The utility of a synthesis work is to offer a general image, more or less clear, over a certain issue, taking into account the stage of the research conducted so far. A general perspective over the situation of the Transylvanian habitat in the Early Middle Ages (we are interested in the period of time between the 2nd half of the 6th century and the 9th/10th centuries) is necessary and useful.
In the past, there were made a lot of archaeological excavations (systematic, for preservation or as soundings) and many discoveries were made by chance. As a result, several hundreds settlements were identified from which approximately 160 are certain. Therefore, a centralization of all these data was necessary, at least as a starting point for future research of the habitat.
The studied area is: Transylvania, Banat, Crişana and Maramureş, but inside the thesis we used mainly the name of Transylvania. We chose as a North-Western territorial limit the state frontier of Romania, although this imaginary line did not exist in the Middle Ages and had no particular importance. Although this area is not unitary from the geographical point of view, it can not be divided either from the cultural point of view, mostly starting with the first half of the 7th century.
From the structural point of view, we can say that the thesis has a complete structure. At the same time, we are fully aware of the fact that, taking into consideration the present state of the research regarding the early medieval habitat from Romania, a part of the issues could be only partially analyzed.
Therefore, the thesis reflects the actual stage of the historical research of these matters in Romania.
Our work had as starting point and as research basis, the drawing up of an exhaustive catalogue of the early medieval unfortified settlements from the territory of Transylvania in the aforementioned period of time. The catalogue has two parts: one of the certain settlements; the other, of the possible settlements. The first part, realized in the 6th chapter of the work, refers to those settlements where there was discovered at least one archaeological complex (dwelling, house-hold annex, pit for provisions or for garbage, fire installation etc.); the second part (Annex I) includes the settlements identified only on the basis of some ceramic fragments and/or of other vestiges – or those that are only mentioned in historiography.
Starting from the catalogue of the certain settlements, we realized a typology for the settlements, as well as for the dwellings and fire installations, thus showing the diversity of the real archaeological situation. They are useful in 165
order to emphasize the type of the settlement, the types of the dwellings and their architecture, the types of fire installations as well as the cultural inheritances and influences.
The problem of the spread of the settlements during different chronological stages is illustrated by the maps from the final part of the work. For the period of the 6th – 7th centuries, we noticed 3 areas of dwelling. They also indicate the direction of penetration of some new populations (Slavs and perhaps Avars, in the case of the settlements from the South-West) in Transylvania. These areas are: the North-West of Romania, the South-East of Transylvania and the West/South-West of Romania, on the Mures Valley and in Banat. But, one can not forget the fact that, perhaps, a better archaeological investigation of these territories offered all these data referring to these settlements, whereas other areas less investigated could have been just as populated as the aforementioned ones. In the next centuries, from the 7th until the 9th, we can observe an intensification of dwelling throughout all these territories and the multiplication of the settlements (see the maps). This fact also indicates a demographic growth, which was a reality for the rest of Europe as well. But, in the same time, we have to take into consideration the fact that several settlements discovered in a small area could have belonged to the same human community that moved its location probably because of different economical needs.
Regarding the forms of relief preferred for dwelling, we noticed that the plains as well as the hills had been populated approximately on the same extent (see graphic no. 6, p. 126). We believe that the differences are given by the degree in which each form of relief exists on the territory chosen for our research. But from the chronological point of view, in the 6th-7th centuries and in the 7th-7th/8th centuries the hill areas were more populated (graphic no. 8, p. 128: 38% - plain settlements at an altitude under 300m; 62% - hill settlements at an altitude between 300 – 1000m; mountain settlements at over 1000m altitude have not been discovered so far), but this conclusion could be a result of some more consistent archaeological research conducted in some of the present Romanian districts. The situation is similar for the spread of the settlements along the main or secondary valleys. A preference for the secondary valleys could be recorded for the 8th-8th/9th centuries (graphic no. 7, p. 126).
The existing data regarding the size of the settlements is rather relative.
This is due mostly to the lack of an exhaustive research of the settlements or to the destruction of their remnants as a result of agricultural or construction works etc. but also to the fact that part of the information gathered as a result of archaeological excavations has not been published yet. Therefore, taking into consideration the data known so far, we classified the settlements following the size – criterium:
- small settlements – below 5 dwelling complexes (house-holds);
- middle-size settlements – between 5 and 10 dwellings;
166
- large settlements – more than 10 dwellings.
For a rather vast period of time, from the 6th century until the end of the 8th century and the beginning of the 9th century, we can not observe significant evolutions regarding the types of dwellings (perhaps only the new oval plan of the pit of some houses) and of house-hold annexes. There were no serious changes in the way of building or regarding the materials used for construction either. Alongside the shifting of the Slavs towards the European South, we ca notice the generalization of the dwelling sunk in the soil, sustained by pillars, with a square or rectangular plan and with a stone (predominant in Transylvania) or clay oven in a corner. We can notice approximately the same situation regarding the surface buildings, the first changes could be observed only starting with the 8th century, when the inhabitants of some Transylvanian settlements also started to use the stone as a building material, but these cases are still very rare. A certain example is the settlement from Jucu de Sus – Cluj (the 8th-9th centuries). In the same time, we could notice a significant multiplication of the surface dwellings, which was a fact for the rest of the Central Europe as well.
During the second half of the 1st millennium A.D., there is a certain evolution of the internal organization of the settlements. In the 6th-7th centuries, it could be noticed a semicircular and circular disposing of the dwellings inside the settlements (for example: Lazuri – Lubi tag; Sighişoara – Aurel Vlaicu and Dealul Viilor, Zalău – Mihai Viteazul). This type of internal organization remained a reality also for the 7th-9th/10th centuries, but some new others appeared, such as the disposing of the buildings in nests/groups (for example: Cuceu, Popeni and Stupini) or on 2 lines (for example: Biharia, Eliseni, Iernut or Poian), giving the impression of a road limited by house-holds. Other models of internal organization of villages could have existed, but they haven’t been observed through the archaeological discoveries.
Taking into consideration the situation from the Transylvanian area, as well as the researches conducted in other parts of Europe, we drew up the following typology, more or less ideal:
- settlements in straight line – the house-holds are disposed alongside a road or a river;
- settlements diposed – in circle – around an open space;
- in semicircle or ellipse – around an open space;
- in lines – on the two sides of a road.
- multi-focal settlements – the house-holds are disposed in nests/groups that, at their turn, are not disposed in any particular way;
- perpendicular settlements – the house-holds are separated from one another by paths/roads that cross each other;
- dispersed settlements – the house-holds are not disposed following any plan, or this fact could not be observed as a result of the excavations;
167
- solitary house-holds – probably very rare and mostly nearby a settlements.
As the dwelling buildings are concerned, we noticed for the territories of Transylvania, Banat, Crişana and Maramureş that the dwellings deepened into the soil had been the most used, the ones built on pillars as well as the ones having beams at the basis of the walls, or the both elements combined. The surface dwellings were also discovered, but they are a minority comparing to those from the one category. This is a reality for the entire Central and Eastern Europe, thus our area of interest is not an exception. Inside the category of the dwellings deepened into the soil, the buildings with a rectangular plan were the most common in these territories, followed by the ones with a square plan and by the few ones with a trapezoidal or oval plan (graphics no. 3, p. 43 and no. 5, p. 57). The majority of the surface dwellings had a rectangular plan, the ones with a square or oval plan being in minority. Unfortunately, in the case of a large number of complexes, deepened into the soil or from the surface, the necessary information needed for a correct typological framing is not known. Therefore, many of the statistics imply a high level of relativism.
The typology suggested for the dwelling complexes is the following (there are no complexes to correspond to each type of dwelling described in the typology, that is an ideal one, being available also for the future studies and can be used in the case of new discovered types of dwellings as well): A. Dwellings deepened in the soil
A.I. Deepened complexes built on supporting pillars
A.I.a. Dwellings with a quadrilateral plan
A.I.a.1. square
A.I.a.2. rectangular
A.I.a.3. trapezoidal
A.I.a.4. dwellings with an indefinite plan
A.I.b. Dwellings with a circular plan
A.I.c. Dwellings with an oval/prolonged-oval plan
A.I.d. Dwellings with an undefined plan
A.II. Deepened complexes built without supporting pillars
A.II.a. Dwellings with a quadrilateral plan
A.II.a.1. square
A.II.a.2. rectangular
A.II.a.3. trapezoidal
A.II.a.4. dwellings with an indefinite plan
A.II.b. Dwellings with a circular plan
A.II.c. Dwellings with an oval/prolonged-oval plan
A.II.d. Dwellings with an undefined plan
A.III. Complexes with a distinct plan (pear-shaped plan etc.) A.III.a. Dwellings built on supporting pillars
168
A.III.b. Dwellings built without supporting pillars
A.* Complexes with construction elements that were not archaeologically specified or attested 1
A.a.* Dwellings with a quadrilateral plan
A.a.1.* square
A.a.2.* rectangular
A.a.3.* trapezoidal
A.a.4.* dwellings with an indefinite plan
A.b.* Dwellings with a circular plan
A.c.* Dwellings with an oval/prolonged-oval plan
A.d.* Dwellings with an undefined plan
A.e.* Dwellings with a distinct plan
B. Dwellings built on the soil surface
B.I. Surface complexes built on supporting pillars
B.I.a. Dwellings with a quadrilateral plan
B.I.a.1. square
B.I.a.2. rectangular
B.I.a.3. trapezoidal
B.I.a.4. dwellings with an indefinite plan
B.I.b. Dwellings with a circular plan
B.I.c. Dwellings with an oval/prolonged-oval plan
B.I.d. Dwellings with an undefined plan
B.II. Surface complexes built without supporting pillars
B.II.a. Dwellings with a quadrilateral plan
B.II.a.1. square
B.II.a.2. rectangular
B.II.a.3. trapezoidal
B.II.a.4. dwellings with an indefinite plan
B.II.b. Dwellings with a circular plan
B.II.c. Dwellings with an oval/prolonged-oval plan
B.II.d. Dwellings with an undefined plan
B.III. Complexes with a distinct plan (pear-shaped plan etc.) B.III.a. Dwellings built on supporting pillars
B.III.b. Dwellings built without supporting pillars
B.* Complexes with construction elements that were not archaeologically specified or attested
B.a.* Dwellings with a quadrilateral plan
1 A.* and B.* are not a part of the typology itself, but I felt the need to introduce them as annexes, taking into consideration the large number of complexes with supporting elements that could not have been attested in the excavations or that were not mentioned by the researchers in their published works.
169
B.a.1.* square
B.a.2.* rectangular
B.a.3.* trapezoidal
B.a.4.* dwellings with an indefinite plan
B.b.* Dwellings with a circular plan
B.c.* Dwellings with an oval/prolonged-oval plan
B.d.* Dwellings with an undefined plan
B.e.* Dwellings with a distinct plan
Fire installations have been discovered in large number inside as well as outside the complexes. There were several types of fire installations, thus resulting the following typology:
A.
Fireplace
A.1. open/simple fireplace
A.2. fireplace with chime
A.3. fireplace digged in the wall (?)
A.* fireplace
B.
Oven
B.1. stone-made oven
B.2. oven digged in clay block
B.3. oven digged in the wall of the dwelling
B.4. clay-made oven (on the floor level)
B.5. oven digged in the soil (outside the dwelling)
B.* oven
C.*. Fire installations
This typology can be improved as the archaeological investigations will continue in the future. Further more, I would like to specify that on the territory chosen for my research the most common fire installations were the stone-made ovens, followed by the fireplaces encircled by rocks. The other types can also be found but only in just a few cases.
The information on the house-hold annexes is even fewer. We believe that the largest part of the pits considered nowadays to be domestic remains pits because of the remains recovered from them had been at first pits for provisions that were transformed in an ulterior moment, after their deterioration, in pits for domestic remains. Taking into consideration the fact that in that period the majority of the remains were bio-degrading, we don’t see the reason for digging of some special pits for the remains. The other types of spaces used for keeping the provisions and the domestic animals are difficult to determine using only the archaeological research. The existence of some written sources as in the Western Europe, or some lab analysis of these remains could offer interesting answers to these matters.
170
Studying the settlements and the different types of complexes inside them, I brought to the conclusion that an ideal Early Medieval house-hold should have been constituted from the following elements:
- the dwelling – deepened in the soil or at the surface;
- the provisions pit (one or several), that latter could become a pit for the domestic remains;
- animal coop(s) – as small constructions deepened in the soil or at the surface, use to shelter small animals or, maybe, larger ones (stables);
- warehouse(s) or shed(s) used for the preservation of the food for the men but mostly for the animals, necessary
especially during the cold seasons; they could have been
deepened in the soil or at the surface;
- oven/fireplace – placed outside the dwelling and used mostly for domestic purposes;
- pits for the domestic remains – in most of the cases, the deteriorated pits for provisions were used for this purpose.
Another problem brought by the research of the early medieval habitat, especially in this part of Europe, is the one of ethnicity. It is risky to make ethnical assigning only on the basis of the dwelling complexes, of the fire installations, of settlements in general. But with the help of comparisons and analogies with the neighbouring spaces and especially with the Slav world (as the Slavs were present very probably in South-Eastern Transylvania and North-Western Romania starting with the 2nd half of the 6th century), we believe that there can be observed from which directions and cultures the influences came and where they were more important, thus it is possible to conclude that there a certain population had also been present. At the same time the settlements with Romanic elements (totally or partially) support the theory of the Romanians’
ethnogenesis. We want to underline the fact that we used the ethnical assigning made by the researchers that had conducted the researches in those particular settlements.
For the 2nd half of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th century, it can still be made the difference between the populations that came from the North-West of Romania or from the South-East of Transylvania (the Slavs) and those already present here (the Gepidae). To establish with certainty which were the settlements of the Romanic population in this area is still a great challenge.
After the border of the 6th-7th centuries, the cultural uniformity and the mixture of the components of Avar, Slav and Romanic cultures made difficult for the researchers to discern the ethnical differences and also to realize a clear chronology of the archaeological complexes.
The appearance in certain settlements from the 6th-7th centuries of the dwellings deepened into the soil with a square or rectangular plan, having oven, 171
mostly by stone and of the handmade pottery similar to the one found in the area of Prague culture led to their assigning to the early Slavs. Settlements dwelled only by Gepidae had not been discovered after the destruction of their kingdom by the Avars. Elements of Gepidan material culture together with Romanic and/or Slav and Avar elements were found at Bratei – Sibiu. Cemetery no. 3 was considered to have belonged to the Gepidae, but nearby a grave with a horse had been discovered belonging probably to an Avar warrior. But these discoveries from Bratei belong to the 7th-8th centuries.
The antithesis sedentary – migratory also affects the debate on the Transylvanian early medieval habitat. The settlements, through their seasonal or durable character, provide elements regarding the life of their inhabitants. Thus, the spread of the Slavs in this area could be observed as well as the directions from where they had come. The same thing is valid also for the Avars, who were the successors of the Gepidae in these territories. Their authority extended over a large part of the area that is the subject of my research, even if there was not an effective Avar presence as well. But constructions that can attest the dwelling of some nomads or semi-nomads in this region were discovered in only 2 cases that are also uncertain (Câmpia Turzii and Sângeorgiu de Mureş).
The state of the economy in the Early Middle Ages, especially in an area where the Roman occupation was shorter and the spread of the Christianity was weaker, represents a field less approached by the researchers. The discoveries of some complexes with evidences of some handicraft activities or of some buildings with an economic role (warehouses for food and crops or shelters for domestic animals) offer information about some of the occupations of the population. On the other hand, certain objects considered to be luxurious for that period of time could suggest the existence of some commercial connections of a low level of intensity with other regions perhaps even from the South of the Danube River (or they could have resulted from robbery or from payments for the mercenaries etc.).
The problem of the elite is as important as the others. Even if the archaeological discoveries from the settlements do not offer direct information about them (the cemeteries can offer more consistent information about this matter), it is certain that there existed persons or groups of persons that took decisions on behalf of the community and led the negotiations with the new –
coming populations. The study of the settlements and the identification of those with a predominant geographical position, with larger dimensions and with traces of more consistent economical activities could offer clues about the residences of these members of the elite and possibly their role in the coagulation of some small areas with a certain number of settlements whose inhabitants manifested common interests.
We believe that gathering all the information referring to the early medieval habitat from Transylvania in a work of synthesis was necessary, 172
helping to the creation of a more complete image over a historical period that is less known and very controversial from many different points of view.
173
REPERTORIUL AŞEZĂRILOR NEFORTIFICATE MEDIEVALE
TIMPURII ( SEC. VI/VII – IX/X )