Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 6

„CASTELLUM, CIVITAS, URBS“

ZENTREN UND ELITEN IN
FRÜHMITTELALTERLICHEN OSTMITTELEUROPA

CENTRES AND ELITES IN

EARLY MEDIEVAL EAST-CENTRAL EUROPE

Herausgegeben von

Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, Hajnalka Herold,

Péter Straub und Tivadar Vida

QVERENS INVENTI PVLANS H[I]C CAVDET AperTO

„CASTELLUM, CIVITAS, URBS“
 CASTELLUM PANNONICUM PELSONENSE

Vol. 6

Redigunt

A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia

Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpontjának Régészeti Intézete
(Archäologisches Institut des Geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschungszentrums
der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften)
Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e. V.
Balatoni Múzeum (Balatoni-Museum)

Budapest • Leipzig • Keszthely • Rahden/Westf.

2015
„CASTELLUM, CIVITAS, URBS“

ZENTREN UND ELITEN

IM FRÜHMITTELALTERLICHEN
OSTMITTELEUROPA

CENTRES AND ELITES

IN EARLY MEDIEVAL
EAST-CENTRAL EUROPE

Herausgegeben von

Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, Hajnalka Herold,

Péter Straub und Tivadar Vida
 400 Seiten mit 174 Abbildungen und 7 Tabellen

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung

der Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung

und des Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrums Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e. V.,
gefördert durch das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, Hajnalka Herold, Péter Straub und Tivadar Vida (Hrsg.), „Castellum, civitas,
urbs“ – Zentren und Eliten im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa – Centres and Elites in Early Medieval
East-Central Europe (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense, Bd. 6, hrsg. v. Archäologischen Institut des
Geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschungszentrums der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, dem
Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e. V., dem Balatoni-Museum).
ISBN 978-3-89646-156-8

© 2015

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH

Geschäftsführer: Dr. Bert Wiegel
Stellerloh 65, D-32369 Rahden/Westf.
Tel: +49/(0)5771/9510-74
Fax: +49/(0)5771/9510-75
E-Mail: info@vml.de
Internet: http://www.vml.de

ISBN 978-3-89646-156-8
ISSN 1869-9901

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Nachdruck, fotomechanische Wiedergabe, Aufnahme in Online-Dienste und Internet
sowie Vervielfältigung auf Datenträgern wie CD-ROM etc. nur nach schriftlicher Zustimmung des Verlags.

Wissenschaftliche Begutachtung: Prof. Dr. Róbert Müller und Prof. Dr. Michael Schmauder
Umschlagentwurf: Anita Mezei, Zalaegerszeg
Umschlagvignette: Vorne: Reste einer Türrahmung aus Zalapáti bzw. Zalavár-Burginsel, Ungarn, 9.–11.
Jh. (Balatoni-Museum, Keszthely, Inv.-Nr. 2011.4.2.16). Hinten: Rekonstruktion des Südtors der Festung

 


!"#$
Satz und Layout: Anita Mezei, Zalaegerszeg
Scans und Bildbearbeitung: Krisztián Kolozsvári, Budapest
Redaktion: Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur
Ostmitteleuropas e. V. – Internet: www.uni-leipzig/gwzo
Übersetzung/Sprachredaktion: Madeleine Hummler (englisch), Linda Bartus, Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska,
Evamaria Tepest (deutsch)

Druck und Produktion: druckhaus köthen GmbH & Co. KG, Friedrichstr. 11-12, D-06366 Köthen
 Vorwort

Mit dem Titel „Castellum, civitas, urbs“ setzt der vorliegende Band den
Themenschwerpunkt der Reihe Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense fort, in
der, von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta ausgehend, Forschungsergebnisse zur römi-
schen Kontinuität, zur Zentralörtlichkeit und zu frühmittelalterlichen Eliten
im mittleren Donauraum und in seinen Grenzregionen präsentiert werden
sollen.
„Civitates“ im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa stehen seit langem
im Fokus archäologischer und historischer Forschung. Sie gelten als politi-
sche, religiöse und wirtschaftliche Zentren, und als solche ermöglichen sie ei-
nen wichtigen Einblick in die Gesellschafts- und Machtstrukturen ihrer Zeit.
Bei ihrer Untersuchung geht es um die Rekonstruktion und Bestimmung
der infrastrukturellen, wirtschaftlichen und topographischen Voraussetzun-
gen und um die Erarbeitung der regionalen und überregionalen Netzwerke
der einzelnen Orte. Zugleich versucht man die einstigen Einwohner dieser
Siedlungen zu erfassen, wofür häug Gräber und Gräberfelder herangezo-
gen werden. Die Analyse der Bestattungssitten und der Beigaben soll helfen,
einstige soziale Hierarchien zu entschlüsseln.
Bei den Autoren dieses Bandes handelt es sich um ehemalige Alexander-
von-Humboldt-Stipendiaten, sowie ihre Gastgeber und Kooperationspartner
in Deutschland und in Ostmitteleuropa. Dem Jubilar Dr. Béla Miklós Sz%ke,
dem langjährigen Ausgräber und Erforscher des karolingischen Herrschafts-
mittelpunkts Mosaburg/Zalavár und früheren Humboldt-Stipendiaten, zu
Ehre wurden in diesem Band Studien zusammengestellt, die eine Auswahl
an aktuellen Forschungen über Zentren und Eliten im frühmittelalterlichen
Ostmitteleuropa bieten. Die Aufsätze lassen sich in zwei große Themenberei-
che unterteilen. Einerseits geht es um siedlungshistorische Aspekte, um Zen-
tren, ihre Formen und Aufgaben und andererseits um sozialgeschichtliche
Deutungsmuster anhand von Bestattungssitten und Grabbeigaben.
In beiden Kontexten tritt das frühe Christentum als ein wichtiger Faktor
hervor, dessen Entwicklung im Rahmen eines laufenden Forschungsprojek-
tes am Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmit-
teleuropas e. V. untersucht wird. Unter dem Titel „Kontinuität und Diskon-
tinuität des Christentums an der mittleren und unteren Donau zwischen
Spätantike und hohem Mittelalter“ werden hier noch bis 2019 die komplexen
Prozesse untersucht, die mit der Ausbreitung, Mission und Institutionalisie-
rung des Christentums zwischen dem 4. und 11. Jahrhundert einhergingen.
Die Herausgeber möchten an erster Stelle allen Autoren für ihre Beiträ-
ge und Prof. Dr. Róbert Müller sowie Prof. Dr. Michael Schmauder für die
wissenschaftliche Begutachtung der Ausätze danken. Ebenso gilt unser Dank
der Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stiftung, die sich anteilig an den Druckkosten
dieses Bandes beteiligte und somit die Veröffentlichung neuer Forschungs-
ergebnisse ermöglichte. Wir danken auch dem Geisteswissenschaftlichen
Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e. V., besonders Prof. Dr.
6 Vorwort

Christian Lübke und Prof. Dr. Matthias Hardt, dafür, dass sie das Erschei-
nen der Studien im Rahmen des oben erwähnten Forschungsprojektes unter-
stützt haben, und dem Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, das
!' '*

;
'##!<=>?Q
XY![-
'
'
\'
 

#Y
]'['^!'$ "!'_##-
`"'q

='!!'
'{ {'X;!'-
!
'*

;
!['^'
" 'X;!'#;^['
#
Satz bedanken.
|# #  ^
 XX ]' '}' ! ]' #
$"'~ %#'
!#'!$!^
X;';X
''XY\

' '`
= !$!

Januar 2015 Die Herausgeber
 Der vorliegende Band ist
The present volume is dedicated to

Prof. Dr. Béla Miklós Sz%ke

zu seinem 65. Geburtstag gewidmet
on his 65th birthday

Béla Miklós Sz%ke hat mit seinen langjährigen Ausgrabungen am karolin-

gerzeitlichen Zentralort von Mosaburg/Zalavár derartig neue Erkenntnisse
erzielen können, dass sie das bisherige Bild über das Pannonien des 9. Jahr-
hunderts komplett veränderten. Er hat nicht nur veraltete Ansichten und for-
schungsgeschichtliche Vorurteile revidiert, sondern vor allem die Bedeutung
von Zalavár mit seinen weit gefächerten historischen und kulturellen Bezie-
hungen zwischen dem Karolingerreich und dem frühmittelalterlichen Medi-
terraneum herausarbeiten können. Damit hat er sowohl der ungarischen als
auch der europäischen Archäologie große Dienste erwiesen.
Er hat in Zalavár und in seiner Umgebung mehrere aus den Schriftquellen
bekannte Kirchen archäologisch identiziert und große Teile der karolinger-
zeitlichen „Pfalz“ sowie mehr als 2000 Bestattungen freigelegt. Béla Miklós
Sz%kes Veröffentlichungen behandeln ebenso Fragen der sozialen Hierarchi-
en, überregionalen Kontakte und präurbanen Entwicklung des frühmittelal-
terlichen Zalavár, wie die Bestattungssitten und Typologie im spätawaren-
zeitlichen Karpatenbecken.
Die internationale Anerkennung von Béla Miklós Sz%kes Forschungen
lässt sich an den regelmäßigen Einladungen zu Konferenzen und Workshops
sowie an seiner Mitarbeit an mehreren Ausstellungsprojekten ablesen. Als
ehemaliger Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stipendiat ist er ein aktives Mitglied
der archäologisch-wissenschaftlichen Community. Seit 2002 ist er Chefre-
dakteur des Jahrbuchs des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften (Anteus). Seit 1984 lehrt er am Archäologischen
Institut der Loránd-Eötvös-Universität und betreut dort auch Master- und
Doktorarbeiten.
 Inhalt
5 Vorwort

11 FRANZ GLASER
Teurnia – civitas Tiburnia

27 MICHAEL HUBER
Tiburnia – Liburnia – Lurn: Philologische Beobachtungen zu einem alten
Namensproblem

35 NEVEN BUDAK
Early medieval boundaries in Dalmatia/Croatia (8th–11th centuries)

45 ORSOLYA HEINRICH-TAMÁSKA
Civitates et castra im Lichte der Kontinuitätsforschung: zwei Beispiele aus
Pannonien (5.–7. Jh. n. Chr.)

71 PERICA ŠPEHAR
Remarks to Christianisation and realms in the central Balkans in the light of
archaeological nds (7th–11th c.)

95 PÉTER PROHÁSZKA
Aus der Forschungsgeschichte der Ruinen von Zalavár: Der Bericht des k. k.
Ingenieur-Assistenten Wenzel Schäffer aus dem Jahr 1854

102 ÁGNES RITOÓK

The decline of a central place in the Middle Ages: Zalavár

112 IOAN STANCIU

The wells of the early medieval settlement of Lazuri-Lubi-tag (north-western
Romania, Upper Tisza Basin)

131 ANDRÁS GRYNAEUS, BOGLÁRKA TÓTH AND ISTVÁN BOTÁR

Dendrochronological dating of wooden nds from Transylvania: new results
from the early medieval sites of Lazuri-Lubi-tag and Kakasbarozda-Csúzlik

135 PETER ETTEL

Befestigungen, Burgen und ihre Rolle im Rahmen der Erschließung des
Wasserverkehrsweges zwischen Rhein und Donau im Frühmittelalter

155 FELIX BIERMANN

Mittelzentrum im frühgeschichtlichen Wegenetz – eine slawenzeitliche
Siedlung bei Melzow (Uckermark)

177 MARCIN WO†OSZYN, ANDRZEJ JANECZEK, RADOS†AW DOBROWOLSKI, JAN RODZIK,

PRZEMYS†AW MROCZEK, PIOTR ZAGÓRSKI, KRYSTYNA BA†AGA, IRENA AGNIESZKA
PIDEK, IRKA HAJDAS
Beyond boundaries ... of medieval principalities, cultures and scientic
disciplines. Cherven Towns – insights from archaeology, cartography and
paleogeography
10 Inhalt

197 SEBASTIAN BRATHER

Bestattungen und Grabbeigaben. Religiöse Vorstellungen und soziale
Praktiken in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter

209 RADU HARHOIU

Ein Gräberfeld des östlichen Reihengräberkreises in Sighi‡oara Dealul Viilor
(Gräberfeld 3)

249 NAD`A PROFANTOVÁ

Bronzefunde des 7. Jahrhunderts aus M‰stec Králové (Bez. Nymburk,
Böhmen)

265 JIŠÍ MACHÁ‹EK

Ein Gegenstand unbekannter Funktion im Kontext der großmährischen und
karolingisch-pannonischen Elitengräber

277 JOSEF ZÁBOJNÍK

Zum Verhältnis zwischen Archäologie und Anthropologie am Beispiel
frühmittelalterlicher Gräberfelder aus dem Mitteldonauraum (7.–10. Jahr-
hundert)

293 GERGELY SZENTHE

Über die Aussagekraft der Hinterlassenschaft einer Heidenelite: Spätawaren-
zeitliche Funde auf dem Prüfstand

313 TIVADAR VIDA

Zur Frage des gelben Tafelgeschirrs der frühmittelalterlichen Eliten im
mittleren Donauraum

329 HAJNALKA HEROLD

Technological traditions in early medieval eastern Austria

345 ÁDÁM BOLLÓK

A late Carolingian gilded copper plate from Rétközberencs-Parom-domb

367 PÉTER LANGÓ AND ANDRÁS PATAY-HORVÁTH

Moravian continuity and the conquering Hungarians – a case study based on
grape-bunch pendants

381 GÁBOR LŽRINCZY, PÉTER STRAUB UND ATTILA TÜRK

Die Umstrukturierung der Herrschaftsverhältnisse an der Marosmündung
zu Beginn des 10. Jahrhunderts anhand der archäologischen Quellen

397 Bildnachweis

399 Autoren
 Early medieval boundaries in Dalmatia/Croatia
(8th–11th centuries)
Neven Budak
In his De administrando imperio Constantine
Porphyrogenitus described the fate of the prov-
ince of Dalmatia, beginning with the story of
how Roman troops crossed the river Danube
which formed the border of the Roman empire,
separating it from the Avars and Slavs1. As in
many other accounts of Late Antique authors,
this was also an imagined boundary, used to
separate, in the mental geography of Constan-
tine’s readers, two worlds that could not – in
their minds – have existed next to each other2. It
was a common motif in many myths explaining
the origins of early medieval gentes, symbolising
the decisive step taken towards the conquest of
their new homelands3. The reality was very dif-
ferent, not only in Constantine’s own time, but
also in the period he referred to in his work. Nei-
ther in the 7th, nor in the 10th century, did clear
borders separate ‘Romans’ from ‘Slavs/Avars’,
or for that matter ‘Dalmatians’ from ‘Croats’.
The traditional Croatian (and not only
Croatian) historiography and archaeology
believed almost literally the early medieval
sources describing the settlement of the Slavs,
1
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando impe-
rio, 122–123, 140–141.
2
On the different meanings of borders throughout Eu-
ropean history, see D. POWER/N. STANDEN (eds), Fron-
tiers in Question. Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700
(Basingstoke 1999); C. R. WHITTACKER, Roman Fronti-
ers and European Perceptions. Journal of Hist. Socio-
logy 13,4, 2000, 462–482.
3
On the origo gentis and the motive of the crossing
of a river or overcoming some other obstacle, see
H. WOLFRAM, Einleitung oder Überlegung zur Origo
Gentis. In: Idem/W. Pohl (eds), Typen der Ethno-
genese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bay-
ern I (Vienna 1990) 19–33; W. POHL, Grundlagen der
kroatischen Ethnogenese: Awaren und Slawen. In:
N. Budak (ed.), Etnogeneza Hrvata (Zagreb 1995)
211–223.
like Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Therefore
the idea that the Slavs, after conquering Dal-
matia, had forced all the Romans to move ei-
ther into the coastal towns, or islands or higher
mountains prevailed for a long time. In this way
the image of two clearly separate entities was
developed: one with a purely Slavic population
and the other with a predominantly but not ex-
clusively Roman one4. Today, however, on the
basis of interdisciplinary research conducted
over the past three or four decades, the situa-
tion is regarded as having been substantially
different from what had been imagined5. Slavic
migration was not massive and the newcom-
ers settled next to the indigenous inhabitants of
Dalmatia. There were no clear zones belonging
to one or the other group, although it seems that
the Christianised Romans concentrated along
important routes of communication, supported
by the protection of castra and marked by late
Antique churches, while the pagan newcomers
appear to have settled mostly away from the
ancient roads6. The Slavic advance towards the
sea must have been slower than envisaged and
a Roman population must have prevailed on the
islands for centuries, with the possible excep-
tion of Krk7. Evidently, both the written sources
4
Such a view is, among others, explicitly taken by Pe-
tar SKOK (1950), a philologist who thought it possible
to reconstruct ethnic relations in the Early Middle
Ages by analysing place-names. On the interpreta-
tions of the early Croatian history, see DZINO 2010,
esp. 14–32.
5
DZINO 2010, 92–174.
6
N. JAKŠI, Il ruolo delle antiche chiese rurali nella for-
mazione del ducato croato altomedievale. Hortus ar-
tium medievalium 14, 2008, 103–112.
7
Relying on the linguistic research of Petar SKOK
(1950), Nada KLAI (1975, 115–119) claimed that Slavs
occupied the northern and eastern part of Krk, while
the Romani kept the rest.
36 Neven Budak
and the archaeological record shed some light
on the region close to the Adriatic, but as good
as nothing is known about the situation in the
interior of what used to be Roman Dalmatia.
The term ‘border’ can have very different
meanings, ranging from articially-built obsta-
cles to taboos in our minds. Identities are very
much shaped along these borders as lines of
confrontation8. On the other hand, borders are
also lines of contact and cultural or other ex-
change, which is equally important for the crea-
tion of identities9. Obviously, such borders ex-
isted in all periods, but the lack of sources, both
written and material, makes it difcult to trace
them in the Early Middle Ages, especially in
regions like Croatia/Dalmatia, where more ap-
propriate research results from archaeology and
other disciplines are awaited.
Political borders
So what were the borders that can be identi-
ed in Croatia/Dalmatia in the period spanning
the 8th to the 11th century? What kind of identi-
ties did they help create?
At the very end of the period examined here,
one of the important sources for Croatian early
medieval history offers information about an
area which had the function of protecting the
Kingdom of Croatia from the west. On the so-
called Baška Tablet, a Glagolitic inscription on
an altar plaque from the Benedictine monastery
of St Lucy in Baška on the island of Krk dated
to c. 1100, the term ‘krajina’ appears10. In spite
of different opinions about the meaning of the
word in this specic case, the term was most
probably used to describe the westernmost part
of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia11. This
8
R. J. W. EVANS, Essay and Reection: Frontiers and
National Identities in Central Europe. Internat. Hist.
Rev. 14,3, 1992, 480–502.
9
See the essays in: F. CURTA (ed.), Borders, Barriers,
and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005).
10
FUI 1982, 44 (the term Krajina is mentioned in the
dating of the building of the church): „Az opat Dobro-
vit zdah crkav siju i svojeju bratiju s devetiju v dni
kneza Kosmata obladajuago vsu Krajinu.“ (= „I, ab-
bot Dobroslav, built the church with my nine brot-
hers in the time when count Kosmat ruled the Kraji-
na“). The inscription should be dated to around 1100.
11
MARGETI (2000, 372–374) expressed the opinion that
region most probably spread from the bay of
Plomin on the eastern Istrian coast towards the
east, encompassing the Kvarner islands and the
mainland known as Vinodol all the way to Senj,
if not further, and perhaps also the mountains
in the hinterland12. The word ‘krajina’ in south-
Slavic languages is used to describe a border re-
gion (e.g. ‘Vojna krajina‘ = military border, 16th–
19th century). According to the Cronicon pictum
vindobonense, the Istrian marchgrave Ulrich II
Weimar-Orlamünde occupied this westernmost
part of the Croatian kingdom in 1063, described
in the chronicle as the Dalmatian march region.
Regardless of the details in this report being true
or not, it conrms the meaning of the word ‘kra-
jina’ as a border region13. Although the source
mentioning Ulrich and the Baška Tablet are the
rst direct evidence for the existence of this bor-
der region, its existence may be traced back to
the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. In his
description of Croatia he listed all the counties
(‘županije’) which were under the direct au-
thority of the king, separately mentioning three
which were under the control of the ‘ban’ who
was the second most important ofcial after
the king14. These three units covered a part of
the territory which later, it seems, formed the
‘krajina’. Constantine otherwise fails to describe
the westernmost territory of the kingdom, say-
ing nothing about the region of Vinodol and the
mountainous countryside to the north of it, al-
though he includes it into the territories under
the command of the Croats15. Were they all a
krajina meant uncultivated lands, in this case on the
island of Krk. He discussed the problem of the Croa-
tian border zone towards Istria in detail in: MARGETI
1990, 39–62.
12
KLAI 1975, 376–381.
13
MARGETI (1990) rejects the whole report as a 14th-
century fantasy, along with the existence of the Dal-
matian march region. However, he did not take into
account that there was another Krajina, though men-
tioned much later, in the 15th century, on the south-
eastern border of the Croatian kingdom. This might
provide additional argument for the existence of the
Dalmatian march at the other end of the kingdom.
14
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando impe-
rio, 144–145.
15
Vinodol is located between the sea and the mountains
in the hinterland. It is a narrow region with several
fortresses starting with Trsat near Rijeka in the north.
Trsat was the place where Erich, Charlemagne’s dux,
found his death at the beginning of the campaign
against the Avars (W. POHL, Die Awaren. Ein Step-
 Early medieval boundaries in Dalmatia/Croatia (8th–11th centuries)
Croatian town
Byzantine town
borders of Slavonic principalities
border of Byzantine Dalmatia
Fig. 1 Political borders of the Sclavines and of Byzantine Dalmatia.
part of the border zone under the authority of
the ‘ban’, or did the emperor simply omit rel-
evant information about this region, leaving it
out from his report?
Nowadays a number of scholars consider
that the history of the Croats started with the
confrontation that opposed the Carolingian to
the Byzantine powers on the Adriatic at the be-
ginning of the 9th century16. Although it is still
not sufciently clear whether – and if, hence to
penvolk in Mitteleuropa 567–822 n. Chr. [München
1988] 321). Evidence about the time when the other
castra in Vinodol were erected is lacking, but since
some hillforts date back to prehistoric times, it may
be assumed that they existed in the Early Middle
Ages, forming a border zone on the fringes of the Ca-
rolingian empire. If so, who organised this defence
system? Was it part of the Byzantine Adriatic limes,
or was it a consequence of geopolitical relations crea-
ted in the 9th century?
16
A. MILOŠEVI (ed.), Hrvati i Karolinzi (Split 2000);
BUDAK 2008; DZINO 2010.
37
what extent – Dalmatia functioned as a province
before the end of the 8th century, a direct conse-
quence of the peace treaty of Aachen in 812 was
the establishment of two authorities over two
parts of the former Roman province17. While
Byzantium was able to keep the islands and
some of the coastal towns, the rest of Dalmatia,
including sections of the coast with abandoned
or degraded towns like Salona and Nona, came
under the jurisdiction of Charlemagne and his
count of Friuli18. In the name of the count, a lo-
17
Two volumes with proceedings from conferences
held on the occasion of the anniversary of the treaty
of Aachen are forthcoming: J. SHEPARD/M. ANI/
T. VEDRIŠ (eds), The Treaty of Aachen, AD 812: The
Origins and Impact on the Region between the Adri-
atic, Central, and Southeastern Europe (Zadar forth-
coming), and EADEM (eds), Hrvatska arheologija i
Aachenski mir, 812–2012 (Zadar forthcoming). See
also L. STEINDORFF, Kroatien (München 2001) 29–31.
18
BUDAK 1997.
38
cal duke was put in charge with the title of dux
Dalmatiae atque Liburniae19. This must have been
the rst time after the collapse of the Late Ro-
man, Byzantine administration in the rst half
of the 7th century that a dened border was es-
tablished in Dalmatia. As can be reasonably as-
sumed, it was not perfectly dened; indeed in
817 the Annals of the Frankish Kingdom men-
tion a dispute among the Dalmatians – Romans
and Slavs – about the line separating them from
each other: “In eo etiam commorans palatio, ad se
venientem missum (Hludovicus) suscepit Leonis
Constantinopolitani imperatoris, nomine Niciforum.
Legatio autem, excoepta amicitia et societate, erat de
finibus Dalmatarum Romanorum et Slavorum. Et
quia nec hi praesentes errant nec Chadalo finium
praefectus, neque sine illis haec dirimi poterant, mis-
sus est in Dalmatiam ad haec pacificanda et compo-
nenda Albagarius cum Chadalo, earundem finium
principe”20.
These disputed borders (fines) are the rst
mention of boundaries in medieval Dalmatia.
Apart from dividing two empires, were they
also borders separating ethnic groups (Slavs and
Romans), as they are usually understood, or did
they have some other meaning? Francesco Borri
suggested that 9th- or 10th-century Romani should
be seen as a newly-emerging urban elite, rather
than a number of isolated ethnic groups, rem-
nants of the indigenous population scattered
along the coast and on the islands. These urban
Romani would have been opposed to the rural
Slavs, who again were not an ethnically, but cul-
turally dened group21. This would mean that
these fines did not simply separate two already
existing groups, but that they actually created
them. All those living on one side of the border,
regardless of their religion, language or origin,
were considered to be Slavs simply because
they were not Roman, and vice versa.
The outcome of the dispute remains obscure,
but later developments conrm that the border
19
BUDAK 1997, 15 f.
20
Vita Hludowici imperatoris. In: MGH, SS II, ed. by G.
H. Pertz (Hanover 1879) 621. Similar versions in:
Astronomus, Vita Hludowici imperatoris. In: SS rer.
Ger. 64. Ed. by E. Tremp (Hannover 1995) 370, with a
quotation also from Annales regni Francorum, 145.
21
F. BORRI, Gli Istriani e i loro parenti. 
Neven Budak
between Byzantine and Frankish possessions
kept both features: it was a zone of conict, but
also an area of contact and cooperation.
The separation of the hinterland from the
Byzantine coastal area and the establishment of
Carolingian sovereignty had a signicant effect
on the region. Slavic groups (which must have
also originally included indigenous Romanised
populations, by then probably Slavicised22 and
previously not connected to each other), were
now subordinated to one central authority, that
of the local dux23. This unication was then used
by a group of warriors who called themselves
Croats to impose their rule over the Dalmatian
Slavs24. Thus, some time after 820, the Croatian
gens created its own regnum under Frankish pro-
tection and within borders dened by Frankish
and Byzantine diplomats.
Some evidence from the time of Trpimir, the
rst ruler who called himself dux Croatorum,
hints at what was happening along the border
in question. The famous Saxon Benedictine
Gottschalk from Orbais, while staying at Trpi-
mir’s court, witnessed the duke’s victory over a
gens Graecorum and their patricius25. Insufcient
as it is, this brief record tells about a conict on
22
What the exact meaning of ‚Slavicising‘ represents re-
mains an open question. Does it mean that those who
were not Slavs adopted the Slavic language? Or the
pagan religion? Did they adopt the material culture
of those initially named ‚Slavs‘? Since so few sources
are available, it cannot be said that all those living on
the ‚Slavic‘ side of the border considered themselves
to be Slavs, although they were perceived as such by
those naming them from the outside. However, since
there is no evidence of groups described as Roman
or Latin living among the Slavs/Croats, it may be
supposed that Slavic identity prevailed among the
majority of the indigenous population living within
Croatia or the Carolingian part of Dalmatia in the 9th
and 10th centuries.
23
BUDAK 1997, 15. In that paper I still refer to Gudus-
cani as Gaani, inhabitants of a part of present-day
Lika in central Croatia, which was the traditional in-
terpretation of Croatian historians. However, in the
meantime Damir Karbi has expressed the opinion
that these Guduscani lived around the river Gudua
in what is today Dalmatia and throughout the Mid-
dle Ages was one of the strategic centres of Croatia.
See also IDEM, Razvitak hrvatskog etnikog identiteta.
In: Z. Nikoli Jakus (ed.), Povijest Hrvata I (Zagreb
forthcoming).
24

, Roma- BUDAK 2008, 239–241.
25
ni e Slavi nella periferia di Bisanzio. Jahrb. d. Österr. L. KATI, Rasprave i lanci iz hrvatske povijesti (Split
Byzantinistik 60, 2010, 1–25 here 14. 1993) 108.
 Early medieval boundaries in Dalmatia/Croatia (8th–11th centuries)
the Croatian-Byzantine border. The battle took
place somewhere in the vicinity of Trpimir’s
residence in Klis, a castle overlooking the ruins
of Salona and the road that connected Split with
the hinterland26. It can be assumed, with good
reason, that this gens Graecorum was a Byzan-
tine expedition coming from somewhere else,
and not from Dalmatia. Trpimir, namely, was
on good terms with the Archbishop of Split and
this certainly makes it difcult to believe that
the expedition sent against the Croatian ruler
was undertaken by Byzantine Dalmatians or
even by the citizens of Split27.
Ecclesiastical borders
Trpimir’s relation to the Church of Split in-
dicates that, apart from the political border es-
tablished in 812, there were also other borders
which did not coincide with the line dividing
political entities. Trpimir’s charter from 852
records a donation made by the ruler to the
Church of Split and its Archbishop Peter28. The
charter makes it clear that the two were in good
relations, since Peter, who was Trpimir’s godfa-
ther, readily borrowed a certain amount of silver
which the duke needed for the commissioning
of silverware for his newly-founded monastery.
In exchange, Trpimir conrmed to the Arch-
bishop a church that was already donated to
the Church of Split by his predecessor Mislav,
and in addition donated some land along with
slaves. There is no doubt that the Church of
Split, despite being situated on Byzantine ter-
ritory, was in charge of the Christians in the
Frankish-Croatian part of Dalmatia too29. The
same must have also been true for other Dalma-
tian bishoprics, especially Zadar and Rab. This
26
The importance of Klis was also noticed by Constan-
tine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 123:
“For near the sea, beneath that same city (Split), lies a
city called Salona, which is half as large as Constanti-
nople, and here all the Romani would muster and be
equipped and thence start out and come to the fron-
tier pass, which is four miles from this same city, and
is called Kleisa to this day, from its closing in those
who pass that way.”
27
On Trpimir, see N. BUDAK, Trpimir vodi Hrvatsku
prema osamostaljenju. In: F. Šanjek (ed.), Povijest Hr-
vata, Srednji vijek (Zagreb 2003) 72–79.
28
STIPIŠI/ŠAMŠALOVI 1967, 3–8.
29
BUDAK 1996, 130.
39
Christian identity was some kind of an umbrel-
la identity for the whole population of ancient
Dalmatia, regardless of political boundaries,
except, of course, for the remaining pagans30. It
overlapped with the identity of the Dalmatians,
both Slavs and Romans, as Gottschalk mentions
them in his treatise.
The dioceses evidently had their own bor-
ders, but they had nothing to do with the po-
litical division of the former province of Dal-
matia. Although the bishops were Byzantine
subjects, the Church in Dalmatia was not under
the authority of the Patriarch in Constantino-
ple (except in one or two very brief periods),
but recognised the primacy of the Pope31. The
ecclesiastical situation was additionally com-
plicated by the fact that in 803 Charlemagne or-
dered that the territories to the south of the river
Drava – and that included, at least theoretically,
Dalmatia too – had to be subject to the Patriarch
in Aquileia32. It seems that indeed the Patriarch
played a role in the Christianising of the Slavs in
Dalmatia, but that, this notwithstanding, the ec-
clesiastical organisation remained in the hands
of the Dalmatian bishops33.
A sudden change in the relations between
Rome and Constantinople, provoked by the
schism of Patriarch Fotius, initiated the estab-
lishment of a new order in the division of ec-
clesiastical inuences in the region. It seems
that the Dalmatian bishops sided with Fotius,
which was not acceptable to the Croatian ruler
who must have been worried about a grow-
ing Byzantine inuence in the region34. Most
30
On the Christianisation of Slavs/Croats in Dalmatia,
see BUDAK 1996, 127–135.
31
MARGETI 2000, 133–136.
32
H. WOLFRAM, Die Geburt Mitteleuropas. Geschichte
Österreichs vor seiner Entstehung 378–907 (Berlin
1987) 261.
33
BUDAK 1996, 133.
34
Although the situation regarding Fotius‘ schism and
its effects in Dalmatia is not quite clear, the letter of
Pope John VIII, dated 10 June 879, seems to suggest
that the Dalmatian bishops reverted from Rome for
a certain period of time: “Pastorali sollicitudine moti
uos, quasi oues dominicas nobis in beato Petro apostolo-
rum principe commissas, dicente domino: ‘Si diligis me,
Simon Petre, pasce oues meas’, licet pro assidua gentium
persecutione nunc usque impediti his modo apostolatus
nostri litteris uisitare curauimus ammonentes fraternia-
ttem uestram, ut more precessorum uestrorum ad sedem
beati Petri apostoli, que caput et magistra est omnium
40 Neven Budak
probably, the creation of a new bishopric, with
a bishop whose title was episcopus Croatorum,
was founded in Nin/Nona as a sign of loyalty
either to Rome or to Aquileia35. This bishop was
in charge of all the territories that were under
the authority of the Croatian ruler, which means
that the borders of his diocese overlapped with
the boundaries of 812, separating his Church
from the other Dalmatian dioceses which were
reduced to their towns and islands. A conict,
this time an ecclesiastical one, resulted in a new
border or reafrmed the old boundary, thus cre-
ating potential for new tensions.
The rst attempt to overcome this division
was made by Theodosius, bishop of Nin, after
the death of Marinus, archbishop of Split and
the cease of Fotius’ schism. Theodosius tried to
impose himself on the see of Split, but without
abandoning his own bishopric. In this way he
clearly intended to renew the former ecclesiasti-
cal province. He turned for support to the Patri-
arch of Aquileia, but even the Pope was ready to
conrm Theodosius in his uncanonical position
provided he came to Rome to be given the pal-
lium36. The outcome of this affair is not disclosed
by our sources, but we may assume that Theo-
dosius failed for some reason, since the province
was united only in 925.
This unication happened under circum-
stances which were very different from the situ-
ation in the 880s. After the death of Charles the
Fat in 888, Croatia gained formal independence,
but this opened the way for Byzantium to try
to increase its inuence37. At the same time the
ecclesiarum dei, et ad nos, qui ei diuinitus presidemus,
toto animo libentique uoluntate reuerti studeatis, quate-
nus inde summi honorem secerdotii et totius institutionis
ecclesiastice formam sumatis, unde parentes ac precessores
uestros melliflua sancte predicationis et doctrine apostolice
potasse fluenta recolitis. Reminisci namque debitis, quanta
eosdem precessores uestros prospera evidentissime comi-
tabantur, quando ad limina Petri, celestis regni clauigeri,
deuoto pectore quasi proprii filii confluebant; et quanta
postmodum nunc usque sustinueritis aduersa, cum ab ea
uos quasi alienos separare non dubitatis.” (Codex diploma-
ticus, 16 f.).
35
BUDAK 1996, 132.
36
Information about this affair in the letters of Pope
Stephen VI (886/887), sent to Bishop Theodosius and
Patriarch Walpert (Codex diplomaticus, 19–22).
37
BUDAK 1997, 17.
ruling dynasty in Croatia, it seems, nally stabi-
lised its dominance, turning the Croats into a re-
spectable regional military power, as witnessed
by Constantine Porphyrogenitus38. In addition,
the Bulgarians started seriously threatening
Constantinople and the Macedonian emperors
needed allies who could help them reduce the
pressure on the Balkan provinces39. The Croats
seemed to be a good choice and John Tzimiscus
could have appointed Tomislav, now carrying
the title of rex Croatorum, as governor of Byz-
antine Dalmatia40. In this way the dichotomy of
Dalmatia was resolved through Tomislav who
38
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando impe-
rio, 150–151, 158–159. Tibor ŽIVKOVI (Contribution to
the New Reading about the Constantine Porphyro-
genitus’ Statement on the Numbers of Croat Horse-
men, Foot Soldiers and Sailors in Early 10th Century.
Byzantinoslavica 65, 2007, 1–9) recently suggested
another reading of this passage, with a more real-
istic estimation of Croatian troops, but so far it has
not been accepted. For Živkovi’s suggestion and
commentary on it, with an overview of the earlier
literature on the subject: T. VEDRIŠ, Povodom novog
tumaenja vijesti Konstantina VII. Porrogeneta o
snazi hrvatske vojske (On the occasion of the new
interpretation of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus’,
news about the strength of the Croatian army). Hist.
Zbornik 60, 2007, 1–33.
39
P. STEPHENSON, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier. A Politi-
cal Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204 (Cam-
bridge 2000).
40
The 16th-century extension of the 13th-century Histo-
ria salonitana of Thomas the Archdeacon should still
be scrutinised regarding the authenticity of some of
its sources, but the majority of scholars agree that
the papal letters and other notes regarding the two
ecclesiastical councils held in Split in 925 and 928
are authentic. The Historia salonitana maior refers to
Tomislav, who was rex Chroatorum: Historia salonitana
maior, 96, 98. Most recently, regarding the question
of authenticity, see V. PROZOROV, The Passion of St.
Domnius: The Tradition of Apostolic Succession in
Dalmatia. In: B. Lourié/A. Mouraviev (eds), Scrin-
ium, vol. 2: Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial
R. P. Michel van Esbroeck, S. J. (1934–2003), (Saint
Petersburg 2006) 219–239 esp. 229. See also V. PRO-
ZOROV, Where he is, thither will the eagles be gath-
ered together: The metropolitan status of the bishop
of Spalato from the decline of Salona until the coun-
cils of Spalato in 925 and 928. In: J. S. Ott/T. Vedriš
(eds), Saintly Bishops and Bishops’ Saints. Bibl. Hagi-
otheca, Ser. Coll. II (Zagreb 2012) 103–122; N. BUDAK,
Historia Salonitana and Historia Salonitana Maior: a
contribution to the debate about the relation of the
two texts. In: M. Willer/M. Tomi (eds), Summer
School in the Study of Historical Manuscripts (Zadar
2013) 101–131.
 Early medieval boundaries in Dalmatia/Croatia (8th–11th centuries)
episcopal center
archiepiscopal center
place of a Glagolitic inscription
area of the Glagolitic expansion
Fig. 2 Borders of the archbishoprics and spread of the Glagolitic script.
was ruling both parts at the same time. The per-
son of the king abolished, at least temporarily,
the border between the two entities.
After the cancellation of the political border,
the next step was to reunite the ecclesiastical
province. Pope John X agreed to the plea of the
Dalmatian bishops to convoke a synod in order
to elect one of them as the Metropolitan41. After
a rst synod in 925, another was held three years
later because of the complaints of the bishops of
Zadar and Nin, who were not content with the
election of the archbishop of Split. Finally it was
decided to abolish the diocese of Nin and to di-
vide its territory among the bishoprics of Split,
Zadar, and Rab, while the bishop of the Croats
had to choose one of the ancient, long-vacant,
sees in the interior of Dalmatia. He was even
allowed to take three of them. This decision,
contrary to canonical law, can only be explained
41
Historia salonitana maior, 98 f.
41
by the fact that these three dioceses did not ac-
tually exist and that their territories lay outside
the traditional borders of the three Dalmatian
bishoprics mentioned. For the bishops of Split,
Zadar, and Rab it was of the utmost importance
to re-establish the boundaries of their respective
bishoprics as they had been before the founda-
tion of the diocese of Nin in the 860s. It appears,
however, that the attempt to renew one of the
old, extinguished sees was unsuccessful – if
there ever was such an attempt – because two
of the sees never again appear in the sources,
while the third (Skradin) is mentioned for the
rst time only in 1125, after the bishopric was
transferred from Biograd, which was sacked by
the Venetians, to Skradin.
Byzantine Dalmatia and Croatia were thus
united in one ecclesiastical province and ruled
by one king who was at the same time a re-
presentative of the Byzantine emperor. Still, this
42 Neven Budak
did not mean that internal boundaries ceased to
exist. Apart from those demarcating one diocese
from another and the territories of single towns
from their surroundings, there were also other
borders, not territorial, but cultural. As men-
tioned, the rural world of the Slavs was sepa-
rated by such borders from the urban world of
the romani.
But then, there were boundaries between lit-
urgies, the Latin and the Slavonic, which again
divided bishoprics following different patterns.
The synod of 925 was faced with the request of
Pope John X to stop the spread of what he called
`Methodius’ doctrine`, but was actually the Sla-
vonic liturgy introduced by missionaries from
Byzantium42. It seems, from the conclusions of
the synod, that this liturgy was spreading in
the southern dioceses of Dubrovnik, Kotor, and
Ston, the borders of which encompassed a large
area inhabited by a predominantly Slavic popu-
lation43. Evidently, Dalmatian bishops, although
belonging to the ‘Roman’ cultural sphere, did
not hesitate to make use of Slavonic liturgy in
order to integrate into their dioceses the pre-
dominantly Slavic and rural population. Thus
at the moment of its reunication, the ecclesi-
astical province was divided by liturgical prac-
tice and by the different intensity of inuences
from Byzantium. By the second half of the 11th
century, when this issue was raised once again,
the lines separating the clergy using Latin from
42
R. KATII, Methodii doctrina. Slovo 36, 1986, 13–43;
Historia salonitana maior, 95 (letter of Pope John X to
the archbishop of Split): “Et quia fama revelante cog-
novimus per confinia vestre parochie aliam doctrinam
pululare, que in sacris voluminibus non reperitur, vpbis
tacentibus et consentientibus, valde doluimus iuxta illud
apostoli: “Si quis aliud docuerit preter id, quod in sacris
canonibus atque voluminibus reperitur, etiam si angelus
de cello fuerit, anathema sit.”
43
N. BUDAK, Prilog valorizaciji humsko-dukljanskog
kulturnog podruja u prvim fazama njegova razvitka
(do 12. st.), (La valorisation de la région culturelle de
Hum-Duklja dans les première phases de son déve-
loppement jusqu’á 12e siècle). Starohrvatska prosvje-
ta III,16, 1986, 125–139. The theory about the initial
spread of Glagolitic literacy in the southern Dalma-
tian territories was conrmed by the recovery of
two Glagolitic inscriptions from the surroundings of
Dubrovnik. See M. UNI, Novo itanje hrvatskoga
glagoljskoga Konavoskoga natpisa iz 11. stoljea
(A new reading of the Croatian Glagolitic Konavle
inscription from the 11th century). Slovo 59, 2009,
123–133.
those who prayed and preached in Slavonic be-
came less clear: the centre of gravity of Slavonic
liturgy moved to the northern Dalmatian is-
lands, but it seems that churches in which either
language was used were mixed and could stand
next to each other44.
Finally, regarding the ecclesiastical sphere,
there were boundaries dividing the zones of in-
uence of certain saints and their cults. Usually
these were limited to the territories of single ci-
ties, but the example of St. Chrysogonus shows
that it was possible for a saint’s cult to pene-
trate the territory outside a city’s boundaries45.
This, of course, indicates contacts between the
citizens and their rural neighbours which were
maintained across the political border. Dona-
tions and foundations made by Croatian rulers
and lords in Dalmatian cities are a clear sign
of these contacts, instigated, among others, by
the popularity of single cults46. But saints could
mark different territories, like royal possessions,
separating them from neighbouring land. The
cult of St Bartholomew was apparently used
precisely for the purpose of guarding royal resi-
dences or estates47.
44
For a traditional interpretation of the spread of Sla-
vonic liturgy in Croatia/Dalmatia, see E. HERCIGONJA,
Glagoljaštvo i glagolizam. In: I. Supii (ed.), Hrvat-
ska i Europa, vol. 1: Rano doba hrvatske culture (Za-
greb 1997) 369–398.
45
A few years ago an inscription was found in the
village of Otres, bearing names of several saints to
whom this 9th-century church was dedicated. Among
other saints, St Chrysogonus was also mentioned; he
was venerated in Zadar and later became its protec-
tor saint. Otres lies near Bribir, one of the most im-
portant centres of early medieval Croatia, but out-
side Zadar’s territory. It is not clear when the cult
was adopted in Zadar, but there is not much reason
to believe that it was imported from inner Croatia. It
is much more probable that his adoption by a mem-
ber of the Croatian elite served in building connec-
tions with the elite of Zadar. On the inscription, see
M. ZEKAN, Pet natpisa kneza Branimira s posebnim
osvrtom na nalaz iz Otresa. Kai 25, 1993, 405–420
here 417. On the early cult of St Chrysogonus in Za-
dar: T. VEDRIŠ, Memoria S. Chrysogoni: between the
legend of the relic transfer and the ownership of the
monastic land. In: I. Benyovsky/Z. Pešorda Vardi
(eds), The Town of the Croatian Middle Ages: Au-
thority and Property (Zagreb forthcoming).
46
N. BUDAK, Foundations and Donations as a Link
between Croatia and Dalmatia in the Early Middle
Ages (9th–11th c.). Jahrb. Gesch. Osteuropas 55,4, 2007,
483–490.
47
N. BUDAK, Was the cult of St. Bartholomew a royal op-
 Early medieval boundaries in Dalmatia/Croatia (8th–11th centuries)
A very fashionable current topic in Croatian
scholarship is the thesis concerning pagan tri-
angles, formed by dedicating places in the land-
scape to Slavic divinities: Perun, Mokoš and
Veles. The authors of this thesis believe that in
this way Slavic settlers drew demarcation lines
differentiating them from their neighbours,
forming units that might be described as ‘župe’.
Christianisation later replaced pagan cults with
Christian ones, and hence these borders lost
their meaning48.
Conclusions
Examining different borders and boundaries
makes it possible to construct a picture of a com-
plex Dalmatian/Croatian society which might
be looked upon as a single feature composed
of a network of relations, but also as a pyra-
mid built of layers of different social entities/
identities created by various antagonisms and
contacts arising along heterogeneous borders.
But by constructing such a picture it is always
necessary to be aware that it is a present-day
picture based on very few written and material
sources and that the words preserved in docu-
ments did not necessarily mean the same to the
people of those days as they do today, just as
the features of ecclesiastical supremacy or the
prevalence of one or another liturgical language
was perhaps not as signicant to people then as
we tend to imagine. Early medieval identities
and the borders separating them remain rather
obscure to the modern scholar, but a tempting
goal for future research.
tion in early Medieval Croatia? In: B. Nagy/M. Sebk
(eds), ...The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered
Full Many Ways.... in Honour of János M. Bak (Buda-
pest 1999) 241–249.
48
On how Slavic place-names developed in relation to
pagan religion, see R. KATII, Perunovo svetište nad
Mošenicama u svjetlu toponimije i topograje. In:
Idem (ed.), Božanski boj. Tragovima svetih pjesama
naše pretkršanske starine (Zagreb, Mošenika Dra-
ga 2008) 301–312; V. BELAJ, Mit u prostoru. Mošeniki
zbornik 3,3, 2006, 5–39.
43
Sources
Codex diplomaticus 1967
Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et
Slavoniae v. 1, ed. by J. Stipiši/M. Šamšalovi
(Zagreb 1967).
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando
imperio
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administran-
do imperio, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, english trans-
lation by R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest 1949).
Historia salonitana maior
Historia salonitana maior, ed. by N. Klai (Bel-
grade 1967).
References
BUDAK 1996
N. Budak, Pokrštavanje Hrvata i neki problem
crkvene organizacije (The Christianization of
the Croats). In: M. Jurkovi/T. Lukši (eds),
Raanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža
(Zagreb 1996) 127–136.
BUDAK 1997
N. Budak, Croats between Franks and Byzanti-
um. Hortus artium medievalium 3, 1997, 15–22.
BUDAK 2008
N. Budak, Identities in Early Medieval Dalma-
tia (7th–11th c.). In: I. Garipzanov/P. Geary/P.
Urbanzcyk (eds), Franks, Northmen and Slavs:
Identities and State Formation in Early Medie-
val Europe (Turnhout 2008) 223–241.
DZINO 2010
D. Dzino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat.
Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and
Early Medieval Dalmatia (Leiden, Boston 2010).
FUI 1982
B. Fui, Glagoljski natpisi (Zagreb 1982).
KLAI 1975
N. Klai, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vi-
jeku (Zagreb 1975).
MARGETI 1990
L. Margeti, Rijeka, Vinodol, Istra. Studije (Ri-
jeka 1990).
MARGETI 2000
L. Margeti, Hrvatska i Crkva u srednjem vije-
ku. Pravnopovijesne i povijesne studije (Rijeka
2000).
SKOK 1950
P. Skok, Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim
otocima vol. I–II (Zagreb 1950).
44 Neven Budak

Summary

Traditional historical research envisaged two clearly dened entities in ancient Dalmatia, i.e. Slavs
and Romans. Today, different interpretations are being developed. The Slavic migration was not mas-
sive and the newcomers settled next to the indigenous inhabitants of Dalmatia. However, Dalmatia
came under two separate, Byzantine and Carolingian, powers, under the Treaty of Aachen in AD 812.
The border that came into being did not reect the existence of two already separate groups, but rather
it created such a partition. The Slavic groups were united under a local dux and were used by a group
of warriors – who called themselves Croats – to impose their rule over the Dalmatian Slavs. Shortly
after AD 820 the reign (regnum) of the Croatian gens was established under Frankish suzerainty.
There were also ecclesiastical boundaries which did not coincide with the political lines of demar-
cation. An attempt to overcome the division of Dalmatia began with the appointment of Tomislav, the
rex Croatorum, as governor of Byzantine Dalmatia. After the synod of Split in AD 928 the old ecclesias-
tical borders were re-established. But boundaries between the Latin and Slavonic liturgies remained
in place, as did the zones of inuence of the saints and their respective cults.
The examination of different lines of demarcation and boundaries enables us to construct a com-
plex picture of Dalmatian/Croatian society. It is seen as a multiple network which marked the social
entities and identities that were created by the coexistence of opposites and contacts along diverse
borders.

Zusammenfassung

Frühmittelalterliche Grenzen in Dalmatien, Kroatien (8. bis 11. Jahrhundert)

Die traditionelle historische Forschung sah zwei klar getrennte Einheiten im spätantiken Dalmati-
en: Slawen und Romanen. Heute kann die Lage anders bewertet werden. Die slawische Migration war
nicht massenhaft und die Neuankömmlinge haben sich neben den ansässigen Einwohnern niederge-
lassen. Infolge des Vertrags von Aachen (812) kam es zur Teilung Dalmatiens zwischen Byzanz und
dem Frankenreich. Die dabei entstandenen Grenzen haben nicht zwei bereits bestehende Gruppen
getrennt, sie haben sie vielmehr erschaffen. Die slawischen Gruppen wurden unter einem lokalen dux
vereint und von einer Gruppe von Kriegern, die sich als Kroaten bezeichneten, dafür genutzt, ihre
Herrschaft über die dalmatinischen Slawen zu verhängen. Kurz nach 820 entstand das regnum der
kroatischen gens unter fränkischer Oberhoheit.
Es existierten darüber hinaus auch kirchliche Grenzen, die sich nicht mit den politischen über-
lappten. Ein Versuch, die Teilung Dalmatiens zu überwinden, begann mit der Ernennung von Tomis-
lav, dem rex Croatorum, als Verwalter des byzantinischen Dalmatien. Nach der Synode von Split 928
konnten auch die alten kirchlichen Grenzen wieder hergestellt werden. Es bestanden aber weiterhin
Grenzen zwischen der lateinischen und slawischen Liturgie und den Einusszonen der Heiligen und
ihrer Kulte.
Die Erforschung von Grenzen ermöglicht ein komplexes Bild der dalmatinischen/kroatischen Ge-
sellschaft zu konstruieren. Es handelt sich dabei um ein Netzwerk mit verschiedenen Funktionen,
die die sozialen Entitäten und Identitäten, welche durch Gegensätze und Kontakte entstanden sind,
geprägt haben.
 Bildnachweis / Sources of illustrations

11–26 Franz Glaser: Abb. 1 Plan: Verf. unter Verwendung von Luftaufnahmen (S. Tichy) und geophysikali-
schen Messungen (St. Groh, V. Lindinger). – Abb. 2 Zeichnung: G. Gruber. – Abb. 3 Zeichnung: Verf.
und H. Mühlbacher. – Abb. 4 und 6 Zeichnung: Verf. – Abb. 5 Foto: Verf.
55–44 Neven Budak: Figs. 1–2 Prof. Dr. Ivan Jurkovi, Univ. Pula (HR).
45–70 Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska: Abb. 1–4 Verf., technische Bearbeitung K. Kolozsvári und L. Goldmann.
– Abb. 5 Grundkarte: Erste militärische Vermessung der Österreich-Ungarischen Monarchie (1780),
Syrmien (Kriegsarchiv Wien, B IXa. 883), Pläne nach JEREMI 2009, Abb. 1; POPOVI 2013, Fig. 36. – Abb.
6 verändert nach JEREMI 2006, Abb. 7, und POPOVI 1982, Abb. 3; 12. – Abb. 7,1 verändert nach POPOVI
2012, Fig. 1; 2 verändert nach JEREMI 2009, Abb. 20.
71–94 Perica Špehar: Fig. 1 Author. – Fig. 2,1–2 after JOVANOVI/KORA/JANKOVI 1986, gs. 18–19. – Fig. 2.3a after
MILOŠEVI 1997, sl. 157. – Fig. 3a after WERNER 1950, Abb. 2. – Fig. 3b after IVANIŠEVI 2012, Fig. 1. – Fig. 4 after
POPOVI/MRKOBRAD 1986, Fig. 3. – Fig. 5 after ŠPEHAR 2007, Pl. 2. – Fig. 6 after BUGARSKI 2008, gs. 2–3. – Fig.
9 after ILOŠEVI 1997, sl. 39–40). – Fig. 7 after GARAŠANIN/VASI 1987, sl. 14. – Fig. 8,1–6 after ARJANOVI-
VUJOVI, Pl. 3. – Fig. 8,7 after MARJANOVI-VUJOVI 1983, sl. 98. – Fig. 10 after JOVANOVI/ VUKSAN 2005, Pl. II–
IV, VI–VII. – Fig. 11–14 after POPOVI/BIKI 2009, sl. 84, 86, 96, 102–103, 106. – Fig. 14,1–8 after POPOVI 1999,
sl. 89, 92–93, 99–100. – Fig. 15A after POPOVI 1999, sl. 105–106. – Fig. 15B after MINI 1984, Pl. 2–3. – Fig.
16 after BIKI 1994, sl. 12–15. – Fig. 17 after JANKOVI 1981, sl. 7. – Fig. 18 after ERCEGOVI-PAVLOVI , 1986,
T. II-III. – Fig. 19 after INI/MI 1974, Pl. I–II. – Fig. 20 after ANKOVI 1984, Pl. 125–126.
95–101 Péter Prohászka: Abb. 1. Militärmuseum Budapest, Archiv, Nr. XXIV-58. CS. SÓS 1963, Abb. 29. – Abb.
3 nach ENTZ 1964, 18, Abb. 10–11; Abb. 4–5 nach RÉCSEY 1892, 67, Abb. 3–4.
102–111 Ágnes Ritoók: Fig. 1 Author. – Fig. 2 Modied by the author after VÁNDOR 1996 (note 24) 162.
112–130 Ioan Stanciu: Fig. 1 Graphic representation based on a 1938 map that used prior cartographic sources
(http://foldepites.wordpress.com/terkepek/). – Figs 2–8 Author. – Fig. 9, 1–1a; 3–3a Author; 2 after
LAZIN 1981–1982, g. 2; 4 after MESTERHÁZY 1990, g. 6,2.
135–154 Peter Ettel: Abb. 1 nach Grundkarte KOCH 2008, Abb. 1, ergänzt, Graphik A. Schroeter. – Abb. 2,1 Verf.;
2a nach KOCH 2008, Abb. 12 ergänzt; 2b nach R. KOCH, Fossa Carolina. In: W. Jahn u. a. (Hrsg.), Edel und
Frei. Franken im Mittelalter (Forchheim 2004) 144, Abb. 33; 2c Foto: O. Braasch, Archivnr. 7130/027.
– Abb. 3,1 nach KORTÜM 2005, 155, Abb. 166; 2a n. L. WAMSER, Befestigte Anlagen des frühen bis spä-
ten Mittelalters in den Ruinen des Römerkastells Miltenberg - Altstadt. In: BÖHME 1991, 243, Abb. 5,3;
b Ebd. 237, Abb. 1. – Abb. 4,1–3 nach SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM 2013, Abb. 63 (1), Abb. 81 (2), Abb. 80 (3). –
Abb. 5,1 nach E. WINTERGERST/S. CODREANU-WINDAUER, Regensburg - eine mittelalterliche Großstadt an
der Donau. In: WIECZOREK/HINZ 2000, Bd. 1, 181; 2 nach S. CODREANU-WINDAUER, Neue Ergebnisse zur
frühen Stadtbefestigung Regensburgs. In: ERICSSON/LOSERT 2003, 93, Abb. 1A. – Abb. 6,1–3 Verf. – Abb.
7,1 ROSENSTOCK 2001, 57, Karte 2; 2a nach K. H. RIEDER, Eichstätt. In: Führer zu Arch. Denkmälern in
Deutschland 15,2: Landkreis Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen (Stuttgart 1987) 44, Abb. 18; 2b RIEDER 2010,
Abb. 6. – Abb. 8,1–2 nach W. JANSSEN/L. WAMSER, Neue Ausgrabungen auf dem Michelsberg und in
der Klosterkirche St. Peter und Paul in Neustadt am Main, Landkreis Main-Spessart, Unterfranken.
Arch. Jahr Bayern 1982, 136, Abb. 117,2 (1), 138, Abb. 120,1 (2). – Abb. 9 – Kartengrundlage Digitales
Geländemodell (DGM1) Geobasisdaten © Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung, kartiert von Verf./
R. Obst/L. Werther/A. Wunschel. – Abb. 10,1 erstellt v. M. Kirmair u. U. Wittki im Jahre 1975, Ände-
rungen u. Ergänzungen durch R. Obst 2008; 2 LiDAR-Scan, Bayer. Landesamt f. Vermessung u. Geo-
information; 3–5 Verf.; 6 R. Obst aus Ausstellung „Eine Welt in Bewegung“ in Paderborn u. Würzburg
2008.
155–176 Felix Biermann: Abb. 1 Kartierung Verf. – Abb. 2 Landesvermessung und Geobasisinformation Bran-
denburg, Kartierung S. Schwarzländer. – Abb. 3 Landesvermessung und Geobasisinformation Bran-
denburg, Bearbeitung Verf. – Abb. 4 Foto: Verf. – Abb. 5–9 Zeichnung O. Blum. – Abb. 10 Fotos: 1 Verf;
3–11 D. und K. Sommer (teils vor Restaurierung). – Abb. 11–12 Fotos: K. Sommer.
177–196 Marcin Wo oszyn et al.: Fig. 1 drawn by I. Jordan. – Fig. 2,1 photograph: S. Or owski; 2 after KU
NIERZ
2011, g. 2, redrawn by J. Oóg. – Fig. 3,1 photograph: S. Or owski; 2 after FLOREK 2012, g. 1, redrawn
by J. Oóg. – Fig. 4 Kriegsarchiv Wien, B IXa. 390, sheets nos. 228 and 254, computer design: P. Za-
górski. – Fig. 5 drawn by P. Zagórski. – Fig. 6 map based on geoportal.gov.pl (2.12.2014). – Figs. 7,1–2
drawn by P. Zagórski.
197–208 Sebastian Brather: Abb. 1 verändert nach WILLIAMS 2006, 21 Abb. 1.3. – Abb. 2 verändert nach P. JEZLER,
Jenseitsmodelle und Jenseitsvorsorge. Eine Einführung. In: Ders. (Hrsg.), Himmel, Hölle, Fegefeuer.
Das Jenseits im Mittelalter (Zürich 1994) 13–26 hier 14 Abb. 2–3. – Abb. 3 nach P. de PALOL/G. RIPOLL,
Die Goten. Geschichte und Kunst in Westeuropa (Stuttgart 1990) Taf. 12. – Abb. 4 nach WAMERS/PÉRIN
2012, 100. – Abb. 5 Verf. – Tab. 1 verändert nach BRATHER-WALTER/BRATHER 2012, 140 Tab. 2.
398 Bildnachweis / Sources of illustrations

209–248 Radu Harhoiu: Tab. 1–2 Verf. – Abb. 1a nach Army Map Service. Sheets 3887 II – III, Ausgabe 1-AMS,
1960: b Kartengrundlage: Erste militärische Vermessung der Österreich-Ungarischen Monarchie. –
Abb. 2 Grak: Daniel Spânu. – Abb. 3–6 Verf., Bearbeitung: Daniel Spânu. Abb. 7A–C und 8–14 Zeich-
nung: Daniel Spânu. – Abb. 15 nach BÂRZU/HARHOIU 2001, Abb. 1. – Abb. 16 Verf., bearb. von Daniel
Spânu. – Abb. 17a–c Grak. Daniel Spânu. – Abb. 18 nach KOVÁCS 1913, Abb. 1. – Abb. 19a nach HAR-
HOIU u. a. 2011, Abb. 36A; b umgezeichnet nach HOREDT 1986, 35 Abb. 15. – Abb. 20a nach HARHOIU/
SPÂNU/GÁLL 2011, Abb. 37.
249–264 Naa Profantová: Tab. 1 erstellt von D. Perlík. – Abb. 1 Zeichnung: Helena Minar
íková. – Abb. 2,2
nach PRICHODNJUK 2005, Abb. 36,1; 3 nach CURTA 2009, Abb. 8,23. – Abb. 2,1; 3; 6 Zeichnung Lucie
Raslová. – Abb. 4,1–3 nach PROFANTOVÁ 2008a, Abb. 13; 4 nach N. PROFANTOVÁ 2013, Abb. 3,2; 5 nach
BICHÁEK im Druck (vgl. Anm. 74). – Abb. 5 Foto: D. Perlík.
265–276 Jií Machá
ek: Abb. 1 Karte: Verf. – Abb. 2 Plan: Petr Dresler. – Abb. 3 Foto: Archiv des Inst. für Arch.
und Museologie, Phil. Fak. der Masaryk Univ. Brno. – Abb. 4A–B Zeichnung: Soa Plchová. – Abb.
5 Foto: Josef Špa
ek. – Abb. 6,1–4 Zeichnung: Soa Plchová. Umgezeichnet nach GALUŠKA 1996, Abb.
85; PROFANTOVÁ 2003, Abb. 36; SZKE 2010, Abb. 19. – Abb. 7 nach POULÍK 1963, Abb. 14. – Abb. 8 Plan:
Šimon Ungerman, nachbearbeitet von Verf. – Abb. 9 nach GALUŠKA 1996, Abb. 34.
277–292 Jozef Zábojník: Abb. 1–2; 4 Zeichnung: Helena Vanglová (unveröff. Ausgrabungen des Verf.). – Abb. 3
nach TOÍK 1992, Abb. 71,6. – Abb. 5 nach ILINSKÁ 1982, Abb. 1,2. – Abb. 6 nach NEVIZÁNSKY, 2006, Taf.
IV,1.
293–312 Gergely Szenthe: Abb. 1–2; 3,1; 4,2; 5,1; 6,2–3; 9 Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Budapest, Fotos: Verf.,
Dabasi und Kardos. –Abb. 3,1 nach GSCHWANTLER 2002, 22; 3 Zeichnung nach GARAM 1993, Taf. 98,4;
4 und 7 nach GARAM 2002a, Abb. 31; 5–6 nach LÁSZLÓ/RÁCZ 1977, Abb. 4 und 31. – Abb. 4,1 nach
GSCHWANTLER 2002, 17. – Abb. 5,2 GARAM 2001, Taf. XXXV,1. – Abb. 6,1 nach GSCHWANTLER 2002, 41. –
Abb. 7–8 Déri József Múz., Debrecen, Foto: Verf., Zeichnung: István Dienes.
313–328 Tivadar Vida: Abb. 1,1, 5 GARAM 1975, 63, Abb. 12; 317, Abb. 2; 2 I. ERDÉLYI, A jánoshidai avar temet
(Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Jánoshida). Rég. Füz. 1, 1958, Abb. 26; 3, 6 Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum, Inv.-Nr. 50.1891.79 und 123.1909.5., Fotos: Tibor Kádas; 4 D. DIMITRIEVI/K. KOVAEVI/
ZD. VINSKI, Seoba naroda – arheološki nalazi Jugoslovenskog Podunavlja (Zemun 1962) 58, Mus. Novi
Sad (SRB), Inv.-Nr. A 3193. – Abb. 2,1 GARAM 1975, 73, Abb. 22; 2 N. FETTICH, Das awarenzeitliche
Gräberfeld von Pilismarót-Basaharc. Stud. Arch. 3 (Budapest 1965) Taf. 24; 3 HORVÁTH 1935, Taf. 17;
4 Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Nr. 161 125., Foto: Tibor Kádas. – Abb. 3,1 NORDHEDGE 1992, Fig. 132,2;
2 PICCIRILLO/ALLIATA 1994, 283 f., Fig. 95; 3 DELOUGAZ/HAINES 1960, Pl. 57,24; 4, 6 SMITH/MCNICOLL/
HENESSY 1983, 55 f., Figs. 11,1–2; 5 BUKO 1998, 255, g. 2,2; 7–8 CURTA 2000, 268, Fig. 1. – Abb. 4,1–3
DANNHEIMER 1989, Taf. 27,49; 21,38; 25,46. – Abb. 5 JOTOV/PAVLOVA 2004, 35 f., Nr. 13. – Abb. 6 KÖLT/
SZENTPÉTERI 1996, 115 (Abb. Buchrücken, oben links). – Abb. 7 SZKE 2014, 110 f., Abb. 92–99.
239–344 Hajnalka Herold: Fig. 1 Author; Figs. 2–5 Photo Laboratory, Dep. of Prehist. and Medieval Arch., Univ.
of Vienna; Figs. 6–7 and Tab. 1–2 Author.
345–366 Ádám Bollók: Fig. 1 Photographs: Author/Ádám Bíró. – Fig. 2,1–2 Photographs: Author/Ádám Bíró;
3 Drawing: István Ö. Dienes, after DIENES 1986, 111, g. 54. – Fig. 3,1–2 after WILHELMY 2013, 153, Cat.
no. 31; 3 after LENNARTSSON 1997/1998, pl. 5.2. – Fig. 4 after HINTON/KEENE/QUALMANN 1981 (note 51)
g. 6. – Fig. 5,1–2 after LENNARTSSON 1997–1998, pl. 15,3; 3 after HAUCK 1974 (note 50), pl. II,2. – Fig. 6,1
after BERTELLI/BROGIOLO 2000, 508, g. 366; 2 after BERTELLI/BROGIOLO 2000, 510, g. 370; 3 after I. BELLI
BARSALI, La diocese di Lucca. Corpus della scultura altomedievale I (Spoleto 1959) pl. XIIb. – Fig. 7 after
WINTERER 2013, 76, g. 46. – Fig. 8 after STEENBOCK 1965, g. 42.
367–380 Péter Langó and András Patay-Horváth: Fig. 1,1 after REJHOLCOVÁ 1995, Tab. LVII; 2 after FUSEK 2003,
Abb. 2. – Fig. 2,1 after REJHOLCOVÁ 1995, Tab. LXVIII; 2 photographs: Á. Bíró; drawing after TOÍK 1971
(note 64), Taf. XXXV. – Fig. 3,1 after GIESLER 1981, Taf. 3; 2 after GRIGOROV 2007, 136; 3 after HANULIAK
2004, Obr. 171a. – Fig. 4,1–7 and Fig. 5 Authors.
381–396 Gábor Lrinczy u. a.: Tab. 1 Autoren. – Abb. 1 Kartengrundlage: Zweite militärische Vermessung der
Österreich-Ungarischen Monarchie, Bearbeitung: G. Lrinczy. – Abb. 2 Grasche Bearbeitung: Edit
Ambrus.
 Autoren / Authors
Dr. Krystyna Ba aga
Maria Curie-Sklodowska University
Dep. of Geoecology and Palaeogeography
Krasnicka 2cd
PL–20-718 Lublin
PD Dr. Felix Biermann
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Seminar für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Nikolausberger Weg 15
D-37073 Göttingen
felix.biermann@phil.uni-goettingen.de
Dr. Ádám Bollók, PhD
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Research Centre for the Humanities
Institute of Archaeology
Úri u. 49
H–1014 Budapest
bollokadam@yahoo.de
István Botár
Csíki Székely Museum
Dendrochronological Laboratory of Transylvania
Szabadság-tér 10/B/35
RO–530100 Csíkszereda
botaristvan@yahoo.com
dendrolabor@gmail.com
Prof. Dr. Sebastian Brather
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften
Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Archäologie des
Mittelalters
Belfortstraße 22
D–79085 Freiburg
sebastian.brather@ufg.uni-freiburg.de
Prof. Dr. Neven Budak
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Ivana Lu
ia 3 A–1060 Wien
HR–10000 Zagreb
nbudak@ffzg.hr
Prof. Dr. habil. Rados aw Dobrowolski
Maria Curie-Sklodowska University
Dep. of Geoecology and Palaeogeography
Krasnicka 2cd
PL–20-718 Lublin
Prof. Dr. Peter Ettel
Lehrstuhl für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität
Löbdergraben 24a
D–07743 Jena
P.Ettel@uni-jena.de
A. o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Franz Glaser
Landesmuseum Kärnten
Museumgasse 2
A–9020 Klagenfurt
franz.glaser@ktn.gv.at
Dr. András Grynaeus, PhD
Hungarian Dendrochronological Laboratory
Széher út 76/A
H–1021 Budapest
dendro@ludens.elte.hu
Dr. Irka Hajdas
ETH Zürich,
Institute of Particle Physics (IPP)
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics
Schafmattstrasse 20
CH–8093 Zürich
Dr. Radu Harhoiu
Institut für Archäologie «Vasile Pârvan»
der Rumänischen Akademie
Str. Henri Coand Nr. 11
RO–71119 Bukarest
rzharh@yahoo.de
Dr. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska
Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum
Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e. V.
an der Universität Leipzig
Reichsstraße 4–6
D–04109 Leipzig
heintama@uni-leipzig.de
Dr. Hajnalka Herold
Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter
Laver Building, North Park Road
UK–Exeter EX4 4QE
h.herold@exeter.ac.uk
Dr. Michael Huber
Mariahilferstraße 99/23
m.huber@sachsenbrunn.at
Prof. Dr. habil. Andrzej Janeczek
Polish Academy of Sciences
Institute Archaeology and Ethnology
Solidarnoci 105
PL–00-140 Warsaw
Dr. Péter Langó, PhD
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Research Centre for the Humanities
Institute of Archaeology
Úri u. 49
H–1014 Budapest
lango.peter@btk.mta.hu
400 Autoren / Authors

Dr. Gábor Lrinczy Dr. Ioan Stanciu

Móra Ferenc Múzeum Romanian Academy Cluj Branch
Roosevelt tér 1–3 Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-Napoca
H–6720 Szeged M. Koglniceanu str. 12–14
email: lorinczyg@gmail.com RO–400084 Cluj-Napoca
istanciu2001@yahoo.fr
Prof. Mgr. Jií Machá ek, Ph.D.
Péter Straub
Masaryk Universität
Göcseji Múzeum
Institut für Archäologie und Museologie
Batthyány u. 2
A. Nováka 1 H–8900 Zalaegerszeg
CZ–602 00 Brno straub@zmmi.hu
machacek@phil.muni.cz
Dr. Gergely Szenthe, PhD
Dr. Przemys aw Mroczek Ungarisches Nationalmuseum
Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Múzeum krt. 14–16
Dep. of Geoecology and Palaeogeography H–1088 Budapest,
Krasnicka 2cd szenthe.gergely@hnm.hu
PL–20-718 Lublin
Boglárka Tóth
Dr. András Patay-Horváth, PhD Dendrochronological Laboratory of Transylvania
Hungarian Academy of Sciences Szabadság-tér 10/B/35
Research Centre for the Humanities RO–530100 Csíkszereda
Institute of Archaeology tothboglarka1@yahoo.com
Úri u. 49
Dr. Attila Türk, PhD
H–1014 Budapest
Péter Pázmány Katholische Universität
patay-horvath.andras@btk.mta.hu Archäologisches Institut
Egyetem út 1.
Dr. Irena Agnieszka Pidek H–2087 Piliscsaba
Maria Curie-Sklodowska University turk.attila@btk.mta.hu
Dep. of Geoecology and Palaeogeography
Krasnicka 2cd PD Dr. Tivadar Vida
PL–20-718 Lublin Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Research Centre for the Humanities
Dr. Naa Profantová, CSc Institute of Archaeology
Akademie der Wissenschaften der Úri u. 49
Tschechischen Republik, Prag H–1014 Budapest
Archäologisches Institut Institute of Archaeological Sciences
Letenská 4 at the Eötvös Loránd University
CZ–Praha 1, 118 01 Múzeum krt. 6–8
H–1088 Budapest
profantova@arup.cas.cz
vidativadar@btk.elte.hu
vida.tivadar@btk.mta.hu
Dr. Péter Prohászka
József Attila tér 2 Dr. habil. Marcin Wo oszyn
H–2500 Esztergom Polish Academy of Sciences
prohaszkapeter1975@gmail.com Institute for Archaeology and Ethnology
S awkowska 17,
Dr. Ágnes Ritoók, PhD PL–31-016 Cracow
Hungarian National Museum Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum
Dep. for Archaeology Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e. V.
Múzeum krt. 14–16 an der Universität Leipzig
H–1088 Budapest Reichsstraße 4–6
ritook.agnes@hnm.hu D–04109 Leipzig
marcinwoloszyn@gmail.com
Dr. habil. Jan Rodzik
Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Doc. PhDr. Jozef Zábojník, CSc.
Slowakische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Dep. of Geoecology and Palaeogeography
Archäologisches Institut
Krasnicka 2cd
Akademická 2
PL–20-718 Lublin SK–94921 Nitra
jozef.zabojnik@savba.sk
Dr. Perica Špehar
University of Belgrade Dr. Piotr Zagórski
Faculty of Philosophy, Dep. of Archaeology Maria Curie-Sklodowska University
ika-Ljubina 18–20 Dep. of Geoecology and Palaeogeography
SRB–11000 Belgrade Krasnicka 2cd
perica.spehar@gmail.com PL–20-718 Lublin
Städte und befestigte Siedlungen sind während des frühen Mittelalters aus vielen Regionen
Ostmitteleuropas bekannt. In den einstigen römischen Provinzen lässt sich die Weiter-
bzw. Neunutzung römischer civitates bzw. castra und castella ebenso beobachten,
wie die Entstehung neuer Zentren. Die Verlagerung oder Ortskontinuität einzelner
Siedlungsagglomerationen kann jedoch auch in den nichtrömischen Territorien nördlich der
Donaulinie studiert werden.
Die Beiträge des vorliegenden Sammelbandes versuchen, dieses Phänomen aus zwei
Blickwinkeln zu beleuchten. Sie untersuchen einerseits siedlungs- und andererseits
sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte, um Strukturen und Akteure dieser Prozesse gleichermaßen
erfassen zu können. Kontinuität und Wandel von Zentren, Eliten und religiösen sowie
gesellschaftlichen Werten werden anhand einzelner Beispiele von der Spätantike bis zum
hohen Mittelalter beleuchtet.
Der Band ist dem 65. Geburtstag von Béla Miklós Szke gewidmet, der seit Jahren den
wichtigsten karolingerzeitlichen Fundort, Zalavár/Mosaburg, erforscht. Dem Jubilar zu
Ehren wurde diese Auswahl an Studien über Zentren und Eliten im frühmittelalterlichen
Ostmitteleuropa zusammengestellt.

Towns and fortications are known from many regions of East-Central Europe in the Early
Middle Ages. In the former Roman provinces there is evidence for both the continued or
renewed use of Roman civitates, castra or castella and the emergence of new central places.
Settlement shift and continuity of occupation at specic sites can, however, also be studied
in the non-Roman territories located north of the Danube.
The contributions in this volume attempt to throw light on two aspects of this phenomenon
– settlements and social aspects – in order to understand in equal measure the structures and
actors operating within this process. Continuity and transformations of central places, elites
and religious as well as social values are examined on the basis of case studies ranging from
the Late Roman period to the High Middle Ages.
This volume is dedicated to Béla Miklós Szke who has devoted years of research to Zalavár/
Mosaburg, one of the most important sites of the Carolingian period, on the occasion of his
65th birthday. The selection of studies on central places and elites in Early Medieval East-
Central Europe is offered here to honour him.

ISBN 978-3-89646-156-8
ISSN 1869-9901