THE 6th CENTURY LOWER DANUBIAN BRIDGEHEADS: LOCATION AND MISSION

ALEXANDRU MADGEARU

Two recent works (Curta 2001, Curta 2002) concerning the Slavic ethnogenesis and the spreading of Christianity north of the Danube have brought innovative ideas about the relations established between Byzantium and the barbarians along the Lower Danube in the 6th century. On the other hand, the conception about the limes itself has changed. Following the seminal works of Isaac 1988, Isaac 1993 and Whittaker 1994, other scholars challenged the old idea of the nature of the Roman limes, proving that the linear frontier (the chain of fortresses) was only the kernel of a broader area, which included both the peripheral provinces along this line, and the nearby "barbarian" areas. This kind of frontier was permeable to economic and cultural exchanges and sometimes to population movements (violent or peaceful). The limes was much more a contact zone than a barrier between barbarianism and civilization, as the Roman imperial propaganda pretended to be (Miller 1996,158-171). In the 6th century, the contact function of the limes increased. As Zanini 1988, 267 emphasized, "la novita pili irnportante che Giustiniano introduce nella riorganizzazione del limes appare dunque, allo stato delle ricerche, proprio questa. II limes cessa di essere una zona di pura pertinenza militare (...) diviene una zona popolata da cittadini, abitanti dei borghi e delle campagne circostanti, che vivono stabilmente nella regione, producono, commerciano e sono, inoltre, incaricati della difesa del territorio; conserva ancora formalmente la sua caratteristiea di diga e di fascia di protezione, rna assume ora con maggiore rilevanza la connotazione di zona di contatto e di scambio tra popoli cd esperienze diversi." The contacts were achieved by the bridgeheads established in some points located north of the Danube. The purpose of these bridgeheads should be investigated according to the new ideas about the limes. Previous works have emphasized only the importance of the revival of some bridgeheads built during the reign of Justinian for the relations between the North-Danubian Roman population and the Early Byzantine Empire. The most recent study about the North-Danubian Late Roman fortresses (Bondoc 2000) has gathered all the data about them (and for this reason is very useful), but the significance of this form of Roman penetration into the Barbaricum was not examined from the viewpoint of the contacts across the borderland.
EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS, XIII, 2003, p. 295-3 t4

296

Alexandru Madgearu

Although in most cases the "Lower Danube" is a name applied to the river downstream the Iron Gates, in this study we will also deal with the sector between the Iron Gates and Singidunum. This upper sector entered again under the Roman domination in 529, when the Gepidic ruler Mundus surrendered, becoming magister militum per lllyricum (Stein 1949, 308; Pohl 1980, 293). The chain of fortresses on this territory between Singidunum and the Iron Gates area, which had been previously mastered by Mundus, was restored in the 530's. A Kutrigur invasion destroyed most of the strongholds in 544/545 (Procopius, De Bellis. VII. I I. 15; Stein 1949, 522), but new restorations were done after 550 (Vasic 19941995,41-53). First of all, we should clarify the location of the bridgeheads survived or restored in the 6th century. The first Late Roman northern bridgeheads located east of Singidunum were Pancevo and Kuvin-Contra Margum, but in both cases the end of the military occupation can be dated in the period of the Hunic inroads tDjordjevic 1996, 126-130). Only the next one, Lederata, survived in the 6th century. A.LEDERATA According to its foundation deed (Novella XI dated April 14, 535), the archbishopric of Justiniana Prima included under its jurisdiction two fortresses (civitates) located north of the Danube: Recidiva and Litterata (FHDR 11,378/379). Litterata (also recorded by Procopius, De Aedificiis, IV. 6. 3-4 - in FHDR 11, 464/465) is the same with Lederata, an important bridgehead composed of two fortresses located at Ram (on the southern bank) and Banatska Palanka (on the northern bank). The 6th century fort can be identified with a quadriburgium of 92 x 93 m discovered in the island of Sapaja (in front of Banatska Palanka, at the mouth of the Caras River), built after 332 AD, but restored in the age of Justinian (Jovanovic 1996, 69-72; Djordjevic 1996, 130). B.RECIDIVA Recidiva was identified with Arcidava (Varadia, Caras-Severin County) (Stefan 1974, 67; Barnea 1991, 56), but the archaeological researches have shown that the place was not inhabited in the 6th century I The location at Sucidava / Sukibida (Celei) (Tudor 1978, 466) is too excluded, because the difference
I At Varadia were discovered a Roman camp used until around 120 AD, inhabited by civilians until the 3rd century, and a rural settlement dated in the 2nd-4th centuries. See: Florescu 1934. p. 60-72; Benea, Bejan /994. pp. 147-148.

The 6th century lowerDanubian bridgeheads: location and mission

297

between the names is too big. The identification with Rusidava tMirkovic 1995, 209) is also impossible (Rusidava, a Roman camp located at Dragasani, Olt county, was not inhabited in this period, and it is however too far from the Danube). We suppose that Recidiva was a fortress located somewhere in Banat, like Litterata. The text suggests that both Litterata and Recidiva belonged to the territory that was recently recovered by the imperial power (Cum igitur in praesenti Deo auctore ita nostra respublica aucta est, ut utraque ripa Danubii iam nostris civitatibus frequentaretur, et tam Viminacium quam Recidiva et Litterata, quae trans Danubium sunt, nostrae iterum dicioni subactae sint). This territory is the same with that taken a few years ago from Mundus. We can not be sure if the order of the fortresses remembered in the Novella Xl (Viminacium, Recidiva, Litterata) is from west to east, but in this case Recidi va should be searched somewhere between Kostolac (Viminacium) and Ram-Banatska Palanka (Lederata). In this case, we can think of the fortress from Stari Dubovac iDjordjevic 1996, 130). The fortresses from Pojejena, Moldova Veche, Gornea, and Svinita were abandoned in the last quarter of the 4th century. There is no proof for the restoration of the fortress Dierna (Orsova) in the 6th century. The numismatic evidence shows an interruption at the beginning of the 5th century (Bujor 1974, 59-63; Chitescu. Poenaru-Bordea 1983, 169-208). On the other hand, the identity between Dierna and Zernes (Procopius, De Aedificiis, IV. 6. 5), sustained by many researchers (among them: Jankovic 1981, 206-207; Borneo 1991, 55; Ardevan 1996,243-246), is impossible, because Zernes was on the southern bank iToropu 1976, 36; Miirghitan 1985, 97; Toropu 1986, 57; Bondoc 2000). However, the site continued to be peopled in the 6th century, but most probably as a civilian one. Besides some coins, the archaeological excavations and the stray finds brought some evidence about the 6th century life in the fortress, including Sucidava type buckles, or even rare pieces like a St. Menas flask (Miirghitan 1985, 94-98; Butnariu 1986, 221, nos. 96-98; Benea 1986,43-44; Oberldnder-Tiimoveanu 2001,36).

C.DROBETA

The next fortress on the northern bank is Drobeta. Drobeta is recorded by Procopius (De Aedificiis, IV. 6. 8) by the name Theodora, which remembered the name of the wife of Constantius Chlorus, and not of the wife of Justinian. The reason of this change of name was the rebuilding in the age of Constantine the Great (Mirkovic 1968, 114; Garasanin 1994-/995, 38; Bondoc 2000). Procopius said that Theodora was not restored. However, the archaeological data are enough clear to prove that the site was occupied in the 6th century, until around 600 (Toropu 1976, 35; Tudor 1978, 459; Davidescu 1980, 216, 222-223). For this reason, the affirmation of Procopius was considered to be a mistake made by himself or by a

298

Alexandru Madgearu

copist (Tudor 1978, 459, Barnea 1991,54-55). Contrary to some older opinions, the round tower from the southwestern comer of the 4th century fortress was not built in the 6th century. The building technique differs very much from that used in Late Antiquity. The tower is in fact a medieval construction that belonged to the fortress of Severin (Davidescu 1985, 103-105; Cantacuzino 2001,106-130). From Drobeta comes an interesting collection of fibulae and other metallic implements, finished or not, which belonged to a workshop (Bejan 1976). It is not true that the deposit was found in the southwestern tower. The pieces were discovered somewhere in the area of the Late Roman fort (Davidescu 1980, 222-226). Their chronology was refined by D. Gh. Teodor, who has shown that the analogies can be found in several forts near the Iron Gates, in levels dated during the reign of Justin II (Teodor 1988, 202-206; Stanga 1998, 111-112). The coin circulation at Drobeta illustrates a very strong iricrease in the period of Justin II in comparison with that of Justinian (1.23 versus 0.16 coins/year) (Stanga 1998, 196, Table II; Oberliinder-Tarnoveanu 2001, 33-34). This evolution was contemporary with the activity of the workshop. Therefore, a revival of Drobeta (Theodora) can be supposed after 565. The production of the workshop was destined to the soldiers from the Iron Gates area fortresses. It seems therefore that the bridgehead was revived in fact only after 565. In this case, Procopius was not wrong.
D. SUCIIJAVA

The fortresses from Putinei, Hinova, Izvoarele, Desa, and Bistret were used only in the 4th-5th centuries. Unlike them, Sucidava was rebuilt by the end of the 5th century. The 6th century Sucidava was the greatest North-Danubian bridgehead. In front of Oescus, this fortress defended one of the main fords of the river. It was also situated at the beginning of the Roman road of the Olt valley, the former Limes Alutanus. There is no direct evidence for the use of this road in the 6th century, but the importance ascribed to Sucidava in this period suggests that its mission had some relation with the defence of this road that connected the Danube with Transylvania. Very significant is the glass weight measure for semissis gold coins (a deneral) certified by the praefectus urbi Flavius Gerontius (in function in 561), found at Sucidava (Tudor 1978, 463). The gold coins checked here were payments for barbarians. This means that Sucidava was maybe the most important place where the barbarians entered in contact with the Byzantine authorities on the Lower Danube. As concerns the road, we know that it was repaired after the reconquest of Southern Oltenia after 325 (Tudor 1978, 422). Well preserved until the Middle Ages, the so-called Drumullui Traian on the Olt Valley was certainly practicable in the 6th century. This can explain Why Sucidava was rebuilt with such care during the reign of Anastasius (the sixth phase of the fortress).

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: location and mission

299

The archaeological researches performed for many decades in this site have brought to light a large archaeological material dated in the 6th century, which illustrates a flourishing life and intensive commercial relations with the Aegean and Oriental cities (Toropu 1976,35; Tudor 1978, 459-463; Toropu, Tatulea 1987, 173-177; Bondoc 2000; Oberldnder-Tiirnoveanu 2001, 34).

E.DAPHNE'

Writing about the first campaign of Valens against the Goths in the summer of 367, Ammianus Marcellinus (XXVII. 5. 2-3) said that the emperor "put together his armies and established the camp in the proximity of the fortress Daphne. He crossed the Ister on a pontoon bridge, without any resistance". He advanced in the territory of the Goths, but the enemy avoided fighting. The fortress Daphne was later mentioned by Procopius (De Aedificiis, IV. 7. 7), who said that Constantine the Great built Daphne in front of Transmarisca and that Justinian restored it, because he found useful to defend the Danube from both sides. The name Daphne is Greek and means "victory" (as figurative of the word "laurel"). If we believe Procopius, than the name Daphne remembers a victory of Constantine the Great. Most probably, this victory was that against the Goths, in 332. The commemorative gold coins with the legend CONSTANTINIANA DAFNE have no relation with the fortress; they were issued for the victory of Chrysopolis against Licinius (Diaconu 1975, 87-88; Barnea, lliescu 1982, 136-139). From Ammianus Marcellinus it seems to result that the fortress was on the southern bank of the Danube, while Procopius wrote that Daphne was placed on the northern bank, in front of Transmarisca. The usual location sustained by many historians is near Oltenita, in the area of the villages Ulmeni and Spantov. As was observed, prope Daphnem could be understood as a reference to a point placed in front of Daphne. Therefore, the text of Ammianus Marcellinus does not contradict a location on the northern bank (Tocileseu 1908, 180; Zahariade 1977, 396; Zahariade 1983, 63-64; Wolfram 1988, 61, 67). A later transfer from the limes army to the comitatenses army could explain the existence of two comitatenses units named Dafnenses (Zahariade 1977, 391-394). The Arges River destroyed large parts of the field near its mouth, but some relics still resisted in the '70s. An aerial photographic mapping research showed the existence of a fortress south of the former village Tausanca (now in Ulmeni, Calara~i County), into a zone liable to inundation (now used for rice culture). Its form and dimensions (a rectangleof 110 x 80 m oriented with the large sides to N-S) are proper to a fortress like Daphne (Rada 1980). Unfortunately, this monument is lost
2

This section resumes Madgearu 2000.

300

Alexandru Madgearu

forever.' At Curcani (15 km. NW), two settlements and a grave from a SantanaCerneahov culture cemetery were researched. Beside the common 4th century pottery, were also found here: a jar engraved with the inscription MITIS, a coin from Licinius and bricks with traces of mortar taken from a Roman building. The authors of the research supposed that Daphne was located at Cureani. The point has visual communication with Transmarisca (Mitrea, Deculescu 1966, 538-548; Deculescu 1969,45-47). Moreover, two gold coins from lovianus and Valens were found at Curcani, unfortunately not during archaeological diggings (Butnariu 1988, 154, no. 62). These coins could testify to a military Roman presence in the time of Valens. (The gold coins are very few in this period in Wallachia.) However, Curcani is too far from the Danube. The building material was taken perhaps from a fortress in another place. A brick stamped with the mark MAXEN(tius) dated in the time of Constantius II was discovered between the villages Andolina and Vara~ti, at circa 20 km E from Ulmeni (Zahariade et alii 1981, 255-256). This is a very important and rare finding, which shows a military building activity north of the Danube after Constantine the Great. In the neighbourhood, at Ciocanesti, the relics of a Roman fortress were recorded at the end of the 19th century in the point Grindul Comorii located at 4-5 km north of the Danube (its name means "the sand bank of the treasure"). According to a field observation, the western side of this fortress had 60 rn, and the northern, at least 30 m. 4 Like at Ulmeni, this area is now destroyed by the hydrotechnical works made in the '60s, when the Boian Lake was filled. All these archaeological testimonies suggest the existence of one or more bridgeheads between Oltenita and Calarasi, The point of Tausanca is in front of the Roman fortress Candidiana, located at Malak-Preslavet (former Cadichioi). This could be the so-called Daphne. Therefore, the literary and archaeological evidence could support the location of Daphne east of Oltenita, at Ulmeni. Diaconu has proposed a different solution for the location of Daphne. He considers that Daphne was the new name given by Constantine the Great for Sucidava (izvoarele or Parjoaia, Constanta county) and that Procopius confused this Sucidava with the North-Danubian Sucidava (Celei). His main argument is the absence of archaeological proofs for a Roman fortress near Oltenita (Diaconu 1975, 88-93). We just saw that some relics still exist. More interesting is the
3 AI. Barnea visited the place some time ago. He observed that the rice culture destroyed all the relics. I am very thankful for this information. 4 The Library of the Romanian Academy. Romanian manuscript 5137, f. 177 (letter sent to the archaeologist Gr. Tocilescu by a school inspector in 1894). A school teacher from Ciocanestl who answered the archaeological and folkloric questioneer sent by N. Densusianu in 1893 said too that the fortress has sides of around 40 m (the Library of the Romanian Academy. mss.rorn. 4546. f. 188).

Vulpe 1924, p. 86 observed in 1923 that the place is covered with alluvia and vegetation.

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: location andmission

301

remark that Daphne must be on the shortest way from Marcianopolis to Gothia and also at a small distance from Durostorum. This brings a valuable argument for Sucidava, which was an important ford. However, there is no proof for the change of the name Sucidava into Daphne. On the other hand, we should observe that a crossing near Transmarisca is suitable too for a march begun at Marcianopolis.' In fact, the army could follow the road Marcianopolis-Zaldapa-Transmarisca. An offensive Jed by Sucidava-Izvoarele would be very difficult. because it would be directed through Baragan - a steppe region without water. Better paths towards the Gothic centre of Buzau are the Ialornita valley (which is in front of the ford of Carsium-Harsova) and also the Mostistea valley. The landscape described by Zosimus who recorded the expedition of 367 fits very well with the Mostistea marshy and wooden zone (Zahariade 1983, 61-63). In conclusion, the location of Daphne at Tausanca-Ulrneni seems to be the best solution.

F. TURRIS

I discussed the location of Turris in Madgearu 1992. It seems that my point of view was ignored by other posterior studies. For this reason I found it useful to resume heredown my demonstration and to add some new considerations. In a digression occasioned by the story of Chilbudios, magister militum per Thraciam, Procopius says: "The emperor Justinianus sent messengers to those barbarians [the Antae), asking them to colonize, all of them, an ancient city, with the name of Turris, located beyond the Danube, which had been formerly built by Trajan, the emperor of the Romans, and that was left deserted for a long time, because it was destroyed by the local barbarians. Because [the city] with its territory belonged from the beginning to the Romans, the emperor Justinian promised them to do all his best in order to gather them and to give them a great amount of money, if they accepted to be his allies from that moment on, and to stop the Huns forever to invade the Roman Empire, as they had intended." (Procopius, De bellis, VII. 14. 32-33 - FHDR 11, 444/445) This fact happened in 545 (Ditten 1976, 82; Bonev 1983, 110-111; Curta 2001, 80-81), therefore just after the Kutrigur invasion that affected all the Danubian limes, in 544-545. For Procopius, this city was a polis, and not phrourion, ochyroma or eryma (the words used in his books for simple fortresses)." Therefore, chora is, in this context, the proper term for the rural territory of an ancient town. We should remark
5

In May 367. Valens was present at Marcianopolis. After the Gothic campaign, he passed by

Durostorum. where he issued two decrees and next he returned to Marcianopolis after 9th October. See Zahariade /983. p. 60. 6 For the terminology used by the same author in De Aedificiis, see Curta 2001, p. 121-123 (polis was usually applied to large cities, hut not in all the cases).

302

Alexandru Madgearu

that the Latin noun turris was applied to the watchtowers, but that this term was seldom used in the 6th century iRavegnani 1982, 271, footnote I). The words generally used in that period were pyrgos and burgus. On the other hand, in the 6th century sources, polis had the same meaning as kastron tRavegnani 1982, 271-273). In conclusion, Turris was in the past a Roman city, endowed with a rural territory. The Antae were not a Slavic tribe, as many historians believed, but a confederacy of tribes of various ethnic origins, including especially Alans, but also Goths, and Slavs (Teodor 1993; Corman 1996). Their name of Iranian origin was derived from a word whose meaning was "border", "periphery". At the beginning, the name expressed their position in the confederacy of the Alans. The Antae were thus a community charged with the defence of the border areas (Vernadsky 1939; Vaillant 1962; Pritsak 1983, 394-399). According to another opinion, they were a group of Alan origin that ruled over a Slavic mass (Werner 1980). Being a warrior society specialized in defending borderlands, the Antae were indeed a good solution for the aims of Justinian, who needed protection for the area exposed to the Kutrigur invasions, an area which was located at the border of the Byzantine Empire. But where exactly was this area? Many historians (among them Hauptmann 1927-1928, 146; Bromberg 1938, 58-59; Teodor 1993, 206) have considered that the name Turris is a wrong transcription of Tyros, the ancient Greek colony founded at the mouth of the homonymous river. A special study on this problem was written by BolsacovGhimpu 1969, who observed that the Antae were able to hinder the Hunnic attacks only if they were settled in Southern Moldavia. But Tyras was too far from the road followed by the barbarian raids; this road crossed through Moldavia and the eastern part of the Wallach ian Plain toward Durostorum or to other fords west of this town. Tyras had no strategic value in this respect. At the same time, it would be very difficult to explain how such a learned writer like Procopius could make such a mistake. It is unlikely that a Greek-speaking author could replace the genuine Greek name Tyros with the Latin word Turris. The historical accounts given by Procopius are not real, because Tyras was not a city founded by Trajan. Besides this, Tyras was deserted in the 6th century. Another point of view about the identification of Turris relies on the supposition that its name was inherited by the modern city of Turnu Magurele (in front of Asamus). One of the forefathers of the Romanian archaeology, August Treboniu Laurian, discovered here some Roman traces, in 1845. The first historian who identified them with Turris was Tocilescu 1908, 245-249. Based on his archaeological researches made in 1936-1943, Florescu 1945 supposed that these traces belonged to a watchtower erected under Constantine the Great and restored in the 6th century. On the other hand, he denied the identification with Turris, Cantacuzino 2001, 184-199 proved that this tower was a medieval building, from the 14th century, and that the Roman phase of construction is uncertain. Although

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: location and mission

he pointed out that this tower could not be the city mentioned by Procopius, Dumitru Tudor believed (without any proofs) that another Roman fortress existed somewhere in the neighbourhood (Tudor 1978, 308). Many other scholars sustained the placement of Turris at Turnu Magurele, with more or less conviction (For instance: Vulpe 196/, 375; Patoura-Hatropoulos 1980. 109; Barnea. lliescu 1982. 117). But this hypothesis is contradicted by serious reasons. As has already been observed (Bromberg 1938. 59; Bolsacov-Ghimpu 1969. 688). the Antae had no chance to hamper the invaders. if they were established near Turnu Magurele, because the enemies could penetrate by any other ford of the Danube (for instance, by Durostorum). It is obvious that a (supposed) watchtower could not be named polis by Procopius. Another point of view was supported only by Mircea Rusu, who believed that Turris was at Pietroasele (Rusu 1980, 249). However, the Roman camp from Pietroasele was too far from the Danube and, for this reason, it had no value for the defence of the Byzantine limes in the 6th century. We consider that the most probable solution of this problem is the placement of Turris at Barbosi (Tirighina), a Roman camp near Galati. The main reason why we support this idea (previously expressed by Comsa 1974, 3(2) is the great strategic value of this place and of its nearby territory (the zone situated between the bend of the Carpathians and the bend of the Danube). This position was used at many times as an excellent defence, until World War II. Its val ue was remarked also by the Romans. who built here not only a fortress. but also an entire system of earthen walls, in order to protect the crossing place over the Danube. After the first Daco-Roman war of 101-102. two small castella were built near the mouth of the Siret River. Set on a position previously held by the Dacians, the fortresses controled the Roman road that connected Dacia with Moesia Inferior by the Oituz pass. After 145 AD, one of the castella (a polygonal one. with an area of 3500 m') was included in the surface of a larger camp (350 x 100 m), which functioned until the reign of Gordianus III (238-244). The small fortress survived. with its military function, until the Constantinian Age. The camp was surrounded by a civilian settlement with an urban character, and protected by an earthen wall erected probably under Hadrianus, between the rivers Siret and Prut (between the present day villages Serbesti and Tulucesti). The civilian settlement extended over the area of the camp when the army abandoned this one.' The area behind the wall (of about 300 krrr') was a pratum, i.e., a territory subordinated to the camp (like the chora of a polis) (Dorutiu-Boila 1972. 56-57). The name of the Roman camp and settlement of Barbosi is not yet attested by epigraphical sources, but Vulpe 1960. 331 and Stefan 1958 observed that its ancient name should be Dinogetia, which was placed by Ptolemy III. 8. 2 on the left bank
7

Archaeological evidence about Barbosi in: Sallie 1981, p. 75-128, 202-224; loni/a 1982,

pp. 18-29; Pctculcscu 1982.

304

Alexandru Madgearu

10

of the Danube, near the mouth of Hierasus (Siret). Because the same Ptolemy (III. 10. I and 10. 5) and other later sources gave for Dinogetia another location, on the right bank of the river, it was supposed that the name Dinogetia was transferred upon another fortress, built in the late 3rd century in front of Barbosi, on the right bank, at Garvan (Stefan 1958). We think that the name of the small castellum of Barbosi could not be preserved after the foundation of the new city on the other bank of the Danube. We suppose that it received a new name in the Constantinian period, and that this name was Turris. The aspect of the fortress justified the name Turris: a polygonal construction erected on the top of a high promontory, like a tower. Much more important, our identification is in accordance with the information given by Procopius. Barbosi was indeed a city (polis), founded by Trajan, and it had a chora. When Procopius wrote his work, the city had been deserted for more than two centuries. We do not know if the proposal expressed by Justinian was followed by the Antae. However, in the next decades, they acted as allies of the Byzantines, in the wars against the Avars and asfoederati in the Byzantine army (Dillen 1976, 82; Bonev 1983, 111-112; Patoura 1997,82; Curta 2001, 81-82), but there is no proof for their settlement near Barbosi, Few years after 545, lordanes (Getica, 35) said about them: a Danastro extenduntur usque ad Danaprum. but it seems that he did not know anything about the alliance between the Empire and the Antae, because in Romana (388) he mentions the Antae among the enemies of the Roman Empire. Therefore, his remark concerns a past situation." More credible than Jordanes is Procopius (De Bellis. V. 27. 2), who said about the tribes of Huns, Sclavins, and Antae that they "are lying beyond the Hister, not too far from the bank", but this assertion is too vague. All of the 6th century bridgeheads continued 4th century forts, but not all the 4th century bridgeheads were used again in the age of Justinian. This difference displays a different nature of the Justinianic bridgeheads. In the age of Justinian only the fortresses from Recidiva, Lederata, Drobcta, Sucidava and Daphne were used as northern bridgeheads. Therefore, the bridgeheads were concentrated in the western section of the limes, and not toward the region crossed by the steppe people invaders, which was supposed to be defended by the Antae settled around Turris. The absence of any bridgehead east of Daphne indicates that the foedus with the Antae was considered to be enough for the defence against the eastern invaders (Slavs, Kutrigurs). This situation denotes a strategic view that differs very much from that applied in the 4th century, when the bridgeheads were distributed in a uniform manner along the river. The new strategy on the Danube was a defensive one. The absence of an offensive policy against the enemies from present-day Wallachia and Moldavia (the Slavs) is proved by the absence of the
8

Forthe credibility of his description, see Curta 2001, pp. 40-43.

II

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: location and mission

305

Christian missions directed toward this territory during the 6th century (Curta 2002,63,66). The military forces on the Danubian frontier were weaker than in the 4th century, because Justinian chose to direct the most part of the forces to the Italian and Persian fronts. In such circumstances, it was impossible to defend the Danubian limes without the support of the diplomacy, without the usual policy of divide et impera among the barbarians (Patoura 1997, 84-85). The restoration of some of the old bridgeheads should be seen in this perspective. The bridgeheads from Recidiva and Litterata are located at a small distance from the Gepidic power center from Pannonia. They are the first two places where the communication between the Danube and the plain area from the north can be easily established. The strongholds that were not restored (Pojejcna, Moldova Veche, Gornea, and Svinita) had no communication with that area (they are placed in the rocky part of the Danube stream). We suppose that Litterata and Recidiva were restored in order to protect the communication with the Gepids, as well as Drobeta (the entrance point in the Iron Gates). The Gepids were enemies of the Byzantine Empire in the early years of Justinian's reign. When Mundus entered the service of the Byzantine emperor (529), they became quiet, but in 536, after the dead of Mundus, they ravaged Moesia Prima and Dacia Ripensis, and they occupied Sirmium for a second time. But, soon, the Gepids became friends of the Byzantines, because the empire needed them as allies in the war against the Ostrogothic kingdom, which began in 535. In 539 [oedus was concluded with the Gepids, which supported this policy. The control over the Middle Danube area was enforced by a similar foedus with the Lombards, in 546/547, already settled in Western Pannonia since 527. With this second alliance with the enemies of the Gepids, Justinian assumed the role of an arbiter between these barbarians. Unwilling to start a war for Sirmium, Justinian chose to wait for the weakening of both parts. This policy proved to be effective, since the Lombards had defeated the Gepids in 552, after a series of wars started in 549. After 552, the Byzantine-Gepidic relations were again peaceful. Justinian concluded a new alliance with the Gepids in 552 (Stein 1949, 309, 528, 530-534; Wozniak 1979, 145-153; Poh11980, 299; Pohl 1997, 29-35; Patoura 1997, 81-82). Therefore, between 529 and 566, the Gepids were sometimes allied and sometimes in conflict with the Byzantine Empire. The alliance was expressed by the subsidia given to the Gepids. The Gepidic warriors received gold coins, weapons and pieces of military equipment. The cemetery of Kornye gives a good example of a Gepidic community of foederati (Salamon, Erdclyi 1971). The Sucidava buckles (which are pieces of military equipment used especially by the Byzantine soldiers) are present in several Gepidic sites from Pannonia and Transylvania (Madgearu 1998,217-222).'
9 The list of buckles should be completed with those from Dcszk, Kolked-Feketekapu. and Tiszafurcd (Gorum 2001, p. 97).

306

Alcxandru Madgearu

12

We suppose that the 6th century bridgeheads functioned not only for the defence against the invaders, but also for the protection of the commercial and military relations with the allied populations, among whom the Gepids were the most proeminent. It was recently argued that the frontier was closed after 545, because no coins minted between 545 and 565 were found north of the Danube, At the same time, the gold coins discovered in Barbaricum were mostly from the first part of Justinian's reign (Curta 2001, 174-176). In fact, the penetration of the Byzantine coins decreased after 545, but not up to zero. There are some discoveries from Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, which show that the bronze coins continued to arrive in these northern areas between 545 and 557 iButnariu 1986, 218-225, nos. 37, 61, 83,93, 115, 138, 145, 163,202). However, the years 545-547 were indeed a turning point in the Danubian policy. A major Kutrigur invasion took place - as we saw - in 544/545. In 545-547 were concluded the alliances with the Antae and the Lombards, which could be seen as two sides of the same policy of defence with the help of the friendful barbarians of the most sensible sectors of the frontier, situated near dangerous enemies like the Kutrigurs and the Ostrogoths tPatoura /997, 82). The bridgeheads remained in function after 545. It was the period when Procopius wrote his work about the buildings (ended in 554). Nothing is said about the trading function of the bridgeheads, and this is not surprising, because this function decreased for a while. The moment when the trading function of the bridgeheads was fully restored can be placed around 560. After 560, the coins entered again north of the Danube in a larger amount. The Jenera/ certified by Flavius Gerontius is dated too around 560. The change occurred after a devastating inroad of the Kutrigurs in 558/559, and we can think that this event stimulated the renewal of the alliance with the Gepids and of the payments for them, which required the opening of the frontier. The Gepids were valuable allies in the case of a new Kutrigur attack. The peace with the Gepids lasted until 566, when the king Cunimund betrayed the agreement with Justin II (he did not give back Sirmium to the Byzantine Empire as he had promised) (Wozniak 1979, 153-154). It is important to observe that Cunimund received the title of stratilatos, which is similar to magister militum (as we know from his seal found at Constanta) (Barnea 1986, 119-121). This means that the Gepidic kingdom was in its final years a significant ally of the Byzantine Empire - a result of the new balance of forces introduced by the revival of the Kutrigur power. Sucidava was located at the end of the most important Roman road that linked Moesia with Dacia, by the Olt River valley. Unable to protect the south against the inroads from present-day Moldavia, the fortress of Sucidava was obviously destined to the defence of this road, which was the shortest way to the Transylvanian Gepidic power center.

13

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: locationand mission

307

On the other hand, it can be supposed that Daphne too had a similar mission: to protect the way to Transylvania along the valley of the Arges River, which reached the pass of Rucar-Bran. It is nevertheless true that the main mission of Daphne was most probably the defence against the invaders that came from the east. How extended were the territories controlled by these bridgeheads? It is known that the restoration of the Roman power north of the Danube in the Constantinian age signified the annexation of a large area in Oltenia, up to the earthen wall called "Brazda lui Novae de Nord". Small areas from Banat and Wallachia were also included. Some historians affirmed that Southern Oltenia entered again under the Byzantine domination in the 6th century (for instance: Stefan 1974; Barnea 1991, 57). A more critical view was expressed by Tudor 1978, 459 and Bondoc 2000: no North-Danubian area was annexed by the Byzantine Empire in the 6th century, except the bridgeheads, but they ignored a source that shows that the Byzantine Empire possessed an area north of the Danube during the reign of Justinian. The Edict X1l1 issued in 538/539 stated that the soldiers that were not able to collect the taxes would be punished being sent to defend the borders of the lands situated over the Danube (FHDR ll, 386/387). There is no question about the meaning of the passage. It results that the Byzantine Empire exerted its authority over areas (charas) located north of the Danube, which belonged to the limes. The Greek word limitois is borrowed from Latin, and it has the same significance as limes. If we take into account that the limes was an area and not a line, then we can conclude that this edict proves the existence of a region dominated by the Byzantines somewhere north of the Danube, in the first decade of the reign of Justinian (Stefan 1974, 68-69). A passage from John Lydos, De magistratibus, III. 2. 28 (FllDR ll, 493) contains some information about the recovery of a northern region called Scythia, during the reign of Justinian. In fact, the passage concerns the reestablishment of the Byzantine authority over Scythia Minor. It is true that Lydos was thinking of Dacia when he remembered the gold taken from the defeated Dacians, but he made a confusion between Dacia and Scythia Minor. This results from the next passage, III. 2. 29 (FHDR Il, 495), where he speaks about the eparchos who was appointed in Scythia. This eparchos was the commander of quaestura exercitus, who was charged with the rule over the province, in 536. The recovery of Scythia meant in fact the establishment of a state of security, after a period of devastation caused by the barbarian invasions and by the internal strife (the rebellion of Vitalianus of 513_518).10 It was demonstrated that this military and administrative structure was created in order to provide supplies for the provinces Moesia Secunda and Scythia,
to The final result of this rebellion was the control established by Vitalianus in Scythia Minor and in the eastern parts of Moesia SecundaandThracia. See Madgearu 2001, pp. 13-14.

308

Alexandru Madgearu

14

whose agricultural resources were wasted (Curta 2001, 185-186). On the other hand, in III. 2. 10 and III. 3. 31, Lydos speaks about the loss of Scythia in the first years of Constantine the Great, when the troops were moved to Asia in order to fight against a tyranny. This rebellion occurred on the eve of the battle of Chrysopolis (Madgearu 2001, 8). In this way, the information brought by John Lydos in III. 2. 28 becomes clear: the author made a confusion between the recovery of Scythia Minor and the extension of the imperial power over the Danube (which indeed existed, as we saw). Miroslava Mirkovic supposed that the region subjected to the bishopric of Aquae, as was established by Novella XI, had an extension north of the Danube, because she was thinking that some small fortresses recorded in De Aedificiis in the chora of Aquis could be located in Oltenia (Motreses), Banat (Caputboes), and even in Transylvania (Petres) (Mirkovic 1995, 208-210).11 In fact, the source can not be interpreted in this way. It is absolutely certain that those fortresses were placed south of the Danube. The similarity between these names and others from northern Dacia is not an argument, but a mere coincidence. Petres is a very common name, while Motreses - as a name of Thracian origin - can be a pair of Ad Mutrium, and not the same place. Caputboes was certainly located at Sip (Kondic 1992-1993, 51; Garusanin 1994-1995,35-36). The identifications put forward by Mirkovic do not fit, but it seems that Oltenia was indeed the region where the Byzantine power was restored after 530. Of course, it was not a very large area. Most probably, the control was extended up to the "Brazda lui Novae" wall. The coins and other Byzantine imports are concentrated south of this line (see the map in Toropu 1976, 80, fig. 23). Among the Byzantine materials found in Oltenia, a special attention deserves the bronze hair pin decorated with a dove head found at Craiova, which seems to be an object specific to the Bonosiac heretics, who were recorded in Novella XI among the inhabitants of the Aquis diocese. Such pins were found in several sites on the limes or in the interior of the Danubian provinces (Zugravu 1997, 291, 299, 314 (footnote 140),319 (footnote 229), 423--424). The discovery of this object into a settlement dated in the 5th-6th centuries (located just near the "Brazda lui Novae" wall) indicates stronger contacts with the Empire, but not necessarily the existence of a Byzantine domination (the owner of the pin could be a refugee, moved outside the Empire exactly because his persecuted faith). Anyway, it is certain that the southern part of Oltenia was under a strong Byzantine influence in the 6th century. Only in this region can be located the area were the Byzantine garrisons were sent as a punishment. During the discussions with Justinian that ended with the foedus of 547, the Lombard envoys said that the Byzantines were not willing to extend their
II The idea was accepted by Petrovic 1994-/995, p. 56. The identification of Motreses with Ad Mutriurn was suggested by Beievliev /970. p. 116.

15

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: locationandmission

309

domination beyond the Danube (Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 34. 13). This passage was not yet discussed by the Romanian historians (and it is not reproduced in FHDR Il). At a first glance, it seems that this instance contradicts our opinion concerning the North-Danubian policy of Justinian. In fact, the analysis of the text shows that the Lombards had in their mind only Pannonia and the beyond bank should be located in Pannonia. When were the bridgeheads abandoned? There is no evidence about the end of Recidiva and Litterata. The fortresses located near the Iron Gates were destroyed during the Avar inroads from 593-598. In most cases, the last issued coins are dated up to 596 (Popovic 1975,476-486; Jankovic 1981, 214; Minic 1984; Kondic 1984; Oberliinder-Ttimoveanu 2001, 48--49). Although the Byzantine army defeated the Avars in 596 at Singidunum and in another North-Danubian offensive led west of the Iron Gates in 599, the defensive system around the Iron Gates was lost forever. According to Theophylact Simocatta VII. 7. 3--4, during the offensive of 596, the Byzantine army crossed the Danube and entered the fortress called Upper Novae (Novas tas ana). Because the name of the fortress Cezava was Novae, it was affirmed that Upper Novae was at Gornca (Toropu 1986, 57). But, as Jankovic 1981, 196 and Jovanovic 1996,71 have observed, Upper Novae can not be located at Cezava, because from the source it results that it was on the northern bank. They proposed the identification with Lederata. The identification with a fortress placed in front of Cezava (Gornea, or other) is on the other hand excluded, because Theophylact Simocatta said that the nearby place was an area suitable for hunting, plentiful of water. This description does not match with the mountainous area near the Danube, in front of Cezava, but it is suitable for Banatska Palanka, the stronghold located in front of Ram and of the island Sapaja (Lederata). This site is located at the mouth of the Caras River, in a wet zone. As results from Procopius, De Aedificiis, IV. 6. 3, the fortress restored at Literata (Lederata) was in front of what he called Novae. Therefore, the old city of Lederata (Ram) changed its name in Upper Novae sometimes in the 6th century. In conclusion, the Byzantine army crossed the Danube in 596 by Litterata. This operation was followed by another offensive in Banat, in 599, by Viminacium (Theophylact Simocatta, VIII. 2-3). In both cases, the offensives tried to establish a control over the plain area of the western Banat that was able to give access to the Avar power center. These operations were the last moments when the bridgeheads located west of Iron Gates were used by the Byzantine army. Drobeta was lost around 600. It is true that two coins issued in 6121613 and 613/614 were found there, but there is a long gap between them and the previous coin from 598/599 (Oberltmder-Tamoveanu 2001, 45, 53). We suppose that the site remained a civilian settlement, which kept some contacts with the SouthDanubian area, like other settlements from Oltenia, where coins from Phokas and Heraklios were found (Oberldnder-Tsrnoveanu 2001, 53, 54). The bridgehead of

310

Alexandru Madgearu

16

Sucidava was destroyed first around 586, and next around 598; a coin from 596/597 was discovered in the most recent burned level (Tudor 1978, 466; Toropu, Tdtulea 1987, 177; Oberliinder-Tamoveanu 2001, 45-46). The bridgeheads that were restored in the 6th century were the last attempt to establish a support for the defence of the Danubian frontier by military and diplomatic means. This attempt failed when the Avars became a menace too great for the available resources of the Byzantine Empire.
ABBREVIAnONS AND BILIOGRAPHY
A rdevan J996

Bamea 1986 Bamea 1991

- R. Ardevan, Dierna - toponymie et histoire, in Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube (Cahiers des Partes de Fer, Monographies 2), cd. by Petrovic. Belgrade. 1996, 243-246. - I. Bamea, Sceaux byzantins inedits de Dobroudja, in RESEE, 24, 1986,2, 117-125. - L Bamea, Sur les rapports avec Byzance du territoire situe au Nord
du Bas-Danube durant la periode Anastase r'-Justinien t" (491-565), in EBP, ll.Bucurcsti, 1991,47-57. - I. Barnea, 0. Iliescu, Constantin eel Mare, Bucuresti. 1982. - A. Bejan. Un atelier metalurgic din sec. VI e.n. de Ia Drobeta-Turnu Severin. in AClaMN, 13, 1976,257-278. - D. Benea, Not piese paleocrestine din colectta Muzeului Banatului, in MB, 36, 1986, 1,42-48. - D. Benea, A. Bejan, Viata rurala in sud-vestul Daciei In secolele II-IV (II), in AcraMN, 26-30, 1989-1993 (1994), 1/1, 127-148. - V. Besevliev. Zur Deutung der Kastellnamen in Prokops Werk "De Aedifioits", Amsterdam, 1970. - A. A. Bolsacov-Ghimpu, La localisation de to forteresse Turns, in RESEE, 7, 1969,4,686-690. - D. Bondoc. Repertoriulforttficatttlor de pe ripa nordtca a limes-ului Dundrii de Jos in epoca romans uirzie, in Romanian Journal of Archaeology, 1,2000 (on-line publication, http://aoar.archaeology.ro) - C. Bonev, us Antes et Byzance, in EIBa/k, 19, 1983, 3, 109-120. - 1. Bromberg, Toponymlcal and Historical Miscellanies on Medieval Dobroudja, Bessarabia and Moldo-Wallachia, in Byzantlon, 13, 1938.

Barnea, lliescu 1982 Bejan 1976

Benea 1986

Benea, Bejan 1994

Beievliev 1970 Bolsacov, Ghimpu 1969 Bandoc2000

Bonev /983 Bromberg 1938

Bujor 1974 Butnariu /986

Butnariu 1988

Cantacuzino 200 J

1,9-71. - E. Bujor, Probleme ridicate de cercetdrile arheologice de /a OrsovaDterna, in In Memoriam Constantini Daicoviciu, Cluj, 1974,59-63. - V. M. Butnariu, Raspandtrea monede/or din seeo/e/e VI-VII In teritoriile carpato-dunarene, in BSNR, 77-79, 1983-1985 (1986), nr. 131-133, 199-235. - V, M. Butnariu, Monedele romane postaureliene In teritoriile carpato-dunareano-pontice (275-491) (II). Perioada 324-31lJ. in ArhMold, 12, 1988, 131-196. - Gh. I. Cantacuzino, Cetati medievale din Tara Romtine~ in secole/e II/-XVI, Bucuresti, 2001.

17

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: location and mission

311

Chitescu, Poenaru-Bordea /983

Comsa 1974
Corman 1996

Curta 2001
Curta 2002

Davidescu 1980 Davidescu 1985

Deculescu 1969

Diaconu 1975
Ditten /976

Djordjevic /996

Doruuu-Botto 1972
FlIDI/II Florescu 1934

Florescu 1945
Garam 200/

GaraJanin 1994-1995 Hauptmann 1927-1928

lonlla 1982 Isaac 1988 Isaac 1993 Jankovic 1981

M. Chitescu, Gh. Poenaru-Bordea. Contributii fa istoria Diernei /11 lumina descoperiri/or monetare din sapdturile arheologice din 1967, in SSNI/,75-76, 1981-1982 (1983), or. 129-130, 169-208. - M. Comsa, Unele consideratii privind situatia de fa Dunarea de jos in secolele VI-VII, in Apulum, 12, 1974,300-318 - I. Corman, L 'origine ethnique des Antes [ondee sur les decouvertes archeologiques dans l'espace d'entre Prout ct Dniestr, in ArhMold, 19, 1996,169-189. - F. Curta, The Making oj the Slavs. lJistory and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge, 200 I. - F. Curta, Limes and Cross: the Religious Dimension oj the SixthCentury Danube Frontier of the Early Byzantine Empire, in Starinar. NS, 51, 2001 (2002),45-70. - M. Davidcscu, Drobeta In secole!e I-VII e.n., Craiova, 1980. -M. Davidescu, Locul si rolul Severinu!ui In cadrul procesului formarii statului feudal Tara Romoneasci'i, in Drobeta, 6, 1985, 103-110. - C. Deculescu, Unde a fast "Constantiniana Daphne"?, in Magazin istoric, 3, 1969, II (32),45-47. - M. Diaconu, Sur l'emplacement de l.'uncienne Daphne, in Studio Balcanica, 10, 1975,87-93. - H. Dillen, Slawen im Byzantinischen lIeer von Justinian J his Justinian ll, in Studien ::um 7.1h. ill Byzanz, Berlin, 1976,77-94. - M. Djordjcvic, Contributlons /0 the Study oj the ROII/iln Limes in South Banal, in Roman Limes on tile Middle and Lower Danube (Cahicrs des Pones de Fer, Monographies 2), cd. by Petrovic. Belgrade, 1996,125-133. - Em. Doruttu-Boila, Tcritoriul militar at Legiunii V Macedonica 10 Dunarea de Jos, in SCIV, 23, 1972, 1,45-62. - Fontes Historiae Daca-Romanac, f l.Bucurcsti, 1970. - Gr. Florescu, Le camp romain de Arcidava (Viiriidia). Fouilles de 1932, in lstros, 1,1934,1,60-71. - Gr. Florescu, Cetatea Tumu, in Revista Istorica Ramona. 15, 1945,4, 432-439. - E. Garam, Funde byrantinischer lIerkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. his zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts, Budapest, 2001. - M. Garasanin, Ad Procope De Aedificiis IV. VI. 8-/8, in Starinar, NS. 45-46,1994-1995,35-39. - L. Hauptmann, us rapports des Byzantins avec les Slaves el les Avars pendant la seconde moitie du slecte, in Byzatuion, 4, 19271928,137-170. - I. Ionha, Din istorla ~i civillzatia dacilor tiberi. !Jacii din spatiul estcarpauc in secolele ll-IV e.n., lasi, 1982. - B. Isaac, The Meaning oj the Terms Limes and Limitanei, in JRS, 78, 1988, 125-147. - B. Isaac. The Limits of the Empire. Oxford, 1993. - D. Jankovic. Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa u VI j poeetkom Vll veka (La partie danubienne de la region d 'Aquis au siecle et au debut du Vir siecle}, Belgrad, 1981.

vr

vr

312 Jovanovic 1996

Alcxandru Madgearu

18

Kondic 1984
Kondic 1992-1993 Modgearu 1992 Madgearu /998

- A. Jovanovic, The Problem of the Location of Ledcrata. in Raman Urnes on the Middle and Lower Danube (Cahiers des Portes de Fer, Monographies 2). cd. by Petrovic, Belgrade, 1996,63-72. - V. Kondic. Le tresor de monnaies de bronze de La foneresse protobyzantine de Bosman, in Numtzmattcar, 7. 1984. 51-54. - V. Kondic, Transdierna, in Starinar, NS, 43-44, 1992-1993.49-52. - A. Madgcaru, The Placement of the Fortress Turds {Procopius, "Bell. Goth. ",/11.14.32-33), in Balkan Studies, 33,1992,2,203-208. - A. Madgearu, The Sucidava Type of Buckles and the Relations between the Late Roman Empire and the Barbarians in the 6th Century, in ArhMald, 21, 1998, 217-222. - A. Madgearu, Three problems of historical geography: Dafne, Montes Serrorum and Caucaland, in EtBalk, 36, 2000, 3,132-143. - A. Madgearu, Two Mutinies Against the Centre in the Province of Scythia, in RESEE, 39, 2001, 1-4,5-17. - L. Marghitan, Banatul in lumina arheologiei, III, Timisoara, 1985. - D. H. Miller, Frontier Societies and the Transition between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, in R. W. Mathisen, H. S. Sivan (cd.), Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, Aldershot, 1996, 158-171. - D. Minic, Le tresor de monnaies de bronze de la foneresse protobyzantine de Veliki Gradac, in Numizmaticar, 7, 1984,39-47. - M. Mirkovic, Rlmski gradovi na Dunavu u Gornjo) Meziji, Belgrad, 1968. - M. Mirkovic, Episcopus Aquensis and Bonosiacorum seelus, in D. Srcjovic (ed.), The Age oj Tetrarchs, Belgrad, 1995, 207-216.

Madgearu 2000

Madgearu 2001 Mdrghitan /985 Miller 1996

Mind: /984

Mirkovic J 968

Mtrkovic 1995
Murea. Deculescu 1966
OberlanderTamoveanu 2001

- B. Mitrea, C. Deculescu, Uncle descoperiri arheologice de la Curcani

(r. Oltenita), in SCIV, 17, 1966,3,538-548.
- E. Oberlander-Tarnoveanu. From the Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages - the Byzantine coins in the territories of the Iron Gates of the Danube from the second half of the 6th century to the first half of the 8th century, in EBP, IV, Iasi, 2001, 29-69. - S. Patoura-Hatzopoulos. L '<1!uvre de reconstitution du limes danubien a L'epoque de- l'empereur Justinien ter (territoire roumain], in RESEE, 18,1980,1,95-109. - S. Patoura. Une nouvelle consideration sur la politique de Justinien envers les peuples du Danube. in Byzantinoslavica, 58, 1997, 1,78-86. - L. Petculescu. Despre cronologia fortificatiilor romane de la Barbosi, in Pontica, 15, 1982,249-253. - N. Petrovic, forteresses de la basse aruiquite dans la region du HaUl Timak, in Starinar, NS, 45-46,1994--1995,55-66. - W. Pool, Die Gepiden und die Gentes an der mittleren Donau nach dem Zerfall des Attilareiches, in Die Volker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im fiinften und sechsten Jahrhundert (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriftcn, 145), 1980,239-305.

Patoura-Hauopoulos 1980

Patoura 1997

Peteulescu 1982 Petrovic 1994-1995

Pohl1980

us

19

The 6th century lower Danubian bridgeheads: location and mission

313

Pohl1997

Popovic /975 Pritsak 1983

Rada /980

Ravegnani /982

Rusu 1980 Salamon, Erdilyi /97/

- W. Pohl, Die Langobarden in Pannonicn IIlId Justinians Gotenkrieg, in Ethnische und kulturelle verhdltnisse an der mittleren Donau vam 6. his z.um 11. Jahrhundert, cd. by D. Bialckova. J. Zabojnik. Bratislava. 1996,27-36. - V. Popovic, Les ten/aim' archrologiques des invasions avaro-slaves dans I'lllyricum byzantin, in MEFRA, 87, 1975, 1, 445-.')04. ~ 0. Prusak. The Slavs and the Avars. in Gli Slavi occidentaii e meridional! nell 'alto mediaeva (Settimanc di Studio del Centro Italiano JI Studi sull'Alto Mediaeva, 30/1, 1982), Spolcto, 1983,353-432. - M. Rada, Daphne ~i Marisca?, in Anale/e lnstltutuiui de geodezie, [otogrammetrie, cartografie st organizarea teritoriului, Bucurcsti, 2, 1980,65--<>9. - G. Ravegnani, Kastron e polis: ricerche sull 'organiuueione territoriale net VI secoto. in Rivista di Studt Biratuini e Slavi, 2, 1982, 271-282. ~ M. Rusu. Aspects des relations entre les autochtones et les migrateurs (IIr-IX' siecles}. in RRH, 19, 1980,2-3,247-266.

Sonic 1981
Slcingil /998

Stein 1949

Stefan 1958 Stefan /974 Teodor 1988

Teodor 1993

Tocilescu /908
Toropu 1976 Toropu /986

Toropu, Tiitufea 1987 Tudor 1978 Vaillant 1962

Vasic /994-/995

-F Salamon, I. Erdelyi, Das volkerwandcrungszeitliche Graberfetd von Kornye, Budapest, 1971. - S. Sanie, Civtliratia romana fa est de Carpcui ~'i romanitatea pe teritoriul Moldovei. Sec. II i.e.n. -/II e.n., Iasi. llJ81. - I. Stanga., Viata economicii ta Drobeta in sccofele II-VI Chr. (Bib! iotheca Thracologica, 26), Bucuresti. IlJlJX, - E. Stein. lIistoire du Bas-Empire, vol. 11. De la disparition de I 'Empire en Occident It /a mort de lustinien (476-565), Paris, 1949. - Gh. Stefan, Dlnogetia. A Problem of Ancient Topography, "Dacia". NS., 2,1958,317-329. - Gh. Stefan. Justiniano Prima $i stiipdnlrea bizantinii fa Dunarca de los in sccolul a/ VI-lea e.n., "Drobcta". 1, 1974.65-70. - D. G. Teodor, Considerotii privind [ibulele roruano-birantine dill secolele V-VII e.n. in spatiul carpato-duruireano-pontiv, in ArhMold, 12, 1988, 197-22. - D. Gh. Teodor, Unele consideratii privind originea $i cultura anti/or, in ArhMold, 16, 1993.205-213. - Gr. Tocilescu, Monumentele epigrafice si sculpturali ale Museu/ui National de Antichitiiti din Bucuresti, I, Bucuresti, 1908. - 0. Tcropu. Romanitatea tdrzle $i striiromdnii in Dacia traiarui sudearpatieti (sec. Ill-Xl), Craiova, 1976. - 0. Toropu, Sucidava si Ripa nordicii a "Limesului" danubian in epoca romana tdrzie ~j paleobizantind, in Oltenia. Studii ~j comuniciiri, 5--<>, 1986, 45-60. - O. Tcropu, 0, Tatulea, Sucidava-Celei, Bucurcsti. 1987 - D. Tudor. Oltenia romana, Bucuresti, 1978. - A. Vaillant, Deux notes baltoslaves. (I) Antes et Ouiitches, in Studi in onore di Ettore 1.0 Gatto e Giovanni Maver, Fircnze, 1962, 663-664 - M. Vasic, Le limes protobyzantin dans La province de Mesie Premiere, in Starinar, NS, 45-46, 1994-1995,41-53.

314

Alexandru Madgearu

20

Vernadsky 1939 Vulpe 1924

Vulpe 1960 Vulpe 1961

Werner 1980

Whittaker 1994

Wolfram 1988 Wozniak 1979 Zahariade 1977 Zahariade 1983

- G. Vemadsky, On the origins a/the Antae. in Journal ofthe American Oriental Society, 59, 1939, 1,56-66. - R. Vladcscu-Vulpe, Materiale istorico-ameologice penmc hana arheologidi a Romdniei ridicatli de Direcfia Muzeu/ui National de Antichitati. 1 Regiunea Mostistea-Ccdarasi. inllCMI, 17, 1924,40,80-87. - R. Vulpe. us Gaes de La rive gauche du Bas-Danube et les Romains, in Dacia, N.S., 4, 1960, 309-322. - R. Vulpe. La Va/aehle et La Basse-Moldavie sous les Romains. in Dacia, N.S., 5,1961,365-393. - R. Werner. Zur Herkunft der Anten. Ein ethnisches und soziales Problem der Spatantike, in Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Villinghoff, ed. by.w. Bck. H. Galsterer. H. Wolff (Ktilner historische Ahhandlungen, 28), Ktiln, 1980,573-595. - C. R. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic Study, Baltimore, 1994. - H. Wolftam, History of the Goths, Berkeley. 1988. - F. Wozniak, Byzantine Diplomacy and the Lombard-Gepidic Wars, in Balkan Studies, 20,1979, I, 145-153. - M. Zahariade, Constantini Dafnenses Ii Balistarii Dafnenses, in SClVA, 28, 1977,3,391-402. - M. Zahariade, Ammianus Marce//inus (27.5.2), Zosimos (4.11) si campania lui Valens din anul 367 impotriva gotilor. in SelVA, 34, 1983,1,57-70. - M. Zahariadc, C. Museteanu, C. Chiriac, Noi descoperirt epigrafice pe limesul Dundrii de Jos, in Pomica; 14, 1981,255-261. - E. Zanini, Confine e frontiera: it limes danubiano nel VI seeolo, in Milian. Studt e ricerehe d'arte bizantina, J, Roma, 1988,257-271. - N. Zugravu, Geneza crestirusmului popular al ramdnilor, Bucuresti, 1997.

Zahariade et alii 1981

Zanini 1988
Zugravu 1997