultural circle that was probably related foremost to the presence of the east-Germanic group of Vandals (more likely the tribe of the Hasdingi) and, possibly, of the Alano-Sarmatians125.

117 The one in urtuiuşeniC was initially attributed to the Celts (ROSKA 1942, 80‒81, 81 Fig. 98). Reevaluated in BÓNA 1961, 200 footnote 65, 202. For the inventory from Şimleul Silvaniei or its surroundings, previously identified in the Déri Museum in Debrecen: BÓNA 1961, 199 footnote 63, 200 Fig. 7; ISTVÁNOVITS/ KULCSÁR 1992, 61, 62 no. 38, 64 Fig. 13, 65 Fig. 14/1; DUMITRAŞCU 1993a, 144 no. 7. A similar shield umbo has also been signaled from the surroundings of the city of Oradea (BÓNA 1961, 199 Fig. 6 and footnote 62; ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1992, 58 no. 30; DUMITRAŞCU 1993a, 143 no. 4). 118 BÓNA 1961, 202. 119 BÓNA 1971, 274; PÁRDUCZ 1974, 199. 120 ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1992, 81‒82. Regarding the conical umbones, specialists have concluded that the items from the Carpathian Basin represent a different variant than the ones found in the North-Pontic area and the area of the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture, as they are rather similar to the ones in the Dobrodzień Group where they feature in incineration graves and that – contradicting I. Bóna – this material holds no granted ethnical meaning (ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1992, 81‒82). 121 KACZANOWSKI 1995, 49, 74 Pl. XX. 122 KELLER 1971, 61. 123 TEJRAL 2011, 75‒76. For the discoveries in North-East Transylvania (Bistriţa-Năsăud County): MARINESCU/GAIU 1989; GAIU 1995; GAIU 2003; TEJRAL 2011, 61‒63. 124 TEJRAL 1988, 22; TEJRAL 1997a, 329; TEJRAL 2000, 9, 12; TEJRAL 2011, 70‒71. The grave in Újhartyán is compared to the one in Ługi. 125 TEJRAL 1988, 20‒22; TEJRAL 1992, 238; TEJRAL 1997a, 328‒329; TEJRAL 2000; HARHOIU 1998, 151; HARHOIU 1999c, 49; OPREANU 2003, 133‒137; OPREANU 2004‒2005. 38 Ioan Stanciu

Fig. 19. The inventory of a rider warrior’s grave that can be dated towards the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century, probably discovered in Şimleul Silvaniei or in its surroundings. Graphically adapted after ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1a 1992 (1a) and BÓNA 1961 (1b‒7). 1b 2‒7, lacking precise dimensions. 6 = sword.

Regarding the entire region of the Upper Tisa and the 2 3rd‒4th centuries, available data support the development par‑

cm tially shared with the territories of 20 origin of the Przeworsk Culture, due to bilateral connections. Most likely, new Vandal communities 4 (1a–b) that had arrived from the north also contributed to the struc‑ 5 turing of the late group of the “cemeteries south of the Northern 0 Carpathians”126. According to knowledge available so far, one 3 faces difficulties in evaluating the role of North-West Romania during this period, but it can be understood mainly as an area of transmission of the new influences 7 6 towards the Transylvanian Basin, possibly even through the media‑ tion of demographic movements. The great similarity between the pottery of the settlements in the North-West that can be dated to this period and the pottery that illustrates the habitation corresponding to the cemetery in Archiud‒Hânsuri is somewhat surprising: Sântana de Mureş‒ Chernyakhov-type pottery, with local production attested in the first region, an increased pres‑ ence of wheel-thrown pots made of coarse fabric, including small tableware shapes, the low presence of hand modeled pots, sometimes the so-called “Dacian cups” with alveoli at the base. Not by chance, rectangular pits with burnt walls have also been discovered in connection to the settlement in Archiud. This type of feature is specific to the settlements in the area of the Przeworsk Culture that are numerous in North-West Romania throughout the entire Late Imperial Roman Period127. Taking into account certain differences, the settlement in Suceag, in North-West Romania, with a habitation stage well dated to the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century128, should probably be compared to the settlement in Archiud, namely a cultural horizon that was uniform in its basic elements and that covered horizontally

126 TEJRAL 2000, 11‒12; VAKULENKO 1998, 246. 127 GAIU 2003, 98; GINDELE 2015. 128 OPREANU 2003, 138‒156. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 39 the entire region of the Upper and Middle Tisa, as well as North Transylvania. In North-West Romania there are as yet few discoveries that can be dated to this period.

The Early Migrations Period The results of older researches regarding the development during the turn between the 4th and the 5th century over the entire territory of present-day Romania ‒ probably still valid today ‒ indicated that stage D1 preceded the Early Migrations Period and its content could be defined by the introduction of new aspects and elements added to those specific to the final horizon of the Imperial Roman Era. The actual beginning of the Migrations Period is indicated by the changes of the subsequent chronological segment (stage D2 or the “Hun Period”, between ca. 420 and 450 AD), when the east-nomadic character of the discoveries becomes more preg‑ nant and one notes the introduction of luxury inventories, namely precious artifacts decorated according to the polychrome style. During stage D3, between ca. 450 and 500 AD and following a possible transition phase (D2/3, between ca. 440 and 460 AD), the east-nomadic influence became insignificant in the archaeological material, as accent fell on the introduction of new groups of graves or even necropolises per se and of the so-called “Kerbschnittstil” decoration129. In North-West Romania the archaeological contexts known from settlements that one can presumably date to the first two thirds of the th5 century are again very little known. Cicada- shaped brooches, just like the single bronze item known from the area of interest here (pre‑ sumably discovered in Satu Mare), have been connected to the reconfiguration of the local cultural environment under the influences exerted during the Hun Period (Fig. 4/2)130. Cicada- shaped jewelry items, with the origin in the North-Pontic cultural complex and the ancient Eastern Mediterranean in general, cannot be attributed to the Huns alone during the 5th cen‑ tury131. Items very similar to the one from Satu Mare were very likely produced in North-East Pannonian Late Roman workshops, some of which were dated to the period before the arrival of the Huns in the Carpathian Basin132. The dating of the brooch from Satu Mare, just like that of an almost identical item found somewhere in the former county of Alba (Transylvania), has been oriented towards the middle of the 5th century133. According to one author, such jewelry items were representative to the Non-Germanic fashion of the era and their distribution might suggest the spread of the Huns during the first half of the 5th century – though the explanation is unlikely for the region of North-West Romania134. Part of the pottery known from the settlement in Berea‒Sóskás and Bodzás (Satu Mare County), in the south-eastern vicinity of the former Ecedea Swamp and the present-day city of Carei, might be dated during the first half of the th5 century. The lot contains fragments of hand modeled pots (at least some of which belong to cups or jugs), made out of fine gray fabric, sometimes with black shiny engobe, particular through their decoration that consists

129 HARHOIU 1990; HARHOIU 1992; HARHOIU 1998; HARHOIU 1999b. 130 The item from Satu Mare was acquired by the National Hungarian Museum in the end of the 19th century. See BADER 1975, 43‒44 footnote 66, Pl. V/3 and HARHOIU 1998, 186 no. 75, Pl. XC/A. Also, with notes on parallels and comments, STANCIU 2011, 45‒46. 131 KÜHN 1935; VINSKI 1957; BÓNA 2002, 148‒150; KYSELA 2002; TEJRAL 2015, 309‒319. 132 BÓNA 2002, 148‒149, 236. A more certain discovery context near the mithraeum in Aquincum, with an item dated to the end of the 4th century and the first third of the th5 century (NAGY 1993, 354). 133 HARHOIU 1990, 200; HARHOIU 1998, 88. 134 BÓNA 1979a, 316‒317; BÓNA 2002, 150. Three cicada-shaped bronze appliques, small in size, simple, undecorated, presumably found in Moigrad/Porolissum, once part of the collection of the Wesellény-Teléki of Jibou, have been presented as dated to the Hun Period (GUDEA 1989, 347, Pl. XXX/32‒34). They are in fact earlier and belong to the Roman provincial environment (NEMETI 1999). A brief examination of cicada-shaped jewelry, from all periods, in KYSELA 2002. 40 Ioan Stanciu

Fig. 20. Pottery (1‒8, 10‒15, 19‒22) and iron brooches (9, 16‒18) that 1 can be dated at the turn between the 2 th th 4 and the 5 century (stage D1) or during the first half of the th5 century 3 (stage D2): Berea‒Sóskás and Bodzás, Satu Mare County (1‒8); Carei‒ 4 Kozárd, Satu Mare County, pit 3/1984 6 (9‒15); Foeni‒Cărămidărie, Satu Mare County (16‒22). Wheel-thrown 5 7 8 pottery, fine fabric, gray, sometimes with black engobe on the surface (1‒8, 15, 20‒22 ) or brick-red in color (19) and handmade pottery, coarse fabric cm (10‒14). 1‒8, taken from STANCIU 5 2011. 9‒22, graphically adapted after NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997. 10 (9, 16– 18) of shallow/faceted concavities, prologue-oval or circular in shape 11 12 (very likely imitating the deco‑ 135 0 9 ration of glass containers) , associated with burnished orna‑ ments (Fig. 20/2‒4). They can be separated from a good part of 14 the pottery there that should be dated towards the end of the 5th

13 15 century and the first two thirds of the subsequent century. The dec‑ oration on the above-mentioned fragments represents an unusual combination of “Gepid” pottery from the first two thirds of the th6 century136. The one on the frag‑ ment illustrated on Fig. 20/2 can be encountered in the settlement

135 SCHULTZE/STROCEN’ 2008. 16 17 136 Possible indication of a pot found in a grave from Dunapataj-Bödbakod, dated to the final third of the 5th century cm (CSALLÁNY 1961, 232‒233 no. 212, 19 20 Pl. CCVI/12). Further south of the area of Carei, a jug with oval concavities along the line of maximum diameter is known from a grave discovered in Oradea, in 20 ( 1–8, association with other pots, including 10–15, 19–22) jugs, with burnished decoration. The 21 overall inventory can be dated to the first half of the th5 century, more likely 18 after the first two decades of that century 22 0 (ROŞU 1965, Fig. 1/6). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 41 from Archiud‒Hânsuri137 and is very similar to the decoration on a jug found in the settlement from Lazuri‒Râtul lui Béla or the item from the grave in Lébény (the late 4th century and the first two-three decades of the 5th century)138. The bitronconic vessels (especially jugs) orna‑ mented with grooves or faceted, frequently associated to burnished motifs, are well-represented in the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture. They might have been introduced in Pannonia and in general in the Carpathian Basin from the North-Pontic area by troops of barbarian foederati, as such items are encountered here from the end of the 4th century and until the fourth decade of the subsequent century139. The association of faceted jugs with other shapes following the Chernyakhov tradition of the pottery kilns from Lazuri‒Râtul lui Béla illustrates the presence of such pottery also in North-West Romania at the turn between the 4th and the th 5 century (stage D1). Due to this very explanation, part of the material in the settlement from Berea has been dated to the above-mentioned chronological interval140. Still, this strict separa‑ tion of such a habitation horizon in the settlement there remains debatable. The association of faceted and burnished decoration can be noted on jugs that can be dated with certainty during the Hun Period (the item in Regöly is interpreted as being of clear eastern origin). At least in the great Hungarian Plain such items have been interpreted sometimes as an indicator of a Late Sarmatian population141. Like a vessel from Berea such items often display a black surface (Fig. 20/3). The inventory of a pit was salvaged from the same micro-region of Carei, namely in the settlement from Carei/Căpleni‒Kozárd. It mainly contained handmade pottery, with the outlook specific to the pottery of the Przeworsk Culture during the Imperial Roman Period. The pottery was associated with an iron brooch, highly corroded, which has been more recently described as being a Prague-type crossbow brooch, thus dating the feature to 142 stage D2 or D3 (Fig. 20/9‒15) . Brooches of this type, with the massive coiled spring as main characteristic, had a more restricted circulation and was preponderantly dated during the second third of the 5th century143. If this dating of the brooch is correct, it dates the associ‑ ated pottery and the situation becomes strange and for now unique to North-West Romania: the perpetuation of handmade pottery characteristic to the Przeworsk environment until toward the middle of the 5th century. In more correct terms, the explanation must remain open to interpretation. Things are clearer in the case of the settlement in Foeni‒Cărămidărie, located not far from the settlements already mentioned, but it was regretfully partially destroyed by modern interventions. A pit researched there contained fragments of bitronconic pots, wheel-thrown out of fine gray fabric, in one case with brick-red surface, in other cases also with net-type bur‑ nished decoration (Fig. 20/19‒22). In the same feature archaeologists found three iron brooches belonging to the above-mentioned Prague type (Fig. 20/16‒18)144. As previously indicated,

137 GAIU 2003, 250 Fig. 8/1. 138 PUSZTAI 1966, 112 Fig. 8. 139 OTTOMÁNY 1982, 37‒38. 140 GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 293. 141 VADAY 1994,106‒108, Pl. I/9.14. 142 NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997, 617‒618, 649‒650 no. 26, Pl. II‒III; GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 287 no. 3, Fig. 2, 294. The brooch was initially compared to a variant of the crossbow fibulae and thus the inventory of the pit was dated to the late 4th century and the first third of the 5th century (NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997, 605, 637‒637). The poor state of preservation of the iron item and especially the “archaic” aspect of the pottery rather support the authors’ initial dating attempt and the feature might even belong to an earlier stage. Besides, a subsequent ground research performed there has led to the collection of wheel-thrown and handmade pottery fragments from the area that can be dated to the 2nd‒4th centuries AD (MATEI/STANCIU 2000, 38 no. 34/57). 143 SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 1986, 600‒605. 144 NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997, 620‒621, 652‒653 no. 41, Pl. IV; GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 290 no. 7, Fig. 5. 42 Ioan Stanciu

Fig. 21. The inventories of (inhumation) graves in Ghenci‒Akasztó domb (Satu Mare County) that can th be dated to the middle of the 5 century (stage D2/3): grave 1 (1‒2), grave 2 (3‒8). Battle knife (1); glass beaker (2); silver brooch (3); bronze earrings (4‒5); blue glass beads (7‒8) and amber beads (6). Taken from NÉMETI/GINDELE 2001.

the chronological identification of these arti‑ facts mainly falls in the second third of the 5th century145 and more recent items even indicate the early period of the row grave cemeteries146. Thus, the feature in Foeni can be understood

as indicator of a local transition period (D2/3), though one cannot exclude the possibility of a cm slightly later dating to the second half of the 5th 10 century (stage D3). Some funerary discoveries (inhumation (1) graves) are also known from this micro-region 2 and can be dated around the middle of the 5th 0 5 cm century. The inventories of two graves have 1 0 (2, 4–8) been recovered probably from a more restricted group of burials in Ghenci‒Akasztó domb 147 cm (Fig. 21) . A long sax with narrow blade and a 5 glass beaker with relief decoration, in folds, can be connected to a man’s grave (Fig. 21/1‒2)148, 4 while a cast silver brooch was the most signifi‑

(3) cant item in a woman’s grave oriented west-east (Fig. 21/3). The two inventories were initially dated to the second half of the 5th century, compared to several other funerary finds in 0 3 5 the area, and attributed, without much com‑ ment, to the Gepids149. Subsequently, with the aid of the brooch with parallels mainly dated in the first half of the 5th century, the two graves 7 were dated to stage D2 of the Early Migrations Period150. 6 8 145 For example, the hoard of tools and finished and unfinished items from Steinmandl also contained such brooches. It is believed that the deposit was buried during the 450s‒460s (SZAMEIT 1997, 243‒244, Pl. 5/9). 146 SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 1986, 600‒605. According to J. Tejral such brooches were worn throughout the entire 5th century (TEJRAL 2015, 339‒343). 147 NÉMETI 1967, 505‒506; NÉMETI 1969. See also HARHOIU 1998, 176 no. 30, Pl. XCIII and GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 290 no. 8, Fig. 6. 148 With a preserved length of 38 cm and the width of 3.1 cm, the battle knife can be included in this category of weapons that spread under eastern influence (ANKE 1998, 93‒99). 149 NÉMETI 1969, 122‒123. 150 HARHOIU 1990, 200 and HARHOIU 1998, 101. The same item has been compared to the Groß-Umstadt Group that is mainly dated during the middle third of the 5th century (TEJRAL 1997a, 347; TEJRAL 1997b, 151). In connection to the glass beaker found in the first grave, specialists have made reference to analogies dated to the The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 43

cm 5

(1–2)

2 0 1

3

4

a b c d e

0 5 a cm b e c d (3–6)

5 6 Fig. 22. The (inhumation) grave of a woman in Dindeşti‒Grădina lui Negreanu (Satu Mare County) that can th be dated towards the middle of the 5 century (stage D2/3): pair of brooches, (1‒2); belt buckle (3); mirror (4); beads (5); wheel-thrown clay pot (6). Silver (1‒3). White metal (4). Glass (5). Taken from STANCIU 2011 (1), HARHOIU 1997 (2), and GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001 (3‒6).

One must stress two things about these discoveries: the west-east orientation of the second skeleton (possible in the case of both graves) and especially the presence of the weapon in the man’s grave, an element that sets it apart from most of the Gothic graves. Six graves were researched for example in Tiszadob-Sziget, oriented west-east, dated to the first third of the 5th century, some of which intersect previous graves positioned north-south151. The graves in

5th–6th centuries (WERNER 1959, 427‒428; HARHOIU 1998, 135). In relative geographic proximity, an identical item was found in Kapušany, in Slovakia (WERNER 1959, Pl. V/1). J. Tejral even mentions the “Ghenci‒Kapušany type” (TEJRAL 1997b, 148, 151). 151 ISTVÁNOVITS 1993, 139. 44 Ioan Stanciu

Velikaya Bakta (Ciscarpathian Ukraine), dated towards the middle of the 5th century, were also oriented west-east152. There are only two examples that illustrate this phenomenon that ended in the general spread of this funerary custom in the region of the Upper Tisa starting with the last third of the 5th century, namely the structuring of the horizon of cemeteries with the graves relatively structured in parallel rows (Reihengräberfelder). Another grave, probably an isolated discovery (?), with the skeleton oriented NNW (the head) ‒ SSE, was signaled a while ago in Dindeşti‒Grădina lui Negreanu, in the same micro- region of Satu Mare County (Fig. 22)153. Through its inventory, especially through the pair of brooches made of silver plate (the plates at the tip of the bow are gilded) the feature belongs to the Smolín‒Laa a. d. Thaya Group that also includes other very similar funerary discoveries from the area of the Upper Tisa. The grave illustrates the presence of “Danubian female dress” in the middle of the 5th century in North-West Romania as well. The above-mentioned brooches and a silver belt buckle decorated with notches support the dating of the feature towards the middle and the beginning of the second half of the 5th century (Fig. 22/1‒3)154. The horizontal distribution of isolated discoveries of solidi issued during the reign of Theodosius II and Valentinianus III can provide extra data for the period under discussion. The items known from North-West Romania can be compared to the group that is better represented in the area of the northern bent of the Tisa. Those from Transylvania focus in the valleys of rivers Someşul Mic and Mureş, while the small hoard in Hida, in Almaş Valley, containing three items issued under Theodosius II, suggests the connection with the coins in the North-West. There are also few coins known in West Romania that can be compared to the findings in the region of the Tisa‒Mureş‒Criş Rivers interfluve, where the significant hoard in Szikáncs was found (Fig. 23). The few items grouped in the area of Banat, south of the Mureş, seem rather isolated, stressing in this horizontal distribution the main location of the findings, i.e. the Transylvanian Basin and the area of the northern bent of River Tisa. In the context of the entire territory of present-day Romania and East Hungary, the majority of the findings, namely slightly more than two third of the recorded items, focus in this area. It is difficult to pinpoint more precisely the times when these coins might have ended up in the ground. One knows that in the Barbaricum the presence of these precious coins was not due to trade relations and they did not fulfil the economic role of a coin itself, but were part of stipendia and donativa handed by the Late Roman Empire to certain populations155. There was a significant influx of gold coins in the Carpathian Basin between ca. 430‒450 ‒ the period of the Hun power center in the Tisa Plain ‒ caused by the sums that the Huns had received. After 450 and in smaller numbers, the Ostrogoth (until around 473) and the Gepids also received money until around the middle of the 6th century156. Thus, the solidi issued under Theodosius II and Valentinianus III ended up in the area of the Upper Tisa most likely at the earliest starting with the third decade of the 5th century. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that most of the stray finds ended up in the ground very soon after they were issued. One must also not exclude the fact that the items in Cig and the one found in the grave from Valea lui Mihai are probably imitations. It is possible that other coins among those with not very precise determinations were minted after 430, which is the case of most of the items known in Transylvania, issued in 443 (Theodosius II)157. Some authors

152 CHERKUN 1994. The graves there might be slightly later (TEJRAL 1997b, 151). 153 NÉMETI 1967, 499‒504; HARHOIU 1998, 173 no. 34, Pl. XCIV/B; GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001, 287 no. 5, Fig. 3. 154 For example: HARHOIU 1990, 200; HARHOIU 1998, 99, 106‒107; TEJRAL 1997a, 342‒348; TEJRAL 2007, 107. 155 For example KISS 1986, 117. 156 KISS 1986, 109. 157 HARHOIU 1998, 144. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 45

0 25 100 km

AB

30 38

27 21 25 29

7

9 4 11 26 37 16 36 15 20 14 3 8 28 17 1

19 32 35 24 18 5 41 22 2 33 40 12 31

10

23

6 13

34

Fig. 23. The distribution of gold coins (solidi) issued by Theodosius II (408‒450), the great majority, and by Valentinianus III (425‒455) in the Tisa Plain and on the territory of Romania. Stray finds (A) and hoards or small deposits (B). believe that gold coins reached the Transylvanian Basin later, towards the middle and second half of the 5th century158. Yet others have put forward clear-cut datings and ethnic attributions based precisely on the coins issued by Theodosius II, Valentinianus III and Marcianus and discovered as isolated finds. They understood coins issued before 430 as indicators of the movement of the Huns and even the presence of a Hun power center in Transylvania almost at the same time as the date of issue159. Another part of the coins under discussion has been attributed to the Early Gepids, in the attempt to set apart the territory they inhabited during the Hun period, east of the Bodrog‒Tisa line, north of the Criş‒Crişul Repede line, and north of the sources of the Someş to the east160. The direct relation between these gold coins and a presumed Hun power center in Transylvania should rather be excluded, in the absence of known specific funerary discoveries. One must at any rate express a certain degree of caution regarding these categorical ethnic attributions based solely on isolated solidi findings, since part of the “Hun gold” ended up in the hands of their allies, not only of the Gepids161.

158 PREDA 1975, 452; HARHOIU 1987, 145; HARHOIU 1998, 144‒145. 159 BÓNA 1990, 78‒80. 160 BÓNA 1990, 83. 161 PREDA 1975, 452; HARHOIU 1987, 145. 46 Ioan Stanciu

One cannot exclude the possibility that some of the gold coins known in North-West Romania ended up in the ground towards the middle or even during the second half of the 5th century. Eventually, no matter when they did, the general conclusion stands: solidi issued under Theodosius II (the great majority) and Valentinianus III originated in the sums granted in 430‒450 by the Eastern Roman Empire to the Huns, indirectly also to the elites of the populations allied with the Huns, and the value of such coins as chronological indicator can only be relative. In Transylvania, the finds are grouped in the basin of Someşul Mic and in the Mureş River Valley, namely in regions when settlements and necropolises can be connected to the habitation inside the Gepid Empire in the end of the 5th century and the first two thirds of the 6th century. In general, the horizontal distribution of these precious coins indicates in almost exact terms the extent of the Gepid Empire during the first two thirds of the th6 century. Their horizontal distribution also suggests the main routes that connected Transylvania to the outside: from the west the corridor of River Mureş and from the north-west most likely the wide and easily accessible valley of River Crasna (Fig. 23).

Structuring the horizon of the “row grave cemeteries” (Reihengräberfelder) 162 in North-West Romania (stage D3, ca. 460‒500) As an expression of “cultural reorientation” (according to a more recent wording), the row grave cemeteries (Reihengräberfelder) feature over a considerable part of West and Central Europe, along the periphery of the former Roman Empire, in Romanized areas, but also in territories where Romans and “Barbarians” interacted163. The earliest such cemeteries prob‑ ably appeared towards the middle of the 5th century in the western and central-western parts of Europe. The phenomenon was primarily defined on the basis of funerary habits (inhuma‑ tion, west-east orientation of the graves, the relative ordering of the graves in rows, food and drink offerings), but also with the aid of the inventory deposited according to gender (weapons in numerous men’s graves, brooches and other jewelry or dress accessory items in women’s graves)164. Still, the row development of the burials is relative in many cases, as archaeologists often signal the existence of constitutive groups and even a certain regional variability in the case of types of artifacts that form the funerary inventories. Eventually, they cannot be distinguished categorically from other similar contemporary necropolises, especially those in the Romanized areas in the North-West and the Danubian provinces, so that these Reihengräberfelder seem not to represent an archaeological phenomenon that can be defined in absolute terms, but rather as an ideal type165. Last but not least, recent debates contradict the older and quasi-unanimous explanation that such necropolises belonged (mainly or exclusively) to the Germanics who had settled in or near the former Roman territories and were thus separated from their neighbors by imposing certain archaeological criteria166.

162 Regarding the Intra-Carpathian area of Romania, more recently the stage dated between ca. 450 and 567 is included in the “culture of the Gepid power structure”, followed until 650 by the “culture of the early Avar power structure” (HARHOIU/BALTAG 2006, 375 Fig. 706). In relation to the north-western area of Romania, the interval between the 4th and the 7th centuries was also called the “Roman–Byzantine” period, but the argument stating that the evolution was significantly influenced by the Roman–Byzantine world has to be demonstrated. See DUMITRAŞCU 1993b. 163 FEHR 2008, 97‒102. Joachim Werner marked the starting point of the subsequent discussions (WERNER 1950). 164 FEHR 2008, 67‒72; FEHR 2010, 728‒729. 165 FEHR 2008, 67, 96; FEHR 2010, 729‒746. 166 Inhumation and the west-east orientation of the graves represent a funerary practice characteristic to the Late Roman environment, but one can connected them to neither the Romanics nor the Germanics in a clear-cut manner. During that period the deposition of weapons was an innovation started on the Rhine border, while a The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 47

Almost six decades ago, the funerary discoveries known so far from Transylvania and North-West Romania (Valea lui Mihai/Érmihályfalva in the case of the latter region) have been compared to the similar discoveries from the Tisa region and attributed to the Gepids167. Shortly afterwards, the region of the Middle Danube and that of the Transylvanian Basin were also included in the “East Merovingian Area” of row grave cemeteries, Transylvania was an area located at the eastern end of this presumably even manifestation168. In connection to Transylvania, the onset of this horizon has often been connected to the configuration of a presumed Gepid power center in the valley of River Someşul Mic, namely the area of the former Roman city of Napoca and its surroundings. The two graves with luxu‑ rious inventories found in Apahida and the important hoard in Cluj-Someşeni have been most often interpreted following this explanation, though distinct opinions have also been expressed regarding the ethnic attributions169. The fact that the earlier discoveries are focused in the above mentioned micro-region could prove that the Gepids moved from the north-west (not from the east, along the line of the Mureş River), following the valley of River Someşul Mic or from the direction of the ancient Porolissum (i.e. through Meseş Gate), along the former Roman road170. But, even if – not matter the period – the significance of the latter route for the connections between the entire Upper Tisa Basin and Transylvania cannot be doubted, archaeological data of a more certain nature that might support this hypothesis are missing in North-West Romania. The significance of the warrior’s grave with relatively rich inventory discovered in Valea lui Mihai/Érmihályfalva has already been noted some time ago. The site is located in the present- day county of Bihor, in the south-western part of Carei Plain and in the contact area with Ier/ Ér Plain (Figs. 24‒27)171. The burial is of particular importance due to the chronological pos‑ sibilities provided by the inventory, which illustrates the period in which the cemeteries of the Reihengräberfelder horizon also appear in North-West Romania. Aside from the burial of a war‑ rior accompanied by a sword, a langsax, and a helmet (the latter frequently mistaken for a shield- boss), three other funerary contexts were discovered, but they were destroyed during works for certain specificity of female dress (“Vierfibeltracht”) can be identified over wide areas (FEHR 2008, 75‒96; FEHR 2010, 730‒783). In the Barbaricum of North-West and Central Germany for example, inhumation (no matter the orientation of the graves) was practiced besides incineration throughout the Roman Imperial Era and the Early Migrations Period. This has been explained through the perpetuation of a local Celtic tradition, influences received from the Roman provincial environment, and even certain local impulses in this field. Specialists have also taken into consideration a social mechanism – as inhumation graves belonged to elite members of society –, but this cannot be always proven. There was a certain variability in space and time of the influences or factors that have led to the adoption of inhumation in the Germanic milieu in some regions. See BEMMANN/VOß 2007. There is also a social explanation for the formation of row grave cemeteries in the same Germanic environment: these funerary habits, with certain eastern influences, were initially adopted by the representatives of the elite and then generalized (SIEGMUND 2018, 54). 167 CSALLÁNY 1961, 221 and Pl. CCXXXVIII for Valea lui Mihai‒Grădina lui Sándor (Alexandru) Stantz. Kurt Horedt was the first to use the expression “row grave cemeteries” (Reihengräberfelder) in Romanian specialized literature in 1977 (HOREDT 1977). Such aspects stressed in DOBOS 2013, 251, 253 footnote 33. In fact, the connection between the Gepids and some funerary discoveries and certain artifacts has been indicated long before Dezső Csallány’s above mentioned work. See BÓNA 1979b, 9‒23. For a history of research focusing on row grave cemeteries in the intra-Carpathian area of Romania and the knowledge available so far, besides the above-mentioned work: HARHOIU 1999‒2001; DOBOS 2011; DOBOS 2013; DOBOS 2014; DOBOS 2018. In general, for the source of archaeological investigations and discussions until the end of the 1970s see BÓNA 1979b. 168 WERNER 1962. 169 Brief presentation of the discussion with bibliographic references in DOBOS 2018, 2‒3. „ se trouvait au coeur de la Transylvanie, partie de l’ancienne Dacie Supérieure”, according to BÓNA 1976, 29. 170 HOREDT 1958, 80‒81. 171 The group of burials from Valea lui Mihai‒Grădina lui Alexandru Stantz is a discovery that entered specialized literature early (ROSKA 1928–1932 and ROSKA 1930). For details see STANCIU 2011, 365‒367 no. 42. 48 Ioan Stanciu

1a

1

2

2a

5

6

0 5 3 4 cm Fig. 24. A warrior’s grave in Valea lui Mihai‒Grădina lui Alexandru Stanc, Bihor County. The fittings of a sword sheath set (1‒2), buckles (3‒4) and amber “pearl” ‒ magic sword pendant (5). Solidus issued by Theodosius II between 442 and 443, imitation, possibly even original issue (6). 1, 2—Gilded silver. 3—Silver, the buckle prong is gilded. 4—Silver. Taken from ROSKA 1928‒1932 (6) and STANCIU 2011 (1‒5). Photo: Vasile-Sergiu Odenie, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 49 the exploitation of clay and their inventory is now missing, probably lost. M. Roska presumed that a cemetery with row graves oriented west – east functioned here, but its dimensions cannot be estimated172. The pieces of the inventory most relevant for dating are the scabbard accessories of a spatha belonging to type IIIa (Basel‒Gotterbarmweg‒Entringen) according to Menghin (Figs. 24/1–2 and 25/1a‒c)173 and the imitation of a solidus issued in Constantinople in 442/43 (Fig. 24/6)174. The chape and the ornamental plate of the upper end of the scabbard are made of silver, gilded and decorated with almandines. More recently the grave was dated to 460–480 th 175 (D3), even hinting to the late 5 century . Using the same objects, J. Werner suggested a dating between ca. 480 and 520176. The coin certainly provides a terminus post quem for the burial date177. However, other burials of the last third of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century also contain older coins, issued by Theodosius II or Valentinianus III178. The sword with damascened blade, represents the Danubian variant of the Menghin III group that has frequent parallels in the south-western Germanic area, commonly dated around the middle of the 5th century and mostly in Childeric’s times, between 460 and 480, but some‑ times the upper limit of this chronological interval was extended (Fig. 25/1a‒c)179. The rela‑ tionships between the Danubian environment and the south-western Germanic (Alemannic) one are illustrated by the elements of the scabbard fittings, so even if the swords were made together with the scabbards in the same workshops or separately, they must have come from the same production centers that used Late Antique prototypes180. The chape of the scab‑ bard found in the grave from Valea lui Mihai has been frequently discussed, included in the Flonheim‒Gültlingen type as the ending knob is nearly identical to those from Gültlingen (the grave from 1901), dated to the last two decades of the 5th century, and Bratislava–Devínska Nová Ves, perhaps produced in the same workshop (Fig. 24/1)181. The fitting on the upper end of the scabbard has the closest analogy in grave 71 from Pleidelsheim (also featuring on the scabbard of a sword with a damascened blade), dated between 480 and 510 (Fig. 24/2)182. The silver cast buckle, with the lower end of the tongue decorated with an almandine fastened into a rectangular socket, can also be dated towards the end of the 5th century or the beginning of

172 Using the closest analogies, for example the sword from the burial discovered in 1901 in Gültlingen, also with a helmet of the Baldenheim type (QUAST 1993, Pl. 6/2 and 24/2–2a), the luxurious elements of the scabbard fittings of the sword from Valea lui Mihai might suggest that other components of the scabbard or the gold elements of the hilt might have existed, but were stolen by the workers upon the discovery of the grave. Anyway, the plate that fitted a silver buckle on the belt is missing. 173 MENGHIN 1983, 155–156. 174 A solidus imitation (possibly an original item) issued by Theodosius II in Constantinople in 442‒43. The coin was determined based on the drawing published by M. Roska (HUSZÁR 1954, 75 no. XLIX, Pl. XXV/141). Other mentions in STANCIU 2011, 367. 175 HARHOIU 1990, 202; HARHOIU 1998, 48, 107. 176 1935,WERNER 34. 177 Alongside few other discoveries, these imitations of the solidi issued by Theodosius II were called “Attila’s coins” due to the presumption that they were produced in a workshop that functioned at his court, issued in 450 (BÓNA 2002, 54 Fig. 18, 165–167). D. Csallány ascribed the grave to group 2 of discoveries (between 453 and 472), considering that the inventory contains elements which were earlier than those from other discoveries (CSALLÁNY 1961, 320, according to the chronological table dated precisely to 443‒472). I. Bóna drew attention to the chronological identifications put forward by Csallány (BÓNA 1979b, 18). 178 KOCH 2001, 72. 179 MENGHIN 1983, 28–31, 54–58, chronological group A; TEJRAL 1997b, 156. 180 STQUA 1993, 48–49; QUAST 1996, 535–536; TEJRAL 1997b, 156; KOCH 2001, 292. 181 STQUA 1993, 48; QUAST 1996, 535–536; TEJRAL 1997b, 151, 156; HARHOIU 1998, 48. 182 KOCH 2001, 289 Fig. 118, 355–356, and Pl. 28/3. 50 Ioan Stanciu

3a

3b

1b 20 cm

2

(1a,c; 2)

4a

1a 0 1c

2

4b

0 5 6 5 cm (3–5)

Fig. 25. A warrior’s grave found in Valea lui Mihai‒Grădina lui Alexandru Stanc, Bihor County. Sword (1a‒c) and Langsax (2). Fragments of an iron helmet (3a‒5) and a possible parallel, the helmet discovered in 1901 in Gültlingen (6). Taken from ROSKA 1928‒1932 (2), QUAST 1993 (6) and STANCIU 2011 (1a‒c, 3a‒5). Photo (1c): Vasile-Sergiu Odenie, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 51 the 6th century, but such buckles appeared sporadically until the second half of the 6th century (Fig. 24/3)183. According to the grave’s publisher, the inventory also included an iron helmet which was destroyed immediately upon discovery (Fig. 25/3a‒5)184. The piece possible belonged to the Baldenheim type, which includes several examples discovered in the Carpathian Basin and further to the north-west. The oldest pieces can be dated around 500, but they were used until the first half of the th7 century, handed down from generation to generation185. Lastly, the analysis of the most significant part of the inventory suggests the dating of the grave from Valea lui Mihai to the end of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century. The funerary assemblages can be seen as a convincing indicator of the evolution of the region in question during stage D3, corresponding to the period in which the horizon of the cemeteries with row graves also appeared there. The grave in question (probably with a partially recovered inventory) certainly belonged to a member of the local elite. Within the entire area included in the Gepid Kingdom, this important discovery illustrates, alongside other things, the cultural connections with the civilization of the middle Danube region and with the westward ones, in a period during which Transylvania, the western regions of today’s Romania and a part of the north-western area were located on the north-eastern periphery of the “Merovingian world” (Fig. 26). Together with the structuring of the local Reihengräber horizon, more likely starting with the end of the 5th century, the habitation concentrated along a narrow strip, southward of the Ecedea Marsh (the present-day Crasna Canal) and westward of the Ier (Ér) River. From this time onwards the habitation is not attested in the Someş Plain and the eastern hilly and mountain areas186. The former Ecedea Marsh can be considered the north-eastern border of the territory occupied by the Gepid Kingdom on the Tisa Plain (Figs. 26/2 and 27‒28). Aside from the natural conditions that facilitated habitation there, and especially the good quality of the soil, the north-eastern extension of the Gepid Kingdom can also be explained in another way. More precisely, this region had a strategic location, allowing the control of the corridor along the Crasna Valley, which was proven to have been the main access route towards Transylvania (Fig. 28). The disproportion resulting from the comparison with the intense habitation of the Late Roman period is obvious. Starting with the first half of the 5th century the intensity of habi‑ tation in North-West Romania diminished significantly. In fact, it was restricted to the lowland area from the south-western part of the territory in question. Habitation most probably gained new momentum in the rest of the micro-regions starting with the middle or the last third of the 6th century, along the introduction of a new habitational horizon to be attributed to the Early Slavs187.

183 HARHOIU 1998, 107. 184 ROSKA 1928–1932, 71. It was sometimes mistaken for a shield-boss (for instance CSEH 1990, 33 footnote 2, 46–47 list 9, and Fig. 9). Its state of preservation is very poor now, but some typical fragments of the molded base still exist; the remains of some T-shaped plates made of iron sheet, fastened on the edges with bronze or silver rivets (M. Roska mentioned the silver rivets), are also preserved. 185 For instance STEUER 1987, 191–197. 186 With the exception of the single (dubious) piece of evidence provided by the gold coin of Justinian I (from Şomcuta Mare, Maramureș District), marking an obscure presence in this micro-region in the second half of the 6th century, perhaps related to the appearance of the first Slavs. It is a solidus issued in Ravenna between 555‒565 (CHIRILĂ/SOCOLAN 1971, 67 no. 9, Pl. IX/10). 187 STANCIU 2011, 91‒318. Based on available data, at least in North-West Romania one cannot identify constant contacts between the new cultural environment and the one specific to the Gepid Kingdom. 52 Ioan Stanciu

1 0 25 100km

Valea lui Mihai

2 0 25 100km — A

— B

Someş

Danube Tisza NW Romania

— C

Mureş

— D

— E Black Sea

Adriatic Sea — F

Fig. 26. 1—The distribution of discoveries belonging to the “Danubian-East-Germanic Group” (the area of the Middle

Danube / the Carpathian Basin), stages D2/3 and D3 (between ca. 440 and 500); graphically adapted after TEJRAL 2007, 105 Fig. 30. The distribution areas in West – North-West Romania (between Crişul Alb and the lower course of the Someş River) and in the Transylvanian Basin are marked out. 2—The extent of the Gepid Kingdom inside the Carpathian Basin, with the more important sites (taken from BÓNA 1976 and CSEH 1990, with completions for Transylvania and North-West Romania); marked out areas with discoveries in North-West Romania and the Transylvanian Basin. A— Graves with luxurious inventories that contain spatha or remains of such weapons and other graves with rich inventories and depositions of swords. B—Other sword or weapon discoveries in general. C—Significant graves that contain early examples of the Danubian Kerbschnitt style. D—Other discoveries. E—Cemeteries and significant settlements in the Gepid Kingdom. F—The “border” of the Gepid Kingdom (the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 53

Instead of conclusions: the vestiges and issue of the Gepids as an ethnic group For a long period, the concepts and explanations supported through such concepts by the representatives of the cultural-historical school have been strongly criticized. Such con‑ testers have rightfully criticized the possibility of a direct and mandatory connection between the vestiges grouped into archaeological cultures or groups, on the one hand, and the possible ethnic identities of the populations of the past, on the other hand. The file of the matter – often with opposing stands and interpretations – grew and became difficult to grasp188. Facing this challenge, one could even envisage reconsidering the role of archaeologists, as the capacity of archaeology to decide in the matter of old ethnicities is now in doubt. Archaeologists have even been requested to not become involved in such discussions189. Regarding ethnicity during the Migrations Period and the Early Middle Ages, the base reasoning is that the ethnic groups did not define themselves in a subjective manner, but coagulated around the reproduction of prac‑ tices such as religious rituals, political rituals, or war. Ethnicity was a form of social identity and those cultural groups could have displayed mixed and changing ethnical structures. As cultural phenomenon, ethnicity is fluid, dynamic, situational, and can be manipulated in connection to economic and political relations. Ethnic identity involved material culture, but objects can hold different meanings, in connection to certain characteristics that became relevant in specific circumstances. The differentiation of material culture deepened during periods of economic and political stress. Current debates on ethnicity in the past focus on concepts such as symbol, style, and power190. From another direction, other authors have also debated the main literary source aiding in the better knowledge of Gepid history, as Jordanes’ Getica was often understood as a work of propaganda supported by too few believable data191. Thus, the older initiatives were also per‑ ceived in a significantly different light under this regard as well. The change was supported by the need to interpret the literary sources critically, though discussions on the above-mentioned source will probably continue192. Until possible solutions arise, one can state that regarding the 188 For example, an often-mentioned work: JONES 2003. 189 HALSALL 2011, with a complete rebuttal of the archaeological criteria employed in the definition of ethnicity during the Migrations Period or the Early Middle Ages (funerary practices, ethnic dress, especially female dress, “ethnic weapons”, handmade pottery, Germanic animal art) and a suggestion that ethnic terminology should be abandoned. 190 For example CURTA 2007. Regarding ethnicity during the Migrations Period and the Early Middle Ages, with greater or smaller differences on the level of theoretical premises, methodology and opinions, with case studies often dealing with cemeteries: POHL 1991; POHL 1998; DAIM 1998; BRATHER 2004; CURTA 2001, 6‒35; CURTA 2007; GILCHRIST 2009; CURTA 2011; HAKENBECK 2011, 11‒26; FAZIOLI 2014. Early medieval ethnic identity could also be deciphered, besides other forms of identity, in the field of material culture, indicating ritual behaviors and especially social practices. Ethnic identity was not simply determined by individual choice and post-processual theory insisted too much on the concept of individuality, as a modern projection onto the past when in social terms kinship and group affiliation could have played a more important role in the configuration of material expressions of identity, through dress and funerary rituals for example. See HÄRKE 2007, 13, with references. The ethnic interpretation of certain cultural groups (often pluriethnic in structure) is possible if the premises of the method are correct. Historical research must foremost set in space and time the territory inhabited by certain populations or gentes. Funerary practices are decisive in the identification of the cultural groups in question, as these were more conservative, but some specific inventories can also be highly relevant for this (according to BIERBRAUER 2007, 97). 191 GOFFART 1988, 20‒111; GOFFART 2006, 56‒72, 199‒203; CHRISTENSEN 2002. Romanian specialists in the field adopted Walter Goffart’s arguments, but also those of other authors in order to prove the fact that Jordanes’ work is irrelevant in connection to the ethnic identity of the Gepids and regarding the concept of Gepid Kingdom. See NEMETI 2012. A corpus of literary sources mentioning the Gepids in LAKATOS P. 1973. 192 One must mention an older and ambitious contribution that aimed at reconstructing Gepid history step by step, mainly with the aid of the mentions in Jordanes. The region of the Upper Tisa and especially the north-western 54 Ioan Stanciu

A B T i s a Tisa

Tisa T u r

Vi şeu Ecedea Swamp Someş Iza

4 5 2 6 7 Lăp 3 uş 8 C ra s 1 na 10 9

r c Someş B a ă u

Ier (Ér) Zalău

Someşul Mare

Crasna Agrij

c

i

ş Alma M ul 0 50 Crişul Repede eş 10 20 30 40 m o km S

C D E F

Fig. 27. Settlements and cemeteries belonging to the Reihengräber horizon in the north-western territory of Romania (no stray finds were recorded, some of them without secure dating). A—Settlements. B— Cemeteries. C—Swamps. D—Floating land. E—The delineation of the territory that has been studied. F— Border between current states. 1—Andrid (Érendréd)‒Dâmbul morii, Satu Mare County (NÉMETI 1983, 134‒135 Fig. 1/1‒3). 2—Berea‒Sóskásdomb/Berei szölö/Bodzás, Satu Mare County (STANCIU 2011, 322‒324 no. 5, 324‒325 no. 8‒9). 3—Berea‒Viragkért and Ciumeşti‒Grajdurile C.A.P./Malomháta, Satu Mare County (STANCIU 2011, 324 no. 6, 329 no. 5). 4, 5—Carei‒Bobald II, Satu Mare County (research with unpublished results, Satu Mare Museum). 6, 7—Căpleni‒Kozárd, Satu Mare County (STANCIU 2011, 326 no. 12; STANCIU/IERCOŞAN 2003). 8—Sanislău‒Cserepes, Satu Mare County (STANCIU 2011, 360‒361 no. 31). 9—Valea lui Mihai‒Grădina lui Alexandru Stancz, Bihor County (ROSKA 1928‒1932; ROSKA 1930). 10—Valea lui Mihai‒Grădina lui Krizsán, Bihor County (ÁNDRASSY 1944). two types of sources dealing with the Gepids, i.e. both archaeological and literary ones, the cur‑ rent situation seems demoralizing, at least when assumed193. Historians have generally supported the critical examination of the literary sources and have ignored or regarded with suspicion the data brought forwards by the archaeologists. One must agree that speculative demonstrations and reconstructions that combine arguments from distinct sources can be thus avoided, but in ideal situations at least the two fields of study should provide complementary data. An often-quoted paragraph from Jordanes (Cassiodorus) locates at least some of the territory presumably inhabited by the Gepids towards the middle of the 6th century in a region part of present-day Romania was included in clear-cut terms, presuming that the Gepids reached these areas in several migration waves. During the post-Hun Period the Gepid Kingdom presumably controlled the entire area of the former Roman province of Dacia, while certain linguistic data – as yet unconfirmed – seem to prove that this population lived alongside the forefathers of the Romanians (DICULESCU 1918; DICULESCU 1923a). Also, as examples, other reconstructions of Gepid history inside the Carpathian Basin, mainly according to the same source (Jordanes/Cassiodorus) in BÓNA 1976, 14‒19 and BÖRNER 2007. 193 BIERBRAUER 2006. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 55 previously ruled by the Vandals, i.e. by the rivers Marisia, Miliare, Gilpil, and Grisia194. If these hydronyms indeed describe to the south the extra-montane course of the Mureş and to the north the three rivers Criş, then the piece of information indicates rather precisely the north- eastern part of the Gepid Kingdom. The latter is approximately delimited by the line of the so- called “Sarmatian ramparts” (Csörsz-árok)195, in North-West Romania until the former Ecedea Swamp, in the area of the present-day city of Carei196. At least this is the picture suggested by the distribution of row grave cemeteries and corresponding settlements in this direction, mainly during the first two thirds of the th6 century (Figs. 26‒28). Still, one cannot count on this coincidence in attempting to identify the Gepids, as long as the arguments provided by archaeology are unconvincing, as seen before, just like those extracted from the literary sources. Thus, following a brief presentation of the literary data regarding the Gepids, supported independently by a more insistent and critical examination of the main archaeological data that might be taken into consideration, have led to the fol‑ lowing, partly rhetorical question: why should the row grave necropolises in the Tisa Plain and in Transylvania, just like the significant discoveries in Şimleul Silvaniei, Apahida, and Cluj- Someşeni, have belonged to the Gepids and them alone. According to the same author, we should admit that there are no archaeological criteria to support a more certain ethnic inter‑ pretation in favor of the Gepids, as archaeological evidence requires quality proof, not literary pieces of information. Therefore, in general, the “Gepidic theory” remains unconfirmed by archaeology and the literary sources alike, namely by historical research197. Some literary data might only possibly locate the Gepids starting with the second half of the 5th century in East Hungary and Transylvania. Eventually, only a logical argument could matter, resulted from the vicinity of the territories inside the Carpathian Basin inhabited by the Langobards (to the west, better located starting with the end part of the 5th century) and the Gepids (to the east). Thus, the Gepids must have been the eastern neighbors of the Langobards, indicated by the row grave cemeteries in the Tisa Plain and Transylvania198. The region of the Upper Tisa, foremost North-West Romania and the north-eastern part of present-day Hungary, have often been indicated as the territory where the Gepids arrived from the north, possibly in several waves, and settled sometime around the middle of the 3rd century or in the end of that century at the latest. Certain literary data, obtained from different sources (foremost Jordanes), compared with archaeological discoveries made in the meanwhile – especially funerary discoveries – have been the backbone of these repeated attempts to identify and locate the Early Gepids during the Late Imperial Roman Period199. One of the invoked argu‑ ments envisages the vicinity and connections of the presumed Gepids with the Vandals who had

194 Jordanes, Getica XXII.113. Taken from The Gothic History of Jordanes, trans. Charles C. Mierow (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 1915, 83. 195 CSALLÁNY 1961, 315 and the map of discovery places; BÓNA 1976, 29; RGA2, vol. 11 (1998), eds. H. Beck, H. Steuer, and D. Timpe, s. v. Gepiden. 2. Archäologisches. c. Das Kgr. Im O-Teil des Karpatenbeckens (M. Nagy), 121 Fig. 6, 122; CSÉH/ISTVÁNOVITS/LOVÁSZ/MESTERHÁZY/NAGY/NEPPER/SIMONYI 2005, 10 map I; TÓTH 2006, 7 Fig. 1. Or, in East Hungary, south of the Tiszafüred‒Hajdúböszörmeny‒Debrecen/ Derecske line (BÓNA 1987, 124; BÓNA 1993, 115). More recently discovered sites in the above-mentioned region indicate the fact that the “border” of the Gepid Kingdom was located more to the north than previously thought (RÁCZ 2016, 303). 196 BALÁS 1963, 315 Fig. 1; ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 2014, 83 Fig. 1. 197 BIERBRAUER 2006, 194‒198. 198 BIERBRAUER 2006, 196, 198‒199. 199 Examples: DICULESCU 1923a, 17‒52; BÓNA 1961, 205‒206; HOREDT 1971, 707; BÓNA 1990, 77; RGA2, vol. 11 (1998), eds. H. Beck, H. Steuer, and D. Timpe, s. v. Gepiden. 2. Archäologisches (Ágnes B. Tóth and Margit Nagy), 118‒123; BÓNA 1993, 108; TÓTH 1999; SCHMAUDER 2002a, vol. I, 229. From the post-Hun Period Gepids located with certainty north-west of Meseş Mountains, in the valley of rivers Crişul Repede (Sebes- 56 Ioan Stanciu

0 25 100 arrived in the north- km eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and settled there some time before (the Hasdingi). Tylicka P. Dukla P. From an archaeological Łupków P. perspective, the pres‑ ence of the Vandals can Uzhok P. be justified in an accept‑ Veretsky P. able manner, as a new environment was cre‑ ated in the entire Upper Tisa Basin starting with a period of political Jablonitskiy P. and military stress (the Marcomannic Wars).

Ecedea The new environment Swamp (illustrated by incin‑ eration graves of war‑ riors, but also by settle‑ ments) was identical to the milieu north of the Carpathians attributed to the carriers of the

Meseş Przeworsk Culture. At Gate the same time, from the perspective of the lit‑ erary sources, the pres‑ ence of the Hasdingi A B (the Lacringi are also mentioned) in the Fig. 28. Upper Tisa Basin. Territory controlled by the Gepid north-western vicinity Kingdom (A), and so-called “Sarmatian walls” (B). of the province of Dacia is indicated by an even more trustworthy source that mentions the same date when the above mentioned change of archaeological environment can be noted200. It is possible that the archaeological goal of identifying the Gepids during the Late Imperial Roman Period in the north-eastern periphery of the Carpathian Basin is destined to fail from the beginning. Data available so far have not led to the identification of a horizon of

Körös), Barcău (Berettyó), Ier (Ér), Crasna (Kraszna), Tur (Túr), and in the Lower Someş Valley (Szamos), that also mark the main axes of the plain in North-West Romania: BÓNA 1990, 77. 200 Cassius Dio, R omaika LXXII, 12.1‒3. According to Cassius Dio, Roman History, vol. 9, trans. Earnest Cary, on the basis of H. B. Foster’s version (London: William Heinemann Ltd/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press), 1955, 14‒17. A comment on these paragraphs in KOLENDO 2003, 61‒64. According to this author, the Hasdingi were Vandals or members of a Vandal coalition. Even the author of a work approaching critically the few written data regarding the Vandals during the Late Imperial Roman Period and especially the archaeological sources, admits the location of the Vandals in the region of the Upper Tisa (MERRILLS/MILES 2010, 31‒32). The two literary sources (Dio Cassius and Jordanes) place the Vandals in the Upper Tisa Region, but Dio Cassius, who ends his history with the events of the first third of the rd3 century, does not mention the Gepids. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 57 vestiges that can be compared with the one attributed (in uncertain terms) to them in their area of origin, presumably located in the region of the Lower Vistula and eastwards201. Such an expectation is rather useless, as one can note a quasi-uniform archaeological environment in the entire basin of the Upper Tisa starting with the second half of the 3rd century at the latest. This was initially strongly influenced by the Roman provincial civilization and was mainly con‑ nected to the carriers of the Przeworsk Culture and probably also to the Dacian population that remained or ended up outside the Roman province of Dacia. If the Gepids were indeed present in the region starting with the second half of the 3rd century or arrived there until the end part of the 4th century, one can suspect that their material culture changed significantly through a rapid process of acculturation that took place on the spot202. Possible funerary discoveries might be more significant, standing out by comparison with the incineration graves of warriors (shields and lance heads were the most often encoun‑ tered goods) attributed to the above-mentioned carriers of the Przeworsk Culture and mainly dated towards the end of the 2nd century and in the first half of the rd3 century (Fig. 7)203. No other funerary discoveries that can be dated with certainty to the 4th century are known in North-West Romania except for the presumed funerary inventories in Şimleul Silvaniei and Curtuiuşeni that should be attributed to the end part of that century. One could include in the discussion the tumular (incineration) necropolis in Lazuri‒Lubi tag, but the only mound researched there cannot be dated with certainty towards the end of the Late Imperial Roman Period, as previously suggested. In that case one might possibly relate it to the neighboring settlement and pottery kilns in Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét that can be dated towards the end of the 4th century and to the beginning of the subsequent century204. Just as the situation seems to have been in North-West Romania, significant changes took place in the entire region of the Upper Tisa at the turn between the 4th and the 5th cen‑ tury, but they are mainly indicated by the funerary discoveries (inhumation) in the eastern and

201 BIERBRAUER 2006, 185. For the presumed place of origin of the Gepids see BIERBRAUER 1998. 202 The changes presumably took place already during the stage of their migration from the north, and especially subsequently; one should take into consideration influences of the Przeworsk Culture, but also contributions of the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov Culture. For these explanations see MESTERHÁZY 1989, 194. To this end, see also RGA2, vol. 11 (1998), eds. H. Beck, H. Steuer, and D. Timpe, 117, s. v. Gepiden. 2. Archäologisches. b. Vor und während der Hunnenzeit (Á. B. Tóth), 119. Starting with the 4th century the Vandals (Victovali) “disappeared from an archaeological perspective”, adopting inhumation under Roman influence (from the Mediterranean or even from Christianity), and the Early Gepid culture mixed with the culture of the Victovali and of the Sarmatians (BÓNA 1986a, 63; BÓNA 1993, 107). In the region of the Upper Tisa one cannot distinguish between the vestiges of the two populations; in the 4th century the Victovali ended up under Gepid domination and were assimilated until towards the end of the century and one cannot exclude the possibility that the Gepids were sometimes mentioned under the name of these Victovali (BÓNA 1993, 106‒107). Still, such suppositions go beyond all types of known data. 203 Funerary practices changed significantly during the second half of the rd3 century. Graves with urn disappeared almost entirely, as the funerary remains were now placed in shallow graves or even scattered around the graves or in the area of the funerary pyres, and are thus difficult to find. See CZARNECKA 2003, 287). 204 See footnote 70. The cemetery has been connected to the “Carpathian Tumuli Culture”, sometimes interpreted as an even phenomenon encountered on both sides of the north-eastern bend of the Carpathian Mountains (MIHĂILESCU-BÎRLIBA 1999). Other authors have distinguished between the tumular necropolises beyond the Carpathians (attributed to the Taifals) and those before the mountains (the Upper Tisa region), revealing a strong imprint of the Przeworsk Culture and of the Germanic culture respectively (VAKULENKO 2010, 271‒277, 279). No comparison has been published as yet between the tumular cemeteries in the region of the Northern Carpathians and the earlier ones in the distribution area of the Wielbark Culture, sometimes with the onset of shared elements such as the presence of stone rings at the base of tumuli that has been noted more rarely in the case of the Carpathian Tumuli Culture (for example VAKULENKO 2010, 268). Burials inside tumuli (incineration) feature to a mall degree also in the Przeworsk Culture (CZARNECKA 2003, 287‒288). 58 Ioan Stanciu north-eastern parts of Hungary. As previously seen, a northern and a southern group have been identified there, the first north of Barcău River and the latter along the valley of this river205. Some of the men’s graves contained weapons, an element that was not specific to the Sântana de Mureş‒Chernyakhov burials, though influences of this culture have been identified in the case of both groups, believed to have been stronger in the case of the southern group. The structure of the inventories, besides certain peculiarities of the funerary ritual, also seem to stress Iranian (Sarmato-Alan) elements206. The connection between some of these necropolises and the Gepids has been suggested, but the pieces of evidence mentioned as supporting this connection remain insufficiently convincing. This mix of elements that can be identified through archaeology is particularly difficult to explain207. In a micro-region that is unitary from the perspective of geo‑ graphic conditions, such as the plain crossed by River Barcău, one would expect to find cem‑ eteries identical to those in Biharkeresztes-Ártánd, for example, also on the Romanian side of the Hungarian-Romanian border, as suggested by the funerary discoveries signaled in Oradea, some of which can be dated to the 4th‒5th centuries208. There are also few data regarding the neighboring area to the north (Ier/Ér and Carei plains), where the inhumation grave in Dindeşti suggests, even if in vague terms, the same Chernyakov and Sarmatian influences. The connec‑ tion between the grave presumably discovered in the hilly micro-region of Şimleul Silvaniei and the above mentioned “northern group” in North-East Hungary is unclear, it can be rather con‑ nected to the late environment of the Przeworsk Culture and of the Dobrodzień‒Guttentager Group209. Funerary discoveries that might be connected to the above-mentioned “northern group” in North-East Hungary have not been signaled so far in Someş Plain. On the other hand, a good part of the pottery produced in Lazuri‒Nagy Béla rét is to be compared to the pottery in the north-eastern part of the Transylvanian Basin, with the example of the settlement in Archiud‒ Hânsuri. The cemetery that corresponds to this settlement, together with those in Fântânele‒ Rât, and Ocniţa‒Pe dric, presumably represent a local variant of the Late Chernyakov Culture, with manifestations specific to a transition stage and northern connections in the direction of the Dobrodzień‒Guttentager-type cemeteries210. In connection to the same settlement in Archiud, archaeologists also found rectangular pits with burnt walls, the geographic distribution of which overlaps the area where one can note the presence of the Przeworsk Culture211. I have already mentioned the “incineration platform” found in Soloncy, in Ciscarpathian Ukraine, a region close to that of the Lower Someş212, that has been interpreted more recently and in more certain terms as being similar to those cremation layer cemeteries specific to the already mentioned Dobrodzień‒Guttentager Group in Upper Silesia213. Available archaeological data can identify contacts between the Upper Tisa region and the northern part of the Transylvanian Basin, on the one hand, and late environment of the Przeworsk Culture north of the Carpathians, but also

205 Footnote 80. 206 ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1999. A comment, with references to other contributions as well, in BIERBRAUER 2006, 175‒184. 207 ARG 2, vol. 11 (1998), eds. H. Beck, H. Steuer, and D. Timpe, s. v. Gepiden. 2. Archäologisches. b. Vor und während der Hunnenzeit (Ágnes B. Tóth), 19; BIERBRAUER 2006, 176‒177. These necropolises can be partially compared to those in North-East Transylvania, the present-day county of Bistriţa-Năsăud (TEJRAL 2000, 9). 208 ROŞU 1965; HARHOIU 1998, 181‒183 no. 63, with bibliographic references; HARHOIU/GÁLL/ LAKATOS 2009, 221‒226. The cemetery in Biharkeresztes ‒ Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb, that can be dated to the first half of the th5 century, has been attributed to the Gepids (MESTERHÁZY 2009). 209 Footnote 124. 210 TEJRAL 2000, 6‒12; TEJRAL 2011, 61‒65. 211 GINDELE 2015. 212 Footnote 58. 213 MĄCZYŃSKA 2003, 188; VAKULENKO 2010, 277‒278. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 59 a possible demographic movement at the turn between the 4th and 5th centuries precisely from the area inhabited by the carriers of the Dobrodzień Group214. After the first two-three decades of the 5th century in North-West Romania there are few indications of habitation in the entire Someş Plain and the hilly areas that border it to the east and to the south. Such indications consist of few isolated discoveries, some‑ times with less certain locations and datings (the cicada-shaped brooch in Satu Mare, the gold collar in Someş-Uileac, possibly also the silver spoon from Deleni, besides a few find‑ ings of solidi). These are at least the discoveries signaled so far, but this evaluation is sup‑ ported by the lack of results of investigations already performed at ground level or of the archaeological excavations performed so far, as well as by the dynamic of the stray finds. On the other hand, a different situation is known south-west of Carei Plain (the southern vicinity of the former Ecedea Marsh) and in the contact area with Ier/Ér Plain, with settle‑ ments signaled in Berea‒Sóskás and Bodzás, Carei/Căpleni‒Kozárd and Foeni‒Cărămidărie, mentioned throughout the present paper. One can presume that it is not by chance that in the same micro-region they are associated with the funerary discoveries (inhumation graves) in Ghenci‒Akasztódomb and Dindeşti‒Grădina lui Negreanu. We should also keep in mind the observation that at least one of the two graves salvaged in Ghenci (belonging to a man buried with a Langsax) was oriented west-east just like the later graves in the cemetery from Tiszadob-Sziget (North-East Hungary), dated to the first third of the 5th century215 and those in Velikaya Bakta (Ciscarpathian Ukraine), with a suggested dating towards the middle of the 5th century, possibly slightly later216. There are as yet too few data on North-West Romania and its development during the 5th century obtained so far through archaeological researches, so that the precedents of the horizon represented by the warrior’s grave in Valea lui Mihai‒Grădina lui Alexandru Stanc and the cemetery signaled there, respectively, remain insufficiently clarified. The funerary discoveries in Ghenci and Dindeşti, just like the above-mentioned grave in Valea lui Mihai, were interpreted as indicators for the existence of a local power center that developed until the second half of the 5th century217. The inventory of the grave in Dindeşti, that can be dated around the middle of the century, is a good example of the supra-regional fashion of the female elite characteristic to the “Danubian-East-Germanic” environment218. Starting with the Hun Period and ending with the formation of the Gepid Kingdom, this fashion was in continuous transformation, but not marked by radical changes (Fig. 22)219. A more stable network of settlements started to take shape in the plain east of the Tisa towards the end of the 5th century, but one can nevertheless take into consideration the partial continuation of habitation during the above-mentioned cen‑ tury, with certain horizontal variables and more or less different shapes220. The transformations of the 5th century, through several interfering stages, often hard to identify by analyzing the

214 See also OPREANU 2004‒2005 and GAIU 2018, 70 215 ISTVÁNOVITS 1993, 139. 216 CHERKUN 1994. 217 TEJRAL 2007, 107. According to M. Kazanski, a Gepid Kingdom (following the Barbarian model) was already structured in the Hun Period as a satellite of the Hun power center that controlled Transylvania (it can be presumed that no distinction is made between Transylvania itself and its north-western vicinity), Transcarpathian Ukraine and the eastern part of the Hungarian Plain. The argument is provided by the hoard from Şimleul Silvaniei, which was added to other similar discoveries from the mentioned territories. See KAZANSKI 1998, 228. 218 For example TEJRAL 1997a, 342‒348. Female graves with brooches made of silver plate, like the ones in Dindeşti, have been explained as a social expression in connection to the formation of new elites and gentes in the Danubian area (TEJRAL 2007, 102, 109). 219 RÁCZ 2016. 220 MASEK 2018. 60 Ioan Stanciu vestiges, have generated the East-Merovingian horizon in the Carpathian Basin, a remarkably unitary cultural environment221. Such a development also seems to characterize the north-western part of present-day Romania, according to data available for a relatively ample area undergoing a process of depopu‑ lation starting with the first half of the th5 century. The few archaeological data available so far still indicate the continuous habitation of the plain area in the south-west (Carei and Ier plains) (Figs. 2 and 27). At the turn between the 5th and the 6th century, the latter area was already located in the north-eastern edge of the new “East Merovingian” environment that extended southwards to the entire eastern part of the Tisa Plain and to the south-est to a large part of the Transylvanian Basin. This was the territory controlled by the new regional power center usually attributed to the Gepids222. New local power centers appeared during the period subsequent to the disintegration of Hun power, but the ethnic terms to which the populations reverted could hold new ethnic meaning or one in the course of transformation223. One should presume that the new power structure that the Gepid Kingdom represented included Germanics and other ethnic groups or gentes, but identifying them inside a uniform archaeological environment is problematic or even impossible. The area of the Upper Tisa, located in the north-eastern extremity of the Carpathian Basin, was often understood as a second home of the Gepids who had arrived from the north sometime during the Late Imperial Roman Period. During the 3rd‒4th centuries the entire region developed under the mark of a quasi-homogenous civilization, initially under the influence of the Roman provincial civilization and presumably mainly supported by the Hasdingi Vandals and by the Dacians. Data available so far cannot support the archaeological identification of the so-called “Early Gepids”, just like the few literary pieces of information also remain unclear for this. The changes in the beginning of the Migrations Period and then those of the Hun domina‑ tion affected wide areas, while in the Upper Tisa Basin they cannot be mandatorily connected to the arrival or possible movement of the Gepids who ended up as allies of the Huns. The area that the Gepids inhabited during the first half of the th5 century could have been located in the northern or central-northern part of the Tisa Plain (including the segment in North- West Romania) and some of the funerary discoveries in North-East Hungary were sometimes explained mainly thus. The context and time when the Gepids settled the Tisa‒Mureş‒Criş rivers interfluve (an area with the most numerous row grave necropolises) remain obscure, just like the context and time they entered Transylvania. The connection between the hoard or hoards in Şimleul Silvaniei and the leading Gepid dynasty has been suggested on several occasions, though other ethnic attributions have been attempted as well. These prestigious discoveries cannot be connected to a possible horizon of habitation in the micro-region where they were found, i.e. Şimle Depression, as there are very few vestiges there, just like in the rest of the territory of North-West Romania, with the exception of the often mentioned south-western plain. This picture can be provisional, but the renowned discoveries from Şimleu, besides the small hoard from Tăuteu with its two silver jugs rather indicate a population or a community on the move from the west and/or north-west, along the valleys of rivers Barcău and Crasna, most probably in the direction of the north-western part

221 TEJRAL 2007, 64. 222 Regarding Transylvania proper, at least for the time being, no vestiges characteristic to this horizon are known to the north-west, beyond the valley of River Someșul Mic (to the north) and its confluence with River Someşul Mare near the city of Dej. See STANCIU 2013, 358 Fig. 24. 223 TEJRAL 2007, 56. Even for the 5th century one can mention examples of “ethnic ambiguity”, namely leaders assuming or being designated with multiple ethnic identities (POHL 1991, 41). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 61 of the Transylvanian Basin, i.e. the valley of River Someşul Mic where the princely graves from Apahida and the hoard in Someşeni have been known for a longer period.

English translation by Ana-Maria Gruia

ABBREVIATIONS: Chronologie 1992 K. Godłlowski/R. Madyda-Legutko (Hrsg.), Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènzeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. Materialien des III. Internationalen Symposium: Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im nördlichen Mitteldonaugebiet, Kraków – Karniowice – 3.–7. Dezember 1990 (Kraków 1992).

Die Vandalen 2003 A. Kokowski/C. Leiber (Hrsg.), Die Vandalen. Die Könige. Die Eliten. Die Krieger. Die Handwerker. Ausstelungskatalog Weserrenaissance-Schloß Bevern (Nordstemmen 2003).

L’Occident romain 1999 J. Tejral/Chr. Pilet/M. Kazanski (eds.), L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale au début des Grandes Migrations. Spisy Arch. Ústavu AV ČR Brno 13 (Brno 1999).

Neue Beiträge 1997 J. Tejral/H. Friesinger/M. Kazanski (Hrsg.), Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum. Mat. der Intern. Fachkonferenz „Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spatantike im Mittleren Donauraum”, Kravsko 17. ‒ 20. Mai 1995. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 8 (Brno 1997)

Romani şi barbari 1997 N. Gudea (ed.), Romani şi barbari la frontierele Daciei romane/Römer und Barbaren an den Grenzen des römischen Dakiens [Acta Mus. Porolissensis 21] (Zalău 1997).

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABRAMEK/MAKIEWICZ 2004 B. ABRAMEK/T. MAKIEWICZ, Unikatowe naczynie ceramiczne z osady w Walkowie‒ Kurnicy, pow. Wieluń i kwestia chronologii schyłku kultury przeworskiej. In: M. Olędzki/J. Skowron (eds.), Kultura Przeworska. Odkrycia ‒ interpretacje ‒ hipotezy, vol. 1 (Łódź 2004), 317‒334.

ACKNER/MÜLLER 1865 M. J. ACKNER/F. MÜLLER, Die römischen Inschriften in Dacien (Wien 1865).

ÁNDRASSY 1944 J. ÁNDRASSY, Népvándorláskori temető Érmihályfalván (Bihar V.M.). Közl. Erdély Nemzeti Múz. Történeti-Tárából 4/1‒2, 1944, 91–96.

ANDRZEJOWSKI 1992 J. ANDRZEJOWSKI, Strongly Profiled Brooches with triangular Foot in the Roman Provinces and in Barbaricum. In: K. Godłlowski/R. Madyda-Legutko (Hrsg.), Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènzeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. Materialien des III. Internationalen Symposium: Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im 62 Ioan Stanciu

nördlichen Mitteldonaugebiet, Kraków – Karniowice – 3.–7. Dezember 1990 (Kraków 1992), 111–120.

ANKE 1998 B. ANKE, Studien zur reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1–2. Beitr. Ur- und Frügesch. Mitteleuropas 8 (Weisbach 1998).

ARDELEANU 2009A M. ARDELEANU, Istoria timpurie a vandalilor. Surse literare antice şi realităţi arheologice. Marmatia 9/1, 2009, 147–170.

ARDELEANU 2009B M. ARDELEANU, Pinteni germanici din Barbaricum (sec. II‒III p.Chr.). Crisia 39, 2009, 55‒73.

ARDELEANU 2011 M. ARDELEANU, Schimbări politice şi interferenţe etnoculturale în bazinul superior al Tisei (sec. III a.Chr. – III p.Chr.). Analele Univ. Spiru Haret. Ser. Istorie 14, 2011, 111‒128.

ARNETH 1850 J. ARNETH, Gold-und silber-Monumente des K. K. Münz- und Antiken- Cabinettes in Wien (Wien 1850).

BADER 1975 BADER, T., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea istoriei oraşului Satu Mare. Descoperiri arheologice (I). Satu Mare 3, 1975, 19–45.

BADER/LAZIN 1980 T. BADER/GH. LAZIN, Mărturii arheologice din judeţul Satu Mare (Satu Mare 1980).

BADER/GINDELE 2014 T. BADER/R. GINDELE, Aşezarea din epoca romană (barbară) de la Culciu Mic-Völgyhát/La siloz. Satu Mare. Ser. Arh. 30/I, 2014, 189‒216.

BALÁS 1963 V. BALÁS, Die Erdwälle der ungarischen Tiefebene. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 15, 1963, 309‒336.

BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN 2015 D. BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN, Porta Mesesina în preajma anului 1000. Cercetări. Situri. Artefacte (Cluj-Napoca 2015).

BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN ET AL. 2009 D. BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN/S. BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN/I. BEJINARIU/H. POP/Al. V. MATEI, Cercetări arheologice preventive pe traseul şoselei ocolitoare a municipiului Zalău. Bibl. Mus. Porolissensis X (Cluj-Napoca 2009).

BEJINARIU 2018 I. BEJINARIU, Between Transylvania and Upper Tisza Region. Poarta Meseşană/Meseș Gate in the Bronze Age and First Iron Age. In: K. Almássy/V. Kulcsár (eds.), „Vadrózsából tündérsípot csináltam”. Tanulmányok Istvánovits Eszter 60. Születésnapjára (Nyíregyháza 2018), 97‒110. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 63

BEMMANN/VOSS 2007 J. BEMMANN/H.-U. VOSS, Anmerkungen zur Körpergrabsitte in den Regionen zwischen Rhein und Oder vom 1. bis zur Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. In: A. Faber/P. Fasold/M. Struck/M. Witteyer (Hrsg.), Körpergräber des 1. ‒ 3. Jahrhunderts in der römischen Welt. Internationales Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 19.‒20. November 2004. Schr. des Arch. Mus. Frankfurt 21 (Frankfurt am Main 2007), 153‒183).

BIERBRAUER 1998 V. BIERBRAUER, Gepiden in der Wielbark-Kultur (1.–4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.)? Eine Spurensuche. In: A. Wesse (Hrsg.), Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller-Wille (Neumünster 1998), 389–403.

BIERBRAUER 2006 V. BIERBRAUER, Gepiden im 5. Jahrhundert – Eine Spurensuche. In: V. Mihăilescu-Bîrliba/C. Hriban/L. Munteanu (eds.), Miscellanea romano-barbarica. In honorem septuagenarii magistri Ion Ioniţă oblata (Bucureşti 2006), 167–216.

BIERBRAUER 2007 V. BIERBRAUER, Ostgermanen im mittleren und unteren Donauraum. Die hunnische Herrschaft. In: Attila und die Hunnen (Stuttgart 2007), 97‒103.

BŁAŻEJEWSKI 2017 A. BŁAŻEJEWSKI, Związki kulturowe grupy dobrodzieńskiej. Nowe spostrzeżenia. In: Evropeis’ka Archeologia I tysaciolittia n. e. Zbirnik naukovih prac’na cest’ Liani Vasilivni Vakulenko (Kiiv 2017), 169‒180.

BÖHME 1972 H. W. BÖHME, Löffelbeigabe in spätrömischen Gräbern nördlich der Alpen. Jahrb. RGZM 17, 1972, 172–200.

BÖHME 1974 H. W. BÖHME, Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis. 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire. Studien zur Chronologie und Bevölkerungsgeschichte. Münchener Beitr. zur Vor-und Frühgesch. 19 (München 1974).

BÓNA 1961 I. BÓNA, Az újhartyáni germán lovassír. Arch. Ért. 88/2, 1961, 192‒209.

BÓNA 1971 I. BÓNA, Ein Vierteljahrhundert der Völkerwanderungszeitforschung in Ungarn (1945– 1969). Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 23, 1971, 265–336.

BÓNA 1976 I. BÓNA, À l’aube du Moyen Age. Gépides et Lombardes dans le bassin des Carpates (Budapest 1976).

BÓNA 1979a I. BÓNA, Die archäologischen Denkmäler der Hunnen und der Hunnenzeit in Ungarn im Spiegel der internationalen Hunnenforschung. In: Niebelungenlied. Ausstelungs Katalog des Vorarlberger Landesmuseums, Nr. 86 (Bregenz 1979), 297–342. 64 Ioan Stanciu

BÓNA 1979b I. BÓNA, Gepiden in Siebenbürgen ‒ Gepiden an der Theiß (Probleme der Forschungsmethode und Fundinterpretation). Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 31/1–2, 1979, 9‒50.

BÓNA 1986a I. BÓNA, Szabolcs-Szatmár megye régészeti emlékei. In: Szabolcs-Szatmár megye müemlekei I. Magyarország müemléki topográfiája (Budapest 1986), 15–91.

BÓNA 1986b I. BÓNA, Gepida fejedelmi sír Tiszaszőlősön? A mojgrádi kincs hamis népvándorláskori aranyairól. Veszprém Megyei Múz. Közl. 18, 1986, 95–113.

BÓNA 1987 I. BÓNA, Ungarns Völker im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert. Eine historisch-archäologische Zusammenschau. In: W. Menghin/T. Springer/E. Wamers (Hrsg.), Germannen, Hunnen und Awaren. Schätze der Völkerwanderungszeit. Die Archäologie des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts an der mittleren Donau und der ostlich-merowingische Reihengräberkreis. Ausstellungskatalog Germanisches Nationalmus Nürnberg (Nürnberg 1987), 116–129.

BÓNA 1990 I. BÓNA, Völkerwanderung und Frühmittelalter (271–895). In: Köpeczi B. (Hrsg.), Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens (Budapest 1990), 62–106.

BÓNA 1993 I. BÓNA, A honfoglalás előtti kultúrák és népek. In: Cservenyák L. (ed.), Szabolcs-Szatmár- Bereg megye monográfiája. I. Kötet – Történelem és kultúra (Nyíregyháza 1993), 63–137.

BÓNA 2002 I. BÓNA, Les Huns: Le grand empire barbare d’Europe (IVe–Ve siècles) (Paris 2002).

BÖRNER 2007 L. BÖRNER, Ardarich und die Gepiden. In: Attila und die Hunnen (Stuttgart 2007), 303‒307.

BRATHER 2004 S. BRATHER, Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte, Grundlagen und Alternativen. Ergänzungsbände RGA 42 (Berlin ‒ New York 2004).

BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA 1963 V. BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA, Sídlisko z doby rímskej a zo začiatkov sťahovania národov v Prešove. Slovenská Arch. 11/1, 1963 5–58.

BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA/LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ 1990 V. BUDINSKÝ-KRIČKA/M. LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ, A Late 1-st Century B.C. – 2-nd Century A.D. Cemetery at Zemplín. Slovenská Arch. 28/2, 1990, 246– 344.

BULZAN 2011 S. BULZAN, Date preliminare privind habitatul în aşezarea din epoca romană de la Margine „Valea Tăniei” ‒ „La ţarină”, judeţul Bihor. Crisia 40, 2011, 47‒79.

BURSCHE 1999 AL. BURSCHE, Die Rolle römischer Goldmedaillone in der Spätantike. In: W. Seipel (Hrsg.), Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó (Wien 1999), 39‒51. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 65

BUTNARIU 1991 V. M. BUTNARIU, Monedele romane postaureliene în teritoriile carpato-dunăreano-pontice (anii 275‒491). III. Perioada 383‒491. Arh. Moldovei 14, 1991, 67‒107.

CAPELLE 1994 T. CAPELLE, Die Miniaturenkette von Szilágysomlyó (Şimleul Silvaniei). Universitätsforsch. zur prähist. Arch. 22 (Bonn 1994).

CARDOŞ 2012 R. CARDOŞ, Descoperiri monetare romane în Barbaricum-ul din zona de nord-vest a României (sec. II –IV p. Chr.). Marmatia. Ser. Arh.‒Istor. 10, 2012, 131‒164.

CARDOŞ 2014 R. CARDOŞ, Un medalion roman de aur din timpul împăratului Valentinianus I. Marmatia. Ser. Arh.‒Istor. 11, 2014, 51‒53.

CARDOŞ 2017 R. CARDOŞ, O fibulă de epocă romană descoperită la Bozânta Mică „Grind”. Marmatia. Ser. Arh.‒Istor. 14, 2017, 49‒56.

CHERKUN 1994 Y. CHERKUN, Pogriebieniia epohi vielikogo pieriesielieniia narodov vozlye s. Vielikaya Bakta. Slovenská Arch. 42/1, 1994, 91–104.

CHIRILĂ/SOCOLAN 1971 E. CHIRILĂ/A. SOCOLAN, Tezaure şi descoperiri monetare din colecţia Muzeului Judeţean Maramureş (Baia Mare 1971).

CHIRILĂ/DUMITRAŞCU/MĂLĂESCU 1971 E. CHIRILĂ/S. DUMITRAŞCU/D. MĂLĂESCU, Descoperiri monetare antice în Transilvania (VI). Apulum 9, 1971, 169–171.

CHRISTENSEN 2002 A. S. CHRISTENSEN, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth (Copenhagen 2002).

COCIŞ 1995 S. COCIŞ, Strongly Profiled Brooches with Trapezium Form Foot in the Roman Province of Dacia. Ephemeris Napocensis 5, 1995, 93–101.

COCIŞ 2004 S. COCIŞ, Fibulele din Dacia romană/The Brooches from Roman Dacia. Bibl. Ephemeris Napocensis 3 (Cluj-Napoca 2004).

CRIŞAN/LĂZĂRESCU 2010 C. CRIŞAN/VL.-A. LĂZĂRESCU, Forgotten Rituals Connected to Agriculture in the Early Migration Perioad ‒ Feature G27 from Ernei “Carieră” (Mureş County). Ephemeris Napocensis 20, 2010, 221‒256.

CSALLÁNY 1961 D. CSALLÁNY, Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden in Mitteldonaubecken (454–568 u.Z.). Arch. Hungarica, Ser. Nova XXXVIII (Budapest 1961). 66 Ioan Stanciu

CSEH 1990 J. CSEH, Adatok az V–VII századi gepida emlékanyag egységéhez. Függelék: Erdély V–VII. századi gepida lelőhelykatasztere. Szolnok Megyei Múz. Évk. 7, 1990, 29–77.

CSÉH/ISTVÁNOVITS/LOVÁSZ/MESTERHÁZY/NAGY/NEPPER/SIMONYI 2005 J. CSEH/E. ISTVÁNOVITS/E. LOVÁSZ/K. MESTERHÁZY/M. NAGY/I. NEPPER/E. SIMONYI, Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae, Monumenta Gepidica 2 (Budapest 2005).

CSÓK 2010 ZS. CSÓK, Medieval discoveries in the area of Meseş gate (10th‒13th centuries). In: H. Pop/I. Bejinariu/S. Băcueţ-Crişan/D. Băcueţ-Crişan (eds.), Identităţi culturale locale şi regionale în context european. Studii de arheologie şi antropologie istorică. In memoriam Alexandri V. Matei (Cluj-Napoca 2010), 641‒648.

CURTA 2001 FL. CURTA, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Fourt Series (Cambridge 2001).

CURTA 2007 FL. CURTA, Some remarks on ethnicity in medieval archaeology. Early Medieval Europe 15/2, 2007, 159‒185.

CURTA 2011 Fl. CURTA, Medieval Archaeology and Ethnicity: Where are We? History Compass 9/7, 2011, 537–548.

CZARNECKA 2003 K. CZARNECKA, Zum Totenritual der Bevölkerung der Przeworsk-Kultur. In: Die Vandalen 2003, 273‒294.

DAIM 1998 F. DAIM, Archaeology, ethnicity and the structures of identification: the example of the Avars, Carantanians and Moravians in the eighth century. In: W. Pohl/H. Reimitz (eds.), Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800 (Leiden 1998), 70–93.

DE BAYE 1892 J. DE BAYE, Le trésor de Szilagy-Somlyo (Paris 1892).

DIACONU 1965 GH. DIACONU, Târgşor. Necropola din secolele III‒IV e.n. Bibl. de Arh. VIII (Bucureşti 1965).

DICULESCU 1918 C. C. DICULESCU, Historisch-topographische Forschungen zur Geschichte der Gepiden in Dazien (Berlin 1918).

DICULESCU 1923a C. C. DICULESCU, Die Gepiden. Forschungen zur Geschichte Daziens im frühen Mittelalter und zur Vorgeschichte des Rumänischen Volkes, I. Band (Leipzig 1923). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 67

DICULESCU 1923b C. C. DICULESCU, Die Wandalen und die Goten in Ungarn und Rumänien. Mannus-Bibl. 34 (Leipzig 1923).

DOBOS 2011 A. DOBOS, The Reihengräberfelder in Transylvania after 100 years of archaeological research. Acta Arch. Carpathica 46, 2011, 171‒206.

DOBOS 2013 A. DOBOS, Gepizii din Transilvania în epoca avară timpurie din perspectiva arheologiei. Probleme legate de cercetarea cimitirelor cu morminte dispuse în şiruri paralele. Acta Mus. Porolissensis. Arh. ‒ Restaurare ‒ Conservare 35, 2013, 247‒270.

DOBOS 2014 A. DOBOS, Transylvania in the Gepidic Period. Results and Perspectives. Hungarian Archaeology. E-Journal, 2014 Summer, http://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?page_id=279#post–5051, http://files.archaeolingua.hu/2014NY/Upload/cikk_Dobos_EN.pdf

DOBOS 2018 A. DOBOS, Transformations of the human communities in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin between the middle of the 5th and 7th century. Row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania, Partium and Banat. Diss. Arch., Ser. 3. No. 6, 2018, 621‒639.

DOBRZAŃSKA 1990 H. DOBRZAŃSKA, Osada z późego okresu rzymskiego w Igołomi, woj. Krakowskie, vol. I‒II (Wrocław ‒ Warszawa ‒ Kraków ‒ Gdansk ‒ Łódź 1990).

DUMITRAŞCU 1975 S. DUMITRAŞCU, Tezaurul de la Tăuteni-Bihor (Oradea 1975).

DUMITRAŞCU 1993a S. DUMITRAŞCU, Dacia apuseană (teritoriul dacilor liberi din vestul şi nord-vestul României în vremea Daciei romane) (Oradea 1993).

DUMITRAŞCU 1993b S. DUMITRAŞCU, Trei decenii de cercetări arheologice privind mileniul I A.D. Analele Univ. Oradea (Istor.-Arh.-Fil.) 3, 1993, 5–11.

DUMITRAŞCU 1997 S. DUMITRAŞCU, Ceramics discovered in the west of Roman Dacia (centuries II‒IV A.D.)/ Vase ceramice din secolele II‒IV p. Ch. Descoperite la vest de provincia Dacia. In: Romani şi barbari 1997, 529‒536.

DUMITRAŞCU 2010 S. DUMITRAŞCU, Dacia vestică şi nord-vestică (secolele II–IV). In: D. Protase/Al. Suceveanu (eds.), Istoria românilor, vol. II. Daco-romani, romanici, alogeni (Bucureşti 2010), 471‒480.

DUMITRAŞCU/BADER 1967a S. DUMITRAŞCU/T. BADER, Aşezarea dacică de la Medieşul Aurit. Acta Mus. Napocensis 4, 1967, 107–126. 68 Ioan Stanciu

DUMITRAŞCU/BADER 1967b S. DUMITRAŞCU/T. BADER, Aşezarea dacilor liberi de la Medieşul Aurit (I) (Satu Mare 1967).

FAZIOLI 2014 K. P. FAZIOLI, Rethinking Ethnicity in Early Medieval Archaeology: Social Identity, Technological Choice, and Communities of Practice. In: D. Stull (ed.), From West to East: Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology (Newcastle upon Tyne 2014), 20–39.

FEHR 2008 H. FEHR, Germanische Einwanderung oder kulturelle Neuorientierung? Zu den Anfängen des Reihengräberhorizontes. In: S. Brather (Hrsg.), Zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Ergäzungsbände RGA 57 (Berlin ‒ New York 2008), 67‒102.

FEHR 2010 H. FEHR, Germanen und Romanen im Merowingerreich. Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie zwischen Wissenschaft und Zeitgeschehen. Ergänzungsbände RGA 68 (Berlin ‒ New York 2010).

FETTICH 1932 N. FETTICH, A szilágysomlyói második kincs/Der zweite Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Arch. Hungarica 8 (Budapest 1932).

FETTICH 1953 N. FETTICH, A Szeged-nagyszéksósi hun fejedelmi sírlelet/La trouvaille de tombe princière hunique à Szeged-Nagyszéksós. Arch. Hungarica 32 (Budapest 1953).

FILIP 2008 C.-C. FILIP, Ceramica ştampilată de la Porolissum. Porolissum. Un complex arheologic daco- roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman V (Cluj-Napoca 2008).

FURASIEV/SHABLAVINA 2019 A. FURASIEV/E. SHABLAVINA, Konceshti. Knjazheskoe pogrebenie jepohi velikogo pereselenija narodov/Concesti. A princely grave from the Great Migration Period (Sankt Petersburg 2019).

GAIU 1995 C. GAIU, Noi descoperiri şi consideraţii asupra cimitirului de la Fîntînele „Rît” (com. Matei, jud. Bistriţa-Năsăud). Rev. Bistriţei 9, 1995, 149–163.

GAIU 2003 C. GAIU, Habitat şi manifestări rituale în secolul IV p.Ch. la Archiud (jud. Bistriţa-Năsăud). In: C. Opreanu, Transilvania la sfârşitul antichităţii şi în perioada migraţiilor. Schiţă de istorie culturală (Cluj-Napoca 2003), 73–124.

GAIU 2018 C. GAIU, Elemente de factură nordică în așezarea romană de la Stupini. Rev. Bistriței 32, 2018, 65‒80.

GĂZDAC 2007 CR. GĂZDAC, Zwei weitere Goldmedaillone aus dem Schatz von Szilágysomlyó (Şimleu Silvaniei, Rumänien). Num. Zeitschr. 115, 2007, 15‒19. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 69

GILCHRIST 2009 R. GILCHRIST, Medieval archaeology and theory: a disciplinary leap of faith. In: R. Gilchrist/A. Reynolds (eds.), Reflections: 50 Years of Medieval Archaeology, 1957–2007. Society for Medieval Arch. Monographs 30 (Leeds 2009), 385–408.

GINDELE 2000‒2004 R. GINDELE, Probleme privind ceramica dacică şi germanică din aşezările din nord-vestul României. Satu Mare 17–21, 2004, 71–88.

GINDELE 2009 R. GINDELE, Aşezarea de epocă romană de la Berveni–Holmoş. Influenţe romane în Barbaricum-ul din vecinătatea nord-vestică a provinciei Dacia. In: O. Ţentea/I. C. Opriş (eds.), Near and beyond the Roman frontier. Proceedings of a colloquim held at Târgovişte in 16–17 October 2008. The Centre for Roman Military Studies 5 (Bucharest 2009), 187–203.

GINDELE 2010 R. GINDELE, Die Entwicklung der kaiserzeitlichen Siedlungen im Barbaricum im nordwest‑ lichen Gebiet Rumäniens (Satu Mare 2010).

GINDELE 2011 R. GINDELE, Auf der Töpferscheibe gefertigte römerzeitliche Keramik im oberen Theiß- Becken. In: J. Bemmann/M. Hegewisch/M. Meyer/M. Schmauder (Hrsg.), Drehscheibentöpferei im Barbaricum. Technologietransfer und Professionalisierung eines Handwerks am Rande des Römischen Imperiums. Akten der Internat. Tagung in Bonn vom 11. bis 14. Juni 2009 (Bonn 2011), 429‒444.

GINDELE 2013 R. GINDELE, Die Problematik der barbarischen Siedlungen im Nord-Westen Rumäniens zwischen der Gründung der Provinz Dakien und den Markomannenkriegen. Ephemeris Napocensis 23, 2013, 11–30.

GINDELE 2014 R. GINDELE, Die Siedlung in Moftinu Mic ‒ Merli tag. Probleme im Zusammenhang mit den Markomannenkriegen in den Siedlungen im Nordwesten Rumäniens. In: S. Cociş (Hrsg.), Archäologische Beiträge. Gedenkschrift zum hundertsten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt. Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 7 (Cluj-Napoca 2014), 139‒151.

GINDELE 2015 R. GINDELE, Die römerzeitlichen Barbarensiedlungen von Livada/Ciuperceni – Photovoltaik- Anlage GPSP Solaris und Supuru de Sus – Togul lui Cosmi. Neue Angaben bezüglich der rechteckigen Gruben mit gebrannten Wänden aus dem 2.–5. n. Chr. im oberen Theiss-Becken. Dacia 59, 2015, 83‒126.

GINDELE/NÉMETI 2001 R. GINDELE/J. NÉMETI, Probleme der Erforschung der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit im Nordwesten Rumäniens. In: E. Istvánovits/V. Kulcsár (eds.), International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th centuries A.D. Proceedings of the internata‑ tional conference held in 1999 in Aszód and Nyíregyháza (Aszód ‒ Nyíregyháza 2001), 285–298.

GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009a R. GINDELE/E. ISTVÁNOVITS, Die römerzeitliche Siedlung von Csengersima‒Petea (Satu Mare 2009). 70 Ioan Stanciu

GINDELE/ISTVÁNOVITS 2009b R. GINDELE/E. ISTVÁNOVITS, Die römerzeitlichen Töpferöfen von Csengersima‒Petea (Satu Mare 2009).

GODŁOWSKI 1970 K. GODŁOWSKI, The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods in Central Europe. Zeszyty Naukowe Univ. Jagiellońskiego CCXVII. Prace Archeologiczne 11 (Kraków 1970).

GODŁOWSKI 1984 K. GODŁOWSKI, „Superiores Barbari” und die Markomannenkriege im Lichte archäolo‑ gischer Quellen. Slovenská Arch. 32/2, 1984, 327‒350.

GODŁOWSKI 1992a K. GODŁOWSKI, Germanische Wanderungen im 3. Jh. v.Chr.‒ 6.Jh. n.Chr. und ihre Widerspiegelung in den historischen und archäologischen Quellen. In: E. Straume/E. Skar (eds.), Peregrinatio Gothica 3, 1992, 53‒75.

GODŁOWSKI 1992b K. GODŁOWSKI, Die Przeworsk-Kultur. In: G. Neumann/H. Seeman (Hrsg.), Beiträge zum Verständnis der Germania des Tacitus, Teil. II. Bericht über die Kolloquien der Kommisssion für die Altertumskunde Nord- und Mitteleuropas im Jahre 1986 und 1987 (Göttingen 1992), 9‒90.

GODŁOWSKI 1992c K. GODŁOWSKI, Die Chronologie der jüngeren und späten Kaiserzeit in den Gebieten südlich der Sudeten und Karpaten. In: Chronologie 1992, 23‒54.

GODŁOWSKI 1994a K. GODŁOWSKI, Die Barbaren nördlich der Westkarpaten und das Karpatenbecken – Einwanderungen, politische und militarische Kontakte. Specimina Nova Diss. Inst. Hist. (Pécs) 9, 1994, 65–87.

GODŁOWSKI 1994b K. GODŁOWSKI, Die Chronologie der germanischen Waffengräber in der jüngeren und späten Kaiserzeit. In: C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Hrsg.), Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a. d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994 (Lublin ‒ Marburg 1994), 169–178.

GOFFART 1988 W. GOFFART, Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550–800). Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (Princeton 1988).

GOFFART 2006 W. GOFFART, Barbarian Tides. The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire. The Middle Age Series (Philadelphia 2006).

GUDEA 1989 N. GUDEA, Porolissum. Un complex arheologic la marginea de nord a Imperiului. Cercetări şi descoperiri arheologice pînă în anul 1977, vol. 1 [Acta Mus. Porolissensis 13] (Cluj-Napoca 1989). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 71

GUDEA/GHIURCO 1988 N. GUDEA/I. GHIURCO, Din istoria creştinismului la români. Mărturii arheologice (Oradea 1988).

HAKENBECK 2011 S. HAKENBECK, Local, regional and ethnic identities in early medieval cemeteries in Bavaria. Contributi di archeologia medievale 5 (Firenze 2011).

HALSALL 2011 G. HALSALL, Ethnicity and early medieval cemeteries. Arqu. y Territorio Medieval 18, 2011, 15–27.

HAMPEL 1902 J. HAMPEL, A nemzeti múzeumi régiségtár gyarapodása 1902-ben. Arch. Ért. 22, 1902, 419–448.

HAMPEL 1905 J. HAMPEL, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn, vol. I‒III (Braunschweig 1905).

HARHOIU 1987 R. HARHOIU, Romanici şi migratori în Dacia transilvană în secolele IV–VII. Acad. Română. Mem. Secţiei de Ştiinţe Istorice, Ser. IV, T. XII, 1987, 137–149.

HARHOIU 1990 R. HARHOIU, Chronologische Fragen der Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. Dacia 34, 1990, 169‒208.

HARHOIU 1992 R. HARHOIU, Forschungsgeschichte und Forschungsstand der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. Dacia 36, 1992, 99–114.

HARHOIU 1993 R. HARHOIU, Die Medaillone aus dem Schatzfund von Şimleul Silvaniei. Dacia 37, 1993, 221‒236.

HARHOIU 1994‒1995 R. HARHOIU, Über die steinverzierten Fibeln mit halbkreisförmiger spiral- und rautenför‑ miger Fußplatte. Dacia 38‒39, 1994‒1995, 185‒216.

HARHOIU 1998 R. HARHOIU, Die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. Arch. Romanica I (Bukarest 1998).

HARHOIU 1999a R. HARHOIU, Frühvölkerwanderungszeitliche Gold- und Silbergefäße aus Rumänien. In: N. Boroffka/T. Soroceanu (Hrsg.), Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa (Rhaden/Westf. 1999), 273‒301.

HARHOIU 1999b R. HARHOIU, Das Ende der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur und die Phase der hunnischen Expansion. In: G. Gomolka-Fuchs (Hrsg.), Die Sîntana de Mureş-Černjachov- Kultur. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquium in Caputh vom 20. bis 24. Oktober 1995. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 2 (Bonn 1999), 59–68. 72 Ioan Stanciu

HARHOIU 1999c R. HARHOIU, Kennzeichen der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. In: L’Occident romain 1999, 35‒66.

HARHOIU 1999‒2001 R. HARHOIU, Quellenlage und Forschungsstand der Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens im 6.‒7. Jahrhundert. Dacia 43‒45, 1999‒2001, 97‒158.

HARHOIU 2013 R. HARHOIU, Der Schatzfund von Şimleul Silvaniei und die Schlacht von Nedao. Banatica 23, 2013, 111‒142.

HARHOIU/BALTAG 2006 R. HARHOIU/GH. BALTAG, Sighişoara-Dealul Viilor. Monografie arheologică, vol. I–II (Bistriţa ‒ Cluj-Napoca 2006).

HARHOIU/GÁLL/LAKATOS 2009 R. HARHOIU/E. GÁLL/A. LAKATOS, Gräberfelder von Oradea-Salca Gheţărie aus dem 5. und 10.‒11. Jahrhundert. Arch. Ért. 134, 2009, 217‒258.

HÄRKE 2007 H. HÄRKE, Ethnicity, ‘Race’ and Migration in Mortuary Archaeology: an Attempt at a Short Answer. In: S. Semple/H. Williams (eds.), Early Medieval Mortuary Practices. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 14 (Oxford 2007), 12–18.

HEGEWISCH 2006 M. HEGEWISCH, Die „Zeißholzer Kanne”, ein Fund der Černjachov-Sântana de Mureş- Kultur. Ethnogr.-Arch. Zeitschr. 47, 2006, 45–56.

HOREDT 1945‒1947 K. HOREDT, Zur Enddatierung der Bronzezeit in Siebenbürgen. Dacia 11–12, 1945‒1947, 7–16.

HOREDT 1958 K. HOREDT, Untersuchungen zur frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens (Bukarest 1958).

HOREDT 1971 K. HOREDT, Zur Geschichte der frühen Gepiden in Karpatenbecken. Apulum 9, 1971, 705–712.

HOREDT 1973 K. HOREDT, Archäologische Deutungen. 3. Zur Deutung der Siedlung und des Gräberfeldes von Medieşul Aurit, jud. Satu Mare. Apulum 11, 1973, 91‒98.

HOREDT 1974 K. HOREDT, Beziehungen zwischen Dakern und Germanen. In: A. Alfoldi (Hrsg.), Festgabe Kurt Tackenberg zum 75. Geburtstag von seinen Schulern dargebracht. Antiquitas R. 2. Abhandl. aus dem Gebiete der Vor- und Fruhgesch., Bd. 10. (Bonn 1974), 161‒173.

HOREDT 1977a K. HOREDT, Tezaurul de aur de la Moigrad. Pontica 10, 1977, 289–293. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 73

HOREDT 1977b K. HOREDT, Der Goldfund von Moigrad. Germania 55/1–2, 1977, 7–20.

HOREDT 1977c K. HOREDT, Der östliche Reihengräberkreis in Siebenbürgen. Dacia 21, 1977, 251–268.

HOREDT 1982 K. HOREDT, Siebenbürgen in spätrömischer Zeit (Bukarest 1982).

HULLÁM 2010 D. HULLÁM, A Przeworsk-kultúra hamvasztásos temetkezéseinek időrendi vizsgálata a Kárpát- medence északkeleti részén. In: Petkes Zs. (ed.), Hadak Útján XX. A Népvándorláskor Fiatal kutatóinak XX. Összejövetelének konferencia-kötete. Budapest-Szigethalom 2010. október 28–30 (Budapest 2010), 83–97.

HUSZÁR 1954 L. HUSZÁR, Das Münzmaterial in den Funden der Völkerwanderungszeit im mittleren Donaubecken. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 5/1–2, 1954, 61‒109.

IAMBOR 1982 P. IAMBOR, Drumuri şi vămi ale sării din Transilvania în perioada feudalismului timpuriu. Acta Mus. Napocensis 19, 1982, 75‒85.

IGNAT/BULZAN 1997 D. IGNAT/S. BULZAN, Roman Imperial period discoveries in the Middle Basin of Barcău river/Descoperiri de epoca romană în bazinul mijlociu al râului Barcău. In: Romani şi barbari 1997, 487–523.

IORDAN/GÂŞTESCU/OANCEA 1974 I. IORDAN/P. GÂŞTESCU/D. I. OANCEA, Indicatorul localităţilor din România (Bucureşti 1974).

ISTVÁNOVITS 1993 E. ISTVÁNOVITS, Das Gräberfeld aus dem 4.–5. Jahrhundert von Tiszadob–Sziget. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 45, 1993, 91–146.

ISTVÁNOVITS 2002 E. ISTVÁNOVITS, Römische Münzen im oberen Theißgebiet. In: K. Kuzmová/K. Pieta/J. Rajtár (Hrsg.), Zwischen Rom und dem Barbaricum. Festschrift für Titus Kolnik zum 70. Geburtstag (Nitra 2002), 275–285.

ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1992 E. ISTVÁNOVITS/V. KULCSÁR, Pajzsos temetkezések a Dunától Keletre eso Kárpát- medencei Barbaricumban. Nyiregyházi Jósa András Múz. Évk. 30‒32, 1987‒1989, 47‒96.

ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 1999 E. ISTVÁNOVITS/V. KULCSÁR, Sarmatian and Germanic people at the Upper Tisza Region and South Alföld at the Beginning of the Migration Period. In: L’Occident romain 1999, 67–94.

ISTVÁNOVITS/KULCSÁR 2014 E. ISTVÁNOVITS/V. KULCSÁR, Gondolatok az alföldi sáncok kutatásának jelenlegi helyzetéről. In: A. Anders/Balogh C./Türk A. (eds.), Avarok Pusztái. Régészeti tanulmányok 74 Ioan Stanciu

Lőrinczy Gábor 60. Születésnapjára/Avarum Solitudines. Archaeological studies presented to Gábor Lőrinczy on his sixtieth birthday (Budapest 2014), 73‒83.

IUGA 1979 G. M. IUGA, Raport preliminar privind cercetarea arheologică de la Mesteacăn, judeţul Maramureş. Mat. şi Cerc. Arh. 13, 1979, 311–314.

IUGA 1980 G. M. IUGA, Raport preliminar privind cercetarea arheologică de la Mesteacăn, jud. Maramureş. Mat. şi Cerc. Arh. 14, 1980, 236–239.

JAKUBCZYK 2014 I. JAKUBCZYK, Die eingliederigen Fibeln der Almgrens VI. Gruppe in der Przeworsk-Kultur – Fibeln des Typs A 158. Rech. Arch. N. S. 5‒6, 2013‒2014, 113‒218.

JONES 2003 S. JONES, THe Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and present, second edition (London – New York 2003).

JUREČKO 1983 P. JUREČKO, Príspevok k riešeniu problematiky osídlenia východného Slovenska v dobe rímskej. Hist. Carpatica 14, 1983, 277–384.

KACSÓ 2015 C. KACSÓ, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Maramureş, vol. I‒II, ediţie revăzută şi adăugită (Baia Mare 2015).

KACZANOWSKI 1995 P. KACZANOWSKI, Klasyfikacja grotów broni drzewcowej cultury przeworskiej z okresu rzymskiego. Klasyfikacje zabytków archeologicznych I (Kraków 1995).

KAZANSKI 1998 M. KAZANSKI, Le royaume de Vinitharius: Le récit de Jordanès et les données archéologiques. In: W. Pohl/H. Reimitz (eds.), Strategies of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800. The transformation of the Roman world, vol. 2 (Leiden ‒ Boston ‒ Köln 1998), 221–240.

KELLER 1971 E. KELLER, Die spätrömischen Grabfunde in Südbayern. Veröff. der Komm. zur Arch. Erforsch. des spätrömischen Raetien 8 (München 1971).

KISS 1986 A. KISS, Die Goldfunde des Karpatenbeckens vom 5–10 Jahrhundert (Angaben zu den Vergleichungsmöglichkeiten der schriftlichen und archäologischen Quellen). Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 38, 1986, 105–145.

KISS 1988 A. KISS, Der Zeitpunkt der Verbergung der Schatzfunde I und II von Szilágysomlyó. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 30, 1982‒1984, 401‒416.

KISS 1991 A. KISS, Die Schatzfunde I und II von Szilágysomlyó als Quellen der gepidischen Geschichte. Arch. Austriaca 75, 1991, 249‒260. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 75

KISS/BERHARD-WALCHER 1999 A. KISS/A. BERHARD-WALCHER, Szilágysomlyó. A gepida királyok aranykincsei (Budapest 1999).

KISS P. A. 2015 P. A. KISS, „…ut strenui viri…”. A Kárpát-medencei gepidák története (Szeged 2015).

KOBAL 1993–1994 I. V. KOBAL, Kultura Przeworska na Ukrainie Zakarpackiej. Wiadomości Arch. 53/2, 1993‒1994, 31–57.

KOCH 2001 U. KOCH, Das alamannisch-fränkische Gräberfeld bei Pleidelsheim. Forsch. u. Ber. Zur Vor- und Frühgesch. in Baden-Württemberg 60 ( Stuttgart 2001).

KOLENDO 2003 J. KOLENDO, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur ältesten Geschichte der Vandalen. In: Die Vandalen 2003, 49‒75.

KOLNÍK 1965 T. KOLNÍK, K typológii a chronológii niektorých spôn z mladšej doby rímskej na juhozá‑ padnom Slovensku. Slovenská Arch. 13/1, 1965, 183‒236.

KONTNY 2008 B. KONTNY, The war as seen by an archaeologist. Reconstruction of barbarian weapons and fighting techniques in the Roman Period based on the analysis of graves containing weapons. The case of the Przeworsk Culture. In: L. Kocsis (ed.), The Enemies of Rome. Proceedings of the 15th International Roman Military Equipment Conference. Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 16 (Budapest 2008), 107‒145.

KORDECKI/OKOŃSKI 1999 J. KORDECKI/J. OKOŃSKI, Mikroregion osadniczy naprawobrzeżu dolnego Raby. In: S. Czopek/A. Kokowski (eds.), Na granicach antycznego świata. Sytuacja kulturowa w południowo- wschodniej Polsce i regionach sąsiednich w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i okresie rzymskim. Materiały z konferencji ‒ Rzeszów, 20‒21 XI 1997 (Rzeszów 1999), 181‒215.

KÖRÖSFŐI 2008 ZS. KÖRÖSFŐI, A Marosszentana-Černjachov-Kultúra három temetkezése a Rugonfalva- református papilalak lelőhelyen. Acta Siculica, 2008, 189–207.

KOTIGOROSHKO 1987 V. G. KOTIGOROSHKO, Zhertvennik III‒IV vv. n. e. u sela Soloncy. Sovetskaja Arch., 1987/2, 176‒191.

KOTIGOROSHKO 1991 V. G. KOTIGOROSHKO, Antichităţile dacice din zona Tisei superioare. Thraco-Dacica 12/1–2, 1991, 115–132.

KOTIGOROSHKO 1993 V. G. KOTIGOROSHKO, Goncharnoe proizvodstvo v verhnem Potis’e III v. do n.je. ‒ IV v. n.je. Východoslovenský pravek 4, 1993, 143‒156. 76 Ioan Stanciu

KOTIGOROSHKO 1995 V. G. KOTIGOROSHKO, Ţinuturile Tisei Superioare în veacurile III î.e.n. – IV e.n. (perioadele Latène şi romană). Bibl. Thracologica 11 (Bucharest 1995).

KOTIGOROSHKO 1997 V. G. KOTIGOROSHKO, Tumulii din perioada romană târzie de lângă satul Lazuri (jud. Satu Mare). Cercetări arheologice în aria nord-tracă 2, 1997, 398‒407.

KOTIGOROSHKO 1998 V. G. KOTIGOROSHKO, Kurgan pozdnerimskogo vremeni vozle s. Lazur’ Satu– Marskogo nezda Rumynii. Karpatika 5, 1998, 129‒140.

KOTIGOROSHKO 2015 V. G. KOTIGOROSHKO, Centrul sacral al Tisei Superioare în epoca La Tène-ului târziu (Satu Mare 2015).

KREKOVIČ 1992 E. KREKOVIČ, Zur Datierung der Fürstengräber der römischen Kaiserzeit in der Slowakei. In: Chronologie 1992, 55‒68.

KRISTÓ 2004 G. KRISTÓ, Ardealul timpuriu (895–1324). Bibl. de Istorie Medievală din Szeged 20 (Szeged 2004).

KÜHN 1935 H. KÜHN, Die Zikadenfibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit. Jahrb. Prähis. und ethnogr. Kunst 35, 1935, 85–106.

KYSELA 2002 E. KYSELA, Zikaden als Schmuck- und Trachtbestandteil in römischer Kaiserzeit und Völkerwanderungszeit. Denisia 04. Kataloge des OÖ. Landesmuseums N. F. 176, 2002, 21–28.

LAKATOS P. 1973 P. LAKATOS, Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der Gepiden. Acta Univ. de Attila József Nominatae. Acta Ant. et Arch. XVII. Opuscula Byzantina II (Szeged 1973).

LAKATOS A. 2001 A. LAKATOS, Medalionul de epocă romană târzie de la Vâlcele (jud. Bihor). Crisia 31, 2001, 41‒51.

LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ 1969 M. LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ, Römerzeitliche Siedlungskeramik in der Südostslowakei. Slovenská Arch. 17/2, 1969, 403–501.

LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ 1986 M. LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ, Beitrag zur Problematik der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit im oberen Theißgebiet auf Grundlage der Grabungsergebnisse in Zemplín. In: B. Chropovský (ed.), Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten (Nitra 1986), 245–250.

LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ 2000 M. LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ, Zriedkavé výzdobne motívy na neskororímskej keramike na východnom Slovensku. Sborník Prací Fil. Fak. Brno M5‒49, 2000, 15‒23. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 77

LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ/TOMÁŠOVÁ 1999 M. LAMIOVÁ-SCHMIEDLOVÁ/B. TOMÁŠOVÁ, Nálezový horizont z prelomu doby rímskej a doby sťahovania národov na viacurstvovom sídlisku v Ostrovanoch. Slovenská Arch. 47/2, 1999, 75–132.

LAZIN 1980 GH. LAZIN, Cuptoare dacice de ars ceramică din sec. III‒IV e.n. descoperite la Satu Mare. Satu Mare 4, 1980, 133‒142.

LAZIN 1992 GH. LAZIN, Un mormânt din secolul III e.n. descoperit la Cehăluţ (jud. Satu Mare). Acta Mus. Porolissensis 16, 1992, 339‒346.

LAZIN 1995 GH. LAZIN, O categorie aparte a ceramicii din sec. III-IV d.H. descoperită în nord-vestul României. Rev. Bistriţei 9, 1995, 145‒148.

LAZIN 2011 GH. LAZIN, Grupul de cuptoare pentru ceramica aparţinând dacilor liberi descoperit în locali‑ tatea Lazuri (jud. Satu Mare). Satu Mare. Ser. Arh. 27/1, 2011, 177‒180.

LAZIN/GINDELE 2010 GH. LAZIN/R. GINDELE, Contribuţii la probleme legate de evoluţia ceramicii în epoca romană târzie şi în prima epocă a migraţiilor în bazinul Tisei superioare. Atelierele ceramice de la Lazuri (Lázári)-Râtul lui Béla. In: A. Măgureanu/E. Gáll (eds.), Între Stepă şi Imperiu. Studii în onoarea lui Radu Harhoiu (Bucureşti 2010), 1‒40,

LĂZĂRESCU 2015 VL.-A. LĂZĂRESCU, Locuirea în Transilvania din ultimele decenii ale provinciei Dacia şi până la prăbuşirea „imperiului” hunic (250‒450) (Cluj-Napoca 2015).

LĂZĂRESCU/CIUPERCĂ/ANTON 2015 Vl.-A. LĂZĂRESCU/B. CIUPERCĂ/A. ANTON, The Post-Černjachovian horizon in Wallachia revisited. A case study for the newly discovered site at Ciorani, Prahova County. In: S. Cociş/Vl.-A. Lăzărescu/M. Gui/D.-A. Deac (eds.), Ad Finem Imperii Romani. Studies in Honour of Coriolan H. Opreanu. Bibl. Ephemeris Napocensis 8 (Cluj-Napoca 2015), 211‒237.

LEHOCZKY 1876 T. LEHOCZKY, A magyar orvosok és természetvizsgálok XIX. nagygyülése alkalmából. Arch. Ért. 10, 1876, 294‒295.

LUCĂCEL 1968 V. LUCĂCEL, Catalogul colecţiei de monete antice. Muzeul Zalău (Zalău 1968).

ŁUCZKIEWICZ 2001 P. ŁUCZKIEWICZ, Zum Problem der frühesten germanischen Waffenfunde südlich der Karpaten. In: E. Istvánovits/V. Kulcsár (eds.), International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th centuries A.D. Proceedings of the international conference held in 1999 in Aszód and Nyíregyháza (Aszód ‒ Nyíregyháza 2001), 25–44.

MACREA/RUSU 1960 M. MACREA/M. RUSU, Der dakische Friedhof von Porolissum und das Problem der dakischen Bestattungsbräuche in der Spätlatènzeit. Dacia 4, 1960, 201–229. 78 Ioan Stanciu

MĄCZYŃSKA 2003 M. MĄCZIŃSKA, Das Ende der Przeworsk-Kultur. In: Die Vandalen 2003, 185‒201.

MADYDA-LEGUTKO/TUNIA 1993 R. MADYDA-LEGUTKO/KR. TUNIA, Rytro. Karpacka osada z okresu wędrówek ludów. Prace arch. 57. Zeszyty naukowe Uniw. Jagiellońskiego 1118 (Kraków 1993).

MAKSAI 1940 F. MAKSAI, A középkori Szatmár megye (Budapest 1940).

MARINESCU/GAIU 1989 G. MARINESCU/C. GAIU, Die Nekropole bei Fântânele „Rât”, Gem. Matei, Jud. Bistriţa- Năsăud aus dem 4. Jahrhundert u. Z. Dacia 33, 1989, 125‒143.

MASEK 2018 ZS. MASEK, Settlement History of the Middle Tisza Region in the 4th–6th centuries AD. According to the Evaluation of the Material from Rákóczifalva-Bagi-földek 5–8–8A sites. Diss. Arch. Ser. 3 No. 6, 2018, 597‒619.

MATEI 1986 AL. V. MATEI, Raport de activitate al Muzeului Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă in Zalău pe anul 1985. Acta Mus. Porolissensis 10, 1986, 801‒807.

MATEI 1997 Al. V. MATEI, Die Töpferöfen für graue, stempelverzierte Keramik aus Zalău/Cuptoarele pentru ars ceramică cenuşie ştampilată descoperite la Zalău. In: Romani şi barbari 1997, 367‒455.

MATEI/STANCIU 2000 AL. V. MATEI/I. STANCIU, Vestigii din epoca romană (sec. II‒IV p.Chr.) în spaţiul nord- vestic al României/Funde der römischen Kaiserzeit (2. – 4. Jh. n. Chr.) im Nordwestgebiet Rumäniens. Bibl. Mus. Porolissensis 2 (Zalău ‒ Cluj-Napoca 2000).

MATEI/POP/ANDRAŞ/BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN 2004 Al. V. MATEI/H. POP/M. ANDRAŞ/D. BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN, Zalău, jud. Sălaj. Punct: Dealul Lupului (Farkas domb). In: Cronica Cerc. Arh. din România. Campania 2003 (Bucureşti 2004), 375‒378 nr. 214.

MĂLUŢAN 1984 C. MĂLUŢAN, Drumurile sării în nord-vestul Transilvaniei medievale. Acta Mus. Porolissensis 8, 1984, 249‒255.

MENGHIN 1983 W. MENGHIN, Das Schwert im Frühen Mittelalter. Chronologisch-typologische Untersuchungen zu Langschwertern aus germanischen Gräbern des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Wiss. Beibände zum Anz. des Germ. Nationalmuz. 1 (Stuttgart 1983).

MERRILLS/MILES 2010 A. MERRILLS/R. MILES, The Vandals (Chichester 2010).

MESTERHÁZY 1989 K. MESTERHÁZY, Ethnische- und Handelsbeziehungen zwischen der Weichselmündung und der ungarischen Tiefebene in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Peregrinatio Gothica II/Arch. Baltica 8, 1989, 185‒202. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 79

MESTERHÁZY 2009 K. MESTERHÁZY, Eine Gräbergruppe mit nordsüdlicher Grablegung im gepidischen Gräberfeld von Biharkeresztes‒Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 60, 2009, 73‒95.

MIHĂILESCU-BÎRLIBA 1999 V. MIHĂILESCU-BÎRLIBA, Die karpatische Hügelgräberkultur in Rumänien. In: S. Czopek/A. Kokowski (eds.), Na granicach antycznego świata. Sytuacja kulturowa w południowo-wschodniej Polsce i regionach sąsiednich w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i okresie rzymskim. Materialy z konferencji – Rzeszów, 20–21 XI 1997 (Rzeszów 1999), 313‒332.

MUREŞAN 2011 L.-M. MUREŞAN, Relaţiile daco-vandale în nordul provinciei Dacia în secolul II p. Chr. In: L. M. Voicu/B. Ciupercă (eds.), Arheologia mileniului I p.Chr. II. Interferenţe culturale la Dunărea de Jos (Bucureşti 2011), 51‒62.

NAGY 1993 M. NAGY, Óbuda a népvándorlás korában. Budapest Régiségei 30, 1993, 353–395.

NEMETH/RUSTOIU/POP 2005 E. NEMETH/A. RUSTOIU/H. POP, Limes Dacicus Occidentalis. Die Befestigungen im Westen Dakiens vor und nach der römischen Eroberung. Ethnische un kulturelle Interferenzen im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ‒ 1. Jahrtausend n. Chr., Bd. 8 (Cluj-Napoca 2005).

NEMETI 1999 S. NEMETI, Les pieces cigaliformes en bronze de Transylvanie. Acta Mus. Napocensis 36/I, 1999, 197–202.

NEMETI 2012 S. NEMETI, Iordanes şi gepizii. Între goticism, pangermanism şi Walter Goffart. Rev. Bistriţei 26, 2012, 105‒112.

NÉMETI 1967 J. NÉMETI, Descoperiri funerare din sec. V e.n. lângă Carei. Acta Mus. Napocensis 4, 1967, 499–507.

NÉMETI 1969 J. NÉMETI, Un mormânt din secolul V descoperit în satul Ghenci, comuna Căuaş. Satu Mare 1, 1967, 120–123.

NÉMETI 1983 J. NÉMETI, Noi descoperiri din epoca migraţiilor din zona Carei (jud. Satu Mare). Stud. şi Cerc. Istor. Veche 34/2, 1983, 134–150.

NÉMETI/GINDELE 1997 J. NÉMETI/R. GINDELE, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Careigegend im 2.–4. Jahrundert n.Chr./Contribuţii la istoricul zonei Careiului în secolele II‒IV p. Ch. In: Romani şi barbari 1997, 599–703.

NÉMETI/GINDELE 1998‒1999 J. NÉMETI/R. GINDELE, Aşezarea din epoca romană de la Pişcolt–Lutărie. Satu Mare 15–16, 1998‒1999, 75–102. 80 Ioan Stanciu

NESTOR 1932 I. NESTOR, Der Stand der Vorgeschichtsforschung in Rumänien. Ber. RGK 22, 1932, 11–181.

NIKITINA 1969 G. F. NIKITINA, Grebni chernjahovskoj kul’tury. Sovetskaja Arch. 1, 1969, 147‒159.

OLĘDZKI 1999 M. OLĘDZKI, The Upper Tisza Basin in the Roman period. Remarks on settlement and cultural changes. In: J. Tejral (Hrsg.), Das mitteleuropäische Barbaricum und die Krise des römischen Weltreiches im 3. Jahrhundert. Mat. des IX. Internat. Symposiums „Grundprobleme der Fruhgeschich. Entwicklung im Nordlichen Mitteldonaugebiet”, Kravsko 3. – 4. December 1996, Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 12 (Brno 1999), 105–136.

OLĘDZKI 2000 M. OLĘDZKI, La Tène culture in the Upper Tisza Basin. Ethnogr.-Arch. Zeitschr. 41/4, 2000, 507–530.

OLĘDZKI 2001 M. OLĘDZKI, The Przeworsk culture in the Upper Tisza Basin. An outline of problems. Ethnogr.-Arch. Zeitschr. 42, 2001, 195‒210.

OLĘDZKI 2014 M. OLĘDZKI, The Przeworsk culture and the problem of dating of the beginnings of the Blažice-Bereg culture. In: B. Komoróczy (ed.), Sociální diferenciace barbarských komunit ve světle nových hrobových, sídlištních a sběrových nálezů (Archeologie barbarů 2011). Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR 44 (Brno 2014), 317‒333.

OPREANU 1992 C. H. OPREANU, Date preliminare privind prelucrarea osului în secolul al IV-lea e.n. în aşezarea de la Suceag (jud. Cluj). Ephemeris Napocensis 2, 1992, 159‒168.

OPREANU 1993 C. H. OPREANU, Elemente ale culturii materiale dacice şi daco-romane târzii (sec. III–IV p.Ch.). Ephemeris Napocensis 3, 1993, 235–260.

OPREANU 1998 C. H. OPREANU, Dacia romană şi barbaricum. Mus. Banaticum Temesiense. Bibl. Histor. et Arch. Banatica 17 (Timişoara 1998).

OPREANU 2004 C. H. OPREANU, Contribuţii la cronologia epocii romane imperiale târzii în România. In: M. Crânguş/S. Regep-Vlascici/A. Ştefănescu (eds.), Studia Historica et Archaeologica in Honorem magistrae Doina Benea (Timişoara 2004), 283‒298.

OPREANU 2004‒2005 C. H. OPREANU, Influenţe culturale nordice de factură germanică în Transilvania la începutul epocii migraţiilor. Ephemeris Napocensis 14‒15, 2004‒2005, 167‒176.

OPREANU 2009 C. H. OPREANU, The chronology and cultural identity of the interaction zones over the frontiers of Roman Dacia. In: O. Ţentea/I. C. Opriş (eds.), Near and beyond the Roman frontier. Proceedings of a colloquim held at Târgovişte in 16–17 October 2008 (Bucharest 2009), 129–150. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 81

OPREANU 2013 C. H. OPREANU, Burnished Pottery from the Settlement at Suceag (County of Cluj, Romania). Evolution, Chronology and Cultural Interferences. Ephemeris Napocensis 23, 2013, 51‒78.

OPREANU/ALICU 2006 C. H. OPREANU/D. ALICU, Raporturi culturale între regatul dacic şi lumea germanică nordică în secolul I p. Ch. In: C. Gaiu/Cr. Găzdac (eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase (Bistriţa ‒ Cluj-Napoca 2006), 491–497.

OPREANU/LĂZĂRESCU ET AL. 2015 C. H. OPREANU/VL.-A. LĂZĂRESCU/R. ARDEVAN/CR. GĂZDAC/M. GUI/C. IONESCU/H. POP/E. PRIPON/V. SIMON, A Roman Frontier Marketplace at Porolissum in the Light of Numismatic Evidence. Contribution to the Knowledge of the Roman Limes Economy. Corpus Limitis Imperii Romani. Dacia Porolissensis (I): Porolissum. Porolissum Monographs 1 (Cluj-Napoca ‒ Zalău 2015).

OTTOMÁNYI 1982 K. OTTOMÁNYI, Fragen der spätrömischen eingeglätteten Keramik in Pannonien. Diss. Arch. Ser. II, No. 10 (Budapest 1982).

PALADE 2004 V. PALADE, Aşezarea şi necropola de la Bârlad-Valea Seacă (sfârşitul sec. al III-lea – a doua jumătate a sec. al V-lea) (Bucureşti 2004).

PARDUCZ 1974 M. PARDUCZ, Tscherniachow-Sîntana de Mureş– und frühgepidische Kulturen in Ungarn (Beiträge zur Abhandlung von I. Bóna über den Stand der völkerwanderungszeitlichen Forschung in Ungarn). Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 26/1–2, 1974, 187–201.

PĂUNESCU 1994 A. PĂUNESCU, Schatzfund aus Täuteni. In: W. Meier-Arendt/L. Marinescu (eds.), Goldhelm, Schwert und Silberschätze. Reichtümer aus 6000 Jahren rumänischer Vergangenheit (Frankfurt am Mein 1994), 224 Kat. Nr. 93.

PETRAUSKAS 2003 O. V. PETRAUSKAS, Die Gräberfelder der Černjachov‒Kultur von Kosanovo und Gavrilovka ‒ eine vergleichende Studie zu Chronologie, Bestattungssitten und etnokulturellen Besonderheiten. Ber. RGK 84, 2003, 223‒351.

PETRAUSKAS 2011 O. V. PETRAUSKAS, Scheibengedrehte Keramik als chronologischer Anzeiger nach den Materialien des Gräberfeldes der Černjachov-Kultur bei Velikaja Bugaevka, Kievskaja obl., Ukraine. In: J. Bemmann/M. Hegewisch/M. Meyer/M. Schmauder (Hrsg.), Drehscheibentöpferei im Barbaricum. Technologietransfer und Professionalisierung eines Handwerks am Rande des Römischen Imperiums. Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 11. bis 14. Juni 2009 (Bonn 2011), 399‒416.

PINTYE 2009 G. PINTYE, A kárpát-medencei szarmata települések csontfésüi. Arch. Ért. 134, 2009, 165‒195.

POHL 1991 W. POHL, Conceptions of Ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies. Arch. Polona 29, 1991, 15–24. 82 Ioan Stanciu

POHL 1998 W. POHL, Telling the difference: Signs of ethnic identity. In: W. Pohl/H. Reimitz (eds.), Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800 (Leiden 1998), 17–69.

POP 2006 H. POP, Fortificațiile dacice din vestul și nord-vestul României (Cluj-Napoca 2006).

POP 2009 H. POP, Aşezări dacice din vestul şi nord-vestul României (sec. II î. Chr. – I d. Chr.) – cu specială privire la Depresiunea Şimleului (Cluj-Napoca 2009).

POP/PRIPON/CSÓK 2004 H. POP/E. PRIPON/Z. CSÓK, Dacians at the North Western Frontier of Dacia 2nd Century A.D. In: L. Ruscu/C. Ciongradi/R. Ardevan/Cr. Roman/Cr. Găzdac (eds.), Orbis Antiquus. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (Cluj-Napoca 2004), 687–703.

POP ET AL. 2006 H. POP/I. BEJINARIU/S. BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN/D. BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞAN/D. SANA/ZS. CSÓK, Şimleu Silvaniei. Monografie arheologică. (I) Istoricul cercetărilor (Cluj-Napoca 2006).

POP ET AL. 2009 H. POP/E. PRIPON/M. ARDELEANU/I. MARCHIŞ, Pericei, com. Pericei, jud. Sălaj. Punct: Str. Gouţ, nr. 767. In: Cronica Cerc. Arh. din România. Campania 2008 (Bucureşti 2009), 169–171 nr. 64.

POP I. A. 2011 I. A. POP, Rădăcinile medievale ale regiunii (provinciei) istorice Transilvania (secolele IX–XIII). In: I. M. Balog/R. Gräf/I. Lumperdean (eds.), Economia regională: ipostaze rurale şi urbane (Cluj-Napoca 2011), 141–166.

POPA/HARHOIU 1989 R. POPA/R. HARHOIU, Mărturii arheologice din Maramureş aparţinând mileniului I e.n. Stud. şi Cerc. Istor. Veche 40/3, 1989, 249–272.

POSEA 1997 GR. POSEA, Câmpia de Vest a României (Câmpia Banato-Crişană) (Bucureşti 1997).

PREDA 1975 C. PREDA, Circulaţia monedelor romane postaureliene în Dacia. Stud. şi Cerc. Istor. Veche 26/4, 1975, 441–485.

PROHÁSZKA 2005‒2006 P. PROHÁSZKA, Régi-új 5. századi római aranypénzek a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Adattárából. Num. Közl. 104–105, 2005‒2006, 15–30.

PROHÁSZKA 2006‒2007 P. PROHÁSZKA, Beiträge zum spätrömischen und byzantinischen Goldmünzverkehr zwischen dem 4. und 8. Jahrhundert in Siebenbürgen. Cerc. Num. 12–13, 2006‒2007, 89–95.

PROTASE 1966 D. PROTASE, Problema continuităţii în Dacia în lumina arheologiei si numismaticii. Bibl. de Arh. IX (Bucureşti 1966). The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 83

PULSZKY 1889 F. PULSZKY, A szilágysomlyói kincs. Arch. Ért. 9, 1889, 233‒238.

PULSZKY 1890 F. PULSZKI, Die Goldfunde von Szilágyszomlyó. Denkm. der Völkerwanderung (Budapest 1890).

PUSZTAI 1966 R. PUSZTAI, A Lébényi germán fejedelmi sír. Arrabona 8, 1966, 99‒118.

QUAST 1993 D. QUAST, Die merowingerzeitlichen Grabfunde aus Gültlingen (Stadt Wildberg, Kreis Calw). Forsch. u. Ber. zur Vor- und Frühgesch. in Baden-Württemberg 52 (Stuttgart 1993).

QUAST 1996 D. QUAST, Ein byzantinischer Gürtelbeschlag der Zeit um 500 aus Weingarten (Lkr. Ravensburg) Grab 189. Fundber. aus Baden-Württemberg 21, 1996, 527–539.

QUAST 2011 D. QUAST, Der Schatz der Königin? Völkerwanderungszeitliche Schatzfunde und weibliche Eliten. In: D. Quast (Hrsg.), Weibliche Eliten in der Frühgeschichte/Female Elites in Protohistoric Europe. Intern. Tagung vom 13. bis zum 14. Juni 2008 im RGZM im Rahmen des Forschungsschwerpunktes »Eliten« (Mainz 2011), 121‒141.

RÁCZ 2016 Z. RÁCZ, Zwischen Hunnen- und Gepidenzeit. Frauengräber aus dem 5. Jahrhundert im Karpatenbecken. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 67, 2016, 301–360.

ROMAN/URSU/LĂZĂRESCU/OPREANU 2016 A. ROMAN/T. M. URSU/VL.-A. LĂZĂRESCU/C. H. OPREANU, Multi-sensor surveys for the interdisciplinary landscape analysis and archaeological feature detection at Porolissum. In: C. H. Opreanu/Vl.-A. Lăzărescu (eds.), Landscape archaeology on the northern frontier of the Roman Empire at Porolissum. An interdisciplinary research project (Cluj-Napoca 2016), 237‒261.

ROSKA 1928‒1932 M. ROSKA, Mormânt german de la Valea lui Mihai. Anu. Inst. Stud. Clas. 3/1, 1928‒1932, 69–72.

ROSKA 1930 M. ROSKA, Az érmihályfalvi germán sír. Arch. Ért. 44, 1930, 229–232.

ROSKA 1942 M. ROSKA, Erdély régészeti repertóriuma I. Őskor (Kolozsvár 1942).

ROŞU 1965 T. L. ROŞU, Hunnenzeitliche Funde aus Oradea. Dacia 9, 1965, 403‒405.

SĂLĂGEAN 2006 T. SĂLĂGEAN, Ţara lui Gelou. Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei de Nord în secolele IX–XI (Cluj-Napoca 2006). 84 Ioan Stanciu

SĂŞIANU 1980 AL. SĂŞIANU, Moneda antică în vestul şi nord-vestul României (Oradea 1980).

SCHMAUDER 2002A M. SCHMAUDER, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Zum Verhältnis zwischen dem spätantiken Reich und der barbarischen Oberschicht aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen, Bd. I‒II. Arch. Romanica III (Bukarest 2002).

SCHMAUDER 2002B M. SCHMAUDER, Zwei spätantike Silbergefäße aus Täuteni Bihor. Boreas 25, 2002, 209‒232.

SCHÖNHERR 1904 GY. SCHÖNHERR, Útmutató a nagybányai Városi Múzeum gyűjteményeihez (Budapest 1904).

SCHUKIN/CHAROV 1999 M. SCHUKIN/O. CHAROV, A propos de la date de la fin de la civilisation de Tcherniakhov. In: L’Occident romain 1999, 327–340.

SCHULTZ 1960 W. SCHULTZ, Ein Fibeltypus der wandalischen Hasdingen mit Bemerkungen über die Prunkfibeln benachbarter Fürstenhöfe der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit. Jahresschr. Mitteldt. Vorgesch. 44, 1960, 298‒315.

SCHULTZE/STROCEN’ 2008 E. SCHULTZE/B. STROCEN’, Ovalfacettierte Keramik ‒ eine Untersuchung zur Chronologie der Černjachov-Kultur. In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska/M. Juściński/P. Łuczkiewicz/S. Sadowski (eds.), The turbulent epoch. New materials from the late Roman Period and the Migration Period (Lublin 2008), 315‒326.

SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 1986 M. SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM, Romanisch oder germanisch? Untersuchungen zu den Armbrust- und Bügelknopffibeln des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus den Gebieten westlich des Rheins und südlich der Donau. Jahrb. RGZM 33/2, 1986, 593–720.

SEIPEL 1999 W. SEIPEL (Hrsg.), Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien vom 2. März bis 2. Mai 1999 und des Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Budapest (Wien 1999).

SIEGMUND 2018 F. SIEGMUND, Das Bestattungswesen im frühen Mittelalter. In: H. Brink-Kloke/D. P. Mielke (Hrsg.), Vom Umgang mit dem Tod. Archäologie und Geschichte der Sepulkralkultur zwischen Lippe und Ruhr. Beitr. zur Tagung im LWL-Museum für Arch., Herne am 7. Nov. 2014 (Büchenbach 2018), 52‒65.

SOÓS 2016 E. SOÓS, Settlement history of the Hernád Valley in the 1st to 4/5th centuries AD. Diss. Arch. Ser. 3 No. 4, 2016, 449‒466.

STANCIU 1985‒1986 I. STANCIU, Ceramică din secolele III–IV descoperită la Ciumeşti, jud. Satu Mare. Acta Mus. Napocensis 22–23, 1985‒1986, 553–568. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 85

STANCIU 1995 I. STANCIU, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea epocii romane în bazinul mijlociu şi inferior al râului Someş. Ephemeris Napocensis 5, 1995, 139–226.

STANCIU 2007 I. STANCIU, O nouă aşezare în care se producea ceramică în Barbaricum-ul din nord-vestul României (epoca romană imperial târzie). In: S. Nemeti/F. Fodorean et al. (eds.), Dacia Felix. Studia Michaeli Bărbulescu oblata (Cluj-Napoca 2007), 314– 329.

STANCIU 2008 I. STANCIU, Etapa finală a epocii romane imperial târzii şi începutul epocii migraţiilor în Barbaricum-ul din nord-vestul României. Ephemeris Napocensis 18, 2008, 147‒169.

STANCIU 2011 I. STANCIU, Locuirea teritoriului nord-vestic al României între antichitatea târzie şi perioada de început a epocii medievale timpurii (mijlocul sec. V – sec. VII timpuriu). Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 4 (Cluj-Napoca 2011).

STANCIU 2013 I. STANCIU, The Problem of the Earliest Slavs in Intra-Carpathian Romania Transylvania and the North-West Vicinity). Slovenská Arch. 61/2, 2013, 323–370.

STANCIU 2015 I. STANCIU, Schimbări demografice şi cultural pe durata secolelor I‒II p.Chr. în spaţiul nord-vestic al României. In: S. Cociş/Vl.-A. Lăzărescu/M. Gui/D.-A. Deac (eds.), Ad finem Imperii Romani. Studies in honour of Coriolan H. Opreanu. Bibl. Ephemeris Napocensis 8 (Cluj-Napoca 2015), 347‒372.

STANCIU 2016 I. STANCIU, Aşezarea de la Lazuri‒Lubi tag (jud. Satu Mare). Aspecte ale locuirii medievale timpurii în nord-vestul României. Bibl. Ephemeris Napocensis 9 (Cluj-Napoca 2016).

STANCIU/IERCOŞAN 2003 I. STANCIU/N. IERCOŞAN, Primele morminte din cimitirul gepid de la Carei‒Kozárd (jud. Satu Mare). In: L. Cornea/C. Ghemiş/G. Moisa (eds.), In memoriam Nicolae Chidioşan (Oradea 2003), 139–160.

STANCIU/MATEI 2004 I. STANCIU/Al. V. MATEI, Sondajul arheologic de la Bocşa ‒ «La pietriş» (com. Bocşa, jud. Sălaj). Contribuţii la determinarea etapei de început a epocii romane imperial târzii în nord- vestul României. In: L. Ruscu/C. Csongradi/R. Ardevan/Cr. Roman/Cr. Găzdac (eds.), Orbis antiqvvs. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (Cluj-Napoca 2004), 755‒778.

STANCIU/MATEI 2006 I. STANCIU/Al. V. MATEI, Un cimitir din perioada de început a epocii romane imperiale târzii în nord-vestul României (Badon-„Doaşte”, com. Hereclean, jud. Sălaj). In: C. Gaiu/Cr. Găzdac (eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase (Bistriţa ‒ Cluj-Napoca 2006), 587–607.

STEUER 1987 H. STEUER, Helm und Ringschwert Prunkbewaffnung und Rangabzeichen germanischer Krieger. Eine Übersicht. Stud. Sachsenforsch. 6, 1987, 190–236. 86 Ioan Stanciu

SZAMEIT 1997 E. SZAMEIT, Ein Völkerwanderungszeitliches Werkzeugdepot mit Kleinfunden aus Niederösterreich. Ein Vorbericht. In: Neue Beiträge 1997, 233–258.

SZYDŁOWSKI 1974 J. SZYDŁOWSKI, Trzy cmentarzyska typu dobrodzieńskiego. Rocznik Muz. Górnośląskiego Arch. 11 (Bytom 1974).

SZYDŁOWSKI 1977 J. SZYDŁOWSKI, Zur Frage der Fremden Komponenten in der Dobrodzień-Gruppe. Przegląd Arch. 25, 1977, 97‒134.

SZYDŁOWSKI 1979 J. SZYDŁOWSKI, Die eingliedrigen Fibeln mit umgeschlagenem Fuß in Österreich im Rahmen ihres Vorkommens in Mitteleuropa. Arch. Austriaca 63, 1979, 21‒29.

SZYDŁOWSKI 1984 J. SZYDŁOWSKI, Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Dobrodzień-Gruppe. In: R. Feustel (ed.), Römezeitliche Drehscheibenware im Barbaricum. Symposium „Die Keramik Production in dem ersten Jahrhunderten u.Z. im Mitteleuropa und ihre Bedeutung für den Fortschritt der Produktivkraftenentwicklung” vom 21. Bis 25. Mai 1984, in Weimar, auf Wachsenburg und in Haarhausen. Weimarer Monogr. zur Ur- und Frühgesch. 11 (Weimar 1984), 57‒70.

ŞOVAN 2005 O. L. ŞOVAN, Necropola de tip Sântana de Mureş‒Cerneahov de la Mihălăşeni (jud. Botoşani) (Târgovişte 2005).

TEJRAL 1988 J. TEJRAL, Zur Chronologie und Deutung der südostlichen Kulturelemente in der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit Mitteleuropas. In: Die Völkerwanderungszeit im Karpatenbecken. Kolloquium in Treuchtlingen 22‒27 März 1987. Anz. der Germ. Nationalmus. (Nürnberg 1988), 11–46.

TEJRAL 1992 J. TEJRAL, Einige Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der späten römischen Kaiserzeit in Mitteleuropa. In: Chronologie 1992, 227–248.

TEJRAL 1997a J. TEJRAL, Neue Aspekte der frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Chronologie im Mitteldonauraum. In: Neue Beiträge 1997, 321–362.

TEJRAL 1997b J. TEJRAL, Les fédérés de l’Empire et la formation des royaumes barbares dans la région du Danube moyen à la lumière des données archéologiques. Ant. Nat. 29, 1997, 137–166.

TEJRAL 2000 J. TEJRAL, The Problem of the Primary Acculturation at the Beginning of the Migration Period. In: M. Maczynska/T. Grabarczyk (Hrsg.), Die spätrömische Kaiserzeit und die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa (Łódz 2000), 5–31.

TEJRAL 2007 J. TEJRAL, Das Hunnenreich und die Identitätsfragen der barbarischen „gentes” im Mitteldonauraum aus der Sicht der Archäologie. In: J. Tejral (Hrsg.), Barbaren im Wandel. The Early Migration and Late Roman Imperial Periods in North-West Romania 87

Beiträge zur Kultur- und Identitätsumbildung in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno 26 (Brno 2007), 55‒119.

TEJRAL 2011 J. TEJRAL, Einheimische und Fremde. Das norddanubische Gebiet zur Zeit der Völkerwanderung. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 33 (Brno 2011).

TEJRAL 2015 J. TEJRAL, Zum Problem der Feinschmiedeproduktion im Mitteldonauraum während des 5. Jahrhunderts nach Chr. Pam. Arch. 106, 2015, 291‒362.

TERPILOVSKIJ 2002 R. V. TERPILOVSKIJ, Do problemy kontaktiv mia kiivs’koiu ta cierniahivs’koiu kul’turami na rann’omu etapi ih rozvitku. Arkheologiia 3, 2002, 18–26.

THOMAS 1960 S. THOMAS, Studien zu den germanischen Kämmen der römischen Kaiserzeit. Arbeits- u. Forschber. Sächs. Bodendenkmalpfl. 8, 1960, 54–215.

TÓTH 2006 Á. B. TÓTH, Gepidische Siedlungen im Theissgebiet. Mon. Germanorum Arch. Hungariae. Mon. Gepidica 4 (Budapest 2006).

TÓTH 1999 Á. B. TÓTH, „Gothiskandza”-tól a Tisza vidékig. A gepidák eredete, vándorlása, korai régészeti emlékanyaga. In: A gepidák. Kora középkori germán királyság az Alföldön. Gyulai katalógusok 7 (Gyula 1999), 11‒27.

VADAY 1989 A. VADAY, Die sarmatischen Denkmäler des Komitats Szolnok. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie und Geschichte des sarmatischen Barbaricums [Antaeus 17–18] (Budapest 1989).

VADAY 1994 A. VADAY, Late Sarmatian graves and their connection within the Great Hungarian Plain. Slovenská Arch. 42/1, 1994, 105–124.

VAKULENKO 1998 L. V. VAKULENKO, One-piece fibulae with chord in high position and inverted foot (Almgren 158) and aspects of the chronology of the Roman Age sites in the Transcarpathian Ukraine. In: J. Kunow (Hrsg.), 100 Jahre Fibelnformen nach Oscar Almgren. Intern. Arbeitstagung 25.–28. Mai 1997 Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Forsch. zur Arch. im Land Brandenburg 5 (Wünsdorf 1998), 241–247.

VAKULENKO 2010 L. V. VAKULENKO, Ukrains’ki Karpaty u pizn’oryms’kyi chas (etnokul’turni ta sotsial’no- ekonomichni protsesy (Kiiv 2010).

VELTER 2002 A.-M. VELTER, Transilvania în secolele V‒XII. Interpretări istorico-politice şi economice pe baza descoperirilor monetare din bazinul Carpatic, secolele V‒XII (Bucureşti 2002).

VINSKI 1957 Z. VINSKI, Zikadenschmuck aus Iugoslawien. Jahrb. RGZM 4, 1957, 136–160. 88 Ioan Stanciu

WERNER 1935 J. WERNER, Münzdatierte austrasische Grabfunde. Röm.-germ. Komm. des Arch. Inst. des Deutschen Reiches. Germ. Denkm. der Völkerwanderungszeit 3 (Berlin ‒ Leipzig 1935).

WERNER 1950 J. WERNER, Zur Entstehung der Reihengräberzivilisation. Ein Beitrag zur Methode der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Arch. Geogr. 1, 1950, 23–32.

WERNER 1959 J. WERNER, Studien zu Grabfunden des V. Jahrhunderts aus der Slowakei und der Karpatenukraine. Slovenská Arch. 7/2, 1959, 422–438.

WERNER 1962 J. WERNER, Die Herkunft der Bajuwaren und der „östlich-merowingische” Reihengräberkreis. In: J. Werner (Hrsg.), Aus Bayerns Frühzeit. Friedrich Wagner zum 75. Geburtstag. Schriftenreihe zur Bayerischen Landesgesch. 62 (München 1962), 229‒250.