Daniela Marcu Istrate, "Vasile Pârvan" Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Dan Ioan Mureșan, University of Rouen Normandy and Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu, Alba Iulia National Museum of The Union

Christianization in Early Medieval Transylvania
East Central and Eastern Europe

in the Middle Ages, 450–1450
General Editors
Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka
volume 83
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee

Christianization in Early
Medieval Transylvania
The Oldest Church in Transylvania
and Its Interpretation
Edited by
Daniela Marcu Istrate

Dan Ioan Mureșan
Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover illustration: The Greek-cross church of Alba Iulia, 10th–11th centuries, uncovered in 2011.
Photo by Daniela Marcu Istrate, reconstruction proposal by Călin Chifăr and Marius Păsculescu.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Marcu Istrate, Daniela, editor. | Mureșan, Dan Ioan, 1974– editor.
| Rustoiu, Gabriel Tiberiu, editor.
Title: Christianization in early Medieval Transylvania : the oldest church
in Transylvania and its interpretation / edited by Daniela Marcu
Istrate, Dan Ioan Mureșan, Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2022] | Series: East Central and
Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 1872–8103 ; volume 83 | Includes
bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2022020270 (print) | LCCN 2022020271 (ebook) | ISBN
9789004515772 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004515864 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Transylvania (Romania)—Church history. | Church
architecture—Romania—Alba Iulia. | Archaeology,
Medieval—Romania—Alba Iulia. | Excavations
(Archaeology)—Romania—Alba Iulia. | Alba Iulia (Romania)—Antiquities.
| Transylvania (Romania)—Antiquities.
Classification: LCC BR927.T8 C49 2022 (print) | LCC BR927.T8 (ebook) |
DDC 274.98/4—dc23/eng/20220603
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022020270
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022020271
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 1872-8103
ISBN 978-90-04-51577-2 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-51586-4 (e-book)
Copyright 2022 by Daniela Marcu Istrate, Dan Ioan Mureșan and Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu. Published by
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink,
Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress.
Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for
re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
List of Illustrations ix
Abbreviations xiv
Notes on Contributors xvii
Introduction 1
Part 1
Archaeological Debates
1 From the Greek Bishop Hierotheos to the Latin Bishop Simon:

The Churches in Alba Iulia and the Controversies Related to the
Beginnings of the Diocese of Transylvania 11
2 Bulgaria beyond the Danube: Water under the Bridge, or Is There More
in the Pipeline? 57
Florin Curta
3 The Transylvanian Cradle: The Funeral Landscape of Alba Iulia in the

Light of ‘Stația de Salvare’ Cemetery (9th–11th Centuries) 78
Horia Ciugudean, Aurel Dragotă, and Monica-Elena Popescu
4 Byzantine Bronze Reliquary Crosses with Embossed Figures Discovered

in Romania 115
Călin Cosma
Part 2
Historical Debates
5 From Terra Ultrasilvana to Regnum Erdeelw: Notes on the Historical

Evolution of Transylvania in the 10th Century 149
Tudor Sălăgean
vi Contents
6 Hagiography and History in Early Medieval Transylvania: from the

Byzantine Bishop Hierotheos (10th Century) to the German Historian
Gottfried Schwarz (18th Century) 167
Jan Nicolae
7 Patriarch Theophylact, the Horses, and the Hungarians: The Religious

Origins of the Byzantine Mission to Tourkia 184
Dan Ioan Mureșan
8 Ecclesiastical Consequences of the Restoration of Byzantine Power in

the Danubian Region 238
Alexandru Madgearu
9 Some Remarks on the Church History of the Carpathian Basin during

the 10th and 11th Centuries 248
Gábor Thoroczkay
10 Gyula’s Christianity and the Bishopric of the Eastern Mission 256

Éva Révész
11 The Byzantine Monasteries of Medieval Hungary Revisited 264

Boris Stojkovski
12 The Hungarian Kingdom between the Imperial Ecclesiology of Otto III

and the Pontifical Ecclesiology of Gregory VII 283
Șerban Turcuș
13 Latin Bishoprics in the ‘Age of Iron’ and the Diocese of

Transylvania 316
Adinel C. Dincă and Mihai Kovács
Part 3
Future Debates
14 The 10th- to 11th-Century Pillared-Church in Alba Iulia:

Reconstruction Proposals 357
Nicolae Călin Chifăr and Marius Mihail Păsculescu
Contents vii
Conclusions 382
Ana Dumitran
Bibliography 391
Index 471
Illustrations
1.1 Map of Transylvania with the location of Alba Iulia 12

1.2 The plan of the Roman fort in Alba Iulia with the location of the episcopal site
and of the pillared church (2011) 14
1.3 The episcopal ensemble in Alba Iulia, with the spot of the pillared church in
front of the cathedral 17
1.4 The plan of the archaeological digs published by Radu Heitel in 1985, with the
location of all the churches 19
1.5 The church discovered in 2011 – general view from the east 22
1.6 The apse of the pillared church during the excavation process 23
1.7 The central part of the church viewed from north-east with the ruins of the
four pillars 24
1.8 Stratigraphical sequence between the south pillars, with the traces of pavement
over the black backfill of a dwelling from the 9th–10th centuries, including
an oven 25
1.9 The foundation of the south-west pillar 26
1.10 Lunula earring found on the site, south-west from the ruin,
9th–10th centuries 27
1.11 Pot from the 9th–10th centuries discovered on the hearth of an oven 29
1.12 Graves over the ruin of the apse 31
1.13 The ruin of the south wall of the church, with the remains of a 12th century
brick cist, built within the ruin 33
1.14 The ruin of the southern wall of the church and a cluster of graves from the
12th century 35
1.15 Graves over the south wall of the church 36
1.16 The church at the end of the excavations – with some overlapped Roman ruins
in hatches 38
1.17 The reconstructed plan of the church in Alba Iulia and some contemporary
analogies 39
1.18 The orthodox St. Nicholas church in Densuș (1–2) and the reconstructed plan of
the Byzantine church in Alba Iulia (3) 41
1.19 Pectoral cross from the inventory of the cemetery at ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ 44
1.20 Medieval churches in Alba Iulia: the ruins of the 10th–11th-century Byzantine
church and the restitution of the 9th to 12th-century round church 47
1.21 Medieval churches in Alba Iulia: the first cathedral (in black), 11th and
12th centuries, with or without the round church (in black) – ruins beneath the
St. Michael Cathedral (in grey). To the west, the former Byzantine church
(in grey) 49
x Illustrations
1.22 St. Michael Cathedral, view from the east 51

2.1 Water pipe segments (1–10) and piping joint (11): 1 – Bucov-Rotari, house 1;
2 – Căscioarele, stray find; 3, 4 – Căscioarele, house 1a; 5, 7–10 – Chirnogi, stray
finds; 6, 11 – Chirnogi, house 2 64
2.2 The distribution of water pipe segments in the lands north of the
river Danube 65
3.1 Map of present-day Alba Iulia with the location of the main sites referred
to in the text 80
3.2 Plans of the 1979–1981 (1) and 1981–1985 (2) excavations, with the location of the
9th–10th centuries burials. Overlapping graves of the first and second phase in
the medieval cemetery at ‘Stația de Salvare’ (3) 83
3.3 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. 1–2. Tile cist graves of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I). 3. Burial of the first phase with animal offerings, ceramic and
iron knife 85
3.4 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different types of graves with food offerings in
the first burial horizon (Cemetery I) 86
3.5 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Stone covering of burial pits (1–2) and deposition
of ceramic vessels (3–4) in the second burial horizon (Cemetery II) 87
3.6 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different ceramic types of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I) 90
3.7 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different ceramic types of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I) 91
3.8 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different ceramic types of the first (1–3)
and second (4–8) burial horizon (Cemetery I and II) 92
3.9 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Grave goods of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I) 97
3.10 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Grave goods of the second burial horizon
(Cemetery II) 100
(Cemetery II) 101
(Cemetery II) 102
3.13 Jewelry discovered in the Ciumbrud (1–9), Orăștie X8 (10–13) and Ghirbom
(16–19) cemeteries. Yellow burnished pot (14) and tile cist with cremation
graves (15) discovered at Micești-Orizont 103
3.14 Types of graves in Stația de Salvare I cemetery (9th–first half of the
10th century) 105
3.15 Demographic composition of the 9th–10th centuries burials at Stația de Salvare
cemetery (I and II) 105
Illustrations xi
3.16 The 9th–12th centuries burials and settlement areas located on the map drawn
by Giovanni Morandi Visconti in 1711 108
3.17 Distribution of calibrated radiocarbon date RM99 Cârnic 1–upper level from
Roșia Montană 111
3.18 Map of the main sites around Alba Iulia and selected Balkan key sites in the
9th–10th centuries 112
3.19 Temporal spans of early medieval cemeteries in the Alba Iulia area 114
4.1 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IA: 1 – Isaccea; 2 – Dolojman;
3a–b – Beroe 117
4.2 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IA: 1a–b. Dăbâca 118
4.3 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IA: 1a–b – Păcuiul lui Soare;
2a–b – Păcuiul lui Soare 119
4.4 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IA: 1a–b – Șuletea;
2a–b – Capidava 120
4.5 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IA: 1a–b – Isaccea; 2 – Hârșova;
3 – Capidava 121
4.6 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IA: 1 – Isaccea; 2 – Dinogeția;
3a–b – Isaccea 122
4.7 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IB: 1 – Măcin;
2a–b – Dinogeția 124
4.8 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IC: 1a–b – Nufăru;
2–4 – Banat 126
4.9 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IC: 1a–b – Păcuiul lui Soare;
2 – Păcuiul lui Soare; 3a–b – Capidava 127
4.10 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IC: 1–2 – Dinogeția; 3 – Păcuiul
lui Soare; 4–5 – Isaccea; 6 – Capidava 128
4.11 Reliquary crosses with embossed figures Type IC: 1a–b – Dinogeția;
2a–b – Dinogeția 129
4.12 Number of enkolpia with embossed figures 132
4.13 Arrangement of enkolpia with human figures in relief depending on the type in
the Romanian provinces 132
4.14 Distribution of enkolpia with human figures in relief depending on the type in
Dobrudja 133
4.15 Map of the spread of reliquary crosses with embossed figures 138
7.1 The consecration of Patriarch Theophylact (Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS
Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 129a) 194
7.2 The emperor Romanos I welcomes the Mandylion, with the patriarch
Theophylact (Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex
Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 131a) 201
xii Illustrations
7.3 Patriarch Theophylact prays for the co-emperor Romanos II crowned by his
father Constantine VII (Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2
Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 133v) 203
7.4 Queen Olga of Rus’ in front of Emperor Constantine VII (Biblioteca Nacional de
España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes,
fol. 135b) 216
7.5 Patriarch Theophylact leaving the Easter office in order to visit his horses
(Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus
Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 137a b) 223
7.6 Patriarch Theophylact baptizes the Hungarian prince Bulcsú (Boulosoudes)
in St. Sophia church, with Emperor Constantine VII as godfather (Biblioteca
Nacional de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis
Skylitzes, fol. 134v) 234
7.7 The Hungarian cavalry defeated by the Germans at Lechfeld (955) and the
execution of prince Bulcsú (Volosodès) (Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS
Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 135a) 235
10.1 Bishop Theophylaktos’s seal 258
10.2 Bishop Antonios’s seal 259
10.3 Bishop Demetrios’s seal 261
14.1 The pillared church in Alba Iulia (10th–11th centuries) and the first cathedral
in Alba Iulia (11th century) having the same scale and actual distance from one
another. It’s possible that the churches could have existed simultaneously for a
short time 359
14.2 A standard cross-in-square church plan using the quadrature for proportioning
the width and length 360
14.3 A simplified scheme of the naos, represented as a grill of 9 modules with the
position of the interior columns 361
14.4 Extension of the previous figure by a width of 1 module, including the sanctu-
ary on the east and the narthex on the west 362
14.5 The church at the end of the excavations – archaeological plan 366
14.6 Archaeological site. Aerial perspective. Carved stones are visible on the apse,
the north-eastern inner structure and the south-western corner. In the middle –
the pillars 367
14.7 St. Nicholas church in Densuș. 13th century. Unusual volume with central tower
and quarter-cylinder vaulting 368
14.8 St. Nicholas church in Rădăuți. 14th century. Unusual volume with longitudinal
and perpendicular barrel vaulting and without a dome 369
14.9 The pillared church in Alba Iulia, basilica church in Szabolcs and royal court
church in Zirc. Same scale and outline 370
Illustrations xiii
14.10 Church of St. Andrew at Baćina. Early Christian church with pre-Romanesque
vaulting structure 371
14.11 St. Peter at Omiš. 11th century 372
14.12 The cross-in-square version without narthex. Overlap of the archaeological
plan. Architectural plan, section and axonometry. Perspectives 373
14.13 The cross-in-square version without narthex. Overlap of the archaeological
plan. Architectural plan, section and axonometry. Perspectives 374
14.14 Church of St. John the Baptist in Lopud. 11th Century. Middle bay supporting
the tower is slightly narrower 376
14.15 The pseudo-basilical version with a tower. Overlap of the archaeological plan.
Architectural plan, section and axonometry. Perspectives 378
Abbreviations
ÁKÍF Az államalapítás korának írott forrásai, ed. Gyula Kristó. Szeged: 1999
(Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 15).
ÁMTBF Az Árpád-kori magyar történet bizánci forrásai, ed. Gyula Moravcsik.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 1988.
CAH Chartae antiquissimae Hungariae: 1001–1196, ed. György Györffy. Budapest:
Balassi 1997.
CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
vol. 1: Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio. Greek text
edited by Gyula Moravcsik, English translation by Romilly James Heald
Jenkins. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks 1967.
vol. 5: Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum. Edidit Ioannes Thurn.
Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter et socios 1973.
vol. 17: Das Strategikon des Maurikios, Einführung, Edition und Indices
von George T. Dennis; Übersetzung von Ernst Gamillscheg. Vienna:
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 1981.
vol. 44/1: Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, ed. Staffan Wahlgren.
Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter 2006.
vol. 49: The Taktika of Leo VI. Text, translation, and commentary by
George T. Dennis. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection 2010.
vol. 52: Constantine VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies, sous
la direction de Gilbert Dagron et Bernard Flusin, 5 tomes in 6 volumes.
Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisations de
Byzance 2020.
CSHB Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
vol. 9: Georgius Cedrenus. Tomus Alter. Ioannis Scylitzae opera, ed.
Immanuel Bekker. Bonn: Weber 1839.
vol. 16–17: Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos, The Book of Ceremonies,
translated by Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall, with the Greek edition of
the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1829), 2 volumes.
Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies 2012 (Byzantina
Australiensia 18, 1–2).
vol. 13: Ioannes Cinnamus, Nicephoris Bryennius, ed. Augustus Meineke.
Bonn: Weber 1836.
vol. 26: Leo Grammaticus, Chronographia, ed. Immanuel Bekker. Bonn:
Weber 1842.
Abbreviations xv
vol. 49: Ioannés Zonaras. Tomus III. Ioannis Zonarae

Epitomae Historiarum. Libri XIII–XVIII, ed. Theodorus
Büttner-Wobst. Bonn: Weber 1897.
DAI Bíborbanszületett Konstantin: A birodalom kormányzása,
trans. Gyula Moravcsik. Budapest: 1950.
DAI. Commentary Dvornik, Francis – Jenkins, Romilly J.H. – Lewis, Bernard –
Moravcsik, Gyula – Obolensky, Dimitri – Runciman,
Steven, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando
Imperio. A Commentary, ed. Romilly J.H. Jenkins. London:
Athlone Press 1962.
DHA Diplomata Hungarie Antiquissima (Accedunt Epistolae
et Acta ad Historiam Hungariae Pertinentia), 1: Ab anno
1000 usque ad Annum 1131, ed. György Györffy. Budapest:
Hungarian Academy of Sciences 1992.
DRMH Online Decreta Mediaevalis Regni Hungariae, ed.
János M. Bak, 2019. Available at https://digitalcommons.
usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=lib_
mono (accessed 2021 Jan 21).
GIBI Izvori za Bălgarskata Istoriia XIV. Grătski Izvori za
Bălgarskata Istoriia / Fontes Graeci Historiae Bulgaricae,
eds. Genoveva Tsankova-Petkova – Strashimir Lishev –
Petăr Tivchev, vol. VII. Sofia: In aedibus Academiae
Litterarum Bulgaricae 1968.
HKÍF A honfoglalás korának írott forrásai, ed. Gyula Kristó.
Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely 1995 (Szegedi
Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 7).
KMTL Korai Magyar Történeti Lexikon (9–14. század), eds. Gyula
Kristó – Pál Engel – Ferenc Makk. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó 1994.
MEH A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról: kortársak és
krónikások hiradásai, ed. György Györffy. Budapest: Osiris
2002.
MGH. Epistolae Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Epistolarum tomus VII.
Epistolae Karolini Aevi V, eds. Erich Caspar – Gerhard
Laehr. Berlin: 1928.
MGH. Epistolae selectae Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Epistolae selectae
in usum scholarum 2. Gregorii VII Registrum, ed.
Erich Ludwig Eduard Caspar. Berlin: Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung 1920.
xvi Abbreviations
MGH. Diplomata Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Diplomata regum et imperato-

rum Germaniae. Tomus II, Ottonis II et Ottonis III diplomata, ed.
Th. Sickel. Hanover: 1888–1893.
PL Patrologia Latina, ed. Jean-Paul Migne, vol. 148. Paris: 1853.
PmbZ Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Available at http://
pom.bbaw.de/pmbz/index.html
http://pom.bbaw.de/pmbz/scripts/browse.xql?target
=PMBZ30347 (accessed 2021 April 12).
SRH Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum: tempore ducum regumque
stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, ed. Imre Szentpétery et al., 2 vol.
Budapest: Academia Litterarum Hungarica atque Societate
Historica Hungarica 1937–1938; reprint Budapest: Nap 1999.
Notes on Contributors

is an archaeologist and Director of the Alba Iulia National Museum of the
Union. He holds a doctoral degree in history and has authored or co-authored
over 90 archaeological reports, studies and books of history, archaeology and
other related topics. His research interests concern the prehistory, the migra-
tion period and the early medieval period. He received gold and silver medals
from international inventics exhibitions and is a member of the Romanian
National Archaeological Commission.

is Senior Researcher at the Romanian Academy, ‘Vasile Pârvan’ Institute of
Archaeology, department of medieval archaeology. She has been working as
an archaeologist and historian having the main field of research the medieval
Carpathian Basin, with its churches, fortification, material and spiritual cul-
ture. She has conducted long-term excavations in Alba Iulia and extensively
investigated some of the most important churches in Transylvania, as the
Evangelical church in Sibiu and the Black Church in Brașov. She published
over 100 studies in journals and specialized volumes and several monographs
related to her fieldwork, as the ones about the churches in Alba Iulia and Sibiu.
She is a member of several scientific association and editorial boards and is
deeply involved in activities related to the protection of medieval heritage in
Romania and abroad, as a member of national and international boards.
Florin Curta
is Professor of Medieval History and Archaeology at the University of Florida.
His books include Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages (Cambridge
University Press, 2006) and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300 (Brill,
2019). He is also the editor of two collections of studies entitled East Central
Europe and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages (University of Michigan
Press, 2005) and The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars
and Cumans (Brill, 2008). Curta is the editor of the Brill online Bibliography of
the History and Archaeology of Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages and co-editor
of the Brill series “East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–
1450.” His most recent book is an economic and social history of Eastern Europe
during the ‘long sixth century,’ which was published in 2021 by Brill.
xviii Notes on Contributors
Horia Ciugudean
is Senior Researcher at the Alba Iulia National Museum of the Union. He is
a historian and medieval archaeologist whose research interests focus on the
Bronze and Early Iron Age of the Carpathian Basin, and the Early Middle Ages
in Transylvania. His fields of research include mining archaeology, landscape
archaeology, and the preservation of the cultural heritage in the Transylvanian
Alps. In the last decade, he has been co-director of several joint excavation pro-
jects of the Museum of Alba Iulia with Eurasien Abteilung D.A.I. Berlin, The
University of Michigan and Hamilton College, in USA. He has served as Guest
Lecturer at the Universities in Heidelberg, Munich, Berlin, and Budapest, and
took part in several international conferences and symposia in Europe. For
more than 20 years he is Senior Editor of the archaeological series Apulum.
Acta Musei Apulensis, the journal of the museum in Alba Iulia. He is a mem-
ber of the European Association of Archaeologists and he is Correspondent
Member – Socium ab epistolis – of the Deutschen Archäologische Instituts
(DAI) since 2012.
Aurel Dragotă
is Associate Professor of Medieval History at the ‘Lucian Blaga’ University of
Sibiu, Faculty of Socio-Human Sciences, Department of History, Heritage and
Protestant Theology. He is a medieval archaeologist whose fields and research
interests are focused on the history of Early Christianity in Transylvania in the
Migration Period and the early Middle Ages and its links to the South-Eastern
and Central Europe in the Middle Ages.
Monica-Elena Popescu
is a Master’s Degree student at the ‘Lucian Blaga’ University of Sibiu, Faculty
of Socio-Human Sciences, Department of History, Heritage and Protestant
Theology. Monica-Elena Popescu specializes in the history and funeral archae-
ology of the Early Middle Ages.
Călin Cosma
(Ph.D. Habil.,) is first degree scientific researcher at the Institute of Archaeology
and Art History in Cluj-Napoca, specialized in the history and archaeology of
the Early Middle Ages. His main research topics are the study of human settle-
ments, artifacts, cemeteries, weapons and military equipment in Transylvania
during the 7th–10th centuries. He took part in archaeological excavations in
Romania and abroad. He coordinated the archaeological excavations at the
early medieval site from Sf. Gheorghe / Mureș County (1994–2001) and at the
10th–11th-centuries fortification from Zalău / Ortelec / Sălaj County (1997–2001),
Notes on Contributors xix
as well as at the 7th–8th-centuries cemetery from Sâncrai / Alba County (2016–

2019). He has also initiated the scientific series entitled “Interferențe etnice
și culturale în mileniile I a. Chr.–I p. Chr. / Ethnic and Cultural Interferences
between the 1st Millennium B.C. and the 1st Millennium A.D. / Ethnische und
kulturelle Interferenzen im 1. Jht. V. Chr.–1. Jht. N.Chr”, that already includes
25 volumes. Călin Cosma has also coordinated the research project entitled
Warriors and Military Retainers in Transylvania of the 7th–9th Centuries, funded
by the CNCSIS, 2011–2016. He was awarded the ‘Vasile Pârvan’ prize of the
Romanian Academy (2004) for the book West and North-West of Romania in
the 8th–10th centuries A.D.
Tudor Sălăgean
is Senior Researcher at the Transylvanian Museum of Ethnography and mem-
ber of the doctoral school Population Studies and History of the Minorities
of the Cluj-Napoca ‘Babeș-Bolyai’ University. Research interests are directed
towards the institutional, social, and political history of medieval Transylvania
in the 10th–14th centuries.
Jan Nicolae
is Professor of Homiletics, Catechesis, Hagiography and Iconography at the
‘1 Decembrie 1918’ University of Alba Iulia, Faculty of Orthodox Theology,
Department of Theology, Religious Music and Sacred Art. He is a theologian
interested in researching the history of preaching and Christianization mis-
sions of the peoples in the field of interference of Byzantium with the Latin
West, in Hungary and in Transylvania, and in the evolution of Christianity in
the Romanian provinces. He is a member of the Pontifical International Marian
Academy (PAMI) in Rome and of several academic scientific associations. He
has also held numerous conferences on various academic and pastoral occa-
sions (Regensburg, Würzburg, Paris, Padua, Dublin, London).
Dan Ioan Mureșan

holds a Ph.D. from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, and
is Assistant Professor of Medieval History at the University of Rouen Normandy,
France. He specializes in ecclesiastic and imperial comparative studies. His
fields of interest include Byzantine political and religious history, Mediterranean
maritime history and the history of nomadic empires. He is also Member in
the ‘Société des Historiens Médiévistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur Public’,
the ‘Comité français des études byzantines’ and the ‘Institut des études slaves’,
Paris. He edited several volumes on Byzantine and Anglo-Norman history and
authored studies on various topics of medieval history.
xx Notes on Contributors
Alexandru Madgearu
is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Political Studies of Defense and
Military History, Bucharest, specialized in late ancient and medieval history.
His fields of interest include the political and military history and archaeology
of the South-East European region, the ancient and medieval Church history.
Member in the Romanian Commission of Military History and in the com-
mittee of the Romanian Society for Byzantine Studies. He has been awarded
the Fulbright post-doctoral scholarship in 2002, and the prize ‘Dimitre Onciul’
of the Romanian Academy in 2016. He is the author of two monographs pub-
lished in this series (volumes 22 and 41).
Gábor Thoroczkay
holds an MA in History and Latin from ‘Eötvös Loránd’ University (1994, 1995)
under the supervision of Professor József Gerics and Professor János Bollók. He
obtained his Ph.D. degree in medieval history at the University of Szeged under
the supervision of Professor Gyula Kristó (2004). He obtained his habilitation
at Eötvös Loránd University (2014). He is currently an Associate Professor with
Habilitation at the Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Humanities, Institute
of History, Department of Medieval History, Budapest. His main fields of sci-
entific interest are Hungarian history in the Árpádian period and Hungarian
prehistory.
Éva Révész
is an historian and researcher at the University of Szeged. Her fields of
research are early medieval Hungarian church history, in particular the role
of the Eastern Christianity in the Christianization of the Hungarians, and the
Bulgarian-Byzantine-Hungarian relations, furthermore the modern age mis-
sions order, the ‘verbitas’ (SVD) history in the Hungarian province.
Boris Stojkovski
Associate Professor of Medieval History at the University of Novi Sad,
Faculty of Philosophy, Department of History, is a medieval historian whose
interests and fields of research include the history of Srem and nowadays
Vojvodina in the Middle Ages, Byzantine history, church history, history of
medieval Mediterranean, Arab and Ottoman history and its ties with South-
Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, Byzantine-Hungarian relations and
Serbian-Hungarian relations. He is a member of several international sci-
entific associations, and has been awarded ‘Domus Hungarica’ scholarship
by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences nine times. He was guest lecturer at
Universities in Pisa, Budapest and Olomouc.
Notes on Contributors xxi
Șerban Turcuș
is Prof. Dr. Habil. at the Department of Medieval History of the ‘Babeș-Bolyai’
University in Cluj-Napoca. He specializes in medieval history, auxiliary sciences
of history, church history. He was a fellow of the Romanian government at the
Archivio Apostolico Vaticano and Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (1995–1996).
Between 2002–2006 he was deputy head of mission at the Romanian Embassy
to the Holy See. He was a visiting professor at the Italian-German Institute in
Trento (2001) and at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan (2007,
2011). He has presented papers and attended conferences in Rome, Milan,
Naples, Padua, Pisa, Trento, Trieste, Venice, Clairvaux, Paris, Troyes. He is the
chairman of the Transylvanian Commission on Heraldry, Sigillography and
Genealogy.
Adinel C. Dincă
(Ph.D. Habil.,) is Associate Professor at the Faculty of History and Philosophy,
‘Babeș-Bolyai’ University, and director of the research group TRANS.SCRIPT –
The Centre for Diplomatic and Medieval Documentary Palaeography. Author
of over 70 scholarly texts (critical editions, monographs, studies, articles,
translations, and exhibition catalogues) on medieval Transylvanian literacy
and church history with a special focus on Transylvanian Saxons. He is asso-
ciate editor of three Romanian scientific publications and member of a series
of scientific associations. Areas of expertise: Latin palaeography and literate
communication, history of the medieval church, pre-modern foundations of
the Transylvanian Saxons’ cultural identity.
Mihai Kovács
is currently a Ph.D. Student at the Romanian Academy Cluj-Napoca with a the-
sis project concerning the Transylvanian bishopric in the early 16th century;
he is also a documentarian at TRANS.SCRIPT – The Centre for Diplomatic and
Medieval Documentary Palaeography. Author of several papers involving the
bishopric in Transylvania from the late 13th to the early 16th century. Areas of
interest: medieval church history.
Nicolae Călin Chifăr

Architect, Cluj-Napoca, is a Ph.D. Student at the University of Architecture
and Urbanism Ion Mincu – Bucharest under the supervision of prof. dr. arch.
Augustin Ioan. His interests and fields of research include Byzantine church
architecture, Byzantine art and theology, regarded as a main source and sup-
port for contemporary church architecture. He runs an architectural studio,
whose projects are focused on ecclesiastical and residential buildings and
xxii Notes on Contributors
the way of interacting into an unitary complex. The use of material elements
engaging all the senses to draw personal experiences is part of the architec-
tural discourse.
Marius Mihail Păsculescu

Architect, is a Ph.D. Student at the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning
from Cluj-Napoca under the supervision of prof. dr. arch. Virgil Pop. Associate
assistant of architectural history and architectural design at the Technical
University of Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning,
Department of Architecture. He is a Ph.D. Student whose interests and fields
of research include the architectural history of Transylvania from the Middle
Ages to the Baroque Era, medieval church transformations, and monasteries in
urban fabrics, with an emphasis on Counter-Reformation ecclesiastical archi-
tecture in Transylvania.
Ana Dumitran
(Ph.D.,) is a Museologist at the Alba Iulia National Museum of the Union. Her
fields of research are medieval and modern Transylvanian Romanian church
and art history. One of her books, dedicated to the miraculous icons of the
Theotokos in Transylvania, was awarded the ‘George Oprescu’ prize by the
Romanian Academy.
Introduction
Translated by Florin Curta
This collection of studies is the result of an initiative of the Great Union

Museum in Alba Iulia (Romania), a response to the changes in historiogra-
phy that accompanied the 2011 discovery of an early medieval church in that
same city. The dating and architecture of this monument caused fundamen-
tal changes in the scholarly discourse regarding the early Christianization and
Hungarian rule in Transylvania.
The archaeological excavations that led to the discovery of the church
took place in connection with the restoration of the 18th-century Alba Iulia
citadel. Works for a parking lot in front of the Roman-Catholic Cathedral soon
required an archaeological intervention. The site was entrusted to the inde-
pendent archaeologist Daniela Marcu Istrate, who at that point had already led
for more than a decade the archaeological investigations inside the cathedral
and around it. In fact, a number of monographs concerning the results of those
investigations had just been published.1 Prior to the 2011 excavations, the area
had been explored archaeologically in 1973 by Radu Robert Heitel, who at time
worked for the national Directorate of Historical Monuments. Heitel stum-
bled upon foundation walls, which he hastily interpreted as the remains of
a supposedly initial, Romanesque building phase of the cathedral.2 However,
the excavation in 2011 did not confirm the situation as expected from Heitel’s
interpretation. That is in fact why a new intervention was required. Its result
was likely the most important archaeological discovery in Romania over the
last century: a mid-10th to late 11th-century, cross-in-square church with four
central pillars. The date advanced for this church match the historical infor-
mation about the mission of a bishop named Hierotheos, who was sent from
Constantinople to Tourkia, the lands occupied by the Magyars.
As soon as the discovery became publicly known, it was met with a num-
ber of very hostile reactions. The hostility was largely because of the publi-
cation, one year earlier, of a collection of studies dedicated to Hierotheos.3
Published with the conspicuous approval and support of Andrei Andreicuț,
the Romanian Orthodox Archbishop of Alba Iulia, the volume had a single
1 Marcu Istrate 2008a, with the simultaneous version in Romanian: Marcu Istrate 2008b;
Marcu Istrate 2009a; Marcu Istrate 2010.
2 Heitel 1975a, 5–9; Heitel 1975b, 345–350; Heitel 1994–1995, 389–432, here 417 and 427–28.
3 Sfântul Ierotei, Episcop de Alba Iulia 2010.
© Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_002

2 Rustoiu
goal – to turn Hierotheos into a bishop of Alba Iulia, thus stretching the history
of the Orthodox eparchy back to the 10th century. This was in fact a response
to the celebration in 2009 of 1,000 years of existence of the Catholic diocese
of Alba Iulia. Far from being a confessional tit-for-tat, the 2010 volume in fact
drew on the nationalist rhetoric of publications going back as far as 1739,
opposing Romanian to Hungarian territorial claims to Transylvania. No sur-
prise therefore that the volume’s only reviewer, the Cluj-based archaeologist
Adrian Andrei Rusu called it an undisguised attempt to distort the (historical)
truth.4 Rusu pointed to a number of blatant mystifications: Hierotheos, the
bishop sent to Tourkia (a territory of unknown location within the Carpathian
Basin) becomes bishop of Alba Iulia, and instead of preaching to the Magyars
(as his mission was), he now becomes an early figure of Romanian Christianity.
The discombobulation was indeed serious, given that the volume reviewed by
Rusu (to which he referred as ‘a monumental gap between lay and clerical
opinions’) was promoted by members of the Department of Theology at the
University of Alba Iulia, the same who have indeed written several contribu-
tions for the volume, and were now using it for teaching pastoral care to their
students. The mixture of nationalism and Orthodox theology led to a bizarre
form of anti-intellectualism, whereby the opinions of historians and archae-
ologists were dismissed as irrelevant. According to the editors of the volume,
the Romanians had bishopric in Alba Iulia in the 10th century. That it did not
survive is only because it was eliminated by the Catholic diocese, with the pur-
pose of eliminating the Romanians.
At a closer look, the arguments marshaled in this volume were inspired by
the rhetoric of the (Orthodox) reactions to the Union with Rome of a good
number of Romanian Orthodox churchmen, an event that took place in 1700.
In fact, one of the contributors to the volume refers in his chapter to a book
published in 1739–1740 by a Lutheran pastor named Gottfried Schwarz.5 A vic-
tim of Catholic persecutions in Hungary after the Habsburg conquest of 1699,
Schwarz was the first to use the information about Hierotheos, which may
be found in the chronicle of John Skylitzes: “He [Gylas, the Magyar chieftain
baptized in Constantinople] took back with him a monk with a reputation for
piety named Hierotheos who had been ordained bishop of Turkey [Tourkia]
by Theophylact [Patriarch of Constantinople, 933–956].”6 That bit of histori-
cal information served Schwarz to support the idea, which was very popular
4 Rusu 2010.
5 Nicolae 2010, 95–157.
6 Skylitzes 2010, 231.
Introduction 3
among Hungarian Protestants at that time, that Christianity did not come to
Hungary from Rome and that it could therefore be easily and justifiably be sep-
arated from the Roman Church.7 Schwarz’s work was immediately attacked by
Catholic theologians affiliated with the Jesuit Academy of Kolozsvár (present-
day Cluj-Napoca), which had been restored by the Habsburgs in 1698. Some of
the arguments incorporated into those attacks were then used by Uniates such
as Petru Maior, Gheorghe Șincai and Samuil Micu, key figures of the so-called
‘Transylvanian School,’ the historiographic production of which established
the canon for the interpretation of Romanian Christianity. Meanwhile, the
Uniates had engaged in a movement of national emancipation, which cul-
minated with a list of national demands submitted to the imperial Court in
Vienna in 1791 and 1792 and entitled Supplex Libellus Valachorum. In the pro-
cess, the obscure episode of bishop Hierotheos, lifted from the pages of John
Skylitzes’s chronicle by a Protestant polemicist became a weapon for the
defense of Romanian rights in and to Transylvania. Hierotheos had been sent
by the patriarch of Constantinople, so the Uniate ideologues of Romanian
nationalism blamed him for having misled Romanians to the ‘Greek schism.’
Nonetheless, he was now a key asset in the historiographic arsenal, because he
could be turned into the head of a Romanian bishopric, older than anything
the Hungarians had ever created in Transylvania. Since the Magyars even-
tually rejected the teachings of Hierotheos and accepted Christianity from
Rome, Hierotheos was thus useful not only to Hungarian Protestants, but to
Romanian Greek-Catholics as well.
Without any substantive changes, this interpretation of ‘the bishopric of
Hierotheos’ was then adopted by the Romanian Orthodox historiography,
despite its otherwise visceral attacks on the Uniates after the abolition of the
Greek-Catholic Church by the Communist regime in 1948. The only change
of significance is that the ‘bishopric of Hierotheos’ was adopted by the ‘secu-
lar’ historiography of the Communist regime. Under Nicolae Ceaușescu, this
episode could feed the obsessive preoccupation with the continuity of the
Romanian people from Antiquity to the present day, all the time within the
present-day territory of Romania. That is why Radu Heitel’s excavations in Alba
Iulia, particularly his discovery of a rotunda, were quickly linked to Hierotheos.
The most recent testimony of that grotesque distortion is the volume pub-
lished in Alba Iulia in 2010. Rusu wrongly predicted that people would laugh
about it and would soon forget about it. He was wrong because he did not real-
ize that the controversy was fueled, not stopped by new archaeological finds.
7 Schwarz 1740.
4 Rustoiu
To be sure, the vehemence of the Romanian nationalists can only be explained

as a reaction to the so-called ‘immigrationist’ theory, which emerged in the
late 18th century in reaction to the Romanian national movement and to the
Supplex.8 Less than a century later, the issue was revived in the context of
the Ausgleich, which gave Transylvania to Hungary and thus caused a surge
of Romanian national protests.9 The late 19th-century version, as espoused by
an Austrian professor of history at the University of Graz, became the default
position of the Hungarian historiography after the Ausgleich (1867), but espe-
cially after the Treaty of Trianon (1920). Hungarian historians insisted that
Hierotheos had been sent to Tourkia, his mission being to convert the Magyars.
Hierotheos was moved therefore to Hungary proper, albeit at the cost of
admitting that southern Transylvania had not been conquered by Hungarians
before 1000.10
This long historiographic survey was meant to provide the context, without
which the extraordinary finds of 2011 cannot be understood. Two decades ago,
Florin Curta deplored the historical and contemporary distortions of archaeo-
logical practice in Transylvania.11 But one decade ago, the dating of the ruins
of the cross-in-square church with four pillars brought back the ‘Hierotheos
dossier.’12 Few could dissociate the discovery from the volume published under
the aegis of the Archbishopric of Alba Iulia, despite Rusu’s hopes to the con-
trary. That is why the initial reactions were hostile, albeit confusedly so. Rusu
was leading the charge, and in doing so he created an aura of scholarly legiti-
macy for what essentially a wrong and ignorant position. He was cited as an
authority by others who were eager to dismiss the discovery as a supposed
ideological manipulation of the archaeological record. For example, draw-
ing on Rusu’s online comments, but without direct, de visu knowledge of the
finds, the Hungarian archaeologist Miklós Takács put together a little history
of Romanesque architecture, with examples drawn from the entire European
continent, in order to reject the idea that Byzantium was the source of inspira-
tion for the architecture of the church discovered in 2011 in Alba Iulia. Instead,
that was a purely Romanesque church, therefore built by Hungarians.13
8 Sulzer 1781–1782; Eder 1791; Engel 1813–1814. The first works of historiography produced by
members of the ‘Transylvanian School’ were in fact learned replies to those three authors.
9 Roesler 1871.
10 Moravcsik 1970.
11 Curta 2001, 141–65, here 141.
12 Marcu Istrate 2013, 21–24.
13 Takács 2013, 75–135 (the article was published in bilingual form, both Romanian and
Hungarian; the former is clearly the translation of the latter). See also Takács 2018. The
book incorporates a critique of the interpretation of the church found in Alba Iulia;
Introduction 5
Meanwhile, the critique of the historiography of the Ceaușescu’s nationalist-

communist regime encouraged suspicion about claims that any traces of
Christianity in Transylvania, especially a church, could be dated that early, i.e.,
to the 10th century.
While both Romanian and Hungarian scholars seriously doubting the
dating of the church found in 2011, the excavator published a few articles
meant to bring attention to the archaeological details of the discovery.14 Her
opponents went as far as to claim that the real author of the discovery had
been Radu Heitel, whose interpretation (initial, Romanesque phase of the
Roman-Catholic Cathedral) must therefore be upheld. The Romanian historian
Alexandru Madgearu viewed the church as the cathedral of an East Christian
bishop under the jurisdiction of the metropolis of Tourkia. As such the church
must therefore be dated after AD 1000. Like Marcu Istrate’s Hungarian detrac-
tors, Madgearu believes that she had not discovered anything new, but simply
completed Radu Heitel’s findings.15
These ‘Transylvanian’ developments were thus connected with another
debate, concerning the evolution of the Church of Tourkia from its initial bish-
opric to the status of metropolitanate. During the 14th International Congress
of Byzantine Studies, held in Bucharest, 6–12 September 1971 (under the
patronage of Nicolae Ceaușescu!), the renowned Greek Byzantinologist Nikos
Oikonomidès laid out the groundbreaking discovery of an unedited document
of a session of the permanent synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in
1028, co-signed by John metropolitan of Tourkia. Putting it together with some
previously published items and contextualizing it during the reign of Saint
Stephen I, Oikonomidès added thus an essential sequel, proving that the mis-
sion of Hierotheos had longer consequences during the 11th–12th centuries, at
a superior level: the regional Church that he initiated developed at the superior
institutional and organizational level of a metropolitanate.16 This discovery
was further carried out by the Hungarian Byzantinologist (later Greek Catholic
priest) István Baán, who added to the discussion the relevance of some
Notitia episcopatuum that connected the dots towards the continuity of this
Takács’s critical stance is backed by the Hungarian art historian Béla Zsolt Szakács. Both
ignore the archaeological evidence and largely rely on Rusu’s dismissive, but equally igno-
rant attitude.
14 Marcu Istrate 2014, 93–128; Marcu Istrate 2015, 177–213.
15 Madgearu 1994, 147–54; Madgearu 2002–2003, 41–61; Madgearu 2005a, 97–98; Madgearu
2008, 119–38; Madgearu 2010, 69–94; Madgearu 2017, 1–16. Meanwhile, an art historian
claims to have been the first to advance a 10th-century date for the building: Theodorescu
2014, 3–9, here 5.
16 Oikonomidès 1971, 527–533.
6 Rustoiu
metropolitanate until the end of the 12th century. In a less expected manner,
he related this topic with the question of the origins of the second (latin) arch-
bishopric of the Kingdom of Hungary, based in Kalocsa.17 Indeed, no formal
chart was ever recorded concerning its beginnings. To solve the mystery, Baán
postulated that it was nothing but the metropolitanate of Tourkia progressively
turned during the 11th century into a Catholic diocese by the latinization of the
rite. Thus Baán hoped to explain the puzzling ‘Byzantine’ features of Hungarian
Catholicism (such as the Marianic patronage over the realm, the endurance of
married priests or the translation in Hungary of important texts of Byzantine
theology during the 12th century). He hypothesized about the beginning and
the end of this process based on historical analogies with the destiny of the
metropolis of Rus’. However, his conclusions were fiercely disputed by the
medievalist László Koszta, based on his previous work on the constitution of
diocesan structure of the Hungarian Church. In a piece of radical contestation,
Koszta tried to refute any Byzantine contribution, and indeed influence, on
the genesis of the archbishopric of Kalocsa. In his views, the centralization
of the Kingdom and of the Church by King Stephen implied the expulsion of
the Eastern rite prelates after the conquest of Transylvania and Banat fighting
against the local princes Gyula, Ajtony and Kean. In Koszta’s perspective, the
metropolitans of Tourkia attested by the Byzantine sources couldn’t be more
than titular, at best, or pastors for some Hungarian settlers colonized in the
Empire, known as the Vardariote Turks, at least.18 After this radical critique,
the entire corpus of the metropolitanate of Tourkia is badly in need of a new
reevaluation. Our volume is also proposing to proceed towards it.
The disputes surrounding the discovery of the church in 2011 illustrate
clearly the deep methodological and conceptual problems that led to a histo-
riographic cul-de-sac. Without a serious effort to overcome the legacy of more
than two centuries of nationalist debates; with no attempts to move beyond
petty arguments and personal conflicts; in an atmosphere dominated by what
Pierre Bourdieu called the ‘struggle’ for obtaining and maintaining scientific
authority,19 there is no room for a discussion of what Marcu Istrate’s finding
ago actually mean. What does a church of Byzantine-influenced architecture
built in the mid-10th century and destroyed in the late 11th century tell us about
Transylvania and Christianity in the early Middle Ages? How should one inter-
pret the many analogies for this church known from the northern and central
17 Baán 1999, 45–53; Baán 2018, esp. 193–232.

18 Koszta 2013; Koszta 2014, 127–43.
19 Bourdieu 1997, 17.
Introduction 7
Balkans, which were inside Bulgaria at that time?20 Why was such a large stone
building erected in Alba Iulia? Can it be related to any of the six early medieval
cemeteries discovered in that city?
Those were the questions which the initiative of the Great Union Museum
in Alba Iulia attempted to answer. The initial conference was not attended
by all whose presence was made necessary by previous works or scholarly
positions relevant to the topic. However, a significant group was formed –
archaeologists, historians, architects and theologians, both supporters and
opponents of Daniela Marcu Istrate’s interpretation of her own finds. Because
archaeology now has sufficient material to free itself from the interpretive cli-
chés rooted in a text-driven approach, this conference was an excellent oppor-
tunity for a dialogue between the two disciplines, history and archaeology, the
practicians of which have for so long talked past each other. That is why this
volume will appeal first and foremost to archaeologists and historians. Each
group of scholars may find comparative material and useful data in this book.
There is much need to revisit the ‘Slavonic dossier’ for the Christianization of
the Magyars, and for a comparison, in both historical and archaeological terms,
between conversion in Scandinavia and conversion in the Carpathian Basin.
Long due is a reassessment of the supposed fault line between Western and
Eastern Christianity that went through the Kingdom of Hungary. A long(er)-
term perspective, well into the 13th and 14th centuries may definitely provide
some useful insights, especially in comparison with the situation in Poland
and in the Baltic region. The volume could also appeal to historians of archi-
tecture and to theologians. The former group will definitely be interested in the
mechanisms responsible for the spread of certain church plans on a larger geo-
graphical scale and faster than others. Theologians will appreciate the chapters
dedicated to finding a solution to the nature of the Byzantine mission (the
existence of which is otherwise denied by historians of Byzantium21) among
nomadic and settled groups, and the methods by which such missions could
have operated so far from the centres of Byzantine Christianity.
So, the present volume has the ambition to be at the crossroads of three
fields which have hitherto mostly been distinct: 1. between history and archae-
ology; 2. between religion and politics; 3. between Romanian and Hungarian
historiography. In order to become mutually understandable, these fields need
to be considered together.
20 Doncheva 2008; Ćurčić 2010, 231–248, 295–344, and 355–506.

21 Ivanov 2003, with a somewhat more moderate, English version: Ivanov 2015.
8 Rustoiu
Several chapters of the volume may be used separately as material for grad-
uate courses in various disciplines – archaeology, art history, history, religious
studies. The volume as a whole is one of very few that deals with the history
of Transylvania, a region of East-Central Europe poorly known beyond stereo-
types such as Dracula. We can only help that our efforts will encourage not
only more interest in this region, but also comparative research to bring out its
unique features.
Part 1
Archaeological Debates
⸪
Chapter 1
From the Greek Bishop Hierotheos to the Latin

Bishop Simon: The Churches in Alba Iulia and the
Controversies Related to the Beginnings of the
Diocese of Transylvania

Translated by Alice Isabella Sullivan and Florin Curta
(old names: in Romanian, Bălgrad; in Hungarian, Gyulafehérvár; in German,

Weissenburg)
In 2009, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Transylvania celebrated in Alba

Iulia a millennium of existence, by virtue of the tradition that attributes the
establishment of this episcopal see to the Holy King Stephen. The commem-
orative events included a presentation of the archaeological research at that
time taking place around St. Michael Cathedral: an exhibition with more than
600 items, on display at the National Museum of the Union, was accompanied
by several papers, as well as the archaeological monograph for the 2000–2002
excavations (Hungarian edition in 2008, Romanian edition in 2009), and
two exhibition catalogs.1 The inclusion of archaeology in the events of 2009
reflected the value of that field of research in reconstructing the history of the
diocese of Transylvania, especially of the early period when the see was estab-
lished in Alba Iulia (Fig. 1.1., 1.3., 1.22).
The 2009 anniversary, however, referred to the millennial history of the
institution, not to its see or other material manifestations that could be asso-
ciated with that moment, such as the construction of churches and admin-
istrative buildings. In fact, there is a great deal of uncertainty over the initial
location of the diocese, caused by a lack of precise information, first and
foremost the lack of a charter of foundation and of any data about the local
1 Marcu Istrate 2009a; Marcu Istrate 2009b; Marcu Istrate 2010. The celebration of the millen-
nium continued in 2010, with the organization of the archaeological repository within the
Episcopal Museum and with the inventory of the artifacts resulting from the excavations,
which constitute an invaluable treasure of the past of this institution, and of Alba Iulia in
general.
© Daniela Marcu Istrate, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_003

12 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.1 Map of Transylvania with the location of Alba Iulia

SOURCE: Daniela Marcu Istrate
bishops until the early 12th century.2 Based on the archaeological evidence,
it appears that the bishopric did not reach Alba Iulia until the last decades of
the 11th century, when a first cathedral was built, but what happened between
ca. 1009 and 1111 is less clear.3 The analysis of the scarce information pertaining
to the beginnings of the diocese of Transylvania suggests an initial foundation
in the northern part of the province, in or around Cluj/Kolozsvár/Klausenburg,
within an area that had already been conquered in the 10th century. Another
specific element is the title of the diocese itself, which is connected to the
2 For a summary of the problem: Dincă 2017, 35–52, with older bibliography.
3 Kristó 2003, 75–87.
From the Greek Bishop Hierotheos to the Latin Bishop Simon 13
name of the province – Transylvania – and not to a specific settlement, as was

generally the custom at the time (as well as earlier) in the Church, both East
and West.4
Without going into the details of that debate, the most widespread theory
treats the foundation of the bishopric of Transylvania as a long and compli-
cated process, which started in the northern half of Transylvania, and ended
in the last third of the 11th century with the final establishment in Alba Iulia,
where it is still today. There are of course other hypotheses,5 but the decisive
fact in this matter should be the building of a monumental church during the
last decades of the 11th century in Alba Iulia, the first important Romanesque
building in the eastern part of the kingdom. Unless a competitor for this
remarkable building is found, one can hardly imagine the see of the bishopric
being anywhere else.
The reasons for moving the see of such an important institution must have
been important, and everything suggests that Alba Iulia was a developed set-
tlement, with great religious potential. On what exactly was its status based?
To be sure, this has been one of the most important Roman centers in the
province of Dacia (the capital of Dacia Apulensis), the headquarters of the
Legio XIII Gemina,6 and an important urban settlement named Apulum7
(Fig. 1.2.). The legacy of that era was in fact still visible ca. 1000, as the walls and
most of the towers were still standing. The geographical position in the center
of the intra-Carpathian plateau, and on the river Mureș, was also privileged,
offering access to vital natural resources, as well as a gate to the southern part
of the region, which, at that time, was a little-known and not yet controlled
territory. The written sources, however, are silent about this settlement, which
does not seem to have belonged to any major contemporary power, and actu-
ally entered written history only in the 13th century.8 For the centuries on both
sides of the year 1000, historians have to make do with what may have hap-
pened in Alba Iulia, but also with the archaeological evidence, the interpreta-
tion of which is not at all easy.
4 Dincă 2017, 48–49 for exceptions to the use of this terminology.

5 For the final establishment of the see in Alba Iulia during the 13th century, or even 14th cen-
tury: Dincă 2017, 48–49 and note 127.
6 Moga – Ciugudean 1995, 29–47; Marcu Istrate 2009a, 19–27.
7 Briefly about the fort: Moga 1998; Moga 1999; Anghel 1986, 70–71; Rusu 1979, 58. For the trans-
formation of the fort into a medieval fortification: Rusu 1979, 47–70; Iambor 2005, 135–137.
8 Benkő 2000, 593. Nägler 2003, 5–10.
14 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.2 The plan of the Roman fort in Alba Iulia with the location of the episcopal site and of the
pillared church (2011)
drawing by daniela marcu istrate
Based on that, scholars surmise that the area of Alba Iulia, on the middle
course of the Mureș River, was in the 9th–10th centuries9 under the control of
the Bulgarian State,10 without a more detailed picture on this fact being pos-
sible (see in this volume the study by Florin Curta). Scholars also believe that
the ‘white fortress’, which the Hungarian prince Gyula is said to have found
sometime in the 10th century, was the Roman fort at Alba Iulia. This line of
historical reconstruction has opened a long debate about the whereabouts
of the mid-10th century mission from Byzantium headed by a bishop named
Hierotheos, who was sent to Tourkia together with a Hungarian leader named
Gyula, recently baptized in Constantinople11 (see in this volume the study by
Tudor Sălăgean).
Supposedly more reliable is the information pertaining to an event taking
place in the early 11th century – King Stephen’s attack upon, and subsequent
defeat of yet another leader named Gyula (aka Gyula the Younger), a local,
but high-ranking warlord, who appears to have been a relative of the king, but
had turned into his political and religious opponent. Most scholars give Alba
Iulia to that Gyula as his seat of power, inherited from his mid-10th century
predecessor and namesake (aka Gyula the Elder).12 There is no mention in
the written sources of where exactly was Gyula’s seat of power, but one can
infer it from the general historical context. Archaeologically, at least, 9th- to
10th-century Alba Iulia was the most important, central place in southern
Transylvania. That must have been a determining factor in moving the Latin
bishopric there, as will be discussed in the next pages.13
This paper focuses on this key center in the history of the 9th–10th cen-
turies, aiming to find out why it was so important, what were the immediate
local consequences of its conquest, and how sure one can be that the bishop-
ric of Transylvania was transferred to this location. In the absence of relevant
9 For the archaeology of the first millennium in Alba Iulia, see especially: Heitel 1985, 224–
226; Heitel 1994–1995, 415; Dragotă – Ciugudean 2002, 7–15, with the bibliography of the
main archaeological finds. Ciugudean – Pinter – Rustoiu 2006, with a mapping of the
funerary discoveries and the related bibliography.
10 Horedt 1954. Heitel 1975b, 343; Rusu 1979, 58. Heitel 1985, 225; Anghel 1994, 286–287. A
synthesis of the period in Iambor 2005, 170–172. For the Bulgarian control of the northern
region of the Danube: Browning 1975, 54–89; Comșa 1960; Madgearu 2002–2003.
11 For the location of Gyula’s land and implicitly of Hierotheos, there are mainly two the-
ories: some support Alba Iulia, others prefer the region west of the Tisza. A summary of
opinions in: Madgearu 1994, 148–149, with the latest variant in 2017 (Madgearu 2017); Rusu
1978, 167–168; Nicolae 2010, 109–112; Dănilă 2010.
12 Kristó 1999, 12–13.
13 For an introduction to the history of Transylvania around the year 1000: Horedt 1986;
Curta 2001.
16 Marcu Istrate
written sources, the research is mainly based on archaeological evidence indi-

cating a unique settlement.
1.1 The St. Michael’s Cathedral and the Churches Beneath
Alba Iulia was shaped around the Roman fort of Legio XIII Gemina, the ruins
of which are still noticeable in the urban fabric, especially on the southern
side of the modern citadel. The Roman fort had been built on the high terrace
of the Mureș River, in a place with excellent visibility, but on sloping ground,
so that the southwestern quarter was at the top.14 It was probably no coinci-
dence – if that is not just the current state of research – that the consecutive
habitations following the Roman withdrawal have always chosen this spot at a
higher elevation. Whatever the reason, the most important medieval ensemble
of Alba Iulia has the same location, that of the Roman-Catholic Cathedral of
St. Michael and the adjacent (arch)episcopal palace, extended to the east by
the monumental buildings of the former princely palace (Fig. 1.2, 1.3).
Broadly speaking, the cathedral is a 13th-century building, the only one in
the medieval kingdom of Hungary that has been preserved almost untouched
to this day.15 There are the ruins of two older churches underneath the still
standing building, both of them poorly known, despite large-scale excava-
tions carried out in the 20th century. One of them was a rotunda, the other
a Romanesque basilica. The cathedral built above them enveloped the ruins
of both buildings. The basilica is regarded as the first episcopal church, with
a three-aisled plan and a semicircular apse.16 Its dating to the second half of
14 Moga 1998; Moga 1999; Anghel 1986, 70–71; Rusu 1979, 58; Iambor 2005, 131–132.
15 For a detailed description of the cathedral: Entz 1958a; Entz 1958b; Vătășianu 1959, 43–44;
Kovács 1996. In recent decades, several important additions have been made to the major
monographs of the 1950s: Sarkadi 2010; Takács 2012; Papp 2012; Marcu Istrate 2009a,
87–123; Marcu Istrate 2012a; Marcu Istrate 2012b.
16 The ruins have been identified during the restoration works from the beginning of the
20th century and then researched in more detail in the years 1960–1970 by Radu Heitel,
but still the data we have are very brief. Based on the first excavations, Entz Géza pub-
lished a plan on which one can see the eastern part of a basilica with a central apse in
a flattened semicircular shape. Entz 1958a, 72, fig. 57. Based on more recent excavations,
Radu Heitel presented a three-aisled basilica, in which the northern and southern aisles
are narrow, and the nave is as large as that of the still standing church. The nave and the
aisles were apparently separated by a continuous foundation on which pillars stood (?),
but the configuration of the western part is by no means clear, which also results from the
fact that the graphic sign used for the respective ruin is different from that of the other
walls. Heitel 1985, fig. 1. Comments about the building: Vătășianu 1987, 10. For a summary
of the archaeological data: Marcu Istrate 2009a, 87–124; Marcu Istrate 2018a.
Figure 1.3 The episcopal ensemble in Alba Iulia, with the spot of the pillared church in front
of the cathedral
photograph by daniela marcu istrate
the 11th century is mainly based on grave goods from the adjacent graveyard.
This church, however, had a rather short existence because of its all-side exten-
sion ca. 1200 and the building of the present cathedral ending at some point
between 1270 and 1280. How the latter developed is quite clear, but unfortu-
nately next to nothing is known about the first basilica, as most comments on
its design have been speculative. Even the chronology is not entirely clear, but
that matter will be discussed in more detail below.
The Romanesque basilica and the rotunda were first brought to light in the
early 20th century when the latter was interpreted as a Roman tower turned
into a church by the addition of an apse to the east. Indeed, two different con-
struction techniques may be distinguished in what is today a ruin in the base-
ment of St. Michael Cathedral: the round part is made of reused limestone
blocks, many retaining traces of plaster, while the eastern part was built of
carefully arch-shaped ashlars. The composition of the walls probably inspired
the hypothesis of a Roman origin for the round part, but it is surprising that
no one has tried to determine the reason for such a tower in the middle of the
fort, or to analyze more carefully the construction technique (Fig. 1.4, 1.20, 1.21).
The rotunda seems much more likely to have been a medieval building, but
its association to the first cathedral needs to be elucidated: was it older (and,
18 Marcu Istrate
in this case, pre-dating the Hungarian occupation) or built at the same time,
as an attached baptistery? There is no firm answer so far, but, from the current
topography, one thing is obvious: both churches were in place when the pres-
ent cathedral was erected to envelop both the rotunda (within a room west of
the south wing of the transept) and the first cathedral.
Radu Heitel concluded, based on his own excavations, that the round
church was older than the Romanesque basilica. In support of his conclusion,
Heitel drew on topographical and technological data, not on stratigraphy, as he
has not published any field documentation. The axis of the rotunda is slightly
different from that of the first cathedral, which could be a serious argument in
favor of different building phases, with the rotunda being the earliest. Building
techniques were also specific to each church, and the same is true for the com-
position of the mortar.
On the other hand, Radu Heitel obviously has tried to integrate the church
into an overcomplicated reconstruction of the early medieval occupation
of the southwestern part of the fort. He saw the rotunda as the chapel of the
residence of a local Bulgarian leader, and as such as a pre-Hungarian church
of Eastern rite.17 In that scenario, which others have meanwhile embraced,
the rotunda operated as church in the 9th and throughout the first half of the
10th century.
Some assigned it to a later date, to associate the rotunda with the mission of
Hierotheos and with the mid-10th-century Gyula.18 Another theory, followed
mainly by Hungarian scholars, has the rotunda as a baptistery built alongside
the first cathedral at the end of the 11th century. That is also the result of spec-
ulation, with no regard for the archaeological data.19 In reality, neither the
function nor the chronology of the building can be established, taking into
consideration the absence of any baptismal font, the stratigraphy (particu-
larly the different ground levels for each church), and the wall between the
two buildings (still standing in place) being part of the rotunda. In short, far
from being interpreted in archaeological terms, the rotunda served to prop up
the theories of various scholars about the history of Alba Iulia or of the Latin
bishopric. Very little, if any attention has been paid to the ruins themselves.20
17 Rusu 1979; Madgearu 2005a, 107; Marcu Istrate 2014, 117; Madgearu 2017, 12–13.
18 Vătășianu 1987, 9; Horedt 1986, 137; Bóna 1990, 158; Theodorescu 1974, 75–76; Blăjan 2007,
246–247; Rusu 1982, 372.
19 Entz 1958b, 6. For the same theory: Heitel 1972, 151; Takács 2012, 17 and fig. 2.
20 The ruin of the rotunda, preserved in the basement of the cathedral, still provides infor-
mation that has not been fully exploited. The plan published by Miklós Takács wrongly
presents an interrupted wall between the two buildings, and on the other hand contra-
dicts the proposed function of baptistery, which required the access of catechumens
directly from the outside, not from the interior of the church. In the same plan, the apses
Figure 1.4 The plan of the archaeological digs published by Radu Heitel in 1985, with the location of all
the churches
After Heitel 1985, fig. 1
The religious topography of Alba Iulia became even more complicated when
Radu Heitel uncovered a third ruin, located west of the other two, within an
area in front of the St. Michael Cathedral that now has no buildings whatso-
ever. That third building was first identified in 1973 during a trial excavation,
the purpose of which seems to have been to explore the relation, if any, between
the cathedral and the western wall of the Roman and medieval fort, in order to
establish a general stratigraphy of the area. Following incomplete research, the
new building was simply described as a single-nave, 14 m-long church with a
round apse and perhaps a small tower to the west (Fig. 1.4).21
Although he correctly noted that graves of the medieval cemetery super-
posed the ruin of the church, Radu Heitel believed that this church had been in
operation for a very short period of time, while the first cathedral was built, i.e.,
during the first half of the 11th century.22 It is not difficult to detect his archae-
ological sleight of hand: Heitel dated the third building between the rotunda
of the two churches appear to be more fragile than the naves, which suggests different
stages of construction in both cases, but I do not think that this detail corresponds to the
known archaeological data. Takács 2018, Tafel XXXI/3.
21 The archaeological investigations were carried out between 1973 and 1975. The first men-
tion in the literature dates to 1975, and a general plan was published in 1985. All the refer-
ences to this building have been in summary: Heitel 1975a, 9; Heitel 1975b, 346; Heitel 1985,
pl. 1.
22 Heitel 1994–1995, 429.
20 Marcu Istrate
and the first cathedral and then proceeded to paint a ‘coherent’ picture of what
Alba Iulia may have looked like during that period. It is no wonder that the
excavation was not completed, the surveys were brief, and the end result was a
historiographic confusion (if not mess) of various solutions meant to explain
the conundrum.
Unexpectedly, a rescue excavation in the spring of 2011 created the oppor-
tunity for a systematic exploration of the third building, thus providing the
surprise of a unique planimetry set in an outstandingly rich context. I will now
turn to the results of the rescue excavation and summarize the main character-
istics of the building in terms of architecture and chronology, as resulting from
the archaeological evidence (Fig. 1.5, 1.16).
1.2 The Pillared Church in Front of the St. Michael Cathedral

(the Results of the 2011 Excavation)
Any archaeological excavation within the fortress of Alba Iulia has to face a
bimillennial history, a great amount of Roman-age remains, followed by a series
of post-Roman and early medieval settlements ending with a 9th–10th-century
hamlet. On top of that, no less than four churches were built next to each other
before ca. 1270, and a very crowded graveyard was in operation between the
11th and the 13th centuries. There are, of course, many other interventions
from more recent periods that complicate this already complex stratigraphy.23
In 2011, before reaching the ruins of the building identified by Heitel in 1973,
about 400 graves, numerous pits and trenches, dwellings, and outbuildings
of various ages have been systematically excavated.24 This situation required
thorough methods and imposed a very slow pace of excavation, but the result-
ing abundance of artifacts, including over 100 coins, offers precious points of
reference for a relative chronology. As work advanced, the basic structure of a
church came to light – a rectangular nave with four massive foundations in the
middle and a round apse to the east. Setting all the gathering data, one had to
admit that the same situation had been previously briefly excavated by Radu
Heitel.25
The outline of the church was well preserved: the lower course(s) of the
walls was (were) still standing in the central part of the apse and in the
23 Marcu Istrate 2009a, 39–43 and fig. 7, for a detailed description of the excavation and its
main results.
24 Marcu Istrate 2015, for a more detailed description of the context and the ruins.
25 Obviously, the ruins of the pillars on the north side were then interpreted at the time
as remnants of the wall of the nave, which led to the reconstruction of a much smaller
church and its positioning towards the interior of the lot.
southwestern corner, while the western part of the northern wall was pre-
served up to the construction ground level. Nonetheless, from the southern
and western walls, only fragments from the very base of the foundation have
been found in place.26 The four free foundations in the central bay of the nave
were quite intact, the southern ones in fact perfectly preserved, and a fragment
of an inner pavement made of bricks and small slabs set in a bed of mortar was
also noticed (Fig. 1.5, 1.6, 1.13).
The church was 12.20 m wide and 21.20 m long, with a plinth extending out-
side between 0.25 and 0.35 m in the area of the apse. At the same level, the
naos is 9.50 m wide and 14 m long inside with a square (central) bay, each side
being 4.5 m long and framed by pillars. One may suppose that the general size
of the elevation was 21 m long and 12 m wide, the opening between the naos
and the apse being 6.50 m large, and the central bay with each side of ca. 4.3 m,
depending on what exactly the foundations supported – pillars or columns.
A detailed description of the church has already been published,27 but it is
important to point out that this was a robust and carefully made building. The
archaeological evidence is incontrovertible in that respect: the foundations are
about 1.30 m wide and as much deep, made mainly of boulders (not of spolia
from the ruins of Roman buildings nearby) and occasional fragments of quar-
ried limestone and reused bricks or tiles. Lime slaked on the spot and, occasion-
ally, mortar were thrown over this masonry, which, at ground level, was further
leveled with a thick layer of crumbly white fine sandy mortar, mixed with small
fragments of bricks and un-slaked lime, all of which gave a uniform support
to the walls. The latter were built of coarsely shaped limestone ashlars (two of
which have been preserved in the middle of the apse and several in the south-
western corner), in regular courses of a presumed height of 0.35 m, certainly
alternating with brick courses, as suggested by the reddish debris spread over
a large area all-around at the time of the building’s demolition (Figs. 1.7, 1.8).28
For the pillars’ foundations, square-shaped pits were dug and subsequently
filled with mixed materials, mostly fragments of re-used limestone ashlars and
many pebbles, splinters, and fragments of tiles in order to make a compact
26 The upper part of the ruins stands at depths ranging between −0.76 m and −2.20 m,
depending on the damages. The depths mentioned in text are reported to the western
threshold of the current cathedral.
28 This layer is one of the most consistent and coherent stratigraphic deposits from the west-
ern part of the cathedral, up to the limit of the Episcopal Palace. It has been observed
since the beginning of the excavations on this spot (respectively since 2000), and with the
help of stratigraphic analysis and coins had already been dated to the 11th century. The
very compact layer spread over a large area indicated a major construction activity, but
only in 2011 it could be related to a specific ruin and defined as coming from the demoli-
tion of the pillared church. Marcu Istrate 2009a, 41–42.
22 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.5 The church discovered in 2011 – general view from the east
Figure 1.6 The apse of the pillared church during the excavation process
24 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.7 The central part of the church viewed from north-east with the ruins of the
four pillars. The burn remains belong to the 9th–10th-century habitation, and
the tomb built of stone and brick in between the western pillars, belongs to the
period around 1200. In the last plan, in between the southern pillars, a fragment
of the pavement and a section through an oven
masonry. Unlike the walls, the orderly composition of which was made pos-
sible by large trenches, the stability of the pillars was secured by filling the
foundation pits. As a result, the foundation blocks are irregular and difficult to
outline because of the almost total absence of mortar.
The subsequent and substantial robbing of the site makes it difficult to
identify any other details related to the operation of this building. Its foun-
dations cut through houses of the first millennium, but not through graves.
Moreover, no graves could be associated to this building either by their posi-
tion or by their grave goods.29 Long-scale excavations on the site of the cathe-
dral have brought to light a series of artifacts dated between the 9th and the
11th centuries, but, lacking any specific context, they could not be associated
either to the earlier settlement or to the church30 (Fig. 1.8, 1.9).
29 Observation made also by Radu Heitel: Heitel 1985, 230. Anyway, the analysis for the situ-
ations encountered in 2011 is still in progress.
30 Marcu Istrate 2009a, 77–81.
Figure 1.8 Stratigraphical sequence between the south pillars, with the traces of pavement
over the black backfill of a dwelling from the 9th–10th centuries, including
an oven
Those facts point to the interpretation of the building as a church in opera-

tion at the turn of the millennium, a chronology that results from the anal-
ysis of the context in which the ruin was found. For a better understanding
of that context, two major discoveries are extremely important, one predat-
ing the building of the church, the other following its demolition. Leaving
aside the Roman and post-Roman remains,31 of significance is the 9th- to
10th-century settlement, of which so far some 30 features have been identi-
fied, sunken-floored buildings (SFBs) with hearths, open-air ovens, and pits.32
The archaeological material consists primarily of fragments of pottery thrown
on a tournette (slowly turning wheel) decorated with combed ornament.
However, the ceramic repertoire includes unusual forms, such as wheel-made,
31 For the older dwellings, see: Anghel 1994, 286–287; Heitel 1985, 225; Marcu Istrate 2009a,
40–76; Rusu 1979, 58.
32 The settlement was first excavated by Radu Heitel, who identified 13 SFBs located around
the present-day cathedral. Heitel 1972, 141–145; Heitel 1975b, 343–344; Heitel 1985, 223–
226; Marcu Istrate 2009a, 40, 71–84, for the description of the context of this settlement
and of the discoveries from 2000–2002. Similar remains discovered in 2003–2011 are still
unpublished.
26 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.9 The foundation of the south-west pillar

Figure 1.10
Lunula earring found
on the site, south-west
from the ruin,
9th–10th centuries
drawing by
daniela marcu
istrate
Yellow-, Red- or Gray Ware amphora-like transport jars, each with two handles
and burnished decoration.33 Metal finds are rare: an earring with croissant-
shaped pendant and filigree ornamentation (Fig. 1.10)34 and a finger ring with
granulated decoration.35 Judging by their analogies, those artifacts may be
dated to the 9th and 10th centuries.36
The settlement covers the southwestern corner of the Roman fort and
extends up to the western wall of its enclosure. After the settlement was aban-
doned, the pillared church was built on the site, as indicated by its foundation
33 In most cases, it is a red pottery with a rather rudimentary firing. Marcu Istrate 2009a,
80–82. For similar materials at other nearby points, on the southern side of the fortifi-
cation, see: Heitel – Dan 1986, 188, fig. 2–3; Iambor 2005, 213. Radu Heitel mentions an
amphora made of fine orange clay, covered on the outside with a yellow slip, and deco-
rated with a polished network motif.
34 Marcu Istrate 2009a, 82–84, fig. 27, for a dating around the year 900; Fiedler 1992, 179;
Ungermann 2020, 273–275.
35 Marcu Istrate 2009b, 245.
36 Anghel – Ciugudean 1987, 190–191 especially, fig. 4/1, fig. 6 and 7; Catalog 2006, 114–115;
Iambor 2005, 171–174; Marcu Istrate 2009a, 82; Madgearu 2001a, 188–189; Madgearu 2005c,
106–107.
28 Marcu Istrate
trenches cutting through a number of SFBs,37 as well as ovens. Two situations

are remarkable in this regard: one in the western side, the other in the central
area of the church. On the western side, those who dug the foundation trench
stumbled upon a stone oven and decided to stop digging just above its vault.
With an inner diameter of about 1.20 m and an outer diameter of about 1.70 m,
this oven was part of a household complex in use for a long time, as indicated
by no less than three successive reconstructions of the hearth,38 the youngest
being dated radiocarbon-dated to ca. 900.39
Another oven appeared between the foundations of the two pillars on the
southern side, overlaid by the construction and floor layers, and slightly dis-
turbed by the trench of the western foundation of the corresponding pillar.
This oven was probably carved into a wall of the SFB and had a ventilation
shaft in the central area. Its long-term use produced a red burnt layer, 5–6 cm
thick, or even thicker on the lower side. At the time of abandonment, a 9th- to
10th-century pot with combed decoration remained on the circular hearth of
the oven, the latter with a diameter of about 1 m (Fig. 1.11).
The same type of grave goods has been found in larger quantities and in
many forms in a nearby cemetery, outside the walls of the Roman fort. The
cemetery is known as Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’ I and has been dated to the
9th and early 10th centuries, possibly abandoned ca. 930.40
37 The church intersected at least three houses, and a supply pit was uncovered near the
west side, but specific artifacts and burn marks are spread over the entire surface. Marcu
Istrate 2014, 100–101.
38 Possibly the same complex was uncovered by Radu Heitel as well, described as part of
house H 10, said to have been to the west of the church. Heitel 1985, 225 and fig. 1. In
connection with this oven, more precisely with the filling of the dwelling in which it had
operated, a 10th-century mount is mentioned, which Heitel attributed hypothetically to
a burial assemblage, even though no skeletal remains have been identified. The burial
had been supposedly disturbed by the church’s foundation trench. However, that stopped
exactly on top of the oven’s vault, without going any deeper into the filling of the SFB’s pit.
On the other hand, on the basis of the field documentation subsequently published, the
mount in question appears to have been found a few meters west of the church wall, i.e.,
away from the settlement feature with an oven. For the new publication of the mount see
Crîngaci Țiplic – Oța 2005, 96. For the initial publication of the mount, see Heitel 1985,
225; Heitel 1986, 243.
39 The radiocarbon analyses were carried out in the laboratory of the University of Szeged,
through the gracious assistance of Dr. Elek Benkő, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude.
40 From the cemetery, of probably much larger dimensions, over 1,000 graves have been
uncovered, under different circumstances (1152 + possibly another 85 undated, cf.
Ciugudean 2007, 243–244), indicating two distinct burial stages. For a summary data of
this necropolis, see: Ciugudean 2006, 114–115. Cemetery no. 1 contains about 100 graves. For
a general view of the situation around 2007, see: Cosma 2011, 147–151, with bibliography.
Figure 1.11 Pot from the 9th–10th centuries discovered on the hearth of an oven
drawing by daniela marcu istrate
Judging by the information available at the moment, both the settlement

and the cemetery have good analogies in the 9th- to 10th-century cultural
horizon in the Lower Danube region, both south (in Bulgaria) and north of
the river (in southern Romania).41 In Transylvania, however, this horizon is
uncommon and so far documented archaeologically only in Alba Iulia and
its environs, at Blandiana and Sebeș. In other words, this may well be a small
region of the Mureș Valley in direct connection with, or even under Bulgarian
control.42
The settlement within the fort in Alba Iulia was abandoned in unclear
circumstances – perhaps after a fire, as Radu Heitel has suggested.43 At any
41 Heitel 1975a. For an overview of this period, dealing with the state of research on both
banks of the river, see: Fiedler 1992, 106–116, 417–452. In the Romanian historiography,
the material culture of the period is described either as the Dridu (Nestor – Zaharia 1959.
Zaharia 1967) or the Balkan-Danubian Culture (Comșa 1963). For an attempt to integrate
in this horizon the discoveries from southern Transylvania: Heitel 1975b, 349–350; Heitel
1986, 245–246. The issue discussed in more detail in: Marcu Istrate 2014.
42 Anghel 1968, 469–483; Ciugudean – Anghel 1983, fig. 2; Horedt 1966; Heitel 1983b, 446;
Heitel – Dan 1986, 188; Anghel – Ciugudean 1987, 190–191 especially, fig. 4/1, fig. 6 and 7;
Dragotă – Ciugudean 2002, 50–62; Ciugudean – Pinter – Rustoiu 2006, 114–115; Iambor
2005, 171–174; Marcu Istrate 2009a, 82; Madgearu 2005c, 106–107.
43 Heitel 1975b, 343–344; Heitel 1985, 225.
30 Marcu Istrate
rate, upon abandonment, the inhabitants carefully retrieved their belongings,

with only a small amount of materials recovered from SFB and pit backfills.
Be that as it may, in the early 10th century the settlement came to an end. It is
likely that the cemetery outside the walls of the Roman fort was abandoned at
about the same time, roughly 930, a date that may be advanced for Blandiana
and Sebeș as well.
From the purpose of this chapter, it is important to note that the pillared
church was built over a part of the settlement after its abandonment. The
building of the church must therefore be later than ca. 930, the date at which
the Bulgarian control over this region, whatever form it may have taken, came
to an end.
What about the end of the church?
If one compares the level of construction with that of demolition, it appears
that during the operation of the church the ground level increased only a lit-
tle, so that only the first course above the level of the offset, of a height of ca.
0.30–0.40 m, came to be buried. However, in the southwestern part, the demo-
lition was practically operated at the same ground level as that of the building.
This suggests a rather short period of life, given that the ground level between
the two cathedrals increased by more than 1 m in some 200 years. A date
for the end of the church may result from the examination of what happened
on the site after the demolition. Indeed, an extremely crowded cemetery with
quite richly furnished graves appeared in the ruins (Fig. 1.12, 1.14, 1.15).
First researched in 1953,44 this cemetery site has until now produced over
1,000 graves, spread along the eastern, southern, and western sides of the
cathedral, of which 400 graves were unearthed in 2011.45 After the excavations
of the 1950s, the graves were dated between the 11th and the 13th centuries (the
so called Arpadian period in the history of Hungary), with the most recent
coins being struck for King Emeric (1196–1204). Later, after studying a larger
number of features, Radu Heitel redated the cemetery to the 12th century,
with the oldest coins struck for King Coloman (1095–1116). He also identified
44 Protase 1956, 35 and note 22.

45 More specifically, 315 graves are known from the older excavations around the cathe-
dral (291 + 11 in the excavations of Radu Heitel and 24 from the excavations of Dumitru
Protase), and about 700 graves were researched up to 2011. To these are added numer-
ous charnels and scattered bones. It is important to note that the cemetery was never
an object of primary excavation, the data is reduced to what appeared in excavations
related to the cathedral. The topography of the necropolis is not actually established, and
the plan of the cemetery has not been published. Vague information on these graves at:
Heitel 1985, 229; Heitel 1986, 242. Some other general considerations at: Heitel 1972, 141;
Protase 1956, 24–26 (with a catalog of the graves). The 82 graves discovered until 2002 are
published in Marcu Istrate 2009a, 117–123.
Figure 1.12 Graves over the ruin of the apse

32 Marcu Istrate
among the latest graves a feature for the first time reported in the Carpathian
Basin – anthropomorphic cists built of bricks. The picture was completed and
detailed by the recent excavations, but the general dating did not change. With
few exceptions,46 the graves may date between the last decades of the 11th and
the first decades (maybe even the middle) of the 13th century – that is, until
the completion of the present-day cathedral. About 30 brick cists are currently
known, all dated to the 12th and the first decades of the 13th century. After the
early 13th century, the cemetery seems to have been in use only intermittently
(Fig. 1.13).47
Quite clear from this survey of the archaeological excavations is the con-
clusion that the cemetery in question was the graveyard of the first cathedral,
as it spread around it, with the largest cluster of graves to the west, on the site
of the pillared church. The situation may have a simple topographical expla-
nation, as the area to the west from the cathedral was the largest plot to be
used for burial. The residence of the bishop, whose boundaries had been set
at the same time as those of the first cathedral, was standing very close on the
southern side.
The episcopal complex also seems to have been limited along the eastern
and northern sides,48 so we can actually see a very clear conception of the
religious topography from the moment the Latin bishopric was moved to Alba
Iulia, receiving a very small area within the Roman fort. The agglomeration of
graves on the western side of the first cathedral, although not unusual for its
time, may have well been based on the sacred character of the area, known
to have been the site of a previous church. The main reason, however, seems
to have been the concern to bury people facing the cathedral. That this was
a privileged position results from the multiple superpositions of 6, 7, or even
46 According to the typology published in 2009, the M-1 horizon includes possible graves
with animal offerings, among which was one with remains of two horses and an ox, in
addition to metal artifacts. Marcu Istrate 2009a, 118–120.
47 In general, about the cemetery: Heitel 1972, 141; Heitel 1985, 222–230; Heitel 1986, 242–244;
Marcu Istrate 2009a, 117–123. In 1985, Radu Heitel had estimated that the total number of
burials around the cathedral must have been around 1200, but this was based on quite
limited and not always completed research. For the anthropomorphic tombs built of
brick: Marcu Istrate – Istrate 2005.
48 The indications provided by previous authors regarding the spread of the graves are con-
fusing. D. Protase mentions that north of the choir the burials stopped at about 9 m away
from the church, and on the south at about 30 m. Protase 1956, 24–26. R. Heitel indicates
30 m on the north side and 15 m on the south side (Heitel 1985, 227–228) but (wrongly)
considers that no graves were dug near the apse. Heitel 1985, 242. Anghel 1975, 268–271 for
younger graves on the northern side.
Figure 1.13 The ruin of the south wall of the church, with the remains of a 12th-century
brick cist, built within the ruin
34 Marcu Istrate
more graves.49 There were no less than 200 graves on top of the pillared church
ruin, i.e., about a fifth of all graves in the cemetery.50 Particularly interesting is
the situation of grave 370A, which disturbed two other graves and was super-
imposed by another six, all of which partially placed directly on the ruins of
the church. Equally interesting is grave 374, one of 11 overlapping graves, all
without grave goods.51 The western part of the southern wall of the church was
badly damaged by a succession of at least eight graves in the following order
(Fig. 1.14, 1.15):
grave 570, anthropomorphic brick cist (12th–13th centuries);

grave 535, with a golden lockring with S-shaped end and a 12th- or
13th-century coin;
grave 554, with a coin struck for Béla II (1131–1141) in the filling, most likely
from another disturbed burial;
grave 499, with a few beads;
grave 520, the burial of a woman with a belt kit and a 12th-century coin
in the backfill;
grave 515, a partially preserved burial with a coin struck for King Béla III
(1172–1196), and a lockring with S-shaped end.
In short, at least eight burials were performed over the southwestern corner of
the church, several with 12th-century coins from different reigns, and another
with a coin that could be dated after 1200. The lockrings are characteristic for
the same period, and the belt fittings, a unique discovery so far, may be of a
date ca. 1200.
The oldest coin found in those burials planted above the ruins of the church
are of King Coloman, and are located on the northern side of the apse. A
series of other coins struck in the 12th century (anonymous Arpadian denars),
as well as clothing and jewellery most typical for this type of cemetery, have
been found over the ruin of the church, or in direct connection with it. This
situation leads to the conclusion that, by the late 11th century, the church
had already been demolished, its site covered with debris being now repur-
posed for burials. The density of the graves is relatively uniform, except that
49 A significant number of burials were superimposed by the current cathedral, especially

around the towers, which were positioned outside the first cathedral. Marcu Istrate
2009a, 90–94 and 118–123 and pl. 5.
50 This estimate is based on the fact that only 20 percent of the church’s area kept its – let’s
say – 14th-century appearance, the biggest part being disturbed by subsequent excavations.
51 For a sequence of three burials over the ruins, the most recent dating back to the mid-12th
century, see also Heitel 1975b, 346.
Figure 1.14 The ruin of the southern wall of the church and a cluster of graves from the
12th century
36 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.15 Graves over the south wall of the church

drawings by daniela marcu istrate
some burials were dug into earth, others into masonry, dislocating significant
amounts of stone, and badly damaging the foundations. Why would anyone
choose to break a wall for making a grave, instead of easily digging a pit into
the ground without that much effort? The explanation is probably that already
by the late 11th century, nobody could remember exactly what was underneath.
The relationship between the cemetery and the ruin thus suggests the lack of
any direct connection. It is likely that a relatively large span of time separates
the demolition of the church from the establishment of the cemetery. In other
words, it seems that when the first graves of the cemetery were dug, the pil-
lared church was not visible anymore.
The archaeological context briefly described here, but analyzed in detail
elsewhere,52 shows that the church was in operation for about a century,
between the middle third of the 10th and the middle third of the 11th century,
with its demolition taking place prior to the opening of the first cathedral
graveyard. The church discovered in 2011 in Alba Iulia is the first construction
of its kind erected in the lands north of the Danube River and one of the old-
est in the Carpathian Basin, within the period before the Hungarian conquest.
However, the exceptional character of this discovery is matched by the obvious
Byzantine analogies for its architecture, that is, its plan (Fig. 1.16).53
The church is a centrally planned structure, a plan derived from the Greek
cross and based on a central space with four free elements (pillars or columns)
supporting a dome. The model spread at the beginning of the second millen-
nium, the prototype arguably being the Nea Ekklesia built by Emperor Basil I in
the Imperial Palace of Constantinople, although its genesis seems to be more
complicated.54 According to the current state of research, in different regions of
the Byzantine Empire architects followed different paths to solve basically the
same problem – the stability of a dome over a square with four free-standing
points. Different solutions resulted from a number of experiences, in Armenia
already in the 7th century, then in Asia Minor, in Constantinople, and in
Bulgaria, and from there to other Slavic lands. That is why no pair of identical
churches is known so far. Later, the model had enormous success and spread
throughout all the Byzantine territories and those under its influence until the
fall of Constantinople in 1453, and in the Balkan regions and Russian territories
even after that date.55
52 Marcu Istrate 2015.

53 The following works are useful for an overview of medieval Byzantine architecture:
Krautheimer 1986, 301–370; Millingen 1974, 2–10; Ćurčić 2010, especially 263–344; Mango
1981, 108/185; Bouras 2006, 48–163; Ousterhout 2019. 245–300.
54 For the genesis of this plan: Mijatev 1974, 102–104; Krautheimer 1986, 355; Bouras
2006, 48–50. For the formation of this plan in southern Greece: Ćurčić 2010, 328–339;
Dimitrokallis 2002–2003, 220–223 considers that the prototype appeared in southern
Greece, developing directly from the transformation of some late antique basilicas by
“adding a dome to an existing basilica, with three naves separated by columns or pillars
and covered with a roof structure – whether it was ruined and rebuilt, or it was built
intentionally.”
55 Krautheimer 1986, 340–341.
38 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.16 The church at the end of the excavations – with some overlapped Roman ruins in hatches
drawings by daniela marcu istrate
Among the many buildings of this kind built in the capital of the Byzantine
Empire, two churches from the first half of the 10th century are known more
precisely, namely those at Fenari Isa Camii and Bodrum Camii (the church
from the north, consecrated in 907). Both were built on high terraces, were
made of briefly carved stone and brick, and have a Greek cross-in-square plan,
with three apses and a naos covered with five domes. The Fenari Isa Camii is
21 m long and 16 m wide, with a naos of 13 m in length and 9.50 m in width,
in which the columns describe a square bay with a side of 5 m. The naos of
Bodrum Camii is 10.5 m long and 8.80 m wide, and the central pillars mark a
square with a side of 4.5 m.56 In Bulgaria, such churches were chapels, for the
most popular type in that country during the late 9th and 10th centuries was
the basilica. However, several 10th-century buildings are known that may be
regarded as analogies for the church in Alba Iulia. The oldest one is in Pliska:
a single nave church within the palatial compound, which served probably
56 Krautheimer 1986, 356–361, fig. 308–314.

Figure 1.17 The reconstructed plan of the church in Alba Iulia and some contemporary analogies: 1.
Alba Iulia, hypothetic restitution of the ground plan of the Byzantine-style church;
2. Bodrum Camii; 3. Pliska, one of the Palace churches; 4. Modrá
drawing by daniela marcu istrate (1); AFTER KRAUTHEIMER 1096, 356, fig. 309
(2); AFTER MIJATEV 1974, 103, fig. 109 (3); AFTER CIBULKA 1958, 27, fig. 17 (4)
as a private chapel. This church has a narrow narthex, a 6.3 m-wide and 6.5
m-long naos with four middle columns, and a small apse.57 (Fig. 1.17) Several
churches of the same kind are known from Preslav: each one of the churches
in Avradaka has four pillars in the central area, and three round apses to the
east, as well as a narthex to the west. Particularly significant is the analogy with
the Avradaka 2 church, a small-size copy of the pillared church in Alba Iulia,
if one disregards the number of apses. These 10th-century churches, however,
are smaller in scale, with an exterior length of only 12 m.58
Such examples selected from a larger group of similar buildings can only
offer general indicators for comparison, highlighting at the same time the
exceptional size of the church in Alba Iulia, at least for its own time. Indeed,
the church in Alba Iulia is almost of the same size as its counterparts in Middle
Byzantine architecture. However, there are some particularities that show this
church as a unique occurrence, and the most important refers to the uneven
57 Mijatev 1974, 102–103, fig. 109.

58 Mijatev 1974, 103–104, fig. 110–111, with corresponding bibliography.
40 Marcu Istrate
distribution of spaces inside the nave, as can be deduced from the bay of the
pillars, which does not correspond to the opening of the apse.
The outline of the church appears as a provincial variant of the Greek
cross-in-square plan, for which there is no perfect analogy so far.59 The struc-
ture of the nave bears a close resemblance to the church in Densuș, a small
building in southwestern Transylvania – nevertheless, the nave at Densuș is
square and the division of spaces follows a symmetrical pattern. The dating
of the latter is not at all clear, but the resemblance of the two plans is far too
obvious to be a mere coincidence60 (Fig. 1.18).
In analyzing this plan, we must keep in mind that our knowledge is limited
to what has been preserved,61 and many medieval buildings now appear as
unique projects, although it is hard to believe that this was actually the case
at the time. Among these one-of-the-kind instances would be, for example,
the central chapel built for Symeon of Bulgaria62 or the church with a square
59 A similar building was reported in Zselicszentjakab (Kaposvár): archaeological research

from 1960–1966, resumed in 2013–2014, revealed the remains of a church with estimated
dimensions of 12/13 m × 7.5 m, the central part of which is dominated by four massive
pillars. In 1061, a basilica was built over the ruins of this church, considered ‘very old.’
Nagy 1973. Móré Heitel 2006, 41–42, 69–70. Molnár 2014, for the preliminary results of
recent research. The author notes that the pillars, like the walls of the old church, are the
only vestiges that do not disturb graves, unlike the ruins of the abbey church from 1061.
Even more recent research has revised the planimetry, considering the pillars as part of
the church of the monastery. The old church, radiocarbon-dated 900 is regarded now as
‘Carolingian’ and interpreted as the chapel of the residence of a local leader, whose origin
remains unclear. Molnár 2020, 14–21.
60 Vătășianu 1959, 89–95; Curinschi Vorona 1981, 86–87; Popa 1988, 228–230; Rusu – Mizgan
2008.
61 For example, of the 230 Byzantine churches in Greece, only 15 can be dated to the 10th
century. Mango 1981, 115–116.
62 With an inner diameter of 10.5 m, the round church in Preslav is a unique appearance in
the world south of the Danube, whose genesis has not yet found sufficient explanations.
It is related to the round constructions from the 4th–6th centuries, used as martyria, bap-
tisteries, or mausoleums, but the links that could explain the re-emergence of the plan
at such a great distance in time are missing. The foundations are made of stone and clay,
on which was placed a stepped plinth of limestone blocks (Mijatev 1974, 90). Over this
pedestal, the walls are built of quarry stone and a little white mortar, which is a feature
of most churches in Preslav. For the vaults, the arches of the entrances, the walls of the
atrium, and certainly for the dome, yellow and red brick of different sizes was used. The
church, preserved only as a ruin, had an exceptional decoration (numerous fragments of
stone recovered from excavations), including one in the technique of inlay and enamel.
Mango 2002, 173. Krautheimer 1986, 318–321; Mijatev 1974, 89–96, fig. 91–96.
Figure 1.18 The orthodox St. Nicholas church in Densuș (1–2) and the reconstructed plan of the
Byzantine church in Alba Iulia (3)
AFTER VĂTĂȘIANU 1959, fig. 82 (1); Author’s photograph (2);
drawing by daniela marcu istrate (3)
choir and four pillars in the middle of the nave from Modrá (near Staré Město
in southern Moravia).63
There is an exaggerated use of analogies in medieval archaeology, and the
absence of comparisons has led many astray and to bizarre conclusions. My
goal in this chapter is not to go any deeper in the investigation based on anal-
ogies, because the archaeological dating of the church is sufficient. However,
closely similar examples of the same date are numerous in the territories south
of the river Danube, either in Bulgaria or in Byzantium.
There are more important and difficult questions about the church in Alba
Iulia beyond merely identifying analogies. The churches mentioned above,
and in general the churches dated to ca. 1000, were built in regional or imperial
residences by leaders whose socio-political and cultural context is clear or can
be inferred from the context. Alba Iulia may well have been a local center, but
63 Cibulka 1958.
42 Marcu Istrate
in the borderlands of empires, in an area virtually unknown, where stone build-

ings had not been erected since Roman times. A building of such a size, with an
extremely specific design, must have involved technical, functional, and insti-
tutional challenges that only a complex society can solve. Was there any such
society in Alba Iulia by the time the church was built and in operation?
1.3 Living in the 9th–11th-Century Alba Iulia: an Attempt to

Reconstruct the Local Habitat
To judge by the existing evidence, the ruins of the Roman fort in Alba Iulia, or
at least its southwestern part was inhabited from the 9th to the 11th centuries
by at least three different communities, one of which used an open settlement,
another a Byzantine-style church, and the third the Romanesque church and
its graveyard. However, there is more than meets the eye in early medieval Alba
Iulia, for a number of cemeteries discovered outside the walls of the Roman
fort bespeak the existence of more communities. For now, the oldest seems
to be the first phase of the ‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery, which, as already men-
tioned, was used by people living inside the Roman fort and sharing the same
material culture.64 Both the settlement inside the fort and the cemetery out-
side it show strong similarities with the Lower Danube area, but it remains
unclear whether that reflects an effective Bulgarian (political) presence, or the
Bulgarian influence (and perhaps control) upon some locals.65 To remain on
solid ground, one can only conclude that Alba Iulia, together with the sites at
Blandiana and Sebeș, were settled by a population that was the recipient of
cultural influences from the south, and that all of that came to an end around
the year 930.
That period had barely ended, when important changes were already on
the way: the number of cemeteries increased and the nature of both grave
goods and funerary practices dramatically shifted. This change is noticeable
primarily in the same cemetery, at ‘Stația de Salvare’ during its second phase,
when a pagan population buried its dead together with (remains of) horses,
harnesses and weapons, as well as specific jewellery that are characteristic for
64 Dragotă 2006, 133; Cosma 2011, 147–151, with the related bibliography.
65 Dragotă 2006, 135 – considers that this group of discoveries can be interpreted as a spe-
cial cultural horizon, Alba Iulia I, dating to the 9th–10th centuries. The communities of
Blandiana A and Sebeș as well.
10th-century assemblages in Hungary attributed to the Magyars.66 The burials

in Alba Iulia, however, display some peculiarities, such as the frequent depo-
sition of pottery, the use of two vessels in the same grave, and the covering of
the graves with stones and bricks. Horia Ciugudean attributes such behavior to
local customs, within a multi-ethnic society.67 This second phase of the ‘Stația
de Salvare’ cemetery has been dated between 930 and 960.68
Almost at the same time, another settlement appeared at ‘Dealul Furcilor’,
where several houses have been documented, as well as a 10th-century grave
that is probably part of a larger cemetery.69 However, Aurel Dragotă has linked
that settlement to a different cemetery excavated on Brândușei Street, which is
clearly dated to the 10th century.70
A third cemetery of this same period has been excavated at the site called
‘Izvorul Împăratului,’71 and dated to the second half of the 10th century. Only
preliminary results have so far been published. ‘A part’ of the burials produced
grave goods linked to warriors, not unlike those from the second phase of the
‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery. ‘Another part’ contained burials with Byzantine
and Christian artifacts, including three reliquary crosses, a pectoral cross,
rings, earrings, and pendants, some decorated with granulation and filigree72
(Fig. 1.19). Aurel Dragotă has interpreted this cemetery as being used by the
people of the mid-10th-century Gyula, including warriors of his retinue, and
by members of the mission of Bishop Hierotheos (presumably signaled by rel-
iquary or pectoral crosses). Although it is naturally not possible to know for
sure, one should take into consideration that those buried with crosses were
locals, given that Christianity was part of the southern influence from Bulgaria.
Whatever the ethnicity of this community, it is quite clear that by the time
the ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ cemetery was in use, Christianity had been firmly
implanted in Alba Iulia by means of the pillared church built within the fort.
66 Ciugudean 2007, 247.

67 Ciugudean 2007, 248.
68 Cosma 2011, 155–157.
69 Cosma 2011, 160. Located on the spot called ‘Dealul Furcilor’, the find is also known as
‘Antena Orange’. Ciugudean 2007, 243.
70 Dragotă – Rustoiu 2007, 129. The analysis of the necropolis is still in its infancy.
71 The most recent publication mentions 223 graves. The cemetery was mainly researched
by Mihai Blăjan in 2001–2008 (Blăjan 2007), later the excavations being resumed by Aurel
Dragotă in 2014. There is no catalog-type publication to permit a more detailed analy-
sis, but several categories of pieces have recently been published. For ‘Byzantine’ objects,
see Dragotă 2017; Dragotă 2018e; for those strictly related to the graves of warriors, see:
Dragotă 2018a; Dragotă 2018c. For a general consideration, Cosma 2011, 161; Dragotă 2018b.
72 Dragotă 2018b; Dragotă 2018d.
44 Marcu Istrate
Figure 1.19 Pectoral cross from the inventory of the

cemetery at ‘Izvorul Împăratului’
After Dragotă 2018e, Fig. 6
The stage changed again after the year 1000: the cemetery of the second phase
at ‘Stația de Salvare’ was abandoned,73 but the one on the Brândușei Street
continued throughout the first half of the 11th century, as indicated by coins
deposited in graves, such as those struck for the Hungarian kings between
Stephen I (997–1038) and Solomon (1063–1074).74 Meanwhile, two more
cemeteries came into being, one at the ‘Băile Romane’75 site (?), the other
on the Vânătorilor Street, which produced coins struck for the kings from
Andrew I (1046–1060) to Ladislaus I (1077–1095).76 In close proximity of Alba
Iulia, to the south-east, another cemetery opened at Pâclișa – ‘La Izvoare.’ That
73 Aurel Dragotă considers, however, that some burials in this cemetery could be more
recent. “This phase, partially contemporary with the necropolis Blandiana B and Alba
Iulia – Brândușei Street is related to the arrival of a group of nomadic horsemen on
the Mureș Valley. The upper level of the necropolis can be linked to the expedition of
Stephen I to Transylvania, against Gyula (1002 or 1003).” Dragotă 2006, 138.
74 Dragotă 2006, with a bibliography on the cemetery, and for an analysis of the coins, see
especially 125–130. Cosma 2011, 159–160; Dragotă – Rustoiu 2007 mentioned 188 graves.
75 Horedt 1986, 117; Ciugudean 2007, 243.
76 Dragotă 2006, 133, 135–136 attributes the cemetery to a mixed community consisting of
both locals and newcomers.
cemetery also produced coins struck for Stephen I (997–1038) and Andrew I
(1046–1060).77
Given the archaeological situation around the Roman fort, one can see the
contours of a dense and very dynamic settlement, with different ways of living
and dying, caused by frequent changes of the residents and the adoption of
Christianity. Broadly speaking, four stages may be distinguished: (1) locals in
the 9th–10th centuries live in the settlement excavated within the Roman fort
and bury their dead in the cemetery of the first phase at ‘Stația de Salvare;’78
(2) the first Magyars and the first Christian elements appear simultaneously in
the mid-10th century, as illustrated by the earliest church within the fort and
by the earliest graves in the ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ cemetery, as well as some of
those in the second phase of the at ‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery;79 (3) an influx
of pagan Magyars in the 11th century, who opened and used various cemeter-
ies outside the Roman fort; and, finally, (4) the opening of the first graveyard
within the fort and the building of the Romanesque basilica. It is important
to bear in mind that no coin has been so far found in the southwestern corner
of the fort that could be dated before the reign of King Coloman,80 which is
a way to say that, until the last decades of the 11th century, irrespective of the
ethnic groups that used them, all local cemeteries were outside the ruins of
the Roman fort and devoid of any adjacent church. In other words, by the late
11th century, the important settlement of Alba Iulia had only field (or ‘rural’)
cemeteries.
Between the first two stages, beginning ca. 930, a change of power is evi-
dent: the southern connection is lost, and a population associated with the
Magyars appears, first in the same cemetery from ‘Stația de Salvare’ (phase 2,
dated between ca. 930 and 960), then in the cemeteries on the Brândușei Street
and at the ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ site – both during the second half of the 10th
century. The latter shows also a cultural and religious change through the use
of some Byzantine artifacts, among which a few reliquary crosses deposited in
graves stand out. These findings prove the presence of Christianity (most likely
of Byzantine origin) for the first time in Alba Iulia.
The third stage brought a series of further changes: the number of cemeter-
ies outside the Roman fort increased, a clear indication of population growth
taking place during the reign of King Stephen I and under his successors, as
77 Dragotă et al. 2012, 147–156; Dragotă et al. 2013, 147.

78 Cosma 2011, 147–151, with relevant bibliography.
79 Dragotă – Rustoiu 2007; Dragotă et al. 2009.
80 A fragment of a coin discovered in 2011 seemed to be an issue of King Ladislaus I (1077–
1095), but, after its restoration things were not that clear. The piece had been discovered
in M 511.
46 Marcu Istrate
demonstrated by coin finds. One can assume the change in question to have
been a mirror of the state of things following the Hungarian conquest when
new settlers are supposed to have arrived. Stephen’s baptism, as well as the
beginning of the Christianization of Hungary, a process that had just started,
made room for the forced conversion of several tribes. The process, how-
ever, was long and interrupted by pagan revolts (see Tudor Sălăgean in this
volume). Even in Alba Iulia, things must not have been very different: the
Christianization of the locals, that is, all those who lived in and around
the fort – an undoubtedly heterogeneous community – lingered throughout
the entire 11th century. There is not enough information to understand this
process in more detail, but a shift from mixed funerary rituals and different
types of grave goods to a uniform ritual and no grave goods, and from several
‘rural’ cemeteries to a church graveyard are certain signs of a process of conver-
sion and organization of the Christian society.
The first church graveyard appears inside the Roman fort as a Christian bur-
ial ground: bodies are placed in graves with the head to the west, with only per-
sonal jewelry, occasionally a coin (deposited as Charon’s obole), but no other
furnishings. A Christian cemetery was typically associated with a church, in
this case, the first cathedral. As there is no case of the foundations of the cathe-
dral disturbing any tomb, one must conclude that when the cemetery was
established, the ground plan of the first cathedral was known or already made.
1.4 Considering the Churches Again: the Byzantine Church and the
Romanesque Basilica
The church discovered in 2011 has a clear chronology, its operation covering
about a century between the middle third of the 10th century and the middle
third or the first decades after the middle of the 11th century, before the open-
ing of the cemetery inside the Roman fort. Things are not as certain in the case
of the Romanesque basilica, the dating of which depends upon the same cem-
etery, as well as a few architectural fragments recovered during restorations
or reused in the masonry of the present-day church.81 The beginnings of the
cemetery and of the cathedral must have at least partially coincided in time,
as it is hard to imagine that during the building process of such a church the
cemeteries outside the Roman fort continued to be used, or that people buried
their dead here and there in scattered graves.
81 Entz 1958a, 55–56, 70–76; Vătășianu 1959, 22–23, 151–152; Heitel 1975a, 6–10; Takács 2012,
15–17.
Figure 1.20 Medieval churches in Alba Iulia: the ruins of the 10th–11th-century
Byzantine church and the restitution of the 9th to 12th-century round
church
drawing by daniela marcu istrate, based on Heitel 1985,
Fig. 1 for the round church
Art historians agreed in dating the cathedral to the last decades of the 11th
century, with work beginning under King Ladislaus I (1077–1095) and ending
under King Coloman (1095–1116),82 although changes and additions were made
after that.83 In the absence of coins older than the last decades of the 11th cen-
tury, there is no way the church could be dated earlier (Fig. 1.4, 1.20, 1.21).84
The first cathedral and the pillared church stood about 30 m from each
another (if one takes into consideration the western limit of the cathedral as
shown by Radu Heitel), having almost the same axis. This is a rather interesting
situation given that the rotunda and the cathedral do not have the same axis.
This situation shows a relation between the two buildings, but what was the
order? Bringing into discussion the archaeological evidence and particularly
the evidence of the cemetery, it appears that the first cathedral was planned
in relation to the (already existing) pillared church. The latter was soon pulled
down to make room for the cemetery. This reconstruction is based on the anal-
ysis of the local context, which shows, on one hand, a clear sequence of events
on the plot west of the cathedral (settlement, pillared church and graveyard
82 Entz 1958b, 1–3; Vătășianu 1959, 22–23; Arion 1967; Horedt 1986, 136–138; Bóna 1990, 159.
83 Vătășianu 1959, 43.
84 Entz 1958a, 75 argued an early dating for the first cathedral, considering its beginning
soon after the establishment of the Bishopric in Alba Iulia, in the first years of the 11th
century. The same in Takács 2012, 15–17. In fact, there is no argument for such a dating,
and the history of Alba Iulia would have to be consider first standing on facts, and sec-
ondly taking into consideration hypothetical presumptions.
48 Marcu Istrate
successively on the same spot), and, on the other hand, certain associations
of living (the settlement before the church is associated with the first phase of
the ‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery; the pillared church associated with the ‘Izvorul
Împăratului’ cemetery; the first cathedral associated with its graveyard).
Further confirmation of the chronology was obtained from coin finds, the
analysis of art history for the remains of the cathedral, and analogies for the
church buildings. However, doubts about the relation between those churches
were raised not only long before the 2011 excavations, but in recent time as
well. Such doubts typically ignored the archaeological evidence, and instead
insisted on the function of the buildings. As a result, several controversies have
emerged.
Some believe that the pillared church was built during the reign of King
Stephen, as the first church of the bishopric, to be used until the construction
of the first cathedral (the Romanesque basilica). The first to make that claim
was the first excavator, Radu Heitel himself, followed by István Bóna85 and,
more recently, Gergely Buzás.86
Alexandru Madgearu’s idea that, after conquering Alba Iulia in 1003,
King Stephen I established there an archbishopric under the jurisdiction of
the (Orthodox) metropolitan of Tourkia, and therefore decided to build a
church with a plan based on the Greek cross, is implausible, no matter how
much emphasis one wants to place on the king’s vision of a multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural kingdom.87
Others have argued the opposite: the cathedral must have been built first,
and the church to the west later, as a secondary one on the same site. Imre
Takács described the pillared church as “a decanal or a processional church,
similar to several other buildings of the early Árpád[ian] period, such as the
single-aisle church discovered at the south side of the cathedral of Győr.”88
More recently, Miklos Takács took a step further when interpreting the pillared
church as “a chapel within the Latin ecclesiastical center.”89
85 Heitel 1975b, 346; Bóna 1990, 158.

86 Buzás 2020, fig. 17 and p. 17–18, 22–25, states that such a church was in fact common at the
time of the founding of Episcopal residences by King Stephen I. However, the plan used
to illustrate the situation in Alba Iulia is wrong.
87 Madgearu 2017, 14–16. It remains unclear why, despite the archaeological evidence to the
contrary, Alexandru Madgearu still believes that Alba Iulia did not exist until after the
coronation of King Stephen I. According to his theory, “[…] after the conquest of 1003,
the new Hungarian masters allowed the construction of the church for their subjects,
who were already Christians.”
88 Takács 2012, 17.
89 Takács 2013, 120. This interpretation was based on media and blog notes, and as such must
be treated as hasty, if not imprudent.
Figure 1.21 Medieval churches in Alba Iulia: the first cathedral (in black), 11th and
12th centuries, with or without the round church (in black) – ruins
beneath the St. Michael Cathedral (in grey). To the west, the former
Byzantine church (in grey)
drawing by daniela marcu istrate, based on Heitel 1985,
Fig. 1 for the first cathedral and the rotunda
There is also another hypothesis, considering both churches as of the Latin

bishopric, which obviously is in direct contradiction with the archaeological
evidence, and could thus be easily rejected.90 The construction of a church
with a Greek cross plan made no sense after 1000 (when Alba Iulia was sup-
posedly conquered and integrated into the newly Latin kingdom), while the
construction of any church in front of the first cathedral in the late 11th century
(when the cathedral is believed to have been in existence) is equally absurd,
and would not have been possible, because there was already a graveyard
opened next to the cathedral, on the very spot of the pillared church. In fact,
no Byzantine-looking church is known to have been built in Catholic Hungary
during the second half of the 11th century or later. (For more details on this
topic, see Șerban Turcuș’s study in this volume.)
Judging from the available data, the construction of the first cathedral and
the destruction of the pillared church appear as two events that took place
shortly one after the another and roughly at the time of King Stephen’s canoni-
zation (1083), i.e., at a time when his cult was gaining popularity (Fig. 1.20, 1.21).
If both buildings had been built by him, then the pillared church would have
been reused in some way, because a consecrated place always preserves its sta-
tus, even when changing function. To preserve the sacrality of that building
90 For useless discussions based on a wrong plan: Takács 2018, Tafel XXXI; Buzás 2020, fig. 17.
50 Marcu Istrate
would have been a paramount concern.91 As it were, quite the opposite hap-
pened: not only was the older church demolished, but its memory was erased
as well. Its replacement with a larger church must have had a deeper religious,
as well as political significance.
The new church was built to the east of the older one, along the same axis.
Each church was in its time the most important stone building erected in
Transylvania. Unlike the pillared church, whose central plan showed the influ-
ence of the Byzantine architecture, the new church was a Romanesque basil-
ica, the work of a western or central European workshop. This was a building
meant as cathedral for the Latin bishopric of Transylvania. By the time, there
were already a few churches in Transylvania (such as that in Sânnicolau de
Beiuș),92 but the first important Romanesque monument was undoubtedly the
first cathedral of Alba Iulia. On the other hand, this was the first church that
was built as cathedral, in terms of size, architectural characteristics, function,
and representativity.
1.5 Conclusions
The Cathedral of St. Michael, a building of great architectural value that

belongs to the easternmost diocese established by King Stephen I, indicates
the significance of Alba Iulia at the beginning of the second millennium: nei-
ther the bishopric nor the building could have been located there, without Alba
Iulia being a center of great historical importance (Fig. 1.22). Archaeological
discoveries of the recent decades, almost always in the wake of accidental
finds, allow a closer look into the history of this center over the few centuries
before the construction of the present-day cathedral. The resulting picture is
one of an agglomeration of settlements, churches, and cemeteries, the study
of which illustrates, probably in a way unique for the history of the entire
Carpathian Basin, the unfolding of political events and the gradual adoption
of Christianity, beginning with the mid-10th century.
Ever since the 9th century, Alba Iulia became a center of regional signifi-
cance in the northern borderlands of Bulgaria, and thus of some interest for
the Byzantine ecclesiastical organization. The site continued to be occupied
even after the demise of Bulgaria, and the Byzantine conquest of the north-
ern Balkans, both events that took place during the last third of the 10th cen-
tury. The construction of a church of Byzantine plan marks the first stage of
91 Lauwers 2005, 55–61, 126.

92 Avram 1995; Popa – Chidioșan 1986.
Figure 1.22 St. Michael Cathedral, view from the east

local Christianity in canonical shapes, which in this context could only be of

Eastern origin. In fact, one has to bear in mind that the first Hungarian princes
in southern Transylvania all looked to Eastern Christianity, especially if one
chooses to locate in Alba Iulia the two Gyulas of the 10th century93 (see Tudor
Sălăgean and Alexandru Madgearu, in this volume). This Byzantine phase is
documented not only by the church, which would otherwise appear as iso-
lated, but by a whole range of artifacts found in different contexts, particularly
among the grave goods of the ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ cemetery.
The source of inspiration for the church came from Byzantium, but the
stonemasons must have also come from there. Moreover, such a building must
have had a lay patron and be part of an ecclesiastical network. This further
implies a complex social and political situation, the background of the suc-
cessful Christianization of Transylvania under Byzantine aegis, a few decades
before the year 1000.94
93 Györffy 1985, 264–265; Kristó 2003, 43–73.

94 Oikonomidès 1971, 534.
52 Marcu Istrate
The construction of the church was an extraordinary undertaking from all

points of view, but it is difficult to put a very accurate date to the dynamics of
events. There is, of course, the temptation to refer to the episode of Gyula’s
Christianization and to the mission of Hierotheos to Tourkia, and there are
many arguments worthy of mention in support of that attribution95 (see Dan
Ioan Mureșan in this volume). This does not necessarily mean that Hierotheos
was a permanent resident in Alba Iulia – although any other option for an
alleged focal point of his mission would be just as speculative.96 In an over-
view of various controversies, the historian Gyula Kristó concluded that the
location of the mission must be determined by identifying a suitable church –
and for now, the only one matching that criterion happens to be the pillared
church in front of St. Michael Cathedral in Alba Iulia.97
As mentioned in my first and more detailed publication of this discov-
ery, no archaeological object can ever be linked to a particular character or
particular situation, unless accompanied by inscriptions or some other clue
of a very precise nature. What matters in this case, however, is the context,
which is far more important than one name or another.98 The building of the
95 Heitel 1983a, 102; Heitel 1994–1995, 427; Font 2005a, 285–287; Kristó 2003, 75; Marcu Istrate
2014, 114–17.
96 Especially Madgearu 2017 (with earlier bibliography), for the demonstration that Transyl-
vania during the second half of the 10th century was a white spot, in which nothing impor-
tant could have happened (Madgearu 2017, 10–11). However, the demonstration is based
exclusively on the scarce written information, completely neglecting the archaeological
discoveries in and around the fortification. Takács 2013, 123, taking information from the
press: “And the idea that Hierotheos in his hypothetical mission in his alleged center in
Alba Iulia would have considered its main duty the conversion of the Romanian-speaking
population, is only the projection onto the past, loaded with anachronism, of the con-
fessional and ethnic relations of the modern era.” In his book published later (Takács
2018, 208–213), Takács criticized the idea of Hierotheos passing through Transylvania as
serving the theory of ‘Daco-Roman continuity’ (Takács 2018, 112, note 1509). The church
plan used in Tafel XXXI/3 is distorted, being obviously redrawn after a photo, probably a
photo of the slides used in my 2014 presentation at the conference “Arhitectura religio-
asă medievală din Transilvania”/“Medieval religious architecture in Transylvania” in Satu
Mare, which Takács did not attend, but mentioned it in Takács 2013, 115.
97 Kristó 2003, 64: “When we search for the material remains of the Byzantine relations of
Gyula, we have to consider primarily churches of Byzantine style and coins.” At the time
Gyula Kristó wrote his work, no such a church was known.
98 Marcu Istrate 2014, 120: “If the one who effectively consecrated the church was Bishop
Hierotheos, a member of his mission about whom the documents did not keep informa-
tion, or his direct successor to the pastorate of the church of Tourkia is, after all, of little
importance, since only through speculation we can approach one answer or another.”
Madgearu 2017 carries forward this idea, considering that “[…] Alba was, most probably, in
its first period of existence a bishopric included in the Greek Metropolitanate of Tourkia,
pillared church essentially reflects the existence during the second half of
the 10th century of the social and political conditions that made possible the
Christianization of southern Transylvania, laying the foundations of Christian
society under the recognized authority of a local leader, whoever that was.99
On the other hand, this first church of Transylvania became the model for the
architecture of Byzantine inspiration that defined local Orthodoxy during the
first centuries of the second millennium, the most important example being
the church in Densuș.100
If King Stephen conquered Alba Iulia immediately after the year 1000, the
conquerors are very visible in the large number of graves in cemeteries located
outside the Roman fort, which are coin-dated to the 11th century. The current
state of research, however, suggests that this episode did not at all involve the
fortified area of the settlement, which was taken up only during the last dec-
ades of the 11th century when the facilities for the bishopric of Transylvania
were established in the southwestern corner of the Roman fort. Archaeology
proves incontrovertibly that that was the first time a suitable church was built
with a cemetery around it, and roughly a quarter of the former fort was taken
over for religious and administrative purposes (Fig. 1.2).
During the 11th century, the fort must have been almost in its original state,
with defensive walls, gates, and most of the intermediate towers still standing.
In fact, the southwestern corner of the main wall is still preserved in the struc-
ture of the Episcopal Palace, while an intermediate tower, uncovered nearby,
was demolished only in the 14th century.101 The situation was the same on
the northern side, as shown by the excavations at the ‘Apor’ Palace, where the
dismantling of the fort wall was done in the second half of the 13th century,
probably for the recovery of building materials.102 Until then, the Roman fort,
providing an unparalleled protection for those living there, was only inhabited
to a small extent, as far as it is known. In fact, Adrian A. Rusu’s excavation on
the northern, opposite side from the St. Michael Cathedral showed no occupa-
tion of the area before the 12th century.103
like Biharea and Morisena. This kind of organization which extended east of Tisza an
ecclesiastical structure subordinated to the Eastern Church was necessary because the
population living in those regions, Romanians among them, belonged to that Church.”
Madgearu 2017, 15.
99 Heitel 1975b, 343–344; Curta 2001, 143–145.
100 For the perspectives of the Byzantine mission of Christianization, see: Báan 1999.
101 Marcu Istrate 2009a, 45–48, 52.
102 Rusu 1994, 345.
103 Rusu 1994, 349–351.
54 Marcu Istrate
Why did the Hungarian conquerors then choose the southwestern corner,
particularly the spot of an old, 9th–10th century settlement and the Byzantine
church? Why not taking up another part of the Roman fort, free of any earlier
occupation, such as the northern half, which, in addition, was also closer to
the cemeteries outside the walls of the Roman fort, and most likely to adjacent
settlements as well? The answer seems to be that the goal was to take over a
particular spot – the residence of the owners of the fortress, the elite of the
‘Bălgrad Voivodeship’ that Kurt Horedt wrote about in 1954.
No information exists so far on what that residence may have been, but one
or perhaps two churches operated there, namely the rotunda and the pillared
church. It has also been argued that this quarter of the fort had been previously
enclosed by earthen or stone ramparts on the eastern and northern sides, thus
delineating a relatively rectangular area which is roughly that of the property
later endowed to the Latin bishopric.104 Such an arrangement is the only expla-
nation for the decision to occupy that same spot, and for the subsequent devel-
opment of the medieval fortification.105
The unfolding of events, as reflected in the archaeological evidence, is not
surprising for a border region, one that had been subject to divergent influ-
ences and experienced forms of power with consequences far beyond the local
level. After all, it was probably the most common way of substituting power
in Europe’s formative period, in (comparable) situations where there was a
change in the local elite.106
Of all events taking place at the turn of the millennium, building a church
is certainly the most relevant, as it reveals various issues of a society about
which we know very little. However, the church is a connecting element,
which helps us interpret and integrate into a larger context seemingly isolated
104 The idea of a pre-Hungarian fortification in the southwestern corner of the settlement
is not new. Horedt 1954; Anghel 1975, 245–269. Radu Heitel also considered it possible
that the settlement from the 9th–10th centuries already benefited from its own system of
protection.
105 Anghel 1975, 252; Rusu 1979, 47–70 for the reuse of the fortification from the 10th century
onward. Kovács 1984, for the transformation of the camp into a medieval fortress in sev-
eral stages, until around 1500.
106 See, for example, the remarkably similar situation at Govan. Driscoll 1998. There are, how-
ever, quite a few cases in which the existence of pre-Hungarian centers of power and/
or churches in the Kingdom of Hungary has been accepted, but of these the case of the
church at Zselicszentjakab (Kaposvár) is extremely relevant. Whether the old church was
a Byzantine or a Carolingian one, it was accepted at the time as a sanctuary and, conse-
quently, its ruins were included in the structure of the 11th century Benedictine abbey
church. Molnár 2020, 14–21.
archaeological elements and allows us to understand the social evolution over

a much wider area than the fortification and its environs. The building, as a
symbol of an Orthodox center of power, was, in fact, the one that drew the
attention of the conquerors and almost forced them to establish the Latin
bishopric not only in Alba Iulia, but on the same spot.
As an archaeological feature, the pillared church has incited various thoughts
since its excavation, in an attempt to find answers for the never-ending con-
troversy surrounding Hierotheos, or for the early history of the Latin bishop-
ric and its movement to Alba Iulia. The first issue must be seen in a broader
sense because we cannot put Hierotheos in a certain place without having
some written evidence, or simply on the basis of small finds while ignoring a
church built during his lifetime. His work laid the foundations of an Orthodox
structure in this part of Europe, about which information came only during
the subsequent centuries, and among the most important undertakings of that
mission in the middle of the 10th century was definitely the construction of a
church in Alba Iulia.
The second issue has a long history, but the see of the Latin bishopric does
not appear in Alba Iulia before the late 11th century, when it took possession
of the southwestern corner of the fort and a cathedral was built there, with a
Christian cemetery nearby.107 However, we find out about the first bishop a
little later, in 1111 – Simon, who was probably residing in Alba Iulia. Between
Hierotheos and Simon, the Christianization of southern Transylvania began,
and a double-rooted religious network took shape.
The church uncovered in 2011 functioned (mostly or entirely) prior to the
religious schism of 1054, a holy place and a space of prayer for many, a unique
religious building of Eastern origin and fabric, but opened to everyone living
around Alba Iulia. Its message of ecumenical nature gives a rare opportunity
for a new perspective on the history of Transylvania around the year 1000, with
implications going far beyond that region. In the absence of a written history,
local realities around the turn of the millennium are revealed only with great
difficulty from a puzzle that involves the archaeological, but also the architec-
tural, artistic, numismatic, and topographical evidence, in a continual flux, as
the following studies are going to highlight.
107 Kristó 2003, 77–79 for the process of moving the see of the Transylvanian Bishopric to
Alba Iulia.
56 Marcu Istrate
Acknowledgments
I thank Ana Dumitran for believing from day one in the value of the church
discovered in 2011. She had the courage to edit the first academic presentation
of the results in 2014, and she has constantly supported me during the ten-year
period I dug on the site of St. Michael Cathedral. This volume owes a lot to her
efforts, as well.
I thank Florin Curta for his help in completing this volume and all the
authors for agreeing to participate in this debate.
I am also grateful to all those who have ever written about the church in
front of the cathedral, even during the excavation process, because sharing
ideas always helps to get better.
Chapter 2
Bulgaria beyond the Danube: Water under the

Bridge, or Is There More in the Pipeline?
Florin Curta
In late summer 813, the city of Adrianople fell to the Bulgars after a brief siege.
In the absence of any military or administrative representative of the Byzantine
emperor, Krum, the Bulgar ruler, threw the local bishop, Manuel, to the ground
and trampled upon his neck in a symbolic gesture of supreme humiliation.1
The inhabitants of Adrianople, including the parents of the future emperor
Basil I, were transferred to the region north of the Danube River, which a
9th-century Byzantine author known as Scriptor incertus calls ‘Bulgaria beyond
the Danube’ (Boulgaria ekeithen tou Istrou).2 Bulgarian historians have primar-
ily focused on the organization of the settlers, who seem to have formed a
self-governing borderland, with its own, separate governor named Kordylas.3
He managed to establish contact with Constantinople, and asked for assis-
tance for his plan to return all prisoners of war back to Byzantium. He organ-
ized and led a revolt of those prisoners against the Bulgars, and the troops that
the komes (count) of the northern region deployed against the rebels were
defeated. Unable to cross the Danube back into Bulgaria, the komes asked for
assistance from the neighboring Magyars, an indication that the revolt took
place some 20 years after the captives from Adrianople were forcefully moved
to ‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube.’4
1 Sophoulis 2012, 256 notes that this was in direct imitation of calcatio, the Byzantine trium-
phal custom. Following a practice established by Runciman 1930 in the literature published
in English, in this chapter I will use ‘Bulgars’ in reference to the inhabitants of early medieval
Bulgaria prior to the conversion to Christianity (the equivalent of the Bulgarian term prabăl-
gari and of the Romanian term proto-bulgari), while employing ‘Bulgarians’ for the period
after the conversion.
2 Scriptor incertus, 54; Leo Grammaticus, 345–46.
3 Tăpkova-Zaimova 1970. Kordylas may well be the same person as the general mentioned in
the Malamirovo inscription as being under the command of the kavkhan (Beshevliev 1992,
186–93).
4 Symeon the Logothete, 236–237. While the Magyars attacked Kordylas and his men without
much success, a Byzantine fleet appeared on the Danube, which quickly transported all the
Byzantines (presumably the captives from Adrianople, now old, and their children) back to
Constantinople. See also Moravcsik (ed.) 1984, 53–58; Tóth 1994, 71–73. The rebellion seems
© Florin Curta, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_004

58 Curta
In Romania, this episode of early 9th-century Bulgar history has stirred the
interest of historians primarily from a geographical point of view: where was
‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube’? Gheorghe Brătianu (1898–1953), who was the
first to dedicate a separate study to this issue, noted that several Romanian
historians and philologists have favored the idea that the captives from
Adrianople were forcefully moved to Wallachia (the southern part of present
Romania).5 However, Nicolae Iorga (1871–1940) vehemently opposed the idea,
as did Nicolae Bănescu (1878–1971).6 Like Iorga, Brătianu believed that ‘Bulgaria
beyond the Danube’ was located somewhere north of the Danube Delta, in the
Bugeac lowlands.7 Only seven years after the publication of his study, Brătianu
was branded as a fascist, and his name reduced to initials, as a part of the dam-
natio memoriae of those whom the newly installed Communist regime had
sent to the gulag. According to Petre P. Panaitescu (1900–1967), himself forced
to sign with the pen name ‘A. Grecu,’ ‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube’ was nei-
ther in the Bugeac, nor (just) in Wallachia. It was an entire country, as large as
Bulgaria proper.8 But in this view, as well as other respects, Panaitescu had no
followers. Shortly after Nicolae Ceaușescu came to power in 1965, the idea that
the territory of modern Romania was part of early medieval Bulgaria simply
petered out.9 Archaeologists, however, picked up where historians have left off.
Maria Comșa (1928–2002) knew that, based on the written sources, it was
impossible to gauge the extent of the Bulgar(ian) influence in the lands north
of the Danube River, much less to delineate the boundaries of ‘Bulgaria beyond
the Danube.’ To her, archaeologists were in a much better position to accom-
plish the task. The extension of the Bulgar rule north of the Danube River
may be tracked by means of the combination of pottery thrown on a tour-
nette with combed ornament, and the Grey Ware with burnished ornament, a
combination that is typical for what she called the Balkan-Danube culture.10
to have taken place under Presian, Krum’s great-grandson, who ruled Bulgaria between
836 and 852.
5 Brătianu 1943, 128.
6 Iorga 1913; Bănescu 1947 and 1948, 6–7.
7 Brătianu 1943, 130; see Iorga 1913, 66.
8 Grecu 1950, 227–228.
9 Mârza 2008, 170–171: by 1980, any discussion about ‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube’ ceased.
However, see Brezeanu 1984.
10 Comșa 1960, 396–397. Chișvasi-Comșa 1960, 69 cited Bănescu and Panaitescu (among
others), but not Brătianu, who had meanwhile died in the gulag. Rebaptized ‘Dridu,’ the
archaeological culture that Comșa had in mind is still believed to be characterized pri-
marily by the combination of the two types of wares. E.g., Hânceanu 2011, 256. For the
Balkan-Danube and Dridu cultures, and the rivalry between Maria Comșa and Ion Nestor,
see Stamati 2019, 171. For the political background of the debate, see Madgearu 2007 and
Ciupercă 2009.
Bulgaria beyond the Danube 59
Comșa first drew attention to signs on pottery (which she interpreted as Bulgar
‘runes’), such as a fragment of Grey Ware from Târgșor (near Ploiești, Prahova
County) or the amphora-like jugs from Celei (in Corabia, Olt County) and
Bucov (near Ploiești, Prahova County).11 Such signs, she argued, appear also
on building blocks from Slon, a stronghold in the Carpathian Mountains (near
Măneciu-Ungureni, Prahova County), as well as from Pliska, the supposed cap-
ital city of early medieval Bulgaria.12 More importantly for the topic of this
study, Comșa first drew attention to a sign scratched on a water pipe segment
that had recently been found at Căscioarele (Călărași County).13 In the 1970s,
the number of finds of water pipe segments, some with incised signs, increased
rapidly (see Annex). In the 1980s, Comșa could therefore tie such finds, as well
as bricks, to trade routes between the Carpathian Mountains and the Danube
territories, as well as to the inhabitants of Adrianople forcefully moved to
‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube.’14
By that time, however, the emphasis has shifted from “runes” and build-
ing materials to the large-scale excavations of cemeteries in southern
Romania.15 Although parallels with similar sites in Bulgaria were acknowl-
edged, nobody thought of attributing any of those assemblages to the captives
from Adrianople.16 Nor has any historical explanation been advanced so far
in Romania for the fact that several large settlements in the same area also
begin in the 9th century.17 This may well be yet another indication of the ‘feud
11 Comșa 1960, 400; 399 fig. 1/4–6; 401 fig. 2/1. Although discovered by Ion Nestor in 1941, the
site at Bucov was excavated by Maria Comșa between 1959 and 1966 (see the first report in
Chișvasi-Comșa 1959).
12 Comșa 1960, 401–403. First discovered by Cezar Bolliac (1813–1881), the stronghold at
Slon-La Ciugă was also excavated by Maria Comșa (Comșa 1969). Comșa 1981 attributes
the first building phase (the so-called timber stronghold) at Slon to a Bulgar advanced
position in the Carpathian Mountains.
13 Comșa 1960, 400; see Mitrea 1960.
14 Comșa 1983 and 1985. See also Ciupercă 2010b, 286 and Ciupercă 2020.
15 Harțuche – Anastasiu – Broscățean 1967; Dolinescu-Ferche – Ionescu 1970; Toropu –
Stoica 1972; Șerbănescu 1973; Comșa – Bichir 1973; Harțuche – Anastasiu 1980; Mitrea 1988
and 1989. The largest cemetery so far is Platonești (Ialomița County), which was discov-
ered in 1990 (Fiedler 2008, 156).
16 It is important to note that many of the new cemeteries that appeared after ca. 800 and
continued into the early decades of the 10th century are located in southern Romania.
The dress accessories found in those cemeteries are conspicuously similar to those in
Moravian burial assemblages (Fiedler 1992, 270; Grigorov 2013). Madgearu 2002–2003, 44
mentions ‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube,’ but in relation to supposedly 9th-century build-
ing materials, not to the many cemeteries in the area. Canache – Curta 1994, 197 with n.
109 link the hoards of tools and weapons dated to the 9th century to ‘Bulgaria beyond the
Danube’ (see also Curta 1997, 251; Curta 2019, 91).
17 There is absolutely no mention of ‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube’ in Corbu 2006.
60 Curta
over the Middle Ages’ between Romanian and Bulgarian archaeologists.18 If

so, it is even more puzzling that no historical association has so far been made
between cemeteries in southern Romania and those excavated at about the
same time in southern Transylvania, around Alba Iulia (Alba County).19 The
largest cemetery was unearthed in that city at the ‘Stația de Salvare’ site, and
its earliest assemblages (78 out of 794 graves) have been dated to the 9th and
early 10th century.20 As Uwe Fiedler has pointed out, the resemblance with
the material in the Lower Danube region is remarkable – the Grey Ware ‘with
burnished decoration and the amphora-like jugs,’ west-east orientation, and
deposition of faunal remains. Moreover, there are good indications of some
of those cemeteries continuing well into the 10th century.21 Following István
Bóna, Hungarian archaeologists have attached the label ‘Bulgar’ to all this
material, an idea championed in Romania by Alexandru Madgearu (b. 1964).22
To him, Alba Iulia ‘may have been the center of this Bulgarian march in south-
ern Transylvania,’ the sole purpose of which was to control the salt trade.23 An
episode of 892, when King Arnulf of Carinthia asked the Bulgarians to prevent
shipments of salt to Moravia, becomes proof that ‘the Bulgarians controlled
the salt trade routes from Transylvania.’24 Leaving aside the alternative inter-
pretation of that episode, the connection between the cemeteries in south-
ern Transylvania, the Bulgars, and salt is at best tenuous, because of the sites
securely dated to the 9th and 10th century, none is located in the salt region on
the middle course of the Mureș River.25 Moreover, if one assumes the presence
of Bulgars in southern Transylvania in the 9th century, what was their rela-
tion to the population burying its dead in the Lower Danube region? What was
the social context that could explain the clear similarities in material culture
18 Daskalov 2015. Unlike the dispute over the ethnic attribution of the ‘Dridu culture’ in the
1960s and 1970s, the deafening silence in this case has much more to do with the ethnic
interpretation of finds proposed by a German scholar – Uwe Fiedler (Fiedler 1992; see the
Romanian reactions in Sâmpetru 1993 and Harhoiu 1994–1995).
19 Horedt 1966; Aldea – Ciugudean 1981; Anghel – Ciugudean 1987. For much earlier finds,
see Simina 2002. Țiplic 2005 is among the very few to draw a direct line between the cem-
eteries in southern Transylvania and those in the Lower Danube region (see also Țiplic
2006, 46 and 65).
20 Ciugudean et al. 2003, 5–7; Ciugudean 2006, 13.
21 Fiedler 2008, 160; Yotov 2012, 328.
22 Bóna 2001a, 267; Madgearu 2002–2003, 51; Madgearu 2005, 107.
23 Madgearu 2005, 107. See also Yotov 2010.
24 Madgearu 2005, 108.
25 Aware of that problem, Madgearu 2005, 107–108 includes the cemeteries at Ciumbrud
and Orăștie into the same group as Blandiana, Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’, and Sebeș.
Ciumbrud is the only site located in the salt region.
between communities on either side of the Carpathian Mountains, and how is

communication between them to be envisaged? Such questions remain to this
day without an answer, as no scholar has so far ventured to explore the histor-
ical possibilities and attempt to provide an explanation.
It has long been noted that the conversion of Bulgaria to Christianity had
an immediate and visible impact on burial practices. Burial assemblages in
Bulgaria that can be dated to the late 9th century produced a significant num-
ber of dress accessories, such as finger-rings, beads, and earrings, but no grave
goods such as pottery or tools, which were now abandoned in favor of Christian
burial practices.26 Such dramatic changes in burial customs are visible neither
in the Lower Danube region, nor across the mountain range, in Transylvania. If
the southern region of the latter was part of early medieval Bulgaria, together
with Wallachia, one would expect the fundamental transformations taking
place at the political center to reverberate on the northern frontier.
The terms of the discussion surrounding the Bulgarian presence in the lands
north of the Danube during the early Middle Ages have been radically mod-
ified by the discovery in 2011–2012 of the ‘pillared church’ to the west of St.
Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia.27 The stratigraphical situation is quite clear:
the church cut through two houses and two ovens, all features of a settlement
dated between the 8th and the 10th centuries.28 The excavator believes that the
population living in that settlement buried its dead in the cemetery excavated
at the ‘Stația de Salvare’ site, which is located only one kilometer farther to
the north.29 Since the first phase of the cemetery ceases in the mid-10th cen-
tury, that became a terminus post quem for the church, under the assumption
that the settlement ceased at the same time as the cemetery.30 Judging by its
plan and its analogies in the Bulgarian cultural context, the church must have
been built during the 10th century, perhaps within the half-century separating
the death of Emperor Symeon in 927 and the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria,
following the occupation of Preslav in 971.31 There can be no doubt that the
church pre-dates the Hungarian conversion to Christianity, but any attempt
to narrow down the chronology of the building is futile, given the absence of
26 Fiedler 2012.
27 Marcu Istrate 2014 and 2015.
28 Marcu Istrate 2014, 100 with n. 29; Marcu Istrate 2015, 182 with n. 29.
29 Marcu Istrate 2014, 102. The site is located to the east of the intersection of Calea Moților
and the Republicii Boulevard, near the Municipal Stadium.
30 Marcu Istrate 2015, 184 with n. 42 raises doubts about dating the end of the settlement to
the 920s (Heitel 1985, 225).
31 Marcu Istrate 2014, 118.
62 Curta
any more stratigraphical information or independent means of dating.32 The

temptation is great to link the church to events or figures known from the writ-
ten sources, but this must be resisted. Leaving aside the problems associated
with text-driven archaeology, the political turbulence in the second half of the
10th century, both in Bulgaria and in the Carpathian Basin was accompanied
by changes that took place too rapidly and close to each other to be pinned
down to the “pillared church” in Alba Iulia.33
Much more promising is an approach that treats this church as a unique
monument, the building of which required resources and know-how that imply
a high degree of labor organization and social hierarchy. Within the south-
western corner of the old Roman camp, the walls of which were probably still
standing, but against the background of the relatively modest appearance of
the early medieval settlement surrounding it, the ‘pillared church’ stood out as
a monumental structure. This is in fact the first stone building erected in Alba
Iulia after the abandonment of the Roman town. Judging by the appearance
and the role of churches built at that same time inside strongholds in Bulgaria
and Poland, the ‘pillared church’ must have operated as a private chapel for
the local elite.34 The architecture, exterior articulation, and size of the church
returned a veneer of urban culture to the contemporaneous settlement in Alba
Iulia, especially when one considers the Roman walls still standing tall a few
meters behind the building.35
To suggest that 10th-century Alba Iulia was a town (even in the imagina-
tion of those who built the ‘pillared church’) verges on heresy. After all, no
Romanian historian has ever attempted to push the origins of the medieval
urban culture in Romania before AD 1000. At any rate, the beginnings of the
urban phenomenon are not to be sought in Transylvania, but in the south-
ern parts of present-day Romania (the lands in Dobrudja and along the lower
course of the Danube) that were occupied by the Byzantines shortly before
the beginning of the 11th century.36 In Bulgaria, the urban character of such
32 The literature on the Christianization of Hungary is enormous. For recent works in

English, see Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007; Sutt 2014, 151–152; Barabás 2016.
33 For text-driven archaeology, see Young 1992. For text-driven archaeology in Transylvania,
see Curta 2001.
34 E.g., the church (of a plan very similar to that of the ‘pillared church’ in Alba Iulia) dis-
covered in Gigen (across the Danube from Corabia, in Bulgaria) inside the ruins of the
Roman town of Oescus (Genova 1974); and the palace chapel in Poznań (Kóčka-Krenz
2010).
35 For a reconstruction of the landscape and the position of the church within it, see Marcu
Istrate 2015, 201 fig. 1.
36 Rădvan 2010, 19–21 and 134 for the historiography of the problem. See also Diaconu 1986,
Baraschi 1991, and Damian 2005.
settlements as Pliska and Preslav has also been the subject of some recent
debates.37 One of the arguments adduced to explain the character of those set-
tlements is the presence of a water supply system, either in masonry or in the
form of ceramic water pipelines.38 To be sure, archaeological excavations at
Pliska and Preslav have revealed a complex system of water supply, with tanks
and long lines, some walled and others made of ceramic segments.39 Leaving
aside complicated problems of stratigraphy and chronology associated with
both sites, as well as the regrettable absence of a systematic study of the fab-
rics and shapes of the water pipe ceramic segments, conspicuously missing
from the general picture is any information about production. No segments
have so far been found in Bulgaria in association with kiln sites, and no wasters
are known.40
By contrast, the situation in the lands north of the Danube is quite different.
No sites are known from this entire region that could be even remotely com-
pared with Pliska and Preslav. Nonetheless, ever since the 1960s, a relatively
large number of water pipe ceramic segments have been found on several
settlement sites, both in the immediate proximity of the Danube River, and
farther away into the Subcarpathian hills (see Annex). Among the former, only
Căscioarele and Chirnogi have been explored archaeologically, albeit through
salvage excavations. Most specimens resulting from those excavations are
fragments found in settlement features (dwellings), but whole examples, each
between 40 and 48 cm long are known from earlier stray finds (Fig. 2.1/2–10).
In addition to segments, excavations in Chirnogi brought to light fragments
of ceramic piping joints (Fig. 2.1/11).41 Stray finds of segments are also known
from Oltenița and Gostinari, but none have been published with illustration to
37 Giuzelev 1986; Bonev 1987 and 2014. For a comparative (and critical) approach to the
problem, see Kirilov 2006.
38 Panova 2007.
39 For Pliska see Shkorpil 1905; Dimitrov 1992, 64; Georgiev 1992, 101–104 and 95 fig. 24;
Vaklinov – Vaklinova 1993; Dimitrov 2002. For Preslav, see Dzhingov 1961, 35 and fig. 11;
Bonev 2011, 404 and fig. 2.
40 Despite an early attempt at classifying pipe segments, primarily on the basis of specimens
from Pliska, Angelova 1971 offers no information about the sites and modes of production
of those materials.
41 It remains unclear whether the specimens found in houses 1a, 3 and 9 of the settlement
excavated in Căscioarele were on the house floor or in the filling. The latter would imply
that the fragments of water pipe segments ended up in those houses after they had been
abandoned and turned into refuse pits. This was clearly the case for the fragments found
in the filling of house 1 in Chirnogi.
64 Curta
Figure 2.1 Water pipe segments (1–10) and piping joint (11): 1 – Bucov-Rotari, house 1;
2 – Căscioarele, stray find; 3, 4 – Căscioarele, house 1a; 5, 7–10 – Chirnogi,
stray finds; 6, 11 – Chirnogi, house 2
After Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975; Comșa 1978a; Damian 1996
Figure 2.2 The distribution of water pipe segments in the lands north of the river Danube. Small circles
indicate single specimens, larger ones 2 and more than 3, respectively. Numbers refer to
the annex
Author: Florin Curta
make visual comparisons possible.42 The westernmost find in the Romanian

Plain is the kiln from Mărăcinele (Fig. 2.2). The associated fragments of water
pipe segments, found together with imbrices, suggest a local production. This
has been recently substantiated by the discovery of another, very similar kiln
in Târgșor, which has also produced fragments of water pipe segments.43 A
third kiln is known from Pietroiu (near Brăila), but with no associated finds of
42 No illustration has been published for the fragments found in a sunken-floored building
in Viișoara. The fragments from Mironești (on the opposite bank of the Argeș River from
Gostinari), which Schuster 2017 has published with illustrations are much too small for
comparison.
43 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 19 wrongly interpreted those fragments as of imbrices, not water
pipe segments. However, early medieval imbrices are of a very different form and size. For
very good examples, see Teslenko 2015.
66 Curta
water pipe segments.44 A local production of such segments also results from
the archaeological situation in Chirnogi. A great number of fragments found
on that site have manufacturing defects. In fact, a thick layer of fragments of
water segments, tegulae, and imbrices, many of them with manufacturing
defects indicate a dumping site for wasters.45 Those fragments ended up in
the filling of nearby buildings suggests that broken pieces were discarded else-
where. This suggestion is based primarily on the situation in Târgșor, where
fragments of water pipe segments have been found not only in the kiln, but
also in a sunken-floored building excavated nearby. That several of them were
around the clay oven may indicate that broken pieces were recycled for house
furnishings.
Fragments of water pipe segments have also been found among artifacts
associated with above-ground buildings excavated on sites in the uplands
of Wallachia, such as Bârlogu and Slon. At Bucov, both sunken-floored and
above-ground buildings produced fragments of water pipe segments. Because
of their presence in Slon, a stronghold dated to the 8th and 9th centuries,
Romanian archaeologists have consistently dated the water pipe segments
from Wallachia to the 9th century.46 However, at a close examination, the
archaeological context in which several fragments have been found in Bucov
suggests otherwise. For example, the fragments from annex 4 at the Rotari
site were found together with a glass bangle, which cannot be dated earlier
than ca. 900.47 In house 1 at that same site, fragments of water pipe segments
were associated with fragments of Plain Glazed Wares in a red and grey
fabric, the so-called chafing dishes. Although such wares appear in the late
8th century, the specimens from Bucov are of a 10th-century date because they
have the bowl set on top of the stand, so that it flares widely.48 Moreover, the
44 The Pietroiu kiln has more than double the number of stoking holes (Papasima – Oprea
1984, 237–40 and figs. 1–4). By contrast Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 19 claim that kiln no. 2 in
Târgșor had 9 holes, although the published photographs (Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 42 pl. 11)
clearly show 11, the same number of holes as that of the kiln in Mărăcinele.
45 Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 245–246 and 248.
46 Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 264 with n. 22 and 265 with n. 23: the segments found in
Chirnogi are unlike those from Preslav, but very much like the segments from the lower
lines of water supply in Pliska. The production of ceramic building materials in Chirnogi
must be dated to the early 9th-century (Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 265). A 9th-century
date has been advanced even by those authors who claimed that the water pipe seg-
ments are an indication of the influence of the Byzantine (and not Bulgar) urban culture
(Teodor 1981, 61–62).
47 Mănucu-Adameșteanu – Poll 2009; Bollók 2010, 179; Antonaras 2012, 119 and 120 fig. 5.
48 Comșa 1978a, 108; 107 fig. 88/1, 2, 6; 107 fig. 89; 109 fig. 91/1, 4, 9, 14; Vroom 2005, 73. Chafing
dishes were produced in different places in the Byzantine Empire, especially in Central
upside-down handles are also a feature most typical for the second half of the
10th century.49 An earlier generation of Romanian scholars followed Maria
Comșa in associating ‘runic’ signs on bricks and on pottery with the Bulgars,
and therefore dated them to the 9th century. Two whole water pipe segments,
one from Căscioarele and the other from Chirnogi, are marked with a Y-shaped
sign between two vertical bars. This sign is common on many categories of
artifacts – stone, ceramic, or metal – found in Bulgaria. While an earlier gener-
ation of scholars have insisted on a pre-Christian significance of the sign (with
various interpretations, all removed from the archaeological evidence), most
scholars now agree upon the Christian meaning of the sign and the dating of
its use primarily in the 10th century.50
Therefore, there are good reasons to believe that the water pipe segments
found in Wallachia date to the 10th, and not the 9th century. Those who pro-
duced them were not Byzantine craftsmen supposedly moved forcefully to
the area from the southern parts of the Balkan Peninsula.51 In other words,
the sites on which such segments have been found have nothing to do with
‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube’ known from the written sources, and may in
fact be a century younger. Some have advanced the idea that the water pipe
segments were produced in Wallachia for urban-like (or ‘pre-urban’) sites in
the vicinity, namely strongholds like Slon. While fragments of segments have
indeed been found in two buildings at Slon, there is no evidence whatsoever
that the site had a water supply system. The same is true for the stronghold
on the Păcuiul lui Soare Island in the middle of the Danube: despite exten-
sive excavations on the site, no water supply system has so far been found at
that location. Conversely, no stronghold is known from the environs of such
Greece (at Corinth), as well as on the Adriatic coast. Sanders 2003, 40 believes, however,
that chafing dishes that are green-glazed were brought to Corinth from somewhere else
(presumably, Constantinople), while local imitations were dipped into a solution of yel-
low glaze. If true, that would indicate that the chafing dishes from Bucov were produced
in Constantinople, not in Greece.
49 Frantz 1938, 430 and 433–434.
50 Georgiev 1978; Beshevliev 1979 and 1989; Mikhailov 1987; Moskov 1987; Petrova 1990;
Rashev 1992; Atanasov 1993; Balabanov 1994; Georgiev 1996; Stepanov 1999; Stanev 2005;
Stateva 2005; Totev 2005 and 2007; Doncheva-Petkova 2015; Iliev 2015. For the Christian
significance of the sign, see Mikhailov 1979, 52 fig. 2/2–5 (four signs on sarcophagus no. 4
in the Great Basilica in Pliska, dated to the 10th-century); Totev 1991 (the sign appears on
the walls of late 9th- and 10th-century monasteries); Ilievski 1996; Dzanev 2000; Rashev
2003, 165; Tabov – Todorov 2007; Ilieva 2008; Rashev 2008; Inkova 2014 and 2020.
51 Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 265. Nonetheless, the pipe segments continue to be regarded
as an archaeological correlate of the population of Adrianople forcefully moved by Krum
to “Bulgaria beyond the Danube” (Schuster 2017, 368).
68 Curta
production centers as Căscioarele, Chirnogi, Mărăcinele, or Târgșor. The para-

dox is quite obvious: a relatively large number of sites in Wallachia have pro-
duced numerous water pipe segments, but such materials were not actually
needed in the region. No site in Wallachia has produced so far any evidence
of features of urbanism like a pipe network for water supply, not even strong-
holds such as Păcuiul lui Soare and Slon. Such features, however, are well docu-
mented archaeologically in Pliska and Preslav. In both cases, pipe networks for
the water supply are associated with palatial compounds built (or refurbished)
during the first two thirds of the 10th century.52 However, no kiln sites have
so far been identified in the vicinity either of Pliska or of Preslav, which could
supply the necessary building materials. It is therefore quite possible that the
production centers in Wallachia worked for the palatial compounds in north-
eastern Bulgaria.
To be sure, the relatively small size of the segments (40–48 cm), unlike seg-
ments known, for example, from Cherson (about 1 m each), suggests a con-
cern with avoiding breakage during transportation by land (and across the
Danube) over relatively long distances.53 Were the pipelines found in Pliska
and Preslav made up of segments produced in Wallachia? Only a careful com-
parison of fabrics for segments found in Wallachia and in Bulgaria could pro-
vide a definitive answer to this question.54 If affirmative, however, that answer
will incite yet another question: why was the production of water pipe seg-
ments outsourced to Wallachia, and not located closer to the building sites in
Bulgaria, where they were needed? Even though no pottery production sites
have been found either, the provenance analysis of the fabric of 9th-century
Yellow Ware made on the fast-turning wheel and found in Pliska indicates a
local production.55 If high-quality pottery could have been made in the envi-
rons of Pliska, as needed, why would water pipe segments be brought from
a distance of at least 100 km, as the crow flies? One possible explanation is
fuel. Almost half-a-century ago, while commenting upon the large number of
wasters found in Chirnogi, Mihai Sâmpetru and Done Șerbănescu noted that
many of them were the result of bad firing. According to them, the tempera-
ture inside the kiln had to remain as high as 1000 centigrade for a relatively
52 Vaklinova 1994; Grigorov 2011.

53 For segments from Cherson, see Romanchuk 1985, 132 and fig. 5/12, 13.
54 A desideratum first formulated by Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 245.
55 The provenance analysis, through a combined chemical and mineralogical approach, of
the 9th-century Yellow Ware, fast-wheel pottery from Pliska has shown that the clay came
from sites within a short distance to the south (Petrova – Brey 2005). There is currently no
chemical or mineralogical analysis of any building materials – bricks, tegulae, imbrices,
or water pipe segments – from any medieval site in Eastern Europe.
long period of time. That obviously required a large quantity of fuel in the form
of firewood. Little is known about the history of the medieval landscape of
Wallachia, but judging from the zooarchaeological evidence and other indica-
tions, the southern region of present-day Romania was densely forested in the
early Middle Ages.56 The production of ceramic building material on any one
of those centers in Wallachia must have involved therefore a mobilization of
labor force that most certainly required a certain degree of political control.
Judging by the chronology of the archaeological evidence in Wallachia that
include water pipe segments, there seems to have been a sudden surge in the
demand for ceramic building materials during the 10th century. This was the
Golden Age of Symeon (893–927) and his son, Peter (927–970), a period that
witnessed a massive building program in Preslav and Pliska, as well as in their
environs. Preslav must have been rebuilt at this time according to a sophisti-
cated urban concept based, as in Pliska, on a concentric plan, with an Inner
and an Outer Town. In the latter, the area enclosed by stone walls is 350 hec-
tares, with the palatial compound as the largest building complex. To the east
and to the southwest from the palace are two of the 25 churches built in the
10th century in Preslav. One of them is the core of yet another palatial com-
pound interpreted as the residence of the patriarch.57 A large square high-
lighted the significance of this complex of buildings. Most importantly for the
topic of this paper, a fountain stood next to the church in the middle of the
square, a clear indication of the crucial role of water (and the associated pipe-
line network) in the urban concept of the Inner Town.58 No less than eight
compounds have been excavated in the environs of Preslav, all dated to the
early 10th century. Initially interpreted as monasteries, they are now regarded
as “manors” of members of the court aristocracy.59 Several churches built in and
around Preslav shortly before 900 were basilicas.60 However, over 30 domed
56 Cârciumaru 1972; Giurescu 1976, 11; Tomescu 2000, 232. For zooarchaeology and the eco-
logical profile of the lands north of the Lower Danube, see Bejenaru 1998.
57 Ovcharov – Aladzhov – Ovcharov 1991; Konakliev – Doncheva 2011, 2012 and 2013.
58 Bonev 1998.
59 Kostova 2002 and 2004. Some of those “manors,” however, were indeed transformed into
monasteries in the early 10th century. The most famous example is that from Selishte,
where a manor in existence since the late 9th century was turned into a monastic com-
plex most likely by its owner, an aristocrat named George, whose many seals have been
found in the area (Iordanov 2006, 128–129). On his seals, George appears as synkellos, i.e.,
a monk living in the same cell with his bishop and having as a task to witness the purity
of the bishop’s life. See Popkonstantinov – Kostova 2013.
60 Totev 1976; Doncheva 2002; Doncheva 2003, 138–139, 141, and 151; Vaklinova et al. 2003;
Ovcharov – Doncheva 2004. No less than 15 three-aisled basilicas, each with one apse, are
known from Pliska (Doncheva 2003, 142–149).
70 Curta
cross-in-square churches are known so far from Preslav, many associated with
“manors” outside Preslav. The earliest are of the tetrastyle variant.61 In fact, the
“pillared church” in Alba Iulia is a combination of a tetrastyle and single-nave
church, so far the northernmost church of the 10th-century Bulgarian group.62
The association between the domed cross-in-square churches and the
manors opens new interpretive possibilities for the “pillared church” in Alba
Iulia. If this was a church built by a local potentate aspiring to the status of
the court aristocracy in Preslav, where was his manor? Daniela Marcu Istrate
has rejected, in fact, the idea of a proprietary church built by a Bulgarian
boyar or a ruler under Bulgarian obedience, because “no evidence exists that
there may have been a court belonging to a Bulgarian leader in Alba Iulia.”63
However, the archaeological record suggests that power in the lands north of
the Danube River could be effectively represented without courts or palatial
compounds. At Bucov, for example, despite the absence of any large or spe-
cial buildings, there is clear evidence of local elites.64 The chafing dishes from
house 1 excavated at the Rotari site were meant to be placed on a table as a
sort of portable braziers and cooking pots at the same time. The food in the
upper bowl was kept warm by the charcoal placed in the lower stand. Like
dishes with tall pedestals, chafing dishes were therefore appropriate for ban-
quets, where food was shown before being consumed.65 They indicate feasting,
which is a major component of social differentiation that anthropologists and
archaeologists associate with abundant resources and the rise of chiefdoms.66
61 Doncheva 2010, 375 fig. 6; 376 fig. 7; and 377 fig. 8. Church 1 in Avradaka (early 10th cen-
tury) is a quincunx (five-domed) building, for which see Doncheva 2008, 211–212. See also
Totev 2011.
62 In fact, its closest, still standing analogy is the 10th-century church of St. Leontius in
Vodoča near Strumica, in Macedonia (Nikoloska 2015, 276; Domozetski 2015).
63 Marcu Istrate 2015, 193. An important argument in her rejection of a direct link between
the domed cross-in-square churches around Preslav and Alba Iulia is the relatively small
size of the former in comparison with the latter. This, of course, neglects the size imbal-
ance between churches associated with “manors” and those associated with the royal
court in the Inner Town.
64 Comșa 1978a, 146 was convinced that relatively large buildings such as house 12 excavated
at Bucov-Tioca were in and by themselves indication of social inequality. Such arguments
need to be treated with extreme caution given that they were couched in Comșa’s theory
of the village community inspired by the Marxist sociologist Henri H. Stahl (for Marxism
in Comșa’s work, see Curta 2020). At any rate, there is nothing spectacular among the
finds associated with house 12 in Bucov-Tioca: no chafing dishes, and no amphora-like
jugs. Judging by the anvil found there, it may well have been a smithy (Comșa 1978a, 19
and 94; 20 fig. 8/4; 52 fig. 34/9, 11; 117 fig. 92/2; 129 fig. 99/16; 170 pl. XIX/7; pl. XXIV/8).
65 Vroom 2003, 231; Curta 2011, 184.
66 Hayden 1995, 25 and 40; Kim et al. 2016, 129.
No chafing dishes have been found in Alba Iulia or anywhere else in

Transylvania, but amphora-like jugs that were occasionally deposited in bur-
ials of the cemetery at the ‘Stația de Salvare’ site are a form of tableware that
may have also been used in feasting.67 The parallel with the archaeological evi-
dence in Wallachia is obvious. There may even be evidence of water pipe seg-
ments. Among artifacts retrieved from a sunken-featured building discovered
during salvage excavations near the Church ‘Lumea Nouă’, to the east from the
Municipal Stadium (the site of the cemetery at ‘Stația de Salvare’), archaeolo-
gists found a ceramic pipe segment. The presence of Grey Ware with burnished
ornament within the ceramic assemblage was wrongly interpreted as indica-
tive of a 6th-century date.68 No water pipe segments are so far known from any
6th-century settlement in the Carpathian Basin, and the combination of such
segments with Grey Ware with burnished ornament is a clear indication of a
later date. Unfortunately, no illustration has been published to allow for the
identification of the artifact – whether Roman or early medieval. It is likely,
however, that the segment discovered in Alba Iulia is similar to the many spec-
imens known from several sites in southern Romania.
It is time to draw the final conclusions. There are no archaeological correla-
tions of ‘Bulgaria beyond the Danube’ created in the early 9th century through
the transfer of a group of inhabitants from Adrianople. Some of the cemeteries
excavated in southern Romania begin in the 8th century, and the exact date
within the 9th century at which other cemeteries begin cannot be pinpointed
to the political events of Krum’s age. The political structures created at that
time, however, outlived the return of the exiles into the Byzantine Empire at
some point in the 830s. If the interpretation of hoards of tools and weapons is
correct, their collection and subsequent burial were forms of displaying power
that may be best described as potlatch.69 This was the way in which aristocrats
at the heart of early medieval Bulgaria expressed their claims to social and
political prominence. If the language of power representation was borrowed
from Bulgaria, a regional center of power may well have been in existence
67 Ciugudean et al. 2003, 36. Amphora-like jugs have also been found in Blandiana (Horedt
1966, fig. 6/1, 4; Anghel – Ciugudean 1987, 182 fig. 3/1–3 and 5; 183 fig. 4/6). In Bucov,
amphora-like jugs appear together with chafing dishes in the same ceramic assemblage
(Comșa 1978a, 92 fig. 82/8). For amphora-like jugs from Bulgaria as markers of social pres-
tige used in 10th century burial assemblages in Hungary, see Gulyás – Gallina – Türk 2019.
68 Haimovici – Blăjan 1989, 340–342. Fragments of bricks have also been found in the filling
of two sunken-floored buildings excavated on the Septimius Severus Street, to the south-
east from the Municipal Stadium (the ‘Stația de Salvare’ site); see Haimovici – Blăjan 1992,
209–212.
69 Curta 1998–1999. For more hoards, see Ioniță – Ciupercă 2003, Teodor 2004 and Ciupercă
2010a.
72 Curta
until ca. 900 in the region of the Curvature Carpathians. Meanwhile, at some
point during the 9th century, forms of material culture most typical for the
Lower Danube region of Bulgaria were adopted by communities in southern
Transylvania as well. The exact mechanism for such a sudden reorientation
of cultural relations remains unknown, but it is quite possible that such rela-
tions were mediated by communities in Wallachia, especially if one admits
that some form of political organization survived in that region after “Bulgaria
beyond the Danube” disappeared in the 830s from the written sources.
Some cemeteries in the Lower Danube region of Wallachia ceased
shortly before 900. Others may have continued, but no burial sites are so
far known from Wallachia that could be dated with any degree of certainty
to the 10th century. The exact reason for the end of the large cemeter-
ies that have begun in the 8th or 9th century is not clear – either Symeon’s
wars with the Magyars during the last decade of the 9th century, or
Christianization, a process that took off in Bulgaria in the early 10th century.70
On the one hand, judging by the evidence resulting from the excavation of
settlement sites, there was no interruption or end of occupation on any of
them. There are also no signs of widespread destruction.71 On the other hand,
there are no signs in Wallachia of the dramatic changes in burial practices that
are documented archaeologically in Bulgaria, especially the disappearance of
grave goods and the increase in the quantity of personal, dress accessories.
In other words, the Christianization process taking place in Bulgaria does not
seem to have reached the lands north of the Danube. If ‘Bulgaria beyond the
Danube’ was still in existence in the 10th century in some shape or form, it had
no religious ties to Preslav. This is precisely why the evidence of water pipe
segments is so remarkable. While oblivious to the dramatic political changes
taking place in the lands south of the Danube River, several communities in
Wallachia organized themselves to secure the production of ceramic building
70 For Symeon’s wars with the Magyars, see Dimitrov 1986; Ziemann 2014, 370–376; Mladjov
2015, Pavlov 2018. For the Christianization of Bulgaria, see Doncheva-Petkova – Khristova
2012; Fiedler 2012; Pletn’ov 2016.
71 The archaeological evidence from Wallachia that can be dated to the 10th century comes
primarily from settlement sites. Occupation on many of them started in the 9th century
and continued without any interruption well into the 10th century. For more settlements
besides those in Bucov, to Chirnogi, Căscioarele, and Târgșor, see Zirra – Tudor 1954, 32
and 39–40; (no author) 1955, 630–631; Berciu 1959, 79–80; Mitrea – Preda 1959; Morintz –
Rosetti 1959, 33–34; Preda 1961; Zaharia 1967; Leahu 1969; Panait – Ștefănescu 1973, 7 and
13–14; Turcu 1978; Damian 1996, 126–127; Corbu 1997; Păunescu – Rența 1998 and 2000;
Teodor 2000, 125 and 134; Popa – Matei – Nițulescu – Rența 2003; Olteanu – Grigore –
Nicolae 2007; Corbu 2013.
material necessary for the Bulgarian emperor’s palaces. The production of

such materials, especially for the pipe network, was most likely set up by local
chieftains, some of whom may have been generously rewarded by the ruler.
It is only from Bulgarian elites, at that time very much in tune with the latest
dining fashions in Constantinople, that the elite in Bucov could have acquired
chafing dishes with glazed ornament, and could have learned the art of dining
in style.72 The elite in Bucov was therefore in the cultural, if not also political,
orbit of Preslav.
The same is true, but much more so for the elites in southern Transylvania,
especially the chief who decided to build a church inside the settlement
in Alba Iulia. In other words, Transylvania is much closer to the model of
Christianization in Bulgaria than Wallachia. Moreover, the relation to Preslav
must have been much stronger: it is only from Preslav that the local lord could
have acquired the know-how, architect, masons, and, possibly carvers to
build the ‘pillared church.’ Unlike Wallachia, there is clear evidence that the
Christianization process produced results, albeit slowly and partially. Like in
Bulgaria, although to a lesser degree, the number of personal dress accesso-
ries is far larger in the cemetery excavated 1.15 km to the northwest from the
‘pillared church’ at the ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ site than in that excavated at the
‘Stația de Salvare’ site. Moreover, pectoral crosses (three of which are enkolpia)
have been found in four graves, the earliest burial assemblages with such
artifacts known from Romania.73 Those crosses are most likely of Bulgarian
72 There are many indications of Byzantine fashions and manners being imitated in Preslav,
but perhaps the best example is the hoard of gold and silver found in 1975 in Kastana,
near Preslav. The find includes 150 pieces of gold and enamel furnishings, silver objects,
ancient gems, and 15 silver coins struck in 959 for the emperors Constantine VII and
Romanus II. The exquisite necklace with medallions is clearly a Byzantine work. The
same is true for the diadem plates with scenes from the life of Alexander the Great, which
was meant probably for a member of the royal family in Preslav. The spherical pendants
of gold with enamel ornamentation may have been part of a long, gem-studded scarf
worn only by members of the imperial family in Constantinople. The hoard may well have
been the possession of one of Emperor Peter’s two daughters, who may have acquired
the furnishings during a visit to Constantinople (perhaps in 940) in the company of her
mother, Maria. See Totev 1993; Atanasov 1999; Bosselman-Ruickbie 2001 and 2004. For
chafing dishes from Bulgaria, see Borisov 2009, 251 and fig. 6; Yotov 2016 and 2020, 170. For
glazed dishes with tall pedestals, which were also used for feasting, see Georgiev 2017.
73 For dress accessories in burial assemblages found at ‘Izvorul Împăratului’, see Dragotă
et al. 2018, 325–331. For the pectoral crosses, see Dragotă 2017, 165–173. For dress accesso-
ries in burial assemblages of the second phase of the cemetery at ‘Stația de Salvare’, see
Ciugudean 2006, 15.
74 Curta
production.74 However, there is also clear evidence of funerary practices that

have no parallel in contemporaneous Bulgaria, such as the deposition of eggs
and birds, pottery, horse gear (stirrups and bridle bits), and especially weapons
(bow, arrow-heads, and axes).75 If the latter may be associated with a military
posture that is absent both from 8th- to 9th-century and from 10th-century
cemeteries in Wallachia and Bulgaria, it may have something to do with the
perceived danger from farther afield. In the 10th century, that danger did not
come any more from the steppe lands north of the Black Sea, but from the
Carpathian Basin. While relations between the Magyars and Bulgaria under
Symeon seem to have normalized, several Magyar raids into the Byzantine
territory are recorded between the years 934 and 960, and each one of them
crossed Bulgaria. Moreover, a number of written sources point to a rapid
deterioration of relations between the Magyars and Bulgaria under Emperor
Peter (927–970).76 The Bulgarian advanced position in Transylvania may have
served a particular military purpose, namely to monitor and possibly stop any
action against Bulgaria that would have come not from the southern parts of
the Hungarian Plain across the Balkans through present-day Serbia, but, much
faster and more efficiently, through southern Transylvania, then across the
Carpathian Mountains and Wallachia, directly to the Danube. If Alba Iulia
was the spearhead of the defense system of 10th-century Bulgaria, building
a church there made perfect sense. Through the Christianization of the van-
guard, Emperor Peter may have entertained hopes to secure its loyalty. The
archaeological evidence of the earliest Magyar presence in Transylvania does
not contradict this historical reconstruction. As Erwin Gáll has pointed out,
the graves found on the present-day territory of the city of Cluj-Napoca on the
General Traian Moșoiu, Plugarilor, and Semenicului streets, represent a popu-
lation of ‘professional warriors’ associated with a military center. Such military
centers and garrisons were planted in the 10th century at various points in the
eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin, in the Upper Tisza region, as well as
at Biharea.77 Hungarian historians and archaeologists have so far not linked
74 Doncheva – Bunzelov 2015–2016. Despite the great number of very similar bronze
enkolpia from Bulgaria, which have been dated to the 10th century, none was found in a
burial assemblage. For enkolpia in Bulgaria, in general, see Doncheva-Petkova 2011.
75 Eggs: Dragotă 2014a. Birds: Dragotă 2019. Pottery: Ciugudean 2007, 247–248; Dragotă et al.
2015, 327–338. Horse gear and weapons: Dragotă 2018f; Dragotă – Blăjan 2019a.
76 Ziemann 2014, 373–376; Mladjov 2015, 68–70.
77 Gáll 2013a, 826–835; Gáll 2013b; Gáll 2014, 89–93. All three locations are in close proximity
(less than 200 m) to each other. The earliest assemblages that could be attributed to the
Magyars in Transylvania are graves 6 and 10 of the cemetery excavated at the corner of
the present-day General Traian Moșoiu and Aurel Suciu streets in Cluj-Napoca (Gáll –
Gergely – Gál 2010, pls. 16–21 and 26–32; Gáll – Gál – Vremir – Gergely 2011; Gáll 2013a,
the military center in Cluj-Napoca with the Magyar raids into the Balkans,
and no Romanian historian or archaeologist seems to have noted (or acknowl-
edged, as it were) the co-existence of the two political and military poles of
10th-century Transylvania.78
Within a few decades before AD 1000, everything changed irreversibly.
The Byzantine-Rus’ war (968–971) and the capture of Preslav by the troops
of Emperor John Tzimiskes effectively put an end to Bulgaria. A long conflict
ensued with Samuel, but by 1018, the central and eastern parts of the Balkan
Peninsula have been integrated into the Byzantine Empire.79 The power center
in Alba Iulia had already been wiped out by that time as a result of the military
intervention of King Stephen I of Hungary, and the beginning of the conquest,
administrative, and ecclesiastical reorganization of Transylvania.80 ‘Bulgaria
beyond the Danube’ was no longer.
Annex
A List of Water Pipe Segments Discovered in Romania
1. Alba Iulia (Alba County); fragment(s) found together with Grey Ware
with burnished ornament inside an SFB accidentally found at the ‘Lumea
Nouă’ site; Haimovici – Blăjan 1989, 340–342.
2. Bârlogu (Argeș County); fragment(s) found inside an above-ground build-
ing with brick foundations; Nania 1969, 130–31.
3. Bucov (Prahova County) – house 1; fragments found in a SFB excavated at
the Rotari site, together with fragments of chafing dishes (Plain Glazed
Wares in a red and grey fabric); Comșa 1978a, 43 [where the finds are
interpreted as imbrices] and fig. 28/1, 2, 8; Diaconu 1979, 470.
4. Bucov (Prahova County) – annex 4; fragments found in an above-ground
building excavated at the Rotari site, together with the fragment of a glass
272–273, 274, and 276). They have both been dated to the first two thirds of the 10th cen-
tury. The beginning of the cemetery therefore coincides in time with the first phase of
the cemetery excavated at the ‘Stația de Salvare’ in Alba Iulia. In other words, the military
center in Cluj-Napoca was set up a few decades before the one organized in Alba Iulia by
the chief who built the ‘pillared church.’
78 For the ‘traditional view’ of the Hungarian historians regarding the history of Transylvania
in the 10th century, see Makkai 1987 and Kristó 1988b.
79 For the Rus’ in Bulgaria, see Orlov 1997; Iliev 2001; Yotov 2015 and 2018. For the war and the
Byzantine occupation of Preslav, see Maistorski 2009; Stanev 2009; Iordanov 2013. For the
war with Samuel, see Curta 2019, 241–249.
80 Engel 2001, 24; Curta 2001, 145–147; Berend – Urbańczyk – Wiszewski 2013, 148–149;
Madgearu 2019.
76 Curta
bangle; Comșa 1978a, 43 [where the find is interpreted as imbrice] and fig.
28/9; Diaconu 1979, 470.
5. Bucov (Prahova County) – house 3; fragment found in an above-ground
building excavated at the Rotari site; Comșa 1978a, 43 [where the find is
interpreted as imbrice] and fig. 28/6; Diaconu 1979, 470.
building (?) at the Rotari site; Comșa 1978a, 43 [where the find is inter-
preted as imbrice] and fig. 28/7; Diaconu 1979, 470.
building (?) at the Rotari site; Comșa 1978a, 43 [where the find is inter-
preted as imbrice] and fig. 28/10; Diaconu 1979, 470.
8. Bucov (Prahova County); fragments found in the filling of an oven exca-
vated at the Rotari site; Comșa 1978a, 43 [where the finds are interpreted
as imbrices] and fig. 28/3, 4, 11; Diaconu 1979, 470.
9. Căscioarele (Călărași County); stray find(s); two specimens (each about
40 cm long) with traces of hard water in the interior; one of them has the
sign /Y/ on the outside; Mitrea 1960, 435–39.
10. Căscioarele (Călărași County) – house 1a; three specimens, two of which
are fragments; Damian 1996,122 and 336 fig. 159/4–6.
11. Căscioarele (Călărași County) – house 3; several fragments; Damian 1996,
122.
12. Căscioarele (Călărași County) – house 9; several fragments; Damian 1996,
123 and 323 fig. 146/9–11.
13. Căscioarele (Călărași County) – oven 1; one fragment; Damian 1996, 123.
14. Căscioarele (Călărași County) – refuse pit 1; one fragment; Damian
1996, 123.
15. Chirnogi (Călărași County); several specimens (between 40 and 48 cm
long), some with incised signs on the outside (one of them with the sign
/Y/), found together with bricks, as well as tiles and imbrices, many of
which have manufacturing defects; Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 241–
242, 244–252, 255–257, 262; figs. 2/2–4; 3/1; 4/1–6; 5/1, 2, 4–11; 6/1–8; 7/1–4;
11/2–3.
16. Chirnogi (Călărași County) – house 1; several fragments (one with an
incised sign) found in the filling, together with bricks (many with manu-
facturing defects, some with traces of mortar), as well as ceramic piping
fittings, one of which has manufacturing defects; Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu
1975, 242–243, 246, 251–254; fig. 2/1; fig. 8/4–5; fig. 9/2–3, 8–9; fig. 10/5.
17. Chirnogi (Călărași County) – house 2; several fragments found together
with bricks, tiles, and imbrices; Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 243.
18. Chirnogi (Călărași County) – oven 1; several fragments found together with
bricks, imbrices, and tiles; Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 243.
19. Gostinari (Giurgiu County); stray finds; several fragments, found together
with imbrices and bricks; Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 266; Schuster
2017, 362; 364 pl. IV; 365 pl. V.
20. Mărăcinele (Dolj County); several fragments found together with imbrices
inside a kiln accidentally found at the site La mal; Toropu – Ciucă – Voicu
1976, 98–106.
21. Oltenița (Călărași County); fragments; Sâmpetru – Șerbănescu 1975, 267.
22. Păcuiul lui Soare Island (Călărași County); fragments found inside the
stronghold, near the northern gate; Diaconu et al. 1983, 435.
23. Slon (Prahova County) – Building 1; several fragments used as pavement in
the northwestern corner of an above-ground building with stone walls;
Comșa 1978b, 308–309 and 314.
24. Slon (Prahova County) – Building 6; several fragments found inside an
above-ground building with stone and brick walls; Comșa 1978b, 312
and 314.
25. Târgșor (Prahova County) – house 40; several fragments found inside
a SFB, around the clay oven; Ciupercă – Măgureanu 2010, 155 and 173
fig. 10/1–7.
26. Târgșor (Prahova County) – kiln 5; several fragments found inside a kiln
discovered through salvage excavations at the Movila de la Pădure site;
Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 19 [where the finds are interpreted as imbrices];
43 pl. 12; 44 pl. 13/3, 6.
27. Viișoara (Dolj County); several fragments found in a SFB (?) accidentally
found at the ‘Părul lui Drăguceanu’ site; Toropu – Stoica 1970, 496–498.
Chapter 3
The Transylvanian Cradle: The Funeral Landscape

of Alba Iulia in the Light of ‘Stația de Salvare’
Cemetery (9th–11th Centuries)
Horia Ciugudean, Aurel Dragotă, and Monica-Elena Popescu
Translated by Monica-Elena Popescu
In memoriam Kurt Horedt
⸪
3.1 Introduction
Located in the south-west of Transylvania, Alba Iulia has been an attrac-

tive location for human communities since prehistory.1 However, the region
reached the peak of its development during Roman times (2nd–3rd centuries
AD), when Apulum became the most important military and urban center of
Dacia. During the Migrations Period, the former fortress of the XIII Gemina
Legion and the ruins of civil buildings were partly used by the Germanic
tribes, particularly in the 5th–6th centuries.2 So far, there have been few Slavic
finds and the situation looks the same in the time of the Avar domination of
Transylvania, although there are plenty of Avar cemeteries along the middle
Mureș Valley.3
Starting with the 9th century, Alba Iulia becomes one of the most important
early medieval centers of Transylvania, with the highest number of cemeter-
ies successively used in the period between the 9th and 12th centuries. Three
main funerary areas can be defined according to their geographic location.
The first one is located to the north (‘Stația de Salvare’ and Vânătorilor Street),
the second to the west (Brândușei Street and ‘Izvorul Împăratului’) and the
third one inside the medieval fortress, around the Catholic cathedral. Smaller
1 Moga – Ciugudean 1995, 29–30.

2 Heitel 1986; Bounegru – Ota 2006.
3 Cosma 2019.
© Horia Ciugudean et al., 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_005

The Funeral Landscape of Alba Iulia 79
cemeteries or isolated graves (?) have also been located south and south-east
of the city (Fig. 3.1).4
The largest cemetery in Alba Iulia is undoubtedly the one located in the
northern part of the town, near the building of ‘Stația de Salvare’ (the First
Aid Station). The first graves from this burial area had been excavated by Béla
Cserni in 1904.5 A Roman necropolis existed in the same area: eight Roman
graves were excavated in 1957 near ‘Cantonul C.F.R.’6 During the municipal
works that took place close to ‘Spitalul Veterinar’ (Veterinary Hospital) in 1962,
five more early medieval graves were found.7 However, the size and import-
ance of the medieval cemetery was considerably underestimated and it was
only in 1979 that archaeologists regained interest in the area. The discoveries
from the ‘Cantonul C.F.R.’ and the Veterinary Hospital were long considered
as distinct funerary areas, and their association with the ‘Stația de Salvare’
necropolis has been considered only in the last couple of decades.8
When the urban development extended north of the town, new Roman and
medieval graves came to light near the ‘Stația de Salvare’, a building located
between Moților St. and Victoriei Blvd. The Museum of Alba Iulia and the
Archaeological Institute of Cluj-Napoca joined efforts in excavating the area
between 1979 and 1985.9 Three overlapping cemeteries were uncovered – a
Roman one (2nd–3rd century) with over 300 graves, and two from the Early
Middle Ages (9th–11th centuries). The entire funeral area (including the Alba
Iulia – Zlatna road and the former railway) covers more than 2 ha. According to
the available information, 1152 early medieval graves were excavated at ‘Stația
de Salvare’ between 1979 and 1985 and 83 could not be dated.10 This site, there-
fore, is the largest early medieval necropolis in Transylvania excavated to date.
4 Horedt 1958a, 49–63; Ciugudean 2007, 243; Timofan 2010, 108; Florescu – Ota 2016.
5 Nagy 1913, 269.
6 Protase 1959, 400–404.
7 Dragotă et al. 2004.
8 Ciugudean 1996, 4; Dragotă et al. 2004, 172. Still, both Zlatna St. and ‘Spitalul Veterinar’
are wrongly considered distinct sites in some recently published studies (Gáll 2002, 298;
Țiplic 2006, 75; Marcu Istrate 2009a, 84).
9 Excavations took place in two different stages and by two different field teams, coor-
dinated by the Institute of Archaeology and History from Cluj-Napoca (director acad.
Ștefan Pascu). Between 1979 and 1981, the members of the field team were Mihai Blăjan,
Alexandru Popa and Ioan Șerban. Starting with the second half of 1981 the team partly
changed and it was formed by Ioan Șerban, Cloșca Băluță, Horia Ciugudean, Alexandru
Popa, Vasile Moga, Ioan Alexandru Aldea, Gheorghe Anghel and Dorin Ovidiu Dan.
10 Ciugudean 2006; Ciugudean 2007. Some wrong data regarding the size of the cemetery
has been circulated in the literature, the published numbers make no difference between
the two distinct cemeteries (Gáll 2005, 354).
80 Ciugudean, Dragotă, and Popescu
Figure 3.1 Map of present-day Alba Iulia with the location of the main sites referred to in the
text: 1. Stația de Salvare; 2. Izvorul Împăratului; 3. Brândușei St.; 4. Vânătorilor St.;
5. Micești-Cigaş; 6. The Ravelin of St. Francisc de Paola; 7. Orange Transmission
Station; 8. Former Military Hospital-Museikon; 9. Pâclișa – La Izvoare; 10. Roman
Bath/Governors Palace; 11. Catholic Cathedral
Author: Horia I. Ciugudean
The Roman cemetery has been recently published,11 and there are several stud-
ies and exhibition catalogues dedicated to the medieval finds.12 Unfortunately,
there are no chances for a complete anthropological study of the skeletons
in the future, as far as the skeletons have been mixed with other finds and
completely compromised after 1990, when the reorganization of the Research
11 Bounegru 2017 (the author erroneously attributed a few early medieval graves with tile
cist to the Roman time).
12 Ciugudean 1996; Ciugudean 2006; Ciugudean 2007; Ciugudean 2011; Blăjan – Popa 1981;
Blăjan et al. 1993; Blăjan – Botezatu 2000; Dragotă – Blăjan 2019a; Dragotă 2020; Cosma
2011. In spite of the early publication of consistent topographical, chronological and
archaeological data on the ‘Stația de Salvare’ cemeteries, several authors have still pro-
moted wrong information about this important site, either by ignorance or misunder-
standing (Țiplic 2007; Gáll 2002; Takács 2016 etc.).
Institute for Biology in Iași took place.13 There were analyzed just 25% (342) of
the skeletons belonging to the medieval cemetery at ‘Stația de Salvare’, and no
difference has been done between the two different phases of interment in the
necropolis. According to the preliminary anthropological reports, 93 individu-
als (27,19%) fall in the Infans I group (0–7 years old), 30 individuals (8,77%) fall
in the Infans II group (7–14 years old), 11 individuals (3,22%) fall in the Iuvenis
group (14–18 years old), 71 individuals (20,76%) fall in the Adultus group (18–
30 years old), 127 individuals (37,13%) fall in the Maturus group (30–60 years
old), and finally, 8 individuals (2,34%) fall in the Senilis group (≤ 60 years old)
(Fig. 3.15). There were only two uncategorized individuals (1,58%). The demo-
graphical picture of the 9th–10th century burials at ‘Stația de Salvare’ shows a
high rate of death during the childhood and a very low percentage of survival
among the older people, a situation quite common in medieval Europe. The
gender structure indicates a slightly higher percentage of male (38%) in com-
parison with the female burials (31%), but one should consider also the fact
that the proportion of non-determined skeletons (31%) is quite high.14
Radu Heitel was the first archaeologist who separated the funeral finds from
the ‘Stația de Salvare’ site in four distinct cemeteries (I–IV). According to his
system, the site holds: the Roman cemetery = cemetery I; the Blandiana A-type
cemetery = cemetery II; the 10th century Hungarian Conquest cemetery =
cemetery III; and the Arpadian cemetery = cemetery IV.15 Unfortunately, this
system united two different archaeological sites, both from spatial and chron-
ological points of view: ‘Stația de Salvare’ (cemeteries I–III in Heitel’s system)
and Vânătorilor St. (cemetery no. IV in Heitel’s system). Mihai Blăjan, the direc-
tor of the excavations at Alba Iulia – Vânătorilor St., has always considered this
area to be a separate cemetery from the one at ‘Stația de Salvare’ and published
it accordingly.16 In 1996, a different chronological system was strictly proposed
for the medieval cemetery at ‘Stația de Salvare’: cemetery I (the 9th–beginning
of 10th century burial horizon) and cemetery II (the 10th–beginning of 11th
13 All the human and animal bones discovered in the Roman and medieval cemeteries at
‘Stația de Salvare’, and Vânătorilor St. have been transported to Iași, according to several
research contracts between the National Museum of the Union Alba Iulia, the Institute
of Archaeology Cluj-Napoca and the Research Institute for Biology Iași. The anthropo-
logical analysis of the Árpád-time cemetery at Vânătorilor St. has been completed and a
few selected data published (Blăjan et al. 1993). As for the ‘Stația de Salvare’ necropolis,
only about one quarter of the medieval skeletons have been studied, the results being
presented in successive unpublished reports (1985, 1986).
14 The authors of the anthropological reports were Dan Botezatu, Georgeta Miu, Maria
Știrbu and Petru Cantemir (Centrul de Cercetări Biologice Iași).
15 Heitel 1995, 407, note 51.
16 Blăjan et al. 1993.
century burials horizon).17 The correlations between the two systems have
already been specified in the recent literature,18 but there are still research-
ers who use the labels in a different way.19 The separation within the medi-
eval necropolis ‘Stația de Salvare’ of two distinct burial horizons, hereinafter
referred to as cemeteries I and II, is facilitated by stratigraphic observations,
corroborated with the elements of rite and funeral ritual, to which is added the
variety of grave goods.
3.2 The First Burial Horizon (Stația de Salvare I)
The first early medieval cemetery (Stația de Salvare I) overlaps the south-
ern area of the Roman necropolis,20 being delimited to the north-east by the
embankment of the ancient road that connected Apulum with Ampelum,
the administrative headquarters of the Roman gold mines in the Western
Carpathians. The tombs of the first phase (9th–first third of the 10th century)
cover a smaller area compared to the one occupied by the burials from the sec-
ond phase (10th–11th century). It is difficult to make an exact estimation of the
number of graves, given that some of them have no inventory. Between 1979
and 1981, the team directed by Mihai Blăjan discovered a number of 18 burial
graves (Fig. 3.2.1) with offerings specific to the first phase.21 Another 80 graves
excavated between 1981 and 1985 can be added to the same phase (Fig. 3.2.2).
The result is a minimum of 98 graves that can be assigned to the Stația de
Salvare I horizon, representing a little less than 10 percent of the total number
of early medieval tombs.22 It should be noted that four cremation graves were
also discovered at the ‘Stația de Salvare’ necropolis. They were initially dated
to the 8th century and considered an earlier funerary horizon.23 However,
17 Ciugudean 1996, 6. In the last decades, new 10th century cemeteries came to light on dif-
ferent locations in Alba Iulia. That is why we preferred to use only Stația de Salvare I and
II labels (Ciugudean 2006, 12–13; Ciugudean 2007, 244 and note 7).
18 Dragotă 2006, 162–163.
19 Gáll 2002, 290, 295, 298.
20 This is the northern necropolis of the ancient town of Apulum, the southern one being
located at ‘Dealul Furcilor’ site. For more information regarding the Roman cemeteries
from Alba Iulia see Bolog 2016 and Bounegru 2017.
21 Dragotă et al. 2020.
22 It should be noted that our first estimation has been accepted and quoted already by
Radu Heitel (Heitel 1995, 407, note 52), a fact ignored in some later publications (see Gáll
2005, 355; Gáll 2010, 206).
23 Blăjan – Botezatu 2000; Țiplic 2006, 25; Dragotă 2006, 137.
0 5 10m
Burials of the Statia de Salvare I cemetery (9th - 10th centuries)

(1979-1981 excavations)
Burials of the Statia de Salvare I cemetery (9th - 10th centuries)
(1981-1985 excavations)
Figure 3.2 Plans of the 1979–1981 (1) and 1981–1985 (2) excavations, with the location of the
9th–10th centuries burials. Overlapping graves of the first and second phase in
the medieval cemetery at ‘Stația de Salvare’ (3)
bi-ritual cemeteries are equally present in the Carpathian24 and the Balkan
regions,25 and following this perspective, the cremation graves might be con-
sidered as part of Stația de Salvare I horizon.26
The burial graves belonging to the first horizon do not have an organized
distribution within the cemetery area. Sometimes they form small groups up
to five graves, but quite often they are buried at considerable distances from
one another. The orientation of more than half of the graves is West-East (with
the head to the West in most cases), the others being divided between SW–
NE or SE–NW. Most of the burial pits have a rectangular shape, with slightly
rounded corners (Fig. 3.4.1), a common type for early medieval graves, which
do not require special comments (Fig. 3.14). There are several oval-shaped pits
too, which stand out for their exaggerated length in relation to that of the skel-
eton. A singular case is represented by a grave with a sidewall niche (M. 43/
SXV), which was dug on the long side of the pit (Fig. 3.4.2). This type of grave
is well-known both in early Bulgarian cemeteries and Hungarian Conquest
Period graves, with origins in the Saltovo cultural complex.27
The cist burials present a special form of burial practices in the Stația de
Salvare I cemetery. Two different types of cists can be distinguished, accord-
ing to the constructing materials, the ones using only re-used Roman tiles and
the others built mainly with stones and fewer tiles. The construction materials
were provided by the 2nd–3rd century sarcophagi present in the same area
of the site and often disturbed by the early medieval funeral pits. The ruins
of the Roman buildings widespread in the neighboring areas offered another
accessible source. It should be noted that the tile cists, which are present in
eight graves (Fig. 3.14), have either a rectangular shape (Figs. 3.3.2, 3.3.3) or,
more rarely, a trapezoidal one (Figs. 3.4.3, 3.4.4). Trapezoidal stone cists are
well-known in the Byzantine cultural context,28 but they are also present in
Christian Moravian elite graves.29 A singular and more elaborated arrangement
is present in tomb 10/XIII, where the tiles that close the pit were extended
outside the box to the West, creating a pseudo-niche where the offerings were
deposited: two ceramic vessels and the meat offering: the bones of a sheep
or goat (Fig. 3.4.4). No similar tile cist burials have been reported in the other
24 For the Transylvanian region see the Bratei 2 cemetery (Zaharia 1977).
25 Fiedler 1992; Špehar – Zorova 2012, 430–433; Staykov 2019.
26 Ciugudean 2006, 13–14; Ciugudean 2011, 120. This view is also supported by two other
researchers (Harhoiu 2005, 300, j2; Takács 2016, 10).
27 Türk 2014, 141–143, with the most recent bibliography.
28 See the Parapotamos cemetery in Greece (Poulou-Papadimitriou et al. 2012, 407).
29 Macháček et al. 2016, pl. 110/1.
Figure 3.3 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. 1–2. Tile cist graves of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I). 3. Burial of the first phase with animal offerings, ceramic and
iron knife
Photographs by Horia I. Ciugudean
Figure 3.4 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different types of graves with food
offerings in the first burial horizon (Cemetery I)
Figure 3.5 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Stone covering of burial pits
(1–2) and deposition of ceramic vessels (3–4) in the second
burial horizon (Cemetery II)
cemeteries within the city, dated prior to the 11th century.30 The cist burial rite
is known in Europe over a large part of the Late Roman Empire.31 This type of
tomb has roots in the Roman brick sarcophagus. Parallels for the cist tombs can
be found south of the Danube, both in the Byzantine Empire32 and in the first
Bulgarian state,33 where they were associated with the Christianization pro-
cess of the population in the area. Stone cists were also used in the Moravian
cemeteries.34 The existence of the trapezoidal tile cists in the ‘Stația de Salvare’
cemetery is quite surprising and it should be interpreted as an early presence
of Christians in the first burial horizon, related with the Bulgarian expansion
in Transylvania.
A more rare type of burial construction used in the first cemetery at ‘Stația
de Salvare’ is the stone covering / edging of the grave pits that come from the
ruins of Roman buildings near the burial area. It is used only in a few cases
(tomb 44/SXV and tomb 8/SXXXIII), becoming more common in cemetery II.
It should be noted that in the case of tomb 44 we are dealing with a combina-
tion of a layer of stones deposited in the filling of the pit and a brick edging in
the area of the right hand and a stone near the right foot, so a pseudo-cist vari-
ant. A similar cist, made with Roman tiles and flat stones was excavated in the
10th century cemetery at Alba Iulia – ‘Izvorul Împăratului’.35 The practice of
lining stones around the burial pit is sporadically attested in the tombs of the
Avar period,36 but proper stone cists are wide-spread both in the Carolingian
Empire37 and Great Moravia,38 as well as in the First Bulgarian Empire.39
Pottery is the most frequent grave-good in the Stația de Salvare I phase.
The position of vessels in relation to the skeleton has two dominant options:
close to the skull (Figs. 3.2; 3.4.2) or near the legs (Figs. 3.3.2; 3.4.1). There are
no cases of vessels deposition over the shoulder, chest, or pelvis, nor in the
proximity of the hands. In some of the cist graves, the pottery may be even
30 Dragotă 2006, 135. The child buried in a tile cist close to the Catholic Cathedral has a lock
ring with an S-end and Daniela Marcu-Istrate proposed a date not earlier than the final
part of the 10th century (Marcu Istrate 2009a, 120, foto 123–124). Given the topography of
the funeral area close to the 12th century church, we disagree with a date before 1000.
31 Müller 2010, 160–162; Kniper et al. 2020, fig. 2A.
32 Poulou-Papadimitriou et al. 2012.
33 Fiedler 1992, 291, pl. 104/20–21; pl. 105/3; Văžarova 1976, fig. 207. The tile cists are also used
for protecting the cremation graves, see Dimitrov 1976.
34 Macháček et al. 2016, pl. 73/4–5; 79/1; 86/1–2.
35 Dragotă – Blăjan 2019a, fig. 6.
36 Zábojník 2006, fig. 7.
37 Nowotny 2018, 29–31; Merkel 2004, 23.
38 Kalousek 1971; Macháček – Sládek 2019, fig. 1.10–11.
39 Dimitrov 1971; Dimitrov 1972.
separated completely from the body and put outside the brick case, together
with the meat (Fig. 3.4.4). The pottery from Stația de Salvare I phase consists
of three main types: amphora-like jugs (Figs. 3.6.1–6), globular grey burnished
pots (Figs. 3.6.9; 8.), and coarse reddish/grey pots (Figs. 3.7.3, 3.7.5, 3.7.6; 3.8.3).
The amphora-like jugs (Fig. 3.6.1–6) are made of fine yellow or grey clay,
sometimes decorated with burnished lines (Fig. 3.6.3). They may have sym-
bolic signs incised on their shoulders or over the belly (Figs. 3.6.1, 3.6.4, 3.6.6;
3.9.4). They were found deposited as a single vessel or together with a second
one (Figs. 3.4.1, 3.4.3), usually a coarse reddish or grey pot. So far, this pottery
type is present only in two Transylvanian cemeteries: Blandiana – ‘La Brod’40
and Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare I. Such amphora-like jugs are well-known
from a few cemeteries south of the Carpathians, such as the one at Sultana41
and Obârșia.42 They represent a common pottery type in the Lower Danube
cemeteries of the 9th–10th century,43 but their distribution is far larger than
the political borders of the first Bulgarian state.44 The origin of this ceramic
type should be looked for in the Byzantine Empire, as early as the 7th century.45
The grey burnished pottery includes globular pots, with a short neck and
slightly everted rim (Figs. 3.6.9; 3.8.1–2), sometimes with two small handles
(Figs. 3.7.1–2, 3.7.4), and often with burnished decorations (Fig. 3.7.2). There
are no incised signs on their body, as in the case of amphora-like jugs. The grey
burnished pottery finds closest parallels in Saltovo ceramics, distributed over a
huge area, from the Middle Volga46 to the Lower Danube.47
The coarse reddish/grey pottery, with wavy and horizontal combed deco-
ration is a wide-spread type, with relevant examples in the 8th century cem-
eteries of the Mediaș group in Transylvania,48 but more closely related to the
8th–9th century pottery of the Lower Danube region.49
During the Stația de Salvare I phase, several deliberate associations of pot-
tery types have been observed. The most common one is that of coarse reddish
40 Anghel – Ciugudean 1987, fig. 3; 4/6.

41 Mitrea 1988, pl. 1/T5–1; pl. 2/T14–1; pl. 5/T45–1; pl. 6/T51–3; pl. 10/T81–1; T82/1–2.
42 Toropu – Stoica 1972, fig. 13/3; fig. 14/2.
43 Fiedler 1992, 145–147, fig. 31; Doncheva-Petkova 1990, 86–87, pl. 7–8; Khristova 2009.
44 Herold 2010, fig. 3; Szőke 2011, 533–534; fig. 11.1; Špehar – Zorova 2012, fig. 2.3.
45 Salvatore 1982, 49–50, pl. 1/7; Vionis et al. 2010, 439–440, fig. 11.
46 Kazakov et al. 1990.
47 Cebotarenko 1990, 61–65; Doncheva-Petkova 1990, 81–82, pl. 2–3, fig. 1/h, i, s, t; Khristova
2015, fig. 1; 4/2–6.
48 Zaharia 1977, 62–70, fig. 14–28.
49 Toropu – Stoica 1972, 177, fig. 12, 15; Mitrea 1988, pl. 1/T3–4; pl. 3/T16, T18–2; T28–1; pl. 5/T42–
1; pl. 9/T79–2, T80–2 etc.; Fiedler 1992, 127–137, 150–154; fig. 22–25, 34; Doncheva-Petkova
1990, 78–79, fig. 1/j, k, l; pl. 1; Khristova 2015, fig. 2–3.
Figure 3.6 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different ceramic types of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I)
Photographs by Horia I. Ciugudean and Aurel Dragotă
Figure 3.7 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different ceramic types of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I)
Figure 3.8 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Different ceramic types of the first (1–3) and second
(4–8) burial horizon (Cemetery I and II)
pots with either an amphora-type vessel or a grey burnished pot. It is also

important to note the deposition of ceramics together with part of the meat
offering in most cases, and sometimes with an iron knife. In this case, the posi-
tion of the knife suggests a direct relation with the afterlife feast, while in other
graves, the knife is deposited close to the hand or the pelvis area.50
A funerary practice often present in the graves is the partial deposition of
slaughtered animals, usually sheep-goats or/and bovines. In the vast major-
ity of cases, the meat offering is placed near the head and close to the legs,
but there are a few cases when it was deposited after a partial filling of the
grave pit. The closest analogies can be found in the pre-Christian burial assem-
blages of the Lower Danube, where the diversity of sacrificed animals is not
only greater, but the representation of species is quite different, with poultry
most common.51 The venison seems to be completely absent, but there are a
few depositions of eggs, a habit more often present in the 10th century burial
horizon.52
Jewelry is also present in the graves of the first cemetery, but we cannot
assign the objects according to gender. The best represented body ornaments
are the beads, made of bluish glass paste decorated with white-yellow applica-
tions (Fig. 3.9.5). They are followed by globular pendants and earrings, a pair
with a crescent plate and small chains being of particular interest (Fig. 3.9.2).
These examples have excellent parallels in the Ciumbrud cemetery,53 as well
as in the Bulgarian, Moravian, and in the Carolingian-Age Lower Pannonia
cemeteries and the East Alpine region.54 A special mention should also be
made to the lead pendants discovered in tomb 26/SXXXV, decorated with a
central cross motif with equal arms (Fig. 3.9.1). They belong to a category of
objects with Christian symbolism, present mainly in the Lower Danube area,
and strongly influenced by Byzantine civilization.55 Lead pendants with cross
motifs were found along the Middle Mureș Valley at Ciumbrud (Fig. 3.13.2),56
Orăștie (Fig. 3.13.12),57 and Berghin (Fig. 3.13.1).58
50 For a comprehensive analysis of knife deposition in burial finds of the Lower Danube area
see Fiedler 1992, 206–208.
51 Fiedler 2008, 157.
52 Dragotă 2019.
53 Dankanits – Ferenczi 1959, 608, fig. 4/10.
54 Văjarova 1976, fig. 218/2–3; Poulík 1955, fig. 18/10–11; Chorvátová 2007, pl. VI. 4; Szabó 2016,
197–198, fig. 10/1; Petrinec 2009, pl. 115/6; 155.
55 Doncheva 2007, tipul C, 24–27, pl. 22–37.
56 Dankanits – Ferenczi 1959, fig. 3/8.
57 Pinter – Boroffka 1999, fig. 7/7.
58 Nemeti 2002, fig. 2/1.
Based on the specific elements of burial customs, but also through most
of the inventory pieces, the first cemetery from the necropolis of Alba Iulia –
‘Stația de Salvare’ has been already included in the same cultural group of dis-
coveries with the Blandiana cemetery59 and with the tombs from Sebeș,60
dating mainly to the 9th–beginning of the 10th century.61 Moreover, a large
number of researchers take into consideration the role played by the first
Bulgarian state in the genesis of the Blandiana A group.62 In the last part of
our study we shall do an extended analysis of the historical and archaeological
context of this cultural horizon.
3.3 The Second Burial Horizon (II) at ‘Stația de Salvare’
The second burial horizon in the necropolis from Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’
presents clear elements of discontinuity in comparison to the previous one
(disappearance of burnished grey and yellow ceramics, the absence of tile
cists, a much higher diversity in the orientation of the graves). There are sev-
eral cases in which the tombs of the Stația de Salvare II cemetery directly
superposed and sometimes partially destroy the earlier ones (Fig. 3.2).
Along with the common graves set in simple, rectangular pits (Figs. 3.5.3–4),
there is a large number of tombs covered with layers of stone and fragments
of recycled Roman tiles, collected from the nearby Roman ruins (Figs. 3.5.1–2).
The use of Roman materials for the funeral constructions is already known in
the previous Stația de Salvare I cemetery, but the ways in which the materials
are used is different, the cist-type tombs being very rare in cemetery II. Stone/
tile coverings and stone framing are present in two other 10th century ceme-
teries from Alba Iulia, respectively Brândușei St. and ‘Izvorul Împăratului’,63
and one century later in the ‘Piața Centrală’ cemetery at Cluj-Napoca.64 The
practice is known in the necropolises of the Lower Danube,65 being largely in
59 Horedt 1966; Anghel – Ciugudean 1987.

60 Simina 2002.
61 Horedt 1986, fig. 41; Heitel 1985, 225; Heitel 1995, 407; Ciugudean 1996, 6; Ciugudean 2006,
15–16, 18; Ciugudean 2011, 123–124; Harhoiu 2005, 296; Dragotă 2006, 135; Dragotă et al.
2020.
62 Bóna 1994, 102–106; Kristó 1998; Szalontai 2000.
63 Dragotă 2006, 49–50; Dragotă et al 2009, 81–82, pl. 20, 22–24, etc.; Dragotă – Blăjan 2019,
fig. 6; Gáll 2005, 351–355.
64 Gáll et al. 2010, 45–46, fig. 14, pl. 57.
65 For Histria see Fiedler 1992, pl. 11/9, 17/10, 26/5, 27/8, 34/2; Komatarova-Balinova 2012,
fig. 8–9.
use during the time of the first Bulgarian state.66 However, it should be stressed
that the Balkans is not the single region of Europe where such burial customs
were in use before the year 1000,67 and such one-sided approach could pose a
methodological error.68
The graves with coffins are quite rare and the wood is poorly preserved. In
Alba Iulia, the presence of wooden coffins has been also noticed in other 10th
century cemeteries.69 The dominant internment in the cemetery Stația de
Salvare II is the standard position on the back with arms alongside the body
and the lower limbs stretched out. Deviations tolerated within the definition
of the standard position include flexing at the elbow, different variants of arm
placement (one or both hands brought to the pelvis or the chest) or slight
bending in the knees and various directions of the feet in the lower limbs. The
dominant orientation of the tombs continues to be West (the skull) – East, but
there are also more diverse orientations (NE–SW, SW–NE, NW–SE or SE–
NW) in comparison with the previous horizon.
There are a few graves with contracted skeletons that can be certainly
attributed to cemetery II based on the specific types of grave-goods (bronze
lock-rings and bracelets). One grave with the skeleton lying on the left side
in a moderately contracted position is known from Alba Iulia – Brândușei St.
cemetery,70 and another slightly later at Vânătorilor St. (11th century).71 Graves
with contracted skeletons are also known in the Hungarian Conquest Period
cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin,72 in the Lower Danube region,73 as well as
in the Moravian necropolis.74
In terms of grave goods, the second burial phase of Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de
Salvare’ necropolis has few things in common with the previous horizon. The
deposition of pottery became less frequent, the percentage of graves with
ceramic vessels is almost 17%, compared to more than 80% in the case of the
66 Fiedler 1992, pl. 95/1, 9; 102/15; 103/21. The practice of body fixation with stones/tiles has
been defined in the group of deviant burials (Parvanov 2016, 45–53).
67 They were used in Pannonia during the Keszthely culture and later on, in the Carolingian
period (Müller 2010, 163–164). The cemeteries of Magna Moravia delivered other good
examples from a completely different cultural and geographical area (Macháček et al.
2016, 32–38, pl. 85/1; 102/1; 109/3–4; 110/1; 112/4–5; 176/1; 121/3).
68 However, this error is already present in most of the references related to the Alba Iulia –
‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery (see Gáll 2005, 355–356).
69 Gáll 2005, 14–16, with references to other similar finds in Transylvania.
70 Dragotă et al. 2009, pl. 26/M 38.
71 Blăjan et al. 1993, 273.
72 Tettamanti 1975, 101.
73 Fiedler 1992, 299–300, pl. 103/19, 104/8, 114/8.
74 Hrubý 1965, pl. 9/4; Kalousek 1971, pl. 20/2; Rejholková 1995, pl. 132/278; 141/659.
first burial horizon. Pottery offering consist of coarse pots with comb dec-
oration (Figs. 3.8.4–8) similar to the ceramics used in the cemeteries of the
Carpathian Basin.75 The grey and yellow ceramics is completely absent, as well
as amphora-type jugs or the globular grey pots. The small size of vessels is a typ-
ical pattern also present in other 10th-century graves at Alba Iulia – Brândușei
St.,76 Alba Iulia – ‘Izvorul Împăratului’77 or Alba Iulia – ‘Antena Orange’.78 From
certain pieces of evidence, it is possible to propose that pottery serving merely
as a container of food offerings was produced solely for funerary purposes,
which might explain the reduced size of the vessels.
The single vessel becomes the new standard in pottery offering in the later
burials. However, there are still a few graves with two pots, which represent less
than one per cent (0,9%) from the total number of the pottery offerings in the
Stația de Salvare II phase. The position of the vessels in relation to the skeleton
is also different in Stația de Salvare II phase in comparison to the previous one.
The vessels were more often deposited near the shoulder (Figs. 3.5.3–4), close
to the left hand or to the pelvis. Similar pottery placement has been reported
in the 10th century graves of the Transylvanian region.79 There are also pots
deposited close to the skull or the legs, but less frequent than in the phase I of
the cemetery. Without anthropological analysis, the gender assessment of pot-
tery burials is difficult to be solved. However, the placement of ceramic vessels
in several burials with military equipment,80 including four warriors’ graves
with horse remains, should be noted.81
The inclusion of military equipment in the graves of the Stația de Salvare II
phase is another distinctive element in comparison to the first horizon of bur-
ials in the Alba Iulia necropolis. There are 46 graves with military equipment
in the second phase,82 which means approximately 5% of the total number
of graves of the second phase. The weapons mainly include battle axes, quivers,
arrowheads, and bone plates from the bows. Four iron axes have been discov-
ered, three of them belonging to the Ruttkay IV A type with a narrow-arched
edge and a long nape, with rectangular section (Figs. 3.12.1, 3.12.10).83 This type
is not known so far in the Transylvanian warrior graves of the 10th century,
75 Merva 2014; Cosma 2011, 37–47.

76 Dragotă 2006, 123–124, pl. VII.
77 Dragotă et al. 2018, 336–337, fig. 4/50.
78 Ciobanu 2004.
79 Dragotă 2006, 124; Gáll 2005, 387.
80 Ciugudean 2007, 248; Dragotă – Blăjan 2019, 210–211.
81 Ciugudean 2007, 248, pl. V/2.
82 Dragotă – Blăjan 2019. Other 33 graves have been discovered between 1981 and 1985.
83 Ciugudean 2006, 30, nr. 43–44; Dragotă 2015, 331, pl. III/7; IV/2.
Figure 3.9 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Grave goods of the first burial horizon
(Cemetery I): lead pendant with cross motif (1), bronze earring (2), iron knife
(3), amphora-type jug with anthropomorphic graffiti (4), necklace with glass and
ceramic beads (5)
but it was found in similar variants on the territory of Banat,84 as well as in

the graves of the Balkan area,85 Magna Moravia,86 and in the Conquest period
cemetery of Hungary.87 The fourth axe belongs to the Ruttkay III A type,88 a
similar axe being found close to Alba Iulia on the left bank of Mureș River, at
Gâmbaș.89
In terms of number, the best represented weapon in the Alba Iulia II ceme-
tery is the iron arrowhead (Figs. 3.12.4, 7–9), which might be deposited as a sin-
gle piece or in a bunch of several exemplars, often associated with the quiver
or the bow.90 In case of both the quivers and the bows, the organic part is
completely decomposed, so only the iron fittings of the quiver or lateral bone
plates of the bows have survived (Figs. 3.12.2–3.12.3). The closest parallels can
easily be found in the archery equipment found in the Conquest Period graves
of the Carpathian Basin.91
The grave good of warriors tend to include not only weapons but parts of
riding gear, too. They consist of bits made of two articulated iron bars and stir-
rups, both in the shape of a pear or with an arched plate inward (Fig. 3.12.6).
The bronze strap distributors (Fig. 3.12.5) and iron buckles belong to the same
category of grave goods. Not all items part of the riding gear came out in typi-
cal horse burials (with horse bone deposition), some emerged in the so-called
‘symbolic horse burials’, according to Csanád Bálint’s classification.92
None of the graves yielded a sabre (or sword),93 although the second hori-
zon of burials at ‘Stația de Salvare’ has the highest number of graves with mil-
itary equipment from all the 10th-century Transylvanian cemeteries. This is a
meaningful observation and deserves a closer analysis, since the sabres/swords
represent one of the most characteristic insignia of rank found in the Conquest
Period graves of the Carpathian Basin.
The percentage of ornaments made of bronze, silver, and even gold dra-
matically increases in the Stația de Salvare II cemetery. The most frequent are
the lock-rings made of a simple wire loop with the ends close or overlapping
(Figs. 3.10.1, 3.10.3). Rings with an S-shaped end (Fig. 3.10.4) appeared in less
84 Rădulescu – Gáll 2001, 180, fig. 18/3.

85 Špehar – Zorova, 2012, fig. 2/3.
86 Rejholková 1995, pl. XXXII/8.
87 Kovács 1981; Fodor 1996, 232, 1; M. Nepper 2002, pl. 47/2.
88 Dragotă – Blăjan 2019, 206, pl. 11/7.
89 Dragotă et al. 2010, 66, pl. II/19.
90 Dragotă – Blăjan 2019.
91 Bíró 2014; Varga 2014.
92 Bálint 1969.
93 This situation has also been noticed by Gáll 2010, 206.
than 1% of the excavated tombs, which have clear chronological implications.94

Bronze wire necklaces are common, made of one simple (Fig. 3.11.12) or twisted
wire (Figs. 3.10.8; 3.11.3). Bronze or silver bracelets with a round or rectangu-
lar section, and with spaced or overlapping ends were also found (Figs. 3.10.7;
3.11.5). Bronze and silver finger rings appear in several variants, either made of
a single band, or from twisted wires (Figs. 3.10.12; 3.11.4), or with ‘chaton’ made
of twisted wires (Fig. 3.11.11). Most of the types of jewelry already mentioned
are to be found in the discoveries of the early phase of the Bijelo-Brdo culture
of the Carpathian Basin.95
The hair- and earrings are usually made of bronze and silver, but six items
made of gold were also found. They are worked from a simple gold wire, with
overlapping or open ends, in one case the ring displaying a twisted hook
(Fig. 3.10.6). Among the silver earrings, those decorated with grape-bunch pen-
dants (Fig. 3.11.1) have excellent analogies in three of the Transylvanian 10th
century cemeteries (Blandiana – ‘În vii’, Cluj – Zápolya St. and Alba Iulia –
‘Izvorul Împăratului’),96 as well as in other graves of Central and South-East
Europe.97 Another silver ornament decorated with granulation are the glob-
ular pendants or barrel-shaped beads (Fig. 3.10.2), the last one used originally
as earring pendant. The presence of several ornaments with probable oriental
influence, such as a pair of braid bronze discs decorated with a figure mounted
on a horse back should also be noted (Figs. 3.11.7–3.11.8), this kind of ornament
being well-known in the Conquest Period graves of the Carpathian Basin.98
Necklaces made of different types of beads (glass, amber, or semi-precious
stones) were also found in many graves (Figs. 3.10.2, 3.10.13). Sometimes the
glass beads alternate with shells or perforated Roman coins, the last fashion
being largely spread in the Carpathian Basin and the Balkan region.99
Buttons of different sizes and shapes (Figs. 3.10.14; 3.11.13–17), as well as
buckles represent the most frequent clothing accessories found in the graves.
The tools deposition includes mainly iron knives (Fig. 3.11.6) and strike-a-lights
(Fig. 3.11.9), sometimes associated with sharpening stones (Fig. 3.11.18).
Finally, a special observation has to be made in relation to the relatively
reduced number of belt mounts discovered in the graves, compared to the size
94 Gáll 2009, 165.

95 Giesler 1981, 137–142, pl. 53; Horedt 1986, fig. 45.
96 Horedt 1966, 276, fig. 18/1, 3; Gáll et al. 2010, pl. 14/1; Dragotă et al. 2018a, fig. 3/17a. For a
complete list of finds see Dragotă 2014b, 15–17.
97 See Langó – Patay-Horváth 2015, with an extensive discussion of this type. Surprisingly,
Transylvanian finds are missing from the distribution map (fig. 5).
98 Révész 2014.
99 Dragotă, Rustoiu 2012; Ćirić 2013.
Figure 3.10 Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’. Grave goods of the second burial horizon
(Cemetery II): Silver lock rings (1, 3), necklaces with beads made of
glass, semiprecious stones and silver pendant (2, 13), lock ring with an
S-end (4), silver earring decorated by granulation (5), golden lock ring
(6), bronze arm ring (7), bronze twisted torques (8), perforated animal
tooth (9), bronze mounts (10–11), silver twisted ring (12)
(Cemetery II): silver earrings decorated by granulation (1–2), bronze
torques (3), silver twisted ring (4), bronze lock ring (5), iron knife (6), bronze
openwork discs (7–8), iron strike-a-light (9), bronze bell (10), bronze finger
ring (11), bronze torques (12), bronze buttons (13–17), sharpening stone (18)
(Cemetery II): iron battle axes (1, 10), bone plates from composite bows (2–3),
iron arrowheads (4, 7–9), bronze strap distributor (5), iron stirrup (6)
Figure 3.13 Jewelry discovered in the Ciumbrud (1–9), Orăștie X8 (10–13) and Ghirbom
(16–19) cemeteries. Yellow burnished pot (14) and tile cist with cremation
graves (15) discovered at Micești-Orizont
Photographs by Aurel Dragotă (2–9), Liviu Bălan (14–15), and
Horia I. Ciugudean (16–19) drawings by Nikolaus Boroffka (10–13)
of the cemetery. In one male grave, a heart-shaped mount (Fig. 10.11) was found
together with two arrowheads. Different types of belt mounts (Fig. 3.10.10)
have been found isolated, only in a couple of cases their number allowing to
relate them with a proper belt.
In terms of burial customs, the Stația de Salvare II cemetery is similar to the
early phase of the Alba Iulia – Brândușei St. cemetery,100 and with the one at
‘Izvorul Împăratului’.101 Certain ornaments (necklaces, finger and hair rings,
earrings, bracelets) are characteristic of the early phase of the Bijelo-Brdo
culture and allow us to situate most of the Stația de Salvare II cemetery in
the second half of the 10th and the beginning of 11th century.102 The sporadic
presence of small S-shaped lock-rings without longitudinal ribs does not con-
tradict the proposed dating, as this type of pieces appeared in the Carpathian
Basin after 950, while their common use is widespread after the year 1000.
The graves with military equipment and the ones with horse remains might
be related with the first Hungarian expeditions in the south of Transylvania.
However, some of the burial customs, particularly the stone/tile covering in
the case of more than 300 graves, indicate a much more complex ethnic com-
position of the cemetery II.103 Even if king Stephen’s military expedition did
not mark the end of the burials in the ‘Stația de Salvare’ funeral area,104 several
new cemeteries started in the 11th century in completely different areas of the
city (Figs. 3.1, 3.17).105 Less than 1% of the graves at ‘Stația de Salvare’ have been
dated to the first half of the 11th century, according to their grave goods.106 Only
two of them have coins, one belongs to Samuel Aba (1041–1044) and the other
to Andrew 1st (1047–1060). The location of these eight graves is highly signif-
icant, all of them being found in the southern periphery of the cemetery, two
of them (exactly the ones with coins!) even further isolated to the south-west.
This might signify a break in the use of the ‘Stația de Salvare’ funerary area,
followed by a short re-use in the middle of the 11th century. We shall return in
the final part of this study to this particular situation and try to understand it
in the light of the political and religious transformations that occurred after
king Stephen’s victory in the Alba Iulia region.1.
100 Dragotă 2006, 48–49; Dragotă et al. 2009, 120–122.

101 Dragotă 2017; Dragota et al. 2018a.
102 Ciugudean 1996, 11.
103 This observation is already present in the literature (for example Gáll 2005, 393).
104 Ciugudean 1996, 11; Ciugudean 2006, 16.
105 Vânătorilor St. (Blăjan et al. 1993), Roman Bath (Horedt 1958a, 49–63), Pâclișa (Dragotă
et al. 2012, 154), as well as the second burial phase at Brândușei St. (Dragotă et al.
2009, 120).
106 Dragotă 2020, 85.
2% 1%
9%
5%
Simple burial pit
Stone setting
Tile cist
Sidewall niche
Pseudo-niche
83%
Figure 3.14 Types of graves in Stația de Salvare I cemetery (9th–first half of the
10th century)
Maturus
3% 1%
9% Maturus
37% Adultus
21% Infans I
Iuvenis
Senilis
27%
Uncertain
Figure 3.15 Demographic composition of the 9th–10th century burials at Stația de Salvare
cemetery (I and II)
3.4 Alba Iulia at the Turn of the First Millennium: Chronological and
Cultural Considerations
One can hardly find a better place to observe the coexistence and development
of early medieval ethnic groups in Transylvania than the Alba Iulia region dur-
ing the 9th and 10th centuries, where political actions and changes in political
and cultural influence were taking place at a quick pace. Following the wars
of Charlemagne against the Avars, and the political crisis in the last decade
of the 8th century, the Carolingian Empire moved its eastern border to the
Tisza River. Regardless the few military equipment finds of Western origin,107
Transylvania did not receive a consistent Carolingian influence. One may
rather invoke the term of ‘control from a distance’, a strategy used for certain
territories situated outside the effective borders of the empire. It is quite pos-
sible that the use of the local late Avar cemeteries continued during the first
quarter of the 9th century, a situation similar to the one proposed for the Great
Hungarian Plain and Banat.108 The same can be said for the Mediaș group,
which continues its bi-ritual cemeteries throughout the 9th century.109
Around the middle of the 9th century, the evolution of a completely new
cultural phenomenon started in the center of Transylvania, along the middle
Mureș Valley. The first finds of the new group (called Blandiana A) have been
published by K. Horedt, who linked them with the first Bulgarian state.110 For
a few decades, the group has been represented solely by the Blandiana cem-
etery and a few destroyed graves from Sebeș.111 The proposal made by István
Bóna to add new sites to this group112 has been too easily accepted, without
any proper field research.113 In the same time, other finds remained almost
unknown, as in the case of the Micești114 and Vințu de Jos115 settlements,
although both sites provided Bóna has also included the so-called Ciumbrud
group, initially assigned to the Moravians,116 in the Bulgarian horizon from
southern Transylvania.117 Several Hungarian and Bulgarian researchers and
107 Pinter 1998.

108 Szabados 2012; Merva 2019; Cociș et al. 2016, 60–62.
109 Horedt 1986, fig. 41; Anghel 1997; Țiplic 2003; Țiplic 2006, 31–33.
110 Horedt 1958a, 113–120; Horedt 1986, 72–76, fig. 41.
111 Horedt 1958a, 120, note 1; Simina 2002.
112 Bóna 1994.
113 Câlnic and Sânbenedic did not provide any archaeological evidence related to a possible
Bulgarian-type horizon.
114 Bălan – Ota 2012.
115 Ghenescu et al 2000, 82, pl. 10/14–16.
116 Dankanits – Ferenczi 1959; 605; Chișvasi-Comșa 1959, 73; Horedt 1986, 78.
117 Bóna 1994, 103.
more recently, a few of the Romanians too, included both the Ciumbrud and
Orăștie X8118 cemeteries in the Bulgarian group of central Transylvania.119
However, the complete lack of ceramic containers, the absence of animal
(food) offerings, characteristics of Stația de Salvare I and Blandiana – ‘La Brod’
cemeteries, does not allow a unification of the two groups in terms of cultural
expression. The orientation of graves (W–E), the presence of wooden cof-
fins and the deposition of bodies just with the personal ornaments, without
other offerings,120 rather indicate the presence of Christian communities with
their own burial places, both at Ciumbrud and Orăștie. Their jewelry followed
Byzantine fashion (Figs. 3.13.2–3.13.13), which was spread all over the Balkan
and Carpathian regions,121 so it is difficult to consider it an ethnical attribute,
as some researchers have already done. The type of lead pendants with open-
cast crosses found both at Ciumbrud and Orăștie X8 (Figs. 3.13.2, 3.13.12) is
mainly distributed in the Lower Danube region,122 and has no parallels in the
Moravian state. The graves with golden hair rings and granulated decoration
from Ghirbom – ‘Gruiul Măciuliilor’ (Figs. 3.13.16–3.13.19)123 might be part of
another 9th–10th century cemetery related with the Blandiana A and/or the
Ciumbrud-type cemeteries.
The excavation of the ‘Stația de Salvare’ necropolis at Alba Iulia, its first
medieval horizon having close parallels in the Blandiana finds,124 considerably
changed the picture of the Bulgarian-type finds of southern Transylvania. It
should be noted that the cemetery I at ‘Stația de Salvare’ can be related with
a contemporary settlement, located in the south-western corner of the former
Roman fortress (Fig. 3.16).125 The thick limestone walls provided not only pro-
tection but also a good reason for the Slavic name of the site: Бълград. The
relation between the 9th–early 10th century settlement and the ancient forti-
fication is a direct one; such situations of re-use of Roman or Byzantine forts
are known in other ancient sites of the Danubian region, such as Veliki Gradac
118 Pinter – Boroffka 1999.

119 Szalontai 2000; Katona-Kiss 2010; Tákacs 2016; Grigorov 2013, 114, fig. 10; Madgearu 2002–
2003, 53–55; Țiplic 2007, 48–49.
120 One single iron knife has been found in grave 2 at Orăștie (Pinter – Boroffka 1999,
fig. 6/22).
121 Langó – Patay-Horváth 2015; Grigorov 2013.
122 Doncheva 2007.
123 Blăjan – Stoicovici 1982: for their real chronological position see Heitel 1994–1995, 410.
124 Although Kurt Horedt presumed the existence of a Blandiana-type horizon in Alba Iulia,
mainly based on toponymy, the archaeological evidence was scarce by that time (Horedt
1951, 497; Horedt 1958a, 132).
125 Heitel 1985, 224–226; Heitel 1994–1995, 407; Marcu Istrate 2015, 182–184.
Figure 3.16 The 9th–12th century burials and settlement areas located on the map drawn by Giovanni
Morandi Visconti in 1711: A. Former Roman fort; B. The Bulgarian fort (former Roman wall
in red, the earthen wall in yellow) and the 9th–10th centuries settlement; C. Arpad time
settlements inside and outside the fortress; E. The Byzantine pillared church; 1. Stația de
Salvare; 2. Izvorul Împăratului; 3. Brândușei St.; 4. Vânătorilor St.; 5. Marcus Aurelius St.;
6. The Ravelin of St. Francisc de Paola; 7. Orange Transmission Station; 8. Former Military
Hospital – Museikon; 9; Conquest period disturbed burial; 10. Roman Bath/Governors
Palace; 11. St. Michael Catholic Cathedral; 12. the 10th–11th centuries Byzantine pillared
church (yellow star)
Author: Horia I. CIUGUDEAN
(Taliata) or Morava (Margum).126 On the contrary, at Belgrade, the Bulgarian

settlement lies at the foothill of the early Byzantine fort, whose western cor-
ner has been closed with a palisade in the 9th century.127 It is quite possible
that a similar retrenchment occurred at Alba Iulia, the size of the 2nd cen-
tury Roman fortress exceeding by far the military capabilities of their medieval
defenders.128 The map of Alba Iulia, drawn by the Italian architect Giovanni
Morando Visconti in 1711, indicates the existence of a fortification in front of
the Episcopal Palace (Fig. 3.16). Several historical sources point towards the
existence of much older fortifications, protecting the St. Michael cathedral,
126 Špehar 2019, 117–118, fig. 3–4.

127 Špehar 2019, 117, fig. 2C.
128 A similar opinion at Rusu 1994, 335.
together with the residence of the catholic bishop.129 In fact, this area corre-
sponds precisely with the location of most of the 9th–10th century dwellings,
as well as with the location of the Byzantine pillared church, built after the
abandonment of the settlement. Both R. Heitel and D. Marcu Istrate supported
the idea of a 9th century fortified enclosure in the south-western corner of
the Roman fort.130 Part of the Roman wall and northern towers were closed
towards east and north-east by an earthen wall with a rampart.
The analysis of the first burial horizon at Alba Iulia (Stația de Salvare I)
brings good arguments for a control of the Bulgarian state in the middle Mureș
Valley, the chronology of the grave goods supporting mainly the 9th and early
10th century for this political and military dominance. Rather than the raid of
khan Krum (803–814) against the Avar Khaganate in the early 9th century, the
military campaigns against the Franks in 829 would better mark the beginning
of the Bulgarian domination in southern Transylvania. Different opinions have
been supported in relation to the border of the first Bulgarian state north to
the Danube,131 but the archaeological finds continue to be strictly limited to
the middle Mureș Valley, which has to be seen as the most northern military
frontier of the Bulgarians (Fig. 3.18).132 The few grey burnished ceramics from
Poian and Cernat have a very limited significance, they probably represent
some local contacts with the Bulgarian fortress from Slon.133
Research on the Bulgarian interests in the regions north to the Carpathians
has mainly focused on the topic of rich salt resources and their trading
routes,134 following the information about the demand made in 892 by the
Frankish king Arnulf to the Bulgarian King Vladimir to stop the delivery of salt to
Moravia. However, the salt mines were probably not the only mineral resource
of Transylvania controlled by the Bulgarian state. The toponymy has been
fruitfully used to locate the Bulgarian centers of power in the Mureș Valley, the
names Bălgrad (Alba Iulia) and Țeligrad (Blandiana) being already connected
with the known early medieval sites in the area. However, less attention has
been paid to Zlatna (Bulgarian: Златна), the name of a small mining town on
the Ampoi River (Fig. 3.18), which runs into Mureș Valley next to Alba Iulia. The
town did not deliver (yet) any early medieval finds, but it is well-known for
the gold mines. K. Horedt has put it on his map with the mineral ores close to
129 For the medieval sources see Anghel 1975; Anghel 1994; Rusu 1994, 332–333.
130 Heitel 1985, 219–220; Marcu Istrate 2015, 183.
131 Takács 2016.
132 This point of view (the so-called ‘optimistic view’) has been also supported by Takács
2016, 7–10, and Madgearu 2002–2003, 56.
133 Comșa 1978b; Comșa 1981.
134 See for example Madgearu 2002–2003 and Yotov 2012.
the 9th–10th centuries Bulgarian sites.135 We would like to discuss here a recent
radiocarbon dating on a sample collected in the Roșia Montană goldmine,
north of Zlatna.136 The sample, with the label RM99 Cârnic 1–upper level, pro-
duced the date of 1090±60 BP. The 2 sigma calibration of the sample places the
mining activity in the Cârnic upper level between 772–1042 calAD (Fig. 3.17).
There is a reasonable probability that the date might be restricted mainly to
the 9th century and connected with the Bulgarian control of the gold mining
in the Zlatna – Roșia Montană area. This date might even be a possible indica-
tion for the location of the duchy of Kean, and the duke of the Bulgarians and
Slavs who was defeated by king Stephen of Hungary after his victory against
Jula (Gyula). Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense137 specifies that the people of
Kean lived in well-defended places (mountains?) and the booty taken by the
Magyars was very rich, particularly in gold. If we take into consideration the
south Slavic origin of the Zlatna name and the fact that the Hungarian king-
dom did not probably start the gold mining in the Western Carpathians before
the middle of the 11th century, then Horedt’s hypothesis to consider the Ampoi
Valley as part of the duchy of Kean has to be reconsidered.138
The end of the first horizon of burials in the ‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery has
been connected with the Hungarian expeditions in the Mureș Valley in the
first half of the 10th century.139 The military equipment found in the 46 graves
of the Stația de Salvare II phase include battle axes, bows, quivers, and mainly
rhombic arrowheads, all of them with good parallels in the Conquest Period
cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin.140 The same type of military equipment is
present in the other 10th century cemetery at Alba Iulia – ‘Izvorul Împăratului’
(Fig. 3.16).141 However, it should be stressed that the sabre is present only in the
latter cemetery,142 the type being well-known in the 10th century Hungarian
graves of the Carpathian Basin.143 No less than ten sabres have been found in
the Conquest Period cemeteries at Cluj-Napoca.144 The disparity between the
10th century cemeteries at Alba Iulia and the ones in the Cluj area is striking
and it definitely shows a chronological difference. Some authors have sup-
ported an earlier position for the Conquest Period cemeteries in the Cluj area,
135 Horedt 1958a, 121, fig. 35.

136 Cauuet et al. 2003.
137 Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, cap. XXXVIII, 32 (Lat.), 148–1 (Rom.).
138 Horedt 1951, 506.
139 Heitel 1995, 417–419; Ciugudean 1996, 10; Ciugudean 2006, 16; Gáll 2002, 290–291, 295; Gáll
2010, 207; Dragotă 2006, 133–136; Dragotă – Blăjan 2019, 211.
140 See footnotes 79–88.
142 Dragotă – Blăjan 2018, 290, fig. 11.
143 Bálint 1989, 215; Kovács 1990, 39–49.
144 Gáll et al. 2010, 86–88.
(calibrated with OxCal v.4.4.2, Bronk Ramsey 2020)

RM99 Carnic 1 R_Date(1090,60)
1400 95.4% probability
772 (94.9%) 1042calAD
Radiocarbon determination (BP)
1108 (0.5%) 1116calAD

1200
1000
800
600
600 800 1000 1200

Calibrated date (calAD)
Figure 3.17 Distribution of calibrated radiocarbon date RM99 Cârnic 1–upper
level from Roșia Montană
their start corresponding to the first quarter of the 10th century,145 while the
ones in the middle Mureș Valley should be considered a little bit later, begin-
ning with the second quarter of the 10th century.146 We cannot agree with a
start date for the Stația de Salvare II cemetery earlier than the second third
of the 10th century (Fig. 3.19),147 as long as the sabres are completely miss-
ing from the military equipment of nearly fifty warriors, including seven
horse burials. The first Hungarian expeditions against the Bulgarians and the
Byzantine Empire took place after their defeat at Merseburg in 933. It would
be logical to consider the following years, when the duke Glad has been
attacked and defeated, as the most probable time for the Hungarian expe-
ditions along the lower and middle Mureș Valley and their settlement in the
Alba Iulia region. The events should be connected to the arrival of Gyla (Gyula,
Jula), the Hungarian leader whose name was added to the translation of the
older Slavic name of Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) and whose military retinue
used the cemetery at ‘Izvorul Împăratului’.148 Ioannes Skylitzes narrates that
145 Gáll 2002, 290–294; Gáll et al. 2019, 186.

146 Gáll 2002, 295–298, 300–302, fig. 2.
147 This would roughly correspond to the beginning of Schulze-Dörrlamm II phase (Schulze-
Dörrlamm 1988, 441). For a different opinion see Gáll 2002, 290–291.
Figure 3.18 Map of the main sites around Alba Iulia and selected Balkan key sites in the
9th–10th century (1. Alba Iulia; 2. Blandiana; 3. Sebeș; 4. Ghirbom; 5. Ciumbrud;
6. Orăștie; 7. Zlatna; 8. Vințu de Jos; 9. Pliska; 10. Preslav; 11. Belgrade; 12. Slon; 13. Sultana;
14. Izvoru; 15. Obârșia; 16. Poian; 17. Cernat; 18. Constantinople)
around 952 Gyula visited Constantinople, where he was baptized and returned
to Transylvania assisted by a bishop named Hierotheos. The bronze crosses
(three enkolpia and one cast cross) found in the Conquest Period graves at
‘Izvorul Împăratului’,149 together with the pillared church recently excavated in
front of St. Michael Catholic Cathedral,150 represent valid arguments in favor
of a strong Byzantine missionary activity by the middle of the 10th century in
the Alba Iulia region, as in the other areas of the Carpathian Basin.151
149 Dragotă 2017.

150 Marcu Istrate 2015; more cautious opinions at Takács 2013.
151 Avenarius 1993; Bollók 2012; Révész 2015.
The simultaneous operation of three different funerary areas – ‘Stația de

Salvare’, Brândușei St. and ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ (Fig. 3.16) – indicates the pres-
ence of an important population, as well as the development of a regional
centre of power in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. The habitation
dated to the 10th–11th centuries occupied different areas, the main one intra
muros,152 a space traditionally reserved for the political and religious elite,
and others to the south153 and south-west of the fortification154 (Fig. 3.16).
The pre-Conquest local community continued its life outside the former
Roman fortress, as the site from Micești – ‘Cigaș’155 (Fig. 3.1) and Alba Iulia –
Horea St.156 demonstrates, with its 10th century ceramics, including the yel-
low burnished pottery of the Danubian tradition (Fig. 3.13.14). The control
of the rich mineral resources of the region, salt and gold, once in the hands of
the Bulgarian state, offered economic prosperity to the local military leaders,
the members of the Gyula (Gyla, Jula) clan, but also caused political compe-
tition with the new king of Hungary, Stephen I. Around 1003, Stephen organ-
ized a military expedition against Iulus (or Gyula the Younger), who was taken
into captivity.157 This event put an end to the interments in the ‘Izvorul
Împăratului’ cemetery, where the single coin found so far belongs to king
Stephen I.158 The same military and political event considerably reduced the
importance of ‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery (Fig. 3.19), as the lack of coins from
the first half of the 11th century clearly testifies. Less than ten graves have been
dug in the periphery of the former cemetery by the middle of the 11th century,
before the area was completely abandoned. Outside of the former Roman for-
tress, the area of the cemetery at Brândușei St. continued to be used in the
11th century. Various arguments support the use of this site by the Romanised
population, probably mixed with Slavic groups.159 This cemetery might be con-
nected to the settlement recently identified south to the Roman fort, between
the Izvor St. and Brândușei St. The pottery found in the pit-houses excavated
so far is typical for the 10th and 11th century.160 The above evidence points to
the conclusion that a base population of considerable mass, but of probably
mixed ethnic identity (Romanised and Slavic elements), was present in several
152 Anghel 1968; Rusu 1994; Heitel 1983b; Heitel – Dan 1986.
153 Băcueț-Crișan 2014.
154 Popa et al. 2004.
155 Bălan – Ota 2012.
156 Popa et al. 2004.
157 Chronicum pictum Vindobonense, cap. XXXVII, 32 (Lat.).
158 Dragotă et al. 2018a, 333.
159 Dragotă et al. 2009, 121; Dragotă – Blăjan 2019, 168–169. There are other authors who also
separate this cemetery from that featuring traits most typical for the Hungarian Conquest
Period (Gáll 2010, 201–202; 205–206).
160 Băcueț-Crișan 2014.
SITES AGE
ALBA IULIA 800 900 1000 1100 1200
1. Staţia de salvare
Izvorul
2. Împǎratului
3. Brǎndusei St.
4. Vǎnǎtorilor St
5. Miceşti-Cigaş
Ravelinul Sf.
6. Francis de Raola
7. Antena Orange
Spitalul militar?
8. Museikon
9. Pîclişa-La Izvoare
Termele/Palatul
10. Guvenatorilor
Catedrala
11. catolicǎ Sf. Mihai
Figure 3.19 Temporal spans of early medieval cemeteries in the Alba Iulia area
settlements (Micești – ‘Cigaș’, and Alba Iulia – Izvor St.), outside the former
Roman fort at Alba Iulia in the time of the Hungarian conquest. These folks
were peacefully taken over by the conquerors in the second half of the 10th
century, the last taking the place of the former Bulgarian elite inside the for-
mer Roman fort. Both groups were buried in large field cemeteries in the time
before the churches and the cemeteries around them appeared. The second
burial horizon at ‘Stația de Salvare’ cemetery, as well as part of the ‘Izvorul
Împăratului’ cemetery belonged to the Hungarian conquerors, part Pagan
and partly Christianized, after the arrival of the Byzantine mission led by the
Bishop Hierotheos. After the building of the Catholic Cathedral towards the
end of the 11th century, several new Christian cemeteries started to function
and Alba Iulia became the seat of the new Catholic Bishopric of Transylvania
soon thereafter.161
161 Curta 2001, 145.
Chapter 4
Byzantine Bronze Reliquary Crosses with Embossed

Figures Discovered in Romania
Călin Cosma
Translated by Ioana Ursu
In memoriam Nicolae Gudea1
⸪
4.1 Introductory Remarks
Researchers have identified two main types of reliquary crosses in the area of
modern Romania from the period between the 10th and the 17th centuries:
Byzantine enkolpia and old Russian or Kievan enkolpia.2 By their character-
istics, the Byzantine reliquary crosses have been divided into two groups. The
first consists of those that possess all decorative elements represented in relief.
The second group includes the artifacts that have elements of decoration
made by engraving and/or inlay with niello.3 The typology of the pieces found
on the Romanian territory generally follows the one proposed for this type of
artifacts discovered in an extended geographical area.
Archaeological excavations or fortuitous discoveries on Romania’s territory
have revealed several types of reliquary crosses, few in fact, which carry no
ornament.4 The latter could in fact constitute a third group of Byzantine-type
enkolpion crosses.
1 This study is an augmented and modified version of the paper published in 1988 in
Romanian, alongside Nicolae Gudea.
2 Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 380–382; Spinei 1992, 153–175.
3 Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 380–383; Spinei 1992, 156–160.
4 Barnea 1967, 358–360, Fig. 191/22, 192/10; Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972, 161, nr. 3, P1. XXVIII/3;
Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 379, nr. 12, Pl. IV/2.
© Călin Cosma, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_006

116 Cosma
The repertory of reliquary crosses with embossed figures found in Romania,

gather by the author without claiming to be exhaustive, amounts to 53
enkolpia. The cataloguing of the pieces and the two-component analyses of
the representations on the crosses permits a finer typology of these artifacts.
The typology starts from the manner of representation of the details of the effi-
gies or other decorative elements, as well as the existence or their absence on
the respective pieces. The creation of the typology is based on the description
of the pieces, as presented in the academic papers in which they were pub-
lished. When the opportunities allowed, graphic representations accompany
the description of the pieces. This brings roughly to the same graphic scale
some better-preserved examples, making use of the drawings provided by the
authors of the discoveries.
4.2 Typology
From the perspective stated above, the analysis of the reliquary crosses with
relief decorations found on the Romanian territory allows their classification
in three versions of the main type.
4.2.1 Type IAI – Tab. 1

Latin type cross. Made of bronze by casting. Dimensions vary between: L = 5
and 9 cm; l = 4 and 5 cm. The ends are slightly widened, the short ones being
distinguished by a larger widening. The closure of the two components of the
cross itself is done by a hinge-type system, which consists of two ears always
arranged on the reverse, perforated laterally, and a single ear on the obverse,
perforated laterally, which enters between the two of the obverse, united by a
rivet. The ears are always arranged at the vertical ends of the artifacts.
Type IA – repertory type IAI

Beroe – 1 piece
Capidava – 2 pieces
Dăbâca – 1 piece
Dinogeția-Garvăn – 5 pieces
Dolojman-Bisericuța – 1 piece
Hârșova – 1 piece
Isaccea – 4 pieces
Păcuiul lui Soare – 2 pieces
Șuletea – 1 piece
Total pieces: 18 enkolpion crosses
Byzantine Bronze Reliquary Crosses with Embossed Figures 117
Figure 4.1
Type IA: 1 – Isaccea
(after Mănucu-
Adameșteanu 1984);
2 – Dolojman (after
Barnea 1981); 3a–b –
Beroe (after
Mănucu-
Adameșteanu 1984)
Obverse: Jesus Christ crucified, with head slightly turned to the right. The
arms extend almost entirely on the horizontal sides of the cross. A few
better-preserved examples also present anatomic features. In some cases –
Dăbâca (Fig.4.2/1.a); Beroe (Fig. 4.1/3.a); Șuletea (Fig. 4.4/1.a); Păcuiul lui Soare
118 Cosma
Figure 4.2 Type IA: 1a–b – Dăbâca

drawing by the author
(Fig. 4.3/2.a) – the Saviour is depicted with a beard. He wears the colobium,
which falls in folds at the ankles. The artifacts from Dăbâca (Fig. 4.2/1.a) and
Capidava (Fig. 4.4/2a, Fig. 4.5/3) have the side edges of the garment adorned
with a twist-shaped ornament. In the other cases, the folds are represented
only through simple lines. On most of the pieces, the garment does not cover
the arms, stopping in the area of the figure’s shoulders. Exceptions are the
examples from Dăbâca (Fig. 4.2/1.a), Șuletea (Fig. 4.4/1.a), and Păcuiul lui Soare
Figure 4.3 Type IA: 1a–b – Păcuiul lui Soare (after Diaconu – VÎLCEANU 1972);
2a–b – Păcuiul lui Soare (after Diaconu – VÎLCEANU 1972)
120 Cosma
Figure 4.4 Type IA: 1a–b – Șuletea (after Maxim-Alaiba 1990); 2a–b – Capidava
(after Barnea 1981)
Figure 4.5 Type IA: 1a–b – Isaccea (after Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984); 2 – Hârșova
(after Harțuche – ANASTASIU 1976); 3 – Capidava (after Florescu 1965)
122 Cosma
Figure 4.6 Type IA: 1 – Isaccea (after Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984);

2 – Dinogeția; 3a–b – Isaccea (after Barnea 1967)
(Fig. 4.3/2.a), on which the sleeves of the garment reach to the wrist. Where
they are represented, the feet are barefoot, with the heels close together and
the toes facing outwards. At the ends of the four arms of the cross, above the
head, under the feet and under the palms, the busts of four biblical characters
are more or less schematically represented; they have been identified in some
cases with the Virgin Mary and St. John the Evangelist, especially those situ-
ated at the horizontal ends of the composition.
Reverse: The Virgin Mary in the orans position. She wears a garment com-
pletely covering the body. The maphorium is decorated along the edges on
the artifacts originating from Isaccea (Fig. 4.1/1), Dăbâca (Fig. 4.2/1b), Șuletea
(Fig. 4.4/1b), and Dolojman-Bisericuță (Fig. 4.1/2), with a twisted motif. On the
other pieces, the folds are rendered by simple lines. At the extremities of the
four arms, the busts of the four evangelists are represented.
4.2.2 Type IBI – Tab. 2

Latin type cross. Made of bronze by casting. The dimensions vary between:
L = 7 and 9 cm; l = 4 and 5 cm. The arms are slightly widened, the short ones
being distinguished by a larger widening. The enclosing of the two parts of the
actual piece is done through a hinge mechanism. It consists of two ears always
arranged on the reverse, perforated laterally, and a single ear on the obverse,
perforated laterally, which enters between the two of the reverse. The fixing
is done through a rivet. Those ears are always arranged at the vertical ends of
the cross.
Type IB – repertory type IBI

Măcin – 1 piece
Total pieces – 3 enkolpion crosses
Obverse: Jesus Christ crucified, wearing a cruciferous halo, with head slightly
turned to the right, barefoot, ‘leaning on the suppedaneum.’ He is dressed in a
long garment that reaches to his ankles, with wide folds from top to bottom.
Above his head, he has a cross, made up of a large quadrilateral in the centre,
from which four trapezoidal arms emerge, with the base projecting outwards.
The sun and the moon are represented on each side of the upper arm of this
124 Cosma
Figure 4.7 Type IB: 1 – Măcin (after Barnea 1967); 2a–b – Dinogeția
(after Barnea 1967)
type of cross. At the two horizontal arms of the enkolpion-cross, at each end
of the hands of Christ, there is a figure schematically represented; the figures
probably depict the Virgin Mary (on the right), and Saint John the Evangelist
(on the left) (Fig. 4.7). The copy from Dinogeția-Garvăn (Fig. 4.7/2a) displays
two inscriptions in Greek under Christ’s hands.
Reverse: The Virgin Mary in an orans position. On the artifact from

Dinogeția-Garvăn, the maphorium is represented schematically, delineated by
simple lines (Fig. 4.7/2b). On the piece from Măcin, the anatomical features are
sketched, and the garment has a twisted motif along the edges (Fig. 4.7/1). The
busts of the four evangelists appear in the four corners of the cross. These are
inscribed in a circular medallion with a thick frame, such as those on the copy
from Garvăn – Dinogeția (Fig. 4.7/2b). On the piece from Măcin the respective
frame is accomplished through a twisted line (Fig. 4.7/1).
4.2.3 Type ICI – Tab. 3

Latin type cross. Made of bronze by casting. The dimensions of the pieces vary
between: L = 3 and 6.8 cm; l = 2 and 4 cm. The arms are slightly widened, the
horizontal ones having a wider width. The closing system of the two parts of
the cross was made by a hinge arranged at the long ends of the object. It con-
sists of two ears placed on the reverse with side holes and a single ear on the
obverse, also with a side hole, which enters the two of the reverse. The fixing
was secured with a rivet.
Type IC – repertory type IC

Alba Iulia – 1 piece
Banat – 11 pieces
Capidava – 2 pieces
Constanța – 1 piece
Hârșova – 1 piece
Isaccea – 2 pieces
Nufărul – 1 piece
Păcuiul lui Soare – 5 pieces
Total pieces – 33 enkolpion crosses
Obverse: Jesus Christ crucified, with head slightly turned to the right. The
hands extend to the ends of the arms of the cross. An exception is a copy
from Garvăn – Dinogeția, where Christ is represented with his hands raised
(Fig. 4.10/1). On some pieces, such as those from Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3a) and
Banat (Fig. 4.8/2–4), the Saviour’s head is surrounded by a halo. On a copy from
Isaccea, Christ displays a beard (Fig. 4.10/5). With the exception of the artifacts
from Dinogeția-Garvăn (Fig. 4.10/2, 11/1a) and Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3a), where the
anatomical features of the face are represented, the face is only outlined on
the other pieces.
126 Cosma
Figure 4.8 Type IC: 1a–b – Nufăru; 2–4 – Banat (after Bejan – Rogozea 1982)
The garment that covers the body of Christ is wide and falls down in folds. It is
represented schematically through simple lines. On the copy from Nufăru, the
clothing is a perizoma, tight around the pelvis and of knee-length (Fig. 4.8/1a).
Where they are represented, the feet appear without footwear, with the heels
close together and the paws facing outwards. On the example from Isaccea
Figure 4.9 Type IC: 1a–b – Păcuiul lui Soare (after Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972);
2 – Păcuiul lui Soare (after Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972); 3a–b – Capidava
(after Florescu – Cheluță-GEORGESCU 1974)
128 Cosma
Figure 4.10 Type IC: 1–2 – Dinogeția (after Barnea 1967); 3 – Păcuiul lui Soare
(after Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972); 4–5 – Isaccea (after Mănucu-
Adameșteanu 1984); 6 – Capidava (after Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984)
Figure 4.11 Type IC: 1a–b – Dinogeția (after Barnea 1967);

2a–b – Dinogeția (after Barnea 1967)
130 Cosma
(Fig. 4.10/4) and Capidava (Fig. 4.10/6), the body rests on a very schematic sup-
pedaneum. On the pieces from Banat (Fig. 4.8/2) and Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3a,
Fig. 4.10/6), a cross appears above the head of Christ. The specimen from
Nufăru has the sun and the moon above his head (Fig. 4.8/1), and on a piece
from Dinogeția – Garvăn (r. ICI, 1.4) and Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3a), inscriptions or
groups of Greek letters can be seen under Christ’s arms.
Reverse: The Virgin Mary in an orans position with her head surrounded by
a halo. The anatomical features of the face are represented only on the exam-
ples from Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3b), Dinogeția-Garvăn (Fig. 4.10/2, Fig. 11/2), and
Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3b). The others have the face contoured only. The examples
from Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3b) and Păcuiul lui Soare (Fig. 4.9/2) display the edges
of the maphorium highlighted by a twisted motif. All of the other crosses render
it very schematically, only through lines. On a copy from Capidava (Fig. 4.9/3b),
two groups of double Greek letters appear above the head of the figure.
4.3 Considerations regarding the Typology of Enkolpion Crosses with

Embossed Figures Found in Romania
The three types of enkolpia found in Romania display several notable dif-
ferences. A first differentiation centers on the representation or total lack
of decorative elements. On the arms of the crosses of type IA and IB, both
on the obverse and on the reverse, two (or four) busts of biblical characters
appear. In this respect, they differ from type IC, which has no such figural rep-
resentations. The difference between type IA and IB was established accord-
ing to the manner of representation of the four figures. In the latter type,
the figures are always framed in a circular medallion, which is missing from
type IA.
As for the dimensions of the parts, the examples of type IC are smaller in
size compared to the other two. Some differences exist between types IA and
IB, though not very significant, with type IB being slightly larger.
Regarding the technique of reproducing the iconography, for the IC type the
anatomic characteristics of the two biblical figures, and their clothing, are very
schematic in the vast majority of cases.
In types IA and IB, a superior technique of execution is discernible; appear-
ing more poignantly in type IB, and noticeable by the care with which human
figures were rendered, as well as the ornamental motifs that appear on the
clothes of biblical characters. Moreover, this is evident in the presence of spe-
cific elements, such as the cross and the sun or the moon, displayed above the
head, on the obverse, and the inscriptions under the arms of Christ.
Within each type, there are also differences between the pieces, which
indicates that different workshops were involved in their creation. The differ-
ences that appear in type IA refer to the manner of execution of the orna-
mental motifs of the garments (rope moulding/twist-shaped decorations on
some specimens), or to the sketching of facial anatomic features. These are
not, however, elements of decisive distinction, at least at the current state of
the research. They can also be due to the greater or lesser degradation of the
pieces, their state of preservation, the wear and tear of the pattern in which
they were made, not omitting the possibility of their production in different
patterns that retained the key iconographic features, with very few exceptions
of detail. A somewhat greater diversity is observed in the IC type. In particular,
the specimens that have a cross represented above the head of Christ stand out.
Also, two specimens are distinguished by the fact that the Saviour is dressed
in a short garment, the so-called perizoma, which stops at the knees. However,
these differences cannot provide a conclusive indication of a possible subtype,
because, with the exception of these details, the respective crosses conserve
the essential traits of the iconography, namely, the absence of the four biblical
characters at the four ends, to which we add the schematic representation of
Christ and the Virgin Mary.
4.4 The Number and Geographical Distribution of the Types of

Enkolpia with Embossed Figures Found in Romania
Many of the enkolpia discovered on the territory of modern Romania are those
that form the ICI type, with a number of 32 reliquary crosses. The second place
belongs to the enkolpia inscribed in the IAI type, consisting of 18 pieces, and
in third place come the enkolpia of the IBI type, having 3 pieces (Tab. 1, 1–3,
Fig. 4.12).
Geographically, there are four areas where reliquary crosses have been dis-
covered: Dobrudja, Banat, Transylvania, and Moldavia (Fig 4.15). However, the
number and types of pieces present in one or another of the four Romanian
geographical areas differ significantly.
Most enkolpia were discovered in Dobrudja. This fact is also tied to the
observation that all three types of enkolpia already described are present in
this area. It is noted that only in the geographical area of Dobrudja appears
the IBI type, which was discovered in two localities and in a small number of
pieces: Dinogeția-Garvăn two enkolpia and Măcin one enkolpion (Fig. 4.13).
The examples from Dobrudja were discovered in the context of several settle-
ments and fortifications.
132 Cosma
Engolpion Type IAI - 18 pieces Engolpion Type IBI - 3 pieces
Engolpion Type ICI - 33 pieces
33%
61%
6%
Figure 4.12 Number of enkolpia with embossed figures
Type IAI Type IBI Type ICI
21
16
11
3
1 1 1
Dobrogea Banat Transilvania Moldova Transilvania

Figure 4.13 Arrangement of enkolpia with human figures in relief depending on
the type in the Romanian provinces
Banat is the second geographical area with a relatively large number of enkol-
pion crosses. It should be highlighted that in Banat only reliquary crosses of
the ICI type have been discovered. None of them offer information on the con-
text of their discovery (Tab. 3).
For Transylvania and Moldavia, only one enkolpion was discovered in each
of the provinces. Both pieces are of the IAI type of reliquary crosses from
Romania (Fig. 4.13). Both pieces were also discovered by chance. They have no
stratigraphic context. The piece from Transylvania was discovered in a place
9
Type IAI Type IBI
5 5
3 5
2 2 2 4
1
1 1 1 2 2
1
1 1
e
ro
a
ţia
av
an
Be
va
ge
d
jm
ea
pi
rșo
no
re
Ca
cc
lo
oa
in
Di
Hâ
Do
Isa
a
ǎc
iS
ru
nţ
M
lu
fǎ
ta
Nu
ul
ns
ui
Co
c
Pǎ
Figure 4.14 Distribution of enkolpia with human figures in relief depending on

the type in Dobrudja
close to the early medieval fortification from Dăbâca. The cross from Șuletea
likewise does not have an archaeological context of discovery.
4.5 Analogies
The origin of reliquary crosses, with their specific characteristics (form, mode
of execution, iconographic representation), must be sought in the Syro-
Palestinian cultural context.5 The first specimens in this area were dated to
the 6th–7th centuries, namely the incised figural types of crosses. The pieces
that display embossed figures, also dated in the above-mentioned period, have
been of the simple cross type.6
The earliest specimens of reliquary crosses with embossed figures from
the ‘holy lands’ or from the Italianate space, which I managed to identify and
which constitute analogies for the IBI Type, are dated to the 8th century or the
9th century.7
5 Wulff 1909, 195–201; Wulff 1911, 80–84; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 207–215; Vătășianu 1959, 170;
Milchev 1966, 334–344; Lovag 1971, 144–146; Effenberger 1977, 7–17; Spinei – Șadurschi 1982,
187–189; Spinei 1992, 153, and note 1.
6 Wulff 1909, 195–201.
7 Wulff 1909, 80–84.
134 Cosma
Through the Byzantine connection, the enkolpion crosses spread over vast
areas of Western, Central, and Southeastern Europe. I referred especially to the
latter territories, which I consider more eloquent in terms of the analogies and
chronology that they can offer for the pieces in Romania.
Type IA is found in Bulgaria (IAII type repertoire), the Czech Republic (IAIII
type repertoire), Serbia (IAIV type repertoire), Slovakia (IAV type repertoire),
Ukraine (IAVI type repertoire), and Hungary (IAVII). The pieces from Bulgaria,
Serbia, and Hungary were dated between the 10th and 11th centuries, depend-
ing on the context of their discovery, and those from the Czech Republic and
Ukraine to the 11th century, on similar grounds.
For type IB, we found analogies in Bulgaria (repertoire type IBII), the Czech
Republic (repertoire type IBIII), Serbia (repertoire type IBIV), Ukraine (reper-
toire type IBV), and Hungary (repertoire type IB, VI). Except for those in the
Czech Republic and Ukraine, where the artifacts date to the 11th century, in
the other countries the pieces were discovered in both 10th and 11th centuries
contexts.
Specimens of type IC can be found in Bulgaria (ICII type repertoire), Serbia
(ICIII type repertoire), and Hungary (ICIV type repertoire). According to the
context of discovery, they have been dated to the second half of the 9th cen-
tury and through the end of the 10th century. A single specimen from Serbia
(ICIII, 17) was dated to the 7th century.
Without claiming to have provided an exhaustive list, a few remarks can still
be put forth. There is a chronological gap between the pieces originating from
the “holy lands” compared to those from Central and Southeastern Europe. In
the latter contexts, with a few small exceptions, most of the pieces, even those
from fortuitous discoveries, have been dated to the 10th–11th centuries, and
in some areas such as the Czech Republic and Ukraine only in the 11th cen-
tury. In comparison with Syro-Palmyra or Italianate examples, differences are
also observed in terms of decoration. In the first two cases we are dealing with
some copies of a superior execution, with great care for the rendering of all
the decorative elements. The pieces from Central and Southeastern Europe,
although they keep the original iconography,8 distinguish themselves through
the lesser quality of execution, evident in the schematism with which the fig-
ures or their garments9 are represented. From this point of view, the enkolpion
crosses from the Central and Southeastern European spaces have identical
characteristics, depending, of course, on the proposed typology. Naturally,
within each type, nuances exist.
8 Doncheva-Petkova 1979, 74–91.

9 Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 207–212.
For type IA, the manner of rendering the garments of the biblical figures
is noticeable: the execution is accomplished through simple lines or through
a twisted patter. The differences also appear in terms of the representation
of the busts from the obverse of the artifacts. In some of the cases, they are
arranged at the ends of the arms of Christ (repertoire type IAII, 13; III, 21). The
most numerous are, at least so far, the pieces with the representation of the
busts below the hands of the Saviour. Also, on some copies the Saviour is rep-
resented with a ‘perizoma,’ and his legs leaning on a suppedaneum (repertoire
type. IAII, 13; IV, 19, 21). One piece displays a cross above the head of Christ
(IAV type repertoire, 22).
In type IB, the difference resides only in the way the medallions are pre-
sented. Almost in all cases, the rendition of the medallion was made through
a thick circle (repertoire IBII, 3; III, 3, 7; IV, 8, 11; V, 12–15; VI, 16, 19, 20–21). The
other manner of rendition was through a circle with a twisted motif, and is
encountered in only one case (IBVI, 20).
Type IC also has differentiations. There are pieces that have a cross above
the head of Christ (ICII, 11, 13–14; III, 16–17, 19–20, 22–14; IV, 27, 30), and copies
on which the Saviour appears with a ‘perizoma’ (ICII, 10, 13–14; III, 16, 20–24).
However, the nuances are not fundamental from an iconographic point of
view, the more so as they do not account for chronological differences either,
as the pieces display similar characteristics in contexts datable to the 10th and
the 11th centuries.
From what has been presented so far, it results that the enkolpion crosses
found on the territory of modern Romania do not stand apart from the arti-
facts of the same type, these being found, typologically, in all of the mentioned
spaces.
4.6 Chronology
With a few exceptions, the enkolpia with embossed figures from Romania
were not discovered in clear stratigraphic contexts. Some of them come from
accidental discoveries. This affects the possibility of dating the pieces within a
narrow timeframe.
The exceptions I mentioned are materialized in three cases for the IAI type.
These are the pieces from Capidava (Fig. 4.4 / 2a–b, Fig. 4.5 / 3), discovered in
two dwellings from the level attributed to the second half of the 10th century
and the beginning of the 11th century, and an example discovered in a dwell-
ing from Dinogeția-Garvăn (Type IAI, Fig. 4.7), together with a coin struck for
Emperor Constantine VIII (1025–1028).
136 Cosma
For the IBI type, a single copy, from Dinogeția-Garvăn (Fig. 4.7 / 2a–b)
holds a more precise dating element: a coin issued during the reign of Alexios
Komnenos (r. 1018–1118) was found in the same place as the mentioned piece.
The ICI type presents a single piece that was discovered in a context that
can be dated. The artefact comes from Capidava (ICI, 2.13, Fig. 4.10 / 6), from
an 11th-century dwelling.
The reliquary crosses from Păcuiul lui Soare were mostly discovered in the
11th century level of habitation.
We note therefore that the reliquary crosses from the territory of Dobrudja
come from archaeological contexts that date to the 10th and 11th centuries.
The age determination of the pieces on the territory of Dobrudja, as well as the
typological analogies with the neighbouring areas of Romania discussed in the
previous pages, that are also dated to the 10th–11th centuries, are arguments
that support the temporal assessment of enkolpia with embossed figures from
the territory of Banat, Transylvania, and Moldavia in the same period of time,
namely in the 10th–11th centuries. By the end of the 11th century, the trend of
enkolpia with embossed figures gradually disappeared. They were replaced by
enkolpion crosses with incised figures by the 12th century.10
4.7 Workshops
The presence and similarity, sometimes up to identity, of reliquary crosses with

embossed figures in the Central and Southeastern European cultural spaces
support the statements according to which this type of objects were only
made in a few specialized workshops concentrated in Constantinople.11 This
category includes in particular pieces of superior technical quality, namely
some examples of types IA and IB, which are closer to the models from the
8th or 8th–9th centuries through their display, arrangement, and iconographic
details (see the case of specimens on which the busts of biblical characters are
represented at the ends of Christ’s arms and not under his hands, as well as the
presence of the suppedaneum).12
10 Spinei – Șadurschi 1982, 182–190; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 381–382 and note 81; Spinei
1992, 156–160.
11 Barnea 1953, 663; Milchev 1966, 343; Barnea 1967, 360; Doncheva-Petkova 1979; Spinei –
Șadurschi 1982, 189; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 381.
12 Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 108–2017; Marjanović-Vujović 1989–1990, 307.
The large number of discoveries and the previously noted details imply,
however, the existence of workshops in other centres as well, such as those
from the first Bulgarian state or Serbia, where certain discoveries, such as frag-
ments of patterns or imitations of originals, support these hypotheses.13
The 9th and 10th centuries were the interval during which a series of reli-
quary crosses were mass-produced.14 The assertion is supported by their num-
ber, as the type IC is quantitatively imposing. The ascendency must be sought
in the fact that the pieces of this latter type are simpler in terms of iconography
and, therefore, easier to achieve than types IA and IB in conditions of higher
demand in different provincial workshops. The latter can be considered as ini-
tial models, followed by IC-type artifacts.
The production of such pieces in a larger number was also due to the fact
that during that period the enkolpion crosses lost their primary function of
being used only by clerics or high secular dignitaries. They had become of value
themselves, being worn by representatives of all social categories.15 However,
the original meaning, of keeping relics, was preserved.16
4.8 Considerations regarding the Spread of Enkolpion Crosses in the

Central and Southeastern European Area
The spread of enkolpion crosses in the Central and Southeastern European

space began in the post-iconoclastic period, in connection with the efforts
made by the Christian Church in its evangelization work of large territories.17
The chronological primacy of the artifacts from Bulgaria and Serbia, where the
earliest examples date back to the second half of the 9th century, is explained
by the fact that in these two territories Christianity had become the state reli-
gion since that period.
The penetration of reliquary crosses on the territory of Dobrudja has been
attributed to the return of the Byzantine Empire to the Lower Danube.18
13 Georgieva 1958, 609; Milchev 1966, 343; Jancović 1983, 113; Marjanović-Vujović 1989–1990,
307; Atanasov 1992, 268.
14 Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 382.
15 Barnea 1981, 26; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 381–382; Spinei 1992, 153; Zugravu 1997,
486–488.
16 Zugravu 1997, 488.
17 Doncheva-Petkova 1979, 91; Spinei 1991, 153; Zugravu 1997, 447–449.
18 Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 375, 380; Spinei 1992, 153–157; Zugravu 1997, 456.
138 Cosma
Figure 4.15 Map of the spread of reliquary crosses with embossed figures
Author: Călin Cosma
The presence of these pieces in spaces that were not actually part of the
Byzantine Empire must be connected to cultural and commercial exchanges,
but especially to the missionary efforts of the Christian Church.19
From this perspective, enkolpion crosses from places far from the borders
of the Byzantine Empire, such as Transylvania, Hungary, Slovakia, or the Czech
Republic, are of particular interest. With the exception of Dobrudja and Serbia,
the map of the discoveries outlines three geographical areas in Central and
Southeastern Europe where enkolpia with embossed figures are concentrated.
Starting from west to east, one area is situated in the middle basin of the
Danube, where the river turns south. Above this location, west of Moravia, sev-
eral examples of reliquary crosses have been discovered (Fig. 4.15). The second
geographical area in which enkolpia are massed is in the middle basin of the
Tisza, on both sides of the river. It is probable that the enkolpion from Dăbâca
came from this territory (Fig. 4.15). The last territory with enkolpia that we took
19 Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 207–2016; Lovag 1971, 154–156, Nechvátal 1979, 312–351; Bálint 1991;
Spinei 1992, 153–160.
into account is the one in the south of Ukraine, between the Dniester and the
Bug (Fig. 4.15). The only reliquary cross with relief figures from Moldavia, the
one from Șuletea, was most likely brought from Dobrudja, not from Ukraine.
According to the map of the discoveries, it can be specified that the Danube
was the main artery that favoured the diffusion of enkolpia with embossed
figures throughout Southeastern Europe. The lack of reliquary crosses in the
lower Tisza basin, but also in the middle of the Danube, at least until this date,
raises a number of questions about the ways in which enkolpia arrived in the
northern part of today’s Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. Possibly
on the Danube as well, and then on the Tisza. The possibility that the enkolpia
were also brought from the territories of Southwestern Europe is not excluded.
Without eliminating the possibility of access and exchange through
commercial contacts, I believe that the existence of enkolpion crosses in
Transylvania, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic is mainly due to the
Byzantine Christian missionary work in these regions. In this context, the only
enkolpion specimen with embossed figures from the territory of Transylvania,
the one from Dăbâca, and the one from the territory of Moldavia, hold a spe-
cial importance. They may represent a material evidence of the Byzantine
Christian mission, especially since in the academic literature on the issue,
particularly focused on the references from contemporary written sources,
debates persist regarding the evangelization of the Romanian cultural space
extending inside the Carpathian arch and in Moldavia.20
Catalogue
Type IA
I. Romania
1. Beroe – Piatra Frecăței (Frecăței, Brăila County)
1.1. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=7,5 cm, l=4 cm, gr.=0,8 cm; Fig. 4.1/3a–b;
10th–11th Centuries; Petre 1962, 586, Fig. 23; Mănucu-Adameșteanu
1984, 376–377, Pl. II/1 a–b.
2. Capidava (Tulcea County)
2.2. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=6,5 cm, l=4 cm; Fig. 4.4/2a–b; 11th cen-
tury; Ceacalopol 1962, 192–194; Barnea 1981, 158, Pl. 65a–b.
2.3. Obverse, reverse (only obverse is present), bronze; Fig. 4.5/3; 10th
century; Florescu 1965, 28, Fig. 37/a.
20 Madgearu 1994, 147–154; Zugravu 1997, 488–492.

140 Cosma
3. Dăbâca (Cluj County)

3.4. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=6,4 cm, l=4 cm, gr. 1,3 cm; Fig. 4.2/1a–b;
10th–11th centuries; Gudea – Cosma 1998, 273–303.
4. Dinogeția-Garvăn (Tulcea County)
4.5. Reverse; bronze; L = 5 cm; Fig. 4.6/2; 11th century; Ștefan 1937–1940,
417, Fig. 23/22 and 27/2; Barnea 1967, 358–362, Fig. 191–20; Barnea
1981, 140, Pl. 56/2.
4.6. Obverse; bronze; L= between 7 and 9 cm; 11th–12th centuries; Barnea
1967, 360, Fig. 193/3.
1967, 358–362, Fig. 193/8.
4.8. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L= between 7 and 9 cm; 11th–12th centu-
ries; Barnea 1967, 360, Fig. 193/9.
4.9. Reverse; bronze; L= between 7 and 9 cm; 11th–12th centuries; Barnea
1967, 358–362, Fig. 193/10.
5. Dolojman-Bisericuța (Constanța County)
5.10. Obverse, reverse (legible only reverse); bronze; L=6,3 cm, l=3,7 cm;
Fig. 4.1/2; 11th century; Nicorescu 1934, 222–226, Fig. 1–2; Barnea
1981, 154, Pl. 63/1.
6. Hârșova (Constanța County)
6.11. Reverse; bronze; L=7,6 cm; l=4,3 cm; Fig. 4.5/2; 11th Century;
Harțuche – Anastasiu 1976, 270–271, nr. 559, Fig. 559.
7. Isaccea (Tulcea County)
7.12. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=6 cm, l=8,3 cm, gr.=0,5 cm; Fig. 4.5/1a–b;
11th century; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 378, nr. 3, Pl. II/2 a–b.
7.13. Reverse; bronze; L=6 cm, l=3,6 cm, gr.=0,5 cm; Fig. 4.1/1; 11th century;
Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 378, nr. 4, Pl. III/3.
7.14. Reverse; bronze; L=4,5 cm, l=3,9 cm, gr.=0,32 cm; Fig. 4.6/1; 11th cen-
tury; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 378, nr. 5, Pl. III/2.
7.15. Averse, reverse; bronze; L=3,2 cm, l=2,1 cm, gr.=0,6 cm; Fig. 4.6/3a–b;
11th century; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 378, nr. 6, Pl. III/1.
8. Păcuiul lui Soare (Constanța County)
8.16. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=8 cm, l=5 cm; Fig. 4.3/2a–b; 11th cen-
tury; Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972, 161, nr. 6; Pl. XXIX/1 a–b; Barnea 1981,
p. 166, Pl. 69/2a–b.
8.17. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=4,4 cm, l=2,8 cm; Fig. 4.3/1a–b; 11th cen-
tury; Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972, 161, nr. 8, Pl. XXIX/2a–b; Barnea 1981,
166, Pl. 69/1a–b.
9. Șuletea (Vaslui County)

9.18. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=7,56 cm, l=3,97 cm, gr.=0,99 cm;
Fig. 4.4/1a–b; 11th Century; Maxim-Alaiba 1990, 161–164, Fig. 1; Spinei
1992, Fig. I/2.
II. Bulgaria
10. Takimovo: 1 piece; end of the 10th century–beginning of the 11th century;
Milchev 1966, 343–345, Fig. 8/1.
11. Odărci: 1 piece; end of the 10th century–beginning of the 11th century;
Dymaczewska – Dymaczewsky 1980, 167–168, Fig. 11.
12. Preslav: 1 piece; 10th century; Ognenova – Georgieva 1955, 405, Fig. 45.
13. Silistra: 3 pieces; 10th–11th centuries; Atanasov 1992, 265, nr. 33, Fig. 3/33;
266, nr. 36, Fig. 3/36; 267, nr. 40, Fig. 4/40.
14. Unknown location in the region of Shumen: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries;
Antonova 1984, 44, nr. 9, Pl. I/9.
III. Croatia
15. Zadar: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1989–1990, 303–
307, 307 English abstract, Fig. 1 a–b.
IV. Czech Republic
16. Vyšehrad: 1 piece; 10th century; Nechvátal 1979, 221, Pl. I/1 and Fig. 4.
V. Serbia
17. Ćepigovo: 2 pieces; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 33,
nr. 15 and 16.
18. Kladovo: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1989–1990,
303–307, 307 English abstract, Fig. 5 a–b.
19. Vinča: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 33, nr. 17.
20. 5 pieces preserved in the Belgrade History Museum; 10th–11th Centuries;
Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 32, nr. 14; 34–35, nr. 18–21.
21. 2 pieces preserved in the Niš Museum; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-
Vujović 1989–1990, 303–307, 307 English abstract, Fig. 4a–b.
VI. Slovakia
22. Trnovec nad Váhom: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Točik 1971, 168, grave
nr. 382, Fig. XXXVIII/5, 5a; Točik 1987, 226, Fig. 27/7.
VII. Ukraine
23. Oster: 1 piece; 11th century; Kunitsky 1990, 106–116, Pl. 6/9.
VIII. Hungary
24. Dunapentele: 1 piece; middle 10th century; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 217
and 248, Fig. 66 a–b; Lovag 1971, 148, Fig. I/4 a–b.
25. Tiszaeszlár-Sinkahegy: 1 piece; middle 10th century; Bárány-Oberschal
1953, 217 and 248, Fig. 65 a–b.
142 Cosma
26. Szőny: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 217 and 248, Fig. 66d; Lovag 1971,
148, Fig. 2/1.
27. Tiszaörveny: 1 piece; 11th century; Lovag 1971, 148, Fig. 2/3.
28. Felsőszentivánpuszta – Bagodi hűtő: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953,
248.
29. Tápióbicske: 1 piece; Lovag 1971, 148, Fig. 2/2.
30. Veszprém: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 217 and 148, Fig. 66c.
31. Eger: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 217 and 248, Fig. 64.
32. 2 pieces preserved in the Budapest National Museum; Bárány-Oberschal
1953, 248; Lovag 1971, 150, Fig. 2/4.
33. 1 piece; Budapest (private collection); Bárány-Oberschal 1953, p. 248.
Type IB
I. Romania
1. Dinogeția-Garvăn (Tulcea County)
1.1. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=7,3 cm, l=6 cm; Fig. 4.7/2a–b; 11th–12th
centuries; Barnea 1967, 360, Fig. 193/6 a–b; Barnea 1981, p. 142, Pl. 57.
1967, 360, Fig. 193/7.
2. Măcin (Tulcea County)
2.3. Obversee; bronze; L=8 cm, l=5 cm; Fig. 4.7/1; 11th century; Ștefan
1937–1940, 417, Fig. 27/3; Barnea 1981, 154, Pl. 63/2.
II. Bulgaria
3–4a–b. Silistra: 3 pieces; 10th–11th centuries; Antonova 1984, 49, nr. 11, Pl. II/2,
3, 50, nr. 12, Pl. II/4, nr. 13, Pl. III/5.
5. Troița: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Antonova 1984, 45, Pl. I/3.
III. Czech Republic
6. Opočničev-Poděbrady: 1 piece; 11th century; Nechvátal 1979, 216,
Pl. 2/4a–b.
7. 1 piece preserved in the Prague National Museum; 11th century; Nechvátal
1979, 221, Fig. 2/3.
IV. Serbia
8. Ravna: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 29–30, nr. 11.
9. Unknown location in the Strumica region: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries;
Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 29, nr. 10.
10. Ljubičevac: 1 piece; 11th century; Marjanović-Vujović 1985, 110, 113–114,
French abstract, Fig. 11.
11. 2 pieces preserved in the Belgrade National Museum; 10th–11th centuries;
Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 28, nr. 8–9.
V. Ukraine
12. Cetatea-Albă: 1 piece; 11th century; Kunitsky 1990, 106–116, Pl. 6/6.
13. Kniazha gora: 1 piece; 11th century; Kunitsky 1990, 106–116, Pl. 6/4.
14. Divich gora: 1 piece; 11th century; Kunitsky 1990, 106–116, Pl. 6/5.
15. Chersones: 1 piece; 11th century; Kunitsky 1990, 106–116, Pl. 6/7.
VI. Hungary
16. Tata: 1 exemplar; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 213 and 247, Fig. 63b.
17. Borsad: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 247.
18. Gyula: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 247.
19. Békéscsaba: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 216 and 248, Fig. 63c.
20. Kiskunfélegyháza: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 216 and 248, Fig. 61.
21. Eger: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 216 and 248, Fig. 63d.
22. Hizofőld-Sárrétudvari: 1 piece; M. Nepper 1991, 48, grave nr. 199, Fig. 3.
Type IC
I. Romania
1. Alba Iulia
1.1. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=6,52 cm, l=3,38 cm; Dragotă 2017, 170–
171; Dragotă 2018e, 92.
2. Banat
2.2. Obverse; bronze; L=3,5 cm, l=2,8 cm; Pl. 8/2; Bejan – Rogozea 1982,
215–216, nr. 10, Pl. I/2.
2.3. Reverse; bronze; L=4,7 cm, l=2,4 cm; Pl. 8/4; Bejan – Rogozea 1982,
215, nr. 9, Pl. II/7.
2.4. Reverse; bronze; L=4,5 cm, l=2,4 cm; Pl. 8/3; Bejan – Rogozea 1982,
216, nr. 11, Pl. I/9.
2.5. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L= 6,6 cm, l=3,4 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982,
214–215, nr. 5, Pl. III/15.
2.6. Obverse; bronze; L=4 cm, l=2,5 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982, 215, nr. 6,
Pl. I/4.
2.7. Reverse; bronze; L=6,8 cm, l=3,4 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982, 215, nr. 7,
Pl. II/6.
2.8. Obverse; bronze; L=4,5 cm, l=3,4 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982, 215, nr. 8,
Pl. I/3.
2.9. Obverse; bronze; L=6,8 cm, l=3,3 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982, 216, nr.
12, Pl. II/5.
2.10. Obverse; bronze; L=4,8 cm, l=2,2 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982, 216, nr.
13, Pl. III/13.
2.11. Reverse; bronze; L=4,6 cm, l=2,2 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982, 216, nr.
14, Pl. II/8.
144 Cosma
2.12. Reverse; bronze; L=4,8 cm, l=2,3 cm; Bejan – Rogozea 1982, 216, nr.
15, Pl. II/10.
3. Capidava (Constanța County)
3.13. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=6,8 cm, l=4,5 cm; Fig. 4.9/3a–b; 11th cen-
tury; Florescu – Cheluță-Georgescu 1974, 435, Fig. IV/1–2; Barnea
1981, 156, Fig. 4.64/2 a–b.
3.14. Averse; bronze; L=5,5 cm, l=3,5 cm; Fig. 4.10/6; 10th–11th centuries;
Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 375–376, nr. 1, Pl. I/1.
4. Constanța (Constanța County)
4.15. Averse; bronze; L=4 cm, l=2,3 cm; 10th–11th centuries;
Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1982, 349/354.
5. Dinogeția – Garvăn (Tulcea County)
5.16. Obverse; reverse; bronze; L=5 cm, l=3 cm; Fig. 4.11/2a–b; 11th cen-
tury; Barnea 1967, 360, Fig. 193/2; Barnea 1981, 138, Pl. 55/1 a–b.
5.17. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=5 cm, l=3 cm; Fig. 4.11/1a–b; 11th century;
Barnea 1967, 358–362, Fig. 193/1; Barnea 1981, Pl. 138, 55/2 a–b.
5.18. Reverse; bronze; L=3,7 cm, l=2,4 cm; Fig. 4.10/2; 11th century; Barnea
1967, 358–362, Fig. 191/19; Barnea 1981, 140, Pl. 56/1.
1967, 358–362, Fig. 191/18.
5.20. Obverse; bronze; L= between 4 and 6 cm; 11th–12th centuries;
Barnea 1967, 358–362, Fig. 191/21.
5.21. Obverse; bronze; L= between 4 and 6 cm; 11th–12th centuries;
Barnea 1967, 358–362, Fig. 192/1.
5.22. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L= between 4 and 6 cm; 11th–12th centu-
ries; Barnea 1967, 358–362, Fig. 191/8.
5.23. Obverse; bronze; L=4 cm, l=2,9 cm; Fig. 4.10/1; 11th–12th centuries;
Barnea 1967, 358/362, Fig. 192/11.
1967, 358–362, Fig. 193/5.
6. Hârșova (Constanța County)
6.25. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L= 4,5 cm, l=2,1 cm; Sec. 10th–11th centu-
ries; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1992, 349–354.
7. Isaccea (Tulcea County)
7.26. Obverse; bronze; L=3,6 cm, l=3,2 cm, gr.=0,3 cm; Fig. 4.10/5; 10th cen-
tury; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 377–378, nr. 1, Pl. I/2.
7.27. Bronze; L=3 cm, l=2,5 cm; Fig. 4.10/4; 11th century; Mănucu-
Adameșteanu 1984, 378, nr. 2, Pl. I/3.
8. Nufăru (Tulcea County)
8.28. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=4,3 cm, l=2,9 cm, gr.=0,3 cm; Fig. 4.8/1a–b;
11th–12th centuries; Mănucu-Adameșteanu 1984, 379, Pl. III/4.
9. Păcuiul lui Soare (Călărași County)

9.29. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=6 cm, l=2,4 cm; Fig. 4.9/1a–b; 11th cen-
tury; Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972, 161, nr. 5, pl. XXVIII/7 a–b; Barnea
1981, 164, Pl. 68/1 a–b.
9.30. Reverse; bronze; L=6,8 cm, l=4,5 cm; Fig. 4.9/2; 11th century;
Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972, 161, nr. 7, Pl. XXIX/3; Barnea 1981, 168,
Pl. 70/2.
9.31. Obverse, reverse; bronze; L=4,2 cm, l=1,8 cm; 11th century; Diaconu –
Vîlceanu 1972, 161, nr. 4, Pl. XXVIII/4 a-b.
9.32. Reverse; bronze; L=4 cm, l=2 cm; 11th century; Diaconu – Vîlceanu
1972, 160, nr. 1, Pl. XXVIII/1.
9.33. Reverse; bronze; Pl. X/3; 11th century; Diaconu – Vîlceanu 1972, 161,
Pl. XXIX/4.
II. Bulgaria
10. Takimovo: 2 pieces; 10th–11th centuries; Milchev 1966, 343–345, Pl. 8/2, 3.
11. Odărci: (the western part of the archaeological site), 6 pieces; late
10th century–early 11th century; Dymaczewska – Dymaczewski 1980,
167–168.
12. Odărci: (the eastern part of the archaeological site), 1 piece; late 10th
century–early 11th century; Mikhailov – Doncheva-Petkova – Toptanov
1980, 42, Fig. 8.
13. Preslav: 1 piece; 10th century; Ognenova – Georgieva 1955, 405, Fig. 45.
14. Pliska: 2 pieces; 9th–10th centuries and 10th–11th centuries; Stancev 1960,
28, nr. 63, Pl. 3 b 2; Antonova 1984, 44, nr. 1, Pl. I/1.
15. Silistra: 6 pieces; 10th–11th centuries; Atanasov 1992, 264, nr. 27, fig. 2/27,
nr. 28, Fig. 2/28; 265, nr. 29, Fig. 2/28, nr. 31, Fig. 2/31; 266, nr. 37, Fig. 4/37,
nr. 38, Fig. 4/38.
III. Serbia
16. Dubravica: 2 pieces; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 37, nr.
26; 38, nr. 28.
17. Jagodina Mala: 1 piece; 7th century; Nagy 1939, 228, nr. 12, Fig. I/1–2.
18. Kladovo: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 39, nr. 29.
19. Mala Vrbica: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 36,
nr. 24.
20. Novi Pazar: 2 pieces; end of the 9th century; Ljubinković 1970, 169–258,
Pl. II/1,3.
21. Vinča: 1 piece; 10th–11th centuries; Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 39, nr. 30.
22. Vršac: 1 piece; 10th–12th centuries; Barački 1988, 173, fig. 2/2 a.
23. Prahovo: 2 pieces; 11th century; Janković 1983, 106, pl. I, Pl. VI/6, 7.
146 Cosma
24. 7 pieces preserved in the Belgrade National Museum; 10th–11th centuries;

Marjanović-Vujović 1987, 36, nr. 22–23; 37, nr. 25; 38, nr. 28; 39, nr. 31; 40,
nr. 32.
IV. Hungary
25. Nyirkasz: 1 piece; 11th century; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 213 and 247,
fig. 63a.
26. Szentes Szentlászló: 1 piece; 11th century; Széll 1941, 238, the tomb 73,
fig. V/A/4,5; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 247.
27. Véstő – Mágori Domb: 1 piece; 11th century; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 212–
213 and 247, Fig. 62 a–b; Lovag 1971, 146, fig. 1/2a–b.
28. Kecskemét: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 247.
29. Dunaszekcső: 1 piece; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 247.
30. 3 pieces preserved in the Budapest National Museum; Lovag 1971, 148,
Fig. I/3; 150, Fig. 2/5, 2/6.
31. 1 piece preserved in Esztergom Museum; Bárány-Oberschal 1953, 247.
Part 2
Historical Debates
⸪
Chapter 5
From Terra Ultrasilvana to Regnum Erdeelw:

Notes on the Historical Evolution of Transylvania
in the 10th Century
Tudor Sălăgean
The history of Transylvania in the 10th century offers a greater number of

questions than answers, due to the shortage of historical sources and the
sometimes-limited explanatory dimensions of the archaeological record.
Without going too deep into the details of the historiographical debates related
to the area and the locations of the episcopal see of Hierotheos, it is worth not-
ing that the results of the archaeological research that in 2011 investigated the
Byzantine-style church in Alba Iulia, brings a fresh and different perspective
on this issue.1 Even more so, we need now to place the Hierotheos moment in
the historical context of 10th-century Transylvania, in efforts to understand its
significance.
In the dynamics of the transformations that occurred throughout the 10th
century in medieval Transylvania, we should distinguish two important stages.
The first is related to the early conquest by the Hungarians, around 900, of a
political entity in the Someșul Mic River basin – called Terra Ultrasilvana by
the Anonymous Notary of King Béla – and to the consolidation of this rule
during the first part of the century. The second stage is related to the extension
of this realm to the centre of the intra-Carpathian territory, with the conquest
of a political domain previously under Bulgarian influence, and to the evolu-
tion of this larger Transylvanian region – named septem castra by Simon de
Kéza,2 regnum Erdeelw or ultra siluam (regni) in the Hungarian Illuminated
Chronicle3 – until the conflict with the Hungarian King Stephen I.
The first of these stages is related to the establishment of a Hungarian
dominion inside of the intra-Carpathian territory, with an important role in
the later history of the province. The main written source on these events is, as
1 Marcu Istrate 2014, 101–103; Marcu Istrate 2015, passim; Takács 2013: 119–122. For the stage and
level of debates in the period immediately preceding the 2011 archaeological research, see
Sfântul Ierotei 2010, passim.
2 Simon de Kéza, Chronicon Hungaricum, 45.
3 Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, 32.
© Tudor Sălăgean, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_007

150 Sălăgean
is well known, the Gesta of the Anonymous Notary of King Bela,4 a medieval
text that caused a storm of interpretations among historians of the last two
centuries. A new beginning would be particularly useful for the entire issue of
dating the Gesta, in order to detach an approach with a well-defined purpose
from the historiographical context vitiated by nationalist interpretations. In
this respect, one must note that the anonymous author does not make in his
Gesta any kind of direct or indirect reference to any historical event dating
after the 11th century. From a chronological point of view, the latest piece of
indirect information that could perhaps be considered is the canonization of
King Stephen I of Hungary, which took place in 1083. Indeed, Stephen is always
called sanctus or beatus, which may suggest that the Gesta was written after his
canonization. This fact is, however, far from certain: the only surviving man-
uscript of the Gesta dates from the 13th century, which means that the terms
referring to the sanctity of King Stephen could consequently have been added
by any of the scribes of this chronicle in the period between the 12th and the
13th centuries. No other event to which the Gesta refers is later than the mid-
dle of the 11th century. The latest king mentioned by the scribe is Andrew I
(r. 1047–1061), son of Ladislaus the Bald, and the latest historical event is the
death of King Peter I (Orseolo) in 1046.5 In another context, where he refers to
the descendants of Edunec and Edumenec, the author mentions King Samuel
Aba (r. 1041–1044).6
The information provided in the Gesta should not be considered credible
in all of its details when it mentions specific events or characters inspired
by legends or traditions. However, when referring to the social and cultural
realities of a country that still oscillated between Christianity and ancient
pagan beliefs, the author provides, through his ethnographic descriptions
and mentions, information of unparalleled value, which is no longer found in
later chronicles. In this sense, we may quote the miraculous birth of Almus,
whose mother is said to have had a vision of her own impregnation by an
eagle (Anonymus, 3);7 the oath sworn, more paganismo, by the leaders of the
Hungarian tribal confederation, mixing in a bowl a few drops of their blood
(Anonymus, 5); the animal sacrifice performed by duke Almus after the con-
quest of Hung, as a sign of gratitude to the benevolent gods (Anonymus, 13); the
sacrifice of the fattest horse by three Magyar chieftains, after taking possession
4 For an overall assessment of the writings on Anonymus, see Rady – Veszprémy 2010:
XVII–XXXVIII.
5 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, 15.
6 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, 32: rex Samuel … qui pro sua pietate Oba vocabatur.
7 Spinei 2003, 34–39.
From Terra Ultrasilvana to Regnum Erdeelw 151
of Mount Turzol (Anonymus, 16); the burials performed according to pagan

ritual (more paganismo) (Anonymus 15, 57). The custom of taking hostage the
children of the vanquished, or the children of those who obeyed the Magyars,
is also often mentioned by the author, unlike the later Latin-Hungarian narra-
tive sources.8 This practice, which seems to have been widespread at that time,
is but little reflected in the narrative sources of the 13th–14th centuries.
The anonymous author also repeatedly mentions landowners and landhold-
ers, describing sometimes in detail the origins and conditions through which
they acquired their respective titles. Despite certain inevitable inconsistencies,
we are dealing in this work with a solid, unwavering knowledge of certain com-
plex realities, and with the rendering of several details that were familiar to the
author because of his participation, in his capacity of royal notary, in differ-
ent juridical disputes and procedures. Moreover, he undoubtedly could have
had access to the work of the judge named Sarchas, who supervised around
the year 1060 the conscription and registration of all royal properties, along
with their inhabitants, into a general record, a work that historians call “the
Hungarian Domesday.”9 This work has been lost.
Described in chapters 24–27 of the Gesta, the conquest of Terra Ultrasilvana
by Tuhutum, vir prundentissimus, is certainly based on a still-surviving (and
later lost) historical source, probably a family tradition in circulation at that
time. We could mention here, as a parenthesis, that the anonymous author
seems to have known as well a contemporary account of the events related
to the conquest of the country of Achtum, later integrated in Vita Maior, the
longer version of the hagiography of St. Gerhard.10 Returning to Tuhutum’s
story, without going into too much detail about the narrative presented, we
should however insist on the author’s clues that shows us that his descent
beyond Porta Mezesina has the appearance of an independent action close to
insubordination. The anonymous scribe states that Tuhutum asked for Árpád’s
permission to “go beyond the forests to fight against Gelou,” but he also men-
tions that, in fact, “Tuhutum wanted to gain for himself fame and land.” To this
statement, he adds a reference to the songs of the bards, meant to explain and
justify the attitude of the conqueror of Gelou’s realm: “As our bards say: all
gained lands and acquired a good name.”11
8 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, 9, 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, 29, 33, 37, 42, 44, 45, 49.
9 Rady 2000, 64.
10 Curta 2001, 142.
11 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, 25: nam volebat Tuhutum per se nomen sibi et terram aquir-
ere. Ut dicunt nostri ioculatores: omnes loca sibi aquirebant, et nomen bonum accipiebant.
152 Sălăgean
We should also note that Tuhutum’s departure for Gelou’s realm takes place
amid a war in full progress, in the midst of a conquest campaign that Tuhutum
was waging, together with Zobolsu and Thosu, against Menumorout’s
dukedom.12 In fact, Tuhutum seems to have abandoned the other two
Hungarian chieftains before a decisive stage of the campaign, and his defec-
tion seems to have been crucial to the overall outcome of the war: deprived of
his aid, Zobolsu and Thosu were defeated by the army of Bihor in the battle of
Zeguholmu (Szeghalom); also, they seem to have fled to the River Tisza, pur-
sued by Menumorout’s soldiers.13 With all his efforts to sweeten the account
of these events, it is quite clear that the anonymous author is speaking here,
in fact, of an insubordination of Tuhutum to Árpád. How was such an atti-
tude being motivated, and why did Árpád have no reaction against it? We
must note here that Tuhutum’s dissent and his departure for Terra Ultrasilvana
were accomplished, according to the Gesta, shortly after Árpád took over the
leadership of the confederation. The author of the text presents Tuhutum as
a senior chieftain of the confederation, one of the seven members of the het-
umoger, who elected unanimously Almus as their leader.14 One may also note
that, while Almus’s election is accomplished, according to the Gesta, by all
the members of the hetumoger, the election of Árpád is related in less precise
terms, the chronicler mentioning only that the new leader received the oath
of “all his people.”15 In these conditions, we can assume that Tuhutum’s depar-
ture could have been caused by a personal dissatisfaction with the takeover of
the leadership of the Hungarian tribal confederation by Árpád, son of Almus,
apparently without the consent of all the members of the hetumoger.
From this situation derives a special feature of the relations of the
Hungarian conquerors from Pannonia with the dominion established in
Transylvania: the detachment of the rulers of Terra Ultrasilvana from Árpád’s
political system seems to have been accomplished at the very moment of the
conquest, and not because of later disagreements that emerged in the age of
Geula the Younger, as the Gesta tries to suggest. This tells us that the genealog-
ical legend that Anonymus reinterpreted in the Gesta, trying to camouflage its
centrifugal episodes, seems to have been an account of the deeds of a leader
who left the Hungarian tribal confederation and established his own rule in
Terra Ultrasilvana.
12 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, 20–23.

13 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, 28–29: “while they were crossing the River Tisza on rafts,
they sent envoys before them to duke Árpád, to announce the joy of their salvation”.
How large was the initial territory conquered by the Hungarian group in
Transylvania? I have shown elsewhere that this terra Ultrasilvana “where the
reign was held by Gelou, a certain Vlach” (ubi Gelou, quidam Blacus, domin-
ium tenebat) covered a relatively small area, comprising the Someșul Mic River
basin, along with the Almaș and Agrij valleys.16 According to Anonymus, Gelou
was a less powerful duke (minus tenax), having no good soldiers by his side
(non haberet circa se bonos milites). His realm was inhabited by Vlachs and
Slavs, the “worthless people in the world” (viliores homines … tocius mundi). As
a result, the conquest of this small realm is described as an easy matter: Gelou’s
army was scattered in a single fight, and the duke himself was killed while flee-
ing to take refuge in his only fortress.
The location of this fortress had provoked long discussions, generated by
the fact that Anonymus does not mention its name, providing only one piece
of information that could lead to its identification: its location on the Someș
River (iuxta fluvium Zomus positum). The attempt to identify this fortress
with Dăbâca, on the one hand, could not be sustained by the archaeological
research carried out to date.17 On the other hand, the location of this for-
tress does not match the description provided by the anonymous author, for
which iuxta fluvium means “on the river,” indicating a close proximity. Another
hypothesis developed by P. Iambor and Șt. Matei,18 suggests that Gelou’s seat
may have been located at Cluj-Mănăștur, where there it was an earth and wood
fortification of moderate size (c 220 × 98 metres), which is indeed located on
a terrace in the immediate proximity of the river. However, this hypothesis
could not be supported by clear archaeological data and arguments.19 Equally
inconclusive is the archaeological data for another proposed location, within
the central part of the city of Cluj-Napoca.20 Finally, another hypothesis that
is worth mentioning proposes a fortification located in the mountains, on
the Fărcașul peak, at only 12 kilometres from Gilău, a locality whose name
is obviously linked from a phonetic and, possibly, semantic point of view to
the term gylas/gyula. A short research project carried out there quite a long
time ago brought to light fragments of ceramics from the 8th–9th centuries,21
but a broader investigation is certainly needed before we can discern more
about this location. Even if we do not have yet definitive results, the area of
16 Sălăgean 2006, 91–129.

17 Iambor 2005, 112–113; Rusu 2005, 82–83; Țiplic 2007, 128–134.
18 Iambor 2005, 121–125; Pascu 1974, 53, 56–61, 64.
19 Madgearu 2005a, 119–121; Țiplic 2007, 124–128.
20 Niedermaier 1979, 206; Horedt 1986, 132; Madgearu 2005a, 128–130; Gáll – Gergely – Gál
2010, 165–174.
21 Ferenczi et al. 1994, 305–320; Madgearu 2005a, 144; Iambor 2005, 263, n. 169.
154 Sălăgean
research and the hypotheses launched in recent years have been confined to
the Cluj – Gilău area, eliminating the many fanciful hypotheses with the exu-
berant geographical distribution of the previous decades.
According to the historical tradition recorded in the Gesta Hungarorum,
the political system of Terra Ultrasilvana was based on an agreement between
the Hungarian winners and the inhabitants of the country, who chose the
Hungarian leader as their dominus and took to him the oath of allegiance
(iuramentum).22 We must mention however that, for the anonymous author,
the right of iuramentum was not general, but restricted to the members of the
ruling elite and to the landowners. Thus, in chapters 5–6, 10, and 13, the “oath”
(iuramentum), expression of a “pagan custom” (more paganismo), is taken by
the members of the hetumoger (Anonymus 5, 6), by the seven Cuman dukes
(Anonymus 10), and by the leaders of the tribal confederation led by Almus
upon the designation of his son Árpád as his successor (Anonymus 13).23 In
chapter 37, the Slavs from the duchy of Nitra take the oath, after they received
land from Árpád. In this case, the oath represents an obligation associated
with ownership rights. In the passage referring to the Esculeu agreement, the
term iuramentum reflects the existence of a native class of dignities whose
privileges are recognized by the conquerors.24 The symbolic gesture of the
“handshake” (dextram dantes) associated with the election and with the oath
of Esculeu is meant to justify and explain the rights and liberties that were
later claimed in this area of northern Transylvania by the successors of those
conquered. Therefore, based on the information provided in the Gesta, the
Esculeu Assembly is not an ordinary gathering of a crowd cheering a new ruler,
but a congregation of the notables of the country who had the right to elect a
new leader and to take an oath to him.
The presumed borders of Terra Ultrasilvana can be reconstructed with
enough accuracy with the help of historical toponymy, following a method
that was successfully applied in the research on the medieval history of
Transylvania starting with Kurt Horedt’s trendsetting work.25 The analysis of
geographical distribution of toponyms like: gyepü / presaca [fence line], kapu /
căpuș / poarta / porț [gate, passage], ör / straja [watch point], reci / recea
22 Sălăgean 2005, 121–132.

23 […] inito consilio et accepto iuramento omnium suorum, dux Almus, ipso vivente, filium
suum Arpadium ducem et preceptorem constituit.
24 While D. Pais, L. Rásonyi derives the place name from ičkü, Turkic, meaning “to drink,” cf.
Madgearu 2005a, 89–90. Brezeanu 2002, 354–358, proposes a Slavic origin, derived from
“șchiau/șchei” (“știau/ștei”).
25 Horedt 1958, 109–131.
[ditch, trench],26 mentioned in the historical documents or still present in the

Northern-Transylvanian toponymy, allows us to reconstruct a territorial struc-
ture that corresponds with the first area of Hungarian presence in northern
Transylvania. Its western limit was the line of the Meseș Mountains, already
mentioned by Anonymus, the eastern one a line of indagines [fence lines]
stretching between Bonț and Mociu, later doubled to the east by a much clearly
mirrored by the historical toponymy fence line between Unguraș and Cătina, a
result of a possible territorial extension during the late 10th century and early
11th century.27 The southern limit, already proposed by László Makkai,28 ran
along the watershed between the hydrographical basins of Someșul Mic and
Arieș Rivers, on the heights between Cluj and Turda.
According to the data provided by the historical toponymy, this incipient
Transylvanian state represented a confederation of three territorial units, con-
sisting of valleys and clusters of valleys, whose limits were partly conserved in
the territorial delimitations of the later archdeaconates and counties attested
in the region as early as the 12th century.29 The most significant concentra-
tion of Hungarian communities in this area lays in the upper Someșul Mic and
Nadăș valleys, indicating the earliest Hungarian settlement in Transylvania. In
this area, moreover, we find all the toponyms mentioned in the Gesta in con-
nection with dux Gelou/Gelu/Geleou. Possibly, this area represented the terri-
tory previously controlled directly by Gelou, the duke of the conquered country,
which was taken over by the conquerors. In the Transylvanian realm of the
10th century, this area of Gilău was the equivalent of a ruler’s domain, directly
controlled by the realm’s ruling family and their relatives. Thus, it will not sur-
prise us that, after the establishment of the royal authority in Transylvania, this
domain of their former rulers was donated to the diocese of Alba Iulia and to
the Benedictine convent in Cluj-Mănăștur.
During the first part of the 10th century, the Transylvanian realm formed by
the conquest of the old “duchy” of the Vlachs and Slavs remained more or less
confined to its initial boundaries, consolidated with indagines (fence lines). To
the south, Terra Ultrasilvana bordered the “voivodeship of Bălgrad” (so named
by Kurt Horedt),30 controlled by Symeon’s Bulgaria at the height of its mili-
tary power, while in the eastern parts of Transylvania the Pechenegs, the old
enemies of the Hungarians, settled during this period. To the north, the region
26 Sălăgean 2006, 103–112.

27 Sălăgean 2006, 114–126.
28 Makkai 1943, 323.
29 Sălăgean 2006, 127–163.
30 Horedt 1954.
156 Sălăgean
at the confluence of Someșul Mic and Someșul Mare came under the direct
control of the Hungarians in Pannonia, who installed there their Chazar allies.
What were the dynamics of the relations between the Hungarian group
established in north-western Transylvania and the Hungarians in Pannonia?
According to Victor Spinei, the Transylvanian group continued to maintain
strong ties with the other groups in Pannonia, especially due to the grazing
needs imposed by their still nomadic way of life.31 We can assume that, if
Tuhutum’s defection and his departure for Transylvania were caused indeed
by a discontent with Árpád, those could have disappeared once the first ruler
of the Magyars died and was succeeded by his minor son, Zulta. The account
of Anonymus suggests that the first years that followed Árpád’s demise were
an agitated period. These circumstances called for a meeting of “all leaders in
his country” (omnes primates regni sui), which was held when Zulta was just
13 years old, and in which a collective leadership was supposedly elected: “they
appointed several chieftains of the kingdom, subjects of the duke, who were
expected to quell the conflicts among the discontented individuals, by enforc-
ing customary law.”32 Under the given circumstances, this collective leadership
appointed by a general assembly with peace-making intentions could only
have been made up of representatives of all the Magyar groups of some impor-
tance, including the group that had settled in Transylvania. In fact, the dilem-
mas related to the early development of this Transylvanian group become even
greater if we consider the hypothesis of Petru Iambor who assumes that Horca,
son of Tuhutum, was in fact a holder of the title of karchas, the third dignity in
the hierarchy of old Hungarians,33 whose functions, according to Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, were predominantly judicial.34 Indeed, Porphyrogenitus
mentions Bulcsú and his father, Kál, as holders of the rank of karchas, but the
list of the former holders of the dignity is unknown. According to S.L. Tóth,
the title of karchas seems to have been instituted only after the conquest of
Pannonia, in the second decade of the 10th century. The judicial functions asso-
ciated with this dignity could be related to the disturbances within Hungarian
society in the period after Árpád’s death.35 As the sedentarization progressed,
probably accelerated in Transylvania through closer relations with the local
population, the Transylvanian group seems to have consolidated its distinct
31 Spinei 2003, 66.

32 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, 53: quosdam rectores regni sub duce prefecerunt, qui mod-
eramine iuris consuetudinis dissidentium lites contentionesque sopirent.
33 Iambor 2005, 264.
34 CFHB, vol. I (Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio), 178–179; Tóth 2003, 27.
35 Tóth 2003, 28.
position, accentuated towards the middle of the 10th century, when sources
mention the ascension of Gyula the Elder.
The beginning of the second major stage in the history of Transylvania
during the 10th century was marked by the conquest, supposedly carried out
by Gyula the Elder, of the so-called “voivodeship of Bălgrad,” which was pre-
viously controlled by the Bulgarian Tsardom. The only mention of this event
recorded in a narrative source appears in Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense:
Gyula, “a great and powerful prince,” went hunting in Transylvania, where he
found “a great fortress that has been built a long time ago by the Romans.”36
Unfortunately, the sources do not offer us more details of this founding legend,
which belonged to a type of narrative quite widespread during this period.
The same Illuminated Chronicle ascribes two church foundations, in Vác and
Oradea, to some hunting enterprises of king Ladislaus I, while Anonymus
assigned the founding of the Borsod fortress to the hunting of a deer by Borsu,
son of Bunger.37 We also do not know details about the circumstances in which
this extension of Gyula’s authority over central Transylvania was made. It is
possible that this conquest was a violent one, as shown by the archaeological
data that indicates the replacement of the 9th century settlement in Alba Iulia
with another settlement, in which the Hungarian relics are already present.38
However, the relations subsequently established in this area between the con-
querors and the conquered remain to be defined by future research.
Likewise, it is still far from clear when this conquest took place. Two author-
ities in the history of this century, László Makkai and Alexandru Madgearu,
suggested that this extension took place after 927, the year when the Bulgarian
Tsar Symeon died.39 For Madgearu, the event could be most likely connected
with the Hungarian and Pecheneg invasion of Bulgaria and Byzantium in 934.40
A similar dating was proposed for the conquest of Banat,41 led, according to
the Gesta Hungarorum, by a dux named Glad, alleged ancestor of Achtum,
the ruler of the same areas around 1000, at the beginning of the reign of King
Stephen I. F. Curta has already specified his doubts about the account of the
Anonymous author regarding the war against Glad, a character whose features
seem to copy those of Achtum, described in the already-mentioned source later
36 Eratque ipse Gyula dux magnus et potens, qui civitatem magnam in Erdelw in venatione sua
invenerat, que iam pridem a romanis constructa fuerat.
37 An extensive analysis on this topic at Spinei 2014, 73–134.
38 Heitel 1975, 343–344; Madgearu 2005b, 57. Marcu Istrate 2014, 101–102 agrees with the
abandonment of the settlement, with doubts about the violent destruction.
39 Makkai 1987, 43–44; Madgearu 2005a, 103–105; Țiplic 2007, 49–51.
40 Paloczi-Horvath 1989, 17.
41 Glück 1980, 94–96; Spinei 2003, 64.
158 Sălăgean
incorporated into the Vita Maior of St. Gerhard.42 However, it is not yet certain
whether Banat was indeed conquered by Hungarians so early. In the middle of
the 10th century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus indicates that the dominions
of the Bulgarians were situated to the east of those of the Hungarians, being
separated by the Danube, and such a configuration of the border could only
be found at that time in southern Pannonia.43 If this mention is in line with
the realities of the time, it is unlikely that Banat ceded from Bulgarian control
before the late 10th century.
On the contrary, the long reign of Tsar Peter, son of Symeon, revaluated by
the historians, is described rather as a period of prosperity and stability, with-
out clear mentions of hard conflicts between Bulgarians and Hungarians.44
It is not clear whether the booty expeditions against Byzantium in 934 and
943 crossed Bulgarian territory with the tacit consent of Tsar Peter or against
his will, but without his open opposition.45 We must note, however, that the
Byzantines themselves preferred to react to these first raids with diplomatic
wisdom, avoiding a military response toward the invaders, but negotiating
instead, quite generously, the redemption of those taken captive.46 Overall,
there seems to be no reason to link the Hungarian raids through Bulgaria
against Byzantium in the fourth and fifth decades of the 10th century to major
conflicts or to territorial annexations. In this sense, the major changes took
place only after the defeat of the Hungarians at Lechfeld (955), when their
attacks to the southeast took different dimensions and amplitudes, and when
the Byzantines and the Bulgarians also began to respond to the invaders not
with gifts, but with well-equipped armies. From this point of view, we believe
that the attempts to link the events that led to the conquest of Bălgrad to any of
the major chronological milestones of the period remain inconclusive. It could
be also possibly that this event had its origins in less known local transforma-
tions and developments.
In addressing the issue of dating the conquest of Bălgrad, we must consider
another important aspect: all the information we have indicates that between
the conquest of Terra Ultrasilvana and that of Bălgrad, there seems to have
passed a fairy long period of time. Only this could explain the specificity of
the Hungarian presence in northern Transylvania, convincingly emphasized
by the linguistic and historical arguments synthesised by Gy. Kristó: over
42 Curta 2001, 142–145.

43 CFHB, vol. I (Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio), 177–179; Mladjov 1998, 118.
44 Leszka – Marinov 2018, 120–129.
45 Mladjov 1998, 120–123; Mladjov 2015, 68.
46 Leszka – Marinov 2018, 121.
82 percent of the place names that this author considers to be of Hungarian

origin, formed from personal names, are to be found in the hydrographic
basin of the Someș Rivers, and only 17.5 percent in central and southern
Transylvania;47 the settlements along the Mureș and Târnava Rivers inhab-
ited by a Hungarian population are clearly from a later period than those from
the Someșul Mic River basin;48 the watershed between the Someș and Mureș
basins is an important dialectal limit of the Hungarian language spoken in
Transylvania;49 the settlement and the lands of the oldest Hungarian kindreds
are attested only in northern Transylvania.50 Such features are difficult to come
out in less than two or three generation, indicating a period of local stabil-
ity before the subsequent extension to the south. Based on these differences,
there are also opinions, such as those of Ferenc Makk, which suggest that Terra
Ultrasilvana remained confined in Northern Transylvania until the conquest
of Stephen I, while Bulgarian control was still present in central Transylvania,
represented by Kean, the duke of the Bulgarians and Slavs, a character he
locates in Alba Iulia.51 Along with other historians and archaeologists, Kurt
Horedt also argued for a later date of the occupation of the Bălgrad.52 Also, Gy,
Kristó believed that Gyula settled in Transylvania after 970, his earlier estates
being located somewhere in the lower Tisza area.53
Of course, based on the data we know today, we can no longer believe that
the Bulgarian rule in Bălgrad was cleared away so late. However, it seems
improbable that this takeover of Bălgrad took place too long before Gyula’s
baptism in Constantinople and the founding of the diocese of Hierotheos.
Certainly, the rulers of Terra Ultrasilvana had already had contacts with
Christians and Christianity, both in the Central European region54 and in the
intra-Carpathian province. Taking over, in circumstances not yet clear, the con-
trol over a territory that was already ruled by a Christian elite, partly inhabited
by Christians, and subordinated to the Bulgarian Empire, the Transylvanian
rulers attempted to break the links of subordination of the local church to the
Bulgarian ecclesiastical hierarchy. At that time, this could have been achieved
47 Kristó 2004, 91.

48 Kristó 2004, 176.
49 Kristó 2004, 177.
50 Kristó 2004, 339–346.
51 Makk 1994, 29.
52 Horedt 1954, 493–507; Rusu 1984, 188–189; Marcu Istrate 2014, 113. On the archaelogical
context see Dragotă 2006, 27–45.
53 Kristó 2004, 99–108.
54 Gabriel 1961, 31–43.
160 Sălăgean
only by consolidating the political ties with Byzantium and by subordinating

the Transylvanian Church to the Byzantine hierarchy.
Based on the present data about the context in which the events of 948–950
occurred, it seems that it was rather an event or a reaction of local significance,
involving figures of regional scope. Was it the self-assertion of a new leader, a
special weakness that gripped the Bălgrad rulers, or some other event we can-
not identify right now? The hypothetical variants are far too numerous to be
mentioned. However, regarding the evolution of the Bulgarian Church during
the reign of Tsar Peter, we can notice a feature that could be considered, and
which, in a specific context, could have motivated a reaction. In essence, it is a
question of the fact that, towards the middle of the 10th century, a process of
great importance took place in the Bulgarian Church, as well as in all spheres
of the public life: the abandonment of the Greek language in favor of the Slavic
one and, also, of the Greek alphabet in favor of the Cyrillic one.55 Adopted
perhaps in response to the fast spread of the Bogomil heresy, this important
change brought with it an unprecedented extension of the Christian faith,
including to the territories north of the Danube, where the Slavic language was
intensely used by the political and social elites, as well as in many areas of the
economic life, and where a well-represented Slavic component in the society
still existed. In any case, it is quite clear that this call to Constantinople for the
adoption of Christianity and for the emergence of a local church had a politi-
cal meaning as well, and this was partly anti-Bulgarian. It is beyond any doubt
that, regardless of the date on which Bălgrad was conquered, until the collapse
of the First Bulgarian Empire under the blows of emperors John Tzimiskes and
Basil II, the treat of a resurgence of the Bulgarian authority continued to hover
over Transylvania.
Who or what was this Gyula the Elder and what role did he play in this
period? Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus states that Gyula was a
title, also mentioning that the holder of this dignity was ranking second in
the political hierarchy of the Hungarians. Based on this statement, several
historians have considered that in the entire Hungarian tribal confederation
there could have been only one Gyula,56 who was officially the second in
rank, after the kende, but who held the effective authority and military com-
mand of the Hungarians.57 It is unclear why this passage in the description of
Porphyrogenitus received such a credit, given that the author does not state
55 Nikolov 2018, 259–260.

56 Györffy 1994a, 87–104; see also Tóth 2003, 35 who thinks that the dignity of Gyula was
inherited in a clan, becoming later a personal name.
57 Györffy 1994a, 87–104.
anywhere that there were no other gyulas among the Hungarians besides the
one who was the second in rank. In fact, both in the chronicle of Simon de
Kéza and in the Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense it is mentioned that shortly
after their settlement in Pannonia, the Hungarians divided their army into
seven parts, each one receiving a captain or commander, about whose posi-
tion Simon de Kéza states: “they have to listen to him unconditionally and to
obey him.”58 We can assume that all these commanders could already be called
Gyulas, and we should also note that, in the following centuries, Gyula became
a widespread given name in medieval Transylvania.59 Therefore, it seems pos-
sible that the term gylas (gyula) acquired, at a given historical moment, the
generic meaning of “military chieftain” of unspecified level, whose equivalent
in Slavic-speaking areas is the term voivode. This fact could explain, among
other things, the phenomenon of the adoption of the title of voivode by the
Transylvanian rulers who were bearers of the title of gyula, and the assimi-
lation of the name Gyula by Romanian voivodal families, as was the case, for
instance, for the Giulești family of Maramureș. Consequently, we have no
evidence that around 950 there was only one Gyula, moving from one place
to another to meet all the mentions that are assigned to him. One could, for
instance, suppose that each of the tribes had its own gyula (military leader),
who was subordinated to a supreme gyula, commander of the entire confed-
erate army.60
For a more complete perspective on the situation in Transylvania at this
time, we should not overlook the information and opinions related to the role of
the Pechenegs.61 In De administrado imperio, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
shows a special interest toward this people, whom he considers a possible
key ally for maintaining the Byzantine influence in South-Eastern Europe.
According to Porphyrogenitus, one of the eight large units into which the rule
of the Pechenegs was administratively divided was called Gyla, Gyula, or Lower
Gyula.62 This unit was the one situated next to Tourkia (Hungary), at a distance
of four days.63 Despite the relative difficulty in ensuring the correctness of the
58 Simon de Kéza, Chronicon Hungaricum, 38.

59 Turcuș 2011, vol. I, 221: Gyula is the only anthroponym whose mentioning in Transylvania
covers the entire period between the 11th and 14th century; 222: exclusively laic, never
attached to a clergyman or monk; vol. II, 391–394: until 14th century it is a name worn
only by nobles (Hungarian and Vlach/Romanian).
60 Hint in this regard at Porphyrogenitus, who calls Árpád “prince” in chapter 38 and “great
prince” in chapter 40. See the interpretation of Tóth 2003, 27.
61 Țiplic 2006, 50–51.
62 CFHB, vol. I (Porphyrogenitus, De administrando Imperio), 37, 166–169.
63 CFHB, vol. I (Porphyrogenitus, De administrando Imperio), 37, 168–169.
162 Sălăgean
Byzantine geographical perspective on the distant areas, the hypothesis that

this distance was calculated from a starting point located in Transylvania does
not seem implausible.64 In fact, in the time of Anonymus, Pechenegs were
active and dangerous attackers of Transylvania, and all the data we possess
shows that the strong line of defense of Terra Ultrasilvana, corresponding to the
10th and 11th centuries, was built up against them on the watershed between
the River basins of Someșul Mic and Someșul Mare.65 Beyond this demarca-
tion line, the eastern half of the northern parts of the intra-Carpathian terri-
tory was under Pecheneg control. No less, in the central-eastern and southern
parts of Transylvania, the Pecheneg presence is mentioned as late as the 13th
century.66
The Pecheneg factor seems particularly important for understanding the
political evolution of 10thcentury Transylvania, and this must be considered
especially in terms of political configurations within the intra-Carpathian ter-
ritory. At a wider regional level, the relations between Hungarians, Bulgarians,
and Byzantines seem to have encountered, at the middle of the 10th century,
quite a long period of stability.67 In such conditions, a political repositioning
inside Transylvania, which would entail the local ruler Gyula to the recep-
tion of a bishop directly from the Byzantine Empire, could be achieved also
because of a reconfiguration of power relations between Transylvanians and
Pechenegs, possibly against the Bulgarian rulers in Bălgrad. It is well known
that, around 970, Saroltu, one of Geula’s daughters, became the wife of the
Hungarian Duke Géza, and, shortly thereafter, the mother of the future King
Stephen I. The fact that Geula gave both his girls, Caroldu and Saroltu, names
of Turkic origin is similarly interesting, suggesting possible Turkic connections
in the kindred. If we consider acceptable the hypothesis that Transylvania had
a connection with the Pecheneg territory Gyula/Gyla, then we must also look
for a different explanation of the name Gyulafehérvár than that of residence
(“white city”) of a ruler named Gyula. The name could refer to a fortress of
residence – or, if we accept the interpretation of Al. Madgearu – a fortress
located in the western parts of the Pecheneg province of Gyula/Gyla.68
Regarding the political conditions in which the Christian diocese
founded by Hierotheos evolved, these are related to the general situation in
Transylvania in that era, but also to the situation of the ruling family of the
64 Iambor 2005, 339.

65 Salagean 2006, 112–126.
66 Pop 1997, 453–456.
67 Leszka – Marinov 2018, 111–135.
68 Madgearu 2005b, 55; Madgearu 2013a, 125–126.
country. According to extant data, Gyula’s realm remained confined in the

western parts of Transylvania, without being able to expand in the eastern
and southern regions of the province. Instead, it seems that their rule included
the descending Mureș Valley, to the Western Plain, without being clear what
status the region located south of the river corridor, later mentioned as Țara
Hațegului, had at this time.
In one of the most obscure passages of the Chronicon Pictum, which
describes the circumstances in which the marriage of Duke Geysa to Saroltu,
the beautiful daughter of Gyula, was planned, we are told that the intermedi-
ary of this alliance was a certain Beliud, who married the daughter of a cer-
tain Culan, on the condition of helping him in the conflict with his brother
Kean. Later, after Culan’s death, Beliud inherited his realm. Even if it is not
yet demonstrated in the cases of Beliud or Culan, Kean’s connection with
Transylvania seems to be quite clearly reflected in the writings of the time.
The Chronicon Pictum states that soon after the removal of Gyula the Younger
from Transylvania, King Stephen set out against Kean, a duke of the Bulgarians
and Slavs, whom he defeated with difficulties, capturing his impressive
fortunes.69 In the same chronicle, the Transylvanian location of this realm is
undisputed, being identified with that part of Transylvania left by Stephen to
his uncle Zoltan.
According to an older hypothesis of Gy. Györffy, based on toponymic data, a
possible connection of Duke Achtum of Banat with Transylvania is reflected by
the existence of villa Ohtunh (today Aiton, Cluj County).70 To explain this place
name, Gy. Györffy suggested the participation of Achtum in the conquest of
Transylvania and his reward by the king with this estate. However conjectural
this argumentation may be, if we admit that the village situated on the medi-
eval road between Cluj and Turda would have belonged to the Duke of Banat,
the explanation could be other than a participation in the campaign against
Gyula the Younger. For instance, Achtum could have inherited this domain
through his family ties with the Gyula kindred, quite possible in the case of a
ruler of a country neighboring Transylvania. It is also worth mentioning that
Aiton is adjacent to the village Chan, today Ceanu Mare,71 whose name is a
derivate from the Turkic word khan. Regardless of whether it can lead to clear
conclusions about the circumstances and characters of the past, a broad anal-
ysis of historical place names could still lead to interesting results.
69 Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, 21–22.

70 Györffy 1987, 341.
71 Attested in 1293 as Chan, see Suciu 1966, vol. I, 129.
164 Sălăgean
The archaeological discovery of 2011 makes also inevitable the return to the
discussion on a possible northern location of the residence of the diocese of
Transylvania, at the beginning of its history. Based on the data we have today,
it seems more and more difficult to support such a hypothesis, which was
partly motivated by the specialists’ attempt to explain the unusual name of the
diocese, which is that of the province and not of the city of residence. In his
monograph of 1922 dedicated to the medieval diocese of Transylvania, János
Temesváry (1857–1936) assumed that the initial seat of the diocese, during the
time of King Stephen I, was located in Cluj, placed in what he thought to be
the original north-western nucleus that formed the basis of the subsequent
development of Transylvania.72 However, this hypothesis was not argued con-
sistently, Temesváry invoking in its support only the common patron saint,
Archangel Michael, of the churches in Alba Iulia and Cluj, without being even
slightly bothered by the fact that the construction of the parish church in
Cluj began only during the 14th century. A few years later, János Karácsonyi
claimed that the initial seat of the diocese could have been instead in Tășnad.73
However, later historians have not considered his arguments convincing
enough.
After 2000, Gy. Kristó brought back into debate the hypothesis regarding
the initial location of the diocese in the northern parts of Transylvania, focus-
ing on its early properties, which were mainly located in this northern area.74
The first comprehensive list of episcopal properties that has come down to
us dates from 1246, when, five years after the great Mongol invasion, King
Béla IV offered exemptions for their repopulation.75 The royal diploma refers
to six major estates: Alba Iulia, episcopal see, in the county of Alba; Herina
and Domnești, in the county of Dăbâca; Gilău, in the county of Cluj; Zalău and
Tășnad, in the county of Solnoc. From all of these properties, it can be assumed
that Alba Iulia became a possession of the bishopric only after the Mongol
invasion of 1241, without being able to specify the position of the episcopate
in the city until this moment. However, the situation is not noticeably clear,
and the assumptions that can be made are not supported by strong documen-
tary evidence. A later list of episcopal domains, dating from 1282, includes 13
estates, the following seven joining the six previously mentioned: Șardu (Alba
County), Sâncraiu (Turda County), Cluj, Căpuşu and Izvoru Crişului (Cluj
72 Temesváry 1922, 2–3.

73 Karácsonyi 1925, 16.
74 Kristó 2004, 118–124.
75 Jakó 1997, 201; Kristó 2004, 119–120.
County), Ebes (Satu Mare County) and Barátpüspöki (Bihor County).76 Despite
this geographical distribution of the episcopal possessions, Gy. Kristó proposes
as the bishopric’s first residence Dăbâca, a place where no bishopric’s estates
have ever been attested. His only argument about this unexpected option was
related to one of the churches discovered in Dăbâca, in the point of Tamas’
garden, for which was proposed a dating at the end of the 10th century or the
beginning of the 11th century.77 However, the argument proved to be inconsist-
ent because, in the meantime, the respective dating has been questioned. We
do not have yet clear data on the level of development of Dăbâca during the
10th century, but what we know is that its ascension to an important military
and economic role took place only towards the middle of the 11th century.78
At present, the archaeological situation in Alba Iulia after the research project
of 2011 does not seem to leave much room for support of the hypothesis of a
Nordic origin of the episcopal residence. Hence, only the appearance of new,
solid evidence could bring back into discussion the possibility of a northern
beginnings of the bishopric of Transylvania.
The end of the active period of the Byzantine-style church in Alba Iulia
could be linked to three historical milestones: the takeover of power, in
Transylvania, by the pagan branch of the Gyula kindred, after the death of
Gyula the Elder; the conquest of Transylvania by King Stephen I; and the pagan
rebellion of 1046. Only the last of these can be supported by the conclusions
of the 2011 archaeological research, which states that the demolition of the
church took place at the middle of the 11th century, being immediately fol-
lowed by the beginning of the construction of a new cathedral.79
As for the duration of activity of the Greek diocese founded by Hierotheos,
we can formulate at this moment only assumptions. We may wonder whether
this first diocese was able to cross successfully the pagan reign of Gyula the
Younger, son of Zumbor, who took over the reign of Transylvania after Gyula
the Elder died without leaving behind male descendants. Historical sources
record the anti-Christian attitude of Gyula the Younger and his sons. It is
possible that he had a hostile attitude towards his Christian relatives, the
descendants of Gyula the Elder. In any case, King Stephen, son of Saroltu, the
daughter of Gyula the Elder, set out an expedition against Gyula the Younger
right after his baptism in the year 1000. This haste suggests that there was a
kind of urgency in this intervention to restore his mother’s heritage. If this
76 Jakó 1997, 391; Kristó 2004, p. 120.

77 Iambor 2005, 180–181.
78 Iambor 2005, 175–177.
79 Marcu Istrate 2014, 118–120.
166 Sălăgean
was the case, and if the chronology of the Byzantine-influenced church will
be confirmed, we might rightly assume that King Stephen re-established a
Transylvanian diocese and that it may have functioned in the same church
built by his grandfather, Gyula the Elder. Regarding the anti-Christian uprising
of 1046, we have no direct reference to events in Transylvania.80 However, it is
not impossible that the descendants of Gyula the Younger had their supporters
there, in the cradle of their kindred, as they had in the Hungarian communities
everywhere, and that their actions led, in one way or another, to the need to
demolish the century-old church and to build a new one.
80 Kosztolnyik 1974, 570, mentions Stephen’s action against Gyula as a possible cause of its
onset.
Chapter 6
Hagiography and History in Early Medieval

Transylvania: from the Byzantine Bishop
Hierotheos (10th Century) to the German Historian
Gottfried Schwarz (18th Century)
Jan Nicolae
Translated by Alice Isabella Sullivan
6.1 Introduction
A historical-hagiographic symposium organized in Alba Iulia in 20091 – in the

context of the millennium anniversary of the Hungarian Roman-Catholic dio-
cese and the jubilee canonization of the missionary bishop Hierotheos2 by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople – brought to the forefront of the
historical debate aspects of the competing Greek and Latin missions in Hungary
around the year 1000. From the little extant evidence about this Byzantine mis-
sionary, the Greek historian Irineos Delidimos tried to compile a hagiographic
portrait3 in which he mentioned the name of the pre-Enlightenment historian
Gottfried Schwarz who rediscovered the personality of Hierotheos in the mid-
dle of the 18th century. His historical-critical dissertation, Initia religionis chris-
tianae inter Hungaros ecclesiae orientali adserta, published in Halle in 1740, a
quasi-unknown work, provoked strong reactions among some Jesuit historians
and hagiographers at the time, leading to a widespread controversy that last
for more than 40 years. The research originally dedicated to bishop Hierotheos
eventually led us to the historian Gottfried Schwarz.4 Paradoxically, if in the
18th century Gottfried Schwarz was the one who rediscovered Hierotheos,
in the footsteps of Samuel Timon, after the canonization of the mission-
ary bishop Hierotheos in 2000, it is he who has allowed us to rediscover the
pre-Enlightenment historian Gottfried Schwarz.
1 Sfântul Ierotei 2010, 331 p.

2 Tomos-ul de canonizare. Actul (praxis-ul) rânduirii lui Hierotheos, Episcopul Turkiei (Ungariei),
în Sinaxarul Bisericii Ortodoxe. In: Sfântul Ierotei 2010, 299–302.
3 Irineos Delidimos, Magyarország elsö püspöke, Hierotheos/ Sfântul Ierotei, primul episcop al
Ungariei. In: Sfântul Ierotei 2010, 307–324.
4 For the biographical details of Gottfried Schwarz, see Nicolae 2010, 100.
© Jan Nicolae, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_008

168 Nicolae
6.2 The Pre-enlightenment Historian Gottfried Schwarz (1707–1788)

and His Historical-Critical Dissertation Initia religionis christianae
inter hungaros ecclesiae orientali adserta
The oldest account of the life and work of this scholar, much appreciated in
his time, was accomplished by Johann Christoph Strodtmann and Ferdinand
Stosch, in their work titled Das Neue gelehrte Europa (1752, 1781).5 Gottfried
(Godofredus) Schwarz (Igló/ Iglau, November 19, 1707 – Rinteln, November 23,
1788) was an evangelical scholar, a Zipser born in Upper Hungary, in present-day
Slovakia, who began his studies in his native area, and continued them at Jena,
Marburg and Halle. He later held the honor of rector at Osnabrück (1742),
and then that of evangelical bishop (superintendent) of Rinteln (1749).6
Schwarz had scholarly interests in theology, philosophy, history and numis-
matics, but was mainly concerned with the history of Hungary. The work of
magister7 aroused particular interest in his homeland. Schwarz was a supporter
of the Enlightenment, author of numerous writings, and a pre-Enlightenment
historian and theologian.8 The first work in his list of accomplishments deals
with the beginnings of Hungarian Christianity in the Eastern Church, being
a historical-critical dissertation: Initia religionis christianae inter Hungaros
ecclesiae orientali adserta.9 The first confusions related to this work resulted
from the fact that the author himself resorted to a trick: on the copies sent
to Hungary he camouflaged his identity under the pseudonym Gabriel juxta
Honrad and listed a fictive publishing place, Frankfurt and Leipzig. Through
this work, Godofredus Schwarz, alias Gabriel de juxta Honrad (Gabor Honrad),
originally from a family with deep Protestant convictions, became an evangeli-
cal bishop in Rinteln, reminds his compatriots of their beginnings in Christian
law under the auspices of the Byzantine mission led by the missionary bishop
Hierotheos. This must be the work that the Greek historian Irineos Delidimos
had in mind when he composed the life of bishop Hierotheos in the context
of his canonization in the year 2000. This work passed almost unnoticed in
5 An initial list of the works and biography of Gottfried Schwarz can be found in Strodtmann –
Stosch 1752, 179–200.
6 Nicolae 2010, 100.
7 Diss. inaug. historico-critica de initiis religionis christianae inter Hungaros Ecclesiae orien-
talis assertis iisdem a dubiis et fabulosis narrationibus repurgatis. Halle, 1739. Editio III,
Clausenburg, 1749.
8 Tschackert 1891, 237–238. The article contains the bibliographic list related to Gottfried
Schwarz until the 19th century.
9 Strodtmann – Stosch 1752, 189–199.
Hagiography and History in Early Medieval Transylvania 169
the Romanian historical bibliography, but provoked vivid reactions at the time,
presented in summary by its first biographers:
Towards the end of 1739 he went to Halle, where he was registered

under the vice-rectorship of Chancellor von Ludwig. In the same year,
he defended his work as a magister during the time of Dean D. Alberti,
presenting initiis religionis christianae inter Hungaros ecclesiae orien-
tali adsertis. He had predicted that this controversial writing would be
attacked, and for this reason he did not leave his name on the copies that
were distributed beyond Halle. However, he was quickly discovered by
the Jesuit Peter Carl Paterfy, who vehemently attacked him in his work
Conciliis ecclesiae romano-catholicae in Hungaria, which appeared in
1741 and 1742 in Presburg. Mr. Schwarz felt that it was not necessary to
respond to him because he wanted to leave the criticism to the learned
world. In 1747, he was also attacked by the Societas legendariae Jesuitarum
Antwerpientium, in Acta Sanctorum. The author of the assertion against
him was Mr. Johann Stilting. This seemed so important to the bishop of
Raab that he agreed to have it specially edited in the same year. In 1749,
this writing was published in Cluj, with added passages from scholastic
philosophy and a dedication to the first Catholic committee of the Saxon
nation, Stephan Waldhüter von Adlershaufen, being distributed as a prize
on the occasion of a promotion. Mr Schwarz did not remain indebted to
the answer because he considered the counter-arguments too weak.10
The author of the first list of G. Schwarz’s work seems to have been wrong
when he mentions two later editions of his historical-critical dissertation.
Rather, it was the book of the Bollandist Jesuit Joannes Stiltingus11 (Jan
Stiltinck), Vita Sancti Stephani regis Hungariae, that has had several editions,
two of which, one published in Győr (Raab) in 1747, and another in Cluj
(Clausenburg) in 1749, explicitly mention in the title an answer to Schwarz’s
scholarly audacity. In other words, it is a refutatio, a form of rejection of
Schwarz’s theses, expressed in the extended title of this work. Therefore, the
edition from Győr12 was made at the request of Ferenc Zichy, a Catholic bishop
between 1743 and 1783 directly involved in the effort to write a prompt response
10 Strodtmann – Stosch 1752, 186.

11 Jesuit monk born in Vicodorum, in the Utrecht region, on February 24, 1703; died on
February 28, 1762, and known for the 25 years spent at the Acta Sanctorum, contributing
to 11 volumes.
12 Stiltingh 1747, 198 p.
170 Nicolae
to Schwarz’s anti-Catholic viewpoint, in an editorial formula sponsored by the

Jesuit college there, under the presidency of Michael Milkovics and at the sug-
gestion of the scholar Georgius Gergeli. The Cluj edition of Joannes Stilting’s
book appeared on the occasion of a promotion of the local Jesuit college,
under the presidency of Andreas Peringer and at the proposal of the scholar
Daniel Hauszer. A copy of this work is kept at the Central University Library
‘Lucian Blaga’ in Cluj-Napoca.13 The full title of the work refers both to those
responsible for the edition and to its polemical nature: collecta, digesta, com-
mentariis et observationibus illustrata inqua Joannis Schwartzii Hungari hetero-
doxi adversus initia Religionis apud Ungaros Christianae et Angelicam Ungariae
Coronam calumniae refutantur a Joanne Stiltingo Soc. Jesu Theologo continua-
tore Joan Bolandi; theses ex universa philosophia publice propugnaret Rev. Nob.
ac eruditus Dominus Daniel Hauszer Ung. Igloviensis, […] Alumnus Aporianus,
praeside R. P. Andrea Peringer.
The Batthyaneum Library in Alba Iulia has only one copy of this work, but
from a later edition, published in Košice (Cassovia), and edited by the Jesuits in
Slovakia in 1767.14 Comparing the two versions of this historical-hagiographic
work, the one from Győr and Cluj with the one from Košice from 1767, which
can be easily consulted through the copy distributed online by the Bavarian
State Library, it is evident that they are the same work, edited in various formu-
las, and having apologetic purposes intended to reaffirm the sacred origins of
the apostolic kingdom of St. Stephen.
The reception of Schwarz’s work in his native Hungary takes place shortly
after its first edition, materializing in a vigorous defensio put together by
Professor Zarka János from Sopron.15
The Jesuits Peter Carl Paterfy and Joannes Stiltingus vehemently attacked
Schwarz’s work, the latter simply denying the real existence of bishop
Hierotheos.16 Schwarz’s name was later mentioned in connection with dis-
putes over research related to the Hungarian crown in 1790, but also with the
oldest grammar of the Hungarian language, Grammatica Hungarolatina, being
13 Stiltingus – Peringer – Hauszer 1749.

14 Stiltingus 1767, [4] + 376 + [14] p.
15 Ioannis Zarka, Defensio Godeffr. Schwartzii Initia Religionis Christianae apud Hungaros
Ecclesiae Orientali vindicantis, Codex Autographus, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár: 2021.
Fol. Lat. The names of the two, Godofredus Schwarz and János Zarka, are found in mod-
ern Hungarian debates dedicated to the so-called Grammatica Hungarolatina of 1539. For
this, see Bartók 2001.
16 Stiltingus 1767, p. 23.
considered one of the leaders or forerunners of free historical research.17 In

this sense, on November 4, 1801, in the magazine Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung
in Jena (1785–1803) – one of the most widespread and influential journals
in the German cultural space – appeared a review dedicated to the work of
Joseph Koller, De Sacra Regni Ungariae corona Commentarius. Schwarz is men-
tioned in this text among the first researchers who set the tone for a freedom
in historical writing, free of confessionalist prejudices even in connection with
the Hungarian crown:
Schwarz’s Eastern Conversion of Hungary (Schwarzens orientalische

Bekehrung der Ungarn) and Kollar’s revelation of Levakovich’s deception
or forgery tied to the so-called wild bubble were the forerunners of free
research: more scholars than ever before examined carefully the crown in
1790. Vesprimi, Decsi, Horány, Katona and many others took part for and
against the Roman origin of the crown […]18
In the same context, the examination of the crown and other insignia of
Hungarian sovereignty (Reichskleinodien) takes place, especially the corona-
tion vestments of St. Stephen on which are represented, along with Western
saints and popes such as Sixtus and Clement, the Eastern saints Cosmas,
Panteleimon, and probably Damian. Their hands support the spear and the
globe much more vigorously than the hands of the Western saints. The reviewer
makes the following remark, slightly ironic, in the final part of his text:
Mr. Koller is cautious and silent on this fact, but the impartial histo-
rian, who was warned by Schwarz about the original Eastern conversion
of the Hungarians (der unbefangene Historiker, der von Schwarz aus die
unsprüngliche orientalische Bekehrung der Ungern aufmerksam gemacht
wordovi) will linger a little longer on this issue, thinking about an expla-
nation for this situation.19
17 Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, Jena, November 4, 1901, a work dedicated to Joseph Koller,

De Sacra Regni Ungariae corona Commentarius, pp. 257–258, 262, available at http://
zs.thulb.uni-jena.de/receive/jportal_jparticle_00021663 (accessed February 3, 2021).
18 Ibidem.
19 Ibidem.
172 Nicolae
Already in 1781, Gottfried Schwarz was named the father of Hungarian

historical criticism20 by the merchant and self-taught (Privatgelehrter)
Karl Gottlieb Windisch from Eperjes21 (Prešov, Pressburg), the head of the
Ungrisches Magazin (1782–1787). This was the most important Hungarian
newspaper in the German language from the 1980s. Windisch’s assessment
of Schwarz comes from a letter to his Transylvanian collaborator, and her-
aldry specialist and historian, the Zipser Daniel Cornides (the secretary and
private teacher of Count Jószef Teleki). This is also the avenue through which
Gottfried Schwarz and his works were introduced in Transylvania. It is very
probable that the Transylvanians who corresponded with Windisch and who
collaborated in the creation of Ungrisches Magazin were aware of his histori-
cal contributions from the pages of this publication. Thus, Gottfried Schwarz
was one of the leading contributors to Ungrisches Magazin, a scholarly jour-
nal of the Hungarian kingdom, a typical example of a scholarly publication
of the late Enlightenment22 belonging to a true scientific society through cor-
respondence among the collaborators of this project23 (korrespondierende
wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft), especially of Hungarian (so-called Hungari)
German-speaking scholars, Zipsers, Transylvanians (Daniel Cornides and
Johann Seifert), Slovaks, and especially Protestants, who studied at universities
in the German cultural context.
Among those who mention Schwarz at the time is the Transylvanian
Reformed historian and priest Péter Bod (1712–1769), in his famous work
Magyar Athenas avagy az Erdélyben és Magyar országban élt tudos embere-
knek, published in 1766,24 and in the prologue of his posthumous work Historia
Hungarorum Ecclesiastica.25
The two pre-Enlightenment Protestant historians, Gottfried Schwarz and
Péter Bod, prominent representatives of 18th-century European ecclesiastical
historiography, can be read in parallel on the question of the Christianization
of the Hungarians and the missionary activities of the first bishop Hierotheos.
They both circulate, it seems, common opinions specific to the Protestant
historiographical repertoire. They are also pioneers of Hungarian historio-
graphical criticism, exponents of the peregrinatio academica and of the histo-
riographical tendency eruditio et pietas.26
20 Seidler 2002, 106.

21 Valjavec 1936.
22 Seidler – Seidler 1988.
23 Seidler 2003, 5.
24 Bod 1766, 286.
25 Bod 1888, 4.
26 See Gúdor 2008.
6.3 Gottfried Schwarz and His Reception in the Hungarian and

Transylvanian Historiography of the 18th and 19th Century
Gottfried Schwarz’s personality and work have been known primarily for
their historical dimensions. Romanian historiography has taken from the
Hungarian historiography of the 18th century, first through the Supplex Libellus
Valachorum and then through the historians of the Transylvanian School,
Gheorghe Șincai, Samuil Micu, and Petru Maior, the issue of Hierotheos and
the beginnings of Hungarian Christianity as a specific problem of reposition-
ing and rereading proper to the Enlightenment critical spirit. This was then
metamorphosed, more or less, depending on the interest or historical empha-
sis of the period in which it was written, in an enthusiastic or circumspect
nationalist sense.
The Saxon historian Joseph Karl Eder, in his critical notes related to the
requests of the Romanians from Supplex Libellus Valachorum,27 challenges
the mission of Hierotheos among the Romanians from Transylvania on the
grounds that he did not know the Romanian language.
Gheorghe Șincai was convinced of Hierotheos’s mission in Transylvania
and of the fact that he had occupied the episcopal see of the Transylvanian
Romanians, which was vacant at that time.28
Samuil Micu tried to integrate Hierotheos into a list, as a link between the
Transylvanian bishops unknown by name who came before him and the later
metropolitans of Bălgrad (Alba Iulia).29 In Istoria bisericească a Episcopiei
românești din Ardeal (Historia Valachorum, vol. IV), he states that ‘from this
27 Eder 1791. Paragraphs from this work can be found in Prodan 1998, 558–559 and 570–571.
Samuil Micu responds to Eder through a work which remained unprinted during his life-
time: Responsum ad Josephi Caroli Eder – in Supplicem Libellum Valachorum Transilvaniae
iuxta numeros ad ipso positos (ms. published in Pervain 1971, 44–72); Istoria românilor cu
întrebări și răspunsuri (1791, ms.), published with the title “Preste cât pământ să întind de
lăcuiesc românii?” – Catehism istoric, in Chindriș – Iacob (eds.) 2010, 403–418.
28 Gheorghe Șincai, Hronica românilor, tom I, in Șincai 1967, 280; Chronicon Daco-Romanorum
sive valachorum et Pluriam Aliarum Natiorum, in Șincai 1971, 271: sed fortasse contigerat,
ut tempore, quo Gyula Senior baptizatus est, sedes Eppalis in Transyilvania vacaverit, et ad
eam supplendam designatus fuerit Hierotheus.
29 Samuil Micu, Brevis historica notitia originis et progressu nationis Daco-Romanae seu ut
quidem barbaro vocabulo appelant Valachorum ab initio usque ad seculum XVIII (1778).
This work remains in manuscript form and was published in fragments by A.T. Laurian
with the title Historia Daco-Romanorum sive Valachorum, in Instrucțiunea Publică, Iași,
1861, 67–118 and in Foaie pentru minte, inimă și literatură, 25, 1862, nr. 11–26 and 29–30);
Scurtă cunoștință a istoriei românilor (1796, remains in ms., edited by Cornel Câmpeanu,
Bucharest 1963). Cited here after Câmpeanu, p. 100.
174 Nicolae
(Ierothei) line the Romanian bishops of Transylvania […],’30 and insists on the
central role of Hierotheos and the metropolis of Alba Iulia, dedicating an entire
chapter to the conviction that ‘the Bishops of Belgrade in Transylvania were all
metropolitans.’31 Hierotheos is mentioned again by Samuil Micu in the list of
metropolitans of Transylvania before and after the arrival of the Hungarians,32
then in the list of metropolitans from Alba Iulia in which the bishop brought
to Transylvania by Duke Gyula is presented as the cornerstone of a new history
because previously – considered the Enlightenment scholar – ‘the Romanians
from Transylvania took bishops from the bishop of Argeș.’33
In the context of presenting the beginnings of the Orthodox diocese of Alba
Iulia, Samuil Micu also mentions the old ecclesiastical connection between
Transylvania and the church settlements of the Romanians over the mountains
(the Diocese of Argeș, which will become the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia in the
14th century, dependent on Constantinople), but also on the Christianization
of the Hungarians initially in the ‘Greek law.’34 In this sense, Micu evokes sev-
eral opinions, of which that of Gottfried Schwarz, mentioned several times
already, receives priority.35
Petru Maior, in turn, places Hierotheos in Alba Iulia, advancing the hypoth-
esis of his Romanianness and his mission among the pagan Szeklers who lived
with the already Christian Romanians.36
Beyond the subsequent critical readings, in the debates related to the
Hierotheos question we are dealing with a problem that first appeared in
Hungarian ecclesiastical historiography and was later adopted by the histori-
ans of the Transylvanian School. Its beginnings can be found in the works of
several 17th-century Jesuit monks such as Melchior Inchofer (1585–1648) and
Gabriel Hevenesi (1656–1715), and continued by Archbishop Leopold Kollonics
and Martin Cseles.37 The historical school that emerged around Hevenesi car-
ried his work further through the efforts of Samuel Timon (1675–1736) and
Stefan Kaprinai (1714–1785). Within this true school of Jesuit history, a critical
approach to primary sources developed in the 18th century through the work
of historians such as Georgius Pray (1723–1801), Stephan Katona (1732–1811),
and Ferenc Wagner (1675–1738). In this context of the flourishing of Hungarian
30 Micu 1995, vol. II, 196.

31 Ibidem, p. 201.
32 Ibidem, p. 210.
33 Ibidem, p. 211.
34 Ibidem, p. 196.
35 Ibidem, p. 196, 199, 368.
36 Maior 1995, vol. I, 91–94.
37 Szilás 1972, 172–189.
historiography, the first to refer to bishop Hierotheos were the Jesuit historians
Samuel Timon and Stephan Katona. Timon calls him Hierotheus Ungarorum
Episcopus in Dacia, and about Dacia, the duchy of Gyula, he states:
Fuit autem Jula (Gyla) Daciae, et ripae Istri praefectus; qui non solum
cuidam vico in Moldavia, verum etiam in penetissima Dacia, Transilvania,
inquam, urbi nomen suum impertivit.38
The entire passage dedicated to the Christianization of the two Hungarian

leaders of the 10th century is based on the Byzantine chronicles of the 11th
century, quoted from 17th-century French editions, whose events were framed
chronologically with the help of the Annals of Caesare Baronius (1538–1607)39
and Henri Spondanus (1568–1643),40 corroborated with the data provided by
the German Ottonian and Hungarian chroniclers of the 15th–17th centuries:
Thurocius (Thuróczy János: 1435?–1489?)41 and Otrocotsius (Otrokocsi Foris
Ferenc: 1648–1718).42 The placement of Gyula in Transylvania in the fortress
that bears his name, that is, in Alba Iulia, and of Bolosudes in Pannonia, at
Sirmium, seems to occur as a result of a very good knowledge of historical
geography and toponymy. In other words, Samuel Timon is one of the first his-
torians to believe that Hierotheos’s mission had as its epicenter Alba Iulia, the
capital of Gyula’s duchy.
The most important later historians referred to Samuel Timon as an author-
ity, but each brought a new perspective. Regarding the location of Hierotheos’s
mission, the opinion of the Jesuit historian Stephan Katona is interesting.
38 Timon 1762, Liber III, Caput V, 174–175.

39 Cesare Baronius, apostolic protonotary, cardinal and librarian of the Roman Church.
Primary work: Annales ecclesiastici a Cristo nato ad annum 1198, Rome 1588–1593. He
named the 10th century saeculum obscurum.
40 Henri Spondanus (de Sponde), a Calvinist converted to Catholicism, became bishop of
Pamiers, French historian, successor of the work of Cesare Baronius who summarized
the annals of Tonelli and Baronius. Primary work: Annales ecclesiatici Caesaris Baronii
in Epitomen redacti, Paris 1612; Annalium Baronii continuatio ab. a. 1197 quo is desinit ad a.
1622, Paris 1639.
41 Thurocius, Hungarian chronicler, protonotary at the court of King Matthias Corvinus.
Primary work: Chronica Hungarorum, Augsburg 1488.
42 One of the best-known converts of his time, a former reformed pastor in Szeklerland, and
later a professor at the Jesuit University of Tyrnau. Primary work: Origines Hungaricae;
Seu Liber, Quo Vera nationis Hungaricae Origo & Antiquitas è Veterum Monumentis
& Linguis praecipuis, panduntur: Indicato hunc in finem fonte, tum vulgarium aliquot
Vocum Hungaricarum, tum aliorum multorum Nominum, in quibus sunt: Scytha, Hunnus,
Hungarus, Magyar, Jász, Athila, Hercules, Ister, Amazon &c. Opus hactenus desideratum
[…] Pars Prima et Secunda, 1693.
176 Nicolae
He admits the presence of Romanians in Transylvania before the arrival of

the Hungarians of Tuhutum, the territory where the Byzantine missionary
was brought.43
Between Samuel Timon and Stephan Katona is the theologian and evan-
gelical historian Gottfried Schwarz, who, in support of his historical-critical
dissertation at Halle in 1740 on the beginnings of the Hungarian Christian reli-
gion in the Church of the East, raises sharp and controversial issues: the first
mission of the Christianization of the Hungarians was the Greek one, patron-
ized by Duke Gyula44 and led by bishop Hierotheos,45 and this mission was
carried out with full success, as evidenced in various vestiges, including the
royal crown of Byzantine origin and form, as well as the double morphology
of the Hungarian cross, but also in various elements of church life, such as the
so-called religious role of the king, the synodality, the marriage of priests, and
the order of the quadragesimal fast.46 Over this Greek mission, the Latin one
was set up in a mysterious way, and gradually took over, making it very difficult
to reconstruct its route from the beginning.47 Gottfried Schwarz categorically
states, with the erudition of a true scholar, the identity of Gyla in the Byzantine
chronicles with Gyula in the Latin-Hungarian chronicles. Based mainly on the
conclusions of Samuel Timon, Schwarz also considered this Christian leader
from Constantinople had his residence in Alba Iulia, and here, implicitly, also
his bishop.48
There are several consistent passages in Schwarz’s book that describe
Hierotheos’s mission and context, the role of the neighboring Slavs, and the
role of their influences in spreading the faith among Hungarians, reflected
in language and old testimonies about the use of the Slavonic alphabet and
writing:49
43 Stephan Katona, Jesuit historian, professor, custodian of the archbishopric library of

Kalocsa. Primary work: Historia critica primorum Hungariae ducum (Pest 1778); Historia
critica regum Hungariae stirpis arpadianae (Pest and Cluj 1779–1797), a fundamental
work for Hungarian historiography; Epitome chronologiae rerum hungaricarum, transsyl-
vanicarum et illyricarum (1796–1798). The above fragment is from Historia critica regum
Hungariae, 416.
44 Schwarz 1740, Caput III: Gyula dux religionis chistianae inter Hungaros prima semina jacit.
45 Ibidem, 41: Hierotheus primus Hungariae Episcopus Constantinopoli missur.
46 Ibidem, Caput IV: Ecclesiae Orientalis ministerio religionem Christianam inter Hungaros
primum plantatam esse evincitur.
47 Ibidem, Caput V: Quomodo Hungari ecclesiae Latinae sunt adsociati.
48 Ibidem, 29.
49 Ibidem, 41: Quomodo evangelii Christiani lux ad gentem item Hungaricam transfusa fuerit;
31: Hierotheus primus Hung. Episcopus Cpoli missur.
Si enim id operam sedulo dedit, ut sui imperii homines, a barbaricis erro-

ribus liberatos, Christos vindicaret, eaque mente Hierotheum Episcopum
Cpoli adduxit, multo magis occupatum in eo fuisse, dubio caret, ut
generum totamque ejus familiam coelo redderet […]. Quod Gylam exem-
plum, &, qui suae erant sententiae, Hungaros neophytos, in expungnan-
dis incredulorum animis, opportune ad usum convertisse, non est a fide
alienum. Multi, Graecis nostris testantibus, Hierothei Epicopi ministerio,
ad veri dei cognitionem, ex Hungaris, pervenerunt. […]. Inter eos qui-
dem, qui Hungaris Christianam fidem inspirarunt, utque alacrius eam
amplecterentur, monitores fuerunt, primas ego partes Slavis, praeterito
seculo, a Cyrillo & Methodio, doctoribus Graecis, ad Christum conversis,
defero. (p. 31). […] Atque haec dicta sunt, ut fidem Graecorum, quorum
testimoniis nitimur, in toto collocaremus. Erit igitur primus Hungariae
Episcopus Hierotheus, Hungaris ab ecclesia Graeca datus, hoc minus nos-
tris poenitendus, quo excellentior ejus est laus, dum vir pietate celebris
audit. A vero non abludit, plures cum ipso sacerdotes Cpoli in Hungariam
exmissos: crescentere saltem credentium in Christum numero, plures
ab Hierotheo inaugurari oportuit, qui sacris tractandis, iisque plus ultra
propagandis, susficerunt. Si quis conjecturae locus, a Slavis fidelibus,
Graecorum, quod supra observavimus, & ecclesiastica gentis historia
testatur, ritu intiatis, sacerdotes illos potiffimum adscitos, existimo. Hinc
enim arcessendum, quod TIMON prodit, plura Ungaros vocabula, qui-
bus res quasdam sacras esserunt, a Slavis mutuatos esse.50
Gottfried Schwarz states that he has no doubt that Hierotheos’s apostolic work
in Transylvania extended to the whole of Hungary. This was accomplished also
through the marriage of Sarolta, Gyula’s daughter, to Prince Géza, which is
obvious to those who are able to rediscover this primary Byzantine tradition in
Hungarian royal customs, discipline, and insignia.51
The symbolic competition between the Orthodox Sarolta and the Catholic
princesses Adelaide and Gisela reflects the competition between the two mis-
sions, Greek and Latin. Schwarz, using the conclusions of the Czech Jesuit
Boleslaus Balbinus (1621–1688),52 wants to tell us that Sarolta’s positive his-
torical role in spreading the Christian faith in Hungary should receive more
importance:
50 Ibidem, 30, 31, 41.

51 Ibidem, 42.
52 Boleslaus Balbinus (Bohuslav Balbin), Miscellanea Historica regni Bohemiae, 6 vol., Prague
1679–1687.
178 Nicolae
Nullis igitur conjecturis operosis, nullis portentis, an fabulis, opus est,

ad explicandum, unde Geysae gentique ejus doctrinae coelestis lux illa
beata adsulsit, si Saroltam, quam paulo ante, vel paulo post, Gyula sustu-
lit, quam a paganismi erroribus resipuisset, ad hoc praecipue opus a deo-
fuisse delectam, adfirmaverimus. Non inepte BALBINUS, Pulcherrima,
inquit, in eam rem exempla suppeditant historiae, in quibus foeminae
multorum bonorum, maximeque religionis Christianae, Regibus ex reg-
nis amplectende, causa fuerunt (n) cet. Adducit hinc exempla aliquot,
& in his Giselae, quae Hungarorum populum christiane credere docuit.
At veriu jam, cum de intiis religionis Christianae sermo instituitur, in
Giselae vicem Saroltam substituemus.53
The mission of bishop Hierotheos to Transylvania and his placement in Alba

Iulia seem to have benefited from a historiographical consensus in the 18th
century. As noted, the scholarly opinions align on this issue from the Slovak
Jesuit Samuel Timon (1733) to the German evangelist Gottfried Schwarz (1740)
and from the Jesuit Stephan Katona (1779) to the Transylvanian calvinist Péter
Bod (1768).
Schwarz’s book provoked vehement reactions in the Catholic environment:
they are listed together in a note from a Universal History published in 1788,54
which includes the names of Johannes Stiltingus, Georgius Pray, Franciscus
Adamus Kollar. The general conclusion is that bishop Hierotheos of Gyula
would have remained only a simple bishop in partibus, about whose activity
neither the Latin writers nor the Greeks mentioned anything, and about Dacia,
that is Transylvania, the changing one, sometimes Greek, sometimes Latin, it
is said ironically that it would have remained pagan. From the various contem-
porary reactions of Catholic historians, it is easy to see that bishop Hierotheos
is the one who confuses the history, not Gyula. About the latter, well-known
things are said, praising his piety and zeal, but emphasizing that no visible
trace of his faith has remained, that no church, that is, an episcopate, is evident
in his country, and no evidence that his descendants inherited his faith.55
The broader historical context of this controversy cannot be fully repro-
duced here, but it can be deduced from the change of position of the Roman
53 Schwarz 1740, 30.

54 Allgemeine Weltgeschichte 1788, 493 p. Of particular interest to our topic is the chapter
“Geschichte des Reichs Ungarn unter der Herrschaft der Magyaren”, with the subchapters
“Ungarische Grenzen im zehnten Jahrhundert” (p. 62) and “Hungarische Fürsten werden
griechische Christen” (p. 67). See note ‘t’ on pp. 68–69, which summarizes the Catholic
reaction to Schwarz’s book.
55 Allgemeine Weltgeschichte 1788, 68–71.
Church and the Catholic episcopate after the integration of Transylvania into
the Austrian monarchy at the end of the 17th century, from the shift from part-
nership toward confrontation.56 In fact, along with the Bollandist Stiltingus
and the Jesuit historians Pray and Kollar,57 there were two other Hungarian
historians who responded to Schwarz: Carolus Péterfy58 and István Salagius.59
The controversy that began in 1740 lasted until 1777 when Schwarz answered
them frankly about the so-called patronage right of the apostolic kings of
Hungary that it was based on two forgeries: the hagiographic legend of St.
Stephen and the pseudo-silvestrine chrysobull.60 The controversy Schwarz’s
book provoked was also mentioned in detail by the historian Johann Matthias
Schröckh from Wittenberg in 1795, giving the example of the Transylvanian
issue in dispute, related to Gyula and Hierotheos.61 We must note the admira-
ble tenacity of Schwarz and his astonishing erudition. It is not at all acciden-
tal that Heinrich Döring, Goethe’s first biographer, included him among the
learned theologians of 18th-century Germany. His historical-critical disserta-
tion must be read in this key, of an Enlightenment avant la lettre, of a critical
spirit that increasingly asserted itself in the era against the Ultramontanist tri-
umphalism, in a time of resettlements and relegitimizations, of the dawn of
the New Europe, in which written sources and definite evidence related to the
expansion of the spiritual realms had been largely destroyed, and the begin-
nings and foundations were now critically revisited.62
56 See Bahlcke 2005; Kowalská 2003, 25–34.

57 Franciscus Adamus Kollar, Historiae Diplomaticae Iuris Patronatus Apostolicorum
Hungariae Regum, Vindobonae, 1762. In his study mentioned above, Joachim Bahlcke pre-
sents in short, in note 66 of the subchapter dedicated to the work of Kollar (pp. 255–274),
his controversy with Gottfried Schwarz.
58 Carolus Péterfy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae Romano-catholicae in regno Hungariae celebrata.
Ab Anno Christi MXVI. usque ad Annum MDCCXV. Accedunt Regum Hungariae et Sedis
Apostolicae legatorum constitutiones ecclesiasticae. Tom. 1–2, Posonii, 1741–1742.
59 István Szalagy, De statu ecclesiae Pannonicae libri VII, Quinque-Ecclesiis, 1777–1784. (I. De
statu civili Pannoniae; II. De initiis religionis christianae in Pannonia 1777; III. De antiquis
episcopatibus in Pannonia 1778; IV. De antiquis metropolitanis per Pannoniam 1780; V. De
antiquis primatibus per Pannoniam 1781; VI. De antiquo ecclesiae Pannonicae patriarcha
1780; VII. De initiis religionis christianae inter hungaros. Opus posthumum. Cui adjunctus
est instar supplementi Josephi Koller […] de sacra regni Hungariae corona commentarius
1780.
60 Gottfried Schwarz, Entlarvte Bulle Pabsts Sylvesters II, die er an den heiligen Stephanus,
König in Ungarn, geschickt haben soll. Sammt ihren widerlegten Behelfen aus der Legende
Chartuitii und Pabst Gregorii VII. Briefen, Lemgo 1777.
61 Schröckh 1795, 527–530.
62 Bahlcke 2005, 41.
180 Nicolae
6.4 History and Hagiography: from Gottfried Schwarz to Hierotheos
As for Hierotheos, a symbol of the Christianization of the Hungarians in the

10th century, history seems to have finally proved Gottfried Schwarz right. If
his first Catholic critics, Stiltingus in the first place, did not believe in the real
existence of Hierotheos or considered him at most a bishop in partibus, con-
temporary Catholic historians have reconsidered him, which facilitated his
canonization in 2000. Although there are still diverse views about the path
of his mission and his residence, most historians recognize his missionary
merits. The symbolic competition between the two missions and Christian
spheres, Greek and Latin, still reflects on the memory. A church historian such
as Gabriel Adrianyi63 has recognized, for example, the missionary success of
Hierotheos for more than 20 years in the land ruled by Gyula, in the area of
the Mureș and Tisa Rivers, across which Greek rite Christianity spread over
a large area. But he speaks of a somewhat superficial influence of Byzantine
Christianity among the people, attributing the organized, consistent, and sys-
tematic Christianization of all Hungarian tribes as the work of the Western
Latin Church. In his opinion, which aligns the oldest views of Lajos Balics,64
the opportunity offered by the Latin mission, through which one can speak of
Hungary’s entry into the community of Western Christians, would have saved
the Hungarians from the danger of a schism and of Slavicization.65 These reli-
gious and cultural consequences would have followed from the continuation
of close ties with the Christian East, that is, with Byzantium, which were car-
ried out in southeastern Hungary 25 years before the Latins arrived – a mis-
sionary activity worthy of consideration.
Moreover, the researcher Márta Font66 (Pécs), in her studies dedicated to
the relations between Hungary and Kievan Rus’ in the 10th century, analyzes
the traces of the Byzantine mission from the middle of the 10th century.67
She mentions, as a political consequence of Hierotheos’s activity on Gyula’s
territory, the definitive stop of attacks against the Byzantine Empire. She also
notes, as an ecclesiastical consequence, the establishment of a diocese in
Transylvania whose patron was the Holy Archangel Michael. Although she con-
siders this Byzantine conversion as a preamble, a prehistory of the organized
conversion of the Hungarians, Márta Font speaks of its presence in Hungary
63 Adrianyi 1974–1975, 24.

64 Balics 1885, 46–47.
65 Balics 1885, 24.
66 Font 1998–1999, 1–18.
67 Font 1998–1999, 14–15.
first through the Moravian mission, before the arrival of the Hungarians, grad-
ually pushed into the background, but resumed in the middle of the 10h cen-
tury. The same kind of conjecture is made by the Romanian historian Sorin
Marțian, based on the conclusions of István Dienes and Dimitri Obolensky. He
considers that the bishopric of the missionary Hierotheos included Pannonia,
part of the Slavonic archdiocese of Methodius, and Transylvania.68 In general,
the synthesis works, both older69 and newer,70 of the history of Christianity, of
the missions and of the conversion of the different European peoples, present
about the same situation, placing Gyula and Hierotheos in Transylvania.
Even though the beginnings of the diocese of Transylvania are incompletely
clarified,71 it is possible that Hierotheos’s mission had its epicenter there or
was concentrated at some point there, as believed by the most important rep-
resentatives of Hungarian Catholic historiography in the 18th century: Samuel
Timon and Stephan Katona, but also the evangelical historian Gottfried
Schwarz, the so-called father of Hungarian historiographical criticism. They
placed Duke Gyula and bishop Hierotheos in Transylvania, in Alba Iulia, and
this later became a constant in Transylvanian Enlightenment historiography.
From Gottfried Schwarz in the 18th century to Richard Huss in the 20th cen-
tury, Protestant historiography presented the eastern vestiges of Hungarian
Christianity, considering that in Alba Iulia there was an episcopal see even
before the middle of the 10th century.72 The famous Byzantinologist Dimitri
Obolensky (1918–2001) was of the same opinion as he considered Gyula the
leader of a Hungarian group (clan, tribe) in Transylvania.73
6.5 Conclusions
After the rediscovery in 2011 of the 10th-century church in Alba Iulia, the
‘Hierotheos problem’ triggered a complex research project, including a histo-
riographical and an archaeological component. The first materialized in the
critical edition of Gottfried Schwarz’s work Initia religionis christianae inter
Hungaros ecclesiae orientali adserta (Frankfurt – Leipzig 1739; Halle 1740)
completed under our care and that of the classicist Vasile Rus, stimulated and
68 Marțian 2006, 83.

69 Robinson 1917, 304.
70 Torrey – Neander – Cutler Torrey 2009.
71 Dincă 2017, 32–34; Kovács 2017, 101–116.
72 Huss 1934, 17, n. 3.
73 Obolensky 2002, 175–176.
182 Nicolae
monitored by the medievalist Ioan Aurel Pop.74 The second includes the pres-
ent volume and the future monograph of the archaeological discovery spear-
headed by Daniela Marcu Istrate, one of the most important in the last century
of Romanian archaeology, presented so far only in the form of preliminary
studies meant to accustom us to the image of a missionary episcopal church
in Alba Iulia.
To what extent bishop Hierotheos was linked to the fortress of Alba Iulia
(Gyulafehérvár) and to the early medieval Transylvania remains to be clari-
fied especially by the archaeological research of the 10th century necropo-
lises in Alba Iulia (Izvorul Împăratului, Stația de Salvare, Brândușei Street).
The effort to clarify a fragment of medieval history still unknown becomes
somehow synonymous with the luminous figure of this Byzantine bishop
from the beginning of the ‘dark age,’ brought back to life in a surprising way
by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 2000, on the occasion
of the millennium celebration of the Christianization of the Hungarians, the
ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew solemnly proclaimed the canonization
of bishop Hierotheos, but also of King Stephen I.75 The intentions of such a
gesture are easy to understand: the recognition of an apostolic king in the
Orthodox Church, accompanied by the canonization of the first missionary
bishop of the Hungarians is a courageous attempt to reconcile the two Christian
spheres even on the competition territory of the Greek and Latin missions
around 1000. The meanings of this gesture are many. First of all, we are dealing
with a recuperative gesture that profits from the peaceful spirit of the jubilee
context, reminding the Hungarians of the role played by St. Stephen in their
unification and constitution as a Christian kingdom, but also the primary role
played by the Eastern Church in their Christianization through Hierotheos,
the first bishop of Hungary (Tourkia) and his successors in episcopal dig-
nity. Secondly, it is an apologetic gesture, if we remember that in present-day
Hungary there is a Hungarian Orthodox minority76 canonically dependent on
the Ecumenical Patriarchate through a special exarchate, and which honors
74 Gottfried Schwarz, Initia Religionis Christianae Inter Hungaros Ecclesiae Orientali Adserta
Eademque A Dubiis et Fabulosis Narrationibus Repurgata / Începuturile Religiei Creștine
între Unguri atribuite Bisericii Răsăritene și curățate de dubii și de povești născocite, edited
by Vasile Rus and Jan Nicolae, Cluj-Napoca: Școala Ardeleană 2017, 251 p.
75 On August 20, 2000, on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the Hungarian state,
the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Mikhail Staikos of Vienna read the Tomos of the can-
onization of St. Stephen and St. Hierotheos in the presence of Patriarch Bartholomew of
Constantinople, before the procession with the right hand of St. Stephen. The Tomos was
dated April 11, 2000 in Constantinople. St. Hierotheos has not yet been canonized by the
Roman-Catholic Church.
76 Patacsi 1962, 273–305; Patacsi 1967, 21–26; Seide 1972, 101–114.
St. Hierotheus in his liturgical memory alongside the martyr saints of Roman
Pannonia, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, St. Moses the Hungarian, the ascetic of
the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra (11th century) and by the Byzantine-Hungarian Holy
Empress Irene (Piroska), the wife of Emperor John Komnenos (12th century).
Therefore, the canonization of bishop Hierotheos in 2000 represents an act
of spiritual ecumenism, of church policy, but also of a prophetic memorial of
rediscovering the role played by the Greek Christian mission in Hungary for
more than two centuries, between the 10th and 12th centuries – a fact high-
lighted in the middle of the 18th century by the scholar Gottfried Schwarz,
the pioneer of the critical approach to the history of missions and attempts to
Christianize the Hungarians.
Chapter 7
Patriarch Theophylact, the Horses, and the

Hungarians: The Religious Origins of the Byzantine
Mission to Tourkia
Dan Ioan Mureșan
7.1 Introduction
It has long been known that the instigator of the Byzantine mission among
the Hungarians and consecrator of the first bishop of Tourkia, Hierotheos, was
the patriarch Theophylact (933–956), son of Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos
(r. 920–944) and close collaborator of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogen
netos (r. 913/945–959). A reassessment of his activity is therefore needed as
a precondition for an insightful understanding of the impetus of bishop
Hierotheos’ activity, which risks otherwise – isolated from its larger ecclesio
logical context – to remain unintelligible. In what follows, we will revisit the
special circumstances of this patriarch’s enthronement, with its unique rever
berations in all of Christendom. We will analyze further the theologico-political
agenda of his close cooperation with the related emperors: his father, brothers
and brother-in-law. It is against this background that we will reassess the scope
of his missionary activity, much larger than usually considered. Within this
improved framework, the mission among the Hungarians will finally acquire
a wholly new relief, especially when integrated through an approach sensitive
to human-animal interactions, in this case with horses. Horses were indeed a
common infatuation both for the sedentary patriarch and the nomadic neigh
bors of Empire.
7.2 Reassessing the Record of a Patriarchate
The origins of the Byzantine mission in Tourkia around the middle of the 10th
century are recorded in John Skylitzes’ Synopsis of Histories:
The Turks did not discontinue their raiding and ravaging of Roman land
until their chieftain, Boulosoudes, came to the city of Constantine under
pretence of embracing the Christian faith. He was baptised and received
© Dan Ioan Mureșan, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_009

Patriarch Theophylact, the Horses, and the Hungarians 185
[from the font] by the emperor Constantine who honoured him with the
title of patrician and put him in possession of great riches; then he went
back to his homeland.
Not long afterwards, Gylas who was also a chieftain of the Turks came
to the capital where he too was baptised and where he too was accorded
the same honours and benefits. He took back with him a monk with a
reputation for piety named Hierotheos who had been ordained bishop
of Tourkia by Theophylact. When he got there, he converted many
from the barbaric fallacy to Christianity. And Gylas remained faithful
to Christianity; he made no inroad against the Romans nor did he leave
Christian prisoners untended. He ransomed them, took care of their
needs and set them free. Boulosoudes, on the other hand, violated his
contract with God and often invaded Roman land with all his people.
He attempted to do likewise against the Franks but he was seized and
impaled by Otto their emperor.1
Although intensely scrutinized, from multiple angles, in the scientific litera

ture for centuries, this report attracted less attention from the point of view of
its originator: the patriarch Theophylact, the consecrator of bishop Hierotheos.
Yet, as much as we do not know about this bishop more than his connection
with the visible head of his Church, a greater familiarity with the patriarch
could shed more light on the meaning, scope, and limits of his mission. A
contextualization in the more general patriarchal and imperial politics of the
Church could illuminate this particular point.
This undertaking is all the more necessary as Theophylact Lekapenos
is without question a patriarch of Constantinople who is badly in need of a
rehabilitation.2 Responsible for this situation is principally the character assas
sination inflicted on him by historian John Skylitzes in his Synopsis of Histories.
Containing several factual errors, this literary portrait is a biased interpreta
tion of the real actions of the patriarch that also omits essential aspects of
his activity that would have balanced the final evaluation. Writing during the
reign of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118), Skylitzes is a conscious com
piler of many older histories, some of them known mostly thanks to his work.3
Warren Treadgold has recently showed how this author used until the year 944
the continuators of the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor, reflecting the
views of the historiography that was officially sponsored by Constantine VII.
1 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories: here ed. Wortley 2011, 217.

2 Kazhdan 1991, 2068; PmbZ # 28192.
3 Treadgold 2013, 329–339.
186 Mureșan
For the period from 944 to 971, he exploited the now-lost history of Nicephorus
the Deacon, while for the span between 976 and 1025 he followed the lost his
tory of metropolitan Theodore of Sebastea. His Synopsis echoes the contempo
rary conflicting narratives of his sources and thus cannot be taken for granted.
The first error: Theophylact was born in 913, not 917,4 as previously consid
ered on the basis of Skylitzes’ report, who thought that: “(the patriarch) was
sixteen years old when he took control – uncanonically – of the Church.”5 He
was the second son of the navy commander Romanos Lekapenos from his sec
ond marriage with Theodora.6 He received the name of his Armenian grand
father Theophylact ‘the Unbearable,’ a peasant who joined the military who
saved Basil I’s life during the failed siege of Tephrike, the capital of the
Paulician state (871). Perhaps recalling to this emperor his own peasant ori
gin, he was accepted in the imperial guard, establishing a path for his own son
Romanos. Capable, courageous, and ambitious, the latter made a career in the
Byzantine navy and ascended to the rank of Grand admiral (droungarios of
the fleet). Among not few ambitious commanders of the time, Romanos made
a difference taking a stand against the bullying of a defeated Byzantium by
the tsar Symeon I who styled himself as ‘emperor of Romans and Bulgarians’
and claimed the guardianship over the young emperor Constantine VII the
Porphyrogennetos. Rather than brutally eliminating the legitimate emperor, as
Basil I had done in 867, he preferred to his own merit the legitimist approach,
inserting his own line into the Macedonian family tree by marrying his
daughter Helena with the young emperor and becoming his basileopator in
919. Taking advantage of the void of power and the shadow of the Bulgarian
threat, Lekapenos took under his tutelage his son-in-law and managed to be
crowned co-emperor in 920. The next year he also imperially crowned his son
Christopher.7
One of his first acts was to promulgate in 920 the Tomos of Union in favor
of Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos (901–907, 912–925) which ended the tricky
affair of Emperor Leo VI’s tetragamy. Conceding to the Church the con
trol on the maximum three legal marriages, the new co-emperor obtained
in exchange the recognition of the legitimacy of Constantine VII by all the
factious opponents, consolidating indeed by the same act his own position.
In November 924, Romanos I, seconded by Patriarch Nicholas I, achieved a
4 Stanković 2005; Cheynet 2019, 128.

5 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 234.
6 PmbZ #26833; Kresten – Müller 1995, 47–55: for his brothers Christopher (born c.900),
Stephen (c. end 920/ beg. 921), and Constantine (end 921/ beg. 922).
7 Runciman 1963, 45–79.
spectacular reconciliation with Symeon I of Bulgaria, thus concluding yet

another devastating Bulgarian invasion. Under the supervision of the patriarch,
the two rulers reconciled ostentatiously in the church of Blachernae, on terms
of Christian harmony, mutually recognizing their imperial status. In efforts to
consolidate his position, Romanos I had Patriarch Nicholas crown his older
sons, Stephen and Constantine, as co-emperors in the church of St. Sophia
during the mass of Christmas 924, restraining thus even more the legitimate
rights of Constantine VII. In so doing, he was thriving to assure and perpetuate
his family’s power control. This ‘inflation’ of five emperors and co-emperors,
who become a ‘pentarchy’ of sorts, generated incredible difficulties in the impe
rial chancery, which sought to preserve the unity of the imperial institution.8
With the same purpose in mind, the emperor also destined his youngest
son to a Church career. At the age of eleven, Patriarch Nicholas I tonsured
Theophylact a cleric, ordinated him sub-deacon and introduced him as a mem
ber of the patriarchal staff, in the function of synkellos.9 It is very plausible that
Nicholas himself accepted then to designate Theophylact as his successor, as a
token of gratitude for Romanos’ support. To be sure, there was a precedent for
this initiative: Stephen I (886–893) was promoted patriarch by his own brother
Emperor Leo the Wise at only 19 years of age in order to avoid too strong an
opposition in the Church right after the deposition of Photius.10 Yet, Patriarch
Nicholas I’s unexpected death the next year, in 925, complicated the matter of
succession.11
According to a report of Liudprand of Cremona that is discussed further in
some detail, Theophylact was an eunuch. This would not be shocking, know
ing the place that eunuchs played in Byzantine society and the Church, some
of them becoming even patriarchs of Constantinople.12 But had Romanos’
consuming ambition gone so far as to have his son castrated in order to facil
itate his ascension in the hierarchy of the Church? If yes, why he, and not his
younger brothers? In Byzantium, castration was either inflicted for political
reasons to members of the elite as punishment, or chosen by poor parents for
economic reasons as mean of social ascension. Already part of ‘the powerful’
(dynatoi), Romanos was surely not in the position to mutilate his son in order
to facilitate his career. However, Liudprand’s report may be biased, as he had a
negative view of eunuchs, while in Byzantine sources this aspect, which could
8 Kresten – Müller 1995.

9 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 212–213; Runciman 1963, 70.
10 Chrysos 2017, 225–229.
11 Chrysos 2017, 230.
12 For the role of eunuchs in Byzantine religious society, see Tougher 2008. For the political
use of castration in Byzantium, see Krsmanović 2017.
188 Mureșan
have ameliorated Theophylact’s public figure, is not evoked. For all it matters,
in the 13th century miniatures representing the patriarch in Skylitzes’ chron
icle, he appears bearded. This is why we would agree with the suggestion of
Bojana Krsmanović and Jean-Claude Cheynet, who consider that Theophylact
Lekapenos’ castration was the result of “a childhood illness or injury and not a
deliberate decision of Romanos I Lekapenos”.13
After the death of Symeon I in 927, a new peace treaty was crafted with
his son and successor Peter I (927–969), recognizing him officially as ‘pious
basileus of Bulgarians.’ The new agreement was sealed by his marriage with
Maria-Irene Lekapena, daughter of Christopher and granddaughter of
Romanos I, officiated by the then Patriarch Stephen (925–928).14 Including
even the Bulgarian Empire in his personal web by this brilliant marital pact,
Romanos neutralized a ferocious enemy, consolidated Byzantine influence
right at the rival imperial court, and at the same time enforced his own dynas
tic agenda.15
After Patriarch Stephen II’s death in 928, the newly appointed Tryphon
(928–931) was promoted only under the condition to abdicate willingly once
the emperor’s son came of canonical age.16 In 931, however, it became obvi
ous that Tryphon intended to remain permanently in office, breaking his tacit
agreement with Romanos. To eliminate this stumbling block, he was tricked
by the metropolitan of Caesarea to put inadvertently his official signature on a
letter of resignation in front of the permanent synod, and once this was done,
he was expulsed from the church without formalities.17 On this point, Skylitzes
talks about a certain Theophanes, while in fact the tricky metropolitan was the
great scholar Arethas of Caesarea, obviously not incapable of deceit if it was a
question of serving the interests of the emperor.18 For security, Romanos pre
ferred to vacate the patriarchal seat for a year and a half, in order not to have it
fall again to ambitions greater than his own. Thus, from 931 to the beginning of
933, the Church was ‘widowed’, without a patriarch, a situation that allowed for
even greater involvement of the emperor in ecclesiastic affairs.19
13 Krsmanović 2017, 61, n. 85; Cheynet 2019, 128.

14 Dujčev 1978.
15 Shepard 1995.
16 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 217. For the chronology of Stephen II and Tryphon,
Kresten – Müller 1995, 57–65.
17 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 219–220; Chrysos 2017, 232; Toynbee 1973, 610–611; Moulet
2011, 193–194.
18 Stanković 2005, 67–69.
19 Stanković 2003, 263–267.
This unscrupulous intervention in Church affairs, so careless to appear

ances, raised strong criticism in society and among the prelates. Two letters
redacted by Theodore Daphnopates in the name of Emperor Romanos offer
insight into the hot debates around this issue. The first, a proclamation to the
metropolitans, reproached them for their procrastination: they fixed succes
sive age limits for consecration as patriarch for Theophylact, first 15, then 18,
finally 19 years old.20 Thereafter, they delayed yet again, because of some oppo
sitional voices. Criticizing their inconstancy as a menace to the unity of the
Church deprived thus of a pastor, Romanos demanded ‘with a pure conscience’
that another patriarch be consecrated instead of his son.21 This stratagem
of feint humility shamed the metropolitans who ended up adhering almost
unanimously to the emperor’s demand.
The exception was Anastasios, metropolitan of Herakleia who even had the
audacity to write a canonical treaty to justify his opposition. His stance was
significant because, following tradition, he was the one who was supposed to
consecrate directly the archbishop of Constantinople, as ancient suffragan of
Herakleia. Against him, Daphnopates unleashed a piece of textual ferocity,
rejecting without manners his critiques.22 Accordingly, the metropolitan had
no moral stature to judge the others, as he was himself compromised by his
past support of Emperor Leo’s tetragamy, and was consecrated by Patriarch
Tryphon, himself a deacon at an uncanonical age.23 The minority of the synk-
ellos cannot constitute an impediment, as his corporal and moral purity likes
him to young David, Moses or Daniel, or the teenager martyrs of the Church.
The precedent of Stephen I was of course evoked. All the other metropolitans
stand now with the emperor, based on the decision of ‘the most holy pope of
Rome.’ They do not want another patriarch, as the emperor had proposed. To
avoid the danger of another interim patriarch or a vacant throne, they decided
to consecrate the emperor’s son as patriarch. If Anastasios did not show more
flexibility, he will be expelled from his metropolis on the day of the young
patriarch’s ordination (implying that another one could be easily named
ad hoc to take on the job of consecrator).
To bring the Church in line, and in order to curb the metropolitans’ opposi
tion toward his son Theophylact, Romanos I had indeed appealed to the Roman
Church. Somehow ironically, at the time the city of Rome and the pontifical
20 The chronological implications of every age-limit was analyzed in detail by Stanković

2005, 64–66.
21 Daphnopates 1978, letter 3, 48–51; Moulet 2011, 194–195.
22 Daphnopates 1978, 40–48, letter 2; Moulet 2011, 195; Chrysos 2017, 230–231.
23 Chrysos 2017, 224.
190 Mureșan
throne were under the influence of the infamous … Theophylact clan. Its head,
the noble Alberic, defied the authority of king Hugh of Italy, becoming in 932
‘prince and senator of all of the Romans,’ with the help of his own brother, Pope
John XI (931–936). In this position, Alberic managed to dominate the Eternal
city for the rest of his life, which ended in 954.24 Fresh in power and looking
everywhere for support, Alberic was all too eager to obtain the favors of the
Eastern Roman emperors, in a period without any emperor in the West.
Theodore Daphnopates authored the correspondence with the papacy, and
a piece conserved in his epistolary, sent after the ordination of Theophylact
in February 933, details this barely credible story.25 According to this account,
at the end of 932, the legates a latere, bishops Leo of Palestrina et Madalbert
(Adalbert?), with the deacons Sergios and Peter – ‘exact images of the beauty
of the model’ – carried a letter and a pontifical tomos destined to recognize the
episcopal installation of the emperor’s son. This external intervention sufficed,
thanks to the pontifical authority, to mute the opposition and all those present
at the ceremony that “adorned him with episcopal dignity and proclaimed him
patriarch of our Church.”
At this point, somehow unexpectedly, Romanos took the defense of
the opposition. The reluctant metropolitans considered that they had the
exclusive right to elect their head and administer canonically the Church of
Constantinople. They accepted the appeal to the Roman Church only in sub
jects related to the correctitude of the faith. Otherwise, for the patriarchal elec
tions, the interventions of the Roman Church in the East were inconvenient,
if not unprecedented. Nevertheless, thanks to the papal involvement, “by the
grace of God, all are united in one heart and one sentiment, ruled and gov
erned by a new bishop and pastor.” For all this, the emperor addresses the pope
as ‘very dear father and venerable bishop,’ affirming his own status as faithful
‘son and emperor.’
However, the remaining of the letter showed that the opposition was still far
from silenced. Even after the consecration, the emperor retained longer than
expected the legates as an aid against ‘the obstacles and contradiction of the
opponents.’ He sent them back accompanied by his own emissaries to testify
the love that the patriarch had for the pope. The two Churches, ‘despite the dis
tances, are but one as having the same spirit.’ Without any restraint, Romanos
asked the pope that all the priests of the Roman Church, from the highest
to the lowest declare before the imperial apocrisiaries that they approve the
ordination of Theophylact as patriarch, as ‘just and un-reproachable’ and that
24 Martin 2000, 638–639; West Harling 2020, 68–69, 131–136, 190–191.

25 Daphnopates 1978, 30–41, letter 1; Moulet 2011, 196–198.
he produces yet a new tomos, going so far as to dictate to the pope its exact
wording:
If somebody does not receive and do not recognize as just and well-founded
the consecration of kyr Theophylact, patriarch of Constantinople, but
strives to condemn and to find fault to it, from the emperors, senators,
archontes, clergymen and until the lowest and the last, let one like this
fall under the condemnation of the most holy and life-giving Spirit, of the
first and most blessed apostles and let him be condemned to the eternal
anathema.26
The tomos should be publicly read in front of all the Roman clergy, then sealed
by the pope to be given to the emperor’s emissaries. The mere opposition to
the new patriarch was thus treated as worse than a heresy. Somehow aware
of the enormity of the demand, the emperor assures the pope that, doing
all this for his own paternal love for the young patriarch, he may have found
in the emperor his ‘most grateful son.’ He promises to fulfill his obligations
as ‘defender of the holy Roman Church,’ being ready to do everything John
XI should demand. In conclusion, a matrimonial project was to connect the
Constantinopolitan clan of Patriarch Theophylact to the clan of the pope, the
Roman Theophylacts. Thus, the pope, as a ‘spiritual father,’ was to become
also a parent by blood with the emperor. The Grand admiral turned emperor
offered freely the services of the Roman navy to bring the pontifical princess
to Constantinople.
As such, the promotion of Theophylact was set in motion against all odds at
the beginning of February 933.27 According to Skylitzes,
A year and five months later (which was how long it needed for
Theophylact fully to attain the required age for archiepiscopal ordina
tion) in February, second year of the indiction, Theophylact, the emper
or’s son, was ordained patriarch.28
Conceived to repair all the imperfections of this ascension, his appointment

took an unprecedented pomposity, and we know this in unusual detail thanks
to a special chapter of the Liber ceremoniis of Constantine VII, who assisted
26 Daphnopates 1978, letter 1, 38–39; Moulet 2011, 196–198; Chrysos 2017, 231.
27 Skylitzes Synopsis of Histories, 219–220.
28 Skylitzes Synopsis of Histories, 220.
192 Mureșan
personally: Book II, Chapter 38 – Concerning the ordination of the most holy
Patriarch Theophylaktos.
On February 2nd, the feast of the Hypapante [i.e. the presentation to

the temple] of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the year 6442 [933] the synkellos
Theophylaktos, most beloved of God, son of the ruler Romanos (I), was
ordained archbishop of Constantinople. On the said day the ritual of the
procession was conducted as follows. When the Palace opened at the exit
which leads out to the Church of the Lord, and the koubouldeion went in
as was customary, the rulers went out in skaramangia, having also put on
their gold-bordered sagia.29
Conforming to the normal procedure – indeed not yet formalized in writing –

at this particular moment the emperor(s) should have promoted the candidate
elected for patriarch with performative words of supreme expression: “The
grace of God and our imperial power derived from it appoint this most pious
man patriarch of Constantinople.” The senate and the metropolitans would
have then accepted the choice and pray for the emperor(s).30 But the nomina
tion being previously done, the ceremony was going on as if all this has already
been accomplished.
Escorted by both the praipositoi and the kouboukleion, they went away
through the Magnaura and the passageways into the gallery of the Great
Church and, as usual, made triple obeisance with candles, giving thanks
to God. Having changed into their divetesia, they were seated. When
everything had been prepared in accordance with the usual ritual, the
rulers were advised and immediately put on their chlamyses, and when
they had gone out, outside the curtain hanging there, the magistroi and
patricians received them. When the usual ceremonial had been com
pleted, the rulers descended the great spiral stairway.31
29 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies: CFHB 16–17, Book II, chap.
38, p. 635; Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies: CFHB 52, p. t. III–2,
220–221.
30 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies: CFHB 16–17, Book II, chap. 14,
pp. 564–565; Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies: CFHB 52, p. t. III-2,
pp. 92–93.
pp. 635–636; Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies: CFHB 52, p. t. III–2,
220.
This fancy ceremony enjoyed the presence of no less than four emperors:
Romanos I, his sons Christopher and Stephen, and Constantine VII himself,
assisting helpless how the Lekapenoi clan had now the final control on the
Empire’s religious power. In their most beautiful ceremonial garb, surrounded
by the greatest of the court – the elite of the patricians – they shone in the
imperial palace of Magnaura, making their way to the reception rooms of
St. Sophia, directly linked to the palace.32 There, they were awaited by the can
didate surrounded by the elite of the Church, the metropolitans, supposed to
consecrate the elect of God as well as of his own father.
In the narthex of the very holy church, at the Beautiful Door, the candi
date, with all the ecclesiastical retinue, received them. When they had
proceeded inside following the usual prescribed format, and what fol
lowed had been conducted as for the rest of the processions, the metro
politans, beloved of God, began the sacred ordination. The Christ-loving
emperors stood back a little, as far as the silver column of the ciborium,
until the rituals of the ordination had been completed by the metropol
itans. Then they went through the right-hand side of the bema and the
ambulatory into the chapel where the silver Crucifixion is set up [i.e. the
Chapel of St Nicholas]. With triple obeisance with candles, they gave
thanks to God and, taking leave of the patriarch, they went up via the
spiral stairway which is towards the side of the Chapel of the Holy Well,
to the right-hand side of the gallery as one faces east, and waited for the
reading of the holy Gospel.33
This splendid ceremony where the college of emperors took such an impor
tant place was so ambiguous and stirred so many uncertainties that, when
Constantine VII become sole emperor, he felt the need to put some order
in all of this, defining clearly the unwritten rules that his now-deceased and
deeply hated father-in-law had scorned so unceremoniously. Using the preced
ing document, more often than not literally, he reformulated it in atempo
ral terms, fixing electoral and consecrating rules in what would become the
Book II, chapter 14 of the Book of Ceremonies: What is necessary to observe at
the ordination of a patriarch of Constantinople. Hence much of what we know –
or we think we know – about the position of the patriarchate in relation to the
32 For the itineraries from the Great Palace to St Sophia see the plan of Dagron 2003, 89.
p. 636; Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies: CFHB 52, t. III–2, 220–223.
194 Mureșan
Figure 7.1 The consecration of Patriarch Theophylact (Biblioteca Nacional de

España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis
Skylitzes, fol. 129a)
Image taken from the holdings of the Biblioteca Nacional
de España
imperial power is due to Theophylact, as well as to Emperor Constantine VII.34

The text distinguishes, as much as possible, between the ceremony officiated
at Magnaura in the presence of the Court – the promotion of the patriarch
(problesis), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the one officiated at
St. Sophia by the metropolitans – the consecration (cheirotonia). Yet, despite
the effort, the ambiguous position of the patriarch between the emperor and
the metropolitans remained structural to his authority.35
We may observe that in both chapters of the Book of Ceremonies, in contrast
to Romanos’ letter to the pope, the role of the pontifical legates – originally so
central – became so blurred as to completely disappear in the mass of clergy
present during the enthronement. In the historic chapter 38, the pope’s role
disappeared from the recollections of both the patriarch and the emperor.
pp. 564–565; Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies: CFHB 52, t. III–2,
92–93.
35 Darrouzès 1970, 469–472; Dagron 2003, 263–264 (by Theodore Balsamon’s lenses, as the
longue durée approach fail to consider the specificity of Theophylact’s patriarchate in
the system); the commentary in Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des cérémonies:
CFHB 52, p. t. IV–2, 678–681.
And, most important of all, it was not to appear in the framework of chapter 14,
especially because of its regulatory function. The presence of the pontifical
legates was an accident due to Romanos I’s diplomacy, and should not have
any canonical or jurisdictional effect in time. Instead, we may observe that
the metropolitans are put in front of the scene as ordinating ‘their’ patriarch.
Finally, the canonical reservations of the metropolitans in front of the papal
intervention in the Constantinopolitan electoral process, that Romanos I
voiced in his letter to Pope John XI, won in the long run.
According to Liudprand of Cremona, this favorable opportunity to reassert
the authority of the Roman Church upon the Church of the New Rome was
later cunningly used by Theophylact in order to affirm symbolically the auton
omy of the Byzantine Church by manipulating the use of the pallium.
But why do I rehearse this, since the very Constantinopolitan church

is rightly subject to our holy catholic and apostolic Roman church? We
know, indeed we observe, that the Constantinopolitan bishop does not
use the pallium unless with our holy father’s permission. In fact, when
that most impious Alberic, whom greed had filled, not drop-by-drop, but
as a rushing torrent, usurped the Roman city to himself, and held the
apostolic lord under lock and key as if he were his personal slave, the
emperor Romanos established his son the eunuch Theophylact as patri
arch; since the greed of Alberic was not concealed from him, having sent
him quite large gifts, he caused a letter to be sent in the pope’s name to
the patriarch Theophylact; by the authority of this letter first he, then his
successors, used the pallium without the permission of the popes. Out
of this disgraceful transaction the execrable custom arose that not only
patriarchs, but even the bishops of all Greece use pallia.36
In the Roman Church, the pallium is used indeed as an external sign of the
authority of the Roman bishop over the universal Church, and of commun
ion of the local Churches with the centre. In the past, the popes have already
sent to patriarchs of Constantinople the pallium as an act of affirming suprem
acy: thus John VIII sent the pallium to Photius in 880,37 while Leo IV refused
to receive Patriarch Ignatios’ pallium sent as a sign of spiritual fraternity.38
Apparently, on this occasion, John XI conceded supplementary to Theophylact
to use freely the pallium, who distributed it eagerly to the college of the
36 Liudprand of Cremona 2007, 278.

37 Schoenig 2016, 80–82.
38 Schoenig 2016, 79, 125, 296, 426.
196 Mureșan
metropolitans.39 This innovation seems to correspond to a rebalancing of the

power between the patriarch and the ‘palliated’ metropolitans, which took
place precisely during the pontificate of Theophylact. In his obituary, John
Skylitzes outlines an evolution during this patriarchate that lasted almost a
quart of a century:
He fulfilled his episcopal rule under tutors for a while, thank goodness,
and would to God it had always been so. For in those days he gave the
impression that he was capable of behaving with dignity and the neces
sary restraint; but as he approached the age of maturity and was allowed
to lead his own life, there was nothing disgraceful or even frankly forbid
den to which he was stranger.40
These allegations seem to echo the views of the metropolitans who would have
preferred to continue to exercise a form of regency over the patriarch, as dur
ing his youth. By a more proactive policy in the second part of his rule, the
patriarch freed himself from the control of the metropolitans, and this eman
cipation has not been forgiven by those who lost their influence. This explains
why Theophylact was the victim of a campaign of insults.41 The production
of such a bad press attests that a more profound evolution was then in the
making.
The ecclesiological libelli of the 10th century showed a polarization around
the respective attributions of the metropolitans and the patriarchs, concern-
ing the right of nomination of the bishops. An anonymous metropolitan
asserted, maybe around 970, the full autonomy of his class, as absolute super
visors of the election of the bishops and administration of their dioceses, con
ceiving the patriarch only as a primus inter pares.42 At the opposite end, the
metropolitan Nicetas of Amasia, writing at the end of the 10th century, argued
for strong interventions in the episcopal and metropolitan elections, on the
basis of the patriarch being the effective head of the Church.43 For this author,
the claims for autocephaly of the metropolitans goes back to the youth of the
patriarch Theophylact, when he was put under tutelage by the ambitious met
ropolitans acting as his regents.
39 Schoenig 2016, 213–214.

41 Moulet 2011, 199–200.
42 Darrouzès 1966, 21–29, 116–159.
43 Darrouzès 1966, 30–36, 160–175.
As Constantin Zuckerman convincingly showed, the Notitia 7 published by

Jean Darrouzès44 was the by-product of the arrangement between Patriarch
Nicholas I Mystikos and Emperor Romanos I after the promulgation of the
Tomos of Union in 920, and officially published during the first anniversary of
this ecclesiastical pacification in the church St. Irene, in July 921.45 The patri
arch asserted his authority by dictating a renewed taxis of the Church, put
ting hierarchy and order after the upheavals of the post-iconoclastic period.
As Constantin Zuckerman rightly put it, the Notitiae are reduced models of
geo-ecclesiology, of the ‘little oikoumene’ of a Church, constituting ‘a barome
ter of the Church’s consciousness of its composing elements.’46 But Nicetas of
Amasia used them also against the anonymous defender of the metropolitan
autonomy, reminding that the usual Notitiae indicate clearly that the metro
politanates were subjected (hypokeintai) to the patriarch.47 They were not only
instruments of knowledge, but also of power, like practical manifestos assert
ing the authority of the patriarch over the regional constituents of the Church.
During his long pontificate, Theophylact was the first real beneficiary of
the Notitia 7 that his father and his spiritual master left him as a legacy. And
indeed, as indicated in Skylitzes’ obituary, with his coming of age, Theophylact
emancipated himself from the metropolitan regency and started to govern
more freely the Church during the second part of his pontificate. Reacting to
this, his critics accused him of simony: “He put ecclesiastical advancement and
elevation to the episcopate up for sale and did other things which a true bishop
would certainly have eschewed.”48 Simony was indeed a plague in the Church
during its entire history; but also a convenient accusation, as long as it may
easily confound the instrumental buying of the episcopal charisma with the
regular payment of the customary tax (synetheia).49 Although it is impossible
to fact-check these allegations, we may conclude that this indictment resented
(or distorted) what was in fact an assumed intervention in the governing of the
Church, at the episcopal as well as the metropolitan levels. Indeed, the author
of the Vita of Saint Basil the Younger, written shortly after Theophylact’s death
in a manner unfavorable to him, assigned to the patriarch a strong criticism
against simony:
44 Darrouzès 1981, 53–78, 269–288.

45 Zuckerman 2006, 218–229.
46 Zuckerman 2006, 229–230.
47 Darrouzès 1966, 170–171, 174–175.
49 Moulet 2011, 267–271.
198 Mureșan
For even the <new> archbishop Theophylact, himself the son of a sec
ond marriage and uncanonically seated on the <patriarchal> throne,
was loath to celebrate the liturgy with irrational priests who trampled
upon the divine law. For he sometimes made the statement, “Anyone who
ordains the son of a second marriage and blesses a third and fourth mar
riage, and accepts gifts in exchange for ordination, should be deposed
together with those ordained by them.”50
Pondering all these aspects, one may agree with Benjamin Moulet when he
outlines precisely the double-bind relation characterizing the pontificate of
Theophylact: “concomitantly an empowerment of the imperial authority on
the patriarchate and therefore on the Church, but also a consolidation of the
place of the metropolitans in the ecclesiastic governance.” While at the same
time, a more systematic cooperation of the patriarch with the metropolitans
reunited altogether in the permanent synod, enforced the influence of the
Great Church in its oikumene by the ‘constantinopolization of the episcopal
elections.’ Consequently, “the strengthening of patriarchal authority over the
Church was […] only achieved at the cost of a growing place for metropolitans
within the ecclesiastical institution.”51
What could be the threshold marking the turning point between the two
phases of Theophylact’s pontificate? We have to look for a moment where
the patriarch showed enough political awareness to influence decisively the
course of imperial society. Fortunately, the available documentation allows us
to identify this moment with precision.
7.3 Transfiguring Imperial Orthodoxy
Two great ceremonial events marked the life of Constantinople, where the
patriarch played a central role, next to the emperor(s): 15 August 944 – the
translation of the Mandylion; and 19 January 946 – the translation of the rel
ics of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Yet, between these two dates, another shift
took place unexpectedly: from the reign of Romanos I to the personal rule of
Constantine VII. The concomitance of these transitions reconfigured entirely
the political situation in the Empire.
After putting under siege Edessa for months (summer 943–spring 944), the
great general John Curcuas obtained from the Muslim authorities in exchange
of peace the cession of two most precious relics possessed by the Christians of
50 The Life of Basil the Younger, 308–309.

51 Moulet 2011, 254–256.
the city: the ‘Holy Shroud’ (Hieron Mandylion), the image of Christ ‘not made
by a human hand’52 and Jesus’ letter to king Abgar.53 Both relics were precious
to the Byzantines, who knew them from the Christian tradition, revived by the
letter of the three Eastern patriarchs against iconoclasm.
The precious objects arrived in Constantinople, and after the feast of the
Dormition of the Virgin Mary on 15 August (944), the triumphal entry of these
relics of Christ as an imperial Adventus was organized the next day.54 Romanos
Lekapenos transformed this event into an occasion for legitimist propaganda.
Already old and ill, the co-emperor imagined it as a triumph for him and his
politics. Physically unable to be present, he ceded his place to his sons, Stephen
and Constantine, and son-in-law Constantine Porphyrogennetos. A corpus
of texts written for the occasion was deeply researched in the literature
and it would be superfluous to turn to them in too much detail.55 However,
some observations can be added regarding the place of the patriarch during
these events.
As the imperial capital was recently attacked by Rus’ warriors in 941, and
still menaced by a new assault by king Igor during 944, the ceremony took the
form of a protective procession around the city. The relic was transported from
the church of St. Mary of Blachernes to St. Mary of Pharos, by the imperial
dromon. The highest political and religious authorities conveyed the precious
objects through Hagia Sophia – the patriarchal basilica – to the imperial pal
ace, right into the throne hall. Here, an impressive scene took place according
to the Narratio de imagine Edessena:
When the members of the clergy had worshipped, they came out in pro
cession and made their way to the palace. They put the divine image in
the Chrysotriklinos, on the emperor’s throne, on which the emperors sit
and make the greatest decisions. They paid due reverence, and after due
completion of the litany the divine image was again taken from there and
removed to the above-mentioned chapel of Pharos. It was consecrated
and placed on the right towards the east for the glory of the faithful, the
safety of the emperors and to safeguard the whole city together with the
Christian community in Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory and
the power, now and always and for ever and ever, Amen.56
52 Sometimes identified with the shroud of Turin, with debatable results Nicolotti 2014.
53 Less studied relic, see Caseau-Chevallier 2011.
54 Patlagean 1995, Inoue 2006.
55 Patlagean 1995; Engberg 2004; Flusin 2011.
56 Guscin 2009, 60–61.
200 Mureșan
As Evelyne Patlagean insightfully clarified the sense of this ceremony, the

City – which was already put under the supranatural protection of Virgin
Mary – was now entrusted to Christ too, mystically represented by the
Mandylion.57 Gregory, the ‘referendarius of the Great Church at Constantino
ple,’ in the sermon authored for the occasion, stressed that the Empire was the
New Israel, and the Romans an ‘elected people’ acting in community in this
ceremony. The Mandylion was expected to protect the Empire even in a mili
tary sense, against any siege:
Keep his [the emperor’s] offspring safe for the family succession and the
security of rule. Bring to the people a state of peace. Keep this queen
of cities [Constantinople] free from siege. Make us pleasing to your
image, Christ, our God, to receive us into his heavenly kingdom, praising
him and singing hymns, for to him is due honour and worship for ever
and ever.58
Considering the theological-political signification of this act, the patriarch

played in it a central, even prophetic, function. He was similar in his function
to Aaron, Moses’ brother and head of the priestly class of the Old Covenant.
The radiant emperor marches in front, beautified more by walking on

foot than by the crowns of state. The patriarch is in front, dressed in red,
by the fire of incense stopping the fiery angel spreading fire, just like
Aaron. Those who are of the sanctuary embrace the face of the earth
with their beautiful feet, announcing your peace. There is light from the
torches of the people, more than the grains of sand on the shore, blocking
out the light of the sun, many groups of escorts, all singing in harmony,
contending with those related to the one Lordship thrice holy and with
those groups in which choir-leaders play the cymbals together. The great
king and prophet David struck the lyre in echo as he was inspired by the
Spirit.59
57 Patlagean 1995.
58 Guscin 2009, 68–69.
59 Guscin 2009, 80–81, ch. 15–16.
Figure 7.2 The emperor Romanos I welcomes the Mandylion, with the
patriarch Theophylact (Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS Graecus
Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 131a)
Image taken from the holdings of the Biblioteca
Nacional de España
Later, as the translation of the Mandylion became thereafter a religious feast,

the story was retold and integrated in the Constantinopolitan Synaxarion
for the day of 16 August:
On the fifteenth day of the month of August in the year six thousand four
hundred and fifty two since the creation of the world, the bearers of the
holy object arrived at the church of the Mother of God in Blachernae.
The emperors, the men of rank and the rest of the people received it,
and worshipped it with great reverence and joy. The next day, after kiss
ing and worshipping the image of Christ, bishop Theophylactus and the
young emperors took it on their shoulders. The elder emperor stayed at
home as he was ill, but all the members of the Senate and all the clergy
joined the procession with the due accompaniment all the way to the
Golden Gate.60
60 Guscin 2009, 108–109.

202 Mureșan
However, this position was shaken by a totally unforeseeable political

event. Some months later, on December 16, 944, the junior emperor Stephen
Lekapenos, assisted by his brother Constantine, eager to rule, deposed their
father and tried to get rid of Constantine VII. This coup d’état foolishly
ruined Romanos I’s patient efforts, breaking the family’s unity established
until then its force. Facing the crowned usurpers, both empress Helena and
Patriarch Theophylact, loyal and legitimists, took firmly the side of Emperor
Porphyrogennetos. Acting with unsuspected efficiency, supported by the peo
ple attached to the legitimate dynasty, Constantine VII arrested and exiled his
brothers-in-law Stephen and Constantine on 27 January 945, though willingly
letting his father-in-law Romanos languish in his exile. Helpless in his tentative
to return, the ex-emperor died pitifully in 15 June 948, witnessing the failure of
his grand dynastic plan.61
Having waited so long, Constantine VII finally took his revenge and purged
the ranks of the state for all his enemies, becoming sole emperor autokratôr.
After having supported the Porphyrogennetos against his own brothers, the
patriarch took yet another stand in favor of the legitimist cause. At the occa
sion of Easter 946,
(o)nce he had purged his circle of suspicious elements, now girded with
exclusive imperial authority, at Easter of the same year of the indiction
Constantine placed the diadem on the brow of his son, Romanos, while
the patriarch Theophylact offered prayers.62
Becoming thus the most faithful collaborator of the emperor, the patriarch
managed to remain an essential member of the new régime. One could not
accuse him of betraying his own family, as the Lekapenoi were now fully inte
grated with the imperial dynasty. Remaining faithful to the empress, his sister,
he allowed the unintended triumph of Romanos I by crowning his homony
mous grandson. Quite the contrary, one may argue that the patriarch showed
enough maturity to overcome the clannish mentality and contemplate the
higher interest of the raison d’Etat.
In this apparently unshakable position, the patriarch assisted Constantine
VII in the new operation destined to consolidate his sole rule: the translation of
the relics of Gregory of Nazianzus. The Panegyric that the emperor pronounced
61 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 227–228; Toynbee 1973, 11–13; Runciman 1963, 232–234;
Kresten – Müller 1995; Cheynet 2019, 134–138.
62 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 228; dating discussed in Zuckerman 2000, 669–672 and
Cheynet 2019, 132–134.
Figure 7.3 Patriarch Theophylact prays for the co-emperor Romanos II crowned by his
father Constantine VII (Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2
Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 133v)
de España
at the occasion contextualize it in this sense: “When the Roman sceptres had
just arrived in the hands of a hands of a faithful and pious emperor, who had
the same name and zeal as the first who reigned.”63 The victor of the political
gamble, in order to attenuate the triumph of his father-in-law, entirely took the
initiative for the new ceremony. Prepared in advance, it deployed under his
direction a year after the ascension to the autocratic power, in 16 January 946.
Anxious to leave nothing to chance, he imposed the official interpretation, by
the Panegyric that he authored. But even if the emperor sets himself in the
front, the patriarch is also there, in the proximity of the relics, at the center of
the eyesight of the entire Imperial Court.
After he had been left in the imperial palace long enough, he was taken
out and conveyed to the great temple of the Apostles. And is it to be
thought that this procession was simple and monotonous, or very bright
and brilliant, well worthy of the remains of the Theologian? Certainly, it
was very brilliant and splendid, superior to any procession ever held. The
saint was carried out of the palace in a shrine adorned with the imperial
purple and carried on the shoulders of high priests, for it is forbidden for
those who are not worthy to touch what is most holy and pure […]. As for
the emperor, who had obtained the object of his desires, an object greater
63 Flusin 1999, 19, 54–55.

204 Mureșan
than anything else and whose value the world itself could not equal, he
followed with the faithful and divinely wise high priest (archiereus) walk
ing at his side [i.e. Theophylact]. But when they had come out of the
imperial vestibules, then at once the dignitaries of the senate, enrolled
among the fathers of the emperors, and all that in the senate is subordi
nate and inferior, welcomed him who derives his name from theology;
and not only was their soul illuminated, but by the outward brightness of
their garments they made their inward joy appear.64
The relic was placed in the church of the Holy Apostles. At the apex of this
ceremony, the emperor accomplished a gesture of the highest political signifi
cance: the Late Antic archbishop of Constantinople was officially declared the
protector of the city and the Empire. As the text was initially read, this is a par
amount example of performative speech, which literally institutes the realities
that are spoken by his words:
[…] I who place my trust in you, I who celebrate you, institute today
at the same time that I name you the defender and protector of the
Empire […]. May I, guarded by your prayers, seated thanks to them on the
throne of my fathers, remain always protected by the wings of your inter
cession and guarded by your covenant so that my reign, for many years,
will remain safe from plots while my race (genos) and my empire (kratos)
will be preserved from all harm for a long succession of centuries.65
However, Gregory was not a saint like any other. He was the Theologian of the
Holy Trinity. This is recurrently expressed in the text. He is “the one whom
the supernatural and incomprehensible light of the Trinity has bathed with
its rays, the one to whom the Trinity itself, having come to dwell in his soul,
has revealed and shown its unspeakable mysteries.”66 The old archbishop of
Constantinople was ‘the living temple of the more than divine Trinity;’67 in
this quality, “the high priest, now God-like, takes today possession of his pul
pit again, the Trinity shines more brightly.”68 In front of his intelligence “there
is no dogma of theology which the Trinity itself did not reveal to him, who
64 Flusin 1999, 28, 62–63.

65 Flusin 1999, 45, 76–79.
66 Flusin 1999, 4, 42–43.
67 Flusin 1999, 6, 44–45.
68 Flusin 1999, 12, 48–49.
granted him the grace to be thus inspired, and still to expound and fix in writ
ing such dogmas.”69
Still in Cappadocia, he was invited in direct speech to come to the capi
tal: “O you, inexhaustible source of theology, adorer and herald with the most
powerful voice of the Holy Trinity […] Come to a city where you have strength
ened the true dogma of the faith that was in peril, where you have allowed
the Trinity that was blasphemed there to be conceived and worshipped in an
orthodox way!”.70
This particular insistence not that much on the person of Gregory, but
on the content of his theological work, makes in reality the new feast of the
Theologian a feast of Orthodoxy and of the Orthodox people:
Today, indeed, the true Orient, from heaven [i.e. God], has visited us. From
the East, like a sun with a thousand lights, He has raised the Theologian
and dispelled the sadness we had at being deprived of him. Today, the
Trinity, producing its champion on the front of the stage, breaks down
the fortress of heresies, exalts the army of the orthodox. Today, the shin
ing column of Orthodoxy, marching at the head of the people of grace,
after having crossed the long succession of centuries like a desert, far
from being eclipsed like the old one, which obscurely prefigured it, after
its arrival stands in our midst and with its light illuminates all the orders
of the Orthodox.71
Evelyne Patlagean has rightly concluded that the transfer of the Mandylion
was an occasion to place the Empire under the protection of Christ. Following
the same logic, we must also conclude that by the intercession of Archbishop
Gregory the Theologian, it was now the Holy Trinity who become the palla-
dium of the Roman Empire.
Well then, you who are the mouth of God, the receptacle of the Father,
the sanctified instrument of the Spirit, you who are the rule and guard
ian of the priesthood, the inexhaustible source of theology; consider this
temple, which you have transformed from Jebus into Jerusalem, into a
flock overflowing from its sheepfold, and from a simple wick into a sun.
69 Flusin 1999, 35, 68–69.

70 Flusin 1999, 21, 54–55, 56–57.
71 Flusin 1999, 10, 46–47.
206 Mureșan
And may we, who in this temple celebrate your feast brilliantly today, find
you interceding and praying for us before God. And may we enjoy a little
of your enlightenment and reward, who glorify the Father who knew no
beginning, the Son who also knew no beginning, the Holy Spirit who with
them has the same glory, each of them being God when considered in
himself, while they all form one God in three hypostases that cannot be
separated, to whom be glory, honour, and adoration, now and ever and
for ever. Amen.72
Hence, through Gregory, as ancient archbishop of Constantinople, the

emperor – as head of state – dedicates the Roman Empire to the protection
of the Holy Trinity. In order to carry out an action of such theological-political
significance, the emperor appears to be in the capacity of a new Moses acting
on behalf of his chosen people: “our new Moses has built this spiritual ark,
loaded with holy things […] the treasure which this one encloses is this great
man of God, that worthy vessel of the Spirit, whose tables are the heart where
the finger of God has written.”73
What role did the patriarch play in all of this? Bernard Flusin has rightly
asserted that his position was secondary to the emperor’s. “Next to this display
of honours for the dead patriarch – wrote the French byzantinologist – the
holder of the see is a rather poor figure. In contrast to the return of the body of
John Chrysostom, he is not seated on a chariot and does not hold the shrine,
but follows on foot alongside the emperor. Theophylactus Lekapenos, who of
course is not named, is only briefly praised. The patriarchal dignity may have
been enhanced by the ceremony; the living patriarch was not.”74 But, of course,
secondary to the emperor does not mean marginal. Rather, he remains in the
center of the affairs. Considering that he managed to keep his place while the
rest of the family was exiled or under arrest was indeed a terrific accomplish
ment. This means that the patriarch conserved the emperor’s trust and utility
for the new political program that Constantine VII was about to put in place. If
the Mandylion ceremony evidenced Theophylact, as we saw, as another Aaron
of the Roman chosen people, the Nazianzus’ translation rebalanced the equi
librium by affirming Constantine VII in his capacity as a new Moses. The two
brothers-in-law thus aimed to restore unto a new covenant the leading broth
erhood of the Old Testament.
72 Flusin 1999, 46, 78–79.

73 Flusin 1999, 41, 74–75.
74 Flusin 1999, 36.
7.4 Pentarchy Restored
For all his human weaknesses, real or ascribed by his critics, the imperial
patriarch proved to be a pastor with a grand vision for the Church, both at
home and abroad. One of the most spectacular results was the restoration of
the Pentarchy as an ideal framework of governing collectively the universal
Christian Church. Judith Herrin has studied recently, on the path of Vittorio
Peri’s pioneering work, the importance that Pentarchy played in relations
between Rome and Constantinople during the 9th century, especially during
the ‘clash of the titans,’ Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius.75 The Pentarchy
did not lose its effectiveness immediately afterwards, as was thought, but
experienced yet another significant resurgence during the first half of the 10th
century. Whatever the historic rivalry and mimicry between the two Romes
playing during the consecration of 933, the essential aspect was, after all, that
friendly contacts were subsequently restored between them.
The Book of Ceremonies, redacted around 946–947, attests of the continuing
cordial relations with the Roman Church. Thus, the ambassadors coming from
Rome, both on behalf of Pope John XI and Prince Alberic, were supposed to
hail the emperor in the following terms:
The foremost of the holy apostles, Peter, the keeper of the keys of heaven,
and Paul, the teacher of the nations, are visiting you. Our spiritual father,
so-and-so, the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, together with the
most holy bishops, priests and deacons and the whole priestly order of
the holy Church of the Romans, through our humble selves, send you,
emperor, faithful prayers. The highly esteemed, so-and-so, prince of Old
Rome, with the archons and all the people subject to him, send your
imperial power their most loyal homage.
While in the name of the emperor, the logothete was expected to answer in the
following polite form:
How is the most holy bishop of Rome, the spiritual father of our holy
emperor? How are all the bishops and priests and deacons and the rest of
the clergy of the holy Church of the Romans? How is the highly esteemed
so-and-so, prince of Old Rome?76
75 Herrin 2013.
346–347.
208 Mureșan
When writing to the pope, the same cordial forms were to be employed:
To the pope of Rome: a one-solidus gold seal: “In the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, our one and only true God. So-and-so
and so-and-so, having faith in God alone, emperors of the Romans, to
so-and-so, the most holy pope of Rome and our spiritual father.”77
We may note the utilization, for the pope of Rome, of the title of ‘the most
holy and ecumenical patriarch,’ while for the Romans of the Old Rome is used
the same ethnonym as for the inhabitants of Byzantine Romland: Rhômaioi.
Without a Christian empire in the West, this may indicate the intention of the
progressive integration of Italy, by way of political and matrimonial alliances,
in the Roman empire of Constantinople, like in Justinian’s time. This trend
was, of course, reversed by the crowning of Otto I as emperor in Rome in 962.
At the same time, the vision of Christian ecumenism put forward – indeed
not selflessly – by the energy of Romanos Lekapenos was farther enlarged to
the Eastern patriarchates by another far-reaching act.
In the year 326 [a. H. = 8 Nov. 937–28 Oct. 938] a truce was concluded
between the Greeks and the Muslims; and there was an exchange between
them of a great number (of captives). In the same year Theophylact,
patriarch of Constantinople, sent a messenger on his behalf, with letters
to anba Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, to anba Theodosius, patri
arch of Antioch, and to anba Christodulus, patriarch of Jerusalem, asking
them to mention his name in their prayers and masses. They agreed to his
request. This custom had been suspended from the time of the Omayyad
caliphate.78
Using the framework created by the proclamation of an armistice with the

Abbasids, the Patriarch resumed contacts with his Eastern colleagues. The
breaking between Constantinople and the Eastern patriarchates is thus to be
placed before the reversal of the Umayyad dynasty in 750, at the end of the reign
of Leo III (717–741), as a reaction to his iconoclastic reform and the confiscation
of the Cilician metropolitanates from Antioch in order to be integrated under
368–369.
78 Histoire de Yahya-Ibn-Sa’ïd, 12–13; Vasiliev 1950, 27.
the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarchate.79 Surprisingly enough, neither

the restorations of the cult of the icons, in 787 and 843, nor Photius’ diplomacy,
were able to restore the full communion between the Eastern patriarchates.
Nevertheless, connected with Romanos I’s military offensive in Syria, cul
minating with the liberation of Edessa in 944, his patriarchal son succeeded
where the great patriarchs of the previous century had failed: acting on the
reconciliation with his Melkite brothers. Renewing contact with the Christians
under Muslim rule, Theophylact communicated to the Eastern patriarchs
the evolutions of the cultic life in Constantinople in an effort to Byzantinize
their liturgies.80 The Byzantine obsession with ceremonial under the rule of
Constantine VII reverberated thus even to the Christians under Muslim rule.
Hence the Eastern patriarchs appear naturally in the Book of Ceremonies
among the recipients of the imperial chancery. Taking the formulary for the
pope of Rome as a model, we may note though a significant difference:
Likewise also to the pope of Alexandria, except that one does not write
‘father’. Likewise also to the patriarch of Antioch and the patriarch of
Jerusalem, except that one does not write ‘spiritual father’. The gold seals
are to be three-solidi.81
Obviously, using the term ‘spiritual father’ for the Roman pope was not invol
untary, but rather a conscious choice, as at the same time it was specifically
denied for the other patriarchs. This underlined the special relations that
existed between the papacy and the Roman Empire of Constantinople around
the middle of the 10th century. This privileged relation is reflected in the uni
cum represented by the Taktikon Beneševič, where for the first (and last) time
the pope of Rome appears in the company of the emperors of Constantinople,
before all other members of the Byzantine hierarchy, the patriarch included.
Taktikon according to which the emperors, patriarchs, metropolitans,

archbishops and the whole senate sit. The emperor autokratôr sits in the
middle; the other emperors sit on either side;
the Pope of Rome;
79 Brubaker – Haldon 2011, 87–88.

80 Runciman 1963, 77; Galadza 2018, 134.
368–369.
210 Mureșan
the patriarch of Constantinople;

the Caesar;
the nobelissimos.82
As Andreas Schmink has convincingly argued, this configuration corresponds

uniquely to Theophylact’s patriarchate and the special conditions of his
enthronization.83 Of course, no pope visited the New Rome after Constantine I
in 710–711, but the new taxis matches the place Roman legates enjoyed as rep
resenting physically Pope John XI during their diplomatic mission. This cir
cumstance allowed the classical Pentarchy to appear as a geo-ecclesiological
model in the pages of the Book of Ceremonies. This is echoed also in the
Taktikon Beneševič – which was probably articulated with a now-lost notitia
episcopatuum – concluding equally in a pentarchic note: “Order of precedence
of the most venerable patriarchs: that of Rome; that of Constantinople; that
of Alexandria; that of Antioch; that of Jerusalem.”84 This was not a simple
formula, but the reflection of Theophylact’s initiative, who was undoubtedly
acting in concertation with the imperial institution. The Pentarchy was thus
temporally restored, not as a fossilized institution, but as foundational to the
definition of a universal Orthodox faith.
Patriarch Theophylact had the capacity and the will of doing so, as attested
by his pastoral solicitude toward the Empire’s immediate neighbours. In an
important doctrinal letter addressed in 933/944 to the tsar Peter I, referred
as ‘basileus of Bulgaria,’ he was considered as a “faithful and pious soul, my
spiritual son, best of kinsmen and most, illustrious”. Educated as Christian, the
tsar is regarded as a ‘lover of Christ,’ at the head of a ‘Christ-loving govern
ance,’ attesting the full integration of Bulgaria in the Byzantine imperial frame
work after the peace treaty of 927. Yet this acknowledgment came with the
duty to supervise the orthodoxy of his subjects. Answering to Peter’s requests,
Theophylact warned lengthily against the dangers of Bogomilism, then a her
esy newly appeared in the Balkans, denouncing it as a mixture of Manicheism
and Paulicianism, and pronouncing 14 anathemas against its thesis and
tenants.85 The patriarch appealed to the tsar to encourage the reconciliation
of all those who have embraced heresy, but repent sincerely and abjure their
errors. In a very shrewd articulation of juridical scrupulousness and Christian
82 Oikonomidès 1972, 242–243.

83 Schminck 1990, 111–114; see also Oikonomidès 1972, 243, n. 17.
84 Oikonomidès 1972, 252–253.
85 Obolensky 1948, 111–119; Dujčev 1965; Minczew 2013.
charity, the patriarch argued against capital punishment as a repression tool

of heresy:
The laws of the Christian state – since, O most prudent of men, you asked
me to tell you about them – inflict death on them, judging the penalty a
capital one, especially when they see the evil creep and extend widely,
harming many. However, we do not want to hand them over in this way,
nor is it right, and have revealed what is fitting for the Church’s reputa
tion and for ours, lest either all or some of them should never see the
change of heart of repentance, and so that He should cure them Who
alone is lover of men, who in His mercy desires not the death of a sinner,
but rather that he should repent and live.86
In this official pronouncement, Theophylact reveals himself as a well-trained

theologian, skillfully articulating the principles of akribeia and oikonomia in
dealing with religious deviations. Defining Orthodoxy against the background
of the heresy, this inquiry allows the patriarch the opportunity to proclaim the
canon of Orthodoxy in the general formula of reconciliation.
Let him be anathema from the holy and undivided and adorable Trinity,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, whoever does not think and believe as does
the Holy Catholic Church of God in Rome and in Constantinople, in
Alexandria, in Antioch and in the Holy City, in sum the Church from one
end of the world to the other, in accordance with the canons and rules
and doctrines of the seven holy and ecumenical synods.87
The moderate severity of the patriarchal response to the questions of tsar

Peter I was motivated by the fact that Bulgaria was a land recently introduced
to Christianity. The faith of the Bulgarians, less than a century old, had yet to be
consolidated, facing not only a pagan resistance but also the new heretic chal
lenges. In this sense, these anti-heretical decisions focusing on the Bogomilism
were a continuation of the missionary work started in Bulgaria during Photius’
patriarchate, after the conversion of khan Boris-Michael to Christianity (864).
Bernard Flusin perceptively noted the conjunction between Orthodoxy and
Empire after the restoration of the icons in 843, as embodied in the Byzantine
feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy:
86 Hamilton – Hamilton, 1998, 99–100; Grumel – Darrouzès 1989, 293–294, n. 789.

87 Hamilton – Hamilton 1998, 100; Grumel – Darrouzès 1989, 294, n. 789.
212 Mureșan
The Patriarchate of Constantinople, in 843, takes its place alongside the

other Orthodox patriarchates. However, the reference to ecumenicity
was erased and it was as if Constantinople defined Orthodoxy, just as
was obliterated the fact that the Byzantine Empire was not universal and
that there were Christians, and other patriarchates, outside it. It is in this
limitation, in the choice of a properly Constantinopolitan reference, rel
ative to a specific practice, that the new identity of Orthodoxy must be
sought: a word which, without losing its etymological meaning, evolves
towards a new meaning and the status of a proper name, designating the
form of Christianity particular to the Byzantine Empire.88
In the light of the evidence presented above, we may argue that, without losing
the sense of the restoration of 843, Patriarch Theophylact, under the impulse
of Romanos I and with the collaboration of Constantine VII, recovered the
universality of the Church, and reinserted Byzantine imperial Orthodoxy in
the framework of the Christian oikumene.
7.5 Triggering Byzantine Mission
This recovered universality gave a new impetus to the missionary dimension

of Theophylact’s activity, where he showed himself a follower of the policy of
Patriarch Nicholas I. In order to understand this continuity, two preliminary
considerations are required: one on the general theme of Byzantine missions,
and the other more specifically on the place of Nicholas Mystikos in this con
text. Byzantine missions were recently the object of an important monograph
by the Russian historian Sergey Ivanov.89 The book contains a revisionist
assessment of what sits at the origin of the ‘Byzantine Commonwealth’: the dif
fusion of the Orthodox faith by a variety of means – missionary, naturally, but
also diplomatic, political, economic, and even military. The originality of the
work consists in the critical approach to the narrative sources, tempering what
could be labeled a triumphant reading and considering also the failures, not
only the accomplishments of the Byzantine missions. A general theme of the
work is the absence of a systematic effort to diffuse the Christian faith, based
on the idea of Byzantine exceptionalism and superiority, which generated a
reluctance to spread the Word to the inferior ‘barbarians.’ Hence the title of the
book: ‘Pearls before swine.’ If there is little to reproach to the factual treatment
88 Flusin 2010b, 20.

89 Ivanov 2015.
of the exceedingly rich historical, hagiographical, or archaeological record

Sergey Ivanov mobilized in support of his monographic treatment, we wonder
if this title really makes justice to the author’s important discoveries. It is true
that in a twist of phrases, the continuator of the Chronicle of Theophanos the
Confessor is alluding to Matthew 7: 6 episode concerning the efforts of emperor
Leo V to spread Christianity to the yet pagans Bulgarians.90 Nonetheless, in our
opinion, the effort of this emperor, even as an iconoclast, to spread the Gospel,
rather than the Greek fire, while in conflict with a neighboring people is on the
historical scale more significant than the bile of an anonymous chronicler. All
the more so as Sergey Ivanov himself discusses Patriarch Photius’ response to
this demeaning interpretation:
(The teaching) was given and proclaimed by Christ’s disciples to all the
Hellenes and the other nonbelievers, which led them from the wick
edness to faith in Christ […] Therefore one cannot think that the pearl
is a secret teaching and that swine are the nonbelievers; that would be
blasphemy!91
Arguably the greatest Byzantine scholar and patriarch, Photius articulated

authoritatively precisely the opposite approach to Theophanos’ anonymous
continuator. This conscious opposition to an existing Byzantine snobbery does
not remain theoretical, yet was reflected in the Moravian, Bulgarian, South
Slavic, and Russian missions initiated by Photius and emperor Basil I.92
Fully integrating this positive perception of the mission, Nicholas Mystikos,
one of Photius’s disciples, gave a new impetus for Christianization, especially
among the Alans in Northern Caucaus, an enterprise whose details are for
tunately known thanks to the patriarch’s letters. At the beginning of his sec
ond patriarchate (912–925), he supported monk Euthymius’ fieldwork, whose
results were so impressive, that, after his return in Constantinople, Nicholas
created for Alania in 914 a new diocese put under archbishop Peter. Indeed,
through the mediation of prince Constantine III of Abkhazia, the king of
Alania himself converted to Orthodoxy. In order to motivate the activity of
the archbishop, the patriarch sent back again Euthymius with another team
to ‘the nation newly called to piety’ of the Alans (916). Nicholas’ letters
address the difficulties of the mission: the conflict of the missionaries with the
Caucasian pagan traditions, the question of polygamy or the internal rivalries
90 Ivanov 2015, 89.

91 Ivanov 2015, 90, citing Photius, Bibliothèque, V, 107–108.
92 Martin-Hisard 2000, 466–479; Ivanov 2015, 89–106.
214 Mureșan
between the archbishop Peter and the monk. After the death of the patriarch,
the opposition exploded and in 932 the bishop and the mission were expelled
by the Alans, while the churches built during this first phase were demolished.
The context changed: meanwhile, Alania was defeated and subjected by the
Khazars, who imposed forcefully the renunciation to any tie with Byzantium,
including Christianity. Khazar supremacy was effective for more than a dec
ade, marking a spectacular failure for the mission.93
After this interlude, however, in the Book of Ceremonies (wrote around 946–
947), the king of Alania is once again addressed as a Christian sovereign, attest
ing a radical turnaround to the previous situation:
To the mighty chief (exousiokratôr) of Alania, a two-solidi gold seal: “In

the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, our one
and only truly God, Constantine and Romanos, having faith in God alone,
emperors of the Romans, to so-and-so, the mighty leader of Alania and
our spiritual son”.94
It can be inferred that, profiting of the Khazar khaganate’s decline, the Alans
got rid of its rule by 945, restoring their ancient relation with Byzantium.
This new status of ‘most favoured nation’ implied an elevation of Alania’s
political and religious position in respect to the Empire. The higher form
of Exousiokrator replaced the common ‘archon’ for the Alanic king, while
the restored Church was promoted from archbishopric to metropolitan
ate. Byzantine seals attest the names of two metropolitans, Ignatios and
Eustratios,95 while a third, named Theodore, inaugurated the new church of
Senty, in the presence of king David and queen Maria, assisted by a Byzantine
patrician sent to this effect by Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas.96 These facts
enable the conclusion that, from the middle of the 10th century onward,
Orthodox Christianity took firmer roots among the Alans.
The hazard of conservation of the sources could therefore have silenced
Theophylact’s role in this impressive accomplishment. Obviously dispatching
the first metropolitan of Alania, Ignatios, could have been done only around
946–947 with the contemporary patriarch’s agreement and consecration.
He fully supported Constantine VII at home in his political and religious
93 Ivanov 2015, 113–121; Veletsky – Vinogradov 2019, 14–22, 251.

364–365.
95 Seibt 2004, 51–52, 53, fig. 1, 2.
96 Ivanov 2015, 121; Veletsky – Vinogradov 2019, 22–27, 251.
enterprises at this precise period. We may conclude that abroad, Theophylact

was equally proving a worthy disciple of Patriarch Nicholas I, building anew,
against all odds, the mission of Alania in which the Mystikos had so fully
invested during his second pontificate.
Recent research has also enabled a reassessment of Theophylact’s con
tribution to the mission in the kingdom of Rus’.97 A spirited debate around
the date of the voyage of queen Olga of Rus’ to Constantinople seems to have
come finally to a consolidated conclusion. The laborious reconstructions pro
posed by Genadij G. Litavrin, Constantin Zuckerman and Otto Kresten vali
dated for this event the year 946,98 against another interpretation that argued
in favor of 957.99 This discussion is indeed important, as it provides a deci
sive landmark allowing the dating of the Book of Ceremonies: the monumental
critical edition, recently published by French scholars, integrates the year 946
in its final reconstruction. Or Olga was by then, after the killing of her hus
band and King Igor (945), the regent of the kingdom of Rus’: she effectuated
a diplomatic visit at the highest level, in the framework of the alliance treaty
signed between the two states in 944.100 Concerning the question of whether
Olga, during the same voyage to Constantinople, was also baptized or not,
C. Zuckerman argued equally in a positive sense.101 Indeed, on this point, John
Skylitzes’ record is unambiguous:
The wife of the Russian chieftain [i.e. Igor] who had once sailed against
Roman territory, Olga by name, came to Constantinople after her hus
band died. She was baptised and she demonstrated fervent devotion. She
was honoured in a way commensurate with her devotion, then she went
back home.102
97 We follow Soloviev 1966 and Raffensperger 2017 in the realization that the Scandinavian
term of (veliki) knjaz’ derives from the Old Germanic *kuningaz, giving in Frankish kun-
ing and in Anglo-Saxon kyning, terms that evolved into the German König and English
king, all with the same royal signification. Accordingly, and in consonance with the Latin
contemporary terms to designate the political structure of Rus’ (rex, regina, regnum), one
should speak about ‘king’, ‘queen’ and ‘kingdom’ of Rus’ rather than the inappropriate
form of ‘great prince’ and ‘great principality.’
98 Litavrin 1981; Litavrin 2000, 154–213; Zuckerman 2000; Kresten 2000 (where all the previ
ous literature is exhaustively presented).
99 Lastly defended by Arrignon 1979, Featherstone 1990 and Featherstone 2003.
100 Arrignon 2020.
101 Zuckerman 2000, 660–669.
216 Mureșan
Figure 7.4 Queen Olga of Rus’ in front of Emperor Constantine VII (Biblioteca Nacional
de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes,
fol. 135b)
de España
Embracing this perspective, we may observe that the Book of Ceremonies is

concerned only with the state ceremonies performed in honor of Olga and
her suite at the Imperial Court.103 For thus for the religious ceremonies, the
‘devotion’ and the ‘honors’ she received for it, we have to rely on the Russian
historical tradition preserved in the Primary Chronicle. Redacted at the begin
ning of the 12th century, this great compilation integrated an older Skazanie o
russkih knjazjah X veka, as shown by M.N. Tikhomirov, the compiler imposing
on the original text a chronology often erroneous. One difficulty to exploit this
source comes from the fact that later tradition embellished the narrative with
the romantic legend of Constantine’s proposal of marriage to Olga.
6456–6463 (948–955). Olga went to Greece, and arrived at Tsar’grad. The

reigning Emperor was named Constantine, son of Leo. Olga came before
him, and when he saw that she was very fair of countenance and wise as
well, the Emperor wondered at her intellect. He conversed with her and
remarked that she was worthy to reign with in his city. When Olga heard
142–149.
his words, she replied that she was still a pagan, and that if he desired
to baptize her, he should perform this function himself; otherwise, she
was unwilling to accept baptism. The Emperor, with the assistance of
the Patriarch, accordingly baptized her. When Olga was enlightened, she
rejoiced in soul and body.104
This marriage proposal is indisputably a fabrication: if Olga was indeed a

young widow by then, not only was the emperor already espoused (to Helena
Lekapena), but the empress was in fact the godmother of the queen of Kiev,
whose baptismal name she took.105 A closer reading, however, reveals the rea
son for this artifice: not only to provide a rationale for the baptism, to show the
queen’s superior intelligence, but above all to underline her imperial stature,
as the emperor would have wanted to marry her because she ‘was worthy of
reigning with him in this city.’ Moreover, the legend is explicitly a replica of the
biblical episode of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon (II Chron. 9: 1–12),
advanced as a role model that Olga would have even surpassed: “Thus it was
when the Queen of Ethiopia came to Solomon, wishing to hear his words of
wisdom, and beheld much wisdom and many wonders. Even so, the sainted
Olga sought the blessed wisdom of God. But the queen sought human wisdom,
while Olga sought divine wisdom.” Implicitly, if the legendary Queen of the
South had a forbidden liaison with Solomon, according to tradition, Olga, the
Queen of the North, did not.
Sorting out the legendary from the historical, what remains in the Primary
Chronicle gives a plausible image of the patriarch’s role in the conversion of for
eign potentates.106 In that sense, Michael Featherstone is right, regardless the
question of the date: “Although the Book of Ceremonies says nothing about
a baptism, nevertheless, as we have seen, Olga must have been a Christian to
take part in the ceremonies of the 9th of September. Seeing that all the other
sources affirm that she was baptized in Constantinople, it seems gratuitous to
argue for Kiev. We must assume, then, that Olga was baptized either on a visit
prior to the one mentioned in De Caerimoniis, perhaps ca. 955 as the Slavonic
tradition maintains, or else – and this seems more likely to me, since Skylitzes
records only one visit – during this same visit, but before her formal reception
at the palace. The baptism was presumably performed by the patriarch, as the
PVL records; and what better occasion could there have been than the feast of
104 The Russian Primary chronicle, 82.

105 Ivanov 2015, 132.
106 As correctly noted by Ivanov 2015, 131–132, even if the active implication of the patriarch
attenuates somehow the skepticism of the author.
218 Mureșan
the Nativity of the Virgin, celebrated with great pomp in Constantinople by

the emperor and patriarch, on the 8th of September?”107 Needless to say that
as long as this event took place in 946, the patriarch in question is Theophylact
and not his successor Polyeuktos.108
Other sources attest that the emperor played at that time the role of godfa
ther or spiritual father. However, in Eastern Orthodox rite, the godfather has
only the passive role of witness for his godchild, while the actor of the baptism
rite is indeed the officiating clergyman, in this case the patriarch. Receiving
the catechumen and the godparents in the church, saying the prayers of exor
cism, officiating the baptism by immersion, he is teaching the doctrines of the
Christian faith to the neophyte.
The Patriarch, who instructed her in the faith, said to her, “Blessed art
thou among the women of Rus’, for thou hast loved the light, and quit the
darkness. The sons of Rus’ shall bless thee to the last generation of thy
descendants.” He taught her the doctrine of the Church, and instructed
her in prayer and fasting, in almsgiving, and in the maintenance of chas
tity. She bowed her head, and like a sponge absorbing water, she eagerly
drank in his teachings. The Princess bowed before the Patriarch, saying,
“Through thy prayers, Holy Father, may I be preserved from the crafts and
assaults of the devil!” At her baptism she was christened Helena, after the
ancient Empress, mother of Constantine the Great. The Patriarch then
blessed her and dismissed her.109
The narrative then returns to the story of the marriage proposal only to set
things straight and to remind that from then on the queen had truly become
the ‘spiritual daughter’ of the emperor, her godfather.
After her baptism, the Emperor summoned Olga and made known to her
that he wished her to become his wife. But she replied, “How can you
marry me, after yourself baptizing me and calling me your daughter? For
among Christians that is unlawful, as you yourself must know.” Then the
Emperor said, “Olga, you have outwitted me.” He gave her many gifts of
gold, silver, silks, and various vases, and dismissed her, still calling her his
daughter.110
107 Featherstone 1990, 311.

108 As thought previously, based on the older chronology, Antonopoulos 1996, 164–169.
Beyond the relationship with the godfather – important as it is – what is

decisive for a Christian is his relationship with his baptizer, the person who
administered the sacrament. Plausibly, the Primary Chronicle ends the nar
rative of the visit in Constantinople with the farewell and benediction of
the patriarch, supposed to embolden the neophyte for her return in the still
pagan Rus’.
Since Olga was anxious to return home, she went to the Patriarch to
request his benediction for the homeward journey, and said to him, “My
people and my son are heathen. May God protect me from all evil!” The
Patriarch replied, “Child of the faith, thou hast been baptized into Christ
and hast put on Christ. Christ shall therefore save thee. Even as he saved
Abraham from Abimelech, Lot from the Sodomites, Moses from Pharaon,
David from Saul, the Three Children from the fiery furnace, and Daniel
from the wild beasts, he will preserve thee likewise from the devil and
his snares.” So the Patriarch blessed her, and she returned in peace to her
own country, and arrived in Kiev.111
On this point, we have to notice the profuseness of the relations between the
patriarch and the queen of Rus’. For the former, Olga’s baptism was only the
first step for the baptism of her people. We may wonder then if the 10th cen
tury author of Skazanie o russkikh kniaziakh has heard of a real matrimonial
story that he has only misinterpreted. Olga might have sought the hand of a
Porphyrogenneta princess for her son Sviatoslav, apparent heir of the kingdom
of Rus’. Constantine’s report undoubtedly attests that such a request came
indeed from the northern peoples, Pechenegs, Turks (i.e. Hungarians) and
indeed Rus’, and for the latter Olga’s voyage was the best conceivable occasion.
Yet, this request was quite undiplomatically rejected.112 This may explain why,
after her return from Constantinople, Olga’s relations with the Roman Empire
cooled, forcing her to turn to king Otto I of Germany in 959. This categorical
refusal opposed by Constantine VII was expressly formulated in opposition
to the marriage of Maria Lekapena to Emperor Peter of Bulgaria, acted by
Emperor Romanos I and the patriarch Stephen II. On this point, the positions
taken by Constantine VII and Theophylact might have radically diverged. In
hindsight, with the example of Anna Porphyrogenneta and Vladimir I in mind,
we may say that the emperor’s refusal was remarkable by its short-sightedness:
it may have delayed the baptism of the people of Rus’ by a generation.
111 The Russian Primary chronicle, 82–83.

112 Arrignon 1979, 173.
220 Mureșan
Maybe in order to counter the potential popularity of sectarian move

ments like Bogomilism, Theophylact tried in his capacity of archbishop of
the city to stimulate popular piety in new, attractive ways, more appealing
to the fine-mannered population of the capital. To this effect, he charged his
domestic of the church, Euthymios Kasnes, to energize the faithful during the
matins apparently with what we would call nowadays charismatic practices.
Unfortunately, we do not have about this event but the same biased report
seeming to echo a blessed monastic sensibility:
It was he who instigated the present custom of insulting God and the
memory of the saints on greater festivals by performing the early morn
ing service with indecent howling, bursts of laughter and wild cries,
whereas it should be offered to God with compunction and a contrite
heart, for our own salvation. He gathered a band of disreputable men,
set over them a fellow named Euthymios Kasnes (whom he promoted
domestic of the church) and taught them satanic dances, scandalous
cries and songs gathered at crossroads and in brothels.113
Behind the charge, one can only guess that Euthymios, stimulated by the
patriarch himself, put together a chorus chanting God and his saints, yet using
chords and musical lines inspired from popular chant. Nothing too fancy: it
was an ecclesiastic initiative, performed during liturgical services under the
direction of clergymen. Nevertheless, this novelty obviously did not please
some traditionalist followers of psalmodic music. However, and despite the
critiques, it seemed to enjoy an enduring popularity, as Skylitzes writes about
this as a ‘present custom,’ still living under the reign of Alexios I Komnenos,
one century and a half later.
7.6 Patriarchal Horse-Mania until Death
If everybody has a hobby, one may say that Patriarch Theophylact had liter
ally thousands of them. Indeed, etymologically, ‘hobby’ comes from the medi
eval French word hobin or haubby, which means designing a little horse or a
pony used for leisure. Byzantines, and especially the aristocratic and the urban
classes, had a real passion for horses.114 Suffice it to remember the central place

114 For an overview from Late Antiquity to the central Byzantine centuries, see Lazaris 2012
and Kolias 2012.
that the imperial hippodrome played in the daily life of Constantinople.115

Against this background, Theophylact was not different from any other
Constantinopolitan.
He had a mania for horses and went out hunting much of his time. He
also indulged in other unseemly activities which it would be both tedi
ous and improper to set out in detail. But there is one which it would
be right to mention as an indication of how crude he was. He had this
absolute passion for acquiring horses (he is said to have procured more
than two thousands of them) and their care was his constant concern. He
was not satisfied with feeding them hay and oats but would serve them
pine-seeds, almonds and pistachios or even dates and figs and choicest
raisins, mixed with the most fragrant wine. To this he would add saffron,
cinnamon, balsam and other spices and serve it to each of his horses
as food.116
What made the difference was that he put his resources where his passion
was, developing an entire stable placed nearby St. Sophia, housing some 2,000
horses and paying maybe hundreds of personals to look after them. The Great
Church was indeed one the greatest owners and employers of the City. Surely,
for an ecclesiastic it was rather unusual to occupy himself with horse-medicine.
However, the derision of the text shows rather the ignorance of its author,
who failed to recognize (and give credit to) the use by the patriarch of highly
sophisticated veterinary science. Indeed, the cutting-edge research of Anne
McCabe showed the importance of the Hippiatrika developed during the reign
of Constantine VII, producing collections of classical treaties dedicated to
horse-medicine. She could identify an entire recension (D) of this scientific
activity, represented by the manuscript at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 251,
which could be traced back to Theophylact himself.117 Alongside fragments
from authorities of the field like Simon of Athens, the earliest Greek writer on
horses, Hierocles, Anatolius, Eumelus, Theomnestus, Hippocrates, Pelagonius,
Aristotle, Aelian etc. it contains indeed two recipes attributed to this patri
arch. This parallels the B recension that was compiled under the patronage of
Emperor Constantine VII himself. The development of Hippiatrika echoes the
central role that cavalry played in Byzantine warfare at the time. These com
pilations had an ‘encyclopaedic,’ but at the same time very practical nature,
115 Dagron 2011.

117 McCabe 2007, 38–44.
222 Mureșan
being typical for an agrarian and aristocratic society where horsepower was so
central for social dynamics, both within the military and civil spheres. The two
recipes attributed to Theophylact use ingredients similar to those evoked by
Skylitzes, and innovate by applying to horses human remedies.118
John Skylitzes’ final charge against Theophylact’s memory would like to
illustrate the lack of concern for Church affairs showed by the patriarch.
It is said of him that once when he was celebrating the great supper of
God on the Thursday of Holy Week and was already reading the prayer of
consecration, the deacon charged with the task of caring for the horses
appeared and gave him the glad tidings that his favourite mare – he men
tioned its name – had just foaled. [Theophylact] was so delighted that he
got through the rest of the liturgy as quickly as possible and came run
ning to Kosmidion where he saw the newly born foal, took his fill of the
sight of the animal and then returned to the Great Church, there to com
plete the singing of the hymn on the sacred sufferings of the Saviour.119
This very touching anecdote, illustrated by the 13th century miniaturist of

Skylitzes’s chronicle, has all the traits of a real event. But pondered objectively,
it shows precisely the contrary of what the author intended, remembering
rather the meaning of the Good Shepherd Parable (John 10: 1–19). Theophylact
appears as a real compassionate person attentive to the miracle of life, as well
as a concerned clergyman, as he returns in the end to accomplish thoroughly
the rites he had initiated.
It is not, therefore, greatness of heart that the author shows when he notes
with barely concealed satisfaction the circumstances of the patriarch’s end
of life. He suffered indeed a terrible horse accident, which incapacitated him
completely for the last two years of his life.
In the twelfth year of the reign of Constantine, am 6464, 27 February [956],

fourteenth year of the indiction, the patriarch Theophylact departed this
life after an episcopate of twenty-three years and twenty-five days. […]
Such was the life he led, and he lost his life by reckless riding; thrown
from his horse at a section of the sea wall, he began to haemorrhage from
the mouth. He sickened for two years and then died, a victim of dropsy.120
118 McCabe 2007, 278.

120 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 234; Runciman 1963, 236–237.
Figure 7.5 Patriarch Theophylact lefting the Easter office in order to visit his horses
(Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis
Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 137a b)
de España
During this two-year transition, the real government of the Church was
assumed by the patriarch’s nephew, the eunuch Basil parakoimomenos, the
illegitimate son of Emperor Romanos II, who took for himself a title used
once by the patriarchs, ‘proedros (president) of the Senate.’121 It was only after
a very long suffering that the patriarch died. For his memorial service, the
sober rite presented in the Book of Ceremonies, II, 30 Concerning the funeral
of a patriarch, must have been followed, inspired from a note about the
121 Schminck 1990, 113–115.

224 Mureșan
burial of Patriarch Sergios of Constantinople.122 With an important difference,

however: it was not the church of the Holy Apostles, as specified, that was
chose as place of eternal rest. Instead, he was buried in the Rouphinianai mon
astery in Chalcedon, a Late Antique monastery founded by the prefect Rufinus
and restored by Theophylact himself around 950.123 Was this the mark of an
imperial discredit or rather the result of a conscious choice made by the patri
arch when he sponsored the refurbishing of this monastery?
In a significant twist, Constantine VII chose to replace Theophylact with a
figure radically different: the monastic-minded Polyeuktos.124
On 3 April, the same year of the indiction, the monk Polyeuktos was
ordained patriarch in his stead, a man born and raised in Constantinople,
castrated by his parents, a monk of many years’ exemplary experience.
The emperor made him patriarch on account of his exceptional wisdom,
the austerity of his way of life and his indifference to worldly possessions.
His enthronization was supposed to follow literally the dispositions

Constantine VII just promulgated to this effect in the Book of Ceremonies. Yet
this was affected by the antipathy that the emperor nourished against the
metropolitan of Herakleia, a reason that forbade him to consecrate the patri
arch following tradition. This was effectuated instead by the metropolitan of
Caesarea, putting upon Polyeuktos right from the beginning the suspicion of
having received ‘an irregular ordination.’ Regardless, the new patriarch “was
nevertheless ordained and began speaking the truth boldly, condemning the
greed of the relatives of Romanos the Elder, and when the emperor came to the
Great Church on Holy Saturday he urged the emperor to rectify his misdeeds,
to which he reluctantly agreed.” Perfect antithesis to Theophylact, the agenda
of Polyeuktos was therefore to condemn the heritage of Lekapenoi, his prede
cessor included, an attitude that put him in conflict from the start with empress
Helena and the parakoimomenos Basil Lekapenos, the bastard of Romanos I,
creating in the end difficulties even with the emperor.125 In any case, without
any interest from the new patriarch to pursue the enterprise that created a bad
name to his predecessor, Constantine VII transformed Theophylact’s stable
208–209.
123 Kazhdan 1991, 1814, 2068.
124 Kazhdan 1991, 1696.
125 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 234; Runciman 1963, 236–237.
nearby the patriarchal church of St. Sophia into an old people’s home.126 The
patriarch’s horses were plausibly transferred on that occasion to the imperial
stables.
As such, Theophylact Lekapenos, thanks to his aristocratic turned imperial
origin, remained a very unusual cleric for the rest of his life. Becoming patri
arch at an age too young and indeed in an atypical manner, he enjoyed a very
long pontificate and at its fatal end he dissatisfied many. Yet, putting together
the different pieces of this complex personality, the real portrait appearing is
far from the caricature that his enemies willingly fabricated for him. Whatever
the judgment one would make, one would have to politely, yet strongly, disa
gree with Steven Runciman for whom ‘his patriarchate was very uneventful.’127
At the end of chapter 37 dedicated to the feast of Orthodoxy, Constantine VII
wrote one of the personal notes that characterize the additions he made on the
initial draft of the Book of Ceremonies until the end of his life:128
Note that the magistroi and praipositoi, and patricians also take candles
from the oikonomion, and under the Lord Theophylaktos also sweet-
smelling incense, but then, too, the Lord Theophylaktos, the patriarch,
used to have sweetmeats at the side of the Chapel of St Theophylaktos in
the Patriarchate, and the rulers enjoyed the sweetmeats with the magis
troi and the paripositoi and the rest whom they have invited.129
This note is obviously added after the patriarch’s death and evoked the recep
tions that he organized for the close elite that participated in the patriarchal
mass remembering the restoration of the cult of icons in 843, a crucial event
that defined Orthodoxy in the long run. Symbolically, this was the chapel ded
icated to the patron saint of the patriarch himself – bishop Theophylact of
Nicomedia – one of the defenders of the divine images during the second icon
oclastic period under the reign of Leo V (813–820). Not only the patriarch pro
posed here to the participants ‘sweetmeats,’ but the emperors even ‘enjoyed’
them. This patriarch aroused during his lifetime quite a bit of bitterness from
the people who knew him as vaguely as Skylitzes did. Yet, surprisingly enough,
to those who knew him closely, like Constantine VII, he evoked rather sweet
memories.
126 McCabe 2007, 278.

127 Runciman 1963, 77.
128 Flusin 2017, 162.
129 Constantine Porphyrogennetos 2012, The Book of Ceremonies: CFHB 16–17, Book I, chap.
37, p. 160; Constantin VII Porphyrogénète 2020, Le livre des cérémonies: CFHB 52, p. t. I–1,
pp. 292–293.
226 Mureșan
7.7 Horse-Raiding Hungarians to Constantinople
With the new perspective over this pontificate, we have to turn now toward
some implications of Theophylact’s mission among the Hungarians. This con
nection is all but fortuitous. Indeed, as early as April 934, the Turks “invaded
Roman territory and overran all the West right up to the city.” Too succinctly,
Skylitzes informs that the patrician Theophanes the protovestiarios concluded
an agreement, liberating prisoners in exchange for money.130 But the only fact
that all the Dyseos, i.e. the European part of the empire, was affected, allows
to guess the real proportions of the invasion, recalling traumatic memories
of the Hunnic or Avar invasions. Indeed, according to the contemporary Arab
historian Masʿūdī (d. 956), this invasion was in fact the result of a formidable
Turkish coalition, reuniting the Magyars, their ancient enemies, the Pecheneg
and another less important tribe, who forced the Danube and confronted the
Romans at the city of W.l.n.d.r. (Walandar – Adrianople), defeating the Romans
and stationing for forty days in front of Constantinople. Romanos, then occu
pied in campaign in Asia Minor, send a corps of Anatolian troops and auxiliary
Christian Arabs to confront the Hungarian-Pecheneg alliance.131
For all this catastrophic succession of events, the Constantinopolitans
blamed … the patriarch. We already saw above that the author of the Life of
Saint Basil the Younger, written shortly after Theophylact’s death, belittled him
as the “the son of a second marriage and uncanonically seated on the <patri
archal> throne.”132 Some members of the Constantinopolitan clergy refused
to concelebrate with the patriarch or even assist to offices served by his men.
Moreover, according to a ‘holy man’ named Theophanos, God permitted
the attacks of the Hungarians (Ouggroi) as a punishment for the sins of the
Romans, the digamy and tetragamy.133
Due to the scandal of the fourth marriage of the emperor Leo <per
formed> by the archbishop of Constantinople, Euthymios, the priest
scrupulously abstained from the divine liturgy […] For this reason that
reverent old man Theophanes abstained from the liturgy, as aforemen
tioned, but constantly frequented the divine churches, devoting himself
to fasts and sleeping on the ground and prayers and raising up the eye
of his soul to the Lord our God Jesus Christ always hoping and praying
130 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 220–221.

131 Vasiliev 1950, 33–36 (Masʿūdī); Grégoire – Orgels 1954, 150–153; Diaconu 1970, 17–19;
Oikonomidès 1973; Bogyay 1988a, 34–35; Antonopoulos 1993, 257–259.
133 Grégoire – Orgels 1954, 147–150.
for Him to bring about the correction of the Romans who transgress
<divine> law. For due to our sins the nation of the Hungarians <was>
daily plundering the western regions.134
Theophanos, questioned by terrified disciples, presented indeed the Hungar

ians as yet another ‘scourge of God,’ based on the model of the ancient Israel:
“Tell us, most holy father, for what reason do these most foul nations,
when campaigning against us Christians, constantly advance like a dust
storm and come forth to destroy our western regions?” That righteous old
man said to him, “If you truly wish to know, my child, how they advance
unhindered, I will tell you. This nation was dispatched by the Lord on
account of our sins. And so they advance unhindered, striking us on the
head like a rawhide whip; for sin is a terrible evil. […] Note then that for
this reason enemies are sent to the various lands to destroy the inhabit
ants because of their sins.”135
But in the end, thanks to the intercession of St. Basil the Younger, this divine
pedagogy preserved nonetheless the Romans under God’s protection.
[…] our saintly father Basil replied to him, “Behold, I see that today at
this very hour the most foul Hungarians, while trying to cross the Danube
river, have drowned in its streams, although a few of them by God’s prov
idence have survived and returned to their land unsuccessful, and from
now on God has saved us from their hands on account of His merciful
compassion.” All of us present there were amazed at the saint’s prophecy,
and we wondered in our hearts if it was true and if their affairs turned
out as the saint said, and we were eager to learn and be informed about
the words spoken by the holy Basil. Four days had not yet passed when
behold, a dispatch to the palace from the general of Macedonia reported
everything truthfully and gave information concerning the Hungarians,
that the saint’s prophecy had indeed befallen them. And so from this
story one can see what the Lord’s servants, enlightened by the Holy Spirit,
observe far and near with their noetic eyes; thus although the saint was
in Constantinople, he saw events in Hungary (Ouggria), as if he was pres
ent there.136

228 Mureșan
This presumed causality between the Romans’ sins and the Hungarians’
raids was remembered vividly even after Theophylact’s death, as the writing
of the Life of Saint Basil the Younger itself attests. Thus, the disastrous effects
of the Hungarian invasions poisoned Theophylact’s patriarchate from the
beginning to the end of his long service to the Church. We are beginning to
understand why finding a solution to the challenge posed by the Hungarian
invasions must have been a central concern for this patriarch.
These ‘Turks’ were for sure not unknown to the Byzantines.137 They were
a part of the classic category of ‘Scythian’ populations, so different in ethnic
origins yet so similar in the way of their life or war.138 Already around 900, in
his Taktika, Emperor Leo VI the Wise gave a relatively detailed presentation
of their warfare conduct.139 Truly, Leo reworked to this effect the equivalent
chapter of the 6th century Strategikon of Mauricius treating with the nomadic
warfare of ‘Scythian’ peoples like the Avars and the Turks (i.e. the ‘Celestial’
ones, founders of the first Turkish Khaganate).140 This was justified in as much
as the nomadic tactics were basically the same for two millennia. Yet, at the
same time, Leo VI makes a real effort to update his dispositions to the contem
porary situation. As he puts it to the virtual general he addressed in his book,
the Hungarians were by then allies, if not voluntary subjects, of the Roman
Empire: “not because you are preparing to face the Turks in battle, for they are
neither neighbours nor enemies to us at present, but instead they are eager
to show themselves as subjects of the Romans.” Indeed, upon his own invita
tion, the Hungarian ‘Turks’ traversed the Carpathians around 895, occupied
Great Moravia and took possession of the space previously detained by the
Avar khaganate between 567 and 822. However, considering them for this as
subjects of the Empire was as imprudent as possible. What changed in 934 was
that, for the first time, the Hungarian horses arrived before the inhabitants of
Constantinople.
A detailed analysis of contemporary Hungarian warfare is beyond the scope
of this study.141 But some remarks must be made about the role of horses dur
ing the conquest period. Their nomadic-type warfare was based on the large
availability of important horsepower escorting the nomadic cavalry in its
operations.
137 Shepard 1999; Stephenson 2000: 38–40; see more generally Moravcsik 1983, 131–145.
138 Dagron 1987, 213–214.
139 Leo VI, Taktika: CFHB 49, Constitution 18, 43–73, pp. 454–463.
140 Maurikios, Strategikon: CFHB 17, XI, 2, p. 360–369. For a detailed analysis of the adapta
tion of the Strategikon to his own ‘Turcs’ by Leo VI, see Moravcsik 1952.
141 Best treatment Bowlus 2006, 19–44.
A huge herd of horses, ponies and mares, follows them, to provide both
food and milk and, at the same time, to give the impression of a multi
tude. They do not set up camp within entrenchments, as do the Romans,
but tip until the day of battle they are spread about according to tribes
and clans. They graze their horses continually both summer and winter.
When time comes for battle, they take the horses they think necessary,
hobble them next to the Turkish tents, and guard them until it is time to
form for battle, which they begin to do under cover of night.142
The equipment of the fighters was marvelously adapted to allow the free use
of mounted archery. In order to maintain their combativity, during periods of
peace, the training of the warriors in equitation and archery was continuous.
They are armed with swords, body armor, bows, and lances. Thus, in com
bat most of them bear double arms, carrying the lances high on their
shoulders and holding the bows in their hands. They make use of both as
need requires, but when pursued they use their bows to great advantage.
Not only do they wear armor themselves, but the horses of their illustri
ous men are covered in front with iron or quilted material. They devote a
great deal of attention and training to archery on horseback.143
Thanks to the naturally-nourished horses and well-trained horsemen, the

tactics were centered on maneuverability and elusiveness, refusing almost
all frontal combat, disorganizing the opponents’ battle formations by contin
uous harassment and long-range shooting. The mobile reserve of cavalry that
protected the baggage train providing logistic support during long-distance
razzia was more often than not the surprise element destined to win the day
during combats.
In battle they do not line up as do the Romans in three divisions, but in

several units of irregular size, linking the divisions close to one another
although separated by short distances, so that they give the impression of
one battle line. Apart from their battle line, they maintain an additional
force that they send out to ambush careless adversaries of theirs or hold
in reserve to support a hard-pressed section. […] They keep their baggage
train behind their battle line, to the right or the left of the line about a
mile or two away, detailing a small guard for it. […] Frequently they tie
230 Mureșan
the extra horses together to the rear, that is, behind their battle line, as
protection for it.144
After all these positive remarks, Leo VI made a series of comments about the
real limitations of the Hungarian, and indeed nomadic warfare. At this point
he was following closely those remarks of Emperor Mauricius, but the final
ity of the text was not meant to be original, but rather faithful to military
concerns. Indeed, the very virtues of nomadic warfare carried within them
selves their limitations or weaknesses. The nomads were so dependent on
the resources of pastures to feed their large herds of horses that the strength
of their impact diminished with the distance from the steppes. Faced with
a compact, orderly and heavily armoured cavalry, the harassment tactics of
the Hungarians lost their effectiveness. A well-determined infantry seriously
endangered these mounted archers, who were poorly trained for hand-to-hand
and ground-to-earth combat.
Hostile Turks are greatly hurt by a shortage of pasturage, because of the

large number of horses they bring along with them. When it comes to
battle, an infantry force in close formation opposed to their cavalry will
inflict the greatest damage on them. They do not dismount from their
horses and, since they have grown up riding on horseback, they do not
last long on foot. They are also at a disadvantage on level, unobstructed
ground, as well as when a cavalry force follows along after them in a
dense, unbroken mass. Hand-to-hand combat with weapons also hurts
them, as do attacks made safely at night, in such a way that one section
of our attacking force maintains its formation while the other section
remains in hiding.145
Moreover, the Hungarians were at the time deprived of siege equipment

(artillery, logistics that involved specialized infantry personnel). At this stage,
they were not capable of constituting a real threat to the fortified cities of the
Empire, and obviously not at all to the formidable walls of Constantinople. All
they could envisage was the reduction of the cities to surrender by depriving
the besieged populations of their resources.
If some of the enemy they are pursuing should take refuge in a fortified
place, they make careful efforts to discover any shortage of necessities for
horses and men. They wait patiently so they can wear down their ene
mies by the shortage of those items or get them to accept terms favora
ble to themselves, their first demands are fairly light, but then, when the
enemy agrees to these, they impose others that are heavier.146
Compared to the Bulgarians, the Hungarians had essentially the same way
of fighting. The difference was of a civilizational nature: the Bulgarians had
adopted Christianity, tempering their hatred against the Romans as well as
their warmongering (which did not make them less of a threat).147
These characteristics of the Turks are different from those of the

Bulgarians only inasmuch as the latter have embraced the faith of the
Christians and gradually taken on Roman characteristics. At that time
they threw off their savage and nomadic way of life along with their
faithlessness.148
Finally, the tribal, structural organization for the nomadic (or semi-nomadic)
way of life resulted in weak ethnic cohesion. This exposed the ‘Turks’ to the
possibility for the Empire to deal separately with the constituents in order to
weaken their threat and strength.
They are also seriously hurt when some of them desert to the Romans.
They realize that their nation is fickle and they are avaricious and com
posed of so many tribes and for this reason they set no value on kinship
and unity with one another. When a few begin to desert and are kindly
received by us, a large number will soon follow them. For that reason they
bear a grudge against those who depart from them.149
If indeed, from Mauricius to Leo VI, there are undeniable continuities between
the nomadic warfare styles of Avars and Hungarians, the Magyar conquest did
not come less without a change in the horse population of the Pannonian
steppe. A decade ago, Katalin Priskin studied the genotypes of ancient horses
147 Dagron 1987, 216–219; Theotokis 2018, 107–108.
232 Mureșan
from the Carpathian Basin, comparing the mitochondrial DNA extracted from
archaeological horse remains in provenance from Avar and pagan Hungarian
burial sites. They were compared to modern mtDNA from Hucul and Akhal
Teke horse breeds. The comparison showed a closeness between the common
Avar mounts and the Hucul horse, while the mtDNA extracted from the bones
of Hungarian horse was almost identical to the Akhal Teke. These results seem
to imply that the conquering Hungarians possessed large herds of the famed
Turanian horse, the ancestor of the modern Akhal Teke breed from Central
Asia, so coveted even in China as the ‘celestial horses’, at least for the high war
rior class practicing burials.150 As we know now almost for sure that the land
of Levedia corresponds to the Volga-Ural region, at the north of the Caspian
Sea, this indicates that the early Magyars were indeed in a position that made
them able to access the high quality horses of the central Asian steppes before
the last century of their migration.151 Katalin Priskin concludes thus that the
Magyar conquest marked not only an ethnic change of the dominant popula
tion of the Carpathian Basin, but provoked also a significant equestrian muta
tion as compared to the Avar period.
When the nomadic armies of the Hungarians arrived before the walls of
Constantinople, their remarkable horses have attracted the attention of
the equestrian specialists of the headquarters that surrounded Emperors
Romanos I and later Constantine VII. As the first biographer of Constantine
VII, Alfred Rambaud, already remarked: “Nothing could excite the lust of horse
lovers in Constantinople, of the hippomaniac Patriarch Theophylactus and of
the officers in charge of the imperial cavalry, more than these admirable little
horses of the steppe, brought by the Hungarians on the Danube, as astonishing
by the originality of their appearance as by the energy of their hocks.”152 In
the years that followed, the commerce with horses from the Hungarian plain
to the mouths of Danube, and from there to Constantinople was established.
Indeed, occupying the city of Pereyaslavets (Little Preslav), near the Danube
Delta, between 967–969, at the invitation of Nikephoros II Phokas, the king of
Rus’ Sviatoslav dreamed to install there his new capital, arguing:
I do not care to remain in Kiev, but should prefer to live in Pereyaslavets

on the Danube, since that is the centre of my realm, where all riches are
concentrated; gold, silks, wine, and various fruits from Greece, silver
150 Priskin 2010, 90–93.

151 Keszi 2017, 29–44.
152 Rambaud 1870, 361.
and horses from Hungary and Bohemia, and from Rus’ furs, wax, honey,
and slaves.153
In 943 ‘the Turks made another attack on Roman territory.’ The same parakoi-
momenos Theophanes who met them in 934 – but who was now covered with
glory after having defeated the kings Oleg and Igor of Rus’ during their attack
against Constantinople in 941154 – came before them and ‘concluded a treaty
with them, received hostages and returned.’155
The recurrent character of the Hungarian raids needed to be treated sys
tematically, with means other than military. It goes almost without saying
that, if someone knew in Byzantium how to deal with these formidable horse
raiders, the horse lover Patriarch Theophylact was indeed the one. This obser
vation incites a reevaluation of the chronological aspect of their encounter.
Indeed, the entire ‘Turkish’ chapter is preceded in Skylitzes’ Synopsis by the
record of Romanos II’s crowning as co-emperor by Constantine VII with the
assistance of the patriarch; equally, it is immediately followed by the report of
queen Olga’s voyage to Constantinople, both events discussed above in some
detail. The ceremony of Romanos II’s coronation was arranged for Easter 946,
while Olga’s journey certainly took place during the same year, rather than a
decade later. Noting this progress, Alexandru Madgearu correctly inferred that,
flanked by the two events, the Hungarian episode must be strictly correlated
chronologically. He thus assigned 946 as the year of Bulcsú’s trip and estimated
that Gylas’ voyage, which took place ‘not long afterwards,’ was to be placed
tentatively around 948, during the renewal of the peace of 943 (stipulated to
recur every five years).156
Agreeing with this in principle, one may differ in the details. If the year 946
becomes the new terminus ante quem for the Hungarian missions, it follows
that it has to apply both to Bulcsú and to Gylas’ trips. Yet, as they were sepa
rated by a short period (i.e. one to three years), Bulcsú’s mission is to be post
poned to 943. Indeed, Skylitzes’s report is clear: “The Turks did not discontinue
their raiding and ravaging of Roman land until their chieftain, Boulosoudes,
came to the city of Constantine.” Bulcsú’s arrival coincided therefore with the
conclusion of the peace that stopped the devastating Hungarian incursions.

154 Zuckerman 1995.
155 Skylitzes, Synopsis of Histories, 223; Bogyay 1988a, 35–36; Antonopoulos 1993, 260.
156 Madgearu 2008, 121–123; Madgearu 2017, 3–4; Madgearu 2019, 112–114. Thus a revision of
the classical chronology, as still presented by Stephenson 2000, 40–41, is necessary.
234 Mureșan
Figure 7.6 Patriarch Theophylact baptizes the Hungarian prince Bulcsú (Boulosoudes) in
St. Sophia church, with Emperor Constantine VII as godfather (Biblioteca
Nacional de España, MSS Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis
Skylitzes, fol. 134v)
de España
Otherwise, one would have to understand that, despite the peace of 943, the
invasions would have continued until 946, but this is precisely contrary to
Skylitzes’ account.
However, Bulcsú did not come alone, but was accompanied by a grandson of
Árpád, Termatzous, from whom Constantine VII obtained the unusual amount
of detailed informations about the dynasty of the Hungarian ‘megas archon.’
Arpad, the great prince of Tourkia, had four sons: first, Tarkatzous; sec
ond, Ielech; third, Ioutotzas; fourth, Zaltas.
The eldest son of Arpad, Tarkatzous, had a son Tebelis, and the sec
ond son Ielech had a son Ezelech, and the third son Ioutotzas had a son
Phalitzis, the present prince, and the fourth son Zaltas had a son Taxis.
All the sons of Arpad are dead, but his grandsons Phalis and Tasis and
their cousin Taxis are living. Tebelis is dead, and it is his son Termatzous
who came here recently as ‘friend’ with Boultzous, third prince and kar
chas of Turkey.
Károly Czeglédy rightly observed that Skylitzes made a causal relationship

between the peace treaty and the visit of the Magyar princes. For him, indeed,
Figure 7.7 The Hungarian cavalry defeated by the Germans at Lechfeld (955) and the
execution of prince Bulcsú (Volosodès) (Biblioteca Nacional de España, MSS
Graecus Vitr. 26-2 Codex Græcus Matritensis Ioannis Skylitzes, fol. 135a)
de España
“the visit of Bulcsú did not follow a period of peace but rather introduced one”
and consequently “the words of Skylitzes might warrant the assumption that
the visit of Termacsu and Bulcsú took place shortly after this event, that is,
about the year 943.”157 Unfortunately, based on a wrong dating of Romanos II’s
crowning in 948 (instead of 946), he placed the Arpadian prince’s visit in the
same year, putting it in relation with the renewal of the peace treaty in 948. For
this reason, contrary on Czeglédy’s assertion, it was not Skylitzes who made a
mistake on this point.
In conclusion, we may observe that the Hungarian princes arrived in
Constantinople in 943 and 946, precisely in the period that witnesses
the profound transformation of the notion of Orthodoxy throughout the
patriarchate of Theophylact, during the brutal transition of power from
Romanos I to Constantine VII. At this moment, the imperial Orthodoxy shin
ing from Constantinople became more conscious than ever of its religious uni
versalism, which extended far beyond the confines of a territorially reduced
Empire. The Porphyrogennetos emperor articulated this in the most forceful
form in his Panegyric to St. Gregory of Nazianzus:
That is why it is not only a queen ruling a small portion of the earth [i.e.
the Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople], nor even all that
Attica can count of illustrious orators, nor only from any part of the earth
157 Czeglédy 1962, 81–82.

236 Mureșan
where there are men, that they flock to hear his wise words; but the occu
pants of the borders of the inhabited world (oikoumene) and all those,
if any, who have migrated beyond them, all flock together too, so that
by immediate experience may confirm what they have heard and which
has delighted them; and neither the columns of Hercules, nor the hills of
Africa, nor the mountains that rise up above the clouds, nor the abrupt
and insuperable precipices, neither the immensity of the seas, neither
the snows of the Hyperborean regions, nor the torrid heat of India nor
anything else that hinder and repel can check the ardour of their impulse,
but from every nation (ek pantos genous) and generation existing under
heaven, as in the past to enjoy the teaching of the Apostles, they come
running to the sweetness of his theology [i.e. Gregory of Nazianzus’s trin
itarian conception].158
From the ‘snows of the Hyperborean regions,’ in this period, came indeed to
Constantinople emissaries from Alania, Rus’ and Tourkia, in order to bathe in
the baptismal springs of Orthodoxy. They all found at the Great Church an
excellent host. And, perhaps, on their return home, they recounted stories of
the exquisite sweetmeats they had tasted in the chapel of St. Theophylact.
7.8 Conclusions
Summarizing this long survey, we started with the realization that the con
ceptor of the mission towards the Hungarians and consecrator of the first
bishop of Tourkia, Hierotheos, was Patriarch Theophylact, of imperial origin,
as a son of Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos and close collaborator of Emperor
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, his brother-in-law. A reassessment of his
activity, deformed by a biased historiography, was long overdue, as a sine qua
non condition for an insightful understanding of bishop Hierotheos’ activ
ity. Imposed on the patriarchal throne by the will of his father, Theophylact
was installed by the pontifical legates of Pope John XI, and resumed imme
diately the relations with the three other Eastern patriarchs, marking thus a
restoration of the classical framework of the Pentarchy. He redefined in close
cooperation with Romanos I and Constantine VII the content of imperial
Orthodoxy by means of the translations of the Mandylion (944) and of the
relics of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, archbishop of Constantinople (946), placing
thus the imperial capital – already under the supernatural protection of Mary
158 Flusin 1999, 39, 71–72.

Theotokos – under the patronage of Christ and the Holy Trinity. This bolstered
theological awareness of the Eastern Christian Romanness gave new impe
tus to the Byzantine missionary vocation. Theophylact restored the mission
in Alania previously ruined by the Khazar reaction and personally baptized
queen Olga of Kiev in 946, impelling the mission towards the Kingdom of Rus’
that will triumph with Vladimir I in 988. We argue that in particular, the idio
syncratic passion for horses of this patriarch made him the ideal interlocutor
for the horse-raiding Hungarians who began to attack Byzantium from 934
onwards, right from the beginning of his patriarchate. Finally, we reviewed the
accepted chronology of the two baptisms of Hungarian princes, putting the
first in connection with the peace of 943 and the second right before queen
Olga’s visit to Constantinople. Consequently, as Theophylact’s special agent,
bishop Hierotheos represented in Tourkia a wholly reinvigorated Byzantine
imperial Orthodoxy.
Acknowledgment
The author thanks Evangelos Chrysos, Ana Dumitran, Athanasios Markopoulos,

Alice Sullivan, Ionuț Tudorie and Constantin Zuckerman for the critics and
bibliographical help that they generously offered during the writing of the
present study.
Chapter 8
Ecclesiastical Consequences of the Restoration of

Byzantine Power in the Danubian Region
Alexandru Madgearu
The debates around the significance of the discoveries made by Daniela

Marcu Istrate at Alba Iulia in 2011 should take into consideration the general
framework of the ecclesiastic situation of a wider region in the 10th–11th cen-
turies. The most important changes were the conversion of the Hungarians
and the introduction of a new Byzantine church organization in the territo-
ries which belonged to Bulgaria. The ancient network of bishoprics from the
Lower Danubian provinces which disappeared together with the limes at the
beginning of the 7th century was replaced with something else only after
the creation of the Bulgarian church in 864. This Bulgarian church organiza-
tion, which included bishoprics at Belgrade and Moravon attested in 878–879,
was replaced with another after the victorious campaigns of the Byzantine
army in the Danubian region started in 971. After the revival of the Bulgarian
state in 976, the Byzantine army returned in 1001, occupying again the regions
conquered by Samuel in 986. The theme of Dristra was established in the area
between the Danube and Haemus.1 To the west, the province was extended up
to Vidin, which was occupied after a difficult siege that lasted from the sum-
mer of 1002 to the winter of 1002–1003. Built in the 9th century as a Bulgarian
fortress on the spot of Roman Bononia, whose name it inherited (Bdin in
Bulgarian), Vidin was a polygonal castle with nine towers and a surface of
around 1000 square meters.2 Like Noviodunum and Dristra, Vidin was a key
point for control of the Danube (strong bases on the land, able to supply the
navy and connected to the roads). All these three fortresses were located near
fords, repeatedly used by the enemy from the north. When the Byzantine army
arrived there, Vidin was in Samuel’s possession. It could be supposed that the
local population of the Timok region, a mix of Bulgarians and Romanians, was
free of any political authority until his advance to the Danube and after the
1 Madgearu 2013a, 125–126; Madgearu 2013b, 51–53, 59–63; Madgearu 2018, 53–55, 59–62.
2 Wortley 2010, 328; Kuzev – Giuzelev 1981, 98–115, 149–156; Barakov 2015, 623–626.
© Alexandru Madgearu, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_010

Consequences of the Restoration of Byzantine Power 239
collapse of the previous Bulgarian tsarate, or, as Nicolae Iorga proposed, the
center of an autonomous territory in the tsarate.3
The conquest of Vidin was of great strategic value because Bulgaria was
encircled from the north, and a new offensive pathway opened to its core area
of Skopje. The Byzantine offensive in the Danubian region determined the
reversal of alliances. A few years before, in 997, Samuel entered a coalition with
the Hungarian duke Géza (his son Gabriel Radomir married Géza’s daughter,
but this marriage ended in 1001). The new Hungarian King, Stephen I, aban-
doned the relations with Samuel, becoming the ally of the Byzantine Empire,
which was now the strongest power in the region.4
When the Byzantine Empire recovered its entire Danubian frontier up to
Vidin in 1003, its Church organization was already present near this region.
In my opinion, the area where the population converted by Hierotheos, the
bishop of Tourkia, lived, while ruled by the chief Gyula who became the ally
of Constantine VII in 948, was located between Mureș, Criș, and Tisza, in the
Csongrád and Békés counties, and not in Transylvania. The Byzantine pectoral
crosses and the gold coins (solidi) issued by Constantine VII are concentrated
in that area. Such coins are not found in Transylvania (the piece from Ocna
Mureș was brought by Hungarian invaders coming from that area). That was
the land called Tourkia in De Administrando Imperio, a work in which what is
now Transylvania was a white spot encircled by regions about which scarce
details were given (Moravia to the north, Patzinakia to the east, Bulgaria to the
south, Tourkia to the west). Therefore, those who compiled the work, which
was concluded around 952, knew nothing about the area that supposedly cor-
responded to the one where Hierotheos arrived earlier. Those Magyars who
entered in what will be afterwards called Terra Ultrasilvana had no docu-
mented connections with the Byzantine Empire after the withdrawal of the
Bulgarian domination over the local salt mines. The previous Bulgarian dom-
ination enabled and protected the survival of Christianity among the local
population of Romance origin, which subsisted there. The presence of some
crosses in the cemetery of Alba Iulia dated to the 9th–10th centuries could
signify only that the population, or a part of it, was Christian.5
3 Iorga 1937, 14.

4 Fehér 1921, 154–155; Györffy 1964, 149–154; Györffy 1994, 143–144; Makk 1994, 27; Dimitrov 1998,
81–83; Makk 1999, 27, 35–36; Kosztolnyik 2002, 33; Stojkovski 2012 65–67, 71; Georgieva 2011,
467–480; Madgearu 2003, 48; Mladjov 2015, 71–76; Madgearu 2018, 54–55.
5 Details in Madgearu 2017, 1–16, with previous bibliography. For other discussions on the
Bulgarian domination in Transylvania, see, for instance: Dragotă 2006, 29–31; Yotov 2012,
323–331; Țiplic 2013, 230–231. Recent contributions to the Hierotheos problem, sustaining
the location at Alba Iulia: Dragotă 2010, 279–295; Sălăgean 2010, 19–23; Marcu Istrate 2015,
240 Madgearu
The year 1003 was of great importance for the expansionist policy of King
Stephen I, in competition with Gyula Minor and Achtum. The first one, Gyula’s
nephew, ruled Bălgrad (Alba). His family was still heathen, and the duchy
of Bălgrad remained independent until the new conquest, carried out by
Stephen I in 1003.6 A consequence of this conquest was the penetration of the
Latin Church organization in Terra Ultrasilvana. The so-called cathedral Ia at
Alba Iulia, researched by Radu R. Heitel in 1973, was considered by him as the
first seat of the Latin bishop of Alba, dated at the beginning of the 11th century.
This is the same construction entirely excavated by Daniela Marcu Istrate in
2011: a church with a rectangular nave (21 × 12 m) with four central pillars set
like a Greek cross, and a semicircular apse.7
As I already discussed in a recent study,8 and as it was also remarked by
Miklós Takács,9 the chronology proposed for this monument and its relation
with the mission of Hierotheos are not all certain. D. Marcu Istrate, who does not
discuss the contradiction between the supposed conversion of the first Gyula
and the certain paganism of his nephew, argues that the terminus post-quem
of the construction could be placed by the middle of the 10th century, and
that the monument was in its turn put down when the so-called Ib cathedral
was constructed, by the third quarter of the 11th century. The stratigraphy does
not offer a certain date, and, what is most important, if the church was built
indeed for the first Gyula by the middle of the 10th century, this would mean
that the second Gyula, even being a heathen, left his uncle’s church intact. The
edifice was supposedly destroyed only later, in order to be replaced by a new
one, after the defeat of Gyula Minor, when Alba became a bishopric of the
Hungarian church. Therefore, the single certain fact is that after the conquest
of 1003, the new Hungarian masters allowed the construction of a church for
their subjects, who were already Christians. The significance of the church Ia
is discussed below.
Turning now to the second direction of Stephen I’s expansion, we remem-
ber that Achtum was baptized at Vidin, when he was already ruling over
the region between Crișul Alb, Tisa, and the Danube, from his residence of
Morisena. In 1003 or 1004, because Achtum rebelled against his sovereign
Stephen I, the Hungarian king started a war against him, which ended with the
victory of Sunad (Chanadin), a commander who betrayed Achtum, soon after
191–192; Dragotă 2017, 163–175; Dragotă 2018e, 89–96. For the gold coins, see the updated data
at Langó 2012, 53–59. For the solidus from Ocna Mureș: Prohászka 2018, 331–338.
6 Madgearu 2019, 183–185.
7 Heitel 1994–1995, 429; Marcu Istrate 2015, 177–213; Marcu Istrate 2018, 102–111.
8 Madgearu 2017, 13–16.
9 Takács 2013, 114–123.
the conquest of Vidin.10 The other proposed years, especially 1028,11 are based
on the supposition that Achtum was allied with the Byzantines, because the
Legenda Sancti Gerhardi recounts that he received the power from the Greeks.
But this was also possible before 986, when the Byzantine Empire was present
in the region, before Samuel’s great offensive. On the other hand, ‘the Greek
monks’ from the monastery established by Achtum at Morisena could be any
Orthodox monks, of any ethnic origin, because when the source was written,
at the end of the 11th century, Bulgaria was no more a state ruling over the
city of Vidin, but a Byzantine province.12 Therefore, it is possible that Achtum
was baptized at Vidin by a representative of the still-existing Bulgarian Church
before the conquest of this city by the Byzantine army in 1003.13 If we judge
from a military point of view, it is unlikely that Stephen I waited until 1028 for
the elimination of a powerful rival ruling the land between the main body of
his kingdom and Terra Ultrasilvana, the land subjected in 1003, whence the salt
transported on Mureș arrived to the land of Achtum. The establishment of the
royal rights for this salt traffic was one, perhaps the first, of the causes of the
conflict between Stephen I and Achtum. Therefore, it is possible that Samuel’s
increasing power gave Achtum the opportunity to rebel against Stephen I.14
The conflict between Stephen I and Achtum was only one episode of the
war fought by the Byzantine Empire in alliance with the Hungarians against
Bulgaria. The result was the establishment of the Byzantine domination on the
Danubian sector from Vidin to the Iron Gates region, and the subjection of the
duchy centered at Morisena to Stephen I’s authority.
There is no reason to doubt that the bishopric of Tourkia survived in its
initial area during the second half of the 10th century, because no less than
three bishops of Tourkia – Theophylaktos, Antonios, and Demetrios – are
known by their lead seals (there is no indication about the years when they
were in function, however).15 The existence of the Greek bishopric is not in
10 Madgearu 2001b, 79–80; Madgearu 2013b, 53–54; Madgearu 2018, 54–55; Madgearu 2019,
172–182.
11 For instance: Kristó 1993, 70–71; Makk 1999, 41; Kosztolnyik 2001, 69; Kosztolnyik 2002,
33–34, 272–276; Feraru 2016, 148–151; Sághy 2019, 25.
12 Fehér 1921, 152–155; Györffy 1964, 149; Turcuș 2011b, 79.
13 Gelzer 1902, 3–11; Madgearu 2001b, 77–82; Tăpkova-Zaimova 2008, 28–35.
14 The same opinion at Strässle 2006, 155, 333 (Achtum was the count of Vidin, this town
being attacked by Stephen I) and at Stojkovski 2012, 68–70. Mladjov 2015, 71 considered
that Achtum was a vassal or a governor of a Bulgarian province, while Makk 1994, 27–29
maintained that Samuel was in conflict with Stephen I, considering that Achtum was a
vassal of Stephen I who was fighting against Samuel.
15 Nesbitt – Oikonomidès 1991, 103, nr. 36.1; Baán 1999, 45–53; Turcuș 2004, 115–119; Révész
2012a, 85–88; Koszta 2014, 128–133.
242 Madgearu
contradiction with the missionary activity of the western bishoprics directed

to the Hungarians, because it involved a different territory than Tourkia:
Transdanubia. In 972, Saint Bruno of Querfurt baptized Duke Géza and his son
Vajk, the latter receiving the name Stephen after the patron of the bishopric of
Passau.16 The first Latin bishoprics were established in 997–1003 at Veszprém,
Esztergom, Győr, and in Terra Ultrasilvana, and later on at Pécs, Kalocsa, and
Eger in 1009.17
There was no overlapping between the Greek and the Latin bishoprics in
Stephen I’s new kingdom, during the time when the Byzantine Empire rees-
tablished its domination over the Danube in 1003, up to Vidin. Before that
moment, Dristra, Vidin, and Belgrade were bishoprics of the Bulgarian Church,
suffragans of the Preslav Patriarchy, moved to Ochrid during Samuel’s reign.
After the conquests of 1001–1003, Dristra and Vidin were reintegrated into the
hierarchy of the Patriarchy of Constantinople, probably as suffragans of the
metropolitan bishop of Tomis, which was revived for a short time as an inheri-
tor of the Bulgarian metropolitan bishopric of Preslav.18 It is not clear when the
Byzantine army occupied Belgrade, but it seems more probable that this hap-
pened in the final years of the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars, around the same time
as Sirmium, in 1018. The year 1018 will be discussed later. If Achtum was bap-
tized by the Bulgarian bishop of Vidin, the monastery of Morisena belonged
to this bishopric. After the Byzantine conquest of Vidin, this monastery also
entered under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine bishopric of Vidin, until the
establishment of the Latin bishopric of Morisena by Saint Gerhard in 1030.19
The Byzantine bishopric of Vidin was included in the archbishopric of
Ochrid, whose creation represents the second major moment in the reorgani-
zation of the Church in the Danubian region, a consequence of the final con-
quest of Bulgaria in 1018. Emperor Basil II decided in 1019 that the Bulgarian
Patriarchy of Ochrid will be replaced with an autocephalous archbishopric
with jurisdiction over the entire former state of Samuel, and that this epar-
chy (considered the inheritor of the archbishopric Justiniana Prima) would
be ruled only by Bulgarian priests. The decision was implemented by three
edicts (σιγίλλια) issued between 1019 and 1020, preserved not in the original,
16 Sághy 1997, 58.

17 Hóman 1940, 154–170; Kristó 1993, 55–59, 62–64; Györffy 1994b, 38, 49–72, 95–98; Bakay
1994, 19–21; Makk 1994, 26–27; Koszta 1999, 293–300; Sághy 2001, 451–459; Kosztolnyik
2002, 15–16, 59–69, 96–98, 113–123; Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007, 328–331; Barabás
2016, 120–125.
18 Madgearu 2001b, 71–75.
19 For the Latin bishopric and the new monastery: Kristó 1998, 62; Koszta 1999, 304; Țeicu
2007, 14–16, 29, 77; Barabás 2016, 126; Feraru 2016, 156–160; Sághy 2019, 25.
but only in the confirmation from a chrysobull of Michael VIII Palaeologus

(August 1272), transmitted through three copies from the 16th–17th centuries.
The edicts were destinated to Ivan, the last Bulgarian patriarch who became
the first archbishop. Ivan requested the delimitation of the diocese and tax
exemptions for some priests (klerikoi) and peasants (paroikoi), as it was before
the Byzantine conquest. According to the first edict (1018 or 1019), the arch-
bishopric was organized in 17 bishoprics, as it was during Samuel’s reign. By
the second edict (May 1020), all the regions that belonged to the former state of
Tsar Peter (927–969) were included: 11 bishoprics, among whom Dristra. After
few months the third edict was issued, which added two more bishoprics. The
archbishopric of Ochrid covered not only the theme with the same name, but
also the theme of Dristra, with the bishoprics of Vidin and Dristra.20
The western part of the Danubian province was put under the jurisdiction
of the bishopric of Vidin, inherited too from the former Bulgarian Patriarchy.
It is true that the association of Vidin with the archbishopric of Ochrid was
denied, because Βοδίνης / Βοδηνοῖς was identified by some historians with the
Macedonian Vodena.21 The emperor specified that he rewarded Βοδίνης with a
greater exemption because that city opened the way to Bulgaria, which is true
for the Danubian fortress, but there is a certain proof that the Danubian city
of Vidin belonged to the archbishopric of Ochrid: around 1095, the bishop of
Vidin wrote a letter to his superior, the archbishopric Theophylact of Ochrid.22
The extension of the archbishopric of Ochrid in present-day Banat has also
been sustained on the basis of another piece of information from Basil II’s
first edict. The territory of the new theme Sirmium23 was divided in 1019
between the bishoprics of Braničevo, Belgrade, and Sirmium, all of them being
dependent on Ochrid. The bishopric of Braničevo inherited Morava, a bishop-
ric founded before 879, when the region belonged to Bulgaria.24 The fortress
at Braničevo was located in the former Roman town of Viminacium (today,
Kostolac) and it had a great importance in the period between the 10th and
the 13th centuries.25 The bishopric of Braničevo had six parishes attested in
20 Gelzer 1893, 40–57; Snegarov 1924, 52–62, 195; Gyóni 1945, 130; Bănescu 1946, 13–17; Gyóni
1948, 148–152; Oikonomidès 1989, 317–321; Gabor 1989, 113–116; Oikonomidès 1996, 82, 174–
175; Stephenson 2000, 75, 77, 78; Stephenson 2008, 671; Iliev 2011, 242–244; Prinzing 2012,
358–366; Petrovski 2015, 268–275; Tăpkova-Zaimova 2017, 46–50, 113; Panov 2019, 79–88.
21 Snegarov 1924, 13; Oikonomidès 1989, 319; Oikonomidès 1996, 174; Tăpkova-Zaimova 2017,
48; Panov 2019, 84.
22 Snegarov 1924, 220–221; Théophylacte d’Achrida, 67, 68, 192, 294, 322–325; Mullett 1997, 87,
126, 128, 264, 315.
23 Wasilewski 1964, 465–482.
24 Popović 1978, 35.
25 Popović – Ivanisević 1988, 125–179; Popović 1991, 172.
244 Madgearu
the edict. From these, four were identified in the neighbourhood of Braničevo:
Μορόβισκος (Morava/Moravište, today Dubravica),26 Σφεντέρομος (Smederevo/
Semendria), Γρότα (Grocka), and Βροδάρισκος (Brodskopolje). The place
Ιστραάγλαγγα has not yet been identified. The sixth parish is Βίσισκος or
Διβίσκος.27 Dibiskos was searched somewhere near the River Timiș (Tibiscus).
Several historians have sustained the location at Jupa, the ancient Roman
town Tibiscum.28 Jupa is located near Caransebeș, the most important Roma
nian centre in medieval Banat (a flourishing town during the 14th century).29
Placed at the crossing of two roads that reached the south-Danubian area (by
Cerna Valley and by the basin Caraș-Ezeriș), Caransebeș is not very far from
Braničevo. However, it is closer than Timișoara. A communication Braničevo –
Timișoara would have been hindered by the marshy land that existed in the
premodern period south of Timișoara. Timișoara was oriented toward the
Mureș Valley, not toward the Danube. However, the archaeological research
brought no proofs for the location of this church centre at Jupa.30 Others
believed that Dibiskos should be placed at Timișoara31 because this was an
important town, recorded since 1212 with the names Themes, Temes, or Tymes.32
Constantine Porphyrogenitus transmitted the same form of the river’s name
at the middle of the 10th century (Τιμήσις).33 This means that the name of the
river was already transformed from Tibiscus into Timiș by this time.
The name Dibiskos should be linked with another place, whose name
evolved in another way. Mátyás Gyóni has offered the most probable solu-
tion. An anonymous Greek chronicle written sometimes between 1573 and
1625 (Χρονικὸν περὶ τῶν Τούρκων Σουλτάνων, preserved at Vatican in Codex
Barberinus Graecus 111) has recorded a place named Timbisko, in the accounts
of the Hungarian-Ottoman wars of 1439 and 1443. From the context results
26 It is the city of Morava, located at the mouth of the homonymous river, on the place of the
Roman town Margum (today, Dubravica). It is not known when the bishopric of Morava
was moved to Braničevo. A Byzantine fortification with an area of 10 ha existed at Morava
during the 11th century. See Nesbitt – Oikonomidès 1991, 195–196; Maksimović – Popović
1993, 127–129.
27 Gelzer 1893, 43; Gyóni 1948, 151.
28 For instance: Székely 1967, 302; Moravcsik 1970, 110; Glück 1980, 127.
29 Popa 1989, 353–370; Bona 1989, 25.
30 Ardeț 1996, 416–417.
31 Suciu 1977, 39–41; Răileanu 1977, 2225–2250; Suciu – Constantinescu 1980, 21 (the trans-
lation of the source, with some mistakes: paroikoi is translated ‘parohi’ = parish priests!);
Iambor 1980, 167–168; Munteanu 1983, 236; Dănilă 1984, 720; Muntean 2008, 299.
32 Suciu 1968, vol. II, 193.
33 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 176/177 (XL, 38). For the evolution of the name, see
Slușanschi 1976, 151–165.
that Timbisko was located somewhere on the left bank of the Danube, vis-à-vis
Semendria (Smederovo). Based on this information, Gyóni has identified
Dibiskos with Cuvin, where a placename Temes still exists (the island between
Cuvin and Palanka).34 This idea could be supported by comparisons with other
relations of the campaign of 1443. They are clearly showing that the troops
of the Polish-Hungarian king Wladislaw III were called up at Cuvin before
crossing the Danube.35 It seems that Timbisko was another name for Cuvin,
replaced by the Hungarian official name Cuvin (Kewe, from kő ‘stone’).
Dibiskos-Cuvin was therefore a parish from the bishopric of Braničevo. One
could observe that all the parishes of this bishopric are located in a small area.
Cuvin is located within this area. Basil II’s edict confirmed a previous situation,
contemporary to Samuel’s reign. In this case, the parish of Dibiskos belonged
to the Bulgarian diocese of Braničevo, at the end of the 10th century and in
the first years of the 11th century. Because Cuvin is only a bridgehead in front
of Smederevo and Morava, the existence of this parish is not able to prove the
extension of this diocese inside the Banat area. The historians who admitted
the extension of the archbishopric of Ochrid in the Banat did not analyze all
the consequences of this idea. If one supposes that Achtum reigned in Banat
after 1020 (a fact that we deny), this would mean that his duchy was religiously
integrated in the Byzantine Empire, and that the dependent peasants from
Dibiskos paid taxes for the archbishop of Ochrid. Even the existence of a kind
of Byzantine paroikoi in the 11th century Banat is unthinkable. All the social
and ecclesiastical data that we can find out from the edicts issued by Basil II
are typical only for Byzantine society. Therefore, nothing proves that the arch-
bishopric of Ochrid extended in the Banat. This large structure for church
organization was established inside the boundaries of the former Bulgarian
state of Samuel and only there. Dibiskos (Cuvin) was under Byzantine military
domination in 1020. This is not all surprising, because Hungary was still weak
in this zone. The Byzantine authorities had instead the interest in ensuring the
defence of the fortresses at Morava and Braničevo, especially their connection
to the north. The Romans acted into a similar way: they established a bridge-
head at Cuvin.36 It is interesting to observe that also the ancient archbishopric
of Justiniana Prima had two parishes on the left bank of the Danube in 535, at
34 Gyóni 1947, 46–49. The date of the chronicle mentioned by him, 1517, was afterwards cor-
rected. See the researches on this chronicle at https://ottomanhistorians.uchicago.edu/
en/historian/anonymous-chronicle-turkish-sultans, accessed 2021 Febr 6.
35 Antoche 2012, 15–18.
36 Džordžević 1996, 128–130.
246 Madgearu
Recidiva and at Litterata (both east of Cuvin), and that the archbishopric was
not extended in the inland.37
The new church organization implemented by Basil II led to the integra-
tion of all the territories conquered at the Lower Danube between 1001 and
1018 into a single great archbishopric that had approximately the maximal
boundaries of the conquered Bulgarian state. In the second edict of May 1020,
Dristra was the single bishopric in the eastern part of the Danubian province.
The bishop of Dristra had the right to have in his service 40 klerikoi and 40 par-
oikoi tax exempted. No names of parishes are given in his case, but it is speci-
fied that this diocese had several kastra. There is no proof for the existence of
other bishoprics in Dobrudja, other than Dristra, in the first two decades of the
11th century.38 This organization was not practical. Around the middle of the
11th century, the bishopric of Dristra was raised at the metropolitan rank in
view to a better ecclesiastic administration of the province Paradunavon.39 In
this way, the Paradunavon theme was removed from the jurisdiction of the
archbishopric of Ochrid. A last remark concerns the disparity in the number
of bishoprics between the central and southern parts of the archbishopric of
Ochrid, and its northern area. The small number of bishoprics in the north was
the consequence of the small degree of urbanization, in comparison with the
southern regions of the Balkan Peninsula. From this point of view, the raising
of the diocese of Dristra to the metropolitan rank suggests a progress of urban-
ization in Paradunavon.
The metropolitan bishopric of Tourkia survived and acquired the met-
ropolitan rank after 1018, when Basil II reorganized the eparchies after the
destruction of the Bulgarian state. Ioannes, a metropolitan bishop of Tourkia,
was a participant at the patriarchal concilium of 1028. In the mid 12th century,
the seat of this metropolitan diocese was at Bács, one of the most important
medieval cities in southern Hungary.40 The eastern Christians who lived in
present-day Banat in 1020 belonged to the metropolitan bishopric of Tourkia,
regardless of their ethnic origin, and were in contact with the Byzantine
Empire. The nunnery established by King Stephen I at Veszprémvölgy (the
certain date remains unknown) was entitled in the charter as a ‘metropolitan
monastery’ (τοῦ μητροπολίτου τὸ μοναστήριον), which means that it was sub-
ordinated to this metropolitanate of Tourkia. Some historians have proposed
37 Madgearu 2011, 176–177.

38 Snegarov 1924, 57, 62; Madgearu 2001b, 75–78; Atanasov 2017, 97–113.
39 Diaconu 1991, 83; Diaconu 1994–1995, 452; Atanasov 2017, 116–118.
40 Oikonomidès 1971, 527–530; Stephenson 2000, 191, 253; Révész 2012a, 88, 96; Barabás 2016,
118; Feraru 2016, 162.
that the monastery was built for Sarolta, because they considered that the
daughter of Gyula was Christian. In fact, there is no proof for that. According
to a more reliable opinion, the monastery was founded for the Byzantine wife
of Prince Emeric.41
This metropolitanate of Tourkia, subordinated to the Constantinopolitan
Church, was responsible for the entire area of the Hungarian Kingdom, includ-
ing the recent conquests made in the lands of Achtum and Geula. According
to István Baán and Șerban Turcuș, Morisena, Biharia, and Alba Iulia (church
Ia) could be the suffragan bishoprics of this metropolitanate.42 At Alba Iulia,
if the church Ia could be associated with the eastern bishop settled there after
1003, than the church Ib was constructed as the seat of the Latin bishopric,
which replaced the Greek one, sometime after the schism of 1054 (before that,
the Latin bishopric of Terra Ultrasilvana was likely located in the northern part
of the land, at Clus or Gilău).43 Therefore, the same kingdom was partially cov-
ered by two different church organizations, a Latin one and a Greek one.
In conclusion, the restoration of the Byzantine administration in the
Danubian region up to Belgrade was step by step followed by the implemen-
tation of a new ecclesiastic organization in the service of the new subjects
(the Ochrid archbishopric), but also of the Christians of Greek rite living in
Hungary, a young state which in the first decades of its existence preserved
good relations with the Empire. For them, the older bishopric of Hierotheos
was transformed in the metropolitan bishopric of Tourkia, which also included
the church Ia of Alba Iulia.
41 Györffy 1994b, 151; Kosztolnyik 2001, 70; Kosztolnyik 2002, 35; Révész 2012a, 90–91, 96;
Stojkovski 2019, 120–121; Sághy 2019, 13–17, 30–32.
42 Moravcsik 1970, 111–113; Baán 1999, pp. 45–53; Turcuș 2004, 115–119; Turcuș 2011b, 82; Koszta
2014, 127–143.
43 Kristó 1998, 57–59; Koszta 1999, 301; Sălăgean 2009, 22–23; Dincă 2017, 40–49. Against the
existence of an Oriental Church organization and for the establishment of the Latin bish-
opric at Alba since the beginning: Kovács 2017, 101–116.
Chapter 9
Some Remarks on the Church History

of the Carpathian Basin during the 10th and
11th Centuries
Gábor Thoroczkay
Hungarian Christianity has both Eastern and Western roots. The connection
with Western Christianity has become decisive, but the Eastern anteced-
ents cannot be neglected either. These Eastern Christian roots have received
renewed attention in recent years, as the early Christian church discovered in
Gyulafehérvár (today Alba Iulia, Transylvania, Romania) has been interpreted
as being linked to this mission. The present study aims to present the issue at
hand within this framework. My paper is intended to be a first approach to the
subject, since the results of productive archaeological debates can certainly
modify its conclusions.
Accordingly, the present study will cover the examination of the sources
and date of the Byzantine Christian mission chieftain Gyula initiated in the
middle of the 10th century, as well as the relations between that phenomenon
and the church built at Gyulafehérvár (today: Alba Iulia, Romania). The church
possibly followed the Byzantine rite. In addition, this study addresses the sur-
vival of the position of the bishop of Tourkia during the 11th century.1
John Skylitzes, a historian of the 11th century, has left us the following infor-
mation in his work titled Synopsis historion: the Hungarian leader Bulcsú
(Boulosoudes) has been baptised in Constantinople where Constantine VII
(Porphyrogenitus) became his godfather. Bulcsú was also honoured with the
title of patrikios. The source later notes that Bulcsú violated the alliance with
the Byzantines, and the German ruler Otto I finally had him executed. Skylitzes
also makes a further reference about Hungary, as follows:
1 This study was written in the framework of the Eötvös Loránd Research Network –
Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences – University of Pécs, “Hungarian Medieval Church
Archontology, 1000–1387” Research Group (identification number: 1421707). The English
translation was supported by Thematic Excellence Programme of the National Research,
Development and Innovation Office – Project: Community building: Family and Nation,
Tradition and Innovation.
© Gábor Thoroczkay, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_011

Some Remarks on the Church History of the Carpathian Basin 249
Not long afterwards, Gylas who was also a chieftain of the Turks, came
to the capital where he too was baptised where he too was accorded
the same honours and benefits. He took back with him a monk with a
reputation of piety named Hierotheos who had been ordained bishop
of Turkey by Theophylact. When he got there he converted many from
the barbaric fallacy to the Christianity. And Gylas remained faithful to
Christianity; he made no inroad against the Romans nor did he leave
Christian prisoners untended. He ransomed them, took care of their
needs and set them free.2
The news about Gyula’s conversion and the Byzantine mission is also con-
firmed in Old Church Slavonic (Russian) sources. A polemic narrative source
(titled Povest’ o latinĕch) from the 14th century, with a Byzantine forerunner
from the 12th century that was most probably based on Skylitzes, also informs
us about the Byzantine missionary activity among the Hungarians, revealing
also the name that Gyula received upon baptism: István (Stephen).3 That was
included in the Nikon Chronicle compilation, that is one of the Old Russian
annals, which also contains most of the information included in the aforemen-
tioned polemic document.4 These sources reveal also that, based largely on the
liturgical books, the Latin rite Christianity prevailed among Hungarians for the
long run.
Regarding the value of the sources, we first and foremost should exam-
ine Skylitzes. The author, who lived in the first half of the 11th century and
held high positions in the imperial court, wrote a chronicle of the emperors.
Modern scholars have found that his work is neither completely isolated nor
completely without impact, and holds rather high value as a source at cer-
tain points. Skylitzes was particularly interested in ecclesiastical matters. His
aforementioned paragraph, centered on Hungarian leaders being baptised
and the missionary activity carried out in Tourkia, can be found in a part in
his writing whose sources have not yet been precisely revealed by research,
yet, whose genuine nature is beyond any doubt.5 The dating of the events of
which Skylitzes informs us is nonetheless different; Theophylact was patriarch
2 Ioannes Skylitzes, Synopsis historion, 85–86 (ed. Moravcsik 1984); Hungarian translation with
detailed introduction and commentaries: Kristó 1995, 152–153; English translation: Wortley
2010, 231.
3 Popov 1875, 187–188; Hungarian translation with detailed introduction and commentaries:
Kristó 1995, 178–179.
4 Polnoe sobranie ruskikh letopisey, IX, p. 70. Hungarian translation with detailed introduction
and commentaries: Kristó 1995, 179.
5 Flusin 2010a, XII–XXXIII.
250 Thoroczkay
between 933 and 956,6 which allows for a dating in a wider range. Most view-
points date the beginning of the Christian missionary activity related to Gyula
during the first half of the 950s,7 but a most recent statement dates it to an
earlier date, that is 948.8
Although the idea that it was the area of the Tisza – Körös – Maros rivers
where the mission related to Hierotheos reached the Hungarians led by the
chieftain Gyula emerges from time to time, no evidence can be brought to
support this theory convincing enough. It is now clear that the round church
of Kiszombor, which was earlier considered as one that is of Byzantine origin
and built rather early, was originally constructed in the 12th or 13th century.9
It is also likely that the appearance of Byzantine coins does not support the
occurrence of Christian proselyting, but merely aspects of trade relations. I
tend to think the same of the pectoral crosses, which are essentially impossi-
ble to date.10 Consequently, it is possible that Hierotheos’s mission concerned
Transylvania in the middle of the 10th century.
The Gyulas were the chieftains of Transylvania, which is a region located in
the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, until the foundation of the Hungarian
state by Saint Stephen. The Arabic word jila, which is gylas in Greek, meant the
second leading position, the executive and military leader of the Hungarian
sacral principality (dual kingship) born in the southern Russian and Ukrainian
steppes around 850. After the Hungarian conquest, around 950, this position
became one of judicial nature, yet, it was most probably held by one of the
tribal leaders of the Carpathian Basin on a hereditary basis.
We know, or presumably know, four Gyulas. The first was Kusál (who
appeared as Kurszán in earlier Hungarian literature, as Kusanes in Greek
sources, and as Chussal or Chussol in Latin sources) who had been the execu-
tive and military leader of the Hungarians at the time of the Hungarian con-
quest beside Álmos, and later Árpád who held the position of künde. He was
killed by Bavarians after the settlement of the Hungarians in 904, at a feast at
the western borderland. His son, the second Gyula, perhaps relocated to the
Transtisza region, and soon to Transylvania. Although the relocation might
have only occurred after the son of the second Gyula became the third Gyula.
He was the one who went to Constantinople and brought back with him the
6 Berki 1994, 675.

7 Györffy 1984, 681–684.
8 Madgearu 2008, 123.
9 Marosvári 2014.
10 For the contrary opinion see: Madgearu 2008, 126–130.
missionary bishop Hierotheos, after having been baptised himself. His seat was
in Transylvania beyond doubt, in the former Roman fortress of Apulum, which
later became Gyulafehérvár, today Alba Iulia in Romania. According to the
most recent hypothesis, the Gyulas led both a southern Transylvanian and a
northern Transylvanian tribe, in a ‘tribal state’ of a significant military nature.11
The daughter of the third Gyula, Sarolta, became the wife of the Grand Prince
Géza and the mother of King Saint Stephen (r. 1000/1001–1038). The fourth
Gyula was Sarolta’s brother whom we know as Prokuj, by his Slavic name, and
he soon became the adversary of his nephew Stephen. According to German
annals, Stephen defeated his uncle whose territory he integrated into his coun-
try in 1003, but whose life he spared. The sons of this fourth Gyula, Bolya and
Bonyha, appeared in the Hungarian royal court even in the 1040s.12 As it is
apparent from the details mentioned above, for my historical reconstruction,
I do not use the names related to the Gyulas in the Anonymus’s gesta, which
was written around 1210 and the value of which is rather doubtful as a source.13
On what basis can it be assumed that the mission led by Hierotheos has con-
cerned Transylvania? The most recent archaeological research proposes that
the northern region of Transylvania was occupied by Hungarians in the first
half of the 10th century due to the salt (and perhaps gold) found there, and due
to the desire to control trade activities in the north-south direction. According
to this viewpoint, based on the graves explored there, Kolozsvár (today:
Cluj-Napoca, Romania) became the military centre with strong relations to the
Upper Tisza region. It can be conceived that Gyulafehérvár was occupied in
or after the second third of the 10th century, along the River Maros/Mureș.
Following that, at the beginning of the 11th century when the state and Church
organisation of Saint Stephen commenced, another settlement occurred in
the southern Transylvanian region. The eastern part of Transylvania is consid-
ered as a periphery, yet, it is stressed that Hungarians integrated the different
Slavic, Avar, and especially Bulgarian groups found in northern and southern
Transylvania as subjugated people into their own socio-economic order. This
archaeological reconstruction does not mention the presence of tribal states,
but it does consider the territorial power of military leaders.14 Thus, it is not
impossible to assume that Hungarian authority over southern Transylvania
existed after 950.
11 On the ‘tribal states’ see: Kristó 1980, 435–491; Thoroczkay 2020, 17–19.
12 Kristó 1996b, 159–173; Kristó 2003, 61–68; Thoroczkay 2021 494–495.
13 Györffy 1972, 209–229; Kristó 2001, 15–57; Kristó 2002b, 49–60.
14 Gáll 2013a, 807, 808, 815–817, 822, 822–823, 826, 826–931, 831–833; Gáll 2014, 82–92.
252 Thoroczkay
It is undoubtably verifiable that the Bulgarian state was present in south-

ern Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest; presumably it was salt min-
ing that made the region important and favourable.15 However, the opinion
emerging among Hungarian historians, which placed the Gyulas in north-
ern Transylvania and considered southern Transylvania as a region where a
Bulgarian principality had existed under the rule of the Keanus dux until the
age of Saint Stephen,16 has been refuted based on archaeological, historical,
and linguistic research.17 Thus, Hungarians settled also in that region from the
middle of the 10th century onward.
It is well known that a church was excavated 32 meters from the Roman
Catholic cathedral of Gyulafehérvár in the middle of the 1970s. It was then iden-
tified as a small size (20 meters long), single-nave church with a semi-circular
sanctuary.18 Its supporting walls rest on a 10th-century Hungarian grave, but
after it was dismantled, a grave was dug over the remains, which can be dated
based on the coins of Hungarian King Géza I (r. 1074–1077).19 Several expla-
nations arose in relation to the small church. Some considered it as the first
Latin rite episcopal cathedral in Transylvania (followed by a second in the
age of Saint Ladislaus, and a third in the age of Andrew II; I also used to hold
this view).20 Others related the church to Eastern Christianity and the Gyula
of the 10th century.21 Also, an idea emerged according to which the church
might have been an early archdeacon church of the fortress of the local count
(ispán).22 Later, more cautiously formulated opinions emerged, and the church
was considered again by some as an episcopal cathedral of Latin rite. At that
point, it was noted that the oldest coins that appear in the surrounding of the
church originate from the time of King Coloman the Learned (r. 1095–1116).23
Even recently, the construction of the church has been dated to the beginning
or middle of the 11th century.24
At the beginning of the 2010s, the small church of Gyulafehérvár was
explored once more. As regards its architectural parameters, the church was
reconstructed by the archaeologist who led the research in a completely
15 Bóna 1989, 102–106; Kristó 2003, 35–40.

16 Kristó 2003, 69–74. See also Kristó 1994, 11–24.
17 Thoroczkay 2016a, 9–28.
18 Heitel 1975a, 3–10; Heitel 1985, 215–231; Heitel 1986, 233–248.
19 Benkő 1994, 246.
20 Bóna 2001b, 89–90; Thoroczkay 2016a, 25–26.
21 Ferenczi 1996, 27–28.
22 Entz 1994, 25–26.
23 Benkő 2001a, 141–142.
24 Gáll 2014, 92.
different manner than that revealed by earlier excavation reports. This recon-
struction described the church with a ground plan in the shape of a Greek
cross, consisting of a semicircular apse and a rectangular nave with a central
square demarcated with four pillars. According to the opinion of the lead-
ing archaeologist, the church, which represented a church type known from
Byzantium in the end of the 9th century, must have been built in the middle
of the 10th century by bishop Hierotheos or one of his successors. This church
was the first of its kind north of the Danube.25
There is no intervention in this study to the centuries-old debate on the
establishment of Romanians in Transylvania any further. However, I must defi-
nitely rule out the hypotheses that the church would have been built for the
‘autochthonous Romanian’ population.26 If the church was constructed in the
middle of the 10th century, then it should be considered as the bishop’s church
related to the Christian missionary activity led by Hierotheos and initiated
by the Gyulas, who appeared around that time in southern Transylvania.27
This mission might have concerned both the Slavs who lived in the area and
the Hungarians who moved there. The church was probably used also by the
Roman Catholic bishopric established by the Hungarian ruler after the year
1003, that is after the last Gyula was defeated.28
Critical opinions have also surrounded the new excavation results.
Hungarian archaeologists stressed that categorizing the church as one of
Byzantine style does not necessarily mean that it is related to the Orthodox
proselyting activity, since churches imitating Byzantine building traditions
and architectural characteristics exist also in areas of Western Christianity,
in Italy and even in Hungary. This statement highlighted also that the church
in Gyulafehérvár, rather, must have been a single-nave church with a dome,
built at the time when the first Roman Catholic cathedral was constructed.29
Romanian historians, on the other hand, have not disputed that the church
should be categorized as one of Byzantine style but dated its construction after
1003. In their opinion, the church must have been the cathedral of the bishop-
ric belonging to a Byzantine metropolitan. According to this viewpoint, the
Roman Catholic diocese was established after 1054 in Transylvania.30

26 For a negative assessment of the Dacian-Romanian theory of continuity, I quote the
elementary writing of a German author. I do this so that I cannot be accused of bias:
Schramm 1997.
27 This was my opinion also in my previous study: Thoroczkay 2016a, 25, n. 62.
28 Annales Altahenses maiores, 790.
29 Takács 2013, 75–135; Takács 2018, 208–213.
30 Madgearu 2017, 1–16.
254 Thoroczkay
As a historian, it is a risky attempt to decide between the viewpoints of

archaeologists; it is best to wait patiently for subsequent, hopefully decisive
statements. However, it is safe to say that if the majority of the views will con-
sider the church as a Byzantine one from the 10th century, then – as I said
above – it must be considered as one that belonged to the Byzantine Christian
mission of Hierotheos, built for the Hungarians and Slavs of southern
Transylvania. Yet, the statement according to which two Latin rite churches
would have existed at Gyulafehérvár by the beginning of the 11th century (one
of which was the cathedral of the Bishopric), needs to be further discussed.
What could have been the other church? An early archdeacon church or per-
haps a station church? It was certainly not a collegiate chapter church, since
that never existed at the seat of the Roman Catholic bishop of Transylvania.
Thus, this viewpoint also requires a more prudent argumentation.
No matter what is thought of the sacred building at Gyulafehérvár,
Hierotheos’s mission has certainly been continued by the end of the 10th
or during the first half of the 11th century. That, however, is no less difficult
a problem than the forementioned archaeological issue. As historical studies
have shown, several sources from the first half of the 11th century (notitiae
episcopatuum, acts of synods, and three bishop seals) mention the metropoli-
tan, synkellos and proedros (presumably synonyms of the term ‘metropolitan’)
of Tourkia, as well as the bishop of the Tourkoi. We also know the name of
some of them (Joannes, Theophylaktos, Antonios, Demetrios).31 Research
correctly argues that the deed of foundation of the Greek nunnery in
Veszprémvölgy, which was written in Greek most probably in the end of the
10th century, is one of the sources that mention the Byzantine metropolitan of
the Carpathian Basin: according to that deed, the person initiating the mon-
astery (auctor monasterii) was a (Byzantine) metropolitan.32 We are among
those researchers33 who believe that the mentioned Byzantine prelate was
the promoted successor of Hierotheos. However, we consider the ideas can be
rejected that this institution would have had any jurisdiction in the Hungarian
state of Saint Stephen, whether as the Archbishop of Kalocsa,34 or whether
as a missionary bishop within the framework of the Byzantine rite monasteries
31 The notitia episcopatuum and the synodical act (1028) see: Olajos 2014, 80–85, 86–89; for
the seals of the metropolitan and the bishops see: Révész 2012a, 79–101. The first funda-
mental article on this metropolitan see: Oikonomidès 1971, 527–533.
32 The standard edition of the charter: Moravcsik 1984, 79–81; Hungarian translation with
detailed introduction and commentaries: Kristó 1999b, 115–119.
33 Thoroczkay 2016b, 46–51; Szentgyörgyi 2015, 190–202.
34 For this opportunity see: Szentgyörgyi 2015, passim; Baán 2019, 139–166.
in southern Hungary (Oroszlámos – today: Banatsko Aranđelovo, Serbia; Titel –

today: Titel, Serbia; Szerémvár – today: Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia).
This prelate, who perhaps was promoted to the rank of metropolitan as
early as the second half of the 10th century, and who carried out his activities
also in Transdanubia in the age of Grand Prince Géza, expressed the Byzantine
demand to continue the Orthodox proselyting commenced in southern
Transylvania in the 10th century. However, such attempt failed to succeed,
since the episcopal ecclesiastical system of Hungary has followed the Roman
rite in the 11th century.35
How can the above be summarised at the end of the study? Based on the
reliable sources (Skylitzes, Povest’ o latinĕch, the Nikon Chronicle), Hierotheos’s
Byzantine mission, which certainly took place, most probably concerned the
‘state’ of the Gyulas in southern Transylvania in the middle of the 10th cen-
tury. So far it can be reasonably argued that the church found at Gyulafehérvár,
which reveals Byzantine architectural solutions and architectural features
rooted in the Byzantine style, is relatable to the subject. Finally, it is also
beyond doubt that the successors of the first missionary bishop who carried
out missions in the Carpathian Basin can be found in the Byzantine ecclesias-
tical hierarchy also in the 11th century in the rank of the metropolitan.
35 Koszta 2014, 127–143; Thoroczkay 2001, 49–68.
Chapter 10
Gyula’s Christianity and the Bishopric of the

Eastern Mission
Éva Révész
The topic of Hungarian conversion to Christianity has always been of great

interest, but the emphasis has been mainly on Western reimbursement,
and many do not know that the first Hungarian conversions were related to
Byzantium, even though, in the end, Hungary joined Rome. In my research,
I have tried to put this in the worthy place, to present the results so far, and
summarize it objectively in this article, what role did Eastern Christianity play
in the Christianization of Hungarians in the 10th and 11th centuries.
In the middle of 10th century, around 953, Gyula, the second highest dignity
of the Hungarian Chiefdom, travelled to Constantinople. He embarked on this
journey supposedly in order to extend the truce with the Byzantine Empire.1
While there, he was baptized. He returned with monk Hierotheos, who was
entrusted as bishop of Tourkia and given the task to evangelize the Hungarians.
John Skylitzes (an 11th century Byzantine historian) described this event in the
next way:
1 After the settlement of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin, the first conversions among
the Hungarians happened in Byzantium. For the first Termacsu, descendant of Árpád and
Bulcsú horka (= karkhas, καρχάς, see more about: KMTL, 269.) the Hungarian Chiefdom’s
third highest dignity around 948, after them Gyula (= jila, Ğ.l.h, γυλάς, see more about this:
KMTL, 24.5) was in diplomatic delegation around 953 in Constantinople, in the course of
these missions they were baptized. The reason for these delegations was to establish a truce
between the Hungarian and Byzantine leaders. These delegations and the baptism were
recorded in many sources. The Byzantine emperor, Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos
(908–945–959) in his work De administrando imperio (CFHB I, 178,63–65, 179; DAI, 178–179;
HKÍF, 132 – Hungarian translation by Gyula Moravcsik; MEH, 122.), of the Byzantine histori-
ans Skylitzes, Kedrenos and Zonaras (Ioannes Skylitzes: Synopsis historion, ed. Wortley 2010,
231; CFHB V, 239,60–73; CSHB 9, 328,6–20; ÁMTBF, 85–86; HKÍF, 152–153 – Hungarian trans-
lation by Gyula Moravcsik; Ioannes Zonaras: Epitome historion: CSHB 49. 484,8–17; ÁMTBF,
100.), of the Slavic narrative sources the Povest’ vremennykh let (Hodinka 1916, 53, 55.), the
so-called 15th century’s collection (HKÍF, 178), the Nikon Chronicle (HKÍF, 179 – Hungarian
translation by István Ferincz) and its later reverberation, the so-called Speech about Batu’s
murder (Dimitriev – Likhachev 1986, 516, 518 – Old Church Slavonic version, 517, 519 – Russian
translation).
© Éva Tóth-Révész, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_012

Gyula ’ s Christianity 257
Not long afterwards, Gylas [= Gyula] who was also a chieftain of the
Turks came to the capital where he too was baptised and where he too
was accorded the same honours and benefits. He took back with him
a monk with a reputation for piety named Hierotheos who had been
ordained bishop of Turkey [= Turkia] by Theophylact. When he got there,
he converted many from the barbaric fallacy to Christianity. And Gylas
remained faithful to Christianity; he made no inroad against the Romans
nor did he leave Christian prisoners untended. He ransomed them, took
care of their needs and set them free.2
From the Slavic sources, we know that Gyula received the name of Stefan
[=István] in baptism.
With these events mark the beginning of Christian evangelization among
the Hungarians. The title ‘bishop of Tourkia’ clearly demonstrates the will of
Byzantine imperial diplomacy: the duty of Hierotheos was the Christianisation
of all Tourkia, or every ‘türks,’ as bishop of all Hungarians.3 The speculation –
that he will have the opportunity to achieve his objective – was based on the
fact that the three highest dignitaries of the Hungarian Chiefdom were already
baptized in Constantinople. Even if they personally only slightly became
Christians, the imperial diplomacy could expect that, for political consider-
ation, he would be allowed to work freely.4 Moreover, we cannot exclude the
possibility that the ‘really careful Byzantine diplomacy’ had the permission
of Hungarian leadership to send this bishop among the Hungarians with full
authorization in all the local territories.5 Supposedly, through the proselyti-
zation of the bishop and his monks, the ecclesiastical expressions with Slavic
origins entered the Hungarian language. These religious figures certainly
preached with the help of Bulgarian-Slavic interpreters.6
Hierotheos thus started his missionary work. From the available sources, we
know that his work was not unsuccessful, because many of his successors are
2 Wortley 2010, 231.

3 Moravcsik 1967, 329; Györffy 1976, 176; Makk 1996, 17; Makk 1999, 41; Makk 2000a, 319–348;
Avenarius 2000, 129.
4 According to Moravcsik Gyula’s opinion, which is based on Zonaras’ work, presumably that
ran conversion also in Bulcsú’s territory: “καὶ πατρίκιος ἐπιμήϑη ἑκάτερος, καὶ κατηνλἡϑησαν
χρήμασι καὶ οὕτως ἐπανῆλϑον εἰς τὰ ἤϑη τὰ ἑαυτῶν λαβόντες καὶ ἀρχιερέα, δι’ οὗ πολλοὶ πρὸς
ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ μετηνέχϑησαν”. Ioannes Zonaras, Epitome historion: CSHB 49. 484,12–16;
ÁMTBF, 100.
5 Pirigyi 1988, 161.
6 Györffy 1952–1953, 333.; H. Tóth 1994, 56–57; Pirigyi 1991, 11; H. Tóth 1995, 29–30; CAH, 48;
H. Tóth 2000, 26; Györffy 2000, 48.
258 Révész
Figure 10.1 Bishop Theophylaktos’s seal: Saint Demetrios’s bust, Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει)
Θεοφυλά(κτῳ) [ἐ]πισκό[π]ῳ Τούρ[κ]ων
After Laurent 1940, 287. n. 3, 289. n. 4
known: bishops Theophylaktos, Antonios, Demetrios, and the metropolitan

Ioannes.7
We do not have direct sources about the precise location and expansion of
his activity.8 Because Gyula brought Hierotheos with himself, the initial stage
of his activity and the centre of the bishopric were certainly in the territory of
Gyula’s tribe.
The location of this tribe was first set in Transylvania. This is the conse-
quence of the report of Anonymus Hungaricus’ Gesta Hungarorum about
the campaign of the Hungarian king Stephen I (r. 1000–1038) against the
younger Gyula in 1002.9 At this time, the tribe’s territory already included
Transylvania. This location was retained in the name of the subsequently cre-
ated Transylvanian Bishopric, which was the only one of St. Stephen’s founda-
tions. This is not named after its episcopal centre, which can be traced back to
the diocese’s Eastern Christian roots.
Although the Transylvanian localization was already correct at the turn of
the millennium, the situation changed by the 10th century. It is known from
7 Ioannes, Tourkia’s metropolitan’s name appears on the list of participants of the Council
of Constantinople in 1028, led by patriarch Alexios Studites. The document of the Council:
Grumel 1936, 250–253, No 835; Oikonomidès 1971, 527–528; Baán 1995b, 1167–1170.
8 There are three views: according to the first two the place was located on Gyula’s terri-
tory, while according to the third one it was located to the entire settlement territory of
the Hungarians: Moravcsik 1967, 329; Jákli 1996, 123–124. He sees evidence, for example, in
the twelve-apsed temple of Apostag; Avenarius 2000, 129; Komáromi 2007, 217. However,
he notes that it has been effective in the southern and eastern parts of the country.
9 ÁKÍF, 358. Additional source: AKÍF 371–372.
Figure 10.2 Bishop Antonios’s seal: Saint Demetrios’s image, Σφραγίς [Ἀ]ντωνίου
[(πρωτο)]συγκ(έλ)λου [(καὶ)] προέδρου Τουρκίας
After Laurent 1940, 287. n. 2, 289. n. 3
chapter 40 of Emperor Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos’ work, that in the

middle of the 10th century the settlements of the Hungarians spread between
the Danube and the Tisza, on the Trans-Tisza and in the south to the Danube –
Sava line, and only their zone of power extended to Transylvania.10 From the
point of view of Transylvania, and based on archaeological finds, there were
military settlements, guard posts already in the first half of the 10th century,
which protected the area and played a supervisory and security role.11 Based
on this data, sometime after the mid-10th century, in the second half of it,
the centre of gravity of Gyulas’ area was transferred from the Trans-Tisza to
Transylvania. The single-nave church with a semi-circular sanctuary that was
unearthed during the excavations in Gyulafehérvár12 in 2011, that presumably
existed between the middle 10th and early 11th centuries. It is possible that this
was the church of the Greek-rite diocese of St. Hierotheos, who proselytized
among the Hungarians.13 The localization of this church indicates the later
location of the centre.
This episcopal seat remained in Transylvania until the defeat of younger
Gyula in 1003. After that time, it was transferred into one of the Eastern-
rite monasteries in the southern territories of the Kingdom.14 Scholarly
10 Makk 2003, 3–14; Bóna 2000, 64. The source: CFHB 1, 176–179; DAI, 176–179; HKÍF, 130.
11 After the middle of the 10th century, this change was due to the end of the campaigns and,
with it, due to the change in the nomadic lifestyle. (Kristó 2002a, 65–67, 72–79).
12 Alba Iulia, RO.
13 Cathedral St. Michael.
14 Szávaszentdemeter (Sremska Mitrovica, SR), Marosvár (Cenadu Vechi, RO), Oroszlámos
(Banatsko Aranđelovo, SR), Aracs (Vranjevo, SR), Dombó (Rakovac, SR).
260 Révész
opinions diverge on the length of the Eastern-rite pastoral activity among the
Hungarians.15
The eastern monasteries remained in the Eastern-rite until the end of 11th
century: in Oroszlámos until the Mongol invasion in 1241, in Szávaszentdemeter
until 1334.16 In these monastic communities’ replenishment was ensured,
15 Some views could be mentioned: the denunciation of the peace agreement around
958 marked the end of the missionary work (Makk 2000a, 331), in the light of the alli-
ance between king St. Stephen and the byzantine emperor Basileios II Bulgaroktonos
(976–1025), the appointment of Hierotheos’ successors and their promotion expresses
only a byzantine legal claim in the early 11th century (Makk 2000a, 331; Font 2009, 86;
Thoroczkay 2019, 3–4), they had to leave because of resumed campaigns after the cessa-
tion of peace, as “these military enterprises made the situation tense along the southern
Hungarian border, so the Greek priests and monks began to travel home in fear. The mis-
sionary work was stuck” (Bozsóky 2000, 169.), due to the defeat of Arkadiupolis and the
tense Greco-Hungarian relationship (Hermann 1973, 12: “according to contemporaneous
reports – successfully evangelized for at least 20 years,” Györffy 2000, 67), until the defeat
of younger Gyula and the establishment of the Diocese of Transylvania (Ripoche 1977a,
82–83: after the capture of Gyula, Hierotheos’ successor, Bishop Theophylaktos, turned to
the Diocese of Sirmium and continued his conversion work there; Font 2009, 52; Ripoche
1977a, 83; Koszta 1996, 114; Kristó 1996a, 490; Kiss 2007, 61–62), both Prince Géza (972–
997) and King St. Stephen “ensured the survival and development of the byzantine-rite,”
just placed them under the authority of western bishops (Pirigyi 1988, 162–163, 165; Pirigyi
1991, 16; Font 1996, 498–499; Font 2005b, 90), the Byzantine Church was not institutional-
ized, it continued the work of the bishop through the monks of Marosvár, and later of the
Oroszlámos (Török 2002, 14), or usually through the monks of the southern monasteries
(Mosolygó 1941, 64). After the entire territory of Szerémség – also Szávaszentdemeter –
came under Hungarian rule, the Greek bishopric could continue to operate there, and in
connection with the placing of the church union on the agenda in 1089, this bishopric of
Bács-Sirmium was united with the archdiocese of Kalocsa and at the head of it was Fabian,
an archbishop of the roman rite (Györffy 1952–1953, 343. Ferenc Makk links the merging
of the bishopric and the relocation of its seat to the so-called Eastern Englishmen. Makk
1998, 163–175; Makk 2000b, 21–27; Makk 2012, 197–217). It is included in the diploma of
Veszprémvölgy ‘ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου τοῦ μετροπολίτου’ (ÁMTBF, 80; ÁKÍF, 116–119; DHA, 85;
CAH, 35–39, 123–125) clause, based on the title of which even the possibility arose that
the founder placed the Greek nunnery in Veszprémvölgy under the authority of the arch-
bishop of Tourkia (metropolitan) (Baán 1988, 740–754; Szarka 2010, 21).
The Greek bishopric existed until the beginning of the 13th century, when following
the events of the Fourth Crusade (1204), the gap between the two parts of the Church
became more apparent. Evidence of the existence of the bishopric is in the records of the
byzantine historian Kinnamos from 1164 (Baán 1988, 750), that: “[Παγάτζιον] ἐνταῦϑά τε
διατριβὴν ὁ τοῦ ἔϑνους ποιεῖται ἀρχιερεύς” (Ioannés Kinnamos: Epitomé: CSHB 13, 221,5, 6–7;
ÁMTBF, 221).
16 Still in 1339 there is a mention of ‘abbas Grecus’, as we learn from Pope Clement VI’s
(1342–1352) letter to the bishop of Nyitra in 1344 that the monastery has been empty since
the death of the last Greek abbot, about ten years earlier, where Greeks, Hungarians
and Slavs have lived together since its foundation, and the abbot of the monastery was
Figure 10.3 Bishop Demetrios’s seal: Virgin Mary’s image, Σκέπ(οις) [με] Δημήτριον τόν
Τουρκον θύτ(ην)
After Révész 2011, 339. Image 3, Révész 2012a, 101. 3
which indicates an active community of believers, as well as activity of priests,

since liturgical acts (worship, confession, baptism, consecration, burial, etc.)
required the activities of priests. Moreover, bishops were essential for the
ordination of priests, since this task always belonged to the authority of the
bishops.17
Although there is no doubt that these activities required the work of a
bishop, László Koszta stated that a Greek archbishopric could not oper-
ate in the territory of Ajtony (in Legenda: Achtum) because the Legenda
Sancti Gerhardi does not contain any information about this church organ-
ization. The legend discusses the diocese in detail, does not ignore earlier
Byzantine traditions, but does not reference a Greek church organization. He
also mentioned as a problem that none of the patron saints depicted on the
subordinated directly to the patriarch of Constantinople. Theiner 1859, I, 667–668; Csánki

1894, 238.
The metropolitan of Tourkia is listed in several lists of metropolitans: in the 13th noti-
tia on the recto and verso of the 61th table of the codex no. 131 of Esphigmenou Monastery
on Mount Athos, which according to a manuscript of 1577 and Darrouzés, reflects to the
conditions of 12th century. Darrouzés 1981, 137, 370. 13803; Baán 1995b, 1167; on the list of
metropolises of the Dionysiou Monastery on Mount Athos dated to the 14th century (701–
703v), Oikonomidès 1971, 527. 4. lj.; Baán 1995b, 1167, and on the list of metropolises in the
no. 48 manuscriptum of 15th century codex Parisinus Graecus (255v–263), Oikonomidès
1971, 527. 4. lj.; Baán 1995b, 1167.
17 Várnagy 1993, 156; Berki 2004, 134–135; Ohme 2001, 84, 86 (“the sacrament could be admin-
istered only by a legally elected and consecrated bishop …”).
262 Révész
above-mentioned seals correspond to the patronage of Byzantine monasteries

in the region of Maros.18
This contradiction could be resolved if we assume that the diocese did not
correspond in purpose to the Western ones. The Eastern Christian Church
organization has remained a missionary bishopric, and this is most apparent
in the fact that we have information about the existence and activities of the
monasteries only. This bishopric, then later a metropolis, retained both the
duty to christianize ‘all Tourkia,’ and the missionary activity. József Mosolygó
suggested that ‘The ancient Greeks owed their survival to their monks’ as ‘the
abbots could have exercised also episcopal jurisdiction.’19 As a result, these mon-
asteries became the centres and bases of Eastern Christian pastoral care.20
This assumption is strengthened by the fact that bishop Hierotheos was
also a monk, and it is further confirmed by the juridical source, which states:
“although it lacks the canonical base, the monasticism of the eastern bish-
opric led to the result, that since the 9th century, it was necessary for the
bishop-candidates, if they weren’t already, to become pro forma monks at least
until their bishop anointment.”21 This juridical practice can also be supported
with a large variety of examples, such as the 11th century organization of the
Bulgarian Church, which in this period had archbishops – David–Ioannes,
Theodulos, Ioannes Asinos – who were also abbots of monasteries (hégoume-
nos, igumen).22 Beside these, we can mention as an example the patriarch
18 “[…] that the alleged Greek archbishopric could have operated in the territory of Achtum,
I cannot accept,” because “thanks to the larger legend of Saint Gerhard, we have a rela-
tively accurate knowledge of the formation of the church organization in the region of
Maros. […] discusses in great detail the founding of the diocese of Csanád and does not
ignore the earlier byzantine traditions of the area […] However, there is no implicit refer-
ence to a possible Greek episcopal church organization.” Koszta 2013, 29–30.
19 Mosolygó 1941, 64. Mosolygó József (1883–1959) was a Greek Catholic archdeacon and
local historian.
20 See more here: Révész 2019, 7–22; Révész 2020, 5–26.
21 “Obwohl jegliche kanonische Grundlagen dafür fehlen, führte die sukzessive Monastisi-
erung des byzantinischen Episcopats dazu, dass sich Bischofskandidaten seit dem 9. Jh.,
sofern sie keine Mönche waren/sind, vor ihrer Bischofsweihe zumindest pro forma zu
Mönchen weihen lassen (müssen).” Potz – Synek 2007, 89. This juridical practice pre-
sumed to be the effect of Iconoclasm (Ikonoklasmus), in which monks proved to be the
custodian of true faith (Orthodoxia), so that bishops were expected to be at least pro
forma, but rather actually monks.
22 Ioannes Komnenos bishops’s notitia: GIBI VII, 110.
Alexios Studites.23 Moreover, the medieval Serbian Church organization can

be seen as an analogy, as their abbots were also bishops, such as Saint Sava.24
I have to mention the issue of patrocinium. The patron of the seals cannot
always be matched with the monasteries’ patrociniums, but it is not necessary
either, because the seals may also have the patron saint of the bishop and/ or
the diocese, which did not necessarily have to be the same as the patron saint
of the monastery.
The Eastern Christian conversion began with the baptism of Gyula among
the Hungarians, and the missionary work of the monk-bishop Hierotheos,
who came with him in the middle of the 10th century. In the beginning, the
centre of his missionary activity was in Tiszántúl, and it only changed in the
10th century, together with the displacement of Gyula’s accommodation area
to Transylvania. After the defeat of younger Gyula in 1003, for the first time,
their seat was moved into Ajtony.25 As we know, in the beginning of the 11th
century, the Easter Christian monasteries were active, and there is a probabil-
ity that one or more of the abbots inherited the title and duty of the bishop
and metropolitan, and the monks of these monasteries provided pastoral care
to the believers.
23 Alexios Studites, patriarch of Constantinople (between 12/15 Dec. 1025–20 Feb. 1043,
Constantinople). A former hegoumenos of the Stoudios Monastery, Alexios was appointed
patriarch without the necessary canonical formalities by Emperor Basil II, who was on his
deathbed. Alexios acted in concert with Constantine VIII. He tried to protect the inde-
pendence of the clergy, stressing in January 1028 that no clergyman or monk could be
judged by a civil authority. In 1038, Alexios and the synod defined the prohibitions on
marriage between close relatives. The patriarch’s relations with the government deteri-
orated under Michael IV (r. 1034–1041), it is reported that John the Orphanotropos, who
desired to become patriarch of Constantinople, incited some metropolitans to demand
the deposition of Alexios under the pretext that he had not been elected canonically, but
the plan failed because of Alexios’s courageous resistance. No more successful was the
attempt of Michael V to depose Alexios. Kazhdan et al. 1991, 67.
24 Obolensky 1999, 366. Baán 2012, 2.
25 Révész 2012b, 295–305.
Chapter 11
The Byzantine Monasteries of Medieval

Hungary Revisited
Boris Stojkovski
When the Magyars settled in the Carpathian basin, the Byzantine influence
was already present among the local population. The tribal leaders of
Transylvania were baptized in the 10th century according the Greek rite.
During the reign of Stephen I, first Hungarian Christian king, the ties with the
Byzantine Empire were very strong. Between the 10th and until the end of the
12th century, there is evidence that confirms the existence of the Byzantine
bishopric and metropolitan of Tourkia in the medieval Hungarian realm.
Even the Hungarian King Béla III was baptized in Constantinople and given
the name Alexios. It seems that emperor Manuel I Komnenos had prepared
him to inherit the Byzantine throne. The Byzantine presence in that time was
also manifested by a transfer of the relics of Saint John of Rila from Bulgaria
to Hungary. However, the death of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos in 1180, the
Fourth Crusade in 1204, and finally the Tartar invasion in 1241–1242, marked
an end to the Byzantine influence in Hungary, and the widespread network of
monasteries related to metropolitan of Tourkia.1
Byzantine (Greek) monasteries were one of the most peculiar landmarks
of the Byzantine and Greek Orthodox presence in medieval Hungary. In mod-
ern and contemporary scholarship, there have been two attempts to provide a
complete overview of all those monasteries, drawn from different sources, of
course. One publication is in Serbian, and therefore, left out of the reach of the
vast majority of academic circles,2 while the second is in English, extremely
valuable and extensive, with a vast bibliography. The latter source still lacks
certain localities in which Byzantine monasteries were present, and repeats
some general conclusions of earlier historiography that remain questionable.3
1 From a vast number of bibliographic sources on this topic, only some of the most important
will be listed: Darkó 1933; Moravcsik 1938, 389–403; Moravcsik 1947, 134–151; Makk 1982, 33–62;
Baán 1995a, 19–25; Obolensky 1996, 186–197; Baán 1999, 45–53; Stojkovski 2009, 383–394;
Stojkovski 2012, 65–76; Révész 2014a, 7–22; Révész 2014b, 55–68.
2 The paper also has some conclusions and assumptions that will now be corrected. Stojkovski
2019, 115–137.
3 Sághy 2019, 11–38.
© Boris Stojkovski, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_013

The Byzantine Monasteries of Medieval Hungary 265
The aim of this study is to offer an overview of all of the Byzantine (Orthodox)
monasteries mentioned in the written documents, narrative sources, or tes-
tified by archaeological evidence in the area of medieval Hungary. Other
important results of this effort include the amendment to some of the ear-
lier scholarly assumptions, the reevaluation of all sources, and to the aim to
point out several new conclusions regarding this subject. As a consequence,
the most detailed and accurate list of all possible Byzantine Orthodox monas-
teries in medieval Hungary is provided.
11.1 The Monastery in Visegrád
On 20 April 1221, pope Honorius III sent a letter to the archbishop of Esztergom
and the abbot of Pilis Monastery. In this letter, there is only written mention of
the Greek monastery in Visegrád. The pope writes that the King has informed
him that Abbatia de Wisagrade Vesprimiensis diocesis, in qua ius obtinet patro-
natus, grecos habet monachos, et habuit ab antiquo, in quorum manibus abbatia
ipsa adeo in spiritualibus et temporalibus est collapsa, quod nisi persone institu-
antur ibidem vicinis ecclesiis lingua et vita conformes, vix aut numquam adiciet,
ut resurgat: quare postulavit instanter, ut ibi monachos latinos institui de nostra
permissione liceret. The King had ktetorship over the abbey. According to the
pope’s letter, Greek monks had lived there from ancient times. This monas-
tery was in pretty bed condition in 1221, as it can be concluded from the letter,
and that nobody in the said monastery spoke the language of the neighbor-
ing churches, nor knew the local customs. That is why the pope ordered that
absque gravi scandalo (i.e. without scandals and problems) Latin monks should
be brought there.4
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this letter. It seems
that the mentioned Greek monks had lived in Visegrád for a long time, even
though it is not clear for how long. In 1221, the monastery was either deserted or
merely in a very bad condition, and therefore, the pope and the King intended
to bring in the monastery Roman-Catholic (i.e. Latin monks) instead. From the
document itself one cannot conclude whether the Greek monks have already
deserted this place, or it was just overall in the poor state. Keeping in mind
that the King had ownership of this monastery, several scholars maintained
that it was King Andrew I (r. 1047–1060) who had built this monastery. He is
mentioned in the Legend of Saint Gerhard as a founder of monasteries in both
Visegrád and Tihany, but Roman-Catholic ones. Because of that, a number of
4 Theiner 1859, I, 29.

266 Stojkovski
scholars drew assumptions that under the influence of his Russian wife, prin-
cess Anastasia of Kiev, Andrew I built this monastery as well. There is even a
theory that these ‘Greek’ monks were actually Russian (Slavic) and that the
term ‘Greek’ referred to their rite and not their origin.5
As far as other archaeological data is concerned, it is interesting and offers
some hints on the possible origin of the monastery. Specifically, although
according to archaeologists, there are no similarities between the Visegrád
monastery and contemporary Byzantine churches. This church, however, had
all the necessary parts characteristic for those religious edifices, as well as
features for liturgical life characteristic of the Byzantine rite. There are some
assumptions among the archaeologists that there are even similarities with
Russian churches in Kiev and Chernigov. The remains of the monastery’s din-
ing room suggest that this building was also constructed according to the needs
of Eastern rite monasteries.6 On the other hand, some latest research point out
that there is no direct connection between the confession i.e., denomination
and the ecclesiastical affiliation of the sacred building, and that in this particu-
lar case the builders came from Dalmatia or Northern Italy.7
In the context of this issue, József Csemegi has raised another assumption
about the caves for the hermits in the stones area around Tihany. In addition to
the founding of the Benedictine Abbey in Tihany in 1055, the King, according
to this scholar, had also erected caves for the monks of the Eastern Rite. It is
also assumed that Tihany itself replaced an earlier Greek monastery dedicated
to Saint Tychon, or that there were two nearby monasteries, one Benedictine
and the other Greek. József Csemegi has linked these caves with Russia and the
Russian influence that this King has experienced. He was baptized in Kiev, and
as already suggested, his wife Anastasia was a Russian princess, the daughter
of Yaroslav the Wise. The fundamental problem about these caves, the chapel,
and the spaces where the monks could have lived, is that not a single written
source has been preserved. The archaeological material that exists is the only
remains of the cells themselves, the chapel with a large altar space, and the
living quarters of the hermits. But no further details are known about them.
Therefore, it is possible that the hermits of the Greek rite stayed in these cells,
but the issue remains completely open and unresolved. One of the references
is the Oroszkő toponym, which means ‘Russian stone.’ It could also be a refer-
ence to Mount Athos. But these are merely linguistic interpretations, because
5 Moravcsik 1938, 418–419 accepted this thesis without further discussion. See esp. Buzás –
Eszes 2007, 49–93.
6 Buzás – Eszes 2007, 55–90.
7 Takács 2018, 117–121.
the lack of written sources and systematic archaeological data do not allow any
further analysis of this matter.8
Similarly, for Visegrád, only one written source has remained. The archaeo-
logical finds provide only data that the site originates most probably in the 11th
century, with possible, but not completely proven, Russian connections.
11.2 The Monastery of the Most Holy Theotokos in Veszprém
Among the rich Hungarian diplomatic sources still extant from the Middle
Ages, one charter stands out. It is the charter that Hungary’s first King Stefan I
(997–1036) had issued in the Greek language to the nuns of the Monastery of
the Holy Virgin in Veszprém Valley. This document is the only charter of any
medieval Hungarian king in Greek, but also the only direct testimony of the
contemporary historical source on the existence of this monastery apparently
populated by Greek nuns. In addition to the monastery in present-day Sremska
Mitrovica, which will be discussed later, this is the only monastery whose order
and possessions are known in detail. This charter was not preserved in the orig-
inal, but in a transcript from 1109 dating from the reign of King Coloman. That
year, a copy was made on a transcript of St. Stephen’s Greek charter, and the
lower part of the charter contains text in Latin. In it, the King explains why this
copy was made and the charter confirmed, followed by the paraphrase of this
Greek charter in Latin. This is the oldest preserved charter in the Hungarian
archives to this day.9
The charter itself represents the donation act of the first Christian king of
Hungary to the nuns of the said Most Holy Theotokos Monastery, but both
the place and date of issue of this charter are unclear. The assumption is that
due to the mention of the metropolitan title, but not the Bishop of Veszprém,
the original Greek charter could have been executed before 1009, when the
Bishopric of Veszprém (and the title bishop of this diocese) is first mentioned
in the sources.10 However, even though the title of metropolitan mentioned in
8 Csemegi 1946–1948, 396–405; Sághy 2019, 25–26 accepted this thesis without further dis-
cussion and even connected some other hermits and caves (that of Saint Hyppolytus near
Nyitra for instance) to the echo of the tradition of Desert fathers of the Church. This
opinion should not be neglected, neither refuted, but the problem is that there is no clear
evidence in sources for this theory.
9 Érszegi 1988, 4. The foundation of the monastery was a subject of dispute in historiogra-
phy, as well as the origin of these Greeks, who may have arrived from Norman Italy, too.
Sághy 2019, 13–20.
10 Kristó 1988a, 242–243; Solymosi 1994, 727–728; Zsoldos 2011, 99, 226.
268 Stojkovski
the charter is often tied to the Archbishop of Kalocsa, it is more likely that it
could have been the Byzantine Metropolitan of Tourkia. The title of bishop is
not mentioned at all whatsoever, which can also be an indication that there
has been no jurisdiction of any other cleric, apart from the metropolitan of
Tourkia.11 This can also adjust the date of the issuing of the charter to after
1009, or in any year prior to King Stephen I death in 1038.
With this charter, King Stefan I bestowed to the Monastery of the Holy
Virgin in the Valley of Veszprém, numerous possessions and privileges, includ-
ing villages and income from scaffolding, vineyards, and some artisans. With
this charter, he protected the authority of this monastery over gifted goods,
and excluded the monastery and its lands from the authority of both eccle-
siastical and lay dignitaries. Furthermore, he clearly stipulated that if anyone
refused to live by the rules of this monastery, the king allowed the Prioress and
nuns of this abbey to expel all those who violated their rules.12
The charter displays several characteristics of Byzantine diplomatic prac-
tices. One is the invocation “Ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου
πνεύματος,” which is found later in Hungarian charters in its Latin form In
nomine patri, Filii et Spiritu Sancti, but is very rare in this period. Also, a sanction
of this charter offers a direct Byzantine import in the chancellery of Stephen I.
In the charter, King Stephen I stated that anyone who violated the privileges
of the monastery (whether king, queen, metropolitan, etc.) may be cursed,
among others, by the 318 Fathers of the First Nicaean Council. This sanction is
typically found in Byzantine (and some Slavic, particularly Serbian) charters.
It is found in no other extant Hungarian diplomatic from the Middle Ages.13
On the other hand, anything else about the life of these Greek nuns in
Veszprém is completely unknown. Their possessions in the charter were quite
large and numerous, but nothing is known about the feudal life of the villages,
fishponds, forests, and so forth. At some point, and this is not known, Roman-
Catholic nuns took over this monastery. Up until the Mongolian invasion, there
are sources mentioning the nuns of this convent but not specifying which
order they belonged to. After 1240, the convent in The Valley of Veszprém came
under the protection of Cistercian monks. During the years of the Ottoman
11 Stojkovski 2016, 132–133.

12 Czebe 1918, 15–16, Hungarian translation 17–18; Érszegi 1988, 7 (accompanied by Hungarian
translation); Moravcsik 1984, 79–81 (parallel Greek and Hungarian text); Stojkovski 2016,
130–131 (Greek text and English translation). Cf. also Révesz 2009, 53–56; Stojkovski 2016,
134 for details on possessions.
13 Stojkovski 2016, 134–137.
devastation, the convent ceased to exist. In 2013, the Jesuits of Győr took over
the protection of the archive of this monastery.14
11.3 Dunapentele, Dunaújváros-Saint Pantaleon on the Danube
The only written source that confirms the existence of an Orthodox or

Byzantine monastery in this area is a 1329 document concerning possessions.
There is just a single mention in this charter that Greek nuns once used to live
here. The subject of the document itself, a Hungarian palatine John Drugeth,
asked the chapter of Buda to mark the borders of the Pentele possession
because the two sides claim possession over it. According to Imre (Emeric)
Becsei, one of the parties in the proceedings, Pentele and Pentelemonostor
are two separate properties, and once there was a monastery of Greek nuns
in Pentele, and that possession was later donated by King Charles Robert of
Anjou to Becsei himself.15
In the historiography, there have been attempts to draw a direct link
between the prior (supposed hegoumenos) named Bank from one charter in
1238, and these Greek nuns from the 1329 document, as well as to point out the
possibility that it was simply a mistake in the charter’s text. The said document
has been issued in 1238 when the patron of the monastery in Dunapentele,
kindred of Adornoc went on trial with the neighboring possessor Peter, son of
Posa. It seems that some of the belongings of the monastery were illegally mis-
appropriated, and one of the parties in the litigation was the abbot of Pentele
monastery, named Bank. Unfortunately, the ecclesiastical order of the monas-
tery is not known, which incited assumptions that it was Greek. István Bóna
even made a rather clumsy connection between this charter from 1329 and the
charter that mentions the abbot, i.e. prior. He thought it was some Greek prior,
and that the kindred Adornok had a patronage right over the Monastery of St.
Pantaleon, drawing even a conclusion that Adornok/ Adornoc is a version of
the Greek name Andronicus. Bóna and several earlier scholars also proposed
that Saint Pantaleon was a saint venerated only in the East (Orthodox world)
and, therefore, this monastery was most certainly Greek. It is even said that
this had to be actually a monastery populated by monks, since such places
were dedicated to male saints; the convents were usually dedicated to female
14 Solymosi 1984, 236–252; Fülöp – Koppány 2002, 5–40; Fülöp – Koppány 2004, 115–135.
15 Original charter is preserved in the National archives of Hungary under the signature Dl
87001; see regesta Érszegi 1978, 286–287. See also Érszegi 1975, 10–11.
270 Stojkovski
saints.16 There is no data in the sources to support this theory. There are even
traces of the cult of Saint Pantaleon on the so-called The crowning cloak, which
dates back to the time of King Saint Stephen, also with a portrait of Saint
Pantaleon.17
This monastery has been deserted during the Tartar invasion, and King
Béla IV mentions in his charter issued in 1263 that certain Magister Gabriel
did not rebuild the monastery after it had been plundered by the invaders.18
Unfortunately, it is not known whether it was the Greek monastery that has
been abandoned or some Roman-Catholic abbey.
The archaeological evidence is peculiar. The excavation of Byzantine archae-
ological material (specifically a bronze cross and money) is a strong indication
that a Byzantine monastery once existed in this area.19 The findings from the
field confirm also the existence of materials from the period of King Sigismund
of Luxembourg, but also from later times. The archaeological remains indi-
cate that there were Gothic structures on the site, as well as material from the
13th century. The written sources, however, are not at all scarce when it comes
to the medieval history of the settlement of Dunapentele. There are quite
numerous Hungarian charters that bear witness to the vivid existence of this
site, which has been active throughout the Middle Ages.20 Nevertheless, there
is little data on the Byzantine monastery itself, apart from one charter and a
few archaeological details.
The data is thus quite gloomy concerning the Byzantine monastery in
Dunapentele. There used to be Greek nuns living there, there are even archae-
ological finds of Byzantine origin, but there is no further evidence. At what
point the monastery passed into the hands of monks, most likely Roman-
Catholics, remains an open question. It is clear that the convent, regardless of
the provenance of its inhabitants at the time, was destroyed during the Tartar
invasion. Whether Greek monks lived in it first, then Orthodox nuns, or vice
versa, is another open question. The hypothesis that there had to be originally
male monks at this monastery, in part because supposedly male monaster-
ies are dedicated to male saints, simply does not have a valid foundation. We
16 The original charter has not been preserved; only a transcript from 1389 survives, as well
as the official transcript of King Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1401, Dl 3628. See also Fejér
1841, 72. On the hypothesis of Bóna and other earlier researches cf. Bóna 1991, 3–5.
17 Érszegi 1975, 8–9. His cult is well-known in the Roman-Catholic Church as well, cf. Acta
sanctorum, iulii tomus sextus, 397–429.
18 Érszegi 1978, 285.
19 Érszegi 1975, 12–35; Bóna 1991, 34–35.
20 Érszegi 1975, 21; Bóna 1991, 34–35.
know of several Byzantine monasteries dedicated to the Most Holy Theotokos

(Virgin Mary), while there are a number of convents dedicated to male saints.
Eventually, there were double/ dual monasteries in Byzantium. In the case
of Saint Pantaleon, it is quite possible that at first there were Greek monks
and then Greek nuns, who at some point left and deserted the place, due to
unknown reasons. Likewise, this issue opens up the possibility that there was a
convent the whole time in that location, while there were Greek nuns in it, and
then during the Tartar invasion, it has been transferred into Roman-Catholic
hands, first to the Saint Catherine Beguines and later to some other order. This
theory could most probably align with the historical reality, since the unique
written document on the Byzantine monastery, mentions exclusively Greek
nuns and Beguines.21 Nevertheless, serious lacune in the source material does
not allow for final conclusions. The only certainty is that at some point, there
was a Byzantine monastery and there were nuns of the Greek rite at this site.
Southern Hungary, as a border region with Byzantium, was undoubtedly
prone to contact with the culture and religion of the Eastern Roman Empire,
and in particular its ecclesiastical foundations. Therefore, it is not surprising
that written and/ or archaeological sources have confirmed three monasteries
in this area.
11.4 Marosvár – The Monastery of St. John the Baptist/ Monastery of

St. George in Oroszlámos
The only narrative source that accounts for the existence of this monastery
in Banat is the Legenda Maior Sancti Gerhardi episcopi, or The Great Legend of
Saint Gerard. Around this great legend about the Holy Bishop Gerhard, devel-
oped a so-called Small legend, namely Legenda minor. Historians have long
argued about the time of the creation of these legends. Legenda maior is usu-
ally thought to have originated earlier, while a smaller legend was created as
an excerpt for liturgical purposes. On the other hand, there are opinions that
Legenda minor is older, and that this larger hagiographical work was composed
simply by expanding the details from Legenda Minor, followed by their literary
embellishment and completion.22
21 Sághy 2019, 26–27.

22 “Szent Gellért püspök legendái.” In: Árpád-kori legendák és intelmek, 208–209; Szovák
Kornél – Veszprémy László, “Krónikák, legendák, intelmek-utószava.” In: SRH 2, 780–782;
Emericus Mádzsár, “Praefatio.” In: SRH 2, 463–470.
272 Stojkovski
On this topic, the section of this work that speaks about Achtum (Ajtony),
a tribal lord of the Magyars situated around the Vidin and the surrounding
area, is most important. He came into conflict with King Stephen I, but what
is far more important on this occasion is that he erected the monastery of
St. John the Baptist in Marosvár. As the author of Saint Gerhard’s legend sug-
gests about Achtum: Accepit autem potestatem a Grecis et construxit in prefata
urbe Morisena monasterium in honorem beati Iohannis Baptiste constituens
in eodem abbatem cum monachis Grecis, iuxta ordinem et ritum ipsorum. It is
a particularly interesting mention in this paragraph that Achtum has been
granted permission, or some kind of an official attestation from the Greeks, to
build, i.e. to erect this monastery, and to have Greek monks come to it along
with their hegoumenos, and to live in the monastery according to their order
and rite, as the anonymous author of this legend claims.23
It remains unclear who allowed Achtum to build this monastery. Did this
permission come from the bishop/ metropolitan of Tourkia, maybe even the
Emperor himself, or some representative of Byzantine authority? Achtum
was killed in a later confrontation with another feudal Lord of the southern
regions of Hungary, named Csanád. According to Legenda maior, the King had
decided that Marosvár is no longer named after the River Maros/Moriš but
after this tribal leader, Csanád. As for Achtum, he was buried In cimiterio Sancti
Iohannis Baptiste in monasterio Grecorum, quia in eadem provincia aliud mon-
asterium illis temporibus non erat.24 This section, too, confirms the existence
of a Byzantine (Greek) monastery in Banat, which, moreover, in the first half
of the 11th century, was the only religious site in this area, according to the
cited text of the legend. This evidence from the Legenda Maior Sancti Gerhardi
episcopi also confirms an interesting example of Byzantine patronage rights
on in medieval Hungary. Namely, as the ktetor of the monastery, Ajtony had
the right to be buried in his endowment, and after his death this did happen
accordingly.25
The last piece of information related to this monastery is the one in which
Csanád built on the place where ‘he saw the lion in the apple,’ a monastery
dedicated to Saint George, and moved the said Greek monks and their hegou-
menos to their new home.26 It seems that in the library of Marosvár, Saint
Gerhard found some Greek codices of theological content that inspired his
23 SRH 2, 490.
24 SRH 2, 491–492.
25 On ktetors and their rights, see: Angold 2005, 334; ‘Ktetor’, in: Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium II, 1160.
26 SRH 2, 492; this place is called Oroszlámos, and the word ‘oroszlán’ in Hungarian
means lion.
exegesis of the biblical story of the three young boys in the furnace (Deliberatios
supra hymnum trium puerorum), which is his only preserved work.27
Unfortunately, nothing is known about their further fate. It is also unknown
why and on which occasion Csanád build the new monastery and even dedi-
cated it to another saint. Csanád’s descendants were patrons of this monastery
in the following centuries, but during the time it had been deserted. With no
further written sources on the monastery, what happened to the Greek monks
remains unclear. It can be assumed that by declining Byzantine influence at
the beginning of the 13th century, after the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine
influence on Hungary and even its southern parts strongly declined. On the
other hand, the monastery could have been deserted or destroyed due to the
Tartar invasion of 1241–1242. The monastery had passed into the hands of
Benedictine monks, and it survived until the Ottoman conquest of Oroszlámos
and the whole region of Banat in 1551. After the Turkish word Maydan, the site
was also renamed, and archaeological remains of this religious structure came
to light during the 19th century.28
11.5 The Rakovac-Dombó (Dumbovo) Monastery of Saint George
In the region of Syrmia (Srem) there were two monasteries of Greek origin that
operated in this part of Hungary for a long time. This region, situated between
the Sava and the Danube rivers, was an area that was under direct Byzantine
contact. Therefore, it is not surprising that the monastery of Saint Demetrios in
Sremska Mitrovica survived until 1344. For the other monastery, no written data
survives, but only interesting archaeological evidence. The area where today’s
Serbian Orthodox monastery of Saint George in Rakovac is situated, has a long
religious history and an exciting past. During the late medieval period, from
the 13th century until the Battle of Mohács in 1526, Dombó (near the modern
village of Rakovac) was among the most famous Benedictine monastery. But
the history of this Syrmian Roman-Catholic convent is considerably longer and
begins in the Byzantine period. In fact, the Benedictine abbey was preceded by
an Orthodox Byzantine church.
The archaeological site named Crkvine was home to a Greek monastery dur-
ing the medieval period. Construction materials from the Byzantine church
(the site of Crkvine) were transferred by the Benedictine monks and used to
27 Sághy 2019, 25.

28 Juhász 1926, 45–47. Takács 2018, 227–233 for more details on the both archaeological sites
of this monastery.
274 Stojkovski
build a new Roman church, on the site of modern Gradina. The Byzantine mon-
astery was most likely deserted, like many other, during the Tartar invasion,
and its remains were used for the building of the late medieval Benedictine
monastery. It is difficult to determine many details, because when the system-
atic archaeological excavations started in 1963, the local peasants removed a lot
of material from the site. On the basis of what can be determined, Dumbovo
was a three-nave basilica that probably dates back to the 11th or to the begin-
ning of the 12th century, from a time of good relations between Byzantium
and Hungary. According to archaeologist Nebojša Stanojev, the building most
likely dates to the time of King Coloman. It was probably founded by Byzantine
monks themselves, but this monastery lacks any written sources and mentions
in any kind of narrative or diplomatic texts. Therefore, it is impossible to deter-
mine precisely when it was built, and by whom, as well as identify the patron
saint to whom it was dedicated, even though it is widely accepted that it was
dedicated to Saint George. The archaeology does not give sufficient data in
order to determine the chronology of the monastery construction. Byzantine
icons that were excavated on the site are preserved in the Museum of Vojvodina
in Novi Sad as true gems of the history of region. There are twelve icons in total,
and they were made of bronze. The icons display Christ the Pantokrator sit-
ting on the throne, the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) of Hodegetria, another icon
of the Virgin Mary, then the icons of Saint Nicholas and Saint Basil, both with-
out a frame. In addition to these, among the treasures discovered at the site,
is an icon of the supposed patron Saint George, as well as icons representing
Saint Pantaleon and Saint Procopius. All three icons display the saintly figures
as Holy warriors. The three icons differ from one another as the faces of the
saints are presented in distinct styles. The icons, therefore, point to the very
valuable craftsmanship of undoubtedly Byzantine artists. In addition to these
icons with saintly figures, there are three more with engraved animal and floral
elements.29
These Byzantine icons are also very interesting because of their inscrip-
tions. One icon of the Most Holy Theotokos is characteristic because of the
dialogue between the Mother of God and her son Jesus Christ. On this icon,
a conversation is written that is essentially the Virgin Mary’s plea to Christ
to save the people. After the initial refusal, because of mankind’s many sins,
Christ finally accepts his mother’s appeal. It is probably inspired by the hymn
of Saint Romanos the Melodist, which is still being sung in churches during the
services on Good Friday. On another icon of Saint George, however, a prayer is
29 Nagy 1974, 9–18; Stanojev, 2001, 122–123, 139–141; Takács 2018, 247–251 for the most recent
summary on the archaeological site.
written to him in Greek. As the patron saint of the farmers and agriculture in
general, the inscription on the icon states that he who made this icon (your
servant) begs the saint for good land. This icon shows this saint with a shield
in his left hand and a spear in his right hand, therefore again as a warrior saint,
but standing still.30 It should be noted that the image and its accompanying
inscription on this icon is very rare in Orthodox iconography.
As it has already been mentioned, there are no written sources about this
Byzantine monastery. All the data is drawn from the very rich archaeological
material, including the important icons from this site in Rakovac (Dombó),
which is rare for this area of medieval Hungary. The successors in this area,
the Benedictines, took over not only the monastery, and even a good part
of the material remains, for building their basilica, but also the patron saint.
The Roman-Catholic monastery survived until the collapse of the medieval
Hungarian state, and the Serbian Orthodox monastery was built sometimes
during the beginning of the second half of the 16th century. This third mon-
astery in the area stands to this day. In this way, the continuity of the religious
space of Rakovac, but also all of Syrmia shows the history of Christianity in this
region as the process of longue durée, with Byzantine spirituality at its nucleus.
11.6 Saint Demetrius on Sava (Sremska Mitrovica)
In the present-day Serbian town of Sremska Mitrovica, lie the remains of one of
the most important late antique and early medieval residences of the Roman
emperors, and the battlefields of the Christological debates – the famous city
of Sirmium. This city was marked by emperors and Christian martyrs. It was an
old and prominent late antique bishopric. After the fall of the city to the Avars
in 582, ancient Sirmium ceased to exist. But from the beginning of the 11th
century onward, one can follow a medieval town, which had also a Byzantine
monastery, that operated until 1344.
Whereas in the case of most of the other monasteries that have been dis-
cussed so far there are either only scarce evidence from charters and narra-
tive sources, or almost exclusively archaeological material, in the case of Saint
Demetrius on Sava, the written sources are numerous, but often contradictory.
The history of this monastery is thus difficult to trace. However, it is possible
to see a continuity throughout history, with certain smaller or larger breaks.
In Mitrovica, there was undoubtedly a temple dedicated to Saint Demetrius,
and it preserved a precious relic – the hand of Saint Procopius – in the
30 Barišić 1968, 211–216; Nagy 1974, 12–15; Stanojev 2001, 122–123, 139–141.
276 Stojkovski
period 1071–1154. The relic was acquired by the Hungarians when they plun-
dered Serbia in 1071, and it was subsequently returned by emperor Manuel I
Komnenos in 1154. In this period, the city of Bač was the episcopal, cathedral
church of the Byzantine Sirmian bishopric, established in 1018 after the subju-
gation of Samuel’s empire.31
Around the same time when the church of Saint Demetrius houses the
important relic, the site became a monastery, and a very rich one, thanks to
the generous donations of the Hungarian rulers. Like any other great monas-
tery, this also had its own properties, and they are well-known in scholarship.
The list of its properties has been preserved, though indirectly, in the two bulls
issued by Pope Honorius III on 25 October 1216, and then on 29 December 1219.
By these two bulls, the Pope confirmed the possessions of the Orthodox mon-
astery of Saint Theodosius, also known as Lavra in Jerusalem. In these two
papal documents, an earlier (very likely originally issued in Greek) charter of
King Béla III is preserved, by which this King of Hungary gives numerous pos-
sessions to a monastery of Saint Demetrius on the Sava-Sremska Mitrovica.
The said properties are listed in the King’s charter, which was most probably
issued between 1193 and 1196.32
King Béla III, in the mentioned charter, gave the crusaders in Jerusalem the
Monastery of Saint Demetrius with many various possessions and goods. Priest
Demetrius has been designated in the King’s document by supreme authori-
ties to determine the boundaries of the domains and note the names of the
said possessions, and found no mistake in the list. Besides, in the end, some
denaros liberos are granted to the crusaders.33 The monastery itself, according
to these documents, had several possessions in Srem (Aljmaš near Erdut, some
other towns around Vukovar, village of Susek, as well as the village of Neradin),
then properties in Baranya County, as well as in Somogy, from where a third of
the income of the castle and fortress of Somogy belonged to Saint Demetrius
on the river Sava. The monastery also had a portion of Alpár’s income with
one scaffolding (ferry) on the river Tisa, as well as scaffolding for crossing the
Danube in Vukovar County. Most probably, the monastery also had a boat (or a
ship) in Mitrovica.34 Overall, the monastery had in total 26 villages or parts of
the villages, and their fields also in six of them. The Monastery Saint Demetrius
on Sava also owned vineyards, forests, islands, ponds in as many as eleven dif
ferent villages and settlements, as well as four scaffoldings and boats. And
31 Stojkovski, 2010, 380–386.

32 Papp 1949, 41–45; Györffy, 2002, 25–26, 28, 32.
33 Györffy 2002, 25–26.
34 Rokai 1983, 147, 159, 164–165; Györffy 2002, 34–44; Andrić 2008, 138–148.
under the authority of this Orthodox monastery there were in total fourteen
smaller (mainly parish) churches. This monastery, in the term of its posses-
sions and its wealth, was comparable with the oldest monastery in medieval
Hungary – the Benedictine Pannonhalma Abbey – and was even considera-
bly richer than Tihány, another 11th-century Benedictine convent.35 The sig-
nificance of this monastery is also evident in the fact that Saint Demetrius
on the Sava River was a stavropigial monastery, subordinated directly to the
Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople.36
The Monastery of Saint Demetrius on the Sava in Mitrovica has had strong
ties with Russia since the 12th century, particularly through the Hungarian
Queen Euphrosyne of Kiev, wife of King Géza II, and mother of King Béla III.
The Queen donated the monastery of the crusaders in Székesfehérvár to the
convent of the crusaders in Jerusalem, where she was once sheltered, in the
time when she was expelled from Hungary for supporting her younger son,
Stephen III, against her other son, later King Béla III. All the goods of the
Orthodox monastery of Saint Demetrius on the Sava, alongside the posses-
sions that have been previously donated to the crusaders and their convents,
were bestowed to the Lavra of Saint Theodosius in Jerusalem, according to the
two papal bulls from 1216 and 1219. In the latter monastery, or one of its adja-
cent churches, Queen Euphrosyne of Kiev was buried, according to tradition.
Following the analysis of these donation charters by both the Queen and the
Pope (with the lost Greek original of the donation by Béla III) one can con-
clude that the charter to the monastery in Mitrovica is actually a copy of the
charter to the crusaders monastery in Székesfehérvár.37
This is not the monastery’s only connection to Russia, since there is one far
more direct and concrete. From the time of Prince Vladimirko Volodarevich
(r. 1124–1153), Galician rulers from the Rostislavich dynasty were donators and
contributors to the monastery of Saint Demetrius in Mitrovica, and gave annu-
ally thirteen cantons of wax, which, by some modern calculations, is over 650
kilograms.38 It is possible that the merchants were intermediaries in bring-
ing the annual gifts of the princes and later kings of Galicia to the monastery
in ancient Sirmium. The monastery with its buildings for guests could have
served as shelter and a place of rest for these merchants. The other Russian
mediators and maintainers of links with this important Orthodox monastery
on the soil of southern Hungary could have been the monks, who are known to
35 Györffy 2002, 51–52.

36 Moravcsik 1938, 420.
37 Györffy 2002, 30–31.
38 Hardi 2002, 65–75; Hardi 2004, 49–61.
278 Stojkovski
have travelled through Central and Southeastern Europe on their pilgrimages

to Byzantium, primarily to Mount Athos. Saint Demetrius on Sava was thus
an important point in their route towards the Eastern Roman Empire and the
Athonite monasteries.39
However, the donations to the Lavra of Saint Theodosius had no practical
significance because the whole area of the Holy Land was under Muslim rule
at that time. This did not prevent the prior of this monastic community in
Jerusalem from endeavors to obtain the possessions and its incomes, but the
hegoumenos of the monastery in Mitrovica also manifested his intentions for
independence from the superior monastery in Jerusalem. That is the main rea-
son why the Pope issued the two aforementioned bulls, in order to confirm the
King’s earlier charter. In turn, the head of the monastery of Saint Demetrius
on Sava turned to the bishop of Pécs for assistance in acquiring possessions.40
Monastery of Saint Demetrius had a dispute with the Benedictine abbey of
Saint Martin in Pannonhalma during the year 1228. The litigation proceeded
because of a property, namely, one pond near Kanizsa. The hegoumenos of the
monastery from old Sirmium was recalling the right of property over that pond
and emphasized how he had been prepared to prove this by showing docu-
ments, which were held by count of Pécs named Klet. Interestingly, there is
another Klet found in sources who has been related to this monastery, and has
been one of the executors mentioned in the royal donation charter to the mon-
astery of Saint Demetrius. Concerning the litigation over the said pond, the
monastery of Saint Demetrios sought assistance among the Roman-Catholic
clergy. It seems that ties with the Holy Land were already severed at that time,
or simply with the monastery, since it did not want to be under the patronage
of the distant Jerusalem Lavra. The hegoumenos turned, instead, to the Bishop
of Pécs. Maybe for the reason of obtaining independence, the Byzantine mon-
astery was standing firm on the point of view that the patronage right belonged
to the bishop of Pécs. Nevertheless, the pond at the end was adjudicated to the
abbey of Pannonhalma, to which it seems to have belonged before, and about
which there are clear confirmations in the donation charter of the Hungarian
King Saint Ladislaus I (r. 1077–1095) to the said Benedictine cloister. Serfs of the
monastery’s Szatmár estate also went on trial with Pannonhalma over a pond,
however, and the dispute was settled in 1237 also in favor of the Pannohalma
39 Hardi, 2006, 133.

40 Györffy 2002, 52–53. the region of Syrmia was under various jurisdictions of different
ecclesiastical structures and one of them was the bishopric of Pécs. In the time when
two bulls were issued, the bishopric of Syrmia was not yet formed, and both Pécs and the
archbishopric of Kalocsa fought over the jurisdiction in the area between the Danube
and Sava.
abbey. Once again, ten years later (1247) this monastery in Mitrovica was men-
tioned in the documents. This time, the monks gave their consent for selling
some property near today’s village of Laćarak near Mitrovica.41
Probably sometime in the 13th century, the charter of the palatine Rado
was created. It mentions that in 1057, the palatine Rado supposedly gave the
Monastery of Saint Demetrius on the river Sava, with a patronage over it, to
the church of Saint Peter in Pécs and its Bishop Maurice. However, this charter
(or at least its good part) is very much a complete and unambiguous forgery.
According to researchers, among the evidences of false information, there
is also one that locates this monastery in the Diocese of Pécs, although it is
well-known that Sremska Mitrovica is in the undoubted jurisdictional area of
the Archdiocese of Kalocsa and Bács.42 Nevertheless, lest one forget that the
question of jurisdiction in Syrmia during the Middle Ages is very complicated,
thus the latter conclusion cannot be accepted as a certainty. Even though this
charter is regarded as a forgery, there could be a possibility that there was some
older patronage of the palatine. The lack of sources, though, does not allow
further investigation.
It should be said that in the papal registers of 1215, as many as three mon-
asteries of Saint Demetrius are mentioned in Mitrovica, the town that bears
its name after Saint Demetrius himself. One document simply mentions that
the city has an abbey and a convent and is dedicated to this saint, an addi-
tional monastery of Saint Demetrius super Sabam is listed, as well as the con-
vent of Sancti Demetrii graecorum de Ungaria. In historiography, there have
been several attempts to determine more about these monasteries, particu-
larly Stanko Andrić in recent years. Since the location of the first monastery
is not mentioned at all, the key question that arose is whether it is even in
Hungary. If an Orthodox Greek monastery was, however, located in the town
of Saint Demetrius on Sava itself (modern-day Sremska Mitrovica), then this
second religious site dedicated to the same patron saint of ancient Sirmium
might have been erected on the other side of Sava River, near modern town of
Mačvanska Mitrovica. Could this be the cathedral see of the Byzantine, later
Greek Orthodox episcopal church that existed in the time of the creation of the
Roman-Catholic bishopric of Syrmia? It is most certainly not impossible, but
there is no data that unambiguously confirms this hypothesis. Unfortunately,
the lack of the original charter issued by King Béla III in Greek prevents us
41 Andrić 2008, 150–151.

42 Györffy 2002, 54–61; Andrić 2008, 126–127.
280 Stojkovski
from drawing conclusions, since one cannot know for sure whether there were
any interpolations and omissions during the translation of the charter.43
Dating to the 12th or the 13th century, there is also a seal of the monastery
with the following inscription on it: † S(igillum) Sofronie ab(tis) de S(ancto)
Demit(rio). The seal was first pointed out by the 19th-century historian
Konstantin Jireček, but he offered no conclusions other than this proposed
reconstruction of the inscription. Stanko Andrić, on the other side, assumed
that this was a Greek monastery that adopted Latin as an official language in
its communications.44 Perhaps this monastery had a seal for separate com-
munication in Latin and Greek, and this seal was placed on some documents
that were conducted in Latin, such as the mentioned trials or supposed letters
to the Roman-Catholic clergy. Considering that Emperor Manuel Komnenos
stayed in this monastery in the middle of the 12th century, and that he returned
the hand of Saint Procopius to Niš from Mitrovica, perhaps it is more likely
that this seal dates to the 13th century after all. From this time, there is clear
evidence of the monastery’s communication with Latin-writing authorities.
In this century, also, there is no documented contact with Byzantium, which
of course does not mean that it not takes place. Another important point, to
which we will return, is that in the monastery lived Hungarian, Greek, and
Slavic monks. Maybe this seal was one of several used by this monastery in
all three languages. Of course, with the lack of sources these are merely
speculations.
The last source for the monastery’s rich and turbulent history is Pope
Clement VI’s letter from 1344. This letter is a very interesting source not only
for the history of this monastery, but for the church and ethnic history of the
entire region. In the letter, it is stated firstly that this monastery lies on the
border of the Kingdom of Hungary towards schismatic Rascians, i.e. in the area
towards the Orthodox Serbs. The Pope writes further that in this monastery
of Saint Demetrios, from Greeks, Slavs, and Hungarians lived separately from
ancient times. The Greeks did not obey any of the Hungarian prelates, but were
directly subordinated to their patriarch in Constantinople. It also states that
ten years before the issue of this letter (more precisely in 1334), the last hegou-
menos (abbot) died and that the Patriarch of Constantinople did not appoint
43 Andrić 2008, 130–131, 137–138. Even though there are no final conclusions, this paper
is quite important for the topic since the author collected almost all sources and rele-
vant literature. There are also some other assumptions pulled by Stanko Andrić, that,
for instance, gifts of Russian princes were intended for the Lavra of Saint Theodosius
and that both monasteries of Saint Demetrius were possessions of the said convent in
Jerusalem. For both these conclusions there must be further study of the sources.
44 Jireček, 1959, 527; Andrić 2008, 157.
an heir to the head of this monastery. Therefore, the pope designates bishop
Vitus of Nitra to be the administrator of this monastery and requires him to
reform this desolate Orthodox monastery in the spirit of Roman Catholicism
by bringing Benedictine monks into it. This new convent established by the
Bishop of Nitra would have received all the goods, both mobile and immova-
ble, that belonged to this monastery in the past.45
Therefore, this is the only monastery that has survived the extinction of
the Árpád dynasty, as well as the Tartar invasion. At one time, it was a rich
and prominent monastery, but at least in 1334 it had been deserted and in a
very poor condition. As far as its ethnic origin is concerned, this letter clearly
mentions Greek and Slavic monks who were Orthodox but also Hungarians,
who could have also belonged to the Byzantine rite. Having in mind that in
Syrmia a large Serbian population started to settle in the late medieval period,
these could have been maybe even some Serbian monks, but by 1344 they have
all fled. Of course, tying this monastery to the Diocese of Pécs as a patron is
particularly interesting, since it is an Orthodox monastic family who sought
protection from Roman-Catholic clergy and diocese. An additional issue, for
which there are no sources, is how the monastery of Saint Demetrius on Sava
did not ask for aid to the Syrmian bishopric or even the Kalocsa-Bács archdio-
cese. This monastery acted in many ways like all the other big feudal owners,
going on trials with the Pannonhalma on the property. In this way, although
inhabited by both Greek and Slavic monks, this Orthodox island in Hungary,
during the later Middle Ages had been incorporated into the Hungarian feudal
system. This could probably offer at least some of the answers here, for which
there are serious lacunes in the sources.
11.7 Conclusion
In addition to the examples listed here, as well as the Tihány caves, there are
assumptions that other Byzantine monasteries existed in medieval Hungary.
For example, a manuscript was found in Pasztó Abbey, a translation of Saint
Maximus the Confessor into Latin made at the request of Abbot David of
Pannonhalma, it is thought that, because of this, Pasztó must have also been of
Greek origin.46 There are also certain assumptions for the Bačka region, since
some scarce evidence exist that Greek priests lived in that area. In Bač, the
Byzantine ecclesiastical organization undoubtedly existed, with Greek priests
45 Theiner 1859, I, 667–668. See also Moravcsik 1938, 420; Györffy 2002, 62–63.
46 Moravcsik 1953, 61; Kapitánffy 1996, 357–368.
282 Stojkovski
there living in the mid-12th century, but there is no sign that there was indeed a
Byzantine monastery there. Likewise, the existence of the Saint Sophia chapter
in Titel, which had later belonged to the Augustine order, may suggest that the
founders there were Byzantine monks who devoted their monastery to Hagia
Sophia, with Constantinople as a model. However, this remains all merely a
speculation. Likewise, there are assumptions based on the analysis of archae-
ological material that the church in Vrbas was built under Byzantine control,
and that it may be a former temple of the Greek rite dated to the 13th century.47
Byzantine monasteries were present across the territory of medieval
Hungary, with most of them concentrated along the southern borderland of
the country. The different contacts that extended on this central European soil
are reflected in these historical sketches of Byzantine (Greek rite) monastic
foundations in a largely Roman-Catholic context.
47 Stanojev 1996, p. 77; Stojkovski 2010, 380–386; Takács 2018, 121–176, 208–221, 235–253 for
some more analysis on possible Byzantine influences on the basis of archaeology.
Chapter 12
The Hungarian Kingdom between the Imperial

Ecclesiology of Otto III and the Pontifical
Ecclesiology of Gregory VII
Șerban Turcuș
Translated by Ioana Ursu
One of the most important historiographical issue for present state realities in
Central and Eastern Europe is that of beginnings. Legendary or documented,
the beginnings are, in many states, fixed within an almost intangible histori-
cal canon. Canons remain unchanged even to this day, among local historians.
Foreign historians who have no organic or lucrative connection with the local
communities, have accessed the available documentary material evidence and
have tried, or are trying, to offer historical accounts rooted in the investigation
of documents and not from late-medieval and modern ideational and prop-
agandistic constructions. In this sense, the Hungarian kingdom is the most
obvious example for the regional context under discussion.
In this article we set out to approach, with care for the sources and respect
towards the institutions invoked, in the light of older or newer documents
highlighted in archives, some of which were until recently inaccessible to
study, the issue of the emergence and primary structuring of the public pow-
ers that left their mark on the destiny of Transylvania 1000 years ago. These are
none other than the two universal powers that disputed their supremacy over
the medieval Christian world: the Empire and the Holy See. From the dynamic
interaction of these actors, the power structures in Eastern Europe would come
to life and influence, in our case, the emergence of the Hungarian patrimonial
kingdom, as the evolution of the expansion of Western institutions in the east
determined the involvement of Transylvania in the Roman Church’s architec-
ture and then the Arpadian kingdom. Considering the research methodology
of the sources of the time, an ideologization of the historical perspective is
much too present in the historiographies of : using concepts and interpreta-
tions not found in 11th century texts, such as state/state organization or inde-
pendence, as well as often ignoring the sources of power – the Apostolic See
and the Empire. Diplomatic, as a documentary science of history, faces anach-
ronism as its first-class enemy, and this, unfortunately, is often found in history
pages in this part of the continent. We intent to focus on an interpretation of
the documents as faithful as possible to the genuine text.
© Șerban Turcuș, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_014

284 Turcuș
The Hungarian kingdom, whose institutional foundation is symbolically

fixed in the year 1000 according to Hungarian historiography to this day, was
founded by King Stephen as an independent political entity: “royal power, as
organized by Saint Stephen, is unlimited,” states the jurist Imre Zajtay.1 This
statement stuns any sensible medievalist who knows that, in the Middle
Ages, only the power of the emperor is theoretically unlimited. Not deviating
from the course, Zajtay asserts: “Saint Stephen chose Charlemagne’s Empire
as a model for the organization of the new kingdom,”2 neglecting the fact
that the Carolingian Empire had been gone for more than a century, and
was not a unitary whole, but rather composed of various kingdoms, duch-
ies, marks, and counties differentiated from one another and never homo-
geneous. Basically, the Paris-exiled Hungarian jurist offers the solution of an
independent Hungarian kingdom as a “revival of the Carolingian Empire” in
Eastern Europe, given the powerful Ottonian Empire that had pushed the
Hungarians into . A little closer to the present day, the Hungarian jurist Gábor
Hamza returns with certain nuances, which, however, accord with those
of Zajtay:
Saint Stephen is an absolute ruler, in the strictest sense of the word, who
disposes as a quasi sacerdos in the ecclesiastical as well as the temporal
spheres. At the same time he cannot be considered as basileùs autocrátor
in the Byzantine sense of this technical term. In fact, he follows it, even
if he does not do so consciously: only after his death did the idea of rex
imperator in regno suo acquire an ideological and juridical meaning.3
Hamza’s anachronism is obvious,4 translating a 13th century concept into the

11th century, a reasoning propelled by the Holy See to overshadow the Empire;
a reasoning typical for much more politically and culturally developed monar-
chies than the peripheral Hungarian monarchy.
The issue of the foundation of the Hungarian kingdom, a small and circum-
scribed territorial centre with an itinerant royalty, which expanded over the
centuries through aggregations, associations, and conquests, is a part of the
specific dynamics of the extension of Christian faith and the incorporation
1 Zajtay 1953, 31.

2 Zajtay 1953, 31.
3 Hamza 1994, 370.
4 For almost 20 years, the perspective of Hungarian official historiography has remained the
same. See Bárány 2020, 127–128.
The Hungarian Kingdom Between Otto III and Gregory VII 285
of new spaces within a public Christian power, a phenomenon specific to

the European continent from the 6th–7th centuries to the 13th century. Even
the stabilization of the Hungarian tribes is a result of the defeat suffered by the
one who would dominate the Western power scene for several decades: Otto I:
In the Rhythm in praise of Otto II, composed around 981 and published
by Schramm, the differentiation of the peoples of the West, determined
in the very bosom of the Carolingian heritage, appears evident. The Slavs,
the Hungarians and the Saracens are still considered outside the com-
munity of the Empire; but the first two are destined to suffer, powerless,
the power of the emperor; the others, the Saracens, must retreat and flee
before the affirmation of the Christian Empire:
Sclavus grunniat, Ungarus strideat,/

Grecus miretur et stupeat, Sarracenus turbetur et fugiat./
Punicus persolvat tributum, Hispanus requirat auxilium./
Burgundio veneretur et diligat, Aquitanus latabundus accurrat./
Dicat omnis : “Quis audivit talia?”/
Dicat Italicus populus, levatis sursum manibus:/
“Per quel deu, hic est cesaris unicus Octonis magnis filius!”5
Once his political and military power was stabilized, Otto I proceeded to
a subordination of the main competing power: The Roman Church. On
February 13, 962, following the model of the old imperial edicts, Otto I issued
the Privilegium Othonis, which resulted from negotiations with the pope, by
which Otto plighted to recon the territories from the Patrimony of Saint Peter
and to ensure the defense of Rome provided that the election of the pope is
made by consensus (since 963, only with Otto’s approval), and in the presence
of Otto’s representatives. This was a grave menace to the Roman Church, but it
aligned with the old Constantinian-Justinian tradition of approving the elec-
tion of the bishop of . The document would be reconfirmed in 1020, and finally
rejected by the Roman Church in 1059. On the other hand, it stimulated the
designation of Christian missions to the Empire; the missions were managed
by Rome or by its episcopal and monastic extensions, and the Empire con-
stantly benefitted from the advance and achievements of these missions.
After the reign of Otto II, the imperial program, in a comprehensive
sense, was resumed by his nephew, Otto III (996–1002), king of Germany
5 Morghen 1978, 80.

286 Turcuș
and Italy since 983, from the age of 3. Son of Otto II and Theophana, prin-
cess of Constantinople, Otto III was deeply influenced by his mother and her
entourage during his youth. That is why he tried to materialize an imperial
idea marked by Roman-Constantinopolitan influence, without giving up a
Germanic specificity (Renovatio Imperii). He is the only one from the Ottonian
dynasty who established his residence right in Rome, on the Palatine, where he
organized a court with dignitaries bearing titles similar to the ancient Romans
(magister militum, comes palatii) or the Constantinopolitans (protospatharios –
πρωτοσπαϑάριος). Another component of the imperial idea during his reign is
the Carolingian one: Otto III considers his empire as a flagship institution in
the Western world, based on the dominion or manifestation of its influence in
different kingdoms. The young emperor openly claims the legacy of his great
predecessor, whose portrait he placed on his seals and whose tomb he opened
to take over symbolically his imperial insignia. The third and strongest com-
ponent of Otto III’s imperial idea is the Christian one, which he affirms in var-
ious ways; historiography refers to this as true imperial ecclesiology. First of
all, he ensures primacy through the titles of ‘servant of Christ’ or ‘servant of
the Apostles’ (also related to Constantinople’s influence – see Constantine –
the Equal of the Apostles), and through the functioning of the Privilegium
Othonis, he asserts primacy and almost usurps the position of the popes: Otto
Romanus, Saxonicus, Italicus, apostolorum servus, dono Dei romani orbis imper-
ator augustus.6 Uncoincidentally, his tutor, Abbot Gerbert d’Aurillac, would be
named bishop of Rome, known as Sylvester II, recalling the Constantinian era,
when the pope was Sylvester I. The Christian missionary dimension of Otto
III’s empire is demonstrated by the continuity of the evangelization of the
pagans (Prussians or Hungarians) and by the creation of new episcopacies,
in accordance with the Constantinopolitan model, but with the assent of the
Holy See. The universalism of the Empire is thus proven by the involvement
in the consecration of subordinate kingdoms, such as the Polish one, or even in
the creation of new ones, such as the Hungarian one.
Hungarian historiography has constantly tried to obscure the role of Otto III
in the founding of the Hungarian kingdom, focusing on the more or less real7
episode of Pope Sylvester II’s dispatch of the famous Latin crown contained by
the current crown kept in the seat of the Hungarian parliament. Historiogra
phy attempts an equivocal solution in emphasizing the collaboration of the
6 MGH. Diplomata, nr. 390, p. 821.

7 Hungarian historiography almost exclusively uses narrative sources written centuries
after the events, neglecting contemporary diplomatic sources – the essence of historical
reconstruction.
Roman Church with the Hungarian tribes without a secular intermediary, so

that the newly founded kingdom only detains a modest spiritual connection to
Peter’s throne, a connection that does not bring dependencies.
However, this is not the case. European historiography, with the more
or less tacit consent of the elite Hungarian historians, established a precise
moment for the foundation of the Hungarian kingdom, in direct depend-
ence with the founding of the Christianization mission and the creation of
ecclesiastical structures in the area where Hungarian tribes settled. It was the
day of April 4, 1001, when at the Basilica Sant’Apollinare in Classe in Ravenna
a placitum took place, presided by Otto III, who had to solve the problem
of the subordination to the Archbishop of Ravenna of the Basilica of Santa
Maria di Pomposa and the basilica of San Vitale, with whom the two entities
disagreed.8 On this occasion, the foundation of the Christian mission within
the Hungarian tribes seems to have been decided. This mission extended from
the circumscribed area of ancient Pannonia, accepting the Hungarian tribal
leader Vajk. Meanwhile, the Christianized Stephen was to become a king sub-
ordinate to the Christian leaders.9 The Abbot of Saint Mary’s monastery of
Sclavonia, Anastasius, is indicated as the messenger of the Hungarian duke;
he is associated by some exegetes with Astric, the presumed first archbishop
of Esztergom:
Promulgated on 4th April 1001 in Ravenna – more precisely in the

Monastery of St. Apollinaire in Classe – by Pope Sylvester II and Emperor
Otto III, the Charter in favour of the Monasteries of St. Mary of Pomposa
and St. Vital of Ravenna is a precious document because the list of wit-
nesses at the bottom of the document allows us to know the participants
in the Synod of Ravenna that took place that same year. This list obvi-
ously includes many ecclesiastical personalities, among whom we can
mention the Abbot of Cluny Odilo, but also a number of bishops and
several hermits, abbots and missionaries. The most interesting person-
ality in the context of our study is, however, Anastasius, who bears the
title of ‘Abbot of the Monastery of St. Mary in the Province of Sclavonia’.
Researchers claim that this monastery was located in Poland, and some
specialists add that this abbot Anastasius may be one with Astric, who
was Archbishop of Esztergom at the beginning of the 11th century and
also appears to be one of the main protagonists of the episode of the
crown prepared by Poland and given to Hungary in the year 1000. The
8 I placiti del Regnum Italiae, 466.

9 Török 2001, 455–466.
288 Turcuș
mention of ‘Anastasius/ Astric’ in the diploma of Silvestre II and Otto III

therefore seems to prove the existence of a stay of the future Archbishop
of Esztergom in Poland around the year 1001.10
The document is suggestive for its subscription. Although the first to subscribe
is Pope Sylvester II, after the chrismon, with the words: Ego Silvester sancte
catholice et apostolice Ecclesie Romane presul […] subscripsi, Otto III’s subscrip-
tion is a real ideological surprise: † Otto servus apostolorum subscripsi.11 The
title imperator does not appear; instead, after the sign of the cross, the offi-
cial title of the Roman pontiffs, the servant of the apostles, appears typically.
If Sylvester assumed the institutional title of bishop of Rome, Otto assumed
the dynamic, missionary one, of distributing the faith in apostolic descent.
It is remarkable how this phrase – Otto servus apostolorum – summarizes a
true imperial ecclesiology, whose protagonist is a character who summarizes
in himself the Eastern and Western worlds. The head of the Christian mis-
sion is not the bishop of Rome, but the emperor, the servant of the apostles
is not Peter’s successor, but the emperor as well. By assuming this title, Otto
III demonstrates the ideals he shared, and which he assumed, during the
imperial Christian mission: the kings whom he accepts as local leaders for the
Christianization of the tribes to which they belong and which they lead, in this
case the Hungarian king, through his intermediary Anastasius/ Astric:
In the diplomas of January 1001 the title servus apostolorum alludes to the
expansion of the empire and Christianity into the land of the Hungarians.
The parallelism with St. Paul servus Jesu Christi is however abandoned
here in favour of the formula establishing Otto’s dependence on Peter
and Paul. Servus apostolorum could then be a less strong designation than
the previous one: since the diplomas were issued in Rome, the title can
be understood as a reference to the apostolic mission that the emperor
carried out not only in the service of the church but also of the papacy.12
The conclusion is natural: the Hungarian kingdom had entered the sphere of
influence of the Empire according to the rule of any continental kingdoms
at the beginning of the 11th century: through the full agreement between the
secular power of religious imprint: Emperor Otto III, and the spiritual power:
10 Quéret-Podesta 2010, https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00785359/document, accessed

2020 July 11.
11 Diplomata Hungariae Antiquissima, 21, nr. 53.
12 Gandino 1999, 36.
Pope Sylvester II.13 The agreement sanctioned the creation of a new territo-
rial formation, associated or vassal to the Empire,14 constituting its Eastern
European extremity. The ‘patrician’ insignia sent to Stephen by Otto III and
Sylvester II, the cross and the spear have, in Albert Brackmann’s opinion, an
unequivocal meaning. Stephen becomes Otto’s lieutenant.15
The same interpretation is given by Ludwig Buisson:
When Otto III left for Gnesen in the year 1000, the Duke of Poland
Boleslaw Chrobry, whose predecessor Miezko I had handed over the
kingdom to St. Peter, was vassal to the emperor. When Otto III, in his
capacity as Servus Apostolorum, placed his own imperial crown on his
head at the Gnesen feast and gave him the names amicus and cooperator
imperii, Boleslaw’s legal bond was fixed by his words and symbolic ges-
ture: Boleslaw is amicus et socius imperii Romani, he is within the Empire;
the gesture of Otto III does not make him an emperor, but the vicar of
the latter, vested with imperial rights for Poland, which also include
ecclesiastical power; but the emperor’s supremacy of law is at the same
time manifested. It was in a very similar way that Otto III proceeded
against Waic, son of a Hungarian prince, brother-in-law of the Duke of
Bavaria Henry II. In this case, the personal connection was to originate
in a patronage by the emperor. Waic received the name ‘Stephen’ and an
imitation of the imperial sacra lancea. Even in the 10th century, spiritual
sponsorship was from time to time another form of alliance which gave
the godfather the authority of a father. Otto later sent a crown to Stephen.
This elevation to royal dignity still implied the right to invest the bish-
ops of his country. Here, too, we see the historical evolution leading to a
more pronounced perspective, which the sending of a crown grants, the
personal link between the donor and the future king once assured, new
rights to the person invested with royal power; but the supremacy of the
donor is at the same time clearly manifested.16
It could not be otherwise in the imperial vision of Otto III. Obviously, the
new kingdom did not become part of the German kingdom that many are
tempted to confuse with the Empire. The fact is that, administratively, the
new Hungarian kingdom did not have the tools of coordination and hierarchy,
13 Andenna 2003, 27.

14 Folz 1991, 275–276.
15 Brackmann 1939, 4.
16 Buisson 1988, 183–184.
290 Turcuș
and instead copied them from the most dominant prototypes, either from
the provincial administration of the Greek Empire or from the German king-
dom. Hence the famous question of the investment of bishops by kings for the
administration of territorial units or feudal powers (customs, mines), which
the Hungarian royalty could not administer. According to the Ottonian model,
investing is one thing, but creating dioceses is completely different. They are
totally different plans and have completely separate purposes.
According to imperial ecclesiology, with numerous Constantinopolitan
influences, all kingdoms benefiting from a large degree of autonomy. And even
those territorially broken from the Empire were framed in its global structure,
being ultimately subject to the emperor, rex regum and summus sacerdos.
Following in the footsteps of Johannes Fried,17 Robert Folz analyzed the legal
situation of the Polish and Hungarian kingdoms’ subordination to the Empire,
starting from a miniature of Liuthardt’s Evangeliary, executed in Reichenau
around 1000 at the commission of Otto III. According to Folz, this miniature
is one of the most valuable tools for understanding the program of Renovatio
Imperii. The miniature represents in the upper part Otto, Christomimetic, in
all of his glory. The king, inscribed in the mandorla, takes the place of Christ,
crowned by the hand of God, seated on the throne that represents the Earth.
He holds the globe in one hand and blesses it with the other. Two archbishops
decorated with the pallium, which represents the imperial church, and two
secular crowned figures holding a spear, occupy the lower part of the folio.
The two characters have been identified as King Boleslaw Chrobry of Poland
and King Stephen of Hungary. “As such and in accordance with the definition
of the famous 7th century treaty on Roman and Frankish functions – reges
sub imperatore – they are on a lower rung than the emperor. They appear to
be associated with the emperor’s main mission”.18 Carlrichard Brühl is of the
same opinion:
We need to be more nuanced when speaking of Otto III’s political expe-

rience. It remains to be discussed whether his reign can be seen as a
decisive moment from which one can speak of a ‘German’ history. Some
serious authors answered in the affirmative, but I would have been more
reserved. Otto III was preoccupied with making Rome the residence
of the Caesars, and he does not seem to have conceived the idea of
a ‘German people’. Did he not strive to integrate Hungary and Poland
17 Fried 1989.
18 Folz 1991, 276.
as legal partners in the Imperium Romanum, as he endeavored to do with

Venice?19
So here is how the anachronism of Hamza and the Hungarian historians who
support this thesis is dismantled. However, there is a notable exception in
Hungarian historiography. Benedictine historian Adam Somorjai, who regards
these developments from the perspective of the era, notes that:
It is therefore necessary to think a close collaboration between the

pope and the emperor existed during these times, that Sylvester II, the
‘magician’, the great scientist of his time, and Otto III, the ‘wonder of
the world’, collaborated towards a new Christian world, precursors of a
united Christian Europe, perhaps also inspired by millenarianism; let
us not forget that year one thousand could have had a meaning for con-
temporaries. Thus, the first mention of the donation of the crown from
a German source, that is, from Thietmar of Merseburg, may better corre-
spond to the facts: at the behest of the emperor and by the pope ‘coro-
nam et benedictionem coepit’.20
The certainty that this territory, Pannonia, had been part of the Roman Empire,
as well as the subsequent return under the jurisdiction of the Carolingian
Empire of the remnants left here after the destruction of the Avar Khaganate,21
correlated with the idea of containing and confining a population with warlike
tendencies. Consequently, the possibility of communicating and disseminat-
ing the model of civilization the Empire radiated, contributed to the political
decision of those two fundamental factors.22 The fact that Pannonia was
already a pertinence of the Holy See was stated by Pope John VIII in the instruc-
tions given to bishop Paul of Ancona, mandated with a mission in Germany
and Pannonia, intended to specify to Louis the German:
19 Brühl 1994, 265–266.

20 Somorjai 2021, 150.
21 Bishop Pilgrim of Passau (972–991) issued claims against Pannonia based on false doc-
uments giving the bishopric of Lorch the legal basis for carrying out the project; in this
regard, see Lehr 1909.
22 The Hungarian kingdom followed the example of Poland, choosing not to unite ecclesias-
tically with the Empire, and therefore with the ‘German’ Church, but to depend directly
on Rome. Hampe 1953, 47.
292 Turcuș
Ipse nosti, o gloriossisime Rex, quod Pannonica dioecesis Apostolice

Sedi sit subjecta, licet bellica, clades eam ad tempus ab illa subtraxerit et
gladius ad horam hostilis subduxerit. Verum reddita aeclesiis pace reddi
debuerunt et iura, quae cum decretis canonicis tirannicus unicuiuque
furor ademerat.23
In fact, the pontiff also wrote to the king directly, stating:
Multis ac variis manifestisque prudentia tua poterit iudiciis comprehen-

dere Pannonicam dioecesin ab olim Apostolicae Sedis fuisse privilegiis
deputatam […] Hoc enim synodalia gesta indicant, hoc ystoriae con-
scripte demonstrant […] Nemo autem de annorum numero resultandi
sumat fomentum, quia sanctae Romanae, cui Deo autore servimus, eccle-
siae privilegia, quae in firma Petri stabilitatis petra suscepit, nullis tempo-
ribus angustantur, nullis regnorum particionibus preiudicantur.24
It is useful to note that in one of the legends about the life of King Stephen, the
Minor Legend, we find the king associated with a name of a geographical mean-
ing that can only lead us to think of the old Roman administrative unit and not
of its ethnic quality: Sanctissimus confessor Stephanus rex Pannoniorum.25
If the death of Otto III made the ambitious imperial ecclesiological plans
of Theophanes’ son disappear, it did not mean that the kingdom of Hungary
gained a different status in the medieval world. The founding of the kingdom
was a well-circumscribed event at a time when imperial tutelage was still exer-
cised over the Pontifical See. But, as Cesare Alzati suggests, when pontifical
Rome took over the role of the universal court, the entire missionary issue and
the relations of dependency with the Apostolic See incorporated the legal ele-
ments for claiming a spiritual supremacy with temporal accents proportional
to the growing theocratic pressure.26 Therefore, the views that support an
independent evolution of the Hungarian kingdom in the centuries following
the conversion deny the reality of the medieval world, and the evolution of
the relations between the Holy See and the kingdom underscore the special
relationship established between the two institutions.
For an analysis of the institutional beginnings of the Hungarian king-
dom, after the deaths of Otto III and Sylvester II, it is necessary to turn to
23 Regesta pontificum romanorum, nr. 2976, May 14, 873.

24 MGH. Epistolarum, VII, 281.
25 Pasztor 1992, 63.
26 Alzati 1992, 37.
the document which, although reconsidered today as suspicious or even a

diplomatic fake, marked the connection between Rome and the Hungarian
kingdom.27 This is the alleged letter of Pope Sylvester II to Stephen, then still
the Duke of Hungary. It is not known when and by whom it was written. If,
after decades, Pope Gregory VII had not referred to the elements contained in
this letter, its text would have lapsed. But, approximately the same ideas from
Sylvester’s pseudo-letter are also found in Gregory’s correspondence, as we will
see later. It is opportune to read a few passages from this letter, a doubtful doc-
ument from the point of view of diplomatics, to see in what terms bilateral
relations are conditioned:
And then we entrust to dignified eulogy the great generosity by which

you offered for eternity to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, the coun-
try and the people whose leader you are, all of yours and even yourself […]
And receiving you, together with your bloodline and the Hungarian peo-
ple, present and future, under the protection of the Holy Roman Church,
we gift and concede to your Wisdom, as well as to your inheritants and
legitimate descendants, to have, to hold, to govern and to rule the very
land which from your generosity you have given to Saint Peter.28
There is a general tendency in national historiography to regard this state-

ment as a harmless cliché, a simple expression specific to pontifical diplo-
macy. However, recent research has shown that spiritual realities are hidden
behind this statement, and also a deep institutional dimension, inducing real
dependencies. Hungarian historiography cannot circumvent this subject,
but it discreetly places it in a different light, either by considering this letter
false, or by appealing to the legends of Saint Stephen, who would have placed
the Hungarian kingdom not under the protection of Peter, but of the Virgin
Mary. This is an interesting element of classification and hierarchy of patron-
age from the institutions of the medieval Church, but not indisputable. It is
ignored that Marian devotion in the 10th century did not have at all the outline
it gained during the 13th century (it develops largely with the contribution of
Cistercian Marian theology and devotional practices are generated by the 11th
century circulation of the apocryphal gospels, which dedicate ample space to
the figure of the Virgin), and Mary can be invoked at this time as a media-
tor for the temporal and the institutional plan, but within the parameters set
27 For relations throughout the 11th century, a useful investigation is found at Kosztolnyik
1981.
28 Rus 1998, 239.
294 Turcuș
out by us in this research. Mary can only be conceived as an expression of

the public, political and spiritual control of the Church. And in this case, of
entrusting the kingdom to Mary, the Church also had to control the relation-
ship. The argument is particularly dismountable even if we consider only a
single element from the Central and Eastern European area. More precisely, it
is about the beginning of the Livonia crusade during the full theocracy era of
Innocent III’s pontificate, on October 5, 1199; the Holy See argued for the
belonging of this region to ‘Blessed Mary’, the formula in the text stating: “It
is the personal patrimony of Mary the Mother of Christ.” The Holy See thus
claimed full rights over a territory belonging to the Holy Virgin, and it has
remained to this day as such in the collective memory of the area.29 In fact, the
merits of Mary are never separated from those of the apostles, as is clear from
the letter addressed by Gregory VII to the King of Hungary on March 21, 1079.
However, this aspect only strengthens our statements and leads us to reiterate
our appreciation of the tendentious official character of the Hungarian court
ideology of the late Middle Ages and the tendency to delimit the Hungarian
kingdom from the European institutional evolution within which it actually
asserted itself.30
This system of donations offered and made to Saint Peter is the essential
principle of the composition of the Patrimony of Saint Peter, the actual tempo-
ral possession of the Pontifical See. Seemingly harmless at first (and even dur-
ing the theocracy used, at first, only in severe circumstances of ecclesiastical
and then political insubordination), this donatory practice managed to accu-
mulate a lot of temporal benefits in the name of apostle Peter (often associated
29 In this regard, see chapter ‘Marie comme l’une des structures de la Chrétienté,’ in Marie.
Le culte de la Vierge dans la société médievale, 284–290, and Schreiner 1997, 133–137. Bolton
1988, 131.
30 In this regard, see Gerics – Ladányi 1996, 15. In Romanian historiography, the pseudo-letter
was translated more than two decades ago: Rus 1998. The effort of the Hungarian his-
torical critics is to prove the falsity of this document, although the apostolic letter was
inserted in almost all the great collections of Hungarian diplomatic sources published
until the 19th century by Melchior Inchofer, Istvan Katona, Martin Schwartner, György
Fejér etc. In the Diplomata Hungariae Antiquissima (DHA) documents collection, the doc-
ument is not even edited, the given explanation being: Hanc, quia falsificatio recentioris
aevi est, in diplomatarium nostrum non assumimus. The only visible argument in all the
efforts of justifying the falsity of the act is the year of its issuance. As for the text itself,
European diplomatics casts doubt on the authenticity of the year in which the document
was issued. But, as Marcel Pacaut stated in the monograph dedicated to Alexander III, it
no longer matters whether the year of the deed is false, as long as the realities inscribed in
the document are real or those realities are frequently appealed to. In fact, the Donation
of Constantine and other false decrees have grounded the Church’s governing mecha-
nisms for hundreds of years, although they were false.
with the name of the apostle Paul). The canonical systematization and the-
ological justification of these benefits was not possible in the conditions of
Ottonian imperial competition. Often, however, this donation was accompa-
nied by an exemption, which permanently removed the donation, regardless
of its nature, from ecclesiastical and/or secular jurisdiction with the exception
of Saint Peter represented by the pope. Among the first significant gestures
in this direction, apart from the donations of the late ancient period in the
hinterland of Rome, is the one made by Lombard king Liutprand in 728, by
the so-called donation from Sutri, when he ceded to Apostles Peter and Paul
the city of Sutri.31 A second important moment that serves the circumstances
analyzed here is the foundation of the Order of Cluny (Cluny is referred to
as the neighborhood of the ‘Gregorian Reformation’ until 1048), through the
strengthened donation of exemption made by Duke William of Aquitaine in
909, in the property of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and its placing under
the protection of the Apostolic See:
Through the exemption, a large number of places and persons are directly
subject to pontifical jurisdiction. Numerous enclaves constitute in all dio-
ceses as points of support for the bishop of Rome. Fictitious properties or
privileged domains, the Holy See, at the same time as it convokes count-
less cases to its Court, sets up its citadels throughout Christendom.32
In recognition of this special relationship, the abbey had to pay a census of 10

scales every five years to keep the candles lit in front of Apostle Peter’s tomb:33
In fact, Cluny, which had been founded in 910 and placed under the pro-
tection and subjection of the Pope, had not been slow to spread, from
the region of Burgos to that of Cologne and from the English Channel
to Mont-Cassin, a unified observance of monasteries that were exempt,
becoming virtual, and often effective instruments of papal policy. Cluny
had been the first ‘Order’, and it prepared the great Roman concentra-
tion of the Gregorian reform. Placing under the protection of the Apostle
Peter had been primarily a means of escaping the secular hold. With
Cluny, but especially from the end of the 11th century onwards, it had
31 Ovidio Capitani states that this act does not represent a simple act of penitence, but
rather is the first recognition of an expanding pontifical ‘state’, the first signal sanctioned
by the secular authority of the temporal power of the bishop of Rome. Capitani 1994, 64.
32 Le Bras 1959, 321.
33 Cowdrey 1970, 8–15.
296 Turcuș
become a means of extending papal authority at the expense, not of sec-

ular powers alone, but also of the prerogatives of the local episcopate.
The ‘censum’ for which it demanded payment was no longer paid at the
tomb of the Apostle, but at the Lateran Palace.34
The connection with Rome resulted in a special relationship of mutual advan-

tage, which created the necessary conditions for the abbey to reach a unique
position in terms of independence, privileges, and power, with historians
speaking of the centralized monastic monarchy of Cluny.35 In 1024, Abbot
Odilo received from Pope John XIX the complete exemption, extended to all
Cluniac monks wherever they resided. Appealing to the temporal power to
resolve the role of priorities of the ‘century’ generated a competitive approach
from the Church in the very heart of the feudal system: the so-called feudal
policy of the popes:
Once with the establishment of the ‘Patrimony of Saint Peter’, the pope
became a feudal senior with the corresponding rights and dignities. The
codification of feudal law in the libri feudorum papali is thus attached to
canon law. In the early Middle Ages, under the jurisdiction of the patri-
monium, the pope received the feudal oath of the so-called milites sancti
Petri and, as sovereign of an ecclesiastical territory, he had the right to
receive from secular feudal lords the provision of certain feudal services.
The pope’s feudal lordship extended beyond the frontier of the patrimony
when Pope Nicholas II, in his struggle against the Byzantine church in
southern Italy, succeeded in imposing his suzerainty on the Normans
declared ‘vassals.’ Through the feudal oath, they not only recognized
the pope as senior of Capua, Benevento, Puglia, and Calabria, but also
undertook to equip him with an army. It was an evolution in the spirit
of the Gregorian Reformation. As early as 1081, Gregory VII had provided
for the election of the king of Germany a formula of oath that indicated
him in the expression fidelis, meaning vassal of the pope. This concept
is also present in a Lateran painting that represents the transfer of the
property of Matilda of Tuscany to Emperor Lothar III (1136) in which the
emperor appears as a vassal (homo) of the pope. Adrian IV, at the Diet
of Besançon (1157), upheld the pope’s supremacy in a letter to Frederick
Barbarossa, in which he defined the Empire in relation to the Papacy as
34 Congar 1961, 37.

35 Lawrence 1995, 127.
a ‘papal benefit.’ However, it was only with Innocent III that a large-scale
feudal policy began by increasing the ‘patrimony’ and extending suprem-
acy over southern Italy and Sicily, as the guardian of Frederick II. The
battles for the crown in Germany (1198–1208) and other similar conflicts
in Hungary and Spain allowed Innocent to present himself as the arbiter
of the world, arbiter mundi and to treat the disputed kingdoms as his own
fiefs. In the case of England, this authority was officially attributed to the
pope by King John Lackland. The feudal policy of the popes managed to
attain in England not only the Obol of St. Peter, but also a feudal tribute
paid until 1336.36
As we have seen from the letters of John VIII, it was not the first time to entrust
part of the territory circumscribed to the ancient Roman province of Pannonia
to the Roman See. Even Methodius, the Greek missionary who recognized the
authority of Rome, had stated that the territory (oblast’) corresponding to his
mission belonged to Saint Peter.37
Saint Stephen, the first Christian king of the Hungarians, who treated
heavy-handedly the Hungarian rulers that challenged him, after having been
recognized and strengthened by Otto III and the Roman pontiffs, carried
out an ecclesiastical activity unanimously appreciated by the entire histori-
ography, both Hungarian and European. Being a missionary territory for the
Hungarians, it is obvious that the material role in supporting the ecclesias-
tical institutions belonged to the royalty, indebted to the Apostolic See. But
this entire initial moment takes place under a clause inscribed in the letter
of Pope Sylvester: “and on the basis of what the divine grace will have taught
you or will have taught them, to arrange and dispose of the churches in your
36 Feudal policy of the popes, in Wörterbuch der Kirchengeschichte. In a famous monograph

dedicated to Gregory VII, Raffaello Morghen highlights the terminological evolution of
the concept of Church in relation to the evolution of the pontiff’s feudal lordship: “That
‘Church’ means more particularly the ‘Roman Church’ is undoubtedly true of the docu-
ments concerning the pontiff’s sovereignty as feudal lord. He then speaks of the honor
S. Petri or the honor S. Ecclesiae. Robert Guiscard in his oath of allegiance declares himself
to be a vassal ‘of the holy Church in Rome’, and Henry IV himself speaks almost exclu-
sively of the Sancta Ecclesia Romana, almost as if he meant that the whole Church is
represented in it. The freedom of the Church is clearly identified, in the letter addressed
by Gregory VII to William of Burgundy, as the ‘freedom of the Roman Church’ and the
‘interests of St. Peter’.” Morghen 1942, 287.
37 Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici, II, 151–152. As a matter of fact, a Pannonesium dioecesis
appears for a short while in the time of Methodius as well as in the primary documenta-
tion of Liber censuum. Fabre 1901, Fasc. II, 147.
298 Turcuș
country, both present and the future ones, in our name and in the name of our
descendants.”38 The clause, which might have well not worked (that it did not
work very well is evident from the way in which the local tradition, amply
resumed by modern Hungarian historiography, speaks of Stephen as the sole
organizer of the Hungarian Church), offered nevertheless a precedent that,
by the accumulation of other precedents, would generate the situation of the
kingdom during the 13th century. Almost without exception, all territories that
at one time, voluntarily or constrained by circumstances, contracted special
relations with the Holy See, beyond the phenomenon of late antique and
early-medieval evangelization, were later claimed, in a way or another, in a
feudal sense by Rome: England, kingdoms of Spain, Bohemia, the kingdom of
Hungary, etc. In Libellus de institutione morum, attributed to King Stephen and
intended for his son and heir apparent Imre, “the royalty, dignitas regalis or
corona, is conceived by Stephen as a function in the Church […] to protect the
Church and preserve the honour of the bishops, without whom, according to
St. Stephen, kings can neither be constituted nor reign.”39
These clarifications have been made in order to observe the roots of the
problem of the relations between the Holy See and the Arpadian kingdom
during the 13th century. In the very way in which this kingdom was founded
lies the disease of its ‘feudalization’ by Rome; also, probably, in the context of
dynastic continuity, the Angevin court propaganda created the myth of the
crown and resized, in light of their contemporary action, the characteristics of
King Stephen’s ‘apostolic’ activity.40
38 For the hypothetical foundation of the archdiocese and metropolis of Strigonium/

Esztergom, ecclesiam metropolim et magistram per consensum et subscriptionem Romane
sedis apostolici, see Bartoniek 1938, 383.
39 Folz 1984, 150–152.
40 We specify, however, that the Angevins were close collaborators of the Holy See (vassals),
Charles Robert of Anjou being installed on the throne of Hungary by Pope Boniface VIII.
“In the 14th century, when the Angevins of Naples, through the marriage of Charles-Robert
d’Anjou to Mary, daughter of King Béla IV, seized the crown of Hungary (1307), they took
over this tradition and gave the cult of the holy Magyar kings and princesses a wide
diffusion in their state. Thus, in the middle of the 14th century, the idea of dynas-
tic sanctity, far from disappearing, was reinforced by the fusion of two royal lineages,
which included saints in their ranks: that of the Arpadians in Hungary and that of the
Capetians-Angevins, with the two saints Louis: Louis IX, canonized in 1297, and Louis
of Anjou or Toulouse. One can certainly see here the effect of a political will whose aim
would have been – and indeed was – to use the saints related to the reigning sovereigns
as guarantees of the legitimacy of a dynasty whose establishment in Southern Italy and
Hungary was, after all, quite recent.” Vauchez 1977, 402–403.
Patrick J. Kelleher41 claims that the status of the crown as a symbol of the
kingdom developed around the late 12th century–early 13th century. The adjec-
tives that define the crown in the middle of the 13th century: sacra, sancta,
sanctissima corona (when these attributes are reserved to or generated by the
Roman Church), due to its Roman origin, as well as the case of Charles I of
Hungary, who was crowned by several times until the final coronation with
Stephen’s crown, leads us to believe that, for a barbarian people, this crown
expressed the attachment to the concrete symbolic and material value with
which it identified (the royal treasures of the barbarian leaders from the first or
the second wave of migration signified their concrete, material and, by reflex,
spiritual power and value) and certifies the attachment to European political
realities. The evolutions of the Hungarian crown doctrine, in the sense of sup-
porting the individuality and particularity of the Hungarian national monarchy
are obviously a late Angevin creation. Regarding not the myth, but the crown
itself, which is made up of two crowns: one sent by Sylvester II and destined
for the future Polish king, and other given to King Géza I by the Byzantine
emperor Michael Ducas in 1074; if the second crown is regarded by Hungarian
historians as an element of Hungary’s independence and its ability to choose
alliances, we do not believe it is avoidable to notice how 1075 signified year of
the rupture between Gregory VII and Michael Ducas, despite the fact that a
year before, in 1074, the two were still looking for solutions to re-establish the
unity of the Church (what we might call a proto-crusade was somehow pre-
dicted in this context).
The agreement between the emperor and the pontiff, given for the creation
of the Hungarian kingdom, will mark the history of this kingdom during the
three centuries of the Arpadian dynasty. Following closely the evolution of the
Hungarian kingdom in the period of Gregorian reform and theocracy, one can-
not deny the independence tendencies of this kingdom, especially under the
authority of some illustrious monarchs. However, like any other continental
kingdom, the kingdom founded by Otto III for Stephen had to rely on a centre
41 Kelleher 1951, 1–4, 19–30; see also Holtzmann 1924–1925, 173, 190, and Hofmann 1947, 169–
181. Regarding the crown sent by the Greek emperor, a very accurate historical-technical
treatment is found at Moravcsik 1970, 64–69. The conclusion, however, is the same as of
the entire Hungarian historiography regarding the significance of recognizing Hungary’s
independence, the author disregarding the Constantinopolitan imperial theocratic ideol-
ogy. Byzantine scientist Nicolas Oikonomidès drew attention to the fact that the so-called
crown from Constantinople is a forgery: Oikonomidès 1994, 262.
300 Turcuș
of power, whether it was Rome or the Empire.42 Credited either by the pope or
the emperor as support (in terms of vassalage), the Hungarian kingdom felt the
consequences of disputes between the two poles of universality.
By the middle of the 11th century, that is, until the election of Leo IX as
pontiff, the Apostolic See fell again at the discretion of the imperial authority.
Without having the tendencies of Otto I or Otto III, the German kings and
emperors proceeded to impose, according to the feudal program, the system
of dependencies throughout Europe:
The danger threatening Hungary on behalf of the Holy Roman Empire

was much greater. Starting from the idea that Christianity, having an
ecclesiastical leader, should also have a secular leader, the German emper-
ors considered themselves to be the lords of the Christian world. They
wanted to become suzerain of all the rulers of the world and demanded
vassalage and services from other rulers, claiming that their title of king
and their sovereign rights could only come from them.43
Under King Stephen, the Hungarian kingdom managed the situation in this
area very well. However, it was not exempt from the interference of the Empire,
which wanted to make the system of vassal dependencies in Central and
Eastern Europe functional, should a situation when Rome would be silenced
ever occur. As had already happened with Bohemia and Poland, the Empire
wanted to extend its effective authority over Stephen’s kingdom, not just de
jure.
The fate of the Hungarian kingdom closely follows the course of events and
dysfunctionalities between the Empire and the Holy See. To defend himself
from an imminent attack by Emperor Konrad II, King Stephen chose an alli-
ance with the Constantinopolitan Empire, sealed by the engagement of his
son, Prince Emeric, with the emperor’s daughter. Consolidated in principle
towards the East, Stephen was able to devote himself to Western affairs, defeat-
ing Emperor Konrad after his attack in 1030. However, he soon lost his son. This
death ignited the aspirations of the competitors for the succession.
The death of King Stephen in 1038 threw into anarchic convulsions the
kingdom that had strong tribal vocations. The designated successor of the
deceased, his sister’s nephew Pietro Orseolo – Alamanus vel potius Venetus,
42 Significantly, in 1007, shortly after the deaths of Sylvester II and Otto III, the Archbishop
of ‘Hungary’ participated in the Frankfurt Council presided over by the emperor. Érszegi
1992, 49.
43 D’Eszlary 1959, 88.
had to withdraw before an internal competitor, Samuel Aba, more or less

related to the royal family. Excommunicated by the pope for usurpation, Aba
tried to gain legitimacy from Emperor Henry III. Failing in his attempt, as it
was not convenient for the emperor to overturn the balance in the eastern
parts of the Empire, Samuel Aba invaded German territories, crossing them up
to the Danube valley and thus re-editing the traditional incursions that Otto
the Great had thought ended for good after 955. Pietro took refuge under his
tutelary authority, and the sole guarantor of his legitimacy: Emperor Henry
III. Samuel Aba’s resistance to the German emperor’s retaliatory campaign
was powerless.44 The Hungarian kingdom was invaded three times, with
the emperor finally imposing his point of view and restoring the dethroned
king Pietro in 1045.45 According to contemporary accounts, aware that King
Stephen had entrusted his kingdom to Saint Peter, Henry III sent to Rome the
royal crown and golden spear that Samuel Aba had lost in battle, so that they
may be placed on Saint Peter’s tomb.46
The hostility of the Hungarians towards the Western institutional model
and its subordinations, as well as the lack of firmness in the field of Christian
mission in Hungarian territory, associated with a strong division and segrega-
tion of the Hungarian clans, found their outlet in the anti-Christian rebellion
that broke out during the succession of the German emperor’s intervention in
the Hungarian kingdom.47 Vata, one of the tribal chiefs of the Black Hungarian
clan, appealed to Princes Andrew, son-in-law of Yaroslav, the Grand Prince of
the Kievan Rus’, and Bela, married to a Polish princess. They managed to defeat
the restored King Pietro, and adhered to paganism as imposed by the popula-
tion. The elected king, Prince Andrew (1046–1060), aware that the lack of ade-
quate institutional support could be ominous for his own projects, proceeded
to quell the rebellion, consolidating the feudal Christian regime.48
In face of a new defiance of his authority, the German emperor Henry III
tried to resume the relationship of subordination with Hungary, but Prince
44 It was not only the Hungarian kingdom that was targeted by the German emperor’s
plans. According to Hampe 1953, 97, around 1045–1047, imperial sovereignty stretched
from Pomerania, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary to Ghent, Cambrai, Verdun, Besançon, Lyon,
Vienne and Arles, from the Danish border and the sphere of religious influence over
northern Europe to sovereignty over Rome and the papacy.
45 Fliche 1930, 263. “Emperor Henry succeeded in overthrowing King Aba and restoring the
throne to Peter, Stephen’s legitimate successor, who thus became a tributary vassal of the
emperor,” Hampe 1953, 90. Zupka 2016, 2–3.
46 Kelleher 1951, 27.
47 For the context, see Gieysztor 1968, 159–169.
48 Histoire de la Hongrie des origines à nos jours, 66.
302 Turcuș
Bela’s coordinated resistance managed to curb temporarily the relationship

between the Empire and Hungary.
According to several Hungarian historians, this Hungarian-German tension
was also reflected in the cultural orientation of the kingdom. In their opinion,
Andrew I, aware of the administrative disaster of the young kingdom, invited
a number of professional clerics of writing not from the neighboring German
territories, as Stephen had done, but from the imperial territories of Lorraine.
Thus, the early liturgy in the Hungarian Church is a liturgy modeled on the
Lotharingian liturgy. However, we must not forget that these territories of
Lorraine are parts of the Empire, and even though, although we doubt it, the
German language could have been an object of dispute among the Hungarians,
the institutional reality of the Empire in the area where the clergy were called
cannot be challenged. It should be added that this area of Lorraine and gen-
erally the French-speaking area of the Empire were crowded with monaster-
ies belonging to the order of Cluny, an order that supported the reform of the
Church and the arbitration between the pope and the emperor:
In the wars against Emperor Henry III, King Andrew I obtained the pro-
tection of the sovereign pontiff Leon IX, the first reforming pope who,
in addition to intervening personally for the Hungarian cause, sent
to Hungary Saint Hugo abbot of Cluny as nuncio. It is significant and,
we believe, stimulating for further research of the relations between
Hungary and the monastic monarchy at Cluny that King Stephen cor-
responded with the abbot of Cluny, Odillo, who had succeeded in draw-
ing exemption from the entire order, a true forerunner of the Gregorian
Reformation.49
According to the tradition of nomadic populations, Andrew I divided the king-

dom of Hungary with his brother Béla, granting him the succession. But when
the king had a son, Solomon, a dynastic conflict broke out. As a result of the
conflict, Andrew died, and his son Solomon took refuge at the court of the
German King Henry IV.50 At the same time, this dynastic controversy managed
to revive the old Hungarian paganism, which again animated a pagan revolt,
49 Balogh 1938, 458–460, citing Dr. Galla Ferenc, A Clunyi reform hatása Magyarországon
(Pécs: 1931), 147.
50 We cannot fail to notice the strict and perfect overlap of the installations on the royal
throne with the pretensions of the Empire which, by virtue of the classic developments
of the suzerain-vassal relationship, needed the adhesion of the new Hungarian leader.
but not of the magnitude of the one that broke out after the intervention of
Henry III. Bela I’s ascension to the throne (1060–1063) generated, as expected,
a new conflict with the German kingdom. Bela’s early death allowed Solomon
to resume the succession to the throne. But Bela’s sons, Géza and Ladislaus,
were the ones to receive recognition of the succession of their father’s princi-
pality from the times when he was not yet king. This claim opens a new page in
the ‘dossier’ of dynastic conflicts. In 1074, King Solomon, defeated, took refuge
at the court of Henry IV.
In the circumstances of the already-erupted tensions between Rome and
the Empire, against the background of the emergence of the Gregorian reform,
Prince Géza sought the pope’s help.51 He received pontifical acceptance and
its connected legitimacy. The reason for Gregory VII’s gesture was the pontiff’s
dissatisfaction with Solomon’s initiative, who had paid homage to the King of
Germany and not to the Holy See:
It had been frequently observed before that Gregory saw the mundus
Christianus as divided into equal kingdoms. A king, such as the King of
Hungary, was in his opinion reduced to the status of a regulus should he
accept his kingdom as a fief from another king.52
This was the step that allowed the pontifical institution to reassert, after a
silence of seven decades, its rights over the Hungarian kingdom. The claim is
made by Pope Gregory VII and, for the era of the pontifical monarchy, it would
be the main motive of the Holy See’s relations with this central European
kingdom.
Géza’s invocation came to support the theocratic reform projects as envi-
sioned by Gregory VII:
The Pope proclaimed himself direct sovereign, by various concessions

and by the false donation of Constantine, of the Patrimonium beati
Petri, of the marquisate of Fermo, of the duchy of Spoleto, of Sabina,
of Benevento, of Campagna and Marittima, of Corsica and Sardinia; he
was high feudal lord of the Norman princes of Capua and Apulia, of the
king of Croatia and the king of Kiew who had recognized themselves as
vassals of the Church; He boasted, for the same reasons, ancient rights
over Spain and the kingdom of Hungary, but from all the other kingdoms
51 Weiler 2010, 75.

52 Tellenbach 1993, 236.
304 Turcuș
he demanded nothing more than recognition of the supreme religious

authority of the successor of Peter, and obedience to the Church in all
that concerned moral and religious life.53
The pontiff had previously vassalized, in feudal terms, the Norman principality
of southern Italy and the kingdom of Croatia. Far from it being an extraordi-
nary fact, it was a point of theocratic reflection. According to the letter sent to
Bishop Hermann of Metz of August 25, 1075, which, together with the sketch of
Dictatus papae, represents the most important document of Gregorian think-
ing, the pontiff stated: “When he entrusted Peter with the flock which He him-
self had shepherded, the Lord evidently did not understand that kings would be
an exception.”54
Taking advantage of his position, the interpretation of Petrine succession
and the institutional environment in which he lived, Gregory VII declared
the Hungarian kingdom as property of the Church: regnum sanctae Romanae
ecclesiae proprium, the fundamental reference for such a direct sentence being
the act of constitution of the Hungarian kingdom:
Nam, sicut a maioribus patriae tuae cognoscere potes, regnum Hungariae

sanctae Romanae ecclesiae proprium est a rege Stephano olim beato
PETRO cum omni iure et potestate sua oblatum et devote traditum.
Preterea Heinricus pie memorie imperator ad honorem sancti PETRI
regnum illud expugnans victo rege et facta victoria ad corpus beati PETRI
lanceam coronamque transmittedit et pro gloria triumphi sui illuc regni
direxit insignia, quo principatum dignitalis eius altenere cognovit.55
At the same time, the pontiff stated that “the sceptre of the kingdom of
Hungary is a benefit of the apostolic majesty and not of the royal one.”56
From this moment on, the kingdom led by the Arpadians was decisively
engaged in the global projects of the Apostolic See and the Empire, both show-
ing the same theocratic projections. As the Hungarian kingdom persevered in
the steps desired by the sovereigns of christianisation, the hierocratic tension
of a clergy rarely originating from the Hungarians would call for the pope’s
solutions, identified with those of Saint Peter:
53 Morghen 1942, 262–263.

54 Morghen 1942, 198.
55 Gregorii VII Registrum, 13.
56 Fliche 1940, 112.
In the letters of Gregory VII this special authority of the Pontiff, as ser-
vus Dei, as famulus beati Petri, is expressed with particular effectiveness.
Precisely as a servant of God and Peter, Gregory VII speaks directly in the
name of God and Peter. He feels himself to be the instrument that God
uses for his purposes, the very voice of the Lord and the Apostle who
admonish, bless and condemn. Whoever offends the servant of God and
Peter offends God himself and the Apostle.57
The words of Gregory VII demonstrate the particular attention of the Holy See
in the relations with the Hungarian kingdom, the latter being meant to ensure
the eastern front of Christianitas and to allow the further development of the
evangelization work, fully empowered by the imperial authorities and strongly
supported by the Benedictine and Reformed Benedictine monasticism, by cre-
ating numerous residences in the Hungarian kingdom.
The terms used by Gregory certainly demonstrate the natural tendency of
the Apostolic See to enlist the Arpadian kingdom in the camp of the Roman
Reformation, as well as the See’s desire for the pope to be recognized as the
supreme spiritual leader of Europe:
During the time of the Gregorian Reformation, kings not only agreed to
pay a fee to gain the support of the Church and become vassals of the
Pope, but the Pope claimed the ancient imperial right to elevate princes
to royal dignity. For them, too, the crown symbolises the investiture of
the vassal of royal powers in his fiefdom. For example, when Zwonimir
of Dalmatia was elected king in the presence of the pope’s legate by the
greats of his country, he recommended himself to the pope and took an
oath of allegiance which included the following additional clause, which
is particularly interesting: Zwonimir undertook not to diminish the rights
of his kingdom and his right which came to him from the Apostolic See.
The legate then handed him the flag, sword, sceptre and crown. Zwonimir
thus became investitus atque constitutus rex. The elevation to royal dig-
nity also brought about new relationships with the Church of the king-
dom, as was observed in Boleslaw Chrobry, Stephen of Hungary and later
when Roger II was elevated to the royal dignity of Sicily, Calabria and
Apulia by Anaclet II in 1130 and when Ottokar I became King of Bohemia
in 1199 through Philip of Swabia.58
57 Morghen 1942, 288. At pages 260–261, the formula of vassal allegiance that the pontiff
wished to impose in general.
58 Buisson 1988, 184–185.
306 Turcuș
The conclusion of Ian S. Robinson is convergent with the previous analysis:
Gregory VII’s claims concerning Spain and Hungary were expressed in an

unmistakably feudal language. He wrote to “the kings, counts and other
princes of Spain” that “according to ancient decrees the Kingdom of
Spain was surrendered to the jurisdiction and proprietorship of St. Peter
and the Holy Roman church”. He wrote to king Salomon of Hungary that
“the kingdom of Hungary is the property of the Holy Roman Church, hav-
ing been offered and devoutly surrendered to St. Peter by King Stephen
with all rights and his power”. Gregory was not inventing these claims.
He was referring to a relationship with the papacy which in the case of
Spain dated back to John XIII (965–972) and in the case of Hungary, to
Sylvester II (999–1003); but he construed their ‘ancient decrees’ in novel
language. Gregory VII, who was dominated by feudal theory, interpreted
these proceedings in feudal terms.59
Along with most historians who have approached these issues, we express
some doubts, arguing that, at the time, specific claims of suzerainty with con-
crete and immediate purposes were expressed; typically feudal, the papal
supremacy theses only contain the theoretical elements of a suzerainty atyp-
ical for the 11th century, in the conditions of the incipient functioning of the
‘coercive’ institutions that substantiated the theocracy of the 13th century
(such as the crusade, the councils, the mendicant orders and the orders of
knightly monks, etc.).60
King Géza died in 1077 and his successor, Ladislaus (r. 1077–1095), remained
faithful to Gregorian orthodoxy. Therefore, by the end of 1080, Henry IV could
not count on any external diversion that could have supported him in the
conflict with Gregory VII. The succession to the throne of Croatia, which he
acquired in 1088, at the invitation of the Croatian nobility, following the death
of King Zwonimir, who in 1076 had placed the Croatian kingdom under pon-
tifical suzerainty, increased the tension between Rome and the Hungarian
kingdom. Dissatisfied only with the kingdom of Croatia itself, Ladislaus went
59 Stuart Robinson 1990, 306–307.

60 Augustin Fliche, however, believes that Gregory VII’s statement in relation to the
Hungarian kingdom “is undoubtedly an expression of suzerainty over this country.” Fliche
1940, 112. On the other hand, a letter of Gregory dated March 23, 1075 states: Notum autem
tibi esse credimus regnum Hungariae, sicut et alia nobilissima regna, in proprie libertatis
statu debere esse et nulli regi alterius regni subici nisi sancte et universali matri Romane
ecclesiae quae subiectos non habet ut servos, sed ut filios suscipit universos. Patrologia
Latina, vol. 148, col. 414.
on to conquer all of Croatia and Dalmatia. Urban II, a direct descendant of

the policy of Gregory VII and responsible for the properties of Saint Peter, did
not intend to allow Ladislaus to occupy the Croatian throne as hereditary, but
wanted to entrust him with a lifelong title occupation, the land being regarded
as a pontifical fief (which, in fact, it was). Eventually, reconciliation in this mat-
ter took place during the reign of Coloman (r. 1095–1116).61
Faced with a difficult situation in terms of relations with the French and
English kingdoms, Urban II appealed to the Arpadian kingdom, among others,
on the basis of the old contracts. On July 27, 1096, Urban II sent the abbot of
Saint-Gilles to King Coloman as a legate. The legate was strengthened by an
affectionate letter, in which the king was reminded of the relations that united
the Holy See and the Hungarian kingdom, warning him against the antipope
Clement III and urging him to submit to Saint Peter, without stating in a pos-
itive way that the pope is the sovereign of the Hungarian kingdom.62 Among
other things, the pope stressed in his letter to Coloman that “the Hungarian
people have long forsaken the path of truth and abandoned their shepherds
to their salvation, following a foreign flock.” As a feudal sovereign, Coloman
had accepted the ‘friendship’ of Henry IV, but did not react to his proposals
to support him in the dispute with the Holy See, sparing relations with Rome
and focusing more on increasing his possessions.63 Therefore, in 1102, Coloman
continued the conquest of the Adriatic coast, and three years later, in 1105, he
occupied the Dalmatian cities. The pope recognized the new possessions of
the Hungarian king, thus compensating him for his reserved attitude in the
dispute with the Empire. The Hungarian king could now add to his name the
feudal titles of king of Croatia and Dalmatia, but associated with their vassality
towards Rome.
Coloman’s response to Urban II’s suggestions was not limited to this issue,
and was not long in coming. During the reign of this illustrious monarch, many
of the elements of Gregory VII’s reform were introduced and accepted. One of
the most spectacular decisions was taken in 1106, when the Hungarian king
relinquished the right to appoint prelates, assuming the Gregorian theses.64
61 Coloman, the eldest son of King Géza I, seems to have been the first bishop of Oradea,
during the reign of King Ladislaus, after his death succeeding him to the throne. Pascu
1989, 304.
62 Regesta pontificum romanorum, nr. 5662.
63 Fliche 1940, 319.
64 Érszegi 1992, 52. Remarkable for a pro-hierocracy vision is a phrase from Urban II’s letter
to Coloman in which he states: “You have become an illustrious connoisseur in the sci-
ence of ecclesiastical writings and in the knowledge of sacred canons, with a skill seldom
encountered in a layman.” Fliche 1940, 319.
308 Turcuș
One of the key themes that Hungarian historiography insists upon in its
centuries-long discourse is the apostolicity of the Hungarian king, an inde-
pendence detached from the orders of Rome/Empire, correlated with the
theme of the king’s holiness, obtained in 1083 from Gregory VII, which pro-
vided the Hungarian kingdom with a special hagiographic route, distanced
from Rome.65
Given the precarious situation of the Church’s institutions in the area of
ancient Pannonia, the Hungarian king’s conversion to Christianity was appre-
ciated not only as political complacency, but also as a real success, inscribed
in an imperial missionary horizon of much wider conversion and of longer
duration.66 At the time and in the area, as the exegetes of the problem explain,
any act of baptism and entry into the Christian community became an excep-
tional act, and in the conditions of eschatological expectations, the impor-
tance of this gesture doubled. Becoming a Christian in the area was an act of
quasi-sanctity, and the image of the Christian king became the quintessential
image of the holy king.67 “The conversion of a still pagan people by its Christian
king is the most beautiful title that can be given to him for his elevation to holi-
ness.” (Robert Folz). From here to the subsequent association of the Hungarian
king with the primordial figures of evangelization, specific to many kingdoms
of the time, was only a step. But the acceptance of a possible ‘apostolicity’ in
this case is limited only to the tribes/people converted later on, as evidenced
by the liturgical texts of the time. In the antiphon from the Magnificat recited
at Vespers it is said:
Sanctissimus rex Stephanus/

Ungarorum apostolus,/
signis et virtutibus/
cotidie declaratur celitus./
Quem supplices deposcimus,/
ut nos muniat a malis omnibus.68
65 Again, Hungarian historiography ignores how Gregory VII, in order to emphasize his
dependence on Rome, wanted to provide the Hungarian Church with the first tranche
of saints, which includes King Stephen (the type of the wise king), Prince Imre (the type
of the chaste prince), Gerhard of Cenad/ Csanád (the type of martyred bishop-monk),
Zoerard and Benedict (the hermit monastic type) and which covers the entire scheme of
organizing the kingdom, in secular and religious dynamics.
66 A synthetic study in this regard: Borkowska 1995, 362–363.
67 Graus 1981, 559–572.
68 Holl 1992, 127.
André Vauchez is very clear in this regard:
When it came to saints from the countries on the margins of Christianity –

Scandinavia, Poland, Hungary, – the problem arose in slightly different
terms. In the eyes of the Romans, it was doubtful whether the servants
of God venerated in these distant regions deserved the honours of
canonization.69
The discourse practiced by Hungarian chronicles and historiography from

the Angevin era to the present-day contrasts with what the liturgical sources
indicate. Extrapolating from the capacity of eventual apostle of the Hungarian
tribes, at first in a missionary sense and afterwards missionary-political, as well
as the consequences deriving from it through the modern construction of the
doctrine of the Hungarian crown, as well as its projection in a much wider
and chronologically-extended geographical horizon (affecting Transylvania
between the 10th and the 14th centuries), not only disagrees with the historical
reality, but is also at the opposite end of the principles promoted and accepted
by the Church.
The mission was a direct and active component of the Apostolic See, and
only the Empire, under favorable circumstances of time and space, attempted
to make a mission of its own, which Otto III sublimated in a personal office.
The ceremonial aspect of carrying the cross in front of the Hungarian kings is
just another sign of the special relationship that occurs through the entrust-
ment (read vassalage) of the kingdom to Blessed Peter:
Titles of religious or ecclesiastical origin worn by kings or emperors are

usually conferred by ecclesiastical authority and have been frequently
received in tradition. For example, the kings of Hungary have been proud
of the title Rex apostolicus since the year 1000. In 1497, Alexander VI
entrusted the title Rex catholicus to Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of
Aragon. The French kings proudly named themselves Rex christianissi-
mus, a title explicitly conferred by Paul II on Louis XI in 1469 (but used
long before).70
69 Vauchez 1988, 81.

70 Royal titles in Wörterbuch der Kirchengeschichte.
310 Turcuș
According to Charles d’Eszlary, in the first century of the Hungarian king-

dom’s existence:
The king was usually called ‘lord king’. In contrast to this simple title,
the documents use in the early days of royalty serenissimus rex, and later
excellentia regalis or majestas. Saint Ladislaus and Coloman also called
themselves rex christianissimus.71
We know that, in the context of the crusade, Gregory IX allowed for the cross
to be carried before the army of the Hungarian king:
Popes remind kings of this requirement of their service to the King of

kings. This obligation also confers privileges and rights on them: they
are entitled to ensure that their kingdom does not suffer any harm as a
result of their prolonged absence: Gregory IX, for example, excommuni-
cates anyone who invades the kingdom of Hungary while the king ‘fights
for the King of kings’; he allows this same king to have the cross carried
before his army, as a token of his confidence in the King of heaven.72
The insistence of Hungarian historiography to break the mission of the Holy

See and associate it exclusively with the Hungarian kingdom blatantly chal-
lenges the very medieval theory of the Church about royalty, which, as we
have seen, is considered only an office in its constitution.73 Otto III, in fact,
noticed this aspect of the ministry of royalty. Therefore, in reply, he adopted
the theory and practice of Constantinople’s imperial ecclesiology, contesting
the Donation of Constantine and the temporal claims of Rome.
And the Catholic Church has a lasting memory. More than 900 years
after the founding of the kingdom by Otto III and Sylvester II, in 1920, on
August 10, when neither the Empire nor the Hungarian kingdom existed, being
replaced by sui-generis republics, Lorenzo Schioppa, titular archbishop of
Giustinianopoli (Iustinianopolis in Galatia), was appointed apostolic nuncio
to the republic of Hungary. The instructions compiled by the State Secretariat
71 D’Eszlary 1959, 105–106.

72 Leclercq 1959, 60.
73 In fact, all this ideological scaffolding that tends to extract Hungarian royalty from the
concert of European royalty, overbidding its marginal position, is based on a report by
Bishop Hartwik on Stephen’s apostolic legation. For the denial of the historicity of this
point of view, as a pure invention of Hartwik, see Szentirmai 1957, 253–267.
of the Holy See, which were drawn up under the supervision of Pietro Gasparri,
Secretary of State of the Holy See, and approved by him for transmission, read
as follows:74
As it is well known, during the past regime, the Kings of Hungary claimed
a large right of patronage over ecclesiastical benefits. The foundation and
origin of this right is sought by many authors in the Bull of Sylvester II
(999–1003), by which this Pontiff would have granted to Saint Stephen,
King and Apostle of Hungary, unlimited powers to establish ecclesiastical
organization among the people converted by him to the Christian faith.
Werböczy, in his famous Tripartitum (the work first printed in Vienna
in 1527), does not mention this Bull of Sylvester II, but mentioned the
following four legal elements to justify the Patronage of the Kings of
Hungary:
– the establishment of the Churches,
– the conversion of the Hungarian population to Christianity, performed
by King Stephen
– legitimate continuity
– confirmation given by the Council of Konstanz.
In fact, the Hungarian Kings have always claimed to have supreme
patronage over all the Churches in the kingdom, and from this patronage
many Hungarian authors have claimed, in favor of the Sovereign, some
truly extraordinary rights.
Thus, for example, Canon Surangi, in his article “Das Patronatsrecht
in Ungarie” (in Archiv fuer K. Kirche, vol. 78 ann. 1898, p. 56 sec.) fixes in
the following points the legal sphere of the Supreme Royal Patronage in
Hungary:
1. The special right to protect the religion, the Catholic Church and its
organization.
2. The founding of bishoprics, their legitimate territorial structuring
and organization.
3. The appointment of bishops and the entrustment of their ecclesias-
tical benefits.
74 Vatican City, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari, Austria-
Ungheria, III periodo (1920–1921), pos. 1466, fasc. 594, oggetto: Istruzioni per Mons.
Lorenzo Schioppa, Arcivescovo tit. di Giustinianopoli, Nunzio Apostolico in Ungheria.
312 Turcuș
4. Appointment of coadjutor bishops with the right of succession at

the death of the titular bishop.
5. Appointment of residential and titular abbots and provosts and
establishment of those belonging to a private employer.
6. Systematization of the canonries in the cathedral and collegiate
chapters at the proposal of the local bishop.
7. The right of high supervision over all ecclesiastical goods and eccle-
siastical benefits. Approval of their expenses, alienations and trans-
fers of any kind.
8. The administration of all ecclesiastical and school foundations and
funds and their use according to their legitimate destination.
9. The supreme leadership of Catholic schools and institutes.
10. The right to grant ecclesiastical patronage with or without property.
11. The supreme right of judgment in disputes regarding the Patronage.
12. Regulation of the Patronage, of the salary rights, of the leaves and
charitable acts and of other ecclesiastical benefits.
13. Approval of ecclesiastical autonomy and its ratification.
However, it should now be noted that, with regards to the basis and origin
of the Patronage, the authenticity of the bull of Sylvester II is highly con-
tested and not even Werböczy, quoted above, makes any mention of it.
It is true that he references an act of the Council of Constance which
could be regarded as a confirmation of the original Bull of the privilege
contained therein, but such an act, first mentioned by Werböczy, is not
known as a written text, it is not known in which session of the Council
of Constance it was issued, therefore it results that this foundation of the
Hungarian Patronage is of extreme doubt, especially since the acts of that
Council are partially considered illegitimate, and not all of its sessions pos-
sess legal value. This perspective is also valid for other legal issues proposed
by Werböczy and repeated by other Hungarian authors after him, as the
basis of the King’s Universal Patronage in Hungary, these being neither suf-
ficient nor conclusive: Hungarian royalty could not found Churches, because
in the case of major benefits (metropolis, diocese) a privilege given only by
the Pope is needed, it is not justified by converting populations to faith, as
is clear; – last but not least, the legitimate prescription (according to the
canon law of the Catholic Church, several rights are not subject to pre-
scription: the rights of divine and natural nature, the rights obtained by
apostolic privilege, the rights concerning the spiritual life of the faithful,
the establishment of bishops and their borders, charitable acts and the
remuneration of ecclesiastical functions which require the incumbent to
be ordained, author’s note) because, according to the testimonies of histor-

ical documents, for more than five centuries there is no such thing as the ius
pacificus of which Werböczy speaks.75
Through this 1920 document, the Holy See emphasizes that the Roman Church,
in the Middle Ages, and afterwards the modern Catholic Church, never recog-
nized the rights and privileges that Hungarian politics and historiography asso-
ciated with the Hungarian kings. Pontifical Rome claims that the Hungarian
king could not found dioceses in his own name, because it was always the stat-
utory competence of the Sovereign Pontiff, and could not develop the mission
in the name of the so-called ‘apostolicity,’76 as King Stephen and his succes-
sors were never in the possession of ius pacificus. We know it is difficult to
accept that there are no founding documents of the episcopacies of the early
Hungarian kingdom, but the lack of these diplomas cannot be replaced by
political legends and theses that are not acknowledged by the Holy See. Let
us not forget that this position of the Apostolic See came after a century of
investigations in the pontifical archives and the establishment of special col-
lections dedicated to the Hungarian kingdom by Augustin Theiner, prefect of
the Vatican Secret Archive, Ipolyi Arnold, Fraknói Vilmos etc. And since then,
no documentary progress has been made on this topic.
Much of the history of the Hungarian kingdom remains to be rewritten from
the point of view of the Holy See. More importantly, the entire history of the
centuries-old conquest of Transylvania (at least three centuries) remains to be
rewritten as well, along with the founding of the Transylvanian episcopates,
to whom the Hungarian kings could have offered administrative and military
support at most but could have in no way established as they had no authority
to do so.
Annex
Vatican City, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari,

Austria-Ungheria, III periodo (1920–1921), pos. 1466, fasc. 594, oggetto: Istruzioni
per Mons. Lorenzo Schioppa, Arcivescovo tit. di Giustinianopoli, Nunzio
Apostolico in Ungheria
75 For the original Italian text, see Annex.

76 Somorjai 2021, 144.
314 Turcuș
Com’è noto, durante il passato regime i Re d’Ungheria si arrogarono un

ampio diritto di patronato sopra i benefici ecclesiastici. Il fondamento e l’orig-
ine di questo diritto si volle da molti autori ricercare in una Bolla di Silvestro II
(999–1003), colla quale questo Pontefice avrebbe concesso a S. Stefano, Re ed
Apostolo dell’Ungheria, illimitati poteri per stabilire la organizzazione ecclesi-
astica in mezzo a quelle popolazioni da lui convertite alla fede. Il Werboczy nel
suo famoso Tripartitum (opera stampata la prima volta a Vienna nel 1527) non
faceva menzione di questa Bolla di Silvestro II, ma adduceva i seguenti quattro
titoli giuridici per il Patronato del Re di Ungheria:
– la fondazione delle Chiese,
– la conversione di quelle popolazioni alla fede, operata dal Santo Re Stefano,
– la legittima prosecuzione
– la conferma data dal Concilio di Costanza.
Di fatto i Re di Ungheria pretesero sempre di avere un "in supremi patronatus"
sopra tutte le Chiese del Regno, e da questo Patronato molti Autori ungheresi
dedussero in favore del Sovrano dei diritti veramente straordinari.
Così, ad esempio, il Canonico Surangi nel suo articolo “Das Patronatsrecht
in Ungarie” (in Archiv fuer K. Kirche, t. 78 ann. 1898 pg. 56 seg.) fissava nei seg-
uenti punti la sfera giuridica del supremo Patronato regio in Ungheria.
1. Speciale diritto di protezione della religione e della Chiesa Cattolica, e
della sua organizzazione.
2. Erezione delle diocesi, loro legittima circoscrizione ed ordinamento.
3. Nomina dei vescovi e collazione ai medesimi del loro beneficio.
4. Nomina dei Vescovi coadiutori con diritto di successione.
5. Nomina degli Abati e dei Preposti residenziali e titolari, ed erezione di
quelli appartenenti ad un patronato privato.
6. Provvista dei Canonicati nei Capitoli cattedrali e collegiali dietro proposta
di una tema da parte dell’Ordinario diocesano.
7. Il diritto di alta sorveglianza sopra tutti i beni ecclesiastici ed i benef-
ici. Approvazione per i loro oneri, alienazione o mutamenti di qualsiasi
genere.
8. Amministrazione di tutte le fondazioni e fondi ecclesiastici e scolastici,
loro impiego conforme alla legittima destinazione dei medesimi.
9. Suprema direzione delle scuole e degli istituti cattolici.
10. Diritto di concessione del patronato ecclesiastico con o senza la propri-
età del fondo.
11. Supremo giudizio nelle controversie del Patronato.
12. Regolamento del Patronato, della congrua, dei diritti di stola e delle elem-
osine e prestazioni ecclesiastiche.
13. Approvazione dell’autonomia ecclesiastica e ratifica della medesima.
Ora invece è da osservare, quanto al fondamento ed all’origine del Patronato,

che l’autenticità della Bolla di Silvestro II è assai contestata, e lo stesso Werboczy
sopra citato non da menzione di essa. È vero che egli si riferisce ad un atto del
Concilio di Costanza, il quale potrebbe essere considerato come una conferma
della Bolla originaria e del privilegio in essa contenuto, ma tale atto, che per la
prima volta è menzionato dal Werboczy, non si conosce nel suo testo, ed anzi
non si sa nemmeno in quale sessione del Concilio venisse emanato, di guisa
che questo fondamento è di un valore assai dubbio, anche perché gli atti di
quel Concilio non in tutte le sue sessioni hanno valore legittimo. Così pure gli
altri titoli giuridici proposti dal Verboczy, e ripetuti dagli Autori ungheresi dopo
di lui, come base del diritto di Patronato universale per l’Ungheria, non sono
per sé sufficientemente concludenti: non la fondazione delle Chiese, perché
nel caso dei benefici maggiori, doveva accedere il privilegio apostolico, non la
conversione di quelle popolazioni alla fede, com’è chiaro; – non finalmente la
legittima prescrizione, perché, secondo la testimonianza dei documenti stor-
ici, non si riscontra affatto quell’ius pacificus, per più di cinque secoli, di cui
parla il Werboczy.
Chapter 13
Latin Bishoprics in the ‘Age of Iron’ and the Diocese

of Transylvania
Adinel C. Dincă and Mihai Kovács
13.1 Introduction. Premises and Vantage Points
‘The Spread of Bishoprics, 950–1300’ is the title of a subchapter that opens

the influential book on the ‘making of Europe’ in the High and Late Middle
Ages published by Robert Bartlett almost three decades ago.1 Choosing this
church-related perspective as a point of departure in the elaborate line of
argumentation is a reassured indicator of the role played by the Latin Church,
with its entire institutional and ideological agency, in the long-lasting process
of ‘Europeanization’ of the old continent.2 The episcopate, with its territorial
projection, the diocese, or through its human manifestation, the bishop, mirrors
accurately the way in which the secular power and religious authority over-
lapped, supporting each other, and enhancing strategically political goals of
territorial expansion and increased control over lands and peoples through
the ideological means of mission and safeguarding the righteousness of faith,
beliefs, and religious practice. The initial forging and subsequent evolution of
the network of new bishoprics in vast areas previously unassumed by the Latin
Church or disputed with the Eastern-rite Christianity of the Slavic-Byzantine
world, even before the Great Schism of 1054, define a highly significant phase
not only in the overall historical development as viewed from afar, but also
from a ‘down-to-top’ perspective, in the regional sequence of events, exploited
both by medieval and (especially by) modern minds as foundational moments
charged with a consistent emotional and ideological value.
Marc Bloch (1886–1944) rightfully identified and described historians’ fix-
ation with the idea of origin, a notion that circumscribes the initial moments
of a certain and relevant institution, idea, or phenomenon.3 Furthermore, it
goes without saying that within this context, the blurrier or more distorted the
1 Bartlett 1994, 5–23.

2 Bartlett 1994.
3 Bloch 1952, chapter IV: L’idole des origins, 5–9; Wolfram 2004, 11–22; Borgolte 2020, chapter
Genesis and Variations of Christian Foundations, 40–63.
© Adinel C. Dincă and Mihai Kovács, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_015

Latin Bishoprics in the ‘ Age of Iron ’ 317
beginnings are – due to the inconsistent, inconclusive or even contradictory

available documentation –, the more complex and inventive the choreography
of historiographical theories and emerging interpretative patterns, linked to
the foundational moment, tend to become. While a clearly datable and localiz-
able (almost ideal!) historical source, either textual or material, usually opens
the path for a straightforward line of interpretation, insufficient and/or frag-
mented testimonies, ‘filtered’ in time by defective human remembrance, or by
ideological semantic content, lay the ideal foundations for endless assump-
tions and theoretical labyrinths, firing debates or controversies and building
up impressive amounts of learned output. The departure points of various his-
torical constructions (either secular, or religious), associated with the idea of
a founding figure or an originating environment, have been imbedded at a very
early stage into the oversimplified and sometimes manipulative narratives of
the modern ideological currents that engineered for their own purposes and in
mutual interference with the not yet autonomous historical science what one
may call historical traditions, set on a stage where critical method and its limi-
tations were replaced by emotional fillers. Employing identity markers, such as
notions borrowed from the vocabulary of the family environment ( founding
fathers), modern mythologies emerging from the medieval past4 tried to recon-
struct the narrative force around a few elements, setting the time of ‘birth’ as
early as possible and making it as prestigious as possible, especially through
association with a figure of paramount importance. Due to these mechanics
of retelling the ‘story of the origin’, every revisiting of a certain foundation
episode through the academic means of critical examination of sources and
contexts has to face not only the challenges from the professional background,
but also the emotional counterattack of those circles that build their identity
around various historical traditions.
The Latin bishopric of Transylvania makes a good case study for the com-
plex problem briefly described above. While being part of the ‘subsequent
wave’ of dioceses established within the process of expansion of Western
Christianity toward the Northern and Eastern regions of Europe, its genesis
has been (over)interpreted and debated by generations of scholars due to the
lack of clear and undisputed sources, regardless of the typology of such testi-
monies. Perhaps the most accurate way of relating with the sensitive topic of
this particular origin narrative and its many puzzling pieces is the rephrasing
of a traditional aphorism: ‘is absence of evidence an evidence of absence?’.
It is clearly the aim of the following essay to attempt anew to cross-examine
the intricate question concerning the foundation of the medieval bishopric of
4 Johnson – Murray – Forde 1995; Geary 2002; Davies 2004.

318 Dincă and Kovács
Transylvania,5 a central institution for the cultural choices and evolutions not
only for the local history of the region but in the entire South-Eastern Europe,
as an ecclesiastical interface of medieval Latinitas6 in a border area in con-
tact throughout the centuries with the Slavic-Byzantine world and later with
Islam. Effortlessly and linearly as may appear today the way in which general
works and textbooks7 describe how this diocese has come into existence, the
conclusions reached by academics may be indeed considered rather a truce
after exhausting and generation-long confrontations of generally divergent
opinions. The debate constructed around an insufficient number of sources
of unsatisfactory quality is further complicated by the symbolic charge associ-
ated in post medieval times, and especially during the last two centuries, to the
beginning of the Latin Church in its institutionalised form in this part of the
European continent. Despite this complicated background, this essay’s goal is,
nevertheless, to contribute to the investigation of the above-mentioned epi-
sode not by adding a supplementary coating to an already complicated con-
frontation of theories but through enlarging the perspective and treating the
foundation of the Transylvanian bishopric as a detail in a larger picture.
13.2 Intentions and Methods
Scarce and ambiguous sources concerning the initial stages in the existence of
the Transylvanian bishopric inexorably direct this essay toward a comparatist
approach, a methodological solution for filling up the gaps that is however not
without its well-known risks and limitations.8 Notwithstanding the necessary
precautions, this investigative path has been already productively tested many
times before. The predominantly blurry transition from pagan, tribal and local
political circumstances to Christian kingdoms happened almost simultane-
ously around the year 1000 within an ample geographical arch, usually defined
by two cultural areas: Central- and South-Eastern Europe9 on one hand, and
5 A topic announced more than a decade ago in the author’s public defence of his doctoral
thesis, see Dincă 2017, 38–39.
6 Tombeur 1997, 23–40.
7 Engel 2001, 42–45; Bakay 2006, 550–551.
8 Birus 1997, 13–28. The comparative study of the founding of episcopates in the Latin world
is a subject promising result; however, the only such attempt known to me has focused on
the study of the phenomenon in eighth-century Eichstätt, see Kaiser 1990, 29–67. For a com-
parative approach to the analysis of episcopal power in the German empire during the 10th–
12th centuries, see Eldevik 2012, 1–33.
9 Manteuffel – Gieysztor 1968; Barraclough 1976.
Scandinavia,10 on the other hand. Complex developments that occurred in

these additions to High Medieval Latinity that seemingly mirrored each other,
have offered enough firm ground to those scholars who wanted to test their
hypothesis and guesswork about the ‘making of Europe’. As mentioned before,
Robert Bartlett’s overview of the spread of episcopal networks in Northern,
Eastern, and Southern Europe, (also including the Levantine political territo-
ries generated by the early crusades), from the tenth to the twelfth century,
effectively showcased the possibilities opened by such parallel enquiry. Nora
Berend exploited even further such vantage points in several of her publica-
tions, most notably in the collaborative volume Christianization and the Rise
of Christian Monarchy,11 corroborating interdisciplinary ideas of many schol-
ars and taking full advantage of the plurality of surviving sources. A particu-
larly useful perspective on the central European contexts at the turn of the
millennium is the three-volume work Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur
Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie,12 a true historiographical milestone that
successfully combines a multitude of scholarly positions with an abundance
of illustrations and photographic materials, a suitably celebrative retrospec-
tive. Precisely targeting the South-Eastern Europe and with an understandable
taste for Transylvanian developments, Florin Curta13 delivers a very welcome
inclusion of the Slavic-Byzantine background into a line of interpretation
otherwise predominantly concerned with Western or Latin models and their
extension towards the East. Within the boundaries of an exciting research pro-
ject still under development, Katalin Szende is adding a new dimension to this
transregional judgement of episcopal sites at the turn of the first millennium,14
stressing the urban perspective, the importance of the physical landscape, and
innovatively introducing in the discussion the concept of heterarchy.
Beyond these rather recent contributions, selectively mentioned now,
bringing together for comparison various large areas on the European conti-
nent that have experienced concomitantly similar, deep-reaching political and
religious transformations, the scholarly interest in the medieval bishops, bish-
oprics, and various episcopal structures has also registered excellent results
and a wide range of publications. Impressive pictures, among too many to
10 Nyberg 1986; Bagge 2014, 117–121.

11 Berend 2007.
12 Wieczorek – Hinz 2000, especially chapter 5.1: Kulturelle Gemeinsamkeiten, 2: 828–857.
13 Curta 2006.
14 I am deeply grateful to Prof. Katalin Szende for sending me several drafts of her unpub-
lished papers, allowing me to peek ahead of a larger audience behind the scenes of her
ongoing research. These papers will be accordingly cited with the author’s permission.
be all acknowledged now, are offered by Rosamond McKitterick,15 Timothy

Reuter,16 Steffen Patzold,17 or, more recently in the collection of essays edited
by Brigitte Meijns and Steven Vanderputten,18 the latter’s introduction drafting
also a generous and thoughtful evaluation of the academic performance pre-
occupied with episcopal presence in Early and High Medieval society. Besides
such influential contributions, a particularly inspirational role, at least for the
present paper, is played by the work of Hans-Joachim Schmidt,19 whose view
on the spatial and territorial structures of the church in the Middle Ages helps
to get a better grasp of the interconnected ecclesiastical and secular under-
standing of the areal jurisdiction and the plurality of factors (mostly of politi-
cal and secular nature) that shaped it.
Extremely few of the ideas selectively recognised in the previous sections
have found their way into the discussions concerning the integration of
Transylvania into the Christian realm of Hungary, especially as part of a new
ecclesiastical topography and hierarchy of Latin obedience. The reasons that
generated this historiographical reality are indeed important and would help a
better comprehension of the scholarly status questionis; however, delving more
deeply into this question would only divert the attention of the reader from the
current investigation. Nevertheless, new impulses given by a larger and more
inclusive research vantage point may help create a parallel historiographical
discourse, meant not as a substitute to traditional inquiry but as a contribution
to an enhanced comprehension of the general context.
13.3 Bishops and Bishoprics in ‘The Long Tenth Century’
Since Late Antiquity and throughout the entire Middle Ages, the bishopric has
been a complex and, most importantly, an extremely versatile institutional
presence within the cultural and territorial landscape of a given historical
context. Its main distinguishing attribute was perhaps exactly this versatil-
ity, the capacity of the episcopate to adapt to the local conditions, both social
and political,20 where it initially took shape and subsequently deepened its
15 McKitterick 2006, 130–162.

16 Reuter 2001. The English version of the German paper published in 2001 is also available,
see Reuter 2011.
17 Patzold 2010, 121–140.
18 Meijns – Vanderputten 2019, 1–8.
19 Schmidt 1999; see also, Klueting – Klueting – Schmidt 2006 and Drosbach – Schmidt
2008.
20 Bartlett 1994, 6–7.
roots. In theory uniform cells compounding the body of Latin Christianity, the
bishoprics were by far not equal in terms of origin, age, size, raison d’être, and
events leading to their establishment, continuity, material means and demo-
graphic parameters, local or far-reaching impact. It is just the variety and mul-
tifaceted nature of the medieval bishopric that makes at times the pertinent
historical reconstructions so intricate, deeply encapsulated into determined,
structural correlations and contexts. Throughout the centuries, the medieval
bishopric displayed several outer appearances, initially a city-based model,
revolving around an urban settlement, civitas, which was customary at the
dusk of antiquity. This manifestation overextended during the early medieval
centuries in areas where a strong Roman heritage endured and was followed
typologically by a territorially large or even undefined diocese, sometimes
identified in the first stages of existence by the name of the population
inhabiting the lands in which the fresh ecclesiastical foundation was still
being moulded. This latter iteration of the institution has been associated
in a particular way with missionary actions and episodes of conversions. In
its traditional form of civitas-centred diocese, the ecclesiastical construction
underlines the hierarchical structure of the church territories and authorities,
whereas in its rather loose expression, with diocesan names involving eth-
nonyms (names of ethnic groups, or populations) or choronyms (individual
names of regions, larger areas, or countries), the episcopal idea emphasises
the intention of assuming control over land, people, and their spiritual path.
Besides differences and context-specific developments, abundantly addressed
in the scholarly literature, there are also quite a few common ingredients in the
formula of a medieval bishopric, be it a city-based diocesan district as in Italy,
a vast territory as in Germany or in England, or a missionary, still-to-be-defined
diocese, as in some situations of newly-integrated lands of the Latinity.
The bishopric, be it a functional diocese or a titular see, mirrors the political
construction that was meant to support with its religious, legal, and material
resources and presence. Individual bishops and dioceses (without neglecting
the pastoral significance of the incumbents and their agency) played over the
medieval centuries a central political role and can be regarded without hesi-
tation as an instrumentum regni. Under these circumstances, it is worth con-
sidering shortly what was the precise significance of the bishop in the Latin
Europe precisely during ‘the long tenth century’,21 also called for a reason
21 For all the historical contexts involving episcopal episodes around the year 1000 and dur-
ing the first decades of the second millennium, ‘the long tenth century’ seems appar-
ently the more suitable construction, preferred over the alternative ‘11th-century bishops/
bishoprics’, due to the latter’s strong connection with the Gregorian reforms, see for
‘A Europe of Bishops’22 or a ‘Century of Iron’23 which claimed authority and

legitimacy for the reborn structures of the collapsed Carolingian Empire
(751–888).
Although not the perfect way to describe him, his functions and authority, a
comparison with the diocesan head of the later periods – the ‘professionalized’
episcopacy in the 12th and 13th centuries, or with the ‘bureaucratic’ or even
‘mercenary’ or ‘itinerant’ bishop of the 14th and 15th centuries24 – provides the
scholar with a convenient, albeit empiric, measuring device. The first thing to
acknowledge is that ‘the millennial bishop’ was particularly connected with
the evolutions originating in the Carolingian age, and as such very much linked
to his diocesan duties.25 The ties with the nominal overseer of the Latin church,
the pope, were still very tenuous, a reality highlighted repeatedly by medieval-
ists, as a warning and advice for those tempted to extrapolate post-Gregorian
hierarchical rapports between a monarchic papacy and an executive episco-
pate. Another consequence of the same larger use of what one may call a larger
local autonomy is that the bishop’s vision concerning his duties and functions
were much more related to the flock he was shepherding, and the monasteries
and collegiate churches under his patronage, then a strictly administrative per-
ception of the territorial diocese. The bonds with the diocese, especially with
the episcopal see, were – according to the sources of the time – stronger than
in the later centuries, regardless of the counselling and supporting duties owed
by the prelates to secular rulers. Apparently, the metaphor of the marriage
between bishop and his church was perceived with less flexibility as in later
times. The figure of the bishop around the year 1000 may be clearly portrayed
not only from inspirational vitae, but also from actual sequences of events, as
of a charismatic patriarch, governing over an imagined community, from a
‘theoretically subordinate, but actually sovereign position.’26
This surely oversimplified depiction makes it quite clear how important
the bishop and the diocesan network was within the framework of political
genesis or metamorphosis that affected similarly the Carolingian core of Latin
Europe and its extensions towards the south (southern Italy and Sicily), north
(Scandinavia and the Baltic region), and east (Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary)
during the life span of three generations, from the last decades of the tenth
example Violante – Fried 1993. A discussion to be followed also at Manteuffel – Gieysztor

1968, or Barraclough 1976.
22 Reuter 2001; Reuter 2011.
23 Meijns – Vanderputten 2019, 1–8. See also Greer – Hicklin – Esders 2019.
24 Rossi 2000, 217–254; Pagnoni 2014, 23–44.
25 Parisse 1984, 95–105; Trumbore Jones – Ott 2007; Eldevik 2011, 776–790.
26 Reuter 2011, 34.
century onwards. Especially in those territories where Christianity displaced –

barely and not too long in the past – divergent beliefs and spiritual traditions
(non-Christian, or at least non-Latin), the bishops were a constituent part of
the striving for uniformity and a homogenous Latinity in all its aspects, but
hardly comparable with the power and authority flaunted by shining examples
from the Reich, northern France, Italy, or England.
Several bishoprics from Scandinavia or from East-Central Europe expe-
rienced an episodic, interrupted beginning, triggered mostly by political
drawbacks, like the death of a charismatic leader or pagan counteractions.
Subsequent attempts at resuming the ecclesiastical organization started ear-
lier sometimes faced considerable transformations, such as relocations and/or
alterations of diocesan names. The making or re-making of bishoprics within
this ‘New Europe’ (Nordic and East-Central) acknowledges a certain phase of
the interleaved process of churchly organization in these lands. It marks the
transition from a so-called ‘infiltration phase’, an initial stage of development
of the process, to the next one, described as ‘the large scale’ design.
The Scandinavian example, more precisely the specific evolutions towards
Christian statehood of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, has been questioned
over the last decades from various vantage points.27 Rarity of written mate-
rial, common for such foundational episodes, has made the inquiry of the
contexts even more important and determined historians to migrate towards a
multi-source perspective.28 Thus, in addition to textual sources (contemporary
or post-conversion literature29) and material evidence uncovered by archaeol-
ogists, the focus has shifted in the direction of artistic developments, spiritual
continuities through ‘recycling’ of sacred spaces, anthropological dimensions
of Christian conversion – from changes of names to family dynamics, from
social rules and norms to burial customs.
The engagement of the secular authorities represents a common trait of
Christianization in Scandinavia: the geopolitical context only articulated the
manner of action between diplomacy (marriage alliances must be stressed
here, for they not only brought together two ethnically and spiritually divergent
individuals, but also opened the path for external political and ecclesiastical
27 Bartlett 1994, 9; Berend 2007: 73–213; Brink 2013, 23–39 Bagge 2016, 53–75.
28 Sanmark 2003, 551–558; Urbańczyk 2003, 15–28; Bartlett 2007, 47–72.
29 McKitterick 2006, 130 lists here: “synodal legislation and canon law collections, lives of
bishops, histories of sees and monasteries, liturgy, music, accounts of saints’ cults, books
containing patristic and Carolingian theology and biblical exegesis produced for use
within ecclesiastical institutions, theological treatises, polemical pieces d’occasions and
incidental references in the narrative histories of the period”.
influence30 in a competing manner parallel to south-eastern Europe31) and mil-

itary conquest. The conversion was also a ‘process’, involving a contact or infil-
tration phase, a missionary phase and an elaborated establishment phase.32
In this sense, although the Danish monarchy embraced Christianity through
the baptism of Harald Bluetooth in 963/965, about the same time as Poland,
the influence of the German missionary activity had already been in action
there for about a century.33 During the pagan reaction of 988–c.1050, the suf-
fragan bishops obeying the archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen were forced into
exile, while Anglo-Saxon missionary bishops without fixed dioceses operated
in the Danish lands. It was only in 1060 that a territorial network of nine (later
eight) dioceses was re-established, this time placed under the ‘national’ arch-
bishopric of Lund. By this time, with considerable influence from Anglo-Saxon
England, two bishoprics are recorded in Norway and six in Sweden, as a result
of the baptism of Olav Tryggvason (ruled Norway 995–1000)34 and Olov
Skötkonung (ruled Sweden c.995–1022).35
As newly created episcopal structures, the northern dioceses were not
based on Roman imperial administrative units: if their Frankish predecessors
took advantage of a relatively unitary territory, with roads interconnecting the
bishop’s urban seats, the English, Scandinavian, Icelandic and even later Baltic
entities could not relate to previous cultural landscapes imbued with Latin
institutional frameworks. Due to the geographical proximity, Rome was more
likely to impose ecclesiastical allegiances and liturgical observance in these
territories than faraway Byzantium, with only the trials and tribulations of
paganism as internal enemy. Political stability was based on the assistance of
bishops, sinuously gravitating between the ecclesiastical and secular spheres,
fuelling territorial expansion and the stabilization of royal power. As a result,
the two century-long way from missionary outposts to consolidated ecclesias-
tical centres “was a decision not merely about religion but also about political
association and cultural alignment”.36
30 Bagge – Walaker Nordeide 2007, 139, 143–144; Bagge 2014, 118–119.

31 The competing English-German influence on the Scandinavian territories has been com-
pared to the Latin-Byzantine ‘rivalry’ over the conversion of south-eastern Europe, see
Klaniczay 2010, 299. The author also underlines “the multiplication of successful royal
and dynastic cults in the recently converted northern and eastern regions, where I see the
closest parallels between Scandinavia, Kievan Rus’, and Central Europe in the eleventh
and twelfth centuries”, Klaniczay 2010, 302. See also Klaniczay 2004.
32 Brink 2013, 25.
33 Gelting 2007, 73–120.
34 Bagge – Walaker Nordeide 2007, 121–166.
35 Blomkvist – Brink – Lindkvist 2007, 167–213.
36 McKitterick 2006, 150.
By its conclusion, the ‘Long Tenth Century’ had concentrated most of the
theoretical principles behind the functioning of bishops and bishoprics in
the entire Latin realm: the pastoral role of individual bishops had been cir-
cumscribed, their selection and appointment was (theoretically) subject to
internal election with regional variations due to the involvement of secular
authority, the relationships with the papacy and subordinated/equal sees was
resolved, members of the cathedral clergy and their assisting role in liturgical
observance were delineated, the collection of tithes was fully-functioning and
relied on a growing network of parishes with clearly demarcated boundaries,
episcopal towns grew into educational and cultural centres under episcopal
patronage, liturgy was (quasi-)uniform. These traits will be observed over the
following centuries unequally, outlining the peculiarities of each freshly cre-
ated ecclesiastical institution and its accommodation in the specific political,
social, and cultural landscape.
13.4 A Church Takes Shape: The First Ecclesiastical Organization of

11th-Century Hungary
The process of diocesan organization over the 11th century, although a labori-
ous enterprise imposed in a downward direction from the local and European
secular and ecclesiastical elites towards the non-uniform community of
nomadic and rooted population demonstrated a surprising stability over time,
with no new dioceses being founded in the Hungarian territories until late
in the 18th century. The intricate relationship between church and state con-
tributed to the legitimacy of the ruling dynasty, giving not only an ideological
but also a territorial shape to the earthly and spiritual dimension of the new
Kingdom.37 Both monarchy and episcopate developed over the 11th century –
initially with help from abroad – their distinctive features influenced by the
Roman model of ‘papal monarchy’:38 a legislative and judicial system sup-
ported by a financial body for collecting funds, and a developing bureaucracy
keeping affairs in order. However, the quasi-simultaneous organization of the
Hungarian lay administrative institutions and ecclesiastical province has pro-
duced its own modern mythology,39 condoned by the lack of direct written
37 See Berend – Urbańczyk – Wiszewski 2013, 315–407.

38 Morris 1991.
39 See the numerous publications dedicated to the millennial celebration of 1896. The
official narrative of the time states that pope Sylvester II has sent the crown to Saint
Stephen as a gift that was not requested but generously offered, lending the king a wide
range of powers in ecclesiastical matters, which he then used with ‘apostolic zeal’ for
sources – a statement invoked by most historians dealing with the topic – and
(ideologically-motivated mis-) interpretations of the archaeological results.
The starting point of the Hungarian medieval ecclesiastical organization,
Transylvania included, is thus subject to multiple and diverse approaches and,
evidently, the entire production of the epistemic community on this topic will
not be described in detail here, partly due to the multitude of opinions that
can be consulted in the present volume in an updated form. Rather, the fol-
lowing paragraphs will present the state-of-the-art in an abridged manner, fol-
lowing the most significant contributions to the history of church organization
in Hungary during its first century of existence. This overview will focus on
reliable records: written sources chronicling the specific moment when each
bishopric was founded, first mentions of bishops, and the most influential
scholarly theories about their early history. Because Latin Christendom was
defined by ‘rite and obedience’,40 references to the role played by the Latin and
Byzantine liturgical observance in the Christianization of Hungary will also be
brought into question in a general manner.
The chronological sequence of the 11th-century founded bishoprics is
mainly based on a hagiographical source, the Legenda maior of Stephen, the
first crowned king of Hungary41 (997–1038), later venerated as a saint.42 It
records that the first king of Hungary has established ten dioceses in his realm:
although not named, these institutional projections of the new churchly path
seem to have advanced from the western borders of the realm eastwards, with
two ecclesiastical provinces overseen by archbishops comprising under their
jurisdiction eight dioceses and their respective bishops. While several scholars
have accepted the testimony of this hagiographical source, others have argued
that some of the bishoprics were in fact later foundations, linked to the holy
king for various reasons. The accepted consensus so far lists Veszprém as the
first bishop’s seat (c.996), followed shortly by Esztergom (1000/1001), Kalocsa
(c.1009), Győr (c.1009), Pécs (1009), Eger (early 11th c.), Transylvania (Alba Iulia/
Gyulafehérvár 1009?), Cenad (Csanád 1030), Vác (c.1030?), Bihor (Bihar, later
the organization of the local church, see Jekelfalussy 1897, 36. Recent discussions take
into consideration the legendary aspects of the ‘founding’ myth and correlate them with
historical sources, see Zombori – Cséfalvay – De Angelis 2001; Kontler 2004, 131–148; De
Cevins 2004; Font 2005a, 283–296.
40 Bartlett 1994, 243.
41 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum: SRH 1, 65; Simon de Keza, Gesta Hungarorum: SRH 1, 172;
Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV: SRH 1, 314–315; Chronicon Posoniense: SRH 2, 36;
Chronicon Monacense: SRH 2, 66–67; Henricus de Mügeln, Chronicon: SRH 2, 148; Henricus
de Mügeln, Chronicon rhytmicum: SRH 2, 256; Thietmar de Merseburg, Chronicon, 496;
Annales Altahenses maiores, 16; Annales Hildesheimenses, 29.
42 Legenda maior Sancti Stephani: Bartoniek 1938 (SRH 2), 383.
moved to Oradea/ Nagyvárad, c.1050), with Zagreb (Zágráb c.1091), and Nitra
(Nyitra 1095–1116) closing the momentous effort. The reason behind choos-
ing these specific places with an urban appearance must have been primar-
ily political, yet there are still queries that can be brought forward for further
investigation, like the manner in which the location of episcopal sees relates
to geographical landmarks, trade and military routes, as well as pre-Christian
settlements such as tribal strongholds or (where relevant) remains from
Antiquity.43
Recent scholarly views generally agree that the so-called ‘bishoprics of Saint
Stephen’ were not brought into being at once, but in several phases, starting
just before Stephen’s coronation. The second stage generally associated with
episcopal foundations was the visit of a papal legate, cardinal Azo, in 1009,
which produced the only known foundation charter of the Kingdom, that of
the bishopric of Pécs.44 The third significant event was the campaign against
Achtum (Ajtony), a local chieftain, around 1028, which led to the genesis of
the bishopric of Cenad and the anointing in 1030 of its first bishop, Gerhard
(† 1046), as recorded by the Annals of Bratislava (Pozsony).45 The territorial
growth of the Hungarian kingdom through military conquest followed by
administrative and ecclesiastical configuration is reflected by the chronologi-
cal sequence of establishment of dioceses and installation of bishops. The sub-
sequent cult of saints, king Stephen I included, leaned on the images of those
leaders who maintained socio-political order and coalesced into the frame-
work of national patrons.46 The newly set borders reveal far more than the
institutional and jurisdictional limits of Hungarian ecclesiastical influence,47
they also set the first delimitation of the German dioceses of Passau and
Salzburg to the east. For the two, actively involved in the conversion of
Pannonia since the 9th century,48 this blunt limitation of their territorial
expansion49 represented a setback in terms of prestige: all primacy claims over
the missionary activity were lost,50 while Passau was deprived of its promotion
in terms of diocesan administration to the status of archbishopric.
43 Katalin Szende, Locus ecclesie, fundus civitatis, project in work, 2021. See also Szakács
2006, 207–220.
44 DHA, 56–57; although interpolated, and known only from a late copy, the charter is gener-
ally considered to be genuine, see Koszta 2009a, 13; Thoroczkay 2016b, 62–65.
45 Annales Posonienses: SRH 1, 125.
46 De Cevins 2012, 97–126.
47 A larger discussion on the various natures of ecclesiastical borders during the Middle
Ages at Herbers 2006, 703–716; Jaspert 2007, 43–70.
48 Bogyay 1986, 273–290; Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007, 330; Szőke 2014.
49 Higounet 1990, 56–76.
50 Wolfram 1995, 193; Lienhard 2007, 247–258.
It is generally accepted that the first bishopric of Hungary was founded

in Veszprém and dedicated to Saint Michael the Archangel, and most histo-
rians concur that this institution appeared in the last years of the 10th cen-
tury, after the marriage of prince Stephen with the Bavarian princess Gisela,51
when a missionary bishop came to Hungary invited by Géza, Stephen’s
father,52 and may have settled his residence here53 – intentions of extending
the Passau diocesan administration into Hungarian lands were at work in this
arrangement.54 The early foundation of this bishopric can also be supported by
a geographical assertion: although Esztergom, the residence of the Hungarian
archbishops, is situated south of the Danube, its entire territory is situated
north of the river, which means that the Transdanubian region was already
integrated into another bishopric.55 This diocese certainly existed already in
the first decade of the 11th century, when it was mentioned in the foundation
charter of the abbey of Pannonhalma,56 while in 1009 king Stephen I issued
another charter demarcating the estates and borders of the diocese.57 This lat-
ter source even mentions the name of the first known bishop of Veszprém,
Stephen.58 The Legenda maior of Saint Stephen highlights the contribution
of Gisela, the queen with Bavarian roots, to the endowment of the episco-
pal church,59 documentary evidence from the 13th century even considering
Gisela the founder of the bishopric.60 Archaeological records suggest that the
first cathedral of Veszprém was built around 1050, apparently on the site of an
earlier ecclesiastical building, dating from the 9th century.61 A rotunda was
51 Koszta 2012, 35; Thoroczkay 2009a, 35–36.

52 Györffy 2000, 177; Koszta 2012, 32–33.
53 Múcska 2005, 17; Buzás 2020, 8.
54 Wolfram 2006, 306–307. See also the papers gathered in Berend 2012.
55 Kristó 1998, 56; Györffy 2000, 177–178; Csorba 2000, no. 3, 11; Thoroczkay 2009a, 37; Koszta
2012, 74–75.
56 DHA, 40.
57 Both mentioned charters are generally accepted as genuine, despite the fact that are pre-
served only in later copies and interpolated, see Thoroczkay 2016b, 65–68.
58 DHA, 52–53. The charter is not dated, György Györffy argued that it had to be issued in
1009, based on the presence of the pontifical legate Azo, in whose presence the borders of
Hungarian bishoprics were drawn. See also Koszta 2012.
59 Legenda Maior Sancti Stephani: SRH 1, 385–386.
60 Kristó 1998, 57; Györffy 2000, 177.
61 Buzás 2020, 8–9. Some scholars supposed that the town of Ortahu, where a church of
Saint Michael the Archangel was consecrated in the 9th century was identical with
Veszprém, see Bogyay 1960, 52–70; Uzsoki 1991, 87; Buzás 2020, 9–10. This opinion is not
accepted by all scholars, see Koszta 2012, 210, footnote 112.
discovered near the cathedral, dated to the last quarter of the 10th century or
in the time of Saint Stephen, perhaps a royal or an episcopal chapel.62
The archbishopric of Esztergom, dedicated to Saint Adalbert of Prague63
and to the Holy Virgin, was founded around 1001, shortly after the corona-
tion of king Stephen I, with the approval of the pope, during a synod held in
Ravenna.64 Its first archbishop, Dominic, was already recorded in the inter-
polated charter of Pannonhalma,65 mentioned above. It is supposed that a
church dedicated to Saint Stephen the Protomartyr already existed during the
rule of Géza,66 however the present-day Classicist basilica was built on the site
of a medieval cathedral dating from the 12th century. A possible earlier eccle-
siastical building, from the time of Saint Stephen, cannot be reconstructed.67
An ecclesiastical province – an archbishopric – had to comprise at least four
dioceses,68 thus it was considered that the third bishopric of Hungary, founded
around 1001 and dedicated to the Holy Virgin, was the one of Győr, a town
situated on the site of a Roman castrum named Arrabona.69 Archaeological
research and a few written records suggest the continuity of inhabitancy in
or around the castrum.70 The early beginnings of this bishopric are indicated
only by indirect evidence: firstly, as mentioned above, Esztergom did not
have territories in the Transdanubian region, a fact that strongly suggests the
pre-existence of an ecclesiastical structure in the region. Also, the foundation
charter of Pécs was issued in 1009 in Győr,71 thus implying that at that moment
Győr was already a significant ecclesiastical centre.72 As the list of civitates
62 Kralovánszky 1984, 194; Buzás 2020, 10.

63 Saint Adalbert’s cult as saintly bishop and holy missionary had expanded from Bohemia
to neighbouring Hungary and Poland in only a few years after his death in 997. By 999 he
was already canonised and by the 12th century joined other saintly figures, such as the
holy ruler Stephen and martyr ruler Wenceslas, in a trans-national effort of stabilization
of conversion. For further reading and parallel developments in Scandinavian lands, see
Bogyay 1988b, 156–160; Ommundsen 2010, 67–93; Klaniczay 2010, 283–304; Jezierski 2019,
209–260.
64 Kristó 1998, 57; Györffy 2000, 161, 178; Koszta 2012, 35.
65 DHA, 41.
66 Zolnay 1983, 53.
67 Marosi 1994, 14; Szakács 2019, 43–44.
68 A tradition originating in 8th-century German territories, see Michałowski 2016, 43; a par-
allel development in Poland, around the year 1000, see Berend – Urbańczyk – Wiszewski
2013, 145. There were of course exceptions outside the above-mentioned area. For exam-
ple, the medieval archbishopric of York had only two suffragans, Durham and Carlisle.
69 Györffy 2000, 182; Koszta 2009a, 18; Galambosi 2020, 3.
70 Buzás 2020, 10.
71 DHA, 58.
72 Kristó 1998, 57; Koszta 2009a, 18; Thoroczkay 2016c, 80.
(county centres) placed under the jurisdiction of Veszprém around 1009 did
not comprise the territories known from later charters as pertaining to the
bishopric of Győr,73 it can be assumed that by this date the latter bishopric
was already constituted.74 The earliest certain records concerning a bishop of
Győr date from the mid-11th century;75 furthermore, because of the massive
subsequent reconstructions, the scarce remnants of a possible 11th-century
cathedral could not have been dated with certainty.76
According to consensual opinion, the bishopric of Eger was founded on
the territory of Samuel Aba, ally and brother-in-law (sororius) of Stephen I.
The exact date of this alliance is yet again not certainly known, some authors
supposing an early pact between Aba and Stephen, or even Géza, the latter’s
father, and thus an early foundation of the bishopric, around 1001.77 Recent
views on the matter assert that an agreement between Stephen and Aba was
reached around 1005 and the bishopric was founded during the visit of Azo,
the papal legate, to Hungary in 1009, simultaneous with the ones of Pécs and
Kalocsa.78 The latter interpretation, based on the patrocinia of the three epis-
copates dedicated to the apostles John, Peter and Paul – three patrons of major
basilicas in Rome – suggests an imitatio Romae which could be well connected
to the presence of a pontifical legate.79 Bishop Leodvin, the first known incum-
bent of Eger, was nevertheless recorded in the second half of the 11th century.
In addition to that, archaeological evidence of an early ecclesiastical centre
has not been found yet despite intensive research:80 the archaeological traces
of the first cathedral could only be dated to around 1100.81 Worthy of mention
here is also the fact that near the cathedral a rotunda dating from the 10th
century was discovered.82
Based on contemporary information from the writings referring to Bruno of
Querfurt (c.974–1009), it could be inferred that the establishment of a bishop-
ric in the south of the Transdanubian region was preceded by the conversion
73 See DHA, 52.

74 Györffy 2000, 182.
75 Zsoldos 2011, 90.
76 Szakács 2018, 218; Szakács 2019, 42–43; Buzás 2020, 10–11.
77 Püspöki 1988, 74; Galambosi 2020, 6–10.
78 Székely 1972, 59–60. Other scholars are more reserved in providing a certain date: they
only state that the bishopric was founded ‘at latest in 1009’, see Kristó 1998, 59; Múcska
2005, 22.
79 Koszta 2009a, 25–27; Koszta 2012, 44–45, 76–77, 89, 147; the dating ‘around 1009’ was also
accepted by Thoroczkay 2009a, 43–44.
80 Buzás 2020, 11–12.
81 Szakács 2019, 41–42; Buzás 2020, 12.
82 Galambosi 2020, 17.
of the so-called black Hungarians.83 According to its foundation charter, the

bishopric of Pécs was established in 100984 and dedicated to Saint Peter, a
detail that can be linked with the presence of the aforementioned papal legate
in Hungary.85 The charter also mentions the first bishop, Bonipert, originating
most probably from Lombardy or France. According to another contemporary
source, Bonipert received from Fulbert of Chartres (c.952–1028) a copy of the
well-known Latin grammar of Priscianus.86 The Latin name of Pécs, Quinque
ecclesiae, suggests the preservation of some ecclesiastical buildings from the
ancient Roman town of Sopianae, a hypothesis supported by archaeologi-
cal evidence that indeed some Roman funerary chapels were still used and
repainted during the 11th century.87 The first Romanesque cathedral of Pécs
was constructed, or at least completed, in the time of Stephen’s successor,
Peter Orseolo (1038–1041, 1044–1046),88 destroyed by a fire in 1064, and recon-
structed around the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries.89
The circumstances in which the archbishopric of Kalocsa was founded are
certainly not as clear as in the case of Pécs. Based on the patrocinium of the
cathedral church, Saint Paul, and on the eastern border of the bishopric of Pécs,
it has been argued that this diocese was founded in 1009.90 A disputed question
concerns the nature of the archbishopric of Kalocsa: while some historians
have claimed that the prelates of Kalocsa were originally titular archbish-
ops and their metropolitan province was constituted only around the mid-
12th century,91 others have argued that the archbishops of Kalocsa received the
pallium, a sign of metropolitan authority attesting to the metropolitan prov-
ince already in existence during the reign of Saint Stephen, although disputed
for more than a century by the prelates of Esztergom.92 The first archbishop
83 Kristó 1985, 11–14; Koszta 2009a, 18–23.

84 DHA, 58.
85 Koszta 2009a, 26–27.
86 DHA, 104.
87 Koszta 2009a, 31–37; Buzás 2020, 15.
88 Buzás 2020, 15–16.
89 Szakács 2019, 40–41.
90 Koszta 2009a, 25–27. Gábor Thoroczkay argued that the eastern frontier of Pécs could be
explained also by the pre-existence of Kalocsa, given the fact that archaeological discov-
eries suggest that the residence town of the archdiocese was an early centre of the Árpáds
in the 10th century. In his opinion, the archdiocese of Kalocsa was founded as early as
1002, see Thoroczkay 2009a, 41–42; Thoroczkay 2009c, 51–53. For a survey of the schol-
arship concerning the foundation of Kalocsa see Koszta 2013, 11–31; Thoroczkay 2004,
145–151.
91 Koszta 2013, 37–74.
92 Thoroczkay 2008, 55–56; Thoroczkay 2009a, 40–41; Thoroczkay 2009b, 17–18.
of Kalocsa, Asric (Anastasius), is considered one of king Stephen’s main col-

laborators in the Christianization of Hungary.93 Kalocsa’s first cathedral is also
regarded as the earliest in medieval Hungary and associated with the period of
the initial church organization.94
The genesis of the diocese of Cenad (Csanád) followed Stephen’s victory
over Achtum (Ajtony), a local chieftain. The Annales Posonienses record that
Gerhard, the first bishop of Cenad, was confirmed in 1030,95 the bishopric
itself being founded probably earlier in the same year.96 Gerhard died during
the pagan uprising of 1046 and was eventually sanctified in 1083. His legen-
dae, completed in the 14th century, incorporate some relevant details regard-
ing the early history of Cenad and its diocese: the former political centre of
Achtum, Morisena, renamed after the commander of Stephen’s victorious
army, became the episcopal residence. Achtum had already constructed in
Morisena a monastery following the Byzantine-rite, dedicated to Saint John
the Baptist.97 The monks were subsequently relocated after Achtum’s defeat to
Oroszlámos (Banatsko Aranđelovo).98 According to the legenda maior of Saint
Gerhard, the bishop constructed a new principale monasterium, believed to be
the first cathedral of the diocese, dedicated to Saint George.99 This building
has not been yet identified by archaeologists, however a rotunda was discov-
ered in Cenad, a structure possibly linked to the church of the aforementioned
monastic site founded by Achtum.100
The beginning of the episcopate in Vác is, yet again, one of the most chal-
lenging questions concerning the early church of Hungary. Was it founded
in the early or in the late years of Stephen’s reign? Or was it not founded by
the first king of Hungary at all?101 Based on Saint Stephen’s legendae, it was
generally accepted that the first crowned king of Hungary indeed established
ten bishoprics, including the one of Vác.102 The main argument for placing the
foundation of Vác among the early foundations was the proximity of both the
medium regni and the territories of Samuel Aba, an ally of the king in his efforts
93 Múcska 2005, 9–17. For a summary of the scholarship see Thoroczkay 2009b, 12–21.
94 Koszta 2013, 11, 73; Szakács 2018, 203–204; Buzás 2020, 16–17.
95 Annales Posonienses: SRH 1, 125.
96 For an overview of the early scholarship see Juhász 1930, 43–46; Koszta 1999, 303–304;
Kristó 1998, 62; Györffy 2000, 327; Thoroczkay 2009a, 44–45; Múcska 2005, 23. See also
Turcuș 2004.
97 De Sancto Gerhardo episcopo Morosensi et martyre regni Hungarie: SRH 2:491–492.
98 Ibidem, 492.
99 Ibidem, 496.
100 Buzás 2020, 22.
101 For a summary of the previous scholarship see Koszta 2001, no. 2, 363–364.
102 Török 2002, 29–30.
at Christianization.103 The hypothesis of a later foundation is supported mainly

by the fact that its territory comprised only parts of several counties. Thus,
the borders of this bishopric seem to have been drawn later than those of the
counties or other sees.104 The dedication of the diocese to the Holy Virgin
could be explained by the Marian devotion of Saint Stephen’s late years,
emphasized by his legendae.105 Those who advocate the theory of a later foun-
dation, consider it was possible that the bishopric could have been initiated by
Peter Orseolo, a king harshly judged by posterity, whom the Chronici Hungarici
Compositio denied also the merit of founding the chapter of Óbuda.106 This
assertion had its supporters, further underlining the strategical importance of
Vác during the conflict between Orseolo and Samuel Aba.107 The first bishop
of Vác was recorded as late as 1111.108 According to the chronicle, the cathedral
of Vác was constructed during the reign of Géza I (1074–1077).109 This con-
struction served as a model for several other Romanesque cathedrals built in
Hungary around 1100, namely the ones of Eger, Győr, Nitra (Nyitra) and Pécs.110
Another controversial question is the foundation of the bishopric in Biharia
(Bihar), included among the ten allegedly founded by the first Hungarian king.
Nonetheless, the statutes of the cathedral chapter of Oradea (Nagyvárad), a
church generally considered as the successor of Biharia, state that the local
bishopric was established by the king (also canonised) Ladislaus (1077–1091).111
The beginnings of the bishopric in Biharia are generally linked to the late
years of Stephen I or even to the reign of Andrew I (1046–1060),112 probably
in the form of a missionary bishopric created in the eastern part of his realm,
together with the Transylvanian one.113 The founding sequence was further
shuffled by indirect circumstances, such as the pagan uprising in 1046 in Békés
(later pertaining to the bishopric of Biharia) that would indicate Andrew I as
the real founder of the bishopric,114 a supposition strengthened by the fact that
Leodvin (Liuduinus), the first known bishop of Biharia, was recorded during
103 Múcska 2005, 20–21.

104 Györffy 2000, 328.
105 Thoroczkay 2016b, 88.
106 Kristó 1998, 64.
107 Koszta 2001, 366–377, 371–373.
108 DHA, 382; Zsoldos 2011, 96.
109 Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV: SRH 1: 395.
110 Szakács 2019, 39–43.
111 Bunyitay 1886, 6–7.
112 For an overview, see Bunyitay 1883, 1:3–8; Koszta 2014, 42–43.
113 Hóman 1935, 199–200.
114 Kristó 1965, 41–42, 53.
the reign of Andrew I.115 Also, both Leodvin and the later king Coloman (1095–
1116) were mentioned as bishops of Eger and Biharia implying that the territory
of the latter was separated from Eger, at first formally, then, in the last two
decades of the 11th century, effectively.116 The emergence of the later bishopric
of Oradea from that of Eger has been considered by many as the only explana-
tion for the southern exclave of Eger, the archdeaconry of Pâncota (Zsomboly,
Pankota).117 Also the constitution of the Oradea ecclesiastical centre after the
devastation of Biharia in 1068 and 1091 was questioned, some arguing that the
diocese of Oradea was not a result of a translatio sedis but a newly created
episcopal see of king Ladislaus.118
The genesis of the bishopric of Zagreb (Zágráb) at an uncertain date around
1090 was also put in relation to king Ladislaus and his coronation as ruler of
Croatia, another relevant detail showing how episcopal structure appears in
the wake of territorial acquisitions.119 The patron saint of the bishopric was
the recently canonised Saint Stephen and its first bishop, Duh, was recorded in
a source issued in 1134.120 The first Romanesque cathedral of Zagreb, erected
during the 12th century, was destroyed as a consequence of the Tartar invasion
from 1241–1242 and later replaced by the present-day Gothic building.
Based on the first mention of a bishop in Nitra,121 recent opinions122 have
implied that the see of Nitra was founded sometime between 1105 and 1110.
Based on 12th and 13th century charters recording the bishops of Nitra and
analogies from the neighbouring province of Salzburg, it has been argued that
this diocese was initially a proprietary bishopric (Eigenbistum) of the arch-
bishop of Esztergom, lacking a separate territory of jurisdiction, authority over
archdeaconries or the right to dispose of tithes and lands in its own name. The
episcopal see was founded on a site of a collegiate chapter dating from the
second half of the 11th century. According to this theory, the bishops of Nitra
secured their territorial jurisdiction and authority in the last quarter of the 12th
and in the first decades of the 13th century.
A widespread hypothesis claims that some of the early 11th-century bish-
oprics of Hungary observed the Byzantine rite. An allegedly Byzantine bish-
opric existed in Veszprém, and based on its patrocinium, Saint Michael the
115 Zsoldos 2011, 97.

116 Koszta 2014, 56–63.
117 Kristó 1998, 63; Koszta 2014, 79–80; Buzás 2020, 13.
118 Buzás 2020, 11–14.
119 Engel – Koszta 1994, 739–740.
120 Zsoldos 2011, 101.
121 Körmendi 2012, 329–341.
122 Koszta 2009b, 257–318.
Archangel, identical with the one of Transylvania, and the early existence of a
Greek, metropolitan monastery in Veszprémvölgy,123 some have believed possi-
ble that initially the bishopric of Veszprém was following the Greek rite.
Based on the discovery of two 11th-century seal matrices pertaining to arch-
bishops of Tourkia, both representing Saint Demetrios, patron of the bishopric
of Sirmium in antiquity,124 and on the hypothesis of the early creation of a
Byzantine diocese in Transylvania, it has been supposed that the second arch-
bishopric of Hungary, founded in Kalocsa, together with its suffragan bish-
oprics originally observed the Byzantine rite125 as well. This theory has been
partially accepted and even further developed,126 emphasizing the large num-
ber of Byzantine monasteries in Arpadian Hungary and records of Christians
of Eastern rite that were connected to the metropolitan province of Kalocsa,
while also highlighting the peaceful character of the relocation of Byzantine
monks from Cenad to Oroszlámos. The latter assertion has also been used as
proof for the exclusion of Byzantine elements from the ecclesiastical structure
of Hungary and for claiming that the archbishop of Tourkia was no more than a
title of pretence.127 Other opinions have differed,128 and the early existence of a
metropolitan province of Kalocsa has not been accepted, arguing that Tourkia
may refer to the Turks living in the region of Vardar or may have described a
titular bishop. The weakness of Greek influence in the church organization of
Hungary is apparently demonstrated by the fact that only one Greek charter
has been preserved from the whole medieval history of Hungary.129 Besides,
during the 11th century 27 Benedictine and only 5 Byzantine monasteries130
were founded in Hungary, almost a half of the latter having monks from Kiev
and not Constantinople.131 The (arch)bishops of Kalocsa, Cenad, Oradea and
Transylvania known from the 11th and 12th centuries were all named after
Latin saints, excepting Georgius of Kalocsa, who is recorded as participating in
a liturgical celebration in Lotharingia together with pope Leo IX (1049–1054).
Historians have also emphasized the fact that there is no positive information
123 DHA, 85.

124 See also Éva Révész’s study in the present volume for further opinions on the topic.
125 Baán 1999, 45–54.
126 Pop 1998, 117. See also Turcuș 2004, 116–119; for the positive reception of Baán’s and Turcuș’
theory see also Neagu 2016, 11–30.
127 Thoroczkay 2016b, 50–51.
128 Koszta 2012, 264; Koszta 2013, 23–31; Koszta 2014, 127–143; for the positive reception of
Koszta’s theory see Kovács 2017, 12–13.
129 Stojkovski 2016, 127–140.
130 See also Boris Stojkovski’s study in the present volume.
131 Koszta 2010, 57; Koszta 2012, 264.
concerning the authority of the patriarch of Constantinople over Kalocsa, as in

the case of Ohrid or Kiev.132
A ‘part to whole’ analogy must stand at the base of the present inquiry due
to the visibility of the largest ecclesiastical structures and their leaders in his-
torical sources compared to the smaller unseen actors of religious life: par-
ish networks, territorial chapters, archdeaconries, and their clergy. In order to
function properly, a bishopric required an institutional structure, comprising
a cathedral chapter, archdeaconries and a parish network. Again, the lack of
sources pertaining to the early history of these institutions is even more per-
ceptible than in the case of bishoprics. Recent contributions generally agree
that the archdeaconries of Hungary began to function in the last decades
of the 11th century or, most likely, even later.133 Based on numerous sources
of the Arpadian age and on analogies from the neighbouring regions, the
most recent opinions consider the emergence of cathedral chapters a process
which took place between the 11th and 13th centuries, after which the chap-
ters of the Hungarian kingdom acquired a corporative character and a juridical
personality.134
Although the laws issued by king Stephen declared compulsory the build-
ing of a church in every tenth village,135 in the early years of Christianization
the so-called baptismal churches were constructed chiefly in the centres of
counties, which became also centres of mission in the area. These first par-
ishes became focal points of archdeaconries towards the end of the 11th cen-
tury, after the organization of other parishes in their proximity.136 The laws of
Coloman established the duties of archdeacons, suggesting that the institution
already existed in Hungary around 1100.137
This quick historiographical overview of the emergence of ecclesiastical
structures in the 11th century points out a conscious and concentrated found-
ing phase that lasted several decades, concomitant with the consolidation of
the territorial extension and administrative structures of the newly-created
Hungarian kingdom. The challenges of building a diocese in a new institu-
tional framework reveal generalized ambiguity concerning the physical loca-
tions not only geographically but also in terms of ownership of the urban
lands and derived income, depending directly on the generosity of the royal
132 Koszta 2013, 29; Koszta 2014, 135.

133 For a summary of earlier scholarship see Kristó 1988a, 216–217; for the later reception of
Kristó’s theory in recent scholarship see Galambosi 2020, 16–17.
134 Koszta 2012, 271–272.
135 Decreta Sancti Stephani regis, Liber Secundus, art. 1: DRMH, 43.
136 Kristó 1988a, 216–218.
137 Decretum Colomani regis, art. 60: DRMH, 112.
authority. At the same time, ecclesiastical centres needed supplies, implying

connection to trading routes, and protection from both internal and external
enemies – in some cases the bishop’s seat coincided with the fortified county
headquarters.138 Out of all the cathedrals built in the first few decades of
the 11th century, none were the result of a direct continuity process, even if
erected in the near vicinity of previous centres of secular or spiritual authority,
Christian or non-Christian.
13.5 The Transylvanian Paradigm
In this complex, ever-changing historiographical background, the history of

the emergence of a diocesan construction in Transylvania has produced a
plethora of studies, historians over the last century (either professional or ama-
teur) rising to the occasion by constantly questioning their predecessors’ find-
ings and putting forward new interpretations. At this moment, one hypothesis
after another must be considered and each either accepted or disproven after
carefully taking into consideration all surviving and accessible evidence. The
nature of the sources concerning the specific stage when the new Latin bishop-
ric was created in Transylvania, its previous cultural and political background,
the identity of the bishops in office, its development phases – discussing here
ownership issues over landed estates (bishop vs. chapter), construction of
buildings for Christian worship (cathedral and adjacent chapels), the setting
up of subordinate units (archdeaconries and parish churches) – will be expe-
ditiously dealt with in the next few lines.
According to a widespread opinion, the first bishopric was reputedly
founded in Transylvania around 950. John Skylitzes, a Byzantine chronicler of
the 11th century, records that two Hungarian chieftains, Bulcsú (Boulosoudes)
and Gyula (Gylas) were baptized in Constantinople. The latter came back to
his lands together with Hierotheos, a Greek missionary bishop, who converted
many Hungarians to Christianity.139 Although the Byzantine chronicle does
not mention Transylvania in any circumstances, several authors interpreted
the illusive information that the land under the rule of the aforementioned
Gyula was indeed located within the Transylvanian region.140 One of these
138 Szende – Végh 2015, 255–286. A further inquiry into the dynamic relationship between
Hungarian bishops and county heads may follow the analytical course opened with the
case of Cambrai-Arras diocese by Ruffini-Ronzani 2015, 337–355 and Ruffini-Ronzani
2019, 111.
139 Ioannes Skylitzes, Synopsis historion, English translation: Wortley 2010, 231.
140 Entz 1994, 25. See also Gábor Thoroczkay’s paper in the present volume.
arguments was a genealogy from the late 12th-century chronicle of Anonymus,

also known as ‘Master P.’.141 Archaeological support for placing Hierotheos’ mis-
sion to Alba Iulia was provided by the discovery of some Byzantine reliquary
crosses in Alba Iulia,142 however, such findings have not entirely convinced
everybody of the certain connection to a Byzantine missionary or churchly
activity of any kind.143 The continuity of a bishopric following the Greek rite
in Transylvania until 1002 or 1003144 when another Gyula, who certainly lived
in Transylvania, was defeated by king Stephen I, was in fact a further develop-
ment of the same interpretation of the Byzantine sources. There is no indica-
tion concerning the kinship between the Gyula baptized in Constantinople
and the one overpowered two generations later by king Stephen I, and thus
the question is still blurred.145 The problem of Gyula is further complicated by
the fact that one cannot know if the sources mention in fact a person named
Gyula or one holding the office of gyula, a military leader of the Hungarians
in the decades after the settlement in the Carpathian Basin.146 Consequently,
the entire theory that brings together the chieftain Gyula with the Byzantine
bishop Hierotheos in Transylvania towards the end of the 10th century, and the
continuity of the Byzantine mission in the same area, must still wait for further
fresh input.
Taking into account that Stephen overthrew Gyula in 1002 or 1003, it is
generally accepted that the bishopric of Transylvania was founded during the
first decade of the 11th century, immediately after the war against ‘the second’
Gyula,147 or in 1009, during the visit of legate Azo to Hungary.148 However, sev-
eral historians have suggested that the diocese of Transylvania could have been
established almost a century later, around 1100,149 rightfully pointing out the
fact that its first known bishop was recorded as late as 1111 (Simon, episcopus
Vltrasilvanus).150 Should one accept that Franco, episcopus Bellegradiensis,
141 Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum: SRH 1, 65.

142 Dragotă 2017, 163–173; Dragotă 2018e, 89–93. See also Călin Cosma’s study in the present
volume.
143 See Rusu 2010.
144 Ripoche 1977a, 82–83; Galambosi 2020, 7.
145 Györffy 1983, 1104–1105; Györffy 2000, 166; Madgearu 2017, no. 2, 8–11.
146 For an overview of the scholarship regarding this problem see Benkő 2001b, 13–24. See
also Éva Révész’s paper in the present volume.
147 Horváth 1878, 236; Kristó 1998, 58; Vekov 2001, 128–135; Múcska 2005, no. 1, 23; Thoroczkay
2009a, 40–41; Koszta 2012.
148 Györffy 1983, 1105; Györffy 2000, 183; Turcuș 2004, 28–29.
149 Pascu 1989, 305; Pop 2003, 197.
150 DHA, 383.
mentioned between 1071 and 1081, was also bishop of Transylvania,151 which is
again far from certain, there would be a shorter hiatus in the list of incumbents
and thus additional evidence supporting the earlier creation of the diocesan
office pertaining to Transylvania. The divergence of historical views, while var-
iously filtered and motivated, represents a constant trend in the contemporary
academic field, where nonetheless a distinct recent shift can be discerned: a
historiographical movement away from the national narrative accompanied
by a wider bird’s eye view perspective of the surrounding contexts and a com-
parative approach152 to the phenomena in question.
The polemics around the date of foundation were further nourished by
divergent interpretations of the archaeological results.153 At the end of the
19th century, during the restoration works at the cathedral of Alba Iulia, István
Möller uncovered the foundations of a rotunda placed in the present-day
building of the cathedral church, close to the southern wall.154 Because of
the lack of relevant archaeological data, the structure could not be dated pre-
cisely, thus leading to interpretations of its original place in relation to the
main church building155 and its specific purpose.156 In the 1970s, Radu Heitel
uncovered the foundations of another church located near the present-day
cathedral. He asserted that this new find was built in the first half of the
11th century.157 Based on his results, it was argued that this church was either
the first cathedral church of Transylvania, dating from the time of Saint
Stephen158 or rather ‘an archidiaconal church’ (!).159 A few decades later, in
2011, Daniela Marcu Istrate approached the subject again, reopened this 1970’s
site, and provided a more detailed description.160 The archaeological records
produced once again conflicting theories about the precise chronological
151 Records of Franco, episcopus Bellegradiensis, starting from 1071, could not be cer-
tainly linked to Alba Iulia. He could as well have been bishop of Biograd na Moru
(Tengerfehérvár) in Croatia. See Commisiones et relationes Venetae, 459; Bóna 2001b, 88;
Kristó 2004, 128–129.
152 Dincă 2017.
153 See the papers authored by Daniela Marcu Istrate, Florin Curta, Horia Ciugudean, and
Aurel Dragotă in the present volume.
154 Entz 1958a, 70–73.
155 Madgearu 2017, 11–13. Theodorescu 2014, 3–5. Entz 1958a, 70–73. Entz 1994, 25, whose
hypothesis is also accepted by Buzás 2020, 17–18.
156 Bóna 2001b, 88.
157 Heitel 1985, 215–231.
158 Bóna 2001b, 87–88.
159 Entz 1994, 25.
horizon161 or connection between the ground plans and the possible activity
of a Byzantine mission in Transylvania.162
The unusual name of the diocese, more specifically the fact that the bish-
opric of Transylvania was named after a region (choronym) and not after an
urban site of episcopal residence, has ignited further debate. While most
historians agree that the name was given due to the fact that the bishopric
had originally a missionary character,163 some tend to see also a suggestion
for the continuity of Byzantine tradition,164 or an uncertainty caused by
relocations of the controlled area, especially the translation of the see from
northern Transylvania to the south, to Alba Iulia.165 It has to be noted that
the naming of missionary bishoprics after regions was a current practice in
Latin Christendom too.166 A very good analogy in this respect is the early his-
tory of the diocese of Olmütz (Olomouc, today in the Czech Republic), which
appears in the 10th century as the ‘diocese of Moravia’, and after a long silence
of the historical sources returns in 1063 under the name of its residence.167
Another example may be the case of the diocese of Bosnia (present in writ-
ten sources starting with 1088),168 but also with the ‘diocese of the Cumans’,169
both institutional aggregations with uncertain status from jurisdictional and
hierarchical points of view, and from the perspective of dogmatic rectitude.
The Transylvanian episcopal foundation must have faced similar uncertainties
at the time of its appearance and later, in that of the revival, either because of
some non-Christian population groups, or because of Christians of a different
conviction than the Latin one.
The option for Saint Michael the Archangel as a patron saint of the
diocese170 was interpreted as further proof for the Eastern-rite roots of the
bishopric.171 However, the cult of Saint Michael was also widespread in large
161 Takács 2013, 120; Theodorescu 2014, 5–8. Rusu 2014; Madgearu 2017, 14–15; Buzás 2020, 18
leaves also open the question of dating.
162 Takács 2013, 121–123; Marcu Istrate 2014, 120; Marcu Istrate 2015, 19.
163 Hóman 1935, 199–200; Györffy 2000, 183; Koszta 2012, 259; Dincă 2017, 47–48; Kovács 2017,
115; Hunyadi 2019, 59.
164 Kristó 2004, 118; Vekov 2001, 103.
165 Kristó 1998, 58; Thoroczkay 2009a, 41.
166 Dincă 2017, 47–49.
167 Zemek 1987; Wihoda 2010.
168 Basler 1973, 9–15.
169 Turcuș 2001, 292.
170 On the extension of the patrocinium within the entire territory of medieval Hungary, see
Mező 2003, 278–308; especially 304 sqq. (Veszprém) and 284 sqq. (Alba Iulia).
171 Kristó 1998, 58–59; Kristó 2004, 119; Thoroczkay 2009a, 41; Dincă 2017, 49.
areas of Western Europe,172 as demonstrated by the well-known examples of

Monte Gargano or Mont Saint-Michel.
Furthermore, not every scholar has accepted that Alba Iulia was the first
episcopal residence of Transylvania, an opinion based on documentary sources
dating from the mid-13th century that show the bishop’s main estates being
in the northern part of the province, or even outside the medieval extension
of Transylvanian territory, towards the northwest.173 For that reason, possible
episcopal residences in the early phase of development could have been in
Tășnad (Tasnád),174 Dăbâca (Doboka)175 or Cluj (Kolozsvár),176 respectively.
However, several other authors have argued that the situation of the 13th cen-
tury is not relevant, given the fact that the chapter’s estates were separated
from the bishop’s lands around 1200, a suggestion that is worth taking into
consideration within a larger context of church historical development. After
that point, the chapter possessed several estates in the surroundings of Alba
Iulia.177 In other words, during the 12th century the bishop possessed numer-
ous estates both in the northern and in the southern part of the region.178
Archaeological research seems to indicate that in the first half of the 11th cen-
tury the main road from central Hungary to Transylvania went through the
Mureș Valley rather than through the strait of Meseș,179 providing another
argument for the expansion of the bishopric from the south to the north. So far,
competing interpretations, supported by well-defined contexts, and backed up
by incomplete historical information, have been unable to provide decisive
arguments for either of the theories.
Because of the often-mentioned scarcity of sources, the foundation of other
ecclesiastical institutions is almost impossible to reconstruct: the earliest
records of the Transylvanian archdeaconries and cathedral chapter date from
the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries180 and the emergence of a coherent
network of parishes experienced an even slower evolution.
A new reconstruction paradigm of the early stages of the Transylvanian
diocese was proposed a few years back,181 based on a general set of criteria
172 Dincă 2010, 347–358.

173 Jakó 1997, 190, no. 201.
174 Karácsonyi 1925, 16.
175 Kristó 1998, 58; Kristó 2004, 124; Thoroczkay 2009a, 40–41.
176 Dincă 2017, 42.
177 Jakó 1997, 328–339, no. 589.
178 Thoroczkay 2016a, 25–26; Kovács 2017, 107–108; Hunyadi 2019, 58–59.
179 Bóna 2001b, 80–81.
180 Kristó 2004, 126–127.
181 Dincă 2017.
that had to be met to conclude an episcopal foundation. These criteria include

the existence of a precisely delimited territory of jurisdiction, a possible con-
nection to the pre-existent church organization, a sufficient income and a
cathedral church, the continuity of bishops, presence of lower clergy and
manifestations of a diocesan identity. In the case of Transylvania, these crite-
ria were arguably met only in the 12th century, at its earliest point in time. For
that reason, the foundation of the bishopric was regarded not as an event, a
fixed moment in time, but rather as a process, divided into several succeeding
milestones. Following this path of interpretation of the meagre documenta-
tion, the ‘making’ of the bishopric of Transylvania was indeed initiated in the
first years of the 11th century, suffered a setback around the 1040s and 1050s,
and concluded later in the time of the kings Ladislaus or Coloman, around
1100. Based on the analysis of several episcopal foundations between the 10th
and 12th centuries over an extensive area throughout Europe, the focus of the
discussion has been shifted from the identification of the initial moment of
existence of the diocesan construction to the long process that leads to the
full-fledged, completely functioning bishopric: the delimitation of the area of
diocesan competence, the constitution of the body of canons of the cathedral
and the formation of a landed estate, adherence to a well-defined liturgical
path etc.
The extant written and material sources that reconstruct the early history of
the Transylvanian bishopric offer extremely limited solid ground, a reality that
has unavoidably led to the proliferation of possible theories. As already stated
in the opening parts of this essay, given the universality of church institutions,
and the mirroring historical circumstances in large areas of the ‘New Europe’
around the year 1000, a good basis for testing, developing, or erasing these
hypothetical constructions would be definitely provided by an even intensive
employment of analogies and comparatist studies, developed individually or
as collaborative efforts, a path already taken and tested before.
13.6 Conclusions: Church Construction and Politics, Indirect Sources

and Contexts
What are the questions pertaining to the larger topic of the genesis of the
Transylvanian bishopric that have not yet been asked? To turn the historio-
graphic tide, a fresh perspective needs to be brought to the scrutiny of the ‘ori-
gin story’ and the historian (whatever the tool of investigation) must return
to the primordial source once again,182 and observe new ways of extracting
182 Tremp – Utz Tremp – Pfaff 1991, 452–466.

information, while at the same time sift through the entire previous academic
productions and select pertinent records, analogies, and substantiated affir-
mations. A thorough and balanced review of previous scholarship alone can-
not however create new food for thought, considering the aspects that have
been suggested over the previous pages. It is now the task of the 21st century
historian to apply a miscellaneous methodology, to inquire differently and
even to ‘borrow’ analytical strategies from other (closely or not) related dis-
ciplines. The indirect and disconcerting narrative histories have opened the
door to speculation concerning Transylvania’s initial exposure to Christianity,
stressing a societal mass conversion dictated by ethnical basis rather than on
personal transition from paganism to Christianity. The following lines wish
to bring forward a plaidoyer for a broader cultural horizon based on several
methodological approaches derived from cultural anthropology and histori-
cal sociology – mainly comparativist perspective and contextualization – that
could assist scholars in future undertakings regarding the first moments of
diocesan organization in Transylvania.
A comparison illuminates both similarities and diﬀerences: in this respect
the particularities of the Transylvanian case must not be dismissed but
acknowledged and endorsed. The present discussion, aiming at an intro-
duction into a better and wider understanding of the theoretical framework
(institutions involved, available sources) in which the founding of a diocese
in Transylvania could have taken place as part of the ecclesiastical sphere
of Roman obedience, appeals to further comparison with other European
instances, ultimately (as already stated) with the goal of providing archaeolo-
gists and art historians with the required contextual background. Under these
circumstances, the obstinate refusal of recent historiography to acknowl-
edge and absorb the European interpretative impulses of the last five dec-
ades and surpass the psychological barrier imposed by their forerunners,183
is very surprising, especially when considering the fact that the raw working
material – the archaeological records – had been put forward in an opaque
manner, superficially dated by means of viable stylistic analogies or sound
methodological approaches and inadequately contextualised by forced corre-
spondences and ‘(ab)use of written sources.’184 The division of the topic into
a nationalistically-driven binary discourse (‘them’ vs. ‘us’)185 has regrettably
produced a vast amount of anachronistic output, engaging historians in seem-
ingly endless, limited, and futile contradictory debates. Future discussion on
183 For a larger survey of the topic, see Curta 2006, 21–28, chapter Medieval Archaeology in
Southeastern Europe.
184 Curta 2006, 25. See also Profantová 286–310.
185 Bierbrauer 2004, 45–84. See also Curta 2001, 141–165.
the origin of the Transylvanian Latin bishopric must bring to the table every
actor involved, re-aligning and encompassing the contributions of all scholarly
disciplines that can clear up the blurred picture: numismatics,186 various types
of chemical analysis (osteological, of wood, pottery, glass, and metal), even pal-
aeobotany and zooarchaeology. Ultimately, prudence is needed when dealing
with a holistic approach towards the subject that will lead to the re-assessment
of the entire cultural horizon of the local ‘Age of Iron’. Interdisciplinarity, col-
laboration, constructive scepticism – these methodological markers should
prevail in the modern scholarly handling of the present inquiry.
The current historiographical trend of the ‘Europeanization of national
myths’ seeks to bring together national cultures encompassed in a symbolic
common ground. In this context, staying clear from political ideology, the
topic under investigation – the conversion, institutional Christianization,
and implicit Europeanization of a peripheral province – can benefit from the
expansion of the geographical and social perspective. A methodological prin-
ciple that has been used on many occasions, comparison with events and sim-
ilar situations in other parts of Latin Europe may allow a better understanding
of local realities and their interconnectedness. The comparative method, used
with caution, has the merit of providing suggestions and information for those
historical phenomena related to the Transylvanian case, which could other-
wise not be understood because of inadequate or insufficient input from the
testimonies of the investigated epoch. At the same time, comparison makes it
possible to highlight correlations in the functioning of the episcopal institution
in different periods and in the different realms that found themselves under
Rome’s supreme ecclesiastical authority. Not only does the practice of fortify-
ing a territorial conquest through ecclesiastical institutionalization appear as
a justified political conduct, but many other instances come in support of this
hypothesis: for examples from northern Europe187 or the Iberian Peninsula,188
where a series of dioceses were created as direct and immediate consequences
of territorial and military advance. Another excellent example in this regard,
it is true an extreme one, is that of the new dioceses of the Middle East, in
186 Velter 2002, with reticence regarding the historical interpretations, see Rusu 2003;
Oberländer Târnoveanu 2009, 561–580; Mundell Mango 2009, 221–238. Regarding the
specific Alba Iulia case, see Rustoiu et al. 2009, 19–33.
187 Crawford 1987; Veitch 1998, 193–220; Sawyer – Sawyer 2003, 155.
188 Borgolte 2002, 142–167 discusses the similarities and differences in the medieval evolution
of Scandinavia and the Iberian Peninsula as European peripheries. See also Barton 2006,
1–33 for the 12th century evolution of episcopal power in the post-Reconquista lands, and
Jensen 2017, the latter’s comparative analysis revolving around the crusading movement.
the territories claimed by Christians following the crusading expeditions.189 A

completely ignored source of parallel developments with Transylvania are the
Latin kingdom of Cyprus,190 Venetian Crete or Frankish Morea,191 where, just
as in Southern Italy and in Sicily,192 a pre-existent and flourishing Christian
tradition leaning towards Constantinople was challenged by the agency of the
Latin church. A ‘zoomed-in’ picture of the mirroring events and developments
in these aforementioned cultural areas would be a task for the future, able to
highpoint important details that deserve separate attention.
The formula rex fundator had extraordinary ideological connotations espe-
cially in the ‘New Europe’ constructed around the first Christian millennium.
The crowned leaders of Poland, Bohemia, or Hungary,193 together with those
of the Scandinavian lands194 were consciously engaged in the institutionaliza-
tion of religion. This endeavour brought significant benefits: it was an inspired
way to ensure the collaboration of the clerical body, but also to monopolize
the ‘national’ churches in a sense similar to the church policy of the German
dynasties before the Concordat of Worms (1122) or in the sense of subsequent
developments into Gallicanism or Anglicanism. The quoted examples are
united by a common thread: in all cases, the European impulse – Christianity –
came from Rome (the centre), and was accepted, implemented, supported by,
and transmitted through indigenous rulers from the periphery of the conti-
nent. Additional details enhancing the understanding of the political context
(either local195 or European196) and filling in the interpretative frameworks
may still emerge from the archives of various institutions, becoming more
and more available to the public through the process of digitization. A suit-
able example in this respect is the growing interest in the fragments of man-
uscripts, an inspiring means of recovering older strata of textual information,
already discarded in historical times, during the Later Middle Ages or in the
early modern period. This archaeology of lost writings, mostly pertaining to
liturgy, would certainly have a say in the future reconstruction of the early
189 Antweiler 1993; Eck 2000.

190 Beihammer – Parani – Schabel 2008; Schabel 2010. I would like to thank Chris Schabel for
his generous input on this topic.
191 Topping 1977.
192 Herde 2002, 213–252; Falkenhausen 2002, 253–288; Loud 2006, 624–645; Peters-Custot
2009.
193 Michałowski 1989, 133–157; Michałowski 1997, 419–434; De Cevins 2016, 175–190.
194 Bagge 2016, 57.
195 See Tudor Sălăgean’s paper in the present volume.
196 See Alexandru Madgearu and Șerban Turcuș’ chapters in the present volume.
institutionalization of the Latin Church in Transylvania.197 The leading role of

several Scandinavian initiatives prove the immense possibilities of retrieving
crucial data of a liturgical nature pertaining to the early phase of development
of the churchly structures.198 Issues implicating the book-related aspects of
creation of a sacred space will be discussed briefly below. However, scholar-
ship turns with great expectations primarily towards archaeology, the only
historical method and investigative approach that can bring much additional
information, which, interpreted accurately as part of a larger dialogue, has
truly the potential for rearranging the boundaries of knowledge.
Can the existence of institutionalised Christianity be stated in 10th century
Transylvania? Was Alba Iulia’s first church the projection of an episcopal seat
of Byzantine provenance or a subordinated structure, perhaps a distorted form
of ‘Eigenkirche’?199 Is there a direct relation between the archaeological finds
and the narrative sources? These questions can only produce partial, tentative,
and hypothetical answers so far, and the next few lines wish to depict a feasible
image of a possible scenario.
The archaeological context in Alba Iulia states, in the second half of the
10th century or soon after 1000, the presence of a church,200 the so-called
‘first episcopal church’ in the city, and of a possible Christian chapel or bap-
tistry (the rotunda), which have both lost their initial sacred mission by the
last decades of the 11th century, when the construction site of a new ecclesi-
astical building – the present-day cathedral – began. The parallel operation
of the church and the rotunda may even find an echo in the similar circum-
stances of Veszprém, Eger and Cenad, where such edifices have been identi-
fied by archaeologists.201 Even if the precise date when religious service started
inside these two buildings cannot be pinpointed, their very existence dic-
tates a set of primary conclusions: a Christian community existed in Alba
Iulia (an affirmation backed by the archaeological findings in the excavated
197 In this respect, a research project still in its initial phase of development: PN-III-CEI-
BIM-PBE-2020-2024, ‘Reversed Migration’: The Walloon Settlers in Medieval Transylvania
and their Cultural Identity (12th–14th century).
198 Heikkilä – Ommundsen 2017.
199 The development of the archidiaconal system and of the ‘proprietary church’ model in
the German lands and south-eastern Europe, but also its Byzantine counterpart model,
have been discussed by Borgolte 2004, 95–101; Wood 2008; Borgolte 2020, 226–228. See
Entz 1994, 25–26 for the opinion regarding a possible early ‘archdeacon church’ (!) in Alba
Iulia, under the patronage of the local ruler.
200 A chronology of this building in Daniela Marcu Istrate’s study in the present volume; for
the possibility of a later dating see Takács 2013, 120–123; Buzás 2020, 18.
201 Takács 2018, 177–199.
cemeteries),202 with sufficient resources to support a construction of consid-

erable dimensions and to attend to its running (from church personnel to litur-
gical supplies). Its positioning inside the Roman fortress, secured from direct
external factors, suggests it was the output of a local governing elite,203 thus
further implying functional and complex social interactions. The existence and
arrangement of residential buildings and annexes as distinguishable elements
of privileged places with social differences must also be taken into considera-
tion in this particular case, a future task for the archaeologists to unearth.
Traditionally, the location for such a visible symbol of spiritual significance
was not random but intended to communicate directly with a former sacred
place, for the vast majority of holy places were either familiar to the occupant
or already sanctified places to be reoccupied.204 Space plays a pivotal role in
the delimitation of the sacred: any church, either operating as a parish cen-
tre or an episcopal seat, was the consecrated focal point of a jurisdiction and,
implicitly, of a circumscribed territory. Nonetheless, one must not consider
these territories as delimited configurations, according to their modern mean-
ing, but as ‘vaguely determined spheres of influence,’205 in a dynamic develop-
ment across the entire continent until the late 12th century.
Again, a comparative perspective with the northern parts of Europe may
bring some additional context: missionaries who have been active without
the support of secular rulers in 7th century England, 8th century Saxony and
Frisia or later in 9th century Sweden were unable to convert a significant num-
ber of the population.206 Yet their activity precedes the formal imposition of
Christianity by at least three generations. Missionaries were at first given per-
mission by the local landlords to preach and to build churches, slowly con-
verting the population, and it took for a political-military leader and his elite
entourage to be baptised in order to convince a substantial part of the commu-
nity to embrace the new religion. At the same time, the presence of Byzantine
missionaries in the Baltic part of Scandinavia is a topic still debated in Swedish
historiography, a controversy similarly fuelled by the lack of written sources
and the discovery of typical Christian objects (such as pendants in form of
enkolpia crosses) among the archaeological material, brought to the area via
202 See Călin Cosma’s chapter together with Horia Ciugudean, Aurel Dragotă and Monica-
Elena Popescu’s study in the present volume.
203 See Florin Curta’s chapter in the present volume.
204 Kaplan 2001, 183–198. See similar transitions from Roman, early Christian Carolingian and
Moravian buildings to new ecclesiastical structures in Szakács 2018, 199–203.
205 Lisson 2017, 158. See also Mazel 2016; Iogna-Prat 2017, 91–100.
206 Solli 1996, 89–114; Sanmark 2003, 552. See also Mayr-Harting 1977, 51–68.
the merchant route from Constantinople through Kiev and towards Birka.207
The demand for such items must have been significant, since it determined the
production of local variations of Byzantine stylistic conventions.208 Regional
lordship also influenced the mechanisms of institutionalized Christianization
in Scandinavian Scotland, where an ethnically-hybrid but Christian aristoc-
racy ruled over the 10th and 11th centuries in settlements such as Govan,209 a
former Viking trading post on the shores of the Irish Sea.
A church by itself is not a cathedral. It takes for the institution it represents –
the bishopric – to be created by a higher authority and for a bishop to con-
secrate it as a diocesan see. Along these lines, the Alba Iulia structure in its
archaeological context – channelling Byzantine stylistic patterns together with
funerary items of oriental origin – can be considered both an administrative
agent and a testimony of ceremonial expression. Its consecration probably fol-
lowed the rite (also acknowledged by the 6th century councils in the West)210
recorded since the 8th century in the ‘Euchologion Barberini’ (Ms Gr. 336 of
the Vatican Library),211 together with the similar blessing of the burial ground:
such actions were destined to imbue with spiritual significance and estab-
lish control over the new Christian space. Typically, by the 10th century both
Byzantine tradition and Latin customs considered necessary the presence of a
bishop for the inauguration of a new church, while a (previously existing) cem-
etery could be consecrated either by ecclesiastical rite or simply sanctified by
the vicinity of the place of worship, its altar and its relics.212 Doctrine required
that after integration into the symbolic Christian realm, only those baptised
could be interred in the cemetery. However, in Alba Iulia’s case the eclectic
character of the burial practices reveals a much more complex ethno-cultural
207 Beskow 2003, 560. A larger discussion on the topic in Fuglesang 1997, 35–58; Müller-Wille
1997, 405–422 and more recently in Pranke – Žečević 2020, 71–113.
208 Nyborg 2016, 27–42.
209 Owen – Driscoll 2011, 333–346.
210 It was reserved to the bishop to consecrate new church buildings, an act known as con-
secratio, dedicatio or benedictio ecclesiae et altaris, see Decretum Gratiani (reflecting
however a mid-12th century reality, nevertheless based on a previous tradition): ‘De
Consecratione’: Omnes basilicae cum missa debent semper consecrari. Et ecclesiae destruc-
tae, ubi autem plures sunt, quam necesse sit, aut maioris magnitudinis, quam ut ex rebus ad
eas pertinentibus restaurari possint, episcopi prouidentia modus inueniatur, qualiter con-
sistere possint. (Pars III, Dist. I, c. III, see Friedberg 1959, 1294–1295).
211 The Byzantine rite involved the presence of a bishop and comprised the consecration of
the altar, followed by the consecration of the church building and the deposition of relics,
see Auzépy 2001, 13–24; Permjakovs 2012.
212 Treffort 2001, 285–299; Getcha 2005, 75–91.
composition that can be further compared with similar findings in Banat,213

Dobrudja,214 and even in the northern case of Scandinavia,215 or Anglo-Saxon
England and Ireland216 where Christianity had to adapt to pre-existing regional
practices in a dynamic and continuous process lasting for over six centuries,
well after the Norman Conquest. As the interred physical remains reflect the
spiritual beliefs of those who conducted the burial, the mixed funeral practices
indicate a transitional generation with varying degrees of Christian behaviour,
coexisting with tolerated ‘pagan’ manifestations. A subordinate position of
the non-Christian ritual in Alba Iulia may be inferred specifically due to the
existence of the church, which could not have functioned without the express
support of the local elite and a significant number of the members of the
community.
A new churchly foundation is delineated by the above-mentioned coordi-
nates: a local elite with political and economic interests on a regional level, a
community largely converted, a theoretical projection of its territorial juris-
diction, and a consecration doctrine. The theoretical picture also entails the
physical presence of a nominated bishop. The (still debated) archaeologi-
cal temporal delimitations suggest the concentration of these factors in the
second half of the 10th century, coinciding with the narrative mentioning of
an institutionalised organization of a Byzantine bishopric in the territories
under Hungarian rule. The c.50 years’ time span, until another written source
attests to the presence of king Stephen I’s authority in Transylvania and the
incorporation of the conquered territory in the (at that time) recently estab-
lished Hungarian kingdom, attests to a gradual infiltration of Hungarian
pagan population, identified archaeologically according to the typical burial
rite.217 This time gap leaves open for interpretation the precise nature of the
presumed Transylvanian ecclesiastical institution: either integrated into an
existing ‘Hungarian diocese’ as part of the Byzantine ecclesiastical hierarchy,
or a separate entity in a newly ‘discovered’ territory. Regardless of such scru-
pulous dogmatic details, the operation of a cultic space and the tending to the
needs of the Christian communities scattered in nearby settlements required
leadership and ordained personnel. One cannot help wondering whether the
Transylvanian case might fit the ‘minster model’ advocated by British histori-
ography as a specific type of organization of the early Anglo-Saxon Christian
213 Oța 2014.

214 Damian – Vasile – Samson 2017, 89–128.
215 Abrams 1998, 109–128.
216 Crawford 1998; Dickinson – Griffiths 1999.
217 See Daniela Marcu Istrate’s chapter together with Horia Ciugudean, Aurel Dragotă and
Monica-Elena Popescu’s study in the present volume.
church,218 paralleled (in part) in Scandinavia and Iceland.219 Such minsters

were based in a position supported by the lay administration of the land and
provided spiritual services for dependent, rural, communities, in addition
to actively converting the non-Christian population. The dual nature of the
minsters’ task had a quasi-missionary dimension, which could not be carried
on without the hospitality and assistance of the local secular authorities: the
minsters were usually to be found in nodal points of communication, along
the cargo transportation routes, providing their lay protectors with spiritual
assistance and literate services. Furthermore, the ‘minster hypothesis’ presup-
poses an emergent network of subordinated communities (possible, the roots
of future parishes)220 and even an itinerant quasi-ascetic, missionary type, of
clergy.221 Such a model would signify the presence of at least one ordained
priest in charge of pastoral responsibilities and several other itinerant mem-
bers of the clergy, possibly monks.222
The incorporation of Transylvania within the expanded borders of the
Hungarian kingdom in the first decade of the 11th century produced the con-
comitant creation of its Latin bishopric, an event that accompanied all similar
developments in the new Christian extensions of northern and eastern Europe.
It would be entirely reasonable to assume that such an installation associated
itself to a regional centre with lay and ecclesiastical administrative tradition,
such as Alba Iulia, and projected its theoretical jurisdiction over the uncharted
and vaguely defined ‘land beyond the woods’ that was symbolically incorpo-
rated in the name of the bishopric as a choronym. Moreover, there would be no
argumentation for a possible conflict with a Byzantine structure, since there
was no rivalry between the two rites at the turn of the millennium and simi-
lar instances attest to a peaceful relocation of the Greek-rite clergy, illustrated
by the Cenad case in 1030 and echoed by analogous examples of overlapping
jurisdictions in Sicily, southern Italy, and Cyprus.223
The archaeological evidence pointing to the destruction of the first church
in Alba Iulia around the mid-11th century, correlated with the opening of a
construction site for a new church in the last quarter of the same century,
218 A model of church administrative development put forth in 1988 by John Blair. The main
methodological criticism against this hypothesis argued that it is not based on direct doc-
umentary evidence of its beginnings, which were deduced mostly from archaeological
and topographical evidence.
219 Antonsson 2005, 175–186.
220 Blair 1988, 1–19.
221 Thacker 1992, 138–170.
222 See also the conjecture advanced by Eva Révész in the present volume.
223 Peters‐Custot 2013, 203–220.
suggests a discontinuance in Christian oversight, an event coinciding with

the violent pagan revival that followed the death of king Stephen I and the
conflictual presence of the Pechenegs in the region. Parallel contexts suggest
a possible exile of the bishops224 and a desacralization225 of the church (in
direct relation to violent acts) for about two generations during the Hungarian
anti-Christian revolts: the building could have been left derelict, despoiled, or
even dismantled in a violent and radical manner, as a way of erasing the mem-
ory of the Christian cult. Once more, contemporary Scandinavian instances226
or the examples of the 12th–14th century Latin principalities in Greece,227 offer
evidence to various ways to desacralize sanctuaries in order to accommodate
the new Latin clergy. It was probably after the Battle of Chiraleș (1068) and
the repulsion of the Pechenegs from Transylvania that the Latin bishopric
was reinstated by king Ladislaus I (1077–1095) in the re-occupied territory,
this time with a clear option for the episcopal city at Alba Iulia and with the
impetus of erecting a new church, all these programmed actions as part of an
enhanced organizational phase in Transylvania. With the former cultic build-
ing having been desacralized/destroyed and quasi-forgotten in the meantime,
the location of the cathedral was associated with the ecclesiastical connota-
tions of the rotunda, which was enclosed in the new substructures as a link to
a former sacred space. The patron saint of the recent church, the Archangel
Michael, may also have been absorbed from the anterior context as an element
of continuity. Further evolution of the ground that covered the church, used by
the community as a burial ground but also for domestic and industrial activ-
ity, strongly indicates the obliteration of its previous sacred significance. With
224 Dennis 2017, 65 points out the case of the diocese of Coutances, whose bishops were
forced into exile for over a century (913–1023) in Rouen by the raids of the Northmen
(pagan Scandinavians who settled in French Normandy over the 9th century). The absen-
teeism of the Christian leading figures led to a growth of pagan practices among the pop-
ulace, followed by a process of episcopal restoration after 1066. However, during the 10th
century the episcopal institution has continued to exist, albeit its titular bishops contin-
ued their activity outside the diocese.
225 Caseau 2001, 61–123 offers an overview of the desacralization practices over late Antiquity
within the confines of the Latin and Byzantine worlds.
226 Various strategies of adaptive reuse were employed for the conversion of a sacred space,
from eradication of previous signs of occupation and re-consecration to desertion,
destruction, and ruin of sacred places, see Musset 1967, 300.
227 Schabel 2010, 165–207; Coureas 2014, 145–184; Mersch 2014, 498–524. An interesting
instance regards the intentional abandonment of a sacred place, as can be seen in the
case of Old Sarum, England, where a cathedral was erected shortly after the establish-
ment of the episcopal town in 1075, and later abandoned (in the 1220s) when the episco-
pal see moved again to Salisbury, see Frost 2009, 1–54.
the channel for the new cathedral’s patron saint still under discussion,228 the
use of the name of the province in designating the diocese further suggests an
obscure debut and a later (re)establishment of the episcopal see in Alba Iulia.
Another issue under consideration concerns the elements of continuity
(such as the formation of the episcopal estates, the development of archi-
tectonic sites or ‘bureaucratic’ aspects) in the organization of the Hungarian
ecclesiastical structures, and, implicitly, of the Transylvanian diocese. Cultural
landmarks can, in this case, be brought into the larger discussion of the theme.
The Western bishops’ liturgical handbooks or ‘pontificals’, so typologically-,
ideologically-, and functionally-varied during the late 10th–early 11th century,
reflecting in their liturgical contents the cultural and political influences of
specific dioceses or regions,229 reached the Hungarian institutional organ-
ization in the last quarter of the 11th century: the Nitra Evangelistary, the
Esztergom Benedictional, and the Agenda Pontificalis, a pontifical written for
Bishop Hartvic of Győr.230 On the other hand, the Byzantine cultural influence
left some traces in the 11th century, such as in the catalogue of books of the
Benedictine abbey of Pannonhalma, where a ‘Psalterium Graecum’ had been
listed along with a ‘Psalterium Gallicanum’ and a ‘Psalterium ebraycum’.231 The
code of laws initiated by Stephen I in the first moments of Hungary’s state-
hood clearly articulates that the diocesan bishop is responsible for providing
books for the parish clergy.232 Regrettably, pieces of evidence regarding the
episcopal/ cathedral libraries of medieval Hungary for the early period have
only been preserved about Esztergom, Zagreb and Veszprém,233 later accom-
panied by Oradea.234 For the Arpadian Age, and in fact, until late in the early
days of the Renaissance and until the appearance of the printing press, any
historian is forced to operate with the rather vague concept of ‘episcopal or
cathedral library’, an imperfect solution, as it is not possible to distinguish
between the different book collections in the environment of a medieval
cathedral: the personal ones pertaining to the bishop or to the canons, the
holding of the cathedral school or of the place of authentication, etc. There is
228 Klaniczay 2010, 296 stresses the ambiguous origin between Byzantine and Western
European and the need to further investigate the cult of saints George, Demetrios,
Nicholas and Michael in Hungarian, Bohemian and Polish medieval spaces.
229 Palazzo 1993; Exarchos 2015, 317–335.
230 Török 2001, 155–159. See also Veszprémy 1998, 261–267; Madas 2002, 173–190; Földváry
2010, 671–683. In this respect, for a more general use, see also Usuarium, a digital library
available at https://usuarium.elte.hu/ (accessed 2021 March 30).
231 Csapodi – Csapodiné Gárdonyi 1994, 14.
232 Nemerkényi 2004, 7.
233 Nemerkényi 2004, 8 sqq.
234 Jakó 1977, 13–71.
limited information about the books that existed in one way or another in the
ambiance of the episcopal church in Alba Iulia, some metallic pieces – corner
or centre pieces, catch-plates and long-straps or hook-clasps used for enclos-
ing the body of the book – having been recovered during the archaeological
excavations.235 One of the first references of this kind is made in the context of
the description of the attack undertaken by Gaan/Gyan (John), son of Alardus
on the Transylvanian episcopal cathedral (1277), when the destruction by fire
of several valuable items is mentioned, including books.236 The presence of
manuscript volumes, and of a subsequent literate mentality in the province
can be understood as part of a Europeanization process with long-term effects:
Christianity gradually disseminated education, literacy replaced oral tradition,
the entire process culminating with the formation of a clerical body able to ful-
fil pastoral duties, juridical tasks and bureaucratic affairs.237 A parallel with the
similar evolution of the Norwegian medieval state can be formulated here,238
with emphasis on the impact of Christianity on the social order: the rejection
of paganism followed by the introduction of a new set of moral values pres-
sured individuals into new behavioural patterns, imposed (by force in a first
stage) and controlled by the church. The introduction of an extremely com-
plex ecclesiastical bureaucracy had a powerful effect on everyday governing,
with a visible influence on the written practices of the royal administration.239
Again, these normative conduct prescriptions had a societal impact visible in
the long term, from markers concerning personal names240 to duality of lan-
guage for written or oral use (Latin vs. vernacular).
The described genesis sequence of the Transylvanian bishopric and its epis-
copal see, a hypothetical contextualization based on archaeological chronol-
ogy, narrative texts, and comparative evolutions dictated by both ideology and
pragmatism, is by no means a definitive historical dictate, but a possible inter-
pretation of sources available at the present time. The suggested evolution has
to be understood as a fluid and dynamic process, unfolded over a long period of
time, centred on instituting and further re-establishing episcopal authority in
the diocese. The new dimension of this comparative survey takes into account
previous research, while depicting a broader context that puts together the
particular Transylvanian instance and the Latin episcopal evolution over the
235 Marcu Istrate 2009b, figs. 123–128.

236 Dincă 2017, 233.
237 Dincă 2021.
238 See Bagge 2010.
239 Nedkvitne 2004, 15–35, chapter Literacy before 1200: Religious Conformity and a New Elite
Identity.
240 Haubrichs 2004, 85–106; Turcuș et al. 2011; Dincă 2012.
‘Age of Iron’. Whereas the creation and installation of the local bishopric has so
far been examined in connection with the contemporary Hungarian counter-
parts, the present enquiry brings into focus similar developments within the
peripheries of Latinitas, suggesting parallel metamorphic patterns. Some ques-
tionable conjectures require further critical scrutiny. Nevertheless, whatever
the conclusion, one cannot deny the importance of recent archaeological dis-
coveries (context-less or with ambiguous frame of reference) that seem to rep-
resent the only vocal witness over the course of the century in question. Above
all, the integration of Transylvania into Latin Europe articulates the autoch-
thonous variant of progressive stages, from avatar to full embodiment of the
episcopal institution, in a peripheral expression of medieval Christendom far
from passive, but dynamic, versatile, and adaptive.
Acknowledgment
The co-authors’ contributions to this research paper have been divided accord-
ing to their areas of interest: Adinel C. Dincă has drafted the entire paper, tak-
ing responsibility for the discursive and hermeneutical sections, while Mihai
Kovács’ input covered the basic documentation concerning the Hungarian his-
toriographical perspectives.
Part 3
Future Debates
⸪
Chapter 14
The 10th- to 11th-Century Pillared-Church in Alba

Iulia: Reconstruction Proposals
Nicolae Călin Chifăr and Marius Mihail Păsculescu
14.1 Introduction
Following the archaeological research of 2011, led by Dr. Daniela Marcu Istrate,
the ruins of a 10th-century Byzantine-style church have been discovered.
The entire research was organized in the context of the study “The 10th–11th
Centuries Byzantine Style Church in Alba Iulia. Preliminary Considerations,”
published in Apulum LI, series Historia & Patrimonium, Alba Iulia, 2014.1
The study offered an attempt at the architectural reconstruction of the dis-
covered Byzantine church. Nevertheless, considering that the research has
brought to light only the foundation of the edifice, the possibility to recover
the superstructure with high accuracy remains, for now, something hard to
achieve.
However, we have to mention our starting points for all the proposals, which
belong to a proper research methodology. In that sense, the restitutions may be
justified, according to the methodological issues, as follows:
– Archaeologically, the discoveries made by the research give us information
about some architectural features. Also, the dimensions and configura-
tion of the foundations make an overview on the statical behavior of the
superstructure.
– Historically, the discovered church ruins were dated as belonging to the
10th–11th centuries. So, the church falls under certain historical conditions,
which give us a primary hypothesis about the cultural and ecclesiastical
affiliation.
– Geographically, the church could be associated with other similar
churches, built in the near territories, Hungary and the Romanian region
of Transylvania. Because of the lack of information regarding the 10th–11th
centuries built-churches, the study focused on the closest following period,
the 11th and 13th centuries.
© Nicolae Călin Chifăr & Marius Mihail Păsculescu, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_016

358 Chifăr and Păsculescu
– Architecturally, the plan configuration places the church in the Eastern

Byzantine typology, the well-known cross-in-square type developed by the
end of 9th century. Although, it is worth mentioning that the ruins plan
does not respect the proper disposal of a cross-in-square church, therefore
we must admit that we are facing a provincial adaptation. In conclusion, we
have to point out that during the overall process of restitution, we first used
the reduction method, eliminating all the proposals unable to respond to
the statical and interior volumetrical coherence
14.1.1 Archaeological Context

The research points out that the church was built during the middle of the 10th
century based on some considerations:
– The post-quem term of the 9th–10th centuries is fixed by the direct superpo-
sition of some medieval settlements dated in this interval.
– The early medieval settlement was developed in the south-western corner
of the castrum. The necropolis of this settlement from the outside of the
castrum highlights a funeral function with rituals and specific artefacts
that point to a date in the 9th–10th centuries. As Dr. Daniela Marcu Istrate
affirms, the research indicates the closing of this stage of the cemetery in
the middle of the 10th century.
– The settlement was moved around the middle of the 10th century, with the
levelled ground being the basis for the new church.
– During the 10th century, objects of Byzantine origin have been used by those
interred in the necropolis from the outside of the fortification.2
14.1.2 Historical Context

The archaeological research confirms that this site belonged to a provincial
Byzantine settlement with a complex ethnical characteristic.3
The chronological framing of the church around the middle of the 10th
century is connected to two famous personalities. Two tribal chiefs of the
Hungarians, of which the second, Gylas, archon ton Tourkon, came back from
Constantinople accompanied by monk Hierotheos, later named bishop of
Tourkia.4
Regarding the Hungarians, the conversion of Gylas further led to the spread
of Christianity to all social groups, argued by the presence between the Mureș
and Criș rivers of the larger churches belonging to the rich and of the modest

4 Madgearu 2010, 70–71.
Pillared-Church in Alba Iulia: Reconstruction Proposals 359
ones belonging to the poor. The mission of bishop Hierotheos led to the inflow
of Byzantine cultural and economic influences in the region.5
In the context of the Byzantine church discovered, there rises again the
problem of locating bishop Hierotheos in Alba Iulia, and of course the ques-
tion whether that church served as an episcopal cathedral or only as a church
for the Christian community. The answers to this question, however, belong to
historians and archaeologists.
Understanding the Christianization of the southern Transylvanian popula-
tion could be compared with the Christianization of the Russians around the
year 980. Prince Vladimir (r. 980–1015) got baptized and then got married to
the Byzantine Princess Anna, on condition of converting his own people to
Christianity.6 Under these circumstances, Prince Vladimir tried thenceforth
to constitute an imperial court similar to the one in Constantinople, building
St. Sophia Cathedral in the Kievan capital, bearing the same name as the
majestic and well-known Constantinopolitan cathedral.7 This must have been
the result of the strong impression made by the Byzantine pomp and liturgical
service upon the Russian rulers.
The edification of the pillared church in Alba Iulia could be understood
in the same manner (Fig. 14.1). A Hungarian leader receives Christening in
Constantinople and is overwhelmed by the spiritual and material content, and
therefore desires to recreate a part of what he has experienced in the Byzantine
capital.
Figure 14.1 The pillared church in Alba Iulia (10th–11th centuries) and the first cathedral in Alba Iulia
(11th century) having the same scale and actual distance from one another. It’s possible
that the churches could have existed simultaneously for a short time
reconstruction by Nicolae Călin Chifăr and Marius Mihail Păsculescu
based on Marcu Istrate 2014 and Vătășianu 1959
5 Madgearu 2010, 80.

6 Vasiliev 2010, 328.
7 Mango 1978, 181.
14.2 The Cross-in-Square Church in the Middle Byzantine Period
The cross-in-square church, developed by the end of the 9th century, according
to Otto Demus,8 was the model that resulted from the functional and spiritual
requests of the Christian communities of the post-iconoclastic period. Having
dimensions greatly reduced compared to the churches from the previous peri-
ods, the cross-in-square church underwent little morphological changes dur-
ing its existence.
It was built in the tripartite manner specific to Christian churches, with a
western narthex, an aisle, and a three-room sanctuary oriented toward the
east. Two distinct rooms framed the sanctuary, the prothesis to the north and
the diakonikon to the south.
References to the description of the morphology of the cross-in-square
Byzantine church generally lead to its planimetrical analysis. This proves to
be incomplete for understanding this typology. The Byzantine church was
three-dimensional in its character.9 The cross-in-square can be best appreciated
Figure 14.2 A standard cross-in-square church plan using the

quadrature for proportioning the width and length
drawing by Nicolae Călin Chifăr and Marius
Mihail Păsculescu
8 Quoted from Ousterhout 2008, 12.

9 Ousterhout 2008.
Figure 14.3 A simplified scheme of the naos, represented as a grill of 9 modules with the
position of the interior columns
drawing by Nicolae Călin Chifăr and Marius Mihail Păsculescu
in the volumetric analysis and therefore reading it only planimetrically can

lead to mental visualization errors, as the examples in the following sections
demonstrate.
First, the cross-in-square church was hierarchically organized, like all
Byzantine centralized churches. The highest point, the central dome, the
heavenly place that shelters the image of Christ Pantokrator, rises through the
drum and the pendentives, on the second level of height, and the four cruci-
form cylinders. Now the cross can be seen in exercise with all of its four arms.
The chambers between the arms of the cross, situated at the lowest height,
form the last level of the nave. In order to support the above statement, the
cross-in-square church typology refers to its volumetric conformation more
than to its planimetrical one, namely inscribing the cross resulted from inter-
secting the four semi-cylinders in the aisle cube.
Historians like Buchwald have attempted to find methods for proportioning
by applying the quadrature to a series of churches.10
Horst Hallesleben suggested that the chambers between the arms of the
cross are proportionate to the diameter of the central dome. Robert Ousterhout
10 Ousterhout 2008, 76.

Figure 14.4 Extension of the previous figure by a width of 1 module, including the
sanctuary on the east and the narthex on the west
takes as a case study the church from Sardis, and states that the length and
width of the naos are double in size compared to the central area defined by
the four columns.,11
Conclusively, by simplifying the methodology, the naos can be decon-
structed by 4 horizontal axes and 4 vertical ones equally spaced into 9 mod-
ules. At the intersection of the first axis with the third one, both horizontally
and vertically, the 4 central columns are fitted in.
Thus, there results a distance of 2 modules between the columns and 1 mod-
ule between the columns and the walls. One module further to the east and
west defines the dimension of the sanctuary and the narthex. This would be the
standard simplified proportions of the cross-in-square church. Nevertheless, it
must be stated that the Byzantine church cannot be standardized, and extant
examples prove that a variety of this typology was applied to the technical and
economic possibilities of each distinct historical period and region.
11 Ousterhout 2008, 79.

14.3 Similar Studies
A number of studies of volumetric reconstructions of churches belonging to

the early Arpadian period, which display a planimetry somehow close to our
edifice, have been taken into consideration as preliminary documentation for
the architectural proposals in connection with the discovery of the church in
Alba Iulia.
Reviewing these studies12 meant both observing and understanding some-
what similar endeavors, and noticing the multiple solutions for such a plan.
The presentation of the examples in this article is not done for the purpose of
pointing out stylistic or structural analogies, but for highlighting some meth-
odologies and arguments that led to those conclusions.
The first of these studies is the reconstructions of the 11th-century
Benedictine church in Feldebrő, Hungary. The current construction is a
Baroque church from the 18th century whose masonry also preserves elements
from the first structure.13 During the 1970s, there appeared two similar volu-
metric proposals with a spatial structure of a cross-in-square plan and a dome
at the intersection of the cylinders. These proposals were rebutted at the end of
the 1990s. It was then indicated that the former arches, present in the Baroque
masonry building, reflect a basilican structure.14
As recent as the year 2010, we find the revised and reconsidered three-
dimensional proposal that was argued not just through the planimetry, but
also by its superstructure and decorations,15 thus presenting a basilican model
with a tower in the middle bay and half-round apses on all four sides. Analogies
have been identified on the Italic peninsula.
The second example of a three-dimensional reconstruction concerns the
traces of the church in Kaposszentjakab.16 In this case, the building is a monas-
tic church dating from the 11th century, whose planimetry with a slightly rec-
tangular shape and rows of columns points to a basilican spatial structure.
Following new research carried out after the year 2000,17 the building phases
have been cleared up and the church proves to be a remarkable transition case
between a basilican structure and a cross-domed edifice.18
12 These studies on the planimetric and spatial configuration of the cross-in-square concept
are gathered and commented in the article Takács 2013, 75–135.
13 Szakács 2015, 193–204.
14 Takács 2013, 110.
15 Buzás 2010, 554–603.
16 Buzás 2018.
17 Molnár 2015, 177–194.
18 Takács 2013, 109.
The volumetric reconstruction has been supported by the fact that some
pilaster-striped walls are partially preserved. Column fragments with deco-
rated bases and capitals have also been discovered. These, together with the
clarification of the planimetry, opened analogies with churches from Croatia
or Dalmatia, and implicitly a more precise reconstruction.19
The third case for observing the reconstitution process is the 11th-century
Benedictine church from Szekszárd. This building had been destroyed during
the Great Tartar Invasion, then rebuilt and repeatedly modified until the end
of the 18th century when it was completely demolished.20 The image of the
church from the 11th century has been reconstructed based on the planime-
try drawn according to the archaeological excavations, some fragments of col-
umns and decorations, as well as a drawing with a longitudinal section, made
before the demolition, which presented a basilican structure with a tower on
the western facade. It seems that the tower appears right from the beginning
of the edifice. The presence of this feature is supported also by the fact that the
foundations of the 11th-century church are wider on this side.21 Moreover, the
oversized foundations of the columns and the smaller in-between distance led
to the idea that the church was vaulted. This pseudo-basilical morphology was
used during the same period in the Benedictine church from Feldebrő.22
From the point of view of the reconstruction process, the common feature
of the above-mentioned cases is the fact that all three churches were initially
imagined with a wrong architecture, fundamentally and hypothetically pro-
posed only based on the excavation sketches. Only recent studies generated
well-defined models based on elevations, masonries and foundations, as well
as fragments of columns or arches.
The last study to be mentioned is the reconstruction of the Monostorpályi
church. The partial fragments discovered here allow completion of the layout,
which consists of three apses on the eastern end and two towers to the west.
Starting from this evidence, and in the absence of additional data, two dis-
tinct models can be proposed on the same layout: a basilican structure and a
centralized one of Byzantine influence, with the centre of the naos capped by
a dome. The status of the fragments allows planimetric analogies both with
Eastern churches as well as with local Romanesque examples.23
19 Buzás 2018.
20 Buzás 2013, 4–7.
21 Buzás 2013.
22 Buzás 2010, 559–562.
23 Rácz 1982, 69–77.
The conclusion that emerges and that reflects throughout this undertaking is
that a volumetrical reconstruction is more accurate, the more data is available
on the subject. The above-mentioned studies were presented in a descending
order based on existing material, that is from the presence of arches, columns
and original masonries (Feldebrő), to partial elevations (Kaposszentjakab),
foundations (Szekszárd), and partial foundations (Monostorpályi). The exca-
vations at Alba Iulia place the usable data for reconstruction of the church
close to the Monostorpályi church, that is partial foundations, a column base
and a carved fragment, both understudied up to the present day.
14.4 The Reconstruction
The material used for rebuilding the church in Alba Iulia with pillars has been
extracted from the article published by the author of the archaeological exca-
vations,24 in which, as the title indicates, the data processing remains partial
for the time being. Nevertheless, using the historical and geographical context,
together with the architectural features of a central plan typology, it is possible
to offer some proposals, that are undoubtedly plausible.
14.4.1 Excavation Data from the Church in Alba Iulia

Establishing the working data was started by extracting the approximate gen-
eral dimensions, that is a length of 21.20 meters and a width of 12.20 meters,
followed by the interior of the nave with a length of 14 meters and a width
of 9.50 meters, and by the inner diameter of the apse of 6.50 meters. With
a 4.50 meters-side, the square of the four pillars is placed in the middle bay,
their section being still quadrat and a 1–1.20 meters side. Regarding the founda-
tions, a width varying between 1.10 meters and 1.70 meters has been noted. The
upper part of the foundation has a variation of approximately 0.90 m in the
south-western corner, and in the apse, from −2.00 m to −2.90 m, locally iden-
tified by the presence of some regular stone blocks that already correspond to
the elevation. The inner floor level was established at −1.50 m.25
Our planimetric proposals are based on the plan of the ruins (Fig. 14.5,
Fig. 14.6) and are not absolute. According to the reconstruction, some exca-
vation segments are not taken into consideration. Specifically, because of the
incomplete ruins, we also try a reverse approach, adapting the plan to a certain
24 Marcu Istrate 2014, 93–121, with additions in Marcu Istrate 2015.

25 The levels are related to a ground floor +0.00, established at the western threshold of the
Roman Catholic cathedral, in Marcu Istrate 2014, 98.
Figure 14.5 The church at the end of the excavations – archaeological plan
Drawing by Daniela Marcu Istrate
spatial solution. So far, two hypothetical versions of this plan drawing have
been identified: the first outlining the church and the four pillars in the nave,26
and the second one, where the span of the triumphal arch is reduced, resulting
in two masonry fragments.27
The third version of the plan drawing could include also the visible struc-
ture in the north-eastern corner of the aisle,28 supposedly a re-use of a Roman
wall,29 and also the presence of some carved stone blocks right above the river
26 In the two articles of Dr. Marcu Istrate.

27 In Buzás – Kovács. The plan of the pillared church from Alba Iulia appears in this article
only in the context of the Diocese of Alba Iulia founded by Stephen I and proposes a
hypothesis according to which until the construction of the first basilica, the services
would have taken place here; in Buzás – Tóth 2015. In this article, the plan of the pillared
church from Alba Iulia appears on the same scale as the Cella Septichora in Pécs and with
the first cathedral in Kalocsa, but without any specifications on its planimetry.
29 Fig. 11 from Marcu Istrate 2014.
Figure 14.6 Archaeological site. Aerial perspective. Carved stones are visible on the
apse, the north-eastern inner structure and the south-western corner. In the
middle – the pillars
Photograph by Daniela Marcu Istrate
rock foundation. In this case, if we consider a symmetrical reconstruction of

the nave on one or both directions, then the result leads to even more possibil-
ities in the volumetric interpretation.
In addition to the information obtained from the substructures, the regu-
lar stones in the building elevations, and the inner ground level, there can be
noticed two pieces of stonework, namely a column base with a diameter of
approximately 50 cm and a carved fragment with vegetal motifs. These two
fragments have not yet been identified as original to this church, therefore
making use of them in the reconstruction is questionable.
14.4.2 Proposals
Before presenting the reconstructions, some later local examples identified
with similar planimetries and whose models are at least unexpected must be
mentioned.
One example is St. Nicholas Church in Densuș (Fig. 14.7). The church has
a square plan, with four pillars in the nave and a large semicircular apse that
surpasses the pillars square. The interior space was created using quarter
Figure 14.7 St. Nicholas church in Densus. 13th century. Unusual volume with central
tower and quarter-cylinder vaulting
reconstruction by Nicolae Călin Chifăr and Marius Mihail
Păsculescu based on Vătășianu 1959
Figure 14.8 St. Nicholas church in Rădăuți. 14th century. Unusual volume with
longitudinal and perpendicular barrel vaulting and without a dome
Păsculescu based on Drăguț 1976
cylindrical vaults placed along the perimeter of the wall, intersecting each
other in the corners. The vaults support the thrust of a high tower, which rises
on the four pillars in the nave. Although the widely accepted dating of this
edifice is in the 13th century,30 the old formation of the building reveals an
unconventional solution for its designs.
For underlining the unusual cross-in-square church plan and volume var-
iations, the 14th-century church St. Nicholas in Rădăuți should also be men-
tioned (Fig. 14.8). The four pillars in the naos and the larger sanctuary apse
(compared to the central bay) are also evident in this edifice. The structural
solution thus reduces the triumphal arch at the threshold. The middle bay
is longitudinally vaulted, while the lateral bays are covered with transversal
vaults, at a lower height, resulting in a variant of a basilica. In contrast to the
interior layout, the exterior does not reflect at all the inner structure, and the
single roof further adds to this effect.
Although these churches are dated later and come from a different context,
these unique and unspecific formulas draw attention to the fact that the plani-
metry of a building does not follow the immediate conventional volumetric
solutions.
30 Rusu 2008, 121–183.

Figure 14.9 From top to bottom: The pillared church in Alba

Iulia, basilica church in Szabolcs and royal court
church in Zirc. Same scale and outline
reconstruction by Nicolae Călin Chifăr
and Marius Mihail Păsculescu based on
Marcu Istrate 2014 and Kézikönyvtár.
Száz Magyar Falu. Szabolcs
14.4.2.1 The Cross-in-Square Version with a Narthex

A first hypothesis, also suggested by Dr. Daniela Marcu Istrate in the excava-
tions’ publications,31 is made possible by tracing a square naos that transforms
the interior space from a longitudinal one into a centralized one.
In this case, the intervention upon the planimetric reconstruction is major.
The position of the four pillars and the carved stone elevation trace
(south-eastern corner of the nave) generates five bays, almost equal in dimen-
sion within the nave, and a ratio of 5/3 between their length and width.32 The
west end becomes the narthex, then there follows the naos with three equal
bays on each side, then the two chambers with their liturgical function, namely
the prothesis and the diakonikon. As often found, and also deployed for
Figure 14.10 Church of St. Andrew at Baćina. Early Christian

church with pre-Romanesque vaulting structure
reconstruction by Nicolae Călin Chifăr
and Marius Mihail Păsculescu based on
Marasovič 2005

32 There have been two churches with outline planimetries and dimensions identical to the
example from Alba Iulia (Fig. 14.9). These are the current reformed church in Szabolcs
and the church of the Royal Court in Zirc, both dating from the 11th century. The first, a
basilical structure with the central nave in a ratio of 2/1 to the side aisles, that most likely
had a visible roof framing and no vaults. The second suggests a single nave church, prob-
ably also with a flat ceiling.
Figure 14.11 St. Peter at Omiš . 11th century

drawing by Nicolae Călin Chifăr and Marius Mihail
Păsculescu
structural reasons, if the diameter of the sanctuary aligns with the pillars’ dis-
position in the nave, then the large span of the sanctuary apse, in connection
with the position of the pillars, generates an atypical solution, although not
without precedents. The solution reduces the span of the triumphal arch and
access from the narthex, in order to join the pillars with the rest of the struc-
ture. Hence there result some narrower interior openings and easier vaulting
systems. Similar adaptations of the ample apse to the nave with diminished
disclosures can be found in churches dating from the same period along the
Dalmatian coast.33
Regarding the model of the church, an “ideal” version for such a cruci-
form layout has been illustrated. Smaller disclosures have been interpreted as
vaulted, while the middle bays as situated at a higher level and visible from the
outside of the church. The overview image of the edifice is not created on the
basis of some actual arguments, but rather by loose analogies. For example, it
is known that approximately in the same period (11th century) the Roman edi-
fices from the Pécs necropolis34 had been repurposed, which makes it possible
33 It seems that the morphology was born through constructive (pre-Romanesque) adap-
tations brought to paleo-Christian churches. e.g. the church of St. Andrew at Baćina
(Fig. 14.10) in Marasovič 2005. Among the churches built in the 11th century, we name St.
Peter at Omiš, St. John the Baptist in Lopud (Fig. 14.11).
34 Buzás – Tóth 2015.
CHURCH RUINS
WALL FRAGMENTS
(DATED BEFORE THE CHURCH
CONSTRUCTION) AND AN OVEN
FOUNDATION RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL
ROMAN WALL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 14.12 The cross-in-square version without narthex. Overlap of the archaeological
plan. Architectural plan, section and axonometry. Perspectives
CHURCH RUINS
WALL FRAGMENTS
ROMAN WALL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 14.13 The cross-in-square version without narthex. Overlap of the archaeological
plan. Architectural plan, section and axonometry. Perspectives
to propose that the Roman image used for reconstructing the church in Alba
Iulia was still present and could have been used as an example.35 Moreover,
filling the excavation plan with a solution partially identified in the Dalmatian
cultural context also hints at a possible model inspired from the same area.36
14.4.2.2 The Cross-in-Square Version without a Narthex

The proposal keeps the typology of the first reconstruction. This is done so
without speculating upon the cross-in-square layout, but by undertaking the
church plan as it was disclosed by the archaeological findings, excluding the
presence of some superstructures determined by the extension of the founda-
tion in the north-eastern corner.
The presence of the four central pillars implicitly foreshadows the
established Byzantine formula of the Middle Byzantine period, that is the
cross-in-square church. Referring to the description of this typology above,
one can remark that the positioning of the pillars in this case does not cor-
respond to the portrayed model. The central intersected bays that form the
cross are narrower than the adjacent spaces, which is quite unusual for the
traditional cross-in-square church.37
Due to these eccentricities, it is possible to abandon this reconstruction
hypothesis. The structural coherence and the functional one, by setting out the
east-western and north-southern direction specific to the Byzantine context,
nevertheless lead to the cross-in-square model, this time with unequal arms,
due to the rectangular shape of the aisle.
The arms of the cross are cylindrically vaulted with a span of 1.90 meters
between the posts. The spaces between the arms of the cross have cylindrical
vaults disposed north-south, with the vault key under the springer of the cen-
tral vaults.
Similar to the first reconstruction, the northern arm of the sanctuary apse
is structurally considered as a remainder of a partition wall between the apse
and naos, onto which the longitudinal cylindrical vault can rest.
35 A remarkable example is the church of St. Nicholas in Densuș (13th century, dating still
debatable). The 4 (3 remaining) pillars composition on the northern facade is a classic
and purely decorative one, most likely inspired by an ancient model from the former
Roman settlement Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, now extinct.
36 An interesting topic of research would be the attempt to establish a Dalmatian connec-
tion by analysing the fragment of the capital with a vegetal motif discovered during the
excavations in Alba Iulia. See ‘acanthus leaf’ in Takács 1997, 165–178.
37 According to the tripartite proportion of the cross-in-square plan, the distance between
the central pillars is double the distance between the pillars and the outer walls (see point
14.2).
Figure 14.14 Church of St. John the Baptist in Lopud. 11th Century. Middle bay supporting
the tower is slightly narrower.
Păsculescu based on Marasovič 2008
While presenting the discovered ruins, a particular detail has been high-
lighted: some stone blocks come out of the foundation by approximately 0.30–
0.44 meters.38 These blocks could have served as the basis for the enlargements
strengthening the more demanding areas of the building, that is the corners,
the areas where the vaults lighten into the external walls, and the wall of the
sanctuary.
These enlargements culminate in a circle vault of the same diameter as the
adjacent cylindrical internal vaults. This creates a niche that accentuates the
façade in a peculiar way. This type of articulation, connected to the structural
disposal of the building, was a common practice in contemporary Byzantine
architecture.
14.4.2.3 The Pseudo-Basilican Version with a Tower

This hypothesis reduces the importance of the structure from the north-eastern
of the nave. The plan reconstruction is limited to the outline of the church, the
positioning of the pillars, and the narrowing of the distance between the nave
and the sanctuary. The interior longitudinal spaciousness is determined by
the “main nave” covered by a barrel vault outstretching from the western end
towards the sanctuary, and by the lower “secondary aisles” that is also barrel
vaulted and perpendicular to the main nave. An atypical space thus results, the
main interest area being represented by the arches between the pillars, at a 2/1
ratio compared to the other openings.39 The exterior may not reflect the height
difference of the aisles, thus offering an image of a single nave church, with the
ridged roof pierced by the tower. The edifice’s overall appearance has been ren-
dered based on the same analogies mentioned above. This less typical solution
is inspired by the above-mentioned examples, in which we have noticed that a
central-based plan isn’t always followed by a central-based volume. This state-
ment can open up for other proposals for restitutions, including one without a
tower, such as St. Nicholas Church from Rădăuți.

39 We find this anomaly in a more simplified version and on a smaller scale in the case of the
church of St. John the Baptist in Lopud. The arches in the middle bay, namely those that
support the tower, are narrower than the others.
CHURCH RUINS
WALL FRAGMENTS
ROMAN WALL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 14.15 The pseudo-basilical version with a tower. Overlap of the archaeological plan.
Architectural plan, section and axonometry. Perspectives
14.5 Conclusion
This study is an exercise in reconstruction based on a reduced amount of infor-

mation, and therefore it cannot be conclusive. The conclusion section begins
with the presentation of some solutions considered less probable and thus
arguable.
One of these solutions is the hypothesis that the church would have been
without vaults in the nave, probably only with masonry arches for consolidat-
ing the four pillars and connecting them to the perimetral walls. No matter the
structure type, centralized or basilican, the small distances between the pillars
suggest the intention of vaulting, while the presence of a vault in the middle
bay and the use of wooden beams for the lateral ones seems unlikely.
At the same time, no variant has been offered in which the triumphal arch
is larger than the pillars’ square. Normally, the pillars should work together on
either direction, between them as well as relative to the walls, a condition hard
to meet in the absence of the masonry fragments from the sanctuary.
Regarding the church plan derived from a Bulgarian or Constantinopolitan
cultural context,40 up to now, no cross-in-square model with the middle bay
narrower than the diameter of the apse has been identified in this area. This
configuration can be considered a provincial variation or an improvisation of
the solutions usually found in typical cross-in-square structures. As a result,
the elaborate building steps found in Bulgarian or Byzantine grounds, such
as the use of pendentives, the octagonal or circular drum, a different height
level for the narthex, have been avoided.
The proposed reconstructions are neither exhaustive nor definitive, but
they reveal several basic conventional solutions that can generate a large num-
ber of variants.
All the reconstruction versions are based on the cross-in-square church,
using the interior vaulting system, and the proportion of the exterior. This
typology was developed in a Byzantine context during the 10th century, gen-
erating a thorough church model following the liturgical, structural, and aes-
thetic requirements of the Orthodox liturgy. The image of this church marked
all Byzantine circles, both East and West. This was the reason for including all
the proposals into this typology.
40 Means studied in Marcu Istrate 2014 and Marcu Istrate, 2015.

Despite the final reconstruction results, starting from the cross-in-square

church was discouraged by the position of the four pillars, totally atypical for
this typology. The church of St. Nicholas in Densuș, mentioned above, is the
only other example of this type, but with much smaller proportions compared
to the church in Alba Iulia.
Several patterns in the positioning the pillars could be remarked. In the
reconstruction without a narthex, the spans of the large arches are in a ratio
of 2/1 with the smaller arches, and by introducing the narthex and the liturgi-
cal spaces, there are five bays of approximately equal size on the longitudinal
direction and also equal with the three transversal bays.
A tendency to regularize the plan could be remarked, and this foreground
the hypothesis of including the edifice into one of the centralized church
categories.
All three variants, independently of the plan, tried to maintain both the
data from the archaeological research as well as the structural conformation
interrelated with contemporary technological possibilities, while creating
an internal and external atmosphere, specific to Eastern Christian worship.
Regarding the horizontality of the structure, through the low inclination of the
roof, the low height of the drum, and the use of apparent rough stonework, are
strictly personal choices, driven perhaps by the desire to root the church in a
Byzantine cultural context.
The roofing systems in the 11th century Transylvania are situated in the
same historical obscurity as the church ruins themselves. The Ancient Roman
system which uses the imbrex and tegula clay tiles was likely abandoned by
that time, buildings being usually covered with vegetal material such as straws
or shingles.41 However, the archaeological study reports reddish colored soil
associated with the building’s demolition, which implies the use of clay bricks
or tiles in its construction. So far, this is the sole information and scientific
argument towards our roofing reproductions. Commonly known as the Monk
and Nun system, the chosen covering tiles are derived from Roman imbrex and
tegula. These were already widespread by the 13th century in the Byzantine
world, but also in Central Europe,42 meaning that it could have been known
even earlier. At the same time, we cannot rule out the possibility of a stone-tile
roofing like the one in St. Nicholas Church from Densuș. The debate remains
open until the extensive fragment research is being done.
41 Rusu 2002, 21–40.

42 Rusu 2002, 21–40.
Finally, the inclination towards a single more plausible version is difficult

and hard to argue and this study represents the first published attempt43 of
reconstructing the church with pillars from Alba Iulia and a contribution to
further researches.
43 An early reconstruction was proposed and presented by the authors at “Byzantine Art
Days” Symposium, Cluj-Napoca, 2018 and at “Architecture. Restoration. Archaeology”
Symposium, Bucharest, 2019.
Conclusions
Ana Dumitran
Translated by Florin Curta
Because the lines that follow are meant as the conclusion not just to this vol-
ume, but to a decade that has passed since the discovery of the pillared church
in Alba Iulia, let me begin with a confession.
Tensions were already on the rise at the time when, in anticipation of a
whole-scale restoration, the systematic archaeological research of the entire
area of the Habsburg citadel of Alba Iulia reached the area in front of the
Roman-Catholic Cathedral, which was supposed to become a parking lot. Old
ethnic and religious frustrations going back to the mid-18th century resurfaced
largely because of the rushed excavations carried out under the pressure of the
deadlines for the restoration of the citadel, as well as the equally hasty decision
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to recognize as saint a bishop without biogra-
phy, who had been sent to the Magyars in the 10th century.1
For a while, the end of those disputes about what happened in the past
seemed clear – the same inglorious lack of finale for passion-driven exchanges
with no basis in the sources, the number of which is too meagre to prevent
myth-making and useless speculations. Right when simmering tensions were
about to burst (again), a temporary worker monitoring the febrile activity of
the bulldozers (always way too eager to destroy historical monuments) brought
to the attention of the supervising archaeologist an artifact that is ultimately
responsible for all that followed. This was a lockring with S-shaped end dated
to the 11th or 12th century, most likely from a disturbed burial assemblage found
on top of the ruins. I was there on that moment, one of the most important in
my career, even though my position was nothing more than that of a simple
bystander. I always felt responsible for what had been discovered on that and
on all the subsequent days, especially for making the finds known and recog-
nized for what they really are. I therefore insisted upon the first publication of
the finds within the Historia et Patrimonium series of the journal Apulum, of
which I was the editor at that time.2 Moreover, I wrote several times about the
discoveries, for example in 2018, in the introduction to an album dedicated to
1 In anticipation of the 52nd International Eucharistic Congress, which took place in

Budapest in September 2021, the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized as saints in 2000 both
Stephen, the King of Hungary (already a saint in the Catholic Church since 1083) and Bishop
Hierotheos. The memory of both saints is celebrated on August 20.
© Ana Dumitran, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_017

Conclusions 383
churches and monasteries of Transylvania, published in the next years by the

Stavropoleos Monastery in Bucharest. Because of my involvement in this mat-
ter, I came to realize that what the bulldozers had revealed on that day was not
the end of controversy; on the contrary, it was a beginning of an even greater
debate. The interpretation of the building at the time it has been first and par-
tially unearthed was clearly wrong. However, even now, with so much more
information, many chose not to see things as they really were.3 Besides studies
claiming to be critical without a minimum knowledge of factual details, a book
was published as a pre-emptive strike before any conclusion could be drawn
on the basis of the new finds. Its goal was to prevent the publication of that
conclusion and to suggest that the excavator had delayed publication because
of realizing that her interpretation had been wrong all along. One was now to
learn from the book in question what the architecture of 10th- to 11th-century
Transylvania really looked like.4 In other words, the goal was no more to deny
any Romanian presence in Transylvania before the Magyars. At stake now was
to diminish Daniela Marcu Istrate’s merits and to show that she has not dis-
covered anything new beyond what Radu Heitel had already excavated three
decades earlier.
As a consequence, the old interpretation based on a succession of three
Catholic churches remained valid, and so did the theories of those who had
built them on the basis of that interpretation. Strangely enough, even those
who contemplated the possibility of a pillared church pre-dating any Catholic
presence in Transylvania, were eager to deny any merits to the excavator who
had brought that church to everybody’s attention. Instead, one’s own intuition
was invoked to make room for the confirmation of one’s own, earlier work.5
I, for one, learned even more about the implications of the pillared church
when the introduction that I had written for the volume to be published by the
Stavropoleos Monastery was rejected. The explanation for that rejection was
that neither the dating, nor the function of the building recently found in Alba
Iulia had been securely established. Even bolder was the attempt to advocate
the existence of an Orthodox church on the basis of the building’s plan. This
was an opinion, not a verdict, but I took the editor’s decision to exclude my
text as a direct expression Romanian Orthodox Church’s rejection of its own
history, which includes Alba Iulia. To me, that was a bizarre attitude, given that
generations of Romanian historians have toiled over the last two centuries to
3 Exemplary in that respect are Alexandru Madgearu’s many publications cited in the biblio
graphy at the end of this volume.
4 Good illustrations for that attitude are Béla Zsolt Szakács’s studies and Miklós Takács’s book,
which are cited in the bibliography at the end of this book.
5 Theodorescu 2014, 3–9; Răzvan Theodorescu, “Introducere,” in Arta din România 2018,
vol. 1, 93.
384 Dumitran
bring to light that bit of Romanian Orthodox history, with some going as far
as fabricating the evidence, when none was available for the job. Conversely,
Hungarian historians seem oblivious to the implications of the pillared church
in Alba Iulia for Hungarian history, specifically for a presence of the Magyars in
Transylvania much earlier than Romanian historians had until now been ready
to admit. The ultimate result of that attitude is the neglect of a century of com-
mon history, which is apparently not marred by any conflicts, at least not until
the king of Hungary began the conquest of Transylvania.6
I took it personally, indeed, and that was also my attitude during the edito-
rial activity leading to the publication of this book. My goal has been to push
aside both wishful thinking and mythmaking, especially in the context of
discussions among the editors about how to present facts that had so quickly
stirred passions. Nobody doubts anymore that the unearthing of the building
in front of the western end of the Roman-Catholic Cathedral in Alba Iulia has
deep implications for the history of early medieval Transylvania. Assuming for
a moment that the end result of the ensuing debates was a return to old theo-
ries, at the very least, they would have to be verified. One would also have a
much harder time to disentangle the mission of Hierotheos to Tourkia men-
tioned by Skylitzes from the interpretation of the archaeological evidence. Be
that as it may, the size and location of a church like that in Alba Iulia defies the
problems of interpretation of small finds, which have until now almost exclu-
sively preoccupied both archaeologists and historians. To be sure, the discov-
ery of the pillared church in Alba Iulia and its obvious links to the Byzantine
architecture have effectively placed archaeology at the forefront of any future
discussions about what happened in early medieval Transylvania. The few writ-
ten sources will continue to be controversial, but any future scenario will have
6 Zsoldos 2020, 99 believes that the name of the “chieftain of Transylvania” attacked by the
king of Hungary “remains unknown to us, as our sources mention him by his title, Gyula. The
conversion of the Gyula, on the other hand, did bring some tangible results, as he returned
from Constantinople with the monk Hierotheos, who later became Bishop of Turkia (i.e.
Hungary)” (my emphasis). Skylitzes mentions Hierotheos as bishop of Tourkia from the
get-go. Zsoldos dares to differ; he needs Hierotheos in Transylvania, in order to justify mod-
ern Hungarian claims to that province. However, as Hierotheos came from Constantinople,
and not from Rome, Zsoldos makes him bishop of Tourkia only at a later date. What then
was Hierotheos doing in Transylvania before being a bishop? Zsoldos explains: “When the
Hungarian chieftain Gyula returned as a Christian from Byzantium, he took Hierotheos to
Transylvania to start converting his people there” (Zsoldos 2020, 113). Zsoldos thus inadver-
tently advocates the conversion of the Magyars to Eastern, not Western Christianity, half-a-
century earlier, and under Gyula, not Saint King Stephen. Nationalist blinders lead one to the
cul-de-sac of absurd conclusions.
Conclusions 385
to give them a second place after the archaeological evidence. In the absence
of inscriptions, the latter will dominate the debates in the immediate future.
This volume is an attempt to cut through the fog and to map the uncharted
territory ahead of us. Besides inevitable, lingering errors, this volume is also
less than initially planned, first and foremost because not all those who were
invited have responded to the call for papers. Even if their opinions could have
enriched the complexity of the problem, the editor shad to make do with the
contributions of those who had the ability to move beyond nationalist rheto-
ric and personal arguments, even when sticking to their own guns in terms of
interpretation. As a matter of fact, the editors sought exactly that wide variety
of viewpoints regarding a geographical area much larger than Transylvania
properly speaking, and a chronological span much longer than a few decades
on either side of AD 1000. Each author, knowing what the other contributors
had said in their previous works, has made a serious attempt to position him-
self or herself in relation to the new facts brought to light by the archaeologi-
cal discovery of the pillared church. Even its excavator, Daniela Marcu Istrate,
whose chapter opens this volume, did not simply describe the finds and her
interpretation of the archaeological evidence, but strove to shed light on the
local and regional context of the church, in order to offer a basis for a broader,
historical interpretation of the finds, particularly for the date advanced for the
church and for its relation to Byzantium.7 The most important message of that
chapter is an invitation to archaeologists and historians, but also philologists
and theologians to take into consideration the archaeological evidence when
attempting any historical reconstruction of events, and to abandon precon-
ceived notions of how things ought to be in the name of whatever ideology.
It is of course too early to gauge the impact of that invitation. However,
judging from the reactions of the contributors (once they saw the volume in its
entirety) and of the anonymous readers at peer review, there is a slight move
towards harmony, if not in substantial matters, at least in details. That, for the
moment, is sufficient to initiate an open dialogue. In other words, the editors
had no problems initially to bring together in this volume various scenarios
based on the same data. In fact, they encouraged the diversity of interpreta-
tions and the freedom of expression, while being aware of major disagree-
ments between various contributors. It is perhaps notable that some of the
latter wanted to change their conclusions after reading the other contribu-
tions, without any pressure from the editors. The end result is still a plurality of
answers to the question whether the pillared church in Alba Iulia had anything
to do with Bishop Hierotheos.
7 See Chapter 1.
386 Dumitran
One can even imagine that plurality as a calculated effect, given that the
reader is invited to decide for himself or herself whether a bishop could pos-
sibly be sent to an unknown territory, with no traces of urban traditions – the
supposed pre-condition for a successful implementation of ecclesiastical
structures.8 Could the bishopric of Tourkia be based in Alba Iulia, given that
out of 53 enkolpia dated to the 10th and 11th century that are known so far from
the Carpathian Basin, only two have been found in Transylvania, one of them
in Alba Iulia?9 The other specimen, by the way, is from the Dăbâca stronghold,
a site that has also produced sabres, one of the most important symbols of
military and social rank in the early Magyar society.10 Equally significant in
that respect is the northerly location of Terra Ultrasilvana and its later expan-
sion to the south, after the conquest and incorporation of the (Bulgarian)
‘Voivodeship of Bălgrad’ at some point during the third quarter of the
10th century.11 In other words, the reader may find it difficult to accept Alba
Iulia as the see of the bishopric of Tourkia, given that a much more important
center of political and military power existed at that time in Cluj.
From a much broader perspective, it seems much easier now to associate
the reorganization of the ecclesiastical structures in the northern Balkans with
the final conquest in 1018 of the Bulgarian Empire of Samuel. Those structures
were under bishops who were suffragans of the archbishop of Ochrid replacing
the Bulgarian patriarch in that same town. Elevating the bishopric of Tourkia
to the rank of metropolis, which is clearly attested by seals, may have been part
of the same program of ecclesiastical reorganization.12 If so, that substantiates
the idea that the infrastructure of that metropolis was one of monasteries fol-
lowing Byzantine monastic practices (anachronistically known in Hungary as
of the “Basilian rite”). At least six such monasteries have so far been identified,
but none of them is located in Transylvania.13 One is therefore faced with two
options: either the bishopric was located from the very beginning in Hungary,
8 See Chapter 2. Leaving aside the case of Ireland, a land in which Christianity flourished at a
much earlier date than in Transylvania and without any cities whatsoever, one is tempted
to refer at this point to Betti 2013. That book deals with St. Methodius appointed bishop
(later elevated to the rank of archbishop) of Moravia, a land, which, like Transylvania, was
devoid of any cities. Methodius received Sirmium as his see, because his consecration was
supposed to serve as basis for papal claims to western Illyricum. But he never resided in
Sirmium, which was only a ruin in the 9th century.
9 See Chapters 1 and 4.
10 See Chapter 3. Only one sabre is so far known from Alba Iulia, in sharp contrast to ten
specimens known from Cluj.
13 See Chapter 11.
Conclusions 387
or upon its elevation to the status of metropolis, it simply moved from Alba
Iulia to one of those monasteries in Hungary.14 The first option is ultimately
based on the interpretation of the pillared church as the first Catholic cathe-
dral, which had therefore to be dated after 1003, thus effectively eliminating
the possibilities of any ties between a local chieftain and Constantinople. The
second option makes sense only if one sees the pillared church in the context
of the Byzantine architecture and accepts its dating to the 10th century, as sug-
gested by the archaeological context.
At this point, the reader may simply ask himself or herself: who among
the excavators of the pillared church in Alba Iulia was right about its inter-
pretation – Radu Heitel (who believed it to be a Catholic church) or Daniela
Marcu Istrate (who, upon unearthing it completely, revealed a plan very differ-
ent from that assumed by Heitel)? As the plan does not seem to be sufficient
proof in and for itself, artifacts and coin hoards have been brought into the
discussion of architectural styles and efforts of Christianization, even though
in both cases a utilitarian if not even commercial explanation is more readily
available.15
Some are simply not convinced by the archaeological evidence, even though
they are equally baffled by the lack of sources regarding the Latin (Catholic)
bishopric of Transylvania. Like that of Tourkia, the bishopric of Transylvania
is characteristically named after a region or country, not a town or city. This
has stimulated efforts to look for similar situations in Western Europe or at
least for cases in which bishoprics had to be planted into territories with no
Christian traditions. In the end, the only analogy to be found is that sources
are utterly lacking, in that respect Transylvania being no exception presum-
ably to be explained by means of its ecclesiastical status vacillating between
Rome and Constantinople.16 The earliest date accepted for the establishment
of the Latin bishopric is before the Great Schism. The decision to follow the
Roman church was therefore exclusively political, linked to the power of King
Stephen and the political configuration during the reign of the Western Roman
Emperor Otto III.17
None of those considerations can contribute in any way to solving the prob-
lem of the dating and the style of the pillared church in Alba Iulia, even though
they certainly can provide a thicker description of the political context of King
14 See Chapters 1, 3, 8 and 10.

15 See Chapter 8. Alexandru Madgearu points out that commerce is more likely to
have focused on the central region of the Carpathian Basin, now in Hungary, than in
Transylvania or any other territory inside it with ill-defined political boundaries.
16 See Chapter 13.
17 See Chapter 12.
388 Dumitran
Stephen’s decision to implement an ecclesiastical structure directly associ-

ated to Rome. Could the existence of a bishopric under the jurisdiction of the
patriarch of Constantinople have possibly been tolerated at one and the same
time? The written sources cannot answer that question, and so, at least theo-
retically, it is possible that instead of being moved around, the Latin bishopric
of Transylvania was established in Alba Iulia from the very beginning. The pil-
lared church may have been at least part of the reason for that decision. As for
the name of the bishopric, it may have been meant as a calque of the earlier
name or, if one so wishes, as the continuation in a new garb of a tradition that
had meanwhile developed in Alba Iulia.
With so many viewpoints and possibilities, is there any room left for a
conclusion? To be sure, one expects from the future research the abandon-
ment of the wrong directions adopted earlier.18 Perhaps the most detrimen-
tal in that respect was the vehemence used as substitute for both evidence
and substance. One must simply resist the temptation to put a spin on meagre
sources, whatever one’s intentions.19 Perhaps the most important conclusion
is that the pillared church can contribute to the understanding of when and
how the Bulgarian rule in southern Transylvania came to an end, and how that
same territory came under the control of the Magyars. The picture concerning
the Bulgarian presence in Transylvania that an earlier generation of scholars
has drawn largely on the basis of more or less informed guesses is now both
clearer and more detailed.20 The biographies of the main actors are also better
known now, which allows for a better understanding of their political attitudes
and the choices they had to make between military expansion and religious
proselytism.21 Greater promises will result from the investigation of how the
pillared church influenced the church architecture of Transylvania. There is
only a limited number of possible reconstructions for the pillared church,22
which makes so much easier the search for analogies among the old churches
of Transylvania.23 In the light of what one can learn from the pillared church in
Alba Iulia, a particular detail appears as particularly significant for distinguish-
ing those churches from any other in the Byzantine area or in those areas of
Europe under Byzantine influence: the separation of the naos and the bema
by means of a structure with two symmetrical entrances.24 One can only hope
18 See Chapter 2.
19 See Chapter 6.
20 See Chapter 3.
22 See Chapter 14.
23 See Chapter 1, as well as Marcu Istrate 2021, 221–233.
24 Timbuș 2021.
Conclusions 389
that scholars in the future will identify more examples of influences upon the
Orthodox architecture of Transylvania.
To me, as well as to the editors of this book, the pillared church has much
more to offer than scholars have so far made of it. To regard it either as the
first Latin cathedral or as the see of the bishopric of Tourkia is simplistic, a
reductionist way to boil down to binary oppositions the ethnic, political and
religious complexities of early medieval Transylvania. The only way ahead is
to pay attention to what archaeology has to offer. Archaeology is in fact the
only discipline that can now change the resulting picture, provided of course
that archaeologists will uphold the old adage of the historian Tacitus – sine ira
et studio.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Acta sanctorum, iulii tomus sextus. Paris – Rome: Victor Palmé 1866.
Annales Altahenses maiores, eds. Wolfherius canon in Hildesheim – Wilhelmus von
Giesebrecht – Edmundus Freiherr von Oefele. Hanover: Hahn 1891 (Scriptores
rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae Historicis
recusi 4).
Annales Hildesheimenses, ed. Georgius Waitz. Hanover: 1878 (Scriptores rerum
Germanicarum ex Monumentis Germaniae Historicis recusi 8).
Annales Posonienses. SRH 1: 125–127.
Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum, ed. Emil Jakubovich. SRH 1: 13–117.
Anonymus and Master Roger, eds. Martin Rady – László Veszprémy – János M. Bak.
Budapest – New York: Central European University Press 2010.
Árpád-kori legendák és intelmek. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó 1987.
Bartoniek, Emma (ed.) 1938, Legenda Sancti Stephani regis maior et minor, atque leg-
enda ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta. SRH 2: 363–440.
Bunyitay, Vincze (ed.) 1886, A váradi káptalan legrégibb statutumai. Nagyvárad:
Franklin-Társulat.
Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV, ed. Alexander Domanovszky. SRH 1:
314–315.
Chronicon Monacense, ed. Alexander Domanovszky. SRH 2: 57–86.
Chronicon pictum Vindobonense/Cronica pictată de la Viena, ed. George Popa-Lisseanu.
Bucharest: Tipografia “Bucovina” 1937 (Izvoarele Istoriei Românilor 11).
Chronicon Posoniense, ed. Alexander Domanovszky. SRH 2: 13–51.
Commisiones et relationes Venetae, tomus I, annorum 1433–1527, ed. Simeon Ljubić.
Zagreb: 1876 (Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium 6).
Daphnopates, Théodore 1978, Correspondance, éditée et traduite par Jean Darrouzès et
L.G. Westerink. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 1978.
Darrouzès, Jean 1966, Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine : textes édités, tra-
duits et annotés. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines (Archives de l’Orient
chrétien 10).
Darrouzès, Jean 1970, Recherches sur les OΦΦIKIA de l’Église byzantine. Paris: Institut
français d’études byzantines (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 11).
Darrouzès, Jean 1981, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire Byzantin 1. Notitiae epis-
copatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: texte critique, introduction et notes. Paris:
Institut français d’études byzantines.
392 Bibliography
De Sancto Gerhardo episcopo Morosensi et martyre regni Hungarie, ed. Emericus

Madzar. SRH 2: 480–506.
Decreta Sancti Stephani regis, Liber Secundus. DRMH (accessed 2021 Jan 21).
Decretum Colomani regis. DRMH (accessed 2021 Jan 21).
Dimitriev, Lev Aleksandrovich – Likhachev, Dmitriy Sergeyevich (eds.) 1986,
Pamyatniki literatury drevney rusi. Vtoraya polovina XVI. veka. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo
Khudozhestvennaya literatura.
Érszegi, Géza 1978, “Okmánytár Dunapentele középkori történetéhez,” Fejér megyei
történeti évkönyv 12: 285–291.
Fabre, Paul (ed.) 1901, Liber censuum de l’Eglise romaine, Fasc. II, Paris: Albert
Fontemoing 1901.
Fejér, György 1841, Codex diplomaticus ecclesiasticus ac civilis, X/4. Buda: Typis tipo-
graphiae Universitatis Ungariacae.
Friedberg, Emil 1959, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 1. Graz: Akademische Druck- und
Verlagsanstalt.
Grumel, Venance 1936, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople.
Vol I. Les regestes des Patriarches. Fasc. II. Les regestes de 715 à 1043. Istanbul: Socii
Assumptionistae Chalcedonenses.
Grumel, Venance – Darrouzès, Jean 1989, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de
Constantinople. vol. I, Les Actes des patriarches. Fasc. II et III, Les Regestes de 715 à
1206, 2e édition. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines.
Hamilton, Janet – Hamilton, Bernard 1998, Christian dualist heresies in the Byzantine
world, c. 650–c. 1450: selected sources, assistance with the translation of Old Slavonic
texts by Yuri Stoyanov. New York: Manchester University Press (Manchester medi-
eval sources series).
Henricus de Mügeln, Chronicon, ed. Eugenius Travnik. SRH 2: 89–223.
Henricus de Mügeln, Chronicon rhytmicum, ed. Alexander Domanovszky. SRH 2:
225–277.
Histoire de Yahya-Ibn-Sa’ïd d’Antioche, continuateur de Sa’ïd-Ibn-Bitriq, éditée et tra-
duite en français par J. Kratchkovsky et Aleksandr Vasiliev. Paris: Firmin-Didot,
[1957] (Patrologia orientalis XVIII, 5).
Hodinka, Antal 1916, Az orosz évkönyvek magyar vonatkozásai. Budapest: A Magyar
Tudományos Akadémia Kiadása.
Jakó, Zsigmond (ed.) 1997, Erdélyi okmánytár: Oklevelek, levelek és más írásos emlékek
Erdély történetéhez/Codex diplomaticus Transsylvaniae: Diplomata, epistolae
et alia instrumenta litteraria res Transsylvanas illustrantia, 1 (1023–1300). Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Kristó, Gyula 1995, A honfoglalás korának írott forrásai, ed. Gyula Kristó. Szeged: Szegedi
Középkorász Műhely.
Bibliography 393
Laurent, Vitalien 1963, Le corpus des sceaux de l’Empire Byzantin. V. L’église. Paris:
Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Laurent, Vitalien 1965, Le corpus des sceaux de l’Empire Byzantin. V.2. L’église. Paris:
Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Liudprand of Cremona 2007, The complete works of Liudprand of Cremona, translated
with an introduction and notes by Paolo Squatriti, Washington DC: The Catholic
University of America Press.
Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici, 2. Textus biographici, hagiographici, liturgici, ed.
Lubomir Emil Havlik – Radoslav Večerka, Brno: Universita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně
1967.
Moravcsik, Gyula (ed.) 1984, Az Árpád-kori történet bizánci forrásai. Fontes Byzantini
historiae Hungaricae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Árpád descendentium. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Olajos, Terézia (ed.) 2014, Fontes Byzantini ad historiam Hungaricam aevo ducum et
regum e stirpe Arpadiana pertinentes. Kiegészítés Moravcsik Gyula „Az Árpád-kori
magyar történeti bizánci forrásai” című forrásgyűjteményéhez. Szeged: Lectum
Kiadó.
Photius, Bibliothèque. Tome V. (‘Codices 230–241’), texte établi et traduit par René Henry.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1967.
Polnoe sobranie ruskikh letopisey, 9. Sankt-Petersburg: Edward Prats 1862.
Popov, Andrei 1875, Istoriko-literaturnyi obzor drevne-russkikh polemiceskikh sochinenii
protiv latinian (XI–XIV. v.). Moscow: T. Ris.
Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum
MCXCVIII, eds. Ph. Jaffé – W. Wattenbach. Leipzig: 1885.
Rus, Vasile 1998, “Syllogimaeorum Transylvanae Ecclesiae Libri Septem de Rudolph
Bzensky,” Acta Musei Napocensis 34/2: 183–275.
Scriptor incertus, ed. Francesca Iadevaia. Messina: Sfameni 1997.
Seals: Seals: Prosopography of the Byzantine World. http://linnet.cch.kcl.ac.uk:8080/
seals/pbwseals.jsp?table=Collection (accessed 2003 Nov 28).
Simon de Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, ed. Alexander Domanovszky. SRH 1: 141–194.
Simon de Kéza, Chronicon Hungaricum/Cronica ungurilor, ed. George Popa-Lisseanu.
Bucharest: Tipografia “Bucovina”, 1935 (Izvoarele Istoriei Românilor 4).
Skylitzes, Ioannes: John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History 811–1057. Translated
by John Wortley, with introductions by Jean-Claude Cheynet, and Bernard Flusin,
and notes by Jean-Claude Cheynet. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University
Press 20101; 20113.
Skylitzes, Ioannes: Az Árpád-kori történet bizánci forrásai. Fontes Byzantini histo-
riae Hungaricae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Árpád descendentium, ed. Gyula
Moravcsik. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 1984.
394 Bibliography
Skylitzes, Ioannes: A honfoglalás korának írott forrásai, ed. Gyula Kristó. Szeged:
Szegedi Középkorász Műhely 1995.
Stiltingus, Johannes 1767, Vita Sancti Stephani Regis Hungariae ex latinis et graecis,
aliarumque gentium monumentis collecta, digesta, commentariis et observationibus
illustrata, in qua Joannis Schwartzii, […] calumniae refutantur a Joanne Stiltingo […]
continuatore Joannis Bollandi. Cassoviae: Typis Collegii Acad. Soc. Jesu.
Stiltingus, Joannes – Peringer, Andreas – Hauszer, Daniel 1749, Vita sancti Stephani
regis Hungariae ex Latinis et Graecis, aliarumque gentium monumentis: audi-
toribus distributa dum in Alma, ac Regio Principali Societatis Jesu Universitate
Claudiopolitana Anno MDCCXLIX. Claudiopoli: Typis Academicis Societatis Jesu.
The Russian Primary chronicle: Laurentian text, translated and edited by Samuel
Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. Cambridge (Massachusetts):
Mediaeval Academy of America 1953 (Mediaeval Academy of America 60).
The Life of Saint Basil the Younger: critical edition and annotated translation of the
Moscow version, Denis F. Sullivan – Alice-Mary Talbot – Stamatina McGrath.
Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 2014.
Theiner, Augustin 1859. Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia,
vol. 1. Rome: Typis Vaticanis.
Théophylacte d’Achrida, Lettres. Introduction, texte, traduction et notes par Paul
Gautier. Thessaloniki: Association de recherches byzantines 1986.
Thietmar de Merseburg, Chronicon, ed. Robert Holtzmann. Berlin: 1935 (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova Series 9).
Usuarium: A Digital Library and Database for the Study of the Latin Liturgical History
in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Available at https://usuarium.elte.hu/
(accessed 2021 March 30).
Vasiliev, Aleksandr 1950, Byzance et les Arabes. Tome II, La dynastie macédonienne
(867–959). Deuxième partie, Extraits des sources arabes, eds. Henri Grégoire –
Marius Canard. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales
et slaves (Corpus Bruxellense historiae Byzantinae 2, 2).
Secondary Literature
Abrams, Lesley J. 1998, “History and archaeology: the conversion of Scandinavia.” In

Conversion and Christianity in the North Sea World: the proceedings of a day con-
ference held on 21st February 1998, ed. Barbara E. Crawford, 109–128. St. Andrews:
Committee for Dark Age Studies, University of St. Andrews.
Adrianyi, Gabriel 1974–1975, “Der Eintritt Ungarns in die christlich-abendländische
Völker-gemeinschaft,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 6: 24–37.
Aldea, Ioan Alexandru – Ciugudean, Horia 1981, “Noi descoperiri feudale timpurii la
Blandiana (jud. Alba),” Apulum 19: 145–149.
Bibliography 395
Allgemeine Weltgeschichte 1788, William Guthrie, John Gray und andrer gelehrten
Engländer entworfen, gearbeitet und aus den besten Schriftstellern gezogen von
Ludwig Albrecht Gebhardi, vol. 51. Brno: Joseph Georg Trassler.
Alzati, Cesare 1992, “La Cristianità europea e l’inserimento degli Ungari.” In Storia
religiosa dell’Ungheria, eds. Adriano Caprioli – Luciano Vaccaro, 29–44. Milano: La
Casa di Matriona.
Andenna, Giancarlo 2003, “Ottone III, Roma e il Papato.” In San Romualdo di Ravenna.
Atti del XXIV Convegno del Centro Studi Avellaniti, Fonte Avellana, 2001, San Pietro in
Cariano, 11–29. Verona: Il Segno dei Gabrielli Editore.
Andrić, Stanko 2008. “Bazilijanski i benediktinski samostan Sv. Dimitrija u Srijemskoj
Mitrovici,” Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 40: 115–185.
Angelova, Stefka 1971, “Za proizvodstvoto na stroitelna keramika v Severoiztochna
Bălgariia prez rannoto srednovekovie,” Arkheologiia 13/1: 3–24.
Anghel, Gheorghe 1968, “Noi descoperiri în legătură cu așezarea feudal-timpurie de la
Alba Iulia,” Apulum 7/1: 469–483.
Anghel, Gheorghe 1975, “Cetățile medievale de la Alba Iulia,” Apulum 13: 245–273.
Anghel, Gheorghe 1986, Fortificații medievale de piatră din secolele XIII–XVI.
Cluj-Napoca: Dacia.
Anghel, Gheorghe 1994, “Despre evoluția orașului antic, medieval și modern Alba
Iulia,” Apulum 31: 283–302.
Anghel, Gheorghe 1997, “Necropola birituală prefeudală de la Ghirbom (Gruiul
Fierului) județul Alba,” Apulum 34, 255–271.
Anghel, Gheorghe – Ciugudean, Horia 1987, “Cimitirul feudal timpuriu de la Blandiana
(județul Alba),” Apulum 24: 179–96.
Angold, Michael 2005. Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081–1261.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Antoche, Emanuel 2012, “La croisade de 1443 dans les Balkans. Anatomie d’un échec.”
In Italy and Europe’s Eastern Border (1204–1669), eds. Iulian Mihai Damian – Ioan
Aurel Pop – Mihailo Popović – Alexandru Simon, 9–29. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.
Antonaras, Anastasios 2012, “Middle and Late Byzantine jewellery from Thessaloniki
and its region.” In Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, eds. Beate
Böhlendorf-Arslan – Alessandra Ricci, 117–126. Istanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut (Byzas 15).
Antonopoulos, Panagiotis 1993, “Byzantium, the Magyar raids and their consequences,”
Byzantinoslavica 54/2: 254–267.
Antonopoulos, Panagiotis 1996, Ο αυτοκράτορας Κωνσταντίνος Ζ’ Πορφυρογέννητος
και οι Ούγγροι. Athens: Historical Publications St. D. Basilopoulos 19 (Ιστορικές
Μονογραφίες 17).
Antonova, Vera 1984, “Krstove-enkolpioni v istoričeskija muzei ‘Liudmila Živkova’,”
Godršnik Muzewite ot Severna Bălgaria 10: 43–52.
396 Bibliography
Antonsson, Haki 2011, “The Minsters. A Brief Review of the ‘Minster Hypothesis’ in
England and Some General Observations on its Relevance to Scandinavia and
Iceland.” In Viking settlements and Viking society: papers from the proceedings of
the sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík and Reykholt, 16–23 August 2009, eds. Anton
Holt – Svavar Sigmundsson (eds.), 175–186. Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press.
Antweiler, Wolfgang 1993, Das Bistum Tripolis im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Droste
Verlag.
Ardeț, Adrian 1996, “Cercetări arheologice la biserica medievală de la Cărbunari-
Țigănești (sec. XIII–XIV),” Acta Musei Napocensis 33/1: 415–424.
Arion, Gheorghe 1967, “Date noi referitoare la prima catedrală catolică de la Alba Iulia,”
Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria Artă Plastică 14/2: 155–159.
Arrignon, Jean-Pierre 1979, “Les relations internationales de la Russie Kiévienne au
milieu du Xe siècle et le baptême de la princesse Olga.” In Occident et Orient au
Xe siècle. Actes des congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l’enseignement
supérieur public, 9e congrès, Dijon, 1978, 167–184. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Arrignon, Jean-Pierre 2020, “Le traité byzantino-russe de 944, acte fondateur de l’Etat
de la Kievskaja Rus’?” In La diplomatie byzantine, de l’Empire romain aux confins de
l’Europe (Ve–XVe s.), eds. Nicolas Drocourt – Élisabeth Malamut, 113–128. Leiden –
Boston: Brill (Medieval Mediterranean 123).
Arta din România, din preistorie în contemporaneitate 2018, eds. Răzvan Theodorescu –
Marius Porumb. Bucharest/Cluj-Napoca: Editura Academiei Române/Editura Mega.
Atanasov, Georgi 1992, “Šrednevekovni Krsove-enkolpioni ot Silistra,” Izvestija Varna
28/43: 246–268.
Atanasov, Georgi 1993, “Za datirovkata, razprostranenieto i semantikata na medal’onite
s /Y/ i dvoen krăst.” In Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. V chest na
profesor Veselin Beshevliev, eds. Vasil Giuzelev – Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova – Kazimir
Popkonstantinov – Plamen Pavlov – Stefan Iordanov, 163–71. Veliko Tărnovo:
Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodii”.
Atanasov, Georgi 1999, “On the origin, function and the owner of the adornments of
the Preslav treasure from the 10th century,” Archaeologia Bulgarica 3/3: 81–94.
Atanasov, Georgi 2017, Ot episkopija kăm samostoyna patriaršija na părvoto bălgarsko
tsarstvo v Drăstăr (Silistra). Istorijata na patriaršeskija kompleks. Sofia: Unikart.
Auzépy, Marie-France 2001, “Les Isauriens et l’espace sacré: l’église et les reliques.” In
Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident, ed. Michel Kaplan,
13–24. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.
Avenarius, Alexander 1993, “Byzanz und die Anfänge des ungarischen Mönchtums,”
Byzantinoslavica 54: 114–120.
Avenarius, Alexander 2000, Die byzantinische Kultur und die Slawen. Zum Problem der
Rezeption und Transformation. Vienna – Munich: R. Oldenbourg (Veröffentlichungen
des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 35).
Bibliography 397
Avram, Alexandru 1995, “In Memoriam Radu Popa: Săpăturile arheologice de la

Sânnicolau de Beiuș – locul ‘La Turn’. Considerații asupra bisericilor-sală romanice
cu absidă semicirculară din Bihor,” Crisia 25: 65–93.
Baán, István 1988, “A körtvélyesi monostor,” Vigília 53/10: 749–754.
Baán, István 1995a, “‘Turkia metropóliája’. Kisérlet a Szent István kori Magyarországi
orthodox egyházszervezet rekonstrukciójára.” In Az ortodoxia története
Magyarországon a XVIII. századig, ed. H. Tóth Imre, 19–25. Szeged: JATE Szláv
Filológiai tabszék.
Baán, István 1995b, “Turkia metropolitája. Újabb adalék a bizánci egyház történetéhez
a középkori Magyarországon,” Századok 129: 1167–1170.
Baán, István 1999, “The Metropolitanate of Tourkia. The Organization of the Byzantine
Church in Hungary in the Middle Ages.” In Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453.
Beiträge zu einer table-ronde des XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies,
Copenhagen 1996, eds. Günter Prinzing – Maciej Salomon, 45–53. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 3).
Baán, István 2012, Opponensi vélemény Révész Éva: Régészeti és történeti adatok a
kora Árpád-kori bizánci-bolgár-magyar egyházi kapcsolatokhoz című doktori
értekezéséről. Budapest: SZTE Doktori Repozitórium.
Baán, István 2018, Bizáncon innen és túl. Budapest: Atlantisz kiadó.
Baán, István 2019, “The Metropolitanate of Turkia. A historical fact or a Gordian knot
of historical writing?” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 85: 139–166.
Băcueț-Crișan, Dan 2014, “O locuință medievală timpurie descoperită în anul 1995 la
Alba Iulia „Dealul Furcilor”. Câteva considerații privind locuirile medievale timpurii
de pe teritoriul orașului Alba Iulia,” Apulum 51: 615–643.
Bagge, Sverre 2010, From Viking Stronghold to Christian Kingdom: State Formation in
Norway, c. 900–1350. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Bagge, Sverre 2014, “Christianizing Kingdoms.” In The Oxford Handbook of Medieval
Christianity, ed. John Hugh Arnold, 114–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagge, Sverre 2016, “The Europeanization of Scandinavia.” In ‘The making of Europe’:
essays in honour of Robert Bartlett, eds. John G.H. Hudson – Sally Crumplin, 53–75.
Leiden: Brill.
Bagge, Sverre – Walaker Nordeide, Sæbjørg 2007, “The kingdom of Norway.” In
Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy Scandinavia, Central Europe and
Rus’ c. 900–1200, ed. Nora Berend, 121–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bahlcke, Joachim 2005, Ungarischer Episkopat und österreichischen Monarchie. Von
einer Partnerschaft zu Konfrontation (1686–1790). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Bakay, Kornél 1994, “Hungary in the tenth and eleventh centuries.” In Sacra Corona
Hungariae, ed. Kornél Bakay, 3–31. Kőszeg: Városi Múzeum.
Bakay, Kornél 2006, “Hungary.” In The New Cambridge Medieval History 3: 900–c.1024,
ed. Timothy Reuter, 536–552. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
398 Bibliography
Balabanov, Todor 1994, “Bronzov prăsten s ipsilon ot s. Mirovci, Novopazarsko.” In

Sbornik v chest na akad. Dimităr Angelov, eds. Velizar Velkov – Zhivko Aladzhov –
Georgi Bakalov – Dimităr Ovcharov – Stanislav Stanilov – Katia Melamed, 270–273.
Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite.
Bălan, Gabriel – Ota, Radu 2012, “Situl arheologic de la Micești-Cigaș (mun. Alba Iulia,
jud. Alba),” Apulum 49: 41–76.
Balics, Lajos 1885, A római katholikus egyház története Magyarországban, vol. 1.
Budapest: Szent István Társulat.
Bálint, Csanád 1969, “A honfoglalas kori lovastemetkezesek nehany kerdese (Über die
Pferdebestattungen der Landnahmezeit),” Mora Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1: 107–114.
Bálint, Csanád 1989, Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenwölker zwischen Volga und
Donau vom 6. bis 10. Jahrhundert, Vienna – Köln: Böhlau Verlag.
Bálint, Csanád 1991, Südungarn im 10. Jahrhundert. Budapest: Académiai Kiado.
Balogh, Albin 1938, “Szent István egyházi Kapcsolatai Csehországgal, Németországgal,
Franciaországgal és Belgiumal.” In Szent István Emlékkönyv király halálának
kilencszázadik évfordulóján, ed. Serédi Jusztinián, vol. I, 458–460. Budapest: Magyar
Tudományos Akadémia.
Bănescu, Nicolae 1946, Les duchés byzantins de Paristrion (Paradounavon) et de Bulgarie.
Bucharest: Institut Roumain d’études byzantines.
Bănescu, Nicolae 1947, L’ancien Etat bulgare et les pays roumains. Bucharest: Institut
roumain d’études byzantines.
Bănescu, Nicolae 1948, “Les frontières de l’ancien Etat bulgare.” In Mémorial Louis Petit.
Mélanges d’histoire et d’archéologie byzantines, 4–14. Bucharest: Institut Française
d’Etudes Byzantines.
Barabás, Gábor 2016, “The Christianization of Hungary.” In Chrystianizacja “Młodszej
Europy”, eds. Józef Dobosz – Jerzy Strzelczyk – Marzena Matla, 115–136. Poznań:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Barački, Stanimir 1988, “Kristovi iz zbirki narodnog museja u Vrštu,” Zbornik Narodnog
Muzeja 13/1: 171–176.
Barakov, Venelin 2015, “Bdin. Medieval Bdin.” In Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval
Cities, Residences and Fortresses (Corpus of Ancient and Medieval Settlements in
Bulgaria, 2), ed. Rumen Ivanov, 623–637. Sofia: Ratiaria semper floreat.
Bárány, Attila 2020, “The Concept of REGNUM and NATIO in the Medieval Kingdom
of Hungary.” In La Nació a l’Edat Mitjana, ed. Flocel Sabaté i Curull, 113–135. Lleida:
Pagès editors.
Bárány-Oberschal, Magda von 1953, “Byzantinische Pektoralkreuze aus ungarischen
Funden,” Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und Christlichen Archäologie 2: 207–245.
Baraschi, Silvia 1991, “Despre civilizația urbană din Dobrogea în secolele XI–XIV,” Studii
și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 42/4: 133–152.
Bibliography 399
Barišić, Franjo 1968, “Grčki natpisi na ikonama ostave u Rakovcu,” Zbornik Filozofskog
fakulteta 10/1: 211–216.
Barnea, Ion 1953, “Relațiile dintre așezarea de la Bisericuța-Garvăn și Bizanț în secolele
X–XII,” Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 4/3–4: 641–671.
Barnea, Ion 1967, “Obiecte de cult,” Dinogeția 1: 357–366.
Barnea, Ion 1981, Arta creștină în România, vol. II. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic
și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române.
Barraclough, Geoffrey 1976, The Crucible of Europe: The Ninth and Tenth Centuries in
European History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bartlett, Robert 1994, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural
Change, 950–1350. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bartlett, Robert 2007, “From paganism to Christianity in medieval Europe.” In Chris-
tianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’
c. 900–1200, ed. Nora Berend, 47–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartók, István 2001, “Régi magyar grammatikák Sopronban. Adalékok Sylvester János
Grammatica Hungarolatinájának utóéletéhez,” Magyar Könyvszemle 117/2: 173–188.
Barton, Thomas W. 2006, “Constructing a diocese in a post-conquest landscape: a com-
parative approach to the lay possession of tithes,” Journal of Medieval History 35/1:
1–33.
Basler, Djuro 1973, “Ungarn und das bosnische Bistums,” Ungarisches Jahrbuch 5:
9–15.
Beihammer, Alexander D. – Parani, Maria G. – Schabel, Chris (eds.) 2008, Diplomatics
in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000–1500: Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication.
Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Bejan, Adrian – Rogozea, Petre 1982, “Descoperiri arheologice mai vechi și mai recente
prefeudale și feudal-timpurii din Banat,” Studi și Comunicări Caransebeș 4: 213–225.
Bejenaru, Luminița 1998, “Caracterele eto-ecologice și de răspândire ale speciilor de
animale sălbatice din România, în concordanță cu evoluția ambientului în prima
parte a mileniului II e. n.,” Arheologia Moldovei 21: 277–321.
Benkő, Elek 1994, “Gyulafehérvár.” In KMTL, 246.
Benkő, Elek 2000, “Karlsburg (Gyulafehérvár, Alba Iulia).” In Europas Mitte um 1000.
Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie. Katalog, eds. Alfried Wieczorek –
Hans Hinz, vol. 2, 593. Stuttgart: Theiss.
Benkő, Elek 2001a, “A 10–11. századi Erdély régészetéről.” In Államalapítás, társadalom,
művelődés, ed. Gyula Kristó, 135–144. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.
Történettudományi Intézete.
Benkő, Loránd 2001b, “Észrevételek Erdély déli részeinek korai Árpád-kori történetéhez.”
In Erdély a keresztény magyar királyságban, eds. Loránd Benkő – István Bóna –
Zsigmond Jakó – Sándor Tonk – Károly Vekov, 7–68. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum
Egyesület.
400 Bibliography
Berciu, Dumitru 1959, “Săpăturile de la Verbița (r. Plenița, reg. Craiova),” Materiale și
cercetări arheologice 5: 75–81.
Berend, Nora (ed.) 2007, Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy Scandi-
navia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berend, Nora 2012, The expansion of Central Europe in the Middle Ages. London:
Routledge.
Berend, Nora – Laszlovszky, József – Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2007, “The kingdom of
Hungary.” In Christianization and the Rise of the Christian Monarchy. Scandinavia,
Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200, ed. Nora Berend, 319–368. Cambridge – New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Berend, Nora – Urbańczyk, Przemysław – Wiszewski, Przemysław 2013, Central Europe
in the High Middle Ages. Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900–c. 1300. Cambridge –
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Berki, Feríz 1994, “Theophylaktos.” In KMTL, 675.
Berki, Feríz 2004, “Az ortodox kánonjog.” In Péter Antalóczy – Ferenc Bajusz – Margit
Beke – Feríz Berki – Lóránd Boleratzky – Ernő Lőrincz – Lajos Rácz – Béla Szathmáry,
Felekezeti egyházjog, 103–138. Budapest: HVG ORAC Lap- és Könyvkiadó Kft. – ELTE
ÁJTK Állam- és Jogtörténeti Tanszék (Acta Wenzeliana 1).
Beshevliev, Veselin 1979, “Znachenieto no părvobălgarskiia znak /Y/,” Izvestiia na
Narodniia muzei Varna 15: 17–24.
Beshevliev, Veselin 1989, “Geografskoto razprostranenie na prabălgarskiia znak /Y/,”
Izvestiia na Narodniia muzei Varna 25: 49–51.
Beshevliev, Veselin 1992, Părvobălgarski nadpisi. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata
Akademiia na Naukite.
Beskow, Per 2003, “Byzantine Influence in the Conversion of the Baltic Region?” In
The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300–1300, ed.
Martin Carver, 559–563. York: York Medieval Press & Boydell Press.
Betti, Maddalena 2013, The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882). Papal Power and
Political Reality. Leiden: Brill.
Bierbrauer, Volker 2004, “Zur ethnischen Interpretation in der frühgeschichtli-
chen Archäologie.” In Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen Von der Bedeutung des
frühen Mittelalters, ed. Walter Pohl, 45–84. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Bíró, Ádám 2014, “Weapons in the 10–11th century Carpathian Basin. Studies in weapon
technology and methodology – rigid bow applications and southern import
swords in the archaeological material,” Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto
Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae, Ser. 3. No. 2: 519–540.
Birus, Hendrik 1997, “Mediävistische Komparatistik – ‘unmöglich, aber dankbar’?”
In Mediävistische Komparatistik : Festschrift für Franz Josef Worstbrock zum 60.
Geburtstag, eds. Wolfgang Harms – Jan-Dirk Müller, 13–28. Stuttgart: Hirzel.
Bibliography 401
Blair, John 1988, “Introduction: From Minster to Parish Church.” In Minsters and Parish
Churches: The Local Church in Transition 950–1200, ed. John Blair, 1–19. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Blăjan, Mihai 2007, “Descoperiri paleocreștine în bazinul mijlociu al Mureșului
(secolele II–X).” In Creștinismul popular între teologie și etnologie, eds. Avram
Cristea – Jan Nicolae, 241–249, Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea. (Reprinted in Sfântul Ierotei,
episcop la Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu Panaite,
272–278. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea.)
Blăjan, Mihai – Botezatu, Dan 2000, “Studiul arheologic și antropologic al mormintelor
de incinerație prefeudale (sec. VIII) de la Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’,” Apulum
36/1: 453–469.
Blăjan, Mihai – Popa, Alexandru 1981, “Cercetările arheologice de la Alba Iulia – Stația
de Salvare,” Materiale si Cercetări Arheologice 15: 375–380.
Blăjan, Mihai – Stoicovici, Eugen 1982, “Cercetări arheologice în cimitirul din secolul
VIII e. n. de la Ghirbom – „Gruiul Măciuliilor” (jud. Alba),” Apulum 20: 139–154.
Blăjan, Mihai – Stoicovici, Eugen – Botezatu, Dan 1993, “Monedele descoperite în cim-
itirul feudal timpuriu (sec. XI) de la Alba Iulia – Str. Vînătorilor (1979–1980). Studiu
metalografic, numismatic și etnologic,” Apulum 27–30: 273–292.
Bloch, Marc 1952, Apologie pour l’histoire ou Métier d’historien (2nd ed.). Paris: Librairie
Armand Colin.
Blomkvist, Nils – Brink, Stefan – Lindkvist, Thomas 2007, “The kingdom of Sweden.” In
Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy Scandinavia, Central Europe and
Rus’ c. 900–1200, ed. Nora Berend, 167–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bod, Péter 1766, Magyar Athenas. Szeben/Hermannstadt/Sibiu.
Bod, Péter 1888, Historia Hungarorum Ecclesiastica, ed. L.W. Rauwenhoff – Car. Szalay.
Leiden: E.J. Brill socios.
Bogyay, Thomas von 1960, “Die Kirchenorte der Conversio Bagoariorum et Caran-
tanorum. Methoden und Möglichkeiten ihrer Lokalisierung,” Südost Forschungen
19: 52–70.
Bogyay, Thomas von 1986, “Die Salzburger Mission in Pannonien aus der Sicht der
Archäologie und der Namenkund.” In Salzburg und die Slawenmission Zum 1100.
Todestag des hl. Methodius Beiträge des internationalen Symposions vom 20. bis 22.
September 1985 in Salzburg, ed. Heinz Dopsch, 273–290. Salzburg: Gesellschaft für
Salzburger Landeskunde.
Bogyay, Thomas von 1988a, “Ungarnzüge gegen und für Byzanz: Bemerkungen zu neu-
eren Forschungen,” Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 60: 27–38.
Bogyay, Thomas von 1988b, “Szent István és Szent Adalbert prágai püspök.” In
Szent István és kora, eds. Ferenc Glatz – József Kardos, 156–160. Budapest: MTA
Történettudományi Intézet.
402 Bibliography
Bollók, Ádám 2010, “Byzantine jewellery of the Hungarian conquest period: a view
from the Balkans.” In “Intelligible Beauty”. Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery,
eds. Christopher Entwistle – Noël Adams, 173–185. London: British Museum.
Bollók, Ádám 2012, “Byzantine Missions among the Magyars during the later 10th cen-
tury?” In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and
Historical Evidence, eds. Maciej Salamon – Marcin Wołoszyn – Alexander Musin –
Perica Špehar, vol. I, 131–144. Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warszawa: Geiste-
swissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, Instytut
Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.
Bolog, Adrian 2016, Necropola romană de la Apulum, Dealul Furcilor-„Podei”: Campaniile
2008–2012. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 27).
Bolton, Brenda 1988, Lo spirito di riforma nel Medioevo. Napoli: Liguori Editori.
Bóna, István 1989, “Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule.” In History of Transylvania,
ed. Béla Köpeczi, 102–106. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Bóna, István 1990, “Siebenbürgen im mittelalterlichen Königreich Ungarn. Zeit des
ungarisch-slawischen Zussamenlebens (895–1172).” In Kurze Geschichte Siebenbür-
gen, ed. Béla Köpeczi, 107–172. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Bóna, István 1991, Dunapentele története a honfoglalástól a 19. század közepéig a már
eddig is ismert, valamint újonnan bevont adatok alapján. Dunaújváros: Intercisa
Múzeum.
Bóna, István 1994, “Southern Transylvania under Bulgar rule (827–895).” In History of
Transylvania, ed. Bela Köpeczi, 102–106. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Bóna, István 2000, A magyarok és Európa a 9–10. században. Budapest: MTA Történet-
tudományi Intézete (História Könyvtár Monográfiák 12).
Bóna, István 2001a, “From Dacia to Erdőelve: Transylvania in the period of the Great
Migrations (271–896).” In History of Transylvania, eds. László Makkai – András
Mócsy, vol. 1, 139–329. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bóna, István 2001b, “Erdély a magyar honfoglalás és államalapítás korában. Régészeti
áttekintés.” In Erdély a keresztény magyar királyságban, eds. Loránd Benkő – István
Bóna – Zsigmond Jakó – Sándor Tonk – Károly Vekov, 69–96. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi
Múzeum-Egyesület.
Bonev, Stoicho 1987, “Kăm văprosa za gradoustroistvoto na Vătreshniia grad v Preslav
v X v.” In Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bălgaristika, Sofiia, 23 mai–3 iuni 1986 g.
Dokladi 6: Bălgarskite zemi v drevnostta Bălgariia prez srednovekovieto, eds. Khristo
Khristov – Pantelei Zarev – Vladimir Georgiev – Nikolai Todorov – Petăr Dinekov –
Ilcho Dimitrov – Atanas Stoikov – Mikhail Băchvarov, 431–436. Sofia: Izdatelstvo
Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite.
Bonev, Stoicho 1998, Carskiiat dvorec văv Veliki Preslav. Ploshtadăt s fialata (IX–XIV v.).
Veliko Tărnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv.Sv. Kiril i Metodii”.
Bonev, Stoicho 2011, “Arkhitekturen kompleks v iugozapadnata chast na dvorcoviia
centăr văv Veliki Preslav,” Arkheologicheski otkritiia i razkopki 2011: 402–404.
Bibliography 403
Bonev, Stoicho 2014, “Stolicata Veliki Preslav prez X vek – ne prosto grad, a aglomer-
aciia.” In Gradăt v bălgarskite zemi (po arkheologicheski danni). Materiali ot nacion-
alnata nauchna konferenciia posvetena na zhivota i deloto na st. n. s. Vera Antonova.
Shumen, 31 oktomvri–1 noemvri 2013 g, ed. Pavel Georgiev, 273–278. Veliko Tărnovo:
Faber.
Borgolte, Michael 2002, Europa entdeckt seine Vielfalt: 1050–1250. Stuttgart: E. Ulmer.
Borgolte, Michael 2004, Die mittelalterliche Kirche. Munich: R. Oldenbourg
Wissenschaftsverlag.
Borgolte, Michael 2020, World History as the History of Foundations, 3000 BCE to
1500 CE. Leiden: Brill.
Borisov, Boris 2009, “Keramikata ot zhilishte no. 1, ot rannosrednovekovnoto sel-
ishte vărkhu vizantiiskata krepost ‘Kastra Rubra’ krai s. Izvorovo, Kharmanliisko.”
In Nauchna konferenciia s mezhdunarodno uchastie “Problemi i predizvikatelstva
na arkheologicheskite i kulturno-istoriceskite prouchvaniia”. Plovdiv, 24–25 oktomvri
2008, vol. 1, 246–247. Plovdiv: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Paisii Khilendarski”.
Borkowska, Urszula 1995, “The Church and Feudal Society in Eastern Europe.” In Chiesa
e mondo feudale nei secoli X–XII. Atti della dodicesima Settimana internazionale di
studio, Mendola, 24–28 agosto 1992, 357–374. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
Bosselmann-Ruickbie, A. 2001, “Der Schatz von Preslav.” In Otto der Grosse. Magdeburg
und Europa, ed. Matthias Puhle, 485–496. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Bosselmann-Ruickbie, A. 2004, “Goldener Glanz aus Byzanz. Der Schatz von Preslav
(Bulgarien) – ein kaiserliches Geschenk an einen ‘barbarischen’ Regenten,” Antike
Welt 35/6: 77–81.
Bounegru, George V. 2017, The Northern Necropolis of Apulum. “Ambulance Station”
1981–1985. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Bounegru, George V. – Ota, Radu 2006, “Piepteni din os din așezarea postromană de la
Alba Iulia – Dealul Furcilor – Monolit,” Apulum 43/1: 297–307.
Bouras, Charalambos 2006, Byzantine & Post-Byzantine Architecture in Greece. Athens:
Melissa.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1997, Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du
champ scientifique. Paris: INRA Editions.
Bowlus, Charles R. 2006, The Battle of Lechfeld and its Aftermath, August 955: the End of
the Age of Migrations in the Latin West. Aldershot – Burlington: Ashgate.
Bozsóky, Pál Gerő 2000, Magyarok útja a pogányságból a kereszténységig. Szeged:
Agapé.
Brackmann, Albert 1939, “Kaiser Otto III. und die staatliche Umgestaltung Polens
und Ungarns,” Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1: 1–27.
Brătianu, Gheorghe I. 1943, “‘Bulgaria de dincolo de Dunăre’ în izvoarele bizantine.” In
Omagiu lui I. Lupaș la împlinirea vârstei de 60 ani, august 1940, 127–132. Bucharest:
Editura Casei Regale.
404 Bibliography
Brezeanu, Stelian 1984, “‘La Bulgarie d’au-delà de l’Ister’ à la lumière des sources
écrites,” Etudes Balkaniques 20/4: 121–35.
Brezeanu, Stelian 2002, Identități și solidarități medievale. Controverse istorice.
Bucharest: Corint.
Brink, Stefan 2013, “Early Ecclesiastical Organization of Scandinavia, Especially
Sweden.” In Medieval Christianity in the North. New Studies, eds. Kirsi Salonen – Kurt
Villads Jensen – Torstein Jørgensen, 23–39. Turnhout: Brepols.
Browning, Robert 1975, Byzantium and Bulgaria – A comparative study across the early
medieval frontier. Berkley: University of California Press.
Brubaker, Leslie – Haldon, John 2011, Byzantium in the iconoclast era, c. 680–850: a his-
tory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brühl, Carlrichard, 1994, Naissance de deux peuples. Français et Allemands (IXe–Xie siè-
cle). Paris: Fayard.
Buisson, Ludwig 1988, “Couronne et serment du sacre au Moyen Âge.” In Lebendiges
mittelalter. Aufsätze zur Geschichte des Kirchenrechts und der Normannen. Festgabe
zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Günter Moltmann – Gerhard Theuerkauf, 176–208. Köln –
Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.
Bunyitay, Vincze, 1883, A váradi püspökség története alapításától a jelenkorig, vol. I.
Nagyvárad: Franklin-Társulat.
Buzás, Gergely 2010, “A szekszárdi apátság temploma a közepkorban.” In Építészet a
középkori Dél-Magyarországon, ed. Kollár Tibor, 555–606. Budapest: Teleki László
Alapítvány.
Buzás, Gergely 2013, “A középkori szekszárdi apátsági templom virtuális rekonstruk-
ciója,” Várok, kastélyok, templomok 9/1: 4–7.
Buzás, Gergely 2018, “Atha comes kaposszentjakabi temploma,” Archeológia – Altum
Castrum Online Magazin. Available at https://archeologia.hu/atha-comes-kaposs
zentjakabi-temploma (accessed 2020 July 7).
Buzás, Gergely 2020, “Magyarország korai székesegyházairól.” In Arhitectura religioasă
medievală din Transilvania VI/Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben VI/Medieval
ecclesiastical architecture in Transylvania VI, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, 7–37. Satu
Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean.
Buzás, Gergely – Eszes, Bernadett 2007, “XI. századi görög monostor Visegrádon.” In
Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania IV/Középkori egyházi építészet
Erdélyben IV/Medieval ecclesiastical architecture in Transylvania IV, eds. Szőcs Péter
Levente – Adrian Andrei Rusu, 49–93. Satu Mare: Muzeul Judetean Satu Mare.
Buzás, Gergely – Kovács, Olivér 2016, “Meg sem talált kövek: az első székesegyházak,”
Archeológia – Altum Castrum Online Magazin. Available at https://archeologia.hu/
meg-sem-talalt-kovek-az-elso-szekesegyhazak (accessed 2020 July 7).
Buzás, Gergely – Tóth, Zsolt 2015, “Lehetett-e a Cella Septichora Pécs első középkori
székesegyháza?” Archeológia – Altum Castrum Online Magazin. Available at https://
Bibliography 405
archeologia.hu/content/archeologia/339/buzas-toth-septichora.pdf (accessed
2020 July 7).
Canache, Adrian – Curta, Florin 1994, “Depozite de unelte și arme medievale timpurii
de pe teritoriul României,” Mousaios 4/1: 179–221.
Capitani, Ovidio 1994, Storia dell’Italia medievae. Roma – Bari: Biblioteca Universale
Laterza.
Cârciumaru, Marin 1972, “Analiza polinică a stratelor de la Bucov (jud. Prahova),” Studii
și cercetări de istorie veche 23/3: 427–432.
Caseau, Béatrice 2001, “Πολεμειν λιθοіς. La désacralisation des espaces et des objets
religieux païens durant l’Antiquité tardive.” In Le sacré et son inscription dans l’es-
pace à Byzance et en Occident, ed. Michel Kaplan, 61–123. Paris: Publications de la
Sorbonne.
Caseau-Chevallier, Béatrice 2011, “La lettre de Jésus à Abgar d’Edesse: appropriations
et transformations.” In Remanier, métaphraser: fonctions et techniques de la réécri-
ture dans le monde byzantin, eds. Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić – Bernard Flusin –
Jean-Claude Cheynet, 13–43. Belgrade: Faculté de philosophie, Université de
Belgrade.
Cathedral St. Michael – https://ersekseg.ro/hu/catedrala/cathedral-st-michael-alba
-iulia (accessed 2019 September 13).
Cauuet, Béatrice – Bruno, Ancel – Rico, Christian – Tămaș, Călin 2003, “Rețele miniere
antice. Misiunile arheologice franceze 1999–2001.” In Alburnus Maior, ed. Paul
Damian, vol. I, 471–530. Bucharest: CIMEC – Institutul de Memorie Culturală.
Ceacalopol, Gloria 1962, “Crucea-relicvar de la Capidava,” Studii și Cercetări de Istoria
Artei 9/1: 192–194.
Cebotarenko, Georgij Feoktistoric 1990, “Die Keramik des Mittleren und Südlichen
Dnestr – Prut-Gebietes im 8.–12. Jh.” In Die Keramik der Saltovo-Majaki Kultur und
ihrer Varianten, ed. Csanád Bálint, 47–75. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
(Varia archaeologica Hungarica 3).
Cheynet, Jean-Claude 2019, “Une querelle de famille: la prise du pouvoir par Constantin
VII,” Travaux et Mémoires 23/1: 121–140.
Chindriș, Ioan – Iacob Niculina (eds.) 2010, Samuil Micu în mărturii antologice.
Târgu-Lăpuș: Editura Galaxia Gutenberg.
Chișvasi-Comșa, Maria 1959, “Săpăturile de la Bucov (r. și reg. Ploiești),” Materiale și
Chișvasi-Comșa, Maria 1960, “Cîteva date arheologice în legătură cu stăpînirea bulgară
la nordul Dunării.” In Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 ani,
69–81. Bucharest: Editura Academiei R.P.R.
Chorvátová, Hana 2007, “Horizonty byzantsko-orientálnehu šperku na tzv. vel’ko-
moravských pohrebiskách,” Zbornik Slovenského národného muzea Archeológia.
Supplementum 2: 83–101.
406 Bibliography
Chorvátová, Hana 2018, “Schmuckkolektionen an der mittleren Donau.” In 50 Jahre

Archäologie in Thunau am Kamp. Festschrift für Herwig Friesinger, eds. Elisabeth
Nowotny – Martin Obenaus – Sirin Uzunoglu-Obenaus, 125–137. Krems: Edition
Donau-Universität.
Chrysos, Evangelos 2017, “Minors as Patriarchs and Popes.” In Prosopon Rhomaikon.
Ergänzende Studien zur Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, eds. Alexander
Beihammer – Bettina Krönung – Claudia Ludwig, p. 221–239. Berlin: Walter De
Gruyter (Millennium-Studien 68).
Cibulka, Josef 1958, Velkomoravský kostel v Modré u velehradu. a začátkz křesťanství na
Moravĕ. Praga: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd (Monumenta archae-
ologica 7).
Ciobanu, Radu 2004, “Alba Iulia (Jud. Alba). Punct: Dealul Furcilor,” Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice 38: 25.
Ćirić, G. 2013, “Roman coins in medieval female graves in the territory of Serbia: from
discarded to dowries.” In Richesse et Sociétés, eds. Catherine Baroin – Cécile Michel,
105–116. Paris: Editions De Boccard.
Ciugudean, Horia 1996, Anul 1000 la Alba Iulia. Între istorie și arheologie. Catalogul
expoziției/The year one thousand at Alba Iulia. Catalogue. Alba Iulia: Muzeul
Național al Unirii.
Ciugudean, Horia 2006, “Necropola de la Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de salvare’/The Necropolis
from Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de salvare’.” In Habitat, religie, etnicitate. Descoperiri arhe-
ologice din secolele IX–XI în Transilvania. Catalog de expoziție/Habitat – Religion –
Ethnicity: 9th–11th Century Archaeological Finds in Transylvania. Exhibition
Catalogue, eds. Horia Ciugudean – Zeno Karl Pinter – Gabriel T. Rustoiu, 12–32,
114–120. Alba Iulia: Altip.
Ciugudean, Horia 2007, “Pottery offerings in the early middle age cemetery of Alba
Iulia ‘Stația de Salvare’.” In Funerary Offerings and Votive Depositions in Europe’s 1st
Millennium AD. Cultural Artefacts and Local Identities, ed. Călin Cosma, 243–262.
Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Ciugudean, Horia 2011, “Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare.” In Valori ale patrimoniului
românesc. Podoabe și accesorii vestimentare din secolele X–XI, eds. Aurel Dragotă –
Gabriel T. Rustoiu – Matei Drîmbărean, 115–137. Alba Iulia: Altip.
Ciugudean, Horia – Anghel, Gheorghe 1983, “Necropola feudal-timpurie de la
Blandiana, jud. Alba,” Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 15: 361–364.
Ciugudean, Horia – Ciobanu, Radu – Moga, Vasile – Drîmbărean, Matei – Inel,
Constantin – Gligor, Adrian – Dan, Dorin Ovidiu – Rustoiu, Gabriel T. – Dragotă,
Aurel – Plantos, Cristinel 2003, Necropolele orașului Alba Iulia, din preistorie până în
Evul Mediu. Catalog de expoziție. Alba Iulia: Muzeul Național al Unirii.
Ciugudean, Horia – Pinter, Zeno Karl – Rustoiu, Gabriel Tiberiu 2006 (eds.), Habitat,
religie etnicitate. Descoperiri arheologice din sec. IX–XI în Transilvania. Catalog de
expoziție. Alba Iulia: Altip.
Bibliography 407
Ciupercă, Bogdan 2009, “Conceptul de cultură Dridu în arheologia românească.

Apariție, evoluție și controverse,” Istros 15: 133–162.
Ciupercă, Bogdan 2010a, “Câteva observații privind depozitul de unelte descoperit la
Ploiești-Triaj (jud. Prahova).” In Între stepă și imperiu. Studii în onoarea lui Radu
Harhoiu, eds. Andrei Măgureanu – Erwin Gáll, 271–288. Bucharest: Institutul de
Arheologie “Vasile Pârvan”.
Ciupercă, Bogdan 2010b, “Some observations from the point of view of the Slon for-
tifications about power centres in the Lower Danube between the eighth and the
tenth centuries.” In Potestas et communitas. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Wesen
und Darstellung von Herrschaftsverhältnissen im Mittelalter östlich der Elbe, eds.
Aleksander Paroń – Sébastien Rossignol – Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski –
Grischa Vercamer, 275–289. Warschau – Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii
Polskiej Akademii Nauk/Deutsches Historisches Institut Warschau.
Ciupercă, Bogdan 2020, “Kreposti Slona i prisutstvie adrianopolitan k severu ot
Nizhnego Dunaia,” Stratum+, No. 5: 313–327.
Ciupercă, Bogdan – Măgureanu, Andrei 2010, “Locuințe din a doua jumătate a mile-
niului I p. Chr. descoperite la Târgșoru Vechi.” In Arheologia mileniului I p. Chr.
Cercetări actuale privind istoria și arheologia migrațiilor, ed. Lia Maria Voicu, 152–
174. Bucharest: Oscar Print.
Cociș, Sorin – Gáll, Erwin – Urák, Malvinka – Ursuțiu, Adrian 2016, “The Periphery of
the Centre? The Late Avar Cemetery part at Nădlac (Germ.: Nadlak; Hung.: Nagylak;
Slov.: Nadlak),” Archaeologia Bulgarica 29/1: 1–75.
Comșa, Maria 1960, “Die bulgarische Herrschaft nördlich der Donau während des IX.
und X. Jhs. im Lichte der archäologische Forschung,” Dacia 4: 395–422.
Comșa, Maria 1963, “La civilisation balkano-danubienne (IX–XI siècles) sur le territoire
de la R. P. Roumanie,” Dacia 7: 412–438.
Comșa, Maria 1969, “Cercetările de la Slon și importanța lor pentru studiul formării
relaților feudale la sud de Carpați,” Studii și materiale privitoare la trecutul istoric al
județului Prahova 2: 21–29.
Comșa, Maria 1978a, Cultura materială veche românească (Așezările din secolele VIII–X
de la Bucov-Ploiești). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
Comșa, Maria 1978b, “Un knézat roumain des X-e–XII-e siècles Slon-Prahova (Etude
préliminaire),” Dacia 22: 303–317.
Comșa, Maria 1981, “Cetatea de lemn din sec. VIII–IX de la Slon-Prahova,” Muzeul
Național 5: 133–136.
Comșa, Maria 1983, “Drumuri comerciale între Carpați și Dunăre în sec. IX–X,” Muzeul
Național 7: 101–107.
Comșa, Maria 1985, “Ceramica din pastă caolinoasă din Cîmpia Română și unele prob-
leme privind legăturile teritoriului de la nord de Dunăre cu Dobrogea în secolele
IX–X,” Cultură și civilizație la Dunărea de Jos 1: 93–104.
408 Bibliography
Comșa, Maria – Bichir, Gheorghe 1973, “Date preliminarii cu privire la necropola de la

Păuleasca,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 24/2: 317–320.
Congar, Yves 1961, “Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers
dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle et le début du XIVe,” Archives d’histoire doctri-
nale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 28: 35–151.
Corbu, Emilia 1997, “Așezarea medieval-timpurie de la Ștefan cel Mare, punctul
Feteasca (jud. Călărași), sec. IX–X. Campania 1995,” Pontica 30: 251–275.
Corbu, Emilia 2006, Sudul României în Evul Mediu timpuriu (secolele VIII–XI). Repere
arheologice. Brăila: Istros.
Corbu, Emilia 2013, Vlădeni-Popina Blagodeasca. Brăila: Istros (Situri arheologice 4).
Cosma, Călin 2011, Funerary pottery in Transylvania of the 7th–10th centuries. Cluj
Napoca: Mega (Interferențe etnice și culturale în mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr. 20).
Cosma, Călin 2019, “The Avar Presence in Transylvania. Chronology. Motivation. Ter-
ritorial boundaries.” In Inter tempora. The Chronology of the Early Medieval Period.
Issues, Approaches, Results, eds. Florin Mărginean – Ioan Stanciu – László Keve,
47–65. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Orbis Mediaevalis II).
Coureas, Nicholas 2014, “The Latin and Greek churches in former byzantine lands
under Latin rule.” In A Companion to Latin Greece, eds. Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis –
Peter Lock, 145–184. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Cowdrey, H.E.J. 1970, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon
Press.
Crawford, Barbara E. 1987, Scandinavian Scotland. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria Emilia – Oța, Silviu 2005, “Piese inedite din colecția Muzeului
Național de Istorie a României descoperite în necropola de secol XII de la catedrala
romano-catolică de la Alba-Iulia,” Acta Musei Napocensis 39–40/2 (2002–2003):
91–107.
Csánki, Dezső 1894, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában. Budapest:
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.
Csapodi, Csaba – Csapodiné Gárdonyi, Klára 1994, Bibliotheca Hungarica. Kódexek és
nyomtatott könyvek Magyarországon 1526 előtt, vol. 3. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos
Akadémia.
Csemegi, József 1946–1948, “A tihányi barlanglakások,” Archaeológiai értesítő 3/6:
396–405.
Csorba, Csaba 2000, “Gondolatok a keresztény magyar állam és egyház szervezéséről,”
Honismeret 28/3: 3–13.
Ćurčić, Slobodan 2010, Architecture in the Balkans. From Diocletian to Süleyman the
Magnificent. New Haven – London: Yale University.
Curinschi Vorona, Gheorghe 1981, Istoria arhitecturii în România. Bucharest: Editura
Tehnică.
Bibliography 409
Curta, Florin 1997, “Blacksmiths, warriors and tournaments of value: dating and inter-
preting early medieval hoards of iron implements in Eastern Europe,” Ephemeris
Napocensis 7: 211–268.
Curta, Florin 1998–1999, “Iron and potlatch: early medieval hoards of implements and
weapons in Eastern Europe,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 10: 15–62.
Curta, Florin 2001, “Transylvania around A.D. 1000.” In Europe Around the Year 1000, ed.
Przemysław Urbańczyk, 141–165. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DiG.
Curta, Florin 2006, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500–1250. Cambridge
University Press.
Curta, Florin 2011, The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050. The Early Middle
Ages. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Curta, Florin 2019. Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300). Leiden – Boston: Brill
(Brill’s Companions to European History 19).
Curta, Florin 2020, “Marksizm v rabotakh Marii Komsha,” Stratum+, No. 5: 29–41.
Czebe, Gyula 1918, “A veszprémvölgyi oklevél görög szövegkönyve,” Értekezések a történ-
elmi tudományok köréből 24: 1–114.
Czeglédy, Károly 1962, “TEPMATZOYZ,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 10: 79–84.
Dagron, Gilbert 1987, “‘Ceux d’en face’. Les peuples étrangers dans les traités militaires
byzantins,” Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de
Byzance 10: 207–232.
Dagron, Gilbert 2003, Emperor and priest: the imperial office in Byzantium, translated by
Jean Birrell, Cambridge (UK) – New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dagron, Gilbert 2011, L’hippodrome de Constantinople: jeux, peuple et politique, Paris:
Gallimard (Bibliothèque des histoires).
Damian, Oana 1996, “Epoca medievală timpurie.” In Așezări din zona Căscioarele-
Greaca-Prundu – mileniile I î. Hr.-I d. Hr. Observații asupra unor habitate de pe
malurile Lacului Greaca, eds. Valeriu Sârbu – Paul Damian – Oana Damian –
S. Pandrea – E. Safta – Alexandru Niculescu, 103–128, 176–179, 308–336. Brăila: Istros.
Damian, Oana 2005, “Repere arheologice privind orașele medievale din diferite zone.
Dunărea de Jos,” Historia urbana 13/1–2: 141–240.
Damian, Oana – Vasile, Mihai – Samson, Andra 2017, “O necropolă medio-bizantină
cercetată la Nufăru, jud. Tulcea, punctul Trecere bac. Considerații arheologice pre-
liminare,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice (serie nouă) 13: 89–128.
Dănilă, Nicolae 1984, “Elemente bizantine în viața populației autohtone din Banat și
Transilvania în sec. VII–XIII,” Mitropolia Banatului 34/11–12: 707–725.
Dănilă, Nicolae 2010, “Episcopul bizantin Hierotheus la Alba Iulia?” In Sfântul Ierotei,
episcop la Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan Aurel Pop, Jan Nicolae, Ovidiu Panaite, 186–
209. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea. (Republished from the periodical Discobolul 1998, 2:
134–150 and 3: 142–148.)
410 Bibliography
Dankanits, Ádám – Ferenczi, István 1959, “Săpăturile arheologice de la Ciumbrud

(r. Aiud, reg. Cluj),” Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 6: 605–615.
Darkó, Eugen 1933, Byzantinisch-ungarische Beziehungen in der zweiten Hälfte des XIII.
Jahrhunderts. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.
Daskalov, Rumen 2015, “Feud over the Middle Ages: Bulgarian-Romanian historio-
graphical debates.” In Entangled Histories of the Balkans. III. Shared Pasts, Disputed
Legacies, eds. Rumen Daskalov – A. Vezenkov, 274–354. Leiden – Boston: Brill
(Balkan Studies Library 16).
Davies, Rees 2004, “Nations and National Identities in the Medieval World: An
Apologia,” Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis/Revue belge d’Histoire con-
temporaine, 34/4: 567–579.
De Cevins, Marie-Madeleine 2004, Saint Étienne de Hongrie. Paris: Fayard.
De Cevins, Marie-Madeleine 2012, “Christianisme, royauté et identité nationale en
Hongrie à la fin du Moyen Âge.” In ‘Köztes-Európa’ vonzásában. Ünnepi tanulmányok
Font Márta tiszteletére, eds. Dániel Bagi – Tamás Fedeles – Gergely Kiss, 97–126.
Pécs: Kronosz.
De Cevins, Marie-Madeleine 2016, “Les origines medievales de la doctrine de la Sainte
couronne,” Hungarian Studies 30/2: 175–190.
Dennis, Chris 2017, “Ecclesiastical Revival and the Spoils of War: Reconstructing
Episcopal Power in the Diocese of Coutances after 1066.” In Episcopal Power and
Local Society in Medieval Europe, 900–1400, eds. Peter Coss – Chris Dennis – Melissa
Julian-Jones – Angelo Silvestri, 61–79. Turnhout: Brepols.
D’Eszlary, Charles 1959, Histoire des Institutions publiques hongroises, vol. I. Paris:
Librairie Marcel Rivière et Cie.
Diaconu, Petre 1970, Les Petchénègues au Bas-Danube. Bucharest: Editions de l’Académie
de la République Socialiste de Roumanie (Bibliotheca historica Romaniae 27).
Diaconu, Petre 1979, “Review of Cultura materială veche românească (Așezările din
secolele VIII–X de la Bucov- Ploiești) by Maria Comșa, București 1978,” Studii și
cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 30/3: 469–471.
Diaconu, Petre 1986, “Considerații generale asupra așezărilor cu caracter urban de la
Dunărea de Jos (sec. X–XI),” Cultură și civilizație la Dunărea de Jos 3: 223–226.
Diaconu, Petre 1991, “Sur l’organisation ecclésiastique dans la région du Bas-Danube
(dernier tiers du Xe siècle–XIIe siècle).” In Études byzantines et post-byzantines, eds.
Emilian Popescu – Octavian Iliescu – Tudor Teoteoi, vol. II, 73–9. Bucharest: Editura
Academiei Române.
Diaconu, Petre 1994–1995, “Points de vue sur l’organisation ecclésiastique au Bas-
Danube (Xe–XIe siècles),” Dacia, NS 38–39: 449–452.
Diaconu, Petre – Papasima, Tudor – Vlădilă, Petre – Custurea, Gabriel – Sîrbu, Valeriu
1983, “Cercetările arheologice de la Păcuiul lui Soare,” Materiale și cercetări arheo-
logice 15: 435–436.
Bibliography 411
Diaconu, Petre – Vîlceanu, Dumitru 1972, Păcuiul lui Soare, vol. I. Bucharest: Editura
Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
Dickinson, Tania M. – Griffiths, David W. 1999, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and
History, Bd. 10. The Making of Kingdoms; Papers from the 47th Sachsensymposium,
York, September 1996. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.
Dimitrokallis, Georges 2002–2003, “La genèse de l’église en croix grecque inscrite,”
Byzantina 23: 219–232.
Dimitrov, D. Il. 1971, “Novootkrit rannobălgarski nekropol pri Devnja,” Izvestiia na nar-
odniia Muzei Varna 7: 57–76.
Dimitrov, D. Il. 1972, “Rannobălgarski nekropol No 3 pri Devnja,” Izvestiia na narodniia
Muzei Varna 8: 45–65.
Dimitrov, D. Il. 1976, “Po văprosa za grobnite kameri s trupoizgariane v rannosrednove-
kovnite necropoli v severoiztochna Bălgariia i Dobrudzha,” Izvestiia na narodniia
Muzei Varna 12: 8–18.
Dimitrov, Ianko 1992, “Novi danni za arkheologicheskata karta na Pliska.” In Prinosi
kăm bălgarskata arkheologiia. Dekemvriiski dni na bălgarskata arkheologiia “Prof. dr.
Stancho Vaklinov”, eds. Dimităr Ovcharov – Irina Shtereva, vol. 1, 58–67. Sofia: Arges.
Dimitrov, Ianko 2002, “Kăm văprosa za vodosnabdiavaneto i vodoprovodnata mrezha
văv vănshniia grad na Pliska,” Izvestiia na Istoricheskiia muzei Shumen 10: 104–114.
Dimitrov, Khristo 1986, “Bulgaria and the Magyars at the beginning of the 10th century,”
Etudes Balkaniques 22/2: 61–77.
Dimitrov, Khristo 1998, Bălgaro-ungarski otnosheniya prez Srednovekovieto. Sofia:
Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”.
Dincă, Adinel Ciprian 2010, ‘Antroponimul angelofor Mihail în onomastica transilvană
până la 1350. Puncte de vedere și reflecții,’ Anuarul Institutului de Istorie “George
Barițiu” din Cluj-Napoca, Series Historica 49: 347–358.
Dincă, Adinel Ciprian 2012, “Antroponimie și etnie în Transilvania medievală (Epoca
angevină),” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie “George Barițiu” din Cluj-Napoca, Series
Historica 51: 31–46.
Dincă, Ciprian Adinel 2017, Instituția episcopală latină în Transilvania medievală (sec.
XI/XII–XIV). Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut/Mega.
Dincă, Adinel Ciprian 2021, “The Transylvanian Saxons in the Middle Ages and their
Books.” In Adrian Papahagi – Adinel C. Dincă, A history of the book in the medieval
dioceses of Cenad, Oradea and Transylvania. Cluj-Napoca (forthcoming).
Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana – Ionescu, Mihai 1970, “La nécropole bi-rituelle du VIII-e
siècle Frătești-Giurgiu,” Dacia 14: 419–430.
Domozetski, Liuben 2015, “Vodocha predi i sled 1014 g. Niakoi osobenosti na cărkovnoto
izkustvo na prekhoda mezhdu X i XI vek.” In Evropeiskiiat iugoiztok prez vtorata
polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek. Istoriia i kultura. Mezhdunarodna konferenciia,
412 Bibliography
Sofiia, 5–6 oktomvri 2014 g., eds. Vasil Giuzelev – Georgi N. Nikolov, 779–796. Sofia:
Izdatelstvo za Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite.
Doncheva, Stela 2002, “Rolia na basilikalniia tip khramove văv vtorata bălgarska stol-
ica,” Preslavska knizhovna shkola 6: 271–284.
Doncheva, Stela 2003, Bazilikite ot Părvoto bălgarsko carstvo. Arkhitekturen oblik.
Shumen: Antos.
Doncheva, Stela 2007, Medalioni ot Srednovekovna Bălgariia, Veliki Tărnovo: Faber.
Doncheva, Stela 2008, Krăstokupolni cărkvi v Părvoto bălgarsko carstvo. Arkhitekturen
oblik. Veliki Tărnovo: Faber.
Doncheva, Stela 2010, “Architektur und Liturgie im frühmittelalterlichen Bulgarien.”
In Frühmittelalterliche Kirchen als archäologische und historische Quelle, eds. Lumír
Poláček – Jana Mařiková-Kubková, 367–386. Brno: Archäologisches Institut der
Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik.
Doncheva, Stela – Bunzelov, Ivailo 2015–2016, “Production of crosses in the 10th cen-
tury in medieval Bulgaria,” Pontica 48–49: 305–314.
Doncheva-Petkova, Lyudmila 1979, “Croix d’or – Reliquaire de Pliska.” In Culture et art
en Bulgarie Médiévale (VIIIè–XIVè s.), ed. Dimitr Simeonov Angelov et al., 74–91.
Sofia: Editure de l’Académie Bulgare des Sciences (Izvestija na Archeologičeskija
Institut 35).
Doncheva-Petkova, Lyudmila 1990, “Die Protobulgarische Keramik in Bulgarien.” In Die
Keramik der Saltovo-Majaki Kultur und ihrer Varianten, ed. Csanád Bálint, 77–106.
Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (Varia archaeologica Hungarica 3).
Doncheva-Petkova, Lyudmila 2011, Srednovekovni krăstove-enkolpioni ot Bălgariia (IX–
XIV v.). Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Marin Drinov”.
Doncheva-Petkova, Lyudmila 2015, “Srebăren medal’on ot prabălgarskiia nekropol pri
Balchik (otnovo na znaka /Y/),” Dobrudzha 30: 307–318.
Doncheva-Petkova, Lyudmila – Khristova, Mariia 2012, “La transition du paganisme
au christianisme, reflétée dans les nécropoles du IXème–Xème siècle en Bulgarie.”
In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical
Evidence, eds. Maciej Salamon – Marcin Wołoszyn – Aleksandr E. Musin – Perica
Špehar, vol. 1, 447–460. Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warsaw: Instytut Archeologii
i Etnologii PAN/Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
Dragotă, Aurel 2006, Aspecte de multiculturalitate spirituală. Rit și ritual funerar în
Transilvania și în Europa Centrală și de Sud-Est (secolele IX–XI). Alba Iulia: Altip.
Dragotă, Aurel 2010, “Bălgradul în jurul anului 1000. Repere istorice și arheologice:
aspecte funerare în secolele X–XI.” In Sfântul Ierotei, episcop de Alba Iulia (sec. X),
eds. Ioan Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu Panaite, 279–295. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea.
Dragotă, Aurel 2014a, “Eggs as offerings in tenth–eleventh century necropolises,”
Ziridava 28: 183–192.
Bibliography 413
Dragotă, Aurel 2014b, Podoabe și accesorii vestimentare din Banat, Crișana și Transilvania
(secolele X–XI). Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Dragotă, Aurel 2015, “Battle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania
(10th century).” In Warriors, weapons, and harness from the 5th–10th centuries in the
Carpathian Basin, ed. Călin Cosma, 331–342. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Dragotă, Aurel 2017, “Graves with ceremonial and worship objects from the King’s
Spring necropolis in Alba Iulia, Alba County/ Hroby s obradnými a náboženskými
predmetmi z pohrebiska Kráľovský prameň v Alba Iulii, župa Alba,” Slovenská
Archeológia 65/1: 163–175.
Dragotă, Aurel 2018a, “Graves with military equipment from the necropolis in Alba
Iulia – Stația de Salvare (1979–1981), horizon II.” In Inter tempora. The Chronology of
the Early Medieval Period. Issues, Approaches, Results, eds. Florin Mărginean – Ioan
Stanciu – László Keve, 197–228. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Dragotă, Aurel 2018b, “Tipologia inventarului din cimitirul de la Alba Iulia – Izvorul
Împăratului (sec. X–XI)/The categorization of the funeral artefacts from Alba
Iulia – Izvorul Împăratului cemetery site,” Apulum 55/1: 325–351.
Dragotă, Aurel 2018c, “The military entourage of Gyula as shown by the burial place in
Alba Iulia – Izvorul Împăratului (10th–11th century)/Anturajul militar al lui Gyula
ilustrat de cimitirul de la Alba Iulia – Izvorul Împăratului (sec. X–XI),” Apulum 55/1:
259–323.
Dragotă, Aurel 2018d, “Cruce-relicvar și inel bizantin de la Alba Iulia – Izvorul
Împăratului.” In Muzeul Național al Unirii. 130 de ani în 130 de piese, ed. Tudor Roșu,
122–125. Alba Iulia: Altip.
Dragotă, Aurel 2018e, “Dovezi ale misiunii bizantine la Alba Iulia (secolul X),”
Transilvania, Serie nouă, 46 (150), 4: 89–96.
Dragotă, Aurel 2018f, “Suita militară din necropola de la Alba Iulia-Izvorul Împăratului
(sec. X),” Transilvania 46 (150), 8: 70–81.
Dragotă, Aurel 2019, “Ofranda de pasăre în necropolele din secolele X–XI de la Alba
Iulia,” Transilvania 47 (151), 7: 83–94.
Dragotă, Aurel 2020, “Date arheologice preliminare despre cercetările arheologice de
la Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare (1981)/Preliminary Archaeological Data Regarding
the Archaeological Research from Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare (1981),” Transilvania
48 (152), 5: 80–89.
Dragotă, Aurel – Blăjan, Mihai 2018, “The military Entourage of Gyula as shown by the
burial place in Alba Iulia – Izvorul Impăratului (10th–11th century),” Apulum 55/1:
259–323.
Dragotă, Aurel – Blăjan, Mihai 2019a, “Graves with military equipment from the
necropolis in Alba Iulia ‘Stația de salvare’ (1979–1981), horizon II.” In Inter tempora.
The Chronology of the Early Medieval Period. Issues, Approaches, Results. Proceedings
414 Bibliography
of the National Conference, Arad, 26th–29th September 2018, eds. Florin Mărginean –
Ioan Stanciu – László Keve, 197–228. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Dragotă, Aurel – Blăjan, Mihai 2019b, “Birds offerings in the 10th–11th Necropolises
from Alba Iulia,” Ziridava 33: 155–172.
Dragotă, Aurel – Ciugudean, Horia 2002 (eds.), Civilizația medievală timpurie din
Transilvania: rit și ritual funerar în secolele IX–XI. Catalog de expoziție. Alba Iulia:
Altip.
Dragotă, Aurel et al. 2004, “Cercetări arheologice la Alba Iulia – Spitalul Veterinar și
Canton C. F. R. (1961–1962). In memoriam Alexandru Popa,” Acta Terrae Septemcas-
trensis 3: 169–182.
Dragotă, Aurel et al. 2009, Necropola medieval-timpurie de la Alba Iulia – str. Brândușei.
Cercetările arheologice din anii 1997–2008. Alba Iulia: Altip.
Dragotă, Aurel et al. 2010, “Considerations on the necropolis from Gîmbaș (10th cen-
tury),” Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis 7: 65–77.
Dragotă, Aurel et al. 2012, “Materialul numismatic descoperit în necropola de la
Pâclișa – La izvoare (Mun. Alba Iulia, jud. Alba),” Apulum 49: 147–156.
Dragotă, Aurel et al. 2013, “Alba Iulia, jud. Alba. Punct: Pâclișa – La izvoare,” Cronica
Cercetărilor Arheologice. Campania 2012: 147.
Dragotă, Aurel et al. 2015, “The early medieval necropolis from Alba Iulia – Izvorul
Împăratului. Archaeological researches in 2014,” Apulum 52/1: 321–349.
Dragotă, Aurel et al. 2018, “Tipologia inventarului din cimitirul de la Alba Iulia – Izvorul
Împăratului (sec. X–XI),” Apulum 55/1: 325–351.
Dragotă, Aurel – Popescu, Monica-Elena – Blăjan, Mihai 2020, Graves belonging to the
1st Horizon from Alba Iulia- Stația de Salvare. Discoveries made during the archaeo-
logical Research from 1980 and 1981 (forthcoming).
Dragotă, Aurel – Rustoiu, Gabriel Tiberiu 2007, “Offerings of ceramic vessels from the
early medieval cemetery at Alba Iulia – ‘Brândușei street’.” In Funerary offerings and
votive depositions in Europe’s 1st millennium AD. Cultural artefacts and local identi-
ties, ed. Călin Cosma, 229–240. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Dragotă, Aurel – Rustoiu, Gabriel Tiberiu 2012, “Monede romane perforate în desco-
peririle funerare din secolele X–XI.” In Studii de arheologie și istorie. Omagiu profe-
sorului Nicolae Gudea la 70 de ani/Studies in archaeology and history. An anniversary
volume to professor Nicolae Gudea on his 70th birthday, ed. Călin Cosma, 443–450.
Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Drăguț, Vasile 1976, Dicționar enciclopedic de artă medievală românească. Bucharest:
Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică.
Driscoll, Stephen T. 1998, “Church archaeology in Glasgow and the kingdom of
Strathclyde,” The Innes Review 49/2: 95–114.
Drosbach, Gisela – Schmidt, Hans-Joachim (eds.) 2008, Zentrum und Netzwerk: kirchli-
che Kommunikationen und Raumstrukturen im Mittelalter. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bibliography 415
Dujčev, Ivan 1965, “L’epistola sui Bogomili del patriarcha Teofilatto.” In Ivan Dujčev,
Medioevo bizantinoslavo, vol. I, 283–315. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Dujčev, Ivan 1978, “On the Treaty of 927 with the Bulgarians,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
32: 217–295.
Dymaczewska, Urszula – Dymaczewsky, Aleksander 1980, “Résultats des fouilles
archéologiques effectuées à Odărci, département de Tolboukhine (Bulgarie), au
cours des années 1967, 1969–1974 et 1976–1977 (partie occidentale),” Slavia Antiqua
27: 145–171.
Dzanev, Georgi 2000, “Rannosrednovekovni khristiianski pametnici ot Abritus (za
znachenieto na starobălgarskiia znak /Y/),” Pliska-Preslav 8: 224–28.
Dzhingov, Georgi 1961, “Vodosnabdiavaneto na srednovekoven Preslav,” Arkheologiia 3/3:
30–36.
Džordžević, Maja 1996, “Contributions to the Study of the Roman Limes in South
Banat.” In Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube, ed. Petar Petrović, 125–133.
Belgrade: Archaeological Institute (Cahiers des Portes de Fer, Monographies 2).
Eck, Thomas 2000, Die Kreuzfahrerbistümer Beirut und Sidon im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert
auf prosopographischer Grundlage. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Eder, Joseph Carol 1791, Supplex Libellus Valachorum Transsilvaniae iura tribus recep-
tis nationibus communia postliminio sibi adseri postulantium. Claudiopolis: Martin
Hochmeister.
Effenberger, Arne 1977, Byzantinische Kostbarkeiten aus Museen, Kirchenschätzen
und Bibliotheken der DDR: Spätantike, Byzanz, Christlicher Osten : Ausst. im Bode-
Museum, Febr. bis April 1977, Berlin: Staatliche Museen.
Eggers, Martin 1996, Das Erzbistum des Method. Lage, Wirkung und Nachleben der kyril-
lomethodianischen Mission. Munich: Kubon und Sagner (Slavische Beiträge 339).
Eldevik, John 2011, “Bishops in the medieval empire: new perspectives on the church,
state and episcopal office,” History Compass 9/10: 776–790.
Eldevik, John 2012, “Introduction – Bishops, Power, and Medieval Society. A Compar-
ative Approach.” In John Eldevik, Episcopal Power and Ecclesiastical Reform in the
German Empire. Tithes, Lordship, and Community, 950–1150, 1–33. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Engberg, Sysse Gudrun 2004, “Romanos Lekapenos and the Mandilion of Edessa.” In
Byzance et les reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand et Bernard Flusin, 123–142. Paris:
Centre de recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance (Monographies 17).
Engel, Johann Christian 1813–1814, Geschichte des unagrischen Reiches und seiner
Nebenländer. Vienna: Camesina.
Engel, Pál 2001, The Realm of St. Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526.
London – New York: I.B. Tauris & Company.
Engel, Pál – Koszta, László 1994, “Zágrábi püspökség.” In KMTL, 739–740.
Entz, Géza 1958a, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
416 Bibliography
Entz, Géza 1958b, “La cathédrale de Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia),” Acta Historiae
Artium 5/1–2: 1–40.
Entz, Géza 1994, Erdély építészete a 11–13. században. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-
Egyesület.
Érszegi, Géza 1975, “Dunapentele a középkorban,” Fejér Megyei Történeti Évkönyv 9:
7–42.
Érszegi, Géza 1988, “Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről,” Levéltári szemle 38: 3–13.
Érszegi, Géza 1992, “I primi secoli di cristianità.” In Storia religiosa dell’Ungheria, eds.
Adriano Caprioli – Luciano Vaccaro, 45–58. Milano: La Casa di Matriona.
Érszegi, Géza 2000, “Magyarország térítése a források alapján.” In Európa közepe 1000
körül. Kézikönyv „Az Európa közepe 1000 körül” kiállításhoz: történelmi, művészeti
és régészeti tanulmányok, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, 374–379.
Stuttgart: Theiss.
Exarchos, Julia 2015, “Liturgical handbooks as tools for promoting bishops’ ideologi-
cal and political agendas: The example of Cambrai/Arras in the eleventh century,”
Revue du Nord 97: 317–335.
Falkenhausen, Vera von 2002, “The Greek Presence in Norman Sicily: The Contribution
of Archival Material.” In The Society of Norman Italy, eds. Graham A. Loud – Alex
Metcalfe, 253–288. Leiden: Brill.
Featherstone, Michael 1990, “Olga’s Visit to Constantinople,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies
14: 293–312.
Featherstone, Michael 2003, “Olga’s Visit to Constantinople in De Cerimoniis,” Revue
des études byzantines 61: 241–251.
Fehér, Géza 1921, Bulgarisch-ungarische Beziehungen in dem V.–XI. Jahrhunderten.
Budapest: Veröffentlichung der Asiatischen Kommission der Körösi-Csoma-
Gesellschaft.
Feraru, Remus Mihai 2016, “Legenda Sancti Gerhardi episcopi și Deliberatio supra
hymnum trium puerorum: două izvoare fundamentale pentru istoria Banatului în
prima jumătate a secolului al XI-lea.” In Viața și opera Sfântului Gerard de Cenad.
Studii, ed. Claudiu Mesaroș, 133–173. Timișoara: Editura Universității de Vest.
Ferenczi, István 1996, “Az erdélyi honfoglalás kérdése a régészeti leletek világánál,”
Erdélyi Múzeum 58: 9–40.
Ferenczi, Julia – Ferenczi, István jr. – Ferenczi, István sen. 1994, “Așezarea întărită
feudal-timpurie de la Lăpuștești (com. Râșca, jud. Cluj),” Acta Musei Napocensis 31/1:
305–320.
Fiedler, Uwe 1992, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren
Donau, I–II. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen
Archäologie 11).
Fiedler, Uwe 2008, “Bulgars in the Lower Danube region. A survey of the archaeological
evidence and of the state of current research.” In The Other Europe in the Middle
Bibliography 417
Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. Florin Curta, 151–236. Leiden –
Boston: Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages 450–1450, 2).
Fiedler, Uwe 2012, “Der archäologische Niederschlag der Christianisierung des donau-
bulgarischen Reiches (864/5),” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 8: 107–138.
Fliche, Augustin 1930, Histoire du Moyen Age, tome II, L’Europe Occidentale de 888 à
1125. Paris: PUF.
Fliche, Augustin 1940, La Réforme grégorienne et la Reconquête chrétienne (1057–1123).
Paris: Bloud & Gay.
Florescu, Cristian Titus – Ota, Radu 2016, “Un mormânt din secolul X descoperit în
incinta fostului castru roman de la Apulum,” Apulum 53/1: 245–253.
Florescu, Radu 1965, Capidava. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste
România.
Florescu, Radu – Cheluță-Georgescu, N. 1974, “Săpăturile de la Capidava,” Pontica 7:
417–435.
Flusin, Bernard 1999, “Le Panégyrique de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète pour la trans-
lation des reliques de Grégoire le Théologien (BHG 728),” Revue des études byzan-
tines 57: 5–97.
Flusin, Bernard 2010a, “Re-writing history: John Skylitzes’ Synopsis historion.” In John
Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History (811–1057). Translated by John Wortley,
with introductions by Jean-Claude Cheynet, and Bernard Flusin, and notes by
Jean-Claude Cheynet, XII–XXXIII. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Flusin, Bernard 2010b, “Le triomphe des images et la nouvelle définition de l’ortho-
doxie. À propos d’un chapitre du De cerimoniis (I, 37).” In Orthodoxy and Heresy in
Byzantium. The definition of the Νotion of Orthodoxy and some other Studies on the
Heresies and the non-christian Religions, eds. Antonio Rigo – Pavel Ermilov, 3–20.
Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma (Quaderni di Νέα Ῥώμη 4).
Flusin, Bernard 2011, “L’image d’Édesse, Romain et Constantin.” In Sacre impronte e
oggetti ‘non fatti da mano d’uomo’ nelle religioni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale –
Torino, 18–20 maggio 2010, ed. Adele Monaci Castagno, 253–277. Alessandria:
Edizioni dell’Orso.
Flusin, Bernard 2016, “Entre innovation et tradition: hagiographie nouvelle et saints
anciens (VIIIe–Xe s.).” In Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine
Studies; Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016. Plenary papers, ed. Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić,
13–34. Belgrade: The Serbian National Committee of AIEB.
Flusin, Bernard 2017, “Remarques sur la date de rédaction du De cerimoniis.” In Οὗ
δῶρόν εἰμι τὰς γραφὰς βλέπων νόει. Mélanges Jean-Claude Cheynet, eds. Béatrice
Caseau – Vivien Prigent – Alessio Sopracasa, 151–168. Paris: Association des Amis du
Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance (Travaux et Mémoires 21/1).
Fodor, István 1984, “Die Bulgaren in den ungarischen Ländern während der Ansied-
lungsperiode der Ungarn,” Mitteilungen des Bulgarische Forschungsinstitutes in
Österreich 6/2: 47–54.
418 Bibliography
Fodor, István (ed.) 1996, The Ancient Hungarians. Exhibition catalogue. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum.
Földváry, Miklós István 2010, “Unknown Fragments of Ordines in Medieval Hungary
and Related Central European Churches.” In Dom Jean Mabillon figure majeure
de l’Europe des lettres. Actes des deux colloques du tricentenaire de la mort de dom
Mabillon. Abbaye de Solesmes, 18–19 mai 2007. Palais de l’Institut, Paris, 7–8 décem-
bre 2007, eds. Jean Leclant – André Vauchez – Daniel-Odon Hurel, 671–683. Paris:
Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
Folz, Robert 1991, “Aux origines de la royauté en Pologne et en Hongrie,” Le Moyen Age.
Revue d’histoire et de Philologie 97/2: 275–280.
Folz, Robert 1984, Les saints rois du Moyen Âge en Occident (VIe–XIIIe siècles). Bruxelles:
Sociétés des Bollandistes.
Font, Márta 1996, “Magyarok és keleti szlávok az Árpád-korban. Adalékok a kapcso-
latok egyháztörténeti hátteréhez.” In A magyar művelődés és kereszténység. A IV.
Nemzetközi Hungarológiai Kongresszus előadásai. Róma–Nápoly 1996. szeptem-
ber 9–14, eds. József Jankovics – István Monok – Judit Nyerges, vol. II, 497–506.
Budapest – Szeged: Nemzetközi Magyar Filológiai Társaság – Scriptum Rt.
Font, Márta 1998–1999, “Mittelalterliche Herrschaftsbildung in Ungarn und in der
Kiewer Rus’ im Vergleich,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 24: 1–18.
Font, Márta 2005a, “Missions, Conversions and Power Legitimization in East-Central
Europe at the Turn of the First Millenium.” In East Central and Eastern Europe in the
Early Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, 283–295. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Font, Márta 2005b, A keresztény nagyhatalmak vonzásában. Közép- és Kelet-Európa a
10–12. században. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó.
Font, Márta 2009, Államalapítás 970–1038. Budapest: Metropol Könyvtár (Magyarország
története 2).
Frantz, M.A. 1938, “Middle Byzantine pottery in Athens,” Hesperia 7: 429–467.
Fried, Johannes 1989, Otto III und Boleslas Chrobry. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
Frînculeasa, Alin – Soficaru, Andrei Dorian – Dumitrescu, Claudia – Negrea, Octav –
Garvăn, Daniel – Munteanu, Roxana 2017, “Raport de cercetare arheologică pre-
ventivă la Târgșoru Vechi (jud. Prahova), punctul Movila de la Pădure,” Anuarul
Muzeului Județean de Istorie și Arheologie Prahova. Studii și cercetări 8: 9–58.
Frost, Christian 2009, Time Space and Order: The making of medieval Salisbury. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Fuglesang, Signe Horn 1997, “A critical survey of theories on Byzantine influence in
Scandinavia.” In Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im
Ostseeraum während des 8.–14. Jahrhunderts, ed. Michael Müller-Wille, vol. 1, 35–58.
Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.
Fülöp, András – Koppány András 2002, “A veszprémvölgyi apácákolostor régészeti
kutatása (1998–2002),” Műemlékvédelmi szemle 12/1: 5–40.
Bibliography 419
Fülöp, András – Koppány András 2004, “A crosier from the territory of the Veszprém-
völgy convent,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 55: 115–135.
Gabor, Adrian 1989, “Organizarea administrativă și religioasă a Imperiului Bizantin
dată de Vasile II Macedoneanul și importanța ei pentru istoria poporului român,”
Studii Teologice 41/5–6: 98–117.
Gabriel, A.L. 1961, “The conversion of Hungary to Christianity,” The Polish Review 6/4:
31–43.
Galadza, Daniel 2018, Liturgy and Byzantinization in Jerusalem. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press (Oxford Early Christian Studies).
Galambosi, Péter 2020, “Az egri püspökség kezdetei,” Egyháztörténeti szemle 66: 3–20.
Gáll, Erwin 2002, “Contribuții privind elaborarea sistemului cronologic al descoper-
irilor funerare din secolul X în Bazinul Transilvan,” Ephemeris Napocensis 12: 289–312.
Gáll, Erwin 2005, “Burial Customs in the 10th–11th centuries in Transylvania, Crişana
and Banat,” Dacia, N.S. 48–49: 335–454.
Gáll, Erwin 2009, “The date of the appearance of the S-ended lock-rings in the
Transylvanian Basin,” Ephemeris Napocensis 19: 157–175.
Gáll, Erwin 2010, “Ritualurile funerare și problematica grupurilor culturale în Bazinul
Transilvan în secolul X.” In Arheologia mileniului I p. Chr. Cercetări actuale privind
istoria și arheologia migrațiilor, ed. Maria Voicu, Bogdan Ciupercă, 184–235.
Bucharest: Oscar Print.
Gáll, Erwin 2013a, Az Erdélyi-medence, a Partium és a Bánság 10–11. századi temetői,
szórvány- és kincsleletei, I–II. Budapest – Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem
Régészeti Tanszék – Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum – Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Régészeti Intézet.
Gáll, Erwin 2013b, “The question of centres of power in the light of 10th century necropo-
les in the Transylvanian Basin – the case of the Cluj necropoles.” In Macht des
Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen Antike und
Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Akten des 23. internationalen Symposiums
der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum,
Tengelic, 16.–19. 11. 2011, eds. Matthias Hardt – Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, 461–482.
Weinstadt: Bernhard Albert Greiner (Forschungen zur Spätantike und Mittelalter 2).
Gáll, Erwin 2014, “A periferikus 10. századi Erdélyi-medence. Néhány gondolat a 10.
századi ‘magyar hatalmi hálózat’ erdélyi hódításáról,” Korunk 8: 82–95.
Gáll, Erwin – Gergely, Balázs – Gál, Szilárd 2010, La răscruce de drumuri. Date arheolog-
ice privind teritoriul orașului Cluj-Napoca în secolele X–XIII. Cluj-Napoca: Kriterion.
Gáll, Erwin – Gál, Szilárd – Vremir, Matei – Gergely, Balázs 2011, “Pogrebenie no. 10 iz
mogil’nika Kluzh-Zapol’ia i dinamika zavoevaniia vengrami Transil’vanii,” Stratum+,
No. 5: 223–242.
Gáll, Erwin – Türk, A. – Nagy, S. – Peter, S. – Wanek, F. 2019, “Can One Use the Results
of 14C Analyses to Perform Historical Interpretations? The Case of the 10th century
420 Bibliography
Funerary Site in Cluj-Napoca-Zapolya Street.” In Inter tempora. The Chronology of

the Early Medieval Period. Issues, Approaches, Results, eds. Florin Mărginean – Ioan
Stanciu – László Keve, 177–196. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Orbis Mediaevalis II).
Gandino, Germano 1999, “Ruolo dei linguaggi e linguaggio dei ruoli: Ottone III, Silvestro
II e un episodio delle relazioni tra impero e papato,” Quaderni storici 34/10: 617–658.
Geary, Patrick J. 2002, Myths of nations: the medieval origins of Europe. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Gelting, Michael H. 2007, “The kingdom of Denmark.” In Christianization and the Rise
of Christian Monarchy Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200, ed. Nora
Berend, 73–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gelzer, Heinrich 1893, “Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistümerverzeichnisse der
orientalischen Kirche (II),” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2/1: 22–72.
Gelzer, Heinrich 1902, “Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Geschichte und Urkunden,”
Abhandlungen der philosophische-historische Classe der königliche Sächsischen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 20/5: 3–231.
Genova, Evelina 1974, “Srednovekovna cărkva v selo Gigen, Plevensko,” Muzei i pamet-
nici na kulturata 14/1: 14–16.
Georgiev, Pavel 1978, “Znak-ideograma ot Pliska,” Vekove 7/1: 65–69.
Georgiev, Pavel 1992, “Vodosnabdiavane i kanalizaciia v dvorcoviia centăr na Pliska,”
Pliska-Preslav 5: 77–104.
Georgiev, Pavel 1996, “Za proizkhoda i semantikata na znaka ipsilon v rannobălgar-
skata kultura.” In Bălgarite v Severnoto Prichernomorie. Izsledvaniia i materiali, ed.
Petar Todorov, vol. 5, 89–100. Veliko Tărnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Sv. Kiril
i Metodii”.
Georgiev, Pavel 2017, “Kolekciia ot vizantiiski beloglineni sădove ot sredata na X
vek v manastira pri s. Ravna (severoiztochna Bălgariia).” In Polivnaia keramika
Sredizemnomor’ia i Prichernomor’ia X–XVIII vv., eds. Sergei G. Bocharov – Véronique
François – Airat G. Sitdikov, vol. 2, 259–269. Kazan’ – Kishinew: Izdatel’stvo “Stratum
plus”.
Georgieva, Saška 2011, “The first Hungarian princess in mediaeval Bulgaria.” In Bulgaria
mediaevalis, eds. Vasil Giuzelev – Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova – Kiril Nenov, vol. 2
(Studies in honour of Professor Vasil Giuzelev), 467–480. Sofia: Bulgarian Historical
Heritage Foundation.
Georgieva, Svetlana 1958, “Krstove-enkolpioni ot srednevekoven Preslav.” In: Izsledo-
vanija v česti na Akad. D. Dečeva, 605–609. Sofia.
Gerics, József – Ladányi, Erzsébet 1996, “A Szentszék és a magyar állam a 11 században.”
In Magyarország és a Szentszék. Kapcsolatának Ezer Éve, ed. Zombori István, 9–20.
Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség.
Getcha, Job 2005, “La dédicace des églises dans le rite byzantin.” In Les enjeux spirituels
et théologiques de l’espace liturgique, eds. Carlo Braga – Alessandro Pistoia, 75–91.
Roma: Edizioni Liturgiche.
Bibliography 421
Ghenescu, Ovidiu – Sana, Daniel V. – Ștefu, Viorel 2000, “Cercetări arheologice

de suprafață în sectorul Vințu de Jos – Tărtăria,” Buletinul Cercurilor Științifice
Studențești 6: 69–85.
Giesler, Jochen 1981, “Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Bijelo Brdo-Kultur. Ein
Beitrag zur Archäologie des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken,” Praehis-
torische Zeitschrift 56/1: 4–167.
Gieysztor, Aleksander 1968, “Mouvements para-hérétiques en Europe Centrale et
Orientale du 9e au 11e siècle: Apostasies.” In Hérésies et sociétés dans l’Europe
pré-industrielle 11e–18e siècles, ed. Jacques Le Goff, 159–169. Paris – La Haye: Mouton
& Co.
Giurescu, Constantin C. 1976, Istoria pădurii românești din cele mai vechi timpuri și pînă
astăzi. Bucharest: Ceres.
Giuzelev, Vasil 1986, “Die spätantike und frühmittelalterliche Stadt auf bulgarischem
Territorium (6.–10. Jh.).” In Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Kultur Bulgariens zwis-
chen Orient und Okzident. Referate gehalten im Rahmen eines gemeinsam mit dem
Bulgarischen Forschungsinstitut in Österreich organisierten Arbeitsgespräches vom 8.
bis 10. November 1983, ed. Renate Pillinger, 21–24. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Glück, Eugen 1980, “Cu privire la istoricul părților arădene în epoca ducatului lui
Ahtum.” In Studii privind istoria Aradului, 101–105. Bucharest: Editura Politică.
Graus, Frantisek 1981, “La sanctification du souverain dans l’Europe Centrale des Xe et
XIe siècles.” In Hagiographie, cultures et sociétés, IVe–XIIe siècles: Actes du Colloque
organisé à Nanterre et à Paris (2–5 mai 1979), 559–572. Paris: Études augustiniennes.
Grecu, A. 1950, “Bulgaria în nordul Dunării în veacurile IX și X,” Studii și cercetări de
istorie medie 1: 223–236.
Greer, Sarah – Hicklin, Alice – Esders, Stefan 2019, Using and Not Using the Past after
the Carolingian Empire c.900–c.1050. New York: Routledge.
Grégoire, Henri – Orgels, Paul 1954, “L’invasion hongroise dans la ‘Vie de saint Basile le
Jeune’,” Byzantion 24: 147–154.
Grigorov, Valeri 2011, “Pliska ‘Dvorcov centăr-iztok’”, Arkheologicheski otkritiia i raz-
kopki, 2011: 385–88.
Grigorov, Valeri 2013, “Nakiti v Bălgariia i Velikomoraviia ot IX–X v. (vizantiiski kulturni
vliianiia),” Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 3: 99–119.
Gudea, Nicolae – Cosma, Călin 1998, “Crucea relicvar descoperită la Dăbâca.
Considerații privind tipologia și cronologia crucilor relicvar bizantine din bronz, cu
figuri în relief, descoperite pe teritoriulRomâniei,” Ephemeris Napocensis 8: 273–303.
Gúdor, Kund Botond 2008, Istoricul Bod Péter (1712–1769). Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Gulyás, Gyöngyi – Gallina, Zsolt – Türk, Attila 2019, “Újabb régészeti adatok a Duna-
Tisza köze honfoglalás kori településtörténetéhez és a 10. századi bolgár-magyar
kapcsolatok kérdéséhez egy Tázlari sír.” In “Hadak útján”. A népvándorláskor
fiatal kutatóinak XXIX. konferenciája. Absztraktkötet, eds. Balázs Sudár – Attila
422 Bibliography
Türk, 115–121. Budapest: Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Magyar Őstörténeti

Témacsoport.
Guscin, Mark 2009, The Image of Edessa, Leiden – Boston (Massachusetts): Brill (The
Medieval Mediterranean 82).
Gyóni, Mátyás 1945, “L’oeuvre de Kekauménos, source de l’histoire roumaine,” Revue
d’Histoire Comparée 23, N.S., 3/1–4: 96–180.
Gyóni, Mátyás 1947, “L’Eglise orientale dans la Hongrie du XIe siècle,” Revue d’Histoire
Comparée 25, N.S., 5/3: 42–49.
Gyóni, Mátyás 1948, “L’évêché vlaque de l’archevêché bulgare d’Achris aux XIe–XIVe
siècles”, Études slaves et roumaines 1/3: 148–159.
Györffy, György 1952–1953, “A szávaszentdemeteri görög monostor XII. századi bir-
tokösszeírása,” MTA II. Osztályának közleményei 2: 325–362; 3: 69–104.
Györffy, György 1964, “Zur Geschichte der Eroberung Ochrids durch Basileios II.” In
Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines (Ochride, 10–16 septembre
1961), vol. 2, 149–154. Belgrade: Naučno Delo.
Györffy, György 1972, “Abfassungszeit, Autorschaft und Glaubwürdigkeit der Gesta
Hungarorum des Anonymen Notars,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hunga-
ricae 20: 209–229.
Györffy, György 1976, “Rôle de Byzance dans la conversion des Hongrois”. In Cultus et
Cognitio. Studia z dziejów średniowiecznej kultury, ed. Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński,
169–180. Warsawa: Państ. Wydaw. Naukowe.
Györffy, György, 1983, “Gyulafehérvár kezdetei, neve és káptalanjának registruma,”
Századok 117/5: 1103–1134.
Györffy, György 1984, “A kalandozások kora.” In Magyarország története. Előzmények
és magyar történet 1242-ig, eds. György Székely – Antal Bartha, 651–716. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Györffy, György 1985, “Landnahme, Ansiedlung und Streifzüge,” Acta Historica Aca-
demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31/3–4: 264–265.
Györffy, György 1987, Az árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza (Geographia
Historica Hungariae Tempore Stirpis Arapadianae), vol. II–III. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Györffy, György 1994a, “Dual kingship and the seven chieftains of the Hungarians
in the era of the conquest and the raids,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum
Györffy, György 1994b, King Saint Stephen of Hungary. Boulder – New York: Columbia
University Press (East European Monographs 403).
Györffy, György 2000, István király és műve. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó.
Györffy, György 2002, “Pregled dobara grčkog manastira u Svetom Dimitriju na Savi
(Sremska Mitrovica) iz XII veka,” Spomenica Istorijskog arhiva Srem 1: 7–64.
Bibliography 423
H. Tóth Imre 1994, “Adalékok a korai magyar – szláv egyházi és kulturális kapcsolatok
kérdéséhez.” In Fejezetek a régebbi magyar történelemből I, ed. Makk Ferenc, 55–71.
Budapest7: Tankönyvkiadó.
H. Tóth, Imre 1995, “A magyarság korai kapcsolatai az ortodox szlávokkal.” In Az orto-
doxia története Magyarországon a XVIII. századig, ed. H. Tóth Imre, 27–35. Szeged:
JATE Szláv Filológiai Tanszék.
H. Tóth, Imre 2000, “Magyar – szláv kapcsolatok a 9–11. században,” Partes Populorum
Minores Alienigenae 6/1: 11–41.
Haimovici, Sergiu – Blăjan, Mihai 1989, “Studiul faunei din locuințele prefeudale (sec.
V–VI e. n.) descoperite la Alba Iulia (1985, 1986 și 1988),” Apulum 26: 335–346.
Haimovici, Sergiu – Blăjan, Mihai 1992, “Studiul faunei din locuințele feudale timpurii
(secolele X–XIII) descoperite la Alba Iulia (1982, 1985, 1986),” Ephemeris Napocensis 2:
207–230.
Hampe, Karl 1953, Das Hochmittelalter. Geschichte des Abendlandes von 900 bis 1250.
Münster – Köln: Böhlau-Verlag.
Hamza, Gábor 1994, “Les sources des Décrets de Saint Étienne.” In Cristianità ed Europa.
Miscellanea di Studi in onore di Luigi Prosdocimi, ed. Cesare Alzati, vol. I, 369–375,
Roma – Freiburg – Vienna: Herder.
Hânceanu, George Dan 2011, “Ocupațiile comunităților autohtone din bazinul
Bârladului (secolele VI–XI).” In Arheologia mileniului I p. Chr. II. Interferențe cultur-
ale la Dunărea de Jos, eds. Lia Maria Voicu – Bogdan Ciupercă, 241–298. Bucharest:
Oscar Print.
Hardi, Đura 2002, “Galički kneževi darodavci manastira Svetog Dimitrija na Savi,”
Spomenica Istorijskog arhiva Srem 1: 65–75.
Hardi, Đura 2004, “Ruski kraljevi Galicije darodavci manastira Svetog Dimitrija na
Savi,” Istraživanja 15: 49–61.
Hardi, Đura 2006, “Putovanja dva ugledna putnika iz ruskih zemalja kroz Panoniju i
Balkan sredinom 13. veka.” In Balkan i Panonija kroz istoriju. Zbornik radova, 125–136.
Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Harhoiu, Radu 1994–1995, “Review of Uwe Fiedler, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis
9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau (Bonn, 1992),” Dacia 38–39: 495–499.
Harhoiu, Radu 2005, “Allgemeine Betrachtungen zum Bestattungssitenbild Siebenbür-
gens im 4. und bis zur mitte des 9. Jahrhunderts,” Dacia. N.S. 48–49 (2004–2005):
283–334.
Harțuche, Nicolae – Anastasiu, Florian 1976, Catalogul selectiv al colecției de arheologie
a Muzeului Brăilei. Brăila: Istros.
Harțuche, Nicolae – Anastasiu, Florian 1980, “Săpăturile arheologice de la Sihleanu,
com. Scorțaru Nou, jud. Brăila,” Istros 1: 93–109.
Harțuche, Nicolae – Anastasiu, Florian – Broscățean, Ioan 1967, “Necropola de inciner-
ație feudală timpurie de la Chiscani sat-Brăila,” Danubius 1: 137–178.
424 Bibliography
Haubrichs, Wolfgang 2004, “Identität und Name. Akkulturationsvorgänge in Namen

und die Traditionsgesellschaften des frühen Mittelalters.” In Die Suche nach den
Ursprüngen Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, ed. Walter Pohl, 85–106.
Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hayden, Brian 1995, “Pathways to power. Principles for creating socioeconomic inequal-
ities.” In Foundations of Social Inequality, eds. T. Douglas Price – Gary M. Feinman,
16–86. New York – London: Plenum Press.
Heikkilä, Tuomas – Ommundsen, Åslaug 2017, Nordic Latin Manuscript Fragments: The
Destruction and Reconstruction of Medieval Books. Abingdon: Routledge.
Heitel, Radu R. 1972, “Archäologische Beiträge zu den romanischen Baudenkmälern
aus Südsiebenbürgen,” Revue Roumaine d’Histoire de l’Art. Série Beaux–Arts 9/2:
139–160.
Heitel, Radu R. 1975a, “Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der romanischen
Baudenkmäler in Siebenbürgen II (in Zusammenhang mit der zeitlichen Bestim-
mung der ältesten ‘Rotunda Ecclesia’ Rumäniens und der Kathedrale I in Alba
Iulia),” Revue Roumaine d’Histoire de l’Art. Série Beaux–Arts 12: 3–10.
Heitel, Radu R. 1975b, “Contribuții la problema genezei raporturilor feudale în
Transilvania în lumina cercetărilor arheologice de la Alba Iulia.” In Muzeul Național
București, Sesiunea științifică de comunicări 17–18 decembrie 1973, vol. 2:343–351.
Bucharest: Muzeul de Istorie al Republicii Socialiste România.
Heitel, Radu R. 1983a, “Unele considerații privind civilizația din bazinul carpatic în cur-
sul celei de-a doua jumătăți a secolului al IX-lea în lumina izvoarelor arheologice,”
Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 34/2: 93–115.
Heitel, Radu R. 1983b, “Săpăturile arheologice din așezarea de la Alba Iulia,” Materiale
și Cercetări Arheologice 15: 446–448.
Heitel, Radu R. 1985, “Principalele rezultate ale cercetărilor arheologice din zona
sud-vestică a cetății Alba Iulia (1968–1977). I,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și
arheologie 36/3: 215–231.
Heitel, Radu R. 1986, “Principalele rezultate ale cercetărilor arheologice din zona
sud-vestică a cetății de la Alba Iulia (1968–1977). II. Piesele de metal,” Studii si
cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 37: 233–248.
Heitel, Radu R. 1994–1995, “Die Archäologie der ersten und zweiten Phase des Eindrin-
gens der Ungarn in das innerkarpatische Transilvanien,” Dacia 38–39: 389–439.
Heitel, Radu R. – Dan, Dorin Ovidiu 1986, “Cercetările arheologice efectuate la Alba
Iulia punctul ‘Monetăria’ și Sebeș-Alba,” Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 16:
187–189.
Herbers, Klaus 2006, “Religions et frontieres.” In Frontiers in the Middle Ages: Proceed
ings of the Third European Congress of Medieval Studies ( Jyväskylä, 10–14 June 2003),
ed. Outi Merisalo, 703–716. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.
Bibliography 425
Herde, Peter 2002, “The Papacy and the Greek Church in Southern Italy between
the Eleventh and the Thirteenth Century.” In The Society of Norman Italy, eds.
Graham A. Loud – Alex Metcalfe, 213–252. Leiden: Brill.
Hermann, Egyed 1973, A katolikus egyház története Magyarországon 1914-ig. Munich:
Aurora.
Herold, Hajnalka 2010, “The Ceramic ‘Tableware’ of the Carolingian Period in Zalavár,
South West Hungary,” Antaeus 31–32: 155–172.
Herrin, Judith 2013, “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Judith
Herrin, Margins and Metropolis: Authority Across the Byzantine Empire. 239–266.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Higounet, Charles 1990, Die deutsche Ostsiedlung im Mittelalter. Munich: Deutscher
Taschenbuch Verlag.
Histoire de la Hongrie des origines à nos jours. Budapest: Éditions Horvath, 1974.
Hofmann, G. 1947, “Papst Gregor VII. und der christliche Osten,” Studi Gregoriani 1:
169–181.
Holl, Béla 1992, “Spiritualitas dominorum ultramontanorum: sulla poesia medievale
liturgica în Ungheria e sul suo riflesso europeo.” In Storia religiosa dell’Ungheria,
eds. Adriano Caprioli – Luciano Vaccaro, 123–137. Milan: La Casa di Matriona.
Holler László 1996, “A magyar korona néhány alapkérdéséről,” Századok 130: 907–964.
Holtzmann, W. 1924–1925, “Studien zur Orientpolitik des Reformspapsttums und zur
Entstehung der ersten Kreuzzuges,” Historische Vierteljahrschrift 22: 167–199.
Hóman, Bálint 1935, “Első könyv. Az ősidőktől a XII századig.” In Magyar történet, ed.
Bálint Hóman – Gyula Szekfű, 15–417. Budapest: Kiralyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda.
Hóman, Bálint 1940, Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, vol. I. Berlin: Walter De
Gruyter.
Homza, Martin 2017, Mulieres suadentes – persuasive women: female royal saints in
medieval East Central and Eastern Europe, translated by Martina Fedorová. Leiden:
Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages 450–1450, 42).
Horedt, Kurt 1951, “Ceramica slavă din Transilvania,” Studii și Cercetări de Istorie
Veche 2/2: 189–218.
Horedt, Kurt 1954, “Voievodatul de la Bălgrad-Alba Iulia,” Studii și Cercetări de Istorie
Veche, 5/1–2: 487–512.
Horedt, Kurt 1958a, Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte Siebenburgens, Bucharest:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Horedt, Kurt 1958b, Contribuții la istoria Transilvaniei în secolele IV–XIII. Bucharest:
Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române.
Horedt, Kurt 1966, “Die Ansiedlung von Blandiana, Rayon Orăștie am Ausgang des
ersten Jahrtausends u. Z.,” Dacia 10: 261–290.
Horedt, Kurt 1986, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
426 Bibliography
Horváth, Ciprián – Merva, Szabina – Tomka, Péter 2012, “Oroszvár (Rusovce, Sl.)
10–11.századi temetője.” In Sötét Idők Rejtélyei. 6–11. századi régészeti emlékek a
Kárpát-medencében és kornyékén, eds. András Liska – Imre Szatmári, 375–404.
Békéscsaba: Békés Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága (Tempora Obscura 3).
Horváth, Mihály 1878, A kereszténység első százada Magyarországon. Budapest:
Ráth Mór.
Hrubý, Vilém 1965, Staré Město: velkomoravský Velehrad. Praha: Nakladatelství
Československé akademie věd.
Hunyadi, Sándor 2019, “Az erdélyi káptalan kezdetei.” In Magister historiae III.
Válogatott tanulmányok a 2016-ban és 2017-ben megrendezett középkorral foglalkozó
mesterszakos hallgatói konferenciák előadásaiból, eds. Benjamin Borbás – Szabolcs
László Kozák-Kígyóssy, 57–75. Budapest: ELTE BTK Történelemtudományi Doktori
Iskola.
Huss, Richard 1934, “Gab es zur Zeit der Deutschkolonisation Siebenbürgens ein
griechisch-katholisches Bistum in Weissenburg?,” Siebenburgische Vierteljahrschrift
57: 16–21.
I placiti del Regnum Italiae, ed. Cesare Manaresi, Vol. II, p. 1 (962–1002). Roma: Istituto
Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1957.
Iambor, Petru 1980, “Contribuții documentare privind unele așezări românești din
vestul țării la începutul feudalismului,” Acta Musei Napocensis 17: 159–175.
Iambor, Petru 2005, Așezări fortificate din Transilvania (sec. IX–XIII). Cluj-Napoca:
Argonaut.
Iliev, Ilia G. 2001, “Variagite v istoriiata na Părvoto bălgarsko carstvo.” In Vikingite –
moreplavateli, otkrivateli, săzdateli. Material ot mezhunarodna konferenciia, pro-
vedena v Sofiiskiia universitet “Sv. Kliment Okhridski” (15–17 mai 2000), ed. Elizariia
Ruskova, 85–88. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Okhridski”.
Iliev, Ilia G. 2011, “The first two centuries of the archbishopric of Ohrid.” In State and
Church. Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, eds. Vasil Giuzelev, Kiril Petkov,
237–252. Sofia: The American Research Center in Sofia.
Iliev, Iliian 2015, “Dve nakhodki ot rannosrednovekovno selishte ot raion na gr.
Dălgopol,” Pliska-Preslav 11: 423–430.
Ilieva, Gergana 2008, “Khristianska simvolika vărkhu arkheologicheski pametnici ot
vremeto na kniaz Boris Părvi.” In Khristiianskata kultura v srednovekovna Bălgariia.
Materiali ot nacionalna nauchan konferenciia, Shumen 2–4 mai 2007 godina po
sluchai 1100 godini ot smărtta na Sv. kniaz Boris-Mikhail (ok. 835–907 g.), ed. Pavel
Georgiev, 323–344. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber.
Ilievski, Petar Khr. 1996, “‘Enigmatichnite’ znaci vrz gradezhen materijal od crkvite na
Bregalnica,” Prilozi. Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite. Oddelenie za
lingvistika i literaturna nauka 21/1: 25–39.
Bibliography 427
Imrényi, Tibor (ed.) 2002, Magyarság és ortodoxia ezer esztendő. Miskolc: Magyar
Ortodox Egyházmegye – Miskolci Ortodox Múzeumért Alapítvány.
Inkova, Mariela 2014, “Za khristiianskata simvolika na znaka ‘ipsilon’ v starobălgar-
skata kultura,” Problemi na izkustvoto 3: 3–10.
Inkova, Mariela 2020, “Nov starobălgarski pechat s ipsilon ot Vătreshniia grad na
Pliska.” In Carissimae magistrae grato animo. Sbornik v pamet na prof. Iordanka
Iurukova, ed. Miroslava Dotkova, 281–296. Sofia: Nacionalen arkheologicheski insti-
tut s muzei BAN.
Inoue, Koichi 2006, “The Adventus Ceremony of Edessa and Imperial Legitimacy,”
Orient, 41: 21–40.
Iogna-Prat, Dominique 2017, “The Meaning and Usages of Medieval Territory,” Annales.
Histoire. Sciences Sociales – English Edition 72/1: 91–100.
Ioniță, Adrian – Ciupercă, Bogdan 2003, “Depozitul de la Plopu (jud. Prahova).” In In
memoriam Radu Popa. Temeiuri ale civilizației românești în context European, eds.
Daniela Marcu Istrate – Angel Istrate – Corneliu Gaiu, 177–184. Cluj-Napoca: Accent
(Biblioteca Muzeului Bistrița. Seria Historica 7).
Iordanov, Iordan 2006, “The seals of Byzantine fiscal institutions (815/816/971) discov-
ered in Bulgaria,” Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 9: 97–144.
Iordanov, Ivan 2013, “Vizantiiskoto prisăstvie v Preslav (971–986). Prinosăt na sfragisti-
kata,” Preslav. Sbornik 7: 267–302.
Iorga, Nicolae 1913, Notes d’un historien relatives aux événements des Balkans. Bucharest:
Institut d’Art Graphique Charles Göbl.
Iorga, Nicolae 1937, Histoire des Roumains et de la romanité orientale. Vol. III: Les fon-
dateurs d’état. Bucharest: Académie Roumaine.
Ivanov, Sergey Arkad’evič 2003, Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo. Mozhno li sdelat’ iz “varvara”
khristianina? Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury.
Ivanov, Sergey Arkad’evič 2015, ‘Pearls before Swine’: Missionary Work in Byzantium,
adapted from a translation from Russian by Deborah Hoffman. Paris: ACHCByz
(Monographies 47).
Jákli, István 1996, Szent István az ember. Sopron: Bethlen Gábor Könyvkiadó.
Jakó, Sigismund 1977, “Oradea în istoria bibliotecilor noastre medievale.” In Sigismund
Jakó, Philobiblon transilvan, 13–71. Bucharest: Kriterion.
Jakó, Zsigmond (ed.) 1997, Erdélyi okmánytár, vol. I. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Janković, M. 1983, “Neki podatii o izradi predmeta od obojenik metala na kluču Dunava
u IX–XI veku,” Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja 11: 99–118.
Jaspert, Nikolas, 2007, “Grenzen und Grenzräume im Mittelalter: Forschungen,
Konzepte und Begriffe.” In Grenzräume und Grenzüberschreitungen im Vergleich,
eds. Klaus Herbers – Nikolas Jaspert, 43–70. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Jekelfalussy, József 1897, The Millennium of Hungary and its People. Budapest: Pesti
Könyvnyomda-Részvénytársaság.
428 Bibliography
Jensen, Kurt Villads 2017, Crusading at the Edges of Europe. Denmark and Portugal
c.1000–c.1250. London – New York: Routledge.
Jezierski, Wojtek 2019, “St Adalbertus Domesticus. Patterns of Missioning and Episcopal
Power in Poland and Scandinavia in the Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries,” Acta
Poloniae Historica, 119: 209–260.
Jireček, Konstantin 1959, “Hrišćanski element u topografskoj nomenklaturi balkanskih
zemalja.” In Zbornik Konstantina Jirečeka I, 527–565. Belgrade: Naučno delo.
Johnson, Leslie – Murray, Alan V. – Forde, Simon (eds.) 1995, Concepts of National
Identity in the Middle Ages. Leeds: Leeds Studies in English.
Juhász, Kálmán 1926, Hajdani monostorok a csanádi egyházmegyében. Budapest: Szent-
István Akadémia.
Juhász, Kálmán 1930, A csanádi püspökség története alapításától a tatárjárásig (1030–
1242). Makó: Csanád vármegye közönsége.
Kaiser, Reinhold 1990, “Bistumsgründung und Kirchenorganisation im 8. Jahrhundert.”
In Der hl. Willibald – Klosterbischof oder Bistumsgründer?, eds. Harald Dickerhof –
Ernst Reiter – Stefan Weinfurtner, 29–67. Regensburg: Pustet.
Kaldellis, Anthony 2019, Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Kalousek, František 1971, Břeclav – Pohansko. I, Velkomoravské pohřebiště u kostela:
archeologické prameny z pohřebiště. Brno: Universita J.E. Purkyně.
Kapitánffy, István 1996, “Cerbanus és Maximus-fordítása.” In Mons Sacer 996–1996.
Pannonhalma 1000 éve. I., ed. Takács Imre, 357–368. Pannonhalma: Pannonhalmi
Főapátság.
Kaplan, Michel 2001, “Le choix du lieu saint d’après certaines sources hagiographiques
byzantines.” In Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident, ed.
Michel Kaplan, 183–198. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.
Karácsonyi, János 1925, “Az erdélyi püspökség története 1526-ig.” In Az erdélyi katholi-
cizmus századai, ed. Bertalan Bagossy et al., 16–30. Târnăveni/Dicsőszentmárton.
Katona-Kiss, Atilla 2010, “A Bolgár Kánság és a Kárpát-medence a IX. században,”
Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 123: 168–214.
Kazakov, E.P. – Chalikov, A. Ch. – Chuzin, F.S. 1990, “Die Keramik vom Saltovo-Typ aus
dem mittleren Wolgagebiet.” In Die Keramik der Saltovo-Majaki Kultur und ihrer
Varianten, ed. Csanád Bálint, 137–169. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
(Varia archaeologica Hungarica 3).
Kazhdan, Alexander P. et al. 1991, The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium I–III. New York –
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelleher, Patrick J. 1951, The Holy Crown of Hungary. Rome: American Academy in
Rome.
Keszi, Tamás 2017, “Levedia, the egg of Columbus and what follows,” Az Intercisa
Múzeum Évkönyve 2: 29–55.
Bibliography 429
Kézikönyvtár. Száz Magyar Falu. Szabolcs, ed. Németh Péter. Available at https://www
.arcanum.hu/hu/online-kiadvanyok/SzazMagyarFalu-szaz-magyar-falu-1/szabolcs
-F6F3/ (accessed 2020 July 7).
Khalikova, E.A. – Kazakov, E.P. 1977, “Le cimetière de Tankeevka.” In Les anciens
hongrois et les ethnies voisines a l’est, ed. István Erdélyi, 21–222. Budapest: Magyar
Tudományos Akadémia (Studia Archaeologica 6).
Khlebnikova, T.A. 1984, Keramika pamjatnikov Volzhskoj Bolgarii. K voprosu ob jetnokul-
turnom sostave naselenija, Moscow.
Khristova, Mariya 2009, “Amforovidnite sădovekato khronologichen pokazatel (po
danni ot biritualnite necropoli).” In Eurika. In honorem Ludmilae Donchevae-Petkovae,
eds. Valeri Grigorov – Metodi Daskalov – Evgeniia Komatarova-Balinova, 231–243.
Sofia: Bălgarska Akademiia na naukite.
Khristova, Mariya 2015, “Keramika iz biritual’nykh mogil’nikov nizhnego Dunaya i
voprosy yeye khronologii,” Povolzhskaya Arkheologiya, 1 (11): 91–125.
Kim, Minko – Shin, Heung-Nam – Kim, Jinheee – Roh, Kyeong-jung – Ryu, Ara – Won,
Haesun – Kim, Juho – Oh, Semi – Noh, Hyeongsin – Kim, Sumin 2016, “The ins and
the outs: foodways, feasts, and social differentiation in the Baekje Kingdom, Korea,”
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 43: 128–139.
Kirilov, Chavdar 2006, Die Stadt des Frühmittelalters in Ost und West. Archäologische
Befunde Mitteleuropas im Vergleich zur östlichen Balkanhalbinsel. Bonn: Habelt
(Studien zur Archäologie Europas 3).
Kiss, Gergely 2007, “Les influences de l’Église orthodoxe en Hongrie aux Xè–XIè siècle,”
Specimina Nova Pars Prima. Sectio Medievalis 4: 51–71.
Klaniczay, Gábor 2004, “The birth of a new Europe about 1000 CE: conversion, transfer
of institutional models, new dynamics.” In Eurasian transformations, tenth to thir-
teenth centuries: crystallizations, divergences, renaissances, ed. Jóhann Páll Árnason,
99–129. Leiden: Brill.
Klaniczay, Gábor 2010, “Conclusion: North and East European Cults of Saints in
Comparison with East-Central Europe.” In Saints and their lives on the periphery:
veneration of saints in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe (c. 1000–1200), eds. Haki Thor
Antonsson – Ildar H. Garipzanov, 283–304. Turnhout: Brepols.
Klueting, Edeltraud – Klueting, Harm – Schmidt, Hans-Joachim (eds.) 2006, Bistümer
und Bistumsgrenzen vom frühen Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Rom: Herder.
Knipper, Corina – Koncz, István – Odor, János Gábor – Mende, Balázs Gusztáv –
Rácz, Zsófia – Kraus, Sandra – Gyseghem, Robin van – Friedrich, Ronny – Vida,
Tivadar 2020, “Coalescing traditions – Coalescing people: Community formation in
Pannonia after the decline of the Roman Empire,” Plos One 15(4): e0231760. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231760 (accessed 2021 April 6).
Kóčka-Krenz, Hanna 2010, “Pre-Romanesque palatial chapel in Poznań,” Quaestiones
Medii Aevi Novae 15: 221–239.
430 Bibliography
Kolias, Taxiarchis G. 2012, “The Horse in the Byzantine world.” In Le cheval, animal de
guerre et de loisir dans l’Antiquité et au Moyen Âge : actes des journées d’étude interna-
tionales organisées par l’UMR 7044, Étude des civilisations de l’Antiquité, Strasbourg,
6–7 novembre 2009, ed. Stavros Lazaris, 87–98. Turnhout: Brepols.
Komáromi, László 2007, “A bizánci kultúra egyes elemei és közvetítő tényezői a közép-
kori Magyarországon,” Iustum Aequum Salutare 3/1: 215–228.
Komatarova-Balinova, Evgeniia 2012, “Sravnitelnaia kharakteristika elementov pogre
balnogo obriada biritualnikh mogilnikov nizhnedunajskogo naseleniia i Saltovo-
Maiackoi kulturi,” Stepi Evropy v jepohu srednevekov’ja 9: 135–164.
Konakliev, Angel – Doncheva, Stela 2011, “Patriarsheska chast na carskiia dvorec văv
Veliki Preslav,” Arkheologicheski otkritiia i razkopki, 398–400.
Konakliev, Angel – Doncheva, Stela 2012, “Patriarsheska chast na carskiia dvorec văv
Veliki Preslav,” Arkheologicheski otkritiia i razkopki, 379–381.
Konakliev, Angel – Doncheva, Stela 2013, “Patriarsheska chast na carskiia dvorec –
Veliki Preslav,” Arkheologicheski otkritiia i razkopki prez 2013, 462–464.
Kontler, László 2004, “Foundation Myths and the Reflection of History in Modern
Hungary.” In The shifting foundations of modern nation-states: realignments of
belonging, eds. Sima Godfrey, Frank Unger, 131–148. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Körmendi, Tamás 2012, “A zágrábi püspökség alapítási éve.” In ‘Köztes-Európa’
vonzásában. Ünnepi tanulmányok Font Márta tiszteletére, eds. Dániel Bagi – Tamás
Fedeles – Gergely Kiss, 329–341. Pécs: Kronosz.
Kostova, Rosina 2002, “Manastirăt v Tuzlalăka, Preslav: nov pogled,” Arkheologiia 43/2:
13–24.
Kostova, Rosina 2004, “Imalo li e manastiri-ergasterii v Bălgariia prez X vek?” In Civitas
divino-humana. V chest na profesor Georgi Bakalov, eds. Cvetelin Stepanov – Veselina
Vachkova, 457–469. Sofia: Centăr za izsledvaniia na bălgarite Tangra TanNakRa IK.
Koszta, László 1996, “A keresztény egyházi szervezet kialakulása.” In Árpád előtt és után.
Tanulmányok a magyarság és hazája korai történetéről, eds. Gyula Kristó – Ferenc
Makk, 105–115. Szeged: Somogyi Könyvtár.
Koszta, László 1999, “L’organisation de l’église chrétienne en Hongrie.” In Les Hongrois
et l’Europe: conquête et intégration (Colloque, juin 1997, organisé par l’Université de
Szeged, JATE; Paris III-Sorbonne nouvelle, CIEH; l’Institut hongrois de Paris), eds.
Sándor Csernus – Klára Korompay, 293–311. Paris: Publications de l’Institut Hongrois
de Paris.
Koszta, László 2001, “A váci püspökség alapítása,” Századok 135/2: 363–375.
Koszta, László 2009a, “A püspökség alapítása.” In A pécsi egyházmegye története. 1. A
középkor évszázadai, 1009–1543, eds. Tamás Fedeles – Gábor Sarbak – József Sümegi,
13–42. Pécs: Fény Kft.
Bibliography 431
Koszta, László 2009b, “A nyitrai püspökség létrejötte (Nyitra egyháztörténete a 9–13.

században),” Századok 143/2: 257–318.
Koszta, László 2010, “Államhatalom és egyházszervezet a 11. századi Magyarországon:
vázlat a kereztény magyar állam kiépülésének dinamikájáról,” Valóság 53/6: 53–59.
Koszta, László 2012, Fejezetek a korai magyar egyházszervezet történetéből. Habilitation
thesis. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem.
Koszta, László 2013, A kalocsai érseki tartomány kialakulása. Pécs: Pécsi Történettu-
dományért Kulturális Egyesület (Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate
Quinqueecclesiensi 2).
Koszta, László, 2014, “Byzantine Archiepiscopal Ecclesiastical System in Hungary?”
In A Kárpát-medence, a magyarság és Bizánc, ed. Terézia Olajos, 127–143. Szeged:
Lectum (Acta Universitatis Szegediensis (Opuscula Byzantina 11. The Carpathian
Basin, the Hungarians and Byzantium).
Kosztolnyik, Zoltán J. 1974, “The negative results of the enforced missionary policy of
King Saint Stephen of Hungary: the uprising of 1046,” The Catholic Historical Review
59/4: 569–586.
Kosztolnyik, Zoltán J. 1981, Five Eleventh Century Hungarian Kings: Their Policies and
Their Relations with Rome. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kosztolnyik, Zoltán J. 2001, “Byzantine Christianity and the Early Magyars in the Record
of the Byzantine Chroniclers,” Specimina Nova. Pars Prima. Sectio Mediaevalis. Dis-
sertationes Historicae collectae per Cathedram Historiae Medii Aevi Modernorumque
Temporum Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis 1: 59–71.
Kosztolnyik, Zoltán J. 2002, Hungary under the Early Arpads, 890s to 1063. Boulder –
New York: Columbia University Press (East European Monographs 605).
Kovács, András 1984, Construcții patronate de Gabriel Bethlen. Teză de doctorat, Cluj-
Napoca: Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai.
Kovács, András 1996, Gyulafehérvár, Szent Mihály-székesegyház. Cluj-Napoca (Erdélyi
műemlékek 26).
Kovács, István 1941, “A kolozsvári Zápolya-utcai magyar honfoglaláskori temető. –
Der landnahmezeitliche Friedhof von Kolozsvár, Zápolya Gasse,” Közlemények az
Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából 2/1: 85–118.
Kovács, László 1981, “Vooruženie vengrov- obretatelej rodiny: sabli, boevye topory,
kop’ja/Die waffen der landnehmenden Ungarn: sabel, kampfaxte, lanzen,” Mittei-
lungen der Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
10/11: 243–255.
Kovács, László 1990, “Szablya-kard fegyverváltás. A kétélü kardos 10–11. századi magyar
sírok keltezéséhez,” Archaeologiai Értesítő 117: 39–49.
Kovács, Mihai 2017, “Întemeierea episcopiei Transilvaniei: o perspectivă istoriografică,”
Buletinul cercurilor științifice studențești. Arheologie – istorie – muzeologie, Alba Iulia
23: 101–116.
432 Bibliography
Kowalská, Eva 2003, “Der habsburgische Staat und die protestantischen Kirchen vom
16 bis zum 18. Jahrhundert,” Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historia 7: 25–34.
Kralovánszky, Alán 1984, “Újabb adatok Veszprém és Székesfehérvár településtör
ténetéhez,” A Veszprém megyei múzeumok közleményei 17: 189–208.
Krautheimer, Richard 1986, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture. New Haven –
London: Yale University.
Kresten, Otto 2000, ‘Staatsempfänge’ im Kaiserpalast von Konstantinopel um die Mitte
des 10 Jahrhunderts. Beobachtungen zu Kapitel II 15 des sogennanten ‘Zeremonien
buches’. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
(Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse.
Sitzungsberichte 670).
Kresten, Otto – Müller, Andreas E. 1995. Samtherrschaft, Legitimationsprinzip und kaiser-
licher Urkundentitel in Byzanz in der ersten Hälfte des 10. Jahrhunderts. Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 603).
Kristó, Gyula 1965, “Megjegyzések az ún ‘pogánylázadások kora’ történetéhez,” Acta
Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae. Acta Historica 18: 1–59.
Kristó, Gyula 1980, Levedi törzsszövetségétől Szent István államáig. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Kristó, Gyula 1985, “A fekete magyarok és a pécsi püspökség alapítása”, Acta Universitatis
Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae. Acta historica 82: 11–17.
Kristó, Gyula 1988a, A Vármegyek kialakulása Magyarországon. Budapest: Magvető.
Kristó, Gyula 1988b, “A 10. századi Erdély politikai történetéhez,” Századok 122/1–2:
3–35.
Kristó, Gyula 1993, Die Arpaden Dynastie. Geschichte Ungarns von 895 bis 1301. Budapest:
Corvina.
Kristó, Gyula 1994, “Les Keans dans le Bassin carpathique,” Hungaro-Bulgarica 5: 11–24.
Kristó, Gyula 1996a, “Vallási türelem az Árpád-kori Magyarországon.” In A magyar
művelődés és kereszténység. A IV. Nemzetközi Hungarológiai Kongresszus előadá-
sai. Róma–Nápoly 1996. szeptember 9–14., eds. József Jankovics – István Monok –
Judit Nyerges, vol. II, 485–496. Budapest – Szeged: Nemzetközi Magyar Filológiai
Társaság – Scriptum Rt.
Kristó, Gyula 1996, Hungarian History in the ninth century. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász
Műhely.
Kristó, Gyula 1998, “The Bishoprics of Saint Stephen, King of Hungary.” In In honorem
Paul Cernovodeanu, ed. Violeta Barbu, 55–66. Bucharest: Kriterion.
Kristó, Gyula 1999, “Despre formarea comitatelor sud-transilvănene,” Acta Siculica: a
Székely Múzeum és a Székely Nemzeti Múzeum évkönyve 2 (1998): 9–23.
Kristó, Gyula 2001, “Romans and Vlachs in the works by Nestor and Anonymus,”
Specimina Nova. Pars Prima. Sectio Mediaevalis 1: 15–57.
Bibliography 433
Kristó, Gyula 2002a, A korai Erdély (895–1324). Szeged: Középkorász Műhely (Szegedi
Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 18).
Kristó, Gyula 2002b, Magyar historiográfia. Történetírás a középkori Magyarországon.
Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
Kristó, Gyula 2003, Early Transylvania (895–1324). Budapest: Lucidus Kiadó.
Kristó, Gyula 2004, Ardealul timpuriu. (895–1324). Szeged: Atelierul de Istorie Medievală
(Biblioteca de Istorie Medievală din Szeged 20) (original Hungarian version: A korai
Erdely (895–1324), Szeged: Segedi Középtörténeti Kőnivtár, 2002).
Krsmanović, Bojana 2017, “Castration as a consequence of the strengthening of the
dynastic principle,” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 54: 41–64.
Kunitsky, V.A. 1990, “Bliz Koshidni enkolpioni na teritorr Pivdennoi Rusi,” Archeologia
Kiev 1: 106–116.
Kuzev, Alexander – Giuzelev, Vasil 1981, Bălgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti.
Tom 1. Gradove i kreposti po Dunav i Černo More. Varna: Knigoizdatelstvo Georgi
Bakalov.
Langó, Péter 2012, “Notes on the dating of Byzantine coin finds from 10th century con-
text in the Carpathian Basin.” In Die Archäologie der Frühen Ungarn. Chronologie,
Technologie und Methodik. Internationaler Workshop des Archäologischen Instituts
der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz in Budapest am 4. und 5. Dezember 2009, ed. Tobias
Bendeguz, 49–66. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum.
Langó, Péter – Patay-Horváth, A. 2015, “Moravian continuity and the conquering
Hungarians – a case study based on grape-bunch pendants.” In “Castellum, civitas,
urbs.” Zentren und Eliten im Frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa. Centres and Elites
in Early Medieval East-Central Europe, eds. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska – Hajnalka
Herold – Péter Straub – Tivadar Vida, 367–380. Budapest – Leipzig – Keszthely –
Rahden/Westfalien: Verlag Marie Leidorf (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 6).
Laurent, Vitalien 1940, “Ὁ βαρδαριωτῶν ἤτοι Τούρκων: Perses, Turcs asiatiques ou
Turcs Hongrois?” Sbornik vŭ pametŭ na Prof. Petăr Nikov. Izvestiya na Bălgarskoto
Istorichesko Druzhestvo XVI–XVIII: 275–289.
Lauwers, Michel 2005, Naissance du cimetière. Lieux sacrés et terre des morts dans l’Oc-
cident médiéval, Paris: Aubier.
Lawrence, C.H. 1995, Il monachesimo medievale. Forme di vita religiosa in Occidente.
Milan: San Paolo.
Lazaris, Stavros 2012, “Essai de mise au point sur la place du cheval dans l’Antiquité
tardive.” In Le cheval, animal de guerre et de loisir dans l’Antiquité et au Moyen Âge
: actes des journées d’étude internationales organisées par l’UMR 7044, Étude des civ-
ilisations de l’Antiquité, Strasbourg, 6–7 novembre 2009, ed. Stavros Lazaris, 15–23.
Turnhout: Brepols.
434 Bibliography
Le Bras, Gabriel 1959, Institutions ecclésiastiques de la Chrétienté médievale. Prelimi-

naires, Paris: Bloud & Gay.
Leahu, Valeriu 1969, “Săpăturile arheologice de la Otopeni (II),” București. Materiale de
istorie și muzeografie 7: 5–12.
Leclercq, Jean 1959, L’idée de la royauté du Christ au Moyen Âge. Paris: Les Éditions du
CERF.
Lehr, Waldemar 1909, Pilgrim Bischof von Passau und die Lorcher Fälschunge. Berlin:
Inaugural Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde.
Leszka, Mirosław J. – Marinov, Kirił 2018, “Foreign Policy.” In The Bulgarian State in
927–969, The Epoch of Tsar Peter I, eds. Kirił Marinov – Mirosław J. Leszka, 111–135.
Łodz University Press (Byzantina Łodziensia 34).
Lienhard, Thomas 2007, “Qui administre l’espace religieux? Évêques, archevêques et
papauté face à la Pannonie au IXe siècle.” In Les Élites et leurs espaces. Mobilité, ray-
onnement, domination, eds. Philippe Depreux – François Bougard – Régine Le Jan,
247–258. Turnhout: Brepols.
Lisson, Jelle 2017, “Edges of Episcopal Power: Local Society and the Evolution of
Diocesan Borders in Liège (c. 900–c. 1200).” In Episcopal Power and Local Society in
Medieval Europe, 900–1400, eds. Peter Coss – Chris Dennis – Melissa Julian-Jones –
Angelo Silvestri, 157–174. Turnhout: Brepols.
Litavrin, Genadij G. 1981, “Puteshestviye russkoy knyagini Ol’gi v Konstantinopol’.
Problema istochnikov,” Vizantiyskiy vremennik 42: 35–48.
Litavrin, Genadij G. 2000, Vizantiya, Bolgariya, Drevnyaya Rus’ (IX–nachalo XII v.).
St. Petersburg: Aleteya.
Ljubinković, Marko 1970, “Nekropola trgve Sv. Petra kod Novog Pazara,” Zbornik
Narodnog Muzeja 6: 169–258.
Loud, Graham A. 2006, “Southern Italy in the Tenth Century.” In The New Cambridge
Medieval History 3: 900–c.1024, ed. Timothy Reuter, 624–645. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Loud, Graham A. 2007, The Latin Church in Norman Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lovag, Zsuzsa S. 1971, “Byzantine type reliquary pectoral crosses in the Hungarian
National Museum,” Folia Archaeologica 22: 143–163.
Luca, Cristian – Măndescu, Dragoș 2001, Rituri și ritualuri funerare în spațiul extracar-
patic în secolele VIII–X, Brăila: Muzeul Brăilei.
Luca, Sabin Adrian – Pinter, Zeno Karl 2001, Der Böhmerberg bei Broos/Orăștie. Eine
archäologische Monographie, Sibiu: Editura Universității “Lucian Blaga” (Bibliotheca
Musei Apulensis 16).
M. Nepper, Ibolya 1991, “Sárrétudvari és környéke a XIII. századig,” A Bihari Müzeum
Évkönyve 6–7: 13–61.
Bibliography 435
M. Nepper, Ibolya 2002, Hajdú-Bihar megye 10–11. századi sírleletei. Budapest –

Debrecen: Paulus Bt.
Macháček, Jiří – Sládek, Vladimír 2019, “The Great Moravian Rotunda at Pohansko
and an Osteobiographical Profile of Its Founder.” In The Fall of Great Moravia. Who
was buried in Grave H153 at Pohansko near Břeclav, eds. Jiří Macháček – Martin
Wihoda, 1–38. Leiden – Boston: Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle
Ages 450–1450, 54).
Macháček, Jiří – Dresler, Petr – Přichystalová, Renáta – Sládek, Vladimír 2016, Břeclav –
Pohansko VII. Kostelní pohřebiště na Severovýchodním předhradí, Brno: Filozofická
fakulta, Masarykova univerzita (Spisy Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity 455).
Madas, Edit 2002, “A legkorábbi fennmaradt magyarországi prédikációk (Sermók
Hartvik püspök szertartáskönyvében).” In Jubileumi csokor Csapodi Csaba tisz-
teletére: tanulmányok, ed. Marianne Rozsondai, 173–190. Budapest: Argumentum.
Madgearu, Alexandru 1994, “Misiunea episcopului Hierotheos. Contribuții la istoria
Transilvaniei și Ungariei în secolul al X-lea,” Revista Istorică, S.N. 5/1–2: 147–154.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2001a, Românii în opera Notarului Anonim, Cluj-Napoca: Centrul
de Studii Transilvane (Bibliotheca Rerum Transsylvaniae 27).
Madgearu, Alexandru 2001b, “The Church Organization at the Lower Danube, between
971 and 1020.” In Études byzantines et post-byzantines, eds. Emilian Popescu – Tudor
Teoteoi, vol. IV, 71–85. Iași: Trinitas.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2002–2003, “Transylvania and the Bulgarian expansion in the
9th and 10th centuries,” Acta Musei Napocensis 39–40/2: 41–62.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2005a, The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum.
Truth and Fiction. Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Cultural Institute.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2005b, “Transylvania and the Bulgarian expansion in the 9th
and 10th centuries,” Acta Musei Napocensis. Istorie 39–40/2: 41–61.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2005c, “Salt trade and warfare: the rise of the Romanian-Slavic
military organization in early medieval Transylvania.” In East Central and Eastern
Europe in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, 103–120. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2007, “The Dridu culture and the changing position of Romania
among the Communist states,” Archaeologia Bulgarica 11/2: 51–59.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2008, “The Mission of Hierotheos: location and significance,”
Byzantinoslavica 66: 119–138.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2010, “Misiunea episcopului Hierotheos în contextul diplomației
bizantine.” In Sfântul Ierotei, episcop de Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan Aurel Pop, Jan
Nicolae, Ovidiu Panaite, 69–94. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2011, Istoria militară a Daciei post-romane, 275–614. Târgoviște:
Cetatea de Scaun.
436 Bibliography
Madgearu, Alexandru 2013a, “Confrontations between Hungary, the Byzantine Empire

and Bulgaria for the Belgrade-Vidin Border Region in the 9th–14th Centuries,”
Transylvanian Review 23, Supplement 4: 125–133.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2013b, Byzantine Military Organization on the Danube, 10th–12th
Centuries. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2017, “Further considerations on Hierotheos’ mission to the
Magyars,” Acta Musei Napocensis 54/2: 1–16.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2018, Organizarea militară bizantină la Dunăre în secolele X–XII.
Târgoviște: Cetatea de Scaun.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2019, Expansiunea maghiară în Transilvania. Târgoviște: Cetatea
de Scaun.
Madzsar, Imre 1938, “Praefatio.” In SRH 2, 463–470.
Maior, Petru 1995, Istoria Bisericii românilor, ed. Ioan Chindriș. Bucharest: Viitorul
Românesc.
Maistorski, Georgi 2009, “Pătiiat na Ioan Cimiskhi kăm Preslav.” In Pătuvaniiata v sred-
novekovna Bălgariia. Materiali ot părvata nacionalna konferenciia “Pătuvane kăm
Bălgariia. Pătuvaniiata v srednovekovna Bălgariia i săvremenniiat turizăm”, Shumen,
8–11. 05. 2008 g., ed. Ivan Iordanov, 403–410. Veliko Tărnovo: Abagar.
Makk, Ferenc 1982, “III. Béla és Bizánc,” Századok 116/1: 33–62.
Makk, Ferenc 1994, “Relations hungaro-bulgares au temps de prince Géza et du roi
Étienne Ier.” In Hungaro-Bulgarica, V. Szegedi Bolgarisztika, eds. Samu Szádeczky-
Kardoss – Teréz Olajos – Imre H. Tóth – István Ferincz, 25–33. Szeged: JATE-Press.
Makk, Ferenc 1996, Magyar külpolitika (896–1196). Szeged2: Szegedi Középkorász
Műhely (Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 2).
Makk, Ferenc 1998, “Szent László és a Balkán.” In Ferenc Makk, A turulmadártól a
kettőskeresztig. Tanulmányok a magyarság régebbi történelméről, 163–175. Szeged:
Szegedi Középkorász Műhely.
Makk, Ferenc 1999, Ungarischen Außenpolitik (896–1196). Herne: Tibor Schäfer (Studien
zur Geschichte Ungarns 3).
Makk, Ferenc 2000a, “Szent István és utódai.” In Európa és Magyarország Szent
István korában, eds. Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Makk, 319–348. Szeged: Csongrád Megye
Önkormányzata.
Makk, Ferenc 2000b, “A kalocsai érsekség bácsi székhelyének létesítéséről.” In Kalocsa
történetéből. ed. Lajós Koszta, 21–27. Kalocsa: Önkormányzat.
Makk, Ferenc 2003, “Turkia egész szállásterülete,” Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta
Historica 117: 3–14.
Makk, Ferenc 2012, “Ladislaus der Heilige und der Balkan.” In Ferenc Makk, Vom myth-
ischen Vogel Turul bis zum Doppelkreuz, 197–217. Herne: Gabriele Schäfer.
Makkai, László 1943, “Erdély népe a középkorban”. In Magyarok és románok, I, eds.
József Deér – László Gáldi, 314–440. Budapest: A Magyar Történettudományi Intézet
Évkönyve.
Bibliography 437
Makkai, László 1987, “Politische Geschichte Siebenbürgens im 10. Jh.” In Forschungen

über Siebenbürgen und seine Nachbarn. Festschrift für Attila T. Szabó and Zsigmond
Jakó, eds. Kálmán Benda – Thomas von Bogyay – Horst Glassl – Zsolt K. Lengyel,
vol. 1, 33–50. Munich: Rudolf Trofenik.
Maksimović, Ljubomir – Popović, Marko 1993, “Les sceaux byzantins de la région dan-
ubienne en Serbie. II. La collection du Musée National de Belgrade.” In Studies in
Byzantine Sigillography, ed. Nikolaos Oikonomidès, vol. 3, 113–142. Washington DC:
Dumbarton Oaks.
Mango, Cyril 1978, Byzantine Architecture. Milan: Electa.
Mango, Cyril 1981, Architecture Byzantine. Paris: Berger-Levrault.
Mango, Cyril (ed.) 2002, The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford – New York: Oxford
University Press.
Manteuffel, Tadeusz – Gieysztor, Aleksander (eds.) 1968, L’Europe aux IXe–XIe siècles.
Aux origines des états nationaux. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Mănucu-Adameșteanu, Gheorghe 1982, “Cruci-relicvar de tip bizantin descoperite în
sudul Dobrogei,” Pontica 25: 349–354.
Mănucu-Adameșteanu, Gheorghe 1984, “Elemente de cultură bizantină la gurile
Dunării,” Peuce 9: 375–388.
Mănucu-Adameșteanu, Gheorghe – Poll, Ingrid 2009, “Bracelets en verre découverts
dans les nécropoles de Isaccea-Vicina, département de Tulcea (Xe–XIIIe siècles).”
In Annales du 18e Congrès de l’Association internationale pour l’histoire du verre, eds.
Despina Ignatiadou – Anastasios Antonaras, 389–394. Thessaloniki: Association
Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre.
Marasovič, Tomislav 2005, “Ranosrednjovjekovne preinake antičkih građevina u
Dalmaciji,” Prilozi Povijesti Umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 39/1: 61–68.
Marasovič, Tomislav 2008, “Ranosrednjovjekovne crkve pseudobazilikalnoga tipa u
Dalmaciji,” Archaeologia Adriatica 11: 555–572.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2008a, A gyulafehérvári római katolikus székesegyház és püspöki
palota régészeti kutatása (2000–2002). Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2008b, Catedrala romano-catolică „Sfântul Mihail” și palatul
episcopal din Alba Iulia. Cercetări arheologice (2000–2002). Alba Iulia: Altip.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2009a, Catedrala romano-catolică Sfântul Mihail și palatul epis-
copal din Alba Iulia. Cercetări arheologice 2000–2002, Alba Iulia: Altip.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2009b, Catedrala romano-catolică și palatul episcopal din Alba
Iulia. Arheologie și istorie/The Roman Catholic Cathedral and the Episcopal Palace in
Alba Iulia: archaeology and history/A Gyulafehérvári Római Katolikus Székesegyház
és Püspöki Palota: régészet és történelem. Exhibition honoring The Millennium
Jubilee of the Catholic Episcopacy of Transylvania: Alba Iulia, The National Union
Museum, June–July 2009. Alba Iulia: Altip.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2010, Erdély ezeréves püspöksége. A gyulafehérvári Szent Mihály
Székesegyház és Érseki Palota. Régészeti kutatása 2000–2008/Thousand Years of
438 Bibliography
the Diocese of Transylvania. The Archaeological Investigation of the Saint Michael

Cathedral and of the Archiepiscopal Palace in Alba Iulia 2000–2008/ Episcopia
Romano-Catolică a Transilvaniei: 1000 de ani de existență. Cercetarea arheologică
a catedralei Sfântul Mihail și a Palatului Arhiepiscopiei din Alba Iulia 2000–2008.
Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2012a, “Régészeti adalékok a Szent Mihályról nevezett, gyulafe-
hérvári római katolikus székesegyház történetéhez.” In A gyulafehérvári Szent
Mihály-székesegyház és érseki palota, ed. Knecht Tomás, 77–82. Cluj-Napoca: Verbum.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2012b, “Régészeti adalékok a gyulafehérvári Szent Mihály-
székesegyház főszentélyének és sekrestyéjének történetéhez.” In A Gyulafehérvári
Székesegyház főszentélye, ed. Szilárd Papp, 21–42. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2013, “Biserica de secol X de la Alba Iulia: un reper patrimo-
nial excepțional. Considerații preliminare.” In Rolul patrimoniului în contextul crizei
valorilor, eds. Avram Cristea – Jan Nicolae – Daniela Floroian, 21–24. Alba Iulia:
Reîntregirea.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2014, “Biserica din secolele X–XI, de influență bizantină de la
Alba Iulia. Restituiri preliminare,” Apulum 51/2: 93–128.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2015, “Byzantine influences in the Carpathian Basin around the
turn of the millennium,” Dacia, N.S. 59: 177–213.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2018a, “Medieval churches in a borderland: the case of
Transylvania,” In Buildings of Medieval Europe, eds. Duncan Berryman – Sarah Kerr,
97–114. Oxford – Philadelphia: Oxbow Books.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela 2018b, “Între fantezie și inginerie: cronologia bisericii ortodoxe
’Sfântul Nicolae’ din Densuș,” In In honorem Răzvan Theodorescu, ed. Dana Jenei,
221–233. Bucharest: Oscar Print.
Marcu Istrate, Daniela – Istrate, Angel 2005, “Morminte cu nișă cefalică descoper-
ite la Alba Iulia (sec. XII–XIII). Contribuții privind istoria oaspeților occidentali
în Transilvania.” In Relații interetnice în Transilvania (sec. VI–XIII), eds. Zeno Karl
Pinter – Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Emilia Țiplic, 229–245. Bucharest: Editura
Economică (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis 12).
Marie. Le culte de la Vierge dans la société médievale. Études réunies par Dominique
Iogna-Prat, Eric Palazzo, Daniel Russo. Paris: Beauchesne Editeur 1996.
Marjanović-Vujović, Gordana 1987, Krstovi od VI do XII veka iz zbirce Narodnog Muzeia
Beograd, Belgrade: Narodni muzej.
Marjanović-Vujović, Gordana 1989–1990, “Orighinali i kopije jedne vrste nagrud-
nik krstova relikvijara,” Starinar. Organ Srpskog Arheoloskog Drutsva, N.S., 40–41:
303–307.
Marosi, Ernő 1994, “Esztergom középkori Szent-Adalbert székesegyháza,” Limes.
Tudományos szemle 7: 13–28.
Bibliography 439
Marosvári, Attila 2014, A kiszombori rotunda, 2nd revised edition. Kiszombor:

Kiszombor Nagyközség Önkormányzata Képviselőtestülete.
Martin, Jean-Marie 2000, “L’Occident chrétien dans le Livre des Cérémonies, II, 48,”
Travaux et Mémoires 13: 617–646.
Martin-Hisard, Bernadette 2000, “Constantinople et les archontes du monde cau-
casien dans le Livre des cérémonies, II, 48,” Travaux et mémoires 13: 359–530.
Marțian, Sorin 2006, Biserica pe teritoriile fostelor provincii dacice (Transilvania, Banat,
Oltenia) în secolele VII–XI. Aspecte de istorie, organizare bisericească, rit și cult. Târgu
Lăpuș: Editura Galaxia Gutenberg.
Mârza, Radu 2008, “Recitindu-l pe Panaitescu: Bulgaria în nordul Dunării.” In Studii de
istoriografie românească, ed. Gabriel Moisa, 159–178. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia.
Maxim-Alaiba, Ruxandra 1990, “Un engolpion bizantin descoperit la Șuletea, jud.
Vaslui,” Arheologia Moldovei 13: 161–164.
Mayr-Harting, Henry 1977, The coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England. London:
Book Club Associates.
Mazel, Florian 2016, L’invention médiévale de l’espace (Ve–XIIIe siècle). Paris: Seuil.
McCabe, Anne Elena 2007, A Byzantine encyclopaedia of horse medicine: the sources,
compilation, and transmission of the Hippiatrica. Oxford – New York: Oxford
University Press.
McKitterick, Rosamond 2006, “The Church.” In The New Cambridge Medieval History 3:
900–c.1024, ed. Timothy Reuter, 130–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meijns, Brigitte – Vanderputten, Steven 2019, “Introduction.” In Bishops in the Long
Tenth Century: Episcopal Authorities in France and Lotharingia, c. 900–c. 1050, eds.
Brigitte Meijns – Steven Vanderputten, 1–8. Turnhout: Brepols (special issue of The
Medieval Low Countries 6).
Merkel, Michael 2004, Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Altheim, Stadt Blies
kastel, Saar-Pfalz-Kreis, Hamburg: Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades
der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlischen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-
Universität zu Kiel.
Mersch, Margit 2014, “Churches as ‘Shared Spaces’ of Latin and Orthodox Christians
in the Eastern Mediterranean (14th–15th cent.).” In Union in Separation – Trading
Diasporas in the Eastern Mediterranean (1200–1700), eds. Georg Christ – Stefan
Burkhardt – Franz Julius Morche – Roberto Zaugg, 498–524. Roma: Viella.
Merva, Szabina 2014, “The Analysis of Pottery from 10th–11th-century Graves in the
Carpathian Basin. Technological and Typo-Chronological Studies.” In Avars, Bulgars
and Magyars on the Lower and Middle Danube: Proceedings of the Bulgarian-
Hungarian Meetings, Sofia, May 27–28, 2009, eds. Lyudmila Doncheva-Petkova –
Csilla Balogh – Attila-Türk, 197–262. Sofia – Piliscsaba: Archaeolingua.
Merva, Szabina 2019, “‘… circa Danubium …’ from the Late Avar Age until the Early
Árpádian Age. 8th–11th-century settlements in the Region of the Central Part of the
440 Bibliography
Hungarian Little Plain and the Danube Band,” Dissertationes Archaeologicae 3/7:
353–373.
Mező, András 2003, Patrocíniumok a közepkori Magyarországon, Magyar Egyház-
történeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség. Budapest: Metem.
Michałowski, Roman 1989, “Les fondations ecclésiastiques dans l’ideologie de la
première monarchie piastienne,” Acta Poloniae Historica 60: 133–157.
Michałowski, Roman 1997, “La christianisation de la Pologne aux Xe–XIIe siècles.” In
Clovis. Histoire et mémoire. Actes du Colloque international d’histoire de Reims, 19–25
septembre 1996, vol. 2. Le baptême de Clovis, son écho à travers l’histoire, ed. Michel
Rouche, 419–434. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.
Michałowski, Roman 2016, “Archbishoprics and Church Provinces in the Early Medieval
Latin Church.” In Roman Michałowski, The Gniezno Summit: The Religious Premises
of the Founding of the Archbishopric of Gniezno, 8–72. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Micu, Samuil 1995, Istoria românilor, ediție princeps după manuscris de Ioan Chindriș.
Bucharest: Viitorul Românesc.
Mijatev, Krăstju 1974, Die mittelalterliche Baukunst in Bulgarien. Sofia: Izdatelstvo za
Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite.
Mikhailov, Stamen 1979, “Kamennite sarkofazi do Goliamata bazilika v Pliska,” Pliska-
Preslav 1: 44–59.
Mikhailov, Stamen 1987, “Kăm tălkuvaneto slozhniia znak /Y/ i na izraza ‘Mednoto
gumno’,” Izvestiia na Narodniia muzei Varna 23: 92–98.
Mikhailov, Stamen – Doncheva-Petkova, Ludmila – Toptanov, Dimitr 1980, “Fouilles
archéologiques près du village Odărci, département de Tolbukhine (Bulgarie), au
cours des années 1971–1977 (partie orientale),” Slavia Antiqua, 27: 119–144.
Milchev, Atanas 1966, “Die frühmittelälterlichen bulgarischen Schmucksachen und
Kreuze-Enkolpien aus Njord-westbulgarien,” Slavia Antiqua 13: 325–357.
Millingen, Alexander M.A. van 1974, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople. Their his-
tory and architecture, London: Variorum Reprints.
Minczew, Georgi 2013, “Remarks on the ‘Letter of the Patriarch Theophylact to Tsar
Peter’ in the Context of Certain Byzantine and Slavic Anti-heretic Texts,” Studia
Ceranea 3: 113–130.
Mitrea, Bucur 1960, “Două tuburi dintr-o conductă de apă din epoca feudală timpurie
descoperite la Căscioarele,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 11/2: 435–439.
Mitrea, Bucur 1988, “La nécropole birituelle de Sultana. Résultats et problèmes,” Dacia
32: 91–139.
Mitrea, Bucur 1989, “Das Gräberfeld aus dem VIII. Jahrhundert von Izvoru, jud. Giurgiu
(I),” Dacia 33: 145–219.
Mitrea, Bucur – Preda, Constantin 1959, “Săpăturile de salvare de la Alexandria
(r. Alexandria, reg. București),” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 5: 178–180.
Bibliography 441
Mladjov, Ian 1998, “Trans-Danubian Bulgaria: Reality and Fiction,” Byzantine Studies/
Études Byzantines 3: 85–128.
Mladjov, Ian 2015, “Bulgarians and Magyars as allies and rivals across the early medieval
frontier.” In Evropeiskiiat iugoiztok prez vtorata polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek.
Istoriia i kultura. Mezhdunarodna konferenciia, Sofiia, 5–6 oktomvri 2014 g., eds. Vasil
Giuzelev – Georgi N. Nikolov, 63–84. Sofia: Izdatelstvo za Bălgarskata Akademiia
na Naukite.
Moga, Vasile 1998, De la Apulum la Alba Iulia. Castrul Roman de la Apulum. Cluj-Napoca:
Casa Cărții de Știință.
Moga, Vasile 1999, Apulum – porta principalis dextra a castrului Legiunii XIII Gemina.
Alba Iulia: Muzeul Național al Unirii Alba Iulia.
Moga, Vasile – Ciugudean, Horia (eds.) 1995, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Alba,
Alba Iulia: Muzeul Național al Unirii (Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 1).
Molnár, István 2014, “Rövid beszámoló a kaposszentjakabi apátság területében végzett
újabb régészeti kutatásról,” Archaeologia – Altum castrum online. Visegrád: Mátyás
király Múzeum. Available at http://archeologia.hu/content/archeologia/259/kapos
szentjakabmolnar.pdf (accessed 2021, Feb 11).
Molnár, István 2015, “Újabb kutatás a kaposszentjakabi apátság templomának
terűletén,” Archaeologiai Értesitő 140: 177–194.
Molnár, István 2020, “Traces of a church and fortress built prior to the Hungarian
conquest found in a Benedictine monastery. New discoveries in Kaposszentjakab,”
Hungarian Archaeology, E-Journal, 9/3: 13–26.
Moravcsik, Gyula 1938, “Görögnyelvű monostorok Szent István korában.” In Szent István
emlékkönyv, ed. Jusztiniáan Serédi, vol. I, 389–403. Budapest: Szent István Társulat.
Moravcsik, Gyula 1947, “The Role of the Byzantine Church in Medieval Hungary,” The
American Slavic and East European Review 6, No. 3/4: 134–151.
Moravcsik Gyula 1952, “La Tactique de Léon le Sage comme source historique
hongroise,” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 1/2: 161–184.
Moravcsik, Gyula 1953, Bizánc és a magyarság. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Moravcsik, Gyula 1967, Studia Byzantina. Budapest: Academia Scientiarum Hungarica.
Moravcsik, Gyula 1970, Byzantium and the Magyars, translated by Samuel R.
Rosenbaum: Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó.
Moravcsik, Gyula 1983, Byzantinoturcica. I. Die Byzantinischen Quellen der Geschichte
der Türkvölker, II. Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den byzantinischen Quellen. Leiden:
E.J. Brill.
Móré Heitel, Suzana 2006, Abația de la Pâncota și vestigiile ei. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Morghen, Raffaello 1942, Gregorio VII, Turin: UTET.
Morintz, Sebastian – Rosetti, Dinu V. 1959, “Din cele mai vechi timpuri și pînă la for-
marea Bucureștilor.” In Bucureștii de odinioară în lumina săpăturilor arheologice, ed.
Ion Ionașcu, 11–47. Bucharest: Editura Științifică.
442 Bibliography
Morris, Colin 1991, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Moskov, Mosko 1987, “Prabălgarskiiat runicheski znak /Y/ za teonima Tangra (razchi-
tane i tălkuvane),” Palaeobulgarica 11/1: 15–22.
Mosolygó, József 1941, A keleti egyház Magyarországon. Miskolc: Ludvig István.
Moulet, Benjamin 2011, Evêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance, VIIIe–XIe siècle. Territoires,
communautés et individus dans la société provinciale byzantine. Paris: Publications
de la Sorbonne (Byzantina Sorbonensia, 25).
Múcska, Vincent 2005, “Az első magyarországi püspökségekről,” Fons 12: 3–28.
Müller, Róbert 2010, Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Kesthely-
Fenékpuszta, Budapest – Leipzig – Keszthely – Rahden/Westfalien: Verlag Marie
Leidorf (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 1).
Müller-Wille, Michael 1997, “Relations between Byzantium and the north in the
light of archaeology. Some concluding remarks.” In Rom und Byzanz im Norden.
Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.–14. Jahrhunderts, ed.
Michael Müller-Wille, vol. 1, 405–422. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und
der Literatur.
Mullett, Margaret 1997, Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the letters of a Byzantine
Archbishop. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Mundell Mango, Marlia 2009, “Tracking Byzantine silver and copper metalware, 4th–
12th centuries.” In Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local,
Regional and International Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-eighth Spring Symposium
of Byzantine Studies, St John’s College, University of Oxford, March 2004, ed. Marlia
Mundell Mango, 221–238. Ashgate, Farnham.
Muntean, Vasile 2008, “Banatul și Bizanțul (considerații istorice).” In Românii în Europa
medievală (între Orientul bizantin și Occidentul latin). Studii în onoarea profesorului
Victor Spinei, eds. Dumitru Țeicu – Ionel Cândea, 295–302. Brăila: Istros.
Munteanu, Luminița 1983, “Cercetări arheologice la obiectivul ‘La Chilii’, com. Vărădia,
jud. Caraș-Severin,” Cercetări arheologice. Muzeul Național de Istorie 6: 231–238.
Musset, Lucien 1967, “La pénétration chrétienne dans l’Europe du nord.” In La con-
versione al cristianesimo nell’Europa dell’Alto Medioevo: 14–19 aprile 1966, 263–326.
Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo.
Nägler, Thomas 2003, “Alba Iulia.” In Siebenbürgen. Handbuch der historischen Stätten,
ed. Harald Roth, 5–10. Stuttgart: Kroner.
Nagy, Emese 1973, “Előzetes jelentés a kaposszentjakabi apátság feltárásáról,” Somogyi
Múzeumok Közleményei (Mitteilungen der Museen des Komitates Somogy) 1: 335–339.
Nagy, Géza 1913, “Erdély a honfoglalás idejében a régészeti leletek világánál/La con-
quéte de Transylvanie et les trouvailles,” Archaeologiai Értesítő 33: 268–275.
Nagy, Sándor 1974, Dombó. Újvidék: Fórum.
Bibliography 443
Nagy, Tibor 1939, “A Keresztenyseg Nyomai Pannoniaban a Népvandorlás Kórban,”

Folia Archaeologica 1–2: 226–228.
Nania, Ion 1969, “O importantă descoperire din perioada feudalismului la Bîrlogu,
comuna Negrași, jud. Argeș,” Studii și comunicări (Pitești) 2: 117–132.
Neagu, Mihai Răzvan 2016, “Estul Ungariei, zonă cu puternice rădăcini confesionale
constantinopolitane.” In Mihai Răzvan Neagu, Episcopi și episcopii în estul Ungariei
medievale: tipologii episcopale în diecezele de Transilvania, Oradea și Cenad în Evul
Mediu, 11–30. Cluj-Napoca: Mega – Şcoala Ardeleană.
Nechvátal, Bořivoj 1979, “Frühmittelälterliche Reliquienkreuze aus Böhmen,” Památky
Archeologické 70: 213–251.
Nedkvitne, Arnved 2004, The Social Consequences of Literacy in Medieval Scandinavia.
Turnhout: Brepols.
Nemerkényi, Elöd 2004, “Cathedral Libraries in Medieval Hungary,” Library History 20:
7–17.
Nemeti, Sorin 2002, “Un pandantiv bizantin de la Berghin, jud. Alba,” Ephemeris
Napocensis 12: 257–266.
Nesbitt, John – Oikonomidès, Nikolaos 1991, Catalogue of Byzantine seals at Dumbarton
Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, vol. 1. Italy, North of the Balkans, North of the
Black Sea. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Nestor, Ion – Zaharia, Eugenia 1959, “Săpăturile de la Dridu,” Materiale și Cercetări
Arheologice, 6: 594–603.
Nicolae, Jan 2010, “De dignitate memoriae. Sfântul episcop misionar Hierotheos și
noimele istorice ale canonizării sale.” In Sfântul Ierotei, episcop la Alba Iulia (sec. X),
eds. Ioan Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu Panaite, 95–157. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea.
Nicolotti, Andrea 2014, From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: the meta-
morphosis and manipulation of a legend. Leiden – Boston (Massachusetts): Brill (Art
and material culture in Medieval and Renaissance Europe 1).
Nicorescu, Paul 1934, “Une croix-réliquaire de Dobroudja.” In In memoria lui V. Pârvan,
eds. Alexandru Busuioceanu – Alexandru Marcu – Horea Teodoru – Radu Vulpe,
222–226. Bucharest: Asociația Academiei “Vasile Pârvan” a foștilor membri ai
Școalei Române din Roma.
Niedermaier, Paul 1979, “Geneza centrului istoric clujean în lumina planimetriei sale,”
Acta Musei Napocensis 16: 201–213.
Nikoloska, Marula 2015, “Poteklo i razvoj na arkhitektonskite formi vo periodot od IX
do XIII vek vo Makedonija.” In Samuilovata drzhava vo istoriskata, voenopolitich-
kata, dukhovnata i kulturnata tradicija, eds. Iliia Velev – Vasil Djorgiev-Likin, 271–
286. Strumica: NU Zavod za zashtita na spomenicite na kulturata i Muzej.
Nikolov, Giorgi N. 2018, “State Organisation and Power Hierarchy in the Bulgarian
Empire (927–969).” In The Bulgarian State in 927–969, The Epoch of Tsar Peter I,
444 Bibliography
eds. Kirił Marinov – Mirosław J. Leszka, 257–268. Łodz University Press (Byzantina
Lodziensia 34).
(no author) 1955, “Săpăturile de salvare de la Gogoșari și Cacaleți,” Studii și cercetări de
istorie veche 6/3–4: 627–642.
Nowotny, Elisabeth 2018, Thunau am Kamp – Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld
auf der Oberen Holzwiese. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press (Mitteilungen der
Prähistorischen Kommission 87).
Nyberg, Tore Samuel 1986, Die Kirche in Skandinavien. Mitteleuropäischer und englis-
cher Einfluss im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert. Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke.
Nyborg, Ebbe 2016, “Byzantinizing Crucifixes in Central Medieval Denmark: How,
When and Why.” In Denmark and Europe in the Middle Ages, c. 1000–1525, eds. Kerstin
Hundahl – Lars Kjær – Niels Lund, 27–42. Abingdon: Routledge.
Oberländer Târnoveanu, Ernest 2009, “The Byzantine Empire and the territories north
of the Lower Danube (9th–early 11th c.). The numismatic evidence.” In Byzantine
coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th century: proceedings from the con-
ference organised by Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and Institute of Archeology
University of Rzeszow under the patronage of Union Academique International
(Programme No. 57 Moravia Magna), Krakow, 23–26 IV 2007, ed. Marcin Wołoszyn,
561–580. Kraków: Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences – Rzeszów: Institute of
Archaeology, University of Rzeszów.
Obolenskij, Dmitrij 1948, The Bogomils: a study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Obolensky, Dimitri 1996, Vizantijski komonvelt. Belgrade: Prosveta.
Obolensky, Dimitri 1999, A Bizánci Nemzetközösség. Kelet-Európa 500–1453. Budapest:
Bizantinológiai Intézeti Alapítvány (Varia Byzantina – Bizánc világa III).
Obolensky, Dimitri 2002, Un commonwealth medieval: Bizanțul. Europa de Răsărit 500–
1453. Bucharest: Corint.
Ognenova, Lyuba – Georgieva, Sonja 1955, “Razkopkite na manastira pod Vâlkașina v.
Preslav prez 1948–1949 g.,” Izvestija na Arheologiceskij 20: 373–417.
Ohme, Heinz – Thöle, Reinhard (eds.) 2001, Bevezetés az ortodoxia világába. Budapest:
Kálvin János Kiadó.
Oikonomidès, Nikolaos 1971, “À propos des relations ecclésiastiques entre Byzance
et la Hongrie au XIe siècle: le métropolite de Turquie,” Revue des Études Sud-Est
Européennes 9: 527–533.
Oikonomidès, Nikos 1972, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles. Paris:
Édition du Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Le monde byzantin).
Oikonomidès, Nikolaos 1973, “Vardariotes – W.l. nd. r – V. n. nd. r: Hongrois installés
dans la vallée du Vardar en 934,” Südost Forschungen 32: 1–8.
Oikonomidès, Nikolaos 1989, “Tax Exemption for the Secular Clergy under Basil II.”
In Kathegetria. Essays presented to Joan Hussey for her 80th Birthday, ed. Julian
Chrysostomides, 317–326. Camberley: Porphyrogenitus.
Bibliography 445
Oikonomidès, Nikolaos 1994, “La Couronne dite de Constantin Monomaque,” Travaux

et Mémoires, Collège de France. Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de
Byzance 12: 241–262.
Oikonomidès, Nikolaos 1996, Fiscalité et exemption fiscale à Byzance (IXe–XIe s.),
Athens: Foundation Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (Institute of Byzantine
Research, Monographies 2).
Olteanu, Ștefan – Grigore, Nina – Nicolae, Victor 2007, Comunitatea sătească de la
Șirna, județul Prahova (secolele II–X d.h.), în lumina izvoarelor arheologice. Bucharest:
Mașina de Scris.
Ommundsen, Åslaug 2010, “The Cult of Saints in Norway before 1200.” In Saints and
their lives on the periphery: veneration of saints in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe
(c.1000–1200), eds. Haki Thor Antonsson – Ildar H. Garipzanov, 67–93. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Orlov, Ruslan S. 1997, “Rus’ka druzhyna na Balkanakh.” In Problemy pokhodzhennia ta
istorychnogo rozvytku slov’ian. Zbirnyk naukovykh statey prysviachenyy 100-richchiu
z dnia narodzhennia Viktora Platonovycha Petrova, eds. Volodymyr D. Baran –
Rostislav V. Terpylovs’kyi – Nataliia S. Abashina, 197–208. Kiev – Lviv: RAS.
Oța, Silviu 2014, The Mortuary Archaeology of the Medieval Banat (10th–14th Centuries).
Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Ousterh0ut, Robert G. 2008, Master Builders of Byzantium. University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archeology and Anthropology.
Ousterh0ut, Robert G. 2019, Eastern Medieval Architecture: The Building Traditions of
Byzantium and Neighboring Lands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ovcharov, Dimităr – Doncheva, Stela 2004, “Monumentalnite preslavskite baziliki –
genezis, arkhitekturen tip, razvitie,” Preslav. Sbornik 6: 91–106.
Ovcharov, Dimităr – Aladzhov, Zhivko – Ovcharov, Nikolai 1991, “Miasto i rolia na patri-
arshiiata v strukturata na carskiia dvorec v Preslav.” In Golemiiat carski dvorec văv
Veliki Preslav. I. Preslavskata patriarshiia prez X vek, eds. Dimităr Ovcharov – Zhivko
Aladzhov – Nikolai Ovcharov, 116–130. Sofia: Arges.
Owen, Olwyn A. – Driscoll, Stephen T. 2011, “Norse Influence at Govan on the Firth of
Clyde, Scotland.” In Viking Settlements and Viking Society Papers from the Proceedings
of the Sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík and Reykholt, 16th–23rd August 2009, eds.
Svavar Sigmundsson – Anton Holt – Gísli Sigurðsson – Guðmundur Ólafsson, 333–
346. Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press.
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium II, ed. Alexander Kazhdan. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1990.
Pagnoni, Fabrizio 2014, “Il potere dei vescovi nel tardo Medioevo. Prospettive di ricerca
nelle storiografie italiana e anglosassone (spunti a partire dal caso lombardo).” In
Lombardia ed Europa. Incroci di storia e cultura, ed. Danilo Zardin, 23–44. Milano:
Vita e Pensiero.
446 Bibliography
Palazzo, Éric 1993, Histoire des livres liturgiques. Le Moyen Âge, des origines au XIIIe
siècle. Paris: Beauchesne.
Pálóczi-Horváth, András 1989, Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians. Steppe peoples in medieval
Hungary. Budapest: Corvina.
Panait, Panait I. – Ștefănescu, Aristide 1973, Muzeul Curtea Veche. Palatul Voievodal.
Bucharest: Muzeul de Istorie a Municipiului București.
Panov, Mitko 2019, The Blinded State. Historiographic Debates about Samuel Come-
topoulos and His State (10th–11th Century). Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Panova, Rosica 2007, “Polzvaneto na vodata – element ot kulturata na stolichnite gra-
dove ot Părvoto bălgarsko carstvo.” In Izsledvaniia po bălgarska srednovekovna ark-
heologiia. Sbornik v chest na prof. Rasho Rashev, ed. Pavel Georgiev, 197–203. Sofia:
Faber.
Papasima, Tudor – Oprea, V. 1984, “Un cuptor pentru ars oale din epoca feudală timpu-
rie,” Pontica 17: 237–240.
Papp, György 1949, “I monaci dell’ordine di S. Basilio in Ungheria nel secolo XIII,”
Analecta Ordinis S. Basilii Magni, Series II, Sectio II, Vol. I (VII), fasc. 1: 41–45.
Papp, Szilárd 2012 (ed.), A gyulafehérvári székesegyház főszentélye. Budapest: Teleki
László Alapítvány.
Parisse, Michel 1984, “L’évêque d’Empire au XIe siècle. L’exemple lorrain,” Cahiers de
Civilisation Médiévale: Actes des congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de
l’enseignement supérieur public, 14e congrès, Poitiers, 1983. L’Église et le siècle de l’an
mil au début du XIIe siècle 27: 95–105.
Parvanov, Petar 2016, Medieval Deviant Burials from Bulgaria (7th–14th Centuries).
Budapest: Central European University.
Pascu, Ștefan (ed.) 1974, Istoria Clujului. Bucharest: Editura Științifică.
Pascu, Ștefan 1989, Voievodatul Transilvaniei, vol. IV. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia.
Pascu, Ștefan et al., 1968 “Cetatea Dăbâca,” Acta Musei Napocensis 5: 153–202.
Pasztor, Edith 1992, “Per una tipologia della santità nell’Ungheria medioevale.” In Storia
religiosa dell’Ungheria, eds. Adriano Caprioli – Luciano Vaccaro, 59–88. Milano: La
Casa di Matriona.
Patacsi, Gabriel 1962, “Die ungarischen Ostchristen,” Ostkirchliche Studien 11: 273–305.
Patacsi, Gabriel 1967, “Die ungarische Orthodoxie,” Orthodoxe Stimmen 18: 21–26.
Patlagean, Evelyne 1995, “L’entrée de la Sainte Face d’Édesse à Constantinople en 944.”
In La religion civique à l’époque médiévale et moderne (chrétienté et islam). Actes du
colloque organisé par le Centre de recherche ‘Histoire sociale et culturelle de l’Oc-
cident. XIIe–XVIIIe siècle’ de l’Université de Paris X-Nanterre et l’Institut universi-
taire de France (Nanterre, 21–23 juin 1993), 21–35. Rome: École Française de Rome
(Publications de l’École française de Rome 213).
Patzold, Steffen 2010, “Zur Sozialstruktur des Episkopats und zur Ausbildung bischö-
flicher Herrschaft in Gallien zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter.” In Völker,
Bibliography 447
Reiche und Namen im frühen Mittelalter, eds. Matthias Becher – Stefanie Dick, 121–
140. Munich: W. Fink.
Păunescu, Anca – Rența, Elena 1998, “Așezarea medieval-timpurie de la Bucu, județul
Ialomița,” Arheologia medievală 2: 51–78.
Păunescu, Anca – Rența, Elena 2000, “Așezarea medieval-timpurie de la Bucu, județul
Ialomița (II),” Arheologia medievală 3: 11–36.
Pavlov, Plamen 2018, “Za roliata na nomadite madzhari i pechenezi v bălgaro-vizantiiskite
otnosheniia pri car Simeon Veliki (892–927).” In Simeonova Bălgariia v istoriiata na
Evropeiskiia Iugoiztok: 1100 godini ot bitkata pri Akheloi, eds. Nikolai Kănev – Plamen
Pavlov – Angel Nikolov, vol. 2, 96–106. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber.
Permjakovs, Vitalijs 2012, ‘Make this the place where your glory dwells’: origins and evo-
lution of the Byzantine rite for the consecration of a church, PhD Dissertation, Notre
Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame.
Pervain, Iosif 1971, Studii de literatură română. Cluj: Dacia.
Peters-Custot, Annick 2009, Les grecs de l’Italie mèridionale post-byzantine, IXe–XIVe
siècle: une acculturation en douceur. Roma: École française de Rome.
Peters‐Custot, Annick 2013, “Convivencia between Christians: The Greek and Latin
communities of Byzantine South Italy (IXth–XIth centuries).” In Negotiating
Co-Existence: Communities, Cultures and ‘Convivencia’ in Byzantine Society, eds.
Barbara Crostini – Sergio La Porta, 203–220. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Petre, Aurelian 1962, “Săpăturile de la Piatra Frecăței,” Materiale și Cercetări
Arheologice 8: 565–590.
Petrinec, Maja 2009, Graberfelder aus dem 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert im Gebiet des Fruhmit-
telalterlichen Kroatischen Staates. Split: Muzeum der kroatischen archäologischen
Denkmäler.
Petrova, Pavlina 1990, “Za proizkhoda i znachenieto na znaka ‘ipsilon’ i negovite dofo-
netichni varianti,” Palaeobulgarica 14/2: 39–50.
Petrova, V. – Brey, G. 2005, “Provenance studies of early medieval fast wheel pottery
from Pliska, Bulgaria.” In Understanding People Through their Pottery. Proceedings of
the 7th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics (EMAC ’03), eds. Isabel M. Prudêncio –
Isabel M. Dias – J.C. Waerenborgh, 167–174. Lisbon: Instituto Português de arqueolo-
gia (Trabalhos de arqueologia 42).
Petrovski, Boban 2015, “Central-southern Europe under the restored Byzantine
administration after the fall of Samuel state.” In Evropeiskiiat iugoiztok prez vtorata
polovina na X–nachaloto na XI vek. Istoriia i kultura. Mezhdunarodna konferenciia,
Sofiia, 5–6 oktomvri 2014 g., eds. Vasil Giuzelev – Georgi N. Nikolov, 266–276. Sofia:
Izdatelstvo za Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite.
Pinter, Zeno Karl 1998, “Piese de armament si echipament militar de proveniență car-
olingiană din valea Mureșului,” Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 49/2:
135–144.
448 Bibliography
Pinter, Zeno Karl – Boroffka, Nikolaus G.O. 1999, “Neue mittelalterliche Gräber der
Ciumbrudgruppe aus Broos/Orăștie, Fundstelle Böhmerberg/Dealul Pemilor X8.” In
Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte des südöstli-
chen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt, eds. Nikolaus G.O. Boroffka – Tudor
Soroceanu, 313–330. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf (Internationale Archäologie.
Studia honoraria 7).
Pirigyi, István 1982, A görögkatolikus magyarság története. Nyíregyháza: Görögkatolikus
Hittudományi Főiskola.
Pirigyi, István 1988, “A bizánci szertartású kereszténység helyzete Magyarországon
Szent István korában.” In Szent István és kora, eds. Ferenc Glatz, József Kardos, 161–
165. Budapest: ÓMT.
Pirigyi, István 1991, A görögkatolikus magyarság története. Budapest: IKVA.
Pletnov, Valentin 2016, “Eparkhiite v severoiztochnite bălgarski zemi v izvorite ot X–XII
vek.” In Prof. d-r Boris Borisov uchenici i priiateli, ed. Boris Borisov, 593–604. Veliko
Tărnovo: IVIS (VTU “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodii” i bălgarskata arkheologiia, 2).
Pop, Ioan-Aurel 1997, “Voievodatul Transilvaniei și părțile vestice în sec. XII – 1541.” In
Istoria României. Transilvania, ed. Anton Drăgoescu, vol. I, 451–543. Cluj-Napoca:
George Barițiu.
Pop, Ioan Aurel 1998, “Between Rome and Constantinople. The Religious Structure of
Medieval Hungary (13–14 Centuries).” In Church and Society in Central and Eastern
Europe, eds. Ovidiu Ghitta – Maria Crăciun, 115–122. Cluj-Napoca: European Studies
Foundation Publishing House.
Pop, Ioan Aurel 2003, Românii și maghiarii în secolele IX−XIV: geneza statului medieval
în Transilvania. Cluj-Napoca: Tribuna.
Popa, Ioan Cristian – Paul, Andrei Mihai – Bounegru, George 2004, “Raport asupra
săpăturii de salvare de la Alba Iulia – B-dul Horea, nr. 22,” Patrimonium Apulense 4:
207–216.
Popa, Radu 1988, La începuturile evului mediu românesc. Țara Hațegului. Bucharest:
Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică.
Popa, Radu 1989, “Caransebeș și districtul său românesc în secolele X–XIV,” Studii și
cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 40/4: 353–370.
Popa, Radu – Chidioșan, Nicolae 1986, “O reședință feudală din sec. XI–XIII de la
Sânicolau de Beiuș, pe Crișul Negru (jud.Bihor),” Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice
16: 226–234.
Popa, Radu – Matei, Gheorghe – Nițulescu, Virgil S. – Rența, Elena 2003, “Așezarea
medievală timpurie de la Fetești-Vlașca, județul Ialomița.” In In memoriam Radu
Popa. Temeiuri ale civilizației românești în context European, eds. Daniela Marcu
Istrate – Angel Istrate – Corneliu Gaiu, 163–175. Cluj-Napoca: Accent.
Popkonstantinov, Kazimir – Kostova, Rosina 2013, “Manastirăt na Georgi, sinkel băl-
garski v Preslav. Istoriiata na edna bălgarska aristokratichna familiia ot X v.,” Preslav.
Sbornik 7: 44–62.
Bibliography 449
Popović, Marko 1991, “Les forteresses du système defensif byzantin en Serbie au Xe–
XIIe siècle.” Starinar, NS 42: 169–185.
Popović, Marko – Ivanisević, Vujadin 1988, “Grad Braničevo u srednjem veku,” Starinar,
NS 39: 125–179.
Popović, Vladislav 1978, “Episkopiska sednata u Srbiji od IX do XI veko,” Godišnjak
Grada Beograda 25: 33–40.
Potz, Richard – Synek, Eva 2007, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht. Freistadt: Verlag Plöchl
(Kirche und Recht 25).
Poulík, Josef 1955, “Nález kostele z doby řiše Velkomoravské v Staré Městé,” Památky
archeologické 46/2: 332–348.
Poulou-Papadimitriou, Natalia – Tzavella, Elli – Ott, Jeremy 2012, “Burial practices in
Byzantine Greece: archaeological evidence and methodological problems for its
interpretation.” In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeolog-
ical and Historical Evidence eds. Maciej Salamon – Marcin Wołoszyn – Alexander
Musin – Perica Špehar, vol. I, 377–428. Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warszawa:
Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, Insty-
tut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.
Pranke, Piotr – Žečević, Milos 2020, “The Scandinavian Peninsula and the Balkan
Peninsula: a Comparative Analysis.” In Piotr Pranke – Miloš Zečević, Medieval Trade
in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and the Balkans (10th–12th Centuries). A Comparative
Study, 71–113. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Preda, Constantin 1961, “Săpăturile de salvare de la Olteni (reg. București),” Materiale și
Prinzing, Günter 2012, “The autocephalous Byzantine ecclesiastical province of
Bulgaria/Ohrid. How independent were its archbishops?” In Bulgaria mediaevalis,
eds. Vassil Gjuzelev – Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova – Kiril Nenov, vol. 3, 355–383. Sofia:
Bulgarian Historical Heritage Foundation.
Priskin, Katalin 2010, A Kárpát-medence avar és honfoglalás kori lóállományának
archaeogenetikai elemzése. Ph.D. értekezés. MTA Szegedi Biológiai Központ.
Prodan, David 1998, Supplex Libellus Valachorum. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică.
Profantová, Naďa 2009, “Archeology and written sources on eight to tenth century
Bohemia,” Early Medieval Europe 17: 286–310.
Prohászka, Péter 2018, “Ein Solidus von Konstantin VII. und Romanos II. aus Marosújvár/
Ocna Mureș (RO),” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 69/2:
331–338.
Protase, Dumitru 1956, “Cercetările arheologice din 1953 în Cetatea de la Alba-Iulia,”
Studii și cercetări de istorie 7/1–4: 15–41.
Protase, Dumitru 1959, “Șantierul arheologic Alba Iulia,” Materiale si Cercetări
Arheologice 6: 397–405.
Püspöki Nagy, Péter 1988, “Szent István egyházszervezete.” In Szent István és kora, eds.
Ferenc Glatz – József Kardos, 59–80. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézet.
450 Bibliography
Quéret-Podesta, Adrien 2010, “Polonais, Hongrois, deux frères”. La représenta-

tion des plus anciennes relations polono-hongroises dans l’historiographie du
Moyen-Age à nos jours et la question des origines médiévales du mythe de l’am-
itié polono-hongroise. Histoire. Université Blaise Pascal – Clermont-Ferrand II;
Université de Debrecen. Available at https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00785359/
document (accessed 2020 July 11).
Rácz, Zoltán 1982, “Szempontok Monostorpályi Árpád-kori templomának
értékeléséhez,” A Bihari Múzeum Évkönyve 3: 69–77.
Rădulescu, Alexandru – Gall, Erwin 2001, “Das Landnahmezeitliche Gräberfeld von
Temesvár (Timișoara) – Csókaerdő,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Rădvan, Laurențiu 2010, At Europe’s Borders. Medieval Towns in the Romanian
Principalities. Leiden – Boston: Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle
Ages 450–1450, 7).
Rady, Martyn 2000, Nobility, Land and Service in Medieval Hungary, London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Rady, Martin – Veszprémy, László 2010, “Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum/
Anonymus, Notary of King Bela, The Deeds of the Hungarians.” In Anonymus and
Master Roger, eds. Martin Rady – László Veszprémy, XVII–XXXVIII. Budapest – New
York: Central European University Press.
Raffensperger, Christian 2017, The Kingdom of Rus’. Kalamazoo: Arc Humanities Press
(Past imperfect).
Răileanu, Constantin 1977, “Tabula Peutingeriana și ‘Tivisco’-Timișoara,” Revista de
Istorie 30/12: 2225–2251.
Rambaud, Alfred 1870, L’empire grec au dixième siècle: Constantin Porphyrogénète.
Paris: Librairie A. Franck.
Rashev, Rasho 1992, “Za khronologiiata i proizkhoda na znaka ‘ipsilon s dve hasti’.” In
Prinosi kăm bălgarskata arkheologiia. Dekemvriiski dni na bălgarskata arkheologiia
“Prof. dr. Stancho Vaklinov”, eds. Dimităr Ovcharov – Irina Shtereva, vol. 1, 96–102.
Sofia: Arges.
Rashev, Rasho 2003, “Sămnitelni i nedostoverni pametnici na prabălgarskata kul-
tura.” In Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. V chest na profesor Veselin
Beshevliev, eds. Vasil Giuzelev – Kazimir Popkonstantinov – Georgi Bakalov – Rosina
Kostova, 158–174. Sofia: Centăr za izsledvaniia na bălgarite TANGRA TanNakRa IK.
Rashev, Rasho 2008, “Oshte za khristianskiia smisăl na niakoi “prabălgarski” znaci.” In
Iubileen sbornik v chest na doc. d-r Stoian Vitlianov po sluchai negovata 60-godishnina,
eds. I. Karaiotov – Iordan Iordanov – Rasho Rashev – Nelcho Nedelchev, 25–31.
Shumen: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Episkop Konstantin Preslavski”.
Rejhelková, Mária 1995, Pohrebisko v Čakajovciach (9.–12. storočie). Katalóg. Nitra:
Archeologický ústav Slovenskej akadémie vied.
Bibliography 451
Repertoriul archeologic al județului Cluj, ed. Ioan Horațiu Crișan. Cluj-Napoca: 1992.
Reuter, Timothy 2001, “Ein Europa der Bischöfe. Das Zeitalter Burchards von Worms.”
In Bischof Burchard von Worms. 1000–1025, ed. Wilfried Hartmann, 1–28. Mainz:
Gesellschaft für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte.
Reuter, Timothy 2011, “A Europe of Bishops. The Age of Wulfstan of York and Burchard
of Worms.” In Patterns of episcopal power: bishops in tenth and eleventh century
Western Europe, eds. Ludger Körntgen – Dominik Waßenhoven, 17–38. Berlin –
Boston: De Gruyter.
Révész, Éva 2007, “A keleti keresztény temetkezési rítus X. századi sírleletekben.” In
Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 5. Az V. Medievisztikai PhD-konferencia (Szeged,
2007. június 7–8.) előadásai, eds. Éva Révész – Miklós Halmágyi, 141–150. Szeged:
Szegedi Középkorász Műhely.
Révész, Éva 2009, “A keleti kereszténység: szerep, hatás vagy jelenlét? A veszprémvölgyi
monostor,” Belvedere Meridionale 21/1–2: 53–56.
Révész, Éva 2011, Régészeti és történeti adatok a kora Árpád-kori bizánci-bolgár-magyar
egyházi kapcsolatokhoz. PhD Dissertation. Szeged.
Révész, Éva 2012a, “Die Siegel der Bischöfe von Turkia und die Rolle der Orthodoxie
um das erste Millennium im Königreich Ungarn.” In Cogito, scribo, spero. Auxiliary
Historical Sciences in Central Europe at the Outset of the 21st Century. Pontes Series
No II, eds. Martina Bolom-Kotari – Jakub Zouhar, 79–101. Hradec Králové: Filozofická
Fakulta UHK.
Révész, Éva 2012b, “János, qui nimium gloriabatur in virtute et in potentia sua.” In
Legendák, kódexek, források. Tanulmányok a 80 esztendős H. Tóth Imre tiszteletére, eds.
Mihály Kocsis – Henrietta Majoros, 295–305. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem
Szláv Intézete.
Révész, Éva 2014a, “‘Turkia’ keleti keresztény főpapjai az első ezredforduló magyar
történelmében,” Belvedere Meridionale 26/1: 7–22.
Révész, Éva 2014b, “Die erste byzantinische Oberpriestern Turkias. Hierotheos, The-
ophylaktos, Antónios, Démétrios, Ióannés,” Studia Hungaro-Bulgarica 3: 55–68.
Révész, Éva 2015, “Die Orthodoxie im frühen Árpádenzeitlichen Ungarn: der Derzei-
tiger Stand der Forschung.” In Bălgarskiiat ezik i literatura v evropeĭskoto kulturno
prostranstvo: traditsii i perspektivi. Mezhdunarodna nauchna konferentsiya. Seged,
Ungariia, 26–27 maĭ 2011 g., eds. L. Gábor Balázs – Mónika Farkas Baráthi – Henrietta
Majoros, 215–223. Szeged: JATE Press.
Révész, Éva 2019, “Az ezredforduló keleti keresztény püspöksége.” In Szent Márton és
Benedek nyomában. Tanulmányok Koszta László emlékére, eds. Tamás Fedeles –
Zsolt Hunyadi, 7–22. Szeged – Debrecen: SZTE Középkori és Kora Újkori Magyar
Történeti Tanszék – FIKP “Magyarország a középkori Európában” Kutatócsoport
(Fontes et Libri 3).
Révész, Éva 2020, “A Gyulák és a magyarok korai kereszténysége,” Belvedere Meridionale
32/1: 5–26.
452 Bibliography
Révész, László 2014c, “Honfoglalás kori áttört állatalakos hajfonatkorongok a Kárpát-

medencében.” In Avarok pusztái. Régészeti tanulmányok Lőrinczy Gábor 60.
születésnapjára, eds. Alexandra Anders – Csilla Balogh – Attila Türk, 439–456.
Budapest: Martin Opitz Kiadó.
Ripoche, Jean-Pierre 1977a, “Bizánc vagy Róma? Magyarország vallásválasztási kérdése
a középkorban.” Századok 111/1: 79–92.
Ripoche, Jean-Pierre 1977b, “Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et sa politique hongroise
au milieu du Xe siècle,” Südost-Forschungen 36: 1–12.
Robinson, Charles Henry 1917, The Conversion of Europe. Londra – New York – Bombay –
Calcutta: Longmans, Green and Co.
Roesler, Eduard Robert 1871, Romänische Studien. Untersuchungen zur älteren
Geschichte Romäniens. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Rokai, Peter 1983, “‘Brodovi’ na Dunavu i pritokama na području južne Ugarske u sred-
njem veku.” In Zbornik radova sa međunarodnog naučnog skupa održanog 5. i 6. juna
1979. godine, 139–75. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Romanchuk, Alla I. 1985, “Rannesrednevekovye kompleksy Khersonesa.” In From
Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium. Proceedings of the Byzantinological Symposium
in the 16th International Eirene Conference, ed. Vladimír Vavřínek, 123–135. Prague:
Academia.
Ruffini-Ronzani, Nicolas 2015, “Châtelains et évêques de Cambrai autour de l’an mil:
réalités et représentations,” Revue du Nord 97: 337–355.
Ruffini-Ronzani, Nicolas 2019, “Une Église en crise? Renforcement de la seigneurie
épiscopale et intégration au royaume de Germanie à Cambrai-Arras (Xe–début
XIe siècle).” In Bishops in the Long Tenth Century: Episcopal Authorities in France
and Lotharingia, c. 900–c. 1050, eds. Brigitte Meijns – Steven Vanderputten, 95–116.
Turnhout: Brepols (special issue of The Medieval Low Countries 6).
Rossi, Mariaclara 2000, “Vescovi nel basso medioevo (1274–1378). Problemi, studi,
prospettive.” In Il difficile mestiere di vescovo, secoli X–XIV, 217–254. Caselle di
Sommacampagna (Verona): Cierre.
Runciman, Steven 1930, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire. London: G. Bell & Sons.
Runciman, Steven 1963, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his reign: a study of
tenth-century Byzantium, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rustoiu, Gabriel – Dragotă, Aurel – Oța, Silviu – Drîmbărean, Matei – Deleanu, Valentin
2009, “Monede arpadiene descoperite în cimitirul de la Alba Iulia-Str. Brândușei.”
In Sașii și concetățenii lor ardeleni. Studia in Honorem Dr. Thomas Nägler, eds. Ioan
Marian Țiplic – Konrad Gündisch, 19–33. Sibiu – Alba Iulia: Altip.
Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1994, “Cetatea Alba Iulia în sec. XI–XV. Cercetări vechi și noi,”
Ephemeris Napocensis 4: 331–351.
Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2002, “Țigle și olane la monumentele istorice (cu privire spe-
cială asupra monumentelor istorice din Transilvania).” In Arhitectura religioasă
Bibliography 453
medievală din Transilvania II/Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben II Medieval

ecclesiastical architecture in Transylvania II, eds. Kiss Imola – Szőcs Péter Levente,
21–40. Satu Mare: Muzeul Judetean Satu Mare.
Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2003, “Transilvania în secolele V–XII. Interpretări istorico-politice
și economice pe baza descoperirilor monetare din bazinul carpatic, secolele V–
XII – Velter Ana-Maria. Recenzie,” Mediaevalia Transilvanica 5–6/1–2: 223–229.
Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2005, Castelarea carpatică. Fortificații și cetăți din Transilvania și
teritoriile învecinate (sec. XIII–XIV), Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Rusu, Adrian-Andrei 2008, “Biserica Sfântul Nicolae și curtea nobiliară a Arceștilor de
la Densuș (jud. Hunedoara),” Arheologia Medievală 7: 121–223.
Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2010, Review of Sfântul Ierotei, episcop de Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds.
Ioan Aurel Pop, Jan Nicolae, Ovidiu Panaite, Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea, 2010. Available
at https://www.medievistica.ro/pagini/tribuna/recenzii/texte/Ieroteu/Ierotei.html
(accessed 2021 Jan 11).
Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2014, “Preliminarii la preliminariile unei noi biserici din Alba
Iulia.” Available at https://www.medievistica.ro/pagini/arheologie/cercetarea/alba
-preliminarii/alba-preliminarii.html (accessed 2021 Jan 8).
Rusu, Adrian Andrei – Mizgan, Vasile 2008, “Biserica Sfântului Nicolae și curtea nobil-
iară a Arceștilor de la Densuș, jud. Hunedoara,” Arheologia Medievală 7: 121–224.
Rusu, Mircea 1975, “Avars, Slavs, Romanic populations in the 6th–8th centuries.” In
Relations between the autochthonous populations and the migratory populations on
the territory of Romania, eds. Miron Constantinescu – Ștefan Pascu – Petre Diaconu,
123–153. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
Rusu, Mircea 1978, “Cetățile transilvănene din sec. IX–XI și importanța lor istorică,”
Ziridava 10: 159–174.
Rusu, Mircea 1979, “Castrul roman Apulum și cetatea feudală de la Alba Iulia,” Anuarul
Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 22: 47–70.
Rusu, Mircea 1982, “Les formations politiques roumaines et leur lutte pour l’autono-
mie,” Revue Roumaine d’histoire 21/3–4: 351–385.
Rusu, Mircea 1984, “Considerații cu privire la situația social-economică și politică a
primelor formațiuni statale românești,” Acta Musei Napocensis 21: 181–195.
Ruttkay, Alexander 1976, “Waffen und Reiterausrütung des 9. bis zur ersten Hälfte des
14. Jahrhunderts in der Slovakei (II),” Slovenská Archeológia 24/2, 245–395.
Sághy, Marianne 1997, “Aspects de la christianisation des Hongrois aux IXe–Xe siècles.”
In Early Christianity in Central and East Europe, (Congress of Commission Interna-
tionale d’Histoire Ecclésiastique Comparée, Lublin, 2–6 sept. 1996), ed. Przemyslaw
Urbanczyk, vol. I, 53–65. Warszaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper.
Sághy, Marianne 2001, “The Making of the Christian Kingdom in Hungary.” In Europe
around the year 1000, ed. Przemyslaw Urbanczyk, 451–464. Warszawa: Polska
Akademia Nauk.
454 Bibliography
Sághy, Marianne 2019, “Greek monasteries in early Árpádian Hungary.” In Piroska and
the Pantokrator: Dynastic Memory, Healing and Salvation in Komnenian Constan-
tinople, ed. Marianne Sághy, Robert Ousterhout, 11–38. Budapest – New York: Cen-
tral European University Press.
Sălăgean, Tudor 2005, “‘Dextram dantes’. Note asupra specificului raporturilor dintre
cuceritorii maghiari și populația locală din nordul Transilvaniei în secolele X–XIV.”
In Relații interetnice în Transilvania (secolele VI–XIII), eds. Zeno Karl Pinter – Ioan
Marian Țiplic – Maria Emilia Țiplic, 121–132. Bucharest: Editura Economică.
Sălăgean, Tudor 2006, Țara lui Gelou. Contribuții la istoria Transilvaniei de Nord în
secolele IX–XI. Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut.
Sălăgean, Tudor 2009, “Notes on the Early Church Organization in Northern
Transylvania (10th–11th Century),” Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 48/1–2: 17–23.
Sălăgean, Tudor 2010, “Transilvania și părțile vestice în secolul al X-lea și misiunea
episcopului Hierotheos.” Altarul Reîntregirii 15/2: 9–23.
Salvatore, Mariarosaria 1982. “La ceramica altomedievale nell’Italia meridionale: stato
e prospettive della ricerca,” Archeologia Medievale 4: 47–66.
Sâmpetru, Mihai 1993. “Review of Uwe Fiedler, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9.
Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau (Bonn, 1992),” Thraco-Dacica 14/1–2: 181–188.
Sâmpetru, Mihai – Șerbănescu, Done 1975, “Ceramica de tip urban din așezarea medi-
evală timpurie de la Chirnogi (jud. Ilfov),” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arhe-
ologie 26/2: 241–270.
Sanders, Guy D.R. 2003, “An overview of the new chronology for 9th to 13th century
pottery at Corinth.” In 7o Diethnes Synedrio Mesaionikes Keramikes tes Mesogeiou.
Thessalonike, 11–16 oktobriou 1999. Praktika, ed. Charalambos Bakirtzis, 35–44.
Athens: Edition de la Caisse de Recettes Archéologiques.
Sanmark, Alexandra 2003, “The Role of Secular Rulers in the Conversion of Sweden.” In
Sarkadi, Márton 2010, ‘s folytatva magát a régi művet’ Tanulmányok a gyulafehérvári
székesegyház és püspöki palota történetéről. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.
Sawyer, Birgit – Sawyer, Peter 2003, “Scandinavia enters Christian Europe.” In
Cambridge History of Scandinavia, ed. Knut Helle, 147–159. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schabel, Christopher 2010, Greeks, Latins, and the Church in Early Frankish Cyprus.
Farnham – Burlington: Ashgate.
Schmidt, Hans-Joachim 1999, Kirche, Staat, Nation. Raumgliederung der Kirche im mit-
telalterlichen Europa. Weimar: Nachf., H. Böhlaus.
Schminck, Andreas 1989, “‘In hoc signo vince’ – aspects du ‘césaropapisme’ à l’épo-
que de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète.” In Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and
Bibliography 455
His Age, Second International Byzantine Conference, Delphi 22–26 July 1987, ed.
Athanasios Markopoulos, 103–116. Athens: Europaiko Politistiko Kentro Delphōn.
Schoenig, Steven A. 2016, Bonds of Wool: The Pallium and Papal Power in the Middle Ages.
Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press (Studies in Medieval and
Early Modern Canon Law 15).
Schramm, Gottfried 1997, Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Inva-
sionen des 5–7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter. Munich: R. Oldenbourg.
Schreiner, Klaus 1997, “Maria Patrona. La Sainte Vierge comme figure symbolique des
villes, territoires et nations à la fin du Moyen Âge et au début des temps modernes.”
In Identité régionale et conscience nationale en France et en Allemagne du Moyen
Âge à l’époque moderne. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Université Paris XII – Val
de Marne les 6, 7 et 8 octobre 1993, eds. Rainer Babel – Jean Marie Moeglin, 133–153,
Sigmaringen: Thorbecke (Beihefte der Francia 39).
Schröckh, Johann Mathias 1795, Christliche Kirchengeschichte, vol. 21. Leipzig: Engelhart
Benjamin Schwickert.
Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild 1988, “Untersuchungen zur Herkunft der Ungarn
und zum Beginn ihrer Landnahme im Karpathenbecken,” Jahrbuch des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums 35/2: 373–477.
Schuster, Christian F. 2017, “Zur Wasserversorgung einer frühmittelalterlichen Dridu-
Siedlung im unterern Argeș-Gebiet.” In Omul, fluviul și marea. Studii de arheologie
și istorie în onoarea lui Florin Topoleanu la a 65-a aniversare, eds. George Nuțu –
Sorin-Cristian Ailincăi – Cristian Micu, 351–364. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Schwarz, Gottfried 1740, Initia religionis christianae inter Hungaros Ecclesiae orientalis
adserta. Halle 1740.
Schwarz, Gottfried 2017, Initia Religionis Christianae Inter Hungaros Ecclesiae Orientali
Adserta Eademque A Dubiis et Fabulosis Narrationibus Repurgata/Începuturile
Religiei Creștine între Unguri atribuite Bisericii Răsăritene și curățate de dubii și
de povești născocite, eds. Vasile Rus – Jan Nicolae. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Școala
Ardeleană.
Seibt, Werner 2004, “Metropoliten und Herrscher der Alanen auf byzantinischen
Siegeln sigilldes 10.–12 Jahrhunderts.” In Sfragistika i istoriya kul’tury. Sbornik nauch-
nykh trudov, posvyashchennyy yubileyu V.S. Shandrovskoy, ed. E.D. Stepanova, 50–59.
St. Petersburg: Izd-vo Gos. Ermitazha.
Seide, Gernot 1972, “Die ungarische orthodoxe Kirche,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 4: 101–114.
Seidler, Andrea 2002, “Systemtheoretische Überlegungen zu einer möglichen Stan-
dortbestimmung des ungarischen Pressewesens im 18. Jahrhundert,” Hungarian
Studies 16/1: 97–113.
Seidler, Andrea 2003, Vom Nutzen des Quellenstudiums. Der Brief als literaturhistor-
ischer Informationsträger, Habilitationsvortrag 2 Oktober 2003, Wiener elektronis-
che Beiträge des Instituts für Finno-Ungristik.
456 Bibliography
Seidler, Andrea – Seidler, Wolfram 1988, Das Zeitschriftenwesen im Donauraum zwis-

chen 1740 und 1809. Kommentierte Bibliographie der deutsch- und ungarischsprachi-
gen Zeitschriften in Wien, Pressburg und Pest-Buda. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.
Șerbănescu, Done 1973, “Morminte din perioada prefeudală descoperite la Chirnogi,”
Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 24/4: 667–670.
Sfântul Ierotei, episcop de Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan-Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu
Panaite. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea 2010.
Shepard, Jonathan 1995, “A marriage too far? Maria Lekapena and Peter of Bulgaria.” In
The Empress Theophano: Byzantium and the West at the Turn of the First Millennium,
ed. Adelbert T. Davids, 121–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shepard, Jonathan 1999, “Byzantium and the steppe nomads: the Hungarian dimen-
sion.” In Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453, eds. Günter Prinzing – Maciej
Salomon, 55–83. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
Shepard, Jonathan 2020, “The Emperor’s Long Reach: Imperial Alertness to ‘Barbarian’
Resources and Force Majeure, from the Fifth to the Fifteenth Centuries.” In La
diplomatie byzantine, de l’Empire romain aux confins de l’Europe (Ve–XVe s.), eds.
Nicolas Drocourt – Élisabeth Malamut, 287–315. Leiden – Boston: Brill (Medieval
Mediterranean 123).
Shkorpil, Karel 1905, “Snabzhenie vodoi,” Izvestiia Russkogo arkheologicheskogo insti-
tuta v Konstantinopole 10: 318–321.
Simina, Nicolae-Marcel 2002, “Considerații asupra mormintelor medievale timpurii
descoperite în anul 1865 la Sebeș (jud. Alba),” Arheologia medievală 4: 47–58.
Șincai, Gheorghe 1967, Opere, ed. Florea Fugariu, vol. I. Bucharest: Editura pentru
Literatură.
Șincai, Gheorghe 1971, Opere, ed. Florea Fugariu, vol. IV. Bucharest: Editura pentru
Literatură.
Slușanschi, Dan 1976, “Tisa-Timiș-Prahova.” In Studia indoeuropea ad Dacoromanos
pertinentia. I. Studii de tracologie, 151–165. Bucharest: Universitatea București.
Snegarov, Ivan 1924, Istorija na Okhridskata arkhiepiskopja, Tom 1. Ot osnovavaneto i do
zavladjavaneto na Balkanski poluostrov ot turkite. Sofia: Gutenberg.
Solli, Brit 1996, “Narratives of encountering religions: On the Christianization of the
Norse around AD 900–1000,” Norwegian Archaeological Reviewi 29/2: 89–114.
Soloviev, Alexandre 1966, “‘Reges’ et ‘Regnum Russiae’ au Moyen Âge,” Byzantion 36:
144–73.
Solymosi, László 1984, “Észrevételek a ciszterci rend magyarországi történetének rep-
ertóriumából,” Levéltári Közlemények 55/2: 236–252.
Solymosi, László 1994, “Veszprémi püspökség.” In KMTL, 727–728.
Somorjai, Adam 2001, Segnato dalla corona di Santo Stefano. Saggi raccolti 1992–2020,
Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség.
Bibliography 457
Sophoulis, Panos 2012, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831. Leiden – Boston (East Central
and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages 450–1450, 16).
Špehar, Perica 2019, “Reoccupation of the Late Antique Fortifications on the central
Balkans during the Early Middle Ages.” In Fortifications, Defence Systems, Structures
and Features in the Past. Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific Conference on
Mediaeval Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, 113–124. Zagreb: Institut za
arheologiju.
Špehar, Perica – Zorova, Orhideja 2012, “Christianity on the territory of the Arch
bishopric of Ohrid, 11th to the 13th century: archaeological evidence from burial
sites.” In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and
Historical Evidence, eds. Maciej Salamon – Marcin Wołoszyn – Aleksandr E. Musin –
Perica Špehar, vol. 1, 429–446. Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warsaw: Instytut
Archeologii i Etnologii PAN/Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
Spinei, Victor 2003, The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the
Ninth to the Thirteenth Century, Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Cultural Institute.
Spinei, Victor 1992, “Circulația unor piese de cult în regiunile românești nord-dunărene
în secolele X–XVII,” Arheologia Moldovei 15: 153–176.
Spinei, Victor 2003, The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from
the ninth to the thirteenth century, translated by Dana Bădulescu. Cluj-Napoca:
Romanian Cultural Institute, Brăila: Museum of Brăila, Istros.
Spinei, Victor 2014, “Substanța epică a legendei vânătorii rituale a animalului-călăuză
la triburile eurasiatice și la popoarele învecinate din evul mediu,” Arheologia
Moldovei 37: 73–134.
Spinei, Victor – Șadurschi, Paul 1982, “Două engolpioane bizantine descoperite în
Moldova și câteva observații pe marginea lor,” Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și
Arheologie 33/2: 182–190.
Stamati, Iurie 2019, The Slavic Dossier. Medieval Archaeology in the Soviet Republic of
Moldova: Between State Propaganda and Scholarly Endeavor. Leiden – Boston: Brill
(East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages 450–1450, 53).
Stancev, Stancio 1960, “Materialni ot dvortovija cent’r v Pliska,” Izvestija na Arheolog-
iceskij 23: 23–64.
Stanev, Kalin 2005, “Bosporskoto nasledstvo na prabălgarite. Zashto Asparukh e nosil
tova ime i proizkhod na znaka /Y/,” Minalo 12/1: 25–34.
Stanev, Kamen 2009, “Bitkata za Plovdiv prez 970 g. i neinite posledici,” Godishnik na
Regionalniia Arkheologicheski muzei Plovdiv 11: 190–199.
Stanković, Vlada 2003, Carigradski patrijarh i carević makedonske dinastije. Belgrade:
Vizantološki institut.
Stanković, Vlada 2005, “When was Theophylaktos Lakapenos born?,” Jahrbuch der
österreichischen Byzantinistik 55: 59–70.
458 Bibliography
Stanojev, Nebojša 2001, “A Dombói Szent György monostor bizánci ikonjai.” In

Раradisum plantavit. Bencés monostorok a középkori Magyarországon, ed. Takács
Imre, 122–123, 139–141. Pannonhalma: Pannonhalmi Bencés Főapátság.
Stanojev, Nebojša 1996, Srednjovekovna naselja u Vojvodini. Novi Sad: Muzej Vojvodine.
Stateva, Elena 2005, “Kăm văprosa za semantikata na znaka /Y/.” In Kulturnite tekstove
na minaloto. Nositeli, simvoli i idei. Materiali ot iubileinata nauchna konferenciia v
chest na 60-godishninata na prof. d. i. n. Kazimir Popkonstantinov. Veliko Tărnovo,
29–31 oktomvri 2003, ed. Vasil Giuzelev, vol. 3, 167–174. Sofia: Univerzitetsko izdatel-
stvo “Sv. Kliment Okhridski”.
Staykov, Vladimir 2019, “Bulgars, Slavs, Avars. About the early medieval cemeteries
in Northwestern Bulgaria and the people who used them,” Bulgarian e-Journal of
Archaeology, Supplementa 7: 303–314.
Ștefan, Gheorghe 1937–1940, “Dinogeția I,” Dacia 7–8: 401–425.
Stepanov, Cvetelin 1999, “‘Ipsilon s dvumia pikami’ (/Y/) i ego znacheniia (k simbolike
v rannesrednevekovoi Bolgarii),” Bulgarian Historical Review 3–4: 3–9.
Stephenson, Paul 2000, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern
Balkans, 900–1204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stephenson, Paul 2008, “Balkan Borderlands (1018–1204).” In The Cambridge History
of the Byzantine Empire, ed. Jonathan Shepard, 664–691. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stojkovski, Boris 2009, “Niš u vizantijsko-ugarskim odnosima u XI i XII veku.” In Niš i
Vizantija VII, Zbornik radova, ed. Miša Rakocija, 383–394. Niš: Grad Niš-Univerzitet
u Nišu-Niški kulturni centar.
Stojkovski, Boris 2010, “Bač središte sremske crkve?” In Srpska teologija danas 2009.
Zbornik radova prvog godišnjeg simposiona održanog na Pravoslavnom bogoslovskom
fakultetu 29–30. maja 2009, ed. Bogoljub Šijaković, 380–386. Belgrade: Pravoslavni
bogoslovski fakultet Institut za teološka istraživanja.
Stojkovski, Boris 2012, “Samuilovo carstvo i Ugarska.” In Vizantijski svet na Balkanu,
Knjiga I, ed. Bojana Krsmanović, Ljubomir Maksimović, Radivoj Radić, 65–76.
Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Stojkovski, Boris 2016, “The Greek charter of Hungarian king Stephen I,” Zbornik radova
Vizantološkog instituta 53: 127–140.
Stojkovski, Boris 2019, “Vizantijski manastiri u srednjovekovnoj Ugarskoj.” In Pravo-
slavno monaštvo. Tematski zbornik posvećen arhimandritu Dionisiju (Panteliću),
duhovniku manastira Svetog Stefana u Lipovcu, povodom sedam decenija njegove
monaške službe, ed. Kristina Mitić, Dragiša Bojović, 115–137. Niš: Centar za crkvene
studije.
Strässle, Paul Meinrad 2006, Krieg und Kriegführung in Byzanz: die Kriege Kaiser
Basileios II. gegen die Bulgaren (976–1019). Köln: Böhlau.
Bibliography 459
Strodtmann, Johann Christoph – Stosch, Ferdinand 1752, Das Neue gelehrte Europa,
als eine Fortsetzung der drenen Werke, die bisher unter den Ausschriften, Gelehrtes
Europa, Geschiechte der Gelehrten, und Beiträge zur Histoire der Gelehrtheit, ans
Licht gestellet worden, vol. 1, Wolfenbüttel: Johann Christoph Meisner, 1752.
Stuart Robinson, Ian 1990, The Papacy 1073–1098. Continuity and Innovation. Cambridge:
Suciu, Coriolan 1967–1968, Dicționar istoric al localităților din Transilvania, vol. I (1967),
vol. II (1968). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
Suciu, Ioan Dimitrie 1977, Monografia Mitropoliei Banatului. Timișoara: Editura
Mitropoliei Banatului.
Suciu, Ioan Dimitrie – Constantinescu, Radu 1980, Documente privitoare la istoria
Mitropoliei Banatului, vol. I. Timișoara: Editura Mitropoliei Banatului.
Sulzer, Franz Josef 1781–1782, Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens, das ist der
Walachey, Moldau und Bessarabiens. Im Zusammenhange mit der Geschichte des
übrigen Daciens als ein Versuch einer allgemeinen dacischen Geschichte mit kritischer
Freyheit entworfen. Vienna: Rudolf Gräffer.
Sutt, Cameron 2014, “The early Árpáds (895–1095): consolidation, Christianization,
monarchy,” History Compass 12/2: 150–159.
Szabados, György 2012, “Avar pusztalakók és birodalmi nagymorvák. A 9. századi
Kárpát-medence politikai és ethnikai viszonyairól.” In A VII. Medievisztikai
PhD-konferencia (Szeged, 2011. június 1–3.) előadásai, eds. P. Attila Kiss – Ferenc Piti –
György Szabados, 219–235, Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely (Középkortörténei
tanulmányok 7).
Szabó, E. 2016, “Die Frühmittelalterliche Siedlung Balatonőszödtemetői-Dulő und ihr
Gräberfeld,” Antaeus 34: 173–208.
Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2006, “Town and cathedral in Medieval Hungary,” Hortus Artium
Medievalium 12: 207–220.
Szakács, Bela-Zsolt 2015, “Hungary, Byzantium, Italy: Architectural Connections in the
11th Century.” In Romanesque and the Mediterranean: Patterns of Exchange Across
the Latin, Greek and Islamic Worlds c. 1000–c. 1250, eds. Rosa Bacile, John Mcneill,
193–203. London: Routledge.
Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2018, “Architecture in Hungary in the Eleventh Century.” In
Architektura w początkach państw Europy Środkowej. Architecture in the Early Period
of the States of Central Europe, eds. Tomasz Janiak – Dariusz Stryniak, 199–222.
Gniezno: Muzeum Początków Państwa Polskiego.
Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2019, “What did Piroska see at Home? Art and Architecture in
Hungary around 1100.” In Piroska and the Pantokrator. Dynastic Memory, Healing and
Salvation in Komnenian Constantinople, eds. Marianne Sághy – Robert Osterhout,
39–62. Budapest – New York: Central European University Press.
460 Bibliography
Szalontai, Csaba 2000, “Kritische Bemerkungen zur Rolle der Bulgaren im 9. Jahrhun-
dert in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene und in Siebenbürgen/Kritikai ész-
revételek a bolgárok szerepéről a 9. századi Nagyalföldén és Erdélyben,” A Móra
Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Studia Archaeologica 6: 263–286.
Szarka, József 2010, A rotunda öröksége 2. A görög rítus nyomai a középkorban Sárospa-
takon és vonzáskörzetében B.–A.–Z. vármegyében. Miskolc: Szarka József.
Székely, György 1967, “La Hongrie et Byzance aux Xe–XIIe siècles,” Acta Historica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 13/3–4: 291–311.
Székely, György 1972, “A székesfehérvári latinok és vallonok a középkori Magya-
rországon.” In Székesfehérvár évszázadai 2. Középkor, 45–72. Székesfehérvár: Székes-
fehérvár István Király Múzeum.
Széll, Márta 1941, “XI. Századi Temetok Szentes Környéken,” Folia Archaeologica 3–4:
231–265.
Szende, Katalin G. – Végh, András 2015, “Royal Power and Urban Space in Medieval
Hungary.” In Lords and Towns in Medieval Europe: the European Historic Towns
Atlas Project, eds. Anngret Simms – Howard B. Clarke, 255–286. Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing.
Szentgyörgyi, Rudolf 2015, “The auctor monasterii of the Byzantine monastery of
Veszprém Valley.” In Byzance et l’Occident, ed. Emese Egedi-Nagy, 190–202. Budapest:
ELTE Eötvös József Collegium.
Szentirmai, Alexander 1957, “Die ‘Apostolische Legation’ des Ungarnkönigs Stephan
des Heiligen,” Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 8: 253–267.
Szilás, László 1972, “Quellen der ungarischen Kirchengeschichte aus ehemaligen
Jesuiten-archiven,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 4: 172–189.
Szőke, Bela Miklos 2011, “Beziehungen zwischen Keszthely-Fenékpuszta und Mosaburg/
Zalavár in der Karolingerzeit.” In Kesthely-Fenékpuszta im Kontext spätantiker
Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und Moesia, ed. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska,
509–540. Budapest – Leipzig – Keszthely – Rahden/Westfalien: Verlag Marie Leidorf
(Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 2).
Szőke, Béla Miklós 2014, The Carolingian Age in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum.
Szovák, Kornel – Veszprémy, László 1938, “Krónikák, legendák, intelmek-utószava.” In
SRH 2, 780–782.
Tabov, Iordan – Todorov, Nikolai 2007, “‘Arkhaichniiat’ nadpis na golemiia kamenen
krăst,” Palaeobulgarica 30/3: 88–99.
Takács, Imre 2012, “The first sanctuary of the second cathedral of Gyulafehérvár (Alba
Iulia, RO),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 53: 15–43.
Takács, Miklós 1997, “Ornamentale Beziehungen zwischen der Steinmetzkunst von
Ungarn und Dalmatien im XI. Jahrhundert,” Hortus Artium Mediaevalium, 3: 165–178.
Bibliography 461
Takács, Miklós 2013, “Considerații privind bisericile ce configurează crucea în planul

și structura lor spațială. Cazul unor monumente din Evul Mediu timpuriu, recent
descoperite în Bazinul Carpatic/Gondolatok a keresztet alaprajzukban, illetve
térszerkezetükben megjelenítő templomokról, különös tekintettel néhány, a
közelmúltban feltárt, Kárpát-Medencei korai középkori emlékre,” Marisia 33: 75–135.
Takács, Miklós 2016, “The ninth-century Carpathian Basin on the north-western edge of
the first Bulgarian State. An overview of some hypotheses and remarks.” In Zwischen
Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und historische Studien Festschrift für Csanád
Bálint zum 70 Geburtstag, eds. Gergely Csiky – Ádám Bollók – Tivadar Vida – Anett
Miháczi-Pálfi – Zsófia Masek, 502–518. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Research
Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Takács, Miklós 2018, Byzantinische oder byzantinisierende Raumgestaltungen kirchli-
cher Architektur im frühárpádenzeitlichen Ungarn (Eine vergleichende Analyse auf
Grundlage von Paralellen aus dem Balkan). Mainz: Schnell und Steiner (Monogra-
phien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 139).
Tăpkova-Zaimova, Vasilka 1970, “Roliata i administrativnata organizaciia na t. nar.
‘otvăddunavska Bălgariia’.” In Prouchvaniia po sluchai II Kongres po balkanistika,
eds. Nikolai Todorov – Veselin Beshevliev – St. Velikov – K. Georgiev – Strashimir
Dimitrov – Petăr Miiatev – P. Rusev, 63–73. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata
Akademiia na Naukite.
Tăpkova-Zaimova, Vasilka 2008, “Entre Ochrid et Tirnovo: problèmes d’église après
971.” In Byzantium and the Bulgarians (1018–1185), eds. Katerina Nikolaou – Kostas
Tsiknakis, 25–37. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation (Institute of
Byzantine Research, International Symposium 18).
Tăpkova-Zaimova, Vasilka 2017, Bulgarians by Birth. The Comitopuls, Emperor Sam-
uel and Their Successors According to Historical Sources and the Historiographic
Tradition, Leiden – Boston: Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle
Ages 450–1450, 47).
Țeicu, Dumitru 2007, Geografia ecleziastică a Banatului medieval. Cluj-Napoca: Presa
Universitară Clujeană.
Tellenbach, Gerd 1993, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth
Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Temesváry, János 1922, Erdély középkori püspökei. Levéltári kutatásai alapján. Cluj-
Kolozsvár: Minerva.
Teodor, Dan Gh. 1981, Romanitatea carpato-dunăreană și Bizanțul în veacurile V–XI.
Iași: Junimea.
Teodor, Dan Gh. 2004, “Depozitul de unelte și arme medievale timpurii de la Gârbovăț,
jud. Galați,” Memoria Antiquitatis 23: 395–406.
Teodor, Eugen S. 2000, “Așezări din evul mediu timpuriu de la Vadu Anei,” Cercetări
arheologice 11: 125–170.
462 Bibliography
Teslenko, Irina B. 2015. “Keramika.” In Drevnosti Semidvor’ia I. Srednevekovyi dvukhap-

sidnyi khram v urochishche Ebi-Evler (Alushta, Krym): issledovaniia i materialy, eds.
Irina B. Teslenko – Aleksandr E. Musin, 119–177. Kiev: Antikvar (Arkheologicheskii
al’manakh 32).
Tettamanti, Sarolta 1975, “Temetkezési szokások a X–XI. században a Kárpát-
medencében,” Studia Comitatensia 3: 79–112.
Thacker, Alan 1992, “Monks, Preaching and Pastoral Care in Early Anglo-Saxon
England.” In Pastoral Care Before the Parish, eds. John Blair – Richard Sharpe, 138–
170. London: Leicester University Press.
Theodorescu, Răzvan 1974, Bizanț, Balcani, Occident la începuturile culturii medievale
românești (secolele X–XIV). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste
România (Biblioteca Istorică 41).
Theodorescu, Răzvan 2014, “Découverts archéologiques à Alba Iulia et une conversion
des Hongrois,” Revue Roumaine d’histoire de l’art. Série Beaux-Arts 51: 3–9.
Theotokis, Georgios 2018, Byzantine Military Tactics in Syria and Mesopotamia in the
Tenth century: a Comparative Study. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2001, “The Bishops and Dioceses of Saint Stephen.” In Saint Stephen
and his country. A Newborn Kingdom in Central Europe: Hungary (Essays), ed. Attila
Zsoldos, 49–68. Budapest: Lucidus Kiadó.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2004, “Viták kereszttüzében. A kalocsai érsekség korai történetének
kutatása Katona Istvántól napjainkig.” In Historia critica. Tanulmányok az Eötvös
Loránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Karának Történeti Intézetéből, ed.
Orsolya Manhercz, 145–151. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2009a, “Szent István egyházmegyéi – Szent István püspökei.” In
Gábor Thoroczkay, Írások az Árpád-korról. Történeti és historiográfiai tanulmányok,
33–50. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2009b, “Az első magyarországi érsekek kérdéséhez.” In Gábor
Thoroczkay, Írások az Árpád-korról. Történeti és historiográfiai tanulmányok, 9–21.
Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó.
Thoroczkay, Gábor, 2009c, “A kalocsai érsekség első évszázadáról.” In Gábor
Thoroczkay, Írások az Árpád-korról. Történeti és historiográfiai tanulmányok, 51–65.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2012, “Megjegyzések Erdély államalapítás-kori történetéhez. Keán
kiléte és egyes kapcsolódó kérdések.” In “Köztes-Európa” vonzásában. Ünnepi tanul-
mányok Font Márta tiszteletére, eds. Dániel Bagi – Tamás Fedeles – Gergely Kiss,
463–482. Pécs: Kronosz.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2016a, “Megjegyzések Erdély államalapítás-kori történetéhez.”
In Gábor Thoroczkay, Ismeretlen Árpád-kor. Püspökök, legendák, krónikák, 9–28.
Bibliography 463
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2016b, “Szent István okleveleiről.” In Gábor Thoroczkay, Ismeretlen

Árpád-kor. Püspökök, legendák, krónikák, 43–78. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2016c, “Néhány megjegyzés a Szent István-i egyházszervezés fol-
yamatához.” In Gábor Thoroczkay, Ismeretlen Árpád-kor. Püspökök, legendák,
krónikák, 79–89. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2019, “A középkori Magyar Királyság egyházigazgatásának néhány
kérdése,” Egyháztörténeti Szemle 20/4: 3–10.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2020, A középkori Magyarország – Állam és ideológiák. Budapest:
Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kar.
Thoroczkay, Gábor 2021, “Gyulas de Transylvanie.” In Démythifier l’Europe centrale.
(Bohême, Hongrie et Pologne du VIIe au XVIe siècle), ed. Marie-Madeleine de Cevins,
494–495. Paris: Edition Passés/Composés.
Timbuș, Siluan-Sergiu 2021, Iconostasul în Transilvania: istorie, artă, teologie (cca 1400–
1650). PhD Dissertation, Cluj-Napoca: “Babeș-Bolyai” University.
Timkó, Imre 1971, Keleti kereszténység, keleti egyházak. Budapest: Szent István Társulat.
Timofan, Anca 2010, “Cercetarea arheologică sistematică Apulum-Cetatea Alba
Carolina (Ravelinul Sf. Francisc de Paola). Sectorul de sud al așezării civile a castru-
lui legiunii XIII Gemina – Campania 2009,” Terra Sebus 2: 105–116.
Timon, Samuel 1762, Imago antique Hungariae, representans terras, adventus, et Res
gestas hunnicae, Viennae, Pragae et Tergest.
Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2003, “Necropolele de tip Mediaș din Transilvania,” Acta Musei
Napocensis 39–40: 9–22.
Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2005, “Necropolele medievale timpurii din Transilvania (sfârșitul
sec. IX–prima jumătate a sec. XII).” In Relații interetnice în Transilvania (sec. VI–
XIII), eds. Zeno Karl Pinter – Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Emilia Țiplic, 133–156.
Sibiu: Editura economică (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis 12).
Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2006, Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages (7th–13th c.).
Heidelberg – Alba Iulia: Arbeitskreis für siebenbürgische Landeskunde/Altip.
Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2007, Istoria fortificațiilor medieval timpurii din Transilvania
(927/934–1257) într emit, nationalism și arheologie, Iași: Polirom.
Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2013, “Aspecte de ritual funerar în necropola medieval timpurie de
la Orăștie Dealul Pemilor X2,” Banatica 23: 223–241.
Točik, Anton 1971, “Flachgäberfelder aus dem IX. Und X. Jahrhundert in der
Südwestslowakei,” Slovenská Archeologia 19: 135–276.
Točik, Anton 1987, “Nachgroβmährische Gräberfelder des 10. Und 11. Jh. In der
Südwestslowakei,” Studijne zvesti 23: 177–293.
Tombeur, Paul 1997, “La ‘latinitas’, réalité linguistique et culturelle européenne.” In Aux
origines du lexique philosophique européen. L’influence de la latinitas, ed. Jacqueline
Hamesse, 23–40. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération Internationale des Instituts
d’Études Médiévales.
464 Bibliography
Tomescu, Alexandru Mihail Florian 2000, “Evaluation of Holocene pollen records from
the Romanian Plain,” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 109: 219–33.
Tomičić, Željko 2002, “Keramika iz (ponekih) ranosrednjovjekovnih grobalja kontinen-
talnog dijela Hrvatske. Keramik aus ausgewählten frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfel-
dern im kontinentalen Kroatien.” In Zgodnji Slovani: zgodnjesrednjeveška lončenina
na obrobju vzhodnih Alp. Die frühen Slawen. Frühmittelalterliche Keramik am Rand
der Ostalpen, ed. Mitja Guštin, 129–141. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije.
Topping, Peter 1977, “Co-existence of Greeks and Latins in Frankish Morea and
Venetian Crete.” In Peter Topping, Studies on Latin Greece A.D. 1205–1715, 3–23.
London: Variorum reprints.
Török, József 2001, “The History of Liturgy in Hungary.” In A Thousand Years of
Christianity in Hungary, eds. István Zombori – Pál Cséfalvay – Maria Antonietta De
Angelis, 155–159. Budapest: Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference.
Török, Joszef 2001, “Il primo re d’Ungheria e l’organizzazione della Chiesa ungherese.”
In Gerberto di Aurillac da abate di Bobbio al Papa dell’Anno 1000. Atti del Congresso
Internazionale Bobbio, Auditorium di Santa Chiara, 28–30 settembre 2000, ed. Flavio
Nuvolone, 455–466. Bobbio: Associazione culturale Amici di “Archivum Bobbiense”
(Archivum Bobbiense. Studia 4).
Török, József 2002, A tizenegyedik század magyar egyháztörténete. Budapest: Mikes
Kiadó.
Toropu, Octavian – Stoica, Octavian 1970, “Descoperiri arheologice și numismatice din
Oltenia,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 9: 491–498.
Toropu, Octavian – Stoica, Octavian 1972, “La nécropole préféodale d’Obîrșia-Olt,”
Dacia 16: 163–188.
Toropu, Octavian – Ciucă, V. – Voicu, C. 1976, “Noi descoperiri arheologice în Oltenia,”
Drobeta 2: 93–111.
Torrey, Joseph – Neander, Augustus – Cutler Torrey, Mary 2009, General History of the
Christian Religion and Church. Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan
Library.
Totev, Totiu 1976, “Bazilika pri Sakalova Mogila v Preslav,” Preslav. Sbornik 2: 38–61.
Totev, Totiu 1991, “Za edna grupa bronzovi amuleti s flankiran s vertikalni khasti ipsilon
/Y/ ot severoiztochna Bălgariia,” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 2: 5–15.
Totev, Totiu 1993, The Preslav Treasure. Shumen: Antos.
Totev, Totiu 2005, “Meden pechat matrica s flankiran s otvesni khasti ipsilon (/Y/) ot
s. Zlatna niva, Shumensko.” In Bălgarskite zemi prez srednovekovieto (VII–XVII v.).
Mezhdunarodna konferenciia v chest na 70–godishninata na prof. Aleksandăr Kuzev,
eds. Valeri Iotov – Vania Pavlova, vol. 2, 25–28. Varna: Regionalen istoricheskii muzei
(Acta Musei Varnensis 3).
Totev, Totiu 2007, “Srebăren prăsten s nezatvorena khalka i ipsilon s otvesni khasti ot
Severoiztochna Bălgariia.” In Izsledvaniia po bălgarska srednovekovna arkheologiia.
Sbornik v chest na prof. Rasho Rashev, ed. Pavel Georgiev, 240–244. Sofia: Faber.
Bibliography 465
Totev, Totiu 2011, “Oshte na tipologizaciiata na krăstokupolnite cărkvi văv Veliki

Preslav.” In Izsledvaniia v chest na Stefan Boiadzhiev, eds. Stanislav Stanev – Valeri
Grigorov – Vladimir Dimitrov, 347–358. Sofia: Nacionalen arkheologicheski institut
i muzei.
Tóth, Sándor László 1994, “Hungarian-Bulgarian contacts in the ninth century.” In
Hungaro-Bulgarica V. Szegedi Bolgarisztika, eds. Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss – Téréz
Olajos – I.H. Tóth – István Ferincz, 71–78. Szeged: Kiadja a Iate-Press.
Tóth, Sándor Lászlo 2003, “Princes and dignitaries in the ninth- and tenth-century
Magyar tribal federation,” Chronica. Annual of the Institute of History. University of
Szeged 3: 21–36.
Tougher, Shaun 2008, The eunuch in Byzantine history and society. London – New York:
Routledge.
Toynbee, Arnold Joseph 1973, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his world. London –
New York: Oxford University Press.
Treadgold, Warren 2013, The Middle Byzantine Historians. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Treffort, Cécile 2001, “Consécration de cimetière et contrôle épiscopal des lieux d’in-
humation au Xe siècle.” In Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en
Occident, ed. Michel Kaplan, 285–299. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.
Tremp, Ernst – Utz Tremp, Kathrin – Pfaff, Carl 1991, “Zwischen Institution und
Frömmigkeit: die Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Kirchengeschichte im letzten
Vierteljahrhundert,” Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte. Revue suisse d’histoire.
Rivista storica svizzera 41/4: 452–466.
Trumbore Jones, Anna – Ott, John S. 2007, The Bishop Reformed. Studies of Episcopal
Power and Culture in the Central Middle Ages. Aldershot: Routledge.
Tschackert, Paul 1891, “Schwarz, Gottfried,”, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 33,
237–238. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Turcu, Mioara 1978, “O așezare feudală timpurie la Bragadiru.” In Izvoare arheologice
bucureștene, ed. Liliana Zaharia, 42–45. Bucharest: Academia de Științe Sociale și
Politice/Muzeul de Istorie a Municipiului București.
Turcuș, Șerban 2004, Sfântul Gerard de Cenad sau despre destinul unui venețian în jurul
anului O Mie. Bucharest: Carom.
Turcuș, Șerban 2011, “Monahismul ortodox în Transilvania la începutul celui de-al doi-
lea mileniu,” Tabor. Revistă lunară de cultură și spiritualitate românească editată de
Mitropolia Clujului, Albei, Crișanei și Maramureșului 5/2: 78–90.
Turcuș, Șerban et al. 2011, Antroponimia în Transilvania medievală (secolele XI–XIV).
Evaluare statistică, evoluție, semnificații, eds. Șerban Turcuș – Adinel Dincă – Mihai
Hasan – Victor Vizauer, vol. I–II, Cluj-Napoca: Mega.
Türk, Attila 2014, “Towards a Classification of Grave Types and Burial Rites in the 10th–
11th Century Carpathian Basin (Some Remarks and Observations).” In Avars, Bulgars
and Magyars on the Lower and Middle Danube: Proceedings of the Bulgarian-Hungarian
466 Bibliography
Meetings, Sofia, May 27–28, 2009, eds. Lyudmila Doncheva-Petkova – Csilla Balogh –
Attila Türk, 137–156. Sofia – Piliscsaba: Archaeolingua.
Ungerman, Šimon 2020, “Earrings as typical representants of the ‘international’ fash-
ion.” In Great Moravian Elites from Mikulčice, ed. Lumír Poláček et al., 273–285. Brno:
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology.
Urbańczyk, Przemysław 2003, “The Politics of Conversion in North Central Europe.” In
Uzsoki, András 1991, “A veszprémi püspökség Szent Mihály patrociniuma.” In
Egyházak a változó világban, eds. István Bárdos – Margit Beke, 87–89. Tatabánya:
Komárom-Esztergom Megye Önkormányzata.
Vaklinov, Stancho – Vaklinova, Margarita 1993, “Goliamoto vodokhranilishte na Pliska
(Razkopki na Stancho Vaklinov prez 1961 g.),” Pliska-Preslav 6: 5–21.
Vaklinova, Margarita 1994, “Preslavskiiat dvorec (Glavnite dvorcovi postroiki prez
stolichniia period).” In Istoriko-arkheologicheski izsledvaniia v pamet na prof. dr
Stancho Vaklinov, eds. Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova – Georgi Danchev – Kazimir
Popkonstantinov – Stefan Iordanov, 45–58. Veliko Tărnovo: Universitetsko izdatel-
stvo “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodii”.
Vaklinova, Margarita – Shtereva, Irina – Gorianova, Snezhana – Manolova-Voinova,
Mariia – Dimitrov, Petar 2003, “Vladetelskata cărkva na Veliki Preslav,” Arkheologiia
44/4: 30–40.
Valjavec, Fritz 1936, Karl Gottlieb Windisch. Das Lebensbild eines südostdeutschen
Bürgers der Aufklärungszeit. Budapest: Verlag der Neuen Heimatblätter.
Várady, László 1989, “Revision des Ungarn-Image von Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos.
Textanalysen und Reinterpretation zu den Aussagen des Konstantinos Porphyro-
gennetos über die Politikgeschichte der Ungarn,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 82: 22–58.
Varga, Sándor 2014, “Honfoglalás kori temetőrészlet Bátmonostor-Pintér tanyáról.
Újabb adatok a 10–11. századi vasmerevítéses tegezek típusaihoz.” In Avarok pusztái.
Régészeti tanulmányok Lőrinczy Gábor 60. születésnapjára, eds. Alexandra Anders –
Csilla Balogh – Attila Türk, 497–520. Budapest: Martin Opitz Kiadó.
Várnagy Aantal 1993, Liturgika. Szertartástan. Az egyház nyilvános Istentisztelete.
Abaliget: Lámpás Kiadó.
Vasiliev, Alexander A. 2010, Istoria Imperiului Bizantin. Iași: Polirom.
Vătășianu, Virgil 1959, Istoria artei feudale în Ţările Române, vol. I. Bucharest: Editura
Academiei Republicii Populare Române.
Vătășianu, Virgil 1987, Studii de artă veche românească și universală, Bucharest:
Meridiane.
Vauchez, André 1977, “Beata Stirps: Sainteté et lignage en Occident aux XIIIe et XIVe
siècles.” In Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval, eds. Georges Duby – Jacques
Le Goff, 397–406. Rome: École française de Rome.
Bibliography 467
Vauchez, André 1988, La Sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Âge. D’après
les procès de canonisation et les documents hagiographiques. Paris: École Française
de Rome.
Văžarova, Živka N. 1976, Slavjani i Prabălgari (po danni na nekropolite ot VI–XI v. na
teritorijata na Bălgarija), Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite.
Veitch, Kenneth 1998, “The Alliance between Church and State in Early Medieval Alba,”
Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 30/2: 193–220.
Vekov, Károly 2001, “A keresztény egyházszervezés kezdetei Erdélyben.” In Erdély
a keresztény magyar királyságban, eds. Loránd Benkő – István Bóna – Zsigmond
Jakó – Sándor Tonk – Károly Vekov, 128–135. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület.
Veletsky, D.V. – Vinogradov, Andrey 2019, Istoriya i iskusstvo khristianskoy Alanii.
Мoscow: Taus.
Velter, Ana-Maria 2002, Transilvania în secolele V–XII. Interpretări istorico-politice și
economice pe baza descoperirilor monetare din bazinul carpatic. Bucharest: Paideia.
Veszprémy, Lászlό 1998, “11th and 13th Century Liturgical Manuscripts (mostly from
Zagreb) as Historical Sources,” Povijesni prilozi 17: 261–267.
Violante, Cinzio – Fried, Johannes (eds.) 1993, Il secolo XI. Una svolta? Atti della XXXII
settimana di studio, 10–14 settembre 1990. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Vionis, Athanasios K. – Poblome, Jeroen – De Cupere Bea – Waelkens, Marc 2010, “A
Middle-Late Byzantine Pottery Assemblage from Sagalassos: Typo-Chronology
and Sociocultural Interpretation,” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens 79/3: 423–464.
Vroom, Joanita 2003, After Antiquity. Ceramics and Society in the Aegean from the 7th
to the 20th Century A.C. A Case study from Boeotia, Central Greece. Leiden: Leiden
University (Archaeological Studies 10).
Vroom, Joanita 2005, Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean. An Introduction and
Field Guide. Utrecht: Parnassus Press.
Wasilewski, Tadeusz 1964, “Le thème byzantin de Sirmium-Serbie au XIe et XIIe siè-
cles,” Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 8/2: 465–482.
Weiler, Björn 2010, “Crown-giving and King-making in the West ca. 1000–ca. 1250,”
Viator 41/1: 57–88.
West Harling, Veronica 2020, Rome, Ravenna, and Venice, 750–1000: Byzantine Heritage,
Imperial Present, and the Construction of City Identity, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wieczorek, Alfried – Hinz, Hans-Martin (eds.) 2000, Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge
zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie. Stuttgart: Theiss.
Wihoda, Martin 2010, Morava v době knížecí, 906–1197. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové
noviny.
Wolfram, Herwig 1995, Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich: die Conversio Bagoariorum et
Carantanorum und die Quellen ihrer Zeit. Vienna: Oldenbourg (Mitteilungen des
Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 31).
468 Bibliography
Wolfram, Herwig 2004, “Auf der Suche nach den Ursprüngen.” In Die Suche nach
den Ursprüngen Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, ed. Walter Pohl, 11–22.
Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Wolfram, Herwig 2006, “Bavaria in the Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries.” In The New
Cambridge Medieval History 3: 900–c.1024, ed. Timothy Reuter, 293–309. Cambridge:
Wood, Susan 2008, The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wörterbuch der Kirchengeschichte, eds. Carl Andresen – Georg Denzler. Munich:
Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1988.
Wortley, John 2010, John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History 811–1057. Translated
by John Wortley, with introductions by Jean-Claude Cheynet, and Bernard Flusin,
and notes by Jean-Claude Cheynet. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Wulff, Oskar 1909, Altchristliche und mittelalterliche Byzantinische und Italiensche
Bildwerke, vol. I. Berlin: Reimer.
Wulff, Oskar 1911, Altchristliche und mittelalterliche Byzantinische und Italiensche
Bildwerke, vol. I. Berlin: Reimer.
Yotov, Valeri 2010, “Bălgarskiiat kontrol na ‘pătiia na solta’ v Transilvaniia prez IX v.
(po arkheologicheski danni).” In Velikotărnovskiiat universitet “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodii”
i bălgarskata arkheologiia, ed. Boris Borisov, vol. 1, 487–495. Veliko Tărnovo: Univer-
sitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodii”.
Yotov, Valeri 2012, “Bulgarian control over the salt road in Transylvania during the 9th
century: the archaeological evidence.” In Salt and Gold: the Role of Salt in Prehistoric
Europe. Proceedings of the International Symposium (Humboldt-Kolleg) in Provadia,
Bulgaria, 30 September–4 October 2010, eds. Vassil Nikolov – Krum Băchvarov, 323–
331. Provadia – Veliko Tărnovo: Faber.
Yotov, Valeri 2015, “Traces of Scandinavian warriors’ presence in the Balkans.” In
Scandinavia and the Balkans. Cultural Interactions with Byzantium and Eastern
Europe in the First Millennium AD, eds. Oksana Minaeva – Lena Holmquist, 187–203.
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Yotov, Valeri 2016, “Σαλτσάριον/saltsaria (IX–XI v.) ot morskoto d’no nedalech ot Biala,
Varnensko.” In Prof. dr Boris Borisov uchenici i priiateli, ed. Boris Borisov, 521–528.
Veliko Tărnovo: IVIS (VTU “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodii” i bălgarskata arkheologiia 2).
Yotov, Valeri 2018, “Data about Northmen’s presence in the Lower Danube region.” In
Studia Romana et mediaevalia Europaensia. Miscellanea in honorem annos LXXXV
peragentis professoris emeriti Dan Gh. Teodor oblata, eds. Dan Aparaschivei –
George Bilavschi, 466–484. Bucharest – Brăila: Editura Academiei Române/Istros
(Honoraria 13).
Bibliography 469
Yotov, Valeri 2020, “Chafing dishes and ember covers vessels north of the Danube
river (the 30-ies of the 9th–beginning of 10th century).” In Relații interetnice în
Transilvania. Militaria Mediaevalia în Europa centrală și de sud-est. Lucrări prezen-
tate în conferințele internaționale Interethnic Relations in Transylvania, Sibiu 2018–
2019, eds. Zeno Karl Pinter – Claudia Urduzia – Anca Nițoi, 169–180. Sibiu: Astra
Museum.
Young, Bailey K. 1992, “Text aided or text misled? Reflections on the uses of archaeol-
ogy in medieval history.” In Text-Aided Archaeology, ed. Barbara J. Little, 135–147.
Boca Raton – Ann Arbor – London: CRC Press.
Zábojník, Jozef 2006, “Úpravy hrobových jám na pohrebiskách z obdobia avarského
kaganátu na územi Slovenska,” Študijné zvesti Archeologického ústavu SAV 34:
119–135.
Zaharia, Eugenia 1967, Săpăturile de la Dridu. Contribuții la arheologia și istoria peri-
oadei de formare a poporului român. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii
Socialiste România.
Zaharia, Eugenia 1977, Populația românească în sec. VII–VIII în Transilvania (Cimitirul
nr. 2 de la Bratei), Bucharest: Academia de Științe Sociale și Politice a Republicii
Socialiste România.
Zajtay, Imre 1953, Introduction a l’étude du droit hongrois (La formation historique du
droit civil). Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.
Zemek, Metodej 1987, “Zum Problem der Kontinuität zwischen dem Bistum Mähren
und dem Bistum Olmütz.” In Der heilige Method, Salzburg und die Slawenmission,
eds. Alfred Stirnemann – Theodor Piffl-Peřcevíc, 109–118. Innsbruck – Vienna:
Tyrolia.
Ziemann, Daniel 2014, “Der schwächelnde Nachbar – Bulgarien zwischen Ungarn und
Byzanz in der zweiten Hälfte des 10. Jahrhunderts.” In A Kárpát-medence, a mag-
yarság és Bizánc, ed. Teréz Olajos, 367–382. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem.
Zimonyi, István 2016, Muslim sources on the Magyars in the second half of the 9th cen-
tury: the Magyar chapter of the Jayhānī tradition, Leiden – Boston: Brill (East Central
and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages 450–1450, 35).
Zirra, Vlad – Tudor, Margareta 1954, “Săpăturile arheologice din sectorul Giulești.” In
București. Rezultatele săpăturilor arheologice și ale cercetărilor istorice din anul 1953,
26–45. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române.
Zolnay, László 1983, A középkori Esztergom. Esztergom: Gondolat.
Zombori, István – Cséfalvay, Pál – De Angelis, Maria Antonietta (eds.) 2001, A
Thousand Years of Christianity in Hungary. Budapest: Hungarian Catholic Episcopal
Conference.
Zsoldos, Attila 2011, Magyarországi világi archontológiája. Budapest: História-MTA
Történettudományi intézete.
470 Bibliography
Zsoldos, Attila 2020, The Árpáds and Their People. An Introduction to the History of
Hungary from ca. 900 to 1301. Budapest: Research Centre for the Humanities.
Zuckerman, Constantine 1995, “On the Date of the Khazars’ Conversion to Judaism and
the Chronology of the Kings of the Rus Oleg and Igor. A Study of the Anonymous
Khazar Letter from the Genizah of Cairo,” Revue des études byzantines 53: 237–270.
Zuckerman, Constantin 2000, “Le voyage d’Olga et la première ambassade espagnole à
Constantinople en 946,” Travaux et Mémoires 13: 647–672.
Zuckerman, Constantin 2006, “Byzantium’s Pontic policy in the Notitiae episco-
patuum.” In La Crimée entre Byzance et le Khaganat khazar, ed. Constantine
Zuckerman, 201–230. Paris: Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de
Byzance (Monographies 25).
Zugravu, Nelu 1997, Geneza creștinismului popular al românilor. Bucharest: Vavila Edinf
SRL (Bibliotheca Thracologica 18).
Zupka, Dušan 2016, Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary under the
Árpád Dynasty (1000–1301). Leyden – Boston: Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe
in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, vol. 39).
Index
Aaron (prophet) 200, 206 Bulgarian fort 108

Abbasids (Arab clan) 208 cathedral Ia see pillared church
Abgar (king of Edessa) 199, 209 cathedral Ib see Romanesque basilica
Abimelech (Philistine king) 219 ‘Dealul Furcilor’ 43, 82n20
Abkhazia (historical region in Georgia) 213 Episcopal Palace 14, 17, 21n28, 53, 108,
Abraham (biblical patriarch) 219 109, 165, 254
Achtum (Hungarian duke) 6, 151, 157, 163, first cathedral see Romanesque basilica
240–42, 245, 247, 261, 263, 272, 327, ‘1st December 1918’ University 2
332 Former Military Hospital see Museikon
Adalbert of Prague (saint) 329 ‘Izvorul Împăratului’ 43–45, 48, 51, 73,
Adelaide (princess of Árpádian dinasty) 177 78, 80, 88, 94, 96, 99, 104, 108, 111–14,
Adornoc / Adornok (Hungarian nobleman) 182
269 Habsburg citadel 1, 14, 16, 382
Adrian IV (pope) 296 ‘Lumea Nouă’ 71, 75
Adrianople (Bulgarian fortress) 57–59, medieval cemetery 79
67n51, 71, 226 medieval citadel / fortress 19, 78
Adrianyi, Gabriel (Hungarian historian) 180 Municipal Stadium 71
Adriatic coast 67n48, 307 Museikon 80, 108
Aelian(us Tacticus) (Greek writer) 221 National Museum of the Union 1, 7, 11,
Africa (Byzantine province) 236 79, 81n13
Agrij (river) 153 Orange Transmission Station see
Aiton (Romanian village) 163 Antena Orange
Ajton(y) see Achtum Orthodox Archbishopric 1, 2, 4
Akhal Teke (horse breed) 232 pillared / Byzantine church discovered
Alania (medieval kingdom of the Iranian in 2011 4, 7, 14, 16, 17, 20–28, 30, 32,
Alans) 213–15, 236, 237 33–39, 41–43, 46–50, 54–56, 61, 62, 70,
Alans (Iranian nomadic people) 213, 214 73, 75n77, 108–09, 149, 165, 166, 181, 240,
Alardus (Transylvanian nobleman) 353 247, 248, 252–55, 259, 339, 346, 349,
Alba (Romanian county) 60, 75, 164 350, 351, 357–59, 363, 365–68, 370–71,
Alba Iulia (Romanian city) 1–3, 7, 11–13, 15, 373–75, 378, 380–85, 387–88
16, 18–20, 29, 32, 37, 41, 42, 43–53, 55, Ravelin of St. Francisc de Paola 80, 108
60, 62, 70, 71, 73–75, 78–80, 82n17, 95, ‘Roman Bath’ see ‘Băile Romane’
104, 106, 107n124, 108, 109, 111–14, 125, Roman-Catholic / Latin (arch)bishopric
143, 155, 157, 159, 164, 165, 167, 173–76, residence see Episcopal Palace
178, 181, 182, 238–40, 251, 254, 326, 338, Roman cemetery / necropolis 79–82
339–41, 344n186, 346, 348–53, 359, 365, Roman fortress / wall 14–16, 19, 27, 28,
366n27, 375, 383, 384, 386–88 30, 32, 42, 45, 46, 53, 54, 62, 78, 107, 108,
Alba Iulia I (archeological horizon) 109, 113–14, 251, 347, 366
42n65 Romanesque basilica / cathedral / church
‘Antena Orange’ 43n69, 80, 96, 108 1, 4, 5, 13, 16–20, 32, 34n49, 42, 45–50,
‘Apor’ Palace 53 165, 240, 247, 253–54, 351, 359, 366n26,
‘Băile Romane’ 44, 80, 104n105, 108 387, 389
Batthyaneum Library 170 rotunda / round church 3, 16, 17, 18, 47,
Brândușei Street 43, 44, 45, 78, 80, 49, 339, 346, 351, 359
94–96, 104, 108, 113, 182 ‘Spitalul Veterinar’ 79
472 Index
Alba Iulia (Romanian city) (cont.) Anatolian troops 226

Saint Michael Roman-Catholic cathedral Anatolius (Greek writer) 221
1, 5, 11, 14, 16–21, 30n45, 32, 46, 49–53, Ancona (Italian city) 291
56, 61, 78, 80, 88n30, 108–09, 112, 114, Andreicuț, Andrei (Romanian Orthodox
252, 259n13, 339, 346, 353, 365, 382, archbishop) 1
384 Andrew (apostle) 371–72n33
Septimius Severus Street (archaeological Andrew I (Hungarian king) 44, 45, 104, 150,
site) 71n68 265–66, 301–02, 333–34
‘Stația de Salvare’ I cemetery 28, 42, 45, Andrew II (Hungarian king) 252
48, 60, 61, 71, 73, 75n77, 78–91, 92, 94, Andrić, Stanko (Croatian historian) 279–80
97, 105, 107, 108, 109, 113, 114, 182 Angevins of Naples (royal house of French
‘Stația de Salvare’ II cemetery 42–45, origin) 298n40, 299
82n17, 92, 94–96, 98, 100–02, 104–05, Angevin court 298
110–11 Angevin era 309
Vânătorilor Street 44, 78, 80, 81, 95, Anghel, Gheorghe (Romanian archaeologist)
104n105, 108 79n9
Alberic (Lombard prince) 190, 195, 207 Anglicanism (doctrine including features
Aldea, Ioan Alexandru (Romanian of both Protestantism and Roman
archaeologist) 79n9 Catholicism) 345
Alexander III (pope) 294n30 Anglo-Saxon
Alexander VI (pope) 309 Anglo-Saxon Church 349
Alexander the Great (king of the ancient Anglo-Saxon England 324, 349
Greek kingdom of Macedon) 73n72 Anglo-Saxon missionary bishops 324
Alexandria (patriarchate) 208–11 Anna Porphyrogenneta (Byzantine princess)
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantine emperor) 219, 359
136, 185, 220 Annales Posonienses (medieval chronicle)
Alexios Studites (ecumenical patriarch) 332
258n7, 262–63 Anonymous Notary (Hungarian chronicler)
Aljmaš (Croatian village) 276 149–57, 162, 251, 258, 338
Almaș (river) 153 Antioch (patriarchate) 208–11
Álmos / Almus (Hungarian chieftain) 150, Antiquity (historical period) 3, 327
152, 154, 250 Late Antiquity 220, 224, 320, 351n225
Alpár (Hungarian village) 276 Antonios of Tourkia (bishop) 241, 254,
Alpine region 93 258–59
Alzati, Cesare (Italian historian) 292 Antonova, Vera (Bulgarian archaeologist)
Amasia (village in Armenia) 196–97 141–42, 145
Ampelum (Roman town, now Romanian Apostag (Hungarian village) 258n7
town Zlatna) 82 Apostolic See see Holy See
Ampoi (river) 109 Apulum (capital of the Roman province of
Ampoi Valley 110 Dacia) 13, 78, 82, 251
Anaclet II (antipope) 305 Apulum (scientific journal of the Alba Iulia
Anastasia of Kiev (queen of Hungary) 266 National Museum) 357, 382
Anastasios of Herakleia (metropolitan) 189 Apulia see Puglia
Anastasiu, Florian (Romanian archaeologist) Aquitaine (historical region in France) 295
121, 140 Arabs 226
Anastasius of Esztergom (abbot) 287–88, Arabic word 250
332 Aracs see Vranjevo
Anastasius of Sclavonia (abbot) 287 Aragon (medieval kingdom) 309
Index 473
Arethas of Caesarea (Byzantine scholar) Avars (Eurasian nomads) 106, 228, 231, 251,
188 275
Argeș Avar burials / cemeteries 78, 106, 232
bishopric 174 Avar domination 78
river 65n42 Avar invasion 226
Romanian county 75 Avar khaganate 109, 228, 291
Arieș (river) 155 Avar period 88, 232
Aristotle (Greek philosopher) 221 Avradaka (Bulgarian village) 39, 70n61
Arkadiupolis (Byzantine city, now Azo see Asric
Lüleburgaz in Turkey) 260n15
Arles (French city) 301n44 Baán, István (Hungarian byzantinologist)
Armenia (country) 37 5, 6, 247, 335n126
Arnulf of Carinthia (Carolingian king) 60, Baćina (Croatian village) 371, 372n33
109 Bačka (historical region now split between
Árpád (Hungarian chieftain) 151–52, 154, Hungary and Serbia) 281
156, 161n60, 234, 250, 256n1, 281 Bács (Hungarian Latin diocese, now Bač in
Árpádian age / period / time 30, 48, 81, Serbia) 246, 260n15, 276, 279, 281
108, 336, 352, 363 Bahlcke, Joachim (German historian) 179
Árpádian cemeteries 81 Bălan, Liviu (Romanian archaeologist) 103
Árpádian deniers 34 Balbinus, Boleslaus (Jesuit historian)
Árpádian dynasty 281, 299 177–78
Árpádian kingdom 283, 298, 305, 307 Balics, Lajos (Hungarian theologian) 180
see also Hungary Bălgrad (Slavic name of Alba Iulia) 11, 109,
Árpádian prince 235 158, 159, 160, 162, 173, 240
Árpádians 298n40, 304, 331n90 voivodeship of Bălgrad 54, 107, 155, 157,
Arrabona (Roman fortress, now Győr in 386
Hungary) 329 see also Alba Iulia
Asia Minor (region) 37, 226 Balkans Mountains 238
Asian steppes 232 Balkan-Danubian Culture (archaeological
Asric / Astric / Asztrik (papal legate) horizon) 29n41, 58
287–88, 327–28n58, 330, 332, 338 Balkan Peninsula 67, 75, 246
see also Anastasius of Esztergom Balkan sites 112
Atanasov, Georgi (Bulgarian archaeologist) Balkan(s) (region) 7, 37, 50, 75, 84, 95,
141, 145 98, 99, 107, 210, 386
Athens (capital of Greece) 221 Baltic region 7, 322, 324, 347
Athos (mount) 261n16, 266, 278 Balsamon, Theodore (Byzantine scholar)
Athonite monasteries 278 194n35
see also Dionysiou Băluță, Cloșca (Romanian archaeologist)
see also Esphigmenou 79n9
Attica (historical region in Greece) 235 Banat (historical region now in Hungary and
Augustine order (Catholic monastic order) Romania) 6, 98, 106, 125–26, 130–32, 136,
282 143, 157–58, 163, 243–46, 271–73, 349
Aurillac (French town) 286 Banatsko Aranđelovo (Serbian village)
Ausgleich (German term for the see Oroszlámos
Austro-Hungarian compromise Bănescu, Nicolae (Romanian historian) 58
of 1867) 4 Bank of Pentele (abbot) 269
Austria (empire) Barački, Stanimir (Serbian archaeologist)
Austria-Hungary 311n74, 313 145
Austrian monarchy 179 Bárány-Oberschal, Magda von) 142–43, 146
474 Index
Baranya (historical Hungarian county) 276 Beroe (Byzantine stronghold, now in

Barátpüspöki (Hungarian village) 165 Romania) 116–17, 139
Bârlogu (Romanian village) 66, 75 Besançon (French city) 296, 301n44
Barnea, Alexandru (Romanian archaeologist) Biharea / Biharia (Romanian village)
117, 120, 122, 124, 128–29, 139–40, 142, 53n98, 74, 247, 333, 334
144–45 Bihor county (historical region now split
Baronius, Caesare (Italian historian) 175 between Hungary and Romania) 152,
Bartholomew (Ecumenical patriarch) 182 165
Bartlett, Robert (English historian) 316, 319 Bihor / Bihar see Biharea
Basil I (Byzantine emperor) 37, 57, 186, 213 Biograd na Moru (Dalmatian town) 339n151
Basil II Bulgaroktonos (Byzantine emperor) Birka (Viking city) 348
160, 242–43, 245–46, 260n15, 263 Bjelo Brdo (archaeological culture) 99, 104
Basil Lekapenos 223–24 Black Hungarians (Independent group of
Basil the Great (saint) 274 Hungarians) 301, 331
Basil the Younger (saint) 197, 227 Black Sea 74
Bavaria (medieval state) 289 Blair, John (English historian) 350n218
Bavarian princess 329 Blăjan, Mihai (Romanian archaeologist)
Bavarian State Library 170 43n71, 75, 79n9, 81, 82
Bavarians 250 Blandiana (Romanian village) 29, 30, 42,
Bdin (Bulgarian name of Vidin) 238 60n25, 71n67, 89, 99, 107, 109, 112
Becsei, Imre (Hungarian nobleman) 269 Blandiana A (archaeological site) 81, 94,
Beguines (Christian lay religious order) 271 106, 107
Bejan, Adrian (Romanian archaeogist) 126, Blandiana B (archaeological site) 44n73
143–44 Bloch, Marc (French historian) 316
Békés (Hungarian county) 239, 333 Bod, Péter (Hungarian scholar) 172, 178
Békéscsaba (Hungarian city) 143 Bodrum Camii (church in Istanbul) 38, 39
Béla I (Hungarian king) 301–03 Bogomil heresy 160, 210–11, 220
Béla III (Hungarian king) 34, 149–50, 264, Bohemia (medieval kingdom) 233, 298,
276–77, 279 300–01n44, 305, 322, 329n63, 345,
Béla IV (Hungarian king) 164, 270, 298n40 352n228
Belgrade (capital of Serbia) 108, 112, 238, Boleslaw Chrobry (Polish duke) 289, 290,
242, 243, 247 305
Belgrade National Museum 141–42, 146 Bollandus, Joannes (Jesuit scholar) 170
Belgrade in Transylvania see Alba Iulia Bolliac, Cezar (Romanian amateur
Beliud (Hungarian nobleman) 163 archaeologist) 59n12
Benedict (of Skalka) (Benedictine saint) Bolosudes / Boulosoudes (Hungarian
308n65 chieftain) see Bulcsú
Benedictines (Catholic monastic order) 275 Bolya (son of Gyula the Younger) 251
Benedictine abbey / cloister / monastery Bóna, István (Hungarian archaeologist) 48,
265–66, 273–75, 277–78, 335, 352, 386 60, 106, 269
Benedictine church 363–64 Boniface VIII (pope) 298n40
Benedictine monasticism 305 Bonipert of Pécs (bishop) 331
Benedictine monks 273, 281 Bononia (Roman fort) see Vidin
Benevento (Italian city) 296, 303 Bonț (Romanian village) 155
Benkő, Elek (Hungarian historian) 28n39 Bonyha (son of Gyula the Younger) 251
Berend, Nora (Hungarian-English historian) Boris-Michael (Bulgarian khan) 211
319 Boroffka, Nikolaus (German archaeologist)
Berghin (Romanian village) 93 103
Index 475
Borsad (Hungarian town) 143 Bulgarian archaeologist / historians /

Borsod (Hungarian fortress) 157 researchers see Bulgarian
Borsu (Hungarian nobleman) 157 historiography
Bosnia (diocese) 340 Bulgarian cemeteries 60, 84, 93, 107
Botezatu, Dan (Romanian anthropologist) Bulgarian Church 159–60, 238, 241–42,
81n14 262
Bourdieu, Paul (French sociologist) 6 Bulgarian Patriarchy 243
Brackmann, Albert (German historian) 289 Bulgarian cultural context 379
Brăila (Romanian city) 65 Bulgarian control 15n10, 29, 30, 58, 70,
Brăila (Romanian county) 139 110, 158–59, 388
Braničevo (Serbian village) 243–45 Bulgarian ecclesiastical hierarchy see
Bratei (Romanian village) 84n24 Bulgarian Church
Brătianu, Gheorghe I. (Romanian historian) Bulgarian elite(s) 73, 114
58 Bulgarian emperor 73, 109
Bratislava (capital of Slovakia) 169, 172, 327 Bulgarian Empire / state see Bulgaria
British historiography 349 Bulgarian finds 107
Brodskopolje (Serbian village) 244 Bulgarian fortress 109
Brühl, Carlrichard (German historian) 290 Bulgarian historiography 57, 60, 106
Bruno of Querfurt (bishop) 242, 330 Bulgarian horizon 106
Bucharest (capital of Romania) 5, 381n43 Bulgarian influence 42, 58, 149, 264, 273
National Directorate of the Historical Bulgarian king see Bulgarian emperor
Monuments 1 Bulgarian leader 18, 70
Stavropoleos Monastery 383 Bulgarian mission 213
Buchwald, Hans (American art historian) Bulgarian rule see Bulgarian control
361 Bulgarian sites 110
Bucov (Romanian village) 59, 67n48, 71n67, Bulgarian tsardom see Bulgaria
72n71, 73 Bulgar(ian)s 57, 60, 67, 109–11, 158–59,
Bucov-Rotari 64, 66, 70, 75, 76 162–63, 186, 188, 211, 213, 231, 238, 251
Bucov-Tioca 70n64 Bunger (Hungarian nobleman) 157
Buda see Budapest Burgos (Spanish city) 295
Budapest (capital of Hungary) 142, Burgundy (historical region in France)
357n1, 382n1 297n36
Budapest National Museum 142, 146 Buzás, Gergely (Hungarian archaeologist)
chapter of Óbuda 269, 333 48
Eötvös Loránd University 248n1 Byzantine
National Archive of Hungary 269n15 Byzantine architecture see Byzantine
Bug (river) 137 style
Bugeac (historical region now split between Byzantine army 238, 241–42
Ukraine and Romania) 58 Byzantine artifacts 43, 45, 50, 73n72
Buisson, Ludwig (German historian) 289 Byzantine artists 67, 274
Bulcsú (Hungarian chieftain) 156, 175, Byzantine-Bulgarian war 242
184–85, 233–35, 248, 256n1, 257n4, 337 Byzantine Christianity see Eastern
Bulgaria (medieval kingdom) 7, 15, 29, 37, Christianity
38, 40, 41, 43, 50, 57–59, 61–63, 67, 68, Byzantine chronicles 175, 176, 187, 338
71–75, 88, 89, 94, 95, 106, 109, 113, 134, Byzantine Church see Ecumenical
137, 141–42, 145, 155, 157–60, 187–88, Patriarchate of Constantinople
210–11, 219, 238–39, 241–43, 245–46, Byzantine church(es) 40n61, 54n106,
252, 264, 386 266, 273, 279, 357, 359, 360–62
476 Index
Byzantine (cont.) Byzantine style 6, 37, 39, 42, 50, 52n97,

Byzantine civilization 93 53, 54n106, 149, 165, 253, 255, 348, 357,
Byzantine coins 239–40n5, 250, 270 377, 384, 387
Byzantine connection 134 Byzantine territory 74
Byzantine conquest 50, 243 Byzantine theology 6
Byzantine context 84, 375, 379 Byzantine tradition 177, 261, 340
Byzantine craftsmen see Byzantine Byzantine world see Byzantine Empire
artists Byzantines 57n4, 62, 158, 162, 199, 208,
Byzantine diplomacy 257, 268 220, 228, 248
Byzantine ecclesiastical organization Byzantium see Byzantine Empire
see Eastern Church
Byzantine emperor(s) 57, 190, 272, 275, Caesarea (town in Israel) 188, 224
299n41 Calabria (Italian region) 296, 305
Byzantine Empire 4, 6, 7, 15, 37, 38, 41, Călărași (Romanian county) 59, 76, 77, 145
51, 57, 66n48, 71, 75, 88, 89, 111, 114, Câlnic (Romanian village) 106n113
138–39, 157–58, 160, 162, 180, 184–87, Cambrai (French town) 301n44
193, 198, 200, 204–06, 208–12, 214, 219, Cambrai-Arras diocese 337n138
226, 228, 230–31, 233, 235, 237, 239, Cambridge (British University)
241–42, 245–47, 253, 256, 264, 271, 274, Emmanuel College 221
278, 280, 290, 300, 324, 351n225, 380, Campagna (Italian town) 303
384n6, 385 Câmpeanu, Cornel (Romanian philologist)
Byzantine fashion 107 173n29
Byzantine forts 107–08 Cantemir, Petru (Romanian anthropologist)
Byzantine icons 274, 275 81n14
Byzantine influence 66n46, 161, 188, 264, Capetians-Angevins see Angevins
273, 282n47, 286, 290, 335, 352, 359, Capidava (Dacian fortress, later Roman)
364, 388 116, 118, 120–21, 125, 127–28, 130, 136,
Byzantine mission 7, 53n100, 112, 114, 139, 143
139, 167–68, 176–77, 180, 182–84, 212, Capitani, Ovidio (Italian historian) 295n31
237, 248–49, 254–56, 338, 340, 347 Cappadocia (region in Turkey) 205
Byzantine model 346n199 Capua (Italian city) 296, 303
Byzantine monasteries see Eastern rite Căpușu (Romanian village) 164
monasteries Caransebeș (Romania city) 244
Byzantine monks 282, 335 Caraș-Ezeriș basin 244
see also Greek monks Carinthia (historical region in Austria) 60
Byzantine monuments see Byzantine Carlisle (English city) 329n68
artifacts Caroldu (daughter of Gyula the Elder) 162
Byzantine navy 186, 191 Carolingian
Byzantine origin see Eastern origin Carolingian age see Carolingian period
Byzantine patronage 272 Carolingian architecture / buildings
Byzantine pectoral cross see enkolpion 54n106, 347n204
Byzantine reliquary cross see enkolpion Carolingian church 54n106
Byzantine rite see Eastern rite Carolingian cemeteries 93
Byzantine-Rus’ war 75 Carolingian Empire 88, 106, 284, 291, 322
Byzantine society 187 Carolingian heritage 285
Byzantine spirituality 275 Carolingian influence 106, 211
Byzantine sources 6 Carolingian period 40n59, 95n67, 322
see also Byzantine chronicles Carolingian theology 323n29
Index 477
Carpathian Mountains 59, 61, 72, 74, 89, Cheluță-Georgescu, N. (Romanian historian)
109, 139, 228 127, 144
Carpathian Basin 2, 7, 32, 37, 50, 62, 71, Chernigov (Ukrainian city) 266
74, 95, 96, 98, 99, 104, 110, 112, 232, 248, Cherson(es) (Ukrainian city) 68, 143
250, 254–56n1, 264, 338, 386, 387n15 Cheynet, Jean-Caude (French
Carpathian Plateau 13 byzantinologist) 188
Carpathian region 84, 107 Chifăr, Nicolae Călin (Romanian architect)
Curvature Carpathians 72 357
intra-Carpathian territory 149, 159, 162 China (country) 232
Subcarpathian hills 63 Chiraleș (Romanian village) 351
Western Carpathians 82, 110 Chirnogi (Romanian village) 63, 64, 66–68,
Căscioarele (Romanian village) 59, 63, 64, 72n71, 76, 77
67, 68, 72n71, 76 Christ see Jesus Christ
Caspian Sea 232 Christendom 184, 295, 354
Cassovia see Košice Latin Christendom 326, 340
Castile (medieval kingdom) 309 see also Christianity
Catherine (saint) 271 Christian Church see Christianity
Cătina (Romanian village) 155 Christian Empire see Holy Roman Empire
Caucasus (region) 213 Christian mission 285–288, 301
Ceacalopol, Gloria (Romanian archaeologist) see also Christianization
139 Christianity 3, 5, 6, 43, 45, 57n1, 61, 137–38,
Ceanu Mare (Romanian village) 163 150, 159–60, 181, 185, 212–14, 231, 239,
Ceaușescu, Nicolae (Romanian communist 248–49, 256–57, 275, 288, 300, 304,
leader) 3, 5, 58 308–09, 311, 323–24, 337, 343, 345–47,
Celei (Romanian village) 59 349, 353, 358–59, 386n8
Cenad (Romanian village) 262n18, 308, Byzantine Christianity see Eastern
326–27, 332, 335, 346, 350 Christianity
Cenadu Vechi (Romanian village) Eastern Christianity 7, 51, 180, 252, 256,
260n14–15, 271–72 269, 316, 384n6
Ćepigovo (Serbian village) 141 Hungarian Christianity 3, 168, 173, 248
Cerna Valley 244 Latin Christianity see Western
Cernat (Romanian village) 109, 112 Christianity
Cetatea Albă (Ukrainian city, now Romanian Christianity 2, 3
Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi) 143 Western Christianity 7, 248, 253, 317,
Chalcedon (now Kadiköy, in Turkey) 320, 384n6
Chan see Ceanu Mare see also conversion
Chanadin (military chieftain) 240, 272–73 Christianization 1, 7, 46, 51–53, 55, 62n32,
Charlemagne (Holy Roman emperor) 106, 72–74, 88, 114, 172, 174–76, 180, 182, 213,
284 256–57, 287–88, 304, 319, 323, 326,
Charles I of Hungary (king) 299 332–33, 336, 344, 348, 359, 387
Charles Robert of Anjou (Hungarian king) see also conversion
269, 298n40 Christodulus of Jerusalem (patriarch) 208
Charon (ferryman of Hades) 46 Christopher Lekapenos (Byzantine emperor)
charter (written document guaranteeing 186, 188, 193
rights) 267–70, 276–80, 287, 327–29, Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense (medieval
331, 335 chronicle) 110, 157, 161, 163
Chartres (French city) 331 Chrysos, Evangelos (Greek historian) 237
Chazars see Khazars Chussal / Chussol (Hungarian chieftain) 250
478 Index
Cibulka, Josef (Czech historian) 39 Constantine I the Great (Roman emperor)

Cistercian monks (Catholic monastic order) 184, 210, 218, 286
268 Constantinian-Justinian tradition 285
Cistercian Marian devotion 293 Donation of Constantine 294n30, 303,
Ciucă, V. (Romanian archaeologist) 77 310
Ciugudean, Horia (Romanian archaeologist) Constantine III of Abkhazia (prince) 213
43, 78, 79n9, 83, 85–87, 90–92, 97, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (Byzantine
100–103, 105, 111–12, 114, 339n153, emperor) 73n72, 156, 158, 160–61, 184–85,
347n202, 349n217 187, 191, 193–94, 198–99, 202–03, 206,
Ciumbrud (Romanian village) 60n25, 93, 209, 212, 214, 216, 218–19, 221–22, 224–25,
103, 106–07, 112 232–36, 239, 244, 248, 256n1, 259
Ciupercă, Bogdan (Romanian archaeologist) Constantine VIII (Byzantine emperor) 135,
77 263
Clement I (saint pope) 171 Constantine Lekapenos (Byzantine emperor)
Clement III (pope) 307 186n6, 187, 199, 202
Clement VI (pope) 260n16, 280 Constantinople (capital of Byzantine
Cluj-Mănăștur (Romanian settlement) Empire) 1–5, 15, 57, 67n48, 73, 112, 136,
247 159–60, 167, 174, 176–77, 182, 184–85,
Benedictine convent 155 187, 189–93, 195, 198–200, 204, 206–13,
fortification 153 215–19, 221, 224, 226–28, 230, 232–33,
Cluj(-Napoca) (Romanian city) 2, 12, 235–37, 248, 250, 256–58n7, 261n16,
74, 75, 94, 99, 110, 153–55, 163–64, 263n23, 264, 276, 280, 282, 286, 299n41,
169–70, 182n74, 251, 341, 381n43, 310, 335–38, 345, 348, 358–59, 384n6,
386 387–88
Cluj area 110–11 Constantinopolitan context
Cluj county 140, 163–65 see Byzantine context
Central University Library 170 Constantinopolitan influence
Institute of Archaeology and History 79, see Byzantine influence
81 Constantinopolitans 286
Jesuit Academy 3, 170 Church of Constantinople
Cluny (Frech village) 287, 296, 295 see Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Cluniac monks 296 Constantinople
Order of Cluny 295, 302 Church of St. Irene 197
Clus (Transylvanian fortification) see Church of St. Mary of Blachernae 187,
Cluj-Mănăștur 199, 201
Cologne (region) 295 Church of St. Mary of Pharos 199
Coloman the Learned (Hungarian king) 30, Church of the Holy Apostles 203–04,
34, 45, 47, 252, 267, 274, 307, 310, 334, 224
336, 342 Council of Constantinople 258n7
Columns of Hercules (the promontories Golden Gate 201
that flank the entrance to the Strait of Magnaura (the Imperial palace) 37,
Gibraltar) 236 192–94
Comșa, Maria (Romanian archaeologist) conversion (to Christianity) 61, 171, 180, 263,
58, 59, 64, 67, 70n64, 75–77 308, 311, 323, 329n63, 330
Constance (German city) 311 Corabia (Romanian town) 59, 62n34
Council of Constance 312, 314, 315 Corinth (Greek town) 67n48
Constanța (Romanian city) 125, 144 Cornides, Daniel (Zipser historian) 172
Constanța (Romanian county) 140, 144 Corsica (island) 303
Index 479
Cosma, Călin (Romanian archaeologist) 115, Damian (saint doctor) 171

138, 140, 338n142, 347n202 Damian, Oana (Romanian archaeologist)
Cosmas (saint doctor) 171 64, 76
Coutances (French diocese) 351n224 Dan, Dorin Ovidiu (Romanain historian)
Cremona (Italian city) 187 79n9
Crete (island) see Venetian Crete Daniel (prophet) 189, 219
Criș (river) 239, 250, 358 Danube (river) 15n10, 37, 40n62, 41, 57–59,
Crișul Alb 240 61–63, 65, 67, 68, 70–72, 74, 75, 88, 109,
Croatia (country) 141, 303–04, 306–07, 334, 138–39, 158, 160, 226–27, 232, 238, 240,
339n151, 364 242, 244–45, 253, 259, 269, 273, 276,
Csanád see Cenad 278n40, 301, 328
Csanád see Chanadin Danube Delta 58, 232
Csanád, Bálint (Hungarian archaeologist) Danubian region 107, 238–39, 241–42,
98 244, 247
Cseles, Martin (Jesuit monk) 174 Lower Danube region 29, 42, 60, 61,
Csemegi, József (Hungarian architect) 266 69n56, 72, 89, 93–95, 107, 137, 238,
Cserni, Béla (Hungarian scholar) 79 246
Csongrád (Hungarian county) 239 Danubian tradition 113
Culan (Hungarian nobleman) 163 see also Transdanubian region
Cumans (Turkic nomadic people) 154 Daphnopates, Theodore (imperial secretary)
Cumans diocese 340 189, 190
Curcuas, John (Byzantine general) 198 Darrouzès, Jean (French byzantinologist)
Curta, Florin (Romanian-American 197, 261n16
archaeologist) 4, 15, 56, 57, 65, 157, 319, David (king of Alans) 214
339n153, 347n203 David (prophet) 189, 200, 219
Cuvin (Serbian village) 245, 246 David-Ioannes (Bulgarian archbishop)
Cyprus (medieval Latin kingdom) 345, 350 262
Cyril (saint) 177, 183 David of Pannonhalma (abbot) 281
Cyrillic alphabet 160, 176 De administrando imperio (Byzantine
Czech Republic (country) 134, 138–39, 142, chronicle) 161, 239, 256n1
340 Delidimos, Irineos (Greek historian) 167,
Czeglédy, Károly (Hungarian orientalist) 168
234, 235 Demetrios / Demetrius (saint) 258–59, 273,
275–81, 335, 352n228
Dăbâca (Romanian village) Demetrios of Tourkia (bishop) 241, 254,
Transylvanian fortress 116–18, 123, 133, 258, 261
138–40, 153, 164–65, 386 Demetrius (priest) 276
residence of the Latin Bishopric of Demetrius Zvonimir see Zwonimir of
Transylvania 165, 341 Dalmatia
Dacia (Roman province) 13, 78 Demus, Otto (Austrian byzantinologist)
Dacia Apulensis 13 359
Dacian-Romanian theory of continuity Denmark (country) 323
253n26 Danish border 301n44
Duchy of Gyla 175, 178 Danish lands 324
Dalmatia (Croatian region) 266, 305, 307, Danish monarchy 324
364 Densuș (Romanian village) 40, 41, 53, 368,
Dalmatian cities 307 375n35, 380
Dalmatian coast 372 D’Eszlary, Charles (Hungarian historian)
Dalmatian cultural context 375 310
480 Index
Diaconu, Petre (Romanian archaeologist) Dymaczewska, Urszula (Polish archaeologist)

75–77, 119, 127–28, 140, 145 141, 145
Dibiskos (Byzantine parish) 244–45 Dymaczewsky, Aleksander (Polish
Dienes, István (Hungarian historian) 181 archaeologist) 141, 145
Dincă, Adinel C. (Romanian historian) 316,
354 East (Orthodox world) see Eastern world
Dinogeția (Dacian fortress, later Roman, now see also Christianity – Eastern Christianity
Garvăn) 116, 122–125, 128–131, 135–36, Eastern Christian Romanness 237
140, 142, 144 Eastern Church 13, 50, 53n98, 168, 176, 182,
Dionysiou (Athonite monastery) 261n16 205, 238–39, 242, 255, 261–62, 281, 296,
Divich gora (Ukrainian village) 143 349
Dniester (river) 138 Eastern churches 364
Doboka see Dăbâca Eastern Englishmen (knights who fled from
Dobrudja (historical region in Romania) England to Byzantium) 260n15
62, 131–33, 136, 138, 246, 349 Eastern mission see Byzantine mission
Dolj (Romanian county) 77 Eastern patriarch(ate)s 199, 208–09, 212,
Dolojman-Bisericuță (archaeological site in 236, 382
Dobrudja) 116–17, 123, 140 Eastern rite 6, 18, 218, 247–48, 254, 259–61,
Dombó see Rakovac 264, 266, 271, 276, 281–82, 316, 332,
Dominic of Esztergom (archbishop) 329 334–35, 338, 340, 348n211, 350
Domnești (Romanian village) 164 Eastern rite monasteries 259–61,
Doncheva-Petkova, Ludmila (Bulgarian 263–66, 269–82, 335
archaeologist) 145 Eastern origin 55, 270, 281
Döring, Heinrich (German writer) 179 Eastern Roman Empire see Byzantine
Dracula (Wallachian voivode Vlad Țepeș) 8 Empire
Dragotă, Aurel (Romanian archaeologist) Eastern saints 171
43, 44, 78, 90–92, 97, 100–03, 143, Eastern world 288
339n153, 347n202, 349n217 see also Christianity
Drăguț, Vasile (Romanian art historian) 369 Ebes (Hungarian village) 165
Dridu (Romanian village) ecclesiology 283
Dridu culture 29n41, 58n10, 60n18 Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Dristra (Byzantine province) 238 5, 167, 182, 190, 195, 198, 200, 209, 212,
Dristra see Silistra 221–22, 236, 242, 247, 277, 382
Drugeth, John (Hungarian palatine) 269 Eder, Joseph Karl (German historian) 173
Dubravica (Serbian village) 145, 244 Edessa (city in Upper Mesopotamia) 198,
see also Morava 199, 209
Duh of Zagreb (bishop) 334 Edumenec (Hungarian nobleman) 150
Dumbovo see Rakovac Edunec (Hungarian nobleman) 150
Dumitran, Ana (Romanian historian) 56, Eger (Hungarian city) 142–43, 326, 330,
237, 382 333–34, 346
Dunapentele (Hungarian city) 141, 269, Eichstätt (Bavarian town) 318
270 Emeric (Hungarian king) 30
Greek nunnery 269–271 Emeric (Hungarian saint prince) 247, 298,
Monastery of St. Pantaleon 269–71 300, 308n65
Dunaszekcső (Hungarian village) 146 England (medieval kingdom) 297–98, 307,
Dunaújváros (Hungarian city) 321, 323–24, 347, 351n227
see Dunapentele English Channel (arm of the Atlantic Ocean)
Durham (English city) 329n68 295
Index 481
English kingdom see England Northern Europe 301n44, 317, 319, 323,
English-German influence 324n31 344
enkolpion, pl. enkolpia (reliquary crosses) South-Eastern Europe 99, 134, 136–39,
112, 130–33, 135–38, 239, 347, 386 161, 278, 318–19, 324, 346n199
Bulgarian enkolpia 73, 74n74 Western Europe 134, 341, 352n228, 387
Byzantine enkolpia 115, 338 see also New Europe
Kievan enkolpia 115 Eustratios (metropolitan of Alania) 214
Enlightenment (intellectual and Eutychius of Alexandria (patriarch) 208
philosophical movement) 168, 173–74, Euthymios (ecumenical patriarch) 226
179, 181 Euthymius (missionary monk) 213
pre-Enlightenment 167, 168, 172 Ezelech (Hungarian chieftain) 234
Entz, Géza (Hungarian historian) 16
Eperjes (Hungarian village) 172 Fabian of Kalocsa (archbishop) 260n15
Erdut (Croatian village) 276 Fărcașul (mountain peak in Western
Esculeu (Romanian village, now Așchileu) Carpathians) 153
154 Featherstone, Michael (French
Esphigmenou (Athonite monastery) 261n16 byzantinologist) 217
Esztergom (Hungarian city) 242, 265, Fejér, György (Hungarian theologian)
287–88, 298n38, 326, 328–29, 331, 334, 294n30
352 Feldebrő (Hungarian village) 363–65
Esztergom Benedictional 352 Felsőszentivánpuszta (Hungarian village)
Esztergom Museum 146 142
Eternal City see Rome Fenari Isa Camii (church in Istanbul) 38
Ethiopia (country) 217 Ferdinand de Aragon (king of Spain) 309
Euchologion Barberini (Greek manuscript) Ferincz, István (Hungarian slavist) 256n1
348 Fermo (Italian town) 303
Eumelus (Greek writer) 221 Fiedler, Uwe (German archaeologist) 60
Euphrosyne of Kiev (queen of Hungary) First Bulgarian Empire see Bulgaria
277 First Turkish khaganate 228
Europe (continent) 4, 54, 55, 88, 95, 285, Fliche, Augustin (French historian) 306n60
291, 300, 305, 316, 318–19, 322, 324, 342, Florescu, Radu (Romanian historian) 121,
344, 388 127, 139, 144
Byzantine Europe 352n228 Flusin, Bernard (French byzantinologist)
Central Europe 99, 134, 136, 138, 159, 278, 206, 211
283, 294, 300, 303, 318, 324n31, 380 Folz, Robert (French medievalist) 290, 308
Christian Europe 291 Font, Márta (Hungarian historian) 180
East-Central Europe 8, 323 Fourth Crusade 260n15, 264, 273
Eastern Europe 68n55, 283–84, 289, 294, Fraknói, Vilmos (Hungarian historian) 313
300, 317, 319, 350 France (medieval kingdom) 307, 323–24,
European context 345 331
European continent see Europe Franco episcopus Bellegradiensis 338
European elites 325 Frankfurt(-am-Main) (German city) 168,
European historiography 172, 287, 297 181, 300n42
European peoples 181 Franks (group of Germanic peoples) 109,
European peripheries 344n188 185
European workshop 50 Frecăței (Romanian village) see Beroe
Europeanization 316, 344, 353 Frederick I Barbarossa (Holy Roman
Latin Europe 321–22, 344, 354 Emperor) 296
Medieval Europe 81 Frederick II (Holy Roman Emperor) 297
482 Index
French kingdom see France German Empire see Holy Roman

French kings 309 Empire
Fried, Johannes (German historian) 290 German kingdom / lands see Germany
Frînculeasa, Alin (Romanian archaeologist) German language 172, 302
77 German missionary activity 324
Frisia (province of the Netherlands) 347 German people 290
Fulbert of Chartres (bishop) 331 German territories 301–02, 329n68
German source 291
Gaan (Transylvanian nobleman) 353 Germanic specificity 286
Gabriel (Magister) 270 Germanic tribes 78
Gabriel juxta Honrad (pseudonym of Germans 235
Gottfried Schwartz) 168 Gesta Hungarorum (Hungarian chronicle)
Gabriel Radomir (Bulgarian prince) 239 150–52, 154–55, 157, 251, 258
Galatia (ancient area in the highlands of Geula see Gyula the Elder
central Anatolia) 310 Geula the Younger see Gyula the Younger
Galicia (medieval state historically known as Geysa (Hungarian duke) see Géza
Kingdom of Ruthenia) 277 Géza (Hungarian grand prince) 162–63,
Gáll, Erwin (Romanian-Hungarian 177–78, 239, 242, 251, 255, 260n15,
archaeologist) 74 328–30
Gallicanism (doctrine regulating the Géza I (Hungarian king) 252, 299, 303,
relationship between the Catholic Church 306–07n61, 333
and the state) 345 Géza II (Hungarian king) 277
Gâmbaș (Romanian village) 98 Ghent (Flemish city) 301n44
Garvăn (Romanian village) see Dinogeția Ghirbom (Romanian village) 103, 107, 112
Gasparri, Pietro (Vatican secretary of state) Gigen (Bulgarian village) 62n34
311 Gilău (Romanian town) 153–55, 164, 247
Gelou (Romanian duke) 151–153, 155 Gisela of Bavaria (queen of Hungary)
George (saint) 271–74, 332, 352n228 177–78, 328
George of Selishte (Bulgarian aristocrat) Giulești (Romanian noble family) 161
69n59 Giurgiu (Romanian county) 77
Georgieva, Sonja (Bulgarian archaeologist) Giustinianopoli (titular archbishopric in
141, 145 Turkey) 310–11n74, 313
Georgius of Kalocsa (archbishop) 335 Glad (Romanian duke) 111, 157
Gerbert d’Aurillac (abbot) see Sylvester II Gnesen see Gniezno
Gergeli, Georgius (Hungarian student) 170 Gniezno (Polish city) 289
Gerhard (saint bishop of Csanád) 151, 158, Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von) (German
241–42, 261, 265, 271–72, 308n65, 327, poet) 179
332 Gostinari (Romanian village) 63, 65n42, 77
Germany (country) 179, 219, 285, 289–91, Govan (Scottish archaeological site)
296–97, 303, 321, 346n199 54n106, 348
German annals 251 Graz (Austrian city) 4
German author 253n26 Great Church see Hagia Sophia
see also German annals Great Moravia see Moravia
German Church 291n22 Great Schism see Religious schism
German cultural space 171–72 Grecu, A. (pseudonym) see Panaitescu,
German dynasties 345 Petre P.
German dioceses 327 Greece (country) 37n54, 40n61, 67n48,
German emperor 301 84n28, 195, 216, 232, 351
Index 483
Greek alphabet 160 Gyula (Hungarian town) 143

Greek chronicle 244 Gyula (Pecheneg administrative unit)
Greek church / ecclesiastical 161–62
organization see Eastern Church Lower Gyula 161–62
Greek Empire see Byzantine Empire Gyula Minor see Gyula the Younger
Greek influence see Byzantine influence Gyula the Elder (Hungarian chieftain) 2,
Greek language 160, 267, 280 6, 15, 18, 43, 44n73, 51, 52, 111–12, 157,
Greek mission see Byzantine mission 159–60, 162–63, 165–66, 174–81, 185, 233,
Greek monastery see Eastern rite 239–40, 247–52, 256–58, 263, 337–38,
monasteries 358, 384n6
Greek monks 241, 260n15–16, 265–66, Gyula the fourth see Gyula the Younger
269–73, 280–81 Gyula the third see Gyula the Elder
Greek nuns 269–71 Gyula the Younger (Hungarian chieftain)
Greek origin see Eastern origin 15, 51, 110, 113, 152, 163, 165–66, 240, 251,
Greek rite see Eastern rite 253, 258–60, 263, 338
Greek schism see Religious schism Gyulafehérvár (Hungarian name of Alba
Greek sources 250 Iulia) see Alba Iulia
Greek word 250
Greeks see Byzantines Habsburgs (dynasty) 3
Gregory (referendarius of the Great Church Habsburg conquest 2
of Constantinople) 200 Haemus see Balkans Mountains
Gregory VII (saint pope) 283, 293–94, Hagia Sophia (church in Constantinople)
296–97n36, 299, 303–08 187, 192–94, 199, 221, 224–25, 234, 282,
Gregorian reform 295–96, 299, 302–03, 359
305–07, 321n21 chapel of St. Nicholas 193
Gregorian orthodoxy see Gregorian chapel of St. Theophylact 225, 236
reform chapel of the Holy Well 193
Gregory IX (pope) 310 Haimovici, Sergiu (Romanian
Gregory of Nazianzus / the Theologian zooarchaeologist) 75
(saint) 198, 202, 204–06, 235–36 Halle (German city) 167–69, 176, 181
Grocka (Serbian town) 244 Hallesleben, Horst (German art historian)
Gudea, Nicolae (Romanian archaeologist) 361
115, 140 Hamburg-Bremen archbishop 324
Gyan (Transylvanian nobleman) see Gaan Hamza, Gábor (Hungarian jurist) 284, 291
gyla (Pecheneg administrative unit) 161–62 Harald Bluetooth (king of Denmark and
gylas / gyulas (position in the system of Norway) 324
government of the Hungarian tribal Hârșova (Romanian town) 116, 121, 125, 140,
confederation) 113, 153, 161, 250–53, 255, 144
338, 384n6 Harțuche, Nicolae (Romanian archaeologist)
Gylas (Hungarian chieftain) see Gyula the 121, 140
Elder Hartvic of Győr (bishop) 352
Gyóni, Mátyás (Hungarian byzantinologist) Hartwik (of Salzburg) (archbishop) 310n73
244–45 Hauszer, Daniel (Jesuit scholar) 170
Győr (Hungarian city) 48, 169–70, 242, 326, Heitel, Radu Robert (Romanian
329–30, 333, 352 archaeologist) 1, 3, 5, 16, 18–20, 24n29,
Jesuit college 170, 269 25n32, 27n33, 28n38, 29, 30, 32n47–48,
Györffy, György (Hungarian historian) 163, 47–49, 54n104, 81, 82n22, 109, 240, 339,
328n58 383, 387
484 Index
Helena (saint) 218 341, 345, 349–50, 352, 357, 363, 382n1,
Helena Lekapena (Byzantine empress) 186, 384, 386–87
202, 217, 224 see also Upper Hungary
Hellenes (ancient Greeks) 213 Hungarian archaeologists /historians
Henry II of Bavaria (duke) 289 see Hungarian historiography
Henry III (Holy Roman Emperor) 301, 302, Hungarian Catholicism 6
303 Hungarian chronicles 175, 309, 333
Henry IV (Holy Roman Emperor) 297n36, Hungarian Church 298, 302, 308n65,
302–04, 306–07 326, 352
Herakleia (metropolitan) 189, 224 Hungarian communities
Herina (Romanian village) 164 see Hungarians
Hermann of Metz (bishop) 304 Hungarian conquerors / conquest 18, 37,
Herrin, Judith (English archaeologist) 207 46, 54, 81, 84, 95, 98, 99, 108, 110–14, 152,
Hevenesi, Gabriel (Jesuit monk) 174 157, 232, 250, 252, 384
Hierocles (Stoic philosopher) 221 Hungarian crown 170–71, 176, 286–87,
Hierotheos (bishop of Tourkia) 1–5, 11, 289, 298n40, 299, 301, 309, 325n39
15, 18, 43, 52, 55, 112, 114, 149, 159, 162, Hungarian Domesday 151
165, 167–68, 170, 172–85, 236–37, 239, Hungarian expedition 104, 111, 157, 228,
247–51, 253–60n15, 262–63, 337–38, 233
358–59, 382n1, 384–85 Hungarian historiography 4, 5, 7, 18,
Hippocrates (Greek writer) 221 60, 74, 75n78, 106, 173–76n43, 179, 181,
Hizofőld-Sárrétudvari (Hungarian village) 252–53, 284, 286–87, 291, 293, 297–99,
143 302, 308–14, 354, 384
Holy City see Jerusalem Hungarian historical criticism 172,
Holy Land 278 181, 294n30
Holy Roman Empire 283–86, 288–91, 296, Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle 149, 157
300–04, 307–10, 318n8, 323, 324 Hungarian invasion see Hungarian
Holy See 283–84, 286, 291–92, 294–98, 300, expedition
303–05, 307, 309–11, 313 Hungarian language 159, 170, 257
Holy Virgin see Virgin Mary Hungarian medieval ecclesiastical
Honorius III (pope) 265, 276 organization see Hungarian Church
Honrad, Gábor see Schwartz Hungarian monks 260n16, 280–81
Horca (Hungarian chieftain) 156 Hungarian newspaper 172
see also karchas Hungarian occupation see Hungarian
Horedt, Kurt (German archaeologist) 54, conquerors
78, 106–07n124, 110, 154–55, 159 Hungarian-Ottoman wars 244
Hucul (horse breed) 232 Hungarian paganism 152, 302
Hugh of Italy (king) 190 Hungarian Plain 74, 106, 232
Hugo of Cluny (saint abbot) 302 Hungarian population see Hungarians
Hung (Slavic fortress, now Uzshorod in Hungarian Protestants 3
Ukraine) 150 Hungarian raids see Hungarian
Hungary (medieval kingdom) 2–4, 6, 7, expedition
13, 16, 30, 43, 46, 49, 54n106, 62n32, Hungarian Roman-Catholic diocese see
71n67, 75, 98, 110, 113, 134, 138–39, 141, Transylvania Catholic Bishopric
143, 146, 150, 161, 167–68, 170–72, 177, Hungarian rule 1, 260n15, 349
179–80, 182–83, 227, 233, 245–50, Hungarian scholars see Hungarian
253–56, 259, 264–65, 267, 269n15, historiography
271–77, 279–84, 286–91n21, 292–94, Hungarian tribal confederation 150, 152,
297, 298–15, 320, 322, 325–36, 340n170, 154, 160, 251, 285, 287, 309
Index 485
Hungarians 1–4, 7, 43, 45, 57, 72, 74, 110, Isaccea (Romanian town) 116–17, 121–23,
149, 151, 155–56, 158–62, 166, 171–72, 174, 125–26, 128, 140, 144
176–78, 180–84, 219, 226–28, 230–32, Islam 317
236, 237–39, 241–42, 249–51, 253–54, István (name after baptism of Gyula the
256–57, 259–60, 263–64, 272, 276, Elder) 257
284–86, 288, 297, 301–02, 308, 338, 358, Italy (country) 190, 208, 253, 286, 296–97,
382–84, 388 304, 321–23
see also Black Hungarians Italianate space 133–34
Hunnic invasion 226 Norman Italy 267n9, 304
Huss, Richard (American historian) 181 Northern Italy 266
Hyperborean regions (lands located to the far Southern Italy 298n40, 304, 345, 350
north of the known world) 236 Iulus see Gyula the Younger
Hyppolytus (saint) 267n8 Iustinianopolis see Giustinianopoli
Ivan (Bulgarian patriarch) 243
Ialomița (Romanian county) 59n15 Ivanov, Sergey (Russian byzantinologist)
Iambor, Petru (Romanian archaeologist) 212, 213
153, 156 Izvoru (Romanian village) 112
Iași (Romanian city) 81n13 Izvoru Crișului (Romanian village) 164
Institute for Biology 81
Iberian Peninsula 344 Jagodina Mala (Serbian village) 145
Iceland (country) 324, 350 Janković, M. (Serbian archaeologist) 145
iconoclasm (social belief in the importance Jebus (biblical town) 205
of the destruction of images) 199, 208 Jena (German city) 168, 171
Ielech (Hungarian chieftain) 234 Jerusalem 205, 208–11, 276
Ierot(h)ei see Hierotheos Convent of the crusaders 277
Iglau / Igló (Czech city, now Jihlava) 168, Monastery of St. Theodosius 276–78,
170 280n43
Ignatios (ecumenical patriarch) 195 Jesuits (Catholic monastic order) 269
Ignatios (metropolitan of Alania) 214 Jesuit historians 167
Igor (king of Kievan Rus’) 199, 215, 233 Jesus Christ 117–18, 123–26, 130–31, 135–36,
Illyricum (Roman province) 386n8 177, 192, 199–201, 210, 213, 219, 226, 237,
Imre (Hungarian prince) see Emeric 274, 286, 288, 290, 361
Inchofer, Melchior (Jesuit monk) 174, Jireček, Konstantin (Czech historian) 280
294n30 Joannes of Tourkia see John of Tourkia
India (country) 236 John (apostle and evangelist) 123–24, 330
Innocent III (pope) 294, 297 John (Transylvanian nobleman) see Gaan
Ioannes Asinos (Bulgarian archbishop) 262 John Chrysostom (saint) 206
Ioannes of Tourkia see John of Tourkia John Komnenos (Byzantine emperor) 183
Iorga, Nicolae (Romanian historian) 58, 239 John Lackland (king of England) 297
Ioutotzas (Hungarian chieftain) 234 John of Rila (saint) 264
Ipolyi, Arnold (Hungarian historian) 313 John of Tourkia (metropolitan) 5, 246, 254,
Ireland (country) 349 258
Irene (Byzantine-Hungarian empress) 183 John the Baptist (saint) 271–72, 332, 372n33,
Irene (saint) 197 376–77
Irish Sea 348 John the Orphanotropos (chief Court
Iron Gates (gorge on the river Danube, part eunuch) 263n23
of the boundary between Serbia and John I Tzimiskes (Byzantine emperor) 75,
Romania) 241 160
Isabella of Castile (queen of Spain) 309 John VIII (pope) 195, 291, 297
486 Index
John XI (pope) 190–91, 195, 207, 210, 236 Kinnamos, Ioannés (Byzantine chronicler)
John XIII (pope) 306 260n15
John XIX (pope) 296 Kiskunfélegyháza (Hungarian city) 143
Jula see Gyula the Elder Kiszombor (Hungarian village) 250
Jupa (Romanian village) 244 Kladovo (Serbian town) 141, 145
Justiniana Prima (Byzantine archbishopric) Klausenburg see Cluj-Napoca
242, 245 Klet (count of Pécs) 278
Kniazha gora (Ukrainian village) 143
Kál (Hungarian chieftain) 156 Kollar, Franciscus Adamus (Slovak jurist)
Kalocsa (Hungarian town) 6, 176n43, 242, 177, 179
254, 260n15, 268, 278n40, 279, 281, 326, Koller, Joseph (German scholar) 171
330–32, 335–36, 366n27 Kollonics, Leopold (Hungarian cardinal)
Kanizsa (Hungarian town) 278 174
Kaposvár (Hungarian city) Kolozsvár see Cluj-Napoca
see Zselicszentjakab Konrad II (Holy Roman Emperor) 300
Kaposszentjakab (ruined Benedictine Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos see
monastery) see Zselicszentjakab Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
Kaprinai, Stefan (Jesuit historian) 174 Konstanz (German city) see Constance
Karácsonyi, János (Hungarian historian) Kordylas (Byzantine stratelates) 57
164 Körös see Criș (river)
karchas / karkhas (position in the system Košice (Slovakian city) 170
of government of the Hungarian tribal Kostolac (Serbian city) 243
confederation) 151, 156, 256n1 Koszta, László (Hungarian historian) 6, 261,
Kasnes, Euthymios (domestikos) 220 335n128
Kastana (Bulgarian village) 73n72 Kovács, Mihai (Romanian historian) 316,
Katona, Stephan (Jesuit historian) 171, 354
174–76, 178, 181, 294n30 Krautheimer, Richard (German
Khazars (semi-nomadic Turkic people) 156, byzantinologist) 39
214, 237 Kresten, Otto (Austrian byzantinologist)
Kean(us) (Bulgarian or Hungarian chieftain) 215
6, 110, 159, 163, 252 Kristó, Gyula (Hungarian historian) 52, 158,
Kecskemét (Hungarian city) 146 159, 164, 165, 336n133
Kedrenos (Byzantine chroniler) 256n1 Krsmanović, Bojana (Serbian
Kelleher, Patrick J. (American art historian) byzantinologist) 188
299 Krum (Bulgar ruler) 57, 58n4, 67n51, 71, 109
kende (position in the system of künde see kende
government of the Hungarian tribal Kunitsky, V. A. (Ukrainian archaeologist)
confederation) 160, 250 141, 143
Keszthely (Hungarian city) Kurszán / Kusál / Kusanes (Hungarian
Keszthely (archaeological culture) chieftain) 250
95n67
Kewe see Cuvin Laćarak (Serbian village) 279
Kiev (capital of Kievan Rus’) 217, 219, 232, Ladislaus I (Hungarian king) 44, 45n80, 47,
237, 266, 277, 303, 335–36, 348 157, 252, 278, 303, 306–07, 310, 333–34,
Kyiv Pechersk Lavra (Ukrainian 342, 351
monastery) 183 Ladislaus the Bald (member of the House of
St. Sophia cathedral 359 Árpád) 150
Kievan Rus’ (medieval state) 180, 236, 237, Latin-Byzantine rivalry 324n31
266, 277, 301, 324n31 Latin clergy see Roman-Catholic clergy
Index 487
Latin Church see Roman-Catholic Church Lorch (Austrian district) 291n21

Latin language 267, 280–81, 353 Lot (biblical person) 219
Latin mission 167, 177, 180, 182 Lothar III (Holy Roman Emperor) 296
Latin monks see Roman-Catholic monks Lotharingia (medieval kingdom) 335
Latin saints see Western saints Lotharingian liturgy 302
Latin world see Western world Louis of Anjou (Neapolitan saint-prince of
Laurent, Vitalien (French byzantinologist) the Capetian House of Anjou) 298n40
258–59 Louis of Toulouse see Louis of Anjou
Laurian, August Treboniu (Romanian Louis the German (king of East Francia)
linguist) 173n29 291
Lavra in Jerusalem see Jerusalem – Louis IX (saint king of France) 298n40, 309
Monastery of St. Theodosius Lovag, Zsuzsa (Hungarian archaeologist)
Lechfeld (battle of) 158, 235 142, 146
Legenda Sancti Gerhardi 241, 261, 265, Lund (Swedish city) 324
271–72, 332 Luxembourg (country) 270
Legio XIII Gemina (Roman army) 13, 16, 78 Lyon (French city) 301n44
Leipzig (German city) 168, 181
Leo III (Byzantine emperor) 208 M. Nepper, Ibolya (Hungarian archaeologist)
Leo IV (Byzantine emperor) 195 143
Leo V (Byzantine emperor) 225 Macedonia (country) 70n62, 227
Leo VI the Wise (Byzantine emperor) Mačvanska Mitrovica (Serbian town) 279
186–87, 189, 216, 226, 228, 230–31 Măcin (Romanian town) 123–25, 131, 142
Leo IX (pope) 300, 302, 335 Madalbert (bishop) 190
Leo of Palestrina (bishop) 190 Madgearu, Alexandru (Romanian historian)
Leodvin of Eger (bishop) 330, 333–34 5, 48, 51, 60, 157, 162, 233, 238, 345n196,
Leontius (saint) 70n62 383n3, 387n15
Levantine territories 319 Magna Moravia see Moravia
Levedia (Volga-Ural region) 232 Măgureanu, Andrei (Romanian
Life of Saint Basil the Younger (Byzantine archaeologist) 77
chronicle) 197, 226, 228 Magyars see Hungarians
Litavrin, Genadij Grigorievich (Russian Maior, Petru (Romanian historian) 3,
scientist) 215 173–74
Litterata (parish belonging to Justiniana Makk, Ferenc (Hungarian historian) 159,
Prima) 246 260n15
Little Preslav see Pereyaslavets Makkai, László (Hungarian historian) 155,
Liudprand of Cremona (Lombard historian) 157
187, 195 Malamirovo (Bulgarian village) 57n3
Liuduinus see Leodvin of Eger Mala Vrbica (Serbian village) 145
Liuthardt (German miniaturist) 290 Mandylion (image of Christ not made by a
Liutprand (Lombard king) 295 human hand) 198–201, 205–06, 236
Livonia (historical region now split between Măneciu-Ungureni (Romanian village) 59
Sweden, Estonia and Latvia) 294 Manicheism (dualistic religious system)
Ljubičevac (Serbian village) 142 210
Ljubinković, Marko (Serbian archaeologist) Mănucu-Adameșteanu, Gheorghe
145 (Romanian archaeologist) 117, 121–22,
Lombardy (medieval kingdom) 331 128, 139–40, 144
Lopud (island) 372n33, 376–77n38 Manuel I Komnenos (Byzantine emperor)
Lorraine (historical region in France) 302 264, 276, 280
488 Index
Manuel of Adrianople (bishop) 57 Medieval Latinity / society

Mărăcinele (Romanian village) 65, 66n44, Early Medieval society 320
68, 77 High Medieval society 319, 320
Maramureș (historical region now split Meijns, Brigitte (Belgian medievalist) 320
between Ukraine and Romania) 161 Melkite (Eastern Catholic Church) 209
Marasovič, Tomislav (Croatian art historian) Menumorout (Transylvanian duke) 152
371, 376 Merseburg (German town) 111, 291
Marburg (German town) 168 Meseș Mountains 155, 341
Marcu Istrate, Daniela (Romanian Methodius (saint) 177, 181, 183, 297, 386n8
archaeologist) 1, 5–7, 11, 70, 88n30, Metz (French city) 304
109, 182, 238, 240, 339, 346n200, Micești (Romanian village) 106
349n217, 357–59, 366–67, 370–71, 383, Micești-Cigaș 80, 113–14
385, 387 Micești-Orizont 103
Margum see Morava Michael Ducas (Byzantine emperor) 299
Maria (queen of Alans) 214 Michael IV (Byzantine emperor) 263n23
Maria-Irene Lekapena (wife of Bulgarian Michael V (Byzantine emperor) 263n23
emperor Peter I) 73n72, 188, 219 Michael VIII Palaeologus (Byzantine
Marittima (Italian hamlet) 303 emperor) 243
Marjanović-Vujović, Gordana (Serbian Michael the Archangel (saint) 164, 180, 328,
archaeologist) 141–42, 146 334, 340, 351–52n228
Markopoulos, Athanasios (Greek Micu, Samuel (Romanian historian) 3, 173,
byzantinologist) 237 174
Maros see Mureș (river) Middle Ages (historical period) 6, 60, 61,
Marosvár see Cenadu Vechi 69, 267–68, 270, 279, 281, 284, 294, 296,
Marțian, Sorin (Romanian historian) 181 313, 320, 327n47
Martin (saint) 278 Early Middle Ages 79
Marxism (materialist interpretation of Late Middle Ages 316, 345
historical development) 70n64 Middle Byzantine period (historical period)
Mary (Mother of God) see Virgin Mary 360, 375
Mary (Hungarian princess) 298n40 Middle Byzantine architecture / art 39
Mas’udi (Arab historian) 226 Middle East (region spanning the Levant,
Matei, Ștefan (Romanian archaeologist) 153 Arabian Peninsula, Anatolia, Egypt, Iran
Matilda of Tuscany (member of the House of and Iraq) 344
Canossa) 296 Miezko I (Polish duke) 289
Matthew (evangelist) 213 Migrations Period 78
Matthias Corvinus (king of Hungary) Mijatev, Krăstju (Bulgarian archaeologist)
175n41 39
Maurice of Pécs (bishop) 279 Mikhailov, Stamen (Bulgarian archaeologist)
Mauricius (Byzantine emperor) 228, 230–31 145
Maxim-Alaiba, Ruxandra (Romanian Milchev, Atanas (Bulgarian archaeologist)
archaeologist) 120, 141 141, 145
Maximus the Confessor (saint) 281 Milkovics, Michael (Jesuit professor) 170
McCabe, Anne (English byzantinologist) Mironești (Romanian village) 65n42
221 Mitrea, Bucur (Romanian archaeologist) 76
McKitterick, Rosamond (English historian) Mitrovica see Sremska Mitrovica
320 Miu, Georgeta (Romanian anthropologist)
Mediaș (Romanian town) 81n14
Mediaș (archaeological culture) 89, 106 Mociu (Romanian village) 155
Index 489
Modern period (historical period) 345 Moulet, Benjamin (French byzantinologist)

Modrá (Czech village) 39, 41 198
Moga, Vasile (Romanian archaeologist) Mureș (river) 13, 15, 16, 60, 98, 159, 180, 239,
79n9 241, 250–51, 262, 272, 358
Mohács (Hungarian town) 273 Mureș Valley 29, 44n73, 78, 93, 106,
Moldavia (historical region in Romania) 109–11, 163, 244, 341
131–32, 136, 139, 175 Mureșan, Dan Ioan (Romanian historian)
Möller, István (Hungarian architect) 339 52, 184
Mongol invasion 164, 261, 264, 268, 270–71, Muslim(s) 198, 208–09, 278, 285
273–74, 281, 334, 364
Monostorpályi (Hungarian village) 364–65 Nadăș Valley 155
Mont-Cassin / Monte Cassino (rocky hill near Nagy, Tibor (Hungarian archaeologist) 145
Rome) 295 Nagyvárad see Oradea
Mont Saint-Michel (sanctuary dedicated to Nania, Ion (Romanian scholar) 75
Archangel Michael) 341 Naples (Italian city) 298n40
Monte Gargano (sanctuary dedicated to Narratio de imagine Edessena (Byzantine
Archangel Michael) 341 chronicle) 199
Morandi Visconti, Giovanni (Italian Nazianzus (town in ancient Cappadocia)
architect) 108 198, 202, 206, 235–36
Morava (Serbian village) 108, 243, 244, 245 Nea Ekkesia (church in Constantinople)
Moravcsik, Gyula (Hungarian 37
byzantinologist) 256n1, 257n4 Nechvátal, Bořivoj (Czech archaeologist)
Moravia (historical region in Czech Republic) 141–42
41, 60, 88, 95n67, 98, 107, 109, 138, 141, Neradin (Serbian village) 276
228, 239, 340, 386n8 Nestor, Ion (Romanian archaeologist)
Moravian buildings 204, 347n 58n10, 59n11
Moravian burials / cemeteries / graves New Europe 179, 323, 345
59n16, 84, 88, 93, 95 New Israel 200
Moravian elite 84 see also Byzantine Empire
Moravian graves see Moravian burials New Rome see Constantinople
Moravian mission 181, 213 Nicaea (ancient Greek city in northwestern
Moravian necropolis see Moravian Anatolia)
burials First Nicaean Council 268
Moravian state see Moravia Nicephorus the Deacon (Byzantine
Moravians 106 chronicler) 186
Moravon (bishopric) 238 Nicetas of Amasia (metropolitan) 196, 197
Moravište see Morava Nicholas (saint) 40, 41, 53, 193, 274, 352n228,
Morea (medieval Frankish kingdom) 345 368–69, 375n35, 377, 380
Morghen, Raffaello (Italian historian) Nicholas I Mystikos (ecumenical
297n36 patriarch) 186–87, 197, 212–13, 215
Morisena (old name of Romanian village Nicholas I (pope) 207
Cenad) Nicholas II (pope) 296
bishopric and Greek monastery 53n98, Nicolae, Jan (Romanian historian) 167,
240–42, 247, 272, 332 182n74
Benedictine monastery 273, 386 Nicomedia (capital of the Roman province of
Moses (prophet) 189, 200, 206, 219 Bithynia) 225
Moses the Hungarian (saint) 183 Nicorescu, Paul (Romanian archaeologist)
Mosolygó, József (Hungarian historian) 262 140
490 Index
Nikephoros II Phokas (Byzantine emperor) Olomouc / Olmütz (Czech city) 340

214, 232 Olt (Romanian county) 59
Nikon (old Russian chronicler) 249, 255, Oltenița (Romanian city) 63, 77
256n1 Omayyad caliphate see Umayyad
Niš (Serbian city) 141, 280 Omiš (Croatian town) 372n33
Nitra (Slovakian city) 154, 260n16, 267n8, Opočničev-Poděbrady (Czech settlement)
281, 327, 333–34 142
Nitra Evangelistary 352 Oradea (Romanian city) 157, 307n61, 327,
Normandy (French region) 296, 351n224 333–35, 352
Normans (emigrants from the Duchy of Orăștie (Romanian town) 60n25, 93, 103,
Normandy) 296 107, 112
Norman conquest 349 Oroszlámos (Byzantine monastery, now in
Norman princes 303 Serbia) 255, 260n14–15, 261, 271, 272n26,
Norman Principality 304 273, 332, 335
Northmen see Scandinavians Ortahu (Hungarian town) 328n61
Norway (country) 323, 324 Orthodoxy see Eastern Church
Norwegian medieval state 353 Orthodox Church / Orthodoxy see
Novi Pazar (Serbian city) 145 Eastern Church
Novi Sad (Serbian city) 274 Orthodox liturgy 379
Museum of Vojvodina 274 Orthodox monastery see Eastern rite
Noviodunum (Roman-Byzantine fortress, monasteries
now in Romania) 238 Orthodox patriarchates see Eastern
Nufăru (Romanian village) 125, 126, 130, 144 patriarch(ate)s
Nyirkasz (Hungarian village) 146 Osnabrück (German city) 168
Nyitra see Nitra Oster (Ukrainian city) 141
Otrocotsius / Otrokocsi Foris, Ferenc
Obârșia (Romanian village) 89, 112 (Hungarian historian) 175
Obolensky, Dimitri (Russo-British Otto I the Great (Holy Roman emperor)
byzantinologist) 181 185, 208, 219, 248, 285, 300–01
Óbuda see Budapest Otto II (Holy Roman emperor) 285–86
Ochrid (Bulgarian patriarchy / autocephalous Otto III (Holy Roman emperor) 283,
archbishopric) 242–43, 245–47, 336, 386 285–92, 297, 299, 300, 309–10, 387
Ocna Mureș (Romanian town) 239, 240n5 Ottonian dynasty 286
Odărci (Bulgarian village) 141, 145 Ottonian Empire see Holy Roman
Odilo of Cluny (abbot) 287, 296, 302 Empire
Oescus (Roman town in Bulgaria, now Ottokar I (king of Bohemia) 305
Pleven) 62n34 Ottoman conquest / devastation 268, 273
Ognenova, Ljuba (Bulgarian archaeologist) see also Hungarian-Ottoman wars
141, 145 Ousterhout, Robert (American art istorian)
Ohtunh see Aiton 361
Oikonomidès, Nikos (Greek byzantinologist)
5, 299n41 Pacaut, Marcel (French historian) 294n30
Olav Tryggvason (king of Norway) 324 Pâclișa (Romanian village) 44, 104n105, 114
Old Sarum (earliest settlement of Salisbury) Pâclișa – La Izvoare 80
351n227 Păcuiul lui Soare (Bulgarian and Byzantine
Oleg (king of Kievan Rus’) 233 fortress, now in Romania) 67, 68, 77,
Olga of Rus’ (queen) 215–19, 233, 237 116–19, 125, 127–28, 130, 136, 140, 145
Olov Skötkonung (king of Sweden) 324 Pais, Dezső (Hungarian linguist) 154n24
Index 491
Palanka (Serbian village) 245 Pentele see Dunapentele

Pamiers (French commune) 175n40 Pentelemonostor 269
Panaitescu, Petre P. (Romanian historian) Pereyaslavets (Bulgarian city) 232
58 Peri, Vittorio (Italian historian) 207
Pâncota / Pankota (Romanian town) 334 Peringer, Andreas (Jesuit professor) 170
Pannonhalma (Hungarian town) 281, 329 Peter (apostle) 207, 279, 287–89, 292–97,
Abbey of St. Martin 277–78, 328, 352 301, 304–07, 309, 330–31, 372n33
Pannonia (region) 93, 95n67, 152, 156, 158, Obol of St. Peter 297
161, 175, 181, 183–84, 287, 291–92, 297, Patrimony of St. Peter 285, 294, 296, 303
308, 327 Peter (archbishop of Alania) 213–14
Pannonian steppe 231 Peter (Hungarian nobleman) 269
Roman province 297 Peter (papal legate) 190
Pantaleon (saint) see Panteleimon Peter I (Bulgarian emperor) 69, 73n72, 74,
Panteleimon (saint doctor) 171, 269–71, 274 158, 160, 188, 210–11, 219, 243
Papacy see Holy See Peter / Pietro I Orseolo (king of Hungary)
Paradunavon (Byzantine province) 246 150, 300–01, 331, 333
Parapotamos (Greek village) 84n28 Péterfy, Carolus (Hungarian historian) 179
Pascu, Ștefan (Romanian historian) 79n9 Petre, Aurelian (Romanian archaeologist)
Păsculescu, Marius Mihail (Romanian 139
architect) 357 Phalis (Hungarian chieftain) 234
Paris (capital of France) 284 Phalitzis (Hungarian chieftain) 234
Passau (German city) 242, 291n21, 327–28 Philip of Swabia (king of Germany) 305
Pasztó (Hungarian town) 281 Photius (ecumenical patriarch) 187, 195,
Paterfy, Peter Carl (Jesuit professor) 169–70 207, 209, 211, 213
Patlagean, Evelyne (French byzantinologist) Piatra Frecăței (Romanian village) see
200, 205 Beroe
Patriarchat of Constantinople see Pietroiu (Romanian village) 65, 66n44
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Pilgrim of Passau (bishop) 291n21
Constantinople Pilis Monastery (Hungarian settlement)
Patzinakia see Pechenegs 265
Patzold, Steffen (German historian) 320 Piroska see Irene (Byzantine-Hungarian
Paul (apostle) 207, 288, 295, 330–31 empress)
Paul II (pope) 309 Platonești (Romanian village) 59n15
Paul of Ancona (bishop) 291 Pliska (Bulgarian town) 38, 39, 59, 63,
Paulician state (Armenian sect) 186 66n46, 67n50, 68, 69, 112, 145
Paulicianism (medieval Christian sect) Ploiești (Romanian city) 59
210 Poian (Romanian village) 109, 112
Pécs (Hungarian city) 242, 278, 281, 326–27, Poland (medieval kingdom) 7, 62,
329–31, 372 286–91n22, 300–01n44, 309, 322, 324,
Cella Septichora 366n27 329n63 and 68, 345
Romanesque cathedral 331, 333 Polish king 299
St. Peter Church 279 Polish kingdom see Poland
University of Pécs 248n1 Polish princess see Richeza (Adelaide)
Pechenegs (semi-nomadic Turkic ethnic of Poland
people) 155, 157, 161–62, 219, 226, 239, 351 Polish spaces 352n228
Pelagonius (Greek writer) 221 Polyeuktos (ecumenical patriarch) 218, 224
Pentarchy (the five major episcopal sees of Pomerania (Historical region now split
the Christian world) 207, 210, 236 between Poland and Germany) 301n44
492 Index
Pontifical See see Holy See Rakovac (Serbian village) 260n14, 273–75
Pop, Ioan Aurel (Romanian historian) 182 Crkvine 273
Popa, Alexandru (Romanian archaeologist) Gradina 274
79n9 Rambaud, Alfred (French byzantinologist)
Popescu, Monica-Elena (Romanian scholar) 232
78, 347n202, 349n217 Rászonyi, László (Hungarian linguist)
Porta Mezesina (passing between the Tisza 154n24
basin and Transylvania) 151 Ravenna (Italian city) 287, 329
Posa (Hungarian nobleman) 269 basilica San Vitale 287
Povest’ o latinĕch (old Russian chronicle) basilica Sant’Apollinare in Classe 287
249, 255, 256n1 basilica Santa Maria di Pomposa 287
Poznań (Polish city) 62n34 Ravna (Serbian village) 142
Pozsony see Bratislava Recidiva (parish belonging to Justiniana
Prague (capital of Czech Republic) 329 Prima) 246
National Museum 142 Regnum Erdeelw see Transylvania
Prahova (Romanian county) 59, 75–77 Reich see Holy Roman Empire
Prahovo (Serbian village) 145 Reichenau (island) 290
Pray, Georgius (Jesuit historian) 174, 178–79 Religious schism 3, 55, 316, 387
Presian (Bulgar ruler) 58n4 Religious Union 2
Preslav (Bulgarian city) 39, 40n62, 61, 63, Renaissance (historical period) 352
66n46, 68–70, 72, 73, 75, 112, 141, 145, 242 Reuter, Timothy (German-British historian)
Preslav Patriarchy 242 320
Little Preslav see Pereyaslavets Révész, Éva (Hungarian byzantinologist)
Prešov see Bratislava 256, 261, 335n124, 338n146, 350n222
Pressburg see Bratislava Richeza (Adelaide) of Poland (queen consort
Priscianus (Caesariensis) (Latin grammarian) of Hungary) 301
331 Rinteln (German town) 168
Priskin, Katalin (Hungarian biologist) 231, Robert Guiscard (Norman conqueror of
232 southern Italy and Sicily) 297n36
Privilegium Othonis (agreement from 962, Robinson, Ian S. (English writer) 306
clarifying the relationship between Roger II (king of Sicily) 305
the Popes and the Holy Roman Rogozea, Petre (Romanian archaeologist)
Emperors) 285–86 126, 143–44
Procopius (saint) 274–75, 280 Roman-Catholic Church 3, 13, 175n39,
Prokuj (Slavic name of Gyula the Younger) 178, 180, 182n75, 189–91, 195, 207, 211,
251 270n17, 283, 285, 287–88, 292–94,
see also Gyula the Younger 296–97n36, 298–99, 302, 304–06,
Protase, Dumitru (Romanian archaeologist) 308–13, 316–17, 322, 345–46, 382n1,
30n45, 32n48 387
Prussians (Baltic indigenous tribe) 286 Roman-Catholic abbey / monasteries
Puglia (Italian region) 296, 303, 305 270, 275
Roman-Catholic clergy 191, 278, 280,
Queen of Sheba 217 281, 351
Querfurt (German town) 242, 330 Roman-Catholic context 282
Quinque Ecclesiae see Pécs Roman-Catholic monks 265, 270
Roman-Catholic nuns 268
Raab see Győr Roman Catholicism 281
Rădăuți (Romanian city) 369, 377 Roman church 274
Rado (Hungarian palatine) 279 Roman influence 286
Index 493
Roman Empire see Holy Roman Empire Romanos / Romanus II Porphyrogenitus

Late Roman Empire 88 (Byzantine emperor) 73n72, 203, 223,
Roman buildings 347n204 233, 235
Roman coins 99 Romanos the Elder see Romanos I
Roman city see Rome Lekapenos
Roman forts 107 Romanos the Melodist (saint) 274
Roman rite 255 Rome (capital of Italy) 3, 189, 195, 207–11,
Roman See see Holy See 256, 285–86, 288, 290–91n21, 292–93,
Roman times 42, 78, 80n11 295–98, 300–01, 303, 306–08, 310, 313,
Romans 157, 207–08, 286, 309 330, 344–45, 384n6, 387–88
Roman Empire of Constantinople see Lateran Palace 296
Byzantine Empire Roșia Montană (Romanian village) 110–11
Roman emperor see Byzantine emperor Rostislavich (Rus’ dinasty) 277
Roman land see Byzantine Empire Rouen (French city) 351n224
Roman navy see Byzantine navy Rouphinianai monastery 224
Romans 185–86, 190, 200, 206, 227–29, Rufinus (founder of Rouphinianai monastery
231, 245, 249, 257 in Chalcedon) 224
Romanesque architecture / style 4, 5, 13, 42, Runciman, Steven (English historian) 57n1,
50, 333, 364, 371, 372n33 225
Romania (country) 1, 3, 29, 58–60, 62, 69, Rus’ (ethnos in early medieval eastern
71, 73, 75, 115–16, 130–32, 134–36, 139, Europe) 75n79, 199, 215–16, 218–19,
142–43, 248, 251 232–33, 236–37, 359
Romanian archaeologists see Romanian see also Kievan Rus’
historiography Rus’ (metropolitanate) 6
Romanian bishopric 3 Byzantine-Rus’ war 75
(Romanian) Greek-Catholic Church 3 Rus, Vasile (Romanian philologist)
Romanian historians see Romanian 181–82n74
historiography Russia see Kievan Rus’
Romanian historiography 3, 5, 7, 29n41, Russian churches 266
58, 60, 62, 66, 67, 75, 107, 169, 173, 253, Russian mission 213
294n30, 384 Russian monks see Slavic monks
Romanian language 173 Russian princes 280n43
Romanian nationalists 4 Russian sources see Slavic sources
Romanian Orthodox Church 383 Russian steppes 250
Romanian Plains 65 Russian territories 37
Romanian provinces 132 Russians see Rus’
Romanian rights 3 Rusu, Adrian Andrei (Romanian
Romanian scholars see Romanian archaeologist) 2–5n13, 53
historiography Ruttkay (type of archaeological artifacts)
Romanian-speaking population see 96, 98
Romanians
Romanians 2, 3, 52n96, 53n98, 153, 155, Sabina (Italian region) 303
161n59, 173–74, 176, 238, 253 Saint-Gilles (French commune) 307
Romanized population 113 Saint Irene (church in Constantinople)
Romanos / Romanus I Lekapenos (Byzantine 197
emperor) 186–90, 192–95, 197–99, Saint Mary of Pharos (church in
201–02, 208–09, 212, 214, 219, 224, 226, Constantinople) 199
232, 235–36 Saint Sophia see Hagia Sophia
494 Index
Sălăgean, Tudor (Romanian historian) 15, Schwartner, Martin von (Hungarian

46, 51, 149, 345n195 statistician) 294n30
Salagius, István see Szalagy Schwartz, Gottfried (German historian) 2,
Salisbury (English city) 351n227 3, 167–74, 176–82n74, 183
Saltovo (archaeological culture) 84, 89 Sclavonia (historical region now split
Salzburg (Austrian city) 327, 334 between Croatia and Bosnia and
Sâmpetru, Mihai (Romanian archaeologist) Herzegovina) 287
64, 68, 76, 77 Școala Ardeleană (publishing house) 182n74
Samuel (Bulgarian emperor) 75, 238–39, Scriptor incertus (Byzantine chronicler) 57
241–43, 245, 276, 386 Sebastea (city in Turkey, now Sivas) 186
Samuel Aba (Hungarian king) 104, 150, 301, Sebeș (Romanian town) 29, 30, 42, 60n25,
330, 332–33 94, 106, 112
Sânbenedic (Romanian village) 106n113 Seifert, Johann (Zipser scholar) 172
Sâncrai (Romanian village) 164 Selishte (Bulgarian village) 69n59
Sânnicolau de Beiuș (Romanian village) 50 Semendria see Smederevo
Saracens see Muslim(s) Senty church (church in Russia, near the
Sarchas see karchas village of Nizhnyaya Teberda) 214
Șard (Romanian village) 164 Șerban, Ioan (Romanian historian) 79n9
Sardinia (island) 303 Șerbănescu, Done (Romanian archaeologist)
Sardis (capital of the ancient kingdom of 64, 68, 76, 77
Lydia) 361 Serbia (country) 74, 134, 137–38, 141–42, 145,
Sarolta / Saroltu (daughter of Gyula the 255, 276
Elder) 162–63, 165, 177–78, 247, 251 Serbian Church 263
Satu Mare (Romanian city) 52n96 Serbian monastery 273, 275
Satu Mare county 165 Serbian monks 281
Saul (king of Israel) 219 Serbian population 281
Sava (river) 259, 273, 275–79, 281 Serbian town 275
Sava (saint) 263 Serbs 280
Savior see Jesus Christ Sergios (ecumenical patriarch) 224
Saxony (German state) 347 Sergios (papal legate) 190
Scandinavia (region) 7, 309, 319, 322–24, Shumen (Bulgarian region) 141
329, 344n188, 345–47, 349–51 Sicily (island) 297, 305, 322, 345, 350
Scandinavian lands see Scandinavia Sigismund of Luxembourg (king of Hungary)
Scandinavian Scotland 348 270
Scandinavian term 215n97 Silistra (Bulgarian town) 141–42, 145, 238,
Scandinavians 351n224 242–43, 246
Schabel, Chris (English historian) 345n190 Simon episcopus Vltrasilvanus (bishop of
Schioppa, Lorenzo (Italian prelate) Transylvania) 11, 55, 338
310–11n74, 313 Simon de Kéza (Hungarian chronicler) 149,
Schmidt, Hans-Joachim (German historian) 161
320 Simon of Athens (Greek writer) 221
Schmink, Andreas (German byzantinologist) Șincai, Gheorghe (Romanian historian) 3,
210 173
Schröckh, Johan Mathias (Austrian historian) Sirmium (Roman city in Pannonia) see
179 Sremska Mitrovica
Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild (German Sixtus (saint pope) 171
archaeologist) 111n147 Skazanie o russkih knjazjah X veka (Russian
Schuster, Christian F. (Romanian-German chronicle) 216, 219
archaeologist) 77 Skopje (capital of Macedonia) 239
Index 495
Skylitzes, John / Ioannes (Byzantine Spondanus, Henri (French historian) 175

chronicler) 2, 3, 111, 184–86, 188, 191, Srem (historical region now split between
194, 196–97, 201, 203, 216–17, 220, Serbia, Croatia and Hungary) 260n15,
222–23, 225–26, 233–35, 248–49, 273, 275–76, 278n40
255–56, 337, 384 Sremska Mitrovica (Serbian city) 175,
Slavs (group of Indo-European peoples) 242–43, 255, 260n14–15, 267, 273,
110, 113, 153–55, 159, 163, 176–77, 251, 275–79, 281, 335, 386n8
253–54, 285 Byzantine monastery of St Demetrius
Slavic-Byzantine background 319 275–81
Slavic-Byzantine world 316–17 Stahl, Henri H. (Romanian sociologist)
Slavic finds 78 70n64
Slavic lands 37, 161 Staikos, Mikhail (Orthodox metropolitan)
Slavic language 160 182n75
(South-)Slavic mission 213 Stancev, Stancio (Bulgarian archaeologist)
Slavic monks 260n16, 266, 280–81 145
Slavic origin 110, 154n24, 257 Stanojev, Nebojša (Serbian historian) 274
Slavic sources 249, 256n1, 257 Staré Město (Czech town) 41
Slavicization 180 Ștefan, Gheorghe (Romanian archaeologist)
Slavonic alphabet see Cyrillic alphabet 139, 142
Slon (Romanian village) 59, 66–68, 77, 109, Stephen I (ecumenical patriarch) 187, 189
112 Stephen I (Hungarian king) 5, 6, 11, 15,
Slon-La Ciungă 59n12 44–46, 48–50, 53, 75, 104, 110, 113,
Slovakia (country) 134, 138–39, 141, 168, 170 149–50, 157, 159, 162–66, 169, 170–71,
Slovaks 172 179, 182, 239, 240–42, 246, 250–52, 254,
Smederevo (Serbian city) 244–45 258, 260n15, 264, 267–68, 270, 272, 284,
Sofronie (abbot) 280 287, 289–90, 292–93, 297–302, 304–06,
Solnoc county (historical region now split 308, 310n73, 311, 313–14, 325n39,
between Hungary and Romania) 164 326–34, 336, 338–39, 349, 351–52,
Solomon (Hungarian king) 44, 302, 303, 366n27, 382n1, 384n6, 387–88
306 Stephen II (ecumenical patriarch) 188, 219
Solomon (prophet) 217 Stephen III (Hungarian prince) 277
Someșul Mare (river) 156, 162 Stephen Lekapenos (Byzantine emperor)
Someșul Mic (river) 149, 153, 155–56, 159, 186n6, 187, 193, 199, 202
162 Stephen the Protomartyr (saint) 329
Somogy (historical Hungarian county) 276 Stiltingus / Stiltinck, Joannes (Jesuit scholar)
Somorjai, Adam (Benedictine historian) 169–70, 178–80
291 Știrbu, Maria (Romanian anthropologist)
Sophia (saint) 282 81n1
Sopianae (Roman town, now Pécs) 331 Stoica, Octavian (Romanian archaeologist)
Sopron (Hungarian city) 170 77
Spain (medieval kingdom) 297, 298, 303, Stojkovski, Boris (Serbian historian) 264,
306 335n130
Biblioteca Nacional de España 194, 201, Stosch, Ferdinand (German scholar) 168
203, 216, 223, 234–35 Stoudios Monastery 263
Speech about Batu’s murder (old Russian Strategikon (Byzantine manual of war) 228
chronicle) 256n1 Strigonium see Esztergom
Spinei, Victor (Romanian historian) 141, 156 Strodtmann, Johann Christoph (German
Spoleto (Italian city) 303 scholar) 168
496 Index
Strumica (Macedonian city) 70n62, 142 Szőny (Hungarian town) 141

Surangi (canon, historian) 311, 314 Szovák, Kornél (Hungarian historian)
Șuletea (Romanian village) 116–18, 120, 123, 271n22
133, 139, 141
Sullivan, Alice Izabella (American art Tacitus (Roman historian) 389
historian) 11, 167, 237 Takács, Imre (Hungarian art historian) 48
Sultana (Romanian village) 89, 112 Takács, Miklós (Hungarian archaeologist)
Sunad see Chanadin 4, 5n13, 18n20, 48, 52n96, 240, 383n4
Supplex Libellus Valachorum (petition from Takimovo (Bulgarian village) 141, 145
1792) 3, 4, 173 Taktica (Byzantine military treatise) 228
Susek (Serbian village) 276 Taktikon Beneševič (Byzantine chronicle)
Sutri (Italian village) 295 210
Sviatoslav (king of Kievan Rus’) 219, 232 Taliata see Veliki Gradac
Swabia (historic region in Germany) 305 Tápióbicske (Hungarian village) 142
Sweden (country) 323–24, 347 Țara Hațegului (historical region in
Swedish historiography 347 Transylvania) 163
Sylvester I (pope) 286 Târgșor (Romanian village) 59, 65, 66, 68,
Sylvester II (pope) 286–89, 291–93, 297, 72n71, 77
299, 300n42, 306, 310–12, 314–15, Tarkatzous (Hungarian chieftain) 234
325n39 Târnava (river) 159
Symeon (Bulgarian emperor) 40, 61, 69, 72, Tartar invasion see Mongol invasion
74, 155, 157–58, 186–88 Tasis (Hungarian chieftain) 234
Syrmia see Srem Tășnad / Tasnád (Romanian village) 164,
Syria (country) 209 341
Syro-Palestinian cultural context 133 Tata (Hungarian town) 143
Syro-Palmyra 134 Taxis (Hungarian chieftain) 234
Szabolcs (Hungarian village) 370–71n32 Tebelis (Hungarian chieftain) 234
Szakács, Béla Zsolt (Hungarian art historian) Țeligrad (Slavic name of Blandiana) 109
5, 383n4 see also Bandiana
Szalagy, István (Hungarian historian) 179 Teleki, József (Hungarian count) 172
Szatmár (Romanian city, now Satu Mare) Temes (island between Cuvin and Palanka)
278 245
Szávaszentdemeter see Sremska Mitrovica see also Timișoara
Szeged (Hungarian city) 28n39 Temesváry, János (Hungarian historian) 164
Szeghalom (Hungarian town) 152 Tengerfehérvár see Biograd na Moru
Székesfehérvár (royal residence of Hungary) Tephrike (Turkish town, now Divriği) 186
277 Termacsu (Hungarian chieftain) 234–35,
Crusaders monastery 277 256n1
Szeklers (Hungarian subgroup living in Termatzous (Hungarian chieftain)
Szeklerland) 174 see Termacsu
Szeklerland (historical region in eastern Terra Ultrasilvana 149, 152–55, 158–59, 162,
Transylvania) 175n42 239–42, 247, 386
Szekszárd (Hungarian city) 364–65 see also Transylvania
Széll, Márta (Hungarian archaeologist) 146 Theiner, Augustin (German historian) 313
Szende, Katalin (Hungarian historian) 319 Themes see Timișoara
Szentes Szentlászló (Hungarian village) Theodor of Sebastea (Byzantine chronicler)
146 186
Szerémség see Srem Theodora (Byzantine empress) 186
Szerémvár see Sremska Mitrovica Theodore (metropolitan of Alania) 214
Index 497
Theodorescu, Răzvan (Romanian art Tiszaeszlár-Sinkahegy (Hungarian village)

historian) 383n5 141
Theodosius (saint) 276, 277, 278, 280n43 Tiszaörveny (Hungarian village) 142
Theodosius of Antioch (patriarch) 208 Titel (Serbian village) 255, 282
Theodulos (Bulgarian archbishop) 262 St. Sophia chapter 282
Theomnestus (Greek writer) 221 Točik, Anton (Slovak archaeologist) 141
Theophana of Constantinople (princess) Tomis (Greek-Byzatine city in Dobrudja)
286, 292 242
Theophanes (protovestiarios) 226 Tonelli, Tommaso (Italian scholar) 175n40
Theophanos (opponent of tetragamy) Toptanov, Dimitr (Bulgarian archaeologis)
226–27, 233 145
Theophanos the Confessor (Byzantine Toropu, Octavian (Romanian archaeologist)
chronicler) 185, 213 77
Theophylact Lekapenos (Byzantine Toulouse (French city) 298n40
patriarch) 2, 184–92, 194–98, 201–04, Tourkia (Byzantine name for Hungary) 1,
206, 208–12, 215, 218–26, 228, 232–37, 2, 4–6, 15, 48, 52, 161, 182, 184–85, 234,
249, 257 236–37, 239, 241–42, 246–49, 254,
Theophylact of Nicomedia (bishop) 225 256–58n7, 259–60n15, 261n16, 264, 268,
Theophylact of Ochrid (archbishop) 243 272, 335, 358, 384, 386–87, 389
Theophylact of Tourkia (bishop) 241, 254, Tourkon 254, 258, 261, 358
258, 260n15 see also Turks
Theophylact the Unbearable (father of Tóth, Sándor László (Hungarian historian)
Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos) 186 156
Thietmar of Merseburg (prince-bishop) 291 Transdanubia(n) region 22, 328, 329, 330
Thoroczkay, Gábor (Hungarian historian) Transtisza region 250, 259, 263
248, 331n90, 337n140 Transylvania (historical region in Romania)
Thosu (Hungarian chieftain) 152 1–6, 8, 11–13, 15, 29, 40, 44n73,
Thurocius / Thuróczy, János (Hungarian 50–52n96, 53, 55, 60–62, 71–75, 78, 79,
chronicler) 175 84n24, 88, 89, 95n69, 96, 104, 106, 107,
Tibiscum (Roman town, now Jupa in 109, 112, 131–32, 136, 138–39, 149, 152–59,
Romania) 244 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166–67, 172–82,
Tibiscus see Timiș 239, 248, 250–55, 258–59, 263–64, 283,
Tihany (Hungarian village) 281 309, 313, 320, 326, 335, 337–41, 343,
Benedictine monastery 265–66, 277 345–46, 349, 351, 354, 357, 359, 380,
Greek monastery 266 383–87, 389
Oroszkő 266 Transylvanian Byzantine Bishopric 160,
Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolajevich (Russian 174, 176, 247, 258–60, 335, 338, 340, 346,
scientist) 216 349, 388
Timbisko 244, 245 Transylvanian Catholic Bishopric 2,
Timiș (river) 244 11–13, 15, 18, 32, 47n84, 49, 50, 54, 55,
Timișoara (Romanian city) 244 114, 164–67, 179, 240, 247, 253–54, 258,
Timok (geographical region in Serbia) 238 313, 316–18, 326, 333, 335, 337, 339–44,
Timon, Samuel (Jesuit historian) 167, 346, 350–53, 366n27, 387–88
174–78, 181 Transylvanian cemeteries 98, 99
Tisa / Tisza (river) 15n11, 53n98, 106, 138–39, Transylvanian School (cultural
152, 180, 239–40, 250, 259, 276 movement) 3, 4n8, 173–74
Tisza area 159 Treadgold, Warren (American historian)
Tiszántúl see Transtisza region 185
see also Upper Tisza region Trianon (treaty of) 4
498 Index
Trinity (Christian doctrine) 204–06, 211, 237 Vardar region

Trnovec nad Vahom (Slovakian village) 141 Vardariote Turk 6, 335
Troița (Bulgarian village) 142 Vaslui (Romanian county) 140
Tryphon (ecumenical patriarch) 188–89 Vata (Black Hungarian chieftain) 301
Tsar’grad see Constantinople Vătășianu, Virgil (Romanian art historian)
Tudorie, Ionuț (Romanian theologian) 237 41, 359, 368
Tuhutum (Hungarian chieftain) 151–52, Vatican (city-state) 311n74, 313
156, 176 Vatican Apostolic Archive 311n74, 313
Tulcea (Romanian county) 139–40, 142, 144 Vatican Secret Archive 313
Turanian horse 232 Vatican Apostolic Library 244, 348
Turcuș, Șerban (Romanian historian) 49, Vauchez, Andé (French medievalist) 309
247, 283, 335n126, 345n196 Veliki Gradac (Croatian village) 107–08
Turda (Romanian town) 155, 163 Venice (Italian city) 291
Turda county 164 Venetian Crete 345
Turin (Italian city) 199n52 Verdun (French city) 301n44
Turkey see Tourkia Véstő-Mágori Domb (Hungarian village)
Turkey (country) 2 146
Turks (Byzantine name for Hungarians) Veszprém (Hungarian city) 142, 242, 265,
184–85, 219, 226, 228, 230–31, 233, 249, 267–68, 326, 328, 330, 334–35, 340n170,
257, 335 346, 352
see also Hungarians rotunda chapel 328
Turkic origin 162 Veszprémvölgy (Byzantine nunnery)
Turkic word 163, 273 246, 254, 260n15, 267–68, 335
Turzol (today Hungarian village Tarcal) 151 Veszprémy, László (Hungarian historian)
Tuscany (Italian region) 296 271n22
Tychon (saint) 266 Vicodorum (village in Netherlands) 169n11
Tymes see Timișoara Vidin (Bulgarian town) 238–43, 272
Tyrnau (Austrian town) 175n42 Vienna (capital of Austria) 3, 182n75, 311,
314
Ungheria see Hungary Vienne (French commune) 301n44
Urban II (pope) 307 Viișoara (Romanian village) 65n42, 77
Ukraine (country) 134, 138–39, 141, 143 Vîlceanu, Dumitru (Romanian archaeologist)
Ukrainian steppes 250 119, 127–28, 140, 145
Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza (capital of the Viminacium (Roman town, now Kostolac in
Roman Dacia) 375n35 Serbia) 243
Umayyad caliphate 208 Vinča (suburban settlement of Belgrade)
Ungrovlahia (Metropolitan of) 174 141, 145
Unguraș (Romanian village) 155 Vințu de Jos (Romanian town) 106, 112
Upper Hungary 168 Virgin Mary (Theotokos) 123–25, 130–31,
Upper Tisza region 74, 251 199, 200, 218, 236, 261, 267–68, 271, 274,
Ural region 232 293–94, 329, 333
Ursu, Ioana (Romanian historian) 115, 283 Marian devotion 293, 333
Utrecht (city in Netherlands) 169n11 Marian theology 293
Visegrád (Hungarian settlement) 265–67
Vác (Hungarian town) 157, 326, 332–33 Catholic monastery 265
Vajk see Stephen I (Hungarian king) Greek monastery 265
Vanderputten, Steven (Belgian historian) Vita of Saint Basil the Younger see Life of
320 Saint Basil the Younger
Index 499
Vitus of Nitra (bishop) 281 Windisch, Karl Gottlieb von (Zipser writer)
Vlachs see Romanians 172
Vladimir I the Great (king of Kievan Rus’) Wittenberg (German town) 179
219, 237, 359 Wladislaw III (Polish-Hungarian king) 245
Vladimir Rasate (Bulgarian emperor) 109 Worms (German city) 345
Vladimirko Volodarevich (king of Halych)
277 Yaroslav the Wise (king of Kievan Rus’)
Vodena (Greek city) 243 266, 301
Vodoča (Macedonian village) 70n62 York (Walled city) 329n68
Voicu, C. (Romanian archaeologist) 77
Vojvodina (historical region in Serbia) 274 Zadar (Croatian city) 141
Volga (river) 89 Zágráb / Zagreb (capital of Croatia) 327,
Volga region 232 334, 352
Vranjevo (Serbian settlement, now suburb of Zajtay, Imre (Hungarian jurist) 284
Novi Bečej) 260n14 Zalău (Romanian city) 164
Vrbas (Serbian town) 282 Zaltas (Hungarian chieftain) 234
Vršac (Serbian city) 145 Zarka, János (Hungarian scholar) 170
Vukovar (Croatian city) 276 Zeguholmu see Szeghalom
Vyšehrad (historic fort in Prague) 141 Zichy, Ferenc (Hungarian bishop) 169
Zipser(s) (German-speaking ethnic group
Wagner, Ferenc (Jesuit historian) 174 developed in today Slovakia) 168, 172
Walandar see Adrianople Zirc (Hungarian town) 370, 371n32
Waldhütter von Adlershaufen, Stephan Zlatna (Romanian town) 79, 109–10, 112
(German scholar) 169 Zobolsu (Hungarian chieftain) 152
Wallachia (medieval Romanian country) Zoerard (Benedictine saint) 308n65
58, 61, 66–69, 71–74 Zoltan (Hungarian nobleman) 163
Weissenburg see Alba Iulia Zonaras, Ioannes (Byzantine chronicler)
Wenceslas I (duke of Bohemia) 329n63 256n1, 257n4
Werböczy, István (Hungarian legal theorist) Zselicszentjakab (ruined Benedictine
311–315 monastery in Hungary) 40n59, 54n106
West see Western world Zuckerman, Constantin (French
Western Church see Roman-Catholic byzantinologist) 197, 215, 237
Church Zulta (Hungarian chieftain) 156
Western Plain (geographical region in Zumbor (Hungarian chieftain) 165
Romania) 163 Zsoldos, Attila (Hungarian historian)
Western saints 171, 335 384n6
Western world 285–86, 288, 318n8, 351n225 Zsomboly see Pâncota
William I, count Burgundy 297n36 Zwonimir of Dalmatia (king of Croatia)
William I, duke of Aquitaine 295 305–06

Daniela Marcu Istrate, "Vasile Pârvan" Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Dan Ioan Mureșan, University of Rouen Normandy and Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu, Alba Iulia National Museum of The Union

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniela Marcu Istrate, "Vasile Pârvan" Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Dan Ioan Mureșan, University of Rouen Normandy and Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu, Alba Iulia National Museum of The Union

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christianization in Early Medieval Transylvania

East Central and Eastern Europe

Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee

Daniela Marcu Istrate

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

1 From the Greek Bishop Hierotheos to the Latin Bishop Simon:

3 The Transylvanian Cradle: The Funeral Landscape of Alba Iulia in the

4 Byzantine Bronze Reliquary Crosses with Embossed Figures Discovered

5 From Terra Ultrasilvana to Regnum Erdeelw: Notes on the Historical

6 Hagiography and History in Early Medieval Transylvania: from the

7 Patriarch Theophylact, the Horses, and the Hungarians: The Religious

8 Ecclesiastical Consequences of the Restoration of Byzantine Power in

9 Some Remarks on the Church History of the Carpathian Basin during

10 Gyula’s Christianity and the Bishopric of the Eastern Mission 256

11 The Byzantine Monasteries of Medieval Hungary Revisited 264

12 The Hungarian Kingdom between the Imperial Ecclesiology of Otto III

13 Latin Bishoprics in the ‘Age of Iron’ and the Diocese of

14 The 10th- to 11th-Century Pillared-Church in Alba Iulia:

1.1 Map of Transylvania with the location of Alba Iulia 12

1.22 St. Michael Cathedral, view from the east 51

vol. 49: Ioannés Zonaras. Tomus III. Ioannis Zonarae

MGH. Diplomata Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Diplomata regum et imperato-

Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu

Daniela Marcu Istrate

as well as at the 7th–8th-centuries cemetery from Sâncrai / Alba County (2016–

Dan Ioan Mureșan

Nicolae Călin Chifăr

Marius Mihail Păsculescu

This collection of studies is the result of an initiative of the Great Union

© Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_002

To be sure, the vehemence of the Romanian nationalists can only be explained

Meanwhile, the critique of the historiography of the Ceaușescu’s nationalist-

17 Baán 1999, 45–53; Baán 2018, esp. 193–232.

20 Doncheva 2008; Ćurčić 2010, 231–248, 295–344, and 355–506.

From the Greek Bishop Hierotheos to the Latin

Daniela Marcu Istrate

(old names: in Romanian, Bălgrad; in Hungarian, Gyulafehérvár; in German,

In 2009, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Transylvania celebrated in Alba

© Daniela Marcu Istrate, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004515864_003

Figure 1.1 Map of Transylvania with the location of Alba Iulia

name of the province – Transylvania – and not to a specific settlement, as was

4 Dincă 2017, 48–49 for exceptions to the use of this terminology.

written sources, the research is mainly based on archaeological evidence indi-

1.1 The St. Michael’s Cathedral and the Churches Beneath

1.2 The Pillared Church in Front of the St. Michael Cathedral

Those facts point to the interpretation of the building as a church in opera-

Figure 1.9 The foundation of the south-west pillar

trenches cutting through a number of SFBs,37 as well as ovens. Two situations

Judging by the information available at the moment, both the settlement

rate, upon abandonment, the inhabitants carefully retrieved their belongings,

44 Protase 1956, 35 and note 22.

Figure 1.12 Graves over the ruin of the apse

grave 570, anthropomorphic brick cist (12th–13th centuries);

49 A significant number of burials were superimposed by the current cathedral, especially

Figure 1.15 Graves over the south wall of the church

52 Marcu Istrate 2015.

56 Krautheimer 1986, 356–361, fig. 308–314.

57 Mijatev 1974, 102–103, fig. 109.

59 A similar building was reported in Zselicszentjakab (Kaposvár): archaeological research

in the borderlands of empires, in an area virtually unknown, where stone build-